VOLUME 3: CHAPTER 4, SECTIONS 4.1 - 4.2.14 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section Page 

4. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ...................................................................................... 4-1

4.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................... 4-1

4.1.1 Analytical Assumptions ....................................................................................... 4-1

4.1.2 Types of Effects (Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative) ............................................ 4-2

4.1.3 Cumulative Impacts ............................................................................................ 4-2

4.1.4 Incomplete or Unavailable Information ............................................................... 4-6

4.2 Resources ......................................................................................................... 4-7

4.2.1 Air Quality ............................................................................................................ 4-7

4.2.2 Geology ............................................................................................................. 4-41

4.2.3 Soil Resources .................................................................................................. 4-49

4.2.4 Water Resources .............................................................................................. 4-63

4.2.5 Vegetation—Forest/Woodland Products ........................................................ 4-114

4.2.6 Vegetation—Weeds ........................................................................................ 4-141

4.2.7 Vegetation—Rangelands ................................................................................ 4-167

4.2.8 Vegetation—Riparian Habitat and Wetlands .................................................. 4-192

4.2.9 Fish and Wildlife .............................................................................................. 4-216

4.2.10 Special Status Species ................................................................................... 4-246

4.2.11 Wild Horse and Burro ...................................................................................... 4-282

4.2.12 Wildland Fire Management ............................................................................. 4-303

4.2.13 Cultural Resources ......................................................................................... 4-326

4.2.14 Paleontological Resources ............................................................................. 4-361

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS Volume 3-i 
LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page 

4-1 Cumulative Impact Analysis – Region of Influence ..................................................... 4-4

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page 

4-1 Summary of Effects on Air Quality—Alternatives A, B, C, and D ................................ 4-8

4-2 Estimated Annual Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Wild Horses and Burros in the 

WDO Area ................................................................................................................. 4-17

4-3 Historical Wildland Fire Emissions in the WDO Area ................................................ 4-19

4-4 Smoke Impact from Fires in Western Annual Grass Vegetation ............................... 4-21

4-5 Smoke Impact from Fires in Sagebrush with Grass Vegetation ................................ 4-23

4-6 Estimated Annual Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Livestock Grazing in the 

WDO Area ................................................................................................................. 4-29

4-7 Forest and Woodland Acreage Open to Mineral Development ............................... 4-132

4-8 Forest and Woodland Acreage Closed to Mineral Development ............................ 4-132

4-9 Special Status Species Habitat Designated as Suitable for Allowing Fire for 

Resource Benefit ..................................................................................................... 4-265

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

FRCC fire regime condition class 

FW fish and wildlife 

G geology 

GAWS general aquatic wildlife survey 

GIS geographical information system 

HA herd area 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS Volume 3-iii 
LIST OF ACRONYMS (continued)

Acronym or Abbreviation Full Phrase 

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

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 
LIST OF ACRONYMS (continued)

Acronym or Abbreviation Full Phrase 

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

OCTA Oregon-California Trail Association 

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 
LIST OF ACRONYMS (continued)

Acronym or Abbreviation Full Phrase 

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

TNR temporary nonrenewable 

TSP total suspended particles 

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 
CHAPTER 4 – ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

4.1 INTRODUCTION

Chapter 4 presents the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts on the human and natural 

environment in terms of environmental, social, and economic consequences that are projected to 

occur from implementing the alternatives presented in Chapter 2. Separate sections describing 

irretrievable or irreversible commitment of resources and unavoidable adverse impacts are presented 

at the end of the chapter. 

Impact analyses and conclusions are based on interdisciplinary team knowledge of the resources and 

planning area, information provided by experts in the BLM and Tetra Tech or in other agencies, and 

information contained in pertinent literature. The baseline used for the impact analysis is the current 

condition or situation, as described in Chapter 3 (Affected Environment). Analysis assumptions 

have also been developed to help guide the determination of effects (see Section 4.1.1, Analytical 

Assumptions). Because the Proposed RMP/EIS provides a broad management framework, the 

analysis in this chapter represents best estimates of impacts because exact locations of development 

or management are often unknown. Impacts are quantified to the extent practical with available 

data. In the absence of quantitative data, best professional judgment provides the basis for the 

impact analysis. 

The land use planning-level decisions that the BLM will make regarding this RMP are programmatic 

decisions based on analysis that can only be conducted on a broad scale. Because of the broad 

scope, impact analysis of planning-level decisions is speculative with respect to projecting specific 

activities. Subsequent documents tiered to this RMP would generally contain a greater level of detail 

and would be subject to NEPA analysis and compliance. Subsequent tiered activity- and projectlevel plans are more definitive than plans found in an RMP. An activity-level plan typically describes 

projects in detail that will lead to on-the-ground action and traditionally focused on single resource 

programs. A project-specific plan is typically prepared for an individual project or several related 

projects. Activity plans (such as travel management plans) are generally more site specific and less 

speculative than the RMP analyses. Project-level plans (such as stream restoration) contain specific 

proposed actions, and site- or area-specific analysis is conducted. Activity plans may contain 

information that is as detailed or specific at a project level. 

4.1.1 Analytical Assumptions 

Several assumptions were made to facilitate the estimation of the effects of the alternatives. These 

assumptions are made only for the purpose of analysis and do not represent potential RMP 

decisions. The assumptions do provide reasonably foreseeable projected levels of development that 

could occur within the planning area. These assumptions should not be interpreted as constraining 

or redefining the management objectives and actions proposed for each alternative described in 

Chapter 2. Following are the general assumptions applicable to all resource categories. Any specific 

resource assumptions are provided in the Methods of Analysis subheading for that resource. 

• Sufficient funding and BLM personnel would be available for implementing the final 

decision; 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-1 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

• Implementing actions from any of the RMP alternatives would comply with all valid existing 

rights, federal regulations, BLM policies, and other requirements; 

• Local climate patterns of historic record and related conditions for plant growth would 

continue; 

• The functional capability of all developments would be maintained; 

• The discussion of impacts is based on the best available data. Knowledge of the planning 

area and professional judgment, based on observation and analysis of conditions and 

responses in similar areas, are used to infer environmental impacts where data are limited; 

• Acreage figures and other numbers used in the analyses are approximate projections for 

comparative and analytic purposes only. Readers should not infer that they reflect exact 

measurements or precise calculations; and 

• Acreages were calculated using GIS technology, and there may be slight variations in total 

acres between resources. These variations are negligible and will not affect analysis. 

4.1.2 Types of Effects (Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative) 

Direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts are considered in this effects analysis, consistent with 

direction provided in 40 CFR 1502.16. Direct impacts are caused by an action or implementation of 

an alternative and occur at the same time and place. Indirect impacts result from implementing an 

action or alternative but are usually later in time or removed in distance and are reasonably certain to 

occur. Cumulative effects are defined below in Section 4.1.3, Cumulative Impacts. 

Effects are quantified where possible, primarily by using GIS applications. In the absence of 

quantitative data, best professional judgment prevailed; impacts are sometimes described using 

ranges of potential impacts or in qualitative terms. Only management programs with impacts are 

discussed. Unless otherwise identified, analyses of the effects under Alternative C (Option 1 and 2), 

where the effects are the same, are mutually discussed under the term Alternative C. Effects specific 

to Option 1 or Option 2 are designated accordingly. The standard definitions for terms referring to 

impact duration that are used in the effects analysis are as follows, unless otherwise stated: 

Short-Term Effect: The effect occurs only during or immediately after implementation of the 

alternative. For the purposes of this RMP, short-term effects would occur during the first five years. 

Long-Term Effect: The effect could occur for an extended period after implementing the alternative. 

The effect could last several years or more and could be beneficial or adverse. For the purposes of 

this RMP, long-term effects would occur beyond the first five years and perhaps over the life of the 

RMP. 

4.1.3 Cumulative Impacts 

Cumulative effects are defined as the direct and indirect effects of a proposed project alternative’s 

incremental impacts when they are added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions, 

regardless of who carries out the action (40 CFR Part 1508.7). Guidance for implementing NEPA 

(Public Law 91-190, 1970) requires that federal agencies identify the timeframe and geographic 

boundaries within which they will evaluate potential cumulative effects of an action and the specific 

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects that will be analyzed. Effects of past actions and 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-2 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

activities on resources are manifested in the current condition of the resource, which is described in 

Chapter 3 (Affected Environment) for resources on BLM-administered lands. 

For this EIS, the cumulative impact assessment timeframe is from approximately 1982 to 2025, with 

some exceptions where additional past data are available. This encompasses a range within which 

data are generally available and forecasts can be reasonably made. This analysis is provided for each 

resource. It is general because decisions about other actions in the planning area would be made by 

many public and private entities, and the location, timing, and magnitude of these actions are not 

well known. 

The geographic region of influence for analysis is shown on Figure 4-1. The Cumulative ROI was 

developed by using the major land resource areas identified in the Natural Resource Conservation 

Service USDA Handbook 296. Major land resource areas are geographically associated land resource 

units that are typically coextensive with state general soil map units that may be further subdivided 

based on significant geographic differences in soils, climate, water resources or land use (NRCS 

2006). 

Public documents and data prepared by federal, state, and local government agencies are the primary 

information sources for past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions and for identifying 

reasonable trends in resource conditions and land uses. Actions undertaken by private persons and 

entities are assumed to be captured in the information made available by such agencies. Actions 

included in the cumulative impact analysis do not affect all resources equally: some resources would 

be affected by several or all of the described activities, while others would be affected very little or 

not at all. The actions that make up the cumulative impact scenario were analyzed in conjunction 

with the impacts of each alternative to determine if they would have any additive or interactive 

effects on a particular resource. 

Actions and trends with the potential to cumulatively affect the resources evaluated (e.g., water 

resources, vegetation) are identified below. 

Land tenure actions. Land tenure actions of various sizes are occurring and will continue to occur 

to consolidate BLM-administered lands and facilitate management. 

Wildland fires. Wildland fires have occurred and will continue to occur over time; given the 

drought conditions, altered fire regime and increase in cheatgrass and other invasive weeds, the 

frequency of fires could be greater than historical averages and could burn larger areas. Fires will be 

managed as a resource tool and suppressed as appropriate. 

Fish and Wildlife. Populations of some fish and wildlife species are declining in Nevada. Declining 

wildlife and fish species will likely receive increased federal and state agency restoration and 

conservation efforts (e.g., mule deer, antelope, and bighorn sheep). Other species, like elk, could 

migrate into parts of the WDO and become established on the landscape. 

Listings under the Endangered Species Act. Some flora and fauna species have declined to the 

level where listing under the ESA became necessary. Lahontan cutthroat trout is a threatened fish 

species that inhabits 155 streams and six lakes in the Lahontan Basin. However, the current 

populations within the WDO exist in approximately 18 streams and one lake. Potential listings under 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-3 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

80 

80 

95 

CHURCHILL 

COUNTY 

95 

WASHOE 

COUNTY 

PERSHING 

COUNTY 

HUMBOLDT 

COUNTY 

447 

LYON 

COUNTY 

95 

399 

140 

140 

290 

400 

80 

293 

789 

Imlay 

Valmy 

Denio 

Empire 

Orovada 

Gerlach 

Golconda 

McDermitt 

Unionville 

Paradise Valley 

Lovelock 

Winnemucca 

R \NEW\15186_Winnemucca\G S\Layouts\MLRA mxd - 10/04/07 - YE 

Source: BLM 2007, NRCS 2006 

Nevada 

Legend 

Major Land Resource Area ­

Western Range and Irrigated 

Region Subbasins 

Fallon Lovelock Area 

Humboldt Area 

Malheur High Plateau 

Owyhee High Plateau 

No Warranty is made by the Bureau of Land 

Management as to the accuracy, reliability, Winnemucca Field Office RMP 

or completeness of these data for individual 

use or aggregate use with other data. Original 

data were compiled from various sources. Cumulative Impact Analysis ­ This information may not meet National Map Legend Accuracy Standards. This product was 

developed through digital means and may be Region of Influence BLM Winnemucca Field Office 

updated without notification. Towns Administrative Boundary 

BLM Winnemucca RMP Boundary U.S. Highway Northwest Nevada 

Black Rock/High Rock NCA U.S. Interstate 

RMP Area State Highway County Boundaries 

0 10 20 

Miles Figure 4-1 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

the ESA may occur in the foreseeable future if populations of sensitive species continue to decline; 

species that may have more potential for listing than other species may include federally listed 

candidate species and BLM sensitive species. There is habitat within the district office that may 

support the Columbia spotted frog, which is a candidate for listing under the ESA. 

Livestock grazing. Domestic livestock (cattle, sheep, and horses) have grazed and will continue to 

graze most of the area, including BLM-administered lands, private lands, and state lands. 

Mineral development has occurred continuously in the region for over 150 years. Mining has 

occurred and continues to occur on BLM-administered lands and on private lands, State of Nevada 

lands, and tribal lands. Mining is an important industry in many of the rural counties of Nevada and 

will likely continue into the reasonably foreseeable future. The reasonably foreseeable development 

of mineral resources on public lands in the WDO is presented in Appendix I. 

Road construction has occurred in association with mining and energy development on BLMadministered lands, private lands, and State of Nevada lands. 

Population. The population of Nevada increased by nearly 20.72 percent between 2000 and 2005. 

From 2000 to 2005, the population of all five counties in the planning area has grown an average of 

approximately 15.34 percent to 485,344 people. Humboldt County’s population is expected to 

decline from 2005 to 2025 by 663 people (a decrease of 4.15 percent), as is Pershing County’s 

population, which is projected to decline by 266 people (a decrease of 3.79 percent). The 

populations of all other counties in the planning area are expected to increase by a range of 29.41 

percent to 95.39 percent by 2025. The population of Lyon County is projected to have the highest 

growth by 2025, growing by 43,231 people (an increase of 95.39 percent). By 2025, the population 

of Nevada is expected to increase by 1,867,133 people (an increase of 76.26 percent) (Nevada State 

Demographer’s Office 2007). 

Recreation has increased, and use patterns and motorized technology have changed. The following 

are expected trends: 

• Recreation-related visits to Nevada are estimated to continue to increase at an annual rate of 

1 to 4 percent (BLM 2005f). 

• Recreational activities, specifically motorized recreational activities, will continue to increase 

in popularity and increase in use. 

• An increase in the use of developed recreation sites and campgrounds is likely as the 

population increases. 

Noxious weeds have invaded the area, carried by wind, humans, machinery, and animals (pets, 

livestock, and wildlife). Cooperative weed management activities exist among the counties, private 

landowners, and government agencies. Noxious weed invasion is increasing and will continue, 

potentially increasing treatment efforts. The ROD for Vegetation Treatment on BLM Lands in 

Seventeen Western State Decision was completed in 2007 and resulted in an increase of use of 

chemical treatments.

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-5 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-6 

Access to BLM lands has been restricted by some private landowners and is likely to be increasingly 

restricted. The demand for access to public lands has increased and will continue to increase with 

growth in population and recreational use. 

Archaeological investigations, illegal activities (e.g., cultural resource site vandalism or collecting), 

and development and maintenance activities (e.g. grazing, mining, recreation use, OHV use) that 

adversely affect sites have occurred and will likely continue to occur on public and private lands. 

4.1.4 Incomplete or Unavailable Information 

The CEQ established implementing regulations for NEPA requiring that a federal agency identify 

relevant information that may be incomplete or unavailable for an evaluation of reasonably 

foreseeable significant adverse effects in an EIS (40 CFR 1502.22). If the information is essential to 

a reasoned choice among alternatives, it must be included or addressed in an EIS. Knowledge and 

information is and will always be incomplete, particularly with infinitely complex ecosystems 

considered at various scales. 

The best available information pertinent to the decisions to be made was used in developing the 

RMP. Considerable effort has been taken to acquire and convert resource data into digital format for 

use in the plan—both from BLM sources and from outside sources. 

Certain site-specific information was unavailable for use in developing this plan, usually because 

inventories have either not been conducted or are not complete. Some of the major types of data 

that are incomplete include cultural resources (most of the WDO has not been inventoried for 

cultural resources), paleontological resources, vegetation, wildlife, riparian inventories, and noxious 

weeds. The BLM has information to support planning level decisions, although the data is 

incomplete for specific areas. Ongoing data collection and analysis provide a general understanding 

of the resources trends that were used in developing the alternatives and assessing impacts. The 

BLM will continue monitoring and taking inventory, as needed, and this information will be used to 

assess the effectiveness of management measures. 

The resource management plan sets objectives for broad level management of the decision area, 

while implementation level planning requires subsequent site specific-analysis. During the 

implementation phase, additional surveys and data could be required to analyze site-specific 

decisions made in implementation level planning, such as in the ACEC management plans and the 

travel management plan. 

This RMP is also based on the concept of adaptive management, so it is dynamic enough to account 

for changes in resource conditions (such as large-scale wildfire), new information and science, and 

changes in regulation and policies. The RMP may be amended to respond to these factors. No 

incomplete or unavailable information was deemed essential to a reasoned choice among the 

alternatives portrayed in this EIS. 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

4.2 RESOURCES

4.2.1 Air Quality 

Summary 

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 from dry lakebeds and other poorly vegetated areas, 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, and it also is in compliance with Nevada air quality standards. The 

EPA exceptional events policy excludes air quality impacts associated with natural events from 

consideration when determining whether or not an area complies with federal ambient air quality 

standards. Existing programs, procedures, and the Basic Smoke Management Plan 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. 

Table 4-1 summarizes general air quality considerations for each of the RMP alternatives. Future 

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

developments are expected to be similar under all RMP 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. Alternative C is distinguished 

in two aspects from the other alternatives in terms of air quality implications. On the one hand, 

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. On the other hand, 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. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-7 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Table 4-1 

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

Indicator Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C * Alternative D 

Compliance with air quality 

standards In compliance. In compliance. In compliance. In compliance. 

Air quality degradation 

from baseline 

conditions 

Minimal 

degradation. 

Minimal 

degradation. 

Minimal 

degradation. 

Minimal 

degradation. 

Clean Air Act conformity 

review requirements Not required. Not required. Not required. Not required. 

Wildland fires Similar to recent 

patterns. 

Possibly lower 

than current 

patterns, 

depending in 

part on success 

of cheatgrass 

control program.

Possibly higher 

than recent 

patterns if 

cheatgrass 

control is less 

effective than 

under other 

alternatives. 

Possibly lower 

than current 

pattern, 

depending in 

part on success 

of cheatgrass 

control program.

PM10 emissions from 

wildfires 

752 tons per 

year, based on 

1997 to 2006 

average. 

Similar to 

Alternative A, 

perhaps slightly 

lower. 

Similar to 

Alternative A, 

perhaps slightly 

higher. 

Similar to 

Alternative A, 

perhaps slightly 

lower. 

Prescribed burns and fire 

for resource benefit 

allowed. 

Prescribed burns 

similar to recent 

patterns; no fire 

for resource 

benefit allowed. 

Prescribed burns 

similar to recent 

patterns; some 

fire for resource 

benefit possible. 

No prescribed 

burns; no fire for 

resource benefit 

allowed. 

Prescribed burns 

similar to recent 

patterns; some 

fire for resource 

benefit possible. 

OHV use 

OHV use similar 

to current 

patterns; 

6,782,790 acres 

open to OHV 

use; 

416,652 acres 

limited OHV 

use; 

24,832 acres 

closed to OHV 

use. 

Overall effects 

on OHV use 

uncertain; 

1,460,200 acres 

open to OHV 

use; 

5,445,218 acres 

limited OHV 

use; 

24,832 acres 

closed to OHV 

use. 

OHV use 

generally limited 

to roads and 

trails; possible 

decrease in 

overall OHV 

use; 

0 acres open to 

OHV use; 

7,143,177 acres 

limited OHV 

use; 

61,427 acres 

closed to OHV 

use. 

Overall effects 

on OHV use 

uncertain; 

289,932 acres 

open to OHV 

use; 

6,878,592 acres 

limited OHV 

use; 

35,483 acres 

closed to OHV 

use. 

Mining activity 

Closures of 

existing 

operations likely 

to be offset by 

new operations. 

Closures of 

existing 

operations likely 

to be offset by 

new operations. 

Closures of 

existing 

operations likely 

to be offset by 

new operations. 

Closures of 

existing 

operations likely 

to be offset by 

new operations. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-8 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-9 

Indicator Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C * Alternative D 

Oil and gas development 

248 acres 

disturbed; 2 

discoveries. One 

well with small 

scale production.

248 acres 

disturbed; 2 

discoveries. One 

well with small 

scale production.

248 acres 

disturbed; 2 

discoveries. One 

well with small 

scale production. 

248 acres 

disturbed; 2 

discoveries. One 

well with small 

scale production.

Geothermal development 

605 acres 

disturbed; 5 

power plants. 

605 acres 

disturbed; 5 

power plants. 

605 acres 

disturbed; 5 

power plants. 

605 acres 

disturbed; 5 

power plants. 

Renewable energy 

development 

Changes not 

identifiable. 

Changes not 

identifiable. 

Changes not 

identifiable. 

Changes not 

identifiable. 

Greenhouse gas emissions 

from livestock grazing 

1,083,840 tons 

per year of 

methane 

emissions, 

24,928,315 tons 

per year carbon 

dioxide 

equivalents. 

1,083,840 tons 

per year of 

methane 

emissions, 

24,928,315 tons 

per year carbon 

dioxide 

equivalents. 

For Option 1, 

1,083,840 tons 

per year of 

methane 

emissions, 

24,928,315 tons 

per year carbon 

dioxide 

equivalents. For 

Option 2, no 

greenhouse gas 

emissions from 

livestock grazing 

in WDO area, 

but increased 

greenhouse gas 

emissions from 

livestock 

operations 

outside WDO 

area. 

1,083,840 tons 

per year of 

methane 

emissions, 

24,928,315 tons 

per year carbon 

dioxide 

equivalents. 

Greenhouse gas emissions 

from wild horses and 

burros 

39,111 tons per 

year of methane 

emissions, 

899,555 tons per 

year carbon 

dioxide 

equivalents. 

39,111 tons per 

year of methane 

emissions, 

899,555 tons per 

year carbon 

dioxide 

equivalents. 

39,111 tons per 

year of methane 

emissions, 

899,555 tons per 

year carbon 

dioxide 

equivalents. 

39,111 tons per 

year of methane 

emissions, 

899,555 tons per 

year carbon 

dioxide 

equivalents. 

Greenhouse gas emissions 

from wildfires 

301,507 tons per 

year carbon 

dioxide 

equivalents, 

based on 1997 – 

2006 average. 

Similar to 

Alternative A, 

perhaps slightly 

lower. 

Similar to 

Alternative A, 

perhaps slightly 

higher. 

Similar to 

Alternative A, 

perhaps slightly 

lower. 

Roadway construction and 

maintenance 

Similar to 

current patterns. 

Similar to 

current patterns. 

Similar to 

current patterns. 

Similar to 

current patterns. 

Vehicle traffic on unpaved 

roads 

Similar to 

current patterns. 

Slight increase 

from current 

patterns. 

Slight increase 

from current 

patterns. 

Slight increase 

from current 

patterns. 

*Options 1 and 2. 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Methods of Analysis 

Methods and Assumptions

Available information was insufficient to develop quantitative emission estimates for activities 

addressed by the RMP alternatives. Quantitative emissions estimates were developed for historical 

wildland fires to provide context for evaluating wildland fire management policies under the 

different alternatives. Wildland fire emissions were quantified using the First Order Fire Effects 

emissions model, or FOFEM. Additionally, potential ambient smoke concentrations were analyzed 

using the Simple Approach Smoke Estimation Model, or SASEM4. Quantitative estimates of 

greenhouse gas emissions were made using generalized livestock methane generation factors 

developed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2006). Qualitative evaluations of air 

quality issues are presented for management topics when quantitative analyses were not feasible. 

Effects from Air Quality Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no effects common to all alternatives from air quality management. 

Individual Effects under Alternatives A, B, and D

RMP air quality management objectives and actions under all alternatives focus on compliance with 

state and federal requirements and programs. The most important regulatory programs are those 

related to prescribed burns or allowing fire for resource benefit and those related to control of 

fugitive dust from surface area disturbance. Wildland fires release both criteria air pollutants and 

greenhouse gas emissions. Surface area disturbance is a source of fugitive dust. State and federal 

regulatory programs related to these emission sources are designed to minimize the resulting air 

pollutant concentrations downwind of the emission sources. Alternatives A, B, and D include 

policies and actions that allow the use of prescribed burns. The BLM would continue to comply 

with Nevada permit program requirements for prescribed burns. Any prescribed burn expected to 

emit more than one ton of PM10 would require an open burn permit from the Nevada Bureau of Air 

Pollution Control. Prescribed burns expected to emit more than 10 tons of PM10 would require a 

more detailed permit application than those expected to emit less than 10 tons of PM10. In addition, 

a burn plan is required for prescribed burns expected to emit more than 10 tons of PM10. There are 

no air permit requirements for wildland fire suppression activities. Programs allowing fire for 

resource benefit require an annual permit application that identifies areas being considered for 

prescribed fires or for allowing fire for resource benefit. The permit application must identify the 

conditions under which naturally ignited wildfires may be allowed to burn rather than being 

suppressed. BLM road construction and road maintenance activities that would disturb more than 

20 acres would be subject to Nevada surface area disturbance permit requirements and would 

require preparation of a fugitive dust control plan. Air quality effects would be similar under 

Alternatives A, B, and D. The extent to which air quality effects would be greater than those under 

Alternative C would depend on the extent of prescribed burn activities. The WDO has conducted 

only limited prescribed burns in the past. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-10 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

RMP air quality management objectives and actions under Alternative C focus on compliance with 

state and federal requirements and programs. Alternative C differs from the other alternatives in that 

it does not include a prescribed burn program or a program to allow fire for resource benefit. Thus, 

Alternative C would not involve compliance with Nevada permit requirements for prescribed burns. 

There are no air permit requirements for wildland fire suppression activities. Construction and 

maintenance of unpaved roadways can be a source of fugitive dust. BLM road construction and road 

maintenance activities that would disturb more than 20 acres would be subject to Nevada surface 

area disturbance permit requirements and would require preparation of a fugitive dust control plan. 

Air quality effects from air quality management programs under Alternative C are slightly less than 

those under the other alternatives, with the magnitude of the difference depending on the extent to 

which other alternatives implement prescribed burn activities. The WDO has conducted only limited 

prescribed burns in the past. 

Effects from Geology Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no effects common to all alternatives from geologic resource management. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Under Alternative A, exclusion zones would remain open to OHV use. OHV use generates fugitive 

dust and releases both criteria air pollutants and greenhouse gas pollutants from engine exhaust. 

Consequently, Alternative A might produce slightly more OHV fugitive dust and engine emissions 

than the other alternatives. In addition, Alternative A is expected to have higher levels of OHV use 

than under the other alternatives. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Under Alternative B, OHV use within exclusion zones would be limited to existing roads. In 

addition, OHV management policies under Alternative B are expected to result in slightly higher 

OHV use than under Alternative D but less OHV use than under Alternative A. OHV use generates 

fugitive dust and releases both criteria air pollutants and greenhouse gas pollutants from engine 

exhaust. Consequently, Alternative B might produce slightly less OHV fugitive dust and engine 

emissions than under Alternative A and slightly more OHV fugitive dust and engine emissions than 

under Alternatives C and D. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Under Alternative C, roads within exclusion zones would be closed to OHV use. In addition, 

Alternative C would have the most restrictive policies and actions concerning OHV use and 

consequently are likely to have lower OHV use levels than under the other alternatives. OHV use 

generates fugitive dust and releases both criteria air pollutants and greenhouse gas pollutants from 

engine exhaust. Thus, Alternative C might produce slightly less OHV fugitive dust and engine 

emissions than the other alternatives. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-11 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Under Alternative D, OHV use within exclusion zones would be limited to existing roads. In 

addition, OHV management policies under Alternative D are expected to result in slightly lower 

OHV use levels than under Alternatives A and B but higher use levels than under Alternative C 

OHV use generates fugitive dust and releases both criteria air pollutants and greenhouse gas 

pollutants from engine exhaust. Consequently, Alternative D might produce slightly less OHV 

fugitive dust and engine emissions than under Alternatives A and B and slightly more OHV fugitive 

dust and engine emissions than under Alternative C. 

Effects from Soil Resources Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Exposed soils in disturbed or poorly vegetated areas are a potential source of fugitive dust from 

wind erosion, which can cause elevated concentrations of suspended particulate matter in downwind 

locations. Vegetation cover greatly reduces the amount of fugitive dust generated by wind erosion, 

and even sparse vegetation cover can significantly reduce fugitive dust generation when wind speeds 

are not extreme. All alternatives include generalized policies and actions to reduce soil erosion and 

apply BMPs. Vegetation management actions would be the primary mechanism for implementing 

measures that reduce wind erosion. All alternatives would continue to implement on-going 

emergency stabilization, burned area rehabilitation, and mine reclamation programs that help reduce 

soil erosion from wind and water. Other effects from soil resources management are discussed 

separately for each alternative. 

Alternatives A and D are similar and have the greatest potential to reduce wind erosion through 

vegetation management; Alternative C would be more effective than Alternative B at reducing wind 

erosion. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Vegetation management measures would be the primary wind erosion controls implemented under 

Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Alternative B would implement various measures to reduce soil erosion but would not apply soil 

amendments. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Alternative C would implement various measures to reduce soil erosion, including the use of soil 

amendments and seasonal closures to avoid compaction of moist soils. Because it would eliminate 

livestock grazing, Alternative C, Option 2 would have the least amount of wind erosion from 

unburned areas. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Alternative D would implement various measures to reduce soil erosion, including the use of soil 

amendments and seasonal closures to avoid compaction of moist soils. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-12 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Effects from Water Resources Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no effects common to all alternatives from water resources management. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Water resources policies and actions under Alternative A would have only negligible air quality 

impacts from actions, such as well construction and livestock or wildlife watering facilities. 

Alternative A has no express policy with respect to water import or export projects. The air quality 

implications of water resource management policies are so indirect that it is not possible to 

distinguish among alternatives in this regard. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Water resources policies and actions under Alternative B would have only negligible air quality 

impacts from actions, such as well construction and livestock or wildlife watering facilities. Any 

water import or export projects approved under Alternative B might result in limited air quality 

impacts from construction activities. The air quality implications of water resource management 

policies are so indirect that it is not possible to distinguish among alternatives in this regard. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Water resources policies and actions under Alternative C would have only negligible air quality 

impacts from actions, such as well construction and livestock or wildlife watering facilities. Any 

water import or export projects approved under Alternative C might result in limited air quality 

impacts from construction activities. The air quality implications of water resource management 

policies are so indirect that it is not possible to distinguish among alternatives in this regard. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Water resources policies and actions under Alternative D would have only negligible air quality 

impacts from actions, such as well construction and livestock or wildlife watering facilities. Any 

water import or export projects approved under Alternative D might result in limited air quality 

impacts from construction activities. The air quality implications of water resource management 

policies are so indirect that it is not possible to distinguish among alternatives in this regard. 

Effects from Vegetation—Forest and Woodland Products Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Wildland fires release both criteria air pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions. Vegetation 

treatments to improve stand health would reduce the buildup of fuels and ultimately would reduce 

emissions should treated areas burn. Other effects from forest and woodland products management 

are discussed separately for each alternative. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Alternative A would encourage prompt fire suppression efforts in broadleaf woodland habitats. 

Prescribed fires would be used to enhance deteriorated aspen and cottonwood stands. WDO has 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-13 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

conducted only limited prescribed burns in the past. The air quality implications of forest and 

woodland products management policies are so uncertain that it is not possible to distinguish among 

alternatives in this regard. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Policies under Alternative B would allow the use of wildland fires in broadleaf woodland habitats to 

achieve stand health and structure objectives. Consequently, some wildfires may not be suppressed 

or controlled as quickly under Alternative B as they would be under Alternatives A or D, resulting in 

slightly higher wildfire emissions under Alternative B than under Alternatives A or D. The air quality 

implications of forest and woodland products management policies are so uncertain that it is not 

possible to distinguish among alternatives in this regard. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

There would be less fire suppression under Alternative C than under other alternatives. Alternative 

C also would not implement prescribed burns for resource management purposes but would allow 

fire for resource benefit. Consequently, some wildfires may not be suppressed or controlled as 

quickly under Alternative C as they would be under Alternatives A or D, resulting in slightly higher 

wildfire emissions under Alternative C than under Alternatives A or D. The air quality implications 

of forest and woodland products management policies are so uncertain that it is not possible to 

distinguish among alternatives in this regard. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Policies under Alternative D would use prescribed fires to enhance deteriorated aspen stands. WDO 

has conducted only limited prescribed burns in the past. The air quality implications of forest and 

woodland products management policies are so uncertain that it is not possible to distinguish among 

alternatives in this regard. 

Effects from Vegetation—Weeds Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no effects common to all alternatives from weeds management. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

The use of prescribed fires and herbicides to control noxious and invasive weeds would produce 

small quantities of air pollutant emissions. Wildland fires release both criteria air pollutants and 

greenhouse gas emissions. Herbicides often include volatile organic compounds that are a precursor 

of ozone. The WDO has conducted only limited prescribed burns in the past. Emissions associated 

with weed management under Alternative A would be similar to emissions under Alternatives B and 

D and slightly more than emissions under Alternative C. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

The use of prescribed fires and herbicides to control noxious and invasive weeds would produce 

small quantities of air pollutant emissions. Wildland fires release both criteria air pollutants and 

greenhouse gas emissions. Herbicides often include volatile organic compounds that are a precursor 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-14 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

of ozone. The WDO has conducted only limited prescribed burns in the past. Emissions associated 

with weed management under Alternative B would be similar to emissions under Alternatives A and 

D and slightly more than emissions under Alternative C. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

In contrast to the other alternatives, Alternative C would not use prescribed fire or chemical 

treatments to control noxious and invasive weeds. Thus, Alternative C would have slightly lower 

direct air pollutant emissions from weed management activities than the other alternatives. 

Indirectly, Alternative C might lead to somewhat higher emissions from wildland fires due to less 

effective control of cheatgrass. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

The use of prescribed fires and herbicides to control noxious and invasive weeds would produce 

small quantities of air pollutant emissions. Wildland fires release both criteria air pollutants and 

greenhouse gas emissions. Herbicides often include volatile organic compounds that are a precursor 

of ozone. The WDO has conducted only limited prescribed burns in the past. Emissions associated 

with weed management under Alternative D would be similar to emissions under Alternatives A and 

B and slightly more than emissions under Alternative C. 

Effects from Chemical and Biological Control 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no effects common to all alternatives from chemical and biological control management. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

The use of herbicides and pesticides under Alternative A would produce small quantities of volatile 

organic compound emissions. Air quality implications would be minor because large quantities of 

herbicides and pesticides are not expected to be used. Emissions associated with chemical controls 

under Alternative A would be similar to emissions under Alternatives B and D and more than under 

Alternative C, which does not call for chemical controls. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

The use of herbicides and pesticides under Alternative B would produce small quantities of volatile 

organic compound emissions. Air quality implications would be minor because large quantities of 

herbicides and pesticides are not expected to be used. Emissions associated with chemical controls 

under Alternative B would be similar to emissions under Alternatives A and D and more than under 

Alternative C, which does not call for chemical controls. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

In contrast to other alternatives, Alternative C would not use herbicides and pesticides and thus 

would have lower air pollutant emissions from biological and chemical control programs than under 

the other alternatives. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-15 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

The use of herbicides and pesticides under Alternative D would produce small quantities of volatile 

organic compound emissions. Air quality implications would be minor because large quantities of 

herbicides and pesticides are not expected to be used. Emissions associated with chemical controls 

under Alternative D would be similar to emissions under Alternatives A and B and more than under 

Alternative C, which do not call for chemical controls. 

Effects from Vegetation—Rangeland Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no effects common to all alternatives from rangeland management. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Alternative A does not include specific actions to control cheatgrass, but it does allow actions to 

maintain and improve vegetation conditions. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Wildland fires release both criteria air pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions. Alternative B 

includes the use of prescribed fire for control of cheatgrass in mixed perennial or cheatgrass 

communities. Consequently, there may be slightly higher direct emissions from cheatgrass control 

programs under Alternative B than Alternatives A and C. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Alternative C would employ various methods to control cheatgrass but would not employ 

prescribed burning or chemical treatments. Alternative C, Option 2 would prohibit the use of 

prescriptive grazing for control of cheatgrass. Consequently, Alternative C, Option 2 may have 

slightly lower direct emissions from cheatgrass control programs than Alternatives A and B and 

about the same emissions as under Alternative D. If cheatgrass control proves less effective under 

Alternative C than under other alternatives, then there would be an indirect effect on overall 

wildland fire emissions due to higher wildland fire recurrence intervals. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Alternative D would employ various methods to control cheatgrass including prescribed burning. 

Wildland fires release both criteria air pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions. Consequently, 

Alternative D may have direct emissions from cheatgrass control programs similar to those from 

Alternatives A and B, and somewhat higher than those from Alternative C. 

Effects from Vegetation—Riparian and Wetlands Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Riparian and wetlands management policies have no identifiable air quality implications under any of 

the alternatives.

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-16 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Effects from Fish and Wildlife Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Fish and wildlife management policies have no identifiable air quality implications under any of the 

alternatives.

Effects from Special Status Species Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Special status species management policies have no identifiable air quality implications under any of 

the alternatives. 

Effects from Wild Horse and Burro Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Wild horse and burro management policies have few identifiable air quality implications under any 

of the alternatives. Wild horses and burros are a minor source of direct soil disturbance, which can 

lead to localized wind erosion. In addition, wild horses and burros are a source of greenhouse gas 

emissions from digestive fermentation and manure decomposition. Table 4-2 is a summary of 

estimated annual greenhouse gas emissions from wild horses and burros in the WDO area. The 

emission estimates presented in Table 4-2 are based on estimated wild horse and burro population 

numbers and annual methane emission rates published by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change (IPCC 2006). Annual methane emissions from wild horses and burros are less than four 

percent of the annual methane emissions from livestock grazing in the WDO area. 

Table 4-2 

Estimated Annual Greenhouse Gas Emissions from 

Wild Horses and Burros in the WDO Area 

Animal

Annual 

Average 

Population

Annual 

Methane 

Emissions, 

Tons per Year 

Digestive 

Fermentation

Annual 

Methane 

Emissions, 

Tons per Year 

Manure

Annual 

Methane 

Emissions, 

Tons per Year 

Total

GWP as CO2e, 

tons per year

Wild horses 3,042 33,197 4,316 37,513 862,790 

Wild burros 291 1,415 184 1,599 36,766 

Total 3,333 34,612 4,500 39,111 899,555 

Source: Tetra Tech 

CO2e = carbon dioxide equivalents 

GWP = global warming potential as carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e) 

Effects from Wildland Fire Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

It is not feasible to make quantitative predictions about the future extent of wildland fires in the 

WDO area under the different alternatives because wildfire ignition is typically caused by 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-17 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-18 

unpredictable sources, such as lightning or human activities. However, historical trends show that 

the annual acreage burned by wildland fires in the WDO area has increased significantly in the past 

ten years, compared to the previous ten years. For example, while the number of individual wildland 

fires increased by 9.4 percent between 1987 and 1996 and between 1997 and 2006, the acreage 

burned increased by 171 percent. Because wildfires are not planned, they are not subject to federal 

or state regulatory or permit programs. Prescribed fires are subject to federal agency management 

procedures and to state and local regulatory programs. The vast majority of wildland fires in the 

WDO area are wildfires, rather than prescribed burns. The wildfire emissions and smoke impact 

tables below provide a description of the impacts of wildland fires, even though wildfires are not 

subject to federal or state regulatory programs. 

The FOFEM 5.5 model was used to estimate annual emissions of criteria pollutants and greenhouse 

gases from historical wildland fires in the WDO area. The criteria pollutants addressed in the 

FOFEM model include suspended particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5), carbon monoxide, nitrogen 

oxides, sulfur oxides, and total organic gases (labeled as methane in the model output). The 

greenhouse gas emissions addressed in the FOFEM model include carbon dioxide and methane. 

Emission estimates from the FOFEM model were supplemented by spreadsheet calculations of 

nitrous oxide greenhouse gas emissions based on EPA data (1996). FOFEM results for total organic 

gases were partitioned into reactive organic compounds and methane using data from EPA (1996) 

and Ottmar et. al (2000). Table 4-3 is a summary of annual emissions from past wildland fires in the 

WDO area. These emissions estimates provide an indication of the magnitude of annual wildland 

fire emissions that can reasonably be expected in the future. The historical data also indicate that 

most wildland fires in any year burn only a few acres. Most of the acreage burned annually by 

wildland fires occurs during a small number of large wildland fires, which typically are started by 

natural causes. Table 4-3 shows that the annual acreage burned by wildfires in the WDO area varies 

dramatically. Table 4-3 also shows that there has been a historical trend toward increased acreages 

being burned by wildfires. As indicated at the bottom of Table 4-3, the annual average number of 

acres burned in the WDO area increased by 171 percent from 1987 to 1996 and from 1997 to 2006, 

with a resulting increase in annual air pollutant and greenhouse gas emissions. 

While various management programs and policies under the different alternatives may have an effect 

on the size and frequency of future wildland fires, it is unlikely that any alternative will substantially 

alter the historic pattern of wildland fires in the near future. 

The air quality impacts of wildland fires were further evaluated using SASEM4. This model 

estimates the distance range within which ambient air quality standards for suspended particulate 

matter (PM10 and PM2.5) are likely to be exceeded. SASEM was run for five different sizes of generic 

wildland fires for each of the two most important vegetation categories identified in the wildland fire 

database (western annual grasslands and sagebrush with grass). Table 4-4 is a summary of the results 

of the SASEM analyses for fires in western annual grasslands; Table 4-5 is a summary of the results 

of the SASEM analyses for fires in sagebrush with grass. 

The SASEM results show that the distance at which smoke impacts can exceed federal PM10 and 

PM2.5 standards varies significantly with meteorological conditions and with the size of the area 

burning at one time. While there is no control over weather conditions during wildland fires, 

prescribed fires can be scheduled to coincide with weather conditions that minimize the extent of 

downwind smoke impacts. 
Chapter 4: Env

Table 4-3 

Historical Wildland Fire Emissions in the WDO Area 

Year Acres Burned

ANNUAL 

EMISSIONS, 

TONS PER 

YEAR PM10

ANNUAL 

EMISSIONS, 

TONS PER 

YEAR PM2.5

ANNUAL 

EMISSIONS, 

TONS PER 

YEAR CO

ANNUAL 

EMISSIONS, 

TONS PER 

YEAR NOx

ANNUAL 

EMISSIONS, 

TONS PER 

YEAR SOx

ANNUAL 

EMISSIONS, 

TONS PER 

YEAR ROG

ANNUAL 

EMISSIONS, 

TONS PER 

YEAR CO2

ANNUA

EMISSIO

TONS P

YEAR C

1987 32,896 210 177 1,071 140 41 39 80,396 35 1988 25,865 165 139 840 110 32 31 63,040 27 1989 12,165 78 65 395 52 15 15 29,649 13 1990 5,167 33 28 168 22 6 6 12,593 5 1991 7,720 49 41 251 33 10 9 18,816 8 1992 11,412 73 61 371 48 14 14 27,814 12 1993 2,676 17 14 87 11 3 3 6,522 3 1994 27,469 175 148 892 117 34 33 66,949 29 1995 38,609 246 207 1,254 164 48 46 94,101 41 1996 270,960 1,727 1,456 8,803 1,151 339 323 660,404 286 1997 21,915 140 118 712 93 27 26 53,413 23 1998 25,910 165 139 842 110 32 31 63,150 27 1999 599,492 3,820 3,221 19,476 2,547 749 715 1,461,127 634 2000 205,625 1,310 1,105 6,680 873 257 245 501,165 217 2001 172,511 1,099 927 5,604 733 216 206 420,457 182 2002 13,573 86 73 441 58 17 16 33,081 14 2003 1,462 9 8 47 6 2 2 3,563 2 2004 651 4 3 21 3 1 1 1,587 1 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-19 
Chapter 4: Env

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-20 

Year Acres Burned

ANNUAL 

EMISSIONS, 

TONS PER 

YEAR PM10

ANNUAL 

EMISSIONS, 

TONS PER 

YEAR PM2.5

ANNUAL 

EMISSIONS, 

TONS PER 

YEAR CO

ANNUAL 

EMISSIONS, 

TONS PER 

YEAR NOx

ANNUAL 

EMISSIONS, 

TONS PER 

YEAR SOx

ANNUAL 

EMISSIONS, 

TONS PER 

YEAR ROG

ANNUAL 

EMISSIONS, 

TONS PER 

YEAR CO2

ANNUA

EMISSIO

TONS P

YEAR C

2005 7,586 48 41 246 32 9 9 18,489 8 2006 130,664 883 702 4,244 555 163 156 318,415 138 

1987-1996 Average 

43,503 277 234 1,413 185 54 52 106,029 46 

1997-2006 Average 

117,937 752 634 3,831 501 147 141 287,445 125 

1987-2006 Average 

80,720 514 434 2,622 343 101 96 196,737 85 

Source: Tetra Tech PM10 = inhalable particulate matter 

PM2.5 = fine particulate matter 

CO = carbon monoxide NOx = nitrogen oxides (ozone precursor) 

SOx = sulfur oxides 

ROG = reactive organic compounds (ozone precursors) CO2 = carbon dioxide (greenhouse gas); GWP multiplier = 1 

CH4 = methane (greenhouse gas); GWP multiplier = 23 

N2O = nitrous oxide (greenhouse gas), GWP multiplier = 296 

CO2e = carbon dioxide equivalents of all greenhouse gases (CO2, CH4, and N2O), computed using the GWP multipliers for each compound

GWP = global warming potential as CO2 equivalents (CO2e); GWP multipliers from Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2001), th

year time frame Emission estimates based on per-acre emission rates calculated by FOFEM 5.5 for sagebrush with grass and for saltbush or greasewo

vegetation types. Based on the historical ratio of acreages burned for each vegetation type, emission rates were weighted 75% sagebrush with grass and 25% s

The FOFEM model output labeled as CH4 is actually total organic compounds (ROG plus CH4), assumed to be 53% ROG and 47% CH4 f

types in the WDO area. Nitrous oxide emissions estimated using emission rates from AP-42 Section 13.1 (EPA 1996). 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Table 4-4 

Smoke Impact from Fires in Western Annual Grass Vegetation 

Size of 

Burn

Burn 

Duration Stability Class Wind Speed

Distance to 

Which 

Standards are 

Exceeded 

PM10

Distance to 

Which 

Standards are 

Exceeded 

PM2.5

10 acres 8 hours 

A (very unstable) 1-3 mph None None 

B (moderately 

unstable) 1-5 mph None None 

C (slightly unstable) 2-10 mph None None 

D (neutral) 4-10 mph None None 

E (slightly stable) 1-2 mph None Out to 2.8 

miles 

E (slightly stable) 3-5 mph None None 

F (moderately stable) 1-3 mph None Out to 6.21 

miles 

100 acres 24 hours 

A (very unstable) 1-3 mph None None 

B (moderately 

unstable) 1-5 mph None None 

C (slightly unstable) 2-10 mph None None 

D (neutral) 4-10 mph None None 

E (slightly stable) 1-3 mph None Out to 5.34 

miles 

E (slightly stable) 4-5 mph None None 

F (moderately stable) 1-3 mph None Out to 19.76 

miles 

500 acres 24 hours 

A (very unstable) 1-3 mph None None 

B (moderately 

unstable) 1 mph None Out to 0.87 mile 

B (moderately 

unstable) 2-5 mph None None 

C (slightly unstable) 2 mph None Out to 0.81 

mile 

C (slightly unstable) 3-10 mph None None 

D (neutral) 4-5 mph None Out to 0.93 

mile 

D (neutral) 6-10 mph None None 

E (slightly stable) 1-5 mph None Out to 29.14 

miles 

F (moderately stable) 1-3 mph None Out to 44.17 

miles 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-21 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-22 

Size of 

Burn

Burn 

Duration Stability Class Wind Speed

Distance to 

Which 

Standards are 

Exceeded 

PM10

Distance to 

Which 

Standards are 

Exceeded 

PM2.5

1,000 acres 24 hours 

A (very unstable) 1-3 mph None None 

B (moderately 

unstable) 1-2 mph None Out to 1.18 miles 

B (moderately 

unstable) 3-5 mph None None 

C (slightly unstable) 2-3 mph None Out to 1.18 

miles 

C (slightly unstable) 4-10 mph None None 

D (neutral) 4-7 mph None Out to 1.55 

miles 

D (neutral) 8-10 mph None None 

E (slightly stable) 1-5 mph None Out to 60.27 

miles 

F (moderately stable) 1-3 mph None Out to 62.19 

miles 

5,000 acres 24 hours 

A (very unstable) 1 mph None Out to 0.62 

mile 

A (very unstable) 2-3 mph None None 

B (moderately 

unstable) 1-4 mph None Out to 2.42 miles 

B (moderately 

unstable) 5 mph None None 

C (slightly unstable) 2-8 mph None Out to 2.86 

miles 

C (slightly unstable) 9-10 mph None None 

D (neutral) 4-10 mph None Out to 5.53 

miles 

E (slightly stable) 1-2 mph Out to 19.22 

miles 

Out to 62.19 

miles 

E (slightly stable) 3-5 mph None Out to 31.77 

miles 

F (moderately stable) 1-2 mph Out to 62.14 

miles 

Out to 62.14 

miles 

F (moderately stable) 3 mph None Out to 62.15 

miles 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Table 4-5 

Smoke Impact from Fires in Sagebrush with Grass Vegetation 

Size of 

Burn

Burn 

Duration Stability Class Wind Speed

Distance to 

Which 

Standards are 

Exceeded 

PM10

Distance to 

Which 

Standards are 

Exceeded 

PM2.5

10 acres 8 hours 

A (very unstable) Under 3 mph None None 

B (moderately unstable) 1-3 mph None Out to 1.68 

miles 

B (moderately unstable) 4-5 mph None None 

C (slightly unstable) 2-5 mph None Out to 1.80 

miles 

C (slightly unstable) 6-10 mph None None 

D (neutral) 4-10 mph None Out to 2.73 

miles 

E (slightly stable) 1-3 mph Out to 6.21 

miles 

Out to 6.21 

miles 

E (slightly stable) 4-5 mph None Out to 6.21 

miles 

F (moderately stable) 1-3 mph Out to 6.23 

miles 

Out to 10.89 

miles 

100 acres 24 hours 

A (very unstable) 1 mph None Out to 0.68 

miles 

A (very unstable) 2-3 mph None None 

B (moderately unstable) 1 mph Out to 0.93 

mile 

Out to 2.98 

miles 

B (moderately unstable) 2-5 mph None Out to 1.62 

miles 

C (slightly unstable) 2 mph Out to 0.87 

mile 

Out to 3.67 

miles 

C (slightly unstable) 3-10 mph None Out to 2.36 

miles 

D (neutral) 4-5 mph Out to 0.99 

mile 

Out to 8.39 

miles 

D (neutral) 6-10 mph None Out to 4.10 

miles 

E (slightly stable) 1-5 mph Out to 19.76 

miles 

Out to 19.76 

miles 

F (moderately stable) 1-3 mph Out to 19.71 

miles 

Out to 45.37 

miles 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-23 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-24 

Size of 

Burn

Burn 

Duration Stability Class Wind Speed

Distance to 

Which 

Standards are 

Exceeded 

PM10

Distance to 

Which 

Standards are 

Exceeded 

PM2.5

500 acres 24 hours 

A (very unstable) 1-3 mph None Out to 0.99 

mile 

B (moderately unstable) 1-3 mph Out to 1.86 

miles 

Out to 6.21 

miles 

B (moderately unstable) 4-5 mph None Out to 1.74 

miles 

C (slightly unstable) 2-6 mph Out to 2.05 

miles 

Out to 8.89 

miles 

C (slightly unstable) 7-10 mph None Out to 2.24 

D (neutral) 4-10 mph Out to 3.29 

miles 

Out to 34.98 

miles 

E (slightly stable) 1-5 mph Out to 44.18 

miles 

Out to 62.01 

miles 

F (moderately stable) 1-3 mph Out to 55.13 

miles 

Out to 62.18 

miles 

1,000 acres 24 hours 

A (very unstable) 1 mph Out to 0.62 

mile 

Out to 1.18 

miles 

A (very unstable) 2-3 mph None Out to 0.87 

mile 

B (moderately unstable) 1-4 mph Out to 2.49 

miles 

Out to 8.45 

miles 

B (moderately unstable) 5 mph None Out to 1.99 

miles 

C (slightly unstable) 2-8 mph Out to 2.92 

miles 

Out to 12.99 

miles 

C (slightly unstable) 9-10 mph None Out to 2.49 

miles 

D (neutral) 4-10 mph Out to 5.90 

miles 

Out to 62.20 

miles 

E (slightly stable) 1-5 mph Out to 62.20 

miles 

Out to 62.20 

miles 

F (moderately stable) 1-3 mph Out to 62.15 

miles 

Out to 62.15 

miles 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-25 

Size of 

Burn

Burn 

Duration Stability Class Wind Speed

Distance to 

Which 

Standards are 

Exceeded 

PM10

Distance to 

Which 

Standards are 

Exceeded 

PM2.5

5,000 acres 24 hours 

A (very unstable) 1-2 mph Out to 0.87 

mile 

Out to 1.80 

miles 

A (very unstable) 3 mph None Out to 1.06 

miles 

B (moderately unstable) 1-5 mph Out to 4.67 

miles 

Out to 17.35 

miles 

C (slightly unstable) 2-10 mph Out to 6.34 

miles 

Out to 31.31 

miles 

D (neutral) 4-10 mph Out to 20.34 

miles 

Out to 62.17 

miles 

E (slightly stable) 1-5 mph Out to 62.18 

miles 

Out to 62.18 

miles 

F (moderately stable) 1-3 mph Out to 62.18 

miles 

Out to 62.18 

miles 

Source: Tetra Tech analyses 

Effects from wildland fire management are discussed separately for each alternative.

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Wildland fires produce large quantities of PM10 and carbon monoxide emissions and lower quantities 

of other air pollutant emissions. Smoke from wildland fires can cause visibility and traffic safety 

problems in addition to air quality problems. Wind erosion from burned areas can cause post-fire air 

quality, visibility, and traffic safety problems. Fire suppression objectives and actions under 

Alternative A are similar to those under the other alternatives. Vehicles and aircraft used for fire 

suppression operations and post-fire land stabilization programs contribute minor amounts of 

vehicle engine exhaust and fugitive dust emissions. 

Prescribed burns can produce large quantities of PM10 and carbon monoxide emissions and lower 

quantities of other air pollutant emissions, depending on the size of the fire. Smoke from prescribed 

burns can cause visibility and traffic safety problems in addition to air quality problems. Wind 

erosion from burned areas can cause post-fire air quality, visibility, and traffic safety problems. 

These impacts are reduced by implementing prescribed fire burn plans that take into consideration 

mitigation measures to reduce air quality, visibility and traffic impacts. 

Vehicles, equipment, and aircraft used for fuel treatments and post-fire land stabilization programs 

contribute minor amounts of vehicle engine exhaust and fugitive dust emissions. The WDO has 

conducted only limited prescribed burns in the past. If this pattern is continued under Alternative A, 

then prescribed burns would not be a frequent source of localized air pollutant emissions. In 

contrast to Alternatives B and D, Alternative A does not designate specific acreages for fire use 

programs. 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Wildland fires produce large quantities of PM10 and carbon monoxide emissions and lower quantities 

of other air pollutant emissions. Smoke from wildland fires can cause visibility and traffic safety 

problems, in addition to air quality problems. Wind erosion from burned areas can cause post-fire 

air quality, visibility, and traffic safety problems. Fire suppression objectives and actions in 

Alternative B are similar to those in the other alternatives. However, Alternative B includes 

objectives and actions allowing fire for resource benefit; consequently, some wildfires may not be 

suppressed or controlled as quickly under Alternative B as they would be under Alternatives A or C. 

This would result in slightly higher wildfire emissions under Alternative B than under Alternatives A 

or C. Vehicles and aircraft used for fire suppression operations and post-fire land stabilization 

programs contribute minor amounts of vehicle engine exhaust and fugitive dust emissions. 

Prescribe fire objectives and actions under Alternative B are similar to those under the other 

alternatives. However, Alternative B includes objectives and actions allowing fire for resource 

benefit; consequently, the appropriate management may include allowing some wildfires to burn for 

resource benefit. This would result in slightly higher wildfire emissions under Alternative B than 

under Alternatives A or C. Vehicles, equipment, and aircraft used for post-fire land stabilization 

programs contribute minor amounts of vehicle engine exhaust and fugitive dust emissions. 

The WDO has conducted only limited prescribed burns in the past. If this pattern is continued 

under Alternative B, then prescribed burns would not be a frequent source of localized air pollutant 

emissions. In contrast to Alternatives A and C, Alternative B designates specific acreages for fire use 

programs. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Wildland fires produce large quantities of PM10 and carbon monoxide emissions and lower quantities 

of other air pollutant emissions. Smoke from wildland fires can cause visibility and traffic safety 

problems, in addition to air quality problems. Wind erosion from burned areas can cause post-fire 

air quality, visibility, and traffic safety problems. Fire suppression objectives and actions under 

Alternative C are similar to those under the other alternatives. Vehicles and aircraft used for fire 

suppression operations and post-fire land stabilization programs contribute minor amounts of 

vehicle engine exhaust and fugitive dust emissions. 

Impacts from prescribed fire are similar to those described under alternative A. In contrast to the 

other alternatives, Alternative C would not make use of prescribed burns or wildfire use programs. 

However, because the WDO has conducted only limited prescribed burns in the past, it is not clear 

whether this difference from other alternatives would result in a significant overall difference in 

prescribed fire emissions. In contrast to Alternatives B and D, Alternative C does not designate any 

areas for fire use programs. This would result in slightly lower wildfire emissions under Alternative 

C than under Alternatives B or D. Emissions from vehicles and equipment used for fuel treatments 

would generate higher amounts of fugitive dust because prescribed fire and herbicides treatments 

would not be allowed; Thus, there may be more mechanical treatments Also, there would be no 

associated smoke emissions from prescribed fire. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-26 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Wildland fires produce large quantities of PM10 and carbon monoxide emissions and lower quantities 

of other air pollutant emissions. Smoke from wildland fires can cause visibility and traffic safety 

problems, in addition to air quality problems. Wind erosion from burned areas can cause post-fire 

air quality, visibility, and traffic safety problems. Fire suppression objectives and actions under 

Alternative D are similar to those under the other alternatives. Vehicles and aircraft used for fire 

suppression operations and post-fire land stabilization programs contribute minor amounts of 

vehicle engine exhaust and fugitive dust emissions. 

Prescribe fire objectives and actions under Alternative D are similar to those under the other 

alternatives. However, Alternative D includes objectives and actions allowing fire for resource 

benefit; consequently, the appropriate management may include allowing some wildfires to burn for 

resource benefit. This would result in slightly higher wildfire emissions under Alternative D than 

under Alternatives A or C. Vehicles, equipment, and aircraft used for post-fire land stabilization 

programs contribute minor amounts of vehicle engine exhaust and fugitive dust emissions. 

The WDO has conducted only limited prescribed burns in the past. If this pattern is continued 

under Alternative D, then prescribed burns would not be a frequent source of localized air pollutant 

emissions. In contrast to Alternatives A and C, Alternative D includes a program for wildfire use. 

Effects from Cultural Resources Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no effects common to all alternatives from cultural resources management. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Under Alternative A, most of the planning area, including areas near cultural resources would 

remain open to OHV use. OHV use generates fugitive dust and releases both criteria air pollutants 

and greenhouse gas pollutants from engine exhaust. Consequently, Alternative A might produce 

slightly more OHV fugitive dust and engine emissions than Alternatives C and D and about the 

same OHV fugitive dust and engine emissions as Alternative B. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Under Alternative B, most of the planning area, including areas near cultural resources, would 

remain open to OHV use. OHV use generates fugitive dust and releases both criteria air pollutants 

and greenhouse gas pollutants from engine exhaust. Consequently, Alternative B might produce 

slightly more OHV fugitive dust and engine emissions than under Alternatives C and D and about 

the same OHV fugitive dust and engine emissions as Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Under Alternative C, areas designated as culturally sensitive would have OHV use limited to existing 

roads. Some segments of National Historic Trails would be closed to OHV use. OHV use generates 

fugitive dust and releases both criteria air pollutants and greenhouse gas pollutants from engine 

exhaust. Consequently, Alternative C might produce slightly fewer OHV fugitive dust and engine 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-27 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

emissions than under Alternatives A and B and about the same OHV fugitive dust and engine 

emissions as Alternative D. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Under Alternative D, areas designated as culturally sensitive would have OHV use limited to existing 

roads. Some segments of National Historic Trails would be closed to OHV use. OHV use generates 

fugitive dust and releases both criteria air pollutants and greenhouse gas pollutants from engine 

exhaust. Consequently, Alternative D might produce slightly fewer OHV fugitive dust and engine 

emissions than under Alternatives A and B, and about the same OHV fugitive dust and engine 

emissions as Alternative C. 

Effects from Tribal Consultation 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Tribal consultation policies have no identifiable air quality implications under any of the alternatives.

Effects from Paleontological Resources Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Paleontological resources management policies have no identifiable air quality implications under 

any of the alternatives.

Effects from Visual Resources Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Visual resources management policies have no identifiable air quality implications under any of the 

alternatives.

Effects from Cave and Karst Resources Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Cave and karst resources management policies have no identifiable air quality implications under any 

of the alternatives.

Effects from Livestock Grazing Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Livestock is a source of greenhouse gas emissions from digestive fermentation and manure 

decomposition. Table 4-6 is a summary of estimated annual greenhouse gas emissions from 

livestock grazing in the WDO area. Livestock population estimates used for the analysis were 

derived from grazing allotment data, assuming one AUM was equivalent to either one cow, one 

horse, or five sheep. For grazing allotments that allow a mix of livestock types, the available AUMs 

were split evenly among allowable livestock types. The emission estimates presented in Table 4-6 are 

based on estimated livestock population numbers and annual methane emission rates published by 

the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC 2006). Livestock grazing in the WDO area is 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-28 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

a source of greenhouse gas emissions. Other effects from livestock grazing management are 

discussed separately for each alternative. 

Table 4-6 

Estimated Annual Greenhouse Gas Emissions from 

Livestock Grazing in the WDO Area 

Livestock 

Type

Annual 

Average 

Population

Annual 

Methane 

Emissions, 

Tons per Year 

Digestive 

Fermentation

Annual 

Methane 

Emissions, 

Tons per Year 

Manure

Annual 

Methane 

Emissions, 

Tons per Year 

Total

GWP as CO2e, 

tons per year

Cattle 24,676 1,033,603 27,200 1,060,803 24,398,474 

Horses 1,359 14,831 1,928 16,759 385,447 

Sheep 10,582 6,066 212 6,278 144,393 

Total 36,617 1,054,499 29,340 1,083,840 24,928,315 

Source: Tetra Tech 

CO2e = carbon dioxide equivalents 

GWP = global warming potential as carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e). 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Livestock grazing can be a minor source of fugitive dust emissions by direct soil disturbance and 

reduced vegetation density and resulting in minor increases in wind erosion. When vehicles are used 

for transporting livestock to and from grazing allotments, the resulting vehicle traffic is a minor 

source of fugitive dust and vehicle engine emissions. Alternative A would have the same overall 

AUM designation as the other alternatives but would designate slightly more acres as open to 

grazing than would be the case under Alternative C Option 1 and Alternative D. Overall emissions 

associated with livestock grazing under Alternative A would be similar to those under Alternatives B, 

C Option 1, and D. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Livestock grazing can be a minor source of fugitive dust emissions by direct soil disturbance and 

reduced vegetation density and resulting minor increases in wind erosion. When vehicles are used 

for transporting livestock to and from grazing allotments, the resulting vehicle traffic is a minor 

source of fugitive dust and vehicle engine emissions. Alternative B would have the same overall 

AUM designation as the other alternatives but would designate slightly more acres as open to 

grazing than would be the case under Alternative C Option 1 and Alternative D. Overall emissions 

associated with livestock grazing under Alternative B would be similar to those under Alternatives A, 

C Option 1, and D and would be higher than those under Alternative C Option 2. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-29 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Option 1 

Livestock grazing can be a minor source of fugitive dust emissions by direct soil disturbance and 

reduced vegetation density and the resulting minor increases in wind erosion. When vehicles are 

used for transporting livestock to and from grazing allotments, the resulting vehicle traffic is a minor 

source of fugitive dust and vehicle engine emissions. Alternative C, Option 1 would have the same 

overall AUM designation as under the other alternatives but would designate slightly fewer acres as 

open to grazing than would be the case under Alternatives A or B. Overall emissions associated with 

livestock grazing under Alternative C, Option 1 would be similar to those under Alternatives A, B, 

and D and would be higher than those under Alternative C, Option 2. 

Option 2 

Alternative C, Option 2 would eliminate livestock grazing within the WDO area. Consequently, 

Alternative C, Option 2 would have no emissions in the WDO area associated with livestock 

grazing. However, eliminating grazing from the WDO area would almost certainly lead to increased 

livestock grazing or livestock feed operations outside the WDO area. Increased livestock production 

outside the WDO area would result in increased greenhouse gas emissions outside the WDO 

boundaries. There is insufficient information to determine whether or not Alternative C, Option 2 

would result in any net change in regional greenhouse gas emissions from livestock operations. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Livestock grazing can be a minor source of fugitive dust emissions by direct soil disturbance, 

reduced vegetation density, and resulting minor increases in wind erosion. When vehicles are used 

for transporting livestock to and from grazing allotments, the resulting vehicle traffic is a minor 

source of fugitive dust and vehicle engine emissions. Alternative D would have the same overall 

AUM designation as the other alternatives but would designate slightly fewer acres as open to 

grazing than would be the case under Alternatives A, B, or C, Option 1. Overall emissions 

associated with livestock grazing under Alternative D would be similar to those under Alternatives 

A, B, and C, Option 1, and higher than those under Alternative C, Option 2. 

Effects from Minerals Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

General 

Construction activities associated with mineral development projects would generate fugitive dust 

emissions from earthmoving and ground disturbance associated with facility, road, and right-of-way 

construction. Construction equipment operations also would be a source of engine exhaust 

emissions, which include both criteria pollutants and greenhouse gases. Owners or operators of 

mineral development projects would need to comply with state and federal air quality management 

requirements, including obtaining air quality permits and implementing fugitive dust control plans. 

Most mining operations and energy developments would be subject to stationary source permit 

requirements. Nevada dust control program regulations would apply to mineral or energy 

developments that disturb more than 20 acres. In addition, Nevada regulations on mercury 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-30 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

emissions (Regulation R189-05), which became effective in May 2006, apply to owners and 

operators of both existing and new gold or silver mining facilities, according to schedules established 

in the Nevada regulations. 

Salable 

Salable minerals include aggregate, sand, gravel, clay, pumice, decorative stone and similar minerals. 

Fugitive dust from extraction, processing, and material transport operations is the primary air quality 

issue of concern. Equipment used for extraction, processing, and material transporting is also a 

source of engine exhaust emissions, which include both criteria pollutants and greenhouse gases. 

Owners and operators of extraction and processing facilities for these minerals would need to 

comply with state and federal air quality management requirements, including obtaining air quality 

permits and implementing fugitive dust control plans. 

Fluid 

Fluid mineral resources include oil, natural gas, and geothermal resources. Oil and gas development 

would include construction of access roads and drilling pads, exploratory drilling operations, 

production drilling operations, transport pipeline construction, and initial fluid processing. Fugitive 

dust and equipment engine exhaust emissions would be generated during construction and drilling 

phases. Equipment engine emissions, which include both criteria pollutants and greenhouse gases, 

and volatile organic compound emissions would occur during production drilling and initial fluid 

processing. Oil and gas development can also lead to fugitive emissions of methane, a greenhouse 

gas. There are no producing oil or gas wells in the WDO area, and only a small amount of additional 

oil and gas development activity is anticipated. The reasonably foreseeable development (RFD) 

scenario, discussed below, anticipates a total of 12 wildcat exploratory wells over the next 15 to 20 

years, resulting in only two discoveries in the WDO area. However, the distance to gas transmission 

lines is expected to prevent significant commercial production during the next 15 to 20 years. Only 

one small-scale production well is anticipated in the WDO area during the next 20 years. 

Development of producing facilities would typically require stationary source air permits from the 

Nevada Bureau of Air Pollution Control. 

Geothermal development could include both power plant development and facilities for the direct 

use of geothermal fluids as a heat source. Both geothermal power plants and direct use facilities (for 

example, vegetable dehydrators) currently exist in the WDO area. The RFD, discussed below, 

anticipates 40 new geothermal leases with 120 exploratory holes and the development of five new 

geothermal power plants in the WDO area over the next 20 years. Geothermal development would 

typically include construction of access roads and drilling pads, exploratory drilling operations, 

production drilling operations, pipeline construction, power plant or direct use facility construction, 

and electrical transmission line construction for power plants. Depending on the type of power plant 

or direct use facility constructed, there would be requirements for cooling towers, cooling ponds, or 

reinjection wells. Fugitive dust and equipment engine exhaust emissions, which include both criteria 

pollutants and greenhouse gases, would be generated during construction and drilling phases. 

Emissions associated with production well and power plant or direct use facility operations would 

depend on the type of heat transfer system that is used. Binary heat transfer systems are closed loop 

systems, with no significant air pollutant emissions. Flash steam systems release steam and minerals 

contained in geothermal fluids as a result of flashing to steam for heat transfer and cooling of 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-31 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

geothermal fluids in cooling towers or cooling ponds. Hydrogen sulfide and particulate matter from 

minerals contained in geothermal fluids would be the most important air pollutants from flash steam 

power plants. Particulate matter released as dissolved or suspended mineral in the steam and cooling 

tower drift can include a wide range of heavy metals and other substances. Facilities using cooling 

towers would have a greater air quality impact than those using cooling ponds. Emissions from 

geothermal facilities would be regulated by stationary source air permits from the Nevada Bureau of 

Air Pollution Control. 

Solid 

Leasable energy minerals include coal and oil shale. There are no known economically viable coal 

deposits in the WDO area. Leasable nonenergy minerals can include sodium, phosphate, potash, 

potassium, or sulfur deposits. Fugitive dust from extraction, processing, and material transport 

operations would be the primary air quality issue of concern. Equipment used for extraction, 

processing, and material transport would also be a source of engine exhaust emissions, which 

include both criteria pollutants and greenhouse gases. Owners and operators of extraction and 

processing facilities for these minerals would need to comply with state and federal air quality 

management requirements, including obtaining air quality permits and implementing fugitive dust 

control plans. 

Locatable 

Locatable minerals include metallic minerals, precious and semiprecious gemstones, and industrial 

minerals. Gold and silver are the dominant metallic minerals mined in the WDO area. All existing 

metallic mineral mining operations in the WDO area employ open pit operations with chemical

leaching for mineral recovery. Dolomite, diatomite, and gypsum are important industrial minerals 

mined there. Fugitive dust from extraction, processing, and material transport operations are the 

primary air quality issue of concern. Equipment used for extraction, processing, and material 

transport are also a source of engine exhaust emissions, which include both criteria pollutants and 

greenhouse gases. Chemical and thermal processes used for ore processing can be an additional 

source of air pollutant emissions. Owners and operators of extraction and processing facilities for 

these minerals would need to comply with state and federal air quality management requirements, 

including obtaining air quality permits and implementing fugitive dust control plans. Nevada 

regulations on mercury emissions (Regulation R189-05) apply to owners and operators of both 

existing and new gold or silver mining facilities, according to schedules established in the Nevada 

regulations. 

RFDs 

Reasonably foreseeable development scenarios for the next 15 to 20 years have been identified for 

oil and gas development and for geothermal resource development. The scenario for oil and gas 

resources assumes the drilling of 12 wildcat wells, with two of these resulting in discoveries. Each of 

the two discoveries would have two subsequent step-out wells to define the limits of the discovery. 

Ground disturbance associated with this scenario includes 45.5 acres disturbed for well sites and 202 

acres disturbed for road and pipeline construction. However, the distance to gas transmission lines is 

expected to prevent significant commercial production during the next 15 to 20 years. Only one 

small-scale production well is anticipated in the WDO area during the next 20 years. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-32 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

The scenario for geothermal development assumes 40 leases, with 120 exploratory holes drilled over 

the next 20 years. Five geothermal power plants would be developed in five-megawatt stages, 

typically reaching a total capacity of 15 to 30 megawatts. Each 5 megawatts of power plant capacity 

typically requires one production well. Ground disturbance associated with this scenario would total 

605 acres (150 acres for power plants, 150 acres for wells, 25 acres for cooling ponds, 75 acres for 

pipelines, 105 acres for access roads, 50 acres for mainline roads, and 50 acres for transmission 

lines). The reasonably foreseeable development scenario for geothermal facilities represents a typical 

facility size, not a maximum facility size. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Effects under Alternative A are the same as those discussed under Effects Common to All 

Alternatives. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Effects under Alternative B are the same as those discussed under Effects Common to All 

Alternatives. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Effects under Alternative C are the same as those discussed under Effects Common to All 

Alternatives. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Effects under Alternative D are the same as those discussed under Effects Common to All 

Alternatives. 

Effects from Recreation, Visitor Outreach, and Services Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Effects from recreation, visitor outreach, and services management are discussed separately for each 

alternative.

Individual Effects under Alternative A

On-road and off-road vehicle use is the major source of air pollutant emissions associated with 

visitor activities. In addition to on-road vehicle travel, approximately 60 percent of visitors engage in 

some type of OHV use. Campfires, camp stoves, and small portable generators are additional 

sources of emissions associated with recreational visitor activities. Vehicle engines, campfires, camp 

stoves, and portable generators are sources of both criteria pollutant and greenhouse gas emissions. 

Under Alternative A, most of the WDO area (6,782,790 acres) would be open to OHV use. An 

additional 416,652 acres would have OHV use restricted to existing roads. Under Alternative A, 

24,832 acres would be closed to OHV use. Alternative A would not designate any new special 

recreation management areas. Alternative A would have fewer visitor outreach and educational 

programs than the other alternatives. Although no visitor use projections are available, it is possible 

that Alternative A would have slightly lower visitor use than the other alternatives. Alternative A, 

however, has more area open to OHV use and fewer acres limited to OHV use on existing roads 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-33 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

than the other alternatives. Consequently, Alternative A may have higher OHV use levels than the 

other alternatives. Because OHV activity emissions are likely to dominate overall recreation-related 

emissions, Alternative A may have higher recreation-related emissions than the other alternatives. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

On-road and off-road vehicle use is the major source of air pollutant emissions associated with 

visitor activities. In addition to on-road vehicle travel, approximately 60 percent of visitors engage in 

some type of OHV use. Campfires, camp stoves, and small portable generators are additional 

sources of emissions associated with recreational visitor activities. Vehicle engines, campfires, camp 

stoves, and portable generators are sources of both criteria pollutant and greenhouse gas emissions. 

Under Alternative B, 1,460,200 acres would be open to OHV use. An additional 5,445,218 acres 

would have OHV use restricted to existing roads. Under Alternative B, 24,832 acres would be closed 

to OHV use. Three new special recreation management areas would be designated, and there would 

be more visitor outreach and educational programs than under Alternative A. Although no visitor 

use projections are available, it is possible that Alternative B would have slightly higher visitor use 

and slightly lower OHV use levels than Alternative A. It is unclear whether overall visitor use would 

be higher or lower than under Alternatives C and D. OHV use levels under Alternative B may be 

slightly higher than those under Alternatives C and D and slightly lower than those under 

Alternative A. Because OHV activity emissions are likely to dominate overall recreation-related 

emissions, Alternative B may have slightly lower recreation-related emissions than under Alternative 

A and slightly higher recreation-related emissions than under Alternatives C and D. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

On-road and off-road vehicle use is the major source of air pollutant emissions associated with 

visitor activities. In addition to on-road vehicle travel, approximately 60 percent of visitors engage in 

some type of OHV use. Campfires, camp stoves, and small portable generators are additional 

sources of emissions associated with recreational visitor activities. Vehicle engines, campfires, camp 

stoves, and portable generators are sources of both criteria pollutant and greenhouse gas emissions. 

Under Alternative C, no areas in the WDO would be designated as open to OHV use, but 7,143,177 

acres would have OHV use restricted to existing roads. Under Alternative C, 61,427 acres would be 

closed to OHV use. Under Alternative C, two new special recreation management areas would be 

designated, and there would be more visitor outreach and educational programs than under 

Alternative A. Although no visitor use projections are available, it is possible that Alternative C 

would have slightly higher visitor use than Alternative A and overall visitor use similar to 

Alternatives B and D. OHV use levels under Alternative C may be slightly lower than those under 

the other alternatives because there would be no areas open to off-road OHV use. Because OHV 

activity emissions are likely to dominate overall recreation-related emissions, Alternative C may have 

somewhat lower recreation-related emissions than the other alternatives. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

On-road and off-road vehicle use is the major source of air pollutant emissions associated with 

visitor activities. In addition to on-road vehicle travel, approximately 60 percent of visitors engage in 

some type of OHV use. Campfires, camp stoves, and small portable generators are additional 

sources of emissions associated with recreational visitor activities. Vehicle engines, campfires, camp 

stoves, and portable generators are sources of both criteria pollutant and greenhouse gas emissions. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-34 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Under Alternative D, 289,932 acres would be open to OHV use. An additional 6,878,592 acres 

would have OHV use restricted to existing roads. Under Alternative D, 35,483 acres would be 

closed to OHV use. Under Alternative D, three new special recreation management areas would be 

designated, and there would be more visitor outreach and educational programs than under 

Alternative A. Although no visitor use projections are available, it is possible that Alternative D 

would have slightly higher visitor use than Alternative A and overall visitor use similar to 

Alternatives B and C. OHV use levels under Alternative D may be slightly lower than those under 

Alternative B and slightly higher than those under Alternative C. Because OHV activity emissions 

are likely to dominate overall recreation-related emissions, Alternative D may have somewhat lower 

recreation-related emissions than Alternatives A and B and slightly higher recreation-related 

emissions than Alternative C. 

Effects from Renewable Energy Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Renewable energy programs include solar, wind, and biomass energy projects. The primary 

emissions impacts associated with solar and wind energy projects are related to fugitive dust and 

equipment engine emissions during facility construction and from vehicle traffic associated with 

facility operation and maintenance. Construction equipment and vehicle engines are sources of both 

criteria pollutant and greenhouse gas emissions. In addition to emissions from facility construction 

and operational traffic, biomass energy facilities would typically produce criteria pollutant and 

greenhouse gas emissions from fuel conversion processes or from direct biomass combustion. Any 

renewable energy project that would disturb more than 20 acres would be subject to Nevada surface 

area disturbance permit requirements and would require preparation of a fugitive dust control plan. 

Biomass energy projects would probably require a stationary source permit from the Nevada Bureau 

of Air Pollution Control. 

Effects from Transportation and Access Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Road maintenance activities and construction of new roadways would result in fugitive dust and 

equipment engine emissions. BLM road construction and road maintenance activities that would 

disturb more than 20 acres would be subject to Nevada surface area disturbance permit 

requirements and would require preparation of a fugitive dust control plan. Use of unpaved 

roadways in the WDO area would be an ongoing source of fugitive dust and vehicle engine 

emissions. 

Effects from Lands and Realty Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

While the alternatives differ in terms of policies and actions related to land sales and other land 

disposal actions, such actions and changes in land ownership per se have no air quality impacts. 

Because the eventual use of lands subject to disposal actions is not clear, no conclusions can be 

made concerning the indirect air quality effects of land sales and other land disposal actions. Other 

effects from lands and realty management are discussed separately for each alternative.

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-35 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Alternative A would not designate any lands as ROW avoidance or exclusion areas. Available 

information does not allow a determination of whether differences in the acreage of avoidance and 

exclusion areas would result in differences in air quality effects from future mineral and energy 

development. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Alternative B would designate 716,528 acres as ROW avoidance areas but would not designate any 

lands as exclusion areas. Available information does not allow a determination of whether 

differences in the acreage of avoidance and exclusion areas would result in differences in air quality 

effects from future mineral and energy development. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Alternative C would designate 869,645 acres as ROW avoidance areas and 1,279,481 acres as 

exclusion areas. Available information does not allow a determination of whether differences in the 

acreage of avoidance and exclusion areas would result in differences in air quality effects from future 

mineral and energy development. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Alternative D would designate 1,325,967 acres as ROW avoidance areas and 699,929 acres as 

exclusion areas. Available information does not allow a determination of whether differences in the 

acreage of avoidance and exclusion areas would result in differences in air quality effects from future 

mineral and energy development. 

Effects from ACEC/RNA Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

ACEC/RNA management policies have no identifiable air quality implications under any of the 

alternatives.

Effects from Backcountry Byways Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no effects common to all alternatives from backcountry byways management.

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Alternative A would evaluate three new backcountry byways for possible designation. Designated 

backcountry byways may encourage some visitor use that would not otherwise occur, thus resulting 

in a minor increase in vehicle traffic and resulting fugitive dust and vehicle engine emissions. Thus, 

backcountry byway designations under Alternative A might result in a minor increase in emissions 

from visitor vehicle traffic. Emissions from backcountry byway use under Alternative A would 

probably be similar to those under Alternative D and perhaps slightly higher than those under 

Alternatives B and C. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-36 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Alternative B does not identify any specific new backcountry byways for possible designation but 

would consider new backcountry byway designations to stimulate local economies. Designated 

backcountry byways may encourage some visitor use that would not otherwise occur, thus resulting 

in a minor increase in vehicle traffic and resulting fugitive dust and vehicle engine emissions. Thus, 

backcountry byway designations under Alternative B might result in a minor increase in emissions 

from visitor vehicle traffic. Emissions related to backcountry byway use under Alternative B would 

be slightly higher than those under Alternative C and slightly lower than those under Alternatives A 

and D. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Alternative C do not identify any specific new backcountry byways for possible designation but 

would consider new backcountry byway designations for areas currently receiving visitor use if such 

designations would not pose a risk to resources. Designated backcountry byways may encourage 

some visitor use that would not otherwise occur, thus resulting in a minor increase in vehicle traffic 

and resulting fugitive dust and vehicle engine emissions. Alternative C is likely to result in fewer new 

backcountry byway designations and smaller increases in emissions from visitor vehicle traffic than 

the other alternatives. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Alternative D would evaluate three new backcountry byways for possible designation. Designated 

backcountry byways may encourage some visitor use that would not otherwise occur, thus resulting 

in a minor increase in vehicle traffic and resulting fugitive dust and vehicle engine emissions. Thus, 

backcountry byway designations under Alternative D might result in a minor increase in emissions 

from visitor vehicle traffic. Emissions related to backcountry byway use under Alternative D would 

probably be similar to those under Alternative A and perhaps slightly higher than those under 

Alternatives B and C. 

Effects from National Trails Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no effects common to all alternatives from national trails management. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

OHV use generates fugitive dust and releases both criteria air pollutants and greenhouse gas 

pollutants from engine exhaust. Under Alternative A, national historic trails and their viewsheds 

would remain open to OHV use. Consequently, Alternative A might produce slightly more OHV 

fugitive dust and engine emissions than Alternatives C and D and about the same amount of OHV 

fugitive dust and engine emissions as Alternative B. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

OHV use generates fugitive dust and releases both criteria air pollutants and greenhouse gas 

pollutants from engine exhaust. Under Alternative B, national historic trails and their viewsheds 

would remain open to OHV use. Consequently, Alternative B might produce slightly more OHV 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-37 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

fugitive dust and engine emissions than Alternatives C and D, and about the same amount of OHV 

fugitive dust and engine emissions as Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

OHV use generates fugitive dust and releases both criteria air pollutants and greenhouse gas 

pollutants from engine exhaust. Under Alternative C, Class I segments of national historic trails 

would be closed to OHV use and other segments of national historic trails and their viewsheds 

would be classified as limited for OHV use. Consequently, Alternative C might produce slightly less 

OHV fugitive dust and engine emissions than Alternatives A and B and about the same amount of 

OHV fugitive dust and engine emissions as Alternative D. In addition, under Alternative C no 

mineral development surface occupancy would be allowed within a mile of the CNHT. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

OHV use generates fugitive dust and releases both criteria air pollutants and greenhouse gas 

pollutants from engine exhaust. Under Alternative D, Class I segments of national historic trails 

would be closed to OHV use and other segments of national historic trails and their viewsheds 

would be classified as limited for OHV use. Consequently, Alternative D might produce slightly less 

OHV fugitive dust and engine emissions than Alternatives A and B and about the same amount of 

OHV fugitive dust and engine emissions as Alternative C. In addition, under Alternative D no 

mineral development surface occupancy would be allowed within a mile of the CNHT. 

Effects from Wild and Scenic Rivers Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Wild and scenic rivers management policies have no identifiable air quality implications under any of 

the alternatives.

Effects from Wilderness Study Areas and Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Wilderness and wilderness study areas management policies have no identifiable air quality 

implications under any of the alternatives. 

Wilderness characteristics management policies have no identifiable air quality implications under 

any of the alternatives.

Effects from Watchable Wildlife Viewing Sites Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Watchable wildlife viewing sites management policies have no identifiable air quality implications 

under any of the alternatives.

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-38 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Effects from Public Health and Safety Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Public health and safety management policies have no identifiable air quality implications under any 

of the alternatives.

Effects from Sustainable Development Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no effects common to all alternatives from sustainable development management.

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Alternative A has no sustainable development policies and consequently would have no air quality 

impacts from sustainable development management. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Alternative B incorporates sustainable development objectives for disposal and reuse of lands 

previously used for mineral development. Such reuse could establish new sources of emissions 

associated with stationary sources and vehicle traffic. Any new industrial operations would likely be 

subject to air permit requirements from the Nevada Bureau of Air Pollution Control. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Alternative C incorporates sustainable development objectives for disposal and reuse of lands 

previously used for mineral development. Such reuse could establish new sources of emissions from 

stationary sources and vehicle traffic. Any new industrial operations would likely be subject to air 

permit requirements from the Nevada Bureau of Air Pollution Control. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Alternative D incorporates sustainable development objectives for disposal and reuse of lands 

previously used for mineral development. Such reuse could establish new sources of emissions from 

stationary sources and vehicle traffic. Any new industrial operations would likely be subject to air 

permit requirements from the Nevada Bureau of Air Pollution Control. 

Cumulative Effects 

Air Quality Impacts

Cumulative air quality impacts typically occur when multiple projects affect the same geographic 

areas at the same time or when sequential projects extend the duration of air quality impacts on a 

given area over a longer period of time. In addition, attainment of national ambient air quality 

standards for ozone and particulate matter require evaluation of conditions over three years. Thus, 

air pollution emissions that occurred in the recent past can affect attainment or nonattainment 

designations. The available air quality monitoring information for the WDO area (see Section 3.2.1) 

does not reveal any distinct trends in terms of peak ozone or particulate matter concentrations. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-39 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Industrial source air permits issued under the prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) program 

require an analysis of cumulative air quality degradation in potentially affected areas since the first 

PSD program permit was issued for the area affected by the new proposed facility. PSD increments 

established in the federal Clean Air Act apply to emissions of nitrogen oxides, sulfur oxides, and 

particulate matter. If the increment consumption modeling analysis required for a new stationary 

source indicates that the allowable degradation increment has been used by the cumulative effect of 

past and present emission sources, the requested stationary source permit cannot be approved. 

PSD increment consumption effects are the cumulative air quality consideration of greatest 

significance to the WDO area. PSD increments are established by hydrographic subarea. At present, 

most of the WDO area is not affected by emission sources that have triggered the tracking of 

nitrogen oxide, sulfur oxide, or particulate matter increment consumption. Six hydrographic 

subareas within the WDO area are currently subject to PSD increment consumption analyses under 

the PSD program: subarea 064 (Valmy area), subarea 072 (Imlay area), and four subareas that reach 

into the southern tip of the WDO area (subareas 076, 082, 083, and 101). PSD increment 

consumption issues have the potential for affecting future mineral and energy developments in 

portions of the WDO area. 

Climate Change

Greenhouse gas emissions from sources within the WDO area will contribute to cumulative climate 

change effects occurring in the region. Sources of greenhouse gas emissions in the WDO area 

include fossil-fueled power plants, wildfires and prescribed burns, vehicles and OHVs, construction 

for mineral and energy development projects, operational activities for mineral and energy 

development projects, and grazing livestock, wild horses, and burros. To the extent that these 

activities increase, greenhouse gas emissions are also likely to increase. 

Chambers (2008) notes that historical data shows an increase in mean annual temperature in the 

Great Basin, with most of the change resulting from higher minimum temperatures rather than 

higher maximum temperatures. Most portions of the Great Basin show a warming of 0.6 to 1.1 

degrees F over the past century. Regional climate models typically predict an additional warming of 

3.6 to 9 degrees F over the next century. Historical data also indicate an increase in annual 

precipitation amounts in the Great Basin over the past century, together with increased year-to-year 

variability in precipitation amounts, and a decrease in winter snowpack. These changes have resulted 

in earlier snowmelt, higher winter streamflow volumes, reduced spring peak volumes, and lower 

summer and fall streamflow volumes. Chambers (2008) also notes that while historical data indicate 

an increase in annual precipitation in the Great Basin, regional climate models tend to show little 

long-term change in precipitation amounts for the Great Basin as a whole, with some areas 

predicted to have increased precipitation amounts and other areas predicted to have reduced 

precipitation amounts. 

Over the long term, climate change may have indirect effects on emissions from wildfires and 

prescribed burns in the WDO area. These changes may also have indirect effects from greenhouse 

gas emissions associated with livestock grazing and wild horse and burro populations. Climate 

change will alter temperature, precipitation, and snowpack conditions, resulting in changes to 

vegetation, streamflow, and the flow of springs. Vegetation changes will in turn have an effect on 

wildfire frequency and intensity, the necessity for conducting prescribed burns, and forage 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-40 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-41 

availability. This could lead to changes in livestock grazing or changes in wild horse and burro 

populations. Climate change is likely to increase the spread of cheatgrass, which will increase the 

potential for wildfires. Increasing temperatures are likely to extend the duration of the wildfire 

season. 

4.2.2 Geology 

Summary 

This section is a discussion of the potential impacts of the alternatives on the geology and unique 

geologic resources of the WDO. Areas with geologic resources considered to be potentially unique 

include Lake Lahontan shore features (e.g., gravel bars or shore terraces), Lake Lahontan tufa 

mounds, Humboldt Range Arch, columnar basalt near Lava Beds, McFarlane Hot Spring, the 1915 

earthquake fault trace, Disaster Peak, Trego Mountain, and Pulpit Rock. 

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. 

Methods of Analysis 

Methods and Assumptions

The analysis of potential impacts on geologic resources is based on the expertise of BLM resource 

specialists at the WDO, review of existing literature, and geologic maps. 

Specific impacts on geologic resources are not always readily identifiable because some impacts on 

geology are difficult to separate from impacts on other resources that geology supports. Thus, the 

impacts on geology are often discussed, either implicitly or explicitly, in the impacts section of other 

resources, such as paleontology and scenic quality (visual resources). Effects are quantified where 

possible; in the absence of quantitative data, best professional judgment was used. 

The following assumptions regarding the resource base and management practices were considered 

in the analysis: 

• The greatest potential for impacts would be from direct large-scale disturbance activities; 

• All surface-disturbing activities include mitigation measures to reduce impacts on geologic 

resources. Analysis of impacts assumes that all mitigation measures are in place; 

• Vandalism can destroy a feature or reduce its resource value (e.g., visual resources); and 

• Education of the public increases support for protection of geologic resources but also 

increases visitation. 

The area of analysis for cumulative effects on geologic resources is northwestern Nevada. 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Effects from Air Quality Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no likely impacts on unique geologic resources resulting from air quality management 

objectives or actions under any of the alternatives. With respect to effects on unique geologic 

resources, all of the alternatives are essentially equivalent. 

Effects from Geology Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no effects common to all alternatives from geologic resource management. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Other than maintaining current OHV use within exclusion zones, there are no set management 

objectives or actions in Alternative A concerning unique geologic resources. Mitigations and 

restrictions are determined on a case-by-case basis. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Under Alternative B, the BLM would continue to evaluate sites containing unique geologic resources 

as to their significance and need for protection. 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. These measures include avoidance, reclamation, and other applicable use restrictions. 

Proposed activities that may impact unique geologic features would be authorized. Overall, unique 

geologic resources would be protected less under Alternative B than under Alternative A, where 

individual cases may include stronger limitations or mitigations. 

Within areas with unique geologic resources, OHV use would be designated as “Limited” on 

existing roads and trails. OHV travel directly impacts the geologic resource through surface 

disturbance and increase in erosion. Damage and vandalism to geologic resources are usually 

concentrated near roads and trails due to larger number of visitors and higher frequency of visits. 

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

and trails. Other geologic resources would be protected by these limitations, which would be greater 

than those under Alternative A, would be equivalent to those under Alternative D, and would be 

less than those under Alternative C. Materials would be produced and made available to educate the 

public about the unique geologic resources and encouraging them to visit and protect these 

resources. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Under Alternative C, the BLM would continue to evaluate sites containing unique geologic resources 

as to their significance and need for protection. Areas with unique geologic resources 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, even with a no surface occupancy (NSO) stipulation. The unique geologic 

resources within the exclusion zones would be protected from degradation and impairment by 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-42 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

restricting all mining activities. The protection of the unique geologic resources would be greatest 

under Alternative C. 

Proposed nondiscretionary activities that may affect geologic features would be authorized with 

appropriate mitigation measures to protect the values at risk, while discretionary activities that may 

affect geologic features would not be allowed. 

Withdrawing these areas from the General Mining Law would be pursued. The size of any mineral 

withdrawal would be commensurate with what is desirable to protect the values requiring the 

withdrawal. The unique geologic resources within the mineral withdrawals would be protected from 

degradation and impairment. 

Within the exclusion zones, OHV travel would be closed. OHV travel directly impacts the geologic 

resource through surface disturbance and increase in erosion. Damage and vandalism to geologic 

resources are usually concentrated near roads and trails due to larger number of visitors and higher 

frequency of visits. Impacts on unique geologic resources would be minimized. Other geologic 

resources would be protected by these limitations, which would be greater than those under 

Alternatives A, B, and D. Materials would be produced and made available to educate the public 

about the unique geologic resources and encouraging them to visit and protect these resources. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Under Alternative D, the BLM would continue to evaluate sites containing unique geologic 

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

would be designated as exclusion zones for ROWs and other discretionary actions. The areas would 

be closed to salable mineral disposal but would be available for leasable minerals exploration and 

development, with a NSO stipulation. Proposed activities that may impact geologic features would 

be authorized with mitigation measures to protect the values at risk. Damage to unique geologic 

resources would be minimized. The protection of the unique geologic resources would be overall 

less than under Alternative C, where all mining activities would be restricted, but would be greater 

than Alternatives A and B. 

The exclusion zones identified for unique geologic resources generally would be open for acquiring 

the rights to locatable minerals, but proposals for mineral operations in these areas would typically 

require special handling or would have additional limitations or stipulations applied to 

authorizations. The withdrawal of these areas from the General Mining Law would be pursued. The 

size of any mineral withdrawals would be commensurate with what is necessary to protect the values 

requiring the withdrawal. The unique geologic resources within the mineral withdrawals would be 

protected from degradation and impairment. These restrictions are equivalent to those under 

Alternative C and are greater than those under Alternatives A and B. 

Within the exclusion zones, OHV travel would be designated as “Limited” on existing roads and 

trails. OHV travel directly impacts the geologic resource through surface disturbance and increase in 

erosion. Damage and vandalism to geologic resources are usually concentrated near roads and trails 

due to larger number of visitors and higher frequency of visits. Impacts on unique geologic 

resources would be limited to those already damaged by existing roads and trails. Other geologic 

resources would be protected by these limitations. These limitations would be greater than those 

under Alternative A, would be equivalent to those under Alternative B, and would be less than those 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-43 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

under Alternative C. Materials would be produced and made available to educate the public about 

the unique geologic resources and encouraging them to visit and protect these resources. 

Effects from Soil Resources Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no likely impacts on unique geologic resources resulting from soil resources management 

objectives or actions under any of the alternatives. With respect to effects on unique geologic 

resources, all of the alternatives are essentially equivalent. 

Effects from Water Resources Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no likely impacts on unique geologic resources resulting from water resources 

management objectives or actions under any of the alternatives. With respect to effects on unique 

geologic resources, all of the alternatives are essentially equivalent. 

Effects from Vegetation—Forest/Woodland Products Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no likely impacts on unique geologic resources resulting from forest/woodland products 

management objectives or actions under any of the alternatives. With respect to effects on unique 

geologic resources, all of the alternatives are essentially equivalent. 

Effects from Vegetation—Weeds Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no likely impacts on unique geologic resources resulting from weeds management 

objectives or actions under any of the alternatives. With respect to effects on unique geologic 

resources, all of the alternatives are essentially equivalent. 

Effects from Chemical and Biological Control 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no likely impacts on unique geologic resources resulting from chemical and biological 

control management objectives or actions under any of the alternatives. With respect to effects on 

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

Effects from Vegetation—Rangeland Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no likely impacts on unique geologic resources resulting from rangeland management 

objectives or actions under any of the alternatives. With respect to effects on unique geologic 

resources, all of the alternatives are essentially equivalent. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-44 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Effects from Vegetation—Riparian and Wetlands Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no likely impacts on unique geologic resources resulting from riparian and wetlands 

management objectives or actions under any of the alternatives. With respect to effects on unique 

geologic resources, all of the alternatives are essentially equivalent. 

Effects from Fish and Wildlife Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no likely impacts on unique geologic resources resulting from fish and wildlife 

management objectives or actions under any of the alternatives. With respect to effects on unique 

geologic resources, all of the alternatives are essentially equivalent. 

Effects from Special Status Species Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no likely impacts on unique geologic resources resulting from special status species 

management objectives or actions under any of the alternatives. With respect to effects on unique 

geologic resources, all of the alternatives are essentially equivalent. 

Effects from Wild Horse and Burro Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no likely impacts on unique geologic resources resulting from wild horse and burro 

management objectives or actions under any of the alternatives. With respect to effects on unique 

geologic resources, all of the alternatives are essentially equivalent. 

Effects from Wildland Fire Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no likely impacts on unique geologic resources resulting from wildland fire management 

objectives or actions under any of the alternatives. With respect to effects on unique geologic 

resources, all of the alternatives are essentially equivalent. 

Effects from Cultural Resources Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no likely impacts on unique geologic resources resulting from cultural resource 

management objectives or actions under any of the alternatives. With respect to effects on unique 

geologic resources, all of the alternatives are essentially equivalent. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-45 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Effects from Tribal Consultation Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no likely impacts on unique geologic resources resulting from tribal consultation 

objectives or actions under any of the alternatives. With respect to effects on unique geologic 

resources, all of the alternatives are essentially equivalent. 

Effects from Paleontological Resources Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no likely impacts on unique geologic resources resulting from paleontological resources 

management objectives or actions under any of the alternatives. With respect to effects on unique 

geologic resources, all of the alternatives are essentially equivalent. 

Effects from Visual Resources Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no likely impacts on unique geologic resources resulting from visual resources 

management objectives or actions under any of the alternatives. With respect to effects on unique 

geologic resources, all of the alternatives are essentially equivalent. 

Effects from Cave and Karst Resources Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no likely impacts on unique geologic resources resulting from unique cave and karst 

resources management objectives or actions under any of the alternatives. With respect to effects on 

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

Effects from Livestock Grazing Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no likely impacts on unique geologic resources resulting from livestock grazing 

management objectives or actions under any of the alternatives. With respect to effects on unique 

geologic resources, all of the alternatives are essentially equivalent. 

Effects from Minerals Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no likely impacts on unique geologic resources resulting from minerals management 

objectives or actions under any of the alternatives. With respect to effects on unique geologic 

resources, all of the alternatives are essentially equivalent. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-46 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Effects from Recreation, Visitor Outreach, and Services Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no likely impacts on unique geologic resources resulting from recreation, visitor outreach, 

and services management objectives or actions under any of the alternatives. With respect to effects 

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

Effects from Renewable Energy Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no likely impacts on unique geologic resources resulting from renewable energy 

management objectives or actions under any of the alternatives. With respect to effects on unique 

geologic resources, all of the alternatives are essentially equivalent. 

Effects from Transportation and Access Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no likely impacts on unique geologic resources resulting from transportation and access 

management objectives or actions under any of the alternatives. With respect to effects on unique 

geologic resources, all of the alternatives are essentially equivalent. 

Effects from Lands and Realty Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no likely impacts on unique geologic resources resulting from lands and realty 

management objectives or actions under any of the alternatives. With respect to effects on unique 

geologic resources, all of the alternatives are essentially equivalent. 

Effects from ACEC/RNA Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no likely impacts on unique geologic resources resulting from ACEC/RNA management 

objectives or actions under any of the alternatives. With respect to effects on unique geologic 

resources, all of the alternatives are essentially equivalent. 

Effects from Backcountry Byways Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no likely impacts on unique geologic resources resulting from backcountry byways 

management objectives or actions under any of the alternatives. With respect to effects on unique 

geologic resources, all of the alternatives are essentially equivalent. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-47 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Effects from National Trails Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no likely impacts on unique geologic resources resulting from national trails management 

objectives or actions under any of the alternatives. With respect to effects on unique geologic 

resources, all of the alternatives are essentially equivalent. 

Effects from Wild and Scenic Rivers Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no likely impacts on unique geologic resources resulting from wild and scenic rivers 

management objectives or actions under any of the alternatives. With respect to effects on unique 

geologic resources, all of the alternatives are essentially equivalent. 

Effects from Wilderness Study Areas and Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no likely impacts on unique geologic resources resulting from wilderness study areas or 

areas with wilderness characteristics management objectives or actions under any of the alternatives. 

With respect to effects on unique geologic resources, all of the alternatives are essentially equivalent. 

Effects from Watchable Wildlife Viewing Sites Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no likely impacts on unique geologic resources resulting from watchable wildlife viewing 

sites management objectives or actions under any of the alternatives. With respect to effects on 

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

Effects from Public Health and Safety Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no likely impacts on unique geologic resources resulting from public health and safety 

management objectives or actions under any of the alternatives. With respect to effects on unique 

geologic resources, all of the alternatives are essentially equivalent. 

Effects from Sustainable Development Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no likely impacts on unique geologic resources resulting from sustainable development 

management objectives or actions under any of the alternatives. With respect to effects on unique 

geologic resources, all of the alternatives are essentially equivalent. 

Cumulative Effects 

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 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-48 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-49 

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

protection of specific identified resources. 

4.2.3 Soil Resources 

Summary 

This section presents potential impacts of the alternatives on the soil resources in the WDO. (See 

Chapter 3 for a more detailed discussion of soil resources in the WDO.) 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. 

Methods of Analysis 

Methods and Assumptions

The analysis of potential impacts on soil resources is based on the expertise of BLM resource 

specialists at the WDO and a review of literature and soil resource maps. 

Impacts on soil resources are from management actions related to land use, grazing, fire 

management, recreation use, OHV travel, and other resources. Management actions for the other 

resources would vary the amount of land available for surface-disturbing activities and those that 

could impact the soil resources. Changing activities that would increase erosion would be mitigated 

by implementing BMPs and SOPs (Appendix B) through reclamation or environmental 

enhancement activities to stabilize or maintain soil processes. Effects are quantified where possible; 

in the absence of quantitative data, best professional judgment is used. 

The following assumptions regarding the resource base and management practices were considered 

in the analysis: 

• Wind erosion has the greatest impact on soil resources within the WDO. Actions that 

decrease the ability of the soil resources to withstand the wind have the greatest potential for 

impacts. These actions include those that remove existing vegetative cover or that actually 

disturb the soil itself. 

• Roads and trails contribute to soil compaction and erosion. Higher road and trail densities 

would result in more adverse impacts on soil resources. Roads and trails that receive more 

traffic are at greater risk for soil erosion unless they are improved. 

• All surface-disturbing activities include mitigation and SOPs and BMPs (Appendix B) to 

reduce impacts on soil resources. 

The area of analysis for cumulative effects on soil resources is defined as the WDO. Approximately 

88 percent of the RMP area is meeting the soil standard. Areas defined as not meeting the soil 

standard are “altered or disturbed land cover types” (eight percent) and “non-vegetated cover types” 

(four percent). Altered or disturbed land cover types include recent burns, mines or quarries, and 

invasive and noxious weeds species. Nonvegetated cover types include primarily dune lands and 

playas. 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Effects from Air Quality Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives 

There are no likely impacts on soil resources resulting from air quality management objectives or 

actions under any of the alternatives. With respect to effects on soil resources, all of the alternatives 

are essentially equivalent. Air quality mitigation measures include dust suppression requirements, 

which would reduce wind erosion of soils. 

Effects from Geology Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives 

There are no likely impacts on soil resources resulting from geology management objectives or 

actions under any of the alternatives. With respect to effects on soil resources, all of the alternatives 

are essentially equivalent. 

Effects from Soil Resource Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives 

Small-scale activities, including monitoring activities, small construction, implementation, and 

maintenance activities, and fence building with less than one acre of surface disturbance, involve 

short-term increases in erosion and soil compaction. Due to the small size of the areas, these 

activities would have negligible impacts on soil resources. 

Under all alternatives, erosion would be reduced on areas with a good perennial grass or forb 

understory (late seral). These areas are expected to be maintained and improved, resulting in reduced 

erosion, natural fire cycle returned, and reduced emergency stabilization. Also, burned area 

rehabilitation treatments would be reduced. 

Research projects are encouraged in the WDO to gain a better understanding of the ecological 

processes and to improve rehabilitation and reclamation treatments. Research projects affect soil 

resources; those of less than 100 acres would have a negligible impact on soil resources, and research 

plots greater than 100 acres would have negligible or minor impact on soil resources, depending on 

the treatment implemented. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Soil erosion would be reduced by maintaining and improving the vegetative cover in areas 

designated as having high erosion susceptibility. Natural processes, such as plant growth, litter 

accumulation, and biological crust formation would be encouraged; moisture retention in the soil 

resources would be maintained. BMPs and erosion control techniques, such as seeding, straw bales, 

and matting, would be required. Reduced erosion results in less impact on water courses and less 

burial of biological soil crusts and reduces loss of growth material. 

Activities that would result in trampling or excessive shearing of biological soil crusts would be 

minimized, especially when soil surfaces are dry, as appropriate for the soil type. These actions 

would reduce the loss of biological soil crust and would protect against increased erosion and loss of 

growth media. These mitigations are greater than those discussed under Alternative B. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-50 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Land reclamation would be pursued in disturbed areas, thereby improving soil conditions. 

Reclamation conditions and methods are determined on a case-by-case basis. 

The Sierra Front/NW RAC-RAC Standards and Guidelines and site-specific allotment objectives 

would be used for livestock grazing authorizations. These guidelines include specific directions to 

prevent erosion and protect soil resources. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Soil erosion would be reduced by maintaining and improving the vegetative cover in areas 

designated as having high erosion susceptibility. The components of soil surface, vegetation, soil 

litter, and biologic crusts would be maintained or improved rather than just encouraged as under 

Alternative A, thereby increasing protection against erosion, increasing moisture retention, and 

improving the organic content of the soils. BMPs and erosion control techniques, such as seeding, 

straw bales, and matting would be required, further reducing erosion, burial of biological soil crusts, 

and loss of growth material. 

No seasonal restrictions for activities that would result in compaction of soils with biological crusts 

would be applied. While multiple uses that could result in soil compaction would be allowed, adverse 

effects would be mitigated. 

Land reclamation would be pursued in disturbed areas. The best available material for growth 

medium would be salvaged for surface disturbance and reclamation. Reclamation would improve the 

existing soil resources to conditions similar to those existing before the surface-disturbing activity. 

Soil amendments to improve the organic or nutrient or cohesive properties of the soils would not be 

applied. 

The Sierra Front/NW RAC-RAC Standards and Guidelines and site-specific allotment objectives 

would be used for livestock grazing authorizations. These guidelines include specific directions to 

prevent erosion and protect soil resources. The guidelines would be applied in the same manner as 

under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Soil processes would be maintained, protected, and improved in ways that are appropriate to soil 

types, climate, and land form. The vegetative cover would be improved by increasing litter, 

biological soil crusts, and vegetation as appropriate for soil type increasing protection against 

erosion, increasing moisture retention, and improving the organic content of the soil resources. 

These mitigations would be applied generally instead of just in areas designated as having high 

erosion susceptibility as under Alternatives A and B. BMPs (Appendix B), SOPs (Appendix B), and 

mitigation measures would be applied to all BLM and BLM-authorized activities to maintain, 

protect, or reduce adverse impacts on soil resources. 

Surface disturbances to biological soil crusts would be eliminated or fully mitigated when the soil 

surfaces are dry. Surface disturbances within high potential biological crust areas would be seasonally 

eliminated, and soil resources would be protected from excessive compaction by implementing 

seasonal use restrictions. These actions would reduce the loss of biological soil crust and would 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-51 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

protect against increased erosion and loss of growth media. Moisture retention in the soils would be 

maintained. These mitigations are greater than those under Alternatives A, B, and D. 

Reclamation would be required for all surface-disturbing activities. Growth medium for surface 

disturbance and reclamation would be salvaged or imported, and soil resources would be improved 

by applying natural or organic amendments. Importing growth media from within the individual 

mining areas would not result in disturbance and loss of growth media in other areas. Reclamation 

would improve the existing soils to conditions similar to or better than those existing before the 

surface-disturbing activity through the use of natural and organic soil amendments to improve the 

soil’s organic or nutrient or cohesive properties. By applying the Land Health Standards (e.g., Sierra 

Front/NW RAC Standards and Guidelines and site-specific allotment objectives) to land use 

authorizations instead of just livestock grazing authorizations, as under Alternatives A and B, a 

larger amount of soils would be protected and impacts on soil resources would be minimized. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Soil processes would be maintained, protected, and improved in ways that are appropriate to soil 

types, climate, and land form. The vegetative cover would be improved by maintaining existing 

vegetative cover, litter, biological soil crusts, and vegetation, as appropriate for soil type, increasing 

protection against erosion, increasing moisture retention, and improving the organic content of the 

soil resources. BMPs (State of Nevada), SOPs (Appendix B), and mitigation measures would be 

applied to all BLM and BLM-authorized activities to maintain, protect, or reduce adverse impacts on 

soil resources. These mitigations are equivalent to those under Alternative C. 

Activities that would include trampling or excessive shearing of biological soil crusts would be 

minimized in areas having inadequate surface litter or vegetation cover. Moist soils with high 

compaction potential from surface disturbance activities would be protected by implementing 

seasonal use restrictions on a case-by-case basis. These mitigations are greater than those under 

Alternatives A and B but are less than those under Alternative C. 

Surface-disturbing activities would be managed to ensure reclamation, where appropriate. The best 

available material for growth medium would be salvaged for surface disturbance and reclamation. 

Soil resources would be improved by applying soil amendments (fertilizers, mulch), where 

appropriate. 

By applying the Land Health Standards (e.g., Sierra Front/NW RAC Standards and Guidelines and 

site-specific allotment objectives) to land use authorizations, instead of just livestock grazing 

authorizations, as under Alternatives A and B, a larger amount of soil resources would be protected 

and impacts on soil resources would be minimized. 

Effects from Water Resources Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives 

There are no likely impacts on soil resources resulting from water resources management objectives 

or actions under any of the alternatives. With respect to effects on soil resources, all of the 

alternatives are essentially equivalent. Priority watersheds may reduce the levels or degree of soil 

disturbance to ensure that actions are compatible with the original purpose of the priority watershed. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-52 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Effects from Vegetation—Forest/Woodland Products Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives 

There are no likely impacts on soil resources resulting from forest/woodland products management 

objectives or actions under any of the alternatives. With respect to effects on soil resources, all of 

the alternatives are essentially equivalent. Vegetation treatments may expose soils to wind or water 

erosion, and impacts would depend on the nature and degree of disturbance. 

Effects from Vegetation—Weeds Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives 

There are no likely impacts on soil resources resulting from weeds management objectives or actions 

under any of the alternatives. With respect to effects on soil resources, all of the alternatives are 

essentially equivalent. 

Effects from Chemical and Biological Control 

Effects Common to All Alternatives 

There are no effects common to all alternatives from chemical and biological control management. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Alternative A would allow the use of herbicides and pesticides. Herbicides would produce small 

quantities of soil pollutants, which would dissipate in the long term. Pesticides would produce small 

quantities of volatile organic compounds, which would dissipate in the long term. Chemical impacts 

from the use of herbicides and pesticides are minor. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Alternative B would allow the use of herbicides and pesticides. Herbicides would produce small 

quantities of soil pollutants, which would dissipate in the long term. Pesticides would produce small 

quantities of volatile organic compounds, which would dissipate in the long term. Chemical impacts 

from the use of herbicides and pesticides are minor. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

No herbicides or pesticides would be used under Alternative C, thereby eliminating the release of 

volatile organic compounds into soil resources. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Alternative D would allow the use of herbicides and pesticides. Herbicides would produce small 

quantities of soil pollutants, which would dissipate in the long term. Pesticides would produce small 

quantities of volatile organic compounds, which would dissipate in the long term. Chemical impacts 

from the use of herbicides and pesticides are minor. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-53 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Effects from Vegetation—Rangeland Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives 

Small-scale activities, including livestock impoundments, vegetation mowing, and seed collection, 

with less than one acre of surface disturbance, involve short-term increases in erosion and soil 

compaction. Due to the small size of the areas, these activities would have negligible impacts on soil 

resources. 

Grazing plans or grazing permit renewals or annual grazing authorizations would identify actions to 

maintain or improve soil conditions. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Vegetation cover under Alternative A is improved by using a diversity of native and introduced 

grasses, forbs, and shrub seeds and seedlings. Under Alternative A, native seed is preferred over 

introduced seed. Vegetation objectives are based on maintaining and improving desirable perennial 

vegetation cover and densities. Alternative A identifies cover and density objectives to be met over 

three years for emergency stabilization and burn area rehabilitation. As discussed under Effects from 

Soil Resource Management above, the Sierra Front/NW RAC-RAC Standards and Guidelines and 

site-specific allotment objectives would be used for livestock grazing authorizations. These 

guidelines include specific directions to prevent erosion and protect soil resources.

Alternative A has a greater reduction in erosion than Alternative B. Vegetation management 

objectives are more stringent under Alternative A than under B. Soil processes would be improved 

at a faster rate than under Alternative B. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Vegetation cover under Alternative B is improved by using introduced grasses, and forbs. Under 

Alternative B, primarily introduced seed would be used. Vegetation objectives are based on 

maintaining and improving desirable perennial vegetation cover and densities. As discussed under 

Effects from Soil Resource Management above, the Sierra Front/NW RAC- Standards and 

Guidelines and site-specific allotment objectives would be used for livestock grazing authorizations. 

These guidelines include specific directions to prevent erosion and protect soil resources. The 

guidelines would be applied in the same manner as under Alternative A. 

Alternative B has a two-year closure for livestock/WHB grazing to reduce cheatgrass. Seeding 

success is anticipated to be less than 20 percent under Alternative B versus greater than 75 percent 

under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Under Alternative C, rehabilitation seedings would be limited based on the amount of native seed 

available. In most years, native seed supplies are exhausted because of demand, so large areas would 

be untreated and would be dominated by invasive plants. Most of the vegetation communities do 

not have the potential for natural recovery because they lack perennial understory grasses and forbs. 

Under Alternative C, wildland fires would increase and expand, resulting in increased erosion. 

Alternative C, Option 1, five-year livestock/WHB grazing fire closure, would not improve soil 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-54 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

processes where desirable perennial understory plants are lacking. Alternative C, Option 2, 

elimination of livestock grazing, would increase fuels on areas lacking potential for natural recovery. 

Objectives for soil resources are most stringent under Alternative C. Prescribed fire would not be 

used under Alternative C, so potential erosion from prescribed fire would be eliminated. 

As discussed under Effects from Soil Resource Management above, applying the Land Health 

Standards (e.g., Sierra Front/NW RAC Standards and Guidelines and site-specific allotment 

objectives) to land use authorizations instead of just livestock grazing authorizations, as under 

Alternatives A and B, a larger amount of soils would be protected and impacts on soil resources 

would be minimized. Alternative A has a greater reduction in erosion than Alternative C. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Vegetation cover under Alternative D is improved by using a diversity of native and introduced 

grasses, forbs, and shrub seeds and seedlings. Under Alternative D, native seed is preferred over 

introduced seed. Vegetation objectives are based on maintaining and improving desirable perennial 

vegetation cover and densities. Under Alternative D, an increase in perennial vegetation would 

reduce erosion by increasing desirable cover and would increase years between fires (fire cycle) by 

reducing annual invasive species. As discussed above, under Effects from Soil Resource 

Management, applying the Land Health Standards (e.g., Sierra Front/NW RAC Standards and 

Guidelines and site-specific allotment objectives) to land use authorizations instead of just 

livestock/WHB grazing authorizations, as under Alternatives A and B, a larger amount of soils 

would be protected and impacts on soil resources would be minimized. 

Under Alternative D, desirable perennial vegetation cover would increase, reducing erosion, and the 

fire cycle would be reduced. Desirable perennial vegetation would improve under Alternative D at a 

faster rate than under Alternative A. Vegetation management objectives are more stringent under 

Alternative D than A. 

Effects from Vegetation—Riparian and Wetlands Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives 

There are no likely impacts on soil resources resulting from riparian and wetlands management 

objectives or actions under any of the alternatives. With respect to effects on soil resources, all of 

the alternatives are essentially equivalent. Managing stream bank alteration and trampling would 

reduce impacts on soils within riparian areas. 

Effects from Fish and Wildlife Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives 

Small-scale activities, including wildlife water development with less than one acre of surface 

disturbance, involve short-term increases in erosion and soil compaction. Due to the small size of 

the areas, these activities would have negligible impacts on soil resources. 

There are no likely impacts on soil resources resulting from fish and wildlife management objectives 

or actions under any of the alternatives. With respect to effects on soil resources, all of the 

alternatives are essentially equivalent. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-55 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Effects from Special Status Species Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives 

Where the individual species and habitat management plans include grazing restrictions and vehicle 

use restrictions, their implementation would protect soil resources by reducing loss of vegetative 

cover, direct disturbance of soils, and trampling of biological crusts. Otherwise, there are no likely 

impacts on soil resources resulting from special status species management objectives or actions 

under any of the alternatives. With respect to effects on soil resources, all of the alternatives are 

essentially equivalent. 

Effects from Wild Horse and Burro Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives 

Small-scale activities, including wild horse and burros gathers and trap sites with less than one acre 

of surface disturbance, involve short-term increases in erosion and soil compaction. Due to the 

small size of the areas, these activities would have negligible impacts on soil resources. 

There are no likely impacts on soil resources resulting from wild horse and burro management 

objectives or actions at or below AML under any of the alternatives. With respect to effects on soil 

resources, all of the alternatives are essentially equivalent. 

Effects from Wildland Fire Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives 

Wildland fire within the WDO reduces plant cover, litter, and biological soil crust, making soil 

resources highly susceptible to erosion. Emergency stabilization and burned area rehabilitation 

treatments would be implemented to reduce these impacts. Wildland fire increases wind erosion, 

which may be a minor to substantial impact on public health, depending on fire location, especially 

among sensitive groups, such as children, the elderly, or individuals with asthma or emphysema. 

Wildland fire increases water erosion, which may be either a minor or greater impact. Impacts from 

erosion are greatest the first year after the fire, diminishing to minor after three years as vegetation is 

reestablished. Water erosion can be substantial on limited areas, especially if the sediment impacts 

residential or industrial areas and transportation systems. These impacts would occur until 

vegetation becomes fully established. 

Fire impacts would include reduced soil nutrients from wind and water erosion, loss of shrubs or 

deep-rooted plants, reducing nutrient cycling, reduced vegetation productivity, increased compaction 

from loss of surface litter, and reduced organic matter and elimination of biological crusts, reducing 

nutrient capture. 

Initiation of the actions would ensure timely stabilization of watersheds, reduced flood hazards, 

replacement or reestablishment of vegetation through seeding or recovery of perennial plants. The 

reestablishment of vegetative cover, litter, and viable root mass would reduce the impacts of wind 

and water erosion. Stabilization of watersheds would prevent undue loss of topsoil, and site 

potential would be maintained. Short-term increases in water and wind erosion are unavoidable in 

the first year following a wildfire. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-56 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Effects from Cultural Resources Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives 

Small-scale activities, including excavations of cultural resources sites for data recovery with less 

than one acre of surface disturbance involve short-term increases in erosion and soil compaction. 

Due to the small size of the areas, these activities would have negligible impacts on soil resources. 

Effects from Tribal Consultation Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives 

There are no likely impacts on soil resources resulting from tribal consultation objectives or actions 

under any of the alternatives. With respect to effects on soil resources, all of the alternatives are 

essentially equivalent. 

Effects from Paleontological Resources Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives 

Small-scale activities, including excavations of paleontology sites for data recovery with less than one 

acre of surface disturbance, involve short-term increases in erosion and soil compaction. Due to the 

small size of the areas, these activities would have negligible impacts on soil resources. 

There are no likely impacts on soil resources resulting from paleontological resources management 

objectives or actions under any of the alternatives. With respect to effects on soil resources, all of 

the alternatives are essentially equivalent. 

Effects from Visual Resources Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives 

There are no likely impacts on soil resources resulting from visual resources management objectives 

or actions under any of the alternatives. With respect to effects on soil resources, all of the 

alternatives are essentially equivalent. 

Effects from Cave and Karst Resources Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives 

There are no likely impacts on soil resources resulting from soil resources management objectives or 

actions under any of the alternatives. With respect to effects on soil resources, all of the alternatives 

are essentially equivalent. 

Effects from Livestock Grazing Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

The impacts of grazing to soils are discussed above in the larger context of Effects from Soil 

Resource Management and Effects from Vegetation - Rangeland Management. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-57 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Effects from Minerals Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives 

Construction activities that involve geothermal, oil and gas, and mine development, material pits and 

power plants would remove vegetation, thereby increasing erosion and soil compaction in the short 

term. Erosion would involve impacts from negligible to greater, depending on the level of 

disturbance and the soil type. Long-term mitigations and reclamation are common to all alternatives. 

With reclamation and mitigation, impacts would be minor. Differences among types and degree of 

reclamation and mitigations are discussed below. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Mine operators would be encouraged to minimize disturbance to biological soil crusts and to reduce 

soil erosion by using BMPs (Appendix B), SOPs (Appendix B), and erosion control techniques, such 

as seeding, placing straw bales, and matting. The BLM would pursue land reclamation in disturbed 

areas. 

Under Alternative A, 418,938 acres would be closed to salable mineral disposition, 446,887 acres 

would be closed to fluid leasable minerals activities, 416,652 acres would be closed to solid leasable 

minerals activities, and 6,543 acres would be withdrawn from locatable mineral activities. Soil 

resources would be protected from related mineral development within these areas, reducing the 

potential for impacts. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Mine operators would be encouraged to minimize disturbance to biological soil crusts and to reduce 

soil erosion by using BMPs and erosion control techniques, such as seeding, placing straw bales, and 

matting. Multiple uses would be allowed with mitigations without seasonal closures. The BLM 

would pursue land reclamation in disturbed areas. Those involved in surface-disturbing activities 

would be required to salvage the best available material for use as growth medium for reclamation. 

Soil resources in any areas with limitations on surface disturbance would be protected (see detail 

below). 

Under Alternative B, 418,938 acres would be closed to salable mineral disposition, 1,132,594 acres 

would be closed to fluid leasable minerals activities, 1,124,266 acres would be closed to solid leasable 

minerals activities, and 6,543 acres would be withdrawn from locatable mineral activities. Soil 

resources would be protected from related mineral development within these areas, thereby reducing 

the potential for impacts. Alternative B includes the same amount of land closed to the various 

mining activities, except for solid leasable minerals activities. For these mineral activities, more area 

would be closed under Alternative B than under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Mining activities would be required to maintain, protect, or reduce adverse impacts on soil 

resources. Surface disturbances within high potential biological crust areas would be seasonally 

eliminated. The BLM would require that all land where the surface has been disturbed to be 

reclaimed, which would require salvaging or importing growth medium. Soil resources in any areas 

with limitations on surface disturbance would be protected (see detail below). 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-58 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Under Alternative C, 837,049 acres would be closed to salable mineral disposition, 4,455,028 acres 

would be closed to fluid leasable minerals activities, 4,455,645 acres would be closed to solid leasable 

minerals activities, and 281,892 acres would be withdrawn from locatable mineral activities. Soil 

resources would be protected from related mineral development within these areas, thereby reducing 

the potential for impacts. More land would be closed to the various types of mining activities under 

Alternative C than under Alternatives A, B, or D. 

In addition, the area of the George Lund Petrified Forest mineral withdrawal would be enlarged to a 

total of 141 acres, further reducing potential impacts on soil resources. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Mining activities would be encouraged to maintain, protect, or reduce adverse impacts on soil 

resources. Where appropriate, the BLM would manage surface-disturbing activities to ensure 

reclamation. Those engaged in surface-disturbing activities would be required to salvage the best 

available material for use as growth medium for reclamation. Soil resources located in any areas with 

limitations on surface disturbance would be protected (see detail below). 

Under Alternative D, 743,301 acres would be closed to salable mineral disposition, 1,198,464 acres 

would be closed to fluid leasable minerals activities, 1,198,694 acres would be closed to solid leasable 

minerals activities, and 27,941 acres would be withdrawn from locatable mineral activities. Soil 

resources would be protected from related mineral development within these areas, reducing the 

potential for impacts. More land would be closed to the various types of mining activities under 

Alternative D than under Alternatives A or B, but less land than under Alternative C. 

In addition, the area of the George Lund Petrified Forest mineral withdrawal would be enlarged to a 

total of 141 acres, further reducing potential impacts on soil resources. 

Effects from Recreation, Visitor Outreach, and Services Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

SRMAs are public land units that provide specific structured recreational activities, experience, and 

benefit opportunities. Increased areas designated as SRMAs could affect soils by increased vehicle 

and pedestrian traffic and associated increases in compaction and erosion. Mitigations, including 

limits to new roads, vehicle access, trails, and activities, would be considered to limit impacts on 

resources. Impacts from OHV use are discussed below. There are no likely impacts on soil from 

recreation, visitor outreach, and services management objectives or actions under any of the 

alternatives. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Alternative A includes only the existing Pine Forest SRMA (37,259 acres) and would result in the 

least soil disturbance associated with SRMAs. Under Alternative A, OHV use is the least restricted 

which would result in a minor increase in erosion over the other alternatives. Under Alternative A, 

the Winnemucca Sand Dunes RMZ would not be implemented resulting in less erosion in that 

specific area. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-59 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Under Alternatives B and D, the new SRMAs of Winnemucca (151,824 acres), Granite Range 

(95,972 acres), and Nightingale (925,593 acres) would be designated, and the Pine Forest SRMA 

would be expanded to 98,874 acres. Through increased vehicle and pedestrian traffic and associated 

increases in compaction and erosion, these alternatives would have the most impact on soils 

associated with SRMAs. Under Alternative B, the Winnemucca Sand Dunes RMZ would be 

implemented and OHV use would increase, thereby increasing the potential impact on soil resources 

by removing vegetation and increasing blowing soil to State Highways 95 and Delaney subdivision. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Under Alternative C, the new SRMAs of Winnemucca (151,824 acres) and Granite Range (95,972 

acres) would be designated. The Pine Forest SRMA would be expanded to 98,874 acres and would 

have more impacts on soils associated with SRMAs, through increased vehicle and pedestrian traffic 

and associated increases in compaction and erosion, than under Alternative A but fewer impacts 

than under Alternatives B and D. Under Alternative C, OHV use would be restricted, having least 

impact on soil resources. Under Alternative C, the Winnemucca Sand Dunes RMZ would not be 

implemented resulting in less erosion in that specific area. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Under Alternatives B and D, the new SRMAs of Winnemucca (151,824 acres), Granite Range 

(95,972 acres), and Nightingale (925,593 acres) would be designated, and the Pine Forest SRMA 

would be expanded to 98,874 acres. Through increased vehicle and pedestrian traffic and associated 

increases in compaction and erosion, these alternatives would have the most impact on soils 

associated with SRMAs. Under Alternatives B and D, the Winnemucca Sand Dunes RMZ would be 

implemented and OHV use would increase, thereby increasing the potential impact on soil resources 

by removing vegetation and increasing blowing soil to State Highways 95 and Delaney subdivision. 

Effects from Renewable Energy Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no likely impacts on soil resources resulting from renewable energy management 

objectives or actions under any of the alternatives. Implementing any projects would include projectspecific mitigation and impacts. With respect to the effects on soil resources, all of the alternatives 

are essentially equivalent. 

Effects from Transportation and Access Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Roads and trails contribute to soil compaction and erosion; higher road and trail densities would 

result in more adverse impacts on soil resources; roads and trails that receive more traffic are at 

greater risk for soil erosion. 

Small-scale activities, including road maintenance with less than one acre of surface disturbance, 

involve short-term increases in erosion and soil compaction. Due to the small size of the areas, these 

activities would have negligible impacts on soil resources. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-60 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Effects from Lands and Realty Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Various construction activities and rights-of-way authorized under lands and realty management 

(such as geothermal and wind power, communication sites, transmission lines, and pipeline projects) 

would impact soil resources. Land sales could affect soil resources by changing the vegetative cover 

through agricultural, urbanization, or industrial development. Erosion would increase during 

construction and would be short term. Erosion would involve impacts from negligible to greater, 

depending on the level of disturbance and the soil type. 

Effects from ACEC/RNA Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Under all alternatives, the BLM would continue to maintain the Osgood Mountains ACEC as closed 

to mineral disposal (salables). The proposed ACECs and the Osgood Mountains ACEC would 

continue to be open for acquiring rights to locatable minerals but would have additional limitations 

or stipulations applied to operations authorizations. The BLM would continue to pursue a mineral 

withdrawal for the Osgood Mountains ACEC. The Pine Forest mineral withdrawal and designated 

WSAs would be closed to salable mineral activities. 

Other than the conditions discussed above, there are no restrictions under any of the alternatives to 

the amount of land open to mining or limits to mining, based on ACEC/RNA management 

objectives or actions. The impacts from mining and the mitigations and reclamation requirements 

are discussed under Effects from Soil Resource Management and Effects from Minerals 

Management above. Erosion would be mitigated by implementing BMPs (Appendix B) and SOPs 

(Appendix B) through reclamation or environmental enhancement activities to stabilize or maintain 

soil processes. 

There are no likely impacts on soil resources resulting from ACEC/RNA management objectives or 

actions under any of the alternatives. With respect to effects on soil resources, all of the alternatives 

are essentially equivalent. 

Effects from Backcountry Byways Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no likely impacts on soil resources resulting from backcountry byways management 

objectives or actions under any of the alternatives. With respect to effects on soil resources, all of 

the alternatives are essentially equivalent. 

Effects from National Trails Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no likely impacts on soil resources resulting from national trails management objectives or 

actions under any of the alternatives. With respect to effects on soil resources, all of the alternatives 

are essentially equivalent. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-61 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Effects from Wild and Scenic Rivers Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no likely impacts on soil resources resulting from wild and scenic rivers management 

objectives or actions under any of the alternatives. With respect to effects on soil resources, all of 

the alternatives are essentially equivalent. 

Effects from Wilderness Study Areas and Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no likely impacts on soil resources resulting from wilderness, wilderness study areas, or 

areas with wilderness characteristics management objectives or actions under any of the alternatives. 

With respect to effects on soil resources, all of the alternatives are essentially equivalent. 

Effects from Watchable Wildlife Viewing Sites Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no likely impacts on soil resources resulting from watchable wildlife viewing sites 

management objectives or actions under any of the alternatives. With respect to effects on soil 

resources, all of the alternatives are essentially equivalent. 

Effects from Public Health and Safety Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no likely impacts on soil resources resulting from public health and safety management 

objectives or actions under any of the alternatives. With respect to effects on soil resources, all of 

the alternatives are essentially equivalent. 

Effects from Sustainable Development Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

The identified sustainable development projects all involve areas where the soil resources have 

already been disturbed. Through concentrating efforts to reuse areas, disturbance to soils would be 

less because already disturbed areas would be used instead of disturbing new areas. Soils would 

remain vulnerable to erosion over a longer period of time in reuse areas. These impacts would be 

reduced, subject to concurrent reclamation. There are no likely impacts on soil resources resulting 

from sustainable development management objectives or actions under any of the alternatives. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Other than the conditions discussed above, under Alternative A, there are no likely impacts on soil 

resources resulting from sustainable development management objectives or actions. With respect to 

effects on soils resources, Alternatives A, C, and D are essentially equivalent. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-62 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-63 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Under Alternative B, guidance and standards for reclamation and closure, for operators of sites that 

have a reasonable prospect for economic use, would be deferred or delayed for up to five years from 

the end of active mining. Soils in reuse areas would remain vulnerable to erosion over a longer 

period of time under Alternative B, which would be less protective of soils resources than would 

Alternatives A, C, and D. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Other than the conditions discussed above, there are no likely impacts on soil resources resulting 

from sustainable development management objectives or actions under Alternative C. With respect 

to effects on soils resources, Alternatives A, C, and D are essentially equivalent. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Other than the conditions discussed above, there are no likely impacts on soil resources resulting 

from sustainable development management objectives or actions under Alternative D. With respect 

to effects on soils resources, Alternatives A, C, and D are essentially equivalent. 

Cumulative Effects 

Increased regulation and protection of other resources would result in less area being subject to 

surface-disturbing activities and activities that would increase the potential for erosion. These 

changes would result in less general damage to soil resources and biological crusts. 

Upward trends in populations within the WDO create the potential for long-term additional 

increases in soil disturbance from activities on the public land. Erosion from these activities would 

increase over time for all alternatives. 

Future activities from livestock grazing, mining, recreation, road construction and maintenance, and 

vegetation projects would continue to impact the soil resources within the impact assessment area. 

Impacts from grazing are likely to change and would continue to improve. Impacts from mining 

would be mitigated, except for pits. Road construction or maintenance would slightly increase, and 

impacts from recreation would moderately increase from the past and present conditions. Manmade fires and wildfires have increased, impacting soil resources, and are anticipated to increase in 

the future. 

4.2.4 Water Resources 

Summary 

The mandate to manage the land for multiple uses requires the BLM to consider some uses that 

have the potential to degrade water quality. Minimizing such impacts is a common theme of all of 

the alternatives. Actions that increase the intensity of land use, or that would introduce new or larger 

sources of pollutants into new or existing use areas, could adversely impact water resources. 

Activities as far ranging as recreation, mineral extraction, road construction, grazing, and energy 

production all have potential to adversely impact water resources. Activities that disturb soils or 

reduce vegetation cover can lead to increased erosion, which in turn may result in more sediment 

being carried to streams or other surface water bodies. 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

The BLM has little direct control over water supply, but mineral leasing activity and recreational 

development can result in increased demand for water and in some cases may be constrained by 

available water supplies. For example, geothermal energy production requires extraction of 

groundwater, usually from deep saline aquifers. Some of this water is consumed, and some can be 

reinjected and recirculated in the aquifer. However, if more water is consumed than is recharged, 

then the volume of the geothermal aquifer will be drawn down. The BLM’s role is to enable 

geothermal resources on public lands to be identified and used in a sustainable fashion, but the BLM 

has no direct control over the issuance of water rights to the geothermal water and relies on the 

State of Nevada to ensure that the groundwater resource is not over-allocated. 

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. 

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. 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. This is especially true in cases 

where there is disagreement among stakeholders about the direction that should be taken to address 

resource management issues. In some cases, preferences would be determined through public 

participation during preparation of project-specific NEPA documents. 

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, exclude potentially impactful uses, and prioritize 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 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-64 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

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

restricted from conflicting uses than Alternative B. 

Methods of Analysis 

Methods and Assumptions

The management actions for each resource were compared to identify differences, which, where 

they occur, are usually differences of degree. Actions that would increase demand for water could 

have significant impacts in basins or watersheds where committed water rights allocations are 

already near the perennial yield. Alternatives with lower potential for soil disturbance are generally 

expected to result in fewer indirect impacts on water quality from sediment and nutrient loading. 

Alternatives with lower potential for introducing new sources of chemical inputs are generally 

expected to have lower potential for water quality degradation. 

Effects from Air Quality Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Impacts on water quality may result from deposition of contaminants onto the land or directly into 

water bodies. Mercury, for example, is a volatile heavy metal that has historically been used in the 

gold mining industry to extract gold from ore. Microscopic droplets of mercury vapor can become 

airborne but gradually settle to the ground at some distance from the source. Most of the mercury is 

recovered and reused in modern mining operations, but emission controls were not as effective in 

the past. The WDO and adjacent areas contain mercury ore deposits where historic mercury mining 

operations and recovery of mercury resulted in releases, including atmospheric releases. Similarly, 

mercury vapor has been released to the atmosphere from gold ore processing. As a result of this 

(and in addition to waste mercury that is directly deposited on tailings piles with processed slag), 

some of this mercury eventually makes its way to streams and lakes where it can become 

concentrated in sediments or can be taken up by aquatic biota. 

Compliance with applicable regulatory requirements is expected to continue to result in emission of 

fewer pollutants as air quality standards become increasingly more stringent, tracking of emissions 

inventories improves, and technologies (stack gas scrubbers, alternative processes that emit fewer 

pollutants) improve. Although all of the alternatives would comply with applicable regulatory 

standards, differences may occur in the amounts and types of atmospheric emissions that would 

occur under each alternative, with potential indirect effects on water quality. There is little available 

information about the impacts of air pollutants on water quality in the WDO. It is difficult to 

differentiate the impacts on water quality from air deposition of mercury versus disposal of mercurycontaining waste tailings. In general, the effects on water resources from atmospheric pollutants are 

expected to be small under all of the alternatives. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Under current management, the primary sources of emissions that may impact water quality include 

particulates from fires, vehicle exhaust emissions, emissions from mining operations (mercury, 

volatile organic compounds), and wind erosion. Fire has the potential to generate carcinogens, such 

as dioxins, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), and other combustion products, trace 

concentrations of which may then be transported to water and aquatic sediment. Wind erosion can 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-65 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

generate dust that transports agricultural chemicals that may have been applied to crops, or 

herbicides applied to control weeds, some distance from the point of application where the 

chemicals or their degradation products, if persistent, may contribute to contamination of water or 

sediments. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Alternative B emphasizes economic development of mineral and other resources, which has the 

potential to result in more new fixed emissions sources (generators, mineral processing sites, and 

more nonpoint mobile emissions sources (automobiles, OHVs, campfires, herbicide applications) 

than the other alternatives. While each of the sources may be in compliance with regulatory 

requirements, the cumulative effect of more sources could be an increase in trace concentrations of 

pollutants in water bodies. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Alternative C places the most restrictions on resource uses and therefore would result in the lowest 

potential for emissions of human-made air pollutants. Alternative C involves reliance on more 

natural fire management and less active fire suppression, which could initially result in larger or more 

destructive fires, with the potential for more deposition of the products of combustion onto land 

and eventually into receiving waters. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Alternative D allows the most flexibility in managing the development of resources and is therefore 

likely to result in more new emissions sources than Alternative C but fewer than Alternative B. 

Similarly, fire management and herbicide use are likely to result in effects that are intermediate 

between Alternatives B and C. 

Effects from Geology Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

The impacts of geology management on water resources would be indirect. Protecting sites or 

features of special geologic value would tend to reduce or restrict development of mineral resources 

and to limit any activities that might be destructive of the noneconomic values of the geologic 

resource. It would also tend to emphasize visitor uses of the protected areas. As discussed in other 

sections, such as mineral resources, resource development may indirectly impact water resources by 

introducing sources of pollutants to the development site that can be transported to a water body, or 

it may increase the potential for soil erosion. Increased visitor use to a site can also result in the 

following: 

• Impact water resources, for example by increasing the potential for fires, which can lead to 

increased soil erosion and can contaminate water; 

• Increase the need for facilities and infrastructure (such as roads, campgrounds, and trails), 

which require construction and can lead to increased erosion impacts or introduce 

contaminants to an area; 

• Increase demand for potable water and the need for springs or wells; and 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-66 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

• Introduce pathogens associated with sanitary waste, garbage disposal, or development of 

water recreation facilities near the protected site. 

The same specific geologic features have been identified for protection under Alternatives A, B, and 

C, but these alternatives differ in the degree, nature, and emphasis of protection measures that 

would be implemented. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Alternative A does not identify or provide protections for specific unique geologic resources, but 

each project would be evaluated on its own merits to determine if such resources are present and 

should be protected, resulting in the greatest risk to water quality from the indirect impacts 

identified above. However, impacts are expected to be negligible since water resource protections 

are incorporated into existing regulatory and permit requirements and would be limited to effects 

resulting from accidents or inadequate planning. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Alternative B identifies specific geologic features for protection. The effects on water resources are 

similar to those under Alternative A. This is because neither alternative would limit methods of 

mineral disposal or other uses that could be implemented in the protected areas and would use the 

minimum level of mitigation needed to protect the resource value at risk. While sufficient, the 

minimum level of mitigation allows for greater risk of unanticipated effects. Alternative B is less 

restrictive on reclamation, rehabilitation, and livestock grazing than the other alternatives, and fewer 

restrictions could result in greater potential for soil erosion. The potential for indirect effects from 

soil erosion related to OHV use is less under Alternative B than Alternative A because Alternative B 

limits OHV use to existing roads and trails, while Alternative A does not provide these limits. 

Alternative B would encourage visitors through information and publications, which could result in 

greater potential for the impacts of visitor use described above. In contrast, Alternative C would do 

less to encourage visitor use. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C 

Salable mineral activity would be excluded, leasable minerals would be subject to “No Surface 

Occupancy,” and the BLM would pursue a mineral withdrawal of the lands containing unique 

geological resources from the General Mining Law. Each of these types of use restrictions would 

result indirectly in protecting water resources from indirect effects, such as erosion and 

sedimentation or point and nonpoint pollutant discharges that may be associated with the activity. 

Because mineral activity is likely to have the greatest potential for impacts on water resources 

(compared to OHV use or recreational use), these alternatives provide the highest amount of 

protection and least potential for impacts on water resources. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

The effects are nearly the same as those under Alternative C; except that Alternative D would 

provide fewer restrictions on OHV use than Alternative C (it would provide the same limitations on 

OHV use as under Alternative B). 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-67 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Effects from Soil Resources Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

The most important concern to water resources is soil erosion. Soil erosion is a natural process and 

occurs under natural conditions at varying rates, dependent on geology, climate, slope, vegetation 

cover, and many other factors. One of the functions of streams is to transport sediment. The 

sediment carrying capacity of a stream increases with flow. Streams in desert regions tend to 

decrease in velocity and power to transport sediment as they reach lower elevations, depositing their 

sediment loads onto alluvial fans or playas at the base of the mountain ranges where they originate. 

Many streams are ephemeral and carry flows only after the spring thaw or for short periods 

following local thunderstorms. Desert streams tend to carry high sediment loads during these brief 

high flow periods. Many streams within the WDO have perennial flows only in the upper 

watersheds. 

Soil disturbance and removal of vegetation cover tends to make soils more vulnerable to water 

erosion. However, the effects of increased erosion rates on water quality or morphology of streams 

at lower elevations where most streams tend to be ephemeral are very different from the effects on 

streams at higher elevations in the upper watersheds, where the streams tend to be perennial. 

Ephemeral streams tend to be highly turbid when they are flowing because they flow only when 

discharge rates are high enough to transport sediment. Ephemeral streams frequently migrate and 

cut new channels, resulting in a braided channel system on alluvial fans. Perennial streams or stream 

segments tend to form established channels. Riparian vegetation becomes established along these 

channels. During periods of high spring runoff or after thunderstorms, these streams also carry high 

flows supplemented by overland flow from the surrounding watershed, and the water may become 

briefly turbid from the increased sediment load. However, at most times, the flow of water to these 

perennial streams from shallow groundwater and springs is moderate and clear. 

Soil disturbance caused by human activities or livestock can alter drainage patterns, remove 

protective vegetation, and expose soils to erosion by wind and water. Sediment loading to streams 

can increase as a result, leading to increased turbidity and sedimentation. Both can adversely impact 

aquatic biota. Sedimentation can lead to more frequent flooding. Nutrients or chemicals contained 

in soils may be transported with soil particles, leading to increased algal production and reduction in 

dissolved oxygen concentrations. 

Actions that protect and stabilize soils are expected to have beneficial impacts on water resources 

under each of the alternatives because they would reduce soil erosion. The alternatives differ in 

degree and probability of effectiveness. 

All of the alternatives include the basic soil management actions of Alternative A, such as reducing 

soil erosion by maintaining or improving vegetation cover, using existing standards and guidelines 

for livestock grazing, implementing BMPs, “pursuing” land reclamation in “disturbed areas,” and 

minimizing disturbance of biological soil crusts. The other alternatives go farther than Alternative A 

in identifying additional soil conservation measures. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-68 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Alternative A relies on a basic set of measures included in all of the alternatives to conserve soil, but 

does not specify some measures included in the other alternatives that might provide additional 

protection against erosion. Despite the lack of specificity, Alternative A would have fewer impacts 

on water quality than Alternative B, which provides fewer protections against impacts from grazing. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

In addition to the actions under Alternative A, Alternative B would salvage material for growth 

medium. This action is included in Alternatives C and D also and would indirectly benefit water 

resources to the extent that it is effective in reducing erosion by helping vegetation cover become 

reestablished in damaged areas. However, it would discourage application of soil amendments and it 

would allow multiple land uses while discouraging the use of seasonal closures as a tool for 

preventing soil compaction. These latter two restrictions on the use of erosion management tools 

would probably impede reestablishment of vegetation cover in damaged areas. Since closures are 

one of the most effective means of enabling vegetation cover to become reestablished, Alternative B 

is expected to have limited success in preventing soil erosion in susceptible areas, thereby reducing 

the overall indirect benefits to water resources. Under Alternative B, only introduced seed species of 

grasses and forbs would be used in seeding damaged areas, because they are lower in cost and are 

more fire resistant. Alternative B allows spring grazing for cheatgrass control on emergency 

stabilization and burn rehabilitation areas. Alternative B could result in more soil erosion than under 

the other alternatives because establishment of perennial seeded species would be reduced or 

eliminated by prescribed grazing. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C 

Alternative C calls for eliminating or fully mitigating surface disturbances to biological crusts and 

require reclamation of all surface-disturbing activities, rather than merely pursuing reclamation. 

Alternative C calls for improving soils by applying natural or organic amendments and for 

eliminating surface disturbances within areas with high potential for biological crusts. It also calls for 

implementing seasonal restrictions on use to protect soils from compaction. These measures, 

especially the use restrictions, are expected to provide greater indirect benefits to water resources 

than either Alternative A or B. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Alternative D is similar to Alternative C, except that it requires less stringent measures to avoid 

disturbance of biological crusts and would make seasonal use restrictions more discretionary than 

under Alternative C. Alternative D is expected to result in benefits to water resources similar to 

Alternative C, but by allowing greater discretion to managers to accept trade-offs and use limited 

funds more strategically. 

Effects from Water Resources Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no effects common to all alternatives from water resources management. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-69 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Alternative A includes no specific action similar to Action WR 2.1 in Alternatives B, C, and D, to 

protect water resources in watersheds that provide habitat to threatened and endangered species or 

that function as source areas or recharge areas for municipal water supplies. Current water resources 

protection in these watersheds is limited to indirect protection afforded by enforcing the 

Endangered Species Act and by protections afforded by the State of Nevada’s wellhead protection 

program. This program requires that all water suppliers develop emergency or contingency plans 

detailing the procedures to be followed in the event of water quality or quantity problems (NAC 

445A.66665). The wellhead protection program guidelines encourage restriction of sources of 

pollution within at least 3,000 feet of a wellhead, or the distance that water travels in ten years 

(NDEP 2004b). Due to their reliance on a distance or travel time criterion, the state guidelines 

would not necessarily support a prohibition on introducing a pollutant source into a watershed 

where it could present a longer term threat to municipal water supplies. In this way, the wellhead 

protection program and the contingency plan program focus on protecting water consumers, rather 

than on protecting watersheds. 

Under Objective 2, Alternative A and Alternative B do not require consideration of the perennial 

yield of a groundwater basin in projects that involve import or export of water. Under current 

management, the BLM has no authority to restrict projects involving interbasin water transfers, even 

if the transfer would exceed remaining sustainable yield of the basin. Since the State Engineer 

already is charged with preventing water rights from being over appropriated, the effect of this lack 

of authority should be minor. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Action B-WR 1.2 would manage priority watersheds for multiple uses. Compared to Alternatives C 

and D, this could present greater risk of incompatible uses and introduction of pollution sources in 

these watersheds. Action B-WR 1.5 would manage wellhead protection zones as avoidance zones (as 

in Alternative D), which is less protective of water resources than under Alternative C. 

Objective B-WR 2 encourages private water rights filings for uses on public lands and does not 

require consideration of source basin perennial yield in management decision making. Action B-WR 

2.1. promotes commercial development by allowing water importation and exportation projects. The 

value of water is increasing, such that there is financial incentive to transfer water rights out of 

basins in the WDO, to the possible detriment of potential future in-basin demand. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C 

Action C-WR 1.2 would make priority watersheds exclusion areas for incompatible discretionary 

actions. This action allows the BLM latitude to restrict activities that present an unacceptable 

potential for water quality degradation. Similarly, Action B-WR 1.5 calls for managing wellhead 

protection zones as exclusion zones for discretionary actions. 

Alternative C allows importation and exportation of water only if the perennial yield of the source 

basin is adequate and other (multiple) uses are not compromised. In effect, this means that the BLM 

would have a tool for rejecting interbasin transfers if the proponent were to demonstrate that the 

project has a negative impact on basin groundwater storage. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-70 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Under Action D-WR 1.2, priority watersheds would be considered avoidance areas for use 

incompatible with the priority uses. This is a less stringent limitation than under Alternative C but 

more protective of water resources than Alternative B. Similarly Action D-WR 1.5 calls for 

managing wellhead protection zones as avoidance areas. This is the same as Alternative B, but it is 

less protective than Alternative C. 

Action D-WR 2.1 is the same as under Alternative C and is more protective than under Alternative 

B. 

Action D-WR 2.2 specifically calls for developing water sources for fire suppression and storage in 

20-foot tanks. This use is not precluded under Alternatives B and C, even though it is not 

specifically identified. However, under Alternative C, fire suppression activities would be more 

restricted than under Alternative D. 

Effects from Vegetation—Forest and Woodland Products Management 

Effects Common to all Alternatives

Healthy vegetation cover tends to protect soils from the direct impact of raindrops and slow runoff, 

which helps to reduce erosion. When runoff is slowed, water has more time to infiltrate the soil and 

recharge groundwater. Plant litter also softens the impact of raindrops and helps to maintain soil 

moisture. Plant roots help to stabilize soil and reduce erosion. All of the alternatives promote diverse 

and healthy woodlands, which would have the indirect effects of maintaining good surface water 

quality and maximizing groundwater recharge and storage. The alternatives differ in the degree to 

which these beneficial impacts would be achieved. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Alternative A allows for use of herbicides to enhance aspen and cottonwood stands. Since these 

trees are phreatophytes, the use of herbicides may be expected to have potential for impacts on 

water quality. It also calls for using pesticides to protect harvest areas and chemical treatments to 

manage designated stands to enhance old growth characteristics, which would introduce potential 

for impacts on water quality. However, since the chemical treatments would be monitored and 

chemicals would be selected to have least impact on aquatic species, the impacts are expected to be 

small. 

Fire management under Alternative A is geared toward suppression, which, because it implies 

maintenance of conditions that may be out of equilibrium with the natural threat of fire, could be 

unsustainable in the long-term and result in greater loss of vegetation cover in individual fires. Loss 

of vegetation cover can lead to soil erosion, and larger fires at less frequent intervals might also lead 

to more soil erosion over a longer period of time, with greater effects on water quality than if the 

fires are smaller and more frequent. 

Alternative A includes prohibitions on harvesting trees within 100 feet of springs and riparian areas 

in the Stillwater Range and Yellowstone Canyon within the East Range, which would provide some 

protection to water quality in these areas. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-71 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Alternative B allows harvesting of trees within 100 feet of springs and riparian areas, which would 

increase potential for impacts on surface water quality from soil erosion. BMPs would be used to 

ensure that impacts on surface water are mitigated. 

Alternative B would use a variety of methods to achieve cottonwood and aspen stand health, 

including fencing, mechanical and chemical treatments, and planting. The emphasis of Alternative B 

is on sustainable production of forest products. Alternative B would not designate any acres of old 

growth forest, which contains a broad mix of species and has not been cut. In general, the emphasis 

on production of forest products means that there would be periodic cutting and disturbance of 

soils on the forest floor associated with commercial management of the forest. This disturbance 

could result in spikes in soil erosion. Production of forest products is sometimes associated with the 

need to build new roads, which can alter flow patterns, concentrate drainage, and destabilize slopes, 

leading to potential impacts on water quality from enhanced erosion. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Alternative C relies on no chemical use and would have least potential for impacts on water 

resources from these chemicals. They also allow natural fire regimes to replace higher maintenance 

regimes, which in the long-term may result in fewer and smaller fires and replacement with more 

rapid-growing species capable of stabilizing the soil. 

Alternative C allows the least amount of harvesting and allows for natural replacement of stands, 

which would probably result in least potential for erosion and therefore fewest impacts on water 

quality from sediment loading. 

Alternative C would designate 27,605 acres of old growth forest as well as other stands if an area 

exhibits old growth characteristics. Since old growth implies minimal soil erosion and since the old 

growth would be maintained by allowing natural ecosystem functions to occur, it is likely that this 

would result in least impact on water quality. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Alternative D includes the fewest constraints on management and allows the most flexibility for 

adaptively managing to achieve the conflicting objectives of healthy ecosystem and productive 

forest. This alternative would allow managers to shift priorities to protect water resources or other 

resource values instead of adhering to a predetermined plan. 

Like Alternative C, Alternative D includes designation of 27,605 acres of old growth forest. 

Alternative D does not rely on natural fire regimes as under Alternative C but relies on suppression 

to an extent commensurate with the resource values to be protected. The effects on water quality 

and quantity are therefore expected to be intermediate between Alternative B and Alternative C. 

Effects from Vegetation—Weeds 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Control of invasive and noxious weeds generally would indirectly improve water quality and quantity 

in areas where impacts have occurred. Noxious weeds tend to out-compete native species and to 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-72 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

have undesirable effects, such as decreasing ground cover, removing soil moisture, or enhancing fire 

hazard. The actions under Alternatives B, C, and D designed to address objective VW 1 are the 

same and would have similar impacts on water resources. Alternatives B, C, and D include a number 

of actions that would not be implemented under No Action. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

As discussed below, Alternative A is expected to have the least positive effect on water resources. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Alternatives B through D include a number of actions that would not be implemented under the No 

Action Alternative. To the extent that these actions are successful in reducing the spread of noxious 

weeds, they may also have beneficial impacts on water resources. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

The effects are the same as those under Alternative B. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

The effects are the same as those under Alternative B. 

Effects from Chemical and Biological Control 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Actions under Alternatives B, C, and D reflect the fact that chemical and biological pest control 

methods have advanced greatly since the 1980s in recognition of the need to avoid adverse impacts 

on water quality and sensitive biota. These advances include development of new products and new 

methods, such as integrated pest control (IPC), which focuses on addressing the conditions that 

attract pests and on encouraging natural pest predators, rather than on chemical eradication 

methods. Chemical pesticides have been developed that have very short half-lives (they degrade 

rapidly in the environment) and do not bioaccumulate in the food web. 

Thus, for example, all of the actions under Alternatives B, C, and D are the same; except Actions 1.1 

and 1.4, and all are directed toward ensuring that appropriate pest control methods will be used, 

relying as little as possible on chemical pesticides. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Alternative A does not include many of the specific actions that are included in Alternatives B, C, 

and D, such as actions associated with various aspects of an IPC program since IPC was not widely 

established at the time the previous RMP was developed. This does not mean that IPC would not be 

implemented under No Action but rather that the current plan does not specifically identify these 

actions. Current practice does include many of the actions identified under Alternatives B, C, and D, 

such as employing BMPs. However, if not specified in the RMP, some actions that may ultimately 

be protective of water resources, such as educational programs and seeking out new techniques, may 

not be implemented if they require expenditures. Therefore, it is expected that Alternative A would 

be somewhat less effective in reducing impacts on water resources than Alternatives B, C, and D. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-73 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Action B-PE 1.1 would select pest control methods from among the approved methods available, 

based on cost/benefit analysis. Since the emphasis is on cost, and “benefit” is not well defined, 

pesticides that cost less or are not as effective would tend to be used even if they were to result in 

the greatest risks to water quality. Therefore, Alternative B is expected to have the greatest impacts 

on water quality among Alternatives B, C, and D. 

Action B-PE 1.4 is more likely to result in adverse impacts on water quality than Alternative C 

because it includes chemical pest control, while Alternative C does not. The impacts are the same as 

those for Alternative D. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C 

Alternative C differs from Alternatives B and D in that it would minimize chemical pesticide use as a 

matter of policy and would rely primarily on mechanical, cultural, and biological control methods. 

Therefore, Alternative C is expected to have the least impact on water quality. However, if 

Alternative C is not effective, there may be some pressure to revise the strictures of Alternative C to 

allow chemical pest control in the future. Similarly, if lack of effectiveness of nonchemical weed 

control methods leads to greater risk of fire or increased erosion, the impacts on water resources 

from the increase fire risk may be greater than the benefits achieved by not using chemical pest 

control. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

The effects on water resources are expected to be intermediate between Alternatives B and C, 

mainly because under Action D-PE 1.1, Alternative D does not rely on cost effectiveness as the sole 

criterion for selecting pesticides and does not exclude the use of chemical pesticides. 

Effects from Vegetation—Rangeland Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

The effects of most of the rangeland management actions on water resources are expected to be 

beneficial, since achieving the principal goal of maintaining and improving healthy vegetative 

communities would also tend to result in minimizing soil erosion, retaining water, and avoiding or 

reversing the adverse effects on vegetation and soils largely caused by grazing animals or fire. The 

alternatives differ mainly in the degree to which these benefits would be achieved. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Alternative A allows for chemical treatments, which could result in impacts on water quality, and 

prescriptive grazing, which may result in increased erosion and sediment loading. Although some 

types of management actions included in Alternatives B, C, and D are not specifically included in 

Alternative A, most of the management actions proposed under Alternatives B, C, or D (except 

Option 2 of Alternative C) are currently implementable under Alternative A, and current 

management most resembles Alternative D. Among rangeland environments, sagebrush scrub is 

perhaps the most important to water resources because it occurs on higher elevations with greater 

slopes, where perennial streams are more likely to be found, than in salt desert scrub. Among the 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-74 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

most critical issues in sagebrush scrub is the increased potential for fire caused by spread of 

cheatgrass. Actions that successfully reduce or reverse the spread of cheatgrass will indirectly benefit 

water resources by reducing fire hazard. Management actions under Alternative A are less proactive 

than under Alternative D, as indicated by Action A-VR 7.2, and rely more on fire suppression (AVR 6.3, 6.4). These methods have been largely unsuccessful in arresting the spread of cheatgrass, 

and therefore indirect impacts on water resources from wildland fire are expected to increase under 

Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Alternative B focuses on maintaining rangeland for livestock grazing. For example, Action B-VR 1.3 

calls for reseeding with forage grasses rather than on restoring native grasses that may be better 

adapted to natural rangeland conditions; Action B-VR 4.1 calls for seeding disturbed areas with 

grasses and forbs, rather than with a more natural and wider range that includes shrubs (as under 

Alternative D). 

Alternative B also calls for a shorter rest (from grazing) of burned areas than do Alternatives C or D 

and does not wait for monitoring objectives established in emergency stabilization or burned area 

rehabilitation plans to be achieved, as under Alternatives A and D. 

Action B-VR 5.1 calls only for seeding with introduced species in areas “lacking potential for natural 

recovery,” and Action B-VR 5.2 would not establish vegetation release criteria. Overall, this 

emphasis on grazing use and less effort and funds to reestablish native vegetation than the other 

alternatives is expected to continue to result in indirect adverse impacts on water resources from 

erosion and sediment loading. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C 

Alternative C does not allow chemical treatments and does not include prescriptive grazing. 

Therefore, it is expected to have the least potential for direct adverse impacts on surface water 

quality, although the ultimate impacts on water resources would also depend on relative success of 

these methods in restoring rangeland vegetation. 

Option 2 of Alternative C does not include grazing. This option is expected to have the greatest 

benefits to water resources since grazing is currently one of the activities that has the most impact 

on water resources in the WDO. 

Option 1 would limit prescriptive grazing more than the other alternatives by requiring that “best 

science shows a reasonable chance of success” in achieving reduced biomass production and 

restoring decadent plant vigor. Since there would be less grazing under Option 1, this is expected to 

result in more benefits to water resources than the other alternatives. 

Actions C-VR 1.3, C-VR 4.1, and C-VR 5.1 call for greater reliance on seeding with native species 

than the other alternatives. In some cases, this may severely limit implementability and increase cost 

of reseeding, where native seeds are in short supply. This may delay reseeding, leading to potential 

adverse impacts on water resources because of continued erosion hazard or allow greater 

opportunity for noxious or invasive plant species (such as cheatgrass) to gain a foothold. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-75 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Alternative D allows more flexibility to land managers in the choice of methods for restoring 

rangeland health than does Alternative C. For example, it would allow reseeding with nonnative 

species where appropriate and seeding with species that have the greatest potential to resist wildland 

fire could be used. Alternative D allows grazing but puts a higher priority on restoring natural range 

conditions than does Alternative B. As a result, impacts on water resources are expected to be least 

under Alternative D. 

Effects from Vegetation—Riparian and Wetlands Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

The objectives (VRW 1) of each of the alternatives differ regarding amount of riparian and wetland 

areas to be in proper functioning condition (PFC) by 2028. Currently, 48 percent of the lotic 

(stream) and lentic (wetland) areas are functioning at risk with an improving trend. Alternative A 

calls for all riparian areas to be progressing toward PFC. Under Alternative B the objective is for 60 

percent to be in PFC by 2028, under Alternative C it is 85 percent, and under Alternative D to be 

progressing toward PFC. Therefore, even if the management actions are the same, (for example, 

Action VRW 1.3, which addresses non-livestock grazing impacts on riparian areas is the same for 

Alternatives B, C [Option 1], and D), the intended outcome under each of the alternatives would be 

different. 

Grazing has historically been one of the principal causes of damage to riparian areas and of waterrelated impacts, and accounts for most of the non-PFC riparian areas. Therefore, Option 2 is 

expected to result in the greatest improvements in water resources. Damage to riparian areas is not a 

function of numbers of animals since relatively few animals can cause substantial damage. Instead, 

most damage results from repeated use during the hot season (July through September), when 

animals concentrate in riparian areas. Most impacts on water resources occur at mid- to higher 

elevations, where perennial surface water is more abundant. Therefore, avoidance of these sensitive 

areas during the hot season may be the most effective means of restoring and maintaining PFC and 

reducing impacts on water resources. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Management Action A-VRW 1.1 calls for improving riparian areas by determining causal factors, 

developing strategies, and coordinating with the public. However, in the years since this 

management action was formulated, many of the causal factors have become much better 

understood, and strategies have been developed to address them, which are described in Alternatives 

B, C, and D. This points out one of the weaknesses of Alternative A: that it is somewhat 

anachronistic and does not reflect current knowledge. 

Alternative A relies heavily on engineering controls, as indicated in Action A-VRW 1.2, such as 

development of structures, alternative water developments, and exclusion fencing. Experience has 

shown that maintaining these controls is difficult and not always successful. Lack of successful 

maintenance of engineering controls can result in impacts on water resources. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-76 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Management actions under Alternative B are generally the same as those under Alternative A 

because Alternative B represents the status quo with respect to livestock grazing. For example, 

Alternative B relies on engineering controls to prevent livestock from concentrating in riparian areas, 

rather than reducing livestock use of these areas. The principal difference between Alternative A and 

Alternative B is that Alternative B sets the moderate objective of achieving 60 percent PFC in 20 

years, an increase of 12 percent over current conditions. PFC tends to be associated with high water 

quality, especially with respect to sediment loading, pathogens, and nutrients. It also tends to be 

coupled with good water retention and storage in the watershed. Therefore, an improvement in PFC 

is expected to be coupled with an improvement in water quality. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C 

Alternative C sets the most challenging objective: to achieve 85 percent PFC in 20 years, nearly 

double the current area in PFC. Alternative C would achieve this objective through eliminating 

grazing (Option 2) or implementing grazing management objectives, reducing grazing, and adjusting 

season of use, duration, AMLs, or AUMs (Option 1). If the objectives for PFC are achieved, 

beneficial impacts on water resources would be greatest under Alternative C. Since the 85 percent 

PFC objective applies to both options 1 and 2, it is more likely that the objective would be achieved 

under Option 2 than Option 1. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Alternative D sets a goal of progressing toward PFC in 20 years, which is essentially the same as 

under Alternative A. Like Alternative C (Option 1), Alternative D would include seasonal 

adjustment of grazing use, adjustment of duration, and adjustment of AMLs or AUMs, rather than 

relying entirely on maintenance of engineering controls. Given the similarity of management actions, 

particularly with respect to livestock grazing, between Alternatives C (Option 1) and Alternative D, 

the lower objective for increase in PFC under Alternative D is more achievable. 

Effects from Fish and Wildlife Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Each of the alternatives contains actions intended to improve wildlife habitat and protect riparian 

habitat. Measures that limit uses in order to benefit fish and wildlife (particularly fish) also have the 

potential to indirectly improve water quality and increase water retention in watersheds. 

Management actions that are the same or similar under all alternatives include CA-FW 1.1, CA-FW 

2.1, and FW 9.2. Management actions that would have the same or very similar effects on water 

resources under Alternatives B, C, and D include FW 2.1, FW 2.2, FW 5.1, FW 7.1, FW 8.1, and FW 

9.2. Additionally, some of the management actions would have negligible or no effect on water 

resources, including (in addition to those listed above), the actions under Objective FW 6. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

As discussed elsewhere, current management actions were developed when there were fewer 

quantitative data and less understanding of the effects of management decisions. Therefore, 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-77 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

management actions tend to be broader and less specific under Alternative A than under the other 

alternatives. This does not mean that more specific actions could not be implemented under 

Alternative A, but since many actions require commitment of time and financial resources, there is 

much less assurance that such actions would be implemented under Alternative A. 

Potential minor adverse impacts on water quality could result from increased populations of big 

game animals such as elk and deer since these animals contribute to similar impacts caused by 

livestock grazing (trampling riparian areas, compacting soils, being a source of waterborne 

pathogens). Alternative A could result in an increase in use by hunters, as a result of increased 

numbers of game animals, with potential indirect adverse effects on water resources associated with 

OHV use, increased fire danger, and pathogen loading associated with human use. 

Alternative A allows for use of chemical treatments to improve wildlife habitat, which could result in 

impacts on surface water quality, as described under rangeland management. 

Action A-FW 9.1 calls for implementation of engineered improvements, such as instream structures 

and fish barriers to improve aquatic habitat. Such measures have historically had a low rate of 

success and sometimes lead to additional riparian problems, for example if the structure needs to be 

removed or is damaged by high flows. 

Action A-FW 10.1 calls for water barring access roads to specific streams. This engineering method 

of reducing erosion impacts of roads in steep narrow canyons has not been entirely successful. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Alternative B would designate the fewest acres for restricted use to protect wildlife. It would 

designate 716,528 acres as priority 2 wildlife habitat (avoidance areas). This designation would result 

in some indirect beneficial effects on water since activities that could impact water quality or impact 

riparian habitat might be restricted. 

Management Action B-FW 1.5 would have the opposite effect since it would not allow 

introductions of wildlife whose habitat requirements would interfere with other multiple uses. Since 

those multiple uses would include potential pollutant-generating or soil-disturbing activities, this 

action would reduce restrictions on land use that could indirectly protect water resources. 

Actions under Objective B-FW 3 may have indirect positive impacts on water resources by 

protecting aquatic bird habitat. Alternative B, however, provides the least protection since it would 

not preclude multiple uses. 

Action B-FW 8.2 would not allow fencing to keep livestock from reservoirs that support fisheries. 

There are five reservoirs of this description in the WDO, and they are grouped together in this 

analysis because the existence of a fishery is an indicator of relatively good water quality and 

potential for recreational use. Livestock use of reservoirs would have potentially adverse impacts on 

water quality in this group of reservoirs. 

Action B-FW 8.3 calls for not having a minimum pool requirement on new irrigation reservoirs. The 

minimum pool would help to prevent development of anoxic conditions as water levels decline 

during the hot season. However, maintaining a minimum pool would require use of water rights 

allocated by the state to a private entity, and imposing a requirement to maintain minimum pool may 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-78 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

be construed as a taking of property. Alternative B avoids this potential legal issue but would 

continue the status quo, which is to allow anoxic conditions to develop. 

Alternative B allows for chemical treatments to restore or improve wildlife habitat. Chemical 

treatments carry some risk of adversely impacting water quality. These would be mitigated through 

BMPs. 

Action B-FW 9.1 calls for improving aquatic habitat by emphasizing restoration of natural processes. 

Related to this, Action B-FW 9.3.1 calls for improving stream bank and shoreline stability by limiting 

stream bank alteration to 20 percent or less of linear bank length on fishery waters. These actions are 

the same as under Alternative D and would have beneficial impacts on water resources intermediate 

between Alternatives A and C. 

Action B-FW 10.1 allows several options (maintain, alter, or remove) for addressing the erosion 

impacts from access roads on streams and gives priority to routes affecting fishery resources. This 

action is less extreme than Alternative C, which calls for removing access routes that adversely 

impact aquatic resources. The short-term impacts on water quality of removing a road could result 

in water contamination since the exposed soil on the altered road cut would be vulnerable to 

erosion. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C 

Benefits would be greatest under Alternative C, which designates almost 1.3 million acres as priority 

1 wildlife habitat (exclusion areas closed to fluid mineral development), and about 0.9 million acres 

as priority 2 wildlife habitat (avoidance areas). Alternative C also limits annual stream bank 

alterations to less than 10 percent of linear bank length, which would be half of the allowable annual 

stream bank alterations allowed under Alternatives B and D. These restrictions would reduce the 

potential for pollutant-generating activities to be introduced into the watersheds of these areas. 

Action C-FW 3.2 would protect shorebird habitat and could limit some conflicting uses, resulting in 

indirect beneficial impacts on water quality. And Action C-FW 4.1 would prohibit some uses of 

migratory bird nesting areas during the wet season when potential for damage to soils from 

compaction is greatest. Soil compaction can lead to adverse impacts on water quality because it can 

reduce infiltration and increase runoff and may lead to loss of vegetation and consequent increased 

soil erosion. 

Alternative C prioritizes nonchemical methods for improving habitat and places the least reliance on 

active management measures. Alternative C would allow introduction of native wildlife species into 

historical habitat areas, even though this may result in the need to restrict other uses in such areas 

(for example, increased ruffed grouse habitat might result in expansion of areas subject to mineral 

stipulations). 

Action C-FW 8.2 calls for fencing to keep livestock from reservoirs that support fisheries. If 

effective, this would result in a beneficial impact on water quality in the reservoir and inlet or outlet 

streams. 

Action C-FW 8.3 would require maintaining a minimum pool on new irrigation reservoirs. As 

discussed under Alternative B, the minimum pool would help to prevent development of anoxic 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-79 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

conditions as water levels decline during the hot season. However, maintaining a minimum pool 

would require use of water rights allocated by the state to a private entity, which could be construed 

as a taking of property. Alternative C would test this potential legal issue but might avoid the adverse 

water quality impacts associated with anoxic conditions, including odors, organism die-off, and 

possible chemical changes favoring increased solubility of heavy metals. 

Alternative C would prohibit construction of artificial water developments, such as guzzlers, for 

wildlife use, and it would limit use of OHVs in certain areas, such as Gridley and Continental Lakes, 

for protection of shorebird habitat. The combined impacts on water resources of these measures 

would be beneficial on water quality to the extent that they limit uses that could have adverse 

impacts on water quality (for example, OHV use can lead to enhanced soil erosion, and guzzlers can 

encourage congregation of grazing animals, leading to consequent soil compaction). 

Action C-FW 9.1 calls for restoring natural processes to improve aquatic habitat. Action C-FW 9.3.1 

calls for improving stream bank and shoreline stability by limiting stream bank alteration to 10 

percent or less of linear bank length on fishery waters, and Action C-FW 9.3.2 calls for limiting 

annual stream bank alteration impacts on five percent or less of linear bank length in sensitive 

channel types. Although they are intended to have greater beneficial impacts on water resources than 

the corresponding actions under Alternatives B and D, it should be noted that natural alteration may 

be greater than the 10 percent or 5 percent goals, and the intention of the management action is to 

encourage restoration of natural function rather than to achieve numerical goals. Similarly, relying 

entirely on natural processes may result in greater adverse impacts in the short term if current 

conditions are far from the natural range of conditions. 

Action C-FW 10.1 calls for removing (rather than repairing or altering) access roads in steep canyons 

that are adversely impacting aquatic resources. The short-term impacts on water resources of 

removing a road could result in water contamination, but in the long term the impacts on water 

resources are expected to be beneficial, both because the road would not longer contribute to 

enhanced erosion and because removing the road would limit access to the stream and reduce the 

potential impacts associated with human use. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Alternative D designates 699,929 acres as priority 1 wildlife habitat for sage-grouse and sagebrush 

obligate species and more than 1.3 million acres as priority 2 wildlife habitat (avoidance areas). This 

would result in indirect beneficial impacts on water resources intermediate between Alternatives B 

and C. As under Alternative C, Action D-FW 1.5 would allow introduction of wildlife into new 

areas, which may increase the protected habitat area. Unlike Alternative C, Alternative D would 

allow introduction of nonnative species if they do not displace native species. 

Similar to Alternative C, Action D-FW 4.1 would provide use restrictions to protect migratory bird 

nesting areas during the nesting season, which corresponds to the last part of the wet season. 

Alternative D would require a pre-disturbance inventory to determine if nests are present. 

Similar to Alternative C, Action D-FW 8.2 calls for fencing all reservoirs supporting fisheries, if 

practicable. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-80 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Effects from Special Status Species Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Each of the alternatives includes actions that would limit or prohibit incompatible uses of sensitive 

habitat. Such use limitations would have the potential to also limit uses that might lead to 

degradation of water quality. The alternatives differ primarily in the degree of limitation. The 

impacts on water resources would be indirectly beneficial. 

Action SSS 1.3 would restrict uses in sensitive species habitat, although the nature of the restriction 

would be determined on a case-specific basis and might vary by alternative. For example, Alternative 

B generally calls for the fewest use restrictions, and Alternative C generally calls for the most, so 

implementation of Action SSS 1.3 might reflect these differences. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

As noted elsewhere, management actions under Alternative A are generally not as specific as under 

the other alternatives, and they were formulated when the knowledge base was less sophisticated 

than it is now. This appears to allow more opportunity for discretionary actions, but in practice it 

may lead to inaction because funding or policy direction are lacking. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Alternative B tends to rely on mitigation to offset impacts on sensitive species and habitat, rather 

than proactive measures to avoid impacts. Mitigation may or may not be effective or beneficial to 

water resources. 

Alternative B would manage existing LCT habitat without seeking expansion of LCT range. 

Designation as LCT habitat would confer additional protection on those water bodies so designated, 

so Alternative B would be less protective in comparison to the other alternatives. 

Action B-SSS 1.1 does not specify a two-mile inventory zone around sensitive plant occurrences, as 

under No Action and the other alternatives. It allows for a variety of mitigation measures, including 

buffers of unspecified size. This is less restrictive of incompatible uses than the other alternatives 

and could result in greater potential for adverse impacts on water resources. Similarly, sage-grouse 

habitat does not receive any standard protection under Alternative B but would be evaluated by an 

interdisciplinary team on a case-by-case basis. 

Action B-SSS 1.5, which allows prescriptive grazing on a case-by-cases basis in wet meadows and 

riparian areas that have been closed to grazing, could have adverse impacts on water resources. 

However, such impacts would be carefully planned and monitored to balance the benefits with the 

potential impacts. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Alternative C is likely to have the greatest benefit to water quality because it limits human activities 

in larger areas and for longer periods than the other alternatives. 

Action C-SSS 1.2 includes specific guidelines for sage-grouse habitat, including prohibiting all 

surface disturbance or occupancy within two miles of leks, or within known nesting, summer, or 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-81 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

winter habitats. Action C-SSS 1.2.3 also prohibits high profile structures within two miles of an 

active sage-grouse lek. 

Alternative C is also more restrictive of surface uses near bat habitat, setting a 500-yard distance 

limit rather than 200 yards as in other alternatives. This small difference would likely have little 

impact on water resources, although fewer surface-disturbing uses would generally reduce the 

potential for water resource impacts. 

Alternative C would encourage expansion of LCT populations into new waters or waterways, 

potentially increasing water quality protection in those waters. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

The effects of Alternative D on water resources are intermediate between those under Alternatives 

B and C. Alternative D tends to be more closely similar to Alternative B in the use of mitigation. 

Action D-SSS 2.2 is the same as Alternative A regarding expansion or augmentation of LCT habitat 

and calls for cooperation with NDOW and USFWS rather than independent management of this 

habitat. One aspect of expansion of LCT habitat is the potential use of rotenone, a biocide that 

could be used to eliminate competing fish from waters into which LCT are introduced. 

Action D-SSS 1.5, which allows prescriptive grazing on a case-by-cases basis in wet meadows and 

riparian areas that have been closed to grazing, could have adverse impacts on water resources. 

However, such impacts would be carefully planned and monitored to balance the benefits with the 

potential impacts. 

Effects from Wild Horse and Burro Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

WHB cause adverse impacts on water quality when the animals congregate near surface water, 

overgraze sensitive areas, spread plant pests, increase pathogen loading to water bodies via surface 

water contact with manure, and compact or otherwise damage soil. Unlike livestock, which can be 

moved to other areas when impacts are observed, movements of WHB are not controlled because 

maintaining the free-roaming nature of WHB is an objective of all of the alternatives (though 

Alternative B makes it a secondary objective). WHB tend to stay in the same watering areas all year, 

and this does not allow damaged areas to rest and recover. 

Historical observation indicates that water resources impacts are highest in areas with a moderate 

abundance of water and higher variability in abundance from year to year, because animal numbers 

increase during good years and cannot be supported during low water years. Areas with relatively 

abundant sources of water experience few impacts. Areas that are consistently dry and have 

relatively few sources of water experience few impacts because these areas do not support significant 

WHB populations. 

The most effective measures for reducing impacts on water resources are controlling populations 

and preventing WHB from using damaged or sensitive areas during low water periods. Each of the 

alternatives includes the objective of ensuring unencumbered access to water by WHB and of 

maintaining WHB populations, but each presents different approaches to implementing these 

objectives. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-82 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Alternative A is protective of water quality to the extent that it would limit WHB to existing HMAs 

and HAs. However, the objective of managing and protecting WHB on lands where they occurred 

in 1971 might lead to adverse effects where the 1971 lands do not have adequate water resources to 

support WHB. The 1971 range criterion was based on the areas inhabited by WHB at the time the 

WHB Act of 1971 was passed, and this criterion prioritizes the objective of restoring WBH to their 

recent historical range. This is the case whether or not this range is appropriate for protecting water 

and other resources. This objective is abandoned in the other alternatives, except that management 

Action C-WHB 1.3 also looks to conditions in 1971 as a guide to current management. 

Management Action A-WHB 1.5 calls for maintaining established AMLs as a population range 

rather than a single number, in recognition of how populations tend to fluctuate. This gives 

managers greater discretion to take fluctuations in environmental conditions into account when 

estimating AMLs. In contrast, Alternative B would use a single AML number. 

Actions A-WHB 1.6, and A-WHB 1.7 call for gathering WHB on minimum four-year cycles, to 

AMLs (predetermined through the FMUD process), while controlling population growth rates with 

fertility control inhibitors. Since the most severe impacts on water resources tend to occur at the 

upper end of the AML range, maintaining lower populations for longer periods would help reduce 

impacts on water resources. Much depends on what the AMLs actually are, and Alternative A is a 

relatively unbiased method of determining AMLs using available data. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Alternative B would avoid potential adverse effects on water resources that might occur under 

Alternative A by limiting WHB to lands that can support them. 

Action B-WHB 1.8 calls for adjusting AMLs with emphasis on multiuse needs. Action B-WHB 1.10 

provides further insight on how the multiuse needs analysis would emphasize livestock grazing over 

WHB grazing. When forage is low, Action B-WHB 1.10 calls for preferentially removing WHB over 

livestock. Since more control of seasonal use of ranges can be exercised over livestock than WHB, 

the emphasis on reducing WHB may lead to more effective water resource management under 

Alternative B. 

Alternatives B and D specify gathering to the low AML when numbers exceed the upper AML. As 

with Alternative A, a four-year minimum gather cycle would be maintained. The impacts of these 

actions on water resources would be similar to Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

WHB populations are likely to expand faster under Alternative C than other alternatives. Since 

WHB tend to remain in watering areas all year, impacts from increased use of ranges by WHB may 

result in greater impacts on water resources under Alternative C than under the other alternatives. 

Alternative C limits management tools (such as fertility control measures, fences, and more frequent 

gathers) that might be used to protect water resources, and this may also result in adverse impacts 

on water quality. Option 1 would remove livestock when rangeland indicators show adverse impacts, 

and Option 2 eliminates livestock grazing altogether. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-83 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative C specifies adjusting AML to maintain healthy threatened and endangered species habitat 

in priority watersheds. Although this would affect only a small portion of the total herd areas and 

herd management areas, it is expected to result in a beneficial impact on water quality in those 

priority watersheds. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Alternative D emphasizes reduction of impacts on rangeland by grazing animals, rather than 

emphasizing either livestock use or use by WHB. Actions D-WHB 1.5, D-WHB 1.6, and D-WHB 

1.7, which have to do with controlling herd sizes, are the same as under Alternative B. Action DWHB 1.8 calls for reevaluating AML to ensure they are consistent with the thriving natural 

ecological balance (TNEB) of the specific habitat and with other multiple uses. This action differs 

from Alternative B in the requirement to be consistent with TNEB. Further, Action D-WHB 1.8.1 

calls for setting AML to zero and removing animals from areas that do not provide adequate suitable 

habitat to support healthy self-sustaining populations of WHB. The emphasis on TNEB, and its 

application to all HMAs instead of just to priority watersheds, (unlike in Alternative C), and the 

ability to set AMLs to zero if appropriate, is expected to result in beneficial impacts on water 

resources. 

Effects from Wildland Fire Management 

Effects Common to all Alternatives 

Fire removes vegetation cover and exposes soils to erosion. Combustion can create a variety of toxic 

chemicals that may eventually be transported to water bodies in runoff or because of atmospheric 

deposition. Fires reduce the ability of watersheds to retain runoff and may have an impact on 

groundwater storage. Minimizing fires is expected to have a positive impact on water resources. 

Fire suppression itself can result in soil disturbance if vehicles and equipment are used to fight the 

fire on the ground. Use of fire retardants may impact water quality directly. Different chemical 

retardants are used for fighting fires on the ground and from the air. Retardants used on the ground 

tend to contain surfactants (detergents) to allow greater penetration of the water into bark and 

wood, but the surfactants can impact fish and other aquatic animals. The effects are small, due to the 

relatively short half-life of the surfactants. Fire suppression methods and equipment are tailored to 

the environments in which they are used, taking into account the sensitivity of those environments. 

Under each alternative, the response to wildfires based on social, legal and ecological consequences 

of the fire would be developed within each FMU. Therefore, the impacts of fire suppression 

techniques are expected to be small compared to the impacts of the fire itself. 

Many of the management actions are similar, and impacts on water resources are expected to be 

similar. Differences are summarized below. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

The BLM would continue to use management tools, such as prescribed fire and vegetation 

manipulation (mechanical, biological, and chemical treatments), to construct fuel breaks or green 

strips. There would be no new impacts. Chemical treatments could contaminate water bodies. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-84 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Alternative B designates 110,167 acres as suitable for wildfire use and would allow prescribed burns 

to achieve vegetation management objectives. Alternative B represents the upper extreme in use of 

fire as a vegetation management tool. The impacts of prescribed fire or allowing fire for resource 

benefit on water resources are expected to be minor since they would be conducted under 

controlled conditions on small areas. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C 

Alternative C would not allow prescribed fire as a tool for fuel reduction. Eliminating prescribed fire 

as a tool for vegetation management could have short-term beneficial impacts on water quality but 

may have adverse impacts on water in the longer term if severe fires occur that could have been 

prevented earlier by fire treatments. The BLM would not use chemical treatments, which would 

reduce the possibility of contaminating water bodies. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Alternative D is similar to Alternative B, and the impacts on water resources are similar to those 

described above. 

Alternative D allows prescribed fire and fire for resource benefit for 9,932 acres. Therefore, the 

impacts on water resources are expected to be intermediate between Alternatives B and C. 

Effects from Cultural Resources Management 

Effects Common to Alternatives 

Each of the alternatives could indirectly and beneficially impact water quality and might reduce 

water consumption in some areas. This would take place to the extent that project actions would 

require avoidance of or exclusion from some or all uses in areas with cultural value, for example, 

occupancy of mineral lands might be restricted due to presence of cultural resources. To the extent 

that many cultural sites may be located near water resources, these beneficial impacts might be 

cumulatively important. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Most of the WDO would remain open to OHV use under management Action A-CR 1.2. OHV use 

has the potential to increase soil erosion and thus to adversely impact receiving waters, by disturbing 

soil, creating ruts that become conductors of runoff, and compacting moist soils. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Action B-CR 1.2 and its impacts on water resources are the same as those for Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Action C-CR 1.2 would limit OHV use in culturally sensitive areas. This would indirectly benefit 

water quality by reducing the potential for soil erosion and sediment loading. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-85 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Action D-CR 1.2 is the same as that under Alternative C, and the effects on water resources are the 

same. 

Effects from Tribal Consultation 

Effects Common to all Alternatives

The impacts of tribal consultation are not predictable. It is possible that more water resources would 

be protected if sensitive culturally significant areas are given restricted access status. Alternatives A, 

C, and D would result in similar indirect beneficial impacts on water resources from restricted access 

and avoidance of culturally sensitive sites. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Avoidance of sacred sites and restricted use of, or exclusion from, other culturally sensitive sites 

would protect water resources in the vicinity of these restricted areas by reducing the potential for 

sources of pollution to be introduced. The impacts are expected to be the same for all of the 

alternatives. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

The effects are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

The effects are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

The effects are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Effects from Paleontological Resources Management 

Effects Common to all Alternatives 

All of the alternatives might result in indirect beneficial impacts on water quality if human activities 

are restricted from lands containing important paleontological resources. The types of activities that 

might be restricted could be moderately destructive to water quality, such as OHV use and mineral 

extraction. Grazing and recreation, which can have adverse impacts on water quality, probably 

would not be restricted to protect paleontological resources. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Objective A-PR 1 calls for developing stipulations, use restrictions, and mitigation measures as 

necessary to avoid or reduce adverse impacts on lands identified as having significant paleontological 

resources. This would result in beneficial impacts on water resources to the extent that it restricts 

activities that could introduce pollutants. Some of the actions identified in the other alternatives do 

not have counterparts in Alternative A, but this would not significantly change the effects on water 

resources. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-86 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

The effects are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

The effects are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

The effects are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Effects from Visual Resources Management 

Effects Common to all Alternatives 

Visual resource management actions are not expected to impact water resources since visual 

resource classification would not restrict uses but would only require that they conform to visual 

aesthetic guidelines. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

No impacts on water resources are expected. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

No impacts on water resources are expected. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

No impacts on water resources are expected. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

No impacts on water resources are expected. 

Effects from Cave and Karst Resource Management 

Effects Common to all Alternatives 

Karst refers to a geological terrain, which may underlie a wide area. Many karst features are found 

below the ground surface, and caves are just one of the more spectacular features associated with 

karst terrain. Cave and karst features would be inventoried under Alternatives B, C, and D, and the 

inventory process would identify and prioritize the specific features requiring protection. Not all 

caves in karst terrain are associated with existing flowing water, but protecting karst features may 

directly protect some waters that flow through karst. Some surface manifestations of karst terrain, 

such as sinkholes, make convenient dump sites that may also be conduits to groundwater. 

Furthermore, groundwater can flow rapidly through cavernous limestone and carry pollutants long 

distances. Therefore, public awareness of karst and of these hazards to water resources may lead to 

lower potential for these impacts on water quality. Education about caves and karst, which is 

common to all alternatives except Alternative A, could also increase public awareness and sensitivity 

about other fragile natural systems, like streams and high quality watersheds. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-87 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

No management actions are identified, so cave and karst resources would receive no specific 

protection. Water resources associated with these resources would have the same protections as they 

do in other environments without cave and karst resources, including protections related to cultural 

resources or paleological resources that may be present in cave and karst terrain. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Alternative B would treat cave and karst features in much the same way that other unique geological 

features would be protected. Use restrictions, including seasonal closures and avoidance would help 

to reduce the potential for adverse impacts on water resources in the vicinity of cave and karst 

features. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Alternative C would not allow surface-disturbing activities within 500 feet of natural caves. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Management actions under Alternative D are the same as those under Alternative B, so effects on 

water resources are expected to be about the same as those under Alternative B. 

Effects Common to all Alternatives from Livestock Grazing Management 

Effects Common to all Alternatives 

Livestock grazing under all of the alternatives (with the exception of Option 2 of Alternative C, 

which would eliminate livestock grazing) is expected to continue to have impacts on water 

resources, especially on surface water quality. 

Potential impacts of grazing include sediment loading from soil eroded by wind and water. Grazing 

may cause vegetation loss, soil compaction, reduced runoff retention, riparian function loss, 

biological crust loss, direct soil disturbance, and runoff concentrated into animal trails, with 

consequent enhanced erosion. Grazing animals can alter vegetation communities, spread undesirable 

species, alter natural succession patterns, and potentially create conditions more susceptible to 

erosion. 

Grazing animals tend to congregate in riparian areas, such as accessible stream crossings, springs, 

shady level areas, or other small areas that may not be able to support large numbers of animals, 

independent of the adequacy of forage available within the grazing allotment. Therefore, forage 

adequacy, which is an indicator of the number of animals that can be sustained on a given allotment, 

may not account for concentrated impacts in riparian areas. 

Grazing animals create waste that can introduce nutrients and pathogens to streams directly or in 

runoff. Excessive nutrient loading can lead to algal growth, depleted dissolved oxygen needed to 

support aquatic fauna, reduced water clarity and consequent increased water temperature, and other 

effects that reduce riparian function. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-88 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Under each of the alternatives (except Option 2 of Alternative C), 399,073 AUMs of livestock 

forage would be allocated, subject to adjustment based on monitoring (and on other criteria in the 

case of Alternative C [Option 1]). 

The effects of grazing occur at very low animal densities, vary over a wide spectrum, temporally and 

spatially and with slope, soil, climate, and vegetation. Relatively low effects tend to be considered 

acceptable, and both subjective and objective criteria are used to evaluate them. These include 

estimates of sustainability (proper functioning condition of riparian habitat), trend analysis, and 

comparison to numerical standards (such as fecal coliforms and nitrate concentrations). In most 

areas, knowledge about the resilience of receiving waters is lacking because long-term studies have 

not yet been undertaken. In other areas, such as on stream segments or watersheds where TMDLs 

have been developed, a relatively high degree of knowledge is available. Water quality standards have 

not been set on many smaller streams. The Nevada tributary rule requires that tributaries should not 

contain waters of lower quality than the downstream segment. Most of the streams in the WDO are 

tributary to the Lower Humboldt River, which is much lower in quality than the streams higher in 

the watershed. 

Because of the difficulties involved in quantifying and evaluating effects, some effects may not be 

recognized in a timely fashion or the causes may not be correctly diagnosed until damage has 

occurred. Thus, management entails risks of failure to meet objectives, and those risks are greater in 

sensitive or fragile environments. In recognition of the inherent difficulties in identifying and 

diagnosing effects, all of the alternatives rely to some degree on adaptive management, allowing 

managers to apply mitigation measures appropriate to specific conditions. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

The objectives of each alternative differ in their emphasis on livestock grazing, and so the 

management actions designed to achieve the objectives also differ in the degree of impact they 

would have on water resources. 

Alternative A attempts to strike a balance between livestock grazing and other uses, minimizing 

conflicts between livestock and other uses. Alternative A is the baseline against which the effects of 

other alternatives can be compared. Under Alternative A, about 38 percent of lotic riparian habitat is 

functioning at PFC, and about 23 percent of lentic habitat is at PFC. About 17 percent of lotic 

habitat is classified as improving, and about 11 percent is getting worse; about 4 percent of lentic 

habitat is improving, and about 15 percent is getting worse (see Chapter 3.2.4). Since PFC is an 

indicator of the state of surface water resources, these figures suggest that under current 

management, slow progress is being made toward improving stream water quality, while the reverse 

is true of water quality in wetland areas. One of the primary causes of this slow progress is 

management of livestock grazing, and a key component is hot season grazing. 

Closure to grazing is one of the most effective methods of preventing adverse effects on water 

resources. Alternative A does not close any acreage to livestock grazing, while Alternative B closes 

293,447 acres, about 3,000 acres fewer than Alternative C Option 1 and about 20,000 acres fewer 

than Alternative D. Therefore, Alternatives A and B would result in more of the types of impacts on 

water quality described above than would Alternatives C and D. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-89 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative A provides guidance on criteria for issuing grazing permits and relies on post-permit 

adaptive management to mitigate adverse impacts. This would result in higher risks to water 

resources but would not necessarily result in adverse impacts if managers had adequate information 

and tools to anticipate and correct adverse effects. 

Alternatives A and B, and to a lesser extent Alternative D, allow continued development of new 

springs and wetland-riparian areas for livestock watering with constraints. The development of these 

new watering sources would allow animals to be rotated among a larger number of sites and would 

allow more opportunity for disturbed sites to rest and recover. 

Alternatives A and B allow TNR on a case-by-case basis, without specifying criteria under which use 

of TNR would be evaluated. These criteria would likely include the same criteria indicated under 

Alternative D, but Alternatives A and B do not limit use of TNR. Since grazing can result in water 

quality impacts from soil compaction and vegetation removal, as well as direct impacts from 

congregation of animals in riparian areas, Alternatives A and B have greater potential for these 

impacts than Alternative D. TNR also has the potential to reduce impacts on water resources 

associated with fire, since the primary purpose of TNR would be to reduce fuel and cheatgrass 

infestations that increase the potential for fire. 

Management Action A-LG 5.3 calls for all new spring developments for livestock watering to be 

constructed in such a way as to maintain, improve, or restore the biotic integrity of the spring 

system. Under Alternative A this would be accomplished by the following: 

• Ensuring proper installation of water developments; 

• Protecting newly developed springs, wetlands, and riparian areas by fencing to exclude 

livestock and WHB; and 

• Placing troughs away from springs and riparian areas. 

These actions are intended to minimize impacts on water resources. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Alternative B closes over 290,000 more acres to grazing than Alternative A and therefore would 

provide more beneficial impacts on water quality than would Alternative A. 

Action B-LG 1.4 calls for voluntary submittal of annual grazing plans by the permit holder for BLM 

approval. These plans would require BLM approval of methods and criteria for evaluating impacts, 

including impacts on water resources, and coordination with the permit holder on corrective actions. 

If voluntary grazing plans are not submitted, management decisions would default to existing 

grazing permits. The goal of both permits and grazing plans is to achieve land health standards, but 

the grazing plans allow for more active participation of the permit holder in developing effective 

management actions. The impacts on water resources are expected to be beneficial since land health 

standards include minimizing soil loss and protecting riparian areas. 

Action B-LG 5.3 is the same as under Alternative A and is intended to minimize impacts on water 

resources. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-90 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Option 1 

Option 1 reduces grazing use of rangeland during critical growing periods, and generally allows 

grazing to be curtailed or revised if land health standards cannot be maintained. 

Option 1 calls for closing about 296,000 more acres to grazing than Alternative A and so would be 

more protective of water resources than would Alternative A. 

Grazing permits and annual authorizations would only be issued when grazing is complementary 

and secondary to other resource values. This is potentially a far more stringent limiting requirement 

than under Alternatives A and B and could result in reductions in grazing allocations. Specifically, 

Action C-LG 1.4 (Option 1) implies that if water resources are not protected by grazing and grazing 

is not complementary to the resource value obtained from the water resource in a given allotment 

area, then the grazing permit would not be issued. 

Alternative C (Option 1) would effectively remove and reduce range improvements, such as water 

developments, in the context of making grazing secondary to other resource values. 

Alternative C (Option 1) would allow relinquishment of grazing permits, effectively making the 

issuance of permits competitive, and increasing the likelihood that lands would be permanently 

taken out of grazing, since, once permits are not renewed, other resource values would have greater 

probability of superseding grazing. For example, wildlife and recreation might rapidly become higher 

values on lands where grazing permits have been relinquished. 

TNR would not be allowed, limiting the options available for addressing fire hazards associated with 

invasive species such as cheatgrass, and with over-abundant fuel, and therefore increasing the 

potential for impacts on water resources associated with fire. 

Alternative C (Option 1) would not allow new spring developments to support livestock grazing. 

This would effectively result in a phaseout or reduction in grazing in some allotments. The measure 

may not be protective of undeveloped springs, but other actions described above give rangeland 

managers broad authority to limit impacts on undeveloped springs if they occur. 

Action C-LG 5.3 calls for restoring or developing springs to benefit wildlife, rather than livestock. 

No new springs would be developed to support livestock, and newly developed springs would be 

fenced to exclude livestock and WHB. The combination of these actions is expected to reduce 

impacts on water resources to a greater extent than under Alternative B. 

Option 2 

Option 2 excludes grazing. No grazing would lead to reduced impacts on water resources. It would 

have the potential for altering vegetation cover, increasing water retention of watersheds, slowing 

erosion, reducing nutrient and pathogen loading to streams and other water bodies, and would 

generally contribute to PFC of riparian areas and consequently to improved water quality. As 

indicated in the Vegetation Management discussion, Option 2 would not allow prescribed burns. 

Increased vegetation cover resulting from no grazing might lead to increased wildlife and WHB 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-91 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

populations, but it would also result in higher fire risk in some areas. (See separate discussion of 

impacts on water resources from wildlife management, WHB management, and fire management.) 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Alternative D would close about 313,000 more acres to grazing than would Alternative A. Closure 

provides the highest level of protection to water resources because livestock impacts from turbidity, 

fecal coliform, and nitrates would be eliminated. Riparian areas closed to livestock grazing would 

achieve proper functioning condition in the short term, and functionality can be used as a surrogate 

for water quality. 

Grazing permits would be issued if it is consistent with existing policy and standards. Action D-LG 

1.4 would make issuance of grazing permits contingent on achieving or moving toward land health 

standards and guidelines, implementation of rangeland standard operating procedures, and 

consultation with USFWS. Progress would also be evaluated in the context of PFC objectives 

discussed under Riparian/Wetland Management. Achievement of these standards would result in 

beneficial impacts on water resources, compared to current conditions, by reducing soil erosion that 

leads to sediment loading, reducing soil compaction, and other factors that degrade water quality. 

Alternatives A, B, and D allow TNR. Under Alternative D, TNR would be allowed without further 

analysis when a number of specified criteria are met; making TNR potentially more implementable 

under Alternative D than under Alternatives A and B. TNR would not be used in sensitive riparian 

areas, or where T&E habitat is present. TNR introduces the potential for impacts on water 

resources such as increased erosion from soil compaction, soil disturbance, and removal of 

vegetation cover, which would not occur under Alternative C. However, because the purpose of 

TNR would be to control invasive species, or reduce fuel, the effectiveness of TNR with respect to 

impacts on vegetation and soils would be closely monitored. Therefore, although use of TNR 

introduces some risk to water resources from grazing that would not occur under Alternative C 

(Option 1), it also provides an option for reducing potential impacts on water resources from fire. 

Action D-LG 5.3.1 under Alternative D is similar to the corresponding action under Alternatives A 

and B. However, Action D-LG 5.3.1 provides more explicit guidance than Alternatives A and B on 

how new spring or wetland-riparian water developments should be installed, providing greater 

assurance that upstream water quality would be protected. 

Effects from Minerals Management 

Effects Common to all Alternatives 

General 

The primary goal of mineral resource management is to “make federal mineral resources available to 

meet domestic needs, and to encourage responsible development of economically sound and stable 

domestic minerals and energy production, while assuring appropriate return to the public.” This goal 

does not necessarily have to conflict with the goal of “minimizing [impacts on] other resources,” 

such as water resources, and “preventing unnecessary or undue degradation.” 

In practical terms, based on past experience, the degree of impacts (especially long-term impacts) on 

water resources will likely depend highly on careful planning to accurately identify and quantify the 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-92 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

impacts before a mineral project is started and on providing adequate financial assurances that 

impacts will be prevented or mitigated if they occur. 

Thus, it is important that projects be carefully reviewed to ensure that they are bonded. Nearly all 

mineral extraction or geothermal energy projects must pass through a public review process, in 

which the general public, public agencies, and stakeholders are given the opportunity to comment 

on project plans and identify the means by which the project proponent will comply with the 

management goals of “minimizing [impacts on] other resources, returning disturbed lands to 

productive uses, and preventing unnecessary or undue degradation.” 

Mineral resources development projects have the potential for impacting water resources in a variety 

of ways, and project impacts will vary greatly based on resource-specific and project-specific 

conditions. At the general level, a supply of water is usually needed to meet process requirements 

and to meet the demand created by workers, support facilities, and economic growth or 

development that may result from the project. 

Mineral resource projects also generally generate waste, including wastewater and waste solids that 

may come into contact with water. For some mineral extraction projects, dewatering is required that 

may generate large volumes of wastewater or fluids that must be contained until they can be safely 

discharged. 

In most cases, compliance with existing laws, regulations, and policies is sufficient to ensure that 

water resources will be protected. However, it remains very costly to clean up environmental damage 

once it occurs, so planning, prevention, and monitoring are the most important aspects of 

compliance. 

Most of the mineral resources management actions relate to the goal of “assuring long-term health 

and diversity of the public lands by minimizing impacts on other resources, returning lands 

disturbed to productive uses, and preventing unnecessary or undue degradation.” As a result, these 

actions are generally expected to have beneficial impacts on water resources. The alternatives differ 

primarily in their emphasis, as dictated by slightly different objectives. For example, Objective MR 1 

is the same for all of the alternatives: to return lands to condition compatible with FLPMA, the 

Surface Management Regulations at 43 CFR 3809, and other applicable laws. Alternative B expands 

on this objective to specify that lands disturbed by mineral operations should remain in a condition 

that provides for continued economic activity. By contrast, Alternative C emphasizes that the lands 

should be restored to approximately preoperational topography and vegetation, and if previously 

disturbed, then to a stable natural-appearing form. Alternative D allows for delaying or limiting the 

degree of restoration if a viable plan is in place for productive use of the site. None of the actions 

identified to achieve these objectives requires or implies that degradation or depletion of water 

resources will occur. 

All else being equal, the more restrictions on mineral development and the more land excluded from 

development, the less likely it is that water resources impacts would occur, although projects may 

differ greatly in the potential to impact water resources. Therefore, the assumption is that mineral 

stipulations to protect wildlife or other resource values would also indirectly provide protection of 

water resources. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-93 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Salable 

None of the alternatives requires or implies that degradation or depletion of water resources will 

occur. 

Fluid 

Fluid minerals (oil, gas, and geothermal resources) have relatively limited potential to impact water 

resources within the WDO, based on existing reconnaissance data about the occurrence of these 

minerals. Therefore, in practice, the alternatives would have similarly low potential for impacts on 

water resources by fluid mineral activities. 

Solid 

Most leasable solid minerals, such as coal and bitumen or phosphate, are not plentiful in the WDO. 

Perhaps the most important leasable solid mineral is potash. Therefore, for practical purposes, few 

impacts on water resources are expected to result from development of these resources. The impact 

on water resources would parallel the impacts discussed for fluid minerals. 

Locatable 

Locatable minerals, which include precious metals and gems, are the most important economic 

mineral resource type in the WDO. All of the alternatives would maintain over seven million acres 

open to locatable mineral development. Mining operations include large open pit gold and silver 

mines. Open pit mining operations can threaten both groundwater and surface water quality. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Objective MR 1, which addresses rehabilitation of disturbed lands, varies among the alternatives, so 

the management actions vary. As a result, the outcomes with respect to water might be expected to 

differ also; however, this is not necessarily the case because current mining regulations provided 

significant assurances that mines would be properly closed and the land rehabilitated. 

Compared to other alternatives, objective A-MR 1 includes the fewest specifics regarding closure. It 

calls for returning lands to safe, stable, productive, and visually compatible condition in accordance 

with applicable regulations, and preventing undue and unnecessary degradation of public lands. In 

the past, reaching these objectives has been slowed, particularly with large locatable open pit mining 

operations, by lack of adequate funding and because mining operations expanded without adequate 

planning, leading to larger areas requiring rehabilitation than originally anticipated. Adequate funding 

was an issue because rehabilitation costs accrue at the end of mining activities, when mines are no 

longer productive and do not generate the profits needed to support rehabilitation costs. Although 

Alternative A is the least specific of the alternatives, with regard to rehabilitation requirements, 

current regulations would provide similar assurances under all alternatives that water resources 

would be protected after mining operations cease or are temporarily curtailed. 

Salable 

Alternative A would maintain about 6.8 million acres open to disposal of salable minerals (rock 

quarry operations, gravel pits, and construction and building materials). These are typically small 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-94 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

sites, most of which would be developed by municipalities or other government agencies for roads 

or other public projects. Some gravel operations involve dredging stream gravels and can directly 

impact surface water. However, since salable minerals are widespread in the WDO, quarry 

operations can generally be located away from perennial streams. Typically, salable minerals do not 

contain significant amounts of soluble constituents that may leach from the waste material even if it 

comes into contact with water. Therefore, most quarry operations in the WDO present minor 

threats to surface or groundwater quality. 

Alternative A does not include management actions to address many of the issues addressed in the 

other alternatives. 

Fluid 

Impacts on water resources from fluid mineral development activities include soil disturbance due to 

construction of roads, pipelines, and structures, which can increase erosion and lead to sediment 

loading of streams; spills and releases of petroleum or other chemicals, which can degrade surface or 

groundwater quality; and groundwater extraction and injection activities (especially of geothermal 

fluids) that can impact aquifers, alter groundwater flow regimes, and under some conditions cause 

groundwater quality degradation. The impacts would be specific to each area of fluid mineral 

development, and environmental impacts would be analyzed in detail in project-specific 

environmental documents, as required by NEPA. 

Under Alternative A, fewer than half a million acres would be closed to fluid mineral development, 

and about 30,000 acres would be subject to No Surface Occupancy stipulations. These restrictions 

would result in protections from water resources impacts in these areas, although Alternative A 

includes fewer restrictions than other alternatives. But there are few oil and gas reserves in the 

WDO, and even geothermal resources are relatively limited. Most known geothermal resources are 

accessible at lower elevations on or near valley floors, where surface water quality naturally degrades 

toward the center of the basin. Geothermal operations typically rely on reinjection of geothermal 

fluids, so that water consumption is relatively low, and geothermal fluids are typically brines that 

reside within aquifer systems that are hydrologically isolated from potable water resources. 

Therefore, as a practical matter, the impacts on water resources from fluid mineral resources are 

expected to be relatively minor and would be evaluated and mitigated project by project. 

Solid 

As with any mineral extraction activities, solid minerals extraction could result in ground 

disturbance, leading to erosion and sediment loading to surface water. Such impacts would be 

addressed through BMPs, including avoidance. In practice, leasable solid minerals are not plentiful in 

the WDO, so few impacts on water resources are expected to result from development of these 

resources. 

Locatable 

Operations to extract locatable minerals represent the principal source of adverse impacts on water 

resources (from minerals management) within the WDO. Historically, mining operations have 

increased in size and volume of rock processed. Large open pit mining involves the following: 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-95 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

• Removing overburden and country rock to expose ore bodies; 

• Removing ore from sites that are often hundreds of acres in area to depths of hundreds of 

feet; and 

• Processing millions of tons of ore, which creates waste that contains uneconomical residual 

sulfides, heavy metals, and residual process chemicals that can leach from the rock when 

exposed to atmospheric conditions and water. 

In those cases where the mine must be excavated to depths well below the regional water table, 

mining operations often require dewatering large volumes of water, which may or may not require 

treatment before discharge. Processing the ore requires large volumes of water and the use of 

chemicals, including cyanide, surfactants, and other compounds that may be highly toxic if they are 

released into the environment. Unless the waste materials and process water are contained and 

isolated they may present a long-term threat to water resources. These impacts apply to open pit 

mining operations as well as to subsurface tunnel mining operations. Rehabilitation of large mining 

operations is costly and often involves construction of containment and treatment systems that may 

require long-term indefinite monitoring and maintenance to prevent impacts on water resources far 

into the future. Pit mine operations sometimes result in pit lakes, where the pit has been excavated 

below the water table, so that the lake is maintained by groundwater. The water may become acidic 

by contact with sulfide or other minerals in rock that has been recently exposed by mining 

operations, and the acidity may increase concentrations of metals relative to surrounding 

groundwater. In addition, the water may present a threat to wildlife or human health. 

Actions A-MR 1.1 and 1.2 call for reclaiming mineral extraction sites, but provide minimal guidance 

to land managers to ensure that impacts on water resources do not occur. 

Action A-MR 9.2 under each of the alternatives calls for withdrawal of lands from locatable mineral 

development on a case-by-case basis and notes that any mineral withdrawal of more than 5,000 acres 

must be initiated by Congress. Mineral withdrawal would prevent effects on water resources 

resulting from mineral extraction. Under Alternative A, 60 acres at Porter Springs is currently 

identified for mineral withdrawal. Alternatives A and B propose fewer acres for mineral withdrawal 

than Alternatives C and D. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Objective B-MR 1 amends A-MR 1 to add that lands disturbed by mineral operations should remain 

in a condition that provides for continued economic activity at the site. Mineral activity is sensitive 

to commodity price, so that mining activity may stop when prices make continued operations 

uneconomical; however, the same mine may become economical when the price rises or the 

extraction cost decreases. Closing a mine and rehabilitating the land could make restarting 

operations more expensive. In some cases, continued activity may generate the revenues needed to 

support additional rehabilitation. Therefore, planning mineral operations in such a way as to 

facilitate reopening mineral operations may result in beneficial impacts on water resources. 

However, Action B-MR 1.1 calls for reclamation activities to be implemented only when there is no 

reasonable prospect for continued use. This makes rehabilitation highly contingent on the 

interpretation of what is a “reasonable prospect,” and could delay rehabilitation indefinitely. To 

counter this, Action CA-MR 1.1 calls for interim reclamation measures to be employed whenever 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-96 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

facilities would remain unused for more than one year. If interim measures are adequately funded 

and effective (which would be evaluated in project-specific environmental review of mining 

permits), then these measures could result in minor impacts on water resources. 

Salable 

Like Alternative A, Alternative B would maintain about 6.8 million acres open to disposal of salable 

minerals. More acres (about 4.5 million) would be open with only standard stipulations than under 

Alternatives B and D. About 1.4 million additional acres of WHB HMAs would also be subject to 

seasonal or other restrictions. About 0.87 million acres would be open only to permits to 

government entities. About 0.42 million acres would be closed to mineral material disposal 

altogether. Alternative B is the least restrictive of the alternatives and therefore would have the 

greatest potential for adverse impacts on water resources. 

Fluid 

Just over one million acres would be closed to fluid mineral development under Alternative B, and 

about 0.22 million acres would be subject to No Surface Occupancy stipulations. These restrictions 

would protect more water resources than under Alternative A (but less than under Alternatives C 

and D) by reducing the number of acres on which soil-disturbing activities or potential pollution 

sources could be located. 

Solid 

Effects on water resources are negligible, as described for Alternative A. 

Locatable 

As discussed under Alternative A and above in respect to Actions B-MR 1.1 and B-MR 1.2, impacts 

on water resources from Alternative B are less than those under Alternative A. 

Action B-MR 9.2 is the same Action A-MR 9.2, with 60 acres at Porter Springs currently identified 

for mineral withdrawal. 

Action B-MR 9.5 calls for compliance inspections only to the extent required by law or regulation. 

Thus, although this action is not specified under Alternative A, both Alternatives A and B are 

equivalent, with respect to compliance inspections. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Alternative C effectively provides managers with discretion to deprioritize mineral development 

where the development would conflict with other significant resource values, giving greater 

emphasis to the protection of water resources. 

Objective C-MR 1 provides additional specific guidance regarding rehabilitation of mineral sites that 

is not included in Alternative A and would help to reduce potential impacts on water resources. It 

calls for restoring lands to approximately preoperational topography and vegetation. These 

objectives are translated into management actions in Action C-MR 1.1. Restoring preoperational 

topography may help to reduce surface erosion, particularly in areas where the topography was 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-97 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

relatively level. Restoring native vegetation would probably have no impact on water. Otherwise, the 

rehabilitation actions specified in Alternative C are equivalent to those in Alternative B. 

Salable 

Alternative C opens about 200,000 fewer acres to salable mineral extraction than Alternatives A and 

B. About 3.6 million acres would be open only to permits to government entities. About 0.70 

million acres would be closed to mineral material disposal altogether. Alternative C is more 

restrictive of salable mineral disposal because it specifies that salable mineral disposal would be open 

only where it is compatible with important resource values. 

Fluid 

Alternative C maintains the fewest acres open to fluid mineral leasing (2.8 million acres compared to 

more than 6 million acres for each of the other alternatives) and the largest number of acres closed 

(4.4 million, compared to just over one million acres under Alternatives B and D, and less than half 

a million acres closed under Alternative A). Alternative C also makes the most restrictive stipulations 

to protect other resource values. 

Solid 

Effects on water resources are negligible, as described for Alternative A. 

Locatable 

Alternative C includes more stringent protections of other resources, and more lands are identified 

under Alternative C for mineral withdrawal than under the other alternatives. Alternative C involves 

more stipulations and restrictions on use than the other alternatives, in keeping with the objective of 

giving maximum protection to other resources. As a result, Alternative C would indirectly afford the 

highest level of protection of water resources. Alternative C also includes provisions for off-site 

mitigation of impacts on resources at every opportunity available. As a result, water resources 

impacts that occur in one area might be mitigated by offsetting the impact with improvements in 

another area. This gives land managers a tool to allow a project to go forward if the proponent can 

provide compensation for the effects. 

Under Alternative C, in addition to the 640 acres at Porter Springs identified for mineral withdrawal 

under Alternatives A and B, a number of other areas, each smaller than the 5,000-acre limit requiring 

congressional approval, are identified for mineral withdrawal. Most of these are also included in 

Alternative D, but Alternative C also identifies ACECs in Pine Forest, Raised Bog, and the Stillwater 

Mountains, for mineral withdrawal. Thus, Alternative C would withdraw the largest number of acres 

and is expected to result in the largest beneficial impact on water resources. 

Action C-MR 9.5 calls for sufficient compliance inspection to not only ensure conformance with the 

notice or approved plan (as under Alternative D), but also to maximize protection of other resource 

values. Through this action, Alternative C contains a mechanism to provide greater protection of 

water quality, including both groundwater and surface water (such as in pit lakes), than under the 

other alternatives. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-98 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Overall, Alternative D restricts use on more acreage than Alternatives A and B, but fewer acres 

would be restricted than under Alternative C. By this measure, Alternative D would provide greater 

protection to water resources than would Alternatives A and B but less protection than under 

Alternative C. 

Objective D-MR 1 is generally equivalent to that under Alternative B. However, Action D-MR 1.1 

calls specifically for addressing post-operational use and site reclamation configuration before 

mineral development. This enables BLM to ensure that rehabilitation is adequately addressed before 

mineral operations start and allows monitoring and corrective action elements to be required so that 

rehabilitation efforts are adequately sized and modified if mining operations expand. 

Salable 

Alternative D opens about 350,000 fewer acres to salable mineral extraction than Alternatives A and 

B. About 3.5 million acres are open with only standard terms and stipulations. In addition, about 1.2 

million acres would be subject to seasonal or other restrictions, such as lands within two miles of an 

active sage-grouse lek during the nesting season, and within WHB HMAs. About 1.8 million acres 

would be open only to permits to government entities. About 0.74 million acres would be closed to 

mineral material disposal altogether. Assuming that these restrictions would provide indirect 

protection from potential impacts on water resources, Alternative D would have lower potential for 

water resources impacts than under Alternative B and greater potential than under Alternative C. 

Fluid 

Alternative D would maintain slightly fewer acres (about 70,000) open to fluid mineral leasing than 

would Alternative B. About 1.1 million acres would be closed to leasing, and about 0.33 million 

acres would be subject to No Surface Occupancy stipulations. Alternative D is more restrictive, and 

therefore more protective, of water resources than under Alternatives A and B, but it is less 

protective than under Alternative C. However, although large areas are open to fluid mineral 

development, geologic conditions are not favorable to fluid mineral development (other than 

geothermal) in the WDO, so the risk of adverse impacts on water resources from most fluid mineral 

leasing is low under all alternatives. Geothermal potential is not high in most areas of the WDO 

outside the Black Rock Desert, so even considering geothermal resources, the practical differences 

between the alternatives are not as large as they seem, based on acreage open to leasing alone. 

Solid 

Effects on water resources are negligible, as described for Alternative A. 

Locatable 

Slightly fewer acres would be open to locatable mineral development under Alternative C than under 

Alternative D, but both would open fewer acres than Alternatives A and B. As described above, 

rehabilitation planning would be required before mining operations begin, providing additional 

assurance that long-term impacts on water resources would be minimized. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-99 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Water resources benefits are greater than under Alternatives A and B but less than under Alternative 

C. Alternative D includes most of the proposed mineral withdrawals as Alternative C, except the 

Pine Forest, Raised Bog, and Stillwater Mountains ACECs. Alternative D requires compliance 

inspections sufficient to meet policy and to ensure conformity with an approved plan but without 

additional protections, as under Alternative C. 

Effects from Recreation, Visitor Outreach, and Services Management 

Effects Common to all Alternatives 

Many recreation destinations center on areas where perennial surface water is present, such as 

streams or lakes in upper watersheds. These are often sensitive areas, where increased visitor use 

might lead to soil compaction (as at campsites or on trails), increased use of OHVs, and generation 

of water pollutants (sanitary waste, pathogens). Increased visitor use might require additional 

support facilities and infrastructure, such as improved access roads, potable water, sanitary facilities, 

waste disposal, and other facilities. Each of these can have adverse impacts on water resources. 

Improved access may lead to more visitor use and demand for more support facilities. Many areas of 

the WDO are remote, but there is increased demand for recreation opportunities from urban 

expansion in the Reno area. Visitors from outside the WDO are more likely to stay longer and to 

require facilities to support extended stays. Therefore, increased concentration of visitor use on few 

areas with desirable riparian settings are likely to result in increased impacts on the water resources 

in those areas. 

Similarly, demand for OHV use areas is increasing. OHV use can disturb soils and increase erosion. 

As with most recreational activity, OHV destinations will typically include riparian areas, which are 

particularly vulnerable to OHV use. All of the alternatives include measures to monitor and control 

visitor use and associated impacts on other resources, but the alternatives differ in the degree and 

type of recreational development they would promote. 

Except for Alternative A, each of the alternatives calls for an inventory and designation of routes 

and trails throughout the WDO in limited and closed areas. This inventory is important to identify 

and minimize areas that have contributed to or that may contribute to impairment of surface water 

and other resources and uses. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Unlike the other alternatives, Alternative A does not explicitly include any adaptive management 

actions. Adaptive management is a tool that enables resource managers to monitor and evaluate 

responses to a management action and to adjust the management action based on the observed 

responses. Adaptive management is effective when the impacts of a prescribed action are not 

adequately predictable or if there are potential significant adverse consequences of implementing an 

action. Under Alternative A, any benefits to water resources that may be derived from adaptive 

management would not occur. 

All of the alternatives allow dispersed recreation throughout the WDO, but Alternative A includes 

no detailed criteria for managing dispersed recreation, while the other alternatives do. These criteria 

would help to protect water resources. Lack of criteria in Alternative A could result in additional 

impacts on water resources. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-100 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative A would continue management of existing SRMAs rather that designating new ones, as 

in the other alternatives. Designation of new SRMAs is a response to known and perceived public 

demand for recreational opportunities. SRMAs provide a means of formally planning and managing 

recreational uses within a defined geographic area. Designation of SRMAs would not impact water 

resources. Management actions applied to SRMAs may result in effects on water resources. Outside 

of SRMAs, management of recreational uses is more generalized and use oriented rather than 

location oriented and is managed largely through Special Recreation Permits. SRPs would be issued 

on a case-by-case basis and would set particular requirements according to the requested use. They 

apply mainly to organized group activities, such as OHV events. Outside of SRMAs, SRPs are the 

primary tool for protecting water and other resources. 

Action A-R 3.1 would not promote visitation to areas where increased recreation use could create 

unacceptable impacts. This action calls attention to the possibility that such areas may exist and 

provides a tool for preventing impacts, including impacts on water resources. Since sensitive riparian 

environments are often desirable recreation destinations, this action could result in a beneficial 

impact on water resources. This action is included in Alternatives C and D but not in Alternative B. 

Most of the WDO (6,782,790 acres) is open to OHV use. Alternative A would close 24,832 acres to 

OHV use, (including 17,436 acres in the Pine Forest Area, 141 acres in the George Lund Petrified 

Forest, and 4,555 acres for bighorn sheep habitat during the lambing season, 121 acres of Zone 1 in 

Water Canyon, and 2,579 acres in Zone 2 of Water Canyon). This is about 400 acres more than 

under Alternative B. It would limit OHV use to existing trails on 416,570 acres. Since OHV use 

disturbs and compacts soil, closure to OHV use is expected to reduce impacts on water resources in 

these areas. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Alternatives B, C, and D each include similar adaptive management measures recognizing the need 

to protect other resource values as recreational use expands. This may help to adjust visitor use to 

prevent adverse effects on water resources. 

Alternative B would rely on permit systems to limit visitor use in areas that are overcrowded. The 

other alternatives do not include this measure. Overcrowding may have adverse impacts on water 

resources, including damaging soils and vegetation cover and increasing pollutant sources and fire 

danger. 

Alternative B (and Alternative D) designates over six million acres as an extensive recreation 

management area (ERMA). Among the criteria that would benefit water resources, consistent with 

state regulations, is a prohibition on camping within 300 feet of a spring. This would help to further 

prevent adverse impacts on water quality. 

Alternatives B and D would designate three new SRMAs, within which certain recreation uses would 

be emphasized and supporting infrastructure would be developed. 

The Nightingale SRMA includes 925,593 acres and would be subdivided into five recreation 

management zones, in which a high interaction with the natural world and strong dependency on 

equipment would be promoted. The Nightingale SRMA includes relatively low motorized and 

mechanized use in four of the five zones. Higher elevation areas (the Selenite Mountains WSA and 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-101 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

the Mount Limbo WSA, totaling 55,743 acres) would be primarily maintained for hiking, camping, 

and hunting, with little motorized use. The Blue Wing and Shawave Mountains (59,738 acres) would 

be used primarily for hiking, backpacking, hunting, and camping. The Blue Wing and Winnemucca 

Lake Playas (34,511 acres) would be used for competitive and commercial events. The largest zone is 

a 773,968-acre area in which the primary activities would include OHV and 4x4 use and motorcycle 

travel. Motorized trail use, car camping, and other developed uses imply increased risk to water 

quality. Because motorized uses in the Nightingale SRMA would occur mainly on low elevation 

lands with sparse, low quality water resources, impacts on water resources would be minimized. 

The Winnemucca SRMA includes 151,824 acres subdivided into six Recreation Management Zones. 

The largest of these are the Sonoma Range (91,156 acres) and the Winnemucca Sand Dunes (34,922 

acres). Both areas would include OHV use among the primary activities. Also included are lowland 

and upland zones of Water Canyon (121 acres and 2,579 acres, respectively), the Bloody Shins RMZ 

(13,084 acres), and Winnemucca Mountain (10,119 acres). All areas would include OHV use, as well 

as mountain biking. Overnight camping would not be allowed in the upper portion of Water 

Canyon. The Winnemucca Mountain RMZ contains a paved road to a scenic overlook. Most of the 

Winnemucca SRMA is on low elevation sage brush rangeland, including the Sonomas. 

The third new SRMA is the Granite Range SRMA (95,972 acres), adjacent to the Black Rock Desert. 

It would include two RMZs. The Granite Foothills RMZ (69,252 acres) is at the entrance to the 

Black Rock Desert, and private entities would be encouraged to develop visitor facilities there. The 

Buckhorn/Granite RMZ (26,720 acres) would be managed for hiking, camping, viewing, and 

hunting. The Granite Range SRMA contains numerous springs but no reservoirs. 

The Pine Forest SRMA (98,874 acres) would be expanded. The primary activities in the Pine Forest 

SRMA would be backpacking, hunting, fishing, canoeing, and primitive camping. It includes three 

RMZs: Pine Forest Lakes (25,000 acres), Pine Forest Creeks (73,717 acres), and Knott Creek (164 

acres). Although the area is remote and gets relatively few visitors, use of the area is focused on 

water, enhancing the potential for impacts on water resources if visitor use increases. 

About 1,460,321 acres on flat playa surfaces and checkerboard lands would be open to OHV use 

under Alternative B. Alternative B would close 24,832 acres to OHV use in the same areas as under 

Alternative A. It would limit OHV use to existing trails on 5,445,369 acres. Since OHV use disturbs 

and compacts soil, closure to OHV use is expected to reduce impacts on water resources in these 

areas. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Alternative C would develop and provide access to new water-based recreation only when a public 

need has been identified. Compared against Alternatives A and B, this suggests that fewer new 

water-based recreation sites will be developed under Alternative C. The impact on water resources 

would probably be small, but Alternative C would likely avoid some impacts on water quality from 

introduction of pathogens, pollutants, and erosion related to construction of access and other 

facilities. New water-based activities are likely to be centered on relatively few areas. 

Alternative C designates over seven million acres as an ERMA. In addition to the criteria under 

Alternatives B and D that would be applied throughout this area, camping would be prohibited 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-102 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

within 300 feet of spring sources, consistent with state regulations. This would help to further 

prevent adverse impacts on water quality. 

Alternative C includes designation of the Winnemucca SRMA (it does not include the Nightingale or 

the Granite Range SRMAs that are included in Alternatives B and D). Under Alternative C, the 

Winnemucca SRMA would not include the Winnemucca Sand Dunes RMZ, which is primarily an 

OHV use area. All three alternatives include the Pine Forest SRMA, which would be only about a 

third as large under Alternative C as under Alternatives B and D. 

Alternative C emphasizes more wilderness and primitive experiences and involves much less 

development of new infrastructure than Alternatives B and D. As a result, Alternative C is likely to 

encourage less concentrated and organized recreational uses and less recreational uses overall, with 

consequently lower risk of impacts on water resources. 

About 61,382 acres would be closed to OHV use under Alternative C, including the same areas that 

would be closed under Alternative D, plus about 25,945 acres in the Blue Wing area. About 291,850 

acres would be open. It would limit OHV use on 7,143,400 acres, which would reduce potential 

impacts on water resources from OHV use more than any of the other alternatives. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Alternative D, like Alternative B, includes three new SRMAs. 

About 291,850 acres would be open to OHV use under Alternative D, which would close 35,437 

acres to OHV use in sensitive areas. It would limit OHV use to existing trails on 6,876,824 acres. 

Based on these closures and limitations, Alternative D is expected to have water resources effects 

(primarily from sediment loading) that are intermediate between Alternatives B and C. 

Effects from Renewable Energy 

Effects Common to all Alternatives 

Development of renewable energy will require road access to the sites. All projects would involve 

construction, soil disturbance, and the potential for enhanced erosion to impact surface water 

quality. Solar projects tend to be located on level terrain, such as on valley floors, where there are 

few sensitive surface water resources, and soil erosion by water would tend not to be significant. 

Wind farms typically consist of a series of turbines located along ridges, at the highest points in a 

watershed. Typically, soils are thin and the terrain is rocky in these areas. Although soil erosion may 

be enhanced, the effects on surface water resources are likely to be small. However, there may be 

few existing roads and these may be unsuitable for transporting the components and equipment to 

the site. Constructing new roads or improving existing roads is likely to result in enhanced erosion 

and a potential threat to surface water quality. Roads would need to be maintained to allow 

continued access for turbine maintenance. 

Biomass projects would likely be located on valley floors, in areas that are not far from the sources 

of biomass, such as urban or agricultural areas. Biomass production is low in the WDO and is likely 

to result in only minor adverse impacts on water resources. 

Construction impacts on water resources would be mitigated through BMPs. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-103 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Action A-RE 1.3 would maintain existing exclusion areas applicable to wind energy projects in 

WSAs, ACECs, TCPs, and critical habitat areas. While these would reduce the potential for water 

resources impacts in sensitive areas, they would not address impacts in other areas. Project-specific 

NEPA environmental review would be performed. Construction-related impacts would be mitigated 

by implementing BMPs. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Action B-RE 1.2 would designate avoidance areas, and granting of ROWs would include stipulations 

to mitigate impacts on water resources. As discussed above, the principal source of impacts on water 

resources is likely to result from constructing, improving, and maintaining access roads to remote 

wind farm sites. 

Alternative B would not designate any exclusion zones, but each project would undergo projectspecific environmental review so that the merits of each site would receive public scrutiny, and 

environmentally unfavorable sites would likely be rejected. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C 

As with mineral leases, Alternative C would reduce impacts through development of lease 

stipulations to protect other resources. Alternative C would designate 1.2 million acres of exclusion 

zones and nearly one million acres of avoidance areas. Less available area and exclusion of more 

sensitive lands is expected to reduce the potential for impacts on water resources under Alternative 

C, relative to the other alternatives. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Alternative D would designate 1.3 million acres of avoidance areas and about 0.6 million acres of 

exclusion zones, which is similar to but slightly less protective than Alternative C. 

Effects from Transportation and Access Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives 

Little or no new road construction is expected under any of the alternatives because almost every 

area within the WDO is accessible by some form of road. However, existing roads may require 

improvement to accommodate actions under each of the alternatives. 

Most of the management actions are the same for all alternatives, or at least for Alternatives B, C, 

and D. Differences in impacts on water resources would derive less from transportation and access 

management and more from the different road densities and construction techniques required to 

implement the alternatives. 

As discussed under Effects Common to All Alternatives for Recreation Management and consistent 

with management action TA 4.1, an inventory of all roads in the WDO would be undertaken under 

Alternatives B, C, and D to identify potential sources of impacts and to identify roads that should be 

removed or improved. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-104 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Roads have the potential to impact water resources during construction and maintenance and in 

normal operation. Roads collect, divert, concentrate, and otherwise alter natural drainage patterns 

and create potential for erosion during construction and use in the case of unimproved roads. They 

introduce pollutants via petroleum-based paving materials, deicing materials, dust palliatives, and 

spills from vehicles using the roads. Also, they provide routes for human activities to be rapidly 

introduced into new environments. Inadequately sized or poorly designed culverts, inadequate 

drainage and shoring, poor roadbed design, and other engineering issues can result in erosion or 

slope failure, leading to enhanced sediment transport to streams. Road surfaces can be preferential 

pathways for runoff. They cross every type of terrain and feature, from playa to sage lands to 

riparian corridors, interrupting natural continuity and creating abrupt boundaries. Roads may cut and 

undermine slopes, and road fills may block natural drainage features. Each mile of a 15-foot-wide 

roadway represents nearly two acres of compacted soil taken out of productive use. These impacts 

are similar under each of the alternatives, but the alternatives would differ greatly because of 

differences in total road miles that would be required to implement the various management actions. 

Roads also allow OHVs to penetrate all areas of the WDO, and OHV trails create additional erosion 

impacts. There are currently no accurate estimates of road density in the WDO and no estimate of 

the density of OHV trails. In many areas, perennial streams follow narrow canyons or gullies with 

steep side slopes, where the most favorable flat land for building a road is on the floodplain of the 

stream. The narrow valley floors require many cuts and fills that create potentially unstable roadbeds 

or slopes, and the unstable soils contribute to sediment impacts in the adjacent streams. 

Decommissioning roads may result in short-term impacts on water resources from soil disturbance 

until vegetation and slope stability are reestablished. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Under Action A-TA 1.6, Alternatives A, C, and D would improve or decommission roads that are 

presenting problems to the environment. These problems are described generally above, and since 

many of the problems created by roads have to do with impacts on water resources, 

decommissioning problematic or unnecessary roads and improving existing roads is expected to 

result in beneficial impacts on water resources. 

Under Alternative A, Action A-TA 5.1.1, funds for new restroom facilities would be requested. This 

action is carried over to Alternatives B and D, but not C. The construction of restroom facilities 

would partially mitigate impacts on water quality associated with visitor use of recreation sites in the 

WDO. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Under Action B-TA 1.6, Alternative B would decommission roads only if alternative access is 

provided, and B-TA 4.1 calls for working with local communities to recognize their needs before 

decommissioning roads. Potentially much larger cumulative road miles are needed to accomplish the 

objectives of Alternative B, compared to Alternative C. Although no roads would be built as a direct 

result of Alternative B, it presents greater potential for impacts on water resources because of the 

greater number of roads that would be retained, improved, maintained, and used (such as to provide 

access to OHV drivers). 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-105 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Action B-TA 4.3 calls for removing, rerouting, or rehabilitating roads or trails that adversely impact 

wildlife, but only if alternative access is provided. As discussed under Transportation and Access 

Management, decommissioning roads could result in beneficial impacts on water resources. Some of 

these benefits would be offset by providing alternative access. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Based on evaluation of other management actions, and restricted or excluded acres under 

Alternative C, Alternative C would require the fewest road miles and least transportation facility 

construction of the alternatives, so this alternative is expected to have the fewest adverse impacts on 

water resources. 

Action C-TA 4.1 calls for limiting access to habitat areas through an active road and trail closure 

policy, emphasizing closing roads for protection of habitat, rather than on maintaining roads to 

support community needs. The greater emphasis on habitat is likely to support lower road density 

and therefore to result in fewer impacts on water resources. 

As under Alternative B, Action C-TA 4.3 calls for removing, rerouting, or rehabilitating roads or 

trails that adversely impact wildlife. But unlike Alternative B, the actions under Alternatives C and D 

do not require that alternative access be provided. As discussed under Transportation and Access 

Management, decommissioning roads could result in beneficial impacts on water resources. 

Action C-TA 5.1.1 calls for not constructing restroom facilities, consistent with the general approach 

of minimizing increased visitor use of the WDO, and reducing associated impacts on resources. If, 

as expected, the existing restroom facilities are adequate to support future visitor use, then the 

impacts on water resources would be minor. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Action D-TA 4.1 emphasizes protection of sensitive habitats and calls for closing or 

decommissioning roads and trails to achieve the appropriate road density. Appropriate road density 

would be determined relative to the overall objectives of the alternative for each resource area. 

Alternative D is generally intermediate between Alternatives B and C in terms of closed or restricted 

acres and other restrictions that would limit new projects and the need for vehicle access. Therefore, 

the number of roads that could be decommissioned would also be intermediate. 

Decommissioning roads and trails under Action D-TA 4.3 is the same as under Alternative C, 

except that fewer roads may be decommissioned because of the different wildlife objectives of 

Alternatives C and D. 

Effects from Lands and Realty Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives 

Continued management by the BLM provides public involvement in the decisions that affect those 

lands. BLM management may result in some benefits to water resources that would not occur under 

more dispersed ownership and management, particularly with respect to managing priority 

watersheds and other sensitive environments. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-106 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Most of the management actions are the same for all of the alternatives, but the impacts on water 

resources may differ because of different objectives of the alternatives. 

Action LR 4.1.2 calls for a set of criteria to be considered when evaluating land acquisition actions. 

The criteria are the same for all of the alternatives, but the decisions taken under each alternative 

may differ because of the different objectives of the alternatives. The criteria to be considered in 

land acquisitions include public resource values, such as riparian areas, floodplains and wetlands, and 

fisheries, which would provide direct beneficial impacts on water resources because management of 

currently discontinuous holdings within watersheds could be more consolidated. Checkerboard 

ownership is an artifact of historical decisions to encourage construction of railroads, with no 

consideration of hydrologic conditions and natural watershed boundaries. In general, management 

of contiguous areas within watersheds would give the BLM improved ability to influence outcomes 

at the watershed level, including regulating access and effectively controlling uses to benefit water. 

Divesting lands that have low value for protecting water and other resources, but that could benefit 

municipalities, and increasing the tax base provide an opportunity to offset the cost of acquiring 

lands under Action LR 4.1.2, with no impact on water resources. Land acquisitions and sales would 

be subject to project-level environmental evaluation and public participation under NEPA. 

Under Alternatives B and D, private lands within wellhead protection areas would be given priority 

for acquisition on the theory that public ownership of certain watersheds containing municipal 

supply wells would provide better long-term protection of the water resource than private 

ownership would provide. Nevada regulations recognize “wellhead protection zones” and allow 

municipalities latitude in defining their boundaries. While state regulations and guidelines set 

minimum standards and focus on providing a high degree of protection to water users, adherence to 

the minimum guidelines may provide only moderate long-term protection for municipal water 

supplies. 

Impacts on groundwater are not necessarily restricted to sources that migrate vertically downward 

and then travel at the rate of groundwater to municipal wells. Some uses can threaten the health of a 

watershed, reducing water retention and storage capacity. Some pollutants may be transported in 

surface water or by overland flow before migrating vertically to groundwater, so that groundwater 

flow rates do not adequately represent the level of threat. 

State wellhead protection guidelines do not set any upper limit on the definition of source protection 

areas. Where feasible, priority watershed management is preferable to localized wellhead 

management because it sets management for long-term protection of municipal water supply as the 

priority watershed use. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Under Management Action A-LR 1.3 of Alternatives A and D, not only would public lands in 

priority watersheds (wellhead protection areas expanded to include the watershed containing 

municipal water supplies) be retained, but private lands in specific municipal watersheds would be 

given priority for acquisition. Prioritization of use of these watersheds for public water supply 

protection would directly benefit water quality within these areas. To the extent that private lands are 

acquired, Alternatives A and D would provide greater protection to water resources than 

Alternatives B and C. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-107 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Management Action B-LR 1.3 under Alternatives B and C calls only for retaining existing holdings 

within priority watersheds, rather than for acquiring private lands in priority watersheds as under 

Alternatives A and D. As a result, Alternatives B and C are less protective of municipal water 

supplies than are Alternatives A and D. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Alternative C provides the most protection of water resources because it involves the least new 

developments and the most restrictions on human use, although Action C-LR 1.3 does not call for 

the BLM to acquire additional lands in priority watersheds to protect municipal water supplies. 

Under Action C-LR 5.3, 877,426 acres would be designated as avoidance areas to protect resources, 

and 1.2 million acres would be designated as exclusion zones where no corridors, ROWs, or 

nonrenewable energy projects would be allowed, in order to protect wildlife habitat. These 

designations would be indirectly protective of water quality and water supplies since exclusion of 

such uses would reduce the potential for soil disturbance, introduction of pollutants, and all of the 

other activities described for each of the resources. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Action D-LR 1.3 calls for the BLM to acquire private lands in priority watersheds to help protect 

municipal water supplies. 

Effects from ACEC/RNA Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives 

The effects of ACEC/RNA management on water resources would be beneficial because they are 

intended to protect fragile resources from irreparable damage. Such areas are typically associated 

with high water quality and often include pristine upper watershed areas that are a source of high 

quality water to streams and aquifers at lower elevations. If they are functional, these areas also 

protect lower areas from flooding by retaining and delaying runoff. The alternatives differ in the 

amount of land they would protect. All of the alternatives include the 60-acre Osgood Mountain 

Milkvetch ACEC. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

There would be beneficial impacts on water resources from maintaining the Osgood Mountain 

Milkvetch ACEC. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

The impacts on water are the same as under Alternative A and would be beneficial. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-108 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Alternative C includes three additional ACECs compared to Alternatives A and B. The additional 

designations would provide indirect beneficial impacts on water resources by protecting habitat and 

other values for approximately 97,500 acres. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

There would be the same beneficial impacts as those under Alternative C. 

Effects from Backcountry Byways Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives 

Backcountry byways provide visitors with improved vehicle access routes to areas that otherwise 

would not be visited because they are not easily accessible. The impacts on water resources would 

result from construction and maintenance of roads and from additional visitor use of these areas. 

However, since the byways are typically developed on existing routes, the effects on water resources 

are expected to be low. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Action A-BCB 1.1.1 under both Alternatives A and D include evaluating the need for developing 

the Gold Country, Silver Backcountry, and Blue Lake-Knott Creek BCBs. As indicated above, 

byways may result in increased visitor use and consequent greater potential for some impacts on 

water resources, although the impacts are expected to be small. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Alternative B would encourage greater use, partly to stimulate local economies. It does not specify 

additional byways to be evaluated. As indicated above, the impacts of byways on water resources are 

generally expected to be low. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Alternative C would create the fewest new backcountry byways and would avoid areas that have 

received low visitor use. Therefore, Alternative C is expected to have fewer impacts on water 

resources than the other alternatives. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

The impacts are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Effects from National Trails Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives 

No impacts are expected. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-109 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Effects from Wild and Scenic Rivers Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives 

Designation of Wild and Scenic River status would afford immediate protection to those stream 

segments. If managed in the interim in accordance with this classification, certain types of 

development would be prohibited. WSR segments that are in priority watersheds would receive 

additional protection under each alternative regardless of final designation. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Alternative A provides no additional protections of water resources because no streams are managed 

as WSRs in the WDO. However, priority watershed status and acquisition of private lands in priority 

watersheds would increase protection of the stream segments in the watersheds that are proposed as 

WSRs under the other alternatives. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Alternative B does not provide specific guidance and relies on unspecified alternative management 

strategies to protect eligible segments and calls for providing multiple uses. Any protection of 

eligible WSR stream segments would be considered a beneficial impact on water resources. 

However, the benefits would be offset by any uses that may be incompatible with WSR status. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Alternative C identifies three stream segments for protection, including the North Fork of the 

Humboldt River. If afforded WSR status, motorized use within the watershed may be restricted, and 

tributary streams may be protected consistent with protection of the main stem. Alternative C would 

provide protection to more streams than the other alternatives. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Alternative D would limit protection to segments that are within priority watersheds, which may be 

more readily implementable than corresponding action under Alternative C. Thus Alternative D 

would result in beneficial impacts on water resources eligible for designation as WSRs, and the 

overall impact would be similar to Alternative A and between Alternatives B and C. 

Effects from Wilderness Study Areas and Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives 

Each of the alternatives would result in beneficial impacts on water resources as a result of 

protection of wilderness characteristics (pristine, natural conditions, typically associated with high 

water quality). 

If released by Congress, management of the WSAs would be equivalent under each of the 

alternatives. The management of WSAs as non-wilderness areas would include certain uses that may 

result in adverse impacts on water resources, such as OHV use. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-110 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Alternative A calls for evaluating the need for BMPs (Appendix B), stipulations, and other 

mitigation measures on a case-by-case basis. While not very specific, any actions to protect 

wilderness characteristics are likely to be beneficial to water resources by not allowing, or reducing, 

potential sources of soil disturbance or pollution. 

Until released by Congress, the 13 WSAs would be managed for protection of wilderness values, 

which would result in beneficial impacts on water resources. If released by Congress, the WSAs 

would not be managed as wilderness but would be managed for other unspecified appropriate uses. 

These uses probably would be determined consistent with the overall policy established under each 

alternative, with greater restrictions, and hence greater beneficial impacts on water, under Alternative 

C. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Alternative B is less specific than Alternative A about what measures would be used to protect 

wilderness characteristics but is consistent with management actions identified for other resources, it 

is likely that use restrictions would be minimized in favor of using BMPs and other mitigation 

measures to reduce impacts. Therefore, risk of water resources impacts is probably higher under 

Alternative B than under Alternatives C and D. 

Alternative B impacts would be the least beneficial after release from wilderness status. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C 

Alternatives C and D have the greatest potential for indirect beneficial effects on water resources 

because they prioritize preservation of wilderness characteristics over multiple uses. 

Alternative C impacts would be the most beneficial after release from wilderness status. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

The effects from preservation of wilderness characteristics are the same as those under Alternative 

C. The benefit of Alternative D impacts would be between those of Alternatives B and C after 

release from wilderness status. 

Effects from Watchable Wildlife Viewing Sites Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives 

The impacts on water resources are negligible but of the same type as those described for 

backcountry byways. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

There would be minor impacts on water resources resulting from visitor use. Impacts would depend 

on facilities. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-111 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

There would be minor impacts on water resources resulting from visitor use, similar to Alternative 

A. Impacts would depend on facilities. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

There would be minor impacts on water resources resulting from visitor use, but probably less than 

under Alternative B since Alternative C would avoid attracting increased traffic to remote areas. 

Impacts would depend on facilities. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

There would be minor impacts on water resources resulting from visitor use, similar to Alternative 

B. Impacts would depend on facilities. 

Effects from Public Health and Safety Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives 

The alternatives are nearly equivalent in how they would manage environmental hazards, except that 

Alternative A is slightly less specific about the particular hazards that the BLM would manage. 

The differences among alternatives are not consequential to the impacts on water resources. The 

impacts on water resources would be beneficial. Existing solid and hazardous waste sites and illegal 

dump sites would be identified and remediated. Remediation methods would depend on the nature 

of the sites. In general, these actions would be beneficial to water resources because they would 

address sites that present potential threats to surface or groundwater quality. 

Public safety hazards would be addressed in the same way under each of the alternatives, including 

fencing dangerous hot springs. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Action A-PS 5.2 would restrict the use of poisons on public land that result in a secondary killing 

effect, such as use of rodenticides that could poison predators. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Action B-PS 5.2 under Alternatives B, C, and D does not call out a restriction on poisons that result 

in secondary killing effect since use of such poisons would be limited under the pest management 

program. Instead, Action B-PS 5.2 calls for maintenance of the Orovada pesticide disposal area. 

These actions are unrelated. Neither is expected to result in impacts on water resources. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C 

Impacts are similar to those under Alternative B. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-112 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Impacts would be similar to those under Alternative B. Alternative D would provide additional law 

enforcement compared to the other alternatives, which may help in preventing and investigating 

illegal dumping, with associated potential beneficial impacts on water resources to the extent that 

pollution sources are reduced or responsible parties are identified. 

Effects from Sustainable Development Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives 

Lands containing important wetlands or riparian wildlife habitat or other water resources would not 

be included in the proposed land exchanges, resulting in minor potential for impact on water quality 

under Alternatives B, C, and D. However, sale of lands for sustainable development may increase 

water use associated with that development. The amount of increase would depend on the nature of 

the development but could include direct impacts, ranging from increased irrigation from 

agricultural development to increased industrial process water use. It may include indirect impacts 

associated with increased demand from population growth resulting from increased economic 

activity. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

No impacts on water resources are expected because no land disposal actions are proposed. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

There would be an undetermined increase in water consumption, as described under Effects 

Common to All Alternatives, above. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C 

The effects would be the same as under Alternative B. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

The effects would be the same as under Alternative B. 

Cumulative Effects 

Increased population growth in the Carson-Truckee area is expected to result in increased demand 

for recreational activities. Some areas of the WDO would likely see higher use, although the WDO is 

too remote and has too few developed recreation facilities to attract large numbers of visitors. 

Therefore, if recreational development remains at a low level in the WDO, as under Alternative C, 

there would be little additional incentive for visitors to travel to the WDO for recreation, and they 

would opt for other opportunities. If, as under Alternative B, recreational facilities are developed, 

these facilities may attract more visitors to the WDO. Development of recreational opportunities in 

the WDO may also have a growth-inducing impact, because increased visitors would increase the 

demand for support services. 

Increased demand for water in southern Nevada (Las Vegas area) has resulted in consideration by 

the State Engineer of transfer of water rights out of the WDO. Water rights are issued based on 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-113 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-114 

estimates of the perennial yield. Many basins are already over-allocated, and the perennial yield 

estimates of many basins are based on relatively scant data, making them highly uncertain. The 

principal use of groundwater in the WDO is for irrigation, however, municipal demand is increasing 

and water supply is a potential limit on both urban and industrial growth in the region. The 

combination of increased demand outside the WDO and potentially increased demand stimulated by 

increased development of recreational opportunities and geothermal energy development may 

further limit the potential for urban growth within the WDO and force population centers to search 

for additional reliable water sources. 

4.2.5 Vegetation—Forest/Woodland Products 

Summary 

Forested vegetation would be directly 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 indirectly 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. 

Methods of Analysis 

Methods and Assumptions

Impacts are determined by assessing which actions, if any, would change vegetation structure or 

composition, would decrease the extent of forested vegetation, would allow for increased 

dominance of invasive weeds, would affect habitat value for wildlife species, or would decrease the 

potential for multiple use. 

Some impacts are direct, while others are indirect and affect vegetation through a change in another 

resource. Direct impacts on forest and woodland vegetation are considered to include disruption, 

trampling, or removal of rooted vegetation, resulting in a reduction in areas of native vegetation, 

mortality from toxic chemicals, and actions that unequivocally reduce total numbers of plant species 

or reduce or cause to be lost total area, diversity, vigor, structure, or function of wildlife habitat. 

Potential indirect impacts include loss of habitat suitable for colonization due to surface disturbance, 

introduction of noxious weeds by various mechanisms or conditions that enhance the spread of 

weeds, increased noise, and general loss of habitat due to surface occupancy or surface compaction. 

Indirect impacts include those that cannot be absolutely linked to one action, such as decreased 

plant vigor or health from reduced air or water quality. 

The effects of each action on forest and woodland vegetation resources are quantified when 

possible, but many impacts must be qualitatively assessed when suitable data are not available. The 

following assumptions were made for this analysis: 

• Current trends in plant succession and vegetation would continue; 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

• Noxious and invasive weeds would continue to be introduced and would spread as a result 

of ongoing vehicle traffic in and out of the WDO, recreational activities, wildlife and 

livestock grazing and their movements, and surface-disturbing activities; 

• Biocontrol would continue and potentially expand; 

• Noxious and invasive weeds would further expand into native plant communities, and 

disturbances to these communities would expand opportunities for the spread of nonnative 

invasive plant species; and 

• Many actions that would occur within the WDO would be subject to BMPs. Although 

BMPs are designed to minimize the effects of projects, they generally cannot eliminate all 

impacts. This impact analysis assumes that BMPs would minimize but not eliminate possible 

effects. 

Effects from Air Quality Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives 

Restrictions on prescribed fire and wildfire use to protect air quality may reduce opportunities to 

burn in any given year. This may indirectly hinder the achievement of stand health and woodland 

composition goals by preventing certain forest treatments from being implemented. However, it is 

not expected that these restrictions would completely prevent implementation and accomplishment 

over the long term. 

Effects from Geology Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives 

Areas with geological resources are small and localized within the WDO. As a result, impacts from 

geology management actions on forests and woodlands, which are similarly small and localized in 

the planning area, would be limited. 

Effects from Soil Resources Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Soil erosion reduction measures, involving seeding and improving vegetative cover, would reduce 

compaction and increase infiltration, which would indirectly improve forest health and habitat value 

over the short term. These impacts could become long term due to increased vegetative productivity 

and improved wildlife habitat and connectivity. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Land reclamation in Alternative A would be pursued, although not required, in disturbed areas. 

Impacts on forests would vary depending on how and if reclamation was achieved, including 

whether native or nonnative seeds were used in revegetating lands. Since this alternative places the 

fewest requirements on land reclamation, it could cause the greatest impact on forest and woodland 

vegetation. Impacts would be direct and long term. 

There are no soil compaction prevention measures under Alternative A. This would indirectly 

impact forest and woodland vegetation, as soil compaction prevents water infiltration and therefore 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-115 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

may affect forest health and vigor. However, there would be no restrictions on forest treatments, 

which would directly facilitate forest and woodland health and habitat goals. Effects would be long 

term. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Impacts from land reclamation activities relating to soil resources management under Alternative B 

are the same as those for Alternative A. 

Soil compaction prevention measures under Alternative B would be used to mitigate adverse effects 

without seasonal closures. As such, forest vegetation would be indirectly impacted year-round, even 

during times when soils would be most susceptible to compaction. However, forest treatments could 

occur year-round, directly facilitating forest and woodland health and habitat goals. Effects would be 

long term. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Land reclamation actions under Alternative C would have the greatest direct benefit to forest and 

woodland vegetation by requiring reclamation of all surface-disturbing activities. This would allow 

for native vegetation reestablishment and would help to achieve forest health and habitat goals in 

the long term. 

Soil compaction prevention measures are the most stringent under Alternative C, providing for 

seasonal use restrictions. This would indirectly benefit forest and woodland health by preventing 

compaction but would limit when forest treatments could occur to achieve forest health and habitat 

goals. Impacts would be long term. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Land reclamation actions under Alternative D would provide the most flexible approach to land 

reclamation. Impacts on forests would vary depending on how and if reclamation was achieved, 

including whether native or nonnative seeds were used in revegetating lands. Impacts would be 

direct and long term. 

Soil compaction prevention measures would include seasonal use restrictions on a case-by-case 

basis. Indirect impacts on forest and woodland resources include improved health and vigor from 

decreased soil compaction and increased infiltration. Further, such objectives as forest health and 

wildlife habitat could be achieved in the long term because seasonal restrictions could be less 

limiting to forest treatments. 

Effects from Water Resources Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no effects common to all alternatives from water resources management. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Under this alternative, impacts on water resources would be reduced by complying with water 

quality regulations and by implementing BMPs and land health standards. This would indirectly 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-116 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

protect forest and woodland vegetation throughout the WDO by limiting disturbance but would 

provide the fewest action- and location-specific protections of all alternatives. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Priority watershed actions would limit disturbance, indirectly protecting forest and woodland 

vegetation in those areas in the long term. Under this alternative, multiple uses would be allowed, 

which would enable forest treatments to achieve forest and woodland objectives. Impacts would be 

indirect, localized, and limited by the relatively small acreage of the priority watersheds. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Priority watershed actions under Alternative C would provide the greatest protection of all 

alternatives to forests and woodlands within those areas by imposing the most restrictions. Priority 

watersheds would be managed as exclusion zones, which would prevent forest treatments that are 

incompatible with the watershed’s primary use. Impacts would be indirect, localized, and limited by 

the relatively small acreage of the priority watersheds. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Priority watershed actions would protect woodlands and forests in the long term, as described under 

Alternative B. Priority watersheds would be managed as avoidance areas, which may limit forest 

treatments in localized areas. Mitigation measures would be implemented when avoidance is not 

possible, which would allow for some flexibility in achieving forest and woodland product goals. 

Impacts would be indirect, localized, and limited by the relatively small acreage of the priority 

watersheds. 

Effects from Vegetation—Forest and Woodland Products Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

In all alternatives, forest products management actions, including monitoring, establishing early 

warning systems for insect or disease outbreaks, and using stand treatments, would be tools to 

directly and indirectly improve forest health, including increased diversity in age classes and species 

composition, over the long term. Some forest treatments, such as mechanical control measures, 

would directly disturb wildlife habitat in the short term but would indirectly foster a healthier 

ecosystem in the long term by helping to achieve desirable stand characteristics. 

Implementing SOPs (Appendix B) and mitigation measures would minimize or reduce direct and 

indirect impacts on woodland habitats over the long term. 

Consideration of aspen, cottonwood, and mountain mahogany in implementation plans would 

reduce direct and indirect impacts on these species. Further, managing pinyon pine and juniper 

would improve stand health in these woodlands by removing unhealthy or diseased trees. These 

effects would be direct and long term. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Forest management actions, including use of fire, wood product harvest, fencing, thinning, and 

herbicides, would efficiently achieve desirable stand characteristics and structure, thus directly 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-117 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

enhancing forest health and wildlife habitat value in the long term. In the short term, such actions 

would directly disturb wildlife habitat and would also reduce the fuel load in forests, preventing 

catastrophic fires that would have long-term direct effects. 

Forest management for aspen, cottonwood, and mountain mahogany would help to achieve 

desirable stand characteristics and diversity, which ultimately would directly enhance forest health 

and wildlife habitat value in the long term. 

Under Alternative A, pinyon and juniper woodlands would be managed for the greatest number of 

uses, which would help to directly achieve the multiple use objectives for forest and woodland 

products. 

No old growth forest would be designated, but management under Alternative A would designate 

other stands as appropriate and would manage those actively. Management actions would be used to 

promote old growth characteristics, including large tree retention. Management actions to promote 

recruitment of large trees include mechanical or chemical treatments or use of prescribed fire. Other 

actions would promote old growth characteristics specific to stands, based on stand composition, 

structure, and function. These actions would help to directly achieve forest health goals and create 

higher quality wildlife habitat. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Compared with Alternative A, Alternative B calls for more aggressive stand treatments, including 

fire, wood product harvest, fencing, mechanical, biological, or chemical treatments, and planting and 

seeding. The variety and breadth of treatment types would provide a more flexible adaptable 

approach to stand management. As such, Alternative B has a high likelihood to directly and 

efficiently achieve stand health and structure objectives. 

Forest management for aspen, cottonwood, and mountain mahogany would have the same impacts 

as those described under Alternative A. 

Pinyon and juniper woodlands would be managed for fewer uses than under Alternative A, with an 

emphasis on sustainable yield. Harvesting would be more intensive under Alternative B, with the 

potential for overharvest to directly reduce stand vigor, health, and reproductive ability. 

Old growth would not be designated under Alternative B, and none would be designated in the 

future. Adverse impacts on stands with old growth characteristics would be avoided, but these areas 

would not be managed to provide old growth characteristics in the future. Alternative B is the least 

likely alternative to directly promote undisturbed vegetation and wildlife habitat since it does not 

designate old growth stands. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Under Alternative C, fewer treatments would be allowed in forests and woodlands, with only 

mechanical and biological treatments allowed. Prescribed fire, wood product harvest, chemical 

treatments, and planting and seeding would not be used to manage stands under this alternative. As 

a result, Alternative C could prove to be the least effective alternative in directly achieving stand 

health, structure, and habitat goals. However, it also would not directly disturb wildlife habitat in the 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-118 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

short term. In addition, fuel load accumulation could present a fire danger and could increase the 

chance for a catastrophic fire. 

Alternative C would manage for more species than would Alternatives A or B, which would directly 

produce greater diversity and stand health and more desirable wildlife habitat, compared to 

Alternatives A and B. 

Pinyon and juniper stands would be managed only for landscape value and Native American uses. 

Alternative C emphasizes natural processes and little active management, indirectly preventing 

multiple use and sustainable yield. With less harvesting allowed in pinyon and juniper stands, there 

would be less direct human disturbance to wildlife habitat. 

Under this alternative, 27,605 acres of old growth forest in the Pine Forest Mountains would be 

designated, as appropriate. This old growth designation area encompasses intermixed stands of 

whitebark and limber pine, mountain mahogany, and aspen. Other stands, including mountain 

mahogany and pinyon and juniper, would be inventoried to assess possible designation and 

management as old growth or to promote old growth characteristics in individual stands, as 

appropriate. This would preserve and maintain these forests and their wildlife habitat. However, 

under Alternative C, stands would not be managed for old growth characteristics, which may be less 

effective in directly achieving forest health and stand structure goals. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Forest treatments, and the impacts associated with them, are similar to those described under 

Alternative B. However, fire management would be more adaptive because it would prioritize stands 

for management. As such, Alternative D would most directly and effectively achieve forest health, 

structure, and wildlife habitat goals. 

A greater number of species would be prioritized for management, as in Alternative C. Impacts are 

the same as those described under Alternative C. 

As under Alternative A, Alternative D includes the greatest number of uses, emphasizing multiple 

use and sustainable yield of forest products. Expanding wood product harvest areas, including 

burned stands following site stabilization, would help to directly manage stands by reducing fuel 

loads and stand densities and would also meet public demand for wood products. Impacts are the 

same as those described under Alternative A. 

This alternative would designate 27,605 acres of old growth forest in the Pine Forest Mountains. 

This old growth designation area encompasses intermixed stands of whitebark and limber pine, 

mountain mahogany, and aspen. Other stands, including stands of mountain mahogany and pinyon 

and juniper, would be inventoried to assess possible designation and management as old growth or 

to promote old growth characteristics in individual stands, as appropriate. Management actions 

would be used to promote old growth characteristics, including large tree retention. Management 

actions to promote recruitment of large trees include mechanical, chemical, or biological treatments, 

or use of prescribed fire. Other actions would promote old growth characteristics specific to stands 

based on stand composition, structure, and function. As a result, forest health, structure, 

composition, and wildlife habitat goals in these areas would be most directly and efficiently achieved 

under Alternative D. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-119 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Effects from Vegetation—Weeds Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Actions to decrease weeds on BLM-administered lands would indirectly improve forest health and 

habitat values by increasing native species and decreasing the risk of catastrophic wildfire in both the 

short term and long term. Such a fire could directly damage or kill stands, indirectly allow for spread 

of weeds, and directly destroy wildlife habitat. Further coordination with agencies and 

implementation of BMPs would reduce the introduction and spread of weeds during activities. This 

would indirectly help achieve the goal of multiple use for forests and woodlands in the long term. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Controlling weeds with prescribed fire would directly disturb wildlife habitat in the short term by 

destroying vegetation, increasing human presence, and increasing smoke. In the long term, 

prescribed fire use would indirectly achieve stand health, structure, composition, and wildlife habitat 

goals more quickly by facilitating the establishment of native vegetation. Prescribed fire is not used 

to control weeds over large areas, so impacts would be localized and small scale. The use of chemical 

and biological control methods to eradicate weeds could directly impact nontarget vegetation by 

causing decreased vigor or mortality in the long term. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Impacts from weeds management actions are the same as those described under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Mechanical, cultural, and biological weed treatments would be used under Alternative C, which 

would help to indirectly achieve forest health, composition, and wildlife habitat objectives in the 

long term by facilitating the establishment of native vegetation. Alternative C does not include 

prescribed fire as a weed management tool, which could indirectly limit effective control of saltcedar 

invasion in riparian woodlands because prescribed fire is one of the few effective controls of 

saltcedar invasion. Biological control methods could directly impact nontarget species through 

decreased vigor or mortality in the long term. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Impacts from weeds management actions are the same as those described under Alternative A. 

Effects from Chemical and Biological Control 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no effects common to all alternatives from chemical and biological control actions. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Alternative A would not use IPM techniques, BMPs, and cooperation and coordination with other 

groups and agencies to help reduce forest pests. This could directly reduce forest health and habitat 

value over the short term and long term if forest pest outbreaks were to occur because pest 

outbreaks would decrease plant vigor or kill them. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-120 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Use of IPM techniques, BMPs, and cooperation and coordination with other groups and agencies 

would help reduce forest pests and their impacts, such as stand deterioration or death. This would 

directly improve forest health and habitat value over the short term and long term. Using chemical 

and biological controls would have similar impacts on the weed management described under 

Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Use of IPM techniques, BMPs, and cooperation and coordination with other groups and agencies 

would help reduce forest pests and their impacts, such as stand deterioration or death. This would 

directly improve forest health and habitat value over the short term and long term. 

Biological control methods could have impacts similar to those under Alternative A. Restriction of 

chemical control methods could limit the effectiveness of pest control in certain cases. No chemical 

control methods would be used under Alternative C. This would slow, but is not likely to completely 

prevent, achievement of forest health and wildlife habitat goals in the long term. However, chemical 

control limitations would minimize direct impacts on nontarget species, preventing inadvertent 

increases in stand deterioration or mortality over the long term. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Impacts from using chemical and biological control methods are the same as those described under 

Alternative B. 

Effects from Vegetation—Rangeland Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Vegetation treatments for rangeland improvement projects may reduce the prevalence of invasive 

species and would directly improve ecological conditions throughout a large portion of the WDO. 

Such projects would reestablish an understory of forbs and perennial bunchgrasses that are less 

susceptible to fire than invasive annuals, such as cheatgrass. This would reduce the risk of 

catastrophic wildfire on rangelands, which might otherwise spread into woodlands, causing direct 

impacts. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

CC would not be restored under this alternative, which would keep fuel loads high and would 

increase the risk for catastrophic fire, which could directly destroy adjacent woodlands. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Restoration of CC would have the greatest impact in decreasing fire fuel loads and could indirectly 

protect adjacent woodlands from catastrophic fire in the long term. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-121 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Option 1 

Impacts on forests and woodlands from rangeland management actions are the same as those 

described under Alternative B. 

Option 2 

Restoring CC to Class II levels on 70,000 acres would reduce fuel loads on these lands and would 

indirectly protect adjacent forests and woodlands from catastrophic fire. This would allow forest 

health and wildlife habitat objectives to be achieved in this area by maintaining established native 

vegetation. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Impacts on forests and woodlands from rangeland management actions are the same as those 

described under Alternative B. 

Effects from Vegetation—Riparian and Wetlands Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Improving and maintaining meadows and riparian areas could limit the type of forest treatments that 

could be used to achieve forest and woodland health and habitat goals. This could indirectly prevent 

health and habitat goals from being attained. However, these restrictions are not expected to 

completely prevent the attainment of these goals over the long term. The extent of riparian and 

wetland areas within the WDO is limited, making up less than one percent of the total land area. As 

such, impacts on forests and woodlands from riparian and wetland management actions would be 

indirect, limited and localized. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Restoring PFC under this alternative would directly improve aspen, cottonwood, willow, alder, and 

chokecherry stands in riparian areas, providing for wildlife habitat in the long term. Alternative A 

does not quantify the amount of PFC to be achieved, so impacts would vary, depending on the 

extent of restoration in these communities. 

Removing juniper trees from around riparian areas would directly impact multiple use and 

sustainable yield objectives for forests and woodlands by preventing use of juniper trees for those 

objectives. However, this would indirectly provide for healthier aspen, cottonwood, and other 

riparian woodlands by improving stand composition and diversity. This would improve stand health, 

composition, and wildlife habitat value in the long term. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Restoring PFC to 60 percent by 2028 under this alternative would directly improve the composition 

and structure of aspen, cottonwood, willow, alder, and chokecherry stands in riparian areas, 

providing for healthier stands and wildlife habitat in the long term. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-122 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

The impacts of juniper removal are similar to those described under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

The greatest amount of riparian areas and wetlands (a minimum of 85 percent by 2028) would be 

restored to PFC under Alternative C. As a result, direct impacts on cottonwood and aspen stands 

would be greatest, as described under Alternative B, and stand health and habitat value objectives 

likely would be achieved in the long term. 

Not removing juniper from around riparian areas under Alternative C would indirectly prevent stand 

characteristics and structure goals from being attained. However, it would increase the extent of 

juniper within the WDO, allowing for increased harvest, multiple use, and sustainable yield. 

Option 1 

Grazing management would be used under this option to minimize impacts on forests and 

woodlands and riparian areas. This would directly impact aspen, cottonwood, and other riparian 

woodlands where livestock would be managed. Stand health and regeneration would be indirectly 

improved in the long term through less soil compaction and weed introduction and spread, which 

would compete with native vegetation. Direct improvements would occur from less vegetation 

utilization and trampling by livestock. 

Option 2 

Removing grazing from lands in the WDO would have the greatest benefit on forest and woodlands 

and riparian areas, as there would be no direct or indirect impacts from soil compaction, weed 

introduction or spread, and vegetation utilization and trampling by livestock. This would help 

achieve forest health and wildlife habitat objectives by eliminating grazing impacts on stand 

regeneration and immature trees. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Similar to Alternative C, the greatest amount of riparian areas and wetlands (85 percent) would be 

progressing toward or attaining PFC by 2028. Impacts would be similar to, but slightly less than, 

Alternative C since Alternative D would not require achieving PFC by 2028 as long as areas were 

progressing toward PFC. 

Effects from Fish and Wildlife Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Modifying actions to avoid impacts on species or their habitat could directly alter forest management 

treatments. In some cases, this could preclude reaching management goals, such as reducing stand 

density or improving forest health. 

Maintaining and improving lentic and lotic habitats may impact actions to cottonwood and aspen 

stands adjacent to these habitats. In some cases, it may allow for forest stand improvement via 

riparian restoration actions, but in others it may limit certain treatment options that may impact 

water quality (e.g., chemical). These impacts are likely to be direct and short term. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-123 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Implementing vegetation treatments to improve habitat would involve removing individual plants 

and altering species composition and vegetation structure. This would directly improve forest 

habitat, while potentially indirectly limiting multiple use goals over the long term. Some forest 

treatments, such as mechanical control measures, would directly disturb wildlife habitat in the short 

term but would foster a healthier ecosystem in the long term by improving stand diversity and 

structure. Mitigation measures would be required for actions near nesting migratory birds, which 

would allow for direct forest and woodland management and would protect migratory bird species 

in the long term. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Under this alternative, actions would not prioritize habitats for protection. Lack of such protections 

could lead to increased soil and human disturbance, which could result in indirect impacts on 

woodland and forest health. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Under this alternative, 716,528 acres of priority 2 habitat would be designated, but no priority 1 

acreage would be designated. This would prioritize woodland and forest treatment areas as well, 

indirectly allowing for forest health and multiple use goals to be achieved in those areas in the long 

term. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Under Alternative C, 1,279,481 acres of priority 1 habitat and 869,645 acres of priority 2 habitat 

would be designated, which would have the greatest impact of all alternatives. Impacts would be 

similar to, but greater than, those under Alternative B because, under Alternative C, more acreage of 

priority habitat would be designated. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Under this alternative, 699,929 acres of priority 1 habitat and 1,325,967 acres of priority 2 habitat 

would be designated. Impacts would be greater than those under Alternative B but less than those 

under Alternative C because the amount of acreage designated under Alternative D would fall 

between those two alternatives. 

Effects from Special Status Species Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Special status species management across all alternatives would prevent activities that would lead to 

listing species and would require plant inventories, sage-grouse, pygmy rabbit, bat, and raptor 

avoidance, and mitigation and monitoring. Such actions to avoid impacts on listed or sensitive 

species or their habitat could directly alter implementation or timing of vegetation management 

treatments. These requirements could also make forest treatments cost prohibitive. As a result, 

certain management goals may be precluded, such as reducing stand density or improving forest 

health in specific areas, but wildlife habitat would be protected. Impacts would vary with the type of 

treatment proposed and the nature and extent of the restrictions.

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-124 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Management of LCT habitat could directly restrict certain vegetation treatments that would occur in 

adjacent riparian woodlands, such as soil disturbance or use of chemicals. Impacts would vary with 

the type of treatment proposed and the nature and extent of the restrictions. 

Maintaining and improving special status species habitat would directly impact woodlands and 

forests by helping to achieve forest health and wildlife habitat goals in these areas. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Restrictions on actions near nesting migratory birds, raptors, such as ferruginous hawks and 

goshawks, and bat habitat could directly impact forest and woodland management by limiting the 

type, timing, and location of stand treatments. This would prevent stand health, structure, and 

composition goals from being achieved. Such restrictions would also indirectly limit multiple use and 

sustainable yield in certain areas near special status species. However, special status species 

protections would help create a lower level of disturbance in forests and woodlands, providing for 

more desirable wildlife habitat in these areas. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Alternative B places the least stringent restrictions on actions near nesting migratory birds, raptors, 

such as ferruginous hawks and goshawks, and bat habitat. However, these restrictions could still 

directly impact forest and woodland management by limiting the type, timing, and location of stand 

treatments. This would prevent stand health, structure, and composition goals from being achieved. 

Such restrictions would indirectly limit multiple use and sustainable yield in certain areas near special 

status species. However, special status species protections would help create a lower level of 

disturbance in forests and woodlands, providing for more desirable wildlife habitat in these areas. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Alternative C places the greatest amount of restrictions on activities that could occur near special 

status species and their habitats. Of all alternatives, Alternative C would have the greatest impact on 

forest treatments, wildlife habitat, multiple use, and sustainable yield. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Impacts from these actions would be similar to those described under Alternative A. 

Effects from Wild Horse and Burro Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Management of wild horses and burros within HMAs and HAs could directly impact forest and 

woodlands by concentrating soil compaction and browsing into HMA areas. In particular, forest and 

woodland species, such as aspen, willow, mahogany, and alder, could be browsed and broken, 

especially impacting young age classes. Further, WHB concentrate under canopies for shade and 

compact soils in these areas. Direct impacts on vegetation include the removal of forage, which 

alters the amount, condition, production, and vigor of vegetation in grazed areas. Direct impacts 

from wild horse and burro management occur from year-long use, resulting in lower vigor of desired 

plant species and a change in plant species composition. Overuse of vegetation next to water 

sources, troughs, and stock reservoirs results in a loss of plant cover. This allows localized areas to 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-125 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

become dominated by invasive plants. Vegetation recovery and regeneration of woodlands on 

burned areas could be slowed or reduced by wild horses and burros. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Maintaining established AMLs as a population range, using gathers when AML is exceeded, and 

using fertility control inhibitors would be most effective in maintaining WHB numbers within AML. 

This would reduce direct impacts from trampling and indirect impacts, such as soil compaction and 

weed spread or introduction. Impacts on forest health, stand composition, and wildlife habitat 

would be long term. 

Converting AML between wild horse use and burro use would spread direct impacts, such as 

vegetation utilization, and indirect impacts, such as soil compaction, on forests and woodlands 

through time, as the species have different habitat and forage preferences. Maintaining the freeroaming nature of WHB would spread direct and indirect impacts geographically through the 

HMAs. Both actions would benefit forest health by minimizing WHB direct impacts from trampling 

and indirect impacts from compaction and weed spread in any given area at a certain time. 

WHB protections, such as limitations to motor vehicle racing, would limit disturbance and would 

prevent direct and indirect forest impacts due to human use, such as trampling and litter. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Impacts from population control measures would be similar to those described under Alternative A. 

Under Alternative B, AML would not be converted between wild horse use and burro use, and 

WHB would not be managed primarily as free-roaming species. Both actions would impact forest 

health by concentrating WHB direct impacts, such as trampling, and indirect impacts, such as 

compaction and weed spread, within HMAs. 

Protection measures for WHB would have impacts similar to those described under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Alternative C would control WHB populations by maintaining AML as a single number, using fouryear (or longer) gather cycles, and would not allow use of fertility control inhibitors. This would 

cause the greatest direct and indirect impacts from WHB on woodlands and forests, but actions 

would still decrease the risk of soil compaction, trampling, and weed spread or introduction. Forest 

health, stand composition, and wildlife habitat would be impacted. However, AML reduction in 

response to decreased water availability for WHB would decrease direct and indirect impacts of 

WHB on woodlands and forests. 

Impacts from converting AML between wild horse use and burro use and from maintaining the 

free-roaming nature of WHB would be similar to those described under Alternative A. 

Protection measures for WHB would be the greatest under Alternative C and would prohibit certain 

activities in HMAs, such as motor vehicle racing, unless impacts were determined to be minimal. 

This would limit disturbance and would prevent direct and indirect forest impacts due to human use, 

such as trampling and litter. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-126 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Management of contiguous HMAs, where possible, would have impacts similar to those described 

under Alternative C. 

Impacts from population control measures and development of alternative water sources would be 

similar to those described under Alternative A. 

Impacts from converting AML between wild horse use and burro use and from maintaining the 

free-roaming nature of WHB would be similar to those described under Alternative A. 

Impacts from WHB protection measures would be similar to those described under Alternative A. 

Effects from Wildland Fire Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Wildfire suppression and creation of fuel breaks would prevent catastrophic destruction of 

woodlands and forests in these areas over the long term, which would be a direct impact. Minimum 

impact suppression tactics would minimize unanticipated direct effects on forest and woodland 

resources during fire suppression activities. In addition, emergency stabilization and rehabilitation 

treatments, such as seeding with native perennial species, would deter the spread of weeds and 

invasive species, directly and indirectly improving the composition of forests and woodlands. This 

helps to maintain native vegetation in woodlands and forests. 

Because fire retardants are composed largely of nitrogen and phosphorus fertilizers, they may 

encourage growth of some species at the expense of others, resulting in direct changes in 

community composition and species diversity. Differential growth may also influence herbivorous 

behavior; both insect and vertebrate herbivores tend to favor new, rapidly growing shoots. 

Fuels management actions would result in a short-term, direct loss of vegetation on a small scale. In 

the long term, fuel reduction projects would have direct impacts by reestablishing native vegetative 

communities, providing for healthy forests. These actions would allow fire to play its natural role 

more frequently and would reduce the likelihood of catastrophic wildfire, which would protect 

forest and woodland vegetation from direct destruction in the long term and over large areas. 

Implementing a response to wildfires based on social, legal, and ecological consequences of the fire 

would protect forest resources from catastrophic fire, which would allow for forest and woodland 

product management objectives to be achieved. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

No additional impacts on woodlands and forests would occur as a result of wildland fire 

management actions under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Under this alternative, 57,940 acres of forest and woodland would be designated as suitable for 

allowing fire for resource benefit. These areas could be more vulnerable to weed establishment and 

spread, having an indirect effect. However, many of these areas for allowing fire for resource benefit 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-127 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

are higher elevation woodland areas that have lower potential for weed invasion after burning. 

Allowing fire for resource benefit would be used to achieve resource goals, based on specific 

prescriptions under appropriate burning conditions. Further, overall woodland and forest health 

would benefit from allowing fire for resource benefit. The acreage designated as suitable for allowing 

fire for resource benefit under this alternative is large, relative to the remainder of forested 

vegetation in the WDO. Impacts could be long term. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

No additional impacts on woodlands and forests would occur as a result of wildland fire 

management actions under Alternative C. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Under Alternative D, 5,286 acres of forest and woodland would be designated as suitable for 

allowing fire for resource benefit. Impacts are similar to but less than those under Alternative B 

because Alternative D has fewer acres designated as suitable for allowing fire for resource benefit. 

Effects from Cultural Resources Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Cultural inventory requirements present a considerable impact on forests and woodlands throughout 

the WDO. In large fire years, emergency drill seedings, where seeds are directly placed in the 

ground, cannot be implemented before a cultural inventory of the affected area. This can be costly 

and can prevent timely action during optimum seeding windows. Seeded species are then often 

poorly established, which indirectly increases the potential for weed spread and fire frequency. In the 

long term, this prevents establishment of native species. 

Protections to cultural resources, such as aspen art trees and groves, would prevent direct 

disturbance and fragmentation of forests and woodlands. These areas are small relative to the 

remainder of forested vegetation in the WDO; therefore, impacts would be localized. 

Site monitoring, conservation measures, use restrictions, and law enforcement actions would prevent 

direct and indirect disturbance to and degradation of forest and woodland habitat, while potentially 

impacting the ability to reach other forest and woodland vegetation goals over the long term in 

certain areas. 

Actions to maintain and protect pinyon and juniper stands in the Stillwater Range would improve 

forest health, stand composition, wildlife habitat, and sustainable yield, while potentially limiting 

multiple use opportunities over the long term. Some forest treatments, such as mechanical control 

measures, would directly disturb wildlife habitat in the short term but would indirectly foster a 

healthier ecosystem in the long term. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Protection of pinyon trees in the Stillwater Range would directly impact the woodland and forest 

multiple use goal, as Native American use would be emphasized and other uses, such as harvesting, 

would be restricted or prohibited in the long term. These actions would prevent disturbance and 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-128 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

would maintain the extent of pinyon woodland in the short term but would result in poor stand 

health over the long term, reducing multiple uses. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Alternative B would afford the least amount of protection to pinyon trees in the Stillwater Range, as 

some harvest would be permitted. This would allow for some multiple use of woodlands and forests, 

although Native American use would be emphasized in the long term. These actions would also 

allow some disturbance and would slightly reduce the extent of pinyon woodland in the short term. 

Depending on how these management actions were implemented, they could indirectly or directly 

provide for improved forest health, composition, and structure in the long term. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Impacts from protection of pinyon trees in the Stillwater Range are the same as those described 

under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Impacts from pinyon tree management in the Stillwater Range are the same as those described under 

Alternative A, except Alternative D includes adaptive management to allow for pinyon tree harvest. 

This would have a slightly greater impact on multiple use and potentially on stand health objectives. 

Effects from Tribal Consultation 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Consulting with tribes to identify culturally significant plants, important habitats, and traditional use 

locations would emphasize protection of natural resources, including forests and woodlands. This 

would limit direct disturbance and foster suitable wildlife habitat over the long term in certain areas. 

Consultation could place higher treatment priority in areas not previously identified or limit actions 

in planned treatment areas. Impacts would vary on a case-by-case basis and are likely to be direct 

and localized. 

Effects from Paleontological Resources Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Physical conservation measures and law enforcement actions would prevent direct disturbance to 

and degradation of forest and woodland habitat, while potentially impacting the ability to implement 

vegetation treatments over the long term in certain areas. These areas are small relative to the 

remainder of forested vegetation in the WDO; therefore, impacts would be direct and localized. 

Effects from Visual Resources Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Implementing VRM guidelines, particularly managing WSAs as Class I, would increase the difficulty 

of accomplishing vegetation management actions and may directly affect the dimensions and 

locations of woodland treatments. These VRM management actions would limit the extent and 

effectiveness of restoration efforts, such as logging or thinning because they could change the visual 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-129 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

character of forests and woodlands. This would allow for undisturbed wildlife habitat in forests but 

would indirectly prevent forests from being treated effectively to improve forest health or species 

composition. Further, it may prevent multiple use and sustainable yield goals from being attained. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Under Alternative A, 72,353 acres and 38,691 acres of forest and woodland would be managed to 

VRM Class I and II guidelines, respectively. These actions would limit the scope of stand treatments 

or prescribed burning and would prohibit treatments and prescriptions that would change the visual 

character. Overall, meeting VRM Class I and II guidelines would directly increase the difficulty of 

accomplishing forest and woodland management actions and would indirectly limit the extent or 

effectiveness of the management goals. This alternative would have the fewest impacts since it 

would be the least restrictive to forest treatment implementation. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Under Alternative B, 70,922 acres and 58,632 acres of forest and woodland would be managed to 

VRM Class I and II guidelines, respectively. Impacts are similar to but greater than those described 

under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Under Alternative C, 70,922 acres of forest and woodland would be managed to VRM Class I and 

249,431 acres would be managed to VRM Class II guidelines. Impacts are similar, although greater 

in magnitude, than those under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Under Alternative D, 70,922 acres of forest and woodland would be managed to VRM Class I and 

266,401 acres would be managed to VRM Class II guidelines. Alternative D would have the greatest 

direct impact since it would be the most restrictive to forest treatment implementation. Impacts are 

similar to though greater than those under Alternative A. 

Effects from Cave and Karst Resources Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There would be no impacts on forest and woodlands from cave and karst resource management 

since these areas do not overlap within the WDO. 

Effects from Livestock Grazing Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Collecting monitoring data would reveal problems with grazing management so that corrective 

action could be taken to improve rangelands and lower weed spread. This would, in turn, reduce the 

likelihood of catastrophic fire that may spread to adjacent woodlands. As such, forest and 

woodlands would be protected. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-130 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Proper grazing management and range improvement actions could limit the spread of weeds into 

adjacent woodlands, an indirect effect, and prevent degradation of forest and woodland 

communities, a direct effect. Under Alternative A, 388,124 acres of forest and woodland would be 

open to grazing. 

Riparian woodlands would be protected, preventing direct impacts, such as trampling, as well as 

indirect impacts, such as soil compaction and weed spread or introduction. This would maintain 

plant vigor, stand composition, and fire regimes. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Impacts under Alternative B are similar to those described under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Option 1 

Impacts under Alternative C, Option 1 are similar to those described under Alternative A, but 

livestock grazing would be open on 388,071 acres of forest and woodland under this alternative. 

Greater protection would be given to riparian woodlands, requiring the restoration and maintenance 

of biological integrity in these areas. This would have the greatest direct and indirect impacts in 

preventing effects through trampling, soil compaction, and weed spread or introduction and would 

maintain plant vigor, stand composition, and fire regimes.

Option 2 

The no grazing option would eliminate a potential source of direct and indirect impacts on forest 

and woodland resources. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Alternative D would have 386,130 acres of forest and woodland open to grazing. Impacts are similar 

to those described under Alternative A, except that fewer acres of land would be open to grazing. 

Effects from Minerals Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

General 

Impacts on forest and woodland vegetation could result from fluid, leasable, and locatable mineral 

development and mineral material sales or disposal. Direct impacts associated with these actions 

would include loss of or injury to plants due to excavation or trampling, toxic responses from use of 

chemicals in mineral extraction or waste pits, and increased exposure to dust and other 

contaminants associated with construction and use of access roads. In the worst-case scenario, all 

vegetation would be removed from a parcel of land, and the site would be permanently altered so as 

to prevent future forest growth. However, most mineral development would occur in the sagebrush 

and salt desert scrub communities, so impacts on forests and woodlands would be limited. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-131 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Under all alternatives, BMPs would be implemented, and revegetation would be required to be 

concurrent with the operation, thus minimizing and mitigating impacts. Unnecessary roads would be 

closed to reduce fragmentation and to restore habitat. In addition, special status species habitat 

would be avoided, thus protecting some forest and woodland areas. 

RFDs 

In a reasonably foreseeable development scenario, exploration and development operations would 

continue and could increase impacts on forests and woodlands within the WDO. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Alternative A would open the greatest acreage (Table 4-7) and would close the least acreage (Table 

4-8) of forest and woodland to mineral development, thus having the greatest likelihood to impact 

forest and woodland vegetation. Impacts are similar to those described under Effects Common to 

All Alternatives from Minerals Management. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Compared with Alternative A, Alternative B would open fewer acres (Table 4-7) and would close 

more acres (Table 4-8) of forest and woodland to mineral development, thus having a lower 

likelihood to impact forest and woodland vegetation. Impacts would be similar to those described 

under Effects Common to All Alternatives from Minerals Management. 

Table 4-7 

Forest and Woodland Acreage Open to Mineral Development 

Mineral Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

Solid 345,507 179,233 6,856 129,374 

Salable 345,373 179,233 6,752 55,028 

Locatable 414,744 12,542 54,335 135,675 

Fluid 335,724 179,233 6,856 129,390 

Table 4-8 

Forest and Woodland Acreage Closed to Mineral Development 

Mineral Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

Solid 70,870 117,584 409,521 151,592 

Salable 71,003 71,025 114,870 110,210 

Locatable 1,633 1,633 71,892 1,942 

Fluid 76,920 117,585 409,521 151,576 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Alternative C would open the fewest acres (Table 4-7) and would close the most acres (Table 4-8) of 

forest and woodland to mineral development, thus having the lowest likelihood to impact forest and 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-132 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

woodland vegetation of all alternatives. Impacts would be similar to those described under Effects 

Common to All Alternatives from Minerals Management. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Compared with Alternatives A and B, Alternative D would open fewer acres (Table 4-7) and would 

close more acres (Table 4-8) of forest and woodland to mineral development, thus having a lower 

likelihood to impact forest and woodland vegetation. Impacts are similar to those described under 

Effects Common to All Alternatives from Minerals Management. 

Effects from Recreation, Visitor Outreach, and Services Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Managing BLM-administered lands to provide dispersed recreation could impact forests and 

woodlands throughout the WDO through direct means, such as trampling, or indirect means, such 

as human disturbance, soil compaction, weed introduction or spread, and increased dust. Together, 

these would reduce forest and woodland health and vigor, would alter stand composition, and would 

lower the habitat value in these areas. Impacts would vary depending on the type of activities 

allowed in the area and could be short term and long term. 

To manage OHV use, the Transportation Plan would be updated and would account for wildlife 

habitat, including forest and woodland vegetation. Site-specific NEPA analysis would be done on an 

implementation level to minimize impacts on forest and woodland vegetation. 

Vegetation treatments may be restricted on some lands used for recreation, which would indirectly 

prevent the WDO from reaching its forest and woodland management goals. This could put forests 

and woodlands at greater susceptibility to damage from catastrophic fires. Associated impacts would 

be long term in certain areas. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Under Alternative A, there would be no camping limitations or prohibitions throughout the WDO. 

In addition, the Pine Forest SRMA would be maintained, and issuance of special recreation permits 

would be the least restricted. The greatest acreage of forest and woodland (343,612 acres) would be 

open to OHVs under Alternative A, with the least amount of land limited (70,922 acres), and with 

10,845 acres closed. Combined, these actions could have the greatest direct and indirect impacts by 

degrading forests and woodlands due to increased human presence, OHV use, and trail creation, 

which could compact soils, trample vegetation, introduce or spread weeds, disturb wildlife, and 

increase dust. These effects could decrease plant vigor, alter stand composition, and lower habitat 

value of areas throughout the WDO. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Camping limitations and prohibitions throughout the ERMA would minimize impacts on forests 

and woodlands on these lands. In addition, designating three SRMAs would impact forest vegetation 

to varying degrees, depending on the recreation market identified for the SRMA. For example, the 

Nightingale SRMA would be targeted for undeveloped recreation-tourism, which would have less of 

an impact than Winnemucca and Pine Forest SRMAs, which allow for increased motorized vehicle 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-133 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

access. Under Alternative B, 26,096 acres of forest and woodland would be open to OHVs, with 

10,845 acres closed and with 327,674 acres limited. Together, the direct impact from these actions is 

trampling of vegetation, while indirect impacts are soil compaction, wildlife disturbance, and 

increased dust. These impacts could decrease plant vigor, would alter stand composition, and would 

lower habitat value of areas throughout the ERMA, SRMAs, and OHV routes. To minimize 

impacts, the BLM would limit OHV use to existing roads and trails until the Transportation Plan is 

updated and site-specific NEPA analysis is completed. 

Similar to Alternative A, issuance of special recreation permits would be the least restrictive under 

this alternative, which could cause some direct and indirect impacts on forests and woodlands 

through increased human use, trampling, weed spread, and noise disturbance. These impacts could 

decrease plant vigor, alter stand composition, and lower habitat value in areas. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Camping limitations and prohibitions throughout the ERMA would minimize impacts on forests 

and woodlands on these lands. In addition, designation of two SRMAs would have impacts on 

forest vegetation similar to those described under Alternative B. Under Alternative C, no acres of 

forest and woodland would be open to OHVs, 9,735 acres would be closed, and 405,199 acres 

would be limited. In addition, the BLM would limit OHV use to existing roads and trails until the 

Transportation Plan is updated and site-specific NEPA analysis is completed. As such, impacts from 

recreation actions would be fewest under this alternative, because it is the most restrictive and 

prohibitive. However, impacts would occur, and they are similar to those described under 

Alternative B. 

Issuance of special recreation permits would be the most restrictive under Alternative C and would 

cause the fewest impacts on forests and woodlands through increased human use, trampling, litter, 

and noise disturbance, as described under Alternative B. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Camping limitations and prohibitions throughout the ERMA would minimize impacts on forests 

and woodlands on these lands. In addition, designation of three SRMAs would have the same 

impacts on forest vegetation as those described under Alternative B. Under Alternative D, 180 acres 

of forest and woodland would be open to OHVs, 10,844 acres would be closed, and the greatest 

amount of land (405,298 acres) would be limited. The BLM would limit OHV use to existing roads 

and trails until the Transportation Plan is updated and site-specific NEPA analysis is completed. 

Together, impacts from these actions are similar to those described under Alternative B. 

Issuing special recreation permits would cause some direct and indirect impacts on forests and 

woodlands through increased human use, trampling, litter, and noise disturbance, as described under 

Alternative B. 

Effects from Renewable Energy Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Direct impacts on forest and woodland vegetation could occur with issuance of new ROWs, which 

require vegetation clearing and access roads and would disturb or destroy forests and woodlands. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-134 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Weed spread or introduction could be an indirect effect from ROWs, reducing forest health. 

However, BMPs, stipulations, and mitigation measures would be implemented, which would 

minimize direct and indirect impacts on forest vegetation. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Maintaining existing exclusion areas within the WDO could limit the type and timing of treatments 

and multiple use activities within forests and woodlands. However, this action would protect and 

limit direct disturbance to forests and woodlands and would prevent indirect effects, such as weed 

invasion or spread caused by development. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Designating avoidance areas within the WDO could limit the type and timing of treatments and 

multiple use activities within forests and woodlands. However, this action would protect and limit 

direct disturbance to forests and woodlands and would prevent indirect effects, such as weed 

invasion or spread caused by development. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Designating avoidance areas and exclusion zones within the WDO would have the greatest impact 

on forests and woodlands by protecting and limiting direct disturbance to forests and woodlands 

and by preventing indirect effects, such as weed invasion or spread. These actions also could limit 

the type and timing of treatments and multiple use activities within forests and woodlands. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Designating avoidance areas and exclusion zones within the WDO would impact forests and 

woodlands by protecting and limiting direct disturbance to vegetation and habitat and by preventing 

indirect effects, such as weed invasion or spread. However, these actions could limit the type and 

timing of treatments and multiple use activities within forests and woodlands. 

Effects from Transportation and Access Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Maintaining roads would allow access to forests and woodlands. This would indirectly help achieve 

forest and woodland vegetation management goals in the long term. 

Noxious weed control measures would prevent the spread of weeds into forests and woodlands, 

would prevent competition with native species, and would indirectly help improve forest health and 

stand composition in the long term. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Alternative A would have the greatest direct and indirect impact on forests and woodlands due to 

road and trail construction, which would cause vegetation removal, soil compaction, and increased 

dust. These activities would decrease forest and woodland health and vigor, would alter stand 

composition, and would lower habitat value in areas. Improved and increased access to stands would 

indirectly facilitate implementation of forest treatments and would allow for multiple uses. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-135 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Transportation actions to minimize effects would limit direct disturbance to forests and woodlands 

and would prevent indirect effects, such as weed invasion or spread from road or trail construction. 

In the long term, this would minimize impacts on forest and woodland health and vigor, stand 

composition, and habitat value. However, these actions could limit access to stands for harvest 

management and could prevent multiple uses in certain areas. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Transportation actions to minimize effects on forests and woodlands would have impacts similar to 

those under Alternative B. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Transportation actions to minimize effects on forests and woodlands would have impacts similar to 

those under Alternative B. 

Effects from Lands and Realty Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Vegetation and wildlife habitat value would be given consideration when the WDO makes disposal 

and acquisition decisions. Impacts on forest and woodland vegetation would vary on a case-by-case 

basis, but impacts should be minimized since only lands with little resource values would be 

identified for disposal, and further NEPA documentation would minimize potential impacts on 

forests and woodlands. Acquisition of forests and woodlands would provide additional 

opportunities to achieve forest and woodland objectives. 

ROWs alter habitat with their footprint for the facilities that are authorized. Most of the footprints 

are localized and cover a small area, but ROWs tend to be linear and may stretch for miles. Impacts 

from ROWs include permanent removal of forest and woodland vegetation, introduction and spread 

of weeds over large areas, and fragmentation of plant community and habitat. Many of the impacts 

associated with ROWs can be mitigated on a case-by-case basis. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Issuance of ROWs would not be limited, and avoidance areas or exclusion zones for lands and realty 

management actions would not be designated under Alternative A. This could have the greatest 

direct and indirect impact on forests and woodlands from vegetation removal, soil compaction, 

habitat disturbance and fragmentation, and increased dust. In the long term, this would lower forest 

and woodland health and vigor, would alter stand composition, and would lower habitat value in 

areas. No restrictions would be placed on stand treatments, thus allowing for implementation of 

forest improvement projects. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Designation of avoidance areas would have impacts similar to the renewable energy management 

actions under Alternative B. Issuance of ROWs would have impacts similar to those described under 

Alternative A. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-136 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Designating avoidance areas and exclusion zones would have similar impacts as those described 

under Alternative C for renewable energy management actions. 

Restricting ROW issuance could have the least direct and indirect impacts on forests by limiting 

vegetation disturbance and weed invasion or spread from road construction. This would limit 

impacts on forest and woodland health and vigor, stand composition, and habitat value. However, 

this action could limit implementation of stand improvement treatments and could prevent multiple 

uses in certain areas. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Designating avoidance areas and exclusion zones would have impacts similar to those described 

under Alternative D for renewable energy management actions. 

Issuing ROWs would have impacts similar to those described under Alternative A. 

Effects from ACEC/ RNA Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no effects common to all alternatives for ACEC/RNA management. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

No impacts on forests or woodlands would occur under Alternative A because there are no forests 

within the Osgood Mountain Milkvetch ACEC, which is the only ACEC that would be maintained 

under this alternative. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Effects from ACEC/RNA Management under Alternative B are the same as those described under 

Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Designating the Pine Forest and Stillwater ACECs would provide the greatest protection of forests 

and woodlands and would prevent direct disturbance and fragmentation of 46,581 acres of forested 

areas within these ACECs. This action could also limit multiple uses in these ACECs over the long 

term. The acreage of impacted forest and woodland is small relative to the remainder of forested 

vegetation in the WDO, so impacts would be localized. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Effects from ACEC/RNA Management under Alternative D are the same as those described under 

Alternative C. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-137 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Effects from Backcountry Byways Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Backcountry byways may attract more tourism to areas they access and could increase human use 

and degradation of nearby forests and woodlands. Currently, the only BCB is the Lovelock Cave 

BCB, which does not access large forested areas. However, expanding BCBs could have a greater 

impact on forests and woodlands. Impacts would vary depending on the locations of new BCBs and 

areas they would access. 

Effects from National Trails Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no likely impacts from national trails management, as these actions would not affect forest 

or woodland product management objectives. 

Effects from Wild and Scenic Rivers Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no effects common to all alternatives from wild and scenic rivers management. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

No WSRs would be managed under Alternative A. There would be no impacts due to the limited 

amount of forests and woodlands present along rivers in the WDO. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

No WSRs would be managed under Alternative B. Impacts are the same as those described under 

Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

WSRs would be managed under Alternative C and would limit other uses, causing the least impact 

on forests and woodlands within the WDO. As a result, there would be limited impacts on riparian 

woodlands and habitat. Forest treatments would also be restricted, preventing management for 

stand health, multiple use, and sustainable yield. Impacts would be limited due to the limited amount 

of forests and woodlands present along rivers in the WDO. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

No WSRs would be managed under Alternative D. Impacts are the same as those described under 

Alternative A. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-138 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Effects from Wilderness Study Areas and Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

WSAs would provide relatively undisturbed wildlife habitat in 73,879 acres of forest and woodland 

areas within the WDO. However, these would limit forest and woodland vegetation treatments on 

these lands, including in old growth stands, indirectly preventing forest and woodland goals from 

being achieved in the long term on these lands. Limber pine and whitebark pine stands would be 

most impacted by these restrictions. Wilderness and WSAs are small areas relative to the remainder 

of forested vegetation in the WDO; therefore, impacts would be localized. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Wilderness characteristic areas would not be designated under Alternative A, and, as a result, there 

would no restrictions on forest or woodland product activities. This would indirectly allow 

management objectives to be achieved over the long term. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Alternative B would manage six areas containing wilderness characteristics to meet multiple use and 

sustained yield objectives. This would allow management objectives to be achieved over the long 

term. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

As in Alternative B, Alternative C would also manage six areas containing wilderness characteristics. 

However, Alternative C would be the most restrictive to forest and woodland product activities 

within these areas, by implementing restrictions and stipulations. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Alternative D would also manage six areas containing wilderness characteristics. Depending on the 

restrictions implemented, some forest and woodland uses could be limited, but restrictions are 

unlikely to prevent management objectives from being achieved over the long term. 

Effects from Watchable Wildlife Viewing Sites Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

WWV sites could impact forest and woodland vegetation by allowing for more human disturbance 

to the sites over the long term. Direct impacts include trampling, and indirect impacts include soil 

compaction, litter and noise. This could impact forest and woodland health and vigor, stand 

composition, and habitat value in the long term. These areas are small relative to the remainder of 

forested vegetation in the WDO; therefore, impacts would be localized. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

An unspecified number and location of WWV sites would be developed and maintained under this 

alternative. The magnitude of impacts would vary depending on the amount of WWV sites 

developed. Impacts are similar to those described under Effects Common to All Alternatives. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-139 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Six WWV sites would be maintained under Alternative B. Impacts would occur in these areas and 

are similar to those described under Effects Common to All Alternatives. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Impacts to forest and woodland would be the least under this Alternative since new routes through 

or near sensitive area, and increased traffic to remote areas would be avoided. This would reduce 

human disturbance described under Effects Common to All Alternatives. However, impacts would 

still occur and are similar to those described under Effects Common to All Alternatives. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Impacts are the same as those described under Alternative B. 

Effects from Public Health and Safety Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There would be no likely impact from public health and safety management action since there are no 

actions that relate to forest or woodland product management objectives. 

Effects from Sustainable Development Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Sustainable development management actions apply to areas that have already been developed and 

likely do not have forests and woodland vegetation. Because sustainable development management 

actions would involve facility reuse, new operations would not create new disturbance. As a result, 

there would be few impacts on forests and woodland from sustainable development actions. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

There are no actions under Alternative A that relate to sustainable development. This could directly 

impact forests and woodlands by allowing degradation of vegetation or loss of lands from disposal, 

ROWs, or mineral operations. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Sustainable development actions would protect sensitive habitat from disposal. This could help 

maintain the extent of forests and woodlands in the WDO. ROW and mineral operation actions 

could directly impact forests and woodlands by allowing some degradation of vegetation and lands 

during development. This could fragment and disturb wildlife habitat and impact forest health 

through soil compaction, trampling, and vegetation removal. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Impacts would be similar to those described under Alternative B. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-140 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-141 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Impacts would be similar to those described under Alternative B. 

Cumulative Effects 

Cumulative effects are similar among the alternatives. Effects on forested vegetation from any of the 

Winnemucca RMP alternatives would be overshadowed by reasonably foreseeable stand-replacing 

fire, continued fire suppression made necessary by WUI and intermingled landownership, and insect 

and disease outbreaks that would continue over the life of the RMP. Effects on forested vegetation 

from management accomplished by other landowners could affect forested vegetation on public 

lands. When fuels are not treated adequately, fuel hazard can increase on adjacent lands and affect 

fire intensity and severity on public lands. 

Population increases could alter forest management, taking the emphasis off restoring wildlife 

habitat objectives and focusing more on fuel reduction, multiple use, and sustainable yield. These 

activities could result in stand structure changes but probably no species composition changes. 

4.2.6 Vegetation—Weeds 

Summary 

The potential for weed spread 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 the potential for weed spread. Effects from other resources could be limited and localized. 

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 a higher potential for weed spread throughout the WDO. 

Methods of Analysis 

Methods and Assumptions

Effects are conditions that change the potential for weed infestation or spread. Effect 

determinations are based on reasonably predictable responses of weed species to a variety of 

conditions. Reasonably predictable responses include the following: 

• Weeds often exploit disturbed areas and are adept at outcompeting many native species; 

• Most actions that disturb soils or vegetation will increase the potential for weed infestation; 

• Weed infestation will often follow transportation routes, making transmission corridors, 

roadsides, and trails prime habitat for weeds and making vehicles prime mechanisms for the 

spread of weeds; 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

• Degraded or unhealthy rangelands are particularly prone to weed infestation due to 

disturbances from grazing livestock; and 

• Weeds thrive in ecosystems that are out of balance, either from a hydrological or vegetative 

perspective. 

Some impacts are direct, while others are indirect and affect vegetation through a change in another 

resource. Direct impacts on weeds include direct removal and actions that unequivocally introduce 

or spread weeds. 

Potential indirect impacts would result from actions that would expose or compact the soil, alter 

hydrologic regime or water availability, remove native vegetation, reduce the health or vigor of 

native vegetation (thus making it less able to compete with weeds), or create conditions that would 

enhance the introduction or spread of weeds. 

Although many specific populations of weed species are known in the WDO, the entire area has not 

been inventoried. Therefore, it is difficult to predict which species, if any, may arise in a given area 

or to calculate the exact degree to which the WDO is affected. The analysis below focuses on 

explaining how existing or proposed management actions may contribute to the spread or 

management of weed populations. This analysis is based on the following assumptions: 

• Weeds are most likely to thrive in disturbed areas, including burned areas, along road cuts or 

in staging areas, and where soils have been disturbed; 

• Current trends in plant succession and vegetation would continue; 

• Vegetation communities would be maintained with a mix of species composition, cover, and 

age classes; 

• Changes in the potential for weed spread would occur commensurate with changes in forest 

management actions since logging activities contribute to extensive soil disturbance; 

• Noxious and invasive weeds would continue to be introduced and spread as a result of 

ongoing vehicle traffic in and out of the WDO, recreational activities, wildlife and livestock 

grazing and their movements, and surface-disturbing activities; 

• Noxious and invasive weeds would further expand into native plant communities, and 

disturbances to these communities would expand opportunities for the spread of nonnative 

invasive plant species; 

• As use of BLM lands increases over the life of this RMP, levels of funding for weed control 

will also increase; 

• Total control of the spread of noxious weeds is unlikely under any alternative; 

• The BLM would continue to treat noxious and invasive weeds and pests on public land, as 

stipulated within other BLM permits and authorizations; and 

• Weed and pest control would be carried out in coordination with the appropriate county, 

weed and pest control district, and owners of adjacent property. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-142 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Effects from Air Quality Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Restrictions on prescribed fire and wildfire use to protect air quality may reduce opportunities to 

burn in any given year. This may prevent certain weed treatments from being implemented and may 

indirectly facilitate the introduction or spread of weeds. However, these restrictions are not expected 

to completely prevent implementation and accomplishment over the long term. 

Effects from Geology Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Areas with geological resources are small and localized within the WDO. As a result, impacts from 

geology management actions on the potential for weed spread would be limited. 

Effects from Soil Resources Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Soil erosion reduction measures, including seeding and improving vegetative cover, would indirectly 

prevent the introduction or spread of weed species by helping to establish native plant species in 

areas that are highly susceptible to weed invasion. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Land reclamation in Alternative A would be pursued, although not required, in disturbed areas. In 

addition, soil erosion reduction measures would allow for use of native or introduced species. The 

potential for weed spread in these areas would vary depending on how and if reclamation was 

achieved, including whether native or nonnative seeds were used in revegetating lands. Impacts 

would be indirect and long term. 

There are no soil compaction prevention measures under Alternative A. This would have the 

greatest indirect impact on the potential for weed spread and could prevent establishment of native 

vegetation, which would facilitate weed invasion. However, there would also be no restrictions on 

weeds treatments, which would directly reduce the potential for weed spread in invaded areas. 

Effects would be long term. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Impacts from land reclamation activities relating to soil resources management under Alternative B 

are the same as for Alternative A. However, soil erosion reduction measures would use introduced 

species only, which would indirectly increase the potential for weed spread in these areas in the long 

term. 

Soil compaction prevention measures under Alternative B would seek to mitigate adverse effects 

without seasonal closures. As such, native vegetation would be impacted year-round, even when 

soils would be most susceptible to compaction and disturbance. This could indirectly impede efforts 

to establish native vegetation in certain areas, as well as facilitate weed invasion or spread in the long 

term. However, weed treatments could also occur year-round, allowing for effective direct control of 

weed-infested areas in the long term. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-143 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Land reclamation actions under Alternative C would require reclamation of all surface-disturbing 

activities. Soil erosion reduction measures would allow for use of native species only. This would 

facilitate native vegetation reestablishment and would have the greatest indirect impact in helping to 

prevent weed invasion or spread in the long term. 

Soil compaction prevention measures are the most stringent under Alternative C, providing for 

seasonal use restrictions. This would benefit weed management actions indirectly by preventing soil 

disturbance when soils would be most susceptible, but would directly limit the timing of weed 

treatments in infested areas. Impacts would be long term. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Land reclamation actions under Alternative D would provide the most flexible approach to land 

reclamation, and native or introduced species could be used for soil erosion reduction measures. 

Impacts on weed management would vary depending on how and if reclamation was achieved, 

including whether native or nonnative seeds were used in revegetating lands. Impacts would be 

indirect and long term. 

Soil compaction prevention measures would implement seasonal use restrictions, which would occur 

on a case-by-case basis. This would indirectly benefit weed management actions by preventing soil 

disturbance when soils would be most susceptible, but would directly limit the timing of weed 

treatments in infested areas. Impacts would be long term. 

Effects from Water Resources Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives 

There are no effects common to all alternatives from water resources management. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Under this alternative, priority watersheds would not be managed. However, impacts on water 

resources would be reduced by complying with water quality regulations and implementing BMPs 

and land health standards. This would indirectly protect lands from weed infestation throughout the 

WDO, but would provide the fewest action- and location-specific protections of all alternatives. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Priority watershed actions would indirectly protect lands from weed infestation in the long term by 

imposing restrictions in these areas. Under this alternative, multiple uses would be allowed, which 

could increase or decrease the potential for weed spread depending on the use. Soil-disturbing 

activities could indirectly or directly increase weed spread or introduction through humans and 

machinery and could expose soil, allowing seeds to invade and outcompete native vegetation. Weed 

treatments could directly remove weeds and reestablish native vegetation, thus lowering the potential 

for weed spread. Impacts would be localized and limited by the relatively small acreage of the 

priority watersheds. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-144 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Priority watershed actions under Alternative C would provide the greatest indirect protection from 

weed spread or introduction in the long term for lands subject to these actions. However, as 

exclusion zones, they would also prevent weed treatments that are incompatible with the watershed’s 

primary use. Impacts would vary on a case-by-case basis and would be localized and limited by the 

relatively small acreage of the priority watersheds. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Priority watershed actions would impact weed management in the long term. As avoidance areas, 

they may directly limit the type of weed treatments in certain areas. Mitigation measures would be 

implemented when avoidance is not possible, which would allow for some flexibility in achieving 

weed control and eradication. This alternative would provide less protection from weed spread or 

invasion than Alternative C but would provide more protection compared with Alternatives B and 

A. Impacts would be localized and limited by the relatively small acreage of the priority watersheds. 

Effects from Vegetation—Forest and Woodland Products Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

In all alternatives, forest products management actions, including monitoring, establishing early 

warning systems for insect or disease outbreaks, and implementing stand treatments, are tools to 

monitor weed outbreaks, which would indirectly prevent weed spread or invasion over the long 

term. 

Implementing SOPs (Appendix B) and mitigation measures would indirectly minimize or reduce 

weed introduction or spread over the long term by minimizing unnecessary disturbance to native 

vegetation. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Actions using fire as a management tool could help to control the number and extent of weed 

populations in forests where weeds have invaded. Other treatments would facilitate this 

enhancement, including fencing, mechanical control, and herbicides. Such actions would directly 

reduce the spread or introduction of weeds in the long term. 

No old growth forest would be designated, but management under Alternative A would designate 

other stands as appropriate and manage those actively. This would directly help to prevent and 

control weeds within these areas in the long term through early detection of weeds and prioritizing 

these areas for weed removal. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Effects from forest and woodland management on vegetation are the same as those described for 

Alternative A. However, Alternative B calls for more aggressive stand treatments, including use of 

fencing, mechanical, biological, or chemical treatments, and planting and seeding. The variety and 

breadth of treatment types would provide a more flexible adaptable approach to stand management, 

including eradication of noxious and invasive species. As such, Alternative B has a high likelihood to 

directly and efficiently remove and prevent weed spread. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-145 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Old growth would not be designated under Alternative B, and none would be designated in the 

future. Adverse impacts on stands with old growth characteristics would be avoided, but these areas 

would not be managed to provide old growth characteristics in the future. As a result, these areas 

would not be given high priority for weed removal. Indirect impacts on the potential for weed 

spread from this action would be greatest under this alternative. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Under Alternative C, prescribed fire would not be used to manage stands, which could prove to be 

the least effective at directly controlling or preventing weed infestations in the long term. In 

addition, fuel load accumulation could present a fire danger and increase the likelihood that native 

vegetation would be destroyed in a catastrophic fire. This would create conditions that favor weed 

invasion, causing indirect impacts. Fewer treatments would be allowed on these lands, with only 

mechanical and biological treatments allowed. These, too, may be less effective in lowering the 

potential for weed spread in the long term. 

Alternative C would designate 27,605 acres of old growth forest and other stands, as appropriate. 

However, Alternative C would not actively manage stands for old growth characteristics, which may 

limit weed treatments in infested areas and thus would be less effective in directly lowering the 

potential for weed spread in these areas. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Effects from forest and woodland management of vegetation are the same as those described under 

Alternative A. However, forest and woodland management would be more adaptive because it 

would prioritize stands for management. Further, the variety and breadth of treatment types would 

provide a more flexible, adaptable approach to stand management, including eradication of noxious 

and invasive species. As such, Alternative D has a high likelihood to efficiently remove noxious and 

invasive species and prevent their spread. 

This alternative would designate 27,605 acres of old growth forest and would designate other stands 

as appropriate in the future. In addition, old growth stands would be managed to facilitate old 

growth characteristics. As a result, weed control in these areas would be prioritized and implemented 

most effectively under Alternative D. 

Effects from Vegetation—Weeds Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Implementing weeds management actions would directly reduce the introduction and spread of 

noxious and invasive weeds throughout the WDO. By increasing the amount of native vegetation, 

the risk of catastrophic wildfire would be decreased in both the short term and long term. Such a 

fire could damage or kill native vegetation, which would allow for the continued spread of weeds, 

causing indirect impacts. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Using a variety of control methods would be the most direct, effective, and adaptable approach in 

controlling the introduction and spread of noxious weeds. However, lack of education programs, 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-146 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

implementation plans, SOPs (Appendix B), BMPs (Appendix B), mitigation measures, or new 

techniques could indirectly limit the effectiveness of weed management actions in the long term. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Using a variety of control methods would have the same effects as those under Alternative A. In 

addition, education programs, implementation plans, SOPs (Appendix B), BMPs (Appendix B), 

mitigation measures, and use of new techniques would indirectly supplement the effectiveness of 

weed management actions in the long term by providing a more comprehensive approach to weed 

control. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Alternative C would use the fewest control methods, which would limit the effectiveness of direct 

weed management in the long term. However, education programs, implementation plans, SOPs 

(Appendix B), BMPs (Appendix B), mitigation measures, and use of new techniques would indirectly 

supplement the effectiveness of weed management actions in the long term by providing a more 

comprehensive approach to weed control. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Using a variety of control methods would have the same direct effects as those described under 

Alternative A. Similar to Alternative B, education programs, implementation plans, SOPs (Appendix 

B), BMPs (Appendix B), mitigation measures, and use of new techniques would indirectly 

supplement the effectiveness of weed management actions in the long term by providing a more 

comprehensive approach to weed control. 

Effects from Chemical and Biological Control 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Using chemical control methods would directly help to control and reduce weed outbreaks. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Restricting herbicide use near water would directly limit the effectiveness of weed treatments in 

riparian areas. This is especially restrictive, as current weed outbreaks often occur near water and are 

treated with chemicals. 

Lack of regulation regarding the types of biological and chemical control and how to implement 

control methods could lead to ineffective and unsafe weed management practices. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Using both biological and chemical control methods, as well as IPM techniques, would provide a 

direct, adaptive, and effective approach to weed management in the long term. Preparing pesticide 

and biological use proposals, in addition to cooperating with agencies, would ensure that only safe 

and effective treatments would be used within the WDO. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-147 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

The focus on biological control methods would limit the effectiveness of direct weed management 

in the long term under Alternative C. However, use of IPM techniques would provide a direct, 

adaptive, and effective approach to weed management in the long term. Preparing pesticide and 

biological use proposals, in addition to cooperating with agencies, would ensure that only safe and 

effective treatments would be used within the WDO. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Effects from chemical and biological control are the same as those described under Alternative B. 

Effects from Vegetation—Rangeland Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives 

Vegetation treatments for range improvement projects would directly cause a short-term increase in 

the prevalence of invasive species during construction but would lead to a long-term reduction by 

helping to achieve an improved ecological condition throughout a large portion of the WDO. Such 

projects would have indirect effects by reestablishing an understory of forbs and perennial 

bunchgrasses that are less susceptible to fire than invasive annuals, such as cheatgrass. This would 

reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfire on rangelands, which would prevent the continued spread of 

weeds. 

Individual Alternative Effects from Vegetation—Rangeland Management 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

CC would not be restored under this alternative. This would have indirect effects by keeping fuel 

loads high and increasing the risk for catastrophic fire, which could destroy native vegetation and 

allow for the spread or introduction of invasive weeds. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Land treatments and restoration of CC would lower fire fuel loads and would partially focus on 

direct weed control, including cheatgrass and other exotic annuals, to reduce the fire threat. A shortterm direct effect would occur in the form of increased potential for weed spread in treated areas 

due to increased soil disturbance and increased use of vehicles that could introduce or spread weed 

seeds. A long-term indirect impact would occur in the form of decreased potential for weed spread 

in treated areas due to less frequent or less intense fires and an increased prevalence of native 

vegetation. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Option 1 

Impacts on the potential for weed spread from rangeland management actions are the same as those 

described under Alternative B. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-148 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Option 2 

The no grazing option could indirectly reduce the potential for weed spread by removing livestock, 

which are weed seed sources, and allowing native vegetation to reestablish throughout the WDO in 

the long term. 

Restoring CC to Class II levels on 70,000 acres would have indirect effects by reducing fuel loads on 

these lands and protecting native vegetation from catastrophic fire. This would prevent weed 

invasion in the native vegetation in the long term. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Impacts on the potential for weed spread from rangeland management actions are similar to those 

described under Alternative B. 

Effects from Vegetation—Riparian and Wetlands Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Improving and maintaining meadows and riparian areas would involve weed removal, causing a 

direct effect. However, riparian and wetlands protection could limit the type of weed treatments 

(e.g., chemical) that could be used to contain and eliminate weeds in riparian areas. These 

restrictions are not expected to completely prevent weed removal over the long term. 

Riparian and wetland areas within the WDO cover less than one percent of the total land area. As 

such, impacts on weed infestation from riparian and wetland management are limited and localized. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Weed infestation can be sufficient to cause poor function in riparian zones, by reducing vegetative 

and canopy diversity and structure and by altering fire regimes and water retention rates. Thus, 

restoring PFC under this alternative would require reducing the extent of weeds in infested riparian 

and wetland areas, causing a direct effect in the long term. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Restoration of PFC to 60 percent by 2028 under this alternative would require reducing the extent 

of weeds in infested riparian and wetland areas, causing a direct effect in the long term, which is 

similar to Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

The greatest amount of riparian areas and wetlands (a minimum of 85 percent by 2028) would be 

restored to PFC under Alternative C. As a result, the number and extent of weed populations would 

be reduced in the long term, having a direct effect. 

Option 1 

Grazing management would be used in this option to minimize impacts on riparian areas and 

wetlands. Impacts include less soil disturbance, an indirect effect, and less weed spread or 

introduction, which would be a direct effect in the long term. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-149 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Option 2 

Removing grazing from lands in the WDO would have the greatest benefit on riparian areas and 

wetlands because there would be no direct or indirect impacts from soil disturbance, weed spread or 

introduction, and trampling of native vegetation by livestock. This would be most effective in 

lowering the potential for weed spread in the long term. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Restoring PFC under this alternative would have impacts similar to but slightly less than those 

described under Alternative C. This is because Alternative D would not require restoration of PFC 

by 2028, as long as areas were progressing toward PFC. As such, it could take longer to reduce 

weeds under Alternative D. 

Effects from Fish and Wildlife Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Modifying actions to avoid impacts on species or their habitat could alter the location and timing of 

weed treatments, possibly precluding weed control or eradication in localized areas, causing a direct 

effect over the long term. 

In some cases, maintaining and improving lentic and lotic habitats would allow for habitat 

improvement by control of weeds. In other cases, these actions may limit certain treatment options 

that could impact water quality (e.g., chemical). These impacts are likely to be direct and short term. 

Implementing vegetation treatments to improve habitat would involve directly removing weed 

species. Mitigation measures would be required for actions near nesting migratory birds, which 

would allow for weed management and would protect migratory bird species in the long term. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Under this alternative, actions would not prioritize habitats for protection. Lack of such protections 

could lead to increased soil disturbance from human use and access, which would increase the 

potential for weed spread, an indirect impact. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Under this alternative, no acres of priority 1 habitat and 716,528 acres of priority 2 habitat would be 

designated. This would prioritize weed treatment areas, allowing for a more efficient and effective 

weed control strategy, having an indirect effect in the long term. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Under Alternative C, 1,279,481 acres of priority 1 habitat and 869,645 acres of priority 2 habitat 

would be designated. Designating priority habitats would prioritize weed treatment areas, which 

would be an indirect effect. Because Alternative C would designate the greatest area of priority 1 

habitat, this would allow for the most efficient and effective weed control strategy in the long term. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-150 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Under this alternative, 699,929 acres of priority 1 and 1,325,967 acres of priority 2 habitat would be 

designated. Designating priority habitats would prioritize weed treatment areas, indirectly allowing 

for a more efficient and effective weed control strategy in the long term. 

Effects from Special Status Species Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Special status species management across all alternatives would prevent activities that would lead to 

listing of species and would require plant inventories, sage-grouse, pygmy rabbit, bat, and raptor 

avoidance, and mitigation and monitoring. Such actions to avoid impacts on listed or sensitive 

species or their habitats could alter implementation or timing of weed management treatments. This 

could indirectly preclude effective weed control or eradication over the long term. Impacts would 

vary with the type of treatment proposed and the nature and extent of the restrictions.

Management of LCT habitat could restrict certain weed treatments that would occur in adjacent 

riparian areas, such as those involving soil disturbance or use of chemicals. Impacts would be direct 

and would vary with the type of treatment proposed and with the nature and extent of the 

restrictions. 

Maintaining and improving special status species habitat would increase native plant vegetation, 

which would be an indirect effect. Increases in and improvement of native vegetation would make 

the habitat more resilient to infestation by invasive nonnative species in the long term. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Restrictions on actions near special status plants, sage-grouse habitat and sage-grouse leks, pygmy 

rabbits, bat habitat, and raptors could impact weed management by limiting the type, timing, and 

location of vegetation manipulation or chemical application actions used in the treatment of weeds. 

This could indirectly prevent effective control of noxious and invasive weeds. However, special 

status species protections would help create a lower level of disturbance in certain areas, providing 

for less human use and soil disturbance and lower the potential for weed spread in the long term, 

which would be an indirect effect. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Alternative B places the least stringent restrictions on actions near special status plants, sage-grouse 

habitat and sage-grouse leks, pygmy rabbits, bat habitat, and raptors. However, these restrictions 

could still impact weed management by limiting the type, timing, and location of weed treatments in 

weed-infested areas. However, special status species protections would also prevent impacts from 

soil disturbance and human use, thus lowering the potential for weed spread in certain areas. 

Impacts would be indirect and would vary on a case-by-case basis, depending on the level of weed 

infestation and the potential for weed spread. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Alternative C places the greatest amount of restrictions on activities that could occur near special 

status species and their habitats. Of all the alternatives, Alternative C would have the greatest impact 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-151 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

on weed treatments in infested areas but also would limit the potential for weed spread in 

undisturbed areas, causing indirect effects. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Impacts from these actions are similar to those described under Alternative A. 

Effects from Wild Horse and Burro Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Wild horses and burros are sources that can increase the potential for weed spread in an area. As 

such, management of wild horses and burros within HMAs and HAs could directly increase the 

potential for weed spread in the HMAs. Browsing and trampling by WHB impacts vegetation by 

removing native species. Trampling leads to soil compaction, which indirectly affects the vigor of 

desired plant species. The result is a landscape dominated by invasive species. Overuse of vegetation 

adjacent to water sources, troughs, and stock reservoirs results in a loss of plant cover. This 

indirectly allows localized areas to become dominated by invasive plants. Native vegetation recovery 

on burned areas could be slowed or reduced by wild horses and burros, thus indirectly allowing for 

weed invasion. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Continuing established AMLs as a population range, using gathers when AML is exceeded, and 

using fertility control inhibitors would be the most effective methods of maintaining WHB numbers 

within AML. This would indirectly reduce the impact of WHB on weed management by keeping 

WHB within sustainable population numbers. However, developing alternate waters for WHB 

would concentrate WHB use in an area and could indirectly increase the spread of weeds in places 

that may not have been frequented by WHB in the past through soil compaction and disturbance of 

native vegetation. 

WHB protections, such as limitations on motor vehicle racing, would directly prevent weed spread 

due to human use. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Impacts from population control measures are similar to those described under Alternative A. 

Protection measures for WHB would have similar impacts as those under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Alternative C allows AML to be set and referenced as a single number, which would not account for 

the desired gather cycle, based on the population growth over time. Further, fertility control 

inhibitors would not be allowed. Thus, populations under this alternative would likely exceed AML 

more frequently than under the other alternatives, and it could increase weeds, especially over the 

long term, due to additional hoof impacts on soils and utilization of desired vegetation. However, 

AML reduction in response to decreased water availability for WHB would decrease potential weed 

impacts from WHB. Impacts would be indirect. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-152 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Protection measures for WHB would be the greatest under Alternative C and could prohibit or limit 

certain ground-disturbing activities in HMAs. This may be effective in directly preventing weed 

spread caused by ground disturbance and weed seed transport. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Impacts from population control and development of alternative water sources are similar to those 

described under Alternative A. 

Impacts of converting the land between wild horse use and burro use are similar to those described 

under Alternative A. 

Impacts from WHB protection measures are similar to those described under Alternative A. 

Effects from Wildland Fire Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Under any wildfire control scenario, suppression activities and fuels treatment actions could spread 

weed seeds or create conditions, such as soil disturbance, that favor weeds. Striving for control 

status in one operational period would require an aggressive suppression response that may result in 

greater soil disturbance or use of vehicles than other less aggressive methods. This higher level of 

disturbance and higher number of vehicles would lead to greater potential for weed spread, an 

indirect effect. Areas that are already affected by species that thrive in post-burn conditions, such as 

cheatgrass, may experience a long-term increase in the potential for weed spread as a result of 

allowing fire for resource benefit. 

However, wildfire suppression and creation of fuel breaks would prevent catastrophic destruction of 

native vegetation, which would indirectly prevent weed invasion in these areas over the long term. 

Minimum impact suppression tactics would minimize unanticipated effects on native vegetation 

during fire suppression activities. In addition, emergency stabilization and rehabilitation treatments, 

such as seeding with native perennial plant species, indirectly deter the spread of weeds and invasive 

species. 

Because fire retardants are composed largely of nitrogen and phosphorus fertilizers, they may 

encourage growth of some species, particularly weeds, at the expense of others, indirectly resulting 

in changes in community composition and species diversity. Differential growth may also influence 

herbivorous behavior; both insect and vertebrate herbivores tend to favor new rapidly growing 

shoots. 

Fuels management actions would result in a direct, short-term loss of vegetation, both native and 

invasive, on a small scale. In the long term, fuel reduction projects would reestablish native 

vegetative communities, thus indirectly lowering the potential for weed spread. These actions would 

allow fire to play its natural role more frequently and would reduce the likelihood of catastrophic 

wildfire, which would protect native vegetation in the long term and over large areas, having an 

indirect effect on weed management. 

Implementing a response to wildfires based on social, legal, and ecological consequences of the fire 

would protect areas susceptible to invasion, which would be an indirect effect, and would treat 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-153 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

weed-infested areas, which would be a direct effect. This would reduce the potential for weed spread 

in certain areas over the long term. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

No additional impacts would occur from wildland fire management actions under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Under this alternative, 110,167 acres of land would be designated as suitable for allowing fire for 

resource benefit. These areas could be more vulnerable to weed establishment and spread, as 

described under Effects Common to All Alternatives. However, these areas where fire would be 

allowed for resource benefit are generally higher elevation woodland areas that have lower potential 

for weed invasion after burning. As a result, and considering the small acreage of land affected, 

impacts would be indirect and limited. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Alternative C would not allow prescribed fire or chemical fuel treatments, and as a result, weed 

control would be more difficult and less effective under this alternative. This would indirectly 

increase the potential for weed spread in the short term. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Under Alternative D, 9,932 acres of land would be designated as suitable for allowing fire for 

resource benefit. Impacts are similar to but less than those under Alternative B because Alternative 

D has fewer acres designated as suitable for allowing fire for resource benefit. 

Effects from Cultural Resources Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Protecting cultural resources, such as aspen art trees and groves, would prevent disturbance and 

fragmentation of native vegetation, thus indirectly lowering the potential for weed spread. These 

areas are small relative to the remainder of forested vegetation in the WDO, so impacts would be 

localized. 

Site monitoring, conservation measures, use restrictions, and law enforcement would prevent 

disturbance to and degradation of native vegetation, while potentially directly impacting the ability to 

implement weed treatments over the long term in certain areas. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Protecting pinyon trees in the Stillwater Range could directly prohibit certain weed management 

treatments such as chemical control in that area, which may have adverse effects on nontarget 

species. However, these actions also would minimize soil-disturbing activities, which would 

indirectly lower the potential for weed spread in the long term. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-154 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Alternative B allows some pinyon trees in the Stillwater Range to be harvested. This would allow 

more soil disturbance and human use of the area, which could directly introduce and spread weeds 

and would indirectly increase the potential for weed spread in the long term. However, this action 

would place the fewest restrictions on weed treatments in infested areas, facilitating direct, efficient, 

and effective control and eradication. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Impacts from protecting pinyon trees in the Stillwater Range are the same as those described under 

Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Impacts from protecting pinyon trees in the Stillwater Range are the same as those described under 

Alternative A, except Alternative D includes adaptive management to allow for some pinyon tree 

harvest. This would have slightly greater direct and indirect impacts on the potential for weed spread 

by introducing soil-disturbing activity and increased human use, as described under Alternative B. 

Effects from Tribal Consultation 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Consulting with tribes to identify culturally significant plants, important habitats, and traditional use 

locations emphasizes protection of natural resources, including reestablishing native vegetation and 

eradicating weeds, which would have both indirect and direct effects. This also would limit soildisturbing activities in certain areas, thereby indirectly preventing weed introduction. Consultation 

could place higher treatment priority on areas not previously identified or could limit actions in 

planned treatment areas. Impacts would vary on a case-by-case basis and are likely to be localized. 

Effects from Paleontological Resources Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Physical conservation measures and law enforcement actions would prevent disturbance to and 

degradation of lands, which would indirectly deter the spread or introduction of weeds into these 

areas. These actions also could impact the ability to implement weed treatments over the long term 

in certain areas, which would be a direct effect. These areas are small relative to the size of the 

WDO, so impacts would be localized. 

Effects from Visual Resources Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Weed expansion can be seen partially as a function of the amount of acreage in various VRM 

categories. In general, alternatives that have more acres in VRM Classes I and II have lower 

potential for weed spread than those that have more acres in VRM Classes III and IV. This is 

because soil surface disturbance is minimized in Class I and II areas. As such, implementing VRM 

guidelines, particularly managing WSAs as Class I areas, would directly lower the potential for weed 

spread within the WDO. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-155 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Under Alternative A, 420,271 acres and 346,302 acres would be managed to VRM Class I and II 

guidelines, respectively. This would directly reduce the potential for weed spread, as described under 

Effects Common to All Alternatives from Visual Resources Management. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Under Alternative B, 417,605 acres and 391,203 acres would be managed to VRM Class I and II 

standards, respectively. This would directly reduce the potential for weed spread, as described under 

Effects Common to All Alternatives from Visual Resources Management. Alternative B would 

manage for the fewest acres of VRM Class I and II and therefore would be the least effective of the 

all alternatives in reducing the potential for weed spread. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Under Alternative C, 417,605 acres and 3,083,858 acres would be managed to VRM Class I and II 

standards, respectively. This would cause the greatest direct reduction in the potential for weed 

spread, as described under Effects Common to All Alternatives from Visual Resources 

Management. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Under Alternative D, 417,605 acres and 2,780,416 acres would be managed to VRM Class I and II 

standards, respectively. Impacts would be slightly less than but are similar to those described under 

Alternative C. 

Effects from Cave and Karst Resources Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There would be no likely impacts on weed management from cave and karst resource management. 

Effects from Livestock Grazing Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Collecting monitoring data would allow problems to be detected so that corrective action could be 

taken to improve rangelands and lower weed spread. Healthy rangelands have a lower abundance of 

cheatgrass and noxious weeds, which promote fire spread. This would, in turn, reduce the likelihood 

of catastrophic fire that may destroy native vegetation, making large areas more susceptible to weed 

invasion. As such, native vegetation and wildlife habitat would be protected, which would indirectly 

prevent weed invasion. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Livestock grazing would be open on 8,232,727 acres of land under this alternative, which would 

have the greatest impact on weed management. Improper grazing would directly and indirectly 

facilitate weed spread and introduction, as seeds are transported on livestock and degraded 

rangeland that is grazed yearly lacks substantial native vegetation to outcompete invaders. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-156 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

The potential for weeds would be lower on lands closed to grazing on the remainder of the land 

within the WDO. This is because livestock would not be a mechanism for seed dispersal. 

Grazing on riparian areas would be reduced or excluded, thereby preventing direct impacts through 

weed introduction, or indirect impacts, such as soil compaction and trampling of native vegetation. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Similar to Alternative A, livestock grazing would be open on 8,232,727 acres of land under this 

alternative. Grazing, including grazing on acquired lands, allowing temporary nonrenewable use, and 

allowing continuous season-long use would directly and indirectly facilitate weed spread and 

introduction to the greatest extent. This is because seeds are transported on livestock, and degraded 

rangeland that is grazed continuously lacks substantial native vegetation to outcompete invaders. 

Range improvement actions and prescribed grazing have impacts similar as those described under 

Alternative A. 

The potential for weeds would be lower on lands closed to grazing on the remainder of the land 

within the WDO. This is because livestock would not be a mechanism for seed dispersal, and the 

land could recover from impacts with native vegetation. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Option 1 

Livestock grazing would be open on 8,038,084 acres of land under this alternative. Grazing would 

directly and indirectly facilitate weed spread and introduction, and the effects would be similar to 

those described under Alternative A, although fewer acres are open under Alternative C, Option 1. 

However, Alternative C, Option 1 would not allow grazing on acquired lands or temporary 

nonrenewable use and would allow only two years of consecutive grazing during the critical growth 

period. This would minimize the potential for weed spread by reducing the amount of land subject 

to grazing and the grazing intensity. 

Lands closed to grazing on the remainder of land within the WDO would lower the potential for 

weed spread in these areas because livestock would not be a mechanism for seed dispersal, and land 

could recover from impacts with native vegetation. 

Range improvements would be somewhat more restricted compared to the other alternatives and 

could limit the type, timing, and location of weed treatments, causing direct effects. Prescribed 

grazing would be used to lower the potential for weed spread, as described under Alternative A. 

Greater protection would be given to riparian areas, causing improvement in functionality or 

changes in plant communities to meet the riparian standards. This would prevent direct impacts 

through trampling and indirect impacts from soil compaction and weed spread or introduction and 

would maintain plant vigor, stand composition, and natural fire regimes.

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-157 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Option 2 

Livestock grazing would be closed on all lands within the WDO, which would have the greatest 

direct and indirect impact on reducing the spread of weeds due to livestock on BLM-administered 

lands. 

Impacts from range and riparian improvement actions are similar to those described under 

Alternative C, Option 1. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Under Alternative D, 8,016,754 acres of land would be open to grazing. Impacts are similar to those 

described under Alternative A, except that the fewest acres of land would be open to grazing 

compared to the other alternatives. 

Impacts from range improvements are similar to those described under Alternative B. 

Protection would be given to riparian woodlands, preventing direct impacts through weed 

introduction and indirect impacts, such as soil compaction and trampling of native vegetation. 

Effects from Minerals Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

General 

Exploration and development operations associated with fluid, leasable, and locatable mineral 

development, mineral material sales, and mineral disposal typically disturb some level of vegetation. 

These disturbances directly result in increased potential for weed spread, including import and 

export of weed seeds. Under all alternatives, BMPs would be implemented and revegetation 

concurrent with the operation would be required, reestablishing native vegetation and indirectly 

preventing weed spread. 

RFDs 

In a reasonably foreseeable development scenario, exploration and development operations would 

continue and could increase the potential for weed spread throughout the WDO. These 

developments would also have indirect effects by fragmenting native vegetative communities, 

making them increasingly susceptible to weed invasion. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Alternative A would open the greatest acreage and would close the least acreage to mineral 

development, thus having the greatest likelihood to impact the potential for weed spread. Impacts 

are similar to those described under Effects Common to All Alternatives from Minerals 

Management. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Compared with Alternative A, Alternative B would open fewer acres and would close more acres to 

mineral development, thus having a lower likelihood to impact the potential for weed spread. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-158 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Impacts are similar to those described under Effects Common to All Alternatives from Minerals 

Management. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Alternative C would open the fewest acres and would close the most acres to mineral development, 

thus having the least likelihood to impact the potential for weed spread of all alternatives. Impacts 

are similar to those described under Effects Common to All Alternatives from Minerals 

Management. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Compared with Alternatives A and B, Alternative D would open fewer acres and would close more 

acres to mineral development, thus having a lower likelihood to impact the potential for weed 

spread. Impacts are similar to those described under Effects Common to All Alternatives from 

Minerals Management. 

Effects from Recreation, Visitor Outreach, and Services Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Recreational activities can introduce and spread noxious and invasive weed seeds from vehicles, 

shoes, clothing, and recreational equipment. As recreation use increases, visitors from outside the 

area could bring in noxious and invasive weeds, including new invasive species. Recreation activities 

that occur in undisturbed and remote areas could distribute weed seeds into weed-free areas. 

Impacts could be direct and long term and could take place over a large area. 

To manage OHV use, the Transportation Plan would be updated and would account for weed 

spread. Site-specific NEPA analysis would be done on an implementation level to minimize impacts 

from weeds. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Under Alternative A, there would be no camping limitations or prohibitions in the WDO. In 

addition, the Pine Forest SRMA would be maintained, and issuance of special recreation permits 

would be the least restricted. The greatest acreage (6,782,790 acres) would be open to OHVs under 

Alternative A, with the least amount of land (416,652) limited and with 24,832 acres closed. The 

combination of these actions would make lands susceptible to increased human presence, OHV use, 

and trail creation throughout the WDO. This alternative would cause the greatest indirect increase in 

the potential for weed spread, such as by increasing soil and vegetation disturbance. Direct impacts 

would occur from increasing potential weed seed sources. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Camping limitations and prohibitions throughout the ERMA would directly reduce the potential for 

weed spread on these lands by restricting humans and vehicles, both of which are mechanisms for 

weed seed dispersal. In addition, designation of three SRMAs would impact the potential for weed 

spread to varying degrees, depending on the recreation market identified for the SRMA. For 

example, the Nightingale SRMA would be targeted for undeveloped recreation-tourism. This would 

have less of an impact than Winnemucca and Pine Forest SRMAs, which allow for increased 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-159 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

motorized vehicle access. Under Alternative B, 1,460,200 acres would be open to OHVs, with the 

least amount of land (24,832 acres) closed and 5,445,218 acres limited. Together, these actions cause 

indirect effects, such as soil disturbance and trampling of native vegetation, as well as direct effects, 

such as increased mechanisms for weed seed dispersal. These impacts could increase the potential 

for weed spread throughout the ERMA, SRMAs, and OHV routes. To minimize impacts, the BLM 

would limit OHV use to existing roads and trails until the Transportation Plan is updated and sitespecific NEPA analysis is completed. 

Issuing special recreation permits would be the least restricted under this alternative, which could 

directly and indirectly increase the potential for weed spread through increased human use, 

trampling of native vegetation, and soil disturbance. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Camping limitations and prohibitions throughout the ERMA would have impacts similar to those 

described under Alternative B. In addition, designation of two SRMAs would have impacts on the 

potential for weed spread similar to those described under Alternative B. Under Alternative C, no 

acres would be open to OHVs, 61,427 acres would be closed, and 7,143,177 acres would be limited. 

To minimize impacts, the BLM would limit OHV use to existing roads and trails until the 

Transportation Plan is updated and site-specific NEPA analysis is completed. Impacts from 

recreation would be fewest under this alternative because it is the most restrictive and prohibitive. 

Impacts would occur, however, and they would be similar to those described under Alternative B. 

Issuing special recreation permits would be the most restrictive under Alternative C and would cause 

the fewest direct and indirect impacts on weed management through increased human use, 

trampling of native vegetation, and soil disturbance. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

The impacts from camping limitations and prohibitions throughout the ERMA would be similar to 

those described under Alternative B. In addition, designating three SRMAs would have the same 

impacts on weed management as those described under Alternative B. Under Alternative D, 289,932 

acres would be open to OHVs, with 35,483 acres closed and 6,878,592 acres limited. To minimize 

impacts, the BLM would limit OHV use to existing roads and trails until the Transportation Plan is 

updated and site-specific NEPA analysis is completed. Together, impacts from these actions would 

be similar to, but less than, those described under Alternative B. 

Issuance of special recreation permits would cause some impacts similar to those described under 

Alternative A. 

Effects from Renewable Energy Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Developing renewable energy projects could directly introduce weed seeds or produce soil 

disturbance that indirectly favors weeds. Developing such projects may include issuing ROWs, 

constructing staging areas for chippers or other heavy equipment, and constructing access roads that 

could disturb soils and vegetation. As a result, the potential for weed spread would increase in these 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-160 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

areas. BMPs, stipulations, and mitigation measures would be implemented, which would minimize 

the spread or introduction of weeds from renewable energy projects. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Maintaining existing exclusion areas within the WDO could limit the type and timing of weed 

treatments to prevent weed spread and introduction. However, this action would also protect and 

limit disturbance to soils and vegetation, thereby indirectly lowering the potential for weed spread. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Designating avoidance areas within the WDO could limit the type and timing of weed treatments to 

prevent weed spread and introduction. However, this action would also protect and limit 

disturbance to soils and vegetation, thereby indirectly lowering the potential for weed spread. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Designating avoidance areas and exclusion zones within the WDO could have the greatest impact in 

limiting the type and timing of weed treatments to prevent weed spread and introduction. However, 

this action would also afford the greatest protection to soils and vegetation, thereby causing the 

greatest reduction in the potential for weed spread. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Designating avoidance areas and exclusion zones within the WDO would have similar impacts on 

weed management as those described under Alternative C. 

Effects from Transportation and Access Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

OHV users would directly introduce and spread noxious and invasive weed seeds from their 

vehicles, shoes, clothing, and recreational equipment. As OHV use increases, visitors from outside 

the area could bring in noxious and invasive weeds, including new invasive species. OHV activities 

in undisturbed and remote areas could distribute weed seeds into weed-free areas. 

Other types of travel, including by foot, horse, or bike, cause fewer impacts, although all could 

disturb soils, causing indirect effects, or allow for weed seed transport, which would be a direct 

effect. Horses in particular have a high capacity for introducing weed seeds from manure into 

previously unaffected areas. Groups of horses may also create soil and vegetation disturbance in 

areas where they are tethered overnight, increasing the potential for weed spread in confined areas. 

Noxious weed control measures would directly prevent the spread and introduction of weeds along 

roads, as well as prevent weed competition with native species. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

The potential for weed spread could increase from road and trail construction via indirect means, 

such as vegetation removal and soil compaction, as well as direct means, such as seeds being 

transported by vehicles. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-161 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Transportation actions that minimize effects and limit disturbance to native vegetation and soils and 

would directly prevent weed invasion or spread from road or trail construction or from transport on 

vehicles. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Transportation actions that minimize effects would have impacts similar to those described under 

Alternative B. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Transportation actions that minimize effects are similar to those described under Alternative B. 

Effects from Lands and Realty Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Noxious and invasive weeds would be given consideration when the WDO makes disposal and 

acquisition decisions, though the presence of invasive species would not considerably affect these 

decisions. As a result, weed spread or introduction to BLM-administered lands would vary on a caseby-case basis, but impacts should be minimized since lands with little resource values would be 

identified for disposal, and further NEPA documentation would consider the potential for weed 

spread resulting from proposed actions. 

ROWs alter habitat with their footprint for the facilities that are authorized. Most of the footprints 

are localized and cover a small area, but ROWs tend to be linear and may stretch for miles. If 

disturbed areas are not properly reseeded with native vegetation, weeds could be introduced and 

spread over a large area. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Issuance of ROWs would not be limited, and avoidance areas or exclusion zones for lands and realty 

management actions would not be designated under Alternative A. This would increase the potential 

for weed spread by allowing for increased soil disturbance and vegetation removal, access to 

previously inaccessible areas, and weed transport on vehicles. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Designating avoidance areas has impacts similar to the renewable energy management actions under 

Alternative B. 

The impacts from issuing ROWs are similar to those described under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Impacts from designating avoidance areas and exclusion zones are similar to the renewable energy 

management actions under Alternative C. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-162 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Restricting ROW issuance would decrease the potential for weed spread by limiting soil disturbance 

and vegetation removal, access to previously inaccessible areas, and weed transport on vehicles. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

The impacts from designating avoidance areas and exclusion zones are similar to the renewable 

energy management actions under Alternative D. 

The impacts from issuing ROWs are similar to those described under Alternative A. 

Effects from ACEC/ RNA Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There would be no effects common to all alternatives from ACEC/RNA management. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Maintaining the Osgood Mountain Milkvetch ACEC would protect native vegetation and would 

prevent disturbance of areas within the ACEC. This action would limit the potential for weed spread 

because habitat improvement for the species consists of weed eradication. However, implementation 

of certain weed treatments could be limited in areas, depending on habitat sensitivity. This ACEC is 

small relative to the total area of the WDO, so impacts would be localized. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

The effects from ACEC/RNA Management under Alternative B are the same as those under 

Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Designating four ACECs within the WDO would provide the greatest protection to native 

vegetation and would prevent disturbance of areas within these ACECs. This action would limit the 

potential for weed spread in these areas. However, implementing certain weed treatments could be 

limited in areas, depending on habitat sensitivity. The acreage of the four ACECs (97,584 acres) is 

small relative to the total area of the WDO, so impacts would be localized. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

The effects from ACEC/RNA Management under Alternative D are the same as those described 

under Alternative C. 

Effects from Backcountry Byways Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Backcountry byways may attract more tourists to previously less accessible areas and could introduce 

or spread noxious and invasive weed seeds from vehicles, shoes, and clothing. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-163 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Effects from National Trails Management. 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no likely impacts from national trails management because these actions would not affect 

weed management objectives. 

Effects from Wild and Scenic Rivers Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no effects common to all alternatives from wild and scenic rivers management. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

No WSRs would be managed under Alternative A, which would not protect rivers or riparian areas 

within the WDO. As such, impacts on native vegetation would not be restricted, including those 

from increased use, such as soil disturbance, trampling of native vegetation, and weed spread or 

introduction. However, in weed-infested areas, weed treatments also would not be restricted, 

allowing for efficient control of noxious weeds. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

No WSRs would be managed under Alternative B, and impacts are the same as those under 

Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

WSRs would be managed under Alternative C and would limit other uses. As a result, there would 

be the most limited impacts on riparian areas. This would decrease the potential for weed spread in 

these areas by decreasing soil disturbance, trampling of native vegetation, and weed sources. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

No WSRs would be managed under Alternative D, and impacts are the same as those under 

Alternative A. 

Effects from Wilderness Study Areas and Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Managing the 13 WSAs within the WDO would minimize activities that would normally increase the 

potential for weed spread. By continuing to restrict mining, timber extraction, and OHV use, the 

potential for weed spread would be maintained at current levels, assuming weeds from sources such 

as hikers and equestrians are managed. 

Certain types of weed treatments could be limited within WSAs, lowering the effectiveness of weed 

control or eradication in these areas in the long term. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-164 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Wilderness characteristic areas would not be designated under Alternative A. As a result, there 

would be no restrictions on weed treatments. This would indirectly allow management objectives to 

be achieved over the long term. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Under Alternative B, the BLM would manage six areas containing wilderness characteristics to meet 

multiple use and sustained yield objectives. By allowing multiple uses, Alternative B would indirectly 

allow management objectives to be achieved over the long term. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Under Alternative C, the BLM also would manage six areas containing wilderness characteristics. 

However, Alternative C would be the most restrictive of all alternatives by implementing restrictions 

and stipulations in these areas, including closing mineral leasing and ROW exclusion zones. These 

restrictions could prevent effective weed control in certain areas by restricting access. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Under Alternative D, the BLM also would manage six areas containing wilderness characteristics. 

Depending on the restrictions implemented, some weed treatments could be limited, but restrictions 

are unlikely to prevent management objectives from being achieved over the long term. 

Effects from Watchable Wildlife Viewing Sites Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

WWV sites could introduce or spread noxious and invasive weeds by allowing for more human 

disturbance to certain areas over the long term. People from outside the area could bring in noxious 

and invasive weeds, including new invasive species. People visiting WWV sites in undisturbed and 

remote areas could distribute weed seeds into weed-free areas. These areas are small relative to the 

size of the WDO, so impacts would be localized. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

An unspecified number and location of WWV sites would be developed and maintained under this 

alternative, the magnitude of which would vary depending on the number of WWV sites developed. 

Impacts are similar to those described under Effects Common to All Alternatives. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Six WWV sites would be maintained under Alternative B. Impacts would occur in these areas and 

are similar to those described under Effects Common to All Alternatives. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Impacts from weed spread would be the fewest under this Alternative since new routes through or 

near sensitive areas and increased traffic to remote areas would be avoided. This would reduce 

human disturbance and the associated weed spread described under Effects Common to All 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-165 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Alternatives. However, impacts would still occur and would be similar to those described under 

Effects Common to All Alternatives. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Impacts are the same as those described under Alternative B. 

Effects from Public Health and Safety Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There would be no likely impact from public health and safety management because there are no 

actions that relate to weed management objectives. 

Effects from Sustainable Development Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Sustainable development management actions apply to areas that have already been developed and 

are likely unvegetated. Because sustainable development management actions would involve facility 

reuse, new operations would not create new disturbance. As a result, there would be few impacts on 

weed management from sustainable development actions. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

There are no actions under Alternative A that relate to sustainable development. This would have 

the greatest impact on weed management by allowing degradation or loss of lands from disposal, 

ROWs, or mineral operations. This could allow for soil disturbance, native vegetation removal, and 

weed introduction or spread. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

ROW and mineral operation actions could increase the potential for weed spread by allowing some 

degradation during development, including soil disturbance, native vegetation removal, and weed 

introduction or spread. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

ROW and mineral operation actions would have the greatest effect under Alternative C in lowering 

the potential for weed spread in developed areas by preventing degradation during and after 

development. This could prevent such effects as soil disturbance, native vegetation removal, and 

weed introduction or spread. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Impacts from sustainable development actions are the same under Alternative D as those described 

under Alternative B. 

Cumulative Effects 

Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions that are relevant to weed management in the 

cumulative impact area include land tenure changes, allowing fire for resource benefit, fire 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-166 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-167 

suppression, fuel and vegetation treatments, minerals management, population growth, urban 

development, recreational use, OHV use, stream and watershed restoration activities, regional 

planning efforts, weed management efforts, and grazing. The types of impacts that have occurred 

and would continue to occur from weed infestations include loss of plant diversity, loss of wildlife 

habitat, loss of soil integrity, changes in fire intensity and water retention rates, and reduced 

ecosystem function. 

Several proposed actions in the Winnemucca RMP would address CC and would work to reduce CC 

in certain areas. Many areas that are in higher CC are degraded primarily because of weed 

infestations; mechanical, chemical, and biological weed treatments are proposed that would reduce 

this effect. Limited resources often mean that, at best, these measures would slow the rate of weed 

infestation or would reduce weed threat in particular areas of concern. Areas where open OHV use 

were allowed would be further restricted under all Winnemucca RMP alternatives, except Alternative 

A. Although increasingly more OHVs are used throughout the cumulative impact area, the trend 

toward concentrating them into designated areas would enhance weed management efforts in most 

habitat types by reducing the extent of disturbance and seed spread. 

Cumulative effects are similar among the alternatives. Alternative A would contribute to more 

regional cumulative effects resulting from open OHV use and wildland fire suppression. In general, 

Alternatives B, C, and D would provide more management measures than Alternative A and would 

directly or indirectly reduce the potential for cumulative impacts. 

4.2.7 Vegetation—Rangelands 

Summary 

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

be quantified. A more detailed analysis will follow at the implementation stage, such as an allotment 

evaluation and EA or a permit renewal EA to comply with NEPA. Rangeland vegetation, wildland 

fire, livestock grazing, and cultural resources actions would have the greatest impact on rangeland 

vegetation within the WDO. Fewer impacts on rangeland vegetation would come from air quality, 

soils, water, forest and woodland vegetation, weeds, chemical and biological control, fish and 

wildlife, special status species, wild horse and burro, tribal consultation, visual resources, wilderness 

characteristics, mineral resources, recreation, renewable energy, transportation and access, lands and 

realty, ACECs/RNAs, backcountry byways, wilderness study areas, watchable wildlife viewing sites, 

and sustainable development. However, it is BLM’s judgment that several of the resources areas 

listed below are not likely to impact rangeland vegetation resources. These areas are geological 

resources, riparian and wetland vegetation, paleontological resources, cave and karst resources, 

national trails, wild and scenic rivers, 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. 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

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. 

Methods of Analysis 

Methods and Assumptions

Impacts are determined by assessing which actions, if any, would change vegetation structure or 

composition, decrease the extent of rangeland vegetation, allow for increased dominance of invasive 

weeds, affect habitat value for wildlife species, or decrease grazing potential. 

Some impacts are direct, while others are indirect and affect vegetation through a change in another 

resource. Direct impacts on rangeland vegetation are disrupting, trampling, or removing rooted 

vegetation, thereby reducing areas of native vegetation. Other direct impacts on rangeland 

vegetation are mortality from toxic chemicals and actions that unequivocally reduce total numbers of 

plant species or reduce or cause the loss of total area, diversity, vigor, structure, or function of 

wildlife habitat. 

Potential indirect impacts are loss of habitat suitable for colonization due to surface disturbance, 

introduction of noxious weeds by various mechanisms or conditions that enhance the spread of 

weeds, increased noise, and general loss of habitat due to surface occupancy or surface compaction. 

Indirect impacts are those that cannot be absolutely linked to one action, such as decreased plant 

vigor or health from reduced air or water quality. 

The effects of each action on vegetation resources are quantified when possible; however, many 

impacts must be qualitatively assessed when suitable data are not available. The following 

assumptions were made for the purpose of this analysis: 

• Noxious and invasive weeds would continue to be introduced and spread as a result of 

ongoing vehicle traffic in and out of the WDO, recreational activities, wildlife and livestock 

grazing and their movements, and surface-disturbing activities; 

• Biocontrol would continue and potentially would expand; 

• Noxious and invasive weeds would further expand into native plant communities, and 

disturbances to these communities would expand opportunities for the spread of nonnative 

invasive plant species; 

• Many actions that would occur within the WDO would be subject to BMPs. Although 

BMPs are designed to minimize the effects of projects, they generally cannot eliminate all 

impacts. This impact analysis assumes that BMPs will minimize but not eliminate possible 

effects; 

• Wildfire acreages are expected to increase over the life of the plan; 

• Appropriate vegetative management includes maintaining and improving leaf area and, by 

extension, photosynthetic potential for perennial plants. This is accomplished by providing 

periodic rest during the growing season, especially the critical growth period, from early seed 

formation through mature seed formation. Leaf areas are reduced by spring grazing if 

periodic rest is not provided or if sufficient regrowth does not occur during the critical 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-168 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

growth period, leading to a decline in plant health. Leaf areas are further depleted by double 

grazing the same perennial plant in both spring and fall of the same year. This slowly leads to 

a decrease in plant size and vigor and the eventual loss of the plant; and 

• Appropriate vegetative management would also maintain or improve native plant 

communities to protect soil and water resources while providing habitat. Adequate seedling 

establishment and young plant recruitment is essential to maintaining or increasing native 

species in a plant community. Development of sufficient seedling root growth is necessary 

for seedlings to develop vigor and produce viable seed. 

Effects from Air Quality Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives 

Restrictions on prescribed fire and wildfire use to protect air quality may reduce opportunities to 

burn in any given year. This may prevent certain rangeland treatments from being implemented and 

indirectly hinder the achievement of healthy rangeland conditions. However, it is not expected that 

these restrictions would completely prevent implementation and accomplishment over the long 

term. 

Effects from Geology Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives 

Impacts from geology management actions on rangelands would be limited and, thus, negligible. 

Effects from Soil Resources Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives 

Soil erosion reduction measures involving seeding and improving vegetative cover would reduce 

compaction and increase infiltration, which would indirectly improve rangeland health over the 

short term. As a result, vegetative productivity and diversity would be increased, which would 

increase litter, soil fertility, infiltration, and nutrient cycling in the long term, which would be a direct 

effect. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Impacts on rangelands would vary depending on the grazing management system, reclamation and 

rehabilitation treatments, and success or failure of the treatments. Impacts would be long term. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Impacts from land reclamation activities relating to soils management under Alternative B are the 

same as those described under Alternative A. 

Soil compaction prevention measures under Alternative B would seek to mitigate adverse effects 

without seasonal closures. As such, range vegetation would be directly impacted year-round, even 

when soils would be most susceptible to compaction. However, treatments to rangeland vegetation 

could occur year-round, indirectly facilitating rangeland health and multiple use objectives in the 

long term. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-169 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Land reclamation actions under Alternative C would have the greatest benefit to rangeland 

vegetation by requiring reclamation of all surface-disturbing activities. This would allow native 

vegetation to reestablish and would directly help to achieve rangeland health, diversity, and 

productivity goals in the long term. 

Soil compaction prevention measures are the most stringent under Alternative C, providing for 

seasonal use restrictions. This would indirectly benefit rangeland health by preventing compaction 

when the soil is most susceptible to disturbance, but would limit multiple uses and the timing of 

range improvement treatments in the long term. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Land reclamation actions under Alternative D would provide the most flexible approach to land 

reclamation. Impacts on rangeland vegetation would vary, depending on how and if reclamation was 

achieved, including whether native or nonnative seeds were used in revegetating lands. Impacts 

would be long term. 

Soil compaction prevention measures would implement seasonal use restrictions on a case-by-case 

basis. Impacts on rangeland vegetation include improved health and vigor from decreased soil 

compaction and increased infiltration. Further, multiple use objectives could be achieved in the long 

term because restrictions would allow for more flexibility than those under Alternative C. 

Effects from Water Resources Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives 

There are no effects common to all alternatives from water resources management. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Under this alternative, priority watersheds would not be managed. However, impacts on water 

resources would be reduced by complying with water quality regulations and implementing BMPs 

and land health standards. This would indirectly protect rangeland vegetation throughout the WDO, 

since rangeland vegetation health could be affected by water quality. However, Alternative A would 

provide the fewest action- and location-specific protections of all alternatives. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Priority watershed actions would indirectly protect rangeland vegetation in those areas in the long 

term by restricting certain activities. Under this alternative, multiple uses would be allowed, which 

would allow for range treatments to directly achieve health and multiple use objectives. Impacts 

would be localized and limited by the relatively small acreage of the priority watersheds. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Priority watershed actions under Alternative C would provide the greatest indirect protection to 

rangelands within those areas since they would be the most restrictive of all alternatives. However, 

as exclusion zones, they also would prevent direct range improvement treatments that are 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-170 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

incompatible with the watershed’s primary use. Impacts would vary on a case-by-case basis and 

would be localized and limited by the relatively small acreage of the priority watersheds. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Priority watershed actions would indirectly protect rangelands in the long term, as described under 

Alternative B. As avoidance areas, they may directly limit range rehabilitation treatments and 

multiple uses in certain areas. Mitigation measures would be implemented when avoidance is not 

possible, which would allow for some flexibility in achieving healthy rangeland conditions. Impacts 

would be localized and limited by the relatively small acreage of the priority watersheds. 

Effects from Vegetation—Forest and Woodland Products Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives 

There are no effects common to all alternatives from forest and woodland product management. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Actions using fire as a management tool would efficiently reduce the fuel load in forests, preventing 

catastrophic fires that could spread to adjacent rangelands and destroy native vegetation. This would 

have long-term indirect effects in localized areas. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Impacts from forest and woodland product management are similar to those described under 

Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Prescribed fire would not be used as a management tool under Alternative C, which would be least 

effective in reducing the fuel load in forests. As a result, catastrophic fires could occur that could 

spread to adjacent rangelands and destroy native vegetation in the long term in localized areas. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Actions using fire as a management tool would have impacts similar to those described under 

Alternative A. However, the variety and breadth of treatment types would provide a more flexible 

adaptable approach to stand management, including eradication of noxious and invasive species. As 

such, Alternative D has a high likelihood to efficiently reduce the fuel load in forests, preventing 

catastrophic fires that could spread to adjacent rangelands and destroy native vegetation. This would 

have long-term indirect effects in localized areas. 

Effects from Vegetation—Weeds Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives 

Actions to decrease weeds on BLM-administered lands would indirectly improve rangeland health 

and community composition by increasing native species, restoring a more natural fire regime, and 

decreasing the risk of catastrophic wildfire in both the short and long term. Such a fire could damage 

or kill native vegetation and allow for weed spread or invasion. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-171 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Weeds actions using prescribed fire would disturb or destroy rangeland vegetation in the short term, 

while in the long term achieving improved range health and composition more quickly. Prescribed 

fire is not used to control weeds over large areas, so impacts would be direct, localized, and small 

scale. Approved biological controls are specific to target species, so there would be no direct impact 

on nontarget species. To minimize harmful effects, chemical treatments would be applied according 

to label directions and following established guidelines, best management practices, and standard 

operating procedures for application. Chemical applications would also be designed to avoid effects 

on nontarget species, which would be short term but would lead to long-term indirect improvement 

in vegetation composition. Using Integrated Pest Management (IPM) practices would make use of 

one, several, or all available management practices, such as chemical, biological, mechanical, or 

prescribed fire, and would provide an adaptive and effective approach to weed management on 

rangelands in the long term. 

Preparing pesticide and biological use proposals, in addition to cooperating with agencies, would 

ensure that only safe and effective treatments would be used within the WDO. This would prevent 

impacts on nontarget species, such as sagebrush and salt desert scrub species. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Impacts from weeds management actions are similar to those described under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Mechanical and biological weed treatments would be used under Alternative C, which would remove 

weeds, thus indirectly helping to achieve rangeland health and composition objectives in the long 

term. Alternative C would not use prescribed fire or herbicides as weed management tools, which 

could limit effective control of some invasive species. Approved biological controls are specific to 

target species, so there would be no impact on nontarget species. Further, preparing biological use 

proposals, in addition to cooperating with agencies, would ensure that only safe and effective 

treatments would be used within the WDO. 

Using IPM practices would make use of one or both available management practices, such as 

biological or mechanical control, to provide an adaptive and effective approach to control pest 

species and weeds in the long term. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Impacts from weeds management actions are similar to those described under Alternative A. 

Effects from Chemical and Biological Control 

Effects Common to All Alternatives 

Using chemical control methods would help control and reduce weed outbreaks. Effects are similar 

to those described under weeds management. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-172 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Using both biological and chemical control methods, as well as IPM techniques, would provide an 

adaptive and effective approach to weed management on rangelands, causing an indirect effect in 

the long term by removing weeds. Preparing pesticide and biological use proposals, in addition to 

cooperation with agencies, would ensure that only safe and effective treatments would be used 

within the WDO. This would prevent impacts on nontarget species, such as sagebrush and salt 

desert scrub species. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Effects from chemical and biological control are the same as those described under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

The focus on biological control methods would remove some weeds but would limit the 

effectiveness of weed management on rangelands in the long term under Alternative C, causing an 

indirect effect. However, use of IPM techniques would provide an adaptive and effective approach 

to weed management in the long term. Preparing biological use proposals, in addition to cooperating 

with agencies, would ensure that only safe and effective treatments would be used within the WDO. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Effects from chemical and biological control are the same as those described under Alternative A. 

Effects from Vegetation—Rangeland Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives 

Vegetation treatments for range improvement projects would continue to occur at current rates to 

reach rangeland improvement goals. Projects would vary from year to year based on resource needs 

and priorities. All range improvements would result in direct, minor, and short-term disturbances to 

vegetation, including loss of vegetation cover and changes in plant composition adjacent to each 

project. Indirect effects include increased susceptibility for infestations of noxious and invasive 

weeds transported by livestock. The use of range improvement projects are intended to maintain 

and improve vegetation conditions, while making progress toward or meeting rangeland standards 

for upland plant communities in the long term. 

Post-fire rehabilitation efforts, including a prohibition against grazing, would reduce the ability for 

weeds to invade and would support native species growth. This would indirectly help to achieve 

healthy rangeland conditions in the long term. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Grazing management systems and practices would decrease fuel loads and would reduce the 

likelihood of catastrophic fire over large areas, which would destroy native vegetation. Prescriptive 

grazing would be used, and if applied correctly, this could have direct effects by increasing native 

vegetative cover, and indirect effects by decreasing weeds on rangelands, which would help to 

restore a natural fire regime. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-173 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Vegetation cover in Alternative A would be directly improved by using a diversity of native and 

introduced grass, forb, and shrub seeds and seedlings when rehabilitating rangelands. This 

improvement in vegetative cover would indirectly prevent the invasion of weeds and would reduce 

the likelihood of catastrophic fire. 

A variety of rangeland treatments would be implemented to achieve healthy rangeland conditions 

throughout the WDO. This variety would provide flexibility in BLM’s approach to rangeland 

rehabilitation and would provide a direct and effective means of achieving rangeland health goals. 

These treatments would focus on improving the understory of sagebrush communities. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Grazing management systems and practices would have impacts similar to those described under 

Alternative A. 

Introduced grass and forb seeds would be used under Alternative B when rehabilitating rangelands. 

This could directly impact rangeland health, productivity, and diversity, depending on which species 

are chosen for rehabilitation efforts. Impacts would vary on a case-by-case basis. 

Crested wheatgrass seedings would be used to provide livestock forage on rangelands, with an 

emphasis on productivity. Although not a native species, crested wheatgrass would provide 

vegetative cover and would prevent weed invasion on rangelands. However, this species would not 

improve rangeland diversity or ecological health and function. 

Restoring CC to Class II levels on 70,000 acres would reduce fuel loads on these lands and would 

indirectly protect native vegetation from catastrophic fire. This would prevent weed invasion and 

indirectly would promote healthy, productive, native vegetation in this area in the long term. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Option 1 

Grazing management systems and practices would have impacts similar to those described under 

Alternative A. 

Rehabilitation efforts would be limited by using only native seeds because in most year’s seed 

supplies are exhausted because of demand. As a result, large areas would be untreated, which would 

allow for weed invasion. This could change the fire regime by increasing wildland fires on these 

lands, and that would indirectly cause a decline in vegetation condition in the long term. 

Fewer treatments would be implemented to rehabilitate rangelands throughout the WDO. This 

would directly limit the effectiveness of rangeland rehabilitation because additional treatments could 

provide more flexibility towards achieving this goal. These treatments would focus on improving the 

understory in both sagebrush and salt desert scrub communities, which would impact a larger 

portion of the WDO. In addition, fragmentation of sagebrush would be avoided, and SOPs 

(Appendix B), BMPs (Appendix B), and mitigation measures would be employed to minimize 

impacts on sagebrush communities. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-174 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Restoring CC to Class II levels on 70,000 acres would have impacts similar to those described under 

Alternative B. 

Option 2 

Grazing would not be permitted under this option. This would have the greatest reduction in 

impacts on rangelands of all alternatives. 

Native seeds would be used when rehabilitating rangelands and the impacts are similar to those 

under Alternative C, Option 1. 

The impacts from restoring CC to Class II levels on 70,000 acres are similar to those described 

under Alternative B. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

The impacts from grazing management systems and practices are similar to those described under 

Alternative A. 

The impacts from using both native and introduced seeds and seedlings are similar to those under 

Alternative A. 

A variety of rangeland treatments would be implemented to achieve healthy rangeland conditions 

throughout the WDO and the impacts are similar to those described under Alternative A. 

Restoring CC to Class II levels on 70,000 acres would reduce fuel loads on these lands and would 

indirectly protect native vegetation from catastrophic fire. Impacts are similar to those described 

under Alternative B. 

Effects from Vegetation—Riparian and Wetlands Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives 

There are no likely impacts on rangeland vegetation from riparian and wetland vegetation 

management actions. 

Effects from Fish and Wildlife Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives 

Implementing HMPs that specify vegetation treatments to improve habitat would involve altering 

species composition and vegetation structure. This would cause a short-term direct disturbance to 

rangeland vegetation, while improving range condition over the long term. 

Mitigation measures would be implemented for actions near nesting migratory birds. This would 

allow for rangeland management actions to proceed and would protect nesting migratory birds. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Under this alternative, actions would not prioritize habitats for protection. Lack of such protections 

could cause impacts from human use and access, including indirect effects from soil disturbance or 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-175 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

direct effects from vegetation disturbance. These effects could cause reduced plant vigor and 

productivity and increased competition from weeds. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Under this alternative, no acres of priority 1 habitat and 716,528 acres of priority 2 habitat would be 

designated. This would prioritize rangeland treatment areas as well, allowing for a more effective and 

efficient range rehabilitation strategy in the long term. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Under Alternative C, 1,279,481 acres of priority 1 habitat and 869,645 acres of priority 2 habitat 

would be designated. Impacts are similar to, but greater than, those described under Alternative B 

because Alternative C designates a higher acreage of priority habitat. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Under this alternative, 699,929 acres of priority 1 habitat and 1,325,967 acres of priority 2 habitat 

would be designated. Impacts are similar to, but greater than, those described under Alternative B 

because Alternative D designates a higher acreage of priority habitat. 

Effects from Special Status Species Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives 

Actions to avoid impacts on listed or sensitive species or their habitat could directly alter 

implementation or timing of vegetation management treatments. This could indirectly preclude 

reaching certain management goals, such as having productive and healthy rangelands. Impacts 

would vary with the type of treatment proposed and the nature and extent of the restrictions.

However, maintenance and improvement of special status species habitat, particularly sagebrush 

obligates, would directly help to improve rangeland health and diversity throughout the WDO. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Restrictions on actions near special status plants, sage-grouse and sage-grouse leks, pygmy rabbits, 

bat habitat, and raptors could directly impact rangeland management by limiting the type, timing, 

and location of treatments. However, special status species protections would help create a lower 

level of disturbance in rangelands, indirectly fostering native vegetation and preventing weed 

invasion in these areas. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Alternative B places the least stringent restrictions on actions near special status plants, sage-grouse 

and sage-grouse leks, pygmy rabbits, bat habitat, and raptors. However, these restrictions could still 

directly impact rangeland vegetation management by limiting the type, timing, and location of stand 

treatments. This would indirectly prevent range health, composition, diversity, and productivity goals 

from being achieved. Such restrictions would limit multiple uses in certain areas near special status 

species. However, special status species protections would help create a lower level of disturbance 

on rangelands, causing an indirect effect by providing for lower potential for weed spread and soil 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-176 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

disturbance in these areas. Impacts would vary depending on the location and rangeland 

management actions proposed. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Alternative C places the greatest amount of restrictions on activities that could occur near special 

status species and their habitats. Of all the alternatives, this alternative would have the greatest 

impact on range improvement treatments and multiple use but also would limit disturbance to soils 

and native vegetation on rangelands. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Impacts from these actions are similar to those described under Alternative A. 

Effects from Wild Horse and Burro Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives 

Impacts on vegetation resulting from wild horse and burro management actions include direct 

effects, such as removing forage, and indirect effects, such as compacting soil, which alter the 

amount, condition, production, and vigor of vegetation in grazed areas. Impacts from wild horse 

and burro management may occur from yearlong use, indirectly resulting in lower vigor of desired 

plant species and a change in plant species composition. Overuse of vegetation adjacent to water 

sources, troughs, and livestock reservoirs results in a loss of plant cover. This allows localized areas 

to become dominated by invasive plants. Vegetation recovery on a burned area could be slowed or 

reduced by wild horses and burros. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Maintaining established AMLs as a population range, using gathers when AML is exceeded, and 

using fertility control inhibitors would be the most effective in maintaining WHB numbers within 

AML. This would indirectly result in improved vegetation conditions by reducing the impact of 

WHB on rangeland vegetation. 

Converting AML between wild horse use and burro use would spread impacts on rangelands 

through time, as the species have different habitat and forage preferences. Maintaining the freeroaming nature of WHB would spread impacts geographically through the HMAs. Both actions 

would indirectly benefit rangeland health by minimizing WHB impacts on vegetation. 

WHB protections, such as limitations to certain proposed activities, such as motor vehicle racing, 

would protect desirable vegetation from disturbance and would indirectly prevent rangeland impacts 

from soil compaction and weed spread in the long term. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Impacts from population control measures under Alternative B are similar to those under 

Alternative A. 

AML reduction in response to decreased WHB private water supply would improve vegetation 

conditions by reducing the impact of WHB on rangeland vegetation. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-177 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Under Alternative B, AML would not be converted between wild horse use and burro use, which 

would impact rangeland health by concentrating direct WHB impacts, such as trampling, and 

indirect impacts, such as compaction and weed spread, within the HMAs. 

Protection measures for WHB would have impacts similar to those described under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Alternative C would control WHB populations by maintaining AML as a single number, using fouryear (or longer) gather cycles, and would not allow use of fertility control inhibitors. This would 

have the greatest indirect impact from WHB on rangelands by ineffectively managing WHB 

populations to reduce impacts on rangeland vegetation. However, actions would still decrease the 

risk of soil compaction, trampling, and weed spread or introduction. Range health, plant community 

composition, and plant productivity would be directly and indirectly impacted. However, AML 

reduction in response to decreased water availability for WHB would decrease impacts of WHB on 

rangeland vegetation. 

Impacts from conversion of AML between wild horse use and burro use, as well as from 

maintaining the free-roaming nature of WHB within HMAs, are similar to those described under 

Alternative A. 

Protection measures for WHB would be the greatest under Alternative C and would prohibit or 

limit certain activities, such as motor vehicle racing, in HMAs unless impacts were determined to be 

minimal. This would protect soils and vegetation from disturbance and would prevent destruction of 

rangelands from human use, including direct effects from trampling and indirect effects from dust 

and litter. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Impacts from population control measures and development of alternative water sources are similar 

to those described under Alternative A. 

Impacts from conversion of AML between wild horse use and burro use, as well as from 

maintaining the free-roaming nature of WHB within HMAs, are similar to those described under 

Alternative A. 

Impacts from WHB protection measures are similar to those described under Alternative A. 

Effects from Wildland Fire Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives 

Wildland fires result in short-term direct loss of vegetation and a long-term change of community 

composition. The vegetation response to fire depends on the size, location, intensity, season, timing, 

and amount of precipitation, the preexisting plant community condition, and the abundance of 

noxious and invasive weeds in the area. Fires have direct effects by changing the composition of the 

plant community, delaying plant succession, and removing woody vegetation and plant litter. 

Wildland fires might burn with enough heat to kill soil organisms and root systems, resulting in 

diminished plant recruitment and growth rates, particularly for fire-sensitive species. Emergency 

stabilization and burned area rehabilitation treatments, such as seeding with native perennial plant 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-178 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

species, would be implemented to rehabilitate degraded rangeland and improve rangeland health in 

the long term. 

Indirectly, wildland fires impact rangelands by creating an opportunity for the establishment or 

spread of noxious and invasive weeds. This is because fires remove aboveground vegetation, leaving 

burned areas with bare soil that is more susceptible to noxious and invasive weeds. Some species of 

noxious and invasive weeds respond well to post-fire conditions and outcompete native species. In 

areas where noxious and invasive weeds occur or are in close proximity, wildland fire increases the 

likelihood of weed expansion. Firefighters and their equipment might also introduce or spread 

noxious and invasive weeds. Some mechanical control activities disturb the soil surface and remove 

vegetation, creating an opportunity for the establishment or spread of noxious and invasive weeds. 

Wildfire suppression and creation of fuel breaks would prevent catastrophic destruction of 

rangelands, which would indirectly preserve native vegetation and diversity in these areas over the 

long term. Surface disturbance resulting from fire line construction, use of heavy equipment, and 

other fire suppression activities would directly damage vegetation and would have indirect effects by 

accelerating soil erosion in localized areas. However, these areas would be rehabilitated to minimize 

long-term impacts. 

Because fire retardants are composed largely of nitrogen and phosphorus fertilizers, they may 

encourage growth of some species at the expense of others, resulting in changes in community 

composition and species diversity. Differential growth may also influence herbivorous behavior; 

both insect and vertebrate herbivores tend to favor new rapidly growing shoots. 

Fuels management actions would result in short-term direct loss of vegetation on a small scale. 

Projects would reestablish native vegetative communities, providing for healthy, diverse rangelands 

over the long term. These actions would allow fire to play its natural role more frequently and would 

reduce the likelihood of catastrophic wildfire, which would indirectly protect native rangeland 

vegetation in the long term and over large areas. 

Implementing a response to wildfires based on social, legal, and ecological consequences of the fire 

would indirectly protect rangelands from catastrophic fire, which would protect native vegetation, 

prevent weed invasion, and maintain rangeland productivity and health. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

No additional impacts would occur from wildland fire management actions under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Under this alternative, 110,167 acres of land would be designated as suitable for allowing fire for 

resource benefit. These areas would be more vulnerable to weed invasion, which would indirectly 

degrade rangelands and prevent the establishment of native vegetation. However, because many of 

the areas allowing fire for resource benefit are higher elevation woodland areas that have lower 

potential for weed invasion after burning, impacts on rangelands would be minimized. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

No additional impacts would occur from wildland fire management actions under Alternative C. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-179 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Under Alternative D, 9,932 acres would be designated as suitable for allowing fire for resource 

benefit. Impacts are similar to but less than those under Alternative B because Alternative D has 

fewer acres designated for allowing fire for resource benefit. 

Effects from Cultural Resources Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives 

Cultural inventory requirements present a considerable impact on rangelands throughout the WDO. 

In large fire years, emergency drill seedings cannot be implemented before a cultural inventory of the 

affected area. This can be costly and can directly prevent timely action during optimum seeding 

windows. Seeded species are then often poorly established, which indirectly increases the potential 

for weed spread and fire frequency. In the long term, this prevents establishment of native species. 

Protections to cultural resources would indirectly prevent disturbance and fragmentation of 

rangelands, providing for a more healthy and resilient community. These areas are small relative to 

the total area of the WDO, so impacts would be localized. 

Site monitoring, conservation measures, use restrictions, and law enforcement actions would 

indirectly prevent disturbance to and degradation of rangelands, while potentially impacting the 

ability to reach other rangeland vegetation goals over the long term in certain areas. 

Effects from Tribal Consultation 

Effects Common to All Alternatives 

Consulting with tribes to identify culturally significant plants, important habitats, and traditional use 

locations would emphasize protection of natural resources, including rangelands. This would limit 

disturbance and indirectly foster vegetation health over the long term in certain areas. Consultation 

could place higher treatment priority in areas not previously identified or could limit actions in 

planned treatment areas. Impacts would vary on a case-by-case basis and are likely to be localized. 

Effects from Paleontological Resources Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives 

Areas with paleontological resources are small and localized within the WDO. As a result, impacts 

from paleontological management actions on rangelands would be limited. 

Effects from Visual Resources Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives 

Implementing VRM guidelines, particularly managing WSAs as Class I, would increase the difficulty 

of accomplishing vegetation management actions and may affect the dimensions and locations of 

rangeland treatments. This is because vegetation treatments could change the visual character of 

rangelands. In these areas, healthy rangeland conditions might not be achieved. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-180 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Under Alternative A, 420,271 acres and 346,302 acres would be managed to VRM Class I and II 

guidelines, respectively. These actions would limit the scope of plant removal or prescribed burning 

activities and would prohibit treatments and prescriptions that would change the visual character. 

Overall, meeting VRM Class I and II guidelines would increase the difficulty of accomplishing 

rangeland management actions and would limit the extent or effectiveness of the management goals. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Under Alternative B, 417,605 acres and 391,203 acres would be managed to VRM Class I and II 

guidelines, respectively. This alternative is the least restrictive to rangeland treatment 

implementation. Impacts are similar to those described under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Under Alternative C, 417,605 acres and 3,083,858 acres would be managed to VRM Class I and II 

guidelines, respectively. This alternative would be the most restrictive to rangeland treatment 

implementation. Impacts are similar, although greater in magnitude, than under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Under Alternative D, 417,605 acres and 2,780,416 acres would be managed to VRM Class I and II 

guidelines, respectively. Impacts are most similar in nature and magnitude to Alternative C. 

Effects from Cave and Karst Resource Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives 

There are no likely impacts on rangeland vegetation from cave and karst resource management 

actions. 

Effects from Livestock Grazing Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives 

There are no effects common to all alternatives from livestock grazing management. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Direct impacts on vegetation resulting from livestock grazing management actions include removing 

forage, which alters the amount, condition, production, and vigor of vegetation in grazed areas. 

Impacts from livestock grazing are usually related to a long duration of use during the growing 

season, resulting in lower vigor of desired species and a change in species composition. Often, the 

vegetation is disturbed around salting areas, bed grounds, troughs, and stock reservoirs, and there is 

a loss of plant cover, which usually results in localized areas dominated by invasive plants. Further, 

degraded rangeland that is grazed yearly lacks substantial native vegetation to outcompete invaders. 

Livestock grazing would be open on 8,232,727 acres of land under this alternative, which would 

have the greatest impact on rangeland management. Impacts could occur as described above, but 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-181 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

actions under Alternative A must maintain and improve rangeland in accordance with the Standards 

for Rangeland Health. 

To minimize impacts on rangelands, grazing management strategies, such as rotation, deferment, 

rest from use, and season of use and grazing intensity, would be implemented. These strategies 

would help to manage composition, cover, and the vigor of vegetation and would provide rest 

periods for plant growth and seed production to maintain plant vigor. The objective of these 

strategies is to maintain and improve vegetation conditions while making progress toward or 

meeting rangeland standards for upland plant communities. The response of vegetation to these 

strategies would be monitored, and adjustments would be made accordingly to achieve the desired 

response. Range improvement actions would also be implemented to help increase native vegetation 

and to decrease the number and extent of weed populations in the long term. 

Lands closed to grazing on the remainder of land in the WDO would lower impacts on rangeland 

vegetation in these areas, as livestock would not be compacting soils or acting as a mechanism for 

seed dispersal. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Livestock grazing would be open on 8,232,727 acres of land under this alternative. Grazing, 

including that on acquired lands, allowing temporary nonrenewable use, and allowing for continuous 

season-long use, would facilitate the most intensive land use. Impacts are similar to those described 

under Alternative A. 

Range improvement actions would directly help increase native vegetation and decrease the number 

and extent of weed populations in the long term. These actions would be difficult to implement 

successfully and efficiently under Alternative B, due to the large acreage that would be open to 

grazing. 

Lands closed to grazing on the remainder of land in the WDO would have lower indirect impacts on 

rangeland vegetation in these areas, as livestock would not be compacting soils, disturbing native 

vegetation, or acting as a mechanism for seed dispersal. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Option 1 

Livestock grazing would be open on 8,038,084 acres of land under this alternative. Grazing would 

facilitate weed spread and introduction similar to impacts described under Alternative A. However, 

Alternative C, Option 1 would not allow grazing on acquired lands or temporary nonrenewable use 

and would only allow for two years of consecutive grazing during the critical growth period. This 

would minimize the intensity of land use and impacts from livestock and would foster rangeland 

health and productivity. 

Lands closed to grazing on the remainder of land in the WDO would lower indirect impacts on 

rangeland vegetation in these areas, as livestock would not be compacting soils or acting as a 

mechanism for seed dispersal. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-182 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Range improvement actions would be somewhat more restricted and could limit the type, timing, 

and location of rangeland treatments. 

Option 2 

Livestock grazing would be closed on all lands within the WDO, so this alternative would be the 

most effective at reducing impacts caused by livestock on rangeland vegetation on BLMadministered lands. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Alternative D would have 8,016,754 acres of land open to grazing. Impacts are similar to those 

described under Alternative A, except with fewer acres of land open to grazing. 

Impacts from range improvements are similar to those described under Alternative B. 

Effects from Minerals Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives 

General 

Impacts on rangeland vegetation could result from fluid, leasable, and locatable mineral 

development and mineral material sales and disposal. Most minerals management impacts on 

vegetation are on the sagebrush and saltbush scrub communities. Direct impacts associated with 

these actions include loss or injury of plants due to excavation and toxic responses from chemical 

use in mineral extraction or waste pits. Indirect impacts include increased exposure to dust and other 

contaminants associated with construction of infrastructure and use of access roads. In the worstcase scenario, all vegetation would be removed from a parcel of land, and the site would be 

permanently altered. Regulations, although they might differ among the mineral categories, are in 

place to protect existing vegetative communities or to ensure the reestablishment of desirable 

vegetation following completion of the mineral and fluid management actions. Overall, rangeland 

vegetation could be altered by minerals management actions, but mitigation measures would be 

implemented to lessen the impact on vegetation resources. 

RFDs 

Under the reasonably foreseeable development scenario, impacts on rangeland vegetation would 

continue. Vegetation would be fragmented, which would increase the susceptibility of the 

community to weed invasion in the long term. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Alternative A would open the greatest acreage and would close the least acreage to mineral 

development, thus having the greatest likelihood of impacting rangeland vegetation. Impacts would 

be similar to those described under Effects Common to All Alternatives from Minerals 

Management. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-183 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Compared with Alternative A, Alternative B would open fewer acres and would close more acres to 

mineral development, thus having less likelihood of impacting rangeland vegetation. Impacts would 

be similar to those described under Effects Common to All Alternatives from Minerals 

Management. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Alternative C would open the fewest acres and would close the most acres to mineral development, 

thus having the least likelihood of impacting rangeland vegetation of all alternatives. Impacts are 

similar to those described under Effects Common to All Alternatives from Minerals Management. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Compared with Alternatives A and B, Alternative D would open fewer acres and would close more 

acres to mineral development, thus having less likelihood of impacting rangeland vegetation. 

Impacts are similar to those described under Effects Common to All Alternatives from Minerals 

Management. 

Effects from Recreation, Visitor Outreach, and Services Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives 

Managing BLM-administered lands to provide dispersed recreation could impact rangelands 

throughout the WDO through direct means, such as human disturbance to vegetation, and indirect 

means, such as and weed introduction or spread. 

OHV use would result in direct impacts on vegetation, such as reduced vegetative cover and density, 

as well as indirect effects, such as soil compaction and increased dust. OHV users would introduce 

and spread noxious and invasive weed seeds from their vehicles, shoes, clothing, and recreation 

equipment. OHV activities in undisturbed and remote areas could distribute weed seeds into weedfree areas. These indirect effects could decrease plant vigor and productivity, alter community plant 

composition, and cause plant mortality on rangelands. 

To manage OHV use, the Transportation Plan would be updated and would account for wildlife 

habitat, including rangeland vegetation. Site-specific NEPA analysis would be done on an 

implementation level to minimize impacts on rangeland vegetation. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Under Alternative A, there would be no camping limitations or prohibitions throughout the WDO. 

In addition, the Pine Forest SRMA would be maintained, and issuance of special recreation permits 

would be the least restricted. The greatest acreage would be open to OHVs under Alternative A 

(6,782,790 acres), the least amount of land would be limited (416,652 acres), and 24,832 acres would 

be closed. Combined, these actions could degrade rangelands throughout the WDO as described 

under Effects Common to All Alternatives. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-184 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Camping limitations and prohibitions throughout the ERMA would minimize impacts on rangelands 

on these lands. In addition, designating three SRMAs would impact range vegetation to varying 

degrees, depending on the recreation market identified for the SRMA. For example, the Nightingale 

SRMA would be targeted for undeveloped recreation-tourism, which would have less of an impact 

than the Winnemucca and Pine Forest SRMAs, which allow for increased motorized vehicle access. 

Under Alternative B, 1,460,200 acres would be open to OHVs, with the least amount of land closed 

(24,832 acres) and with 5,445,218 acres limited. These actions could degrade rangelands throughout 

the WDO. To minimize impacts, the BLM would limit OHV use to existing roads and trails until 

the Transportation Plan is updated and site-specific NEPA analysis is completed. 

Issuance of special recreation permits would be the least restricted under this alternative, which 

could cause some direct impacts on rangelands through increased human use and trampling, and 

indirect impacts through soil compaction, increased litter, and weed invasion. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Camping limitations and prohibitions throughout the ERMA would have similar impacts on 

rangelands as Alternative B. In addition, designation of two SRMAs would have impacts on 

rangeland vegetation similar to those described under Alternative B. Under Alternative C, no acres 

would be open to OHVs, 61,427 acres would be closed, and 7,143,177 acres would be limited. To 

minimize impacts, the BLM would limit OHV use to existing roads and trails until the 

Transportation Plan is updated and site-specific NEPA analysis is completed. As such, impacts from 

recreation actions would be fewest under this alternative, as it is the most restrictive and prohibitive. 

However, impacts would occur, and they are similar to those described under Effects Common to 

All Alternatives. 

Issuance of special recreation permits would be the most restrictive under Alternative C and would 

cause the fewest direct impacts on rangelands through increased human use and trampling and 

indirect impacts through soil compaction, increased litter, and weed invasion. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Camping limitations and prohibitions throughout the ERMA would have impacts similar to those 

described under Alternative B. In addition, designating three SRMAs would have the same impacts 

on range vegetation as those described under Alternative B. Under Alternative D, 289,932 acres 

would be open to OHVs, 35,483 acres would be closed, and 6,878,592 acres would be limited. To 

minimize impacts, the BLM would limit OHV use to existing roads and trails until the 

Transportation Plan is updated and site-specific NEPA analysis is completed. Together, impacts 

from these actions are similar to those described under Effects Common to All Alternatives. 

Issuance of special recreation permits would cause impacts similar to those described under 

Alternative A. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-185 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Effects from Renewable Energy Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives 

Direct impacts on rangeland vegetation could occur with issuance of new ROWs, which require 

vegetation clearing and access roads and would disturb or destroy vegetation. ROWs may spread or 

introduce weeds, indirectly reducing rangeland health and diversity. However, BMPs, stipulations, 

and mitigation measures would be implemented, which would minimize impacts on rangeland 

vegetation. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Maintaining existing exclusion areas within the WDO could limit the type and timing of treatments 

and multiple use activities on rangelands. However, this action would protect and limit disturbance 

to native vegetation and would prevent weed invasion or spread caused by development. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Designating avoidance areas within the WDO could limit the type and timing of treatments and 

multiple use activities on rangelands. However, this action would protect and limit disturbance to 

vegetation and soils and would prevent weed invasion or spread caused by development. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Under Alternative C, the BLM would designate the largest acreage of avoidance areas and exclusion 

zones of all alternatives. This would have the greatest impact on rangelands by protecting and 

limiting disturbance to vegetation and soils and by preventing weed invasion or spread. However, 

these actions could limit the type and timing of treatments and multiple use activities on rangelands. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Designating avoidance areas and exclusion zones within the WDO would have impacts on weed 

management similar to those described under Alternative C. 

Effects from Transportation and Access Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives 

Maintaining roads necessary for fire suppression would provide access to rangelands and would 

allow for suppression of wildfires when necessary. This would indirectly help to protect rangeland 

vegetation and would effectively manage fire on these lands in the long term. 

Noxious weed control measures would prevent the spread of weeds onto rangelands, would prevent 

competition with native species, and would indirectly help achieve healthy rangeland conditions. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Transportation actions under Alternative A would not protect wildlife, sensitive species, or their 

habitat. As a result, rangelands could be directly impacted by road and trail construction through 

vegetation removal. Rangelands could be indirectly affected by soil compaction, weed invasion, and 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-186 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

increased dust. However, improved and increased access to rangelands would facilitate 

implementation of range treatments and would allow for multiple uses. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Transportation actions to minimize effects on wildlife, sensitive species, and habitat would protect 

and limit disturbance to vegetation and soils and would prevent weed invasion or spread from road 

or trail construction or transport on vehicles. However, these actions could limit access to certain 

rangelands for management and would prevent multiple uses in certain areas. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Transportation actions to minimize effects on wildlife, sensitive species, and habitat would have 

impacts similar to those described under Alternative B. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Transportation actions to minimize effects on wildlife, sensitive species, and habitat are similar to 

those described under Alternative B. 

Effects from Lands and Realty Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives 

Land and realty management actions would result in direct effects, such as short-term surface 

disturbance and vegetation removal, and indirect effects such as increased susceptibility to weed 

invasion or spread of existing weed patches. Disturbed areas would be reclaimed and seeded. Land 

sales could affect vegetation resources by changing the vegetative cover through urbanization or 

agricultural or industrial development. 

Vegetation and wildlife habitat value would be given consideration when the WDO makes disposal 

and acquisition decisions. Impacts on rangeland vegetation would vary on a case-by-case basis, but 

impacts should be minimized because only lands with little resource values would be identified for 

disposal, and further NEPA documentation would minimize potential impacts on rangelands. 

Acquisition of rangelands would provide additional opportunities to achieve rangeland objectives. 

ROWs cause habitat alteration from their footprint for the facilities that are authorized and could 

have direct effects by causing removal of vegetation. Indirect effects include soil compaction, weed 

invasion, and increased dust in these areas. Most of the footprints are localized and cover a small 

area, but ROWs tend to be linear and may stretch for miles. Many of the impacts associated with 

ROWs can be mitigated on a case-by-case basis. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Issuance of ROWs would not be limited, and avoidance areas or exclusion zones for lands and realty 

management actions would not be designated under Alternative A. Impacts are similar to those 

described under Effects Common to All Alternatives. However, no restrictions would be placed on 

range treatments, thus increasing the potential that a healthy range condition could be achieved 

throughout, or in portions of, the WDO. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-187 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

The impacts from designating avoidance areas are similar to those described under renewable energy 

management actions under Alternative B. 

The impacts from issuing ROWs are similar to those described under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

The impacts from designating avoidance areas and exclusion zones are similar to renewable energy 

management actions under Alternative C. 

Restricting ROW issuance would protect and limit vegetation disturbance, fragmentation, and weed 

invasion or spread from road construction. This would help to maintain healthy rangeland 

vegetation over the long term. However, this action could limit implementation of rehabilitation 

treatments and could prevent multiple uses in certain areas. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

The impacts from designating avoidance areas and exclusion zones are similar to renewable energy 

management actions under Alternative D. 

The impacts from issuing ROWs are similar to those described under Alternative A. 

Effects from ACEC/ RNA Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives 

There are no effects common to all alternatives from ACEC/RNA management. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Maintaining the Osgood Mountain Milkvetch ACEC would protect vegetation and habitat and 

would indirectly prevent disturbance and fragmentation of rangeland within the ACEC by limiting 

human uses, such as recreation and development. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Effects from ACEC/RNA management under Alternative B are the same as those described under 

Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Designating four ACECs within the WDO would limit human uses in these areas and would 

provide the greatest protection to native vegetation and would indirectly prevent disturbance and 

fragmentation of rangeland within these ACECs. However, implementing certain range 

rehabilitation treatments could be limited in areas, depending on habitat sensitivity. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Effects from ACEC/RNA management under Alternative D are the same as those described under 

Alternative C. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-188 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Effects from Backcountry Byways Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives 

Backcountry byways may attract more tourism to areas they access and could increase human use 

and degradation of nearby rangelands. The only BCB is the Lovelock Cave, but expanding BCBs 

could cause greater impact on rangelands. Impacts would vary depending on the locations of new 

BCBs and the areas they would access. 

Effects from National Trails Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives 

There are no likely impacts from national trails management because these actions would not affect 

rangeland vegetation management. 

Effects from Wild and Scenic Rivers Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives 

There are no likely impacts on rangeland vegetation from wild and scenic rivers management. 

Effects from Wilderness Study Areas and Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives 

WSAs are protected areas and would prevent disturbance to native vegetation in certain rangeland 

areas within the WDO. However, these would impact rangeland vegetation treatments on these 

lands, preventing achievement of rangeland health goals in the long term. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Wilderness characteristic areas would not be designated under Alternative A. As a result, there 

would be no restrictions on rangeland management actions. This would indirectly allow management 

objectives to be achieved over the long term. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Under Alternative B, the BLM would manage six areas containing wilderness characteristics to meet 

multiple use and sustained yield objectives. As a result, rangeland management actions would not be 

restricted, which would benefit rangeland vegetation. Allowing multiple uses could allow some 

impacts on rangeland vegetation from trampling, weed introduction, or other human disturbances. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Under Alternative C, as under Alternative B, the BLM would manage six areas containing wilderness 

characteristics. However, Alternative C would impose restrictions and stipulations in these areas, 

including closing mineral leasing and ROW exclusion zones, which would benefit rangeland 

vegetation. However, rangeland management actions would be restricted within areas with 

wilderness characteristics. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-189 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects Alternative D

Under Alternative D, the BLM also would manage six areas containing wilderness characteristics. 

Depending on the restrictions implemented, access and uses of rangeland vegetation could be 

limited, which would protect vegetation but could limit management actions in areas. However, 

restrictions are unlikely to prevent management objectives from being achieved over the long term. 

Effects from Watchable Wildlife Viewing Sites Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives 

WWV sites could impact rangeland vegetation by allowing for more human disturbance of the sites 

over the long term. Direct impacts include trampling or destruction of vegetation, and indirect 

effects include soil compaction. This could result in reduced plant vigor or productivity. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

An unspecified number and location of WWV sites would be developed and maintained under this 

alternative. The magnitude of impacts would vary depending on the amount of WWV sites 

developed. Impacts are similar to those described under Effects Common to All Alternatives. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Six WWV sites would be maintained under Alternative B. Impacts would occur in these areas and 

are similar to those described under Effects Common to All Alternatives. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Impacts on rangeland vegetation are the fewest under this alternative since new routes through or 

near sensitive areas and increased traffic to remote areas would be avoided. This would reduce 

human disturbance, described under Effects Common to All Alternatives. However, impacts would 

still occur and are similar to those described under Effects Common to All Alternatives. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Impacts are the same as those described under Alternative B. 

Effects from Public Health and Safety Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives 

There are no likely impacts on rangeland vegetation from public health and safety management 

actions. 

Effects from Sustainable Development Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives 

Sustainable development management actions apply to areas that have already been developed and 

likely do not have rangeland vegetation. Because sustainable development management actions 

would involve facility reuse, new operations would not create new disturbance. As a result, there 

would be few impacts on rangelands from sustainable development actions. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-190 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

There are no actions under Alternative A that relate to sustainable development. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Sustainable development actions would protect sensitive habitat from disposal. Where this includes 

rangelands, this would help to maintain the extent and connectivity of range vegetation in the WDO. 

ROW and mineral operation actions could impact rangelands by allowing some degradation during 

development. This could fragment and disturb native vegetation and directly impact vegetation 

health through trampling and vegetation removal. Indirect impacts include soil compaction and 

weed invasion. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Sustainable development actions would protect sensitive habitat from disposal. Where this includes 

rangelands, this alternative would help to maintain the extent of rangeland vegetation in the WDO. 

ROW and mineral operation actions would protect rangelands by preventing degradation and 

fragmentation during and after development. This could prevent direct effects, such as trampling 

and vegetation removal, and indirect effects, such as soil compaction and weed invasion. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Impacts from sustainable development actions are the same under Alternative D as those described 

under Alternative B. 

Cumulative Effects 

Rangeland vegetation types are of increasing importance because much of what was historically 

grassland and shrubland of the cumulative impact assessment area has been heavily grazed or 

invaded by nonnative species such as cheatgrass. 

Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions that are relevant to range management include land 

tenure changes, wildland fire and allowing fire for resource benefit and suppression, fuel and 

vegetation treatments, minerals management, population growth, recreational use, OHV use, 

watershed rehabilitation activities, regional planning efforts, weed management efforts, and wild 

horse and burro management and grazing. The types of impacts that have occurred and would 

continue to occur include additional removal or disturbance of vegetation, loss of plant diversity, 

continued invasive and noxious weed invasion, loss of soil integrity, changes in seral stage, reduction 

of forage for livestock and wildlife, changes in fire regime, and reduced ecosystem function. 

Research projects are encouraged in the WDO to gain a better understanding of the ecological 

processes and improve rehabilitation and reclamation treatments. Research projects affect vegetation 

resources, and effects would vary depending on the size of the project and type of treatments 

implemented. 

Areas where cross-country OHV use is allowed would be further restricted or eliminated under all 

of the Winnemucca RMP alternatives, except Alternative A. Closures directly affect rangeland 

vegetation by reducing disturbance and weed seed introduction. Although increasingly more OHVs 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-191 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-192 

are in use throughout the cumulative impact area, the trend towards concentrating them into 

designated areas would enhance range management efforts in most habitat types by reducing the 

extent of disturbance and fragmentation. Reduction of CC and range management actions would 

reduce weed infestation and fuel load throughout the WDO. Since many rangelands are infested 

with weeds, this cumulative effect could be substantial throughout the cumulative impact area. 

Alternative D would offer the greatest amount of treatments, with Alternative C offering the least. 

Cumulative effects are similar among the alternatives. Alternative B would contribute to more 

regional cumulative effects resulting from implementing actions. In general, Alternatives A, C, and 

D would provide more management measures than Alternative B that would directly or indirectly 

reduce the potential for cumulative impacts. The emphasis in Alternative D on actions that value 

multiple use with resource conservation and protection would have the least impact or risk of 

impacts on rangeland management and would contribute the least to cumulative impacts. 

4.2.8 Vegetation—Riparian Habitat and Wetlands 

Summary 

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

cannot be quantified. A more detailed analysis will follow at the implementation stage, such as an 

allotment evaluation and EA or a permit renewal EA to comply with NEPA. The greatest impact on 

riparian or wetland habitat within the WDO would be from wildland fire, livestock grazing, and wild 

horse and burro actions. There would be fewer impacts on riparian or wetland habitat from other 

resources, including soils, water, forest and woodland vegetation, weeds, chemical and biological 

control, rangeland vegetation, fish and wildlife, special status species, tribal consultation, visual 

resources, wilderness characteristics, mineral resources, recreation, renewable energy, transportation 

and access, lands and realty, ACECs/RNAs, backcountry byways, wild and scenic rivers, wilderness 

study areas, watchable wildlife viewing sites, and sustainable development. However, it is the BLM’s 

judgment that several of the resources listed below are not likely to impact riparian or wetland 

habitat resources. These areas are air, cultural resources, geological resources, paleological 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. 

Methods of Analysis 

Methods and Assumptions

Impacts were identified using best professional judgment and were assessed according to the 

following methods and assumptions: 

• Activities generally affect vegetation by changing plant composition, seral condition, 

structure, production, ground or canopy cover, and soil resources; 

• Restoring riparian and wetland vegetation is assumed to include an improvement in species 

composition and structure, including stand density and age, where appropriate; 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

• Vegetation communities would be maintained with a mix of species composition, cover, and 

age classes within the site potential; 

• Noxious and invasive weeds would continue to be introduced and spread as a result of 

ongoing vehicle traffic in and out of the WDO, recreational activities, wildlife and livestock 

grazing and their movements, and surface-disturbing activities; 

• Noxious and invasive weeds would further expand into native plant communities, and 

disturbances to these communities would expand opportunities for the spread of nonnative 

invasive plant species; and 

• The BLM would continue to treat noxious and invasive weeds and pests on public land and 

grazing allotments, and livestock permit holders, right-of-way holders, mineral lease claim, 

and permit holders would continue to treat noxious and invasive weeds and pests on public 

land, as stipulated within their permits and authorizations. 

Some impacts are direct, while others are indirect and affect vegetation through a change in another 

resource. Direct impacts on riparian vegetation are disruption, trampling, or removal of rooted 

vegetation, resulting in a reduction in areas of native vegetation; mortality resulting from toxic 

chemicals; and actions that unequivocally reduce total numbers of plant species or reduce or cause 

the loss of total area, diversity, vigor, structure, or function of wildlife habitat. 

Potential indirect impacts include loss of habitat suitable for colonization due to surface disturbance; 

introduction of noxious weeds by various mechanisms or conditions that enhance the spread of 

weeds; increased noise; and general loss of habitat due to surface occupancy or surface compaction. 

Indirect impacts include those that cannot be absolutely linked to one action, such as decreased 

plant vigor or health from reduced air or water quality. 

Effects from Air Quality Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives 

There are no likely impacts on riparian and wetland vegetation from air quality management. 

Effects from Geology Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives 

There are no likely impacts on riparian and wetland vegetation from geology resource management. 

Effects from Soil Resources Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives 

Soil erosion reduction measures, involving seeding and improving vegetative cover, would reduce 

compaction and increase infiltration, which would indirectly improve riparian and wetland health 

over the short term. As a result, vegetative productivity and diversity would be increased, which 

would increase litter, soil fertility, infiltration, and nutrient cycling in the long term. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-193 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Impacts on riparian and wetland vegetation vary depending on the grazing management system, 

reclamation and rehabilitation treatments, and success or failure of the treatments. Impacts would be 

long term. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Impacts from land reclamation or rehabilitation activities relating to soil resources management 

under Alternative B differ from Alternative A in that no native seed or native seedlings would be 

used for reclamation or rehabilitation activities. 

Soil compaction prevention measures under Alternative B would seek to mitigate adverse effects 

without seasonal closures. As such, riparian and wetland vegetation would be impacted year-round, 

even during times when soils would be most susceptible to compaction. However, vegetation 

treatments could occur year-round, facilitating riparian and wetland rehabilitation and improvement 

and multiple uses in the long term. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Land reclamation actions under Alternative C would have the greatest benefit to riparian and 

wetland areas by requiring reclamation of all surface-disturbing activities. This would allow for native 

vegetation reestablishment and would directly help to achieve riparian and wetland health goals in 

the long term. 

Soil compaction prevention measures are the most stringent under Alternative C, providing for 

seasonal use restrictions. This would indirectly benefit riparian and wetland vegetation health by 

improving filtration and protecting soils when they are most susceptible to disturbance. In addition, 

riparian vegetation would improve through natural recovery; no structural improvements would be 

implemented under Alternative C. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Land reclamation actions under Alternative D would provide the most flexible approach to land 

reclamation. Impacts on riparian and wetland vegetation would vary depending on how and if 

reclamation was achieved, including whether native or nonnative seeds were used in revegetating 

lands. Impacts would be long term. 

Soil compaction prevention measures would implement seasonal use restrictions, which would occur 

on a case-by-case basis. Indirect impacts on riparian and wetland resources include improved health 

and vigor from decreased soil compaction and increased infiltration. Further, objectives such as 

restoration of PFC and multiple use could be achieved in the long term, as seasonal restrictions 

could be less limiting to riparian and wetland improvements. 

Effects from Water Resources Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no effects common to all alternatives from water resources management. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-194 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Under this alternative, priority watersheds would not be established. However, impacts on water 

resources would be reduced by compliance with water quality regulations and implementation of 

BMPs and land health standards. This would indirectly protect riparian and wetland vegetation 

throughout the WDO, but would provide the fewest action- and location-specific protections of all 

alternatives. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B 

Priority watershed actions would limit disturbance, indirectly protecting riparian and wetland 

vegetation in those areas in the long term. This is because riparian and wetland areas within priority 

watersheds would be prioritized for fire suppression, and direct impacts on vegetation from wildfire, 

as described under Wildland Fire Management, would be minimized. Impacts would be localized 

and limited by the relatively small acreage of the priority watersheds. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C 

Priority watershed actions under Alternative C would provide the greatest indirect protection to 

riparian and wetland vegetation within those areas by imposing the most restrictions. Exclusion of 

uses in these areas would allow natural processes to occur, thus improving riparian and wetland 

conditions. Impacts would be localized and limited by the relatively small acreage of the priority 

watersheds. 

Due to their restrictions, water resources actions may prevent multiple uses of riparian and wetland 

vegetation within priority watersheds. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Priority watershed actions would indirectly protect riparian and wetland vegetation in the long term, 

as described under Alternative B. As avoidance areas, they may directly limit riparian treatments and 

prevent multiple uses. Mitigation measures would be implemented when avoidance is not possible, 

which would allow for some flexibility in achieving riparian rehabilitation and improvement goals. 

Impacts would be localized and limited by the relatively small acreage of the priority watersheds. 

Effects from Vegetation—Forest and Woodland Products Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives 

There are no effects common to all alternatives from forest and woodland product management. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Fire would reduce the fuel load in forests and would have indirect impacts by preventing 

catastrophic fires that could spread to adjacent riparian and wetland areas. Other treatments would 

facilitate this enhancement, including fencing, mechanical control, and herbicides. Effects would be 

long term and localized. 

Forest management for aspen and cottonwood, two riparian tree species, would directly help to 

achieve PFC and diversity, which ultimately would enhance riparian health in the long term. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-195 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative B 

Fire would reduce the fuel load in forests and would have indirect impacts by preventing 

catastrophic fires that could spread to adjacent riparian and wetland areas. Other treatments would 

facilitate this enhancement, including fencing and mechanical, biological, and chemical control. 

Effects would be long term and localized. 

Forest management for aspen and cottonwood would have impacts similar to those described under 

Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C 

Forest treatments would be the most limited under Alternative C with only mechanical and 

biological treatments permitted. As a result, fuel loads could increase, and catastrophic fires could 

spread to adjacent riparian and wetland areas. Effects would be long term and localized. 

Forest management for aspen, cottonwood, willow, and alder would have greater impacts than 

under Alternative A, as more riparian species would be given specific management consideration. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Use of fire and other treatments would reduce the fuel load in forests, preventing catastrophic fires 

that could spread to adjacent riparian and wetland areas. Impacts are similar to those described 

under Alternative B 

Forest management for aspen, cottonwood, willow, and alder would have impacts similar to those 

described under Alternative C. 

Effects from Vegetation—Weeds Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives 

Actions to decrease weeds on BLM-administered lands would indirectly improve riparian and 

wetland health and habitat values by increasing native species and decreasing the risk of catastrophic 

wildfire in both the short term and long term. Such a fire could damage or kill native vegetation, 

could allow weeds to spread, and could destroy wildlife habitat. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Controlling weeds with prescribed fire would directly disturb wildlife habitat in the short term, while 

in the long term achieving riparian and wetland health, structure, composition, and wildlife habitat 

goals more quickly. Prescribed fire is used mainly to control saltcedar and is not used to control 

weeds over large areas, so impacts would be localized and small scale. Approved biological controls 

are specific to target species, so there would be no impact on nontarget species. Chemical treatments 

would be applied according to label directions and following established guidelines, best 

management practices and standard operating procedures for application. Chemical applications 

would also be designed to avoid effects on nontarget species, which would be short term but would 

lead to long-term improvement in vegetation composition. Using Integrated Pest Management 

practices would make use of one, several, or all available management practices, such as chemical, 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-196 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

biological, mechanical, or prescribed fire, and would provide an adaptive and effective approach to 

weed management in riparian and wetland areas in the long term. 

Preparing pesticide and biological use proposals, in addition to cooperation with agencies, would 

ensure that only safe and effective treatments would be used within the WDO. This would prevent 

impacts on nontarget species, including riparian vegetation. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Impacts from weeds management actions are the same as those described under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Mechanical and biological weed treatments would be used under Alternative C, which would 

indirectly help to achieve riparian and wetland health, composition, and wildlife habitat objectives in 

the long term by facilitating native vegetation establishment. Alternative C would not include 

prescribed fire as a weed management tool, which could limit effective control of saltcedar invasion 

in riparian woodlands. Approved biological controls are specific to target species, so there would be 

no impact on nontarget species. Further, preparing biological use proposals, in addition to 

cooperating with agencies, would ensure that only safe and effective treatments would be used 

within the WDO. 

Using IPM practices would make use of one or both available management practices, such as 

biological or mechanical control to provide an adaptive and effective approach to control pest 

species and weeds in the long term. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Impacts from weeds management actions are the same as those described under Alternative A. 

Effects from Chemical and Biological Control 

Effects Common to all Alternatives

Using chemical control methods would help control and reduce weed outbreaks. Effects would be 

indirect and are similar to those described under weeds management. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Using both biological and chemical control methods, as well as IPM techniques, would provide an 

adaptive and effective approach to weed management in riparian and wetland areas in the long term. 

Preparing pesticide and biological use proposals, in addition to cooperation with agencies, would 

ensure that only safe and effective treatments would be used within the WDO. This would prevent 

impacts on nontarget species, including riparian vegetation. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Effects from chemical and biological control are the same as those described under Alternative A. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-197 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

The focus on biological control methods would limit the effectiveness of weed management in 

riparian and wetland areas and would have an indirect effect in the long term under Alternative C. 

However, use of IPM techniques would also provide an adaptive and effective approach to weed 

management in the long term. Preparation of pesticide and biological use proposals, in addition to 

cooperation with agencies, would ensure that only safe and effective treatments would be used 

within the WDO. This would limit impacts on nontarget, native vegetation. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Effects from chemical and biological control are similar to those described under Alternative A. 

Effects from Vegetation—Rangeland Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives 

Vegetation treatments for rangeland improvement projects would reduce the prevalence of invasive 

species and would improve ecological conditions throughout a large portion of the WDO. Such 

projects would reestablish an understory of forbs and perennial bunchgrasses that are less 

susceptible to fire than invasive annuals, such as cheatgrass. This would reduce the risk of 

catastrophic wildfire on rangelands, which might otherwise spread into riparian and wetland areas. 

Effects would be indirect. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

CC would not be restored under this alternative, which would keep fuel loads high and would 

increase the risk for catastrophic fire, which could destroy adjacent riparian and wetland areas. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Restoration of CC would have the greatest impact in decreasing fire fuel loads and could protect 

adjacent riparian and wetland areas from catastrophic fire in the long term. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Option 1 

Impacts on riparian and wetland vegetation from rangeland management actions are the same as 

those described under Alternative B. 

Option 2 

Restoring CC to Class II levels on 70,000 acres would reduce fuel loads on these lands and would 

protect adjacent riparian and wetland areas from catastrophic fire. This would indirectly allow 

vegetative health and wildlife habitat objectives to be achieved in this area by maintaining established 

native vegetation. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-198 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Impacts on riparian and wetland areas from rangeland management actions are the same as those 

described under Alternative B. 

Effects from Vegetation—Riparian and Wetlands Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives 

Specific objectives for meadows and riparian areas in implementation plans would prioritize 

restoration of these communities, making restoration efforts more effective and efficient. Riparian 

and wetland areas are functioning properly when adequate vegetation, landform, or large woody 

debris is present to dissipate stream energy associated with high water flows. This would result in the 

following: 

• Reduce erosion and improve water quality; 

• Filter sediment and capture bedload; 

• Aid floodplain development; 

• Improve floodwater retention and groundwater recharge; 

• Develop root masses that stabilize stream banks against cutting action; 

• Develop diverse ponding; 

• Channel characteristics to provide the habitat and the water depth, duration, and 

temperature necessary for fish production, waterfowl breeding, and other uses; and 

• Support greater biodiversity. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Alternative A would improve riparian and wetland habitat at the slowest rate since the PFC 

percentage goal would not be stated and the BLM would make progress toward PFC through a 

combination of grazing system changes and structures. Structural improvements would be 

maintained by grazing permittees, the WDO, and interest groups. Impacts would be direct and 

would vary depending on what percentage of these communities is restored. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Alternative B would make progress toward PFC on 60 percent of the riparian and wetland habitat by 

2028, primarily through structural improvements, such as fencing, water developments, and erosion 

control structures. Structural improvements would be maintained by the WDO and interest groups. 

Adaptive management would be emphasized through consultation, cooperation, and coordination 

with the affected interest groups. Impacts would be direct. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Option 1 

This option would achieve PFC on a minimum of 85 percent of the riparian and wetland habitat by 

2028 through natural processes, limiting livestock by season of use (which is particularly important 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-199 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

in the hot season), limiting utilization of vegetation, and reduction in livestock numbers. No 

structural improvements would be built. Impacts would be indirect. 

Option 2 

This option would achieve PFC on a minimum of 85 percent of the riparian and wetland habitat by 

2028 through natural processes and by eliminating livestock grazing within the WDO. This would 

have the greatest improvement in riparian and wetland habitat by eliminating impacts from livestock, 

such as soil compaction, vegetation utilization and trampling, and weed introduction or spread. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Alternative D would achieve or make progress toward PFC on 85 percent of the riparian and 

wetland habitat by 2028 through natural processes and minor structural improvements. The direct 

impacts are similar to those under Alternative A. Structural improvements would be maintained by 

grazing permittees, the WDO, and interest groups. Adaptive management would be emphasized 

through consultation, cooperation, and coordination with the affected interest groups. 

Effects from Fish and Wildlife Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives 

Improving aquatic habitats involves rehabilitating wetland and riparian vegetation in order to foster 

healthy aquatic communities by decreasing sedimentation and providing structural complexity, 

suitable water temperatures, canopy cover, and bank stabilization. Monitoring conditions and 

cooperating with agencies would ensure that habitat goals were met. 

Actions to minimize erosion and sedimentation along access routes would indirectly benefit riparian 

and wetland vegetation by reducing soil disturbance and increasing infiltration. This would lead to 

improved plant vigor and productivity. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Implementing an HMP would identify and prioritize areas for rehabilitation, providing a more 

direct, effective, and efficient riparian and wetland restoration and improvement strategy. 

The FMUD process would identify mitigation measures that would minimize impacts on riparian 

and wetland vegetation. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Coordination with agencies would identify and prioritize areas for rehabilitation, providing a more 

direct, effective, and efficient riparian and wetland restoration and improvement strategy. 

Using Land Health Standards would identify mitigation measures that would minimize impacts on 

riparian and wetland vegetation. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Coordination with agencies would have impacts similar to those described under Alternative B. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-200 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Using Land Health Standards would have impacts similar to those described under Alternative B. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Coordination with agencies would have impacts similar to those described under Alternative B. 

Use of Land Health Standards would have impacts similar to those described under Alternative B. 

Effects from Special Status Species Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives 

Special status species management across all alternatives would prevent activities that would lead to 

mitigation and monitoring, listing of species, plant inventories, and avoiding sage-grouse, pygmy 

rabbit, bat, and raptors. Such actions to avoid impacts on listed or sensitive species or their habitat 

could directly alter implementation or timing of vegetation management treatments. These 

requirements could also make vegetation treatments cost prohibitive. As a result, certain 

management goals may be precluded, but wildlife habitat would be protected. Impacts would vary 

with the type of treatment proposed and the nature and extent of the restrictions.

Management of occupied and potential LCT habitat, as described in Chapter 3, could restrict certain 

vegetation treatments that would occur in adjacent riparian areas, such as soil disturbance or use of 

chemicals. Impacts would vary with the type of treatment proposed and the nature and extent of the 

restrictions. 

Maintaining and improving special status species habitat would improve riparian and wetland areas. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Restrictions on actions near special status plants, sage-grouse and sage-grouse leks, pygmy rabbits, 

bat habitat, and raptors could directly impact management of riparian and wetland vegetation by 

limiting the type, timing, and location of treatments. However, special status species protections 

would also help create a lower level of disturbance in riparian and wetland areas, preventing indirect 

effects, such as additional soil disturbance and weed invasion, or direct disturbance to vegetation. 

Protections to special status species would be particularly effective, as many sensitive species are 

associated with wetland and riparian areas. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Alternative B places the least stringent restrictions on actions near special status plants, sage-grouse 

and sage-grouse leks, pygmy rabbits, bat habitat, and raptors. However, special status species 

protections would still apply to riparian and wetland areas, as described under Alternative A. 

Prescriptive grazing would be permitted in riparian and wetland areas. If applied correctly, this could 

be used as a tool to foster native vegetation growth and weed control, while minimizing impacts on 

soils. Effects would be long term. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-201 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Alternative C places the greatest number of restrictions on activities that could occur near special 

status species and their habitats. Of all alternatives, Alternative C would be the most effective in 

preventing disturbance to wetland and riparian areas in the long term. 

Option 1 

Prescriptive grazing in exclosures closed to livestock grazing would be permitted in certain riparian 

and wetland areas. If applied correctly, this could be used as a tool to foster native vegetation growth 

and weed control, while minimizing impacts on soils. However, livestock would have some direct 

impacts on vegetation and soils in these areas. Effects would be localized and long term. 

Option 2 

Grazing would not be permitted under this option. This would have the greatest reduction in 

impacts on riparian and wetland areas of all alternatives by eliminating the effects from livestock, 

such as soil compaction, vegetation utilization and trampling, and weed introduction and spread. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Restrictions to actions near special status species and their habitats would have impacts similar to 

those described under Alternative A. 

Prescriptive grazing would have impacts similar to those described under Alternative B. 

Effects from Wild Horse and Burro Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives 

Direct impacts on riparian and wetland vegetation resulting from wild horse and burro management 

actions include browsing and breakage of riparian vegetation, which alters the amount, condition, 

production, and vigor of riparian vegetation in grazed areas. Overuse of riparian vegetation next to 

water sources, troughs, and stock reservoirs causes indirect effects, such as soil disturbance and 

compaction, and direct effects, such as a loss of plant cover, which usually results in localized areas 

being dominated by invasive plants. Wild horses and burros directly impact riparian vegetation 

around watering locations by trampling and grazing plants, which reduces riparian species cover and 

diversity. Protection and development of seeps and development of alternative water sources 

mitigate impacts of wild horses on riparian and wetland habitat. Vegetation recovery on burned 

areas could be slowed or reduced by wild horses and burros. 

Wild horses and burros contribute to weed spread and introduction similar to impacts described 

under Effects Common to All Alternatives from Fish and Wildlife Management. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Maintaining established AMLs as a population range, using gathers when AML is exceeded, and 

using fertility control inhibitors would be the most effective methods in maintaining WHB numbers 

within AML. This would reduce the impact of WHB on riparian and wetland vegetation by 

decreasing the risk of soil compaction, trampling, and weed spread or introduction. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-202 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

WHB protections, such as limitations on such proposed activities as motor vehicle racing, would 

protect riparian and wetland vegetation and soils from disturbance and would prevent impacts due 

to human use, such as trampling and weed invasion. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Impacts from population control measures under Alternative B are similar to those under 

Alternative A. AML reduction in response to decreased WHB private water supply would intensify 

these impacts. 

Protection measures for WHB would have similar impacts on those described under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Maintaining AML as a single number, using four-year (or longer) gather cycles, and not allowing use 

of fertility control inhibitors under Alternative C would cause the greatest impact from WHB on 

riparian and wetland areas by using less effective modes of WHB population control. However, 

AML reduction in response to decreased water availability for WHB would decrease impacts of 

WHB on riparian and wetland areas, since there would be fewer animals to cause impacts. 

Protection measures for WHB would be the greatest under Alternative C and would prohibit or 

limit such activities as motor vehicle racing in HMAs, unless impacts were determined to be 

minimal. This would be most effective in protecting riparian and wetland vegetation and soils from 

disturbance and in preventing impacts due to human use, such as trampling, weed invasion, and 

litter. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Impacts from population control measures and development of alternative water sources are similar 

to those described under Alternative A. 

Impacts from WHB protection measures are similar to those described under Alternative A. 

Effects from Wildland Fire Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Wildland fires result in short-term loss of riparian and wetland vegetation and a long-term change of 

community composition. The vegetation response to fire depends on the size, location, intensity, 

season, timing, and amount of precipitation, preexisting plant community condition, and the 

abundance of noxious and invasive weeds in the area. Fires have direct effects by changing the 

composition of the plant community, delaying plant succession, and removing woody vegetation and 

plant litter. Wildland fires might burn with enough heat to kill soil organisms and root systems, 

resulting in diminished plant recruitment and growth rates, particularly for fire-sensitive species. 

Emergency stabilization and burned area rehabilitation treatments, such as seeding with native 

perennial species, would be implemented to restore degraded riparian and wetland vegetation and 

directly improve riparian and wetland health in the long term. Burn areas lacking perennial plant 

species for natural recovery could be seeded. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-203 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Wildland fires create an opportunity for noxious and invasive weeds to become established or 

spread by removing aboveground vegetation, leaving burned areas more susceptible to noxious and 

invasive weeds. Some species of noxious and invasive weeds respond well to post-fire conditions 

and outcompete native species. In areas where noxious and invasive weeds occur or are in close 

proximity, wildland fire increases the likelihood of weed expansion. Firefighters and their equipment 

might also introduce or spread noxious and invasive weeds. Some mechanical controls disturb the 

soil surface and remove vegetation, creating an opportunity for noxious and invasive weeds to 

become established or to spread. 

Suppressing wildfire and creating fuel breaks would prevent catastrophic destruction of riparian and 

wetland areas and would preserve native vegetation and diversity in these areas over the long term. 

Surface disturbance resulting from fire line construction, use of heavy equipment, and other fire 

suppression activities would have direct effects by damaging vegetation and indirect effects by 

accelerating soil erosion in localized areas. However, these areas would be rehabilitated to minimize 

long-term impacts. 

Because fire retardants are composed largely of nitrogen and phosphorus fertilizers, they may 

encourage growth of some species at the expense of others, resulting in changes in community 

composition and species diversity. Differential growth may also influence herbivorous behavior; 

both insect and vertebrate herbivores tend to favor new rapidly growing shoots. 

Fuels management actions would result in short-term direct loss of vegetation on a small scale. 

Projects would reestablish desirable vegetative communities, providing for healthy, diverse riparian 

and wetland areas over the long term. These actions would allow fire to play its natural role more 

frequently and would reduce the likelihood of catastrophic wildfire, which would protect native 

riparian and wetland vegetation in the long term and over large areas. 

Implementing a response to wildfires based on social, legal, and ecological consequences of the fire 

would indirectly protect riparian and wetland resources from catastrophic fire, which would protect 

vegetation and foster rehabilitation and improvement of riparian and wetland areas. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

No additional impacts would occur from wildland fire management actions under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Under this alternative, 110,167 acres of land would be designated as suitable for allowing fire for 

resource benefit. These areas would be more vulnerable to weed invasion, which would have 

indirect effects by degrading riparian and wetland areas and preventing the establishment of native 

vegetation. However, because many of the areas are higher elevation woodland areas, impacts on 

riparian and wetland areas would be minimized. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

No additional impacts would occur from wildland fire management actions under Alternative C. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-204 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Under Alternative D, 9,932 acres of land would be designated as suitable for allowing fire for 

resource benefit. Impacts are similar to but less than Alternative B because Alternative D has fewer 

acres designated for allowing fire for resource benefit. 

Effects from Cultural Resources Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives 

Cultural resources are not likely to impact riparian or wetland habitat resources. 

Effects from Tribal Consultation 

Effects Common to All Alternatives 

Consulting with tribes to identify culturally significant plants, important habitats, and traditional use 

locations would emphasize protection of natural resources, including riparian and wetland areas. 

This would indirectly limit disturbance to soils and riparian vegetation over the long term in certain 

areas. Consultation could place higher treatment priority in areas not previously identified or could 

limit actions in planned treatment areas. Impacts would vary on a case-by-case basis and are likely to 

be localized. 

Effects from Paleontological Resources Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives 

Paleontological resources are not likely to impact riparian or wetland habitat resources. 

Effects from Visual Resources Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives 

Implementing VRM guidelines, particularly managing WSAs as Class I, would increase the difficulty 

of accomplishing vegetation management actions and may affect the dimensions and locations of 

riparian and wetland treatments. This is because such vegetation treatments could change the visual 

character of riparian and wetland areas. However, because most of the vegetation management is 

through natural processes to improve riparian conditions, VRM should improve. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Under Alternative A, 420,271 acres and 346,302 acres would be managed to VRM Class I and II 

guidelines, respectively. These actions would limit the scope of activities in riparian and wetland 

areas and would prohibit treatments and prescriptions that would change the visual character. 

Overall, meeting VRM Class I and II guidelines would increase the difficulty of rehabilitating and 

improving riparian and wetland areas within these areas over the long term. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Under Alternative B, 417,605 acres and 391,203 acres would be managed to VRM Class I and II 

guidelines, respectively. This alternative is the least restrictive to implementation of riparian and 

wetland rehabilitation efforts. Impacts are similar to those described under Alternative A. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-205 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Under Alternative C, 417,605 acres and 3,083,211 acres would be managed to VRM Class I and II 

guidelines, respectively. This alternative would have the greatest overall benefit to riparian and 

wetland habitats by improving riparian and wetland conditions through natural processes. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Under Alternative D, 417,605 acres and 2,780,416 acres would be managed to VRM Class I and II 

guidelines, respectively. Impacts would be most similar in nature and magnitude to those described 

under Alternative C. 

Effects from Cave and Karst Resource Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives 

There are no likely impacts on riparian and wetland vegetation from cave and karst resource 

management. 

Effects from Livestock Grazing Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives 

There are no effects common to all alternatives from livestock grazing management. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Negative impacts on riparian and wetland vegetation can result from ineffective livestock grazing 

management, which alters the amount, condition, production, and vigor of riparian vegetation in 

grazed areas. Impacts from grazing are usually related to a long duration of use during the growing 

season, especially hot season use, resulting in lower vigor of grazed species and a change in species 

composition. Overuse of riparian and wetland vegetation next to water sources, troughs, and stock 

reservoirs often cause soil disturbance and a loss of plant cover. Livestock directly impact riparian 

vegetation around watering locations by trampling and grazing plants, which reduces riparian species 

cover and diversity. Livestock contribute to the spread of weeds as described under Effects 

Common to All Alternatives from Fish and Wildlife. 

Livestock grazing management can be utilized to provide positive impacts by applying a shortened 

season of use during the hot season, no hot season use, or fall or winter use. 

Under Alternative A, 8,232,717 acres of land would be open to grazing, which would have the 

greatest impact on riparian and wetland areas. Grazing, including grazing on acquired lands, allowing 

temporary nonrenewable use, and allowing for three consecutive years of grazing would facilitate 

intensive land use. This would cause riparian and wetland vegetation to become less healthy, diverse, 

productive, and resilient in the long term. 

To minimize impacts, grazing management strategies, such as rotation, deferment, rest from use, and 

the manipulation of season of use and grazing intensity, would be implemented. These strategies 

would help to manage composition, cover, and the vigor of riparian vegetation. The objective of 

these strategies is to maintain or reach rangeland standards for wetland and riparian areas. The 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-206 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

response of riparian and wetland vegetation to these strategies would be monitored, and adjustments 

would be made accordingly to achieve the desired response. The use of riparian pastures and 

exclosures increases the density, age class, and cover of desirable riparian plants, including willow, 

cottonwood, and herbaceous wetland and riparian plants. 

Lands closed to grazing on the remainder of land in the WDO would lower impacts on riparian and 

wetland vegetation in these areas, as livestock would not be compacting soils, disturbing native 

vegetation, or acting as a mechanism for seed dispersal. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Under Alternative B, 8,232,727 acres of land would be open to grazing, which would have the 

greatest impact on riparian and wetland areas, as under Alternative A . Grazing, including grazing on 

acquired lands, allowing temporary nonrenewable use, and allowing continuous season-long use 

would facilitate intensive land use. Impacts are similar to those described under Alternative A. 

Grazing management strategies would have impacts similar to those described under Alternative A. 

Lands closed to grazing on the remainder of land in the WDO would lower impacts on riparian and 

wetland vegetation in these areas, as livestock would not be compacting soils, disturbing native 

vegetation, or acting as a mechanism for seed dispersal. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Option 1 

Livestock grazing would be open on 8,038,084 acres of land, which would have impacts similar in 

nature to those in Alternative A. However, Alternative C, Option 1 would not allow grazing on 

acquired lands or temporary nonrenewable use and would only allow for two years of consecutive 

grazing during the critical growth period. This would cause fewer impacts on riparian and wetland 

vegetation. 

Lands closed to grazing on the remainder of land in the WDO would lower impacts on riparian and 

wetland vegetation in these areas, compared with Alternatives A and B. 

Grazing management strategies would have impacts similar to those described under Alternative A. 

Option 2 

Livestock grazing would be closed on all lands within the WDO, which would have the greatest 

impact of all grazing alternatives in reducing effects on riparian and wetland vegetation on BLMadministered lands. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Alternative D would have 8,016,754 acres of land open to grazing. Impacts are similar to those 

described under Alternative A, except with fewer acres of land open to grazing. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-207 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Effects from Minerals Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

General 

Impacts on riparian and wetland vegetation could result from fluid, leasable, and locatable mineral 

development and mineral material sales and disposal. Most minerals management impacts on 

vegetation are on the sagebrush and saltbush scrub communities, so impacts on riparian and wetland 

vegetation are minimized. Direct impacts associated with these actions include loss or injury of 

plants due to excavation and toxic responses from chemical use in mineral extraction or waste pits; 

indirect effects include increased exposure to dust and other contaminants associated with 

construction of infrastructure and use of access roads. In the worst-case scenario, all vegetation 

would be removed from a parcel of land and the site would be permanently altered. Regulations, 

although they might differ among the mineral categories, are in place to protect vegetative 

communities and to ensure reestablishment of riparian and wetland vegetation following completion 

of the mineral and fluid management actions. Overall, riparian and wetland vegetation could be 

altered by minerals management actions, but mitigation measures would be implemented to lessen 

the impact on vegetation resources. 

RFDs 

Under the reasonably foreseeable development scenario, riparian and wetland vegetation would be 

protected because current mining activities cannot release effluent to degrade waters of Nevada. 

However, toxic runoff from abandoned mine sites may have impacts on riparian and wetland 

vegetation by decreasing plant vigor, which would make vegetation more susceptible to disease and 

mortality. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Alternative A would open the greatest acreage and would close the least acreage to mineral 

development, thus having the greatest likelihood to impact riparian and wetland vegetation. Impacts 

are similar to those described under Effects Common to All Alternatives from Minerals 

Management. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Compared with Alternative A, Alternative B would open fewer acres and would close more acres to 

mineral development, thus having a lower likelihood to impact riparian and wetland vegetation. 

Impacts are similar to those described under Effects Common to All Alternatives from Minerals 

Management. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Alternative C would open the fewest acres and would close the most acres to mineral development, 

thus having the lowest likelihood to impact riparian and wetland vegetation of all alternatives. 

Impacts would be similar to those described under Effects Common to All Alternatives from 

Minerals Management. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-208 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Compared with Alternatives A and B, Alternative D would open fewer acres and would close more 

acres to mineral development, thus having a lower likelihood to impact riparian and wetland 

vegetation. Impacts are similar to those described under Effects Common to All Alternatives from 

Minerals Management. 

Effects from Recreation, Visitor Outreach, and Services Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives 

Managing BLM-administered lands to provide dispersed recreation could impact riparian and 

wetland vegetation throughout the WDO directly through human trampling or removal of 

vegetation and indirectly through weed introduction or spread. 

OHV use would result in direct impacts on vegetation, such as reduced vegetative cover and density, 

as well as indirect effects, such as soil compaction and increased dust. OHV users would introduce 

and spread noxious and invasive weed seeds from their vehicles, shoes, clothing, and recreation 

equipment. OHV activities in undisturbed and remote areas could distribute weed seeds into weedfree areas. These effects could decrease plant vigor and productivity, could alter community plant 

composition. 

To manage OHV use, the Transportation Plan would be updated and would account for wildlife 

habitat and riparian and wetland areas. NEPA analysis would be done on specific sites to minimize 

impacts on riparian and wetland vegetation. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Under Alternative A, there would be no camping limitations or prohibitions throughout the WDO. 

In addition, the Pine Forest SRMA would be maintained, and issuance of special recreation permits 

would be the least restricted. The greatest acreage (6,782,790 acres) would be open to OHVs under 

Alternative A, with the least amount of land (416,652 acres) limited, and with 24,832 acres closed. 

Combined, these actions could degrade riparian and wetland vegetation throughout the WDO 

through human overuse, vegetation trampling, soil compaction, and weed introduction or spread. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Camping limitations and prohibitions throughout the ERMA would minimize impacts on riparian 

and wetland areas on these lands. In addition, designation of three SRMAs would impact riparian 

and wetland vegetation to varying degrees depending on the recreation market identified for the 

SRMA. For example, the Nightingale SRMA would be targeted for undeveloped recreation-tourism, 

which would have less of an impact than the Pine Forest SRMA, which allows for increased 

motorized vehicle access. Under Alternative B, 1,460,200 acres would be open to OHVs, with the 

least amount of land (24,832 acres) closed, and with 5,445,218 acres limited. Together, effects from 

these actions could impact riparian and wetland areas throughout the ERMA, SRMAs, and OHV 

routes, as described under Alternative A. To minimize impacts, the BLM would limit OHV use to 

existing roads and trails until the Transportation Plan is updated and site-specific NEPA analysis is 

completed. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-209 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Issuance of special recreation permits would be the least restricted under this alternative, which 

could cause some impacts on riparian and wetland vegetation through increased human use, 

vegetation trampling, litter, and weed introduction. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Camping limitations and prohibitions throughout the ERMA would minimize impacts on riparian 

and wetland vegetation on these lands. In addition, designation of two SRMAs would have impacts 

on riparian and wetland vegetation similar to those described under Alternative B. Under Alternative 

C, 0 acres would be open to OHVs, with 61,427 acres closed and 7,143,177 acres limited. To 

minimize impacts, the BLM would limit OHV use to existing roads and trails until the 

Transportation Plan is updated and site-specific NEPA analysis is completed. As such, impacts from 

recreation actions would be fewest under Alternative C, as it is the most restrictive and prohibitive. 

However, impacts would occur, and they are similar to those described under Alternative A. 

Issuance of special recreation permits would be the most restrictive under Alternative C and would 

cause the fewest impacts on riparian and wetland areas through increased human use, vegetation 

trampling, litter, and weed invasion. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Camping limitations and prohibitions throughout the ERMA would minimize impacts on riparian 

and wetland vegetation on these lands. In addition, designating three SRMAs would have the same 

impacts on riparian and wetland vegetation as those described under Alternative B. Under 

Alternative D, 289,932 acres would be open to OHVs, with 35,483 acres closed and 6,878,592 acres 

limited. To minimize impacts, the BLM would limit OHV use to existing roads and trails until the 

Transportation Plan is updated and site-specific NEPA analysis is completed. Together, impacts 

from these actions are similar to those described under Alternative A. 

Issuance of special recreation permits would cause some impacts on riparian and wetland areas 

through increased human use, vegetation trampling, litter, and weed invasion. 

Effects from Renewable Energy Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives 

Direct impacts on riparian vegetation could occur with issuance of new ROWs, which require 

vegetation clearing and access roads and would disturb or destroy vegetation. Indirectly, ROWs may 

spread or introduce weeds, thereby reducing riparian habitat health and diversity. However, BMPs, 

stipulations, and mitigation measures would be implemented, which would minimize impacts on 

riparian vegetation. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Maintaining existing exclusion areas within the WDO could limit the type and timing of treatments 

and multiple use activities within riparian and wetland areas. However, this action would protect and 

limit disturbance to vegetation and soils and would prevent weed invasion or spread caused by 

development. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-210 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Designating avoidance areas within the WDO could limit the type and timing of treatments and 

multiple use activities within riparian and wetland areas. However, this action would protect and 

limit disturbance to vegetation and soils and would prevent weed invasion or spread caused by 

development. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Designating avoidance areas and exclusion zones within the WDO would have the greatest impact 

on riparian and wetland areas by protecting and limiting disturbance to vegetation and soils and by 

preventing weed invasion or spread. However, these actions could limit the type and timing of 

treatments and multiple use activities within riparian and wetland areas. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Designating avoidance areas and exclusion zones within the WDO would impact riparian and 

wetland areas by protecting and limiting disturbance to vegetation and soils and by preventing weed 

invasion or spread. However, these actions could limit the type and timing of rehabilitation 

treatments and multiple use activities within riparian and wetland areas. 

Effects from Transportation and Access Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives 

Maintaining roads would allow access to riparian and wetland areas and would allow for wildfire 

management and suppression, when necessary. This would protect native vegetation and would help 

achieve riparian and wetland rehabilitation goals in the long term. 

Road and trail construction could directly impact riparian and wetland areas through vegetation 

removal and could cause indirect impacts through soil compaction, weed invasion, and dust 

proliferation. This could reduce plant diversity and vigor in the long term. 

Noxious weed control measures would prevent weeds spreading into riparian and wetland areas, 

would prevent competition with native species, and would indirectly help rehabilitate and improve 

riparian and wetland communities. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Riparian and wetland areas could be impacted by road and trail construction. However, improved 

and increased access to certain areas would facilitate restoration and improvement of riparian and 

wetland vegetation and would allow for multiple uses. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Riparian and wetland areas could be impacted from road or trail construction. However, these 

actions could limit access to certain riparian and wetland areas for rehabilitation efforts and would 

prevent multiple uses in certain areas. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-211 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Transportation actions could limit access to riparian and wetland areas for management and could 

prevent multiple uses in certain areas. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Impacts from transportation actions are similar to those described under Alternative C. 

Effects from Lands and Realty Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Land and realty management actions would result in short-term direct effects through surface 

disturbance and vegetation removal and indirect effects through increased susceptibility to weed 

invasion or the spread of existing weed patches. Disturbed areas would be reclaimed and seeded. 

Land sales could affect riparian vegetation by changes in vegetative cover through urbanization or 

agricultural or industrial development. 

Vegetation and wildlife habitat value would be given consideration when the WDO makes disposal 

and acquisition decisions. Impacts on riparian and wetland vegetation would vary on a case-by-case 

basis, but impacts should be minimized since only lands with little resource values would be 

identified for disposal, and further NEPA documentation would minimize potential impacts on 

riparian and wetland vegetation. Acquisition of riparian and wetland areas would provide additional 

opportunities to achieve riparian and wetland vegetation objectives. 

ROWs alter habitat with the footprint for the facilities that they authorize. ROWs could have direct 

effects by removing vegetation and indirect effects by compacting soil, causing weed invasions, and 

increasing dust in these areas. Most of the footprints are localized and cover a small area, but ROWs 

tend to be linear and may stretch for miles. Many of the impacts associated with ROWs can be 

mitigated on a case-by-case basis. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Issuance of ROWs would not be limited, and avoidance areas or exclusion zones for lands and realty 

management actions would not be designated under Alternative A. No restrictions would be placed 

on land treatments, thus allowing for rehabilitation and improvement actions and subsequent 

achievement of PFC and multiple use goals. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Designating avoidance areas would have similar impacts as renewable energy management actions 

under Alternative B. 

Issuance of ROWs would have impacts similar to those described under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Designating avoidance areas and exclusion zones would have similar impacts as renewable energy 

management actions under Alternative C. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-212 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Restriction on ROW issuance could impact riparian and wetland areas by protecting and limiting 

vegetation disturbance, fragmentation, and weed invasion or spread from road construction. 

However, this action could limit implementation of rehabilitation treatments and could prevent 

multiple uses in certain areas. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Designation of avoidance areas and exclusion zones would have similar impacts as renewable energy 

management actions under Alternative D. 

Issuance of ROWs would have impacts similar to those described under Alternative A. 

Effects from ACEC/ RNA Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives 

There are no effects common to all alternatives from ACEC/RNA management. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Maintaining the Osgood Mountain Milkvetch ACEC would have no effect on riparian and wetland 

areas. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Effects from ACEC management under Alternative B are the same as those described under 

Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Designating four ACECs within the WDO would provide the greatest protection to native 

vegetation and would prevent disturbance and fragmentation of riparian and wetland areas within 

these ACECs by limiting human uses in these areas. However, implementation of certain 

rehabilitation treatments could be limited in areas, depending on habitat sensitivity. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Effects from ACEC management under Alternative D are the same as those described under 

Alternative C. 

Effects from Backcountry Byways Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Backcountry byways may attract more tourism to areas they access and could increase human use 

and degradation of nearby riparian and wetland areas. The only BCB is the Lovelock Cave BCB, but 

expanding BCBs could have a greater impact on riparian and wetland areas. Impacts would vary, 

depending on the locations of new BCBs and the areas they would access. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-213 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Effects from National Trails Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives 

There are no likely impacts from national trails management because these actions would not affect 

riparian and wetland vegetation management. 

Effects Common to All Alternatives from Wild and Scenic Rivers Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives 

There are no effects common to all alternatives from wild and scenic rivers management. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

No WSRs would be managed under Alternative A. Without WSRs, there would be less protection 

given to rivers or riparian areas within the WDO; as such, impacts on vegetation and soils would not 

be restricted, including those from increased use, such as soil compaction, weed introduction, and 

trampling. However, riparian and wetland rehabilitation treatments would not be restricted, allowing 

for achievement of PFC and multiple uses. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

No WSRs would be managed under Alternative B, and impacts are the same as those under 

Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

WSRs would be managed under Alternative C and would limit other uses, such as recreation and 

development. As a result, there would be limited impacts on riparian and wetland areas. Vegetation 

treatments would also be restricted, potentially preventing rehabilitation treatments and multiple 

uses. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

No WSRs would be managed under Alternative D, and impacts are the same as those under 

Alternative A. 

Effects from Wilderness Study Areas and Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives 

As protected areas, WSAs would prevent disturbance to native vegetation in certain riparian and 

wetland areas within the WDO. However, WSA to WA designations would impact vegetation 

treatments on these lands, preventing riparian and wetland health goals from being achieved in 

localized areas in the long term. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-214 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Alternative A would be the least restrictive to structural improvements within areas with wilderness 

characteristics. In addition, grazing management and progress toward or maintaining PFC would 

improve riparian areas within WSAs. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Requirements for nonimpairment of WSAs would minimize impacts on riparian areas within WSAs. 

Under Alternative B, the BLM would manage six areas containing wilderness characteristics to meet 

multiple use and sustained yield objectives. This would allow management objectives to be achieved 

over the long term but could allow some impacts on riparian and wetland vegetation by allowing 

multiple uses. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Under Alternative C, as under Alternative B, the BLM would manage six areas containing wilderness 

characteristics. However, this alternative would impose restrictions and stipulations in these areas, 

including closure to mineral leasing and ROW exclusion zones. This could limit riparian 

improvements in certain areas, but such restrictions would have the greatest improvement in 

riparian condition by minimizing disturbance caused by human use, recreation, and development. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Alternative D would also manage six areas containing wilderness characteristics. Depending on the 

restrictions implemented, some riparian improvements could be limited, but restrictions are unlikely 

to prevent management objectives from being achieved over the long term. 

Effects from Watchable Wildlife Viewing Sites Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no likely impacts on riparian and wetland vegetation from watchable wildlife viewing sites 

management. 

Effects from Public Health and Safety Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives 

There are no likely impacts on riparian and wetland vegetation from public health and safety 

management. 

Effects from Sustainable Development Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives 

Sustainable development management actions apply to areas that have already been developed and 

likely do not have riparian or wetland vegetation. Because sustainable development management 

actions would involve facility reuse, new operations would not create new disturbance. As a result, 

there would be few impacts on riparian and wetland areas from sustainable development actions. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-215 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-216 

Cumulative Effects 

Past actions that are relevant to riparian resources in the cumulative impact area include land tenure 

changes, wildland fire, allowing fire for resource benefit, suppression, fuel and vegetation treatments, 

saleable minerals, population growth, urban development, recreational use, OHV use, stream and 

watershed rehabilitation activities, regional planning efforts, weed management efforts, and grazing. 

The types of impacts that have occurred would be rehabilitated and mitigated to prevent future 

damage to riparian resources, preventing loss of plant diversity, changes to canopy structure, loss of 

soil integrity, reduced riparian function, and enhanced weed control efforts. 

Watershed rehabilitation efforts throughout the planning area would result in improvements to 

riparian areas. Alternative C would include the greatest number and acres of rehabilitation and 

conservation watersheds and would contribute most to this trend. Because long-term wildfire 

suppression has led to circumstances where stand-replacing wildfire can occur and severely affect 

riparian resources, regional fire planning on the part of various land-management agencies, along 

with implementation of individual fire plans, would directly influence riparian health in the 

cumulative impact area, with those plans that promote a return to a natural fire regime leading to 

highest riparian health. Increased population makes the use of wildfire for resource benefits more 

difficult than in other, less-populated areas. Increased fuels treatments, although generally carried 

out in non-riparian areas, would indirectly affect riparian resources by reducing potentially standreplacing wildfires. 

Cumulative effects are similar among the alternatives. Alternative A would contribute to more 

regional cumulative effects resulting from open OHV use, and wildland fire suppression. In general, 

Alternatives B, C, and D would provide more management measures than Alternative A that would 

directly or indirectly reduce the potential for cumulative impacts. However, each of these 

alternatives also would implement fuel-reduction treatments. These measures could contribute to 

cumulative impacts on riparian resources. The emphasis in Alternative C on actions that value 

resource conservation, protection, and minimal human intervention would have the least impact or 

risk of impacts on riparian resources and would contribute the least to cumulative impacts. Overall, 

the actions proposed under any of the alternatives would not contribute to effects on a planning 

area-wide scale. 

4.2.9 Fish and Wildlife 

Summary 

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 

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, 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

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 under the No Action 

Alternative (Alternative A). 

Methods of Analysis 

Methods and Assumptions

Fish and wildlife health within the WDO is directly related to the overall ecosystem health, habitat 

abundance, habitat fragmentation, and wildlife security provided, and thus most resource 

management actions have at least an indirect effect on fish and wildlife. Impact analysis on fish and 

wildlife resources included an assessment of whether each action would result in the possible 

destruction, degradation, or modification of habitat, as well as impacts that could improve wildlife 

and aquatic habitat. A large proportion of actions under all alternatives are mitigation measures for 

other actions and protective measures, so that many of the individual actions could improve habitats 

or the health of populations, depending on the success of the action when completed. The degree of 

impact attributed to any one management action or series of actions is influenced by the watershed, 

time, and degree of action, existing vegetation, and precipitation. Quantifying these impacts is 

difficult due to the lack of monitoring data for most species. In absence of quantitative data, best 

professional judgment was used, according to the following assumptions: 

• Success of mitigation depends on specific protective measures, past results, and the 

assumption that proper implementation of such would take place; 

• Implementation-level actions will be further assessed at an appropriate spatial and temporal 

scale and level of detail; 

• Additional field inventories could be needed to support implementation-level decisions, 

which may be subject to further analysis under NEPA; 

• The BLM would continue to manage fish and wildlife habitats in coordination with the 

Nevada Department of Wildlife; and 

• The health of fisheries within the WDO is directly related to the overall health and 

functional capabilities of riparian and wetland resources, which in turn are a reflection of 

watershed health. Any activities that affect the ecological condition of the watershed and its 

vegetative cover would directly or indirectly affect the aquatic environment. The degree of 

impact attributed to any one disturbance or series of disturbances is influenced by location 

within the watershed, time and degree of disturbance, existing vegetation, and precipitation. 

As riparian systems adjust in response to the removal of vegetation or changes in hydrologic 

conditions, the availability of habitats required to fulfill the life history requirements of fish 

populations might be affected. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-217 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

This impact analysis identifies both enhancing and improving effects to a resource from a 

management action as well as those that could degrade a resource. However, the evaluations are 

confined to those actions that have direct, immediate, and more important effects on the planning 

area, instead of identifying and evaluating all possible interactions, including those that are minor, 

and cause-effect relationships. 

Because some species of fish and wildlife are also considered special status species, only impacts on 

fish and wildlife that do not have special status are discussed in this section. Impacts on federally 

listed, proposed, candidate, state threatened or endangered, or BLM sensitive species are addressed 

in the Impacts on Special Status Species section. 

Effects from Air Quality Management 

Effects to All Alternatives

Impacts on fish and wildlife are not likely to occur from air quality management. 

Effects from Geology Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no identified effects common to all alternatives from geologic resource management. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Impacts on fish and wildlife are not likely to occur under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Management actions for geological resources would provide various degrees of wildlife and fish 

protection through habitat preservation that minimizes vegetation loss and erosion by restricting 

disruptive activities, including those that disturb the surface. Direct adverse impacts from geological 

management, such as surface-disturbing exploratory activities, are expected to be localized and 

limited to wildlife with very small home ranges, such as rodents and reptiles. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Effects are the same as those described under Alternative B. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Effects are the same as those described under Alternative B. 

Effects from Soil Resources Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Under all alternatives, wildlife habitat would be indirectly conserved via conservation measures to 

prevent erosion and other degradations to soil, which in turn diminishes impacts on vegetative cover 

and thus wildlife habitats. Preventing sedimentation in water courses also can improve the health of 

fish and other aquatic species populations. Maintaining soil processes and their components, such as 

litter, appropriate vegetation, and good infiltration, is important to land health which is directly 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-218 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

related to habitat quality. Implementation of BMPs for soil-disturbing activities and application of 

reclamation measures to mitigate adverse impacts on soils and water add additional actions that 

could benefit wildlife and their habitats. The BMPs could prevent additional soil-disturbing activities 

that could encourage healthy vegetation communities, which are the foundation of wildlife habitats. 

Reclamation measures further restore wildlife habitats that have already been impacted. Although 

there may be nonnative species in some seed mixes, some wildlife habitat would be provided as 

opposed to leaving a site to revegetate with invasive weeds. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

There are no soil compaction prevention measures under Alternative A. This would impact wildlife 

habitat because soil compaction prevents water infiltration and therefore may affect vegetative 

health and vigor. However, there would be no restrictions on habitat improvement treatments in the 

long term. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Soil compaction prevention measures under Alternative B would seek to mitigate adverse effects 

without seasonal closures. As such, wildlife habitats would be impacted year-round, even during 

times when soils would be most susceptible to compaction. However, habitat improvement 

treatments could also occur year-round and could disturb wildlife in the short term. These 

treatments would restore suitable habitat for wildlife in the long term. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Soil compaction prevention measures are the most stringent under these two alternatives, providing 

for seasonal use restrictions. This would benefit wildlife habitat value by preventing compaction but 

would limit when habitat improvement treatment could occur. Impacts would be long term. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Soil compaction prevention measures would implement seasonal use restrictions, which would occur 

on a case-by-case basis. Impacts include improved vegetative health and vigor from decreased soil 

compaction and increased infiltration, which would improve habitat value in the long term. 

Effects from Water Resources Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Effective watershed management, which minimizes erosion and maintains hydrologic flow and 

vegetative community health, would result in healthy and diverse plant communities, which in turn 

provide wildlife habitat, especially in riparian areas. Healthy watersheds improve fish habitat and 

promote healthy fish populations. 

Acquiring water rights that provide water to wildlife and acquiring water rights associated with instream flows would benefit wildlife since water is a crucial habitat component. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Effects are the same as those listed under Effects Common to All Alternatives. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-219 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Managing priority watersheds by implementing land health standards, BMPs, and mitigation 

measures add additional actions that could benefit wildlife and their habitats, including special status 

species, over Alternative A. These actions could prevent additional degradation of water resources 

and could lead to healthier vegetation communities, which are the foundation of wildlife habitats. 

Water importation and exportation projects could negatively affect the location, quantity, and quality 

of water resources. This would have direct effects on wildlife by limiting and degrading the water 

supply, as well as indirect impacts that would occur from altering water resources that supply their 

habitat. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Alternative C includes the most thorough and protective list of BMPs and reclamation measures and 

emphasizes use of natural or organic materials. Alternative C also provides the most protection of 

wildlife and habitats of all alternatives. The alternatives do this by establishing priority watersheds as 

exclusion areas for incompatible discretionary actions and by placing limitations on water projects to 

ensure water is available to wildlife and to maintain habitat. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Alternative D includes a more thorough and protective list of BMPs and reclamation measures and 

would provide for more protection of wildlife and habitats than would Alternatives A and B. 

Management actions pertaining to priority watersheds and water projects are less stringent than 

under Alternative C. 

Effects from Vegetation—Forest and Woodland Products Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Managing stand health and providing various age classes within a stand would benefit wildlife, 

particularly migratory birds, by providing habitat quality and diversity within a habitat used by 

multiple species. 

Potential impacts on fish and aquatic habitat associated with forest management include increased 

sedimentation from surface-disturbing activities and changes in water temperatures. Increased 

sedimentation in streams can affect fish populations in a variety of manners, including direct 

mortality, reduction in suitable spawning gravels, death of eggs, and displacement of individual fish. 

Excessive sedimentation could alter stream flow. Increases in water temperature can occur in areas 

where streamside vegetation is removed or altered flow regimes exist, increasing the amount of 

sunlight reaching the water or reducing summer base flow conditions. As water temperature 

increases, the amount of available dissolved oxygen for fish and aquatic invertebrates decreases. 

The extent of forests and woodlands within the WDO is limited. As such, impacts on fish and 

wildlife from forest and woodland product management actions would be limited and localized. 

However, since this habitat type is limited within the WDO landscape, quality habitat in forest and 

woodlands is important to wildlife that use these areas. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-220 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Firewood and Christmas tree harvesting and pinyon nut collecting would have localized impacts on 

wildlife. Impacts would generally be in the form of disturbance to breeding, feeding, or sheltering 

activities. Harvesting trees would be prohibited within 100 feet of springs and riparian areas of the 

existing harvest areas of Stillwater Range and Yellowstone Canyon, reducing the potential effect of 

these activities on aquatic resources in these areas. 

Prioritizing various tree stands for fire suppression would be important to wildlife, particularly 

migratory birds, in order to maintain availability of a habitat type that is limited within WDO. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Removal of pinyon pine and juniper from invaded sites may facilitate reestablishment of sagebrush 

communities, benefiting wildlife that depend on these communities. Additionally, controlling pinyon 

pine and juniper on invaded sites would prevent further encroachment on sagebrush communities. 

Prioritizing various tree stands for fire suppression would have the same impacts as those under 

Alternative A. 

Impacts resulting from commercial harvest of pinyon nuts, firewood and posts, and Christmas trees 

could lead to long-term or permanent loss of habitat, nest abandonment, emigration, and mortality 

of individuals, depending on the species. Salvage harvesting could result in localized minor direct 

impacts on wildlife from disturbance, loss of food or cover resources, and short-term disturbance of 

breeding, feeding, or sheltering. Harvesting activities under this alternative would also have the most 

impact on fish and aquatic resources because they would be allowed within 100 feet of springs and 

riparian habitat and therefore would result in increased impacts. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Encroachment by pinyon pine and juniper stands would not be managed under Alternative C. Loss 

of sagebrush communities due to encroachment would be detrimental to species that depend on 

sagebrush habitat; however, juniper encroachment within the WDO is usually localized and 

therefore has limited impact. Alternative C would result in the least impacts on wildlife and aquatic 

resources from harvesting since it places the most restrictions on these activities. 

Management of old growth forest would benefit species that use these areas, particularly migratory 

birds. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Management of pinyon pine and juniper encroachment has the same effects as those described 

under Alternative B. Prioritizing various tree stands for fire suppression would have the same 

impacts as those under Alternative A. Management of old growth forest would have the same 

effects as those described under Alternative C. 

Effects from harvesting are similar to those described under Alternative B; however, impacts from 

commercial harvesting are expected to be reduced since this activity would be allowed only on a 

case-by-case basis to achieve resource objective. Harvesting juniper and pinyon trees would be 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-221 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

prohibited within 100 feet of springs and riparian areas, unless trees are identified for selective 

removal to meet resource objectives, reducing the potential effect of these activities on aquatic 

resources in these areas. 

Effects from Vegetation—Weeds Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Spread of noxious and invasive weeds decreases habitat quality, habitat diversity, and wildlife forage. 

Treatment actions would not be sufficient to control the spread of weeds into all wildlife habitats 

but would reduce these impacts in treated areas. Actions to prevent and control invasive and 

noxious weeds using integrated weed management techniques could reduce or at least slow the rate 

of increase in the WDO and severity of damage to wildlife habitats across all alternatives. Reducing 

the quantity of invasive species, thereby decreasing plant competition, would allow native species 

vital to wildlife to increase (or at least would slow down the rate of decrease). Although weed 

treatments would generally improve wildlife habitats in the long term, short-term disturbances to 

wildlife would occur. Weed treatment actions could remove forage and cover in areas dominated by 

weeds, resulting in short-term impacts on wildlife that are using weed infested areas. Short-term 

impacts would vary by type of application. Treatments, especially mechanical treatments, would 

cause some species to temporarily avoid treated areas. Some injury and death could occur from 

machinery, especially for small less mobile species. 

Depending on existing riparian ecological condition and potential for weed infestations, large 

noxious weed infestations could provide inferior riparian habitat than populations of native riparian 

species could provide, which could affect aquatic habitats. Noxious weed control measures would 

help prevent these conditions. Invasive plants can create or exacerbate conditions that reduce water 

quality. Directly or indirectly, invasive plants can affect stream bank stability, sediment, turbidity, 

shade and stream temperature, dissolved oxygen, and pH (USFS 2005). Reduction of total acres 

impacted by invasive plants would positively affect water quality and therefore aquatic resources. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Alternative A includes the use of chemical treatments and prescribed burning for weeds 

management. These measures may be more effective for weed management in some cases. 

Assuming chemical treatments would be applied with all applicable guidelines, effects at the 

population level are not expected. Prescribed fires are usually conducted during the spring or fall and 

are generally “cooler” than summer wildland fires. The short-term direct effect of these fires is the 

alteration of habitats and displacement of wildlife. Prescribed fires would improve the diversity of 

vegetation age classes and would lead to greater herbaceous vegetation production and forage 

quantity and quality, improving palatability for some wildlife species. Conversely, the loss of late 

successional vegetative communities would reduce habitats available to species requiring expansive 

tracts of contiguous late successional habitat. Although prescribed fire is a weeds management 

option under this alternative, present use of prescribed fire within the WDO is limited; it is used for 

controlling saltcedar in small localized applications. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Effects are the same as those described under Alternative A. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-222 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Under Alternative C, chemical treatments and prescribed fires would not be used for weeds 

management; therefore, effects resulting these treatments, as described in Alternative A, would not 

occur. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Effects are the same as those described under Alternative A. 

Effects from Chemical and Biological Control 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no identified effects common to all alternatives from chemical and biological control 

management. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Under Alternative A, no pesticides or herbicides would be applied to streams, lakes, or reservoirs 

unless adverse impacts could be adequately mitigated. This would likely reduce impacts on fish and 

other aquatic wildlife that result from exposure to these substances, as well as wildlife that forage on 

these species and aquatic vegetation. However, lack of further specific management actions 

pertaining to the use of chemical treatments for pest control in these and other areas may result in 

direct impacts on wildlife through degradation of habitat. There are no management actions 

pertaining to biological control under this alternative. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Assuming chemical treatments would be applied with all applicable guidelines, no population-level 

effects are expected. Inclusion of specific management actions pertaining to pesticide use would 

reduce potential adverse impacts on wildlife and habitat, as compared to Alternative A. 

Impacts from the use of biological controls may occur if an introduced species preys on a species 

other than the one it was intended to control. An example is if the introduced species reduces the 

population of an organism that is a key food source for another species but that is not the target 

species. Assuming biological controls would be fully evaluated before they are used, potential 

adverse effects from their use would be reduced. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Effects are similar to those described under Alternative B, except the use of biological treatments 

over chemical treatments would be emphasized, reducing impacts on wildlife and aquatic resources 

from pesticide use. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Effects are the same as those described under Alternative B. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-223 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Effects from Vegetation—Rangeland Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Management to achieve land health standard would result in healthy ecological conditions, including 

quality habitats for wildlife. Actions, such as seedings and land treatments, designed to promote the 

health of native vegetation communities and to rehabilitate areas in nonnative vegetation would 

generally reduce degradations of wildlife habitat quality and improve it where rehabilitated by 

increasing quantity and quality of native plant communities that form habitats. Species that use 

sagebrush and grassland habitat would be the most affected and include sage-grouse, pronghorn 

antelope, and mule deer. Sagebrush habitats are probably the most important habitats within the 

WDO and measures put in place to maintain or improve these communities would benefit the host 

of wildlife species that use them. Special management of mountain browse species would result in 

diverse sagebrush and mountain shrub habitats and would provide forage for species such as mule 

deer. Land treatments facilitate maintaining habitats in various stages of shrub or understory 

condition, particularly sagebrush steppe. There would be short-term disturbances to wildlife, similar 

to those described in the preceding weeds management section. In addition, closing burned areas to 

livestock grazing would facilitate the recovery of vegetative communities in these areas. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Effects from chemical treatments and prescribed burning are similar to those described under 

Alternative A, Effects from Vegetation—Weeds Management. Effects from biological treatments 

are similar to those described under Alternative B, Effects from Vegetation—Weeds Management.

Restoring crested wheatgrass seedings could result in localized minor impacts on wildlife from 

disturbance and loss of food or cover. Areas within the WDO where crested wheatgrass restoration 

would occur are limited, so impacts on fish and wildlife would be limited and localized. Grazing can 

have both beneficial and detrimental impacts, as discussed under Effects from Livestock Grazing 

Management—Effects Common to All Alternatives. Site-specific, short-term prescriptive grazing 

could stimulate growth of some plant species and control weeds. When conducted properly with 

consideration for wildlife habitat objectives, prescriptions would probably be neutral to beneficial in 

their impact. Managing grazing activities in rangelands to achieve reduction of hot season grazing 

use of wetland and riparian areas would decrease impacts from habitat degradation in these areas. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Effects are the same as those described under Alternative A. In addition, actions to maintain or 

improve salt desert scrub habitats would be beneficial to wildlife. Although not as crucial to wildlife 

as other habitats within the WDO, salt desert scrub habitats are important when considered on a 

landscape scale. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Chemical treatments and prescribed fires would not be used for rangeland management; therefore, 

effects resulting these treatments, described under Alternative A Effects from Vegetation—Weeds 

Management, would not occur. Effects from management of salt desert scrub habitat are the same 

as those under Alternative B. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-224 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative C includes grazing and no grazing options. Under Alternative C, Option 1, the effects 

from rangeland management are similar to those described in the Effects Common to All 

Alternatives section, with the addition of emphasis of using native seed stock in management, which 

would provide greater benefit to wildlife and habitat by establishing native communities over 

nonnative communities. 

Eliminating grazing (Alternative C, Option 2) should result in improved ecological conditions in 

native habitats. As the ecological condition improves, the health, vigor, and abundance of forage 

species should increase. Pronghorn antelope use grasses and forbs and the probable increase in grass 

and forb availability would enhance habitat quality. Improvement of sagebrush steppe habitats 

should also occur, benefitting big game as well as other species. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Effects are similar to those described under Alternative A, with the addition that restoration efforts 

would be focused on important wildlife habitats, thereby increasing potential benefits to wildlife. 

Effects from management of salt desert scrub habitat are the same as those under Alternative B. 

Effects from Vegetation—Riparian and Wetlands Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Actions that would improve riparian and wetland PFC would in turn improve habitats for riparianand wetland-dependent wildlife species, especially via increases in quantity and quality of riparian 

vegetation. In addition to their importance to fish and aquatic species, riparian areas are critical to 

wildlife in the WDO (WAPT 2006). Springs and associated meadows are also an important source 

of water to wildlife as well as a source of forage. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Under Alternative A, riparian management actions would continue to reduce the potential for 

degradation of riparian wildlife habitat. Implementing BMPs addressing nongrazing impacts, such as 

water diversions, roads, and recreation, would avoid and mitigate many surface disturbances and 

erosion. This also would protect and enhance riparian vegetation, which could reduce impacts on 

riparian-dependent wildlife habitats from other resource uses, especially those associated with roads 

and those located in riparian areas. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Alternative B would be more effective than Alternative A at improving riparian wetland areas 

because it establishes a specific quantitative goal to increase PFC from 48 percent to 60 percent by 

2028. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Alternative C would be the most effective at improving riparian wetland areas because it aims to 

increase PFC from 48 percent to 85 percent by 2028. 

Under Alternative C, Option 1, impacts on riparian and wetland habitats from grazing, such as 

competition for water and forage and habitat alteration and loss, would be minimized, as compared 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-225 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

to the other alternatives, by establishing specific grazing management objectives that would reduce 

the impacts of grazing on riparian and wetland systems that affect wildlife use. 

Alternative C, Option 2 would eliminate impacts from grazing to wetland and riparian areas, 

resulting in improved habitat for wildlife. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Effects from improving riparian wetland areas are similar to but slightly less than those under 

Alternative C since Alternative D would not require achieving 85 percent PFC by 2028, as long as 

areas are progressing toward PFC. 

Effects from Fish and Wildlife Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Fish and wildlife resources would benefit from development of specific objectives and actions to 

protect and enhance habitat conditions. Restrictions on uses within sensitive or priority wildlife 

habitats would mitigate or eliminate impacts on wildlife resources. 

Avoidance and mitigation measures to limit the impact of surface-disturbing and other disruptive 

activities during the breeding season of migratory birds would help maintain habitat suitable to the 

reproductive requirements of these species during crucial breeding periods. 

Management actions to maintain and enhance waterfowl habitats would help to maintain habitats 

suitable to meet the life history and habitat requirements of these species. 

The management of streams, banks, and shorelines to improve their PFC rating and limit stream 

bank alteration would improve habitat conditions for various fish and wildlife species. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Reintroducing bighorn sheep could help reestablish a native species to the ecosystem, adding to the 

diversity of the WDO. Although management actions would attempt to resolve all conflicts with 

domestic sheep prior to reintroduction, risk of disease transmission that could be detrimental to 

bighorn sheep populations would still exist. 

The establishment of pioneering elk would also add to the diversity of the WDO but may impact 

some species due to competition for habitat and forage. 

When feasible, fencing to keep livestock from reservoirs on public land that supports fisheries 

would benefit fish and aquatic resources by removing a source of water degradation. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Sagebrush-dependent wildlife would benefit by the designation of 716,528 acres of Priority 2 wildlife 

habitat areas for sage-grouse and sagebrush obligate species. Priority 2 wildlife habitat areas would 

be avoidance areas for certain activities and construction of facilities, such as power lines and 

communication sites. Priority 2 wildlife habitat areas would also be avoidance areas or closed to 

certain mineral activities, as discussed under Minerals—Leasable, Locatable, and Salable, Effects 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-226 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

from Fish and Wildlife Management, which would protect habitats and benefit fish and wildlife in 

these areas. 

Supplementing the big game populations in the WDO would increase population levels for those 

species and would provide additional food resources for predators. Transplants of big game wildlife 

species would not likely result in competition with local wildlife species for food, water, and habitat 

cover because, although many game species have overlapping habitat ranges within the WDO, 

individual species occupy distinct habitat niches. 

The effects from reintroducing bighorn sheep are the same as those described under Alternative A. 

Pioneering elk populations would not be permitted to become established under Alternative B, 

eliminating potential adverse impacts from their presence within the WDO. 

Construction of wildlife water developments (guzzlers) could displace some local species, such as 

rodents and reptiles, depending on the level of surface disturbance required. Wildlife within the local 

area could be disturbed from breeding, feeding, and sheltering during construction; impacts would 

vary by guzzler capacity. However, new water developments benefit most game and nongame 

species in the area by allowing them to colonize new habitat areas that were previously too arid. 

Reservoirs on public land that supports fisheries would not be fenced, in order to allow livestock 

access. Livestock use of these areas would contribute to water quality degradation, which could 

impact the health of fisheries. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Designation of 1,279,481 acres as Priority 1 wildlife habitat areas and 869,645 acres as Priority 2 

wildlife habitat areas would preserve habitat for sage-grouse and sagebrush obligate species. Priority 

1 wildlife habitat areas would be exclusion zones for corridors, ROWs, and energy projects, 

protecting these valuable habitat areas. Priority 1 and Priority 2 wildlife habitat areas would also be 

avoidance areas or closed to certain mineral activities, as discussed under Minerals—Leasable, 

Locatable, and Salable, Effects from Fish and Wildlife Management, which would protect habitats 

and benefit fish and wildlife in these areas. 

Effects from transplanting big game wildlife species are the same as those described under 

Alternative B. Effects from the establishing pioneering elk are the same as those described under 

Alternative A. 

Under Alternative C, wildlife water developments would not be constructed, and existing wildlife 

water developments would be removed. This could lead to mortality of individuals and loss of the 

local population in areas where species have become dependent on these sources. 

Under Alternative C, waterfowl habitats at Gridley Lake and Continental Lake would be further 

protected by the use of fencing to exclude livestock and burros and closure to OHVs. 

Fencing all reservoirs on public land that support fisheries to keep out livestock would benefit fish 

and aquatic resources by removing a source of water degradation. 

Fishery streams, spring brooks, and lentic fishery resources would have the greatest potential for 

improvement and benefit to fish and aquatic species by limiting annual stream bank alteration to 10 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-227 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

percent or less of linear bank length, as compared to 20 percent alteration under Alternatives B and 

D. In addition, alteration of areas with sensitive channel types would be limited to five percent under 

Alternative C, as compared to 20 percent under Alternative B and 10 percent under Alternative D. 

Numerical percentages pertaining to stream bank alteration limitations are not provided under 

Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Alternative D would be less effective at protecting sagebrush habitat resources than would 

Alternative C. The total overall acreage designated as Priority 1 and 2 wildlife habitat areas is 123,230 

acres less under Alternative D, and the area designated as Priority 1 is 579,552 acres less than under 

Alternative C. 

Effects from transplanting big game wildlife species are the same as those described under 

Alternative B. Effects from reintroducing bighorn sheep and establishing pioneering elk are the 

same as those described under Alternative A. Constructing wildlife water developments has effects 

similar to those described under Alternative B. 

When feasible, fencing to keep livestock from reservoirs on public land that supports fisheries 

would benefit fish and aquatic resources by removing a source of water degradation. 

Effects from Special Status Species Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Fish and wildlife resources would benefit from implementing use restrictions for special status 

species by reducing or eliminating disturbances that would otherwise have affected fish and wildlife 

resources. 

Restrictions on certain surface-disturbing activities, such as vegetative treatments, in special status 

species habitats would reduce or eliminate potential adverse effects from the treatment to fish and 

wildlife species but would also prevent realization of benefits to the species from the action. 

Effects from Wild Horse and Burro Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Wildlife, specifically big game species, and wild horses would compete for forage and habitat. 

Ensuring wild horses and burros have water sources may adversely impact fish and wildlife. Wild 

horses tend to dominate water sources, to alter habitats, and to drive away wildlife. Wild horse use 

of riparian and wetland areas would decrease the value of these areas for fish and wildlife by 

affecting habitat complexity and stability. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Ensuring that proper herd objectives are maintained would help reduce the competition between 

wild horses and wildlife species and would improve the suitability of riparian and wetland habitats 

for various fish and wildlife species. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-228 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Effects are the same as those described under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Management actions pertaining to population control are limited under this alternative, and wild 

horse and burro populations may increase beyond appropriate management levels. An increase in 

these populations would increase competition with wildlife for water, forage, and habitat 

requirements. An increase in wild horse and burro populations would further exacerbate riparian 

and wetland habitat degradation, thereby reducing the suitability of these habitats for terrestrial 

wildlife and aquatic species. 

Development of alternate water sources for wild horses and burros would also provide water 

resources for wildlife in areas where the natural supply is limited. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D 

Effects are the same as those described under Alternative A. 

Effects from Wildland Fire Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Wildland fire could be beneficial or detrimental to wildlife and their habitats. For example, fire acts 

as a rejuvenator by returning nutrients to the soil. Fire also reduces dense understory that has mixed 

values for various species of wildlife. In late-successional vegetation communities, fire would return 

the vegetative community to an earlier stage of succession. This conversion provides diversity in 

habitat, forage and cover, although species that prefer late-seral communities could be affected by 

the alteration of their habitat. However, adverse impacts on habitat can also occur from fire, as in 

the conversion of burned sagebrush habitat to cheatgrass and wild mustard, which results in a loss 

of forage and cover for sagebrush dependent species. 

Fuel treatments can aid in limiting the size of wild fires, thereby reducing the extent of impacts from 

potentially catastrophic fires. Emergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation activities, such as erosion 

control measures and reseeding, performed following fires would facilitate restoration of degraded 

sagebrush and grassland habitat, benefiting species that use these areas. 

The primary impacts of fire on fish and wildlife are the periodic conversion of habitats from large 

catastrophic fires or from aggressive fire suppression techniques, such as use of heavy equipment for 

fireline construction, that alter the natural density, structure, and composition of fire-adapted or firethreatened habitats. Wildfires impact fish and wildlife resources by altering or reducing available 

habitat, reducing habitat suitability, changing the structure or composition of the habitat, and killing 

individuals. Direct impacts on fish and wildlife resources vary by species. 

Depending on species mobility, wildlife would experience impacts from death or displacement, 

disturbance from fire suppression, and reduction of air quality from smoke and ash. While small 

mammals, reptiles, and amphibians are most at risk death because of their limited mobility, 

occasionally large mammals are killed by severe fast-moving wildfires, typically from smoke 

inhalation (Smith 2000). 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-229 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Wildfires may also cause large-scale or intense alterations of habitat components for many fish and 

wildlife species, which would favor some species and would displace others. Immediate post-fire 

conditions raise light penetration and temperatures on and immediately above and below soil 

surfaces and can reduce soil moisture, affecting ground-dwelling species (Lyon et al. 1978). 

Burning cover and destroying trees, shrubs, and forage modify habitat structure. The loss of small 

ground cover and charring of larger branches and logs would affect small animals and birds that use 

these components for nesting, thermal or escape cover, or foraging. 

Alterations in terrestrial or riparian habitats would also affect water quality and habitat components 

for fish and other aquatic species. Wildfires may leave the surrounding soil and accumulated ash 

vulnerable to erosion and remove shading streamside vegetation, which would increase 

sedimentation and water temperature. Aquatic species could also be subjected to the direct impacts 

of increased sedimentation and water temperatures from removal of upland vegetation. The 

duration, intensity, and scope of these direct impacts depend on the species and the characteristics 

of the fire. 

Fire suppression also has direct and indirect impacts on fish and wildlife species and their habitats. 

Water taken from small ponds for helicopter bucket drops may affect aquatic organisms by 

depleting their habitat, removing individuals, or spreading disease or nonnative predatory species 

among different water sources. However, it is sometimes possible to use water drops as an 

alternative to constructing hand lines, which are fire control lines where the surface is cut or cleared 

using hand tools, to control fire movement. Helicopter drops would result in less impact on soil and 

vegetation than hand line construction and, therefore, would have less impact on wildlife, both in 

intensity and duration. 

Hand line construction would remove and disturb soil and vegetation, possibly affecting animals 

such as small mammals, invertebrates, and ground-nesting birds. The presence of hand line crews in 

remote locations could directly disturb some wildlife. Removal of live vegetation can also lead to soil 

erosion and increased siltation in adjacent lakes and streams. Direct and indirect impacts from most 

suppression techniques would be short-term, temporary, and localized, particularly if sensitive 

habitats are mitigated or avoided. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Alternative A does not identify areas that would potentially benefit from allowing fire for resource 

benefit. By not prioritizing suitable areas for allowing fire for resource benefit, habitat improvement 

and restoration actions may not be implemented in the most effective areas. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Designating 110,167 acres as suitable for allowing fire for resource benefit could benefit wildlife 

through long-term improvements in habitat. This is because lands most in need of fire treatments 

would be prioritized, allowing for more efficient and effective treatment application. Wildlife and 

their habitats could be disturbed in the short term, but their habitats would be improved in the long 

term. These areas represent a small portion of the total WDO, so impacts are likely to be localized. 

Of the 110,647 acres designated suitable to allow fire for resource benefit, 3,361 acres are designated 

as Priority 2 wildlife habitat areas under Alternative B. These lands are in the Granite Range 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-230 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

(Gerlach) and include habitat for mule deer and pronghorn antelope. Because this area is less than 

one percent of the 716,528 acres of designated Priority 2 wildlife habitat areas under Alternative B, 

impacts from allowing fire for resource benefit in priority wildlife habitat areas would likely be 

limited and localized. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Allowing fire for resource benefit would not be practiced to achieve resource objectives under 

Alternative C, which could prevent certain lands from being treated effectively to improve habitat 

value. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Establishment of priority wildlife habitat areas and important vegetation communities as priority fire 

suppression areas would have the same effects as those under Alternative C. 

The effects from designating 9,932 acres as suitable for allowing fire for resource benefit to achieve 

resource objectives are similar to those under Alternative B. Of the 9,932 acres designated suitable 

for allowing fire for resource benefit, 5,619 acres are designated as Priority 2 wildlife habitat areas 

under Alternative D. None of the area designated as suitable for allowing fire for resource benefit is 

in Priority 1 wildlife habitat areas. Because this area is less than one percent of the 2,025,896 acres of 

the total designated priority wildlife habitat areas under Alternative D, impacts from allowing fire for 

resource benefit in priority wildlife habitat areas would likely be limited and localized. 

Effects from Cultural Resources Management

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Management actions for preserving cultural resources would provide various degrees of wildlife and 

fish protection through habitat preservation by restricting surface-disturbing and other disruptive 

activities. For example, maintaining healthy pinyon-juniper woodlands would benefit wildlife species 

that occupy these areas, particularly migratory birds. Authorized excavation of cultural sites and 

cultural inventories would have only local and short-term impacts on wildlife and their habitats. The 

short- and long-term impacts associated with these actions would not be detrimental to wildlife and 

their associated habitat, given the limited footprint of such actions on the landscape. 

Preservation of cultural resources may limit or prohibit land treatments and habitat restoration 

projects that would benefit wildlife. Costs associated with cultural resource surveys may also 

preclude projects because they become too expensive. 

Effects from Tribal Consultation 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Tribal consultation is not likely to impact fish and wildlife resources. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-231 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Effects from Paleontological Resources Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Management actions for paleontological resources would provide various degrees of wildlife and fish 

protection through habitat preservation that minimizes vegetation loss and erosion by restricting 

disruptive activities, including those that disturb the surface. Adverse impacts from paleontological 

management, such as surface-disturbing exploratory activities, are expected to be localized and 

limited to wildlife with very small home ranges, such as rodents and reptiles. The requirement for 

conducting paleontological resource surveys before disturbing the surface may cause some proposed 

habitat improvement to become cost prohibitive. 

Effects from Visual Resources Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Habitat improvement projects that would benefit fish and wildlife may be limited or prohibited in 

Class I VRM designated areas. The permissible scope of habitat treatments or restoration projects 

also may be limited in Class II VRM designated areas. 

Effects from Cave and Karst Resource Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no effects common to all alternatives from cave and karst resource management. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Impacts on fish and wildlife are not likely to occur under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Impacts on bat habitat from public visitation would be minimized by implementing mitigation 

measures, such as seasonal closures and bat gates. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Alternative C would provide the greatest protection to bat habitat out of all other alternatives by 

prohibiting surface-disturbing activities within 500 feet of natural caves. This would prohibit 

construction of public safety improvements required to allow people to visit caves and to maintain a 

natural cave setting. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Effects are the same as those described under Alternative B. 

Effects from Livestock Grazing Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Generally, impacts from livestock grazing include the following: 

• Competition for forage, water, and space; 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-232 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

• Habitat alteration, including reducing available vegetative cover; 

• Competition for grass and forbs for big game and avian species; 

• Adverse impacts on bighorn sheep from domestic sheep and goat grazing because of potential 

for disease transmission; 

• Degradations to stream banks from compression, sloughing, and removing vegetation, 

resulting in erosion; 

• Changes in plant species composition from overuse; for example, declines in perennial 

bunch grasses and forbs can result in less desirable species dominating the habitat; 

• Potential loss of shrubs in riparian areas, leading to a decrease in nesting riparian songbirds 

and bank stability and increases in water temperature; 

• Appropriate levels of grazing, stimulating growth of some plant species and increasing 

succulence; 

• Overgrazing, which diminishes range condition; 

• Fences that create travel barriers, cause stress and energy loss, result in injury and death from 

entanglement, alter big game distribution, and create perches for predators; 

• Fences for controlling livestock to reduce impacts on vegetation, streams, and thus wildlife; 

• Water developments that expand the spatial and temporal range of where both big game and 

livestock can exist, creating more pressure on vegetation and competition with each other; 

and 

• New water developments allow increased use of an area by wildlife by providing previously 

unavailable watering sites. 

Impacts on wetland and riparian areas would be minimized by implementing hot season grazing 

restrictions. In addition, maintaining developed spring sources to restore or preserve the biological 

integrity of the spring system would benefit wildlife. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Continuous, yearlong livestock grazing, even under utilization standards, is detrimental to ecological 

health because under these conditions perennial bunch grasses will begin to be eliminated from an 

area, removing a key forage source for several species; variations in timing and grazing are needed to 

maintain long-term healthy populations of key species. TNR use could be particularly detrimental by 

depleting wildlife habitats. 

Use of adaptive management principles, which include wildlife habitat objectives, could help 

mitigate livestock grazing impacts on wildlife habitats. Availability of forage banks could provide 

additional forage for wildlife when these land areas are rested. Developing springs for livestock 

would expand and enhance wildlife habitat. Proper installation of these features would minimize 

impacts on wetland and riparian areas from their construction and would reduce long-term impacts 

on these areas by providing an alternate water source for livestock. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-233 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Effects are similar to those described under Alternative A, except that impacts from forage banks 

would not occur because they would not be provided under Alternative B. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Alternative C includes a grazing and a no grazing option. Under Alternative C, Option 1, potential 

effects from livestock grazing management are similar to those described in the Effects Common to 

All Alternatives section, except that no artificial waters would be developed under this option. Use 

of adaptive management principles, which include wildlife habitat objectives, could help mitigate 

livestock grazing impacts on wildlife habitats. Existing water developments would be required to 

provide water for wildlife from June 1 to September 30, regardless of whether livestock are present, 

which would provide additional water resources for wildlife during the dry season. Effects from 

provision of forage banks are the same as those described under Alternative A. TNR use would not 

be permitted under Alternative C, Option 1, and acquired lands would be closed to grazing, 

providing some additional protection of habitat. Detrimental impacts on fish and wildlife resources 

from grazing use management would be minimized under Alternative C, Option 1, due to numerous 

use restrictions that would minimize impacts on wildlife habitat. 

Alternative C, Option 2 should result in improved ecological condition. This no grazing option 

would eliminate adverse impacts from grazing to wetland and riparian areas as well as upland 

habitats, resulting in improved habitat for wildlife. This option has the greatest potential to minimize 

impact from grazing and to facilitate healthy ecological conditions that would benefit terrestrial and 

aquatic species. Exceptions are areas that are already dominated by cheatgrass and areas where 

closure to livestock grazing releases existing cheatgrass populations. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Of the grazing alternatives, Alternative D closes the most total acreage to grazing, approximately 

21,000 acres more than under Alternative C, Option 1. Impacts from developing springs are the 

same as those described under Alternative A. Existing water developments would be required to 

provide water for wildlife from June 1 to September 30, regardless of whether livestock are present, 

which would provide additional water resources for wildlife during the dry season. Effects from 

providing forage banks are the same as those described under Alternative A. Effects from TNR use 

are less under Alternative D, as compared to Alternatives A and B, due to strict criteria for 

authorizing TNR grazing. 

Effects from Minerals Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Minerals management impacts on wildlife generally occur from surface disturbance and thus loss 

and fragmentation of habitat, as well as disturbances from noise and movement from the 

exploration, construction, and operation of facilities and roads. Management actions listed in 

Chapter 2 spell out where, how much, and what type of mineral exploration and extraction can 

occur. In addition, the types of restrictions, such as those on siting and operation, that can be 

applied vary by the type of mineral activity and whether or not they are salable, leasable, or locatable 

resources. For example, the WDO has limited discretion over locatables. Differences between the 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-234 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

restrictions for each mineral resource are described in detail under the mineral resources 

environmental consequences (Section 4.3.2). Generally, the tighter the restriction, the fewer impacts 

on wildlife. 

In instances where conservation measures are not successful, or the identified buffers are 

inadequate, the actions associated with mining could impact fish populations and aquatic habitats. 

The potential impacts on fish and aquatic habitats from mining include the following: 

• Increased sedimentation on fish-bearing streams. Excess sediment generation can be the direct result 

of surface disturbances for mineral extraction, drilling, and facilities construction and also 

for road construction, maintenance, and use. Increased sedimentation in streams can affect 

fish populations in a variety of ways, including direct mortality, reduction in suitable 

spawning gravels, egg death, and individual fish displacement. Increased sedimentation 

resulting from mining could occur even if the mining activities are outside the buffer zones. 

• Introducing hazardous materials to fish-bearing rivers, streams, and lakes. Hazardous materials from 

mining activities and from equipment use and maintenance could be released into fishbearing water bodies. Associated with locatable minerals extraction are mine tailings, which 

can introduce heavy metals into aquatic ecosystems, impacting the health of fish and aquatic 

species and, consequently, other species due to biomagnification. Similarly, the extraction of 

fluid materials can result in oil or other fluid releases, which could degrade water quality. 

Examples of this are the releases associated with well-flow testing for geothermal power 

development. Spills can also occur from equipment that uses hazardous fluids, such as 

gasoline and oil. The impact on fish populations depends on the type of hazardous material 

released and the quantity of the release. If severe enough, deaths can occur and habitat can 

become unsuitable for aquatic life. 

• Altered stream flow regimes. Water yield increase resulting from vegetation removal and 

alteration of natural drainage could result in scouring stream channel bottoms and decreasing 

fish habitat and food sources. 

• Changes in water temperatures. Water temperature can increase in areas where streamside 

vegetation is removed, increasing the amount of sunlight reaching the water. The default 

buffers and management constraints would minimize the amount of mining that would 

occur in these sensitive areas. If mining were to occur in riparian areas, increased water 

temperatures could reduce suitable habitat for cold-water fish species. As water temperature 

increases, the amount of available dissolved oxygen for fish and aquatic invertebrates 

decreases. 

Designation of areas as open to leasing but subject to terms and conditions of the standard lease 

form would limit the BLM’s ability to assign major or moderate stipulations (such as NSO) in those 

areas. Consequently, there could be an increased impact on aquatic habitats in these areas. The 

standard lease stipulations include compliance with established acts, laws, and regulations governing 

BLM land management, which would protect special status fish species. Areas designated as open to 

leasing with NSO stipulations would provide some protection to aquatic habitats by limiting the 

amount of surface disturbance. Protection would be realized where NSO stipulations are applied to 

riparian areas and areas upslope of fish-bearing streams. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-235 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Impacts from salable minerals, typically gravel, tend to be small scale and localized. Impacts occur 

primarily from surface disturbance, but use restrictions and closures would minimize many impacts. 

Impacts from fluid and solid leasables are also typically small scale and localized, but cumulative 

effects can occur where there are numerous oil and gas wells over the landscape. Impacts within the 

WDO would be minimized by use restrictions and closures. 

Development of locatable mineral resources results in alteration of habitat from surface clearing 

performed for exploration purposes. Reclamation of disturbed areas using proper seed mix can help 

mitigate the alteration of habitats. Special stipulations would minimize impacts on wildlife habitats. 

The reasonably foreseeable development scenario would continue to avoid sensitive habitats and 

could continue to fragment adjacent habitats and wildlife corridors. This could create reproductively 

isolated populations, which would lower genetic diversity in species with already low numbers. This 

would make species less fit and potentially more susceptible to disease and predation. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Under Alternative A, the greatest amount of acreage would be open to leasable fluid and solid 

minerals activities and the fewest acres would be closed. Areas open to salable mineral materials 

disposal would be subject to stipulations only on a case-by-case basis, which would likely result in 

less wildlife resource protection. Alternative A maintains the greatest amount of acreage to locatable 

minerals, with only minimal closures (6,543 acres). Approximately 60 percent of the area open to 

locatable minerals would be subject to requirements for special handling and additional stipulations 

for wildlife resource protection. Alternative A would result in the greatest impacts from minerals 

management because it places the fewest restrictions on areas available for mineral development and 

the fewest restrictions on operations that could impact wildlife. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Under Alternative B, fewer acres would be open to leasable fluid and solid minerals activities, and 

more acres would be closed than under Alternative A. Acreage open to salable mineral materials 

disposal would be similar to Alternative A, but most of the area would be subject to standard 

authorization terms, which would likely result in greater wildlife resource protection than under 

Alternative A. Impacts from salable minerals management would be the same as under 

Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Under Alternative C, the fewest acres would be maintained for locatable minerals and leasable fluid 

and solid minerals activities, and the greatest number of acres would be closed. Acreage open to 

salable mineral materials disposal would be less than under Alternatives A and B, and most of the 

area would be acres open solely to permitted government agencies. This would likely result in 

increased resource protection from proper management and resource consideration in pursuing 

mineral interests. Overall, Alternative C would result in the least amount of impacts on wildlife and 

aquatic resources from minerals management because it closes the most area to mineral 

development and places the most restrictions to protect wildlife resources in areas available for 

mineral development. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-236 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Effects are similar to those described under Alternative B, except more acres would be closed to 

mineral development and more acres of the public lands open to leasing would be subject to NSO 

stipulations and seasonal closures to protect resources, including wildlife and special status wildlife. 

Alternative D would have the fewest acres open to salable mineral materials disposal. Standard 

authorization terms and seasonal closures would be applied in some areas and would reduce impacts 

on wildlife and their habitats.

Effects from Recreation, Visitor Outreach, and Services Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Direct impacts from recreation management actions include loss or modification of habitat from 

constructing recreational facilities, including roads. Recreation management activities that result in 

increased human presence would have short-term localized impacts on wildlife and fish species. 

These activities include hiking, biking, camping, fishing, hunting, and sightseeing. Larger scale 

visitation, such as commercial, competitive, and group activities, could have greater impacts, but 

effects would be minimized through use restrictions and mitigation measures. Increased humanwildlife interaction could cause animals to alter behaviors, home ranges, and habitat use and to 

become physiologically stressed. Development of new water-based recreation sites would increase 

impacts on fish and aquatic habitats through increased visitor use. 

In general, OHV management activities that result in increased human presence would have 

localized impacts on wildlife and fish species. Impacts would vary by frequency of motorized travel 

in a particular area and could include increased displacement of wildlife, increased stress during 

critical periods, and degraded habitats. OHV use can alter the seasonal use patterns of many wildlife 

species. The effects from OHV use on fish and wildlife within the WDO could be reduced by 

updating the Transportation Plan and giving consideration to wildlife habitat, including wetland and 

riparian habitat, when designating existing routes and establishing new routes. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Under this alternative the BLM would continue to manage 37,259 acres as the Pine Forest SRMA. 

Managing lands as SRMAs could encourage additional use of these lands and thus increase the level 

of disturbances to wildlife; however, by designating SRMAs, visitation and consequential disruption 

of other wildlife areas may be reduced. Under SRMAs, management actions can reduce the impacts 

of recreational activities, and adverse impacts can be closely monitored and addressed. 

OHV use would be the most detrimental under Alternative A. Most of the WDO (6,782,790 acres) 

would be open to OHV use with minimal limited (416,652) and closed (24,832) designated areas. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Under Alternative B, 6,013,947 acres would be designated as ERMAs. The Pine Forest SRMA 

would be maintained, but its size would be increased by approximately 60,000 acres, and three 

RMZs would be established in this SRMA. In addition, three new SRMAs would be designated, 

identifying recreation as the principal use of these lands. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-237 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Managing lands as SRMAs rather than ERMAs could encourage additional use of these lands and 

thus increase the level of disturbances to wildlife. 

The Nightingale and Granite Range SRMAs would target more undeveloped or backcountry uses 

and the level of effects on fish and wildlife could be slightly intensified in these areas due to 

concentrated recreational use. Motorized use within these SRMAs would be relatively low. 

Impacts on wildlife would be greatest from the Winnemucca SRMA, primarily from noise 

disturbance and overall increased visitation. Motorized use would be greatest in this SRMA. Main 

recreation activities in the Winnemucca SRMA would include OHV use, motorcycle and ATV 

riding, mountain biking, and competitive and community-sponsored events. This SRMA would see 

the most visitor use because of its accessibility and range of tourism-based activities. 

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

24,832 acres closed to OHV use. None of the area open to OHV use would be within Priority 2 

wildlife habitat areas under Alternative B. Approximately 709,117 acres of the 716,528 acres of 

Priority 2 wildlife habitat areas under Alternative B would be designated as limited to OHV use, 

which is approximately 99 percent of the priority wildlife habitat areas designated under this 

alternative. Areas that would be closed to OHV use include 4,504 acres of Priority 2 wildlife habitat 

areas. Of the RMP alternatives, this alternative would allow the most OHV travel and therefore 

would have the most impact on wildlife resources from OHV use. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Under Alternative C, 7,168,451 acres would be designated as ERMA, which is an increase of 

1,154,504 acres over Alternatives B and D. The Pine Forest SRMA would be maintained and 

expanded as under Alternative B. Only one new SRMA, the Winnemucca SRMA, would be 

designated under Alternative C, and they would contain one less RMZ than under Alternative B. 

Alternative C places the most limitations on commercial, competitive, and group activities. OHV use 

would be the most restricted under this alternative, with 61,427 acres closed, 7,143,177 acres limited, 

and zero acres open to OHV use. Under this alternative, 1,228,804 acres of Priority 1 wildlife habitat 

areas and 866,835 acres of Priority 2 wildlife habitat areas would be designated as limited to OHV 

use, which is approximately 98 percent of the total designated priority wildlife habitat areas. Areas 

that would be closed permanently to OHV use include 39,135 acres of Priority 1 wildlife habitat 

area. In addition, 3,657 acres of Priority 1 wildlife habitat areas and 2,579 acres of Priority 2 wildlife 

habitat areas would be closed seasonally. Alternative C would have the fewest impacts on wildlife 

resources because it minimizes development of recreational facilities that would attract visitors and 

place the most limitations on OHV use, thereby minimizing impacts from recreational use. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Effects are similar to those described under Alternative B, but Alternative D would be more 

effective at reducing impacts from OHV use by further restricting OHV permitted use areas, 

including use in important habitat areas. None of the area open to OHV use would be within 

Priority 1 wildlife habitat areas under Alternative D; however, 111 acres of Priority 2 wildlife habitat 

areas would be designated as open to OHV use, which is less than one percent of the 1,325,967 

acres of the designated Priority 2 wildlife habitat areas under Alternative D. Under this alternative, 

696,273 acres of Priority 1 wildlife habitat areas and 1,300,240 acres of Priority 2 wildlife habitat 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-238 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

areas would be designated as limited to OHV use, which is approximately 99 percent of the total 

designated priority wildlife habitat areas. Under Alternative D, 25,185 acres of Priority 2 wildlife 

habitat areas would be closed permanently, and 7,083 acres of Priority 2 wildlife habitat areas would 

be closed seasonally. No Priority 1 wildlife habitat areas would be closed to OHV use under this 

alternative. 

Effects from Renewable Energy Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Authorized renewable energy development could have impacts on wildlife by removing vegetation 

for construction activities. Human disturbances from construction and operation of facilities, such 

as noise, movement, and vibrations, would alter wildlife behavioral use patterns in the vicinity of the 

project. Impacts would vary by species, type of development, topography, and habitat type. 

Development of wind turbines would kill or injure bats, raptors, and other migratory birds that 

collide with them. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Effects are the same as those under Effects Common to All Alternatives. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Adverse effects from renewable energy developments, as described under Effects Common to All 

Alternatives, would be reduced by designating 716,528 acres as avoidance areas. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Renewable energy would have the least impact on fish and wildlife under Alternative C due to the 

designation of 1,297,481 acres as exclusion zones and 869,645 acres as avoidance zones. No 

overhead transmission lines or ROWs for energy projects would be allowed in exclusion zones. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Effects are similar to those described under Alternative C, but Alternative D would be less effective 

at protecting wildlife resources. The total overall acreage designated as avoidance and exclusion 

zones for the renewable energy project is 123,230 acres less under Alternative D, and the area 

designated as exclusion zones is 579,552 acres less than under Alternative C. 

Effects from Transportation and Access Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Roads and trails can fragment habitats, reduce wildlife security areas, increase road kill, and alter 

home range and migration corridors of wildlife. On a broad general scale, roads decrease habitat 

quality and impair populations. The magnitude of impacts varies by species, habitat types, size and 

traffic volume of roads, and seasonal use. Species that have large home ranges, follow distinct 

migration patterns, or are wary of humans are affected the most by roads. Roads and trails increase 

human-wildlife interactions. Vehicles can degrade wildlife habitats from surface disturbance and can 

displace and stress animals. Motorized vehicle use and associated human uses that impact critical 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-239 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

habitat niches for wildlife, such as den sites, nest sites, critical foraging areas, travel corridors, and 

security areas, are particularly vulnerable to wildlife disturbances and displacement. Flood and 

sediment damage from improperly maintained roads and trails can degrade surrounding habitats, 

especially aquatic habitats. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Decommissioning roads that present problems to the environment would reduce wildlife and habitat 

impacts in select locations. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Under Alternative B, roads that present problems to the environment would be decommissioned 

only if alternative access were provided. The same condition would apply to removing, rerouting, 

and rehabilitating roads that adversely affect wildlife and habitat. Creating alternative access could 

result in additional impacts on resources, but Alternative B would require that roads be constructed 

to avoid creating fragment resource tracts. Impacts would further be reduced by temporary road 

closures during the wet season that would minimize sediment and erosion impacts. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Effects are similar to those described for Alternative B, but alternative access would not be a 

stipulation for decommissioning, removing, rerouting, or rehabilitating roads that are adversely 

impacting wildlife. Of all the alternatives, Alternative C provides the most assertive approach for 

minimizing and avoiding wildlife impacts from transportation management. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Effects are similar to those described for Alternative C, but Alternative D would be less effective 

than Alternative C because it contains fewer specific actions for minimizing and avoiding wildlife 

impacts. 

Effects from Lands and Realty Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Impacts on fish and wildlife from lands and realty management could include habitat loss, 

degradation, and species displacement from linear features (e.g., power lines, roads, and pipelines) 

and other permitted facilities (e.g., wind turbines). These activities primarily affect big sagebrush and 

grass habitat types, which are common in the WDO, and also affect the diversity of species found in 

these habitat types. Small animals that have very small home ranges may also be affected by habitat 

fragmentation resulting from linear features. ROW-approved actions for power lines, 

communication sites, and wind turbines also include injury and death to bats, raptors, and other 

migratory birds as a result of collisions. Increased road density and human presence would act to 

increase stress levels of wildlife during sensitive periods, such as breeding, migration, and wintering.

Benefits to fish and wildlife resources could also occur from lands and realty management by 

acquiring sensitive habitat. Habitat fragmentation could be reduced via land acquisition and 

adjustment that reduces the checkerboard pattern of public lands ownership and increases the size 

of publicly owned blocks of land. Larger blocks of contiguous lands allow for consistent 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-240 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

management of wildlife habitats without unregulated private land activities interspersed. Degraded 

habitat on acquired lands could be improved. 

Impacts from land disposal would be minimized since only lands with little resources value are 

candidates for disposal and additional NEPA evaluation would be required before disposal. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Effects are the same as those under Effects Common to All Alternatives. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Potential adverse effects from lands and realty management, as described under Effects Common to 

All Alternatives, would be reduced by designating 716,528 acres as avoidance areas in order to 

protect resources. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Lands and realty management would have the least impact on fish and wildlife under Alternative C 

due to the designation of 1,279,481 acres as exclusion zones and 869,645 acres as avoidance zones. 

No corridors, ROWs, or energy projects would be allowed in exclusion zones. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Effects are similar to those described under Alternative C, but Alternative D would be less effective 

at protecting wildlife resources. The total overall acreage designated as avoidance and exclusion 

zones is 123,230 acres less under Alternative D, and the area designated as exclusion zones is 

579,552 acres less than under Alternative C. 

Effects from ACEC/RNA Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Generally special management areas such as ACECs and RNAs result in protection of wildlife from 

human activities and long-term improvement or at least maintenance of habitat quality because of 

numerous use restrictions. All alternatives would maintain the existing Osgood Mountain milkvetch 

ACEC, but Alternatives C and D would provide greater benefit to wildlife resources by also 

designating three new ACECs (Pine Forest, Stillwater, and Raised Bog) covering approximately 

97,760 acres. In particular, the diversity of protected habitat in the Pine Forest ACEC would benefit 

a variety of species, including American pika, Humboldt yellow-pine chipmunk, northern goshawk, 

sage-grouse, mule deer, western jumping mouse, Brewer’s sparrow, and an array of sagebrushdependent species. 

Effects from Backcountry Byways Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Impacts on fish and wildlife resources from developing backcountry byways may displace individuals 

and alter immediate environments. Wildlife could be disturbed by increased human presence during 

sensitive seasonal periods, such as breeding, nesting, and migration. Adverse impacts from 

backcountry byways are expected to be limited to relatively small areas. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-241 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Effects are the same as those under Effects Common to All Alternatives. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

The potential for adverse effects on wildlife resources from backcountry byways management is 

greatest under Alternative B because it emphasizes economic development, which may occur at the 

expense of resource protection. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

The potential for adverse effects on wildlife resources from backcountry byways management is 

least under Alternative C because they emphasize resource protection in their management actions. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Effects are the same as those under Effects Common to All Alternatives. 

Effects from National Trails Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Management actions for preserving national trails would provide various degrees of wildlife and fish 

protection through habitat preservation by restricting surface-disturbing and other disruptive 

activities within the protected zone of the trail. However, preserving national trails may limit or 

prohibit land treatments and habitat restoration projects that would benefit wildlife. 

Effects from Wild and Scenic Rivers Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no identified effects common to all alternatives from wild and scenic river management. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Alternative A does not include wild and scenic rivers management measures. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Alternative B does not include wild and scenic rivers management measures. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Wild and scenic river management can restrict activities that would alter the tentative classification. 

This could indirectly conserve wildlife habitat, especially habitat for riparian species, in areas where 

actions would have been authorized without the classification. Alternative C would protect eligible 

river segments, in accordance with tentative suitability classifications, for the North Fork of the 

Little Humboldt River, Washburn Creek, and Crowley Creek. This would benefit fish and wildlife in 

these areas. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-242 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Alternative D does not include wild and scenic rivers management measures. 

Effects from Wilderness Study Areas and Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

Actions to preserve wilderness characteristics on lands outside of WSAs would help to create more 

desirable wildlife habitat, but indirect adverse impacts may occur if habitat projects that would 

benefit other wildlife are restricted to maintain wilderness characteristics. Areas with wilderness 

characteristics are small, relative to the overall WDO, so impacts would be localized. 

Wilderness Study Areas 

The WDO does not have discretion regarding management of designated WSAs, since they must 

comply with the Interim Management Policy and Guidelines for Lands under Wilderness Review 

(IMP, BLM Manual Handbook H-8550-1) (BLM 1995). WSAs would provide relatively undisturbed 

wildlife habitat in areas within the WDO. However, WSAs would increase the difficulty of 

accomplishing habitat improvement treatments. This is because protections to WSAs would limit 

the extent or effectiveness of vegetation treatments, such as weed treatments, since any type of 

mechanized work would be limited on these lands. Such protections would also prevent 

disturbances to wildlife and their habitats but also would prevent certain lands from being treated 

effectively to improve habitat value. WSAs are defined and distinct within the WDO, so impacts 

would be localized. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Managing lands outside of WSAs with wilderness characteristics for multiple uses could degrade fish 

and wildlife habitat by increased noise, trampling, disturbance, and soil compaction. Areas with 

wilderness characteristics are small, relative to the total area of land in the WDO, so impacts would 

be localized. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Under Alternative B, the BLM would manage 222,074 acres containing wilderness characteristics to 

meet multiple use and sustained yield objectives. This would protect wildlife resources but could 

allow some impacts from allowing multiple uses. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Under Alternative C, as under Alternative B, the BLM would manage 222,074 acres containing 

wilderness characteristics, but under Alternative C the management would emphasize protection of 

wilderness characteristics. Under Alternative C, the BLM would impose restrictions and stipulations, 

including closing mineral leasing and ROW exclusion zones, which would benefit wildlife resources. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-243 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Under Alternative D, the BLM would also manage 222,074 acres containing wilderness 

characteristics. Under Alternative D, the BLM would manage key resource value through other 

resources and resource use designations. Depending on the designations implemented and the uses 

allowed, some impacts on wildlife resources could occur. However, most restrictions would protect 

wildlife resources in the long term. 

Effects from Watchable Wildlife Viewing Sites Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Impacts on fish and wildlife resources from development of watchable wildlife viewing sites may 

displace individuals and alter immediate environments. Wildlife could be disturbed by increased 

human presence during sensitive seasonal periods, such as breeding, nesting, and migration. Adverse 

impacts from watchable wildlife viewing areas are expected to be limited to relatively small areas. By 

designating these areas, visitation and consequential disruption of other wildlife areas may be 

reduced. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Effects are the same as those under Effects Common to All Alternatives. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Effects are the same as those under Effects Common to All Alternatives. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Under Alternative C, new routes through or near sensitive areas and attracting increased traffic to 

remote areas would be avoided, minimizing potential adverse effects of developing wildlife viewing 

sites, as compared to the other alternatives. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Effects are the same as those under Effects Common to All Alternatives. 

Effects from Public Health and Safety Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Generally, actions to remediate contaminated sites to safeguard human health would also affect 

wildlife habitats and populations, especially those that depend on riparian and wetland habitats. 

Reducing contaminants in the environment reduces the potential for animals to ingest them. It also 

reduces biomagnification because contaminants are concentrated as they pass up through the food 

chain. Closing abandoned mines could affect bats. However, if the mines are closed in a manner to 

allow access to bats, then these bat populations would be preserved. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-244 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Effects from Sustainable Development Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no identified effects common to all alternatives from sustainable development 

management. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Impacts on fish and wildlife are not likely to occur under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Under sustainable development management actions, impacts on fish and wildlife from new 

operations would be reduced because existing facilities would be reused in place of creating new 

disturbances. 

Reuse of sites could have detrimental impacts on fish and wildlife, but the effects would vary 

depending on the type of reuse and management of the use. Provisions to protect natural resources, 

including important habitats, would minimize potential impacts from sustainable development. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Effects are the same as those described under Alternative B. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Effects are the same as those described under Alternative B. 

Cumulative Effects 

The following factors are occurring within the WDO and can result or may be resulting in declining 

diversity: 

• Decreases in the mule deer population; 

• Reduction in sagebrush and salt desert scrub habitats from fire and invasive plants; 

• Loss and degradation of wetland, aquatic, and riparian habitats from grazing use; and 

• Declines in fish and bird populations from the loss and degradation of riparian and aquatic 

habitats. 

These trends are likely to continue unless habitats and migratory corridors are properly managed. 

Further aquatic habitat has been lost from the increased presence of invasive plants, drought, water 

diverted from natural waterways, and increased recreational and commercial activities. Drought and 

wildfire will continue to contribute to the loss of aquatic resources, and impacts may become more 

severe in the future due to global warming. Management actions in the RMP aim to address, 

minimize, and in some cases mitigate for impacts from grazing and commercial and recreational 

activities. In addition, management actions to reduce hot season grazing in riparian areas and 

reduction or maintenance of appropriate management levels for wild horse and burro populations 

would reduce future impacts on wetland and riparian areas. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-245 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-246 

Most of the cumulative projects have affected or will affect wildlife. Increased population, increased 

development in the area, fire, increased recreational activities and OHV use, habitat encroachment, 

and mineral development have the potential for the greatest effects. These actions and their 

interactions result in the loss of and changes in terrestrial and aquatic habitats, resulting in degraded 

quality of these habitats and the populations they support. The above actions directly and indirectly 

result in changes in vegetation species composition and structure. On public lands, these changes in 

vegetation have the greatest effect on wildlife, as opposed to private lands where development 

results in the complete loss of habitats under the footprint of infrastructure. 

In the foreseeable future, implementing the RMP would put numerous new mitigation, restoration, 

and conservation measures in place that would reduce the potential extent and severity of effects 

from other actions. Actions on BLM lands would have a noticeable effect at the local level, and 

because of the large area encompassed by the WDO, the Winnemucca RMP’s contribution to 

cumulative effects on wildlife across northwest Nevada is considerable. 

The same types of cumulative effects would occur under all alternatives. Generally, Alternative C 

would contribute the greatest potential for improving wildlife and aquatic habitat because of 

numerous management actions, mitigation measures, and restrictions designed to improve wildlife 

habitats. 

4.2.10 Special Status Species 

Summary 

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. 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Methods of Analysis 

Methods and Assumptions

Special status fish, wildlife, and plant health within the WDO is directly related to the overall 

ecosystem health, habitat abundance, habitat fragmentation, and wildlife security provided, and thus 

many resource management actions have an effect on special status fish, wildlife, and plants. Impact 

analysis on special status species included an assessment of whether each action would result in the 

possible destruction, degradation, or modification of habitat, as well as impacts that could improve 

wildlife, plant, and aquatic habitat. The evaluations are confined to the actions that have direct, 

immediate, and more important effects on the planning area, instead of identifying and evaluating all 

possible interactions and cause-effect relationships, even those that are minor. In addition, special 

status species and potential special status habitat distributions over the landscape are patchy and 

localized. This limits potential effects from many resources, such as paleontological and geological 

resources, which are also small in extent and localized in the WDO. 

Some impacts are direct, while others are indirect and affect special status species through a change 

in another resource. Direct impacts on special status species are considered to include disruption, 

trampling, or removal of rooted vegetation, thereby reducing an area’s potential habitat; direct 

mortality of individual special status species; and actions that unequivocally reduce total numbers of 

a special status species or reduce or cause the loss of total area, diversity, vigor, structure, or function 

of potential or occupied habitat. 

Potential indirect impacts include loss of habitat suitable for colonization due to surface disturbance; 

introduction of noxious weeds by various mechanisms or conditions that enhance the spread of 

weeds; increased noise; and general loss of habitat due to surface occupancy or surface compaction. 

Indirect impacts include those that cannot be absolutely linked to one action, such as decreased 

plant vigor or health from reduced air or water quality. 

A large proportion of actions under all alternatives are mitigation measures for other actions and 

protective measures, so that many of the individual actions could improve habitats or the health of 

populations, depending on the success of the action when completed. The degree of impact 

attributed to any one management action or series of actions is influenced by the watershed, time 

and degree of action, existing vegetation, and precipitation. Quantifying these impacts is difficult due 

to the lack of monitoring data for most species. In the absence of quantitative data, best professional 

judgment was used according to the following assumptions: 

• Success of mitigation is dependent on specific protective measures, past results, and the 

assumption that proper implementation of such would take place; 

• Implementation-level actions will be further assessed at an appropriate spatial and temporal 

scale and level of detail; 

• Additional field inventories could be needed to support implementation-level decisions, 

which may be subject to further analysis under NEPA; 

• BLM would continue to manage fish, wildlife, and plant habitats in coordination with the 

Nevada Department of Wildlife; and 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-247 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

• The health of fisheries within the WDO is directly related to the overall health and 

functional capabilities of riparian and wetland resources, which in turn are a reflection of 

watershed health. Any activities that affect the ecological condition of the watershed and its 

vegetative cover would directly or indirectly affect the aquatic environment. The degree of 

impact attributed to any one disturbance or series of disturbances is influenced by location 

within the watershed, time and degree of disturbance, existing vegetation, and precipitation. 

As riparian systems adjust in response to the removal of vegetation or changes in hydrologic 

conditions, the availability of habitats required to fulfill the life history requirements of fish 

populations might be affected. 

Only impacts on federally listed, proposed, or candidate, state threatened or endangered, or BLM 

sensitive species are discussed in this section. 

Effects from Air Quality Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Air quality management actions would have indirect, speculative effects and are not likely to directly 

impact special status species or their habitats within the WDO under any of the alternatives. 

Effects from Geology Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Both special status species habitat and geological interest areas are limited in acreage within the 

WDO, and as such, are unlikely to overlap. As a result, geology management actions are unlikely to 

impact special status species or their potential habitats under any of the alternatives. 

Effects from Soil Resources Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Implementing Land Health Standards and Guidelines would help to maintain soil processes and 

their components, including appropriate vegetation and soil stability in the long term. These are 

important to land health, which is directly related to habitat quality. In addition, seeding and 

maintaining adequate vegetative cover within the WDO would have implications for special status 

species, which rely on adequate cover as habitat for protection from predators and the elements. 

Vegetative cover would also prevent sedimentation in water courses, which would indirectly 

improve the health of special status fish populations. Implementing BMPs for soil-disturbing 

activities and applying reclamation measures to mitigate adverse impacts on soils and water add 

additional actions that could indirectly benefit plants, wildlife, and their habitats. The BMPs could 

prevent additional soil-disturbing activities that could indirectly encourage healthy vegetation 

communities, which are the foundation of special status species habitats. Reclamation measures 

directly restore special status species habitats that have already been impacted. Although there may 

be nonnative species in some seed mixes, some wildlife habitat would be provided, which is 

preferable to leaving a site to revegetate with invasive weeds. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-248 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

There are no soil compaction prevention measures under Alternative A. This would indirectly 

impact special status species habitat, as soil compaction prevents water infiltration and may therefore 

affect vegetative health and vigor. However, there would be no restrictions on habitat improvement 

treatments in the long term. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Soil compaction prevention measures under Alternative B would seek to mitigate adverse effects 

without seasonal closures. As such, special status species habitats would be impacted year-round, 

even during times when soils would be most susceptible to compaction. However, habitat 

improvement treatments could also occur year-round and could disturb special status species in the 

short term. These treatments would restore suitable habitat for special status species in the long 

term. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Soil compaction prevention measures are the most stringent under Alternative C, providing for 

seasonal use restrictions. This would indirectly benefit special status species habitat value by 

preventing compaction but would limit when habitat improvement treatment could occur. Impacts 

would be long term. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Soil compaction prevention measures would implement seasonal use restrictions, which would occur 

on a case-by-case basis. Indirect impacts on special status species include improved health and vigor 

from decreased soil compaction and increased infiltration, which would improve habitat value in the 

long term. 

Effects from Water Resources Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Effective watershed management, which minimizes erosion, maintains hydrologic flow, and 

indirectly maintains vegetative community health, would result in healthy and diverse plant 

communities, which in turn provide wildlife habitat, especially in riparian areas. Healthy watersheds 

improve fish habitat and promote healthy fish populations. 

Acquiring water rights that provide water to wildlife and acquiring water rights associated with 

instream flows would indirectly benefit special status species because water is a crucial habitat 

component for all wildlife. 

Developing water sources for other uses, while ensuring that water is available to wildlife, would be 

crucial to maintaining habitat for special status species. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Under this alternative, priority watersheds would not be managed. However, impacts on water 

resources would be reduced by compliance with water quality regulations and implementation of 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-249 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

BMPs and land health standards. This would protect special status species habitat throughout the 

WDO, but would provide the fewest action- and location-specific protections of all alternatives. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Protecting priority watersheds implies that vegetative conditions within these areas would be in good 

ecological condition since disturbance would be reduced. This would indirectly benefit special status 

species in the long term, as maintaining water quality is an important component of habitat quality. 

Under this alternative, multiple uses would be allowed, which also would allow for habitat 

improvement treatments within priority watersheds to restore suitable habitat for special status 

species in the long term. In the short term, these surface-disturbing treatments could directly disturb 

special status species. Impacts would be localized and limited by the relatively small acreage of the 

priority watersheds. 

Water importation and exportation projects could negatively affect the location, quantity, and quality 

of water resources. This would result in direct effects on special status species by limiting and 

degrading the water supply and would have indirect impacts from altering water resources that 

supply their habitat. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Alternative C includes the most thorough and protective list of BMPs and reclamation measures and 

emphasizes the use of natural or organic materials. Alternative C also provides the most protection 

of plants, wildlife, and their habitats, compared with the other alternatives, by establishing priority 

watersheds as exclusion areas for incompatible discretionary actions and placing limitations on water 

projects to ensure water is available to wildlife and for maintaining habitat. Impacts would be 

localized and limited by the relatively small acreage of the priority watersheds. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Alternative D includes a thorough and protective list of BMPs and reclamation measures and would 

provide for more protection of plants, wildlife, and their habitats than would Alternatives A and B. 

Management actions pertaining to priority watersheds and water projects are less stringent than 

under Alternative C. Impacts would be localized and limited by the relatively small acreage of the 

priority watersheds. 

Effects from Vegetation—Forest and Woodland Products Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

In all alternatives, forest products management actions could impact special status species that use 

forest and woodland areas, particularly migratory birds and pinyon-juniper obligates. Actions, 

including monitoring, establishing early warning systems for insect or disease outbreaks, prioritizing 

various tree stands for fire suppression, and stand treatments, could improve habitat conditions, 

including diversity in age classes and species composition, over the long term. Managing stand health 

and providing various age classes within a stand is very important to species, as woodlands within 

the WDO provide habitat diversity in a predominantly sagebrush landscape. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-250 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Some forest treatments, such as mechanical control measures, would directly disturb wildlife habitat 

in the short term but would foster a healthier ecosystem in the long term. 

Potential direct impacts on fish and aquatic habitat associated with forest management include 

increased sedimentation from surface-disturbing activities and changes in water temperatures. 

Increased sedimentation in streams can affect fish populations through direct mortality, a reduction 

in suitable spawning gravels, death of eggs, and displacement of individual fish. Water temperature 

can increase where streamside vegetation is removed or altered flow regimes exist, increasing the 

amount of sunlight reaching the water or reducing summer base flow conditions. As water 

temperature increases, the amount of available dissolved oxygen for fish and aquatic invertebrates 

decreases. 

Considering aspen, cottonwood, and mountain mahogany in implementation plans would reduce 

impacts on these species and the species that depend on them. Managing for these species would 

also benefit riparian areas, which would have beneficial impacts on special status species, including 

LCT. These effects would be long term. 

The extent of woodland areas within the WDO is limited, comprising less than one percent of the 

total land area. As such, impacts on special status species from forest and woodland product 

management actions would be limited and localized. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Actions using fire as a management tool would directly and efficiently achieve desirable special 

status species habitat in the long term. In the short term, fire would directly disturb special status 

species and their habitats. Fire also would reduce the fuel load in woodlands, preventing catastrophic 

fires that could kill special status species. Other treatments would facilitate this habitat enhancement, 

including fencing, mechanical control, and herbicides. Such actions would directly enhance 

woodland health and special status species habitat value in the long term and in localized areas. 

Managing pinyon pine and juniper would improve habitat health for species that depend on these 

woodlands, particularly migratory birds. In addition, controlling and removing junipers that have 

encroached on sagebrush habitats in localized areas benefits special status sagebrush obligate 

species, such as sage-grouse, since juniper has a tendency to outcompete sagebrush and associated 

understory species. However, under Alternative A, pinyon and juniper woodlands would be 

managed for the greatest number of uses, which could indirectly disturb special status species or 

their habitats through noise, trampling, and soil compaction in the long term and in localized areas. 

No old growth forest would be designated, but management under Alternative A would designate 

other stands, including pinyon juniper stands, as appropriate and manage those actively. This would 

indirectly help to achieve forest health goals and would create higher quality special status species 

habitat, particularly for migratory birds. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Effects from fire management of vegetation are the same as those described under Alternative A. 

However, Alternative B calls for more aggressive stand treatments, including fencing, mechanical, 

biological, or chemical treatments, and planting and seeding. The variety and breadth of treatment 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-251 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

types would provide a more flexible, adaptable approach to stand management. These could directly 

disturb special status species in the short term, but Alternative B has a high likelihood to efficiently 

restore special status species habitat in the long term and in localized areas. 

Pinyon and juniper woodlands would be managed for fewer uses than Alternative A, with an 

emphasis on sustainable yield. Harvesting would be more intensive under Alternative B, with the 

potential for overharvest to reduce plant vigor and habitat value. 

Old growth would not be designated under Alternative B, and none would be designated in the 

future. Adverse impacts on stands with old growth characteristics would be avoided, but these areas 

would not be managed to provide old growth characteristics in the future. This would impact the 

potential for these areas to provide suitable habitat for special status species. Impacts would be 

localized and long-term. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Under Alternative C, fire would not be used to manage stands, which could prove less effective in 

achieving special status species habitat goals in the long term. However, it also would not disturb 

special status species or their habitat in the short term. In addition, fuel load accumulation could 

present a fire danger and increase the chance for a catastrophic fire event, resulting in direct effects 

on special status species and their habitat. Fewer treatments would be allowed within forests and 

woodlands, with only mechanical and biological treatments allowed. These, too, may be less 

effective in directly achieving habitat objectives. Impacts would be localized. 

Pinyon and juniper stands would be managed only for landscape value and Native American uses. 

With less harvesting allowed in pinyon and juniper stands, there would be less human disturbance to 

special status species or their habitat. Impacts would be localized and long term. 

Alternative C would designate 27,605 acres of old growth forest and other stands as appropriate. 

This would preserve and maintain these forests and their special status species habitat value. 

However, Alternative C would not actively manage stands for old growth characteristics, which may 

be less effective in improving habitat value for special status species. Impacts would be localized and 

long term. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Actions under this alternative would use fire as a management tool, similar to Alternatives A and B. 

However, fire management would be more adaptive because it would prioritize stands for 

management. This would improve special status species habitat more effectively. Fire management 

also would reduce fuel loads as in Alternatives A and B. Other treatments, and the impacts 

associated with them, are the same as those described under Alternative B. 

As in Alternative A, Alternative D would manage for the greatest number of uses and emphasizes 

multiple use. Impacts are similar to those described under Alternative A. 

This alternative would designate 27,605 acres of old growth forest and would designate other stands 

as appropriate in the future. In addition, old growth stands would be actively managed to facilitate 

old growth characteristics. As a result, special status species habitat improvement goals would be 

most likely to be efficiently achieved in Alternative D. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-252 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Effects from Vegetation—Weeds Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Noxious and invasive weeds tend to homogenize plant communities. As a result, generalist species 

often are favored, but species with narrower niches suffer reduced populations or do not persist. 

Treatment actions would not be sufficient to control the spread of weeds into all special status 

species habitats but would reduce these impacts in treated areas. Although weed treatments would 

generally directly improve special status species habitats in the long term, short-term disturbances to 

wildlife would occur. Weed treatment actions could remove forage and cover in areas dominated by 

weeds, resulting in short-term impacts on special status wildlife that are using weed infested areas. 

Short-term impacts would vary by type of application. Treatments, especially mechanical treatments, 

would cause some species to temporarily avoid treated areas. 

Invasive and noxious weeds can also create or exacerbate conditions that reduce water quality. 

Directly or indirectly, weeds can affect stream bank stability, sedimentation, turbidity, shade and 

stream temperature, dissolved oxygen, and pH (USFS 2005). Reduction of total acres impacted by 

weeds would positively affect water quality and therefore special status wildlife, particularly fish and 

birds. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Using a variety of control methods, including chemical treatments and prescribed fire, would be the 

most direct, effective, and adaptable approach in controlling the introduction and spread of noxious 

weeds into special status species habitats. However, lack of education programs, implementation 

plans, SOPs (Appendix B), BMPs (Appendix B), mitigation measures, or new techniques could limit 

the effectiveness of weed management actions in the long term. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Impacts from weeds management actions are similar to those described under Alternative A. 

However, education programs, implementation plans, SOPs (Appendix B), BMPs (Appendix B), 

mitigation measures, and new techniques could improve the effectiveness of weed management 

actions in the long term. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Mechanical, cultural, and biological weed treatments would be used under Alternative C, which 

would help to improve special status species habitat in the long term. However, chemical control 

and prescribed fire would not be used under Alternative C. This would limit the effectiveness of 

control efforts throughout the WDO. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Impacts from weeds management actions are the same as those described under Alternative B. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-253 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Effects from Chemical and Biological Control 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Using chemical control methods would help control and reduce weed outbreaks. The effects are 

similar to those described under weeds management. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Restricting herbicide use near water sources would limit the effectiveness of pest treatments in 

riparian areas. This is especially restrictive, as current noxious weed outbreaks often occur near water 

sources and are treated with chemicals. This could lower habitat value for special status species, but 

it also would prevent impacts on nontarget species, particularly LCT and species that prey on LCT. 

Approved biological controls are specific to target species, so there would be no impact on 

nontarget species. Chemical treatments would be applied according to label directions and following 

established guidelines, BMPs (Appendix B), and SOPs (Appendix B) for application. Chemical 

applications would also be designed to avoid effects to nontarget species. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Using IPM techniques, BMPs, and cooperation and coordination with other groups and agencies 

would help reduce pests within the WDO. This would improve habitat health and value for special 

status species over the short and long term. 

Using chemical and biological control methods would have similar impacts as those described for 

weeds management actions under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Using IPM techniques, BMPs, and cooperation and coordination with other groups and agencies 

would help reduce pests. This would improve special status species habitat value over the short and 

long term. 

Biological control methods could have impacts similar to those described under Alternative A. 

Restricting chemical control methods could limit the effectiveness of pest control in certain cases. 

This would slow, but is not likely to completely prevent, improvement of special status species 

habitat in the long term. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Impacts from using chemical and biological control methods are the same as those described under 

Alternative B. 

Effects from Vegetation—Rangeland Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

All of the alternatives have some actions that would provide for healthier rangeland habitats 

throughout the WDO. SOPs (Appendix B), BMPs (Appendix B), and mitigation measures would be 

used to reduce adverse impacts on rangelands. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-254 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Actions designed to promote the health of native vegetation communities and to rehabilitate areas 

with weedy and nonnative vegetation would generally directly improve special status species habitat 

quality by increasing quantity and quality of native perennials in the long term. Species that use 

sagebrush and grassland habitat, such as sage-grouse, would be the most affected. Sagebrush habitats 

are considered to be the most important habitats within the WDO, and measures to maintain or 

improve these communities would benefit the host of special status species that use them. There 

would be short-term disturbances to wildlife, similar to those described in the preceding weeds 

management section. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

If applied correctly, prescriptive grazing would reduce annuals and restore decadent plant vigor on 

localized rangelands. This would allow native vegetative cover to increase, which would reduce the 

likelihood of a catastrophic fire. Although fires will still occur, this action would minimize direct 

mortality to special status species and large-scale destruction of their habitats. 

A variety of rangeland treatments would be implemented to achieve healthy rangeland conditions 

throughout the WDO. This variety would provide flexibility in BLM’s approach to rangeland 

restoration and likely would provide the most effective means of achieving rangeland health goals. 

This would provide suitable habitat for rangeland-dependent special status species. However, these 

treatments would focus on sagebrush and would not be implemented in salt desert scrub 

communities. Further, fragmentation of sagebrush would not be given a high priority in rangeland 

management. This would limit the connectivity of habitats for special status species, potentially 

separating and preventing populations from reproducing. 

Restoring crested wheatgrass seedings could result in localized minor impacts on special status 

species from disturbance and loss of food or cover. Areas within the WDO where crested 

wheatgrass restoration would occur are limited, so impacts on special status species would be limited 

and localized. 

Compared with the other alternatives, there would not be reduction of CC on 70,000 acres under 

Alternative A. The benefits of CC reduction would not be realized as in the other alternatives, 

resulting in maintenance of fuel loads, which could lead to catastrophic fires. This could kill special 

status species or destroy their habitats. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Prescriptive grazing would have impacts similar to those described under Alternative A. 

A variety of rangeland treatments would be implemented to achieve healthy rangeland conditions 

throughout the WDO and would have impacts similar to those described under Alternative A. 

These treatments would focus on both sagebrush and salt desert scrub communities, which would 

impact a larger area of suitable special status species habitat. In addition, fragmentation of sagebrush 

would be avoided, and SOPs (Appendix B), BMPs (Appendix B), and mitigation measures would be 

employed to minimize impacts on sagebrush communities. This would reduce impacts on special 

status species that rely on sagebrush communities for habitat. 

Restoring crested wheatgrass seedings would have impacts similar to those under Alternative A. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-255 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Restoring CC to Class II levels on 70,000 acres would reduce fuel loads on these lands and would 

protect native vegetation from catastrophic fire. This would prevent weed invasion and promote 

healthy, productive, native vegetation in this area in the long term. As a result, special status species 

would be protected from direct mortality, and habitat would be protected from destruction. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Option 1 

Prescriptive grazing would have impacts similar to those described under Alternative A. 

Fewer rangeland treatments would be implemented to restore rangelands throughout the WDO. 

This would limit the effectiveness of rangeland restoration, as additional treatments could provide 

more flexibility towards achieving this goal. As a result, special status species habitat value may not 

be as high on these lands. Rangeland treatments would focus on both sagebrush and salt desert 

scrub communities, which would impact a larger portion of the WDO and could impact a larger 

number of special status species. In addition, fragmentation of sagebrush would be avoided, and 

SOPs (Appendix B), BMPs (Appendix B), and mitigation measures would be employed to minimize 

impacts on sagebrush communities. 

Restoring CC to Class II levels on 70,000 acres would have similar impacts on those described under 

Alternative B. 

Option 2 

Eliminating livestock grazing should improve ecological conditions and increase the health, vigor, 

and abundance of forage species. The probable increase in grass and forb availability would enhance 

habitat quality for special status species that rely on sagebrush habitats. 

Prescriptive grazing would not be used under this option; as such, livestock grazing would not be 

available as a tool for vegetation treatments, and other treatments would have to be implemented. If 

these other treatments were to not achieve the treatment objectives, then the treatment may have to 

be foregone. Indirectly, rangeland health may be lowered, weeds could invade, and healthy special 

status species habitat might not be achieved in these areas. 

The least aggressive rangeland treatments would be implemented to restore rangelands throughout 

the WDO. This would limit the effectiveness of rangeland habitat restoration, as additional 

treatments could provide more flexibility towards achieving this goal. Impacts on sagebrush and salt 

desert scrub communities would be similar to those under Alternative C, Option 1. 

Restoring CC to Class II levels on 70,000 acres would have similar impacts on those described under 

Alternative B. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Prescriptive grazing would have impacts similar to those described under Alternative A. 

A variety of rangeland treatments would be implemented to achieve healthy rangeland conditions 

throughout the WDO and would have impacts similar to those described under Alternative A. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-256 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Impacts on sagebrush and salt desert scrub communities would be similar to those described under 

Alternative B. 

Restoring crested wheatgrass seedings would have impacts similar to those under Alternative A. 

Restoring CC to Class II levels on 70,000 acres would reduce fuel loads on these lands and would 

protect native vegetation from catastrophic fire. Impacts would be similar to those described under 

Alternative B. 

Effects from Vegetation—Riparian and Wetlands Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Actions that would improve riparian and wetland condition would directly improve habitats for 

riparian- and wetland-dependent special status species by increasing quantity and quality of riparian 

vegetation and by providing structure and cover for species. Affected species include numerous 

migratory bird species, LCT, and other riparian- and wetland-dependent wildlife. Meadows are 

particularly important to sage-grouse as brooding areas, so improvements to springs and associated 

meadows would benefit this species. 

The extent of riparian and wetland areas within the WDO is limited, comprising less than one 

percent of the total land area. However, these areas are important for special status species, 

including migratory birds and LCT. In addition to their importance to fish and aquatic species, 

riparian areas are crucial to wildlife in the WDO (WAPT 2006). As such, impacts on special status 

species from riparian and wetland management actions would be localized but considerable. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Restoring PFC would improve the health and diversity of aspen, cottonwood, willow, alder, and 

chokecherry stands in riparian areas throughout the WDO, which would create suitable habitat for 

special status species. Alternative A does not quantify the amount of PFC to be achieved, so impacts 

would vary depending on how much of these communities are restored. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Restoring PFC to 60 percent by 2028 under this alternative would improve aspen, cottonwood, 

willow, alder, and chokecherry stands in riparian areas, providing for healthier stands and special 

status species habitat in the long term. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

The greatest amount of riparian areas and wetlands would be restored to PFC under Alternative C (a 

minimum of 85 percent by 2028). As a result, improvement of special status species habitat would 

be greatest in the long term. 

Option 1 

Adjustment of livestock grazing systems, season and duration or use, and adjustment of AMLs or 

permitted AUMs would be used in this option to minimize impacts on riparian areas and wetlands. 

Habitat value for special status species would be indirectly improved through less soil compaction 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-257 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

and weed spread or introduction. Direct effects include trampling of vegetation. Effects would be 

long term. 

Option 2 

Removing grazing from lands in the WDO would have the greatest benefit on riparian areas and 

wetlands, as there would be no impacts from soil compaction, weed spread and introduction, and 

trampling of vegetation by livestock. This would cause the greatest improvement in special status 

species habitat in the long term. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Similar to Alternative C, the greatest amount of riparian areas and wetlands (85 percent) would be 

progressing toward or attaining PFC by 2028. Impacts are similar to but slightly less than those 

under Alternative C since Alternative D would not require achieving PFC by 2028, as long as areas 

are progressing toward PFC. 

Effects from Fish and Wildlife Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Modifying actions to avoid impacts on species or their habitat would protect these species from 

disturbance in the short term. Mitigation measures would be developed to implement land 

management treatments that would occur on these lands. This would help achieve suitable habitat 

conditions for special status species. 

Maintaining and improving lentic and lotic habitats would improve habitat for some special status 

species in the long term because these areas are a source of water and provide forage for species. 

Certain treatments could directly disturb special status species, such as sage-grouse, in the short 

term. 

Implementing HMPs that specify vegetation treatments to improve habitat involves altering species 

composition and vegetation structure. This could directly disturb special status species in the short 

term but would improve habitat value over the long term. Mitigation measures would be required 

for actions near nesting migratory birds, which would allow for habitat improvement treatments and 

would protect migratory bird species in the long term. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Under this alternative, actions would not prioritize habitats for protection and would not emphasize 

coordination with NDOW. Lack of such protections could make it more likely that habitat value for 

these species would not be improved in the long term. 

Reintroducing bighorn sheep could help reestablish this historically present species in the ecosystem, 

adding to the diversity of the WDO. Although management actions would be used to resolve all 

conflicts with domestic sheep before bighorn sheep are reintroduced, the risk of disease 

transmission that could be detrimental to bighorn sheep populations would still exist. 

Establishing pioneering elk could impact some species by increasing competition for habitat and 

forage. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-258 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Restricting stream bank alterations would protect aquatic, as well as riparian- and wetland-dependent 

special status species, particularly LCT. Alteration percentages are not specified under Alternative A, 

so impacts would vary depending on how these restrictions are defined in implementation plans. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Under this alternative, no acres of priority 1 habitat and 716,528 acres of priority 2 habitat would be 

designated. This would prevent disturbance to species and conversion of habitat, providing indirect 

protection to special status species within these areas. This would especially benefit sagebrush 

obligate species, as sagebrush composes most of the habitat within the priority habitat areas. 

The effects from reintroducing bighorn sheep are the same as those described under Alternative A. 

Establishment of pioneering elk populations would be avoided under Alternative B, which would 

minimize potential impacts resulting from their presence within the WDO. 

Constructing artificial water sources would benefit special status species by providing water where 

habitat was previously unsuitable. These artificial water sources would exclude wild horses and 

livestock, which would minimize impacts on habitat from these species. The effects would be long 

term. 

Restrictions on stream bank alterations would protect aquatic, as well as riparian- and wetlanddependent special status species, particularly LCT. Impacts would be limited to 20 percent of the 

linear bank length. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Under this alternative, 1,279,481 acres of priority 1 and 869,645 acres of priority 2 habitat would be 

designated. These designations would provide the greatest protection to special status species and 

their habitats in the long term. Designation of priority habitats would be especially beneficial to 

sagebrush-obligates, including sage-grouse, as sagebrush composes most of the habitat within the 

priority habitat areas. 

Reintroducing and transplanting big game species could impact special status species in ways that are 

similar to Alternative B. The effects from establishing pioneering elk are similar to those described 

under Alternative A. 

The greatest amount of restrictions on stream bank alterations would be implemented and would 

protect aquatic and riparian- and wetland-dependent special status species, particularly LCT. Impacts 

would be limited to ten percent of the linear bank length on streams, and five percent of the linear 

bank length on streams with sensitive channel types. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Under this alternative, 699,929 acres of priority 1 and 1,325,967 acres of priority 2 habitat would be 

designated. These designations would prevent disturbance to special status species and their habitat 

in the long term, similar to impacts described under Alternative B. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-259 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Effects on special status species and their habitats from transplanting big game wildlife, 

reintroducing bighorn sheep, and establishing pioneering elk are similar to those described under 

Alternative A. 

Restrictions on stream bank alterations would protect aquatic and riparian- and wetland-dependent 

special status species, particularly LCT. Impacts would be limited to 20 percent of the linear bank 

length on streams and 10 percent of the linear bank length on streams with sensitive channel types. 

Effects from Special Status Species Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Special status fish, wildlife, and plant management actions would protect and work toward 

recovering listed species and would prevent listing species. Actions common to all alternatives that 

would protect special status species include the following: 

• Activities that lead to listing species would not be authorized; 

• Special status plant and pygmy rabbit inventories would be required for all actions in 

potential habitats; 

• Any actions would require mitigation and monitoring for special status plants and suitable 

nearby habitat; 

• Site-specific habitat plans would be implemented for sage-grouse by local planning groups; 

• Cave habitats would be protected; 

• Impacts on raptors, including bald eagle, golden eagle, prairie falcon, peregrine falcon, 

ferruginous hawk, and northern goshawk, would be mitigated; 

• Special status species habitats would be improved; 

• Recovery and management plans would be implemented, recovery and conservation teams 

would be formed, and USFWS conservation recommendations would be implemented; and 

• The Osgood Mountains ACEC would be maintained to protect the Osgood Mountains 

milkvetch, and a mineral withdrawal would be pursued for these lands. The Osgood 

Mountains milkvetch population would be protected with these actions. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Special status plant inventories would be required if actions were proposed on a site within a twomile radius of known occurrences and if the site were to exhibit similar habitat characteristics of the 

sensitive plant. This would provide the greatest protection for sensitive plant species. 

High profile structures would be permitted 0.25-mile to 2-miles from active leks on a case-by-case 

basis, which could impact sage-grouse from noise and habitat disturbance. Further, sage-grouse 

predators use high-profile structures for perching and could have direct effects by reducing 

populations or driving sage-grouse out of occupied habitats. 

Surface disturbance would be prohibited seasonally within two miles of active sage-grouse leks. 

Exceptions, modifications, and waivers would be permitted in certain circumstances. Conservation 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-260 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

guidelines provided in the WAFWA and the Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Plan for Nevada 

and Eastern California would be used as guidance but would not be mandatory standards. This 

would reduce impacts on the species, but impacts could still occur on a case-by-case basis from 

noise and habitat disturbance. 

Mitigation and monitoring would be required for any activities that would disturb pygmy rabbit 

habitat. This would reduce, but not eliminate, impacts on this species. 

Restrictions and limitations to activities within 200 yards of suitable or occupied bat habitat would 

protect species from noise and habitat disturbance in the long term. 

Transplanting LCT into suitable habitat would directly promote recovery of the species. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Special status plant inventories would be required for actions near known occurrences. This would 

provide some protection for sensitive plant species, although the area to be surveyed is not defined, 

which could allow for some direct and indirect impacts on species from habitat removal, trampling, 

dust, and weed invasion. 

Surface-disturbing activities would be prohibited near occupied sage-grouse leks unless mitigation 

measures would be sufficient to prevent impacts on the species. Mitigation measures would be 

required for high-profile structures near active sage-grouse leks, but the area of potential impact is 

not specified under Alternative B. These actions would reduce, but would not eliminate, impacts on 

sage-grouse. 

Impacts from restrictions on surface-disturbing activities to active sage-grouse leks are the same as 

described for Alternative A. 

Impacts on pygmy rabbits are the same as those described under Alternative A. 

Bat inventory requirements are the same as those described under Alternative A. 

Mitigation measures would be required for large-scale, surface-disturbing discretionary activities near 

occupied bat habitat. This would reduce, but not eliminate, impacts on sensitive bat species. 

Mining near occupied bat habitat would be discouraged, and impacts would be similar to those 

described under Alternative A. 

Prescriptive grazing would be permitted within livestock exclosures with wet meadows and riparian 

areas, which could impact special status species that use these habitats. When applied correctly, it 

could indirectly foster healthier habitat, with more native species and fewer invasive and noxious 

weeds. However, it also could directly impact special status species, such as LCT, through 

sedimentation, stream bank trampling, vegetation removal, and habitat loss. 

LCT habitat would be managed to facilitate recovery of the species. This would indirectly help the 

species but would not directly increase the species’ numbers. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-261 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Protections to special status species would be greatest under Alternative C, as habitat- and speciesdisturbing activities would be the most restricted or prohibited. 

Special status plant inventory requirements and impacts are the same as those described under 

Alternative A. 

Surface-disturbing activities would be seasonally prohibited within two miles of occupied sagegrouse habitats. Surface-disturbing activities would be completely prohibited within known nesting, 

summer, or winter habitats. Exceptions and modifications would not be permitted, but some 

requirements may be waived on a case-by-case basis. Conservation guidelines provided in the 

WAFWA and the Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Plan for Nevada and Eastern California would 

be mandatory standards. In addition, high-profile structures would be prohibited within two miles of 

active leks. Combined, these actions would provide the greatest direct and indirect protections to 

sage-grouse from habitat and noise disturbance and from predators. 

No disturbance would be permitted to active pygmy rabbit burrows. This would provide the greatest 

protection from disturbance of the species. 

Protections for special status bats would be greatest under Alternative C and would prevent habitat 

disturbance and disturbance to individuals within 500 yards of potential and occupied habitat. 

Actions and impacts on LCT would be similar to those described under Alternative B. 

Prescriptive grazing within exclosures with wet meadows or riparian areas would not be permitted, 

which would prevent impacts on special status species. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Special status plant inventory requirements and impacts are the same as those described under 

Alternative A. 

Prohibitions near occupied sage-grouse leks would be similar to those described under Alternative 

C. However, exceptions, modifications, and waivers would be permitted on a case-by-case basis, and 

the conservation guidelines provided in the WAFWA and the Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation 

Plan for Nevada and Eastern California would be used as guidance but would not be mandatory. 

This could cause some impacts from habitat and noise disturbance. 

Restrictions on, and impacts from, activities near active leks and high-profile structures are similar to 

Alternative A. 

Mitigation and monitoring for pygmy rabbits are the same as described for Alternative A. 

Impacts from restrictions and limitations on disturbance to special status bat species and their 

habitat are the same as those described under Alternative A. 

Impacts from prescriptive grazing within exclosures with wet meadows or riparian areas are the 

same as those described under Alternative B. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-262 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Impacts from LCT transplant are the same as those described under Alternative A. 

Effects from Wild Horse and Burro Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Ensuring that wild horses and burros have access to water sources may directly and indirectly 

adversely impact special status fish, wildlife, and plants. Wild horses tend to dominate water sources, 

alter their habitats, and drive away wildlife. Wild horse use of riparian and wetland areas would 

decrease the value of these areas for special status fish, wildlife, and plants by affecting habitat 

complexity and stability. As a result, habitat value could be impacted through direct destruction of 

vegetation or reduced vegetative vigor. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Maintaining established AMLs as a population range, using gathers when AML is exceeded, and 

using fertility control inhibitors would reduce the direct and indirect impacts of WHB on special 

status species habitat by decreasing the risk of soil compaction, trampling, and weed spread or 

introduction. In addition, use of perennial bunch grasses would be reduced. However, developing 

alternate water sources for WHB could increase impacts of WHB on special status species habitat by 

increasing the risk of soil compaction, trampling, and weed spread or by introducing weeds in areas 

that may not have been impacted by WHB in the past. Further, it could increase direct competition 

for water between WHB and special status species by concentrating WHB in areas where they may 

not have gathered in the past. 

WHB protections, such as limiting proposed motor vehicle racing, would protect special status 

species from surface-disturbing activities and direct noise disturbance and would prevent direct and 

indirect habitat impacts due to human use, such as trampling and soil compaction. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Impacts from population control measures are similar to those described under Alternative A. Use 

of perennial bunch grasses would be reduced to the greatest extent under this alternative. This has 

impacts on plant community composition and habitat value. AML reduction in response to 

decreased WHB private water supply would further intensify these impacts. 

Protection measures for WHB would have impacts similar to those described under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Alternative C would control WHB populations by maintaining AML as a single number, using fouryear or longer gather cycles, and would not allow fertility control inhibitors to be used. This would 

cause the greatest impact from WHB on special status species habitat, but actions would still 

decrease the risk of soil compaction, trampling, and weed spread or introduction. Use of perennial 

bunch grasses would also be reduced. Special status species habitat value would be consequently 

impacted. However, AML reduction in response to decreased water availability for WHB would 

decrease impacts of WHB on special status species habitat. 

Protection measures for WHB would be the greatest under Alternative C and would prohibit or 

limit such activities as motor vehicle racing in HMAs unless impacts were determined to be minimal. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-263 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

This would protect special status species and their habitat from disturbance and would prevent 

impacts from human use, such as noise, trampling, and soil compaction. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Impacts from population control measures and development of alternative water sources would be 

similar to those described under Alternative A. 

Impacts from WHB protection measures would be similar to those described under Alternative A. 

Effects from Wildland Fire Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Wildfires could alter terrestrial or riparian habitats, which would also affect water quality and habitat 

components for special status wildlife and fish, such as LCT. Wildfires may leave the surrounding 

soil and accumulated ash vulnerable to erosion and remove shading streamside vegetation, which 

would increase sedimentation and water temperature. Special status aquatic species could also be 

subjected to the direct impacts of increased sedimentation and water temperatures from removal of 

upland vegetation. The duration, intensity, and scope of these direct impacts depend on the species 

and the characteristics of the fire. 

Implementing a response to wildfires based on social, legal, and ecological consequences of the fire 

would prioritize special status species habitats for fire suppression, including the Lone Willow and 

Santa Rosa sage-grouse PMUs. This would prevent catastrophic destruction of habitat and would 

preserve native vegetation and diversity for sagebrush obligate special status species over the long 

term. Minimum impact suppression tactics would minimize unanticipated effects on habitats during 

fire suppression activities. Emergency stabilization and rehabilitation actions, such as seeding with 

native perennial species, would help restore degraded special status species habitat in the long term. 

Fuels management actions would reestablish native vegetative communities, providing for healthy, 

diverse habitats over the long term. These actions would allow fire to play its natural role more 

frequently and would reduce the likelihood of catastrophic wildfire, which would protect habitats in 

the long term and over large areas. Implementing a response to wildfires based on social, legal, and 

ecological consequences of the fire and using fuel breaks would also prevent special status species 

habitat from catastrophic wildfire, which would have long-term effects. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

No additional impacts would occur from wildland fire management actions under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Under this alternative, 110,167 acres of land would be designated as suitable for allowing fire for 

resource benefit. Special status species and their habitats could be directly disturbed in the short 

term, but their habitats would be improved and protected from catastrophic fire in the long term. 

Much of this land is sagebrush and higher elevation woodlands, so sagebrush obligate species, such 

as sage-grouse, and forest obligate species, such as northern goshawk, are most likely to be impacted 

by designating lands as suitable for allowing fire for resource benefit. Acreage of habitat for bighorn 

sheep and sage-grouse that could be directly impacted by allowing fire for resource benefit under 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-264 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative B are shown in Table 4-9. These areas represent a small portion of the habitat for these 

species, so impacts are likely to be localized. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

No additional impacts would occur from wildland fire management actions under Alternative C. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Under Alternative D, 9,932 acres of land would be designated as suitable for allowing fire for 

resource benefit. This would protect special status species and their habitats from catastrophic fire in 

the long term. Allowing fire for resource benefit would directly disturb special status species and 

their habitat in the short term. Impacted species are similar to those described under Alternative B. 

In addition, cliffs and canyons also make up a large portion of the land designated as suitable for 

allowing fire for resource benefit under this alternative. As a result, special status bird and bat 

species that use this habitat type are most likely to be impacted under this alternative. Acreage of 

habitat for bighorn sheep and sage-grouse that could be directly impacted by allowing fire for 

resource benefit under Alternative D are shown in Table 4-9. 

Table 4-9 

Special Status Species Habitat Designated as Suitable for Allowing Fire for Resource 

Benefit 

Habitat Alternative B 

(acres) 

Alternative D 

(acres) 

Total Habitat 

within WDO 

(acres) 

Desert bighorn sheep potential or 

occupied habitat 

91,352 7,306 2,205,867 

Sage-grouse Population Management 

Units habitat 

49,423 6,851 3,147,932 

Sage-grouse nesting habitat 38,490 1,742 2,209,502 

Sage-grouse summer habitat 36,503 1,834 1,786,693 

Sage-grouse winter habitat 49,640 5,050 2,992,488 

Effects from Cultural Resources Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Protecting cultural resources would prevent disturbance and fragmentation of habitat, providing for 

a more healthy and resilient community. However, these protections may limit the type and timing 

of treatments that could be implemented to improve habitat value in certain areas. These areas are 

small relative to the overall WDO, so impacts would be localized. 

Requirements for cultural resource inventories may prevent the timely completion of habitat 

projects or may be cost prohibitive for implementing habitat improvement projects. 

Actions to maintain and protect pinyon and juniper stands in the Stillwater Range would improve 

special status species habitat over the long term, particularly for migratory birds. Some forest 

treatments, such as mechanical control measures, would directly disturb wildlife habitat in the short 

term but would indirectly foster a healthier ecosystem in the long term. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-265 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Protecting pinyon trees in the Stillwater Range would prevent disturbance to special status species 

and their habitat and would maintain the extent of pinyon woodland in the short term. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Alternative B would allow pinyon trees to be harvested in the Stillwater Range. These actions also 

would allow some special status species habitat disturbance and would slightly reduce the abundance 

of pinyon woodland in the short and long term. Depending on how these management actions were 

implemented, they could provide for improved special status species habitat in the long term. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Impacts from protection of pinyon trees in the Stillwater Range are the same as those described 

under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Impacts from protecting pinyon trees in the Stillwater Range are the same as in Alternative A, except 

Alternative D includes adaptive management to allow for some pinyon tree harvest. This would 

have a slightly greater impact on disturbance to special status species and their habitats in the short 

term. 

Effects from Tribal Consultation 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Consulting with tribes to identify culturally significant plants, important habitats, and traditional use 

locations would emphasize protection of natural resources. This would indirectly limit disturbances 

to special status species and would foster suitable wildlife habitat over the long term in certain areas. 

Consultation could place higher treatment priority in areas not previously identified or could limit 

actions in planned treatment areas. Impacts would vary on a case-by-case basis and are likely to be 

localized. 

Effects from Paleontological Resources Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Physical conservation measures and law enforcement actions would prevent habitat degradation and 

disturbance to special status species, while potentially impacting the ability to implement habitat 

improvement treatments over the long term in certain areas. These areas are small relative to the 

total area of the WDO, so impacts would be localized. 

Effects from Visual Resources Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Implementing VRM guidelines, particularly managing WSAs as Class I, would increase the difficulty 

of accomplishing habitat improvement actions and may affect the dimensions and locations of 

habitat treatments. These VRM guidelines would limit the extent or effectiveness of vegetation 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-266 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

treatments, such as weed treatments, because such treatments could change the visual character of 

vegetative communities. VRM Class I and II areas would prevent disturbances to special status 

species and their habitats but also would prevent certain lands from being treated effectively to 

improve habitat value. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Under Alternative A, 420,271 acres and 346,302 acres would be managed to VRM Class I and II 

guidelines, respectively. These actions would limit the scope of habitat improvement activities and 

would prohibit treatments and prescriptions that would change the visual character. Overall, meeting 

VRM Class I and II guidelines would increase the difficulty of improving special status species 

habitat and would limit the extent and the effectiveness of the management goals. However, these 

areas would also limit direct disturbance to special status species. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Under Alternative B, 417,605 acres and 391,203 acres would be managed to VRM Class I and II 

guidelines, respectively. This alternative is the least restrictive to habitat improvement treatments but 

these treatments could disturb special status species and their habitats in the short term. Impacts 

would be similar in nature to those described under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Under Alternative C, 417,605 acres and 3,083,211 acres would be managed to VRM Class I and II 

guidelines, respectively. This alternative would be the most restrictive to implementation of habitat 

improvement projects. Impacts would be similar in nature, although greater in magnitude, than 

under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Under Alternative D, 417,605 acres and 2,780,416 acres would be managed to VRM Class I and II 

guidelines, respectively. Impacts would be most similar in nature and magnitude to Alternative C. 

Effects from Cave and Karst Resource Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no effects common to all alternatives from cave and karst resource management. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Alternative A would provide no protection to cave and karst resources. This could disturb special 

status bat species that use these areas and would allow for habitat degradation in the long term. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Actions under Alternative B would identify and protect habitat for special status bat species in the 

long term. Education programs and mitigation measures would help minimize human impacts on 

these species and their habitat. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-267 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Actions under Alternative C would identify and protect habitat for special status bat species in the 

long term. Education programs, prohibitions to disturbing activities, and measures to reduce 

visitation of cave and karst resources would be the most effective of all alternatives in minimizing 

human impacts on these species and their habitat. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Effects would be similar to those described under Alternative B. 

Effects from Livestock Grazing Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Collecting monitoring data may help to improve rangelands and lower weed spread by targeting 

areas most in need of rehabilitation and tracking the progress of restoration efforts. This would 

improve special status species habitat in these areas. 

Protections given to newly developed spring sources and wetland-riparian areas could benefit special 

status species by protecting potential habitat from degradation and by providing additional sources 

of water for wildlife. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Livestock grazing would be open on 8,232,727 acres under this alternative, which would have the 

greatest impact on special status species. Grazing, including grazing on acquired lands, allowing 

temporary nonrenewable use, and allowing for three consecutive years of grazing, would facilitate 

intensive land use. This would cause the most soil compaction, an indirect effect, and trampling of 

native vegetation, a direct effect, of all of the four alternatives. This alternative would also result in 

the most opportunity for weed seeds to be spread and new species of weeds to be introduced. The 

effects on perennial bunchgrasses would be the greatest under this alternative as well, but the 

Standards for Rangeland Health would still be expected to be met. However, any overuse would 

result in annuals or other less desirable species being able to invade these lands and dominate the 

understory. As a result rangeland vegetation would be less healthy, diverse, productive, and resilient. 

Overall, these actions would result in the slowest recovery rate of any impacted habitat for special 

status species. Any over use could reduce habitat value for special status species that use rangeland. 

Doing so could have a direct impact on these species. In addition, grazing may impact special status 

fish species, such as LCT, through increased sedimentation, stream bank trampling, vegetation 

removal, and habitat loss. However, actions would be implemented to mitigate livestock grazing 

impacts on special status species habitats. These include protecting riparian areas, using adaptive 

management principles (such as wildlife habitat objectives), allowing grazing permits to be 

relinquished, and establishing forage banks. 

Lands closed to grazing on the remainder of land within the WDO would lower direct and indirect 

impacts on special status species and their habitats in these areas, as livestock would not be using 

vegetation, compacting soils, or acting as a mechanism for seed dispersal. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-268 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Allowing a change in livestock from cattle to sheep within the WDO could cause impacts on 

bighorn sheep, as disease transmission between domestic and wild sheep is a major threat to bighorn 

sheep populations. Impacts would be long term. 

Developing springs for livestock would expand and enhance special status wildlife habitat. Proper 

installation of these features would minimize impacts on wetland and riparian areas from their 

construction and would reduce long-term impacts on these areas by providing an alternate water 

source for livestock and for special status species, creating suitable habitat where there previously 

was none. In addition, protecting riparian areas would benefit special status fish species, such as 

LCT. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Livestock grazing would be open on 8,232,727 acres of land under this alternative. Grazing, 

including grazing on acquired lands, allowing temporary nonrenewable use, and allowing for 

continuous season-long use would facilitate the most intensive land use. Impacts would be similar in 

nature to those described under Alternative A. 

Adaptive management principles, which include wildlife habitat objectives, as well as protection of 

riparian areas, would be implemented to mitigate livestock grazing impacts on special status species 

habitats. These actions would be difficult to implement successfully and efficiently under Alternative 

B, due to the large acreage that would be open to grazing. 

Lands closed to grazing on the remainder of land within the WDO would reduce direct and indirect 

impacts on special status species and their habitat in these areas, as livestock would not be using 

vegetation, compacting soils, or acting as a mechanism for seed dispersal. 

Allowing a change in livestock from cattle to sheep in areas occupied, or potentially occupied, by 

bighorn sheep could cause impacts on this species, even with buffer zones. Disease transmission 

between domestic and wild sheep is a major threat to bighorn sheep populations, and impacts would 

be long term. 

Developing springs for livestock would have impacts similar to those described under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Option 1 

Livestock grazing would be open on 8,038,084 acres of land under this alternative. Grazing would 

facilitate weed spread and introduction similar to impacts described under Alternative B. However, 

Alternative C would not allow grazing on acquired lands or temporary nonrenewable use and would 

only allow for two years of consecutive grazing during the critical growth period. This would 

minimize the intensity of land use and would foster improved habitat value for special status species. 

Lands closed to grazing on the remainder of land in the WDO would reduce impacts on rangeland 

vegetation in these areas, as livestock would not be using vegetation, compacting soils, or acting as a 

mechanism for seed dispersal. In addition, actions would be implemented to mitigate livestock 

grazing impacts on special status species habitats. These include protecting riparian areas, using 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-269 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

adaptive management principles that include wildlife habitat objectives, allowing grazing permits to 

be relinquished, and establishing forage banks. 

Allowing a change in livestock from cattle to sheep within the WDO, excluding potential and 

occupied bighorn sheep habitat, would minimize impacts on bighorn sheep because disease 

transmission between domestic and wild sheep would be limited. Impacts would be long term. 

Existing water developments would be required to provide water for wildlife from June 1 to 

September 30, regardless of whether livestock are present, which would provide additional water 

resources for special status wildlife during the drought season. 

Option 2 

Livestock grazing would be closed on all lands within the WDO, and grazing permits would be 

relinquished, which would have the greatest impact in achieving healthy ecological condition, 

resulting in the greatest improvement in both upland and riparian habitats for special status species 

on BLM-administered lands. 

Impacts from riparian improvement actions are similar to those described under Alternative C, 

Option 1. 

Developing springs for livestock would not occur, which would have the greatest impact by 

reducing impacts on special status species habitat since livestock and wildlife would not concentrate 

in these areas. This action would also not supply additional water to special status wildlife, further 

limiting their distribution. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Alternative D would have 8,016,754 acres of land open to grazing. Impacts are similar to those 

described under Alternative A, except fewer acres would be open to grazing. 

The greatest number of actions would be implemented to mitigate livestock grazing impacts on 

special status species habitats. These include protecting riparian areas, using adaptive management 

principles (such as wildlife habitat objectives), issuing grazing permits subject to land health 

standards and guidelines and other appropriate conditions, allowing grazing permits to be 

relinquished, establishing forage banks, and implementing strict requirements for authorizing TNR. 

Impacts from conversion of livestock from cattle to sheep within potential and occupied bighorn 

sheep habitat are similar to those described under Alternative B. 

Use of existing water developments would have impacts similar to those described under Alternative 

C, Option 1. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-270 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Effects from Minerals Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

General 

Minerals management impacts on special status plants and wildlife generally occur from surface 

disturbance and thus loss and fragmentation of habitat, as well as disturbances from noise and 

movement from the exploration, construction, and operation of facilities and roads. Management 

actions, as listed in Chapter 2, spell out where, how much, and what type of mineral exploration and 

extraction can occur. In addition, the types of restrictions, such as those on siting and operation, that 

can be applied vary by the type of mineral activity, whether they are salable, leasable, or locatable 

resources; for example, the WDO has the least discretion over locatables. Differences between the 

restrictions for each mineral resource are described in detail under the mineral resources 

environmental consequences (Section 4.3.2). Generally, the tighter the restriction, the fewer impacts 

on special status plants and wildlife. 

Special status species habitat would be avoided in pursuing fluid and leasable mineral development 

and mineral material sales or disposal. As a result, impacts on special status species would be 

minimized. However, direct impacts on adjacent habitats could occur, including loss or injury of 

plants due to excavation or trampling or toxic responses from using chemicals in mineral extraction 

or waste pits. Indirect effects include increased exposure to dust and other contaminants associated 

with constructing and using access roads. This would reduce ecosystem health and habitat value in 

these areas and could impact habitat connectivity throughout the WDO. 

In instances where conservation measures are not successful or where the identified buffers are 

inadequate the actions associated with mining could impact special status fish populations and 

aquatic habitats. The potential impacts on special status fish and aquatic habitats from mining 

include the following: 

• Increased sedimentation on fish-bearing streams. Excess sediment generation can be the direct result 

of surface disturbances for mineral extraction, drilling, and facilities construction and also 

for road construction, maintenance, and use. Increased sedimentation in streams can affect 

special status fish populations in a variety of ways, including direct mortality, reduction in 

suitable spawning gravels, egg death, and individual fish displacement. Increased 

sedimentation resulting from mining could occur even if the mining activities are outside the 

buffer zones. 

• Introducing hazardous materials to fish-bearing rivers, streams, and lakes. Hazardous materials from 

mining activities and from equipment use and maintenance could be released into fishbearing water bodies. Associated with locatable minerals extraction are mine tailings, which 

can introduce heavy metals into aquatic ecosystems, impacting the health of special status 

fish and aquatic species and, consequently, other species due to biomagnification. Similarly, 

extracting fluid materials can release oil or other fluids, which could degrade water quality. 

Examples of this are the releases associated with well-flow testing for geothermal power 

development. Spills can also occur from equipment that uses hazardous fluids, such as 

gasoline and oil. The impact on special status fish populations depends on the type of 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-271 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

hazardous material released and the quantity of the release. If severe enough, deaths can 

occur and habitat can become unsuitable for aquatic life. 

• Altered stream flow regimes. Water yield increase resulting from vegetation removal and 

alteration of natural drainage could result in scouring stream channel bottoms and decreasing 

fish habitat and food sources. 

• Changes in water temperatures. Water temperature can increase in areas where streamside 

vegetation is removed, increasing the amount of sunlight reaching the water. The default 

buffers and management constraints would minimize the amount of mining that would 

occur in these sensitive areas. If mining were to occur in riparian areas, increased water 

temperatures could reduce suitable habitat for special status cold-water fish species. As water 

temperature increases, the amount of available dissolved oxygen for fish and aquatic 

invertebrates decreases. 

Designation of areas as open to leasing but subject to terms and conditions of the standard lease 

form would limit the BLM’s ability to assign major or moderate stipulations (such as NSO) in those 

areas. Consequently, there could be an increased impact on aquatic habitats in these areas. The 

standard lease stipulations include compliance with established acts, laws, and regulations governing 

BLM land management, which would protect special status fish species. Areas designated as open to 

leasing with NSO stipulations would provide some protection to aquatic habitats by limiting the 

amount of surface disturbance. Protection would be realized where NSO stipulations are applied to 

riparian areas and areas upslope of fish-bearing streams. 

Impacts from salable minerals, typically gravel, tend to be small scale and localized. Impacts occur 

primarily from surface disturbance, but use restrictions and closures would minimize many impacts. 

Impacts from fluid and solid leasables are also typically small scale and localized, but cumulative 

effects can occur where there are numerous oil and gas wells over the landscape. Impacts within the 

WDO would be minimized by use restrictions and closures. 

Development of locatable mineral resources results in alteration of habitat from surface clearing 

performed for exploration purposes. Reclamation of disturbed areas using proper seed mix can help 

mitigate habitat alteration. Special stipulations would minimize impacts on special status wildlife 

habitats. 

The reasonably foreseeable development scenario would continue to avoid sensitive habitats and 

could continue to fragment adjacent habitats and wildlife corridors. This could create reproductively 

isolated populations, which would lower genetic diversity in species with already low numbers. This 

would make species less fit and potentially more susceptible to disease and predation. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Under Alternative A, the greatest amount of acreage would be open to leasable fluid and solid 

minerals activities and the fewest acres would be closed. Areas open to salable mineral materials 

disposal would be subject to stipulations only on a case-by-case basis, which would likely result in 

less wildlife resource protection. Alternative A maintains the greatest amount of acreage to locatable 

minerals, with only minimal closures. Approximately 60 percent of the area open to locatable 

minerals would be subject to requirements for special handling and additional stipulations for 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-272 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

wildlife resource protection. Alternative A would result in the greatest impacts from minerals 

management because it places the fewest restrictions on areas available for mineral development and 

the fewest restrictions on operations that could impact special status plants, wildlife, and fish. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Under Alternative B, fewer acres would be open to leasable fluid and solid minerals activities, and 

more acres would be closed than under Alternative A. Acreage open to salable mineral materials 

disposal would be similar to Alternative A, but most of the area would be subject to standard 

authorization terms, which would likely result in greater special status species resource protection 

than under Alternative A. Impacts from salable minerals management would be the same as those 

under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Under Alternative C, the fewest acres would be maintained for locatable minerals and leasable fluid 

and solid minerals activities, and the greatest number of acres would be closed. Acreage open to 

salable mineral materials disposal would be less than under Alternatives A and B, and most of the 

area would be acres open solely to permitted government agencies. This would likely result in 

increased resource protection from proper management and resource consideration in pursuing 

mineral interests. Overall, Alternative C would result in the least amount of impacts on special status 

plants, wildlife, and aquatic resources from minerals management. This is because Alternative C 

would close the most area to mineral development and would place the most restrictions to protect 

wildlife resources in areas available for mineral development. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Effects are similar to those described under Alternative B, except more acres would be closed to 

mineral development and more acres of the public lands open to leasing would be subject to NSO 

stipulations and seasonal closures to protect resources, including special status wildlife. Alternative 

D would have the fewest acres open to salable mineral materials disposal. Standard authorization 

terms and seasonal closures would be applied in some areas and would reduce impacts on special 

status wildlife and their habitats.

Effects from Recreation, Visitor Outreach, and Services Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Managing BLM-administered lands to provide dispersed recreation could directly impact special 

status species habitat throughout the WDO through trampling and human disturbance. Indirect 

effects include soil compaction, weed introduction or spread, and increased dust. Impacts would 

vary, depending on the type of activities allowed in the area, and could be short term and long term. 

To manage OHV use, the Transportation Plan would be updated and would account for wildlife 

habitat, including special status species habitat. Specific sites would undergo NEPA analysis to 

minimize impacts on special status species habitat. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-273 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Under Alternative A, there would be no camping limitations or prohibitions throughout the WDO. 

As a result, dispersed recreation would occur, causing localized and short-term impacts, including 

those caused by increased road use in remote areas and camping. Guidelines recommended to the 

public could help to reduce impacts associated with dispersed recreation. 

In addition, the Pine Forest SRMA would be maintained, and issuance of special recreation permits 

would be the least restricted. 

The greatest acreage (6,782,790 acres) would be open to OHVs under Alternative A, with the least 

amount of land (416,652) limited, and with 24,832 acres closed. Combined, these actions could 

disturb special status species and degrade their habitats through increased human presence, OHV 

use, and trail creation, which could compact soils, trample vegetation, and increase noise and dust. 

These effects could decrease special status species habitat value and drive special status species out 

of certain areas throughout the WDO. Areas limited and closed to OHV use would have fewer 

impacts than areas open to OHV use because vehicles would be restricted to roads and trails that 

already have minimal habitat value. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Camping limitations and prohibitions throughout the ERMA would minimize impacts from 

dispersed recreation on special status species and their habitat on these lands. In addition, 

designating three SRMAs would impact special status species and their habitat to varying degrees 

depending on the recreation market identified for the SRMA. For example, the Nightingale SRMA 

would be targeted for undeveloped recreation-tourism, which would have less of an impact than 

Winnemucca and Pine Forest SRMAs, which allow for increased motorized vehicle access. Impacts 

would be localized and associated with human disturbance, such as increased noise causing certain 

species to avoid heavily used areas. Of particular interest is impacts on the Humboldt serican scarab 

beetle (Serica humboldti), which inhabits the Winnemucca Sand Dunes RMZ within the Winnemucca 

SRMA. Very little is known about the beetle’s life history or habitat requirements, so impacts would 

be difficult to identify or define. Impacts could be long term if the species is very sensitive to habitat 

or human disturbance. 

Under Alternative B, 1,460,200 acres would be open to OHVs, with the least amount of land 

(24,832 acres) closed, and with 5,445,218 acres limited. Together, impacts from these actions include 

soil compaction, noise, trampling of vegetation, wildlife disturbance, and increased dust. These 

impacts could decrease plant vigor, alter stand composition, and lower habitat value of areas 

throughout the ERMA, SRMAs, and OHV routes. Areas limited and closed to OHV use would 

have fewer impacts than areas open to OHV use because vehicles would be restricted to roads and 

trails that already have minimal habitat value. To minimize impacts, the BLM would limit OHV use 

to existing roads and trails until the Transportation Plan were updated and site-specific NEPA 

analysis were completed. 

Issuance of special recreation permits would be the least restricted under this alternative, which 

could cause some impacts on special status species and their habitats through increased human use, 

trampling, soil compaction, and noise disturbance. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-274 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Camping limitations and prohibitions throughout the ERMA would minimize impacts from 

dispersed recreation on special status species habitat on these lands. In addition, designating two 

SRMAs would have similar impacts on habitat and special status species as those described under 

Alternative B. However, the Winnemucca Sand Dunes RMZ would not be designated under 

Alternative C, so impacts on the Humboldt serican scarab beetle would not be a concern. 

Under Alternative C, 0 acres would be open to OHVs, with 61,427 acres closed and 7,143,177 acres 

limited. To minimize impacts, the BLM would limit OHV use to existing roads and trails until the 

Transportation Plan were updated and site-specific NEPA analysis were completed. As such, 

impacts from recreation actions would be fewest under this alternative, as it would be the most 

restrictive and prohibitive. Impacts would occur, however, and they would be similar in nature to 

Alternative B. 

Issuance of special recreation permits would be the most restrictive under Alternative C and would 

cause the fewest impacts on special status species and their habitat through increased human use, 

trampling, soil compaction, and noise disturbance. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Camping limitations and prohibitions throughout the ERMA would minimize impacts from 

dispersed recreation on special status species and their habitat on these lands. In addition, 

designating three SRMAs would have the same impacts on special status species as Alternative B. 

Under Alternative D, 289,932 acres would be open to OHVs, with 35,483 acres closed and 

6,878,592 acres limited. Areas limited and closed to OHV use would have fewer impacts than areas 

open to OHV use because vehicles would be restricted to roads and trails that already have minimal 

habitat value. Open areas under Alternative D were identified to avoid important wildlife habitats 

that would reduce impacts from open OHV use. To minimize impacts, the BLM would limit OHV 

use to existing roads and trails until the Transportation Plan were updated and site-specific NEPA 

analysis were completed. Impacts from OHV use are similar to those described under Alternative B. 

Issuance of special recreation permits would cause some impacts on special status species and their 

habitat through increased human use, trampling, soil compaction, and noise disturbance. 

Effects from Renewable Energy Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Impacts on special status species habitat could occur with issuance of new ROWs, which require 

vegetation clearing, access roads, power lines, and infrastructure and would disturb or destroy 

vegetation and wildlife habitat in localized areas. ROWs may spread or introduce weeds, reducing 

habitat value. However, BMPs, stipulations, and mitigation measures would be implemented to 

minimize impacts on suitable habitat. 

Wind turbines can kill special status bird and bat species. Impacts would vary, depending on the 

number and type of turbines erected. Implementation of avoidance or exclusion areas would 

eliminate or mitigate impacts in important habitats. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-275 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Effects are the same as those under Effects Common to All Alternatives. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Adverse effects from renewable energy developments, as described under Effects Common to All 

Alternatives, would be reduced by designating 716,528 acres as avoidance areas. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Renewable energy would have the least impact on special status fish, plants, and wildlife under 

Alternative C due to the designation of 1,279,481 acres as exclusion zones and 869,645 acres as 

avoidance zones. No overhead transmission lines, ROWs, or nonrenewable energy projects would 

be allowed in exclusion zones. In addition, undue adverse impacts would be reduced through 

development of lease stipulations and mitigation measures. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Effects are similar to those described under Alternative C, but Alternative D would be less effective 

at protecting special status resources. The total overall acreage designated as avoidance and 

exclusion zones for the renewable energy project is 123,230 acres fewer under Alternative D, and 

the area designated as exclusion zones is 579,552 acres fewer than under Alternative C. In addition, 

undue adverse impacts would be reduced through development of lease stipulations and mitigation 

measures. 

Effects from Transportation and Access Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Maintaining or improving existing roads would be beneficial to special status species and their 

habitat because these actions would reduce erosion, runoff, and noxious weed introduction and 

spread. However, roads and trails can alter habitats, reduce wildlife security areas, increase road kill, 

and alter wildlife home ranges and migration corridors. In addition, roads near or crossing streams 

and other aquatic habitats could impact special status fish species through sedimentation, polluted 

runoff, and habitat degradation or loss. The magnitude of these impacts varies by species, habitat 

types, size and traffic volume of roads, and seasonal use. Vehicles can degrade wildlife habitats from 

surface disturbance and can displace and stress animals. 

Maintaining roads necessary for fire suppression would allow access to special status species habitat 

and would allow for suppression of wildfires when necessary. This would help achieve suitable 

habitat conditions and would protect special status species from direct mortality in the long term. 

Noxious weed control measures would prevent the spread of weeds into special status species 

habitat, would prevent competition with native species, and would help achieve suitable habitat 

conditions in the long term. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-276 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Decommissioning roads that present problems to the environment would reduce impacts on special 

status wildlife and habitat in select locations. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Under Alternative B, roads that present problems to the environment would be decommissioned 

only if alternative access were provided. The same condition would apply to removing, rerouting, 

and rehabilitating roads that adversely affect special status wildlife and habitat. Creating alternative 

access could result in additional impacts on resources, but Alternative B would require that roads be 

constructed to avoid creating fragment resource tracts. Impacts would further be reduced by 

temporary road closures during the wet season, which would minimize sediment and erosion 

impacts. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Effects are similar to those described for Alternative B, but alternative access would not be a 

stipulation for decommissioning, removing, rerouting, or rehabilitating roads that are adversely 

impacting special status wildlife. Of all the alternatives, Alternative C provides the most assertive 

approach for minimizing and avoiding impacts on special status wildlife or habitat from 

transportation management. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Effects are similar to those described for Alternative C, but Alternative D would be less effective 

than would Alternative C because it contains fewer specific actions for minimizing and avoiding 

impacts on special status wildlife and habitat. 

Effects from Lands and Realty Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Special status species habitats would be given consideration when the WDO makes disposal and 

acquisition decisions. Impacts on special status species would be minimized since only lands with 

little resource values were identified for disposal and further NEPA documentation would minimize 

potential impacts on habitat. Land acquisition would provide additional opportunities to recover 

special status species and their habitats by placing them in public ownership under BLM 

management, thereby making them subject to the laws and regulations that would guide 

management of them. Effects would be long term. 

ROWs cause habitat alteration from their footprint for the facilities that are authorized. These areas 

are usually localized and small, although impacts could cause a cumulative impact on the landscape 

scale over the long term. ROWs could cause habitat fragmentation for special status plants and small 

wildlife but are unlikely to cause considerable fragmentation for larger wildlife. Further, protection 

for special status species would preclude ROW placement in sensitive habitat and would prevent 

impacts on species. For example, sage-grouse protection would prevent large transmission lines in 

sensitive areas near leks. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-277 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Issuance of ROWs would not be limited, and avoidance areas or exclusion zones for lands and realty 

management actions would not be designated under Alternative A. Special status species and their 

habitats could be impacted by vegetation removal, soil compaction, habitat disturbance and 

fragmentation, noise, weed invasion, and increased dust. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Designating avoidance areas would have impacts similar to renewable energy management actions. 

Lack of restriction on ROW issuance could impact special status species and their habitats through 

vegetation removal, soil compaction, habitat disturbance and fragmentation, noise, and increased 

dust. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Designating avoidance areas and exclusion zones would have similar impacts as renewable energy 

management actions. 

Restriction on ROW issuance could impact special status species and their habitat by protecting and 

limiting vegetation disturbance, habitat fragmentation, and weed invasion or spread from road 

construction. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Designating avoidance areas and exclusion zones would have similar impacts as renewable energy 

management actions. 

Lack of restriction on ROW issuance could impact special status species and their habitat through 

vegetation removal, soil compaction, habitat disturbance and fragmentation, and increased dust. 

Effects from ACEC/RNA Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Actions within ACECs could impact special status species habitat, but mitigation measures would be 

developed to prevent impacts on special status species habitat within ACECs over the long term. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Maintaining the Osgood Mountain Milkvetch ACEC would protect vegetation and habitat and 

would prevent disturbance and fragmentation of suitable habitat for this species within the ACEC. 

This ACEC is small relative to the total area of the WDO, so impacts would be localized. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Effects from ACEC/RNA management under Alternative B are the same as those described under 

Alternative A. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-278 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Designating four ACECs within the WDO would provide the greatest protection to special status 

species and their habitat and would prevent disturbance and fragmentation of habitat within these 

ACECs. The Pine Forest ACEC, in particular, was proposed to protect habitat for several wildlife 

species, some of which are sensitive, including American pika, Humboldt yellow-pine chipmunk, 

northern goshawk, sage-grouse, California bighorn sheep, pygmy rabbit, and an array of sagebrush 

obligate species. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Effects from ACEC/RNA management under Alternative D are the same as those described under 

Alternative C. 

Effects from Backcountry Byways Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Backcountry byways may attract more tourism to areas they access and could increase human use 

and degradation of special status species habitat. They also could increase direct noise disturbance to 

special status species. Adverse impacts from BCBs are expected to be limited to relatively small 

areas. 

Effects from National Trails Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Beneficial impacts on special status species and habitat would result from national trails management 

actions since habitat disturbance would be reduced in the protected zone of the trail. However, 

habitat improvement projects may be prevented within this zone, which would have small-scale 

localized impacts. 

Effects from Wild and Scenic Rivers Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no effects common to all alternatives from wild and scenic rivers management. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

No WSRs would be managed under Alternative A; without WSRs, there would be less protection 

given to rivers or riparian areas within the WDO. As such, impacts on special status species and 

their habitat would not be restricted, including impacts resulting from increased use such as soil 

compaction, noise, and trampling. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

No WSRs would be managed under Alternative B, and impacts are similar to those described under 

Alternative A. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-279 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

WSRs would be managed under Alternative C and would limit other uses. As a result, there would 

be limited impacts on special status species and habitat. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

No WSRs would be managed under Alternative D, and impacts would be similar to those described 

under Alternative A. 

Effects from Wilderness Study Areas and Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

There are no effects common to all alternatives from wilderness characteristics management. 

Wilderness Study Areas 

The WDO does not have discretion regarding management of designated WSAs because they must 

comply with the Interim Management Policy and Guidelines for Lands under Wilderness Review 

(IMP, BLM Manual Handbook H-8550-1) (BLM 1995). WSAs would provide relatively undisturbed 

special status species habitat in areas within the WDO. However, WSAs would increase the difficulty 

of accomplishing habitat improvement treatments. This is because protections to WSAs would limit 

the extent or effectiveness of vegetation treatments, such as weed treatments, because any type of 

mechanized work would be limited on these lands. Such protections would also prevent 

disturbances to special status species and their habitats but also would prevent certain lands from 

being treated effectively to improve habitat value. WSAs are defined and distinct within the WDO, 

so impacts would be localized. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Alternative A would be the least restrictive of activities on lands outside of WSAs with wilderness 

characteristics. This could degrade special status species habitat by increased noise, trampling, 

disturbance, and soil compaction. Areas with wilderness characteristics are small, relative to the total 

area of land in the WDO, so impacts would be localized. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Under Alternative B, the BLM would manage six areas containing wilderness characteristics to meet 

multiple use and sustained yield objectives. This would protect special status species habitat but 

could allow some impacts from allowing multiple uses. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Under Alternative C, as under Alternative B, the BLM would manage six areas containing wilderness 

characteristics. This alternative would impose restrictions and stipulations in these areas, including 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-280 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

closure to mineral leasing and ROW exclusion zones, which would benefit special status species 

resources. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Under Alternative D, the BLM also would manage six areas containing wilderness characteristics. 

Depending on the restrictions implemented, some impacts on special status species habitat could 

occur. However, restrictions would protect special status species habitat in the long term. 

Effects from Watchable Wildlife Viewing Sites Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

WWV sites are unlikely to impact special status species or their habitats because WWV sites and 

special status species are highly localized and the total impacted area would be small, relative to the 

overall size of the WDO. 

Effects from Public Health and Safety Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Closure of dangerous, accessible mine shafts and adits could impact special status bat species if they 

were to occupy these areas. To minimize potential impacts on bat species, the shafts and adits would 

be closed in consultation with NDOW and properly constructed bat gates would be used to close 

adits that are important bat habitat. 

Effects from Sustainable Development Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Sustainable development management actions apply to areas that have already been developed and 

likely have little habitat value for special status species. Because sustainable development 

management actions would involve facility reuse, new operations would not create new disturbance. 

As a result, there would be few impacts on special status species from sustainable development 

management actions. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Impacts on fish and wildlife are not likely to occur under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Reuse of sites could have detrimental impacts on special status species, but the effects would vary 

depending on the type of reuse and management of the use. Provisions to protect natural resources, 

including important habitats, would minimize potential impacts from sustainable development. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Impacts are similar to those described under Alternative B, except Alternative C stresses no net loss 

of public lands. This would provide more protection to special status species and their habitat in the 

long term. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-281 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-282 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Impacts are similar to those described under Alternative B, except Alternative D details criteria for 

reuse, which would focus sustainable development only in the most suitable areas. 

Cumulative Effects 

Special status species are threatened by reduction and decreased quality of sagebrush and salt desert 

scrub habitats from fire and invasive plants; loss and degradation of wetland, aquatic, and riparian 

habitats from grazing use; and declines in fish and bird populations from the loss and degradation of 

riparian and aquatic habitats. These trends are likely to continue unless habitats and migratory 

corridors are protected. 

Further loss of aquatic habitat has occurred from the increased presence of invasive plants, drought, 

diversion of water from natural waterways for livestock use, and increased recreational and 

commercial activities. Drought and wildfire will continue to contribute to the loss of aquatic 

resources, and impacts may become more severe in the future because of global warming. 

Management actions in the RMP aim to address, minimize, and in some cases mitigate for impacts 

from grazing and commercial and recreational activities. In addition, management actions to reduce 

hot season grazing in riparian areas and reduction or maintenance of appropriate management levels 

for wild horse and burro populations would reduce future impacts on wetland and riparian areas. 

Most of the cumulative projects have or will affect special status species or their potential habitat. 

Population increases, increased development in the area, fire, increases in recreational activities and 

OHV use, habitat encroachment, and mineral development have the potential for the greatest 

effects. These actions and their interactions result in the loss of and changes in terrestrial and aquatic 

habitats, resulting in degraded quality of these habitats and the populations they support. The above 

actions directly and indirectly result in changes in vegetation species composition and structure. On 

public lands, these changes in vegetation have an effect on wildlife, whereas development on private 

lands results in the complete loss of habitats under the footprint of infrastructure. 

In the foreseeable future, implementing the RMP would put numerous new mitigation, restoration, 

and conservation measures in place that would reduce the potential extent and severity of effects 

from other actions. Actions on BLM lands would have a noticeable effect at the local level, and 

because of the area encompassed by the WDO, the Winnemucca RMP’s contribution to cumulative 

effects on special status species throughout the western states is noticeable. 

The same types of cumulative effects would occur under all alternatives. Generally, Alternative C 

would contribute the greatest potential for improvement in plant, wildlife, and aquatic habitat 

because of management actions, mitigation measures, and restrictions designed to improve habitats. 

4.2.11 Wild Horse and Burro 

Summary 

The Wild and Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act of 1971 and BLM policy state that wild horse 

and burro populations will be managed as self-sustaining populations of healthy animals in balance 

with other uses and the productive capacity of their habitat. The goal is to protect, manage, and 

control healthy, self-sustaining wild horse and burro populations within established herd 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

management areas (HMAs) at appropriate management levels (AMLs) in a manner designed to 

achieve and maintain a thriving natural ecological balance and multiple-use relationship on public 

lands. Healthy, self-sustaining wild horse and burro populations in the HMAs depend on 

maintaining herd numbers and breeding sex ratios sufficient to maintain necessary genetic diversity 

and maintaining herd numbers commensurate with the ability of the range to provide necessary 

water and forage and on limiting disturbance from people, vehicles, and industrial activity. 

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 some of the alternatives. 

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 Alternative C and Alternative 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, exclude potentially impactful uses, and prioritize 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 for forage and water resources with WHB, would remove fence impediments, 

and would lessen disturbance by cattle on WHB forage areas. However, Alternative C may impact 

WHB by reducing AML 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). 

Methods of Analysis 

Methods and Assumptions

This analysis is based on the following methods and assumptions being generally beneficial to wild 

horses and burros. 

A thriving natural ecological balance exists when the cumulative effect of approved multiple uses in 

an HMA do not cause unacceptable impacts on or deterioration of the rangeland resources. Balance 

among multiple uses exists when approved uses are compatible and no one use threatens or impairs 

the viability and sustainability of another use. The following conditions all contribute to the health 

and well being of wild horses and burros: 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-283 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

• Maintaining healthy native plant communities, particularly grasses; 

• Increasing forage opportunities; 

• Reducing competition from domestic livestock; 

• Preventing wild and domestic horses and burros from mixing; 

• Improving range conditions; 

• Maintaining or improving water sources; 

• Eliminating barriers to movement; and 

• Restricting OHVs or limiting other potential disturbance from people, vehicles, and 

industrial activity. 

Managing and adjusting herd numbers based on monitoring grazing use, trends in rangeland 

conditions, climatic conditions, actual use, and rangeland carrying capacity, in balance with other 

uses, is beneficial to wild horses and burros. These actions prevent overpopulation, which could lead 

to overgrazing and rangeland deterioration, which in turn could lead to impaired herd health. 

The section identifying effects common to all resources delineates the management activities that 

promote, aid, enhance, or cause negative effects on wild horses and burros. Management of the 

following would have little to no effect on wild horses and burros: air quality, geology, cultural 

resources, tribal consultation, paleontological resources, visual resources, cave and karst resources, 

areas of critical environmental concern, and public safety. 

Effects from Air Quality Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Air quality has little or no direct or indirect effect on wild horses and burros. All alternatives meet air 

quality standards. 

Effects from Geology Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Rock-hounding and casual observation of geological structures or collecting geologic materials are 

not expected to have any direct or indirect effects on wild horses and burros. 

Effects from Soil Resources Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Healthy uplands, watersheds, and soils would likely increase the potential for increased forage and 

water productivity, which would indirectly benefit wild horses and burros. Reducing erosion and 

maintaining or improving soils and vegetative cover and reclaiming disturbed areas could indirectly 

benefit wild horses and burros by increasing forage plants and maintaining or improving the plant 

communities. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-284 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

See Effects Common to All Alternatives above. 

Alternative A manages to maintain and improve the soil processes through: 

• Implementation of the Standards for Rangeland Health; 

• Prevention of undo degradation by mining activities through the use of BMPs and SOPs 

(Appendix B); 

• Implementing grazing management systems; and 

• Using native and introduced seeds in fire emergency stabilization treatments and burned area 

rehabilitation. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

See Effects Common to All Alternatives above. 

Alternative B manages to maintain and improve the soil processes through: 

• Implementation of the Standards for Rangeland Health; 

• Prevention of undo degradation by mining activities through the use of BMPs and SOPs 

(Appendix B); 

• Implementing grazing management systems; and 

• Using introduced seeds in fire emergency stabilization treatments and burned area 

rehabilitation. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C 

See Effects Common to All Alternatives above. 

Alternative C manages to maintain and improve the soil processes through: 

• Implementation of the Standards for Rangeland Health; 

• Prevention of undo degradation by mining activities through the use of BMPs and SOPs 

(Appendix B); 

• Implementing grazing management systems; and 

• Using only native seeds in fire emergency stabilization treatments and burned area 

rehabilitation (most restrictive on uses). 

Ensuring reclamation with proper species, salvage of growth materials and applying amendments, 

and improving soils in Alternative C protects forage for wild horses and burros. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

See Effects Common to All Alternatives above. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-285 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative D manages to maintain and improve the soil processes through: 

• Implementation of the Standards for Rangeland Health; 

• Prevention of undo degradation by mining activities through the use of BMPs and SOPs 

(Appendix B); 

• Implementing grazing management systems; and 

• Using native and introduced seeds in fire emergency stabilization treatments and burned area 

rehabilitation with greater flexibility in management options than under Alternative A. 

A mandate to achieve reclamation with appropriate species, to salvage growth materials, and to use 

amendments under Alternative D would be beneficial to wild horses and burros by helping to 

ensure additional forage opportunities. 

Effects from Water Resources Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Acquisition and development of new sources and protection of watersheds and protection of 

existing sources, quantity, quality, and access would generally directly benefit wild horses and burros. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

See Effects Common to All Alternatives above. 

Alternative A would be less beneficial to wild horses and burros by not providing long-term 

sustainable water because watersheds are specific to municipalities or threatened and endangered 

species. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

See Effects Common to All Alternatives above. 

Specifying long-term sustainable water and promoting commercial development with unrestricted 

water importation and exportation under Alternative B could be least beneficial if the exported 

water were critical to wild horses and burros. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C 

See Effects Common to All Alternatives above. 

Under Alternative C, requiring full mitigation, providing long-term sustainable water, acquiring 

water rights, and managing the watershed to benefit the resources for which it was created would be 

less beneficial to wild horses and burros because their use would be subordinate to other uses. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

See Effects Common to All Alternatives above. 

Providing long-term sustainable water and acquiring water rights would directly benefit wild horses 

and burros. Alternative D would be somewhat beneficial for wild horses and burros because it 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-286 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

proposes to use more avenues for acquisitions than the other alternatives would. It would use the 

state permitting process, land acquisitions, and other realty actions to acquire minimum pool instream flows or to gain access to water sources and developments for other resources. 

Effects from Vegetation—Forest and Woodland Products Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Management of forest and woodland species to provide a variety of habitats would indirectly impact 

wild horses and burros by providing palatable browse species and shelter areas, as long as they do 

not encroach on the native grasses to any great extent. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

See Effects Common to All Alternatives above. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

See Effects Common to All Alternatives above. 

Prescribed burns and harvest under Alternative B would be more beneficial to wild horses and 

burros in the long-term by increasing the opportunity for better range conditions and forage 

opportunities. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C 

See Effects Common to All Alternatives above. 

Alternative C ,specifying no harvest and no prescribed fire would be less beneficial to wild horses 

and burros by providing fewer opportunities for improvement of range and forage in the long-term. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

See Effects Common to All Alternatives above. 

Effects from Vegetation—Weeds Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Control and reduction or eradication of noxious weeds would provide the potential for improved 

forage for wild horses and burros by increasing the potential for the growth of forage plants. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

See Effects Common to All Alternatives above. 

Alternative A would contribute less to forage improvement by not specifying cooperation with other 

entities, not developing new programs, and not promoting public education in weed control. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

See Effects Common to All Alternatives above. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-287 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Alternatives B and D, which specify cooperating with other entities, developing new programs, and 

promoting public education in weed control, would promote forage improvement that would be 

more beneficial to wild horses and burros. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C 

See Effects Common to All Alternatives above. 

Alternative C , which specifies cooperating with other entities, developing new programs, and 

promoting public education in weed control would promote forage improvement that would be 

beneficial to wild horses and burros. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

See Effects Common to All Alternatives above. 

Alternatives D and B, which specifies cooperating with other entities, developing new programs, and 

promoting public education in weed control would promote forage improvement that would be 

beneficial to wild horses and burros. 

Effects from Chemical and Biological Control 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Vegetation control may indirectly benefit wild horses and burros by reducing or eliminating 

unpalatable and undesirable species, as long as the method of control is not harmful to the animals. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

See Effects Common to All Alternatives above. 

No biological control and no coordination with other agencies and groups under Alternative A may 

be less beneficial to control undesirable vegetation than use of biological controls, thus reducing the 

ability to provide better forage opportunities. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

See Effects Common to All Alternatives above. 

Depending on the pesticides used, method of application, and proximity to HAs and HMAs, 

chemical control could have a positive effect by controlling or eliminating some unpalatable species, 

or it could have a negative effect because the chemicals may be harmful to wild horses and burros. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C 

See Effects Common to All Alternatives above. 

Biological control and coordination with other agencies and groups under Alternative C, along with 

the use of biological controls, would be beneficial to control undesirable vegetation. This would 

benefit wild horses and burros by providing better forage opportunities and not exposing the 

animals to potentially harmful pesticides. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-288 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

See Effects Common to All Alternatives above. 

Using biological, chemical, and mechanical control and coordination with other agencies and groups 

in Alternative D is more likely to control undesirable vegetation. Control of undesirable vegetation 

would benefit wild horses and burros by providing better forage opportunities, as long as the 

methods used are not harmful to the animals. 

Effects from Vegetation—Rangeland Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Healthy, productive, diverse, and resilient plant communities throughout their range would provide 

good forage opportunities for wild horses and burros. Healthier rangelands would also result in 

healthier watersheds, both of which would be beneficial to wild horses and burros by increasing 

forage and water availability. Seeding native or introduced plants may be beneficial to wild horse and 

burro foraging. Eliminating, restricting, or controlling grazing would benefit wild horses and burros 

by likely improving ecological conditions and reducing forage competition with livestock. Resting 

areas from grazing after fires would allow seeded forage plants to become well established without 

the stress from over-trampling and grazing by livestock. Improving ecological conditions should 

result in improved health, vigor, and abundance of forage, as well as water and spatial distribution 

across the habitat. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

See Effects Common to All Alternatives above. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

See Effects Common to All Alternatives above. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C 

See Effects Common to All Alternatives above. 

Specifying improvement of degraded rangeland and use of native seed for reclamation under 

Alternative C, Option 1 would be beneficial to maintaining healthy rangeland and forage for wild 

horses and burros. Option 2 with no prescriptive grazing would be beneficial to wild horses and 

burros by reducing competition with livestock. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

See Effects Common to All Alternatives above. 

Specifying improvement of degraded rangeland and use of native seed for reclamation under 

Alternative D would be beneficial to maintaining rangeland and forage for wild horses and burros. 

Monitoring range conditions could lead to managing for reductions in the number of wild horse and 

burro numbers, which could be beneficial in that the range could better accommodate the remaining 

animals. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-289 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Effects from Vegetation—Riparian and Wetlands Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Preservation, reclamation, and improvement of wetland and riparian areas and meadows would be 

beneficial to wild horses and burros by providing the potential for additional forage areas and 

preservation of potential water sources. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

With no numerical goals for PFC, Alternative A would likely be least effective in improving range 

conditions and water availability for wild horses and burros. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Exclusion fencing in Alternative B could reduce availability of the area for wild horse and burro 

grazing and water access and could inhibit their free-roaming nature. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C 

Removing livestock as specified in Alternative C, Option 2, would be beneficial to wild horses and 

burros by reducing competition for available forage and water and improving range conditions and 

water availability. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Impacts would be the same as those identified under Alternative C. 

Effects from Fish and Wildlife Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Wildlife habitat protection measures would decrease forage, water, and the free-roaming nature of 

wild horses and burros. Guzzlers are not beneficial to wild horses and burros, who are excluded 

from guzzlers. Introducing or increasing numbers or species of big game, especially those that have 

dietary overlap with cattle and horses (such as elk), would increase competition for available forage 

and would be detrimental to wild horses and burros. Reducing barriers to big game movement could 

benefit wild horses and burros if it provided the potential for easier herd movement. Additional 

hunting through additional permits or additional game species could increase herd disturbance. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Alternative A would be beneficial to wild horses and burros because it allows development of 

springs (water sources) for wild horses and burros. However, it would not be beneficial in that it 

specifies fencing, which negatively affects the free roaming nature of wild horses and burros. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Alternative B allows for development of springs (water sources) for wild horses and burros. 

Eliminating pioneering elk populations under Alternative B would be beneficial to wild horses and 

burros by reducing competition for forage and water. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-290 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative C 

Alternative C ,imposing use restrictions, could be beneficial to wild horses and burros by reducing 

the possibility of human disturbance and providing additional water sources. Alternative C could be 

somewhat less beneficial by requiring removal of artificial water sources. Alternative C also does not 

allow for spring development for wild horses and burros. Alternative C could accept pioneering elk, 

which would increase competition for forage and water. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D 

Use of management tools (except fencing), such as prescribed fire and allowing fire for resource 

benefit, vegetation manipulation (mechanical, biological, and chemical treatments), seeding, and use 

restrictions, would be beneficial to wild horses and burros by increasing the likelihood of healthy 

range conditions and increased forage opportunities in the long term. Alternative D allows for 

development of springs (water sources) for wild horses and burros. Alternative D could accept 

pioneering elk, which would increase competition for forage and water and increased disturbance 

due to elk hunting. 

Effects from Special Status Species Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Zones of no surface occupancy, buffer zones, human activity restrictions, and areas of no surface 

disturbance could be beneficial to wild horses and burros by limiting the opportunity for disturbance 

and the potential for range degradation. Any actions, such as fencing or restricting wild horse and 

burro access to sage-grouse or pygmy rabbit habitat, could be detrimental by restricting access to 

forage or by limiting their free-roaming nature. ES&R treatments may require removing wild horses 

and burros to protect areas treated. 

Effects from Wild Horse and Burro Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Management of wild horses and burros would help assure healthier herds by preventing 

overpopulation that could lead to overgrazing ranges, damage to riparian areas, and increased 

competition with domestic stock and other wildlife. Flexibility and numerical ranges in management 

options, and allowing adjustments based on observed conditions would generally be better than 

rigidity because wild horse and burro herds are dynamic units. 

Maintaining current MOUs and developing interagency and interoffice MOUs would coordinate and 

standardize management to prevent individual management plans that are at odds with one another 

and reduce any possible interagency conflicts regarding proper management. This would also 

facilitate the dissemination of information and innovative management practices among agencies. 

Allowing unencumbered access to water within HMAs could be beneficial to herds but detrimental 

to riparian vegetation. 

Protection from harm, harassment, and illegal capture would help preserve the herds and enhance 

their attractiveness to the public as wild and free animals. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-291 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

See Effects Common to All Alternatives above. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Implementing appropriate management actions primarily to WHB before livestock under conditions 

where allotment-specific objectives and the Standards for Rangeland Health are not being met 

would directly impact wild horses and burros by maintaining AUMs for livestock and by reducing 

AMLs for wild horses and burros. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

By not using fertility control methods to maintain a four year gather cycle, wild horse and burro 

herds could overpopulate at an increased rate that may not be able to be sustained by the existing 

habitat. As a result, the need for more horse gathers would be necessary to prevent starvation and 

maintain healthy herds and habitat. 

Implementing appropriate management actions primarily to livestock before wild horses and burros 

under conditions where allotment-specific objectives and the Standards for Rangeland Health are 

not being met would directly benefit wild horse and burros by maintaining AMLs for wild horses 

and burros and by reducing AUMs for livestock. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D 

Effects of implementing appropriate management actions would occur to wild horse and burros or 

livestock relative to the degree to which each animal species is contributing to the non-attainment of 

resource objectives (if known) or proportionally (if unknown). This could directly impact wild 

horses and burros by either reducing wild horse and burro AMLs or livestock AUMs. 

Effects from Wildland Fire Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Protecting range improvements and natural resources and managing for healthy, productive, diverse, 

and resilient plant communities are beneficial to wild horses and burros by providing forage species 

diversity and improving forage opportunities. Allowing for natural fire regimes to take place would 

contribute to a natural healthy range condition. 

Because fire retardants are composed largely of nitrogen and phosphorus fertilizers, they may 

influence vegetation. Fire retardants may encourage growth of some species at the expense of 

others, resulting in changes in community composition and species diversity. Differential growth 

may also influence herbivorous behavior; both insect and vertebrate herbivores tend to favor new, 

rapidly growing shoots. 

Fire closures would reduce the possibility for humans to disturb wild horses and burros. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-292 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Effects from Cultural Resources Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Limitations on OHV use around culturally sensitive areas could be beneficial to wild horses and 

burros by reducing the possibility for human disturbance. Some sites could draw additional visitors, 

which could increase the potential for wild horses and burros to be disturbed. 

Effects from Tribal Consultation 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Tribal consultation would have little to no effect on wild horses and burros, but any area closures to 

protect tribal values could be beneficial to wild horses and burros by limiting the possibility for 

human disturbance. 

Effects from Paleontological Resources Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Any area closures to protect paleontological resources could be beneficial to wild horses and burros 

by limiting the possibility for human disturbance. 

Effects from Visual Resources Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Management of visual resources would have little to no direct effect on wild horses and burros, but 

it could provide opportunities for education as to the place that these animals have in the landscape. 

The presence of wild horses and burros in the landscape reinforces the natural remote character of 

the land and the absence of human development and activity. 

Effects from Cave and Karst Resource Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Management of cave and karst resources would have little to no effect on wild horses and burros, 

but seasonal closures could benefit wild horses and burros by limiting the possibility for human 

disturbance. 

Effects from Livestock Grazing Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Because Alternative C, Option 2 eliminates livestock grazing, the impacts from grazing are common 

to all alternatives except C. Not allowing wild horses and burros to mix with their domestic 

counterparts could indirectly contribute to the health of wild herds by reducing the spread of disease 

and competition for forage and water. Monitoring the range conditions could be beneficial to wild 

horses and burros if it were to result in healthier rangeland vegetative communities and increased 

forage opportunities. Range improvements, such as water developments, if maintained and 

functional, would directly benefit wild horses and burros by providing additional water sources, 

while some improvements, such as fencing, would have negative effects by excluding forage and 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-293 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

limiting the free-roaming nature of wild horses and burros. Forage adjustments could reduce AMLs, 

which could be detrimental to wild horse and burro herds, which need minimum numbers to 

maintain genetic diversity. Protecting existing or developing new water sources would be beneficial 

to wild horses and burros by ensuring availability of water as long as the sources were accessible. 

Generally, any increase in livestock grazing in areas inhabited by wild horses and burros would 

decrease the amount of forage and water available to wild horses and burros. Livestock management 

would increase the opportunity for disturbance. Fencing to control livestock would directly impair 

the free-ranging nature of wild horses and burros. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

See Effects Common to All Alternatives above. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

See Effects Common to All Alternatives above. 

Alternative B specifically mentions using fencing for range improvements, which would directly 

impede the free-ranging nature of wild horses and burros. Competition between wild horses and 

burros and livestock for forage and water would increase under the following situations: 

• Allowing livestock grazing on acquired lands; 

• Not specifying criteria for TNR; 

• Allowing continuous season-long grazing; 

• Not retiring grazing permits; and 

• Providing water for wildlife only when livestock are present. 

Implementing appropriate management actions primarily for wild horses and burros over livestock 

and under conditions where allotment-specific objectives and the SRH are not being met would 

reduce AMLs for wild horses and burros. 

Removing the Nightingale and Shawave Mountain HMAs and slightly expanding the Snowstorm 

Mountain HMA would decrease HMAs by approximately 190,630 acres. Reducing the acreage of 

HMAs that overlap with the Bluewing Seven Trough Allotment increases competition between 

livestock and wild horses and burros for forage and water. The increase in the Bullhead Allotment 

acreage could increase competition between livestock and wild horses. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C 

See Effects Common to All Alternatives above. 

Option 1 

Managing grazing to be complementary and secondary to other resources (such as wild horses and 

burros) and closing acquired lands to grazing would benefit wild horses and burros by reducing 

competition from domestic livestock. Proper grazing management practices, such as adjusting 

grazing based on monitoring data and performing range improvements, would be beneficial because 

it could result in better range conditions and healthier plant communities with fewer invasive species 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-294 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

if the adjustments were in favor of AMLs rather than AUMs. Any fencing associated with livestock 

management would impact the free-ranging nature of wild horses and burros. Providing water for 

wildlife and wild horses and burros from June 1 to September 30, even if livestock have been 

removed, is more beneficial to wild horses and burros than only providing water for wildlife when 

livestock are present. Implementing appropriate management actions primarily for livestock under 

conditions where allotment-specific objectives and the SRH are not being met would benefit wild 

horses and burros by not reducing AMLs as much as it would reduce AUMs. 

Option 2 

Eliminating livestock grazing would directly benefit wild horses and burros by eliminating 

competition with domestic livestock for forage and water and would reduce the possibility of the 

negative effects of overgrazing. Limiting range improvements could limit the range health and 

forage and spatial distribution of wild horses and burros. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

See Effects Common to All Alternatives above. 

Other than Alternative C Option 2, which has no livestock grazing, Alternative D would have the 

fewest acres open to livestock grazing—8,016,754—which would be beneficial to wild horses and 

burros by eliminating some of the competition for available forage and water. Providing water for 

wildlife and wild horses and burros from June 1 to September 30, even if livestock have been 

removed, is more beneficial to wild horses and burros than only providing water for wildlife when 

livestock are present. Implementing appropriate management actions for livestock and WHB would 

be based on the specific class of use that is determined to be the causal factor. This could 

beneficially impact wild horses and burros by reducing livestock AUMs or negatively impact wild 

horses and burros by reducing wild horse and burro AMLs. 

Effects from Minerals Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Mineral extraction could temporarily or permanently remove rangeland and forage areas for wild 

horses and burros, depending on the location of the mineral extraction. Activities associated with 

exploration and extraction could disrupt herd dynamics and open the potential for humans to 

disturb herds. Loss of rangeland and forage could be mitigated by post-mining reclamation. Roads 

associated with mineral extraction would remove rangeland until or if they were reclaimed and 

would increase opportunities for humans to disturb herds. Withdrawal or closure of areas for 

mineral development would reduce the potential for human-herd interaction and rangeland and 

forage loss. Protection of wild horse and burro resources through mitigation measures, SOPs 

(Appendix B), and BMPs (Appendix B) would be beneficial to wild horses and burros by preserving 

and restoring range health. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

See Effects Common to All Alternatives above. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-295 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

See Effects Common to All Alternatives above. 

Salable Minerals

Alternative B which would apply existing guidance and standards for reclamation and closure only to 

operators of sites where there is no reasonable prospect for continued economic use would be least 

beneficial to wild horses and burros by possibly reducing forage opportunities for a longer period. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C 

See Effects Common to All Alternatives above. 

General 

Alternative C ,which would require site reclamation for leasable, locatable, and salable minerals to be 

as close to original topography and vegetation as possible, using native vegetation and organic 

fertilizers, regardless of economics, would be most beneficial to wild horses and burros in the longterm by providing more forage opportunities and a healthier range. 

Salable 

Mineral Operations would only be open to governmental entities under Alternative C and would 

require rehabilitation or reclamation of mineral operations. These include recontouring, stabilizing, 

revegetating, and removing facilities before closure to restore pre-operational topography and 

establish a historically native vegetation community to the maximum extent possible. This would be 

most beneficial to wild horses and burros in the long-term by providing a more natural range and 

forage. 

Fluid 

Requiring closure of lands in HMAs under Alternative C, would be most beneficial to wild horses 

and burros by limiting human commercial activity and herd and range disruption in HMAs. 

Solid 

Alternative C would keep over three times as many acres closed to leasing. This would benefit wild 

horses and burros by limiting the amount of range that could be disturbed and limiting the 

possibility of human disturbance. 

Locatable 

Alternative C would close the most acreage to locatable minerals. Lands acquired (by any process) 

would be withdrawn from mineral entry. This would provide the most benefit to wild horses and 

burros by limiting the amount of range that could be disturbed and limiting the possibility of human 

disturbance. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

See Effects Common to All Alternatives above. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-296 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Effects from Recreation, Visitor Outreach, and Services Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Encouraging visitors to use designated roads and trails, specifying concentrated use areas, and 

limiting OHV activity could benefit wild horses and burros by reducing the possibility of human 

disturbance or harassment and helping to preserve range forage. Limiting some activities, such as 

camping within 300 feet of springs and seasonally appropriate uses, would be beneficial to wild 

horses and burros by preserving water sources and reducing the chances for human disturbance. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Alternative A would be least beneficial to wild horses and burros by not increasing public awareness 

of the ethics of responsible land and resource use. Moreover, Alternative A does not provide public 

outreach or educational programs nor monitor impacts on wild horses and burros from recreation 

activities or implement mitigation measures based on monitoring results. Alternative A would be 

least beneficial to wild horses and burros by closing or limiting OHV use on fewer acres, which 

would increase the possibility of harassment. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Limiting OHV travel as proposed under Alternative B would offer greater protection of wild horses 

and burros from potential harassment. Restricting some uses and organized OHV activities in the 

Nightingale and Granite Range SRMAs could be beneficial to wild horses and burros by reducing 

the chances for human harassment. However, increasing the number of people allowed to use the 

areas would increase the potential for disturbance of wild horses and burros. It could be difficult to 

enforce controls outside of organized activities. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C 

Alternative C would be most beneficial to wild horses and burros by closing or limiting OHV use on 

more acres, which would limit the possibility of disturbance and range degradation. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

See Effects Common to All Alternatives above. 

Effects from Renewable Energy Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Exclusion zones, land use restrictions, and individual stipulations could be beneficial to wild horses 

and burros by limiting range disturbance and limiting the potential for humans to disturb the herds. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Alternative A would benefit wild horses and burros the least by not requiring reduced impacts on 

forage and from human-herd interactions through development of lease stipulations and mitigations 

and not having provisions for avoidance areas. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-297 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Alternative B would be less beneficial than Alternatives C and D to wild horses and burros because 

it does not specify any exclusion zones that could lessen the chances for humans to disturb wild 

horses and burros. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C 

Alternative C would benefit wild horses and burros the most by requiring reduced impacts on forage 

and from human-herd interactions through development of lease stipulations and mitigations. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

See Effects Common to All Alternatives above. 

Effects from Transportation and Access Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Any road decommissioning or closure would benefit wild horses and burros by limiting human 

access and allowing for revegetation-especially critical to riparian areas. Actions to limit erosion and 

the spread of weeds would be beneficial to wild horses and burros by improving the general health 

of the rangeland in the long term. However, if wild horse and burros were the cause of erosion, 

excluding them from accessing the areas during rehabilitation may take away forage in the shortterm. New roads would remove range forage and increase the possibility of human disturbance. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Alternative A, with no provisions to relocate and rehabilitate roads that create habitat fragmentation 

or that adversely impact wildlife and having no designated avoidance areas, would be least beneficial 

to wild horses and burros by not improving rangeland conditions or preserving free-roaming 

conditions. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Alternative B would allow road decommissioning only if there were other access, which would 

negate the beneficial effects of closures that would have lessened the chances for humans to disturb 

wild horses and burros. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C 

Alternative C would be most beneficial to wild horses and burros by having provisions to relocate 

and rehabilitate roads that create habitat fragmentation, thereby increasing forage for wild horses 

and burros. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

See Effects Common to All Alternatives above. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-298 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Effects from Lands and Realty Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Maintaining BLM ownership or control of lands would be beneficial to wild horses and burros 

because the agency could exercise management practices to maintain rangeland and herd health and 

control habitat and range fragmentation by rights-of-way that would not be possible if the lands 

were in private ownership. Land disposal could directly impact wild horses and burros by reducing 

the available areas they could inhabit. Land disposal could increase the possibility of development 

and increased human activity near HMAs. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Alternative A would be least beneficial to wild horses and burros because it has no provision for 

acquiring conservation easements, which could limit development, and surface occupancy, which 

would reduce the possibility of disturbance from people and vehicles. Alternative A designates the 

most HMA land for disposal, 289,203 acres, and the most acres of HA for disposal, 976,143. This 

would impact wild horse and burros as identified in Effects Common to All Alternatives, above. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Alternative B designates the second most HMA land for disposal, 85,023acres, and the second most 

acres of HA for disposal, 712,880. This would impact wild horse and burros as identified in Effects 

Common to All Alternatives, above. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C 

Alternative C would be most beneficial to wild horses and burros because they specify that there 

would be no net loss and possibly a net gain of public lands within the WDO. This would preserve 

or increase the range available to wild horses and burros. Alternative C designates the fewest acres of 

HMA land for disposal, 29,644 acres, and fewest acres of HA land for disposal, 245,237. This would 

impact wild horse and burros as identified in Effects Common to All Alternatives, above. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Alternative D designates 41,994 acres of HMA land and 276,076 acres of HA land for disposal. This 

would impact wild horse and burros as identified in Effects Common to All Alternatives, above. 

Effects from ACEC and RNA Management (A Special Designation Area) 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

ACEC and RNA management would generally have little effect on wild horses and burros. 

Effects from Backcountry Byways Management (A Special Designation Area) 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

New backcountry byways could increase the potential for humans to disturb wild horses and burros, 

however, they could also provide an opportunity to educate the public on the role of free-roaming 

wild horses and burros in the landscape. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-299 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

See Effects Common to All Alternatives above. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Alternative B, encouraging development of backcountry byways without considering existing 

resources could increase the opportunity for humans to disturb wild horses and burros if the 

developed byway was in an area critical to the herds. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C 

Specifying that backcountry byways would be developed only if existing resources were protected 

would benefit wild horses and burros by slightly reducing the chance of human disturbance. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

See Effects Common to All Alternatives above. 

Effects from National Trails Management (A Special Designation Area) 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Development of new trails or increased use of existing trails could increase the chance for humans 

to disturb wild horses and burros. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

See Effects Common to All Alternatives above. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

See Effects Common to All Alternatives above. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C 

Alternatives C and D would be more protective of wild horses and burros by restricting or closing 

segments of national historic trails to OHV use and limiting fluid and solid mineral surface 

occupancy in the same areas. These measures would reduce the possibility for humans to disturb the 

wild herds. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Alternatives C and D would be more protective of wild horses and burros by restricting or closing 

some segments of national historic trails to OHV use and limiting fluid and solid mineral surface 

occupancy in the same areas. These measures would reduce the possibility for humans to disturb the 

wild herds. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-300 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Effects from Wild and Scenic Rivers Management (A Special Designation Area) 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no effects common to all alternatives from wild and scenic river management.. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

No eligible water segments would be brought forward under the Wild and Scenic River Act, so no 

impacts on wild horses and burros would occur. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

No eligible water segments would be brought forward under the Wild and Scenic River Act, so no 

impacts on wild horses and burros would occur. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C 

Any actions with positive impacts on riparian areas could be generally beneficial to wild horses and 

burros by preserving water sources and forage opportunities. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

No eligible water segments would be brought forward under the Wild and Scenic River Act, so no 

impacts on wild horses and burros would occur. 

Effects from Wilderness Study Areas and Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Land use restrictions and wilderness preservation could be beneficial to wild horses and burros by 

preserving the natural forage vegetation and limiting the possibility of human disturbance from 

motorized travel. Excluding motorized vehicles and providing fewer travel ways would be beneficial 

to wild horses and burros. However, the wilderness land use designation could promote additional 

visitor use and increase the potential for disturbance. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

See Effects Common to All Alternatives, above. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

See Effects Common to All Alternatives, above. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C 

See Effects Common to All Alternatives, above. 

All of the areas designated as having wilderness characteristics under Alternative C are within 

HMAs. Designation of areas with wilderness characteristics could be beneficial in that it would 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-301 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

preclude some mineral activities but could attract additional visitors who would come to enjoy the 

wilderness characteristics. This could lead to an indirect effect by disturbing the wild herds. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

See Effects Common to All Alternatives, above. 

Effects from Watchable Wildlife Viewing Sites Management (A special Designation Area) 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

It is unlikely that there would be many effects to wild horses and burros from management of 

viewing sites. These sites could promote public awareness and education on the role of wild horses 

and burros as living symbols of the west. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

See Effects Common to All Alternatives above. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

See Effects Common to All Alternatives above. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C 

Alternative C would avoid new routes through or near sensitive areas and would avoid increasing 

traffic in remote areas. This would be most beneficial to wild horses and burros by limiting 

disturbance from people and vehicles. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

See Effects Common to All Alternatives above. 

Effects from Public Health and Safety Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Public health and safety management would have little or no effect on wild horses and burros. 

However, any increased law enforcement could decrease harassment cases, and cleaning up illegal 

dumpsites would provide a safer environment and the opportunity for increased forage for wild 

horses and burros. 

Effects from Sustainable Development Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

The lands under consideration for sustainable development already have activities that may or may 

not impact wild horses and burros. Because of this, continued use of these lands would generally not 

have much additional impact, unless the future uses attracted additional people or OHV use or 

similar activities that could increase the chance of harassment or disturbance to herds or degrade 

rangeland conditions. All areas would eventually be reclaimed if there were no new reuse demand. 

Impacts on resources would last longer at a sustainable development site, however, new operations 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-302 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-303 

would not be creating new disturbance, which would reduce impacts outside of the sustainable 

development site. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Alternative A would be least protective of wild horse and burro habitat because it contains no 

criteria for disposal of public lands. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

See Effects Common to All Alternatives above. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C 

See Effects Common to All Alternatives above. 

Calling for disposal only if existing resources would not be damaged and calling for no net loss of 

public lands would be protective of wild horses and burros by helping to ensure they have adequate 

range and unimpeded movement. 

Alternative C contains a provision for no net loss of public lands, which would be most beneficial to 

wild horses and burros by preserving range and forage areas. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

See Effects Common to All Alternatives above. 

Cumulative Effects 

Cumulative impacts on wild horses and burros are similar to the Effects Common to All 

Alternatives, above. Wild horses and burros would directly benefit from actions to increase range 

areas and forage opportunities, to reduce competition from domestic livestock, to prevent mixing of 

wild and domestic horses and burros, to improve range conditions, to maintain or improve water 

sources, to eliminate barriers to movement and indirectly benefit from restricts on OHV travel or 

other potentials for disturbance from people, vehicles, and industrial activity. 

Managing and adjusting herd numbers based on monitoring and range carrying capacity would 

benefit wild horses and burros by preventing overpopulation, which could lead to overgrazing and 

range deterioration, which in turn could lead to impaired herd health. 

4.2.12 Wildland Fire Management 

Summary 

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 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

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 through travel management, but the 

access provided by the number of acres designated as open to OHV travel would also have the 

highest risk for human-caused fire, compared to other alternatives. This alternative would have the 

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. 

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 because of the lack of 

chemical weed treatment or prescribed fire, 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 improve FRCC 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. 

Large Fire Suppression Costs

Instruction Memorandum 2006-204 directs the BLM to conduct a relative comparison on the effects 

plans would have on the cost of suppressing large wildland fires. The memorandum identifies 

activities that may affect the cost of fire suppression: 

• Establishment of vegetation management objectives or treatments that leave land or 

resources at greater risk of damage from wildfire and therefore increase fire size and 

suppression costs; 

• Restrictions on the application of allowing fire for resource benefit; 

• Restrictions on suppression activities to meet other resource objectives; 

• Actions that promote the expansion of invasive plants that alter fire regimes; or 

• Actions that may limit suppression access, such as road decommissioning to meet other 

resource objectives. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-304 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Additionally, the WDO has identified the need to protect commercial or recreational development, 

resources, or special areas as a factor that would increase the need for fire suppression. 

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. The effects are 

described in more detail in the effects sections below. 

Alternative A

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

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

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

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. 

Methods of Analysis 

Methods and Assumptions 

This analysis is based on the following methods and assumptions: 

• Fuel reduction treatments and emergency stabilization and rehabilitation (ES&R) will be 

effective; 

• VRM I and II would restrict the location or the number of fuel treatments; 

• Fire suppression is an emergency action and some requirements for ground- and surface 

disturbing activities do not apply to fire suppression; 

• Population growth and development of SRMAs will cause an increase in use; and 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-305 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

• Mineral and energy development will increase access and facilities that require protection. 

Effects from Air Quality Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives 

Modeling and managing prescribed burning may limit the amount of prescribed burning in a given 

year or the number of acres treated. 

Implementing strategically placed fuel treatments to reduce fire size and smoke emissions (if 

effective) would reduce acres burned by wildland fire in the long term and make fire suppression 

efforts more effective. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A 

Complying with air quality regulations, BLM policies, and prescription plans would affect wildland 

fire through smoke management. Prescribed fire activities could be shut down, delayed, or altered 

based on coordination with state and other agencies and other smoke management issues. The 

amount of acres treated with prescribed fire may also be reduced. Constructing fuel breaks, if 

effectively implemented, would cause some fires to be more easily suppressed, to burn at lower fire 

intensity, or be smaller. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B 

Actions to model smoke from prescribed burns and fire use and to reduce emissions from wildland 

fires by implementing strategically placed fuel treatments could delay implementation of some 

activities. This is to ensure air quality is maintained by coordinating air quality effects with other 

activities and agencies. However, it is unlikely that the delays would interfere with the overall goals 

of these activities. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C 

Effects on wildland fire management from air quality management actions under Alternative C are 

the same as those described under Alternative B. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D 

Effects on wildland fire management from air quality management actions under Alternative D are 

the same as those described under Alternative B. 

Effects from Geology Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives 

There are no impacts on fire management identified. 

Effects from Soil Resources Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives 

There are no effects common to all alternatives from soil resource management. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-306 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative A 

Soil management would include implementing BMPs and SOPs (Appendix B) to reduce soil erosion 

for fire rehabilitation projects where they occur. Areas with easily erodible soils would be prioritized 

for emergency stabilization treatments. 

More use of public lands could increase the potential for human caused fire, exposing more areas 

containing easily erodible soils and increasing ES&R costs to protect these soils from erosion. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B 

Increasing population growth combined with increased uses on public lands would increase the 

potential for human caused fires exposing more areas containing easily erodible soils. The resulting 

impacts would include increasing ES&R treatments and associated costs to protect these soils from 

erosion. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C 

Travel restrictions on OHV use would reduce the potential for human caused fires. Fewer areas 

containing erodible soils would be burned and demands for ES&R to protect these soils would be 

less. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D 

Effects on wildland fire management are similar to those under Alternative A. 

Effects from Water Resources Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Applying land health standards would have the same effect as that described under vegetation. 

Water resources management could restrict suppression operations by limiting use of heavy 

equipment or retardant near streams or riparian areas. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A 

Acquiring or providing sufficient water quantity and quality on public lands would improve wildland 

fire suppression by providing additional water sources. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B 

Effects would be similar to Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C 

Designating and managing priority watersheds for incompatible activities would limit fire 

management actions and fuel reduction treatments if these actions conflict with the reason the 

watershed was designated. Acquiring more public land could increase water sources previously not 

available for fire suppression. This could also increase demand for fuel treatments and ES&R as 

more public lands would be administered by BLM. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-307 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Designating priority watersheds would increase fire suppression priorities to protect these areas. 

Gaining access to water resources and developments through land acquisition would provide more 

accessible water for fire suppression actions. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D 

Effects are similar to those under Alternative C. 

Land acquisition could improve access to water resources and developments through purchase of 

lands which would have wildland fire protection benefits. 

Effects from Vegetation—Forest and Woodland Products Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives 

Monitoring forest health and establishing an early warning system for insect and disease would help 

meet desired future conditions for fire ecology by ensuring timely treatments to restore natural 

conditions and reduce fuels in areas negatively affected by forest health issues. Pest control 

treatments would reduce insect infestations and subsequently reduce dead fuel loadings. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A 

Effects include elevating the priority for suppression of fire in broadleaf woodland habitats and the 

Stillwater Range, which could increase the demand for fire suppression resources. 

Protecting healthy woodlands would require fuel breaks to protect stands. Prescribed fire would 

promote woodland health and reduce the amount of dead fuel in areas, thus reducing fire intensity 

and severity. 

Developing management actions to protect harvest areas from disease would, in the long term 

would reduce the amount of dead fuel in these areas. Management for allowing fire for resource 

benefit would not be implemented, consequently fuels buildup and decline stand health would 

occur. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B 

Effects would be similar to those described for Alternative A; however, allowing the use of wildland 

fire to restore stand health and structure, would allow changes to occur sooner and would increase 

the size of treated areas compared to using fuel reduction treatments. 

In woodlands, reducing fuels would reduce fire severity and intensity, leading to more successful fire 

suppression when needed. 

Allowing burned areas to be salvage harvested would reduce fuel loadings and may reduce fire size 

and intensity in the long term. Removing dead tress would improve public safety as well as 

firefighter safety, as falling dead trees are one of the most common causes of injury during fire 

suppression. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-308 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative C 

In woodlands, achieving stand health and structure objectives would reduce fuels, which reduces fire 

severity and intensity, and would lead to more successful fire suppression when needed. Allowing 

natural fire regimes to return to the landscape would slow the reduction of FRCC in areas because 

prescribed fire, allowing fire for resource benefit, and chemical fuel treatments would not be used. 

Discontinued harvesting of pinyon pine could increase fuels, which could increase fire intensity and 

severity there. Recognizing stand encroachment as a natural process could increase pinyon/juniper, 

thereby increasing fuel loads. 

Protecting old growth forests could increase the suppression priority for those areas. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D 

Effects are the same as those under Alternative A for restoring stand health and structure through 

prescribed fire. 

Effects from Vegetation—Weeds Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives 

During fire suppression, the requirement to wash heavy equipment may limit the spread of weeds in 

areas where fire suppression operations occur. In the long term, limiting the spread of weeds would 

reduce fine fuels. 

Weed and invasive species control would have a beneficial effect on fire rehabilitation because 

treatment success would improve, as it would result in less competition for native or seeded species 

after a fire. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A 

Eradicating, suppressing, controlling, preventing, or retarding the spread of any noxious weeds and 

annual invasive species would promote the success of fire rehabilitation projects by allowing seeded 

species to become established and to better compete with weeds or annual invasive species. 

Successful emergency stabilization and rehabilitation projects would help to restore historic fire 

regimes and to improve FRCC in the long term. Fire suppression operations are complicated as 

some invasive plants, such as cheatgrass, provide conditions that allow fire to burn through an area 

quickly and earlier in the season than do areas of native vegetation. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B 

Effects from weed management are similar to those under Alternative A; however, implementing a 

cost/benefit analysis would, in some cases, reduce costs and allow implementation of more effective 

methods to control weeds and invasive species for fire rehabilitation and fuel treatments. 

Newer techniques and an additional focus on education and prevention of weed spread could make 

this alternative more effective, providing greater benefits to FRCC and natural fire regime. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-309 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative C 

Many of the benefits described in Alternative B still would occur, though to a much lesser degree. 

Due to the limitations on using chemical treatments and prescribed fire, weed control, would be less 

effective causing a buildup of light fuels. Most weeds and invasive plants are difficult to control on a 

large scale without herbicides, so the benefit of improved FRCC and a return to a natural fire regime 

would be slowed considerably. 

Restricting the use of chemicals to control noxious weeds would slow the success of fire 

rehabilitation projects because weeds would likely get established and spread, competing with seeded 

species. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D 

Effects are the same as those described for Alternative B. 

Effects from—Chemical and Biological Control 

Effects Common to All Alternatives 

There are no effects common to all alternatives from chemical and biological control management. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A 

Use of chemicals and biological agents to control pests (weeds, invasive species, and harmful insect 

activity) would improve rangeland health, would allow for improved success of fire rehabilitation, 

would provide for long-term maintenance of fuel breaks, and would reduce fire intensity and spread. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B 

Effects are similar as those described in the weeds management section of Alternative A. Fuel 

breaks using chemical treatments would be less costly and more effective than biological controls. 

Using biological controls for fuel breaks would be more costly, would require more monitoring, and 

would take longer to achieve resource objectives. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C 

Effects are the same as those described in the weeds management section of Alternative C. Not 

using chemical pesticides could allow for degrading stand health through more weeds, invasive 

plants, and harmful insects activity and could increase the amount of dead fuels. Fuel loadings could 

complicate suppression efforts and increase fire intensity and severity. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D 

Effects are the same as those described in the weeds management section of Alternative B. 

Effects from Vegetation—Rangeland Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives 

Achieving land health standards would, by definition, help to restore FRCC to more natural levels. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-310 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Achieving fire rehabilitation objectives would also help to restore FRCC. Implementing vegetation 

treatments to improve vegetation community health and protect vegetation communities may reduce 

fire intensity and severity by removing biomass. Seeding burned areas would help restore FRCC. 

Restoring and improving degraded sagebrush habitats would improve FRCC by reducing cheatgrass. 

Cheatgrass is the main reason that FRCC 3 is in most of the WDO and contributes to extreme fire 

behavior, severe fire effects, extensive burned areas, and a loss of the historic fire regime in 

sagebrush vegetation types. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A 

Managing for healthy and productive plant communities would improve FRCC and would restore 

and maintain the natural fire regime. In the short term, grazing reduces fine fuels, which would 

reduce fire spread, when controlled in manageable units with the proper infrastructure (water or 

fencing) to manage livestock use. 

Fire rehabilitation would benefit rangelands when appropriate species are used and when vegetative 

cover is restored before weeds and invasive species become established. This would improve FRCC 

and would promote restoration of natural fire regimes. Resting areas from grazing after fire fires 

would help ensure appropriate vegetative establishment and would further the likelihood that weeds 

and invasive species would not become established. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B 

Effects described in Alternative A would occur in Alternative B. In addition, improving FRCC 3 to 

FRCC 2 on 70,000 acres would benefit rangelands by improving conditions and moving the area 

toward natural fire regimes. Eradicating cheatgrass, establishing desirable perennial species where 

possible, and rehabilitating degraded sagebrush habitats would improve FRCC 3. Reestablishing 

desired vegetation would help maintain the improved FRCC and would prevent or slow future 

establishment of noxious weeds and invasive plants that adversely affect FRCC. 

Creating fuel breaks would benefit wildland fire suppression by providing a possible location for 

firefighters to safely extinguish a fire, resulting in fewer acres burned. 

Allowing fire for resource benefits would improve the ecological health of vegetation communities 

and would provide long-term benefits by reducing fuels buildup and fire spread. 

Prescriptive grazing is another tool to achieve resource objectives, reduce biomass, and modify fire 

behavior and spread. In the short term, grazing reduces fine fuels, which would reduce fire spread, 

when controlled in manageable units with the proper infrastructure (water or fencing) to manage 

livestock use. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Option 1 

Eliminating the use of chemicals and prescribed fire to achieve rangeland vegetation goals, 

particularly those related to cheatgrass, would slow beneficial effects or possibly would make them 

unachievable. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-311 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

In the short term, grazing reduces fine fuels, which would reduce fire spread, when controlled in 

manageable units with the proper infrastructure (water or fencing) to manage livestock use. 

Fire rehabilitation would be more costly as chemicals would not be used, which is particularly 

important in controlling the spread of weeds. ES&R costs would increase because seeding burned 

areas would require native seed, which is more costly and difficult to acquire in suitable amounts. 

ES&R short-term success would be less effective as native species take longer to establish. ES&R 

treatment success of seedings would be higher as rehab areas would be closed to livestock/WHB 

grazing following fire, for a period of 5 years. Also, management actions to improve approximately 

80,000 acres from FRCC 3 to FRCC 2 are provided under this alternative. Availability and 

effectiveness of native seed would make fuel treatments (green strips) less effective and more 

expensive. Suppression priorities would increase under this alternative because healthy and 

recovering sagebrush stands would become suppression priorities. 

Option 2 

Effects are similar to those under Option 1. Eliminating grazing could reduce the spread of noxious 

weeds and invasive species, slightly offsetting the effects of not using chemical treatments. 

Eliminating prescriptive grazing would increase fine fuels in areas, promoting fast moving fire 

spread. Success of fire rehabilitation projects would increase as seedings would recover over the long 

term without grazing. Overall FRCCs would likely improve in areas that have been treated. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D 

Effects are the similar as those described for Alternative B. Although there would be no specified 

time frame for resting burned areas from grazing. 

Allowing fire for resource benefits would improve the ecological health of vegetation communities 

and would provide long-term benefits by reducing fuels buildup and fire spread. 

Allowing native and nonnative seed species in ES&R would enhance success and accelerate 

achievement of objectives, which would improve FRCC. 

Effects from Vegetation—Riparian and Wetlands Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives 

Implementing mitigation measures to reduce potential adverse impacts on wetlands and riparian 

areas may reduce the effectiveness of suppression tactics by restricting operation of heavy 

equipment and use of retardant in these areas. 

Individual effects under all alternatives would be similar to those described for water resource 

management. 

Effects from Fish and Wildlife Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives 

Applying land health standards would have the same effect as those described under rangeland 

management. Land health standards, standard operating procedures, and mitigation measures could 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-312 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

restrict the types of suppression actions and fire allowed for resource benefit within certain wildlife 

habitat types. These actions include limiting back fires in sagebrush habitats. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A 

Protecting crucial habitat areas requires fire suppression prioritization. Pre-disturbance inventories 

for nesting migratory birds and seasonal restrictions and mitigations could eliminate or change 

timing of prescribed fire and other fuel treatments. 

Applying land health standards would help to restore FRCC to more natural levels. In some areas 

where fire occurrence or behavior is more frequent or more extreme due to poor habitat conditions, 

achieving land health standards would reduce fire risks, would reduce the amount and severity of 

wildland fire, and would improve suppression success. In areas with sensitive species habitat, 

emergency stabilization and fuel treatments using nonnative species seed may alter habitat. These 

impacts are minimal as ES&R and fuel treatment plans are developed to include species that are 

compatible with restoring, maintaining, or improving sensitive species habitat (see SOPs identified in 

Appendix B). 

Individual Effects under Alternative B 

The effects are similar to those described under Alternative A. 

Developing mitigation measures to avoid active nests could eliminate, affect location, or change 

timing of prescribed fire treatments, reducing their effectiveness, increasing costs, or eliminating 

them altogether. 

Using prescribed fire, allowing fire for resource benefit, and other treatments to restore, protect, and 

improve wildlife habitat would help to restore the historic fire regime and reduce fuels and FRCC 

where treatments occur. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C 

The effects are similar to those under Alternative A. 

Use restrictions and mitigation measures would be implemented to protect 1,267,481 acres of 

Priority 1 wildlife habitat areas for sage-grouse and sagebrush obligates and 869,645 acres of Priority 

2 habitat. This would prohibit the use of prescribed fire and chemicals to reduce fuels and improve 

FRCC. Rangeland would not be restored, maintained, or improved with nonnative grasses that 

encroach on sensitive habitat. 

Removing access routes that adversely affect aquatic resources and riparian values could reduce 

access for fire suppression if alternative routes are not developed. The potential for access routes to 

be removed is greatest under Alternative C. 

Suppression priorities would increase because this alternative has the largest number of acres of 

priority wildlife habitat areas. Seasonal wildlife closures could impact the timing and location of 

when and where fuel treatments are implemented. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-313 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative D 

The effects are similar to those described under Alternative A. 

Use restrictions and mitigation measures implemented to protect 699,929 acres of Priority 1 wildlife 

habitat areas for sage-grouse and sagebrush obligates and 1,325,967 acres of Priority 2 wildlife acres 

could restrict fuel treatment locations and timing. Protecting designated Priority 1 and 2 wildlife 

habitat areas would increase the priority for wildland fire suppression, although not quite as much as 

under Alternative C due to slightly fewer acres included in the priority habitat designation. 

Using prescribed fire for resource benefit and other vegetation manipulation treatments to restore, 

protect, and improve wildlife habitat would help to restore the historic fire regime, reduce fuels, and 

help improve FRCC where treatments occur. 

Effects from Special Status Species Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives 

Protections for some special status species, such as protecting raptor nesting sites and ferruginous 

hawk nests, may limit the strategic placement of fuel treatments to reduce fire risk and protect 

habitat. Avoiding tree control around ferruginous hawk nests would prevent construction of fuel 

breaks or fuel reduction treatments where the nests occur. 

Implementing standard operating procedures, mitigation measures, and conducting surveys or 

inventories before an activity to protect sensitive species habitat could affect the locations or timing 

of fuel treatments. However, these actions benefit sensitive species by protecting them against 

adverse impacts. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A 

Fuel treatments could be restricted in some instances based on results of the pre-disturbance 

inventories for sensitive wildlife species. Implementing mitigation measures to protect sensitive 

species, would also limit the size, location, and timing of fuel treatments, making them less effective 

and more expensive or eliminating them altogether. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B 

This alternative has no Priority 1 wildlife habitat so fire suppression priorities would cover fewer 

acres as compared to Alternatives C and D. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C 

Fire suppression priorities would increase as priority wildlife and watershed areas would be elevated 

as priority suppression areas. The guidelines for sage-grouse protection are the most restrictive and 

cover the widest area compared to the other alternatives. Under Alternative C, fuel treatments to 

protect SSS habitat would be restricted as prescribed fire and chemical treatments would not be 

utilized. There would be more areas subject to fuel treatment restrictions, such as size and location 

of treatments as there are more priority wildlife habitat areas and priority watershed areas under this 

alternative. However, there would be more opportunities to increase the number of strategically 

placed fuel treatments in order to protect priority wildlife and watershed areas. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-314 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Impacts would be similar to Alternative C. However there would be fewer priority wildlife and 

watershed areas, which would reduce the number of fire suppression priority areas. This would also 

allow fewer restrictions for placement of fuel treatments. 

Effects from Wild Horse and Burro Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives 

Management of wild horses and burros includes removing or excluding horses and burros from 

rehabilitated areas, which would promote long-term success of fire rehabilitation treatments by 

reducing the grazing and trampling of newly established vegetation. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A 

Impacts are the same as those identified under Effects Common to All Alternatives. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B 

Impacts are the same as those identified under Effects Common to All Alternatives. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C 

Maintaining unobstructed landscapes by removing fences would improve access and fire 

suppression efficiencies. More temporary fencing may be needed for fire rehabilitation treatments as 

fewer fences on the landscape would be available to tie in fire rehabilitation fencing. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D 

Some fences would be removed, which would improve access for fire suppression. 

Effects from Wildland Fire Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives 

Using a decision support process would focus efforts where needed most. The decision support 

process includes the fire management plan suppression objectives and strategies, Wildland Fire 

Situation Analysis (WFSA), and Wildland Fire Decision Support System (WFDSS). WFSA and 

WFDSS would also help ensure that wildland fire suppression did not cause undue harm to 

threatened resources, such as biological and cultural resources. Minimum impact suppression tactics 

would reduce unanticipated effects on other resources during fire suppression. Compliance with 

interagency standards and policy guidance, including WFSA and WFDSS, would focus suppression 

efforts on those that would be most effective and would provide for firefighter safety. 

Continuing to update fire management strategies annually would ensure that fire management 

resources are used efficiently to meet fire management objectives within the WDO. 

Reducing fuels in the WUI area would provide defensible space and locations where fires can safely 

be suppressed, would reduce the risks to public safety and property, would maintain firefighter 

safety, and could reduce fire suppression costs. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-315 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

In the long term, use of fuel treatment tools would improve public safety, would reduce property 

losses, and would improve vegetative health. Additionally, natural fire regime would be maintained 

in some areas by protecting vegetation communities that are closer to historical species and density. 

Allowing fire for resource benefit would play a role in reducing fuel loads and would require less 

suppression. Rehabilitating degraded rangeland could improve FRCC by promoting revegetation and 

soil stabilization. Seeding would deter the establishment and spread of cheatgrass, which would help 

to reestablish the natural fire regime and reduce fire severity in those areas. 

Public education efforts and use of restrictions and closures when warranted would reduce the 

number of human-caused wildland fire. In the long-term, this could reduce the number of acres 

burned. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A 

Developing a response to wildland fires based on social, legal, and ecological consequences of the 

fire would help to prioritize wildland fire suppression actions. Following established plans and 

guidance would maintain wildland firefighter safety. Issuing fire restrictions would help to minimize 

human-caused fires. 

Reducing hazardous fuels in WUI would make emergency response to wildland fires safer for 

firefighters and would reduce the risk to life and property, as would developing and implementing 

wildland fire protections plans and community assistance strategies. There are currently 212,350 

acres of WUI in FRCC 3. 

Rehabilitating degraded rangelands would benefit rangeland by improving land health. This would 

be done by improving FRCC from higher FRCC to lower FRCC. 

Collaborating and promoting interagency cooperation would maximize the effectiveness of wildland 

fire management activities and results. Researching fire issues would provide information to improve 

suppression tactics and firefighter safety and would provide additional tools for reducing FRCC and 

restoring natural fire regimes. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B 

Effects are the same as those described for Alternative A, except 110,167 acres would be designated 

for allowing fire for resource benefits. This would slightly reduce the amount of fire suppression 

necessary, if wildland fire were burning in these areas within prescription. Allowing fire for resource 

benefit would improve stand health in appropriate areas, which would improve FRCC in the long 

term. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

The effects are the same as those described for Alternative A. No benefits would occur from 

allowing fire. More demand for fuel treatments would occur in lieu of allowing fire for resource 

benefit. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-316 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Effects are the same as those described for Alternative B, but only 9,932 acres would be designated 

for allowing fire for resource benefit. Benefits from improvements in stand health due to allowing 

fire would be 90 percent less than under Alternative B. 

Effects from Cultural Resources Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives 

Cultural resource management could affect suppression tactics by prioritizing protection of cultural 

resources over other resources. Heavy equipment may be prohibited in culturally sensitive areas. 

Mitigation measures to protect cultural resources from wildland fire may require more firefighter 

resources to install sprinkler systems, wrap buildings, or install fuel breaks. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A 

Protecting historic landscapes with VRM II would have the effects described under visual resources 

management, below. 

Effects of maintaining and protecting pinyon and juniper are discussed under woodland forest and 

woodland products under Alternative A. 

Suppression tactics could be altered to accommodate protection of cultural resources. Use of heavy 

equipment would be restricted in sensitive areas. 

Implementation of fire rehabilitation treatments may be delayed until cultural resource inventories 

are completed. Fuel treatments could be restricted in culturally sensitive areas and within settings of 

the California historic trail. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B 

Effects of maintaining and protecting pinyon and juniper are discussed under woodland forest and 

woodland products under Alternative B. Areas for allowing fire for resource benefit in the Stillwater 

Range poses a risk to cultural resources that could increase fire prescription complexity and or 

destroy cultural resources. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Protecting historic landscapes with VRM II would have the effects described in the visual resources 

management section, below. Alternative C would protect the most areas, when compared to other 

alternatives, so the effects from cultural resources management would be the greatest in this 

alternative. 

Effects of maintaining and protecting pinyon and juniper and of thinning all woodland types are 

discussed under the woodland forest and woodland products section of Alternative C. 

Developing a cultural resources sensitivity model would improve fire suppression by identifying 

sensitive areas to be avoided during suppression of wildland fires before suppression is needed. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-317 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative D 

Effects of maintaining and protecting pinyon and juniper and thinning all woodland types are 

discussed in the woodland forest and woodland products section under Alternative B. 

Effects from Tribal Consultation 

Effects Common to All Alternatives 

Tribal consultation would affect installation of fuel breaks as treatments may be restricted in areas 

that have Native American religious importance. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A 

Impacts would be the same as identified under Effects Common to All Alternatives. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B 

Using prescribed fire and allowing fire for resource benefit may be precluded in areas that have 

sensitive Native American religious values. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C 

Impacts are the same as those identified under Effects Common to All Alternatives. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D 

Impacts are the same as those identified under Alternative B, but, with fewer areas on the landscape 

available for allowing fire for resource benefit, fewer acres may be precluded due to Native 

American religious importance. 

Effects from Paleontological Resources Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives 

Management of paleontological resources would have little effect on fire management because the 

actions proposed do not affect fire suppression, use of fuel treatments or ES&R. 

Effects from Visual Resources Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives 

Managing to meet VRM classes and protect the visual integrity of national historic trail resources 

may elevate suppression operations priorities in VRM I and II and historic resource areas. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A 

VRM I and VRM II areas may limit fuel treatments, such as reducing fuels through cutting or 

chipping and ES&R treatments in some areas. Limitations would include blending disturbance lines 

or relocating projects to areas having fewer visual impacts. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-318 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative B 

Effects of VRM classification on wildland fire would be similar to Alternative A. Alternative B has 

more acres of VRM II areas compared to Alternative A. Fuels and ES&R treatment restrictions 

would incrementally increase due to the amount of designated VRM II acreage. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Effects of VRM classification on wildland fire are discussed in detail in Alternative A. Alternative C 

has more than four times as many acres in VRM I and II as under Alternative A. This alternative 

would have the greatest effects on fuels and ES&R with respect to location and appearance of 

treatments from visual resource management. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D 

Effects of VRM classification on wildland fire are discussed in Alternative A. Effects are similar to 

those under Alternative C, although Alternative D has about five percent fewer acres in VRM I and 

II. 

Effects from Cave and Karst Resources Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives 

Management of cave and karst resources would have minimal effects to fire management. Some 

infrastructure, such as interpretive signage or kiosks may elevate suppression priorities to protect 

these structures. 

Effects from Livestock Grazing Management Common 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Managing allotments to meet land health standards would reduce fuel loads, fire intensity, and size in 

some areas. Achieving fire rehabilitation objectives would re-establish rangeland, providing long 

term benefits for grazing. Closing areas to livestock grazing that have been rehabilitated after a fire 

would help ensure the establishment of seeded vegetation and would improve rehabilitation success. 

These benefits would also improve FRCC in the long term. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A 

The effects of grazing management are the same as those for rangeland management. Initiating and 

managing grazing systems to meet land health standards would reduce fine fuels and deter invasive 

species, which would reduce fire intensity and spread. Closing burned areas to livestock grazing 

following a fire would help promote the fire rehabilitation success of seeded vegetation. Permittee 

(livestock operator) requests for fuel reduction treatments are expected to increase. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B 

The effects are the same as those under Alternative A. Management emphasis on installing range 

improvements to achieve resource objectives may hamper suppression operations through 

construction of fences. However, more water sources may be developed providing additional water 

for suppression operations. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-319 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative C 

Option 1 

The effects of grazing management are the same as those for rangeland management. 

Option 2 

Eliminating grazing would reduce the spread of cheatgrass in areas because cheatgrass is spread by 

grazing. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D 

Effects are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Prescriptive livestock grazing could be used for fuel breaks, which would reduce fire intensity and 

spread. 

Effects from Minerals Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives 

Construction of mine infrastructure would increase suppression priorities to provide public safety 

and protect property. Reclaimed sites could serve as fuel breaks for fire suppression and protect 

resources. Active mines may also provide additional suppression resources (equipment) and water 

sources. Mines along with oil, gas, and geothermal development would improve access for fire 

suppression activities. Improved access may also increase the potential for human caused fires. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A 

Impacts are the same as those identified under Effects Common to All Alternatives. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B 

Effects described as common to all alternatives would occur. Improved access combined with 

increased potential for human caused fire would occur from more acres available for mineral 

development. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C 

Facilities constructed for mineral development would not be as extensive as other alternatives, so 

there would be fewer operations and associated infrastructure that need fire protection. Fewer access 

roads would be constructed for mining that could also be used for fire management access. The 

potential for human caused fire would be lower under Alternative C. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D 

This alternative has fewer acres open to mineral development than under Alternatives A and B. 

Fewer facilities would need fire suppression protection. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-320 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Effects from Recreation, Visitor Outreach, and Services Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives 

Providing for dispersed recreation may increase the use of public lands and consequently the risk of 

human-caused fires. Recreation developments such as campgrounds would provide infrastructure 

and could increase public use and increase suppression priorities and demand for firefighting 

resources. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A 

Protecting recreation areas and associated infrastructure would elevate fire suppression priorities and 

demand for fire resources in these areas. Protecting SRMAs and infrastructure would increase the 

need for strategically placed fuel breaks. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B 

This alternative is more public use intensive and more emphasis would be placed on developing 

SRMAs. More demand for fire suppression resources would occur. 

Facilities associated with future SRMAs and their management would require fire protection similar 

to the wildland urban interface. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C 

Fewer SRMAs would be designated under Alternative C, so fewer recreation facilities would require 

fire protection. Public land recreation use may be slightly less due to fewer SRMAs, reducing the 

potential for human-caused fires compared to other alternatives. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D 

Facilities associated with SRMAs and their management would require fire protection similar to 

Alternative B. 

Effects from Renewable Energy Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives 

Impacts from renewable energy development are the same as those described under mineral 

development. 

Effects from Transportation and Access Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives 

Maintaining roads necessary for fire suppression would ensure adequate access and reasonable 

emergency response times. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A 

Transportation and access management affects wildland fire in three main ways: 1) by providing 

access for fire suppression, 2) by providing an avenue for noxious weed and invasive plant spread, 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-321 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

and 3) by providing access for increased human activities, which can lead to human-caused fires. 

Roads and trails that are maintained, repaired, or open for public use generally remain in a passable 

condition that allows access for fire suppression equipment and manpower. This improved access 

results in faster response times leading to reduced fire size. 

Roads and trails are one of the main vectors of weed spread, which leads to increased FRCC and 

ecosystems moving away from natural fire regimes. This is compounded by open OHV 

management areas, which spreads invaders into the surrounding areas. Additional open OHV use 

and increased human use increase the potential for human-caused fire ignition. Alternative A 

includes 6,782,790 acres of open, 416,652 acres of limited, and 24,832 acres of closed OHV 

designations. Alternative A has the most acres designated as open for OHV and therefore has the 

greatest potential risk for human-caused fire and weed spread. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B 

Effects from transportation and access management generally are similar to those described for 

Alternative A, but there are several important differences. Alternative B has fewer acres open to 

OHV use (1,453,655 acres) than Alternative A, so fewer acres would be at risk for adverse weed 

spread and human-caused fire effects. Alternative B would decommission only those roads that are 

damaging the environment if alternative access is available. This action would provide a higher level 

of road access for fire suppression than any of the other alternatives and would provide more 

opportunities for weed spread and human-caused fires. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C 

Effects are similar to those under Alternative A; except that Alternative C has no areas designated as 

open and therefore would have the least potential for human-caused fires due to off-road activities. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D 

Effects are similar to those under Alternative A, except that acres open to OHV are 289,932. 

Compared to Alternatives A and B, there would be less potential for human-caused fires. There 

would be more potential than Alternative C. 

Effects from Lands and Realty Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives 

Ownership adjustments that improve manageability and ensure public access would increase fire 

management efficiency. Disposal of public lands to private ownership could create more wildland 

urban interface areas, adding to fire suppression and fuel treatment priorities. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A 

Land tenure adjustments changing public lands into private lands would expand WUI areas, and 

increase fire suppression and fuel treatment demands. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-322 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative B 

This alternative proposes disposal of the highest number of acres of public lands. An incremental 

increase in WUI areas would occur over time. Demand for fire suppression resources and fuel 

treatments would increase. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C 

Public land disposal would not occur to the extent it would in other alternatives so the potential to 

increase the WUI would be decreased. Fire suppression demands in and around urban areas would 

not increase as much as other alternatives. Exclusion areas for discretionary realty actions would 

reduce the amount of infrastructure and reduce demands for suppression resources to protect 

property. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D 

Land tenure adjustments changing public land to private ownership would be greater than under 

Alternatives A and C. As a result, under Alternative D, WUI areas would increase more over time. 

Effects from ACEC/RNA Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives 

There are no effects common to all alternatives from ACEC/RNA management. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A 

There would be no effect on fire management from special designations under this alternative. 

Individual Effects under Alternatives B 

Effects would be the same as Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternatives C 

ACECs would become priority fire suppression areas under this alternative increasing the demand 

for fire resources and fuel treatments to protect ACEC values. 

Individual Effects under Alternatives D 

Effects would be the same as Alternative C. 

Effects from Backcountry Byways Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives 

Management of backcountry byways would have little affect fire management. Strategically placed 

fuel treatments may be necessary to protect backcountry byways. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-323 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Effects from National Trails Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives 

Management of national trails is similar to those described in the cultural resources section. 

Protecting the setting of National Historic Trails may restrict the number and locations of fuel 

treatments. 

Effects from Wild and Scenic Rivers Management 

Individual Effects under Alternative A and B

There would be no effects as there are no W&SR designated. 

Individual Effects under Alternatives C

Management of wild and scenic rivers could restrict fire suppression operations through restricting 

retardant and use of heavy equipment. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

There would be no effects as there are no W&SR designated. 

Effects from Wilderness Study Areas and Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives 

Suppression activities could be limited in WSAs based on possible restrictions on access and use of 

heavy equipment. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A 

Wilderness and WSA management may restrict suppression tactics by limiting or restricting the use 

of power equipment within the wilderness or WSA. Fire may become more intense and spread 

beyond the wilderness or WSA, causing more acres to burn. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B 

Effects are the same as those described under visual resources management. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Wilderness and WSA management may restrict suppression tactics by limiting or restricting the use 

of power equipment within the wilderness, WSA, or the four areas identified with wilderness 

characteristics. Fire may become more intense and spread beyond the wilderness, WSA or the four 

areas identified with wilderness characteristics, causing more acres to burn. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D 

Effects are the same as those described for Alternative A. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-324 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Effects from Watchable Wildlife Viewing Sites Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives 

Protecting infrastructure that support wildlife viewing areas would have minimal impacts on fire 

suppression resources. Constructing strategically placed fuel treatments would protect these areas. 

Effects from Public Health and Safety Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives 

Providing for public safety would be a top suppression priority during fires. 

Effects from Sustainable Development Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives 

Reuse of existing infrastructure would extend the time that the facilities would need fire protection 

and would affect the location and increase demand for strategically placed fuel breaks. Maintaining 

access to the facilities would also provide access for fire suppression. Disposal of public lands to 

private ownership could restrict access for equipment or water supplies. These impacts would be 

offset based on acquisition of easements as appropriate. 

Cumulative Effects 

Present and reasonably foreseeable actions that would affect fire management are as follows: 

• Increasing population growth; 

• Increasing public use of public lands for recreation and commercial development; 

• High potential for increasing mineral and renewable energy development; 

• Climate change; and 

• Wildland fire suppression and rehabilitation. 

Effects Common to All Alternatives 

There would be cumulative effects on fire management from future human-caused and naturally 

occurring wildland fire. Fire suppression priorities would be expected to increase because WUI areas 

would expand including development on adjacent lands and more commercial and public activities 

occur. Increasing population growth combined with growth of recreation, commercial, mineral and 

renewable energy development would increase the potential for human caused fires. At the same 

time access for fire suppression operations would improve. Demand for fire suppression resources, 

fuel treatments and ES&R would increase. Vegetation management (particularly fuel reduction) and 

ES&R on public, privately owned and other federal lands in and around the WDO would help to 

improve FRCC. Wildland fire burning within its natural fire regime that does not contribute to 

cheatgrass spread would also improve FRCC. Conversely, wildland fire burning outside historic 

conditions of more severe fire effects or burning in cheatgrass would contribute to increase FRCC 

in adjacent areas. Vegetation and its associated fire regime evolved throughout many varied climates. 

The analysis timeframe (20 years) for cumulative effects from the Winnemucca RMP is relatively 

short in terms of fire regimes and condition, so climate change would not affect FRCC noticeably. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-325 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-326 

Changes in FRCC from climate change would be far exceeded by land use impacts, such as 

expansion of invasive plants (or effective treatments), fire suppression, and human-caused fires. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A 

Increased use on BLM and adjacent lands combined with few OHV travel restrictions would 

increase the likelihood of human-caused fires. Development would increase the amount of WUI and 

the number of fires that are a priority for fire suppression. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B 

Emphasizes development and use public lands would likely lead to additional priority fire 

suppression to protect infrastructure. Alternative B adds to this prioritization by indirectly increasing 

the amount of recreational activity and mineral and energy development. Development could 

improve access for fire suppression on public and adjacent lands. Human caused fire would be 

expected to increase over time. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C 

Reducing potential commercial, mineral, and energy development on BLM lands would likely 

increase the pressure for these activities to occur on lands not administered by BLM. Fire 

suppression operations would increase due to increasing priority suppression areas (Wildlife, 

watershed priority areas, ACECs, W&SR) to protect natural resource and additional fuel buildup 

caused by elimination of chemical treatments and prescribed fire to treat fuels for fuel breaks would 

occur. Because of this, fires on BLM lands would be more difficult to suppress, and this would likely 

result in additional acres burned in the long term. Commercial, mineral, and renewable energy 

development would reflect slow growth and fire suppression priorities to protect infrastructure 

would be lower compared to other alternatives. Rehabilitation of lands would increase as the 

potential for larger fires would increase. Potential for human caused fire would be lower under 

Alternative C because commercial, mineral development, recreation, and renewable energy 

development would occur slowly. Travel restrictions for OHV use would also reduce potential for 

human caused fire. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D 

Increase population and development would increase the potential for human caused fires over time. 

Travel restrictions to limit OHV use would reduce this potential in areas. Commercial, mineral, and 

renewable energy development would have impacts similar to those described under Alternatives A 

and B. Wildland fire suppression demands, fuel treatments, and ES&R would increase in order to 

protect WUI, priority wildlife and watershed areas and ACECs. 

4.2.13 Cultural Resources 

Summary 

The cultural resources of the WDO include a variety of resource types, including prehistoric and 

historic archaeological sites and structures, National Historic Trail segments, culturally modified 

trees, and places that are associated with traditional cultural and religious practices. Proposed 

management actions that could impact or increase the risk of impacts on known and unknown 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

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. 

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. 

Methods of Analysis 

Indicators 

Indicators are used to identify the level or risk of impact. The primary indicator for assessing the 

condition and trend of cultural resources is the effect on cultural resources that are eligible for listing 

on the National Register of Historic Places, National Historic Trails or areas of importance to 

Native Americans or other traditional communities. Other impact indicators include the following: 

• Acres and relative depth of ground-disturbing activities or removal of structural features 

permitted and their potential for affecting known or unknown intact cultural resources or 

areas of importance to Native American or other traditional communities; 

• Increased access to or activity in areas where resources are present or anticipated; 

• Extent that an action changes the potential for erosion or other natural process that could 

affect cultural resources; 

• Extent that the action alters the visual, aural, or atmospheric setting of cultural resources, 

TCPs, and National Historic Trails; and 

• Acres of land that would be removed from federal cultural resource protections or loss of 

federal stewardship of lands, including the National Historic Trail and trail setting. 

Methods and Assumptions

Impacts on cultural resources are assessed by applying the “criteria of adverse effect,” as defined in 

36 CFR 800.5a: “An adverse effect is found when an action may alter the characteristics of a historic 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-327 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

property that qualify it for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places in a manner that 

would diminish the integrity of the property’s location, design, setting, workmanship, feeling, or 

association. Adverse effects may include reasonably foreseeable effects caused by the action that 

may occur later in time, be farther removed in distance, or be cumulative.” The criteria of adverse 

effect provide a general framework for identifying and determining the context and intensity of 

potential impacts on other categories of cultural resources as well, if these are present. An 

assessment of effects involving Native American or other traditional community, cultural, or 

religious practices or resources also requires focused consultation with the affected group. 

In this analysis, the criteria of adverse effect are applied on a broad scale to all known or anticipated 

cultural resources or cultural resource types. Analysis is based on knowledge of the resource base of 

the project area and the level of impacts (or risk of impacts) on cultural resources associated with the 

plan objective or management action. In most instances, effects are assessed qualitatively using the 

best professional judgment of the preparers and BLM cultural resource specialists. 

Many of the actions proposed would be federal undertakings subject to further site- and projectspecific Section 106 review, effects analyses, and mitigation development designed to minimize any 

adverse effects. This analysis focuses on defining those impacts which may result from actions or 

planning direction that may not be mitigated through further Section 106 review or other review and 

on those management measures that would reduce or increase the risk of impacts on cultural 

resources. 

The following assumptions regarding the resource base and management practices were considered 

in the analysis: 

• Most of the WDO has not been inventoried for cultural resources, but over 6,000 

archaeological sites alone have been documented. There is potential for many more cultural 

resources in uninventoried areas, but the presence and significance of resources cannot be 

confirmed or quantified; 

• TCPs are places associated with the cultural practices or beliefs of a living community. These 

cultural resource sites are rooted in the community’s history and are important in 

maintaining cultural identity. Contemporary Native American groups maintain social and 

cultural ties to the land and resources of the WDO. These cultural resources are generally 

not known or discussed outside of those communities, but they are present in the WDO. 

There may be places within the WDO that are important to other contemporary 

communities, such as those associated with ranching or sheepherding traditions and lifeways. 

Maintaining access to and reducing impacts on these places is a responsibility of the BLM; 

• The BLM has prepared a quantitative sensitivity model for prehistoric cultural resources on 

private and public lands in the WDO. The model estimates the densities and types of 

prehistoric cultural resources on lands that have not yet been inventoried. The model has not 

yet been field tested and is incomplete, but it is used where appropriate to analyze and 

compare alternatives. The model cannot predict the location of sites and is not a substitute 

for an archaeological survey. This model also includes an appendix on historic transportation 

routes that was used to assess historic-period resources; 

• For prehistoric sites overall, predicted densities range from 2.2 sites per square kilometer (5.8 

per square mile) in the low sensitivity rank, to 34.2 sites per square kilometer (88.7 sites per 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-328 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

square mile) in the very high rank. Of the lands modeled, 40.9 percent were considered of 

moderate sensitivity rank (3.0 sites per square kilometer, 5.8 per square mile). High 

sensitivity was predicted for 28.5 percent of the lands (7.6 sites per square kilometer, 19.6 

per square mile). Low sensitivity was predicted for 27.9 percent of the lands, and 2.5 percent 

were assigned the very high sensitivity rank; 

• In the absence of inventory information, the number of acres affected and the intensity of 

the proposed activity is assumed to broadly correlate to the potential number of cultural 

resource sites that may be affected and the potential severity of the impacts. There is also 

qualitative information that indicates areas where there is a higher probability that cultural 

resources would be present, relative to the whole WDO. For example, highly disturbed or 

recently developed areas are less likely to include intact cultural resources; 

• The importance of a cultural property often depends on the physical, chemical, functional 

and aesthetic characteristics of the property. Natural weathering, decay, vandalism and 

construction can remove elements that originally were part of a cultural property. This loss 

affects the completeness and accuracy of the information used by scientists and recreation 

interpreters and influences the importance of the property for traditional uses; 

• Activities such as human visitation, recreation, vehicle use, grazing, and fire and nonfire 

vegetation treatments increase the rate of deterioration through natural processes. While the 

effect of a few incidents may be negligible, the effect of repeated uses or visits over time 

could increase the intensity of impacts due to natural processes; 

• Effective scientific use of a cultural property depends on the vertical and horizontal 

relationships among the elements of the property and the context of the property itself. 

Even partial displacement of original relationships lowers the reliability, or may completely 

negate the significance, of such relationships in reconstructing the activities and sequence of 

events that occurred at the site; 

• Intrusions to or alterations of a cultural property or its setting may affect the integrity of the 

property. Structural additions, graffiti, and surrounding audio or visual intrusions may be 

inconsistent with the original cultural resource values and may affect the scientific or 

aesthetic importance of the property. Traditional uses of cultural properties can be impacted 

by modern intrusions that are out of character with the values (e.g., sacred or ceremonial) 

ascribed to the resource; 

• Intrusions to the visual, atmospheric, or aural setting of cultural resources, especially cultural 

landscapes associated with National Historic Trails, can extend a considerable distance from 

the location of the resource; 

• Many cultural resources are situated on or just below the ground surface and are very 

susceptible to impacts from vehicle use, vegetation removal and treatments, animal 

trampling, fire, and all forms of ground disturbance; 

• Vandalism or unauthorized collecting or excavation can destroy a cultural resource in a 

single incident. Exposure of cultural resources, dissemination of resource locations, and 

access to areas where cultural resources are present can increase the risk of vandalism or 

unauthorized collection of materials; 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-329 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

• Population growth, urban encroachment, sprawl, and development on adjacent lands will 

increase the risk of impacts on BLM-managed cultural resources through recreation, 

visitation, vandalism, and changes in setting; 

• Measures that withdraw land or restrict access or surface development to protect natural or 

cultural resources can provide direct and indirect protection of TCPs, National Historic 

Trails, and other cultural resources from disturbance, incompatible activities, and 

unauthorized activities; 

• Federal and BLM requirements of consultation, a site-specific inventory, and an evaluation 

and impact analysis through the Section 106 process provide a systematic and proactive 

means of addressing direct impacts on cultural resources from authorized undertakings, 

projects, and actions. Nearly all implementation actions would be subject to further cultural 

resource review, and the Section 106 process would be completed before site-specific 

projects are authorized. If adverse effects were found, mitigation measures, including 

avoidance, would be implemented to minimize the effects. Formal agreement documents 

may be used in completing the Section 106 process for broad implementation actions; 

• Cultural resources are nonrenewable. While impacts on many cultural resources are mitigable 

through data recovery and other means, impacts on TCPs, National Historic Trails, and 

some other cultural resource types, such as Lovelock Cave, are difficult or impossible to 

mitigate unless the sites and associated settings are avoided. Opportunities for further 

research and interpretation of archaeological sites can be lost when impacts are mitigated 

through data recovery; 

• Site monitoring, research, inventories not related to projects, site stabilization, public 

interpretation, and other proactive management activities would continue; and 

• As additional inventories are completed in the WDO, more cultural resource sites in the 

planning area would be identified and evaluated. Knowledge of these resources would aid in 

their protection from inadvertent impacts, would add to the understanding of cultural 

resources both in surveyed and unsurveyed areas, and could increase the BLM’s workload in 

site protection, monitoring, and data recovery. 

Watchable wildlife viewing sites are not addressed because management actions are not expected to 

affect cultural resources. 

Effects from Air Quality Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives 

There are few likely impacts on cultural resources resulting from air quality objectives or actions 

under any of the alternatives. Airborne particulates and emissions can impact the visual and 

atmospheric setting of cultural resources, including National Historic Trails and TCPs in areas where 

these resources are present. All of the alternatives include general provisions to reduce and control 

airborne particulates and emissions. Effects of all of the alternatives on cultural resources are similar. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-330 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Effects from Geology Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives 

Many of the identified unique geological and other features are Native American areas of concern, 

archaeologically sensitive areas (for example, the Lake Lahontan shoreline features) or are near 

National Historic Trails. There are no geology management actions that are common to all 

alternatives. Alternatives that protect unique geologic features would also protect the physical 

integrity and settings of known and potential Native American sacred sites and TCPs, as well as 

National Historic Trail segments and archaeologically sensitive areas. Alternatives that provide lesser 

degrees of protection could lead to impacts, including destruction of these resources and their 

settings. Mineral sales and locatable mining can destroy and otherwise impact Native American 

sacred sites and TCPs and the settings of National Historic Trails. Although most impacts on 

archaeologically sensitive areas would be addressed through the Section 106 process, sites that are 

NRHP eligible for reasons other than data potential could be impacted by mining. Unrestricted 

OHV use increases the likelihood of impacts on the physical integrity and setting of archaeological 

sites, sacred sites, and TCPs; limiting OHV use to existing roads reduces the likelihood of this 

occurring. While some of the proposed features are along well traveled roads, encouraging visitation 

to features in more remote areas where there are sensitive cultural resources could lead to increased 

impacts from ground disturbance, alterations to setting, and unauthorized collection and vandalism. 

Public education efforts could help mitigate some of these impacts. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Continuing to permit mineral sales and locatable mining in the vicinity of unique geologic resources 

could destroy or otherwise impact the physical integrity and setting of Native American sacred sites 

and TCPs, the setting of National Historic Trails, and the setting and physical integrity of some 

archaeological sites. Unrestricted OHV use could also lead to impacts on the physical integrity and 

setting of cultural resources and unauthorized collection and vandalism. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Mineral sales and locatable mining could destroy or otherwise impact the physical integrity and 

setting of Native American sacred sites and TCPs, the setting of National Historic Trails, and the 

setting and physical integrity of some archaeological sites. Limiting OHV use to existing roads and 

trails would reduce the likelihood of impacts on physical integrity and setting of archaeological sites, 

sacred sites, and TCPs off the roads from current conditions. Encouraging visitation may increase 

some potential impacts in some areas from physical damage, alterations to setting, and unauthorized 

collection and vandalism. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Managing areas of unique geologic interest as exclusion zones for rights-of-way and other 

discretionary actions, withdrawal from the General Mining Law, closure to salable mineral disposal 

and, restricting all OHV use would reduce the likelihood of impacts on physical integrity and setting 

of associated archaeological sites, sacred sites, and TCPs from ground disturbance, alterations to 

setting, and unauthorized collection or vandalism. Alternative C would be the most protective of 

cultural resources associated with these geologic features. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-331 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Alternative D would improve current protection for archaeological sites, sacred sites, and TCPs 

associated with unique geologic features from ground disturbance, alterations to setting, and 

unauthorized collection or vandalism. Limiting OHV travel to existing roads and trails and allowing 

discretionary activities if impacts were mitigated would be somewhat less protective than Alternative 

C. Impacts on the TCPs present and some other cultural resource types may be difficult or 

impossible to mitigate unless the sites and associated settings were avoided. 

Effects from Soil Resources Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives 

Because many cultural resource sites are situated on or just below the ground surface, they are 

susceptible to damage and destruction from ground disturbance and erosion. Damage can include 

modification of site spatial relationships and displacement and damage of artifacts, features, and 

midden deposits. This can result in the loss of information relevant to the site function, dates of use, 

plants and animals used, past environments, and other important research questions. Measures 

under all of the alternatives limiting soil erosion and managing ground-disturbing activities would 

indirectly help protect these cultural resources. Reclamation measures may also preserve or restore 

the setting of cultural resources. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

In general, indirect protection of cultural resources from soil erosion, compaction, and grounddisturbing activities or reclamation requirement would be less under Alternative A because current 

management requires fewer specific actions than do the other alternatives. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Fewer mitigations for reducing the loss of biological soil crust are required, so Alternative B would 

be less protective of archaeological sites against increased erosion in affected areas. The components 

of soil surface, vegetation, soil litter, and biologic crusts would be maintained or improved, rather 

than just encouraged, as under Alternative A. This would increase protection against erosion and 

soil-disturbing activities, and would reduce the risk of impacts on cultural resources, especially 

archaeological sites. Reclamation requirements may also restore the setting of cultural resources. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Alternative C provides the highest level of required stipulations and mitigations for soil-disturbing 

activities, reclamation, and erosion control, which could indirectly reduce the risk of impacts on 

cultural resources from erosion and ground disturbance impacts or could require reclamation, which 

may restore the setting of cultural resources. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Indirect protection of cultural resources would be similar to that defined for Alternative C. 

Stipulations and mitigations for soil-disturbing activities, reclamation, and erosion control would be 

fewer than under Alternative C and would allow the BLM more discretion in applying them. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-332 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Effects from Water Resources Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives 

Water is considered sacred to the tribes that use the WDO. Some water sources and features have 

been identified as TCPs, and others would likely be considered TCPs if they were evaluated. Actions 

under all alternatives that protect and maintain water features, water quality, stream flows, water 

temperature, fisheries, and natural resources associated with water features would help preserve 

these tribal values and traditional resources. Actions to develop wells, acquire water sources, and 

modify springs include risks of disturbance of cultural resources and traditional uses and values 

through ground-disturbing activities, changes in access, visibility, and setting of water features and 

changes to the water features themselves. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Current management specifies fewer actions than the other alternatives that would indirectly protect 

tribal values associated with water features, water quality, stream flows, water temperature, fisheries, 

and other natural resources that depend on water features. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Additional measures to manage priority watersheds and protect well heads would provide more 

protection for water features and preserve the opportunity to pursue tribal uses. Commercial 

development of water sources could lead to additional risk of impacts on cultural resources and 

traditional uses and values through ground-disturbing activities, changes to the water features 

themselves, changes in access, visibility and setting of water features. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Managing priority watersheds and well head protection as exclusion zones would provide additional 

protections for water features and preserve the opportunity to pursue tribal uses. Water import or 

export projects would be permitted only if they were not to exceed the perennial yield of the source 

basin and could be implemented without compromising the multiple use mandate of FLPMA. This 

would reduce the risk of impacts on cultural resources and traditional uses and values through 

ground-disturbing activities, changes in access, visibility and setting of water features, and changes to 

the water features themselves. If culturally significant water features or tribal values were present, 

any impacts would be difficult to mitigate, but the BLM would seek to mitigate any adverse effects 

to acceptable levels, in consultation with affected groups. Alternative C reduces the risk of impacts 

on cultural resource impacts more than the other alternatives. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Managing priority watersheds as avoidance zones and permitting water importation or exportation 

projects only if impacts could be mitigated to acceptable levels would protect water features and 

would preserve the opportunity to pursue tribal uses. The risk of impacts are similar to but than 

those proposed under Alternative C. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-333 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Effects from Vegetation—Forest and Woodland Products Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Actions under all alternatives to monitor forest health and SOPs (Appendix B) to reduce impacts on 

woodland habitats would help protect forests and forest resources such as pine nut gathering areas 

that are culturally important to tribes and preserve culturally modified trees. Maintaining 

opportunities for tribal groups to harvest pinyon trees and exercise this practice at recognized 

traditionally used sites is included in all alternatives. Because the Stillwater Pinyon Forest is 

threatened by mistletoe and other infestations, treatments to maintain and enhance the health of the 

forest would help to preserve TCPs and areas of concern to tribes, if treatments were undertaken in 

consultation with the tribes. Forest vegetation treatment methods can impact cultural resources 

from removal, ground disturbance, erosion, fire, changes in setting, increased access, visibility and 

activity in the vicinity of cultural resources, and temporary loss of access and setting of any TCPs 

present. Prescribed burns and unsuppressed wildfires could devastate areas of Native American 

concern if control of these fires is lost. With current climatic conditions, these forests may not come 

back. Controlled prescribed fire could help improve the health of the forest but residual 

unanticipated impacts on cultural resources could occur where these resources are undiscovered or 

have not been inventoried. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Effects are similar to those described as common to all alternatives. Wildland fire would be 

suppressed, reducing the potential for impacts on cultural resources from wildland fire. Alternative 

A specifies additional protections for pinyon and juniper stands that are culturally important to 

Native Americans. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Changes in management of pinyon and juniper stands that are culturally important to Native 

Americans would impact traditional uses and TCPs. Removing current restrictions on Christmas tree 

cutting, green pinyon cutting and firewood cutting activities would damage trees and groves that 

have been traditionally used for pine nut gathering for generations, impacting the viability and 

continuity of these cultural traditions. Commercial harvests of pine nuts would compete with the 

supply available for traditional uses and users and may impact TCPs and their setting and expression 

of cultural practices. Expanding the use of wildland fire can result in direct disturbance to or loss of 

cultural resources through the destruction or modification of structures, features, artifacts, cultural 

use areas, pinyon stands and culturally modified trees. Fire can also lead to other indirect impacts, 

such as damage from erosion and unauthorized collection and vandalism. Treatments to control 

mistletoe and other infestations in the Stillwater Pinyon Forest would help to preserve TCPs and 

other areas of tribal concern, if undertaken in consultation with the tribes. While controlled 

prescribed fire could help improve the health of the forest, if control of prescribed or wildland fire is 

lost, areas of Native American concern could be devastated. With current climatic conditions, these 

forests may not come back. Some effects of wildland fire on cultural resources could be avoided if 

cultural resource considerations are incorporated into fire management planning objectives, 

priorities and actions. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-334 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Retaining and expanding restrictions on harvest of pinyon stands, Christmas tree cutting, firewood 

cutting, and green pinyon cutting would protect traditional cultural practices related to tribal use 

areas. Allowing natural fire regimes to return in lieu of prescribed fire would expand the potential 

for impacts on cultural resources because prescribed fire can reduce the frequency and intensity of 

wildland fire by reducing fuel loads. Fires would be suppressed to the extent possible which would 

reduce the potential for impacts on cultural resources from wildland fire. Suppression, however, can 

include ground-disturbing activities that can directly impact cultural resources by altering spatial 

relationships. Some effects of wildland fire and suppression on cultural resources would be avoided 

through cultural resource considerations incorporated into fire management planning objectives, 

priorities and actions. Fire could devastate areas of Native American concern if control of these fires 

is lost. With current climatic conditions, these forests may not come back. The potential beneficial 

effects on cultural resources from treatment projects may be less than other alternatives because 

there would be no active treatments on 27,605 acres of old growth forest and treatments would be 

limited to mechanical and biological methods when practical and feasible. Avoiding chemical 

treatments may prevent adverse effects on the health of tribal users who may have cultural uses for 

the targeted plant species. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Allowing the BLM more discretion in actively managing pinyon stands may lead to fewer impacts on 

cultural resources from wildland fire than under Alternative C but potentially more direct impacts 

from the harvest of forest products. Impacts from prescribed fire and allowing fire for resource 

benefit would be the same as under Alternative B. Careful use of treatments, protection of green 

pinyon, and selective harvest in consultation with tribal groups would help maintain the health of 

culturally important pinyon stands and the long-term pursuit of traditional practices. 

Effects from Vegetation—Weeds Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

In the long term, treating weeds would indirectly reduce the risk on cultural resources from wildland 

fire and suppression, would reduce erosion of archaeological sites, would restore native species 

important to tribal users, and would help restore the setting of cultural landscapes and TCPs. 

Chemical treatments may affect or target other culturally important resources or have negative 

health effects on tribal users. Treatments may result in changes to setting and temporary loss of 

access or availability of certain areas for cultural practices during treatment. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Because current management specifies fewer actions than the other alternatives to prevent or treat 

for weeds and specifies no measures targeting invasive weeds, the potential positive effects on 

cultural resources from reduced risk of wildland fire and suppression, erosion reduction, native 

species, and setting restoration would be reduced. Potential impacts from treatments would be less 

than under the other alternatives. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-335 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Additional actions and cooperative efforts to control, prevent, and treat lands for both invasive and 

noxious weeds, including physical, mechanical, biological, and chemical controls, would be more 

effective at controlling weeds and reducing the risk of impacts on cultural resources from wildland 

fire and suppression and erosion and in restoring native species and settings than under Alternative 

A. Expanding treatments may affect plant resources used by Native Americans, increase health risks, 

and interfere with the use of certain areas for cultural practices during treatment. Inadvertent 

damage of uninventoried cultural resources could occur if control of prescribed fire is lost. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Similar to Alternatives B and D, Alternative C would expand treatment from current levels; however 

impacts associated with the use of prescribed fire and chemical treatments would not occur. Fire and 

heat can destroy or alter artifacts and features of undiscovered resources. Chemical treatments may 

affect or target other culturally important resources or have negative health effects on tribal users. 

There would be fewer potential impacts on cultural resources and uses than under the other 

alternatives, but the effectiveness of weed reduction and associated potential positive effects on 

cultural resources from reduced risk of wildland fire and suppression, erosion reduction, native 

species, and setting restoration would be less than under Alternatives B and D. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Effects are the same as those identified for Alternative B. 

Effects from Chemical and Biological Control 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Using chemical and biological pest control methods may reduce the loss of culturally modified trees, 

help maintain the health of culturally important pinyon stands and therefore help maintain the longterm pursuit of traditional practices associated with pine nut gathering. Treatments may affect or 

target other culturally important natural resources or have negative health effects on tribal resource 

users, so coordination with tribal groups is essential to avoid impacts. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Effects are similar to those identified for all alternatives. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Effects are the same as those identified for all alternatives, but Alternatives B, C, and D may lead to 

increased use and impact potential, as described above. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Effects are similar to those described for all alternatives, but Alternatives B, C, and D may lead to 

increased use and impact potential, as described above. Because chemicals would not be used there 

would be no potential for health impacts on traditional users or loss of other culturally important 

resources. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-336 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative D 

Effects are the same as those identified for Alternative B. 

Effects from Vegetation—Rangeland Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Maintaining and restoring vegetation cover on rangelands would help protect cultural resource sites 

that are situated on or just below the ground surface and are susceptible to damage and destruction 

from ground disturbance, erosion, and increased wildland fire. Measures to rest land, restrict grazing, 

fence sensitive areas, and disperse impacts from riparian areas would also protect cultural sites from 

ground disturbance. Restoring desired native species may include plants used or valued by tribal 

users and help retain historic settings. Encouraging fire rehabilitation use or restoring nonnative 

plants can increase the potential for impacts on historic settings and native gathering areas. 

Controlling woodland encroachment onto rangelands could impact pinyon and juniper stands and 

pine nuts that are culturally important. Residual unanticipated impacts on cultural resources could 

occur from treatments and there could be short-term impacts on TCPs from changes in setting and 

loss of access during treatment. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Effects of current management are similar to those described as common to all alternatives. By 

specifying fewer biological, chemical, and prescribed fire treatments than the other alternatives, the 

potential direct impacts from treatments are less than under the other alternatives. Because fewer 

actions enhancing vegetation communities and rehabilitating habitat after a fire would be specified, 

anticipated benefits to cultural resources from erosion reduction, risk of wildland fire, restored 

plants, and settings would not be as likely to occur. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

By expanding the scope of active rangeland treatments and targeting 70,000 acres of rangeland 

improvements, a reduction in impacts on surface cultural resource sites from loss of vegetated cover 

and wildland fire would be anticipated. By emphasizing the use of nonnative species for 

rehabilitation and reclamation, there would be an increase in the potential for impacts on historic 

settings and native gathering areas. Efforts to enhance sagebrush vegetation and sage-grouse habitat 

would improve these resources valued by Native Americans, but not as much as would Alternatives 

C and D. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Promoting native plant communities through the use of native seed, longer rest periods for plant 

establishment and recovery from livestock, and natural recovery would improve the setting of 

cultural resources and restore plants that may be important to tribal users. Treatments would 

improve the preservation of surface cultural resource sites from loss of vegetated cover and wildland 

fire, but restoration may be less effective and take more time. Measures under Alternative C for 

enhancing sagebrush vegetation and sage-grouse habitat would improve these resources valued by 

Native Americans more than would the other alternatives. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-337 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative C, Option 1 

Ground disturbance, trampling and erosion, and other ongoing impacts on cultural resources 

associated with grazing would continue, but at a reduced rate. 

Alternative C, Option 2 

Restricting livestock grazing would eliminate impacts on cultural resources from this activity. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Impacts on surface cultural resource sites from loss of vegetated cover and wildland fire would be 

reduced by expanding the scope of active rangeland treatments and by targeting 70,000 acres of 

rangeland improvements. By emphasizing the use of native species for rehabilitation and 

reclamation, there would be less potential for impacts on historic settings and native gathering areas. 

Efforts under Alternative D to enhance sagebrush vegetation and sage-grouse habitat would 

improve these resources valued by Native Americans more than would Alternatives A and B. 

Effects from Vegetation—Riparian and Wetlands Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Improving or restoring riparian and wetland areas may affect the cultural resources and cultural uses 

that are often associated with these areas. Restrictive buffers around streams and water bodies and 

closures to prevent actions that would degrade riparian conditions would indirectly protect cultural 

resources within these areas. Restoration would enhance archaeological site preservation and the 

setting of TCPs. Culturally modified trees and natural resources and water features important to 

contemporary Native Americans would be protected and enhanced. Measures to control woodland 

encroachment onto riparian and wetland zones could impact pinyon and juniper stands that are 

culturally important to contemporary Native Americans. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

By specifying fewer actions, goals, and treatments for maintaining or improving wetlands and 

riparian areas than the other alternatives, the potential direct impacts on cultural resources from 

treatments are less than under the other alternatives. Reductions in erosion, enhanced site 

preservation, and the protection of any culturally important natural resources and water features 

would also be less. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Setting additional goals and BMPs for improving riparian and wetland areas and addressing 

nongrazing impacts on riparian and wetland areas would provide more long-term indirect protection 

to cultural resources by reducing the potential for erosion of archaeological sites and enhancing 

natural resources that may be culturally significant. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C 

By emphasizing the use of natural processes, Alternative C has the least potential for impacting 

cultural resources through treatments, construction of structures, alternative water developments, 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-338 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

exclusion fencing, vegetation manipulation, and changes to setting. By specifying the highest goals 

for improving riparian areas, the preservation and protection of cultural resources from erosion and 

other ground disturbance would be improved more than the other alternatives in the long-term. 

Restoring native plants and natural resources important to tribal groups would help maintain cultural 

practices and traditions and the setting of TCPs. 

Alternative C, Option 1 

Ground disturbance, trampling and erosion, and other ongoing impacts on cultural resources 

associated with grazing would continue, but at a reduced rate. 

Alternative C, Option 2 

Restricting livestock grazing would eliminate impacts on cultural resources from this activity. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Effects are similar to those identified for Alternative C, Option 1, except that there would be fewer 

expected long-term improvements to the protection and preservation of sites and culturally 

significant species from riparian restoration. 

Effects from Fish and Wildlife Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Improvements to land health and aquatic habitat and restrictions on access and stream bank 

alterations could increase soil stability, provide vegetative cover, and reduce ground disturbance, 

thereby improving protection of surface cultural resources. Maintaining and improving habitat for 

waterfowl, fish, and other wildlife could preserve opportunities to maintain traditional uses 

associated with native wildlife. Actions to enhance sagebrush vegetation and sage-grouse habitat 

would improve these resources valued by Native Americans but may reduce available pinyon 

acreage. Actions to maintain spring resources could help protect water features that are culturally 

important to tribes but could include risks of direct disturbance or alteration of the setting of 

cultural resources through ground-disturbing activities, construction, fencing, increased access, 

visibility and activity. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Effects are similar to those described as common to all alternatives. Current restrictions and 

protections for habitat and species that indirectly protect cultural resources or enhance species that 

are important to Native Americans would continue, but there would be fewer specific measures and 

objectives than the other alternatives. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

By designating Priority 2 wildlife habitats for sagebrush and sage-grouse as avoidance areas for 

certain activities and construction, indirect risks of impacts on cultural resources would be reduced 

in those areas. Efforts to enhance sagebrush vegetation and sage-grouse habitat would improve 

these resources valued by Native Americans, but not as much as would Alternative C and D. Similar 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-339 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

to Alternative D, new percentage limits on stream bank alterations would protect cultural resources 

in these areas from direct surface disturbance. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Closure and avoidance requirements for the expanded Priority 1 and Priority 2 wildlife habitat areas 

would provide indirect protections of cultural resources, TCPs, and National Historic Trails from 

direct disturbance, the effects of erosion, and alterations to setting. Alternative C would provide the 

highest amount of habitat preservation for sage-grouse and would improve these resources valued 

by Native Americans. Fencing and OHV closure at Gridley and Continental Lakes would reduce 

ground disturbance and potential for damage to the cultural resources present. Removal of artificial 

water developments may lead to the loss or migration of culturally important species. Alternative C 

would provide the most limits on stream bank alterations, which would protect cultural resources in 

these areas from direct ground disturbance and effects on setting. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Effects of Alternative D are similar to those described for Alternative B. Increasing Priority 1 and 

Priority 2 closure and avoidance areas would provide additional indirect protection from ground 

disturbance and alteration to settings than under Alternatives A and B but less than under 

Alternative C. Alternative D would be less effective at protecting sagebrush and sage-grouse valued 

by Native Americans than would Alternative C. Similar to Alternative B, new percentage limits on 

stream bank alterations would protect cultural resources in these areas, but to a lesser extent than 

under Alternative C. 

Effects from Special Status Species Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives 

Measures to protect special status fish, wildlife, and wildlife habitat include a variety of restrictions, 

buffers, closures, height limits, and bat gates that would limit activities that are incompatible with 

maintaining special status species. These actions could indirectly reduce the potential for disturbance 

of cultural resources, vandalism, and unauthorized collecting. These measures would reduce visual 

interference and noise, thus preserving the setting of the cultural resources. Some actions, such as 

the installation of bat gates, would affect visual setting and access to caves. Culturally important 

species would be protected and enhanced, but there may also be loss of access to TCPs. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Effects are similar to those identified for all alternatives. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Permitting prescriptive grazing within wet meadows and riparian areas may lead to additional 

impacts on cultural resources because cultural resources, TCPs, and culturally important plants are 

often associated with riparian areas. Potential impacts include trampling, soil disturbance, erosion, 

displacement of artifacts and site contents, and loss of culturally significant plants. Prohibiting high 

profile structures near sage-grouse leks may help preserve the setting of National Historic Trail 

resources and TCPs. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-340 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Effects are similar to those identified for all alternatives. The potential for effects on cultural 

resources are the least under Alternative C because measures to protect special status species and 

their habitats would restrict or prohibit activities in more areas than the other alternatives. 

Prescriptive grazing would not be permitted within wet meadows and riparian areas, which could 

protect cultural resources from ground disturbance, trampling and erosion, and other ongoing 

impacts on cultural resources associated with livestock grazing. Cultural resources, TCPs, and 

culturally important plants are often associated with riparian areas. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Effects are similar to those identified for Alternative B. 

Effects from Wild Horse and Burro Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Ongoing effects of wild horses and burros on cultural resources are similar to those for livestock 

grazing. Grazing and trampling reduces vegetative cover and disturbs the soil, which accelerates 

erosion and weathering. Cultural resources are directly impacted by the modification, displacement, 

and loss of artifacts, features, and middens. This results in the loss of valuable cultural resource 

information regarding site function, date of use, subsistence, past environments, and other research 

questions. Trampling and grazing can also impact TCPs, traditional use areas, and culturally 

important plants from the actions of livestock. Effects can be intensified when animals are 

concentrated near water sources where cultural resources are likely to be present. Maintaining HMAs 

and HAs could also impact cultural resources by concentrating impacts in defined areas while 

reducing impacts in other areas. Improving rangeland health could reduce the potential for impacts 

on cultural resources due to direct disturbance and erosion. Measures protecting wild horses and 

burros through restrictions on motor vehicle racing and other activities may also limit disturbance of 

the physical integrity and setting of cultural resources. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Effects are similar to those identified for all alternatives, except that this alternative allows for 

construction of fences, which may be necessary to protect cultural resources and traditional use 

areas. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Effects are the same as those identified for Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Effects are similar to those identified for all alternatives except that the construction of fences, 

which may be necessary to protect cultural resources and traditional use areas, would not be allowed. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-341 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative C, Option 1 

Ground disturbance, trampling and erosion, and other ongoing impacts on cultural resources 

associated with livestock grazing would continue. 

Alternative C, Option 2 

Ground disturbance, trampling and erosion, and other ongoing impacts on cultural resources 

associated with live stock grazing would cease, but similar lesser impacts from wild horses and 

burros would continue. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Effects are the same as those identified for Alternative B. 

Effects from Wildland Fire Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Fire can result in direct disturbance or loss of cultural resources through the destruction or 

modification of structures, features, artifacts, cultural use areas, and culturally modified trees. 

Organic materials and the information that can be obtained from their study are especially 

vulnerable to heat damage, but intense fire can damage stone as well. Fire control and suppression 

can involve ground-disturbing activities that can also directly impact cultural resources by altering 

the spatial relationships of archaeological sites. Fire can also result in impacts through erosion and 

the increased visibility of cultural resources. Fire can remove vegetation and expose previously 

undiscovered resources, allowing their study and protection; however, sites exposed by fire or 

flagged for fire avoidance in prescribed burns can be susceptible to unauthorized collection and 

vandalism. There could also be impacts on cultural resources from ground disturbance associated 

with fuel treatments and rehabilitation, the effects of chemicals and fire, and the introduction of 

seeds and pollens, which could affect the accuracy of paleobotanical data on archaeological sites. 

The risk of impacts on cultural resources is greatest from unplanned wildland fire since the locations 

of cultural resources are less likely to be known and avoided during the fire and fire suppression. 

Restrictions under the WFSA and minimum impact suppression tactics are designed to avoid or 

minimize impacts on sensitive cultural resources. Avoiding the use of retardant to protect open 

water sources could also protect culturally important water features. Fire breaks are planned and 

placed to avoid and protect known cultural resources. 

Cultural resources would be considered before any planned fuel reduction and restoration of native 

vegetation. In the long-term, culturally important native plant and animal species should benefit 

from fire management tools. Areas considered for allowing fire for resource benefit are a large 

portion of the Stillwater Range, which contains a pinyon forest, and TCPs, which are valued by 

Native Americans, as well as other areas containing cultural sites that are vulnerable to fire. These 

include Basque aspen carvings, ethnographic sites, and historic structures and wood cutting areas. 

While fire can be used as a tool to improve the health of forests such as the Stillwater Range, under 

current conditions there is a high risk that control of the fire could be lost, devastating the forest for 

generations to come and destroying other valuable archaeological and tribal resources. Other 

impacts are the same as those described in Vegetation—Rangeland Management. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-342 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Current management emphasizes full suppression of wildfires which reduces the potential for 

impacts on cultural resources from wildland fire. Suppression, however, can include grounddisturbing activities that can directly impact cultural resources by altering spatial relationships of 

artifacts and features. Types of effects are the similar to those identified for all alternatives. Where 

there are insufficient resources for full suppression of wildfires, the BLM would prioritize 

suppression, perhaps resulting in impacts on cultural resources that may have otherwise been 

avoided. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Effects are similar to those described for all alternatives, except that 110,167 acres are identified as 

priority areas where fire may be used to provide resource benefits. Because Alternative B designates 

suitable fire use areas within the Stillwater Range and other areas containing cultural sites, including 

pinyon gathering areas, Basque aspen carvings, ethnographic sites, and historic structures and wood 

cutting areas, there is a high risk of the loss of cultural resources from fire. The risk of impacts on 

cultural resources is greatest from unplanned wildland fire because the locations of cultural 

resources would be less likely to be known and avoided during the fire and fire suppression. Cultural 

resource inventory and fire management prescriptions in fire management plans could help prevent 

these impacts. However, if control of the fire was lost, these impacts could still occur. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

The effects are the same as those identified for Alternative A, except that there would be priority fire 

suppression areas established and thus additional protection from wildfire for ACECs, cultural areas 

and TCPs, and culturally important vegetation communities. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Effects are similar to those identified for all alternatives, except that 9,932 acres are identified as 

priority areas where fire may be used to provide resource benefits. This is fewer acres than under 

Alternative B and avoids more culturally sensitive areas. 

Effects from Cultural Resources Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Impacts on cultural resources from proposed land use authorizations would be minimized or 

avoided by complying with laws and executive orders designed to preserve and protect cultural 

resources. Complying with management measures for authorized actions requires consulting with 

federally recognized tribes and other interested parties, identifying and evaluating cultural resources, 

and adhering to procedures for resolving any adverse effects and mitigating impacts. Completion of 

the Section 106 process is required for all federal undertakings implementing resource management 

plan decisions. There is a greater risk of impacts resulting from unauthorized activities, natural 

processes, dispersed activities, and incremental or inadvertent human actions, especially where 

inventories are incomplete. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-343 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Cultural resource management measures would help identify, preserve, protect, and reduce impacts 

on cultural resources. Ongoing and planned management measures include the following: 

• Conducting inventories, managing NRHP-eligible resources for conservation and protection; 

• Avoiding adverse effects as the preferred mitigation; 

• Consulting with federally recognized tribes; 

• Patrolling and monitoring vulnerable cultural resource areas; 

• Cooperating with groups to identify and evaluate trail segments for the NRHP; 

• Protecting aspen art trees and groves; 

• Maintaining National Historic Trail segments 

• Partnering with academic, educational, and tribal groups for research projects; 

• Working with the tribes on implementing management measures to ensure the sustainability 

of traditional use areas associated with pine nut gathering; 

• Issuing free use permits to tribes for pine nut harvesting and dead and down firewood 

gathering would help tribes continue their traditional practices; and 

• Thinning, prescribed fire, and other tools would be used to control disease and maintain the 

health of the forest, helping to preserve tribal values. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Allowing OHV use on most of the planning area, especially in the vicinity of the National Historic 

Trail resources and Lovelock Cave risks direct impact on archaeological sites and other cultural 

resources present. Open OHV use can impact cultural resources and trail segments through direct 

disturbance of site structure, artifact breakage and displacement, vandalism, soil compaction, altered 

surface water drainage, erosion, creation of new routes, and visual and aural intrusions to setting. 

OHV use can also facilitate access to any TCPs present for cultural uses, but it could also increase 

the risk of impacts on all cultural resources from unauthorized collection or vandalism. 

Maintaining a VRM Class II objective within six miles of the CNHT centerline or to the visual 

horizon within the six-mile zone would continue to provide the highest objective among the 

alternatives for protecting the visual setting of the trail. However current roads, utilities, and other 

developments are inconsistent with this objective. The lack of viewshed protection for the Lovelock 

Cave Backcountry Byway would continue, and impacts on the setting of this resource may occur. 

The integrity of the setting of historic trails could be impacted by fluid mineral leasing and material 

sales. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Effects of OHV use on cultural resources are the same as those identified for Alternative A. 

Reducing the current objective for the CNHT trail to VRM Class III overall and VRM Class IV 

along I-80 and the utility corridor would allow additional intrusion on the viewshed of the historic 

trail, would affect the visitor experience of the setting of the trail, and could indirectly result in the 

loss or damage of trail resources through development in the trail corridor. Adding a VRM Class III 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-344 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

objective to the Lovelock Cave Backcountry Byway and Lovelock Cave would increase protection 

from current levels but would still allow moderate change that could reduce the future integrity of 

the visual setting. The integrity of the setting of historic trails could be impacted by fluid mineral 

leasing and material sales. 

Changes in management of pinyon and juniper stands that are culturally important to Native 

Americans would impact traditional uses and TCPs. Removing current restrictions on Christmas tree 

cutting, green pinyon cutting, and firewood cutting would damage trees and groves that have been 

traditionally used for pine nut gathering for generations, impacting the viability and continuity of 

these cultural traditions. Commercial harvests of pine nuts would compete with the supply available 

for traditional uses and users and may interfere with the setting of TCPs and expression of cultural 

practices. 

Implementing additional proactive cultural resource management measures, such as public 

interpretation, inventory priorities, sensitivity modeling, and categorizing known resources into use 

categories for planning purposes, would help the BLM identify, protect, and educate the public 

about significant cultural resource resources. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Limiting OHV use to existing roads and trails in the vicinity of the Lovelock Cave Backcountry 

Byway, the CNHT trail viewsheds, and other sensitive areas and closing OHV use to Class I 

segments of National Historic Trails would provide additional protection from surface disturbance, 

vandalism, and intrusions to the setting of cultural resources. Retaining the current VRM Class II 

objective for the CNHT, adding a VRM Class II objective to the Lovelock Cave Backcountry 

Byway, and removing sensitive trail viewsheds from consideration for disposal would provide the 

highest objectives among the alternatives for protecting the visual setting of the trail. New 

restrictions on fluid and solid mineral surface occupancy and mineral material sales within one mile 

of the CNHT and historic trails would avoid potential effects from surface disturbance of trail 

resources and additional alterations to setting in those areas. 

Continuing current restrictions on harvest of green pinyon and commercial and noncommercial 

harvests of woodland products and Christmas trees in the Stillwater Range would protect tribal uses 

of these resources and would help ensure the continuity of these practices. Expanding the proactive 

cultural resource management measures and interpretative programs would increase appreciation of 

the history and cultural resources present and enhance opportunities for public use and protection. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Effects are similar to those identified for Alternative C. Historic landscapes along CNHT would be 

managed to VRM Class II, Class III, and Class IV objectives, based on an assessment of the actual 

scenic values present. While a reduction from current objectives, this action would allow the BLM to 

assess impacts on the visual setting of trail resources based on the existing character of the 

landscape. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-345 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Effects from Tribal Consultation 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Consultation with tribal groups on project effects and land use planning is a complementary and 

required part of cultural resource management. Efforts to document, recognize, and include 

confidential tribal knowledge and concerns in the identification and management of cultural 

resources, especially traditional use areas and TCPs, enhance the management of these cultural 

resources. Impacts on TCPs and sacred sites can be very difficult and, in some cases, impossible to 

adequately mitigate to the satisfaction of all parties. The potential for impacts on cultural resources 

would be reduced by actions to protect traditional religious practices and sites, land forms, burial 

sites, resources, and other areas of concern by designating SMAs or emergency, temporal, or 

seasonal closures. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Effects are similar to those identified for all alternatives. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Effects are similar to those identified for all alternatives. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Effects are similar to those identified for all alternatives. Alternatives C and D also propose periodic 

meetings as an effective and proactive approach to engage the tribes in planning future land use 

actions and avoiding cultural resource impacts. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Effects are similar to those identified for all alternatives. Like Alternative C, Alternative D also 

proposes periodic meetings as an effective and proactive approach to engage the tribes in planning 

future land use actions and avoiding cultural resource impacts. 

Effects from Paleontological Resources Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Identification and protection measures for paleontological resources may also lead to the 

identification and protection of cultural resources. Scientific study of these resources may provide 

additional information on paleo-environments and other research questions relevant to the cultural 

resources of the WDO. 

Effects from Visual Resources Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

VRM Class I and II designations provide protection of cultural resources where visual setting is a 

contributor to the significance of the property or the traditional use. Use of the visual resource 

contrast rating system during project planning could reduce the impact of visual intrusions on 

cultural resources, especially National Historic Trails. Visual intrusion on the setting of cultural 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-346 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

resources must be considered in the Section 106 process and tribal consultation, regardless of VRM 

designation. Risk of impacts on cultural resources in VRM Class I areas could also be indirectly 

reduced where designations limit surface-disturbing activities in these areas. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Effects are similar to those described for all alternatives. There would be no change in the current 

VRM designations and protection of the visual setting of cultural resources; national trail viewsheds 

would remain the same. Maintaining a VRM Class II objective within six miles of the CNHT 

centerline or to the visual horizon within the six-mile zone would continue to provide the highest 

objective among the alternatives for protecting the visual setting of the trail. However, current roads, 

utilities, and other developments are inconsistent with this objective. The lack of viewshed 

protection for the Lovelock Cave Backcountry Byway would continue, and impacts on the setting of 

this resource may occur. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Lands designated as VRM Class I or VRM Class II would be less than all of the other alternatives. 

Protection of the visual setting of cultural resources and historic landscapes would be reduced from 

current levels and indirect protections VRM Class I areas would be reduced by 2,666 acres. 

Reducing the current objective for the CNHT trail to VRM Class III overall and VRM Class IV 

along I-80 and the utility corridor would allow additional intrusion on the viewshed of the historic 

trail, would affect the visitor experience of the setting of the trail, and could indirectly result in the 

loss or damage of trail resources through development in the trail corridor. This designation 

provides the least protective objective among the alternatives for the visual setting of the trail. 

Adding a VRM Class III objective to backcountry byways would increase protection of the integrity 

of the visual setting of the Lovelock Cave Backwater Byway from current levels but would still allow 

moderate change that could reduce the future integrity of the visual setting. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Protection of the visual setting of cultural resources and historic landscapes would be increased 

from current levels. Lands designated as VRM Class I or VRM Class II would be greater than all of 

the other alternatives. Retaining the current VRM Class II objective for the CNHT and adding a 

VRM Class II objective to the Lovelock Cave Backcountry Byway would provide the highest 

objectives among the alternatives for protecting the visual setting of the trail. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Effects are similar to those described for Alternative C. Historic landscapes along CNHT would be 

managed to VRM Class II, Class III, and Class IV objectives, based on an assessment of the actual 

scenic values present. While a reduction from current objectives, this action would allow the BLM to 

assess impacts on the visual setting of trail resources based on the existing character of the 

landscape. There would be some reduction from Alternative C in overall VRM Class II acres and the 

indirect protection they may provide to the visual setting of cultural resources. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-347 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Effects from Cave and Karst Resource Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives 

There are no effects common to all alternatives from cave and karst resources. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

There are no actions addressing caves and karsts under this alternative and thus no impacts on 

cultural resources. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Caves and karsts are often the location of cultural resources and places that are important to Native 

Americans. Protecting caves and karsts is complementary to other cultural resource management 

goals if access for traditional uses is maintained and interpretation does not lead to use impacts from 

visitation or vandalism. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Effects are similar to those for Alternative B. By allowing no surface disturbance within 500 feet of 

cave and karst entrances there would be additional protection for the setting of cultural resources 

and sites that may be associated the entrances. Avoiding publicizing locations could also protect 

cultural resources from vandalism, overvisitation, and interference with tribal uses. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Effects are the same as those for Alternative B. 

Effects from Livestock Grazing Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives 

Livestock grazing is associated with ongoing impacts on cultural resources located on or near the 

ground surface. Improper grazing and trampling reduces vegetative cover and disturbs the soil, 

which accelerates erosion and weathering. Cultural resources are directly impacted by the 

modification, displacement and loss of artifacts, features, and middens, resulting in loss of valuable 

cultural resource information regarding site function, date of use, subsistence, past environments, 

and other research questions. Trampling and grazing can also impact TCPs, traditional use areas, and 

culturally important plants from the actions of livestock. Since cultural resources and TCPs are often 

associated with permanent and intermittent water sources and these areas are attractive to livestock, 

impacts on cultural resources are most likely to occur in these areas. Animals also seek shade in rock 

shelters and can damage cultural resource sites that are often present at those locations. Actions 

under all alternatives to protect springs and wetland riparian areas from livestock grazing would help 

protect water features and sources that may be culturally important to tribes and reduce the risk of 

direct disturbance and erosion of any cultural resources present. Actions that improve rangeland 

health could reduce the potential for impacts on cultural resources from direct disturbance, erosion, 

and wildland fire. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-348 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Effects are the same as those identified for all alternatives. There would be no net change in the 

lands available for livestock grazing or the assigned AUMs. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Implementing adaptive grazing management and additional rangeland improvements would reduce 

the risk of impacts on cultural resources from disturbance and erosion. Acres of AUMs and 

allotments would remain the same. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Alternative C, Option 1 

Reductions in grazed acres, closure of newly acquired lands, resting of land, less intensive grazing, 

and other measures to maintain the rangeland health would reduce the risk of impacts on cultural 

resources from ground disturbance, trampling, and erosion. 

Alternative C, Option 2 

Restricting livestock grazing would eliminate impacts on cultural resources from this activity. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Effects are similar to those described under Alternative B. Because there would be fewer acres of 

land open to grazing, the potential for impacts on cultural resources on these 215,973 acres would 

be eliminated. 

Effects from Minerals Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives 

General 

Discretionary mineral exploration and development activities are subject to further cultural resource 

review at each stage of development either through the Section 106 process, mine regulations or 

permitting stipulations. Nondiscretionary mining notices are not federal undertakings, but 43 CFR 

3809 specifically provides for the protection of cultural properties by prohibiting mining operators 

on claims of any size from knowingly disturbing or damaging them. However, mining notices must 

be reviewed within 15 days, and it may be difficult to determine the presence of resources in areas 

that have not been inventoried. Potential impacts that would be addressed include ground 

disturbance, erosion, intrusions to setting, access leading to unauthorized collection or vandalism, 

and interference with traditional cultural uses and access. 

Restricting minerals activities that would affect NRHP-listed or NRHP-eligible cultural sites or 

requiring additional mitigations would maintain protection for these resources. WSA mineral 

withdrawals for preserving natural resources would provide additional indirect protection for 

cultural resources and TCPs in those locations from ground disturbance and setting alteration. 

Provisions for concurrent and interim reclamation would reduce the amount of land disturbed at 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-349 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

any one time, reducing the duration of alterations to setting and the potential for impacts due to 

erosion of cultural sites. Ongoing impacts on cultural resources in the vicinity of existing mines and 

drilling locations would continue. 

Fluid 

Surface exposures of hot springs are often places that are of cultural and religious importance to 

Native Americans. Exploration and development of geothermal resources in these areas may impact 

TCPs and be difficult to adequately mitigate. 

Locatable 

Maintaining the withdrawal of Lovelock Cave from locatable mineral development would continue 

to protect this NRHP-listed resource from disturbance and alterations of setting. Requiring 

additional stipulations for mineral operations within a mile of the CNHT or an identified TCP or 

within a quarter mile of NRHP-listed or NRHP-eligible cultural sites provides additional protection 

for cultural resources and consideration of Native American values. All alternatives recognize that a 

larger buffer area may be needed to avoid impacts on the setting of TCPs and avoiding interference 

with cultural practices. 

RFDs 

Based on reasonably foreseeable development scenarios, mineral exploration, development, and 

operations are expected to continue through the life of the RMP. Only a small proportion of the 

WDO that would be open to mineral exploration and development under any of the alternatives is 

expected to be subject to disturbance or further development. Alterations to setting could impact a 

larger area. Further cultural resource review at the different stages of exploration and development 

would avoid or address many potential impacts on cultural resources; however, there may be residual 

effects on cultural resources, TCPs, and the setting of the National Historic Trails that may be 

difficult or impossible to adequately mitigate. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Current protections for cultural resources, TCPs, sacred sites, and National Historic Trails would be 

retained. No surface occupancy would be maintained for fluid and solid minerals for cultural and 

historical sites and visible remnants of National Historic Trails. Acreage subject to mineral 

withdrawals, closures, and surface use stipulations, which could reduce the risk of impacts on 

cultural resources, would be least under this alternative. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

While acreage open and closed to mineral material disposal would remain the same as under 

Alternative A, 867,124 acres would be open only to government entities and thus would be subject 

to additional stipulations to protect cultural resources. These measures would provide additional 

protection for cultural resources and consideration of Native American values from ground 

disturbance, erosion, setting intrusions, access leading to unauthorized collection or vandalism, and 

interference with traditional cultural uses and access. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-350 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative B would increase the amount of land closed to leasing of fluid and solid leasables and 

also would add surface use stipulations. Allowing no surface occupancy within a mile of the CNHT, 

or an identified TCP considered eligible for the NRHP, or a quarter mile of cultural sites that are 

eligible for listing listed on the NRHP would provide additional protection for cultural resources and 

their settings and consideration of Native American values. Any quarter-quarter-quarter section (10-

acre parcel) within or intersected by these site would be subject to no surface occupancy restriction. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

 Alternative C includes more acres with cultural resource restrictions (closures, NSO stipulations, 

and mineral withdrawals) than all of the other alternatives and would provide the highest level of 

protection for cultural resources and consideration of Native American values among the 

alternatives. 

Acreage closed to mineral material disposal and acres open only to government entities would 

increase. Lovelock Cave, Dave Canyon, Stillwater Mountains, and areas within a mile of identified 

TCPs known to be eligible or considered to be eligible for the NRHP would be closed to salable 

minerals. Alternative C would greatly increase the amount of land closed to leasing of fluid leasables 

and solid leasable, including land within a mile of the CNHT or an identified TCP considered 

eligible for the NRHP, or a quarter mile of cultural sites that are eligible for listing on the NRHP. 

Increasing the amount of land that would be withdrawn from locatable mineral leasing, including 

culturally sensitive areas, such as Stillwater Range, and an expansion of the buffer around Lovelock 

Cave, would provide additional protection for cultural resources and their settings and consideration 

of Native American values.

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Management measure would provide protections for cultural resources, TCPs, and National Historic 

Trails that are similar to those identified for Alternative C. This alternative includes fewer cultural 

resource restrictions and protective measures than under Alternative C but more than the other 

alternatives. 

Effects from Recreation, Visitor Outreach, and Services Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Recreational use and access can impact cultural resources through direct disturbance, soil 

compaction, altered surface water drainage, erosion, intrusions to setting, and access leading to 

unauthorized collection or vandalism. The potential for impacts on cultural resources would increase 

as population and recreational use increases or is concentrated. The effect of repeated uses or visits 

over time could also increase the intensity of impacts due to natural processes. Continuing and 

enhancing interpretation and public education can vest the public in resource protection and respect 

for Native Americans and cultural values. Provisions for recreational permitting can reduce the 

potential for impacts from overuse. Updating the transportation plan and conducting site-specific 

NEPA analysis would be a federal undertaking, triggering further review of the potential impacts on 

cultural resources, TCPs, and trail segments. 

Open OHV use can impact cultural resources, TCPs and trail segments through direct disturbance 

of site structure, artifact breakage and displacement, vandalism, soil compaction, altered surface 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-351 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

water drainage, erosion, creation of new routes and visual and aural intrusions to setting. Motorized 

access could facilitate access to any TCPs for cultural uses, but it could also increase the risk of 

impacts on resources from unauthorized collection or vandalism. Restricting vehicle use to existing 

routes would reduce the risk of disturbing cultural resources located off travel routes and would 

reduce some impacts on setting, but impacts from access could still occur. Enforcing travel routes is 

difficult, and unauthorized user-created trails would continue to occur, potentially impacting cultural 

resources. Closure of areas to OHV use provides the most protection for cultural resources, if 

access for cultural purposes can be maintained. 

All alternatives include the following measures designed to avoid impacting cultural resources and 

Native American values: 

• Maintaining and enhancing interpretive programs for cultural sites; 

• Pursuing partnerships and agency coordination for interpretive sites; 

• Ensuring that construction is compatible with landscape settings; and 

• Minimizing adverse effects on cultural resources through use restrictions, permit stipulations, 

and mitigation measures. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Under Alternative A, most of the WDO would remain open to OHV use, and there would be fewer 

limited and closed areas than under the other alternatives. Class I segments of National Historic 

Trails would remain open to OHV use, as would OCTA Class II, III, IV, and V segments of CNHT 

and trail viewsheds. The potential risk of impacts on archaeological sites, TCPs, and trail resources 

in these areas from direct disturbance, soil compaction, altered surface water drainage, erosion, 

intrusions to setting, and access leading to unauthorized collection or vandalism would continue and 

increase as population and use increases. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

By reducing the acres that would be open to OHV use and increasing limited and closed areas, 

potential impacts due to dispersed motorized recreation on cultural resources located off travel 

routes would be reduced from current levels. However, since over 1,460,200 acres would remain 

open to OHV use, many archaeological sites, the Lovelock Cave Backcountry Byway setting, 

National Historic Trails and associated setting, and TCPs and associated setting could be impacted. 

Designating SRMAs and RMZs for recreation could increase the intensity of use of these areas, 

increasing the risk of inadvertent and other damage to cultural resources and their setting. For 

example, the Blue Wing and Winnemucca Lake Playas RMZ is an important cultural resource area. 

Enhancing interpretive and educational opportunities as part of the recreation emphasis may help 

reduce inadvertent damage to cultural resources and Native American values present. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

By placing the most restrictions on OHV use, Alternative C would minimize the potential impacts 

on cultural resources and their setting from this recreational use. By limiting recreational facility 

development, emphasizing recreational opportunities closer to town over those in remote areas, and 

permitting fewer organized commercial and group activities, impacts on cultural resource sites would 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-352 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

be reduced and the potential intensity of impacts on cultural resources would be less dispersed and 

more localized. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Potential impacts on cultural resources off travel routes would be reduced from current levels by 

restricting most vehicle use to designated routes. OCTA Class II, III, IV, and V segments of CNHT 

and trail viewsheds and TCPs would be protected by limited designation and Class I segments of 

National Historic Trails, and the area around Lovelock Cave would be protected by closure to OHV 

use. 

Effects from Renewable Energy Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Renewable energy exploration and development (solar, wind, and biomass) activities are subject to 

further cultural resource review at each stage of development through the Section 106 in 

consultation with tribal governments. Potential impacts would include direct ground-disturbing 

activities, erosion, intrusions to setting, and access, leading to unauthorized collection or vandalism. 

The siting of wind energy facilities in particular can impact TCPs on mountain ridges and can affect 

the visual setting of the historic trails and other cultural resources. All permits would be subject to 

stipulations, restrictions, and mitigation measures, which would reduce the potential for impacts on 

cultural resources and TCPs. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Impacts are the same as those identified for all alternatives. Existing exclusion zones would be 

maintained, providing protections for cultural resources and their settings. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

By not designating exclusion zones, current protection of cultural resources in those areas for 

consideration for renewable energy siting would be reduced, but impacts on cultural resources 

would still be considered in the Section 106 process. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

By increasing exclusion and avoidance zones, this alternative would place the most limitations on 

lands considered for development, thus minimizing potential impacts on cultural resources in those 

zones from the siting of renewable energy projects. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

By increasing exclusion and avoidance zones from current levels, Alternative D would limit the 

siting of renewable energy projects more than all of the alternatives except Alternative C and 

minimizing potential impacts on cultural resources in those zones. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-353 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Effects from Transportation and Access Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Avoiding duplication of roads that have common destinations can reduce risks of impacts on 

cultural resources from ground disturbance and access leading to unauthorized collection or 

vandalism. Road maintenance such as plowing can disturb the physical integrity of cultural resources 

in road corridors where inventories are incomplete. However, maintenance can also prevent erosion 

and braiding and other processes that may threaten the integrity of cultural resources on or near 

roads. Roads can also alter the visual setting of cultural resources but can also facilitate access to any 

TCPs present for cultural uses. 

Effects on cultural resources from OHV travel designations are discussed under Recreation, Visitor 

Outreach, and Services Management. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Effects are similar to those identified for all alternatives. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Identifying and decommissioning roads that are contributing to resource damage could reduce 

physical impacts on cultural resources. Creation of alternative access could result in additional 

impacts on cultural resources or could open up undisturbed areas to future impacts associated with 

use and access. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Effects are similar to those described for Alternative B. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Effects are similar to those described for Alternative B. 

Effects from Lands and Realty Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

All alternatives include provisions to retain and acquire lands that contain significant cultural 

resources and TCPs, to maintain access to resources, and to reduce unauthorized uses. The 

acquisition of new land would provide long-term federal protection to any cultural resources 

included in the transaction and could enhance currently managed resources by consolidating 

holdings and potentially protecting the setting of cultural resources. Land tenure adjustments that 

allow for better access to public lands could facilitate cultural use of TCPs but could also lead to 

vandalism or unauthorized collection of cultural resources. Exchange or disposal of lands to 

nonfederal entities would permanently remove federal protections for any significant cultural 

resources present, which would be an adverse effect on TCPs, and National Historic Trails 

segments. Adverse effects to most other cultural resources could be mitigated through data recovery. 

All National Historic Trails segments would be retained in compliance with Section 203(a) of 

FLPMA. Exchanges, disposal, and subsequent landscape changes could also result in impacts on the 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-354 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

setting of cultural resources, especially National Historic Trail resources. The setting of the Lovelock 

Cave Backcountry Byway could be adversely affected by disposal of land. Siting communication sites 

on mountaintops could impact Native American sacred sites and other TCPs and could affect the 

visual setting of the historic trails and other cultural resources. Defining exclusion and avoidance 

areas reduces the potential for impacts on cultural resources resulting from discretionary actions at 

those locations. Impacts on cultural resources from all lands and realty actions would be subject to 

further review. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

By providing a retention buffer for areas having high public resource values including the National 

Historic Trail, Alternative A is most protective of trail resources and the trail setting, as well as other 

cultural resources in the Humboldt River corridor. By defining 2,989,030 acres as suitable for 

disposal and by not designating avoidance areas or exclusion zones for lands and realty and ROWs, 

current management has the most amount of land that would be considered for activities that could 

impact cultural resources. Impacts on cultural resources may be mitigatable, but Alternative A is less 

protective of TCPs and other cultural resources that are difficult or impossible to mitigate. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Because Alternative B would remove much of the retention buffer around the National Historic 

Trail, this alternative would reduce current protections of trail resources and the trail setting, as well 

as other cultural resources in the Humboldt River corridor. Fewer overall acres would be designated 

as suitable for disposal and avoidance areas would be increased resulting in less land that would be 

considered for activities that could impact cultural resources. Exclusion zones for lands and realty 

and ROW would be unchanged. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Alternative C would provide more protection of National Historic Trail resources and settings than 

Alternative B, but less than Alternative A. Alternative C would provide the most protection for 

TCPs and other cultural resources that are difficult or impossible to mitigate by designating the least 

amount of land as suitable for disposal and by creating exclusion and avoidance zones. Land 

proposed to be transferred to the BIA would also retain federal cultural resource protections. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

The risk of impacts on cultural resources is similar to Alternative C, except that less land would be 

protected from disposal, designated as excluded, or avoided for discretionary actions. 

Effects from ACEC/RNA Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Managing lands as ACEC or RNAs could directly or indirectly provide long-term protection of 

cultural resources by restricting incompatible uses. Protecting cultural and natural resource values in 

ACECs would also decrease the risk of impacts on identified or unidentified cultural resources 

present. Under all alternatives, the risk of impacts on cultural resources from ground-disturbing 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-355 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

activities, erosion, intrusions to setting, and access leading to unauthorized collection or vandalism 

would be reduced in these areas by restricting other actions. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Effects are the same as those identified for all alternatives. Current protections for the 60-acre 

Osgood Mountain Milkvetch ACEC would also provide some additional protection of cultural 

resources within. By not creating any new ACECs, protection of cultural resources and places of 

Native American cultural and religious importance would not be addressed in the Pine Forest, 

Raised Bog, and Stillwater ACECs, which are proposed under Alternatives C and D. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Effects are the same as those identified for Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

By designating additional ACECs there would be fewer risks of impacts on cultural resources within 

the designated land from ground-disturbing activities, erosion, intrusions to setting, and access that 

would lead to unauthorized collection or vandalism. The creation of the Stillwater ACEC would 

provide additional protection for recognized locations important for contemporary Native American 

traditional and religious uses. Under Alternatives C and D, more land would be placed in ACECs 

and RNAs than the other alternatives, and there would be more restrictions on ground-disturbing 

and other activities, including communication sites that could impact cultural resources. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Effects are the same as those identified for Alternative C. 

Effects from Backcountry Byways Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives 

Segments of the CNHT follow the route of the Lovelock Cave Backcountry Byway. Lovelock Cave 

is listed on the NRHP and is one of the most important archaeological sites in the Great Basin. 

Efforts to preserve the setting of the cultural landscapes and viewshed associated with the trail and 

the cave are complementary to other cultural resource management measures. The Lovelock Cave 

Backcountry Byway includes a driving tour with historic (including National Historic Trails), 

prehistoric, and paleo-environmental interpretive stops and a nature trail with ethnobotanical stops. 

Continuing to manage and enhance the byway would continue to improve the visitor experience and 

would enhance public appreciation and protection of cultural resources. Developing additional 

backcountry byways could lead to more public interpretation of cultural resources, but it could also 

increase the risk of impacts on resources from unauthorized collection or vandalism. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Effects are the same as those identified for all alternatives. Evaluation of the Gold Country, Silver, 

and Blue Lakes Byways under Alternatives A and D could lead to development of these in the 

future. The Gold and Silver BCBs include historic mining sites, and the Blue Lakes and Knott Creek 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-356 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

BCBs are in areas where prehistoric sites and Basque aspen carvings are found. Development of 

these could lead to interpretation of these cultural resources to the public. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Effects are the same as those identified under Effects Common to All Alternatives. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Effects are the same as those identified under Effects Common to All Alternatives. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Effects are the same as those described for Alternative A. 

Effects from National Trails Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives 

National Historic Trails are cultural resources, and proposed management measures are described in 

the cultural resources section. Actions proposed to protect, interpret, and enhance the values of the 

trails and trail resources and to retain their setting are compatible and complementary with cultural 

resource protection. 

Effects from Wild and Scenic Rivers Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives 

There are no actions common to all alternatives that would impact cultural resources. No segments 

of rivers or streams are managed as wild and scenic rivers. If designations are pursued as called for 

under Alternative C, management measures could indirectly provide long-term protection of cultural 

resources by restricting consideration of incompatible uses along eligible segments. 

Effects from Wilderness Study Areas and Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Managing 416,652 acres as WSAs to maintain wilderness characteristics would restrict surfacedisturbing activities and would indirectly reduce the potential for direct disturbance of cultural 

resources, alterations to visual and aural setting, and access leading to vandalism and unauthorized 

collecting. Culturally important species and areas that are culturally significant to tribes may be 

protected, but there may also be loss of access to TCPs. If Congress releases the WSAs and they are 

not located within a designated ACEC, the risk of impacts on cultural resources from future surfacedisturbing activities and other incompatible uses would increase. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Effects are the same as those identified under Effects Common to All Alternatives. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-357 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Effects are the same as those identified under Effects Common to All Alternatives. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Effects are similar to those identified for all alternatives. Managing an additional 156,475 acres to 

protect wilderness characteristics in four areas includes closing them to mineral leasing and 

establishing ROW exclusion zones. Priority habitat would further restrict surface-disturbing 

activities and would reduce the potential for direct disturbance of cultural resources. Managing to 

maintain wilderness characteristics and priority habitat would also reduce the potential for indirect 

impacts on the visual and aural setting of cultural resources and would reduce the potential for 

impacts due to public access from overuse, vandalism and unauthorized collecting. Culturally 

important species and areas that are culturally significant to tribes may be protected, but there may 

also be loss of access to TCPs. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Effects are the same as those identified under Effects Common to All Alternatives. 

Effects from Public Health and Safety Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Collecting information related to abandoned mines may contribute to understanding and future 

interpretation of historic mining resources. Safety considerations and hazard reduction could be in 

conflict with cultural resource and Native American values if historic structures and features are 

removed or modified, if clean up of hazards involve ground disturbance, or if access and use of 

culturally significant springs are limited without cultural resource review and Native American 

consultation. 

Effects from Sustainable Development Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no actions common to all alternatives that would impact cultural resources. If sustainable 

development proposals are pursued under Alternatives B, C, and D, effects would be subject to 

further cultural resource review and would be similar to other land and realty actions. Disposal of 

public lands is allowed under all except Alternative A. Land reuse may prevent future land 

disturbance and impacts on cultural resources at other locations. While cultural resources would 

probably not be directly impacted, settings of National Historic Trails, TCPs, backcountry byways, 

and other cultural resources could be impacted. Reuse may continue alterations to the visual setting 

of cultural resources, or it could delay for several years the eventual reclamation and restoration of 

the visual setting. 

Cumulative Effects 

The types of effects on cultural resources that have occurred in the past include destruction of 

cultural resources, loss of integrity due to physical or other disturbances, loss of setting, the effects 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-358 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

of natural processes, such as erosion and weathering, incremental disturbance from use or access, 

loss of access to TCPs, and effects from vandalism and unauthorized collection. 

Current and future trends include population growth, construction associated with urban 

development, access changes, and growth in recreation. These would continue to impact cultural 

resources and cultural landscapes through loss or disturbance of resources that are not protected, 

changes in setting, pressure from incremental use, loss of access to TCPs, and access leading to 

vandalism of cultural resources. Historic properties and the segments of National Historic Trails 

adjacent to areas of growth and development would be most susceptible to future impacts. 

Enforcement of measures designed to protect cultural resources and natural resources and places 

used by tribal groups would become more difficult as population and use increases. Areas where 

open, cross-country OHV use is allowed would continue to expose cultural resources to impacts. 

Designating routes can protect cultural resources located off the routes, but restrictions are difficult 

to enforce, especially as population and recreational use grows and other areas are closed. Actions 

related to grazing, vegetation treatment, wildland fire, mineral development, and energy 

development have had past effects on cultural resources. Use of natural resources and energy 

development is expected to remain at current levels or to increase. 

Cultural resource and Native American values would continue to be considered and inventoried in 

the land tenure decisions and the acquisition and disposal of lands. In cases where resources are 

identified, mitigations to resolve adverse effects can preclude other desirable management options. 

Easier access through consolidation could facilitate better management of cultural resources and 

access to TCPs, but it also could lead to more impacts on cultural resources. Increased frequency of 

wildland fire in the cumulative effects area, allowing fire for resource benefit, and suppression are 

associated with surface and other disturbances to cultural resources. Treatments could affect plant 

resources utilized by Native Americans, increase health risks, and interfere with the use of certain 

areas for cultural practices during treatment. Inadvertent damage of uninventoried cultural resources 

could occur if control of prescribed fire is lost. The availability of natural resources used or valued 

by Native Americans could be affected by wildland fires, plant diseases, insect infestations, water 

developments, and interference from increased use or development. 

For actions that could affect cultural resources on federal land or actions that are funded, licensed, 

or permitted by the federal government, compliance is required with the NHPA and other laws, 

statutes, and regulations. Consideration of the effects of undertakings on protected cultural 

resources would be required, and most adverse effects would be resolved. For many types of cultural 

resources, information on the regional cultural resource base is not available and needs to be 

developed to properly assess the significance of the resource base. State agency actions using federal 

funds or needing a federal permit require cultural resource review. Impacts on cultural resources 

would be avoided or mitigated in many of the regional actions. Some effects would be unavoidable. 

Measures are in place to identify threats to resources and to prioritize management actions, but 

some effects on known or unknown cultural resources resulting from activities such as natural 

processes, wildland fire, grazing, dispersed recreation, OHV use, and vandalism can go unnoticed 

and may not be mitigated. Mitigation could preclude other desirable management options and future 

uses. Development or actions on lands that are not protected by federal or other cultural resource 

statutes and regulatory protections could lead to loss of these resources and the regional heritage and 

knowledge that they contain. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-359 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Contributions to regional cumulative effects would vary among the alternatives. Alternative A would 

not change current management or provide additional protections for cultural resources. Alternative 

A would contribute to more regional cumulative effects resulting from open OHV use, land 

disposal, lack of avoidance and exclusion zones. Allowing open OHV use on most of the planning 

area and designating fewer limited and closed areas than under the other alternatives would continue 

ongoing impacts on cultural resources and their settings in the region. Although Alternative A 

defines over 3 million acres as suitable, buffers on ether side of the National Historic trail are 

protected from disposal, making this most protective of National Historic Trails as well as other 

cultural resources in the Humboldt River corridor. Most impacts to cultural resources are 

mitigatable, but Alternative A is less protective than the other alternatives of TCPs and other 

cultural resources that are difficult or impossible to mitigate. Fires would continue to be suppressed, 

reducing the potential impacts from wildland fire. For many of the other resources, fewer actions 

than those called for under the other alternatives would be taken that would provide additional 

protections for or enhancement of cultural resources. However, fewer impacts due to vegetation 

treatments would be expected. Maintaining a VRM Class II objective within six miles of the CNHT 

centerline would continue to set the highest objective among the alternatives. 

The emphasis under Alternative B on resource use would contribute to new regional cumulative 

effects. While some proposed restrictions would result in additional protections for cultural 

resources, Alternative B would permit many activities in more places that would be incompatible 

with protecting cultural resources, TCPs, and Native American traditional practices. It would have 

the most effect on tribal uses, which are being limited by other regional trends and actions on 

private and public lands. Allowing fire for resource benefit is designated as suitable on over 111,000 

acres and includes culturally sensitive areas containing a rich variety of unique and irreplaceable 

cultural resources. Changes in management of pinyon and juniper stands and expanding commercial 

uses would impact traditional uses and TCPs and would threaten the viability and continuity of these 

cultural traditions. Lands designated as VRM Class I or Class II would be less than under all of the 

other alternatives, and protection of the visual setting of cultural resources and historic landscapes 

would be reduced from current levels. Commercial development of water sources could lead to 

additional risk of impacts on cultural resources and traditional uses and values. Open OHV use 

would be reduced but still would encompass a large portion of lands managed by the WDO. By 

limiting OHV use in many areas to existing roads and trails, the likelihood of impacts on physical 

integrity and setting of archaeological sites, sacred sites, and TCPs off the roads would be reduced. 

For many of the other resources, additional protective and enhancing measures would be added that 

would reduce erosion of cultural resources, would improve habitat for culturally important species, 

would restore riparian and wetland areas, and would reduce wildland fire fuels. These treatments 

may be associated with some impacts and may include nonnative species. Fewer acres would be 

suitable for disposal, and avoidance areas for ROWs would be increased from current levels. 

The emphasis of Alternative C on actions that value resource conservation, protection, and minimal 

human intervention would have the least impact or risk of impact on cultural resources and would 

contribute the least to cumulative effects. Alternative C designates the WDO as not suitable for 

allowing fire for resource benefit. Impacts due to fire suppression may occur on these lands. 

Alternative C would expand vegetation treatment from current levels, but impacts associated with 

the use of prescribed fire and chemical treatments would not occur. Promoting native plant 

communities through the use of native seed, more land resting, and natural recovery would improve 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-360 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-361 

the setting of cultural resources and would restore plants and animals that may be important to tribal 

users. Treatments would also improve the preservation of surface cultural resource sites from loss of 

vegetated cover and wildland fire. Grazing impacts on cultural resources would be reduced or 

eliminated under Alternative C. Retaining and expanding restrictions on harvest of pinyon stands, 

Christmas tree cutting, firewood cutting, and green pinyon cutting would protect traditional cultural 

practices related to these tribal use areas. Protection of the visual setting of cultural resources, 

national trails, and historic landscapes would be increased from current levels. Lands designated as 

VRM Class I or VRM Class II objectives would be greater than all of the other alternatives. By 

placing the most restrictions on OHV use, Alternative C would minimize the potential impacts on 

cultural resources and their setting from this recreational use. Exclusions, restrictions, and 

withdrawal of lands from disposal, ROW and mineral development, surface disturbance, and other 

incompatible activities for natural or cultural resource protection would be highest under these 

alternatives and thus would contribute the least to regional cumulative effects on cultural resources. 

Alternative D balances the conservation emphasis of Alternative C with more active management of 

resources and fewer restrictions on resources uses. Thus, cumulative impacts on cultural resources in 

the region would be more than under Alternative C and less than under Alternatives A and B. 

Allowing fire for resource benefit is designated as suitable on over 110,000 acres and includes 

culturally sensitive areas containing a rich variety of unique and irreplaceable cultural resources. By 

not designating areas as suitable or not suitable for allowing fire for resource benefit, decisions 

regarding allowing fire for resource benefit would continue to be made on a case-by-case basis in 

response to fires, perhaps resulting in impacts on cultural resources that may have otherwise been 

avoided. Allowing the BLM more discretion in managing pinyon stands may lead to fewer impacts 

on cultural resources from allowing fire for resource benefit than under Alternative C, but there 

could be more direct impacts from treatments and harvest of forest products. Careful use of 

treatments, protection of green pinyon, and selective harvest in consultation with tribal groups 

would help maintain the health of culturally important pinyon stands and the long-term pursuit of 

traditional practices. By emphasizing the use of native species for rehabilitation and reclamation, 

there would be less potential for impacts on historic settings and native gathering areas. Historic 

landscapes along CNHT would be managed to VRM objectives, based on an assessment of the 

actual scenic values present. By restricting most vehicle use to designated routes, potential impacts 

on cultural resources off travel routes would be reduced from current levels. Less land would be 

protected from disposal, be designated as excluded, be avoided for discretionary actions, be open to 

grazing, or be restored than under Alternative C. More land would be subject to stricter stipulations 

or mitigations for water importation or exportation projects, soil-disturbing activities, reclamation, 

and erosion control than under Alternatives A and B. Protections and enhancement of cultural 

resources and Native American uses on the substantial amount of land managed by the WDO 

would be improved from current conditions and, thus, would contribute less to cumulative impacts 

than all other alternatives except Alternative C. 

4.2.14 Paleontological Resources 

Summary 

This section presents potential impacts of the alternatives on paleontological resources. The 

planning area has not been systematically surveyed for paleontological resources. However, 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

numerous paleontological localities have been identified by independent researchers. See Chapter 3 

for a discussion of the paleontological resources in the planning area. 

Some of the most important paleontological resources in the planning area include Mesozoic 

icthyosaurian fossils and Triassic hybodont shark remains. Fossil mammal and fish remains also 

occur in the planning area. The planning unit also includes a wealth of invertebrate paleontological 

resources, including flora fossils and several sources of paleoenvironmental information. The Lund 

Petrified Forest is a petrified wood paleoflora in Washoe County between Gerlach and Vya. Lands 

surrounding the Lund Petrified Forest have been withdrawn from mineral entry and also from use 

for disposal sites. 

Assessment of potential effects on paleontological resources is addressed under FLPMA, NEPA, 

other federal regulations, and BLM orders. Pursuant to FLPMA, the BLM has issued regulations 

that provide additional protection. These regulations prohibit the removal of any scientific resource 

or natural object without authorization. There are exceptions to this prohibition for small quantities 

of common invertebrate fossils and petrified wood. The BLM manages paleontological resources for 

their scientific, educational, and recreational values and to ensure that any impacts are mitigated. 

Impacts on paleontological resources occur by 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. 

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

disturbance activities would have beneficial impacts (less chance of disturbance) to any 

paleontological resources that might be present. These other objectives and actions are referenced 

below. 

Methods of Analysis 

Methods and Assumptions

This analysis is based on information compiled by a BLM contractor, paleontologist David Lawler 

(Lawler 1978; Lawler and Roney 1978), as well as from reports by J. R. Firby (Firby 1995), Jefferson 

(no date) and other researchers. 

The following assumptions regarding the resource base and management practices were considered 

in the analysis: 

• For the purpose of assessing impacts, only those objectives and actions potentially affecting 

vertebrate and scientifically important paleontological resources were considered; 

• The greatest potential for impacts would result from actions that include direct large-scale 

disturbance of bedrock, weathered bedrock, or unconsolidated alluvial deposits that may 

include fossils of more recent geologic age; 

• All authorized surface-disturbing activities include assessment of paleontological resources in 

project area and sufficient mitigation to reduce impacts on those resources; 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-362 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

• Excavation can reveal previously undiscovered resources and potentially allow research and 

interpretive uses; 

• While paleontological resources are often discovered only through being exposed by erosion, 

exposed fossils or scientifically important paleontological resources can be damaged by wind 

and water erosion. Other sources of damage include animal and human intrusion, natural 

deterioration, and development and maintenance activities; 

• Increased access associated with new development and increased recreation use leads to 

increased access to paleontological sites; 

• Vandalism and unauthorized collecting can destroy a feature or remove it from its context 

and availability for scientific study; and 

• Public education increases public appreciation and awareness of the need for protection, but 

publication of specific locations leads to increased visitation. 

The area of analysis for cumulative effects on paleontological resources is defined as northwestern 

Nevada. 

Effects from Air Quality Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives 

There are no likely impacts on paleontological resources resulting from air quality management 

objectives or actions under any of the alternatives. With respect to effects on paleontological 

resources, all of the alternatives are essentially equivalent. 

Effects from Geology Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives 

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. For example, one of the geologic 

resources being considered to be potentially unique includes Lake Lahontan shore features (e.g., 

gravel bars or shore terraces). These features could include paleoenvironmental information. Should 

any examples of the Lake Lahontan shore features be designated as a unique geologic feature, any 

paleoenvironmental information present would also be preserved. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Other than maintaining current OHV use within exclusion zones, there are no set management 

objectives or actions under Alternative A concerning unique geologic resources. Mitigations and 

restrictions are determined on a case-by-case basis. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Regarding mining activities, unique geologic resources would be protected less under Alternative B 

than under Alternative A, where individual cases may include stronger limitations or mitigations. 

Regarding OHV use, limitations under Alternative B would be greater than those under Alternative 

A, less than those under Alternative C, and equivalent to those under Alternative D. Any unknown 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-363 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

paleontological resources within the areas protected as unique geologic features would also be 

protected. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Regarding mining activities, the protection of the unique geologic resources would be greatest under 

Alternative C. Regarding OHV use, limitations under Alternative C would be greater than those 

under Alternatives A, B, and D. Any unknown paleontological resources within the areas protected 

as unique geologic features would also be protected. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Regarding mining activities, the protection of the unique geologic resources would be overall less 

than under Alternative C, where all mining activities would be restricted, but protection would be 

greater than under Alternatives A and B. Regarding OHV use, limitations under Alternative D 

would be greater than those in Alternative A, less than those under Alternative C, and equivalent to 

those under Alternative B. Any unknown paleontological resources within the areas protected as 

unique geologic features would also be protected. 

Effects from Soil Resources Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives 

There are no likely impacts on paleontological resources resulting from soil resources management 

objectives or actions under any of the alternatives. With respect to effects on paleontological 

resources, all of the alternatives are essentially equivalent. 

Effects from Water Resources Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives 

There are no likely impacts on paleontological resources resulting from water resources management 

objectives or actions under any of the alternatives. With respect to effects on paleontological 

resources, all of the alternatives are essentially equivalent. 

Effects from Vegetation—Forest/Woodland Products Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives 

There are no likely impacts on paleontological resources resulting from forest or woodland products 

management objectives or actions under any of the alternatives. With respect to effects on 

paleontological resources, all of the alternatives are essentially equivalent. 

Effects from Vegetation—Weeds Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives 

There are no likely impacts on paleontological resources resulting from weeds management 

objectives or actions under any of the alternatives. With respect to effects on paleontological 

resources, all of the alternatives are essentially equivalent. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-364 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Effects from Chemical and Biological Control 

Effects Common to All Alternatives 

There are no likely impacts on paleontological resources resulting from chemical and biological 

control management objectives or actions under any of the alternatives. With respect to effects on 

paleontological resources, all of the alternatives are essentially equivalent. 

Effects from Vegetation—Rangeland Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives 

Soft marshy areas can contain deposits of paleoenvironmental resources (e.g., pollen). The 

management objectives and actions under rangeland management would result in various numbers 

of livestock in these types of areas. These areas could experience increased erosion, resulting in the 

loss of the paleoenvironmental information if such paleontological resources were not known to be 

present and otherwise protected. 

Other than potential damage to undiscovered paleontological resources, there are no likely impacts 

on paleontological resources resulting from rangeland management objectives or actions under any 

of the alternatives. With respect to effects on paleontological resources, all of the alternatives are 

essentially equivalent. 

Effects from Vegetation—Riparian and Wetlands Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives 

There are no likely impacts on paleontological resources resulting from riparian and wetlands 

management objectives or actions under any of the alternatives. With respect to effects on 

paleontological resources, all of the alternatives are essentially equivalent. 

Effects from Fish and Wildlife Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives 

There are no likely impacts on paleontological resources resulting from fish and wildlife 

management objectives or actions under any of the alternatives. With respect to effects on 

paleontological resources, all of the alternatives are essentially equivalent. 

Effects from Special Status Species Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives 

If unknown paleontological resources were present within the boundaries of areas protected from 

surface disturbances due to special status species management, resources would also be protected. If 

not, there are no likely impacts on paleontological resources resulting from special status species 

management objectives or actions under any of the alternatives. With respect to effects on 

paleontological resources, all of the alternatives are essentially equivalent. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-365 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Effects from Wild Horse and Burro Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives 

There are no likely impacts on paleontological resources resulting from wild horse and burro 

management objectives or actions under any of the alternatives. With respect to effects on 

paleontological resources, all of the alternatives are essentially equivalent. 

Effects from Wildland Fire Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives 

Allowing fire for resource benefit and fire suppression can involve ground-disturbing activities at 

depths that can directly affect any undiscovered paleontological resources, if present. These actions 

include constructing fire lines, bulldozing access roads, and using heavy equipment. High severity 

fire can also damage surface fossils, including cracking, spalling, and oxidizing. Fire can result in 

impacts through erosion and the increased visibility of paleontological resources. Fire can also 

remove vegetation and expose previously undiscovered resources, allowing for their discovery, study 

and protection; however, locations exposed by fire can be susceptible to damage by subsequent 

erosion, vandalism, and unauthorized collecting. 

Impacts on undiscovered paleontological resources cannot be assessed because the type, quality, and 

location of the resources are unknown. Given that the location of any surface-disturbing activities 

cannot be predicted, the intersection of the undiscovered resources and the potential future activities 

also cannot be predicted. There are no likely impacts on known paleontological resources locations 

resulting from wildland fire management objectives or actions under any of the alternatives. With 

respect to effects on known paleontological resources, all of the alternatives are essentially 

equivalent. 

Effects from Cultural Resources Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives 

There are no likely impacts on paleontological resources resulting from cultural resource 

management objectives or actions under any of the alternatives. With respect to effects on 

paleontological resources, all of the alternatives are essentially equivalent. 

Effects from Tribal Consultation Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives 

There are no likely impacts on paleontological resources resulting from tribal consultation objectives 

or actions under any of the alternatives. With respect to effects on paleontological resources, all of 

the alternatives are essentially equivalent. 

Effects from Paleontological Resources Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives 

Beneficial impacts on paleontological resources are anticipated. Measures under all of the 

alternatives call for an inventory of areas that may contain paleontological resources before land use 

authorizations. Alternatives B, C, and D also include additional protective management measures to 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-366 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

identify priority geographic areas for field inventory and to develop management recommendations 

(including mitigation measures) to protect any identified resources on a case-by-case basis. These 

measures would increase the identification of previously unknown paleontological resources, 

allowing them to be protected from disturbance and reducing potential for impacts. 

Permits would be required to remove fossils for scientific purposes. As appropriate, physical 

conservation measures, such as signing, fencing, erosion control, and administrative conservation. 

would be implemented to reduce impacts on the resources. In addition, law enforcement would 

patrol selected areas to help prevent damage to or theft of paleontological resources. 

Collecting fossils from within the George W. Lund Petrified Forest would be prohibited, thereby 

increasing the level of protection and reducing the current impacts. 

Education opportunities would be promoted and partnerships with academic and scientific 

organizations would be pursued. Materials would be published to promote public awareness and 

appreciation of the WDO paleontological resources. Scientific research information concerning the 

locations of specific resources would be published only if increased visitation would not harm the 

resource. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Under Alternative A, there would be no additional management objectives or actions other than 

those common to all of the alternatives. Alternative A is equivalent to Alternative B. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Under Alternative B, there would be no additional management objectives or actions other than 

those common to all of the alternatives. Alternative B is equivalent to Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

While physical conservation measures, such as signing, fencing, erosion control, and 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 from disturbance and to reduce the potential for 

impacts. 

While all alternatives would seek to publish materials to promote public awareness and appreciation 

of the WDO paleontological resources, Alternative C would limit publication to those materials that 

would not result in increased visitation and the resulting increase in vandalism and unauthorized 

collecting. The protections of paleontological resources are greatest under Alternative C. Therefore, 

Alternative C would result in the fewest impacts on paleontological resources. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

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 

from disturbance, thereby reducing the level for impacts. The protection of paleontological 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-367 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

resources under Alternative D is greater than those under Alternatives A and B and less than those 

under Alternative C. 

Effects from Visual Resources Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives 

There are no likely impacts on paleontological resources resulting from visual resources management 

objectives or actions under any of the alternatives. With respect to effects on paleontological 

resources, all of the alternatives are essentially equivalent. 

Effects from Cave and Karst Resources Management 

Caves frequently contain pack rat middens, which are an important source of paleoenvironmental 

information. 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Increased visitation would result in a greater risk of impacts from disturbance, vandalism, and 

unauthorized collecting as access is improved and locations become known. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

There are no objectives or management actions under Alternative A, and any protections would be 

on a case-by-case basis. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Caves frequently contain pack rat middens, which are an important source of paleoenvironmental 

information. Alternative C are most protective; Alternatives B and D provide similar protections. 

Alternative B includes actions for identifying caves, for implementing appropriate mitigation 

measures, such as seasonal closures, avoidance, fencing, bat gates, and installing signs to protect the 

unique geologic features and wildlife habitat. These mitigations would also reduce the potential for 

disturbance of pack rat middens. Alternative B includes greater protections for cave resources (e.g., 

closures and physical barriers) than Alternative A. The education and public awareness provisions 

would increase visitation to those areas, resulting in a greater risk of impacts from disturbance, 

vandalism, and unauthorized collecting as access is improved and locations become known. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Alternative C includes actions for identifying caves, for implementing appropriate mitigation 

measures, such as seasonal closures, avoidance, fencing, bat gates, and installing signs to protect the 

unique geologic features and wildlife habitat. These mitigations would also reduce the potential for 

disturbance of pack rat middens. Alternative C includes greater protections for cave resources (e.g., 

closures and physical barriers) than does Alternative A and have essentially equivalent protections as 

Alternative B. However, under Alternative C, the education and public awareness provisions would 

be limited to those that would not increase visitation and would involve less risk of impacts from 

disturbance, vandalism, and unauthorized collecting than under Alternatives B and D. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-368 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Alternative D includes actions for identifying caves, for implementing appropriate mitigation 

measures, such as seasonal closures, avoidance, fencing, bat gates, and installing signs to protect the 

unique geologic features and wildlife habitat. These mitigations would also reduce the potential for 

disturbance of pack rat middens. Alternative B includes greater protections for cave resources (e.g., 

closures and physical barriers) than does Alternative A. The education and public awareness 

provisions would increase visitation to those areas, resulting in a greater risk of impacts from 

disturbance, vandalism, and unauthorized collecting as access is improved and locations become 

known. 

Effects from Livestock Grazing Management 

Effects Common to all Alternatives 

The areas around springs can be either erosional or depositional. Where there are seasonal deposits 

of sediments around springs, these deposits can contain pollen or other paleoenvironmental 

materials. Disruption of these seasonal depositions impacts the scientific value of these materials. 

Grazing animals tend to congregate in riparian areas including springs. Potential impacts of grazing 

include increased sediment loading from soil eroded by wind and water due to vegetation loss, direct 

soil disturbance, and runoff concentrated into animal trails, with consequent enhanced erosion. 

Spring developments and livestock concentrations in the vicinity of springs could effect any 

deposition in the area of springs, so potential deposition of paleoenvironmental materials could also 

be effected reducing the scientific value of these materials. 

With the exception of Alternative C, Option 2, which would eliminate livestock grazing, livestock 

grazing under all of the alternatives is expected to continue to have impacts on water resources, 

including springs. The information and analysis regarding these impacts mostly concern water 

quality. There is little information on the effects on the depositional nature of springs. 

Under each of the alternatives (except Alternative C, Option 2), 399,073 AUMs of livestock forage 

would be allocated, subject to adjustment based on monitoring (and on other criteria in the case of 

Alternative C). 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Alternative A attempts to strike a balance between livestock grazing and other uses, minimizing 

conflicts between livestock and other uses. 

Closure to grazing is one of the most effective methods of preventing adverse effects on water 

resources. Alternative A closes 296,008 acres to livestock grazing, which is the same as Alternative 

B, about 2,000 fewer acres than under Alternative C Option 1, and about 23,000 fewer acres than 

under Alternative D. Therefore, Alternatives A and B would result in more of the types of impacts 

on springs and the paleoenvironmental deposits described above than would Alternatives C ,Option 

1, and D. 

Alternatives A and B, and to a lesser extent Alternative D, allow continued development of new 

springs and wetland-riparian areas for livestock watering with constraints. The development of these 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-369 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

new watering sources would allow animals to be rotated among a greater number of sites and would 

allow more opportunity for disturbed sites and the paleoenvironmental deposits to rest and recover. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Alternative B designates the same number of acres closed to grazing as does Alternative A. 

The development of new springs to support livestock grazing is the same as that under Alternative 

A and is intended to minimize impacts on water resources and the paleoenvironmental deposits. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Alternative C, Option 1 

Alternative C, Option 1 calls for closing about 2,000 more acres to grazing than Alternative A, so it 

would be slightly more protective of springs and the paleoenvironmental deposits. 

Alternative C, Option 1, would not allow new spring developments to support livestock grazing. 

This would effectively result in a phaseout or reduction in grazing in some allotments. The measure 

may not be protective of undeveloped springs, but other actions described above give rangeland 

managers broad authority to limit impacts on undeveloped springs and any paleoenvironmental 

deposits. 

Option 1 calls for restoring or developing springs to benefit wildlife, rather than livestock. No new 

springs would be developed to support livestock, and newly developed springs would be fenced to 

exclude livestock and WHB. The combination of these actions is expected to reduce impacts on 

springs and the paleoenvironmental deposits to a greater extent than under Alternative B. 

Alternative C, Option 2 

Alternative C, Option 2 excludes grazing, which would reduce impacts on springs and the 

paleoenvironmental deposits. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Alternative D would close about 23,000 acres more to grazing than would Alternative A. Closure 

provides the highest level of protection to springs and the paleoenvironmental deposits. 

Alternative D is similar to the corresponding action under Alternatives A and B, however, under 

Alternative D, there is more explicit guidance than under Alternatives A and B on how new spring 

or wetland-riparian water developments should be installed. 

Effects from Minerals Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives 

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 

or mitigations would be required. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-370 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Under Alternative A, 418,938 acres would be closed to salable mineral disposition, 446,887 acres 

would be closed to fluid leasable minerals activities, 416,652 acres would be closed to solid leasable 

minerals activities, and 6,543 acres would be withdrawn from locatable mineral activities. 

Paleontological resources would be protected from these mining activities within these areas, 

thereby reducing the potential for impacts from disturbance. Under Alternative A, fluid minerals 

leasing would only be allowed within the Raised Bog area with NSO stipulations. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Under Alternative B, 418,938 acres would be closed to salable mineral disposition, 1,132,594 acres 

would be closed to fluid leasable minerals activities, 1,124,266 acres would be closed to solid leasable 

minerals activities, and 6,543 acres would be withdrawn from locatable mineral activities. 

Paleontological resources would be protected from mining activities within these areas, thereby 

reducing the potential for impacts from disturbance. Alternative B includes the same amount of land 

closed to the various mining activities, except for solid leasable minerals activities. For these minerals 

activities, more area would be closed under Alternative B than under Alternative A. 

Under Alternative B, there are no restrictions on mining within the Raised Bog area. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Under Alternative C, 837,049 acres would be closed to salable mineral disposition, 4,455,028 acres 

would be closed to fluid leasable minerals activities, 4,453,645 acres would be closed to solid leasable 

minerals activities, and 281,892 acres would be withdrawn from locatable mineral activities. 

Paleontological resources would be protected from these mining activities within these areas, 

thereby reducing the potential for impacts from disturbance. More land would be closed to the 

various types of mining activities under Alternative C than under Alternatives A, B, or D. 

In addition, the area of the George Lund Petrified Forest withdrawal would be enlarged to a total of 

141 acres, further reducing potential impacts on paleontological resources from disturbance 

associated with mining activities. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Salable mineral activities and fluid and solid leasable minerals activities would be allowed within one 

quarter mile of an identified paleontological resource classified as being of scientific or educational 

interest. To accomplish this, any quarter-quarter-quarter section (10-acre parcel) within or 

intersected by the site or the quarter-mile buffer line would be subject to NSO. 

Under Alternative D, 743,301 acres would be closed to salable mineral disposition, 1,98,464 acres 

would be closed to fluid leasable minerals activities, 1,198,694 acres would be closed to solid leasable 

minerals activities, and 27,941 acres would be withdrawn from locatable minerals activities. 

Paleontological resources would be protected from mining activities within these areas, thereby 

reducing the potential for impacts from disturbance. More land would be closed to the various types 

of mining activities under Alternative D than under Alternatives A or B but less land than under 

Alternative C. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-371 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

The rights to locatable minerals could be acquired, but proposals for locatable mineral operations 

would be restricted within a quarter mile of identified paleontological resources classified as being of 

scientific or educational interest. 

In addition, the area of the George Lund Petrified Forest withdrawal would be enlarged to a total of 

141 acres, further reducing potential impacts on paleontological resources from disturbance 

associated with mining activities. 

Effects from Recreation, Visitor Outreach, and Services Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

OHV use can damage surface manifestations of paleontological resources, if present, and can 

increase access to localities. Increased access increases the potential for disturbance and 

unauthorized collection. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Alternative A closes more acres to OHV use than does Alternative B but closes less than under 

Alternatives C and D. However, Alternative A does not include limits on OHV use in other areas. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Alternative B closes the least acreage to OHV use but applies limits to OHV use on a large amount 

of land. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Alternative C calls for closing the most land to OHV use and the most land with limits applied to 

OHV use. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Alternative D closes more land to OHV use and applies limits to OHV use on more land than does 

Alternative B but less than under Alternative C. 

Effects from Renewable Energy Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives 

There are no likely impacts on paleontological resources resulting from renewable energy 

management objectives or actions under any of the alternatives. With respect to effects on 

paleontological resources, all of the alternatives are essentially equivalent. 

Effects from Transportation and Access Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives 

Increased transportation or access to any area would increase the level of visitation, resulting in 

greater potential for impact on any paleontological resources that might be present. There are no 

likely specific impacts on known paleontological resources resulting from transportation and access 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-372 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

management objectives or actions under any of the alternatives. With respect to effects on known 

paleontological resources, all of the alternatives are essentially equivalent. 

Effects from Lands and Realty Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives 

Paleontological resources would be one of the public resources evaluated when acquisition actions 

are considered. The acquisition of new land would provide long-term federal protection of any 

paleontological resources contained therein. 

Exchange or disposal of lands to nonfederal entities would permanently remove federal protections 

for paleontological resources. The reduced level of protection would result in greater potential for 

vandalism, theft, and destruction of any paleontological resources present. The potential for 

paleontological resources would be assessed before these activities were authorized. 

No specific lands with known paleontological resources have been identified for acquisition or 

disposition, so there are no likely impacts on paleontological resources resulting from lands and 

realty management objectives or actions under any of the alternatives. With respect to effects on 

paleontological resources, all of the alternatives are essentially equivalent. 

Effects from ACEC/RNA Management 

The Raised Bog is considered to have potential to have a 10,000-year-old pollen record. 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Surface disturbance could disturb the more recent paleoenvironmental information and could 

increase erosion, which could result in the loss of older information. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Under Alternative A, the Raised Bog area is not proposed for ACEC designation. Any protections 

would continue on a case-by-case basis (see Effects from Minerals Management). The protections 

under Alternative A are slightly greater than those under Alternative B. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Under Alternative B, the Raised Bog area is not proposed for ACEC designation. There would be 

no surface disturbance restrictions. Alternative B is the least restrictive alternative. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Under Alternative C, the Raised Bog area is proposed for ACEC designation. This would increase 

the restrictions on surface disturbance activities. Alternatives C and D are equally restrictive. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Under Alternative D, the Raised Bog area is proposed for ACEC designation. This would increase 

the restrictions on surface disturbance activities. Alternatives C and D are equally restrictive. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-373 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Effects from Backcountry Byways Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives 

There are no likely impacts on paleontological resources resulting from backcountry byways 

management objectives or actions under any of the alternatives. With respect to effects on 

paleontological resources, all of the alternatives are essentially equivalent. 

Effects from National Trails Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives 

There are no likely impacts on paleontological resources resulting from national trails management 

objectives or actions under any of the alternatives. With respect to effects on paleontological 

resources, all of the alternatives are essentially equivalent. 

Effects from Wild and Scenic Rivers Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives 

There are no likely impacts on paleontological resources resulting from wild and scenic rivers 

management objectives or actions under any of the alternatives. With respect to effects on 

paleontological resources, all of the alternatives are essentially equivalent. 

Effects from Wilderness Study Areas and Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives 

There are no likely impacts on paleontological resources resulting from wilderness, wilderness study 

areas, or areas with wilderness characteristics management objectives or actions under any of the 

alternatives. With respect to effects on paleontological resources, all of the alternatives are essentially 

equivalent. 

Effects from Watchable Wildlife Viewing Sites Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives 

There are no likely impacts on paleontological resources resulting from watchable wildlife viewing 

sites management objectives or actions under any of the alternatives. With respect to effects on 

paleontological resources, all of the alternatives are essentially equivalent. 

Effects from Public Health and Safety Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives 

There are no likely impacts on paleontological resources resulting from public health and safety 

management objectives or actions under any of the alternatives. With respect to effects on 

paleontological resources, all of the alternatives are essentially equivalent. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-374 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-375 

Effects from Sustainable Development Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives 

There are no likely impacts on paleontological resources resulting from sustainable development 

management objectives or actions under any of the alternatives. With respect to effects on 

paleontological resources, all of the alternatives are essentially equivalent. 

Cumulative Effects 

Increased regulation and increased protection of other resources would result in less area subject to 

surface-disturbing activities and activities that result in increasing potential for erosion. These 

changes would result in less general damage to paleontological resources and increased protection of 

specific identified resources. 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

This page intentionally left blank. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-376