APPENDIX F 

AREAS OF CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL 

CONCERN (ACEC) NOMINATION REPORT 

United States Department of the Interior

 BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT 

Winnemucca Field Office

5100 East Winnemucca Boulevard 

Winnemucca, Nevada 89445-2921 

 http://www.nv.blm.gov/winnemucca 

 (775) 623-1500 or wfoweb@nv.blm.gov 

In Reply Refer To:

 NV-20.06 

1610.RMP 

Dear Reader/Interested Party: 

Attached is the Relevance and Importance evaluation analysis report of 29 areas nominated as Areas of 

Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs) for the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Winnemucca 

Field Office, Resource Management Plan (RMP)/Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The 

evaluations document whether nominations meet the relevance and importance criteria as provided in 

BLM Manual 1613 “Areas of Critical Environmental Concern.” Three (3) of the 29 nominations meet 

the criteria and will move forward for further consideration. One existing ACEC will also be brought 

forward. The remaining 25 nominations have been dropped from further analysis as potential ACECs. 

If you submitted a nomination for an ACEC, this letter and report provides notice as required in BLM 

Manual 1613 whether your nomination met the relevance and importance criteria to move forward as a 

potential ACEC. During the 90-day public comment period for the Draft RMP/EIS, the public may 

comment on the ACEC relevance and importance analysis. 

The BLM is currently in the process of defining management alternatives for the RMP. Management 

goals, objectives, actions and allowable uses will be defined for each of the 3 proposed ACEC 

nominations and 1 existing ACEC to protect relevant and importance values identified in the 

nominations. 

Thank you for your continued interest in the planning process. 

 Sincerely,

 Gail G. Givens

 Field Manager 

Enclosure: 

ACEC Analysis Report 
United States Department of the Interior 

Bureau of Land Management 

Winnemucca Field Office 

5100 East Winnemucca Blvd. 

Winnemucca, NV 89445 September 2006 

 _________________________________________________________

 AREAS OF CRITICAL 

 ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN 

 Relevance and Importance Evaluations 

For 29 Areas Nominated as Areas of Critical 

 Environmental Concern 

Prepared by the Winnemucca Field 

 Office for the Winnemucca

 Resource Management Plan 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

This report documents the evaluation of 29 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 

(ACEC) nominations reviewed as part of the Winnemucca Resource Management Plan 

(RMP). Four (4) of the 29 nomination areas will be considered further in alternatives 

developed for the plan and the associated environmental analysis. The 3 areas are 

referred to as Potential ACECs with 1 area being an existing ACEC. 

This evaluation does not designate any of the areas as ACECs. Designation of potential 

ACEC areas will be determined after public input and analysis of the RMP/EIS is 

completed. Final designation will be reflected in the signed Record of Decision (ROD) 

for the RMP. 

i 
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS 

ACEC Area of Critical Environmental Concern 

BLM Bureau of Land Management 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

EIS Environmental Impact Statement 

ESI Ecological Site Inventory 

FLPMA Federal Land Policy and Management Act 

GIS Geographic Information System

 MFP Management Framework Plan 

NCA National Conservation Area 

NDOW Nevada Department of Wildlife 

MLRA Major Land Resource Area 

OHV Off Highway Vehicle 

RMP Resource Management Plan 

ROD Record of Decision 

TCP Traditional Cultural Property 

VRM Visual Resource Management 

WA Wilderness Area 

WFO Winnemucca Field Office 

ii 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Subject Page

INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1 

DEFINITION OF AN AREA OF CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN............ 1 

CRITERIA REQUIREMENTS FOR ACEC DESIGNATION.......................................... 2 

Relevance Criteria........................................................................................................... 2 

Importance Criteria ......................................................................................................... 2 

Need for Special Management........................................................................................ 2 

ADDITIONAL RELEVANCE AND IMPORTANCE CRITERIA APPLIED ................. 3 

THE ACEC EVALUATION PROCESS............................................................................ 5 

ACEC EVALUATION....................................................................................................... 6 

IMPORTANCE & RELEVANCE EVALUATION OF ACEC NOMINATIONS............ 8 

STATEMENT OF FINDINGS......................................................................................... 12 

Figures: 

Figure 1 – WFO RMP ACEC Process.................................................................................7 

Figure 2 – Winnemucca Field Office RMP Proposed ACECs..........................................14 

Figure 3 – Winnemucca Field Office RMP – Proposed Pine Forest ACEC .....................15 

Figure 4 – Winnemucca Field Office RMP – Proposed Stillwater ACEC........................16 

Figure 5 – Raised Bog Proposed Area of Critical Environmental Concern ......................17 

Figure 6 – Osgood Mountain Milkvetch - ACEC..............................................................18 

iii 
INTRODUCTION 

In March 2005 the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Winnemucca Field Office 

(WFO) initiated the official public scoping period to prepare a Resource Management 

Plan (RMP) via publication of the Notice of Intent in the Federal Register. The RMP 

will incorporate appropriate management decisions from the existing Paradise-Denio and 

Sonoma-Gerlach Management Framework Plans (1982) along with updated evaluations 

and decisions into one RMP. The WFO planning area boundary encompasses about 

10,060,000 acres consisting of public lands, private lands, state lands, Indian reservations 

and the federal lands not administered by the BLM. The RMP will address the public 

lands administered by the WFO. Approximately 1.2 million acres within the planning 

area was included in the Black Rock Desert-High Rock Canyon Emigrant Trails National 

Conservation Area, associated wilderness areas and other contiguous lands. A separate 

land use plan for this area was developed and approved in July 2004. The WFO RMP 

will cover about 7.2 million acres of public land within the WFO administrative boundary 

and certain grazing allotments outside of the boundary administered by WFO via 

Memorandums of Understanding with other BLM Field Offices. 

The BLM is required under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 As 

Amended (FLPMA) to do land use planning under Title II. Sec. 202 (c)(3) requires BLM 

to give priority to the designation and protection of areas of critical environmental 

concern (ACEC) as part of the land use planning process. Among various land use plan 

decisions, the WFO RMP will address administrative designations such as ACECs. To 

be designated as an ACEC, an area must meet both the relevance and importance criteria 

listed in the ACEC BLM manual #1613, (9/88) and require special management. 

Requests for ACEC nominations for the RMP were initiated in May 2005. Nominations 

may come from BLM staff, other agencies, or members of the public. In addition to new 

nominations, the BLM WFO will be evaluating past nominations received. To date, the 

WFO has received 29 nominations. 

DEFINITION OF AN AREA OF CRITICAL 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN 

BLM regulations (43 CFR part 1610) define an ACEC as an area “within the public lands 

where special management attention is required (when such areas are developed or used 

or where no development is required) to protect and prevent irreparable damage to 

important historic, cultural, or scenic values, fish and wildlife resources, or other natural 

systems or processes, or to protect life and safety from natural hazards.” 

ACECs differ from other special management designations such as Wilderness Study 

Areas (WSAs) in that the designation, by itself, does not automatically prohibit or restrict 

other uses in the area. A Plan of Operation is required for any proposed mining activity 

within an ACEC. 

1 
CRITERIA REQUIREMENTS FOR ACEC DESIGNATION 

To be designated as an ACEC, an area must meet the relevance and importance criteria 

listed in BLM 1613 Manual (BLM 1988) and require special management. As part of 

the WFO RMP, BLM planning team members will review all ACEC nominations to see 

if they meet ACEC criteria. The three elements of ACEC criteria are listed below. 

Relevance Criteria: 

Does the area contain one or more of the following: 

1. A significant historic, cultural, or scenic value? 

2. A fish and wildlife resource? 

3. A Natural process or system? 

4. A natural hazard? 

Importance Criteria: 

Does the value, resource, system, process, or hazard described above have substantial 

significance or value? Does it meet one or more of the following: 

1. Is it more than locally significant, especially compared to similar resources, 

systems, processes, or hazards within the region or nation? 

2. Does it have qualities or circumstances that make it fragile, sensitive, rare, 

irreplaceable, exemplary, unique, endangered, threatened, or vulnerable to 

 adverse change? 

3. Has it been recognized as warranting protection in order to satisfy national 

priority concerns or to carry out the mandates of FLPMA? 

4. Does it have qualities that warrant highlighting to satisfy public or management 

concerns about safety and public welfare? 

5. Does it pose a significant threat to human life and safety or property? 

Need for Special Management: 

Does the value, resource, system, process, or hazard require special management to 

protect (or appropriately manage) the importance/relevant values(s)? Special 

management is defined as or is needed when: 

1. Current management activities are not sufficient to protect a given 

relevant/important resource value and a change in management is needed that is 

not consistent with the existing land use plan(s). 

2. The needed management action is considered unusual or outside of the normal 

range of management practices typically used. 

3. The change in management is difficult to implement without ACEC designation. 

2 
ADDITIONAL RELEVANCE AND IMPORTANCE 

CRITERIA APPLIED 

CULTURAL RESOURCES AND VALUES 

Relevance - For the purpose of this evaluation, an area would meet the relevance criteria 

for cultural values if it is more than locally significant. This is defined as: a site or group 

of sites which are unique within the region, state, or nation. Sites which are considered to 

be representative of many known sites (relatively common) within the local area are not 

considered to be unique. 

Importance – A site/area would meet the importance criteria if: 

a. The site or group of sites are so fragile, sensitive, or rare, that, if lost would be 

irreplaceable or the site(s) have no other comparable site(s) from which data can 

 be extrapolated. 

b. The site(s) meet priority concerns via an existing National special designation 

such as, National Historic Trail, national Landmark, National Register site or 

District, or Traditional Cultural Property (TCP). Sites can meet these criteria by 

being nominated as a TCP or by being eligible for listing on the National Register 

for more than local significance. 

c. An historic structure or cultural feature that is in such a state of disrepair or in an 

unstable condition as to pose a significant human health or safety hazard. 

d. The area contains significant and unique rock art locations. 

Special Management Requirements - Evaluation would be determined based on need for 

management change after reviewing existing management plans, Federal Laws, 

Regulations, BLM policy and guidance. 

SCENIC VALUES – For the purpose of this evaluation, only areas containing all or 

portions of Visual Resource Management Class I or II are deemed to meet relevance and 

importance criteria. 

FISH AND WILDLIFE RESOURCES – For the purpose of this evaluation, the 

following criteria will be used to evaluate relevance and importance. 

e. Bureau listed, sensitive, species of concern, or state listed special status species 

that are considered to be more than locally significant and have regional 

 importance. 

f. Federally listed threatened or endangered species have regional and national 

 importance. 

g. Species or habitat where there is a real immediate threat. 

NATURAL PROCESSES OR SYSTEMS 

This system addresses the relevance and importance criteria as they relate to in a broader 

context, rare, unique, or unusual plant communities. For the purposes of this evaluation, 

3 
a sensitive plant species or unusual plant community is considered to meet the relevance 

criteria wherever it is found and is considered to be more than locally significant if the 

plant or community is rare within the Northern Great Basin or Western United States. 

A plant species or community also meets the importance criteria if: 

h. The plant community rates high when compared to other similar plant 

communities with the Major Land Resource Area (MLRA). This rating is based 

on comparing survey data collected by the Ecological Site Inventory (ESI) 

 method. 

i. The site/plant community has been recognized to be of national importance via 

National level special designations, such as a National Conservation Area or 

Traditional Cultural Property based at least in part, on the presence of 

 plant/community values. 

NATURAL HAZARDS 

The following relevance and importance criteria will be applied to natural hazards. 

j. Is a natural hazard present? 

k. Does the area have qualities that warrant highlighting public notification to satisfy 

public management concerns about safety and public welfare? 

l. Does the area pose a significant threat to human life and safety? 

4 
THE ACEC EVALUATION PROCESS

There are several steps in the identification and evaluation of ACECs (See figure 1 – 

page 8). These steps include nomination of areas that may meet the relevance and 

importance criteria, evaluation of the nominated areas, and consideration of proposed 

ACECs in various alternative scenarios. The effects of proposed alternatives including 

proposed ACECs are analyzed in the Draft RMP/EIS which is subject to a 90 day public 

review and comment period. After the close of the 90 day public comment period, public 

comments are reviewed and adjustments to the proposed RMP and proposed ACECs are 

made and included in the Final RMP/EIS. Designation of ACECs occurs in the Record 

of Decision approving the RMP. 

Identification / Nomination 

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern can be nominated at anytime, but can only be 

designated through Land Use Plans. Nominations were solicited from the public during 

the public scoping process. The BLM requested nominations for ACECs at 4 public 

scoping meetings held in May 2005. In addition, request for nominations were sent to 

internal BLM staff in April 2005 and letters were sent out to interested publics in May of 

2005. A total of 29 nominations were received from BLM staff and public sources. 

Evaluation of Nominations for Relevance and Importance 

Nominations were evaluated to determine whether they meet the relevance and 

importance criteria. The relevance and importance criteria are detailed in the “Evaluation 

Process” section of this report. 

Consideration of Potential ACECs 

Potential ACECs are considered as RMP alternatives are developed. Each potential 

ACEC is proposed for designation in at least one management alternative. The need for 

special management and the resulting effects from applying such management are 

assessed in the environmental impact statement. The Agency Preferred Alternative 

identifies which potential ACECs are proposed for designation. 

Comment on Proposed ACECs 

A notice of any areas proposed for ACEC designation is published in the Federal Register 

along with a Notice of Availability of the Draft RMP/EIS requesting public comment. 

Comments received on the Draft RMP/EIS will be considered in the preparation of the 

Final RMP/EIS. After a 30-day protest period, a Record of Decision is prepared and the 

plan is approved along with applicable ACECs (see below designation section). 

Designation 

A potential ACEC is proposed for designation if the area requires special management. 

Special management is defined as management outside of standard or routine practices, 

and usually includes more detail than other prescriptions contained within the plan. If 

analysis determines that special management is required, the area is recommended for 

designation of an ACEC. Designation of ACECs occurs when the Record of Decision is 

signed approving the RMP. 

5 
ACEC EVALUATION 

The BLM is responsible for evaluating a nominated area to determine if it meets the 

relevance/importance criteria and requires special management. The WFO evaluation 

team was comprised of an interdisciplinary team composed of specialists with different 

resource backgrounds. The team evaluated nominations provided by the public and BLM 

staff. The evaluation considered current nominations and others compiled over the years. 

The WFO ACEC evaluation team was comprised of the following specialists: 

Craig Drake Hydrologist 

Rod Herrick Hazardous Material Specialist 

Matthew Varner* Wildlife Biologist 

Mike Zielinski Soil Scientist 

Jeff Johnson Planning & Environmental Coordinator 

(Matt Varner did not attend the second meeting, due to relocation) 

The evaluation team analyzed 28 nominations for ACECs and one existing ACEC. 

Two nomination evaluation meetings were held. The first meeting was held on August 

31, 2005. This meeting evaluated 27 nominations. Results of this meeting included 8 

nominations meeting the initial evaluation for ACEC criteria. On September 26, 2005, 

the Nevada Department of Wildlife removed two of their nominations; titled the Lone 

Willow and Owyhee ACECs. The second meeting was held on December 7, 2005. This 

meeting considered one new nomination for the Smoke Creek Playa, based on a scoping 

comment to the Granite-Fox Power project and included the existing Osgood Mountain 

Milkvetch ACEC. In addition, the team re-evaluated the remaining 6 nominations. 

Consequently, the evaluation team evaluated a total of 8 nominations at the second 

meeting. These included: 

1. Raised Bog 

2. Gridley Lake 

3. Continental Lake 

4. Porter Springs 

5. Pine Forest 

6. Stillwater 

7. Smoke Creek Playa 

8. Osgood Mountain Milkvetch. 

After reviewing the criteria for ACEC designation, including relevance criteria, 

importance criteria and need for special management, the evaluation team identified the 

Raised Bog Proposed ACEC, Pine Forest Proposed ACEC, Stillwater Proposed ACEC 

and the existing Osgood Mountain Milkvetch ACEC nominations to be brought forward 

in the RMP alternatives. 

6 
Figure 1 – WFO RMP ACEC Process 

ACEC nominations are solicited from public 

or BLM staff 

ACEC nominations compiled over past years 

BLM Resource Specialists evaluate the internally and externally generated ACEC nominations for relevance and 

importance. A draft ACEC report is developed. 

Evaluations reviewed by BLM managers. The ACEC evaluation forms 

are signed by the Assistant Field Manager with concurrence of the Field 

Manager for those meeting relevance and importance criteria. 

Cooperating Agencies and Resource Advisory Council Subgroup 

review ACEC evaluations, as requested 

The nominated ACEC does not meet the criteria of 

relevance and importance. It is dropped from 

further consideration. This should be documented 

in the RMP/EIS. The person who nominated the 

ACEC is notified. 

The ACEC is considered in the RMP for designation. 

The nominated ACEC meets the 

criteria for relevance and importance. 

The final ACEC report is completed. 

It is determined that special 

management attention is required 

to protect the important and 

relevant values in relationship to 

the BLM preferred alternative in 

the Land Use Plan (RMP). 

It is determined that special 

management attention is not 

required to protect the important 

and relevant values in relationship 

to the BLM preferred alternative 

in the Land Use Plan (RMP). 

Management prescriptions 

identified in the RMP to protect the 

important and relevant values. 

Dropped from further 

consideration as an ACEC 

ACEC designated. 

7 
IMPORTANCE & RELEVANCE EVALUATION OF ACEC 

NOMINATIONS

Existing or 

Proposed 

ACEC 

Relevance 

Criteria # 

Importance 

Criteria # 

Recommend 

Yes or No 

Comments 

1. Pine Forest 

ACEC (Proposed 

by NDOW, 2005) 

Yes – 2, 3, & 4 Yes – 1 & 2 Yes -Need further 

discussion on 

ACEC boundary 

2. Stillwater 

ACEC (Proposed 

by Fallon Tribe & 

Staff, 2005) 

Yes - 1 Yes 1 & 2 Yes Discuss options for 

ACEC boundary 

3. Lovelock 

Cave/Leonard 

Petroglyphs 

(Proposed by Staff, 

2005) 

Yes – 1 Yes 1b, 2d No Leonard Rock 

Shelter and 

Petroglyphs are on 

private lands. 

Special 

management 

options would be 

through OHV 

travel , Spec. 

Recreation Mgt. 

Areas and Back 

Country By Ways. 

4. Winnemucca 

Mtn. (Proposed by 

Staff, 2005) 

Yes No No Checkerboard land 

status – Could 

manage through 

OHV travel 

restrictions and 

VRM Mgt. 

5. Porter Springs 

(Proposed by Staff 

and Sierra Club, 

2005) 

Yes - 2 Yes - 2 No Not a Natural 

Area, man made 

ditches and 

introduced tree 

species. Manage 

as a special rec. 

area. 

6. Black Rock 

Desert 

Archaeological 

District (Proposed 

by Cashion 

Callaway, 

Intermountain 

Research, 1988) 

In NCA 

7. Smoke Cr. 

Desert Biological 

& Cultural 

Research AreaBryan Hockett, 

UNR, 1988) 

Yes No No Nominator did not 

suggest any 

relevance values or 

nomination and the 

BLM is not aware 

of any significant 

values that would 

meet the relevance 

8 
Existing or 

Proposed 

ACEC 

Relevance 

Criteria # 

Importance 

Criteria # 

Recommend 

Yes or No 

Comments 

criteria. 

8. Lower High 

Rock Canyon 

(Proposed APEX, 

1988) 

In NCA 

9. George Lund 

(Proposed APEX, 

1988) 

Yes No No 

Current Mgt. 

protection OHV 

travel restrictions 

10. Applegate 

“Cut Off” Trail 

(Proposed APEX, 

1988) 

In NCA 

11. Lahontan Trout 

Natural Area 

(Proposed APEX, 

1988) 

ISA Protection Covered in NCA 

12. China Gardens 

Dunes Scenic Area 

(Proposed APEX, 

1988) 

Yes – 2 No No Checkerboard land 

status, Special 

Mgt. Options – 

Special Rec. Mgt. 

Area 

13.Water/Thomas 

Canyons 

(Proposed APEX, 

1988) 

Yes No No Checkerboard land 

status, Special 

Mgt. Options - 

Spec. Rec. Mgt. 

Area – Consider 

land tenure 

adjustments to 

identify lands for 

acquisition 

14. Soldier 

Meadows 

(Proposed APEX 

1988) 

NCA 

15. Double Hot 

Springs (Proposed 

APEX 1988) 

NCA 

16. Quinn River 

(Proposed APEX, 

1988) 

NCA 

17. Hardin City 

(Proposed APEX, 

1988) 

NCA 

18. Sulphur 

Springs Wetlands 

(Proposed by Staff, 

2005) 

Yes – 2 No No Address through 

other management. 

Might have to be 

reclaimed per 

9 
Existing or 

Proposed 

ACEC 

Relevance 

Criteria # 

Importance 

Criteria # 

Recommend 

Yes or No 

Comments 

Mining 

Regulations. 

19. Raised Bog 

(Proposed by Staff, 

1981) 

Yes – 3 1 & 2 Yes Address boundary, 

management 

options OHV 

designation, and 

livestock mgt. 

21. Hot Springs 

Mtn. (Proposed by 

Nature 

Conservancy, 

1990) 

Yes – 2 & 3 No No Management 

options - OHV 

travel restrictions. 

Issues: Fire and 

invasive species 

22. Humboldt 

Range (Proposed 

by Nature 

Conservancy, 

1990) 

Yes – 3 Yes - 2 ? Mgt. Options; 

OHV designations, 

checkerboard land 

pattern, and 

invasive species, 

23. McGill Canyon 

(Proposed by 

Nature 

Conservancy, 

1990) 

NCA - Wilderness 

24. Osgood Mtn. 

Milkvetch ACEC 

(Existing) 

Yes- 3 Yes – 2 Yes Define new mgt. 

25. Gridley Lake Yes – 2 & 3 Yes - 2 No Playa not locally 

unique. Existing 

management could 

be implemented to 

include OHV 

closures, Burro 

removal, and 

seasonal 

restrictions during 

nesting season 

26. Continental 

Lake Yes – 2 & 3 Yes - 2 No Same As Above 

27. Owyhee Nomination 

dropped by 

NDOW 9/26/05 

28. Lone Willow 

PMU ACEC 

Nomination 

dropped by 

NDOW 9/26/05 

29. Smoke Creek 

Desert Playa 

Yes – 2 & 3 No No Nominator did not 

suggest relevance 

values for 

nomination and 

BLM is not aware 

10 
Existing or 

Proposed 

ACEC 

Relevance 

Criteria # 

Importance 

Criteria # 

Recommend 

Yes or No 

Comments 

of any significant 

values that would 

meet relevance 

criteria. 

11 
STATEMENT OF FINDINGS 

Based on nomination evaluation there are three areas and one existing ACEC that meet 

the criteria to be further considered as potential ACECs through the land use planning 

process. These are: 

o Pine Forest ACEC nomination 

o Stillwater ACEC nomination 

o Raised Bog nomination 

o Osgood Mountain Milkvetch – existing ACEC 

Pine Forest Area 

Description/ Values of Concern: This area is comprised of approximately 42,398 acres 

of diverse landscape encompassing elevations over 5,550. Notable lakes and reservoirs 

include; Blue Lakes, Onion Reservoir, Little Onion Reservoir, and Knott Creek 

Reservoir. Main habitats include sub-alpine limber and white bark pine trees, sagebrush 

step, large aspen stands, rocky talus slopes and several riparian areas. A portion of lands 

nominated in this area are within two Wilderness Study Areas. The high elevations in the 

Pine Forest Areas contains habitat that supports a diverse array of wildlife including; 

American Pika, Humboldt yellow-Pine Chipmunk, northern goshawk, sage grouse, mule 

deer, California Bighorn Sheep, pygmy rabbit, western jumping mouse, sage thrasher, 

Brewer’s Sparrow, and an array of sagebrush obligate species. Lakes and reservoirs offer 

outstanding recreational opportunities including fishing, hunting, hiking and other 

outdoor activities. 

Raised Bog Area: 

Description/Values of Concern: This 40 acre area contains a calcium rich spring whose 

source is a geologic fault. For several thousand years calcium deposits have accumulated 

forming a crater at the top of a mound. Slow decaying vegetation including sedges and 

rushes has gradually accumulated forming a bog. The bog is known as a quaking bog 

because of its buoyant properties. The bog is of immense scientific value as plant and 

animal remains have been preserved in the peat layers providing a record of past 

vegetation and flora of the region. It also provides and indication of climatic fluctuation 

during the life of the bog. Very few of these bogs are known to occur throughout the 

Great Basin. 

Stillwater Range Area: 

Description/Values of Concern: The Stillwater Range nomination is approximately 

55,322 acres and contains significant historic, cultural, religious, and scenic values 

important to Native Americans. The Range is the heart of the aboriginal territory of the 

Fallon Paiute Shoshone Tribe and the Lovelock Tribe. 

Pinyon-Juniper trees dominate the landscape and have been the source of traditional 

pinyon nut and wood harvesting in the area. 

12 
Osgood Mountain Milkvetch Area: 

Description/Values of Concern: This 60 acre area is located at the top of the Osgood 

Mountains and contains a unique and rare plant species called the Osgood Mountain 

Milkvetch. 

13 
Nati

For

WASHOE

COUNTY

COUNTY

t

Lovelock

LLS

80 

80 

Humboldt - Toiyabe 

onal 

est 

Rye Patch 

Reservoir 

RENO 

Elko 

LAS VEGAS 

Winnemucca 

N E V A D A 

0 2.5 5 10 15 20

Miles 

PERSHING 

COUNTY 

CHURCHILL 

HUMBOLDT 

COUNTY 

LYO

COUNTY Winnemucca Field Office RMP

Proposed ACECs

Chimne

Reservoir 

Humbold 

Lake 

Imlay 

Winnemucca Golconda 

Valmy 

Paradise

Valley 

Orovada 

Den McDermitt io 

Gerlach 

Empire 

GRANITE RANGE 

NI GHT I NGALE MOUNTAI NS 

SAHWAVE MOUNTAINS TRUCKEE RANGE

HOT SPRINGS MOUNTAINS

TRINITY RANGE

WEST HUMBOLDT RANGE 

TRINITY RANGE 

STILLWATER RANGE 

TOBIN RANGE

HUMBOLDT RANGE 

EAST RANGE 

EAST RANGE 

SONOMA RANGE 

OSGOOD MOUNTAINS 

HOT SPRINGS RANGE

CALICO MOUNTAINS 

SANTA ROSA RANGE

MONTANA MOUNTAINS 

DOUBLE H MOUNTAINS

BILK CREEK MOUNTAINS 

PINE FOREST RANGE 

BLACK ROCK RANGE

THE LAVA BEDS 

SEVEN TROUGHS RANGE JACKSON MOUNTAINS

SLUMBERING HILLS 

BLOODY RUN HI 

EUGENE MTNS

MAJUBA MTNS 

Legend 

Roads 

Town

Counties 

Land Status 

Bureau of Indian Affairs 

Bureau of Land Management 

Bureau of Reclamation 

Department of Defense 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

Forest Service 

Nevada State 

Private 

Water 

BLM Wilderness Study Area 

U.S. Interstate 

State Highway

U.S. Highway

County 

Raised Bog ACEC 

Proposed Areas of

Critical Environmental Concern 

Raised Bog ACEC 

Pine Forest ACEC 

Stillwater ACEC 

No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management 

as to the accuracy, reliability, or completeness of these

data for individual or aggregate use with other data. 9/1/06 

Black Rock/High Rock NCA

RMP Area 

BLM Winnemucca Field Office

Administrative Boundary 
Legend 

2014 

2022 

2083 

2014 

2014 

2014-1 

2014-2 

Proposed Pine Forest ACEC 

N E V A D A

RENO 

LAS

VEGAS 

Winnemucca Winnemucca Field Office RMP 

ROADS Proposed Pine Forest ACEC 

Other Dirt Road

Miles County Road 0 0.5 1 2

BLM Road 

LAND STATUS 

Bureau of Land Management 

Private No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management

as to the accuracy, reliability, or completeness of these data BLM Wilderness Study Area for individual or aggregate use with other data. 9/1/06
2089 

Winnemucca F.O. 

Carson City F.O. 

Winnemucca 

Legend 

Proposed Stillwater ACEC Winnemucca Field Office RMP 

BLM Winnemucca Field Office Proposed Stillwater ACEC 

ROADS

Administrative Boundary 

N E V A D A

Miles 

RENO 

Other Dirt Road 

LAS 0 0.5 1 2 3

County Road VEGAS 

BLM Road 

LAND STATUS 

Bureau of Land Management No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management

Private as to the accuracy, reliability, or completeness of these data

for individual or aggregate use with other data. 10/25/06
T39N R33E 

T39N R32E 

T40N R33E T40N R32E 

330 

Raised Bog Proposed Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) 

Denio 

Winnemucca 

140 95 

80 

HUMBOLDT COUNTY 

Map Detail Area 

0 0.25 0.5 1

Miles 

Land Status 

Bureau of Land Management 

Private 

Township 

Raised Bog Proposed ACEC 

Roads 

Other Dirt Road 

County Road 

No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management 

as to the accuracy, reliability, or completeness of these 

data for individual or aggregate use with other data.

9/1/06 
Land Status 

Bureau of Land Management 

Osgood Mountains Milkvetch ACEC 

Private 

Roads 

Township 

Other Dirt Road 

Riparian Area/Woodland 

T38N R42E 

T39N R42E 

Osgood Mountains Milkvetch 

Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC)

Denio 

Map Detail Area 

McDermitt 

Winnemucca 

140 95 

80 

HUMBOLDT COUNTY 

No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management 

as to the accuracy, reliability, or completeness of these 

data for individual or aggregate use with other da

9/

ta.

1/06 

Yards 

0 75 150 300