VOLUME 2: CHAPTERS 1-3 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section Page 

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

1.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................... 1-1

1.2 Purpose of and Need for the Resource Management Plan .................................. 1-1

1.3 Description of the Planning Area ........................................................................... 1-2

1.4 Planning Process .................................................................................................. 1-5

1.5 Scoping and Planning Issues ............................................................................... 1-5

1.5.1 Scoping Process ...................................................................................... 1-7

1.5.2 Issue Identification .................................................................................... 1-9

1.5.3 Issues Considered But Not Further Analyzed ......................................... 1-10

1.6 Planning Criteria and Legislative Constraints ..................................................... 1-10

1.6.1 Relationship to BLM Policies, Plans, and Programs ............................... 1-12

1.7 Collaboration ....................................................................................................... 1-17

1.7.1 Intergovernmental and Interagency Collaboration .................................. 1-17

1.7.2 Tribal Relationships and Indian Trust Assets .......................................... 1-19

1.8 Consistency with Other Plans ............................................................................. 1-19

1.9 Implementation and Monitoring of the Resource Management Plan .................. 1-21

1.9.1 Introduction ............................................................................................. 1-21

1.9.2 Implementation Plan ............................................................................... 1-21

1.9.3 Implementation Schedule ....................................................................... 1-22

1.9.4 Linking Broad Scale Decisions to More Detailed Plans and Actions ...... 1-22

1.9.5 Compliance with NEPA ........................................................................... 1-24

1.9.6 Consultation, Coordination and Collaboration ........................................ 1-24

1.9.7 Adaptive Management ............................................................................ 1-25

1.9.8 RMP Evaluation ...................................................................................... 1-27

1.9.9 Changing the RMP ................................................................................. 1-29

1.9.10 Relationship to Other Agency Plans ....................................................... 1-29

2. Alternatives ................................................................................................................ 2-1

2.1 Overview ............................................................................................................... 2-1

2.1.1 Introduction ............................................................................................... 2-1

2.1.2 How to Read This Chapter ....................................................................... 2-1

2.2 Alternative Development Process ......................................................................... 2-2

2.2.1 How Alternatives Were Developed ........................................................... 2-2

2.2.2 The Anatomy of an Alternative .................................................................. 2-2

2.2.3 Sustainable Development ......................................................................... 2-3

2.3 Desired Future Conditions and Goals ................................................................... 2-4

2.4 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Analysis ............................ 2-7

2.5 Overview of Alternatives and Land Use Decisions ................................................ 2-7

2.5.1 Alternative A (No Action or Current Management) .................................... 2-7

2.5.2 Alternative B ............................................................................................. 2-8

2.5.3 Alternative C-Option 1 .............................................................................. 2-8

2.5.4 Alternative C-Option 2 .............................................................................. 2-9

2.5.5 Alternative D (Preferred Alternative) ......................................................... 2-9

2.6 Rationale for Indentifying the Preferred Alternative ............................................. 2-10

2.7 Detailed Description of Each Alternative ............................................................. 2-11

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS Volume 2-i 
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)

Section Page 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS Volume 2-ii 

2.7.1 Actions Common to All Alternatives ........................................................ 2-11

2.7.2 Alternative Comparison .......................................................................... 2-25

3. Affected Environment ............................................................................................... 3-1

3.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................... 3-1

3.2 Resources ............................................................................................................ 3-1

3.2.1 Air Quality ................................................................................................. 3-1

3.2.2 Geology .................................................................................................. 3-12

3.2.3 Soil Resources ....................................................................................... 3-13

3.2.4 Water Resources .................................................................................... 3-16

3.2.5 Vegetation – General .............................................................................. 3-34

3.2.6 Vegetation – Forest/Woodland Products ................................................ 3-35

3.2.7 Vegetation – Weeds ............................................................................... 3-36

3.2.8 Vegetation – Riparian Habitat and Wetlands .......................................... 3-41

3.2.9 Fish and Wildlife ..................................................................................... 3-43

3.2.10 Special Status Species ........................................................................... 3-55

3.2.11 Wild Horse and Burro ............................................................................. 3-61

3.2.12 Wildland Fire Management ..................................................................... 3-63

3.2.13 Cultural Resources ................................................................................. 3-76

3.2.14 Paleontological Resources ..................................................................... 3-82

3.2.15 Visual Resources .................................................................................... 3-83

3.2.16 Cave and Karst ....................................................................................... 3-88

3.3 Resource Uses ................................................................................................... 3-88

3.3.1 Livestock Grazing ................................................................................... 3-88

3.3.2 Minerals – Leasable, Locatable, and Salable ......................................... 3-94

3.3.3 Recreation and Facilities ...................................................................... 3-106

3.3.4 Renewable Energy ............................................................................... 3-112

3.3.5 Transportation and Access ................................................................... 3-113

3.3.6 Lands and Realty .................................................................................. 3-115

3.4 Special Designations ........................................................................................ 3-123

3.4.1 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern and Research Natural Areas 3-123

3.4.2 Wild and Scenic Rivers ......................................................................... 3-123

3.4.3 Backcountry Byways ............................................................................ 3-124

3.4.4 National Trails ....................................................................................... 3-124

3.4.5 Wilderness, Wilderness Study Areas, and Lands with Wilderness 

Characteristics ................................................................................ 3-126

3.4.6 Watchable Wildlife Viewing Sites .......................................................... 3-130

3.5 Social and Economic ........................................................................................ 3-132

3.5.1 Tribal Interests ...................................................................................... 3-132

3.5.2 Public Health and Safety ...................................................................... 3-133

3.5.3 Social and Economic Conditions and Environmental Justice ............... 3-136
LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page 

1-1 Winnemucca District Office RMP/EIS Planning Area ................................................................ 1-3

1-2 Winnemucca District Office RMP/EIS Decision Area ................................................................ 1-4

1-3 BLM Planning Process ............................................................................................................... 1-6 

3-1 Ancient Lake Lahontan ............................................................................................................ 3-14 

3-2 Stratigraphic units present in the planning area (from Barker et al. 1995) .............................. 3-15 

3-3 Potential Biological Crusts ....................................................................................................... 3-17 

3-4 Areas of Potential Wind Erosion .............................................................................................. 3-18 

3-5 Areas of Potential Water Erosion ............................................................................................. 3-19 

3-6 5th Order HUC ......................................................................................................................... 3-21 

3-6 Legend ..................................................................................................................................... 3-22 

3-7 Hydrographic Subbasins .......................................................................................................... 3-27 

3-8 Community Water Sources ...................................................................................................... 3-28 

3-9 Vegetation – Invasive Grasslands ........................................................................................... 3-38 

3-10 Areas of Historical Weed Infestations ...................................................................................... 3-39

3-11 Mule Deer Habitat .................................................................................................................... 3-47

3-12 Pronghorn Antelope Habitat ..................................................................................................... 3-48

3-13 Potential Elk Habitat ................................................................................................................. 3-49

3-14 Distribution of Bighorn Sheep .................................................................................................. 3-52

3-15 Sage-Grouse Habitat ............................................................................................................... 3-60

3-16 Sage-Grouse PMUs ................................................................................................................. 3-62

3-17 Herd Management Areas ......................................................................................................... 3-64

3-18 Herd Areas ............................................................................................................................... 3-65

3-19 Fire Occurrence ....................................................................................................................... 3-67

3-20 Fire Regime .............................................................................................................................. 3-69

3-21 Fire Regime Condition Class Acreages on BLM Lands .......................................................... 3-71

3-22 Fire Management Units ............................................................................................................ 3-72

3-23 Visual Resource Inventory Class Areas .................................................................................. 3-85

3-24 Grazing Allotments ................................................................................................................... 3-90

3-25 Oil & Gas Wells, Leases, and USGS Playas ........................................................................... 3-98

3-26 Geothermal Occurrence ........................................................................................................... 3-99

3-27 Major Active Mines and Mining Districts ................................................................................ 3-102

3-28 Decision Area ......................................................................................................................... 3-116

3-29 Existing Withdrawals .............................................................................................................. 3-118

3-30 National Historic Trails ........................................................................................................... 3-125

3-31 Wilderness Study Areas ......................................................................................................... 3-128 

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page 

1-1 Land Status within the Planning Area ........................................................................................ 1-5

1-2 BLM Planning Process ............................................................................................................... 1-7

1-3 Identification of MFP Amendments Considered for Implementation-Level Planning ............. 1-13

1-4 Identification of Other Documents Considered for Implementation-Level Planning ............... 1-13

1-5 Monitoring Indicators ................................................................................................................ 1-28

2-1 RMP Management Goals .......................................................................................................... 2-4

2-2 Objectives and Management Actions Common to All Alternatives.......................................... 2-11

2-3 Proposed Goals, Objectives and Actions per Alternative ........................................................ 2-26

3-1 State and National Ambient Air Quality Standards Applicable in Nevada ................................. 3-3

3-2 Summary of 24-Hour PM10 Monitoring Data .............................................................................. 3-8

3-3 Summary of 24-Hour PM2.5 Monitoring Data ............................................................................. 3-9

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS Volume 2-iii 
LIST OF TABLES (continued)

Table Page 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS Volume 2-iv 

3-4 Summary of 1-Hour Ozone Monitoring Data ............................................................................. 3-9

3-5 Summary of 8-Hour Ozone Monitoring Data ........................................................................... 3-10

3-6 Impaired Water Bodies in the Planning Area, from 303(d) List (NDEP 2004a) ....................... 3-24

3-7 Water Bodies Warranting Further Investigation (NDEP 2004a) .............................................. 3-25

3-8 Riparian Functioning Condition Summary ............................................................................... 3-25

3-9 Groundwater Use by Hydrographic Basins.............................................................................. 3-29

3-10 Plant Communities/Associations in the WDO Planning Area .................................................. 3-35

3-11 Noxious Weed Species in the WDO Planning Area ................................................................ 3-40

3-12 Mule Deer Habitat Classifications and Definitions ................................................................... 3-50

3-13 Upland Game Bird Species and Habitat Preferences ............................................................. 3-53

3-14 Common Bird Species Associated with Wetlands in the WDO Planning Area ....................... 3-53

3-15 Sport Fish in the Planning Area ............................................................................................... 3-55

3-16 Occupied LCT Habitat within the WDO ................................................................................... 3-56

3-17 Potential LCT Habitat within the WDO ..................................................................................... 3-57

3-18 Characteristics of HMAs and HAs ........................................................................................... 3-66

3-19 Summary of 20-Year Wildland Fire History (1987 to 2006) ..................................................... 3-68

3-20 Natural Fire Regime in the WDO Planning Area ..................................................................... 3-70

3-21 Summary of FMUs within the WDO Planning Area ................................................................. 3-73

3-22 Tribes and Tribal Organizations Contacted for the Winnemucca District Office RMP/EIS ..... 3-81

3-23 Bureau of Land Management Visual Resource Class Descriptions ........................................ 3-86 

3-24 WDO Grazing Allotment Information ....................................................................................... 3-91 

3-25 Oil and Gas Wells in the Winnemucca District Office Planning Area, Nevada........................ 3-96 

3-26 Gold and Silver Mines and Prospects Mineral Assessment Report Winnemucca District 

Office EIS/RMP Planning Area .............................................................................................. 3-103 

3-27 Industrial Mineral Deposits of the Winnemucca District Office Planning Area Mineral 

Assessment Report Winnemucca District Office EIS/RMP Planning Area ........................... 3-104 

3-28 Major Active Mines within the WDO Planning Area ............................................................... 3-106 

3-29 Locatable Mineral Claims within the Planning Area .............................................................. 3-106 

3-30 Local Recreation Visitation (2004) ......................................................................................... 3-107 

3-30 Trends in Visitation (1994-2004) ............................................................................................ 3-108 

3-31 Dispersed Recreational Activity (2004) .................................................................................. 3-109 

3-32 Special Recreation Permits .................................................................................................... 3-109 

3-33 Developed and Semideveloped Recreation Areas within WDO Planning Area .................... 3-111 

3-34 Undeveloped Recreation Areas within WDO Planning Area ................................................. 3-112 

3-35 State of Nevada Road Nominations Within the WDO ........................................................... 3-115 

3-36 Landownership in the WDO Planning Area ........................................................................... 3-117

3-37 Wilderness Study Areas within WDO Administrative Boundary ............................................ 3-129

3-38 County Population Totals 2000-2005 .................................................................................... 3-139

3-39 County Population Projections 2005-2025 ............................................................................ 3-140

3-40 County Housing Estimates 2000-2005 .................................................................................. 3-140

3-41 County Employment Statistics (2000) .................................................................................... 3-141

3-42 County Employment by Sector and Average Sector Growth (1990-2000) ............................ 3-141

3-43 Total Percentage of Population by Race/Ethnicity (2000) ..................................................... 3-143

3-44 Income and Poverty Statistics (2000) .................................................................................... 3-144
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 2-v 
LIST OF ACRONYMS (continued)

Acronym or Abbreviation Full Phrase 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS Volume 2-vi 

HAP hazardous air pollution 

HMA herd management area 

HMAP herd management area plan 

HMP habitat management plan 

HUA herd use area 

HVH high value habitat 

IBLA Interior Board of Land Appeals 

IDT interdisciplinary team 

IMP interim management policy 

IPM Integrated Pest Management 

ISA instant study area 

ITA Indian Trust Assets 

KGRA known geothermal resource area 

LCT Lahontan cutthroat trout 

LG livestock grazing 

LR lands and realty 

MACT maximum available control technology 

MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act 

MFP management framework plan 

MIST minimum impact suppression tactics 

MOU memorandum of understanding 

MR minerals: leasable, locatable, salable 

NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

NCA National Conservation Area 

NDEP Nevada Division of Environmental Protection 

NDOA Nevada Department of Agriculture 

NDOM Nevada Division of Minerals 

NDOT Nevada Department of Transportation 

NDOW Nevada Department of Wildlife 

NDVI Normalized Difference Vegetation Index 

NDWR Nevada Division of Water Resources 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

NESHAPS National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 

NGO non-government organizations 

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act 

NHT National Historic Trail 

NRCS US Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation 

Service 

NRHP National Register of Historic Places 

NRS new source review 

NSO no surface occupancy 

NWSRS National Wild and Scenic River Systems 

NV Nevada 

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

Acronym or Abbreviation Full Phrase 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS Volume 2-vii 

OHV off-highway vehicle 

ORV Outstanding Remarkable Value 

PE chemical and biological control 

PFC proper functioning condition 

planning area Winnemucca District Office boundary and scope for the RMP

PM2.5 particulate matter smaller than 2.5 microns in diameter 

PM10 particulate matter smaller than 10 microns in diameter 

PMU population management unit 

ppm part per million 

PR paleontological resources 

PS public health and safety 

PSD prevention of significant deterioration 

R recreation 

R&PP Recreation and Public Purposes Act 

RAC resource advisory council 

RAMS risk assessment and mitigation strategy 

RE renewable energy 

RFDS Reasonably Foreseeable Development Scenario 

RIP range improvement project 

RMIS Recreation Management Information System 

RMP resource management plan 

RMZ recreation management zone 

RNA Research Natural Area 

ROD record of decision 

ROI region of influence 

ROS Recreation Opportunity Spectrum 

ROW right-of-way 

S soils 

SASEM Simple Approach Smoke Estimation Model 

SHPO State Historic Preservation Office 

SIP State Implementation Plan 

SNPLMA Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act 

SOG standard operating guideline 

SOP standard operating procedure 

SRMA special recreation management area 

SRP special recreation permit 

SSS special status species 

T&E threatened and endangered 

TA transportation and access 

TC tribal consultation 

TCP traditional cultural property 

TDS total dissolved solids 

TM transportation and travel management 

TNEB thriving natural ecological balance 

TNR temporary nonrenewable 

TSP total suspended particles 
LIST OF ACRONYMS (continued)

Acronym or Abbreviation Full Phrase 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS Volume 2-viii 

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 
1. Introduction 

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

1.1 INTRODUCTION

The US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM), has prepared this draft 

resource management plan (RMP) and environmental impact statement (EIS). This RMP provides 

direction for managing public lands under the administrative jurisdiction of the BLM’s Winnemucca 

District Office (WDO) in northern Nevada, and the EIS analyzes the environmental effects that 

could result from implementing the alternatives defined in this RMP. The affected lands are 

currently being managed under the Sonoma-Gerlach Management Framework Plan (MFP), the 

Paradise-Denio MFP, a land use plan amendment, and a separate RMP covering lands within the 

Black Rock Desert-High Rock Canyon Emigrant Trails National Conservation Area (NCA). The 

Sonoma-Gerlach MFP, completed in 1982, generally covers the south and far west side of the 

planning area. The Paradise-Denio MFP, completed in 1982, generally covers the north side of the 

planning area. (The planning area is described below under Section 1.3, Description of the Planning 

Area.) In 1999, both MFPs were updated with a lands amendment that established updated guidance 

for land tenure adjustments, including disposal and acquisition of public lands. In July 2004 a 

separate land use plan was approved providing guidance and direction for approximately 1.2 million 

acres of public lands within the WDO administrative boundary for the NCA per the Black Rock 

Desert-High Rock Canyon Emigrant Trails National Conservation Act of 2000. Other management 

direction includes various laws, executive orders, regulations, and BLM policy and guidance. 

The land use planning process is the key tool the BLM uses to define resource management and to 

designate public land uses in coordination with federal, tribal, state, and local government, land 

users, and interested members of the public. Generally, an RMP does not result in a wholesale 

change of management direction. Accordingly, this RMP incorporates new information and 

regulatory guidance that have come about since the MFPs and amendments. The focus of the RMP 

is to provide management direction by establishing goals and objectives for resource management 

and the measures to achieve these goals and objectives (management actions and allowable uses). 

The RMP will also focus on areas to resolve land use issues or conflicts. Current management 

direction that has proven effective and requires no change will be carried forward into this RMP, as 

well as through the analysis process. 

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

of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976 (43 US Code [USC] 1701 et 

seq.) (BLM 1976) and the BLM’s Land Use Planning Handbook, H-1601-1 (BLM 2005a). An EIS is 

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

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

(40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 1500-1508) (CEQ 1978), and requirements of the BLM’s 

NEPA Handbook, H-1790-1 (BLM 1988). 

1.2 PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

The purpose of the RMP is to provide a single, comprehensive land use plan that will guide 

management of the public lands and uses administered by the WDO consistent with laws, 

regulations, policy and guidance. The RMP incorporates new information and data, addresses land 

use issues and conflicts, and specifies where and under what circumstances particular activities and 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 1-1 
Chapter 1: Introduction 

uses will be allowed on BLM-administered public lands. Public lands addressed in the RMP will be 

managed on the basis of multiple use and sustained yield, while preventing unnecessary or undue 

degradation of the lands, including the protection of natural and cultural resources, in accordance 

with FLPMA. The RMP generally does not include a description of how particular programs or 

projects would be implemented or prioritized; those decisions are deferred to implementation-level 

planning. 

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

as public demands and uses, which warrant revisiting decisions in the 1982 MFPs and 1999 Lands 

Amendments. Many new laws, regulations, and policies have created additional public land 

management considerations. As a result, some of the decisions in the MFP and amendments are no 

longer valid or have been superseded by requirements that did not exist when they were prepared. 

Likewise, user demands and uses have evolved causing new impacts, requiring new management 

direction. 

1.3 DESCRIPTION OF THE PLANNING AREA

The WDO administrative boundary defines the planning area assessed in this RMP. The WDO 

planning area encompasses about 11.1 million acres in all of Humboldt and Pershing counties and 

parts of Washoe, Lyon, and Churchill counties; this acreage includes all lands within the WDO 

administrative boundary regardless of ownership and includes public lands within the NCA (Figure 

1-1). The BLM administers about 75 percent, or about 8.4 million acres, of public lands in the 

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

encompasses about 7.4 million acres of public lands and does not include private lands, federal lands 

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

included in the decision area except where program administrative boundaries overlap (e.g. grazing 

allotments, priority wildlife areas, herd management areas [HMAs]), in which case these public lands 

would be managed in full conformance with both land use plans. The BLM manages the surface and 

subsurface of federal lands under its jurisdiction and, in some cases, has administrative duties for 

mineral activities on lands managed by other federal agencies or on private split-estate lands. In 

addition, the BLM administers grazing on certain allotments outside the WDO administrative 

boundary through memorandums of understanding with other BLM administrative offices. Also, 

portions of the Bullhead Allotment and Little Owyhee Allotment within the administrative boundary 

of the Elko District Office are part of the Winnemucca RMP decision area. The WDO administers 

230,163 acres in the Little Owyhee Allotment and 67,021 acres in the Bullhead Allotment. Figure 1-2 

depicts the Winnemucca RMP decision area addressed in this document. 

Management direction and actions outlined in the RMP apply to BLM-managed public lands within 

the decision area and include administration of grazing allotments outside the administrative 

boundary and to federal mineral estate lands under BLM jurisdiction that may lie beneath other 

surface ownership (split estate). The geographic land status pattern of the planning area ranges from 

large continuous blocks of public land to small 40-acres blocks located in a checkerboard pattern 

with private land. Therefore, while RMP decisions do not apply to lands not administered by BLM, 

lands that are interspersed with BLM-managed public lands could be influenced or indirectly 

affected by BLM management actions. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 1-2 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

! ! 

! 

! 

! 

! 

! 

! 

! 

! 

! 

! 

§ ̈¦80 

§ ̈¦80 

£¤95 

þÆ95 

WASHOE

COUNTY 

PERSHING

COUNTY 

HUMBOLDT

COUNTY 

8!447 

LYON

COUNTY 

þÆ95 

8!399 

8!140 

8!140 

8!290 

8!400 

§ ̈¦80 

CHURCHILL

COUNTY 

Empire 

Gerlach 

Unionville 

Golconda 

Imlay 

Valmy 

Orovada 

McDermitt 

Paradise Valley 

Lovelock 

Winnemucca 

Denio 

Standard 

Winnemucca Di ict Office RMP EIS

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

Source: BLM 2007 

! ! 

! 

! 

Nevada 

Reno 

Elko 

Las Vegas 

Winnemucca 

Bureau of Indian Affairs 

Bureau of Land Management 

Bureau of Reclamation 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

Forest Service 

Nevada State 

Private 

Water 

Land Status 

No Warranty is made by the Bureau of Land 

Management as to the accuracy, reliability, str /

or completeness of these data for individual 

use or aggregate use with other data. Original

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

Accuracy Standards. This product was Legend 

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

BLM Winnemucca RMP Planning Area U.S. Highway 

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

RMP Area County Road 0 10 20
 County Boundaries 

Miles State Highway Figure 1-1
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

! ! 

! 

! 

! 

! 

! 

! 

! 

! 

! 

! 

§ ̈¦80 

§ ̈¦80 

£¤95 

þÆ95 

WASHOE

COUNTY 

PERSHING

COUNTY 

HUMBOLDT

COUNTY 

8!447 

LYON

COUNTY 

þÆ95 

8!399 

8!140 

8!140 

8!290 

8!400 

§ ̈¦80 

CHURCHILL

COUNTY 

1 

2 

Empire 

Gerlach 

Unionville 

Golconda 

Imlay 

Valmy 

Orovada 

McDermitt 

Paradise Valley 

Lovelock 

Winnemucca 

Denio 

Standard 

Winnemucca Di ict Office RMP EIS

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

Source: BLM 2007 

! ! 

! 

! 

Nevada 

Reno 

Elko 

Las Vegas 

Winnemucca 

Bureau of Indian Affairs 

Bureau of Land Management 

Bureau of Reclamation 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

Forest Service 

Nevada State 

Private 

Water 

Land Status WDO RMP Decision Area for grazing management 

outside of the WDO RMP Planning Area 

Little Owyhee Grazing Allotment 

2 Bullhead Grazing Allotment

1 

No Warranty is made by the Bureau of Land 

Management as to the accuracy, reliability, str /

or completeness of these data for individual 

use or aggregate use with other data. Original

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

Accuracy Standards. This product was 

developed through digital means and may be 

updated without notification. BLM Winnemucca RMP Decision Area Towns 

U.S. Highway 

RMP Area

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

County Boundaries County Road 

0 10 20 State Highway 

Miles Figure 1-2 
Chapter 1: Introduction 

Table 1-1 

Land Status within the Planning Area 

Land Status Acres 

Percentage of 

Planning 

Area

BLM 8,448,130* 75.27 

US Forest Service 274,825 2.45 

US Fish and Wildlife Service 107,169 0.95 

Bureau of Indian Affairs 21,991 0.20 

State of Nevada 0.28 0.000002 

Private 2,338,639 20.84 

Water Features 32,812 0.29 

Total 11,223,566** 100 

*Includes NCA acres. 

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

Source: BLM 2005a 

1.4 PLANNING PROCESS

An RMP guides the management of public lands in a particular area or administrative unit. RMPs are 

usually prepared to cover the lands administered by a certain BLM district office. An approved RMP 

with the record of decision (ROD) describes the following: 

• Resource conditions goals and objectives; 

• Allowable resource uses and related levels of production or use to be maintained; 

• Land areas to be managed for limited, restricted, or exclusive resource uses or for transfer 

from BLM administration; 

• Program constraints and general management practices and protocols; 

• General implementation schedule or sequences; and 

• Intervals and standards for monitoring the RMP. 

Preparation of an RMP involves interrelated steps, as illustrated below (Figure 1-3) and described in 

Table 1-2. 

1.5 SCOPING AND PLANNING ISSUES

The policy of the WDO is to provide opportunities for the public, various groups, other federal 

agencies, Native American tribal members, and state and local governments to participate 

meaningfully and substantively and to give input and comments to the BLM during the preparation 

of the RMP and EIS. Early in the planning process, the public was invited to help the BLM identify 

planning issues and concerns related to the management of BLM-administered lands and resources 

and uses in the planning area. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 1-5 
Chapter 1: Introduction 

Figure 1-3: BLM Planning Process 

*These steps may be revisited throughout the planning process. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 1-6 
Chapter 1: Introduction 

Table 1-2 

BLM Planning Process 

BLM Planning 

Process Step 

Description Timeframe 

Step 1—Identify 

planning issues 

Issues and concerns are identified through a scoping 

process that includes the public, Indian tribes, other 

federal agencies, and state and local governments. 

March to July 2005

Step 2—Develop 

planning criteria 

Planning criteria are created to ensure decisions are made 

to address the issues pertinent to the planning effort. 

Planning criteria are derived from a variety of sources, 

including applicable laws and regulations, from existing 

management plans, from coordinating other agencies’ 

programs, and from the results of public and agency 

scoping. The planning criteria may be updated and 

changed as planning proceeds. 

March to July 2005

Step 3—Collect data 

and information 

Data and information for the resources in the planning 

area are collected based on the planning criteria. 

Ongoing 

Step 4—Analyze 

management 

situation 

Current resource management in the planning area is 

assessed. 

March to April 2005

Step 5—Formulate 

alternatives 

A range of reasonable management alternatives is 

developed to address issues identified during scoping. 

April 2005 to January 

2007

Step 6—Assess 

alternatives 

The effects of each alternative are estimated. January 2008 

Step 7—Select 

preferred alternative 

The alternative that best resolves planning issues is 

identified as the preferred alternative. 

February 2008 

Step 8—Select RMP First, a draft RMP/EIS is issued and is made available to 

the public for a review period of 90 days. After comments 

to the draft document have been received and analyzed, it 

is modified as necessary, and the proposed RMP/Final 

EIS is published and made available for public review for 

30 days. A ROD is signed to approve the RMP/EIS. 

Draft RMP/EIS: 

estimated spring 2010 

Proposed RMP/Final 

EIS: estimated summer 

2010

Approved RMP/ROD: 

estimated winter 2012

Step 9—

Implementation 

Monitoring 

Management measures outlined in the approved plan are 

implemented on the ground, and future monitoring is 

conducted to test their effectiveness. Changes are made as 

necessary to achieve desired results. 

Ongoing after RMP 

approval 

1.5.1 Scoping Process 

FLPMA allows the public to comment on and participate in the formulation of the RMP. The 

formal scoping period began with the publication of the notice of intent in the Federal Register on 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 1-7 
Chapter 1: Introduction 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 1-8 

March 25, 2005.1 In March 2005, a WDO RMP/EIS project Web site was launched to serve as a 

clearinghouse for project information during the planning effort. The Web site, at 

www.nv.blm.gov/wdormp, provided a link for site visitors to submit comments about the project. 

Due to security issues and upgrades, the Web site was temporarily shut down in April 2005 and 

remained so through the end of the scoping period. The public was urged in public notices and 

during the scoping meetings to use other means to provide their comments. In the summer of 2006

the Winnemucca RMP public Web site was brought back online with a new Web address 

(www.nv.blm.gov/Winnemucca/RMP/) and has been active intermittently ever since. 

The BLM sent a newsletter to interested parties on March 23, 2005, to inform them of the 

Winnemucca RMP planning effort, the location of four scoping open houses in May 2005, and the 

opportunity to comment. The newsletter was mailed to over 1,600 individuals on the distribution list 

compiled by the WDO. Newspaper advertisements and news releases also were published to notify 

the public of the project, to announce the four scoping open houses, to request public comments, 

and to provide contact information. Scoping open houses were held in Winnemucca, Lovelock, 

Gerlach, and Reno, Nevada, on May 2, 3, and 4, and 5, 2005, respectively. These open houses 

provided an opportunity for the public to receive information, to ask questions, and to provide input 

(Chapter 5 further discusses scoping and public collaboration). 

In addition to the public open houses, the BLM gave presentations on the WDO RMP planning 

effort to the following groups: 

• Fallon Tribe on February 1, 2005; 

• McDermitt Tribe on February 14, 2005; 

• Humboldt County Commissioners on March 7, 2005; 

• Pershing County Commissioners on March 16, 2005; 

• Sierra Front-Northwestern Great Basin Resource Advisory Council on April 28, 2005; 

• City of Winnemucca on May 3, 2005; 

• Humboldt County Development Authority on May 10, 2005; 

• Two Native American tribal meetings on May 24 and May 26, 2005; 

• Combined Cooperator Meeting on July 13, 2005; 

• Nevada Department of Wildlife on July 27, 2005; 

• Pyramid Lake Tribe on August 25, 2005; 

• Humboldt County Commissioners on September 19, 2005; 

• Combined Cooperator Meeting on February 22, 2006; 

• Battle Mountain Band on March 21, 2006; 

 

1 “Notice of Intent To Prepare a Resource Management Plan (RMP) and Associated Environmental Impact 

Statement (EIS) and Initiate the Public Scoping Process.” Federal Register 70, no. 57 (March 2005): 15348-

15349. 
Chapter 1: Introduction 

• Humboldt County Commissioners on April 4, 2006; 

• Washoe County on April 6, 2006; 

• US Fish and Wildlife Service on May 9, 2006; 

• Nevada Department of Wildlife on June 1, 2006; 

• Fallon Tribe on June 20, 2006; 

• Nevada Dept. of Agriculture and N-2 Grazing Board on June 21, 2006; 

• Nevada Department of Wildlife on August 7, 2006; 

• Meeting with Churchill County and Fallon Naval Air Station on October 25, 2006; and 

• McDermitt Tribe on December 15, 2006. 

The scoping period for receipt of public comments ended May 24, 2005. Analysis of the comments 

was completed and a scoping summary report was finalized in July 2005 (BLM 2005b). 

1.5.2 Issue Identification 

Issue identification is the first step of the nine-step BLM planning process. A planning issue is a 

significant concern, need, resource use, or development and protection opportunity regarding 

resource management or uses on public lands that can be addressed in a variety of ways. The criteria 

used to identify issues include determining whether the effects: 

1. Would approach or exceed standards or a threshold; 

2. Would substantially change a resource; 

3. Would be controversial; 

4. Would offer a wide range of opportunities; or 

5. Would cause disagreement regarding their environmental impact. 

These issues drove the formulation of the RMP alternatives, and addressing them has resulted in a 

range of management options presented in five alternatives (Chapter 2). Each fully developed 

alternative (Chapter 2) represents a different land use plan that addresses or resolves the identified 

planning issues in different ways. While other concerns are addressed in the RMP, management 

related to them may or may not change by alternative. 

After considering public scoping comments, the BLM identified nine major planning issue themes, 

as follows: 

1. How will transportation and recreation be managed to improve public access, protect natural 

and cultural resources, reduce user conflicts, and provide a range of recreational 

opportunities, from developed/motorized to nonmotorized/wilderness experiences? 

2. What opportunities exist to make adjustments to public land ownership that would result in 

greater management efficiency, appropriate and agreeable levels of public access, and 

increased public and natural resource benefits? 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 1-9 
Chapter 1: Introduction 

3. What actions or restrictions will be needed to maintain or improve natural resource values, 

reduce dangerous fuel loads, control and prevent noxious weeds and other undesirable plant 

species, and reduce risk of crossing ecological thresholds? 

4. How will uses and land management activities be managed to maintain and improve 

terrestrial and aquatic habitats in a scattered land ownership pattern while maintaining 

multiple-use land management? 

5. How will the BLM manage mining and other commercial uses (other than livestock grazing) 

on public lands while protecting natural and cultural resources? How will management of 

BLM lands affect the social and economic resiliency and sustainability of local economies? 

6. How will the BLM manage livestock grazing on public lands while protecting, managing, 

restoring, and/or using natural and cultural resources? 

7. Where are special designations appropriate to protect unique resources? 

8. What are the appropriate management level and other management measures to protect 

natural and cultural resources while protecting the health and safety of the wild horse and 

burro populations? Where should herd management area boundaries be adjusted? 

9. How can the BLM use proactive management, tribal consultation, and land tenure tools to 

identify, protect, and conserve cultural resources? How can these values be incorporated into 

other management activities? 

1.5.3 Issues Considered But Not Further Analyzed 

During scoping, several concerns were raised that are beyond the scope of this planning effort or 

represented questions on how the BLM would go about the planning process and implementation. 

There are several issues raised in scoping that are clearly of concern to the public but that are not 

under BLM jurisdiction. Where certain management is already dictated by law or regulation, 

alternatives have not been developed, but management will instead be applied as management 

common to all alternatives. The Winnemucca RMP Scoping Report (BLM 2005b) discusses issues 

outside the scope of the RMP. 

1.6 PLANNING CRITERIA AND LEGISLATIVE CONSTRAINTS

FLPMA is the primary authority for the BLM’s management of public lands. This law provides the 

overarching policy by which public lands will be managed and establishes provisions for land use 

planning, land acquisition and disposition, administration, range management, rights-of-way, 

designated management areas, and the repeal of certain laws and statutes. NEPA provides the basic 

national charter for environmental responsibility and requires the consideration of public input and 

information in the decision making process for federal actions. In concert, these two laws provide 

comprehensive guidance for administration of all BLM activities. 

Planning criteria are the standards, rules, and guidelines that help to guide data collection, alternative 

formulation, and alternative selection in the RMP-development process. In conjunction with the 

planning issues, planning criteria assure the planning process is focused. The criteria guides planning 

and provide a basis for judging the responsiveness of the planning options. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 1-10 
Chapter 1: Introduction 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 1-11 

Preliminary planning criteria were developed prior to public scoping meetings to set the focus for 

the Winnemucca RMP and to guide decision making by topic. These preliminary planning criteria 

were included in the initial newsletter, displayed at the four public open houses held during the first 

week of May 2005, and posted on the project Web site for public comment during the 60-day 

scoping period. The public was encouraged to comment on and to suggest additions to these criteria 

at the meetings and through correspondence with the BLM. Although no specific criterion differing 

from those above were suggested by the public during scoping, many comments supported the 

method provided by these principles to evaluate the issues. The public encouraged the BLM to use 

criteria and standards for as many decisions as possible, making it easier to manage site-specific 

activities during implementation-level management phases.

1. The RMP will comply with FLPMA and all other applicable laws, regulations, and policies. 

Decisions in the plan will be consistent with the existing plans and policies of adjacent local, 

state, tribal, and federal agencies to the extent allowed by federal law, regulations, and policy. 

2. Impacts of the RMP will be analyzed in an EIS developed in accordance with regulations at 

43 CFR 1610 and 40 CFR 1500 and the Departmental Manual 516 DM 1-8. The scope of 

analysis will be consistent with the level of analysis in approved plans and in accordance with 

BLM standards and program guidance. 

3. The RMP will recognize the state’s responsibility to manage wildlife populations and waters 

of the State of Nevada. 

4. Management of migratory birds within the planning area will be consistent with the 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). Migratory birds are protected and managed under the 

MBTA of 1918, as amended (16 USC 703 et seq.) and EO 13186. Under the MBTA, nests 

with eggs or young of migratory birds may not be harmed, nor may migratory birds be killed. 

EO 13186 directs federal agencies to promote the conservation of migratory bird 

populations. 

5. The RMP will comply with USFWS National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines and the 

Post-Delisting Monitoring Plan for the bald eagle when they are finalized and where it is 

appropriate2. 

6. The RMP will recognize valid existing rights. 

7. Lands covered in the RMP will be public surface and split-estate lands managed by BLM. 

No decisions will be made in the RMP related to the management of lands not administered 

by the BLM. 

8. The RMP will be developed cooperatively and collaboratively with the State of Nevada, 

tribal governments, county and municipal governments, other federal agencies, the Sierra 

Front-Northwestern Great Basin RAC, and other interested groups, agencies and 

individuals. 

9. RMP development will include government-to-government consultation with Native 

American Indian Tribes in conformance with the requirements of Section 202(c)(9) of the 

FLPMA; Section 101(d)(6) of the National Historic Preservation Act; the American Indian 

 

2 The WDO does not currently conduct bald eagle monitoring, as no foraging, nesting, wintering, or roosting 

areas have been identified within the planning area, and species occurrence is rare (Section 3.2.10). 
Chapter 1: Introduction 

Religions Freedom Act; Treaty Rights where applicable; Executive Order 13007 (Indian 

Sacred Sites); Executive Order 13084 (Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments); Executive Order 12898 (Environmental Justice); BLM Handbook H-8160-1; 

BLM Nevada Instruction Memorandum NV-2005-008; and other applicable laws, 

regulations, and policies. 

10. The RMP will incorporate standards and guidelines for rangeland health developed in 

accordance with regulations in 43 CFR Subpart 4180 and approved by the Secretary of the 

Interior, and will incorporate valid and relevant management decisions from previous BLM 

plans. 

11. Management of energy and nonenergy mineral resources will be consistent with the acts of 

Congress relating to the Domestic Minerals Program Extension Act of 1953, the Mining and 

Minerals Policy Act of 1970, the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, the 

National Materials and Minerals Policy, Research and Development Act of 1980, and the 

Energy Policy Act of 2005, and the 43 CFR 3100, 3200, 3600, 3800 regulations. 

12. Determinations for nonlocatable mineral development will be based on mineral, geothermal, 

and oil and gas potential within the planning area. Reasonable foreseeable development 

scenarios for fluid minerals will be developed in accordance with BLM Handbook H-1624-1. 

13. Soil and vegetation correlations, maps, and the included information from Natural Resource 

Conservation Service Soil Surveys and range site descriptions will be used to evaluate 

ecological conditions and the fundamentals of rangeland health. 

14. Fire management objectives will be consistent with the 2001 Federal Wildland Fire Policy, 

the National Fire Plan, the Healthy Forest Restoration Act, and other policies. 

15. The RMP/EIS will be consistent with Homeland Security policies. 

16. All proposed management actions will be based on current scientific information, research, 

and technology, and on inventory and monitoring information. 

17. The RMP will recognize lifestyles and concerns of area residents and stakeholders. Analysis 

of economic matters will comply with established acceptable standards and environmental 

justice factors will be considered using analytical parameters recommended by the EPA 

(EPA 1998a). 

18. Lands identified for disposal prior to July 25, 2000, will be further identified for disposal 

under the Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act. 

19. Lands identified for acquisition will be consistent with FLPMA Section 205, existing policy 

and regulation and, when applicable, with the Southern Nevada Public Land Management 

Act. 

20. Adaptive management principles will be adopted as appropriate. 

1.6.1 Relationship to BLM Policies, Plans, and Programs 

Since the development and approval of the MFPs (BLM 1982a, 1982b), BLM has processed one 

land use plan amendment to provide additional land management direction, specifically for land 

tenure adjustments. The MFPs were also amended to include energy transmission, geothermal 

energy development, and wind energy development. After the issuance of the final RMP ROD, 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 1-12 
Chapter 1: Introduction 

guidance will be put into practice on the ground through implementation planning as directed by 

BLM policy and program-specific guidance. Tables 1-3 and 1-4 identify approved MFP amendments 

incorporated into the existing land use plans and other BLM guidance considered at the 

implementation-level planning stages. These plan amendments and guidance documents provide a 

perspective of the many management considerations pertinent to the planning area. 

Table 1-3 

Identification of MFP Amendments 

Considered for Implementation-Level Planning 

Amendments to the Sonoma-Gerlach MFP and Paradise-Denio MFP 

Paradise-Denio and Sonoma-Gerlach Management Framework Plan Approved Lands Amendment and 

Decision Record (1999); 

West-Wide Energy Corridor Final Programmatic EIS—Western United States (BLM and DOE 2008); 

Record of Decision and Resource Management Plan Amendments for Geothermal Leasing in the Western 

United States (BLM and Forest Service 2008); and 

Final Programmatic EIS on Wind Energy Development on BLM-Administered Lands in the Western 

United States (BLM 2005c).

Table 1-4 

Identification of Other Documents 

Considered for Implementation-Level Planning 

BLM Policy and Program Guidance Documents Considered During Implementation-Level 

Planning 

• Pine Forest Recreation Area Management Plan (1992); 

• Pine Forest Recreation Plan Activity Plan for Pine Forest Recreation Area (2001); 

• Pine Forest Allotment Evaluation Summary (2004); 

• Winnemucca District Office Fire Management Plan (2005); 

• Protecting People and Natural Resources: A Cohesive Fuels Treatment Strategy (February 2006); 

• A Collaborative Approach for Reducing Wildland Fire Risks to Communities and the Environment: 

10-Year Comprehensive Strategy (August 2001); 

• A Collaborative Approach for Reducing Wildland Fire Risks to Communities and the Environment: 

10-Year Strategy Implementation Plan (December 2006); 

• Water Canyon Management Plan (1997); 

• Water Canyon Implementation Plan Amendment (2005); 

• Wetland Riparian Initiative (1990); 

• Winnemucca District Office Forestry Plan Amendment and Environmental Assessment (2003); 

• Healthy Forest Initiative (Ongoing); 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 1-13 
Chapter 1: Introduction 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 1-14 

BLM Policy and Program Guidance Documents Considered During Implementation-Level 

Planning 

• Environmental Assessment for the Normal Year Fire Rehabilitation Plan EA (2004); 

• Programmatic Environmental Assessment – Integrated Weed Management on Bureau of Land 

Management Lands (1998); 

• Environmental Assessment – Herbicide Application for Control of Noxious Weeds (1999); 

• Environmental Assessment - Integrated Weed Management (2002); 

• Environmental Assessment for the Buffalo Hills Complex Wild Horse Capture Plan (2004); 

• Calico Complex Gather Plan and EA/FONSI (2004); 

• Augusta Mountains Gather Plan and EA/FONSI (2003); 

• Blue Wing/Seven Troughs Complex Gather Plan and EA/FONSI (2005); 

• Jackson Mountains Gather Plan and EA/FONSI (2002); 

• Little Owyhee/Snowstorms Gather Plan and EA/FONSI (2004); 

• McGee Mountain Gather Plan and EA/FONSI (2005); 

• ROD, Vegetation Treatment on BLM Lands in Thirteen Western States (1991); 

• Final Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides Programmatic EIS—Western United States (2007); 

• Oil Shale and Tar Sands Programmatic EIS—Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming (2007); 

• West-Wide Energy Corridor Final Programmatic EIS—Western United States (2008); 

• Record of Decision and Resource Management Plan Amendments for Geothermal Leasing in the 

Western United States (2008); 

• Nevada Statewide Wilderness Report (1991); 

• Bloody Shins Mountain Bike Trail (2001); 

• Final Environmental Impact Statement: Wilderness Recommendations for Nevada Contiguous Lands 

(1990); 

• Geothermal Resources Leasing Programmatic Environmental Assessment (2002); 

• Geothermal Leasing Environmental Assessment for Low Sensitivity Application (2001); 

• A Recreation Area Management Plan for Lovelock Cave Backcountry Byway (1999); 

• Nomination for Lovelock Cave Backcountry Byway (1994); 

• Stillwater Range Woodland Harvest Management Plan, USDI/BLM, Winnemucca, Nevada (1978); 

• Biological Assessment for the Normal Year Fire Rehabilitation Plan (2004); 

• Environmental Assessment Washburn Creek Lahontan Cutthroat Trout Habitat Enhancement Project 

(2003); 

• Lovelock Cave Cultural Resources Management Plan (1986); 

• Oil & Gas Leasing Environmental Assessment (2005); 

• Riser Creek Environmental Assessment (2003); 
Chapter 1: Introduction 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 1-15 

BLM Policy and Program Guidance Documents Considered During Implementation-Level 

Planning 

• Gerlach Green Energy Geothermal Exploration Environmental Assessment (2006); 

• Golden Phoenix Minerals Inc. Ashdown Project Sylvia Mine Environmental Assessment (2006); 

• Kramer Hill Quartzite Quarry Environmental Assessment (2007); 

• National Fire Plan: Review and Update of the 1995 Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy (US 

Department of Interior et al. 2001); 

• National Fire Plan: Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy (US Department of Interior and US 

Department of Agriculture 1995); 

• National Management Strategy for Motorized Off-highway Vehicle (OHV) Use on Public Lands (BLM 

2001); 

• Winnemucca District Office Forestry Plan (2003); 

• Blue Mountain Geothermal Exploration Environmental Assessment (2006); 

• Jersey Valley Geothermal Exploration Environmental Assessment (2007); 

• Aquatic Habitat Management Plan; Mahogany Creek Revised (1975); 

• Aquatic Habitat Management Plan; North Fork, Little Humboldt River (1982); 

• Big Game Habitat Management Plan (1993); 

• Disaster Peak Habitat Management Plan (1969); 

• Fox Mountain—Granite Range Habitat Management Plan (1970, revised 1989); 

• Jackson Mountains Wildlife Habitat Management Plan (1979, revised 1981); 

• Little Owyhee/Snowstorms Habitat Management Plan (1987); 

• Montana-Double H Wildlife Habitat Area, Bighorn Sheep Habitat Management Plan (1990); 

• Osgood Milkvetch ACEC Habitat Management Plan (no date; circa 1990); 

• Owyhee Desert Habitat Management Plan (1976); 

• Pine Forest Habitat Management Plan (1969, revised 1981); 

• Sage Hen Flat Meadow Habitat Management Plan (1973); 

• Soldier Meadows Desert Dace Habitat Management Plan (1983); 

• Sonoma Creek Aquatic Habitat Management Plan (1985); 

• Sonoma Mountain Habitat Management Plan (1975); 

• Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Plan for Nevada and Eastern California (NDH 2004); 

• Stillwater Range Habitat Management Plan (1986); 

• Instruction Memorandum Number 2010-071: Gunnison and Greater Sage-Grouse Management 

Considerations for Energy Development. 

Allotment Final Multiple Use Decision Documents including the following: 

• Abel Creek Allotment FMUD (1997); 

• Alder Creek Allotment FMUD (1994); 
Chapter 1: Introduction 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 1-16 

BLM Policy and Program Guidance Documents Considered During Implementation-Level 

Planning 

• Antelope Allotment FMUD (1998); 

• Asa Moore Allotment FMUD (2001); 

• Bottle Creek Allotment FMUD (2000); 

• Buffalo Allotment FMUD (1996); 

• Buffalo Hills Allotment FMUD (1993); 

• Bullhead Allotment FMUD (1997); 

• Buttermilk Allotment FMUD (2001); 

• Clear Creek Allotment FMUD (2000); 

• Coyote Hills Allotment FMUD (1994); 

• Crowley Creek Allotment FMUD (1998); 

• Deer Creek Allotment FMUD (1998); 

• Dolly Hayden Allotment FMUD (2000); 

• Double H Allotment FMUD (1995); 

• Dyke Hot Allotment FMUD (1995); 

• Flat Creek, Willow Creek, and Upper Quinn River Allotment FMUDs (1995); 

• Fort Scott Allotment FMUD (1997); 

• Goldbanks Allotment FMUD (2001); 

• Granite Allotment FMUD (1991); 

• Hanson Creek Allotment FMUD (1997); 

• Happy Creek Allotment FMUD (1997); 

• Hole in the Wall, Jersey Valley , and Home Station Gap Allotment FMUDs (1997); 

• Horse Creek Allotment FMUD (1984); 

• Hot Springs Peak Allotment Multiple Use Decision Environmental Assessment (2004); 

• Hot Springs Peak Allotment FMUD (2005); 

• Indian Creek Allotment FMUD (1993); 

• Jackson Mountain Allotment FMUD (1994; Stipulation in 1998); 

• Jordan Meadows Allotment FMUD (1995); 

• Klondike Allotment FMUD (1998); 

• Leadville Allotment FMUD (1994); 

• Little Horse Creek Allotment FMUD (1990); 

• Little Owyhee Allotment FMUD (1999); 

• Long Canyon Allotment FMUD (1995); 
Chapter 1: Introduction 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 1-17 

BLM Policy and Program Guidance Documents Considered During Implementation-Level 

Planning 

• Martin Creek Allotment FMUD (1996); 

• Mullinix Allotment FMUD (1998); 

• Paiute Meadows Allotment FMUD (2003); 

• Paradise Hill Allotment FMUD (2000); 

• Pole Canyon Allotment FMUD (2000); 

• Provo Allotment FMUD (2000); 

• Pueblo Mountain Allotment FMUD (1999); 

• Pumpernickel Allotment FMUD (1996); 

• Rebel Creek Allotment FMUD (1998); 

• Rock Creek Allotment FMUD (1997); 

• Rodeo Creek Allotment FMUD (1997); 

• Singus Allotment FMUD (1999); 

• Soldier Meadows Multiple Use Management Environmental Assessment (2003); 

• Soldier Meadows Allotment FMUD (2004); 

• Solid Silver Allotment FMUD (1991); 

• South Rochester Allotment FMUD (1998); 

• Spring Creek Allotment FMUD (2000); 

• UC Allotment FMUD (1998); 

• Washburn Allotment FMUD (1994); 

• Wilder-Quinn Allotment FMUD (1998); 

• William Stock Allotment FMUD (2000). 

1.7 COLLABORATION

1.7.1 Intergovernmental and Interagency Collaboration 

The benefits of enhanced collaboration among agencies in the preparation of NEPA analyses 

include disclosing relevant information early in the analytical process, applying available technical 

expertise and staff support, avoiding duplication with other federal, state, tribal, and local 

procedures, and establishing a mechanism for addressing intergovernmental issues. 

On February 16, 2005, the BLM mailed letters to the following local, state, federal, and tribal 

representatives inviting them to participate as cooperating agencies for the Winnemucca RMP: 

• US Fish and Wildlife Service 

(USFWS); 

• Natural Resource Conservation 

Service (NRCS); 

• US Forest Service (USFS); 
Chapter 1: Introduction 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 1-18

Nevada Department of Wildlife 

(NDOW); 

Burn Paiute Tribe; 

Cedarville Rancheria; 

Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs 

Reservation; 

Fallon Paiute-Shoshone Tribe; 

Fort Bidwell Indian Community; 

Fort McDermitt Tribe; 

Nevada Department of Agriculture 

(NDOA); 

Nevada Natural Heritage Program; 

State Historic Preservation Office 

(SHPO); 

Humboldt County; 

Washoe County; 

Pershing County; 

Churchill County; 

Lyon County; 

City of Winnemucca; 

Alturas Indian Rancheria; 

Battle Mountain Band; 

Klamath Indian Tribe; 

Lovelock Paiute Tribe; 

Pit River Tribe; 

Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe; 

Reno-Sparks Indian Colony; 

Shoshone-Bannock Tribes, Fort Hall; 

Shoshone-Paiute Tribes of the Duck 

Valley; 

Summit Lake Paiute Tribe; 

Susanville Indian Rancheria; 

Washoe Tribe; 

Winnemucca Tribe; 

Inter-Tribal Council of Nevada.

Nine agencies (Humboldt County, City of Winnemucca, Washoe County, Pershing County, Nevada 

Department of Wildlife, N-2 Grazing Board, Nevada Department of Agriculture, Bureau of 

Reclamation, and US Fish and Wildlife Service) accepted the offer to participate in the BLM WDO 

planning process as cooperating agencies. These agencies will ―work with the BLM, sharing 

knowledge and resources, to achieve desired outcomes for public lands and communities within 

statutory and regulatory frameworks‖ (BLM 2005a).

To initiate the collaborative planning process, on March 25, 2005 BLM mailed letters inviting the 

aforementioned federal, state, local, and tribal organizations to the four scoping open houses held 

during the first week of May. Each of these organizations was also included on the original 

distribution list to receive the newsletter.

The BLM gave presentations on the WDO RMP planning effort to numerous groups over the 

course of several meetings. For a detailed list of these meetings and dates, please see Section 1.5.1 

(Scoping Process). 

A Resource Advisory Council (RAC) is a committee established by the Secretary of Interior to 

provide advice or recommendations to BLM management (BLM 2005a). A RAC is generally 

composed of 15 members of the public representing different facets. The Sierra FrontNorthwestern Great Basin RAC includes a panel of mixed expertise ranging from natural resources 

and Native American culture to mining, transportation, and politics. The group is facilitated by the 

public affairs officer from the BLM. In March 2005, five new members were incorporated into the 
Chapter 1: Introduction 

WDO RAC to replace previous members. The first meeting with the new RAC was held on April 

28, 2005 at the Winnemucca District Office. After a presentation of the RMP process highlighting 

the components and issues of the planning area, preliminary planning criteria, and project status, the 

RAC elected to form a subgroup to provide assistance and input. The RAC subgroup is expected to 

meet at a frequency appropriate to meet the needs of the RMP. The RAC subgroup assisted in 

developing the alternatives at the following meetings: 

• Fernley Nevada on July 11, 2005; 

• BLM Carson City District Office on July 29, 2005; 

• Winnemucca District Office from September 17-18, 2005; 

• Winnemucca District Office from November 11-13, 2005; 

• Winnemucca District Office from January 17-18, 2006; 

• Winnemucca District Office on March 15, 2006; 

• Winnemucca District Office from June 8-9, 2006; 

• Winnemucca District Office on November 30, 2006; 

• Winnemucca District Office on January 11, 2008. 

1.7.2 Tribal Relationships and Indian Trust Assets 

The unique political relationship between the US government and federally recognized Indian tribes 

is defined by treaties, statutes, executive orders, judicial decisions, and agreements. This relationship 

has created a special federal trust responsibility, involving the legal commitments and obligations of 

the US toward Indian tribes, Indian lands, tribal trust resources, and the exercise of tribal rights. 

These trust responsibilities supersede any and all actions taken by the BLM. 

Indian trust resources are legal interests in assets held in trust by the federal government for 

federally recognized Indian tribes or nations or for individual Indians. These assets can be real 

property, physical assets, or intangible property rights. Examples include lands, minerals, water 

rights, hunting and fishing rights, other natural resources, money, or claims. 

BLM has no trust administration responsibilities within the WDO. 

1.8 CONSISTENCY WITH OTHER PLANS

BLM planning regulations require that BLM RMPs be consistent with officially approved or adopted 

resource-related plans of other federal, state, local, and tribal governments to the extent those plans 

are consistent with federal laws and regulations applicable to public lands. Plans formulated by 

federal, state, local, and tribal governments that relate to management of lands and resources have 

been reviewed and considered as the RMP and EIS has been developed, and no inconsistencies with 

these plans have been identified. These plans include the following: 

• Churchill County Master Plan Update (2005); 

• Humboldt County Master Plan (2002); 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 1-19 
Chapter 1: Introduction 

• Humboldt County Master Plan Open Space Element Amendment (2003); 

• Lander County Master Plan (1997); 

• Lyon County Master Plan (1990); 

• Pershing County Master Plan (2002); 

• Washoe County Comprehensive Plan (1994); 

• Nevada Division of State Lands, Nevada Statewide Policy Plan for Public Lands (1985); 

• Nevada Division of State Lands, Lands Identified for Public Acquisition (1999); 

• Nevada Division of State Lands, Nevada Natural Resources Status Report (2002); 

• State of Nevada Drought Plan (1993); 

• Nevada’s 2003 Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan—Assessment and Policy 

Plan (2003); 

• Nevada BLM Statewide Wilderness Report (1991); 

• Statewide Wildfire Management Plan (developing); 

• Nevada Comprehensive Preservation Plan (2004); 

• Nevada’s Coordinated Invasive Weed Strategy (2000); 

• Resource Management Plan for the Black Rock Desert-High Rock Canyon Emigrant Trails 

National Conservation Area and Associated Wilderness and Other Contiguous Lands in 

Nevada (2004); 

• Carson City Field Office Consolidated RMP (2001); 

• Shoshone-Eureka Planning Area, RMP (1987, as amended); 

• Stillwater National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan (2002); 

• Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement on Wind Energy Development on 

BLM-Administered Lands in the Western United States (2005); 

• Record of Decision and Resource Management Plan Amendments for Geothermal Leasing 

in the Western United States (2008); 

• West-Wide Energy Corridor Final Programmatic EIS—Western United States (2008); 

• Proposed Southeastern Oregon Resource Management Plan and Final Environmental 

Statement (2001); 

• Nevada Wildlife Action Plan (June 2006); 

• NDOW Nevada Elk Species Management Plan (1997); 

• First Edition Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Plan for the Bi-State Plan Area of Nevada 

and Eastern California (June 2004); 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 1-20 
Chapter 1: Introduction 

• Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies – Greater Sage-Grouse Comprehensive 

Conservation Strategy (December 2006) 

• Eagle Lake Field Office RMP (2007); 

• National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (40 CFR 300) (1994, 

revised 2007). 

1.9 IMPLEMENTATION AND MONITORING OF THE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

1.9.1 Introduction 

The Winnemucca District Office RMP provides broad direction for managing the decision area. 

Implementation of an RMP involves completion of several tasks, some of which are completed 

when the plan is adopted, while others would continue over the 20-year life of the plan. This section 

provides a framework to guide implementation of the planning decisions contained in the RMP, and 

future actions that may occur as a result of this plan. Implementation of future actions would often 

require additional site-specific planning to implement the broad guidance contained in the RMP. 

This chapter also contains information on the process to maintain the RMP in the future as 

additional information becomes available and changes in conditions or resource uses change. 

Implementation of the RMP would begin when the Nevada BLM State Director signs the ROD for 

the RMP. Decisions in the RMP would be tied to the BLM budgeting process. An implementation 

schedule would be developed after the ROD is signed, providing for the systematic accomplishment 

of decisions in the approved RMP. During implementation of the RMP, additional documentation 

may be required to comply with NEPA. 

Implementation of the RMP would be monitored, and the RMP would be evaluated periodically. 

Revisions or amendments to the RMP may be necessary to accommodate changes in resource needs, 

policies, or regulations. Other decisions would be issued after the ROD is signed, in order to fully 

implement the RMP. 

1.9.2 Implementation Plan 

An Implementation Plan would be completed after the ROD is signed and the RMP is adopted. The 

purpose of the Implementation Plan is to outline the priority tasks and resources needed during the 

first 3 to 5 years after the RMP is adopted. The Implementation Plan would contain a schedule for 

the development of priority activity plans identified in the RMP, including the Transportation and 

Travel Management Plan and the Recreation Activity Management Plan. 

The Implementation Plan would also contain the following: 

• Results of the consistency review of existing BLM activity plans; 

• Cost estimates for the first five years of implementation of the RMP; 

• Strategies for funding implementation of the RMP; and 

• A schedule of implementation actions. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 1-21 
Chapter 1: Introduction 

During development of the Implementation Plan, several workshops would be conducted to educate 

the BLM staff and external parties about the RMP, how it would be implemented and to encourage 

partnerships to improve the efficiency of implementation efforts and cost-effectiveness. 

1.9.3 Implementation Schedule 

Implementation of decisions made through this planning process would occur in several phases. 

Although the use of the word “phase” implies sequential steps, some of the phases may be 

implemented concurrently. These phases include: 

Pending/Ongoing: Generally, any ongoing, short-term activity would not be changed as a result of 

the RMP decisions. Short-term activities where National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analysis 

has been completed and decisions are pending would be screened to ensure they are consistent with 

the decisions in the RMP prior to implementation. 

Short-term: Actions where implementation would begin in the immediate future (i.e., within the 

first several years) are included in this category. These include development of the priority activity 

plans. The monitoring and adaptive management process would also begin during the short-term 

phase to include establishment of coordination efforts and priorities for monitoring and research 

programs. 

Long-Term: This phase includes actions that need to be implemented over the life of the plan (up 

to 20 years). In addition to ongoing regulatory requirements, a major part of this effort would 

include site-specific project and activity planning needed to implement the RMP but not specifically 

outlined in the plan. The monitoring/adaptive management strategy would continue to be 

implemented throughout the life of the plan, which may lead to changes in the plan through an 

amendment or revision process that considers information collected during implementation. This 

process is discussed in more detail in the sections that follow. 

In the adaptive management process, evaluation of information collected may result in changes in 

time frames for implementation. Data may indicate a need to accelerate a protective management 

action or an action could be delayed because impacts are less (or more) than originally anticipated. 

1.9.4 Linking Broad Scale Decisions to More Detailed Plans and Actions 

The RMP provides general direction and guidance for the entire planning area and makes some 

specific implementation decisions. However, most management actions necessary to achieve broadscale objectives, such as developing an effective Transportation and Travel Management Plan or a 

Recreation Area Management Plan would require further planning and additional decisions. 

Additional planning would: 

• Validate, refine or add-to information concerning current and historical resource conditions; 

• Address site-specific issues not appropriately addressed at the broad level scale; 

• Prioritize implementation actions consistent with achievement of management goals and 

objectives; 

• Guide the type, location and sequence of appropriate management activities; and 

• Identify specific monitoring and research needs. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 1-22 
Chapter 1: Introduction 

The additional detailed plans and actions would “step-down” broad-scale objectives and decisions in 

the RMP to site-specific actions. This step-down process would be designed to ensure that RMP 

goals, objectives and decisions are applied to on-the-ground management in a manner consistent 

with the RMP. 

Where RMP decisions do not adequately provide the detail needed to manage resources and uses, 

activity plans may be used to supplement the RMP (i.e., planning specific to a particular resource 

program such as a Fire Management Plan or a Special Recreation Management Plan). Activity 

planning is an intermediate step between the broad level planning and the specific details of project 

development. These plans would fill a need to provide specific program guidance, while allowing the 

flexibility to adjust management decisions over the life of the RMP without requiring an RMP 

amendment. 

The RMP identifies activity plans that should be completed in the first several years following 

adoption of the RMP. The highest priority plans include: 

• Transportation and Travel Management Plan: This plan would identify the priorities and 

costs associated with management of the BLM road system to meet the requirements of the 

RMP, identify the initial on-the-ground transportation sign needs and define the guidelines 

to be used for changing road condition or maintenance and signage levels. Though 

historically focused on motor vehicle use, comprehensive travel management also 

encompasses all forms of transportation including travel by foot, horseback, bicycle, 

motorcycle and OHV. Because of the explosive growth of OHV use on public lands in the 

Winnemucca District a high priority pro-active district wide OHV management plan would 

be pursued. This coordinated OHV management policy would provide for inventory, 

development, design, designation and monitoring of OHV routes, increased enforcement of 

regulations, and a greater emphasis on user education. Appendix J provides the proposed 

Travel Management Plan criteria for subsequent road and trail selection, identification, and 

designations in ‘Limited’ OHV areas. 

• Recreation Area Management Planning: These recreation activity plans would be 

established for each of the proposed Recreation Management Zones (RMZs). Within these 

plans thresholds for resource conditions would be set and if reached would trigger corrective 

recreation management actions. In addition, if the prescribed setting character (see Appendix 

C) is different from existing setting characteristics, then these plans would address how this 

shift would be achieved. These plans would also provide guidance for implementing the 

Resource Monitoring System, Public Outreach Facilities, Recreation Site Development, 

Visitor Management, Camping Designations and SRP administration. 

• Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) Management Plan: These plans 

would identify specific management actions for each ACEC designated in the RMP ROD. 

The ACEC management plans would further address how activities would be managed 

within each ACEC. 

Implementation of specific, on-the-ground management actions such as development of a 

campground or maintenance of a road may require detailed project plans. These plans would be 

consistent with the RMP and applicable activity plans. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 1-23 
Chapter 1: Introduction 

1.9.5 Compliance with NEPA 

The RMP includes goals, objectives and decisions that were subjected to environmental analysis as 

required by NEPA during the preparation of the RMP. Subsequent planning at the project or 

activity plan level would require additional NEPA analysis in most cases and rarely an amendment to 

the RMP. The BLM would continue to conduct site-specific inventories and perform the 

appropriate level of NEPA analysis as part of the planning and decision making processes described 

above. Management changes resulting from the adaptive management process could also require 

NEPA analysis. Changes beyond the scope of the land use plan that are deemed desirable in the 

adaptive management process, may result in a plan amendment. 

1.9.6 Consultation, Coordination and Collaboration 

This plan and all implementation plans will be prepared in close coordination and collaboration with 

other federal agencies, state, tribal, and local governments, the public, and other interested parties. 

Collaborative approaches to implementation are necessary to assure success. While the BLM retains 

the responsibility and authority for land management decisions, these decisions are more 

meaningful, effective and enduring if made in a collaborative and open process. Therefore, close 

working relationships among management and regulatory agencies need to be developed and 

maintained. In addition, others outside of the BLM (State and local agencies, universities, volunteers, 

etc.) should be involved in subsequent analysis, monitoring, evaluation, research, and adaptive 

management processes. 

The ability of a subgroup formed by the Resource Advisory Council (RAC) with advisory 

responsibilities in the WDO Planning Area to provide high quality input into the planning process 

was essential to the timely completion of the RMP. The continuing involvement of the RAC would 

assure that management decisions are made in a collaborative manner. Continuing opportunities for 

public participation may include, among other things: 

• regular involvement of a RAC sanctioned group similar to the planning subgroup to provide 

the RAC with recommendations relating to the management of the planning area 

• volunteer partnerships or assistance agreements with other agencies to complete 

assessments, establish baseline data, monitor, and recommend management actions as a 

result of these processes 

• working groups, agreements and memorandums of understanding with State and Tribal 

governments. 

The successful collaborative planning work of the RAC Subgroup provides a model for how a 

similar group could help BLM to better manage the many diverse and sometimes conflicting uses 

within the WDO. 

Therefore, BLM would ask the Sierra Front-Northwestern Great Basin Resource Advisory Council 

to form a collaborative subgroup with a suggested composition of 6 to 8 members representing 

State, local and Tribal governments, and constituencies, groups and individuals with interests in 

public land management in the WDO. The subgroup would work with BLM on a regular basis to 

gain an in-depth understanding of management of the area and to regularly report to the parent 

RAC. The RAC would also be asked to specify any interests they feel should always be represented 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 1-24 
Chapter 1: Introduction 

on the subgroup (i.e., ranching, recreation, SRPs, OHV enthusiasts, etc.), and the length of terms of 

subgroup members (perhaps staggered 2- or 3-year terms). 

Individual members of the subgroup would serve as information conduits between BLM and the 

groups and interests they represent, which would greatly enhance community involvement in 

management of the WDO. As a whole, the subgroup’s purpose would be to provide detailed 

information and recommendations to the parent RAC concerning management of the area. The 

subgroup would not be an oversight or advisory group. The advisory function would remain where 

it currently is and where it belongs: solely within the authority and purpose of the parent RAC. The 

subgroup would be a collaborative group and as such would be an invaluable asset to BLM, the 

RAC and the general public. 

This general interest group may be supplemented by smaller focused workgroups established by the 

RAC to provide recommendations on short-term projects and technical issues of limited interest to 

such a broadly based group. 

1.9.7 Adaptive Management 

The RMP would be implemented using an adaptive management process. Under adaptive 

management, decisions, plans and proposed activities are treated as working hypotheses rather than 

final solutions to management of resources and uses. For the purposes of this plan, adaptive 

management represents a process that tests, evaluates and adjusts the assumptions, objectives, 

actions, and subsequent on-the-ground results from the implementation of RMP decisions. Used 

effectively, adaptive management provides resource managers with the flexibility to respond quickly 

and effectively to changing resource and user conditions. Changes in management actions are based 

on site-specific resource monitoring and evaluation. 

The intent of adaptive management is to allow future management actions, as applied through 

resource management guidelines, to fully incorporate the knowledge and experience gained up to 

that time from monitoring, evaluation and experimentation. However, adaptive management does 

not relieve managers of their responsibilities to consider the affects to the human environment of 

actions proposed under the guise of adaptive management. Managers would still be required to 

comply with the provisions of NEPA and other applicable laws, regulations and policies before such 

actions are applied. Certain actions proposed to apply adaptive management techniques may require 

amendment to the RMP before they could be employed. 

Guidelines assure that constraints established in the RMP are consistently applied when 

management methods and practices are used to meet plan objectives. Examples of guidelines are the 

livestock grazing guidelines required by CFR 43 §4180, Land Health Standards. Guidelines would be 

developed for all programs and uses. Guidelines that already exist for many programs and uses 

would be adopted as is when reviews show them to be applicable to the Planning Area. New sitespecific guidelines would also be developed as necessary. 

The adaptive management process is a continuous cycle that includes the following four phases: 

• Planning: Management guidelines, actions, and objectives are developed. Monitoring 

techniques and adjustment thresholds are designed based upon available information, past 

monitoring information and current scientific information. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 1-25 
Chapter 1: Introduction 

• Implementation: Objectives, guidelines, actions and constraints developed and identified 

during planning processes at all scales are applied as on-the-ground management. 

• Monitoring: Monitoring includes all efforts to document the current state of 

implementation, the resulting resource conditions as measured through indicators, and the 

effectiveness of the implementation strategy. Monitoring is designed to tier from existing 

data and techniques, be outcome based, technically feasible, affordable, and operationally 

attainable. Two types of monitoring would occur:

- Implementation monitoring: Determines whether the decisions and proposed 

actions developed during planning are actually being implemented. 

- Effectiveness monitoring: Determines whether implemented decisions and actions 

have changed resource condition indicators. If so, determines whether the changes in 

the indicators are consistent with meeting the objectives. 

The credibility of an adaptive management process rests in part on the routine application of an 

outside check on the use of technical and scientific information, including monitoring. Independent 

reviews can provide verification that plans, evaluations and changes in management strategy are 

consistent with current scientific concepts. 

When additional monitoring is required to fill information gaps, standardized monitoring techniques 

would be used where available before new techniques are developed. The BLM staff of the WDO 

would be responsible for developing a monitoring strategy and adaptive management protocols and 

ensuring that documentation is sufficient to facilitate feedback into the adaptive management 

process. 

Evaluation: 

• Modification Evaluation: The part of the process through which specific objectives, 

actions, monitoring thresholds, and even resource condition indicators may be modified to 

better meet the goals of the plan. 

• Timing Evaluation: Determines the need for and time frames during which changes to 

planning, implementation and monitoring should occur. 

The BLM staff would also be responsible for ensuring that monitoring results and other new 

information is compiled and evaluated in accordance with the two evaluation phases discussed above. 

Monitoring 

Monitoring would determine whether or not planning objectives are being met and ensure that BLM 

meets the commitments made in the plan. The information developed through monitoring would 

feed the evaluation process that may alter decisions or the timing of decisions, change 

implementation or maintain current management direction. 

The key step in developing a monitoring strategy is to define the questions that must be answered to 

evaluate the attainment of broad-scale management goals and objectives in the RMP. These 

questions would be used to focus monitoring on appropriate issues and avoid gathering irrelevant 

information. Focused monitoring also helps to keep costs within agency budgets. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 1-26 
Chapter 1: Introduction 

The first step is to select key monitoring elements and indicators that can be effectively sampled and 

can provide desired data at a reasonable cost. An example of such indicators is provided in Table 

1-5. A standard set of core data elements would be collected. Core data, including data necessary to 

evaluate achievement of the applicable Land Health Standards, are the minimum set of variables to 

be collected at all scales. Standardized measurement and reporting protocols would be determined 

because the need for consistency is essential. Where possible, monitoring protocols would be 

designed to integrate existing monitoring efforts and would address multiple questions. Also, the 

design would have the flexibility to add data elements required to answer new questions raised 

during subsequent site-specific planning. 

Determining the specific monitoring approach for any question requires knowledge of detailed 

information on existing conditions. A monitoring strategy must also identify the techniques needed 

to acquire a complete picture of the structure and pattern of a resource (i.e., remote sensing, samplebased studies, modeling). 

A monitoring system requires the development and use of indicators and thresholds based on 

guidelines. Thresholds are measurable indicators of when a change in management needs to be 

made. For example, the specific amount of resource impacts that would be tolerated before a 

campsite would be closed to public use and rehabilitated is a threshold. The development of 

indicators and thresholds would occur during the early part of plan implementation. Until these 

measures are in place, evaluations may not be completed. Indicators and thresholds would be 

periodically evaluated to assure that they remain appropriate for the Planning Area. 

1.9.8 RMP Evaluation 

Plan evaluations are a type of mechanism that review implementation of the RMP at several levels to 

see whether management goals and objectives are being met and determine whether management 

direction is sound. An evaluation examines management actions to determine whether they are 

consistent with thresholds established for the achievement of the objectives. If they are not, an 

evaluation identifies the reasons. The conclusions are then used to make recommendations on 

whether to continue current management guidelines, to make changes in management practices to 

meet plan goals and objectives, or to amend the plan objectives or decision to better meet the 

capabilities of the land and the intent of the legislation. 

Reviews of the evaluation process would be periodically scheduled to ensure that: 

• Monitoring data is gathered sufficiently in advance to be used effectively in the evaluation 

process. 

• Evaluations are conducted at intervals that allow for adjustments to be made in management 

direction before crises develop. 

RMP Evaluations made too frequently would not detect changes in ecosystems because costeffective monitoring systems cannot detect changes at this scale. On the other hand, if plan 

evaluations are delayed for too long or are not conducted at all, irreversible changes may take place 

without detection. RMP evaluations would be conducted every five years to assess the progress 

toward achieving broad-scale objectives and desired future conditions. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 1-27 
Chapter 1: Introduction 

Table 1-5 

Monitoring Indicators 

Major Uses and Resources Indicators to be Monitored 

Land Health - Amount of Ground Cover

- Evidence of Erosion 

- Vegetation Composition, Vigor and Structure 

- Riparian Functional Condition 

- Achievement of Water Quality Standards 

- Population and Habitat Diversity and Viability 

- Special Status Species Viability 

- Levels of Invasive Species

Transportation - Road Condition

- Numbers of Vehicle Accidents 

- Numbers of Search and Rescue Incidents 

- Erosion/Resource Damage Associated with Roads 

OHV Use - Occurrences of New Tracks 

Cultural Resources - Evidence of Looting/Vandalism

- Changes in Site Integrity 

- Erosion of Trail Traces

Paleontological Resources - Evidence of Looting/Vandalism

- Changes in Site Integrity

ACECs - See Land Health Indicators

- See Cultural Resources Indicators

Livestock Grazing - See Land Health Indicators

Wild Horses & Burros - Population Levels

- Demographics 

- Herd Health

Wildland Fire - Fuel Characteristics

- Burn Area Recovery 

- Rehabilitation Success

Fish & Wildlife - Population Numbers/Trends

- Impacts to Habitat

Special Status Species - See Land Health Indicators

- See Fish and Wildlife Indicators

Visual Resources - Changes in Visual Quality

- Changes to Visual Intrusions/Contrast 

- Uses comply with VRM Class

Water Resources - See Land Health Indicators

Lands & Realty - Compliance with Stipulations

- Numbers of Trespass Incidents 

- Access to Public Lands 

Mineral and Energy Resource Uses - Compliance with Stipulations

Soil Resources - See Land Health Indicators

Recreation - Evidence of Human Waste

- Vandalism 

- Area of Impact 

- SRP Stipulation Requirements 

- Surface Permeability

The evaluation process would review progress toward RMP implementation as well as new, scientific 

research, monitoring data, and other information on changed resource or social circumstances that 

needs to be considered in future management. The evaluation may conclude: 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 1-28 
Chapter 1: Introduction 

• Management actions are moving resources toward the desired objectives. In this case, 

management actions are affirmed and may not need to be adjusted. 

• Further research needs to be initiated or that actions must be adjusted to more efficiently 

achieve objectives of the Plan. If new information or research demonstrates better ways to 

achieve plan objectives, changes in activity planning and project implementation may be 

made. 

• The objectives should be altered based on the new information. If the new information 

indicates that plan objectives should be reconsidered, a plan amendment may be required 

that would reexamine desired future conditions and ways to reach those conditions. 

1.9.9 Changing the RMP 

This RMP is expected to remain in place for up to 20 years. During that period, it is anticipated that 

occasional changes to the RMP would be needed because of new information, changes in resource 

uses, new legislation or other factors. All changes to the RMP would be documented in a manner 

that allows future tracking of any changes to the plan. Changes to the RMP fall into two categories: 

• RMP maintenance: The process of modifying the text or maps of the RMP to correct 

clerical and technical errors or implement minor changes in wording or mapping. 

Maintenance actions would not change the intent of goals, objectives or decisions. 

Maintenance would be limited to minor corrections to improve clarity of the text, update 

textual or map information that changes over time or eliminate errors. Maintenance actions 

are not subject to the requirements of NEPA and do not require public involvement. 

• RMP Amendment: Changes to the RMP that modify the intent of goals, objectives or 

decisions or add new decisions require amending the plan. Amendments may be the result of 

periodic evaluations that recommend changes to the plan, external factors including new 

legislation, or proposals from external parties. The amendment process includes public 

involvement, coordination and environmental analysis similar to that used in the preparation 

of the original RMP. The level of environmental analysis would be appropriate to the level of 

potential impacts expected to be caused by the proposed amendment and could include 

preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement. 

1.9.10 Relationship to Other Agency Plans 

Local, State, other federal agencies, and Indian Tribes in the immediate region routinely prepare 

plans that establish goals and direction for land use, economic development or resource 

management within their jurisdictions. Many of these plans bear directly on or are significantly 

affected by BLM plans for managing public lands. During implementation of the RMP, BLM would 

coordinate and consult with such agencies and Tribes to assure consistency with other approved 

plans to the extent these other plans are in compliance with federal laws, regulations and policies. 

The principles of community-based planning would be employed where timing, mutual interest and 

the availability of resources are appropriate to address economic, ecologic and land use issues of 

mutual concern. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 1-29 
Chapter 1: Introduction 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 1-30 

This page intentionally left blank.