APPENDIX H 

WINNEMUCCA RMP SOCIOECONOMIC REPORT 

US Department of the Interior 

Bureau of Land Management 

Winnemucca Field Office, Nevada October 2006 

Winnemucca Resource Management Plan 

Socioeconomic Report 

SOCIOECONOMIC REPORT 

WINNEMUCCA FIELD OFFICE

RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

Prepared for 

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

Winnemucca Field Office 

Winnemucca, Nevada 

Prepared by 

TETRA TECH, INC. 

180 Howard Street 

Suite 250 

San Francisco, California 94105-1617 

4900 Pearl East Circle 

Suite 300W 

Boulder, Colorado 80301-6118 

and 

EMPS: ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AND

PLANNING SOLUTIONS, INC. 

4730 Walnut Street, Suite 108 

Boulder, CO 80301 

October 2006 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Section Page 

1. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................1-1

1.1 Location...........................................................................................................1-1

1.2 Socioeconomic Resources and Environmental Justice...................................1-5

1.2.1 Definition of Resource and Content of This Report .............................1-5

1.2.2 Socioeconomic Indicators....................................................................1-5

2. SOCIOECONOMIC CONDITIONS ......................................................................................2-1

2.1 Demographic Characteristics ..........................................................................2-1

2.1.1 Population............................................................................................2-1

2.1.2 Housing ...............................................................................................2-4

2.1.3 Education.............................................................................................2-5

2.2 Economic Characteristics................................................................................2-6

2.2.1 Employment and Economy..................................................................2-6

2.2.2 Income and Earnings...........................................................................2-9

2.2.3 Land Ownership.................................................................................2-12

2.2.4 County Overviews..............................................................................2-13

Churchill County ................................................................................2-13

Humboldt County...............................................................................2-14

Lyon County.......................................................................................2-15

Pershing County ................................................................................2-16

Washoe County .................................................................................2-18

2.2.5 Economic Influence of BLM-Managed Lands by Sector....................2-19

Recreation Sector..............................................................................2-20

Mining Sector.....................................................................................2-27

Livestock Grazing/Rangeland Management......................................2-35

Payments in Lieu of Taxes ................................................................2-39

2.2.6 Community Economic Profile Workshop and Social Characteristics.2-40 

3. ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE.............................................................................................3-1

3.1 Demographics .................................................................................................3-1

3.1.1 Tribal Interests.....................................................................................3-2

3.2 Income and Poverty Level...............................................................................3-3

3.3 Protection of Children......................................................................................3-4

4. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................4-1

4.1 Summary of Socioeconomic Conditions and Social Characteristics ...............4-1

4.2 Summary of Economic Influence of BLM-managed Lands .............................4-2

5. REFERENCES................................................................................................................5-1

6. LIST OF PREPARERS .....................................................................................................6-1

October 2006 Winnemucca Resource Management Plan

Socioeconomic Report 

 i 
LIST OF FIGURES 

Figure Page 

1-1 Planning Area..............................................................................................................1-3

2-1 Permitted Gold Mine Locations .................................................................................2-29

2-2 Current Mining Activity ..............................................................................................2-31

LIST OF TABLES 

Table Page 

1-1 WFO RMP Planning Area ...........................................................................................1-2

2-1 County Population Totals and Median Ages (1990-2000) ..........................................2-2

2-2 County Population Projections ....................................................................................2-3

2-3 County Housing Estimates (1990-2000) .....................................................................2-4

2-4 Housing Affordability (1990-2000)...............................................................................2-5

2-5 County Employment Statistics (2000).........................................................................2-6

2-6 County Employment by Industry Sector and Average Sector Growth.........................2-7

2-7 Per Capita Incomes.....................................................................................................2-9

2-8 Farm Earnings 1990-2000 (in thousands of dollars).................................................2-10

2-9 Private Earnings 2003 (in thousands of dollars) .......................................................2-11

2-10 BLM and US Forest Service Land Management in Planning Area Counties ............2-12

2-11 Total Federal Collections from Nevada BLM-Managed Land and Minerals (2002) .2-19

2-12 Percent and Number of People Ages 16 and Older in the US Participating in 

Outdoor Recreational Activities.................................................................................2-20

2-13 Tourism Dependency by State..................................................................................2-22

2-14 Visitor Volume ...........................................................................................................2-23

2-15 Ten Most Popular Outdoor Recreation Activities in Nevada in 2002 ........................2-24

2-16 Recreation Sites Within the WFO Planning Area......................................................2-24

2-17 County License Sales for Hunting and Fishing 2002-2003 .......................................2-25

2-18 Recreation Use in WFO Planning Area on BLM-Managed Lands ............................2-26

2-19 2001 County Employment in Mining..........................................................................2-33

2-20 Federal Mineral Revenue Disbursements.................................................................2-34

2-21 County Mineral Employment and Labor Income (2001)............................................2-34

2-22 Top Five Nevada Counties for Agricultural Sales 2002 ............................................2-36

2-23 Cattle and Calves: Production and Income, Nevada, 1994-2003 .............................2-36

2-24 Cattle and Calves: Inventory, January 1, by County, Nevada, 2004.........................2-37

2-25 Grazing Fees Collected for Livestock Permits Administered by the Winnemucca 

Field Office Planning Area Counties (Fiscal Year 2005)...........................................2-37

2-26 BLM Disbursement Funds to Nevada .......................................................................2-38

2-27 WFO Grazing Allotments Administration Transferred – ............................................2-38

2-28 Grazing Allotment Administration –...........................................................................2-39

2-29 PILT Payments to Planning Area Counties (Fiscal Year 2003 and 2004) ................2-40

2-30 Performance Comparison between Humboldt County and the US Median ..............2-41

2-31 Population for Humboldt County (1990 – 2000)........................................................2-42

2-32 Performance Comparison between Pershing County and the US Median ...............2-43

2-33 Population for Pershing County (1990 – 2000).........................................................2-44

3-1 Total Percentage of Population by Race/Ethnicity (2000)...........................................3-2

3-2 County Income and Poverty Level (2000)...................................................................3-4

Winnemucca Resource Management Plan October 2006 

Socioeconomic Report 

ii 
LIST OF ACRONYMS 

Acronym or Abbreviation Full Phrase 

AUM animal unit month 

BEA Bureau of Economic Analysis 

Black Rock NCA Black Rock Desert – High Rock Canyon Emigrant Trails 

National Conservation Area 

BLM United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management 

DETR Nevada Department of Employment, Training and Rehabilitation 

EPS Economic Profile System 

NDOW Nevada Department of Wildlife 

PILT payments in lieu of taxes 

planning area Winnemucca Field Office RMP planning area 

REIS Regional Economic Information System 

RMP resource management plan 

SCORP Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan 

UCED University Center for Economic Development 

US United States 

USDA United States Department of Agriculture 

US Forest Service United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service 

WFO United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, 

Winnemucca Field Office 

October 2006 Winnemucca Resource Management Plan

Socioeconomic Report 

 iii 

SECTION 1 

INTRODUCTION 

The United States (US) Department of Interior, Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM), Winnemucca Field Office (WFO), is preparing a 

resource management plan (RMP) to update or revise for public land within 

its jurisdiction. The Winnemucca RMP will replace the current land use plans 

for the WFO, the Paradise-Denio and Sonoma-Gerlach Management 

Framework Plans (BLM 1982a, 1982b), which were approved in 1982. The 

purpose of this economic report is to document the economic conditions of 

the RMP planning area and to provide an overview of how current BLM 

management activities contribute to the regional economy. 

1.1 LOCATION 

The planning area in the RMP encompasses all lands, regardless of 

ownership, within the WFO boundary and includes Churchill, Humboldt, 

Lyon, Pershing, and Washoe Counties. However, RMP decisions will apply 

only to the approximately 7.2 million acres (10.2 percent of Nevada’s total 

acreage) of public land administered by the BLM. This acreage excludes the 

Black Rock Desert – High Rock Canyon Emigrant Trails National 

Conservation Area (Black Rock NCA), which is managed by the WFO BLM 

under a separate RMP that received approval in 2003. Also excluded are 

private, state, Indian reservations, and public lands not administered by the 

BLM. 

The planning area is in the northwestern part of Nevada. The area is 

bordered on the west by Washoe County and portions of the Pyramid Lake 

Indian Reservation, on the north by the Oregon state line, on the east by 

Elko County and portions of Lander County, and on the south by Churchill 

County. The planning area lies entirely within the territory of the Northern 

Paiute people and includes several Indian reservation lands, including the 

Lovelock Paiute Tribe (Lovelock reservation), Fort McDermitt, Battle 

Mountain, Summit Lake, and Winnemucca Colony Reservations. 

October 2006 Winnemucca Resource Management Plan

Socioeconomic Report 

 1-1 
1. Introduction 

Figure 1-1 depicts the Winnemucca RMP planning area and Table 1-1 

provides land ownership and acreage with the WFO planning area. WFOmanaged land is throughout Pershing County, most of Humboldt County, 

the northern portion of Churchill County, a small eastern portion of Washoe 

County, and a small northern portion of Lyon County. Much of the BLMadministered land consists of scattered tracts intermingled with State of 

Nevada, private, tribal, and US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service 

(US Forest Service) lands. 

Table 1-1 

WFO RMP Planning Area 

Land Ownership and Acreage 

Land Ownership Acreage 

BLM *8,220,708 

State of Nevada 70 

Private 2,365,236 

Forest Service 275,285 

Fish & Wildlife Service 106,151 

Bureau of Reclamation 66,561 

Bureau of Indian Affairs 22,298 

Department of Defense 18 

Source: BLM 2005a 

*Acreage includes WFO BLM-administered Black Rock NCA; 

*WFO-BLM RMP acreage is 7,205,564. 

Most of the WFO planning area is managed by the BLM. Although the WFO 

planning area boundary covers five counties, there are no WFO BLMadministered lands within Lyon County. About 2,800 acres of BLMadministered lands in Lyon County underwent recent land tenure 

adjustments, resulting in a change of ownership. A detailed description of 

ownership acreages by county is provided in Section 2.2.4. 

Winnemucca Resource Management Plan October 2006 

Socioeconomic Report 

1-2 
B l a c k 

R o c k 

D e s e r t 

Sheldon National 

Wildlife Refuge 

Humboldt 

National Forest 

Summit Lake 

Indian Res. 

Fort McDermitt I.R. 

Humboldt River 

Rye Patch 

Reservoir 

Humboldt Rive r 

§ ̈¦80 

§ ̈¦80 

tu95 

140 

T r i n i t y 

R a n g 

e 

E a s t R a n 

g e 

T 

o 

b i n 

R a n 

g e 

J a c

k s on 

M 

o u 

n t a 

i n s 

D e s e r t V 

a l l e 

y 

Fort McDermitt 

Indian Res. 

140 

447 

Black Rock NCA 

(excluded)

Denio 

Empire 

Orovada 

Gerlach 

Golconda 

Lovelock 

McDermitt 

Unionville 

Winnemucca 

Paradise 

Valley 

HUMBOLDT 

WASHOE PERSHING 

CHURCHILL 

LYON 

R:\NEW\15186_Winnemucca\GIS\Layouts\Location.mxd - 07/28/05 - PP

0 10 20 

Miles Source: BLM 2004 

N

Legend Planning Area

Field Office Boundary Bureau of Indian Affairs Socioeconomic Report County Boundary Bureau of Land Management No warranty is made by 

the Bureau of Land Interstate Bureau of Reclamation 

Management for use of Major Highway Northwestern Nevada Fish and Wildlife Service the data for purposes not 

intended by BLM. Other Road US Forest Service 

River Nevada State 

Water Private Figure 1-1
1. Introduction 

This page intentionally left blank. 

Winnemucca Resource Management Plan October 2006 

Socioeconomic Report 

1-4 
1. Introduction 

1.2 SOCIOECONOMIC RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE 

The demographics and the economies of the five planning area counties are 

affected by public land uses within the planning area. Similarly, social 

structure and values within the counties influence the demand for recreation 

and other opportunities provided by the public lands, as well as the 

acceptability of proposed land management decisions. For these reasons, 

demographic, economic, and social data are presented for all five counties. It 

is important to note that, because WFO BLM-managed land covers 

approximately 19.2 percent of Washoe County primarily in its eastern 

portion, it is anticipated that land management decisions would affect mainly 

the eastern edge of the county, particularly the city of Gerlach, would be 

affected by the proposed land management decisions in Washoe County. 

1.2.1 Definition of Resource and Content of This Report 

Socioeconomic resources include demographic information on population, 

housing, and schools; economic figures concerning employment, income, 

and earnings; and social values. Each of these socioeconomic characteristics 

is discussed in Section 2. Population figures include the number of residents 

in the area, population growth trends, and distribution by age and gender. 

Housing includes numbers of units, ownership, and vacancy rate. School 

enrollment and capacity are important considerations in assessing the effects 

of potential growth on publicly supplied infrastructure. Employment data 

includes current data and trends in labor sectors, labor force, and 

unemployment. Income information provides a measure of the relative 

health of the economy, the potential demand for public services and 

assistance, and the significance of different economic sectors. In addition, a 

description of land ownership patterns is presented to identify the counties 

that are likely to be the most affected by funding through federal payments to 

states and counties in lieu of taxes. A more detailed description of important 

economic influences within each county follows this discussion. A summary 

of the relationship between the BLM’s land management and the linked local 

economic sectors is presented in Section 2.2.5, followed by a description of 

the social values within the five-county region. 

Section 3 addresses tribal interests within the planning area, followed by 

issues related to environmental justice and the protection of children, in 

accordance with Executive Orders 12898 and 13045, and as required by the 

National Environmental Policy Act. Section 4 presents a summary of the 

regional demographic, economic, and social conditions as they relate to the 

BLM’s management of planning area public lands. 

1.2.2 Socioeconomic Indicators 

Indicators are factors that measure the effects of different resource 

management alternatives in the RMP and whether or not there is a change 

(and how big the change is) from current conditions. Socioeconomic 

October 2006 Winnemucca Resource Management Plan

Socioeconomic Report 

 1-5 
1. Introduction 

indicators will be analyzed in the Winnemucca RMP and environmental 

impact statement. 

Winnemucca Resource Management Plan October 2006 

Socioeconomic Report 

1-6 
SECTION 2 

SOCIOECONOMIC CONDITIONS 

2.1 DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS 

The project area is predominantly rural in character. Project area 

communities include regional cities, rural towns, and outlying rural areas. 

Winnemucca and Lovelock are regional cities that provide services, shopping, 

and diverse amenities for leisure and recreation. The region’s rural towns, 

such as Denio, Empire, Gerlach, Goldconda, Imlay, and McDermit have 

smaller populations. The presence of services, hospitals, affordable housing, 

schools, shopping, and recreation are directly related to where the counties’ 

populations reside. The employment base for most of these communities are 

mining, agriculture, industrial, gaming and tourism. 

2.1.1 Population 

Nevada’s population has risen 66.3 percent in the last decade, while the 

population of the planning area has grown an average of 35.8 percent. 

Between 1995 and 2000, approximately 466,123 people moved into Nevada, 

while another 232,189 people moved out of Nevada, resulting in a net 

migration of 233,934 newcomers. The largest inflow and outflow was from 

and to California (US Census Bureau 2005). 

Table 2-1 displays population trends from 1990 to 2000 and percent change 

over the ten-year period in the five counties analyzed. In 2000, the three 

largest county populations in the planning area were in Washoe (339,486), 

Lyon (34,501), and Churchill (23,982) Counties, which represent increases of 

33.3 percent, 72.5 percent, and 33.7 percent, respectively, from their 1990 

populations. Lyon County was the only county that exceeded the state 

average of 66.3 percent over the ten-year period, representing the largest 

percentage change in population. The lowest occurred in Humboldt County, 

with a 33.4 percent increase, due to high rates of out-migration (US Census 

Bureau 2005). 

October 2006 Winnemucca Resource Management Plan

Socioeconomic Report 

 2-1 
2. Socioeconomic Conditions 

Table 2-1 

County Population Totals and Median Ages (1990-2000) 

1990-2000 Median 

1990-2000 Percent Age 

County 1990 2000 Change Change (2000) 

Churchill 17,938 23,982 6,044 33.7% 34.7 

Humboldt 12,844 16,106 3,262 33.7% 33.4 

Lyon 20,001 34,501 14,500 72.5% 38.2 

Pershing 4,336 6,693 2,357 54.4% 34.4 

Washoe 254,667 339,486 84,819 33.3% 35.6 

Planning Area 309,786 420,768 110,982 35.8% 35.3 

Nevada 1,201,833 1,998,257 796,424 66.3% 35.0 

Source: US Census Bureau 2005 

Note: Decade years represent April 1 census data, not mid-year estimates 

From 1990 to 2000, the population of all five counties had grown an average 

of approximately 35.8 percent to 420,768 people. Lyon, Washoe, and 

Churchill Counties had the highest median ages (38.2, 35.6, and 34.7 

respectively) compared to the other counties. The median age of the 

population in all five counties in 2000 was 35.3. This was just slightly greater 

than Nevada’s state average median age of 35.0. 

Churchill County’s population is influenced by its proximity to employment 

centers outside the county, providing residences for workers with jobs 

primarily in Carson City, Fernley (Lyon County), and the Reno–Sparks area 

(Washoe County). Population fluctuations in Humboldt and Pershing 

Counties are most likely due to trends in the mining and farming industries. 

Mining replaced farming as the dominant economic sector in Humboldt 

County’s economy, affecting employment, personal income, and other 

regional economic sectors. Most of Lyon County’s growth is occurring at 

manufacturing sites in Fernley and along the lower Carson River where 

present day “bedroom” communities (for Carson City) have taken the place 

of nineteenth century mining camps and milling sites. While a significant 

portion of the county’s population lives within this Dayton area, many of 

these persons hold jobs and are counted as being employed in Carson City. 

Population trends in Washoe County are heavily influenced by the RenoSparks area gaming industry, the most dominant industry in Washoe County 

in terms of jobs, payrolls, personal incomes, and its direct and indirect effects 

on other sectors of the county’s economy (Nevada Division of Water 

Resources, undated). 

Growth is projected to continue increasing in the planning area, as shown in 

Table 2-2, at approximately 40.6 percent, slower than Nevada’s anticipated 

growth at 50.3 percent. The largest growth is expected in Lyon County 

Winnemucca Resource Management Plan October 2006 

Socioeconomic Report 

2-2 
2. Socioeconomic Conditions 

Table 2-2 

County Population Projections 

2000-2020 2000-2020 

Population Percent 

County 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 Change Change 

Churchill 23,982 26,876 29,489 32,053 34,565 10,583 44.1% 

Humboldt 16,106 15,943 15,212 14,286 14,025 -2,081 -12.9% 

Lyon 34,501 45,317 54,385 62,547 69,469 34,968 101.4% 

Pershing 6,693 7,010 7,040 7,012 7,063 370 5.5% 

Washoe 339,486 385,887 415,402 442,878 466,546 127,060 37.4% 

Planning 420,768 481,033 521,528 558,776 591,668 170,900 40.60% 

Area 

Nevada 1,998,257 2,448,201 2,806,940 3,125,677 3,412,147 1,005,630 50.3% 

Source: Nevada State Demographer’s Office 2004 

(101.4 percent), followed by Churchill County (44.1 percent), Washoe 

County (37.4 percent), and Pershing County (5.5 percent). Humboldt 

County is projected to experience a population loss of 12.9 percent (Nevada 

State Demographer’s Office 2004). 

The anticipated population increases may occur for a variety of reasons. 

Areas are experiencing industrial expansion, including growth in hard rock 

mining (Nevada Concrete Company), power plants (Granite Fox) and the 

development of renewable energy such as geothermal and wind projects. 

Other influencing factors include affordable housing, proximity to 

metropolitan areas such as the Reno/Sparks area, and the ease of access to 

an airport, an interstate highway, and/or the railroad. 

Historic trends in the agricultural and mining sections are likely the cause of 

Humboldt County’s past population decreases, however, increase retirees, 

mining activity (including mine expansion and new mines), geothermal 

development and industrial diversification such as a new trailer 

manufacturing plant combined with affordable housing could result in 

populations increases. 

All five counties’ largest populations were under 20 years of age, with 

Churchill and Humboldt Counties representing the largest percentages (31 

and 34 percent, respectively. The baby boomers accounted for second 

largest populations in all five counties, with ages ranging from 40 to 54. The 

smallest population for all five counties was children under the age of five 

years old, with Pershing and Lyon Counties having the smallest percentage of 

population under five (6.5 percent each) and Churchill and Humboldt 

Counties having the largest population of children under five (8.0 percent 

each). The percent of population over 65 ranged from approximately 7.5 to 

13.7 percent, with Lyon and Churchill Counties having the largest population 

October 2006 Winnemucca Resource Management Plan

Socioeconomic Report 

 2-3 
2. Socioeconomic Conditions 

over 65 (13.7 and 11.9 percent) and Humboldt County having the lowest 

population over 65 (7.5 percent) (US Census Bureau 2005). 

The average ratio of men to women in the planning area counties was similar 

to the state’s percentage of 50.9 to 49.1, as the percentages of male to female 

ranged from 52.4 to 47.6 in Humboldt County to 50.2 to 49.8 in Churchill 

County. Pershing County was an exception with the ratio of men to women 

measurably higher (61.4 to 38.6 percent) than the average, due to the higher 

percentage of men in the prison in the county (US Census Bureau 2005). 

2.1.2 Housing 

Table 2-3 shows housing occupancy type and vacancy for the five planning 

area counties in 1990 and 2000, when all counties experienced an increase of 

over 25 percent in total number of housing units. Lyon County had the 

largest increase (63.7 percent) in the number of housing units, and Pershing 

County had the lowest increase (25.2 percent). The growth in the number of 

housing units in all counties occurred as a result of population growth. 

Growth that occurs in urban areas surrounded by public lands may increase 

pressure on the BLM to dispose of public lands that are otherwise difficult to 

manage for multiple uses (BLM 2000a). All counties in the planning area, 

with the exception of Lyon, experienced a lower percentage increase in the 

number of housing units than did the state, which experienced an increase of 

59.5 percent. 

Table 2-3 

County Housing Estimates (1990-2000) 

County 1990 2000 Housing 

Units 

Housing Vacancy Persons per Housing Vacancy Persons per Percent 

Units Rate Household Units Rate Household Change 

Churchill 7,290 1.7% 2.62 9,732 2.6% 2.64 33.5% 

Humboldt 5,044 1.7% 2.76 6,954 3.9% 2.77 37.9% 

Lyon 8,722 2.8% 2.58 14,279 3.1% 2.61 63.7% 

Pershing 1,908 1.9% 2.65 2,389 3.5% 2.69 25.2% 

Washoe 112,193 1.8% 2.43 143,908 2.0% 2.53 28.3% 

Planning Area 135,157 1.98% 2.61 35,452 3.0% 2.65 37.7% 

Nevada 518,858 2.3% 2.52 827,457 2.3% 2.64 59.5% 

Source: Nevada State Demographer’s Office 2004 

In 2000, Humboldt and Pershing Counties had the highest vacancy rate (3.9 

and 3.5 percent), and Washoe County had the lowest vacancy rate (2.0 

percent). In general, the average vacancy rate for the planning area in 2000 

was 3.0 percent, with vacancy rates increasing in all counties between 1990 

and 2000, and vacancy rates remaining the same for the state at 2.3 percent. 

Winnemucca Resource Management Plan October 2006 

Socioeconomic Report 

2-4 
2. Socioeconomic Conditions 

In 2000, the average number of persons per household in the planning area 

was 2.65, which was just slightly higher than that of the state average of 2.64. 

The average household size in each of the five planning area counties ranged 

from 2.53 persons in Washoe County to 2.77 persons in Humboldt County 

(US Census Bureau 2005). Despite the growth in the number of housing 

units in all of the planning area counties from 1990 to 2000, the average 

number of persons per household increased in all counties, as well as 

statewide. 

Table 2-4 shows housing affordability for the five planning area counties. A 

rating of 100 or higher under the Housing Affordability Index indicates that 

the median family can afford the median house. Housing for all counties 

within the planning area has become more affordable in the last decade. 

Table 2-4 

Housing Affordability (1990-2000) 

County 1990 2000 

% of 

Median 

Housing 

Unit: 

Median 

Value 

Income 

necessary 

to buy 

house 

Housing 

Affordability 

Index 

Housing 

Unit: 

Median 

Value 

% of Median 

Income 

necessary to 

buy house 

Housing 

Affordability 

Index 

Churchill $110,145 21% 117 $117,100 18% 141 

Humboldt $98,814 17% 146 $117,400 16% 157 

Lyon $99,736 22% 113 $119,200 19% 133 

Pershing $86,298 18% 142 $82,200 13% 199 

Washoe $146,113 24% 102 $161,600 21% 119 

Planning Area $108,221 20.4% 124 $119,500 17.4% 149.8 

Source: US Census Bureau 2005 

The median value of housing units for all but Pershing County increased 

from 1990 to 2000. The largest increase occurred in Lyon County, which 

increased almost $20,000 over a ten year period. The second largest increase 

was Humboldt County, followed by Washoe and Churchill Counties. In 

Pershing County, the median value of housing units decreased from $86,298 

in 1990 to $82,200 in 2000 ($37,300 lower than the planning area average), 

yet the housing affordability index increased the greatest (from 142 to 199). 

2.1.3 Education 

Five school districts serve the five planning area counties. The 147 schools 

within these districts had a total enrollment of 76,641 students during the 

2001-2002 school year. Of the five counties, Washoe, Lyon, and Churchill 

Counties had the highest kindergarten through 12th grade student enrollment, 

October 2006 Winnemucca Resource Management Plan

Socioeconomic Report 

 2-5 
2. Socioeconomic Conditions 

with 3,244, 378, and 236 students, respectively. Pershing and Humboldt 

Counties had the smallest kindergarten through 12th grade student 

enrollment of 66 and 208 students. Washoe County School District, the 

largest school district in the planning area, includes sixty-four elementary 

schools (grades kindergarten/prefirst through 6), twelve middle schools 

(grades 7 and 8), two junior-senior high schools, fourteen high schools 

(grades 9 through 12), and ten alternative/other schools (for example, charter 

schools [kindergarten through 6th grade], detention centers, and alternative 

education schools) (National Center for Education Statistics 2005). 

Of the five counties, Washoe County had the largest population (almost 24 

percent) 25 years and older with a college degree, which is about ten percent 

higher than the US median (approximately 15 percent). Churchill and 

Humboldt Counties were close to the US median at 17 and 14 percent. Lyon 

and Pershing Counties had the lowest percentage in the planning area (11 

and 9 percent) and fell below the US median (US Census 2000). 

2.2 ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS 

2.2.1 Employment and Economy 

Table 2-5 shows employment data for all planning area counties in 2000. The 

three largest counties, Washoe, Lyon, and Churchill, had unemployment rates 

ranging from 5.0 to 6.9 percent, while, on average, the planning area counties 

had an average unemployment rate of approximately 7.3 percent, larger than 

the state’s 6.2 percent average. Humboldt and Pershing Counties had the 

highest unemployment rates in the planning area in 2000, 8.3 percent and 7.6 

percent. 

Table 2-5 

County Employment Statistics (2000) 

Location 

Employed 

Persons 

Unemployed 

Persons 

Unemployment 

Rate 

Churchill County 10,288 641 5.9% 

Humboldt County 7,017 636 8.3% 

Lyon County 15,399 1,137 6.9% 

Pershing County 2,268 187 7.6% 

Washoe County 171,723 8,956 5.0% 

Planning Area 209,223 11,770 7.3% 

State of Nevada 933,280 61,920 6.2% 

Source: US Census Bureau 2005 

As shown in Table 2-6, between 1990 and 2000, employment sector growth 

for the entire planning area increased in services (41.6 percent), government 

(39.1 percent), construction (33.4 percent), transportation/utility/ 

information (28.4 percent), manufacturing (27.9 percent), and finance/ 

insurance/real estate (20.7 percent). 

Winnemucca Resource Management Plan October 2006 

Socioeconomic Report 

2-6 
2. So

Table 2-6 

County Employment by Industry Sector and Average Sector Growth

Sector Churchill Humboldt Lyon Pershing Washoe 

(Total Planning Area Percent Change) County County County County County 

Agriculture/Forestry/Fishing/Mining (-33.7%) 1990 728 1,850 895 675 2,993 

(10.1%) (28.9%) (10.4%) (34.7%) (2.1%) 

Construction (33.4%) 1990 810 620 898 132 9,519 

(11.3%) (9.7%) (10.5%) (6.8%) (6.8%) 

Manufacturing (27.9%) 1990 492 275 1,271 91 10,438 

(6.8%) (4.3%) (14.8%) (4.7%) (7.4%) 

Transportation/Utility/Information (28.4%) 1990 517 384 466 116 11,995 

(7.2%) (6.0%) (5.4%) (6.0%) (8.5%) 

Trade (-2.6%) 1990 1,341 1,193 1,530 359 29,364 

(18.7%) (18.6%) (17.8%) (18.4%) (20.9%) 

Finance/Insurance/Real Estate (20.7%) 1990 374 162 274 32 8,993 

(5.2%) (2.5%) (3.2%) (1.6%) (6.4%) 

2000 632 

(6.1%) 

1,726 

(24.6%) 

777 

(5.0%) 

517 

(22.8%) 

1,292 

(0.8%) 

2000 958 

(9.3%) 

559 

(8.0%) 

1,464 

(9.5%) 

95 

(4.2%) 

13,008 

(7.6%) 

2000 854 

(8.3%) 

252 

(3.6%) 

1,892 

(12.3%) 

177 

(7.8%) 

12,903 

(7.5%) 

2000 877 

(8.5%) 

542 

(7.7%) 

1,196 

(7.8%) 

182 

(8.0%) 

14,528 

(8.5%) 

2000 1,559 

(15.2%) 

963 

(13.7%) 

2,615 

(17.0%) 

218 

(9.6%) 

27,693 

(16.1%) 

2000 343 

(3.3%) 

103 

(1.5%) 

790 

(5.1%) 

46 

(2.0%) 

10,584 

(6.2%) 

October 2006 Winnemucca Resource Management Plan

Socioeconomic Report 

 
2. So

Table 2-6 

County Employment by Industry Sector and Average Sector Growth (continued)

Sector Churchill Humboldt Lyon Pershing Washoe 

(Total Planning Area Percent Change) County County County County County 

Services (41.6%) 1990 2,244 1,501 2,716 411 61,645 

(31.2%) (23.5%) (31.6%) (21.1%) (43.8%) 

2000 3,989 

(38.8%) 

2,447 

(34.9%) 

5,470 

(35.5%) 

707 

(31.2%) 

84,268 

(49.1%) 

Government (39.1%) 1990 678 415 533 131 5,787 

(9.4%) (6.5%) (6.2%) (6.7%) (4.1%) 

2000 1,076 

(10.5%) 

425 

(6.1%) 

1,195 

(7.8%) 

326 

(14.4%) 

7,447 

(4.3%) 

Source: US Census Bureau 2005; Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) 2005 

Winnemucca Resource Management Plan 

Socioeconomic Report 

2-8 
2. Socioeconomic Conditions 

The services sector was the only sector that experienced growth in all five 

counties, with the greatest increase occurring in Humboldt County (63.0 

percent). Between 1990 and 2000, services in Humboldt County increased 

from 23.5 percent of the job sector to 34.9 percent. Pershing County had the 

second highest increase of 36.7 percent (increasing from 21.1 percent in 1990 

to 31.2 percent in 2000). 

Over the ten-year period, employment declined in the trade and 

agriculture/forestry/fishing/and mining sectors, at -2.6 percent and -33.7 

percent. This decline may be attributed to changes in the mineral 

development and agriculture production throughout Nevada. Gold prices 

reached their lowest level in mid-1999 at $252 per ounce. In real inflationadjusted terms, this was the lowest level since 1972 when the US went off the 

gold standard (Nevada Mining Association 2003). These lower gold prices in 

the late 1990s lower gold prices caused many Nevada mines to scale back 

exploration and to scale back or temporarily close some operations. 

2.2.2 Income and Earnings 

As shown in Table 2-7, 2000 per capita personal incomes for the planning 

area counties, with the exception of Washoe County, remained below 

$26,000. Income in the planning area on average climbed to $25,142, which 

resulted in an average increase of 39.1 percent since 1990, but remained 

below the state average of $30,437 in 2000. In 2000, Washoe County had the 

highest per capita income ($36,100), and Pershing County had the lowest 

($16,892) (BEA 2005). 

Table 2-7 

Per Capita Incomes 

Location 1990 2000 

Percent 

Change 

Churchill County $15,591 $25,053 60.7% 

Humboldt County $18,950 $24,700 30.3% 

Lyon County $16,641 $22,965 38.0% 

Pershing County $16,094 $16,892 5.0% 

Washoe County $23,067 $36,100 56.5% 

Average Total $18,069 $25,142 39.1% 

State of Nevada $20,346 $30,437 49.6% 

Note: Figures calculated without taking into account the inflation rate. 

Source: BEA 2005 

Churchill County experienced the most significant growth in per capita 

income, a 60.7 percent increase, from $15,591 in 1990 to $25,053 in 2000. 

Per capita income in Washoe, Lyon, and Humboldt Counties increased by 30 

percent or more (56.5, 38.0, and 30.3, respectively), while per capita income 

in Pershing County slightly only increased by 5.0 percent. In 2000, the 

October 2006 Winnemucca Resource Management Plan

Socioeconomic Report 

 2-9 
2. Socioeconomic Conditions 

average per capita income growth level in the planning area counties (39.1 

percent) was well below the state’s level (49.6 percent). 

Table 2-8 displays farm earnings for the planning area counties between 1990 

and 2000. Over this ten-year period, farm earnings decreased in Churchill, 

Pershing, and Humboldt Counties, falling 16.0, 13.7, and 10.4 percent, 

respectively. Washoe County expereinced the largest increase in farm 

earnings of all the counties, 620.2 percent. Lyon County showed an increase 

of 22.2 percent. Planning area counties showed an average increase in farm 

earnings of 11.5 percent between 1990 and 2000, a somewhat slower rate 

than the state level, which increased 20.9 percent during the same period 

(BEA 2005). 

Table 2-8 

Farm Earnings 1990-2000 (in thousands of dollars) 

Location 1990 2000 

Percent 

Change 

Churchill County $11,066 $9,295 -16.0% 

Humboldt County $18,266 $16,366 -10.4% 

Lyon County $12,936 $15,813 22.2% 

Pershing County $5,930 $5,119 -13.7% 

Washoe County $1,173 $8,448 620.2% 

Average Total $9,874 $11,008 11.5% 

State of Nevada $80,533 $97,399 20.9% 

Note: All state and local area dollar estimates are in current dollars (not 

adjusted for inflation). 

Farm earnings: the net income of sole proprietors, partners, and hired 

laborers arising directly from the current production of agricultural 

commodities, livestock or crops. It includes net farm proprietors’ 

income and the wages and salaries, pay-in-kind and other labor income 

of hired farm laborers, but specifically excludes the income of nonfamily farm corporations. 

Source: BEA 2005. 

Overall, with the exception of Washoe and Lyon Counties, which occupy 

only small portions of the planning area, this trend indicates a decrease in 

farm and agriculture-related earnings within the last decade, which has led to 

the growth of employment services and amenity-based industries within the 

planning area, as further discussed in Section 2.2.6, Community Economic 

Profile Workshop and Social Characteristics. 

Table 2-9 displays private earnings by industry in 2003. To avoid disclosing 

confidential information, some numbers have been suppressed, however, the 

estimates for these items are included in the totals. 

2-10 Winnemucca Resource Management Plan October 2006 

Socioeconomic Report 
2. Socioeconomic Conditions 

Table 2-9 

Private Earnings 2003 (in thousands of dollars) 

Private Sector Churchill 

County 

Humboldt 

County 

Lyon 

County 

Pershing 

County 

Washoe 

County 

Private Earnings 

Forestry, fishing, related activities 

Mining 

Utilities 

Construction 

Manufacturing 

Wholesale Trade 

Retail Trade 

Transportation and warehousing 

Information 

Finance and Insurance 

Real estate and rental and leasing 

Professional and technical services 

Management of companies and 

enterprises 

Administrative and waste services 

Educational services 

Health care and social assistance 

Arts, entertainment, and recreation 

Accommodation and food services 

Other services, except public 

administration 

Government and government 

enterprises 

Federal, civilian 

Military 

State and local 

293,732 

4,105 

(1.4%) 

(D) 

10,087 

(3.4%) 

26,136 

(8.9%) 

26,721 

(9.1%) 

11,612 

(4.0%) 

35,115 

(12.0%) 

18,145 

(6.2%) 

6,250 

(2.1%) 

19,978 

(6.8%) 

8,976 

(3.1%) 

16,069 

(5.5%) 

217 

(0.1%) 

44,291 

(15.1%) 

(D) 

(D) 

11,437 

(3.9%) 

9,010 

(3.1%) 

10,625 

(3.6%) 

168,337 

32,855 

(19.5%) 

68,257 

(40.5%) 

67,225 

(39.9%) 

256,302 

4,489 

(1.8%) 

108,818 

(42.5%) 

15,427 

(6.0%) 

14,755 

(5.8%) 

14,031 

(5.5%) 

7,698 

(3.0%) 

26,657 

(10.4%) 

13,792 

(5.4%) 

2,753 

(1.1%) 

3,808 

(1.5%) 

1,661 

(0.6%) 

(D) 

(D) 

4,279 

(1.7%) 

(D) 

(D) 

2,144 

(0.8%) 

16,918 

(6.6%) 

7,123 

(2.8%) 

66,031 

11,756 

(17.8%) 

945 

(1.4%) 

53,330 

(80.8%) 

364,590 

2,954 

(0.8%) 

9,949 

(2.7%) 

6,027 

(1.7%) 

46,835 

(12.8%) 

100,996 

(27.7%) 

19,682 

(5.4%) 

52,978 

(14.5%) 

8,658 

(2.4%) 

1,721 

(0.5%) 

6,195 

(1.7%) 

4,112 

(1.1%) 

(D) 

(D) 

35,353 

(9.7%) 

(D) 

(D) 

12,705 

(3.5%) 

7,288 

(2.0%) 

12,833 

(3.5%) 

79,992 

3,880 

(4.9%) 

2,578 

(3.2%) 

73,534 

(91.9%) 

51,853 

(D) 

(D) 

(D) 

(D) 

(D) 

(D) 

4,394 

(8.5%) 

1,538 

(3.0%) 

316 

(0.6%) 

465 

(0.9%) 

203 

(0.4%) 

(D) 

(D) 

(L) 

0 

972 

(1.9%) 

(D) 

(D) 

997 

(1.9%) 

32,714 

612 

(1.9%) 

215 

(0.7%) 

29,008 

(88.7%) 

8,881,111 

11,438 

(0.1%) 

44,693 

(0.5%) 

129,622 

(1.5%) 

103,5043 

(11.7%) 

884,197 

(10.0%) 

602,745 

(6.8%) 

789,345 

(8.9%) 

465,483 

(5.2%) 

203,504 

(2.3%) 

756,021 

(8.5%) 

194,558 

(2.2%) 

810,650 

(9.1%) 

240,508 

(2.7%) 

324,625 

(3.7%) 

43,790 

(0.5%) 

1,023,825 

(11.5%) 

203,845 

(2.3%) 

900,439 

(10.1%) 

216,780 

(2.4%) 

1,484,161 

276,163 

(18.6%) 

25,894 

(1.7%) 

1,182,104 

(79.6%) 

Source: BEA 2005 

October 2006 Winnemucca Resource Management Plan

Socioeconomic Report 

 2-11 
2. Socioeconomic Conditions 

In addition to private earnings, non-labor income also played an important 

role in each county. In 2002, non-labor income accounted for more than 30 

percent of total income in all five planning area counties. The largest 

percentages of non-labor income occurred in Washoe and Lyon Counties 

(36.8 and 36.1 percent), and Humboldt County’s proportion was the smallest 

(30.7 percent). 

2.2.3 Land Ownership 

Of the 70,275,800 acres of land in Nevada, the federal government owns 

61,548,000 acres, or 87.6 percent, ranking Nevada first of the fifty states for 

percentage of lands in federal ownership (Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor 

Recreation Plan [SCORP] 2003). Within the WFO planning area, 

approximately 78.4 percent of land is held in federal ownership, which 

includes BLM, US Forest Service, Bureau of Reclamation, and US Fish and 

Wildlife Service lands. About 75 percent of the planning area land is managed 

by the BLM WFO. Portions of the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest lie 

within the northeastern part of Humboldt County, and portions of the 

Charles Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge lie in the eastern part of the 

county. The Black Rock NCA lies within the portions of Humboldt, 

Pershing and Washoe Counties. Humboldt County is likely to be the most 

directly affected by funding through federal payments to states and counties 

in lieu of taxes because this county has the highest percentage of federally 

owned and managed lands, followed by Washoe and Pershing Counties. As 

presented in Table 2-10, of the five counties, the BLM WFO administers the 

largest portion of BLM land in Humboldt and Pershing Counties and the 

smallest portion of land in Washoe County. The BLM does not manage any 

lands in Lyon County. In general, the US Forest Service and the BLM 

manage much of the federal public lands in the planning area. As such, the 

percentage of US Forest Service land is also included in Table 2-10 to 

provide context and scale. 

Table 2-10 

BLM and US Forest Service Land Management in Planning Area Counties 

Total Acres Total Acres Percent 

Total Percent Total Managed by Percent Managed by Managed by 

County Federal the BLM Managed by the US Forest the US Forest 

County Acres Ownership WFO the BLM WFO Service Service 

Churchill 3,170,167 79.6 188,603 5.9 0 0 

Humboldt 6,169,180 81.5 4,353,340 70.6 275,285 4.5 

Lyon 1,272,804 67.2 0 0 0 0 

Pershing 3,861,416 75.7 2,904,342 75.2 0 0 

Washoe 4,041,732 72.9 774,423 19.2 0 0 

Total 18,515,299 45.9 *8,220,708 44.4 275,285 1.5 

Source: BLM 2005a 

*Acreage includes WFO BLM-administered Black Rock NCA 

2-12 Winnemucca Resource Management Plan October 2006 

Socioeconomic Report 
2. Socioeconomic Conditions 

2.2.4 County Overviews 

The following section provides a brief overview of the five counties whose 

borders cross the WFO planning area. The analysis discusses the entire 

county, regardless of ownership or planning area boundary. 

The proposed Granite Fox power plant would be important to the economy 

to several of the counties listed below. However, this project is currently on 

hold and may not be developed. 

Anticipated resonating effects from this project to local economies include 

an increasing demand for services and materials. Workers are expected to 

purchase items such as food, clothing, and gasoline locally during both the 

construction and operational phases. Restaurants and movie theatres would 

also see an increase in use. The demand for construction materials, such as 

concrete aggregates, fill material, and lumber are expected to increase, 

supporting the employees of the local construction supply industry. Of the 

new companies that have moved to Nevada over the past several years, the 

Granite Fox power plant project is expected to rank among the top in terms 

of overall economic impact (Coleman 2005). 

Churchill County 

Churchill County is the southernmost county in the planning area, bordered 

by portions of Washoe and Lyon Counties on the west, Pershing County on 

the north, Lander County on the east, and portions of Nye and Mineral 

Counties on the south. The northwestern portion of this county is within the 

planning area. The only urban area in Churchill County is the city of Fallon, 

and there is property proposed for development between Fernley and Fallon 

(near Hazen) to support the Granite Fox power plant project (Coleman 

2005). The Fallon Paiute-Shoshone Tribe and the US Naval Air Station 

Fallon are also within the county, as are wildlife refuge areas and portions of 

the Lahontan State Recreation Area (popular for camping, fishing and 

boating). Churchill County ranked eighth among the 17 Nevada counties in 

population in 2000 and tenth in area (Harris, Riggs, and Zimmerman 2001; 

BEA 2005). 

A county with a diverse economy, or one that is not heavily specialized, is 

able to withstand employment fluctuations in individual industries. For this 

analysis, the specialization index is based on the employment share for each 

industry type as a portion of total employment. Using this methodology, 

Churchill County is classified as somewhat diverse economically (with an 

index of employment specialization of 735 versus a median of 961 for all US 

counties) (Census 2000). Naval Air Station Fallon is the main source of 

income for residents of Churchill County. Military personnel and naval base 

support account for more than 3,000 jobs in the local economy. Outside of 

the naval base, the major employers are the Churchill County School District, 

the Banner Churchill Community Hospital, Churchill County, SMI Joist, and 

October 2006 Winnemucca Resource Management Plan

Socioeconomic Report 

 2-13 
2. Socioeconomic Conditions 

Wal-Mart, each of which maintains over 200 employees. Compared to the 

nation, the county supports a larger than average mining and agricultural 

community. Mining operations focus on gold and silver, and farms produce 

livestock, alfalfa hay, other hay, wheat, and barley. Churchill County is also 

the leading dairy producer in the state (Churchill Economic Development 

Authority 2005). 

In 2000, the largest portion of Churchill County’s population was under the 

age of 20 (31 percent), and the male/female ratio was even (Census 1990 and 

2000). Per capita income for the county ($25,053) was lower than the state 

average ($30,437) and the national average ($30,906) (BEA 2005). Total fulltime and part-time employment in Churchill County increased from 9,621 

jobs in 1992 to 15,858 jobs in 2002, resulting in a net increase of 64.8 percent 

over the ten-year period (BEA Regional Economic Information System 

[REIS] 2002). In 2002, the largest three employment sectors in Churchill 

County were government, service industries, and trade, transportation, and 

utilities services. The smallest employment sectors in 2002 were mining and 

finance/insurance/real estate (University of Reno 2005). Labor income 

accounted for 69 percent of personal income in 2002. Non-labor income, 

which consists of dividends, interest, rent, and transfer payments, such as 

Medicare and retirement benefits, accounted for 31 percent of the total 

personal income in 2002 (BEA REIS 2002). 

Churchill County encompasses 3,170,167 acres, approximately 4.5 percent of 

the state. The Fallon Paiute-Shoshone Reservation, Grimes Point, and the 

Hidden Cave, a Native American site, are also in the county. Federally owned 

land makes up 79.6 percent of the county, tribal land makes up 1.7 percent, 

state land makes up 3.2 percent, and local government and private land 

makes up 15.5 percent. The BLM WFO manages a total of 188,603 acres (5.9 

percent) of Churchill County (BLM 2005a). 

Humboldt County 

Humboldt County is in the northern portion of the planning area, bordered 

by Elko County on the east, Lander County on the southeast, Pershing 

County on the south, Washoe County on the west, and Oregon on the north. 

In 2000, it ranked ninth among the 17 Nevada counties in population and 

fourth in area (Harris, Riggs, and Zimmerman 2001; BEA 2005). Humboldt 

County is sparsely populated, with most of its population living in the only 

incorporated city, Winnemucca. The most rapidly growing area of the county 

is Grass Valley, located adjacent to and immediately south of Winnemucca 

(Governet Network Services 2001). Other urban areas in the county include 

Denio, McDermitt, Orovada, Paradise Valley, and Golconda. 

Economic diversity in Humboldt County is considered average (920 versus a 

median of 961 for the US counties), but the County’s economy largely 

depends on resource industries of agriculture and mining, both dependent on 

2-14 Winnemucca Resource Management Plan October 2006 

Socioeconomic Report 
2. Socioeconomic Conditions 

public lands (Census 2000). Humboldt is the third leading agricultural county 

in the state, producing mint, alfalfa, potatoes, and beef cattle (USDA 2005a). 

The mining sector produced over one mill ounces of gold in 2000 (Nevada 

Bureau of Mines and Geology 2001). A mining dependent economy makes 

Humboldt County vulnerable to boom/bust cycles, leading to fluctuations in 

population and per capita income 

In 2000, the largest portion of Humboldt County’s population was under the 

age of 20 (34 percent), and the male/female ratio was nearly even (52 percent 

male and 48 percent female) (Census 1990 and 2000). Per capita income for 

the county ($24,700) was lower than the state ($30,437) and the nation 

($30,906) (BEA 2005). Total full-time and part-time employment in 

Humboldt County increased from 8,400 jobs in 1992 to 8,969 jobs in 2002, 

resulting in a net increase of 6.8 percent over the ten year-period (BEA REIS 

2002). The retail trade, services, and government sectors also employ large 

portions of the county. The smallest employment sectors were real estate and 

construction (University of Reno 2005). 

Major employers are the Winnemucca Farms, Humboldt County School 

District, Newmont Mining, Getchell Gold, Winners Hotel and Casino, 

Humboldt County, and Wal-Mart (Nevada Department of Employment, 

Training, and Rehabilitation [DETR] 2005). In Humboldt County, labor 

income accounted for 69 percent and non-labor income accounted for 31 

percent of the total personal income in 2002 (BEA REIS 2002). 

The landscape in Humboldt County consists mainly of north – south running 

mountain ranges separated with long valleys, including the Black Rock 

Range, Pine Forest, Jackson, Santa Rosa and Sonoma Ranges, and desert 

valleys (including a large part of the Black Rock Desert). The northwest 

portion of the county contains portions of the Humboldt-Toiyabe National 

Forest and the Santa Rosa Paradise Peak Wilderness, and the western portion 

of the county includes much of the Black Rock NCA. Varied outdoor 

recreational offerings include hiking, camping, hunting, fishing, mountain 

biking, and water sports. 

Humboldt County encompasses 6,169,180 acres, approximately 8.8 percent 

of the state. Portions of the Fort McDermitt, Summit Lake, and Winnemucca 

Colony Reservations lie within Humboldt County. Federally owned land 

makes up 81.5 percent of the county, tribal land makes up 0.36 percent, local 

government and private land makes up 18.2 percent, and state land accounts 

for approximately 50 acres. The BLM WFO manages a total of 4,353,689 

acres (70.6 percent) of Humboldt County (BLM 2005a). 

Lyon County 

Lyon County is in the extreme southwest portion of the planning area, 

bordered by Churchill County on the northeast, Mineral County on the 

October 2006 Winnemucca Resource Management Plan

Socioeconomic Report 

 2-15 
2. Socioeconomic Conditions 

southeast, California on the south, small portions of Douglas and Carson 

City Counties on the west, and Storey County on the northwest. It ranks 

sixth among the 17 Nevada counties in population and ranks fourteenth in 

area (Harris, Riggs, and Zimmerman 2001; BEA 2005). Dayton, Fernley, and 

Silver Springs are the county’s three largest cities. Increasing at the rapid rate 

of 72 percent from 1990 to 2000, Lyon County was the third fastest growing 

county in Nevada (Department of Conservation and Natural Resources 

2005). 

In 2000, the largest portion of Lyon County’s population was under the age 

of 20 (29 percent), followed closely by the baby boomers or those between 

the ages of 40 and 54 (22 percent). The largest individual age category is the 

one ranging from 40 to 44 years old and since 1990, the population has 

gradually gotten older. The median age in 2000 is 38.2 years, up from 36.4 

years in 1990. The male/female ratio was nearly even (51 percent male and 

49 percent female) (Census 1990 and 2000). Per capita income for the county 

($2) was lower than the state ($30,437) and the nation ($30,906) (BEA 2005). 

Lyon County is slightly under the median in terms of economic diversity (762 

versus a median of 961 for the US counties) (Census 2000). Lyon County’s 

economy largely depends on the mining and agricultural industries, however 

manufacturing, retail trade, and construction also account for a large portion 

of the County’s jobs and private earnings. Minerals that have been extracted 

from the county include gold, copper, gypsum, silver, and diatomite (Lyon 

County 2005). The county is also producing approximately 23 percent of the 

state’s crops, including alfalfa, onion, garlic, grains and potatoes. Livestock 

production includes beef, sheep, dairy operations, and llama breeding 

(Northern Nevada Development Authority 2005). Mining and agriculture are 

prominent industries, but services, trade, and manufacturing are the largest 

employment sector. The government also provides substantial employment. 

Major employers are Lyon County School District, Amazon.com, Lyon 

County, and Quebecor World (DETR 2005). Labor income was 64 percent 

and non-labor income accounted for 36 percent of total personal income in 

2002 (BEA REIS 2002). 

Lyon County encompasses 1,272,804 acres, approximately 1.8 percent of the 

state. Lake Lahontan State Park, Dayton State Park (including the Carson 

River), and the Mason Valley Wildlife Management Area are in Lyon County. 

Federally owned land makes up 67.2 percent of Lyon County, state-owned 

land makes up 2.1 percent of surface ownership, tribal land makes up 4.0 

percent, and local government and private land makes up 26.9 percent. The 

BLM WFO does not manage any land in Lyon County (BLM 2005a). 

Pershing County 

Pershing County lies in the middle of the planning area, bordered by Washoe 

County on the west, Churchill County on the south, Lander County on the 

2-16 Winnemucca Resource Management Plan October 2006 

Socioeconomic Report 
2. Socioeconomic Conditions 

east, and Humboldt County on the north. It ranks eleventh among the 17 

Nevada counties in population and eighth in area (Harris, Riggs, and 

Zimmerman 2001; BEA 2005). Lovelock is the county’s largest city and 

contains about half of Pershing County’s population (approximately 7,500 

people) (Pershing County Library 2005). 

Pershing County’s economic diversity is roughly average in comparison to 

other US counties (872 versus a median of 961 for the US counties) (Census 

2000). Mining, agriculture, and tourism heavily influence the local economy. 

Pershing County contains a wider variety of minerals than any similarly sized 

area in the world, with large deposits of iron ore, mercury, tungsten, and 

gypsum. Agricultural practices focus on alfalfa, wheat, barley, and oats. All 

farm operations depend on water from the Humboldt River, which is stored 

in the Rye Patch Reservoir 22 miles north of Lovelock. Approximately 

39,000 acres of the Lovelock Valley are irrigated with water from the Rye 

Patch Reservoir (Pershing County Library 2005). The Rye Patch Reservoir is 

enjoyed by both locals and visitors for a variety of recreational activities 

including fishing, boating, water skiing, camping, and picnicking. 

The Humboldt River corridor, which runs through the middle of Pershing 

County, was originally settled by the Northern Paiute people, dating to 

before the nineteenth century. Pershing County’s history has made it a highly 

desirable place to visit. Within the county are the Lovelock Indian Caves, the 

Humboldt River Basin, Ancient Lake Lahontan, and portions of the 

California Trail (BLM 2003). Lovelock Paiute tribal lands occupy 20 acres in 

southwest Lovelock (Inter-Tribal Council of Nevada 1996). 

In 2000, the largest portion of Pershing County’s population was under the 

age of 20 (28 percent), followed closely by the baby boomers (22 percent). 

The largest individual age category is the one ranging from 35 to 39 years old 

and the age group that has grown the fastest, as a share of total population, is 

40 to 44 years. The male/female ratio was more heavily weighted towards 

males (61 percent male and 39 percent female) due to the prison (Census 

1990 and 2000). Per capita income for the county ($16,892) was much lower 

than the state ($30,437) and the nation ($30,906), also due to the presence of 

the prison (BEA 2005). 

In 2002, more than half the jobs in Pershing County were in either 

government or mining sectors. Services, construction, and trade also 

accounted for a large majority. The smallest employment sectors were real 

estate, public utilities, and manufacturing (University of Reno 2005). Major 

employers include the State of Nevada, Coeur Rochester Incorporated, 

Florida Canyon Mining, Eagle-Picher Minerals, Pershing General Hospital, 

and Pershing County (DETR 2005). Labor income accounted for 64 percent 

and non-labor income accounted for 36 percent of total personal income in 

2002 (BEA REIS 2002). 

October 2006 Winnemucca Resource Management Plan

Socioeconomic Report 

 2-17 
2. Socioeconomic Conditions 

Nevada Cement Company, current located outside of Fernley in Lyon 

County, is expecting to mine limestone near the town of Lovelock, in 

Pershing County. This project is expected to provide between 100 and 140 

jobs. Overall, the relocation of this company will provide a significant benefit 

to the local economy. 

Pershing County encompasses 3,861,416 acres, approximately 5.5 percent of 

the state. Federally owned land makes up 75.7 percent of Pershing County, 

local government and private ownership account for 24.3 percent and state 

land accounts for approximately 20 acres. The BLM WFO manages a total of 

2,904,342 acres (75.2 percent) of the county (BLM 2005a). 

Washoe County 

Washoe County is in the far west portion of the planning area, bordered by 

California on the west, Oregon on the north, Humboldt, Pershing, Churchill, 

and Lyon Counties on the east, and Storey and Carson City Counties on the 

south. It ranks second among the 17 Nevada counties in population and 

seventh in area (Harris, Riggs, and Zimmerman 2001; BEA 2005). Reno, the 

second largest city in Nevada, is in Washoe County, as well as Sparks and 

Incline Village, at Lake Tahoe (DETR 2005). 

Rapidly growing Washoe County is considered one of the state’s “urban” 

counties, along with Carson City, Clark, and Douglas. The county is on the 

eastern slopes of the Sierra Nevada Mountains and offers a variety of 

recreational opportunities provided by mountains, beaches (Lake Tahoe and 

Pyramid Lake), and open space, including portions of the Black Rock Desert 

(Washoe County 2005). 

In 2000, the largest portion of Washoe County’s population was under the 

age of 20 (28 percent), and the male/female ratio was practically even (51 and 

49 percent) (Census 1990 and 2000). Per capita income for the county 

($36,831) was higher than the state ($30,559) and the nation ($30,906) (BEA 

2005). 

Washoe County’s economic diversity is slightly below average in comparison 

to other US counties (734 versus a median of 961 for the US counties) 

(Census 2000). The service sector, followed by trade, government, and 

construction, provides the most job opportunities in Washoe County. The 

smallest employment sector is mining. Major employers are the Washoe 

County Comptroller, International Game Technology, Washoe Medical 

Center, Integrity Staffing Solutions, City of Reno, and several hotel and 

casino operations (DETR 2005). Labor income was 63 percent and nonlabor income accounted for 37 percent of total personal income in 2000 

(BEA REIS 2002). 

2-18 Winnemucca Resource Management Plan October 2006 

Socioeconomic Report 
2. Socioeconomic Conditions 

Washoe County encompasses 4,041,732 acres, approximately 5.8 percent of 

the state. Portions of the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest, the Pyramid 

Lake Reservation, and the Reno-Sparks Reservation are within Washoe 

County. An estimated 72.9 percent of Washoe County is owned by federal 

agencies, 0.40 percent is owned by the state, 8.8 percent is tribal land, and 

17.9 percent is local government and private ownership. The BLM manages a 

total of 775,032 acres (19.2 percent) of the county’s 2,701,562 acres (BLM 

2005a). 

2.2.5 Economic Influence of BLM-Managed Lands by Sector 

Local economies realize direct and indirect benefits from a variety of 

activities on public lands, including visitor expenditures and the processing 

and harvesting of timber, minerals, and forage. The federal government 

redirects revenues collected from public lands back to the states in which 

they were collected. The BLM collects revenues from recreational and 

commercial activities that take place on the nearly 48 million acres of BLMmanaged lands in Nevada. These revenues are collected from facilities, such 

as fees from campgrounds, from BLM recreation permits (special, 

competitive, organized group activity, and event use permits), timber sales, 

mining leases and mineral revenues, and grazing fees. Table 2-11 presents 

collections received (approximately $29 million) from specific activities on 

Nevada BLM-managed lands in 2002. 

Table 2-11 

Total Federal Collections from Nevada BLM-Managed 

Land and Minerals (2002) 

Activity Collection 

Recreation and use fees $2,021,103 

Grazing fees $2,014,727 

Timber receipts, public domain $4,451 

Mining claim holding fees and service charges $9,405,105 

Mineral royalties, rents, and bonuses $5,900,462 

Miscellaneous receipts $4,529,622 

Source: BLM 2005b 

How resource sectors on public lands influence the state and local economies 

in Nevada is discussed below. In the WFO planning area, sectors of 

influence include recreation, grazing, and mining. In 2004, forestry receipts 

collected from the WFO totaled about $250. Of that, about $185 was from 

Christmas tree sales and the balance was generated from firewood purchases. 

As evident from receipt totals, the forestry sector consitutes a small portion 

October 2006 Winnemucca Resource Management Plan

Socioeconomic Report 

 2-19 
2. Socioeconomic Conditions 

of revenue source for the WFO, and is therefore, not discussed in detail 

(Johnson 2005a). 

Recreation Sector 

United States 

Participation in outdoor recreation activities is practically universal 

throughout the United States, although involvement can vary due to factors 

such as region and income. A survey completed in 2003 for the American 

Recreation Coalition found that nine in ten Americans participated in an 

outdoor recreational activity over a twelve-month period. Of those 

respondents, 55 percent reported a visit to an area managed by a federal 

agency over the same twelve-month period (American Recreation Coalition 

2004). 

Table 2-12 presents an annual estimate of US participation in outdoor 

recreational activities based on a sample taken between July 1999 and July 

2002. 

Table 2-12 

Percent and Number of People Ages 16 and Older in the US 

Participating in Outdoor Recreational Activities 

Type of Outdoor Activity 

Participated in Any Type of Activity 

Trail/Street/Road Activities 

Traditional Social Activities (Family Gathering, Picnicking) 

Viewing and Photographic Activities 

Viewing and Learning Activities 

Driving for Pleasure Activities 

Swimming Activities 

Outdoor Adventure Activities 

Boating/Floating/Sailing Activities 

Fishing 

Snow and Ice Activities 

Outdoor Team Sports 

Hunting 

Number of 

Participants Proportion of 

(in millions) Participants 

290.9 98.5% 

192.4 90.3% 

177.7 83.4% 

171.5 80.5% 

154.7 72.6% 

142.6 66.9% 

141.3 66.3% 

131.1 61.5% 

88.0 41.3% 

77.6 36.4% 

62.2 29.2% 

43.9 20.6% 

27.5 12.9% 

Source: US Forest Service and the University of Tennessee, Knoxville 2002 

According to this sampling, 98.5 percent of the sampling pool participated in 

some type of outdoor recreation activity. The percentage of Americans 

participating in activities on trails, streets, and roads was 90.3, and the 

percentage participating in traditional social activities was 83.4 percent. The 

survey also revealed that the five most popular individual activities in the US 

include walking (86 percent), family gathering (76 percent), viewing natural 

2-20 Winnemucca Resource Management Plan October 2006 

Socioeconomic Report 
2. Socioeconomic Conditions 

scenery (64 percent), visiting a nature center, nature trail, or zoo (62 percent), 

and picnicking (60 percent) (US Forest Service and the University of 

Tennessee, Knoxville 2002). 

As the popularity of recreational activities continues to grow among 

Americans, so does the competing demand for use of federal lands. In 2003, 

66.6 million people visited the 3,300 recreational sites maintained by the 

BLM in the US. In comparison, there were 279 million visits to the 388 

National Park Service sites, including parks, monuments, and battlefields; 39 

million visits to the 544 Fish and Wildlife Service wildlife refuges; and 90 

million visits to the 308 Bureau of Reclamation sites (American Recreation 

Coalition 2004). 

Beginning in 2001 and continuing more strongly in 2003, a long-time pattern 

of increasing outdoor recreation participation evolved into a downward 

trend. Data from 2003 shows that the decline in outdoor recreation 

participation is partially a result of the growth in the public’s ownership and 

use of electronic communications and leisure options. Only one activity, 

driving for pleasure, showed a substantial increase between 2001 and 2003. 

Concerns about travel arising from the events of September 11, 2001, also 

are likely to have contributed to this decline, as well as several other factors, 

such as leisure time spent on the Internet and increased offerings through 

cable and satellite television channels. The decline in frequency of outdoor 

recreation participation has been especially apparent among young adults, a 

group that reports high access to the Internet (American Recreation 

Coalition 2004). 

Data also show that there is an obvious disparity in outdoor recreation 

participation throughout various regions of the country. Residents of the 

Northeast and South are significantly less likely to participate in almost all 

forms of outdoor recreation than residents of the Midwest and the West. 

Midwestern residents exceed national participation rates for all types of 

outdoor recreational activities, and West residents’ rates follow closely 

behind, falling below national rates in just a few activities. The West also had 

the lowest percentage of residents (six percent) reporting no outdoor 

recreation participation, which was less than half of the national rate 

(American Recreation Coalition 2004). 

Additional survey data display a clear correlation among income, education, 

and higher participation in outdoor recreation. This correlation also was 

present in the 2003 research. Those with a college degree or higher reported 

greater participation in outdoor activities, compared with the national average 

or with those with a high school degree or less. Similarly, those with 

household incomes of $75,000 or more also reported greater outdoor 

recreation participation than those with household incomes below $30,000 

(American Recreation Coalition 2004) 

October 2006 Winnemucca Resource Management Plan

Socioeconomic Report 

 2-21 
2. Socioeconomic Conditions 

Nevada and the WFO Planning Area 

Growth and expansion in Nevada’s tourism and recreation industry have 

been a significant factor in Nevada’s economy (Table 2-13). Nevada is the 

single most tourism-dependent state in the nation, ranked number one for 

per capita receipts generated from travel expenditures. Nevada ranked 

number two for total travel expenditures ($16,275.70 million), following only 

California, whose population exceeded 31 million in 2002, compared to 

Nevada’s population of an estimated 1.4 million (Western States Tourism 

Council 2005). 

Table 2-13 

Tourism Dependency by State 

Travel Expenditures Per Capita 

(millions $) Population Receipts 

Domestic International Total (millions) ($) Rank 

Arizona 5,866.80 1,297.40 7,164.20 3.94 1,818.30 10 

California 43,981.80 11,530.00 55,511.80 31.2 1,779.20 13 

Colorado 6,396.20 501.2 6,897.40 3.57 1,932.00 8 

Hawaii 6,178.80 5,679.50 11,858.30 1.17 10,135.30 2 

Idaho 1,536.10 57 1,593.10 1.1 1,448.30 22 

Montana 1,445.80 151.4 1,597.20 0.84 1,901.40 9 

Nevada 14,484.90 1,790.80 16,275.70 1.39 11,709.10 1 

New Mexico 2,836.90 107 2,943.90 1.62 1,817.20 11 

Oregon 3,937.90 272.2 4,210.10 3.03 1,389.50 27 

Utah 2,845.60 468.5 3,314.10 1.86 1,781.80 12 

Washington 5,590.00 805.1 6,395.10 5.26 1,215.80 34 

Wyoming 1,129.80 123.9 1,253.70 0.45 2,786.00 5 

Source: Western States Tourism Council 2005 

Its high desert region and over 300 mountain ranges and peaks make Nevada 

a highly desirable place to recreate. In 2004, the Leisure and Hospitality 

sector employed approximately 27 percent of Nevada’s working population. 

The traveler accommodation industry is projected to be the fastest growing 

job sector, increasing from 203,700 employees in 2002 to an estimated 

289,135 by 2012, resulting in a 41.9 percent increase over a ten-year period 

(DETR 2005). This projection is directly related to visitor numbers. Table 2-

14 summarizes visitor volume in Nevada from 2003 through 2004. 

From January 2003 to December 2004, the total number of visitors to 

Nevada increased from 48.6 million to 50.5 million, an increase of 

approximately four percent. The largest increases occurred in the spring, with 

February, March, and April increasing 4.8, 8.3, and 10.0 percent, respectively. 

The only month that the visitor population decreased was August (-2.4 

percent). Total number of people visiting state and nearby national parks also 

2-22 Winnemucca Resource Management Plan October 2006 

Socioeconomic Report 
2. Socioeconomic Conditions 

increased over that same two-year period, from 26.0 million to 26.1 million 

(Nevada Commission on Toursim 2005). 

According to a statewide survey completed in 2001, approximately 84 

percent of Nevadans participate in some type of outdoor recreation activity 

(DeLoney 2001). Table 2-15 lists the ten most popular outdoor recreation 

activities in Nevada in 2002 with Nevadans age 16 years or older, based on 

the 1999-2002 National Survey on Recreation and the Environment. The 

most popular activity was walking for pleasure, with 78.4 percent of 

Nevadans participating, followed by family gatherings (70.2 percent) and 

viewing or photographing natural scenery (56.6 percent) (SCORP 2003). 

Table 2-14 

Visitor Volume 

Month 2003 2004 Percent 

Change 

January 3,932,104 4,084,046 3.9% 

February 3,785,986 3,969,395 4.8% 

March 4,159,209 4,505,005 8.3% 

April 3,994,373 4,392,480 10.0% 

May 4,173,448 4,382,698 5.0% 

June 4,092,173 4,128,505 0.9% 

July 4,327,012 4,384,400 1.3% 

August 4,452,907 4,346,794 (2.4)% 

September 3,950,159 4,235,420 7.2% 

October 4,230,163 4,460,887 5.5% 

November 3,810,779 3,852,131 1.1% 

December 3,694,924 3,807,705 3.1% 

Source: Nevada Commission on Tourism 2005 

October 2006 Winnemucca Resource Management Plan

Socioeconomic Report 

 2-23 
2. Socioeconomic Conditions 

Table 2-15 

Ten Most Popular Outdoor Recreation Activities in Nevada in 2002 

Percent Number of 

Activity Participating Participants 

Walk for pleasure 78.4 1,336,806 

Family gathering 70.2 1,196,987 

View/photograph natural scenery 56.6 965,092 

Picnicking 56.2 958,272 

Visit nature centers 51.7 881,542 

Sightseeing 48.5 826,978 

Driving for pleasure 47.6 811,632 

Swimming in outdoor pool 46.2 787,761 

Attend outdoor sports events 41.9 514,441 

View/photograph, other wildlife 40.8 695,685 

Source: SCORP 2003 

The main federal agencies that provide recreational opportunities throughout 

Nevada include the BLM, the US Forest Service, the US Fish and Wildlife 

Service, and the National Park Service, with most recreational development 

occurring near urban areas. The BLM alone manages approximately 1.2 

million acres of recreation-designated lands in Nevada, such as the Red Rock 

Canyon National Recreation Lands, Hickison Petroglyph Site, and Walker 

Lake’s Sportsman’s Beach (SCORP 2003). Additional recreation 

opportunities are made available by local and state agencies, such as the 

Nevada State Parks. Table 2-16 provides a summary of significant recreation 

sites in the WFO planning area and the provider. 

Table 2-16 

Recreation Sites Within the WFO Planning Area 

Site Agency 

Black Rock Desert BLM 

Pine Forest BLM 

Water Canyon BLM 

High Rock Canyon BLM 

Lye Creek US Forest Service 

Gerlach-Empire Regional Park Local 

Lahontan Reservoir Nevada State Parks 

Rye Patch Reservoir Nevada State Parks 

Source: SCORP 2003 

These sites provide a variety of recreational opportunities, including hiking, 

biking, climbing, water sports, and off-roading. According to Nevada’s 2003 

SCORP, the public attached the highest importance rating to protecting, 

maintaining, and increasing public access to public lands for the diversity of 

outdoor recreational users. In the 1992 SCORP, over ten years ago, this issue 

was ranked fifth. Many view federal lands as valuable opportunities for 

2-24 Winnemucca Resource Management Plan October 2006 

Socioeconomic Report 
2. Socioeconomic Conditions 

outdoor recreation activities, as well as a means for economic growth 

(SCORP 2003). 

The Nevada Department of Wildlife (NDOW) issues hunting and fishing 

licenses and permits. In the 2003-2004 season, the number of hunting 

permits issued to both residents and nonresidents totaled 37,570. During that 

same period, the estimated number of fishing permits issued was 95,884 

(NDOW 2004a). Combined, the Onion Valley Reservoir, Humboldt River, 

Knott Creek Reservoir, Squaw Creek Reservoir, and Rye Patch Reservoir 

reported over 18,452 visitor days in 2004 (NDOW 2004b). Table 2-17 

portrays hunting and fishing license sales for counties in the WFO planning 

area. 

Table 2-17 

County License Sales for Hunting and Fishing 2002-2003 

County Number of Hunting Licenses Number of Fishing Licenses 

Resident Nonresident Resident Nonresident 

Churchill 716 218 2,364 536 

Humboldt 556 601 1,415 495 

Lyon 470 104 2,327 564 

Pershing 95 15 274 71 

Washoe 5,391 895 13,802 2,032 

County Total 7,228 1,833 20,182 3,698 

Source: NDOW 2004 

Combined, the five planning area counties sold over 9,000 hunting licenses 

and close to 25,000 fishing licenses from 2002 to 2003. Approximately 20 

percent of those licenses were sold to residents outside Nevada, suggesting a 

sizeable number of recreationists traveling to Nevada from other states. 

Washoe County sold the largest number of hunting and fishing licenses, 

6,286 and 15,834. Humboldt County sold the largest proportion of licenses 

to nonresidents, 51.9 percent of hunting licenses and 25.9 percent of fishing 

licenses. The fewest nonresident hunting and fishing licenses were sold in 

Pershing County (NDOW 2004). 

In 2004, the Nevada Association of Counties surveyed its membership to 

gauge opinion regarding the economic benefits and costs associated with 

recreational activities on public lands. All respondents felt that there were 

additional costs incurred by counties in some form as a result of recreational 

use of public lands. Ninety-two percent of the respondents identified 

additional law enforcement costs, 86 percent identified road maintenance 

costs, and 81 percent identified search and rescue costs. Economic benefits 

derived from recreation on public lands included additional gas tax revenue 

and additional sales and room tax revenue. Overall, the majority of 

respondents felt that economic benefits outweighed the costs (62 percent 

October 2006 Winnemucca Resource Management Plan

Socioeconomic Report 

 2-25 
2. Socioeconomic Conditions 

answered “yes,” 22 percent answered “no,” and the remaining 16 percent did 

not know) (Nevada Association of Counties 2004). 

Table 2-18 displays the diverse activities enjoyed by recreationists, the 

estimated number of visitor days on lands or waters administered by the 

BLM, and the average expenditure information by activity. Recreation 

expenditure profiles for locals and non-locals were developed based on 

existing data sources and are conservative assessments; estimates are in 2001 

dollars. 

Table 2-18 

Recreation Use in WFO Planning Area on BLM-Managed Lands 

From October 2003 through September 2004 

Average District 

Annual Visitor Days Expenditures Per Day Total Direct 

Recreation Activity (Local/Non-Local) 1 (Local/Non-Local) 2 Expenditures3 

Backpacking 1,084/510 $22.40/$39.16 $44,253 

Bicycling 2,197/1034 $22.40/$39.16 $89,704 

Camping 6,115/2,878 $15.19/$27.09 $170,852 

Driving for Pleasure 6,497/3,058 $25.53/$49.58 $317,484 

Fishing (freshwater) 4,302/2,025 $38.58/$70.84 $309,422 

Environmental Ed. 307/144 $22.40/$39.16 $12,516 

Horseback Riding 955/449 $22.40/$39.16 $38,975 

Hunting4 7,503/3,531 $40.40/$79.59 $584,153 

Hiking/Walking 1,565/737 $10.41/$38.69 $44,806 

OHV Activities 6,673/3,140 $22.40/$39.16 $272,438 

Picnicking 1,475/694 $15.19/$27.09 $41,206 

Photography 2,172/1,022 $22.40/$39.16 $88,674 

Racing 555/261 $22.40/$39.16 $22,653 

Rock Hounding 1,429/673 $22.40/$39.16 $58,364 

Viewing – Other 1,553/730 $22.40/$39.16 $63,374 

Wildlife Viewing 583/274 $22.40/$39.16 $23,789 

Winter Activities 2,997/1,412 $25.47$/44.02 $138,490 

Other 2,060/970 $22.40/$39.16 $84,129 

Total 50,022/23,542 $2,405,283 

Based on information generated from the BLM’s recreation database, the 

Recreation Management Information System, an estimated 73,500 

1 Resident and Non-resident ratios developed based on Black Rock-High Rock Final RMP/EIS (2003). 2 Recreation expenditure profiles do not necessarily correspond directly to the specific types of recreation activities 

occurring within the WFO planning area. Average expenditures for each activity are based on the most applicable 

expenditure category. Average district expenditures are based on 2001 dollars provided in Black Rock-High Rock Final 

RMP/EIS. 

3 Total Direct expenditures by recreationists result in direct and indirect income effects to local proprietors and 

residents. 

4 Hunting totals are a combination of big game, small game, upland bird, and waterfowl. 

2-26 Winnemucca Resource Management Plan October 2006 

Socioeconomic Report 
2. Socioeconomic Conditions 

recreational users visited the WFO planning area in 2004. The highest 

recreational use categories in the planning area were hunting, camping, 

driving for pleasure and OHV activities. Applying recreation expenditure 

estimates to the estimated number of days for each activity yields a total 

estimate of $2,405,283 (2001 dollars) for expenditures associated with 

recreational activities in the planning area; $1,281,201 for local visitors, and 

$1,124,081 for non-local visitors. This averages about $32.70 per person, per 

day. 

Additionally, a variety of commercial, competitive, and organized group uses 

occur on BLM-administered lands, all of which are administered under the 

special recreation permit program. In 2003, the BLM collected $2,027,103 in 

Nevada from recreation fees and permits (BLM 2004). The Burning Man 

Festival is BLM’s largest recreational use permit nationwide and is issued for 

over 25,000 people annually. Although it is administered through the Black 

Rock-High Rock NCA, it is issued through the WFO. In 2004, this 

recreational use permit generated approximately $707,400. A total of almost 

37,000 participants were issued permits by the BLM within the WFO in 

2004. 

Mining Sector 

The BLM manages approximately 47.8 million surface acres and 56.1 million 

acres of mineral estate underlying federal surface land in Nevada. It also 

manages approximately 250,000 acres of mineral estate underlying privately 

owned land (BLM 2000a). Nevada’s mining industry directly employed 

approximately 8,800 people in 2003, and the industry is responsible for 

another 44,000 jobs related to providing the goods and services needed by 

the industry and its employees (Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology 2003). 

The average salary is over $63,000 a year, compared with a state average 

salary of $35,337 a year (Nevada Mining Association 2003). In Humboldt 

County, for example, the mining industry contributes a significant portion of 

private earnings to the county, approximately 42.5 percent (Table 2-9). 

Although much of the data is suppressed, the mining sector is also assumed 

to be a significant contributer in Pershing County, and to a lesser extent in 

Churchill County. 

In 2003, mineral and energy production in Nevada was valued at $3.2 billion, 

a nearly nine percent increase from 2002. Nevada led the nation in the 

production of gold, barite, and diatomite and was the only producer of 

magnesite, lithium, and the specialty clays, sepiolite and saponite. Nevada 

produces other commodities, such as construction aggregate (sand, gravel, 

and crushed stone), lime, and cement (Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology 

2003). 

Nevada is the nation’s largest gold producer, the third largest in the world. In 

2003, Nevada gold mines produced 7.3 million ounces, which was valued at 

October 2006 Winnemucca Resource Management Plan

Socioeconomic Report 

 2-27 
2. Socioeconomic Conditions 

nearly $2.7 billion (Figure 2-1). Contributions from the mining industry to 

the economies of Nevada and the US include jobs, commerce, taxes, 

improvements to infrastructure, and helping to lower the US trade deficit. 

Local economic contributions from mining include the construction of new 

homes, casinos and other businesses, schools, and roads, which in turn 

maintain demand for local sources of sand, gravel, cement, and other 

commodities, which are plentiful in the state (Nevada Bureau of Mines and 

Geology 2003). Mining contributed $1.65 billion to Nevadans’ personal 

incomes in 2003, an increase from $1.5 billion in 2002 (Nevada Mining 

Association 2003). 

Nevada’s silver production in 2003 totaled 10.4 million ounces. Silver 

production is a co-product or by-product of gold mining. In 2003 the Coeur 

Rochester Mine in Pershing County had a total silver production of nearly 

5.6 million ounces. This one mine produced 55 percent of Nevada’s silver in 

2003. Nevada’s production in 2003 accounted for 26 percent of the US total 

and 1.7 percent of the world total (Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology 

2004). 

Nevada’s public lands provide a good source for salable minerals, such as 

sand, gravel, stone, and clay, which are sold to applicants at fair market value. 

Aggregate production reached an all-time high in 2003 as a result of Nevada’s 

growing population and needs for construction materials for homes, schools, 

streets, airports, and other businesses. Furthermore, demand will likely 

remain high due to Nevada’s thriving population (Nevada Bureau of Mines 

and Geology 2004). 

The mining industry was responsible for generating approximately 2,000 jobs 

within the five-county region. Table 2-19 lists average number of employees 

in the mining sector by county. 

The BLM WFO administers leases and prospecting permits on acquired 

lands. There are 662 active mining claims (Figure 2-2) in the WFO planning 

area. These claims identify a particular parcel of Federal land, valuable for a 

specific mineral deposit or deposits. The right is restricted to the extraction 

and development of the mineral deposit as regulated by the BLM. 

With the recent signing of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, which offers 

incentives to develop renewable energy, BLM is expected to see an increase 

in the development of renewable energy such as geothermal and wind. 

Geothermal provisions in the Act relating specifically to the BLM include 1) 

the BLM will hold competitive lease sales at least every two years, and 2) the 

BLM may lease multiple leases as a block if information indicates they could 

be produced as a unit (Geothermal Resource Council 2005). 

2-28 Winnemucca Resource Management Plan October 2006 

Socioeconomic Report 
Black Rock NCA 

(excluded)

Lovelock 

Unionville 

Golconda 

Winnemucca 

tu95 

447 

§ ̈¦80 

§ ̈¦80 

tu95 

Empire 

Gerlach 

tu95 

140 

Paradise 

Valley 

Orovada 

Denio McDermitt 

46

R:\NEW\15186_Winnemucca\GIS\Layouts\Socio\goldmine.mxd - 07/28/05 - JC

0 8 16 

Miles Source: BLM 2005a 

N

Legend Permitted Gold Mine Locations 

Winnemucca Field Office Socioeconomic Report

Black Rock NCA (excluded) Bureau of Land Management 

Permitted Mine Locations Water Northwest Nevada 

No warranty is made by the Bureau 

of Land Management for use of the 

data for purposes not intended by BLM. Figure 2-1 
2. Socioeconomic Conditions 

This page intentionally left blank. 

2-30 Winnemucca Resource Management Plan October 2006 

Socioeconomic Report 
")

Black Rock NCA 

(excluded)

Lovelock 

Unionville 

Golconda 

Winnemucca 

tu95 

447 

§ ̈¦80 

§ ̈¦80 

tu95 

Empire 

Gerlach 

tu95 

140 

Paradise 

Valley 

Orovada 

Denio McDermitt 

R:\NEW\15186_Winnemucca\GIS\Layouts\Socio\miningclaims.mxd - 07/28/05 - JC

0 8 16 

Miles Source: BLM 2005a 

N

!(

Legend Current Mining Activity Winnemucca Field Office Commodity

Black Rock NCA (excluded) Aluminum Gold Socioeconomic Report 

") GF

") %2

[_

Bureau of Land Management Clay Gypsum 

Clay, Bentonite Limestone Northwest Nevada 

Water #0 Diatomite-S Magnesium, Dolomite 

No warranty is made by the Bureau XY

Feldspar-S of Land Management for use of the 

Silver 

data for purposes not intended by BLM. XW Gemstone Figure 2-2

#*
2. Socioeconomic Conditions 

This page intentionally left blank. 

2-32 Winnemucca Resource Management Plan October 2006 

Socioeconomic Report 
2. Socioeconomic Conditions 

Table 2-19 

2001 County Employment in Mining 

County 

Churchill 

Humboldt 

Lyon 

Pershing 

Washoe 

Average 

Number of 

Employees 

10 

1,300 

120 

570 

* 

Source: DETR 2003 (*Data suppressed) 

Minerals Revenue Management, a branch of the Minerals Management 

Service under the Department of the Interior, manages all revenues 

associated with both federal offshore and onshore mineral leases. This 

program is one of the largest nontax revenue providers for the federal 

government (Minerals Management Service 2005). Annual collections and 

disbursements average approximately $6 billion. The revenues are generally 

shared among the states in which the federal lands are located and the federal 

government. Monthly, states receive 50 percent of the revenues associated 

with minerals located on federal public lands within their borders. States use 

the revenues to fund education, infrastructure improvements, road projects, 

public buildings, or general operations. 

In fiscal year 2002, approximately $5.9 million was collected from mineral 

royalties, rents, and bonuses from BLM lands in Nevada, with about $9.4 

million additional dollars collected from mining claim holding fees and 

service charges. Miscellaneous receipts, which primarily come from filing fees 

for applications, noncompetitive oil and gas leases, and rent of lands, totaled 

approximately $4.5 million. The BLM does not collect royalties on precious 

metals. The BLM made a direct financial transfer back to the state for nearly 

$29 million, close to $3.6 million of which came from royalties, rents, and 

bonuses (BLM 2003). 

Federal mineral revenues were generated from all five planning area counties 

in 2001. Table 2-20 displays each county’s contributing royalty value and 

amount disbursed back to the state. The five planning area counties’ 

contributions constitute approximately one third (34.8 percent) of the state’s 

total. 

Minerals employment and labor income in the planning area in 2001 is 

presented in Table 2-21 for the five counties in which there is a mining 

industry. While the US Forest Service is responsible for managing surface 

land, the BLM manages subsurface minerals within the National Forests and 

works with the US Forest Service to manage subsurface minerals. The BLM 

October 2006 Winnemucca Resource Management Plan

Socioeconomic Report 

 2-33 
2. Socioeconomic Conditions 

Table 2-20 

Federal Mineral Revenue Disbursements 

Identified by County of Origin (Fiscal Year 2001) 

Disbursed to 

Location Product Royalty Value State 

Churchill County 

Geothermal $2,040,273.89 $1,202,136.94 

Hot water $58,074.02 $29,037.01 

Oil $11.10 $5.55 

Other revenues $97,127.08 $48,563.54 

Rent $101,123.50 $50,561.75

 Subtotal $2,296,609.59 $1,148,304.79 

Humboldt County 

Rent $5,252.00 $2,626.00

 Subtotal $5,252.00 $2,626.00 

Lyon County

 Rent $80.66 $20.17 

Subtotal $80.66 $20.17 

Pershing County

 Other revenues $2,896.50 $1,448.25

 Rent $25,185.50 $12,592.75 

Subtotal $28,082.00 $14,041.00 

Washoe County

 Geothermal $92,178.36 $46,089.18

 Hot water $1,813.00 $906.50

 Other revenues $1,759.00 $879.50

 Rent $11,836.37 $5,908.60 

Subtotal $107,586.73 $53,783.78 

State of Nevada Total $7,005,643.71 $3,502,534.52 

Source: Minerals Management Service 2005 

Table 2-21 

County Mineral Employment and Labor Income (2001) 

County 

Employment 

(Annual Average Jobs) 

Employment as a 

Percentage of Labor 

Force 

Labor Income 

(Annual Average Dollars) 

Churchill 

Humboldt 

Lyon 

Pershing 

Washoe 

Planning Area Total/Average 

* 

1,254 

76 

384 

259 

395 

* 

18% 

<1% 

16% 

<1% 

<1% 

* 

$62,095 

$35,770 

$46,399 

$96,873 

$48,227 

*Indicates no employment or suppressed data. 

Source: US Department of Labor 2005 

2-34 Winnemucca Resource Management Plan October 2006 

Socioeconomic Report 
2. Socioeconomic Conditions 

itself manages sand and gravel mining on its lands. Due to the sensitivity of 

the industry, some information is suppressed to protect the limited number 

of employees and employers. 

Although Washoe County shows the highest minerals-related labor income, 

no major mines in Washoe County are within the WFO planning area 

(Nevada Mining Association 2003). Humboldt County has the highest 

minerals-related labor income and employment, with major mines for gold 

and industrial minerals within the planning area. In Humboldt County, Placer 

Dome operators recently decided to reopen Turquoise Ridge at the Getchell 

Mine, which would continue to employ 65 contract miners in the presently 

active Getchell Mine and would employ 300 to 325 local personnel for 

Turquoise Ridge (Schlottmann 2004). Similarly, Pershing County, which also 

has a mining-dependent economy with major gold and industrial minerals 

mines (Nevada Mining Association 2003), employs the second largest 

number of minerals workers and reports the third highest minerals-related 

income. 

Livestock Grazing/Rangeland Management 

Livestock Grazing 

Public rangelands provide habitat and forage for domestic livestock, wildlife, 

and wild horses and burros. Within the administrative boundary of the WFO 

livestock grazing occurs on approximately 103 grazing allotments that are 

leased by about 110 ranchers. The grazing allotments vary from less than 100 

acres to over one million acres. Public rangelands support a variety of wildlife 

that is representative of those species found in Great Basin ecosystems. 

Large wildlife game present on public lands within the WFO include; mule 

deer, pronghorn antelope, and Bighorn sheep. Other species include upland 

game bird species (chukar, quail, sage grouse, & doves), cougar, assorted 

raptors, about 70 species of waterfowl and shorebirds, more than 240 species 

of neo-tropical migrant birds, and a number of invertebrate species. There 

are about 3,000 wild horses and about 291 burros found on 20 Horse 

Management Areas within the WFO. 

Counties located within the administrative boundary of the WFO include; 

Humboldt, Washoe, Pershing, Lyon, and Churchill. Three of these counties 

are within the top five Nevada counties for agricultural sales and are 

important agricultural contributors (Table 2-22). 

October 2006 Winnemucca Resource Management Plan

Socioeconomic Report 

 2-35 
2. Socioeconomic Conditions 

Table 2-22 

Top Five Nevada Counties for Agricultural Sales 2002 

County Percent of State Total Million $ 

Receipts 

1 White Pine 17.0 76.0 

2 Lyon 16.7 74.5 

3 Humboldt 12.3 54.9 

4 Churchill 11.3 50.6 

5 Elko 10.1 45.3 

State of Nevada Total 447.0 

Source: USDA 2005 

Livestock grazing on public land continues to be important to local 

economies within Nevada. As shown in Table 2-23, generally cattle and calf 

production in Nevada has remained relatively stable ranging from 

152,915,000 lbs in 1994 to 171,335,000 in 2003. Gross income has gradually 

increased over time ranging from $132,388.000 in 1994 to $185,205,000 in 

2003. 

Table 2-23 

Cattle and Calves: Production and Income, Nevada, 1994-2003 

Year Production Marketings Value of Cash Value Home Gross 

Production Receipts Consumption Income 

-------000 Lbs------- ----------000$’s----------

1994 152,915 176,000 113,009 130,640 1,748 132,388 

1995 151,255 178,000 86,748 102,436 1,360 103,796 

1996 154,715 166,000 74,089 81,017 1,150 82,167 

1997 152,860 185,400 92,246 112,287 1,434 113,721 

1998 153,700 187,000 94,333 114,870 1,762 116,632 

1999 168,600 192,000 117,250 134,456 2,010 136,466 

2000 170,550 202,000 141,061 167,758 2,414 170,172 

2001 176,140 235,000 146,911 192,470 2,412 194,882 

2002 171,090 119,000 123,866 142,471 2,097 144,568 

2003 171,335 210,600 151,734 182,691 2,514 185,205 

1Receipts form marketings and sale of farm slaughter 

Source: USDA Nevada Agric. Statistics 

Counties within the WFO administrative boundary reflect stabile cattle and 

calf inventories. Inventories of cattle and calves range from a low of 191,000 

in 2004 to a high of 203,000 in 2001 (Table 2-24). 

2-36 Winnemucca Resource Management Plan October 2006 

Socioeconomic Report 
2. Socioeconomic Conditions 

Table 2-24 

Cattle and Calves: Inventory, January 1, by County, Nevada, 2004 

County 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 

Churchill 40,000 39,000 38,000 38,000 43,000 41,000 

Humboldt 66,000 67,000 70,000 66,000 66,000 63,000 

Lyon 40,000 40,000 41,000 37,000 35,000 38,000 

Pershing 29,000 28,000 28,000 26,000 25,000 23,000 

Washoe 24,000 24,000 26,000 26,000 26,000 26,000 

Planning Area 199,000 198,000 203,000 193,000 195,000 191,000 

Total 

Source: USDA 2005b – Nevada Agricultural Statistics 

Livestock Management 

The BLM manages public land grazing by issuing grazing permits. The 

grazing fee for western public lands managed by BLM is set annually utilizing 

a formula based on the market value of beef. The fee set for 2004 was 1.43 

per animal unit month (AUM). One AUM is equal to the amount of forage 

required to support one cow and one calf for one month (approximately 800 

pounds of forage). 

In Nevada, for fiscal year 2002, the BLM collected about $2,014,727 from 

grazing fees. Table 2-25 presents grazing fee receipts collected in 2004 within 

the planning area counties. Humboldt County generated the largest amount 

of grazing fee receipts ($319,032) with Churchill County generating the 

smallest ($2,696). 

Table 2-25 

Grazing Fees Collected for Livestock Permits 

Administered by the Winnemucca Field Office 

Planning Area Counties (Fiscal Year 2005) 

County Fiscal Year To Date 

Collections 

Churchill $2,696 

Humboldt $319,032 

Pershing $65,399 

Washoe $23,741 

Total $410,868 

Source: BLM 2005 

The BLM returns a portion of the funds received from grazing receipts to 

Nevada, which are displayed in Table 2-26. These payments are about 12.5 

percent (Taylor Grazing Act Section 3 lands) of grazing fees collected. These 

funds are distributed to various grazing boards within the state. 

October 2006 Winnemucca Resource Management Plan

Socioeconomic Report 

 2-37 
2. Socioeconomic Conditions 

Table 2-26 

BLM Disbursement Funds to Nevada 

County Disbursements 

Churchill $337 

Humboldt $39,879 

Pershing $8,174 

Washoe $2,967 

Total $51,357 

Source: BLM 2005 

Presently, the WFO has allocated a total of 337,061 permitted livestock 

AUMs. In 1982 the active AUMs totaled 308,624∗ (based upon the average 

licensed use for the previous three years, 116,551 SG + 192,073 PD). 

Since 1982 a net of 5,217 AUMs has been transferred from the WFO to 

other BLM field offices (7,375 transferred out of WFO administration minus 

2,158 accepted by WFO for administration – See Table 2-27). In the 

Table 2-27 

WFO Grazing Allotments Administration Transferred – 

Since Completion of the Grazing EIS

WFO Allotment Name Current BLM Administration Number of WFO AUMs 

Office Transferred (3 year avg.) 

Jakes Creek Elko 276 

Tall Corral (Merged with Little Elko 620 

Humboldt Allotment 

White House Elko 48 

Twenty Five Elko 1,054 

North Buffalo Battle Mountain ** 

South Buffalo (Includes old Buffalo Battle Mountain ** 

Valley Allotment 

Owyhee Vale 599 

Quinn River Vale 292 

McDermitt Creek Vale 188 

Zimmerman Vale 2,010 

Sand Hills Burns 490 

Grassy Basin Burns 326 

South Fork Burns 360 

Holloway Mtn.(Combined into Sand Burns 804 

Hill Allotment Above 

Totals 7,375 

Source – Paradise-Denio & Sonoma-Gerlach Grazing EISs (1982) and BLM Rangeland Administration System 

∗ Paradise-Denio Grazing Environmental Impact Statement (1981 page 1-2), Sonoma Gerlach Grazing 

Environmental Impact Statement (1981 page 1-2). 

∗∗ North and South Buffalo Allotment AUMs were transferred prior to the Grazing EIS 

2-38 Winnemucca Resource Management Plan October 2006 

Socioeconomic Report 
2. Socioeconomic Conditions 

meantime BLM administration has permitted a total of 337,061 AUMs. 

Comparing the 1982 total of 308,624 (3 year average) AUMs to the current 

permitted AUMs of 337,061, there has been an net increase of 28,437 

AUMs. 

Since the completion of the Sonoma-Gerlach – Paradise-Denio Grazing 

EISs, the WFO has also accepted administration responsibilities for grazing 

allotments outside the WFO administrative boundary. These allotments are 

identified in Table 2-28. 

Table 2-28 

Grazing Allotment Administration – 

Acquired by WFO Since Completion of Grazing EIS 

Allotment Name (Administered Past BLM Administration AUMs 

by WFO) Office 

Little Owyhee (Elko Portion) Elko ** 

Bullhead (Elko Portion) Elko ** 

Home Station Gap Battle Mountain 934 

Hole in the Wall Carson City 1,224 

Pueblo Mtn. Vale ** 

Totals 2,158 

Source: Paradise-Denio & Sonoma-Gerlach Grazing EIS (1982) – BLM Rangeland Administration System 

** Transfer of AUMs occurred prior to Grazing EIS 

Considering administration of livestock AUMs over time, combined with 

production, income and inventory data, livestock management on public 

lands administered by the WFO has contributed to stable and consistent 

market conditions for livestock producers. 

Payments in Lieu of Taxes 

Congress appropriates funds for payments in lieu of taxes (PILT) to eligible 

local governments each year. The BLM calculates the payment amounts 

using a formula based on population and the amount of federal land in a 

jurisdiction. These payments are in addition to federal revenues transferred to 

local governments under other programs, such as income generated from the 

use of public land for livestock grazing, timber harvests, and mineral receipts 

(BLM 2005b). Table 2-29 presents PILT payments received by the counties 

in the planning area in fiscal year 2003, 2004, and 2005. 

October 2006 Winnemucca Resource Management Plan

Socioeconomic Report 

 2-39 
2. Socioeconomic Conditions 

Table 2-29 

PILT Payments to Planning Area Counties (Fiscal Year 2003 and 2004) 

County FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 

Churchill $1,151,139 $1,183,436 $1,236,886 

Humboldt $818,863 $841,654 $859,218 

Lyon $1,173,056 $1,203,255 $1,229,798 

Pershing $561,467 $577,210 $536,472 

Washoe $1,817,966 $1,868,954 $1,908,625 

Planning 

Area Total $5,522,491 $5,674,509 $5,770,999 

Nevada 

Total $13,132,942 $13,495,376 $13,732,723 

Source: BLM 2005b 

Of the planning area counties, Washoe received the largest PILT payments, 

while Pershing County received the smallest PILT payments. In fiscal year 

2004 and 2005 PILT payments received by the planning area counties totaled 

$5,674,509 and $5,770,999, constituting 42% of the statewide PILT payment 

totals. 

2.2.6 Community Economic Profile Workshop and Social Characteristics 

On June 7 and 8, 2005, the BLM, in conjunction with the Sonoran Institute, 

hosted two community-level socioeconomic workshops in Humboldt and 

Pershing Counties. The Sonoran Institute’s economist, Dr. Rebecca Carter, 

facilitated the workshops, which were designed to help people understand 

the link between economic well-being and environmental health. About ten 

representatives of local government and various other sectors, such as 

mining, attended each workshop, in addition to BLM representatives. The 

workshops each lasted one full day and had identical formats. 

Attendees were introduced to the Economic Profile System (EPS), jointly 

designed by the Sonoran Institute and the BLM, used to produce detailed 

socioeconomic reports on counties in the planning area. From inception, 

EPS was structured to help those who are not economists gather and easily 

interpret economic statistics. Attendees were provided with a demonstration 

on how to generate a community (or economic) profile, a CD containing a 

copy of the EPS program, and a workbook providing instructions for using 

the EPS. 

Using the EPS, small groups discussed community trends by analyzing tables 

and figures provided in the profiles. Groups discussed population, 

employment and personal income by industry, average earnings, developing 

business sectors, and economic growth. Participants also developed visions 

for the future of their communities and discussed the role public lands could 

have to help achieve those community visions. 

2-40 Winnemucca Resource Management Plan October 2006 

Socioeconomic Report 
2. Socioeconomic Conditions 

Humboldt County: The EPS profiles were used at the workshop to provide 

a basis of information to participants about Humboldt County. The EPS 

profiles provide a wide variety of informative data such as long-term trend 

analysis, changes in employment and personal income by sector, change of 

business establishments by type and size, and non labor-sources of income, 

like retirement and age-related income. Additionally, counties are compared 

to states and the nation. Through using the EPS profile, participants could 

identify some significant changes that had occurred over the last 30 years, 

which led to discussions about why some of those changes likely occurred. 

Table 2-30 provides a summary of major data themes and figures that are 

portrayed in detail throughout the EPS profile. 

Table 2-30 

Performance Comparison between Humboldt County and the US Median 

Population Growth (Annualized rate, 1970 – 2002) 2.7% 0.7% 

Personal Income Growth (Adjusted for inflation, 

annualized rate, 1970 – 2000) 

Employment Growth (Annualized rate, 1970 – 2002) 

Non-labor Income Share of Total in 2002 

Average Earnings Per Job (2002) 

Per Capita Income (2002) 

Education Rate (% of population 25 and over who have 

Median Age 

Employment Specialization 

a college degree) 

Housing Affordability 

Ratio Rich/Poor 

Government share of total employment 

Change in Housing Affordability (1990 – 2000) 

Unemployment in 2003 

Source: US Census 2000; Bureau of Labor Statistics 

Humboldt US Median County 

3.2% 1.4% 

3.5% 2.3% 

30.7% 39.2% 

33.4 37.3 

$25,917 $23,528 

$35,502 $26,782 

14.2% 14.5% 

920.1 961.0 

3.7 8.7 

7.4% 10.3% 

5.0% 5.8% 

157 186 

15% 15% 

Humboldt County is similar to the US median in many categories; however, 

there are a few notable differences. The US median population grew 0.7 

percent over a 32 year period, and Humboldt County averaged 2.7 percent. 

Employment growth in the County was double the US median. Yet 

Humboldt County was below the average for non-labor income per 

percentage of total income in 2002. The ratio of the rich to poor, indicating 

the number of households that made under $30,000 for every household that 

made over $100,000, was also lower in Humboldt County compared to the 

US median. The County also maintained a lower unemployment rate in 2003 

(5 percent for the County, compared to 5.8 percent for the US). 

October 2006 Winnemucca Resource Management Plan

Socioeconomic Report 

 2-41 
2. Socioeconomic Conditions 

The population for Humboldt County increased 25 percent over a ten year 

span from 1990 – 2000 (Table 2-31). During that time, the Baby-Boom 

generation experienced the largest growth (68 percent) indicating that the 

retirement population in Humboldt County is growing. The male/female 

split is relatively equal and has remained fairly stable over the same ten year 

period. 

Table 2-31 

Population for Humboldt County (1990 – 2000) 

Total 

Number 

Under 

20 years 

40 – 54 

(Baby Boom 

in 2000) 

65 years 

and Over Median Age 

2000 16,106 5,466 3,753 1,213 33.4 

1990 12,844 4,203 2,239 934 30.6 

10 Yr Change 3,262 1,263 1,514 279 2.8 

10 Yr % 

Change 25 30% 68% 30% 9 

Male/Female 

% Split 52/48 53/47 54/46 47/53 - -

Source: US Census 1990 and Census 2000 

In the Humboldt County workshop, participants discussed that Nevada is the 

fastest growing state in the nation and they expressed a need for balance 

among various resource, service, and economic-related activities. They 

wanted to diversify job opportunities in the county, thereby lessening impacts 

from fluctuating mining and agricultural markets. They recognized a swing in 

the agriculture sector from ranching to crop production and overall noted an 

aversion to taking risks due to the volatile economic structure in the county. 

Strengths that participants identified in Humboldt County included their 

transportation infrastructure (close proximity to interstate highway and 

railroad), cooperative government, and a high quality of life as it relates to 

open space and public lands. Weaknesses included Winnemucca’s distance to 

a major airport, flat topography (viewed as a weakness due to limited 

recreation opportunities), and a lack of diverse job opportunities, especially 

heavy dependency on transformative industries, such as mining. 

At the workshop, it was noted that the cessation of mining at the Lone Tree 

complex, currently scheduled for August 2006, will have a direct impact on 

the local economy. The new Phoenix plant is scheduled to open the first 

quarter of 2006, but it will be in Lander County. Most employees will have 

the opportunity to relocate to the new plant, but this transition will result in 

changes for the workers, including commute times and distances, with the 

possibility that they will have to move. In addition, significant changes to 

revenue generated for the county and the city will occur, especially through 

2-42 Winnemucca Resource Management Plan October 2006 

Socioeconomic Report 
2. Socioeconomic Conditions 

the services sector, which provides services critical to mine workers at the 

Lone Tree complex. 

Workshop participants recognized the value of land for residential property 

is increasing, while the value for agricultural property is decreasing, and 

acknowledged the current trend of the population between the ages of 25 

and 30 leaving the area in search of jobs, despite a desire to remain and settle 

within local communities. In-migration seemed to be mostly retirees and 

proprietors, including foreign investors who are buying properties sight 

unseen, often over the Internet. 

Participants discussed several opportunities for stimulating economic growth 

in the region. Opportunities to increase in-migration include increasing the 

potential of technological avenues to small businesses (for example, Internet 

sales), attracting younger entrepreneurs, improving human services, such as 

hospitals, which will attract an older generation, and improving recreation 

opportunities, attracting all age groups for a variety of available activities. 

Pershing County: In a similar workshop format to that of Humboldt 

County, an EPS profile for Pershing County was used to provide a 

foundation of knowledge for the participants. Table 2-32 provides a 

summary of tables and figures that are portrayed in detail throughout the 

EPS profile. 

Table 2-32 

Performance Comparison between Pershing County and the US Median 

Population Growth (Annualized rate, 1970 – 2002) 2.9% 0.7% 

Personal Income Growth (Adjusted for inflation, annualized rate, 1970 – 2000) 

Employment Growth (Annualized rate, 1970 – 2002) 

Non-labor Income Share of Total in 2002 

Average Earnings Per Job (2002) 

Per Capita Income (2002) 

Employment Specialization 

Education Rate (% of population 25 and over who have a college degree) 

Housing Affordability 

Ratio Rich/Poor 

Government share of total employment 

Change in Housing Affordability (1990 – 2000) 

Unemployment in 2003 

Median Age 

Source: US Census 2000; Bureau of Labor Statistics 

Pershing US Median County 

2.1% 1.4% 

35.8% 39.2% 

$16,463 $23,528 

8.7% 14.5% 

7.6 8.7 

40.7% 10.3% 

5.5% 5.8% 

1.8% 2.3% 

34.4 37.3 

$33,956 $26,782 

872.0 961.0 

199 186 

29% 15% 

Pershing County is similar to the national median in many aspects, but is set 

apart from the nation in a few categories. The US median population growth 

October 2006 Winnemucca Resource Management Plan

Socioeconomic Report 

 2-43 
- - 

2. Socioeconomic Conditions 

over a 32 year period averaged 0.7 percent, whereas Pershing County 

averaged 2.9 percent. The County also has higher than average earnings, 

indicating that people who live in the County have higher paying jobs (e.g., 

mining and prison jobs). Per capita income in Pershing County is 30 percent 

lower than the US median. Workshop participants noted that figures could 

be artificially low due to the presence of the prison, which increases the 

county population but not to income earned. Housing affordability from 

1990 – 2000 increased significantly (almost 41 percent), which is 30 percent 

more than the US median, indicating that housing has become more 

affordable in the last decade. The government share of total employment is 

also high compared to the average due to the high percentage of employment 

at the prison. 

Similar to Humboldt County, Pershing County experienced tremendous 

population growth from 1990 to 2000, mainly within the Baby Boom 

generation. Pershing County’s Baby Boom generation recorded a 99 percent 

increase over the ten year period. Overall, during that same time frame the 

entire population of the County increased 54 percent. The population has 

and continues to be dominated by males due to the prison. 

Table 2-33 

Population for Pershing County (1990 – 2000) 

Total 

Number 

Under 

20 years 

40 – 54 

(Baby Boom 

in 2000) 

65 years 

and Over 

2000 6,693 1,871 1,458 520 

1990 4,336 1,427 734 504 31.5 

10 Yr Change 2,357 444 724 16 

10 Yr % 

Change 54% 31% 99% 3% 9% 

Male/Female 

% Split 61/39 53/47 65/35 49/51 

Median 

Age 

34.4 

2.9 

Source: US Census 1990 and Census 2000 

Participants who attended the Pershing County workshop predicted that this 

county is “next,” meaning as growth continues to spread northeast up 

Interstate 80, Pershing County and the town of Lovelock will experience 

tremendous growth at a rapid rate over the next several years. Reasons for 

this growth include access along the interstate corridor, proximity to the 

town of Fernley, the scheduled relocation of the Nevada Cement Company 

from the Fernley area closer to Lovelock, in addition to the new Far West 

Technologies manufacturing plant and the Phoenix mining complex. 

2-44 Winnemucca Resource Management Plan October 2006 

Socioeconomic Report 
2. Socioeconomic Conditions 

Participants were surprised that the services sector provided more income in 

the county than government or mining jobs, and that mining and non-labor 

incomes accounted for a larger proportion of income than the government 

sector. Much of the government sector employment is due to the prison and 

is viewed as a stable part of Pershing County. Similar to Humboldt County, 

participants wanted to improve job diversity while maintaining a high quality 

of life and a strong sense of a rural community. They wanted expansion to be 

planned and based on a set of unified goals, not fragmented. 

Strengths that participants in Pershing County identified were their location 

near the Reno/Sparks and Fernley area, proximity to an airport, an interstate 

highway, other highways, and the railroad, a high quality of life (low crime), 

quality of schools and hospitals, endless recreation activities, an interesting 

history, and open space and mountains. Weaknesses were a lack of available 

labor force and job diversity, high dependency on volatile job sectors, low 

number of manufacturing jobs, and a large population living in poverty. 

Summary: While participants from both workshops were aware of the 

growth in service sector jobs, both were surprised by the degree to which 

professional services contributed to the growth. The disclosure that 

approximately one-third of personal income within Humboldt and Pershing 

Counties came from non-labor sources, which includes dividends, interest, 

rent, and transfer payments, also came as a shock. The greatest concern 

discussed in both areas was the lack of diversity in the job market and 

economic downturns that result from the mining industry. Both areas felt a 

strong need to diversify so as to minimize impacts from the boom and bust 

of the mining industry. 

Participants discussed the role that public lands can play in achieving these 

goals and recommended that the BLM evaluate the opportunity to dispose of 

its lands in urban areas under the Recreation and Public Purposes Acts for 

parks and open space, or to explore disposing of land for economic 

development. Participants also recommended maintaining access to public 

lands, exploring additional recreation opportunities and developing 

recreation sites, and improving public outreach efforts. 

October 2006 Winnemucca Resource Management Plan

Socioeconomic Report 

 2-45 

SECTION 3 

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE 

This section addresses specific topics related to environmental justice, as 

required by the National Environmental Policy Act. Specifically, a discussion 

of issues related to environmental justice is presented in accordance with 

Executive Order 12898, and issues related to protecting children from 

environmental health risks are presented in accordance with Executive Order 

13045. 

On February 11, 1994, President Clinton issued Executive Order 12898, 

Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority and LowIncome Populations. This order requires that “each federal agency make 

achieving environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and 

addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health 

or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities, on minority 

populations and low-income populations” (Executive Order 12898, 59 

Federal Register 7629 [Section 1-201]). To comply with the order, the 

preparers of this report have gathered economic, racial, and demographic 

information generated to identify areas of low-income and high minority 

populations in and around the planning area. 

3.1 DEMOGRAPHICS 

The planning area includes portions of Churchill, Lyon, and Washoe 

Counties, most of Humboldt County, and all of Pershing County. Racial and 

ethnic data from 2000 for these counties and for Nevada have been compiled 

and are presented in Table 3-1. In 2000, the White population formed the 

dominant ethnic group within the planning area (83.1 percent), and the 

African American and Pacific Islander populations had the smallest 

representation (1.7 percent each). Churchill (4.8 percent), Humboldt (4.0 

percent), and Pershing (3.4 percent) Counties had the largest Native 

American/Alaska Aleut populations, roughly three times larger than the 

state’s population of 1.3 percent (US Census Bureau 2005). 

October 2006 Winnemucca Resource Management Plan

Socioeconomic Report 

 3-1 
3. Environmental Justice 

Table 3-1 

Total Percentage of Population by Race/Ethnicity (2000) 

Native 

Black, American, Asian, Some Two or Latino, 

African Alaska Pacific Other More Hispanic, 

Location 

State of Nevada 

White 

75.2% 

American 

6.8% 

Aleut 

1.3% 

Islander 

4.9%

Race 

8.0% 

Races 

3.8% 

Any Race 

19.7% 

Churchill County 84.2% 1.6% 4.8% 2.9% 3.2% 3.3% 8.70% 

Humboldt County 83.2% 0.5% 4.0% 0.7% 8.5% 3.1% 18.9% 

Lyon County 88.6% 0.7% 2.4% 0.7% 4.6% 2.9% 11.0% 

Pershing County 77.7% 5.3% 3.4% 0.8% 9.4% 3.3% 19.3% 

Washoe County 80.4% 2.1% 1.8% 4.8% 7.7% 3.3% 16.6% 

Average Total 83.1% 1.7% 3.4% 1.7% 7.0% 3.0% 15.5% 

Note: Percentages for a given year do not add to 100 because Hispanic is an ethnicity category, which includes all races, 

and because people can select from more than one race. 

Source: US Census Bureau 2005 

3.1.1 Tribal Interests 

Indian Trust Resources and Tribal Treaty Rights 

The BLM, as a representative of the federal government, is responsible for 

maintaining a formal government-to-government relationship with federally 

recognized Indian tribes. This relationship, which has a very long-established 

history, is reiterated and clarified in the Executive Memorandum of April 29, 

1994, Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal 

Governments, and Executive Order 13175. This relationship focuses on 

ensuring that the rights and interests of tribes are considered and protected 

when federal agencies act. 

Indian trust resources and tribal treaty rights 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. No applicable treaty rights have been 

identified within the WFO planning area. 

The WFO planning area lies within the traditional territory of the Northern 

Paiute and, to a lesser extent, of the Western Shoshone peoples. Historically, 

these tribes subsisted on hunting, fishing, and gathering seeds and roots. 

Federally recognized tribes within the planning area include the Battle 

Mountain Band, Fallon Paiute-Shoshone Tribe, Fort McDermitt Tribe, 

Lovelock Paiute Tribe, Pyramid Lake Paiute, Winnemucca Tribe, and the 

Summit Lake Paiute Tribe. 

The tribes generate income from a number of sources. The main economic 

source for the Battle Mountain reservation is a smokeshop/convenience 

store, which employs about six people. The Battle Mountain Filter Service 

3-2 Winnemucca Resource Management Plan October 2006 

Socioeconomic Report 
3. Environmental Justice 

Company, a newly formed tribal business, cleans filters for the nearby mines 

and employs three people. The Fallon Reservation also operates a smoke 

shop, and has almost 3,000 allotted acres of irrigable land in agricultural 

production. On the Fort McDermitt reservation, tribal members produce and 

sell crafts and operate a smoke shop. Additional income is generated by the 

production of forage hay and hay land and grazing leases. Lovelock tribal 

members operate a smoke shop and are employed in agricultural practices, 

mining, and retail commercial establishments. The Pyramid Lake reservation 

economy is supported by livestock and hay production, construction and 

repair services, recreational use related to the Pyramid Lake, and tribal 

government. Businesses include a smoke shop, a campground, the Pyramid 

Lake Marina, and a leased sand and gravel enterprise operated by the tribe in 

Wadsworth. The Winnemucca Colony covers 360 acres about one mile from 

the city of Winnemucca. Residents are primarily Paiute Indians who moved 

from the Fort McDermitt Reservation and some Shoshone. Approximately 

39 of the 61 reservation residents are members of the labor force, and per 

capita income of Winnemucca Colony residents is $1,600. The Summit Lake 

reservation generates income from the sale and leasing of grazing permits, 

including the cultivation of hay, in addition to revenues generated by fishing 

at Summit Lake, which is open only to tribal members (US Department of 

Commerce 2005). 

3.2 INCOME AND POVERTY LEVEL 

Table 3-2 provides income statistics for planning area counties and Nevada. 

All counties, except Washoe, have a lower per capita income than the 

Nevada average. All counties, except Washoe and Humboldt, also have lower 

median household incomes than Nevada, including the planning area’s 

average. Pershing County has the largest percent (11.4) of population living 

in poverty. 

The US Census Bureau uses a set of money income thresholds that vary by 

family size and composition to determine which families are living in poverty. 

If a family’s total income is less than its threshold, then that family, and every 

individual in it, is living in poverty. The poverty thresholds do not vary 

geographically, but they are updated annually for inflation using the 

Consumer Price Index. For example, in 2000, the average estimated poverty 

threshold for an individual in the US was an annual income of $8,787 and for 

a four-person household it was $17,601. The US Census Bureau estimates 

that approximately 8.7 to 11.4 percent of county populations in the planning 

area were below the poverty line in 2000. The percentages in Lyon (10.4 

percent) and Pershing (11.4 percent) Counties exceeded the state average of 

10.5 percent (US Census Bureau 2005). 

October 2006 Winnemucca Resource Management Plan

Socioeconomic Report 

 3-3 
3. Environmental Justice 

Table 3-2 

County Income and Poverty Level (2000) 

Median 

Household Per Capita Population Living 

County Income Income in Poverty (2000) 

Nevada $44,581 $21,989 10.5% 

Churchill $40,808 $19,264 8.7% 

Humboldt $47,147 $19,539 9.7% 

Lyon 

County $40,699 $18,543 10.4% 

Pershing $40,670 $16,589 11.4% 

Washoe $45,815 $24,277 10.0% 

Average 

Total $43,534 $19,902 10.5% 

Source: US Census Bureau 2005 

3.3 PROTECTION OF CHILDREN 

Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks (Executive Order 13045, 62 Federal Register 19885), 

states that each federal agency shall make it a high priority to identify and 

assess environmental health risks and safety risks that may disproportionately 

affect children and ensure that its policies, programs, activities, and standards 

address disproportionate risks to children that result from environmental 

health or safety risks. These are risks that are attributable to products or 

substances that the child is likely to come into contact with or to ingest. 

Winnemucca Resource Management Plan October 2006 

Socioeconomic Report 

3-4 
SECTION 4 

CONCLUSION 

4.1 SUMMARY OF SOCIOECONOMIC CONDITIONS AND SOCIAL CHARACTERISTICS 

BLM lands are typically in areas of low population densities (BLM 2000b). 

As identified in Section 2.1.1, Nevada’s population is growing faster than any 

state in the nation. Towns and cities are expanding rapidly, resulting in 

increased pressures on federal lands. As the population increases, a higher 

potential for conflicts among uses may also exist. Between 1990 and 2000 the 

population of the counties in the WFO planning area on average grew at 

approximately the same rate as the state, with the counties closest to the 

employment centers of Carson City, Fernley, and the Reno-Sparks area 

(Lyon, Washoe, and Churchill Counties) growing the most. Roughly 12 

percent of lands in these three counties is managed by the WFO, but most of 

the BLM’s lands in the WFO planning area lie within Humboldt and 

Pershing Counties. Growth in the planning area is projected to continue at a 

slower rate than that of the state, with the exception of Pershing County, 

which contains 35 percent of WFO-managed lands and is expected to double 

between 2000 and 2020. The population of Humboldt County, in which 

about 53 percent of WFO lands are located, is projected to decline. 

As populations have increased, business opportunities also have expanded, 

and the economy of the planning area has begun to change from being 

agriculturally based to being more service and amenity based, particularly in 

Churchill and Washoe Counties. As the baby boom generation approaches 

retirement, the demands on public land for recreational activities continue to 

increase. Recreational visits to public lands have increased by 40 percent over 

the past 10 years and this trend will likely continue (DOI 2004). 

Mining has continued to play an important role in the economy of the 

planning area. The mining industry in the WFO suffered in the late 1990s 

with the decline of gold prices, forcing employment reductions and 

temporary closure of several mines. As gold prices have increased in recent 

years, production activity and employment in mining also has begun to 

October 2006 Winnemucca Resource Management Plan

Socioeconomic Report 

 4-1 
4. Conclusion 

recover. Demands for renewable energy, power plants, and manufacturing 

plants are also increasing, as is evident by the recent plans to develop the 

Granite Fox power plant outside of Gerlach, the Nevada Cement Company 

by Loveland, and the new trailer manufacturing plant in Humboldt County. 

4.2 SUMMARY OF ECONOMIC INFLUENCE OF BLM-MANAGED LANDS 

With almost 83 percent of lands in Nevada under federal ownership, 

Nevada’s economy is affected by BLM land management decisions. 

Humboldt County, which has the largest percentage and total acreage of land 

under federal ownership, has the greatest opportunity for effect. Whereas 

Lyon County, which is composed of approximately 67 percent federal land 

and has the lowest total acreage of federal lands within the WFO planning 

area, will have smaller impacts. 

The recreation, mining, and agricultural sectors are dominant economic 

interests represented on BLM-administered lands within the WFO planning 

area in Nevada; the forestry and timber sectors have a minimal economic 

presence on WFO lands. 

The high percentage of BLM lands within the planning area counties has 

made the WFO planning area a highly desirable recreation area for activities, 

including boating, fishing, hiking, hunting, and mountain biking. The 

counties attract both local visitors and those from other counties. As a result, 

local economies receive economic benefit from recreation activities that 

occur nearby through recreation and use fees that are returned to the state 

and through visitor expenditures in the traveler accommodations industry 

and for other goods and services. Nevada has the highest per capita receipts 

generated from travel expenditures within the US, and the traveler 

accommodation industry is projected to be the fastest-growing employment 

sector in the state. With the rising popularity of outdoor recreation and the 

demand for use of federal lands, visitor use of public lands within the WFO 

and local economic activity also can be expected to increase. While most 

recreational use on public lands does not require a permit, some activities 

(such as the Burning Man Festival) are permitted activities that provide 

recreation opportunities to several thousands of people while generating 

significant revenue for the WFO. 

Nevada ranked second in the US in terms of value of overall nonfuel mineral 

production in 2003 (excluding oil, gas, coal, and geothermal). Nevada’s 

production of gold helped make the US the third leading gold producer in 

the world in 2003 (Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology 2003). Numerous 

commodities are produced in the state, several of which occur on BLMadministered lands. The influence of the mining sector in Humboldt and 

Pershing Counties makes them economically vulnerable because of their lack 

of diversity. Nevada has been identified as an economically vulnerable state 

due to its dependence on minerals (BLM 2000b). 

Winnemucca Resource Management Plan October 2006 

Socioeconomic Report 

4-2 
4. Conclusion 

Grazing revenues are found to be the greatest in those counties with the 

highest proportion of BLM land, and northern Nevada has been identified as 

one of these areas (BLM 2000b). These areas typically have low population 

densities and low per capita income (Sections 2.1 and 2.2). Grazing is most 

important to the economies in areas that are agriculturally dependent, very 

rural, and not economically diverse. With three of the five planning area 

counties (Lyon, Humboldt, and Churchill) among the top five generators of 

agricultural sales, the economies of these counties would be most likely to be 

affected by grazing management decisions within the WFO. 

October 2006 Winnemucca Resource Management Plan

Socioeconomic Report 

 4-3 

SECTION 5 

REFERENCES 

American Recreation Coalition. 2004. Internet Web site: http://www.funoutdoors.com/ 

node/view/1201 and http://www.funoutdoors.com/files/ 

ROPER%20REPORT%202004_0.pdf. Accessed on June 29, 2005. 

BEA (US Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis). 2002 Regional Economic 

Information System. 2000. Annual Regional Economic Profiles (Table CA30). Internet Web 

site: http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/regional/reis. 

_____. 2005. Internet Web site: http://www.bea.gov. Updated April 2005. Accessed from June 

2005 through September 2005. 

BLM (US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management). 2006. Nevada Public Rewards 

form Public Lands 2000. Internet Web site: http://www.blm.gov/nhp/pubs/rewards/ 

2000/nevada.htm. Accessed August 14, 2006. 

_____. 2005a. Geographical Information System. Unpublished data. BLM, Winnemucca Field 

Office, Winnemucca, Nevada. 

_____. 2005b. Public Rewards (Nevada Receipts). Internet Web site: www.blm.gov/ 

nhp/pubs/rewards/2003/nv_stats.htm. Accessed on February 23, 2005. 

_____. 2005c. Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILT). Internet Web site: http:// 

www.nv.blm.gov/news_releases/Press_Releases/fy2004/PR_04_48.htm. Accessed on 

February 23, 2005. 

_____. 2004. Distribution of Receipts Report. June 27, 2004. 

_____. 2003. Nevada Lovelock Cave Back Country Byway: A Self-Guided Tour. Winnemucca Field 

Office, Winnemucca, Nevada. 

October 2006 Winnemucca Resource Management Plan

Socioeconomic Report 

 5-1 
5. References 

_____. 2000a. Nevada Public Rewards from Public Lands 2000. Internet Web site: 

http://www.blm.gov/nhp/pubs/rewards/2000/nevada.htm. Accessed on August 16, 2006. 

_____. 2000b. National Assessment Prototype. June 2000. 

_____. 1999. Public Rewards form Public Lands 1999. Internet Web site: www.blm.gov/ 

nhp/pubs/rewards/1999/5nv.htm. Accessed on June 6, 2005. 

_____. 1982a Paradise-Denio Management Framework Plans 

_____. 1982b. Sonoma-Gerlach Management Framework Plans 

Churchill Economic Development Authority. 2005. Internet Web site: http://www.ceda-nv.org. 

Accessed on July 19, 2005. 

Coleman, Gilbert, Ph.D. 2005. Project Economic and Fiscal Impact of the Proposed Granite Fox 

Power Project. Nevada Small Business Development Center, University of Nevada, Reno. 

April 2005. 

Daulton, Troy. 2003. “Rye Patch Project Would Create Jobs.” Lovelock Review Miner. October 2, 

2003. Retrieved August 16, 2006, from 

http://nevadarancher.com/rminer/rm2003/rmoct2c.htm. 

DETR (Nevada Department of Employment, Training, and Rehabilitation. 2005. Nevada 

Workforce Informer. Internet Web site: http://www.nevadaworkforce.com. Accessed on 

June 15, 2005. 

_____. 2002. 2001 Nevada County Industrial Employment Summary. Internet Web site: 

http://www.nevadaworkforce.com. Accessed on June 30, 2005. 

Department of Conservation and Natural Resources. 2005. Nevada Natural Resources Status 

Report. Internet Web site: http://www.dcnr.nv.gov. Accessed on June 21, 2005. 

DOI (Department of Interior). 2004. Internet Web site: 

http://www.doi.gov/news/05_News_Releases/040512_tourism. Accessed on August 31, 

2005. 

Geothermal Resource Council. 2005. Geothermal Energy: The World’s Buried Treasure. 

Geothermal.biz.com. August 2005, Issue No. 18. 

Governet Network Services. 2001. Internet Web site: http://www.governet.net/ 

nv/co/hum/home.cfm. Accessed on June 15, 2005. 

Winnemucca Resource Management Plan October 2006 

Socioeconomic Report 

5-2 
5. References 

Harris, Thomas R., William W. Riggs, and John Zimmerman. 2001. Public Lands in the State of 

Nevada: An Overview. Fact Sheet 01-32. University Center for Economic Development, 

University of Nevada Reno. Page 3. http://www.unce.unr.edu/publications/FS01/ 

FS0132.doc. Accessed on June 21, 2005. 

Humboldt County, Nevada. 2005. Humboldt County, Nevada Online Government. Internet Web 

site: http://www.hcnv.us/index.html. Accessed on June 15, 2005. 

Inter-Tribal Council of Nevada. Lovelock Paiute Tribe 1996. Internet Web site: 

http://itcn.org/tribes/lovelock.html Accessed on July 25, 2005. 

Jackson, Lynnda. 2005. Range Specialist. Bureau of Land Management, Winnemucca Field Office. 

Personal communication through e-mail with Jennifer Zakrowski, TetraTech, Inc., regarding 

AUMs. July 20, 2005. 

Johnson, Jeff. 2005a. Planning and Environmental Coordinator. Bureau of Land Management, 

Winnemucca Field Office. Personal communication through e-mail with Jennifer Zakrowski, 

TetraTech, Inc., regarding forestry receipts. July 13, 2005. 

______. 2005b. Planning and Environmental Coordinator. Bureau of Land Management, 

Winnemucca Field Office. E-mail to Jennifer Zakrowski, Tetra Tech, Inc., regarding grazing 

receipts. July 14, 2005. 

Lyon County. 2005. Lyon County History. Internet Web site: http://www.lyoncounty.org/history.htm Accessed on June 22, 2005. 

Minerals Management Service. 2005. Federal Mineral Revenue Disbursements Identified by County 

of Origin, Fiscal Year 2001 Nevada – Onshore. Internet Web site: 

www.mrm.mms.gov/Stats/pdfdocs/CtyNev01_on.pdf. Accessed on June 30, 2005. 

Nevada Association of Counties. 2004. Survey of Economic Benefits and Determinants of 

Recreational Activities on Public Lands, April 29, 2004. 

National Center for Education Statistics. 2005. Internet Web site: 

http://nces.ed.gov/ccd/districtsearch. Accessed on June 13, 2005. 

Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology. 2004. Update on Production and Exploration Activity in 

Nevada – 2004. Internet Web site: http://www.nbmg.unr.edu/ 

dox/dox.htm. Accessed on June 30, 2005. 

_____. 2003. The Nevada Mineral Industry 2003. Special Publication MI-2003. 

_____. 2001. Quarterly newsletter. Nevada’s Mineral Production in 2000. Internet Web site: 

http://www.nbmg.unr.edu/dox/nl/nl38.htm. Accessed on June 22, 2005. 

October 2006 Winnemucca Resource Management Plan

Socioeconomic Report 

 5-3 
5. References 

Nevada Commission on Tourism. 2005. Discover the Facts: A digest of statistical information on 

the Nevada tourism industry. First Quarter 2005. Vol. XIII. Internet Web site: 

http://www.travelnevada.com/news_discover.asp. Accessed on July 19, 2005. 

Nevada Department of Wildlife. 2005a. License Sale statistics for NDOW. Updated 2004. 

http://www.ndow.org/about/license/sales/index.shtm. Accessed on June 28, 2005. 

_____. 2005b. Top Waters by Number of Days Fished: Survey Year 2004. 

Nevada Division of Water Resources, Department of Conservation and Natural Resources. 

Undated. Nevada's Socioeconomic Overview Publication Series. Internet Web site: 

http://water.nv.gov/Water%20planning/overview/over_map.htm. Accessed in July 2005. 

Nevada Mining Association. 2003. Economic Overview of the Mining Industry in Nevada. 2000. 

Nevada State Demographer’s Office. 2004. Nevada County Population Projects 2004 to 2024. 

Prepared by Jeff Hardcastle. Internet Web site: 

http://www.nsbdc.org/demographer/pubs/images/2004proj.pdf. Accessed on February 9, 

2005. 

Nevada Works. 2005. Internet Web site: http://www.nevadaworks.com. Accessed on June 21, 2005. 

Northern Nevada Development Authority. 2005. Lyon County. Internet Web site: 

http://www.nnda.org/lyon.asp. Accessed on June 15, 2005. 

RangeNet. 2004. BLM Grazing Statistics 1979-2000: Total Grazing. Internet Web site: 

http://www.rangenet.org/tools/blmgrazing/total.html. Accessed on June 30, 2005. 

Pershing County Library. 2005. Cooperative Libraries Automated Network. Lovelock, Nevada, and 

Pershing County Facts. Internet Web site: http://www.clan.lib.nv.us. Accessed on June 13, 

2005. 

Resource Concepts, Inc. 2001. Nevada Grazing Statistics Report and Economic Analysis for Federal 

Lands in Nevada. March 26, 2001. 

Schlottmann, J.D., Jr. 2004. Gold Mining in Nevada. Nevada Business Journal. November 2004 Issue. 

Retrieved July 11, 2005. 

Sonoran Institute Economic Profile System Workshop. 2005. Arranged by BLM Winnemucca Field. 

Moderated by Rebecca Carter, PhD. Tucson, Arizona. June 2005. 

_____. 2005. Population, Employment, Poverty, and Demographics from the 200 US Census. 

Generated using the Economic Profile System (EPS) for Churchill, Lyon, Humboldt, 

Pershing, and Washoe Counties. July 20, 2005. 

Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP). 2003 

Winnemucca Resource Management Plan October 2006 

Socioeconomic Report 

5-4 
5. References 

US Census Bureau. 2005. American FactFinder. Internet Web site: 

http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/BasicFactsServlet. Accessed from June through August 

2005. 

_____. 2003. Census 2000 Special Reports - State-to-State Migration Flows: 1995 to 2000. Internet 

Web site: http://www.census.gov/population/www/cen2000/ 

migration.html. Accessed on June 29, 2005. 

USDA (United States Department of Agriculture). 2002. 2002 Census of Agriculture – Census, State 

– County Data. Internet Web site: http://151.121.3.33:8080/ 

Census/Pull. Accessed on June 29, 2005. 

_____. 2005a. Economic Research Service: The Economics of Food, Farming, Natural Resources, 

and Rural America. 2005. Internet Web site: http://www.ers.usda.gov. Accessed on June 29, 

2005. 

_____. 2005b. Nevada Agricultural Statistics Service: Nevada Agricultural Statistics 2002-2003. 

Internet Web site: http://www.nass.usda.gov/nv/. Accessed on October 12, 2005. 

US Forest Service (United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service) and the University of 

Tennessee-Knoxville. 2002. 1999-2002 National Survey on Recreation and the Environment. 

Internet Web site: http://www.srs.fs.usda.gov/trends/ 

Nsre/Rnd1t13unweightrpt.pdf. Accessed on June 28, 2005. 

University of Nevada Reno. 2005. The University Center for Economic Development. Internet Web 

site: http://www.cabnr.unr.edu/uced. Accessed on June 14, 2005. 

US Department of Commerce. 2005. American Indian Reservations and Trust Areas. Internet Web 

site: http://12.39.209.165/xp/EDAPublic/Research/ 

AmerIndianRes.xml. Accessed on July 18, 2005. 

US Department of Labor. 2005. Bureau of Labor Statistics Data. Internet Web site: 

http://www.bls.gov/data/home.htm. Accessed on July 7, 2005. 

Washoe County. 2005. Washoe County Nevada. Internet Web site: http://www.co. 

washoe.nv.us. Accessed on June 21, 2005. 

Western States Tourism Policy Council. 2003. Internet Web site: http://www.wsspc.org. Accessed 

on June 28, 2005. 

October 2006 Winnemucca Resource Management Plan

Socioeconomic Report 

 5-5 

SECTION 6 

LIST OF PREPARERS 

Bureau of Land Management 

Sharlet Berentsen 

BA Industrial Psychology 

Environmental Coordinator 

Years of Experience: 25 

Joey Carmosino 

MA Recreation Administration 

Outdoor Recreation Planner 

Years of Experience: 4 

Amanda L. DeForest 

BS Wildlife Science/Range Management 

Supervisory Rangeland Management Specialist 

Years of Experience: 15 

Lynnda Jackson 

BS Wildlife Management (emphasis Range Management) 

Rangeland Management Specialist 

Years of Experience: 22 

Jeff Johnson 

BS Conservation of Natural Resources 

Planning and Environmental Coordinator 

Years of Experience: 16 

(Project Manager) 

October 2006 Winnemucca Resource Management Plan

Socioeconomic Report 

 6-1 
6. List of Preparers 

Vince Lincoln 

BS Geograhpy 

GIS 

Years of Experience: 4 

Ronda Purdy 

BS, Rangeland Resources 

Rangeland Management Specialist 

Years of Experience: 7 

Tetra Tech 

Holly Prohaska 

MS, Environmental Management 

BA, Marine Science/ Biology 

Years of Experience: 8 

(Project Manager) 

Justin Colgan 

BA, Geography 

Years of Experience: 6 

(Geographic Information Systems) 

Kevin Doyle 

BA, Sociology, 

Years of Experience: 19 

(Cultural Resources) 

Genevieve Kaiser 

MS, Energy Management and Policy, Geographic Information System Certificate 

BA, Economics 

Years of Experience: 16 

(QA/QC) 

Randolph Varney 

BA, Technical and Professional Writing 

Years of Experience: 14 

(Technical Editor) 

Jennifer Zakrowski 

BS, Public Affairs 

Years of Experience: 8 

(Primary Author) 

Winnemucca Resource Management Plan October 2006 

Socioeconomic Report 

6-2 
6. List of Preparers 

EMPS: Environmental Management and Planning Solutions, Inc. 

David Batts 

MS, Natural Resources Planning and Policy 

Years of Experience: 15 

(Project Management/Technical Advisor/QA) 

October 2006 Winnemucca Resource Management Plan

Socioeconomic Report 

 6-3