VOLUME 4: CHAPTER 4, SECTIONS 4.2.15 - 4.8,

 CHAPTERS 5-7 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section Page 

4.2.15 Visual Resources ............................................................................................ 4-377

4.2.16 Cave and Karst ............................................................................................... 4-406

4.3 Resource Uses ............................................................................................. 4-416

4.3.1 Livestock Grazing ........................................................................................... 4-416

4.3.2 Minerals—Leasable, Locatable, and Salable ................................................. 4-459

4.3.3 Recreation and Facilities................................................................................. 4-493

4.3.4 Renewable Energy .......................................................................................... 4-517

4.3.5 Transportation and Access ............................................................................. 4-537

4.3.6 Lands and Realty ............................................................................................ 4-547

4.4 Special Designations ................................................................................... 4-572

4.4.1 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern ........................................................ 4-573

4.4.2 Wild and Scenic Rivers ................................................................................... 4-592

4.4.3 Backcountry Byways ....................................................................................... 4-611

4.4.4 Wilderness Study Areas and Lands with Wilderness Characteristics ............ 4-625

4.4.5 Watchable Wildlife Viewing Sites .................................................................... 4-671

4.5 Social and Economic ................................................................................... 4-689

4.5.1 Tribal Interests ................................................................................................ 4-689

4.5.2 Public Health and Safety ................................................................................. 4-694

4.5.3 Social and Economic Conditions and Environmental Justice ......................... 4-709

4.6 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts .................................................................... 4-743

4.7 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources ........................ 4-745

4.8 Relationship of Short-Term Uses of the Environment to Long-Term 

Productivity ................................................................................................... 4-746

5. CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION ................................................................................... 5-1

5.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................... 5-1

5.2 Public Collaboration and Outreach ................................................................ 5-1

5.2.1 Scoping Process ................................................................................................. 5-1

5.2.2 Project Web Site ................................................................................................. 5-2

5.2.3 Newsletters ......................................................................................................... 5-2

5.3 Consultation and Coordination ....................................................................... 5-3

5.3.1 Native American Consultation ............................................................................ 5-3

5.3.2 Cultural Resource Consultation .......................................................................... 5-4

5.3.3 Special Status Species Consultation .................................................................. 5-5

5.3.4 Resource Advisory Council ................................................................................. 5-5

5.4 Distribution List ................................................................................................ 5-5

5.5 List of Preparers ............................................................................................... 5-6

6. REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................... 6-1

7. GLOSSARY ......................................................................................................................... 7-1

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS Volume 4-i 
LIST OF TABLES

Table Page 

4-10 VRI Classes for Land Designations—Alternative B ............................................................... 4-382

4-11 VRI Classes for Land Designations—Alternative C ............................................................... 4-383

4-12 VRI Classes for Land Designations—Alternative D ............................................................... 4-383

4-13 VRI Classes for Fire Use—Alternative B ............................................................................... 4-384

4-14 VRI Classes for Fire Use—Alternative D ............................................................................... 4-385

4-15 VRI Classes for VRM Classes—Alternative A ....................................................................... 4-387

4-16 VRI Classes for VRM Classes—Alternative B ....................................................................... 4-388

4-17 VRI Classes for VRM Classes—Alternative C ....................................................................... 4-388

4-18 VRI Classes for VRM Classes—Alternative D ....................................................................... 4-389

4-19 VRI Classes for Land Open for Mineral Material (Salable) Actions—Alternative A .............. 4-390

4-20 VRI Classes for Land Open for Fluid Mineral Actions—Alternative A ................................... 4-391

4-21 VRI Classes for Land Open for Solid Leasable Mineral Actions—Alternative A ................... 4-391

4-22 VRI Classes for Land Open for Locatable Mineral Actions—Alternative A ........................... 4-392

4-23 VRI Classes for Land Open for Mineral Material (Salable) Actions—Alternative B .............. 4-392

4-24 VRI Classes for Land Open for Fluid Mineral Actions—Alternative B ................................... 4-393

4-25 VRI Classes for Land Open for Solid Leasable Mineral Actions—Alternative B ................... 4-393

4-26 VRI Classes for Land Open for Locatable Mineral Actions—Alternative B ........................... 4-394

4-27 VRI Classes for Land Open for Mineral Material (Salable) Actions—Alternative C .............. 4-394

4-28 VRI Classes for Land Open for Fluid Mineral Actions—Alternative C ................................... 4-395

4-29 VRI Classes for Land Open for Solid Leasable Mineral Actions—Alternative C ................... 4-395

4-30 VRI Classes for Land Open for Locatable Mineral Actions—Alternative C ........................... 4-395

4-31 VRI Classes for Land Open for Mineral Material (Salable) Actions—Alternative D .............. 4-396

4-32 VRI Classes for Land Open for Fluid Mineral Actions—Alternative D .................................. 4-396

4-33 VRI Classes for Land Open for Solid Leasable Mineral Actions—Alternative D ................... 4-397

4-34 VRI Classes for Land Open for Locatable Mineral Actions—Alternative D ........................... 4-397

4-35 VRI Classes for OHV Use—Alternative A .............................................................................. 4-398

4-36 VRI Classes for OHV Use—Alternative B .............................................................................. 4-398

4-37 VRI Classes for OHV Use—Alternative C ............................................................................. 4-399

4-38 VRI Classes for OHV Use—Alternative D ............................................................................. 4-399

4-39 VRI Classes for Land Tenure Adjustments—Alternative A ................................................... 4-402

4-40 VRI Classes for Land Tenure Adjustments—Alternative B ................................................... 4-402

4-41 VRI Classes for Land Tenure Adjustments—Alternative C ................................................... 4-402

4-42 VRI Classes for Land Tenure Adjustments—Alternative D ................................................... 4-403

4-43 Summary of Effects on Livestock Grazing–Alternatives A, B, C, and D ................................ 4-416

4-44 VRM Designations within Grazing Allotments ....................................................................... 4-435

4-45 Salable Mineral Designations within Grazing Allotments ...................................................... 4-443

4-46 Fluid Mineral Designations within Grazing Allotments ........................................................... 4-443

4-47 Solid Mineral Designations within Grazing Allotments .......................................................... 4-443

4-48 Locatable Mineral Designations within Grazing Allotments ................................................... 4-444

4-49 OHV Designations within Grazing Allotments ........................................................................ 4-447

4-50 Land Tenure within Grazing Allotments ................................................................................. 4-451

4-51 Summary of Effects on Minerals—Alternatives A, B, C, and D ............................................. 4-460

4-52 Summary of Effects on Recreation—Alternatives A, B, C, and D ......................................... 4-493

4-53 Summary of Effects on Renewable Energy—Alternatives A, B, C, and D ............................ 4-518

4-54 Summary of Effects on Tribal Interests—Alternatives A, B, C, and D ................................... 4-689

4-55 Summary of Effects on Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice—Alternatives A, B, C, 

and D ...................................................................................................................................... 4-710

5-1 RMP/EIS Preparers – BLM ........................................................................................................ 5-6

5-2 RMP/EIS Preparers – Contractor............................................................................................... 5-8

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS Volume 4-ii 
LIST OF ACRONYMS

Acronym or Abbreviation Full Phrase 

ACEC area of critical environmental concern 

AFY acre-feet per year 

AML appropriate management level 

AMP allotment management plan 

APHIS Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 

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

AQ air quality 

ATV all-terrain vehicle 

AUM animal unit month 

BCB Backcountry Byways 

BEA Bureau of Economic Analysis 

BIA US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs 

BLM US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management 

BMPs best management practices 

BPS budget planning system 

BRDHRCET Black Rock Desert High Rock Canyon Emigrant Trails 

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

CK cave and karst resources 

CNHT California National Historic Trail 

CR cultural resources 

CWA Clean Water Act 

CWPP Community Wildfire Protection Plan 

CWMA Cooperative Weed Management Area 

EA environmental assessment 

EIS environmental impact statement 

EO Executive Order 

EPA US Environmental Protection Agency 

ERMA extensive recreation management area 

ES Executive Summary 

ESA Endangered Species Act of 1973 

ES&R emergency stabilization and rehabilitation 

FLPMA Federal Land Policy and Management Act 

FLTFA Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act 

FMU Fire Management Unit 

FMUD final multiple use decision 

FOFEM First Order Fire Effects Model 

FPA fire program analysis 

FRCC fire regime condition class 

FW fish and wildlife 

G geology 

GAWS general aquatic wildlife survey 

GIS geographical information system 

HA herd area 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS Volume 4-iii 
LIST OF ACRONYMS (continued)

Acronym or Abbreviation Full Phrase 

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

HAP hazardous air pollution 

HMA herd management area 

HMAP herd management area plan 

HMP habitat management plan 

HUA herd use area 

HVH high value habitat 

IBLA Interior Board of Land Appeals 

IDT interdisciplinary team 

IMP interim management policy 

IPM Integrated Pest Management 

ISA instant study area 

ITA Indian Trust Assets 

KGRA known geothermal resource area 

LCT Lahontan cutthroat trout 

LG livestock grazing 

LR lands and realty 

MACT maximum available control technology 

MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act 

MFP management framework plan 

MIST minimum impact suppression tactics 

MOU memorandum of understanding 

MR minerals: leasable, locatable, salable 

NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

NCA National Conservation Area 

NDEP Nevada Division of Environmental Protection 

NDOA Nevada Department of Agriculture 

NDOM Nevada Division of Minerals 

NDOT Nevada Department of Transportation 

NDOW Nevada Department of Wildlife 

NDVI Normalized Difference Vegetation Index 

NDWR Nevada Division of Water Resources 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

NESHAPS National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 

NGO non-government organizations 

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act 

NHT National Historic Trail 

NRCS US Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation 

Service 

NRHP National Register of Historic Places 

NRS new source review 

NSO no surface occupancy 

NWSRS National Wild and Scenic River Systems 

NV Nevada 
LIST OF ACRONYMS (continued)

Acronym or Abbreviation Full Phrase 

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

OCTA Oregon-California Trail Association 

OHV off-highway vehicle 

ORV Outstanding Remarkable Value 

PE chemical and biological control 

PFC proper functioning condition 

planning area Winnemucca District Office boundary and scope for the RMP

PM2.5 particulate matter smaller than 2.5 microns in diameter 

PM10 particulate matter smaller than 10 microns in diameter 

PMU population management unit 

ppm part per million 

PR paleontological resources 

PS public health and safety 

PSD prevention of significant deterioration 

R recreation 

R&PP Recreation and Public Purposes Act 

RAC resource advisory council 

RAMS risk assessment and mitigation strategy 

RE renewable energy 

RFDS Reasonably Foreseeable Development Scenario 

RIP range improvement project 

RMIS Recreation Management Information System 

RMP resource management plan 

RMZ recreation management zone 

RNA Research Natural Area 

ROD record of decision 

ROI region of influence 

ROS Recreation Opportunity Spectrum 

ROW right-of-way 

S soils 

SASEM Simple Approach Smoke Estimation Model 

SHPO State Historic Preservation Office 

SIP State Implementation Plan 

SNPLMA Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act 

SOG standard operating guideline 

SOP standard operating procedure 

SRMA special recreation management area 

SRP special recreation permit 

SSS special status species 

T&E threatened and endangered 

TA transportation and access 

TC tribal consultation 

TCP traditional cultural property 

TDS total dissolved solids 

TM transportation and travel management 

TNEB thriving natural ecological balance 
LIST OF ACRONYMS (continued)

Acronym or Abbreviation Full Phrase 

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

TNR temporary nonrenewable 

TSP total suspended particles 

TSS total suspended solids 

US United States 

USC United States Code 

USDI United States Department of the Interior 

USFS United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service 

USFWS US Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service 

USGS US Geological Survey 

VF vegetation forest and woodland products 

VR vegetation rangelands 

VRI visual resource inventory 

VRM visual resource management 

VRW vegetation riparian and wetlands 

VW vegetation weeds 

WA wilderness area 

WAFWA Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 

WD Winnemucca District 

WDM wildlife damage management 

WDO Winnemucca District Office 

WFDSS Wildland Fire Decision Support System

WFM wildland fire ecology management 

WFSA wildland fire situation analysis 

WHB wild horses and burros 

WR water resources 

WSA wilderness study area 

WSR wild and scenic river 

WUG Western Utility Group 

WUI Wildland Urban Interface 

WWV watchable wildlife viewing site 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

4.2.15 Visual Resources 

Summary 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

management actions to protect sensitive visual resource values. 

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

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

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

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

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

areas. 

Methods of Analysis 

Methods and Assumptions

Potential impacts on visual resources from each alternative are based on interdisciplinary team 

knowledge of the resources and the WDO planning area, review of literature, and information 

gathered from the public during the planning process. To the extent practical, spatial data was used 

to compare the proposed management of each alternative to the objectives for VRM classes. 

Various actions that might create changes to the basic landscape elements (form, line, color, and 

texture) were considered in identifying potential impacts. Effects are quantified where possible. In 

absence of quantitative data, best professional judgment was used. Impacts are sometimes described 

using ranges of potential impacts or in qualitative terms, if appropriate. Impacts were assessed 

according to the following assumptions: 

• Scenic resources would remain in demand within the WDO over the life of the RMP; 

• The demand for recreational use would continue to increase over the life of the RMP, 

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

management actions to protect sensitive visual resource values; 

• All laws for the management and protection of visual resources would be followed, to the 

extent allowed by the budget and available personnel; 

• Any new surface-disturbing activities proposed would be subject to NEPA analysis, which 

would include a VRM contrast rating; 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-377 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

• Activities proposed that would not initially meet VRM objectives for the area would be 

mitigated to the extent needed to meet the objectives. Those activities proposed that could 

not be mitigated would not be authorized; 

• Incorrect or inconsistent visual resource management classifications would continue to make 

managing visual resources difficult and threaten the quality of visual resources; 

• Some proactive restoration of areas that do not meet desired visual resource objectives may 

be completed each year; and 

• Conflicts in the rural and urban interface will increase as rural subdivision development 

increases. 

Effects from Air Quality Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

The BLM would minimize degradation of the airshed by managing wildland fire, including 

prescribed fire, while meeting federal and state air quality and opacity standards. This would 

continue to promote visually clear skies over BLM-managed lands. There would be no new impacts. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

There are no impacts because there are no actions that are likely to affect aesthetics and visual 

resources on BLM-administered land. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

The impacts are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

The impacts are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

The impacts are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Effects from Geology Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

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

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Alternative A does not address unique geologic resources. Therefore, there would continue to be no 

requirements for the BLM to protect unique geologic resources and, as a result, the visual resources 

associated with the unique geologic resources. This could result in activities, such as mining, which 

lead to the deterioration of visual resources associated with the unique geologic resources. There 

would be no new impacts. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-378 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

The BLM would identify areas of unique geologic interest. Six unique geologic resources are 

specifically identified and would remain open for all methods of mineral disposal subject to 

implementation of permit stipulations or mitigation measures to reduce undue adverse impacts. 

Although permit stipulations or mitigation measures would reduce undue adverse impacts, the 

potential for adverse impacts would not necessarily be entirely eliminated. As a result, the natural 

landscape could be altered in a way that could directly or indirectly diminish the aesthetics of the 

unique geologic resources and the surrounding landscape. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

The BLM would identify areas of unique geologic interest. Six unique geologic resources are 

specifically identified. The BLM would designate areas containing unique geologic resources as 

exclusion zones for ROWs and other discretionary actions and would close these areas to salable 

mineral disposal. Leasable minerals within unique geologic areas would be available with an NSO 

stipulation. The BLM would pursue withdrawal from the operation of the General Mining Law of 

areas containing unique geologic resources. As a result, the aesthetics of the unique geologic 

resources and the surrounding landscape would be protected. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

The impacts on visual resources with respect to unique geologic resources would be the same as 

those under Alternative C. 

Effects from Soil Resources Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no impacts because there are no actions that would likely affect aesthetics and visual 

resources on BLM-administered land. 

Effects from Water Resources Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

The BLM would continue to protect and maintain watersheds so that they appropriately capture, 

retain, and release water of quality that meets or exceeds state and federal standards. This would 

promote clean water in, for example, streams, resulting in visually clear aquatic landscapes. There 

would be no new impacts. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

There are no impacts because there are no actions that are likely to affect aesthetics and visual 

resources on BLM-administered land. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

The impacts are the same as those under Alternative A. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-379 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

The impacts are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

The impacts are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Effects from Vegetation—Forest/Woodland Products Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no impacts because there are no actions that are likely to affect aesthetics and visual 

resources on BLM-administered land. 

Effects from Vegetation—Weeds Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

The BLM would continue to minimize the spread of weeds so that native vegetation could thrive. 

This would promote a visual landscape with flora that is typical of the Great Basin. There would be 

no new impacts. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

There would be no alternative-specific impacts because there are no actions that affect aesthetics and 

visual resources on BLM-administered land. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

The impacts are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

The impacts are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

The impacts are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Effects from Chemical and Biological Control 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no impacts because there are no actions that are likely to affect aesthetics and visual 

resources on BLM-administered land. 

Effects from Vegetation—Rangeland Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

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

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-380 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Alternative A does not address the type of seeds to be used for rehabilitation and reclamation, but 

the assumption is that both native and introduced seeds would be used. By using introduced seeds 

for rehabilitation and reclamation, the land being rehabilitated or reclaimed would gain the benefit of 

being vegetated; however, it would be vegetated with plants that are noticeably foreign to the area’s 

native flora. No new impacts would occur. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

The BLM would use crested wheatgrass, forage kochia, or other noninvasive introduced seeds for 

rehabilitation and reclamation. By using noninvasive introduced seeds for rehabilitation and 

reclamation, the land being rehabilitated or reclaimed would gain the benefit of being vegetated; 

however, it would be vegetated with plants that are noticeably foreign to the area’s native flora. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Option 1 

When possible, the BLM would use local native seed collections for rehabilitation and reclamation. 

Priority for use of seeds and plant materials is to use locally collected native seed first, then use 

native seeds. By using native seed for rehabilitation and reclamation, the land being rehabilitated or 

reclaimed would gain the benefit of being vegetated with plants that are similar to an area’s native 

flora. This would have a greater impact on the visual environment than under Alternatives A and B. 

Option 2 

In areas that demonstrate a reasonable chance of success, the BLM would restore, protect, and

improve degraded rangelands by initiating land treatments. The BLM would use management tools, 

such as vegetation manipulation (mechanical and biological treatments), fencing, and use restrictions. 

It would allow natural recovery due to the presence of surviving perennial plants or a sufficient seed 

source. Because the BLM would allow for natural recovery, the assumption is that recovery would 

rely on native, and not introduced, plants. This would have a greater impact on the visual 

environment than under Alternatives A and B. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

When effective, local native seed collections should be used for rehabilitation and reclamation. 

Priority for use of seeds and plant materials is as follows: first, locally collected native seed; second, 

native seeds; then third, introduced seed. By using native seed for rehabilitation and reclamation, the 

land being rehabilitated or reclaimed would gain the benefit of being vegetated with plants that are 

similar to an area’s native flora. By using introduced seed for rehabilitation and reclamation, the land 

being rehabilitated or reclaimed would gain the benefit of being vegetated; however, it would be 

vegetated with plants that are noticeably foreign to the area’s native flora. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-381 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Effects from Vegetation—Riparian and Wetlands Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no impacts because there are no actions that are likely to affect aesthetics and visual 

resources on BLM-administered land. 

Effects from Fish and Wildlife Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

The BLM would continue to apply land health standards, SOPs, BMPs, use restrictions, or 

mitigation measures to all BLM and BLM-authorized activities to maintain and improve wildlife 

habitat. This would promote a visual landscape with flora and fauna that is typical of the Great 

Basin. There would be no new impacts. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

The BLM would continue to not designate priority 1 and 2 wildlife habitat areas. There would be no 

new impacts on visual resources. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

The BLM would designate no acres as priority 1 wildlife habitat areas (exclusion areas) and 716,528 

acres as priority 2 (avoidance areas) (Table 4-10). This would limit certain types of activities to 

protect habitat. In turn, it would preserve the naturalness of the areas, thereby protecting visual 

resources. Most of the avoidance areas would be in VRI Class III areas. 

Table 4-10 

VRI Classes for Land Designations—Alternative B 

Land 

Designation 

VRI Class I 

Area (acres)

VRI Class II 

Area (acres)

VRI Class III 

Area (acres)

VRI Class IV 

Area (acres) 

Priority 1 0 0 0 0 

Priority 2 53,340 108,274 486,938 67,964 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

The BLM would designate 1,279,481 acres as priority 1 wildlife habitat areas (exclusion areas) and 

869,645 acres as priority 2 (avoidance areas) (Table 4-11). This would limit certain types of activities 

to protect habitat. In turn, it would preserve the naturalness of the areas, thereby protecting visual 

resources. Most of the avoidance and exclusion areas would be in VRI Class IV areas. Because 

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

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

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-382 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Table 4-11 

VRI Classes for Land Designations—Alternative C 

Land Designation 

VRI Class I 

Area (acres) 

VRI Class II 

Area (acres) 

VRI Class III 

Area (acres) 

VRI Class IV

Area (acres)

Priority 1 103,443 71,319 291,572 816,588 

Priority 2 59,358 0 27,320 782,968 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

The BLM would designate 699,929 acres as priority 1 wildlife habitat areas (exclusion areas) and 

1,325,967 acres as priority 2 (avoidance areas) (Table 4-12). This would limit certain types of 

activities to protect habitat. In turn, it would preserve the naturalness of the areas, thereby protecting 

visual resources. Most of the avoidance and exclusion areas would be in VRI Class IV areas. 

Table 4-12 

VRI Classes for Land Designations—Alternative D 

Land 

Designation 

VRI Class I 

Area (acres)

VRI Class II 

Area (acres)

VRI Class III

Area (acres) 

VRI Class IV 

Area (acres) 

Priority 1 67,916 0 72,390 486,938 

Priority 2 108,497 86,243 334,490 808,110 

Effects from Special Status Species Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no effects common to all alternatives from special status species management. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Alternative A would continue to protect sensitive plant species and the habitat of sensitive animals. 

This would continue to promote a visual landscape with flora and fauna that is typical of the Great 

Basin. There would be no new impacts. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Alternative B would implement additional actions that protect sensitive plant species and the habitat 

of sensitive animals. This would increase the protection of a visual landscape with flora and fauna 

that is typical of the Great Basin. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

The impacts on visual resources from special status species management are similar to those under 

Alternative B. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-383 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

The impacts on visual resources from special status species management are similar to those under 

Alternative B. 

Effects from Wild Horse and Burro Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no impacts because there are no actions that are likely to affect aesthetics and visual 

resources on BLM-administered land. 

Effects from Wildland Fire Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Resource Advisors would continue to be notified of all wildfires within the resource management 

planning area in order to coordinate, prioritize, and mitigate resource values and concerns. This 

would allow the visual resources specialist to provide input on visual resources near a wildfire. There 

would be no new impacts. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Alternative A does not identify areas for allowing fire for resource benefit. There would continue to 

be no requirements for the BLM to use wildland fire to provide resource benefits. Consequently, the 

impacts on visual resources identified under Alternatives B and C would not occur. There would be 

no new impacts. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

The BLM would designate 110,167 acres as priority areas where fire may be used to provide 

resource benefits (Table 4-13). The assumption is that using wildland fire to provide resource 

benefits would promote healthy habitat native to the Great Basin. Consequently, allowing fire for 

resource benefit would promote a visual landscape with flora that is typical of the Great Basin. 

However, after an area had been burned, there would be short-term impacts on visual resources, 

including scorched terrain and vegetation, until native vegetation recolonized burned areas. Most of 

the fire use would occur in VRI Class IV areas. 

Table 4-13 

VRI Classes for Fire Use—Alternative B 

Land 

Designation 

VRI Class I 

Area (acres)

VRI Class II 

Area (acres)

VRI Class III 

Area (acres)

VRI Class IV 

Area (acres) 

Fire Use 37,190 3,471 3,854 65,652 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-384 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

The impacts on visual resources from wildland fire management are the same as those under 

Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

The BLM would designate 9,932 acres as priority areas where fire may be used to provide resource 

benefits (Table 4-14). The assumption is that using wildland fire to provide resource benefits would 

promote healthy habitat native to the Great Basin. Consequently, allowing fire for resource benefit 

would promote a visual landscape with flora that is typical of the Great Basin. However, after an 

area had been burned, there would be short-term impacts on visual resources, including scorched 

terrain and vegetation, until native vegetation recolonized burned areas. Most of the fire use would 

occur in VRI Class IV areas. 

Table 4-14 

VRI Classes for Fire Use—Alternative D 

Land 

Designation 

VRI Class I 

Area (acres)

VRI Class II 

Area (acres) 

VRI Class III 

Area (acres) 

VRI Class IV 

Area (acres) 

Fire Use 2,215 3,468 45 4,204 

Effects from Cultural Resources Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

As policy and guidance develops, the BLM would continue to manage the CNHT consistent with 

the administrative, resource, partnership, and visitor objectives, goals, and actions outlined in the 

National Scenic and Historic Trails Strategy and Work Plan. As a result, scenic values associated 

with the trail would continue to be managed. There would be no new impacts. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Alternative A does not specify a VRM class for the viewshed of the Lovelock Cave Backcountry 

Byway. As a result, activities could occur in the viewshed that could alter the scenic landscape along 

the Lovelock Cave Backcountry Byway. There would be no new impacts. 

The BLM would mitigate potential adverse effects on historic landscapes associated with eligible, 

unevaluated, or high potential CNHT segments by adhering to a VRM Class II objective within six 

miles of the trail centerline or to the visual horizon within the six-mile zone. However, due to the 

need to address incorrect or inconsistent VRM classifications, managing visual resources to a VRM 

Class II objective for all segments of the CNHT would continue to be problematic. For example, 

due to the proximity of the CNHT segments to I-80 and utility corridors, it is unlikely VRM Class II 

objectives could be met. There would be no new impacts. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-385 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

The BLM would protect the viewshed of the Lovelock Cave Backcountry Byway by managing the 

viewshed to VRM III. As a result, there would be greater protection of the scenic landscape along 

the Lovelock Cave Backcountry Byway because there are currently no standards against which to 

manage the scenic landscape. Actions that occur in the viewshed would be required to partially retain 

the landscape character. 

The BLM would protect historic landscapes associated with the CNHT by adhering to a VRM III 

objective within six miles of the centerline or to the visual horizon within the six-mile zone, except 

along the I-80 corridor and within the utility corridors, which would be managed to VRM IV. This 

action would provide a more attainable set of standards for managing visual resources where 

segments of the CNHT are near I-80. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

The BLM would protect the viewshed of the Lovelock Cave Backcountry Byway by managing the 

viewshed to VRM II. As a result, there would be greater protection of the scenic landscape along the 

Lovelock Cave Backcountry Byway because there are currently no standards against which to 

manage activities that alter the scenic landscape. Actions that occur in the viewshed would be 

required to retain the landscape character, which is a higher standard than partially retaining the 

landscape character. 

The impacts on visual resources with respect to the CNHT are the same as those under Alternative 

A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

The impacts on visual resources with respect to the Lovelock Cave Backcountry Byway are the same 

as those under Alternative C. 

The BLM would protect historic landscapes associated with the CNHT by adhering to a VRM Class 

II objective within six miles of the trail centerline or to the visual horizon within the six-mile zone, 

except along the I-80 corridor and within the utility corridor at the southern edge of the Black Rock 

Desert. The portion of the trail viewshed that falls within the Black Rock Desert utility corridor 

would be managed to VRM III. Within the I-80 corridor, the trail viewshed would be managed to 

VRM III within six miles of the trail centerline or to the visual horizon within the six-mile zone, 

except for the power line corridor and sensitive areas of the trail viewshed. Sensitive areas would be 

managed to VRM II one mile on either side of the centerline of the trail. The I-80 trail viewshed in 

this power line corridor would be managed to VRM IV. This action would provide a more attainable 

set of standards for managing visual resources where segments of the CNHT are near both I-80 and 

utility corridors. 

Effects from Tribal Consultation 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no impacts because there are no actions that are likely to affect aesthetics and visual 

resources on BLM-administered land. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-386 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Effects from Paleontological Resources Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no impacts because there are no actions that are likely to affect aesthetics and visual 

resources on BLM-administered land. 

Effects from Visual Resources Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

The BLM would continue to use the visual resource contrast rating system during project-level 

planning to determine whether or not proposed activities would meet VRM objectives. Mitigation 

measures would be identified to reduce visual contrasts, and rehabilitation plans would be prepared 

to address landscape modifications on a case-by-case basis. Also, the BLM would continue to 

manage National Historic Trails according to its policy and guidance by protecting scenic landscapes 

and historic settings. Furthermore, WSAs would continue to be managed as VRM Class I. As a 

result, visual resources during specific projects, near NHTs, and in WSAs would continue to be 

preserved. There would be no new impacts. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

VRI Class designations are listed under Table 4-15 for VRM Classes for Alternative A. 

Table 4-15 

VRI Classes for VRM Classes—Alternative A 

VRM Class 

Designations 

Alternative A 

VRM Class 

Designations 

Acres 

VRI 

Class I 

Acres 

VRI 

Class I

Percent 

VRI 

Class II

Acres 

VRI 

Class II

Percent 

VRI 

Class III

Acres 

VRI 

Class III

Percent 

VRI 

Class IV

Acres 

VRI 

Class IV

Percent 

TOTAL

VRM I 420,271 416,534 100% 1 0% 3,734 0% 2 0% 420,271 

VRM II 346,302 0 0% 62,451 23% 163,476 11% 120,375 2% 346,302 

VRM III 678,883 69 0% 28,724 10% 214,930 14% 435,159 9% 678,882 

VRM IV 5,667,437 0 0% 155,866 57% 1,095,131 72% 4,416,432 88% 5,667,429 

Sum 7,112,893 416,603 100% 247,042 90% 1,477,271 97%

4,971,96

8 99% 7,112,884 

There would be no change to the VRM Class designations of BLM-administered land. Land would 

continue to be managed under the current VRM Class designations. There would be no new 

impacts. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

VRI Class designations are listed under Table 4-16 for VRM Classes for Alternative B. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-387 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Table 4-16 

VRI Classes for VRM Classes—Alternative B 

VRM Class 

Designations 

Alternative B 

VRM Class 

Designations 

Acres 

VRI 

Class I

Acres 

VRI 

Class I

Percent 

VRI 

Class II

Acres 

VRI 

Class 

II

Percent 

VRI Class 

III Acres 

VRI Class 

III

Percent 

VRI Class 

IV Acres 

VRI 

Class IV

Percent 

TOTAL

VRM I 416,652 416,652 100% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 416,652 

VRM II 391,203 0% 273,509 100% 29,264 2% 88,410 2% 391,183 

VRM III 2,302,933 0% 0 0% 1,487,223 98% 807,303 16% 2,294,526 

VRM IV 4,107,965 0% 0 0% 0 0% 4,103,633 82% 4,103,633 

Sum 7,218,753 416,652 100% 273,509 100% 1,516,487 100% 4,999,346 100% 7,205,994 

Alternative B would designate VRI Class I and Class II lands as VRM Class I and II lands, 

respectively. Alternative B would designate VRI Class III lands as VRM Class II and III lands. Also, 

Alternative B would manage VRI Class IV lands as VRM Class II, III, and IV lands. Consequently, 

the VRM class designation of BLM-administered land would be equal to or more protective than the 

VRI class designations. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

VRI Class designations are listed under Table 4-17 for VRM Classes for Alternative C. 

Table 4-17 

VRI Classes for VRM Classes—Alternative C 

VRM Class 

Designations 

Alternative C 

VRM Class 

Designations 

Acres

VRI 

Class I 

Acres 

VRI 

Class I

Percent 

VRI 

Class II

Acres 

VRI 

Class II

Percent 

VRI 

Class III

Acres 

VRI 

Class III

Percent 

VRI 

Class IV

Acres 

VRI 

Class IV

Percent 

TOTAL

VRM I 416,652 416,652 100% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 416,652 

VRM II 3,083,211 0% 273,509 100% 560,435 37% 2,240,810 45% 3,074,754 

VRM III 2,807,858 0% 0 0% 956,057 63% 1,849,597 37% 2,805,654 

VRM IV 911,002 0% 0 0% 0 0% 908,940 18% 908,940 

Sum 7,218,723 416,652 100% 273,509 100% 1,516,492 100% 4,999,347 100% 7,206,000 

The effects would be similar to Alternative B. However, because the designation of VRI Class III 

and IV acres is different, visual resources would gain greater protection under Alternative C. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

VRI Class designations are listed under Table 4-18 for VRM Classes for Alternative D. 

The effects would be similar to Alternative C. However, because the designation of VRI Class IV 

acres is different, visual resources would gain less protection under Alternative D. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-388 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Table 4-18 

VRI Classes for VRM Classes—Alternative D 

VRM Class 

Designations 

Alternative D 

VRM Class 

Designations 

Acres

VRI 

Class I

Acres 

VRI 

Class I

Percent 

VRI 

Class II

Acres 

VRI 

Class II

Percent 

VRI 

Class III

Acres 

VRI 

Class III

Percent 

VRI 

Class IV

Acres 

VRI 

Class IV

Percent 

TOTAL

VRM I 416,652 416,652 100% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 416,652 

VRM II 2,780,416 0% 273,506 100% 586,422 39% 1,912,175 38% 2,772,103 

VRM III 3,073,906 0% 0 0% 930,067 61% 2,138,625 43% 3,068,692 

VRM IV 961,504 0% 0 0% 0 0% 948,669 19% 948,669 

Sum 7,232,478 416,652 100% 273,506 100% 1,516,489 100% 4,999,469 100% 7,206,116 

Effects from Cave and Karst Resource Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no effects common to all alternatives from cave and karst resources. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Alternative A does not address unique geologic resources. Therefore, there would continue to be no 

requirements for the BLM to protect unique geologic resources and, as a result, the visual resources 

associated with the unique geologic resources. This could result in activities, such as recreation, 

which lead to the deterioration of visual resources associated with cave and karst resources. There 

would be no new impacts. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

The BLM would implement appropriate mitigation measures, such as seasonal closures, avoidance, 

fencing, bat gates, and signing to protect unique geologic features and wildlife habitat. As a result, 

the aesthetics of the unique geologic resources and the surrounding landscape would be protected. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Unlike Alternatives B and D, the BLM would not implement mitigation measures, such as seasonal 

closures, avoidance, fencing, bat gates, and signing to protect unique geologic features and wildlife 

habitat. Alternative C would also be different in that the BLM would not identify undiscovered sites 

or promote increased visitation. As a result, there is a greater chance for the aesthetics of unique 

geologic resources in known caves and karsts to be altered than the aesthetics of unique geologic 

resources in lesser known caves and karsts. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

The impacts on visual resources with respect to unique geologic resources are the same as those 

under Alternative B. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-389 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Effects from Livestock Grazing Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no impacts because there are no actions that are likely to affect aesthetics and visual 

resources on BLM-administered land. 

Effects from Minerals Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

RFDs 

Future actions based on reasonable development could result in indirect impacts. Future exploration 

and development could involve new structures, roads, and operations, which could be in areas where 

people live and work, where frequent recreation occurs, where expansive vistas are available, where 

minimal nearby development exists, or where little human-made light is present. There would be a 

potential for impacts that alter the natural aesthetics of an area and nighttime light. General 

stipulations for resource development would reduce potential impacts. The assumption is that 

changes to the natural aesthetics of an area and nighttime light would be consistent with the area’s 

VRM classification. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Effects from minerals (salable, fluid, solid, and locatable) management actions are described below. 

Actions that decrease the amount of land open to minerals management actions would result in 

fewer visual resources being altered by minerals management activity and structures. Actions that 

increase the amount of land open to minerals management actions would result in more visual 

resources being altered by minerals management activity and structures. Visual resources would be 

altered by the presence of, for example, nighttime light, roads, vegetation loss, and loss of open 

space. Minerals management actions would be required to comply with designated VRM classes. 

Salable 

VRI Class designations are listed under Table 4-19 for BLM-administered land that is open for 

mineral material (salable) actions. There would be no change to the amount of BLM-administered 

land designated as open with standard stipulations for mineral material (salable) actions. Impacts on 

visual resources would not change. 

Table 4-19 

VRI Classes for Land Open for Mineral Material (Salable) Actions—Alternative A 

VRI Class 

Acres of Land Open for Mineral 

Material (Salable) Actions 

(Standard Stipulations) 

I 58 

II 266,945 

III 1,510,730 

IV 4,997,821 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-390 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Fluid 

VRI Class designations are listed under Table 4-20 for BLM-administered land that is open for fluid 

mineral actions. There would be no change to the amount of BLM-administered land designated as 

open with standard stipulations for fluid mineral actions. Impacts on visual resources would not 

change. 

Table 4-20 

VRI Classes for Land Open for Fluid Mineral Actions—Alternative A 

VRI Class 

Acres of Land Open for Fluid 

Mineral Actions (Standard 

Stipulations) 

I 58 

II 265,384 

III 1,502,131 

IV 4,948,711 

Solid 

VRI Class designations are listed under Table 4-21 for BLM-administered land that is open for solid 

leasable mineral actions. There would be no change to the amount of BLM-administered land 

designated as open with standard stipulations for solid leasable mineral actions. Impacts on visual 

resources would not change. 

Table 4-21 

VRI Classes for Land Open for Solid Leasable Mineral Actions—Alternative A 

VRI Class 

Acres of Land Open for Solid 

Leasable Mineral Actions 

(Standard Stipulations) 

I 58 

II 266,945 

III 1,511,307 

IV 4,997,876 

Locatable 

VRI Class designations are listed under Table 4-22 for BLM-administered land that is open for 

locatable mineral actions. There would be no change to the amount of BLM-administered land 

designated as open with standard stipulations for locatable mineral actions. Impacts on visual 

resources would not change. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-391 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Table 4-22 

VRI Classes for Land Open for Locatable Mineral Actions—Alternative A 

VRI Class 

Acres of Land Open for 

Locatable Mineral 

Actions (Standard 

Stipulations) 

I 413,589 

II 266,943 

III 1,510,613 

IV 5,123,574 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Salable 

VRI Class designations are listed under Table 4-23 for BLM-administered land that is open for 

mineral material (salable) actions. 

Table 4-23 

VRI Classes for Land Open for Mineral Material (Salable) Actions—Alternative B 

VRI Class 

Acres of Land Open 

for Mineral Material 

(Salable) Actions 

(Government Use) 

Acres of Land Open 

for Mineral Material 

(Salable) Actions 

(Special Stipulations) 

I 58 0.008 

II 56,261 39,333 

III 161,303 325,120 

IV 649,490 1,080,791 

Noteworthy changes would occur for VRI Classes II-IV. Alternative B would reduce the amount of 

VRI Class II-IV land open for mineral material (salable) actions. 

Fluid 

VRI Class designations are listed under Table 4-24 for BLM-administered land that is open for fluid 

mineral actions. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-392 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Table 4-24 

VRI Classes for Land Open for Fluid Mineral Actions—Alternative B 

VRI Class 

Acres of Land Open 

for Fluid Mineral 

Actions (Standard 

Stipulations) 

Acres of Land 

Open for Fluid 

Mineral Actions 

(Special 

Stipulations) 

I 0.004 0.004 

II 177,578 85,951 

III 1028182 354,764 

IV 3,267,053 1,080,791 

Noteworthy changes would occur for VRI Classes I-IV. Alternative B would reduce the amount of 

VRI Classes I-IV land that is open for fluid mineral actions. 

Solid 

VRI Class designations are listed under Table 4-25 for BLM-administered land that is open for solid 

leasable mineral actions. 

Table 4-25 

VRI Classes for Land Open for Solid Leasable Mineral Actions—Alternative B 

VRI Class 

Acres of Land Open 

for Solid Leasable 

Mineral Actions 

(Standard Stipulations)

Acres of Land 

Open for Solid 

Leasable Mineral 

Actions (Special 

Stipulations) 

I 0.004 0.008 

II 177,578 27,446 

III 1,028,191 265,668 

IV 3,267,179 1,080,791 

Noteworthy changes would occur for VRI Classes I-IV. Alternative B would decrease the amount of 

VRI Class I-IV land that is open for solid leasable mineral actions 

Locatable 

VRI Class designations are listed under Table 4-26 for BLM-administered land that is open for 

locatable mineral actions. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-393 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Table 4-26 

VRI Classes for Land Open for Locatable Mineral Actions—Alternative B 

VRI Class 

Acres of Land Open 

for Locatable Mineral 

Actions (Standard 

Stipulations) 

Acres of Land 

Open for 

Locatable Mineral 

Actions (Special 

Stipulations) 

I 0.002 413,637 

II 78,382 195,122 

III 751,598 764,482 

IV 2,068,428 3,055,193 

Noteworthy changes would occur for VRI Classes I-IV. Alternative B would increase the amount of 

VRI Classes I-IV land that is open for locatable mineral actions. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Salable 

VRI Class designations are listed under Table 4-27 for BLM-administered land that is open for 

mineral material (salable) actions. 

Table 4-27 

VRI Classes for Land Open for Mineral Material (Salable) Actions—Alternative C 

VRI Class 

Acres of Land Open 

for Mineral Material 

(Salable) Actions 

(Standard Stipulations)

Acres of Land Open 

for Mineral Material 

(Salable) Actions 

(Government Use) 

I 0.006 58 

II 65594 201,136 

III 715,582 726,221 

IV 1,965,491 2,693,694 

Noteworthy changes would occur for VRM Classes II-IV. Alternative C would decrease the amount 

of VRI Classes II-IV land open for mineral material (salable) actions. 

Fluid 

VRI Class designations are listed under Table 4-28 for BLM-administered land that is open for fluid 

mineral actions. Noteworthy changes would occur for VRM Classes I-IV. Alternative C would 

decrease the amount of VRI Classes I-IV land open for fluid mineral actions. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-394 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Table 4-28 

VRI Classes for Land Open for Fluid Mineral Actions—Alternative C 

VRI Class 

Acres of Land Open for 

Fluid Mineral Actions 

(Standard Stipulations) 

I 0.006 

II 65,594 

III 716894 

IV 1,967,321 

Solid 

VRI Class designations are listed under Table 4-29 for BLM-administered land that is open for solid 

leasable mineral actions. 

Noteworthy changes would occur for VRM Classes I-IV. Alternative C would decrease the amount 

of VRI Classes I-IV land open for solid leasable mineral actions. 

Table 4-29 

VRI Classes for Land Open for Solid Leasable Mineral Actions—Alternative C 

VRI Class 

Acres of Land Open for Solid 

Leasable Mineral Actions 

(Standard Stipulations) 

I 0.006 

II 65,594 

III 716764 

IV 1,966,837 

Locatable 

VRI Class designations are listed under Table 4-30 for BLM-administered land that is open for 

locatable mineral actions. Noteworthy changes would occur for VRI Classes I-IV. Alternative C 

would decrease the amount of VRI Classes I-IV land open for locatable mineral actions. 

Table 4-30 

VRI Classes for Land Open for Locatable Mineral Actions—Alternative C 

VRI Class 

Acres of Land Open for 

Locatable Mineral Actions 

(Standard Stipulations) 

Acres of Land Open 

for Locatable Mineral 

Actions (Special 

Stipulations) 

I 0.014 390,596 

II 122,331 86,108 

III 809,424 588,407 

IV 2,483,568 2,570,050 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-395 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Salable 

VRM Class designations are listed under Table 4-31 for BLM-administered land that is open for 

mineral material (salable) actions. Noteworthy changes would occur for VRI Classes II-IV. 

Alternative D would decrease the amount of VRI Classes II-IV land open for mineral material 

(salable) actions 

Table 4-31 

VRI Classes for Land Open for Mineral Material (Salable) Actions—Alternative D 

VRI Class 

Acres of Land 

Open for Mineral 

Material (Salable) 

Actions (Standard 

Stipulations) 

Acres of Land 

Open for Mineral 

Material (Salable) 

Actions 

(Government Use)

Acres of Land Open 

for Mineral Material 

(Salable) Actions 

(Special 

Stipulations) 

I 0.021 58 0.004 

II 119,605 83,120 62,425 

III 758092 390,618 280,236 

IV 2,610,014 1,297,148 859,875 

Fluid 

VRI Class designations are listed under Table 4-32 for BLM-administered land that is open for fluid 

mineral actions. 

Table 4-32 

VRI Classes for Land Open for Fluid Mineral Actions—Alternative D 

VRI Class 

Acres of Land Open 

for Fluid Mineral 

Actions (Standard 

Stipulations) 

Acres of Land Open 

for Fluid Mineral 

Actions (Special 

Stipulations) 

I 0.004 0.008 

II 143,168 59,567 

III 890,945 354,888 

IV 2,973,914 1,245,079 

Noteworthy changes would occur for VRI Classes I-IV. Alternative D would decrease the amount 

of VRI Classes I-IV land open for fluid mineral actions. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-396 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Solid 

VRI Class designations are listed under Table 4-33 for BLM-administered land that is open for solid 

leasable mineral actions. Noteworthy changes would occur for VRI Classes I-IV. Alternative D 

would decrease the amount of VRI Classes I-IV land open for solid leasable mineral actions. 

Table 4-33 

VRI Classes for Land Open for Solid Leasable Mineral Actions—Alternative D 

VRI Class 

Acres of Land Open 

for Solid Leasable 

Mineral Actions 

(Standard Stipulations)

Acres of Land Open 

for Solid Leasable 

Mineral Actions 

(Special Stipulations) 

I 0.004 0.008 

II 143,169 59,594 

III 890,842 354,732 

IV 2,973,914 1,245,079 

Locatable 

VRI Class designations are listed under Table 4-34 for BLM-administered land that is open for 

locatable mineral actions. Noteworthy changes would occur for VRI Classes I, III, and IV. 

Alternative D would decrease the amount of VRI Class I, III and IV land open for locatable mineral 

actions. 

Table 4-34 

VRI Classes for Land Open for Locatable Mineral Actions—Alternative D 

VRI Class 

Acres of Land Open 

for Locatable Mineral 

Actions (Standard 

Stipulations) 

Acres of Land 

Open for 

Locatable Mineral 

Actions (Special 

Stipulations) 

I 0.004 412,677 

II 154,232 119,275 

III 921,597 587,695 

IV 3,073,052 1,919,819 

Effects from Recreation, Visitor Outreach, and Services Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

The BLM would continue to construct appropriate new facilities in such a way as to be unobtrusive 

with local landscape settings. This would allow the public to use facilities during recreation that 

blend in with the surrounding landscape. There would be no new impacts. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-397 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

The BLM would continue to avoid the duplication of roads that have common destinations. As a 

result, the proliferation of roads, which alter natural aesthetics, would be minimized. There would be 

no new impacts. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

The BLM would continue to manage OHV designations according to Table 4-35. 

Table 4-35 

VRI Classes for OHV Use—Alternative A 

Land Designation 

VRI Class I 

Area (acres) 

VRI Class II 

Area (acres) 

VRI Class III 

Area (acres) 

VRI Class IV 

Area (acres) 

Open 58 262,374 1,510,542 4,995,539 

Limited 416,604 25 183 128,540 

Closed 17,138 4,555 440 2,701 

There would be no change in the designation of BLM-administered land for OHV use and, 

therefore, there would be no new impacts on visual resources. Ongoing impacts, such as OHV use 

in visually sensitive areas, would continue. Continued use of OHVs in visually sensitive areas could 

cause visual resources to deteriorate by, for example, scarring the terrain and disturbing vegetation. 

There would be no new impacts. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

The BLM would manage OHV designations according to Table 4-36. 

Table 4-36 

VRI Classes for OHV Use—Alternative B 

Land Designation 

VRI Class I 

Area (acres) 

VRI Class II 

Area (acres) 

VRI Class III 

Area (acres) 

VRI Class IV 

Area (acres) 

Open 0 4,666 158,468 1,295,571 

Limited 1,265,74 264,094 1,354,801 3,699,611 

Closed 17,138 4,555 440 2,701 

Alternative B would decrease the number of acres designated as open in VRI Classes I-IV. As a 

result, disturbances to the visual environment from motorized vehicles would likely decrease in these 

areas. Also, Alternative B would increase the number of acres designated as limited in VRI Classes 

II-IV. Consequently, disturbances to the visual environment from motorized vehicles would likely 

increase in these areas. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

The BLM would manage OHV designations according to Table 4-37. 

Alternative C would decrease the number of acres designated as open in VRI Classes I-IV. As a 

result, disturbances to the visual environment from motorized vehicles would likely decrease in these 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-398 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

areas. Also, Alternative C would increase the number of acres designated as limited in VRI Classes 

II-IV. Consequently, disturbances to the visual environment from motorized vehicles would likely 

increase in these areas. 

Table 4-37 

VRI Classes for OHV Use—Alternative C 

Land Designation 

VRI Class I 

Area (acres) 

VRI Class II 

Area (acres) 

VRI Class III 

Area (acres)

VRI Class IV 

Area (acres) 

Open 0 0 0 0 

Limited 399,508 268,523 1,511,134 5,092,556 

Closed 17,137 412 5,035 34,287 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

The BLM would manage OHV designations according to Table 4-38. 

Table 4-38 

VRI Classes for OHV Use—Alternative D 

Land Designation 

VRI Class I 

Area (acres) 

VRI Class II 

Area (acres) 

VRI Class III 

Area (acres) 

VRI Class IV 

Area (acres) 

Open 0 4,187 70,471 215,273 

Limited 399,513 264,334 1,440,825 4,902,466 

Closed 17,138 4,968 5,036 8,343 

Alternative D would decrease the number of acres designated as open in VRI Classes I-IV. As a 

result, disturbances to the visual environment from motorized vehicles would likely decrease in these 

areas. Also, Alternative D would increase the number of acres designated as limited in VRI Classes 

II-IV. Consequently, disturbances to the visual environment from motorized vehicles would likely 

increase in these areas. 

Effects from Renewable Energy Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

The BLM would continue to process rights-of-way to wind energy developers for project areas and 

wind monitor and testing sites. It also would continue to authorize ROWs by applying appropriate 

BMPs, land use restrictions, stipulations, and mitigation measures. Because these actions are already 

occurring, there would be no new impacts on visual resources. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

The BLM would continue to lease public lands to wind energy companies for developing wind 

energy generation facilities and would continue to maintain exclusion areas applicable to wind energy 

projects within WSAs, ACECs, TCPs, and areas of critical habitat for threatened and endangered 

and sensitive species. Because these actions are already occurring, there would be no new impacts on 

visual resources. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-399 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

The BLM would designate avoidance areas (716,528 acres) to protect resources. Granting ROWs or 

leasing public lands for renewable energy projects in avoidance areas would require special 

stipulation to mitigate any impact on resources. No exclusion zones would be designated. 

Establishing avoidance areas and requiring special stipulations would limit certain types of activities 

from altering the landscape, thereby protecting visual resources. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

The BLM would designate avoidance areas (869,645 acres) to protect resources. Granting ROWs or 

leasing public lands for renewable energy projects in avoidance areas would require special 

stipulation to mitigate any impact on resources. The BLM would reduce undue adverse 

environmental impacts by developing lease stipulations and mitigation measures. The BLM would 

designate 1,279,481 acres as exclusion zones where no overhead transmission lines and ROWs for 

energy projects would be allowed. These actions would limit certain types of activities from altering 

the landscape, thereby protecting visual resources. Because Alternative C designates the most 

exclusion zones and the greatest total exclusion and avoidance zones, it would have the greatest 

impact on protecting visual resources. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

The BLM would designate avoidance areas (1,325,967 acres) to protect resources. Granting ROWs 

or leasing public lands for renewable energy projects in avoidance areas would require special 

stipulation to mitigate any impact to resources. The BLM would designate 699,929 acres of exclusion 

zones where no overhead transmission lines and ROWs energy projects would be allowed. These 

actions would limit certain types of activities from altering the landscape, thereby protecting visual 

resources. 

Effects from Transportation and Access Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

The BLM would continue to maintain its system roads in accordance with the BLM Roads 

Maintenance Manual. This would help keep roads from becoming a noticeable detraction from the 

visual landscape. Constructing a road can visually disrupt the form, line, color, and general setting of 

the local environment. There are no new impacts. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

The BLM would continue to relocate, realign, or redesign current BLM roads to prevent or reduce 

sedimentation impacts. This would help minimize erosion, thereby minimizing disturbance to the 

natural landscape. 

Alternative A does not have a road and ROW action similar to Alternatives B and C. This would 

continue to allow road construction that detracts from the integrity and continuity of the visual 

environment. There are no new impacts. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-400 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

The BLM would conduct a condition survey program to identify roads that are necessary for BLM 

use and for roads that contribute to resource damage. The BLM would evaluate the roads’ 

usefulness and would upgrade or downgrade functional classification or maintenance level, as 

appropriate for the need. This would help minimize erosion and the number of roads crisscrossing 

the landscape, thereby minimizing disturbance to the natural landscape. 

The BLM would construct its roads and would require that non-BLM road ROWs be constructed so 

as to avoid fragmenting land. This would help preserve the integrity of the visual landscape by 

preventing roads from dividing the landscape. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

The BLM would conduct a condition survey program to identify roads that are necessary for its use 

and for roads that contribute to resource damage. The BLM would evaluate the roads’ usefulness 

and would upgrade or downgrade functional classification or maintenance level, as appropriate for 

the need. This would help minimize erosion and the number of roads crisscrossing the landscape, 

thereby minimizing disturbance to the natural landscape. These impacts would be the same as 

Alternative B. 

The BLM would construct its roads and would require that non-BLM road ROWs be constructed so 

as to avoid fragmenting land. The BLM would locate roads so as to preserve open space. This would 

help preserve the integrity and continuity of the visual landscape by preventing roads from dividing 

the landscape. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

The BLM would conduct a condition survey program to identify roads that are necessary for its use 

and for roads that contribute to resource damage. The BLM would evaluate the roads’ usefulness 

and would upgrade or downgrade functional classification or maintenance level, as appropriate for 

the need. This would help minimize erosion and the number of roads crisscrossing the landscape, 

thereby minimizing disturbance to the natural landscape. These impacts would be the same as 

Alternative B. 

Alternative D does not have a road and ROW action similar to Alternatives B and C. This would 

continue to allow road construction that detracts from the integrity and continuity of the visual 

environment. There are no new impacts. 

Effects from Lands and Realty Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no effects common to all alternatives from lands and realty management. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

The BLM would continue to manage land tenure adjustments according to Table 4-39. There would 

be no changes involving land tenure adjustments. The fragmented ownership of BLM-administered 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-401 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

lands would continue to make it difficult to manage visual resources. There would be no new 

impacts. 

Table 4-39 

VRI Classes for Land Tenure Adjustments—Alternative A 

Land Tenure 

 Adjustment 

VRI Class I 

Area (acres) 

VRI Class II 

Area (acres)

VRI Class III 

Area (acres) 

VRI Class IV 

Area (acres) 

Disposal 0 36,974 6,974 2,254,371 

Retention 

(Zones 1 & 2) 416,652 236,668 819,592 2,873,559 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

The BLM would manage land tenure adjustments according to Table 4-40. 

Table 4-40 

VRI Classes for Land Tenure Adjustments—Alternative B 

Land Tenure 

Adjustment 

VRI Class I 

Area (acres)

VRI Class II 

Area (acres) 

VRI Class III 

Area (acres) 

VRI Class IV 

Area (acres) 

Disposal 24,897 34,978 577,137 1,486,920 

Retention 391,755 238,529 939,686 3,506,724 

Unlike Alternative A, Alternative B would dispose of lands designated as VRI Class I. Because VRI 

Class I areas are for WSAs, the BLM would dispose of land once considered aesthetically valuable 

enough to be considered as wilderness. Also, Alternative B would dispose of less land designated as 

VRI Class II. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

The BLM would manage land tenure adjustments according to Table 4-41. 

Table 4-41 

VRI Classes for Land Tenure Adjustments—Alternative C 

Land Tenure 

Adjustment 

VRI Class I 

Area (acres) 

VRI Class II 

Area (acres) 

VRI Class III 

Area (acres) 

VRI Class IV 

Area (acres) 

Disposal 24,892 13,611 373,317 804,095 

Retention 391,760 259,896 1,143,550 4,194,531 

Unlike Alternative A, Alternative C would dispose of lands designated as VRI Class I. Because VRI 

Class I areas are for WSAs, the BLM would dispose of land once considered aesthetically valuable 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-402 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

enough to be considered as wilderness. Also, Alternative C would dispose of less land designated as 

VRI Class II. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

The BLM would manage land tenure adjustments according to Table 4-42. 

Table 4-42 

VRI Classes for Land Tenure Adjustments—Alternative D 

Land Tenure

Adjustment 

VRI Class I 

Area (acres)

VRI Class II 

Area (acres) 

VRI Class III 

Area (acres) 

VRI Class IV 

Area (acres) 

Disposal 24,930 13,872 375,315 867788 

Retention 391,722 259,639 1,141,642 4,130,109 

 Unlike Alternative A, Alternative D would dispose of lands designated as VRI Class I. Because VRI 

Class I areas are for WSAs, the BLM would dispose of land once considered aesthetically valuable 

enough to be considered as wilderness. Also, Alternative C would dispose of less land designated as 

VRI Class II. 

Effects from ACEC/ RNA Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no effects common to all alternatives from ACEC/RNA management. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

The Osgood Mountain ACEC would continue to be designated as VRM Class IV. Impacts on visual 

resources would not change. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

The Osgood Mountain ACEC would be managed according to VRM Class II objectives, instead of 

Class IV objectives. The change in management actions for the Osgood Mountain ACEC would 

provide greater protection of visual resources in this unique area. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Impacts on visual resources from management of the Osgood Mountain ACEC are the same as 

those under Alternative B. 

The Pine Forest, Raised Bog, and the Stillwater ACECs would be managed according to VRM Class 

II objectives. Managing the Pine Forest, Raised Bog, and Stillwater ACECs to meet VRM Class II 

objectives would increase the protection of visual resources in these unique areas. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-403 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

The Osgood Mountain ACEC would be managed according to VRM Class III objectives. The Pine 

Forest, Raised Bog, and Stillwater ACECs would be managed according to VRM Class II objectives. 

Impacts on visual resources from management of ACECs are the same as those under Alternative C. 

Effects from Backcountry Byways Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no impacts because there are no actions that are likely to affect aesthetics and visual 

resources on BLM-administered land. 

Effects from National Trails Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

The impacts on visual resources from national trails management actions are the same as those 

under those described above under Effects from Cultural Resources Management. 

Effects from Wild and Scenic Rivers Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no impacts because there are no actions that are likely to affect aesthetics and visual 

resources on BLM-administered land. 

Effects from Wilderness Study Areas and Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no effects common to all alternatives from ACEC/RNA management. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

There are no impacts because there are no specific actions that are likely to affect aesthetics and 

visual resources on BLM-administered land. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

There are no impacts because there are no specific actions that are likely to affect aesthetics and 

visual resources on BLM-administered land. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

The BLM would protect wilderness characteristics with a designation of closed to mineral leasing, 

ROW exclusion zones, and priority habitat 1 in the following areas: 

• Bluewing Mountains (25,651 acres); 

• North Sahwave Mountains (45,687 acres); 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-404 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

• Fencemaker Area of the East Range (50,283acres); and 

• Portion of Tobin Range, between the China Mountain WSA and the Mount Tobin WSA 

(33,854 acres). 

This would limit certain types of activities. In turn, it would preserve the naturalness of the areas, 

thereby protecting visual resources of the natural landscape. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

There are no impacts because there are no specific actions that are likely to affect aesthetics and 

visual resources on BLM-administered land. 

Effects from Watchable Wildlife Viewing Sites Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no impacts because there are no actions that are likely to affect aesthetics and visual 

resources on BLM-administered land. 

Effects from Public Health and Safety Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no impacts because there are no actions that are likely to affect aesthetics and visual 

resources on BLM-administered land. 

Effects from Sustainable Development Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no effects common to all alternatives from sustainable development management. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Alternative A does not address sustainable development, so there would continue to be no actions 

for the BLM to implement involving sustainable development and, as a result, there would be no 

corresponding changes to visual resources. There would be no new impacts. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Under Alternative B, surface-disturbing actions would occur. These types of activities would be 

subject to the analysis stage of the BLM VRM system. The analysis stage involves determining 

whether the potential visual impacts from proposed surface-disturbing activities or developments 

would meet the management objectives established for the area, or whether design adjustments 

would be required. This process is described in BLM Handbook H-8431-1, Visual Resource 

Contrast Rating. Activities proposed that would not initially meet VRM objectives for an area would 

be mitigated to the extent needed to meet the VRM objectives. Those activities proposed that could 

not be mitigated would not be authorized. The BLM would rely on the VRM system to protect the 

scenery of BLM-administered land. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-405 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-406 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

The impacts on visual resources are the same as those under Alternative B. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

The impacts on visual resources are the same as those under Alternative B. 

Cumulative Effects 

Effects of past actions and natural events, including wildland fires, wildland fire suppression, mining, 

vegetation treatments, sale of forest products, motorized vehicle use, noxious weed invasion, 

subdivision of rural lands, and road construction, have affected visual resources in the WDO 

planning area. Foreseeable future actions affecting visual resources within the WDO planning area 

mirror many of the actions that have occurred in the past. The BLM cannot prevent certain events, 

such as landscape-level projects conducted by other agencies, such as the Bureau of Reclamation, 

nor can the BLM entirely prevent such events as wildland fires. The BLM does have greater control 

over other activities, such as mining, the sale of forest products, and motorized vehicle use. Also, 

certain activities, such as road construction, occur relatively rapidly. Other situations, such as the 

public living closer to public lands and noxious weeds invading the area, occur relatively slowly. As a 

result, impacts on visual resources, such as changing the visual landscape or increasing nighttime 

light, can also occur relatively slowly or rapidly. The BLM would continue to use stipulations and 

BMPs to minimize short-term impacts associated with specific activities at specific sites. However, 

gradual changes to the visual landscape through the accumulation of human-made alterations to the 

visual landscape are expected to be long-term, especially as undeveloped or natural areas are altered. 

4.2.16 Cave and Karst 

Summary 

This section presents potential impacts of the alternatives on caves and karst features in the planning 

area. Caves and rock areas provide day and night roosting habitat for bat species and are important 

elements in supporting the sensitive species in the planning area. Caves and karst features also 

provide opportunities for recreation. Lovelock Cave is listed on the National Register of Historic 

Places. 

Karst features can occur in carbonate rock formations; however, no significant karst features have 

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

Caves are geologic features, and the discussion of the management actions and potential impacts on 

geologic resources applies to them as well. The actions concerning bats are also discussed under 

Special Status Species Management. 

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

such as mining. Experience has shown that damage, theft, and vandalism are usually concentrated 

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

the planning area. 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

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

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

might be present. These other objectives and actions are referenced below. 

If caves are found during the surveys required prior to surface-disturbing activities, mitigation 

measures would be developed and implemented to protect these features. 

Methods of Analysis 

Methods and Assumptions

The analysis of potential impacts on caves is based on the expertise of BLM resource specialists at 

the WDO, a review of existing literature, and information provided by non-planning team experts in 

the BLM and other agencies. 

The following assumptions regarding the resource base and management practices were considered 

in the analysis: 

• The greatest potential for impacts would result from actions that include direct large-scale 

disturbance of bedrock that includes caves; 

• Damage, theft, and vandalism is likely to increase with increased visitation; 

• The bats that might live in caves could be impacted by vandalism, noise from visitors, and 

litter; 

• Education of the public increases support for protection of caves and bats but also increases 

visitation; and 

• Actions associated with other resources that result in closure of surface-disturbing activities 

would have additional beneficial impacts (such as less chance of disturbance) on any caves 

that might be present. 

The area of analysis for cumulative effects on caves is defined as northwestern Nevada. 

Effects from Air Quality Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives 

There are no likely impacts under any of the alternatives on cave and karst resources resulting from 

air quality management objectives or actions. With respect to effects on cave and karst resources, all 

of the alternatives are essentially equivalent. 

Effects from Geology Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives 

The geology objectives and actions do not involve features that are near known caves. There are no 

likely impacts on cave and karst resources resulting from geology management objectives or actions 

under any of the alternatives. With respect to effects on cave and karst resources, all of the 

alternatives are essentially equivalent. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-407 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Effects from Soil Resources Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no likely impacts under any of the alternatives on cave and karst resources resulting from 

soil resources management objectives or actions. With respect to effects on cave and karst resources, 

all of the alternatives are essentially equivalent. 

Effects from Water Resources Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no likely impacts under any of the alternatives on cave and karst resources resulting from 

water resources management objectives or actions. With respect to effects on cave and karst 

resources, all of the alternatives are essentially equivalent. 

Effects from Vegetation—Forest/Woodland Products Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no likely impacts under any of the alternatives on cave and karst resources resulting from 

forest and woodland products management objectives or actions. With respect to effects on cave 

and karst resources, all of the alternatives are essentially equivalent. 

Effects from Vegetation—Weeds Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no likely impacts under any of the alternatives on cave and karst resources resulting from 

weeds management objectives or actions. With respect to effects on cave and karst resources, all of 

the alternatives are essentially equivalent. 

Effects from Chemical and Biological Control 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no likely impacts under any of the alternatives on cave and karst resources resulting from 

chemical and biological control management objectives or actions. With respect to effects on cave 

and karst resources, all of the alternatives are essentially equivalent. 

Effects from Vegetation—Rangeland Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no likely impacts under any of the alternatives on cave and karst resources resulting from 

rangeland management objectives or actions. With respect to effects on cave and karst resources, all 

of the alternatives are essentially equivalent. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-408 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Effects from Vegetation—Riparian and Wetlands Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no likely impacts under any of the alternatives on cave and karst resources resulting from 

riparian and wetlands management objectives or actions. With respect to effects on cave and karst 

resources, all of the alternatives are essentially equivalent. 

Effects from Fish and Wildlife Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no likely impacts under any of the alternatives on cave and karst resources resulting from 

fish and wildlife management objectives or actions. With respect to effects on cave and karst 

resources, all of the alternatives are essentially equivalent. 

Effects from Special Status Species Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

All alternatives require an inventory for bats and habitat usage before allowing any surface 

occupancy or disturbance within at least 200 yards of caves (500 yards for Alternative C) that are not 

known to be occupied. The inventories will increase the BLM’s knowledge on the location and 

extent of bat habitat and will enable it to better protect bats in the inhabited areas. These protections 

would also protect the associated caves. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Large-scale surface-disturbing discretionary actions would not be allowed within 200 yards of 

occupied adits, caves, or other habitats. The associated caves would be protected from surfacedisturbing activities as a result of the protection of the bats. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Surface-disturbing discretionary actions would be allowed near occupied adits, caves, or other 

habitats if mitigation measures to avoid or reduce adverse impacts were developed. Alternative B is 

less restrictive than Alternative A and depends on mitigating impacts rather than prohibition of 

actions near the bat habitats. The associated caves would be less protected under Alternative B. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

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

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

within 200 yards as proposed under the other alternatives. 

Large-scale surface-disturbing discretionary actions would not be allowed within 500 yards of 

occupied adits, caves, or other habitats. The protection of caves associated with bat habitat is greater 

under Alternative C than under Alternatives A, B, or D. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-409 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Large-scale surface-disturbing discretionary actions would not be allowed within 200 yards of 

occupied adits, caves, or other habitats. The protection of caves associated with bat habitat under 

Alternative D is greater than under Alternative B, is equivalent to Alternative A, and is less under 

Alternative C. 

Effects from Wild Horse and Burro Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no likely impacts on cave and karst resources resulting from wild horse and burro 

management objectives or actions under any of the alternatives. With respect to effects on cave and 

karst resources, all of the alternatives are essentially equivalent. 

Effects from Wildland Fire Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no likely impacts on cave and karst resources resulting from wildland fire management 

objectives or actions under any of the alternatives. With respect to effects on cave and karst 

resources, all of the alternatives are essentially equivalent. 

Effects from Cultural Resources Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Lovelock Cave is known to contain cultural resources, and any caves yet to be discovered could 

contain cultural resources. If so, these resources would be managed under the cultural resources 

program, in accordance with the cultural resource management objectives and actions. 

Unless a cave contains cultural resources, there are no likely impacts on cave and karst resources 

resulting from cultural resource management objectives or actions under any of the alternatives. 

With respect to effects on cave and karst resources, all of the alternatives are essentially equivalent. 

Effects from Tribal Consultation Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Any caves yet to be discovered could also be a TCP. If so, the cave would be managed under the 

cultural resources program, in accordance with the cultural resource and tribal consultation 

management objectives and actions. 

Unless a cave is connected to a TCP, there are no likely impacts on cave and karst resources 

resulting from tribal consultation objectives or actions under any of the alternatives. With respect to 

effects on cave and karst resources, all of the alternatives are essentially equivalent. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-410 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Effects from Paleontological Resources Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Any caves yet to be discovered could contain paleontological resources. If so, these resources would 

be managed under the paleontological resources program, in accordance with the paleontological 

resource management objectives and actions. 

Unless a cave contains paleontological resources, there are no likely impacts on cave and karst 

resources resulting from paleontological resources management objectives or actions under any of 

the alternatives. With respect to effects on cave and karst resources, all of the alternatives are 

essentially equivalent. 

Effects from Visual Resources Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

The known caves in the WDO are not integral parts of any scenic viewshed. There are no likely 

impacts on cave and karst resources resulting from visual resources management objectives or 

actions under any of the alternatives. With respect to effects on cave and karst resources, all of the 

alternatives are essentially equivalent. 

Effects from Cave and Karst Resources Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Increased visitation would result in a greater risk of impacts from vandalism as access is improved 

and locations become known. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

There are no objectives or management actions under Alternative A. Under Alternative A, any 

protections would be on a case-by-case basis. There are no planned education or increased 

awareness programs. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Alternative B includes actions for identifying caves, for implementing appropriate mitigation 

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

geologic features and wildlife habitat. These actions would also protect the cave resources. 

Alternative B includes greater protections for cave resources (e.g., closures and physical barriers) 

than Alternative A. The education and public awareness provisions would increase visitation to 

those areas, resulting in a greater risk of impacts from vandalism as access is improved and locations 

become known. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Alternative C includes actions for identifying caves, for implementing appropriate mitigation 

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

geologic features and wildlife habitat. These actions would also protect the cave resources. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-411 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative C includes greater protections for cave resources (e.g., closures and physical barriers) 

than Alternative A and has essentially equivalent protections as Alternative B. Under Alternative C, 

the education and public awareness provisions would be limited to those that would not increase 

visitation and would involve less risk of impacts from vandalism than Alternatives B and D. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Alternative D includes actions for identifying caves, for implementing appropriate mitigation 

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

geologic features and wildlife habitat. These actions would also protect the cave resources. 

Alternative B includes greater protections for cave resources (e.g., closures and physical barriers) 

than Alternative A. The education and public awareness provisions would increase visitation to 

those areas, resulting in a greater risk of impacts from vandalism as access is improved and locations 

become known. 

Effects from Livestock Grazing Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no likely impacts on cave and karst resources resulting from livestock grazing management 

objectives or actions under any of the alternatives. With respect to effects on cave and karst 

resources, all of the alternatives are essentially equivalent. 

Effects from Minerals Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

If caves are present where mining occurs, these resources could be impacted by the extent and depth 

of ground disturbance associated with salable and locatable mineral development. Drilling activities 

could intersect with undiscovered caves or lava tubes. 

While none of the known caves in the WDO contain mineral resources, yet to be discovered caves 

might contain cave specific deposits (e.g., crystals and sheet flows). If so, they would be managed on 

a case-by-case basis in coordination with the minerals resources program objectives and actions, 

which include some restrictions on mining operations near caves. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

There are no restrictions to the amount of land open to mining activities or limits to mining 

operations based on caves and karst characteristics management objectives or actions under 

Alternative A. With respect to effects on minerals resources, Alternatives A, B, and D are essentially 

equivalent. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

There are no restrictions to the amount of land open to mining activities or limits on mining 

operations based on caves and karst characteristics management objectives or actions under 

Alternative B. With respect to effects on minerals resources, Alternatives A, B, and D are essentially 

equivalent. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-412 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

The rights to locatable minerals could be acquired, but proposals for locatable minerals, salable 

minerals, and fluid and solid leasable minerals operations would be restricted within 500 feet of a 

cave or karst feature. For leasable minerals activities, any quarter-quarter-quarter section (10-acre 

parcel) intersected by the site or the 500-foot buffer line would be closed. This would have the effect 

of protecting the caves and associated bat habitat from disturbance. Under Alternative C, caves 

would have greater protection, and thus fewer impacts, under Alternative C than under Alternatives 

A, B, or D. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

There are no restrictions on the amount of land open to mining activities or limits on mining 

operations, based on caves and karst characteristics management objectives or actions under 

Alternative D. With respect to effects on minerals resources, Alternatives A, B, and D are essentially 

equivalent. 

Effects from Recreation, Visitor Outreach, and Services Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no likely impacts on cave and karst resources resulting from recreation, visitor outreach, 

and services management objectives or actions under any of the alternatives. With respect to effects 

on cave and karst resources, all of the alternatives are essentially equivalent. 

While exploring caves can be considered as recreational for some individuals and small groups, there 

are no caves that are recognized as recreations sites. 

Effects from Renewable Energy Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no likely impacts on cave and karst resources resulting from renewable energy 

management objectives or actions under any of the alternatives. With respect to effects on cave and 

karst resources, all of the alternatives are essentially equivalent. 

Effects from Transportation and Access Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no likely impacts on cave and karst resources resulting from transportation and access 

management objectives or actions under any of the alternatives. With respect to effects on cave and 

karst resources, all of the alternatives are essentially equivalent. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-413 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Effects from Lands and Realty Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no likely impacts on cave and karst resources resulting from lands and realty management 

objectives or actions under any of the alternatives. With respect to effects on cave and karst 

resources, all of the alternatives are essentially equivalent. 

Any lands that are closed to the public closed to ground-disturbing activities or that are withdrawn 

in association with other resource management objectives and actions could contain cave and karst 

resources. If so, the closure or mineral withdrawal would serve to help protect any cave or karst 

resources that might be present by reducing the potential for disturbance. 

Effects from ACEC/RNA Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no likely impacts on cave and karst resources resulting from ACEC/RNA management 

objectives or actions under any of the alternatives. With respect to effects on cave and karst 

resources, all of the alternatives are essentially equivalent. 

Effects from Backcountry Byways Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no likely impacts on cave and karst resources resulting from backcountry byways 

management objectives or actions under any of the alternatives. With respect to effects on cave and 

karst resources, all of the alternatives are essentially equivalent. 

The Lovelock Cave Byway is managed in accordance cultural resource and byway management 

objectives and actions not as a cave resource. 

Effects from National Trails Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no likely impacts on cave and karst resources resulting from national trails management 

objectives or actions under any of the alternatives. With respect to effects on cave and karst 

resources, all of the alternatives are essentially equivalent. 

Effects from Wild and Scenic Rivers Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no likely impacts on cave and karst resources resulting from wild and scenic rivers 

management objectives or actions under any of the alternatives. With respect to effects on cave and 

karst resources, all of the alternatives are essentially equivalent. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-414 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-415 

Effects from Wilderness Study Areas and Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no likely impacts on cave and karst resources resulting from wilderness, wilderness study 

areas, or areas with wilderness characteristics management objectives or actions under any of the 

alternatives. With respect to effects on cave and karst resources, all of the alternatives are essentially 

equivalent. 

Effects from Watchable Wildlife Viewing Sites Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no likely impacts on cave and karst resources resulting from watchable wildlife viewing 

sites management objectives or actions under any of the alternatives. With respect to effects on cave 

and karst resources, all of the alternatives are essentially equivalent. 

Effects from Public Health and Safety Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no likely impacts on cave and karst resources resulting from public health and safety 

management objectives or actions under any of the alternatives. With respect to effects on cave and 

karst resources, all of the alternatives are essentially equivalent. 

While there are no caves specifically identified with safety issues, any actions involving sealing off a 

cave would be managed in accordance with public health and safety management objectives and 

actions. 

Effects from Sustainable Development Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no likely impacts on cave and karst resources resulting from sustainable development 

management objectives or actions under any of the alternatives. With respect to effects on cave and 

karst resources, all of the alternatives are essentially equivalent. 

Cumulative Effects 

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

subject to surface-disturbing activities. These changes would result in less general damage to caves 

and bat habitat and would increase protection of these resources. 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

4.3 RESOURCE USES

4.3.1 Livestock Grazing 

Summary 

Grazing would be impacted when all or part of an allotment is closed to livestock grazing (during 

vegetation treatments, prescribed burning, reforestation, fire, drought or watershed or riparian 

restoration). Grazing exclusion areas designed to protect riparian habitat for wildlife and sensitive 

species or to protect cultural or paleontological resources would impact livestock grazing by 

restricting or altering livestock movement and access to forage. Mineral and energy development 

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

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

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

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

Alternative C, Option 1 provides the least opportunities for grazing. Actions under most resource 

categories have the potential to affect livestock grazing. 

Table 4-43 

Summary of Effects on Livestock Grazing–Alternatives A, B, C, and D 

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C 

(Option 1) 

Alternative 

C (Option 2) Alternative D

Lands available for livestock 

grazing 

No net change: 

8,232,727 acres 

No net change: 

8,232,727 acres 

Net decrease: 

8,038,084 acres 

Net decrease: 

0 acres 

Net decrease: 

8,016,754 

acres 

Grazing lands available for 

disposal (% of allotments 

available for disposal)

No net change: 

2,66,3082 acres 

(32%) 

Net decrease: 

1,934,038 acres 

(23%) 

Net decrease: 

1,040,225 acres 

(13%) 

Net decrease: 

7,926,430 

acres (0%) 

Net decrease: 

1,093,046 

acres (14%) 

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C 

(Option 1) 

Alternative 

C (Option 2) Alternative D

Available AUMs 

(Note: Other resource 

activities that change grazing 

acres would have same impact 

on AUMs) 

No net change: 

399,073 AUMs 

No net change: 

399,073 AUMs 

No net change: 

399,073 AUMs 

Net decrease: 

0 AUMs 

Net decrease: 

398,860 

AUMs 

Methods of Analysis 

Methods and Assumptions

Impacts on livestock grazing are generally the result of activities that affect forage levels, livestock 

exclusion, or reduction of allotment acreage. Impact analysis is based on interdisciplinary team 

knowledge of resources and the planning area, a literature review, and information provided by BLM 

specialists. Certain assumptions are made, including the following: 

• Data regarding grazing allotments are compiled from BLM sources; 

• The BLM will continue to complete rangeland health assessments in accordance with the 

Sierra Front-Northwestern Great Basin RAC Standards and Guidelines for Rangeland 

Health; 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-416 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

• Allotments are monitored yearly, based on allotment priority, resource values, and potential 

for impacts due to grazing use; and 

• Season of use and number of AUMs used are difficult to control on allotments with 

scattered public parcels surrounded by private land. 

Effects from Air Quality Management 

Effects Common to Alternatives A, B, C (Option 1), and D

Actions associated with air quality management could impact grazing indirectly through long-term 

effects on the quality and quantity of livestock grazing forage. Air quality issues that affect vegetation 

could include particulate matter and fugitive dust from allowing fire for resource benefit, prescribed 

fire, and mining operations. Dust that collects on vegetation reduces the quality and regenerative 

capacity of shrubs, forbs, and grasses and could decrease the availability and palatability of forage for 

livestock. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Impacts are the same as those under Effects Common to All Alternatives. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Impacts are the same as those under Effects Common to Alternatives A, B, C (Option 1), and D. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C 

Option 1 

Impacts are the same as those under Effects Common to Alternatives A, B, C (Option 1), and D. 

Option 2 

There would be no livestock grazing under Alternative C, Option 2 on public lands; therefore, there 

would be no impacts from air quality management. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Impacts are the same as those under Effects Common to Alternatives A, B, C (Option 1), and D. 

Effects from Geology Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Protection of geologic features or exclusion from areas containing geologic features would not 

pertain to livestock grazing and would not impact grazing resources under any of the alternatives. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

There are no impacts on livestock grazing. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-417 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

There are no impacts on livestock grazing. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

There are no impacts on livestock grazing. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

There are no impacts on livestock grazing. 

Effects from Soil Resources Management 

Effects Common to Alternatives A, B, C (Option 1), and D

Short-term direct impacts on livestock grazing would consist of adjustments in season and duration 

of use to prevent erosion and soil compaction caused by congregating cattle, especially under trees 

during hot season grazing. For example, protection of biological crusts and other sensitive soil types 

would pertain to livestock grazing and would impact grazing resources under all of the alternatives. 

In the long term, however, soil resources management would generally result in enhanced vegetative 

conditions through actions designed to reduce erosion, which would indirectly increase forage as the 

Standards for Rangeland Health are attained. 

In addition to the impacts identified under Effects Common to All Alternatives, the following 

individual effects would impact livestock grazing. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Approximately 1,055,418 acres within livestock grazing allotments have a high potential for the 

existence of biological crusts under Alternative A. Protecting biological crusts would indirectly 

impact livestock grazing by increasing restrictions on range management, such as limiting livestock 

grazing to seasons when the soils are moist. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Approximately 1,055,418 acres within livestock grazing allotments have a high potential for the 

existence of biological crusts under Alternative B. Impacts are the same as those under Alternative 

A. 

Effects under Alternative C 

Option 1 

Impacts are the same as those under Effects Common to All Alternatives; however, due to 

additional closures to livestock grazing under Alternative C, Option 1, only 1,055,167 acres within 

livestock grazing allotments would have a high potential for the existence of biological crusts. In 

addition, Alternative C is the most restrictive in managing biological crust by reducing activities that 

would impact or damage biological crusts. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-418 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Option 2 

Since there is no livestock grazing under Alternative C, Option 2, there are no impacts on livestock 

grazing from soil resources management. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Impacts are the same as those under Effects Common to All Alternatives; however, due to 

additional closures to livestock grazing under Alternative D, only 1,048,390 acres within livestock 

grazing allotments have a high potential for the existence of biological crusts. 

Effects from Water Resources Management 

Effects Common to Alternatives A, B, C (Option 1), and D

Livestock grazing would be directly affected by the need to adjust or modify current livestock 

management to achieve Sierra Front-Northwestern Great Basin RAC Standards and Guidelines for 

Rangeland Health under all of the alternatives. Developing water sources for multiple uses under all 

alternatives also would impact livestock grazing by making more water available, indirectly increasing 

weight gain and conception rates of livestock. More dispersed water sources would prevent livestock 

from concentrating around current water holes and would allow for changes in utilization patterns, 

which may result in an increase in available forage. 

Protecting water quality and watershed health could require direct changes in livestock management 

such as deferred or shortened grazing periods, exclusion, establishing riparian pastures, and 

increased cattle herding. These tools are especially used during hot season grazing when cattle 

congregate in small shaded areas to cool off (often where there is water). Implementing short-term 

monitoring criteria such as stubble height and bank alteration would stabilize the banks and may 

decrease the amount of time livestock would be allowed to use an area. 

Approximately 32,107 acres of livestock grazing allotments lie within designated municipal water 

supply areas under Alternatives A, B, C (Option 1), and D. Livestock grazing does not generally 

conflict with groundwater supplies; therefore, it would not be impacted by any of the municipal 

water supply actions identified under any of the alternatives. 

In addition to the impacts identified under Effects Common to Alternatives A, B, C (Option 1), and 

D, the following individual effects would impact livestock grazing. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Effects are the same as those under Effects Common to All Alternatives. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Approximately 2,734 acres of livestock grazing allotments lie within wellhead protection zones 

under Alternative B. Action B-WR 1.5 directs the BLM to avoid impacts on wellhead protection 

zones, which would require extra management by grazing operators, such as fencing or increased 

livestock herding. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-419 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Approximately 185,767 acres of livestock grazing allotments lie within priority watersheds under 

Alternative B. Priority watersheds would be managed for multiple uses and could directly impact 

livestock grazing if the watershed becomes degraded and needs to be protected by actions such as 

increased livestock herding and or avoidance of degraded areas. 

Permittees would be encouraged to file for water rights under Alternative B, which means they will 

have to pay to fund the projects if they want them. BLM will not fund projects if they do not have 

water rights. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C 

Option 1 

Approximately 2,734 acres of livestock grazing allotments lie within wellhead protection zones 

under Alternative C, Option 1. Action C-WR 1.5 directs the BLM to exclude discretionary actions 

within wellhead protection zones, which would prevent livestock from grazing in these areas. 

Approximately 185,458 acres of livestock grazing allotments lie within priority watersheds under 

Alternative C, Option 1. Priority watersheds would be managed as exclusion areas and used only for 

the resource for which it was established as a priority. Management under this action would exclude 

grazing from the 185,458acres of priority watersheds and would reduce forage availability in the 

impacted allotments. Water availability also could be impacted. Management under this action would 

have the greatest direct impact on livestock grazing. 

Option 2 

Since there is no livestock grazing under Alternative C, Option 2, there are no impacts on livestock 

grazing from water resources management. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

In addition to the impacts identified under Effects Common to All Alternatives, 2,623 acres of 

livestock grazing allotments lie within wellhead protection zones under Alternative D. Action D-WR 

1.5 directs the BLM to avoid impacts on wellhead protection zones, which would require extra 

management by grazing operators, such as fencing or increased livestock herding. 

The 184,643 acres of priority watersheds that overlap with livestock grazing allotments would be 

managed as avoidance areas under Alternative D. Designating priority watersheds as avoidance areas 

would require extra management by grazing operators, such as fencing or increased livestock 

herding to prevent the congregating livestock from degrading the watersheds. Impacts under this 

alternative would be similar to Alternative B and fewer than Alternative C. 

Effects from Vegetation—Forest/Woodland Products Management 

Effects Common to Alternatives A, B, C (Option 1), and D

Stand health treatments would improve the ecological condition of vegetation in forested areas, 

thereby increasing forage available for grazing. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-420 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Impacts are the same as those under Effects Common to Alternatives A, B, C (Option 1), and D. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Impacts are the same as under Effects Common to Alternatives A, B, C (Option 1), and D. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C 

Option 1 

Impacts are the same as under Effects Common to Alternatives A, B, C (Option 1), and D. 

Option 2 

Since there is no livestock grazing under Alternative C, Option 2, there are no impacts on livestock 

grazing from forest and woodland products management. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Impacts are the same as under Effects Common to Alternatives A, B, C (Option 1), and D. 

Effects from Weeds Management 

Effects Common to Alternatives A, B, C (Option 1), and D

Encroachment of weeds into grazing areas reduces the preferred forage for livestock until treated. 

Actions to prevent and control invasive and noxious weeds using integrated weed management 

techniques could directly affect livestock grazing in the short term if livestock are excluded in the 

treatment areas until revegetation has taken place. Livestock grazing would improve over the long 

term as the ecological condition of vegetation in grazing allotments improves following restoration. 

In addition to the impacts identified under Effects Common to All Alternatives, the following 

individual effects would impact livestock grazing. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Impacts are the same as under Effects Common to Alternatives A, B, C (Option 1), and D. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Impacts are the same as under Effects Common to Alternatives A, B, C (Option 1), and D. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C 

Option 1 

Eliminating chemicals to control noxious weeds could result in a greater rate of weed spread, as 

most alternate controls are not as effective or rapid enough to control the spread of weeds. 

Vegetation sites converted to noxious weeds would be lost to livestock grazing. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-421 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Option 2 

Since there is no livestock grazing under Alternative C, Option 2, there are no impacts on livestock 

grazing from weeds management. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Impacts are the same as under Effects Common to Alternatives A, B, C (Option 1), and D. 

Effects from Chemical and Biological Control 

Effects Common to Alternatives A, B, C (Option 1), and D

Implementing chemical and biological control methods under all alternatives to control pests could 

indirectly impact livestock grazing by improving the rangeland health environment for livestock. For 

example, reducing the populations of Mormon Crickets would reduce the amount of degradation to 

the vegetative resource available for livestock grazing. Actions to prevent and control pests using 

pesticides and biological techniques could directly affect livestock grazing in the short term if 

livestock are excluded in the treatment areas until revegetation has taken place. Livestock grazing 

would improve over the long term as the ecological condition of vegetation in grazing allotments 

improves following restoration. 

In addition to the impacts identified under Effects Common to Alternatives A, B, C (Option 1), and 

D, the following individual effects would impact livestock grazing. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A 

Impacts are the same as under Effects Common to Alternatives A, B, C (Option 1), and D. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Impacts are the same as under Effects Common to Alternatives A, B, C (Option 1), and D. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C 

Option 1 

Eliminating the use of chemicals to control pests may result in a greater rate of infestation, as most 

alternate controls are not as effective or rapid enough to control the spread. Vegetation exposed to 

uncontrolled infestations could be lost to livestock grazing. 

Option 2 

Since there is no livestock grazing under Alternative C, Option 2, there are no impacts on livestock 

grazing from chemical and biological control. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Impacts are the same as under Effects Common to Alternatives A, B, C (Option 1), and D. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-422 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Effects from Vegetation—Rangeland Management 

Effects Common to Alternatives A, B, C (Option 1), and D

Allowing vegetation treatment areas to rest would result in direct short-term limited livestock 

management impacts such as decreases in AUMs, livestock herding, pasture rotations, and exclusion 

from the treated area. In the long term, resting treated areas would enhance vegetation by allowing 

seedlings to establish, resulting in a sustained forage base. The shortest minimum rest time under the 

alternatives is two years, and the longest minimum rest time is five years. In addition to the impacts 

identified under Effects Common to All Alternatives, the following individual effects would impact 

livestock grazing: 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Impacts would be the same as identified under Effects Common to Alternatives A, B, C (Option 1), 

and D, except that they would be limited to at least two years or until monitoring objectives 

established in the Emergency Stabilization or Burned Area Rehabilitation Plans are achieved or until 

rehabilitation efforts are determined to be failures. Restoration of the crested wheatgrass seedings 

would allow operators to remove their cattle early from native pastures or pastures with riparian 

areas and go to the crested wheatgrass seedings. This would allow reduced use or critical growing 

season rest for the native species and allow for reduced use and a longer recovery period in the 

riparian areas. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Impacts are the same as those under Effects Common to Alternatives A, B, C (Option 1), and D, 

except that livestock would be allowed to graze cheatgrass during April to control it for two years, 

before full livestock numbers return. 

Restoration and enhancement of the crested wheatgrass seedings would allow operators to move 

their cattle early from native pastures or pastures with riparian areas to the crested wheatgrass 

seedings. This would allow reduced use or critical growing season rest for the native species and 

allow reduced use and a longer recovery period in the riparian areas. Prescriptive grazing could 

potentially provide additional options to livestock operators, while accomplishing a desired outcome 

(i.e., fuel breaks and reduction of fine fuels). 

Individual Effects under Alternative C 

Option 1 

Impacts are the same as under Effects Common to Alternatives A, B, C (Option 1), and D, except 

that they would be limited to a minimum of five years. 

Crested wheatgrass seedings would be allowed to convert back to native plant communities, which 

could reduce the amount of AUMs available for livestock consumption. 

Option 2 

Since there is no livestock grazing under Alternative C, Option 2, there are no impacts on livestock 

grazing from rangeland management. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-423 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Impacts are the same as under Effects Common to Alternatives A, B, C (Option 1), and D, except 

that they would depend on various factors such as whether or not emergency stabilization and 

rehabilitation plan objectives are achieved, waiting until previously vegetated areas have regained 

vigor, or determining that rehabilitation efforts are a failure. 

Restoration of the crested wheatgrass seedings would allow operators to move their cattle early from 

native pastures or pastures with riparian areas to the crested wheatgrass seedings. This would allow 

reduced use or critical growing season rest for the native species and allow reduced use and a longer 

recovery period in the riparian areas. Prescriptive grazing could potentially provide additional 

options to livestock operators, while accomplishing a desired outcome (i.e., fuel breaks and 

reduction of fine fuels). 

Effects from Vegetation—Riparian and Wetlands Management 

Effects Common to Alternatives A, B, C (Option 1), and D

Riparian and wetland restoration has the potential to directly impact livestock grazing through 

adjustments in season of use, livestock numbers, and development of riparian objectives such as 

stubble height and bank alteration to ensure that the riparian habitat is meeting the standards for 

rangeland health. 

Livestock that congregate in riparian areas can affect proper functioning condition by increasing 

erosion and adding turbidity to water sources. Livestock that congregate in riparian areas also 

increase fecal coliform and nitrate levels. Therefore, protecting riparian areas (changing season of 

use and bank trampling limitations or temporary exlosures)from grazing animals could allow riparian 

habitat to maintain or improve and indirectly provide cleaner and more dependable water sources 

for livestock. Wetland riparian areas and meadow habitats are also examples of key management 

areas for developing stocking levels during implementation level planning. BLM Technical 

Reference 4400-7, on page 54 “Desired Stocking Level,” states, “The calculation of a desired 

stocking level also depends on the identification of a key management area. A key management area 

is an area of land that influences or limits the use of the land surrounding it. Examples of key 

management areas could be riparian, wetland or meadow areas surrounded by uplands. Maintaining 

proper use on the meadow could cause low use on the uplands. A key management area is the key 

area that overrides the indicators of the other key areas within the management unit. Management 

actions are based on the key management areas 

In the meadow and upland example, the meadow and upland may each have a key area. Since the 

meadow is the key management area, if use exceeds the limits on the meadow but not on the 

uplands, the stocking level will be reduced to meet the riparian objectives although the uplands will 

also receive less use. If a riparian area is healthy the correlation is that the uplands are usually 

healthy. 

In addition to the impacts identified under Effects Common to Alternatives A, B, C (Option 1), and 

D, the following individual effects would impact livestock grazing. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-424 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Impacts are the same as under Effects Common to All Alternatives. In addition, riparian and 

wetland restoration has the potential to directly impact livestock grazing by requiring exclosures to 

be constructed or AUMs to be reduced. Structures would alter livestock movement and use patterns. 

Off-site water developments could be proposed as a mitigation measure to provide water for 

livestock or to keep livestock from accessing the springs and creeks for water. The cost of 

constructing these projects could financially impact the BLM and the permittees. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Impacts are the same as under Alternative A, with the exception of reducing AUMs. More structural 

improvements would be applied to achieve PFC on 60 percent of the riparian wetland areas by 2028. 

Effects under Alternative C 

Option 1 

Implementing a more aggressive PFC goal of 85 percent of the riparian areas achieving PFC by 2028 

under Alternative C, Option 1 would have a high direct impact on livestock grazing. Under this 

alternative, there would be no fence construction to protect the riparian areas. Protection would 

occur by reducing livestock seasons of use, altering AUMs, closing areas to livestock grazing in 

addition to the measures identified under Effects Common to All Alternatives. 

Option 2 

Since there is no livestock grazing under Alternative C, Option 2, there are no impacts on livestock 

grazing from vegetation- riparian and wetlands management. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Impacts are the same as under Alternative A. However, BLM would look at utilizing natural 

processes to improve riparian health, as described under Alternative C, Option 1. 

Effects from Fish and Wildlife Management 

Effects Common to Alternatives A, B, C (Option 1), and D

Wildlife species could compete with livestock for forage, water, and cover when they occupy the 

same area. Big game species such as elk and deer compete for similar forage as cattle, sheep, and 

horses. During the fall, deer prefer the same browse species as sheep and cattle, creating an 

intensified competition for forage. Fish and wildlife habitat management activities would directly 

affect livestock grazing through restrictions on grazing management, such as increased rotation, 

timing, or season of use and/or reduced forage. 

In addition to the impacts identified under Effects Common to Alternatives A, B, C (Option 1), and 

D, the following individual effects would impact livestock grazing. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-425 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Under Alternative A, BLM would coordinate with NDOW to establish pioneering elk populations in 

potential habitat. Many times, elk and cattle share similar diets, depending on forage dynamics and 

cattle stocking rate (Greenwood 2007). Elk and cattle diets overlap, but they may use the forage at 

different times of the year (Greenwood 2007). Elk and livestock could compete for forage, water, 

and cover if these needs are in short supply. When forage is not available, it is likely that elk would 

resort to feeding on haystacks and commingling with livestock feed lines. There is a risk of the 

spread of brucellosis between elk and cattle when they commingle. Transmission of brucellosis has 

been a concern since the early 1900s, when the disease was discovered in both species. Cattle were 

immunized for brucellosis in the early 1940s, but wildlife was not treated to prevent brucellosis 

(Greenwood 2007). Elk and cattle separation may be necessary to prevent the disease from 

impacting the grazing management practices if the BLM accepted a recommendation from NDOW 

on elk establishment. 

Protection of waterfowl habitat would occur without precluding multiple uses; therefore, no impacts 

on livestock grazing would occur. 

Fencing out livestock from reservoirs that support fisheries would directly impact livestock grazing 

by reducing the amount of water available to the livestock. This impact could be mitigated by piping 

water off-site for livestock use. In active sheep allotments, bighorn sheep would not be introduced 

unless all conflicts are resolved; therefore, there would be no impacts on sheep operators. Providing 

additional water sources for wildlife under Alternative A could directly impact grazing by reducing 

competition for water and making available additional water sources. Developing spring sources 

with fencing under Alternative A would directly impact livestock grazing by providing and 

maintaining a more permanent water source for livestock. 

Introducing wildlife in potential habitats could indirectly impact livestock grazing by increasing 

disturbance from recreational activities such as hunting and wildlife viewing. In order to achieve 

stream bank alteration percentages under Alternative A, implementation measures such as season of 

use, exclusion, reducing livestock numbers and rotational grazing practices could be applied. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

No elk establishment would be allowed under Alternative B, and no impacts on livestock grazing 

would result from elk and livestock competition. 

Shorebird habitat would be protected under Alternative B without precluding multiple uses, 

including livestock grazing. No impacts on livestock grazing would occur. 

Providing additional water sources under Alternative B would directly impact livestock grazing the 

same as under Alternative A. Developing spring sources that may be fenced on a case-by-case basis 

under Alternative B would directly impact livestock grazing by providing and maintaining a more 

permanent water source for livestock. This alternative may be more feasible financially for both the 

permittees and BLM. 

In active sheep allotments, bighorn sheep would not be introduced unless all conflicts are resolved; 

therefore, there would be no impacts on sheep operators. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-426 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Introducing wildlife under this alternative would not interfere with other multiple uses; therefore, 

livestock grazing would not be affected. 

Alternative B would protect and improve wildlife habitat by initiating land treatments by any means 

available to BLM (including the use of chemicals). Certain chemicals can be harmful to livestock 

adding a risk to livestock health; however the use of chemicals is usually more productive in securing 

a successful seeding. Vegetation treatment areas would be allowed to rest, which would result in 

short-term limited livestock management impacts such as decreases in AUMs, livestock herding, 

pasture rotations, and exclusion from the treated area. In the long term, resting treated areas would 

enhance vegetation by allowing seedlings to establish, perennial plants to recover, and a sustained 

forage base to develop. 

In order to achieve stream bank alteration percentages of 20 percent of linear bank length on fishery 

streams, spring brooks, and lentic fishery resources and on those with sensitive channel types under 

Alternative B, implementation measures such as season of use, exclusion, reducing livestock 

numbers and rotational grazing practices could be applied. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C 

Option 1 

Direct Impacts on livestock grazing from possible elk establishment would be greatest under 

Alternative C, Option 1 because the BLM would accept an elk establishment recommendation from 

NDOW. 

Bighorn sheep would not be introduced on active preference sheep allotments, so there would be no 

impacts on sheep operators. Reintroducing native wildlife into historic habitat areas may indirectly 

impact livestock by increasing disturbance from recreational activities such as hunting and wildlife 

viewing. 

Alternative C, Option 1 would protect and improve wildlife habitat by initiating land treatments 

without the use of chemicals, which would be safer for the livestock but might not be as successful. 

Vegetation treatment areas would be allowed to rest, which would result in short-term limited 

indirect livestock management impacts such as decreases in AUMs, livestock herding, pasture 

rotations, and exclusion from the treated area. In the long term, resting treated areas would enhance 

vegetation by allowing seedlings to establish, perennial plants to recover, and a sustained forage base 

to develop. 

Fencing out livestock from shorebird habitat and reservoirs that support fisheries would directly 

impact livestock grazing by reducing the amount of water available to the livestock. This impact 

could be mitigated by piping water off site for livestock use. 

Not providing artificial water sources under Alternative C, Option 1 would directly impact livestock 

grazing during droughts by increasing competition between wildlife and livestock. Springs would not 

be developed and fenced under Alternative C, Option 1. In order to protect springs, increased 

livestock management such as season of use would be applied. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-427 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Actions to improve or maintain stream and shoreline channel stability and to limit annual stream 

bank alteration impacts would have the greatest direct impact on livestock grazing management by 

setting stricter regulations under Alternative C, Option 1. 

In order to achieve stream bank alteration percentages of 10 percent or less of linear bank length on 

fishery streams, spring brooks, and lentic fishery resources and 5 percent or less on those with 

sensitive channel types, implementation measures such as season of use, exclusion, reducing 

livestock numbers, and rotational grazing practices could be applied. The aforementioned goals 

would limit the greatest amount of time cattle could spend in the riparian area, resulting in the 

greatest direct impact on livestock grazing management. 

Option 2 

Since there is no livestock grazing under Alternative C, Option 2, there are no impacts on livestock 

grazing from fish and wildlife management. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Impacts on livestock grazing from possible elk establishment are the same as under Alternative A. 

Shorebird habitat protection measures and fencing reservoirs that support fisheries would directly 

impact livestock the same as under Alternative C, Option 1. Providing additional water sources 

under Alternative D would directly impact livestock grazing the same as under Alternative A. 

In active sheep allotments, bighorn sheep would not be introduced unless all conflicts are resolved; 

therefore, there would be no impacts on sheep operators. 

Wildlife would only be introduced if they do not displace native wildlife. This could indirectly impact 

livestock by increasing disturbance from recreational activities such as hunting and wildlife viewing. 

Impacts from land treatments would be similar to those under Alternative B. 

In order to achieve stream bank alteration percentages of 20 percent or less of linear bank length on 

fishery streams, spring brooks, and lentic fishery resources and 10 percent or less on those with 

sensitive channel types under Alternative D, implementation measures such as season of use, 

exclusion, reducing livestock numbers, and rotational grazing practices could be applied. The 10 

percent or less sensitive channel type goal would limit the amount of time cattle could spend in the 

riparian area, creating a greater impact on livestock grazing management. 

Direct impacts on livestock grazing from spring development would be the same as under 

Alternative A. 

Effects from Special Status Species Management 

Effects Common to Alternatives A, B, C (Option 1), and D

Protecting special status plants and special status species habitat could directly affect livestock 

grazing by limiting grazing areas and seasons of use. Special status species habitats also would 

directly influence location, timing, and cost of range improvements. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-428 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Conversely, protecting riparian areas that support special status species from grazing animals could 

provide cleaner and more dependable water sources for livestock in the long term. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Impacts are the same as under Effects Common to Alternatives A, B, C (Option 1), and D. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Allowing for prescriptive grazing on a case-by-case basis could directly provide additional flexibility 

and the ability to accrue extra income for livestock operators, while accomplishing a desired 

outcome (i.e., fuel breaks and reduction of fine fuels). 

Individual Effects under Alternative C 

Option 1 

By not allowing for prescriptive grazing, livestock operators do not benefit from the flexibility 

allotted them while accomplishing a desired outcome (i.e., fuel breaks and reduction of fine fuels). 

Option 2 

Since there is no livestock grazing under Alternative C, Option 2, there are no impacts on livestock 

grazing from special status species management.

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Impacts are the same as under Alternative B. 

Effects from Wild Horse and Burro Management 

Effects Common to Alternatives A, B, C (Option 1), and D

When livestock and wild horses occupy the same area, their needs for water and forage are 

competitive. In extreme circumstances, horses could outcompete livestock temporarily and could 

preclude livestock access to certain water sources. Livestock and wild horse and burro conflicts 

could include damage to fences. Competition for water and forage would be mitigated through 

adjustments in season of use, AUMs, AMLs and water developments, which would improve 

distribution of livestock and wild horses and burros, therefore adjustments to both livestock and 

WHB may occur. 

In addition to the impacts identified under Effects Common to Alternatives A, B, C (Option 1), and 

D, the individual effects below would impact livestock grazing. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Removing all WHBs from HMAs within checkerboard lands would reduce competition with 

livestock for forage, water, and shelter in those allotments. Gathering WHB before AML levels are 

exceeded reduces competition for food, water, and shelter in grazing allotments and maintains or 

improves rangeland health. Using fertility control inhibitors to slow population growth rates of 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-429 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

WHB would decrease competition for food, water, and shelter with livestock and would assist in 

maintaining a healthy rangeland environment. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Gathering WHB before AML levels are exceeded, and using fertility control inhibitors on WHB 

would directly impact livestock grazing the same as under Alternative A. 

Implementing appropriate management actions primarily for WHB over livestock under conditions 

where allotment-specific objectives and the Standards for Rangeland Health are not being met 

would directly impact grazing by maintaining AUMs for livestock and by reducing AMLs for wild 

horses and burros. 

Under Alternative B, the Nightingale and Shawave Mountain HMAs would be removed and the 

Snowstorm Mountain HMA would be slightly expanded, resulting in a decrease in approximately 

190,630 acres of HMAs that overlap with grazing allotments. Reducing the amount of acreage of 

HMAs that overlap with the Bluewing Seven Troughs Allotment reduces competition among 

livestock and wild horses and burros for forage, water, and shelter. The increased acreage in the 

Bullhead Allotment could increase competition between livestock and wild horses. 

Alternative B would reduce competition greater than any of the other alternatives. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C 

Option 1 

Adjusting HMA boundaries and removing WHBs from the checkerboard portion of the Nightingale 

and Shawave Mountain HMAs to eliminate checkerboard land issues would decrease competition 

with livestock for forage, water, and shelter in areas of checkerboard lands. 

Under Alternative C, Option 1, approximately 20,500 acres of HMAs within grazing allotments 

would be reduced due to boundary adjustments (slight increase in the McGee HMA and a fair 

decrease in the Shawave Mountain and Nightingale HMAs). This action reduces competition 

between livestock and wild horses and burros for forage, water, and shelter and represents less of an 

impact than under Alternative B or D but a greater impact than under Alternative A. 

Gathering excess WHB to achieve AML by using no less than a four-year gather cycle could impact 

grazing if excess numbers of WHB that compete for food, water, and shelter in grazing allotments 

were present before the four-year time period. 

Not using fertility control measures on WHB could lead to unmanageable numbers of WHB during 

highly fertile breeding years, increasing the competition for food, water, and shelter with livestock 

and increasing degradation of the rangeland environment. 

Implementing appropriate management actions primarily for T&E species over WHB, under 

conditions where allotment-specific objectives and the SRH are not being met, would impact grazing 

by disproportionately reducing AML versus AUM. Therefore, this action would directly reduce 

impacts on livestock grazing by decreasing potential WHB competition. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-430 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Option 2 

Since there is no livestock grazing under Alternative C, Option 2, there are no impacts on livestock 

grazing from WHB management. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Deleting the checkerboard portion of the Nightingale and Shawave Mountain HMAs would have 

the same impacts on livestock grazing as under Alternative C, Option 1. Gathering WHB before 

AML levels are exceeded and using fertility control inhibitors on WHBs would directly impact 

livestock grazing the same as under Alternative A. 

Under Alternative D, approximately 41,536 acres of HMAs within grazing allotments would be 

reduced due to boundary adjustments, with the exception of the Snowstorm Mountain HMA, which 

would be slightly expanded. This action reduces competition between livestock and wild horses and 

burros for forage, water, and shelter and represents less of an impact than under Alternative B, but a 

greater impact than under Alternatives A or C (Options 1 and 2). 

Implementing appropriate management actions would occur to livestock or WHB relative to the 

degree to which each animal species is contributing to the non-attainment of resource objectives (if 

known) or proportionally (if unknown). This could directly impact livestock grazing by either 

reducing livestock AUMs or wild horse and burro AMLs. 

Effects from Wildland Fire Management 

Effects Common to Alternatives A, B, C (Option 1), and D

Wildland fire would have varying effects on livestock grazing, depending on fire size and intensity, 

the timing of the fire, and fuel moisture content. Wildland fire would initially displace livestock, and 

depending on the proximity of the livestock to the fire, livestock could be stressed, injured, or killed. 

Wildland fire would remove vegetation and forage over the short term. Over the long term, wildland 

fire could improve forage production, especially when post-fire management efforts are 

implemented. ES&R would close areas to livestock grazing in order to protect seeded species and 

increase success, thereby protection the seeded species from overgrazing in the short term and 

establishing a stable forage base in the long term. 

In addition to the impacts identified under Effects Common to Alternatives A, B, C (Option 1), and 

D, the following individual effects would impact livestock grazing. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Prescribed fire would be used to reduce or rejuvenate shrub cover and increase herbaceous forage 

for grazing animals. Prescribed fire would result in short-term deferment of livestock grazing to 

allow for herbaceous recovery. Increased sediment loads following prescribed fires may fill stock 

ponds, thereby reducing capacity and putting additional burden on the permittee to empty and clean 

ponds. Prescribed fire may impact range improvements, enhance forage availability and production, 

and reduce the likelihood of wildland fire occurrence. Short-term impacts of prescribed fire could 

include an increase of cheatgrass following treatment in areas where cheatgrass is the dominant 

understory grass. Prescribed fire could be used in mountain big sagebrush communities in late 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-431 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

ecological status to provide diversity of age classes for shrubs. Prescribed fire could also be used as a 

pre-treatment for weed control prior to an herbicide application. 

Zero acres of livestock grazing allotments would be considered suitable for allowing fire for 

resource benefit. Allow fire for resource benefit is a treatment that involves taking advantage of a 

naturally ignited wildland fire in an area where fire would benefit resources. Having no areas 

designated to allow fire for resource benefit would impact livestock grazing. Enhancement of the 

livestock forage base would not occur as mature and decadent stands of fire resistant vegetation 

would not be allowed to burn. Species composition would not improve. Allowing natural fire would 

promote the establishment of forbs and grasses. Species composition would be improved. In the 

long term, livestock would not have a sustained forage base in certain areas if fire is not allowed for 

resource benefit. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Under Alternative B, 107,757 acres of livestock grazing allotments would be considered suitable for 

allowing fire for resource benefit. In the short term, livestock would lose forage in burned areas. In 

the long term, allowing fire for resource benefit could improve forage production by restructuring 

the age class of shrubs and increasing the density and composition of grasses and forbs. 

Impacts from prescribed fire are the same as under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C 

Option 1 

Zero acres of livestock grazing allotments would be considered suitable for allowing fire for 

resource benefit under Alternative C, Option 1. Impacts are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Prescribed fire would not be used under Alternative C, Option 1, which would avoid short-term 

deferment of livestock grazing during recovery or increased sediment loads in stock ponds. Forage 

may not be enhanced in the long term, however, and the likelihood of wildland fire occurrence 

could be increased without the use of prescribed fire. 

Option 2 

Since there is no livestock grazing under Alternative C, Option 2, there are no impacts on livestock 

grazing from wildland fire management. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Under Alternative D, 21,753 acres of livestock grazing allotments would be considered suitable for 

allowing fire for resource benefit. Impacts from allowing fire for resource benefit are the same as 

those under Alternative B but would be limited to a much smaller acreage.

Impacts from prescribed fire are the same as under Alternative A. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-432 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Effects from Cultural Resources Management 

Effects Common to Alternatives A, B, C (Option 1), and D

In general, management actions associated with cultural resources affect relatively small localized 

areas and would have negligible effects on livestock forage. Even under the most intensive 

management, such as excavation, the acreage disturbed would be small. Fencing some cultural sites 

could exclude grazing and cause a loss of available forage. Restrictions on surface-disturbing and 

other disruptive activities near cultural sites could require that some range improvements be 

modified or relocated, and in rare cases improvements could be precluded. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

The indirect short-term impact of maintaining culturally sensitive areas as open to OHV use would 

be a reduction in forage and temporary displacement of livestock. The indirect long-term impacts of 

maintaining culturally sensitive areas as open to OHV use include loss of forage, reduced forage 

palatability because of dust on vegetation, and disturbance and harassment. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Indirect impacts on livestock grazing by maintaining culturally sensitive areas as open to OHV use 

would be the same as under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C 

Option 1 

Limiting OHV use in culturally sensitive areas would indirectly affect livestock grazing by keeping 

OHVs on specific routes and reducing the conflicts that can arise with livestock and OHV 

interactions (such as harassment of livestock). Limiting OHV use to designated trails, however, 

could impact permittees that use OHVs to herd cattle. Closing Class I segments of the National 

Historic Trail segments to OHV use could prevent permittees from accessing their cattle in a timely 

fashion where allotments overlap with these trail segments. 

Option 2 

Since there is no livestock grazing under Option 2, there are no impacts on livestock grazing from 

cultural resources management. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Indirect impacts on livestock grazing by limiting OHV use to designated trails in culturally sensitive 

areas and closing Class I segments of the National Historic Trail segments to OHV use would have 

the same impacts on livestock grazing as under Alternative C, Option 1. 

Effects from Tribal Consultation 

Effects Common to Alternatives A, B, C (Option 1), and D

No specific effects have been identified from management actions related to tribal consultation. The 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-433 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

BLM would continue to consult with tribes regarding treaty rights, cultural access, and use of plants, 

animals, fish, and habitats. Consultation could result in identifying areas where current or proposed 

livestock grazing could need to be modified to accommodate tribal uses or to avoid resources 

important to tribes. However, it is unlikely that accommodating tribal uses would be inconsistent 

with providing opportunities for grazing within the WDO in the long term.

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Impacts are the same as under Effects Common to Alternatives A, B, C (Option 1), and D. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Impacts are the same as under Effects Common to Alternatives A, B, C (Option 1), and D. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C 

Option 1 

Impacts are the same as under Effects Common to Alternatives A, B, C (Option 1), and D. 

Option 2 

Since there is no livestock grazing under Alternative C, Option 2, there are no impacts on livestock 

grazing from tribal consultation. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Impacts are the same as under Effects Common to Alternatives A, B, C (Option 1), and D. 

Effects from Paleontological Resources Management 

Effects Common to Alternatives A, B, C (Option 1), and D

In general, management actions associated with paleontological resources affect relatively small 

localized areas and would have negligible effects on livestock forage. Fostering public awareness of 

paleontological resources could increase human and livestock interactions in areas that contain 

deposits, thereby indirectly increasing the amount of disturbance and harassment caused by these 

interactions. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Fostering public awareness of paleontological resources could increase human and livestock 

interactions in areas that contain deposits, thereby indirectly increasing the amount of disturbance 

and harassment caused by these interactions. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Preventing discretionary activities, such as livestock grazing, on public lands unless impacts could be 

mitigated could directly impact grazing by excluding grazing in these areas. Fostering public 

awareness of paleontological resources would indirectly impact livestock grazing the same as under 

Alternative A. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-434 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative C 

Option 1 

Impacts from preventing discretionary activities on public lands unless impacts could be mitigated 

would directly impact livestock grazing the same as under Alternative B. Prohibiting OHV use in 

areas that contain vulnerable paleontological deposits could reduce OHV and livestock interactions 

but would directly prevent permittees from accessing their cattle in a timely fashion where 

allotments contain these deposits. Fostering public awareness of paleontological resources only if it 

does not promote increased visitation to sites under Alternative C, Option 1 would not impact 

livestock grazing because visitor use would not increase and visitor and livestock interactions would 

not increase. 

Option 2 

Since there is no livestock grazing under Alternative C, Option 2, there are no impacts on livestock 

grazing from paleontological resources management. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Impacts from preventing discretionary activities on public lands unless impacts could be mitigated 

would directly impact livestock grazing the same as under Alternative B. Impacts from prohibiting 

OHV use in areas that contain vulnerable paleontological deposits would have the same indirect 

impacts as under Alternative C, Option 1. Fostering public awareness of paleontological resources 

would indirectly impact livestock grazing the same as under Alternative A. 

Effects from Visual Resources Management 

Table 4-44 shows the VRM classes that overlay grazing allotments under each alternative. 

Table 4-44 

VRM Designations within Grazing Allotments 

VRM 

Class 

Alternative A 

(acres) 

Alternative B 

(acres) 

Alternative C 

(Option 1) 

(acres) 

Alternative C 

(Option 2) 

(acres) 

Alternative D 

(acres) 

I 406,328 403,648 436,478 0 403,648 

II 319,961 375,629 2,822,951 0 375,629 

III 662,470 2,201,765 2,667,695 0 220,1765 

IV 5,183,180 3,660,228 744,953 0 366,0228 

Source: BLM 2007 

Effects Common to Alternatives A, B, C (Option 1), and D

Livestock and their handling facilities may be authorized under all VRM classes; however, the design 

and placement of new range improvements in VRM Class I and II areas would have to be 

constructed in such a way as to repeat the basic elements of form, line, color, and texture found in 

the predominant natural features of the characteristic landscape, as identified in BLM Handbook H8410-1. Specifically constructing range improvements to follow the BLM Handbook H-8410-1 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-435 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

could directly place a financial burden on permittees and the BLM Class III objectives state that the 

level of change to the character of the landscape should be moderate; however, management 

activities could dominate the view and be the major focus of viewer attention (BLM Handbook H8410-1) (BLM 1986). Class IV objectives state that the level of change to the characteristic landscape 

can be high. These management activities may dominate the view and be the major focus of viewer 

attention. However, every attempt should be made to minimize the impact of these activities 

through careful location, minimal disturbance, and repeating the basic elements. Class III and IV 

objectives would have a minimal impact on livestock grazing facility management. 

In general, VRM classes that restrict surface-disturbing activities would indirectly help to maintain 

forage levels by reducing activities that could eliminate forage, harass livestock and increase the 

potential for noxious or invasive weeds. 

In addition to the impacts identified under Effects Common to Alternatives A, B, C (Option 1), and 

D, the following individual effects would impact livestock grazing. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Five percent of the available grazing acreage would fall within VRM Class I areas, and four percent 

would fall within VRM Class II areas.. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Table 4-44, VRM Designations within Grazing Allotments, displays VRM class designations within 

available grazing allotments under Alternative B. Five percent of the available grazing acreage would 

fall within VRM Class I areas, and five percent would fall within VRM Class II areas. The indirect 

impacts on new range improvements would be similar to Alternative A and less than the other 

alternatives. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C 

Option 1 

Table 4-44, VRM Designations within Grazing Allotments, displays VRM class designations within 

available grazing allotments under Alternative C, Option 1. Five percent of the available grazing 

acreage would fall within VRM Class I areas, and 34 percent would fall within VRM Class II areas. 

The indirect impacts on new range improvements would be greater than under all of the other 

alternatives because of the greatest amount of acreage is designated Class II. 

Option 2 

Since there is no livestock grazing under Alternative C, Option 2, there are no impacts on livestock 

grazing from visual resources management. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Table 4-44, VRM Designations within Grazing Allotments, displays VRM class designations within 

available grazing allotments under Alternative D. Five percent of the available grazing acreage falls 

within VRM Class I areas, and 5 percent falls within VRM Class II areas. The indirect impacts on 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-436 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

new range improvements are the same as Alternatives A and Band less than under Alternative C, 

Option 1. 

Effects from Cave and Karst Resources Management 

Effects Common to Alternatives A, B, C (Option 1), and D

Livestock do not generally graze on steep slopes along hillsides, where caves tend to be located. 

Caves that are accessible to livestock do not contain forage; however, if the caves are protected or 

fenced, this could directly impact livestock grazing by reducing a source of shade or shelter from 

inclement weather. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Impacts are the same as under Effects Common to Alternatives A, B, C (Option 1), and D. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Impacts are the same as under Effects Common to Alternatives A, B, C (Option 1), and D. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C 

Option 1 

Impacts are the same as under Effects Common to Alternatives A, B, C (Option 1), and D. 

Option 2 

Since there is no livestock grazing under Alternative C, Option 2, there are no impacts on livestock 

grazing from cave and karst resources management. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Impacts are the same as under Effects Common to Alternatives A, B, C (Option 1), and D. 

Effects from Livestock Grazing Management 

Effects Common to Alternatives A, B, C (Option 1), and D

In general, livestock grazing on public lands provides a source of income to the permittees within 

the WDO. Impacts from livestock grazing on the livestock grazing program would primarily be 

related to annual forage removal. Implementing BMPs and grazing management systems that 

achieve the Sierra Front-Northwestern Great Basin RAC Standards and Guidelines for Rangeland 

Health would improve forage conditions over the long term, indirectly improving livestock health 

and increasing conception rates. 

If monitoring data indicate that impacts on resources are occurring from livestock grazing, then 

appropriate adjustments would be made to livestock AUMs, seasons of use, or utilization levels. 

Adjusting AUMs could potentially impact the rancher negatively or positively depending on the 

situation. Adjusting seasons of use could limit permittee flexibility; reducing the amount of available 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-437 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

forage in the short term. Livestock removal during the critical growth period also may coincide with 

the rancher’s farming activities, thereby limiting where ranchers could put their livestock. 

In the long term, meeting utilization levels could lead to attainment of standards for rangeland 

health, which would create a sustained forage yield. 

In areas where allotments coincide with HMAs, livestock operators would not be authorized to 

graze domestic horses and burros in order to prevent wild horse and domestic horse conflicts. This 

may impact permittees that are authorized to graze horses on public lands by limiting the areas of 

use to outside of HMAs. 

In areas where allotments coincide with existing bighorn sheep populations, conversion of AUMs 

from domestic cattle to domestic sheep would only be allowed where conflicts could be mitigated 

(e.g., buffer zones). This may impact permittees that are authorized to graze domestic sheep on 

public lands by limiting the areas of use to portions of those allotments where bighorn sheep 

populations do not exist. 

In areas where allotments coincide with potential bighorn sheep habitat, conversion of AUMs from 

domestic cattle to domestic sheep could be allowed; however, if bighorn sheep moved into the area, 

mitigation such as buffer zones could be implemented, impacting the acreage of grazing and AUMs 

available to the permittee. 

Allowing for conversion between classes (not including domestic cattle to domestic sheep) and ages 

of livestock would allow flexibility for the permittee to efficiently use the allotments permitted to 

them. 

In addition to the impacts identified under Effects Common to Alternatives A, B, C (Option 1), and 

D, the following individual effects would impact livestock grazing. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

There would be no net change in the lands available for livestock grazing or the assigned AUMs 

under Alternative A. Under Alternative A, forage banks would not be permitted. Forage banks are 

allotments where a previous permit has been relinquished or cancelled and could be used to provide 

alternate grazing opportunities for ranchers after wildfires, restoration projects and during droughts. 

Not providing forage banks could take away an opportunity to help permittees continue to graze 

their livestock on public lands when their own allotment is closed due to an emergency situation, 

negatively impacting the permittees financially. 

Allowing prescriptive grazing and temporary nonrenewable (TNR) grazing on acquired lands on a 

case-by-case basis provides an opportunity for ranchers to enhance their income and provide 

alternate forage for their cattle. 

Permittees would be authorized to construct and maintain range improvement projects through 

issuance of cooperative agreements, which would allow for the continuance of grazing operations on 

public land. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-438 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Impacts on livestock grazing from allowing for conversion between classes (not including domestic 

cattle to domestic sheep) and ages of livestock would be the same as under Effects Common to 

Alternatives A, B, C (Option 1), and D. Under Alternative A, where new waters are developed for 

livestock, the permittee would be required to provide water for wildlife only when livestock are 

present. This management action should not have any added financial impacts on the permittee. 

Operator flexibility could be increased by permitting prescribed grazing within exclosure areas. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Alternative B allows for continued use of the public land for livestock grazing, with the same acreage 

and AUMs allotted as Alternative A. Impacts from using TNR and from constructing and 

maintaining range improvement projects also are the same as under Alternative A. 

Alternative B gives the permit holder the responsibility of approaching the BLM with an annual 

grazing plan, which would allow an opportunity for ranchers to expedite the process to expand their 

grazing business. 

Adjusting grazing allotment boundaries would increase or decrease the amount of acreage within an 

allotment. An increase or decrease in acreage within an allotment could correspond to an increase or 

decrease in AUMs harvested, which could either benefit or impact a permittee financially. In 

addition, an increase in acreage could allow for more flexibility in the grazing rotation. 

Impacts on livestock grazing from allowing for conversion between classes (not including domestic 

cattle to domestic sheep) and ages of livestock would be the same as under Effects Common to 

Alternatives A, B, C (Option 1), and D. Under Alternative B, impacts on permittees developing new 

waters for livestock would be the same as identified under Alternative A. 

Providing overflow ponds on range improvement projects would result in additional water storage, 

allowing the permittee more time to conduct repairs on the range improvement without running out 

of water for livestock. However, overflow ponds can be a source of contaminated water to the 

livestock, as they tend to congregate and defecate within the pond area. 

Under Alternative B, exclosures would be open to grazing unless site-specific allotment terms and 

conditions, objectives, and land health standards are not being achieved. This could allow the 

operator more flexibility in managing their livestock over a larger area. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C 

Option 1 

Under Alternative C, Option 1, 297,999 acres of livestock grazing would be closed. 

Under Alternative C, Option 1, other resource values would be considered primary to livestock 

grazing. Therefore, livestock authorizations would only be issued if livestock grazing is found to be 

complimentary to other resource values. If livestock grazing is not found to be complimentary to 

other resource values, then no authorization would be issued, resulting in the same impacts as 

identified under Option 2 below. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-439 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Forage banks would be permitted under Alternative C, Option 1 under emergency situations (e.g., 

wildfire, drought, insect infestation, etc.). Providing forage banks for the permittees would allow 

them to continue to graze their livestock on public lands when their own allotment is closed due to 

an emergency situation, thus limiting financial impacts. Management responsibilities and priority 

usage could present conflicts, however, between livestock grazing permittees and the BLM. 

Impacts on livestock grazing from retiring grazing permits are the same as those under Alternative 

A. 

Closing acquired lands to livestock grazing would prevent an opportunity for ranchers to expand 

their grazing business. Excluding TNR use would prevent an opportunity for ranchers to enhance 

their income and provide alternate forage for their cattle. 

Permittees would be authorized to construct and maintain range improvement projects through 

issuance of cooperative agreements, which would allow grazing operations to continue on public 

land only if compatible with other resources and uses. If range improvements are not compatible 

with other resources and uses, they would be removed or modified. Removing or modifying range 

improvements could impact livestock grazing by reducing the amount of AUMs authorized due to 

resource impacts from concentrated livestock. Modifications to range improvements could have a 

financial implication to the permittee, depending on the type modification needed to make the 

project compatible with other resources and uses. 

No more than two consecutive years of grazing use during the critical growing period would be 

allowed under Alternative C, Option 1. Utilizing key forage species would be maintained at 30 

percent or less, which would limit the number of AUMs harvested by placing constraints on 

livestock numbers or use dates. 

Impacts from adjusting grazing allotment boundaries would be the same as under Alternative B; 

however, a greater number of allotments have been identified for adjustment. 

In areas where allotments coincide with potential habitat or existing bighorn sheep populations, 

Alternative C, Option 1 does not allow conversion from domestic cattle to domestic sheep. This 

may impact permittees that are authorized to graze domestic sheep on public lands by limiting the 

areas of use for grazing to those allotments that do not have potential bighorn sheep habitat or 

existing bighorn sheep populations. 

Conversion from domestic sheep to cattle would be promoted under Alternative C, Option 1 in 

order to endorse bighorn sheep population and to increase their habitat range throughout the 

WDO. 

Under Alternative C, Option 1, where new waters are developed for livestock in big game habitat or 

HMAs, the permittee would be required to provide water for wildlife and wild horses and burros 

even when livestock are not present. This management action could financially impact permittees by 

requiring them to maintain water at the site, even when livestock are not allowed during a specific 

season of use. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-440 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Overflow ponds would not be developed under Alternative C, Option 1. If range improvements 

malfunction and overflow ponds are not present, livestock would be forced to find an alternate 

source of water until such repairs could be made. 

Closing all exclosure areas to livestock grazing could reduce the amount of flexibility a permittee has 

in managing his livestock; however, it could allow the permittee to achieve allotment-specific 

objectives without intensive livestock management (e.g., herding). 

Option 2 

Livestock grazing on public land is an important source of income to ranchers in Nevada. As 

identified in the Winnemucca RMP/EIS Socioeconomic Report (BLM 2006c), cattle and calf 

production in Nevada has remained relatively stable, ranging from 152,915,000 pounds in 1994 to 

171,335,000 pounds in 2003. Gross income has increased over time from $132,388,000 in 1994 to 

$185,205,000 in 2003 and is expected to continue. 

The BLM manages grazing on public lands by issuing grazing permits. Approximately 12 percent of 

the fees collected from grazing permits are returned to the state of Nevada (BLM 2006c). In 

addition, Congress appropriates funds for payments in lieu of taxes to eligible local governments 

each year as income generated from the use of public land for livestock grazing. Eliminating 

livestock grazing on public lands would impair the livelihood of ranchers in the WDO and would 

decrease associated revenue to state and local governments. 

Eliminating grazing on public lands could reduce erosion caused by high livestock use, improving 

upland, riparian and wetland habitat at a faster rate. Conflicts between livestock and wild horses, 

burros, and wildlife would be eliminated. However, eliminating grazing would allow vegetation to 

build up faster on rangelands and increase the chances of overgrown vegetation becoming more 

susceptible to fire and disease. 

Range improvements that are not compatible with other resources and uses would be removed. 

BLM would be required to compensate the permittees for the range improvement projects 

constructed under a cooperative agreement in accordance with 43 CFR 4120.3-6 (c). 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Under Alternative D, 319,328 acres of livestock grazing would be closed. Impacts on livestock 

grazing from implementing forage bank usage are the same as under Alternative C, Option 1. 

The impacts from allowing prescriptive grazing on acquired lands are the same as those identified 

under Alternative A; however, after an implementation plan is developed, the available AUMs may 

become a permanent part of a permit, or livestock grazing could be excluded based on other 

resource concerns or priorities. Excluding grazing would have a financial impact on a permittee, as 

identified under Alternative C, Option 1. 

Impacts on livestock grazing from allowing TNR applications would be contingent on meeting 

specific criteria. If the criteria are met, TNR would be authorized and impacts would be the same as 

under Alternatives A and B. If criteria are not met, BLM would have to undertake NEPA in order to 

implement TNR. The outcome of NEPA could prevent the approval of TNR in situations where 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-441 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

other resources would be impacted, thereby preventing an opportunity to provide alternative forage 

for livestock and enhance a permittee’s income. 

Permittees with a good record of past project maintenance would be authorized to construct and 

maintain range improvement projects through issuance of cooperative agreements, which would 

allow for the continuance of grazing operations on public land. Permittees with a poor record would 

have to maintain existing projects to bureau specifications prior to any new projects being 

authorized, which could have a high financial impact on permittees at one time as opposed to 

smaller maintenance costs over a longer period of time. 

No more than three consecutive years of grazing use during the critical growing period would be 

allowed under Alternative D. Utilization of key forage species would be maintained at 40 percent or 

less, which would limit the number of AUMs harvested by placing constraints on livestock numbers 

or use dates. 

Impacts from adjusting grazing allotment boundaries would be the same as under Alternative B; 

however, a greater number of allotments have been identified for adjustment. 

Impacts on livestock grazing from allowing for conversion between classes (not including domestic 

cattle to domestic sheep) and ages of livestock would be the same as under Effects Common to 

Alternatives A, B, C (Option 1), and D. 

Under Alternative D, impacts on permittees developing new water sources in big game habitat and 

HMAs for livestock would be the same as Alternative C, Option 1. 

Under Alternative D, overflow ponds would not be permitted on surface water sources such as 

springs or creeks, which would have the same impact on livestock grazing as Alternative C, Option 

1. On sites with water wells overflow ponds would be encouraged, which would have the same 

impact on livestock grazing as Alternative B. 

Permitting prescribed grazing within exclosure areas would impact livestock grazing the same as 

Alternative A. 

Effects from Minerals Management 

Table 4-45 displays the acreages of salable mineral designations within available grazing allotments. 

Table 4-46 displays the acreages of fluid mineral leasing designations within available grazing 

allotments. 

Table 4-47 displays the acreages of solid mineral leasing designations within available grazing 

allotments. 

Table 4-48 displays the acreages of locatable mineral leasing designations within available grazing 

allotments. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-442 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Table 4-45 

Salable Mineral Designations within Grazing Allotments 

Alternative A 

(acres) 

Alternative B 

(acres) 

Alternative C 

(Option 1) 

(acres) 

Alternative C 

(Option 2) 

(acres) 

Alternative D 

(acres) 

Acres closed to mineral 

material sale 

403,253 404,984 745,214 0 686,577 

Acres open to mineral 

material sale of any type 

6,223,897 6,234,388 5,891,965 0 5,928,943 

Acres open to permitted 

government agencies 

0 815,647 3,377,817 0 1,713,606 

Acres open to sale* 6,223,897 4,075,187 2,514,148 0 3,088,042 

Acres open to sale* with 

seasonal restrictions 

0 1,343,544 0 0 1,127,295 

Source: BLM 2007a 

*Open with standard operation terms and stipulations 

Table 4-46 

Fluid Mineral Designations within Grazing Allotments 

Alternative A 

(acres) 

Alternative B 

(acres) 

Alternative C 

(Option 1) 

(acres) 

Alternative C 

(Option 2) 

(acres) 

Alternative D 

(acres) 

Acres closed to leasing 432,870 1,084,815 4,119,889 0 1,008,135 

Acres open to leasing of 

any type 

6,194,280 5,689,644 2,517,287 0 5,459,996 

Acres open to leasing* 6,165,557 4,074,311 2,518,287 0 3,604,032 

Acres open to leasing*

with seasonal closures 

0 1,19,573 0 0 1,558,056 

Acres open to leasing2

with No Surface 

Occupancy 

28,723 195,780 0 0 297,908 

Source: BLM 2007a

*Open with standard lease terms and stipulations 

Table 4-47 

Solid Mineral Designations within Grazing Allotments 

Alternative A 

(acres) 

Alternative B 

(acres) 

Alternative C 

(Option 1) 

(acres) 

Alternative C 

(Option 2) 

(acres) 

Alternative D 

(acres) 

Acres closed to leasing 402,624 1,084,791 4,120,503 0 1,144,022 

Acres open to leasing 

of any type 

6,224,527 5,542,360 2,516,675 0 5,890,383 

Acres open to leasing* 0 4,074,446 2,516,675 0 3,603,931 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-443 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-444 

 Alternative A 

(acres) 

Alternative B 

(acres) 

Alternative C 

(Option 1) 

(acres) 

Alternative C 

(Option 2) 

(acres) 

Alternative D 

(acres) 

Acres open to leasing*

with seasonal closures 

0 1,272,216 0 0 1,557,927 

Acres open to leasing*

with No Surface 

Occupancy 

0 195,698 0 0 297,961 

Source: BLM 2007a 

*Open with standard lease terms and stipulations 

Table 4-48 

Locatable Mineral Designations within Grazing Allotments 

Alternative A 

(acres) 

Alternative B 

(acres) 

Alternative C 

(Option 1) 

(acres)

Alternative C 

(Option 2) 

(acres)

Alternative D 

(acres) 

Discretionary Closures 6,543 6,543 253,888 0 27,331

Acres open to leasing 

of any type 

6,632,668 6,632,668 6,371,230 0 6,588,518

Acres open to 

leasing*

2,659,806 2,659,806 3,069,132 0 3,736,015

Acres open to 

leasing* with seasonal 

closures 

3,972,862 3,972,862 3,302,098 0 2,852,503

Source: BLM 2007a 

*Open with standard lease terms and stipulations 

Effects Common to Alternatives A, B, C (Option 1), and D

General 

During the exploration and testing phase of mineral development, direct impacts on livestock 

grazing would be minimal due to the small amount of acreage affected. Mineral development directly 

affects large areas of grazing in the short term during construction of wellpads, roads, pipelines, and 

other facilities. Impacts include loss of forage, reduced forage palatability because of dust on 

vegetation, restriction of livestock movement, harassment and temporary displacement of livestock. 

In the long term, a smaller amount of permanent grazing acreage is lost during mining operations. 

Mining companies could work with livestock permittees to mitigate impacts on water by producing 

off-site water developments. 

Fluid 

In addition to the general mineral development impacts mentioned above, produced water from oil 

and gas and geothermal mining operations could be made available to livestock for use if water 

quality were sufficient. This additional water could increase livestock distribution and available 

forage for livestock, wildlife, WHBs, and other uses.
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Locatable 

Approximately 96 to 99 percent of available livestock grazing acreage would be open to locatable 

mineral leasing under all of the alternatives, and impacts on livestock grazing are the same for all 

alternatives and are identified under General impacts, above. 

In addition to the impacts identified under Effects Common to Alternatives A, B, C (Option 1), and 

D, the following individual effects would impact livestock grazing. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Salable 

Ninety-four percent of available livestock grazing acreage would be open to mineral material sales 

under Alternatives A, representing the greatest impact on livestock grazing.

Fluid 

Ninety-nine percent of available livestock grazing acreage would be open to fluid mineral leasing 

under Alternative A, representing the greatest impact on livestock grazing.

Solid 

Ninety-four percent of available livestock grazing acreage would be open to fluid mineral leasing 

under Alternative A, representing the greatest impact on livestock grazing.

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Salable 

Table 4-45 displays the acreages of salable mineral designations within available grazing allotments. 

Impacts are the same as identified under Alternative A.

Fluid 

Table 4-46 displays the acreages of fluid mineral leasing designations within available grazing 

allotments. Eighty-four percent of available livestock grazing acreage would be open to fluid mineral 

leasing under Alternative B. Impacts on livestock grazing are similar to but less than under 

Alternative A.

Solid 

Table 4-47 displays the acreages of solid mineral leasing designations within available grazing 

allotments. Eighty-four percent of available livestock grazing acreage would be open to solid mineral 

leasing under Alternative B. Impacts on livestock grazing are similar to but less than under 

Alternative A. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-445 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative C 

Option 1 

Salable 

Table 4-45 displays the acreages of salable mineral designations within available grazing allotments. 

The greatest amount of acreage closed to salable disposal would be under Alternative C, Option 1, 

so the most impacts would occur under Alternative C, Option 1. 

Fluid 

Table 4-46 displays the acreages of fluid mineral leasing designations within available grazing 

allotments. Under Alternative C, Option 1, 38 percent of available livestock grazing acreage would 

be open to fluid mineral leasing and would represent the least amount of impacts on livestock 

grazing.

Solid 

Table 4-47 displays the acreages of solid mineral leasing designations within available grazing 

allotments. Under Alternative C, Option 1, 38 percent of available livestock grazing acreage would 

be open to solid mineral leasing and would represent the least amount of impacts on livestock 

grazing.

Option 2 

Since there is no livestock grazing under Alternative C, Option 2, there are no impacts on livestock 

grazing from mineral resources management. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Salable 

Table 4-45 displays the acreages of salable mineral designations within available grazing allotments. 

Under Alternative D, 90 percent of available livestock grazing acreage would be open to mineral 

material sales and would represent the least amount of impacts on livestock grazing. 

Fluid 

Table 4-46 displays the acreages of fluid mineral leasing designations within available grazing 

allotments. Eighty-four percent of available livestock grazing acreage would be open to fluid mineral 

leasing under Alternative D. Impacts on livestock grazing are similar but less than Alternative A.

Solid 

Table 4-47 displays the acreages of solid mineral leasing designations within available grazing 

allotments. Eighty-four percent of available livestock grazing acreage would be open to solid mineral 

leasing under Alternative D. Impacts on livestock grazing are similar to but less than Alternative A.

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-446 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Effects from Recreation, Visitor Outreach, and Services Management 

Table 4-49 displays OHV designations within grazing allotments by alternative. 

Table 4-49 

OHV Designations within Grazing Allotments 

OHV 

Designation 

Alternative A 

(acres) 

Alternative B 

(acres) 

Alternative C 

(Option 1) 

(acres) 

Alternative C 

(Option 2) 

(acres) 

Alternative D 

(acres) 

Open 6,216,854 1,276,227 0 0 273,793 

Limited 402,892 5,065,902 6,575,638 0 6,305,891 

Closed 24,834 24,833 56,752 0 35,379 

Total 6,644,580 6,366,962 6,632,390 0 6,615,063 

Source: BLM 2007a 

Effects Common to Alternatives A, B, C (Option 1), and D

Short-term impacts of recreation activities on livestock grazing include loss of forage and temporary 

displacement of livestock. Long-term impacts of recreation on livestock include loss of forage, 

reduced forage palatability because of dust on vegetation, and disturbance and harassment caused by 

increased levels of human activities. SRMAs that manage for increased OHV use and access would 

increase the impacts stated above. SRMAs that manage for a more primitive recreational experience 

would decrease the impacts stated above. Areas that are limited or closed to OHV use under any of 

the alternatives can impact livestock grazing by limiting the permittee’s use of OHVs, which are 

often used to herd and check on cattle. Any development of reservoir sites for water-based 

recreation could potentially provide an additional source of water for livestock. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Approximately one percent (98,874 acres) of the 8,232,727 acres of available grazing areas would be 

located in SRMAs under Alternative A. Impacts on livestock grazing would be localized to the Alder 

Creek, Dyke Hot, Knott Creek, and Pine Forest Allotments, which are being managed for a 

primitive type of recreation that has minimal impacts on livestock grazing. Alternative A would have 

the fewest impacts on livestock grazing from SRMA management. 

Under Alternative A, 94 percent (6,216,854 acres) of available grazing areas would continue to be 

designated as open to OHV use (Table 4-49, OHV Designations within Grazing Allotments). 

Increased demand for OHV use could impact livestock grazing by increasing human-caused noise, 

dust, and vegetation disturbance and by allowing greater opportunity for the harassment of grazing 

animals. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-447 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Approximately 14 percent (1,176,292 acres) of the 8,232,727 acres of available grazing areas would 

be located in SRMAs, a 15 percent increase from Alternative A. The Winnemucca SRMA would 

provide for the greatest amount of conflict between livestock grazing and recreational activities, so 

Alternatives B and D would have the greatest impacts on livestock grazing. 

Under Alternative B, 20 percent (1,276,227 acres) of available grazing acres would be designated as 

open to OHV use (Table 4-49, OHV Designations within Grazing Allotments). Under Alternative 

B, 74 percent of available grazing areas would be changed from open to limited or closed. Changing 

motorized vehicle use areas from an open to a limited or closed designation would affect livestock 

grazing by reducing multiple uses on grazing allotments, thus reducing conflicts from such multiple 

uses (such as displacement and harassment of livestock). Changing motorized vehicle use areas from 

an open to a limited OHV use, however, could impact permittees that use OHVs to herd cattle. 

Changing motorized vehicle use areas from an open or limited designation to a closed designation 

could impact permittees that use OHVs to herd and check on cattle. Action B-R 10.3, does, however 

allow for exceptions on OHV use during emergencies and ranching-related maintenance on a caseby-case basis, which could lessen the impacts from changing OHV designations from open to 

limited or closed. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C 

Option 1 

Approximately 3 percent (250,572 acres) of the 8,038,084 acres of available grazing areas would be 

located in SRMAs, a three percent increase from Alternative A. Impacts on livestock grazing are 

greater than under Alternative A but less than under Alternatives B and D. 

Under Alternative C, Option 1, no available grazing areas would be designated as open to OHV use 

(Table 4-49, OHV Designations within Grazing Allotments). Under Alternative C, Option 1, 90 

percent of available grazing areas would be changed from open to limited or closed. Changing 

motorized vehicle use areas from an open to a limited or closed designation would affect livestock 

grazing by reducing multiple uses on grazing allotments, thus reducing conflicts from multiple uses 

such as displacement and harassment of livestock. Action C-R 10.3 would impact livestock grazing 

the same as identified under Alternative B. Alternative C (Option 1) would have the fewest impacts 

on livestock grazing from OHV use. 

Option 2 

Since there is no livestock grazing under Alternative C, Option 2, there are no impacts on livestock 

grazing from recreation management. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Approximately 16 percent (1,267,395 acres) of the 7,903,856 acres of available grazing areas would 

be located in SRMAs, a 16 percent increase from Alternative A. The impacts on livestock grazing are 

the same as Alternative B. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-448 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Under Alternative D, four percent (273,793 acres) of available grazing areas would be designated as 

open to OHV use (Table 4-49, OHV Designations within Grazing Allotments) and 95 percent 

would be limited to OHV use. Action D-R 10.3 would impact livestock grazing in a manner similar 

to that identified under Alternative B. Impacts on livestock grazing would be less than under 

Alternative A. 

Effects from Renewable Energy Management 

Effects Common to Alternatives A, B, C (Option 1), and D

Renewable energy development affects areas of grazing in the short term during construction of 

access roads and facilities (such as wind turbines, solar panels, and biomass plants). Impacts include 

temporary loss of forage, reduced forage palatability because of dust on vegetation, and temporary 

harassment and displacement of livestock. In the long term, a smaller amount of permanent grazing 

acreage would be lost, depending on the size of these operations. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Impacts are the same as under Effects Common to Alternatives A, B, C (Option 1), and D. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

No exclusion zones would be designated under Alternative B, allowing for the greatest amount of 

renewable energy development and the greatest amount of impacts (as identified above under 

Effects Common to All Alternatives) to livestock grazing. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C 

Option 1 

The greatest amount of acreage would be excluded from ROW development under Alternative C, 

Option 1, which would present the least amount of renewable energy development and impacts (as 

identified above under Effects Common to All Alternatives) to livestock grazing. 

Option 2 

Since there is no livestock grazing under Alternative C, Option 2, there are no impacts on livestock 

grazing from renewable energy management. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Limiting exclusion zones to 674,161 acres within the WDO would impact livestock grazing less than 

Alternative B, but slightly more than Alternative C, Option 1. 

Effects from Transportation and Travel Management 

Effects Common to Alternatives A, B, C (Option 1), and D

In general transportation routes provide better access for permittees and allow for expedited 

checking and moving of livestock. The cattle also use transportation routes to move from pasture to 

pasture. Short-term impacts of road construction and temporary road closures include loss of forage, 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-449 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

temporary harassment displacement of livestock, and preventing permittees from accessing their 

cattle in a timely fashion. Long-term direct and indirect impacts on cattle from newly developed 

transportation routes include loss of forage, reduced forage palatability because of dust on 

vegetation, and disturbance and harassment cause by increased levels of human activities. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Decommissioning roads from the system inventory could directly impact permittees’ access to their 

livestock. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Impacts are the same as under Effects Common to Alternatives A, B, C (Option 1), and D. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C 

Option 1 

Decommissioning roads from the system inventory could directly impact permittees access to their 

livestock. This effect could be amplified in areas closed to OHV use. 

Option 2 

Since there is no livestock grazing under Alternative C, Option 2, there are no impacts on livestock 

grazing from transportation and travel management. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Decommissioning roads from the system inventory would directly and indirectly impact livestock 

grazing the same as identified under Alternative C, Option 1. 

Effects from Lands and Realty Management 

Table 4-50 displays land tenure actions proposed under all alternatives within available grazing 

allotments. 

Effects Common to Alternatives A, B, C (Option 1), and D

Short-term impacts from site-specific lands and realty actions, such as construction of power lines, 

pipelines, and other construction activities within ROWs, include the temporary removal of forage 

and displacement of livestock. Long-term impacts on livestock from site-specific lands and realty 

actions include loss of forage, reduced forage palatability because of dust on vegetation, and 

disturbance and harassment from increased levels of human activities. 

Permanent losses of forage and range improvement projects (RIPs) would occur as a result of land 

disposals or exchanges. BLM would be required to notify the permittee 2 years prior to any land 

disposal (43 CFR 4110.4-2 (b)), except in an emergency situation, and to compensate the permittees 

for the range improvement projects constructed under a cooperative agreement in accordance with 

43 CFR 4120.3-6 (c). 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-450 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Loss of AUMs could occur where large blocks of land are either disposed to the public or the land 

exchange is not in the same area as the allotment losing the land. 

Any land that is acquired could only be grazed prescriptively until such time as an implementation 

plan is implemented, which could increase permittee flexibility. If grazing is determined to be a 

suitable use for the acquired land, AUMs could be added to the permit, thereby increasing the 

amount of forage available for harvest. 

In addition to the impacts identified under Effects Common to Alternatives A, B, C (Option 1), and 

D, the following individual effects would impact livestock grazing. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Table 4-50 displays land tenure actions proposed under all alternatives within available grazing 

allotments. Approximately 32 percent (2,663,082 acres) of available grazing allotments would be 

available for disposal or exchange under Alternative A. Impacts on livestock grazing are the same as 

under Effects Common to All Alternatives, above. The greatest acreage available for disposal is 

identified under Alternative A, presenting the greatest impact on livestock grazing. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Approximately 23 percent (1,934,038 acres) of available grazing allotments would be available for 

disposal or exchange (Table 4-50, Land Tenure within Grazing Allotments) under Alternative B. 

Impacts would be less than under Alternative A but greater than Alternatives C, Option 1 or D. 

No exclusion zones would be designated under Alternative B, allowing for the greatest amount of 

ROW development and the greatest amount of impacts (as identified above under Effects Common 

to Alternatives A, B, C [Option 1], and D) on livestock grazing. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C 

Option 1 

Approximately 13 percent (1,040,225 acres) of available grazing allotments would be available for 

disposal or exchange (Table 4-50, Land Tenure within Grazing Allotments) under Alternative C, 

Option 1. Impacts from disposal actions would be less than under Alternatives A or B and the same 

as under Alternative D. 

Table 4-50 

Land Tenure within Grazing Allotments 

Realty Action Alternative A 

(acres) 

Alternative B 

(acres) 

Alternative C 

(Option 1) 

(acres) 

Alternative C 

(Option 2) 

(acres) 

Alternative D 

(acres) 

Retention Areas 5,135,658 6,298,689 6,997,859 0 6,923,708 

Disposal Areas (% 

of allotments 

Available for 

disposal) 

2,663,082 

(32%) 

1,934,038

(23 %) 

1,040,225 

(13 %) 

0 1,093,046 

(14%) 

Source: BLM 2007a 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-451 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Transferring the land identified in Action C-LR 3.2. to the BIA would reduce the amount of public 

lands within the Fort McDermitt grazing allotment; however, the permit is controlled by the Fort 

McDermitt Grazing Association, and it is assumed that the loss of these lands would not have a 

large impact as they could continue to graze on BIA land. 

The greatest amount of acreage would be excluded from ROW development under Alternative C, 

Option 1, which would present the least amount of impacts (as identified above under Effects 

Common to Alternatives A, B, C [Option 1], and D) on livestock grazing. 

Option 2 

Since there is no livestock grazing under Alternative C, Option 2, there are no impacts on livestock 

grazing from lands and realty management. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Approximately 13 percent (1,093,046 acres) of available grazing allotments would be available for 

disposal or exchange (Table 4-50, Land Tenure within Grazing Allotments). Impacts from land 

disposals would be less than under Alternatives A or B and the same as under Alternative C, Option 

1. Transferring the land identified in Action D-LR 3.2. to the BIA would impact livestock grazing 

the same as identified under Alternative C, Option 1. 

Limiting exclusion zones to 635,891 acres within the WDO would impact livestock grazing less than 

under Alternative B but slightly more than under Alternative C, Option 1. 

Effects from ACEC/RNA Management 

Effects Common to Alternatives A, B, C (Option 1), and D

Grazing will continue to be allowed within the Osgood Mountain ACEC under all alternatives. No 

impacts are anticipated. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Impacts are the same as those under Effects Common to All Alternatives. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Impacts are the same as those under Effects Common to All Alternatives. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C 

Option 1 

Three new ACECs would fall within nine grazing allotments (87,425 acres) under Alternative C, 

Option 1. If monitoring were to show that a use such as livestock grazing was not compatible with 

the ACEC objectives, then livestock grazing could directly be impacted by dictating where range 

improvements could be constructed. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-452 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Option 2 

Since there is no livestock grazing under Alternative C, Option 2, there are no impacts on livestock 

grazing from ACEC/RNA Management. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Impacts are the same as those under Effects Common to Alternatives A, B, C (Option 1), and D. 

Effects from Backcountry Byways Management 

Effects Common to Alternatives A, B, C (Option 1), and D

Short-term direct and indirect impacts of developing new backcountry byways could include loss of 

forage and temporary displacement of livestock. Long-term impacts on cattle from newly developed 

backcountry byway routes include loss of forage and reduced forage palatability because of dust on 

vegetation. However, livestock and livestock operators could use backcountry byways as access 

routes within or between allotments. The greatest impact on livestock grazing would be increased 

disturbance and harassment caused by increased levels of visitor use of the routes. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Impacts are the same as those under Effects Common to Alternatives A, B, C (Option 1), and D. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Impacts are the same as those under Effects Common to Alternatives A, B, C (Option 1), and D. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C 

Option 1 

Impacts are the same as those under Effects Common to Alternatives A, B, C (Option 1), and D. 

Option 2 

Since there is no livestock grazing under Alternative C, Option 2, there are no impacts on livestock 

grazing from backcountry byways management. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Impacts are the same as those under Effects Common to Alternatives A, B, C (Option 1), and D. 

Effects from National Trails Management 

Effects Common to Alternatives A, B, C (Option 1), and D

Effects are the same as those described under Effects from Cultural Resources Management, above. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Impacts are the same as those under Effects Common to Alternatives A, B, C (Option 1), and D. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-453 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Impacts are the same as those under Effects Common to Alternatives A, B, C (Option 1), and D. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C 

Option 1 

Impacts are the same as those under Effects Common to Alternatives A, B, C (Option 1), and D. 

Option 2 

Since there is no livestock grazing under Alternative C, Option 2, there are no impacts on livestock 

grazing from National Trails Management. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Impacts are the same as those under Effects Common to Alternatives A, B, C (Option 1), and D. 

Effects from Wild and Scenic Rivers Management 

Effects Common to Alternatives A, B, C (Option 1), and D

There are no impacts on livestock grazing common to all alternatives. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

No impacts are identified from wild and scenic rivers management on livestock grazing under 

Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

No impacts are identified from wild and scenic rivers management on livestock grazing under 

Alternative B. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C 

Option 1 

Under Alternative C, Option 1, segments of the North Fork of the Little Humboldt River, 

Washburn Creek, and Crowley Creek would be carried forward as eligible under the Wild and Scenic 

River Act. The North Fork of the Little Humboldt River flows through the Little Owyhee and 

William Stock Allotments. Washburn Creek flows through the Jordan Meadows and Washburn 

Allotments, and Crowley Creek flows through the Jordan Meadows and Crowley Creek Allotments. 

Livestock operators in these segments have already been tasked with maintaining fences adjacent to 

the water to protect the system; however, new range improvements may be necessary to protect 

Outstandingly Remarkable Values (ORVs) within eligible segments. 

Option 2 

Since there is no livestock grazing under Alternative C, Option 2, there are no impacts on livestock 

grazing from wild and scenic rivers management. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-454 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

No impacts are identified from wild and scenic rivers management on livestock grazing under 

Alternative D. 

Effects from Wilderness Study Areas and Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

Management 

Effects Common to Alternatives A, B, C (Option 1), and D

Managing Wilderness Areas and WSAs would result in direct and indirect effects on livestock 

grazing. In general, the protections afforded to these areas, such as restrictions on surface-disturbing 

and other disruptive activities, would reduce harassment of grazing animals and help maintain and 

improve vegetation conditions, thereby maintaining or improving the forage base for livestock. 

Protections afforded to these areas, however, limit the types of access by permittees (such as no 

OHV use and road closures). In addition, more restrictions are placed on maintaining existing range 

improvement projects, and new range improvement projects are limited to those that would enhance 

the wilderness values. 

There are 824,950 acres of grazing allotments within the NCA Wilderness Areas. There are 412,710 

acres of grazing allotments within WSAs for all alternatives. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Impacts from wilderness and wilderness study area management on livestock grazing are the same as 

those identified under Effects Common to Alternatives A, B, C (Option 1), and D. 

Specific management measures are not identified for any areas containing wilderness characteristics 

under Alternative A, so there would not be any impacts on livestock grazing. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Impacts from wilderness and wilderness study area management are the same as those identified 

under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C 

Option 1 

Impacts on livestock grazing from Wilderness and Wilderness Study Area management actions are 

the same as those identified under Effects Common to Alternatives A, B, C (Option 1), and D. 

Implementing specific protection measures to the six areas identified as containing wilderness 

characteristics would result in direct and indirect effects on livestock grazing. In general, the 

exclusions on mining and ROW development would help maintain and improve vegetation 

conditions, thereby maintaining or improving the forage base for livestock. However, protections 

afforded to these areas may place restrictions on maintaining or developing new range improvement 

projects, placing an extra burden on the permittees in these specific allotments. There are nine 

grazing allotments that fall within the six areas identified as having wilderness characteristics. The 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-455 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

acreage of each grazing allotment that would be affected by the special management allotted each 

wilderness characteristic area is as follows: 

• Blue Wing-Seven Troughs Allotment-71,338 acres (17%); 

• Buffalo Hills Allotment-58,150 (13%); 

• Goldbanks Allotment-3,304 acres (14%); 

• Jersey Valley Allotment-497 acres (2%); 

• Leadville Allotment-7,942 acres (15%); 

• Pleasant Valley Allotment-21,332 (19%); 

• Pumpernickel Allotment-3,062 acres (8%); 

• Rawhide Allotment-7,165 acres (14%); and 

• South Rochester Allotment-5,376 acres (10%). 

Option 2 

Since there is no livestock grazing under Alternative C, Option 2, there are no impacts on livestock 

grazing from wilderness, wilderness study, and wilderness characteristic area management. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

The impacts on livestock grazing from Wilderness and Wilderness Study Area management actions 

are the same as those identified under Effects Common to Alternatives A, B, C (Option 1), and D. 

Wilderness Characteristic management actions would impact livestock grazing similarly to those 

identified under Alternative C, but less acreage would be excluded from mining and ROW 

development as proposed under other resource management actions. 

Effects from Watchable Wildlife Viewing Sites Management 

Effects Common to Alternatives A, B, C (Option 1), and D

In general, watchable wildlife viewing (WWV) sites would not impact livestock grazing practices. 

Establishing new WWVs could bring more people to areas where livestock grazing occurs, which 

could indirectly increase harassment of livestock and degradation of livestock forage through 

trampling. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Impacts are the same as those under Effects Common to Alternatives A, B, C (Option 1), and D. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Impacts are the same as those under Effects Common to Alternatives A, B, C (Option 1), and D. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-456 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative C 

Option 1 

Impacts would be slightly less than under Effects Common to Alternatives A, B, C (Option 1), and 

D because Action C-WWV 1.1. would manage the area by trying to avoid increasing traffic to 

remote areas. 

Option 2 

Since there is no livestock grazing under Alternative C, Option 2, there are no impacts on livestock 

grazing from watchable wildlife viewing sites management. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Impacts are the same as those under Effects Common to Alternatives A, B, C (Option 1), and D. 

Effects from Public Health and Safety Management 

Effects Common to Alternatives A, B, C (Option 1) and D

Cleaning up newly discovered dump sites could temporarily impact livestock grazing by fencing off 

part of an allotment during cleanup and restoration of that site. Actions to correct and clean up 

hazards and to protect closed sites would also help protect livestock from possible injury or 

contamination and would improve the vegetative conditions in the long term within those sites. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Impacts are the same as those under Effects Common to Alternatives A, B, C (Option 1), and D. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Impacts are the same as those under Effects Common to Alternatives A, B, C (Option 1), and D. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C 

Option 1 

Impacts are the same as those under Effects Common to Alternatives A, B, C (Option 1), and D. 

Option 2 

Since there is no livestock grazing under Alternative C, Option 2, there are no impacts on livestock 

grazing from public health and safety management. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Impacts are the same as those under Effects Common to Alternatives A, B, C (Option 1), and D. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-457 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Effects from Sustainable Development Management 

Effects Common Alternatives A, B, C (Option 1) and D.

There would be no common effects on livestock grazing under Alternatives A, B, C (Option 1), and 

D. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Sustainable development is not addressed under Alternative A; therefore, no impacts are anticipated 

to occur. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Permanent losses of forage and range improvement projects (RIPs) could occur as a result of land 

disposals or exchanges. BLM would be required to notify the permittee two years prior to any land 

disposal (43 CFR 4110.4-2 (b)), except in an emergency situation, and to compensate the permittees 

for the range improvement projects constructed under a cooperative agreement in accordance with 

43 CFR 4120.3-6 (c). 

Loss of AUMs could occur where large blocks of land are either disposed to the public or the land 

exchange is not in the same area as the allotment losing the land. 

Short-term impacts from issuances of right-of-ways include the temporary removal of forage and 

displacement of livestock. Long-term direct and indirect impacts on livestock from site-specific 

lands and realty actions include loss of forage, reduced forage palatability because of dust on 

vegetation, and disturbance and harassment from increased levels of human activities. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C 

Option 1 

Impacts on livestock grazing from land disposals and issuances of ROWs are the same as identified 

under Alternative B. 

Option 2 

Since there is no livestock grazing under Alternative C, Option 2, there are no impacts on livestock 

grazing from sustainable development management. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Impacts on livestock grazing from land disposals and issuances of ROWs are the same as identified 

under Alternative B. 

Cumulative Effects 

The region of influence used to analyze cumulative impacts on livestock grazing includes actions 

that occur on or adjacent to all allotments located entirely or partially within the planning area. Past 

actions that have affected livestock grazing include human-caused surface disturbances (mineral 

development, recreation, and prescribed burning), wildland fires, and historic grazing practices that 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-458 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-459 

have contributed to current ecological conditions. Present actions affecting livestock grazing are 

mainly those that reduce available grazing acreage or the level of forage production in those areas. 

Key examples include wildland fires, drought conditions, land disposals, OHV use, habitat 

restoration, and special designations that restrict grazing. Future actions affecting livestock grazing 

would be similar to present actions, including any restriction associated with future species listings 

under the ESA. 

The cumulative impacts under each of the alternatives on livestock grazing would be very similar 

and would parallel the impacts of the alternatives in the general impact analysis. In general, every 

alternative would reduce forage for livestock in the short term during treatment activities, other 

surface-disturbing and disruptive activities, human disturbance, and the presence of grazing wildlife. 

Forage would increase over the long term, however, as treated vegetation communities reach 

potential productivity. 

Cumulative projects that increase human disturbance in grazing areas could also indirectly impact 

grazing by increasing weeds and invasive species. As stated above, weed invasion can reduce 

preferred livestock forage and increase the chance of weeds being dispersed by roaming cattle. 

Cumulatively this indirect impact would be greater than all of the alternatives proposed. Cumulative 

projects that increase human disturbance in grazing areas could also directly impact grazing by 

displacing, injuring, or killing animals. Changes to VRM would cumulatively indirectly impact 

livestock grazing by dictating what type of range improvements are allowed in varying visual 

resource class areas. 

Cumulative impacts from each resource would be greater on livestock grazing if the cumulative 

projects were to occur simultaneously; however, standard mitigation identified in the Sierra FrontNorthwestern Great Basin RAC Standards and Guidelines for Rangeland Health would be 

implemented across all alternatives and any other cumulative projects, thereby reducing or 

minimizing cumulative impacts on BLM lands. 

4.3.2 Minerals—Leasable, Locatable, and Salable 

Summary 

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

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

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

be purchased under the Mineral Materials Sales Act of 1947. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

4-51 indicates the difference among the alternatives in terms of the level of mineral resource 

availability and surface use restrictions on subsequent operations. 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Table 4-51 

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

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

Acres closed to mineral material 

sale or permit 

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

Total Acres open to mineral 

material sale of some type 

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

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

Acres open to sale/permit1 with 

known seasonal or other 

restrictions 

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

Acres open to permitted 

government agencies only 

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

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

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

Acres open to leasing of any type 6,745,878 6,068,969 2,749,810 5,994,301 

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

Acres open to leasing2 plus 

known seasonal or other 

restrictions 

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

Acres open to leasing2 with No 

Surface Occupancy 

29,582 221,724 0 326,743 

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

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

Acres open to leasing of any type 6,776,198 6,068,498 2,749,195 5,994,123 

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

Acres open to leasing2 plus 

known seasonal or other 

restriction 

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

Acres open to leasing2 with No 

Surface Occupancy 

0 221,644 0 326,769 

Locatable Minerals Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

Acres closed to claim location 6,543 6,543 281,892 27,941 

Acres open to claim location 7,198,294 7,198,294 6,922,945 7,176,896 

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

Acres open to operations but 

having known conflicts3

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

1Open with standard operation terms and stipulations. 

2Open with standard lease terms and stipulations. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

compliance and fair compensation for the minerals extracted. 

Salable Minerals: The alternatives would affect salable mineral disposals by various limits on the 

amount of land available for disposal sites and the areas open with restrictions, as well as limits on 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-460 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

operations. The value of most salable minerals is closely tied to the proximity of the source to the 

final place of use. Closing lands to sale of material would result in loss of revenue to the Treasury 

from the minerals contained there. It may also raise the cost to developers because they would have 

to rely on resources from private lands or from public lands at a greater distance, either of which 

may be more expensive. Closing land to all forms of disposal would also impair the ability of various 

levels of government to use nearby materials at no cost for the benefit of public projects. The most 

common of such projects are the creation or maintenance of rural roads. 

Leasable Minerals: While solid leasable minerals are present within the planning area, no 

significant production of these minerals is underway or anticipated. Fluid leasable minerals (i.e., 

geothermal resources, oil, and gas) are or may be found in commercially exploitable deposits in the 

WDO. 

The impact issues for fluid minerals result from management decisions for the protection of other 

resources. Constraints related to the fluid mineral leasing include exclusion areas, buffer zones 

around sensitive areas, seasonal constraints, and permit stipulations. The alternatives would affect 

fluid mineral development by varying the amounts of land available for leasing and the lease terms 

and stipulations to be applied on any given tract of land. Closing lands to development would result 

in reduced domestic production of the US mineral needs and higher dependence on foreign sources 

of those minerals, reduced economic development on the regional and local levels, loss of royalty 

revenues from the lands’ minerals, and loss of tax revenue to all levels of government. 

Locatable Minerals: The alternatives would affect locatable mineral exploration and development 

by varying the amount of land 

• open to the operation of the mining laws 

• open with identified resource conflicts resulting in restrictions on proposed operations, or 

• open with no previously known resource conflicts, for each alternative. 

The restrictions are not applied to mining claims themselves but to operational proposals (a notice 

or plan of operations) submitted for exploration or development of locatable minerals. Closing lands 

to claim and subsequent development would reduce domestic production of our mineral needs and 

higher dependence on foreign sources of those minerals, reduced economic development on the 

regional and local levels, and loss of tax revenues to all levels of government that would have 

resulted from the development of the encompassed minerals. 

Methods of Analysis 

Methods and Assumptions

The analysis of potential impacts is based on a review of literature, geologic maps, and information 

provided by experts in the BLM and other agencies. Analyses on mineral resources are also based on 

the expertise of BLM resource specialists at the WDO. Effects are quantified, where possible. In 

absence of quantitative data, best professional judgment was used. Impacts are sometimes described 

using ranges of potential impacts or in qualitative terms, if appropriate. 

General assumptions regarding all of the mining activities detailed below include the following: 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-461 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

• There would be no major regulatory changes in federal or state statutes, regulations, policy, 

or guidance that govern the exploration and development of minerals. 

• Surface-disturbing and other disruptive activities at authorized mining and drilling locations 

could continue, resulting in wildlife disturbance, degradation of visual quality, recreation 

values, soil erosion, loss of livestock and wildlife forage, and loss of wildlife cover. 

Leasable Minerals 

An RFD scenario for oil and gas was developed in conformance with BLM Instruction 

Memorandum No. 2004-089 (see Appendix I). The RFD scenario was developed based on past 

exploration activities and reasonable estimates for future exploration and development given the 

following assumptions: 

• The general geographic areas where oil and gas exploration is predicted to occur are with in 

the Neogene Basin or Neogene Source Rock Play area; 

• An estimated twelve wildcat wells (wells drilled in areas with no previous production) may be 

drilled in these Neogene Basins in the next 15 to 20 years. Many of the initial twelve wells 

would likely be located in the Buena Vista Valley and Kyle Springs areas; 

• Construction of temporary road access and a drilling location for each wildcat well may 

disturb about 17 acres for the road and 4 acres for the well pad for each wildcat well, or a 

total of 250 acres for all the wildcat wells; 

• Of these, an estimated 10 wells will be dry holes (no economically producible oil or gas is 

discovered). Dry holes will be plugged and abandoned, with surface reclamation occurring 

shortly afterward. Reclaimed acres (regraded and seeded) are assumed to be stabilized after 

two years. The maximum area disturbed at any one time would be approximately 42 acres; 

• Two of the wells drilled are estimated to produce a discovery. Each of the discovery wells 

will probably prompt additional two step-out wells. These would be drilled near each proven 

well to establish the limits and continuity of the oil or gas reservoir and to assist with 

production. An estimated four step-out wells will be drilled, two for each discovery; 

• Each step-out well will disturb up to four acres for the well pad and may disturb only seven 

acres for the access road by using the road constructed for the associated wildcat well. Total 

disturbance for the four step-out wells is 44 acres; 

• One of the discoveries (including the two step-out wells) is estimated to have limited oil 

production and to occur on BLM-administered lands; and 

• Geophysical exploration operations would comply with the terms and conditions for notice 

of intent to conduct geophysical exploration provided on BLM Form 3150-4a. Notices of 

intent submitted for the conduct of geophysical surveys would be evaluated on a case-bycase basis. 

An RFD scenario for geothermal resources was developed in the Geothermal Resources Leasing 

Programmatic EA (BLM 2002a) in order to provide a reasonable estimate of anticipated exploration, 

development, and production activity that might be expected over the next 20 years of developing 

geothermal resources of the planning area. The RFD scenarios considered the location of KGRAs, 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-462 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

historical leasing patterns and geologic models to identify favorable and prospective areas for 

developing geothermal energy within the planning area. 

• Thirteen PVAs were identified that encompass approximately 1.9 million acres. These PVAs 

include the six KGRAs and areas with pending lease applications (typically in the vicinity of 

the KGRAs); 

• Exploration drilling would occur on all geothermal leases over the next 20 years. During this 

period, up to 40 geothermal leases may be explored; 

• Three temperature gradient or exploration flow test wells may be drilled on each lease, for a 

total of 120 exploration holes or six holes drilled per year; 

• Each exploration drilling may disturb up to an acre. Each access road may disturb up to 0.5 

acre. Exploration of each lease with three exploration wells may disturb up to 4.5 acres; 

• Exploration drilling surface impacts are transitory and are usually abandoned and reclaimed 

within two years. Assuming there would not be more than 12 drill pads disturbed at any one 

time, the total active disturbance would be nine acres; 

• If successful, exploration programs lead to more detailed exploration drilling, and a few of 

which lead to the discovery of geothermal resources capable of developing up to five 15 

megawatt geothermal power plants; 

• A typical geothermal power plant was used as the benchmark to estimate the amount of 

disturbance that could be involved for the RFD scenario. These calculations are meant to be 

used as an indicator of the impacts involved, not as a cap or bound on the size of any 

geothermal power plant development.. For assessment purposes, the assumption was that 

each power plant would disturb up to 121 acres, with the following characteristics: 

- Up to six production or injection wells could be drilled on each lease, with each well 

pad disturbing approximately five acres (30 acres total), 

- A mainline road, disturbing approximately 10 acres, and three access roads, each 

disturbing approximately seven acres (31 acres total), 

- Three pipelines disturbing approximately five acres each (15 acres total), and 

- A power plant would occupy approximately 30 acres, a disposal pond would disturb 

approximately five acres, and a 25-mile transmission line would disturb 

approximately 10 acres; and 

• The total area of disturbance for five typical power plants would be 605 acres. Not all of the 

power plants would be constructed at the same time, and construction of each plant would 

likely be staged in five-megawatt increments. Therefore the degree of surface disturbance at 

any given time is less than 1,000 acres. In addition, mitigation and enhancement would have 

occurred in some portions of the lease before additional portions of the lease are developed. 

Locatable Minerals 

• Based on projections, permitting demands for both hard rock exploration and mining would 

likely increase over time. Exploration in large part would take place in areas near known 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-463 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

mineral deposits and within historic districts; however, some exploration would also be 

conducted in other outlying areas. 

• Currently there are ten large open pit gold and silver mines, and six other industrial mineral 

mines in operation in the planning area. Within the next 10 years, two to three currently 

active mines are expected to be closed and reclaimed. These mine closures would likely be 

offset with both new projects being developed and placed into production and the 

expansion of existing mines. 

• There are no large-scale commercial placer operations operating in the planning area. 

“Nugget shooting”—searching for placer gold with hand-carried metal detectors—is a 

common activity in several areas. This activity and other small-scale placer mines typically 

operate under “casual use” criteria and use little other than hand tools and gold spirals or 

similar small-volume concentrating devices. Occasionally operators at this scale desire to use 

mechanized equipment to clear vegetation from small areas, and these are authorized by a 

notice under the provision for testing up to 1,000 tons of presumed ore. The planning area 

would likely anticipate 10 operations under this sort of notice during any given year. 

Moderate scale operations are authorized under a plan of operations and are permitted to use 

mechanized equipment for mining and processing in excess of 1,000 tons of ore. The 

planning area should anticipate one such proposal approximately every five years, or four 

such operations over the life of the plan. 

• Gems and semiprecious stones mining in the planning area are small, usually operating under 

casual use criteria. Some moderate-sized operations rely on mechanized earthmoving to 

remove overburden, typically followed by hand picking the desired materials. These deposits 

will likely continue to be extended but will remain small, with labor-intensive mining 

methods. 

• Low to moderate potential exists for production of most locatable industrial minerals, but 

the potential is good for production of carbonate (limestone and dolomite), diatomate, and 

gypsum where deposits are located near transportation corridors and are can be mined by 

inexpensive open-cut methods. The development of the proposed Echo Canyon Limestone 

Mine, northeast of Lovelock and east of the Humboldt River and Interstate 80, is presently 

being considered by the owner of the claims. Exploration for other cement-grade limestone 

deposits continues in the same area. 

• Potential for copper production is also low, with the exception of moderate to good 

potential for further development of at least one massive sulfide copper deposit at the Big 

Mike Mine within the planning area. 

• While there is small current production and little significant historic production of 

molybdenum in the planning area, the Ashdown Property was brought into production in 

2007. Operations at this property may expand, based on ongoing exploration, and other 

molybdenum deposits also may be developed over the next 15 to 20 years. 

• There is a moderate potential for the development of tungsten deposits due to recent 

significant price increases. Some of the larger, higher grade deposits in the planning area may 

be brought into production. Plans are in their early stages for reopening the moth-balled 

Springer Mine, which is on private land within the planning area. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-464 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Salable Minerals 

• The planning area has an active mineral materials sales and disposal program. The primary 

commodity sold to the public is sand and gravel, with a minor amount of decorative and 

building stone, clay, and decomposed granite. Substantial amounts of material are also 

provided free of charge to governments and nonprofit entities for public purposes, primarily 

road construction and maintenance. The mineral materials program administers 65 active 

sales, 112 free-use permits, and 168 mineral site rights-of-way. 

• Salable mineral extraction and use will increase, along with mining activity, commercial 

development, recreation activities, and private property development. Salable mineral sites 

with a priority for use will likely include sand, gravel, and rock quarries along state-, county-, 

and BLM-managed roads, especially along the Interstate 80 corridor. 

• There is good potential for new and continued development of clay deposits in the planning 

area. 

• There is moderate potential for development of building and ornamental stone deposits, 

including columnar basalt and flat slabby volcanic rock. Mines and quarries in the planning 

area include Trinity Range and Black Mountain in Churchill County and Virgin Valley 

(Wegman Quarry) in Humboldt County. 

• The demand for boulders for landscaping is likely to grow. Most of these operations are very 

small scale and remove a small number of boulders. 

• There is low potential for development of pumice and cinder deposits. 

Effects from Air Quality Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

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

Individual Effects under Alternative A

This alternative only addresses dust abatement and mitigation measures required for road 

maintenance associated with mining activities. Dust control for all mining activities is addressed in 

Alternatives B, C, and D. The road maintenance dust control measures would be continuous for the 

duration of mining. There would be minor increases to the cost of mining. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

This alternative would require the air quality impacts from all BLM and BLM authorized activities to 

be minimized or reduced as determined on a case-by-case basis. Surface mining activities would 

require substantial efforts and costs to comply with these dust control requirements. The operational 

cost increases associated with dust control required for mineral exploration and development road 

building and maintenance would be manageable. The impacts of this alternative are equivalent under 

Alternatives C and D. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-465 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Alternative C would require the air quality impacts from all BLM and BLM authorized activities to 

be minimized or reduced as determined on a case-by-case basis. Surface mining activities would 

require substantial efforts and costs to comply with these dust control requirements. The operational 

cost increases associated with dust control required for mineral exploration and development road 

building and maintenance would be manageable. The impacts of Alternative C are equivalent to 

those under Alternatives B and D. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

This alternative would require the air quality impacts from all BLM and BLM authorized activities to 

be minimized or reduced as determined on a case-by-case basis. Surface mining activities would 

require substantial efforts and costs to comply with these dust control requirements. The operational 

cost increases associated with dust control required for mineral exploration and development road 

building and maintenance would be manageable. The impacts of this alternative are equivalent under 

Alternatives B and C. 

Effects from Geology Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

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

Individual Effects under Alternative A

The protection of unique geologic resources is not addressed in the current management plan. 

Avoidance of impacts on unique geologic resources and mitigation measures are addressed on a case 

by case basis. Since there is no overall plan for protection of these resources under this alternative, 

there is more land open for mining. This alternative has the fewest operational limits and costs 

associated with protecting unique geologic resources. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

While areas with unique geologic resources would remain open for all methods of mineral disposal 

as in Alternative A, under this alternative the actions would be subject to the minimum mitigation 

measures sufficient to protect the values at risk, including through avoidance, reclamation, and other 

applicable use restrictions. 

Areas with unique geologic resources include Lake Lahontan tufa mounds and shore features (e.g., 

gravel bars or shore terraces), Humboldt Range Natural Arch, Columnar Basalt near Lava Beds, 

McFarlan Hot Spring, the 1915 earthquake fault trace, Disaster Peak, Trego Mountain, and Pulpit 

Rock. 

The amount of land open for all methods of mineral disposal would greater under this alternative 

than under Alternatives C and D. This alternative has more operational limits and higher costs 

associated with protecting unique geologic resources than Alternative A but fewer operational limits 

and costs than under Alternatives C and D. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-466 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Areas with unique geologic resources would be designated as exclusion zones for ROWs and other 

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

available to leasable minerals exploration and development even with an NSO stipulation. Proposed 

nondiscretionary activities that may affect geologic features would be authorized with appropriate 

mitigation measures to protect the values at risk. The withdrawal of these areas from the General 

Mining Law would be pursued. 

Areas with unique geologic resources include Lake Lahontan tufa mounds and shore features (e.g., 

gravel bars or shore terraces), Humboldt Range Natural Arch, Columnar Basalt near Lava Beds, 

McFarlan Hot Spring, the 1915 earthquake fault trace, Disaster Peak, Trego Mountain, and Pulpit 

Rock. 

Alternative C would result in the least amount of area available for all methods of mineral disposal 

and the greatest protection of geologic resources. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Areas with unique geologic resources would be designated as exclusion zones for ROWs and other 

discretionary actions and the areas closed to salable mineral disposal. The areas would be available to 

leasable minerals exploration and development with an NSO stipulation. Proposed activities that 

may impact geologic features would be authorized with mitigation measures determined to be 

appropriate to protect the values at risk. The withdrawal of these areas from the General Mining 

Law would be pursued. 

Areas with unique geologic resources include Lake Lahontan tufa mounds and shore features (e.g., 

gravel bars or shore terraces), Humboldt Range Natural Arch, Columnar Basalt near Lava Beds, 

McFarlan Hot Spring, the 1915 earthquake fault trace, Disaster Peak, Trego Mountain, and Pulpit 

Rock. 

The amount of land open for all methods of mineral disposal would be greater under this alternative 

than under Alternative C but less than under Alternatives A and B. This alternative has more 

operational limits and higher costs associated with protecting unique geologic resources than under 

Alternatives A and B, but fewer limits and lower costs than under Alternative C. 

Effects from Soil Resources Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

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

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Mine operators would be encouraged to minimize disturbance to biological soil crusts, to reduce soil 

erosion by using BMPs, and adopt erosion control techniques, such as seeding and placing straw 

bales or matting, on a case-by-case basis. The BLM would pursue land reclamation in disturbed areas 

also on a case-by-case basis. These requirements would not reduce the amount of land available for 

mining activities but would increase operational limits and increase operational costs. This 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-467 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

alternative is equivalent to Alternative B in that it would not restrict the amount of land open for 

mining activities. It is more restrictive than Alternative B in that some of the case-by-case 

mitigations and reclamations are slightly more protective of soils than under Alternative B. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Mine operators would be encouraged to minimize disturbance to biological soil crusts, reduce soil 

erosion by using BMPs and erosion control techniques, such as seeding and placing straw bales or 

matting. Multiple uses would be allowed with mitigations without seasonal closures. The BLM 

would pursue land reclamation in disturbed areas. Surface-disturbing activities would be required to 

salvage the best available material for use as growth medium for reclamation. This alternative is 

equivalent to Alternative A in not restricting the amount of land open for mining and requires fewer 

mitigations and reclamations than under Alternative A’s often more stringent case-by-case basis. 

Alternative B includes fewer operational limits and costs to protect soils than Alternatives C and D. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Mine operators would be encouraged to maintain, protect, or reduce adverse impacts on soils and to 

eliminate or fully mitigate surface disturbances to biological soil crusts when soil surfaces are dry. 

Surface disturbances within high potential biological crust areas would be seasonally eliminated. The 

BLM would require reclamation of all surface-disturbing activities and would require salvage or 

import growth medium for reclamation. Alternative C is more restrictive than Alternatives A and B 

in seasonally restricting the amount of land open for mining activities. They are the alternatives that 

are most protective of soils with the greatest operational limits and costs. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Mine operators would be encouraged to maintain, protect, or reduce adverse impacts on soils. 

Surface disturbances within high potential biological crust areas would be seasonally restricted on a 

case-by-case basis. Where appropriate, the BLM would manage surface-disturbing activities to 

ensure reclamation. These activities would be required to salvage the best available material for use 

as growth medium for reclamation. This alternative is slightly less restrictive than Alternative C in 

the amount of land seasonally restricted from mining activities would be determined on a case-bycase basis. It is more protective of soils than Alternatives A and B with, greater operational limits 

and operational costs, and less protective than Alternative C. 

Effects from Water Resources Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Mineral activities could be limited under all alternatives to prevent degradation of water quality 

beyond established standards specified in the Nevada Water Pollution Control Regulations and the 

September 2004 memorandum of understanding between the BLM and the State of Nevada. These 

requirements could reduce the amount of land available for mining activities and could increase 

operational limits and costs. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-468 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

There are no restrictions on the amount of land open to mining activities or limits on mining 

operations based on water resource management objectives or actions under Alternative A beyond 

those discussed under Effects Common to All Alternatives above. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

There are no restrictions on the amount of land open to mining activities or limits on mining 

operations based on water resource management objectives or actions under Alternative B beyond 

those discussed under Effects Common to All Alternatives above. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

In addition to impacts discussed under Effects Common to All Alternatives above, priority 

watershed areas would be considered open only to government entities for salable minerals activities 

and would be closed to leasable minerals activities. While the rights to locatable minerals could be 

acquired, proposals for locatable mineral operations would include restrictions. The amount of land 

restricted from these mining activities would be greatest under Alternative C. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

In addition to impacts discussed under Effects Common to All Alternatives above, priority 

watershed areas would be considered open only to government entities for salable minerals activities 

and would be open but with NSO for leasable minerals activities. While the rights to locatable 

minerals could be acquired, locatable mineral operations would include restrictions for those that are 

incompatible with the priority use. The amount of land restricted from these mining activities would 

be less than under Alternative C. 

Effects from Vegetation—Forest/Woodland Products Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no restrictions under any of the alternatives to the amount of land open to mining or 

limits on mining, based on forest/woodlands products management objectives or actions. With 

respect to effects on minerals resources, all of the alternatives are essentially equivalent. 

Effects from Vegetation—Weeds Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no restrictions under any of the alternatives to the amount of land open to mining or 

limits on mining, based on weeds management objectives or actions. Under all alternatives, 

individuals or organizations involved in mineral activities would be responsible for controlling weeds 

imported or spread. With respect to effects on minerals resources, all of the alternatives are 

essentially equivalent. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-469 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Effects from Chemical and Biological Control 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no restrictions under any of the alternatives to the amount of land open to mining or 

limits on mining, based on chemical and biological control objectives or actions. With respect to 

effects on minerals resources, all of the alternatives are essentially equivalent. 

Effects from Vegetation—Rangeland Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

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

Individual Effects under Alternative A

There are no restrictions on the amount of land open to mining or limits on mining, based on 

rangeland management objectives or actions under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

There are no restrictions on the amount of land open to mining or limits on mining, based on 

rangeland management objectives or actions under Alternative B. Reclamation requirements and 

costs would be greater under Alternative B than Alternative A. Under Alternative B, introduced 

grass communities would be reestablished in mining activity reclamation areas to allow for recovery. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

There are no restrictions on the amount of land open to mining or limits on mining, based on 

rangeland management objectives or actions under Alternative C. Reclamation requirements and 

costs would be slightly greater under Alternative C than Alternative B. Under Alternative C, native 

plant species and communities that are similar in structure and composition to the site potential 

should be established in areas of disturbance associated with mining activities. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

There are no restrictions on the amount of land open to mining or limits on mining, based on 

rangeland management objectives or actions under Alternative D. Reclamation requirements and 

costs would be the same as under Alternative C, where plant species and communities that are 

similar in structure and composition to the site potential should be established in areas of 

disturbance associated with mining activities. 

Effects from Vegetation—Riparian and Wetlands Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no restrictions under any of the alternatives to the amount of land open to mining or 

limits on mining, based on riparian and wetlands management objectives or actions. With respect to 

effects on minerals resources, all of the alternatives are essentially equivalent. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-470 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Effects from Fish and Wildlife Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no effects common to all alternatives from fish and wildlife management. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Surveys for migratory birds in the project area would be required before any surface disturbance 

would be authorized. Mineral activities could be restricted or additional mitigations could be 

required. Areas where there are nests of migratory birds (including raptors) would continue to be 

open for acquiring rights to locatable minerals. However, inventories for nesting migratory birds 

(including raptors) done before the area is disturbed would be required for proposed surface 

disturbance activities during peak nesting period if active nests were present. Mitigations, including 

use restrictions and avoidance, would be employed. Seasonal restrictions on mining operations 

would increase costs. Alternative A is the least restrictive if the alternatives. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Surveys for migratory birds in the project area would be required before any surface disturbance 

would be authorized. Mineral activities could be restricted or additional mitigations could be 

required. Areas where migratory birds (including raptors) nest would continue to be open for 

acquiring rights to locatable minerals, but mitigations would be developed to protect migratory birds 

during the peak breeding season, including the avoidance of active nests.. Seasonal restrictions on 

mining operations would increase costs. 

Priority wildlife habitat areas would be managed as open with stipulations areas and may restrict 

other uses or apply mitigation measures that would impact the amount of land available for mining 

activities and increasing operational costs. 

Alternative B is more restrictive on areas that are available for mining activities than Alternative A 

and less restrictive than Alternative C. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Surveys for migratory birds in the project area would be required before any surface disturbance 

would be authorized. Mineral activities could be restricted or additional mitigations could be 

required. Mechanical surface, vegetative, and human activities would be prohibited during the peak 

nesting period for migratory birds (including raptors), which is April 1 to July 15, in areas where 

these birds’ nests are located. 

Priority wildlife habitat areas would be managed as closed or as open with stipulations areas and may 

be restricted from other uses, or mitigation measures that would impact mining would be applied. 

Alternative C is the most restrictive on areas that are available for mining activities. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-471 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Surveys for migratory birds in the project area would be required before any surface disturbance 

would be authorized. Mineral activities could be restricted or additional mitigations could be 

required. A predisturbance inventory for nesting migratory birds (including raptors) would be 

required when mechanical surface or vegetative disturbance activities are proposed during the peak 

nesting period, from April 1 to July 15. If nests with eggs or young are located, use restrictions or 

mitigation measures (e.g., avoidance) would be employed. 

Priority wildlife habitat areas would be managed as closed or as open with stipulations areas and may 

restrict other uses or apply mitigation measures that would impact mining activities. 

Alternative D is less restrictive on areas that are available for mining activities than Alternative C and 

more restrictive than Alternatives A and B. 

Effects from Special Status Species Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Under all alternatives, surveys for sensitive species in the project area would be required before any 

leasing or surface disturbance would be authorized. Mineral activities could be restricted or 

additional mitigations could be required if it were determined that they affect federally listed species 

or habitat. 

Concerning sage-grouse leks, the rights to locatable minerals could be acquired, but proposals for 

mineral operations would include the following restrictions (with some exceptions, modifications, 

and waivers authorized by the BLM): 

• No use or occupancy within a quarter mile of the perimeter of known sage-grouse leks. For 

leasable minerals activities, any quarter-quarter-quarter section (10-acre parcel) within or 

intersected by the site or the quarter-mile buffer line would be subject to NSO; 

• No surface occupancy or human activity within two miles of the perimeter of an active lek, 

from March 15 to June 1 annually; and 

• Limits on placement of any high structures within two miles of the perimeter of an active 

lek. 

Mining authorized by permits or contracts under the solid leasable or salable mineral regulations 

would not be allowed within 200 yards of bat habitats. Other mining-related activities, such as 

drilling or blasting, would be discouraged within that zone. Where these mining-related activities 

cannot avoid bat habitat, mitigation would be required. For leasing mineral activities, any quarterquarter-quarter section (10-acre parcel) within or intersected by the site or the 200-yard buffer line 

would be subject to NSO. 

The restrictions would result in less land available for mining activities. The mitigations would result 

in greater operational costs. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-472 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

In addition to the conditions discussed under Effects Common to All Alternatives above, areas 

within sage-grouse PMUs or near documented golden eagle, bald eagle, peregrine falcon, or prairie 

falcon nesting sites would continue to be open for acquiring rights to locatable minerals. However, 

these areas would have other seasonal restrictions, additional limitations, or stipulations applied to 

operations authorizations. The rights to locatable minerals could be acquired, but proposals for 

locatable mineral operations would include restrictions in those areas identified for exclusion of 

ROWs associated with special status species habitat. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

In addition to the conditions discussed under Effects Common to All Alternatives above, areas 

within sage-grouse PMUs, or near documented golden eagle, bald eagle, peregrine falcon, or prairie 

falcon nesting sites, would continue to be open for acquiring rights to locatable minerals. However, 

these areas would have other seasonal restrictions, additional limitations or stipulations applied to 

operations authorizations. The rights to locatable minerals could be acquired, but proposals for 

locatable mineral operations and fluid mineral operations would include restrictions in those areas 

identified for exclusion of ROWs associated with special status species habitat. Salable minerals 

operations in these areas would be allowed only for government entities for the maintenance of 

roads or other public facilities. Alternative B is more restrictive than Alternative A and would result 

in large amounts of salable minerals resources being made available only to government entities. 

This would result in less availability of resources for other entities and possibly increased hauling and 

increased prices to consumers. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Special status species surveys are required for all alternatives for any surface-disturbing activities. In 

addition to this and other conditions discussed under Effects Common to All Alternatives above, 

Alternative C also requires specific surveys for pygmy rabbits within potential habitat and for any 

sensitive plant species that occurs within two miles of the project site. 

Areas within 500 yards of documented golden eagle, bald eagle, peregrine falcon, or prairie falcon 

nesting sites would continue to be open for acquiring rights to locatable minerals. However, these 

areas would have other seasonal restrictions, additional limitations or stipulations applied to 

operations authorizations. ROWs associated with locatable mineral operations would include 

restrictions from those areas with identified special status species habitat. 

Additionally, Alternative C would not allow leasing within two miles of the perimeter of an active lek 

or surface occupancy or disturbance within nesting, summer, or winter habitats within PMUs. Also, 

salable minerals operations would not be allowed, except for government entities for maintaining 

roads or other public facilities as long as there would be no disturbance within 0.6 mile of an active 

lek. 

While large-scale surface-disturbing discretionary mining would not be allowed within 200 yards of 

bat habitats under all of the alternatives, Alternative C extends this zone to within 500 yards. Other 

mining-related activities, such as drilling or blasting, would be discouraged within that zone. Where 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-473 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

these mining-related activities cannot avoid bat habitat, mitigation would be required. In addition, no 

salable mineral material disposal would be allowed in this zone. For leasing mineral activities, any 

quarter-quarter-quarter section (10-acre parcel) within or intersected by the site or the 500-yard 

buffer line would be subject to NSO. 

The rights to locatable minerals could be acquired, but proposals for locatable mineral operations or 

leasable minerals operations would include restrictions in those areas identified for avoidance or 

exclusion of ROWs associated with special status species and state rare and protected species 

habitat. Salable minerals operations in these areas would be allowed only for government entities for 

maintaining roads or other public facilities. 

Under Alternative B, less land is restricted to use of salable minerals by government entities than 

under Alternative C. Otherwise, Alternative C would restrict the most land from being available for 

mineral activities and would include the most operational restrictions. These conditions would result 

in greater operational costs. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

In addition to the conditions discussed under Effects Common to All Alternatives above, sensitive 

species surveys are required for all alternatives for any surface-disturbing activities. Alternative D 

also requires specific surveys for pygmy rabbits within potential habitat and for any sensitive plant 

species that occurs within two miles of the project site. 

No salable mineral material disposal would be allowed within 200 yards of bat habitats. 

Additionally, Alternative D would restrict salable minerals activities and solid minerals leasing within 

two miles of the perimeter of an active lek and would limit any high structures within two miles of 

the perimeter of an active lek. 

Leasable minerals operations would be restricted in those areas identified for avoidance or exclusion 

of ROWs associated with special status species habitat. Salable minerals operations in these areas 

would be allowed only for government entities for maintaining roads or other public facilities. 

Under Alternative B, less land is restricted to use of salable minerals by government entities than 

under Alternative D. Otherwise, Alternative D would restrict the more land from mining activities 

that Alternatives A and B but less than Alternative C. 

Effects from Wild Horse and Burro Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no effects common to all alternatives from wild horse and burro management. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Herd Management Areas (HMAs) would continue to be open for acquiring rights to locatable 

minerals but operations that could result in adverse impacts on the health and welfare of WHBs may 

be permitted in HMAs subject to stipulated safeguards (SOPs) and mitigation measures (e.g., 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-474 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

seasonal closures, signage, rerouting access). Alternative A is roughly equivalent to Alternatives B 

and D and less restrictive to mining activities than Alternative C. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

HMAs would continue to be open for acquiring rights to locatable minerals. Salable, leasable, and 

locatable minerals operations may be permitted in HMAs subject to stipulated safeguards (SOPs) 

and mitigation measures (e.g., seasonal closures, signage, rerouting access). Alternative B is 

equivalent to Alternative D, roughly equivalent to Alternative A, and less restrictive to mining 

activities than Alternative C. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

HMAs would be closed to leasable minerals operations. The HMAs would continue to be open for 

acquiring rights to locatable minerals. Salable mineral operations by government entities for 

maintaining roads or other public facilities, and locatable mineral operations would be authorized if 

the free-roaming nature of WHBs is maintained. Other salable mining operations would not be 

allowed. Alternative C is the most restrictive alternative and would limit the amount of land open to 

minerals activities. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

HMAs would continue to be open for acquiring rights to locatable minerals. Salable, leasable, and 

locatable minerals operations may be permitted in HMAs subject to stipulated safeguards (SOPs) 

and mitigation measures (e.g., seasonal closures, signage, reroute access). Alternative D is equivalent 

to Alternative B, roughly equivalent to Alternative A, and less restrictive to mining activities than 

Alternative C. 

Effects from Wildland Fire Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no restrictions under any of the alternatives to the amount of land open to mining or 

limits on mining, based on wildland fire management objectives or actions. Implementing fuel 

treatments could protect mine infrastructure from wildfire. Protection of property is a suppression 

priority under the response to wildfires, based on social, legal, and ecological consequences of the 

fire. With respect to effects on minerals resources, all of the alternatives are essentially equivalent. 

Effects from Cultural Resources Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Under all alternatives, surveys for cultural resources in the project area would be required before any 

surface disturbance would be authorized. Minerals activities could be restricted or additional 

mitigations required if it were determined that they affect cultural sites that are listed on the NRHP 

or that have been determined to be eligible for that listing. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-475 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

The rights to locatable minerals could be acquired, but proposals for locatable mineral operations 

within a quarter mile of cultural sites that are listed on the NRHP or that have been determined to 

be eligible for listing may be restricted or have significant mitigation measures imposed. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Other than the conditions discussed under Effects Common to All Alternatives above, there are no 

restrictions on the amount of land open to mining activities or limits on mining operations based on 

cultural resources management objectives or actions under Alternative A. Alternative A is the least 

restrictive to mining activities. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

In addition to the conditions discussed under Effects Common to All Alternatives above, the areas 

within a quarter mile of cultural sites that are listed on the NRHP or that have been determined to 

be eligible for that listing would be open to fluid and solid minerals leasing with NSO. For leasable 

minerals activities, any quarter-quarter-quarter section (10-acre parcel) within or intersected by the 

site would be subject to NSO. Alternative B is more restrictive of mining activities than Alternative 

A and less than Alternatives C and D. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

In addition to the conditions discussed under Effects Common to All Alternatives above, the areas 

within a quarter mile of cultural sites that are listed on the NRHP or that have been determined to 

be eligible for that listing would be closed to fluid and solid minerals leasing, salable mineral 

operations. For leasable minerals activities, any quarter-quarter-quarter section (10-acre parcel) 

within or intersected by the site would be closed. Alternative C is equivalent to Alternative D and 

would limit the amount of land available for mining activities. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

In addition to the conditions discussed under Effects Common to All Alternatives above, the areas 

within a quarter mile of cultural sites that are listed on the NRHP or that have been determined to 

be eligible for that listing (particularly Lovelock Cave and Dave Canyon) would be closed to fluid 

and solid minerals leasing, salable mineral operations. For leasable minerals activities, any quarterquarter-quarter section (10-acre parcel) within or intersected by the site would be closed. Alternative 

D is equivalent to Alternative C. 

Effects from Tribal Consultation Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

The rights to locatable minerals could be acquired, but proposals for mineral operations may be 

restricted within a mile of an identified TCP known to be or considered to be eligible for the NRHP. 

These limits may be modified based on Native American consultation and could involve larger or 

smaller areas based on the setting and use of the TCP. For leasable minerals activities, any quarterquarter-quarter section (10-acre parcel) within or intersected by the TCP or the mile buffer line 

would be subject to NSO. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-476 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

In addition to the conditions discussed under Effects Common to All Alternatives above, the rights 

to locatable minerals could be acquired, but proposals for locatable mineral operations would be 

restricted or additional mitigation measures required in those areas identified for exclusion of ROWs 

associated with identified TCPs. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

In addition to the conditions discussed under Effects Common to All Alternatives above, salable 

minerals authorizations may be modified as to size or NSO stipulations, based on consultation with 

Native American tribes on the setting and use of any TCPs. Salable minerals operations by 

government entities for the maintenance of roads or other public facilities would be allowed within a 

mile of an identified TCP known to be eligible or considered to be eligible for the NRHP. 

Fluid and solid leasable minerals activities would be allowed within one mile of an identified TCP 

eligible for the NRHP subject to an NSO stipulation. To accomplish this, any quarter-quarterquarter section (10-acre parcel) within or intersected by the TCP or the one-mile buffer line would 

be subject to NSO. 

The rights to locatable minerals could be acquired, but proposals for locatable mineral operations 

and fluid minerals operations would include restrictions or additional mitigation measures required 

in those areas identified for exclusion of ROWs associated with identified TCPs. Salable minerals 

operations in these areas would only be allowed for government entities for the maintenance of 

roads or other public facilities. 

Consultation with Native American tribes may produce recommendations for larger or smaller areas 

subject to NSO, based on the setting and use of any TCP. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

In addition to the conditions discussed under Effects Common to All Alternatives above, Lovelock 

Cave, Dave Canyon, and areas within a mile of an identified TCP known to be eligible or considered 

to be eligible for the NRHP would be closed to salable minerals and fluid and solid leasable minerals 

activities, including those of government entities. 

Consultation with Native American tribes may produce recommendations for larger or smaller areas 

subject to closing based on the setting and use of any TCP. 

The area of the Lovelock Cave mineral withdrawal would be enlarged to a total of 640 acres. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

In addition to the conditions discussed under Effects Common to All Alternatives above, Lovelock 

Cave, Dave Canyon, and areas within a mile of an identified TCP known to be eligible or considered 

to be eligible for the NRHP would be closed to salable minerals activities, including those of 

government entities. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-477 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Lovelock Cave and Dave Canyon would be closed to fluid and solid leasable minerals activities, 

which would be allowed within one mile of an identified TCP eligible for the NRHP subject to a 

NSO stipulation. To accomplish this, any quarter-quarter-quarter section (10-acre parcel) within or 

intersected by the TCP or the one-mile buffer line would be subject to NSO. 

Consultation with Native American tribes may produce recommendations for larger or smaller areas 

subject to closure or NSO stipulations based on the setting and use of any TCP. 

The area of the Lovelock Cave mineral withdrawal would be enlarged to a total of 640 acres. 

Effects from Paleontological Resources Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Under all alternatives, a review of existing data and an inventory of the presence and importance of 

fossiliferous deposits would be required before any surface-disturbing activity. The George Lund 

Petrified Forest mineral withdrawal would be maintained as closed to salable and locatable minerals 

activities. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Other than to the conditions discussed under Effects Common to All Alternatives above, there are 

no restrictions on the amount of land open to mining activities or limits on mining operations based 

on paleontological resources management objectives or actions under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Other than the conditions discussed under Effects Common to All Alternatives above, there are no 

restrictions on the amount of land open to mining activities or limits on mining operations based on 

paleontological resources management objectives or actions under Alternative B. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

In addition to the conditions discussed under Effects Common to All Alternatives above, the area of 

the George Lund Petrified Forest mineral withdrawal would be enlarged to a total of 141 acres. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

In addition to the conditions discussed under Effects Common to All Alternatives above, salable 

mineral activities and fluid and solid leasable minerals activities would be allowed within one quarter 

mile of an identified paleontological resource classified as being of scientific or educational interest. 

To accomplish this, any quarter-quarter-quarter section (10-acre parcel) within or intersected by the 

site or the quarter-mile buffer line would be subject to NSO. 

The rights to locatable minerals could be acquired, but proposals for locatable mineral operations 

would include restrictions within a quarter mile of identified paleontological resources classified as 

being of scientific or educational interest. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-478 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

The area of the George Lund Petrified Forest mineral withdrawal would be enlarged to a total of 

141 acres. 

Effects from Visual Resources Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

All of the alternatives would require identification and management of areas according to their VRM 

values. Activities not meeting the VRM objectives may require mitigations, as determined on a caseby case basis. Surface use stipulations under some VRM classes could redesign, cancel, or mitigate 

mineral activities. In addition, the alternatives require the protection of the visual integrity of the 

National Historic Trails and their viewsheds. 

Other than the conditions discussed, there are no restrictions under any of the alternatives to the 

amount of land open to mining or limits on mining, based on visual resources management 

objectives or actions. With respect to effects on minerals resources, all of the alternatives are 

essentially equivalent. 

Effects from Cave and Karst Resources Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no effects common to all alternatives from cave and karst resource management. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

There are no restrictions on the amount of land open to mining activities or limits on mining 

operations based on caves and karst characteristics management objectives or actions under 

Alternative A. With respect to effects on minerals resources, Alternatives A, B, and D are essentially 

equivalent. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

There are no restrictions on the amount of land open to mining activities or limits on mining 

operations based on caves and karst characteristics management objectives or actions under 

Alternative B. With respect to effects on minerals resources, Alternatives A, B, and D are essentially 

equivalent. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

The rights to locatable minerals could be acquired, but proposals for locatable minerals, salable 

minerals, and fluid and solid leasable minerals operations would include restrictions within 500 feet 

of a cave or karst feature. For leasable minerals activities, any quarter-quarter-quarter section (10-

acre parcel) intersected by the site or the 500-foot buffer line would be closed. Alternative C would 

be more restrictive for mining activities than would Alternatives A, B, and D. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-479 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

There are no restrictions on the amount of land open to mining activities or limits on mining 

operations based on caves and karst characteristics management objectives or actions under 

Alternative D. With respect to effects on minerals resources, Alternatives A, B, and D are essentially 

equivalent. 

Effects from Livestock Grazing Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no restrictions under any of the alternatives to the amount of land open to mining or 

limits on mining, based on livestock grazing management objectives or actions. With respect to 

effects on minerals resources, all of the alternatives are essentially equivalent. 

Effects from Minerals Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

General 

Impacts from mineral exploration are likely to include surface disturbances related to the 

construction of exploration drill roads and drilling pads. New and existing large-scale mines, mine 

expansions, and small-scale mining operations are likely to involve access road construction, 

increased traffic and surface disturbances associated with various mine facilities (for example: 

portals, pits, waste rock dumps, ore processing, tailing facilities, heap leach pads, administration and 

maintenance facilities; and stormwater runoff control ponds and diversions structures). 

Impacts on mining include increased operational limits and costs associated with reclamation and 

interim reclamation. All alternatives include provisions for implementing concurrent reclamation at 

all mineral operations and interim reclamation for all facilities or features that would be unused for 

more than one year. These provisions will reduce the amount of land disturbed at any one time, as 

wells as reducing erosion, loss of growth media, and siltation of nearby waterways. In addition, there 

would be no reduction of existing public access to public lands due to occupancy associated with 

minerals activities. 

The Programmatic EIS for Geothermal Leasing in the western United States, issued in December 

2008, include provisions on lands open or closed to geothermal leasing and standardized 

stipulations, restrictions, and mitigations for geothermal exploration, development, and production. 

These conditions and restrictions will apply to the lands within the planning area except where this 

RMP EIS determines different or additional conditions or stipulations apply to specific locations. 

The following restrictions would reduce the amount of land available for mining under all of the 

alternatives. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-480 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Salable 

Designated WSAs, the Pine Forest mineral withdrawal, and the George Lund Petrified Forest 

mineral withdrawal, would be maintained as closed to mineral material disposal (salables) under all 

alternatives. 

Leasable (Fluid and Solid) 

All of the alternatives include requirements that neither fluid mineral or solid mineral leases would 

be allowed within a quarter mile of a WSA boundary. This would be accomplished by excluding 

from leasing any quarter-quarter section that was intersected by and including a portion of a WSA 

boundary. 

Locatable 

The existing withdrawals from locatable mineral development—Pine Forest, George Lund Petrified 

Forest, Lovelock Cave, and the FAA mineral withdrawals of Sod House and Lovelock—would 

continue under all alternatives. The existing segregation at Water Canyon would also continue and 

mineral withdrawal would be pursued. Additional lands identified for mineral withdrawal under all 

alternatives is limited to Porter Springs (60 acres). The areas designated as closed to off-road vehicle 

use would continue to be open for acquiring rights to locatable minerals but would have additional 

limitations or stipulations applied to operations authorizations. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

General 

Mining operations are required to implement reclamation of the mining operations including 

recontouring, stabilization, revegetation, or removal of facilities before closure. Mining operations 

would be required to implement existing guidance for revegetation resulting in self-sustaining 

vegetation communities. 

Salable

With the goal to provide mineral materials for local communities and county, state, and federal 

agencies while protecting natural resources, 6,786,059 acres would be open to mineral material 

disposal. Disposals would be made in accordance with demand within those areas. The authorized 

officer may exercise discretion and deny sales or permits at specific sites if environmental analysis 

shows impacts that cannot be mitigated. Otherwise, stipulations would be applied as necessary to 

reasonably protect other resources on a case-by-case basis. Approximately 418,938 acres would be 

closed to mineral material disposal. 

The mineral material community pit sites within the WDO planning decision area would continue to 

be evaluated and developed. The BLM would work with counties to provide free use permits for 

road development and maintenance. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-481 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Fluid

Leases would be offered on 6,745,878 acres of land open to fluid mineral leasing and development. 

Important resource values in otherwise open areas would be protected by applying stipulations 

determined to be necessary to reasonably protect other resources on a case-by-case basis, 6,716,296 

acres would be open with only standard lease terms and stipulations, no land would be open with 

additional seasonal or other restrictions, and 29,582 acres would be open to leasing but subject to an 

NSO stipulation. Leasing would be closed on 446,887 acres. 

Solid 

The leasing of Winnemucca Lake, Carson Sink, San Emidio Desert, and Smoke Creek Desert for 

sodium and potassium would be allowed, as the demand arises. 

Exploration permits and subsequent leases could be offered on 6,766,198 acres of land open to solid 

mineral leasing and development, except where that would be incompatible with important resource 

values. Leasing would be closed on 416,652 acres. 

Locatable 

With the goal to have the planning area open to locatable mineral development, 7,198,294 acres 

would be open to locatable mineral development. The rights to locatable minerals could be acquired, 

but proposals for locatable mineral operations would typically require special handling or have 

additional limitations or stipulations applied to authorizations on 4,299,889 acres. Approved 

operations would be restricted to the extent required by existing law, regulation, or policy. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

General 

Reclamation of the mining operations, including recontouring, stabilization, revegetation, and 

removal of facilities before closure, would be required only if there is no reasonable prospect for 

continued economic use. Mining operations would be required to implement the existing guidance 

on reclamation financial guarantees. Revegetation should result in self-sustaining vegetation 

communities. Species included may be native or introduced, and their seed should be commonly 

available and ordinarily inexpensive. 

Salable 

With the goal to maximize the development of mineral material resources and to support economic 

opportunities, 6,786,059 acres would be open to mineral material disposal. Disposals would be made 

in accordance with demand within those areas, except where they are incompatible with critical 

resource values. Stipulations would be applied as necessary to reasonably protect other resources on 

a case-by-case basis; 4,473,691 acres would be open with only standard authorization terms and 

stipulations, 1,445,244 acres would be open with additional seasonal or other restrictions, and 

867,124 acres would be open only to permits to government entities for maintaining roads or other 

public facilities. Approximately 418,938 acres would be closed to mineral material disposal. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-482 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

The availability of community pits and common use areas would be maximized, as well as the types 

of material and number of sites available from which to make sales. The availability of mineral 

materials to the public would be promoted. The BLM would work with municipalities and other 

eligible customers to maximize the number of free use permits and the associated production of 

mineral materials. 

Fluid 

Leases would be offered on 6,068,969 acres of land open to fluid mineral leasing and development, 

except where it would be incompatible with other critical resource values. Important resource values 

in otherwise open areas would be protected by applying stipulations necessary to reasonably protect 

other resources on a case-by-case basis; 4,472,814 acres would be open with only standard lease 

terms and stipulations, 1,374,431 acres would be open with additional seasonal or other restrictions, 

and 221,724 acres would be open to leasing but subject to an NSO stipulation. Leasing would be 

closed on 1,132,594 acres. 

Solid 

Leases would be offered on 6,068,498 acres of land open to solid mineral leasing and development, 

except where that would be incompatible with other critical resource values. Important resource 

values in otherwise open areas would be protected by applying stipulations necessary to reasonably 

protect other resources on a case-by-case basis; 4,472,950 acres would be open with only standard 

lease terms and stipulations, 1,373,904 acres would be open with additional seasonal or other 

restrictions, and 221,644 acres would be open to leasing but subject to an NSO stipulation. Leasing 

would be closed on 1,124,266 acres. 

Locatable 

With the goal to manage locatable mineral operations to maximize the resource development and 

support economic opportunities, 7,198,294 acres would be open to locatable mineral development. 

The rights to locatable minerals could be acquired, but proposals for locatable mineral operations 

would typically require special handling or would have additional limitations or stipulations applied 

to authorizations on 4,299,889 acres. Approved operations would be restricted to the minimum 

extent required by law or regulation. Off-site mitigation would be pursued only as required by law or 

regulation. Compliance inspections would be limited to the least number allowed by law, regulation, 

or policy and those that impose the least possible burden on the operator. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

General 

Mining operations are required to implement reclamation of the mining operations including 

recontouring, stabilizing, revegetating, or removing facilities before closure. The preoperational 

topography and a historically native vegetation community should be established to the maximum 

extent possible. Mining operations would be required to implement the existing guidance for 

revegetation using a variety of native seed mixtures appropriate to a local ecological setting that 

would result in self-sustaining vegetation communities. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-483 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Salable 

With the goal to manage mineral material resources to meet the needs of individuals, municipalities, 

and businesses, while ensuring compatibility with and protection of other resources and uses, 

6,367,789 acres would be open to mineral material disposal. Disposals would be made in accordance 

with demand within those areas only where compatible with important resource values. Stipulations 

would be applied as necessary to reasonably protect other resources; 2,746,668 acres would be open 

with only standard authorization terms and stipulations, no land would be open with additional 

seasonal or other restrictions, and 3,621,121 acres would be open only to permits to government 

entities for maintaining roads or other public facilities. Approximately 837,049 acres would be closed 

to mineral material disposal. 

The minimum number of community pits and common use areas would be designated that would 

meet reasonably foreseeable demand for commodities. These designated areas would have few or 

mitigable impacts on cultural or biological impacts, would be in appropriate locations, and would 

have sufficient capacity to avoid a proliferation of sites for similar materials in a given area. 

Preference would be given to sales from community pits or common use areas. 

The BLM would work with municipalities and other eligible customers to provide free use permits 

with adequate volumes of material to meet their needs. Preference would be given to permits in 

community pits or common use areas. 

Fluid

Leases would be offered on 2,749,810 acres of land open to fluid mineral leasing and development 

only where compatible with other resources, where important resource values in otherwise open 

areas would be protected by applying stipulations determined to be necessary to reasonably protect 

other resources. These areas would be open with only standard lease terms and stipulations, no land 

would be open with additional seasonal or other restrictions, and no land would be open to leasing 

but would be subject to an NSO stipulation. Leasing would be closed on 4,455,028 acres. 

Solid 

Leases would be offered on 2,749,195 acres of land open to solid mineral leasing and development, 

only where it is compatible with other resources where important resource values in otherwise open 

areas would be protected by applying stipulations determined to be necessary to reasonably protect 

other resources. These areas would be open with only standard lease terms and stipulations, no land 

would be open with additional seasonal or other restrictions, and no land would be open to leasing 

but subject to an NSO stipulation. Leasing would be closed on 4,455,645 acres. 

Locatable 

With the goal to manage locatable mineral operations to meet the mineral needs of the nation, while 

ensuring maximum protection of resources, 6,922,945 acres would be open to locatable mineral 

development. The rights to locatable minerals could be acquired, but proposals for locatable mineral 

operations would typically require special handling or would have additional limitations or 

stipulations applied to authorizations on 3,507,622 acres. Approved operations would have 

stipulations developed during the course of the interdisciplinary review, emphasizing the maximum 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-484 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

protection of other natural and cultural resources. Off-site mitigation would be pursued in 

accordance with applicable law, regulation, and policy at every opportunity available. Compliance 

inspections would meet policy and be of sufficient frequency and detail to ensure conformance with 

the notice of approved plan and maximize protection of other resource values. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

General 

Mining operations are required to implement reclamation of the mining operations, including 

recontouring, stabilizing, revegetating, or removing facilities before closure. Post-operational use and 

site reclamation configuration should be addressed in all relevant proposals for mineral operations 

and site development. Mining operations would be required to implement the existing guidance for 

revegetation using a variety of native and nonnative seed mixtures appropriate to the local ecological 

setting that will result in self-sustaining vegetation communities. 

Salable 

With the goal to manage mineral material resources to meet the needs of individuals, municipalities, 

and businesses, while ensuring compatibility with and protection of other resources and uses, 

6,461,201 acres would be open to mineral material disposal. Disposals would be made in accordance 

with demand in those areas. Stipulations would be applied as necessary to reasonably protect other 

resources; 3,487,709 acres would be open with only standard authorization terms and stipulations, 

1,202,535 acres would be open with additional seasonal or other restrictions, and 1,770,957 acres are 

open only to permits to government entities for maintaining roads or other public facilities. 

Approximately 743,301 acres would be closed to mineral material disposal. 

Community pits and common use areas would be designated in locations and sizes to meet the 

existing and reasonably foreseeable demand for the commodity or commodities available at each 

site, where compatible with resource values, while avoiding a proliferation of sites for similar 

materials in a given area. Most available mineral material sites should be designated as community 

pits or common use areas. 

The BLM would work with municipalities and other eligible customers to provide free use permits 

with adequate volumes of material to meet their needs. Preference would be given to permits in 

community pits or common use areas. 

Fluid 

Leases would be offered on 5,994,301 acres of land open to fluid mineral leasing and development, 

except where that would be incompatible with important resource values. Important resource values 

in otherwise open areas would be protected by applying stipulations determined to be necessary to 

reasonably protect other resources; 4,008,025 acres would be open with only standard lease terms 

and stipulations, 1,659,533 acres would be open with additional seasonal or other restrictions, and 

326,743 acres would be open to leasing but subject to an NSO stipulation. Leasing would be closed 

on 1,198,464 acres. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-485 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Solid 

Leases would be offered on 5,994,123 acres of land open to solid mineral leasing and development, 

except where that would be incompatible with other important resource values. These values in 

otherwise open areas would be protected by applying stipulations necessary to reasonably protect 

other resources; 4,007,923 acres would be open with only standard lease terms and stipulations, 

1,659,404 acres would be open with additional seasonal or other restrictions, and 326,796 acres 

would be open to leasing but subject to an NSO stipulation. Leasing would be closed on 1,198,694 

acres. 

Locatable 

With the goal to manage locatable mineral operations to provide for the mineral needs of the nation, 

while ensuring compatibility with and protection of other resources and uses, 7,176,896 acres would 

be open to locatable mineral development. The rights to locatable minerals could be acquired, but 

proposals for locatable mineral operations would typically require special handling or would have 

additional limitations or stipulations applied to authorizations on 3,028,008 acres. Approved 

operations would have stipulations developed during the course of the interdisciplinary review. Offsite mitigation would be pursued in accordance with applicable law, regulation, and policy as a last 

resort, such as if on-site options were not available for the impacted resource or use. Compliance 

inspections would meet policy and be of sufficient frequency and detail to ensure conformance with 

the notice or approved plan. 

Effects from Recreation, Visitor Outreach, and Services Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no effects common to all alternatives from recreation, visitor outreach, and services 

management. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

There are no restrictions on the amount of land open to mining activities or limits on mining 

operations based on recreation, visitor outreach and services management objectives or actions 

under Alternative A. With respect to effects on mineral resources, Alternatives A and B are 

essentially equivalent. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

There are no restrictions on the amount of land open to mining activities or limits on mining 

operations based on recreation, visitor outreach and services management objectives or actions 

under Alternative B. With respect to effects on mineral resources, Alternatives A and B are 

essentially equivalent. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

The rights to locatable minerals could be acquired, but proposals for locatable mineral operations or 

leasable minerals operations would include restrictions in those areas identified for avoidance or 

exclusion of ROWs associated with specific RMZs. Salable minerals operations in these zones would 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-486 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

be allowed only for government entities for maintaining roads or other public facilities. With respect 

to effects on mineral resources, Alternative C is more restrictive than are Alternatives A, B, and D. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Leasable minerals operations would be restricted from those areas identified for avoidance or 

exclusion of ROWs associated with specific RMZs. Salable minerals operations in these zones would 

be allowed only for government entities to maintain roads or other public facilities. With respect to 

effects on mineral resources, Alternative D is less restrictive than Alternative C, but it would be 

more restrictive than Alternatives A and B. 

Effects from Renewable Energy Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no restrictions under any of the alternatives to the amount of land open to mining or 

limits on mining, based on renewable energy management objectives or actions. With respect to 

effects on minerals resources, all of the alternatives are essentially equivalent. 

Effects from Transportation and Access Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Avoiding duplication of roads and allowing continued public access on existing roads may result in 

greater levels of traffic on system roads. Under all alternatives, the primary users of system roads 

may be held responsible for funding or implementing road upkeep, especially where the miningrelated traffic has higher level road design requirements than the BLM’s. 

Other than the conditions discussed above, there are no restrictions under any of the alternatives to 

the amount of land open to mining or limits on mining, based on transportation and access 

management objectives or actions. With respect to effects on minerals resources, all of the 

alternatives are essentially equivalent. 

Effects from Lands and Realty Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no effects common to all alternatives from lands and realty management. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

There are no restrictions on the amount of land open to mining activities or limits on mining 

operations based on lands and realty management objectives or actions under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Fluid minerals operations would be restricted from those areas identified for exclusion of ROWs 

and on lands acquired under the Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act. Salable minerals 

operations in these areas would be allowed only for government entities for maintaining roads or 

other public facilities. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-487 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Lands acquired would be open to mineral material disposal in a manner consistent with the goals of 

the acquisition and considering the management applied to adjacent public lands. Alternative B is 

more restrictive of mining operations than are Alternatives A and D and is less restrictive than is 

Alternative C. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Lands acquired (by any process) would be closed to mineral material disposal and would be 

withdrawn from mineral entry. Alternative C is more restrictive than are Alternatives A, B, and D. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Lands acquired would be managed in a manner consistent with the goals of the acquisition and 

considering the management applied to adjacent public lands. Alternative D is more restrictive than 

Alternative A and less restrictive to mining activities than are Alternatives B and C. 

Effects from ACEC/RNA Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Under all alternatives, the BLM would continue to maintain the Osgood Mountains ACEC as closed 

to mineral disposal (salables) for the protection of the milkvetch (Astragalus yoder-williamsii) plant 

species. The designated ACECs and the Osgood Mountains ACEC would continue to be open for 

acquiring rights to locatable minerals but would have additional limitations or stipulations applied to 

operations authorizations. The BLM would continue to pursue a mineral withdrawal for the Osgood 

Mountains ACEC. 

The Pine Forest mineral withdrawal and designated WSAs would be closed to salable mineral 

activities. 

These restrictions would reduce the amount of land available for mining. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

The areas would be available to fluid leasable minerals exploration and development with an NSO 

stipulation. The restrictions on mining under Alternatives A and B are equivalent and are less than 

those under Alternatives C and D. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

The areas would be available to leasable minerals exploration and development with an NSO 

stipulation. The restrictions on mining activities under Alternatives A and B are equivalent, and less 

than, those under Alternatives C and D. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

The areas would be closed to leasable minerals exploration and development activities. The BLM 

would seek to withdraw ACEC lands from locatable mineral development on a case-by-case basis 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-488 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

for the protection of important resource values. The restrictions on mining under Alternatives C and 

D are equivalent and are greater than those under Alternatives A and B. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

The areas would be closed to leasable minerals exploration and development activities. The BLM 

would seek to withdraw ACEC lands from locatable mineral development on a case-by-case basis 

for the protection of important resource values. The restrictions on mining under Alternatives C and 

D are equivalent and are greater than those under Alternatives A and B. 

Effects from Backcountry Byways Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no restrictions under any of the alternatives to the amount of land open to mining or 

limits on mining, based on backcountry byways management objectives or actions. With respect to 

effects on minerals resources, all of the alternatives are essentially equivalent. 

Effects from National Trails Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

The rights to locatable minerals could be acquired, but proposals for mineral operations may be 

restricted within a mile of the California National Historic Trail. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Other than the conditions discussed under Effects Common to All Alternatives above, there are no 

restrictions on the amount of land open to mining activities or limits on mining operations based on 

national trails management objectives or actions under Alternative A. The restrictions on mining 

under Alternative A are less than those under Alternatives B, C, and D. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

The areas within a mile of the California National Historic trail would be open to fluid and solid 

minerals leasing with NSO stipulations. Salable minerals operations in these areas would be allowed 

only for government entities for maintaining roads or other public facilities. For leasable minerals 

activities, any quarter-quarter-quarter section (10-acre parcel) within or intersected by the trail or the 

mile buffer line would be subject to NSO stipulations. The restrictions on mining under Alternative 

B are greater than those under Alternative A and are less than those under Alternatives C and D. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

The areas within a mile of the California National Historic trail would be closed to fluid and solid 

minerals leasing, salable mineral operations. For fluid and solid leasable minerals activities, any 

quarter-quarter-quarter section (10-acre parcel) within or intersected by the trail or the mile buffer 

line would be closed. The restrictions on mining under Alternative C are greater than those under 

Alternatives A, B, and D. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-489 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

The areas within a mile of the California National Historic trail would be closed to salable mineral 

operations. The areas within a mile of the California National Historic trail would be open to fluid 

and solid minerals leasing with NSO stipulations. For leasable minerals activities, any quarterquarter-quarter section (10-acre parcel) within or intersected by the trail or the mile buffer line 

would be subject to NSO stipulations. The restrictions on mining under Alternative D are greater 

than those under Alternative A and B and are less than those under Alternative C. 

Effects from Wild and Scenic Rivers Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

The existing identified Wild and Scenic Rivers System and those areas designated for potential 

addition to the system would continue to be open for acquiring rights to locatable minerals but 

would have additional limitations or stipulations applied to operations authorizations. 

There are no restrictions under any of the alternatives to the amount of land open to mining or 

limits on mining, based on wild and scenic rivers management objectives or actions. With respect to 

effects on minerals resources, all of the alternatives are essentially equivalent. 

Effects from Wilderness Study Areas and Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

The existing designated WSAs, designated wilderness areas, and areas with wilderness characteristics 

would continue to be open for rights to locatable minerals but would have additional limitations or 

stipulations applied to operations authorizations, in accordance with the Interim Management Plan 

for Lands Under Wilderness Review (IMP). The BLM would continue to manage 13 WSAs, totaling 

508,186 acres, under the IMP until Congress either designates these areas or releases them for other 

purposes. Mining would generally not be allowed within these areas because the impacts would very 

likely violate the IMP. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Other than the conditions discussed under Effects Common to All Alternatives above, there are no 

restrictions on the amount of land open to mining activities or limits on mining operations based on 

wilderness and wilderness study areas management objectives or actions under Alternative A. Under 

Alternative A, there are no restrictions on the amount of land open to mining or limits on mining 

operations based on wilderness characteristics management objectives or actions. With respect to 

effects on minerals resources, Alternatives A and B are essentially equivalent. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Other than the conditions discussed under Effects Common to All Alternatives above, there are no 

restrictions on the amount of land open to mining activities or limits on mining operations based on 

wilderness and wilderness study areas management objectives or actions under Alternative B. There 

are no restrictions on the amount of land open to mining or limits on mining operations based on 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-490 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

wilderness characteristics management objectives or actions under Alternative B. With respect to 

effects on minerals resources, Alternatives A and B are essentially equivalent. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

The rights to locatable minerals could be acquired, but proposals for locatable mineral operations or 

leasable minerals operations would include restrictions in those areas identified for avoidance or 

exclusion of ROWs associated with the Pine Forest Range not included in the WSA or the Montana 

Mountains. Salable minerals operations in the Pine Forest Range would only be allowed for 

government entities for the maintenance of roads or other public facilities. Areas with wilderness 

characteristics would be closed to fluid and solid minerals leasing and salable minerals disposition. 

Alternative C is the most restrictive with respect to effects on minerals resources. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Leasable minerals operations would be restricted from those areas identified for avoidance or 

exclusion of ROWs associated with the Pine Forest Range not included in the WSA or the Montana 

Mountains. Salable minerals operations in the Pine Forest Range would be allowed only for 

government entities for maintaining roads or other public facilities. Under Alternative D, there are 

no restrictions on the amount of land open to mining or limits on mining operations based on 

wilderness characteristics management objectives or actions, although some wilderness 

characteristics would be afforded protection through restrictions from other resources management 

actions. With respect to effects on minerals resources, Alternative D is less restrictive than 

Alternative C and more restrictive than Alternatives A and B. 

Effects from Watchable Wildlife Viewing Sites Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no restrictions under any of the alternatives to the amount of land open to mining or 

limits on mining, based on watchable wildlife viewing sites management objectives or actions. With 

respect to effects on minerals resources, all of the alternatives are essentially equivalent. 

Effects from Public Health and Safety Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

The BLM would benefit public safety by constraining or restricting the activities of the public on 

public land where there is a proven need to ensure safety or protect resources. These constraints 

could include fencing or otherwise closing dangerous, accessible mine shafts and adits and posting 

gravel pits and other potential dumping sites against illegal dumping. 

Other than the conditions discussed above, there are no restrictions under any of the alternatives to 

the amount of land open to mining or limits on mining, based on public health and safety 

management objectives or actions. With respect to effects on minerals resources, all of the 

alternatives are essentially equivalent. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-491 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Effects from Sustainable Development Management 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Under Alternative A, there are no restrictions on the amount of land open to mining or limits on 

mining operations based on sustainable development management objectives or actions. Potential 

benefits to mineral resource operations include improved capability or flexibility in acquiring public 

lands and less costly reclamation. With respect to effects on minerals resources, Alternatives A, C, 

and D are essentially equivalent. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Under Alternative B, there are no restrictions on the amount of land open to mining activities or 

limits on mining operations based on sustainable development management objectives or actions. 

Under Alternative B, existing guidance and standards for reclamation and closure would be deferred 

or delayed for up to five years from the end of active mining of sites that have a reasonable prospect 

for economic use. Alternative B is potentially more beneficial to mineral resource operations than 

Alternatives A, C, and D, due to improved capability or flexibility in acquiring public lands and less 

costly reclamation. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Under Alternative C, there are no restrictions on the amount of land open to mining activities or 

limits on mining operations based on sustainable development management objectives or actions. 

Potential benefits to mineral resource operations include improved capability or flexibility in 

acquiring public lands and less costly reclamation. With respect to effects on minerals resources, 

Alternatives A, C, and D are essentially equivalent. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

There are no restrictions on the amount of land open to mining activities or limits on mining 

operations based on sustainable development management objectives or actions under Alternative 

D. Potential benefits to mineral resource operations include improved capability or flexibility in 

acquiring public lands and less costly reclamation. With respect to effects on minerals resources, 

Alternatives A, C, and D are essentially equivalent. 

Cumulative Effects 

Salable mineral extraction and use will increase, along with increasing mining activity, commercial 

development, recreation activities, and private property development, especially along the Interstate 

80 corridor. 

Nevada has the largest amount of untapped geothermal resources in the US, with six KGRAs in the 

WDO. In 1997, the Nevada legislature established a renewable energy portfolio standard requiring 

that as much as 15 percent of the total electricity sold should be derived from renewable energy 

resources. Based on the energy portfolio, renewable energy development is expected to increase, and 

is likely to include geothermal resources. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-492 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-493 

There are no areas of “high” oil and gas occurrence potential in the WDO. The USGS analysis 

indicates that the chance for the occurrence of a new oil or gas field of a certain size (one million 

barrels of oil or seven million cubic feet of natural gas) in the Western Great Basin Province study 

area is low. 

Mineral exploration is an ongoing enterprise in the WDO. Exploration for gold has been extremely 

active recently (2004 to early 2006) as gold has sustained higher price levels. Prospects for sustaining 

Nevada’s current mineral production rates in the short run are excellent and also quite likely in the 

long run (15-20 years). A significant increase in exploration and mining activity has occurred with 

increasing metal commodity prices. This increased activity has also increased the potential adverse 

effects on watershed and other resources in the planning area. Most of the effects are site specific 

and potential impacts are minimized by the requirement for environmental analysis during 

permitting of proposed exploration and mining activities. 

4.3.3 Recreation and Facilities 

Summary 

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

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

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

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

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

opportunities. 

Special designations, including Wilderness Areas, WSAs, and ACECs recommended as suitable for 

designation, affect recreation management. Typically, these designations protect important historical, 

cultural, and scenic values, which encourage nonmotorized and more primitive backcountry 

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

designated acreage increases. Recreation users who prefer motorized travel as an activity or who 

require motorized travel to access an area could be affected if previously accessible areas were to 

become inaccessible to motorized travel. 

Maintaining and possibly increasing SRMA designations would protect recreation resources and 

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

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

photography, and picnicking. 

Table 4-52 

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

Indicator Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Number of SRMAs 1 4 2 4 

Acres of SRMAs 37,272 1,237,933 189,251 1,237,933 

Number of RMZs 0 13 5 13 

Acres open to OHV use 6,782,790 1,460,200 0 289,932 

Acres with limited OHV use 416,652 5,445,218 7,143,177 6,878,592 

Acres closed to OHV use 24,832 24,832 61,427 35,483 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Recreation indicators were identified to assess environmental effects. The table below identifies the 

indicators that were used to analyze effects on recreation management under each alternative. 

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

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

Alternative A designates no additional SRMAs but maintains the current Pine Forest SRMA 

designation, while Alternative D adds one designation. Alternative A has the fewest number of acres 

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

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

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

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

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

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

to OHV use under Alternatives A and B. 

Methods of Analysis 

Methods and Assumptions

This section presents potential impacts of the alternatives on outdoor recreation and visitor services, 

as determined through potential changes to visitor and community resident preferences (activities, 

experiences, benefits), recreation setting conditions (physical, social, administrative), recreation 

management (resources, signing, facilities), recreation marketing (visitor services, information, 

interpretation, and environmental education), recreation monitoring (inventory, monitoring), and 

recreation administration (permits and fees and visitor limits and regulations), as they are described 

in Chapter 3. These recreation features are interrelated and connected to access. For example, 

changes in recreation settings would result in corresponding changes in opportunities to achieve 

desired recreation experiences and associated benefits, influenced by access. 

Recreation experiences and the potential attainment of a variety of beneficial outcomes are 

vulnerable to any management action that would alter the settings and opportunities in a particular 

area. Recreation settings are based on a variety of attributes, such as remoteness, the amount of 

human modification in the natural environment, evidence of other users, restrictions and controls, 

and the level of motorized vehicle use. Management actions that greatly alter such features within a 

particular portion of the planning area could affect the capacity of that landscape to produce 

appropriate recreation opportunities and beneficial outcomes. 

The analysis of potential impacts on recreation is based on IDT knowledge of the planning area and 

visitor use reporting statistics from the WDO and the Recreation Management Information System, 

which provide information on the amount and types of recreation. Spatial GIS information was also 

used in this analysis and includes wildlife habitat boundaries, wilderness characteristic boundaries, 

transportation inventory and designations, ecological zones and vegetation types, recreation sites, 

historical and recreational trails, known historical and cultural sites, visual resource management 

classifications, and grazing allotments. Effects are quantified where possible. In the absence of 

quantitative data, best professional judgment was used, and impacts are expressed in qualitative 

terms. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-494 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

The analysis was based on the following assumptions: 

• The demand for recreation use would continue to increase; 

• Recreation visits would continue to increase; 

• The incidence of resource damage and conflicts among recreationists involved in 

mechanized, motorized, and nonmotorized activities would increase as use of public lands 

increases; 

• Anticipated increases would include OHV use; and 

• Users would continue to develop trails. 

Effects from Air Quality Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Improved air quality, including dust control, would improve the quality of recreation within the 

WDO, particularly appreciation of scenic vistas and driving for pleasure. However, implementing 

dust control measures could increase the costs of construction of new facilities and access roads, 

thereby potentially limiting those types of improvements for recreationists. 

Effects from Geology Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Under all alternatives, management actions that establish additional protection for geological 

features would increase recreation opportunities for viewing, hiking, and photography associated 

with these features. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Alternative A would have the fewest impacts on OHV use of all of the alternatives. Maintaining 

open OHV travel use within geologic resource zones under Alternative A would allow the greatest 

opportunities for motorized recreation of all of the alternatives. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

OHV travel use would change from the current designation of open under Alternative A to a 

designation of limited for existing roads and trails within geologic resource zones under Alternative 

B. This management action would restrict OHV users, thereby reducing OHV opportunities. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C 

Under Alternative C, geologic resource zones would be closed to OHV travel use. Therefore, 

Alternative C has the greatest impacts on OHV use from geology management since OHV use 

remains open in geologic exclusion zones under Alternative A and is limited to existing roads and 

trails under Alternatives B and D. Alternative C restricts OHV users and reduces OHV 

opportunities more than any of the alternatives. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-495 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Impacts from Alternative D are the same as those described under Alternative B. 

Effects from Soil Resources Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

All four alternatives minimize breaking up or shearing biological crusts. Achieving this management 

objective could limit or eliminate OHV travel use and other recreation, either seasonally or yearround. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Alternative A would have the potential to restrict recreation because it seeks to minimize breaking 

up or excessive shearing to biological soil crusts, particularly when soil surfaces are dry. However, 

unless limitations or closures were imposed, effects on recreation are unlikely. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Alternative B would likely affect recreation, including OHV use, at about the same level as 

Alternative A and less than Alternative C. A variety of methods could be used to maintain and 

improve various soil surface components, thereby reducing the likelihood that those objectives 

would be achieved through area or seasonal closures or limitations on OHV use and other 

recreation. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C 

Alternative C has the greatest likelihood of restricting recreation. This alternative would seasonally 

eliminate surface disturbances in areas with high potential for biological crusts, thus seasonally 

restricting OHV use and other recreation in those areas. Consequently, these options have the 

greatest potential for impacts on OHV use and other recreation, including commercial activities and 

competitive events, of any of the alternatives. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Of the four alternatives, Alternative D has the least potential for impacts on OHV use and other 

types of recreation in some areas. OHV and other restrictions would be limited to areas with 

minimal vegetative cover, including naturally erosive areas, such as washes, playas, and barren dunes. 

Additionally, methods other than reduction or elimination of OHV travel use and other recreation 

could be used to improve soil components. Therefore, the likelihood of impacts on recreation, 

including OHV use, under this alternative is less than under the other three alternatives. 

Effects from Water Resources Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

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

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-496 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Water resources management under Alternative A would be the least likely to affect recreation 

settings or opportunities within the WDO because it does not restrict public use of priority 

watersheds. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Although all three action alternatives would designate 190,210 acres of priority watersheds, 

Alternative B would have the least effect on recreation since the watersheds would be managed for 

multiple uses. It is possible that no effect on recreation would occur. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C 

Alternative C would potentially have the greatest effect on recreation of the four action alternatives. 

This is because priority watersheds would be exclusion areas for discretionary actions that are 

considered incompatible with the resource for which the priority was created. OHV travel use, 

commercial activities, and competitive events would all likely be excluded from priority watersheds 

due to their impacts on vegetative cover, soil compaction, erosion, and human waste. Camping and 

other recreation could also be excluded due to their potential effects on watersheds. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Alternative D has the potential to restrict recreation since priority watersheds would be avoidance 

areas for discretionary actions considered incompatible with the priority use. A variety of 

recreational activities could affect watersheds, particularly OHV travel use, commercial activities, 

competitive events, and camping. Such impacts occur through denuded vegetative cover, soil 

compaction, erosion, and human waste. 

Effects from Vegetation—Forest and Woodland Products Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

The use of mechanical or biological treatments to achieve stand health, structure, and species 

composition objectives would affect the recreation setting and opportunities in treated areas. Effects 

on recreation would occur whether the fire is prescribed or if a natural fire regime is allowed. The 

designation, or lack thereof, of acres of old growth forest also affects the availability of a primeval 

and unique type of recreation setting. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Alternative A prescribes fire to enhance deteriorated aspen and cottonwood stands. Since the use is 

limited to these forest types only, the effects on recreation under this alternative would be minimal. 

Recreationists who find recently burned areas objectionable and choose to avoid those areas would 

have many other areas available to recreate. Management closures until revegetation occurred would 

also redirect recreation to other areas. 

The use of fencing, clear cutting, or herbicides to enhance aspen and cottonwood stands would 

create visual and barrier effects that would change recreation settings and opportunities. In 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-497 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

particular, OHV use would be restricted by fencing. However, since such treatments would be 

limited to aspen and cottonwood, effects would likely not be widespread. 

Alternative A does not designate any acres of old growth forest, which precludes the availability of 

the recreational setting and the opportunities afforded by this type of ecosystem. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

The effects on recreation from Alternative B are similar to those described under Alternative D and 

are greater than those under the other alternatives. Alternative B uses wildland fire in addition to 

prescribed fire as a management tool to enhance aspen and other stands. Consequently, both the 

types of stands and the extent of the area affected could be large. The recreational setting would be 

changed in recently burned areas, and some recreationists would avoid such areas, thereby 

potentially decreasing the spectrum of recreation opportunities and increasing recreational use in 

other areas. Management closures put in place until revegetation occurred would also direct 

recreation to other areas. 

Alternative B uses fencing, mechanical, biological, or chemical treatments, and planting and seeding 

to achieve stand objectives. Such treatments would create visual and barrier effects that would 

change recreational settings and opportunities. In particular, OHV use would be restricted by 

fencing. Treatments could be widespread, thereby increasing the effects on recreation. Alternative B 

also includes firewood harvesting areas, which would increase human presence and noise in those 

areas and would change the visual appearance of the stand. All of those effects would change the 

recreational setting and opportunities in firewood harvest areas. Alternatives B and D are similar, 

would have similar effects on recreation, and represent the potentially greatest effects on recreation 

of the four alternatives. 

Like Alternative A, this alternative does not designate any acres of old growth forest. Effects on 

recreation are similar to those under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C 

The effects on recreation from Alternative C would be the least of any of the alternatives since 

natural fire regimes would be allowed, but fire would not be prescribed as a management tool; 

however, effects could be widespread in the event of a large wildfire. In that case, effects on 

recreation would likely exceed those under Alternative A, which uses prescribed fire only in 

deteriorated stands of cottonwood and aspen. Recreational effects are the same as those described 

under Alternatives B and D. 

The effects on recreation under Alternative C from the use of stand management methods are 

similar to but less widespread than those under Alternatives B and D. Alternative C does not include 

firewood harvest areas. 

Alternative C designates 27,605 acres of old growth forest, as does Alternative D. These three 

alternatives offer an opportunity to recreate in an old growth forest setting. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-498 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

The effects on recreation from Alternative D are the greatest of any of the alternatives. The effects 

are similar to those under Alternative D, but the use of fire as a management tool would potentially 

be more widespread. Wildland fire also would be used as a tool. Consequently, both the types of 

stands and the extent of the area affected could be large. Effects on recreation are the same as those 

described under Alternatives B and C.. 

The effects on recreation under Alternative D from the use of stand management methods are 

similar to those under Alternative B. 

Alternative D designates 27,605 acres of old growth forest, as does Alternative C. The effects on 

recreation are similar to those described under Alternative C. 

Effects from Vegetation—Weeds Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Under all alternatives, weed management would have only a small effect, if any, on recreation. 

However, over time, effective weed management would improve the quality of the recreation 

settings by improving the health of ecosystems, thereby increasing recreational opportunities, such 

as photography, wildlife viewing, and scenic appreciation. No discernable difference in effects on 

recreation would occur from the individual alternatives. 

Effects from Chemical and Biological Control 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Chemical and biological control would have a small effect, if any, on recreation. However, effective 

pest management would improve the quality of recreation settings and experiences over the long 

term as ecosystem health improved. No discernable difference in effects on recreation would occur 

from the individual alternatives. 

Effects from Vegetation—Rangeland Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

All four of the alternatives would affect recreation and OHV use patterns through land treatments 

to improve degraded rangelands. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Alternative A would have a short-term effect on recreation and OHV use through land treatments 

to improve degraded rangelands. Prescribed fire would likely result in short-term closures of areas 

for recreation and OHV use, both during treatment and possibly afterwards to protect exposed soil 

surfaces from erosive and to allow vegetation to become established. Recreation in these areas 

would be temporarily displaced, and recreational use patterns would be temporarily altered. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-499 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

The effects on recreation and OHV use from Alternative B are greater than those from Alternative 

A and are similar to the effects under Alternatives C and D. Land treatments, including fire, would 

be used under this alternative, but Alternative B would also employ fencing and use restrictions that 

would likely displace some recreational activities and would change some recreational use patterns 

on a long-term basis. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

The effects on recreation and OHV use under Alternative C from land treatment methods to 

improve degraded rangelands are similar to those described under Alternatives B and D. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

The effects on recreation and OHV use under Alternative D from land treatment methods to 

improve degraded rangelands are similar to those described under Alternatives B and C. 

Effects from Vegetation—Riparian and Wetlands Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Placement of structures or fencing would affect recreational use patterns under all the alternatives. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Restoration of degraded riparian areas could inhibit recreational access and use patterns in the 

affected areas by fencing and the construction of structures. Effects on recreation are similar to but 

not as large or widespread as under Alternative B since fewer management actions are proposed 

under this alternative. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Implementing BMPs to address nongrazing impacts on riparian areas would affect recreation use 

patterns, settings, and experiences. In particular, closure or relocation of routes and elimination or 

hardening of stream crossings would affect recreationists, particularly those using OHVs. Access to 

some areas could become more difficult if routes were closed or changed. Eliminating stream 

crossings could also affect access to some areas. However, route changes and hardening of stream 

crossings could allow access to areas that were previously inaccessible. All of these management 

actions would affect recreation use patterns. Over the long term, the recreational setting and 

experiences in currently degraded riparian areas would change as the condition of the ecosystem 

changes. The activities most likely to be affected are OHV use, fishing, wildlife viewing, hiking, and 

camping. The effects on recreation under Alternatives B, C, and D are similar. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Effects on recreation are similar to those described under Alternatives B and D. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-500 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Effects on recreation are similar to those described under Alternatives B and C. 

Effects from Fish and Wildlife Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no effects common to all alternatives from fish and wildlife management. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

No priority wildlife habitat areas would be designated under Alternative A, so no effects on 

recreation would occur. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

There could be effects on recreation if restrictions were imposed through the application of 

mitigation measures for priority habitats. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C 

The potential effects on recreation are the same as those described under Alternative B. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

The potential effects on recreation are the same as those described under Alternative B. 

Effects from Special Status Species Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Management actions in all of the alternatives to protect sensitive plant species and their habitats 

would affect recreation by limiting surface-disturbing activities, which would likely restrict special 

events and OHV use. Recreation would also be affected by actions to protect bat habitat, including 

restrictions on human access to occupied adits and caves, which would limit spelunking. Effects on 

recreation use patterns could occur from use restrictions to protect documented northern goshawk 

nest areas and sites. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Alternative A would impose seasonal and use restrictions to protect the habitat of sensitive plant 

species. These restrictions would affect recreation opportunities seasonally and intermittently, which 

would result in temporary alterations in recreation use patterns. Restrictions could include 

prohibitions on OHV use, commercial activities, and special events, and possibly on other recreation 

activities, such as horseback riding, mountain biking, hiking, or camping. Restrictions, and the 

resulting effects on recreation, would be temporary, intermittent, and limited in scope. 

Management actions to protect bat habitat would affect recreation. Large-scale, surface-disturbing 

discretionary actions such as special events, would be prohibited within 200 yards of habitat. Human 

access to occupied adits and caves would be restricted by bat gates, which would limit opportunities 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-501 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

for spelunking and would redirect opportunities to those caves not inhabited by bats. Both actions 

would alter recreation use patterns. 

Effects on recreation use patterns could also occur from use restrictions to protect documented 

northern goshawk nest areas and sites. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

The effects on recreation from management actions to protect sensitive plant species and their 

habitat are similar to those under the other alternatives. 

Management actions to protect bat habitat would affect recreation less under Alternative B than 

under Alternatives A, C, and D, all of which have similar effects. Large-scale, surface-disturbing 

discretionary actions, such as special events, would be allowed under this alternative, subject to 

mitigation. However, like the other alternatives, human access to adits and caves would be restricted, 

thereby limiting spelunking. Effects on recreational use patterns from protection of northern 

goshawk nest areas and sites are the same under all alternatives. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Effects on recreation from management actions to protect sensitive plant species are similar to those 

described under the other alternatives. 

Use prohibitions and restrictions to protect sage-grouse leks would prohibit recreation in some areas 

year-round and would limit recreation in other areas seasonally. Surface disturbance within two miles 

of sage-grouse leks would be prohibited. Human activity would be avoided during evenings and 

nights between March 1 and May 20 within a quarter mile of occupied leks. Some alteration of 

recreational use patterns would likely result, and overall effects on recreation would be greater than 

under Alternative D. 

Effects on recreation from management actions to protect bat habitat are similar to those described 

under Alternatives A and D. 

Effects on recreational use patterns from protection of northern goshawk nest areas and sites are the 

same under all alternatives. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Effects on recreation from management actions to protect sensitive plant species are similar to 

Alternatives A and C. 

Effects on recreational use patterns from use prohibitions and restrictions to protect sage-grouse 

leks are the most pronounced under Alternative D. This alternative prohibits surface disturbances 

within a quarter mile of occupied leks, which constitutes a smaller protective area than under 

Alternative C. 

Effects on recreation from management actions to protect bat habitat are similar to those described 

under Alternatives A and C. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-502 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Effects on recreational use patterns from protection of northern goshawk nest areas and sites are the 

same under all alternatives. 

Effects from Wild Horse and Burro Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives 

Restrictions on commercial activities and competitive events would be imposed in HMAs under all 

of the alternatives to protect the health and welfare of WHBs. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Under Alternative A, commercial activities and competitive events would be allowed in HMAs, but 

safeguards and mitigation measures would be imposed to protect the health and welfare of WHBs. 

These protective measures could include seasonal closures and rerouting of courses, thereby 

changing recreation patterns. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

The management measures and potential effects on recreation under Alternative B are similar to 

those under Alternatives A and D. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Alternative C disallows commercial activities and competitive events that would negatively affect the 

health and welfare of WHBs unless those effects are minimal. Therefore, Alternative C has the 

greatest potential to affect recreation of any of the other alternatives. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

The management measures and potential effects on recreation under Alternative D are similar to 

those described under Alternatives A and B. 

Effects from Wildland Fire Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

All alternatives would suppress wildland fires that meet specific criteria, which would minimize firerelated interference with recreational activities and experiences. Fuel breaks would protect SRMAs 

and infrastructure. Recreation areas with infrastructure would become priority suppression areas 

under a response to wildfires, based on social, legal, and ecological consequences of the fire, in order 

to protect property. Unsuppressed wildland fires would likely result in temporary closures until 

revegetation occurred, thereby changing recreational use patterns and reducing recreational 

opportunities in some areas. No discernable difference in effects on recreation would occur for the 

individual alternatives. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-503 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Effects from Cultural Resources Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Implementing site-specific measures for cultural resources, including protecting scenic viewsheds 

and historic trails, would protect these resources of interest to the recreating public. However, these 

measures could restrict the development of recreational facilities and related opportunities. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Alternative A would preserve and protect cultural resources, which are of interest to the recreating 

public. OHV use would continue to be allowed on 5,650 acres around Lovelock Cave and Lovelock 

Cave Backcountry Byway. The California National Historic Trail would also be preserved for its 

historic and scenic values, thereby continuing to provide a unique recreational opportunity. Class I, 

II, III, IV, and V segments of the National Historic Trails would remain open to OHV use. 

Management measures and use restrictions to protect cultural resources would also limit and change 

recreational use. Physical conservation measures, such as signs and fences, would alter recreational 

settings and experiences and would likely alter use patterns. Administrative measures, such as 

mineral withdrawal, closure to public access, and prohibition of OHV use, would preclude 

recreation in some areas, particularly to those recreationists who depend on motorized 

transportation to access public lands. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

The effects on recreation from Alternative B are similar to those under Alternative A. However, 

Alternative B also protects the viewshed of the Lovelock Cave Backcountry Byway to VRM Class 

III, which provides an opportunity for scenic driving, although the level of aesthetic protection is 

not as great as that under Alternatives C and D. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C 

The effects on recreation from Alternative C are similar to those described under Alternatives A and 

B. However, Alternative C protects the viewshed of the Lovelock Cave Backcountry Byway to a 

VRM Class II, which ensures a more scenic driving opportunity over the long term than under 

Alternatives A and B. Additionally, Alternative C would limit OHV use to existing roads and trails 

on the 5,650 acres around Lovelock Cave and Lovelock Cave Backcountry Byway. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

The effects on recreation from Alternative D are the same as those described under Alternative C. 

Effects from Tribal Consultation 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Under all alternatives, management actions would continue to protect traditional religious sites and 

other areas of concern, which could restrict recreation that interferes with the maintenance and 

protection of these resources. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-504 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

The effects of tribal consultation on recreation and facilities under Alternative A are the same as 

those identified under Effects Common to All Alternatives. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Under Alternative B, recreational activities would be restricted in some areas by use restrictions and 

other management actions implemented to protect traditional religious sites and other areas of 

concern. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C 

The effects on recreation under Alternative C are greater than those under Alternative B because 

Alternative C uses emergency, temporal, and seasonal closures to protect traditional religious sites 

and other areas of concern. This would preclude recreational activities in certain areas at various 

times of the year. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

The effects on recreation under Alternative D are the same as those described under Alternative C.. 

Effects from Paleontological Resources Management 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Alternative A would implement physical conservation measures, such as signs, fences, and 

administrative conservation, to protect paleontological resources. These measures could restrict or 

exclude recreation and could also affect recreational settings. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Activities on public lands would not be authorized under Alternative B if any potential damage to 

paleontological resources would occur, unless impacts could be mitigated. This restriction could 

limit recreation in some areas, particularly commercial activities, special events, and OHV use. 

Alternative B would also implement physical conservation measures, such as signs, fences, and 

administrative conservation, which would further restrict or exclude recreation and could also affect 

recreational settings. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C 

Discretionary activities on public lands would not be authorized under Alternative C if any potential 

damage to paleontological resources would occur, unless impacts could be mitigated. This restriction 

could limit recreation in some areas, particularly commercial activities, special events, and OHV use. 

Like the other three alternatives, Alternative C would implement physical conservation measures, 

such as signs, fences, and administrative conservation, which would further restrict or exclude 

recreation and could also affect recreational settings. Additionally, mineral withdrawals, closure of 

public access, and prohibition of OHV use could occur. Recreation would be precluded to all 

recreationists in some areas and to those who depend on motorized access in other areas. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-505 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

The effects on recreation are the same as those described under Alternative C. 

Effects from Visual Resources Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Visual resources would be managed under all four VRM Class designations, which would allow for 

varying retention of the existing landscape, depending on the alternative. Greater retention of the 

viewshed offers recreationists a more primitive experience, but it also restricts potential development 

of recreational facilities, roads, and trails. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Alternative A manages visual resources on 7,177,644 acres under all four VRM Class designations, 

including 56,771 acres with unknown class designations. It designates 420,286 acres as Class I, 

thereby affording the highest level of visual retention to the greatest number of acres of any of the 

alternatives. However, it also designates 5,674,423 acres as Class IV, which is the least protective 

designation and also the greatest number of acres with that designation of any of the alternatives. 

Since Class I preserves the viewshed, it offers the most primitive recreation experience. Conversely, 

it restricts potential development of recreational facilities, roads, and trails that could be in demand 

by other recreationists. Class IV allows for major modifications to the landscape, so development of 

recreational facilities, roads, and trails would be allowed. 

Alternative A designates 346,386 acres as Class II, which retains the existing landscape but allows for 

a low level of change, and 679,777 acres as Class III, which mandates partial retention of the 

viewshed. These two classes would allow a mixed recreational setting and experience, consisting of a 

relatively primitive viewscape, while allowing some recreational (and other) development to occur. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Alternative B manages visual resources on 7,205,493 acres under all four VRM Class designations. It 

designates 416,582 acres as Class I, 117,694 acres as Class II, 1,022,406 acres as Class III, and 

5,648,812 acres as Class IV. The number of acres designated as Class I is the same as for 

Alternatives C and D. However, the number of acres for Class II, which retains the landscape and 

allows for a low level of change, is the lowest number of acres of any of the alternatives. The 

number of acres in Class III is more than under Alternative A but less than under the other 

alternatives, and the number in Class IV is the second greatest of any of the alternatives. Overall, 

Alternative B allows for the greatest potential change in the viewscape. This reduces the area 

available with a primitive viewscape, thereby reducing the amount of that recreational setting and 

experience. It also allows for the most potential development within the viewshed, some of which 

could benefit recreationists who desire a less primitive experience. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C 

Alternative C manages visual resources on 7,205,493 acres under all four VRM Class designations. 

They designate 416,582 acres as Class I, 2,923,959 acres as Class II, 2,708,948 acres as Class III, and 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-506 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

1,156,005 acres as Class IV. The number of acres designated as Class I is the same as for 

Alternatives B and D. However, the number of acres for Class II, which retains the existing 

landscape and allows for a low level of change, is the greatest number of acres of any of the 

alternatives. This largely preserves a primitive recreational setting and experience. The number of 

acres in Class IV is much less than under Alternatives A or B and would not allow as much change 

in the viewshed or as much recreational development. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Alternative D manages visual resources on 7,196,212 acres under all four VRM Class designations. It 

designates 416,582 acres as Class I, 2,775,496 acres as Class II, 3,283,456 acres as Class III, and 

720,678 acres as Class IV. The number of acres designated as Class I is the same as for Alternatives 

B and C. The number of acres for Class II is less than Alternative C, and the number of acres, for 

Class III is greater than Alternative C. Class IV acres are the least of any alternative. Overall, 

Alternatives C and D allow roughly the same amount of change in the viewscape and would have 

similar effects on recreation. 

Effects from Cave and Karst Resources Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no effects common to all alternatives from cave and karst resource management. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Alternative A does not address management of cave and karst resources, so it would have no impact 

on recreation. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Under Alternative B, implementing seasonal closures, avoidance, and fencing to protect sensitive 

features and bats could temporarily preclude recreation activities at or near karst features. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C 

Alternative C could be more restrictive of recreation at or near karst features by prohibiting surfacedisturbing activities within 500 feet of natural caves or karsts. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

The effects of cave and karst resources management on recreation and facilities under Alternative D 

are the same as those identified under Alternative B. 

Effects from Livestock Grazing Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Under all alternatives except Alternative C Option 2, the presence of livestock and rangeland 

facilities, could affect recreational settings, use patterns, and activities. Fencing in particular would 

disrupt recreation. Any types of use requiring cross-country travel could be affected, but OHV use 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-507 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

would be most affected by fencing. Individual alternatives differ in the acreage of overlap between 

grazing and recreation. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Under Alternative A, livestock grazing management would result in the continued presence of cattle, 

sheep, and rangeland facilities on 8,228,528 acres. Only 293,447 acres would be closed to grazing. 

The effects of this are the same as those described under Effects Common to All Alternatives. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

The number of acres open and closed to grazing and the effects on recreation are the same as those 

described under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C 

Option 1 

Livestock grazing management would result in the continued presence of cattle, sheep, and 

rangeland facilities on 8,228,845 acres, which is a decrease of 2,683 acres from the current condition 

(Alternative A). However, that represents a decrease of less than one percent of the total acreage 

currently available to grazing, which would not be a discernable change to a recreationist. Only 

296,130 acres would be closed to grazing. The effects on recreation would be virtually identical to 

those described under Alternatives A and B. 

Option 2 

The effects on recreation are the greatest under this option since no acres would be open to 

livestock grazing and 8,521,975 acres would be closed. No conflicts between livestock and 

recreationists would occur; the presence of livestock and their effect on recreational settings would 

be eliminated, and no effects on OHV use from new range facilities, particularly fencing, would 

occur. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Livestock grazing management would result in the continued presence of cattle, sheep, and 

rangeland facilities on 8,195,637 acres, which is a decrease of less than one percent from the current 

condition (Alternative A). Only 326,337 acres would be closed to grazing. This represents about a 10 

percent increase in the number of closed acres over the current condition and is the greatest number 

of acres closed to grazing under any of the alternatives, except for Option 2 of Alternative C. 

However, the number of closed acres is such a small percentage of the total acreage open to grazing 

that the effects on recreation would likely not be noticeable to recreationists. Therefore, the effects 

on recreation are similar to the other alternatives. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-508 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Effects from Minerals Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

General 

Minerals management activities involving heavy equipment, new roads, well pads, and other facilities 

would directly affect recreationists in the short term by restricting areas where these activities are 

occurring. Over the long term, surface disturbances that create effects on the scenic quality and the 

natural landscape would indirectly affect recreation experiences. Minerals management could affect 

all areas except those closed to mineral activities. NSO requirements would alleviate impacts on 

recreation in those designated areas. The individual alternatives differ in the acreage and location of 

closures and NSO requirements; however, it is possible that the amount of actual minerals activity 

would not differ among alternatives. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Under Alternative A, the fewest acres would be closed to mineral activities or would have NSO 

requirements. Consequently, Alternative A would be the most likely to have effects common to all 

alternatives. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

A larger area would be closed to mineral activities under Alternative B than under Alternative A, and 

a larger area would be subject to NSO requirements. Therefore, Alternative B would be less likely 

than Alternative A to affect recreation, as described under Effects Common to All Alternatives. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C 

The greatest restrictions on mineral activities would occur under Alternative C, which therefore 

would be the least likely of all alternatives to affect recreation, as described under Effects Common 

to All Alternatives. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

The likelihood that mineral activities would affect recreation under Alternative D would be 

intermediate between Alternatives B and C because the area closed or under NSO requirements 

would be intermediate between these two alternatives. 

Effects from Recreation, Visitor Outreach, and Services Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Interpretive programs and activities would be maintained and enhanced under all alternatives. Public 

information would be provided for those natural and cultural sites designated for public use (such as 

Lovelock Cave). Partnerships with non-BLM entities would be pursued to accomplish management 

objectives, including visitor outreach programs. Lands would be managed to provide dispersed and 

water-based recreation, and SRMAs would continue to be managed. Existing facilities in Water 

Canyon and on the Bloody Shins trail network would continue to be maintained. Thus, a wide array 

of recreational settings and opportunities would continue to exist on WDO lands. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-509 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

In addition to the effects common to all alternatives, the number of SRMAs would remain constant, 

and the Pine Forest SRMA would remain at 37,272 acres. SRPs would continue to be issued on a 

case-by-case basis, and resources would continue to be protected by use restrictions, stipulations, 

and mitigation measures. Most of the planning area, 6,782,790 acres, would continue to be open to 

OHV use. The number of acres closed to OHV use (24,832) would decrease slightly. WSAs would 

be managed to limit OHV use to existing ways and trails, thereby limiting motorized access in those 

areas but also protecting primitive recreation opportunities. Overall, the current array of recreational 

settings and opportunities would continue under Alternative A, and current use patterns also are 

likely to remain relatively constant. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

In addition to the effects common to all alternatives, Alternative B would foster the development of 

volunteer, restoration, and stewardship programs and would foster scientific research for WDO 

lands. This would improve the condition of resources within the WDO over the long term, thereby 

enhancing recreational opportunities. Educational outreach programs would also benefit the 

recreating public through increased awareness of activities that impact public lands and methods to 

reduce such impacts. Implementing an adaptive management model would provide recreation 

experiences and protect resources. 

The Winnemucca Resource Area would be designated as an ERMA containing 6,013,947 acres, all 

of which would be open to dispersed recreation. Numerous regulations would be instituted to 

protect resources, which would maintain the quality of the recreational setting over the long term. 

Three SRMAs containing RMZs and 1,138,829 acres would be designated under Alternative B. In 

addition, the Pine Forest SRMA would expand to include 3 RMZs and 99,104 acres. Each SRMA 

and RMZ would be managed to provide specific experience opportunities, including motorized and 

mechanized use, primitive areas, and isolation and close-to-town experiences. Potential activities 

include hiking, fishing, camping, backpacking, mountain biking, picnicking, enjoying interpretive 

sites, horseback riding, and ATV and OHV riding. 

Most of the planning area, 5,445,218 acres, would allow limited OHV use. Only 1,460,200 acres 

would be open, and 24,832 acres would continue to be closed to OHV use. Recreationists who 

depend on motorized access to public lands would have their recreational opportunities limited by 

this alternative; however, they would not be precluded from recreating on WDO lands. Over the 

long term, recreational settings would likely be enhanced by reducing resource degradation 

associated with open OHV use. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C 

In addition to the effects common to all alternatives, the management actions and effects on 

recreation from Alternative C are the same as under Alternative B, with some exceptions. A total of 

7,168,451 acres would be designated as an ERMA, which is an increase of 1,154889 acres over 

Alternative A. One SRMA containing a total of five RMZs and 151,979 acres would be designated 

under Alternative C. The array of recreational opportunities managed for in the SRMA would be 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-510 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

more limited than under Alternative B, primarily providing close-to-town activities rather than 

isolated primitive experiences. 

Alternative C uniquely affects OHV use. Most of the planning area, 7,143,177 acres, would allow 

limited OHV use, which is the most acres designated as limited OHV use under any of the 

alternatives. No acres would be designated as open OHV use, which distinguishes Alternative C as 

the only alternatives that completely preclude open OHV use. Additionally, 61,427 acres would be 

closed, which represents the greatest number of acres closed to OHV use under any of the 

alternatives. OHV users who enjoy open use would be most affected by these options. However, 

since most of the area remains available to limited OHV use, those who depend on motorized access 

to public lands would not be precluded from recreating on WDO lands. Like Alternative B, over the 

long term, recreational settings would likely be enhanced by reducing resource degradation 

associated with open OHV use. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

In addition to the effects common to all alternatives, the management actions and effects on 

recreation from Alternative D are the most similar to those described under Alternative B. The 

differences lie in OHV use designations and their subsequent recreational effects. Under Alternative 

D, 6,878,592 acres would allow limited OHV use. This represents most of the lands in the WDO. A 

total of 289,932 acres would be designated as open OHV use, and 35,483 acres would be closed. 

Fewer acres would be open than under Alternatives A or B. The effects from limited OHV use 

designations are slightly greater than those under Alternative B. 

Effects from Renewable Energy Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

The leasing of public lands for wind energy development and the authorization of new renewable 

energy ROWs could have effects similar to those described under Individual Alternative Effects 

from Minerals Management, Effects Common to All Alternatives. Similar to minerals management, 

the probability of effects is higher for those alternatives with the smallest avoidance and exclusion 

areas; however, it is possible that the amount of actual renewable energy activity would not differ 

among alternatives. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Alternative A would maintain existing exclusion zones, which would be protected from renewable 

energy use and would allow continued recreational use. The area covered by ROW exclusion would 

be greater than under Alternative B (with no exclusion zones) but less than under Alternatives C and 

D. Therefore, it is more likely that Alternative A would affect type and level of recreation than 

Alternatives C and D. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

No exclusion zones for renewable energy ROWs would be designated under Alternative B, so that 

alternative is the most likely to affect recreation within the WDO. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-511 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative C 

Alternative C would designate the largest area for exclusion and, therefore, would be the least likely 

to affect recreation activities and experiences. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Under Alternative D the area covered by ROW exclusion is greater than under Alternatives A and B 

but less than under Alternative C. Therefore, the likelihood that Alternative D would affect 

recreation is intermediate between Alternatives A and C. 

Effects from Transportation and Access Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

All alternatives would provide access to recreation within the WDO. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Under Alternative A, roads that are presenting problems to the environment would be improved or 

decommissioned from the system inventory. Recreational access would thereby either be improved 

or eliminated in some areas, depending on the management action. Over the long term, recreational 

use patterns would likely be affected, and the quality of recreation experiences would be maintained 

through protection of the environment. Alternative A would have the greatest effect on recreation 

of any of the alternatives. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Under Alternative B, roads would only be decommissioned from the system inventory if alternative 

access were provided, thereby eliminating the possibility that recreationists would be precluded from 

motorized access via road in some areas. However, environmental degradation from roads would 

continue in some areas, which would diminish the quality of recreational experiences over the long 

term. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C 

Management actions and effects on recreation under Alternative C are the same as those described 

under Alternative B. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Management actions and effects on recreation under Alternative D are the same as those described 

under Alternative C. 

Effects from Lands and Realty Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Public lands would be retained, which would ensure that a variety of recreational settings and 

opportunities would continue to exist on WDO lands. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-512 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Under Alternative A, management would acquire lands that provide public access for recreation and 

developed recreation sites. Increased opportunities to access WDO lands would result, as would 

increased access to developed recreation. Over the long term, the amount of recreational use could 

increase, and recreational use patterns could be altered. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Under Alternative B, recreation access and recreation sites would not be given priority for 

acquisition as much as under Alternative A. Increased recreational opportunities or access could 

occur as a result of acquisition under this alternative. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C 

The effects on recreation under Alternative C are slightly greater than those described under 

Alternative A since management would maximize opportunities to acquire lands with recreation 

access. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

The effects on recreation under Alternative D are the same as those described under Alternative A. 

Effects from ACEC/RNA Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Measures to protect valuable and sensitive resources within ACEC designations would create an 

effect on recreationists throughout the WDO. Visitors to the ACECs could take part in wildlife 

viewing, sightseeing, hiking, and camping, all while protecting important values within the 

designation both for current and future generations of recreationists. Conflicts between motorized 

and nonmotorized recreation users would be minimized in these areas, improving the quality of the 

recreation experience for all users. Some restrictions on recreation could occur to protect resource 

values. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Alternative A would maintain the existing 60-acre Osgood Mountain Milkvetch ACEC, allowing for 

recreation within the ACEC while protecting its important values. However, no new ACECs would 

be created, thereby limiting protection of other important areas for future recreationists. Other 

effects are the same as those discussed under Effects Common to All Alternatives. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Alternative B would maintain existing ACECs, thereby continuing recreation within the ACECs, 

while protecting their important values. However, creation of new ACECs would be avoided, 

thereby limiting protection of other important areas for future recreationists. Other effects are the 

same as those discussed under Effects Common to All Alternatives. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-513 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative C 

Alternative C would designate four ACECs, allowing recreation within the ACECs, while protecting 

their important values for future recreationists. The Pine Forest SRMA and Pine Forest ACEC have 

compatible recreation management objectives. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Management actions and effects on recreation are identical to those described under Alternative C. 

Effects from Backcountry Byways Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Under all alternatives, designation of backcountry byways creates additional opportunities for scenic 

drives for recreationists, currently one of the most popular types of dispersed recreation (as 

identified in Table 3-30). New backcountry byways also could increase visitor use in more remote 

areas. No discernable difference in impacts would occur for the individual alternatives. 

Effects from National Trails Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Under all alternatives, maintenance of trails to preserve historic, cultural, and scenic values preserves 

the array of recreational opportunities available on WDO lands. There would be no difference in 

impacts for the individual alternatives. 

Effects from Wild and Scenic Rivers Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no effects common to all alternatives from wild and scenic river management. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Under Alternative A, no stream segments are managed as wild and scenic rivers within the WDO; 

therefore, wild and scenic rivers management under Alternative A would have no impact on 

recreation and facilities. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Protecting eligible river segments would maintain an array of recreation experiences, particularly for 

water-based and primitive recreation under all alternatives. Under Alternative B, approximately 18 

miles of the Little Humboldt River would be carried forward for wild and scenic suitability analysis. 

Management to preserve the outstandingly remarkable values of this stream segment would preserve 

land- and water-based recreation in the surrounding area. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C 

The effects of wild and scenic rivers management under Alternative C are the same as those 

identified under Alternative A. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-514 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

The effects of wild and scenic rivers management under Alternative D are the same as those 

identified under Alternative A. 

Effects from Wilderness Study Areas and Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Under all alternatives, mitigation measures would minimize adverse impacts on wilderness 

characteristics, thereby helping to ensure that backcountry and primitive settings would continue to 

be available to recreationists seeking those experiences. 

Managing WSAs to maintain wilderness characteristics would provide the opportunity for primitive 

wilderness recreation until the lands are either designated as wilderness or are released for other 

recreational uses, such as OHV use. Under all alternatives, the same area would be managed as 

WSAs, and there would be no difference in the impacts of the individual alternatives. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Mitigation measures would minimize adverse impacts on wilderness characteristics from multiple 

use, which would help to ensure that backcountry and primitive experiences would continue to be 

available to recreationists seeking those experiences. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

The effects on recreation are the same as those described under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Under Alternative C mitigation measures would minimize adverse impacts on wilderness 

characteristics, which would help to ensure that backcountry and primitive experiences would 

continue to be available to recreationists seeking those experiences. Recreation is affected the most 

under Alternatives C and D, which are the same. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Alternative D would affect recreation in the same way as under Alternative C. 

Effects from Watchable Wildlife Viewing Sites Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Developing and maintaining wildlife viewing areas under all alternatives would increase recreational 

opportunities to view and photograph wildlife. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-515 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

In addition to the impacts described under Effects Common to All Alternatives, Alternative B could 

alter recreational use patterns by increasing the amount of recreation in areas where there is currently 

little or no recreation. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

The effects from watchable wildlife viewing sites management under Alternative B are the same as 

those described under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C 

The effects from watchable wildlife viewing sites management under Alternative C are the same as 

those described under Effects Common to All Alternatives. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

The effects from watchable wildlife viewing sites management under Alternative D are the same as 

those described under Alternative A. 

Effects from Public Health and Safety Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Under all alternatives, management actions to remediate hazardous and solid waste pollution, to 

control and clean up illegal dumping and littering, and to educate and warn the public about 

potential hazards would increase the safety of recreational activities on WDO lands. There would be 

no difference in impacts for the individual alternatives. 

Effects from Sustainable Development Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no effects common to all alternatives from sustainable development management. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Alternative A does not address management for sustainable development; therefore, it would have 

no impact on recreation. No land would be disposed of for this use, so no decrease in land available 

for recreation would occur. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Under Alternative B, allowing for the disposal of public lands to facilitate post-operation reuse and 

to assist the economic development of local communities could decrease the area of public lands 

available for recreation activities. Sustainable development could reduce recreation access to some 

areas. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-516 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-517 

Individual Effects under Alternative C 

Under Alternative C, if lands that could be reused for sustainable development could provide a 

higher public benefit, such as recreation, they would not be subject to disposal. Sustainable 

development management under Alternative C makes it the least likely of the action alternatives to 

reduce the amount of land available for recreation in the WDO. However, sustainable development 

could reduce recreation access to some areas. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

The effects from sustainable development on recreation and facilities under Alternative D are the 

same as those identified under Alternative B. 

Cumulative Effects 

Effects of past actions include changes to the landscape as a result of surface-disturbing activities 

and area closures or restrictions for resource protection. These actions have altered recreational 

opportunities and use patterns on WDO lands. 

All recreation, including OHV use, is expected to increase as population increases. Surface 

disturbances resulting from forestry, minerals, and grazing activities cumulatively affect recreationists 

by increasing noise, dust, human presence, structures, and roads. Long-term effects on recreational 

opportunities, access, and use patterns would occur from land acquisitions and disposals. These 

effects are expected to increase. Land exchanges directly affect management on those parcels and 

indirectly affect activities and patterns on surrounding lands. Fuels treatments and wildfire 

management across ownerships would affect scenic beauty, decreasing it in some areas and 

increasing it over the long term in others. Preservation of such areas as wilderness, proposed 

wilderness, Wild and Scenic Rivers, and ACECs would maintain or enhance landscapes and 

recreational settings and opportunities. Implementing any of the alternatives would result in a variety 

of cumulative effects on recreational opportunities on WDO lands. 

4.3.4 Renewable Energy 

Summary 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alternative B does not have the lowest acreage available for disposal, it is lower than current 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

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

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

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

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

Alternative D would be intermediate between Alternatives B and C. Table 4-53 identifies the 

indicators that were used to analyze effects on renewable energy under each alternative.

Table 4-53 

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

Indicator Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

ROW area available 

for renewable 

energy 

development 

No change No ROW exclusion 

areas 

58,580 acres of 

biomass, 81,514 acres 

of CSP, 66,050 acres 

of PV, and 1,271,778 

acres of wind within 

ROW exclusion areas 

54,488 acres of 

biomass, 78,886 

acres of CSP, 0 

acres of PV, and 

627,240 acres of 

wind within 

ROW exclusion 

areas 

Biomass availability 

from fuel 

treatments and 

timber harvesting 

No change—limited 

potential 

Highest potential Lowest potential Intermediate 

potential 

Lands that could 

be affected by 

disposal 

No change: 114,380 

acres of biomass, 

409,465 acres of CSP, 

27,202 acres of PV, 

and 2,989,026 acres 

of wind within areas 

available for disposal 

Less area for 

disposal: 113,293 

acres of biomass, 

196,574 acres of CSP, 

1,507 acres of PV, 

and 2,128,541 acres 

of wind within areas 

available for disposal 

Least area available 

for disposal: 57,157 

acres of biomass, 

164,886 acres of CSP, 

42 acres of PV, and 

1,215,963 acres of 

wind within areas 

available for disposal 

Essentially the 

same area as for 

Alternative C: 

58,628 acres of 

biomass, 167,409 

acres of CSP, 86 

acres of PV, and 

1,281,958 acres 

of wind within 

areas available 

for disposal

Methods of Analysis 

Methods and Assumptions

Renewable energy resources within the WDO, including solar and wind energy and biomass fuels, 

require a right-of-way to be developed on BLM lands. Management actions could impact renewable 

energy resources if they resulted in the following changes: 

• Directly or indirectly changed the acreage available for ROWs within areas considered 

favorable for solar power development, within areas with medium or high wind resource 

potential, or within areas that have biomass development potential; 

• Restricted land availability and surface-disturbing activities to protect other resources; 

• Affected fuel supply as a result of changes in timber harvesting and fuel treatment activities; 

• Resulted in the disposal or exchange of public lands; or 

• Caused changes to ROW authorizations. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-518 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

The assumption is that logging activity and vegetation treatments are directly related to the 

availability of forest byproducts (wood) that can be used as biomass fuel. Effect determinations are 

based on the extent to which each alternative would result in these changes.

Effects from Air Quality Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Dust abatement requirements for roads could increase the costs of renewable energy development 

within the WDO under all alternatives. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

The effects from air quality management on renewable resources are the same as under Effects 

Common to All Alternatives. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Dust control requirements in excess of those described under Alternative A could increase the costs 

of renewable energy development for construction of access roads and wind or solar energy storage 

and generation sites. Therefore, Alternative B would be likely to have a greater effect on the costs of 

renewable energy development than Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Effects are the same as under Alternative B. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Effects are the same as under Alternative B. 

Effects from Geology Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

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

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Geology management under Alternative A would not restrict the development of renewable energy 

resources. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Unless renewable energy resources occurred at the sites of unique geologic features, there would be 

no restrictions on the development of renewable energy resources from geology management under 

Alternative B. If renewable energy development were desired at the sites of unique geologic features, 

restrictions on disturbance to protect these resources could preclude development or mitigation 

measures could be required that would increase the costs of development. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-519 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

The effects from geology management under Alternative C are similar to those under Alternative B, 

except that if renewable energy resources were present at sites of unique geologic features, these 

resources would be precluded from development because ROWs would be excluded. Under these 

circumstances, Alternative C would be the most restrictive of the alternatives. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

The effects from geology management under Alternative D are similar to those under Alternatives B 

and C. The potential for affecting the development of renewable energy resources under Alternative 

D would be intermediate between Alternatives B and C. 

Effects from Soil Resources Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Under all of the alternatives, soil resources management would not reduce the area available for 

developing renewable energy resources. Costs associated with implementing BMPs and mitigation 

measures to reduce erosion would increase the costs of renewable energy development. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

The effects of soil resources management under Alternative A would be the same as identified under 

Effects Common to All Alternatives. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

The effects from soils management under Alternative B would be similar to those described under 

Alternative A, except that Alternative B would be more likely to increase development costs due to 

soil salvage, reclamation, and mitigation requirements. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

The area available for renewable energy development would be smaller under Alternative C than 

under Alternative B, because of potential seasonal closures to eliminate surface disturbance of 

biological crusts and to reduce compaction. Alternative C, therefore, would be more likely to 

prevent development of some renewable energy resources or would increase the costs of developing 

these resources. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Restrictions to reduce erosion under Alternative D would be intermediate between Alternatives B 

and C, as would the acreage covered by seasonal restrictions. Therefore, the potential for effects on 

renewable energy resources development under Alternative D would be intermediate between 

Alternatives B and C. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-520 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Effects from Water Resources Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

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

Individual Effects under Alternative A

No effects from water resources management would occur under Alternative A, since no specific 

management actions have been identified for priority watershed or wellhead protection areas that 

would restrict renewable energy ROWs. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Alternative B could restrict development or increase the costs to develop renewable energy 

resources in wellhead protection areas by managing them as ROW avoidance areas. This level of 

constraint would be less likely to affect energy resources development than those called for under 

Alternatives C and D. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Alternative C would impose the greatest constraints on energy resources development in priority 

watershed areas and wellhead protection zones by managing them as ROW exclusion areas. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

The ROW restrictions proposed under Alternative D to protect priority watersheds and wellhead 

protection zones would be intermediate between Alternatives B and C because both priority 

watersheds and wellhead protection zones would be considered avoidance areas. The effects on 

energy resources development and costs in priority watershed areas and wellhead protection zones 

would be intermediate between Alternatives B and C. 

Effects from Vegetation—Forest and Woodland Products Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Although there is relatively little pinyon juniper within the WDO, all alternatives would provide for 

mechanical treatments or harvest to achieve stand health and reduce fire danger, which could 

improve biomass availability for renewable energy development. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Forest and woodland products management under Alternative A would provide a limited amount of 

forest byproducts that could be used as biomass. The potential for biomass availability would be 

enhanced by using harvesting to manage broadleaf woodland habitats, clear cutting to enhance 

deteriorated stands of aspen and cottonwood, and remedial thinning to protect harvest areas. 

Biomass availability would be limited by restricting pinyon and juniper harvest to existing areas and 

preventing harvest in riparian areas. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-521 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Forest and woodland products management under Alternative B has the greatest potential for 

providing forest byproducts that could be used as biomass; this alternative expands the areas that 

could be harvested and places the fewest restrictions on harvesting. The potential for biomass 

availability would be enhanced by the use of mechanical treatments and harvesting to achieve stand 

health objectives and to reduce fuels, while specifically providing woodland products, expanding 

pinyon pine and juniper harvest areas, allowing salvage harvesting of burned stands, and permitting 

harvesting near riparian areas. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Forest and woodland products management under Alternative C places the most restrictions on 

harvesting and has the lowest potential for providing forest and woodland products that could be 

used as biomass fuels. The potential for biomass availability would be limited by restricting fire 

suppression, prohibiting pinyon/juniper harvesting for woodland products, green pinyon harvesting, 

and harvesting near riparian areas, and limiting woodland products harvesting to designated areas. 

Biomass availability would be enhanced by the use of mechanical treatments and harvesting to 

achieve stand health objectives. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

The effects of forest and woodland products management under Alternative D are intermediate 

between Alternatives B and C with respect to availability of forest and woodland products as 

biomass fuels. The potential for biomass availability would be enhanced by the use of mechanical 

treatments to achieve stand health objectives and to reduce fuels, while specifically providing 

temporary woodland products harvesting areas, expanding juniper harvest areas, allowing salvage 

harvesting of burned stands, permitting commercial harvesting on a case-by-case basis, allowing 

limited harvesting near riparian areas when trees are identified for selective removal to meet resource 

objectives, and allowing the limited harvest of green pinyon for the same reason. 

Effects from Vegetation—Weeds Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives 

Weed control measures under all alternatives could increase biomass availability for renewable 

energy development and reduce the risk of wildland fire, which otherwise could limit the availability 

of biomass fuels. Measures to limit the spread of weeds during road maintenance and other 

authorized activities could increase the cost of solar and wind power development. 

Effects from Chemical and Biological Control 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Under all of the alternatives, chemical and biological controls may reduce the amount of biomass 

available for use as a renewable energy resource. Biomass often is released for use because it has 

been infested by pests, and the proposed chemical and biological controls are designed to reduce 

pests. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-522 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

The effects from chemical and biological controls are the same as under Effects Common to All 

Alternatives. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

The use of integrated pest management under Alternative B could offset losses of biomass discussed 

under Effects Common to All Alternatives, above, through integrated pest management techniques 

that include mechanical control. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Effects are the same as under Alternative B. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Effects are the same as under Alternative B. 

Effects from Vegetation—Rangeland Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

The use of mechanical management tools to restore and improve rangeland could make biomass 

available for use as a renewable energy resource. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

In addition to the Effects Common to All Alternatives, the use of prescriptive grazing could reduce 

the wildfire fuel load, preserving biomass that could later be used for renewable energy. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Effects are the same as under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Option 1 

Effects are the same as under Alternative A. 

Option 2 

Eliminating grazing as a tool for rangeland management could allow woodlands to expand, thus 

increasing the availability of biomass. However, fuel loads would remain high in most of the WDO, 

increasing the risk of catastrophic fire, which would decrease the availability of biomass. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Effects are the same as under Alternative A. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-523 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Effects from Vegetation—Riparian and Wetlands Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Under all alternatives, removing juniper trees from riparian areas would provide biomass that could 

be used for renewable energy in the short term. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Effects are the same as under Effects Common to All Alternatives. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Juniper removal under Alternative B would have the same effect on renewable energy as described 

under Effects Common to All Alternatives. The potential for closing or relocating routes to protect 

riparian areas could limit the development of renewable energy resources where these types of 

routes would be required. In addition, if BMPs for ROWs resulted in restrictions on ROWs or 

increased costs for using ROWs, renewable energy resource development in these areas would be 

further limited. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Effects are the same as under Alternative B. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Effects are the same as under Alternative B. 

Effects from Fish and Wildlife Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Under all alternatives, use restrictions to maintain or improve wildlife habitat could eliminate some 

areas from possible renewable energy resource development. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

The effects of use restrictions under Alternative A would be the same as those identified under 

Effects Common to All Alternatives; however, flexible restrictions on stream bank alterations and 

maintaining access to streams while avoiding erosion also could retain access for renewable energy 

uses. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Alternative B would have the lowest potential to adversely affect ROWs for renewable energy 

development. It would maintain multiple uses, would not require restrictions on surface disturbance 

to protect migratory birds, and would allow surface-disturbing activities such as ROWs and access 

roads for renewable energy development. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-524 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Of the action alternatives, Alternative C has the greatest potential to affect renewable energy 

development. Alternative C would require restrictions on surface disturbance to protect migratory 

birds, thus limiting surface-disturbing activities, including ROWs and access roads for renewable 

energy development. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Effects on renewable energy development under Alternative D are intermediate between 

Alternatives B and C. Alternative D designates an intermediate level of use restrictions to protect 

wildlife and wildlife habitat, while allowing for multiple uses where conditions are appropriate. This 

could allow for more renewable energy ROWs and access roads than under Alternative C but fewer 

than under Alternative B. 

Effects from Special Status Species Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Under all alternatives, use and surface disturbance restrictions to protect sensitive species would 

place limitations on renewable energy development. ROW restrictions could reduce the 

opportunities for renewable energy development. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

The effects on renewable resources from special status species management under Alternative A 

would be the same as those described under Effects Common to All Alternatives. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Under Alternative B, the increased flexibility in applying use and surface disturbance restrictions to 

protect sensitive species decreases the likelihood that these restrictions would affect availability of 

ROWs for renewable energy development, as compared with current conditions. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Under Alternative C, the decreased flexibility in applying use and surface disturbance restrictions to 

protect sensitive species increases the likelihood that these restrictions would reduce the availability 

of ROWs for renewable energy development, as compared with current conditions. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

The effects from special status species management under Alternative D would be the same as those 

described under Alternative B. 

Effects from Wild Horse and Burro Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Protection measures for WHB would prohibit or limit certain activities in HMAs. SOPs, mitigation 

measures, and seasonal closures could increase the costs of developing renewable resources in 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-525 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

HMAs. Protection measures could limit forest treatments in certain areas, which in turn could limit 

the availability of biomass in these areas. 

Effects from Wildland Fire Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Under all alternatives, fuels treatment strategies can provide biomass for renewable energy when 

mechanical treatments are used to remove excess vegetation. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

The effects from wildland fire management on renewable resources would be the same as those 

identified under Effects Common to All Alternatives. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Under Alternative B, implementing new approaches to fuels management could encourage the 

development of new biomass resources. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

The effects from wildland fire management under Alternative C are the same as those identified 

under Alternative B. In addition, fire breaks would protect renewable energy infrastructure. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

The effects from wildland fire management under Alternative D are the same as those identified 

under Alternative B. 

Effects from Cultural Resources Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Under all alternatives, protection of cultural resources could increase the costs of or preclude 

renewable energy development. Rerouting ROWs to avoid cultural resources could increase the 

costs of distributing renewable energy. Class I sections of the CNHT would be excluded from such 

ROWs. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Prohibiting commercial wood product harvest in the Stillwater Range to protect Native American 

values could reduce the amount of biomass that could be harvested for renewable energy. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Permitting commercial wood product harvest in the Stillwater Range could provide additional 

biomass for renewable energy use. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-526 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

The effects from cultural resources management under Alternative C would be the same as those 

described under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

The effects from cultural resources management under Alternative D would be the same as those 

described under Alternative A. 

Effects from Tribal Consultation 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no effects common to all alternatives from tribal consultation. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Alternative A would not impose development stipulations, use restrictions, or closures to protect 

tribal sites and would be the least likely to affect ROWs for renewable energy development. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Alternative B would have a higher potential for effects on renewable energy resources than 

Alternative A because it provides for stipulations and use restrictions to protect tribal sites, which 

could restrict ROWs for renewable energy development. Alternative B would be less likely to affect 

renewable energy resources than Alternatives C and D. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Alternative C would have a higher potential for effects on renewable energy resources than 

Alternatives A and B. A greater level of restriction to protect tribal sites would be imposed under 

Alternative C, which could further restrict the availability of ROWs for renewable energy resource 

development. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

The effects on renewable energy from tribal consultation under Alternative D would be the same as 

those described under Alternative C. 

Effects from Paleontological Resources Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Under all alternatives, restrictions to public access for the protection of paleontological resources 

could restrict the establishment of new renewable energy ROWs. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Alternative A would have the fewest restrictions to public access for the protection of 

paleontological resources. Authorization for surface-disturbing activities that might damage 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-527 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

paleontological resources would not be required; therefore, Alternative A would be the least likely to 

limit ROWs and access to renewable energy resources. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

The effects on renewable energy resources from paleontological resources management under 

Alternative B would be similar to those identified under Alternative A, except that authorization for 

surface-disturbing activities would be required to protect paleontological resources. Therefore, the 

potential effects on the development of renewable energy resources under Alternative B would be 

greater than under Alternative A but less than under Alternatives C and D. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Under Alternative C, implementing such actions as mineral withdrawal and closure of public access 

to protect vulnerable paleontological deposits could affect the level of renewable energy 

development that could occur in these areas. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

The effects on renewable energy from paleontological resources management under Alternative D 

are the same as those described under Alternative C. 

Effects from Visual Resources Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Under all alternatives, managing land as VRM Class I or II could restrict the establishment of new 

renewable energy ROWs. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Under Alternative A, managing 766,573 acres as VRM Class I and II could limit renewable energy 

resource development by restricting ROWs. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Alternative B would manage 808,808 acres as VRM Class I and II. This alternative would be the 

least likely to affect renewable energy resource development, since the fewest acres would have 

restrictions based on VRM Class I and II guidelines. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Alternative C has the most acreage to be managed as VRM Class I and II (3,500,816 acres); 

therefore, this alternative would place the most restrictions on renewable energy resource 

development based on VRM Class I and II guidelines. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Under Alternative D, 3,198,021 acres would be managed as VRM Class I and II, which is a greater 

area that could be restricted for renewable energy development than Alternatives A and B but less 

than Alternative C. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-528 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Effects from Cave and Karst Resources Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no effects common to all alternatives from cave and karst resource management. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Cave and karst resources management under Alternative A would restrict the development of 

renewable energy resources. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Unless renewable energy resources occurred at the sites of caves and karst features, there would be 

no restrictions resulting from cave and karst management on the development of renewable energy 

resources under Alternative B. If renewable energy development were desired at the sites of caves 

and karst features, mitigation measures to protect these resources could increase the costs of 

development. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Cave and karst management under Alternative C would be the most restrictive on renewable energy 

development near these features, since surface disturbance would be precluded within 500 feet of 

caves and karst features. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Alternative D is more restrictive of renewable energy development activities in the vicinity of cave 

and karst resources than Alternatives A and B but less restrictive than Alternative C. 

Effects from Livestock Grazing Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Livestock grazing management would not impact renewable resources under all alternatives, since 

no restrictions on renewable energy ROWs or access to renewable resources are proposed. No 

constraints on the construction of accessways to develop renewable resources are identified. 

Effects from Minerals Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Minerals management under all alternatives would not affect ROWs for renewable energy; however, 

surface occupancy by mining operations of areas with renewable energy potential would restrict the 

availability of these areas for development. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Alternative A would have the most area open to all types of minerals operations, so surface use by 

these operations would be most likely to affect the access to renewable energy resources. 

Approximately 4,020 acres with high biomass potential, 1,359 acres with high solar potential, and 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-529 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

29,582 acres with high wind potential would be within areas open to surface occupancy by minerals 

operations. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

The effects of minerals management on renewable energy under Alternative B would be similar to 

those described under Alternative A, except that fewer acres would be open for surface occupancy 

by minerals operations. There would be a lower potential under Alternative B for minerals 

operations to affect access to renewable energy resources than under Alternative A; however, due to 

the locations of the areas open to minerals activities, approximately the same acreage of high 

renewable energy potential would be affected as under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

The effects of minerals management on renewable energy under Alternative B would be similar to 

those described under Alternative A, except that the fewest acres would be open for surface 

occupancy by minerals operations. Therefore, minerals operations under Alternative C would be the 

least likely to affect access to renewable energy resources; however, due to the locations of the areas 

open to minerals activities, a similar acreage of high renewable energy potential would be affected as 

under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

The potential for effects on renewable energy resources under Alternative D would be intermediate 

between Alternatives B and C, since Alternative D would have fewer acres open to mining than 

under Alternative B but more than under Alternative C. However, due to the locations of the areas 

open to minerals activities, approximately the same acreage of high renewable energy potential 

would be affected as under Alternative A. 

Effects from Recreation, Visitor Outreach, and Services Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no effects common to all alternatives from recreation, visitor outreach, and services 

management. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

There are no restrictions to the amount of land open to renewable resource activities or limits to 

renewable resource development based on recreation, visitor outreach, and services management 

objectives or actions under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Under Alternative B, the development of renewable energy resources would be restricted from those 

areas identified for avoidance or exclusion of ROWs associated with specific RMZs. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-530 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

The effects from recreation, visitor outreach, and services management under Alternative C would 

be similar to those described under Alternative B. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

The effects from recreation, visitor outreach, and services management under Alternative D would 

be similar to those described under Alternative B. 

Effects from Renewable Energy Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

All alternatives would provide public lands for renewable energy development, process ROWs for 

wind energy development for project areas and wind monitoring and testing sites, lease public lands 

for wind energy development, and authorize ROWs. The BLM also would provide leases or ROWs 

for biomass and solar energy development under all alternatives. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Maintaining existing exclusion areas could limit the area available for renewable energy development. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

No acreage is specifically identified for ROW exclusion, which would maximize the area available 

for renewable energy development. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Approximately 1,279,481 acres are specifically identified for ROW exclusion. Within this area are 

81,514 acres of BLM lands identified as favorable for developing CSP systems, 42 acres of BLM 

lands suitable for PV development, 1,271,778 acres of lands favorable to wind energy development, 

and 58,580 acres of land favorable for biomass fuels. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Approximately 699,929 acres are specifically identified for ROW exclusion. Within this area are 

78,866 acres of BLM lands identified as favorable for developing CSP systems, no BLM lands 

suitable for PV development, 627,640 acres of BLM lands identified as favorable for wind energy 

development, and 54,488 acres of land favorable for biomass fuels. 

Effects from Transportation and Access Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

All alternatives would continue to provide access throughout the WDO, which would maintain 

access to areas with renewable energy resource potential. However, limitations on access to protect 

other resources could constrain or increase the costs of renewable energy development. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-531 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Decommissioning roads that are having negative environmental effects and protecting habitat and 

sensitive species could remove access to areas with high renewable energy resource potential, which 

could limit the development of these resources. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Allowing for public input in decommissioning roads to protect habitat and sensitive species could 

minimize the removal of or the effects of removal of access to areas with high renewable energy 

resource potential. This would minimize the effects on the development of these resources. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

The effects of transportation and access management under Alternative C are the same as those 

described under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

The effects of transportation and access management under Alternative D are the same as those 

described under Alternative A. 

Effects from Lands and Realty Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Land tenure adjustments and right-of-way avoidance and exclusion areas could affect the 

establishment of new ROWs for the development of renewable energy resources. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Under Alternative A, approximately 409,465 acres of BLM land identified as favorable for 

developing CSP systems is within land tenure Zone 3, with lands suitable for possible disposal, and 

about 27,202 of BLM land suitable for PV development is within this zone. Of the BLM lands 

favorable for wind power development, 2,989,026 acres are in Zone 3. Approximately 114,380 acres 

of land favorable for biomass fuels are within Zone 3. 

The effects of exclusion areas on renewable energy are described above under Effects from 

Renewable Energy Management. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Under Alternative B, approximately 196,574 acres of BLM land identified as favorable for 

developing CSP systems is within the area identified as available for disposal, and about 1,507 acres 

of BLM land suitable for PV development is within this area. Of the BLM lands favorable for wind 

power development, 2,128,541 acres are available for disposal. Approximately 113,293 percent of 

lands favorable for biomass fuels would be available for disposal. 

The effects of exclusion areas on renewable energy are described above under Effects from 

Renewable Energy Management. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-532 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Under Alternative C, approximately 164,886 acres of BLM land identified as favorable for 

developing CSP systems is within the area identified as available for disposal, and about 42 acres of 

BLM land suitable for PV development is within this area. Of the BLM lands favorable for wind 

power development, 1,215,963 acres are available for disposal. Approximately 57,157 acres of lands 

favorable for biomass fuels is available for disposal. 

The effects of exclusion areas on renewable energy are described above under Effects from 

Renewable Energy Management. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Under Alternative D, approximately 167,409 acres of BLM land identified as favorable for 

developing CSP systems is within the area identified as available for disposal; about 86 acres of BLM 

land suitable for PV development is within this area. Of the BLM lands favorable for wind power 

development, 1,281,958 acres are available for disposal. Approximately 58,628 acres of land 

favorable for biomass fuels is available for disposal. 

The effects of exclusion areas on renewable energy are described above under Effects from 

Renewable Energy Management. 

Effects from ACEC/RNA Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

ACECs require special management to protect a particular resource, which could curtail establishing 

new renewable energy ROWs in areas designated as ACECs or could increase the costs to develop 

and operate renewable energy sites. However, no specific measures to impose restrictions on 

renewable resources have been identified under any of the alternatives. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Under Alternative A, renewable energy ROWs would not be allowed only in the 55-acre Osgood 

Mountain Milkvetch ACEC. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Similar to Alternative A, the Osgood Mountain Milkvetch ACEC also would be designated under 

Alternative B, but wind energy development would be allowed within its boundaries. Limiting the 

creation of additional ACECs also could preserve the area that is available to renewable energy 

development, so Alternative B is the least likely to affect renewable energy ROWs. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

An additional 97,816 acres of ACECs would be designated under Alternative C, as compared to 

Alternative A. Approximately, 2,705 acres of high wind energy potential falls within the Pine Forest 

ACEC exclusion area. In addition, there is a small area of wind power potential within the Stillwater 

ACEC and near the Osgood Mountain Milkvetch ACEC, so Alternative C is more likely to affect 

renewable energy ROWs than Alternative A. However, the low percentage of lands with renewable 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-533 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

energy resources in or adjacent to ACECs is too small for the ACEC designation to have much 

effect on these resources. No limit was placed on the creation of new ACECs, which could affect 

the establishment of new renewable energy ROWs. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

The acreage of ACEC/RNA designation under Alternative D is the same as that identified under 

Alternative C; however, renewable energy ROWs would not be excluded within the Pine Forest 

ACEC. The same 2,705 acres would be within the Pine Forest ACEC avoidance area, which would 

require evaluation for incompatible uses and could limit renewable energy ROWs. Therefore, 

Alternative D would have an effect on renewable energy resources between that of Alternative A 

and that of Alternative C. 

Effects from Backcountry Byways Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

The management of backcountry byways under all alternatives would not affect renewable energy 

resources because it would not curtail the establishment of renewable energy ROWs, prohibit access 

to renewable resources, or restrict construction measures that might be required to develop these 

resources. 

Effects from National Trails Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Rerouting renewable energy ROWs to avoid crossing Class I sections of the CNHT could increase 

the costs of renewable energy development under all alternatives. There would be no difference in 

the avoidance of crossing Class I sections of the CNHT for the individual alternatives and 

therefore, nor differences in the potential for increasing costs. 

Effects from Wild and Scenic Rivers Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Wild and scenic rivers management under all alternatives would not affect renewable energy 

resources because it does not curtail the establishment of renewable resource ROWs, prevent access 

to renewable resources, or restrict construction measures that might be required to develop these 

resources. 

Effects from Wilderness Study Areas and Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

No specific management actions identified for wilderness study areas management would occur 

under any of the alternatives that would affect renewable resource ROWs or prevent access to 

renewable resources. Therefore, this management action would have no renewable resource effects. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-534 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Under all alternatives, protecting wilderness characteristics could constrain the establishment of new 

ROWs for renewable energy and could limit access to renewable resources. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Applying use restrictions on a case-by-case basis to protect wilderness characteristics could limit the 

level of renewable energy resource development, and mitigation measures required to minimize 

effects on wilderness characteristics could increase the costs to develop renewable energy resources. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Alternative B would not apply use restrictions to protect wilderness characteristics and would be the 

least likely alternative to restrict renewable energy resource development; however, mitigation 

measures would increase the costs to develop renewable energy resources in a manner similar to that 

described under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Alternative C would apply both use restrictions and mitigation measures to reduce effects on 

wilderness characteristics. This could be more restrictive on the development of renewable energy 

resources than Alternatives A and B. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

The both use restrictions and mitigation measures associated with wilderness characteristics 

management under Alternative D would be the same as those described under Alternative C 

resulting in the same level of restrictions on the development of renewable energy. 

Effects from Watchable Wildlife Viewing Sites Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Under all of the alternatives, the establishment of watchable wildlife viewing sites would not affect 

the access to renewable resources, the establishment of renewable energy ROWs, or renewable 

energy resource development. Therefore, renewable resource development would not be affected by 

watchable wildlife viewing sites management. 

Effects from Public Health and Safety—Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Under all alternatives, constraining public activities on public lands could restrict access to renewable 

resources and prevent the establishment of renewable energy ROWs; requirements for fencing, 

signing, and other actions to protect public safety could increase the costs of renewable energy 

development. 

Effects from Sustainable Development Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no effects common to all alternatives from sustainable development management. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-535 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Sustainable development is not addressed under Alternative A; therefore, Alternative A would not 

affect renewable resources. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

The effects of allowing disposal for reuse could increase renewable energy development. For 

example, equipment and infrastructure left on site by mining operations, such as generators and 

connections to the power grid, could be used to produce renewable energy. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

The effects from sustainable development management on renewable energy under Alternative C are 

the same as those described under Alternative B. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

The effects from sustainable development management on renewable energy under Alternative D 

are the same as those described under Alternative B. 

Cumulative Effects 

Past and current studies and policies have influenced the development of renewable energy on 

public lands, including the publication of Assessing the Potential for Renewable Energy on Public Lands

(BLM and DOE 2003), Programmatic EIS on Wind Energy Development on BLM-Administered Lands in the 

Western United States (BLM 2004b), the National Energy Policy, and the following BLM Instruction 

Memoranda: 

• IM 2004-227, Bureau of Land Management’s Biomass Utilization Strategy, which established 

the BLM Biomass Utilization Strategy; 

• IM 2005-160 BLM Biomass Utilization Strategy, which established comprehensive 

definitions for biomass and biomass utilization, established performance measures and 

guidelines for counting and tracking biomass accomplishments, and implements the DOI 

contract clause for biomass removal; 

• IM 2005-006, Right-of-Way Management, Use Authorization, Facilities Management, which 

established the policy for processing right-of-way applications for solar energy development 

projects on public lands administered by the BLM; and 

• IM 2006-216, Wind Energy Development Policy, which provided guidance on implementing 

the Record of Decision for the Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement on Wind 

Energy Development and guidance on processing right-of-way applications for wind energy 

projects on public lands administered by the BLM. 

Past events, including wildland fires, fuel treatments, cyclic insect and disease activity, and timber 

harvests, have affected the availability of biomass fuels. As energy prices rise, alternative sources of 

fuel become more economical to develop. The increased demand for both green energy and energy 

produced within the United States influences and is likely to continue to affect the rate at which 

renewable energy is developed. Alternative A would not change the availability of energy ROWs 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-536 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-537 

within the WDO or of potential biomass fuels and would not have a cumulative effect on renewable 

energy in the WDO. Alternatives B and D are most likely to increase the availability of renewable 

energy and cumulatively affect renewable energy in the WDO. Alternative C, in combination with 

other projects and events, could increase the pressure to develop renewable energy in other areas 

due to the acreage of exclusion areas. 

4.3.5 Transportation and Access 

Summary 

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

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

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

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

could expand the route network. 

Methods of Analysis 

Methods and Assumptions

Potential impacts on transportation and travel from each alternative are based on interdisciplinary 

team knowledge of the resources and planning principles. Impacts were identified using best 

professional judgment and were assessed according to the following assumptions: 

• The demand for recreational use would continue to increase over the life of the plan; 

• Recreational visits would continue to increase; 

• The incidence of resource damage and conflicts among recreationists involved in 

mechanized, motorized, and nonmotorized activities would increase with increasing use of 

public lands; 

• Anticipated increases would focus on OHV use and on fishing, hiking, mountain biking, 

camping, motorboating, photographing, bird and wildlife observing, picnicking, and hunting; 

• User-created trails could continue to be developed throughout the WDO, even though such 

actions are illegal, and creators and users of nondesignated trails would be subject to 

enforcement actions; and 

• Implementing the travel management plan would include increased public education, 

signing, enforcement, and resource monitoring in regard to travel management. 

Effects from Air Quality Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Certain transportation-related construction and maintenance activities may be restricted if air quality 

impacts cannot be minimized by implementing best management practices or offset by mitigation 

measures. 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Effects from Geology Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

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

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Impacts on transportation and access management are not likely to occur under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

OHV use within unique geologic resource areas would be limited to roads and trails to protect 

geologic resources. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Effects would be greatest under Alternative C due to the closure of roads and trails to OHV use for 

protection of geologic resources. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Effects are the same as those described under Alternative B. 

Effects from Soil Resources Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Wind erosion can have a major direct impact on public safety and transportation corridors because 

burned areas are near or surround transportation corridors, such as Interstate 80 and State Highways 

95 and 140. Windblown soil has resulted in temporary closures of the Interstate and highways, 

which has affected interstate commerce. Soil management, such as erosion control techniques, 

would reduce the potential for wind erosion of soils from burned areas. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Effects are the same as those described under Effects Common to All Alternatives. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Effects are the same as those described under Effects Common to All Alternatives. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

OHV travel and certain transportation-related construction and maintenance activities could be 

restricted if soil impacts could not be minimized by implementing best management practices or if 

they could not be offset by mitigation measures. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Effects are the same as those described under Alternative C. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-538 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Effects from Water Resources Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Certain transportation-related construction and maintenance activities could be restricted if water 

quality standards could not be attained by implementing best management practices. 

Effects from Vegetation—Forest /Woodland Products Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no effects common to all alternatives from vegetation-forest/woodland management. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Impacts on transportation and access management are not likely to occur under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Direct effects from commercial harvesting of firewood, posts, and Christmas trees could include an 

increase in forestry-related traffic on routes within the WDO. Long-term direct effects include an 

increase in the number of routes accessible on public lands through the establishment of new 

logging roads. This would indirectly affect opportunities for both motorized and nonmotorized 

users overall by increasing road density in the WDO. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Certain transportation-related construction and maintenance activities could be restricted in 

designated old growth forests if impacts could not be minimized by implementing best management 

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

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Effects could be similar to those described under Alternative B but are expected to be less since 

commercial harvesting would be authorized only on a case-by case basis to achieve resource 

objectives. In addition, effects from designating old growth forests are the same as those described 

under Alternative C. 

Effects from Vegetation—Weeds Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Impacts on transportation and access management are not likely to occur under all alternatives. 

Effects from Chemical and Biological Control

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Impacts on transportation and access management are not likely to occur under all alternatives. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-539 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Effects from Vegetation—Rangeland Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Impacts on transportation and access management are not likely to occur under all alternatives. 

Effects from Vegetation—Riparian and Wetlands Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no effects common to all alternatives from vegetation-riparian and wetlands management. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Impacts on transportation and access management are not likely to occur under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Measures implemented to protect riparian and wetland areas could directly affect transportation and 

travel management if routes are relocated or closed to protect sensitive resources. Effects would be 

short or long term depending on if the route were temporarily or permanently restricted. Closures 

for resource protection could result in an overall net decrease of available BLM-administered routes 

in the planning area. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Effects are the same as those described under Alternative B. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Effects are the same as those described under Alternative B. 

Effects from Fish and Wildlife Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no effects common to all alternatives from fish and wildlife management. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Impacts on transportation and access management are not likely to occur under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Measures implemented to protect aquatic and riparian habitat could directly affect transportation 

and travel management if routes were removed to preserve sensitive resources. Road removal for 

resource protection could result in an overall net decrease of available BLM-administered routes in 

the planning area. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-540 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Effects are the same as those under Alternative B. In addition, transportation construction and 

maintenance activities may be directly affected by seasonal prohibition of surface activities during 

migratory bird peak breeding season. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Effects are the same as those described under Alternative B. 

Effects from Special Status Species Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Special status species management could directly affect transportation and travel management if 

routes are closed to protect sensitive resources. Effects would be short or long term depending on if 

the route is temporarily or permanently restricted. Closures for resource protection could result in an 

overall net decrease of available BLM-administered routes in the planning area. Planning of future 

transportation routes could be directly affected by the presence of special status species and their 

habitat due to avoidance and buffer zone considerations. 

Effects from Wild Horse and Burro Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Impacts on transportation and access management are not likely to occur under all alternatives. 

Effects from Wildland Fire Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Route restrictions and closures could occur during wildland fire management activities, directly 

affecting transportation and travel management. Short-term effects could include an increase in fire 

management equipment traffic on BLM-administered routes, an increase in motorized vehicle traffic 

on routes that remain accessible until fire management activities stop, and an increase in motorized 

and nonmotorized conflicts on the remaining accessible routes. 

Effects from Cultural Resources Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Under all alternatives, protective measures for cultural resources would affect transportation and 

travel management when restrictions are implemented to protect cultural values at specific sites. 

Restrictions on roads could directly affect visitors by limiting accessibility to some sites and could 

result in an overall reduction in available routes. 

Effects from Tribal Consultation 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Impacts on transportation and access management are not likely to occur under all alternatives. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-541 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Effects from Paleontological Resources Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Protective measures for paleontological resources could affect transportation and travel management 

if restrictions are implemented to protect identified paleontological resources at specific sites. 

Restrictions on roads could directly affect visitors by limiting accessibility to some sites and could 

result in an overall reduction in routes available to access public lands. 

Effects from Visual Resources Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Impacts on transportation and access management are not likely to occur under all alternatives. 

Effects from Cave and Karst Resources Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Impacts on transportation and access management are not likely to occur under all alternatives. 

Effects from Livestock Grazing Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Grazing management could directly affect transportation and travel management by adjusting 

current use and by altering routes. Short-term effects include increased use of the route network for 

livestock grazing management purposes, such as maintaining livestock developments. New routes 

established for livestock grazing management could increase overall route density on BLMadministered lands, thereby expanding the route network. 

Effects from Minerals Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Minerals management, including heavy equipment and truck traffic on the network of routes within 

the WDO planning area, would directly affect transportation and travel management. Most effects 

would be relatively short term and would occur only during mineral development activities. New 

routes established for mineral development could also increase overall route density on BLMadministered lands, thereby expanding the route network. 

Effects from Recreation, Visitor Outreach, and Services Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Updating the Transportation Plan through subsequent implementation-level plans could result in 

changes to route designations, which could affect routes available to motorized travel within the 

WDO. Access could be increased or decreased in areas, depending on the designations made. New 

routes could also be established, which could expand areas available to motorized travel.. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-542 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Alternative A would provide the greatest opportunity for OHV travel of all alternatives. Most of the 

WDO (6,782,790 acres) would be open to OHV use, with minimal limited (416,652 acres) and 

closed (24,832 acres) designated areas. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

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

would increase the demand for new travel routes. Managing new SRMAs could constrain or restrict 

public access in certain recreation management zones (RMZs) within the SRMAs or could enhance 

or encourage greater public access in other RMZs. Impacts would be local. 

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

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

OHV travel of the RMP alternatives. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Effects from general recreation use and designation of new SRMAs are the same as those described 

under Alternative B. OHV travel would be the most restricted under Alternative C, with 61,427 

acres closed, 7,143,177 acres limited, and no acres open to OHV use. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Effects from general recreation use and designation of new SRMAs are the same as those described 

under Alternative B. Under Alternative D, 289,932 acres would be open to OHV use, 6,878,592 

acres would be limited, and 35,483 acres would be closed to OHV use. 

Effects from Renewable Energy Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Renewable energy management, including heavy equipment and truck traffic on the network of 

routes within the WDO planning area, would directly affect transportation and travel management. 

Most effects would be relatively short term and would occur only during renewable energy 

development activities. New routes established for renewable energy development could also 

increase overall route density on BLM-administered lands, thereby expanding the route network. 

Effects from Transportation and Access Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Reducing erosion and sedimentation damage through maintenance and design criteria would 

facilitate the long-term use of access routes by minimizing deterioration of these routes and the 

impact on surrounding resources. 

Obtaining easements from private land owners for current and new BLM system roads could 

enhance access to public lands within the WDO. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-543 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Avoiding duplicate roads that have common destinations may result in heavier traffic on individual 

routes. In addition, access would be limited to some areas if a particular route were closed and no 

alternative route existed; the extent of impact would vary by the destinations served by the routes 

and by the duration of the closure. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Decommissioning roads that are adversely affecting the environment may limit access to some areas 

of the WDO. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Constructing roads while avoiding creating fragmented resource tracts may affect the location of 

routes, limiting access in some areas. 

Installing directional signs would enhance travel within the WDO, particularly for recreational use, 

by indicating proper direction to destinations. In addition to minimizing the potential for visitors to 

become lost, signage would help direct traffic to main travel routes and would reduce the accidental 

use of roads that may not be suitable for all types of travel. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Decommissioning, removing, or rerouting roads or trails that are adversely affecting the 

environment may limit access to some areas of the WDO. Constructing roads while avoiding 

creating fragmented resource tracts may affect the location of routes, limiting access in some areas. 

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

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Effects are similar to those described under Alternative C. 

Effects from Lands and Realty Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Land acquisitions could increase the overall route network and expand both motorized and 

nonmotorized opportunities. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

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

Alternatives. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Designating 716,528 acres as avoidance areas to protect resources could affect future route planning 

in and through these areas, although the impact on route planning would be limited. This is because 

resource impacts from the granting of ROWs would not be completely prohibited but would require 

mitigation. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-544 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Designating 869,645 acres as avoidance areas for granting ROWs would have the same effects as 

those described under Alternative B. In addition, 1,279,481 acres would be designated as exclusion 

areas for granting ROWs in order to protect priority wildlife areas; this would limit route planning 

and could restrict access to some areas for certain uses. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Designating 1,325,967 acres as avoidance areas for granting ROWs would have the same effects as 

those described under Alternative B. Designating 699,929 acres as exclusion areas for granting 

ROWs would have the same effects as those described under Alternative C. 

Effects from ACEC/RNA Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no effects common to all alternatives from ACEC/RNA management. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Impacts on transportation and access management are not likely to occur under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Impacts on transportation and access management are not likely to occur under Alternative B. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Impacts due to travel restrictions in ACECs may increase with the designation of three new ACECs. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Effects are the same as those described under Alternative C. 

Effects from Backcountry Byways Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Developing new BCBs could enhance travel and could add new access routes within the WDO. 

Effects from National Trails Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no effects common to all alternatives from National Trails management. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Impacts on transportation and access management are not likely to occur under Alternative A. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-545 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Impacts on transportation and access management are not likely to occur under Alternative B. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Class I segments of National Historic Trails would be closed to OHV use. Class II, III, IV, and V 

sections would be designated as limited for OHV use. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Effects are the same as those described under Alternative C. 

Effects from Wild and Scenic Rivers Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Impacts on transportation and access management are not likely to occur under all alternatives. 

Effects from Wilderness Study Areas and Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

If Congress releases 13 WSAs, and the WSAs are managed for uses other than wilderness, new 

access routes could be needed within these areas. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

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

Alternatives. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Managing 220,074 acres to protect wilderness characteristics could limit route planning and could 

restrict access to some areas. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Effects are the same as those described under Alternative B. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Effects are the same as those described under Alternative B. 

Effects from Watchable Wildlife Viewing Sites Management

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Developing new wildlife viewing sites could enhance travel and could add new access routes within 

the WDO. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-546 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-547 

Effects from Public Health and Safety Management

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Impacts on transportation and access management are not likely to occur under all alternatives. 

Effects from Sustainable Development Management

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Issuance of ROWs to support the reuse of public lands could add new access routes within the 

WDO. 

Cumulative Effects 

Historically, the scattered and fragmented lands that dominate the WDO planning area and the areas 

of rough terrain have been a physical constraint affecting OHV use in the planning area. Past actions 

such as mineral exploration and development, livestock grazing, forestry practices, and changes to 

management on lands surrounding the WDO also have contributed to effects on transportation and 

travel management. 

Most past activities are anticipated to continue at a similar or increased level in the foreseeable 

future. Surface-disturbing activities may contribute to route restrictions and alterations as some areas 

and existing routes and trails become more heavily traveled; in addition, nonmotorized opportunities 

may be reduced as more development occurs. New routes could increase access to remote areas that 

were previously inaccessible by motorized vehicles. Accessibility to BLM-administered lands may 

change as land acquisitions and disposals continue. 

Increasing population and development in the area would continue to put pressure on the BLM to 

adequately manage travel and transportation on public lands. Public use of routes and trails would 

continue to increase as population increases. Increases in recreational use and visitor use are also 

expected. This indicates a need for continuing effective transportation and travel management 

planning throughout the WDO and in surrounding areas. Maintenance needs also would increase as 

routes become more heavily traveled. 

4.3.6 Lands and Realty 

Summary 

In general, Effects Common to All Alternatives involve actions that continue to both allow and 

restrict certain land uses, depending on local resource conditions and opportunities for resource use 

and consumption. Specific actions that allow and restrict certain land uses are associated with the 

management of the following resources: air quality, forest and woodland products, weeds, rangeland, 

riparian and wetland resources, fish and wildlife, special status species, wildland fire, cultural 

resources, paleontological resources, visual resources, minerals, renewable energy, transportation and 

access, lands and realty, national trails, and WSAs. Reasonably foreseeable developments also 

influence actions that allow and restrict certain land uses. 

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

Amendment to Paradise-Denio and Sonoma-Gerlach Management Framework Plan to manage land 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

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

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

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

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

designations. 

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

designations. The differences in degree of impact on land use and land designations are detailed 

below under each alternative. A noteworthy aspect of resource management actions that affect land 

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

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

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

involve both an increase and a decrease in the types of activities that can occur due to compatibility 

issues. 

Methods of Analysis 

Methods and Assumptions

Potential impacts on lands and realty from each alternative are based on interdisciplinary team 

knowledge of the resources and the planning area and information gathered from the public during 

the planning process. Effects are quantified where possible. In absence of quantitative data, best 

professional judgment was used. Impacts are sometimes described using ranges of potential impacts 

or in qualitative terms, if appropriate. Impacts were identified using best professional judgment and 

were assessed according to the following assumptions:

• Retaining larger blocks of public land is advantageous to the BLM’s management of all 

resources and programs since there are increased opportunities to develop long-term habitat 

and species management plans, watershed management plans, and public recreation 

opportunities, to manage forest and vegetable products, to administer livestock grazing, and 

to protect cultural resources; 

• Consolidating public lands and eliminating scattered parcels of public land that lack access 

and are difficult to manage is beneficial to the BLM and the public; 

• Access to public lands, for both the public and the BLM, and availability of public lands to 

meet public demands is a high priority of the Lands and Realty program; 

• Identifying lands for disposal does not ensure that these lands would be sold or otherwise 

disposed; 

• Before any disposals occur, lands would be examined for the presence of high-value 

resources. Lands that contain high surface values would not be disposed, or the disposal 

would provide for those values to be preserved; 

• Acquisition, including direct purchase, conservation easement, donation, or exchange, would 

only be considered when there is a willing seller and the goals and objectives of the land use 

plan would be furthered; 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-548 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

• Mineral leasing would not occur in exclusion areas. It is also assumed that mineral leasing 

would not occur on withdrawn lands, if the reason for the mineral withdrawal is not 

compatible with leasing and the subsequent RFDs. Where mineral leasing does not occur, 

land management actions, such as granting rights-of-way, would not occur; and 

• The effects of developing utility and transportation systems would be mitigated individually. 

Generally, this would be accomplished by consolidating new developments along existing 

routes or by innovative construction techniques that disturb less land and improve 

reclamation success. 

Effects from Air Quality Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Activities on BLM-administered land would be required to comply with air quality standards. This 

would influence, for example, the timing, location, and mitigation associated with certain land uses, 

such as ROWs. There would be no new impacts on land use and land designations. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

There are no impacts, because there are no actions that are likely to affect land use and land 

designations. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

The impacts are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

The impacts are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

The impacts are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Effects from Geology Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

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

Individual Effects under Alternative A

There would continue to be no actions for protecting unique geologic resources. There would be no 

new impacts on land use and land designations, and ongoing impacts would continue. For example, 

land uses such as ROWs may be authorized near unique geologic resources. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Proposed activities that may impact unique geologic features would be authorized with the minimum 

mitigation measures sufficient to protect the values at risk. Impacts would be mitigated through 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-549 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

avoidance, reclamation, and other applicable use restrictions. This would alter certain land uses near 

unique geologic features in order to ensure compatibility of land uses, resulting in a localized impact. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Proposed nondiscretionary activities that may affect geologic features would be authorized with 

appropriate mitigation measures to protect the values at risk. Discretionary activities that may affect 

geologic features would not be allowed. This would alter certain land uses, when compared to 

Alternatives B and D, near unique geologic features to ensure compatibility of land uses, resulting in 

a localized impact. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Proposed activities that may impact geologic features would be authorized with mitigation measures 

appropriate to protect the values at risk. This would alter certain land uses near unique geologic 

features to ensure compatibility of land uses, resulting in a localized impact. 

Effects from Soil Resources Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

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

Individual Effects under Alternative A

An objective of the BLM is to continue to reduce soil erosion. There would be no new impacts on 

land use and land designations, and ongoing impacts would continue. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

The impacts are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

An objective of the BLM would be to maintain, protect, and improve soil processes appropriate to 

soil types, climate, and land form, as indicated by surface litter, biological soil crusts, hydrologic 

cycles, nutrient cycles, energy flows, and plant communities. Because of the soil factors specified for 

consideration, this would have a greater influence, for example, on the timing, location, and 

mitigation associated with certain land uses such as ROWs, when compared to Alternative A 

throughout the WDO. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

The impacts are the same as those under Alternative C. 

Effects from Water Resources Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

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

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-550 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

There would continue to be no actions relating to avoidance and exclusion zones in wellhead 

protection zones. There would be no new impacts on land use and land designations, and ongoing 

impacts would continue. For example, land uses, such as for ROWs, may be authorized in wellhead 

protections zones. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

The BLM would manage wellhead protection zones as avoidance zones for discretionary actions that 

are not compatible. This would alter certain land uses such as for ROWs in wellhead protections 

zones to ensure compatibility of land uses throughout the WDO. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

The BLM would manage wellhead protection as exclusion zones for discretionary actions. This 

would alter certain land uses, such as for ROWs in wellhead protections zones, throughout the 

WDO, to ensure compatibility of land uses, more so than under Alternative B. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

The impacts are the same as those under Alternative B. 

Effects from Vegetation—Forest/Woodland Products Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Protections in certain areas (e.g., Stillwater Range and old growth stands) could reduce access to 

public lands in the long term. Ongoing impacts would be localized and would vary depending on the 

level of protection provided. There would be no new impacts. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

There are no impacts, because there are no actions that are likely to affect land use and land 

designations. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

The impacts are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

The impacts are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

The impacts are the same as those under Alternative A. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-551 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Effects from Vegetation—Weeds Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Implementing weed eradication programs could restrict access to public lands in the short term 

during program eradication. However, using and maintaining roads during weed eradication could 

improve access to public lands in the long term from ongoing maintenance of the transportation 

network. There would be no new impacts. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

There would continue to be no actions relating to invasive and noxious weeds and SOPs, BMPs, and 

mitigation measures on BLM and BLM-authorized activities. There would be no new impacts on 

land use and land designations. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

The BLM would develop and employ SOPs, BMPs, and mitigation measures for BLM and BLMauthorized activities to control, prevent, and treat the spread of invasive and noxious weeds. This 

would influence, for example, the timing and location of certain land uses, such as ROWs 

throughout the WDO. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

The impacts are the same as those under Alternative B. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

The impacts are the same as those under Alternative B. 

Effects from Chemical and Biological Control 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no impacts because there are no actions that are likely to affect land use and land 

designations. 

Effects from Vegetation—Rangeland Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Permit terms and conditions to minimize adverse impacts on rangeland vegetation would restrict 

certain land uses in the long term throughout the WDO. Ongoing impacts would vary depending on 

the terms and conditions required. There would be no new impacts. 

Rangeland treatments could restrict access to public lands in the short term during treatment 

implementation. However, using and maintaining roads during rangeland treatments could improve 

access to public lands in the long term. There would be no new impacts. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-552 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Land use restrictions to restore and improve degraded rangelands would not be required under 

Alternative A. Realty discretionary actions would be permitted without restriction throughout the 

WDO. There would be no new impacts. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Land use restrictions to restore and improve degraded rangelands would impact lands and realty 

management actions throughout the WDO in the long term. Impacts would vary depending on the 

type and intensity of land use restriction. 

Realty discretionary actions would be permitted throughout the WDO, and impacts are similar to 

those described under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Land use restrictions to restore and improve degraded rangelands would have impacts similar to 

those described under Alternative B. 

Realty discretionary actions would not be permitted in exclusion areas for sagebrush, which would 

limit land use options in certain areas in the long term. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Land use restrictions to restore and improve degraded rangelands would have impacts similar to 

those described under Alternative B. 

Realty discretionary actions would not be permitted in exclusion areas for sagebrush, which would 

have impacts similar to those described under Alternative C. 

Effects from Vegetation—Riparian and Wetlands Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Protection of riparian and wetland areas could limit access to public lands in specific areas. Ongoing 

impacts would be localized and long term and would vary depending on the level of protection 

provided. There would be no new impacts. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

There are no impacts because there are no actions that are likely to affect land use and land 

designations. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

The impacts are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

The impacts are the same as those under Alternative A. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-553 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

The impacts are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Effects from Fish and Wildlife Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Use restrictions to maintain and improve wildlife habitat would impact land use options in these 

areas in the long term. Ongoing impacts would vary depending on the type and intensity of use 

restrictions required. There would be no new impacts. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Maintaining access routes that degrade aquatic resources would provide the least restrictions to lands 

and realty actions throughout the WDO in the long term. There would be no new impacts. 

The BLM would continue to have no avoidance and exclusion areas. There would be no new 

impacts, and ongoing impacts would continue. For example, without avoidance and exclusion areas 

activities, such as for the development of roads and utility corridors for ROWs, could occur that are 

incompatible with other uses. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Land treatments to improve wildlife habitat could restrict access to public lands in the short term 

during treatment implementation. However, using and maintaining roads during habitat treatments 

could improve access to public lands in the long term. 

Removing, altering, and maintaining access routes that degrade aquatic resources could impact 

public land access in certain areas throughout the WDO in the long term. These impacts are likely to 

be localized. 

The BLM would have the following avoidance and exclusion conditions: 

• Avoidance—716,528 acres of BLM-administered land (excluding the NCAs) (10 percent) 

and 

• Exclusion—0 acres of BLM-administered land (excluding the NCAs) (0 percent). 

Compared to Alternative A, the BLM would have more avoidance areas and the same amount of 

exclusion areas. Avoidance areas would limit the types of actions that could occur in order to protect 

designated resource values and ensure the compatibility of different types of land uses. It would 

allow actions that are incompatible with ROW actions to occur in avoidance areas. For example, 

habitat improvements could occur in avoidance areas. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Land treatments to improve wildlife habitat would have impacts similar to those described under 

Alternative B. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-554 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Removing access routes that degrade aquatic resources could cause the greatest impact on public 

land access in certain areas throughout the WDO in the long term. These impacts are likely to be 

localized. 

Use restrictions near shorebird habitats would provide additional impacts on lands and realty actions 

in these areas in the long term. 

The BLM would have the following avoidance and exclusion conditions: 

• Avoidance—869,645 acres of BLM-administered land (excluding the NCAs) (12 percent) 

and 

• Exclusion—1,279,481 acres of BLM-administered land (excluding the NCAs) (18 percent). 

Avoidance areas are less restrictive than exclusion areas. Exclusion areas are functionally analogous 

to the phrase “no surface occupancy.” Compared to Alternative A, the BLM would have more 

avoidance and exclusion areas. Both would limit ROW actions in order to protect a designated 

resource value and ensure the compatibility of different types of land uses. Also, it would allow 

actions that are incompatible with ROW actions to occur on avoidance and exclusion areas. For 

example, sage-grouse habitat improvements could occur in exclusion areas. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Land treatments to improve wildlife habitat would have impacts similar to those described under 

Alternative B. 

Removing, altering, and maintaining access routes that degrade aquatic resources could cause 

impacts similar to those described under Alternative B. 

The BLM would have the following avoidance and exclusion conditions: 

• Avoidance—1,325,967 acres of BLM-administered land (excluding the NCAs) (18 percent) 

and 

• Exclusion—699,929 acres of BLM-administered land (excluding the NCAs) (10 percent). 

Avoidance areas are less restrictive than exclusion areas. Exclusion areas are functionally analogous 

to the phrase “no surface occupancy.” Compared to Alternative A, the BLM would have more 

avoidance and exclusion areas. Both would limit ROW actions in order to protect a designated 

resource value and ensure the compatibility of different types of land uses. Also, it would allow 

actions that are incompatible with ROW actions to occur on avoidance and exclusion areas. For 

example, sage-grouse habitat improvements could occur in exclusion areas. 

Effects from Special Status Species Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

The following actions would continue to occur: 

• Protect sensitive species habitat by implementing mitigation measures to reduce adverse 

impacts. Mitigation measures include, but are not limited to, avoidance, no surface 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-555 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

occupancy, buffer zones, seasonal restrictions, off-site mitigation, use restrictions, 

rehabilitation, or other protective measures; 

• Protect documented bald eagle, golden eagle, prairie falcon, and peregrine falcon cliffnesting sites. Mitigate adverse impacts through use restrictions, avoidance, providing 

alternative viable nest sites, or employing other mitigation measures following the guidelines 

of the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act or applicable updates; 

• Avoid tree control within a 1-mile radius of documented active ferruginous hawk nests. 

Mitigate adverse impacts through use restrictions, avoidance, providing alternative viable 

nest sites (preferably an identifiable alternative nest tree), or employing other mitigation 

measures; 

• Protect documented northern goshawk nest areas and sites. Mitigate adverse impacts 

through use restrictions, avoidance, or providing alternative nest sites (preferably an alternate 

nest already built) within or adjacent to the nesting area or employing other mitigation 

measures; and 

• Continue to pursue a mineral withdrawal for Osgood Mountain ACEC. 

These actions are intended to continue to protect sensitive flora and fauna and their habitat from 

disturbance. People who use BLM-administered lands for recreation activities such as photography 

and bird watching would have a greater chance of seeing these species with the implementation of 

these actions. However, these actions could restrict other types of land uses on BLM-administered 

lands, such as by designating avoidance areas. There would be no new impacts. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Alternative A would institute the fewest use restrictions (e.g., surface occupancy or disturbance, 

high-profile structure construction) in and near special status species occurrences and habitat. 

Ongoing impacts would be long term, would vary on a case-by-case basis, and are likely to be 

localized. There would be no new impacts. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Use restrictions (e.g., surface occupancy or disturbance, high-profile structure construction) would 

be applied in and near special status species occurrences and habitat. Impacts would be long term, 

would vary on a case-by-case basis, and are likely to be localized. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Alternative C would apply the greatest use restrictions (e.g., surface occupancy or disturbance, highprofile structure construction) in and near special status species occurrences and habitat. Impacts 

would be long term, would vary on a case-by-case basis, and are likely to be localized. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Use restrictions in and near special status species occurrences and habitats would cause impacts 

similar to those described under Alternative B. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-556 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Effects from Wild Horse and Burro Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no impacts because there are no actions that are likely to affect land use and land 

designations. 

Effects from Wildland Fire Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Implementing a response to wildfires, based on social, legal, and ecological consequences of the fire, 

would require maintaining access routes throughout the WDO. As a result, this would increase 

access to public lands in the long term. There would be no new impacts. 

Use restrictions to achieve healthy vegetative communities could cause impacts on lands and realty 

actions in the long term by preventing certain land use options in these areas. There would be no 

new impacts. 

Land treatments related to wildland fire management could restrict access to public lands in the 

short term during treatment implementation. However, using and maintaining roads during 

treatments could improve access to public lands in the long term. There would be no new impacts. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

There are no impacts because there are no actions that are likely to affect land use and land 

designations. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

The impacts are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

The impacts are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

The impacts are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Effects from Cultural Resources Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

The BLM would continue to develop stipulations, use restrictions, and mitigation measures to avoid 

or reduce adverse impacts on cultural resources. There would be no new impacts on land use and 

land designations. 

Direct and indirect adverse impacts on eligible, unevaluated, or high-potential trail segments and 

associated sites would be mitigated by avoidance, project redesign, data collection, interpretation, 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-557 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

public education, or other means in consultation with the National Park Service, Nevada SHPO, and 

interested public. There would be no new impact on land use and land designations. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

The BLM would mitigate potential adverse impacts on historic landscapes associated with eligible, 

unevaluated, or high-potential trail segments by adhering to a VRM Class II objective within six 

miles of the trail centerline or to the visual horizon within the six-mile zone. There would be no new 

impacts on land use and land designations. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

The BLM would protect historic landscapes associated with the CNHT by adhering to a VRM Class 

III objective within six miles of the centerline or to the visual horizon within the six-mile zone, 

except along the I-80 corridor and within the utility corridors, which would be managed to VRM 

Class IV. Compared to Alternative A, there would be more opportunities for new types of land uses 

near the CNHT trail because VRM class designation objectives would allow for more changes to the 

aesthetics associated with the trail. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

The BLM would protect historic landscapes associated with the CNHT by adhering to a VRM Class 

II objective within six miles of the centerline, or to the visual horizon within the six-mile zone. The 

impacts are the same as under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

The BLM would protect historic landscapes associated with the CNHT by adhering to a VRM Class 

II objective within six miles of the trail centerline or to the visual horizon within the six-mile zone, 

except along the I-80 corridor and within the utility corridor at the southern edge of the Black Rock 

Desert. The portion of the trail viewshed that falls within the Black Rock Desert utility corridor 

would be managed to VRM Class III. Within the I-80 corridor, the trail viewshed would be managed 

to VRM Class III within six miles of the trail centerline or to the visual horizon within the six-mile 

zone, except for the power line corridor and sensitive areas of the trail viewshed. Sensitive areas 

would be managed to VRM Class II one mile on either side of the centerline of the trail. The I-80 

trail viewshed in this power line corridor would be managed to VRM Class IV. Compared to 

Alternative A, there would be more opportunities for new types of land uses near the CNHT trail 

because VRM class designation objectives would allow for more changes to the aesthetics associated 

with the trail. However, fewer opportunities would exist under Alternative D when compared to 

Alternatives B and C. 

Effects from Tribal Consultation 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no impacts because there are no actions that are likely to affect land use and land 

designations. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-558 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Effects from Paleontological Resources Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

The BLM would require a permit for the removal of paleontological resources for the purposes of 

scientific research, inventory, planning, and monitoring or to mitigate adverse impacts from 

authorized or unauthorized uses. It also would issue permits for the noncommercial collection of 

vertebrate fossils, including their trace fossils such as trackways and coprolites. Although permits for 

the noncommercial collection of invertebrate, plants, fossils, and petrified wood are not normally 

required within limits defined by regulation, locations containing noteworthy occurrences of such 

fossils may be closed to collection except under permit. These actions would continue to allow the 

collection of paleontological resources through a regulated process, enabling the BLM to monitor 

collection activities and the status of paleontological resources. There would be no new impacts. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

The BLM would protect scientific values (paleontological-vertebrate fossils found on public lands). 

There would be no new impact on land use and land designations. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

No discretionary activities would be authorized on public lands if they would knowingly disturb or 

alter, injure, or destroy scientifically important paleontological resources, unless impacts can be 

mitigated. This would influence, for example, the location of certain land uses, such as land tenure 

adjustments. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

The impacts are the same as those under Alternative B. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

The impacts are the same as those under Alternative B. 

Effects from Visual Resources Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

The BLM would manage CNHT according to BLM policy and guidance by protecting scenic 

landscapes and historic settings. There would be no new impacts. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

The BLM would continue to manage visual resources associated with ACECs and backcountry 

byways subject to VRM classification established in the Paradise-Denio and Sonoma-Gerlach 

Management Framework Plans. The BLM would continue to not identify specific VRM class 

designations for priority watersheds. There would be no new impacts on land use and land 

designations.

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-559 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

The BLM would manage the Osgood Mountain ACEC and backcountry byways and associated 

landscapes as VRM Class II and would manage priority watersheds as VRM Class II. This could 

limit the types of land uses that could occur in these areas in order to comply with VRM class 

designation objectives. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

The BLM would manage ACECs and associated landscapes as VRM Class II. Backcountry byways 

and associated landscapes and priority watersheds would be managed according to VRM Class II 

objectives. This could limit the types of land uses that could occur in these areas in order to comply 

with VRM class designation objectives. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

The BLM would manage the Osgood Mountain ACEC and associated landscapes as VRM Class III. 

The Pine Forest, Raised Bog, and Stillwater ACECs and associated landscapes would be managed as 

VRM Class II. Backcountry byways and associated landscapes would be managed according to VRM 

Class III objectives. Priority watersheds and associated landscapes would be managed according to 

VRM Class II objectives. This could limit the types of land uses that could occur in these areas in 

order to comply with VRM class designation objectives. 

Effects from Cave and Karst Resource Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no effects common to all alternatives from cave and karst resource management. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

The BLM would continue to not identify specific actions designed to protect cave and karst 

resources. There would be no new impacts on land use and land designations, and ongoing impacts 

would continue. For example, land uses such as for recreation may be authorized near cave and karst 

resources.

Individual Effects under Alternative B

The BLM would implement appropriate mitigation measures such as seasonal closures, avoidance, 

fencing, bat gates, and signing to protect unique geologic features and wildlife habitat. This would 

limit certain land uses near unique geologic features. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

The BLM would not allow surface-disturbing activities within 500 feet of natural caves or karsts. 

This would limit certain land uses near unique geologic features. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

The impacts are the same as those under Alternative B. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-560 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Effects from Livestock Grazing Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no effects common to all alternatives from livestock grazing management. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

The BLM would continue to designate 8,232,727 acres as available to livestock grazing and would 

designate 296,008 acres as closed to livestock grazing. Incompatible land uses would continue to be 

prohibited. There are no new impacts. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

The impacts are the same as those described under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Option 1 

The BLM would designate 8,038,084 acres as available to livestock grazing and would designate 

297,999 acres as closed to livestock grazing. These designations are similar to Alternative A. 

Incompatible land uses would continue to be prohibited. There would be no new impacts. 

Option 2 

No grazing would be allowed. This would increase the types of activities that could occur on lands 

where livestock grazing once occurred. Activities that are incompatible with livestock grazing could 

potentially occur on lands where livestock grazing once occurred. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

The BLM would designate 8,016,754 acres as available to livestock grazing and would designate 

319,328 acres as closed to livestock grazing, thereby limiting the types of compatible land uses that 

could occur. This alternative has the least number of acres open to livestock grazing and the most 

number of acres closed to livestock grazing. Because of the increase in the number of acres closed to 

livestock grazing, more land uses that are incompatible with livestock grazing could occur under this 

alternative. Incompatible land uses would continue to be prohibited. 

Effects from Minerals Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

The BLM would ensure occupancy does not hinder previously existing access to public lands. The 

BLM would continue to ensure that previously existing routes would continue to be available for 

accessing public lands during the development of mineral resources. There would be no new 

impacts with respect to public land access. 

Appendix I contains RFDs, which describe potential scenarios for the development of mineral and 

energy resources on BLM-administered land. The development scenarios vary with the type of 

resource that is being developed. Nevertheless, all RFDs involve reducing the number of compatible 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-561 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

land uses. For example, horseback riding could not occur in the same location as a geothermal 

power plant, and livestock grazing could not occur in the same location as a solar development. The 

development of mineral and energy resources would be compatible with the BLM’s mission of 

managing land for multiple uses. It also would prohibit the use of BLM-administered land for 

certain uses at the same time. There would be no new impacts. 

RFDs 

Future actions based on reasonable development could result in indirect impacts. Future exploration 

and development could involve new structures, roads, and operations. These new structures, roads, 

and operations could be in areas where people live and work, where frequent recreation occurs, or 

where minimal nearby development exists. Incompatible actions would not be allowed. For example, 

some reasonable foreseeable development actions would be incompatible with some forms of 

recreation or actions intended to protect sensitive species. Because incompatible actions would not 

be allowed, certain types of land uses would be limited. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Salable 

The BLM would continue to maintain 418,938 acres as closed to mineral material disposal. This 

would continue to prevent mineral material actions on five percent of the land. Conversely, it would 

continue to allow actions that are incompatible with mineral material actions to occur on this land. 

There are no new impacts. 

Fluid 

The BLM would continue to maintain the following conditions: 

• Open to leasing but subject to a No Surface Occupancy—29,582 acres of BLM-administered 

land (excluding the NCAs) (0.4 percent); and 

• Closed to leasing—446,887 acres of BLM-administered land (excluding the NCAs) (6 

percent). 

There are no new impacts. 

Solid 

The BLM would continue to maintain the following conditions: 

Open 6,776,198 

• Open to leasing—6,776,198 (94 percent); 

• Open to leasing but subject to a No Surface Occupancy: National Register eligible sites; 

• Closed to leasing—416,652 acres of BLM-administered land (excluding the NCAs) (6 

percent). 

There are no new impacts. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-562 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Locatable 

The BLM would continue to withdraw lands from locatable mineral development on a case-by-case 

basis. Existing mineral withdrawals include Pine Forest, George Lund Petrified Forest, Lovelock 

Cave, and FAA mineral withdrawals (Sod House and Lovelock). Lands identified for potential 

mineral withdrawal would continue to include Porter Springs. There are no new impacts. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Salable 

The impacts are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Fluid 

The BLM would have the following conditions: 

• Open to leasing but subject to a No Surface Occupancy—1,374,431 acres of BLMadministered land (excluding the NCAs) (19 percent) and 

• Closed to leasing—1,132,594 acres of BLM-administered land (excluding the NCAs) (16 

percent). 

Compared to Alternative A, this would prevent fluid mineral actions on more land. Conversely, it 

would allow actions that are incompatible with fluid mineral actions to occur on this land. 

Solid 

The BLM would have the following conditions: 

• Open to leasing but subject to a No Surface Occupancy—221,644 acres of BLMadministered land (excluding the NCAs) (21 percent) and 

• Closed to leasing—1,124,266 acres of BLM-administered land (excluding the NCAs) (13 

percent). 

Compared to Alternative A, this would prevent solid mineral actions on more land. Conversely, it 

would allow actions that are incompatible with solid mineral actions to occur on this land. 

Locatable 

The impacts are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Salable 

The BLM would establish 837,049 acres as closed to mineral material disposal. This would prevent 

mineral material actions on 12 percent of the land, which is more than under all the alternatives. 

Conversely, it would allow more actions that are incompatible with mineral material actions to occur 

on this land. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-563 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Fluid 

The BLM would have the following conditions: 

• Closed to leasing—4,455,026 acres of BLM-administered land (excluding the NCAs) (62 

percent). 

This would prevent fluid mineral actions on more land than the other alternatives. Conversely, it 

would allow actions that are incompatible with fluid mineral actions to occur on this land. 

Solid 

The BLM would have the following conditions: 

• Closed to leasing—4,455,645 acres of BLM-administered land (excluding the NCAs) (62 

percent). 

This would prevent solid mineral actions on more land than the other alternatives. Conversely, it 

would allow actions that are incompatible with solid mineral actions to occur on this land. 

Locatable 

The BLM would continue to withdraw lands from locatable mineral development on a case-by-case 

basis. Existing mineral withdrawals include Pine Forest, George Lund Petrified Forest, Lovelock 

Cave, and FAA mineral withdrawals (Sod House and Lovelock). Lands identified for potential 

mineral withdrawal would include Porter Springs, Osgood Mountain ACEC, Pine Forest ACEC, 

Raised Bog ACEC, Stillwater ACEC, areas identified as having significant, non-economic geologic 

resources (Action C-G 1.1), a larger Lovelock Cave withdrawal (Action C-MR 9.2), and a larger 

George Lund Petrified Forest mineral withdrawal (Action C-MR 9.2). Also, lands acquired (by any 

process) would be withdrawn from mineral entry. Compared to Alternative A, this would prevent 

locatable mineral actions on more land. Conversely, it would allow actions that are incompatible 

with locatable mineral actions to occur on this land. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Salable 

The BLM would establish 743,301 acres as closed to mineral material disposal. This would prevent 

mineral material actions on 10 percent of the land, which is more than under Alternative A. 

Conversely, it would allow more actions that are incompatible with mineral material actions to occur 

on this land. 

Fluid 

The BLM would have the following conditions: 

• Open to leasing but subject to a No Surface Occupancy—326,743 acres of BLMadministered land (excluding the NCAs) (5 percent) and 

• Closed to leasing—1,198,464 acres of BLM-administered land (excluding the NCAs) (17 

percent). 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-564 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Compared to Alternative A, this would prevent fluid mineral actions on more land. Conversely, it 

would allow actions that are incompatible with fluid mineral actions to occur on this land. 

Solid 

The BLM would have the following conditions: 

• Open to leasing but subject to a No Surface Occupancy—326,796 acres of BLMadministered land (excluding the NCAs) (5 percent) and 

• Closed to leasing—1,198,694 acres of BLM-administered land (excluding the NCAs) (17 

percent). 

Compared to Alternative A, this would prevent solid mineral actions on more land. Conversely, it 

would allow actions that are incompatible with solid mineral actions to occur on this land. 

Locatable 

The BLM would continue to withdraw lands from locatable mineral development on a case-by-case 

basis. Existing mineral withdrawals include Pine Forest, George Lund Petrified Forest, Lovelock 

Cave, and FAA mineral withdrawals (Sod House and Lovelock). Lands identified for potential 

mineral withdrawal would include Porter Springs, Osgood Mountain ACEC, areas identified as 

having significant, non-economic geologic resources (Action D-G 1.1), a larger Lovelock Cave 

withdrawal (Action D-MR 9.2), and a larger George Lund Petrified Forest mineral withdrawal 

(Action D-MR 9.2). Compared to Alternative A, this would prevent locatable mineral actions on 

more land. Conversely, it would allow actions that are incompatible with locatable mineral actions to 

occur on this land. 

Effects from Recreation, Visitor Outreach, and Services Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no impacts because there are no actions that are likely to affect land use and land 

designations. 

Effects from Renewable Energy Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

ROWs issued for wind energy development would promote land use for renewable energy while 

potentially detracting from other land uses, such as for mineral energy development in the long term. 

There would be no new impacts. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Alternative A would promote development of the fewest sources of renewable energy by focusing 

solely on wind energy development. This would favor land use in the WDO towards wind energy in 

the long term. There would be no new impacts. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-565 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Under Alternative B, land would be leased to promote the greatest suite of renewable energy in the 

long term. This would allow for the largest number of land uses and would provide a flexible 

approach to lands and realty management throughout the WDO. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Under Alternative C, land would be leased to promote the greatest suite of renewable energy in the 

long term, similar to Alternative B. However, restrictions placed on these actions would limit some 

lands and realty actions throughout the WDO in the long term. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Under Alternative D, land would be leased to promote the greatest suite of renewable energy in the 

long term. Impacts would be similar to those described under Alternative B. 

Effects from Transportation and Access Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

An objective of the BLM would be to continue to provide access to public lands recreational sites 

through active road maintenance and legal easements. Changes in OHV use designations would 

require site-specific implementation plans and route designations before changes in motorized travel. 

There would be no new impacts on land use and land designations. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

There are no impacts because there are no actions that are likely to affect land use and land 

designations. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

The impacts are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

The impacts are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

The impacts are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Effects from Lands and Realty Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Communication Sites 

The BLM would provide for communication sites on public land by using existing sites when 

frequencies are compatible. This would continue to minimize the development of various 

communication sites by consolidating facilities. It also would continue to limit the types of 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-566 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

compatible land uses that could occur. Incompatible land uses would continue to be prohibited. 

There would be no new impacts. 

Trespass 

The BLM would pursue existing unauthorized use cases for compliance and would coordinate with 

state and local government officials. The BLM would check the boundaries of all expanding 

subdivisions and isolated dwellings for encroachment and would take action as necessary. This 

would continue to reduce trespassing, thereby protecting BLM-administered land for use by the 

general public. There would be no new impacts. 

There are some documented and unresolved trespass cases in the WDO area. The BLM also expects 

that there are trespass cases that have not been discovered or documented. Because of workload 

priorities and limited staffing, these ongoing trespass issues are expected to remain unresolved. 

Access 

The BLM would review all proposed disposals of public lands, retain any needed legal access to the 

remaining public lands, and ensure public access is obtained through perpetual ROWs and 

development of systems roads with all land acquisitions, transfers, and sales. The BLM would 

continue to maintain access to public land. There are no new impacts involving public access. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Land Tenure Adjustments 

The BLM would continue to have the following retention and disposal conditions: 

• Retain 2,936,548 acres of BLM-administered land (excluding the NCAs) (41 percent); 

• Potentially retain 1,281,383 acres of BLM-administered land (excluding the NCAs) (18 

percent); and 

• Potentially dispose of 2,989,030 acres of BLM-administered land (excluding the NCAs) (41 

percent). 

There would be no new impacts, and ongoing impacts would continue. With the current scattered 

land pattern of the WDO area, the BLM would continue to struggle with the management of 

isolated or small parcels. Large areas of land would likely be categorized for land tenure adjustments, 

allowing the BLM to use the proper authority to block up land. By blocking up lands, management 

would be more effective. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Land Tenure Adjustments 

The BLM would manage for the following retention and disposal conditions: 

• Retain 5,076,295 acres of BLM-administered land (excluding the NCAs) (70 percent) and 

• Potentially dispose of 2,128,543 acres of BLM-administered land (excluding the NCAs) (30 

percent). 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-567 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Compared to Alternative A, the BLM would retain a larger percentage of land. This would allow for 

more public uses to continue occurring. It is assumed that retention and disposal actions would 

address the scattered land pattern of the WDO area, thereby making land management more 

effective. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Land Tenure Adjustments 

The BLM would manage for the following retention and disposal conditions: 

• Retain 5,989,664 acres of BLM-administered land (excluding the NCAs) (83 percent) and 

• Potentially dispose of 1,215,963 acres of BLM-administered land (excluding the NCAs) (17 

percent). 

Compared to Alternative A, the BLM would retain a larger percentage of land. This would allow for 

more public uses to continue occurring. It is assumed that retention and disposal actions would 

address the scattered land pattern of the WDO area, thereby making land management more 

effective. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Land Tenure Adjustments 

The BLM would manage for the following retention and disposal conditions: 

• Retain 5,922,909 acres of BLM-administered land (excluding the NCAs) (82 percent; and 

• Potentially dispose of 1,281,959 acres of BLM-administered land (excluding the NCAs) (18 

percent). 

Compared to Alternative A, the BLM would retain a larger percentage of land. This would allow for 

more public uses to continue occurring. It is assumed that retention and disposal actions would 

address the scattered land pattern of the WDO area, thereby making land management more 

effective. 

Effects from ACEC/ RNA Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no effects common to all alternatives from ACEC/RNA management. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

The BLM would maintain the designation of the Osgood Mountains ACEC. Incompatible land uses 

would continue to be prohibited to protect the special qualities of the ACEC. There would be no 

new impacts. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

The impacts are the same as those described under Alternative A. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-568 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

The BLM would maintain the designation of the Osgood Mountains ACEC. It would also designate 

the Pine Forest, Raised Bog, and Stillwater ACECs. Because there would be more acres of ACECs, 

there would be a decrease in the types of compatible land uses that could occur in these areas. 

Incompatible land uses would continue to be prohibited. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

The impacts are the same as those under Alternative C. 

Effects from Backcountry Byways Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no impacts because there are no actions that are likely to affect land use and land 

designations. 

Effects from National Trails Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

The impacts are the same as those under Effects from Cultural Resources Management. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

The impacts are the same as those under Effects from Cultural Resources Management. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

The impacts are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

The impacts are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

The impacts are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Effects from Wild and Scenic Rivers Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

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

Individual Effects under Alternative A

No segments of rivers or streams are currently managed as WSR in the WDO. There would be no 

new impacts. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-569 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

The impacts are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

The BLM would protect eligible river segments in accordance with tentative suitability 

classifications. The impacts are the same as those under Alternative B. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

The BLM would protect eligible river segments within priority watersheds. The impacts are the same 

as those under Alternative B, with the exception that WSR segments outside of priority watersheds 

would not be afforded this protection and would not have the potential for land use restrictions. 

Effects from Wilderness Study Areas and Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

The BLM would continue to manage the 13 WSAs under BLM’s Interim Management Policy for 

Lands under Wilderness Review until Congress either designates these areas or releases them for 

other purposes. If released by Congress, the BLM would manage all or parts of 13 WSAs for 

purposes other than wilderness using BMPs, land use restrictions, authorization stipulations, and 

mitigation measures to protect resources. Land uses in WSAs released from consideration for 

wilderness would likely increase, because the BMPs, land use restrictions, authorization stipulations, 

and mitigation measures would be less restrictive than the Interim Management Policy for Lands 

under Wilderness Review. There are no new impacts on land uses and land designations. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

There are no impacts because there are no specific actions that are likely to affect land use and land 

designations. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

The impacts are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

The BLM would protect wilderness characteristics with a designation of closed to mineral leasing, 

ROW exclusion zones, and priority habitat 1 in the following areas: 

• Bluewing Mountains (25,651 acres); 

• North Sahwave Mountains (45,686 acres); 

• Fencemaker Area of the East Range (50,282 acres); 

• Portion of the Tobin Range between the China Mountain WSA and the Mount Tobin WSA 

(33,854 acres); 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-570 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

• Granite Peak (43,202 acres); and 

• Buckhorn Peak (23,399) acres. 

This would limit certain types of land use activities. Conversely, it would promote types of activities 

that are incompatible with the actions being limited. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

The impacts are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Effects from Watchable Wildlife Viewing Sites Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no impacts because there are no actions that are likely to affect land use and land 

designations. 

Effects from Public Health and Safety Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no impacts because there are no actions that are likely to affect land use and land 

designations. 

Effects from Sustainable Development Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no effects common to all alternatives from sustainable development management. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Alternative A does not address specific sustainable development actions. The impacts identified 

below for Alternatives B, C, and D would not necessarily occur. There are no new impacts. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Alternative B would pose some limitations to disposal of lands and authorization of ROWs within 

the WDO in the long term. 

Requirements for proposed reuse of lands could have short-term impacts because coordination and 

public input could slow down implementing lands and realty actions. In the long term, however, 

lands and realty actions would be implemented in a more sustainable way. 

Actions regarding mineral operation sites would have impacts similar to those for proposed reuse of 

lands. This is because more planning would be required in the initial stages but would provide for 

long-term sustainable management of lands. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-571 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-572 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Alternative C would pose the greatest limitations to disposal of lands and authorization of ROWs 

within the WDO in the long term. 

Requirements for proposed reuse of lands could have impacts similar to those described under 

Alternative B. 

Actions regarding mineral operation sites would be the most restricted under Alternative C. Impacts 

are similar to those for proposed reuse of lands. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Alternative D would pose some limitations to disposal of lands and authorization of ROWs within 

the WDO in the long term. 

Requirements for proposed reuse of lands could have impacts similar to those described under 

Alternative B. 

Actions regarding mineral operation sites would have impacts similar to those described under 

Alternative B. 

Cumulative Effects 

Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions affect lands and realty. Urban development and 

private land owners in rural areas will continue to restrict access to public lands. Human activities 

such as mining and livestock grazing will continue to require the issuance of permits and 

authorization of ROWs. Land exchanges will continue to consolidate public lands and facilitate land 

management. Counties within the planning area will begin to address increased growth in county 

development plans and other planning and zoning efforts, which should involve land management 

coordination with the BLM. 

4.4 SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS

This section addresses impacts on special designations, which include ACECs, WSR segments, 

BCBs, Wilderness Areas, WSAs, and WWV sites. Impacts on wilderness characteristics are also 

addressed in this section. 

There are seven Wilderness Areas and portions of two others within the WDO administrative 

boundary. They are within the planning boundary of the Black Rock NCA. The Augusta Mountains 

WSA and the Lahontan Cutthroat Trout WSA and ISA are also within the planning boundary of the 

Black Rock NCA. Special designation areas addressed in the Black Rock NCA plan will not be 

addressed in the Winnemucca RMP. National Historic Trails are addressed in Section 4.2.13, 

Cultural Resources. 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

4.4.1 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 

Summary 

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

ACECs. Administrative designations addressed in this section include that of Areas of Critical 

Environmental Concern (ACECs). Potential ACEC designated areas were identified in the ACEC 

Relevance and Importance Evaluations (2006), Appendix F. 

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

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

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

Methods of Analysis 

Methods and Assumptions

To the extent practical, spatial data were used to compare the proposed management of each 

alternative to existing conditions. In absence of quantitative data, potential impacts from each 

alternative are based on interdisciplinary team knowledge of the resources and the planning area, and 

on information gathered from the public during the planning process. Impacts are sometimes 

described using ranges of potential impacts or in qualitative terms, if appropriate. Impacts were 

assessed according to the following assumptions: 

• There would be an increase in BLM management to protect values in special designation 

ACECs; 

• The proposed management prescribed for an area with a special designation would protect 

the qualities that are associated with the special designation for the area; 

• Activities proposed that would not initially meet objectives for areas with special 

designations would be mitigated to the extent needed to meet the objectives; and 

• Fuel treatments would reduce fuel loads and decrease the risk of catastrophic fire that would 

destroy vegetation ACEC values. Actions to limit vegetation treatments could prevent 

ecosystem health improvements in the long term but would minimize disturbance to certain 

areas in the short term. 

Effects from Air Quality Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Air quality protections would benefit ecosystems by reducing air pollution and maintain ACEC 

values. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

The Pine Forest, Raised Bog, and Stillwater ACECs would not be designated under Alternative A. 

The BLM would still comply with air quality regulations and use smoke modeling for prescribed fire. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-573 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Alternative B allows for 106,696 acres for allowing fire for resource benefit. Impacts on air quality 

would continue over a longer period of time if allowing fire for resource benefit is implemented. In 

order to comply with air quality regulations and to follow smoke modeling forecasts, fire use in the 

Pine Forest and Stillwater ACECs might not occur or would be delayed. Allowing fire for resource 

benefit may impact air quality from smoke, which would be mitigated through smoke modeling and 

compliance with air quality regulations. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

The BLM would comply with air quality regulations and would use smoke modeling for wildland 

fire. In order to comply with air quality regulations and to follow smoke modeling forecasts, fire use 

in the Pine Forest and Stillwater ACECs might not occur or would be delayed. Air quality 

management and air quality impacts for allowing fire for resource benefit would not occur under this 

alternative. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Impacts from air quality management are similar to those described in Alternative C. However, 

allowing fire for resource benefit may impact air quality from smoke, which would be mitigated 

through smoke modeling and compliance with air quality regulations. 

Effects from Geology Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no impacts because there are no actions that are likely to affect ACECs. 

Effects from Soil Resources Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Soil erosion reduction measures, including seeding and improving vegetative cover, would reduce 

compaction, would increase infiltration, and would improve ecosystem health over the short term. 

These impacts could extend into long-term benefits from increased vegetative productivity and 

improved habitat connectivity. All of these effects would help to enhance ACEC values. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Land reclamation and rehabilitation in Alternative A would protect soil disturbed or burned from 

wind and water erosion. Impacts from protecting soils would be minimal because only one ACEC, 

totaling 60 acres would be designated. The Osgood ACEC values would continue to be protected. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Impacts are the same as those under Alternative A.

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-574 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Implementation of permit stipulations, BMPs, and mitigation measures would help prevent wind 

and water erosion to soils with ACECs. Land reclamation and rehabilitation actions under 

Alternative C would require reclamation of all surface-disturbing activities. This would allow for 

native vegetation to reestablish and would maintain ACEC wildlife habitat and cultural and scientific 

values over the long term. 

Soil compaction prevention measures are the most stringent under this alternative, providing for 

seasonal use restrictions. This would benefit ACECs by reducing the potential for compaction. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Impacts would be similar to Alternative C, but land reclamation actions under Alternative D would 

provide a more flexible approach to land reclamation. Impacts would vary depending on how and if 

reclamation was achieved, including whether native or nonnative seeds were used in revegetating 

lands. Impacts would be long term. 

Soil compaction prevention measures would implement seasonal use restrictions, which would occur 

on a case-by-case basis. These measures would improve vegetation health and vigor from decreased 

soil compaction and increased infiltration over the long term. 

Effects from Water Resources Management 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Water resources management in the Osgood ACEC include development of more intensive 

mitigation measures to protect water resources, which would improve water quality and would 

maintain or increase water quantity. Impacts from water management are expected to be minimal 

because there are no water resources within the ACEC boundary. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Impacts are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Priority watershed areas within the Pine Forest ACEC would protect wildlife habitat and watersheds 

to ensure long-term sustainable water and improve or maintain hydrologic functions. Water 

resources management in all the ACECs include development of more intensive mitigation measures 

to protect water resources, which would improve and protect ACEC values and water quality and 

quantity. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Impacts are the same as those under Alternative C. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-575 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Effects from Vegetation—Forest/Woodland Products Management 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

There would be no impacts on the Osgood ACEC because no woodlands are within the ACEC 

boundary. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

The impacts under this alternative are the same as those described under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

There would be no impacts from woodland and forestry management within the Osgood and the 

Raised Bog ACECs. Within the Pine Forest and Stillwater ACECs, Alternative C would protect 

stands from being harvested for forest products. Areas that exhibit or are characterized by stands of 

old growth forests would be further protected. Woodland areas within the ACECs would have more 

intensive management, including development of mitigation measures to allow natural ecosystem 

functions to occur. Allowable treatments to improve stand health would be limited to mechanical or 

biological treatments, which may not be as effective as other treatments (prescribed fire or chemical 

controls) that are available, and improvement in stand health may take longer. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

There would be no impacts from woodland and forestry management within the Osgood and the 

Raised Bog ACECs. Within the Stillwater ACEC, Alternative D would allow harvesting for forest 

products, and areas that exhibit or are characterized by stands of old growth forests would be 

further protected. Woodland areas within the ACECs would have more intensive management, 

including development of mitigation measures to allow natural ecosystem functions to occur, 

consistent with the ACEC values that established designation. Allowable treatments to improve 

stand health include mechanical, chemical, prescribed fire, and biological treatments, which offer an 

assortment of effective treatments to improve stand health. Stand health would improve in a shorter 

timeframe. This alternative would also allow for more opportunity to harvest juniper for woodland 

products within the Stillwater ACEC. There would be no impacts on the Pine Forest ACEC from 

woodland harvesting because there would be no designated harvest areas identified with the ACEC 

boundary. 

Individual Alternative Effects from Vegetation—Weeds Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Actions to decrease weeds on BLM-administered lands would improve ecosystem health and habitat 

values by increasing native species in both the short term and long term. Weeds actions would have 

impacts similar to those described under Methods and Assumptions at the beginning of this section. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Impacts from weed management would be minimal because only 60 acres within the Osgood ACEC 

would be designated. Control of weeds to protect sensitive plants would become a priority in the 

event that weeds were established and spreading within the ACEC. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-576 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Impacts from weed management are similar to those under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Short–term weed control methods would be limited to mechanical and biological treatments, which 

would take longer to control weeds and improve rangeland health. Long-term ecological health may 

be realized because no residual effects from chemicals would occur. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Short-term weed control methods include a variety of treatments, including chemical and prescribed 

fire. Short-term weed control would improve ecosystem health. Long-term improvements to 

ecosystems should occur within shorter timeframes. Weed control would be a priority within 

ACECs in order to maintain ACEC designation values (wildlife habitat, cultural, scientific, sensitive 

plants). 

Effects from Chemical and Biological Control 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no impacts because there are no actions that are likely to affect ACECs. 

Effects from Vegetation—Rangeland Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Improving degraded rangeland would reduce the prevalence of invasive species and improve species 

diversity and resilience. With healthier native vegetation, ACEC values with respect to rangelands 

would be improved over the long term. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

There would be few impacts on the Osgood ACEC from vegetation rangeland management. 

Mitigation measures would be developed to protect the Osgood Mountain milkvetch. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Impacts are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Option 1 

Vegetation management would include rehabilitation of areas disturbed or burned and would 

improve areas from FRCC 3 to FRCC 2 on 80,000 acres of rangeland. These actions would stabilize 

areas, would deter the establishment of weeds, and would allow for long-term reestablishment of 

native plant communities within ACECs. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-577 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Option 2 

Prohibiting grazing would allow fuels to build up within the ACECs, increasing the risk of fire over 

the long term. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Impacts are similar to those described under Alternative C. Vegetation management would include 

rehabilitation of areas disturbed or burned and would improve areas from FRCC 3 to FRCC 2 on 

70,000 acres of rangeland. Vegetation manipulation treatments would include mechanical, biological, 

prescribed fire, and chemical treatments. Vegetative communities within the ACECs would improve 

rangeland health through the use of a wider array of treatment methods.

Effects from Vegetation—Riparian and Wetlands Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Improving PFC within ACECs would improve functioning conditions of riparian and wetland areas 

and would improve riparian vegetation health. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

There would be few impacts from riparian and wetlands management on the Osgood ACEC 

because there are no riparian and wetland areas within the ACEC. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Vegetation improvement treatments for riparian and wetlands management would have impacts 

similar to those described under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Option 1 

The greatest amount of riparian areas and wetlands (a minimum of 85 percent by 2028) would be 

restored to PFC under this alternative, which would improve functioning conditions and vegetative 

health within riparian and wetland areas. Implementation of SOPs and BMPs would also reduce 

impacts on riparian and wetland areas within ACECs from other public land uses. 

Option 2 

Removing grazing from lands in the WDO would benefit riparian and wetland areas because there 

would be no grazing impacts causing soil compaction, weed spread or introduction, and trampling 

of vegetation over the long term from livestock. However, fuels would be allowed to build up within 

riparian and wetland areas, which would make ACECs vulnerable to wildfire. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Riparian areas and wetlands (85 percent by 2028) would be progressing toward or restored to PFC 

under this alternative, which would improve functioning conditions and vegetative health within 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-578 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

riparian and wetland areas. Implementation of SOPs and BMPs would also reduce impacts on 

riparian and wetland areas within ACECs from other public land uses. 

Effects from Fish and Wildlife Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Fish habitat management actions include maintaining and improving lentic and lotic fish habitat, 

including monitoring aquatic and riparian habitat conditions. Implementation of BMPs and SOPs 

would reduce adverse impacts on fish habitat areas within ACEC. 

Wildlife management actions include improving and protecting waterfowl habitats, protecting 

migratory birds and their nests, and maintaining and enhancing wildlife habitat. Implementation of 

BMPs and SOPs would reduce adverse impacts and would improve wildlife habitat. Direct impacts 

on migratory birds are anticipated to be low due to requirements for pre-disturbance inventories and 

implementation of seasonal use restrictions or avoidance of nests. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Impacts on the Osgood ACEC would be minimal due to the size and type of wildlife habitat within 

the ACEC. Implementation of mitigation measures and use restrictions would reduce impacts on 

wildlife habitat within the ACEC. There would be no impacts from fish management within the 

Osgood ACEC. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Impacts are the same as those described under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Impacts on the Osgood ACEC are similar to those described under Alternative A. Priority wildlife 

habitat areas would be established within the Pine Forest ACEC. Wildlife habitat would be protected 

and restored because land treatments and mitigation measures would be emphasized within this 

ACEC. In all ACECs, mitigation measures and BMPs would be implemented to achieve desired 

wildlife population and habitat conditions, ultimately reducing adverse impacts. Few wildlife 

management impacts would occur within the Raised Bog ACEC. No artificial waters would be 

developed within any of the ACECs, so wildlife populations would be constrained to existing water 

sources. There would be no impacts from fisheries management within the Osgood, Stillwater, and 

Raised Bog ACECs. Management actions to limit stream bank alteration should improve stream 

bank channel stability within the Pine Forest ACEC. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Impacts on the Osgood ACEC are similar to those described under Alternative A. 

Few wildlife management impacts would occur within the Raised Bog ACEC due to the size and 

nature of habitat within this ACEC. In all ACECs, mitigation measures and BMP would be 

implemented to achieve desired wildlife population and habitat conditions, ultimately reducing any 

adverse impacts. Artificial waters would be developed within any of the ACECs, so wildlife 

populations could expand as new areas would be available as habitat. There would be no impacts 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-579 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

from fisheries management within the Osgood, Stillwater, and Raised Bog ACECs. Impacts from 

fisheries management are similar to those described under Alternative C.

Effects from Special Status Species Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Special status species management across all alternatives would prevent activities leading to listing of 

species and would require plant inventories, sage-grouse, pygmy rabbit, bat, and raptor avoidance 

and mitigation and monitoring. Actions that avoid impacts on listed or sensitive species or their 

habitat would protect and preserve ACEC values. 

Restrictions on uses near special status plants, sage-grouse and sage-grouse leks (courtship and 

mating areas), pygmy rabbits, bat habitat, and raptors would reduce disturbance to these areas and 

would protect sensitive species habitat and enhance ACEC values. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

The BLM would continue to manage the Osgood Mountains ACEC for the protection of the 

milkvetch. This would continue to protect the special qualities associated with the designation of the 

ACEC. Certain uses or activities may be prohibited within the ACEC to protect sensitive plants. 

Implementation of permit stipulations, BMPs, and mitigation measures should maintain and protect 

the special values of the ACEC. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Impacts are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Alternative C places the greatest amount of restrictions on activities that occur near special status 

species and their habitats in order to protect sensitive species. Tree removal control within a mile of 

active ferruginous hawk nests would protect northern goshawk nesting areas. Mitigation measures, 

including use restrictions and avoidance and providing alternate nest sites would maintain ACEC 

wildlife and special status species habitat enhancing ACEC values. Wildlife priority 1 habitat areas 

within ACEC boundaries would further emphasize and prioritize development of mitigation 

measures and would permit stipulations to protect sensitive species habitat. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Special status species management would include development of BMPs and mitigation measures to 

protect habitat within the ACECs. Protecting sensitive species habitat would enhance and protect 

ACEC qualities. Priority 2 habitat areas within ACECs would place fewer restrictions and mitigation 

measures to protect sensitive species habitat, compared to Priority 1 areas. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-580 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Effects from Wild Horse and Burro Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives 

Managing wild horses and burros within HMAs and HAs that overlap ACEC boundaries includes 

controlling horse and burro populations based on AML. Controlling herd size would limit and 

reduce the potential for overgrazing areas. Seasonal limitations on certain activities, such as motor 

vehicle racing, would limit uses in areas and would maintain ACEC qualities. Population control 

measures would reduce the impact of WHB on lands by decreasing the risk of soil compaction, 

trampling, and the introduction or spread of weeds. This would help maintain ecosystem health and 

ACEC values. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

There would be no impacts on the Osgood ACEC from wild horse and burro management because 

the ACEC is not within an HMA or HA. There are also no WHB populations in the area of the 

Osgood ACEC. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Impacts are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

There would be no impacts from WHB management to the Pine Forest, Raised Bog, and Osgood 

ACECs because these ACEC boundaries are not within HMAs or HAs. A portion of the North 

Stillwater HMA is within the Stillwater ACEC. The least aggressive population control measures 

would be used in Alternative C, and the established AML would be higher. Fertility control measures 

would not be used, so WHB populations would increase within shorter timeframes. These spikes in 

population growth would increase soil compaction, trampling, and grazing in areas until animals are 

removed to achieve AML. Mitigation measures to protect WHB are the greatest under this 

alternative and would prohibit or limit certain uses in HMAs. Maintaining higher WHB populations 

would degrade some ACEC values in the short term. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

There would be no impacts from WHB management to the Pine Forest, Raised Bog, and Osgood 

ACECs because these ACEC boundaries are not within HMAs or HAs. A portion of the North 

Stillwater Herd Management Area is within the Stillwater ACEC. This alternative has more 

aggressive management actions to control WHB populations. Management actions to gather excess 

WHB to the low AML levels when populations exceed the upper AML limit would be emphasized. 

Also fertility control inhibitors would be used to slow population growth rates, so WHB populations 

would increase within longer timeframes. Impacts from population growth would gradually increase 

soil compaction, trampling, and grazing in areas until animals are removed to achieve AML. Impacts 

on ACECs values should be maintained under this alternative. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-581 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Effects from Wildland Fire Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

The BLM would develop and implement a response to wildfires, based on social, legal, and 

ecological consequences of the fire, to guide the suppression of fires. Wildfire suppression would 

prevent catastrophic destruction of vegetation and would preserve ACEC values over the long term. 

Fuels management also would protect ACEC values over the long term through the construction of 

fuel breaks. Emergency stabilization and rehabilitation management would stabilize and rehabilitate 

areas burned within ACECs, allowing for improvement in ecosystem health in the long term that has 

been damaged by wildland fire. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Prescribed fire and other fuel break treatments would be implemented, as needed, to protect the 

sensitive Osgood mountain milkvetch. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

The impacts on the Osgood Mountain milkvetch ACEC are the same as those under Alternative A. 

However, this Alternative identifies 110,167 acres for allowing fire for resource benefit. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

There would be no beneficial effects from allowing fire, as described under Alternative D. 

Constructing fuel breaks would be limited to using biological and mechanical treatments only. Fuel 

breaks to protect ACEC values would be less effective compared to other treatment methods. 

ES&R treatments would be limited to seeding with native species. Generally these species take 

longer to establish, thereby leaving burned areas more susceptible to erosion in the short term. 

Establishing native vegetation would improve rangeland health in the long term. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Allowing fire for resource benefit may occur in 2,260 acres of the Pine Forest ACEC and 3,081 

acres of the Stillwater ACEC when it would benefit forest and vegetation community health. These 

actions would improve ecosystem health and would protect the special qualities associated with the 

designations of the ACECs. 

Fuel breaks would not be limited to certain treatment methods. Protection of ACEC values would 

be more effective in areas based on opportunities for multiple fuel break treatment methods. ES&R 

treatments would not be limited to seeding with native species. Using both natives and nonnatives 

would expedite establishment of vegetation and would reduce short-term erosion. 

Effects from Cultural Resources Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

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

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-582 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Few, if any impacts would occur from cultural resource management to the Osgood Mountain 

milkvetch ACEC. Implementation of SOPs, BMPs, and mitigation measures may limit location of 

certain uses within the ACEC, while protecting cultural resources and maintaining ACEC values. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Impacts are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Impacts on the Osgood, Raised Bog, and Pine Forest ACECs are similar to those described under 

Alternative A. The Stillwater ACEC would include management actions that would prohibit 

woodland product harvesting in order to protect special cultural values associated within this area. 

Mitigation measures would be developed for the Pine Forest ACEC to protect aspen carvings, 

which would also maintain ACEC wildlife habitat values. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Impacts on the Osgood, Raised Bog, and Pine Forest ACECs are similar to those described under 

Alternative A. The Stillwater ACEC would restrict woodland harvesting, subject to implementation 

of SOPs, BMP, and mitigation measures. Uses may be limited within the ACECs to protect cultural 

resources and maintain ACEC values. 

Effects from Tribal Consultation 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Consulting with tribes to identify culturally significant plants, important habitats, and traditional use 

locations would emphasize protection of natural resources. This could limit the location of ground 

disturbance and other uses and maintain and improve ACEC values over the long term in certain 

areas. 

Effects from Paleontological Resources Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no impacts because there are no actions that are likely to affect areas within ACEC 

boundaries. 

Effects from Visual Resources Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

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

Individual Effects under Alternative A

The BLM would manage visual resources subject to VRM classification established in the ParadiseDenio and Sonoma-Gerlach MFPs. The Osgood Mountain ACEC would continue to be managed as 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-583 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

VRM Class IV. Changes may subordinate character but must reflect what could be a natural 

occurrence under class IV. The landscapes within the ACEC would continue to manage structure 

locations and to blend colors, line, and contrast in order to maintain scenic qualities within the 

ACEC. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

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

Under Class II, changes should not be evident. Uses and facilities would be managed to blend with 

the surrounding landscapes. Changes may subordinate the character of the setting but must reflect 

what could be a natural occurrence. More mitigation measures would be implemented so that 

activities or structures would have fewer scenic impacts which would maintain the visual character of 

the Osgood Mountain ACEC. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

The BLM would manage all ACECs and associated landscapes as VRM Class II. The impacts would 

be similar to those described under alternative B. The visual character of all the ACECs would be 

maintained. Mitigation measures would be developed and implemented in order to blend or locate 

facilities to the surrounding landscape for all ACECs. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Impacts are the same as those under Alternative B. 

Effects from Cave and Karst Resource Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no impacts because there are no actions that are likely to affect ACECs. 

Effects from Livestock Grazing Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Managing livestock and maintaining land health standards should protect soils and vegetation from 

overgrazing, thereby maintaining ACEC values. Authorizing range improvements would allow for 

better management of livestock and would protect areas from overgrazing. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

The BLM would continue to allow livestock grazing and range improvements in the Osgood 

Mountain ACEC. Mitigation measures would be developed and implemented to protect sensitive 

plant species. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

The impacts on the Osgood Mountain ACEC are the same as those under Alternative A. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-584 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Option 1 

All ACEC areas would continue to be available for grazing. Achieving land health standards would 

protect wildlife habitat and cultural values, as well as scientific and sensitive plant areas, from 

excessive grazing. More restrictions would be applied when developing livestock waters, which 

would effect disbursement of livestock and provide benefits to wildlife habitat. The ACEC values 

that the designations are intended to protect would be maintained. 

Option 2 

No grazing would be allowed in ACECs under Alternative C, Option 2. By preventing livestock use, 

impacts from grazing to vegetation and soils would not occur and could improve natural habitat 

conditions in the areas of the ACECs in the short term. Long-term fuel buildup may make areas 

within ACECs more vulnerable to wildland fire. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

The impacts on the Osgood Mountain ACEC are the same as those under Alternative A. The 

impacts on the Pine Forest, Raised Bog, and Stillwater ACECs are the same as those under 

Alternative C, Option 1. 

Effects from Minerals Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Impacts on ACEC values could result from fluid, leasable, and locatable mineral development and 

mineral material sales or disposal. Impacts associated with these actions include increased human 

presence, machinery, noise, loss or injury to plants and soils due to excavation or trampling, 

disturbance from mineral extraction or waste pits, and increased exposure to dust and other 

contaminants associated with construction necessary for mineral development and use of access 

roads. Special status species habitat would be mitigated or avoided, which would protect ACECs. 

RFDs 

A reasonably foreseeable development scenario was developed with respect to future oil and gas and 

geothermal leasing (see Mineral Assessment Report, May 2006). Future actions based on reasonable 

development could result in indirect impacts. Future exploration and development scenarios could 

involve new structures, roads, infrastructure, and operations. These new structures, roads, and 

operations would not be located within the Osgood ACEC because of the no surface occupancy 

stipulations. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Salable 

The Osgood Mountain ACEC would be closed to mineral material disposal, which would protect 

the ACEC from mineral material activities. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-585 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Fluids 

Fluid mineral development would be limited to no surface occupancy stipulation within the Osgood 

ACEC, which would protect sensitive plants. 

Solid 

Solid mineral leasing and development would be allowed in the Osgood ACEC subject to 

development and implementation of mitigation measures to protect sensitive plants. There is a low 

probably of solid mineral resources within the Osgood ACEC. 

Locatable 

Locatable mineral development would be allowed in the Osgood ACEC, subject to development 

and implementation of mitigation measures and authorization stipulations necessary to protect 

sensitive plants. Impacts could be extensive, based on the amount or degree of surface disturbance 

from exploration and mine development. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Salable 

Impacts are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Fluid 

The Osgood Mountain ACEC would be closed to leasing, and there would be no surface occupancy. 

This would protect the special qualities of the ACEC from fluid mineral activities. 

Solid 

There would be no surface occupancy for solid mineral development in the Osgood Mountain 

ACEC because the ACEC would be within a two-mile radius of known sensitive plants. This would 

protect the special qualities of the ACEC from solid mineral development activities. 

Locatable 

Impacts are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Salable 

ACECs would be closed to mineral material disposal, which would protect the special qualities of 

the ACECs from mineral material activities. 

Fluid 

The Osgood Mountain, Pine Forest, Raised Bog, and Stillwater ACECs would be closed to leasing, 

which would protect the special qualities of the ACECs from fluid mineral activities. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-586 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Solid 

The Osgood Mountain, Pine Forest, Raised Bog, and Stillwater ACECs would be closed to solid 

mineral development. This would protect the special qualities of the ACECs from solid mineral 

development. 

Locatable 

Under Alternative C, the Osgood Mountain, Pine Forest, Raised Bog, and Stillwater ACECs would 

continue to be open, subject to stipulations and mitigation measures applicable to locatable mineral 

development. These ACECs are identified for potential withdrawal from locatable mineral 

development. Locatable mineral development could make the ACECs more susceptible to harming 

the special qualities of the areas. These impacts are not expected to occur if the ACECs are 

withdrawn from locatable mineral development. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Salable 

The impacts from mineral material disposal actions are the same as those under Alternative C. 

Fluid 

The impacts from fluid mineral leasing on ACECs are the same as those under Alternative C. 

Solid 

The impacts from solid mineral development on ACECs are the same as those under Alternative C. 

Locatable 

Impacts are the same as those under Alternative C. 

Effects from Recreation, Visitor Outreach, and Services Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

To manage OHV use, the Transportation Plan would be updated and would account for special 

management areas, such as ACECs. Specific sites would be subject to NEPA analysis to minimize 

impacts on ACECs. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Under Alternative A, the Osgood Mountain ACEC would continue to be designated as open to 

OHV use. Unrestricted OHV travel could cause deterioration of the special qualities used to 

designate this ACEC by disturbing sensitive plant species. The remote Osgood ACEC is not a 

popular dispersed recreation use area, so impacts are expected to remain low unless recreation use 

increases. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-587 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

The impacts from OHV use designations are similar to those under Alternative A. To minimize 

impacts, the BLM would limit OHV use to existing roads and trails until the Transportation Plan is 

updated and site-specific NEPA analysis is completed. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Under Alternative C, all ACECs would be designated as limited for OHV use. This would afford 

greater protection for the special qualities used to designate the area as an ACEC by reducing the 

opportunities for scarring the terrain and disturbing vegetation, causing associated erosion from 

OHV use. To minimize impacts, the BLM would limit OHV use to existing roads and trails until the 

Transportation Plan is updated and site-specific NEPA analysis is completed. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

The impacts from OHV use designations are the same as those under Alternative C for travel 

management. Under this alternative, the Pine Forest SRMA is within the Pine Forest ACEC. More 

facilities could be developed, which could increase recreation visitation within the ACEC. Dispersed 

recreation impacts include more travel along existing roads and damage to wildlife habitat due to soil 

compaction and vegetation trampling. To minimize impacts, the BLM would limit OHV use to 

existing roads and trails until the Transportation Plan is updated and site-specific NEPA analysis is 

completed. 

Effects from Renewable Energy Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no effects common to all alternatives from renewable energy management. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

The Osgood ACEC would continue to be closed to wind energy development. Sensitive plant 

species would be protected from wind energy exploration and development. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Impacts are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Wind energy would be allowed in the ACECs. Permit restrictions, stipulations, and mitigation 

measures would be developed and implemented to protect ACEC resources. Areas within the Pine 

Forest ACEC would be excluded from wind energy because of ROW exclusion areas that overlap 

the ACEC boundary. These areas would protect ACEC wildlife habitat from discretionary renewable 

energy ROW actions. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-588 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Wind energy would be allowed in the ACECs. Permit restrictions, stipulations, and mitigation 

measures would be developed and implemented to protect ACEC resource values. Areas within the 

Pine Forest ACEC would be identified as avoidance areas, which would constrain renewable wind 

energy development. ROW issuance would be restricted on a case-by-case basis. The avoidance 

areas would protect ACEC wildlife habitat from discretionary ROW actions. 

Effects from Transportation and Access Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Maintaining roads necessary for fire suppression and public safety would allow for increased human 

presence, noise, and access to certain areas, which could degrade ACEC values. However, roads 

would allow for suppression of wildfires when necessary, which would protect native vegetation and 

ACECs over the long term. 

Vegetation improvement actions, such as noxious weed control measures, would have impacts 

similar to those described under Methods and Assumptions at the beginning of this section. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Minimizing the spread of noxious weeds along roadways would help protect the sensitive plants 

within the Osgood ACEC. Transportation actions to minimize effects on wildlife, sensitive species, 

and habitat would protect and limit disturbance to vegetation and habitat and would prevent weed 

invasion or spread from road or trail construction. This would protect ACEC values in these areas 

over the long term. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Impacts are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Travel management includes limiting access into areas by implementing a road and trail closure 

policy, including rerouting roads and trails to protect ACEC values or reduce adverse impacts on 

resources. Implementing mitigation measures and weed abatement would reduce the potential for 

adverse impacts on ACEC values and would prevent noxious weed establishment and spread. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Alternative D would remove or reroute trails within the ACECs to minimize effects on sensitive 

plant species habitat, critical wildlife habitat areas, and cultural and scientific areas. Implementation 

of mitigation measures and weed abatement would reduce the potential for adverse impacts on 

ACEC values and would prevent noxious weed establishment and spread. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-589 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Effects from Lands and Realty Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no areas identified within ACEC boundaries that would be suitable for disposing of public 

lands. Developing and implementing mitigation measures would reduce impacts on ACEC values. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

ROWs would be allowed within the Osgood ACEC subject to implementation of permit 

stipulations, BMPs, and mitigation measures to protect sensitive plant species. Development could 

occur in areas with sensitive natural resources, which could diminish the qualities of the resources. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Impacts are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

The Pine Forest ACEC would be designated as an exclusion area, which would help protect special 

resources from development and disturbance. ROWs would not be allowed in order to protect 

wildlife habitat values. ROWs would be allowed within the other ACECs, subject to implementation 

of permit stipulations, BMPs, and mitigation measures to protect ACEC values. Development could 

occur in areas with sensitive natural resources, which could diminish the qualities of the resources. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

No new communication sites would be allowed in ACECs. This would protect the special qualities 

of the ACECs from development, operations, and maintenance activities associated with 

communication sites. 

The Pine Forest ACEC would be designated as an avoidance area, which would help protect special 

resources from development and disturbance by limiting the type of ROWs that would be allowed 

on a case–by-case basis. ROWs would be allowed within the other ACECs, subject to 

implementation of permit stipulations, BMPs, and mitigation measures to protect ACEC values. 

Development could occur in areas with sensitive natural resources, which could diminish the 

qualities of the resources. 

Effects from ACEC/RNA Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

ACECs would be managed to protect ACEC values that these areas were nominated for. More 

intensive implementation of permit stipulations, BMPs, and mitigation measures would be required 

to protect ACEC values. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

The BLM would continue to maintain the Osgood Mountain milkvetch ACEC so as to protect the 

species. The ACEC would continue to be closed to mineral material disposal (salables), open to fluid 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-590 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

mineral leasing with NSO, open to solid mineral leasing with standard stipulations, and withdrawn 

from locatable minerals entry. There would be no new impacts. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

The impacts from ACEC designation are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

The BLM would continue to maintain the 60-acre Osgood Mountain milkvetch ACEC for 

protection of the species. There would be no new impacts on the special qualities of the area of the 

ACEC because the designation would not change. The BLM would also designate the Pine Forest, 

Raised Bog, and Stillwater ACECs. The special qualities associated with these areas would gain 

additional protection from disturbances by being designated ACECs. 

The ACECs would be managed as follows: 

• Closed to mineral material disposal (salables); 

• Closed to fluid mineral leasing; 

• Closed to solid mineral leasing; 

• Withdrawn from locatable minerals entry. 

Closure and withdrawal would protect the special qualities associated with these areas from 

degradation from activities associated with mineral development. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

The impacts from ACEC designation are the same as those under Alternative C. Additionally, the 

Pine Forest, Stillwater, and Raised Bog will be open for acquiring the rights to locatable minerals 

with special mitigation on operations. Opening the Pine Forest, Stillwater, and Raised Bog ACECs 

for acquiring the rights to locatable minerals with special mitigation on operations could threaten the 

special qualities associated with these areas from degradation from activities associated with mineral 

development. Also, the ACECs would be closed to any new communication sites. Closure to 

communication site development would protect the special qualities associated with these areas from 

degradation from activities associated with communication site development. 

Effects from Backcountry Byways Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no impacts because there are no actions that are likely to affect ACECs. 

Effects from National Trails Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no impacts because there are no actions that are likely to affect ACECs. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-591 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Effects from Wild and Scenic Rivers Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no impacts because there are no actions that are likely to affect ACECs. 

Effects from Wilderness Study Areas and Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no impacts because there are no actions that are likely to affect ACECs. 

Effects from Watchable Wildlife Viewing Sites Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no impacts because there are no actions that are likely to affect ACECs. 

Effects from Public Health and Safety Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no impacts because there are no actions that are likely to affect ACECs. 

Effects from Sustainable Development Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no impacts because there are no actions that are likely to affect ACECs. 

Cumulative Effects 

Past actions and events contributing to cumulative effects within or adjacent to ACECs have 

resulted primarily from surface-disturbing activities and population growth. 

Use of natural resources within the WDO planning area is expected to remain at current or slightly 

increased levels. As a result, surface-disturbing activities affecting ACECs could continue. However, 

the BLM would maintain discretionary authority over most land uses and would permit only those 

actions that would not impair or conflict with ACECs, reducing cumulative effects on these areas. 

As the population increases, activity and use within or adjacent to ACECs increases. An increasing 

population could continue to build housing closer to ACECs, thereby affecting the quality of natural 

and cultural resources in ACECs. 

4.4.2 Wild and Scenic Rivers 

Summary 

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

qualities of areas with special designations. Administrative designations addressed in this section 

include eligible river segments that are suitable or unsuitable under the Wild and Scenic River Act 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-592 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

(WSR) of 1968. Eligible river segments for WSR assessment were identified in the WSR report 

(BLM 2006). 

Methods of Analysis 

Methods and Assumptions

To the extent practical, spatial data were used to compare the proposed management of each 

alternative to existing conditions. In the absence of quantitative data, potential impacts from each 

alternative are based on interdisciplinary team knowledge of the resources and the planning area and 

on information gathered from the public during the planning process. Impacts are sometimes 

described using ranges of potential impacts or in qualitative terms, if appropriate. Impacts were 

assessed according to the following assumptions: 

• There would be an increase in BLM management to protect WSR areas; 

• The proposed management prescribed for an area with a special designation would protect 

the qualities that are associated with the special designation for the area; 

• Activities proposed that would not initially meet objectives for areas with special 

designations would be mitigated to the extent needed to meet the objectives; and 

• Fuel treatments would reduce fuel loads and decrease the risk of catastrophic fire that would 

destroy vegetation WSR values. Actions to limit vegetation treatments could prevent 

ecosystem health improvements in the long term but would minimize disturbance to certain 

areas in the short term. 

Effects from Air Quality Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Air quality protections would benefit ecosystems by reducing air pollution and maintaining 

outstanding remarkable values. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

There would be no impacts on WSRs from air quality management because no tentative eligible 

streams would be suitable under this alternative. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Impacts are the same as those under alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

The BLM would comply with air quality regulations and use smoke modeling for prescribed fire. 

Compliance with air quality regulations and following smoke modeling forecasts would reduce 

impacts from smoke and dust to air quality and would reduce air quality impacts on outstanding 

remarkable values. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-593 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Impacts are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Effects from Geology Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no impacts because there are no actions that are likely to affect WSRs. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

There are no impacts because there are no actions that are likely to affect WSRs. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Impacts are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Impacts are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Impacts are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Effects from Soil Resources Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Soil erosion reduction measures, including seeding and improving vegetative cover, would reduce 

compaction, would increase infiltration, and would improve ecosystem health over the short term. 

These impacts could extend into long-term benefits from increased vegetative productivity and 

improved habitat connectivity. All of these effects would help to enhance WSRs values. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

There would be no impacts on WSRs from air quality management because no tentative eligible 

streams would be suitable under this alternative. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Impacts are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Mitigation measures to reduce soil erosion would be developed in order to protect and maintain 

Outstandingly Remarkable Values and water quality. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Impacts are the same as those under Alternative A. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-594 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Effects from Water Resources Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no impacts because there are no actions that are likely to affect WSRs. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

There would be no impacts on WSRs from water resources management because no tentative 

eligible streams would be suitable under this alternative. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Impacts are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Mitigation measures could limit or restrict uses within designated corridors to protect water quality 

and quantity and outstanding remarkable values. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Impacts are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Effects from Vegetation – Forest/Woodland Products Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no impacts because there are no actions that are likely to affect WSRs. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

There would be no impacts on WSRs from forest and woodland management because no tentative 

eligible streams would be suitable under this alternative. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Impacts are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Areas within WSR corridors containing woodlands would be protected by developing mitigation 

measures to ensure outstanding remarkable values are maintained. Overall stand health would 

improve slowly overtime as treatments would be limited to mechanical or biological treatments. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Impacts are the same as those under Alternative A. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-595 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Alternative Effects from Vegetation – Weeds Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Actions to decrease weeds on BLM-administered lands would improve ecosystem health and habitat 

values by increasing native species in both the short term and long term. Weeds actions would have 

impacts similar to those described under Methods and Assumptions, above. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

There would be no impacts on WSRs from weed management because no tentative eligible streams 

would be suitable under this alternative. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Impacts are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Short-term control methods would be limited to mechanical and biological treatments. However, 

mechanical treatments may be restricted, based on impacts on outstanding remarkable values. Weed 

abatement may take much longer to become effective. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Impacts are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Effects from Chemical and Biological Control 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no impacts because there are no actions that are likely to affect WSRs. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

There are no impacts because there are no actions that are likely to affect WSRs. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Impacts are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Impacts are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Impacts are the same as those under Alternative A. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-596 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Effects from Vegetation – Rangeland Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no impacts because there are no actions that are likely to affect WSRs. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

There would be no impacts on WSRs from vegetation-rangeland management because no tentative 

eligible streams would be suitable under this alternative. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Impacts are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Option 1 

Vegetation management would include rehabilitation of areas disturbed or burned. These actions 

would stabilize areas, would deter establishment of weeds, and would allow for long-term 

reestablishment of native plant communities within WSR corridors. Vegetation manipulation to 

include biological and mechanical treatments would protect outstanding remarkable values from 

wildland fire and improve vegetative health in areas. 

Option 2 

No grazing within WSR corridors would improve water quality in areas because more vegetation 

would be available to filter sediment along streams. However, fuel loads would increase, making 

WSR corridors more vulnerable to wildland fire. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Impacts are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Effects from Vegetation – Riparian and Wetlands Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Improving PFC within WSRs would improve functioning conditions of riparian and wetland areas 

and would improve riparian vegetation health. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

There would be no impacts on WSRs from riparian and wetlands management because no tentative 

eligible streams would be suitable under this alternative. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Impacts are the same as those under Alternative A. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-597 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Impacts are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Impacts are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Effects from Fish and Wildlife Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Fish habitat management actions include maintaining and improving lentic and lotic fish habitat, 

including monitoring aquatic and riparian habitat conditions. Implementing BMPs and SOPs would 

reduce adverse impacts on fish habitat areas within WSR corridors. 

Wildlife management actions include improving and protecting waterfowl habitats, protecting 

migratory birds and their nests, and maintaining and enhancing wildlife habitat. Implementing BMPs 

and SOPs would reduce adverse impacts and improve wildlife habitat. Direct impacts on migratory 

birds are anticipated to be low due to requirements for pre-disturbance inventories and 

implementation of seasonal use restrictions or avoidance of nests. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

There would be no impacts on WSRs from wildlife and fish management because no tentative 

eligible streams would be suitable under this alternative. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Impacts are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Mitigation measures and BMPs would be implemented to achieve desired wildlife population and 

habitat conditions, ultimately reducing adverse impacts on outstanding remarkable values. 

Management actions to limit stream bank alteration should improve stream bank channel stability, 

which would maintain habitat segments containing LCT and other fisheries. Wildlife within 

tentatively eligible, suitable streams would be constrained to existing water sources. There would be 

no impacts from fisheries management within the Osgood, Stillwater, and Raised Bog ACECs. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Impacts are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Effects from Special Status Species Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no impacts because there are no actions that are likely to affect WSRs. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-598 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

There would be no impacts on WSRs from sensitive species management because no tentative 

eligible streams would be suitable under this alternative. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Impacts are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Alternative C places the greatest amount of restrictions on activities that occur near special status 

species and their habitats in order to protect sensitive species. This would protect outstanding 

remarkable values established within certain WSR segments. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Impacts from these actions are similar to those described under Alternative A. 

Effects from Wild Horse and Burro Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives 

Managing wild horses and burros within HMAs and HAs would include controlling horse and burro 

populations based on AML. Controlling herd size would limit and reduce the potential for 

overgrazing areas. Population control measures would reduce the impact of WHB on lands by 

decreasing the risk of soil compaction, trampling, and the introduction or spread of weeds. This 

would help maintain ecosystem health and outstanding remarkable values. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

There would be no impacts on WSRs from wild horse and burro management because no tentative 

eligible streams would be suitable under this alternative. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Impacts are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

WHB management would have minimal, if any, impacts because tentative eligible segments are not 

located within HMAs or HAs. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Impacts are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Effects from Wildland Fire Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no impacts because there are no actions that are likely to affect WSRs. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-599 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

There would be no impacts on WSRs from wildland fire management because no tentative eligible 

streams would be suitable under this alternative. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Impacts are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Constructing fuel breaks would protect outstanding remarkable values. Mitigation measures, BMPs, 

and SOPs to prevent impacts on outstanding remarkable values would be implemented. Use of 

retardant would be restricted within stream segments, protecting water quality. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Impacts are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Effects from Cultural Resources Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no impacts because there are no actions that are likely to affect WSRs. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

There would be no impacts on WSRs from cultural resources management because no tentative 

eligible streams would be suitable under this alternative. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Impacts are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Implementing SOPs, BMPs, and mitigation measures may limit location of certain uses within the 

WSR segments, while protecting cultural resources and maintaining outstanding remarkable values. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Impacts are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Effects from Tribal Consultation 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Consulting with tribes to identify culturally significant plants, important habitats, and traditional use 

locations would emphasize protection of natural resources. This could limit the location of ground 

disturbance and other uses and maintain and improve values over the long term in certain areas. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-600 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

There are no impacts because there are no actions that are likely to affect WSRs. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Impacts are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Impacts are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Impacts are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Effects from Paleontological Resources Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no impacts because there are no actions that are likely to affect areas within WSRs. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

There are no impacts because there are no actions that are likely to affect WSRs. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Impacts are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Impacts are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Impacts are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Effects from Visual Resources Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no impacts because there are no actions that are likely to affect WSRs. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

There would be no impacts on WSRs from VRM management because there would be no 

tentatively eligible, suitable streams under this alternative. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Impacts are the same as those under Alternative A. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-601 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Segments would be managed under VRM Class II, wherein changes should not be evident. Uses and 

facilities within WSR corridors would be managed to blend with the surrounding landscapes. 

Changes may subordinate the character of the setting but must reflect what could be a natural 

occurrence. More mitigation measures would be implemented so that activities or structures would 

have fewer scenic impacts and would maintain the visual character of the outstanding remarkable 

values. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Impacts are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Effects from Cave and Karst Resource Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no impacts because there are no actions that are likely to affect WSRs. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

There are no impacts because there are no actions that are likely to affect WSRs. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Impacts are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Impacts are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Impacts are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Effects from Livestock Grazing Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no impacts because there are no actions that are likely to affect WSRs. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

There would be no impacts on WSRs from livestock grazing management because there would be 

no tentatively eligible, suitable streams under this alternative. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Impacts are the same as those under Alternative A. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-602 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Option 1 

Areas within the WSR corridors would continue to be available for grazing. Achieving Land Health 

Standards would protect outstanding remarkable values from excessive grazing. 

Option 2 

By preventing livestock use, impacts on vegetation and soils from grazing would not occur and 

could improve outstanding remarkable values in the short term. Long-term buildup of fuels may 

make areas within WSR corridors more vulnerable to wildland fire. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Impacts are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Effects from Minerals Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

WSRs 

Impacts on outstanding remarkable values could result from fluid, leasable, and locatable mineral 

development and mineral material sales or disposal. Impacts associated with these actions include 

increased human presence, machinery, noise, loss or injury to plants and soils from excavation or 

trampling, disturbance from mineral extraction or waste pits, and increased exposure to dust and 

other contaminants associated with construction of facilities necessary for mineral development and 

use of access roads. 

Special status species habitat would be mitigated or avoided, which would protect outstanding 

remarkable values in areas. 

RFDs 

A reasonably foreseeable development scenario was developed with respect to future oil and gas and 

geothermal leasing (see Mineral Assessment Report, May 2006). Future actions based on reasonable 

development could result in indirect impacts. Future exploration and development scenarios could 

involve new structures, roads, infrastructure, and operations. These new structures, roads, and 

operations would not be located within the Osgood ACEC due to no surface occupancy 

stipulations. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Salable 

There would be no impacts on WSRs from salable mineral management as no tentative eligible 

streams would be suitable under this alternative. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-603 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Fluids 

There would be no impacts on WSRs from fluids management because no tentatively eligible 

streams would be suitable under this alternative. 

Solid 

There would be no impacts on WSRs from solid mineral management because no tentatively eligible 

streams would be suitable under this alternative. 

Locatable 

There would be no impacts on WSRs from locatable mineral management because no tentatively 

eligible streams would be suitable under this alternative. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Salable 

Impacts are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Fluid 

Impacts are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Solid 

Impacts are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Locatable 

Impacts are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Salable 

Salable mineral disposal would be allowed within WSR segments, subject to development and 

implementation of mitigation measures and stipulations to protect outstanding remarkable values. 

The segment of the North Fork of the Little Humboldt within a quarter mile of the Little Humboldt 

WSA would be closed to mineral material disposal. 

Fluid 

Fluid mineral development would be allowed within WSR segments, subject to development and 

implementation of mitigation measures and stipulations to protect outstanding remarkable values. 

The segment of the North Fork of the Little Humboldt within a quarter mile of the Little Humboldt 

WSA would be closed to fluid mineral leasing. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-604 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Solid 

Solid mineral development would be allowed within WSR segments, subject to development and 

implementation of mitigation measures and stipulations to protect outstanding remarkable values. 

The segment of the North Fork of the Little Humboldt within a quarter mile of the Little Humboldt 

WSA would be closed to fluid mineral leasing. 

Locatable 

Tentative eligible segments would be open for locatable mineral development, subject to 

implementation of mitigation measures or permit authorizations. Locatable mineral development 

could make the WSRs more susceptible to harming the outstanding remarkable values. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Salable 

Impacts are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Fluid 

Impacts are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Solid 

Impacts are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Locatable 

Impacts are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Effects from Recreation, Visitor Outreach, and Services Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no impacts because there are no actions that are likely to affect WSRs. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

There would be no impacts on WSRs from recreation management because there would be no 

tentatively eligible, suitable streams under this alternative. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Impacts are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

WSR segments would be designated as limited to OHV use. This would afford greater protection of 

the outstanding remarkable values by limiting OHVs and associated dust. To minimize impacts 

caused by OHV use, the BLM would limit OHV use to existing roads and trails until the 

Transportation Plan is updated and site-specific NEPA analysis is completed.

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-605 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Impacts are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Effects from Renewable Energy Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no impacts because there are no actions that are likely to affect WSRs. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

There would be no impacts on WSRs from renewable energy management because there would be 

no tentatively eligible, suitable streams under this alternative. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Impacts are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Rights-of-way would occur within WSR corridors that do not overlap with avoidance or exclusion 

realty areas. The outstanding remarkable values would be protected from discretionary renewable 

energy realty actions. Other impacts would be reduced, subject to implementation of mitigation 

measures or permit stipulations. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Impacts are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Effects from Transportation and Access Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Maintaining roads necessary for fire suppression and public safety would allow for increased human 

presence, noise, and access to certain areas, which could degrade WSR values. However, roads 

would allow for suppression of wildfires when necessary, which would protect native vegetation and 

WSR corridors over the long term. 

Vegetation improvement actions, such as noxious weed control measures, would have impacts 

similar to those described under Methods and Assumptions, at the beginning of this chapter. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

There would be no impacts on WSRs from transportation and access management because there 

would be no tentatively eligible, suitable streams under this alternative. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Impacts are the same as those under Alternative A. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-606 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Travel management would include limiting access into areas by implementing a road and trail closure 

policy, including rerouting roads and trails to protect ORV or reduce adverse impacts on resources 

within WSR corridors. Implementing mitigation measures to protect outstanding remarkable values 

and weed abatement would reduce the potential for adverse impacts on outstanding remarkable 

values and would prevent noxious weed establishment and spread. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Impacts are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Effects from Lands and Realty Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no impacts because there are no actions that are likely to affect WSRs. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

There would be no impacts on WSRs from lands and realty management because there would be no 

tentatively eligible, suitable streams under this alternative. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Impacts are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

There are no proposed areas identified suitable for disposal within WSR corridors. ROWs would be 

allowed within WSR corridors, subject to implementation of permit stipulations, BMPs, and 

mitigation measures to protect outstanding remarkable values. Development could occur in areas 

with sensitive natural resources, which could diminish the qualities of the resources. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Impacts are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Effects from ACEC/RNA Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no impacts because there are no actions that are likely to affect WSRs. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

There would be no impacts from WSR management because there would be no tentatively eligible, 

suitable streams under this alternative. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Impacts are the same as those under Alternative A. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-607 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Development of permit stipulations, BMPs, and mitigation measures would increase public user 

costs in order to protect outstanding remarkable values. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Impacts are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Effects from Backcountry Byways Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no impacts because there are no actions that are likely to affect WSRs. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

There are no impacts because there are no actions that are likely to affect WSRs. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Impacts are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Impacts are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Impacts are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Effects from National Trails Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no impacts because there are no actions that are likely to affect WSRs. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

There are no impacts because there are no actions that are likely to affect WSRs. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Impacts are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Impacts are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Impacts are the same as those under Alternative A. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-608 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Effects from Wild and Scenic Rivers Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no impacts because there are no actions that are likely to affect WSRs. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

There are no impacts because there are no actions that are likely to affect WSRs. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Impacts are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

The BLM would protect eligible river segments in accordance with tentative suitability classifications 

for the North Fork of the Little Humboldt, Washburn Creek, and Crowley Creek. This would 

protect the outstanding remarkable values of eligible river segments identified in the WSR report 

(BLM 2006). 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Impacts are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Effects from Wilderness Study Areas and Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no impacts because there are no actions that are likely to affect WSRs. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

There are no impacts because there are no actions that are likely to affect WSRs. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Impacts are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Impacts are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Impacts are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Effects from Watchable Wildlife Viewing Sites Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no impacts because there are no actions that are likely to affect WSRs. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-609 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

There are no impacts because there are no actions that are likely to affect WSRs. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Impacts are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Impacts are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Impacts are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Effects from Public Health and Safety Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no impacts because there are no actions that are likely to affect WSRs. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

There are no impacts because there are no actions that are likely to affect WSRs. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Impacts are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Impacts are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Impacts are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Effects from Sustainable Development Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no impacts because there are no actions that are likely to affect WSRs. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

There are no impacts because there are no actions that are likely to affect WSRs. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Impacts are the same as those under Alternative A. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-610 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Impacts are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Impacts are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Cumulative Effects 

Past actions and events contributing to cumulative effects within or adjacent to rivers have resulted 

primarily from surface-disturbing activities and population growth. 

Use of natural resources within the WDO planning area is expected to remain at current or slightly 

increased levels. As a result, surface-disturbing activities affecting rivers could continue. However, 

the BLM would maintain discretionary authority over most land uses and would permit only those 

actions that would not impair or conflict with river systems, reducing cumulative effects on these 

areas. As the population increases, activity and use within or adjacent to rivers increases. An 

increasing population could continue to build housing closer to rivers, thereby affecting the quality 

of natural and cultural resources near rivers. 

4.4.3 Backcountry Byways 

Summary 

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

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

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

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

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

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

impacts on the quality of the BCB. 

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

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

population and increasing demand for recreation opportunities threaten the landscape surrounding 

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

management actions for these areas. 

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

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

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

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

opportunities for protecting the special resources associated with BCBs. 

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

BCBs. The differences in degree of impact on BCBs are detailed below under each alternative. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-611 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Methods of Analysis 

Methods and Assumptions

To the extent practical, spatial data were used to compare the proposed management of each 

alternative to existing conditions. In absence of quantitative data, potential impacts from each 

alternative are based on interdisciplinary team knowledge of the resources and the planning area and 

on information gathered from the public during the planning process. Impacts are sometimes 

described using ranges of potential impacts or in qualitative terms, if appropriate. Impacts were 

assessed according to the following assumptions: 

• The scenic value of BCBs is directly related to the aesthetic and visual character of the 

landscape surrounding the byways; 

• There would be an increase in use of BLM-administered land; 

• The proposed management prescribed for a BCB would protect the qualities that are 

associated with the BCB; 

• Any new surface-disturbing activities would be subject to NEPA conformance; and 

• Activities proposed that would not initially meet objectives for BCBs would be mitigated to 

the extent needed to meet the objectives.

Effects from Air Quality Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no impacts because there are no air quality management actions that are likely to affect 

BCBs. 

Effects from Geology Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no impacts because there are no geology management actions that are likely to affect 

BCBs. 

Effects from Soil Resources Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no impacts because there are no soil resources management actions that are likely to affect 

BCBs. 

Effects from Water Resources Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no impacts because there are no water resources management actions that are likely to 

affect BCBs. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-612 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Effects from Vegetation—Forest/Woodland Products Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no impacts because there are no forest vegetation management actions that are likely to 

affect BCBs. 

Individual Alternative Effects from Vegetation—Weeds Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

The BLM would continue to minimize the spread of weeds so that native vegetation could thrive. 

This would promote a visual landscape with flora that is typical of the Great Basin and would 

improve the aesthetic value of BCBs throughout the WDO. 

Effects from Chemical and Biological Control 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no impacts because there are no chemical and biological control actions that are likely to 

affect BCBs. 

Effects from Vegetation—Rangeland Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Vegetation treatments for range improvement projects would increase native rangeland vegetation 

throughout the WDO in the long term. These range improvements would result in minor and shortterm disturbances to vegetation, including loss of vegetation cover and changes in plant composition 

adjacent to each project. Therefore, these range improvement projects would have a short-term 

impact on the visual character of the landscape surrounding BCBs but would improve the scenic 

values in the long term. 

Post-fire rehabilitation efforts, including a prohibition against seeding and grazing, would reduce the 

ability for weeds to invade and would support native species growth. This would help to achieve 

healthy rangeland conditions in the long term and would improve scenic values in the landscape 

surrounding BCBs. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Grazing management systems and practices would decrease fuel loads and would reduce the 

likelihood of catastrophic fire over large areas. Prescriptive grazing would be used, and if applied 

correctly, this could increase native vegetative cover and decrease weeds on rangelands, which would 

help to restore a natural fire regime. Such protections against catastrophic fire would preserve the 

scenic value of BCBs throughout the WDO in the long term. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-613 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Grazing management systems and practices would have impacts similar to those described under 

Alternative A. Impacts would be greater by restoring CC to Class II levels on 70,000 acres, which 

would reduce fuel loads on these lands and would protect native vegetation from catastrophic fire. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Option 1 

Grazing management systems and practices would have impacts similar to those described under 

Alternative A. Restoring CC to Class II levels on 70,000 acres would have impacts similar to those 

described under Alternative B. 

Option 2 

Grazing would not be permitted under this option, which could make rangelands more susceptible 

to catastrophic fire because fuel loads would not be decreased through grazing. Large-scale 

catastrophic fire would lower the scenic value of adjacent backcountry byways. However, the 

impacts from restoring CC to Class II levels on 70,000 acres are similar to those described under 

Alternative B. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

The impacts from grazing management systems and practices are similar to those described under 

Alternative A. Restoring CC to Class II levels on 70,000 acres would have impacts similar to those 

described under Alternative B. 

Effects from Vegetation—Riparian and Wetlands Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no impacts because there are no riparian and wetland management actions that are likely 

to affect BCBs. 

Effects from Fish and Wildlife Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

The BLM would continue to apply land health standards, SOPs, BMPs, use restrictions, or 

mitigation measures to all BLM and BLM-authorized activities to maintain and improve wildlife 

habitat. This would promote a visual landscape with fauna that is typical of the Great Basin, which 

would improve the scenic quality of BCBs throughout the WDO. 

Effects from Special Status Species Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no impacts because there are no special status species management actions that are likely 

to affect BCBs. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-614 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Effects from Wild Horse and Burro Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Wild horse and burro management actions would impact vegetation because wild horses and burros 

may overuse vegetation adjacent to water sources, troughs, and livestock reservoirs, which results in 

a loss of plant cover. This would allow localized areas to become dominated by invasive plants. 

Vegetation recovery on a burned area could be slowed or reduced by wild horses and burros. All of 

these effects could impact BCBs by lowering the scenic value of the surrounding landscape. 

The presence of wild horses and burros on the land would improve the scenic value of BCBs. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

WHB population control measures would be greatest under this alternative, and AML would be 

converted between wild horse use and burro use. Conversion of AML would spread impacts on 

rangelands through time, as wild horses and burros have different habitat and forage preferences. 

These actions would lower the impact of WHB on the landscape, and the scenic value of BCBs 

would be improved within HMAs. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Impacts from population control measures under Alternative B are similar to those under 

Alternative A. However, under Alternative B, AML would not be converted between wild horse use 

and burro use, which would impact rangeland health by concentrating WHB impacts, such as 

compaction, trampling, and weed spread within the HMAs. This would lower the scenic value of 

BCBs where they occur in HMAs. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Alternative C would implement the fewest controls on WHB populations, which would cause the 

greatest impact from WHB on rangelands and would lower the scenic value of BCBs. Impacts from 

conversion of AML between wild horse use and burro use are similar to those described under 

Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Impacts from population control measures and conversion of AML between wild horse use and 

burro use are similar to those described under Alternative A. 

Effects from Wildland Fire Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no impacts because there are no wildland fire management actions common to all 

alternatives that are likely to affect BCBs. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-615 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Alternative A does not identify areas for allowing fire for resource benefit. There would continue to 

be no requirements for the BLM to use wildland fire to provide resource benefits. Consequently, the 

impacts on visual resources identified under Alternative B would not occur. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

The BLM would designate 110,167 acres suitable for allowing fire for resource benefit in order to 

provide resource benefits. Using wildland fire to provide resource benefits assumably would 

promote healthy habitat native to the Great Basin. Consequently, allowing fire for resource benefit 

would promote a landscape with flora that is typical of the Great Basin, which would improve the 

scenic value of BCBs throughout the WDO in the long term. However, after an area had been 

burned, there would be short-term impacts on the landscape, including scorched terrain and 

vegetation, until native vegetation recolonized burned areas. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

The impacts on BCBs from wildland fire management are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

The BLM would designate 9,932 acres suitable for allowing fire for resource benefit in order to 

provide resource benefits. Impacts are similar to those described under Alternative B, although 

impacts under Alternative D would be less because fewer acres would be designated under 

Alternative D. 

Effects from Cultural Resources Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no impacts because there are no cultural resource management actions common to all 

alternatives that are likely to affect BCBs. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Alternative A does not specify a VRM class for the viewshed of the Lovelock Cave BCB. As a result, 

activities could occur in the viewshed that could alter the scenic landscape along the Lovelock Cave 

BCB. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

The BLM would protect the viewshed of the Lovelock Cave BCB by managing the viewshed to 

VRM III. As a result, there would be greater protection of the scenic landscape along the Lovelock 

Cave BCB because there are no standards against which to manage the scenic landscape. Proponents 

of actions in the viewshed would be required to partially retain the landscape character. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-616 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

The BLM would protect the viewshed of the Lovelock Cave BCB by managing the viewshed to 

VRM II. As a result, there would be greater protection of the scenic landscape along the Lovelock 

Cave BCB because there are no standards against which to manage activities that alter the scenic 

landscape. Proponents of actions in the viewshed would be required to retain the landscape 

character, which is a higher standard than partially retaining the landscape character. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

The impacts on visual resources with respect to the Lovelock Cave BCB are the same as those under 

Alternative C. 

Effects from Tribal Consultation 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no impacts because there are no actions that are likely to affect BCBs. 

Effects from Paleontological Resources Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no impacts because there are no actions that are likely to affect BCBs. 

Effects from Visual Resources Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Implementing VRM guidelines would maintain the visual character of the landscape in certain areas, 

which would increase the scenic value of BCBs in these areas. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Under Alternative A, 420,271 acres and 346,302 acres would be managed to VRM Class I and II 

guidelines, respectively. These actions would improve the scenic value of BCBs in these areas. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Under Alternative B, 417,605 acres and 391,203 acres would be managed to VRM Class I and II 

guidelines, respectively. This alternative is the least restrictive to changes in the visual character of 

the landscape. Impacts are similar to those described under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Under Alternative C, 417,605 acres and 3,083,211 acres would be managed to VRM Class I and II 

guidelines, respectively. This alternative is the most restrictive to changes in the visual character of 

the landscape. Impacts are similar, although greater in magnitude, than under Alternative A. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-617 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Under Alternative D, 417,605 acres and 2,780,416 acres would be managed to VRM Class I and II 

guidelines, respectively. Impacts are most similar in nature and magnitude to Alternative C. 

Effects from Cave and Karst Resource Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no impacts because there are no actions that are likely to affect BCBs. 

Effects from Livestock Grazing Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no effects common to all alternatives from livestock grazing management. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Impacts from livestock grazing are usually related to a long duration of use during the growing 

season, resulting in lower vigor of desired species and a change in species composition. Often, the 

vegetation is disturbed around salting areas, bed grounds, troughs, and stock reservoirs, and there is 

a loss of plant cover, which usually results in localized areas dominated by invasive plants. Further, 

degraded rangeland that is grazed yearly lacks substantial native vegetation to outcompete invaders. 

This affects the visual character of the landscape surrounding BCBs and reduces the byways’ scenic 

values. 

Livestock grazing would be open on 8,232,727 acres of land under this alternative, which would 

have the greatest impact on the visual character of the landscape and thus on BCBs. Impacts could 

occur as described above, but actions under Alternative A must maintain and improve rangeland in 

accordance with the Standards for Rangeland Health, which would minimize impacts on the 

landscape and on BCBs. Range improvement actions would help increase native vegetation and 

decrease the number and extent of weed populations, which would improve the visual character of 

the landscape in the long term. These actions would be difficult to implement successfully and 

efficiently under Alternative A, due to the large acreage that would be open to grazing. 

Lands closed to grazing on the remainder of land in the WDO would lower impacts on the 

landscape in these areas. This would have a beneficial impact on the scenic value of BCBs. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Livestock grazing would be open on 8,232,727 acres of land under this alternative. Grazing, 

including that on acquired lands, allowing temporary nonrenewable use, and allowing for continuous 

season-long use, would facilitate the most intensive land use. Impacts are similar to those described 

under Alternative A. 

Range improvement actions and lands closed to grazing on the remainder of land in the WDO 

would have impacts similar to those described under Alternative A. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-618 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Option 1 

Livestock grazing would be open on 8,038,084 acres of land under this alternative. Grazing would 

have impacts similar to those described under Alternative A. However, Alternative C, Option 1 

would not allow grazing on acquired lands or temporary nonrenewable use and would only allow for 

two years of consecutive grazing during the critical growth period. This would minimize the intensity 

of land use and would foster rangeland health, thus improving the visual character of the landscape 

and the scenic value of BCBs. 

Range improvement actions and lands closed to grazing on the remainder of land in the WDO 

would have impacts similar to those described under Alternative A. 

Option 2 

Livestock grazing would be closed on all lands within the WDO, so this alternative would be the 

most effective at reducing impacts on the landscape and thus on BCBs. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Alternative D would have 8,016,754 acres of land open to grazing. Impacts are similar to those 

described under Alternative A, except with fewer acres of land open to grazing. 

Impacts from range improvements are similar to those described under Alternative A. 

Effects from Minerals Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

General 

Minerals management impacts on BCBs could occur from disturbances that would affect the 

aesthetic character of the landscape surrounding the BCB. This includes surface disturbance, as well 

as disturbances from noise and movement from the exploration, construction, and operation of 

facilities and roads. 

Salable 

Impacts from salable minerals, typically gravel, tend to be small scale and localized. Impacts occur 

primarily from surface disturbance, but use restrictions and closures would minimize many impacts 

on the visual character of the landscape, which would minimize impacts on BCBs. 

Fluid and Solid 

Impacts from fluid and solid leasables are also typically small scale and localized, but cumulative 

effects can occur where there are numerous oil and gas wells over the landscape. Impacts within the 

WDO would be minimized by use restrictions and closures, which would minimize impacts on the 

scenic value of BCBs. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-619 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Locatable 

Development of locatable mineral resources results in surface clearing performed for exploration. 

Reclamation of disturbed areas using proper seed mix can help mitigate the alteration of the visual 

character of the landscape, which would minimize impacts on the scenic value of BCBs as well. 

RFDs 

Future actions based on reasonable development could result in indirect impacts. Future exploration 

and development could involve new structures, roads, and operations. These new structures, roads, 

and operations could be in areas where people live and work, where frequent recreation occurs, or 

where minimal nearby development exists. The assumption is that reasonably foreseeable 

development actions that are incompatible with objectives, goals, and actions for BCBs would not 

be allowed, thereby protecting the special values of BCBs. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Alternative A would open the greatest acreage and would close the least acreage to mineral 

development, thus having the greatest likelihood of impacting the visual character of the landscape 

and thus the scenic values of BCBs. Impacts are similar to those described under Effects Common 

to All Alternatives from Minerals Management. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Compared with Alternative A, Alternative B would open fewer acres and would close more acres to 

mineral development, thus having less likelihood of impacting the scenic value of BCBs. Impacts are 

similar to those described under Effects Common to All Alternatives from Minerals Management. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Alternative C would open the fewest acres and would close the most acres to mineral development, 

thus having the least likelihood of impacting the scenic value of BCBs of all alternatives. Impacts are 

similar to those described under Effects Common to All Alternatives from Minerals Management. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Compared with Alternatives A and B, Alternative D would open fewer acres and would close more 

acres to mineral development, thus having less likelihood of impacting the scenic value of BCBs. 

Impacts are similar to those described under Effects Common to All Alternatives from Minerals 

Management. 

Effects from Recreation, Visitor Outreach, and Services Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

The BLM would continue to construct appropriate new facilities so as to be unobtrusive with local 

landscape settings. This would allow the public to use facilities during recreation that blend in with 

the surrounding landscape, which would minimize the impacts on the scenic value of BCBs. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-620 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

There would be no change in the designation of BLM-administered land for OHV use, so there 

would be no new impacts. Ongoing impacts, such as OHV use in visually sensitive areas, would 

continue. As a result, OHV use in the landscape surrounding the Lovelock Cave BCB could 

deteriorate by, for example, scarring the terrain and disturbing vegetation. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Alternative B would decrease by 5,322,590 the number of acres designated as open for OHV use. As 

a result, disturbances to the landscape from motorized vehicles would likely decrease in these areas. 

Limited OHV use on 5,445,218 acres would reduce impacts from OHVs over the landscape. In all, 

impacts on potential BCBs would be lower than those under Alternative A. To minimize impacts 

further, the BLM would limit OHV use to existing roads and trails until the Transportation Plan is 

updated and site-specific NEPA analysis is completed. Impacts on the landscape surround the 

Lovelock Cave BCB are similar to those under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Alternative C would increase the number of acres designated as closed for OHV use and would not 

allow any acres to be designated as open for OHV use. As a result, disturbances to the landscape 

from motorized vehicles would likely decrease. To minimize impacts further, the BLM would limit 

OHV use to existing roads and trails until the Transportation Plan is updated and site-specific 

NEPA analysis is completed. Alternative C would have the least impact on BCBs of all alternatives. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Alternative D would increase the number of acres designated as closed for OHV use and would 

decrease the number of acres designated as open for OHV use compared with Alternative A. As a 

result, disturbances to the landscape from motorized vehicles would likely decrease. To minimize 

impacts further, the BLM would limit OHV use to existing roads and trails until the Transportation 

Plan is updated and site-specific NEPA analysis is completed. This would reduce impacts on the 

scenic value of BCBs in these areas. 

Effects from Renewable Energy Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no impacts because there are no renewable energy management actions common to all 

alternatives that would impact BCBs. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Maintaining exclusion areas within the WDO would protect and limit disturbances to native 

vegetation and would prevent impacts on the landscape. This would have beneficial impacts on the 

scenic value of BCBs in these areas. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-621 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Designating avoidance areas within the WDO provides some protection to the native vegetation 

across the landscape. This would have beneficial impacts on the scenic value of BCBs in these areas. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Designating avoidance areas and exclusion zones within the WDO would have the greatest impact 

on the landscape by protecting and limiting disturbances to vegetation and soils and by preventing 

weed invasion or spread. This would have the greatest beneficial impacts on the scenic value of 

BCBs in these areas. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Designating avoidance areas and exclusion zones within the WDO would have impacts similar to 

those described under Alternative C. 

Effects from Transportation and Access Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Maintaining roads necessary for fire suppression would provide access to lands throughout the 

WDO and would allow for suppression of wildfires when necessary. This would help protect the 

landscape from catastrophic fire, which would protect the scenic value of BCBs in the long term. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Transportation actions under Alternative A would not protect wildlife, sensitive species, or their 

habitat. As a result, lands throughout the WDO could be impacted by road and trail construction 

through vegetation removal, soil compaction, weed invasion, and increased dust, which would lower 

the scenic value of BCBs. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Transportation actions to minimize the effects on wildlife, sensitive species, and habitat would 

protect and limit disturbance to vegetation and soils and would prevent weed invasion or spread 

from road or trail construction or transport on vehicles. These actions would thus protect the visual 

character of the landscape and would improve the scenic value of BCBs. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Transportation actions to minimize effects on wildlife, sensitive species, and habitat would have 

impacts similar to those described under Alternative B. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Transportation actions to minimize effects on wildlife, sensitive species, and habitat are similar to 

those described under Alternative B. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-622 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Effects from Lands and Realty Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

ROWs alter the landscape surrounding potential BCBs from their footprint for the facilities that are 

authorized. This is because they could cause removal of vegetation, soil compaction, weed invasion, 

and increased dust in these areas. Most of the footprints are localized and cover a small area, but 

ROWs tend to be linear and may stretch for miles. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Issuance of ROWs would not be limited, and avoidance areas or exclusion zones for lands and realty 

management actions would not be designated under Alternative A. This could cause the greatest 

impact on the visual character of the landscape, thus impacting BCBs. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

The impacts from designating avoidance areas are similar to those described under renewable energy 

management actions under Alternative B. The impacts from issuing ROWs are similar to those 

described under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

The impacts from designating avoidance areas and exclusion zones are similar to renewable energy 

management actions under Alternative C. 

Restricting ROW issuance would protect and limit vegetation disturbance, fragmentation, and weed 

invasion or spread from road construction. Impacts would occur on a landscape scale and would 

therefore impact the scenic value of BCBs. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Effects from ACEC/RNA Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There would be no impacts because no ACEC/RNA management actions would affect BCBs. 

Effects from Backcountry Byways Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

The BLM would continue to manage and enhance the Lovelock Cave BCB. There would be no new 

impacts. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

The BLM would continue to evaluate the opportunity and need for developing the Gold Country 

Byway, Silver BCB, and Blue Lakes-Knott Creek Byway. There would be no new impacts. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-623 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Unlike Alternative A, which could involve the eventual designation of new byways (Gold Country 

Byway, Silver BCB, and Blue Lakes-Knott Creek Byway), the BLM would not consider new 

backcountry byways; therefore, Alternative B would not add to the number of miles of byways. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

The impacts from BCB management are the same as those under Alternative B. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

The impacts from BCB management are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Effects from National Trails Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no impacts because there are no actions that are likely to affect BCBs. 

Effects from Wild and Scenic Rivers Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no impacts because there are no actions that are likely to affect BCBs. 

Effects from Wilderness Study Areas and Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no impacts because there are no actions that are likely to affect BCBs. 

Effects from Watchable Wildlife Viewing Sites Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no impacts because there are no actions that are likely to affect BCBs. 

Effects from Public Health and Safety Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no impacts because there are no actions that are likely to affect BCBs. 

Effects from Sustainable Development Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no impacts because there are no actions that are likely to affect BCBs. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-624 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Cumulative Effects 

Past actions and events contributing to cumulative effects within or adjacent to areas with special 

designations have resulted primarily from surface-disturbing activities and population growth. 

Use of natural resources within the WDO planning area is expected to remain at current or slightly 

increased levels. As a result, surface-disturbing activities affecting areas with special designations 

could continue. However, the BLM would maintain discretionary authority over most land uses and 

would permit only those actions that would not impair or conflict with areas with special 

designations, reducing cumulative effects on these areas. As the population increases, activity and 

use within or adjacent to areas with special designations increases. An increasing population could 

continue to build housing closer to areas with special designations, thereby affecting the quality of 

natural and cultural resources in areas with special designations. 

4.4.4 Wilderness Study Areas and Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

Summary 

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

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

most resources. 

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

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

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

recreation opportunities further threaten areas with wilderness characteristics because these public 

resources lack management actions in the management framework plans. 

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

wilderness characteristics, with some exceptions. Alternative C, Option 2 would provide additional 

protection to WSAs or areas with wilderness characteristics because it would protect the areas from 

damage by livestock grazing, such as trampled vegetation. Compared to Alternatives C and D, 

Alternative B would provide fewer opportunities for protecting the special resources associated with 

these areas. 

In relative terms, Alternatives B, C, and D differ in their degree of impact on WSAs or areas with 

wilderness characteristics. The differences in degree of impact on WSAs or areas with wilderness 

characteristics are detailed below under each alternative. 

Methods of Analysis 

Methods and Assumptions

To the extent practical, spatial data were used to compare the proposed management of each 

alternative to existing conditions. In absence of quantitative data, potential impacts from each 

alternative are based on interdisciplinary team knowledge of the resources and the planning area, and 

on information gathered from the public during the planning process. Impacts are sometimes 

described using ranges of potential impacts or in qualitative terms, if appropriate. Impacts were 

assessed according to the following assumptions: 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-625 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

• There would be an increase in use of BLM-administered land; 

• The proposed management prescribed for an area designated as a WSA or an area with 

wilderness characteristics would protect the qualities that are associated with the area; 

• Any proposed action within a WSA would be processed in accordance with the policies 

stated in the “Interim Management Policy For Lands Under Wilderness Review,” in BLM 

Handbook H-8550-1; and 

• Management actions that include vegetation treatment would indirectly foster wilderness 

characteristics over the long term by improving ecosystem health and vegetation 

composition, structure, and diversity. These would be implemented by removing weeds, 

increasing native vegetation, and managing for a certain plant community composition. 

Weed removal, in particular, would reduce fuel loads and decrease the risk of catastrophic 

fire that would destroy vegetation and wilderness characteristics. However, these actions also 

would directly reduce wilderness characteristics over the short term by increasing human 

presence, vehicles, road use, and noise. Actions to limit vegetation treatments could prevent 

ecosystem health improvements in the long term but would minimize disturbance to certain 

areas in the short term. 

Effects from Air Quality Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

Air quality protections would indirectly benefit ecosystems by reducing air pollution that could 

decrease plant vigor and make plants more susceptible to pest and disease outbreaks. This would 

foster a healthier ecosystem and would help to protect and preserve wilderness characteristics in 

wilderness areas. Any impacts would not be new. 

Wilderness Study Areas 

There are no impacts because there are no actions that are likely to affect WSAs. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

There are no impacts because there are no actions that are likely to affect WSAs or areas with 

wilderness characteristics. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Impacts on WSAs or areas with wilderness characteristics are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Impacts on WSAs or areas with wilderness characteristics are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Impacts on WSAs or areas with wilderness characteristics are the same as those under Alternative A. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-626 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Effects from Geology Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no impacts because there are no actions that are likely to affect WSAs or areas with 

wilderness characteristics. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

There are no impacts because there are no actions that are likely to affect WSAs or areas with 

wilderness characteristics. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Impacts on WSAs or areas with wilderness characteristics are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Impacts on WSAs or areas with wilderness characteristics are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Impacts on WSAs or areas with wilderness characteristics are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Effects from Soil Resources Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

Soil erosion reduction measures, including seeding and improving vegetative cover, would reduce 

compaction and increase infiltration, indirectly improving ecosystem health over the short term. 

These impacts could extend into long-term benefits from increased vegetative productivity and 

improved habitat connectivity. All of these effects would help to enhance wilderness characteristics. 

Any impacts would not be new. 

Wilderness Study Areas 

There are no impacts because there are no actions that are likely to affect WSAs. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

Land reclamation in Alternative A would be pursued, although not required, in disturbed areas. This 

could help to restore wilderness characteristics over the long term in areas with few wilderness 

characteristics. Impacts would vary, depending on how and if reclamation was achieved, including 

whether native or nonnative seeds were used in revegetating lands. Any impacts would not be new. 

There are no soil compaction prevention measures under Alternative A. This would indirectly 

impact vegetation because soil compaction prevents water infiltration and may affect plant health 

and vigor. This could affect wilderness characteristics if ecosystems were unhealthy. However, there 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-627 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

would be no restrictions on vegetation improvement treatments, which would have impacts similar 

to those described under Methods and Assumption, above. Any impacts would not be new. 

Wilderness Study Areas 

There are no impacts because there are no actions that are likely to affect WSAs. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

Impacts from land reclamation activities relating to soil resources management under Alternative B 

are the same as those under Alternative A. 

The BLM would allow multiple uses while mitigating adverse effects from soil compaction without 

seasonal closures. No seasonal restrictions for compaction would be applied; as such, areas with 

wilderness characteristics would be impacted year-round, even during times when soils would be 

most susceptible to compaction. This could degrade ecosystem health and wilderness characteristics. 

However, vegetation improvement treatments could also occur year-round, which would have 

impacts similar to those described under Methods and Assumptions, above. Effects would be long 

term. 

Wilderness Study Areas 

Impacts on WSAs are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

Land reclamation actions under Alternative C would require reclamation of all surface-disturbing 

activities. This would allow for native vegetation to reestablish and would increase wilderness 

characteristics over the long term. 

Soil compaction prevention measures are the most stringent under this alternative, providing for 

seasonal use restrictions. This would benefit wilderness characteristics by preventing compaction but 

would limit when vegetation treatments could occur. Impacts are similar to those described under 

Methods and Assumptions, above. 

Wilderness Study Areas 

Impacts on WSAs are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

Land reclamation actions under Alternative D would provide the most flexible approach to land 

reclamation. Impacts on wilderness characteristics would vary depending on how and if reclamation 

was achieved, including whether native or nonnative seeds were used in revegetating lands. Impacts 

would be long term. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-628 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Soil compaction prevention measures would include seasonal use restrictions, which would occur on 

a case-by-case basis. Impacts on wilderness characteristics include improved health and vigor from 

decreased soil compaction and increased infiltration over the long term. 

Wilderness Study Areas 

Impacts on WSAs are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Effects from Water Resources Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no impacts because there are no actions that are likely to affect WSAs or areas with 

wilderness characteristics. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

Under this alternative, priority watersheds would not be managed. Impacts on water resources 

would be reduced by complying with water quality regulations and implementing BMPs and land 

health standards. This would indirectly protect areas with wilderness characteristics throughout the 

WDO but would provide the fewest action- and location-specific protections of all alternatives. Any 

impacts would not be new. 

Wilderness Study Areas 

There are no impacts because there are no actions that are likely to affect WSAs. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

Priority watershed actions would protect wilderness characteristics in priority watersheds over the 

long term by restricting certain activities. Under this alternative, multiple uses would be allowed, 

which could cause some direct impacts on wilderness characteristics over the long term through 

increased human use, roads, or noise. 

Wilderness Study Areas 

Impacts on WSAs are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

Priority watershed actions under Alternative C would provide the greatest protection to wilderness 

characteristics by imposing the greatest restrictions within those areas over the long term. However, 

as exclusion zones, they would prevent vegetation improvement treatments, which would enhance 

wilderness characteristics, that are incompatible with the watershed’s primary use. Impacts are 

similar to those described under Methods and Assumptions, above. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-629 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Wilderness Study Areas 

Impacts on WSAs are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

Priority watershed actions would protect wilderness characteristics from disturbance over the long 

term by restricting certain activities within these areas. As avoidance areas, they may limit vegetation 

improvement treatments, which would cause impacts similar to those described under Methods and 

Assumptions, above. 

Wilderness Study Areas 

Impacts on WSAs are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Effects from Vegetation—Forest/Woodland Products Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

In all alternatives, vegetation forest and woodland products management actions, such as managing 

for pinyon pine and juniper woodlands, could increase human presence, noise, access roads, and 

short-term disturbance to forests. This would directly reduce the wilderness characteristics in these 

areas. However, forest management actions, including monitoring, establishing early warning 

systems for insect or disease outbreaks, and making special consideration for aspen, cottonwood, 

and mountain mahogany, and stand treatments, are tools that could be used to improve forest health 

and increase native species prevalence. This would indirectly increase wilderness characteristics over 

the long term. Any impacts would not be new. 

Implementing SOPs and mitigation measures would minimize or reduce impacts on woodland 

habitats, including the spread of weeds over the long term. This would increase wilderness 

characteristics in these areas. Any impacts would not be new. 

The extent of forests and woodlands within the WDO is limited, amounting to less than one percent 

of the total land area. As such, impacts on wilderness characteristics from forest and woodland 

product management actions would be limited and localized. Any impacts would not be new. 

Wilderness Study Areas 

There are no impacts because there are no actions that are likely to affect WSAs. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

Fire and other vegetation improvement treatments would have impacts similar to those described 

under Methods and Assumptions, above. Any impacts would not be new. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-630 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Under Alternative A, pinyon and juniper woodlands would be managed for the greatest number of 

uses, which would directly reduce wilderness characteristics in these areas because disturbance and 

human use would be the greatest of all alternatives. Any impacts would not be new. 

The BLM would designate other stands (e.g., pinyon/juniper) or portions of stands in the WDO as 

old growth forest if an area exhibits the characteristics of old growth and is suitable for designation. 

This would help to maintain wilderness characteristics over the long term in localized areas. Any 

impacts would not be new. 

Wilderness Study Areas 

There are no impacts because there are no actions that are likely to affect WSAs. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

Fire and other vegetation improvement treatments would have impacts similar to those described 

under Methods and Assumptions, above. 

Pinyon and juniper woodlands would be managed for fewer uses than under Alternative A, although 

wilderness characteristics could be directly disturbed by human presence, noise, and overharvesting. 

Old growth forests would not be designated under Alternative B, and none would be designated in 

the future. Adverse impacts on stands with old growth characteristics would be avoided, but these 

areas would not be managed to provide old growth characteristics in the future. This would have the 

greatest impact on wilderness characteristics in these areas over the long term in localized areas. 

Wilderness Study Areas 

Impacts on WSAs are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

Vegetation treatments would be the least aggressive under Alternative C, which would have the least 

impacts on wilderness characteristics. Impacts are similar to those described under Methods and 

Assumptions, above. 

Pinyon and juniper stands would be managed only for landscape value and Native American uses. 

With less harvesting allowed in pinyon and juniper stands, there would be less human disturbance to 

these areas, which would directly protect wilderness characteristics over the long term in localized 

areas. 

This alternative would designate 27,605 acres of old growth forest and other stands as appropriate. 

This would preserve and maintain these forests and their wildlife habitat, which would protect 

wilderness characteristics. However, under Alternative C, stands would not be managed for old 

growth characteristics, which may be less effective in protecting wilderness characteristics. Effects 

would be localized. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-631 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Wilderness Study Areas 

Impacts on WSAs are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

Vegetation improvement treatments would have impacts similar to those described under 

Alternative B. 

As in Alternative A, Alternative D would manage pinyon and juniper woodlands for the greatest 

number of uses, emphasizing multiple uses. Impacts are the same as those under Alternative A. 

This alternative would designate 27,605 acres of old growth forest and would designate other stands 

as appropriate in the future. In addition, old growth stands would be managed to facilitate old 

growth characteristics. As a result, wilderness characteristics would be most efficiently protected in 

Alternative D. Effects would be localized. 

Wilderness Study Areas 

Impacts on WSAs are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Individual Alternative Effects from Vegetation—Weeds Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

Actions to decrease weeds on BLM-administered lands would indirectly improve ecosystem health 

and habitat values by increasing native species and decreasing the risk of catastrophic wildfire in 

both the short term and long term. Such a fire could damage or kill native vegetation and allow for 

the spread of weeds. As a result of these actions, wilderness characteristics would be increased over 

the long term. However, in the short term, human presence, roads, motorized vehicles, and 

machinery would directly decrease wilderness characteristics. Actions against weeds would have 

impacts similar to those described under Methods and Assumptions, above. Any impacts would not 

be new. 

Further, coordination with agencies and implementation of BMPs would help minimize impacts on 

wilderness characteristics over the long term. Any impacts would not be new. 

Wilderness Study Areas 

There are no impacts because there are no actions that are likely to affect WSAs. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

There are no impacts because there are no actions that are likely to affect WSAs or areas with 

wilderness characteristics. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-632 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Impacts on WSAs or areas with wilderness characteristics are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Impacts on WSAs or areas with wilderness characteristics are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Impacts on WSAs or areas with wilderness characteristics are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Effects from Chemical and Biological Control 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no impacts because there are no actions that are likely to affect WSAs or areas with 

wilderness characteristics. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

There are no impacts because there are no actions that are likely to affect WSAs or areas with 

wilderness characteristics. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Impacts on WSAs or areas with wilderness characteristics are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Impacts on WSAs or areas with wilderness characteristics are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Impacts on WSAs or areas with wilderness characteristics are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Effects from Vegetation—Rangeland Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

Improving degraded rangeland would reduce the prevalence of invasive species. This would reduce 

the risk of catastrophic wildfire on rangelands, which would destroy native vegetation. With 

healthier native vegetation, wilderness characteristics on rangelands would be improved over the 

long term. Any impacts would not be new. 

Wilderness Study Areas 

There are no impacts because there are no actions that are likely to affect WSAs. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-633 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

CC would not be restored under this alternative, resulting in an increase in rangeland fire fuel load. 

This could put native vegetation at an increased risk of catastrophic fire, which would degrade 

wilderness characteristics over the long term, if it were to occur. Any impacts would not be new. 

Wilderness Study Areas 

There are no impacts because there are no actions that are likely to affect WSAs. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

Restoration of CC would decrease fire fuel loads and could protect areas with wilderness 

characteristics from catastrophic fire over the long term. 

Wilderness Study Areas 

Impacts on WSAs are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Option 1 

Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

Impacts on wilderness characteristics from rangeland management actions are the same as those 

under Alternative B. 

Wilderness Study Areas 

Impacts on WSAs are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Option 2 

Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

Restoring CC to Class II levels on 70,000 acres would reduce fuel loads on these lands and would 

protect areas with wilderness characteristics from catastrophic fire. However, grazing prohibition 

would keep fuel loads high on the over three million acres that remain, increasing the risk of fire 

over the long term. 

Wilderness Study Areas 

Impacts on WSAs are the same as those under Alternative A. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-634 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

Impacts on wilderness characteristics from rangeland management actions are the same as those 

under Alternative B. 

Wilderness Study Areas 

Impacts on WSAs are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Effects from Vegetation—Riparian and Wetlands Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

Improving and maintaining meadows and riparian areas would increase human presence and access 

to these areas, degrading wilderness characteristics over the short term. However, healthier native 

vegetation that would result from this improvement and maintenance would increase wilderness 

characteristics over the long term. Any impacts would not be new. 

The extent of riparian and wetland areas within the WDO is limited, amounting to less than one 

percent of the total land area. As such, impacts on wilderness characteristics from riparian and 

wetland management actions would be limited and localized. Any impacts would not be new. 

Wilderness Study Areas 

There are no impacts because there are no actions that are likely to affect WSAs. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

Vegetation improvement treatments for riparian and wetlands management would have impacts 

similar to those described under Methods and Assumptions, above. 

Wilderness Study Areas 

There are no impacts because there are no actions that are likely to affect WSAs. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

Vegetation improvement treatments for riparian and wetlands management would have impacts 

similar to those described under Alternative A. 

Wilderness Study Areas 

Impacts on WSAs are the same as those under Alternative A. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-635 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

The greatest amount of riparian areas and wetlands (a minimum of 85 percent by 2028) would be 

restored to PFC under this alternative. This would have the greatest benefit to wilderness 

characteristics over the long term in localized areas. 

Wilderness Study Areas 

Impacts on WSAs are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Option 1 

Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

Grazing management would be used under this option to minimize impacts on riparian areas and 

wetlands. This could impact areas with wilderness characteristics because there would still be some 

soil compaction, weed spread or introduction, and vegetation trampling caused by livestock over the 

long term. 

Wilderness Study Areas 

Impacts on WSAs are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Option 2 

Lands with Wilderness Characteristics

Removing grazing from lands in the WDO would have the greatest benefit on areas with wilderness 

characteristics because there would be no impacts from livestock on soil compaction, weed spread 

or introduction, and vegetation trampling over the long term. 

Wilderness Study Areas 

Impacts on WSAs are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

Riparian areas and wetlands would be managed so that 85 percent would be progressing toward or 

achieving PFC by 2028. Impacts would be similar to those described under Alternative C. 

Wilderness Study Areas 

Impacts on WSAs are the same as those under Alternative A. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-636 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Effects from Fish and Wildlife Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no impacts because there are no actions that are likely to affect WSAs or areas with 

wilderness characteristics. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

Actions near nesting migratory birds would be restricted to minimize human and vehicle presence, 

noise, and other disturbance, which would protect wilderness characteristics. These restrictions also 

could limit vegetation improvement treatments, which would have impacts similar to those 

described under Methods and Assumptions, above. Any impacts would not be new. 

Wilderness Study Areas 

There are no impacts because there are no actions that are likely to affect WSAs. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

Reintroducing or transplanting big game species could directly and indirectly impact areas with 

wilderness characteristics by trampling, browsing, and spreading or introducing weeds. These 

represent both short-term and long-term impacts and could impact ecosystem health through 

decreased plant vigor or plant mortality and altered stand composition. This would degrade 

wilderness characteristics. 

Under Alternative B, the fewest restrictions would be placed on actions near nesting migratory birds. 

This would prevent some disturbance to wilderness characteristics. It also could limit the type and 

timing of vegetation improvement treatments, which would have impacts similar to those described 

under Methods and Assumptions, above. 

Wilderness Study Areas 

Impacts on WSAs are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

Reintroducing or transplanting big game species could impact wilderness characteristics in ways 

similar to Alternative B. 

The most restrictions would be placed on actions near nesting migratory birds. This would be most 

effective in preventing disturbance to these areas, which would protect wilderness characteristics. 

These restrictions also could limit the type and timing of vegetation improvement treatments, which 

would have impacts similar to those under Methods and Assumptions, above. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-637 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Wilderness Study Areas 

Impacts on WSAs are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

Reintroducing or transplanting big game species could impact wilderness characteristics in ways 

similar to Alternative A. Restrictions, similar to those described under Alternative A, would be 

placed on actions near nesting migratory birds. 

Wilderness Study Areas 

Impacts on WSAs are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Effects from Special Status Species Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

Special status species management across all alternatives would prevent activities leading to listing of 

species and would require plant inventories, sage-grouse, pygmy rabbit, bat, and raptor avoidance 

and mitigation and monitoring. Avoiding actions that impact listed or sensitive species or their 

habitat would protect and preserve wilderness characteristics by preventing human presence, roads, 

and noise in certain areas. However, this also could preclude implementing treatments that would 

improve ecosystem health and plant community composition. This would indirectly impact 

wilderness characteristics in these areas. Impacts would vary with the type of treatment proposed 

and the nature and extent of the restrictions. Any impacts would not be new.

Wilderness Study Areas 

There are no impacts because there are no actions that are likely to affect WSAs. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

Restrictions on actions near special status plants, sage-grouse and sage-grouse leks (courtship and 

mating areas, pygmy rabbits, and bat habitat would reduce disturbance to these areas and would 

protect wilderness characteristics. These restrictions could limit vegetation improvement treatments, 

which would have impacts similar to those described under Methods and Assumptions, above. Any 

impacts would not be new. 

Wilderness Study Areas 

There are no impacts because there are no actions that are likely to affect WSAs. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-638 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

Alternative B places the least stringent restrictions on actions near special status plants, sage-grouse 

and sage-grouse leks, pygmy rabbits, and bat habitat. These restrictions would still reduce 

disturbance to these areas, protecting wilderness characteristics, and could limit vegetation 

improvement treatments, which would have impacts similar to those described under Methods and 

Assumptions, above. 

Wilderness Study Areas 

Impacts on WSAs are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

Alternative C places the greatest amount of restrictions on activities that occur near special status 

species and their habitats. Of all alternatives, this would have the greatest impact on wilderness 

characteristics, similar to those described under Alternatives A and B. 

Wilderness Study Areas 

Impacts on WSAs are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

Impacts from these actions are similar to those described under Alternative A. 

Wilderness Study Areas 

Impacts on WSAs are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Effects from Wild Horse and Burro Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

Managing wild horses and burros within HMAs and HAs could impact wilderness characteristics by 

concentrating soil compaction and browsing into defined areas. This would concentrate such 

impacts as weed invasion and plant reduction in certain areas, while preventing impacts in other 

areas. Limitations on certain activities, such as motor vehicle racing, would limit road use and noise 

disturbance, improving wilderness characteristics in these areas. Any impacts would not be new. 

Wilderness Study Areas 

There are no impacts because there are no actions that are likely to affect WSAs. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-639 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

Population control measures would reduce the impact of WHB on lands by decreasing the risk of 

soil compaction, trampling, and the introduction or spread of weeds. This would help maintain 

ecosystem health and wilderness characteristics. However, developing alternate waters for WHB 

could increase ecosystem degradation from WHB, which would consequently degrade wilderness 

characteristics. Any impacts would not be new. 

Alternating conversion of land between wild horse use and burro use would spread impacts on lands 

through time, as the species have slightly different habitat and forage preferences. This would 

indirectly benefit ecosystem health by minimizing WHB impacts, such as soil compaction, vegetation 

trampling, and the spread of weeds, in any given area at a certain time. This would indirectly foster 

wilderness characteristics in areas throughout the WDO. Any impacts would not be new. 

Protection measures for WHB would prohibit or limit certain activities in HMAs. This would 

prevent disturbance from human use, such as trampling and noise. Protection measures could limit 

vegetation improvement treatments in certain areas. However, mitigation measures would be used to 

provide a flexible approach to activities within HMAs. Impacts are similar to those described under 

Methods and Assumptions, above. Any impacts would not be new. 

Wilderness Study Areas 

There are no impacts because there are no actions that are likely to affect WSAs. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

Alternative B would implement the most aggressive population control measures. This would have 

the greatest effect in reducing the impact of WHB on wilderness characteristics by decreasing the 

risk of soil compaction, vegetation trampling, and the introduction or spread of weeds. AML 

reduction in response to decreased WHB water supply would intensify these impacts. 

Under Alternative B, land would not be converted between wild horse use and burro use, which 

would impact ecosystem health by concentrating such WHB impacts as soil compaction, vegetation 

trampling, and weed spread in certain areas. This could indirectly impact areas with wilderness 

characteristics. 

Protection measures for WHB would have impacts similar to those described under Alternative A. 

Wilderness Study Areas 

Impacts on WSAs are the same as those under Alternative A. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-640 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

The least aggressive population control measures would be employed in Alternative C. This would 

have the lowest reduction of WHB impact on wilderness characteristics, but actions would still 

decrease the risk of soil compaction, trampling, and weed spread or introduction. However, AML 

reduction in response to decreased water availability for WHB would decrease impacts of WHB on 

areas with wilderness characteristics. 

Impacts from conversion of land between wild horse use and burro use are similar to those 

described under Alternative A. 

Protection measures for WHB are the greatest under this alternative and would prohibit or limit 

certain activities in HMAs. This would protect wilderness characteristics from disturbance and 

would prevent impacts due to human use, such as vegetation trampling, noise, and litter. 

Wilderness Study Areas 

Impacts on WSAs are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

Impacts from population control measures and development of alternative water sources are similar 

to those described under Alternative A. 

Impacts from conversion of land between wild horse use and burro use are similar to those 

described under Alternative A. 

Impacts from WHB protection measures are similar to those described under Alternative A. 

Wilderness Study Areas 

Impacts on WSAs are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Effects from Wildland Fire Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Lands with Wilderness Characteristics

Wildfire suppression would prevent catastrophic destruction of vegetation and would preserve 

wilderness characteristics in these areas over the long term. Minimum impact suppression tactics 

would minimize unanticipated effects on wilderness characteristics during fire suppression activities. 

Any impacts would not be new. 

Fuels management actions would reestablish native vegetation communities, providing for healthy 

vegetation and wilderness characteristics over the long term. These actions would allow fire to play 

its natural role more frequently and would reduce the likelihood of catastrophic wildfire, which 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-641 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

would protect wilderness characteristics over the long term and over large areas. Any impacts would 

not be new. 

Implementing a response to wildfires, based on social, legal, and ecological consequences of the fire, 

would protect areas with wilderness characteristics from catastrophic fire over the long term. Any 

impacts would not be new. 

Wilderness Study Areas 

The BLM would develop and implement responses to wildfires, based on social, legal, and ecological 

consequences of the fire, to guide fire suppression, which involves a range of actions. There is the 

possibility that certain types of fire suppression actions could damage the wilderness values 

associated with WSAs. For example, heavy equipment could be used in a WSA during fire 

suppression actions, which could continue to alter the landscape and vegetation. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

Alternative A does not identify areas that could benefit from allowing fire for resource benefit. By 

not prioritizing suitable areas for allowing fire for resource benefit, actions to improve wilderness 

characteristics may not be implemented in the most effective areas. Any impacts would not be new. 

Wilderness Study Areas 

There are no impacts because there are no actions that are likely to affect WSAs. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

Under this alternative, 16,950 acres of protected wilderness characteristics areas would be designated 

as suitable for allowing fire for resource benefit. This would prioritize areas where wilderness 

characteristics could be improved through the use of fire, allowing for more efficient and effective 

treatment application. These areas represent a small portion of the WDO, so impacts would be 

localized. 

Wilderness Study Areas 

Impacts on WSAs are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

Alternative C does not identify areas that could benefit from allowing fire for resource benefit. By 

not prioritizing suitable areas for allowing fire for resource benefit, wilderness characteristics may 

not be fully protected. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-642 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Wilderness Study Areas 

Impacts on WSAs are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

Under this alternative, 6,103 acres of protected wilderness characteristics areas would be designated 

as suitable for allowing fire for resource benefit. This would prioritize areas where wilderness 

characteristics could be improved through the use of fire, allowing for more efficient and effective 

treatment application. These areas represent a small portion of the WDO, so impacts would be 

localized. 

Wilderness Study Areas 

Impacts on WSAs are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Effects from Cultural Resources Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Lands with Wilderness Characteristics

Protection of cultural resources, such as aspen art trees and groves, would prevent disturbance and 

fragmentation of forests, which would indirectly protect wilderness characteristics. However, these 

protections may limit the type of vegetation improvement treatments that could be implemented; 

impacts are similar to those described under Methods and Assumptions. These areas are small, 

relative to the total area of the WDO, so impacts would be localized and would not be new. 

Wilderness Study Areas 

There are no impacts because there are no actions that are likely to affect WSAs. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

There are no impacts because there are no actions that are likely to affect WSAs or areas with 

wilderness characteristics. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Impacts on WSAs or areas with wilderness characteristics are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Impacts on WSAs or areas with wilderness characteristics are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Impacts on WSAs or areas with wilderness characteristics are the same as those under Alternative A. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-643 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Effects from Tribal Consultation 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

Consulting with tribes to identify culturally significant plants, important habitats, and traditional use 

locations would emphasize protection of natural resources. This would indirectly limit disturbance 

and improve wilderness characteristics over the long term in certain areas. Any impacts would not 

be new. 

Wilderness Study Areas 

There are no impacts because there are no actions that are likely to affect WSAs. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

There are no impacts because there are no actions that are likely to affect WSAs or areas with 

wilderness characteristics. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Impacts on WSAs or areas with wilderness characteristics are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Impacts on WSAs or areas with wilderness characteristics are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Impacts on WSAs or areas with wilderness characteristics are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Effects from Paleontological Resources Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no impacts because there are no actions that are likely to affect WSAs or areas with 

wilderness characteristics. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

There are no impacts because there are no actions that are likely to affect WSAs or areas with 

wilderness characteristics. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Impacts on WSAs or areas with wilderness characteristics are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Impacts on WSAs or areas with wilderness characteristics are the same as those under Alternative A. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-644 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Impacts on WSAs or areas with wilderness characteristics are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Effects from Visual Resources Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

Implementing VRM guidelines, particularly managing WSAs as Class I, would prevent disturbance 

to these areas, protecting wilderness characteristics. However, VRM guidelines could increase the 

difficulty of accomplishing vegetation management actions by limiting the extent or effectiveness of 

restoration efforts, such as logging or thinning. This could prevent certain areas from being treated 

effectively to improve forest health or species composition, which would indirectly reduce 

wilderness characteristics. Any impacts would not be new. 

Wilderness Study Areas

The BLM would manage all WSAs as VRM Class I, which means changes to the characteristic 

landscape should be very low and must not attract attention. This would affect, for example, the 

placement and composition of structures in WSAs. By placing structures in appropriate places and 

using appropriate material, the BLM would continue to preserve the character of the landscape. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

Under Alternative A, 420,271 acres and 346,302 acres would be managed to VRM Class I and II 

guidelines, respectively. These actions would limit the scope of logging, thinning, or prescribed 

burning activities and would prohibit treatments and prescriptions that would change the visual 

character. Overall, meeting VRM Class I and II guidelines would increase the difficulty of 

accomplishing forest and woodland management actions and would indirectly limit the extent or 

effectiveness of the management goals. Any impacts would not be new. 

Wilderness Study Areas

Under Alternative A, the BLM would manage all WSAs as VRM Class I. Areas released from study 

would be inventoried using the VRM System to establish VRM classes. There are no new impacts. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

Under Alternative B, 500 acres and 23,535 acres protected wilderness characteristics areas would be 

managed to VRM Class I and II guidelines, respectively. This alternative is the least restrictive to 

disturbance in areas that have wilderness characteristics. Impacts are similar to those described under 

Alternative A. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-645 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Wilderness Study Areas

Under Alternative B, the BLM would manage all WSAs as VRM Class I. Areas released from study 

would be managed as VRM Class II. This would provide a definite level of management that would 

retain the character of the landscape, thereby improving the likelihood of protecting the visual 

resources that were, in part, responsible for designating the area as a WSA. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

Under Alternative C, 500 acres of protected wilderness characteristics areas would be managed to 

VRM Class I guidelines and 104,957 acres of protected wilderness characteristics areas would be 

managed to VRM Class II guidelines. This alternative is the most protective of wilderness 

characteristics. 

Wilderness Study Areas

The impacts from managing the visual resources of WSAs released from wilderness consideration 

are the same as those under Alternative B. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

Under Alternative D, 500 acres and 104,745 acres protected wilderness characteristics areas would 

be managed to VRM Class I and II guidelines, respectively. Impacts are similar in magnitude to 

those described under Alternative C, since wilderness characteristics areas would be protected under 

Alternative D. 

Wilderness Study Areas

The impacts from managing the visual resources of WSAs released from wilderness consideration 

are the same as those under Alternative B. 

Effects from Cave and Karst Resource Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no impacts because there are no actions that are likely to affect WSAs or areas with 

wilderness characteristics. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

There are no impacts because there are no actions that are likely to affect WSAs or areas with 

wilderness characteristics. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Impacts on WSAs or areas with wilderness characteristics are the same as those under Alternative A. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-646 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Impacts on WSAs or areas with wilderness characteristics are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Impacts on WSAs or areas with wilderness characteristics are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Effects from Livestock Grazing Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

Collecting monitoring data may help to improve rangelands and reduce the spread of weeds. This 

would, in turn, reduce the likelihood of catastrophic fire that would destroy native vegetation. As 

such, wilderness characteristics would be protected, and any impacts would not be new. 

Wilderness Study Areas 

There are no impacts because there are no actions that are likely to affect WSAs. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

Livestock grazing would continue to be allowed on 8,232,727 acres of land under this alternative, 

which would have the greatest impact on wilderness characteristics. Grazing, including grazing on 

acquired lands, and range improvement actions would reduce fuel loads on these lands, making 

catastrophic fire less likely over the long term. This would indirectly allow for the maintenance and 

preservation of areas with wilderness characteristics within the WDO. Any impacts would not be 

new. 

Riparian areas would be protected, preventing impacts through soil compaction, vegetation 

trampling, and the introduction or spread of weeds. This would maintain plant vigor, stand 

composition, and fire regimes, which would indirectly improve wilderness characteristics over the 

long term. Any impacts would not be new. 

Wilderness Study Areas

There would be no change to the number of acres of grazing allotments. There are no new impacts. 

The BLM would use adaptive management principles and practices to achieve resource objectives as 

long as such principles and practices conform to the IMP. New range developments and structural 

improvements could be permitted within WSAs if the development would enhance wilderness 

values. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-647 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

Under Alternative B, livestock grazing would be open on 178,167 acres of protected wilderness 

characteristics areas, which would impact wilderness characteristics. Impacts are similar to those 

described under Alternative A. 

Wilderness Study Areas

The impacts on WSAs are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Option 1 

Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

Similar to Alternative B, livestock grazing would be open on 178,167 acres of protected wilderness 

characteristics areas under this alternative, which would impact wilderness characteristics. Grazing 

and range improvement actions would reduce fuel loads on these lands, making catastrophic fire to 

areas with wilderness characteristics less likely over the long term. Grazing would not be permitted 

on acquired land, increasing the risk of fire in nearby areas with wilderness characteristics. 

Greater protection would be given to riparian woodlands, requiring the restoration and maintenance 

of biological integrity in these areas. This would prevent impacts through soil compaction, 

vegetation trampling, and the introduction or spread of weeds and would maintain plant vigor, stand 

composition, and fire regimes. This would indirectly protect wilderness characteristics over the long 

term. 

Wilderness Study Areas 

The impacts on WSAs are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Option 2 

Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

The no grazing option would not use livestock grazing to reduce fuel loads, increasing the risk of 

catastrophic fire in areas with wilderness characteristics. However, this alternative would give greater 

protection to riparian woodlands, as under Alternative C, Option 1. 

Wilderness Study Areas 

There is no grazing in WSAs under Alternative C, Option 2. By preventing livestock from trampling 

and eating vegetation, this could improve natural habitat conditions in the WSAs. 

Because there would be no grazing in WSAs, the BLM would not install structural improvements in 

WSAs. There would be no change to the wilderness values of WSAs. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-648 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

Similar to Alternative B, Alternative D would have 178,167 acres of protected wilderness 

characteristics areas open to grazing. Impacts are similar to those described under Alternative A, 

except that fewer acres of land would be open to grazing. 

Wilderness Study Areas 

The impacts on WSAs are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Effects from Minerals Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Salable 

Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

Impacts on wilderness characteristics could result from salable minerals management. Impacts 

associated with these actions would include increased human presence, machinery, noise, loss or 

injury of plants due to excavation or trampling, toxic responses from use of chemicals in mineral 

extraction or waste pits, and increased exposure to dust and other contaminants associated with 

construction and use of access roads. In the worst-case scenario, all vegetation would be removed 

from a parcel of land, and the site would be permanently altered. Any impacts would not be new. 

Special status species habitat would be avoided, which would indirectly protect wilderness 

characteristics in some areas. Overall, wilderness characteristics could be degraded by minerals 

management actions. Any impacts would not be new. 

Wilderness Study Areas 

The BLM would continue to maintain WSAs as closed to mineral material disposal. This would 

continue to protect the wilderness values of the WSAs from mineral material activities. There would 

be no new impacts. 

Fluid 

Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

Impacts on wilderness characteristics could result from fluid minerals management. Impacts 

associated with these actions include increased human presence, machinery, noise, loss or injury of 

plants due to excavation or trampling, toxic responses from use of chemicals in mineral extraction 

or waste pits, and increased exposure to dust and other contaminants associated with construction 

and use of access roads. In the worst-case scenario, all vegetation would be removed from a parcel 

of land, and the site would be permanently altered. Any impacts would not be new. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-649 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Special status species habitat would be avoided, which would indirectly protect wilderness 

characteristics in some areas. Overall, wilderness characteristics could be degraded by minerals 

management actions. Any impacts would not be new. 

Wilderness Study Areas 

The BLM would continue to maintain WSAs as closed to leasing. This would continue to protect the 

wilderness values of the WSAs from fluid mineral activities. There would be no new impacts. 

The BLM would not allow fluid mineral leases within a quarter mile of a WSA boundary. This would 

provide a buffer between WSAs and fluid mineral-related activities, reducing the likelihood of these 

activities diminishing the outstanding values for which the area was designated as a WSA. There 

would be no new impacts. 

Solid 

Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

Impacts on wilderness characteristics could result from solid minerals management. Impacts 

associated with these actions would include increased human presence, machinery, noise, loss or 

injury of plants due to excavation or trampling, toxic responses from use of chemicals in mineral 

extraction or waste pits, and increased exposure to dust and other contaminants associated with 

construction and use of access roads. In the worst-case scenario, all vegetation would be removed 

from a parcel of land, and the site would be permanently altered. Any impacts would not be new. 

Special status species habitat would be avoided, which would indirectly protect wilderness 

characteristics in some areas. Overall, wilderness characteristics could be degraded by minerals 

management actions. Any impacts would not be new. 

Wilderness Study Areas 

The BLM would continue to maintain WSAs as closed to solid mineral leasing. This would continue 

to protect the wilderness values of the WSAs from solid mineral activities. There would be no new 

impacts. 

The BLM would not allow solid mineral leases within a quarter mile of a WSA boundary. This 

would provide a buffer between WSAs and solid mineral-related activities. This would reduce the 

likelihood of these activities diminishing the outstanding values for which the area was designated as 

a WSA. There would be no new impacts. 

Locatable 

Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

Impacts on wilderness characteristics could result from locatable minerals management. Impacts 

associated with these actions would include increased human presence, machinery, noise, loss or 

injury of plants due to excavation or trampling, toxic responses from use of chemicals in mineral 

extraction or waste pits, and increased exposure to dust and other contaminants associated with 

construction and use of access roads. In the worst-case scenario, all vegetation would be removed 

from a parcel of land, and the site would be permanently altered. Any impacts would not be new. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-650 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Special status species habitat would be avoided, which would indirectly protect wilderness 

characteristics in some areas. Overall, wilderness characteristics could be degraded by minerals 

management actions. Any impacts would not be new. 

Wilderness Study Areas 

Activities resulting from pre-FLPMA exploration and development, under certain circumstances, 

may impair wilderness values in WSAs. The IMP does not allow any post-FLPMA mining activities 

that would impair suitability for wilderness use. Consequently, effects on wilderness values would be 

nonexistent for post-FLPMA activities. 

RFDs 

Future actions based on reasonable development could result in indirect impacts. Future exploration 

and development could involve new structures, roads, and operations. These new structures, roads, 

and operations could be in areas where people live and work, where frequent recreation occurs, or 

where minimal nearby development exists. The assumption is that reasonable foreseeable 

development actions that are incompatible with objectives, goals, and actions for WSAs or areas 

with wilderness characteristics would not be allowed, thereby protecting the special values of these 

areas. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Salable 

Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

Areas open to mineral material disposal could impact wilderness characteristics, as described under 

the Mineral Resources Effects Common to All Alternatives section. Alternative A opens 6,786,059 

acres to salable minerals. Any impacts would not be new. 

The fewest acres (418,938 acres) would be closed to mineral material disposal under Alternative A; 

therefore, this alternative would be the least effective in preventing impacts on wilderness 

characteristics over the long term. Any impacts would not be new. 

Wilderness Study Areas 

Alternative A does not include actions for limiting mineral material disposal adjacent to WSAs. 

There would be no new impacts, and ongoing impacts would continue. For example, mineral 

material activities could continue to occur adjacent to WSAs, which could result in mineral material 

and related activities that could diminish the outstanding values that were responsible for designating 

the area as a WSA. 

Fluid 

Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

Alternative A opens the greatest acreage (6,745,878 acres) to fluid minerals and would therefore 

have the greatest impact over the long term. Impacts would be similar to those described under 

Effects Common to All Alternatives for Minerals Management. Any impacts would not be new. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-651 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

The fewest acres (446,887 acres) would be closed to fluid minerals under Alternative A; therefore, 

this alternative would be the least effective in preventing impacts on wilderness characteristics over 

the long term. Any impacts would not be new. 

Wilderness Study Areas 

There are no impacts because there are no actions that are likely to affect WSAs. 

Solid 

Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

Alternative A opens the greatest acreage (6,776,198 acres) to solid mineral leasing and would 

therefore have the greatest impact over the long term. Impacts would be similar to those described 

under Effects Common to All Alternatives for Minerals Management. Any impacts would not be 

new. 

The fewest acres (416,652 acres) would be closed to solid minerals under Alternative A; therefore, 

this alternative would be the least effective in preventing impacts on wilderness characteristics over 

the long term. Any impacts would not be new. 

Wilderness Study Areas 

There are no impacts because there are no actions that are likely to affect WSAs. 

Locatable 

Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

Alternative A opens the greatest acreage (7,198,294 acres) to locatable mineral leasing and would 

therefore have the greatest impact over the long term. Impacts would be similar to those described 

under Effects Common to All Alternatives for Minerals Management. Any impacts would not be 

new. 

The fewest acres (6,543 acres) would be closed to locatable minerals under Alternative A; therefore, 

this alternative would be the least effective in preventing impacts on wilderness characteristics over 

the long term. Any impacts would not be new. 

Wilderness Study Areas 

There are no impacts because there are no actions that are likely to affect WSAs. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Salable 

Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

Alternative B opens the greatest acreage (29,902 acres) of protected wilderness characteristics areas 

to salable mineral development and would therefore have the greatest impact over the long term. 

Special status species habitat would be avoided, which could indirectly protect areas with wilderness 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-652 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

characteristics over the long term. Impacts would be similar to those described under Effects 

Common to All Alternatives for Minerals Management. 

The fewest acres (500 acres) of protected wilderness characteristics areas would be closed to mineral 

material disposal under Alternative B; therefore, this alternative would be the least effective in 

preventing impacts on wilderness characteristics over the long term. 

Wilderness Study Areas 

The impacts from mineral material disposal actions adjacent on WSAs are the same as those under 

Alternative A. 

Fluid 

Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

Areas open to fluid mineral leasing could impact forests through impacts similar to those described 

under Effects Common to All Alternatives for Minerals Management. Alternative B would open 

29,902 acres of protected wilderness characteristics areas to fluid minerals. Restrictions would 

protect habitats within 100 yards of documented golden eagle, bald eagle, peregrine falcon, or prairie 

falcon nesting sites. This would preserve wilderness characteristics in these areas. 

Under Alternative B, 57,063 acres of protected wilderness characteristics areas would be closed to 

fluid mineral leasing. 

Wilderness Study Areas 

Impacts on WSAs are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Solid 

Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

Under Alternative B, 29,902 acres of protected wilderness characteristics areas would be open to 

solid mineral leasing, causing impacts similar to those described under Effects Common to All 

Alternatives for Minerals Management. 

Impacts would be limited on 57,063 acres of protected wilderness characteristics areas, where lands 

would be closed to solid mineral leasing. 

Wilderness Study Areas 

Impacts on WSAs are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Locatable 

Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

Similar to Alternative A, Alternative B opens the least acreage (16,854 acres) of protected wilderness 

characteristics areas to locatable minerals and would cause the least impact on protected wilderness 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-653 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

characteristics areas over the long term. Impacts are similar to those described under Effects 

Common to All Alternatives for Minerals Management. 

No acres of protected wilderness characteristics areas would be closed to locatable minerals under 

Alternative B; therefore, this alternative would be the least effective in preventing impacts on 

wilderness characteristics over the long term. 

Wilderness Study Areas 

Impacts on WSAs are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Salable 

Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

Alternative C would open the least acreage (860 acres) of protected wilderness characteristics areas 

to salable minerals, which would be most effective in preventing impacts on wilderness 

characteristics over the long term. Under this alternative, 157,705 acres of protected wilderness 

characteristics areas would be closed to salable minerals. 

Wilderness Study Areas 

Under Alternative C, mineral material disposals would not be allowed within a quarter mile of a 

WSA boundary. This would provide a buffer between WSAs and mineral material-related activities, 

reducing the likelihood of these activities diminishing the outstanding values responsible for 

designating the area as a WSA. 

Fluid 

Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

Alternative C would open the least acreage (860 acres) of protected wilderness characteristics areas 

to fluid minerals, which would be most effective in preventing impacts on wilderness characteristics 

over the long term. Under this alternative, 220,779 acres of protected wilderness characteristics areas 

would be closed to fluid minerals. 

Wilderness Study Areas 

Impacts on WSAs are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Solid 

Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

Alternative C would open the least acreage (860 acres) of protected wilderness characteristics areas 

to solid minerals, which would be most effective in preventing impacts on wilderness characteristics 

over the long term. Under this alternative, 220,779 acres of protected wilderness characteristics areas 

would be closed to solid minerals. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-654 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Wilderness Study Areas 

Impacts on WSAs are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Locatable 

Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

Alternative C would open 28,668 acres of protected wilderness characteristics areas to locatable 

minerals, which would have impacts on wilderness characteristics over the long term. Protections 

would be provided on 75,333 acres, where land would be closed to locatable minerals. 

Wilderness Study Areas 

Impacts on WSAs are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Salable 

Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

Alternative D would open 28,013 acres of protected wilderness characteristics areas to salable 

minerals. Seasonal restrictions would minimize impacts on areas with wilderness characteristics 

within two miles of active sage-grouse leks. Overall, Alternative D would have the least impact on 

wilderness characteristics over the long term. 

Under this alternative, 22,197 acres of protected wilderness characteristics areas would be closed to 

salable minerals. Impacts are similar to those described under Effects Common to All Alternatives 

for Minerals Management. 

Wilderness Study Areas 

The impacts from mineral material disposal actions adjacent to WSAs are the same as those under 

Alternative C. 

Fluid 

Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

Areas open to fluid mineral leasing could impact protected wilderness characteristics areas through 

impacts similar to those described under Effects Common to All Alternatives for Minerals 

Management. Alternative D would open 28,507 acres and close 75,955 acres to fluid minerals. 

Wilderness Study Areas 

Impacts on WSAs are the same as those under Alternative A. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-655 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Solid 

Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

Under Alternative D, 28,507 acres of protected wilderness characteristics areas would be open to 

solid mineral leasing, causing impacts similar to those described under Effects Common to All 

Alternatives for Minerals Management. 

Impacts would be limited on 75,955 acres, where protected wilderness characteristics areas would be 

closed to solid mineral leasing. 

Wilderness Study Areas 

Impacts on WSAs are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Locatable 

Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

Under Alternative D, the greatest acreage (36,827 acres) of protected wilderness characteristics areas 

would be open to locatable mineral leasing, causing the greatest impacts of all alternatives. Impacts 

are similar to those described under Effects Common to All Alternatives for Minerals Management. 

No acres of protected wilderness characteristics areas would be closed to locatable minerals. 

Wilderness Study Areas 

Impacts on WSAs are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Effects from Recreation, Visitor Outreach, and Services Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

Managing BLM-administered lands to provide dispersed recreation could directly degrade wilderness 

characteristics throughout the WDO through human disturbance, noise, weed introduction or 

spread, and impacts on vegetation. Impacts would vary, depending on the type of activities allowed 

in the area, and could be short term and long term. Any impacts would not be new. 

To manage OHV use, the Transportation Plan would be updated and would account for special 

management areas, including areas with wilderness characteristics. Specific sites would be subject to 

NEPA analysis to minimize impacts on wilderness characteristics. 

Vegetation improvement treatments may be restricted on some lands used for recreation, which 

would have impacts similar to those described under Methods and Assumptions at the beginning of 

this chapter. Any impacts would not be new. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-656 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Wilderness Study Areas 

The BLM would continue managing OHV use in WSAs as limited to designated roads and trails 

identified at the time of the wilderness inventory (per guidance from IMP). There would be no new 

impacts. 

To manage OHV use, the Transportation Plan would be updated and would account for special 

management areas, including WSAs. Specific sites would be subject to NEPA analysis to minimize 

impacts on WSAs. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

Under Alternative A, there would be no camping limitations or prohibitions throughout the WDO. 

In addition, the Pine Forest SRMA would be maintained, and issuance of special recreation permits 

would be the least restricted. The greatest acreage (6,782,790 acres) would be open to OHVs under 

Alternative A, with the least amount of land (416,652 acres) limited and with 24,832 acres closed. 

Combined, these actions would allow for disturbance from increased human presence, OHV use, 

trail creation, and noise. This, in turn, could compact soils, trample vegetation, disturb wildlife, and 

increase dust, which could decrease plant vigor and alter stand composition of areas throughout the 

WDO. As a result, wilderness characteristics would be directly and indirectly degraded. Any impacts 

would not be new. 

Wilderness Study Areas 

If Congress were to release a WSA from consideration as wilderness, the BLM would continue to 

manage all or parts of a WSA for purposes other than wilderness, using a variety of resource 

management objectives. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

Camping limitations and prohibitions throughout the ERMA would minimize impacts on wilderness 

characteristics on these lands. In addition, designating three SRMAs would impact wilderness 

characteristics to varying degrees, depending on the recreation market identified for the SRMA. For 

example, the Nightingale SRMA would be targeted for undeveloped recreation-tourism, which 

would have less of an impact than Winnemucca and Pine Forest SRMAs, which allow for increased 

motorized vehicle access. Under Alternative B, protected wilderness characteristics areas would not 

be open to OHVs, with the least amount of protected wilderness characteristics areas (4,281 acres) 

closed and with 217,358 acres limited. Together, impacts from these actions include increased 

human and vehicle presence, noise, soil compaction, vegetation trampling, wildlife disturbance, and 

increased dust. These impacts could decrease plant vigor, alter stand composition, and lower 

wilderness characteristics in areas throughout the ERMA, SRMAs, and OHV routes. To minimize 

impacts, the BLM would limit OHV use to existing roads and trails until the Transportation Plan is 

updated and site-specific NEPA analysis is completed. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-657 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Issuance of special recreation permits would be the least restrictive under this alternative, which 

could cause some impacts on wilderness characteristics through increased human use, trampling, 

litter, and noise disturbance. 

Wilderness Study Areas 

If Congress were to release a WSA from consideration as wilderness, the BLM would continue to 

manage all or parts of a WSA for purposes other than wilderness, using a variety of resources 

management objectives. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

Camping limitations and prohibitions throughout the ERMA would minimize impacts on wilderness 

characteristics on these lands. In addition, designating two SRMAs would have impacts on forest 

vegetation similar to those described under Alternative B. Under Alternative C, no acres within 

protected wilderness characteristics areas would be open to OHVs, with 21,698 acres closed and 

195,659 acres limited. To minimize impacts, the BLM would limit OHV use to existing roads and 

trails until the Transportation Plan is updated and site-specific NEPA analysis is completed. Impacts 

from recreation actions would be lowest under this alternative, as it is the most restrictive and 

prohibitive. Impacts would occur, however, that are similar to those described under Alternative B. 

Issuance of special recreation permits would be the most restrictive under Alternative C and would 

cause the least impact on wilderness characteristics through increased human use, trampling, litter, 

and noise disturbance. 

Wilderness Study Areas 

The impacts are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

Camping limitations and prohibitions throughout the ERMA would minimize impacts on wilderness 

characteristics on these lands. In addition, designation of three SRMAs would have the same impacts 

on wilderness characteristics as those described under Alternative B. Under Alternative D, no acres 

within protected wilderness characteristics areas would be open to OHVs, with 4,281 acres closed 

and with 217,358 acres limited. To minimize impacts, the BLM would limit OHV use to existing 

roads and trails until the Transportation Plan is updated and site-specific NEPA analysis is 

completed. Together, impacts from these actions are similar to those described under Alternative B. 

Issuing special recreation permits would cause some impacts on wilderness characteristics through 

increased human use, trampling, litter, and noise disturbance. 

Wilderness Study Areas 

The impacts are the same as those under Alternatives A and B. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-658 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Effects from Renewable Energy Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

Impacts on wilderness characteristics could occur with issuance of new ROWs, which require 

vegetation clearing and access roads and would increase human presence, machinery, noise, weed 

potential, and habitat fragmentation. This would degrade wilderness characteristics over the long 

term. BMPs, stipulations, and mitigation measures would be implemented to minimize impacts. Any 

impacts would not be new. 

Wilderness Study Areas 

There are no impacts because there are no actions that are likely to affect WSAs. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

Maintaining existing exclusion areas within the WDO would protect and limit disturbance to 

vegetation and habitat and would prevent weed invasion or spread caused by development. This 

would protect wilderness characteristics over the long term. Any impacts would not be new. 

Wilderness Study Areas 

There are no impacts because there are no actions that are likely to affect WSAs. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

Designating avoidance areas within the WDO would protect and limit disturbance to vegetation and 

habitat and would prevent weed invasion or spread caused by development. This would protect 

wilderness characteristics in these areas over the long term. 

Wilderness Study Areas 

Impacts on WSAs are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

Designating avoidance areas and exclusion zones within the WDO would have the greatest impact 

on wilderness characteristics by protecting and limiting disturbance to vegetation and habitat and by 

preventing weed invasion or spread. 

Wilderness Study Areas 

Impacts on WSAs are the same as those under Alternative A. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-659 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

Designating avoidance areas and exclusion zones within the WDO would impact wilderness 

characteristics by protecting and limiting disturbance to vegetation and habitat and by preventing 

weed invasion or spread. 

Wilderness Study Areas 

Impacts on WSAs are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Effects from Transportation and Access Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

Maintaining roads necessary for fire suppression would allow for increased human presence, noise, 

and access to certain areas, which would degrade wilderness characteristics. However, roads would 

allow for suppression of wildfires when necessary, which would protect native vegetation and 

wilderness characteristics over the long term. Any impacts would not be new. 

Vegetation improvement actions, such as noxious weed control measures, would have impacts 

similar to those described under Methods and Assumptions, at the beginning of this chapter. Any 

impacts would not be new. 

Wilderness Study Areas 

There are no impacts because there are no actions that are likely to affect WSAs. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

Transportation actions under Alternative A would not protect wildlife, sensitive species, or their 

habitats. As a result, wilderness characteristics could be impacted by road and trail construction from 

vegetation removal, soil compaction, habitat disturbance and fragmentation, and increased dust and 

noise. Any impacts would not be new. 

Wilderness Study Areas 

There are no impacts because there are no actions that are likely to affect WSAs. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

Transportation actions to minimize effects on wildlife, sensitive species, and habitat would protect 

and limit disturbance to vegetation and habitat and would prevent weed invasion or spread from 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-660 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

road or trail construction. This would protect wilderness characteristics in these areas over the long 

term. 

Wilderness Study Areas 

Impacts on WSAs are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

Impacts are similar to those described under Alternative B. 

Wilderness Study Areas 

Impacts on WSAs are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

Impacts are similar to those described under Alternative B. 

Wilderness Study Areas 

Impacts on WSAs are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Effects from Lands and Realty Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

Vegetation and wildlife habitat value would be given consideration when the WDO makes disposal 

and acquisition decisions, which could indirectly protect wilderness characteristics over the long 

term. Acquisition of lands would provide additional opportunities to improve wilderness 

characteristics in these areas. Any impacts would not be new. 

Acquisition of environmentally sensitive land and conservation easements would protect and limit 

disturbance and fragmentation of vegetation and habitat and would prevent weed invasion or spread 

caused by development. This would protect wilderness characteristics on these lands. These 

acquisitions could limit vegetation improvement treatments, which would have impacts similar to 

those described under Methods and Assumptions, which appear at the beginning of this chapter. 

Any impacts would not be new. 

Wilderness Study Areas 

There are no impacts because there are no actions that are likely to affect WSAs. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-661 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

Issuance of ROWs would not be limited, and avoidance areas or exclusion zones for lands and realty 

management actions would not be designated under Alternative A. Wilderness characteristics could 

be directly impacted from vegetation removal, soil compaction, habitat disturbance and 

fragmentation, and increased dust and noise. Any impacts would not be new. 

Wilderness Study Areas 

The BLM would continue to not prioritize the acquisition of inholdings in WSAs. There would be 

no new impacts, and those identified under Alternative C would not occur. 

No avoidance and exclusion areas would be established in WSAs if they were released from 

consideration as wilderness. There would be no new impacts on WSAs, and ongoing impacts would 

continue. For example, development could occur in areas with sensitive natural resources, which 

could diminish the qualities of the resources. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

Designating avoidance areas would have impacts similar to the renewable energy management 

actions under Alternative B. 

Lack of restriction on ROW issuance could directly impact wilderness characteristics via vegetation 

removal, soil compaction, habitat disturbance and fragmentation, and increased noise and dust. This 

would degrade wilderness characteristics over the long term. 

Wilderness Study Areas 

The impacts from land acquisition prioritization are the same as those under Alternative A. 

No avoidance and exclusion areas would be established in WSAs if they were released from 

consideration as wilderness, resulting in the same impacts as those under Alternative A. 

Avoidance areas for Disaster Peak WSA (632 acres) and North Fork of the Little Humboldt River 

WSA (67,284 acres) would be established if the WSA were released from consideration as 

wilderness. These avoidance areas would protect natural resources from development and 

disturbance. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

Designating avoidance areas and exclusion zones would have impacts similar to renewable energy 

management actions under Alternative C. 

Restricting ROW issuance could directly impact wilderness characteristics by protecting and limiting 

vegetation disturbance, habitat fragmentation, and weed invasion or spread from road construction. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-662 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Wilderness Study Areas 

The BLM would prioritize the acquisition of inholdings in WSAs. This would improve the WSA 

management by identifying areas that would facilitate land purchases to accomplish objectives for 

WSA management. 

The following exclusion areas would be established if the WSA were released from consideration as 

wilderness: 

• Alder Creek WSA—5,145 acres; 

• Blue Lakes WSA—19,904 acres; 

• Disaster Peak WSA—11,203 acres; and 

• North Fork of the Little Humboldt River WSA—66,644 acres. 

The following avoidance areas would be established if the WSA were released from consideration as 

wilderness: 

• China Mountain WSA—10,022 acres; 

• Mt. Limbo WSA—20,146 acres; 

• Selenite Mountains WSA—18,905 acres; and 

• Tobin Range WSA—10,785 acres. 

These exclusion and avoidance areas would protect natural resources from development and 

disturbance. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

Designating avoidance areas and exclusion zones would impact wilderness characteristics by 

protecting and limiting disturbance to vegetation and habitat and by preventing weed invasion or 

spread. 

Lack of restriction on ROW issuance could directly impact wilderness characteristics through 

vegetation removal, soil compaction, habitat disturbance and fragmentation, and increased noise and 

dust. 

Wilderness Study Areas 

The impacts from land acquisition prioritization are the same as those under Alternative C. 

Alternative D would establish the same exclusion areas as Alternative B. The following avoidance 

areas would be established if the WSA were released from consideration as wilderness: 

• Alder Creek WSA—5,145 acres; 

• Blue Lakes WSA—19,904 acres; 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-663 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

• China Mountain WSA—8,245 acres; 

• Disaster Peak WSA—11,412 acres; 

• Mt. Limbo WSA—24,794 acres; 

• Selenite Mountains WSA—31,878 acres; and 

• Tobin Range WSA—7,002 acres. 

These exclusion and avoidance areas would protect natural resources from development and 

disturbance. 

Effects from ACEC/RNA Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

ACECs would provide an undisturbed area with lower human presence, fewer roads, noise, and 

other disturbances. This would protect wilderness characteristics on these lands. However, 

restrictions on vegetation improvement treatments could have impacts similar to those described 

under Methods and Assumptions, which appears at the beginning of this chapter. ACECs are small, 

relative to the total area of the WDO, so they would be localized. Any impacts would not be new. 

Wilderness Study Areas 

There are no impacts because there are no actions that are likely to affect WSAs. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

Maintaining the Osgood Mountain Milkvetch ACEC would protect vegetation and habitat and 

would prevent disturbance and fragmentation of habitat within the ACEC, thereby protecting 

wilderness characteristics. This action could increase vegetation improvement treatments, which 

would have impacts similar to those described under Methods and Assumptions, found at the 

beginning of this chapter. This ACEC is small, relative to the total area of the WDO, so impacts 

would be localized and would not be new. 

Wilderness Study Areas 

There are no impacts because there are no actions that are likely to affect WSAs. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

Effects from ACEC/RNA management under Alternative B are the same as those under Alternative 

A. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-664 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Wilderness Study Areas 

Impacts on WSAs are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

Designating four ACECs within the WDO would provide the greatest protection to wilderness 

characteristics and would prevent disturbance and fragmentation of forested areas within these 

ACECs. This action could limit implementation of vegetation improvement treatments, which 

would have impacts similar to those described under Methods and Assumptions. 

Wilderness Study Areas 

Impacts on WSAs are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

Effects from ACEC/RNA management under Alternative D are the same as those under 

Alternative C. 

Wilderness Study Areas 

Impacts on WSAs are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Effects from Backcountry Byways Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

Backcountry byways may attract more tourism to areas that they access and could increase human 

use and degradation of nearby lands. This would directly degrade wilderness characteristics in these 

areas. Currently, Lovelock Cave is the only backcountry byway, but it does not access large forested 

areas. However, expansion of BCBs could cause greater impact on wilderness characteristics. 

Impacts would vary, depending on the locations of new BCBs and the areas they would access. Any 

impacts would not be new. 

Wilderness Study Areas 

There are no impacts because there are no actions that are likely to affect WSAs. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

There are no impacts because there are no actions that are likely to affect WSAs or areas with 

wilderness characteristics. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-665 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Impacts on WSAs or areas with wilderness characteristics are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Impacts on WSAs or areas with wilderness characteristics are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Impacts on WSAs or areas with wilderness characteristics are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Effects from National Trails Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no impacts because there are no actions that are likely to affect WSAs or areas with 

wilderness characteristics. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

There are no impacts because there are no actions that are likely to affect WSAs or areas with 

wilderness characteristics. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Impacts on WSAs or areas with wilderness characteristics are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Impacts on WSAs or areas with wilderness characteristics are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Impacts on WSAs or areas with wilderness characteristics are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Effects from Wild and Scenic Rivers Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no impacts because there are no actions that are likely to affect WSAs or areas with 

wilderness characteristics. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

No WSRs would be managed under Alternative A, which would not protect rivers or riparian areas 

within the WDO. As such, impacts on wilderness characteristics would not be restricted, including 

those from increased use, road and trail construction, soil compaction, noise, and vegetation 

trampling. However, vegetation improvement treatments would not be restricted, having impacts 

similar to those under Methods and Assumptions. Any impacts would not be new. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-666 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Wilderness Study Areas 

There are no impacts because there are no actions that are likely to affect WSAs. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

WSRs would be managed under Alternative B but would provide for multiple uses. There would be 

limited impacts on wilderness characteristics, but some impacts could occur by allowing multiple 

uses. Impacts include those from increased use, soil compaction, noise, and trampling. 

Wilderness Study Areas 

Impacts on WSAs are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

WSRs would be managed under Alternative C and would limit other uses. As a result, there would 

be limited impacts on wilderness characteristics. Vegetation improvement treatments would be 

restricted, causing impacts similar to those described under Methods and Assumptions. 

Wilderness Study Areas 

Impacts on WSAs are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

WSRs would be managed within priority watersheds under Alternative D and would limit other uses. 

As a result, there would be limited impacts on wilderness characteristics within these areas. 

Vegetation improvement treatments would be restricted, causing impacts similar to those described 

under Methods and Assumptions. 

Wilderness Study Areas 

Impacts on WSAs are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Effects from Wilderness Study Areas and Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

Management of lands with wilderness characteristics would prevent disturbance in certain areas 

within the WDO, which would protect wilderness characteristics. However, these would impact 

vegetation improvement treatments on these lands, which would have impacts similar to those 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-667 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

described under Methods and Assumptions. Lands with wilderness characteristics are small relative 

to the total area of the WDO, so impacts would be localized. Any impacts would not be new. 

Wilderness Study Areas 

The BLM would continue to manage WSAs under its Interim Management Policy until Congress 

either designates these areas or releases them for other purposes. If Congress were to release a WSA 

from consideration as wilderness, the BLM would continue to manage all or parts of a WSA for 

purposes other than wilderness, using a variety of resources management objectives. There would be 

no new impacts. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

Alternative A provides the least protection for wilderness characteristics because it would manage 

these areas for multiple uses, which would allow for some human disturbance. Any impacts would 

not be new. 

Wilderness Study Areas 

There are no impacts because there are no specific actions that are likely to affect WSAs. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

Impacts are similar to but less than those described under Alternative A. Under Alternative B, the 

BLM would manage 211,638 acres of lands containing wilderness characteristics. This would allow 

for more targeted and effective management of wilderness characteristics to meet multiple use and 

sustained yield objectives, compared with Alternative A. 

Wilderness Study Areas 

Impacts on WSAs are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

Alternative C would provide the greatest protection to lands outside of WSAs with wilderness 

characteristics by specifically managing 211,638 acres to protect wilderness characteristics and 

implementing restrictions and stipulations in these areas, including closure to mineral leasing and 

ROW exclusion zones. 

Wilderness Study Areas 

The BLM would protect wilderness characteristics with a designation of closed to mineral leasing, 

ROW exclusion zones, and priority habitat 1 in the portion of the Tobin Range between the China 

Mountain WSA and the Mount Tobin WSA (33,854 acres). This would limit certain types of 

activities and, in turn, would preserve the naturalness of the areas next to the WSAs. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-668 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

Impacts are similar to but greater than those described under Alternative C. Under Alternative D, 

the BLM would manage 211,638 acres to protect wilderness characteristics. Restrictions and 

stipulations would be implemented but are unspecified to provide a flexible and location-specific 

approach to management of individual areas. Impacts would depend on the restrictions that are 

applied and the uses that are allowed. 

Wilderness Study Areas 

Impacts on WSAs are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Effects from Watchable Wildlife Viewing Sites Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

WWV sites could directly impact wilderness characteristics by allowing for more human presence, 

noise, and vehicles to the sites over the long term. These areas are small relative to the total area of 

the WDO, so impacts would be localized. Any impacts would not be new. 

Wilderness Study Areas 

There are no impacts because there are no actions that are likely to affect WSAs. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

There are no impacts because there are no actions that are likely to affect WSAs or areas with 

wilderness characteristics. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Impacts on WSAs or areas with wilderness characteristics are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Impacts on WSAs or areas with wilderness characteristics are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Impacts on WSAs or areas with wilderness characteristics are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Effects from Public Health and Safety Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no impacts because there are no actions that are likely to affect WSAs or areas with 

wilderness characteristics. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-669 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

There are no impacts because there are no actions that are likely to affect WSAs or areas with 

wilderness characteristics. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Impacts on WSAs or areas with wilderness characteristics are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Impacts on WSAs or areas with wilderness characteristics are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Impacts on WSAs or areas with wilderness characteristics are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Effects from Sustainable Development Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no impacts because there are no actions that are likely to affect WSAs or areas with 

wilderness characteristics. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

There are no impacts because there are no actions that are likely to affect WSAs or areas with 

wilderness characteristics. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Impacts on WSAs or areas with wilderness characteristics are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Impacts on WSAs or areas with wilderness characteristics are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Impacts on WSAs or areas with wilderness characteristics are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Cumulative Effects 

Past actions and events contributing to cumulative effects within or adjacent to WSAs or areas with 

wilderness characteristics have resulted primarily from surface-disturbing activities and population 

growth. Use of natural resources within the WDO planning area is expected to remain at current or 

slightly increased levels. As a result, surface-disturbing activities affecting WSAs or areas with 

wilderness characteristics could continue. However, the BLM would maintain discretionary authority 

over most land uses and would permit only those actions that would not impair or conflict with 

these areas, reducing cumulative effects on these areas. As the population increases, activity and use 

within or adjacent to these areas would increase. An increasing population could continue to build 

housing closer to these areas, thereby affecting the quality of natural and cultural resources. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-670 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

4.4.5 Watchable Wildlife Viewing Sites 

Summary 

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

wildlife habitat. Specific actions to achieve this are associated with most resources. 

Overall, impacts on WWV sites would be limited since these sites are localized and most of them are 

in remote areas. In absolute terms, Alternatives C and D would have similar impacts on WWV sites, 

with some exceptions. Alternative C, Option 2 would provide additional protection to WWV sites 

because it would protect the areas from damage by livestock grazing, such as trampled vegetation. 

Compared to Alternatives C and D, Alternative B would provide fewer opportunities for protecting 

the special resources associated with these areas. 

In relative terms, Alternatives B, C, and D differ in their degree of impact on WWV sites. The 

differences in degree of impact on WWV sites are detailed below under each alternative. 

Methods of Analysis 

Methods and Assumptions

To the extent practical, spatial data were used to compare the proposed management of each 

alternative to existing conditions. In absence of quantitative data, potential impacts from each 

alternative are based on interdisciplinary team knowledge of the resources and the planning area, and 

on information gathered from the public during the planning process. Impacts are sometimes 

described using ranges of potential impacts or in qualitative terms, if appropriate. Impacts were 

assessed according to the following assumptions: 

• There would be an increase in use of BLM-administered land; 

• The value of a watchable wildlife viewing site depends on the presence of healthy 

undisturbed habitat, composed of native vegetation, and on maintaining healthy, viable 

wildlife populations. Therefore, actions to improve any of these characteristics would 

indirectly benefit potential watchable wildlife viewing sites; 

• Management actions that include vegetation treatment would indirectly improve the value of 

WWV sites for wildlife over the long term by improving ecosystem health and vegetation 

composition, structure, and diversity. These would be implemented by removing weeds, 

increasing native vegetation, and managing for a certain plant community composition. 

Weed removal, in particular, would reduce fuel loads and decrease the risk of catastrophic 

fire that would destroy vegetation and wilderness characteristics. However, these actions also 

would directly reduce wildlife habitat value over the short term by increasing human 

presence, vehicles, road use, and noise. Actions to limit vegetation treatments could prevent 

ecosystem health improvements in the long term but would minimize disturbance to certain 

areas in the short term; and 

• Detailed analyses of impacts on habitats and wildlife from the varying degrees of alternative 

objectives and actions are provided in Section 4.2.5 (Vegetation—Forest/Woodland 

Products), Section 4.2.6 (Vegetation—Weeds), Section 4.2.7 (Vegetation—Rangelands), 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-671 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Section 4.2.8 (Vegetation—Riparian Habitat and Wetlands), Section 4.2.9 (Fish and Wildlife), 

and Section 4.2.10 (Special Status Species). 

Effects from Air Quality Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Air quality protections would indirectly benefit ecosystems by reducing air pollution that could 

decrease plant vigor and make plants more susceptible to pest and disease outbreaks. This would 

foster a healthier ecosystem and would help to protect and preserve wildlife habitat near WWV sites. 

Any impacts would not be new. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

There are no impacts because there are no actions that are likely to affect WWV sites. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Impacts are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Impacts are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Impacts are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Effects from Geology Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no impacts because there are no actions that are likely to affect WWV sites. 

Effects from Soil Resources Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Soil erosion reduction measures, including seeding and improving vegetative cover, would reduce 

compaction and increase infiltration, indirectly improving ecosystem health over the short term. 

These impacts could extend into long-term benefits from increased vegetative productivity and 

improved habitat connectivity, which would attract wildlife to WWV sites. Any impacts would not 

be new. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

There are no impacts because there are no actions that are likely to affect WWV sites. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Impacts are the same as those under Alternative A. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-672 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Impacts are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Impacts are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Effects from Water Resources Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Effective watershed management, which minimizes erosion and maintains hydrologic flow and 

vegetative community health, would result in healthy and diverse plant communities, which in turn 

provide wildlife habitat, especially in riparian areas. Healthy watersheds improve fish habitat and 

promote healthy fish populations. As such, WWV sites would benefit from effective watershed 

management. 

Acquiring water rights that provide water to wildlife and acquiring water rights associated with instream flows would benefit wildlife since water is a crucial habitat component. This would improve 

WWV sites in the long term. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

There are no impacts because there are no actions that are likely to affect WWV sites. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Impacts are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Impacts are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Impacts are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Effects from Vegetation—Forest and Woodland Products Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

In all alternatives, forest and woodland products management actions, such as managing for pinyon 

pine and juniper woodlands, could increase human presence, noise, access roads, and short-term 

disturbance to forests. This would directly reduce the habitat value near WWV sites in these areas. 

However, forest management actions, including monitoring, establishing early warning systems for 

insect or disease outbreaks, and making special consideration for aspen, cottonwood, and mountain 

mahogany, and stand treatments, are tools that could be used to improve forest health and increase 

native species prevalence. This would indirectly increase habitat value and improve WWV sites over 

the long term. Any impacts would not be new. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-673 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

The extent of forests and woodlands within the WDO is limited, and WWV sites are localized. As 

such, impacts on WWV sites from forest and woodland product management actions would be 

limited and localized. Any impacts would not be new. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

There are no impacts because there are no actions that are likely to affect WWV sites. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Impacts are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Impacts are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Impacts are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Individual Alternative Effects from Vegetation—Weeds Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Actions to decrease weeds on BLM-administered lands would indirectly improve ecosystem health 

by increasing native species and decreasing the risk of catastrophic wildfire in both the short term 

and long term. Such a fire could damage or kill native vegetation and allow the spread of weeds. As a 

result of these actions, wildlife habitat value near WWV sites would be increased over the long term. 

However, in the short term, human presence, roads, motorized vehicles, and machinery would 

directly decrease wildlife habitat value. Actions against weeds would have impacts similar to those 

described under Methods and Assumptions, above. Any impacts would not be new. 

Further, coordination with agencies and implementation of BMPs would help minimize impacts on 

wildlife habitat near WWV sites over the long term. Any impacts would not be new. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

There are no impacts because there are no actions that are likely to affect WWV sites. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Impacts are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Impacts are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Impacts are the same as those under Alternative A. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-674 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Effects from Chemical and Biological Control 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no impacts because there are no actions that are likely to affect WWV sites. 

Effects from Vegetation—Rangeland Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Improving degraded rangeland would reduce the prevalence of invasive species. This would reduce 

the risk of catastrophic wildfire on rangelands, which would destroy native vegetation and wildlife 

habitats. With healthier native vegetation, wildlife habitat near WWV sites on rangelands would be 

improved over the long term. Any impacts would not be new. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

CC would not be restored under this alternative, resulting in an increase in rangeland fire fuel load. 

This could put native vegetation at an increased risk of catastrophic fire, which would destroy 

wildlife habitat near WWV sites over the long term if it were to occur. Any impacts would not be 

new. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Restoration of CC would decrease fire fuel loads and could protect wildlife habitat near WWV sites 

from catastrophic fire over the long term. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Option 1 

Impacts on WWV sites from rangeland management actions are the same as those under Alternative 

B. 

Option 2 

Restoring CC to Class II levels on 70,000 acres would reduce fuel loads on these lands and would 

protect wildlife habitat at nearby WWV sites from catastrophic fire. However, grazing prohibition 

would keep fuel loads high on the over three million acres that remain, increasing the risk of fire 

over the long term. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Impacts on WWV sites from rangeland management actions are the same as those under Alternative 

B. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-675 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Effects from Vegetation—Riparian and Wetlands Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Improving and maintaining meadows and riparian areas would increase human presence and access 

to these areas, degrading wildlife habitat near WWV sites over the short term. However, healthier 

native vegetation that would result from this improvement and maintenance would improve habitat 

value over the long term. Any impacts would not be new. 

The extent of riparian and wetland areas within the WDO is limited, and WWV sites are localized. 

As such, impacts on WWV sites from riparian and wetland management actions would be limited 

and localized. Any impacts would not be new. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

There are no impacts because there are no actions that are likely to affect WWV sites. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Impacts are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Impacts are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Impacts are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Effects from Fish and Wildlife Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no impacts because there are no actions that are likely to affect WWV sites. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Actions near nesting migratory birds would be restricted to minimize human and vehicle presence, 

noise, and other disturbance, which could limit public access and vegetation improvement 

treatments. This would have impacts similar to those described under Methods and Assumptions, 

above. However, these restrictions would also foster undisturbed habitat, which would improve 

WWV sites. Any impacts would not be new. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Reintroducing or transplanting big game species could improve WWV sites by attracting more 

visitors. However, these animals could directly and indirectly impact WWV sites by trampling, 

browsing, and spreading or introducing weeds, causing decreased plant vigor or plant mortality and 

altered stand composition. This would degrade wildlife habitat value for other wildlife species. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-676 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Under Alternative B, the fewest restrictions would be placed on actions near nesting migratory birds. 

This could limit public access or the type and timing of vegetation improvement treatments, which 

would have impacts similar to those described under Methods and Assumptions, above. Restrictions 

would foster undisturbed habitat, which would improve WWV sites. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Reintroducing or transplanting big game species could impact WWV sites in ways similar to 

Alternative B. 

The most restrictions would be placed on actions near nesting migratory birds. This could place the 

most limits on public access or the type and timing of vegetation improvement treatments, which 

would have impacts similar to those under Methods and Assumptions, above. Restrictions would 

have the greatest impact in fostering undisturbed wildlife habitat, which would improve WWV sites. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Reintroducing or transplanting big game species could impact WWV sites in ways similar to 

Alternative A. Restrictions, similar to those described under Alternative A, would be placed on 

actions near nesting migratory birds. 

Effects from Special Status Species Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Special status species management across all alternatives would prevent activities leading to listing of 

species and would require plant inventories, sage-grouse, pygmy rabbit, bat, and raptor avoidance 

and mitigation and monitoring. Avoiding actions that impact listed or sensitive species or their 

habitat could limit WWV site use by prohibiting human presence and noise in certain areas. This 

also could preclude implementing treatments that would improve ecosystem health and plant 

community composition. Impacts would vary with the type of treatment proposed and the nature 

and extent of the restrictions. However, restrictions would help to recover the species, thus 

increasing the number and type of species available for viewing at the WWV site in the long term.

Any impacts would not be new.

Individual Effects under Alternative A

There are no impacts because there are no actions that are likely to affect WWV sites. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Impacts are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Impacts are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Impacts are the same as those under Alternative A. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-677 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Effects from Wild Horse and Burro Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Managing wild horses and burros within HMAs and HAs could impact wildlife habitat near WWV 

sites by concentrating soil compaction and browsing into defined areas. This would concentrate such 

impacts as weed invasion and plant reduction in certain areas, while preventing impacts in other 

areas. Any impacts would not be new. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

There are no impacts because there are no actions that are likely to affect WWV sites. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Impacts are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Impacts are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Impacts are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Effects from Wildland Fire Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Wildfire suppression would prevent catastrophic destruction of vegetation and would preserve 

wildlife habitat near WWV sites over the long term. Minimum impact suppression tactics would 

minimize unanticipated effects on wildlife habitat during fire suppression. Any impacts would not be 

new. 

Fuels management actions would reestablish native vegetation communities, providing for healthy 

vegetation and wildlife habitat over the long term. These actions would allow fire to play its natural 

role more frequently and would reduce the likelihood of catastrophic wildfire, which would protect 

habitat near WWV sites over the long term. Any impacts would not be new. 

Implementing a response to wildfires, based on social, legal, and ecological consequences of the fire, 

would protect wildlife habitat near WWV sites from catastrophic fire over the long term. Any 

impacts would not be new. 

Overall, fire management would help to improve wildlife habitat, making WWV sites more attractive 

to wildlife, which could increase visitor use of these areas. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

There are no impacts because there are no actions that are likely to affect WWV sites. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-678 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Impacts are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Impacts are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Impacts are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Effects from Cultural Resources Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Protection of cultural resources, such as aspen art trees and groves, would prevent disturbance and 

fragmentation of forests, which would indirectly protect wildlife habitat. However, these protections 

may limit visitation or the type of vegetation improvement treatments that could be implemented; 

impacts are similar to those described under Methods and Assumptions. These areas are small, 

relative to the total area of the WDO, so impacts would be localized and would not be new. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

There are no impacts because there are no actions that are likely to affect WWV sites. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Impacts are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Impacts are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Impacts are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Effects from Tribal Consultation 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Consulting with tribes to identify culturally significant plants, important habitats, and traditional use 

locations would emphasize protection of natural resources. This would indirectly limit disturbance 

and improve wildlife habitat where identified areas occur near WWV sites over the long term. Any 

impacts would not be new. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

There are no impacts because there are no actions that are likely to affect WWV sites. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-679 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Impacts are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Impacts are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Impacts are the same as those under Alternative A. 

Effects from Paleontological Resources Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no impacts because there are no actions that are likely to affect WWV sites. 

Effects from Visual Resources Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Implementing VRM guidelines would prevent disturbance and would protect wildlife habitat. 

However, VRM guidelines could increase the difficulty of accomplishing vegetation management 

actions by limiting the extent or effectiveness of restoration efforts, such as logging or thinning. This 

could prevent improvement of wildlife habitat near WWV sites. Any impacts would not be new. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Under Alternative A, 420,271 acres and 346,302 acres would be managed to VRM Class I and II 

guidelines, respectively. These actions would limit the scope of logging, thinning, or prescribed 

burning and would prohibit treatments and prescriptions that would change the visual character. 

Overall, meeting VRM Class I and II guidelines would increase the difficulty of improving wildlife 

habitat and would indirectly limit the extent or effectiveness of the management goals. Wildlife 

habitat would be protected as described under Effects Common to All Alternatives. Any impacts 

would not be new. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Under Alternative B, 417,605 acres and 391,203 acres would be managed to VRM Class I and II 

guidelines, respectively. This alternative is the least restrictive to disturbance near WWV sites. 

Impacts are similar to those described under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Under Alternative C, 417,605 acres and 3,083,211 acres would be managed to VRM Class I and II 

guidelines, respectively. This alternative is the most restrictive to disturbance near WWV sites. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-680 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Under Alternative D, 417,605 acres and 2,780,416 acres would be managed to VRM Class I and II 

guidelines, respectively. Impacts are similar in magnitude to those described under Alternative C. 

Effects from Cave and Karst Resource Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no impacts because there are no actions that are likely to affect WWV sites. 

Effects from Livestock Grazing Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Collecting monitoring data may help to improve rangelands and reduce the spread of weeds. This 

would, in turn, reduce the likelihood of catastrophic fire that would destroy native vegetation. As 

such, wildlife habitat near WWV sites would be protected, and any impacts would not be new. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Livestock grazing would continue to be allowed on 8,232,727 acres of land under this alternative, 

which would have the greatest impact on wildlife habitat. Grazing, including grazing on acquired 

lands, and range improvement actions would reduce fuel loads on these lands, making catastrophic 

fire less likely over the long term. This would indirectly allow for the maintenance and preservation 

of WWV sites within the WDO. Any impacts would not be new. 

Riparian areas would be protected, preventing impacts through soil compaction, vegetation 

trampling, and the introduction or spread of weeds. This would maintain plant vigor, stand 

composition, and fire regimes, which would indirectly improve wildlife habitat near WWV sites over 

the long term. Any impacts would not be new. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Impacts under Alternative B are similar to those described under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Option 1 

Livestock grazing would be allowed on 8,038,084 acres of land under this alternative, which would 

have slightly less of an impact than would Alternative B. Grazing and range improvement would 

reduce fuel loads, making catastrophic fire to WWV sites less likely over the long term. Grazing 

would not be permitted on acquired land, increasing the risk of fire in nearby WWV sites. 

Greater protection would be given to riparian woodlands, requiring the restoration and maintenance 

of biological integrity in these areas. This would prevent impacts through soil compaction, 

vegetation trampling, and the introduction or spread of weeds and would maintain plant vigor, stand 

composition, and fire regimes. This would indirectly protect wildlife habitat near WWV sites over 

the long term. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-681 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Option 2 

The no grazing option would not use livestock grazing to reduce fuel loads, increasing the risk of 

catastrophic fire in WWV sites. However, this alternative would give greater protection to riparian 

woodlands, as under Alternative C, Option 1. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Alternative D would have 8,016,754 acres of land open to grazing. Impacts are similar to those 

described under Alternative A, except that fewer acres of land would be open to grazing. 

Effects from Minerals Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Impacts on WWV sites could result from fluid, leasable, and locatable mineral development and 

mineral material sales or disposal. Direct impacts associated with these actions include loss of or 

injury to plants due to excavation or trampling, toxic responses from use of chemicals in mineral 

extraction or waste pits, and increased exposure to dust and other contaminants associated with 

construction and use of access roads. In the worst-case scenario, all vegetation would be removed 

from a parcel of land, and the site would be permanently altered so as to prevent future vegetative 

growth. This would degrade wildlife habitat near WWV sites. 

Under all alternatives, BMPs would be implemented, and revegetation concurrent with the operation 

would be required, thus minimizing and mitigating impacts. Unnecessary roads would be closed to 

reduce fragmentation and restore habitat. In addition, special status species habitat would be 

avoided, thus protecting some WWV sites. 

RFDs 

Future actions based on reasonable development could result in indirect impacts. Future exploration 

and development could involve new structures, roads, and operations. These new structures, roads, 

and operations could be in areas where people live and work, where frequent recreation occurs, or 

where minimal nearby development exists. The assumption is that reasonable foreseeable 

development actions that are incompatible with objectives, goals, and actions for WWV sites would 

not be allowed, thereby protecting the special values of these areas. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Under Alternative A, the greatest amount of acreage would be open to leasable fluid and solid 

minerals activities and the fewest acres would be closed. Areas open to salable mineral materials 

disposal would be subject to stipulations only on a case-by-case basis, which would likely result in 

less wildlife resource protection, which could reduce the value of WWV sites. Alternative A 

maintains the greatest amount of acreage to locatable minerals, with only minimal closures. 

Approximately 60 percent of the area open to locatable minerals would be subject to requirements 

for special handling and additional stipulations for wildlife resource protection. Alternative A would 

result in the greatest impacts from minerals management because it places the fewest restrictions on 

areas available for mineral development and the fewest restrictions on operations that could impact 

wildlife habitat and WWV sites. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-682 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Under Alternative B, fewer acres would be open to leasable fluid and solid minerals activities, and 

more acres would be closed than under Alternative A. Acreage that would be open to salable mineral 

materials disposal is similar to Alternative A, but most of the area would be subject to standard 

authorization terms, which would likely result in greater wildlife habitat protection than under 

Alternative A. Impacts from salable minerals management are the same as those under Alternative 

A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Under Alternative C, the fewest acres would be maintained for locatable minerals and leasable fluid 

and solid minerals activities, and the greatest number of acres would be closed. Acreage open to 

salable mineral materials disposal would be less than under Alternatives A and B, and most of the 

area would be acres open solely to permitted government agencies. This would likely result in 

increased wildlife habitat protection from proper management and resource consideration in 

pursuing mineral interests. Overall, Alternative C would result in the least amount of impacts on 

WWV sites from minerals management. This is because Alternative C would close the most area to 

mineral development and would place the most restrictions to protect wildlife resources in areas 

available for mineral development. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Effects are similar to those described under Alternative B, except more acres would be closed to 

mineral development and more acres of the public lands open to leasing would be subject to NSO 

stipulations and seasonal closures to protect wildlife and habitat. Alternative D would have the 

fewest acres open to salable mineral materials disposal. Standard authorization terms and seasonal 

closures would be applied in some areas and would reduce impacts on wildlife and their habitats. 

Management actions would help to reduce impacts on WWV sites over the long term. 

Effects from Recreation, Visitor Outreach, and Services Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Managing BLM-administered lands to provide dispersed recreation could directly degrade wildlife 

habitat near WWV sites throughout the WDO through human disturbance, noise, weed introduction 

or spread, and impacts on vegetation. Impacts would vary, depending on the type of activities 

allowed in the area, and could be short term and long term. Any impacts would not be new. 

To manage OHV use, the Transportation Plan would be updated and would account for special 

management areas, including WWV sites. Site-specific NEPA analysis would be done on an 

implementation level to minimize impacts on WWV sites. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Under Alternative A, there would be no camping limitations or prohibitions throughout the WDO. 

In addition, the Pine Forest SRMA would be maintained, and issuance of special recreation permits 

would be the least restricted. The greatest acreage (6,782,790 acres) would be open to OHVs under 

Alternative A, with the least amount of land (416,652 acres) limited and with 24,832 acres closed. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-683 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Combined, these actions would allow for disturbance to wildlife from increased human presence, 

OHV use, trail creation, and noise. This, in turn, could compact soils, trample vegetation, and 

increase dust, which could decrease plant vigor and alter stand composition of areas throughout the 

WDO. As a result, wildlife habitat near WWV sites would be directly and indirectly degraded. Any 

impacts would not be new. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Camping limitations and prohibitions throughout the ERMA would minimize impacts on WWV 

sites on these lands. In addition, designating three SRMAs would impact WWV sites to varying 

degrees, depending on the proximity of the SRMA to the WWV site and on the recreation market 

identified for the SRMA. For example, the Nightingale SRMA would be targeted for undeveloped 

recreation-tourism, which would have less of an impact than Winnemucca and Pine Forest SRMAs, 

which allow for increased motorized vehicle access. Under Alternative B, 1,460,200 acres would be 

open to OHVs, with the least amount of land (24,832 acres) closed and with 5,445,218 acres limited. 

Together, impacts from these actions include increased human and vehicle presence, noise, soil 

compaction, vegetation trampling, wildlife disturbance, and increased dust. These impacts could 

decrease plant vigor, alter stand composition, and degrade WWV sites throughout the ERMA, 

SRMAs, and OHV routes. To minimize impacts, the BLM would limit OHV use to existing roads 

and trails until the Transportation Plan is updated and site-specific NEPA analysis is completed. 

Issuance of special recreation permits would be the least restrictive under this alternative, which 

could cause some impacts on WWV sites through increased human use, trampling, litter, and noise 

disturbance. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Camping limitations and prohibitions throughout the ERMA would minimize impacts on WWV 

sites on these lands. In addition, designating two SRMAs would have impacts on WWV sites similar 

to those described under Alternative B. Under Alternative C, no acres within the WDO would be 

open to OHVs, with 61,427 acres closed and 7,143,177 acres limited. To minimize impacts, the 

BLM would limit OHV use to existing roads and trails until the Transportation Plan is updated and 

site-specific NEPA analysis is completed. Impacts from recreation actions would be lowest under 

this alternative, as it is the most restrictive and prohibitive. However, impacts would occur that are 

similar to those described under Alternative B. 

Issuance of special recreation permits would be the most restrictive under Alternative C and would 

cause the least impact on WWV sites through increased human use, trampling, litter, and noise 

disturbance. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Camping limitations and prohibitions throughout the ERMA would minimize impacts on WWV 

sites on these lands. In addition, designation of three SRMAs would have the same impacts on 

WWV sites as those described under Alternative B. Under Alternative D, 289,932 acres would be 

open to OHVs, with 35,483 acres closed and with 6,878,592 acres limited. To minimize impacts, the 

BLM would limit OHV use to existing roads and trails until the Transportation Plan is updated and 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-684 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

site-specific NEPA analysis is completed. Together, impacts from these actions are similar to those 

described under Alternative B. 

Issuing special recreation permits would cause some impacts on WWV sites through increased 

human use, trampling, litter, and noise disturbance. 

Effects from Renewable Energy Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Impacts on WWV sites could occur with issuance of new ROWs, which require vegetation clearing 

and access roads and would increase human presence, machinery, noise, weed potential, and habitat 

fragmentation. Over the long term, this could degrade wildlife habitat value if development occurs 

near WWV sites. BMPs, stipulations, and mitigation measures would be implemented to minimize 

impacts. Any impacts would not be new. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Maintaining existing exclusion areas within the WDO would protect and limit disturbance to 

vegetation and habitat and would prevent weed invasion or spread caused by development. Over the 

long term, this would protect wildlife habitat where exclusion areas encompass WWV sites. Any 

impacts would not be new. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Designating avoidance areas within the WDO would protect and limit disturbance to vegetation and 

habitat and would prevent weed invasion or spread caused by development. Over the long term, this 

would protect wildlife habitat where avoidance areas encompass WWV sites. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Designating avoidance areas and exclusion zones within the WDO would have the greatest impact 

on WWV sites by protecting and limiting disturbance to vegetation and habitat and by preventing 

weed invasion or spread. Over the long term, this would protect wildlife habitat where avoidance 

areas and exclusion zones encompass WWV sites. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Designating avoidance areas and exclusion zones within the WDO would impact WWV sites by 

protecting and limiting disturbance to vegetation and habitat and by preventing weed invasion or 

spread. Over the long term, this would protect wildlife habitat where avoidance areas and exclusion 

zones encompass WWV sites. 

Effects from Transportation and Access Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Maintaining roads necessary for fire suppression would allow for increased human presence, noise, 

and access to certain areas, which would degrade wildlife habitat near WWV sites. However, roads 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-685 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

would allow for suppression of wildfires when necessary, which would protect native vegetation and 

wildlife habitat over the long term. Any impacts would not be new. 

Vegetation improvement actions, such as noxious weed control measures, would have impacts 

similar to those described under Methods and Assumptions, at the beginning of this chapter. Any 

impacts would not be new. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Transportation actions under Alternative A would not protect wildlife, sensitive species, or their 

habitats. As a result, wildlife habitat near WWV sites could be impacted by road and trail 

construction from vegetation removal, soil compaction, habitat disturbance and fragmentation, and 

increased dust and noise. Any impacts would not be new. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Transportation actions to minimize effects on wildlife, sensitive species, and habitat would protect 

and limit disturbance to vegetation and habitat and would prevent weed invasion or spread from 

road or trail construction. This would protect wildlife habitat near WWV sites over the long term. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Impacts are similar to those described under Alternative B. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Impacts are similar to those described under Alternative B. 

Effects from Lands and Realty Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Vegetation and wildlife habitat value would be given consideration when the WDO makes disposal 

and acquisition decisions, which could indirectly protect wildlife habitat near WWV sites over the 

long term. Any impacts would not be new. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Issuance of ROWs would not be limited, and avoidance areas or exclusion zones for lands and realty 

management actions would not be designated under Alternative A. Wildlife habitat near WWV sites 

could be directly impacted from vegetation removal, soil compaction, habitat disturbance and 

fragmentation, and increased dust and noise. Any impacts would not be new. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Designating avoidance areas would have impacts similar to the renewable energy management 

actions under Alternative B. 

Lack of restriction on ROW issuance could directly impact wildlife habitat near WWV sites via 

vegetation removal, soil compaction, habitat disturbance and fragmentation, and increased noise and 

dust. This would degrade WWV sites over the long term. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-686 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Designating avoidance areas and exclusion zones would have impacts similar to renewable energy 

management actions under Alternative C. 

Restricting ROW issuance could directly impact wildlife habitat near WWV sites by protecting and 

limiting vegetation disturbance, habitat fragmentation, and weed invasion or spread from road 

construction. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Designating avoidance areas and exclusion zones would impact wildlife habitat near WWV sites by 

protecting and limiting disturbance to vegetation and habitat and by preventing weed invasion or 

spread. 

Lack of restriction on ROW issuance could directly impact wildlife habitat near WWV sites through 

vegetation removal, soil compaction, habitat disturbance and fragmentation, and increased noise and 

dust. 

Effects from ACEC/RNA Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no impacts because there are no actions that are likely to affect WWV sites. 

Effects from Backcountry Byways Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no impacts because there are no actions that are likely to affect WWV sites. 

Effects from National Trails Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no impacts because there are no actions that are likely to affect WWV sites. 

Effects from Wild and Scenic Rivers Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no impacts because there are no actions that are likely to affect WWV sites. 

Effects from Wilderness Study Areas and Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no impacts because there are no actions that are likely to affect WWV sites. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-687 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-688 

Effects from Watchable Wildlife Viewing Sites Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

WWV sites would provide educational opportunities for viewing wildlife and associated habitat. 

Human use of WWV sites could degrade nearby wildlife habitat in the long term by increasing noise 

and trampling vegetation. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Impacts are the same as those under Effects Common to All Alternatives. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Impacts are the same as those under Effects Common to All Alternatives. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Alternative C would provide additional protection to wildlife habitat by avoiding new routes through 

sensitive or remote areas. This would help to maintain relatively undisturbed wildlife habitat, which 

would enhance WWV sites. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Impacts are the same as those under Effects Common to All Alternatives. 

Effects from Public Health and Safety Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no impacts because there are no actions that are likely to affect WWV sites. 

Effects from Sustainable Development Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no impacts because there are no actions that are likely to affect WWV sites. 

Cumulative Effects 

Past actions and events contributing to cumulative effects within or adjacent to watchable wildlife 

viewing sites have resulted primarily from surface-disturbing activities and population growth. 

Use of natural resources within the WDO planning area is expected to remain at current or slightly 

increased levels. As a result, surface-disturbing activities affecting watchable wildlife viewing sites 

could continue. However, the BLM would maintain discretionary authority over most land uses and 

would permit only those actions that would not impair or conflict with watchable wildlife viewing 

sites, reducing cumulative effects on these areas. As the population increases, activity and use within 

or adjacent to watchable wildlife viewing sites increases. An increasing population could continue to 

build housing closer to watchable wildlife viewing sites, thereby affecting the quality of natural 

resources associated with watchable wildlife viewing sites. 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

4.5 SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC

4.5.1 Tribal Interests 

Summary 

This section presents potential effects from management actions on Native American tribal 

economic interests, such as Indian Trust Assets (ITAs), treaty-based rights, and reservation lands. 

Indian Trust Assets are legal interests in property, physical assets, or intangible property rights held 

in trust by the United States for Indian tribes or individual Indians. There are no known Indian 

Trust Assets or treaty-based rights or responsibilities of the BLM in the planning area, which 

includes the Lovelock Paiute Reservation, Fort McDermitt Reservation, Battle Mountain 

Reservation, Summit Lake Reservation, and Winnemucca Colony Reservation. Impacts on Native 

American values, traditional uses, and traditional cultural properties are discussed in Section 4.2.13, 

Cultural Resources. 

Overall socioeconomic effects from management actions are discussed in Section 4.5.3, Social and 

Economic Conditions and Environmental Justice. Effects on tribal economic interests on 

reservation lands are likely similar to those of other residents in rural low-income parts of the 

planning area. Under Alternatives C and D, on congressional approval, lands would be transferred to 

the Bureau of Indian Affairs for the expansion of the Fort McDermitt Indian Reservation. 

Expansion of the reservation land base may permit additional economic development and income to 

the reservation. 

Table 4-54 identifies the indicators that were used to analyze effects on tribal interests. 

Table 4-54 

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

Indicator Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

The extent that the action 

affects Indian Trust Assets or 

treaty-based rights 

No Change No Change No Change No Change 

The extent that the action 

affects reservation economic 

development 

No Change No Change Increased Land 

Base 

Increased Land 

Base 

Methods of Analysis 

Methods and Assumptions

Tribal interests considered in this analysis are based on economic rights established by treaty and the 

unique trust relationship between tribes and the federal government. The federal trust responsibility 

includes the obligation to protect tribal lands, trust assets, and treaty-based rights. 

There are no assets in the WDO that are formally held in trust for tribes by the BLM, nor are there 

treaty-based rights to resources on lands managed by the WDO. The Bureau of Indian Affairs 

administers 22,298 acres of reservation land within the WDO. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-689 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

General effects on tribal economic interests on reservation lands are likely similar to those of other 

residents in rural low-income parts of the planning area, as described in Section 4.5.3, Social and 

Economic Conditions and Environmental Justice. 

Cultural and traditional tribal uses of the WDO include gathering and harvesting plants, medicines, 

material, hunting, fishing, and ceremonial and religious use. Effects on traditional cultural properties, 

sacred sites, culturally important natural resources, traditional practices, and tribal access are 

discussed in Section 4.2.13, Cultural Resources. 

The BLM, as a federal agency, would continue to maintain government-to-government relationships 

with federally recognized Indian tribes and would consult with tribes during resource management 

planning affecting tribal lands and resources. 

Effects from Air Quality Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

None; there are no ITAs or treaty-based rights present that would be affected. 

Effects from Geology Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

None; there are no ITAs or treaty-based rights present that would be affected. 

Effects from Soil Resources Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

None; there are no ITAs or treaty-based rights present that would be affected. 

Effects from Water Resources Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

None; there are no ITAs or treaty-based rights present that would be affected. 

Effects from Vegetation—Forest/Woodland Products Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

None; there are no ITAs or treaty-based rights present that would be affected. 

Effects from Vegetation - Weeds Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

None; there are no ITAs or treaty-based rights present that would be affected. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-690 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Effects from Chemical and Biological Control 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

None; there are no ITAs or treaty-based rights present that would be affected. 

Effects from Vegetation - Rangeland Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

None; there are no ITAs or treaty-based rights present that would be affected. 

Effects from Vegetation—Riparian and Wetlands Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

None; there are no ITAs or treaty-based rights present that would be affected. 

Effects from Fish and Wildlife Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

None; there are no ITAs or treaty-based rights present that would be affected. 

Effects from Special Status Species Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

None; there are no ITAs or treaty-based rights present that would be affected. 

Effects from Wild Horse and Burro Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

None; there are no ITAs or treaty-based rights present that would be affected. 

Effects from Wildland Fire Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

None; there are no ITAs or treaty-based rights present that would be affected. 

Effects from Cultural Resources Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

None; there are no ITAs or treaty-based rights present that would be affected. 

Effects from Tribal Consultation 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

None; there are no ITAs or treaty-based rights present that would be affected. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-691 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Effects from Paleontological Resources Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

None; there are no ITAs or treaty-based rights present that would be affected. 

Effects from Visual Resources Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

None; there are no ITAs or treaty-based rights present that would be affected. 

Effects from Cave and Karst Resources Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

None; there are no ITAs or treaty-based rights present that would be affected. 

Effects from Livestock Grazing Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

None; there are no ITAs or treaty-based rights present that would be affected. 

Effects from Minerals Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

None; there are no ITAs or treaty-based rights present that would be affected. 

Effects from Recreation, Visitor Outreach, and Services Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

None; there are no ITAs or treaty-based rights present that would be affected. 

Effects from Renewable Energy Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

None; there are no ITAs or treaty-based rights present that would be affected. 

Effects from Transportation and Access Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

None; there are no ITAs or treaty-based rights present that would be affected. 

Effects from Lands and Realty Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives 

There are no effects common to all alternatives from lands and realty management. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-692 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Under Alternative A there would be no effect on Indian Trust Assets or treaty-based rights. The 

reservation land base would not be expanded as it would under Alternatives C and D. The 

reservation would not benefit from any economic development and income that a larger land base 

may permit. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Under Alternative B there would be no effect on Indian Trust Assets or treaty-based rights. The 

reservation land base would not be expanded as it would under Alternatives C and D. The 

reservation would not benefit from any economic development and income that a larger land base 

may permit. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Under Alternative C, on congressional approval, the BLM would transfer lands to the Bureau of 

Indian Affairs for expanding the Fort McDermitt Indian Reservation. Expanding the reservation 

land base may permit additional economic development of and income to the reservation. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Under Alternative D, on congressional approval, the BLM would transfer lands to the Bureau of 

Indian Affairs for expanding the Fort McDermitt Indian Reservation. Expanding the reservation 

land base may permit additional economic development of and income to the reservation. 

Effects from ACEC/RNA Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

None; there are no ITAs or treaty-based rights present that would be affected. 

Effects from Backcountry Byways Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

None; there are no ITAs or treaty-based rights present that would be affected. 

Effects from National Trails Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

None; there are no ITAs or treaty-based rights present that would be affected. 

Effects from Wild and Scenic Rivers Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

None; there are no ITAs or treaty-based rights present that would be affected. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-693 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-694 

Effects from Wilderness Study Areas and Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

None; there are no ITAs or treaty-based rights present that would be affected. 

Effects from Watchable Wildlife Viewing Sites Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

None; there are no ITAs or treaty-based rights present that would be affected. 

Effects from Public Health and Safety Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

None; there are no ITAs or treaty-based rights present that would be affected. 

Effects from Sustainable Development Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

None; there are no ITAs or treaty-based rights present that would be affected. 

Cumulative Effects 

Past, present, and future trends and projects that could impact Native American tribal economic 

interests in the planning area include minerals and energy development, population increases and 

recreational use in parts of the planning area, and expansion of existing tribal enterprises and visitor 

services. There are no ITAs or treaty-based rights present that would be affected. Anticipated 

economic growth in rural parts of the planning area is expected to be incremental among all the 

alternatives, with the most potential growth under Alternative B. Expanding Fort McDermitt 

reservation land under Alternatives C and D may permit greater opportunities for tribal economic 

development than may occur otherwise in those areas. 

4.5.2 Public Health and Safety 

Summary 

Nearly all management activities on the WDO lands could affect public safety to some extent. The 

main goal for public safety as a resource is to protect people from natural or human-caused hazards 

encountered on public lands. Essentially, any management activity that improves access to or 

encourages use of BLM-administered lands also increases the likelihood that the public and BLM 

employees could come into contact with abandoned mine lands, modern mine pits, high walls and 

pit lakes, hot springs, and hazardous material sites, including solid waste, illegal dump sites, and 

unexploded ordinance or explosives. However, improving access in the resource area could reduce 

the number of accidents that result from poor travel conditions. Reducing access could hinder 

efforts to identify, remediate, and monitor hazardous sites. The proposed public safety management 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

plan is concerned with identifying, tracking, and protecting the public from exposure to hazardous 

conditions, as well as taking corrective action on sites where those conditions occur. 

The Nevada BLM initiated the Abandoned Mine Lands Program to remediate physical safety 

hazards. These hazards result from historic mining activity, historic watershed and chemical 

contamination sites, such as old mill sites or tailings impoundments, and modern mines and mill 

sites that have insufficient reclamation bonding and have been abandoned or become bankrupt. 

Current management works under the Abandoned Mine Lands Program to remove or remediate 

dangerous situations and materials when discovered. Remediation of abandoned mine hazards are 

prioritized by the potential for public exposure through access and proximity to populated areas and 

recreational uses. Increased public exposure to abandoned mine lands hazards would increase the 

priority to remediate those hazards in a timely manner. All alternatives would continue this work and 

add procedures and safeguards for hazardous sites, including removing hazards, protecting 

significant sites, and stabilizing or limiting accessibility of abandoned mine lands and other 

hazardous sites when removal of hazards is not practical. Alternative C has some added restrictions 

associated with recreation, visitor outreach and services management, geology management, and 

chemical and biological control of vegetation management, on abandoned mine lands and hazardous 

sites. These restrictions exceed those under Alternatives A and B and are nearly the same as those 

under Alternative D. Long-term management of completed projects should include periodic 

maintenance and monitoring to determine success and stability of these measures. 

The WDO provides for public safety at hot springs by posting and maintaining warning signs at 

dangerous hot springs with temperatures above 100 degrees Fahrenheit. Hot springs with 

temperatures above 120 degrees Fahrenheit are fenced and posted to limit entry and to warn the 

public of the hazards. 

Methods of Analysis 

Methods and Assumptions 

The alternatives were reviewed for actions that would affect the public health and safety from 

exposure to hazardous sites, including naturally occurring hazards on abandoned mine lands, 

modern mining pits, and pit lakes, based on the following assumptions: 

• The population of the western United States will continue to increase and will likely result in 

a corresponding increased demand for accessible, open-space recreational use of the WDO 

planning area. Certain special use events, such as Burning Man, will continue to attract 

visitors from outside the region; 

• Increased use or improved access will result in increased exposure to abandoned mine lands, 

hot springs, hazardous material or illegal dump sites, exposure to modern mining operations 

and other hazards, such as explosives or unexploded ordinance; 

• Increased exposure to hazardous sites will require reprioritization of remediation for 

abandoned mine lands or other hazardous sites; 

• SOPs and BMPs are in place for the use of chemical and biological controls for vegetation 

treatments and wildlife damage management; 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-695 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

• Promotion of the areas within the WDO as vacation and outdoor recreational destinations 

by certain interested parties will continue and potentially will result in an increasing number 

of visitors encountering hazards on public lands; and 

• Interest in mineral extraction on public lands within the WDO will persist. 

Effects from Air Quality Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Air quality management objectives would generally provide for public health and safety by 

minimizing airshed degradation. BMPs are incorporated into remedial actions at abandoned mine 

lands and other hazardous sites to minimize impacts on air quality. The air quality program would 

have little bearing on ground-disturbing remediation activities in terms of fugitive dust and other 

emissions. 

Effects from Geology Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives 

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

Individual Effects under Alternative A 

There are no actions under this alternative that would affect public health and safety. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B 

Alternative B, like Alternative D, promotes scientific, educational, and recreational use and access to 

unique geological features with the development of recreational trails. Increased access to public 

lands increases the likelihood of exposure to health and safety risks at abandoned mine lands and 

other hazardous sites. However, increased public exposure to abandoned mine hazards would 

increase the priority to remediate those hazards. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Alternative C would not promote scientific, educational, and recreational use and access to unique 

geological features with the development of recreational trails. Under these options, such media as 

pamphlets and news releases encouraging protection of unique geologic resources on public land 

would be made available without encouraging visitation. Increased access to public lands increases 

the likelihood of exposure to health and safety risks at abandoned mine lands, hazardous materials 

sites, and other hazardous sites. However, increased public exposure to abandoned mine hazards 

would increase the priority to remediate those hazards. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D 

Alternative D, like Alternative B, promotes scientific, educational, and recreational use and access to 

unique geological features with the development of recreational trails. Increased access to public 

lands increases the likelihood of exposure to health and safety risks at abandoned mine lands and 

other hazardous sites. Under this alternative, areas containing unique geologic resources would be 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-696 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

designated as exclusion zones for ROWs and other discretionary actions and would be closed to 

salable mineral disposal. 

Effects from Soil Resources Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives 

Soils management could have a measurable impact on public safety. Actions that specify the 

avoidance of sensitive land types, which should include some abandoned mine lands and hazardous 

sites, would be protective of public safety. For example, wind erosion can have a major impact on 

public safety and transportation corridors because burned areas are often near or surround 

transportation corridors such as Interstate 80, State Highways 95 and 140. Fatal vehicle accidents 

have occurred from reduced visibility. Windblown soil has resulted in temporary closures of the 

Interstate and highways affecting transportation of commodities and interstate commerce. 

Implementing BMPs for projects that entail soil-disturbing activities under erosion protection, site 

stabilization, and better vegetative cover would reduce exposure and movement of contaminated 

soils and also would reduce runoff and flood potential. Soils management would be an intrinsic part 

of the mitigative and remediable ground-disturbing activities of the abandoned mine lands and 

hazardous sites.

Effects from Water Resources Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives 

Water resources management goals and objectives would complement hazardous site cleanup efforts 

across alternatives. Watershed and stream improvements would reduce the potential for erosion and 

migration of contaminants. Alternatives B, C, and D would have greater potential to help improve 

watershed health. Actions to maintain, improve, and restore water quality, including compliance with 

state and federal standards and regulations to protect watersheds and continued implementation of 

BMPs, would be applicable to the remediative and restorative programs for abandoned mine lands 

and hazardous sites. 

Effects from Vegetation—Forest/Woodland Products Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives 

Fuels reduction with a more resilient forest, similar to historic conditions, would help ensure public 

safety from the standpoint that the public would be less likely to be injured by wildfire. Logging 

within the WUI would reduce the risk of wildfire to communities and private property. Also, this 

logging would have an indirect effect on public health and safety from the standpoint of protecting 

the public from wildfire injury. However, forest management actions could cause undesirable 

ground disturbance on or around abandoned mine lands and hazardous materials sites. The potential 

for impacts due to risks associated with exposure to mine hazards and hazardous materials depends 

on the amount of timber harvested, which would vary by alternative. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-697 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Effects from Vegetation - Weeds Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives 

Weeds management would affect public safety. The invasive species and noxious weeds program 

could help control weeds in and around these types of sites. However, the removal of such flora 

without rapid implementation of other measures could further impact on-site and off-site conditions 

through release of airborne soil and disturbance of sediments. Weed control is part of public safety 

cleanup and follow-up efforts. The revegetation of areas treated for weeds would complement the 

objectives of the abandoned mine lands and hazards remediation. 

Effects from Chemical and Biological Control 

Effects Common to All Alternatives 

Chemical and biological weed control could cause short-term impacts on public health and safety. 

SOPs and BMPs are in place governing the use of chemical and biological controls. An approved 

pesticide use proposal is required before applying pesticides on public lands or as provided by 

current policy to reduce effects on public safety. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A 

No pesticides or herbicides would be applied to streams, lakes, or reservoirs unless adverse impacts 

could be adequately mitigated. Access to lands and water with applied pesticides could affect public 

safety. An approved pesticide use proposal is required before applying pesticides on public lands or 

as provided by current policy to reduce the effects on public safety. SOPs, BMPs, or mitigation 

measures would be employed to ensure terrestrial and aquatic pesticides are appropriate for the 

intended target, place of use, and method of application and to do it in a manner that would avoid 

unintended effects. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B 

Alternative B calls for various integrated pest management techniques, such as pesticides and 

mechanical and biological controls, to control pests. Increased visitor populations and access to 

lands and water with applied pesticides could affect public health and safety. An approved pesticide 

use proposal is required before applying pesticides on public lands, or as provided by current policy, 

to reduce the effects on public health and safety. SOPs, BMPs, or mitigation measures would be 

employed to ensure terrestrial and aquatic pesticides are appropriate for the intended target, place of 

use, and method of application and to ensure that they are implemented in a manner that would 

avoid unintended effects. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Alternative C includes the use of various integrated pest management techniques, such as mechanical 

and biological, for pest control. Methods other than chemical treatments are to be used to minimize 

adverse impacts on wildlife, other animals, and the public, based on Action C-PE 1.1 in Chapter 2. 

SOPs, BMPs, or mitigation measures would be employed to ensure terrestrial and aquatic pesticides 

are appropriate for the intended target, place of use, and method of application and to ensure that 

they are implemented in a manner that would avoid unintended effects. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-698 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative D 

Impacts are the same as those described under Alternative B. 

Effects from Vegetation—Rangeland Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives 

The lack of vegetation on abandoned mine lands and other hazardous sites may not be affected by 

improving rangeland conditions, which would affect site stability and public safety on sites that have 

been overgrazed. 

Effects from Vegetation—Riparian and Wetlands Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives 

Some abandoned mine lands and hazardous materials sites have limited vegetation that could add to 

sediment load or contamination of streams. All the alternatives would improve streams and establish 

riparian habitat buffers that help remove and store contaminants generated by abandoned mine 

lands and hazardous materials sites. The differences among alternatives would not result in 

measurable impacts on public safety.

Effects from Fish and Wildlife Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives 

The Fish and Wildlife Management objectives to restore, protect, and improve wildlife habitat by 

using management tools, including prescribed fire and wildfire use, vegetation manipulation 

(mechanical, biological, and chemical treatments), seeding, fencing and use restrictions, could affect 

public health and safety. Affects on public safety would be similar to those of wildland fire 

management and vegetation management objectives because similar management tools would be 

used. Conserving and restoring fish, waterfowl and shorebird habitats would improve water quality, 

thereby enhancing public health. Moreover, it would promote actions that achieve good quality 

aquatic and riparian habitats. The differences among alternatives would not result in measurable 

impacts on public safety. 

Effects from Special Status Species Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives 

The Special Status Species Management objectives work in conjunction with the objectives of Public 

Safety Management. Protecting sensitive species habitat by implementing mitigation measures to 

reduce adverse impacts could reduce the amount of contact the public has with abandoned mine 

lands and hazardous sites and therefore protect public safety. Mitigation measures include avoidance, 

no surface occupancy, buffer zones, seasonal restrictions, off-site mitigation, use restrictions, and 

rehabilitation. The differences among alternatives would not result in measurable impacts on public 

safety. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-699 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Effects from Wild Horse and Burro Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives 

WHB grazing could impact public health and safety where grazing animals gain access to disturbed 

sites, resulting in increased site disturbance. Grazing could also reduce or degrade vegetation used to 

stabilize conditions on or near abandoned mine lands and other hazardous materials sites. Range 

improvements also could disturb hazardous materials, as could weed control efforts. Many 

abandoned mine lands and hazardous materials sites have limited vegetation, so improving rangeland 

conditions would affect site stability and public safety if overgrazing had occurred. Improving 

watershed conditions would help protect such sites as contaminated floodplains. Improved range 

management can also improve and control access, which can also help protect the public from 

hazard conditions. Impacts would depend on the character of specific allotments. Overall, impacts 

from WHB grazing management on public health and safety would not affect long-term 

rehabilitation and stability of sites. 

Effects from Wildland Fire Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives 

Wildfire management under all alternatives would affect public safety by reducing the likelihood that 

the public would be injured by wildfire. The FMPs would help protect abandoned mine lands 

remediation projects across alternatives. 

Effects from Cultural Resources Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives 

Cultural resources management could preserve old mine structures, which could threaten public 

safety because of chemical and physical hazards. Such inventories would aid in abandoned mine 

lands and hazardous site identification. 

Effects from Tribal Consultation 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Native American tribal uses could impact public safety across alternatives by encouraging Native 

Americans to access traditional use areas for collecting, hunting, and other traditional uses, which 

could also expose them to hazardous sites. 

Effects from Paleontological Resources Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

No actions for paleontological resources management would affect public health and safety. 

Effects from Visual Resources Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

No actions from visual resources management would affect public health and safety. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-700 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Effects from Cave and Karst Resources Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives 

The objective of cave and karst management is to protection unique geologic features, to promote 

public safety, and to protect wildlife habitat. While Alternative C would not identify undiscovered 

sites or promote increased visitation, all alternatives would provide public education about cave and 

karsts. Increased education would decrease public safety concerns associated with caves and karsts. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A 

See Effects Common to All Alternatives. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

An inventory would be completed under Alternatives B to identify significant cave and karst 

resources. Such an inventory would aid in abandoned mine lands and hazardous site identification. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

An inventory would be completed under Alternatives C to identify significant cave and karst 

resources. Such an inventory would aid in abandoned mine lands and hazardous site identification. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

An inventory would be completed under Alternatives D to identify significant cave and karst 

resources. Such an inventory would aid in abandoned mine lands and hazardous site identification. 

Effects from Livestock Grazing Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Livestock grazing could impact public health and safety where grazing animals gain access to 

disturbed sites, resulting in increased site disturbance. Grazing could also reduce or degrade 

vegetation used to stabilize conditions on or near abandoned mine lands and other hazardous 

materials sites. Range improvements also could disturb hazardous materials, as could weed control 

efforts. Many abandoned mine lands and hazardous materials sites have limited vegetation, so 

improving rangeland conditions would affect site stability and public safety where overgrazing has 

occurred. Improved range management could also improve and control access, which could help 

protect the public from hazardous conditions. Impacts would depend on the character of specific 

allotments. Alternative C, Option 2 would not allow grazing, unlike the rest of the alternatives, and 

could increase abandoned mine lands and hazardous materials site natural vegetation and site 

stability by restricting grazing. Overall, impacts from livestock grazing management on public health 

and safety would not affect long-term rehabilitation and stability of sites. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-701 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Effects from Minerals Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Minerals management would impact public safety and the efforts of the abandoned mine lands 

programs. The maintenance of corrective actions and needed remediation of physical and chemical 

hazards at abandoned mine lands sites that are later claimed under the mining law, would become 

the responsibility of the mining claimant. The efforts of the claimants to secure hazardous 

conditions on active claims would reduce the workload of the abandoned mine lands program. 

Modern mining operations on abandoned mine lands could eliminate the associated hazards through 

mining or processing and could improve public health and safety. Insufficiently bonded modern 

mining sites that are abandoned or affected by bankruptcy would impact public safety and the 

efforts of the abandoned mine lands programs by adding the need for physical safety closures or 

environmental cleanup measures to eliminate any remaining physical or chemical hazards. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Salable 

Alternative A would continue to limit public exposure to physical and chemical hazards resulting 

from salable mineral extraction to the resource area outside the 418,938 acres maintained as closed 

to mineral material disposal. 

Fluid 

Alternative A would continue to limit public exposure to physical and chemical hazards resulting 

from fluid mineral extraction 446,887 acres maintained as closed to fluid mineral leasing. Under 

Alternative A, 29,582 acres would continue to be open to leased fluid minerals activities with NSO 

stipulations, limiting physical hazards in those areas.

Solid 

Alternative A continue to limit public exposure to physical and chemical hazards associated with 

solid minerals extraction to the resource area outside the 416,652 acres closed to solid mineral 

leasing. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B 

Salable 

Alternative B would limit public exposure to physical and chemical hazards associated with salable 

mineral extraction to the resource area outside the 418,938 acres closed to mineral material disposal. 

Fluid 

Alternative B would limit public exposure to physical and chemical hazards associated with fluid 

mineral extraction to the resource area outside the 1,132,594 acres closed to fluid mineral leasing. 

Hazards not mitigated under the Minerals Management Plan on areas previously open to fluid 

mineral leasing could exist. Under Alternative B, 221,724 acres would be open to leased fluid 

minerals activities with NSO stipulations limiting physical hazards in those areas. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-702 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Solid 

Alternative B would limit public exposure to physical and chemical hazards associated with solid 

mineral extraction to the resource area outside the 1,124,266 acres closed to leasing. Hazards not 

mitigated under the Minerals Management Plan on areas previously open to solid mineral leasing 

could exist. Under Alternative B, 221,644 acres would be open to solid mineral leasing with NSO 

stipulations limiting physical hazards in those areas. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Salable 

Alternative C would limit public exposure to physical and chemical hazards associated with salable 

mineral extraction to the resource area outside the 837,049 acres closed to mineral material disposal. 

Hazards not mitigated under the Minerals Management Plan on areas previously open to salable 

mineral disposal could exist. 

Fluid 

Alternative C would limit public exposure to physical and chemical hazards associated with fluid 

mineral extraction to the resource area outside the 4,455,026 acres closed to leasing. Hazards not 

mitigated under the Minerals Management Plan on areas previously open to fluid mineral leasing 

could exist. 

Solid 

Alternative C would limit public exposure to physical and chemical hazards associated with solid 

mineral extraction to the resource area outside the 4,455,645 acres closed to leasing. Hazards not 

mitigated under the Minerals Management Plan on areas previously open to solid mineral leasing 

could exist. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D 

Salable 

Alternative D would limit public exposure to physical and chemical hazards associated with salable 

mineral extraction to the resource area outside the 743,301 acres closed to mineral material disposal. 

Hazards not mitigated under the Minerals Management Plan on areas previously open to salable 

mineral disposal could exist. 

Fluid 

Alternative D would limit public exposure to physical and chemical hazards associated with fluid 

mineral extraction to the resource area outside the 1,198,464 acres closed to leasing. Hazards not 

mitigated under the Minerals Management Plan on areas previously open to fluid mineral leasing 

could exist. Under Alternative D, 326,796 acres would be open to leased fluid minerals activities 

with NSO stipulations, limiting physical hazards in those areas. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-703 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Solid 

Alternative D would limit public exposure to physical and chemical hazards associated with solid 

mineral extraction to the resource area outside the 1,198,694 acres closed to solid mineral leasing. 

Hazards not mitigated under the Minerals Management Plan on areas previously open to solid 

mineral leasing could exist. Under Alternative D, 326,743 acres would be open to solid mineral 

leasing with NSO stipulations, limiting physical hazards in those areas. 

Effects from Recreation, Visitor Outreach, and Services Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Increased recreational demand and use of public lands would increase the likelihood that the public 

could come into contact with health and safety risks at abandoned mine lands or other hazardous 

sites. SRMAs, which would be managed for intensive recreation use, increase this likelihood. 

However, increased public exposure to abandoned mine hazards would increase the priority to 

remediate those hazards. SRMA activity plans could include remedial actions or restrictions that help 

protect the public from hazards at abandoned mine lands and other hazardous sites where remedial 

action have not occurred. Recreation program maintenance, signage, and information efforts could 

help reduce exposure to physical hazards and other types of hazards that could not be mitigated. 

Recreation programs assist in collecting solid waste, which would mitigate illicit solid waste 

dumping. All alternatives except Alternative C have some acreage designated as open. This 

designation presents the greatest potential for encountering abandoned mine lands, hazardous 

materials sites, and other hazard sites. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Alternative A would continue managing existing SRMAs to provide dispersed recreation. Alternative 

A would continue to maintain current designations of OHV travel, including 24,832 acres closed to 

OHVs. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Alternative B would designate three SRMAs. The likelihood that the public could come into contact 

with abandoned mine lands or other hazardous sites would be increased in these SRMAs. An 

increase in public exposure would modify current priorities to mitigate abandoned mine hazards to 

high. Alternative B would increase public awareness of the ethics of responsible land and resource 

use and promote educational outreach programs, such as Tread Lightly! and Leave No Trace, 

through public contact, recreation, and tourism partners and the SRP system. Under Alternative B, 

24,832 acres would be closed to OHV travel, and 1,460,200 acres would be open to OHV travel. 

Alternative B would close the fewest acres to OHV travel and could increase the likelihood of 

exposure to health and safety risks at abandoned mine lands, hazardous materials sites, and other 

hazard sites. The open designation presents the greatest potential for encountering abandoned mine 

lands and other hazardous sites. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Alternative C would designate two SRMAs. The likelihood that the public could come into contact 

with abandoned mine lands or other hazardous sites would be increased in these SRMAs. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-704 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Alternative C would increase public awareness of the ethics of responsible land and resource use. 

These options would promote educational outreach programs, such as “Tread Lightly!” and “Leave 

No Trace”, through public contact, recreation, and tourism partners and the SRP system. However, 

Alternative C would not promote visitation of sensitive areas. Under Alternative C, 61,427 acres 

would be closed to OHV travel, zero acres would be open to OHV travel, and the rest would be 

designated for limited OHV use. Alternative C would close the most acres to OHV travel of the 

alternatives and could decrease the likelihood of exposure to health and safety risks at abandoned 

mine lands and other hazardous sites. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Alternative D would designate three SRMAs. The likelihood that the public could come into contact 

with abandoned mine lands or other hazardous sites would be increased in these SRMAs. 

Alternative D would increase public awareness of the ethics of responsible land and resource use 

and would promote educational outreach programs, such as Tread Lightly! and Leave No Trace, 

through public contact, recreation, and tourism partners, and the SRP system. Under Alternative D, 

35,483 acres would be closed to OHV travel, 289,932 acres would be open to OHV travel, and the 

rest would be designated as limited OHV use. OHV travel could increase the likelihood of exposure 

to health and safety risks at abandoned mine lands and other hazardous sites. 

Effects from Renewable Energy Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

The renewable energy program could affect public health and safety by improving access, thereby 

exposing the public to health and safety risks at abandoned mine lands sites and hazardous sites. 

Wind energy, solar energy, and biomass energy sites could present public safety hazards if not 

properly secured and maintained. Rights-of-way and leases for renewable energy development sites 

would contain stipulations to provide for public safety and for the continuation of abandoned mine 

lands and hazard site remediation. 

Effects from Transportation and Access Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

The transportation and travel management program could affect public safety through inadvertently 

providing access to hazard sites and producing ground-disturbing activity on or near abandoned 

mine lands and other hazardous sites. However, increased public exposure to abandoned mine 

hazards would increase the priority to remediate those hazards. All alternatives would improve or 

decommission roads from the system inventory that are presenting problems to the environment, 

which could prevent public access to abandoned mine lands and hazardous sites with erosion issues. 

Improved access could impact public safety by reducing accidents that result from poor travel 

conditions. Reducing access could hinder efforts to identify, remediate, and monitor hazardous sites. 

All alternatives would also provide for public safety awareness through sign installation and 

maintenance programs, while protecting the viewshed. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-705 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Effects from Lands and Realty Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

The lands and realty program could affect public health and safety through inadvertently providing 

access to hazardous sites, designating rights-of-way or authorizing ground-disturbing activity on or 

near hazardous sites, or authorizing development near hazardous sites. Rights-of-way would contain 

stipulations to provide for public safety and for the continuation of abandoned mine lands and 

hazard site remediation. Environmental site inspections would be required to identify health and 

safety risks at abandoned mine lands and hazardous sites before offering any public land for sale. 

Effects from ACEC/RNA Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

No actions for ACEC/RNA management would affect public health and safety. 

Effects from Backcountry Byways Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Backcountry byways management could impact public health and safety across alternatives by 

increasing access and bringing the public into contact with abandoned mine lands and other 

hazardous sites, including mines, hazardous materials, solid waste, illegal dump sites, hot springs, 

and explosives. 

Effects from National Trails Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

No actions for National Trails Management would affect public health and safety. 

Effects from Wild and Scenic Rivers Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

No actions for wild and scenic river management would affect public health and safety. 

Effects from Wilderness Study Areas and Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

No actions for Wilderness Study Areas and Wilderness Characteristics Management would affect 

public health and safety.

Effects from Watchable Wildlife Viewing Sites Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Watchable wildlife viewing sites could impact public safety across alternatives by increasing access 

and bringing the public into contact with abandoned mine lands and other hazardous sites. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-706 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

However, increased public exposure to abandoned mine hazards would increase the priority to 

remediate those hazards. 

Effects from Public Health and Safety Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives 

The Abandoned Mine Lands Program focuses on immediate and urgent threats to human health and 

the environment. Most of the hazardous materials issues are associated with illegal dumping, 

chemicals, unexploded ordnance or explosives, past mining activities, and abandoned mine lands. 

The following are management actions that could reduce BLM employees’ and the public’s health 

risk and exposure to abandoned mine lands sites, hazardous materials sites, solid waste sites, and 

other hazard sites: 

• Continuing to work with the Abandoned Mines Program; 

• Maintaining and improving inventories of abandoned mine lands sites and hazardous 

materials sites; 

• Inspecting and mitigating physical and chemical hazards to ensure public safety; 

• Prioritizing mitigation at sites where the risk of public exposure to hazards is increasing due 

to use or proximity to population growth; 

• Correcting physical hazards and cleaning up and reclaiming hazardous sites; 

• Using BLM personnel to investigate illegal dumping and enforce existing regulations; 

• Educating the public through literature and BLM personnel with public contact about 

potential hazards and safe behavior on public lands; 

• Safeguarding human health, preventing environmental damage, and limiting BLM liability 

from hazards by authorization actions on public lands; and 

• Constraining or restricting, through law enforcement, regulations, and institutional controls, 

the activities of the public on public lands to ensure safety. 

Effects from Sustainable Development Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

No actions for sustainable development management would affect public health and safety. 

Cumulative Effects 

The effects of past actions and natural events that have affected public safety generally stem from 

activities in the WDO planning area that have improved access, such as land tenure actions, and 

have caused ground disturbances, such as timber, grazing, mineral, and recreation activities. 

Any foreseeable future activities that could have an effect on public safety would be mitigated by 

management actions that specify remediation. This could include surface use restrictions, such as 

closures, mineral withdrawals, no surface occupancy, and seasonal restrictions. Protective buffers, 

special designations, and avoidance areas could also help mitigate cumulative effects on public 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-707 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

safety. Activities that lead to cumulative public safety effects in the WDO would be interrelated; 

increased access would lead to greater likelihood of exposure to chemical and physical hazards that 

may be present and to increased ground disturbance. Where there is increased public exposure to 

health and safety risks at abandoned mine lands and other hazards, the BLM would increase the 

priority to remediate those hazards. Where remediation cannot remove the hazards, increased 

ground disturbance could destabilize abandoned mine lands or other hazardous sites, diminishing 

public safety. 

Domestic livestock have grazed and will continue to graze most of the WDO planning area, 

including BLM-administered lands, except under Alternative C, Option 2. Livestock grazing 

increases access, causes ground disturbance, and reduces foliage, thereby impinging on some hazard 

sites. 

Intense exploration and associated claim staking has occurred since 1982 in response to the 

discovery of large gold deposits. New development of mineral resources within existing claims and 

outside of current permitted mine boundaries at idle and active mine sites is possible as new ore 

deposits and extensions of existing ones are discovered. The development of these ore deposits will 

be influenced largely by the price of minerals in the marketplace and technological advances that 

lower the price to mine and process ore. There may be renewed interest in hard-rock mining for 

gold in the foreseeable future if gold prices increase. Oversight of future gold mining activity is 

required to reduce effects on water quality and public safety. 

Development of various salable materials in the WDO planning area is expected to continue to 

expand in response to urban growth in Nevada. These materials include sand, gravel, and aggregate, 

dimension stone, and limestone. Development of salable mineral sites can impact public safety 

through increasing access, ground-disturbing activity, fugitive dust, and creation of physical hazards. 

Runoff from mineral sites could cause sedimentation of nearby stream features and could affect the 

reproduction of aquatic species. Petroleum products would be required to run mineral extraction 

equipment, and hazardous substances could be used to service this equipment. The increased 

presence of heavy trucks on secondary roads in the WDO required to transport salable minerals 

could also be a public safety issue. 

Although there has been considerable exploration drilling (47 wells) for oil and gas within the WDO, 

there are no producing oil or gas wells (BLM 2006a). The planning area has abundant geothermal 

resources, including thermal springs, where warm or hot water comes to the surface naturally, and 

thermal wells, which must be drilled, developed, and sometimes pumped. And while solid leasable 

minerals are present within the planning area, no significant production of these minerals is 

underway or anticipated. Future prospecting for these resources could impact public safety by 

improving access and creating ground disturbance. 

The continuing increase in Nevada’s population and the region affects public safety in the following 

ways: 

• Increasing the number of people that would visit BLM-administered lands and encounter the 

chemical and physical hazards that are present; 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-708 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-709 

• Increasing public exposure to health and safety risks at abandoned mine lands would change 

the assigned remediation priorities for known abandoned mine lands sites to provide for 

greater public safety; 

• Increasing the number of people that can cause ground disturbance, either by foot travel or 

vehicular traffic; and 

• Increasing the number of people that may engage in illicit disposal activities. 

Increased recreation use increases the likelihood that abandoned mine lands sites and other 

hazardous sites could be encountered by motorized off-road vehicle users, mountain bikers, hikers, 

hunters, and other recreationists. Public exposure to hazards would require reevaluation of known 

hazardous sites and appropriate remedial action. Recreation has increased and use patterns and 

motorized technology have changed. Recreational activities would continue to contribute to soil 

effects from foot traffic and off-road vehicles. An increase in the use of developed recreation sites 

and campgrounds is likely as the population increases, which could lead to an increase in illicit 

dumping and could increase releases of petroleum products and hazardous materials. 

Noxious weed invasion is increasing and will continue, potentially increasing treatment efforts. 

Noxious weed treatment efforts could impact public safety if abandoned mine lands and hazardous 

materials sites, which may lack good vegetative cover, are treated. Use of chemical treatments, such 

as herbicides, to control noxious weeds also raises human and environmental health issues. 

Hazardous fuels reduction, WUI projects, and activities that develop defensible space in support of 

the Federal Wildland Fire Management policy would protect the public from wildfire. However, 

such activities could cause ground disturbance and erosion around abandoned mine lands and other 

hazard sites that could lead to site instability where hazardous sites in the treatment area are not 

identified. Fuels treatments, including prescribed fire and mechanical treatment methods and 

allowing fire for resource benefit, is expected to increase. 

The Winnemucca RMP Alternatives B, C, and D could contribute to protecting public health and 

safety by further outlining assessment, mitigation, and corrective protocols for abandoned mine 

lands, hazardous material, and other hazard sites, which may be limited under some objectives of 

Alternative A. The specification of these protocols would generally protect public safety across 

alternatives by providing specific future management for these items. However, proposed 

management actions for some resource areas, such as recreation, transportation, and travel 

management, would be less protective of public safety across alternatives without reprioritizing 

hazardous sites and application of appropriate remediation at the sites. 

4.5.3 Social and Economic Conditions and Environmental Justice 

Summary 

Alternative A would maintain current management practices; therefore, it would not induce any 

changes to the socioeconomic indicators shown on Table 4-55, below; however, if circumstances or 

context changed and management actions did not respond to these change, maintaining the current 

management practices under Alternative A could impact socioeconomic conditions and 

environmental justice. The actions proposed under Alternative B are more use oriented and call for 

the fewest surface occupancy restrictions, special stipulations, and exclusion areas to protect water 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

resources, wildlife and wildlife habitat, and geological, paleontological, and cultural resources, leaving 

more resources and areas available for economic uses. As such, Alternative B provides the highest 

level of opportunity for economic development based on market goods, such as extractive 

industries, while potentially reducing non-market values, such as aesthetics and opportunities for 

solitude. Alternative C is more environmentally oriented, with the greatest acreage of restrictions; 

therefore, Alternative C has the greatest potential for limiting market-based economic activities that 

rely on resource uses but possibly enhancing non-market values, including bequest values for 

undisturbed lands. The acreage restrictions under Alternative D fall between Alternatives B and C. 

Actions designed to protect sensitive resources under all alternatives could result in increased 

expenditures to comply with resource restrictions as a result of the management of some resources, 

such as water. 

Each of the action alternatives has the potential to affect local expenditures for equipment, supplies, 

and services by generating income in the local economy and fostering growth, by minimizing the 

potential for changes in economic growth, or by reducing income in the local economy and limiting 

growth, depending on the resource being considered. In general, Alternative B has the greatest 

potential for generating economic growth or minimizing effects on economic growth. Alternative C 

has the most actions that would limit resource uses, thereby limiting the contribution of these uses 

to the local economy. In particular, Option 2 would eliminate grazing, which would impact 

individual ranchers, reduce local economies, and affect the social values of the local area. Alternative 

D would tend to have an economic effect that is intermediate between Alternatives B and C due to 

management actions relating to grazing, minerals, and recreation. 

None of the alternatives would result in direct changes in population or changes in the demand for 

housing, schools, and public facilities and services. No low-income or minority populations would 

be displaced or separated from community facilities, but management actions that restrict tribal uses 

of BLM lands or increased activities (such as mining) that could be a public health issue with respect 

to these uses could represent an environmental justice impact. Similarly, restricting grazing 

opportunities on BLM lands to low-income or minority ranchers for whom the use of these lands is 

a primary or sole source of income could disproportionately affect environmental justice 

populations. 

Table 4-55 

Summary of Effects on Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice—Alternatives A, B, C, 

and D 

Indicator Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Employment No net change Net increase Potential net decrease under 

Option 2

Potential net increase

Income No net change Net increase Potential net decrease under 

Option 2

Potential net increase

Demand for 

Housing

No net change Potential indirect 

net increase

No net change Potential indirect net 

increase 

Government 

Services 

No net change Potential indirect 

net increase

Potential net decrease under 

Option 2

Potential indirect net 

increase 

Environmental 

Justice 

No net change No change 

anticipated

Potential effect on low-income 

populations under Option 2

No net change

Non-Market 

Values 

No net change Potential net 

decrease

Potential net increase No net change to 

potential net increase

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-710 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Methods of Analysis 

Methods and Assumptions

Impact analyses and conclusions are based on the existing and projected population, employment, 

income, housing, earnings, social values, economic contribution of public lands, as described in the 

Final Winnemucca Socioeconomic Report and in Chapter 3 of this document. Low-income and 

minority populations also are considered. Changes in these indicators could result from management 

of other resources, particularly those that form the important industry sectors that rely on public 

lands resources in the WDO. As identified in Chapter 3, these important economic sectors are 

recreation, mining, and agriculture; the forestry and timber sectors have a minimal economic 

presence in the WDO. Therefore, management actions that directly or indirectly affect uses on 

public lands could have socioeconomic impacts. In addition, renewable energy and sustainable 

development management could have socioeconomic effects. 

Assumptions include the following: 

• Restrictions in land available or implementing SOPs, BMPs, or mitigation measures in order 

to protect other resources could indirectly affect socioeconomics by increasing costs or 

precluding development; 

• Decisions made with regard to transportation and access could result in increased or 

decreased motorized or nonmotorized backcountry opportunities, which also could impact 

revenues created directly or indirectly for individuals seeking those types of recreation 

opportunities; an increase in access would increase economic activity associated with 

motorized uses; and OHV restrictions would slightly decrease this type of economic activity; 

• Increased population growth and relocation would increase economic activity and improve 

local economies; 

• Changing ownership from public lands to private lands (land tenure adjustments) would 

expand state and local tax bases and encourage development, which would improve the local 

economies; 

• Closing areas for certain uses could negatively impact local economies; and 

• Restrictions and closures specifically to protect threatened or endangered species could 

reduce economic activities in the closed areas or could increase operational expenses. 

Effects are quantified where possible, but potential socioeconomic impacts were not modeled. 

Where dollar values were unavailable for economic effects, the degree of impact was based on the 

number of AUMs (for grazing) or acreage potentially affected. In the absence of quantitative data, 

impacts were described using ranges of potential impacts or in qualitative terms, as appropriate. 

Effects from Air Quality Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Dust control measures could increase operations costs for mining and renewable energy activities 

under all alternatives. However, dust minimization would provide a non-market asset to visitors by 

providing clean air, which in conjunction with other benefits could help ensure continued visitation 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-711 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

in the WDO and continued visitor expenditures in the local economy. In addition, dust and air 

pollution were identified as a particular tribal concern, principally with respect to minerals activities; 

and dust control measures would, in part, address the concerns of this environmental justice 

population. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Ensuring that commercial operators (such as mineral extraction industries) on public lands 

implement dust abatement and other mitigation measures would increase operational costs, which 

could reduce expenditures for supplies and services within local communities. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Effects are the same as under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Effects are the same as under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Effects are the same as under Alternative A. 

Effects from Geology Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

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

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Mineral disposal would be allowed in areas containing unique geologic resources. This could benefit 

the local economy through the continued employment and local expenditures provided by mining 

operations. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Limiting OHV travel to existing routes to protect unique geological features could have effects on 

socioeconomic resources. Mineral disposal would be restricted due to access limitations, if no 

existing roads and trails are located in areas containing salable minerals near unique geologic 

resources. Restrictions to mineral disposal activities could reduce revenues from these operations, 

which could result in lower employment in the industry in the WDO and could reduce expenditures 

for supplies and services within local communities by the affected operations. However, preserving 

unique geologic features would ensure their continued presence for the enjoyment of current and 

future visitors, which would be a non-market benefit to society that could be a value similar to or 

greater than the reduction in market activity that could occur. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Areas containing unique geologic resources would be closed to discretionary actions that would 

impact geologic features, including mineral disposal. Access to these areas would also be closed. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-712 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

These closures could increase costs to mining operations and decrease revenues associated with 

minerals in areas containing unique geologic resources. The associated employment and local 

expenditures also could be reduced as a result. Alternative C would offer greater protection to these 

features than would Alternatives A and B, and preservation of these features would represent a nonmarket value to society, as described under Alternative B. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Under Alternative D, the effects on socioeconomic resources and environmental justice populations 

would be similar to those described under Alternative B. However, the additional designation of 

unique geologic resource exclusion zones would result in further closures to mineral disposal. 

Alternative D would offer greater protection to these features than would Alternatives A and B, and 

preservation of these features would represent a non-market value to society, as described under 

Alternative B. 

Effects from Soil Resources Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

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

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Reducing erosion would improve rangeland health and promote stable livestock operations. 

Minerals and energy development would experience increased operational costs. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Alternative B is similar to Alternative A. Fewer restrictions would improve efficiencies for livestock 

operations and mineral and energy development. Tax revenues from livestock sales, jobs, and 

revenues from the purchase of goods and services associated with livestock operations and mineral 

and energy development would benefit local communities. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Implementation of BMPs, mitigation measures, required reclamation, and seasonal restrictions to 

protect soil resources and salvage topsoil would increase operational expenses for energy and 

mineral development operations and would limit returns to local economies. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

The effects from soil resources management under Alternative D are similar to those identified 

under Alternative C, except that fewer seasonal closures are likely to occur and ranching and 

recreational activities would not be affected as much as if seasonal closures were mandatory. 

Effects from Water Resources Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

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

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-713 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Water resources management under Alternative A would not change the social, demographic, and 

economic trends described in the Winnemucca RMP Socioeconomic Report because no provisions 

are made with respect to the management of priority watersheds, wellhead protection zones, or 

water importation and exportation. Developing water sources on public land could promote 

economic growth for a number of uses. Using land acquisitions and other realty actions to acquire 

water resources would ensure water is available for recreation and other uses and would continue the 

economic benefits to the communities provided by these uses. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Managing wellhead protection zones to protect public drinking water and managing municipal 

watersheds as recharge areas would allow for population and development growth in communities 

that depend on water rights and water supplies. Managing priority watersheds for multiple uses and 

managing wellhead protection zones as avoidance areas could allow continued use of these areas for 

grazing, recreation, and minerals development. This would result in continued revenue to local 

communities, jobs, and tax revenues associated with ranching. It also would provide local 

expenditures by recreational visitors and employment and expenditures associated with mining 

operations. These effects would be realized only to the extent that these multiple uses occur in 

priority watersheds and wellhead protection zones. Alternative B also would foster economic growth 

and development, which would benefit employment and incomes in the WDO and areas outside of 

WDO by allowing water importation and exportation projects. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Managing wellhead protection zones and priority watersheds as exclusion areas for discretionary 

actions could limit the use of these areas for grazing, recreation, and mineral disposal, depending on 

the demand for such uses in these areas. These restrictions could result in diminished revenue to 

local communities, jobs, and tax revenues associated with ranching; local expenditures by 

recreational visitors; and employment and expenditures associated with mining, contingent on the 

extent of the resources that would be affected. The potential economic growth and development 

that could result from allowing water importation and exportation projects under Alternative C 

would be limited by sustaining perennial yield. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

The effects under Alternative D are similar to those under Alternative B. These specific effects 

include managing priority watersheds. Some use limitations could increase costs to commercial 

operations or in some cases preclude development if development conflicts with the priorities in 

which the watersheds were created. Effects from managing wellhead protection zones under 

Alternative D are the same as under Alternative B in terms of revenue to local communities, jobs, 

tax revenues from ranching and recreational visitors, employment, and mining. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-714 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Effects from Vegetation—Forest and Woodland Products Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

None of the alternatives would have measurable socioeconomic impacts on employment or income 

because the amount of forest land within the WDO, and the associated economic activity, is 

relatively small. However, there are potential incremental differences among alternatives, which are 

described below for each alternative. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

As described under Effects Common to All Alternatives, none of the alternatives would have 

measurable socioeconomic impacts on employment or income, but there are potential incremental 

differences among alternatives, which could have a localized effect. Alternative A does not allow for 

commercial harvest of woodland products. Minimal socioeconomic impacts are expected due to the 

small area where woodland products would be available. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Alternative B allows for commercial harvest of wood products. This alternative would have the 

greatest acreage available for both commercial and noncommercial harvest, including tribal 

collection of pinyon and juniper products; therefore, it would provide the greatest social benefit for 

minority populations (Indian tribes and those low-income populations that would require firewood) 

and the greatest potential for economic benefit with respect to commercial revenues and the 

associated economic multiplier effects. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Alternative C would prohibit both commercial and noncommercial harvest of woodland products. 

This alternative would provide the least acreage for both commercial and noncommercial harvest, 

including tribal collection of pinyon and juniper products; therefore, the two options would offer 

the lowest social benefit for minority populations (Indian tribes and those low-income populations 

that require firewood) and the lowest benefit with respect to commercial revenues and the associated 

economic multiplier effects. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Alternative D would allow commercial harvesting to achieve resource objectives and on a case-bycase basis, with prohibitions in some areas. Alternative D, therefore, would provide an intermediate 

level of social and economic benefit for minority populations and an intermediate benefit to 

commercial revenues and the associated economic multiplier effects. Allowing the short-term 

harvest of woodland products throughout the WDO would meet short-term public wood needs and 

would provide the economic benefits described above. 

Effects from Vegetation—Weeds Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Under all alternatives, weeds management would be unlikely to have a measurable effect on 

environmental justice populations or socioeconomic resources. Weeds management under all 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-715 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

alternatives would be likely to improve rangeland, which also could improve the health of the 

animals that graze it. Improved livestock health could reduce costs to ranchers for maintaining 

livestock and could increase their sale price. Weed management would increase operational costs for 

commercial users to control weeds. These costs could reduce the amount of goods and services 

purchased, but they should have minimal impacts on the local economies. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Controlling weeds would improve the health of the land, which would provide long-term stability 

for ranching operations. Commercial operators, including those engaging in mineral and energy 

development and realty actions, could experience increased operational costs to treat weeds. As a 

result, revenues associated with these operations could decline as they adjust to increased costs, and 

local economies may experience minimal declines in goods or services purchased by these 

commercial operations. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

The effects of Alternative B are similar to those described under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Alternative C would not allow chemical integrated weed treatments. Cost to commercial operators 

would increase, as they would have to use other treatment methods, such as mechanical treatments, 

to control weeds. The socioeconomic effects of these increased costs would be the same as those 

described under Alternative A. Biological control could provide long-term land health benefits, with 

fewer environmental (and perceived public health) side effects, compared to chemical use, which 

would benefit the ranching industry, which depends on land health. Improved land health could 

reduce costs to ranchers by reducing the amount of land needed to meet forage needs and could 

benefit the economy of ranching-dependent communities. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

The effects of Alternative D are similar to those described under Alternative A. 

Effects from Chemical and Biological Control 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Under all alternatives, chemical and biological control would likely increase operational costs but 

would have minimal indirect effects on environmental justice populations and socioeconomic 

resources. Economic activities that occur within the WDO, including access to traditional sites, 

recreation, grazing, mining, and renewable energy resource development, would not be altered by 

chemical and biological control. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

The socioeconomic effects of chemical and biological control are the same as those identified under 

Alternative A for weeds management. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-716 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Alternative B emphasizes cost and treatment effectiveness, ultimately reducing operational costs. As 

a result there would be more disposable income available to be spent in local communities. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

The socioeconomic effects of chemical and biological control are the same as those identified under 

Alternative C for weeds management. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

The effects of Alternative D are similar to those described under Alternative A. 

Effects from Vegetation—Rangeland Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

All alternatives provide for grazing on rangeland, except for Option 2 under Alternative C. The 

continued availability of rangeland for grazing would maintain ranchers’ contribution to the local 

economy through expenditures on equipment, supplies, and services and employment. In addition, 

continued grazing would maintain the social welfare of the rural population of the WDO by 

preserving a unique way of life. Implementing mitigation measures and emergency stabilization and 

rehabilitation treatments may temporarily close areas to certain uses, such as livestock grazing and 

recreation, which would have short-term economic impact. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Resting burned areas of rangeland vegetation from grazing for two growing seasons could result in 

higher costs to ranchers and a subsequent reduction in income for permittees, to the extent that 

these reductions would require permittees to lease additional private land, to purchase additional 

forage, or to reduce livestock numbers over the long term. These impacts on ranchers could affect 

local communities dependent on ranching operations in terms of tax revenue from livestock sales, 

jobs, and the purchase of supplies. The resultant loss in livestock grazing fees would mean lower 

returns to the affected counties from livestock grazing. These effects would be short term until 

burned areas were open again to grazing. Restoring crested wheatgrass seedings would provide a 

consistent forage base for livestock, helping to stabilize livestock operations and economic benefits 

to the community. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Under Alternative B, the effects of resting burned areas of rangeland vegetation from grazing for 

two growing seasons are the same as described under Alternative A. Under Alternative B, more 

livestock grazing flexibility would be afforded by using an adaptive management process. This 

process would encourage development of specific plans to allow flexibility in grazing operations. 

Other actions, such as prescribed grazing and restoring wheatgrass seedings, would improve the 

forage base. This alternative would improve grazing operations and would provide consequent 

economic benefits to local communities. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-717 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Under Alternative C, Option 1, the effects of resting burned areas of rangeland vegetation from 

grazing for five growing seasons are likely to be greatest on ranching with respect to a reduction in 

income for permittees. It would be more likely that these reductions would require permittees in 

burned areas to lease additional private land, purchase additional forage, or reduce livestock 

numbers over the longer resting period. Alternative C, Option 1, would result in the greatest loss in 

grazing fees and returns to local governments. Option 2 would eliminate grazing on public lands, 

leading to potentially large economic losses to individual ranchers. See the Effects from Livestock 

Grazing under Alternative C for further socioeconomic analysis. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Alternative D provides a more flexible timeframe for resting burned areas of rangeland vegetation 

from grazing. Other impacts are similar to those described under Alternative A. 

Effects from Vegetation—Riparian and Wetlands Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Ensuring the continued health of wetland and riparian areas would continue to provide a nonmarket benefit for visitors to the WDO by continuing to make habitat available for biological 

diversity and consequent wildlife watching. Habitat that supports diverse wildlife could draw visitors 

and visitor expenditures to the WDO and could secure the existence of a valued resource for the 

future. Wetlands can provide direct use benefits if such products as nuts and berries can be 

produced from them. In addition they provide such non-market values as nutrient retention, water 

filtration, flood control, and erosion protection. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Mitigating adverse impacts on wetland riparian areas could increase operational costs for ranchers 

and mineral and energy development. The costs of realty actions also could increase, and certain 

recreational uses could be precluded. These effects would vary based on the nature and degree of the 

mitigation. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Alternative B offers more flexibility for uses within riparian wetland areas, as PFC thresholds are 

lower, which would allow more uses and associated disturbance in these areas. Achieving PFC 

upward to 60 percent could increase operational costs and restrict uses if PFC objectives are not 

met. The local economy and social values could be affected if a reduction in the area or type of 

recreation resulted in a decrease in visitors or a decrease in a locally valued recreation type (such as 

OHV use). If these road closures and route relocations inhibited access to minerals and mining 

operations, costs to these operations could increase. These costs could be passed along to the local 

economy in terms of decreased employment or income. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-718 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Alternative C would impose more limitations on economic activities than Alternative B. The two 

options would be more likely to affect ranching costs, recreation, and mining as a result of higher 

PFC objectives. Achieving PFC upward to 85 percent could increase operational costs and restrict 

uses if PFC objectives are not met. This could result in diminished revenue to local communities 

and tax revenues associated with these operations. However, Alternative C would provide greater 

protection to riparian and wetlands areas, the preservation of which would benefit society, as 

described above under Effects from Vegetation-Riparian and Wetlands Management, Effects 

Common to All Alternatives. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Alternative D balances limitations between Alternatives B and C. Some limitations on economic 

activities and would be the most likely to affect ranching costs, recreation, and mining. 

Effects from Fish and Wildlife Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Protecting fish and wildlife would involve use restrictions and implementation of mitigation 

measures and SOPs under all alternatives, which could affect the economic contribution of grazing, 

minerals operations, recreation, or renewable energy development, depending on the alternative, the 

types of restrictions, and the extent of the restrictions. The protection of fish habitat could improve 

fisheries for recreational use, which can bring visitor expenditures into the local economy, and, 

similarly, improving wildlife habitat can improve wildlife watching and hunting, both of which can 

inject tourist dollars into the local economy. Fish and wildlife habitat protection can provide 

increased biodiversity, which can have non-market socioeconomic values. These non-market values 

include existence values to current generations and option and bequest benefits to future 

generations. Existence value reflects benefits from knowing that a diversity of wildlife and flora 

exist; while, the potential benefits from this biodiversity to be available in the future would be an 

option value. The bequest value derives from ensuring that a diversity of wildlife and flora would be 

preserved for future generations. Nationally 71,132,000 people engaged in wildlife watching in 2006, 

generating 1,063,482 jobs and over $40 billion in income (US Fish and Wildlife Service 2006b). 

Wildlife watching in Nevada is valued at an average of $44 per day per in-state visitor and $85 per 

day per out-of-state visitor, based on a contingent valuation survey (US Fish and Wildlife Service 

2006a). 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Use restrictions under Alternative A to protect nesting migratory birds and management to protect 

wildlife habitat could affect ranching, mining, and recreational uses by limiting when and where 

these activities could occur. Therefore, this alternative could affect the economy by potentially 

reducing local expenditures, employment, and income. Defining stream bank alteration restrictions 

in implementation plans could limit use, while benefiting the economy by improving fisheries. 

Managing wildlife habitat to provide big game populations would foster continued economic growth 

from recreation and hunting. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-719 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Of the action alternatives, Alternative B would have the lowest potential to adversely affect the 

economic and social uses within the WDO and the highest potential to stimulate the economy 

through the identified management actions. Alternative B possibly would not require as many 

operational restrictions or mitigation measures to protect wildlife habitat. Alternative B would foster 

ranching by prohibiting pioneering elk populations. This measure would remove elk hunting 

opportunities, which could also reduce the economic contribution associated with hunting. Allowing 

artificial water sources also would benefit wildlife and could improve hunting and wildlife watching. 

Hunting generated about 24.3 percent of total direct expenditures within the WDO between 

October 2003 and September 2004 (BLM 2006c). 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Of the action alternatives, Alternative C has the greatest potential to affect the economic and social 

uses within the WDO and the lowest potential to stimulate the economy through the identified 

management actions. The two options would require restrictions on surface disturbance to protect 

wildlife habitat. Accepting colonization by pioneering elk and prohibiting artificial water sources 

under Alternative C could affect the productivity of ranching operations; however, allowing elk 

colonization would provide socioeconomic benefits by providing new hunting opportunities. 

Removing access routes that are adversely impacting aquatic resources could affect grazing and 

recreation use by decreasing accessibility and the number of routes available for recreation, such as 

OHV use. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

The potential for socioeconomic effects as a result of Alternative D is intermediate between those 

described under Alternatives B and C. Alternative D designates an intermediate acreage for use 

restrictions to protect wildlife and wildlife habitat, while allowing for multiple uses where conditions 

are appropriate. 

Effects from Special Status Species Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

All alternatives would impose restrictions to protect special status species that could inhibit 

ranching, mining, recreation, and renewable energy development activities. These restrictions could 

increase the costs of operations, decrease the incomes of operators, discourage some recreational 

activities, and decrease expenditures within the local economy. Avoiding the listing of species as 

threatened and endangered by implementing management actions designed to prevent listing would 

impose fewer restrictions on ranching, mining, recreation, and renewable energy activities, which 

otherwise could be curtailed to protect threatened and endangered species. Protecting threatened 

and endangered species also could increase operational costs for these uses. Therefore, avoiding 

listing would allow for the continued economic contribution of these activities without the 

associated costs of additional protection measures. However, protecting special status species would 

benefit biodiversity, which would provide non-market benefits in the form of existence value to 

current generations and option and bequest benefits to future generations. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-720 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Use and surface disturbance restrictions to protect sensitive species would place limitations on 

mining, realty transactions, recreation, and energy development. The restrictions could affect the 

local economy to the extent that they would increase the operational costs of mining, realty 

transactions, and energy development or decrease the number of visitors. These increased costs 

could result in reduced earnings and decreased expenditures within the overall economy, affecting 

economic growth, income, and employment. The effects of implementing management actions that 

would avoid listing species as threatened and endangered are the same as those described under 

Effects Common to All Alternatives. 

A decrease in the number of visitors due to access restrictions or limitations on the types of 

recreation activities available could affect the local economy by decreasing local expenditures on 

lodging, dining, recreational equipment and repairs, and supplies, which could affect incomes and 

employment in these sectors. Similarly, if ROW restrictions were to discourage energy development, 

the potential for economic growth based on this industry also could be limited, depending on 

whether the restrictions would occur in areas of high potential. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Under Alternative B, the economic impacts are similar to those described under alternative A. The 

increased flexibility in the application of use and surface disturbance restrictions to protect sensitive 

species would decrease the degree of market effect on the economy.

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Under Alternative C, the decreased flexibility in the application of use and surface disturbance 

restrictions to protect sensitive species as compared with current conditions could increase the 

likelihood that these restrictions would increase operational costs, as compared to Alternatives A 

and B. Not authorizing high profile structures within two miles of active leks could prohibit 

development of energy projects within certain areas, increasing costs and resulting in more economic 

impacts, as compared to Alternatives A and B. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Similar to Alternative A, Alternative D provides flexibility in the application of use and surface 

disturbance restrictions to protect sensitive species. 

Effects from Wild Horse and Burro Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

All alternatives would support the management of wild horses and burros on WDO lands and would 

preserve this social value. 

Potential economic effects could occur to the extent that management of wild horses and burros 

would affect grazing lands and ranching operations. Implementing mitigation measures may increase 

expenditures in order to protect wild horses and burros. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-721 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Gathering WHB to low AML and managing WHB within the AML range should improve rangeland 

health and therefore potentially stabilize the livestock forage base for ranchers. This would result in 

lower maintenance costs to ranchers and potentially higher sales prices for livestock and the 

associated economic benefits. Implementing mitigation measures to protect wild horses and burros 

may increase operational costs for mineral and energy development. These costs should have 

minimal impacts on the local economy. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Alternative B would increase wild horse and burro management to accommodate multiple uses. 

Operational costs would be lower and the quality of grazing land could improve. Improved land 

health would improve livestock health and potentially lower maintenance costs and result in higher 

livestock sales prices for ranchers. Operational costs to other public land users would be lower, 

compared to other alternatives. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Precluding special recreation permits in HMAs if they cause adverse impacts on WHB would limit 

recreation uses and the economic benefits they provide for OHV racing and outfitter and guide 

services. Stressing unobstructed landscapes to ensure the free-roaming nature of WHB may increase 

costs to livestock operators to manage livestock. Wild horse populations may increase faster over 

time without fertility control, which may reduce the amount of forage available to livestock and 

impair rangeland health until gathers are implemented. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

The socioeconomic effects of WHB management under Alternative D are similar to those described 

under Alternative A. Gathering WHB to low AML would protect forage availability and economic 

stability for livestock operators. 

Effects from Wildland Fire Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Fire restriction could pose seasonal limitations for some uses, such as recreation. Hazardous fuels 

reductions could protect infrastructure from wildfire, ensuring continued employment and other 

economic benefits. Emergency stabilization and rehabilitation treatments would temporarily close 

areas for certain uses. However, restoring rangeland would improve health of the land, providing 

long-term economic benefits for ranching and wildlife habitat for hunting. Implementing wildland 

fire protection plans would protect the economic base of communities. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Implementing fuel treatments would provide economic benefits by protecting mineral development 

and energy infrastructure from wildland fire. The economic benefits include reduced potential for 

business interruption from wildland fires. Fuel treatments also would protect rangelands by reducing 

the spread and intensity of wildfire. This would help ensure a stable forage base for livestock 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-722 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

operations. Rehabilitation of rangeland after a fire would reestablish a forage base for livestock 

operations, offering long-term stability to the livestock operations. Short-term closures of areas 

undergoing rehabilitation would increase operational costs to ranchers for finding alternative feed or 

forage. Short-term closures may limit OHV use in areas under rehabilitation. This may cause shortterm and minimal economic impacts on local communities. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Economic impacts are similar to those described for Alternative A. Allowing fire for resource 

benefit (110,167 acres) may improve rangeland health in areas, which would be an economic benefit 

and offer long-term stability to ranchers. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

The effects from wildland fire management under Alternative C are the same as those identified 

under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

The effects from wildland fire management under Alternative D would be the same as those 

identified under Alternative A. Allowing fire for resource benefit (9,932 acres) may improve 

rangeland health in areas, which would contribute economic benefits and stability to ranchers. These 

benefits would be less than those described under Alternative B because the area available for 

allowing fire for resource benefit would be smaller. 

Effects from Cultural Resources Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

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

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Under current conditions, changes to OHV travel management would remain the same with few 

restrictions on OHV use. Recreation use based on OHVs would continue to grow and contribute 

economic benefits to local communities through the purchases of fuel and other goods and services. 

However, OHV travel could disturb cultural resources, which may have had greater value to visitors 

who prefer more primitive forms of recreation, educational opportunities, or preservation of the 

area’s ties with the past. Mineral and energy development and commercial recreation events would 

incur an increase in operational costs to avoid or reduce adverse impacts on cultural resources. 

These impacts include costs to inventory, evaluate, and implement mitigation measures to reduce 

adverse impact on cultural resources. Increased operational costs would reduce some economic 

benefits to the community. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

The socioeconomic effects of cultural resources management under Alternative B are similar to 

those described under Alternative A. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-723 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Under Alternative C, limiting OHV travel to protect culturally sensitive sites or historic trails and 

closing Class I segments of National Historic Trails could discourage some OHV users but could 

encourage use by visitors who appreciate more primitive forms of recreation. This has the potential 

for decreased local expenditures by OHV users and hunters but increased expenditures by other 

user groups. Minerals, energy, and realty actions would experience increased operational costs in 

areas of historic trails in order to comply with VRM class II objectives. These costs may include 

changing locations or painting structures to blend with the setting. These costs would have minimal 

socioeconomic impacts on local communities. 

Prohibiting fluid and solid minerals surface occupancy and mineral material sales to protect historic 

trails could limit economic development based on mineral operations, increase operations costs, and 

reduce expenditures, income, and employment. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

The effects from cultural resources management under Alternative D are the same as those 

described under Alternative C. However, OHV travel management restrictions would include more 

areas open to OHV use, which would promote economic benefits to local communities associated 

with OHV use. 

Effects from Tribal Consultation 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Tribal consultation may increase operational costs for mineral and energy development and realty 

transactions and could limit recreation uses or increase the costs of commercial recreation activities 

by avoiding sensitive areas of Native American religious importance. These costs would vary based 

on the scope and degree of mitigating adverse impacts. However, tribal consultation also could 

prevent impacts, such as access restrictions, health effects, noise, and physical disturbance of 

traditional sites, to this environmental justice population. 

Effects from Paleontological Resources Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

All alternatives would impose some level of public access restriction that could affect such economic 

activities as recreation, grazing, and minerals development for the protection of paleontological 

resources. These restrictions also would ensure that the potential for losses of this resource would 

be minimized. The preservation of paleontological resources would have non-market values similar 

to those described under Effects from Geology Management, Individual Effects under Alternative 

B. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Alternative A would restrict discretionary realty and recreation actions from disturbing or destroying 

scientifically important paleontological resources. This would increase operational costs for actions 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-724 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

related to mineral disposal, recreation, and realty and could limit the scope of recreation activities. 

These costs would have minimal socioeconomic impacts on local communities. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

The socioeconomic effects from paleontological resources management under alternative B are 

similar to those identified under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Under Alternative C, no activities would be authorized if they would disturb, alter, or destroy 

important paleontological sites. Socioeconomic impacts would vary based on the size of proposed 

projects. Impacts could include reduced expenditures within the local economy, which could 

indirectly affect overall income and employment. Alternative C would provide the greatest level of 

protection of this resource and the greatest protection of its associated non-market value as a draw 

to visitors, an educational tool, and a heritage asset. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

The socioeconomic effects from paleontological resources management under Alternative D are the 

same as those described under Alternative A. 

Effects from Visual Resources Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Commercial operations would experience increased costs to comply with VRM management 

objectives under all alternatives. These increased costs would be associated with such activities as 

moving, shaping, or painting facilities to blend with the surrounding viewshed. Operational costs 

would increase based on the designated VRM class in which the commercial operations would 

occur. VRM management would preserve valued viewsheds that draw recreational visitors, who also 

generate expenditures, income, and employment in the local economy. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Under Alternative A, costs to commercial operations would be relatively low and would have 

minimal socioeconomic impacts on local communities. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Operational costs under Alternative B would be greater than under Alternative A, as more lands 

would be designated as VRM Class 2 and 3. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Operational costs under Alternative C would be greater than under Alternative A, as more lands 

would be designated as VRM Class 2 and 3. More land would be designated as VRM Class 2 than 

under Alternatives A and B, which would have more restrictions and would incur higher costs of 

operation in these areas. However, Alternative C would preserve views over a greater area, which 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-725 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

could be more valuable to the public, including both the local population and visitors to the WDO, 

than the negative effects of increased commercial operations costs. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

The socioeconomic effects from visual resources management under Alternative D would fall 

between those identified under Alternatives B and C, based on the VRM classification under 

Alternative D. 

Effects from Cave and Karst Resource Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Implementing mitigation measures to protect cave and karsts would vary based on site-specific 

situations. Avoiding caves and karsts may increase costs to mining and energy operations. 

Preservation of this resource would have similar non-market values to those described under Effects 

from Geology Management and Effects from Paleontological Resources Management. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Under Alternative A, the costs identified under Effects Common to All Alternatives would have a 

minimal effect on these operations and therefore a minimal impact on the local economy. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

The effects on socioeconomic resources under Alternative B are similar to those described under 

Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Restrictions on surface-disturbing activities near cave and karsts would increase operational costs to 

protect these resources. Alternative C would have limited flexibility with respect to the location of 

surface-disturbing activities, including some types of recreation and minerals and energy resource 

development, because these activities would be prohibited within a 500-foot buffer around caves 

and karsts, causing higher costs as compared to the other alternatives. Alternative C would provide 

the greatest area of protection of cave and karst resources, which could also provide the maximum 

realization of the non-market values of this resource, depending on its importance in the ROI and to 

visitors in the WDO. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Under Alternative D, restrictions would be more flexible than under Alternative C, resulting in lower 

operational costs and associated economic impacts, as compared to Alternative C. 

Effects from Livestock Grazing Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Under all alternatives except Option 2 of Alternative C, livestock grazing on public lands would 

continue, ensuring that tax revenues from livestock sales, jobs, income, and ranching-related 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-726 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

expenditures in the local economy would continue and that livestock grazing receipts would be 

returned to the counties within the WDO (grazing receipts totaled $51,357 in 2005). All alternatives 

except Alternative D would designate 399,073 AUMs of livestock forage, which would allow for the 

same level of cattle and calf production under these alternatives. At a return rate of $0.1529 per 

AUM, approximately $61,019 would be returned to WDO counties under Alternatives A, B, and C. 

In addition, the social welfare of the rural population of the WDO would be maintained by 

preserving a unique way of life under all alternatives. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Resting burned areas from livestock grazing would have short term effects by increasing operational 

costs for ranchers. These costs include finding alternative range to graze or buying hay to feed 

livestock. Increased costs would have short term impacts, depending on length of time that the 

closures are in effect. Economic impacts would be minimal and would include loss of tax revenue 

from livestock sales and a reduction in the purchase of supplies. 

Allowing relinquishments of grazing permits and providing forage banks could have both positive 

and adverse socioeconomic effects. If AUMs in other allotments became unusable, the use of these 

areas by the affected permittees could offset economic losses. However, if the relinquished 

allotments were not in use, they would continue to require maintenance. 

Allowing TNR would maximize a permittee’s use of allotted AUMs, potentially benefiting ranchers’ 

operational efficiency. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Designating 296,008 acres as closed to livestock grazing would have little, if any, socioeconomic 

impacts on the livestock industry and associated communities, as these closed areas are primarily 

lakebed playas with little vegetation; consequently, they are not suitable for grazing. 

Alternative B would have both positive and adverse socioeconomic effects by not retiring grazing 

permits and not providing forage banks. Livestock operations that have had public rangeland 

affected by fire or drought would be jeopardized by the loss forage and increased costs to find 

forage. This alternative would improve collaboration between the BLM and the permittees and 

possibly allow more flexibility to livestock operations based on adaptive management applied to the 

allotments. This approach could maximize the efficiency of allotment use, decreasing operational 

costs and increasing the socioeconomic benefits to those who participate in the process. 

The effects of allowing TNR are the same as those identified under Alternative A. In addition, 

allowing continuous season-long grazing would maximize the amount of forage utilized, which 

could decrease production costs to ranchers, contributing to the local economy. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Option 1 

Although a slightly greater area would be closed to grazing than under Alternative B, the effects of 

acreage closures are similar to those described under Alternative B. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-727 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Under Alternative C Option 1, the effects of relinquishments of grazing permits and providing 

forage banks are similar to those described under Alternative A. Closing newly acquired public lands 

to grazing would reduce benefits to the local economy from taxes from livestock sales and the sales 

of supplies, as well as the revenues from the purchase of goods and services generated by ranching. 

Prohibiting TNR, eliminating grazing on acquired lands, and limiting grazing to two consecutive 

years during the critical growing period could reduce available forage, increase ranchers’ operational 

costs, and limit grazing operations. The increase in operational costs is expected to have a minimal 

impact on local economies. 

Option 2 

Eliminating grazing would impact individual ranchers, the local economy, and the social values of 

the local area, and it could result in environmental justice effects. Costs to ranchers to provide forage 

for cattle would increase, potentially decreasing ranchers’ incomes as they would have to find other 

sources of forage, such as purchasing additional hay or grazing land to equal the AUMs required for 

the livestock currently using public lands. Eliminating grazing would have an overall negative effect 

on the local economy, as ranching incomes would be reduced and consequently the purchase of 

local services and supplies would be reduced. 

Although ranchers must hold private grazing lands in order to obtain grazing permits on WDO 

lands, the loss of federal grazing permits could still affect their incomes and viability, depending on 

ranch size and the role that ranching plays as a source of income for the individual rancher. As the 

number of AUMs withdrawn from use increases, herd size decreases and more hay is sold. The 

reduction in returns from hay, as compared to livestock, causes a decline in ranch profits. Although 

the reliance of ranchers on forage from federal land grazing can be relatively small when calculated 

on an acreage or AUM basis, grazing on federal lands can be an important source of forage, based 

on seasonal needs. Seasonal forage availability affects the optimal use of other forages and resources 

when federal AUMs are not available. Potential reductions in income and net ranch returns can be 

greater than the direct economic loss from reductions in federal grazing. Eliminating public grazing 

may increase the rate of agricultural land conversion, which can increase costs to local governments 

to supply services and infrastructure for residential use. It has been estimated that converting 35 

acres of agricultural land to residential use costs a county government $1.13 for every dollar in 

revenue (Foulke et al. 2006). In addition, local governments would realize a loss in the value of 

returns from grazing fees, which totaled $410,868 in 2005 (BLM 2006c). 

A reduction in the level of ranching could affect the social value attached to this way of life, which is 

typically identified as “Western,” and could affect communities whose identity and livelihood are 

associated with ranching. In addition to running a business, ranchers value ranching for the rural 

lifestyle it offers and the family life it provides. Eliminating ranching on BLM lands could be 

perceived as a threat to these values and could put these values at risk for small-scale ranchers for 

whom ranching is the dominant source of income. Ranch lands provide a traditional source of 

income, habitat for wildlife, and open spaces that are valued for wildlife watching and the 

preservation of naturalness. These characteristics are particularly important when population and 

development pressures result in the conversion of agricultural land and reduce open space. 

Communities can derive cultural identity and quality of life from the presence of this traditional land 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-728 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

use, which could be reduced if eliminating grazing on WDO lands resulted in a perceived loss of this 

tradition. 

If increased ranching costs resulted in a loss of jobs and income to low-income or minority 

populations, eliminating grazing could have environmental justice implications. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Although a greater area would be closed to grazing under Alternative D than under Alternative B, 

the effects of acreage closures are similar to those described under Alternative B. 

The effects of allowing relinquishments of grazing permits, providing forage banks, and allowing 

TNR under Alternative D are similar to those described under Alternative A. 

Under Alternative D, conditionally allowing grazing for more than three consecutive years could 

result in decreased production costs to ranchers. 

Effects from Minerals Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

General 

Under all alternatives, continued use of WDO lands for mining would contribute to the local and 

regional economy through the purchase of goods and services in the local economy by employees 

and for the physical mining operation. Mining would continue to employ local and regional labor, 

mainly in the provision of the goods and services sectors supplying the mining operations, and 

would contribute to local and regional income. In addition, the continued use of WDO lands for 

mining would allow for the continued collection of mineral royalties, which would be returned to the 

state. 

Reclamation would be required under all alternatives which would increase operational costs for 

mineral development. However, reclamation would continue short term employment at mine sites 

after active mining has ceased. 

Closing areas to or withdrawing them from mining would directly limit the potential for economic 

development based on mining. Restrictions, such as seasonal use limitations and special stipulations, 

could increase the costs of operations, which could be reflected in a reduction in income, 

employment, or expenditures. If costs were to increase to the extent that mining operations would 

be economically prohibitive, restrictions would result in a decrease in mining operations and an 

associated decrease in income, employment, and local expenditures. 

In particular, the unrestricted area available for salable minerals (industrial minerals) and locatable 

minerals (gold) operations would be important to the employment and labor income of both 

Humboldt and Pershing Counties. The area available for fluid minerals operations, including 

geothermal resources, which are the source of 36.5 percent of the returns from royalties (excluding 

rent and other revenues in these counties), would be of particular importance in Washoe and 

Churchill Counties (BLM 2006a). 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-729 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Ensuring mineral development operations do not hamper existing public access would allow other 

uses of public lands to continue and maintain existing socio-economic benefits. 

In addition to increasing the operations costs of commercial activities, closures and restrictions 

would protect sensitive resources that have non-market socioeconomic values. As identified in 

previous sections, unique geologic features, cave and karst resources, and paleontological resources 

represent a draw for current and future visitors and for residents who enjoy natural areas or 

residents who live in the area for its scenic, cultural, historic, and natural qualities. Wetlands, riparian 

areas, and wildlife habitat supports diverse wildlife that could bring in visitors and visitor 

expenditures to the WDO and secure the existence of a valued resource for the future. Improving 

wildlife habitat can improve wildlife watching and hunting, both of which can inject tourist dollars 

into the local economy. Wetlands can provide direct use benefits if such products such as nuts and 

berries can be produced from them. In addition they provide such non-market values as nutrient 

retention, water filtration, flood control, and erosion protection. Fish habitat could improve fisheries 

for recreation, which can bring visitor expenditures into the local economy. Both fish and wildlife 

habitat protection can improve biodiversity, which can provide non-market value in the form of 

existence value to current generations and option and bequest benefits to future generations. 

RFDs 

According to the reasonably foreseeable development scenario, no commercial quantities of oil and 

gas are anticipated from the forecast 18 wells, which would limit the employment and income that 

would be directly generated by an operation with long-term productivity. However, the manpower 

and equipment needed for exploration, drilling, and closure would be likely to use local or regional 

labor and would result in expenditures within the local economy, which could stimulate growth and 

increased income in these industries. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

General 

Alternative A has the largest area open to minerals exploration and development and the smallest 

acreage either closed or subject to special stipulations that would restrict such operations. Therefore, 

Alternative A has the highest potential for economic development related to minerals development 

and is the most likely to provide the highest level of expenditure, employment, and income relating 

to minerals within the local and regional economy. However, it would be the least protective of 

sensitive resources, which could have equivalent or greater non-market values. 

Salable 

Under Alternative A, three clay, stone, and sand and gravel areas would be within closed areas, 

which could limit the potential for economic development based on salable minerals. 

Fluid 

Under Alternative A, 32,124 acres within former KGRAs or current or historical geothermal lease 

areas would be closed, and 1,834 acres would have no surface occupancy, which could limit the 

potential for economic development based on geothermal resources; these resources are particularly 

important to the economies of Churchill and Washoe Counties (BLM 2006a). 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-730 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Solid 

Under Alternative A, no industrial minerals areas would be closed, have no surface occupancy, or 

have seasonal restrictions. These minerals are important contributors to employment and income in 

Humboldt and Pershing Counties. 

Locatable 

Under Alternative A, 2,485 acres within areas with high gold potential (mining districts with gold 

resources, areas prospective and favorable for placer gold, areas favorable and prospective for 

sediment-hosted gold deposits) would be closed. In addition, 1,425,079 acres would have 

stipulations and seasonal restrictions, which could increase costs for economic development based 

on gold mining, which in combination with industrial minerals operations, employs 18 percent of 

the labor force in Humboldt County and 16 percent in Pershing County (BLM 2006a). Mineral 

development could restrict access to public lands for other uses based on public safety. This could 

restrict recreational opportunities, however the economic impacts would be minimal. Livestock 

operations could lose lands available to grazing due to fencing mine sites or construction of mine 

pits. These impacts should be minimal to livestock operations and benefits from mining would 

contribute substantial benefits to local communities. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

General 

Of the action alternatives, Alternative B has the largest area open to minerals exploration and 

development and the smallest acreage either closed or subject to special stipulations that would 

restrict such operations. Of the action alternatives, it would have the highest potential for economic 

development relating to minerals development and would be most likely to provide the highest level 

of expenditure, employment, and income related to minerals within the local and regional economy. 

However, the potential for this type of development would be lower than under current conditions. 

Salable 

Under Alternative B, three clay, stone, and sand and gravel areas would be within closed areas. 

Fluid 

Under Alternative B, 39,928 acres within former KGRAs or current or historical geothermal lease 

areas would be closed, and 81,127 acres would have no surface occupancy. 

Solid 

Under Alternative B, no industrial minerals areas would be closed or would have no surface 

occupancy or seasonal restrictions. 

Locatable 

Under Alternative B, none of the mining districts with occurrences of silver and gold would be 

closed, and 23 of the 25 mining districts with occurrences of silver and gold would have stipulations 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-731 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

and seasonal restrictions. Other socioeconomic impacts would be similar to those described under 

Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

General 

Alternative C would have the fewest acres open or open with standard conditions to minerals 

development and would have the greatest area covered by special stipulations or closure to minerals 

development. Alternative C, therefore, would have the greatest potential to limit economic 

development based on mineral operations, to increase operations costs, and to reduce income, 

employment, and expenditures within the local economy based on this industry. It also would be 

likely to provide the greatest level of protection to sensitive resources and their associated values to 

WDO visitors and area residents. 

Salable 

Under Alternative C, 108 clay, stone, and sand and gravel areas would be within closed areas. 

Fluid 

Under Alternative C, 421,866 acres within former KGRAs or current or historical geothermal lease 

areas would be closed. 

Solid 

Under Alternative C, three industrial minerals areas would be closed. 

Locatable 

Under Alternative C, portions of two of the mining districts with occurrences of silver and gold 

would be closed, and 24 of the 25 mining districts with occurrences of silver and gold would have 

stipulations and seasonal restrictions. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

General 

Of the action alternatives, Alternative D would have an intermediate acreage open or open with 

standard conditions to minerals development and would have an intermediate area covered by 

special stipulations or closure to minerals development. Alternative D would have an intermediate 

potential to limit economic development based on mineral operations, increased operations costs, 

and reduced income, employment, and expenditures (as compared with current conditions). 

Salable 

Under Alternative D, 117 clay, stone, and sand and gravel areas would be within closed areas. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-732 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Fluid 

Under Alternative D, 76,465 acres within former KGRAs or current or historical geothermal lease 

areas would be closed, and 74,526 acres would have no surface occupancy. 

Solid 

Under Alternative D, no industrial minerals areas would be closed, have surface occupancy, or have 

seasonal restrictions. 

Locatable 

Under Alternative D, portions of two of the mining districts with occurrences of silver and gold 

would be closed, and 22 of the 25 mining districts with occurrences of silver and gold would have 

stipulations and seasonal restrictions. Other socioeconomic impacts would be similar to those 

describe under alternative A. 

Effects from Recreation, Visitor Outreach, and Services Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

All alternatives would provide education and public outreach, which could reinforce social values by 

improving visitors’ connection with WDO lands. In addition, all alternatives provide for multiple 

types of dispersed recreation, which would allow for continued inflow of recreation- and tourismbased revenues in the local economy. Such revenues would be derived from expenditures on such 

goods and services as lodging, dining, recreation equipment, equipment repairs, fuel, and supplies. 

Differences among alternatives would result primarily from changes in the mix of uses and the 

acreage available for these uses. For example, OHV use restrictions could reduce expenditures in the 

local economies by OHV enthusiasts in the short term; however, expenditures by other user groups 

could increase as a result. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Alternative A has the least acreage devoted to management as SRMAs, which would appeal to 

visitors to WDO lands who appreciate lower levels of management in their recreation. Alternative A 

would have the least acreage closed to OHV travel. Most OHV travel is managed as open under 

Alternative A, which would provide the greatest area of use for OHV enthusiasts. OHV enthusiasts 

spent about 11 percent of expenditures by recreation participants within the WDO. These 

expenditures generate direct and indirect income to local proprietors and residents (BLM 2006c). In 

addition, hunters use OHV travel to access favorite hunting areas and game, and this group 

contributed 24 percent of expenditures by recreation participants within the WDO (BLM 2006c). 

However, the level of open OHV recreation could be limiting the amount of more primitive, 

nonmotorized recreation in the WDO, and this group (including such uses as backpacking, camping, 

fishing, environmental education, horseback riding, bicycling, hiking, picnicking, photography, rockhounding, viewing scenery, wildlife viewing, and winter activities) contributed 47 percent of 

expenditures in the local economy by recreation participants within the WDO (BLM 2006c). 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-733 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Identifying new reservoir sites for water-based recreation and encouraging development of sites 

could promote recreation use and provide increased economic benefits to local communities. Issuing 

large group special recreation permits also would promote beneficial economic activity, from the 

purchase of fuel, supplies and services within communities to support these events. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Of the action alternatives, Alternative B has the most acreage devoted to management as SRMAs, 

which would appeal to visitors to WDO lands who are part of the targeted market for each SRMA. 

Alternative B also would have the greatest opportunity to generate economic growth from this type 

of recreation management. Enhancing recreation in the WDO by providing experience-based 

opportunities in SRMAs could increase the number of visitors to the WDO, which would increase 

expenditures in the local economy, increasing income and encouraging the expansion of local 

business. 

Alternative B would have the least acreage closed to OHV travel or limited to existing or designated 

routes and more lands designated as open, compared to Alternatives C and D. Having more open 

areas would promote OHV and would encourage expenditures by this recreation group and by 

hunters, who use OHV travel to hunt, benefiting the local economy. 

This alternative promotes public information, which would consequently promote visitation of 

public lands, providing economic benefits.

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Of the action alternatives, Alternative C would have the least acreage devoted to management as 

SRMAs, which would appeal to visitors to WDO lands who appreciate lower levels of management 

in their recreation decisions. However, Alternative C would be the least likely to generate economic 

growth from recreation enhancement, described under Alternative B. 

Alternative C have the most acreage closed to OHV travel and limited to existing or designated 

routes; they have no open OHV areas. Therefore, Alternative C would have the greatest potential 

for increased OHV restrictions to reduce expenditures by this recreation group and by hunters. 

However, Alternative C is the most likely to encourage more primitive nonmotorized recreation in 

the WDO due to the reduction in open OHV travel. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Alternative D would have the same effects as those under Alternative B with respect to SRMAs. 

Under Alternative D, the acreage closed to OHV travel and that with OHV travel limited to existing 

or designated routes would be intermediate between Alternatives B and C. The effects of the 

reduction in open OHV travel are similar to those described for Alternative B; however, Alternative 

D could be more likely to affect expenditures due to the greater area of OHV restrictions. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-734 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Effects from Renewable Energy Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

All alternatives would provide for the development of renewable energy, which could provide 

additional employment and income in the local area. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Maintaining existing exclusion areas would limit the potential for renewable energy development and 

the consequent income and employment that renewable energy could generate within the local 

economy. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Alternative B would have no exclusion areas for renewable energy development, which would 

maximize the potential for such development and for the consequent employment and income that 

could be generated by the industry. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Alternative C would have the most acreage designated as exclusion zones, which would have the 

greatest potential to limit renewable energy development and the consequent income and 

employment that renewable energy could generate within the local economy. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Alternative D would fewer areas designated as exclusion zones, compared to Alternative C. This 

would result in a lower potential to limit renewable energy development and the consequent income 

and employment that renewable energy could generate within the local economy than under 

Alternative C. 

Effects from Transportation and Access Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Continued access to grazing, minerals operations, energy development and recreation would allow 

for the continued economic growth and contribution of these industries within the WDO. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Improving and/or constructing roads would improve access, providing benefits to mineral and 

energy operations through increased efficiency and less vehicle wear and tear. The improved access 

provided by road improvements could encourage visitor use and increase expenditures within local 

economies. Decommissioning roads that are having negative environmental effects to protect 

habitat and sensitive species could remove access to these areas, which could increase operational 

costs; however, this action would protect sensitive resources and their associated non-market values. 

Decommissioning roads could discourage some visitors, which could decrease expenditures and 

income in the local economy. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-735 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Alternative B is similar to Alternative A. However, roads would not be decommissioned unless 

alternative access is provided. This would reduce operational costs, as compared to Alternative A, 

but would provide less protection of sensitive resources and their associated non-market values. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

The socioeconomic effects from transportation and access management under Alternative C are the 

same as those identified under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

The socioeconomic effects from transportation and access management under Alternative D are the 

same as those identified under Alternative A. 

Effects from Lands and Realty Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

All alternatives would make lands available for disposal to improve the efficiency of managing high 

resource value lands, which could improve management of the industries that are important on BLM 

lands and that provide income and employment in the WDO and improve management of sensitive 

resources with high non-market values. Development on these disposed lands could increase the tax 

base and provide employment opportunities and income in the local economy. This could enable 

local governments to better handle the pressures of increasing population, the increasing need for 

public services and facilities, and increasing public demand for recreation. Converting public lands to 

private may temporarily reduce open land property values. 

Renewable energy development would not occur in right-of-way exclusion areas, which could result 

in a decrease in the potential for economic growth based on development of this resource. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Under Alternative A, 2,989,030 acres are identified as suitable for disposal, subject to disposal 

criteria within Zone 3. Assuming this area would be suitable for disposal and development could 

occur on all of the land, the assessed value for local governments within the WDO would increase 

by $3,736,288. Development of this land would increase its assessed value and could generate 

economic growth. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Alternative B has the greatest area suitable for disposal, subject to disposal criteria. Assuming all 

2,128,543 available acres would be suitable for disposal and that all of the land could be developed, 

the assessed value for local governments within the WDO would increase by $2,660,679. 

Development of this land would increase its assessed value and could generate economic growth. 

The potential for economic growth based on renewable energy development within the WDO is 

greatest under Alternative B since no ROW exclusion areas are identified. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-736 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Alternative C proposes the least area suitable for disposal, subject to disposal criteria. Assuming all 

1,215,963 available acres would be suitable for disposal and that all of the land could be developed, 

the assessed value for local governments within the WDO would increase by $1,519,954. 

Development of this land would increase its assessed value and could generate economic growth. 

Alternative C would require no net loss or net gain in public land acreage within WDO. Therefore, 

the property tax base would not increase as a result of increased taxable acreage from land tenure 

adjustments. In addition, the potential for rural community growth could be limited by this 

requirement. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Approximately 1,281,959 acres would be suitable for disposal under Alternative D, subject to 

disposal criteria. Assuming all available acres would be suitable for disposal and development could 

occur on all of the land, the assessed value for local governments within the WDO would increase 

by $1,602,449. Development of this land would increase its assessed value and could generate 

economic growth. 

Effects from ACEC/RNA Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no effects common to all alternatives from ACEC/RNA management. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

There would minimal socioeconomic impacts, as the current ACEC is an area comprised of only 60 

acres. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

The effects of ACEC/RNA management under Alternative B would be similar to those identified 

under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Under Alternative C, four ACECs would be designated. Increased operational costs could occur to 

mineral and energy development to develop mitigation measures. Fluid, salable, and solid mineral 

and energy development would be precluded because ACECs also are defined as exclusion areas. No 

economic benefit from mineral and energy development would be realized within ACECs under 

Alternative C. Local economies could be affected due to reduced expenditures and employment, 

which could be offset by the protection of the sensitive resources and their associated value to 

society that are associated with these ACECs. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

The effects of ACEC/RNA management under Alternative D are similar to those identified under 

Alternative C. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-737 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Effects from Backcountry Byways Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Backcountry byways would stimulate vehicle travel, which would promote the purchase of goods 

and services by these travelers, benefiting local economies. These effects would increase over time as 

more retirees visit areas via vehicle travel. 

Effects from National Trails Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Trails management may increase operational costs to mitigate impacts on trails. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Increased operational costs resulting from mitigating impacts on trails is expected to be minimal 

under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

NSO restrictions on fluid and other leasable minerals and closures to commercial salable minerals 

could increase costs and decrease earnings for the individual mineral and energy developments. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Closure to minerals activities under Alternative C would be more likely than Alternative B to 

increase costs and decrease earnings for individual mineral and energy development operations. This 

is because national trails management under Alternative C would be the most restrictive of all the 

alternatives to these operations. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

The level of restrictions (NSO and closures) under Alternative D would be intermediate between 

Alternatives B and C. Therefore, the potential level of socioeconomic effect would be intermediate 

between Alternatives B and C. 

Effects from Wild and Scenic Rivers Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no effects common to all alternatives from Wild and Scenic River management. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

There would be no socioeconomic impacts from wild and scenic rivers management under 

Alternative A, as there are no wild and scenic rivers designated. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

The effects of wild and scenic rivers management under Alternative B would be the same as under 

Alternative A. There are no wild and scenic segments recommended as suitable under Alternative B. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-738 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Three segments are being recommended as suitable under Alternative C. This would prohibit 

development and uses such as mineral and energy development and rights-of-way along these 

segments to protect Outstandingly Remarkable Values, as outlined in Section 1 (b) of the Wild and 

Scenic Rivers Act. Implementation of mitigation measures may increase operational expenses which 

may reduce local expenditures and other economic benefits; however, protecting the North Fork of 

the Little Humboldt, Washburn Creek, and Crowley Creek would preserve fish habitat, which could 

benefit fisheries in and downstream of the protected area and scenic recreation values. Improved 

fisheries could bring in greater fishing visitation, and improved scenic values would benefit and 

potentially increase use by visitors who enjoy nature-related tourism. Although there is no market 

value for preserving fish habitat, the potential increased fishing opportunities that it indirectly could 

provide does have a value in the local economy. For example, the BLM’s public land statistics data 

estimated that 201,000 anglers spent an average of $1,233 per angler in fiscal 2006 in Nevada (a total 

of approximately $248 million) (BLM 2007d). 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

The effects from wild and scenic rivers management under Alternative D are the same as those 

identified under Alternative A. 

Effects from Wilderness Study Areas and Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Restrictions applied to mining operations, energy development, and commercial recreation could 

increase operational costs or preclude development to protect WSAs. These increased costs would 

result in lower incomes for these operations and potential reductions in expenditures within local 

economies; however, protecting the resources for which the WSAs were designated also would 

protect their values for visitors and area residents, which could exceed the reduction in incomes and 

expenditures. 

There are no impacts on socioeconomic resources from wilderness characteristics management 

under Alternatives A, B, and D; no management actions would alter the economic activities within 

the WDO. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Based on the interim management plan and 3802 regulations, mining operations would incur 

increased expenses for permits to operate within WSAs. Other uses such as energy development 

could be precluded from development within WSAs. Restrictions also could apply to commercial 

recreation use, since “minimum tool restrictions” would apply. These impacts would vary based on 

the nature and scope of required restrictions and mitigation measures. Local economies could be 

affected due to reduced expenditures and employment. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-739 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

The effects from WSA and wilderness characteristics management under Alternative B are the same 

as those identified under Alternative A. 

Alternative C

The effects from WSA and wilderness characteristics management under Alternative C are the same 

as those identified under Alternative A. 

Closing areas with wilderness characteristics to minerals leasing, salable mineral disposal, and rightsof-way could restrict the level of economic activity that could occur in oil and gas, salable minerals, 

solid minerals, geothermal, and wind and solar energy development in these areas. Only 238 acres of 

lands with wilderness characteristics are under competitive lease for oil and gas. Historic leases 

within these areas covered approximately 50,313 acres; however, all of these leases are now closed. 

There fore, economic activity related to oil and gas development would be unlikely to be affected by 

these closures and exclusions. About 0.03 percent of areas open to salable mineral development and 

0.03 percent of areas open to solid minerals development would be affected by management for 

wilderness characteristics. Therefore, the level of economic activity generated by developing these 

minerals could be curtailed, depending on the presence of these minerals in the areas with wilderness 

characteristics. Approximately 7,420 acres of the land in authorized or pending geothermal leases, 

which is about 4.2 percent of the WDO total competitive geothermal leases. About 6.5 percent of all 

WDO lands with high solar PV or CSP potential lie within areas with wilderness characteristics. 

Therefore, economic activity related to geothermal and solar energy development would be unlikely 

to be influenced by these closures and exclusions. Because approximately 0.3 percent of WDO lands 

with high wind potential are within areas with wilderness characteristics, management of these lands 

would be more likely to affect economic activity related to wind energy development. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

The effects from WSA and wilderness characteristics management under Alternative D are similar to 

those identified under Alternative A. This alternative provides additional means to protect WSAs if 

released by Congress. Implementing other designations could increase operational costs and impacts 

on local economies by reducing expenditures and employment, depending on the type of 

designation. 

Effects from Watchable Wildlife Viewing Sites Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Under all of the alternatives, establishing watchable wildlife viewing sites would not measurably 

affect the social and economic activities that occur within the WDO, including access to traditional 

sites, recreation, grazing, mining, and renewable energy resource development. Wildlife viewing sites 

would encourage more visitation into undeveloped areas. This may benefit local economies that 

provide goods and services. These benefits are expected to be minimal. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-740 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Effects from Public Health and Safety Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Under all of the alternatives, public health and safety management would minimize the potential for 

environmental justice effects. Maintaining a database of hazardous conditions, removal and 

mitigation of dangerous or hazardous substances, public education, restriction of public activities in 

unsafe areas, and providing infrastructure when needed to protect public safety would minimize the 

potential for disproportionately affecting children, minorities, and low-income groups by protecting 

all WDO visitors. In addition, protecting public safety, providing law enforcement, removing 

hazardous materials, and providing public information would stabilize recreation use and attitudes, 

which could benefit local economies. Recreation users would be encouraged to buy goods and 

services to ensure safety and would continue to use public lands to recreate, since they would they 

feel reassured that they could do so in a safe manner. Indirect employment and economic benefits 

could also include fewer recreation-oriented injuries, which could result in fewer lost work days due 

to injuries. Constraining or restricting public activities on public lands also could restrict access to 

minerals and renewable resources and prevent the establishment of renewable energy ROWs. 

Requirements for fencing, signing, and other actions to protect public safety could increase the costs 

of minerals operations and renewable energy development. These effects on local economies from 

public health and safety management would be minimal. 

Effects from Sustainable Development Management 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no effects common to all alternatives from sustainable development management. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Sustainable development is not addressed under Alternative A, and the potential for the resulting 

continued economic activity would not be captured under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

The potential for post-operation reuse of public lands could allow for continued economic use of 

sites of previous operations, such as mining, allowing for continued productivity, employment, and 

income to be derived from the sites. Economic development on sites that would be difficult and 

potentially costly for the WDO to manage would include participation from communities to 

determine the type of development that would be most beneficial to them. Reuse of these sites could 

help to provide economic diversity to offset the cyclic nature of the local economy (the boom and 

bust cycle associated with raw materials industries). Allowing public land disposal to facilitate 

sustainable development would improve commercial operation efficiencies and provide positive 

economic benefits. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

The effects from sustainable development management under Alternative C are the same as those 

described under Alternative B, except that disposal for reuse would be limited to maintaining no net 

loss of acreage within the WDO. This restriction could limit the potential for commercial economic 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-741 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

growth, but it would ensure that lands would be available for recreation, a significant industry in the 

local economy, and would remain in the public trust. Alternative C also would limit disposal of 

public lands, even if the disposal would provide a greater public benefit than if those lands were 

rehabilitated. This restriction also could preclude commercial development and limit socioeconomic 

benefits to communities from commercial uses, including restricting potential increases in the local 

tax base and in business activities. However, other benefits to the communities could be derived 

from recreation uses if these lands were rehabilitated. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

The effects from sustainable development management under Alternative D are the same as those 

described under Alternative B. 

Cumulative Effects 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Past, current, and planned projects that have affected or would affect the economy, social structure, 

or tribal interests in the planning area, or the resources or resource uses occurring on WDO lands, 

would result in cumulative socioeconomic impacts. The following past and current activities have 

affected the trends in resource uses in the planning area and the incomes and employment derived 

from these uses, as well as environmental justice populations in the planning area. Recreation and 

OHV use, livestock grazing, and minerals and energy development have occurred in the planning 

area and would continue to influence the economy and social well being of users of public lands 

within the region. 

Restrictions on OHV use that could occur as a result of the proposed RMP for the WDO would not 

be expected to change the economic or social contribution of recreation in the local economy or 

within the region, due to continued population growth and demand. However, these restrictions 

could increase pressure on areas in which open motorized use is available. 

Continued livestock grazing on WDO public lands would contribute to the incomes of local 

permittees, which would be a factor in maintaining a unique way of life that is present in the region 

and adding incrementally to ranchers’ incomes locally and regionally. This would not apply to 

Alternative C, Option 2. 

Renewable energy development and fluid minerals development within the WDO would continue to 

contribute incrementally toward the growth of the energy industry in the region and the country. 

Individual Effects under Alternative A

Alternative A would maintain existing management and would have similar effects to those 

described above for Effects Common to All Alternatives. The potential for sustainable development 

to contribute to the level of overall economic activity would not be realized under Alternative A. 

Individual Effects under Alternative B

Alternative B would impose the fewest restrictions on the economic activities that occur and would 

continue to occur within the WDO. In combination with continued population growth, increases in 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-742 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-743 

the level of recreation participation, increased interest in renewable energy, and growth in the energy 

industry, Alternative B would be the most likely alternative to contribute toward the employment, 

income, revenue, and overall economic growth associated with these conditions. 

Individual Effects under Alternative C

Alternative C would impose the most restrictions on the economic activities that occur and would 

continue to occur within the WDO. In combination with continued population growth, increases in 

the level of recreation participation, increased interest in renewable energy, and growth in the energy 

industry, Alternative C would contribute the least toward the employment, income, revenue, and 

overall economic growth associated with these conditions. In addition, Option 2 would detract from 

the incomes of local permittees, which would be a factor in the decline of a unique way of life that is 

present in the region and incrementally reducing ranchers’ incomes locally and regionally. 

Individual Effects under Alternative D

Alternative D would impose more protective restrictions than Alternatives A and B but fewer than 

Alternative C. Therefore, the incremental economic contribution of Alternative D with respect to 

growth in the tourism and recreation industry and in the energy industry, as well as the contribution 

to preserving the ranching lifestyle and to ranchers’ incomes, would be intermediate between 

Alternatives B and C. 

4.6 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS

Section 102(C) of NEPA requires disclosure of any adverse environmental effects that cannot be 

avoided should the proposal be implemented. Unavoidable adverse impacts are those that remain, 

following the implementation of mitigation measures, or those for which there are no mitigation 

measures. Virtually all potential unavoidable adverse impacts are generally long term, indirect, and 

difficult to quantify. Some unavoidable adverse impacts would occur by implementing the RMP and 

from the proposed management under one or more of the alternatives. Others result from everyday 

use of public lands within the planning area. The alternatives were developed to respond to these 

impacts and to be protective of the resources, while allowing land use to be as diverse as possible. 

Continuing to allow surface-disturbing and disruptive activities, as required by the BLM multiple-use 

mandate, would result in unavoidable adverse impacts, sometimes to multiple resources 

simultaneously, as described below. Although these impacts are mitigated to the extent possible, 

unavoidable damage is inevitable. Restoration activities would be the primary cause of unavoidable 

adverse impacts from management actions, while public uses, such as livestock grazing, mineral 

development, and OHV use, would be the primary causes of unavoidable adverse impacts by the 

public. 

Permanently converting vegetative resources to other uses, such as transportation and mineral and 

energy development, reduces the quantity of vegetation resources and thus could inadvertently 

displace wildlife through a decrease in the quantity and quality of forage 

Energy and mineral resource extraction on public lands potentially creates visual intrusions, soil 

erosion, compaction problems, loss of vegetation cover, and damage or destruction of cultural and 

paleontological resources. 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Portions of the resource area with increased visitation and therefore more intense recreational use 

would continue to experience scarring, increased soil erosion, and loss of vegetation. Although these 

latter impacts are unavoidable, if they are concentrated in areas already disturbed, this would reduce 

the spread of impacts from increased visitation to more remote or less frequented areas. However, 

changes in the amount of recreational visitation and patterns of use could also result in increased 

conflicts between users, unanticipated changes in resource conditions, vandalism, and illegal 

collection of cultural resources. Although mitigation measures could be implemented for scientific 

data recovery of cultural resources, the impacts on areas of any excavation would be unmitigable. 

The number of sites anticipated to be inadvertently damaged is unknown but is directly proportional 

to the acreage disturbed. Natural processes, such as erosion and natural decay or deterioration, could 

also result in unmitigated damage to cultural resources. 

Conflicts between user types, such as recreationists who seek more primitive types of recreation and 

motorized vehicle users who share the same recreation areas, are unavoidable adverse impacts. As 

recreation demand increases, recreation use would disperse to other parts of the planning area, 

which could create conflicts with previous uses of those areas. Under alternatives in which mineral 

development is expected to be higher, recreation use would be transferred from those areas, which 

would increase the extent and frequency of conflict between these incompatible user groups. 

Unavoidable adverse impacts would occur, even though attempts are made to minimize these 

impacts by limiting the protection level necessary to accomplish management objectives and by 

providing alternative use areas for impacted activities. 

Unauthorized OHV travel could cause scarring, increased soil erosion, and loss of vegetation cover. 

Introduced weeds could increase the likelihood of fires and could reduce canopy coverage, leaving 

soils subject to increased erosion. Additional soil erosion would result from any facility 

developments, including recreation sites, livestock water and other range improvements, and utility 

and road facilities that are not properly restored even after mitigation measures are applied. Largescale, stand-replacing wildland fires are expected to occur within the planning area over the life of 

the RMP; these would quickly change both the habitat value for biological resources, resulting in the 

decline of habitat quality and the scenic quality of the landscape, without regard to visual resource 

objectives. 

Unavoidable adverse impacts would result from the accidental or unauthorized introduction of 

exotic plant or animal species, either from OHV use or other vectors, which in turn could harm or 

cause loss of populations of native plants or animals. Ecosystem components could be impacted if 

fire-prone areas are not treated before a high-intensity wildland fire. If fuels are not treated, the risk 

of loss to life and property would be higher as rural growth expands. 

In addition, unavoidable adverse impacts would result from implementing proposed restrictions on 

recreation, livestock grazing, and other resource uses to protect sensitive resources and other values. 

These restrictions would lessen the ability of operators, permittees, individuals, and groups to use 

public lands and could increase operating costs. 

Competition for habitat resources is anticipated among wildlife, livestock, and wild horses and 

burros. The extent of the impacts would vary by season and drought cycle. Although there might be 

short-term periods of significant impacts, long-term management would ensure that these uses are 

compatible to the extent possible. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-744 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

4.7 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES

Section 102(2)C of NEPA requires a discussion of any irreversible or irretrievable commitments of 

resources from implementing the RMP. Implementing actions in accordance with the selected 

alternative may result in impacts that could be irreversible or irretrievable or both. 

Irreversible commitments of resources refer to the loss of future options and apply primarily to the 

effects of nonrenewable resources, such as minerals, cultural resources, and soils, that cannot be 

regained. Examples are the extinction of a species, disturbance to protected cultural resources, or the 

removal of mined ore. An irretrievable commitment of resources involves the loss of production, 

harvest, or use of natural resources, such as any locatable mineral ore, or oil and gas, over time. 

Examples are the temporary loss of timber productivity in forested areas that are kept clear for use 

as a power line right-of-way or road. 

Implementing any of the management plan alternatives would result in some impacts that could be 

characterized as irreversible and irretrievable commitments. For most impacts, the RMP would 

provide objectives for resource management and guidance for future activity and implementationlevel decisions that minimize the potential for irreversible and irretrievable impacts. Some localized 

resources could be disrupted but could be mitigated. However, implementing the alternatives would 

result in some irreversible or irretrievable losses, which are described below. 

Livestock forage production may be lost in an area that is undergoing restoration or that was subject 

to a wildfire. Once the area is restored, forage production would increase and livestock grazing could 

resume. In this case, the production lost is irretrievable, but the action is not irreversible. 

Mineral and energy development could result in an irreversible loss of vegetation resources, 

primitive recreational experiences, wildlife habitat, and livestock forage. Surface-disturbing and 

disruptive activities associated with mineral extraction and energy development would permanently 

alter soil, affecting habitat, and is also likely to damage cultural and paleontological resources. 

Reclaiming disturbed areas would reduce the magnitude of these impacts following the action, but 

some outcomes would be irreversible or irretrievable. Examples of the latter are as follows: 

• Changes in wildlife migration patterns and displacement of local species populations during 

the activities, causing an irreversible loss in local wildlife populations; 

• An irretrievable commitment of nonrenewable fossil fuels, such as oil, gas, and coal, from 

extracting potential wells developed during the next 20 years; and 

• Lands occupied by mineral extraction would permanently lose habitat values and would have 

reduced carrying capacity for wildlife resources. 

Visual characteristics near mining sites could be irretrievably lost during development and operation; 

that is, opportunities to view undisturbed settings would be lost during either restoration treatments 

or mineral activities, and these would be irretrievable. Slight increases in sediment, salinity, and 

nonpoint source pollution from these activities might also result in an irretrievable degradation of 

water quality. The extraction and development of mineral resources results in the irretrievable and 

irreversible loss of those minerals. The withdrawal of areas from leasable, locatable, and salable 

mineral entry would cause an irretrievable loss of mineral extraction during the life of the RMP. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-745 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-746 

Changes in vegetation communities from drought, wildfire, cheatgrass invasion, invasive plants, or 

restoration treatments may not be reversible or may be reversible only after many decades. Some 

changes would be irretrievable. Changes in vegetation communities that would result from restoring 

or not restoring areas may be irreversible or may be reversible only after many decades. Invasion by 

cheatgrass and other noxious or invasive weeds may be irreversible. The resources committed to 

manage weeds would be irretrievable. Wildlife that depend on affected habitats might be displaced 

and populations might be reduced as carrying capacity of the range is reduced. Irreversible and 

irretrievable losses of wildlife habitat indirectly reduce the amount of suitable special status species 

habitat. However, management prescriptions and mitigations prescribed under the alternatives are 

intended to reduce the magnitude of these impacts and would restore some of the soil, vegetation, 

and habitat lost. Effects on special status wildlife or plants from authorized and unauthorized 

activities, wildfire, invasive plants, or restoration treatments may be irreversible. 

Construction of roads, well pads, and other transportation infrastructure improvements create an 

irretrievable loss of habitat and impair important visual elements, particularly near communities. 

Stand-replacing fires might cause an irreversible loss of some key ecosystem components. Loss of 

soils following wildfires, or from erosion during restoration treatments, would be irretrievable. The 

effect of a high intensity wildfire or one covering many acres would be reversible only after several 

decades. Resources committed for fire suppression and rehabilitation would be irretrievable. 

Changes in wildlife habitat from wildfire, invasive plants, or restoration treatments may be 

irreversible or may be reversible only after many decades. 

Scarring of the landscape resulting from authorized and unauthorized OHV use can be irreversible. 

Undiscovered cultural resources could be unintentionally affected by management activities. Cultural 

resources are by their nature irreplaceable, so altering or eliminating any such resource, be it 

National Register eligible or not, represents an irreversible and irretrievable commitment. 

Authorized mitigation of cultural sites before disturbance and unauthorized collecting and vandalism 

would be an irreversible commitment of the resource. Authorized and unauthorized collection of 

fossils would also be an irreversible commitment of the resource. 

The exact nature and extent of any irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources cannot be 

defined due to uncertainties about location, scale, timing, and rate of implementation, as well as the 

relationship to other actions and the effectiveness of mitigation measures throughout the life of the 

plan. 

4.8 RELATIONSHIP OF SHORT-TERM USES OF THE ENVIRONMENT TO LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY

Section 102(C) of NEPA requires a discussion of the relationship between local short-term uses of 

the human environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity of 

resources. As described in the introduction to this chapter, “short-term” defines those effects that 

are anticipated to occur while the alternative is being implemented, that is, within one to five years. 

“Long-term” defines those effects that are anticipated to occur for an extended period after the first 

five years of alternative implementation but within the life of the RMP, which is projected to be 20 

years. These effects could last several years or more. 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Regardless of which alternative is selected, management activities would result in various short-term 

adverse effects, such as increased localized soil erosion, smoke and fugitive dust emissions affecting 

air quality, damage to vegetation and fish and wildlife habitat, and decreased visual resource quality. 

Other short-term effects could improve long-term productivity and provide beneficial effects. 

Short-term effects, such as those associated with mineral development, could result in long-term 

degradation of wilderness values and scenic quality. Short-term effects associated with route 

designations, maintenance, and alterations also could result in long-term effects on recreation and 

rangeland management activities and wildlife movement within corridors. Alternatively, short-term 

effects, such as vegetation treatments, would beneficially affect long-term productivity for wildlife 

and rangeland management by increasing available forage. Short-term effects of wildland fire 

management and vegetation treatments could result in long-term improvements for scenic quality. 

Management actions and best management practices minimize the effect of short-term uses and 

reverse the change during the long term. However, BLM lands are managed to foster multiple uses, 

and some long-term productivity impacts might occur regardless of management approach. 

Surface disturbing and disruptive activities, including mineral and energy development, dispersed 

recreation, livestock grazing, infrastructure development, and human use, would result in the 

greatest potential for impacts on long-term productivity. The disturbance of soils, vegetation, and 

wildlife habitats from minerals exploration and extraction and livestock grazing, as well as from 

recreation use, would reduce the long-term productivity of the environment in local areas where 

revegetation or restoration of the natural environment could not be fully realized over time. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-747 
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

This page intentionally left blank. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 4-748 
May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 5-1 

CHAPTER 5 – CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION 

5.1 INTRODUCTION

This chapter is a description of the public outreach and participation opportunities made available 

through the development of the draft RMP/EIS and the coordination and consultation efforts with 

tribes, government agencies, and other stakeholders that have transpired to date. It includes a list of 

preparers of the document and the agencies, organizations, and individuals that received a copy of 

the draft RMP/EIS for review. There have been and will continue to be many ways for the public to 

participate in the planning process for public lands under the jurisdiction of the WDO. 

5.2 PUBLIC COLLABORATION AND OUTREACH

5.2.1 Scoping Process 

Scoping is the term used in the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations implementing NEPA 

(40 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 1500 et seq.) to define the early and open process for 

determining the scope of issues to be addressed in the planning process. The scoping process gets 

the public involved in identifying significant issues of land use management actions. The process 

also helps identify any issues that are not significant and that can thereby be eliminated from detailed 

analysis. The list of stakeholders and other interested parties is also confirmed and augmented 

during the scoping process. 

5.2.1.1 Notice of Intent 

The notice of intent (NOI) is the legal document notifying the public of the BLM’s intent to initiate 

the planning process and to prepare an EIS for a major federal action. The NOI invites the 

participation of the affected and interested agencies, organizations, and members of the general 

public in determining the scope and significant issues to be addressed in the planning alternatives 

and analyzed in the EIS. The NOI for the Winnemucca RMP was published in the Federal Register on 

March 25, 20051. The scoping period for receipt of public comments ended on May 24, 2005. 

5.2.1.2 Press Releases 

Local and regional newspapers throughout the planning area were used to disseminate information 

on the Winnemucca RMP scoping and planning process. The BLM prepared press releases to notify 

the public of the project, to announce the open houses, to request public comments, and to provide 

contact information. Press releases were printed in the following newspapers during the week of 

April 25, 2005: 

Newspaper Name Newspaper Location 

This & That Gerlach, Nevada 

The Humboldt Sun Winnemucca, Nevada 

Lovelock Review-Miner Lovelock, Nevada 

Reno Gazette-Journal Reno, Nevada 

 

1 “Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and to Initiate the Public Scoping 

Process.” Federal Register 70, no. 57 (March 2005): 15,348-15,349.
Chapter 5: Consultation and Coordination 

5.2.1.3 Scoping Meetings 

The BLM held public scoping meetings in Winnemucca on May 2, in Lovelock on May 3, in Gerlach 

on May 4, and in Reno on May 5, 2005. The BLM provided the local media with press releases 

announcing the time, location, and purpose of these meetings. 

The scoping meetings were presented in an open house format, allowing the public to receive 

information, ask questions, and provide input. Fact sheets and handouts about the project and a 

map of the planning area were provided, as was a list of the preliminary planning criteria and 

anticipated key issues related to the project. Single-page summaries of each resource issue were 

provided as convenient references to take from the meetings. Site and resource maps were displayed 

illustrating the current situation and management techniques practiced among different resources 

and land areas. A slide presentation highlighted key issues and summarized the planning process. 

Prominent, handicapped-accessible local facilities in informal settings were chosen as venues to 

encourage broad participation. 

Attendees were encouraged to mail in written comments and questions or to fill out comment cards 

specific to the Winnemucca RMP. Copies of the briefing package and planning criteria were also 

made available at the comment table. 

5.2.2 Project Web Site 

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

project information during the planning effort. The Web site, at www.nv.blm.gov/wdormp, 

provided a link for site visitors to submit comments about the project. Due to security issues and 

upgrades, the Web site was temporarily shut down in April 2005 and remained so through the end 

of the scoping period. The public was urged in public notices and during the scoping meetings to 

use other means to provide their comments. In the summer of 2006 the Winnemucca RMP public 

Web site was brought back online with a new Web address (www.nv.blm.gov/winnemucca/rmp/) 

and has been active intermittently ever since. The BLM continuously updates the Web site with 

information, documents, and announcements. 

5.2.3 Newsletters 

Newsletters are published throughout the course of the RMP/EIS process and are posted on the 

BLM Web site. Participants also may request to receive newsletters through e-mail. The newsletters 

remind the public of how they can comment and get involved and includes a calendar of events. 

Each edition addresses in detail issues of concern identified during the scoping process. On March 

23, 2005, the first project newsletter was mailed to over 1,600 individuals and organizations that had 

been interested in or participated in other activities hosted by the WDO. The purpose of this 

newsletter was to inform them of the WDO RMP planning effort, the location of the open houses, 

and the opportunity to comment. In addition, the newsletter gave the public various methods to 

submit their comments, including a dedicated e-mail address (comments@wformp.com), a fax line 

([775]-623-1503), and the BLM WDO address to mail comments. A second newsletter was 

distributed in March 2007 that provided a project update. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 5-2 
Chapter 5: Consultation and Coordination 

5.3 CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

The Winnemucca RMP will provide guidance for a vast area of public land in Nevada and 

necessarily requires the coordination of a wide variety of organizations with interests in the area. 

Among those are governmental bodies that create, administer, and monitor policy for these, as well 

as adjacent, lands. The BLM established a coordinated effort in developing the Winnemucca RMP 

by seeking the active participation of these parties. 

On February 16, 2005, the BLM invited 33 local, state, federal, and tribal representatives to 

participate as cooperating agencies for the Winnemucca RMP. Of these, nine agencies accepted this 

offer to participate in the BLM WDO planning process as cooperating agencies: 

• Humboldt County; 

• City of Winnemucca; 

• Washoe County; 

• Pershing County; 

• N-2 Grazing Board; 

• Nevada Department of Agriculture; 

• Nevada Department of Wildlife; 

• US Fish and Wildlife Service; and 

• US Bureau of Reclamation 

These entities will “work with the BLM, sharing knowledge and resources, to achieve desired 

outcomes for public lands and communities within statutory and regulatory frameworks” (BLM 

Land Use Planning Handbook H-1601-1). 

The following section documents the BLM’s consultation and coordination efforts during the 

preparation of this draft RMP/EIS. Consultation is an ongoing effort throughout the entire process 

of developing the final RMP/EIS. 

5.3.1 Native American Consultation 

Federally recognized Native American tribes have a unique legal and political relationship with the 

government of the United States. Executive Order 13175 requires federal agencies to coordinate and 

consult on a government-to-government basis with sovereign Native American tribal governments 

whose interests may be directly and substantially affected by activities on federally administered 

lands. Other laws, regulations, DOI guidance and executive orders require consultation to identify 

the cultural values, the religious beliefs, the traditional practices, and the legal rights of Native 

American people, which could be affected by BLM actions on federal lands. These include the 

National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966 (as amended), American Indian Religious 

Freedom Act of 1978, the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, DOI 

Secretarial Order No. 3215 (DOI 2000), 512 Department Manual Chapter 2 (DOI 1995), and BLM 

Manual H-8160-1 (DOI 1994), and Executive Order 13007 Indian Sacred sites. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 5-3 
Chapter 5: Consultation and Coordination 

All Native American tribes and organizations with interests in the WDO planning area were 

contacted by mail and encouraged to be cooperating agencies. Tribes have been participating in the 

RMP/EIS process through meetings and other contacts. During follow-up telephone calls to the 

tribes, each was offered the opportunity to meet with WDO representatives or to visit the study 

area. The BLM met with Native American organizations on May 24, 2005, and May 26, 2005, in 

Winnemucca and Reno, respectively. During the first meeting, representatives from the BLM met 

with 4 tribal representatives from the Fort McDermitt Tribe, Battle Mountain Band, and Lovelock 

Paiute Tribe to offer information on developing the Winnemucca RMP and to discuss tribal 

concerns to be addressed in the RMP. Similarly, BLM staff met with tribal representatives from the 

Fort McDermitt Tribe, Cedarville Rancheria, Susanville Indian Rancheria, and Pyramid Lake Tribe 

on May 26, 2005. 

With the assistance of a contractor, BLM conducted a confidential ethnographic assessment of the 

WDO planning area. The primary objectives of this study were as follows: 

• Conduct a thorough archival and literature review to identify and document Native 

American traditional occupancy and use of lands and resources, as well as previously 

recorded Native American places of cultural and religious importance, within the study area; 

• Elicit contemporary concerns and recommendations for managing traditional resources and 

cultural and religious values from tribal leaders, elders, or representatives; 

• Document the WDO’s Native American consultation efforts; and 

• Elicit tribal recommendations for managing the lands administered by the WDO. 

Tribes will continue to be contacted and may consult with the BLM throughout the RMP/EIS 

process. 

5.3.2 Cultural Resource Consultation 

The BLM has specific responsibilities and authorities to consider, plan for, protect, and enhance 

historic properties and other cultural properties that may be affected by its actions or actions it 

permits. The principal federal law addressing cultural resources is the NHPA (16 USC Section 470), 

and its implementing regulations (36 CFR 800). These regulations, commonly referred to as the 

Section 106 process, describe the procedures for identifying and evaluating historic properties, for 

assessing the effects of federal actions on historic properties, and for guiding project proponents 

consulting with appropriate agencies to avoid, reduce, or minimize adverse effects. The BLM in 

Nevada meets its responsibilities under Section 106 and other provisions of the NHPA through a 

state protocol agreement with the Nevada State Office of Historic Preservation (SHPO). Using 

authorities developed under a nationwide BLM programmatic agreement, the BLM follows an 

alternate procedure to the 36 CFR 800 regulations to meet its historic preservation responsibilities. 

Cultural resource consultation with the SHPO, Native American tribes and interested parties is 

required under the NHPA and a variety of laws, regulations, guidance, and departmental and 

executive orders. 

The state protocol agreement requires that the BLM invite the SHPO to participate early in the 

process of preparing or amending land use plans in order to identify cultural resource issues that 

should be addressed. The SHPO was invited but declined to be a cooperating agency for the 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 5-4 
Chapter 5: Consultation and Coordination 

RMP/EIS. The SHPO has also received copies of consultation correspondence with the Native 

American tribes. The BLM will invite the SHPO to comment on the draft and final land use plans 

and on any proposed cultural resource use allocations developed as a result of the RMP/EIS 

process. Additional consultations with the SHPO and Indian Tribes also may be required during 

implementation of individual projects. Consultations with the SHPO are ongoing and will be 

completed before the Record of Decision is signed. 

5.3.3 Special Status Species Consultation 

Coordination has occurred with NDOW and USFWS on several occasions with regard to special 

status species. The BLM received a species list from USFWS that will be used in future Section 7 

consultation prior to the release of the proposed RMP, final EIS. Section 7 consultation includes 

the preparation of a Biological Assessment by the BLM and subsequent Biological Opinion prepared 

by the USFWS that includes terms and conditions to minimize impacts to federally listed, proposed 

and candidate species. 

5.3.4 Resource Advisory Council 

A RAC is a committee established by the Secretary of Interior to provide advice or 

recommendations to BLM management (BLM 2005a). A RAC is generally composed of 15 

members of the public representing different facets. The Sierra Front-Northwestern Great Basin 

RAC includes a panel of mixed expertise ranging from natural resources and Native American 

culture to mining, transportation, and politics. The group is facilitated by the public affairs officer 

from the BLM. In March 2005, five new members were incorporated into the WDO RAC to replace 

previous members. The first meeting with the new RAC was held on April 28, 2005 at the 

Winnemucca District Office. After a presentation of the RMP process highlighting the components 

and issues of the planning area, preliminary planning criteria, and project status, the RAC elected to 

form a subgroup to provide assistance and input. The RAC subgroup assisted in developing the 

alternatives at the following meetings: 

• Fernley Nevada on July 11, 2005; 

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

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

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

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

• Winnemucca District Office on March 15, 2006; 

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

• Winnemucca District Office on November 30, 2006. 

5.4 DISTRIBUTION LIST 

Scoping for the draft RMP/EIS began in March 2005. The first newsletter for the WDO RMP 

project was mailed on March 23, 2005, to more than 1,600 individuals from the public, agencies, and 

organizations that have participated in past BLM projects or requested to be on the mailing list. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 5-5 
Chapter 5: Consultation and Coordination 

Recipients of the newsletter and visitors to the scoping open houses were asked to specifically 

request to stay on the official RMP project mailing list to receive future mailings. In addition, the 

distribution list has been updated throughout the development of the draft RMP/EIS. The 

distribution list of agencies, organizations, and individuals who have been a part of the RMP/EIS 

process is available in the administrative record. The distribution list for the draft RMP/EIS is 

maintained by the WDO and is available on request. 

5.5 LIST OF PREPARERS

An IDT of resource specialists from the BLM WDO prepared this RMP/EIS (Table 5-1). Tetra 

Tech, Inc. assisted the BLM in preparing these documents and in the planning process (Table 5-2). 

Table 5-1 

RMP/EIS Preparers – BLM 

Bureau of Land 

Management 

Name 

Bureau of Land 

Management 

Years Experience 

Bureau of Land Management 

Role/Responsibility 

Bureau of Land 

Management Education 

Rodger Bryan 32 Project Manager (2009); 

Wildlife BS, Wildlife 

Joey Carmosino 4 Recreation MA, Recreation Administration

Jerry Carpenter 25 Facilities/Road Manager NA 

Delores Cates 30 Visual Resources and Fluid 

Leasable Minerals BS, Geology 

Amanda 

DeForest 16 Livestock Grazing 

BS, Wildlife 

Management/Rangeland 

Management 

Ken Detweiler 32 Special Status Species/Wildlife BS, Wildlife 

Craig Drake 17 Water Resources BS, Resource 

Management/Hydrology 

Glenna Eckel 17 Wild Horses and Burros BS, Multi-Resource 

Management 

Bob Edwards 35 

Project Manager /Team Lead 

(2007-2008, 2010-)/ 

Lands/Realty/Transportatio

n/Renewable Energy 

BS, Business Management 

Mark Ennes 4 Cultural 

Resources/Paleontology MA, Anthropology 

Jeff Fedrizzi 13 Fire Management MS, Wildlife Management 

Mark Gingrich 4 Hazmat BS, Geology 

Gail Givens 25 District Office Manager (2004-

2008) 

BS, Natural Resource 

Conservation 

Gerald Gulley 5 Wilderness MS, Forest Recreation 

Emily Harris 4 Wild and Scenic Rivers Report MS, Natural Resources 

Recreation 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 5-6 
Chapter 5: Consultation and Coordination 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 5-7 

Bureau of Land 

Management 

Name 

Bureau of Land 

Management 

Years Experience 

Bureau of Land Management 

Role/Responsibility 

Bureau of Land 

Management Education 

Dave Hays 15 Nonrenewable Resources MS, Rangeland Ecosystem 

Science 

Arlan Hiner 33 Renewable Resources BS, Forestry 

Heidi Hopkins 2 Wild Horses and Burros MS, Vertebrate Zoology 

Jeff Johnson 19 

Project Manager 2003-2006; 

Fire Resources, Social and 

Economic, ACEC and WSR 

Evaluation 

BS, Conservation of Natural 

Resources 

Dave Lefevre 3 Recreation BS, Recreation Management 

Vince Lincoln 7 GIS BS, Geography 

Ken Loda 24 Minerals and Geology BS, Geology 

Greg Lynch 9 Fish and Wildlife, Special Status 

Species 

BS, Agriculture/Fishery 

Science 

Peggy 

McGuckian 35 

Cultural Resources, Native 

American Religious 

Concerns, Historic Trails, 

Paleontological Resources 

BA, Anthropology 

MA, Anthropology 

Derek Messmer 7 Vegetation 

BS, Resource 

Management/Forestry and 

Range Management 

Ronda Purdy 7 Vegetation/Livestock Grazing BS, Range Conservation 

Gene Seidlitz 20 District Manager Rangeland Management 

Jamie Thompson 19 Public Affairs JD, Law 

Matt Varner 5 Fish and Aquatic/Riparian 

Habitat 

BS, Wildlife and Fisheries 

Management 

Mike Zielinski 33 Soils/Riparian BS, Resource 

Management/Soils 
Chapter 5: Consultation and Coordination 

Table 5-2 

RMP/EIS Preparers – Contractor 

Contractor—

Tetra Tech, Inc. 

Name 

Contractor—

Tetra Tech, Inc. 

Years 

Experience 

Contractor—Tetra 

Tech, Inc. 

Role/Responsibility 

Contractor—Tetra Tech, Inc. 

Education 

Cindy Adornetto 24 Recreation 

MS, Environmental Policy and 

Mgmt., University of Denver; 

BS, Natural Resource Mgmt., 

Colorado State University 

Kelly Bayer 16 

Fish and Wildlife, 

Special Status 

Species, 

Transportation and 

Access 

BS, Biology and Marine Science, 

University of Miami 

Mike DaSilva 20 Wild Horse and Burros BA and MS, Biology, Eastern 

Washington University 

Kevin T. Doyle 25 Cultural Resources, 

Tribal Interests 

BA, University of California, Santa 

Barbara, Continuing Studies in 

Anthropology, Historic 

Preservation, and Cultural 

Resource Management; California 

State University, Los Angeles; 

University of California, Los 

Angeles; University of Southern 

California, School of Architecture; 

and University of Nevada, Reno 

Yashekia Evans 11 GIS 

Liz Fagen 4 Public Health and Safety

MS, Environmental Engineering, 

Colorado State University Fort 

Collins 

BS, Civil Engineering, University of 

Wisconsin Madison 

Cameo Flood 24 Wildland Fire 

Management 

BS, Forest Resource Management, 

University of Montana 

Derek Holmgren 10 

Project 

Management/Lands 

and Realty, Visual 

Resources, Special 

Designations 

MPA and MSES, Indiana University; 

BS and BA, Oregon State University 

Cliff Jarman 20 

Soils, Geologic 

Resources, Cave and 

Karst Resources, 

Paleontological 

Resources, Minerals 

Resources 

MS, Geophysics, New Mexico 

Institute of Mining and 

Technology 

BS, Geology, University of New 

Mexico 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 5-8 
Chapter 5: Consultation and Coordination 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 5-9 

Contractor—

Tetra Tech, Inc. 

Name 

Contractor—

Tetra Tech, Inc. 

Years 

Experience 

Contractor—Tetra 

Tech, Inc. 

Role/Responsibility 

Contractor—Tetra Tech, Inc. 

Education 

Genevieve Kaiser 20 Socioeconomics, 

Renewable Energy 

MS, Energy Management and Policy, 

University of Pennsylvania; BA, 

Economics, College of William 

and Mary; 

Professional Certification: GIS, 

University of Denver 

Cindy Schad 14 Word Processing BFA, Creative Writing 

John Flournoy 10 Word Processing BA, Cognitive Science, University of 

California, Berkeley 

Bob Sculley 38 Air Resources 

MS, Ecology, University of California, 

Davis 

BS, Zoology, Michigan State 

University 

Randolph Varney 18 Writer, Editor 

MFA, Writing, University of San 

Francisco 

BA, Technical and Professional 

Writing, San Francisco State 

University 

Tom Whitehead 30 Water Resources 

MS, University of Arizona 

BS, California State University 

Hayward 

BA, San Francisco State University 

Meredith 

Zaccherio 5 

Vegetation, Fish and 

Wildlife, Special 

Status Species, 

Wilderness 

Characteristics 

MA, Biology, Boston University 

BS, Biology, Binghamton University 

BS, Environmental Science, 

Binghamton University 

Subcontractor—

EMPS: 

Environmental 

Management & 

Planning 

Solutions, Inc. 

Name 

Subcontractor—

EMPS: 

Environmental 

Management & 

Planning 

Solutions, Inc. 

Years 

Experience 

Subcontractor—

EMPS: Environmental 

Management & 

Planning Solutions, 

Inc. 

Role/Responsibility 

Subcontractor—EMPS: 

Environmental Management & 

Planning Solutions, Inc. 

Education 

David Batts 17 NEPA Specialist/ 

QA-QC 

MS, Natural Resource Planning, 

Michigan State University 

BS, International Development, Lewis 

and Clark College 

Holly Prohaska 11 

Project 

Management/Livesto

ck Grazing 

MS, Environmental Management, 

University of San Francisco; 

BA, Marine Science, Biological 

Pathway, University of San Diego 

Jennifer Whitaker 10 

Socioeconomics/ 

Recreation/ BMP 

development 

MSM, Regis University 

BS, Public Affairs, emphasis in 

Natural Resource Management, 

Indiana University 
Chapter 5: Consultation and Coordination 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 5-10 

Subcontractor—

Far Western 

Archaeological 

Name 

Subcontractor—

Far Western 

Archaeological 

Years 

Experience 

Subcontractor—Far 

Western 

Archaeological 

Role/Responsibility 

Subcontractor—Far Western 

Archaeological 

Education 

Craig Young 20 Archaeologist PhD 

Subcontractor—

BENGSTON 

CONSULTING 

Name 

Subcontractor—

BENGSTON 

CONSULTING 

Years 

Experience 

Subcontractor—

BENGSTON 

CONSULTING 

Role/Responsibility 

Subcontractor—BENGSTON 

CONSULTING 

Education 

Ginny Bengston 10 Ethnographer MA 
CHAPTER 6 – REFERENCES 

Altman and Holmes. 2000. Altman, R., and A. Holmes. 2000. Conservation Strategy for Landbirds 

in the Columbia Plateau of Eastern Oregon and Washington. Oregon-Washington Partners 

in Flight. Point Reyes Bird Observatory, PRBO Conservation Science, Stinson Beach, 

California. 

Barker, C. E., T. D. Fouch, J. A. Grow, and J. A. Peterson. 1995. Western Great Basin Province 

(018). In: US Geological Survey, 1995 National Assessment of United States Oil and Gas 

Resources. Region 3 – Colorado Plateau and Basin and Range. Internet Web site: 

http://certnetra.cr.usgs.gov/1995OGData/ Region3/PROV18.pdf. 

BEA (Bureau of Economic Analysis). 2004. Local Annual Area Estimates. Internet Web site: 

www.bea.gov. 

____ . 2009a. CA25 Total Full-time and Part-time Employment by SIC Industry. Internet Web site: 

http://www.bea.gov/regional/reis/action.cfm. 

____ . 2009b. CA25N Total Full-time and Part-time Employment by NAICS Industry. April 2009. 

Internet Web site: http://www.bea.gov/regional/reis/action.cfm. 

____ . 2009c. CA45 Farm Income and Expenses, 1990-2007. Internet Web site: 

http://www.bea.gov/regional/reis/action.cfm. 

Bengston, G. 2003. Northern Paiute and Western Shoshone Land Use in Northern Nevada: A Class 

I Ethnographic/Ethnohistoric Overview. BLM Cultural Resource Series No. 12. Prepared 

for the Bureau of Land Management, Nevada State Office, Reno, Nevada. 

____ . 2006. Final Ethnographic Assessment, Bureau of Land Management, Winnemucca District 

Office Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement. Prepared by 

Bengston Consulting, Sun Valley, Nevada, for Tetra Tech and the Bureau of Land 

Management, Winnemucca District Office. (Note: Confidential document, not for public 

release). April 2006. 

BLM (Bureau of Land Management). 1976. Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) (43 

US Code 1701 et seq.). 

____ . 1978. Wilderness Inventory Handbook. Policy, Direction, Procedures, and Guidance for 

Conducting Wilderness Inventory on the Public Lands. September 27, 1978. 

____ . 1982a. Winnemucca District Office. Paradise-Denio Management Framework Plan III. 

____ . 1982b. Winnemucca District Office. Sonoma-Gerlach Management Framework Plan III. 

____ . 1986. Visual Resource Inventory. BLM Manual Handbook 8410-1. 

____ . 1988. NEPA Handbook, H-1790-1. 

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

____ . 1991. Nevada BLM Statewide Wilderness Report. October 1991. 

____ . 1992. Pine Forest Recreation Management Plan. September 1992. 

____ . 1993. Kyle Hot Springs—oil and gas potential and land use plan description. Interoffice 

Memorandum, 3100 (NV-026-52). December 16, 1993. 

____ . 1995. Interim Management Policy and Guidelines for Lands under Wilderness Review. BLM 

Handbook H 8550-1, Release 8-67. Washington, DC. July 5, 1995. 

____ . 1997. Water Canyon Recreation Area Environmental Assessment, Management Plan, Record 

of Decision and Cooperative Management Agreement. August 15, 1997 

____ . 1999. Paradise-Denio and Sonoma-Gerlach Management Framework Plan Approved Lands 

Amendment and Decision Record. January 15, 1999. 

____ . 2000. National Assessment Prototype. June 2000. 

____ . 2001a. Bloody Shins Trail System Environmental Assessment. 

____ . 2001b. Nevada Wilderness Study Area Notebook. April 2001. 

____ . 2002a. Geothermal Resources Leasing—Winnemucca District Office Programmatic 

Environmental Assessment. 

____ . 2002b. Recreational Management Information System. Winnemucca District Office. 

____ . 2003a. Forestry Plan Amendment and Environmental Assessment. NV-020-02-05. 

Winnemucca District Office. September 2003. 

____ . 2003b. Instruction Memorandum No. 2003-275 on the Consideration of Wilderness 

Characteristics in Land Use Plans (Excluding Alaska). Washington, DC. September 29, 2003. 

____ . 2004a. Memorandum of Understanding Concerning Diffuse Source Water Pollution and the 

Nevada State 208 Water Quality Plan. State of Nevada, Division of Environmental 

Protection. September 2004. 

____ . 2004b. Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement on Wind Energy 

Development on BLM Administered Lands in the Western United States. Internet Web site: 

http://windeis.anl.gov/documents/dpeis/index.cfm. Washington, DC. September 2004. 

____ . 2004c. Recreational Management Information System. Winnemucca District Office. 

____ . 2004d. BLM-Information Bulletin No. OR-2004-141. 2004, 6 July. Forest Service Region 6 

and BLM Oregon/Washington Employees on Fire Safety. Internet Web site: 

www.blm.gov/nhp/efoia/or/fy2004/ib/ib-or-2004-141.htm. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 6-2 
Chapter 6: References 

____ . 2005a. Land Use Planning Handbook. March 11, 2005, p. 1-1, H-1601. 

____ . 2005b. Winnemucca Resource Management Plan Scoping Summary Report. 

____ . 2005c. Final Programmatic EIS on Wind Energy Development. June 2005. 

____ . 2005d. National Scenic and Historic Trails Strategy and Workplan. 

____ . 2005e. GIS data from the Winnemucca District Office. 

____ . 2005f. Analysis of Management Situation Report, BLM-Winnemucca District Office. April 

2005. 

____ . 2006a. Final Minerals Assessment Report. Winnemucca District Office. September 2006. 

____ . 2006b. Wild and Scenic River Report. Winnemucca District Office. November 2006. 

____ . 2006c. Winnemucca RMP/EIS Socioeconomic Report. Winnemucca District Office. 

September 2006. 

____ . 2007a. Wild Horse and Burro Heard Area Statistics. Internet Web site: 

http://www.wildhorseandburro.blm.gov/statistics/2007/Nevada.pdf. Accessed on October 

23, 2009. 

____ . 2007b. Visual Resource Management. BLM Manual 8400. 

____ . 2007c. Porter Springs Recreational Management Plan Final Environmental Assessment NV020-07-EA-09. June 2007. 

____ . 2007d. Public Land Statistics 2006. Volume 191, BLM/BC/ST-07/001+1165. April 2007. 

____ . 2008. Sport Fish within the WDO area. Internet Web site: 

www.nv.blm.gov/Winnemucca/recreation/. 

____ . 2009a. Winnemucca District Office Visual Resource Inventory. VRI Data Standard and 

Geodatabase Model (Version 1.1). August 2009. 

____ . 2009b. Permittee Information. Personal Communication between Genevieve Kaiser and 

Mandy DeForest at the Winnemucca District Office. 

BLM and DOE (US Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management and US Department of 

Energy, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy). 2003. Assessing the Potential for 

Renewable Energy on Public Lands. BLM and DOE, Washington, DC. February 2003. 

BLM and DOE (US Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management and US Department of 

Energy). 2008. West-Wide Energy Corridor Final Programmatic EIS—Western United 

States. DOE/EIS-0386. November 2008. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 6-3 
Chapter 6: References 

BLM and Forest Service. 2008. Record of Decision and Resource Management Plan Amendments 

for Geothermal Leasing in the Western United States. December 2008. 

Bonham, H. F. 1969. “Geology and Mineral Deposits of Washoe and Storey Counties, Nevada.” 

Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology, Bulletin 70. Reno: University of Nevada, Mackay 

School of Mines. 

Brussard, P., and G. Austin. 1993. Nevada butterflies checklist and ecological distribution. Biological 

Resources Research Center, University of Nevada. 

Bryan, Rodger 2010. Bureau of Land Management, Winnemucca District Office RMP Lead. 

Personal communication with Holly Prohaska, EMPSi via email. February 2, 2010. 

Bureau of Indian Affairs. 2007. Fire Occurrence Reporting System Users Guide. 

CEQ (Council on Environmental Quality). 1978. Regulations for Implementing NEPA (40 Code of 

Federal Regulations 1500-1508). 

Chambers, Jeanne C. 2008. Climate Change and the Great Basin. USDA Forest Service General 

Technical Report RMRS-GTR-204, pages 29 - 32. US Forest Service, Rocky Mountain 

Research Station. Internet Web site: www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs/rmrs_gtr204_029_032.pdf. 

Clark, Jeanne L. 1993. Nevada Wildlife Viewing Guide. Falcon Press Publishing Co., Inc. Published 

in cooperation with Defenders of Wildlife. 

Cohen, P. 1964. A Brief Appraisal of the Ground-Water Resources of the Grass Valley Area, 

Humboldt and Pershing Counties, Nevada. Ground-Water Resources Reconnaissance Series 

Report 29, Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Carson City. 

Connelly, J. W., M. A. Schroeder, A. R. Sands, and C. E. Braun. 2000. “Guidelines to manage sagegrouse populations and their habitats.” Wildlife Society Bulletin 28(4):967-985. 

Cronk, Q., and J. Fuller. 1995. Plant Invaders: The Threat to Natural Ecosystems. Chapman and 

Hall, New York. 

Davis, D.A., and Tingley, J.V., 1999, Gold and silver resources in Nevada: Nevada Bureau of Mines 

and Geology Map 120, scale 1:1,000,000. 

Detweiler, K. 2005. Bureau of Land Management, Winnemucca District Office Wildlife Specialist. 

Personal communication with Jeanette Weisman, Tetra Tech, regarding elk within the WDO 

area. 2005. 

____ . 2007a. Bureau of Land Management, Winnemucca District Office Wildlife Specialist. 

Comment regarding pygmy rabbits within the WDO, from comment response on chapters 

1-3 of the Draft RMP/EIS. August 2007. 

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

____ . 2007b. Bureau of Land Management, Winnemucca District Office Wildlife Specialist. 

Personal communication with Kelly Bayer and Meredith Zaccherio, Tetra Tech. October 10, 

2007. 

____ . 2007c. Bureau of Land Management, Winnemucca District Office Wildlife Specialist. 

Personal communication with Meredith Zaccherio, Tetra Tech, regarding mule deer habitat. 

July 16, 2007. 

Dobkin, D. S., A. C. Rich, and W. H. Pyle. 1998. “Habitat and avifaunal recovery from livestock 

grazing in a riparian meadow system of the northwestern Great Basin.” Conservation 

Biology 12: 209-221. 

DOI (Department of Interior). 2005. Energy Policy Act of 2005. Public Law 109-58. August 8, 

2005. 

Durbin, Bill, and Alan R. Coyner. 2004. Nevada Abandoned Mine Lands Report 2003. Commission 

on Mineral Resources, Division of Minerals, Carson City, Nevada. February 2004. Internet 

Web site: http://minerals.state.nv.us/forms/aml/ 

amlreport2003.pdf. 

EPA (US Environmental Protection Agency). 1996. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, 

Section 13.1: Wildfires and Prescribed Burning. AP-42. Internet Web site: 

www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/index.html. 

____ . 1998a. EPA Environmental Justice Guidelines. April 1998. 

____ . 1998b. Illegal Dumping Prevention Guidebook. EPA 905-B-97-001. March 1998. 

____ . 2006. National Ambient Air Quality Standards.. Internet Web site: 

www.epa.gov/air/criteria.html. 

____ . 2008a. National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Internet Web site: 

www.epa.gov/air/criteria.html. 

____ . 2008b. Landscape Ecology: Nevada Geospatial. Internet Web site: www.epa.gov/esd/landsci/nv_geospatial/pages/nvgeo_gis8_firehist_md.htm#1. 

____ . 2009a. National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Internet web site: 

www.epa.gov//criteria.html. 

____ . 2009b. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990 – 2007, Executive 

Summary. Internet web site: 

www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/usinventoryreport.html. 

____ . No date (a). Code of Federal Regulations Title 40 Part 50: National Primary and Secondary 

Ambient Air Quality Standards. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 6-5 
Chapter 6: References 

____ . No date (b). Code of Federal Regulations Title 40 Part 53: Ambient Air Monitoring 

Reference and Equivalent Methods. 

____ . No date (c). Code of Federal Regulations Title 40 Part 58: Ambient Air Quality Surveillance. 

____ . No date (d). List of 156 Mandatory Class I Federal Areas. Internet Web site: 

www.epa.gov/air/vis/class1.html. 

____ . No date (e). Mandatory Class I Areas. Internet Web site: 

www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t1/fr_notices/classimp.gif. 

Everett, D. E., and F. E. Rush. 1965. Water Resources Appraisal of Lovelock Valley, Pershing 

County, Nevada. Water Resources—Reconnaissance Series Report 32, Nevada Department 

of Conservation and Natural Resources, Carson City. 

Firby, J. R. 1995. Twin Creeks Project Paleontological Review. Manuscript on file at the BLM 

Winnemucca District Office. Carson City: Resource Concepts. 

FOFEM (First Order Fire Effects Model) Version 5.5. Computer program downloaded from 

Systems for Environmental Management; Internet website (www.fire.org) on August 22, 

2007. 

Foulke et al. 2006. Implications for the Regional Economy from Changes in Federal Grazing: Park 

County, Wyoming. Santa Fe, NM. February 2006. 

Ganskopp, D. C. 1983. “Habitat Use and Spatial Interactions of Cattle, Wild Horses, Mule deer, and 

California Bighorn Sheep in the Owyhee Breaks of Southeast Oregon.” Doctoral 

dissertation, Oregon State University. 

Garcia, K. T., and J. M. Jacoboni. 1991. Data on Ground-Water Quality in the Winnemucca District 

of the US Bureau of Land Management, Northwestern Nevada, 1934-87. US Geological 

Survey, Open-File Report 89-424, Carson City, Nevada. 

Glancy, P. A., and F. E. Rush. 1968. Water-Resources Appraisal of Smoke Creek-San Emidio Desert 

Area, Nevada and California. Water Resources—Reconnaissance Series Report 44, Nevada 

Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Carson City. 

Glancy, P. A., and T. L. Katzer. 1975. Water-Resources Appraisal of the Carson River Basin, 

Western Nevada. Water Resources—Reconnaissance Series Report 59, Nevada Department 

of Conservation and Natural Resources, Carson City. 

Green, J. S., and J. T. Flinders. 1980. “Brachylagus idahoensis.” Mammal. Species No. 125. 

Greenwood, David. 2007. Cattle and Elk Interaction: Competition and Possible Benefits; University 

of Idaho Paper. Internet Web site: www.cnr.uidaho.edu/range456/hot-topics/elkcattle.htm#Top. 

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

Hall, E. R. 1981. The Mammals of North America. Second edition. Two volumes. John Wiley and 

Sons, New York. 

Hann, W., and D. L. Bunnel. 2001. “Fire and land management planning and implementation across 

multiple scales.” International Journal of Wildland Fire 10:389-403. 

Hardy, C. C., K. M. Schmidt, J. M. Menakis, and N. R. Samson. 2001. “Spatial data for national fire 

planning and fuel management.” International Journal of Wildland Fire. 10:353-372. 

Harrill, J. R. 1970. Water-Resources Appraisal of the Granite Springs Valley Area, Pershing, 

Churchill, and Lyon Counties, Nevada. Water Resources—Reconnaissance Series Report 55, 

Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Carson City. 

Harrill, J. R., and D. O. Moore. 1970. “Effects of ground-water development on the water regimen 

of Paradise Valley, Humboldt County, Nevada 1948-68, and hydrologic reconnaissance of 

the tributary areas.” Water Resources Bulletin No. 39, Nevada Department of Conservation 

and natural Resources, Carson City. 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2001. Climate Change 2001 Synthesis Report: 

Summary for Policymakers. Internet web site www.ipcc.ch. 

____ . 2006. 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Volume 4: 

Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use; Chapter 10: Emissions from Livestock and 

Manure Management. Institute for Global Environmental Strategies. Hayama, Japan. 

Internet Web site: www.ipcc.ch. 

____ . 2007. Climate Change 2007: Technical Summary of the Working Group I Report. Internet 

Web site: www.ipcc.ch. 

Interior Board of Land Appeals. No date. Volume 109, part 120. 

Inter-Tribal Council of Nevada. 2004. Tribal Nations. Internet Web site: www.itcn.org/. 

Jefferson, G. T., H. G. McDonald, and S. D. Livingston. No date. Catalogue of Late Quaternary and 

Holocene Fossil Vertebrates of Nevada, Technical Reports. Natural History Museum of Los 

Angeles County. 

Jensen, S., T. Dean, and R. Ryel. 1999. Ecological Classification, Winnemucca Project Area, Nevada. 

White Horse Associates. Smithfield, Utah. 

Johnson, J. 2007. Fire Resources/Planning Manager, BLM, Winnemucca District Office, Nevada. 

Personal communication with Cindy Adornetto, Tetra Tech, regarding OHV use within the 

WDO. September 5, 2007. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 6-7 
Chapter 6: References 

King, Jerome, and D. Craig Young. 2006. A Prehistoric Cultural Resources Sensitivity Model for the 

Bureau of Land Management, Winnemucca District Office, Nevada. Prepared by Far 

Western Anthropological Research Group, Davis, California, for Tetra Tech and the Bureau 

of Land Management, Winnemucca District Office. June 2006. 

Kuchler, A. W. 1970. “Potential natural vegetation.” In: US Department of the Interior, Geological 

Survey, the National Atlas of the United States of America. Washington, DC. US 

Government Printing Office 89-92. 

Lawler, D. A. 1978. Blue Wing Planning Unit, Unit Resource Analysis, Steps 3 and 4. Manuscript on 

file at the BLM, Winnemucca District Office, Nevada. 

Lawler, D. A., and J. R. Roney. 1978. Buffalo Hills Planning Unit, Unit Resource Analysis, Steps 3 

and 4. Manuscript on file at the BLM, Winnemucca District Office, Nevada. 

Leckenby, D. A., D. P. Sheehy, C. H. Nellis, and others. 1982. “Mule deer.” In: Wildlife habitats in 

managed range lands: the Great Basin of southeastern Oregon. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-139. 

J. W. Thomas and C. Maser eds. Portland, Oregon: US Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. 

Lynch, Greg. 2008. Bureau of Land Management, Winnemucca District Office Fisheries Biologist. 

Personal communication with Meredith Zaccherio, Tetra Tech. 

Lyon, J. L., H. S. Crawford, E. Czuhai, R. L. Fredricksen, R. F. Harlow, L. J. Metz, and H. A. 

Pearson. 1978. “Effects of fire on fauna: a state of knowledge review.” General Technical 

Rep. WO-6. US Department of Agriculture, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC. 

Malmberg, G. T., and G. F. Worts. 1966. “The effects of pumping on the hydrology of Kings River 

Valley, Humboldt County, Nevada, 1957-64.” Water Resources Bulletin No. 31, Nevada 

Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Carson City, Nevada. 

Maser, C., J. W. Thomas, and R. G. Anderson. 1984. “Wildlife habitats in managed rangelands—the 

Great Basin of southeastern Oregon. The relationship of terrestrial vertebrates to plant 

communities.” USDA Forest Service Pacific Northwest Research Station and USDI Bureau 

of Land Management, General Technical Report PNW-172. LaGrande, Oregon. 

McCutchen, H. E. 1995. “Desert bighorn sheep.” In: E. T. LaRoe, G. S. Farris, C. E. Puckett, P. D. 

Doran, and M. J. Mac. Our Living Resources: A report to the nation on the distribution, 

abundance, and health of US plants, animals, and ecosystems. Washington, DC. US 

Geological Survey. P. 333-3. 

Messmer, Derek. 2007. BLM Winnemucca District Office Vegetation Specialist. Personal 

communication with Craig Miller, Tetra Tech biologist, regarding noxious weed outbreaks 

within the WDO. August 2007. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 6-8 
Chapter 6: References 

____ . 2008. BLM Winnemucca District Office Vegetation Specialist. Personal communication with 

Meredith Zaccherio, Tetra Tech biologist, regarding Pinyon dwarf mistletoe infestation 

within the Stillwater Range. May 6, 2008. 

National Center for Education Statistics. 2007. Internet Web site: 

http://nces.ed.gov/ccd/districtsearch. 

National Park Service. 2005. The Race Across Utah. Internet Web site: www.nps.gov/gosp/ 

history/race.html. 

NatureServe. 2005. NatureServe. 2005. NatureServe Explorer. Internet Web site: 

www.natureserve.org/explorer/. 

____ . 2007. NatureServe Explorer. Internet Web site: www.natureserve.org/explorer/. 

NBAQP (Nevada Bureau of Air Quality Planning). 2003. State of Nevada Bureau of Air Quality 

Planning Trend Report for 2003. Internet Web site: 

http://ndep.nv.gov/baqp/TrndRpt/INDEX.html. 

____ . 2008. Standards of Quality for Ambient Air. Internet web site: 

http://ndep.nv.gov/baqp/monitoring/aaqstd.html. 

____ . No date. Nevada Division of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Air Quality Planning 

Smoke Management Program Plan. Internet Web site 

http://ndep.nv.gov/BAQP/Smoke2.htm. 

NDEP (Nevada Division of Environmental Protection). 2004a. Nevada’s 2004 303(d) Impaired 

Waters List (Draft), Nevada Division of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Water Quality 

Planning December 2004. Internet Web site: www.ndep.nv.gov/bwqp/303dlist.htm. 

____ . 2004b. State of Nevada Wellhead Protection Guide. Fifth Revision, January 2004. Internet 

Web site: http://ndep.nv.gov/bwpc/whpp_guide_rv5.pdf. 

____ . 2005. Nevada’s 2005 303(d) Impaired Waters List, Bureau of Water Quality Planning. 

November 2005. 

____ . 2008. Nevada Statewide Greenhouse Gas Emission Inventory and Projections, 1990 - 2020. 

Internet web site http://ndep.nv.gov/baqp/technical/ggemissions.html. 

____ . No date. Environmental Laws that Limit Mercury Exposure – Clean Air Act. Internet Web 

site: http://ndep.nv.gov/mercury/clean_air_act.htm. 

NDH (Nevada State Division of Health). 2004. Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Plan in Nevada 

and Eastern California, June 30, 2004. Internet Web site: 

http://204.247.197.122/winne_idteam/documents/ProjectDocs/SGPlan063004.pdf. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 6-9 
Chapter 6: References 

NDOW (Nevada Department of Wildlife). 1999. Lahontan cutthroat trout species management plan 

for the Quinn River/Black Rock Basins and North Fork Little Humboldt River sub-basin. 

Prepared by Mike Sevon, Jim French, Jim Curran, and Ralph Phenix. Dated June 1, 1999. 

____ . 2002. Nevada Natural Species Resources Report. Nevada Natural Resources Plan, R. 

Michael Turnipseed. August 2002. 

NDWR (Nevada Division of Water Resources). 1999. Internet Web site: 

http://water.nv.gov/Water%20planning/wat-plan/con-main.htm. 

____ . 2008. Division of Water Resources home page. Water Planning/Basin Summaries. Internet 

Web site: http://water.nv.gov/. 

Neel, L. A. 1999. Nevada Partners in Flight Bird Conservation Program. November 29, 1999. 

Nevada Administrative Code. 2007. Chapter 445B—Air Controls. Internet Web site: 

www.leg.state.nv.us/NAC/NAC-445B.html. 

____ . 2008. Nevada Revised Statute Chapter 445A. Internet Web site: 

www.leg.state.nv.us/nac/NAC-445A.html#NAC445ASec118. 

Nevada Bureau of Air Pollution Control. 2002. Surface Area Disturbance Permit Dust Control Plan 

Preparation Guidelines. Internet Web site: http://ndep.nv.gov/BAPC/permitd.html. 

____ . 2006. Nevada – Triggered 107(d) Planning Areas. Internet Web site: 

http://ndep.nv.gov/BAPC/permitd.html. 

Nevada Department of Agriculture. 2007. Nevada Noxious Weed list. Internet Web site: 

http://agri.nv.gov/nwac/PLANT_NoxWeedList.htm. 

Nevada State Demographer’s Office. 2007. Nevada County Population Projections 2005 to 2025. 

Internet Web site: www.nsbdc.org/what/data_statistics/demographer/pubs/ 

docs/NV_2005_Projections.pdf. 

Nevada State Environmental Commission. 2006. Adopted Regulations of the Nevada State 

Environmental Commission LCB File No. R189-05. Nevada Mercury Air Emissions Control 

Program. Internet Web site: http://sec.nv/gov/archives/regdoc/r189-05.pdf. 

____ . 2006. Program Document, Nevada Mercury Air Emissions Control: Precious Metals Mining 

Operations. Internet Web site: http://ndep.nv/gov/mercury/mercury_air.htm. 

NNHP (Nevada Natural Heritage Program). 2007. List of special status species that could occur 

within the WDO. Internet Web site: http://heritage.nv.gov/spelists.htm. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 6-10 
Chapter 6: References 

NRCS (United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Service). 2006. 

Land Resource Regions and Major Land Resource Areas of the United States, the Caribbean, 

and the Pacific Basin. Geographical Information System metadata. US Department of 

Agriculture Handbook 296. 

Ottmar, Roger D., Gary K. Anderson, Paul J. DeHerrera, and Tim E. Reinhardt. No date. 

Consumer User’s Guide, Version 2.1. Document from Systems for Environmental 

Management. Internet Web site: www.fire.org. 

Pellant, M. 1996. Cheatgrass: The Invader that Won the West. Bureau of Land Management, Idaho 

State Office. Internet Web site: www.icbemp.gov/science/pellant.pdf. 

Reinhardt, Elisabeth. 2005. Using FOFEM 5.0 to Estimate Tree Mortality, Fuel Consumption, 

Smoke Production and Soil Heating from Wildland Fire. U.S. Forest Service, Missoula Fire 

Sciences Lab, Missoula, Montana. Internet Web site: www.fire.org. 

Rosgen, D. 1996. “Applied river morphology.” In: Wildlife Hydrology, Pagosa Springs, Colorado. 

Rush, F. E. 1968. Index of hydrographic areas in Nevada. Nevada Division of Water Resources, 

Information Report 6. 

SASEM4 (Simple Approach Smoke Estimation Model). 2007a. Arizona Department of 

Environmental Quality. Internet Web site: www.azdeq.gov/environ/air/smoke/ 

fires.html. 

____ . 2007b. Internet Web site: www.azdeq.gov/environ/air/smoke/fires.html. 

Schmidt, Kirsten M., James P. Menakis, Colin C. Hardy, J. Wendel, and David L. Bunnell. 2002.

Development of coarse-scale spatial data for wildland fire and fuel management. General 

Technical Report RMRS-GTR-87. Fort Collins, Colorado, US Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 

Sinclair, W. C. 1962a. Ground-Water Resources of Pine Forest Valley, Humboldt County, Nevada. 

Ground-Water Resources—Reconnaissance Series Report 4, Nevada Department of 

Conservation and Natural Resources, Carson City. 

____ . 1962b. Ground-Water Resources of Desert Valley, Humboldt and Pershing Counties, 

Nevada. Ground-Water Resources—Reconnaissance Series Report 7, Nevada Department 

of Conservation and Natural Resources, Carson City. 

____ . 1962c. Ground-Water Resources of Hualapai Flat, Washoe, Pershing, and Humboldt 

Counties, Nevada. Ground-Water Resources—Reconnaissance Series Report 11, Nevada 

Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Carson City. 

____ . 1963. Ground-Water Appraisal of the Pueblo Valley-Continental Lake Region, Humboldt 

County, Nevada. Ground-Water Resources-Reconnaissance Series Report 22, State of 

Nevada, Carson City. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 6-11 
Chapter 6: References 

Smith, J. K. (editor). 2000. “Wildland fire in ecosystems: Effects of fire on fauna.” Gen. Tech. Rep. 

RMRS-GTR-42-vol. 1. Ogden, Utah: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky 

Mountain Research Station. 

Smith, R. C., P. M. Jones, J. R. Roney, K. E. Pedrick. 1983. Prehistory and History of the 

Winnemucca District: A Cultural Resource Overview. BLM Cultural Resource Series No. 6. 

Prepared for the Bureau of Land Management, Nevada State Office, Reno, Nevada. 

Sonoran Institute and Headwaters Economics. 2009. A SocioEconomic Profile, WDO 

Aggregations, Economic Profile System (EPS), WDO: Washoe NV, Pershing NV, Lyon 

NV, Humboldt NV, and Churchill NV. Produced October 21, 2009. 

US Census Bureau. 2004. American FactFinder. Census and demographic data. Internet Web site: 

http://www.census.gov. 

____ . 2009. Poverty Thresholds 2000. Internet Web Site: 

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/threshld/thresh00.html. Updated September 

29, 2009. Accessed October 22, 2009. 

USDI (US Department of the Interior), NPS. 1999. Comprehensive Management and Use 

Plan/Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Oregon, California, Mormon Pioneer, 

and Pony Express National Historic Trails. Prepared by the United States Department of the 

Interior, NPS Long Distance Trails Office, Salt Lake City, Utah. Internet Web site: 

www.nps.gov/cali/parkmgmt/upload/CMP.pdf. 

USFWS (US Fish and Wildlife Service). 1995. Lahontan Cutthroat Trout Recovery Plan. Internet 

Web site: http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/recovery_plans/1995/950130.pdf. 

____ . 2003. Draft Recovery Plan for the Sierra Nevada Big Horn Sheep. Portland, Oregon. 

____ . 2005. List of threatened and endangered species that could occur within the WDO. US Fish 

and Wildlife Service. 

____ . 2006a. Net Economic Values of Wildlife Related Recreation in 2006, Addendum to the 2006 

National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation. Washington, DC. 

July 2009. 

____ . 2006b. Wildlife Watching in the U.S.: The Economic Impacts on National and State 

Economies in 2006, Addendum to the 2006 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and 

Wildlife-Associated Recreation. Arlington, VA. July 2008. 

USFS (Forest Service). 2005. Pacific Northwest Region Invasive Plant Program. Preventing and 

Managing Invasive Plants. Final Environmental Impact Statement. Internet Web site: 

www.fs.fed.us/r6/invasiveplant-eis/FEIS.htm. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 6-12 
Chapter 6: References 

USGS (US Geological Survey). 2004. Ground-Water Pumpage and Artificial Recharge Estimates for 

Calendar Year 2000 and Average Annual Natural Recharge and Interbasin Flow by 

Hydrographic Area, Nevada. Scientific Investigations Report 2004-5239. 

USGS National GAP Analysis Program. 2004. Provisional Digital Land Cover Map for the 

Southwestern United States. Version 1.0. RS/GIS Laboratory, College of Natural Resources, 

Utah State University. 

US Navy. 1997. 60% Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Extension of the B-20 

Land Withdrawal Naval Air Station Fallon, Nevada. Prepared by Tetra Tech, Inc. 

Van Denburgh, A. S., R. D. Lamke, and J. L. Hughes. 1973. A brief water-resources appraisal of the 

Truckee River Basin, western Nevada Division of Water Resources—Reconnaissance Series 

Report 57, 122p. 

WAPT (Wildlife Action Plan Team). 2006. Nevada Wildlife Action Plan. 

Westbrooks, R. 1998. Invasive plants, changing the landscape of America: Fact book. Federal 

Interagency Committee for the Management of Noxious and Exotic Weeds, Washington, 

DC. 

Western States Wild Horse and Burro Expo. 2007. Internet Web site: 

www.wildhorseandburroexpo.com/. 

Willis, M. J., G. P. Keister, Jr., D. A. Immell, D. M. Jones, R. M. Powell, and K. R. Durbin. 1993. 

Sage-Grouse in Oregon. Wildlife Research Report 15. Oregon Department of Fish and 

Wildlife, Portland. 

Yoakum, J. 1972. “Antelope—vegetative relationships.” Proc. Antelope States Workshop 5:171-177. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 6-13 
Chapter 6: References 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 6-14 

This page intentionally left blank.
CHAPTER 7 – GLOSSARY 

ABORIGINAL BURNING. The lighting of fires by native people to alter the vegetation or expose 

game for hunting, such as to promote healthier grasslands or to suppress shrub and tree 

encroachment, or accidental ignitions.

ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT. A type of natural resource management in which decisions are made as 

part of an ongoing science-based process. Adaptive management involves testing, monitoring, and 

evaluating applied strategies and incorporating new knowledge into management approaches that are 

based on scientific findings and the needs of society. Results are used to modify management policy, 

strategies, and practices. 

ANIMAL UNIT MONTH (AUM). The amount forage necessary for the sustenance of one cow or its 

equivalent for a period of one month (approximately 800 pounds of air-dry material per AUM). A 

full AUM’s fee is charged for each month of grazing by adult animals if the grazing animal (1) is 

weaned, (2) is six months or older when entering public land, or (3) will become 12 months old 

during the period of use. For fee purposes, an AUM is the amount of forage used by five weaned or 

adult sheep or goats or one cow, bull, steer, heifer, horse, or mule. The term AUM is commonly 

used in three ways: (1) stocking rate, as in X acres per AUM, (b) forage allocation, as in X AUMs in 

allotment A, and (3) utilization, as in X AUMs consumed from Unit B. 

ANNUAL PLANT. A plant that completes its life cycle and dies in one year or less.

APPROPRIATE MANAGEMENT LEVEL (AML). A single number that is the high point of an 

established population range to maintain a thriving natural ecological balance, based on available 

forage, water, and other resource needs or conflicts (relating to management of wild horses and 

burros). 

ACQUIRED LANDS. Lands in federal ownership that were obtained by the government through 

purchase, condemnation, or gift or by exchange. Acquired lands constitute one category of public 

lands.

AREA OF CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN (ACEC). An area established through the 

planning process, as provided in the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, where 

special management attention is required (when such areas are developed or used or where no 

development is required) to protect and prevent irreparable damage to important historic, cultural, 

or scenic values; or to fish and wildlife resources or other natural systems or processes; or to protect 

life and afford safety from natural hazards. 

AVOIDANCE AREA. An environmentally sensitive area where rights-of-way may be granted only 

when no feasible alternative route is available. 

BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICE (BMP). A suite of techniques that guide, or that may be applied 

to, management actions to aid in achieving desired outcomes. BMPs are often developed in 

conjunction with land use plans, but they are not considered a land use plan decision unless the land 

use plan specifies that they are mandatory. They may be updated or modified without a plan 

amendment if they are not mandatory (BLM Handbook H1601-1; Glossary). 

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

BIOLOGICAL CRUST. A complex mosaic of living organisms—algae, cyanobacteria (blue-green 

algae), bacteria, lichens, mosses, liverworts, and fungi—that grow on or just below the soil surface.

CAVE. Any naturally occurring void, cavity, recess, or system of interconnected passages that occurs 

beneath the surface of the earth or within a cliff or ledge (including any cave resource therein, but 

not including any mine, tunnel, aqueduct, or other man-made excavation) and that is large enough to 

serve as habitat for wildlife. Such term includes any natural pit, sinkhole, or other feature that is an 

extension of the entrance. 

COMMUNITY RECREATION-TOURISM MARKET. A community or communities that depends on 

public lands recreation and related tourism use, growth, and development. Major investments in 

facilities and visitor assistance are authorized within SRMAs where the BLM’s strategy is to target 

demonstrated community recreation-tourism market demand. Here, recreation management actions 

are geared toward meeting the primary recreation-tourism market demand for specific activity, 

experience, and benefit opportunities. These opportunities are produced through maintaining 

prescribed natural resource and community setting character and by structuring and implementing 

management, marketing, monitoring, and administrative actions accordingly. 

CONDITION CLASS (CC). A classification of a vegetation community’s variance or departure from 

historic fire conditions. Fire Condition Classes can be Fire Condition Class 1, representing low 

departure from historic fire regime; Fire Condition Class 2, representing moderate departure from 

historic fire regime; or Fire Condition Class 3, representing high departure from historic fire regime. 

CRITICAL GROWING PERIOD. The period in a plant’s growth cycle when food (carbohydrate) 

reserves are the lowest and grazing is most harmful; for example, in grass species this period begins 

with the boot stage and closes with complete maturation of the fruit (seed). 

CRITICAL HABITAT. Habitat designated by the US Fish and Wildlife Service under Section 4 of the 

Endangered Species Act and under the following criteria: 1) specific areas within the geographical 

area occupied by the species at the time it is listed, on which are found those physical or biological 

features essential to the conservation of the species and that may require special management of 

protection; or 2) specific areas outside the geographical area by the species at the time it is listed but 

that are considered essential to the conservation of the species. 

CRUCIAL WINTER RANGE. A BLM definition that applies to elk and mule deer habitat and made 

up of areas defined by Nevada Department of Wildlife as winter concentration areas and severe 

winter range: 

• Winter Concentration Area—That part of winter range where densities are at least 200 

percent greater than the surrounding winter range density during the same period used to 

define winter range in the average five winters out of ten. 

• Severe Winter Range—That part of the overall range where 90 percent of the individuals 

are located when the annual snowpack is at its maximum or temperatures are at a minimum 

(or both) in the two worst winters out of ten. 

CULTURAL RESOURCES. Locations of human activity, occupation, or use. Cultural resources 

include archaeological, historic, or architectural sites, structures, or places with important public and 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 7-2 
Chapter 7: Glossary 

scientific uses and locations of traditional cultural or religious importance to specific social or 

cultural groups. 

CULTURAL RESOURCES INVENTORY. A procedure to assess the potential presence of cultural 

resources. There are three classes of surveys: 

• Class I. An existing data survey is an inventory of a study area to (1) provide a narrative 

overview of cultural resources by using existing information, and (2) to compile existing 

cultural resources site record data on which to base the development of the BLM’s site 

record system. 

• Class II. A sampling field inventory designed to locate, from surface and exposed profile 

indications, all cultural resource sites within a portion of an area so that an estimate can be 

made of the cultural resources for the entire area. 

• Class III. An intensive field inventory designed to locate, from surface and exposed profile 

indications, all cultural resource sites in an area. On completion, no further cultural resources 

inventory work is normally needed. 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS. The direct and indirect effects of a proposed project alternative’s 

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

regardless of who carries out the action. 

DEFERRED/DEFERMENT. Term used in grazing management actions that denotes a less than one 

year period where no livestock grazing is allowed. 

DESTINATION RECREATION-TOURISM MARKET. National or regional recreation-tourism visitors 

and other constituents who value public lands as recreation-tourism destinations. Major investments 

in facilities and visitor assistance are authorized within SRMAs where the BLM’s strategy is to target 

demonstrated destination recreation-tourism market demand. Here, recreation management actions 

are geared toward meeting primary recreation-tourism market demand for specific activity, 

experience, and benefit opportunities. These opportunities are produced through maintaining 

prescribed natural resource setting character and by structuring and implementing management, 

marketing, monitoring, and administrative actions accordingly. 

DISCRETIONARY ACTIONS. These include livestock grazing, mining, and lands and realty actions.

DISPOSAL. A transaction that leads to the transfer of title to public lands from the federal 

government. 

DIVERSITY. The relative abundance of wildlife species, plant species, communities, habitats, or 

habitat features per unit of area. 

ELIGIBLE RIVER SEGMENT. A section of a river that qualifies for inclusion in the National Wild 

and Scenic Rivers System through determination that it is free flowing and with its adjacent land area 

possessing at least one river-related value considered to be outstandingly remarkable. 

ENDANGERED SPECIES. Any species that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant 

portion of its range. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 7-3 
Chapter 7: Glossary 

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT. A concise public document prepared to provide sufficient 

evidence and analysis for determining whether to prepare an environmental impact statement or a 

finding of no significant impact. It includes a brief discussion of the need for the proposal, the 

alternatives considered, the environmental impact of the proposed action and alternatives, and a list 

of agencies and individuals consulted. 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (EIS). A formal public document prepared to analyze the 

impacts on the environment of a proposed project or action and released for comment and review. 

An EIS must meet NEPA requirements, CEQ guidelines, and the directives of the agency 

responsible for the proposed project or action. 

EPHEMERAL STREAM. Stream reaches where water flows for only brief periods during storm 

runoff.

EROSION. Detachment or movement of soil or rock fragments by water, wind, or gravity. 

Accelerated erosion is much more rapid than normal, natural, or geologic erosion, primarily as a 

result of the influence of surface-disturbing activities of people, animals, or natural catastrophes. 

EXCHANGE. A transaction whereby the federal government receives land or interests in land in 

exchange for other land or interests in land.

EXCLOSURE. A fence or other device that completely surrounds a relatively small area, such as a 

wetland or research plot, to exclude large nonnative animals, such as cattle and burros. 

EXCLUSION AREA. An environmentally sensitive area where rights-of-way would be granted only in 

cases where there is a legal requirement to provide such access. 

EXTENSIVE RECREATION MANAGEMENT AREA (ERMA). A public lands unit identified in land 

use plans containing all acreage not identified as a Special Recreation Management Area. Recreation 

management actions within an ERMA are limited to only those of a custodial nature. 

FEDERAL LAND POLICY AND MANAGEMENT ACT OF 1976 (FLPMA). Public Law 94-579 signed 

by the President on October 21, 1976. Establishes public land policy for management of lands 

administered by the Bureau of Land Management. FLPMA specifies several key directions for the 

Bureau, notably (1) management on the basis of multiple-use and sustained yield, (2) land use plans 

prepared to guide management actions, (3) public lands managed for the protection, development, 

and enhancement of resources, (4) public lands retained in federal ownership, and (5) public 

participation utilized in reaching management decisions. 

FIRE BEHAVIOR. The manner in which a fire reacts to fuel, weather, and topography. Common 

terms used to describe behavior include smoldering, creeping, running, spotting, torching, and 

crowning. 

FIRE FOR RESOURCE BENEFIT. The application of the response to naturally ignited wildland fires 

based on social, legal and ecological consequences of the fire to accomplish specific resource 

management objectives in predefined designated areas outlined in fire management plans. 

Operational management is described in the wildland fire implementation plan (WFIP)

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

FIRE INTENSITY. Technically calculated as the energy release per unit length of flame front. 

Generally, fire intensity is a component of fire behavior and refers to the heat of the fire. Fire 

intensity is measured as the fire burns. A high intensity fire would be more difficult to suppress than 

a low intensity fire. 

FIRE SEVERITY. The effect of fire. Severity is reflected in killed vegetation or soil damage. Fire 

severity is determined after the fire. A high intensity fire may not have severe fire effects. High 

severity fire could result in soil erosion, sediment in water, landslides, and weed infestation. Often, 

low severity fire is desirable for removing dead fuels. 

FIRE SUPPRESSION. Fire control activities concerned with controlling and extinguishing a fire, 

starting at the time the fire is discovered. 

FLUID MINERALS. Oil, gas, geothermal resources, carbon dioxide, and coalbed methane. 

FORAGE. All browse and herbaceous growth available and acceptable to grazing animals or that may 

be harvested for feeding purposes. Forage includes pasture, rangelands, and crop aftermath. Feed 

includes forage, hay, and grains. 

GRAZING. Consumption of forage from rangelands or pastures by livestock, wild horses/burros or 

wildlife. 

GRAZING ALLOTMENT. An area of land where one or more operators graze their livestock. It 

generally consists of public lands but may include parcels of private or state-owned lands. The 

number of livestock and period of use are stipulated for each allotment.

GRAZING FEE. A charge, usually monthly, for grazing a specific kind of livestock.

GRAZING PERMIT/LICENSE/LEASE. Official written permission to graze a specific number, kind, 

and class of livestock for a specified period on a defined rangeland.

GROUNDWATER. Water beneath the land surface, in the zone of saturation. 

GUZZLER. General term covering such devices as guzzlers and wildlife drinkers. A natural or 

artificially constructed structure or device to capture and hold naturally flowing water to make it 

accessible to small and large animals. Most guzzlers involve above or below ground piping, storage 

tanks, and valves. 

HABITAT. A specific set of physical conditions that surround a single species, a group of species, or 

a large community. In wildlife management, the major components of habitat are considered to be 

food, water, cover, and living space. 

HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN (HCP). a comprehensive planning document pursuant to Section 

10(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act that is a mandatory component of an incidental take permit 

for a project with no federal nexus. (See Multi-Species Conservation Plan.) 

HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN (HMP). A written and approved activity plan for a geographical 

area that identifies habitat management activities to be implemented in achieving specific objectives 

of planning decisions. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 7-5 
Chapter 7: Glossary 

HARDROCK MINERALS. Locatable minerals that are neither leasable (such as oil, gas, coal, oil shale, 

phosphate, sodium, potassium, sulphur, asphalt, or gilsonite) nor salable (such as common variety 

sand and gravel). Hardrock minerals include copper, lead, zinc, magnesium, nickel, tungsten, gold, 

silver, bentonite, barite, feldspar, fluorspar, and uranium.

HAZARDOUS MATERIAL. A substance, pollutant, or contaminant that, due to its quantity, 

concentration, or physical or chemical characteristics, poses a potential hazard to human health and 

safety or to the environment if released into the workplace or the environment. 

HERD AREA (HA). Related to wild horses and burros, a HA is the geographic area identified as 

having been used by a wild horse or burro herd as its habitat in 1971. 

HERD MANAGEMENT AREA (HMA). Related to wild horses and burros, a HMA is an area or areas 

established within the HA for the maintenance of wild horses and burros. 

HIGH WALLS. Uphill sides of contour mine excavations.

IMPACT. The effect, influence, alteration, or imprint caused by an action.

INDIAN TRUST ASSETS. Legal interests in property, physical assets, or intangible property rights 

held in trust by the United States for Indian tribes or individual Indians. 

INDICATOR. Components of a system whose characteristics (presence or absence, quantity, 

distribution) are used as an index of an attribute (e.g., rangeland health attribute) that are too 

difficult, inconvenient, or expensive to measure. 

INTERIOR BOARD OF LAND APPEALS (IBLA). A board within the Department of the Interior’s 

Office of Hearings and Appeals that acts for the Secretary of the Interior by responding to appeals 

of decisions on the use and disposition of public lands and resources. Because IBLA acts for and on 

behalf of the Secretary of the Interior, its decisions usually represent the Department’s final decision 

but are subject to the Secretary’s review and to appeal in federal court. 

INTERDISCIPLINARY TEAM. A formation of varied land use and resource specialists providing a 

coordinated, integrated information base for overall land use planning and management. 

KEY (FORAGE) SPECIES. (1) Species that, because of their importance, must be considered in a 

management program or (2) forage species whose use shows the degree of use of associated species. 

KGRA (KNOWN GEOTHERMAL RESOURCE AREA). An area that the BLM determined; based on 

geologic and technical evidence, that a person with geothermal knowledge would spend money to 

develop the geothermal resource, areas that were located near wells capable of commercial 

production of geothermal fluids, or areas where there was a competitive interest in geothermal 

resource development (not a singular criterion existed). The BLM geothermal leasing regulation of 

July 2007 replaced the term KGRA with “lease areas” to identify potential lease areas. 

LAND TENURE. Refers to ownership of a parcel of land. BLM-managed public lands are owned by 

the United States government for the citizens of the United States. 

LEASABLE MINERALS. Those minerals or materials designated as leasable under the Mineral 

Leasing Act of 1920. They include coal, phosphate, asphalt, sulphur, potassium and sodium 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 7-6 
Chapter 7: Glossary 

minerals, and oil and gas. Geothermal resources are also leasable under the Geothermal Steam Act 

of 1970. 

LEK. Areas used by sage-grouse during the mating season where males display to attract receptive 

females. These sites are characterized by low vegetation with sparse shrubs, often surrounded by big 

sagebrush communities. Strutting grounds or leks are considered to be the center of sage-grouse 

activities. 

LENTIC. Pertaining to standing water, such as lakes and ponds. 

LITHIC SITE. An archaeological site containing debris left from the manufacture, use, or 

maintenance of flaked stone tools. 

LOCATABLE MINERALS. Minerals or materials subject to claim and development under the Mining 

Law of 1872, as amended. Generally includes metallic minerals, such as gold and silver, and other 

materials not subject to lease or sale, such as some bentonites, limestone, talc, some xeolites. 

Whether or not a particular mineral deposit is locatable depends on such factors as quality, quantity, 

mineability, demand, and marketability. 

LONG-TERM EFFECT. This could occur for several years after implementation of an alternative. 

LOTIC. Pertaining to actively moving water.

MECHANICAL WEED TREATMENT. The use of tractors, crawler-type tractors, mowing tools, or 

specially designed vehicles with attached implements for mechanical vegetation treatments. 

Treatment types can include burial, tillage, and mowing. 

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (MOU). Agreements with other district offices and 

agencies where resources (e.g. wild horses and burros) are managed across district office and agency 

administrative boundaries).

MINERAL ENTRY. Claiming public lands (administered by the BLM) under the Mining Law of 1872 

for the purpose of exploiting minerals. May also refer to mineral exploration and development under 

the mineral leasing laws and the Material Sale Act of 1947. 

MINERAL MATERIALS. Common varieties of such commodities as sand, building stone, gravel, clay, 

and moss rock obtainable under the Minerals Act of 1947, as amended. 

MINING LAW OF 1872. Provides for claiming and gaining title to locatable minerals on public lands. 

Also referred to as the General Mining Laws or Mining Laws. 

MINERAL WITHDRAWALS. Closure of land to mining laws, including sales, leasing and location, 

subject to valid existing rights. 

MITIGATION. Alleviation or lessening of possible adverse effects on a resource by applying 

appropriate protective measures or adequate scientific study. Mitigation may be achieved by 

avoidance, minimization, rectification, reduction, and compensation. 

MONITORING. The timed collection of information to determine the effects of resource 

management and to identify changing resource conditions or needs. 

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

MULTIPLE-USE. Management of the various surface and subsurface resources so that they are 

jointly used in the manner that will best meet the present and future needs of the public, without 

permanent impairment of the productivity of the land or the quality of the environment. 

NATIONAL AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS (NAAQS). The allowable concentrations of air 

pollutants specified by the federal government. The air quality standards are divided into primary 

standards (based on the air quality criteria and allowing an adequate margin of safety and requisite to 

protect the public health) and secondary standards (based on the air quality criteria and allowing an 

adequate margin of safety and requisite to protect the public welfare) from any unknown or 

expected adverse effects of air pollutants. 

NATIONAL CONSERVATION AREAS. Areas designated by Congress so that present and future 

generations of Americans can benefit from the conservation, protection, enhancement, use, and 

management of these areas by enjoying their natural, recreational, cultural, wildlife, aquatic, 

archaeological, paleontological, historical, educational, and scientific resources and values.

NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT OF 1969 (NEPA). Public Law 91-190. Establishes 

environmental policy for the nation. Among other things, NEPA requires federal agencies to 

consider environmental values in decision making processes. 

NATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION ACT (NHPA). The primary federal law providing for the 

protection and preservation of cultural resources. The NHPA established the National Register of 

Historic Places, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and the State Historic Preservation 

Office. 

NATIONAL HISTORIC TRAILS. Trails established to identify and protect historic routes; they follow 

as closely as possible the original trails or routes of travel of national historic significance.

NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES. A listing of architectural, historical, archaeological, 

and cultural sites of local, state, or national significance, established by the Historic Preservation Act 

of, 1966, and maintained by the National Park Service. 

NATIONAL SCENIC TRAILS. Trails established by an Act of Congress that are intended to provide 

for maximum outdoor recreation potential and for the conservation and enjoyment of nationally 

significant scenic, historical, natural, and cultural qualities of the areas through which these trails 

pass. National Scenic Trails may be located to represent desert, marsh, grassland, mountain, canyon, 

river, forest, and other areas, as well as land forms that exhibit significant characteristics of the 

physiographic regions of the nation.

NATIONAL WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS SYSTEM (NWSRS). Rivers with outstanding scenic, 

recreational, geologic, fish and wildlife, historic, cultural, or similar values designated by Congress 

under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of October 2, 1968, for the preservation of their free-flowing 

condition. 

NO SURFACE OCCUPANCY (NSO). A mineral leasing stipulation that prohibits occupancy or 

disturbance on all or part of the lease surface in order to protect special values or uses.

OFF-HIGHWAY VEHICLE (OFF-ROAD VEHICLE). Any motorized vehicle capable of, or designed 

for, travel on or over land, water, or other natural terrain, excluding: (1) any nonamphibious 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 7-8 
Chapter 7: Glossary 

registered motorboat; (2) any military, fire, emergency, or law enforcement vehicle while being used 

for emergency purposes; (3) any vehicle whose use is expressly authorized by the an officer or 

otherwise officially approved; (4) vehicles in official use; and (5) any combat or combat support 

vehicle when being used for national defense. 

OFF-HIGHWAY VEHICLE AREA DESIGNATIONS. BLM-administered lands in the WDO are 

designated as Open, Limited, or Closed for OHV use.

• Open—Designated areas where all types of motorized vehicles (such as, jeeps, all-terrain 

vehicles, motorized dirt bikes) are permitted at all times, anywhere in the area, on roads or 

cross country, subject to the operating regulations and vehicle standards set forth in 43 CFR 

subparts 8341 and 8342. 

• Limited—Designated areas where motorized vehicles are restricted to designated routes. 

Off-road cross-country travel is prohibited in limited areas, unless an area is specifically 

identified as one where cross-country over-snow travel is allowed. Some existing routes may 

be closed in limited areas. 

• Closed—Designated areas where off-road motorized vehicle travel is prohibited year-long. 

Emergency use of vehicles is allowed year-long. 

PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES. The physical remains or other physical evidence of plants and 

animals preserved in soils and sedimentary rock formations. Paleontological resources are important 

for correlating and dating rock strata and for understanding past environments, environmental 

change, and the evolution of life. 

PARTICULATE MATTER (PM). One of the six “criteria” pollutants for which the US EPA 

established National Ambient Air Quality Standards. Particulate matter is defined as either fine 

particulates, with an aerodynamic diameter of 10 micrometers (PM10) or less, or fine particulates 

with an aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 micrometers or less (PM2 5). 

PERENNIAL PLANT. A plant that has a life cycle of three or more years.

PERENNIAL STREAM. A stream that flows throughout the year for many years. 

PERMITTEE. One who holds a permit to graze livestock on state, federal, or certain privately owned 

lands.

PLANNING AREA. The geographical area for which land use and resource management plans are 

developed and maintained. The WDO boundary defines the planning area assessed in this RMP. 

PLANNING ISSUES. Concerns, conflicts, and problems with the existing management of public 

lands. Frequently, issues are based on how land uses affect resources. Some issues are concerned 

with how land uses can affect other land uses, or how the protection of resources affects land uses. 

PRESCRIBED FIRE TREATMENTS. Any fire ignited by management actions to meet specific 

objectives. A written, approved prescribed fire plan must exist, and NEPA requirements (where 

applicable) must be met before the fire is started. 

PRIORITY 1 HABITAT. See exclusion area definition above.

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 7-9 
Chapter 7: Glossary 

PRIORITY 2 HABITAT. See avoidance area definition above.

PRIORITY WATERSHED. A watershed that contains either threatened or endangered species habitat 

or the presence of municipal water supply collection areas. 

PROPER FUNCTIONING CONDITION (PFC). Riparian-wetlands function properly when adequate 

vegetation, landform, or large woody debris is present to dissipate stream energy associated with 

high water flows. The functioning condition of these areas is influenced by geomorphic features, 

soil, water, and vegetation. 

PUBLIC LAND. Any land and interest in land (outside of Alaska) owned by the US and administered 

by the Secretary of the Interior through the BLM. 

RANGELAND. A kind of land on which the native vegetation, climax, or natural potential consists 

predominantly of grasses, grass-like plants, forbs, or shrubs. Rangeland includes lands revegetated 

naturally or artificially to provide plant cover that is managed like native vegetation. Rangelands may 

consist of natural grasslands, savannas, shrub lands, most deserts, tundra, alpine communities, 

coastal marshes, and wet meadows.

RAPTOR. Bird of prey with sharp talons and strongly curved beaks, such as hawks, owls, vultures, 

and eagles. 

RECREATION AND PUBLIC PURPOSES ACT (R&PP). Act of June 14, 1926 (44 Stat. 741), as 

amended, that provides for the purchase or lease of public lands by (a) federal, state, or local 

government for any activity that serves the interest of the general public consistent with public 

policy or (b) nonprofit organizations if the lands are to be used for recreation purposes in an 

established or proposed recreation project area. 

RECREATION EXPERIENCES. Psychological outcomes realized either by recreation-tourism 

participants as a direct result of their on-site leisure engagements and recreation-tourism activity 

participation or by nonparticipating community residents as a result of their interaction with visitors 

and guests within their community or interaction with the BLM and other public and private 

recreation-tourism providers and their actions. 

RECREATION NICHE. The place or position within the strategically targeted recreation-tourism 

market for each Special Recreation Management Area that is most capable of producing certain 

kinds of recreation opportunities and that is most responsive to identified visitor or resident 

customers, given available supply and current demand, for the production of specific recreation 

opportunities and the sustainable maintenance of accompanying natural resource and community 

setting character. 

RECREATION OPPORTUNITIES. Favorable circumstances enabling visitors’ engagement in a leisure 

activity to realize immediate psychological experiences and attain more lasting, value-added 

beneficial outcomes. 

RECREATION SETTING CHARACTER CONDITIONS. The distinguishing recreational qualities of any 

landscape, objectively defined along a continuum, ranging from primitive to urban landscapes, 

expressed in terms of the nature of the component parts of its physical, social, and administrative 

attributes. These recreational qualities can be both classified and mapped. This classification and 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 7-10 
Chapter 7: Glossary 

mapping process should be based on variation that either exists (for example, setting descriptions) or 

is desired (for example, setting prescriptions) among component parts of the various physical, social, 

and administrative attributes of any landscape. The recreation opportunity spectrum is one of the 

tools for doing this. 

RECREATION SETTINGS. The collective distinguishing attributes of landscapes that influence, and 

sometimes actually determine, what kinds of recreation opportunities are produced. 

RECREATION-TOURISM MARKET. Recreation-tourism visitors, affected community residents, 

affecting local governments and private sector businesses, or other constituents and the 

communities or other places where these customers originate (local, regional, national, or 

international). Based on analysis of supply and demand, land use plans strategically identify primary 

recreation-tourism markets for each Special Recreation Management Area—destination, community, 

or undeveloped. 

RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN (RMP). A land use plan that establishes multiple-use guidelines 

and management objectives for a given planning area. 

RESTORATION. The return or recovery of a habitat from a degraded state to its original community 

structure, natural complement of species, and natural functions. 

REST PERIOD. Term used in grazing management actions that denotes a one year period where no 

livestock grazing is allowed. 

RESOURCE ADVISORY COUNCIL (RAC). A group established pursuant to 43 CFR 1780 and other 

authorities to advise the BLM on resource management issues. In the Winnemucca District Office, 

the Sierra Front/NW Great Basin Resource Advisory Group serves as the RAC. 

RIGHT-OF-WAY. Land authorized to be used or occupied for the construction, operation, 

maintenance, and termination of a project, pursuant to a right-of-way authorization. 

RIPARIAN. Situated on or pertaining to the bank of a river, stream, or other body of water. 

Normally describes plants of all types that grow rooted in the water table or sub-irrigation zone of 

streams, ponds, and springs. 

ROAD. A linear route managed for use by low-clearance vehicles having two or more wheels and 

that has been improved and maintained by mechanical means to ensure relatively regular and 

continuous use. (A way maintained strictly by the passage of vehicles does not constitute a road.) 

ROADLESS. Refers to the absence of roads that have been constructed and maintained by 

mechanical means to ensure regular and continuous use.

ROAD MAINTENANCE. Includes blading, brush removal, scarification, gravelling, water barring, 

spur ditching, establishing low water crossings, seeding, and installing cattle guards and culverts. 

RUNOFF. A general term used to describe the portion of precipitation on the land that ultimately 

reaches streams; may include channel and nonchannel flow. 

SALABLE MINERALS. Minerals that may be sold under the Material Sale Act of 1947, as amended. 

Included are common varieties of sand, stone, gravel, and clay. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 7-11 
Chapter 7: Glossary 

SCOPING PROCESS. An early and open public participation process for determining the scope of 

issues to be addressed and for identifying the significant issues related to a proposed action. 

SEASON OF USE. The time during which livestock grazing is permitted on a given range area, as 

specified in the grazing permit. 

SEEDING. A vegetation treatment that includes the application of grass, forb, or shrub seed, either 

by air or from the ground. In areas of gentle terrain, ground applications of seed are often 

accomplished with a rangeland drill. Seeding allows native species or placeholder species to become 

established and for disturbed areas to be restored to a perennial-dominated cover type, thereby 

decreasing the risk of subsequent invasion by exotic plant species. Seeding would be used primarily 

as a follow-up treatment in areas where disturbance or the previously described treatments have 

removed exotic plant species and their residue. 

SEEPS. Groundwater discharge areas. In general, seeps have less water flow than a spring. 

SHORT-TERM EFFECT. The effect occurs only during or immediately after implementation of the 

alternative. 

SNPLMA (SOUTHERN NEVADA PUBLIC LAND MANAGEMENT ACT). Approved October 1998 

(Public Law 105-263). Provides for the disposal of public land within a specific area in the Las Vegas 

Valley and creates a special account into which 85 percent of the revenue generated by land sales or 

exchanges in the Las Vegas Valley is deposited. The remaining 15 percent goes to state and local 

governments. Revenue in the special account can be used for the acquisition of environmentally 

sensitive lands in Nevada, capital improvements, development of a multispecies habitat conservation 

plan in Clark County, and development of parks, trails, and natural areas in Clark County.

SOILS. (1) The unconsolidated mineral material on the immediate surface of the earth that serves as 

the natural medium for the growth of land plants. (2) The unconsolidated mineral matter of the 

surface of the earth that has been influenced by genetic and environmental factors, including parent 

material, climate, topography, all acting over a period of time and producing soil that differs from 

the parent material in physical, chemical, biological and morphological properties and characteristics. 

SOIL COMPACTION. A decrease in the volume of soil as a result of compression stress. 

SOIL SERIES. A group of soils having genetic horizons (layers) that, except for texture the surface 

layer, have similar characteristics and arrangement in the profile. 

SPECIAL LAND USE PERMIT. A permit that authorizes the use of public land for a purpose not 

specifically authorized under other regulation or statute. 

SPECIAL RECREATION MANAGEMENT AREA (SRMA). A public lands unit identified in land use 

plans to direct recreation funding and personnel to fulfill commitments made to provide specific, 

structured recreation opportunities (that is, activity, experience, and benefit opportunities). Both 

land use plan decisions and subsequent implementing actions for recreation in each SRMA are 

geared to a strategically identified primary market—destination, community, or undeveloped. 

SPECIAL RECREATION PERMIT. A permit that authorizes the recreational use of an area and is 

issued pursuant to the regulations contained in 43 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Subpart 8372, 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 7-12 
Chapter 7: Glossary 

and 36 CFR Part 71. Under the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act, implemented by these 

regulations, special recreation permits are required for all commercial use, for most competitive 

events, and for the individual noncommercial use of special areas where permits are required.

SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES. BLM sensitive species are designated by the State Director under 16 US 

Code 1536(a)(2). Sensitive species are managed so they will not need to be listed as proposed, 

threatened, or endangered. They are given the same level of protection as candidate species (BLM 

Manual 6840). 

SPLIT ESTATE. Lands on which the mineral estate remains with the federal government (BLM). 

STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE (SOP). A written procedure or set of written procedures 

providing direction for consistently and correctly performing routine operations. These written 

procedures set forth methods expected to be followed during the performance of the particular task. 

The SOPs for the Bureau of Land Management, Winnemucca District Office, are approved by the 

land use manager and are adopted as policy for the Winnemucca District Office. 

STANDARDS FOR RANGELAND HEALTH. Standards of land health are expressions of levels of 

physical and biological condition or degree of function required for healthy lands and sustainable 

uses, and define minimum resource conditions that must be achieved and maintained. 

SUITABLE RIVER. A river segment found, through administrative study by an appropriate agency, to 

meet the criteria for designation as a component of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, 

specified in Section 4(a) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. 

SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT. Post-operational land uses that intend to benefit local communities 

and economies, while ensuring the well-being of the environment. 

SUSTAINED YIELD. The continuation of a healthy desired plant community. 

TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS. Salt or an aggregate of carbonates, bicarbonates, chlorides, sulfates, 

phosphates, and nitrates of calcium, magnesium, manganese, sodium, potassium, and other cations 

that form salts. 

TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY LOAD (TMDL). A calculation of the maximum amount of a pollutant 

that a water body can receive and still meet water quality standards, and an allocation of that amount 

to the pollutant’s sources. 

TRADITIONAL CULTURAL PROPERTIES. A cultural property that is eligible for inclusion in the 

National Register of Historic Places because of its association with a living community’s cultural 

practices or beliefs that (a) are rooted in that community’s history and that (b) are important in 

maintaining the community’s continuing cultural identity. 

TRAIL. A linear route managed for human-power (such as hiking or bicycling), stock (such as 

horses), or off-highway vehicle forms of transportation or for historical or heritage values. Trails are 

not generally managed for use by four-wheel drive or high-clearance vehicles. 

TRESPASS. Any unauthorized use of public land. 

UNDERSTORY. That portion of a plant community growing underneath the taller plants on a site. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 7-13 
Chapter 7: Glossary 

UPLAND. Land at a higher elevation than the alluvial plain or low stream terrace; all lands outside 

the riparian-wetland and aquatic zones. 

UTILITY CORRIDOR. Tract of land varying in width forming a passageway through which various 

commodities, such as oil, gas, and electricity, are transported. 

VEGETATION RELEASE CRITERIA. Objectives used at a revegetation site to determine whether 1) 

the desirable species have been successfully established and provide sufficient cover to adequately 

protect the site from soil erosion, 2) there is evidence that a self-sustaining community has 

established, and 3) vegetative reproduction and establishment of the desirable seeded species has 

occurred. Revegetation monitoring activities are oriented toward addressing whether these criteria 

have been met. 

VEGETATION TYPE. A plant community with immediately distinguishable characteristics based on 

and named after the apparent dominant plant species. 

VEGETATIVE COMMUNITY TYPE. Refers to the species or various combinations of species that 

dominate or appear to dominate an area of rangeland or habitat. 

VERTEBRATE. An animal having a backbone or spinal column. 

VIEWSHED. The panorama from a given viewpoint that encompasses the visual landscape, including 

everything visible within a 360-degree radius. 

VISUAL RESOURCES. The visible physical features on a landscape, (topography, water, vegetation, 

animals, structures, and other features) that make up the scenery of the area. 

VISUAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT (VRM). The inventory and planning actions taken to identify 

visual resource values and to establish objectives for managing those values and the management 

actions taken to achieve the visual resource management objectives. 

VISUAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT CLASSES. VRM classes identify the degree of acceptable visual 

change within a characteristic landscape. A classification is assigned to public lands based on the 

guidelines established for scenic quality, visual sensitivity, and visibility. 

• VRM Class I—Preserves the existing characteristic landscape and allows for natural 

ecological changes only. Includes congressionally authorized areas (wilderness), WSAs and 

areas approved through the RMP where landscape modification activities should be 

restricted. 

• VRM Class II—Retains the existing characteristic landscape. The level of change in any of 

the basic landscape elements due to management activities should be low and not evident. 

• VRM Class III—Partially retains the existing characteristic landscape. The level of change 

in any of the basic landscape elements due to management activities may be moderate and -

evident. 

• VRM Class IV—Provides for major modifications of the characteristic landscape. The level 

of change in the basic landscape elements due to management activities can be high. Such 

activities may dominate the landscape and be the major focus of viewer attention. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 7-14 
Chapter 7: Glossary 

WATERSHED. Topographical region or area delineated by water draining to a particular watercourse 

or body of water. 

WETLANDS. Permanently wet or intermittently water-covered areas, such as swamps, marshes, bogs, 

potholes, swales, and glades. 

WILDERNESS. An area formally designated by Congress as a part of the National Wilderness 

Preservation System. 

WILDERNESS CHARACTERISTICS. Identified by Congress in the Wilderness Act of 1964, namely, 

size, naturalness, outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of 

recreation, and supplemental values, such as geological, archaeological, historical, ecological, scenic, 

or other features. 

WILDERNESS STUDY AREA (WSA). A roadless area that has been inventoried (but not designated 

by Congress) and found to have wilderness characteristics as described in Section 603 of the Federal 

Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 and Section 2(c) of the Wilderness Act of 1964.

WILDFIRE. An unplanned, unwanted wildland fire, including unauthorized human-caused fires, 

escaped allowed-fire-for-resource-benefit events, escaped prescribed fire projects, and all other 

wildland fires where the objective is to put the fire out.

WILDLAND FIRE. Any nonstructure fire that occurs in the wildland. The three distinct types of 

wildland fire are wildfire, allow fire for resource benefit, and prescribed fire. 

WILDLAND-URBAN INTERFACE (WUI). The line, area, or zone where structures and other human 

development meet or intermingle with undeveloped wildland or vegetative fuels. 

WINTER RANGE. A Nevada Department of Wildlife definition that applies to elk and mule deer 

habitat. That part of the overall range where 90 percent of the individuals are located during the 

average five winters out of ten from the first heavy snowfall to spring green up or during a sitespecific period of winter. 

WITHDRAWAL. An action that restricts the use of public land and segregates the land from the 

operation of some or all of the public land and mineral laws. Withdrawals are also used to transfer 

jurisdiction of management of public lands to other federal agencies. 

YEAR-LONG GRAZING. Continuous grazing for a calendar year. 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 7-15 
Chapter 7: Glossary 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 7-16 

This page intentionally left blank.