88048284 ROPOSED WELLS RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management Elko District Office Elko, Nevada -J3)1 PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN ^ ( £ AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT " "-^ for the WELLS RESOURCE AREA NEVADA Prepared by the DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT O/s. ^ & ELKO DISTRICT Edward F. Spang / Nevada State Director This proposed resource management plan is a long-term (20 year) plan to manage 4.1 million acres of public land within the Wells Resource Area. The plan has been prepared in response to Sections 202 and 603 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 that require the Bureau of Land Management to develop land use plans for the public land and to study the suitability of certain lands for wilderness designation. It was developed following a 90-day public review of the draft environmental impact statement, which described and analyzed five alternatives to guide the overall management of the resource area. An integral environmental impact statement assesses the environmental consequences of the plan. This document is both the proposed resource management plan and the final environmental impact statement. Wilderness recommendations in the plan are preliminary and subject to change during administrative review. A separate legislative final environmental impact statement for wilderness will be prepared as required by the Bureau's Wilderness Study Policy. The Wells Wilderness Technical Report, containing the wilderness study area specific analyses required by the study policy, is available upon request. For further information contact: Rodney Harris, District Manager, P.O. Box 831, Elko, Nevada 89801 (702-738-4071). Date final statement was made available to the Environmental Protection Agency and the public: INT FE1S 84 - 1 PREFACE The Final Wells Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement (FRMP/EIS) has been printed in an abbreviated format consistent with the National Environmental Policy Act regulations. This Final RMP/EIS must be used with the Draft RMP/EIS (INT EEIS 83-30). The Final RMP/EIS contains the summary from the draft document, the proposed resource management plan, revisions and errata of the Draft, written comments received during the public review process, substantive comments presented at the public hearings and the responses to those comments. ii SUMMARY In accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is proposing to implement a Resource Management Plan (KMP) in the Wells Re- source Area (RA), Elko District, Nevada. The Wells RA encompasses about 5.1 million acres, of which 4.1 million acres are public land. The resource area encompasses the eastern half of Elko County in northeastern Nevada. Because of its large size and for analysis purposes, the re- source area was divided into eight smaller areas called Resource Conflict Areas (RCAs). Each RCA has its own unique combination of problems and conflicts. The RCAs and their major conflicts are described on page 2-1 of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). Early in the planning process, several issues of concern were identified. Those issues included the following items: 1. Land Actions 2. Corridor Designation and /or Identification 3. Public Access 4. Recreation Management AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT Lands Federal ownership amounts to about 80 percent of the land within the Wells RA boundaries. The land in private ownership is concentrated primar- ily within the 40 mile wide "checkerboard" area which bisects the Wells RA. This land was ori- ginally granted to the Union Pacific and Central Pacific Railroads as an incentive for construc- tion of the transcontinental railroad. The checkerboard land pattern presents management problems in the resource area for both Federal and private managers. Rapid community growth by the principal towns of Wells, West Wendover, and Jackpot has created considerable pressure for disposal of Federal lands to private ownership. A recent resurgent interest in agricultural de- velopment is the other major factor contributing to the demand for public lands. Corridors No utility corridors have been designated or identified in the resource area at this time, al- though there are existing proposals for major utility developments. 5. Wilderness Area Designation 6. Livestock Grazing Use 7. Wild Horse Numbers 8. Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat 9. Riparian/Stream Habitat 10. Woodland Products These issues form the basis for management actions within the proposed resource management plan. Increased public demand for access for recrea- tion, livestock management, and woodland products harvesting purposes will intensify the needs for access planning. Recreation Recreation activities throughout the resource area consist primarily of camping, hunting, fishing, and sightseeing. Presently only two recreation sites are administered by BLM, one at Ruby Marsh (a developed campground) and one at Tabor Creek (undeveloped). S-l Some environmental degradation problems are occurring at these and other areas having recreational values because of unregulated off-road vehicle (OKV) use, lack of facilities, and poor refuse disposal methods. Wilderness only in the Pilot Peak area with current popula- tion estimates at 50-100 animals. Mule deer habitat conditions range from fair to good on summer range and fair to poor on winter range. Antelope ranges are generally in fair to poor condition. Four wilderness study areas (WSAs) have been identified in the resource area as having poten- tial for wilderness designation. Each WSA has been evaluated for wilderness values including special and unique features, and also for con- flicts with other resources such as energy and minerals, livestock use, and rights-of-way. These WSAs total 175,951 acres and include the Bluebell WSA (55,665 acres) in the northern half of the Goshute Mountains, the Goshute Peak WSA (69,770 acres) in the southern half of the Goshute Mountains, the South Pequop WSA (41,090 acres) at the southern end of the Pequop Mountains, and the Bad Lands WSA (9,426 acres) which includes a portion of Salmon Falls Creek and lies to the southwest of the community of Jackpot. Livestock Grazing Livestock grazing in the Wells RA consists of both sheep and cattle operations with a total of 81 livestock operators using 89 allotments. Hie grazing preference amounts to 379,279 Animal Unit Months (AUMs) with a current licensed grazing use of 288,934 AUMs. Wild Horses Wild horses are currently found in six herd units within the Wells RA. The most recent census for the resource area shows that the total population was about 700 animals in 1981. Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat A variety of upland game, including chukar part ridge, sage grouse, blue grouse, mourning doves, and rabbits inhabit the resource area. Numerous hazards to wildlife exist in the Wells RA. Improperly constructed fences present bar riers to large game species and improperly constructed water facilities often prevent animals from using them and serve as drowning hazards. Terrestrial riparian habitats include seeps, springs, small wet meadows, small natural ponds, and small groups of trees. Riparian/Stream Habitat Riparian/stream habitats comprise less than one percent of the total land area, yet, these lands support the majority of use by livestock, wild- life, and humans with livestock being the domin- ant use. A joint Nevada Department of Wild- life/3LM stream survey (1979-80), indicated about 73 percent of the 220 miles (5,928 acres) of ri- parian habitat administered by BLM is rated in fair or poor condition. Threatened, Endangered, or Sensitive Fish Species Tlireatened and Endangered (T&E) or sensitive species of fish found within the resource area include the Lahontan cutthroat trout, redband trout, relict (Steptoe) dace, Independence Valley tui chub, Clover Valley speckled dace, and Inde pendence Valley speckled dace. The lahontan cut throat is the most wide-spread of these species. The bald eagle is the only resident Federally listed endangered species found in the Wells RA. Peregrine falcons, also on the endangered list, are occasionally observed. Bighorn sheep, a Nevada listed sensitive species, are no longer found in the area. Mule deer and pronghorn antelope occur throughout the resource area with mule deer populations cur- rently estimated at 38,000-40,000 animals and an telope numbers at 800-1000 animals. Elk occur Woodland Products Woodland areas occupy 600,000 to 700,000 acres within the resource area. Fuelwood, Christmas trees, pinenut harvesting, and post cutting contribute to the area's economy. Some commer cial businesses depend on these products for a livelihood and many of the local residents depend on wood for at least part of their home heating needs. As energy prices rise, the demand for fuelwood may intensify. Overliarvesting and S-2 unauthorized harvesting of woodland products would continue to be a problem in localized areas. Minerals Minerals mining and exploration is a significant activity within the Wells RA. Barite is the most important mineral mined; however, tungsten, sil- ver, copper, and molybdenum are other Important minerals, rained at the 13 active mines in the re- source area. Minerals exploration for locatable minerals, especially gold, is very active with hundreds of new mining claims being filed annual- ly. Oil and gas exploration is also active with about 100 new leases issued each year. Oil and gas exploration has been largely unsuccessful at the present time. Some geothermal exploration has occurred near Ruby Valley. The potential for geothermal development is considered high, as evidenced by numerous hot springs found through- out the area. Human Resources The 1980 population for the resource area was about 3395 persons. Most of these were concen- trated in Wells, West Wendover, and Jackpot. Tourism is the most Important income producing trade in the Wells RA, followed by agriculture and then mining. Businesses such as retail trades, banking, and manufacturing are not well- developed because of the small resource area pop- ulation. Mining and energy-related projects such as the Thousand Springs and White Pine Rower Pro- jects could result in large influxes of employees to construct, maintain, and operate these facili- ties. Vegetation The Wells RA supports vegetation typical of the Great Basin region. A total of 18 different ve- getation types are present as a result of ex- tremes in climate, elevation, exposure, and soils. The sagebrush-rabbi tbrush community is the dominant vegetation type, covering almost two-thirds of the resource area. This is follow- ed by the pinyon pine-juniper type which compris- es one-fifth of the area. Other vegetation types include greasewood, saltbush, grasslands and ri- parian vegetation. Range condition surveys have not been completed with respect to percentages of the entire resource area within each of the eco- logic range condition classes. However, preli- minary information shows that 20 percent is in poor condition, 54 percent is in fair, and 26 percent is in good or excellent condition. Poisonous plants are common within the resource area. Halogeton and greasewood are probably the most prevalent and the source of greatest concern especially to sheep operations. Other common species include poison vetch, death caraas, lu- pine, horsebrush, and larkspur. No Federally listed T&E plants are known to exist in the resource area. However, several which are candidate species for inclusion in this list or are species of special concern are either known to occur or have the potential of being found in the resource area. Soils The relatively short growing season and low levels of precipitation are two climatic factors which limit soil productivity within the Wells RA. High temperatures and low rainfall promote rapid drying of soils so that by mid-summer most plant growth ceases. Soils are rather poorly de- veloped because of these climatic limitations on plant growth. The most productive areas are ir- rigated pastures or croplands followed by flood- plain areas of perennial streams and then the deeper mountain soils at elevations above 6300 feet. Wind and water erosion pose problems for soil management in the resource area; severe down cutting of stream channels with subsequent lower- ing of both water tables and productivity in ri- parian areas appears to be the most serious ero- sion-related problem. Water Resources Surface water in the resource area is rather limited. Most overland flow is intermittent, with only a few major streams either emptying into the Humboldt or Snake-Columbia River systems. Availability of surface water is quite often the limiting factor which affects livestock distribution and wildlife and wild horse popula- tions and distribution. Ground water supplies are more abundant. Generally, adequate amounts of water can be obtained for domestic use or for livestock and wildlife by drilling wells to a maximum of 500 feet. Air Quality Air quality is rated good for most of the Wells RA. Wind-blown dust is the major contributor to air pollution. Industrial sulphur dioxide pollu- tion from the Ely, Nevada area has been found to exceed acceptable limits in the Steptoe Valley S-3 Visual Resources Spectacular vistas of north-south trending moun- tain ranges separated by large, flat valleys are present throughout the resource area. Cultural Resources An intensive inventory of archaeological re- sources in the Wells RA has not been done. Approximately 1100 sites have been recorded to date. The most common sites are small temporary camps, however, several large semipermanent win- ter camps, rockshelters, antelope traps, rock art sites, and lithic procurement areas are also pre- sent. Environmental Concern (ACEC) for peregrine falcons, treatment and seeding of 5,500 acres of crucial deer winter range and time of year restrictions on use of crucial sage grouse and mule deer habitats. Habitat in potential bighorn sheep reintroduction sites would be improved and approximately 53,600 acres of woodland would be more intensively managed to meet wildlife needs. Woodland products harvesting would be designed to achieve a sustained yield of both Christmas trees and firewood and would emphasize both commercial and private uses. The following list displays the implementation costs of the Proposed Resource Management Plan by resource. PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN The Proposed Resource Management Plan is a multi- ple use plan designed to protect fragile and uni- que resources while not overly restricting the ability of other resources to provide economic goods and services. A total of 90,000 acres of land would be offered to the public, primarily through public sale. A total of 566 miles of transportation and utility corridors would be identified or designated based on proposals in this plan. Easement acquisitions would be ac- quired on 158 miles of roads for high priority management activities such as recreation, live- stock grazing, woodland products, and minerals. Recreation facilities at Ruby Marsh, Salmon Falls Creek, Tabor Creek and Mary's River would be up- graded or developed. A 160 acre tract at Ruby Marsh Campground would have ORV use limited to designated roads and trails and would be segre- gated from mineral entry. A total of 159,881 acres would be recommended as preliminarily suit- able for wilderness designation. Livestock graz- ing levels would be increased by 1.7 percent to 293,846 AUMs from the present 3 to 5 year average use level of 288,934 AUMs. This represents a 22.5 percent reduction from preference. A total of 37,500 acres would be seeded, 27,000 acres would be burned on a prescription basis, 1,500 acres sprayed , 65 wells drilled , 5 reservoirs con- structed, 265 miles of fence built, 30 springs developed, and 80 miles of pipeline built. The wild horse population would be allowed to fluc- tuate between 557 to 692 animals. Approximately 95 miles of deteriorated riparian/stream habitat would be improved over the long-term. Terrestrial wildlife actions would include modification of 650 miles of fence, 250 spring developments, designation of 6,200 acres as an Area of Critical ITEM COST Recreation Development $30,000 Livestock Grazing Improvements $2,429,500 Wild Horse Improvements $90,000 Wildlife Habitat $1,509,000 Riparian Habitat Improvement $585,000 TOTAL $4,643,500 NOTE: These costs are for labor and materials only. They do not include BIM overhead costs for environmental assessment and contract preparation and contract supervision. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN Lands Resource area land values may be expected to decrease as a result of implementing a large-scale (90,000 acres) land disposal program. Corridors Corridor designations and identifications would provide for adequate long range planning by the affected interests. Corridor designations would detrimentally affect bald eagles and visual resources. S-4 Access Access would be acquired over 158 miles on 38 roads identified as being Important for public access and BLM administration. No Important access routes are expected to be lost. •riparian habitat would Improve one condition class. About 10 percent of fair or good riparian habitat would decline one condition class. An active program for reduction of hazards to wildlife would be initiated throughout the resource area. Recreation Riparian/Stream Habitat The quality of dispersed recreational hunting, fishing, and wildlife observation would Improve and recreation use would increase. Opportunities at developed facilites would be enhanced because of proposed Improvements. No significant adverse Impact to ORV use would occur. Indications are that 104 miles or 23 percent of existing riparian/stream habitat would be managed in good or better condition whereas the remaining habitat would be in less than good condition. Woodland Products Wilderness A total of 159,881 acres in portions of the Bluebell, Goshute Peak, South Pequop, and Bad Lands WSAs would be recommended as preliminary suitable for designation as wilderness and would retain their wilderness character. About 16,070 acres would lose their wilderness character over time. livestock Grazing Fuelwood harvest would increase by more than 10 percent under an intensive management program. This plan would benefit both private and commercial parties. Minerals A total of 21,750 acres having good mineral potential would be recomnended as being preliminarily suitable for wilderness designation. Livestock grazing would be increased by 1.7 percent over the existing 3 to 5 year average use level to 293,846 AUMs. Range condition would improve as a result of new range improvements — notably water developments, seedings and fences — and improved grazing management. Large scale land disposals could displace affected ranchers if lands pass into private ownersliip to saaeone other than the permittee. Time of year restrictions to protect sage grouse strutting and nesting habitats would slow oil/gas and geothermal exploration and/or development. Wild Horses Wild horse numbers would fluctuate between 550 and 700 horses. New water developments would benefit wild horses, whereas proposed fences would impede their free roaming nature. Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat Opportunities to reintroduce peregrine falcons would be enhanced because of ACEC designation. Reintroduction of bighorn sheep would be enhanced greatly if wilderness designation of the Bad Lands, Goshute Peak, and/or Bluebell WSAs were to be enacted. About 60 percent of existing big game habitat and 75 percent of terrestrial S-5 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION PURPOSE AND NEED Section 202 of the Federal Land Policy and Man- agement Act of 1976 (FLPMA) states 'The Secretary shall, with public involvement and consistent with the terms and conditions of this Act, devel- op, maintain, and when appropriate, revise land use plans which provide by tracts or areas for the use of the public lands." The guidance for preparing this MP is contained in 43 CFR Part 1600, Public Lands and Resources; Planning, Pro- gramming, and Budgeting. Section 603 of the same act requires the Secre- tary to review roadless areas of 5000 acres or more in size for wilderness characteristics and report to the President his recommendations as to the suitability or nonsuitability of each such area as wilderness. Four wilderness study areas are examined in this plan. The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) requires Federal agencies to prepare statements documenting the environmental conse- quences of Federal actions significantly affect- ing the human environment. Resource management plans qualify as significant actions and thus re- quire the preparation of an environmental impact statement (ELS). The Council on Environmental Quality's Regulations for Implementation of the Procedural Provisions of NEPA (40 CFR Part 1500) provide guidance for the preparation of environ- mental impact statements. This document combines the Proposed Resource Management Plan and FEIS into an integrated package. The overall purpose of the resource management planning process is to improve the resources of the resource area which would result in increased goods and services to the public land users and general public. This will be accomplished through a planning process using an interdisci- plinary approach that includes participation by the public, other Federal agencies, state and local governments, and Indian tribes. MPs are designed to make maximum use of the best avail- able data in formulating and analyzing alterna- tives. The Proposed Wells Resource Management Plan is designed to provide a framework for future man- agement of the public lands and resources in the Wells RA. This framework will be established by determining which resources will be given manage- ment emphasis. This will be consistent with existing legislation, regulations, and the policy of management of public lands on the basis of multiple use and sustained yield. This will be done "in a manner that will protect the quality of scientific, scenic, historical, ecological, environmental, air and atmosphere, water re- source, and archaeological values" (FLPMA, Sec. 102 (a)(7) and (8)). Ln addition to meeting the planning needs for the Wells RA, the MP also fulfills other specific objectives. A suit was filed in 1973 in Federal Court alleging that the Bureau of Land Manage- ment's programmatic grazing EIS did not comply with the National Environmental Policy Act. As a result of the settlement of this suit, BLM agreed to prepare specific grazing EISs. The MP will meet this and other important public objectives as well as identify lands which will be made - available for sale or exchange to consolidate ownership for improved management. ISSUES AND PLANNDG CRITERIA MPs are limited to issues which are of major concern and importance to the BLM and the public it serves. The previous planning system provided detail on a wide range of issues and concerns without considering their overall significance. The following issues and planning criteria focus on specific resource conflicts in the Wells RA. They are divided into land management or vegeta- tion management issues. 1-1 LAND MANAGEMENT ISSUES ISSUE 1: PROBLEMS OCCUR IN THE MANAGEMENT OF THE "CHECKERBOARD" AREA, AND DEMANDS ARE PLACED ON PUBLIC LANDS FOR COMMUNITY EXPANSION NEEDS AND AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT. c. Disposal would serve important public objectives and would outweigh the public objectives and values which would be served by retention. 3. Consider allowing agricultural entry where: Problems including access, accommodation of public works projects, and unauthorized uses of public lands occur in certain areas as a result of the intermingled pattern of public and private land ownership. Public lands are in demand for agricultural development, urban and residential expansion, and other intensive uses. Public lands can be disposed of for these or other purposes if disposal serves the national interest. A variety of land tenure adjustment procedures are available which could help meet these needs and resolve land management problems. Planning Criteria 1. Public lands will be placed in one of the following categories: 4. a. There is unappropriated ground water available and the development of new irrigation wells meets the criteria established by the state water engineer. b. The land is suitable for agricultural use as established through appropriate laws and regulations. Consider for withdrawal land which another Federal agency has shown to be necessary to its programs. Where a critical resource need for a tract of land is identified, consider purchase only if other forms of acquisi- tion (such as exchange and easements) are not feasible. Category I — lands and mineral resources which will be retained in Federal ownership and will not be considered for sale. ISSUE 2: ROUTES MUST BE EETERMINED FOR MAJOR TRANSMISSION LINES, PIPELINES, RAILROADS, AND OTHER UmJTY/TRANSPORTATION USES. Category II — lands which will be considered for sale or transfer. The mineral estate of Category II land may be sold upon application as allowed in section 209 of FLPMA. The mineral estate can be conveyed upon application if 1) there are no known mineral values or 2) that reservation of the mineral rights in the United States is interfering or precluding nonmLneral development of the land and that such development is a more beneficial use of the land than mineral development. Category III — lands and mineral resources which will require further study in order to determine whether they should be placed in Category I or II. As demands for energy (e.g. , oil and gas, new powerplants) arise, construction of interstate high voltage powerlines, pipelines, and otlier facilities becomes necessary. This requires de- signation and/or identification of corridors for existing and future major transportation and utility rights-of-way (ROWs) within the planning Planning Criteria 1. Establish designated corridors for major facilities in areas that meet all of the follow- ing criteria: a. Have existing major facilities, 2. Propose sale of a parcel of land if: a. It is difficult or uneconomical to manage and is not suitable for management by another Federal agency. b. Are technically and economically suited for such uses, c. Correspond with designated corridors in other planning areas, and b. It was acquired for a specific purpose which is no longer served by retention. d. Do not have significant values that would be adversely Impacted. Areas having significant values could include 1-2 wilderness study areas, ACECs, and/ or T and E species habitat. 2. Give priority to corridor determination in the following order: a. Use existing transmission ROWs with sufficient width to upgrade existing facilities and that will pennit further expansion. b. Follow existing secondary highways and railroads. c. Identify corridors through undeveloped areas or along interstate highways. ISSUE 3: LEGAL ACCESS IS NECESSARY TO ENABLE CONTINUED PUBLIC USE AND TO FACILITATE EFFECT- IVE MANAGEMENT CF PUBLIC LANDS. Legal access is defined as the lawful right to enter or leave a parcel of land. It Includes the right to enter adjacent public land from an existing public road or trail, as well as from roads or trails that lead to public land through private property. Neither BLM nor the public has an inherent right of legal access to public lands over private property. As populations, recrea- tional use, and mining activities increase, ac- cess problems could occur. Planning Criteria 1. Select roads and trails for inclusion in the transportation system according to: a. Type and frequency of historical use, b. Identified public needs, c. Management requirements, and d. Coordination with other Federal agencies, and state, county, and local goverrments, Indian tribes, and affected private landowners. 2. Establish priorities for access acquisition on the basis of identified public and administra- tive needs. 3. Consider consolidating roads or trails that serve caramon purposes, origins, and/or destina- tions. ISSUE 4: CERTAIN LANDS REQUIRE SPECIAL MANAGEMENT FCR THEIR RECREATION POTENTIAL. Special recreation management can include desig- nation, protection, and/ or development of certain areas for a variety of significant recreational values. Recreation management should be designed to provide for current uses as well as to accom- modate projected demands. The National Park Service (NPS) has conducted in- ventories to identify the best remaining rela- tively natural and free-flowing stream segments in the United States. Some of these stream seg- ments may meet minimum criteria for further study as potential components of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. The Mary's River from the western boundary of Section 13, T. 42 N., R, 59 E. , to its source was so Identified. Planning Criteria 1. In evaluating the suitability of recreational lands for special designations, protection, and/ or development: a. Identify for development those areas which receive significant recreation b. Consider recreational demands outlined in the Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Re- creation Plan (SCORP), and county or local planning documents. c. Give priority to areas which provide opportunities for more than one recrea- tion activity. d. Consider non-Federal areas or facilities when planning future recreation develop- ment. 2. Maintain all lands open to off-road-vehicle (ORV) use. Consider a limited or closed designation if: a. Significant cultural or natural features may be damaged. b. Harassment of wildlife or damage to wild- life habitat may occur. c. Threatened or endangered species may be adversely Impacted. 1-3 d. Wilderness suitability of WSAs may be im- paired. e. Extreme natural or marinade hazards to human life or property exist. 3. Consider whether a portion of the Mary's River from the western boundary of Section 13, T 42 N., R. 59 E., to its source should be recom- mended for further study as a potential component of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. The standards for Inclusion are: Planning Criteria ELM reccmnendations for wilderness suitability will be based on the following criteria: 1. Evaluation of wilderness values a. Mandatory wilderness characteristics: The quality of the area's wilderness characteristics - size, naturalness, and outstanding opportunities for solitude or primitive recreation. a. General 1. Substantially free-flowing 2. Water of high quality or water that could be restored to that condition 3. River and adjacent lands in a natural or aesthetically pleasing condition and possessing outstanding scenic, recreation, geologic, fish and wild- life, historic, cultural, or similar values Special features: The presence or absence, and the quality of the optional wilderness characteristics - ecological, geological, or other features of scientific, educational, scenic, or historical value. Multiple resource benefits: The benefits to other multiple resource values and uses which only wilderness designation of the area could ensure. b. Wild Rivers 1. Free of Impoundments 2. Inaccessible by trail 3. Primitive watershed 4. Unpolluted water c. Scenic Rivers 1. Free of Impoundments 2. Accessible in places by roads 3. Watersheds largely primitive 4. Shorelines largely undeveloped d. Recreational Rivers 1. Some impoundments and diversion 2. Readily accessible by road or railroad 3. Seme development along shore ISSUE 5: TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE BLUEBELL, GOSHUTE PEAK, SOUTH PEQUOP, AND BAD LANDS WSAs SHOULD BE RECOMMENDED AS WILDERNESS AREAS. BLM's wilderness review is a process which includes public involvement at local, state, and national levels. Wilderness area designation is resolved by Presidential recoumendation and Congression action. d. Diversity in the National Wilderness Preservation System: Consider the extent to which wilderness designation of the area under study would contribute to the diversity of the National Wilderness Preservation System from the standpoint of each of the factors listed below: 1. Expanding the diversity of natural systems and features, as represented by ecosystems and landforms. 2. Assessing the opportunities for solitude or primitive recreation within a day's driving time (5 hours) of major population centers. 3. Balancing the geographic distribution of wilderness areas. 2. Manageability The area must be capable of being effectively managed to preserve its wilderness character. 3. Quality Standards a. Energy and Mineral Resource Values: Reconroendations as to an area's suitability or nonsuitability for wilderness designation will reflect a 1-4 thorough consideration of any identified or potential energy and mineral resource values present in the area. b. Impacts on Other Resources: Consider the extent to which other resource values or uses of the area would be foregone or adversely affected as a result of wilderness designation. c. Impacts of Nondeslgnation on Wilderness Values: Consider the alternative use of the land under study if the WSA or some portion of the WSA is not designated as wilderness and the extent to which the wilderness values of the area would be foregone or adversely affected as a result of this use. d. Public Comment: In determining whether an area is suitable for wilderness designation, the BIM wilderness study process will consider comments received from interested and affected publics at all levels - local, state, regional, and national. Wilderness recommendations will not be based exclusively on a vote-counting majority rule system. The BLM will develop its recommendations by considering public comment in conjunc- tion with its analysis of a WSA's multiple resource and social and economic values and uses. e. local Social and Economic Effect: In determining whether an area is suitable for wilderness designation, the BLM will give special attention to adverse or favorble social and economic effects. The central objective of the grazing program is to manage livestock grazing in such a manner as to protect and improve rangeland condition and productivity. This objective will be accomplished through Implementation of grazing systems which may require range Improvements concurrent with a program of rangeland monitoring. Range Improvement efforts should be designed to Improve and enhance rangeland condition, facilitate the orderly administration of public lands, and benefit the widest variety of possible uses. Range Improvements include fencing, water development, and vegetation manipulation, as well as any other facilities, structures, or projects which meet the above objectives. Range Improvement needs are site specific and are therefore outlined in individual activity plans such as Allotment Management Plans, Habitat Management Plans, and Wild Horse Management Plans. Nevertheless, all range Improvements Impact many resource values in a given area, and certain considerations apply to general types of range improvements regardless of their specific location or primary intended purpose. Planning Criteria 1. Water Design water developments to manage the rangeland resource and to accommodate the needs of the animals which can reasonably be expected to use the water. Ensure that the public investment in all water developments is protected. f. Consistency with Other Plans: In determining whether an area is suitable for wilderness designation, the BIM will consider and document the extent to which the recommendation is consistent with officially approved and adopted resource-related plans of state and local governments, and Indian tribes, as required by FLPMA and BIM planning regulations. VEGETATION MANAGEMENT ISSUES 2. Fencing Restrict fencing to the minimum amount necessary to meet management objectives. Ensure that fencing conforms to bureau standards established for the animals in that area. Coordinate with users and take precautions to avoid problem maintenance areas. ISSUE 6: AREAS EXIST THAT ARE IN IZSS THAN GOOD CONDinCN AND PRODUCING LIVESTOCK FORAGE BELOW POTENTIAL. 3. Vegetation Manipulations a. Consider vegetation manipulation on sites 1-5 where production of desirable plant species is less than 25 percent of potential or where significant noxious weed problems occur. Determine the kind of manipulation to be used, considering site-specific objectives and constraints described in activity plans and outlined as follows: 1. Use burning where a desirable understory exLsts for release and where overs tory species can be controlled by fire. 2. Use herbicides to control brush where a desirable understory exists for re- lease but where overs tory species are not controllable by fire, or for con- trol of noxious weeds. of wild horses. 2. Establish population levels by determining minimum numbers necessary to maintain viable herds and maximum numbers compatible with vegeta- tion requirements. ISSUE 8: TERRESTRIAL WILDLIFE HABITAT IS GENERALLY IN POOR CR FAIR CONDITION AND BLM IS REQUIRED TO PROTECT AND ENHANCE WILDLIFE HABITAT. Managing wildlife habitat involves providing the essential habitat elements of food, cover, water, and space, as well as ensuring compatibility with other resources and uses. Planning Criteria 1. Implement wildlife management actions in the following order of priority: 3. Use mechanical brush removal where neither fire nor herbicides are suitable. 4. Use seedings/plantings where desired or in combination with one of the above. Seeding/planting mixtures will consist of native species, unless otherwise provided in activity plans. a. Maintain existing projects. b. Eliminate hazards to wildlife, e.g. fence modification in big game habitat, fence/ protection and development of important spring meadow complexes. c. Mitigate habitat conflicts among wildlife and other multiple uses. d. Construct new projects. 4. General: Ensure that all range Improvement undertakings are cost effective. ISSUE 7: WELD HORSE POPULATIONS MUST CONTINUE TO BE MANAGED IN THE SIX EXISTING HERD USE AREAS WITHIN THE CARRYING CAPACITY OF THE RANGE WHILE MAINTAINING THE HEALTH AND VIABILITY OF THE HERDS. 2. Determine relative needs for new habitat de- velopment projects by considering the degree of resource damage or conflicts occurring. 3. Consider chaining, burning and seeding to desirable browse species in areas where insuffi- cient forage exists to meet demands of reasonable numbers of big game. Wild horse management is governed by the Wild and Free Roaming Horse and Burro Act of December 15, 1971 , as amended. The purpose of the Act is to ensure the preservation of a unique feature of our Western heritage, as well as to prevent undue competition among wild horses, livestock, and big game, which can result in damage to range Planning Criteria 1. Maintain wild horse use in areas where wild horses occurred on December 15, 1971 and land ownership patterns are compatible with management 4. Protect special habitat features and special wildlife use areas, through ACEC designation or other means considering: a. The diversity and/or abundance of species b. The relative scarcity of the type of feature in the general area, c. The irreplaceability of the feature, and d. The degree to which one or more wildlife species may depend on the feature/area for survival. 1-6 ISSUE 9: THERE IS A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF AQUATIC AND RIPARIAN HABITAT IN FOCR AND FAIR CONDITION. Habitats associated with water are relatively scarce and are highly productive in terms of plant and animal species diversity and abundance. They are important sources of food, water, and cover for most animal species and are popular human use areas. Planning Criteria 1. Retain existing wetland/riparian/stream hab- itat under B1M administration. 2. Manage and/or enhance wetland and riparian areas to Improve them to, or maintain them in at least a good condition class. 3. Special management considerations will be considered for areas in the following order of priority: a. Those containing T and E and/ or protected sensitive species. b. Those with existing or potential sport fishing use. ISSUE 10: PUBLIC DEMAND HAS INCREASED FOR WOODLAND RESOURCES INCLUDING FUFJWOOD, CHRISTMAS TREES, AND OTHER PRODUCTS. The increasing demand for wood products necessi- tates a management program which will maintain or Improve the supply of these commodities. Planning Criteria Determine areas to be managed for sustained yield and develop management techniques by species and project, considering: a. Present volume of products, b. Volume production capability, c. Reproduction potential, and d. Conflict with other resources. 1-7 CHAPTER 2 PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN CHAPTER 2 PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN Goal: The Proposed Resource Management Plan, covering 4.1 million acres of public land, emphasizes a balanced approach to land management in the resources area. Fragile and unique resources would be protected while not overly restricting the ability of other resources to provide economic goods and services. It Is a combination of the Resources Production, Midrange, and Resource Protection Alternatives and was analyzed in the DEIS as the Preferred Alternative. Itowever, it differs in tliat wtiere these alternatives employ a blanket set of manage- ment actions on a resource area wide basis, this plan chooses the best management action for each issue to fit the specific RCA. Table 2-5 of the DEIS shows the detailed management actions of this proposed plan by RCA. OBJECTT^M^NAGEMeNT ACTIONS Each resource issue listed below contains an objective statement to be met under this plan, followed by the management actions proposed to attain that objective. ISSUE 1: IANDS Objective: To allow disposals, land tenure adjustments, and land use authorizations based on long range goals. These goals are to identify lands to be disposed of or retained and administered for multiple use. These identifications are based on land manageability and quality of resource values and are shown on Map 2-7 of this FEIS. ISSUE 2: CORRIDORS Objective: To determine designated corridors and identified planning corridors in coordination with other multiple use objectives, including visual quality. Short and Long-Term Management Actions: (see Map 2-9 of the DEIS). 1. Locate corridor routes on existing rights-of-ways whenever possible. 2. Meet selected corridor needs projected to the year 2020. 3. Propose or designation and/or identification 566 miles of transportation and utility corridors including some routes for the proposed White Pine and Thousand Springs Power Projects. Also in eluded is a narrowed width of the MM-NN corridor segment and selection of the P-CG-Q corridor segment to protect wilderness quality of the South Pequop and Goshute Peak WSAs respectively. ISSUE 3: ACCESS Objective: To acquire legal access for routes which would enhance opportunities to use public land resources. Long-Term Management Action: Acquire legal access for 38 roads (158 miles) considered as high priority for managanent of all resources. Short and Long-Term Management Action: Dispose of 90,000 acres, including comoijrdty- expansion lands, primarily through public sale. ISSUE 4: RECREATION Objective: To provide a wide range of recreation opportunities. 2-1 Short-Term Management Actions: (see Map 2-1 of the DEIS) 1. Upgrade facilities at the Ruby Marsh Camp- ground Special Recreation Management Area (SRMA). 2. Designate Salmon Falls Creek as a SRMA and manage Tabor Creek and Mary's River as Recreation Areas of Management Concern (RAMCs). Develop new facilities at these locations. 3. Designate the resource area "open" for ORV use except for 160 acres in the Ruby Marsh Camp- ground SRMA, where use would be "limited" to de- signated roads and trails. 4. Withdraw 160 acres at the Ruby Marsh Camp- ground SRMA from mineral entry. Long-Term Management Action: Manage such areas as are designated as wilderness by Congress to preserve their wilderness characteristics in the long-term. ISSUE 6: LIVESTOCK GRAZING Objective: To provide for livestock grazing con- sistent with other resource uses resulting in an increase in 4912 AUMs from the three to five year average licensed use of 288,934 AUMs to a level of 293,846. Tnis would be 1.7 percent over the three to five year licensed use and 22.5 percent below preference. Range Improvements will be provided primarily in I Cagegory allotments. Short-Term Management Actions: 5. Continue to extensively manage the remainder of the Wells RA for dispersed recreation. ISSUE 5: WILDERNESS 1. Develop activity plans and grazing systems on Category I allotments and grazing systems as needed on Category M and C allotments to allow for natural recovery of range condition while considering multiple use values. Objective: To manage as wilderness those por- tions of the WSAs which are manageable as a wilderness area and for which wilderness is considered the best use of the lands. 2. Construct 265 miles of fence, drill 65 wells, construct 5 reservoirs, develop 30 springs, and install install 80 miles of pipeline to Improve livestock distribution and utilization of vegetation. Short-Term Management Actions: 2-6 of the DEIS). (see Maps 2-3 to 1. Recommend portions of the four WSAs totalling 159,881 acres as preliminarily suitable for wild- erness designation. 3. Seed 37,500 acres, excluding areas Identified for disposal under the various land laws, to pro- vide for spring forage and allow natural recovery of the native range. Prescribe burn (without seeding) 27,000 acres and spray (without seeding) 1,500 acres where understory is adequate to provide natural revegetation. 2. Recommend portions of the four WSAs totalling Long-Term Management Action: Monitor and adjust 16,070 acres as nonsui table for wilderness desig- grazing management systems and livestock numbers nation. as required. WSA Bluebell Goshute Peak South Pequop Bad Lands TOTAL Suitable Acres 48,308 65,585 37,573 8,415 159,881 Nonsuitable Acres 7,357 4,185 3,517 1,011 16,070 The nonsuitable areas include lands which do not meet the size criterion, are unnatural, are unmanageable as wilderness, include existing rights-of-way, and are rated by the GEM Assessment as having high energy and /or mineral potential. (Bureau of Land Management 1983). ISSUE 7: WILD HORSES Objective: To continue management of the six existing wild horse herds (see Map 3-4 of the DEIS) consistent with other resource uses. Short and Long-Term Management Actions: 1. Continue to monitor wild horse populations and habitat conditions. 2. ibaiuct gatherings, of excess wild horses a accessary so as to maintain populations within a ran-re from 550 to 700 animals. 3. Construct six water development projects (catchment type) with a storage tank and trough. 4. Remove wild horses from private lands if required. ISSUE 8: TERRESTRIAL WILDLIFE HABITAT Objective: To conserve and/ or enhance wildlife habitat to the maximum extent possible while eliminating all of the fencing hazards in crucial big game habitat, most of the fencing hazards in noncrucial big game habitat, and all of the high and medium priority terrestrial riparian habitat conflicts in coordination with other resource Short-Term Management Actions: 1. Modify 475 miles of existing fences within crucial and 175 miles within noncrucial big game habitats that do not meet Bureau specifications. 2. Protect, enhance, and/or develop 250 spring sources for their wildlife values. 3. Designate and manage 6,200 acres as the Salt Lake ACEC to protect and enhance peregrine falcon habitat (see Map 2-10 of the DEIS). Short and Long-Term Management Actions: 1. Maintain all existing wildlife projects. 2. Continue to monitor the interaction between wildlife habitat condition and other resource uses and consider adjustments in livestock sea- sons of use to Improve or maintain only essential and crucial wildlife habitats. 3. Improve habitat in areas identified as poten- tial reintroduction sites for native species of wildlife as previously Identified by the Nevada Department of Wildlife (NDOW). Prior to improve- ment of bighorn sheep habitat in the Spruce/Go- shutes and Pilot /Crittenden RCAs, further study of conflicts between bighorn and domestic sheep will be undertaken in cooperation with NDOW. 4. Manage 2,600 acres of nonaquatic riparian aspen and 1 ,000 acres of noun tain mahogany to Improve deer and elk habitat. 5. Chain or burn, and seed 5,500 acres to Im- prove crucial big game habitat. 6. Identify, in coordination with woodland pro- ducts management, about 50,000 acres of crucial deer winter habitat for improvement. 7. Apply time of year restrictions on leaseable and/or saleable mineral development to protect crucial deer winter range and sage grouse strut- ting and nesting habitats. ISSUE 9: RIPARIAN/STREAM HABITAT Objective: To improve high and medium priority riparian/stream habitat to at least a good condition and prevent undue degradation of all riparian/stream habitat due to other uses. Short-Term Management Action: Improve 1,007 acres/38.2 miles of deteriorated high and medium priority riparian/stream habitat using techniques which would result in a minimum improvement of 30 percent of its habitat condition within the short-term. Long-Term Management Actions: 1. Improve an additional 1,511 acres/57.3 miles of deteriorated high and medium priority riparian/stream habitat using techniques with re- sults described above. 2. Manage nondeteriorated areas to prevent a de- cline to less than good condition. 3. Manage new road construction and mining act- ivities within riparian zones. ISSUE 10: WOODLAND PRODUCTS Objective: To achieve a sustained yield of wooor- land products and provide as wide a variety of products and services as possible to both the general public and commercial users. Short and Long-Term Management Actions : 1. Implement intensive management of Christmas tree cutting on the entire 600,000 to 700,000 acres of woodlands. 2. Using the sustained yield concept, Implement management of fuelwood harvesting to meet the present annual demand of approximately 1,300 cords. Open additional live and dead fuelwood and post harvesting areas to meet both increasing general public and commercial demands. 2-3 3. Manage salvage cuts for both the general public and ccmraercal users on areas where pin- yon pine-juniper conversions for wildlife or livestock management enhancement would occur. 4. In coordination with terrestrial wildlife management, promote the sale and harvest of 75 percent canopy cover removal of woodland products on about 50,000 acres of crucial deer winter hab- itat. 5. Open pinyon pine ranges that have good or better crops of pine nuts to pine nut collecting. 6. Implement techniques such as fire management and harvesting practices to rejuvenate deterio- rating aspen stands. IMPLEMENTATION There are three major decision levels in the Bureau planning system: 1. Policy Level - national policy and program development guidance, supplemented by State Dir- ector guidance, constitutes this policy level. 2. Resource Management Plan (RMP) Level - multi- ple use management decisions for a defined geo- graphic area are made. 3. Activity or Plan Implementation Level - de- tailed, site-specific management actions are de- veloped. Activity plans include wildlife habitat management plans (IMPs), allotment management plans (AMPs), recreation area management plans (RAMPs) , and wilderness management plans. Implementation of the proposed FMP will take place through monitoring, consultation, and coordination. Coordinated Resource Management and Planning (CFMP) is an advisory process that brings together all interests concerned with the management of resources in a given area; landowners, land management agencies, wildlife groups, wild horse groups, and conservation organizations and is the recommended public pro- cess through which consultation and coordination will take place. Grazing adjustments, if requir- ed, will be based upon reliable vegetation moni- toring studies, consultation and coordination, baseline inventory, or a combination of these. Livestock Grazing Managemera. To Implement the proposed plan, a grazing management program will be proposed to improve or maintain the public land resources through a selective management approach to rangeland management. This approach is based on the concept that an allotment's resource characteristics, management needs, and potential for Improvement can be Identified and the timing and intensity of the management actions should be varied according to an allotment's identified needs and potential. The purpose of the proposed grazing management program is identified by the following general objectives: 1. Authorize livestock grazing of the public rangelands under the principles of multiple use and sustained yield. 2. Protect, maintain, and improve the rangeland resources through sound land use and grazing man- agement decisions. 3. Conduct the level of soil and vegetation in- ventories necessary to support management deci- sions and provide a baseline for monitoring pro- 4. Increase and encourage systematic coopera- tion, consultation, and coordination with range- land users and intermingled landowners as part of the land use and grazing management decision making process. 5. Monitor rangeland resources and livestock use to assist in determining proper stocking levels and measure progress toward achieving management objectives. 6. Determine appropriate stocking levels (in- cluding proper season and area of use) based on monitoring data and authorize livestock grazing consistent with those stocking levels. 7. Initiate cost effective rangeland improve- ments that will help Improve the condition of the lands for livestock grazing, wildlife habitat, wild horses and watershed protection. To facilitate the selective management approach, BLM has developed three categories into vrtiich allotments are grouped according to their poten- tial: maintain (M), improve (I), and custodial (C). Objectives for these categories are to: (1) maintain current satisfactory condition, (2) improve current unsatisfactory condition, and (3) manage custodially while protecting existing re- source values. The characteristics which 2-4 pertain to these three categories are found beginning on page 2-27 of the CEIS. Specific Implementation Procedures After publication of the Final FMP/EIS and cate- gorization of allotments, Implementation actions by category would generally be prioritized as shown on Table 2-6 of the DEIS. Flexibility of livestock operations, as appropriate, would be allowed on all allotments through terms and conditions of permits, leases, and AMPs. Livestock Grazing Treatments Grazing systems would include one or more of the following treatments in combination. Treatment 1: Rest frcm livestock grazing for two consecutive growing seasons (approximately April 1 of one year to August 31 of the following year). Two growing seasons of rest would allow key management species to improve vigor and in- crease litter accumulation, seed production, and seedling establishment. Treatment 2: Rest from livestock grazing at least one year in both the spring (April 1 to May 30) and sunmer (June 1 to August 31) during each three or four year cycle. Treatment 3: Graze each pasture at some time during each grazing year. Treatment 4: Graze no pasture more than twice in the same growing season (spring or summer) during any three or four year cycle. Treatment 5: Graze livestock from nddsumner to late fall only (approximately July 16 to November 15), and rest during the spring or summer the following year to Improve the vigor, density, and reproduction of key grass species. Treatment 6: Provide rest from livestock grazing for two years until seedlings are established or until it is determined that a vegetation manipu- lation or recovery project is unsuccessful. This treatment provides the protection necessary for establishment or recovery of key management spec- ies following wildfire, prescribed burning, and seeding or spraying projects. Treatment 7: Defer livestock grazing from early spring to midsummer each year (approximately April 1 to June 30). Improved vigor and repro- duction for key management species in each allot- ment would result. Treatment 8: Allow grazing on winterfat/Nutall saltbush up to 80 percent utilization during the dormant period (approximately November 1 to March 1), and rest frcm grazing March 1 to October 31 each year. This treatment would not apply to the Mary's River, O'Neil/SalraDn Falls, and Goose Creek RCAs. Estimated Cost of Implementation Cost of Implementation is difficult to determine, given the fact that information on miles of fence, acres of seeding, and number of water de- velopments is somewhat conjectural at this point. Nonetheless, costs of Implementing the Proposed Resource Management Plan are estimated below by resource. Item Cost Recreation Development $ 30,000 Livestock Grazing Improvements $2,429,500 Wild Horse Improvements $ 90,000 Wildlife Habitat Improvements $1,509,000 Riparian Habitat Improvement $ 585,000 TOTAL $4,643,500 NOTE: These costs are for labor and materials only. They do not include BLM overhead costs for environmental assessment and contract preparation and contract supervision. MONITORING Monitoring was initiated in 1981 in the Wells RA so that initial livestock stocking rates could be determined as early as 1984 and adjusted later as additional data dictates. Monitoring methods include Utilization, Actual Use, Climatic Data, and Condition and Trend and are explained on page 2-30 of the DEIS. The monitoring program for those allotments in the M and C categories would be of low Intensity. For the I category allotments, monitoring inten- sity would be variable, focusing on the effects of management actions on range condition. Addi- tional monitoring would be conducted in crucial 2-5 wildlife and wild horse areas. Information gained through these efforts and other studies would be used in making any grazing decisions. The monitoring program, along with input through CRMP, would determine the time at which range management action would be needed in a particular allotment. A partial list of possible actions includes change in livestock season of use, construction of fence, water development, vegetation removal (chaining, controlled burns) and reseeding, and livestock adjustment. The monitoring program would be an integral part of the Proposed Resource Management Plan. STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDIEES Certain requirements are inherent in the implementation of the Proposed Resource Management Plan. These requirements, or Standard Operating Procedures, are designed to mitigate impacts stemming from management objectives or the construction of support facilities necessary to implement any action by the Bureau or persons authorized by the Bureau. These are found beginning on page 2-31 of the DEIS and will be applied to actions of the proposed plan. 2-6 CHAPTER 3 REVISIONS AND ERRATA CHAPTER 3 REVISIONS AND ERRATA SUMMARY Revise Table S-l, EEIS page S-3 as follows. ALTERNATIVE ISSUE RECREATION LIVESTOCK GRAZING Resource Production 383,452 AUMS 33% Increase Midrange 3 Recreation Areas Resource Protection 176,223 AUMs 39% Decrease Preferred 4 Recreation Revise Table S-2, EEIS page S-4 as follows. Change with No Action Market Value 0 of AUMs CHAPTER 1 See Chapter 1 of this FEIS. CHAPTER 2 DEIS page 2-2, MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES. Replace the second paragraph with the following four paragraphs. For discussion of the alternatives, excluding the No Action Alternative, the resource area was separated into three management classifications. These are Disposal (D), Retention/Consolidation (R/C) , and Retention/Management (R/M) (see Map 2-7). These were delineated on the basis that disposal areas are difficult to manage and have essentially no resource values and resource values are fewer and consequently, less cost effective to manage in R/M areas compared to R/C areas. The purpose of the three designations are to categorize these land types for their suitability for various land tenure adjustments. The lands in the Disposal (D) category can be disposed of by any available means, however, the primary vehicle, particularly around communities, would be through public sale. Lands within the "D" category typically meet the FLPMA sale criteria. The Retention/Management (R/M) areas are generally, as the name suggests, to remain under BUM management. Unlike the "D" lands, "R/M" lands do not typically meet FLPMA sale criteria. They are, however, suited for exchange for private lands within the Retention/Consolidation (R/C) areas and development under the agricultural land laws. Exchanges that would acquire private lands within the "R/M' category are generally discouraged. Finally, the Retention/Consolidation (R/C) lands are high resource value public lands that are to be retained and managed intensively and consolidated where possible to enhance management opportunities. Disposals of any nature will generally not occur in the "R/C" areas. The exceptions to this would only occur adjoining existing private lands and only to resolve 3-1 specific management problems, facilitate land exchanges within the "R/C" areas, or permit agricultural entry where state water law indicates priority water applications of the adjoining land owner exist. No specific management actions will be analyzed for the "R/M" or "R/C" areas and, therefore no furtlier consideration will be given them. better crops of pine nuts to pine nut collecting." Make the same change to page 2-25. DELS page 2-23, LIVESTOCK GRAZING, first Short-Term Management Action. Change 35,500 to 377m Revise Table 2-7, DEIS page 2-30 as follows. Table 2-1, pages 2-3 to 2-6 of the DEIS has been corrected and has been reprinted as Table A-l of this FEIS. DEIS page 2-9, ISSUE 1: LANDS, Short and Long-Term Managanent Action. Revise 93,150 to 90,000. Make the same change on page 2-22. DEIS page 2-9, ISSUE 3: ACCESS, Long-Term Management Action. Revise 11 to 14 and 67 to 87. DEIS page 2-10, Issue 5: WILDERNESS. Add the following after the table. "Long-Term Management Action: Manage such areas as are designated as wilderness by Congress to preserve their wilderness characteristics in the long-term." Make the same additions to pages 2-14, 2-19, and 2-23. DEIS page 2-10, Issue 6: LIVESTOCK GRAZING, Objective. Revise 94,788 to 94,518; 383,722 to 383,452 and 1.2 to 1.1. Tables 2-2, 2-3, 2-4, and 2-5 of the DEIS have been revised. Those revisions necessary are contained in Table 3-1 found on page 3-6 of this FEIS. DEIS page 2-13, ISSUE 3: ACCESS, Long-Term Management Action. Revise 35 to 38 and 138 to 158. Make the same change on page 2-22. DELS page 2-14, RECREATION, Long-Term Management Action. Delete the action pertaining to Crittenden Reservoir. Make the same deletion from page 2-23. Livestock Grazing Improvements TOTAL Preferred $2,429,500 $4,643,500 DEIS page 2-30, MONITORING, Utilization. Modify the last sentence to read "Grazing areas would be managed for a maximum combined utilization by livestock and wildlife of 55 percent for perennial grasses and forbs and 45 percent for shrubs." DEIS page 2-33, 25th standard operating procedure. Change "overlow" to "overflow." DEIS page 2-33. Add the following as the 32nd standard operating procedure. 'Lands will be retained in Federal ownership if needed to protect unique resource values." DEIS page 2-33. Add the following as the 33rd standard operating procedure. "All areas open to leasing as listed in the Elko District Oil, Gas, and Geothermal EAR will remain open. " Maps 2-1, 2-8, 2-9 and 2-11 have been revised and are located at the end of this chapter of the FEIS. CHAPTER3 DEIS page 3-4. Delete the second full paragraph of the first column pertaining to recreation opportunities at Crittenden Reservoir. DEIS page 2-15, fourth short and long-term terrestrial wildlife habitat management action. Replace the word "habitat" with "to improve deer and elk habitat." Make the same revision to pages 2-20 and 2-24. DEIS page 2-15, fifth short and long-term woodland products raanagment action. Reword to read "open pinyon pine ranges that have good or DEIS page 3-4, Bluebell WSA, third paragraph, last sentence. Revise "5,000-6,000" to "up to 10,000." DEIS page 3-5, second paragraph, second sentence. Revise "5,000 to 6,000" to "8,000 to 10,000." DEIS page 3-10, Fencing Hazards, second paragraph. Delete the last sentence and insert 3-2 the following sentences. "Fences within the resource area have undoubtedly caused a far greater mortality problem to deer than they have to antelope. Deer are frequently caught in fences in isolated areas not readily witnessed. A local study documented that of 144 mortalities, 13 percent were a result of deer becoming entrapped in barbed-wire fences (Papez 1976)." DEIS page 3-31, Surface water, third paragraph, first sentence. Revise the sentence to read "Springs and seeps (approximately 830) in the Wells RA vary in size and flow from less than 1 gallon per minute (gpm) to over 50 gpm." Maps 3-2 and 3-3 have been revised and are located at the end of this Chapter of the FEIS. EEIS page 3-15, Locatable Minerals, last paragraph. Add the following sentence to the paragraph. "The geologic environment of the Wells RA is also favorable for significant gold discoveries." Revise Table 3-8, EEIS page 3-17 as follows. Projected Populations (High, Medium, Low) Revise the legend for Map 3-3, follows. DEIS page 3-36 as Community West Wendover Total Wells RA 1985 1,500 800 500 10,900 7,300 4,300 1990 4,500 2,400 1,500 16,500 11,100 5,600 DEIS page 3-23, second column, fourth full paragraph. Delete the first sentence. DEIS 3-25, Condition, second paragraph, third sentence. Revise the word "finalized" to "determined." Revise Table 3-12, beginning on page 3-26 of the DEIS, as follows. Vegetation Type Perennial Forbs Mountain Shrub Associated Species balsamroot, lupine Add Idaho Fescue RCA NUMBER NAME Spruce/ Goshutes 13 14 15 16 17 Chase Springs White Horse Sugarloaf Leppy Hills Spruce CHAPTER 4 DEIS PAGE 4-3, ISSUE 5: WILDERNESS, fourth assumption. Revise as follows. "Impact conclu- sions (except for woodland products) are based EEIS page 4-3, ISSUE 6: LIVESTOCK GRAZING, first assumption, first sentence. Strike the word "completed." DEIS page 4-4, second "Other Assumption." Reword to read "... assume that the entire area having time of year restrictions would be totally..." EEIS page 4-7, second column, third paragraph, first sentence. Revise 35 to 38. EEIS page 4-7, ISSUE 4: RECREATION, second para- graph, second sentence. Revise the sentence to read "Visitors at Ruby Marsh Campground would continue to utilize facilities in need of rehabi- litation." EEIS page 4-8, first column, second full para- graph. Delete this entire paragraph pertaining to Crittenden Reservoir. Revise Table 3-13, EEIS page 3-29, as follows. Delete Astragalus miser var. oblongifolius and add Triglochin maritlma, common name Arrowgrass. DEIS page 3-30, second column, last paragraph. Delete the first sentence. DEIS page 4-10, ISSUE 8: TERRESTRIAL WILDLIFE HABITAT. Replace the fourth paragraph with the following two paragraphs. This alternative would also not designate any wilderness areas. Probably the single largest conflict with the reintroduction of bighorn sheep 3-3 wj.biuu.1 ci«= oiucuc 1 1 and (juauuLe reaic wi»AS ana on Pilot Peak In the Pilot/Crittenden RCA is that the identified habitat is currently being grazed by domestic sheep. This constitutes a potential problem with animal health if reintroduction were to occur. With wilderness designation — as in the other DEIS alternatives — the Bureau and NDOW would consider a more active program towards reintroduction because man-made disturbance would be held to a minimum and habitat improvement projects could be easily coordinated. Therefore, significant short and long-term adverse impacts to bighorn sheep reintroduction occur as result of no wilderness designation. Tables 4-3, 4-6, 4-11, 4-16, and 4-19 of the DEIS have been revised. Those revisions necessary are contained in Table 3-2 found on page 3-7 of this FEIS. DEIS page 4-44, RECREATION, third paragraph. Delete the words "Crittenden Reservoir" from the sentence. DEIS page 4^4, LIVESTOCK GRAZING, second para- graph. Replace the paragraph with the following. "This alternative would reduce AUMs from the three to five year licensed use of 288,934 AUMs by 112,588 to a level of 176,376. This would be 39 percent below three to five year licensed use and 53 percent below preference. Reductions pro- posed by RCA are as follows: Cherry Creek (3469 AUMs, 30%); Spruce/Goshutes (24,535 AUMs, 50%); Mary's River (11,367 ALMs, 25%); O'Neil/Salmon Falls (46,545 AUMs, 65%); Goose Creek (3474 AUMs, 15%); Pilot/Crittenden (13,263 AUMs, 44%); Metro polls (8530 AUMs, 20%); and Ruby/Wbod Hills (1375 AUMs, 9%). These reductions would be short and long-term significant adverse impacts to live stock grazing in the resource area and in all RCAs except Ruby /Wood Hills. DEIS page 4-19, ISSUE 1: Revise 93,150 to 90,000. LANDS, first sentence DEIS page 4-19, second column, second full para- graph, first sentence. Add the following reference "(Olendorff, Miller, and Lehman 1981)." Add the same reference to pages 4-31 and 4.43. DEIS page 4-54, ISSUE 4: RECREATION, third paragraph. Delete the words "at Crittenden Reservoir and impacts." DEIS page4-58, Construction Sector, first paragraph, second sentence. Revise $4,595,500 to $4,643,500. DEIS page 4-62, second column, number 10. Delete the words "as a result of implementing the management options in the RMP." DEIS page 4-19, ISSUE 3: ACCESS, second paragraph, second sentence. Revise 11 to 14 and 67 to 87. CHAPTER 5 No revisions necessary. DEIS page 4-20, ISSUE 4: RECREATION, fifth paragraph. Delete this sentence dealing with Crittenden Reservoir. DEIS page 4-21, second paragraph, last sentence. Delete the CHAPTER 6 DEIS page 6-2, I.C. Federal Agencies: Delete Water and Power Resources Service and insert Bureau of Reclamation. DEIS page 4-21, ISSUE 6: LIVESTOCK GRAZING, second paragraph, third sentence. Spruce Goshutes. Revise 70,213 to 69,943. DEIS page 4-31, ISSUE 3: ACCESS, second paragraph, second sentence. Revise 35 to 38 and 133 to 158. DEIS page 4-32, RECREATION, second paragraph. Delete this entire paragraph pertaining to Crittenden Reservoir. DEIS page 4-32, second column, first complete paragraph. Revise to read "Impacts vrould gener- ally be the same..." Make the same revision on page 4-44. APPENDICES Table A3-1, DEIS page A3-2. Replace this table with Table A-2 beginning on page A-6 of this FEIS. DELS A5-9, second column, second paragraph, first sentence. Delete the words "Report of Impacts of" and insert "Economic Impact of." Table A5-3, DEIS page A5-10. Delete the entire line across the page pertaining to "Fish (reser- voir)." Also make the following revisions. Fish Antelope Deer (Stream) Resource Production 4,000 Midrange 10,000 Resource Protection 175 17,587 20,000 Preferred 10,000 Table A5-4, EEIS page A5-11. Revise the source to read "Nevada Division of State Parks 1980." GLOSSARY DEIS page G-2. Add the following definitions. DESIGNATED CORRIDOR: A 3 mile wide (where possible) passage on which existing utility transmission or transportation facilities are located for which a future need may be accomodated. DESIGNATED CORRIDOR - LOW VISIBILITY: A 3 mile wide (where possible) passage on which existing utility transmission or transportation facilities are located for which a future need may be accomodated if the facility is not evident in the characteristic landscape. REFERENCES No revisions necessary. 3-5 TABLE 3-1 REVISIONS TO TABLES 2-2, 2-3, 2-4, and 2-5 OF THE [ELS Cherry Creek Spruce/ Goshutes Mary s River 0' fell/Salmon Goose Falls Creek Pilot/ Ruby/Wood Crittenden Metropolis Hills REVISONS TO TABLE 2-2 69,095 acres, in- cluding 360 acres for conmunity expansion of MonteHn 90,000 Acres BLM Road /' 1132 BLM Road #1070, 1074 LIVESTOCK GRAZING: Seed Acres NA = Not Applicable REVISONS TO TABLE 2-3 BLM Ro #1132 Add BLM Delete "& ex- Road #1070, tension at 1074 Twin Meadow; Ranch" and insert 1222 14 Miles 34 Miles Delete Action Manage 3 recreation NA = Not Applicable NA = Not Applicable REVISIONS TO TABU 2-4 Delete "& ex- tension at Twin Meadows Ranch" and Insert 1222 REVISIONS TO TABLE 2-5 69,095 acres, in- cluding 360 acres for canard, ty expansion of Montello 90,000 Acres BLM Road #1132 Add BLM Delete "& ex- Road #1070, tension at 1074 Twin Meadows Ranch" and insert 1222 14 Miles Delete Action Mange 4 re- creation areas NA = Not Applicable TABLE 3-2 REVISIONS TO TABLES 4-3, 4-6, 4-11, 4-16, art! 4-19 of the DEIS Cherry Spruce/ Mary's O'Neil/Sauion Goose Pilot/ Ruby/Wood Issue/Impacts Creek Goshutes River Falls Creek Crittenden Metropolis mils Wells RA REVISONS TO TABLE 4-3 ACCESS: Public Public access easements would be acquired on a case-by-case basis as major difficulties arise. They would be of very access easements small magnitude and would be beneficial to any affected resource (SB). would be acquired Public access would Public access through routes important for any of the resource issues could be lost, be lost RECREATION: Recrea- tion opportunities would be enhanced or "fishing degraded at Crittenden Reservoir (SA)." 38 Roads (SA) 158 Miles (SA) REVISIONS TO TABLE 4-6 ACCESS: Public Public access easements would be acquired for access routes important for the public use and BLM administration of access easements livestock grazing, woodland products, and minerals (SB), would be acquired 1 2 14 Roads (SB) 6 9 25 87 Miles (SB) Public a be lost Public access through routes important for public use and BLM administration of recreation, wilderness areas, wild horses, and terrestrial wildlife and riparian habitats would be lost (SA). N: Recrea- tion opportunities would be enhanced or Delete "fishing degraded at Crittenden Reservoir (SA)." LIVESTOCK GRAZDG: Licensed use increase 69,943 AH* 143% (SB) 94,518 AUMs 33% (SB) ACCESS: Public access easements would be acquired Public access easem all resources (SB) REVISIONS TO TABLE 4-11 would be acquired for access routes important for the public and the BLM administration of 38 Roads (SB) 158 Miles (SB) Public access would not be lost Public access through routes important for any of the resources would not be lost RECREATION: Recrea- tion opportunities would be enhanced or degraded Delete "Fishing enhanced at Crittenden Reservoir. 300 angler days (SB)." REVISIONS TO TABLE 4-11 ACCESS: Public Public access easements would be acquired for access routes important for the public use and the BLM administration of access easements all resources (SB) would be acquired 1 6 10 38 Roads (SB) 6 14 34 158 Miles (SB) Public access would not be lost Public access through routes important for any of the resources would not be lost (SB). RECREATION: Recrea- tion opportunities would be enhanced or Delete "Fishing enhanced at Crittenden Reservoir. 300 angler days (SB)." REVISIONS TO TABIE 4-16 ACCESS: Public access easements would be acquired Public access easements would be acquired for access routes important for the public use and BLM administration of recreation, wilderness areas, wild horses, and terrestrial wildlife and riparian habitats (SB). Public access would be lost Public access through access routes important for public use and BIM administration of livestock grazing, woodland products, or minerals would be lost (SA). 12 0 9 Roads (SA) 6 9 5 63 Miles (SA) RECREATION: Recrea- tion opportunities would be enhanced or degraded Delete "Fishing degraded at Crittenden Reservoir (SA)." LIVESTOCK GRAZING: Licensed use decrease 3469 AUMs 24,535 AUMs 30% (SA) 50% (SA) 11,367 All* 46,545 AUMs 3,474 AUMs 13,263 AUMs 8,530 AUMs 1,375 AUMs 112,558 AUMs 25% (SA) 65% (SA) 15% (SA) 44% (SA) 20% (SA) 9% (NS) 39% (SA) REVISIONS TO TABLE 4-19 ACCESS: Public access easements would be acquired Public access easements would be acquired for access routes important for the public resources (SB). and BLM administration of all 38 Roads (SB) 158 Miles (SB) RECREATION: Recrea- tion opportunities would be enhanced Delete "Fishing enhanced at Crittenden Reservoir. Increase 300 angler days (SB)." LEGEND (SRMA) SPECIAL RECREATION MANAGEMENT AREAS Alternative SRMA RAMC No Action 5 Resource Production 2.5 1,3 Mid -Range 2,5 3 Resource Protection 2,5 Preferred 2,5 1.3 2-1 H O o < s m m x a all i "i5^ ■3 O 3J ^ S5™ < c "> as f^o IS DESIGNATED CORRIDORS Hi 3 mile width PLANNING CORRIDORS f _ -i 5 mile width DESIGNATED CORRIDORS I I 3 mile width r///l 3 mile width - low visibility PLANNING CORRIDORS I 5 mile width , sBse I r ° § - 9 ££o p ■H O O < ?2 < m W m DESIGNATED CORRIDORS PLANNING CORRIDORS i j 5 mile width FEDERAL LANDS BLM 1286 BLM ROAD NUMBER ■■■ OTHER AGENCIES o w si a> _ s ii 5 m £ ill CHAPTER 4 CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION CHAPTER 4 CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT Communication and consultation with all interested public land users and other concerned people have been important components in the Wells RMP/EIS process and they will continue to be important in the decision making and Implementation processes. Public participation will continue through such means as comment periods, news releases, Coordinated Resource Management and Planning (CRMP), and informational meetings. The planning issues and criteria were developed after intensive input and review by the public. Initially, several public meetings were held in March and April of 1979 to identify issues of concern to individuals in the Wells RA. In addition, representatives of state and local goverrments, including the Elko Mayor and the Elko County Manager, and representatives of various user and interest groups (mining, livestock, environmental, and sportsmen) were contacted in November of 1979. This public Input was combined with input from BLM staff specialists to identify and develop a set of planning issues. Another 4,000 copies were distributed as a supplement to the Elko Daily Free Press. Fifty-seven responses were received. These included 33 individuals, four economic interest groups, two conservation groups, two "informal groups" (a family and an EIS consultant), and one university department spokesperson. A total of 38 respondents were residents of the Wells RA, while 12 were from the Reno-Carson City area and seven were from out of state. The 57 public responses, along with comments received from the Nevada BLM State Office, were used to develop an Initial set of planning issues and criteria. Th July 1982, these were re-evaluated, with issues being restated as problem statements instead of general planning questions, and four issues being Incorporated into other Issues. A second Federal Register notice was published on August 23, 1982. Its purpose was to present the revised issues noted above and the five alternatives to be analyzed in the EIS. This notice also Initiated another 30-day public comment period. A Federal Register notice of Intent was published on May 23, 1980. This notice discussed issues to be considered in a general way and invited public comment and recommendations. Planning criteria were developed to set standards and guidelines for planning to follow. A draft version of the issues and planning criteria was distributed to the public in January 1981 in The Sage, a district newsletter. About 350 copies were sent to selected individuals, elected officials, interest groups, and other agencies. Evening workshops to discuss the alternatives were held in Reno, Elko, and Wells, Nevada on September 13, 21, and 22, 1982. Total attendance at these sessions was 24 people representing a cross section of interests including the raining and livestock industries, state agencies, Sierra Club, and Earth First. Also, an open house was held in the Elko District Office in September 1982 during which 17 individuals met with Bureau personnel. Twenty-five letters were received in addition to 4-1 the comments made at the above meetings and open houses. These were utilized, along with Impact analyses, in developing the preferred alternative. COORDINATION IN REVIEW OF THE DRAFT RMP/EIS The draft RMP/EIS was sent to about 450 governmental agencies, individuals, special interest groups, and industry including those listed below. An asterisk indicates those who provided written response to the document. I. Governmental Agencies and Individuals A. Governor Richard Bryan B. Nevada Congressional Delegation C. Federal Agencies ELko County Sportsmen Association Friends of the Earth National Wildlife Federation Natural Resources Defense Council* Nevada Dept. of Conservation & Natural Resources Nevada Dept. of Wildlife* Nevada Wildlife Federation Sierra CLub* The Wildlife Society* Wilderness Society Wildlife Management Institute* B. Cultural Resources Nevada Division of Historic Preservation and Archaeology* Nevada Archeological Society Te-Moak Bands of Western Shoshone Bureau of Indian Affairs BLM State Offices Bureau of Mines Bureau of Reclamation* Department of Commerce Department of Energy Department of Defense* District Managers, BIM Districts In Nevada, Idaho, and Utah Environmental Protection Agency* Fish and Wildlife Service* Geological Survey Humboldt National Forest National Park Service Soil Conservation Service C. Grazing Interests Nevada Cattlemen's Assoc* Nevada Woolgrower's Assoc. Wells RA Livestock Operators* D. Land Management Interests ELko County Assoc, of Conservation Districts Federal Land Bank Assoc. Nevada Division of Forestry Nevada Farm Bureau Federation Public lands Council Southern Pacific land Co. local Government E. Mining Interests Community Services Division, Carson City ELko City Mayor Elko County Commissioners Elko County Manager Elko County Planning Commission Jackpot Advisory Council Wells City Mayor West Wendover Advisory Council II. Special Interest Groups and Others A. Conservation and Wildlife Groups American Fisheries Society Audubon Society Desert Fishes Council* Desert Research Institute AMOCO Production Co. Anaconda Copper Atlantic Richfield* Chromalloy Corp.* Freeport Gold Nevada Mining Association Union Oil Co. F. Recreation Groups Federation of Western Outdoor Clubs National Rifle Association Nevada Outdoor Recreation Association G. Universities University of Nevada, Reno 4-2 H. Utilities California Pacific Utilities Sierra Pacific Power Co.* Western Pacific Railroad I. Wild Horse Groups Las Vegas District Office 4765 West Vegas Drive Las Vegas, NV 89102 Winneraucca District Office 705 East 4th Street Winnemucca, NV 89445 American Horse Protection Association PUBLIC LIBRARIES International Society for the Protection of His tangs & Burros ELko County Library National Mistang Assoc. 720 Court Street WHOA Inc. Elko, NV 89801 AVAILABILITY OF THE PROPOSED PLAN AND FINAL ENVLRONENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT This proposed resource management plan and final environmental Impact statement was sent to those who received a draft document and all who commented on the draft. A Federal Register notice and an area-wide news release were also used to inform the public of the availability of this document. Copies are also available for review at the following BLM offices and public libraries: Nevada State Library Attn: Documents Library Building Carson City, NV 89710 James Dickinson Library University of Nevada, Las Vegas 4505 Maryland Parkway Las Vegas, NV 89154 Government Publications Department University of Nevada, Reno Library Reno, NV 89557 BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT OFFICES Office of Public Affairs Bureau of Land Management 18th and C Streets Washington, D.C. 20240 Wells Branch Library Wells, NV 89835 White Pine County Library Campton Street Ely, NV 89301 Nevada State Office 300 Booth Street P.O. Box 12000 Reno, NV 89520 Battle Mountain District Office Narth 2nd and Scott Streets P.O. Box 194 Battle Mountain, W 89820 Carson City District Office 1050 East Williams Street Carson City, W 89701 Elko District Office 2002 Idaho Street Elko, NV 89801 Ely District Office Star Route 5, Box 1 Ely, NV 89301 PUBLIC REVIEW AND HEARINGS Some 450 copies of the Draft RMP/EIS were mailed on May 20, 1983. Accompanying the draft was a letter noting the date, place, and time of the public hearings and the procedure for the public to submit comments. The final date for comments to be received in order to be incorporated into this document was August 19, 1983. A notice of the release of the Draft and pertinent information on comments and public hearing dates was published in the May 20, 1983 issue of the Federal Register. A public hearing was held in Reno on June 20 attended by 24 members of the public, 11 of whom made oral statements. A second hearing was held in Wells on June 21. It was attended by 44 mem- bers of the public, 20 of whom made oral state- The transcripts of these public hearings 4-3 are available for inspection at the B1M Elko District Office, 2002 Idaho Street, Elko; BLM Nevada State Office, 300 Booth Street, Reno; and BLM Office of Public Affairs, 18th and C Streets, Washington, D.C. A total of 56 written comments were received during the public review period on the draft RMP/EIS. All letters and testimony were reviewed to determine if they met the required criteria for response, i.e., discussion of the adequacy of the draft environmental Impact statement. Substantive comments which presented new data, questioned facts and/or analyses, or commented on issues bearing directly on the draft environmental Impact statement or the environmental Impacts of the alternatives were fully evaluated and given responses. Changes or additions to the draft environmental impact statement have been incorporated into this final statement. RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS Table 4-1 (see next page) is an Index of responses (by number) to comments received, organized by issue. All of the written comments (1-56 left column) have been reprinted in this FEIS beginning on page 4-23. In addition, excerpts from the public hearing record which required responses (57-73 left column) have also been reprinted beginning on page 4-109. Table 4-2, beginning on page 4-6, displays the responses to public comment which are indexed in Table 4-1. When persons provided both written and oral comment, responses were developed for the written material only, unless issues not covered in the letter were raised during oral testimony. 4-4 INDEX OF RESPONSE NUMBERS TO COMOTS, BY ISSUE Lands Corridors Recreation Wilderness Grazing form letter** Bob Wright* (1st letter) Robert E. Wright, Jr.* Atlantic Richfield Co. Bureau of Reclamation Wild Wildlife Aqu 3,8,31, 28,29,32 33 Bob Wright* (2nd letter) The Wildlife Society U.S. Fish J, Wildlife Service Elolse McOueary Robert Hawks Bert N. Smith Paul W. Smith Bureau of Mines & Geology Department of Wildlife Division of Environmental Protection Nevada Division of Historic Preservation & Archeology Natural Resources Defense Council Glen E. Shewtoaker Maria Griswold & 0. Steve Boies* Dick Both* (1st letter) Dick Roth* (2nd letter) Sierra Pacific Power Co. Lands of Sierra, Inc. Salmon River Cattlemen's Sierra Club, Conservation Committee Sierra Club, Public Lards 42. Jack G. Taylor 43. Kenneth L. Johns 44. Lloyd E. Shewmaker 45. Chromolloy 46. U.S. Environmental Protect! 20,21,22, 23,24,25, 26,27,33 52. Dale R. Andrus 53. Nevada Department of Agriculture 54. Harry Melts (2nd letter) 55. Elliott Bemshaw 56. Vargas & Bartlett, Attorneys at Law ORAL Texas Gulf Minerals & Metals Co. Sierra Club (Same as MO above) Nevada Mining Association Les McKenzle Von L. Sorensen (Same as #22 above) Dick Roth (Same as #34 & 35 above) Ray Bedke Walter Wlnchell Craig Spratllrg Indicates both written comment and oral testimony i • This was the first of 96 identical form letters re, and West Wendover, Nevada area. TABLE 4-2 RESPONSES TO WRITTEN AND ORAL COMMENTS Number The later livestock turnout date of July 1 is only one of the several net hods of achieving proper grazing management identified on page 2-29 of the DEIS. These treatments will be used only where appropriate for the management of a specific vegetative type, allotment, or Concern for the economic impact is appropriate and the values are significant. These economic effects will be taken into consideration in the decision process. See Chapter 3, Revisions and Errata, of this FEIS. In response to these comments both reasonable and existing numbers for wildlife have been double checked and revised where necessary through a cooperative effort of both the Bureau and the Nevada Department of Wildlife. Table A-2, beginning on page A-6 of this FEIS, displays this revised information. Even though it is anticipated that these revised reasonable numbers will be considered high by some individuals and/or groups, the season of use and duration which wildlife occupy any given area are the important factors. Tne vast majority of ORV use in the Wells RA is occurring on the numerous existing roads scattered throughout the area. While some occasional ORV use does take place off existing roads, this minimal use has posed no serious threats to various resources (archaeological sites, wildlife habitat, soils) which would warrant "limiting" or "closing" an area to motor vehicles. ORV use was addressed within the recreation issue in the DEIS. Since range survey data will not be used to set initial stocking rates , the three to five year annual licensed AIM use figure was used for analysis purposes in the DEIS. It represents neither an increase nor a decrease in actual livestock use but the present level of grazing use. In reference to the lack of information on suspended non-use AIJMs, an allotment may eventually have more or less AUMs than its "total preference" (active and suspended AIJMs). Stocking rate will be determined by the carrying capacity of the range as indicated by rangeland monitoring, not whether it has suspended AUMs. The 1971 level of wild horse numbers have never been determined because of the lack of verified counts. However, since all counts prior to 1978 included claimed and private horses, the number would be significantly greater than 320. In regard to maintenance of range improvement projects, BLM policy from Washington Office Instruction Memorandum No. 83-27 entitled "Final Rangeland Improvement Policy" states that: 1. Parties deriving the primary benefit(s) from a structural improvement shall be responsible for maintaining that improvement. Primary benefits constitute more than 50 percent of the benefits realized. When no party derives more than 50 percent of the benefits from an improvement, or when use of an improvement is required at a time when the primary beneficiary would not ordinarily use the improvement, maintenance responsibility will be negotiated on a proportionate share basis. 4-6 TABLE 4-2 (Continued) Number 7 Cont. 2. Permittees and lessees will maintain structural Improvements constructed or installed primarily to benefit livestock grazing, and the requirement to maintain these improvements in current useable condition shall become a condition of a permit or lease. The mainten- ance of Improvements not designed for the primary benefit of livestock grazing may be assumed by the Bureau, nonlivestock cooperators, or livestock operators. 3. Where existing cooperative agreements cannot be renegotiated voluntarily, the primary beneficiary of an improvement shall be assigned maintenance responsibility by decision. 4. Failure to maintain Improvements to usable standards may result in the withholding of an annual authorization, cancellation of a cooperative agreement or range improvement permit, and/or eventual cancellation of the permit or lease. 5. The owner of an Improvement shall be responsible for reconstructing an Improvement or repairing acts of vandalism. 6. The costs of modifying an Improvement shall be the responsibility of the party requesting the modification. 8 The Western States Fish and Game Commissioners recommendations for the management of sage grouse habitat has progressively developed over the past eighteen years. These recommendations have been periodically updated as new research indicated a change was necessary. The guidelines are simple, straight forward, and apply only in areas of sage grouse habitat. They suggest a close working relationship between the state wildlife and land management agencies. They recommend two years advanced notice of treatment be given to the state wildlife agency but allow for less. This is consistent with the Memorandum of Understanding between the Bureau and NDCW which requires a minimum of 12 months notification. Pertaining to sage grouse strutting and nesting habitat the guidelines recommend parameters within which no vegetative manipulation take place. The two mile radius (8000 acres), so often referred to, incorporates the majority of the strutting and nesting habitat:. This would be a "worst case" in which the entire 8000 acres of habitat met the parameters in the guidelines. Such would very seldom be the case. For each proposed vegetative modification an on-the-ground investigation by Bureau and NDCW personnel will be performed to determine where the specific parameters exist. These portions of the 8000 acres would be recommended for exclusion from modification. Standard Operating Procedure #9, DEIS page 2-32, allows for the incorporation of new information concerning sound sage grouse management practices. 9 Page 6-1 of the DEIS describes public participation within the planning process. The public was invited by means of news releases, mailings, and Federal Register notices to participate during issue identification, scoping of the alternatives, and the 90-day comment period on the DEIS. To determine who the concerned members of the public are and contact all of them personally to gather information on multiple use of the land would be an extremely time consuming and expensive venture and as such it is not required within the planning process. 4-7 TABLE 4-2 (Continued) Number 10 Energy and minerals was not determined to be an issue because the program is handled under normal administrative procedures as governed by current laws, regulations, and policy. Specific mining proposals are handled through established envirormental and administrative processes. It is impossible to assess the impacts from this program since it is not known where and when development will occur. 11 Page 6-1 of the DEIS describes the public participation activities of the issue identifica- tion process. Neither the public nor Bureau personnel raised water resources or air quality as issues of concern. It should be noted, however, that site specific analyses of the effects on these resources for individual projects will be prepared through established environmental and administrative procedures. 12 Cost per acre for vegetation manipulation projects for wildlife (5500 acres) is significant- ly higher than those for livestock because of several factors but primarily due to the methods used and the high cost of browse seed and seedlings. 13 See Chapter 2, Proposed Resource Management Plan, of this FEIS. 14 There is no documentation to show that wild horses were not on the Chase Springs and Tobar Allotments on December 15, 1971. All documented evidence (BLM Inventories February, 1975 and March 1978) indicates that there were horses on these allotments. Many of these were claimed trespass horses which were gathered during the claiming period of 1974 to 1978. All claims in this area were filled during this time and any horses left in the area are considered by law to be Wild Free Roaming Horses (letter of July 30, 1980 from the Wells Area Manager to Blair Johns in allotment files). Map 3-4 of the DEIS shows that lands in T. 33 N. , R. 63 E. exist within the Spruce-Pequop Wild Horse Herd Use Area but that T. 33 N. , R. 62 E. is outside the area. Wild horses have been observed on T. 33 N. , R. 63 E. as well as other places in the Spruce-Pequop herd area. 15 As stated on page 2-2 of the DEIS all project proposals are for I category allotments but that some improvements will be done as the need arises on M and C category allotments. Improvements could include limited fencing or water developments but not extensive pasture fencing, large pipeline projects or seedings. 16 Although it is true that the Resource Protection Alternative would protect more springs than the Resource Production Alternative, this is insignificant when compared to the proposed seedings of the latter. The Resource Production Alternative proposes 232,000 acres of crested wheatgrass seedings at a cost of 5.5 million dollars while the Resource Protection Alternative proposes none. 17 As stated on page 2-18 of the EEIS the goal of the Resource Protection Alternative is "the preservation of natural values, with emphasis on management of fragile and unique resource values." Implementation of this alternative would cause substantial improvement of terres- trial wildlife and fishery habitats within the Wells RA. A secondary, not primary, benefit of these improvements is the significant increase in recreational use and economic good caused from increased bunting and fishing. Because these are secondary benefits they are appropriately addressed in the Resource Protection, not the Resource Production Alternative. 4-8 TABLE 4-2 (Continued) Response Number 18 Allotment categorization is a two step process which requires professional judgment on the part of the BLM for many of the criteria, along wLth personal experiences of livestock operators and CRMP Committee members. The first step was the development of the criteria. On March 5, 1982 the proposed criteria went to all livestock operators for their review. On May 26, 1982, Elko District personnel went to the Elko County CRMP Committee to request their input into the proposed criteria. At that time a subcainrLttee (comprised of representatives from the Nevada Cattlemen's Asso- ciation, Society for Range Management, Northern Nevada Mining Association, Elko County Association of Conservation Districts, Western Shoshone Sacred Land Association, and Nevada Department of Wildlife) was formed. When the subcommittee made their recommendations, they included combining the criteria of range condition, trend, and potential into one since they are evaluated together. We incorporated all these recommendations and the final cri- teria were approved by the BLM Nevada State Director on December 21, 1982. Due to the fact that these criteria have received local review and approval by our State Office, they are not an issue at this point in time and have not been revised because of comments received. The second step is actual categorization of the allotments according to the approved cri- teria. Due to the timing of the RMP and the time consumed for public review of the pro- posed criteria and their final approval, there was not enough time for livestock operator input into the placement of the category prior to the DEIS. Therefore, it was decided to allow public comment on the categorization during the review period. In addition, it should be noted that allotment categories can be changed as the allotment situation changes or as new information becomes available. At such time the allotments will be evaluated with the livestock operator and the Elko County CRMP Committee as to its appropriate category. Table A2-1 of the DEIS shows the footnoting of specific information available which in- fluenced the rating of a criteria. General professional judgment was not footnoted. As the table displays, there are seven criteria used to derive a category. There are no cases where all seven criteria resulted in seven Ms, Is, or Cs. Therefore, if the majority of the criteria were "M", then the allotment would be categorized as an "M". If allotments were categorized as "I" because any of the criteria were "I", then all of the allotments would be in the "I" category. The primary purpose of the Final Grazing Management Policy is to concentrate the Bureau's personnel and funding to the allotments with the greatest potential for returns. Therefore, if all of the allotments were in the "I" category, the purpose of that policy would have been defeated. In addition, the ability of a private in- dividual to invest in projects is not a factor in allotment categorization. Ifowever, it does become a factor in prioritization of projects to be completed during a particular fiscal year. 19 The definition of "Net Ranch Income", as used in Table 3-2 of the DEIS, is provided in footnote 2 of the table. 20 The most recent data available on prices, at the time these ranch budgets were developed, was for the year 1980. Prices used reflect a 3-year average for 1978-80 as determined by the Economic Research Service, USDA. These price levels were discussed with Wells RA ranch operators at a workshop in Elko on November 12, 1981. 4-9 TABLE 4-2 (Continued) Response Number 21 These budgets are designed to represent the "average" or "typical" ranch operation and reflect the range of operating characteristics identified within the individual size classifications. Calving percentages and sale weights, etc., are based on data developed for the Federal Enterprise lata System by the Economic Research Service, USDA. The appropriateness of the values estimated for these parameters were discussed with Wells RA ranch operators at a ranch budget workshop held in Elko on November 12, 1981. 22 Production values per cow is an average value based on estimated sales of the typical ranch within each size group and the average herd size. It can be reasonably assumed that production values per cow reflect the relative style and efficiency of operating characterisitics within each size group. The difference can be explained by the number and type of beef cattle brought to market relative to the average herd size of the typical ranch within each group. The number and type of cattle brought to market for each size group is based on USM data as adjusted at the ranch budget workshop held in Elko on November 12, 1981. 23 The $10.06 value is in error. The corrected value of $0.65 was utilized in the final budgets and in the linear programming analysis. Revised final budgets are found in Table A-7 beginning on page A-20 of this FEIS. The ranch budget linear programming analysis, as discussed in the DEIS, was fully based on the revised final budgets. 24 The linear programming (LP) analysis of ranch operations and budgets by the Economic Research Service, USDA, is based on Total Digestible Nutrient (TDN) requirement of the herd for each month of the year. While hay may be fed for a 3-month period, the Economic Research Service analysis indicated that, on the average, hay provided only 21 percent of the total TDN requirement from feed, forage, and supplemental sources. 25 Revised final budgets, Table A-7 beginning on page A-20 of this FEIS, show that labor cost per cow data were moderately adjusted prior to the linear programming analysis, labor cost information was developed by the Economic Research Service, USDA, and is based on data from the Federal Enterprise Data System, previous budgets developed in Elko County, and information directly supplied by ranch operators at the ranch budget workshop in Elko on November 12, 1981. 26 Table A5-2 of the DEIS describes the results from the linear programming analysis. The analysis is an optimizing technique which seeks the most efficient utilization of all factors of production. With the assumptions incorporated in the model, under the No Action Alternative the typical ranch in each size category would achieve its most efficient operation at a level somewhat lower than the characteristics described by the typical budgets for the existing situation. Table S-2 of the DEIS is in error. The $650,000 figure under the heading "Change with No Action" should be deleted. 27 Native range condition would not Improve as much under the Resource Production Alternative as the Midrange Alternative. There would not be more Intensive livestock management by implementation of the former, but there would be more crested wheatgrass seedings and more cattle. 4-10 TABLE 4-2 (Continued) Response Number 28 It is the intent of the Bureau, through cooperation and close coordination with livestock operators, that the design and implementation of any project be done in such a manner so as to eliminate or minimize impacts to other resource values. 29 Streams are especially valuable water sources for livestock and the Bureau recognizes their value to the livestock operator. However, the Bureau has the responsibility of, not only preserving streams for their value as water sources for livestock, but also providing wildlife and fisheries habitat, recreational opportunities and other uses associated with this resource. Streams and associated riparian communities are essential ecosystems. To maintain these communities and their multiple use resource values, systematic treatments, including definite periods of rest and grazing, are necessary. 30 While wild horse numbers would increase under the Resource Protection Alternative, livestock numbers would be decreased and total actual AIM usage would be less overall. Livestock AUMs would be decreased from the three to five year average use by 112,711 AUMs while wild horse use would only increase by 8,304 AUMs (692 horses x 12 months). 31 The primary management action in the Resource Production Alternative would be to increase livestock grazing to preference by means of crested wheatgrass seedings. These seedings would be used to supplement early season forage. However, afterwards, the increased numbers of livestock would be turned out on native range. The combination of these increased numbers and the existing range habitat conditions would result in increased utilization of key browse species by livestock. As this component of the native range is already being severely impacted in most areas, big game (mule deer) habitat condition would be expected to either enter into, or continue in, a downward trend. Depending on the degree of livestock increase (some allotments would increase 50 percent over three to five year use levels in the Resource Production Alternative) stocking rates could have much more of an impact on big game habitat than season or frequency of use. 32 A similar situation exists on Salmon Falls Creek through the Bad Lands WSA where livestock have little or no direct access to the stream but the habitat condition remains fair. Upstream watershed condition has a tremendous impact on these types of areas. Until some improvement is made to degraded streams and/or watersheds, upstream, these "pristine" areas will remain in less than optimal condition. However, it should be noted that nearly all streams in the Wells RA are like Salmon Falls Creek (their habitat can be improved) whereas that type mentioned in the comment (where their habitat is unimprovable) is rare. 4-11 TABLE 4-2 (Continued) Number Response 33 The Sixth Alternative has components exactly the same, or similar to, those analyzed In the EEIS. The listing below shows by resource issue which alternative in the EEIS is like that proposed in the Sixth Alternative. Issue DEIS Alternative Lands Preferred Corridors No Action Access No Action Recreation None (See below) Wilderness No Action Livestock Grazing Preferred (See below) Wild Horses Production (See below) Terrestrial Wildlife None (See below) Riparian/Stream Habitat No Action (See below) Woodland Products Preferred Recreation: Components in the Sixth Alternative which differ from those of the Preferred Alternative are: 1) Close additional areas to ORV use besides the Ruby Marsh Campground and 2) develop additional recreation areas as needs and opportunities arise. As noted in response number 4, ORV use is causing very little damage within the Wells RA and further "closures" or "limitations" are not necessary. Recreation use along Salmon Falls Creek and Mary's River indicate a current need for recreation facilities at these sites. To further postpone development would bring about added resource damage and visitor inconvenience at these areas. Livestock Grazing: The Preferred Alternative incorporates all components of the Sixth Alternative except that the latter would adjust livestock grazing numbers according to results of at least five years of monitoring. We believe that three to five years of monitoring will provide sufficient data on which to make adjustments. Wild Horses: The Sixth Alternative recommends maintaining wild horse numbers at the 1971 level of 320. First, as stated in response number 6, the number of wild horses in 1971 is unknown, but it would be significantly greater than 320. Second, the impacts of the Sixth Alternative would be similar to those of the Resource Production Alterntive which would reduce wild horse numbers to 356. Terrestrial Wildlife: Components in the Sixth Alternative which differ from those of the Preferred Alternative are: 1) modify hazardous fences only across major wildlife migration routes; 2) improve the condition of only crucial wildlife habitat shown to be in downward trend after monitoring; and 3) designate no ACEC. The Sixth Alternative would modify fewer miles of fence than the Resource Production Alternative which would modify 475 miles within crucial big game habitat. It would also improve the condition of less crucial habitat than the Resource Production Alternative which would maintain the condition of all crucial habitat, not just that shown to be in a downward trend. Without the ACEC designation of the Preferred Alternative the Bureau would be doing nothing to protect the historical habitat of peregine falcon, a threatened and endangered species. 4-12 TABLE 4-2 (Contirued) Response Number 33 Cont. Riparian/ Stream Habitat; The outcome of implementing the riparian/stream habitat component of the Sixth Alternative would be the same as the No Action Alternative. By the time it is cooperatively decided which areas are high and medium priority habitat and methods of improvement agreed upon by all users of the allotment, nothing would be done for many more years. Meanwhile riparian/stream conditions will have continued to decline as outlined in the No Action Alternative. If this were to occur, the Bureau would most likely be in violation of the Threatened and Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, by allowing the continued degradation of habitat currently occupied by lahontan cutthroat trout. 34 Wildlife associated recreation expenditures data were derived from the Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural Resources publication, "Economic Impact of Outdoor Recreation in Nevada," November, 1980. The 1980 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife Associated Recreation, Nevada Supplement, prepared by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, was not available to us at the time this analysis was conducted. 35 To clear up any misunderstanding as to how the level of livestock grazing AUMs by alternative were derived, the following rationales are provided. Resource Production Alternative: The increased grazing use under this alternative is based on bringing livestock use up to the preference grazing level by increasing forage production through seeding 232,000 acres of crested wheatgrass, prescribed burning on 10,500 acres and Implementation of management systems. Midrange Alternative: The livestock grazing use level is based on the 3 to 5 years average actual grazing use level and seeding 30,000 acres of crested wheatgrass to provide spring forage for livestock and deferment for native vegetation during the critical growth period. Resource Protection Alternative: The reduction in livestock grazing use under this alternative was based on removal of livestock from areas of crucial wildlife habitat. Preferred Alternative and Proposed Resource Management Plan: Increase grazing use to the preference level within the RubyAfood Hills and Metropolis RCAs and continue stocking at the 3 to 5 year grazing level for the remainder of the RCAs. The increase to preference in the Ruby/Wood Hills and Metropolis RCAs would be based on increased forage through seeding 6500 acres of crested wheatgrass and implementation of management systems. The Ruby/Wood Hills and Metropolis RCAs are composed primarily of small crested wheatgrass allotments with limited potential for development of other resource values. 36 A full evaluation of a No Grazing Alternative is not required for several reasons. 1. The Taylor Grazing Act of June 28, 1934, recognized domestic livestock use on public lands and set up procedures to authorize and regulate that use. Therefore, alternatives should not seek to eliminate this recognized use but discuss alternatives that recognize and regulate livestock use. 2. Section 105 of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 state* that "the policies and goals set forth in this Act are supplementary to those set forth in existing 4-13 TABIE 4-2 (Continued) Response Number Response 36 Cont. authorizations of Federal agencies." This suggests that since the Taylor Act authorizes, and regulates livestock grazing, we should not question the use itself (i.e., No Grazing), but only variations of that use. 3. Council on Environmental Quality regulations on the implementation of NEPA, 1502.14(a), specify evaluation of all reasonable alternatives and a brief discussion of reasons for alternatives eliminated. Page 2-2 of the DEIS briefly discusses why the No Grazing Alternative was eliminated. 37 The statements on pages 2-11, 2-15, 2-20 and 2-24 of the EEIS are intended to reflect the condition of individual streams. For example, a stream that currently has a condition rating of 40 percent of optimum wxild be improved by 30 percent in the short-term. This would result in a 52 percent (40 + (.3x40) = 52) of habitat optimum rating (includes both riparian and aquatic habitat) after seven years of treatment. It should be noted that the rate of recovery of a deteriorated riparian system is very rapid (based on numerous studies, see references in the DEIS) and that a 30 percent recovery in seven years is thought to be easily achievable on most streams. The rate of aquatic habitat recovery is somewhat slower. In many cases this type of recovery is accelerated by improvements in the adjoining riparian community. However, a 30 percent Improvement in current conditions should be a reasonable objective for any stream within the Wells RA. 38 As stated on page 3-12 of the DEIS, the Bureau administers about 28 miles of stream habitat currently inhabited by lahontan cutthroat trout within the Wells RA (43.5 percent of the total cutthroat habitat within the Elko District). This habitat is considered by the Bur- eau to be the highest priority fishery habitat in the resource area. This priority status is reflected in Chapter 2 under the various alternatives (pages 2-11, 2-15, 2-20 and 2-24, of the DEIS). This habitat is included In that habitat which would be Improved within the short-term under the Resource Production Alternative. These same miles are included among those for Improvement in the Midrange, Resource Protection, and Preferred Alternatives. 39 Recommendations on the implementation of the Experimental Stewardship Program will not be made until 1985 when the results of the studies have been completed. Since the program is still in the development stage it was not addressed in the DEIS. 40 Barite is mentioned on page 3—15 of the DEIS within the last paragraph of the k>catable Minerals section. The comment about gold not being mentioned is appropriate and Chapter 3 of this FEIS includes a statement about gold to be added to the paragraph. 41 In areas \rtiere restricting livestock grazing is necessary to maintain or improve crucial big game habitat, that method would be employed prior to costly vegetative manipulation. The 5500 acres of chain or burn, and seed recommended on page 2-24 of the DEIS will only occur as a part of detailed habitat management plans to be developed cooperatively with NDCW and CRMP. The 5500 acres have not been identified, but it is certain they will be dispersed throughout the Wells RA, This management action is included to allow the Bureau the opportunity to Improve primarily mule deer winter range which could not be effectively Improved by any other means. 4-14 TABLE 4-2 (Continued) Response Number 42 In response to comments received which requested additional clarification of range information, Table A-3 to A-6 have been prepared which show data by grazing allotment and are found beginning on page A-10 of this FEES. It should be noted that information in the DEIS summarizes the cumulative effects anticipated after activity plans (prepared with consultation between the Bureau, livestock operators, and the Coordinated Resource Management and Planning Committee) are implemented. The above mentioned tables are provided as supportive data to the summaries in the DEIS. A range of grazing treatments to be applied to allotments are listed on page 2-29 of the DEIS. Since the treatments to be applied to specific allotments are subject to the above mentioned consultation, we cannot say which treatment would be applied to a specific allotment. However, with few exceptions, on perennial native grass range, whether systems are intensive or custodial, the system will be designed with operator and CRMP input to meet the physiological requirements of the vegetation by not grazing any one area during the critical growth period (May and June) in two consecutive years. In addition, on salt desert shrub type vegetation, systems will be designed to defer grazing each year during the active growth period on areas where winterfat Ceratoides lanata is the key species. Implementation of activity plans will require time and more detailed problem solving during the activity planning phase. Waiting until all specific plans are developed would mean several years delay in completion of the final Wells RMP. Environmental evaluation of proposed activity plans will be completed through normal administrative procedures as directed and in compliance with existing laws, regulations, and policy. 43 Site specific analysis of all land treatment activities, including herbicide spraying, will be through preparation of environmental assessments in compliance with existing laws, regulations, and policy. Only herbicides approved by the Environmental Protection Agency will be used and will be applied only in strict ccapliance with label restrictions by a licensed applicator. 44 Dr. William Platts, in his 1982 paper Livestock and Riparian - Fishery Interactions; What Are the Facts? showed the Hayes study not to be a properly conducted scientific experiment and refutes its conclusions as follows. "Hayes (1978) studied a series of high elevation meadows and their associated streams in central Idaho. Ungrazed meadows were compared with meadows that were being grazed by cattle under a three-pasture, rest-rotation system. After only one field season of obser vation, Hayes reported that rest-rotation grazing by cattle did not significantly alter channel movement and that soil erosion on the ungrazed streambanks was significantly greater than the erosion on the grazed streambanks. Hayes did attribute some bank erosion to livestock during the vegetative growing season. Hayes1 conclusion that streambank erosion was greater on ungrazed watersheds than on grazed watersheds is biased because of improper study design. Hayes selected a study stream for the ungrazed meadow sites that naturally had less stable streambanks, greater stream power, four times greater channel gradient, higher stream velocities, larger channel substrate, 4-15 TABLE 4-2 (Continued) Response Number 44 Cont. and greater distance from the stream bottom to the top of the bank than the streams selected to represent grazed conditions. The grazed sites were also higher in elevation. The sites were in no way comparable and so the conclusions of the study cannot be accepted." 45 The inventory of aquatic and riparian resources within the Elko DLstrict was a joint effort by NDCW and B1M. The inventory conformed to procedures in the Nevada State Office Supplement (Release NSO 6-38, January 25, 1978) to BIM Manual 6671. Data collected included specific surface water measurements including discharge; measurements and categorization of stream bottom materials; stream bank measurements including cover, stability, gradient and percent ungulate damage; water quality sampling; macroinvertebrates sampling; and fish population data. This inventory as well as numerous on-going scientific studies throughout the Great Basin Region have shown that livestock grazing is the primary cause of stream/riparian habitat deterioration (see references in the EEIS). 46 The 1978-80 average sales price of cattle is based on data supplied by the Economic Research Service, USDA, and discussions with Wells RA ranch operators at the workshop in Elko on November 12, 1981. 47 The feed and forage requirements for the linear programming analysis are based on Total Digestible Nutrients (TDN) in terms of Animal Units (AU). Cows are assumed to require 1 AU each or 2409 AUs of TDN for each of 3 winter months. Yearlings are assumed to require .45 AUs each or 399 Alfe. Bulls are assumed to require 1.25 Alls each or 133 Alfe. This makes a total feed and forage requirement of 2974 Alfe for each of 3 winter months, or a total of 8922 AUs through the winter. The model incorporates an equivalency of 600 pounds of hay for 1 AU, therefore, 8922 AUs are estimated to require a total of 2676.6 tons of hay. The costs of production for meadow hay, as included in the budget line item, are variable costs only and do not include fixed costs or labor - both of which are included in other line items. Costs were calculated on a per-acre basis, at average yields, using 3-year average prices. Variable costs were estimated at $27.62 per ton of meadow hay, or $30.70 per cow for the preliminary budgets. These estimates were moderately adjusted in the revised final budgets, Table A-7 beginnirg on page A-20 of this FEIS. 48 The impact analyses in the RMP for wilderness was guided by the BUM Wilderness Management Policy and the Wilderness Study Policy. The Wilderness Study Policy, published February 3, 1982, allows for the consideration of outside sights and sounds during the wilderness study. As stated on page 18 of that document, "during the wilderness study, sights and sounds of human activities and works outside the boundaries of the wilderness study area may be taken into account in assessing the quality of an area's naturalness or its opportunities for solitude or primitive recreation. Any Influence of outside sights and sounds upon naturalness or opportunities for solitude or primitive recreation within the WSA should be documented." Refer to Map 2-9 of the DEIS for corridor locations In the Midrange and Preferred Alternatives. The Midrange Alternative on Map 2-9 shows corridor segment Q-XX-PP penetrating the southeast portion of the Goshute Peak WSA while the Preferred Alternative displays corridor segment Q-GG-PP outside the boundary of the WSA. 4-16 TABLE 4-2 (Cont trued) Number Response 49 Bureau policy, as stated in Washington Instruction Memorandum No. 83-777 dated August 16, 1983, has changed and lands identified for disposal no longer must be offered for sale for two years prior to considering a land exchange. 50 Unlike domestic livestock, it is not the nature of wild horses to continuously graze riparian areas. As a result, the removal or elimination of a limited number of wild horses frcm the range will make little or no Improvement in riparian resources (Feist, J.D. 1971 and Pelligrini, S.W. 1971). 51 Because of the magnitude of fencing as a hazard to terrestrial wildlife in the Wells RA, building only future fences to wildlife specifications will not solve the problem. Depending upon the kind of livestock and wildlife which occupy a given area, fence specifications will differ somewhat. Mixing designs and standards to fit particular situations (fences near water, pasture fences, boundary fences) will be evaluated on a case by case basis. The Bureau is a multiple use agency as directed by FLPMA. The modification of existing fences to mitigate their adverse Impacts to wildlife was recently supported by a landmark legal decision known as the Gist Decision. In this case (Gist Ranch, New Mexico, Interior Board of Land Appeals 6-78-1) it was documented that in New Mexico fences modified to meet wildlife needs did control livestock. In addition, research in Wyoming (Spillette etal 1967) has shown that properly designed fences constructed on public land can allow for antelope movement while still serving their original purpose of livestock control. Several hundred miles of fence with similar specifications have been built in a variety of situations and terrain in the Elko District within the last ten years. The lack of complaint from the livestock industry has led us to assume that these fences are serving the purpose of livestock control and that no major problems have been encountered. Fencing Manual 1737 guides the Bureau and states that fences should not be constructed in a manner degrading to wildlife habitat or impede the movements of wildlife. Also that all fencing should accomplish the desired objectives with the least restrictive and most cost effective type of fence. 52 Bureau forest management guidelines recommend that maximum woodland harvest be at the sustained yield level. Sustained yield in the Wells RA is approximately 5250 cords per year. In practice there is no difference between the Midrange, Resource Protection, and Preferred Alternatives as far as cordage cut is concerned. Wood permits under any of them would be sold up to the sustained yield level of 5250 cords per year. 53 Both the general public and commercial Christmas tree cutters are allowed to cut trees on BLM administered lands, with the exception of the wilderness study areas where no live tree cutting is allowed. However, specific areas are outlined where commercial cutters bid competitively each year for the opportunity to cut Pinyon Pine and Juniper Christmas trees. It should be pointed out that both private and commercial Christmas tree harvesting is managed on a sustained yield basis, where only a certain number of trees are harvested each year. 4-17 TABLE 4-2 (Continued) Number Response 54 Table 2-1 of the DEIS has been updated and is presented as Table A-l of this FEIS. Average three to five year licensed use in excess of grazing preference is temporary nonrenewable use. 55 The management action to reduce pinyon pine and juniper canopy cover by 75 percent on approximately 50,000 acres over 20 years is an attempt to improve mule deer winter habitat. Through the designation of selective greenwood harvest areas, private and/or commercial woodcutters would thin woodlands in areas where desireable understory vegetation exists that has the potential to re-establish or increase in quality and quantity to benefit deer winter habitat. These small areas, usually less than a few hundred acres, will be carefully selected by a wildlife biologist, coordinated and set up by the district forester, and reviewed by ND0W and CRMP. We believe that this management option is the most cost effective when compared to chaining or burning. 56 As stated on page 4-8 of the DEIS "opportunities for hunting, fishing, and wildlife observation would continue to decline resource area wide as aquatic, riparian, and big game habitats continue to degrade" under the No Action Alternative. The decrease in visitor days derived from wildlife associated recreation (see Table A5-3 of the DEIS) was estimated to result in a decline in expenditures of $184,700. Using the household multiplier of 0.296 (see Table A5-3 of the DEIS), the estimated loss in personal (household) income in the affected area was estimated at $54,600. Figures ware based on the estimated expenditure, rather than the amount by which expenditures declined, with results rounded off (see Table A5-4 of the EEIS). 57 A wild and scenic river study of Mary's River could take place in addition to implementation of the Mary's River Habitat Management Plan mentioned on page 4-2 of the DEIS. However, we believe that to do so would be a duplication of effort and would provide no more protection for the river than implementation of the management plan alone. 58 Estimates of the amount of range Improvement work were made to meet the objectives of each alternative within the constraints of personnel and funding. 59 Bureau of Land Management Washington Office Instruction Memorandum No. 83-432 dated April 1, 1983 states that exchange-of-use is not required to receive credit for a percent federal range license on intermingled private lands within an allotment. 60 See Chapter 1 of this FEIS. 61 Maps 3-7 and 3-8 of the DEIS show both riparian and aquatic habitat of this section of stream to be in poor condition. These maps, at first glance, seem to be in conflict with the paragraph on page 3-5 of the DEIS which states, "the stream fishing available to the hiker or kayaker is considered the best in Elko County. Both rainbow and German brown trout inhabit these waters, due primarily to the excellent riparian habitat found along its banks. However, largely because of increasing sediment loads from upstream, the spawning gravels for these fish are being eliminated. Therefore, the quality of this fishery and its associated recreational value is being reduced over time." 4-18 TABLE 4-2 (Continued) Number Response 61 Cont. It would also appear to be in conflict with the Wells Wilderness Technical Report which, on page 75, states "the untrampled streams ide riparian and aquatic habitats are in fair condi- tion and are considered unique ecological features. The fishery through the WSA offers about the best opportunities for stream fishing in Elko County." Actually the maps, if studied carefully, are not in conflict with either document and both statements are true. There is a statement on each map which reads "condition classes shown are overall riparian habitat averages. Isolated sections of riparian habitat may be in better or worse condition than average." This section of Salmon Falls Creek is an example of an area in somewhat better condition than the overall stream average. This area is well protected from livestock grazing because of steep rocky topography. Problems Impacting this area are spring runoff (flooding) and heavy sediment deposition, both a result of less than optimal upstream watershed and riparian conditions. 62 The $54,600 figure (page 4-15 of the EEIS) represents the decline in personal income in Elko County resulting from the long-term decline of $184,700 in wildlife associated recrea- tion expenditures under the No Action Alternative. This decline in expenditures is a re- sult of fewer recreation visitor days expected because of decreased wildlife populations. The $572,900 figure (page 4-26 of the EELS) represents the estimated decline in wildlife associated expenditures under the Resource Production Alternative, which predicts an even more severe decline in wildlife species numbers and associated recreation visitor days. Under the Midrange or Preferred Alternative (pages 4-39 and 4-56 of the EEIS), expenditures are estimated to increase by $589,000 due to increased wildlife numbers and associated re- creation visitor days. This is estimated to contribute an additional $174,400 in personal income to Elko County, an increase of 31 percent over the estimated present level of personal income of $563,900 derived from wildlife associated recreation. See Tables A5-3 and A5-4 of the EELS. 63 According to Dr. Robert J. Behnke (1979) of Colorado State University the coastal rainbow trout and the redband trout had common ancestors. Genetically they remain very closely re- lated. In fact identification and separation of redband and rainbow trout is largely based on geographic locality. However, some of the more interesting differences in the two species are found in their ecology. The desert basin redband trout has a tolerance for high temperatures, high alkalinity and high pH. For example in Chlno Creek within the Elko District (Elko Resource Area) redband trout survive in water which frequently has temperatures in excess of 83° F. This temper- ature extreme would have long since eliminated pure rainbow trout. Redband trout also appear to reach sexual maturity at an advanced age, have a long maximum live span, and have a more predacious tendancy than rainbow trout. 64 The BLM Wilderness Management Policy (pages 14-30) identifies the specific guidelines which will be used in developing a wilderness management plan for each BLM-admLnistered wilder- ness area. These detailed plans will include decisions to allow or disallow motor vehicle use and activities such as trapping operations. Additionally, the plans will specify the frequency, magnitude etc. of various activities occurring in wilderness areas. 4-19 TAB1E 4-2 (Continued) Number Response 65 Elimination of Area "B" would only result in the deletion of ways W-24, W-25 and W-26, a total of about three miles, from the wilderness area. Ways W-19 through W-24 were deleted from the wilderness area (Area "C") in the Mldrange and Preferred Alternatives. Additionally, there are no mining claims in Area "B" and anticipated conflicts with minerals were deleted in the Preferred Alternative; lands adjacent to the Ferguson Mining District were recommended nonsuitable. 66 The existing ways and fence in Area "D" are substantially unnoticeable and are not anticipated to present future manageability problems. The ways are infrequently traveled. The elimination of the area proposed would result in an odd configuration in the southwest portion of the wilderness area, which could result in future manageability problems. 67 Ways W-2 through W-9 are substantially unnoticeable, rarely traveled, rehabilitating naturally, and are not anticipated to present future manageability problems. The Wells RA contains numerous areas outside the boundaries of the Goshute Peak WSA which are suitable for recreational camping. 68 Geology, Energy and Minerals (G.E.M.) assessments (Mathews and Blackburn 1982 and Great Basin G.E.M. Joint Venture 1983) were prepared for all WSAs in the Wells RA and were fully considered in the wilderness suitability recommendations. Public comment on mineral potential in the WSAs was solicited and literature reviewed. All claims were examined along with general reconnaissance of the WSAs. Mineral potential of the WSAs was then classified based on known mineral occurrences. Minerals data was used to formulate the Preferred Alternative which reduced resource conflicts with minerals. Minerals information used in the DEIS was felt to be the best available at the time. The U.S. Geological Survey and U.S. Bureau of Mines will perform more detailed mineral potential evaluations of the WSAs prior to the Department of the Interior making a recommendation on suitable areas to the President. 69 The determinations of access routes being either roads or ways during the wilderness inventory process were based on the Wilderness Inventory Handbook, published September 27, 1978. Page 5 of that document states "the word roadless refers to the absence of roads which have been improved and maintained by mechanical means to insure relatively regular and continuous use. A way maintained solely by the passage of vehicles does not constitute a road." The Interior Board of land Appeals (I.B.L.A.) has not reversed this decision. Additionally, the I.B.L.A. has ruled the use of cherrystem roads by the B1M is an acceptable practice in deliniating WSA boundaries and that the use of cherrystemming is consistent with the Wilderness Act of 1964. 70 Visitor day estimates by WSA were derived through use of the best available information including inventory, personal knowledge of the WSAs, and field surveillence. 71 Few individuals use the WSAs to manage livestock and prospect for minerals, as evidenced by the magnitude of these operations in the WSAs. Total yearly use for these activities in the WSAs is estimated to be less than 500 visits. The majority of livestock management in the WSAs is either accomplished through nonmotorized methods or takes place on the border roads and cherrystem roads \*lch penetrate the WSAs. The 1750 visitor days shown on Table 3-11 of the DEIS does not include these 500 visits, only recreational use. 4-20 TABIE 4-2 (Continued) Response Number Response 72 lb date there has been little production of gold in the Wells RA. The major gold belt in Nevada is located west of the Wells RA in the western half of ELko County. 73 Mining claims were not used as the basis for determining mineral potential classification, but did serve to delineate first priority areas for a field evaluation. 74 The existing and future recreation use of the WSAs both with and without wilderness desig- nation are shown on page 3-20 of the EEIS. The Proposed Resource Management Plan recom- mends 159,881 WSA acres for wilderness designation. Therefore, about 3.7 percent of the public lands in the Wells RA would no longer be usable for motorized recreation. This is an insignificant long-term Impact according to the threshold on page 4-4 of the EEIS. 75 Page 4-25 of the EEIS states "...no significant adverse Impacts to minerals would occur in the long-term." It does not state that "mineral development would not be adversely Im- pacted because of wilderness designation." 76 The acreage differences between the Resource Protection and Preferred Alternatives is small, but the 7,357 acres recommended nonsuitable in the Preferred Alternative for the Bluebell WSA would result in improved manageability of the remaining area as wilderness by eliminating or reducing resource conflicts. 77 There is no difference between the visitor days displayed for wilderness on page 93 of the revised MSA dated January 1983 and those on page 3-20 of the DEIS. 78 All WSAs in the Wells RA were determined to have wilderness characteristics as documented In the Wilderness Study Area Decisions document published November 15, 1980. Guidance for conducting the wilderness inventory was contained in the BIM Wilderness Inventory Handbook. The purpose of the wilderness study is to analyze the impacts to other resources and users of designating or not designating the area as wilderness. 79 Some increased visitor use is expected in the Bad lands WSA with wilderness designation. However, this increased use, which is expected to be about 2,000 visitor days by the year 2000, is not anticipated to result in conflicts with bighorn sheep inhabiting the area or . its surrounding lands. 80 No conflicts are expected to arise between mule deer and bighorn sheep utilizing the same range. 81 Both the estimated range condition (Table A2-2 of the EEIS) and apparent trend (Table A-6 of this FEIS) are based on professional judgment, not on a vegetation inventory. 82 Table A5-3 has been revised (See Chapter 3, Revisions and Errata) to delete reservoir fishing use days as none of this use occurs on public lands. Fishing use is expected to increase over current levels in the Midrange (Preferred) and Resource Protection Alterna- tives due to improved habitat in high use fishing areas. Even with human population in- creases, fishing use is expected to decline below current use levels in the Resource Pro- duction and No Action Alternatives because of continued habitat quality decline in import- ant recreational streams. For example, in the long-term under the Resource Production Al- ternative, 52 miles of stream would be improved. However, most of these miles would im- prove T&E species habitat which may not significantly improve sport fishing within the Wells RA. 4-21 TABLE 4-2 (Continued) Number 83 Livestock Industry employment and Income does have multiplier effects through the county and the region. However, while the livestock industry is recognized as a very Important stabilizing factor to the economy in the area, income and employment effects resulting from livestock actions under each of the alternatives were not determined to be significant in terms of the total economy of the county. 84 Three-year average prices for 1978-1980 were utilized in the analysis. This was the most current data available at the time and was considered to be a fair estimate over the next several years. It is recognized that three-year average prices may or may not be reasonable, depending on the state of the cattle cycle and the expected rate of inflation. 85 The $25 and $70 values refer to "return above cash costs," which represents total sales minus cash costs only. A better measure of earnings may be found in "Return to total investment" which is the return above cash costs minus family labor and depreciation. These values were modified in the revised final budgets, Table A-7, beginning on page A-20 of this FEIS. 86 See standard operating procedure number 32 in Chapter 3 of this FEIS. 87 The Intent of the definition is accurate as written. A "Corridor" is Intended to accommodate all future or existing utility transmission and transportation facilities where delineated. The exclusion of a major utility transmission or transportation route from corridor identification does not Ignore its existence or conflict with the definition. 88 Gross income represents estimated sales revenue. It is based on herd sizes of ranch operations within each RCA multiplied by the estimated sales revenue per cow as displayed in the typical budgets (Table A-7 beginning on page A-20 of this FEIS). Net ranch income, for purposes of this analysis, is defined as the return above cash costs and family labor. Table A-7 of this FEIS displays costs considered for typical budgets of each ranch size classification. 4-22 !». I ISBf ||||J 5 i ■&• 1 ?Ia*§ ■ t a i.-. >, te^^S^S^S1 — ■ 3 8 J f 5 IIS J J E ^11? » a*sjs 5 e" ° c 1-^xf c ! |1 1 : is5 1 ^y a / SS'" * / O ti £ H 60 X J ? e £ 2 e United ivo, whi ength of ternativ t nevert a b h 'v - » 3 -r *j « 5 . ° ~~7~~. '1* ii sss o > • : d .« • si 41 J r * . ° § •g 3 1 - * ai a people of ion Alter t area ar Prefe-.ed 1 climate .si* 551 • Oi . Ill ns 1 o i 8- » 3 5 ** o a si** ir • 1" 5 " o 5 2 n CD ^ | O *> a ao. »«o a n s tp I ~^ ! ^ S M • "<" • *ii* ° r'2 : -a 5! sg •IgSS 8 o ^ ! c ji l U a " § i « a is^ §• I So So ? o 2 o l5H a5I ■g.s-1 • s i ■ § 1 QJ zs he long to adop tat con stock i IX unde cally) ^ S <2 u 3 V K J * gSa :* g £ si * f S, H £ ! 1 lsc £ to w o 1 2 5 £2 5&l2sl i 1 H tS E i 5'5tl «j|£-• S O 'Cn *J'oi ,/, i_ < * » J" ^°-= § l O f i s.tj i°n s g "g-^n « > g 1 ocvu°5 3 S f^fil O 1 s ! J^Sotls | S / . a! S" m U3u W s I1 1 o ./> ° S " "° E £ Z i X ^^ m ai -2 5 3 W 5 ? "«»«5"i. = 5 (n : <-> ^ 5 o J *■" o ° c ti D 1 1 1 |>.||t %z 1 c75 | (—J o It f I u I III J| a v ^ E t E " -a 3 ^ i" iifil Z~ 5 « T3 t- j j* 5: fo'j i »".£ >,.2 cc s '£ "i — .o 4-23 ■3 5 - 2 R » S -S " i c„ . g 3 3 ° 2 ^5 *• ». g ■ v £ c ' " '' »i " ^ 3» •* 71 ** «*\i. . On V ^ r :i? £ O.I-' • i i 0 -<>)'' g|«- 0 f *< .*> = £ * A s^'i^ Hi <.> a s c *i .» j 3 • 3 > a "Z ■St =~ . '• { ' E . s, X a .a i- •J "• "• - M -i, 4-25 H « 04- P. n 3 C "J o o 5-°iS i * Com £ p 3 t. +> a> r-i m d -n o a • o o eg £, o < • ID i_ -u so,c ft «2 «.** cn - tu >> o CD ►, p.+^o-PS-i'oJ-.o dcaquiiEo A o 3 III p ..too t, O a! 03 a a 10 -2 s *3 cfl ftXl e v -u ass5* Z^ J. O 0J - ft m C TJ m C U a O 3 Cn ^ OIOH t. +> a n tov, ro :» c « >.» c o»« q on o 5 »jh 4>OOB( Jlfi 03 03 U JS 3 CHV, CHB4J& ■ e o o n n V b3o o a) QJ (4 • 3 C o 3 on orsn a oh 3 O B O Vin ft CT •S D O O OH OS a) O 03 XI B o k o a >>■? m u ribXI -U O. O rH as on M V. XI 09 m hr-l 3E'd • O aj .co flSoHICrl r-) H < BH a n « t»> -^ a COC £ •*> ® t* • <>4oa)^o<> H smnd o ft o ,-1 ♦» Vi S o v. ►, xi one O O >> 3 "D Jh --» C ft C e p o toe ol o XI £x! C o 3 £ O « C ft •a t< °* n -o a m Out.* t, aj o H O ti T3 ft • C n n d° IB O uj a o ID C 03 bCn-u n CO D^ CD H. S moot, n • ° "H'H os a B Sh H O 0) MX! IB « « s.^>>3 B os rH «S *> O H t. Vl 05 OH4>ecnoiTS o (• o on oi-* ft 3 ol o B o — ol *> +> u to u © bo co, a C O 13 CD *J O O ■a n ft, tOOn as to n u - a o oaS •S.ufcnffln 9: o vx!M oj3oioo+»*5*>o ■o o t> C v o ft m n as on to f< KhBJlOH D+> dot O » s» «> OH al*t)H ft o g ^30O«O*JO 3 OS&4o)neootO > +>z tOS-. o fti *J O O C O J3 3. S3 a o o a o" .a 3 .°g|g82g* X! C Ob. 3X> J o3 « o v M OS < oaSne^aSftaitn 0^-1*30)0003* o 3 a id f^t -o m Cj «)*> H-o a a rin OH f. f.nn OOOn r-lfOO VlX>C>OOCl*JO n ex: o) os 00 >, 00 4->XJ T3 0) - xi >» S a u < x> o e -p t, o CD <0 t>>S,>U4> o lrHOO(Dr-ixin+>S-. of-i ax: ftw a h o i {<+> v E Vi - c c oj vi e n os ftn » S3n • ft* a ^ 1 ? ? r 9 ■= 2 : l a | K ? 3 ° | 3 ^ J P E r o c 3 q J 1 c i. i ! ! i « i g P i ? r -~ £ ° 'd 11 .-I i i : i J 1 3 c v ^ *' C S *' e « i i § -- A r5 i v 0 ^ * r 5 ^ ^ '. f .; ' 1 « " •* 5 \ * 1 i 1 ^ « ■~ ^ ^ * = = i i 1 1 : : 1 - t i £ o: 5 S ^ - * e 1 S 1 vJ r" § i | * - g. s? u - £ - ° * 3 ft '" c^ ° j • c ' " n !> = «-, a i. u 1- 1 « ^ V E ^ 1 1 s ^ '--..? ' ; c : '5 o ' v- w £ r ^ '= jT If - s * c ti .-. c ^ 1 f e I ' c C 1 1 3 a - *• t 1 h 4 - m ^ c* ? r >C r 1. ^ ^ E 2 ? - O £ V * _ '^ T 1 1 5 1. H >: C 3' £■ | I i ,1 c M 1 5 k 1 ^ g S t \ It g. If 1^1! 1 « r n s - 4-26 2 a a o ■p-p P. -H«> a >, .C SSI*. o o 2*. >» on*' 3 o o o1 of! a I ON O B hSoi2 ftp o o m a) a u f. 3 a t, a t< to a • H i! H t. X io'-isS*) o a • o 5 O a • So o a a C * P. P.H h O Q J. x) o J! a a 0. o P • a O a p *h a t> £i > * a a a E C f» ti a ta o a P *3 . -O a o u 3 ;g^ a o n SC (v, s, o;v< a g o a v*.c p. 2 t. .C C p a a o P..PH .c > T3 op ^v qaihL p v. a p a o a © a a _ c j A u 2h (E a a> C 3 o - tS^jjlj : p o o a o 3 tea t,£! c a 3 a .qh t, a ? A h a oh p a h 3 KO <-. .QHH SS MO§.*3 • Pi C r> T) a a "O 3 -h 3 a t< a etc c p o a a A A U o a ch o a P o t* & dw WH +> 3 O C O a H .Q t. > 3 ,5 £»££g2.i ^ t, X a 2 a o (• a x moo (D >>>>>»0300-P3 a .c -o BHH -P a >> O 3 ft-PTJ O -P an -p oa h o a C 3: J- CO p I. «o N QJ 3 tj h a s to h o b d b£ 0 C-* OH 3 O P <0 H rfW*>Hoflf at<3l pi -ca^oopes b ap h s d d o^ h © C o >h a a >> * ia a 13 t, a ti a CH o t. o (.•Ht|*! o A 3 3 ft-P "O a p s*> a ftH a o o>i a h 3' hh t.* a HVhIc O £>£> 1 p. o o to ■ a a to a J3 p ,BP.etOB«o . .-i m ^1 o U n is2 .6 J3 I 0«H t, p a p.p,£h O -C a PtT) H p.op f. an "3°; .»,£« o a • 3* " a h a •P 3 !*>> gp. a o-h »< X! >>ft a oi3 303 m a 30 ^H Ot,d.p,H.H.H £!a oonfljd a j3 >>»-i -poo > p ti a o a p = a Ji ♦> >. • o o u p. u^- a ap a c a 3 ti^t • IHH doij, °P S 13 P. S HTIIOH I dH i>Hat,PC3,CC 3 TiNa-P3aoo'o 3^^ a^ a-i a » a ^1 Aj MPT) p S o o a S c • a a -* << oj >. a 1 * * a d p cu St3 t-^i a o pH svia oho .> t, co • »a p x 00c go £3 O A--I -P »-*•-• S-.H T> t< a m a a 2 3 « a U P *>H>Hdda • a a a 3^-pla a c cq p P.H o al a C a a pa o n a E aCT)S)aaoMoaaj3 a*-raa>tiin aoo*-4 aaa O H*=HCHflhCflop,£ P. W M *H ^3 O^-'.H-H 3 ■ -P I H as a a p p •a a a a • p £ p '!«' WO a i a to a can; a c 3 a t. p t>>i a r-t 0 a p a < no a> a «-i a 3 » a £p -p a o s o. *-ih o a < OOO O Vnvo 1 C a c v. km > o a 0 0 m a o ( 1 » t, p. p.p p>» ji a o a a o» §Otj«>HlO(r hp 13 a 0 ; o P.J3 a v : adodddii , h c -pp a 3 to 1 3T) a 5)B 3< I o a a o 2 p < 1 oh o H.H J3 p a o U a p. P.Pg 0 a p. o o f oa 1 w p S "8 fl a c a 3 a §«•' 1 0 ~-> u c C H 3 o a 00 1 f U A a a U o iHAJd^dl : H 0-P+> a C ■p a 3 a o a • a J.o*>jo naaavio-pc X A*4 c o 3 a ii o C vi v ■afT o • a bh to - a 3 • 3£ H J30J ft p> ™ ti p>a*a>,cc» a a t* a h p> g»Kt.fiadI. a o p a ft-p o a a o -h c -c: ■p o-o u 3 3 a H o C o o cr o aaevnpaaa o o a a ' tj a li 3r ?B Vl • J rfH OH B H p. A 3 o p.^ Cdin a* O T3 k> • " 14 HH O p a p o C fc o a > o S- t, c C an a. o o h a P a P * B 3 O H . P.BH a «. p a s. a E3-H B.C A -a U A >'J>H OP £. o 10 BH C a U B X1H ftH a Ll acv. ft 0 ft C o o a a a h t> to a C O-HH «« OP> > ft a ft a aw t» a a P 0 o h a a -p\p> p 0 © c T3 a ..ft-SS 3 a fci h jd G -P h o o • °5S d^a a c o -p ■O O B H H CX!HH 3 3-p an o O 3 H X1VOH U «,Sh&h C 3 a-o ?2.^ h -o o a a p c ja O O 3 P> o t. a o a a a a a o *« 3-0 C °" H BOO O a c A A a an P P "Eb^S a o c h H a o a o 03 H*>H C P in 4-27 3 . J IV\ 1 Ti ^ S " M Ills £l o to 5 % 1 !l! 1 ^9 ?°IS r !i E • 1- s sS W c -• . M<*& | ^l« >.»« > • §3 ; vS $ > y 3 July 10, 1 |J cument, an area the population c ; 370-1100 In 1 t Wendover alrea y quality plannl ??2S » V^ 1 £3 !?Po Hi? III y s 3 5 t£L « 1 5 " 1 " c •-■ £ 11° til £^§ III llH S •o «.« |5| h * ^ V iu rH o a a f! 2 £ a 2 ill & 3 § S 9 a son •8 I £ S 3 £ o. 2 a £ in O T3 CD Op HI 3 £ . s 1 I * a. » 3 1 ?& 5 I 8 mem" I I i la! 5 fl a a s » a 3 2 = 2 as 5 s ■ ill 2 S S § 5 » e o to Ih -i j= o id ° * 2 13 o o "8 & S o S £ c o a 2 ■ 3 * 3 g 2 s s « a * I 8. 3 S -^ o S 5 - a a . s i a (0 3 . 3 o ' 9 2 a 5 s u 00 S. 2 3 v. a 5 a 5 I H c d « O "* OT C * 8 M 1 a | ^ * 1 e 3 2 2 § 1 1 9 £ 1 i • 2 •31 o a = i | 2 2 1 ■t. 3 o "o a) s I I 5 9 3 ■£ , 5 | 8. 3 3 5 I a a 3 s ° ~ s 3 i sis 5 e s a I! 1 1 a o a J" S a a g 3 * a c a 2 * 8 1 3 3 - i 3 J a a 5 c a 2 a s § tl I li 9 2 a * a I a 2 ,• 3 g £ li a s a fe a s a 5 *• s 2 - I a I 2 a • 5 3 2 § § a 1 1 £ a i H Si I I m 4-30 H 1 O C L.H c o Otju » u • « *H H 01 « H 01- C 3 01 0 H 0) 01 T3 i u co 3 h u 3 u co o> -w oih o> h oj c 3 h «y c«£(j -c Oh : -hh *t c i e 3 m 3 T3 "O c c cu co -i c ai a i TD XI 0 1 -C O B O -u 10 -I I — OOfU« I .C • O u *J J3 a oi a co : a >. C 10 3 >• >i c z H 0>« hO«c c h a c 01 10 01 u g > u 01 g io -a I 3 SIS i; vo m ; I E I p Oi-O I n c <.£ oo 4J > : -u o x oi iO 0 2 I -i 3 aa i u CO . m uo'j! I H 3 • H : a o o. u .c jj oi c s I h o -CO U-3U-C01OH «4JT30)010 C 0) H -U C 01 o cm o -u T> U-CcOuuoiOh - cr< c c-i ■- < U OJ 3 05 -tJUCCOO) 4JI0 **o *0 01C00C-H4JCO C O 01 — c C U — C «uo«UHau»co»' HaceOHoioscoac uanoxtiiioiOHEo I eg HO H 3 H 4J < C O4 u *0 H Qi Q. c I m O u in 3 h 01 jj - IH O UU O «0 I J HO-II as 5 I 1 i 1 hags 5 ^ ^ ■§ i if H .EH H &2 2 I •s * I I 1 1 § * X ,S J £ S I 1 ^ol*"^°-* oc <2 6 5 * £ § 3 ».| » I S " 1 fi I 1 S • 5 3 ■H 3 S S*>2 SoEOBoIHE «-c-c ■% U S i * 8 S S § h ff" -~o"|^fi * £ fl ** e" o Soo m-SSuHaEii) ^5 8 E S S * H 5 2 cFh-HOHCmCD^ S h >, *" c„ Soo. coii->" •^•aS o o > e * o ™ «> • B £ "* g i * O>>hCHgO .C d 3 Jl •« E CD^-CO E E »■ O 3 0) .E H O H « B >. CO E -c -= ♦» Bdo°'°>cS'3£>.'D»> 60 OJSCDtc ( < V V ^ H .0 ID -C li . E O *> £ cjUgrtrHB-oe^-Ha b'SS-S'So *S'a,£-H,H,::'i:*J2'H" hEB2lS .«.mJo£g^«Cc»-.-o a S • » > « "5 ., 3 S ■HS--32,3-3,3.vo3-0,:2 a KjfflSo.ESioSp.-wa-Ha Eg*- oi B02"c5«0*''bS"'3Ch"5'o "ho ^SginHHO^Sl'S6^^?^^ *>^C<„^g 5SbS) 'z«j>a)i-i3c»o-^ - 5 I ,5^,^>E'3'S I E3 H § h 5 8 I I & 1 t CO 5 "3 1 - h g £ i 1 ~0) £ $ o Ci t 4-31 8- 3 JJ IM O C U C OI0O.C -UI-1CU ■ js - -n o c o c >,_ -rt 01 o (1) J3 T3 10 O C -H iH U£ IIH U.1I 0»3CH1)« C 01 O U ID i -. m a i I TJ C -i cr o> v •-< -h I U 01 3 C r-l > o lOCrH-l«J-l-«-l. — oecraeom i a) o u -< i :*jj2 to e o> o w oi — i cunt J J=-> o .Of -*>• O -i C 01 TJ • 1- 6 J U 0 0 U 0 •u xl a s j£ en u e a> ai o « u 01 C U il m uOh CO <« O -U 3 -h o> o ■ T3 -n» J M E u T3 T3 3 < 01-" m O T> C OH O C 4) -I c a c « o o o-< >i 3 c ^ S T3 01 E 41 . 3-H 3 u -I- C 01 " c o . I r-l C C -U 3 10 o -u -i m t-i e 4-32 1 ,.. . ti .H rH U O O 3 J= 6H t. h O <-> M C t. -I 3 SH 4J -3 O \ U ' O U 3 oc wo • 1 H C w m C 3 C « « \ C O £ U 71 U O O O U C »\ -O M U CT3 <-> 1- ■-• E U'O « »\ u j: to u w re t/i e u E ^\ nt I enta a r :i i tc b imp apor The s lo efei chan J 00 • DTJEft H u > •* t- «H£ OUOC m >. U 3 « O -l/l 4-1 u nn'^n -re h«£1(H u m >> C<»lli"8C -i > t/i e to e 3 3 > C -H to -H re ►- 0-3 U U U tH C 4J m Tl l. c 3 E u m -3 e to -a re re u c th -i 3 3 niH-H c>c e = 03 m O 4-i 1-T31-.0 10 SH In U -H O 4-1 u u u t. in o u e 4- j= o as e c o ih u j: to > u e th e t- w o c H W 4-1 3 C C -h O 4o. re 4J c 4j.4-i.tIUU Ufc. 3 u re t. th -ti t3 m o s c T) 0) W IU 00 >-sj (u -164) Mre4-i4-i re -V 3m -rf J3 u c u m to v. t. lu 3 1/1-3 o U rg £. t.03 U 0) o o 34)XUimO 4-i C • 3 U 4H U U tH u U -a i- 3 w t. u u re •i-umtn e o u re tn .£3 J= Trco.Mmp.i-ij: 3 1-1 C 3 m i/i 4J BJ r- CM u o 01 — G T> jt; .-• -3 S » »f 4) l. o 4) ■ O •! 8 w c -J S- H •3 C U tH 4-HM xsh j; m j:~ HTJCH 1 , J'^rt« O XM IB TH -• — . u 3-1 re - E 3 H >^0 TH 1- _T = £ 3B re 3 a i/) -4 . er U N > " ' N "uufl oSiiJe - e — i_ < re j; -H *J UJ J3 0) -o m re h a re 4H c uJt o : c -^ •y"z - -i — »-o _ I - — o u c = re jj j: « h ^. H 6: « ' 2CUC umm_,t- ■ kj: " UC c 3 E u tu th re -ti — i ■ m j: si * u^"£rt H £ ; h p. 0) 4-i— >» EH - K< - = C •hw E m i-i m re re xi - c < t. a 4h >- . re -o 4J x> 3 tj T3 ai re cr r *£j ^ i - 2 a u in 3 -a -1> -a 3 j: - - t. 2 C M 3 u 3 j: cfesil - t- O O E m o m 4-i :ooo to 3 c o re co c j: • 41 m re j: O41TJ C-H-3g H M • -H QU = 5-i s J= c y! < M U -■ O E C SJ -H U 3 1-i 4-i o re u — l- -c u T3 m o — u c 3 o T3 = 3 v u re ai m t. cmj:3 Hmcoc re r- -r. s- o < th 14- 3 CU 11 — re o>oi u c c- c re m o jj jd M 3 -r t- ai f f 3 E > V N 3s % » ^ • S3 ' . . It >^ * * H = 1 , i>s I 1 * vi & H N4 ^ <5s v 3 vl ^ ^> 3f MM ^ > -j ^ ^ is l Is5 - ^ x! x O N^5 l^JT ^ ^ '.VS.- r \ s ^'' I-, ri vis? 4-34 1 ooi^!2- > u m -a e M>-o c -o a •« jh u i< a 3 « 3 a _ u uutj u .a) 2 ci 5 og -aos -i o j= J3 i a Kcos-ace^a B ^ « JJ "" « o> i A u ,* .c « ffl •* ojSoo -rt .a £ i « o J: m S .n 3 8 .3 8 1 ' i . h»< u oh « * ^ o col's 2 ' o g aiuojc u j= u .h CO If to i E I OJOl 2 i d -s ~l 11 Y;~*il bMI s 2 s * s-3. 3 5 i 2 |5 2S !o a 2 ■ d o 2 3 >,5 J 3 "S Ijllirll s = l°" < s - 1 ^ * 5 s ^j;^ 3| s s sas ° ° * s OJ 4-35 0 1 £ ■* • '* «. o 1. >• C B 5 ^ u & •o 1 E C o s** O «> Ml 51 f - IsLj X I"g5 |3 5f *f *£. lit! X- 1 • e tj >- |&£ Herd prlng i«ctto on 25 tlon on JO s jj-nesg 5 £ „■ c 2 £ ■< . " 3 B c o o 3. \ !S« c Ij.i is1**? c ;i," . 1 5 s Vrt •J*' -n 1 ^i-8 J £ cS ^^i 1. -,5-gEuSi Is .8 ^8 •o «C rt \ T\ o > z g'3£r5S.r?o« ,5 &&« »• >."^(D "?6 5- S- * 5 fc t fe \-I8b c 8 3 tBm U I > r-l *" 0 2*>*s Jj8 2 u S J a 5§*& ti:: 5 ^.^ 5 C ' O Ort 55 *C£ J TJ £ o > i o 1 a -£ • * 8. 3 rt g- .,t$"£ ■ o a c •«. -i - ts ct E-" n .h c rv c c t- o art *> «* s; * ° • "t^ o TJ C.r-1 C I » " o jni ■S G^rt !!.. *lls :?li a c - • c a3"f c c ^ -r 3| sJ* :n_ s?§^ |s^i j c^i ?Sft? ?£? .2. c-S. £-3 "°-3 ©'3* 8?CS.££SS ***U 5i^ £*• « . « . . 3 o-rt ~> -c >> &. S3 • ^* OOX 5 1 Si ^ • > « ■C « C >i 3 E ? If. ?£S £" = &.. izu S* *S *JJ C E C « rH t o u o X 3 £ E C ' I o v. o j= t. a. ! I^slfe «. • .c o * g- 5 8 g g .8 .88 y -r (- <" t- m en :iiii x £ ■£ ;f ot-*;- S«~*> E £ * E^ " i-1 « C 9 .85 S« 1 K ^HIs* i r c c £ 1 rJ -3. S S 1 & t- !§£??! 1 ■N£C >> tiE^c »■ - l"!i i"»*i tlfel- s g .d*. . i- If. c -i | it r-, 8. ? it &. £ -u ^ £ 1 « ' °6" ' -«| ."en £ " C * «> S £ e l 3^:>> 6 c w £ S. ? I 8 ^i£ ^^c !, £ 1 «• I £ 5* % . > ** i E is >> • ^ b 6 ^fcH„'. ,cr?* oSa^, 5£^£t E 1x1 £' 5 t o 8 S . £ fc 5 £ £ S £fc., £ - c^ r^-*| 5 *? I. I -s - 5 1 sls^ hi!!, e g s ffi' 5 S T. f X 5 _. 5* . .u % fH*. , iS..-. >. fc^ fci^ *" < 3 ! C l«r ' « in 4-36 I 1 « a 6 H £ C 4_> 3 B « « o i *" u V, 1 1 j ii v « — m NV g QS2 5 '12 J; o 3 .N, vS-~ Board of flee Box ! vada 89( 738-5716 .3 n the We I act State the Resou ents care ting the f > f £?z s 1 ■ ■Is 35 B v;; | Hi" ® S3 III- 3S 1 ■j = > ^ ^ z I i. Slat e are s cons id nal FIS i ^ J , J "" ■=3 11 -5" t e cu - "J J 5^ = 1 e « ~< J ~u u i - - „ u s i § § 1 S c ° o •!1 5 * S S. mo u 3 h -5 c ■a S £ s . i -a o "3 2 qj S ° >,<» b 2 u u " § rf 91 J. 2 ° |i B 91 ii || |S-3 .- \jl! m* 1 a » 2 Six ° O T? OS 52 -H < >c ° 1 ^\ Grazing Board Post Office B< Elko, Nevada (702) 738-57 < a attention that contained in t nt and the numb ncy in 1978 or DOW personnel, ir beat estimat >OW's estimate of >w of about 46,00 :h). The average ;ude deer using a id and other BLM 1$! §3| US- ! z O t-4 si O U 9j OJ >,« Z-H § g .2 « 2S 3 "bC o «o ■ o 2§25uS °'^I! gu-S "if ■" " " ua I * s^-fslsi S°o c^° » e -i ss « O U ■ « u ™ H u*«™m'sI C 1 °. S ■ c o£ S 5 "3 ° «55 a <-i -3 5 "*c-2ocS ■* 2 S S "S S z SI S> H " -s " 9) C ;;,j U"hoS. a u ° £ 2 ^ 1 * M U -0 O O _ o ^ o u 2 > 3 > S M o " °. 2f C "3 * * ™ 3 -. E u nl 3 a j! £ o "i a 2 3 H • S CO CO 4-37 n z - . t = ■ a o u -a c oj u> c i - o -. o £ t C 3 13 -i - 0 01 J e - c c ID" " ai c - £0)107 3sa = ? * ■ - c r £01 n * -a oi 3 • 0 3 3 - 3 0 j » a- c oj - v a o n 3 > ai : o « • £ I. I£ > 3 C CT^ 01 CT+J 1 Z 3 HI - i3 = ^ - c a J - 0 - *i •- it a u T - n £ - * £ u t -1 i i 01 It L w 5 § § 1 > f - - £ - 1 C u ^ 0 -J - 0 f - 4J J If) (0 £ -J *- £ 0. £ £ £ 0 u H w 01 0 L It 3 £ *■ II 3 0 -J £ * £ 11 > in C ■4 31 -I . £ - in c c » 0 3 it 3> ' - uj - o - m D m - - a n a in i- c UJ L) 01 j. Q£ i U) o . or -. > D * -J UJ -If D O C«l » 1 H, 3 C > LI » 3 - a- ■P C 0 C * i - - C U L I U I 01 T3 -W _ l ■ t ai -. a -u £ £ it - . •l - a si w . o -d *J ■o D 01 ~. -*!£.-. » 1 I 0. E • f ITO C » cu O 01 - ■fJ > -. -o 3 - -. Jl I 3> 01 -. 4> *J ^ £6 *J C £ - 01 It It II 01 0 > 3 c e = 1 o a - -w 01 0 L - 0 -. 0 I £ I •J TJ oj s c a - v ^ it c ?1- 01 1 ig* 0 t a n £ ■j i c s ^ *> £ £ IN 1 C - in 4-38 m -. s u * 0 0 ~ - J30 I 1 J » M 0 n l 1 0 L C 01 a \. -■ L 3 1» ' e c O L - 0 m ai l L -W 01 I CNJ CO (0 - - .1 1 £ I. £ + 111 u - - 3 01 01 - t- E L j u £ 3 o J ~5a, J?: t u Jl 01 ^ 11 c « i :i oi Oh£ i^ £ -> s +> a. oi ^t oi ■*■ 01 Jl ai > 01 £ o *i £ - .. -> = I w J Jl n n t t l it r h c £ 3 J 01 01 V 1 U V £ i. ■ _. 3 t - 1 -t- £ LJ * S J £ - ji o -a oi | 25 5 s ji iii ■a ^ 01 H 11 £ i » I £ k. a ■w > c .w Oi 1 - D Jl Jl i. 13 3 . C Oi L * 3. — 31 JJ £11 "" . Zj in -i 0J 31 II > 01 5 -e s .n - - ji i. a > N a £ 4J £ 1 -', ji J 01 - £ 3 5. oi a - -. - £ > j; tj T3££Oai.UC 5 ' 11 £ J N C I >I 1 Oh ■i • : l : ij »i j] I 3 J 3 '. -!i j: » ji i C3-f • - -M t -. *J fl Jl - >. c E C - 0 1 3 0 Z - E ij j 01 L 01 *j a — - ai o a » : it ; a « -a - £ c z oi -. a n -3 n j - a a 3 i n £ a oi 31 j «j c * c t > c h o •o oi o 0 £ £ £ - O Z Jl U +> k. 3 c i. oi t a - u 1 31 £ N -J - •3 *j - c n a a £ I ji i' -i- u £ - oi oi -. oi C £ - £ CO A-^Q u 3 a t-:i!U- *i 0 c - 0 L -► W Q. 01 o * 3 a m £ L ' 2 o oi - - L-3 » 3 3-0 *- oi Ji =r -3 • *■ — a. 3 a i t- ,.ag (0 C 0 ii a a* _ 0 ii ^ ■a 3 » J- 3 3 ~ ' c C 1 1 > t > 1- 3 i. •« ■n o - ii I a CO 4-AO _ - I 0 - 3 ■ n u - » » t ., _ a I L TJ > 01 oj -a 0 o»££~oi.w»i nJSua- £ U t k. C *J a o oi -u i o o o u ™ o ** o> « L -CX 1 * C - Q V • 0 II • ■ - c 3/ . i35 _ 0 _ g I ■ * a * 1 * 3 II <- CT c » 3 O B i ii a I * i : r 3 ji -j E •» t t d, 3 u a -> _ - - X :o i i u o -. £ |» - ,U _• I £ K> 01 3 J <•> o 0> II ♦ J - c r - a. - c 3 in D a 5§.: □ 4J - - £ 11 .•D C « o c » TJ 0 C 3 01 C C 01 c » « • O 3 <0 * 01 II 4J 1 C L •o c 3 3* £•:• •n > oi > a a - £ io - z 01 e u -a *• 3 v - a 3 o il o t i» in • tj > 0 z. \- o. a, i« ■a 0 c ^ cr - 3 *■ ; ■ J -. TJ . * -. C I- J « TJ 3 TJ 01 II I - O1 - C 01 3 is £ o £ o CM r oi i . •>j £ £ J k. -W X » . 2 ° 3 r * z s C U TJ> • * O ■» 31 k. ■ « - II > 9 * U O *' * « +> - I 1 .1 i -• c - a tj 01 01 a > 3 i. z i» 3 •tJ TJ U c CN ' 01 -J - - 1 m oi -• a 3in< u ax: 3 £tj.S 01 3 3 3 -u - oaun ,-. -■ > c o > - 01 01 J 0 e z £ 1 -h i n> a « c c 3 to I -a a . u 3 oj p • U 3 I * O 6 - 01 . 6 1£ 01 £ X r £ft i j - 01 01 I 4j m en ■ 10 oi « i oi z a x • an * C £ III- O • O - 3 O k. u c o E oi s ~ ■• -n I 01 » I kL . £ 01 3C OU - TJ Ul k. C k. 0 o o 4J 4J o (- oi a io u c a o oi c 6 — o> oi -. — c u o 0 - c O o •>- ■' ■> «■ IT) O • I ~ - £ *> C O c o - 0i £ 01 01 0 01 k. k. " a> 3 3 coon' - it C x - 10 - 01 O 01 - 01 k. 7 u Z J a c a a • OK k. -i 01 c TJ i- ♦ T3 t- am . £ 01 •o I c 0> 01 01 J * 10 £ 0 c i a z * 4-41 II 0 C If 01 a ^ ,. oi * •» a> -s _ IIS! J? r t _ — a I - c i tj £ a . i- a u 3>-£ r c 3 CO TS 3 1 H . e . r a.z xiliX JJ J^O - - - 13 1 J * 3 ■S - IS Jl 10 L a a 3 -j w 3 *> 3 L S » s c ' ai ■» "3 in at TJ C U 0 if a l it = 4J-4JJ: -3 a > l -t- TJ ■a — - Jl H 3 £ J f s- 0 TJ ai 3. *> ai -3 E =3 1 i. 0 > TJ — -il = - 3 HI U I 1 < 0 C - ~> C C IB J 0 1 »i :*i C £ * 01 • f'cj II 1 U 3 3- i r 3 01 or : m e j3 J) f i - - i — TJ c L i a-3 • i c l S 3 - S t - . 3 > 3 HI u u * a > U I □ 0 TJ I UJ O Lti 1 i f a ■» a f e ai — 3 a u . i »3 - n It it ' - ai c . tor ■i u • U H L 0 0 •j *> z: in c HI ai _l 3 • j oi c 33h. 3 0 - -. 01 k. 01 01 i. 3 JW 1 t el *■ ' E TJ - 0 tj vooa H3CCE •J £ - 3 ■« 01 . ill D - x J. *> - a. % >■ i I » f 01 c a c k. a » a c •w j: - - o II I I-£f « 1 J 3 - f •» 3 Z. O I » 3 U Q *> C 3 01 U O 01 C CO a o *■ ■*■ - 10 c 01 x v. 3 CJ> i. i. * ' it - a a > in 3- - - /' - llk-0 Hi- i. 10 4- C S oi l 5 ; I 3 J .. k. j - a g 3 ^0I3~*3:~3.~.3 - 0 3 - E 01 € 3 3 C W 3. _ 3 - 01 -0 C O Ol 1 DO. C lk 01 L 0 si oi o - -J r u D *> 31 - - £1 r CO c •» a .-< tj oi -■ o. m :i - r ■ TJ 3 3! in 4-42 e7 i J J : 3 ■ _ .. c . H u. - a - 3 - c n > _ - H 1; E *i w - una . ]i ii T3 « C - H " 3 - 5 _ Jl 11 3 HI S * - li - " 3 7 L a o c t 3 '= c =r a 3 a If! C - » ; j i : i - 3 T I II . - in -i 3 j - r n - « a ; *j cr i It « JJ C H H 3 « Oj' -> 0 E S U 3 r ,. i c +■ a Jl "3 X C C 3 * 0 +■ C > 111 eg in co c z E a •a £ z 3 3 »«: 1 ill » 1 y£ ] i: « 3- •v * IE a- uj a - -. » Z 3- in o> A-43 3fc. *i - i3 C » C ,. a - .. a a a- c c 11 11 - s s 3 ^ j) i ai u 'J J U C k. > ♦* •O J £0 c c a «->->.£ -1C jj< S "E J 0 CO c ^ 0 3< C 1 » CO it J : H -J |A -. 1! C 3" 0 t ■ C 0 "3 - J s 3 -. i. -a c -^ JC-. u. k. ♦ u a ^ i a . 31 II - Z 10 0 O TJ - L a _. C -I II J urr s J3 -P 4J o a 4J £ rt o *> - a c ~ a £ ■ O 10 > 3 0 o a a ■ a - 31 .-II -3 -j -j j w a a a i a "» T3 Z t o> 5 •2 o sec- a a » c r o I J a ; -■ a h j l Da " o a - « i k. - a * J a a > c a - ui - a r -w c3- t- o J ^•—'fc a o i = a - € C U + 3 a -4- -1 - 10 j a ■doj: 3 a. a ~t *» c a r 3 -.3 a a a c *j a «»£!!* S k. «j - o a w a > *■ > a - ^j - -a - o a c a -a ~ *> -> kOjcon jj * a 3> a a z. + = k. a -j £ 4J — -4 JZ > 1 z J . c a ^ a. 0 o a a - i o »j a o a 2 a a •»• > -3 a «j a 3 a i 1 N L k 1 J cr i a a u j X3 a n r s x ■» c > - ■ ■ IZ - 3 « - e 3 • £ 3 „ ai >'i i) * - a r^ c c -• £1 o o a IS » c/l - 3 ti a a mv z 5 i jz o> 2 a « = c- 3 3 0 Jl * £ C E 3 0 01 « T3 -O 0 ^ T) 5 3 U c H 01 XI - C 31 -J E _ -. . a o k. a a □ j z - * a Jl V. £ H 3 J I *J 1 . C 31 J 3 <- 0 ^ 3 T3 ■« * S^ u n r « w o OiJZ * 1 * 0 - ■a r -a v. a _-4 o c on a s 0 z: oi * - oi & c 13C« - w • a ■u a a u oi O C - k. CO CO 1- TJ J C J 3 01 » »£3 > !■ - *J 3 i a. a jj 5 - -. c 31 J * H 01 J z o a u jj Jl a Jl 3 - oi - oi t z a J) -> £ 3 •0 II - ~Z 3 £1 n c 01 01 Jl L 3 Jl • *. iT 3 2 H "= II O J£ 01 Oi r -3 k. a- oi a - jz j m ji 3 ? - - > ■ ji ^ 5 - 4-45 9 ?aui li - r. x u n :n »- -it w £ i- a> s » -o u c >t - j - a I t - 1> II - £ *J j v a -> j -■ -u a j I it < o j -,.*>_ 31 k. C J 31 C IS II -.ma en a1 J 3 £! s •a r, > li 3 li 3 -. £ 3- 3 1 J- l £i - ^ -J L. £ 1 0 L -• li 3 .0 £ ♦ ~ 01 -u — U 11 .» - £ ^ s -a ai 1 1 O Ti CO CO 11 3 Z > 01 -3 11 3r >' UO _ ai - :3Hf 3 11 - a o 0 a a a o a 3 * « o *> tr 3 - •) : : J : .j 31 0 3-' in 72 ^ - o a at u * > 3i 4J j: -ceil . J c — - •J I £ W - C ID - U - _| 13 , - 1 C £ £ 3 01 3 n « £ o ~ *> -. E J £ - 3 - - H 1 l> S T3 ■*■ £ .3 » 3 aa a -J-OC31 - 5 • -13*5 3 * - ' ID -. 3 J E £ £ ~ I 11 0 * J 0 0 3> 31 »*£3^£3-££ t£ -(•k.Cv£*J«- 4J5 -.03 3 j.-31-J IS T 3 3 ^ £ J- 3 3 .. ill D ' a1— r l s £ £ - 3 »-^v.k.0£O^x J - 13-336wj.ll Z £ ■ 4-46 L ■O I 4 t « - CP-c -■ L 3 0) 01 W ■- ■ Or 3 C *> L L £ .t 0 t 1 1 « i a » C 01 0 *> * ji c .. n c u cuQH ; * V c i o * j: Co- Jl -a . » :u til 9 11 J - I II 0 TJ v > 3 .M Jl C « 1)1 ■» l £ 3 : i ii 3. . £ II II C C 3. H - i3 - C CD 01 -J - - - j "3 Oi 3. - ^n ci- ii .suet II a *i « .. ^ - o ~~ Jl - II = H TO 01 Jl £ 1 a 4 L L > II II ■3 01 01 *J _ J ' i - ji 5 * - - 11 Oi 31-3 C O1 - - II - - 3 3 .. - b « •- : .33!^ • n s n t t 4- r li o z a 3- -l _i 3 -3 C ■0 Jl 30 - - - -con t -4- I . *J HI > - i. - jo - -a 0 a u oi oi as Ltu*- a t ji - m - . ii ii - u x Jl o i i : -i i. in E i r 5 u o c i oi i - ii 3: z -3 ji > 0 3- c a " o • j c « aa 3 01 13 0 it 3 0 3 c 3 -a I cp : *> z CO 31 01 CP 3 -U - 3 C - *• >- 4 J3 - U - J3 L J 3 01 a r l. 3 Jl 01 >- 01 Jl U) 3 3 >w II 3 i» 3 ■« T3 - *. 3 a- >. * 0 >- c *■ • t n -, -a - •^> m *J I t Jl 3 -0 3 5 L 3 3- O J * U E c I I 1« - 1 J3 jz o -i m - *■ 3 01 11 - j: 1I3« C - 3 ja CO 4-47 CO > 0 *i II - > a • a a - c a a - .15 1' w r 3 J - ii m t ■a ai > u a-. 5 o - 13 H 01 J J* II 3 s z 5 - * - ii ~i « ' 5 i - : i -a >♦- i a ta - it ■-. e : ^ 3 < 5 - -3 a -a 2 l 5 ^ ^ j a - a * o » oi u J u J 5 s j: j c hi >. *i 01 0 -J -> Z J J a - * . a * -t o a * 6 - j » l : ti ; * x Ji o - • a— C v. J> 5 o • Sow a j *i ■•« o> l ■a ■* i c a a t j o s - - *j i a* * t ui a u - c w i »j - TJ I i. OTl J (D S ^ 0 . i i 3 - a.' a - a - - 4-48 II - J - .--SI Jl - 0 .. g | i - z Z I i < * J - 3 4J 11 SE o e c -. _• - E c 3 J i J 3 -=. 01 - 4J 1 3. j o 3 - a c i E I - 1 •a c 3 3 a- -• c C *< 0 - 3 -. •w u j at . xi -a n aj . 4-' ID sum '■5 — TJ E TJ 3 4-49 - 1 c - * C 5 - g U 3 CO C * II n c - o - i oo _, ,. a >■ - £ .J Ti > .0 W 3 3 *J c C - 0 0 J -J 01 i- 0 01 iJ TJ - T a * - a - si a c o - i- c j o o 5 l oi r u > - to 0 i. o ■a c a oi 01 0 31 *• S u k. T3 01 ID C o a a 3 l -. a * a cr ui CO CO O C E f 4J T3 * C i Iff, C - 0 - c c - i > < co 4-50 (0 n j 3 o 5 - e 3 3-0 V Z i 3 ^ - 0 ■3 • 3 *> S J 3 1 - Oi 0 z 3 - ■a ji a 31 01 * 3 *> a l £ - 3 *> - 7 m o m S £ L 0 a a z au 01 - .£ a a >g * - T3 ■o in c -3 *" H J jj - T3 u oi oi Z 3 Or - 3 a r 3 0 J 5 5 n i k c i - a ii I i i. 9 i > T! J1 Jl a n <1S ? i a r z Ti » a - t z L. J! £ 3-5 1 Of J •a a - = 3 ? (O 3 S » "• i. a - c - u a t. a 3 oi U 0 U TJ 0 - IB ^ Z « _ 01 O i. g 3 in in *i « - 0 01 ~ oi — I oi l -a H c t 01 1 ; 01 01 l» - £ •I ^ U L 1 J C : i > i. 0 J » H U O 0 JJ ■w 3 3 01 U 3 3 fl OI .C i a *- c s o -a •*■ - - -3 X. O -. - -. C _l U 3 T3 -C (J 0 Jj 3 01 I U > I c c Jl T3 i— a> ■-• •■» •- oi - Cu l. ll 33 Z 1 H 01 - u 3 £ -> ar u in I > 4-51 I H S 5 ' I * ^ !hin ii H , * * I v* 1 5 Ml v V i) ^ 4 4-52 z "3 o 5© : llS: at ai tn < a s "5=3 a modificati ope and m to the ar ble resourc winter ran should me ~ 1 S3 1 antel value valua deer ation £8 s tive for f deer and economic e of these ange and e modific ■fa 1 8 UJ alterna ment of of such ess wast telope r and fen n §# 0 5 1 ferred move Ct Is need In an tion, h ID C ° JOJs3» a. Chapter endorses the p ructed fences hinder th well. The wildlife reso odificatlons would halt t vestock control. Fence lest priority for modifi cations for wildlife fer o c H .9- If o e 0 I 0 c a | J 5,j| 4- SI U>C-r-a.C.W2a> =j .c a O— E Oi'jl 1 JC 3 3 Q. I *J>, 3 CI | aj 5 : OJ O - 2. Si O T/i S,u> £? «" S£ CO 0) ,21 5 gihsizs:. Is",; CU = ■*-» .c .— o— • w *- — *: ^ «o | O..C tf> 4-»-r- S- £ I'll lie £T«i! . iJ u E >*2 oTjr 3< Q j|o-ulo«5i 3 J 5 l>Sc'^ ^5 ^ ; 3>— o u 3 •O >.Z S « S •> »l e t*>i? £ . « o y> = c = S « n »~sild Hs^r Ill | -3328 g-g| 8 o 2£ i^ 3?^ s S ~ i«i|mf ill •a*!-* filial sJ58-2?SaMs 5 „ „ v a l-'l ^ ' Its. > j v lag. • g"s"S£| S jj2£-§ g 8 I 1 1 "§ 5b!SIsi 5"8cj ! a g o « « J= S S l.« a* I i*S '8- 1 a - S l. o J c i f £ i, e - -" 5 £ 3 5 F "3 2 S °H g .1 s Q. g 8 E3^ ! ^ § « las a^;r si* 2 j* .Jjl " Si a ■§ c: ^ « 8 a § f-si? fell ill % .Is ilgHSs ;| js2 1J\ 1. ^"^"o-oOc-3-i "SU J;.o 8 ^ -s. « "2 « "3 » £ :|s.|||Hsil! i?3 !isl :i|i||a !:' 8§S :s!°^- s? II yiollflllll 11 ££o 5zz» 4-54 Hlwg. UUP OW1 I- -r- -r- - £ -r- 0> ■»" ^ *-< C O- t/1 OJ C U > C Wl«) O D> V» -O cg«a>B-o ^ £>g-g g.Ji £ „ J^ S Sfo -o " £SI -o Si 01 o I- O. C C « *) CU ♦-» .C i Q. o o E ?>« ^ " 5 = c^m sJ-iJ-S3 >,^ o § ■ u. oi +> cu S um e S t — *- tn .c ■»- -•— ■»- O "P > *> •*-* OCT OO-^-M *JO S- *- O C CT C EC l^Ssl IS 5^ 8^B 5 °- ecE .co X§ ■o It 11 "1 01 s 01 1 E > physical actions proposed 1n this , to correct some poor wildlife habitat :ommend placing emphasis on planning mitigation of conflicts among wildlife e users, possibly through CRMP. How- it should be very specific to assure i oeII C -r- T3 C ll under Management Alternatives d1s- 1 aspect/ of grazing on public lands. 1lar adjacent paragraph discussing Ivlng fish and wildlife and their non- e uses. The emotional value of these expend monies and limited vacation time economics of these uses should also be so Include economics of business depend- ing goods, motels, restaurants, service c, etc). n as to the "1mpract1cal1ty" of a no e of Impacts on ranchers, such an ete treatment 1n the draff HMP/EIS. fe values, all alternatives presented Hon alternative are "Impractical" life, recreation, etc. A thorough and eeded of the economic gains realized fishing, camping, boating, etc., 1f A no-grazing alternative 1s routinely Grazing EIS; and we seriously question HMP/EIS unless such an alternative Is 93,150 acres primarily through sale iult1ple use aspects. We recommend n the range of the Resource Protection ommend that land exchange be the pr1- 'e habitat values and human use thereof factors. 5 c *•*"" 5 fc t !al ~n Z U £ " ° m ■§." — ° ^. £ H'Z oo) ° 3*5.^ . »- V *- Ol Q. esij Z% «j u m c ■(-> i I- o. U ° c' E«l 2-2 i/l &^Sllog|||S| Ifi^l w> c o- c olilS"! UPTJO S-o £"m Soi^oc^^-o ^ >,o<» ^ II sl Illfill till si ipipfjl s^liSiMJif^ 1! -^ § • o i- ""Xi^^oaj'oJ^T' II f z^zzzzsz - 1 S« E^ ,2 ^ 2, ~ (tU & Si a> Si o> i5 o "!o ex **^i " o 2ZZE i oi *» »- a u-a c CB3 "" 1 a M *3 0) 5 ^ tf-w c ■S ■£ 1 ll J?? £ o 1 *i "1. hIiII k5 > z «> o a. -a n c ^ ■- .£= — »3»uo zcSa»-.j£"Sol,"cuc:Tj ales liJi 1 fel III! J|l « E 0~ aa S»ii.-lll?ig S cS ^ C-ilf I i£ £ S 3" ^eST* "~a 41 L D-^Su f « «1 «5 llli o^__ " 1| .c •s.^ £ <*° E ° £ » S ^ «> to^oo-^Sviooaj*- g-§ g'- = I 1 E C fall E "" a> sa=es «llal CLE | £ s i u >o«i |li| ° cG £ 1 J £ o |& ¥"k.f . lit = 2 e , 5 O « O " "5 C LU L ° «i «a £51J I u> >» Si CM 5 4J S £ E3*. . J= C I- O Q. 5 C * OQ <-> 4J o^ eg a b 1 aa |& c oi c iiltl s| §3 IssSjl |S I 'S-o E "" OQ) D) a a « M£ oj - 2. £ a u "~ c -5 " I- 5 I: o 3 55 §a O t-> ^ l||l||i|g| aiS'o.aj ^ "Z ■£ E"° * 2 t III as$^« l^s T jSjuuj A 1 li|e^l|ais f ll" "IsM i I ■° 1 J = S u o S -S5 uiS — E-^ .□ "3 &2 f ui i. at « «j cnoj 4) a>, 5c«o . fa||| § s o C >, °S2u " =i "i "il^cl ^ — >» o jo-Sai^-cUi glial c c t;aa £ a X -O ul a;.- o «j u "ill «l?".Il ££ l i||f|g?s||| iffig g|l|j e 4? -o £ c 3 £ £ U!o^ xc^-S S.o "S§a 7 J o> S> s> s 00 CO 4-56 1 t. a •." w f a a >> Vi, u\ 1 I v n <§ o V 3 3" E d < * x^ a k 4 « •a a > « £ • « c a o a c tc t. > c t. o -• £. M ~ a tc c £ > h c 4-57 C|£3|| gf*S5l \ a c 2 u «, :.M I c a-3 ^SSfcd 5 1. • S^si £ « e & k l t s Z iod. Since he problem the fencing is is also e, spending phasis on alternate ^ >- z § i Envirojr reambott realize t lines anc through c the sixth oposal fi ^ 2 an a 3-5 cause of ig the st p livesto g to go mphasis e livesto ronsider 1 this pr e BLM, « f^ Q or O 2 M during this period bi operation. ing should be done alo rom this forage and sf om showing heavy wea e allowed to go to the d to expenditures on tt should be recatagonzed eople to put in private grazing board. We fee < '■J 1 I a r J oo | - z ? 3 I Ir. teviewing the Draft Wells pact -lali-menl, we find several f 1. Me question the wisdom of tl 5 we were oft one piece of our BL Av leel strongly that no fenc of these areas will cause greater another traf tor migrating deer, prime grazing areas will also trap 3. We feel the Impact Statemen too much mune on them compare O ownership and trends and allow p with the approval ot the BLfvi Because of these listed plot proposal that is sactioned by the Q U 4-59 2 i 5 o -a _ | si a i> ^ 8. o u o J: o " » WA I E - I 8 1 - rt S . *■ S " • "S 6 s 3 ^ I a C £ g J I 3 l> 2 o V d q -H « «j3*>i> i" u a -h » .c j3 *> ••oov.^fH C 3 B « * ► OH »t* «i Jtojtij » gi< 2, 4-.«)3£'S>c'«iH S> O I u s Z 03 < £ SI i.&e?$ .-3s .:* « ■3 r? .2 E t> £ r| IJ « kHIl B 3 J5 .3^5 S . 8| 8 S3 , & • .r6.2o,M^sj.3;32 « » « & . >. ..i ut * « SSS.r^'3 .«2.6.g -5 3 8&.I.S * c,,3 **4. « o .30.Sf3-^5S.,-5: „ ^to-85. •! .?" u £ . £ 3 P. 8 5 o -S £ i ' 8.JU «I.l; ♦J 0 li u » I. 1 i- *"> W H ^ O rt h O ■ ' 3 .O ^ «> bu -H « r-4 O s * ~i ►■• .3 .o • 5jp »..«... e» 3 _M-H«e „ _ -S P -S •£ b, £ P. pi: ■ j-i ku ■ tiOllW" 6 t» 3" 60-H'O'p' J OBU C « O 3 « -w g ■ C bbi h^ji H 9 * 1 •» * ft-o *■ >. io o w » o yj ;^ ji- . d « * .. !■ 4 b * „ S ««>«t>co.oii«>'M « i> « .a -h _ _ ; >a o 9 .".V d ! tl a ** ** » • o .o 5 »; o<3j,. a rH ui.0.2-0 «!.;< 2 a j * 'e*a f.^aj^si'^i] 5 i .h« Iw8hhov,^.h« oo*' m ?h_v,s "*;-s»-2-°„*"^ 58 au a^- « £ S ! a . " S 'S S 5 fl 4-60 53s53-af si H.-5235 r. a K^ 3 « O M "m *J ■ ib *J 41 2; i 4 3 V * s a a 3 *• .3 « * a^ o f, *s I J e t £ a § 8.- a3"1: 9 . ^8 2^-0 fc * °£ « h . p uuq 1 I, l>4J be h qoticav o « gctioK j= » -d o « a o -h - i, - ^ .a C..i6,60-O-t» H3 *> « rH. *> 0. t. us.*-!? - £-32 £3 8 Sp, f 5 I A » JJSaC.Ja'S S i J g 3 8££33o2 £8.4"3,SaS4;! , fc*! £°„^.sr s s 3 -3 * a s . „ « .a^R >30 ► O 3.13 -H^J >+J0^^.S*> tt bo U «" Ka E=S . • ££8 US i "5 -2 «sii . s Badass •.h't.ssrii s.ss a i S..S j. 8.2 3 k • i : *• a • -" v ° s a * 3 " « 5 s a » s i ,oS68-a°*,ts * " s . w 3 5 k-0 5 " s a « £ £ o ** -a uk a. a^vi "Ira 8*3l S>8 2 ■' '31*s- « * H 1 1 o - 0t>^S^JP:lC*i^3'§.2'«'B1- ^^OBq4J«0^ t) s-.^aj bo cc -h v, a, 00 *>-h <-1 ' 2 ; s S g s 2 * 2 d ■ la g I ™ 5 §s 3s 5 * » S w
  • : >' £ "H E> " . 3 ° ■ *j £ 1 .gi II 18 5 Is slaJs I II "s g a--- . i S e e I & \ U I z 2 < °> Z: o 5 ui z 0 t, a. j J MI ilia ■ 1 2 K.e,1; x au .a 2 vi.ri •ou)«jH«i-p u oil „ a s • , «• tin o 8 ■ ejooctiTir-iTioal. o» i_« k « ■ vfi a to onojo.itt «g ^ all «o- j^ •2-g 5 *, h3 a«fSato'C-3.a5a fc.S.v.jjK-o « -8 • -Sa 2,! Afe Si °-'Sfe£35Ba.82 £3£.S£g2 "28 "» 8S.° 88 p.2 3^?"e. *. UK a g.C « ^ a % i 238 1^ |& h?a-8-SS*A.S 2^ l-S « & . ft ^5 3.2 t^ (,H « >« ^ D 3 « O u o bl K h a t) 4JH ► OH 33 hO Jj= hia k^HOSMO -DJ3B3-OJJ O o|3 . ? ?as 3 ... ^ 2. ■J'i-ggllg'lff "S^g'alsl 4-g al 3 s5l S3 2 a a»lsl*sl^l5fl s'r1.^'31 .2? a*. h aas .5 a* afc.u^^.-sEl^ 3s 5 1- °a ^sa sa I i«j aa &: 5|?«iHI§?Ma 3Hj|ji :j: am . . ■£ & is *S* !H°.il,oho^.3 ^*S „„*j p^b „ s o £ K 0 8 v &z ** S * j .8 . o n'| 8 55 t> •" *; 1 8 m .: s s,-s fc •* |asMsa efl?H«agir'0§So^3t e!ota*.*^H«H8 Oft B "Ofll «|« _'-lO-H^*4J-*JOr-(bO B-H *°_5™ -" *S flr-i tQH0t0P.VO\4Jtt3 1 °a; a. »' *,sfs3£^8;f.5-8a i" -S..S 'A 5 3a5 82 32 g25 fe 3 5 'S 1 5 s. S i. 3^ 9858 68 0) CO 4-61 !l 1 ■ H I I 7, te » " - 8 5 - E a = s g 3 f £ J | S E 1 I xhl I I I- 1 ■iii I x| | | | i\ - 8 h »K - i * r* 1; «! u u. 3 " .; o ibi I - is ft • si i> 7 .■ £ 1 1€ I I b |"£ t 8 £ :.°! z ss I I M I I I I I I I I I I & a | - c ^ 1 $ I S » »£ O 0 f I a s s « [2 - t ? . t i S J o' ! s s ■ u 8 ? i m 1 M r Sill II h 55s- A\ * z I -si >3 ^ V> ^ H * .-0 ^ i * \ ^ -v. :.» r- 1^ *.^ 4 > T* p^n ! 4 vis 1 V < £ L 01 u 3 IN 0 o.h u £ c mm 10 w m oo ui u > 3 0. O •U O § .2 S S 2 ^ u Q < — j= > -o s !SJ -h >, 111 0^£ 5" g ^ « <-2 STATE OF NE OFFICE OF COMM CAPITOL COMF CARSON CITY. NEV> August 12, s 0 a. CO o o o he comments fr )f Wildlife, an g the above refe constitute the se address thes Since (/ John Direc 1- < c coo 0 z 5 1 * l/> rd F. Spa f Land Ma tate Offi 12000 vada 8952 < Spang: ached ar Departmen on concer se cornier posal. cision. @!i Mr. Edwa State Di Bureau o Nevada S P.O. Box Reno, Ne OS Dear Mr. Att Nevada Protecti The this pre final de 3 3 3 5 4-62 Ms. Linda Ryan July 5, 1983 Page 2 Also, it is unclear whether the total acreage is a firm commitment or can be substantially modified based on soils, climate, and wildlife concerns. With 3,523,000 (821) of the resource under neither AMP's or any grazing system it would appear that significant gains in overall condition am^ trend of vegetative resources can be realized merely by the implementation of well designed grazing systems. This alone would appear to significantly reduce the necessity for large scale vegetal conversions. It is stated in the EIS that "on areas under AMP's and grazing systems designed to allow for periodic food storage, seed production, and seedling establishment of desirable plants, ecologic condition improves relatively quickly." We would recommend that the preferred alternative address goals for numbers of AMP's to be completed in a given time frame. We would suggest that the top priority for wildlife would be to Insure that wildlife receives equal consideration with all resource values in all land management actions and decisions. We feel that the broadest spectrum of wildlife benefits will be realized from the integration of wildlife needs and conflicts in projects and planning not specifically designed as wildlife projects. Since grazing management plans include virtually all wildlife habitats, firm commitments and decisions which will insure the protection or enhancement of wildlife habitat will benefit wildlife on a broad scale. This should not imply that specific "wildlife projects" have not or will not provide substantial benefits. However, funding levels for implementation and/or maintenance of such projects will probably never meet the identified needs. If wildlife needs are an integral part and given full consideration, based on identified values and requirements, in all AMP's and grazing systems then broad scale benefits will be realized. The following section will be comments or questions to specific sections in the EIS: PAGE 1-4, ISSUE 2: 1, d Establishment of designated corridors should not adversely impact key or critical wildlife habitats in addition to lands with wilderness potential, ACEC's, and/or T & E species habitat. PAGE l->- ISSUE 6:' 1. a "i lanning criteria should stipulate that all water developments maintain an adequate supply of water aM the source for wildlife needs and the maintenance of all existing riparian or mesic vegetation. 33 2 .« 2 h S3 SS5w"-8 1% Sl-oS S -a a) uo™.h-o J°§8j ojmSu-h h ajiu *j aj eoajoj-Htou 3 -acoomqrHM >-h h ajajaa uj:qw-oT3 tux::* nj -h >, .h o aJ a ■ nj ni .n ouu j=pS a. oalaJn) qu uai qo | u 3 -j o u « • u « "ug'o-oun-itj B 5 em- "ol-H o 8 uxw »" > 5 h >■ --q qq-Hrtajojtu i-ajajoq o qo-Hajq-noa-H rtq«aJ-iaj=iD'q oo>>q-Hijo) ooifl d t> to w ^ cQ4jH0iq>o4JOHO -uojoihh -q B d v u jz m r. u oj poj-iajaj-tda^u q o. i- h -h o S!i"«K8ttlSSH ""ak'SsS M°oba'3no° -5 SoSSij "S3 >« an s Muqaja oj •«oj oo oHOpJaww* I ■ 1 S Sl q « 3 j f " « S » o " S qo'S SS" »o 55 *« o a -a q < u -o . j s-s ao i s t'M u oj a) £ > « -h Tj - %> : ! 3aj alffl>coqoqwaJM aJaiifl.qa.oxlo u->a.-HuooOr^xsifl £5 3»£-HaJio3iowa wMdooufiw i-imsioxoodio-i «o\3B 8 I S I S §1 'vx\«r 4-63 3.. S 2 ■3 §5 4^ a 1 1 a * s3?ts «_ 3 h ai so u ai 5 >, u 5 " » J « 3 3 " B B! £ » ^ • B > -H U 3 3 u 3 rH TJ » o « u a> -i -h w a 3 -^ > > .O -I « «C Ifl-IC o S" " « --CU »i u * 3 52 ^> ^ 3 -< 2 ti ° iW 1% ^13 2 P 8 a l. 3 " S o 5 a'° « l4. 3 S3 O 3 H 3 3" § •a -J 8 S 8 s e S s a s 5 1 Z • 1 O O 'H '3 3 J II i ■s 111 « " 12 SSsS 8 CM a qj 3 v-i tn a) « SUS* g ■ g ■d i 2 • a" s 3 J! 1 S "3 % I ■33«S.1 a - 0 O, »HH1I t/> MOOOO»T)i« M u u * u " o « o S 3 S S 2. ^ 2. u 8 * 8 S 5 2 5 2 nil- 9.2 • is s Is a 3 41 00 ss 3 i a. 55 a3! a U J= -H SO 3 3 00-H ■3 «S 82 t> o ai G . ;=ii i;; •sis- §• s 11 n o • 2s g S55 B 82 a a 3S8 8u| a1* MS a 3 a §51 S °°3 •3 23 5|; 3si S3 1? 38 5 £• ■ 1 5a. 4-64 ;• I ■3M3 2 2 | | 3 1 1 a | s -O " x! 3 S S3 2 S t 3 S H « O . s a S s o J -a | ■^ i ^ y s §s i 2 I S " S- g 3 « 1 1 1! 3*1! YA ■ B 3 3 3*32 £"lli 3 s S-^5 g« = 23^ 1 " o « " ~i o » o" ° 8 "Bit. 8 5 3 S o c. a r a ^3" ■* s s jj 3 5 S I 1 5 8 E 6 85 3 3 S IT E E 3 2 ■s -d o -s § g s^8- s 1!*! s ail 5 si s!s i < a u xi =d I 8 | S § a, 22 333.£ S I3ii I -ox:- > x; o. . ""Si! s u ^"S M 2 " 2 1' ssS-ssi £S mil ii CM 3 a -a 'S "a .E 3 .3 * "1 § E| ~ 3 '3 5 3.5 B 1. o > £3 ■J I 8 J!* S3 .2 g. ■3£§S E I ah j-^f lo all ^ S 1 3*1 S3 I B 1 1 3 31 J" 3 " 3 ^ « 3*3** ^S^o2| a E" "1 ^-S |3 -o "S 2 2 B B S » O « C " "e-jS SO ■3 " §■ o ' 3 8 ■» « -2 2 ''"' o^ - ment whict n the Wei the abov dresses a er of fee IS a well written docu important issues withi anning staff will fine a final plan which ad questions on this matt please advise. 4!- a h u P and I f most BLM p] eloping ve any s time he RM v Che o dev ou ha t thl ind c icati efull ful 1 If y put a ally f ramif . Hop her in H Rya 983 asic the men cone furt O 1" ^ss°ig O M> g •• 3 Ji 4-67 o 00 C 0) E E o o o 12 B it o S WHO T50 WBJ*04J«U 9 16 *J U -H «j MOW M ,-j P..O »H euuS a ki Jfi s n aia-ri Is I" sSslSstl 5s§ ai i. a :> a no a ai w 300 003™ » « D'D a " in 0™° J*: . .US5 3 S5-2 8 S S S * 333 3 8* vujdil k ••« nil in ai o rtU SU 5 1 9 O "-HO .sss -si 5^58 3 3 ° * 2 o 5 ' too o 5 t-d oaqra IS? * -B CO 00 (1 O *J (ti o . *h 3 -h h al &H^u«3wuC <-nj C « 2 H > c *j m 034J-H uo a a a- o m fi o o i-» -h a uauoicaiHti -h 3 « -c ! a 3 a p: 53 g eassa Ss.ssg.'ciss ss-g3 5 4-68 3 o c ia o o -• £ u g n- 1> 3 41 (3>! « £1 4J Jl 01 73 - i oan o a a a - c a~i i o,-rt e i« u 73 cn 4J . u -h — c o in 73 o u a ».h -h o -u o> ■» >m x u a • -< HI 0> 3 flu cua 3 « « C O O M fl - SIJSi- in *j a) u e ia > • 3 ~i 4> oi l4'Hd,3 £ O >iO t-i 3 J3 Z 01 E Cf 73 • C • - 0> E 10 nj o 3 — ia 3 H I CT-U I HI O I ■o ia •a u ( c Hi .q £0 E «14J O 3 £ H C -U C X : £ o -a \ ii 0) 01 3 ■n«U > 4> 10 Z HOW « 0£ u aj u ai tr-c -i o c h j= c *J .a 3 0 2 o • a-, u c « o O ill ■H U CI o a rt ^H . IS IS _ o a o £ T3 tr 3 "o a o - o o c a ia c ai o a o > >.-< JC -p o 3 c U I O OiHufl U •-< IN 3 C O 73 > « u c u — ■-, . 0) o 4J -j a >,.u u w is oi a a c -i 3 ^ u S IS IS J3 O -H IS -1-IO«HO •h in o u o 0) 0 3 D. 4J C ■ 01 O » £ a-H m -h T3 ai 01 E O E 0) £ 01 c -u OHIH JfeS -J -I £ J' •S 13 E -I • £ 01 u 73 Q, 41 3 O] O ^ >-i I. 3 U u am o 10 <0 CO CO iso-HCTj— isa a-H ~i IS 3 I £ 4J CJ> ,(J U H it, US £ 01 u ai s. O 73 u o — WH «T O 3 -H IN O 10 Z : -i is j ch \ a> o o.O'-ih >, a.iauO^UHui EC U 4J C S « >, a-H -H CTi 0) CT in 73 01 -H C O C 'W -H "O 0) • 0) 4) Oil £10 4) U Oil 01 UC H 0) U 01 01 in £ IDUIC 0) • 01 3 -H Oil I *J -H Q 01 E 4-> M -H r-l J3 3 O O 10 O 0) O OI 01 U 73 ,H »aoa3H I CI U ,ZlO-i 0) >, 3 SO Uli300lllJ|HD.6 «0»»HCX1, 30lO^HiSCO)OI30 C341-C-H41I0O it, im _ rr ^H IS Oll73 II) O IS0)H4J3E£Sl 4-69 Q * " 5 O ^ o w !" 0 >, J-> ,-p| ai C 3) > * U -0 ldL*IO -J u XJ U O-H C 3 O USO E -3 T3 0 O -C C F: ' E £ -H O :!-l 0) •- C -H C O 4J kh >ocO£-H-HCtno OICO -H O U XI 10 OJ S EloiUTJ-H: uojEuia - 3 id c o x: tpioo o -h -h 3 a- .3„g. 12.' m id O 3 3 SJ CP tHfl • Jd I UCJ31 •J W O 1U 4J a a o a -hi< JJ>CS3-ICCim o*-h so on >-hux:xio-ho — . O 10 C H O IT -M 5.c.CHUi^He .ajaot.O'd^uo 0aJ4J4J£)ZO^-'-iJ-13 £ o qj^ rj\io c .c i_i m-j u >,o^-i uj o -h r -h , ' -S . 1 if I 1 I f | | 1 ■ J J i i i | S 1 I i 1 c g 5 £ c S . » 5 f £ ■6 a I 3 5 .BBS s a & Q ul UJ i _l " £ ^ < > O n \j 'H a) : is «" -* o i. •h :» : - a ^ ; u ^ O Q * Hi <* j 01 ^ B mm , 0 ■y .2 a tl U O -H U rH £ rl o x: h con \ - j ij fi'n 0 s» 1 d q 3 " S 3. 5 ' < r, 5 flu a 0 '" iV 2 « 2 j ^ C '\ lVh%Z 11 J 2 i ■H V 1 JC -J " J * 5 g .* u 5 ^ ? CU ^ c °r V m 1 a 1"§5I"S S g a .1 I a « js « 3 a. a .a fi Q j2 ■■ I u £ a '' x 5 s * 5 ■! -: M |3 ^ £ O M £ =! iS £ w #1 4-71 S 2 3 : a ? S 5 5 t & 3 5 s s t r, ? s ? ° -a Sr t § * • 3 3 g 1 5. £ I 3 3 E a •> ^ s | ; | | -s 3 . a 1 8 S ? 5 1 5 ■a -3 = g I H 2 - 2 Sf a a I * 5 1 B I - I 8 s cc ° i I ° 'S § ■§ s i § | g | ^ 5 -a 5 I 1 ° & e s e 5 £ f S ^ i • a S s s > f ■«! s « V c R - 8 St ■a - s a 3 i e "• S » «• " n * r*. * m CO * *■ I ? a s I § ll I i : M I £ ^ °. tioS*»i-tt«g ? i I 2 ! i * 1 i I i * s s -S 2 •• ** * " ° 2 * S 5 5 3 • 3 h O B 0 O t c * -" M £ S 5 S 3 5 5 2 in t. • 5 c -S C O "O -H -5 " i c s c t. S *. 2 § "* S £ | § s 5 | £ S £ s -- ? 5 -i > 8. 5 - 3 * - lilt x: • *>^i^i us-..- § 2 ? ". u -3 £ ii 5 I S & o & js - £ g ■3 - § £ 3 ! 5 i s s & E . A § «, C g 4-72 k « E £ 2 | 5 Si S -* • s : i i ; i * ^ a E o I r s ; f \ a £ £ b b 3 « c J j ^ | J I S ] j a t 3 3 § J! | | 11 1 5 \ t T s s s ^ t 5 £ -3 t 5 u R 9 £ S 1? I .2 5 s I 3 ! u 8 5 1 ! i s 5 = ? I "3 5 3 8 3 -a 5 3 § s § ■a s I 3 "3 -a s i 3 i 3 5 8 5g.-;|4^s|«^5 ? :-. a * c o o " tt a S S I 6 S £ , M „ g • . *- . « .2 „ " a S 5 ** u " Is ° 2 s a b ^" J IMS* ^ 5 i ? 3 J 1 T | I j 5 | | I •s s e - -s . S a I I S, 2 1 -S 3 I - x s i I 5 S 5 1 2 S 2 I * " I 1 5 I .' 1 i 1 . 1 «• :lin;«n; 1 •; i i M t ? .; - 5 s i * 1 5 i : 4-73 5 -31 . Si I . I s S S5 £ 5 S £ m 5 I 1 1 - S . 2 " § 5 -S - £ 3 5 M 5 B IS 3 S S ^ e S 5 5 U 2 £ I o & § 5 ! | £ 5 § 1 5 3 m "S 1 £ « 9 5 H 3 S <§ i a 5 I 1 S § £ J -3 5- 2 § ! H 1 I 1 5 I I ; 8 d s 3 b J j § 4-74 <2a < 01 <0 2 > *j n « O S a _ oi 10 ^ fl m .-j E ■* 4-> a wo u c c E o c a o a ■* a o 4J 3 • -C O O U] ID U - VhC •U H CO 3 O O a a 3 E -: 3*5: ceo. u n 2 U £ O 3 8§Hi - 0 01 -u • oi u .c o o a. Q.4J c C 01 r-i -o ■ c a 01 H o o o c o o H £ H ff « O *J " I OU£ •o ai ra -h o tr 0) u 5i c 3 O * UJJ D O - O -H J3*J£ U£« a -O 3E1 •j o oi J 4J m x a -u = -h m o A --K oi -p x; o c m • 3 3 > o> ■ ? 2 6 io _ a, 3 £ OH-HI ■o »< c C u a 3 -j c ai 15 O C C 01 3 fl as o = oi ai ai ja • u u » 3 £. >• 10 -U rH O E a io in m c 01 I o 10 01 01 01 rH U O ty-i fl a j: • io u o 3 cp a oi -i o c u a-u S-HCO>l x: o io jj m c 01 10 in oi io t> .c oi < 01 U E C 01 01 -( 10 3 01 > V O J= "O »'H 1) 01 io o E 13 fc 3 C O 01 C n oi cr io +j -p ro -I T3 0) H -H *J co c o U3«£OOli -I c o -h 3 01 O OI ifl c en u >. 3 o £ < a c i-i T3 -u 2 o o o c o in E 4J o oi o 3 • C oi ai oi oi o a c oi o ouoai m c a-. tr 3 io ■H >. a- c 01 £1 nj >-. O o oh a •H • H « O U .0 01 U q,jz u a a 01 10 »HJ 01 H -U CT> 3 3 oi « io o m 11 >£ b U jz n 4J oi oi oi u o x ■u oi o C .H C CO w * E S s U 8 c cc? m CO 3" 1 5 W Sj ,? 0V ok PQ "££ la c — u a ci § A sls§? S li . l- « — c a a 2 5 £: £ — " S^J ^ - "3 3 ■" C 5 :> Q <-< CO L" £ n B) I; « > r QJ GJ U C CJ -«-* • (0 C > f- 1 - 3 ID ~S£C t-O CD-4J O-^ 3X3 -p^ ~j cuoeu m-^> t: t: r- tp5??ra QJ D £ > Cn.CO.CEfO U -H ^ ■ So 5 -c 3 -3 ° e "^^c nc.i-'CLr: tocu-^ >*qjc — c* = 'i =1 a c 5 2 g. „ ° (E E I S " I c = £ n O 3> O Q- QJCCTi *= E COQj i CH«i vJtjcau C-CfHto en m+JL, 03tr cnoj cu: o-> ^coc qj a -^ 3 c 8 i\. 4-75 c a 3 c -C H £ O T> P <- p Z 10 H □.10 A . « 3 v, C P. s^§ is: P O O A 3 a. O - CP p S 10 C C C 4J -I O O H 0-1 p -p p g >, a.c a I «t 10 i a. u 3 CTi-, mi c i-i io o -u g 0Cvo£4J«3i q.a n a - g o ■ n io T3 p o . h xh an 3 J=TJ ai c •p a o a*j u-i • p o- a> o a a. i c a. e o i ■h a-H r-l o >. c 1 H I) « O H H Jl ■£0;«i££ p X O H 3 p io a g ID £ 3 ID v o o 10 ID . g 00 o §5' .«£ OU g . U 01 TJ >,g NC-H 4J COO 1 01, i £ 3 io -a *J «1£H 3 ■o o « o T> P fl 01 > > - -too ID A C -P o < en tp 5 -2S; •H 10 O g 0 ID 3 «-n« C .

    3 • P -I A 3 G C « E£' 3 3 3 O ■P O o o h on ■ t -4 >, p .p 0) i .a oi 3 -h : I .P 3 T3 -H 13 0 ID C i I O 01 P O -I 13 0) c tJi 0) 1-1 -I . J= IP ~ o ' ' -H O .C C «< c on O 10 H < p. x: oj - O 3 U < 3 rt : ■H -P O E-H 5 41 P a io 4-76 s1. O O >n E it — u o a ••*< u 3 3 3 £ COITT O. O C 3 0, — I — ■ DO o — ar: .* < o -J o x: -" • a. o o - O 3 - XI 0 o u a — 10 c c '/) O •-" if « o d e c ■C 11 S E IB » 'J " « f o •C 5) 3 e « in -a o - O M O T3 uc in c -h -. C 1? *J Li 3 *j itj u io o (0 — O O s D « u £ u -x: *j u 01 *J B 10 o 0 0 b -a D c in -o 10 E o a 0) O h h o E T -1 0 10 llll a J O" 3 in -h 4J 0 Xi e in a 1) 0 s— in m T3 V » air S3 «5 •H 0) *> 0) U 3 0) Tin e < r-l M c xi a) « a E o> >, S Pa E O H 4J s r-l U 1 10 t7> 0 O) asm 3 C Z O (0 C=> 0 0) 3 4J um « O H in s >. o u w a -h W w a-H O ra o u e o. -h m Ui o- E ■-a - o *> 4J £ O -H o2»c fe *— CO x: ~~ in XI u ,3 t— < «: C 01 Q c d o c ^ oi U 0 u CO " u +> O 3 -J ^ V IT ■3 u s en c -H .s K 53 Clill jj *j g -a g d E; —1 —1 u re ■H O H U 0) c fl 0 a u s •a- o,-( o O *J £ ►J s in < m o1" ""S 1) E J] 3 trj: o> U OJ >. o i-> o 0 ■1 *i G en o -h in -a 3 U 4J U 3 e -i C3 c -h -a 0 a u »o c t. xi ai x: u io a Ul E S— o n ■a -* 0 — i o> io u < - o> 4J C C x; > U -H Z •h aj -h >. 0 g U 4J -4 I >, coaj XI U 10 u CT ■- m ax: 3 0) E 01 0 a o g a-u o < ?■ c 3 u - D 0 : in xs •-J c T3 Q - 0 33 u o a in io 5 I-g | jj 3 N U •■ a> a c 0 X E U s a Id a u a 3 n CD CO k_ i WSAs respectively." (Emphasis Added) Chapter 4 - Environmental Consequences - Mid-range Alternative - Issue 2: CORRIDORS - page 4-31 (Preferred Alternatives same as Mid-ranqe Alternative) "2. Resource values would be degraded. Designation and/or identification of 566 miles of corridors is expected to have significant short- and long-term adverse impacts to visual quality, wilderness character and wildlife habitat. These resources would be affected because of the locations of some of the corri- dors. Impacts are generally fewer than in the Resource Production Alternative. Corridor segments C.-F; K-I; I-U; and U-B on Map 2-9 would cause significant visual impairment. 01 0 c C 0 >. 0 •- n u wo 10 0 01 01 ft u 0 C 10 01 u ft u oi s -i o n e oi -h u jj 0 a s T3 ■- < «5s oi 3 a •o o 3 41 3 ■u o tr - C 01 0 -H oi a 3 £ X 0 0 TJ c (J z c s: 4J *J 3 £ C 01 TJ U C O 3 0 x U 1 O 01 c .-, i I- D T3 01 < 0 0 Cm '11 ■C 0 t; c 0) 3 C .1 41 O o u £ 0! O oi o 3 a e oi O E ■- 01 a C 0 U CT"D 0 3 -a a >• w h C C -1 0 io 0 O 3 0 UJ 3 ^ c o xi £ T3 01 C ■U - O O O 3 C — u 3 - C^H O -oil -ox - - 01 - u u n - c o ■ j«j 5 nu ««ti — ■"• o oi 3 io >a c a ii • Ji: u n o o i n uoi >.: c .c -u u m 3 *J -i o at G ■ E E 13 II 0 -H O • a a c a -i mm o c tj o cp D w o> ij ' o> u ax: a) e a OhuOU ---CEC.! e o -i *j tj : w er o *j i-h « ti ut; «■ E u o II "C .TJ : cu io -h ■ "< "OS ucgg~Hxio>UTJ 01 U 01 JJ u -W 03 01 < -H tfl (0 - flux: -i -■ tj ^ W C -U 01 < TJ C • a oi o 3 E TJ U TJ Jj O 01 01 C 3 0) O X) I O fi o n w -*h c HOUOC ' tj .c a c i K O -H C ■ I c 10 01 g 0) 10 O 0) CP u a 3 o xi oi i-h g 01 o -H 01 01 TJ io JJ U >,H -I C >, io 3 a oi H« JO g 01 C 3 J* C Ul 01 oi O 01 : o u ■*- ; C TJ 3 O -< < 3 OJ • < Si in oi s jc oi JJ 01 TJ • 10 3 C E C rH 3 oi *j o jj uj c n 01 O g -i U « c -I 3 O 3-i O ■H TJ -" -< 01 01 TJ £3-1 E er--* ■ O 01 3 h O 0- o a ^ a.Tj io uxcou O -I TJ O « 3 a. a) jo o 4-79 3 0 C 01 >.■" C 6 01 \ J= 0 CP -• 6 C > 0. 73 C 4J J OS 73 O 01 l-i blUITjS J o> « a. oi C £ •a -< 0 O C 73 01 C 0) C 01 « C»l u <0 i CT 01 4-> oi a X) c o- 3 Oi 1 n wo cum oi a ai O » CH « c\u •-} n fl 5 E- 0> -n h r t; « o ^ -u XI O CI 4J 3 -I 0 U *> — 02 u m u 0 73 73* — c a jj > O 0 4J < XI x: x: x: I 73 o •HOC o 0 o c a^xi o oi 6- io Wkw o> o t: ,jJ 10 - 10 u C 01 01 U 0 •H £ O 0 1 i a u a> ■* v ■c .c o ■-" ox: i ai o t; i " : -o r -i a i*4 ■-■ OC-i-<«0 o o u o •-• 10 O SZ 01 s: m ai o o o o o e- > c a ^^ c _ ~ cuouE<-,eo. o < m a o ■-> r* « u o ic 14J> •» I1U 311 via)--. .>,u£0)OC 3 •■- .M ■-< a> «j p : .a>io w x: -o.. -c 0-1 o - ac > u t: o in- u o, soa-c en c E 3 O C 3 X 3 T " O O CO) m •. CO -c c 2. 0 C -. O - XI C J - ° J -j ": c s 0 - r 2 " 2 2! CSJ 4-81 ?USJO U 3"C O X! tf> O 0 UH O 4) 0 1! o a ' O C . ro -I jj _l o W 4J : O 0. — T3 £ OH rM -. X •u m ai -i « o £ itc e c c = us o ■" . T3 0 0 o « g 0 U aJ u jj o u oo 4-82 ,«„.«*« ««»s V • . v..:.i;iii:-. :::.;■ CSIgC v-;':"-. d .'- 6ilp! IS y$jx&L ' ':::S'ii^^:: 1 1 w $ V * 1 ^3»m ^R^ i . i--. " ■-<-■' - ,' - Lf' -I ^s^^^r^l^ 1 1^ • •:' ~~r:': ■ ' , ' '-;' -■r'--?JjT j ; -v-'"; "V-?!*..-"- -.- hb^MW# ' ^^Sf • - •' • - " -'' '"'''' " N° ' j£m «*k8b*x^ &ii f3v^r ■ 1 :■'.•;'.'.'..' V- ■ : ,-:'-r^ ' 1 - j— *— ""-•-. j § \ /^w-JmSt >--: '.''"- >v: ■■ Yiiprl ^S ''nm^: iJfjh'f. U. *^_ U-' ■-' - fc&P&W^ ■ ' ; v^Lr-. «- Jsyw*—J '. i . i j d v tRT '^ ft iw 0 ^*^?r$M ' r' "^^x^a fefejj"53 l^gjig y^ ~^^ 1 !.l ■ ■ -\ ^^Psl --"^S pg^Nw 'M»lj tJiLi,J< ■ *• - ~ - 1 — ^v^ "n^*^^. -v t, T <* r O ^">— v ^<*'^k U >' t*^W 1 jh8 - ■-'• Air- \nsv U ^fePlsBI ifii :l ~n V " ^^^%H^-ylvi"t--;'t-f-l--;" lll|---'r ' NOi^li^ 1 \\% 'i":;! X ■'° '•' iV:«:# -! ^" :" ' v> v^PH'-* ' Wl % I- •! V X rJ » M! Ui ■ i :i . " T' , ' ~*| '■ ... \-l\i- r~ uuk •- ' 1 ^ " * ■ •>>-'" J j S _~-* gk l --j ■ V v»v « ■ '■ : ' : • , t:< ,.■ i*l| ' Vv(& N '" :> %. "~ •*•«■! \^» I* ii r ■ s '"*' -! ' .-••''''' ■• " ^ ''' ^^— ^^T^jW ■•*?' ' vt\ ; i.i •'(".>" - ^ i '-. i - X: ■: "*; '" JfMZW^I • Xk^5ff .: ! 1 ;;: ' ' 1 i - — '■" jr&jr #*■' • ^Ifc' ' ; ' ' ■ ' '".' "ri- ■.'>..-'.'-■ '-.,.:''!. /w - ;.-:^ \ . e« ■ T f. ' ^'^'^-rr'-''' !. !;1! -'-' [ < '■ s ' ' ''• - j^aii ,.,}| }l°r iijij - o ii j f. » /.. V '■■ ■> -'•: ■■"•! ; ■ :'T; • •"■-: •■ i ■- ■ - ,;--v; • " • .;-■ i= ■■ •■'.:= . : r ■,•-■:-----=■*!. - ■ ;\ '^ -: : - .. '_'«<•:, ; ;jj ';' | i\-ii ; :"-•.;■/• •'-'■. ■"■ :K . , ! : <-l-i. ■ ' - : • -■"..,, ..3 \ r ;{; ;;;: ; ! ' s o? -\ , -'/; : r . • ' • . '=' : ■:"' - J' ■ " -. ; i ' j. ];' ^;- i, J. ';...' -i ,;, «■ j i -!;:-^ - ' ^rJrrt,- ■ ' ' - ^ ill! -v-i ^T~i>*^ "'- r ;- ;■*■":. ,* '! ,:' ' r-j;___ .-■- v i'j-CJU-'i = .•' V ^ :^'?TiVr~i::~"^': "!&';■«• 7" % , ->'^r-/l ; ■"' •-• ,v":" """"":-" *'."!*" V-V.i'. .: -'.'.".i V -?' '? "":'--i.- T^T ^~' : .~ L__ r " "~f" "'"'i " ' f r ~ -----—!..--_- ^-,'_;.; ~~^.| ":i 4-83 .+~ r.--_,^-_, . Vv *>'? %>-' ■m j-- ■> . V~J ;'• "C5 Vv- ,7; ,f\-4^ !'s HlJi Hi « . 4-84 -t: E »i . oi a; *"~15|; i-s. S*i? ^S?2 1. <£ S. « l "i § v 1 1 1 rce acres speci- or the ol idate erboard ents to up some th the pol icy , or a two r this on and ip pattern on' t acts. dispo- ement of p to our o aware m. More s our •SI g E Wells ResoL of Sierra, ver 248, OOC Sierra ha< anagement the Wells ing to con' ers. Check ke improven e to block xchanges w der presen blic sale uirement f consolidat ard owners ement , we c isolated t ocated fur these isol t category c concern , 1983. to ssified fo of the few zing. We made mana ial hardsh We are al ■ment Progr sized, it si 1 1 tunity to comment on the Draft ental Impact Statement. Lands cup Ranches, with holdings of ( Wells Resource Area. Lands o assification of and proposed S3 ** O o a f -o v> o »-l O 13 *i 5 t 3 I •a ja D O o c 3 a) * JC a) I. •-t *> «* O do t~ a t> a) ol duo »H« S TJ ■ ■ c to c e d J3 ■ c ♦» s g * e> « a S £ * » d e 5 3 5 * t- c •rt 3 ♦» -I ^ £ to e to * C £ C J2 2 - ^ -3 I g 5 8 £ ~ B « d > to d (. a *> >> l. at r-l « (. i. a. to c *> (0 .rt S 5 B £ O. B ~ l a c ♦J v> a d w a o •rt -« «> .C o B - a □ » V) a a o c c c t> d b »H rt tO T3 - £ .C 4> ~< d ^ to m 4-86 0) ro 10 r-l 4-> c 3 a a) a) -u -< g T3 3 U O 3 • •H J OD -O jO en o o n •h oz u D 3 E OlOO u 4J 4-1 u -P £ 01 H C 3 10 0) V i+> -H C TJ U OTO Tl C 10 < o io c c m in a c in io a> r-i a to a o .-i OCU«3 4) ai >i '-i n « O «) 1) 10 O -H 10 >iX> «)< 3HTJ 3rf iS ^ "1 "?, "° m -u 3 c o rlOXl C 0) W ai 3 *j -u o ai an x: i T3 j: e ♦» e ~< o v> £1 (D £ G 10 CO 4-87 a u> o ■a c c m c j a 10 o a o -h . ai xi e iH-rf ja c 6 a < xi . I H U 01 H -H 4) U J* XI XI ■U II -H 6J O CO£tJ u HC(Jl)JHO«l.«4J *J « ^ o fl h «4h oi in co o«*-iH£a+j h -h c in ^ io (0 X} .p H-D o CO. i Hrfu«« in O 0! 3 -H 10 O H c O U ' 10 XI XI H 0 XI 10 XJ QJ >iM to 13 M 111 UH c v o> o 3 u jq 3 -P O «« ■>, -■HO • U) 3 KT3 f « O HUfl SH- OO) 01 C — -i . 3 >,xl UH»«H« XI C H O H C H Ohioco T) 0-< in mid a> o -h s -h a a a) xi c o v > « h S o u u OHHH4I XI -H C CXI-UM-PK-IC -H « io n io at 3 o ai - -u HOCMO g *J *J ' o,o wi in g -h 3 : O' 0> H 0) 01 0 £ O I o o 4-> ax p. o u JUIH JJOH1IH rM < XI 10 U a, 10 1 C 3 -P CT» in - C E g I o ocuouiogi ouoonio: O XI H U I «K-H(lOH(|IUJ «1ESU3 an 4 h oo «oai P o 0 — 4J H i . 10 XI I H H U O ■ c g u -h a H O 0) M H COMTJ 4JX3C "oi c o in o •h an c h - 01 U] UH 10 X) XJ -H 01 ohJihoh > a o oi ■u X) c I 0) o c ra 6 xi tn CIHO-HC) «E O 3 . ■h £ mh oi in o xi 300UO£ (1 01 XI OP 01 — 01 ' o c e O 01 01 t-i H XI ■ 0) 01 0) E II X) 01 i 01 -H 01 H E 10 3 ohhiio c cr> c oi a 3 u • io u a xi an a s io o o . o h n xi > »H oi H o\ xi 3 -u o P a o g P •hoc >. ai H XI o c <« E h io o io E c p u a r. xi p P 01 10 H 4J 3 io 0) 0 XJ M 0>O a u E H X) o XI oi o o xi ■4-1 o oi o c 0)pccna.h io c - o < p io io h o in xi 10-Hoicpooiinctn. h c — C XJ X! -H 10 10 uoixiPGO>ino>.c ■Huosoxt-Htro -pojhxj-hpxics. u a u h p io in, 10 DTJH >, p . 10 N £ H 0 0) H in sx x: io P x: xi 3 0> 3 ioxiaHxi-H.uoo p - o o O 3 OE ««tl HH a x) aiocccooi huixjoi • p to o o oi -h a*3- » E ifl ■ nUJIOO u oioxixico oihcx: 0 O XJ O X: U C I0OC103IOH CO0I4JJJ O X! P U H XI Hox) uoh a> - -H tji * -H 301 ^fll CO- • 001 > C-B4J Oi 10 0>H 01 >i"D P U -H 01 XI U H P .C 3 O 0) 01310 O»0*in»«inii C3pu)rao)00 XJ otriuai^caoai x>x>>tPPO>.coin g h p u >p »ccHo«zua«>.Eii «u»c« xioocoix:- h e m 3 o o £ • » h x «OIIOOSO JH|pIinnni>,niiill, 4-88 o n T) 11 i- c > m a.sz c s x> c s C -P 3 -P aco s o o o. a e T3 3 o — a, e r> u o u tj oi Q U «) U Z 3 u 01 O TJ U O O P U 10 6 OHU » C3«H O — — . Q.X) U-JW ~ o> O m ui a I -u 01 — ~£ C -I TJ - I > T3 - UH «1 C CO • a. 6 -•- (DC U »-< > c a) t. « O-* x: rjOH u a« c x: a 4) u 3 S -— Q. VO 01 J= o o c CU 0) o » O XI T) -• m 3 u « aiao ■o —• Q* c o o* CO 3^i cES* > o> u m u c x> •> join HOOW*l u c •q; 3 U 0) O 10 0) -H -h a 0 unutJUII 0) -H d'J g'31 O O C -P caiituu O O 3 -P t> •rt l-l O -H 0) C CI •. » u -P a c a: 4J O. H Xi O T3 PQ « 8 S n «1U1 1 g s« o c , to 10 0 O B - ;! JJJJC013 E S ° f „- 3 •-01 « D 3 4J en c £ tant addi 200 acre oo small. d also be xample, t C M O 10 •H C 10 8 ^r— °» -* 10 0 tn so j impor the 6 ely t the B shoul for e •H O o 1 oi m c -P >,3 3 3 3 ■w e h o 10 O O •H (0 m to .0 0) (0 M O.C C 4J -H C 01 10 3 -P -H - 01 XI C U 01 • oi a x: o « T3 0 J) -P -P 01 0) T3 W 3 (0 ■p o . 1 >i*3 01 C ■H - «Orl • 3 (0 "O ti h 1 o i-i o e o ■P Xi 01 -P O <8 -H 3 > < U -H 01 [) « H 0) •U -P H < XI > C -H 10 0 10 r-l JS » 10 -P 3 Z 0. oi x: -p c o 3 3 ai e HH "2 V 3 Z S 3 0 Oi Toi) ige 4 :a, b :fere 1 MM- Lts i Lt La ilcon Ltern acre c pot /e sp 5 Res OHO a at-i -p x; • 4-89 u O £ OTJ 01 -x: oj v. 01 JJ tj >. o [ o -• -I *j > u UlJHI 3 . C C 10 O 0] O 0) oi a) o u . 3 =! — 4J IO Oh io :ojjjhc. ' OJ 3 10 u C — I 10 N C - O CUT! O H JJ C N (0 TJ jj c 3 c io u*o>oa>c — -n C OIH *IH i^-o q C N 10 C H C 3 U>-" E >.\- 0) C . HI tl 10 jj — 3 Cl>Z 3 3 TJ Z n ■n u 0) CP c 3 n. ■ o O.SZ c n 0) 3 a oj j= a. o 3 91 .C .C C aj a. en a cp n co c O C -Hi U 0) 10 a io c a ■ v. o o c o U 10 o c az -i e w- u JQ.O »9 oi m oi n « -H 0> Hfl 3j= JJ-i o o >-. c o H 0) E uHOtnai u tT3 xj u jm: *j oio oo o TJ Cuhu fl (JH >, 01 u ki VU »j -h io H C JZ E-> JQ 3 JJ TJ 3C>\ oj o h c — •aiaoiH u c c jj o io c JJ C «ui 6 ^ 3 CXliU • I 4H ig c o c o E o 3 en o -« t= jj 3 91 io -♦ en oi oi H fl -i OJ oj c 0>U CT> z - c_i -• c 01 H h 01 -■ u-i o C u »3UH en OJ oj » a O J3 3 10 O CM JJ C h 0) . TJ C TJ 10 01 O M 01 10 ' -■ 0J OJ 3 , C 10 01 01 O 3 JCffU O 3 3 TJ O -H JJ O" C 3 0) -H 91 10 01 > tj tj 3 C .C 3 -> • btlO • 10 JJ u Qiu vuu OI C U I HHn« I O4J01O • JJ UHHUI.C w oj uj tj — ' oi tj en oi o o COt 01 u JJ -I c UC o Q.jj oj c o hh o n -.aco-i U3OU01H aJ3ioi-iioa> cj cioh O 01 u 3 JJ C JJ 01 OJ 10 n iooch oi jj s >-. B4J301-1C Cn O C 3 IO I o cn 10C C E 91 O . oc oi E o -■ e o c >.- JC Z -C H C O 0J TJ 10 w I UT3 J JJ « a C JJ OI — I O I hco jQ io m oi u oil UJ. 3 JJ H C C J= 10 01 - oo 101301 aojiojjajJi 301 h— >S —101 I C C TJ C I -H O U -1 i 01 -h C I JJ C C o c u It OK id jc oi a >. i 0) E CO T3 c o jj m c hoi u O -« T) 3 -• 0> . 3 JJ -. o 3 3- c e O C O H o o c C • >, OJ C 01 z O H c k. JJ JJ < -.1 10 10 — c jj tN e 3 oi o «■• < oi e .c cu o > O JJ 0J -h o ■h oi e o o t>- C -■ 3 -• <0T10«IU T3 O O T3 JJ : 10 2.-H 01 ^ O I. 3 OH jjjajj- ■ -I 01 T3 : .c oi o . jj n jj c o - c o en JJ 5-.TJ 0) E c u s E i. OIX «> JJ o c u s E T3 « jj o 3 O O -< TJ C 3 O O O . U B O C «J C 3 JJ — n 6 oi"> w 3 jj jj e 3 c aj q c oj a COS « TJ to 0JH TJ « JJ E 0). O Uh). io a> jj — i tj io O TJ H JJ 0J N 3 3 01 JJ -. 4J I > 0) O 10 01 10 JJ I 3 -JS Ih O O O I J1CUM 0 o oi oi a JJ 00 O JJ c c o JJ c -» o c o >.-• — « J= r-, -. C JJ _l JJ UJ 03 oi C TJ TJ 0J O 01 C E O 3 3 O JJ o o 01 10 O £ 01 « > H 5s O u o a js-hj h 3 -. JJ -. O 3 OI O jj u 3 < kj oi a> u >.U O -• "J o o c a jj UH a H 10 TJ uw ei io oi C 00 OJ C C TJ Q. QtH- C JJ JJ 10 LiO H — 10 JZ UJ 3 V- E 3 o jj o o a CO 4-90 -i u r> T3 T3 l- 71 01 i-i 0) T> 0) .* en ui E n i- £ 0"u o. 01 O ■- -C JJ >. >- E J o. rf «1 C •0 11 3 11 Ul c < -o 3 o o e -< C C 2 U O 1) j= ■- - O u T3 - C 11 a rc o> m u u 11 D ro 0) O o s o « c v L. 11 C ~-l C Q.B U u •o a o -■ oi c u-inj-.cn 0>.C O TJ 0 ID O 3 11 Ul Ul 0} 3 U -i n ~-< C -r-l > 3 U C li a 13 ID -i-l > >tina Eg o o >. ID C -O ■-. wu UO 0 »J u — UQ •o a u O 1.1 c " O T> -i 1) u -. Ul u o n — C -. > *J O -i U u £ 1) C 'Jl * -»u-m « if O -O « E > >■ o oi u ID 3 ~< c U ID u 11 3 C CO a C u ai •-. o - a 1) < 5-*S ID -1 01 0) » 0" >u OHO c >u » u J? ^ 0 >.2 ID CO ID £ i/l C .C J= co i a — cm Ul o E i < a i O ■ (J ( ^SS"S I -H U U Q,i O C iJ-H c O O -< o -u — u id 3 XI -O 0) -i c tj o a u •_ a.£ -J u -a o o o J ca c J= •n a >. 1) .* ID Q. u T) E t. E«CC»UO>. 01 1) ID Q. O 3 rH — _ o -i c C -. O ID £ u V T3 - 3 - 3 i) . o — r -> -i 2 01 Q-^-l < -a ~* 3T C C uj o O < - O O O X O U < 11 Ul Ull tr > •-• u c oi oi ID U-| 01 C - 01 £ < — E nj !-< u vn -h >, t! 11 id * o -u o ' J Jllr- « -h 3l . ID -H u O- 13 c UHKO .0 0) U H »- U -C .= 3*.C C ID O U] C O.T O T. t *j a- c o - - L z a~c ui X ,= 3 c .= ■ I T3 Q -C C -1 . i- O c CT-Q, Q,* I T. E O O 01 E ! 0> E > i >. O Ih 3 ., au 3 E O 1-1 C O rt c O > 3 : O 3 o oi u -. -. 4J O C u 3 ~-> JC C E 10 T3 T> O u-i N J= "~ ID Q 3 E CT.T3 _ Ul -. k< _ b«a« i.h o x o uti a u oi ui ^h a d o,^h — — i — s a o e •o E-in u . «, ui^M-i 010133 ai > c ■- ' — • o 33 i- u -. j= w o> . . I -. C — 0) J3 ID a a aiu v, ^-. Eonn < 01 E DICHHU O XCO E O.U-.— njoicoil E C J3 ■II O ' E- 01 -h o o UO — u-io O » r-oEu 3ONI0I0 10 □ a3 C « E-O — 03UJJ3IN E M _io oi *) -j) a • a =i u o Q « • J3-.Q. OU0riHj5ii-0> 4-91 I! tf-.i I*; §3 iss 3 1 f &i a 3 2 5? s •ij Jat is, •a o i is* . Is?***2 s 8 3 li I; 2^-15 5 S 8 S -S * 1 1 I $ "3 J * 3 g 5 1o S o 3 — O . TJ >• 01 3 £ (0 c 01 au V, > o c 10 IJ £ o 01 £ u -1 01 - 3 2 01 n 01c ■ £ - TJ VI Cm Z 01 U < C l.Ji-««lll T^3 KJ (0 o <0 — t O 01 O-*^ OOOl-C-ivlnlTI U O 01 O* 3J <0 E [J/ i: o x: 01 v. u x: a Q. a. vi r- 01 c 01 «o vi .c id o > — ■ v/ CH^-i 2 3W J C^ 01 C Q. 01 TJ OJ 01 jO VI C U — 1 VI ^ 1 Vi -JO * -1 rc • fl] UTJ NEH iflO -t L- — v, l/l 01 >* Vj u-i £ TJ E *vi } «J Z TJ C C O 01 .□ 3 01 VI 01 V, HI 3 O C It- fj= occoi-i • vi -oe «i.uoi>i.uooii o 01m -1 A o t-tOliOOiTJ UJ TJ KJ 01 C VIDi-iCOOVivIC .C 3 VI , -^T E-k._njrt Q VI ~H CPTJ 11 u CO -I £01 -01 01 -• 01 01 V. C V - a. vi Q, V. a. J q 3 U^J O 01 N u <0 -Q UJ -C >*— ■ — 1 — < 3 ^™- TJ < vi nj e a. Eooig^o V. v, — o . r-, an 01 ij 01 o vi 01 n u « 10 > 01 a.— c x:a 3 £ e- .» o s a£ • v.a ou~--ioin«j3e 4-92 I1! 3 2 i & sSi 5 3 Land 198 0 si to o 13 SI 2 8. | ii Burea Rod H Wells Page Augus 2 8 1 1 £ 2 8,* 111 ■§08 III; 2 8- 3!3 8 3. 9 1 I SI 83 I Sal SBfl I 3 o I § 25 .3 8 &a 8. u"*JcSHS s § g I s a OH C 3 8" s a. Ilsa^lssll ui?** -sags „ .5 „ s 3 -a ti 8 57 ■ -S 1 S JS .|5B« 1 i s tj a I § 15 s 1 3 c to v a m >* Q ■h j u o o 1- I 11 a C fl Q <-< (D 1-1 -^ S -3 |5 s 111 3 I 2 2 I 225 a i'SS £§.§? I=: 2 3 1 1 5 iJ -3 J 8 jj $ ^ « i i S 3 8 8* 0) in o >h in to ■g J 1 J 1 S ■st|ig| s g 8 u a £ Si's, o 8 c or.; z - tility A are. the large No Action t is the nt of the ened. a - 5 ; 2 ~ _. C m ource Management PI ce needs of mining s not support them. lexible for future . Designation of u as taken precedence and sales and wilde neral exploration a ve r!o mining is the 3e by case basis. 1 jceed since the exte urces on designated > 0 J J < 0 DC I August Mr. Rodney Harris Elkw District Manager Bureau of Land Management P.O. Box 831 Elko, NV 89B01 Attention: KMP/EIS Team Leader Deal Mr. Nail lb: riie following are chromalloy Mining and Mi Alternative listed in the Draft Wells Res and Environmental Impact statement. The preferred, Resource Production, Resour Alternatives do not take the future resoui consideration and therefore Chromalloy dot development of presently unknown resource. corridors is excessive. The mineral resoi to a large extent, unknown and it is impo where it is not known whether or not a va is apparent that power plant development mining. The emphasis on improving grazing lands, designation will possibly hinder future m development . u>sb of important and economic access rou scale land sales. The only alternative that is not prohibit Alternative and Chromalloy supports it. natural way for mineral development to pr The possibility of "wasting" unknown reso areas or by land sales that may never be @ 03^ «5os«a 3 « 8 1 o £ So sllS-rio^ Sit. 82 SS^-S^a6 *o§ S£S .H CO t. C 2 •►> -1 -5 *" » o" S n 3 5 § 3 ooo £ >,-a a> -i a > ri ' 3J* uti3sli . ■!! Jl JHj | S - " 5 06 2 ^"5"? ■ Sa u5 c IS S. £ -5 a u % *> a is! O N. ' ^ • u 5dSo;d & 4-95 » 2! — -a » a. a < u — > c E *2i c t/) u o -"JO i;» E ai ai -1 u. 1 a 1 ' X -t> E S 2 3 9 3 . * I is! Mt 1 5 si 4-96 iu c o (D -1 01 6 o o a o •D TJ = a o co o «c o I .O T3 C I CO ' u MBEt -> CT u ® ID •J « 3 3 C ao to i I £ c >,« u 1 u O a> 13 « TJ Q 0 « 0 « c c j _• o : u x . i ■■* js on 4 C C : o J -4 o i -■ o> o i 3 u OOO jj — c e 6 J 2 a> a » uo C E E D u -i o £ c a. ^ - ^ Ol-U — 13 > a> *j (a .c © : ~> o c c -4 ,. T3 O E 5 _. u e ^ £ a. 0 02 cm- u « TJ 0(5 0 o 2 s • li u I J£ JCJ E -. iu ' o a > u o -I -m 1 c e in d MEll »OOl TJ a-o 3 — T3 -I C . 4 a] 0" n - « « 3 * U .C •/) 2 J 4-1 > u -c c J (B O -n — . « * u a on -i ii >< > ® i » u -. -I 2 O I a. a 0-3 J o O -i -I a h » — w 4-9 7 a s & 5 ■ft $^ 8 £8 8 || B* ? lii 3s1 1 § 2 So s, 8 -9 S 3 is o& •S .>.§ I- I tJ.fi.S- &28.5 5 «-a 3 3 1 = 1 3S& 8° 3 gSfl S" 2 »<-• ■E&i- 5 "• £ § I 8 - -g 1 "§ s^itj-s " S « a 5 y§ « J & -j gj Z> *j ^ fl i3 qj +J c o o > s ""a ce ?!ih 1 1 i 1 1 . jg r3 a> Jo i) A 5 3 S 1 1 J 1 § <£ a 2 a ■h *j o as ^ 3 $ n a | g 10 c 8 « -a «-2.25g « S S E § e^ A I- .1 It-si c 5 oi 1, « is 2 g^ ;i ■8.3 &S |g.5 Sou ■15* s 3 Sl-§§12 ssl o « -o g O -i au -i J= 0 a T5 S B 3 Q.05 0 'J .c i u 6 .c u 1 3 B « 5« — -< w o 0 o c u c T3 -I £ — e a c 1 T3 J oiam -. C C 3« 8 0 0 0 8 • T3 0» > > C C C U] -• •IUMJJ1 O , g U -H l» C £ -H U 1. .O C 13 *J » »«1C »u -> 0 IS1NU0H « i a c 0 C a o !•» - ■C 0 a-j c *4 c «I • 0 0 £ » a -J ^ B g — 4J B M C 8 -3 1- > u b r o -i £ ® n s « — e in « u .c ~ u SXliCCl H T3 « (- U *J~ «J s CN ^t 4-98 a < s C n » « O 11 c z c a 01 c o 3- m\ IS? = -■ I .a .a :« o u oi oi CJl) >(«£ •3 O H O -i JDI! O 3 >■( >£h« 0 > OOTDOaEC-H ££ O Of a n -a £ v v. >•"- t <. - '0 r^ ^ 5 it ' X ~v 3 < . >^ _1 1 n <$ x 3 < 31 "5 >M j a B -\ * ?■ V V |.i 3 ■i M i uj y Q Q >^ -< V J \ "^ JQ ^ ? £ 1 6i ^ 3 0 1 * ; * 1^. 1 f V f j y ■^ -j _j Vj vCi o *o 4-99 1 41 ' ijk% iWtl?S2 CO 4-100 J 41 -1 w C 0 O U HI C fl 0) 10 . <0 1 2*3 O 00 0) C ^-1 s at OS i ~ IS 8 ll< C 11 If U IS u n c u o an h 3 -u m J3 n S 4-101 m i ra n u i o V) " i _ '- : c — ■ &• | 2-ij ? r -o u : as c .2 ^ 12 a a 2 S S £ 1 § £ S c - 2 « a 2-3^ a J J .5 -o a a- ■o a & ° s * £ 2 § E- a E 5 II | 8.11 o -o c a 1 £ o"5 &£ w 2 ~ SSS £ E E 4-102 -a £ £ « o ** t, 3 S T3 " O ■_ u 3 >aa x - -o m jl - el 2 * ■=- "5 ? & " g „• JS ■seJS5S"gs-s-S 2 _ •jac«iiii3a''»s5ESs ^lfi-i-ll5iiJSJl 3 § § I S 3 £ $ 5 ? c — So M ? t ■= 3 5 £ 5 O M « eb °- 3 >, ~ Z £ Z o I i, a. S £ s s «• jEj 5 § ^Jii o .5 a F g a, ^ ~ _ -^ia-o^cu-S,* c « r i t « ,J « J S ^ a i W B * " IS? - s 1 | ,- 5 m o ■? g o >.£ E 3 ™£ £ «-s| .' *5 Sal « u 5s „ E S "C -° £ S. 2 S = l»% E ">. o "2 M2 a 8 I o =5 oc CU n g o ^ "° £ -2 - X > j= S~ «- a! C II o 3 00 o a — .o c-. - 3 s. 1) O O 4) C (0 m .c in >•- ./. ^ J J 8 c •§ a lS"E 8^ S-S^ -a -o o Q. in I u • « - o " o k. = "^;— " I u u j " 3 VOWS »- cr u E i- a o o E J - "J — m — si 0 u c ■ • »- -i i V E .o 0 ; o a • _ E o s .' • - 1 1 ~ § t 1 « S 1 £ 3 2: x C „xo-3.c-oi- o c ■-■ a >- y < o :. 0 .- c c J = 8. * 4 . °k\ V£% i I * 5 £ % c £ - l JO -C o ~i a. l. .- a. o * - E m — o Zj" ' i -C — C|< 1 k — l •; O T « > l- •> « — 3 3 £ 51 "3 3. 0 1 - i. «, 3 .■ -: a. in '" " *" "• _1|C if CO *- < 31— O. .= o a ~ '= "^ 0) 0) CO in S .2 ~ „ - 2 "u - a - 2 | " et .2 ~ £ " .2 u s j - : -o 1 ~ 5 | | c g 3,1 c n «> "° B 2 * * 3 (, 3 a I '111* 3 * b M «j | 1 J | * § o g g -" 2 £ Z - = § I S iss J 6 Andrus McCormick Colorado Hafter Diam< Nevada 4 Dale R. for Jim Aurora Owner, Deeth, E a C2S^< ■ *l!sl3M lur. ig ,; = rlii = s sf*" I c o c. a - ? o a « 3 £ ~- S S -S 5 a 2 5 O « ^ ° O 3 ^ C ~ 3 " £ *; 73 11 O "c g S-§oS E * p o o 2 2 I * 3 "= £ 3 g ^ 3^^111? a 3 S S O S guS.S5ai5 u ^ 2 - a i. - u < < 4-104 - S 5! i . g g_gj ■*->-0— — Q. — O T> U — — I- c *- Q> El. D L g " J > ^ o " >. "° * °-— o j 5 o -o o mo ^ 5 i- 0 - «J TJ E u. S 5 il "f ~ I > 5 -»■=* iL- = . sl< ..Ijf s <2i! 2 i; 3 S 2 OT u E 5 "> = IS-;: I Si = S (O CO CO CO 00 5™ ?2§5 ■; - — ~ o * „§ ^ S J ° « * O-J j H Xa a 3 .H 5 a mx * o Eli*" o ■ *> a O 3 a ■a x e .* • C-3> a (. J TJ 3W «rH SCO •3^ a cxx -h rH a o *j o ax •* ~> 3 a a a ■*> * a -. v a a a o r-< h3 * •O a OJB ,_, a«i S3 a 3 C a c « *> J .H .J »> rH £3 5 »^3 a -h o tO •^rw • a 3 a o a 3 *» c -• a XH 3 O 3 ■ ** »r ° ° - 5 a 3 a (»< 5 *- s- 5 3 * d 0 ♦> a • x ■*> S ,H X * 3 U «*»-H O ,h t, a e o*» a 3 a a. rs-3 a) to*' *> n a o m si a r-i e.n »« «,-•«! o ^ > »co o a a x a -p a t. i.X o.».w oat, "- 5 o a c > o ^ ■ o VV • - «&. - a ••£> >,>,*> >,rH Sao c t js h a » is to • §i ctQ fl fc. t- C a! 2 S 3 : 3 oa »55 o 3 a m,j C-H a tj X 5"j5 jz a P w • £ (-••2 £ w «* rH ft«» o n ■ O X 0 C V. >,r-( 3 «> • OoC-HOX^OCt-- vj -< S B -H O O O 3 SC ♦>- a xrs S^T.^ t. a aX OX «jx hoh«»;c n >oo * >«*o «J \l *t a ^ '- x ? \ 3 0 «. XfflO >» t, a C t. r-i *-• a o • *< a a c o v > o X a -h **= uxr\c*\ C 3 «J o <* ON C. >.n HOH a 3 H a a c >* x o c flop X » • d rH O »H -l a a .« a • _ L, a a J ^H •«Sa.Z. m-o a 3-i 3-X »» *-• <- a o n a e a v. a J .-\ a rH w a ^o^o^o^ra*-1 a • h sJtj 3 *J a Ort tISS*a^-'aii 3 ^ « ^ >, t. 3 » 3 5 eSs * ?.o c ♦^ c a > o • ? ' i<«HO I- : c o c ^ * -h -i 3 a . n «j — ra i; 1 5 " 5 «2 Hi 3 C O O C ■ c a c-4 c O -^ £H a a c < 1 j u o a -p a a . o *- rH a -i B IV.CTJH 3 ^ t.. i a c ^ -<-<' a a i a 3= a i ^ >,t, c ^ a e J Br-I a O X .-I < c 3 -• *■• «>• a »-, a o a o 3 3 -, -i H o a ^ 3rf£^ *J 3 C a ,4 • a 3 o »* *- 3 TIHCOH j. s r-i 3 •-• X — a o .in a > n i oil 3 a ' X U** B+>X T3X33 o 3 W rH - 3 C 2 O Cx : -i - &3 *J O r- t. < O a: a i x i o x 3 a-^x io>->>e-4a _■ — a u-^^rH — ' o - ~ _ " i*JCD.S3X0tC ^>OC -1^*3— r3a rH >• OC^ »J»-r-io_T)33 'BrH>,^.3-. * iscxx a a — ,-!«>- v,o ri uoo'— «•>— •h'^o — ^»ca^^»J . — — ».•'—« h^ h • a ng^oa i ou ax«* -< at. t. t-j 3 x a i £ a o« x *> aa a xc x * «- t> a »j a (. r» * • * o *) c o SS-a- rH O-H O o e t. a exit. ^h I- a o «- X a o. .«j-h a T) ace • X O T) "J c a a a3 a a w,*) so c c ^ o utj-h a c. a o »< o a a f- 3 T3 a »o: t. 3 hi a >> h»i' i x c a rH B o t- a E»h • »h o » «- fMge£ B" 4-106 O V tJ o a -. O Z 0 C 0 S> ETJ V « — V > a > « -< z o c o U 3 3 £ 3 WOW -•no u a < -- « (J J -a. J3 C >6 ^ a n 3 c - a v 4j ti a £ >~ U) « *J V 3 O U 13 3 o i o c o x v a « E >- 0 - 0 «J 0 J3 - jc *J ««)--■ 3 a -3UJ: £ £ -I »« o c a >. o >. u a u v i c a • « ti - ■j a =. w n ' V 0> -• = 3333 O -> T3 J l> o «< C V -> « - X U ij O - -. 3> V ■ V *> a -o ■ a -a m 2 "" 3*; 3 <3\ O ( (M »£. M b 5o ( a a < — o D a b >>»*»3 UJ2 « - = OJ b 3 8 5; o a: b ea b C 11 >.-~T3 e a <- s o Vrl b -3 £ tt> > C 3 C «-> 3: « b.c-o -"3 0 C. ~ § 0) - 0 C r — O 10 0 ^3 3 S 3 Jl «= £ a »a o <- 3 •* JO Ob-. 3 O O «-> O -W O 3 O • 3 U O b n ->- 3 en c 3 an O n . b *j r-. t; — "§ = b -.A c n r n~-T=r o pi b i*iS-i 3 _: — b s r- o o e UT7 c 4-107 v. ii a 41 a 0 e w en u an 1 £ a> o 0 0 3 iJ C U a • J> J 0-3 0 O UiTO » SCO -h <-> J{W C 3 C « o « «lflUJ£ « u o 3 a £ c m a v o aw --h J (ICO C 0 O -« U -" o o O 1) J n&* -• « 9 V. 4) *J «J « o -h ^ *j * a 5 O O 5 jj J — *l 3 C J o *• £ 0 « £ . 3<2 ^C JO o> « « r « u c> >itj 41 41 4) > U m £ a c 3 4i -■ a £ U 41 41 0 ■? 3 fl vj vwt> i : 04; - w £ X * 4) O 2 — 41 A A >. tl O 3 41 41 O 41 " 1! 41 I 0 « -i tJ w £ (J C U 41 a 6 c -0 41 - 'O Cm « a V O 41 e u o >. 41 « -3 £ 0 ffl tt. J ■M O. u U 3 :> V . -H TJ « C O « . J C • tl - U -J a a «ihi(h 4) C "3 m ■«< o ■3 » - a r« ^ 0 a B « " 3 * -3 "2 "s « c c a£ 3 V <-> 0 ■ o < N C 0 £ H 0.0. £ VI 41 3> C £ ~ O £ *•' 6 U *J S H » 3 w a £ O 41 « H £ W <0 7> = " fl O - a 4i > a (i u o 41 •c o u -a > U TJ 11 -I — <-l £ -O itJOiD U £ C -i 41 C O 1 II ~. O — O i-l c -i ao sin an v a 3 < a - £ u a c o •o ■ £ 0 0 *> iJ i-* £ V 0 13 ■<-> 0 41 Vi £ 0 £ -H *l ■- 4) vJ - V £■0 10 1- ~l TJ ■O O C « 41 41 41 £ C = 41 <-i X = £ -4 U) O -i 3 U - 4-108 RENO, NEVADA PUBLIC HEARING TESTIMONY 57. Paul Hartley, District Geologist, Texas Gulf Minerals and Metals Company "Within the South Pequop Wilderness Study Area the north half of Area A posed moderate potential for low-grade phosphate reserves, and high potential for carbonate-hosted lead, zinc and silver deposits throughout the Wilderness Study Area within the middle to late-Paleozoic rocks; moderate to high potential for carbonate-hosted lead, zinc and silver deposits exists within ninety percent of the Bluebell Wilderness Study Area; and moderate potential for low-grade gold systems is also present, but over a much more restricted area, primarily Area B." To the south, within the Goshute Peak Wilderness Study Area there is excellent potential for Alligator Ridge-type gold occurrences — these are low-grade gold deposits — within Areas B and C and moderate to high potential for carbonate-hosted lead, zinc and silver deposts present within the remaining areas to the west." Rose Strickland, Chair, Public Lands Committee of the Sierra Club "In the EIS and draft plan I did read the section in Chapter 3 that has to do with mineral development. There was nothing in there about gold at all identified. I think it was on 3-15. It identified a number of critical or strategic minerals that may be found in the Wells Resource Area and gold was not mentioned." Bob Warren, Executive Secretary, Nevada Mining Association "Now, you have five or six usable and important necessary access roads in the Bluebell WSA; you have at least four according to geologists who have been in and out of the area and reported to me in the South Pequop area; and three not-so-great roads but accessible roads for purposes of prospecting and access for the general public for recreational activities, as well as cattlemen, in the Goshute area." "Now, the Mining Assocition has responded to this, we put together a team of nine of the outstanding geologists or exploration firms in the Reno area. That means they are nine of the outstanding in the nation because we have the top exploration firms and talent now in the United States in the Reno area. And they have further reviewed and added some first-hand on-the-spot information, as you heard earlier from the gentleman who spoke first. And, they have found — reading from our summary of this — the South Pequop area the gem rating is slightly low based upon exploration data by Freeport Exploration and others. They note that the bulk of the mountain range is Paleozoic with favorable stratigraphy pensive (ph) host rocks. And, this is something that has not been given proper attention in the gem report." 72 "But, the Bluebell, as was pointed out, is a high potential for carbon-type disseminated gold mineralization." 4-109 73 69 60 74 75 "The absence of claims is no indicator of lack of mineralization under modern day geologic methods." "You realize that a road merely needs to be a way of egress, in and out, and it doesn't have to be maintained even. According to the Interior Board of Land Appeals it can be maintained merely by driving in and out." "On page 1-3 of your document you indicate that there is a criteria set up for the sale and disposal of public lands, including minerals. But, all of the information that we've received from the federal Administration — and from Congress, as far as that's concerned — indicate that there is no intent whatsoever to sell the minerals." "You pointed out the user day benefits that you estimated might take place under wilderness designation. You did not, and you should quite definitely, point the user day benefits for vehicle-related activity, vehicles related to recreation that would be foregone, or that is presently enjoyed but would be foregone under the wilderness designation." ". . . It states: "Mineral development would not be adversely impacted because of wilderness designation. That is a startling statement, it's a totally uninformed statement. Not only are the mining companies unable to mine the wildernesses, as we all know, but it is virtually impossible because of lawsuits that would be brought by the Natural Resources Defense Council and others and the heavy regulatory costs that would be imposed to mine anywhere near a wilderness." 60. Dave Hornbeck 'This is such a miniscule difference that I do not discern a valid reason 76 for not going with the entire resource protection versus the preferred alternative, especially where. . ." WELLS, NEVADA PUBLIC HEARING TESTIMONY 61. Les McKenzie, Consultant for the N-l District Grazing Board 59 "... cherry-stem roads in two of the areas should have eliminated them from consideration on the basis of size and naturalness." "No mention has been made of the adverse effect wilderness designation would have on persons who utilize motor vehicles to carry them and their belongings into the areas to hunt, gather pinenuts, cut wood, cut 74 Christmas trees, observe wildlife, study nature, look at fossils or carry out other recreational pursuits, for which the use of the motor vehicle is incidental but necessary for transportation. These are evidently the 1,750 days of existing use shown on page 3-20 of the report." 77 "There is, by the way, a considerable difference between the estimated visitor use days shown on this document and those contained in the management situation analysis." 4-110 "I feel that your categorization process was faulty. There was no consultation with the affected livestock operators in the assignment of categories, and the most important criteria of all, range condition, range trend, watershed condition and climax potential, were all lumped into one simple catch-all factor." "... using the three to five year average license livestock use figure as a basis of comparing existing allotments and reliable grazing levels with levels anticipated under the various alternatives, is misleading." "A case in point is the adoption of the procedures specified in the western states sagebrush guidelines as the criteria to be followed for in the alteration of sagebrush areas. Recent research findings indicate that these guidelines may be overly restrictive and suggest that some sagebrush modification may actually be beneficial to sage grouse." "... the reasonable wildlife numbers indicated in the appendix are not really realistic. If these are the numbers Nevada Department of Wildlife gave you, they should be thoroughly reviewed. The doubling of wildlife numbers in this area is absolutely not realistic." Von Sorensen, Rancher "I feel that these designated study areas are not truly representative of wilderness criteria. They are traversed by various roads that we have used and maintained over the years." Dick Roth, Flying S Land and Cattle "We consider the three to five year projected use as arbitrary and unscientific in that it just lumps what has been over the past for all the ranches, without consideration for any individual ranch." 64. Marta Agee , Twin Meadows Ranch ". . . we feel that the Bad Lands area has real problems for potential wilderness. Mainly, it is a small area, there's not many acres involved, and the strip through the middle that is really ideal for wilderness is so very narrow and small, you could put very few people in there to adequately have a really worthwhile wilderness experience. We've boated that river. There are two or three camping places where you can spend the night, and if you make that a wilderness area where there are only three or four ideal camping sports, you can't manage with that few of a — with those few of camping spots, adequately from an Elko office, to staff it out there. It just seems totally impractical." ". . .if you add more people to make it wilderness, then you add the bighorn sheep, you're practically adding two uses that are going to conflict." "The Bad Lands area is a prime wintering area for deer. So, if you add your bighorn sheep into that you're going to probably lose some of your prime winter habitat for your deer." 61 In one part of the document we refer to the streams along the wilderness area, downstream from our place, the Twin Meadows Ranch, down to the 4-111 61 51 84 85 Boies Ranches, and that's described as having some of the finest habitat — streamside habitat — in the state. If you look to your maps, you'll see a conflict immediately. It is listed as being poor. It can't be both, and yet in the document it is described as both." "The suggestion in the document that existing fencing should be modified for wildlife uses seems really rather — like an impractical use of very limited improvement money. We feel that what fencing is out there, let's use it like it is and change the standards for new fencing." o I "• . . I am appalled at the wildlife figures where they are projected to triple and quadruple wildlife." 65. Steven Boies, Boies Ranches •j "Another concern is the miles of proposed fencing and most important, who I will maintain those fences." "I question the statistics cited for the Salmon Falls, O'Neil Area. On page A3-2, titled big game numbers, existing numbers are listed at 6,900. You have listed a reasonable number at 19,700 deer. I feel this reasonable figure of 19,700 is highly inflated due to the scarceness of suitable deer winter range." Demar H. Dahl, Rancher "Suspended non-use, or those areas temporarily suspended for one reason or another, but always there with the promise of being activated some day are not mentioned in the Wells draft. More serious than the deletion of the suspended non-use, however, is the Bureau's replacement of active preference with the three to five year average use." 6 7. Dale Messner, Salmon River Cattlemen's Association Member "I do feel like some of the others have said, in their doubling and tripling of wildlife, they are expecting — they're giving wildlife an unfair advantage of which there is not enough winter range. . ." 6 8. Robert Watt, Salmon River Cattlemen's Association Member "In the economic impact of Elko county, it is not considered very well in this EIS at all, except on a per capita personal income, and since livestock only represents 6 percent, it's considered almost 83 insignificant. I don't think that is true because through the expenses that are expended through the livestock industry and multiplied and rippled through the economy, not only in southern Idaho but throughout the Wells RA and Elko county, it has a considerable impact." "These costs represented in here were quite misleading, and I've got a few incidences in here, but basically on this whole problem, price makes the big differential, and if you put 1982 prices and use the same cost on this figure, you'd come out with approximately a $9 loss no matter what you do. . ." "Although in this statement, the economic factors involved show that we made $25 a head in one statement, and $70 in the other, per thousand cow 4-112 85 62 51 herd. Now, any banker that has been with the ranchers the last three or four years knows that some of these factors are not quite true. . ." "You've got a decrease of $54,000 for no action taken. Under maximum production the $572,900 per year loss you had under the medium range in preferred. You have almost the identical reverse increase. I think these are quite capritious numbers. That's an 80 percent increase over present. 1 don't believe those are going to happen over the short-range terra." "In UniversLty of Idaho studies, they utilized where - increased migration areas where they used smooth wire fence on the bottom 18 inches, they found that you could decrease your cost by using only this in migration areas where it was known that animals such as antelope and deer trends — mainly antelope is what we're dealing with with the smooth wire." 63 "• • • Red Band Trout is nothing more than a small mutant trout. 69. Ray Bedke, Rancher "Also, the off-road vehicles. I feel that these need to be coralled into certain areas, perferably not Goose Creek because they create so much of a — oh, I'm trying to say — washes and gullies and all of these things so readily. . ." "Our operations are geared around those meadows and if we don't get them out, those cattle off those meadows to where we can raise the winter forage, we're through anyway, and June 1 is not the time to go out, or even May 15th." "I was a little concerned about the numbers of wildlife that is projected for our area. I don't feel that this is realistic inasmuch as the critical area for those animals is the winter range. . ." 70. 51 Walter Winchell, Rancher "This three to five year average, I don't think is a fair way to figure licensing. . ." "In one area I have, it's considered critical to deer and antelope range, And if you take your criteria you showed in the book for deer and antelope and throw those two fences together, you've got a fence a maximum of 38 inches high, and it's got to be at least 16 Inches off the ground, and essentially all you got is a little bit of fence there left. You haven't got anything, essentially, to turn cow anymore. . ." 71. Craig Spratling, Rancher g. "One of my main concerns is your livestock grazing based on a three to I five year use." "Another thing I'd like to mention is the increase in the big game. I think these figures are quite unrealistic under the doubling of the mule deer population and the quadrupling of the antelope numbers." 4-113 51 "Another area I'd like to mention is these new fencing standards. I totally disagree with them. I agree with the last speaker; if you have our ranges and antelope and deer range together, and if you have a fence 16 inches off the ground and only 38 inches high, that sure isn't going to do it." "The last topic I'd like to mention is that vegetation manipulation would have to be done according to the western states sage grouse guidelines, and also in cooperation with the Nevada Department of Wildlife. I think these guidelines are way out of line." 7 2 . Loyd Sorensen^ Rancher 69 "Now, coining to wilderness. We have very few areas in the Wells resource area that would fit the wilderness criteria that they set up, and in order to get by with the acreage, you had to cherry-stem these mountains to get the acreage that was required for a wilderness area." 7 3. Herbert Uhlig, Rancher "As I understand, when this program was to be taken into study — I can't recollect, but I think a letter was sent out to each permittee stating that representatives will come and make this study and they will contact each permittee to discuss things with him about the methods that they use. I wish to state here tonight that that — on my part, it's never been done." 4-114 CHAPTER 5 REFERENCES CHAPTER 5 REFERENCES Behnke, R.J. 1979. Redband trout, Salnp Newberryi. Monograph of the Native Trouts of the Genus Salroo of Western North America. Punded by USCA, USFS; USDI, USFWS, BLM. pp. 124-137. Feist, J.D. 1971. Behavior of Feral Horses in the Pryor Mountain Wild Horse Range. M.S. Thesis, University of Michigan. 129pp Pelllgrini, S.W. 1971. Home Range, Territoriality and Movement Patterns of Wild Horses in the Wassuk Range of Western Nevada. M.S. Thesis, University of Nevada, Reno. 39pp. Platts, W.S. 1982f. Livestock and Riparian — Fishery Interactions: What Are the Facts? Transactions of the 47th North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference. Wildlife Management Institute. Washington, D.C. pp. 507-515. Spillett, Juan J. , Jessop B. Low and David Sill. 1967. Livestock Fences — How They Influence Pronghorn Antelope Movements. Utah State University, Agricultural Experiment Station, Bulletin 470, p. 79. 5-1 APPENDICES 1 THROUGH 7 PREFACE Table A-l is included as updated information to Table 2-1 of the DEIS. Table A- 2 is included as updated and revised information to Appendix Table A3-1 of the DEIS. Tables A3-A6 are included in response to comments requesting additional clarification of range information. Table A- 7 shows the final ranch budgets which update the draft budgets in Table A5-1 of the DEIS. S M S M H| £ r. M CJ M M •* 4 N C vC m K ctv m . — i o* n m -j- co in o m n m -j H^ 1^ 00 <$ vC \D Oi -h nX) v£> oc vc m ^O-cNimcNj,— i — iCNiommoc-i^c .P T1 3J o n n m m o po 00 CN CN CX. 1-^. CNJ CNJ in \D on -h m lo m * m O N VD CM o r-. ^o in d-'-HOinr^oQcMr--oo HCOenCTveneMSNC^voOrHrHln v£> O «* I — NvJin'HONCMCMCOvO^ cMenoooNvO'-HcncMenr-~c3>OLn '"O-CMOOr^-O-vDCM^ 5 00 en«in«jN^mo\ oe^cOHHTOinai a* ejvOintNt^ooCiinoo •0 in in en S3 en CM s rN m vD in m O 3 in CM S CM CN CO s IN en en- i i O O c^ m ,__, en oo i-^ 1^ o> IN m g) 00 CM oc in enejNCMen— H in , — i CM CO CM c s C I l nc in in - ro m CO \o CM r-~ in ON m o^ 00 in ^D CO m m oT in o O oc CO a oc £8 oc CM ON r^ On * CO -cr CM 00 o o o| CM ^o in 0) O Q on vn cm 4-) oc in nD A- 3 umSuumsjsusSmSohuI *•§ LnocomocooNOOcMmoooNv©<»-^ocM 3fc co cm on m oc -h ^ m r^-d-vCOCOOCO.— iQ^h OinnoNCMN\oo5m -d-tn-Hcsiooo^HCMON^o as on o! cm ± i — i m m O 00 CM CO 00 O on4cooinHHOooM)oo40*ino O CM o on §s co -h o C ro m -*j0 o 88 #8 &£*£&& SBS 2£ A- 6 g§88S32| g 8 Pg8gg88£ 88831 CO CM o o 82 I o o O Q o o SSI 5S moo mm CM 00 00 ^8^S O -i Q ~h 8ooS8m88 OOOCMOOOr^QOOOin ^t -h ^i n rsi oo -h o vc ro cm cm cm _i ^h CO ro CO co CO ro CO CO CO ro CO CO CO ro ro ro -^ "v. <_: O C ) CO CO CM O O C 3 n O O O C*> CO CO CO CI O CJ CI ± 1 J^ J^ jL, *f J^ J^ 2 ^ J^ J^ J^ J^ _L J, _L J^ J^ ococooooococoooooooooo oo in co m ci m m 88$tn883883&888888::&88 #8 PQ t3 II £3 B 55 co —i .— i cm ro i^mmam^ 1 iTfVS^ii A- 7 m in In oo s» co co co co co — *•-». W "«^. co co o o o JL, JL, X X X o o o o o — . "*■». -^ --». -^. — < —i St st st co co co co co co co co co CMCSICOCOOOCMCOCM OOOOOOCOO ^ --^. --^ -»^. ■--. ^ -— . — -^ cococococococococo "~^ *-»* •^ *■■». "»^ ^»» ■■■>». ' — *^» CMOOCOCMOOCOCO XXX xXXX x x ooooooooo — 'StSt-H— 'stst-H— i £8888^ 828^8 m vp ii i i i i T i T i nm *H A-8 II in OiAOin 00 lO sal sste eg \o - fO . c a. re a> E . re CD O > CDr— CD rO T3 "^ S C +-> CO fO c CD (T3 SI CI) ,-. CD E s- a> c QH 76.5 .N3 W444 1984 c.2 Wells Resource Area Nevada. Proposed Resource Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact BLM LIBRARY RS150ABLDG. 50 DENVER FEDERAL CENTER P.O. BOX 25047 DENVER, CO 80225