Elko County
Public Land Use & Natural Resource
Management Plan
2010
0
2010 Elko County
Public Land Use & Natural Resource
Management Plan
Executive Summary:
The Elko County Public Land Use and Natural Resource Management Plan was created in the
effort to maintain and promote traditional multiple uses in unison with conservation measures of
publicly managed lands within Elko County. The directives of the plan are intended to promote
active progressive leadership from all levels of our local, state and federal land management
agencies. The directives provide directions in developing and improving cooperative
relationships between federal public land management and local government and its citizens. The
directives also provide insight to help maintain existing uses and establish diversified multiple
uses of Elko County’s federally managed public lands. Promotion and implementation of
education plans are the keys for the users of our public lands as well as the federal land
management agencies to cohesively work for continued and expanding multiple uses and
conservation.
The plan addresses conservation, preservation and land stewardship that has been the custom and
culture of the citizens of Elko County for much of man’s existence in the west. The plan offers
detailed history and current science related to the local area conservation and preservation
measures, policies and methods implemented by many ranchers, mining operations, recreationist
and the general public. The plan also addresses regional and local economics and economic
diversity. The plan identifies the need for the development of cooperative agreements and active
progressive planning on all levels of public land management to provide the diversity that our
economy will require to continue to expand and sustain current levels. It also directs the need to
revitalize and expand historical uses that prove to be beneficial to the public lands and requires
the re-evaluation of current policies that promote and encourage prohibition of multiple uses on
public lands.
The Elko County Public Land Use and Natural Resource Management Plan is a directive to
consider changes to the federal economic and extreme conservation philosophies and policies
that infringe and damage’s local and regional economies. The federal land management
agencies, in coordination with local government must initiate a progressive planning effort for
the full realization of multiple uses and natural resources on federally managed public lands
within Elko County. The implementation and continual review of this plan will preserve Elko
County’s rich history, culture and heritage as well as identify and develop economic potential
opportunities. In consideration of its vast resources, it is foreseeable that Elko County could
serve as a model for all rural America.
i
2010 Elko County
Public Land Use & Natural Resource
Management Plan
ELKO COUNTY APPROVALS:
The Elko County Public Land Use and Natural Resource Management Plan has been developed
from a culmination of several public workshops and hearings as per N.R.S. 371 and 278, under
the direction of the Elko County Board of Commissioners and the Elko County Natural Resource
Management Advisory Commission.
ELKO COUNTY NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ADVISORY COMMISSION
The Elko County Public Land Use and Natural Resource Management Plan is formally approved
and adopted by the Elko County Natural Resource Management Advisory Commission, on this
the _____________ day of _______________________, 2010.
__________________________________________
Craig Spratling, Chairman
__________________________________________
Witness: Scott R. Brown
ELKO COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
The Elko County Public Land Use and Natural Resource Management Plan is formally approved
and adopted by the Elko County Board of Commissioners, on this the _____________ day of
_______________________, 2010.
__________________________________________
Charlie Myers, Chairman
__________________________________________
Attest:
ii
2010 Elko County
Public Land Use & Natural Resource
Management Plan
INDEX
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................... i
ELKO COUNTY APPROVAL ............................................................................................................. ii
INDEX ............................................................................................................................................. iii
APPENDIX....................................................................................................................................... vi
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................. vii
I. PLAN BACKGROUND ....................................................................................................................1
Location ....................................................................................................................................1
Land Ownership ......................................................................................................................2
Climate .....................................................................................................................................4
Population.................................................................................................................................4
II. PLAN PURPOSE ...........................................................................................................................5
III. PUBLIC LAND USE MANAGEMENT PLAN GOALS .....................................................................6
IV. PUBLIC LAND USE AND NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLANNING PROCESS ..............8
V. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................9
VI. PUBLIC LANDS & RECREATION ..............................................................................................13
VII. WILDERNESS .........................................................................................................................16
VIII. ECONOMIC & SOCIO ECONOMIC ACTIVITIES ....................................................................17
Cattle, Sheep, Livestock and the Farming Sector ..................................................................19
Historic Trends in Livestock Production................................................................................20
Livestock Economics .............................................................................................................21
Humboldt – Toiyabe National Forest .....................................................................................22
Basic Concepts of County Economics and Income and Employment Multipliers ................23
Economic Importance of Public Lands Grazing in Elko County ...........................................25
Impact of Federal Grazing on Ranch Production ...................................................................26
IX. RANGE AND GRAZING MANAGEMENT ...................................................................................27
X. FEDERAL LAND POLICIES AND THE IMPACTS ON PUBLIC LAND USES ...................................29
ENVIRONMENTAL, HISTORICAL, & CULTURAL FINDINGS ...................................................29
History of fire in the Great Basin ...........................................................................................29
Allen Savory, Steve Rich and the Testimony of Jedediah Smith ................................29
History of vegetative cover in northern Nevada ....................................................................30
History of affects of livestock grazing in Nevada ..................................................................31
iii
2010 Elko County
Public Land Use & Natural Resource
Management Plan
The Yager Journal........................................................................................................31
Lewis and Clark, Peter Skeen Ogden and John Work .................................................32
Spanish Colonization in California .............................................................................32
Customs, Culture, Settlement and Predator Control ..............................................................34
History of mule deer in the Great Basin .................................................................................36
History of Bighorn Sheep in Nevada .....................................................................................37
History of Sage Grouse within the Great Basin .....................................................................38
History of bitter-brush, then and now ....................................................................................39
Affects of wildfire on Nevada bitterbrush communities and mule deer populations .............40
Significance of private land stewardship and ownership .......................................................40
Necessity of solar reception on plant life ...............................................................................41
Historical affects of grazing on riparian areas ........................................................................41
The Starkey Experimental Studies ...............................................................................42
Recently acquired scientific data and knowledge concerning grazing...................................42
Potential negative impacts causing reductions in water shed production and flow ...............43
Value of removing or scarifying mature vegetative cover .....................................................43
Significance of grazing impact on sage grouse production ....................................................44
History of western settlement .................................................................................................45
History of the recording of claims of road right of ways and easements ...............................45
Value of road right of ways and easements ............................................................................47
Value of road right of ways and easements to certain wildlife ..............................................47
History and effects of off road ATV/ OHV traffic .................................................................48
Value of road right of ways and easements and livestock grazing ........................................48
Federal Land Management practices and policies concerning wildfire .................................48
Necessity of seeding crested wheat grass to areas which are burnt by wildfire .....................49
History of cheat grass and the effect cheat grass has had on wildfire ....................................49
Local volunteer fire fighters ...................................................................................................50
Importance of the right of the home and property owner to fight wildfire ............................51
Quick Response is imperative to the success when fighting wildfire ....................................52
All fires must be exterminated when conditions are right suppression ..................................52
Right of due process, Federal Administrative Procedures Act ..............................................52
XI. FEDERAL LAND POLICIES AND THE ECONOMY OF ELKO COUNTY ......................................53
General ...................................................................................................................................53
Tourism & Recreation ............................................................................................................55
Mining ....................................................................................................................................56
Agriculture..............................................................................................................................58
XII. PUBLIC LAND USE DIRECTIVE STATEMENTS .......................................................................61
Planning Directives ................................................................................................................61
Directive 1 – Agency Coordination and Local Voice ...............................................61
iv
2010 Elko County
Public Land Use & Natural Resource
Management Plan
Directive 2 – Management of Public Lands .............................................................62
Directive 3 – Federally managed Public Land Transactions ....................................64
Directive 4 – Custom and Culture ............................................................................68
Directive 5 – Community Stability ...........................................................................68
Directive 6 – Public Safety .......................................................................................70
Directive 7 – Agriculture and Livestock Production ................................................71
Directive 8 – Noxious Weeds and Invasive Species .................................................73
Directive 9 – Air Quality ..........................................................................................76
Directive 10 – Cultural Resources ............................................................................76
Directive 11 – Forestry and Forest Products.............................................................79
Directive 12 – Water Resources ...............................................................................80
Directive 13 – Wetlands, Riparian Habitat and Waters of the United States ...........80
Directive 14 – Mineral Resources.............................................................................81
Directive 15 – Public Land Access ...........................................................................83
Directive 16 – Recreation and Open Space ..............................................................85
Directive 17 – Wilderness & Wilderness Study Areas .............................................88
Directive 18 – Wild & Feral Horses .........................................................................89
Directive 19 – Wildlife & Wildlife Habitat ..............................................................91
Directive 20 – Fire Management ..............................................................................93
Directive 21 – Military Operations ...........................................................................94
Directive 22 – Energy Production.............................................................................94
Directive 23 – Habitat Conservation Planning .........................................................95
Directive 24 – Off Highway Vehicles (ATV/OHVs) ...............................................95
Directive 25 – Federally Managed Public Lands Planning ......................................98
XII. SUMMARY STATEMENTS ....................................................................................................101
INDEX OF FIGURES & TABLES:
FIGURE 1 – LOCATION MAPS .....................................................................................................1
FIGURE 2 – ELKO COUNTY LAND STATUS .................................................................................3
FIGURE 3 – OVERVIEW OF COMMUNITY ECONOMIC SYSTEM ..................................................24
FIGURE 4 – GRAZING ALLOTMENTS ........................................................................................28
FIGURE 5 – WEED SPECIES .....................................................................................................72
TABLE 1 – ELKO COUNTY LAND STATUS ACRES ......................................................................4
TABLE 2 – WILDERNESS STUDY AREAS (ACRES) .....................................................................17
TABLE 3 – TOP TWENTY ECONOMIC SECTORS BY VALUES .....................................................18
TABLE 4 – TOP TWENTY ECONOMIC SECTORS BY EMPLOYMENT ............................................19
TABLE 5 – AGRICULTURE & LIVESTOCK .................................................................................20
TABLE 6 – MAJOR CROPS AND LIVESTOCK PRODUCTION ........................................................20
TABLE 7 – PERMITTED ANIMAL UNIT MONTHS IN ELKO COUNTY, 2006.................................25
TABLE 8 – ECONOMIC IMPACT OF FEDERAL LIVESTOCK GRAZING IN ELKO COUNTY .............26
v
2010 Elko County
Public Land Use & Natural Resource
Management Plan
APPENDIX
APPENDIX A – FINDINGS OF FACTS, HISTORICAL, SCIENTIFIC AND ECONOMIC ANALYSIS BY:
RURAL HERITAGE PRESERVATION PROJECT - 10/10/10 .......................................................... A1
RURAL HERITAGE PROJECT, Mr. Cliff Gardner and Mr. Floyd Rathbun, CRMC – Great Basin
Consulting
APPENDIX B – ANALYSIS OF IMPACTS OF PUBLIC LAND GRAZING ON THE ELKO COUNTY
ECONOMY - 03/01/07 ............................................................................................................. B1
Dr. Jonathan Alevy, Ms. Elizabeth Fadali and Dr. Thomas R. Harris – University of Nevada
Reno
APPENDIX C – TECHNICAL REPORT UCED ANALYSIS OF IMPACTS OF PUBLIC GRAZING OF
PUBLIC LAND GRAZING ON THE ELKO COUNTY ECONOMY: PART VII: / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
OF FEDERAL GRAZING IN ELKO COUNTY, JARBIDGE AND MOUNTAIN CITY RANGER DISTRICTS
- 07/11/06............................................................................................................................... C1
Dr. Jonathan Alevy, Ms. Elizabeth Fadali and Dr. Thomas R. Harris – University of Nevada
Reno
APPENDIX D – TECHNICAL REPORT UCED ESTIMATED ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF THE CATTLE
RANCHING AND FARMING SECTOR ON THE ELKO COUNTY ECONOMY - 06/26/05 .................. D1
Ms. Elizabeth Fadali and Dr. Thomas R. Harris – University of Nevada Reno
APPENDIX E – THE IMPACT OF FEDERAL LAND POLICIES ON THE ECONOMY OF ELKO COUNTY
NEVADA - 07/30/ 94 – 11/15/10 ............................................................................................. E1
Dr. George F. Leaming, Ph. D., Western Economic Analysis Center
APPENDIX F – WRITTEN TESTIMONY OF DR. TONY LESPERANCE – 10/08/ 10 AND INSTREAM
FLOW FACTORS AFFECTING DOWNSTREAM USE .................................................................... F1
Dr. Tony Lesperance, Director Nevada Department of Agriculture
APPENDIX G – TRANSCRIBED TESTIMONY AND DOCUMENTATION TRAVEL MANAGEMENT
COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING OF NOVEMBER 8TH, 2010 ........................................................ G1
APPENDIX H – TRANSCRIBED TESTIMONY AND DOCUMENTATION TRAVEL MANAGEMENT
COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING OF DECEMBER 8TH, 2010.........................................................H1
APPENDIX I – OTHER DOCUMENTS AND RESOLUTIONS OF SUPPORT 2010 ............................. I1
APPENDIX J – ELKO COUNTY GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM MAPPING – 11/15/10 ..... J1
Mr. Jeff Secord, Elko County GIS Department
vi
2010 Elko County
Public Land Use & Natural Resource
Management Plan
REFERENCES
Findings of Facts – Historical, Scientific and Economic Analysis 2008-2009 By: RURAL
HERITAGE PROJECT, Mr. Cliff Gardner and Mr. Floyd Rathbun, CRMC – Great Basin
Consulting
Analysis of Impacts of Public Land Grazing on the Elko County Economy 2006 By: Dr.
Jonathan Alevy, Ms. Elizabeth Fadali and Dr. Thomas R. Harris – University of Nevada
Reno
Technical Report UCED Analysis of Impacts of Public Grazing of Public Land Grazing on
the Elko County Economy: Part VII: / Economic Impacts of Federal Grazing in Elko
County, Jarbidge and Mountain City Ranger Districts. 2006 By: Dr. Jonathan Alevy, Ms.
Elizabeth Fadali and Dr. Thomas R. Harris – University of Nevada Reno.
The Impact of Federal Land Policies on the Economy of Elko County Nevada 1994 & 2010
By: Dr. George F. Leaming, Ph. D., Western Economic Analysis Center
2010 Population Projections and Estimates By: Mr. Jeff Hardcastle, State of Nevada
Demographer.
Nevada Division of State Lands - 2008 Elko County Public Lands Policy Plan– Mr. Skip
Canfield
United States Department of the Interior – 2009 Bureau of Land Management
United States Department of Agriculture – 2009 United States Forest Service
United States – 2009 Department of Fish and Wildlife Service
Nevada Division of Wildlife 2009 – Director Kenneth Mayer
State of Nevada Wildlife Board of Wildlife Commissioners 2010 – Chairman Scott Raine
Nevada Department of Agriculture, 2010 Dr. Tony Lesperance
Pioneering the West, Howard Egan’s Diary 1917 By: Howard Eagan
Report of Explorations across the Great Basin of the Territory of Utah For a Direct WagonRoute From Camp Floyd To Genoa, In Carson Valley 1813 – 1883 Re-published 2005 By:
Capt. James Simpson
Northeast Nevada Frontier 1991 By: Edna B. Patterson
vii
2010 Elko County
Public Land Use & Natural Resource
Management Plan
Nevada Cattlemen’s Association 2010
When and if it Rains 1938 By: F.E. Mollin, Secretary American National Live Stock
Association
The Yager Journal 1862 By: James Yager
Lewis and Clark, Peter Skeen Ogden and John Work Journals
Old Spanish Trail 1824 -1825 By: Leroy R. Hafen and Ann W. Hafen
The Humboldt, highroad of the west 1943 By: Dale L. Morgan
Fremont, Explorer for a Restless Nation 1977 By: Ferol Egan
Peter Skene Ogden's Snake Country Journals 1824 -1825 By: Peter Skene Ogden
Division of Wildlife Comprehensive Mountain Lion Management Plan, 1995
Beltran: Basque Sheepman of the American West 1979 By: Beltran Paris
For a Railroad Route South of the 40th Parallel) (Report Of Explorations Across The Great
Basin of the Territory of Utah For A Direct Wagon-Route From Camp Floyd To Genoa, In
The Carson Valley 1853 By: Report by E.G. Beckwith
UNITED STATES v. 9,947.71 ACRES OF LAND Federal District Judge, Honorable
Peirson M. Hall
The Butler mss., 1835-1937, includes papers, 1877-1937, of Amos William Butler, 1860-1937,
zoologist, anthropologist, and sociologist, and a few papers, 1835-1871, of his father, William
Wallace Butler, 1810-1903 By: Robert Ridgway and Julian Steward
Vegetative Stagnation in Three Phase Big Game Enclosures 2009 By: Paul T. Tueller and
Jerald D. Tower
The Starkey Studies 1982 – 2006 By: Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife and United
States Department of Agriculture.
Elko County Open Space Plan 2007 By: Elko County Planning Commission and Elko
County Board of Commissioners.
Elko County Geographic Information System 2010 – Mr. Jeff Secord
viii
2010 Elko County
Public Land Use & Natural Resource
Management Plan
I.
PLAN BACKGROUND
Location
Elko County is at a crossroads geographically between Reno, Boise and Salt Lake City.
Nearly 52,000 people live in its 17,181 square miles. Elko is the fourth largest county in
the lower forty-eight states, as big as five of the New England states plus the District of
Columbia. The county enjoys a diversified economy built on mining, ranching,
recreation and tourism. One of Nevada’s most scenic areas, it offers outdoor
enthusiasts opportunities to camp, hike, fish and hunt surrounded by beautiful high
desert and mountain vistas. In addition, it has much to offer businesses seeking a
central location among the Western states with ample natural resources.
Figure 1 – Location Maps
-1-
2010 Elko County
Public Land Use & Natural Resource
Management Plan
Pilot Peak
Nevada is a state that is comprised predominately of federally managed public lands.
Approximately 86.5% of all lands in the state are under the jurisdiction of federal
agencies with the majority percentage under Bureau of Land Management (BLM)
jurisdiction. The US Forest Service is secondary, followed by the Department of
Defense, National Park Service, US Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Indian Affairs
and Bureau of Reclamation. Additional lands are managed by the State of Nevada.
This land ownership pattern leaves very few areas under private control for economic
development and community expansion. Elko County is no exception to this land use
pattern. Since most of the county is under federal management, 72.7%, little private
land exists for community expansion.
Land Ownership
Of Elko County’s 10,995,840 acres, 72.7+/- percent is administrated by the federal
government. Another approximately 164,937 acres, 1.5 percent is sovereign tribal
lands. The Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest approximately 1,200,000 acres, 11
percent, including 243,000 acres of Wilderness area in the Jarbidge, East Humboldt and
Ruby Mountain ranges is administered by the U.S. Forest Service. Most of the
remaining lands are administrated by the Bureau of Land Management, approximately
6,629,000 acres, 60 percent. The BLM Elko District Office, along with the Tuscarora
-2-
2010 Elko County
Public Land Use & Natural Resource
Management Plan
and Wells Field Offices, administers a majority of public lands in the County while the
Twin Falls District, Jarbidge Field Office, administers a small portion near Jarbidge. US
Forest Service lands in the county include the Ruby, Mountain City and Jarbidge Ranger
Districts. The Ruby Valley National Wildlife Refuge is administered by the US Fish and
Wildlife Service. The BLM and the County have identified many federal land parcels
needed to meet county or community needs. Additional lands have been identified that
would enhance economic development, if made available for purchase by the private
sector. Appendix A describes the specific BLM parcels identified by the county for
acquisition.
Figure 2 - Elko County Land Status
-3-
2010 Elko County
Public Land Use & Natural Resource
Management Plan
Table 1 – Elko County Land Status Acreage
Land Area
Acres
Land Area in Percent
7,997,339
6,882,161
1,073,143
26,872
15,163
72.7
62.6
9.8
0.2
0.1
Tribal
160,823
1.5
State
15,241
0.1
2,822,437
25.7
10,995,840
100.0
Lands Administered by Federal Agencies (1)
BLM (2)
Forest Service
Fish and Wildlife Service
Department of Defense
Local Government/Private
Total Acres
Source: BLM 2007, (1) of this total number Wilderness comprises 206,266 acres and Wilderness Study Areas
comprise 268,346 acres. (2)This figure includes lands administered by BLM Twin Falls Idaho District (45,850 acres)
Climate:
Elko County’s annual precipitation is influenced by elevation and averages 10 inches.
March to May is the wettest period with one and one-half inches of precipitation per
month. August and September are the driest months, averaging 0.47 inches per
month. Temperature, on the average, ranges between 13 and 37 in January to a range
from 50 to 91 degrees in July.
Population:
Elko County’s 2009 total population estimate was 51,325 persons while individual
community populations are as follows:
County Population
Year
Population
2009
Population within the Cities of Elko County
Carlin
2,435
51,325
City of Elko
18,428
2008
50,561
Jackpot
1,184
2007
50,434
Montello
167
2006
44,462
Mountain City
121
2005
43,415
Wells
1,515
West Wendover
4,945
Source: State of Nevada Demographer, 2010
-4-
2010 Elko County
Public Land Use & Natural Resource
Management Plan
II.
PUBLIC LAND USE AND NATURAL RESOURCE MANGEMENT PLAN
PURPOSE:
The initial Elko County Public Lands Policy Plan (Plan) was developed between 1983 and
1984 as part of a state-wide effort resulting from the passage of Senate Bill 40. Under
SB40, the State Land Use Planning Agency section of the Nevada Division of State
Lands (SLUPA) was directed by the 1983 State Legislature to:

“Prepare, in cooperation and/or coordination with appropriate state agencies and
local governments throughout the state, plans or policy statements concerning
the use of federally managed public lands in Nevada which are under federal
management.”

The 2008 Public Lands Policy Plan, by this document is revised to be the 2010
Elko County Public Lands Use and Natural Resource Management Plan. The Plan
is written to provide Elko County, and federal public land management agencies
guiding directives to future multiple use principles on public lands in the county.
SLUPA, in concert with local governments, developed a public lands policy plan for each
of Nevada’s 17 counties as well as a statewide element. The 2008 Plan represents a
review of existing and emerging public lands issues that are of importance to Elko
County as it coordinates with federal agencies under the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA), the Federal Land Planning Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA) and other
public processes.
The 2010 Public Land Use and Natural Resource Management Plan provides specific and
pertinent information concerning the federal management of public lands. The
Directives are the direct policy of the Elko County Natural Resource Management
Advisory Commission and the Elko County Board of Commissioners. The Directives are
to provide a direction to the Federal Public Lands Manager in the preparation of
Resource Management, Travel Management and any other public land management
plan development as per Section 202(c)(9) of the Federal Land Policy and Management
Act (FLPMA) and 36 CFR Part 219.
BLM completed two land use plans that cover the Elko District, the 1985 Wells Resource
Management plan (RMP) and the 1987 Elko RMP. Since these plans were originally
approved, they have been amended for fire, elk and wild horse management. BLM has
tentatively scheduled consolidation and revision of the RMPs beginning in 2010.
Revision of the Jarbidge RMP for small portions of northern Elko County administered
by the Idaho BLM, Twin Falls District, is currently underway. The US Forest Service
also has Forest Plans in effect for lands they administer. The Humboldt-Toiyabe
National Forest, Mountain City, Jarbidge and Ruby Mountain Travel Management Plan
-5-
2010 Elko County
Public Land Use & Natural Resource
Management Plan
(TMP) is intended to provide information to the public on current road status and travel
information within the National Forest.
III.
PUBLIC LAND USE MANAGEMENT PLAN GOALS:

Detail Elko County’s vision and strong directive voice concerning the
management of federally managed public lands.

Define Elko County’s public land related issues and needs.

Provide a locally developed land management direction that enables the federal
land management agencies to better understand and respond in a positive
fashion to the concerns and needs of Elko County in a collaborative process.

Increase the role Elko County has in determining the management of the
federally managed public lands.

Provide an opportunity to positively address federal land use management issues
directly and thereby offer a proactive alternative rather than an after-the-fact
response.

Ensure and maintain all methods of public access, travel and multiple uses of
federally managed public lands.

Ensure that federal land management agencies do not utilize public land use
prohibitions as a method of management.

Ensure that federal land management agencies utilize methods of education and
guidance to encourage and maintain public lands stewardship.

Encourage public comment, involvement and education.
Within the Plan are descriptions of issues and opportunities relating to public lands and
how best to work collaboratively and cooperatively with the federal planning partners,
most notably Bureau of Land Management (BLM), US Forest Service (USFS), and the
Bureau of Indian Affairs.

The Plan enables the federal land management agencies to better understand
and respond to the concerns and needs of Elko County.

Planning by Nevada’s local, state and federal governments, effective
communication and coordination by Nevada’s governments, in cooperation with
-6-
2010 Elko County
Public Land Use & Natural Resource
Management Plan
its citizens, can establish a set of directives for the proper use of these lands and
to take advantage of the “consistency” language in Section 202(c)(9) of the
Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA).

Section 202(c)(9) governs BLM Planning and directs the BLM to give
consideration to appropriate state, local, and tribal lands in the development of
land use plans for federal lands.

36 CFR Part 219 governs USFS Planning and directs the USFS to give
consideration to appropriate state, local, and tribal lands history, customs,
culture and economics in the development of land use plans for federal lands.

The BLM and USFS are to provide for meaningful and documented public
involvement of state and local government officials in the development of land
use plans, regulations and decisions for federal lands.

The BLM and USFS will review each proposed Resource Management Plan (RMP)
and proposed federal action for consistency with the Elko County Public Land Use
Management Plan and will attempt to make the RMPs, TMPs and proposed
actions compatible with the Plan to the extent that the Secretary of the Interior
finds consistent with federal law and the purpose of FLPMA.
Bureau of Land Management and Forest Service Regulations for Land Management
Planning and for implementing the National Environmental Directive Act (NEPA)
requires that the BLM and USFS Service determine the consistency of any project
proposal with state and/or local laws and plans.

The agencies are required to describe any inconsistencies and the extent to
which the agency would reconcile its proposal with the state/local laws and
plans.
This consistency review is also provided for by the Council of
Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations (40 CFR 1506.2(d)) developed to
implement NEPA.
-7-
2010 Elko County
Public Land Use & Natural Resource
Management Plan
IV.
PLANNING PROCESS
The following is a summary of the process followed to adopt the 2008 Plan:

The PLUAC reviewed existing policies and issues with the assistance of the State
Land Use Planning Agency in 2006 and early 2007 during publicly noticed
meetings in Elko.

The Draft Plan was presented at the January 23, 2008 PLUAC meeting in Elko.
The PLUAC held an official public review meeting and recommended approval of
the Plan.

The Planning Commission held two public hearings on July 17, 2008 and August
21, 2008 and recommended approval of the Plan to the Elko County Board of
Commissioners.

The Elko County Board of Commissioners held two public hearings on November
5, 2008 and December 10, 2008 and adopted the 2008 Plan.
The following is a summary of the process followed to revise and adopt the 2010 Elko
County Public Land Use Management Plan:

The NRMAC (Natural Resources Management Advisory Commission) reviewed the
Draft Elko County Public Land Use Management Plan and existing, newly
proposed directives and issues during publicly noticed meetings in Elko, held on
September 29th, 2010, and October 20th, 2010.

The Final Draft of the document was presented at the December 7th, 2010
NRMAC meeting in Elko. NRMAC held an official public review meeting and
recommended approval of the document to the Elko County Board of
Commissioners.

The Elko County Board of Commissioners held one public hearing, December
13th, 2010 and adopted the 2010 Elko County Public Land Use Management Plan.
-8-
2010 Elko County
Public Land Use & Natural Resource
Management Plan
Railroad Street
Late 1800’s
V.
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
It is believed that Native Americans inhabited what is now the Elko County area for
10,000 - 13,000 years prior to the first visits by European trappers and explorers. They
lived by hunting, fishing and gathering native plants, including seeds, berries, rose hips
and pine nuts. The early Indians trapped fish with willow traps woven out of pliant
willow branches, narrow at the neck and widening at the bottom. The first contact with
the white man in Nevada was in 1826 when Jedediah Smith made contact with the
Shoshone Indians in central Nevada and relayed this information to Meriweather Clark
of Lewis and Clark fame.
The first recorded white men in the Elko area were fur trappers led by Peter Skene
Ogden in 1827. In 1841, the first of an almost continuous stream of pioneers passed
through the county, following the Humboldt River westward along the California Trail.
These travelers included the ill-fated Donner Party and later the '49ers.
Through the 1850s the wagons creaked painfully along the twisted course of the
Humboldt River, their metal rimmed wheels cutting tracks so deep in the rock that in
some places they can still be seen today. The earliest form of scheduled, routine
transportation for passengers, freight and mail were the stage lines. As early as 1851,
stagecoaches crossed the Humboldt Valley from Salt Lake, Utah to Sacramento,
California carrying the mail.
On October 31, 1864, Nevada became the 36th state in the union and that same year
the first settlers took up ranching in the Lamoille Valley, which a mere five years later
would become part of the newly established Elko County. In 1867, Tuscarora was
founded and the first permanent settlers established ranches in Starr Valley and South
Fork Valley.
-9-
2010 Elko County
Public Land Use & Natural Resource
Management Plan
Scottish herders brought bands of sheep into Nevada from California and Oregon in the
1860s. When cattlemen were struggling under the impact of the disastrous winter of
the White Death, the sheepmen invaded. They grazed on the pubic lands that the
cattlemen had come to think of as their own. The cattlemen responded with armed
force, but the sheepmen were as tough as the cattlemen, and they stayed. At this
time, to say sheepherder was to say Basque. The men from the Pyrenees Mountains in
Spain and France had proven their reliability and herding skills. They had become the
preferred employees on sheep ranches throughout the west. By late 1869, the city of
Elko's population had climbed to 2,000.
Elko,Nevada
Unknown Date
No accurate account of the naming of Elko County has come down through the years
and the origin of the name remains a matter of speculation. It is rumored that Charles
Crocker, of the Central Pacific Railroad, named it Elko because of his passion of wild
animals - merely adding an "o" to "elk". Another story has it that a party of Indians
watched the surveyors laying out the townsite and when told what they were doing the
Indians exclaimed "Elko!", a word of extreme disgust. Whatever the tale, Elko County
was created March 5, 1869, with Elko as the county seat.
The Central Pacific Railroad gave birth to the town of Elko, Carlin and Wells in 1868 as
it pushed its tracks eastward. That same year the Idaho Central Wagon Road
connected Carlin to the mines in Silver City, Idaho. Mountain City was also founded. On
new Year's Day in 1869, there were just a few tents among the sagebrush, but two
weeks later, hastily laid out plots were selling for $300 to $500 each. From that
beginning, the town grew rapidly as a freight terminus to supply the mines in the
- 10 -
2010 Elko County
Public Land Use & Natural Resource
Management Plan
region. On March 5, 1869, the State Legislature created Elko County from part of
Lander County and made Elko the county seat.
In May 1869, when the Golden Spike was driven at Promontory Point, Utah, the Central
Pacific and Union Pacific Railroads were finally linked. The Chinese laborers from the
Central Pacific's track crew were abandoned. On foot, hundreds headed west and
many stayed in Elko. One of their chief occupations during the summer months was the
raising of vegetables for the town. Their gardens were mostly on the northern banks of
the Humboldt River and were watered by hand. Eventually the Chinese built the first
water system in Elko. They built a reservoir and dug a ditch to carry the water from
Osino to the reservoir, a distance of 8-10 miles (right through what is now City Park).
A special election was held on June 21, 1869 where Len Wines, J. Pierson and J.H.
Lettingwell were elected as the first Commissioners of Elko County. One of their first
acts was to commission the building of a courthouse and jail. On January 10, 1870, the
Commissioners accepted the completed Elko Courthouse building at a cost of
$22,942.48.
When the state legislature passed a law to create a university, they left the location
open to competition between the cities and counties. Elko went the extra mile and
donated land to the state, as well as providing $20,000 to back up their offer. The
University of Nevada opened on October 12, 1874, and was open for 11 years. In
1885, Elko continued its commitment to educationby opening the first high school in the
state. The University of Nevada was moved to Reno in 1886.
The Jarbidge Gold Boom began in 1908 and lasted until 1935. Jarbidge was officially
founded in 1910. December 5, 1916 became infamous as the date of the world's last
stagecoach robbery and murder, which took place in Jarbidge Canyon. William Smith
founded Wendover in 1917, and the legislature authorized the incorporation of the City
of Elko. In 1918, President Woodrow Wilson established the Elko Indian Colony by
executive order. It was later relocated in 1931.
1927 saw the first completely automatic hydroelectric system in Nevada, planned and
organized by H.H. Cazier at Wells. It was the first rural electrification system. In 1934
construction began on Wildhorse Dam and Reservoir on the Oywhee River. Elko helped
usher in Nevada's golden age of entertainment with the appearance of Band Leader
Ted Lewis on April 26, 1941. Jackpot was founded in 1956.
Newmont Mining Company opened its extensive gold mining operation near Carlin in
1965, and it still operates today along with Barrick Goldstrike Mines, Queenstake
Resources USA and several other mining companies.
- 11 -
2010 Elko County
Public Land Use & Natural Resource
Management Plan
Elko County gained a treasure in 1968 with the establishment of the Northeastern
Nevada Museum. The world famous Cowboy Poetry Gathering started in Elko in 1985
and continues to draw cowboys and spectators from all over the world each January.
On September 23, 1992 the Elko County Courthouse was placed on the national
Register of Historic Places and in 1993, Elko was named one of the 100 Best Small
Towns in America.
In June of 1998, Elko County sold their county-owned hospital to Province Healthcare,
who in 2001 completed a new $50 million, state-of-the-art hospital and medical center
for the region.
The new century saw Great Basin College, established in 1967, adding several four year
degree programs, a new technology center and health sciences building, a new
electrical technical center and continually expanding their facilities, degrees and
services.
Elko County had led the way in many firsts for the State of Nevada, and has produced
five Nevada Governors. Strong beliefs and pride in an independent spirit, traditions and
guaranteed freedoms keep this county in the forefront of protecting its citizens and
natural resources while still working toward a prosperous environment in which to live,
work, raise children and retire. Elko County is also famous for having some of the most
beautiful landscapes in Nevada, from the Ruby Mountains to our desert lands.
Elko Court House – Elko, Nevada
- 12 -
2010 Elko County
Public Land Use & Natural Resource
Management Plan
VI.
PUBLIC LANDS AND RECREATION
Public recreational uses in Elko County are primarily on state or federally managed
public lands. The BLM currently manages approximately 25 sites totaling 8,218 acres.
The Forest Service currently manages approximately 22 sites totaling 160 acres. The
State of Nevada provides approximately 5,000 acres of recreation area in the form of
State Recreation Areas, including the South Fork State and Wild Horse Recreation Area.
The BLM and USFS also note that use of the developed recreational sites is indicating a
decrease in annual use. One of the factors that may be causing the decrease in use is
that the public is increasingly utilizing the public lands that are not developed for
camping or other uses. This trend is referred to as “Dispersed Recreation”,(camping)
areas that are primarily untouched, hard to access and remote to any type of use.
Dispersed recreation can provide in a remote setting the solitude a recreationist desires
versus the high density uses of a developed camping area. This has historically been a
use that hunters and recreationist frequenting this area have utilized in the past. These
uses are increasingly being monitored by federal land management. The use is not
being discouraged, but in the effort to protect sensitive lands as well as all public lands,
the land mangers are increasingly educating the public in the proper uses and
procedures.
Over the past 20 years, Elko County has become increasingly a point of destination due
to the diversity of many annual recreational, historical, cultural and ethnic special
events and attractions, as well as the continued uses that the county has been
nationally recognized for. Historically, recreation was primarily hunting, fishing,
equestrian use and camping in our many pristine nature areas. This use has also
increased over the last 20 years to include all terrain vehicles (ATV/OHV), cross-country
motorcycle racing, long range highway auto racing, hiking, nature viewing,
photography, snow skiing, cross country skiing, boating and numerous other uses.
Recreation and tourism are considered a resource which to date has not reached its
maximum potential.
The Elko County Convention and Visitors’ Association (ECVA)
Trails Committee is developing several trails systems throughout the County, with the
cooperation of BLM, US Forest Service, NDOW, ranchers, miners and other public land
users. ATV/OHVs, mountain bikes, hikers, wildlife viewers, horseback riders and all
others are considered in these trail development plans. Elko County has been
designated as one of the top ten areas in the World for snowmobiling by Super Trax
International Magazine.
The “Tread Lightly” theme is incorporated into all promotional material and NDOW is
consulted in regards to wildlife habitat impacts. Elko County cautiously embraces the
multiple use concept of public land management and expects federal land management
agencies to maximize public access and usage of lands while still addressing
environmental concerns.
- 13 -
2010 Elko County
Public Land Use & Natural Resource
Management Plan
Opportunities for water-based recreation such as boating, fishing, water-skiing,
swimming (not pools) etc:
Willow Creek Reservoir
Willow Creek
Humboldt River
Wilson Reservoir
Angel Lake
Blue Lake
Lamoille Creek
Franklin Lake
Jarbidge River
Mary’s River
Wildhorse Lake
Rock Creek
Ruby Lake
South Fork Lake
Dorsey Reservoir
Bull Run Reservoir
Trout Creek
Owyhee River
Bruneau River
Tabor Creek
Jarbidge, Coon Creek Area
- 14 -
2010 Elko County
Public Land Use & Natural Resource
Management Plan
South Fork Recreation Area
Open space and recreational opportunities are critical to Elko County’s economic,
historical and cultural identity. Some prominent resources include:
Wild Horse State Recreation Area
Ruby Lake National Wildlife Refuge
Ruby Mountains
Jarbidge Wilderness
South Fork State Recreation Area
Lamoille Canyon
Spruce Mountain OHV Trails
Merritt Mountain OHV Trails
Wild Horse
Reservoir
- 15 -
2010 Elko County
Public Land Use & Natural Resource
Management Plan
VII.
WILDERNESS
There are three congressionally designated Wilderness areas in Elko County, Jarbidge,
East Humboldt and Ruby Mountains, all are managed by the US Forest Service. BLM
manages a number of areas recommended for wilderness as Wilderness Study Areas.
Jarbidge Wilderness
Ruby Mountains Wilderness
East Humboldt Wilderness
Total
113,176 acres
93,090 acres
36,900 acres
243,166 acres
Jarbidge Wilderness
Ruby Mountain Wilderness
- 16 -
2010 Elko County
Public Land Use & Natural Resource
Management Plan
Table 2 – Wilderness Study Areas (acres)
Bad Lands WSA
9,264
Bluebell WSA
54,413
Cedar Ridge WSA
9,457
Goshute Canyon WSA
340
Goshute Peak WSA
70,138
Little Humboldt River WSA
41,193
N. Fk of the Little Humboldt River WSA
85
Owyhee Canyon WSA
21,380
Red Spring WSA
7,523
Rough Hills WSA
6,484
South Fork Owyhee River WSA
7,847
South Pequop WSA
40,222
Total
268,346
VII.
PUBLIC LANDS & LOCAL ECONOMIC & SOCIO ECONOMIC ACTIVITIES
In 2003, the U.S. Bureau of Census defined a new classification of counties which are
designated as “Micropolitan Statistical Areas.” To be classified as a Micropolitan
Statistical Area, a group of counties must have a community of at least 10,000 to
49,999 people, be distant from a large city, and have proportionately few residents
commuting outside the area. The Northeastern Nevada counties of Elko and Eureka
comply with these requirements and have been designated as the Elko Micropolitan
Statistical Area (S.A.). The Elko Micropolitan S.A. is the primary area of the state’s
mining industry. During First Quarter 2007, the Elko Micropolitan S.A. employed 5,202
mining employees, which consists of 44.07% of total state of Nevada mining
employment. Also for the Elko Micropolitan S.A., the mineral industry accounted for
20.42 percent of total area employment.
As for the Gold and Silver Ore Mining Sector in First Quarter 2007, employment was
5,099 employees in the Elko Micropolitan S.A. Elko Micropolitan S.A. made up 58.93
percent of total State of Nevada Gold and Silver Ore Mining Sector employment. As for
the Support Activities for Metal Mining Sector employment, the Elko Micropolitan S.A.
had 782 employees in First Quarter 2007. This was 74.90 percent of total State of
Nevada employment in the Support Activities for Metal Mining Sector employment. This
sector’s employment data may be somewhat under reported given Eureka County
employment in this sector was not disclosed. Using the IMPLAN input-output model
database (Minnesota IMPLAN Group, Inc., 2006), sectoral location quotient values show
which sectors are importers, self-sufficient, and exporters. In 2004, there were 146
economic sectors in the Elko Micropolitan S.A.
The twenty top sectors made up approximately $3.0 billion in output, or 82 percent of
total the Elko Micropolitan S.A. output in 2004. The Gold, Silver and Other Metal Ore
- 17 -
2010 Elko County
Public Land Use & Natural Resource
Management Plan
Mining Sector in the Elko Micropolitan S.A. recorded a value of output of $1.58 billion
which was 43.77 percent of total Elko Micropolitan S.A. value of output. This output
level ranks the Gold, Silver and Other Metal Ore Mining Sector as the largest of the Elko
Micropolitan S.A.’s 146 economic sectors in sectoral value of production. The value of
production for the Support Activities for Other Mining Sector in 2004 was $92.9 million
which was 2.57 percent of total Elko Micropolitan S.A. value of output. This ranked the
Support for Other Mining Sector seventh among the Elko Micropolitan S.A.’s economic
sectors in value of output. In total the Gold, Silver and Other Metal Ore Mining Sector
and the Support Activities for Other Mining Sector, or what will be denoted as the Hard
Rock Mining Sector, make up approximately 46 percent of total Elko Micropolitan S.A.
economy output. The top twenty employment sectors made up approximately 74
percent of total Elko Micropolitan S.A. employment in 2004.
The Gold, Silver and Other Metal Ore Mining Sector in the Elko Micropolitan S.A. in 2004
had 3,958 employees which were 16.17 percent of total Elko Micropolitan S.A.
employment. This employment level ranks the Gold, Silver and Other Metal Ore Mining
Sector first among the Elko Micropolitan S.A.’s 146 economic sectors as to level of
sectoral employment. The employment level for the Support Activities for Other Mining
Sector in 2004 was 335 employees which was 1.37 percent of total Elko Micropolitan
S.A. value of output. This ranked the Support for Other Mining Sector sixteenth among
the Elko Micropolitan S.A.’s economic sectors in employment. In total the Hard Rock
Mining Sector, made up approximately 17.5 percent of total Elko Micropolitan S.A.
employment.
Table 3 – Top Twenty Economic Sectors by Values of Output for the Elko
Sector
Micropolitan S.A., 2004
Output
Gold, silver and other metal ore mining
Hotels and motels, including casino hotels
State & Local Education
Owner-occupied dwellings
Wholesale trade
New residential 1-unit structures-all
Support activities for other mining
Cattle ranching and farming
Power generation and supply
All other crop farming
Food services and drinking places
Commercial and institutional buildings
Offices of physicians, dentists and other health practitioners
Monetary authorities and depository credit institutions
Federal Non-Military
State & Local Non-Education
Telecommunications
Food and beverage stores
Motor vehicle and parts dealers
Machinery and equipment rental and leasing
Subtotal for top 20 sectors
$1,579,415,000
$261,469,000
$129,264,000
$125,214,000
$105,590,000
$103,855,000
$92,863,000
$76,564,000
$74,750,000
$57,992,000
$50,803,000
$42,534,000
$41,264,000
$40,488,000
$40,465,000
$37,093,000
$31,279,000
$28,185,000
$27,811,000
$27,354,000
$2,974,252,000
- 18 -
%Total Output
43.77%
7.25%
3.58%
3.47%
2.93%
2.88%
2.57%
2.12%
2.07%
1.61%
1.41%
1.18%
1.14%
1.12%
1.12%
1.03%
0.87%
0.78%
0.77%
0.76%
82.43%
2010 Elko County
Public Land Use & Natural Resource
Management Plan
Table 4 – Top Twenty Economic Sectors by Employment for the Elko
Micropolitan S.A., 2004.
Sector
Gold, silver and other metal ore mining
Hotels and motels, including casino hotels
State & Local Education
Food services and drinking places
New residential 1-unit structures- all
Wholesale trade
Cattle ranching and farming
State & Local Non-Education
Food and beverage stores
Employment services
Private households
Couriers and messengers
Offices of physicians, dentists and other health practitioners
Commercial and institutional buildings
General merchandise stores
Support activities for other mining
Federal Non-Military
Motor vehicle and parts dealers
Nonstore retailers
Hospitals
Subtotal for top 20 Sectors
Employment Percentage Total
3,958
3,271
2,941
1,239
697
675
565
480
463
454
445
413
406
388
342
335
327
298
291
263
18,251
Employment
16.17%
13.36%
12.02%
5.06%
2.85%
2.76%
2.31%
1.96%
1.89%
1.85%
1.82%
1.69%
1.66%
1.59%
1.40%
1.37%
1.34%
1.22%
1.19%
1.07%
74.56%
Source: Dr. Tom Harris, University of Nevada, Reno IMPLAN Model / Minnesota IMPLAN Group, Inc. “IMPLAN Pro
Data for Elko County and Eureka County, 2004”. Minnesota IMPLAN Group, Inc.: Stillwater, Minnesota, 2006.
Cattle, Sheep, Ranching, Livestock and Farming Sector Production:
The Cattle Ranching and Farming Sector for Elko County in 2003 had a production level
of $53.8 million, hired 482 employees, and paid labor income of $3.9 million. Given the
multiplier impacts, the Cattle Ranching and Farming Sector in Elko County had total
economic impacts of $96.6 million in 2003. This means that beyond the direct economic
benefits of $53.8 million, the indirect and induced impacts of the Cattle Ranching and
Farm Sector on the Elko County economy was $42.8 million. Indirect impacts are the
additional expenditures between economic sectors after the initial direct expenditure is
made. Induced impacts are the additional expenditures and economic activity
attributable to household sector interactions.
Agriculture and livestock production in Elko County is an important activity that helps
meet the needs of Nevada citizens. Agriculture is particularly important when mining
activity is slowed. Agriculture helps carry the county through these periods of economic
downturns. According to the 2002 Census of Agriculture from the National Agricultural
Statistics Services, the following is true for Elko County:
- 19 -
2010 Elko County
Public Land Use & Natural Resource
Management Plan
Table 5 – Agriculture and Livestock
Number of Farms:
Total Farm Acres:
Average Farm Size:
Irrigated Acres
Production Market
Value (Total):
Crops Revenue:
Livestock Revenue:
Farm Average:
Government
Payments:
Gov. Payments
Avg/Farm:
2002
397
2,472,143
6,227 acres
183,498
$45,300,000
1997
436
2,832,268
6,496 acres
201,376
$48,900,000
% Change
-9
-13
-4
-9
-7
$1,680,000
$43,600,000
$114,113
$1,600,000
$4,200,000
$44,700,000
$112,195
N/A
-60
-2
+2
N/A
$18,173
$N/A
N/A
Source: 2002 Census of Agriculture, Farm includes ranches.
Table 6 – Major Crops and Livestock Production
Forage Crops
Cattle and Calves
Sheep
Source:
2002
130,361 acres
135,554 head
19,627 head
1997
150,500 acres
163,267 head
35,615 head
Nevada Agricultural Statistics Service: Nevada Agricultural Statistics 2004
Historic Trends in Livestock Production in Elko County:
• Beef cattle inventory for Elko County in 2006 was estimated to be 152,000 head.
• Beef cattle inventories have fluctuated over the past 30 years but have displayed an
overall downward trend.
• Sheep and lamb inventory for Elko County in 2006 was estimated to be 19,700 head.
• Sheep and lamb inventories have displayed an even stronger downward trend than
cattle inventories over the past 30 years and in 2006 were only 36% of 1975 levels.
• Sales of cattle made up more than 95% of livestock receipts to Elko County according
to 2002 Census of Agriculture data.
- 20 -
2010 Elko County
Public Land Use & Natural Resource
Management Plan
• Elko County real net farm proprietor’s income totaled $11.5 million and incorporated
farm income was $18.3 million in 2004.
• Average operator age is increasing in Elko County and in the U.S. as a whole.
• Elko County average ranch size has decreased from 8,745 acres in 1987 to 6,227 in
2002.
• Operator characteristics data may indicate an increase in so-called lifestyle ranches,
whether by choice or by default, and potential issues regarding a lack of younger
operators for ranch succession plans.
Livestock Economics:
• A linear programming model that simulates a representative Elko County ranch
operation was used to examine potential impacts to Elko County ranches due to
changes in federal grazing land availability.
• Average annual net cash income for the representative ranch under current conditions
was $53,442. With a 25%, 50%, 75% and 100% reduction in federal AUM availability,
average annual net cash income decreased to $46,134, $35,560, $8,703 and $-80,757
respectively.
• The probability of bankruptcy for the Elko County representative ranch was less than
1% if federal AUM reductions were less than 50%. Likelihood of bankruptcy increased
to 12% at a 75% reduction and 96% in the case that no federal grazing is available.
• The variability of ranch profits increased as reductions in federal AUM availability
increased.
• There were an estimated 847,000 permitted AUMs in Elko County in 2006.
Approximately 85% of these were BLM allotments with the remaining allotments on the
USFS managed public lands and private lands.
Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest:
• There were an estimated 73,000 permitted AUMs in the Mountain City Ranger District
and nearly 28,000 in the Jarbidge Ranger District.
• In 1997 in Elko County, 177 ranches or 68% of operations with beef cow inventories
held federal grazing permits.
- 21 -
2010 Elko County
Public Land Use & Natural Resource
Management Plan
• The value of production associated with one AUM for beef cattle in Elko County was
estimated to be $38. Total economic impact in Elko County from production value of
one AUM was estimated to be $68.
• For every 1,530 AUMs available for cattle production in Elko County, one job was
generated. Earnings per job generated by cattle production were estimated to be an
average of $20,700 per year.
• Using the information above about one AUM, the 847,000 Federal grazing permits in
Elko County could generate $32.6 million in cattle production, $57.3 million in total
economic activity, $11.4 million in labor earnings and 553 jobs.
• For the Mountain City Ranger District, 73,100 AUMs can generate $2.8 million in cattle
production output, $4.9 million in total economic activity in Elko County, $987 thousand
in labor earnings and 48 jobs.
• For the Jarbidge Ranger District, 27,600 AUMs can generate $1.1 million in cattle
production output, $1.9 million in total economic activity in Elko County, $373 thousand
in labor earnings and 18 jobs.
Analysis of Impacts of Public Land Grazing on the Elko County Economy and Mountain
City Management:
• In certain circumstances, one AUM of federal grazing land may be more valuable than
an average AUM in production of cattle. This depends on factors such as seasonal
dependency, the extent of a given ranch’s dependence on federal grazing, availability of
substitutes and ranch viability issues. From a ranch production perspective, one AUM of
federal grazing land in Elko County could be associated with as much as $84 in value of
cattle production.
• From the ranch production perspective total economic impacts from one AUM of
federal grazing are associated with as much as $148 of total economic activity, $30 of
labor earnings and 0.0014 jobs. This implies one job per 714 AUMs of federal grazing.
• Using the ranch production perspective, total labor income associated with all
permitted federal AUMs in Elko County would be $25.0 million representing 1,212 jobs.
- 22 -
2010 Elko County
Public Land Use & Natural Resource
Management Plan
Basic Concepts of County Economics and Income and Employment
Multipliers:
The foundation of a county’s economy is those businesses which sell some or all of their
goods and services to buyers outside of the county. Such a business is a basic industry.
The flow of products out of, and dollars into, a county is represented by the two arrows
in the upper right portion of Figure 3. To produce these goods and services for “export”
outside the county, the basic industry purchases inputs from outside of the county
(upper left portion of Figure 3), labor from the residents or “households” of the county
(left side of Figure 3), and inputs from service industries located within the county
(right side of Figure 3), and inputs from service industries located within the county
(right side of Figure 3). The flow of labor, goods and services in the county is
completed by households using their earnings to purchase goods and services from the
county’s service industries (bottom of Figure 3). It is evident from the interrelationships
illustrated in Figure 3 that a change in any one segment of a county’s economy will
have reverberations throughout the entire economic system of the county.
Consider, for instance, the Cattle Ranching and Farming Sector, and its impacts on the
local economy. The Cattle, Ranching and Farming Sector’s activities can be considered a
basic industry as it draws dollars from outside the area. These dollars may hire a few
people from the household sector such as laborers to herd the livestock. However, most
of the local economic linkages are from the Cattle Ranching and Farming Sector’s
purchasing goods from the service sectors. These include businesses such as
restaurants, gas stations, hotels and other retail businesses. As earnings increase in
these businesses, they will hire additional people and buy more inputs from other
businesses. Thus the change in the economic base works its way throughout the entire
local economy.
The total impact of a change in the economy consists of direct, indirect and induced
impacts. Direct impacts are the changes in the activities of the impacting industry, such
as the reduction of operations by the Cattle Ranching and Farming Sector. The
impacting business, such as the Cattle Ranching and Farming Sector, changes its
purchases of inputs as a result of the direct impact. This produces an indirect impact in
the business sectors. Both the direct and indirect impacts change the flow of dollars to
the community’s households. The local households alter their consumption accordingly.
The effect of this change in local household consumption upon businesses in a county is
referred to as an induced impact. A measure is needed that yields the effects created
by an increase or decrease in economic activity. In economics, this measure is called
the multiplier effect.
- 23 -
2010 Elko County
Public Land Use & Natural Resource
Management Plan
Figure 3 – Overview of Community Economic System
Source: Dr. Tom Harris, University of Nevada, Reno IMPLAN Model / Minnesota IMPLAN Group, Inc. “IMPLAN Pro
Data for Elko County and Eureka County, 2004”. Minnesota IMPLAN Group, Inc.: Stillwater, Minnesota, 2006.
As shown in figure 3, export sales bring dollars into a county economy which provides
growth for future economic expansions. Imports however are seen as leakages from
county economies and as such reduce future economic growth. Economic development
activities which expand exports are called export enhancement while reduction of
imports are referred to as import substitution activities.
Table 5 shows the top twenty economic sectors in Elko County by value of exports.
From table 5, these top twenty of 142 economic sectors in Elko County account for
approximately 89 percent of total Elko County export value. Of interest, the top four
exporting economic sectors are the Hotels and Motels including Casino Hotels Sector,
Gold, Silver, and other Metal Ore Mining Sector, Support Activities for Other Mining
Sector, and the Cattle Ranching and Farming Sector. The gaming sector and these two
natural resources industries provide the base for economic growth in Elko County by
their level of export. The Cattle Ranching and Farming Sector in Elko County in 2003
had exports of $43.5 million which were 5.77 percent of total Elko County value of
exports. This export level ranks the Cattle Ranching and Farming Sector in Elko County
fourth among Elko County’s 142 economic sectors.
For county economic development efforts, it may be advantageous to support county
economic sectors that are the county’s exporters. This type of economic development is
called export enhancement.
- 24 -
2010 Elko County
Public Land Use & Natural Resource
Management Plan
Economic Importance of Public Grazing in Elko County:
Federal grazing plays a large role in Elko County agricultural production. According to
the 1997 Census of Agriculture, 177 ranches held grazing permits or approximately
41% of total agricultural operations in Elko County (436) in 1997 and 68% of
operations with a beef cow inventory (262) in 1997. Of these ranches, 144 held grazing
permits with the BLM, 61 held grazing permits with the USFS and 16 held permits with
other types of land owners. Note that some owners had grazing permits with more than
one type of agency.
Current data on the number of available animal unit months (AUMs) was collected from
Elko County regional offices of the BLM, USFS and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The
data is displayed in Table 4. Total permitted AUMs in Elko County in 2006 were
estimated to be approximately 847,058 with 85% of the total permitted AUMs on BLM
lands and the remaining 15% on USFS land. A small amount of grazing was permitted
on the Ruby Lake National Wildlife Refuge. Actual AUMs used were less than the
permitted amount and vary from year to year. Another study of Elko County grazing
estimated that as much as 49% of total AUMs used by the cattle industry were provided
by federal grazing land (Torell et al. 1981). In addition to being a large portion of total
AUMs, often the timing of forage availability on federal lands increases their importance
to the ranch operation. Because of the seasonal factors, several studies have found that
the value of an AUM from federal lands is greater than the value of
AUMs from other sources (Torell et al. 1981; Torell et al. 2002).
Table 7 – Permitted Animal Unit Months in Elko County, 2006
District
Permitted AUMs
Elko and Wells District, BLM
Mountain City RD, USFS
Jarbidge RD, USFS
Ruby RD, USFS
Ruby Lake National Wildlife Refuge
719,680
73,101
27,627
25,937
713*
Total 847,058
Sources: Nevada Department of Agriculture 2003; Bureau of Land Management 2006; Prall 2006; Stefani 2006 *AUM
availability varies by year from 433 to 1004. Approximately one-third of the possible grazing acreage is in White Pine
County, Mackay 2006.
The results from the ranch level analysis in the previous section help to quantify the
economic impacts that would result from restrictions on AUM availability on federal
lands in Elko County. Because ranching operations have economic linkages with other
sectors of the county’s economy, changes in federal grazing also have implications for
the overall economy of Elko County. Results of the ranch level analysis suggest that
- 25 -
2010 Elko County
Public Land Use & Natural Resource
Management Plan
there are at least two possible approaches to evaluating economic importance of federal
grazing to local communities. These three approaches are 1) evaluating federal AUMs
only; and 2) evaluating federal AUMs and the total effects on total production. Each of
the two approaches may be appropriate in different situations depending on the
individual or collective circumstances of a ranch or ranches. Factors such as
dependency on federal land grazing, the magnitude of changes in grazing availability
under consideration and the availability of substitutes for AUMs lost will effect which of
the two approaches best reflects actual impacts on the Elko County economy.
Impact of Federal Grazing on Ranch Production:
Estimating the economic impact of federal grazing based solely on federal AUMs in
many cases underestimates the actual importance of federal grazing. The results from
the Northeastern Nevada ranch model indicate that, in terms of ranch production, one
AUM of federal grazing can potentially generate as much as $84 of livestock production.
This assumes that since federal AUMs are part of an overall grazing system, a change in
federal grazing affects the optimal use of the rest of the forage resources.
From the Ranch Production Perspective, the 847,000 AUMs of federal grazing could
result in $71.3 million in production, $125.4 million in total economic activity, $25.0
million in labor earnings, and 1,212 jobs in Elko County. Previous research and results
from the Northeastern Nevada ranch model indicate that the availability of federal land
grazing is critical to the economic viability of many federal grazing dependent ranches.
The ranch level analysis shows that net profits for federal grazing dependent ranches
are negative without some level of federal grazing rights. This finding is consistent with
other research done in the Mountain West (Torell et al., 2002, Myer et al.).
Table 8 – Economic Impact of Federal Livestock Grazing in Elko County
Per AUM
Value of Production
Total Impact
Labor Earnings
Employment
Avg. Earnings/Job
Total AUMs
Value of Production
Total Impact
Labor Earnings
Employment
Federal Grazing Only
$38
$68
$13
0.00065
$20,659
847,058
$32,552,054
$57,267,859
$11,434,320
553
- 26 -
Ranch Production Perspective
$84
$148
$30
0.0014
$20,659
847,058
$71,288,998
$125,416,611
$25,041,162
1,212
2010 Elko County
Public Land Use & Natural Resource
Management Plan
City of Elko Early 1900’s
VIII. RANGE AND GRAZING MANAGEMENT
Elko County typifies a true “Cow County” with vast plush grazing lands surrounded by
rugged mountains. There are approximately 397 ranches and farms in Elko County.
Most are dependent upon federal lands for grazing. There are 135,554 cattle and
19,627 sheep in the county. Elko County ranked first in the State of Nevada for cattle
and calves, sheep and lambs and horse production in the 2002 Census of Agriculture.
The county also ranked fourth in the nation in number of beef cows tabulated in the
1997 Census of Agriculture. Federal lands are an essential component for most of the
county’s ranches. Grazing authorized on the federally managed public lands has been
reduced over many years for a variety of reasons. Some reasons identified by the
federal agencies for the reductions include conflicts with riparian and stream conditions,
loss of rangeland productivity, wild horse needs, increases in less desirable species and
noxious weeds along with impacts on key wildlife areas such as habitats for threatened
and endangered species and other species. Other factors include low market prices,
high costs of labor/equipment, and the trend toward purchase of small ranches by large
corporations. All of these factors have had some impact on changing the historic
ranching trends.
- 27 -
2010 Elko County
Public Land Use & Natural Resource
Management Plan
Figure 4 – Allotments
Montello, Nevada
- 28 -
2010 Elko County
Public Land Use & Natural Resource
Management Plan
IX. FEDERAL LAND POLICIES AND THE IMPACTS ON PUBLIC LAND USES:
Environmental, Historical & Cultural Testimony, Facts & Findings
History of fire in the Great Basin and its impacts on natural resources and wildlife
habitats:
The first trappers and explorers to enter the west saw many burnt areas on the Snake Plains and
throughout the Mid West, but not in the Great Basin. Apparently, even though the Native
American Indians of the Great Basin did burn from time to time for various reasons, the practice
must have been rare indeed, for hardly anyone traveling through the Great Basin mentioned
seeing burnt areas during the period, 1825 through 1900. Most wrote of traveling through
valleys filled with Artemisia, wormwood or creosote brush.
Many wrote of the difficulty they were having in places, making it through heavy brush, up to
three inches in diameter. Yet no one ever mentioned coming to areas where travel was made
easier because the brush had been burnt away. Nor was there mention that the travelers had
reached an area where there was an abundance of feed because of past fires. The most abundant
animals found at that time were rabbits. There is no question that jack rabbits, pygmy rabbits
and cottontail flourish when a country is covered with large mature sage brush, greasewood, or
rabbit brush, or a combination of all three. Jack rabbits, cottontail, and pygmy rabbits cannot
survive in areas where sagebrush has been removed.
It’s no question why the Native American Indians were not burning the brush at that time.
Rabbits were an important food source for them. Burning would only eliminate the rabbit
habitat, which in turn would eliminate the rabbits themselves. (Pioneering the West, by the Egan
Family) The harvest of rabbits was far more important to the Native American Indians at that
time than was the harvest of bighorn, antelope or deer, simply because there was not an
abundance of bighorn, deer, or antelope around.
Why were there so few fires when it was recorded that there was an abundance of brush
throughout the country? Even though there was an abundance of brush in the country at that
time it did not mean that there was an abundance of grass under or between the brush, or that the
brush was as healthy or as thick as it may have been at a later date. When there is not enough
grass growing between and under the sage brush to help carry the fire, and a majority of the
brush is unhealthy and dying, it makes it difficult for a fire to spread.
Allen Savory, Steve Rich and the Testimony of Jedediah Smith
As has been shown by Allen Savory and Steve Rich, when desert plants are not impacted by
grazing on a regular basis, they often become unproductive and wolfy, to such a degree they
often die. Plant frequency, plant health and plant vigor improve when plants are regularly
impacted by large numbers of ungulates.
- 29 -
2010 Elko County
Public Land Use & Natural Resource
Management Plan
Most historians believe Jedediah Smith was the first white man to cross through the Great Basin
to the coast of California. In 1826 with 14 men and 28 horses, Smith left Cache Valley (Utah)
traveling south. He passed through the tip of today’s Nevada, then followed the Mojave River
into southern California. Jedediah had agreed to meet his two trapping partners, David Jackson
and William Sublette, the following June for a rendezvous in Cache Valley. In June of 1827,
Jedediah took two of his best men and set out up the American River of the Sierra Nevada’s and
across central Nevada to keep his commitment. Later, in a letter to William Clark, Smith
described the trip:
“After traveling 22 days from the east side of Mount Joseph (Sierra Nevada’s), I
struck the southwest corner of the Great Salt Lake, traveling over a country
completely barren and destitute of game. We frequently traveled without water,
sometimes for two days, over sandy deserts where there was no sign of vegetation
and when we found water in some of the rocky hills we most generally found
Indians who appeared the most miserable of the human race. When we arrived at
the Salt Lake, we had but one horse and one mule remaining, which were so
feeble and poor that they could scarcely carry the little camp equipage which I
had along. The balance of my horses I was compelled to eat”.
Most historians believe that Smith and his men came out of the mountains just south of Walker
Lake, and very likely crossed through Nevada very near where the towns of Manhattan, Belmont
and Current are now located; which areas, during the early 1900s have supported thousands of
cattle and sheep. If Jedediah Smith’s testimony regarding vegetative condition found within the
Great Basin in the early 1800s is correct, then we must conclude that the findings of Allen
Savory, Steve Rich, Lloyd Sorensen and the Kipuka Study are correct, plant health and
frequency is improved by grazing impact. We must also conclude, the reason that the earliest
explorers and trappers were not seeing many burnt areas in the Great Basin in the mid 1800's was
because of the lack of vegetative frequency.
It is believed that until the 1970's, most fires (which typically were started by lightning) rarely
burnt more than a few acres. On occasion, when conditions were right, a fire would get out of
control and burn as much as one or two hundred acres, but nothing like the fires experienced in
recent years. The catastrophic fires that have been occurring since the late 1970's, which have
resulted in the loss of millions of acres of wildlife habitat, correlate with federal and state policy
which has called for reduced livestock grazing.
History of vegetative cover in northern Nevada:
There are a number of authoritative accounts giving descriptions of vegetative cover which
existed within the Great Basin during the later part of the 1880's and early 1900's. The King
Expedition, which traveled across Great Basin during 1867, 1868 and1869, included a plant
biologist named Sereno Watson, who kept extensive notes describing the various plant species he
encountered. Capt. James Simpson also thoroughly described the vegetative cover he saw when
he crossed through the Great Basin in 1858 and 1859. (Report of Explorations across the Great
- 30 -
2010 Elko County
Public Land Use & Natural Resource
Management Plan
Basin of the Territory of Utah For a Direct Wagon- Route From Camp Floyd To Genoa, In
Carson Valley)
Less scientific, but as important are the writings of Joe Meek, Zenos Leanard, Peter Skeen
Ogden, Jedediah Smith and James Clayman, who gave excellent accounts of their experiences
when crossing through the Great Basin. They wrote not only of vegetative conditions, but also of
the kinds and numbers of wildlife they were encountering. Later there were accounts by
Lieutenant E. G. Beckwith, Howard Egan and Edward Kern. Collectively, these writings tell of
slight feed, starving horses and no game.
Despite modern perceptions by some that the native rangelands of Nevada or elsewhere in the
West were damaged or destroyed by the settlement of the region, the opposite seems to be true.
The area that is now known as Nevada went from a place where the first explorers said the
country could not support their horses while crossing through the Great Basin to an area that was
feeding over a million sheep and over 500 thousand cattle in the early to mid 1900's. (Northeast
Nevada Frontier and When and If It Rains) which includes accounts of many of the early settlers
of the West who testified that the rangelands improved dramatically once livestock were
introduced.
History of affects of livestock grazing in Nevada:
There has never been the destruction of the range by livestock grazing as has been alleged by so
many within the various resource management agencies, whose purpose it has been to gain a
management position over the western public lands. There have been prolonged droughts at
times of course, when it appeared that the range was deteriorating, but then when good moisture
years have occurred, it always seems that there is grass and feed everywhere. Desert plants are
tremendously resilient, and the feed that will grow on the best years can be phenomenal.
The Yager Journal
Perhaps one of the more interesting aspects of early exploration and travel in the west occurred
along the Humboldt River. The very earliest trappers and explorers to travel the Humboldt found
feed exceedingly poor. Within a short period of time however, even though thousands and
thousands of horses and cattle had been driven along the Humboldt corridor, all testimony
indicates that feed conditions were improving rather than deteriorating as many now believe.
An indication of just how large many of the wagon trains were, in 1862 James Yager wrote “ at
camp Weaver River our train was joined by eight or nine wagons & this morning we were joined
by the train that camped by us last night fifteen wagons making in all about forty wagons &
seventy men”. Five days later Yager wrote “ Petersons train of thirty one wagons and Louise’s
fifteen wagons became connected with us at one time this morning, making a train of eighty nine
wagons and a carriage”.
A person would assume that, with all the thousands of cattle, horses and people traveling along
the Humboldt during that time; with all the impacts of setting up camp, then repacking again; all
- 31 -
2010 Elko County
Public Land Use & Natural Resource
Management Plan
the livestock coming and going and watering twice a day, plus all the feed that was being
consumed, there would have been much talk and writings of everything being eaten off and
abused, but such was not the case. Yeger and others traveling along the Humboldt during the
latter years of the migration to California mentioned many times how good quality the grass was.
Interesting, is that the immigrants that were passing through the Great Basin in the very late
1850's and early 1860’s were seeing more sage grouse than the earlier travelers had seen. Does
this testimony not indicate that resource conditions were improving rather than deteriorating
because of the impacts of large hoofed animals traversing the area? We believe it does.
Lewis and Clark, Peter Skeen Ogden and John Work
When Lewis and Clark were exploring the Missouri River in 1804 and 1805 they found where
buffalo were found, other wildlife such as elk, deer and antelope were in abundance as well.
Peter Skeen Ogden and John Work had similar experiences. Ogden had to leave the Humboldt
during the winter of 1828 and 1829 because his party was facing starvation. When they reached
the Eastern Snake Plains and buffalo they found a many elk and antelope. In 1831, John Work
also found elk, antelope and even mountain sheep to be more numerous where there were
buffalo, both on the Eastern Snake Plains and in southwestern part of today’s Montana.
The reason there may have been more deer, elk and antelope found in areas where large numbers
of buffalo are found may have been for two reasons; First, buffalo, because they were more
numerous and in ways more vulnerable to predation, may have acted as a buffer drawing
predators away from other species; Two, everything seems to benefit when herds of large hoofed
animals such as buffalo or cattle impact an area, insect production increases, mice become more
numerous, marmot and ground squirrel populations increase; deer, elk, antelope and even bird
life become more abundant.
Spanish Colonization in California
Spanish efforts to colonize Alta California in the late 1700's revealed a similar circumstance. As
was recorded in the book, Old Spanish Trail, by LeRoy R. Hafen and Ann W. Hafen:
Once decided upon, the project to colonize Upper California was executed in typical Spanish
fashion, soldier and friar marching side by side to found the twin outposts of the Presidio and
mission. Expeditions were to proceed both by land and by sea.
Two small vessels, sent from Lower California in 1769 were loaded with men and
supplies for the new enterprise. Agricultural implements, seeds, tools, provisions,
and church paraphernalia were taken aboard.
The land contingent was formed in two parties. The first, led by Captain Rivera,
comprised Spanish soldiers and Christian Indians who drove along some 400
animals.
- 32 -
2010 Elko County
Public Land Use & Natural Resource
Management Plan
Portola and Sierra, with the second land party, followed the Rivera Trail and
reached San Diego on July 1st, 1769. Conditions were not heartening. Ninetythree of the would be colonizers had perished on shipboard or since landing... Of
the nearly 300 who had undertaken the venture only 126 remained.
Frantically, one ship was sent back for supplies, while Portola, true to his orders, pushed
northward by land with most of the able-bodied men for Monterey. Portola and his men
succeeded in their heroic march to Monterey and on the journey accidentally discovered
important San Francisco Bay. Supplies ran low on the return trip, writes Portola:
“I ordered that at the end of each day’s march, one of the weak old
mules which carried our baggage and ourselves, should be killed.
We shut our eyes and fell on that scully mule (what misery!) like
hungry lions, we ate twelve in as many days. At last we entered
San Diego smelling frightfully of mules”.
Upon his return, Portola found things in a deplorable state; numbers of the sick
had died; hostile Indians had pillaged the camp; provisions were running low.
Some urged the abandonment of the venture. Finally the relief ship came; to the
friars it was an answer to their novena, a nine day vigil of prayer.
It is hard now to understand how, in a land of such bountiful natural resources,
there was, then such poverty in California and such utter dependence on the
importations of food and supplies from elsewhere. But crops were not raised
successfully during the first years, and it took time for domestic animals to
increase.
By 1820, forty years after livestock had been introduced to southern California, horses had
grown so numerous they were a nuisance and had to be controlled. Jose Del Carmen Lugo,
native of Los Angeles, recalled:
“When I was eight or ten years old, that is, from 1821 to 1824, there were great
numbers of wild and very troublesome horses. They would come to the very
outskirts of town and eat the pasturage, leaving the gentled horses without food
even often coaxing them away. The government finally decided, in agreement
with the pueblo Los Angeles, to have a general killing of these wild horses”.
By 1841, California had changed dramatically. A Frenchman, Dufiat de Motras making an
inspection for his government described Los Angeles:
“The pueblo of Los Angeles is extremely rich.... Within an area of 15 or 20
square leagues, local residents own over 80,000 cattle, 25,000 horses, and 10,000
sheep. Vineyards yield 600 barrels of wine, and an equal amount of brandy”.
- 33 -
2010 Elko County
Public Land Use & Natural Resource
Management Plan
In late October of that same year, the “Bidwell – Bartleson” party (recognized as the first
American immigrants to reach California by way of the Great Basin) had reached the upper San
Joaquin Valley. The passage over the Sierras had been extremely hazardous; the whole company
was gaunt and worn. On October 30, as the party was descending the west side of the Sierras:
Bidwell was only too happy to breakfast on the wind-pipe, lights and lungs of a
fat coyote shot by one of the company. By nightfall, however, he was able to turn
to his journal in almost a delirium of delight: “Joyful sight to us poor famished
wretches!! Hundreds of antelope in view! Elk tracks, thousands! Killed two
antelopes and some wild fowls, the valley of the river was very fertile and the
young tender grass covered it, like a field of wheat in May”. (The Humboldt,
highroad of the west, by Dale L. Morgan)
In May of 1844, as Fremont traveled south through the San Joaquin Valley, he noted the
favorable environment and abundant animal life about them:
“Flowers and oaks were only part of the wild beauty of this valley. There were
vast herds of wild horses and cattle, tule elk, pronghorn antelopes, and black tail
deer”. “Overhead there were flights of ducks and geese that passed like small
storm clouds... [And later]: They crossed the Tuolumne, Merced, Kings and Kern
Rivers. In this part of the San Joaquin Valley the wild horse herds were larger
than any the men had ever seen. Horses roamed the grassland like herds of
buffalo on the Great Plains; he noted the favorable environment and abundant
animal life about them”. (Fremont, Explorer for a Restless Nation, by Ferol
Egan)
It was not until large herds of cattle and horses began to appear across the West, on western
range lands wildlife began to increase. In fact it was in the 1940's and 1950's, at the very time
that our range lands were alleged to be in their poorest condition, that we were seeing the
greatest number of mule deer, sage grouse, ducks and even song birds throughout the Great
Basin.
Customs, Culture, Settlement and Predator Control:
The environmental movement is based on the assumption that all was optimum prior to the
coming of white man; that grass was tall, lakes and rivers were crystal clear and wildlife was
evident at every turn. But historical records and first-hand accounts indicate otherwise. When
Jedediah Smith, Peter Skeen Ogden and John Fremont first made tracks throughout the West,
they found the rivers muddy, the grass poor and game hard to find. These men and others like
them, in order to survive, learned to live as the Native American Indians lived, relying at times
on insects, their dogs or horse meat in order to survive.
Once man began settling the region, many changes began to occur. First, these people from far
off lands had been exposed to ideas and practices developed throughout the world. They had
- 34 -
2010 Elko County
Public Land Use & Natural Resource
Management Plan
knowledge of agriculture, cloth, metals and gun powder. They had domestic animals, horses,
cattle, chickens and pigs. Rather than spending their time moving from place to place they took
up land, remained in one place, dependent on their agriculture. Their greatest need was to protect
their crops, their pigs, their chickens and their livestock. This was accomplished with the use of
guns, traps, or by other tools and means.
By the turn of the century every country store across America was selling reasonably priced, .22
caliber rifles. Stevens, Winchester, Savage, Marlin and Remington were making, .22 rifles that
sold for $1. 98 to $7.00 depending on the make and model. Every boy, Caucasian and Native
American Indian, along with their fathers and many of their sisters were controlling predators.
By 1910 large numbers of men in every community were trapping during the winter months.
School age boys, too, had trap lines that they tended going and coming from school. Coyotes,
bobcats, badgers, skunks and weasels, nearly all fur bearers were fair game. Crows, magpies, and
"chicken hawks" were shot on sight. In 1912 there was a major outbreak of rabies in central
Nevada. So bad was the epidemic that rural families had to keep their children and dogs locked
up or fenced in.
By 1914 the rabies epidemic had spread to nearly all the western states. It became a national
health problem. In July of 1916, Senator Key Pittman of Nevada sponsored a bill through
Congress appropriating $25,000 for rabies control. In the 1930's toxins (primarily strychnine)
and airplanes were being used to control predators. The results were phenomenal; coyotes,
skunks and crows and other predators became few, while deer herds exploded. In many areas
sage chickens (grouse) could be harvested "by the gunny sack full". Ducks and other waterfowl
clouded the skies and song birds were everywhere.
In the 1950's the federal government began reducing predator control, first by discontinuance of
bounty payments, and by requiring absolute proof that predators were destroying livestock
before action could be taken, then later by outlawing the use of toxins, reductions in predator
control funds and by not allowing predator control in wildlife refuges and classified sensitive
areas. Such measures have had a profound effect. It is believed by many that the curtailment of
predator control helped put thousands of families out of the sheep business over the years, but
deer, duck, upland game and song bird populations have declined as well.
It is recognized however, that reductions in predator control have not been the only factor that
has had an adverse affect on local communities. The inability of local citizens to influence
outcomes of public land policy has also had an adverse affect on the economic well-being of
ranching communities.
The sound and effective predator control practices that were put in place during the late 1930's
extending through the 1960’s did more to create an abundance of wildlife of every kind than all
other factors combined. If it were not for the on-going predator control practices that continue
today (even though they have been dramatically cut back and reduced over the years) wildlife
numbers would be similar to those of pre-settlement times.
- 35 -
2010 Elko County
Public Land Use & Natural Resource
Management Plan
History of mule deer in the Great Basin:
It is not hard to trace the history of mule deer in the Great Basin. The logs, diaries, journals and
other accounts which were written by those who crossed through the American West during the
1800's rarely mentioned deer. Some have alleged that the reason that deer were not seen
during that period was because the earliest explorers and trappers were only traveling down the
valleys and along the rivers where they would not have seen the deer which were in the
mountains. But virtually all the trapping parties had one or two men with them who were
expected to scout the country in all directions, looking for game and new trapping areas. Every
stream and every pond that could be trapped, and every canyon that may have held game was
sought out, and when no game was found, as was often the case, then it was beaver tail and horse
meat that sustained the trappers. (Peter Skene Ogden's Snake Country Journals)
The explorers and trappers discovered a few antelope from time to time however, but not often.
Perhaps most telling was the condition of the Native American Indians at that time. By every
account it seems the Native American Indians were so poor; that hardly any of them wore
moccasins. Nor is there evidence that they had cradle-boards for their little ones. It wasn't that
they did not have knowledge of such things; rather they didn't have the material to make them.
Apparently, on rare occasions, when the native people of the Great Basin were able to harvest an
antelope or deer, the hide of the animal was used for making bags for storing food which they
often carried with them. (Report Of Explorations Across The Great Basin of the Territory of
Utah For A Direct Wagon-Rout From Camp Floyd To Genoa, In The Carson Valley)
Deer did not become plentiful until the late 1930's, after sheep and cattle had been introduced
into the country and effective predator control programs had been put in place. Records kept by
Forest Service personnel monitoring the Toiyabe Mountains and Ruby Mountains during the
early history of Forest Reserves bears this out. In the Ruby Mountains, 10 deer were seen in
1921-followed by a steady increase until an estimated 3,000 animals were seen in 1939. By the
mid 1940's deer numbers on the Ruby Mountains were in the thousands. No one knew how
many there were for certain. In California, Utah, Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Colorado,
Wyoming, everywhere it was the same, as predator control practices improved, so too were there
more wildlife. Deer, sage grouse, song birds, even pray animal seemed to benefit from predator
control.
Early history indicates that there were very few, if any, mountain lions in the Great Basin at the
time of early exploration and settlement. Research conducted by employees of the Nevada
Department of Wildlife found only one early reference, wherein the Territorial Enterprise
(Virginia City) on June 27, 1867, reported that a "catamount" was killed in the Six Mile Canyon
area in Carson Valley. The writer stated that, "This is the first animal of its kind we have ever
heard of in this region". Apparently, there were no lions seen again anywhere in Nevada until
sometime in the early 1920's. (Division of Wildlife Comprehensive Mountain Lion Management
Plan, 1995)
- 36 -
2010 Elko County
Public Land Use & Natural Resource
Management Plan
Possibly one of the greatest testimonies in this regard was that in the book Beltran: Basque
Sheepman of the American West. Beltran Paris came to the United States in 1912. Soon after he
arrived he went to work for the Williams Estates Company which summered in the Gold Creek
and Bruneau areas of northern Elko County and wintered near Frenchman and Gabbs Nevada.
After working for Williams for several years, Beltran went into the sheep business for himself in
Butte Valley. Beltran's brother Arnaud also worked for Williams for a number of years, but later
went to work for Baker Ranch, and then the Adams and McGill business. This meant that both
Arnaud and Beltran had spent many years in the outdoors, covering vast areas throughout
Nevada, yet, neither Beltran nor Arnaud had seen or heard of a lion until the early 1920's.
Beltron wrote: "My brother Arnaud was the first to find out about the lions. He was camp
tending for Adams and McGill and one morning when they were trailing their sheep south to the
desert his herder came and told him eight of his big ewes were dead. Arnaud thought maybe they
ate something bad so he went over there. He saw right away an animal had killed them. Well,
bobcats were worth a little money and he kept two number three traps in his camp. He set them
around the dead sheep and then told the herder to move his bunch out of there. The next day
Arnaud went back and he sure was surprised. There was a great big lion in his traps. He was
pretty scared but the lion didn't do anything. They don't want to hurt their foot. Anyway,
Arnaud shot that one and skinned it out. His boss was so happy he gave Arnaud a ten dollar
reward. That was the first lion any of us ever saw in this country."
Historical evidence indicates that the large deer herds of the 1940's, 1950's and1960's were a
product of settlement and predator control, and that mountain lions in Nevada are a product of
our deer herds. Interestingly, according to the United States Fish and Wildlife, Comprehensive
Mountain Lion Management Plan (1995), in 1994 a male lion that was radio collared in Idaho
moved 250 miles to central Nevada. Certainly, if mountain lions are capable of traveling so far
and if there had been an abundance of deer in the Great Basin in the 1800's, there should have
been large numbers of mountain lions in the Great Basin as well.
History of Bighorn Sheep in Nevada:
For many years, employees of the Nevada Department of Wildlife have been promoting the idea
there were approximately 30,000 bighorn sheep scattered throughout the Great Basin during the
period of earliest exploration into the region. These same people write that by the beginning of
the late 19th century, commercial and illegal hunting, competition with livestock, and the effects
of livestock diseases appear to have caused bighorn to decline to near extinction. Research
however, does not support such dialogue. Of all the many accounts which were written during
the period, 1824 through 1900, thus far only three references have been found wherein bighorn
were seen in the Great Basin.
First: Hunters accompanying the John Work party while trapping throughout today’s northern
Nevada in 1831 saw tracks but no bighorn until they reached today’s southeast Oregon where
they saw four sheep near the Owyhee River.
- 37 -
2010 Elko County
Public Land Use & Natural Resource
Management Plan
Second: cartographer Charles Preuss, while traveling south on a rout taking the Fremont party
from Fort Vancouver (Washington) to Pyramid Lake in 1843, saw mountain sheep somewhere in
today’s Humboldt County, “bound across some high cliffs, too quickly to get a shot”.
Third: Elisha D Perkins, in 1849, while traveling along the California trail near Rock Springs in
today’s Northeastern Elko County bought three “mountain goats” from Shoshone Indians, which
were “about the color of a deer, though not standing quite so high but something of the same
form, with horns much like a fish hook with a long shank projecting forward from directly over
their eyes”.
Only three instances where sheep were seen during a 76 year period, from 1824 through 1900,
suggest almost no sheep at all, if it is taken into consideration all the thousands of miles that
were traveled by all the various mountain men, explorers and emigrants during that period.
History of Sage Grouse within the Great Basin:
Conceivably Sage Grouse are a good indicator for determining the general well being of a
number of species found within northern Nevada. The period of greatest sage grouse abundance
during the 1940's and 1950's, coincides with the period when there were the most mule deer,
song birds and rodents throughout northern Nevada.
Records show there were no sage grouse seen in the Great Basin during early exploration.
Jedediah Smith on no account mentioned them when he related crossing through the Great Basin
in 1827. Peter Skeen Ogden did not mention them when he was trapping the Humboldt in 1828
and 1829. Zenos Leanard does not discuss sage grouse when crossing through the region now
known as Nevada. Nor did Milton Sublette, Joe Meek or James Clayman mention them. A few
sage grouse were seen in the Great Basin in the 1850's however. Capt. E.G. Beckwith, while
conducting a survey for a possible railroad route along the 41st parallel in 1854, wrote of seeing
"sage cock" on one occasion, while traveling north "on the plain" east of the Franklin River in
Ruby Valley. Captain James .H. Simpson also encountered "sage cock" while crossing through
the Great Basin in1858 and 1859 - once at Pacific Spring, once in Kobeh Valley west of Eureka,
and once in Spring Valley on their return trip. (For a Railroad Route South of the 40th Parallel)
(Report Of Explorations Across The Great Basin of the Territory of Utah For A Direct
Wagon-Route From Camp Floyd To Genoa, In The Carson Valley, E.G Beckwith )
Perhaps the best accounts indicating the early status of sage grouse in the Great Basin were those
written by Julian Steward and Robert Ridgway. Robert Ridgway, served as zoologist for the
King Expedition when that party was making its geological assessments along the 40th Parallel
during 1867, 1868 and 1869. The significance of Robert Ridgway's "ornithology report," or
assessment of bird life, which took place over the three year period when they were covering a
good deal of the area between the Sierra Nevada and the Wasatch Mountains of Utah, was that
during all of that three year period, while inspecting one valley after another and climbing
mountain after mountain, Mr. Ridgway only mentioned seeing, "sagehen" (centrocercus
urophasianus) five times. One sighting was on Peavine, just north of Reno, one was near
- 38 -
2010 Elko County
Public Land Use & Natural Resource
Management Plan
Wadsworth, on the north end of the Virginia Mountains, one was near Fort Ruby, where
Ridgway observed a "sage hen" being pursued and then taken by two eagles, one was near Secret
Pass at the north end of Ruby Valley, and one was near the City of Rocks in southern Idaho.
Equally important to Robert Ridgway's work was that of ethnologist Julian Steward. Between
1931 and 1936, Julian Steward made numerous trips throughout Nevada, southern Idaho,
western Utah and the Owens Valley area of California, interviewing native people and recording,
among other things, the food items used by all the various groups in each of the valleys he
visited. Most of the people he interviewed were in their 70's or 80's. So most of them were born
in the 1860s or 1870s, and had gained much of their knowledge from their parents and
grandparents. The significance of Julian Steward's work was in discovering testimony showing
just how scarce game was in the1800s. As an example, in all of Mr. Steward's interviews, elk
are mentioned only once, and that was in regard to hunting elk in the area of Yellowstone. Sage
grouse were only mentioned once as well, and that was of Native Temoke Indians hunting sage
grouse in Ruby Valley. In contrast to the above, persons living in the 1940's , 1950's and 1960's
told of encountering large numbers of sage grouse during their lives.
History of bitter-brush:
Testimony by the earliest trappers and explorers regarding vegetative cover in the Great Basin,
mirrors, to a great degree, testimony regarding sage grouse. By every account, the country was
barren and the feed was poor in the1820s and 1830s. But then, it seems that those who traveled
throughout the Great Basin in the 1850s and 1860s, found improved feed. The more detailed
records of Captain James H. Simpson and Sereno Watson indicate that the vegetative cover (in
terms of the kinds and types that were found) of that period was similar to that of recent times.
Capt. Simpson, after traveling from Camp Floyd in Utah to Genoa and back again in 1858 and
1859, described the plains and valleys as being vast areas dominated by sagebrush, with very
little grass. He wrote of mountains ranges clothed with pinion and juniper, with some quaking
aspen in the larger basins and draws. He also wrote of mountain mahogany, and of timber being
on the tops of some mountain ranges. Sereno Watson's accounts were more detailed and
scientific than were those of Capt. Simpson. Records indicate that Watson found bitterbrush,
(purshia tridentata) on nearly all of the mountain ranges from Sierras to the Uinta Mountains in
northern Utah.
Some argue that overgrazing of grasses in the late 1800's and early 1900's caused sagebrush and
bitterbrush to increase throughout the Great Basin. Others say that bitterbrush was overgrazed
by sheep during that same period. Regardless, when the agencies began restricting livestock use
in the 1970's it generally took only a year or so of rest, and the plants, from grass to browse,
would burst forth with lush foliage. Pictures taken at that stage were used to show how the range
had improved. However, what is not shown is how these same plants within a short time become
decadent and unproductive when left un-grazed. (Vegetative Stagnation in Three Phase Big
Game Enclosures, by Paul T. Tueller and Jerald D. Tower) In truth grasses, forbs and brush need
to be routinely grazed or hedged in order to remain productive.
- 39 -
2010 Elko County
Public Land Use & Natural Resource
Management Plan
Affects of wildfire on Nevada bitterbrush communities and mule deer populations:
The biggest changes in plant communities and range condition have come about since the 1970's,
after the federal agencies began reducing permits and removing livestock from the range. It was
then that we began experiencing the uncontrollable fires that have been raging throughout the
west in recent years. It has been because of the fires that we have been losing so much of our
range and wildlife resources.
Some have alleged that mule deer can live in areas where there is no bitterbrush, this may be true
to a certain extent. However, it has always been in those areas where there have been abundant
stands of bitterbrush that mule deer have flourished. In northern and western Nevada, in eastern
Nevada, in Utah, Idaho and California, wherever there have been quality stands of bitterbrush,
and where effective predator control programs have been ongoing, is where there has been
superior deer production over the years.
Every year it seems, we are losing more and more bitterbrush to wildfire. This is something that
we can no longer allow to happen, for in truth, we have lost most of our best deer habitat already.
The simple reality is, wherever bitterbrush growing, you can be assured you are in an area that
not only produces abundant and quality bitterbrush, but produces an abundance of grass as well.
Thus, if modest or no grazing has occurred and lightning strikes starting a fire, it is these areas
that burn first and hottest.
Conversely, the management agencies then require that such areas are to be removed from
grazing for at least two years, even though such policy is not backed by science. Therefore, and
unfortunately, the stage is set for more cheat grass growth, which in turn sets the platform for
more wildfires, which spread over more areas and wildlife habitat, native rangelands, while at
the same time endangering and destroying the economic viability of ranching operations.
Significance of private land stewardship and ownership and the affects regarding the
preservation of bitterbrush communities:
Around the base of the Ruby Mountains there are areas along the foothills which appear darker
than others. These darker areas generally include a healthy stand of different kinds of brush,
mostly bitter brush. It may also be noticed that in contrast, there are other areas where it appears
that such stands of brush have been removed by wildfire. In most instances, the areas where the
brush has been removed by wildfire are areas that are managed by the Forest Service, whereas
the areas that remain covered with healthy stands of mountain sage and Bitterbrush are generally
privately owned lands.
The reason for this is, that it has been the policy of those within the federal agencies over the last
30 years or more is to leave fifty percent or more of the available feed within allotments each
year. This policy has led to the horrific and destructive fires we are now experiencing. The
ranching community has continued to graze their privately owned lands in a manner which
prevents excessive fuel buildup. This indicates superior management of private lands
- 40 -
2010 Elko County
Public Land Use & Natural Resource
Management Plan
surrounding the Ruby Mountains. Therefore, if they had not been in private ownership, the deer
population would have suffered more than it already has.
Since the early 1940's, the Ruby Mountains have been recognized as the premium deer
producing area in the state. Certainly, there are other mountain ranges that have the same
potential for producing as many deer as the Ruby Mountains. The difference is, ranching and
private land management have not only had a positive influence on reducing wildfire over the
years, but ranchers also do a good job of controlling predators, which does not often occur on
Forest Service or BLM lands because of ever increasing regulation and public pressure to protect
predators. Possibly more lands should be transferred into private ownership, or control by the
State of Nevada. If the State of Nevada had control of the lands managed by the federal
agencies, more local control and knowledge would be used for proper land management.
Necessity of solar reception on plant life and the occurrence of over growth without natural
cropping becomes excessive:
Solar reception is necessary for living plant organisms to perform photosynthesis from either the
sun or artificial light. For example, if you were to place an object on the ground covering an
area, 6" long by 6" wide, during the summer, completely blocking all light and were to leave it
for three or four days, we would find at the end of that period, that the grass which was covered
by the object would have turned yellow. We also know that if we were to leave it there long
enough, that the grass would die completely. The reason being, most all living plants cannot
survive without sunlight or some form of light.
The same thing happens when a layer of dead grass remains un-touched or cropped on a
mountain meadow from year to year, within a short time fine stemmed grasses and plants of
lower stature, such as dandelion and clover, soon die and plant diversity is lost.
Rangeland grasses also deteriorate and die away when they are not impacted as they should be
by regular grazing. It's true, overgrazing can lead to weakened plants and reduced production
but the opposite is even worse. As an example during the 1940's and 1950's when ranchers were
grazing the greatest number of sheep and cattle on our rangelands, we experienced the healthiest
deer and sage grouse populations in the country. Evidence indicates that the sheep, cattle and
deer were healthier and larger than then they are today. Therefore, we conclude that the
reductions in grazing that have occurred since the 1970's have been wrong from the beginning
and now, the only factor we are accomplishing by continuing to ignore the truth is to cause more
excessive fuel buildup on our rangelands, which not only jeopardizes the public health and safety
of our citizens, but leads to the loss of thousands of acres of prime wildlife habitat as well.
Historical affects of grazing on riparian areas:
It became popu1ar in the 1980's and 1990's for the Forest Service to set utilization standards for
grazing on riparian areas. For example, if a rancher released his livestock out on the range where
there were riparian areas, such as along a creek or meadow area, and his cattle were to eat more
- 41 -
2010 Elko County
Public Land Use & Natural Resource
Management Plan
than 40 to 45 percent of the feed in one of the riparian areas, it didn't matter if the cattle had only
been in the pasture for a very short time, or that less than ten percent of the feed had been
utilized on the surrounding lands, the rancher was to remove to his livestock immediately.
Failure to comply would result in that ranchers permit being reduced by as much as 25 percent.
Such policy has caused a great hardship for many ranchers and permittees.
The discerning aspect about the situation is, after nearly a decade had passed it was learned, that
the very policy, which had by then put a many people out of business, was not supported by
sound science. In fact this was repudiated by studies which had been completed at the Starkey
Experimental Station in Oregon - which studies show conclusively that the removal and
reductions of livestock use on riparian areas cannot be supported scientifically.
The Starkey Experimental Studies
Over a period of 12 years, graduate students and scientists have physically measured the affects
of cattle grazing on every riparian value imaginable. They applied rest rotation grazing, season
long grazing, short duration grazing, deferred rotation, and non-use. They monitored and
determined affects on soil compaction, infiltration rates, stream bank erosion, sediment loads,
biological content of the water itself, affects on fish reds, impacts on streamside vegetation,
vegetative health and feed production. They concluded that nearly all riparian area values were
not harmed, and the riparian areas benefitted from livestock grazing. An Environmental Impact
Statement addressing these issues should be initiated as soon as possible as to prevent continuing
degradation of riparian areas found throughout the state of Nevada.
Recently acquired scientific data and knowledge concerning grazing:
It has been more than twenty years since the Forest Service first implemented its riparian
utilization standards throughout much of central Nevada. Great change has occurred since that
time. The sheep industry is nearly nonexistent, nearly half the cattle which once grazed upon the
public lands in the 1950's are now gone. As a result, great socio-economic damage has occurred
within the livestock industry throughout Nevada. Adverse impacts on environmental values are
also a concern. We know now, because of the removal of livestock from riparian habitats, such
areas have become overgrown with dead and decadent willow growth which shades out the
majority of grasses and other understory that existed formerly. In many places, such detrimental
overgrowth has made it nearly impossible for a human being to get through thickets and creek
bottoms, even on foot.
Accumulative long term, and short term impacts are becoming more and more evident every
year, including degraded riparian habitats, loss of riparian understory, increased fuel buildup,
ever increasing loss of wildlife habitat and a range livestock industry that is now on the verge of
collapse because of adverse policy set forth by state and federal agencies.
- 42 -
2010 Elko County
Public Land Use & Natural Resource
Management Plan
Potential negative impacts causing reductions in water shed production and perennial
water flow:
There is an abundance of scientific data and information available which indicates that when
grazing is reduced or livestock are removed from typical mountain pastures in Nevada and
elsewhere throughout the inter-mountain west, woody vegetation increases to such a point that
more often than not, it causes significant reductions in water production.
Rural Heritage Preservation Project finds that one mistake made by the public was to permit the
USDA Forest Service to go forward with its policy of reducing livestock grazing on Forest lands
in the 1980s and 1990s without an Environmental Impact Study regarding all possible
cumulative, long term and short term, adverse affects which would result because of reduced
livestock grazing; including, reductions in production of water flow; the destruction of wildlife
habitat due to ever increasing wildfire, and over story production within riparian areas; and the
affects of such on the livestock industry and local economy.
Value of removing or scarifying mature vegetative cover:
Hunters in the 1950s and 1960s report there were more deer at that time, and that the deer were
healthier and bigger than they are today. In the 1950s and 1960s when skinning a deer there
would always be a layer of hard fat, an inch or so thick over the rump - something you seldom
see these days. Much of the difference appears to be the greater number of sheep that were
present in the country in the 1950s and 1960s. At that time there were bands of sheep moving
through the country nearly everywhere, and as they would move through they would take a little
from nearly every plant. They would gnaw the tops off of the grass; they would eat the weeds
back; they would take a little quaking aspen, a little chokecherry, and a little rosebush, nearly
everything. They would migrate away, returning again the following year. It was the very
closest thing to being the ultimate way of achieving short duration grazing ever known. The
various range plants benefited tremendously. It would not be long until all the vegetation that had
been impacted was bursting forth again with new foliage, which nearly always was richer in
nutrient value than it would have been if all the plants had not been hedged.
In the 1970s, some began suggesting that livestock were damaging the range, that cattle were
taking too much of the deer's feed. Their focus seemed to be on bitterbrush claiming that little
winter feed was left for deer. Soon, demands were being made, calling for the removal of
livestock from the range. Finally, a study was initiated to determine the truth of the matter,
whereby there were enclosures built at different locations throughout the state, so that cattle
could be excluded, and the effects of grazing could be determined. The results were not what
many expected. Instead of finding that there was more feed produced when livestock were
excluded, the plants (mostly bitterbrush) yielded less production. This finding confirmed that
vegetation left un-pruned becomes decadent and unproductive. The most effective way of
pruning range plants is by livestock grazing.
- 43 -
2010 Elko County
Public Land Use & Natural Resource
Management Plan
Nothing demonstrates this better than those areas where livestock have been removed altogether.
Wherever livestock removal occurs, it is not long until deer, elk, and even birds begin to migrate
away from the "protected areas" to other locations where livestock grazing is ongoing. Elk will
not readily feed in an area which has half dead matter left from the previous year's growth. If
such were the case, it would not take long for the elk to migrate to an area where the majority of
feed had been removed the year before. This is true for deer, sage grouse, blue grouse and every
other animal. Plants of every kind are made more palatable, healthier, more productive, and
more nutritious when areas are grazed by domestic livestock.
Significance of grazing impact on sage grouse production:
In 1986, Carol Evens completed a thesis in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree
of Master of Science in Renewable Natural Resources titled, “The Relationship of Cattle Grazing
to Sage Grouse Use of Meadow Habitat on the Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge”. Arguably
this study, more than any other, depicts the importance of grazing to sage grouse. The study
found that sage grouse tend to avoid meadow areas of dense rank vegetation but use areas once
they were "opened up" by grazing, particularly late in summer when sage grouse nutritional
needs are met by eating succulent re-growth, high in protein, which is found to be more prevalent
where livestock have been grazed.
Many persons within the various resource management agencies have acknowledged that grazed
meadows are more beneficial to sage grouse than are un-grazed meadows, but are quick to point
out that the season long grazing practices of the past were detrimental to sage grouse. We find
that history and science do not support such in conclusion. To date, we have been unable to
identify any studies which show that the season long grazing practices of the 1930s, 1940s or
1950s were anything but beneficial to sage grouse.
These findings support what the earliest explorers and trappers had to say about the country in its
pristine state. Jedediah Smith, Peter Skeen Ogden and Fremont all described the country as
barren and unproductive. Most significant was the increase in cheat grass which occurred at the
West Site beginning in 1980. Apparently, there was an unintended introduction of cheat grass by
the scientists themselves. Soil previously barren of vegetation became populated by cheat grass,
yet no loss of perennial grasses, forbs, or shrubs was noted during the remainder of the study.
Cheat grass does not crowd out native vegetation as so many allege.
History of western settlement and the establishment and recognition of road right of ways
and easements, ditch right of ways and easements, mineral claims, water rights, and the
right of bonafide residents and settlers to the use of wood, stone, gravel and clay:
Prior to settlement west of the Mississippi, the practice of Congress was to sell large tracts of
land to speculators who in turn would sell said lands to those who sought to establish a home
stead. This had never gone well with those who were settling the land. It was learned that
Mexico and Canada were issuing patents in recognition of claims of land and mineral rights, so
that the lands would be claimed under the name of either Mexico or Canada. Representatives in
- 44 -
2010 Elko County
Public Land Use & Natural Resource
Management Plan
Congress began receiving letters from their constituents urging the passage of legislation
recognizing the right of preemption suggesting that, should the citizens of the United States not
be allowed the right to lay claim to lands, water rights and mineral deposits on the open lands in
the West, then, perhaps many settlers would have little choice but to file claims with the Mexican
or Canadian governments. Congress began passing laws recognizing American’s right to take up
homesteads and lay claim to mineral rights. However, it was not until William Stewart, the first
Senator from the newly formed State of Nevada, introduced a bill in Congress (which was
adopted on July of 1866) that mineral claims, claims to the use of waters which arise on public
lands, claims of ditch right of ways and easements and road right of ways and easements were
fully recognized by Congress.
The 1866 Act, did not however, establish procedure whereby settlers and miners could file their
claims with the federal government. Instead, language within the 1866 Act required that rights of
settlers be recognized "by local law and custom and rules of the courts". This language was
interpreted by the courts to mean that it was to be the states which were to establish mechanisms
for the recognition of claim of rights on the open and public lands found throughout the western
United States. And so it is to this day that State law dictates the manner by which claims for
water rights, road right of ways and easements, ditch right of ways and easements and mineral
claims are to be recognized and established.
Unfortunately, it seems that persons working within government do not like the idea that rights
can be recognized on our nation’s federal or public lands. As a consequence, persons within the
various resource management agencies have carried on a constant political campaign, working
to rid the country of any legal precedence which might force the recognition of mineral rights,
the right to prospect, a ranchers right to graze, ditch rights of way, road rights of way, the right of
bonafide citizens and settlers to the free use of wood, stone, gravel and clay found on federal or
public lands, or the right of individuals to recreate and camp wherever they so choose upon the
public or federal lands which are found within the western United States.
History, of the recording of claims of road right of ways and easements by the general
public and county commissioners and the attempt by Forest Service personnel to extinguish
such rights:
The fact that it has been the goal of nearly every official working for the Department of Interior
and the Department of Agriculture since the inception of the concept that the public lands should
be brought under the control of the United States government, that all rights historically
established, should be terminated is not unclear. (See Document, 9-a. & la-a.) Conflicts between
right holders and those within Interior and Agriculture, who believe that the government should
have full and complete authority over all government resources have been in constant play since
the very beginning. (Storm over Range Land) In truth, the history of the USDA Forest Service
and Bureau of Land Management is a history of attacks on the range livestock industry and other
rights holding interests. It was for this reason that citizens of Elko County who desired to lay
claim to road rights of way. (Map Case 328522, Exhibits A-I through Tool, Sheets 1 through 40,
at the County Recorders’ office, on September, 26, 1992)
- 45 -
2010 Elko County
Public Land Use & Natural Resource
Management Plan
It was for this same reason that the Elko County Board of Commissioners set forth claims to
these roadways by Resolution No. 14-98 on the 6th day of January, 1999. As well, it is our
finding said roads as claimed by citizens of Elko County and the Elko County Board of
Commissioners are roads which were developed and used during the very early days of
settlement for the purpose of securing wood, stone and other earthly materials from the public
lands for the purpose of accomplishing settlement; and that such roads, and all of them, were
established long before Forest Reserves were created; and that such roads, and all of them,
continue to be used for a variety of purposes, including fire protection, hunting, access to water
diversions, fence fixing, caring for livestock, prospecting, mining, moving livestock, weed
control, pine nut gathering, gathering wild berries, post cutting, wood gathering, outings,
educational events and sightseeing, and are in fact, roadways which are recognized pursuant to
“the Act of July 26, 1866”, which rights are best understood when reading the following decision
written by Federal District Judge, Peirson M. Hall.
In the case UNITED STATES v. 9,947.71 ACRES OF LAND, Federal District Judge, Peirson
M. Hall wrote; “It arises from the sheer logic of the proposition that, when the government
granted mining rights on the vast mountainous, and often impassable areas of the west which
were in public domain, assessable only by passing over the public domain, it granted, as a
necessary corollary to mining rights, the right not only to pass over the public domain but also a
property right to the continued use of such roadway or trail, once it was established and used for
that purpose. To realize the force of the proposition just stated, one need but to raise their eyes
when traveling through the West to see the innumerable roads and trails that lead off, and on
through "the public domain, into the wilderness where some prospector has found a stake (or
broke his heart) or a homesteader has found "the valley of his dreams and laboriously and
sometimes at very great expense built a road to conform to the terrain, and which in many
instances is the only possible surface access to the property by vehicles required to haul heavy
equipment, supplies and machinery. If the builders of such roads to property surrounded by the
public domain had only a right thereto revocable at the will of the government, and had no
property right to maintain and use them after the roads were once built, then the rights granted
for development and settlement of the public domain, whether for mining, homesteading, town
site, mill sites, lumbering, or other uses, would have been a delusion and a cruel and empty
vision, inasmuch as the claim would be lost by loss of access, as well as the investment therein,
which in many cases of mines required large sums of money, before a return could be had."
Value of road right of ways and easements to ranchers, mining and recreationist:
The founders of our nation did envision that the people would have to be permitted or licensed
by the government before they can achieve their desires and necessities. They envisioned that the
people would have "rights" so that they might be secure in their investments and their ability to
go forward and fulfill their goals. They didn't aspire that the people were to be obligated to the
government for freedom of travel and movement. This is one reason why our forefathers left
their homelands. This is the freedom that was expected and desired. They knew from experience,
that once a government gains control of people's lives or their businesses, via permitting
processes, or by regulation, or both, and there is no longer recognition of property interest, then
- 46 -
2010 Elko County
Public Land Use & Natural Resource
Management Plan
soon comes economic stagnation, favoritism, corruption and tyranny.
During the early history of this nation, and during western settlement, such rights as the right of
persons to use certain waters, or to clean their ditches, or to use certain roads were granted and
recognized. When the settlers arrived in the unsettled West, there were no coal mines, saw mills,
or lumber yards. There was only the material at hand, and so the settlers used their shovels and
axes cut logs and poles for making their homes, their corrals and their outbuildings, and they
used the clay from the valley floors for their roofing.
Shortly after the pioneers were releasing their livestock upon the range lands, economically
viable units were born. To farm in the harsh environments found in the West was not always
feasible, but the environment did lend itself to raising cattle and sheep. Then came the mines
and mining operations, and towns, and a railroad that crossed through the county. More roads
were developed and cattle and sheep were driven from one range to another or from certain
ranges to various towns and to shipping points. For anyone to say today, that there was not a
road or trail created up almost every canyon and draw, long before the Forest Reserves were
created, is to avoid the truth and ignore the past. And to say that such was bad for the
environment or bad for wildlife is also to ignore the past, and to ignore the truth.
Value of road right of ways and easements to certain wildlife:
It is our finding that public roads, which are often graded and maintained by county
governments, are beneficial to goshawk and other avian predators. It has been found that ground
squirrels and other small rodents, native to the State of Nevada are frequently found in large
numbers along such roads. Roads of this type provide habitat that ground squirrels and other
small rodents need and a balance is created whereby the road-ways provide open areas adjacent
to desirable feed which is necessary for their survival.
A survey was conducted in the Harrison Pass area, southeast of Jiggs, Nevada, whereby a greater
abundance of avian predator nests were found in the quaking aspen along the road-way leading
from Ruby Valley to Jiggs, than was found along either the Green Mountain Creek drainage to
the north, or the Road Canyon drainage to the south. Neither were ground squirrels found in the
Road Canyon drainage, or the Green Mountain Creek drainage, whereas, ground squirrels were
found to be numerous along the road in Harrison Pass.
History and effects of off road ATV/ OHV traffic within the Jarbidge, Mountain City and
Ruby Mountains Ranger Districts:
It is our finding, that if the Forest Service were to follow mandates as are set forth in the "Final
Rule" dated, November 9, 2005, which states; "Current regulations prohibit trail construction
Sec. 261.1O(a) and operation of vehicles in a manner damaging to the land, wildlife, or
vegetation" , then it would be the new "ATV/OHV" roads that would be considered for closure,
and not the existing RS 2477 road right of way and easements which extend through private
lands. For it is the very nature of ATV/OHV that they must be driven up a ridge in a
- 47 -
2010 Elko County
Public Land Use & Natural Resource
Management Plan
perpendicular manner or else they will tip over, which may result in more than ordinary erosion.
Clearly, if the new rule calls for the protection of right of ways and easements which are
recognized pursuant to RS 2477 of the United States Code, then all roads which were constructed
by those who settled the lands prior to the creation of Forest Reserves, roads have now been
recognized by Elko County, must be recognized by the Forest Service. The importance of
keeping traditional road right of ways and easements open for continued use cannot be
overstated - for in truth, it is these roads, which were created and made better by the use of teams
traveling to and from the mountains, hauling logs and firewood. And because it was not easy for
persons with a team and wagon to make their way up a canyon and back with a loaded wagon,
the very best routes were taken, following terrain which offered the least obstacles and most
favorable grades, that roads were created which cause the least amount of erosion possible.
Value of road right of ways and easements and livestock grazing and how each serve to
protect against uncontrollable wildfire and destruction of native plant communities:
Road right of ways and easements traditionally used and recognized are not only important in
that they allow for quick access to areas where wildfire may start, but they often serve as fire
breaks as well. Perhaps not by themselves entirely, but with little more effort, these roads can
play a significant part in stopping the spread of wildfire.
Livestock grazing too, is critically important, not only because grazing removes such a large
percentage of the fuel which feeds wildfire, but also because livestock create trails at intervals
throughout allotments which tend to cool fires down and make them burn more slowly. It can not
be denied that when fires burn cooler and more slowly, they are far easier to bring under control.
It must be remembered, when fires do burn at lower temperatures, there are fewer plants lost.
When there are fewer plants lost, the range generally returns to its original state sooner because
of the natural reseeding that occurs during years that follow.
The conditions and circumstances ranching families are subjected to under present Federal
Land Management practices and policies concerning wildfire:
Current federal policies mandate that should a member of a ranching family start a fire, which
then spreads to lands managed by either the Forest Service or Bureau of Land Management, the
cost for fighting the fire can be billed to that person or ranching family who owns the premises
where the fire started. Fire suppression cost can be in the hundreds of thousands, or even
millions of dollars. Yet conversely, if a fire started on public lands and it spreads to private land,
burning buildings, haystacks and standing feed, or even a home, it is unlikely that the ranching
family affected will be compensated. This situation is worsened by the fact that the federal
government is now creating the very volatile situations which are causing the largest, most
ferocious and catastrophic fires known since the time of first settlement. It has been the
unwritten policy of both the state Department of Forestry and the BLM and the Forest Service to
let fires burn unless it threatens a home or a structure.
- 48 -
2010 Elko County
Public Land Use & Natural Resource
Management Plan
It is imperative that local communities regain control over the affairs of their local land
management once more. We must regain and maintain the right of local self government, and
the right to protect property, life and family.
Necessity of seeding crested wheat grass to areas which are burnt by wildfire:
The practice of seeding crested wheat grass to rangelands began in northern Nevada in the late
1940s or early 1950s, and today some of the very best deer habitat is found in those areas which
were seeded to crested wheat grass in the past. Bitterbrush and many other native plants,
including grasses, often come back sooner, and do better when crested wheat grass is planted.
Since crested wheat grass burns at lower temperatures, if fires reoccur, they burn with less
intensity. When a fire burns at lower temperatures and with less intensity, fewer bitterbrush and
native grass plants are lost. There is no question the planting of crested wheat grass is a viable
management practice. Concerning sage grouse, the idea that crested wheat seedings have an
adverse impact is false. In the 1940s there were sage grouse everywhere in Ruby Valley; and
there were a good many sage grouse strutting grounds as well, both on the west side of the
valley and on the east side of the valley.
Most of the Sage Grouse lecks which were in existence at that time were located on the white
sage flats south of Medicine Spring on the east side of the valley. Since that time, there has been
virtually no change in vegetation cover in that area, yet sage grouse no longer strut there. Today
there is only one known sage grouse lecks being used in south Ruby Valley, and that is located
within a crested wheat seeding south of Harrison Pass. Today's problem is not that we have been
destroying sage grouse lecks by seeding crested wheat grass; the problem is we have far too
many predators killing sage grouse. Seeding burnt areas with crested wheat grass is the best
possible solution for obtaining desirable condition for the benefit of sage grouse and a wide
variety of wildlife.
History of cheat grass and the effect cheat grass has had on wildfire frequency and
intensity within northern Nevada:
Over the years there has been a plethora of criticism concerning cheat grass; Some would say
that cheat grass is an invasive weed that crowds out native vegetation, serves no useful purpose,
and causes increased intensity and frequency of wildfire. The reason we are experiencing the
huge catastrophic fires of recent times is not because there is more cheat grass growth now than
there was back in early part of the 1900s. Records indicate that cheat grass was identified in
each of the eleven western states as early as 1910. The large fires that have been occurring
recently are caused by reductions in grazing.
If we were to allow livestock grazing to occur as it did in the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s, we would
not have the catastrophic wildfires we are now experiencing. In reality cheat grass is one of the
most important sources of feed for both livestock and wildlife that is found in the Great Basin.
Mule deer, with their small muzzles often reach beneath existing sagebrush during winter in
order to nibble new little shoots of green cheat grass when green feed is unavailable elsewhere.
- 49 -
2010 Elko County
Public Land Use & Natural Resource
Management Plan
Chukar and Hungarian Partridge too, use these same green shoots of cheat grass during winter, to
such a degree it is doubtful they can survive without it.
Cheat grass is a good source of feed even when it is in a cured condition. Livestock, like people,
tend to like a variety of foods. Some plants, like shrubs and brush, are often high in protein
while dry grass is often a good source of energy. It is common to see cattle or horses during
winter on a cheat grass range that are healthier than cows and horses that are sometimes being
fed a full ration of hay during winter months.
Regarding the hypothesis that cheat grass crowds out native grasses is concerned, there is
considerable evidence indicating that such is not the case. Beginning in 1979, there was a
14-year study done in southeastern Oregon soon after scientists found two isolated areas deep
within large lava flow areas where livestock had never grazed, nor had cheat grass been
introduced. During the study several things were learned. First of all, contrary to popular belief,
it was found that the frequency of plants (number of plants per square yard) was not what had
been expected. At the Eastern Site it was found that 59 percent of the ground was barren of
vegetation, while at the West Site, ground barren of vegetation ranged from 84 percent in 1980 to
76 percent in 1991.
Volunteer fire fighters and equipment available to control and suppress wildfire in Nevada:
There is in all probability no one anywhere that faces greater threat to life and property than
citizens now living within the rural communities of Nevada whose homes and ranches lay
adjacent to the public lands. The various resource management agencies have so dramatically
reduced livestock grazing, which in places is causing two or more years of fire fuel to
accumulate.
In the past, citizens living within outlying areas of Nevada have been informed that they cannot
use their private equipment in the control or suppression of wildfire because of the need to
protect archaeological sites and that permission must be granted before any equipment can be
used for the control and suppression of wildfire on public lands.
It is our finding there is no collection of people that are more familiar with the history and
archaeological features of rural communities than are the people that live the area. It is our
recommendation that the various resource management agencies adopt policy requiring agency
personnel to hold public meetings within the various local communities for the purpose of
gaining information as to where known archaeological sites are, in order that such places can be
mapped so that they can be protected at times when wildfire suppression and mop up is
occurring.
- 50 -
2010 Elko County
Public Land Use & Natural Resource
Management Plan
Importance of the right of the property owner to fight wildfire in the traditional manner as
they have since the west was settled:
In reading the Declaration of Independence, it becomes abundantly clear that one of the greatest
problems those living within New England prior to the American Revolution faced was
not being able to freely conduct local self government. Not only were King George and the
people of Great Britain imposing whatever laws they so desired upon the people of New
England, but in addition, they were interfering with the people’s ability to adopt policy and
ordinances for the protection and management of everyday affairs within their communities.
In many ways, the situation the founders found themselves in is not much different from that
which many persons living within the public land states face today. If those living in
the various communities in New England needed to put in structures for the purpose of flood
control, as an example, the local people had no way of collecting taxes or passing law or policy
as a means of accomplishing such an objective, for it was the people of England that had control,
and for them such concerns were of no interest. That is what persons living within the rural areas
of Nevada face today. For when it comes to the Public Lands, it’s not the local people that have
the say - rather it’s people living in New York or Denver or Las Vegas that get to decide just
how the majority of lands that lay within our communities are to be governed. Those in urban
areas certainly aren't going to be affected by wildfire, or there may be too many predators taking
down calves; or that the lack of grazing on the Forest lands is causing reductions in water
production, or that ranching families are no longer capable of making a living because of an
unfair decisions made by the BLM or Forest Service.
Those who live in the rural areas of Nevada go on, year after year, facing the fact that they do not
have any control over management policy, fire policy, grazing policy or any other government
action that affects the public lands upon which they are reliant. As it stands today, if the Forest
Service so chooses, citizens living within the rural areas in Nevada can be denied the basic right
to go onto the public lands with their tractors or a shovel without agency permission. Issues
involving the Public Health and Safety and general well being of local communities must be
decided by those whose lives and property are most affected, to do otherwise runs in direct
conflict to the most dear principles of a free and just society.
Quick Response is imperative to the success of wildfire suppression:
We find that such road right of ways and easements as have been recognized and claimed by the
Elko County Board of Commissioners are critically important for aiding in the prevention of
catastrophic wildfire can be the greatest threat to human life and safety known in our area.
Keeping the roads leading into the open spaces and mountain ranges is a public health and safety
issue.
One of the greatest threats to life and health is when persons responsible for the property and
lives of family members take it upon themselves to do whatever it takes to stop a wildfire which wildfire may or may not have gotten out of control because of excessive fuel loads
- 51 -
2010 Elko County
Public Land Use & Natural Resource
Management Plan
brought on by irresponsible management of our public lands, or the unwillingness of
governmental officials to see that everything is done that can be done to see that fires are
extinguished when conditions are such that they can be suppressed.
Anyone who has ever fought fire over a period of years, comes to realize that certain conditions
often arise, when the winds that are driving a fire may go down; or begin to blow in a different
direction; a light rain may occur; or the temperature drops, which allow for persons to get on a
fire and get it put out. These favorable conditions may not occur again for quite awhile - or
conditions can turn worse, where the humidity may go down, the temperature may rise and a
wind come up, which can only result in disaster. All too often in the past, it’s been an unwritten
policy that wildfire can be ignored to some degree until such time as when a structure is in
harm’s way. We cannot allow that to happen any longer.
All fires must be extinguished when conditions are right for suppression:
It our finding that one of the greatest mistakes made is not getting on the fires immediately.
Quick response is critically important, for the bigger a fire becomes the more difficult it is to put
out. And the more difficult a fire is to put out, the greater chance there is that it will destroy the
homes and property or even the lives of citizens within local communities.
Right of due process, Federal Administrative Procedures Act.
One of the greatest infringements in individual rights that has occurred regarding public land
management and oversight by the Federal government has been the outright abolishment of a
Citizen’s right to due process. Somewhere along the line, it became acceptable in the minds of
many court justices and within the various agencies that governmental actions could be
arbitrarily imposed as long as the "experts" within government thought" certain actions could be
beneficial and by so doing, have been ignoring altogether the people’s right that evidential
hearings be held for determining possible infringement on investment backed or determination
by scientific method, whether or not a public good would in fact be achieved once the action was
advanced.
Such abandonment of the people’s right of due process runs so foul to the original intent of the
notion of free government it should not be tolerated at any time, or at any level within society
particularly, when law is now in place which calls for such processes to occur under the U.S.
Administrative Procedure Act, and / or the Nevada Administrative Procedure Act.
Reference: Appendix A “Finding of Facts, Historical, Scientific and Economic Analysis” By: Rural Heritage
Preservation Project.
- 52 -
2010 Elko County
Public Land Use & Natural Resource
Management Plan
Stockmen’s
Hotel
Elko, Nevada
1930’s
X. FEDERAL LAND POLICIES AND THE ECONOMY OF ELKO COUNTY
General:
In 1994 an Economic Impact report was prepared by Dr. George F. Leaming, PH.D. of
the Western Economic Analysis Center. The report is titled “The Impact of Federal
Lands Policies on the Economy of Elko County, Nevada”, and evaluates public
land management policies and their impacts to the local economy of Elko County. The
report was updated and revised in the fall of 2010 to provide current data sets on the
USFS and BLM management policies concerning public lands and the relations to
multiple uses, accessibility and their direct negative impacts to the specific components
of the Elko County economy.
Dr. Leaming wrote “the current and proposed federal land use policies will have severe
negative impacts on the economic future of the county”. The 2010 report states that in
2008, approximately 20% of Elko County’s economy was recreation based. One third
or 7% of the county recreation economy was lodging, entertainment and gaming
based. Two thirds or 13% of the County economy of the recreation business was
tourist business associated with outdoor recreation. Dr. Leaming wrote, outdoor
recreation is the biggest user of public lands at approximately 90% of all public lands in
Elko County. Mining represents the largest contributor to the local economy at
approximately 70% and the smallest use of public lands at less than 1%. Agriculture is
the second largest user of public lands at 85% and represents approximately 6% of our
economy. Recreation accounts for approximately 20% of our local economy and relies
heavily on full access to public lands.
- 53 -
2010 Elko County
Public Land Use & Natural Resource
Management Plan
The report referenced negative economic impacts relative to the loss of federal lands
used for and specific to the three following elements; Mining, Agriculture and
Recreation opportunities. The implied impacts were primarily relative to the loss of
motorized access into and within the public lands. The report states that public lands
that aren’t inclusive of motorized access and only permit non-motorized access largely
go un-used.
The Leaming report states that 2/3rds of the tourism base of Elko County Economy came
from outdoor recreation primarily on public lands. In Elko County 2006 through 2008
outdoor recreation generated an average of $165 million annually in outdoor
recreational uses through commercial retail sales, services, lodging and personal
income. In the 1994 and 2010 report Dr. Leamings based these estimates on
accessible public lands and consideration of the impacts on the creation of road less
and/or wilderness areas.
Dr. Leaming’s report further discusses the direct and indirect economic impacts to Elko
County in the mining industry when public lands are lost to“road less or wilderness”.
The mining operations of the area provide a huge part of our economic infrastructure,
not necessarily due to direct proceeds in Elko County, but indirectly due to the mine
employee population. The current mines operate normally on a twenty five year life
with constant continued exploration and expansion.
Dr. Leaming also provides the elements that would be most affected, including direct
impacts to the county’s long and short term economy. The long term impacts due to
the proposed federal land policies would be on existing users such as mining, livestock
and businesses serving outdoor recreation. Another long term impact would be the
restrictive use of public lands discouraging or “cooling effect” of prospective multiple
uses such as the development of potential mining operations, hunting lodges, ski
resorts or any other type of use that would rely on the necessity of motorized access to
the forest. The “cooling effect” can also be applied as a short term impact applicable to
current recreation and multiple uses on public lands.
Short term effects to the economy would directly impact retail, service and goods
related elements. Long term impacts would be a direct impact to the gross incomes of
mining, livestock and outdoor recreation. These impacts would affect the net incomes
of businesses serving these industries. This would trickle down and affect the retailers
and services, their employees, regional suppliers and their employees, local suppliers
and their employees.
Reference: Appendix E “The Impacts of Federal Land Policies on the Economy of Elko County” – 1994 &
2010 Report
- 54 -
2010 Elko County
Public Land Use & Natural Resource
Management Plan
Ruby Mountains
Tourism & Recreation:
Much of the land devoted to dispersed outdoor recreation activity and most of the land
occupied by developed outdoor recreation facilities in Elko County is managed and
controlled by the Federal Government. Of the 16,000 acres of developed recreational
land in Elko County, about 1,000 acres consist of camping, picnicking and other
recreational sites under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management. That
represents about 0.15% of the land under the Bureau’s control in the county. Another
approximately 2,000 acres of developed recreational land in Elko County are in
campgrounds and other recreational sites developed by the Forest Service. That
represents about 0.19% of the land under that agency’s control in the county. The
remaining 4,000 acres of developed recreational land are under the control of the State
of Nevada and make up the South Fork State Recreation Area and the Wild Horse
Recreation Area.
Lands under the administrative control of the Bureau of Land Management and the
Forest Service make up about 75% of the land used for outdoor recreation activity in
Elko County. The approximately 7.5 million acres of federal lands that constitute the
area used for both dispersed and developed outdoor recreation in the county thereby
provide the basis for about 75% of the income that is received by Elko County
- 55 -
2010 Elko County
Public Land Use & Natural Resource
Management Plan
businesses, local governments, and residents from the outdoor recreation segment of
the tourism and recreation industry. In 2008, the total annual sales made by county
businesses as a direct result of outdoor recreation on federal lands was approximately
165 million dollars, equivalent to an average of $22 per year per acre of federal land.
The personal income received by Elko County residents directly from employment in
those businesses averaged over $40 million, equivalent to an average of $5.39 per
acre per year. Local governments received tax revenues directly from those tourist
businesses that averaged about .90 cents per year per acre of federal land. The three
combined incomes represent an average direct yield for the Elko County economy of
$28.30 per year per acre of federal land used for outdoor recreation.
Most of the land that provides the economic resource base for dispersed recreation in
Elko County is subject to multiple use. Consequently, it also produces income from
livestock grazing as well as some economic (although not commercial) gain from the
gathering of woodland products by Elko County residents. In addition, it provides for
future income generation through its availability for mineral exploration.
Reference: Appendix E “The Impacts of Federal Land Policies on the Economy of Elko County” – 1994 &
2010 Report
Mining:
Dr. Leaming wrote, virtually all of the land used for exploration for nonfuel minerals in
Elko County is either federally managed public or private lands so interspersed with
federally managed public lands that its utilization for mineral exploration is effectively
controlled by the federal government land policies. As a result it can be concluded that
all of the 2,359,000 acres of land in Elko County used for exploration in the county they
are effectively controlled by the federal government. This is also the condition in the
nearby areas of Eureka County that are in effect an integral part of the Elko County
Economy.
According to Dr. Leaming in 2008 the minerals industry of Elko and Eureka counties
produced an average of more than $2.85 billion dollars annually in output from a
combined total of approximately 83,000 acres. That represents a yield of more than
$28,000 per year, per acre of land devoted to mineral production. If the amount of
land used for mineral exploration is considered as also necessary to maintain that same
rate of production on a sustaining basis, then the yield of output for all lands used by
the minerals industry becomes $774 per acre per year.
- 56 -
2010 Elko County
Public Land Use & Natural Resource
Management Plan
Mining Operations
In Nevada
In terms of personal income earned directly by residents of Elko County from mineral
production in both Elko and Eureka counties, the average annual yield for 2006 through
2008 averages over $6,100 per acre per year. If land used for exploration is included,
the direct yield of personal income becomes $168 per acre per year.
Dr. Leaming also wrote that the amount of revenue received directly from Elko County
governmental units from mineral production in the county in 2008 was also significant.
During that year, local governments in Elko County alone received an average of $7.1
million per year directly from mineral producers. The total amount of personal
income earned directly by Elko County residents in 2008 that was dependent upon
federal mineral lands policies equaled $508 million. That represents approximately
57% of the total personal income earned directly by Elko County residents. This made
more than half of Elko County’s economic base directly dependent on the Federal
Governments mineral land policies.
Reference: Appendix E “The Impacts of Federal Land Policies on the Economy of Elko County” – 2010
Report
- 57 -
2010 Elko County
Public Land Use & Natural Resource
Management Plan
Elko County, Nevada – Cattle Grazing – Public Lands Access
Agriculture:
Approximately 85% of all the land devoted to livestock raising in Elko County is
federally managed public lands administered either by the Bureau of Land Management
or the United States Forest Service. Bureau of Land Management jurisdiction accounts
for about 92% of the federal grazing land in the county, while Forest Service jurisdiction
controls the other 8%. Of course, the forage resources of the grazing land under
Forest Service jurisdiction tend to be considerably greater per acre than those on the
generally lower elevation lands under the administration of the Bureau of Land
Management. A comparison of animal unit months used on Forest Service and Bureau
of Land Management grazing lands indicates that in effect the Forest Service actually
controls about a fourth of all forage resources on federal lands in Elko County, despite
the fact that it controls only 8% of the grazing land area.
The 15% of Elko County grazing land that is in private hands is generally equivalent in
carrying capacity to the lands under the administration of the Bureau of Land
Management, except where some private landowners have developed limited amounts
of irrigated pasture. Virtually all of the 168,000 acres of crop land in the county are in
private hands. That puts the total of all agricultural land in Elko County in private
hands at about 17%, with 83% controlled by the Federal Government.
- 58 -
2010 Elko County
Public Land Use & Natural Resource
Management Plan
According to Dr. Leaming in 2008, the agricultural sector of Elko County’s economy
produced livestock and crops worth approximately $63 million each year. That
represents a total output averaging $6.94 per acre per year. During the same period of
time the total personal income earned by farm, ranch owners and employees, averaged
about $10.7 million per year. This represents a yield of personal income of about
$12.03 per acre per year.
The average per acre yields for all of Elko County’s agricultural land are somewhat
higher than the yield from federal grazing land in the county because the county’s
privately owned crop and grazing lands tend to produce more income per acre than the
generally poorer quality federal land. Although about 83% of Elko County’s agricultural
land is under the direct control of the Federal Government, it provides only 54% of the
county’s farm and ranch income, precisely because of the higher productivity of
privately owned land.
Nevertheless, federal policies for grazing lands do have a direct impact on almost 60%
of the county’s agricultural sector. In 2006 through 2008, that represented an annual
average of $365 million in farm and ranch sales, $5.8 million in personal income for
Elko County residents, and more than $1.4 million in tax revenues for local
governments in the county.
Reference: Appendix E “The Impacts of Federal Land Policies on the Economy of Elko County” – 1994 &
2010 Report. Revisions of the Impacts of Federal Land Policies on the Economy of Elko County – 2010
Report are to be implemented as it becomes available.
Elko Grammar School
- 59 -
2010 Elko County
Public Land Use & Natural Resource
Management Plan
Combined Impacts of Federally Managed Public Lands:
The amounts of personal income directly provided to Elko County residents in the years
2006 through 2008 by the three basic land-intensive economic activities,
tourism/recreation, agriculture, and mining that are directly dependent upon federal
land policies and practices added up to nearly $552 million per year. That is
equivalent to about 62% of the personal income provided directly to Elko County
residents by all of the county’s basic economic sectors. If the approximately $34
million provided directly to Elko County residents by federal government employment
is added to the total, the entire portion of the Elko County economy dependent upon
federal government policies and practices rises to more than 66%.
If retirement and welfare incomes, most of which consist of payments made by the
federal government through Social Security and other federal income distribution
programs, is added to the total, then almost 85% of Elko County’s economic base
becomes directly subject to the decisions of the federal government. Fully three fifths
of the county’s economic base is subject to the federal government’s policies and
practices regarding the public lands, with another one fifth subject to employment and
transfer payment policies and practices.
On a per acre basis, federal lands contributed directly to the Elko County economy in
2006 through 2008 the equivalent of almost $980 per acre of federal land used each
year. The biggest part of that, nearly $800 per acre per year, was in the form of
sales revenues for business (mining, outdoor recreation and livestock raising) using the
federal lands. Elko County residents received directly nearly $174 per acre per year
from employment in those industries that used federal lands. Local governments in
Elko County received tax revenues from those same businesses and individuals that was
equivalent to almost $3.50 per acre per year.
Reference: Appendix E “The Impacts of Federal Land Policies on the Economy of Elko County” – 1994 &
2010 Report.
Elko Nevada
Late 1800s
- 60 -
2010 Elko County
Public Land Use & Natural Resource
Management Plan
XI. PLANNING DIRECTIVES
Based on the findings of Parts I through X, The Elko County Board of Commissioners
sets forth the following Public Land Use and Resource Management Planning directives
as formal and direct information for local and regional Public Land Use Management
Planning. The document provides planning directives developed by the citizens of Elko
County regarding the multiple uses of federally managed public lands. The document
addresses federal public land use management issues directly by establishing a set of
principles or specific initiatives. The document is intended to be used as a positive and
concise directive for federal public land management agencies in their development and
implementation of federal plans and management actions. The directives are intended
to further agriculture, mining and recreation as principal economic bases of the county.
This document provides a framework whereby the Elko County Board of County
Commissioners can coordinate and direct the implementation of federal policies within
the county.
THE PLANNING DIRECTIVES:
Directive statements formerly known as policies, have been carried forward from the
1984 SB 40 Plan and previously updated plans. These directive statements have been
developed from citizens, industry associations, community groups and the Elko County
Natural Resource Management Advisory Commission comment as they relate to
changing conditions and policies of federal land management agencies. Many of the
statements are reflective of previous positions taken by the Commissioners in
resolutions and cooperative agreements.
1.
Agency Coordination and Local Voice: Federal agency coordination of
planning with State and local governments is mandated by federal laws.

FLPMA, Section 102 (a) (2) declares the policy of the United States is that the
national interest will be best realized if the public lands and their resources are
periodically and systematically inventoried and present and future use is
projected through the land use planning process coordinated with other federal
and state planning efforts.
Directive 1-1:
All proposed actions on public lands are to be brought to the
attention of the Elko County Natural Resource Management
Advisory Commission (NRMAC), as time allows, or the Elko County
Board of County Commissioners (ECBC) for purposes of review to
determine if the federal program is in conformance with this Plan
pursuant to NEPA requirements and allows the county to cooperate
and coordinate with the federal land management agencies. The
- 61 -
2010 Elko County
Public Land Use & Natural Resource
Management Plan
Elko County Natural Resource Management Advisory Commission’s
role is to recommend to the ECBC appropriate action concerning
such proposals.
Directive 1-2:
Elko County will coordinate and cooperate with federal agencies on
actions that affect public lands within the county. The Elko County
Natural Resource Management Advisory Commission will serve in
an advisory capacity as liaison to the ECBC. Studies concerning
impacts of proposed actions affecting public lands should be
conducted by professionals. The Elko County Natural Resource
Management Advisory Commission requests the commission and
the ECBC be notified by the federal agencies before any studies
sponsored by the federal land management agencies are initiated.
Copies of resource studies and all supporting documentation should
be provided to the ECBC as soon as available.
Directive 1-3:
The Elko County Natural Resource Management Advisory
Commission and ECBC will require consistency between this Plan
and all federal land use management, resource management, travel
management and any other federal management plans and actions
which apply to Elko County.
2.
Management of Public Lands: Currently as Elko County is 72.7% federally
managed public lands, it is important to the custom, culture, history and economics of
the region that the multiple use concept remain as the primary method of management
by the federal agencies. Public lands of Nevada have historically been utilized to
provide economic and cultural benefit to the people that live and work in Nevada. The
federal public land management agencies must adopt management and planning
practices to ensure the continued viability of local economies, protect local history,
culture and wildlife.
Directive 2-1:
Elko County supports the continuance of Multiple Use Management
as an overriding philosophy for management of the public lands
based on multiple use and sustainable yield concepts, and in a way
that will conserve natural resources.
Directive 2-2:
Elko County denounces and rejects any and all planning and
management policy or action that prohibits or restricts multiple
uses, access to and travel on public lands.
Directive 2-3:
Encourages the federal land management agencies to coordinate
and cooperate to develop preservation and conservation education
- 62 -
2010 Elko County
Public Land Use & Natural Resource
Management Plan
programs to help protect and preserve the quality of the
environment, and economic, cultural, ecological, scenic, historical
and archeological values of Elko County; protect and preserve
wildlife habitat values compatible with economic development
needed to provide for long term benefits for the people of Elko
County and future generations.
Directive 2-4:
The USFS and BLM shall obtain approval of Elko County Board of
Commissioners through the coordination and cooperation process
prior to implementation of any and all Federal Land Management
agency developed Land Use, Resource and/or Travel Management
Plans. Resource and Travel Management on public lands within
Elko County shall adamantly sustain and maintain current or better
access and travel and other current multiple uses of public lands.
Directive 2-5:
Development of Resource and/or Travel Management Plans shall
consider and provide comprehensive studies prior to
implementation including Socio-Economic Impacts, Cultural,
Historical uses and Environmental issues related to the local
community and region.
Directive 2-6:
Approved Resource and/or Travel Management Plans shall ensure
that the public may access and travel public lands by various
multiple methods including motorized ATV/OHV. Cross country
travel shall be maintained for motorized and non-motorized semiprimitive recreation, dispersed camping, game retrieval, allotment
grazing, ranching requirements, mining exploration and not
excluding other multiple uses.
3. Federally Managed Public Land Transactions: The following are directives
developed by Elko County relating to the federal land program. Included in the
Appendix is a list of parcels generally identified by the County for local public purposes,
community expansion and economic development. The list and the map provide a
general description of the lands identified for acquisition and are intended to be used as
a guide for more detailed studies. Each parcel will need to be further reviewed at the
time a specific realty action is proposed.
Elko County recognizes that many of the directives described below are currently part of
the BLM and USFS procedures for land transactions. However, the County believes the
basic directives on land tenure need to be clearly expressed in this Plan to communicate
county directives not only to the federal agencies, but to the citizens of Elko County as
well.
- 63 -
2010 Elko County
Public Land Use & Natural Resource
Management Plan
Elko County has identified many parcels for public purposes and for economic
development. The specific land transaction program is to be guided by the following
policies:
Directive 3-1:
Specially designated lands (i.e. National Monuments, National
Recreation Areas, National Conservation Areas, Wildlife Refuges,
Designated Wilderness Areas, State parks, etc.) are public lands
with limited or restricted public uses. Within Elko County, any new
specially designated areas shall be reviewed carefully in a public
forum to determine if they are suitable and beneficial to our
residents. The county is opposed to the use of the Antiquities Act
or Executive Orders as methods for designating lands. The process
must be grass roots and community based.
Directive 3-2:
Existing remote dispersed camp sites, day areas and access will be
recognized and preserved. The development of new dispersed
campsites and day areas is to be permitted along and adjacent to
existing access roads and remote areas.
Directive 3-3:
Government agencies will not acquire additional private lands
without first ensuring:
1.
That private land is not disposed of unless it clearly benefits
the citizens of Elko County;
2.
That environmental and cultural values are protected;
3.
That private
enhanced;
4.
That
socioeconomic
considered;
5.
That takings in any form are fully compensated and
substantiated to meet the highest public need;
6.
That the local tax base or economy is not negatively
impacted;
property interests are protected and/or
- 64 -
impacts
are
comprehensively
2010 Elko County
Public Land Use & Natural Resource
Management Plan
7.
That due process is guaranteed to all private parties involved
in land use controversies, by means that do not demand or
create a financial hardship; and
8.
That the State and local government within those
jurisdictions that the land is located be consulted in regard
to the acquisition.
Directive 3-4:
Isolated tracts of public lands, checkerboard areas, and public lands
in rural townships where the majority of land is private should be
identified for disposal. All public land easements and/or access
should be retained for continued public use. The use of alternative
access to accommodate land management through property may
be employed if feasible and appropriate.
Directive 3-5:
Increase opportunities for local economic development by
selectively increasing the amount of privately owned land within
the county. Elko County’s goal for land exchanges is to maintain a
“no net loss” in private, county or state acreage. Although the
County supports exchanges that will increase economic
development, the County is also concerned about any proposal that
will reduce private, county or state ownership unless it is a clear
benefit to the County.
1.
Public lands within the municipal and un-incorporated
service areas of Elko, Spring Creek, Carlin, Wells, Jackpot
Midas, Montello, Mountain City, Tuscarora and West
Wendover should continue to be made available for urban
expansion through the Recreation and Public Purposes
(R&PP) process. Sale and Exchange Provisions of the
Federal Land Directive Management Act (FLPMA) and the
Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act (FLTFA – BACA Bill)
should also be used to transfer lands in an expedited
manner. These lands should be transferred only when local
governments agree that the transfer is opportune and would
not be a burden on local governments.
2.
Public lands should be made available as needed for state
and local government purposes. Lands identified for public
purposes should receive preference to disposal for private
and Quasi – Public purposes. Applications for recreation and
- 65 -
2010 Elko County
Public Land Use & Natural Resource
Management Plan
public purposes leases and patents for multiple public uses
will maintain priority for completion.
3.
Before public lands are disposed of, adverse impacts on
existing uses should be considered. Adverse impacts could
include important wildlife habitat, key seasonal grazing
rights, municipal watersheds, flood prone areas, access,
mineral potential, oil / natural gas potential, alternative
energy potential and recreational use of the lands.
4.
Land exchanges and lands sales that consolidate high value
public purpose lands and/or make private lands more
manageable should be given high priority in federal land
transaction processes.
5.
Elko County encourages the BLM to review the agency’s land
sales/exchange procedures to determine ways, including
changes in Directive and regulations when appropriate, to
expedite the sales and exchange process. The existing
process can be “cost prohibitive” and time consuming when
applied to small isolated land exchanges and sales. All
appropriate authorities for land disposal under the BACA Bill
should be used for maximum flexibility and for the payment
of fees associated with appraisals and other administrative
costs to expedite the process.
6.
Public access to and through disposed lands should be
retained through the recordation of an easement and deed
restriction. Whenever public lands are disposed of, existing
public access to adjoining or nearby public lands should be
retained for recreational and other multiple use needs. The
development of alternative routes of access may be
necessary, but should be acquired and guaranteed prior to
the disposal and loss of any existing access and should be of
equal value and public benefit. Under no circumstances
should the transfer of title from the United States to private
individuals result in limitations of historic public access
through the subject property without prior establishment of
alternative routes. All too often we have witnessed situations
where in a public parcel is transferred to private ownership,
effectively resulting in private ownership of access to public
lands.
- 66 -
2010 Elko County
Public Land Use & Natural Resource
Management Plan
Directive 3-6:
Directive 3-7:
7.
The public as well as local and state governments are to be
involved in decisions related to public lands activities.
Adequate public notice shall be given before the initiation of
any federal land transactions.
8.
Existing Access to federally managed public lands through
private lands must be maintained. The managing federal
agency shall exhaust all resources to acquire easements
necessary for public access. If the easement is not obtained
the agency shall label and identify the access as restricted
public lands access.
Public lands should be transferred to the private sector when
suitable for intensive agricultural operations through either the
Desert Land Act or the sale authority provided by FLPMA and the
BACA Bill.
1.
Preference should be given to existing land users or adjacent
land owners through a direct sale or preferential bid, where
possible.
2.
The lands made available for irrigated farm land must have
adequate water, as determined by the State Engineer.
3.
Any federally managed public lands fenced adjacent to
private land, should receive a high priority for sale or
exchange.
Promote the increased use of, and adherence to, comprehensive
planning among all government entities in Nevada.
1.
Corridors for the future transmission of energy, in harmony
with other multiple uses on federally managed public lands.
2.
The County shall review and have cooperating / coordinating
agency status on all public land withdrawals that include the
potential for the transportation, storage, and disposal of all
hazardous and toxic refuse or waste materials.
3.
Renewable energy sources proposed for and maintained on
federally managed public lands shall not prevent or
- 67 -
2010 Elko County
Public Land Use & Natural Resource
Management Plan
encumber other multiple uses for agriculture, mining or
recreation.
4.
Custom and Culture: Elko County recognizes the rich history of cultures and
customs that comprises our past and also the newer culture and customs and public
land uses that combine to create the present and future. The County is fortunate to
have so many expressions of various cultures coming together to form the whole, and is
richer for it, and celebrates that richness.
Directive 4-1:
Continue to support and aid expressions of culture such as the
heritages of ranching and agriculture by preserving events and
locations such as the County Fairgrounds, Sherman Station, the
Elko County Museum, the California Interpretive Trail Center, the
National Basque Festival, the Mining Expo, Western Shoshone PowWows, the National Cowboy Poetry Festival and others.
Directive 4-2:
Recognize the cultural and economic advantages of modern land
uses. Being the wet corner of Nevada allows for excellent game
and fish habitat and vast hunting, fishing, hiking, snowmobiling,
ATV/ORVing, Native American seed gatherings and activities, and
other dispersed opportunities accessible to the public. Many
visitors from around the State and nation come to Elko County to
be part of these activities.
Directive 4-3:
The federal land management agencies must recognize the
importance of access and travel on federally managed public lands
to maintain multiple uses. This includes all methods of travel;
whether motorized, equestrian, hiking, bicycle or any other means
of travel.
Directive 4-4:
Native American and American cultural sites are to remain open to
the public for historical and educational value. The federal land
management agencies are encouraged to develop preservation
education programs and provide the physical monitoring of known
archeological and cultural historic sites.
5.
Community Stability: Three essential factors are related to measuring
community stability and well-being:



Societal, historical and cultural values;
Economic viability, and sustainability; and
Environmental integrity
- 68 -
2010 Elko County
Public Land Use & Natural Resource
Management Plan
By incorporating these factors at the onset of planning processes, discussions and
decisions move toward furthering community stability, and avoid disruptions. The
varied nature of these essential considerations underlies community stability and wellbeing, corresponds to the breadth and diversity of citizen interests, and their values and
needs. Incorporating these factors within the public land planning process will establish
a basis for coordinating the multiple use interests and needs of Elko County.
Community stability can be affected by national needs and interests, which are
frequently outside the control of the local planning processes. Recognition of potential
outside needs and interests within the county planning process, can prepare the
community to respond with positive data and constructive options.
Elko County is experiencing consistent growth, and increasing demands on public lands
for historic production interests and expanding recreational uses. Additionally, Elko
County’s public land base is increasingly valued for open space amenities, such as,
wildlife and view shed. Effective coordination and/or cooperation of Elko County public
land interests requires expert counsel from within the county government, and
expanded citizen involvement within the county’s planning process.
To promote community stability related to federally managed public land issues, and to
encourage the practical and successful implementation of the Elko County Public Land
Use Management Plan, the following is recommended:
Directive 5-1:
Incorporate the concepts of community stability measurement
factors within the Elko County Public Lands planning process;
Directive 5-2:
Initiate the position of Elko County Federal Lands Program
Coordinator to provide specific guidance to Elko County in
developing federally managed public land use plans, which will
provide the county and its citizens with meaningful involvement in
all federal land planning processes;
Directive 5-3:
Generate resource issue topics through a collaborative forum
suitable for inclusion in the Bureau of Land Management, Elko
District Office, Resource Management Plan (RMP) process which is
scheduled for 2010, and the U.S. Forest Service scheduled planning
updates, and all other amendments and or adjustments to the
federal government land use management plans;
Directive 5-4:
Initiate a comprehensive county planning process to benefit and
maximize the issue topics and desired positive outcomes detailed in
the Elko County Public Land Use Management Plan.
- 69 -
2010 Elko County
Public Land Use & Natural Resource
Management Plan
6.
Public Safety: Elko County appreciates the safe passage of its residents and
visitors on federally managed public lands. However, back country travel exposes
travelers to certain risks that result from weather, terrain, road/trail alignment, and
individual travel skills. Persons that travel the unimproved roads or trails do so at their
own risk. Neither Elko County, nor the federal land management agencies, assume
responsibility for those that travel unimproved roads and trails.
Directive 6-1:
Elko County encourages the fencing of any currently un-fenced
right-of-ways along State highways to protect the traveling public
and to reduce livestock losses. This fencing should be constructed
under a cooperative effort between the BLM, US Forest Service,
Nevada Department of Transportation, Nevada Department of
Wildlife, Nevada Division of Forestry, private property owners, and
permittees, to meet both the needs of livestock operators and the
safety of the traveling public.
Directive 6-2:
Elko County acknowledges the presence of federal law enforcement
officers on federally managed public lands to enforce laws
pertaining to the management of public lands but is opposed to
BLM or USFS enforcement of state or local laws, statutes or code
The County mandates that the existing protocol between BLM,
USFS and other federal law enforcement officers and the Elko
County Sheriff is to be continued and that the Elko County Sheriff is
the primary and lead law enforcement agency.
Directive 6-3:
Support cooperative training in areas of public safety such as
search and rescue and hazardous materials. The US Forest Service
and BLM should work with the County to ensure adequate
personnel, training and equipment are available to meet the
increased demand for back country rescues. In the event of future
nuclear shipments through Elko County, cooperative training,
funding and preparatory response resources should also be
provided by DOE, or other federal agencies, to facilitate readiness
and prompt response capabilities to Elko County.
Directive 6-4:
Elko County supports full evaluation of criteria listed in the Public
Land Use Management Plan in regard to any public land and air
space withdrawals for military use including those with potential for
transportation, storage, and disposal of all hazardous, toxic, or
nuclear materials. Careful consideration should be given to
approval of any additional Air Space designations due to substantial
MOA inventories and impacts associated with the MOA’s.
- 70 -
2010 Elko County
Public Land Use & Natural Resource
Management Plan
Directive 6-5:
Improved roads on federally managed public lands should be
maintained for safe passage. Areas of high traffic and travel should
be made a priority. Where road conditions are dangerous, signs
and other public notification should be utilized until the condition
can be mitigated. In some instances a road or ATV/OHV trail may
be intentionally left in a state of disrepair for its recreational value.
Such roads/trails shall be posted with a warning to users regarding
the difficult driving conditions present, and that the County or
federal agency assumes no responsibility for those that choose to
travel those roads/trails. Maintenance of roads should be
coordinated between the BLM, US Forest Service, County and the
public.
7.
Agriculture and Livestock Production: Agricultural production is necessary
to help maintain the historical, cultural and economic viability of Elko County. Elko
County requires that federal land management agencies use of the 2006 Elko County
Grazing Economic Impact study, 2010 Federal Land Policy and its Impacts to the
Economy of Elko County, or other updated studies, in all environmental analysis on
livestock grazing related decisions.
Directive 7-1:
Preserve agricultural land and promote the continuation of
agricultural pursuits, both traditional and non traditional;
Directive 7-2:
The pursuit and production of renewable agricultural resources are
consistent with the long term heritage of Elko County. This private
industry benefits the County economically and culturally;
Directive 7-3:
Opportunities for agricultural development on public lands should
continue at levels that are consistent with historical customs,
culture and compatibility with other multiple uses;
Directive 7-4:
Grazing should utilize sound adaptive management practices. Elko
County encourages the federal land management agencies to
include flexibility into their grazing management plans that allow
for grazing management that is beneficial to the health of the land,
the economic viability of the producer, and enhances all other
multiple uses of our public lands. Elko County acknowledges that
periodic updates of the Nevada Rangeland Monitoring Handbook
may be required to help establish proper levels of grazing, but does
not support loss of federally managed public lands used for grazing
purposes;
- 71 -
2010 Elko County
Public Land Use & Natural Resource
Management Plan
Directive 7-5:
Allotment management strategies should be developed that provide
incentives to optimize stewardship by the permittee. Flexibility and
acknowledgement of stewardship should be given to the permittee
to allow the operator the ability to reach condition standards for
the range. Monitoring should utilize the use of long-term trend
studies as described above. Elko County also supports the use of
cooperative monitoring utilizing the Nevada Rangeland Monitoring
Handbook Second Edition;
Directive 7-6:
Encourage agencies managing public lands to coordinate with the
N-1 Grazing Board and appropriate Conservation District on all
manners affecting livestock grazing on public lands within the
County;
Directive 7-7:
Range water rights and improvements such as those associated
with seeps, springs, streams, lakes and wells used by livestock
should be protected in the long term for that use. Encourage
cooperation between the federal land management agencies and
the grazing operator in protecting the riparian values of these
water sources. The county does not support the transfer of water
rights from livestock to wild horses or wildlife. Nevada Revised
Statue 533.367 requires water developments to not restrict use by
wildlife;
Directive 7-8:
The Nevada Congressional Delegation should be encouraged to
develop regionally variable grazing fees that are based on the
quality and quantity of forage, accessibility and infrastructure.
Directive 7-9:
Elko County requests federal agency notification of all actions
regarding permit renewals for potential request by Elko County for
status as a cooperating agency in such action.
Directive 7-10:
Elko County considers mandatory, set time period, post-wild land
fire grazing closures as inconsistent with good range science. The
County expects that burned pastures be allowed one year to
recover, and then be evaluated for their condition relative to
grazing. If, after one year of recovery, the forage is suitably
restored to allow grazing, grazing should be restored, even if on a
limited basis. Elko County strongly encourages the USFS and BLM
to restore retired or discontinued grazing privileges on all Federally
managed Public Lands.
- 72 -
2010 Elko County
Public Land Use & Natural Resource
Management Plan
8.
Noxious Weeds and Invasive Species: Due to the broad range of
management and ownership of public and private lands, an integrated comprehensive
approach to cooperative noxious weed management across all jurisdictional boundaries
is essential. Negative impacts due to noxious weeds include low resale value of
property, loss of wildlife and fisheries’ habitat, accelerated erosion, decreased water
quality, degraded recreation opportunities, deadly effects to some animals and humans,
reduced forage production for agricultural producers, increased cost of consumer goods
and disruption of productive ecosystems. The scope of the noxious weed infestation
throughout Elko County is currently sizeable, with 19 identified species, and acreage
infested growing at an alarming rate. Many species require multiple years of treatment
and monitoring to eliminate and
combination of resources is a
necessity
for
successful
weed
management.
Elko County, in coordination with
Federal agencies, State agencies,
Tribal
governments,
private
businesses, Elko County Association
of Conservation Districts, non-profit
organizations and local citizens,
assisted in organizing the Elko
County
Cooperative
Weed
Management Association Area in
December of 2003. The mission of
the ECCWMA is to coordinate
integrated activities necessary for
prevention and control of noxious
and invasive weeds in Elko County.
The emphasis is focused on
education,
prevention,
control,
treatment and monitoring activities,
inventory
collection, cooperative
work projects, funding and grant
solicitation
and utilization of all
available resources.
Priority of
control and eradication efforts is
concentrated on species listed on the
Nevada Noxious Weed List and other species of significance as identified by the local
working groups.
- 73 -
2010 Elko County
Public Land Use & Natural Resource
Management Plan
Palisades
Canyon
Figure 5 – Weed Species in Elko County
- 74 -
2010 Elko County
Public Land Use & Natural Resource
Management Plan
Strategies for implementation of the following policies include active and financial
support of all Countywide noxious weed treatment activities as able, effectively
establishing, implementing and enforcing County codes and ordinances relating to
prevention measures and actively lobbying for additional Federal and State funding for
noxious weed treatment.
Directive 8-1:
Implement an outreach inclusive approach
cooperative noxious weed management;
Directive 8-2:
Prevent the introduction, reproduction and spread of designated
noxious weeds and invasive exotic plants;
Directive 8-3:
Reduce the extent and density of established noxious weeds to a
point that natural resource damage is within acceptable limits;
Directive 8-4:
Implement the most economical and effective control methods for
the target weeds;
Directive 8-5:
Implement an integrated management system using all appropriate
methods;
Directive 8-6:
The County will provide guidance and aid, through county
extension agents and control of predators and pests that are
harmful to the economic well-being of the agricultural industry and
residents of its communities. Active pest and predator control may
be used if it is clearly demonstrated there are only minimal
undesirable side effects on wildlife and wildlife habitats. Programs
to control predators may be used when necessary to maintain
optimum levels of domestic and game animals as well as for public
safety;
Directive 8-7:
The federal agencies should give a priority to working cooperatively
with the County and its eight Conservation Districts to control
noxious weeds. The continued spread of noxious weeds is a
serious threat to agriculture and native grasslands within the
County. This threat requires immediate action by federal, state
and local agencies along with private land owners while there is still
time to control the spread of these weeds. A memorandum of
understanding exists between the County, federal agencies and
businesses for the purpose of executing the ECCWMA’s goals and
objectives.
- 75 -
to
integrated
2010 Elko County
Public Land Use & Natural Resource
Management Plan
9.
Air Quality: Air quality in Elko County is currently among the best in the nation
and it is an important factor influencing the quality of life and well being of its citizens.
Therefore, it is the Directive of the County to protect air quality.
Directive 9-1:
Air quality must be protected with a balanced approach that
provides economic growth without a detriment to the social,
aesthetic, cultural and ecological values of the County;
Directive 9-2:
All energy proposals should attain the lowest feasible emissions,
the highest feasible efficiencies, and the highest possible standards
using Best Available Control Technology;
Directive 9-3:
All water rights applications associated with proposed pipeline
projects should require comprehensive monitoring programs to
include air quality measurements. If PM-10 levels increase, an
immediate re-vegetation project will be necessary to stabilize the
surface of any areas where any vegetation is changing as a result
of the project;
Directive 9-4:
Air quality standards should be established based on best available
control techniques by the Nevada Division of Environmental
Protection. Elko County’s excellent air quality should be maintained
as an important aspect of the quality of life of the citizens and
visitors;
Directive 9-5:
Particulate monitoring stations should be established by the Nevada
Division of Environmental Protection to establish local ambient air
quality. Naturally occurring fugitive dust should be considered in
establishing local ambient air quality baseline measurements;
10. Cultural Resources: Elko County cultural resources and customs include all
the prehistoric and historic archaeological resources and traditional cultural practices of
the people of the County. For example, the California Emigrant Trail Route traverses
Elko County and is a valuable asset that showcases the county’s resources.
Cultural resources include, but are not limited to:





historic roads and RS 2477 Roads
trails
two-track roads
Pony Express Trail
Hastings Cutoff
- 76 -
2010 Elko County
Public Land Use & Natural Resource
Management Plan
















railways
highways and associated buildings
sidings
stations
rock art sites
historic townships
mining camps and districts
racetracks
cemeteries and isolated gravesites
paleoindian sites
prehistoric villages and campsites
rock shelters
caves
toolstone sources
quarries
dispersed camp sites and access trails
Less tangible resources include:




dance forms
customary beliefs
material traits of a group
integrated patterns of human behavior passed to succeeding generations by
stories and traditions
California Trail Interpretive Center
- 77 -
2010 Elko County
Public Land Use & Natural Resource
Management Plan
Directive 10-1:
Elko County supports preservation of cultural resources (i.e.,
research, interpretative opportunities for the public etc.) compatible
with local customs and culture. Elko County supports a balanced
land management approach in consideration of cultural resources.
Directive 10-2:
The County supports the preservation and inventorying of historical
sites coordinated with the State Historic Preservation Office. The
County supports the concept of a systematic and early planning
process for management of cultural resources to avoid crisis
management where possible and to ensure compliance with the
National Historic Preservation Act.
Directive 10-3:
Prehistoric site studies should be coordinated with local Native
American communities. Cultural resource studies and activities
should be documented to the extent that they are characterized for
posterity. Elko County recognizes and supports protection and
management, but not prohibition of the public, of the significant
cultural values in sites. Elko County encourages federal and state
land managers to consider economic development in concert with
cultural resources and mitigate conflicts.
Directive 10-4:
Directive 10-4:
Prehistoric, Native American and American cultural sites are to
remain open to the public for historical, cultural and educational
value. The federal land management agencies are encouraged to
develop preservation / conservation education programs and
provide the physical monitoring of known archeological and cultural
historic sites.
Cultural resources must be managed, without prohibition in a way
that allows for community advancements supported by the will of
Elko County residents, consistent with federal and state law.
1920’s Air Mail
Elko, Nevada
- 78 -
2010 Elko County
Public Land Use & Natural Resource
Management Plan
11. Forestry and Forest Products: Forest and forestry products production in
Elko County is a benefit to the livelihood and well being of its citizens. Therefore, it is
the Directive of the County to protect forest resources and promote the continuation of
a sustainable forestry products industry by providing economic opportunity, relying on
self-determination and open market conditions. Elko County believes that forest
resources can be managed like any other agricultural resource, and that proper
utilization/reclamation is essential to the well-being of the County’s environment and
economy.
Directive 11-1:
Promote multiple use of public forest resources to realize
sustainable and continuous provisions of timber, forage, firewood,
wildlife, fisheries, recreation and water.
Directive 11-2:
Support the prompt salvage of forest losses due to fire, insect
infestation or other events. In many cases this may include the
construction of temporary roads to facilitate the harvest of firedamaged trees. After the fire-damaged trees are essentially
harvested, the federal land management agency responsible for
that area will consult with Elko County regarding the reclamation of
the temporary roads.
Directive 11-3:
Support the management of woodlands/forest by ecological
condition for a diversity of vegetation communities. Grass and
shrub ecosystems with no or few invasive species are preferable to
pinion/juniper monocultures.
Directive 11-4:
Urge BLM and Forest Service to allow and promote thinning of
wildland/urban interface. This should be done in such a manner
that local entities have an opportunity to derive economic benefit
from the forest.
Directive 11-5:
Recognize the importance of maintaining healthy aspen
communities and encourage activities that will retain and improve
the vigor of these communities while maintaining agricultural
grazing and multiple uses.
Directive 11-6:
Requires that the USFS and BLM permit the activity of motorized
access and cross country travel for wood cutting / gathering and
recognizes its direct positive economic impact to the economy of
Elko County.
- 79 -
2010 Elko County
Public Land Use & Natural Resource
Management Plan
12. Water Resources: Elko County’s water resources are the basis for all the
resource, economic, and cultural viability enjoyed by the county residents and visitors to
the County.
Directive 12-1:
All activities on the County’s federally managed public lands should
consider the policies as adopted in the Elko County Water
Resources Management Plan.
Directive 12-2:
Elko County is opposed to the granting of certificates of water
rights to federal land management agencies for any purpose.
13. Wetlands, Riparian Habitat and Waters of the United States: Wetlands,
riparian habitat and waters of the United States support the diverse populations of
waterfowl, fisheries, wildlife, and plant communities prized by all public land users
within the County. These policies correspond to the policies and statements contained
in the Elko County Water Resources Plan.
Directive 13-1:
Wetlands, riparian habitat and waters of the US should be
protected from undue degradation. Undue degradation may result
from over pumping of groundwater, destruction of vegetation for
over-development or misplacement of recreational facilities, poorly
planned land dispositions, unintentional misuse of riparian
resources. The federal land management agency are encouraged to
develop public education programs
Directive 13-2:
Wetlands, riparian habitat and waters should be managed in a
responsible and balanced manner with other resources and uses.
Directive 13-3:
Support a coordinated effort to protect wellhead protection areas
and municipal watersheds from undue degradation through
proactive zoning and development controls, pursuant to the
County’s Wellhead Protection ordinance.
Idaho Street
1930’s
- 80 -
2010 Elko County
Public Land Use & Natural Resource
Management Plan
14.Mineral Resources: The development of Nevada’s mineral
resources is desirable
and necessary to the economy of the nation, the state and particularly to Elko County.
Courtesy Newmont Gold
Directive 14-1:
Retain existing mining areas and promote the expansion of mining
operations and areas not specifically withdrawn.
Directive 14-2:
Elko County supports the Mining Law of 1872 and opposes any
Directive or regulatory revisions that may result in overregulation.
Elko County requires federal agency use of the 2007 Elko County
Mining Economic Impact Study, 2010 Impacts of Federal Land
Policies and the Economy of Elko County report or other updated
studies, in all environmental analysis on mining related decisions.
Elko County requests federal agency notification of all actions
regarding mining related environmental analysis for potential
request by Elko County for status as a cooperating agency in such
action.
Directive 14-3:
The federal government should continue to evaluate the mineral
resources on lands before they are sold, exchanged, designated as
wilderness or special use. The Federal agencies should continue to
manage the presently open, federally-owned mineral estate in Elko
- 81 -
2010 Elko County
Public Land Use & Natural Resource
Management Plan
County as open to mineral location, sales and leases. The agencies
should carefully evaluate all withdrawals and land disposal and
minimize the separation of surface and mineral estates in all realty
actions.
1.
Federal management policies on existing split mineral
estates are to be developed with state and local participation
and in consideration of local zoning ordinances.
2.
The mineral withdrawal process may be an acceptable
means of protecting fragile or “special” lands, but its use
should be limited and substantiated.
Directive 14-4:
Federal land management agencies should continue to enforce
existing reclamation standards to ensure there is no undue
degradation of the public lands. Strict coordination with Nevada
Division of Environmental Protection’s Bureau of Mining Regulation
and Reclamation is strongly encouraged.
Directive 14-5:
To improve the economic well-being of the County, federal land
management agencies are to allow the use of buildings and
infrastructure on reclaimed sites for other uses. Buildings should
be retained for other economic development including industry as
well as uses pursuant to the Recreation and Public Purposes Act.
Future Plan Revisions should allow partial reclamation to be
acceptable for alternate industry occupation.
Directive 14-6:
Mine site and exploration reclamation standards are to be
consistent with the best possible post mine use for each specific
area. Specific reclamation standards are to be developed for each
property rather than using broad based universal standards.
Private properties (i.e., patented claims) should be reclaimed to the
standard and degree desired by their respective owners, following
state law and regulations.
Directive 14-7:
An annual assessment requirement for holding mining claims has
led to unjustified land disturbances which did not necessarily aid in
the furtherance of the property’s resource development. These
requirements have since been revised and provide for the claim
holder to pay a $100 fee annually to the BLM, in lieu of doing work
on the ground. There is an exemption for a small miner who holds
ten claims or less. If the small miner chooses the exemption, $100
- 82 -
2010 Elko County
Public Land Use & Natural Resource
Management Plan
of assessment work must be expended annually to hold the claim.
Elko County supports the policy of the small miner exemption if the
miner is offered the opportunity to develop the property.
Encourage federal agencies to use the mining claim maintenance
fees collected within the state or county that they were generated,
especially in the use of reclamation of abandoned mine sites.
Directive 14-8:
The Secretary of Interior’s prohibition on issuing patents should be
withdrawn. The Secretary should use all means to encourage the
exploration and development of the mineral resource, including the
issuance of patents, as appropriate.
Directive 14-9:
Elko County suggests that all mining companies work with the
county and others to facilitate smooth transition either in a mine
closure, or dramatic reduction in productivity.
15. Public Access: Access to federally managed public lands is a critical component
of the historic, cultural, economic and recreational vitality of the County and multiple
use access and travel is required to maintain and encourage future growth and
prosperity.
Access on BLM Public Lands
- 83 -
2010 Elko County
Public Land Use & Natural Resource
Management Plan
NR S 405.191 and 403.410 a “public road” is defined as follows:
1.
A United States highway, a State highway or a main, general or minor county
road and any other way laid out or maintained by any governmental agency.
2.
Any way which exists upon a right of way granted by Congress over public lands
of the United States not reserved for public uses in chapter 262, section 8, 14
Statutes 253 (former 43 U.S.C. § 932, commonly referred to as R.S. 2477), and
accepted by general public use and enjoyment before, on or after July 1, 1979.
Each board of county commissioners may locate and determine the width of such
rights of way and locate, open for public use and establish thereon county roads
or highways, but public use alone has been and is sufficient to evidence an
acceptance of the grant of a public user right of way pursuant to former 43
U.S.C. § 932.
3.
Any way which is shown upon any plat, subdivision, addition, parcel map or
record of survey of any county, city, town or portion thereof duly recorded or
filed in the office of the county recorder, and which is not specifically therein
designated as a private road or a nonpublic road, and any way which is
described in a duly recorded conveyance as a public road or is reserved thereby
for public road purposes or which is described by words of similar import.”
Directive 15-1:
All Federal land management agencies shall recognize and honor
the valid and important rights Congress gave local governments to
own and manage public roads and related right-of-ways.
Directive 15-2:
The State definition of a “public road” (NRS 405.191, 403.410 and
244.155) shall be used consistently throughout Nevada by all
federal, State and local agencies. Road mapping should be
coordinated between the US Forest Service, BLM and Elko County.
Directive 15-3:
Utilize R.S. 2477 right-of-ways to protect historical public access to
public lands across private property. Promote private access across
private properties.
Directive 15-4:
USFS and BLM shall maintain access to mining claims by adhering
to the rights claimed under R.S. 2477.
Directive 15-5:
Optimize accessibility within the County and reduce the cost of
movement between all communities across public lands. Public
- 84 -
2010 Elko County
Public Land Use & Natural Resource
Management Plan
Directive 15-6:
access to federally managed public lands is vital to Elko County’s
economic stability.
The County supports transportation of minerals and mining
products over federal, state, and county roads and highways, given
that appropriate safety precautions guarantee public safety.
Directive 15-7:
All Federal land management agencies shall recognize that the
Exhibits A-I through Tool, Sheets 1 through 40, Map Case 328522
file in the Office of the Elko County Recorder, on September, 26,
1992 (Gardner Maps) identify existing roads that existed prior to
1976. Some of these roads may be RS2477 and some may be
private roads.
Directive 15-8:
All Federal land management agencies shall allow access across
federally managed public lands by right-of-ways prior to the need
for access across private lands.
Directive 15-9:
Federal agencies shall allow for motorized access across federally
managed public lands by cross country travel for specific uses
including, but not limited to movement of livestock, large game
retrieval and semi-primitive recreation experiences.
Directive 15-10: No road or trail on federally managed public lands within Elko
County shall be closed for public use without prior approval of the
Elko County Board of Commissioners.
The Federal land
management agency shall provide all supporting ecologic and
economic impact data. The data must include a health, safety and
welfare component. Public hearings shall be held to determine the
final status of the road or trail proposed for closure.
Directive 15-11: Roads approved for closure shall be posted at any/or all points of
ingress as “ROAD CLOSED”. No other form of posting shall be
permitted.
16. Recreation and Open Space: Elko County enjoys many natural amenities that
attract local residents and visitors. These resources should be protected and developed
for the public’s multiple use benefit. This section represents Elko County’s Open Space
Element of the Master Plan and corresponds to recreation and open space policies and
maps contained therein. This Open Space Element represents the qualifying plan for
participation in the State of Nevada’s Question 1 Program.
- 85 -
2010 Elko County
Public Land Use & Natural Resource
Management Plan
Thomas Creek
Directive 16-1:
Conserve and protect scenic, historical, recreational and open
space resources for the benefit of the present and future
generations with additional consultation with local, State and
federal governments and users by implementing the Elko County
Open Space Plan and Elko County Public Land Use and Natural
Resource Management Plan.
Elko County recognizes that
recreation in all forms is consistent with multiple use of public
lands. All resources utilized by the public should be conserved and
Elko County reserves the right for application under the Recreation
and Public Purposes Act (R&PP) for all such resources.
Directive 16-2:
Encourage recreational use in Elko County by increasing marketing
efforts that describe the recreational opportunities available in the
County. Publication of maps showing roads/trails, utilizing a widely
recognized rating scale (such as that used on National Geographic
trail maps), as well as trail marking, are an important part in this
effort.
The County, ATV/OHV groups and federal land
management agencies shall work together to produce maps and
install markers.
Directive 16-3:
Promote “Eco-tour”, “Tread Lightly”, other responsible themes and
public education for off highway vehicle businesses and other uses
in the County, while not employing prohibition of motorized
access. The themes of the tours could vary from wildlife viewing, to
- 86 -
2010 Elko County
Public Land Use & Natural Resource
Management Plan
visiting hot springs, historical sites, or to learn to ride motorcycles
and drive four wheel vehicles SUV/ATV/OHV. Ensure that all
governmental agencies work in a cooperative effort to encourage
such uses while protecting the resources from damage. Encourage
USFS and BLM to develop and expand ATV/OHV stewardship
education plans.
Directive 16-4:
Develop a regional marketing strategy that includes the promotion
of activities such as heli-ski operations, downhill skiing, cross
country skiing, endurance horse events and all off-highway events
on vehicles or animals.
Directive 16-5:
Encourage recreation opportunities, both dispersed, and close to
population centers, as a substantial economic asset to local
economies and direct agencies to maintain all historic and heritage
trails and ways and access on the public lands, in balance with
other multiple uses.
Directive 16-6:
Federally managed public lands with value for concentrated
recreational use (camp grounds, historic sites, wagon trails, etc.)
should be identified, protected and developed for recreational
purposes. Any proposals for mineral withdrawals should be
coordinated with the Elko County Natural Resource Management
Advisory Commission and/or Elko County Board of Commissioners.
Directive 16-7:
Recognizing that most Nevadans reside in towns, investments in
open space, park and recreation facilities should be concentrated
as close to residential populations as feasible. Other sites in more
remote areas are encouraged where feasible.
Directive 16-8:
Protect water quality and water rights for recreational fishing in the
county’s creeks and rivers. Recreational uses and facilities are
encouraged and should be developed where appropriate.
Directive 16-9:
Support hunting and fishing as recreational resources and as a
multiple use of public lands including motorized cross country travel
for all recreational purposes and large game retrieval. Elko County
endorses the State’s programs to provide sustained levels of game
animals.
Directive 16-10: The establishment of new specially designated lands (i.e. National
Recreation Areas, National Conservation Areas, Wildlife Refuges,
- 87 -
2010 Elko County
Public Land Use & Natural Resource
Management Plan
wilderness, State parks, etc.) should be carefully weighed to
determine overall county benefit.
Directive 16-11: Elko County fully embraces the multiple use concept of federally
managed public land management and encourages federal land
management agencies to maximize public usage of lands while still
addressing environmental concerns, including cross country travel
for multiple use of federally managed public lands.
Directive 16-12: Elko County, ATV/OHV/equestrian/hiking groups, and federal land
management agencies should cooperate to identify new
opportunities for trail development (for example, the LamoilleSecret Pass trail). There are additional OHV trails that could be
constructed which will further expand the variety of riding
experiences available within the County. Currently OHV riders lack
trails that would be considered as technical, yet many riders desire
this type of experience.
17. Wilderness & Wilderness Study Areas: A large number of acres within the
County are designated as Wilderness or Wilderness Study Areas (de facto wilderness).
Addressing evolving issues such as noxious weeds and fire on these specially
designated lands is a challenge. Many years have passed since the Secretary’s
recommendation with no Congressional action and many of these areas were taken out
of multiple use.
Ruby Mountains
- 88 -
2010 Elko County
Public Land Use & Natural Resource
Management Plan
Directive 17-1:
Nevada’s Congressional delegation should sponsor and actively
pursue passage of legislation that would release lands from WSA
status back to multiple use determined by the U.S. Department of
Interior and Bureau of Land Management to be unsuitable for
inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation System.
Directive 17-2:
As part of any potential land act process in Elko County, the
Congressional delegation should conduct public hearings that
specifically address the BLM’s and USFS wilderness study area
recommendations.
Directive 17-3:
Wildlife, fire control, weed management, mineral resources, visitor
impacts, grazing, public access, recreation and management needs
should be considered when designating areas for wilderness and in
the development of wilderness area management plans.
Documented mineral resources are adequate reasons for not
considering the area as wilderness. Furthermore, mining viability is
a pure function of commodity prices. What may not be economic
today could easily become a mine in the future. Therefore, using
economic evaluations at today’s commodity prices is not the best
science, and is to be discouraged.
Directive 17-4:
Any wilderness area management plans should be developed
involving the public and governmental consultation, preferably
using a coordinated resource management and planning type
process. Motorized access utilizing cherry stem roads should be
considered whenever appropriate.
18. Wild Horses:
Wild horses are part of the landscape.
However, an
overabundance of horses can be detrimental to the health of federally managed public
lands. Management must carefully balance needs of wild horses against the needs of
other multiple uses.
Directive 18-1:
Manage wild horses to reduce detrimental impacts on other
multiple uses and pursue resource enhancement where needed to
correct wild horse caused damage.
Directive 18-2:
Wild horse herds should be managed at reasonable levels to be
determined with public involvement and managed with
consideration of the needs of other wildlife species and livestock
grazing. The BLM should consistently maintain the horse numbers
- 89 -
2010 Elko County
Public Land Use & Natural Resource
Management Plan
at Appropriate Management Levels. The BLM and the State should
work cooperatively on wild horse management issues and ensure
the management and maintenance of all federal improvements by
the federal agencies. BLM should give a priority to establishing
Appropriate Management Levels (AML) for the remaining horse
management areas. The AML should be established at levels that
do not jeopardize or interfere with the economic viability of any
private enterprise within Elko County, and be coordinated with the
BLM Resource Advisory Council.
Directive 18-3:
Educate Congress and the public on the impacts of wild horses.
Encourage legislation to allow greater flexibility for the disposal and
adoption of wild horses and insist that the existing authority given
to the BLM be enforced.
Directive 18-4:
Wild horse impacts on private lands and water sources should be
mitigated.
Directive 18-5:
Encourage the BLM to increase the potential of the adoption
program for wild horses through an aggressive marketing program
and strategic partnerships such as virtual adoption.
Directive 18-6:
The BLM should take advantage of good forage years by
emphasizing maintenance level captures on horse management
areas that have established AMLs. Maintenance of established
AMLs is economical if herd numbers are kept in check periodically.
Once herds greatly exceed the AMLs, capture and management is
very expensive.
Directive 18-7:
Elko County supports a strict Directive of wild horse population
control to ensure the species does not interfere with the
productivity of the ranching community, wildlife and other multiple
use needs.
Directive 18-8:
Elko County does not support the transfer/retirement of existing
grazing permits to facilitate forage for wild horses. If a ranch is
sold and the owner chooses not to exercise his/her grazing rights
on federally managed lands, Elko County finds that those grazing
permits should be made available for use by others within the
livestock industry.
- 90 -
2010 Elko County
Public Land Use & Natural Resource
Management Plan
19.
Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat:
Directive 19-1:
Identify, protect and preserve wildlife species and habitats. Wildlife
and fisheries’ populations are recognized as a renewable resource
and therefore should be managed accordingly. Coordination of
federal and state wildlife and fisheries’ management and
enforcement is encouraged.
Directive 19-2
Hunting and fishing are important recreational and economic
resources of multiple use of public lands. The county supports the
State’s programs to provide sustainable levels of game animals.
Directive 19-3:
Identify habitat needs of wildlife species, such as adequate forage,
water, cover, etc. and provide for those needs in time, to attain
reasonable population levels compatible with other multiple uses.
1.
Wildlife habitat improvement projects such as guzzlers
should be continued as appropriate. The projects should
take into consideration impacts on other uses.
2.
The county supports general improvements to the
waterways and fisheries to enhance access for recreational
activities without loss or impact to private water rights.
Directive 19-4:
Rangeland management should include adequate consideration of
wildlife needs.
Directive 19-5:
Adequate and sufficient habitats to support the reintroduction of
big horn sheep in Elko County should be provided on public lands.
The reintroduction of the bighorn sheep should be in coordination
with local government officials and agencies with no negative
impacts to other multiple uses.
Directive 19-6:
The Nevada Department of Wildlife (NDOW) and the State of
Nevada Board of Wildlife Commissioners should give a high priority
to the opinion of the County wildlife boards when setting harvest
levels for wildlife and shall submit recommendations for setting
seasons for fishing, hunting and trapping, which must be
considered by the Commission in its deliberation on and
establishment of regulations covering open or closed seasons, bag
limits, hours and other regulations or policies..
- 91 -
2010 Elko County
Public Land Use & Natural Resource
Management Plan
Directive 19-7:
Elko County should establish a threatened and endangered species
(T&E) committee for overseeing protection and recovery of all
federal and state listed threatened, endangered and sensitive
species, coordinated with the local BLM Resource Advisory Council
and USFS Resource Advisory Council.
Directive 19-8:
Elko County recognizes the authority of the Nevada Department of
Wildlife in managing the wildlife of Nevada. Federal actions that
usurp this authority are disruptive and create unnecessary conflict.
Therefore, federal agencies must give special consideration to
NDOW and local governments when determining land use
restrictions as a result of the presence of federally listed
endangered or threatened species. It is absolutely essential that
Elko County and NDOW be provided with all scientific data
supporting any proposed federal action regarding endangered or
threatened species prior to federal action being taken.
Tobar Siding
- 92 -
2010 Elko County
Public Land Use & Natural Resource
Management Plan
Courtesy: Living With Fire/Nevada Fire Safe Council
20.
Fire Management
Elko County has and will experience devastating wild land fires that have catastrophic
economic and environmental impacts.
Directive 20-1:
Maintain and improve local coordination and collaborative efforts
between BLM, US Forest Service, Nevada Division of Forestry (NDF)
and local volunteer fire departments to improve fire suppression
management. The federal and state agencies need to take
advantage of the skills and local knowledge of local residents. This
is particularly important when using out-of-state fire crews for fire
fighting. Elko County will aid in any way possible in suppression of
wildfires that endanger the livelihoods and personal well-being of
its citizens.
Directive 20-2:
Encourage the federal agencies to continue the policy of
contracting with Elko County residents for privately owned
equipment suitable for fire fighting. Encourage the practice of
early season inspections and sign-ups well before the fire season.
Directive 20-3:
Mandate that the federal agencies re-establish management
methods to fully utilize livestock grazing on federally managed
- 93 -
2010 Elko County
Public Land Use & Natural Resource
Management Plan
lands to reduce the fire hazard. There may be situations where
livestock grazing can be effective in reducing the fire danger and
will not result in environmental damage. This is particularly true in
the wildland urban interface areas.
Directive 20-4:
Implement the recommendations of the Community Wildfire
Protection Plans as outlined in the Elko County Wildfire Risk/Hazard
Assessment Project of 2005. The County should make every effort
to work with the local volunteer fire departments, NDF, the federal
land management agencies and organizations such as the Nevada
Fire Safe Council to encourage these communities to take
preventative actions to prevent and combat wild fires.
Directive 20-5:
Fire equipment brought in from out-of-state should be cleaned to
assure it is “weed-free” before being dispatched to a wildfire.
21.
Military Operations
Directive 21-1:
Elko County supports a collaborative dialogue with the Department
of Defense on all future testing and training. Elko County supports
military training on public lands and existing military-withdrawn
lands because of the increased military preparedness.
Directive 21-2:
Elko County opposes any further military land and airspace
withdrawals.
22.
Energy Production
Energy production, both renewable and non-renewable is a vital component of Elko
County’s economic future.
Directive 22-1:
Energy production is encouraged as a vital economic component of
the Elko County economy. Renewable resources should be a
priority and utilized in a manner that compliments other
environmental resources. All efforts should be undertaken to
ensure a balance between energy development and protection of
resources that make the County attractive to residents and visitors.
Directive 22-2:
The development and coordinated siting of new energy generation
and transmission facilities is encouraged. Coordinated planning is
- 94 -
2010 Elko County
Public Land Use & Natural Resource
Management Plan
needed to integrate related federal, State and local planning
documents and processes and expedite the permitting and
evaluations needed for project approvals.
23.
Habitat Conservation Planning
Habitat conservation planning is important if the County and State wish to preserve
wildlife species as well as a way of life. Without proper planning and protection,
species could be listed under the Endangered Species Act. If this occurs, drastic
measures will be required to address the listing. It is much more beneficial to
proactively develop appropriate habitat conservation planning measures.
Directive 23-1:
Promote proactive habitat conservation planning in conformance
with the Elko County Ecosystem Conservation Strategy to improve
the habitat of species at risk of being listed under the Endangered
Species Act, and to help avoid the adverse impacts associated with
such listings.
Directive 23-2:
Habitat conservation planning should consider the economic and
social consequences of the conservation efforts being considered.
Directive 23-3:
Habitat conservation planning should include the use of positive
incentives for private landowners to increase the likelihood the plan
will succeed.
24.
Off Highway Vehicles (ATV/OHVs)
The use of off-highway vehicles (ATV/OHVs) has increased significantly over the past
decade. Important to many Nevadans’ lifestyles for work and play, they provide many
economic benefits and many environmental impacts.
Directive 24-1:
Direct ATV/OHV use to designated trails and actively discourage the
pioneering of new trails and use in sensitive areas except for
specific uses such as game retrieval and semi-primitive recreation
experiences. Encourage USFS and BLM to engage in collaborative
public education efforts with the local communities and federal
planning partners on proper uses of ATV/OHV cross country travel.
Directive 24-2:
Support community efforts to expand the availability of ATV/OHV
trails and resources such as the Spruce Mountain trail system,
Merritt Mountain trail system and the new Silver State ATV/OHV
Trail in Lincoln County, a planned state wide trail system.
- 95 -
2010 Elko County
Public Land Use & Natural Resource
Management Plan
Directive 24-3:
Maintain support for Exhibits A-I through Tool, Sheets 1 through
40, Map Case 328522 file in the Office of the Elko County Recorder,
on September, 26, 1992 (Gardner Maps) as RS 2477 roads and
recognize the use and access provided by these roads.
Directive 24-4:
Encourage and support the development of a County ATV/OHV
Management Plan by encouraging a broad based local planning
group to provide input in determining and prioritizing needs for
current and future ATV/OHV use and management in Elko County.
Directive 24-5:
Encourage and support the development of a County ATV/OHV
Management Plan and any other policies and/or regulation that:
1.
Incorporates guidelines for any future consideration, development
and management of any additional ATV/OHV trails, routes or
limited off-road use areas, motorized semi-primitive recreational
experiences and off road game retrieval in Elko County.
2.
Promotes sensible and responsible use of ATV/OHVs through
registration, licensing, education, training, advertising and other
means.
3.
Encourages ATV/OHV users to stay on designated roads and trails
or in limited off-road use areas, while promoting responsible
motorized game retrieval, motorized semi-primitive experiences and
actively discourage the pioneering of new trails.
4.
Encourages sufficient resources to be made available to local
district offices to publish maps of areas and routes suitable for
ATV/OHV use. Motor Vehicle Use Maps shall include a widely
accepted rating system so that users know what trails, or portions
thereof, may be outside their skill level.
5.
Effectively and actively monitor and manage off-highway vehicles in
areas where they are allowed.
6.
Seasonal closures should be considered where necessary. Seasonal
closures of system roads on federally managed public lands must
be approved by the Elko County Board of Commissioners. The
approved closure must be based on approved environmental data
provided by the USFS or BLM.
Elko County supports off-road use for large game retrieval,
7.
- 96 -
2010 Elko County
Public Land Use & Natural Resource
Management Plan
motorized semi-primitive experiences and federally designated
permitted uses.
8.
Directive 24-6:
Roads or trails that are un-improved, or those that do not receive
regular maintenance from Elko County, BLM or USFS, shall be
marked with signs warning that the road/trail is not regularly
maintained, and travel is at the risk of those using the road/trail.
Encourage and support the development of directives and
regulation that will:
1.
Register off-highway vehicles and make them identifiable in the
field.
2.
Equally provide for the safety of ATV/OHV users and all other users
of federally managed public lands.
3.
Encourage the development of preservation and conservation
education programs for all users of federally managed public lands.
4.
Provide for restoration of damaged lands.
5.
6.
Provide for the enforcement of such rules and regulations.
Equally provide for the recreational enjoyment of both motorized
and non-motorized users.
Directive 24-7:
Encourage and support administration of money generated through
off-highway vehicle registration that will:
1.
Be administered by a balanced broad based board with an
emphasis on rural representation.
2.
Provide public safety and enforcement.
3.
Provide restoration and rehabilitation of damaged lands and trails.
4.
Provide maintenance for existing trails, including trail marker
installation/maintenance.
5.
Pay for new trail construction.
- 97 -
2010 Elko County
Public Land Use & Natural Resource
Management Plan
25.
Federally Managed Public Lands Resource and Travel Management
Planning.
USFS and BLM Resource and Travel Management Plans, designed to provide
information to the users of federally managed public lands as to the status and
locations of the roads/trail designated by the federal agency, are to include all
methods of access and travel on and across federally managed public lands. The
Travel Management Plan should not negatively impact multiple uses, the regional
/ local economy or cultural and historical uses of the affected public lands.
The directives set forth by this component are based on extensive comment,
information and data provided by citizens and users of federally managed public
lands within Elko County. Environmental, cultural, historical, and economic
support data is provided in appendix “A” of this document.
Directive 25-1:
The USFS and BLM shall recognize all roads depicted on Exhibits
A-I through Tool, Sheets 1 through 40, Map Case 328522 file in the
Office of the Elko County Recorder, on September, 26, 1992
(Gardner Maps) as RS2477 roads and designate as BLM and USFS
system roads to provide access to and within the public lands of
the county.
Directive 25-2:
The USFS and BLM shall provide comprehensive inventories of all
roads and trails within the affected public lands plan area including
but not limited to RS 2477 roads and trails. Roads/trails that the
agencies do not believe to be RS 2477 shall be reviewed with Elko
County. If disagreement exists regarding the RS 2477 status of a
road or trail, efforts will be made to resolve the disagreement using
reliable, factual data.
Directive 25-3:
All existing roads not identified in the Travel Management (TMP)
TAP or on the MVUM maps are to remain open until identified for
public use or closure. Any proposed road closures of un-identified
roads must be approved by the Elko County Board of
Commissioners. The approved closure must be based on approved
environmental data or health and safety issues. Safety issues must
consider the desire of some motorized recreationists to have
technically challenging riding opportunities. If safety is a primary
consideration in the determination to close a road/trail, other
management options (such as warning signs) shall be explored
before making a closure decision.
- 98 -
2010 Elko County
Public Land Use & Natural Resource
Management Plan
Directive 25-4:
Roads crossing private property that provide restricted access to
public lands are to remain open for restricted access. The USFS or
BLM shall acquire easements crossing private lands to ensure
access to public lands are maintained. If the easements cannot be
acquired the USFS or BLM shall leave the private roads open and
designated as restricted access.
Directive 25-5:
Responsible ATV/OHV motorized Large Game Retrieval during
active hunting season from August 1st through January 1st shall be
permitted. The user must be a licensed hunter that has harvested
large game in the specific area. The user may make up to two
trips from the closest recognized system road to retrieve the large
game.
Directive 25-6:
Responsible ATV/OHV motorized Semi-Primitive recreation for
camping, day use, prospecting, game scouting or other similar uses
shall be permitted. The user may make up to two trips from the
closest recognized system road to the semi-primitive dispersed
camp site or area of choice.
Directive 25-7:
Seasonal Closures or restrictions of BLM or USFS system roads
must be approved by the Elko County Board of Commissioners.
The approved closure must be based on approved environmental
data or health and safety issues provided by the USFS or BLM.
Directive 25-8:
Proposed permanent BLM or USFS system road closures must be
approved by the Elko County Board of Commissioners. The
approved closure must be based on approved environment data or
health and safety issues.
Directive 25-9:
The USFS and BLM shall provide a comprehensive survey/inventory
of all existing dispersed camp sites and day use areas within the
affected public lands plan area.
Directive 25-10: All surveyed/inventoried dispersed campsites and short route roads
that provide access to the campsites are to remain open.
Directive 25-11: Proposed closure or restriction of dispersed campsite and short
route access road must be approved by the Elko County Board of
Commissioners. The approved closure must be based on approved
environment data or health and safety issues.
- 99 -
2010 Elko County
Public Land Use & Natural Resource
Management Plan
Directive 25-12: Development of new dispersed camp sites is also to be permitted
within a reasonable distance of all recognized system roads and
trails. ATV/OHV motorized access to dispersed campsites is to be
permitted.
Directive 25-13: Multiple methods of access and travel within and across public
lands is to be encouraged. The USFS and BLM will not develop
travel management plans that infer a preferred method or prohibit
any method of access and travel across public lands.
Directive 25-14: The USFS and BLM are encouraged to develop education programs
to inform and provide information to all users of public lands.
Education should include proper stewardship and conservation/
preservation methods for motorized and non-motorized users.
Education should be based on re-enforcing of the “Tread Lightly”
theme.
Directive 25-15: Existing County and federal agency road and land use agreements
must be considered and included in the development of all USFS
and BLM Resource and Travel Management Plans.
Jarbidge, Nevada Early 1900’s
- 100 -
2010 Elko County
Public Land Use & Natural Resource
Management Plan
XII. SUMMARY STATEMENTS:
The Elko County Public Land Use Management Plan is provided as a guideline to the Federal
Land Management Agencies of the United States to utilize during the various planning of
Resource Management, Travel Management and Multiple Use Plans on public lands. It is the
belief and desire of the Elko County Board of Commissioners that preference must be given to
local government plans and policies during the development of Federal Public Land Planning
issues. These directives are to provide the federal land management agency the direction of
planning that the Board of Commissioners has mandated by this Document.
The Elko County Board of Commissioners and the citizens of Elko County are committed to the
multiple use policy on federally managed public lands of Nevada and that these uses on our
public lands are imperative and controlling factors of the continued economic and cultural
viability and future of the County. We believe that the federal lands management system should
and can accommodate the historical uses while still preserving and conserving the ecosystem as
we know it today and for the future. Conservation and preservation of publicly managed lands is
not a new concept in this vast, hard and open region, it has been practiced by ranchers, miners,
recreationist and by the general public in Elko County since the beginnings of our small and
humble existence. The citizens of Elko County as well as the great numbers of visitors
understand the importance and necessity of the Public Lands to our survival in the harsh and
unforgiving northeastern Nevada region. We understand the importance of conserving and
preserving our public lands and wildlife for they are the reality of our existence.
The federal land management agencies must recognize that the lands that they manage and their
policies will have significant negative direct and indirect impacts to our every day existence.
These public lands use management and the multiple use policies also have indirect and direct
impacts to every person in the nation. Recent changes in policies affecting public lands grazing
allotments of cattle, sheep and other agriculture uses will have considerable negative impacts to
the food industry. These changes in policy also affect the overall management of the public
lands in that the removal of grazing creates an abundance of fuel for wildland fires. Gold and
other mineral production not only provides jobs and an economic base for the region, it provides
the minerals that the world relies on for economic and monetary bases as well as the many uses
of mineral itself. Recreation in Elko County and the region has grown to a completely
independent and positive economic base that includes many different components, such as
hunting, fishing, camping, ATV/OHV uses, bicycling, hiking and many other outdoor, open
space uses. Elko has exhausted many years and many millions of dollars to promote itself
through many different medias as a recreation destiny. The recreation component is based largely
on the accessibility and availability of multiple uses on federally managed public lands.
The Elko County Board of Commissioners is insistent that the federal government and federal
land management agencies must develop Resource Management and Travel Management Plan
by area or region and must eradicate itself from the national agenda that has became a
prohibitionary policy of certain multiple uses in the preparation of such plans. The federal plan
must be developed in accordance with historical, cultural, custom and environmental data
- 101 -
2010 Elko County
Public Land Use & Natural Resource
Management Plan
specific to the region. The federal plans must be developed in accordance and coordination with
local governments and local land use plans. The development of a Resource Management Plan
or Travel Management Plan cannot be developed based on Special Interest Groups that threaten
law suits and that have no daily or direct knowledge or involvement with the economy, customs,
culture or best management practices of a specific region or area.
It is the intent of the Elko County Board of Commissioners to actively participate in the public
land management of the county and or region. Through the development and implementation of
the Elko County Public Land Use and Natural Resource Management Plan, the public land
management agencies must comply with the policies and procedures set forth by the federal
government that state that all public land management must consider and make every effort to
comply with local government land use plans. The United States Forest Service and the Bureau
of Land Management are the predominant land management agencies in Elko County and
Nevada. The Elko County Public Land Use Management Plan must be incorporated into all
Resource Management Plans and Travel Management Plans developed by the USFS and BLM.
Elko County pledges from the implementation of the Elko County Public Land Use Management
Plan that we will assume coordinating / cooperating status for any and all future federal land
management planning efforts. The Elko County Board of Commissioners also expects full and
complete cooperation from the federal land management agencies in the development of such
plans as per federal policy and direction.
Elko County Court House
- 102 -