BLM seeks public comment on roads and hot springs North of BRC

[some seeing eye]

Nevada has varied counties. Washoe, including Reno, benefits from the Burning Man event. Pershing covers Black Rock City, is the LEO, and politicians run there on anti-Burning Man platforms. Humboldt is a poor county to the North with one of the hospitals for BRC emergency. The regional field office of the BLM is there.

The BLM seeks public input on a road adjacent to and NW of the playa. https://www.blm.gov/press-release/black ... ent-period

It is of interest to our friends at Friends of Black Rock High Rock. It is a simple reroute of the road around wildlife. I would follow the lead of Friends of Black Rock High Rock crafting a comment.

[Canoe]

The Proposed Re-Route looks like a good way of taking the through-traffic away from a variable route with sensitive species.

However, it also moves all of the the through-traffic, hence its micro pollution (road, oil-leak, brake, tire wear debris, etc.) road runoff, from downhill of the current road path, to above the area to the NW of the current round, which includes all of the springs within that area. What's the impact of having the springs, streams & land and related species of all of that area downhill of the Proposed Re-Route, subjected to all of the through-traffic road runoff pollution, vs. that currently affecting just the area downhill of the current road?

[Token]

Would it be too much to ask the BLM to post some damn maps …

It seems like a reasonable proposition but without all the details it’s a bit of a clusterfuck.

[Canoe]

Maps in two PDFs on the right side.
Well, as the page displays on my desktop screen.

[Elorrum]

I glanced at the pdf, that’s a lot further than I have ever explored, a more serious trek for me, tell your friends and family where you are headed territory, out by the soldier meadows camp. I’d like to see it one day. I’ve gone as far as the Cassidy Mine area, nice un-dusty camping.

[Canoe]

[edit: reorganized to try to be clearer; I think it's better. Could be better still, but I believe they'll understand what I mean accurately.]
The Proposed Re-Route takes the through-traffic around the entire area, which looks like a valuable measure for protection of the species involved.

However, the Proposed Re-Route may result in an unintended increase in contaminates in the area uphill to the north-west of the existing road way, with its hot springs, streams, land and related flora & fauna.

* Vehicle traffic has micro pollution (road, oil-leak, brake, tire wear debris, etc.). That traffic pollution falls or settles on the road way and adjacent land. With precipitation, that pollution ends up washing downhill from the road way.
* With the current road, all of the through-traffic's settled pollution ends up washing downhill below the current road, to the south-east.
** This runoff is downhill of, hence doesn't affect, the various hot springs and most of the streams & land.
* With the Proposed Re-Route, all of the through-traffic's settled pollution is now uphill of the entire area.
** The through-traffic pollution runoff will wash down into the area, which includes its hot springs, streams, land and related flora & fauna.

Take-away: need to access if the Proposed Re-Routing of the through-traffic to uphill of the area will result in the through-traffic's pollution contaminating the hot springs, streams & land, which are uphill of the current road. And, if the levels of contamination will be detrimental or accumulate to detrimental levels.

Oops!
I missed this. "to help determine the appropriate scope of the forthcoming NEPA analysis".
So I don't have to be concerned about what the answer to the above is. Just submit it and they can determine if considering such should be part of the analysis.