Number range CHAPTER**Meeting Minutes**

**Sierra Front - Northwestern Great Basin Resource Advisory Council**

**July 25 & 26, 2002**

**Bridgeport Ranch**

**Bridgeport, California 93517**

# 

[I. RAC Attendance and Approval of Previous Meeting Minutes
2](#i.-rac-attendance-and-approval-of-previous-meeting-minutes)

[II. Summary of Motions 2](#ii.-summary-of-motions)

[III. Summary of Action Assignments
2](#iii.-summary-of-action-assignments)

[IV. Introductions 3](#iv.-introductions)

[V. Field Office Overview Reports 3](#v.-field-office-overview-reports)

[A. Winnemucca Field Manager Terry Reed's Report
3](#a.-winnemucca-field-manager-terry-reeds-report)

[B. Carson City Field Manager John Singlaub's Report
6](#b.-carson-city-field-manager-john-singlaubs-report)

[VI. OHV Standards & Guidelines RAC Subcommittee Report
8](#vi.-ohv-standards-guidelines-rac-subcommittee-report)

[VII. General Public Comment Period
9](#vii.-general-public-comment-period)

[VIII. Southern Nevada Public Lands Management Act List of Final Round
III Acquisition Projects Approved by the Secretary of Interior & RAC
Discussion of Round IV Possible Nominations
9](#viii.-southern-nevada-public-lands-management-act-list-of-final-round-iii-acquisition-projects-approved-by-the-secretary-of-interior-rac-discussion-of-round-iv-possible-nominations)

[IX. Black Rock-High Rock NCA Planning Update & Subcommittee Report
10](#ix.-black-rock-high-rock-nca-planning-update-subcommittee-report)

[X. Geothermal Lease Programmatic EA Report
12](#x.-geothermal-lease-programmatic-ea-report)

[XI. Walker River Basin EIS 13](#xi.-walker-river-basin-eis)

[XII. Meeting Adjourned. 20](#xii.-meeting-adjourned.)

#   {#section-1 .unnumbered}

# I. RAC Attendance and Approval of Previous Meeting Minutes

**9:05 a.m. Thursday, July 25, 2002 - Meeting Called to Order** by
Chairman Etchegoyhen with the following members present:

  --------------------------- -------------------------------------- ----------- ---------------------
  **[Council                  **[Resource/Expertise]{.smallcaps}**   **Thu       **[Fri
  Member]{.smallcaps}**                                              7-25**      7-26]{.smallcaps}**

  **Jacques Etchegoyhen -     **Elected Official**                   **X**       **X**
  CHAIR**                                                                        

  **Tina Nappe - VICE CHAIR** **Environment**                        **X**       **X**

  **Susie Askew**             **Wild Horses & Burros**               **X**       **X**

  **Karen Boeger**            **Recreation**                         **X**       **X**

  **Gerry Emm**               **Native Americans**                   **X**       **X**

  **John Falen**              **Nevada Cattlemen**                   **X**       **X**

  VACANT                      **State Agency**                                   

  **Jerry Hepworth**          **Energy/Minerals**                    **X**       **X**

  **Hugh Judd**               **Wildlife**                           **X**       **X**

  **Robert 'Bob' Kautz**      **Archaeology**                        **X**       **X**

  **Tebeau Piquet**           **Mining**                                         

  **Bennie Romero**           **Livestock**                          **X**       **X**

  **William 'Bill' Roullier** **Transportation/ROW**                 **X**       **X**

  **Sherm Swanson**           **Academic**                           **X**       **X**

  **Larie Trippet**           **Public-at-Large**                    **X**       **X**
  --------------------------- -------------------------------------- ----------- ---------------------

Minutes of the March 28 and 29 RAC meeting were approved by acclamation.

# II. Summary of Motions

There were no motions made.

# 

# III. Summary of Action Assignments

1.  Terry Reed was asked to find out if there is educational information
    given out to participants at every SRP event as there is to Burning
    Man participants.

2.  The OHV Subcommittee (Larie Trippet and Karen Boeger from this RAC)
    will present draft statewide OHV Standards & Guidelines for Nevada
    at the Tri RAC meeting in October.

3.  The BLM NCA Staff will provide a briefing on the DEIS/RMP at the
    joint RAC meeting in October, but timeframes do *not* allow asking
    for RAC input.

# IV. Introductions

Members of the RAC and BLM employees introduced themselves.

Bennie Romero announced lunch and dinner plans.

Tina Nappe commented that the RAC members received a letter from BLM
Nevada State Director Bob Abbey saying that he will be on a detail in
Washington for three months, that the members are looking forward to his
return and are very glad to have him here in Nevada - someone who
listens to them.

# V. Field Office Overview Reports

## A. Winnemucca Field Manager Terry Reed's Report

1.  Written Summary of the Report is Appendix 1.

2.  Items covered orally, but not included in the written report.

    a.  Terry told the group that the photo on the front the report is
        an example of the pilot sign project.

> Karen Boeger asked if it is a portal sign. Terry told her that it is
> on the highway at the main boundary and that the thrust of the program
> is an integrated approach including boundary and cherrystem signs and
> a few at specific sites. Karen continued that the signs are a big
> issue especially to some members of the subgroup, that she is
> concerned that any signs at specific sites might abrogate the sense of
> discovery at the site. Terry told her that it is recognized that site
> signs are controversial and even though the pilot sign project may be
> ahead of the game, signs are easily taken out.
>
> Tina asked if reminder signs could be put at the entrances of the NCA
> warning of the danger of the hot springs. Terry told her that this is
> a sensitive and tough issue, that BLM is currently dealing with the
> Solicitor's office on two lawsuits involving the hot springs.

b.  The NCA Subgroup is continuing to meet. Plans are being developed
    for a joint RAC meeting with the Northeast California RAC sometime
    in September or October to give the Subgroup the opportunity to
    report its involvement in the planning effort to the parent RACs.

c.  On the second page of the Field Office report is a fairly long list
    of NEPA documents that are in the works. Time frames are target
    dates for the EAs.

> Susie Askew asked how many horses were involved in the

gather in the Jackson Mountains. Terry answered that several hundred
horses will be gathered. The gather is scheduled for the fall.

> Karen Boeger asked if the guide/outfitter special recreation permit EA
> would be for the whole state. Terry answered that it covers outfitters
> in the Winnemucca District who also have permits in other areas. \[An
> EA is necessary because this Outfitter has asked to operate inside
> designated Wilderness Areas.\]
>
> Tina asked if equal information goes out to every person who
> participates in off-road events similar to the good educational
> information that goes out to Burning Man participants, or if more is
> required of Burning Man than other events. Terry answered that
> compliance is performed on every event, but he will find out if there
> is information given out to every participant in every event. A "tread
> lightly" piece could be put together.
>
> Karen asked if there is one way to account for cumulative
>
> effects, not only what is happening to the land over time from the
> events but also the impact of people coming at other times. Terry
> answered that there is long term monitoring oriented toward cleanup.
> The impact of people coming at other times was addressed in the
> initial EA for Burning Man. This issue will be addressed to some
> extent in the RMP, which will provide a good reference document for
> updating the Burning Man NEPA document.
>
> John Falen asked how Wilderness designation of parts of the Pine
> Forest allotment has affected existing grazing permits. Terry told him
> that he wasn't aware of any impacts to individual operators to date.
> When the NCA Management Plan (including management of the designated
> Wilderness Areas) is completed it will be distributed to everyone
> involved.

d.  Fire restrictions were put into effect on July 19^th^. The
    Winnemucca District is developing a heavy Type 3 team approach to
    fire. This approach was used with the Tin Canyon fire northwest of
    Gerlach that was extremely remote and exhibited intense fire
    behavior. Fire is being stocked (managed) almost entirely with local
    resources. Retardant was used and off-road travel was approved but
    no blading was allowed. The District is pleased with the results.

> Sherm Swanson asked if the Tin Canyon fire was in country where the
> fire would do more good than harm. Terry told him that the area was
> neutral. The District is in full suppression in its fire management
> plan. Exceptions may be in the Pine Forest and some other areas.
>
> John Falen commented that there are 16 Type 2 fire support groups in
> outlying communities throughout the Winnemucca District. He and his
> employees and a lot of neighboring ranchers went through fire training
> including the pack test. He told the group that this approach really
> works, is an asset to the ranchers and to BLM and should be expanded
> throughout the state.
>
> Terry told the group that there is a research proposal to put forward
> grazing as a fuel reduction technique. The thrust of the support
> groups is to involve people who are in the outlying areas in
> pre-suppression as well as suppression. These groups are built into
> Winnemucca District's dispatch system and the Wildcad system. Jacques
> commented that this type of team would have been very effective in
> Walker Canyon where two or three pine trees were on fire for 24 hours
> and then burned 9,000 acres. Karen commented that it is recognized
> that overzealous suppression has gotten us into the bad situation that
> we are in now. She asked if the areas where fire should not be
> suppressed and the WSA boundaries are mapped, and if BLM is still
> responsible. Terry explained that BLM is still responsible and there
> are not any areas at this time that are not full suppression. This
> might change in very limited areas as the RMP is worked through.
>
> Sherm commented that there are several areas in the Winnemucca
> District that are "sick" because there has been fire suppression.
> Terry answered that the level of planning necessary is in the works,
> but not in place at this time. Bennie Romero added that the Department
> of Agriculture in cooperation with the US Forest Service and BLM has
> done a detailed report on the trends in grazing including the impacts
> on fire.

e.  The Winnemucca District hopes to implement a campfire permit program
    in the future.

f.  Fire rehab planning for this fall and winter has already begun.

g.  The District has informally commented on the Pershing County Water
    Conservation District/Bureau of Reclamation Title Transfer.

> Karen asked if BLM is supporting the title transfer. Terry told her
> that BLM has not been asked to comment officially on the legislation
> and has not seen the maps with the pending legislation, so BLM has no
> problem with it so far. Tina asked how BLM can know what their
> decision will be when they don't know what the surrounding land is.
> Terry told her that BLM is assuming that they are okay based on the
> information available.

h.  The District is continuing to work on the Orovada land sale. The

> training of employees as archaeological technicians was combined with
> working on the cultural clearance.

i.  The Delong sale is still in the very early stages and will be a
    challenge

> to fund.
>
> John Falen asked why the financing would be difficult. Terry answered
> that the up front cost cannot be funded out of BACA funds and the
> proponent is not willing to pay them. John asked if there is a cost
> figure available. Terry said that an example would be approximately
> \$20 an acre for cultural clearance. BLM is committed to moving
> forward with the sale, but given current funding and staffing, it will
> be moving slowly. The land is spread out in an area that spans about
> 10 miles. John asked if the suitable part could be done while waiting
> for clearance for the unsuitable part. Terry answered that it could
> be, but it would cost more than doing it all together. The process is
> just beginning. There will be much opportunity for public comment.

j.  Land exchanges involving the U.S. Forest Service have been taken off

> the table at this time.
>
> John Falen asked if some of that land includes land that keeps sale
> and exchange in balance. Terry answered that BLM is still struggling
> with how to fund this.

k.  BLM has offered to sell some land to the City and County to be used

> for economic development purposes.

l.  BLM is still working on the appraisal of Knott Creek and working out

> water rights.

m.  A hosted worker has been hired as a temp.

> Bill Roullier told the group that even though Senator Reid has taken a
> stand against hosted workers paid for by the mines, one of the reasons
> the Sierra Pacific Power Company is in favor of hosted workers is so
> BLM will have a large enough staff to move the process forward. John
> Singlaub commented that the advantage of this process is that it frees
> existing staff to do other Rights-of-Way that are not from the power
> companies. Jerry Hepworth commented that given the number of BLM
> employees and the time it takes to process the applications, he thinks
> it is a good idea. Tina commented that there is a public perception of
> conflict of interest.

n.  BLM has talked with the RAC about the challenge of the Coeur
    Rochester bond settlement. There have been several meetings
    concerning Hycroft Mine bonding.

o.  There was a cyanide spill at the Twin Creeks Mine in May. The volume
    of the spill turned out to be the smaller of the numbers mentioned
    in the media.

p.  No more allotment evaluations have been completed since the last RAC
    meeting.

q.  There have been some lawsuits concerning the Pauite Meadows and
    Soldier Meadows allotments Biological Assessments.

r.  There have been no real actions on wind energy. Monitoring towers
    are awaiting action on the part of private utilities.

s.  Actions as a result of RAC recommendations will be included in the
    field manager's report for the next meeting.

## B. Carson City Field Manager John Singlaub's Report

> 1\. Written Summary of the Report is Appendix 2.
>
> 2\. Items covered orally, but not included in the written report.

a.  Fire restrictions were implemented on June 22. Two Student
    Conservation Association crews are working with the field office
    this year.

b.  About 80 of the wild horses taken off due to the 1999 fires will be
    released to the Clan Alpine and Flanigan mountain ranges. These are
    within AML removed only because of the fires.

> In answer to a question, John told the group that reestablishment to
> full AML is not being made.
>
> A new woodcutting area was opened because some of the District's
> woodcutting areas had no wood in them.

c.  There is no new information on the Oil-Dri issue. If the corporation
    wins its lawsuit to recoup the costs incurred in the Special Use
    permit process that ended with no permit issuance, they will locate
    their operation in Washoe County.

d.  BLM is preparing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to

> analyze the impacts of Sierra Pacific Power Company's proposed upgrade
> and extension of a 120 KV electrical transmission line from the
> existing power plant at Tracy, Nevada to the Silver Lake Substation
> near Stead in Washoe County, including placement of two substations.
>
> Karen asked if this would follow an already existing line or be new
> line. John answered that BLM is looking at the whole thing for
> cumulative impact along with Washoe County. BLM is already looking at
> underground lines. There is a long way to go on this issue.

Tina commented that a recent sage grouse presentation talked

> about how power lines impact sage grouse habitat, that undergrounding
> is going to become more and more of an issue.

e.  The Pine Nut Plan amendment continues to move forward even though
    there was some delay in getting the Federal Register notice
    published. Meetings have been taking place all along with planning
    partners. The next meeting for reports on these groups is scheduled
    for August 26. The RAC is welcome to attend.

> Larie Trippet asked if there is enough time to get this done right.
> John answered that it has been moving forward just fine. Karen asked
> what the impact to vegetation would be with roads being put in for
> power lines. John answered that impacts of everything will be analyzed
> including roads.

f.  IRS has accepted the proposal on Mustang Ranch. BLM is primarily
    interested in managing this area to accomplish river restoration.
    BLM is not retaining any of the surface water rights. They will be
    going to the Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe.

> Bennie commented that he would strongly suggest that BLM keep some of
> the water rights. Tina commented that some surface water will be
> required even for recreation. John told the group that BLM is not
> going to be managing this by itself. There is a long-term strategy for
> the entire river stretch that is part of an overall U.S. Corps of
> Engineers project. This is only one stretch along the river that is
> part of this strategy. BLM is helping with the acquisition of some of
> the lands, and is going to help get the river back to a functioning
> river. Sherm commented that it would be very useful to acquire water
> rights for terraced lands. John commented that pinch points are going
> to be established to raise the river. There is a group that has been
> meeting for several years that would certainly welcome more
> participation. What that group develops will be incorporated in the
> overall plan.

h\. Work is continuing on the National Wild Horse and Burro Center.

> BLM is meeting with Senator Ensign's staff. The staffs of both Senator
> Ensign and Senator Reid are enthusiastic about this project. This is
> not going to be a holding corral. BLM will have an adoption center
> there.

i.  Maps are almost complete for the Sierra Front Recreation Coalition.
    A

Workshop is scheduled for November 3. Cooperating groups include: all
municipal jurisdictions, county jurisdictions as far south as Alpine
County, Tahoe Conservancy District, the States of Nevada and California,
U.S. Forest Service, BLM, and many of the trails groups.

j.  After almost a year the federal team has been identified for the
    Walker

River Indian Rights Settlement negotiations.

k.  As a result of recent RAC direction, the Carson City field office
    has taken the following actions: 1) expanded the economic analysis
    in the Walker River Basin EIS to include a review specific to Lyon
    County, 2) requested that the mine closure issue be included on the
    agenda for the Tri RAC meeting, and 3) continued to pursue permit
    sale options at the Sand Mountain Recreation Area.

A decision paper from the Ninth Judicial District Court of the State of
Nevada concerning the decision that BLM can hold water rights in Douglas
County was distributed to the RAC. The state engineer has been ordered
by the court to hand water rights at the springs to BLM. Gerry Emm asked
if BLM is cost sharing any of the water rights. John told him that the
point under range reform is to not give a vested right to the allotment
to the rancher by vesting water rights in the permittee. State Senator
Dean Rhodes is discussing range reform with the Washington Congressional
delegation.

# VI. OHV Standards & Guidelines RAC Subcommittee Report

Karen Boeger and Larie Trippet reported that the subcommittee has had
four meetings, attended by representatives from all the federal natural
resource agencies, State entities, county entities, and the three Nevada
RACs. The subcommittee members are developing goals for local groups and
how to reach those groups. They hope that there will be multi-agency and
multi-usergroup area plans. The BLM OHV guidelines will be used by these
groups to develop travel management plans. The members also reviewed
models based on guidelines that other states have developed. These
guidelines would be appendices for other groups to use. The next meeting
of the subcommittee is August 5. A draft is expected to be available for
the Tri RAC meeting in October.

Karen and Larie were tasked with developing some education guidelines
for the groups. Larie told the RAC that he continues to struggle with
tying OHV guidelines to land health standards. His concern is that
introduced OHV use will change the state of land health that the
standards are written to maintain. He sees this as a way to do away with
these activities, including grazing.

John Singlaub commented that if ways could be found to manage for
livestock grazing, ways can be found to manage for other uses as well.

Tina commented that a way needs to be found to manage for all uses. The
door has been left open not only for the people of the state of Nevada
to abuse the land, but also for the people from other states to come in
and abuse the land. It is very important to come up with plans to manage
the lands with this in mind.

Karen commented that the public agencies have to demonstrate that they
are managing to keep the lands sustainable.

Sherm asked if the standards and guidelines apply, for instance, to the
land in between the trails and roads and not to the trails that the
cattle use.

Terry commented that the standards and guidelines have to be thought of
as applying to the overall area, not each piece, inch by inch, that a
review of this for the RAC may be a good idea. If the RAC adopts the OHV
guidelines they would have to be put in the land use plans.

It was mentioned that the Ely District is putting an emergency closure
into effect until the OHV guidelines can be woven into the RMP. John
Singlaub commented that closures are very specific to sites where damage
is occurring.

Most of the roads that BLM is trying to maintain are not in the BLM
system for maintenance funding. A standard would have to be developed
for a road or trail that would cause it to become part of the
sustainable list.

John Singlaub commented that he is most concerned with the
implementation of this. BLM could adopt the county ordinances if the
counties are involved in this process. There is a lot of concern about
off-road use. If the counties implement standards and guidelines as part
of their ordinance process, there is more public trust.

To foster local buy-in, law enforcement has to have some mechanism for
enforcement that becomes part of its patrol mechanism. An area can
become self-policing if an organized local group adopts it as their
responsibility and has someone to call to report problems.

# VII. General Public Comment Period

There was no public comment.

# VIII. Southern Nevada Public Lands Management Act List of Final Round III Acquisition Projects Approved by the Secretary of Interior & RAC Discussion of Round IV Possible Nominations

A list of final round III projects that have been submitted to the
Secretary but not yet approved is Appendix 3.

Recommended funding for land acquisitions is \$53,000,000. The items on
the list continue to be acquired as the money becomes available. Project
#10, for example, with an estimated cost of \$20 million, pushes the
monies up.

About 100 acres of the McCarran Ranch component, and the Winnemucca
Ranch Road component are in the Carson City Field Office area. Home Camp
has some inholdings in the NCA and the Wall Canyon WSA. There are not
any components in the Winnemucca District at this time.

Some appraisals came out lower than the private owners expected. If some
of these parcels are dropped from the list, the acquisition money will
move farther down the list.

If some of the willing sellers down the list do not remain willing
sellers, there can be closings in components up the list.

Knott Creek cannot be appraised until the water rights are resolved, but
it is not on the list until something else drops off the list. At any
given time the committee can change the priorities, but it is probably
best not to even discuss that until some of the components are purchased
in Round I. A change in the Nevada bill would set a minimum amount of
the sale proceeds, not less than 25 per cent, to be used for parks,
trails and natural areas.

The RAC discussed the question of money that could be set aside for
managing the lands that are purchased. BLM is not allowed by law to do
that, but in Round IV will be requiring not only a willing seller letter
but also a willing acceptance letter from a buyer, which will say how
the land is going to be managed.

Round IV will be announced the beginning of August.

Tina commented that federal agencies might begin to look at
opportunities to make a timely investment in some of the ranch areas, or
put a conservation easement on them and then resell them. John Singlaub
said that he is not sure BLM can do that.

# IX. Black Rock-High Rock NCA Planning Update & Subcommittee Report

An updated planning schedule is Appendix 4.

Ester Hutchison, NCA Planning and Environmental Coordinator, reviewed
the schedule with the RAC and told the members that developing
alternatives has resulted in a small amount of slippage. She also
explained that the briefing on the DEIS/RMP at the joint RAC meeting in
October is for the purpose of providing information to the RAC *not to
ask for input from the RAC.*

The third issue of the Black Rock Bulletin, which includes general
planning criteria, has been sent out. Tina asked, in the wild horse and
burro section on page three which states "forage will be managed to
support wild horse population levels established in accordance with the
Wild Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act," whether it is not supposed to
also be in accordance with the standards and guidelines for wild horses.
Terry answered that he thought the issue was discussed at the meeting
with the wild horse and burro management people. The full text of the
planning documents is on the web site.

Dave Cooper, following up on an earlier question from Karen Boeger,
explained that

the pilot sign program is out of the Washington office. It is a
precursor in an attempt to come up with a sign program that would
eventually encompass all of BLM. Signing in and around the NCA and
associated Wilderness Areas is being done on a very minimal basis. All
of the cherrystems included in the Act Amendment will be signed, as well
as places like Double Hot Springs and Soldier Meadows Hot Springs. The
sign at Double Hot Springs will be the skull and crossbones. Soldier
Meadows will be signed to advise people not to camp near riparian areas.
Signs already existing at High Rock Canyon and Stevens Camp will be
replaced. The large High Rock signs at the entrances to the NCA will be
replaced with smaller signs.

Karen commented that some people have a lot of concern with any signs
going up that take away from the natural and scenic experience, that
sites can be marked on maps. Dave advised her to be sure she comments on
that in the RMP. He also told her that signs are necessary on the ground
to mark the roads and trails.

The NCA staff is close to completing a brochure that will serve as an
educational tool until the RMP is complete when another brochure will be
released.

A synopsis of the subgroup meeting was distributed to the group
(Appendix 5).

Bennie asked how much funding is available for more public information
about the planning and the sign program, including the website. Terry
answered that the planning effort is fully funded including the
contractor. The contractor is maintaining the website. The sign project
is funded by the BLM Washington Office. Long term management funding is
an open question. Jamie Thompson, NCA writer/editor, commented that the
brochure that Dave mentioned is also funded by the Pilot Sign Project
money. Although it is not clear how many brochures BLM will be able to
produce, it will be a first class product. It will include a great deal
of safety information and educational information. John Singlaub
commented that a lot of the recreation money has gone into the National
Landscape Conservation System (NLCS) program.

In answer to a question on the increase in use since the designation,
Dave told the group that it is very hard to project, although there will
need to be a projection in the RMP. There will probably not be a major
influx of visitors that BLM can't manage. There is an estimated use now
of about 50,000 people per year, half of which is Burning Man. Karen
commented that a lot of the increased visitation has been as a result of
Burning Man in an indirect way -- Burning Man visitors returning to the
area on their own -- and that possibly some of the data for the other
NCAs and Monuments could be looked at. Dave commented that some of the
counties, especially Humboldt, will be using the NCA as a marketing
tool. Terry commented that the NCA has been mentioned recently in every
guide to the area. Visitation has continued to increase over the years
and is going to continue to increase as long as the general population
increases. Tina asked Karen if Friends of Nevada Wilderness could work
with the State on programs to let people know that this area isn't for
everyone. Karen answered that she thought BLM was working with the
Nevada Tourism Board. John Singlaub commented that the Board said it
cannot help BLM with funding for this issue, that they can only promote.
BLM is scheduled to administer a visitor use survey of the NCA in 2003
that will be funded from another source.

The RAC reached consensus on receiving the field manager's reports
*only* in written form at the joint RAC meeting in October to allow time
for the meeting with the Northeast California RAC and the RAC NCA
Subgroup.

# X. Geothermal Lease Programmatic EA Report

The geothermal presentation and map are Appendix 6.

In the year 2000 the President created a national energy policy that
became a Department of Interior priority. BLM put together a program to
streamline geothermal leasing, which is a top priority for both the
Winnemucca and Carson City field offices.

By state law, the goal is that by the end of 2003 five per cent of
energy requirements in Nevada should come from alternative energy, by
2013 fifteen per cent.

Authority for geothermal leasing is through the Geothermal Steam Act of
1970. Leasing must conform to existing land use plans. There are two
types of leases, competitive in Known Geothermal Resource Areas (KGRAs)
and noncompetitive.

Public lands unavailable for leasing include: National Park Service
lands, Wilderness and WSAs, Indian Trust lands, wildlife management
areas, areas of critical environmental concern and national conservation
areas.

Once a lease is approved operations begin with exploration through
drilling on temperature gradient wells, and continue through development
with drilling of production and injection wells. This phase can last up
to 30 years. The last phase is closeout that takes place through
reclamation. The lease term is 10 years. The entire process is limited
to approximately 40 years

Operational requirements include site specific NEPA review requiring BLM
authorization and NEPA compliance; Application for Permit to Drill and
Sundry Notices; bonding required for surface utilization activities,
reclamation and royalties; inspections of operations to ensure
compliance with 43 CFR 3200.4 and enforcement including corrective
action if necessary.

To date there has been not been a problem with bonding.

Thirty per cent of Nevada's generating capacity of 160 MWs goes to
California.

The Carson City Field Office has 57 pending lease applications, only 42
of which will be carried forward. Some of the others will not be carried
forward because they are not in areas where leasing is allowed. The five
KGRAs are Steamboat, Hazen, Soda Lake, Stillwater and Salt Wells. A
reasonable development scenario has been developed through the
Environmental Assessment (EA) process. Issues include sage grouse
habitat, the Pony Express National Historic Trail, and Native American
concerns. The EA will be published on July 31, 2002 followed by a 30-day
public review period with the Decision Record in early September. There
has been consultation with seven Tribes, coordination with four federal
agencies and a public scoping period including two public meetings.

Within the past two years the Winnemucca Field Office has received 45
lease applications that will be addressed by the programmatic EA that
assesses several different areas covering 2,000,000 acres of public
lands. Reasonable development scenarios have been developed. Issues
include sage grouse habitat, Native American concerns, cultural,
recreational, and visual resource management. The EA will be published
on August 8, 2002 followed by a two-week public review period with the
Decision Record in early September. There has been consultation with 22
Tribes. Consultation is not yet complete. There has been a public
scoping period including two public meetings, one in Winnemucca and one
in Lovelock.

Benefits of the leasing include \$4.5 million in royalties and rentals,
half of which will be returned to the State treasury, significant
property base increases for rural counties, wage increases, and
environmentally sound energy.

Terry told the group in answer to a question that the \$4.5 million that
goes into the State treasury is not earmarked for anything specific.

Tina asked if a lot of lease applications are coming into the Winnemucca
Field Office. Jeff Johnson, environmental coordinator, Winnemucca Field
Office, answered that there has not been a lot of activity since the
energy crunch in California quieted down.

John Singlaub told the group that some of the EAs will trigger EISs.
Some of the sites are sifting out through the EA process.

There is additional funding from Congress for the EAs.

# XI. Walker River Basin EIS 

Walker River Basin EIS handouts are Appendices 6 and 7.

Dan Jacquet, Assistant Field Manager for Renewable Resources, Carson
City Field Office told the group that comments from the RAC and the
public were catalogued and summarized in handout number two.

One of the big issues that BLM tried to look at is how much water is
available in a wet year and how much is available in a dry year. This
would identify target land for acquiring water rights, but a lot of
negative comments were received that stated that the information didn't
portray the way the system is managed. Junior water rights are
associated with lands that came into the system later and are farmed
less than lands with senior water rights. With this in mind, BLM
abandoned the wet year/dry year system and adopted a junior/senior water
rights strategy in developing the alternatives. There seemed to be some
confusion in the administrative draft as to what level of economic
impact was used in the socio-economic analysis. The analysis was done at
the watershed level. Keeping the RAC and public comments in mind, BLM
will do the socio-economic analysis on a sub-basin basis. This is not on
a county level. The University of Nevada is in the process of completing
the study. It will be out in the next week or two.

BLM has engaged some of Nevada's best science people, from the
University of Nevada Reno and the Desert Research Institute to look at
the modeling. BLM will do a better job in explaining how these models
work, but there was no question that the models were being used
correctly in the beginning. BLM is also looking at cloud seeding. The
question is how much water can be produced with this method. BLM is
predicting no more than a ten per cent increase. The water produced
becomes part of the system.

John Tracy, Desert Research Institute, told the group that the
information on cloud seeding is mainly from the person who manages cloud
seeding for the state of Nevada and that they have really tried to nail
down what will be available from this method. Karen asked if cloud
seeding increases the snow pack in one area, does it negatively affect
other areas. John answered that the expert has told them that overall
the moisture balance of the storm system is affected to about one per
cent.

Another group of comments concerned the conservation of water through
growing alternative crops. BLM agreed with the public and the RAC that
the topic needed more discussion in the document, and that has been
done. BLM looked at how water saved through the water governance system
can be used and how the person who saves it can be compensated. There
will be much more detail in the EIS on that topic.

Karen asked about the status of the tax incentive, and the status of the
use of native seed.

John Singlaub answered that he is not aware of any legislation for a tax
incentive. Two hundred million dollars has been set aside in the farm
bill for at-risk lakes. BLM is looking nationally at a base level for
annual purchase of native seed for fire rehab. BLM will include analysis
of these topics in the general context of the EIS.

Jerry Hepworth commented that there is an effort to form a native seed
group. John Falen commented that the primary request to grow native seed
and the primary buyer for native seed in the area is the federal
government. Some of the seed can be stored and some of it cannot, so a
dependable buyer is needed. Dan commented that native seed can also be
used for degraded land.

Saving water through secondary crops, and how saved water can be
transferred to the lake are issues that will be included in the EIS.

The last category of comments received concerned the need to move ahead
with the EIS. BLM believes that included in the EIS are all the feasible
ways to save Walker Lake. The EIS might be refashioned, but BLM does not
want to see the ecosystem of Walker Lake go under while a settlement
process is underway.

Larie complemented BLM on the format of the handouts and the outlining
of comments by the RAC and the public.

Jacques Etchegoyhen commented that one of the things that has not been
addressed is parceling of the land. After 20 or 30 years there is less
net water getting to the lake. Without purchasing something like a
utilization easement, nothing might be gained with all these measures.
Dan answered that how development affects the water does have to be
considered. Jacques continued that if anything goes forward at all, it
would be heartbreaking if there were no net effect. Gerry Emm commented
that maybe there should be a mechanism to allow someone who is farming
on marginal land to move up to better land and eliminate the marginal
lands on the edges. Jacques answered that land management is expensive,
as the BLM knows, that maybe there is some way to keep people on the
marginal land if they are producing something. The long term, 50 years
out or more, needs to be considered. Dan answered that BLM's objective
is not to own more land and does not want to convert farmland to native
rangelands. If BLM dries up land it is going to take the responsibility
to restore it.

Another comment was that there isn't enough specific detail on surface
water. Tina commented that this process cannot be a lone action by BLM
as an agent of change. When the developers come in they are not going to
care about the increased use of domestic wells. There was some
discussion of permits to developers and turning back of water in
proportion to land developed. Dan Jacquet directed John Tracy to
document the development of domestic waters.

The first action alternative says that BLM will acquire water in Smith
and Antelope Valleys in proportion to the amount of water that land
consumes. No one valley will see all of the impacts. The exception is
Bridgeport Valley, which is not being considered for water acquisition.

Jacques asked why water could not be purchased in the Shurs Valley. Dan
answered that it seems contradictory in view of the settlement to be
acquiring water from the Tribe. Sherm commented that it would seem to be
a viable means of settlement, to buy the water and then lease it back or
compensate the people for the water. Dan answered that the assumption is
that the water to settle the claims is the same water that will go to
fill Walker Lake.

Phyllis Hunewill, Lyon County Commission, asked what the comparison is
between Bridgeport Valley and Antelope Valley. John Tracy answered that
Bridgeport has a system where there are a lot of tributaries flowing in,
and you run into a problem of having to channelize the system. It's
almost impractical here where the water table is fairly high. The other
consideration is that the consumptive use is low. If you bought an
acre-foot of water here you would probably get a lot less water compared
to the other valleys. In Antelope Valley the water comes down, but there
are head gates.

The second item on the second handout deals with the concern of the
amount of water acquired from any one ditch so that the people at the
end of the ditch still receive water. This item deals with the cost of
the system. BLM would pay some costs to operate the system.

BLM has fashioned a strategy that is complicated and will move slower
than one where the Bureau just buys anything and is not compensating.
BLM is constraining itself purposely to preserve core agriculture.

Phyllis asked if once you start buying water from that ditch and make it
impossible for them not to receive that water, do you make them a
willing seller. You need percentages to make sure that farmers are able
to get their water. Dave Fulstone, Lyon County, commented that if you're
talking willing buyer/willing seller, can someone like Bidler come in
and start buying now while he can't buy more water for his ranch. Gerry
Emm asked if you have a duty of four, are you going to be able to keep
that storage right and apply more than four acre-feet? It becomes an
economic issue. The thing that needs to be looked at is that the system
doesn't over do the duty. Dave added that he wants to make sure it's not
willing government buyer/willing seller. Ken Spooner, Walker River
Irrigation District, commented that theoretically it should be a simple
system but certain rules have to be followed. Jim Shaw, Water Master for
the Walker River system, commented that decreed water and storage water
are two different things.

Dan commented that many of these actions are going to require going
through the system

Jerry Hepworth commented that he wanted to make sure that the different
processes outside BLM are outlined in the document. Jim Shaw commented
that what he was hearing about the document was that it was just
spelling out more problems, that he feels BLM is becoming more
adversarial.

Cheri Emm, Mineral County, asked if there is any real monitoring of the
water going on in Mason Valley, that she disagreed that this is
premature. Dan answered that BLM has described all of the existing water
rights in the system, but he doesn't believe all the new starts in Mason
Valley have been described. Phyllis commented that she is not sure BLM
people understand the point that there is a negotiation going on, that
the reason Ken Spooner is saying that the EIS is premature is that BLM
is talking about the same water that the settlement people are talking
about.

Horace Carlyle, resident of Hawthorne, commented that he doesn't see any
visual water going into Walker Lake, that he read in the newspaper that
Walker Lake is going to die anyway and that the whole strategy to set up
a negotiating committee might go on eight or more years, with no
mechanism to break through the stalemate. For that reason he thinks the
EIS should go forward. Ken replied that no one at the negotiation table
believes that Walker Lake is going to die. Negotiation was delayed while
the federal team was being formed, he continued, but one of the first
things John Singlaub told the settlement team they needed to address was
short term solutions for the lake. Susan Lynn commented that the EIS
needs to go on simultaneously because it builds the information base.
Ken commented that she was right, but it is the members of the
negotiating team who decide where the knowledge will come from, not one
member of the team. The settlement team could already be well into
things if they hadn't had to wait for the federal side. John Singlaub
agreed that part of the issue is the time it took to get the federal
team together. He asked if Ken didn't think one of the first things to
do is set an outside deadline for completing things.

Jerry Hepworth commented that it seemed people were discussing
differences in the process, but that the information gathering has moved
forward whatever the form. Ken Spooner commented that there are some
comprehensive issues that have to be addressed. All of the parties
represented at the table have not had the opportunity to go forward with
the process on their own. All of the participants at that meeting will
decide how the information will be gathered and what information will be
gathered.

Stacey Simon, Mono County California Board of Supervisors, commented
that the Mono County Board just elected to be part of the process and
will have the same concerns about the EIS, but hope to be able to pick
and choose among the topics. She commented further that the Board hasn't
seen the document. Jacques reminded those present that this meeting was
informational.

Dan Jacquet told the group that many places in the document call for
changes in the law, and that this is typical of an EIS.

Phyllis commented that four of the counties involved have questions
about the science used in the document. Jerry Hepworth commented that it
is not good to let litigation influence the decision making process,
that the real issue is to get water to Walker Lake. Tina commented she
had been hearing for five years that Walker Lake is dying, that the
short-term period is lost. She continued that it seemed to her that the
water district had done everything it could to say that they didn't want
to be part of the settlement. Ken responded that this was "absolutely
inaccurate."

Dan told the group that BLM's position is that Walker Lake needs to be
saved while this process is moving forward. The EIS allows the transfer
of water rights to occur. If BLM is allowed to implement the measures of
the EIS they will be able to stabilize Walker Lake. The national Academy
of Science will be asked to look at the EIS through the comment period.
If there are significant problems they should be able to find them in 60
to 90 days. He said he is confident that the science is fundamentally
correct. Jacques commented that the fundamental problem is that BLM is
talking about saving Lahonton Cutthroat Trout in Walker Lake which will
be possible for approximately the next 50 years. John Singlaub answered
that is not true.

Dan moved ahead to discussion of basic implementation measures. Storage
rights will be delivered during the irrigation season according to how
they have been used. BLM will operate through existing state and court
decrees where it can. Acquisition of land is not one of the objectives
of this process. If BLM does acquire land, that land will be made
available to local governments. Prime agricultural lands will be made
available for agricultural purposes. Lands will be managed in accordance
with appropriate land use plans. If BLM strips the water from a piece of
land, it will compensate local government for the difference in taxes
from that land.

BLM will look at applications for acquisition on a yearly basis. It will
take first come/first serve from whomever wants to sell and will rank
them. In priority of surface water BLM will avoid supplemental water
making up the difference in decreed junior rights. BLM's last priority
is a requirement to buy the land and the water together. BLM will
mitigate effects to fallow farmland and work with landowners who are
selling BLM the water rights but not the land to help them with
reclamation. If BLM chooses an enhancement alternative those enhancement
actions will be initiated at the same time any water rights are
purchased. A desalination plant will be initiated within a set number
years of issuing the EIS. BLM will be a market for conserved water.
These are common to all of the alternatives except the No Action
Alternative.

The No Action Alternative is required under the NEPA process. The other
eight alternatives will accomplish the stated purpose and needs with
varying processes. BLM's job is to select, with the assistance of
cooperators, the preferred alternative. Alternatives five and six have
the least amount of water rights to be acquired and the least amount of
acres that will be taken out of agriculture. Once the EIS is out, if the
decision is made in the negotiated process to go with other than the
Tribal water, BLM can implement this process right away.

Phyllis asked if the amount of water needed is only calculated in the
modeling from the Wabuska gage. John Tracy answered that the water down
to the lake is taken into consideration.

Worst-case scenario - the ratio is 2 to 1 if all the water rights are
purchased.

Junior and senior water rights are mixed on many of the farms. In a very
dry year the water may not get to the lake. The numbers are averaged.

In response to a question, Dan Jacquet told the group that the phrase
"improving channel water conveyance" describes restoring a river to a
more natural condition. It does not imply channelizing the river but
restoring the natural state. BLM believes that will make more water
available. Improving functionality and improving water flow rate means
trying to decrease the loss of water from evaporation. BLM is predicting
a yield of about 2,000 acre-feet in just a generic improvement.

Cattle grazing along the riparian areas is being looked at in a very
general way.

Karen commented that getting a small amount of water on a short-term
basis by looking at a different grazing regimes might be something worth
looking at. Bennie commented that he thinks more scientific
investigation is needed to see if improving riparian areas in the
uplands will hurt things in the lowlands since there is more water usage
in riparian areas and there is a drying trend in the weather.

Jacques asked the members of the RAC if they thought people who sold
their water rights and sold out would stay in the same communities.
Jerry Hepworth commented that there is a boom/bust cycle and
unfortunately we study the boom not the bust. Sherm commented that since
he has been in Nevada he has heard that the economy is tied to
California. As retirement increases there will be growth in the Nevada
valleys and that should be looked at so that it doesn't compete in a
silly way for the water. He said he would like to see the land next to
the river have room to fix itself so that the people who live in the
communities will continue to have a river to cherish, not a concrete
ditch. Ken Spooner commented that he thinks all of the changes have come
naturally in the river, that the river channel is rising because of
silt, not sinking. If the river went natural it would do more cutting.
At some point if you bought many acres and managed the river, the more
it flooded out, the more it would be subject to sluicing. Larie Trippet
commented that his gut feeling is that if you're going to sell an asset,
you're going to invest the money somewhere else. That what he heard last
time was that the investment opportunities here are pretty slim. Jim
Shaw commented that when a large ranch is sold the payroll is gone and
the effect is much more widespread than to just the land and the
landowner. Horace commented that if we accept as truth that no water is
reaching Walker Lake and has not reached it for many years, the EIS is
the only leverage we have for money for remediation.

John Singlaub told the group in answer to a question, that all EIS
supporting documentation will be available at the Carson City Field
Office or on the web.

Tina asked if Jacques could talk about how to preserve ranch land even
if the lake is not saved. Jacques answered that it needs to be a
well-coordinated effort and the land management issues are huge. If this
program moves forward in some fashion or other, he said, we certainly
can't send water down to Walker Lake and develop the heck out of the
flood plane. He said that he wasn't sure how to put the diverse
knowledge of the RAC to the best use, if a rancher wants to sell part of
his water rights how to facilitate it. It has to be in concert with
perpetuating viable agriculture. Jerry Hepworth commented that humans
really make very poor gods. Every predictor developed has proven to be
poor. He suggested more cooperative systems as a way to look at these
problems.

Stacey Simon commented that Mono County is certainly concerned with the
loss of ag lands, but at the same time its tax base is completely
dependent on property so it is open to looking at development. Ken
Spooner commented that you have to look at industrial growth as well as
residential growth. Lyon County has to compete with other communities
that have the railroad. Offsetting one economy and one ecosystem for the
lengthening out of another one is not a good idea.

Chairman Etchegoyhen asked what BLM wanted from the RAC. Dan Jacquet
told the group that BLM wanted to know if they had captured the RAC and
the public's concerns and comments from the March RAC meeting or if
there are still areas that need to be improved. John Singlaub added, or
will the RAC not really know until they get the full draft to review?

Gerry Emm asked if there needs to be an analysis of the impact of taking
marginal lands out of production. A member of the public commented that
perhaps an ad hoc committee was needed to look at some innovative
solutions. Bill Roullier said he would like to see the review by the
National Academy of Sciences to help him make a decision. Tina said that
she thought there were some things they could agree on before their next
meeting in October. Sherm commented that moving forward with the EIS is
productive because it provides the settlement team with more
information. Maybe the draft EIS should not be finalized until the
settlement is finalized. Jerry Hepworth commented that he would suggest
a collaborative group. John Singlaub asked if it is possible to take out
things that are not water rights related and move forward. Larie Trippet
said he would support a separate meeting to discuss the draft EIS.

The RAC discussed having a separate meeting to discuss the draft EIS.
Consensus was reached to wait until, as the Chairman put it, "something
becomes interesting," and then schedule a meeting.

John Singlaub expressed his appreciation for the comments heard
throughout the day and for everyone talking together in a civil manner.

Sherm expressed a unanimous thank you on the part of the RAC to Bennie
Romero and Hugh Judd whose terms are expiring.

The next meeting of the Sierra Front-Northwestern Great Basin Resource
Advisory Council will be October 17 and 18, 2002 in Reno in conjunction
with the annual Tri-RAC meeting.

# XII. Meeting Adjourned.

11:45 AM