Number range CHAPTER**Meeting Minutes**

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

**July 28, 2005**

**BLM Carson City Field Office**

**Carson City, Nevada**

[**I. RAC Attendance and Welcome 2**](#i.-rac-attendance-and-welcome)

[**II. Summary of Motions 3**](#ii.-summary-of-motions)

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

[**IV. Minutes from the Meeting in Winnemucca, Nevada, April 27 & 28,
2005
4**](#iv.-minutes-from-the-meeting-in-winnemucca-nevada-april-27-28-2005)

[**V. Field Managers' Reports 4**](#v.-field-managers-reports)

[**A. Carson City Field Manager Don Hick's Report
4**](#a.-carson-city-field-manager-don-hicks-report)

[**B. Winnemucca Acting Associate Field Manager Rodger Bryan's Report
7**](#b.-winnemucca-acting-associate-field-manager-rodger-bryans-report)

[**VI. RAC Subcommittee Reports 12**](#vi.-rac-subcommittee-reports)

[**A. Wild Horse Guidelines Subcommittee
12**](#a.-wild-horse-guidelines-subcommittee)

[**B. RAC Winnemucca RMP Subcommittee
12**](#b.-rac-winnemucca-rmp-subcommittee)

[**VII. Pine Nut Mountain RMP Amendment
14**](#vii.-pine-nut-mountain-rmp-amendment)

[**VIII. Sand Mountain Update & Fee Increase Proposal
19**](#viii.-sand-mountain-update-fee-increase-proposal)

[**IX. Rangeland Monitoring Handbook
22**](#ix.-rangeland-monitoring-handbook)

[**X. Public Comment Period 27**](#x.-public-comment-period)

[**XI. Meeting adjourned at 4:32 p.m.
29**](#xi.-meeting-adjourned-at-432-p.m.)

# I. RAC Attendance and Welcome

**9:07 a.m., Thursday, July 28, 2005 -- Meeting Called to Order** by
Chairman Roullier with the following members of the RAC present.

### sierra front -- northwestern great basin resource advisory council

  ----------------------------- -------------------------- ---------------
  **Council Member**            **Resource/Expertise**     **Thurs. 7/28**

  **William Roullier -- Chair** **Transportation/ROW**     **X**

  **Larie Trippet -- Vice       **Public-At-Large**        **X**
  Chair**                                                  

  **Laura S. Crane**            **Environmental**          **X**

  **John E. Dicks**             **Recreation**             **X**

  **Rochanne Downs**            **Native Americans**       

  **James Eidel**               **Wildlife**               **X**

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

  **John Gebhardt**             **State Agency**           **X**

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

  **Patricia Herzog**           **Elected Official**       

  **John Mudge**                **Mining**                 **X**

  **Ernest Paine**              **Livestock**              **X**

  **Vernon Schulze**            **Wild Horses**            **X**

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

  **D. Craig Young**            **Archeology**             **X**
  ----------------------------- -------------------------- ---------------

**BLM staff present** -- Don Hicks, Field Manager, Carson City Field
Office (CCFO); Rodger Bryan, Acting Associate Field Manager, Winnemucca
Field Office (WFO); Elayn Briggs, Associate Field Manager, CCFO; Mark
Struble, Public Affairs Specialist, CCFO; Jamie Thompson, Public Affairs
Officer, WFO; Nancy Thompson, Secretary, WFO; Jo Simpson, Chief, Office
of Communications, Nevada State Office (NSO); Russ Suminski, Lead
Rangeland Management Specialist, CCFO; Melody Stehwien, Law Enforcement,
CCFO; Tom Crawford, Pine Nut Land Use Plan Team Leader, CCFO; Bryant
Smith, Deputy Assistant Field Manager Non Renewable Resources, CCFO.

**Public present** -- Richard Hilton, Friends of Sand Mountain; Skip
Canfield, Nevada Division of State Lands; Dick Huntsberger, permittee;
Ralph Mantz; Robert Ballou, Planning Group Pine Nut Plan; Gale Thomssen;
Sharon Vonnegut; Susan Lynch; Rita Suminski, BIA; Marti Searay; Bev
Anderson, Pine Nut Group; Laurel Arett, Pine Nut CAC for BLM; Gretchen
Walsh, Pine Nut Pres.; Walter Howe, Dayton, Nevada resident; Joyce Howe,
Dayton, Nevada resident; Beth Scott, Carson City Equestrian Alliance;
Pat Copplin, Pine Nut Plan; Lee Simpkins, Sierra Pacific Power Co.;
Brian Doyal, Pine Nut Mountain Trail Association (PNMTA); Frank Evans,
wild horses; Dave Malone, Sierra Pacific Power Co.; Barbara Copplin,
Dayton, Nevada resident; A. Jo Ann Neners, Washoe Tribe; Lana Hicks,
Washoe Tribe; Heather Bovast, Douglas County; Stan Gawonski PNMTA; Nate
Littrell, PNMTA; Rick Gray, City of Fallon; Michon Eben, Reno/Sparks
Indian Colony; Jodi Stephens, U. S. Congressman Jim Gibbons' Office;
Jeannette Dahl, Director Lahontan Valley Environmental Alliance; Dan
Peterson, California Off-Road Vehicle Association (CORVA).

# II. Summary of Motions

> MOVED -- by John Falen that the Wild Horses and Burros Standards and
>
> Guidelines be accepted as presented.

SECOND -- by Jerry Hepworth.

> DISCUSSION --
>
> APPROVED -- by acclamation.
>
> MOVED -- By Jerry Hepworth that the Chair draft a letter to send to
> Bob Abbey expressing the appreciation of the RAC for his years of
> service as BLM Nevada State Director.
>
> SECOND -- By John Dicks.
>
> DISCUSSION -- Jerry Hepworth asked that Mark Struble and Jamie
> Thompson help the Chair draft the letter. The amendment was accepted
> by the Second.
>
> APPROVED -- by acclamation.
>
> MOVED -- by Larie Trippet that the RAC create a subgroup of interested
> RAC members and the public to work on the Pine Nut Mountain RMP
> Amendment and act as an advisory group to the RAC.
>
> SECOND -- by John Dicks.
>
> DISCUSSION --
>
> APPROVED -- by acclamation.
>
> MOVED -- by John Dicks that the RAC support an increase in fees to
> support the costs of the users of Sand Mountain so that the users will
> be supporting the services provided for them.
>
> Second -- by Ernie Paine.
>
> APPROVED -- with one abstention by Larie Trippet.

# III. Summary of Action Assignments

-   Jim Eidel asked Rodger Bryan to convey to Gail Givens that the RAC
    is really interested in the "grazing to remove cheat grass" issue
    and would like more detail on the conclusions from the two studies
    and the plans for next year and a field trip to the sites sometime
    in the future.

-   WFO asked RAC members for any feedback they may have on a proposed
    plan to ask permittees to inspect and report the condition of the
    range improvements on their allotments.

-   The RAC asked Jamie Thompson and Mark Struble to help draft a letter
    of appreciation to Bob Abbey.

-   WFO and CCFO were asked by the RAC to report at the October meeting
    on how much land is available for disposal, what the status is of
    the process for this land, what land has already been identified for
    disposal, and the acquisition process.

-   Tom Crawford was asked by the RAC to make sure all the interest
    groups are covered in the Pine Nut Plan Amendment Subgroup and make
    sure the names are confirmed and bring this information back to the
    RAC in October.

-   CCFO was asked to provide to the RAC a breakdown of where fees at
    Sand Mountain are going and estimated future costs. Larie Trippet
    asked that this information also be provided to Richard Hilton for
    posting on the Friends of Sand Mountain website.

-   Both field offices were asked to provide at a future meeting
    information on what monitoring data they have, how many allotments
    have been monitored to what extent, what monitoring BLM plans to do
    and has not been able to do and a recommendation from the agency
    that they would like the RAC to endorse. \[NOTE: This does not
    necessarily have to be presented at the Tri-RAC meeting in October,
    but at some RAC meeting in the future.\]

-   Don Hicks said he would provide information requested by Frank
    Evans, member of the public, as to whether the HMA in the Pine Nuts
    that is being reduced by 20% is going to be expanded anywhere else
    and whether the water source is going to be expanded anywhere else.

-   Don Hicks was asked by Larie Trippet to furnish Dan Petersen with
    information concerning the nine citations written at Sand Mountain
    over Memorial Day Weekend - what area was it that was closed? Were
    citations or warnings given? What action closed that area?

# IV. Minutes from the Meeting in Winnemucca, Nevada, April 27 & 28, 2005

> MOVED -- by Jerry Hepworth to Approve.

SECOND -- by Vern Schulze.

> DISCUSSION -- The following corrections to the minutes were requested:
> On page 3, motion one, Jim Eidel asked that his name be added to the
> list of RAC members on the Wild Horses and Burros Guidelines Subgroup.
> On page 13, paragraph 2, Jim Eidel asked that he not be included in
> the Granite Fox RAC Subgroup. On page 14, paragraph 4, change "dora"
> to "dore."

APPROVED -- by acclamation with above corrections.

# V. Field Managers' Reports

## A. Carson City Field Manager Don Hick's Report

###  1. Written summary of the report was distributed.

###  2. Additional items covered orally.

> a\. The CCFO had the 285-acre McClellan Peak fire in the last few
> days. Fires on the district have been a mix of lightning and human
> caused. We are way above the 10-year average for acres burned in
> Nevada. Mark Struble told the group that 4.3 million acres have burned
> nationally this summer to date. Most of the big fires in Nevada have
> been in the Las Vegas and Elko Districts. There was a 4,500-acre fire
> near Orovada in the Winnemucca District in July. Fire is an ongoing
> story. Sherm Swanson mentioned that the ecological threshold for red
> brome has been reached in the southern areas of the state.
>
> b\. All fuel reduction treatments are completed. There was a 40-acre
> treatment in Alpine County.
>
> Jim Eidel asked if there was a prescribed burn in the Pine Nuts. It
> was mentioned in one of the sage-grouse groups. Don said he would get
> details for Jim when there was a break in the meeting.
>
> c\. The Student Conservation Association (SCA) Fire Education Corps
> crew is back and working with home owners on establishing defensible
> space.
>
> d\. BLM hopes to have the North Douglas County land sale in October.
> The land will probably be used for commercial/ residential purposes.
> There are two parcels totaling 206 acres. The combined appraised fair
> market value of the parcels is \$16.4 million.
>
> Vern Schulze asked if this goes into the Southern Nevada \[SNPLMA\]
> money. Don answered the money from these land sales will go into the
> BACA fund for use throughout the state, not just where the money is
> generated. The U. S. treasury does not get any of this money. Vern
> asked if it is in the purview of the BLM to decide what the money is
> used for. Jo Simpson answered that it is an interagency decision.
>
> Sherm Swanson asked if those funds will be available for acquisition
> of conservation easements along the river. Don answered we are trying
> to get the Southern Nevada money for those acquisitions. An
> acquisition that is in process now will serve as the template for more
> acquisitions.
>
> e\. North Valleys Rights-of-Way (ROWs) Environmental Impact Statement
> (EIS) deals with two applications to pump water from the north valleys
> and transport it to the greater Reno area. There are on going
> discussions. The California delegation is concerned about possible
> effects to ground water in California. The Nevada state water engineer
> determines how much water will be taken, not BLM. BLM decides on the
> ROWs only. Don added it is hard to say where this will go. We have
> control over the granting of the ROWs. It is still out for public
> comment. We have had public meetings.
>
> Jim Eidel asked which BLM staff person is responsible for the EIS. Don
> answered Terri Knutson.
>
> John Dicks asked, assuming removing the water from the basin would
> have a significant impact on the environment of residents across the
> state line would this be relevant to the EIS concerning building the
> transmission line. Don answered the state does have a model for this
> which is in the document. Whether it is in BLM's purview to connect
> that with the actual construction of the pipeline, I don't have the
> authority to tell private land owners who have the water rights what
> they can do.
>
> Jim Eidel asked if the document addresses fragmentation of sage-grouse
> habitat. This sounds like something the RAC could be involved in. Don
> answered he is not sure, but he doesn't think so.
>
> John Falen commented we could spend a lot of time on this. We don't
> have time to deal with the issue today. This issue has been ongoing
> for the past three years.
>
> John Dicks commented if you're going to put in a pipe line and not
> analyze the issues with the wildlife, I would not allow someone to
> stampede me into the other area.
>
> John Mudge commented it strikes me that there is a legal issue in what
> you need to study in the NEPA document. It seems to me that you would
> need to study some of those issues. Don answered those impacts are in
> the document.
>
> Jerry Hepworth asked if it's not a bright line.
>
> Bill Roullier commented it's in the document where the water comes
> from and what it's going to be used for.
>
> f\. CCFO has completed a field-office-wide Environmental Assessment
> (EA) of geothermal, oil and gas lease applications and wind and solar
> ROW applications pending up to 2002. The master plan is to design it
> so companies that want to lease will know where they can operate with
> no restriction, moderate restriction or cannot operate at all. The
> field office has 65 pending applications. Don told the RAC there is a
> national wind energy document that is being used as a template for the
> office-wide assessment.
>
> g\. The Pine Nut RMP is still a management process in progress. Some
> changes have been made to the team dynamics. Don told the RAC he hopes
> this will move the process forward. Staff will talk to the RAC more
> about this later in the meeting.
>
> h\. The Salt Wells geothermal plant will be the first new geothermal
> plant in the state.
>
> i\. Yerington Mine management has been placed in the BLM State Office.
> CCFO has responsibility for site security and has put signs around the
> south portion of the mine asking the public to stay out. EPA has asked
> Atlantic Richfield Company (ARCO) to provide more signing. This issue
> is still in negotiation.
>
> j\. CCFO is ready to start the Mineral County Denton-Rawhide Mine RMP
> Amendment. The mining company is talking about using the open pit as a
> land fill.
>
> k\. BLM is still working with local constituents to get the kiosk put
> up and the signs in place at the Ruhenstroth Emergency Vehicle Closure
> area. BLM has had pretty good success being on the same page with the
> Pine Nut Trails Association. Implementation is slow.
>
> l\. There has been nothing new on wild horses and burros since the
> last RAC meeting. There are about 1,000 head in the Snows holding
> facility.

Laura Crane asked about the Carson River conservation easements. You
talked about using this as a template. This is agriculture based. I
would encourage you to also use a template that is wildlife based. Don
answered we will use both depending on the land base that the easement
is on.

## B. Winnemucca Acting Associate Field Manager Rodger Bryan's Report 

### 1. Written summary of the report was distributed.

###  2. Additional items covered orally.

> a\. Rodger offered apologies for Gail Givens, Winnemucca Field
> Manager, not being at the meeting. Gail is fishing in Vancouver.
>
> b\. The photo on the top of the report is of a successful defensible
> space demonstration project in Unionville. Jamie Thompson attended.
> There will be a news release out next week describing the project in
> more detail.
>
> c\. The WFO should exceed targets in fuel management this fiscal year.
> Staff is working to get planning for next year's fuels projects
> completed early so that the plans are on the shelf and ready to go as
> soon as the projects are approved. The BLM State Office is working on
> an Instruction Memorandum (IM) to protect healthy landscapes first.
>
> Sherm Swanson asked if Rodger could define healthy. Rodger answered
> trying to protect sagebrush sites that we have now because we have
> lost 60 percent of the healthy sagebrush sites in our district. Sherm
> commented we have a lot of sagebrush that has crossed the threshold
> into the shrub state. I think you are right to protect the sagebrush
> areas, but there are some other areas that would benefit from
> wildfire.
>
> d\. Fires in the district have only been 1 to 15 acres in size, except
> for the 4,500-acre North Valley Fire near Orovada. There was an
> incident on that fire where one of our fire crews was trying to set up
> an anchor point on the west side of U.S. Highway 95 when erratic winds
> caused the fire to burn over and destroy a heavy engine. One
> firefighter from a nearby crew was overcome by smoke while attempting
> to put out the burning engine. He was evacuated, treated and released
> from Humboldt General Hospital.
>
> John Falen commented that except for burning up the engine the fire
> was well managed. That needs to be recognized. Rodger commented a lot
> of that was due to support from the Wildfire Support Group. John
> continued, I think Mike Whalen \[Incident Commander\] did a great job.
> Rodger thanked him and said he would pass that on to Mike.
>
> e\. Fire restrictions went into effect July 22. Permits will only be
> issued out of the field office this year.
>
> f\. Severity resources received funding in June and July and are
> expected to receive it for the rest of the summer.
>
> g\. An SCA Fire Prevention group is stationed in the WFO this season
> to help with fire prevention education in Winnemucca and nearby
> communities.
>
> h\. The Wildfire Support Group did play a really important part in the
> North Valley Fire. They have also worked to remove and graze cheat
> grass to make the fires a little smaller if they do occur. We had a
> really good spring this year with moisture which caused a second crop
> of cheat grass that affected some of the "grazing to remove cheat
> grass fuels" studies this year.
>
> Jim Eidel commented this program was presented at the RAC meeting
> about three years ago. From the sentence "There was some reduction of
> cheat grass loading on one allotment, but a second crop of cheat grass
> negated most of the desired affect" we could assume that the study was
> successful in concluding that cheat grass would support livestock.
> John Falen commented that cheat grass is probably one of the strongest
> feeds for livestock in the spring. The only down side for cheat grass
> is its vulnerability to fire. Contrary to what all the scientists
> believe, cows can do well on cheat grass after it dries up.
>
> Jim asked if we can also assume that the study has been successful in
> reducing the fuel load. John answered because we had a really good
> spring the cheat grass grew again. You can put the cattle back in
> there if you have them available. Sometimes because of the needs of
> livestock management it's hard to get the cattle back in there. Jim
> asked if there is any going back once the cattle graze it. Sherm
> Swanson commented if the cheat grass fire cycle is going the cheat
> grass comes back. Maybe the cheat grass should be grazed in the fall.
> The fuel that we grew this year will still be a problem in future
> years. The livestock grazing can still be used in future years in the
> fall and winter when fires may be a problem. Jerry Hepworth commented,
> in my experience in mine reclamation, the grazing permittee was also
> the underlying claim owner, and grazing cattle did not ruin the
> reclamation effort. Well understood, well timed grazing is the key.
>
> Jim Eidel asked Rodger to convey to Gail Givens that this group is
> really interested in this issue. Maybe we could get more detail on the
> conclusions from the two studies and the plans for next year. Rodger
> answered we won't have the results from what happened this year for a
> while. Jim continued maybe we could visit these sites when we meet in
> Winnemucca in the next couple of years. What we know, what we think we
> know, what we're learning needs to be built into the Winnemucca RMP.
>
> John Dicks asked if wild horses eat the same things as cattle. John
> Falen answered that's impractical. The answer is no.

i.  Two subgroups have been formed. The subgroup for the Granite Fox
    Coal-Fired Power Plant EIS is still in the planning stages.

> Jerry Hepworth, chair of the Granite Fox Subgroup, told the RAC he has
> talked to Fred Holzel, WFO Planning and Environmental Coordinator. He
> will probably meet sometime in September with Gail Givens and Fred to
> put together a kickoff meeting and find out what part the subgroup
> will have in the process.
>
> Over 500 comments were received on the Granite Fox Power Plant. An
> initial review indicates more letters were received opposing the
> proposal than letters favoring it. Most of the comments concerned air,
> water, socio-economics and cultural concerns.
>
> There was a problem in transmitting BLM email invitations to the first
> meeting of the Winnemucca RMP subgroup. They will meet again tomorrow.
>
> j\. BLM has conditionally protested the water rights applications by
> Granite Fox to maintain BLM standing if studies show a detrimental
> effect to these areas. BLM filed conditional protests for the Aquatrac
> proposals to test drill for water for the same reason as above.
>
> Craig Young asked if the Granite Fox applications are similar to the
> North Valleys applications. Rodger answered yes.

k.  Four applications have been processed for met towers in the Bloody
    Runs, the Sonomas and the Granites. BLM has taken the stance in
    Winnemucca where these are proposed in sage-grouse areas to analyze
    them with EAs rather than CXs and to let the applicants know there
    could be some issues with sage-grouse.

> l\. Golden Phoenix has proposed the underground mining of molybdenum
> ore 10 miles southeast of Denio Junction. We expect the draft EA in
> the next week or so.
>
> m\. New Sleeper Mine has proposed expanding its exploration efforts at
> the Sleeper Mine.
>
> Jim Eidel asked the status of the proposed wetland. Rodger answered
> the wetland is dry. Part of the proposal was to turn off the water.
> The water has been turned off.
>
> Sherm Swanson asked if there will be fishing in the lake. John
> Gebhardt answered that there are fish in it, if they ever stop
> mining...
>
> n\. Century Gold is interested in getting started on the EA process
> for the Grand Trunk Canyon on split estate lands. There is a question
> on the validity of the lands. The Interior Board of Land Appeals
> (IBLA) has ruled in favor of the mining claimant.
>
> o\. Two different areas have been nominated for competitive land
> sales. The sales are supposed to take place in December of this year.
>
> p\. WFO has received eight applications for permits to drill
> geothermal exploration and production wells. One application is near
> Gerlach. The others are located on the west side of Blue Mountain.
>
> q\. There have been no wild horse and burro gathers since the last
> report to the RAC. Rodger pointed out that the sentence in the report
> "a proposed Decision and EA for establishing Appropriate Management
> Levels (AML) for the South Buffalo North Stillwater and Tobin HMAs"
> should read "South Buffalo *Allotment* in the North Stillwater and
> Tobin HMAs*."* The Pine Forest Allotment Final Multiple Use Decision
> (FMUD) should be issued soon.
>
> Jim Eidel asked when you set AML do you take into account the horses
> moving out of the area. Rodger answered we consider that when we try
> to determine what the AML will be. Jim asked if determination of bird
> brood areas is taken into account in this area. Rodger answered we
> have transmitters on birds in the areas. Most of our AMLs have been
> set. We will probably address some of this in our upcoming RMP.
>
> Several gathers are coming up this fall generally west of Lovelock
> sometime in November in the Jackson Mountains and McGee Mountains.
> Staff is monitoring use.

r.  Staff is working on transfers and permit renewals for range.

> Western Watersheds Project asked for and received dismissal of its
> appeal of the Soldier Meadows Allotment FMUD and filed a complaint in
> District Court. The hearing date on the appeal of the Hot Springs Peak
> Allotment FMUD is set for the week of October 3, 2005.
>
> s\. At the April meeting WFO asked the RAC for feedback on a proposed
> plan to ask permittees to inspect and report the condition of the
> range improvements on their allotments. WFO would appreciate getting
> any feedback the RAC members may have.
>
> Jim Eidel commented this isn't working a damn with the Forest Service.
>
> t\. The Northwest Distinct Population Lahontan Cutthroat Trout (LCT)
> Recovery team is working on fish barriers for McDermitt Creek basin to
> keep the exotics from mixing.
>
> u\. The Dave Canyon Traditional Cultural Property in the Stillwater
> Range has been listed on the National Register.

v.  A draft Lovelock Cave Back Country Byway Children's Activity Book
    has been completed.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
w.  BLM is in the final stages of putting together the draft EA for
    Water Canyon.

x.  The NCA RAC subgroup meeting in June looked at OHV use and
    management in the Black Rock.

y.  The Burning Man Event is scheduled for August 29 through September
    5.

z.  Friends of Black Rock High Rock are hosting a Perseid Meteor Shower
    Camp Out in the Black Rock Desert Playa August 12 and 13.

> aa. There were a record 150 kids at the Annual Kids' Fishing Day.
> Everyone had a great time.
>
> bb. WFO is involved in two local planning groups for sage-grouse. The
> Washoe-Modoc group has narratives prepared for all their PMUs.
>
> cc\. In personnel news WFO has hired two NEPA coordinators. WFO lost
> our weeds coordinator when Chuck Neill retired. A range management
> specialist is transferring to Wyoming.

# VI. RAC Subcommittee Reports

## A. Wild Horse Guidelines Subcommittee

Last fall the RAC had a draft document prepared by Vern Schulze's
predecessor, Susie Askew, forwarded to the BLM State Office for review.
A new draft was presented to the RAC at the January meeting. The
document was revised for the April meeting. As a result of finding out
that the State Director did have the authority to approve the Standards
and Guides the document was revised again. The Wild Horse Guidelines
Subcommittee sat down in June and drafted the next document to go to the
State Office. If there are major changes needed the subcommittee will
revise it.

Basically wild horses and livestock use are similar so the Standards and
Guides are similar. A Standard was added dealing with the individual
health of the animals and one dealing with the health of the herds. The
subcommittee hashed out 17 Guidelines.

Vern thanked the subcommittee members for their help. The document
distributed to the RAC represents the consensus of the subcommittee.

> MOVED -- by John Falen that the Wild Horses and Burros Standards and
>
> Guidelines are accepted as presented.

SECOND -- by Jerry Hepworth.

> DISCUSSION --
>
> APPROVED -- by acclamation.
>
> MOVED -- by Jerry Hepworth that the Chair draft a letter to send to
> Bob Abbey expressing the appreciation of the RAC for his years as BLM
> Nevada State Director.
>
> SECOND -- by John Dicks.
>
> DISCUSSION -- Jerry Hepworth asked that Mark Struble and Jamie
> Thompson help the Chair draft the letter. The amendment was accepted
> by the Second.
>
> APPROVED -- by acclamation.

# *B. RAC Winnemucca RMP Subcommittee*

The Winnemucca RMP Subcommittee met on July 11. Only a few members were
present due to a problem transmitting BLM email invitations. The
contractor went over the planning process. Those attending felt they
needed more members present before moving on. Chair Jerry Hepworth asked
that members please attend the meeting tomorrow.

Sherm Swanson commented that the key question for the subgroup is how
much do we \[the RAC\] want to get involved. We should state that
intention. Jim Eidel commented I think Sherm has in the back of his mind
getting on paper what we have in mind for range monitoring and
management. Sherm commented I was thinking there are some big issues. If
we want to have a voice in these big issues we need to roll up our
sleeves and get involved now.

The NCA Subgroup was also asked to give a report. Craig Young told the
RAC that the subgroup met in June in Gerlach. They had a great turnout.
They spent the first day out touring specific sites that get a lot of
use. The main push of the subgroup is to look at the impacts at the
entrance points to the NCA because that is where a lot of the hardest
use is. Craig was impressed by the condition of the Black Rock. It was
felt that management doesn't understand what the initial conditions were
at these sights and what they are managing for now. The subgroup talked
about places for signage and usage for the visitor center.

Craig commented that Chuck Dodd's website has one of the more impressive
amounts of information on real time conditions on the Black Rock and its
different activities. It is a very well done website. You can really get
a sense of how many people are using different sites. The site address
is [www.blackrockhighrock.net](http://www.blackrockhighrock.net/).

Jim Eidel commented that the group took a lot of photos dealing with OHV
use. The OHV use is worst close to the access points. There were some
places right above the elevation of the playa that were really torn up.
The group talked about getting the photos distributed and policing those
areas. The great thing about the meeting was the tremendous turnout and
input. All along the edge of the playa is scrub brush which is habitat
for some sensitive species. I think BLM got a whole new look at the area
which is the same area being torn up by the OHV use. Craig Young
commented that OHV use is the one interest not represented in the
subgroup.

John Falen introduced the issue of preparation of land for sale by the
BLM. He asked how the RAC can assist in this program. He told the RAC
that from his conversations with former BLM State Director Bob Abbey he
learned that the stumbling block for some of these sales are the funds
to prepare the lands for sale. He said he was told by a member of the
WFO staff, "if you can fund the preparation work we can do the sales,"
almost a direct quote. A few months ago Bob told John the problem would
solve itself because the funds generated by the sales can be used to
fund the preparation for the sales. The question is how the RAC can be
involved to speed the process up and to make sure some of the funds from
the sales can be earmarked for this.

Jo Simpson commented we are actually doing pretty well on equilibrium
between disposal and sales in acres. The first thing that has to happen
before we can sell land is that it has to be identified in a land use
plan before it can be prepared for sale. The RACs are involved in any
land use planning we do. For lands to be disposed of under BACA they
have to have been identified in a land use plan as of July 25 of the
year the bill was passed. Jo was unsure of the year but is guessing
2002. She will have to check. There is also a capacity issue in the
field offices for how much work they can do. The cultural resource items
are one of the highest ticket items. Across the state BLM has a limited
capacity to do work. Another piece of this is local government. It is
BLM policy to consult with the local government nearest to where the
land is located.

John Dicks commented, what I understood you to say, the point was made
by you Jo, that the disposal issues get reviewed when a land management
plan gets reviewed. That is the time when the RAC can comment on the
issue. Maybe whether we have the budget to do the disposals should be
considered when the land is identified.

John Falen commented that there were 800 acres of land that had been
identified in the Winnemucca District that have been sold but the rest
of the land in that area that has been identified for sale has not been
sold. Some livestock permittees who run on that land are opposed to the
land being sold. He asked when the BACA funds will be available. Jo
Simpson told him they are available now. John commented then staff time
is the problem. Rodger Bryan commented that is the problem. John asked
how we get around that. Rodger answered that with our current manpower
situation it will be a matter of prioritizing. John asked if the BACA
funds can be used to hire more staff. Jo answered staff can be hired on
a temporary basis.

Chair Bill Roullier asked if the RAC is interested in continuing the
discussion on this issue. Several members said yes. The decision by the
Chair was to end the discussion at this time because of time constraints
in the agenda. The Chairman asked what the RAC wants to do with the
subject. Sherm Swanson suggested that BLM look at contracting out the
work and report back to the RAC. John Falen commented my main concern is
to have some avenue by which the funds from BACA can be used to move the
process forward by hiring more staff and have the RAC support that
process. Sherm continued we have to recognize the RAC by its charter is
limited in its ability to discuss staffing or budgeting. Don Hicks
proposed that a place be put on the October agenda to discuss BACA and
how the driving forces in the bill work. The RAC asked that each field
office report at the October meeting on how much land is available for
disposal, what is the status of the process for this land, what land has
already been identified for disposal, and the acquisition process.

# VII. Pine Nut Mountain RMP Amendment

Don Hicks welcomed the public to the meeting. My involvement with the
amendment, he told them, started in May of last year when I came to the
field office. I did an overview of Chapters 1 and 2 at the April RAC
meeting in Winnemucca. I was asked to once again reengage the public in
the Plan. This is an opportunity for us to provide some feedback to you
and for the RAC to revive the subgroup. We will have the opportunity for
you to tell us what you like and don't like in the Plan when we reform
into subgroups.

Tom Crawford, BLM Lead for the Pine Nut Plan, told the group that
Chapter 1 is the overview of the planning effort. Chapter 2 goes over
the proposed Plan Amendment and the Alternatives proposed. Chapter 3 is
the baseline conditions under which the land exists, a summary of the
affected environment, resources and resource uses. Areas that will be
affected include lands and realty; biological resources, geology,
paleontology, soils and minerals; cultural resources; and Native
American religious concerns, traditional cultural properties and Indian
trust resources. The Tribal trust allotments make up a large component
of the Plan area in Douglas County. Affected areas also include
aesthetic resources; socio-economics and environmental justice concerns;
recreation; Wilderness Study Area (WSA); grazing; water, wetlands and
riparian areas; climate and air quality; public health and safety,
hazardous materials and solid waste. There is only one WSA in the Pine
Nuts, Burbank Canyon. Grazing has an impact on vegetation. There are
lots of concerns about roads that may go through water, wetlands, and
riparian areas and concerns about Play Areas. There are no burros in the
Pine Nuts.

Chapter 4 gets into the environmental impacts. The table in the
presentation given to the RAC lists anticipated impacts under
Continuation of Current Management, the Proposed Plan Amendment, and the
Conservation and Restoration Theme Alternative.

Noise and visual impacts are anticipated to be minor to moderate.
Pinion-juniper is starting to encroach in some of the areas where it is
not appropriate any more.

The impacts on lands and realty are anticipated to be moderately to
negligibly beneficial. BLM would probably ask that additional utility
corridors be put in other than current areas to limit impacts.

Mineral surface disturbance will be limited.

Going from open designation to a series of designated routes would limit
routes in some Alternatives.

John Mudge asked what the mechanism is for mineral withdrawal. Tom told
him segregation first and then approval by Congress.

BLM is not planning to do anything that would have a significant impact
on socio-economics or environmental justice.

No significant change is proposed across the board on air quality or
climate.

BLM is not going to propose an Area of Critical Environmental Concern
(ACEC) now to protect the old growth pinion juniper.

There are concerns about diminishing deer herds in the Pine Nuts.

Paleo and soils benefit from the Proposed Plan Amendment and the
Conservation and Restoration Theme Alternative. Geology is not impacted
under any of the three proposed Alternatives.

Today BLM is preparing the Draft Plan Amendment from the Administrative
Draft. Chapter 2 and prospective management decisions have changed a
little from the impacts listed and may be changed for the document
available for the public review process.

After the document is put out for the 90-day comment period BLM will --

-   Publish Notice of Availability (NOA) and provide 90-day public
    comment period

-   Prepare Proposed RMP Amendment based on comments received

-   Publish NOA, provide 30-day protest period and resolve protests

-   Prepare Record of Decision (ROD)

-   Implement, monitor and evaluate Plan decisions (Implementation
    occurs over the next 15 years.)

Larie Trippet asked if there will be any sessions for the public during
the public comment period. Tom answered yes. The public will have the
opportunity to come in during several sessions in several different
communities to review the document.

There were questions from members of the public present on the
availability of the document on the website since the public cannot
access individual BLM office websites. Jo Simpson answered that the
document will be accessible from the national BLM website. Tom answered
BLM will provide CDs of the document. Hardcopies are limited because of
funding.

Tom stated in answer to another question from a member of the public
that there are approximately 470,000 acres in the Pine Nuts.

John Dicks commented he would like everyone present to know that Tom and
Don were asked at the Winnemucca meeting to make this presentation again
since there had been such a time lapse since the last presentation. He
thanked Tom and Don for doing this. The idea was to let the public know
that the process is still going on and that the public will have an
opportunity to make comments at the appropriate time.

Jim Eidel asked what the process is for pulling something from one
alternative into another. Tom answered the EIS is pushed out with
alternatives. If BLM comes across comments or other direction that some
other component wants to be pulled in we look at those comments and
adjust the Plan Amendment to reflect those.

BLM will say when the 90-day comment period will be.

Don commented that BLM just got a new land use planning handbook in
January or February that included a new format for documents. The
original document the public received may not look like the present
document because of the new format, but all of the same things are
there. BLM is putting the original document into the new format. Don
said he can't make a promise that the document will be out in the next
60 days, but we can hope for this.

The process for the Pine Nut Plan Amendment probably began about 10
years ago. This current initiative is probably three and a half to four
years old.

Jerry Hepworth again recognized Don and Tom's efforts to reengage the
public. He commented the RAC is talking about adaptive management. This
was very well defined in past plans. Are you thinking about that
actively in this Plan? Tom answered yes adaptive management is being
built in. The route design component is a good example of adaptive
management. Don commented the key point is how do you make sure you get
it somewhat close going in and how do you reevaluate that as things
change. We will try to be somewhat prescriptive in many areas to provide
the framework for that change.

A member of the public asked if acquisition of land is also in the Plan.
Tom answered if someone comes forward wanting this. We will be
incredibly consistent with the county master plans. Don commented we
will work with the counties to make sure our actions are consistent with
the counties' future plans.

A member of the public asked who determines the significance of an
action. Tom answered that is an internal determination.

A member of the public asked how much acreage is being backed out of an
HMA in the Brunswick Canyon area. Tom answered he wasn't sure of the
acreage but it reduces the herd AML by about 21 percent.

> MOVED -- by Larie Trippet that the RAC create a subgroup of interested
> RAC members and the public to work on the Pine Nut Mountain RMP
> Amendment and act as an advisory group to the RAC.
>
> SECOND -- by John Dicks.
>
> DISCUSSION --
>
> APPROVED -- by acclamation.

**[Pine Nut Mountain RMP Subgroup]{.underline}**

**Resource Program Area Representative**

OHV/Recreation Brian Doyal

Recreation John Dicks

Equestrian Beth Scott

Land Disposal Bev Anderson

Dark Sky Gale Thomssen

Urban Interface Bob Ballou

Indian Trust (BIA) Rita Suminski

Tribal (Individual Indian Allotments) Lana Hicks

Grazing Dick Huntsberger

Wild Horse and Burro Frank Evans

Washoe Tribe Woods Robinson

Douglas County Heather Bovat

Lyon County \-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--

Carson City \-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--

Environment Laura Crane

ROW Corridors \-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--

Wildlife \-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--

Energy \-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--

Cultural/Archaeology \-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--

Laura Crane told the RAC she would like to be on the subgroup but will
need to get off one of the other subgroups.

Sherm Swanson commented this subgroup is being created at a time that
they will only be able to comment on established policy rather than
create ideas. Don commented I am trying to reengage the public. I'm not
sure whether a subgroup is appropriate for reengagement of people who
were engaged in the original document. The hope is that the group will
stimulate comment and resolve conflict.

A member of the public asked if this group would have any say. Don
answered not at this point but after the draft is out and the RMP is
being created.

John Dicks commented I see some possible legal problems out there. The
law provides for comment during the public comment period.

Larie Trippet commented the 90-day comment period is an opportunity for
individuals to make comments. The role for the subgroup is to recognize
the conflicts and find some win-win resolution.

Sherm Swanson commented it sounds to me as though we are not forming a
subgroup but reengaging a subgroup. I would recommend that all previous
members of the subgroup be asked to reengage in this subgroup so that
they can provide comments to BLM.

Jo Simpson commented as far as law goes, this group would report to the
RAC at which time the comments would be reported in public.

A member of the public commented I don't see any new groups in this
list. My understanding of today's meeting was that we would find out
where you are on the draft.

Don answered if we send out the draft and get comments, we lump the
comments together into interests, but I see the subgroup as being key to
sorting out the information received in the comments, between the end of
the public comment period and when the final document comes out.

Tom Crawford will work on making sure all the interest groups are
covered in the subgroup and make sure the names are confirmed and bring
this information back to the RAC in October to make a decision on
membership. Larie Trippet commented we want to keep the subgroup small
in number.

Don commented we could provide context for the subgroup upfront.

# VIII. Sand Mountain Update & Fee Increase Proposal

Memorial Day was the busiest holiday yet at Sand Mountain Recreation
Area (SMRA) with 7,000 visitors. One of the big concerns from law
enforcement and medical people was that they can't get around in many
areas when there are that many visitors. There is a need to delineate
the areas. There were more confrontations between visitors and law
enforcement. Rangers brought up setting a carrying capacity for the
area. Cellular coverage has been brought up as an issue. Double, triple
and quadruple riders and riders with no helmets were another of the
concerns.

A planning group that is being mediated by the Lahontan Valley
Environmental Alliance is working on a Conservation Plan and Agreement
to provide for the long term protection of the Sand Mountain blue
butterfly and its habitat. The group is in the process of finalizing the
Plan.

Actions include --

-   Limiting motorized vehicles within the defined shrub habitat to
    specific routes

-   Maintaining a program of existing trail and fence maintenance

-   Increased law enforcement and recreation staff

-   Closure of the dune shrub habitat to livestock

-   Educating the public on the butterfly and its habitat

-   SMRA regulations and proper riding practices

-   Determining the need for a carrying capacity or maximum limit for
    the number of users allowed into the recreation area at any one time

-   Development of an adaptive management plan

-   Researching Kearney buckwheat and the blue butterfly life history
    requirements

Involved parties include the BLM, the City of Fallon, CORVA, Churchill
County, Friends of Sand Mountain, Lahontan Valley Environmental
Alliance, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Fallon Paiute-Shoshone
Tribe, and interested members of the public.

Larie Trippet commented that carrying capacity brings up the issue of
where someone will go when you turn them away.

Elayn Briggs showed the group a map of specified routes.

Don Hicks commented that Leo Drumm, BLM Nevada State Office Outdoor
Recreation Planner/Recreation, Travel and Access Coordinator, has been
working with staff and others to reach consensus on what the routes
should look like. They are going out and riding the routes. BLM is
trying to make this a collaborative process.

Jim Eidel asked if the Alliance is coming up with a fencing plan. Don
Hicks answered we have talked about the entire arena of fencing. We are
working with the Alliance. We are trying to balance a blend of fencing
to protect the habitat and to protect the riders.

John Dicks asked when BLM issues a citation what is the court? Elayn
Briggs answered the Federal Court in Reno. The money from a fine goes
back to the general treasury. BLM doesn't get any of it. John asked if
you can ban certain people from the area. Elayn answered that the
magistrate would have to do that. John commented BLM could request it.
Elayn answered yes. Melody Stehwien, CCFO Law Enforcement, commented
these people take off with no lights on a high powered quad. We can't
catch these people.

The RAC suggested increasing fees. BLM is looking at other sand dune
areas and a lot of other information. Last year fees generated
\$170,000. It cost approximately \$225,000 to manage Sand Mountain. In
order to bridge the gap between annual site fee revenues and management
costs BLM is proposing to increase fees. BLM hopes to have the fees in
place by October 1, 2005. BLM will continue to include the public.

Elayn showed the RAC a large laminated information sheet that is posted
in the kiosk at Sand Mountain.

There has been new legislation covering fee demo areas, the Federal
Lands Recreation Enhancement Act (FLREA) signed by the President on
December 8, 2004. One provision in the bill provides for the
establishment of Recreation RACs to provide accountability for the
program and the fee sites. It is still unclear how these RRACs will
eventually play out. Larie Trippet commented the purpose is really
limited. They can't look at locations where there are already fees.

For a number of years visitors to Sand Mountain have placed monuments
to, and perhaps interred remains of, individuals who at one time enjoyed
recreating at the sand dunes, at the top of Sand Mountain in a location
that is now known as Monument Overlook. Until recently BLM did not have
vehicles capable of reaching the top of the dune so BLM was unaware of
the presence of the monuments. This is an illegal use of public lands.

BLM sent out a letter last week to the Tribes, the OHV people and the
counties asking them to publicize to their people to remove the
monuments by October 1, 2005. If they're not removed by October 1, BLM
will remove them.

Interns/SCAs with Seeds for Success are collecting seeds of the
different species at Sand Mountain. The seeds along with previously
collected Kearney buckwheat plants were sent to Kew Gardens in London.
BLM should hear back from Kew Gardens by November 2005.

Kearney buckwheat mapping has been completed. It shows that the
buckwheat habitat follows the area BLM had previously delineated and in
addition also takes in the broader area up to the base of the dunes.

The last compliance monitoring was done over Fourth of July weekend. It
shows the same level of non-compliance and intrusions as previous
holidays, even though visitation was low.

BLM will be putting up some fencing test plots. Hog fencing will be the
primary trial method. BLM will be fencing the voluntary routes. John
Dicks commented that he has some experience with hog fencing. You don't
need many strands. One of the hazards is that when the sun is just right
you can't see it.

New quads should be in by the end of this week.

John Dicks asked if there are vendors out there. Elayn answered we have
vendors. They pay to be out there.

Elayn suggested that it would be a good thing if the RAC made a
recommendation that raising fees at Sand Mountain would be beneficial to
BLM to cover administrative and law enforcement costs.

> MOVED -- by John Dicks that the RAC support an increase in fees to
> support the costs of the users of Sand Mountain so that the users will
> be supporting the services provided for them.
>
> Second -- by Ernie Paine.
>
> APPROVED -- with one abstention by Larie Trippet.

The fee at Sand Mountain is \$25 for a week, \$45 for a season. Elayn
told the group that BLM followed what is done at places like Glamis and
also what is done at national parks.

Larie Trippet asked for a breakdown of where the user fees are going and
the costs in the future before he votes on the motion. He wants to know
if the increase in fees is favorable or unfavorable to the users. Elayn
could bring this detail to the next RAC meeting or email it to the RAC.

Cost in the future would be for emergency services and rangers,
especially on holiday weekends, and for an improved fee collection
system.

Larie Trippet asked Richard Hilton, Friends of Sand Mountain, if his
people would like to see where the fees are going. Richard said people
ask him that all the time. Don Hicks said CCFO can provide a breakdown.
Larie also commented he appreciates that we're telling the RAC but how
is BLM telling the users. Can you send an email to Richard so that he
can put it on the Friends of Sand Mountain website? Don answered that
they can send a pie chart to Richard.

Sherm Swanson commented, I assume that you have estimates of the average
stay out there. Do you use those estimates to tell you what the revenue
would be if you had 100% compliance with the fees charged? Elayn
answered that is in our business plan. Sherm continued, so I'm guessing
that you could have made up for your deficit if you had 100% compliance.
Elayn answered we could but we would need more people out there. Sherm
continued, the main point I'm trying to figure out is that the compliant
people are subsidizing the noncompliant people. I would rather raise the
compliance than vote for a rise in fees. Elayn answered you don't want
to spend all of your money trying to collect fees.

Ernie Paine asked if law enforcement is only BLM or county also. Elayn
answered it is only BLM at this time. We bring in a lot of people from
other BLM offices.

John Dicks commented I don't sense on the part of these people that they
are trying to jack up the fee. I have the feeling that the BLM managers
are behind the curve in some of these services, so I think the motion is
appropriate.

Jim Eidel asked Richard Hilton to let people know that the RAC did see a
\$55,000 deficit. Richard answered I don't think the people out there
would object to a rise in fees. If you increase the fees a lot and then
make the area smaller there will be an objection for that. I don't think
the fees should be increased very much based on the area that is useable
out there. Up until two years ago there were no fees. A few years ago
there were fees that covered the services at Sand Mountain. Are you
looking for 100% coverage of services?

Jamie Thompson commented that the special recreation fees, for permitted
recreation activities, have gone up in the past few years. In special
recreation fees there is 100% coverage. People do have to pay their own
way.

Dan Peterson, CORVA, commented two weeks ago a contingent from
California spent a week in DC lobbying the legislators involved in funds
for recreation to increase those funds. We're doing what we can to get
funds for you people.

# IX. Rangeland Monitoring Handbook

Sherm Swanson presented a review of the Rangeland Monitoring Handbook
and recommendations to the RAC.

He distributed the Public Lands Council/U.S. Forest Service Memorandum
of Understanding (MOU) that calls for developing cooperative monitoring
programs. He told the RAC that BLM is required by law to maintain the
land so that it maintains the rangeland health as well as maintaining
the ranch industry. If we no longer have the budget for the monitoring
task, then it is incumbent on us to figure out a way to get that
monitoring done. BLM has no way to tell whether the rangeland health is
good, so they assume it isn't. The permitees can do a better job of
managing and the management agency can do a better job of managing with
that information from the permittees; how many animals were in what
pasture in what season, what was the management level. Short term
monitoring is the record of year-to-year activities and what happened
during that year. Short term monitoring leads to long term monitoring.
Cooperative monitoring with the permittee involved in the short term
monitoring will allow the agency to concentrate on the long term
monitoring.

Developing a cooperative program is not a simple thing to do. A lot of
agreements have to be made. Essentially the problem comes down to the
local monitoring plan. The upshot of a monitoring tour in Elko was that
the 1984 Rangeland Monitoring Handbook needed to be revised. It didn't
include ways to do riparian monitoring. It didn't have a focus on the
objectives of monitoring. It was agreed by the people on the tour to
take a look at the Nevada handbook. A group has been developing a draft
for the past two years. The group is looking at the first draft and will
hopefully have a second draft out this fall.

There is also a focus on some monitoring that was not focused on before.
Hopefully we are producing a modern version. In tandem with this is the
MOU that calls for cooperative monitoring.

The Northeastern Great Basin RAC took on this issue. They talked about
cooperative monitoring and its importance to the permitees. Their
discussions led to the document that was sent out to the RAC. The key
idea is to leverage the Bureau's dwindling work force with defensible
range monitoring information collected in a cooperative fashion by
federal land grazers.

The question is what does this RAC want to do in taking on this issue?
What role do we recommend for BLM to take on? What role do we want the
permittees to take on?

Jerry Hepworth commented that he liked the concept. I believe there is a
policy BLM-wide, but when you don't have the resources to employ more
people it is hard to follow the policy. I believe the concept is a sound
one.

Don Hicks commented, from an agency perspective the concept is indeed
sound. We have 90 active allotments and approximately 80 permittees. So
even with the joint monitoring strategy you would have to set standards
as to what you wanted to monitor. The standards or approach needs to
apply to all of BLM Nevada. I like the idea of partnerships. The
permitees know a lot more of what is happening on the ground than the
managers.

Rodger Bryan told the RAC I agree 100%. With our shrinking budgets we
need to look at any cooperation we can. We definitely need standards
across the state.

Sherm continued, the flip side of having a single technique is that only
one technique would not answer all the questions and all places are not
the same. We have a suite of techniques in our handbook. Different
techniques in different areas would cause a problem in managing data.

Jim Eidel commented many managers have told me the first thing that
falls out of any budget is the money you put in it for monitoring. The
biggest problems with respect to monitoring are scale. A lot of things
that Sherm refers to can be done on a project scale. There is no such
thing as adaptive management without monitoring. We're talking about
putting into all management plans adaptive management so monitoring has
to be put into the plans. It came up in the Winnemucca meeting that BLM
was looking at giving the responsibility of monitoring the rangelands to
the permitees. A permitee can't be asked to monitor because it has to be
done with unbiased data. The NCA Subgroup is already looking at
monitoring. There is a person on that committee who agreed to do some
flights for aerial data of the NCA in conjunction with Burning Man. I
support what Sherm is saying. I think cooperative monitoring has to be
done. The RAC should probably look at this in respect to BLM management
plans.

Ernie Paine commented from a permitee's perspective, I would echo that
the first thing to go is your range con or your monitoring dollars. From
a permittee perspective we already do range monitoring. We go to
workshops to learn to do monitoring. Then it falls to a group like this
with the help of Sherm to put together a handbook that we can use.
Permittees are tasked with a monitoring schedule for our allotments.

John Dicks commented I would be very supportive of this. Different
agencies that have issued licenses for different settings have required
monitoring as part of the licensing. At first that's a little repulsive
to the licensee, but not when you think of \[the other alternative\] a
government guy sitting over his shoulder and doing it. But then the
licensee realizes that the data benefits him, too. The permittee is out
there on the allotment and knows what is going on.

Sherm continued, management by inventory for the objective of making
management decisions by numbers is not using all the tools in the
toolbox. The paradigm shift to monitoring by utilization from monitoring
by numbers happened about 20 years ago. Utilization has become a very
important tool in the toolbox of monitoring. Although utilization is
important, it is not, in my mind, sufficient. There will be some
monitoring component in the rangeland schools but it is my feeling that
it won't be emphasized. In combination, the long term monitoring and
'what did you do last week', is the way to really make some progress.

Sherm asked if the RAC liked what the Northeastern Nevada RAC did. Do we
want to ratify what they did or do we want to produce our own?

Bill Roullier asked if there is anything in the Northeastern product
that Sherm thought doesn't fit us. Sherm answered no except some of the
vernacular.

John Dicks commented, to me the main problems will be getting everyone
to talk the same language.

Jim Eidel commented, I see the ultimate goal of this as standards and
guidelines for habitat.

Sherm commented, the real place where the rubber meets the road is the
development of allotment specific monitoring plans.

Rodger Bryan commented we certainly have done that in the past. It's a
great idea. It's just having the people to implement it.

Jerry Hepworth commented, you have to think of incentives and a way to
market this to people so they will agree to it.

Russ Suminski, CCFO Lead Rangeland Management Specialist, commented we
have tried to involve the permitees with monitoring on their allotments.
We contacted the permitees with regard to this. We got a response from
only one permitee. It didn't work with the Forest Service. I'm not
optimistic that it will work here. There isn't a lot of agreement on the
part of the permittees to do this. They think monitoring is the
responsibility of the agencies and I agree. The monitoring data has to
be accurate. I don't see it working in hearings for instance if the
permittees do the monitoring. We need a minimum of four rangeland
management specialists. We have two. There is a myriad of paper work
involved in it. We were covering 20 allotments a year fully, long term
monitoring, with four people. We spend the majority of our time now
doing paperwork. We get short term monitoring on half of our allotments
now. It's probably a minimum look see at this point.

Sherm commented there is an old saying, in the kingdom of the blind the
one-eyed man is king. If a permittee takes the time to do monitoring he
becomes the one-eyed man when the agency has no monitoring. Some are
bitter about the agency not doing the monitoring but they're not doing
it either. The kind of management we're doing is causing lands to cross
ecological thresholds. There are problems with cooperative monitoring
but there are problems with managing too.

Jim Eidel commented that the place to start is why the cooperative
monitoring didn't work with the Forest Service. I would hate to see BLM
start cooperative monitoring without knowing that. What were the Forest
Service permittees being asked to do?

Russ Suminski commented with the Forest Service there was a total lack
of interest on the part of the permittees. They were asked to run
transects, utilization monitoring.

Ernie Paine commented I think over time the lack of interest will
probably change. I don't expect the budget situation to change. Over
time if there's interest or not, it's going to be a requirement. Sooner
or later in most cases permittees face environmental pressures to change
their operations and you have to have a basic understanding of how
they're trying to change it.

Craig Young asked if there is a requirement to fill out certain records.
Ernie Paine answered it's not required. So you change it from not
required to required.

Jerry Hepworth commented you need to find out what the institutional
barriers are.

John Mudge asked if there is any way that a percentage of the fees paid
could be paid back to the permittee for doing the monitoring. Don Hicks
commented present laws wouldn't allow that. Jim Eidel commented some
percentage of those fees should be used by BLM to monitor.

Sherm commented that having this opportunity in place will at least
allow those ranches that participate to be managed better.

John Dicks commented I don't sense much consensus around this table
which surprises me. I would think that the BLM managers would want to
know everything they could about those cows.

Chair Roullier commented I get the sense that we want to move forward.

> MOVED -- by Sherm Swanson that our RAC embrace the approach taken by
> the Northeastern RAC (to leverage the Bureau's dwindling work force
> with defensible range monitoring information collected in a
> cooperative fashion by federal land grazers) and urge the agency to
> use this approach appropriately on public lands and that BLM will use
> this process.

SECOND -- by Jerry Hepworth.

DISCUSSION -- The RAC voted on the motion but it was then brought up

that the members need to vote by POD and there were not enough

members present in each POD to make the vote valid. The motion was

withdrawn by the Mover with the concurrence of the Second.

Jim Eidel commented I would like to take a step back and see what we
need to do this right. Maybe Russ and Sherm and I and somebody else from
BLM could sit down and make a better motion.

Jerry Hepworth commented I think this is part of the implementation.

Sherm told the RAC the handbook will probably have a signature page
where each of the agencies will sign and endorse it. My sense is that
the handbook group has not adequately embraced cooperative monitoring.

John Gebhardt commented I want to know if the data collected in
cooperative monitoring will be held up in court. Sherm told him that is
something that the Northeastern RAC considered at length. Number one in
the second group of rolls and responsibilities on page two of the
document produced by the Northeastern RAC says NDOW will be one of the
cooperators.

Jim Eidel commented that to be upheld in court you're going to have to
monitor the monitors. That's just adding to the problems you have.

Sherm commented that there is a thirst for monitoring data.

John Gebhardt commented, I want what we collect to be viable data.

Larie Trippet asked if the permittees are so busy that they don't even
want to consider monitoring even though they know they need to do it.

Jim Eidel asked Russ Suminski what he would like the RAC to do. Russ
answered I think the agency needs support for budget and personnel to do
the monitoring. We don't have the people in the agency to even support
cooperative monitoring now or even set it up.

Jerry Hepworth commented BLM should be asked to give us information on
what can and can't be done.

John Dicks called the question on the motion.

In withdrawing the motion (see motion discussion above) Sherm asked to
bring this topic up at a future meeting with information from BLM on
what monitoring data they have, how many allotments have been monitored
to what extent, what monitoring BLM plans to do and has not been able to
do and a recommendation from the agency that they would like the RAC to
endorse.

John Gebhardt commented the RAC should encourage BLM to do more
monitoring.

# X. Public Comment Period

Michon Eben, Cultural Resource Coordinator for the Reno/Sparks Indian
Colony, told the RAC members that since they are really committed to the
Northwestern Great Basin Area, we would like to comment on the Pah Rah
Range, specifically the Dry Lakes area and the ACEC. The Reno/Sparks
Indian Colony would like to put on record how important it is to put in
place an effective management plan to protect cultural sites at the Dry
Lakes. We applaud and support the designation of this area as an ACEC
and we appreciate the BLM restricting the area from OHVs and mining. The
final Southern Washoe County Urban Interface Plan Amendment (interface
plan) recognizes the threats of the increased activity from the growing
Truckee Meadows region to the extent that the plan further recommends
steps to protect this significant resource. In referencing the BLM's
Interface Plan, it states that "The area must have special management
attention to protect the relevant and important values\..." We feel that
the BLM is permitting some activities without provisions in the
management plan to guide them in its decision to approve or deny
projects. The Reno/Sparks Indian Colony strongly encourages BLM to hold
in abeyance all project applications in the vicinity of the Dry Lakes
area until a site-specific, detailed ACEC plan and EA is completed in
consultation with the Native American Tribes. The Tracy to Silver Lake
Transmission Line project is of particular concern. People don't always
obey, but there are people vandalizing a cultural site.

Jeannette Dahl, Director Lahontan Valley Environmental Alliance, told
the RAC: we are coordinating the Sand Mountain Butterfly Conservation
Group. We're getting a tremendous amount of cooperation from BLM at this
time and want to thank BLM for this. This effort has a lot of support in
the city and the county. We as an organization that represents the
county, city and Irrigation District are not looking just to BLM for
funds to support this effort. The community is behind us. We have had
cooperation from the allotment holders group. We are getting a great
amount of cooperation from the Navy and the \[Fallon Paiute-Shoshone\]
Tribe also.

Richard Hilton, Friends of Sand Mountain, asked for a copy of the
cooperative monitoring MOU to use as a sample for putting together an
MOU between Friends of Sand Mountain and BLM. He told the RAC, I saw
several of you cringe when you heard the helicopter was out there \[at
Sand Mountain\] 11 times \[over Memorial Day Weekend\]. Things do happen
when people are out there doing foolish things. This pink flyer that is
going around trying to inform the people needs to go around more than on
Memorial Day Weekend. That has to be spread out in a larger scope on
every weekend. Having a yearly pass you don't stop at the gate. You
don't go to the bathrooms if you have a motorhome. It was brought up in
our report that we are putting in the butterfly plan an adaptive
management plan and monitoring.

On the subject of the monuments that are out there -- as a devil's
advocate -- different people have told me -- I don't agree with some of
the things that are put up there, but a majority of the things are just
metal plaques. This is a solemn place to them. It is a visual spot where
they are. If these monuments are illegal remove them. But there are
monuments out in the Salt Flats that are visible, put up to some babies
that died on a wagon train. There is a helicopter monument out there.
Those should be removed. If it's illegal everything should be removed.
Dan Peterson has tried several times to meet with the \[Fallon
Paiute-Shoshone\] Tribe on this issue. They have not replied.

Dan Peterson, CORVA, told the RAC I was not aware that the vegetative
area had been legally closed. If it has not been legally closed how can
you write citations out there? Someone is not being notified.

I have been asked by the club that started putting the monuments out
there to find out what could be done to keep the monuments out there. I
have gathered some information on the loved ones whose ashes are
scattered up there. We have documentation. At this point that becomes a
sacred burial ground for the rest of the world. I have turned this
information over to the higher ups in the organization. I won't know for
about three weeks how the people in the organization will reply to this.
I would appreciate the RAC's assistance with BLM to allow those
monuments to remain there. I want BLM to protect the plaques that are up
there. I believe that the rest of the world has to share the mountain
being a sacred site. I have written many letters to the \[Fallon
Paiute-Shoshone\] Tribe saying I want to meet with them. Nothing has
happened from that particular side.

I believe monitoring can be accomplished by the ordinary person by the
way the monitoring is set up. If you can set up a table-sized plot and
monitor the plants there, then measure them with a ruler, look at a
plant and say it wasn't here last year. You can do photo points if BLM
will tell us where they are. BLM won't let us know where the photo
points are. I don't know why. You have a challenge in the monitoring
process. How we deal with it is everyone's problem.

Frank Evans, wild horses, told the RAC I understand that the HMA \[in
the Pine Nuts\] is going to be cut back 20 percent. Is it going to be
expanded anywhere else and is the water source going to be expanded
anywhere else? In answer Don Hicks said he would make sure that Mr.
Evans was given this information.

Larie Trippet commented that Dan \[Petersen\] brought up an interesting
point about nine citations in the closed area. Could Don Hicks tell him
what area it was that was closed? Was it a citation or a warning that
was given? What is the action that closed that area?

# XI. Meeting adjourned at 4:32 p.m.

**[Note]{.underline}:** The next meeting is the Tri-RAC Meeting in Elko
October 20-21. A van will probably leave from the BLM State Office in
Reno. Mark Struble will get more information to the RAC.