> Comments on Proposed new BLM Categorical Exclusions:
>
> \(6\) Establishment of terms and conditions and approval of Notices of
> Intent to conduct geophysical exploration of oil, gas, or geothermal
> resource pursuant to 33 CFR 3150 or 3250 when no road construction is
> proposed.
>
> \(7\) Drilling and subsequent
>
> operations of a geothermal well within a developed field for which a
>
> currently approved land use plan and/or any environmental document
>
> prepared pursuant to NEPA analyzed drilling as a reasonably
> foreseeable
>
> future activity. The application of this categorical exclusion is
> limited
>
> to Nevada.

 \
 

and also other Categiorical exclusions -- including for grazing ad
mineral development.

Widespread ecological devastation has occurred to Nevada BLM lands from
gold and other mining exploration and development.

An Oil and gas exploration and potential development boom is underway,
with Elko and Winnemucca BLM recently issuing Programmatic EAs for
leasing vast tracts of land. More leases are proposed. The
Humboldt-Toiyabe Forest is conducting an Eis for Oil and Gas leasing in
the Grant ad Quinn Range, and the Forest approved leases in the uby
Mountains.

Nevada is the most ariod state in the nation, with an extreme scarcity
of water - springs, seeps, springbrooks, intermittent streams are
minimal -- in this arid part of the high desert country of the Great
Basin. Geothermal leasing and development may directly or indirectly
affect water flows at springs, seeps and streams, some of which may be
linked to waters used for irrigation or other human purposes, as well as
waters that provide critical habitat for aquatic species, or provide
critical surface water sources for wildlife ranging from sage grouse to
mule deer to bighorn sheep.

Geothermal exploration and development may affect ground and surface
expression of water in a state where, despite massive ongoing and
proposed development and depletion, very little is really known about
these ground water aquifers and their link to surface expression of
waters over a large region.

Nevada deep carbonate aquifers extend into neighboring states of Utah,
California and Idaho. Geothermal exploration and development, which
blend into one another have the potential to kill surface expression of
geothermal or other waters in NEIGHBORING states. These aquifers have
been little studied, and water volumes and the relationship between
geothermal waters and other waters is little understood.

Nevada's ground and surface waters, many located in the very areas where
geothermal exploration and development would occur, are undergoing
massive depletion and de-watering from cyanide heap-leach mining. See
*New York Times* Gold exploration and development is booming -- in the
very lands where geothermal developmet is likely -- Beoawe/Crescent
Valley, Tuscarora.

Hot springs in Nevada provide critical habitat for rare species such as
the desert dace.

WWP's members use the public lands of Nevada, including the Ely, Elko,
Battle Mountain, Las Vegas, Carson City and Winnemucca Districts as well
as surrounding public lands of the Humbolt-Toiyabe Forest and public
lands in neighboring states for scientific, educational, recreational,
(including hunting, fishing, wildlife viewing, botanizing), aesthetic
and spiritual purposes. We have a special interest in conservation of
desert waters and hot springs and the rare biota associated with these
precious oases.

Water sources (cool water as well as geothermal) here and in neighboring
lands are often severely degraded and depleted, due to livestock grazing
(as in the Argenta, Buyckhorn, soldier Meadows, Paiute Meadows, Squaw
Valley, and other allotments, OwyheeCarico Lake allotment), as well as
mining disturbance, pollution and de-watering associated with the
gigantic cyanide heap leach gold extraction and other mining operations
here.

In this same Federal Register Notice, BLM proposes exempting Grazing
Permits from substantial NEPA review and open public involevement - i. e
. likewise relying on a CE to issue grazing permits. Nearly all areas
with surfaceexpresison ofgeothermal waters in Nevada are grazed, and
many are greatly degraded by livestock graaing ad trampling activity.
Livestock graing ad trampling may alter or dcrease surface flows of
spring or seep waters. Thus, tere are already serious indirect or
cumulative imacts form livestock garing occurring across the lands and
waters where BLM proposes this series of CEs.

Many of the current Nevada Land Use plans are woefully outdated, and do
not adequately asddress the current ecological status of the lands and
waters where geothermal activitywould occur.

BLM in Nevada as prepared some Programmatic EAs to tier future decisions
(such as DNAs) to. For example, in a Battle Mountain geothermal EA, BLM
conducted a flawed NEPA process -- with no real evaluation of a
reasonable range of alternatives -- such as limiting exploration to
Known (or suspected) Geothermal Reserve Areas (KGRAs). These EAs to date
have ben greatly inadequate -- and we believe BLM knows this. In order
to cover up these inadequacies, BLm is proposing to cut out an essential
NEPA process that would protect the lands and waters of Nevada and
neighboring states.

BLM in these EAs has acknowledged that all parts of geothermal
exploitation blend together, BLM arbitrarily segmented the NEPA process.
BLM artificially truncated analysis in the EA at the Leasing and
Exploration stage, and failed to fully analyze Development and
Restoration activities, as an attempt to circumvent preparation of an
EIS that would allow informed decisionmaking under NEPA to occur, and
which would allow full exploration of environmental dangers and harms
associated with the proposed action, and which could result in
appropriate alternative courses of action and mitigation.

The Exploration phase of geothermal exploitation/extraction, as
described in Appendix B of the Final Battle Mountain EA XXX, involves an
arsenal of permanently land-scarring and/or water-depleting activities.
It includes actions such as drilling of exploratory wells. Such drilling
may permanently alter flows of springs, seeps, and springbrooks, as well
as permanently damage playa and other habitats important to native
biota.

The range of exploration actions is particularly gruesome. These include
extensive cross-country travel with heavy equipment, clearing of
vegetation, construction of networks of new roads, including in steep
and mountainous terrain. Exploratory wells are drilled with huge drill
rigs that require 16-18 foot wide roads and may require road cuts in
excess of 20 feet. Drilling may cause "blowouts" that spreads water,
steam and contained elements on the land and which have been known to
trigger landslides. Release of pressure through drill holes may affect
the expression of the geothermal field, causing springs to dry up.

STATEMENT OF REASONS

1.BLM failed to prepare an EIS to analyze the full set of connected
actions and the full environmental impacts of its proposed actions.

2\. BLM plans to use the Programmatic EA to tier future NEPA documents
to. BLM has tiered four same-dated DNAs to the EA, in violation of NEPA.

3\. BLM failed to analyze a reasonable range of alternatives. BLM only
analyzed two alternatives: Throw open the whole 4.3 million acres
planning area to few-holds-barred geothermal exploitation activity using
a broad array of harmful methods, and No Action.

4\. BLM arbitrarily split NEPA analysis for activities associated with
geothermal exploitation, failing to consider connected and blended
actions of leasing, exploration, development and reclamation in one NEPA
document.

5\. BLM failed to adequately assess cumulative impacts in this landscape
impacted by grazing, mining and other activities.

6\. BLM failed to adequately assess impacts on ground or surface waters
in these arid desert lands.

7\. BLM failed to adequately assess impacts on special status species.

8\. BLM failed to conduct consultation with USFWS over potential impacts
to threatened and endangered species and their habitats.

9\. BLM failed to adequately assess impacts on soils, watersheds, native
vegetation, cultural sites, and recreational uses of the affected lands.

10\. BLM relied on an out-dated land use plan, prepared nearly 20 years
ago.

11\. BLM failed to adhere to objectives and provisions of its land use
plan.

APPEAL

1\. BLM failed to prepare an EIS to analyze its actions here. The
proposed action covers a long series of complicated and interconnected
actions related to geothermal resources on 4.3 million acres of public
lands that are home to rich cultural resources, rare and declining
native species and important wild land areas. These lands are also faced
by accelerated losses of native vegetation and wildlife habitat due to
fire, exotic species invasions, extensive mining activity and
de-watering and other human development.

The complicated and interconnected actions purported to be analyzed in
the EA are best described in EA Appendix B "Technical Report, Geothermal
Exploration and Development Practices" This identifies four "Stages of
Implementation" -- exploration, development, operation and closeout.
Appendix B recognizes that :"The progression from one state to the next
is dependent on the success of each earlier stage. In practice, **one
stage often blends into another** and it would be common for exploration
and development to be undertaken in one part of a geothermal field,
while production and operation was going on in another part of the
field". BLM ignores this blending in its truncated analysis of the EA.

According to Appendix B, geothermal Exploration includes non-surface
disturbing exploration, casual use exploration, geophysical exploration
including resistivity/conductivity -- off-road vehicle use is "common";
magnetotelluric; gravity -- off-road vehicle use is common; magnetic --
off-road vehicle use is common; seismic surveys; temperature gradient
wells; and exploration drilling.

Seismic surveys used in exploration send shockwaves through the earth,
and involve laying a grid on the earth and use of five to seven trucks.
Surface material is removed from the shock wave generation site. Methods
of generating shock include: sledgehammer, weight drop, vibration method
employing a vibrating jack, thumping method using a truck-drawn or
self-propelled thumper to drop a heavy plate to the ground to produce
shock waves. This is activity is described as "commonly used" in
Appendix B as follows: "seismic operations are conducted on existing
roads where possible, but the clearing of vegetation and rocks may be
required ... vehicles may travel several parallel trails in an attempt
to distribute travel loads ... **surface disturbance associated with
thumpers, and vibreosis include blading and trail construction."**

Another seismic survey method involves the "explosive method". Here, a
truck-mounted rotary drill is used to drill holes 100-200 feet deep, and
the holes are loaded with 5-50 pounds of explosives and detonated to
produce shock waves. "The explosive method often requires road
construction and clearing of small areas for drill operations". Appendix
B.

"The most important phase of geothermal geophysical exploration is the
drilling of temperature gradient wells... to measure heat flow ...
temperature gradient wells are usually drilled to a depth of 100 to 200
feet using a truck-mounted drill rig ... in hilly or mountainous
country, more road building and site leveling may be necessary ...
generally access roads for truck mounted temperature wells are bladed to
12 to 14 feet wide ... other roads may require cuts in excess of 20 feet
and fills of more than 10 feet". Appendix B. It may also include digging
of pits to contain mud from drill holes. "Only by drilling a well would
the operator know if the rock formations in the prospect contain
geothermal fluids of sufficient quality and quantity to provide an
economic resource". Extensive repeated disturbance may occur in the same
area, as "A given area may be explored several times by the same or
different companies over a long period of time using one or more of the
geophysical methods described above". Appendix B.

Exploration drilling includes drilling seismic test holes, temperature
gradient holes, geologic information holes, and exploration wells. It
may involve pit excavation with a bulldozer, loud noise created during
air drilling operation, and leveling and clearing of vegetation from
drill pads.

Further exploration of a geothermal site involves drilling with huge
drill rigs, construction of 16-18 feet wide roads, and may result in
occasional "blowouts" if drilling encounters a high pressure zone.
Appendix B discusses three blowouts at a site called The Geysers that
triggered landslides, stating: "while the blowout is taking place,
water, steam and contained elements are spread on the land".

Effects of drilling acknowledged in Appendix B include: The release of
pressure and water through drill holes \[that\] may affect the surface
expression of the geothermal field. Springs and geysers may dry up, may
be renewed in a different place, or may be increased. Accurate
prediction of the results of drilling on the surface features cannot be
made. Up to 15,000 gallons of water per day may be needed for mixing
drilling mud, cleaning equipment, and cooling engines.

And this is just the portion of geothermal activity that the EA admits
that it is intended to cover! Appellant believes BLM must prepare an EIS
to unleash this arsenal of damaging exploration activities on 4.3
million acres of public lands.

Plus, the connected actions associated with development and their
environmental impacts are great in scope and environmental impacts and
BLM does not openly claim to evaluate them here.

BLM attempts to artificially split the geothermal exploitation process
in its EA -- in a blatant attempt to avoid comprehensive analysis of
environmental impacts at the level of an EIS. The EA covers leasing and
exploration, but claims to not cover subsequent steps in the leasing
process to which they are integrally linked and often intermingled. EA
Appendix B states: "the progression from one state \[of the geothermal
process\] to the next is dependent on the success of each earlier stage.
In practice, **one stage often blends into another** and it would be
common for exploration and development to be undertaken in one part of a
geothermal field, while production and operation was going on in another
part of the field".

2\. BLM plans to use the Programmatic EA to tier future decisions to, in
violation of NEPA. BLM states: "The EA is to be used as the primary
environmental document for the leasing of geothermal resources and
subsequent exploration in the Shoshone-Eureka Planning Area" (FONSI).

There is no such thing as a programmatic EA. Tiering a subsequent NEPA
document (like the various DNAs) to this document violates NEPA.

Appellant specifically requested that BLM prepare an EIS. BLM failed to
do so.

3\. BLM failed to analyze a reasonable range of alternatives. BLM only
analyzed two alternatives to any degree: The proposed action of leasing
and exploration anywhere in 4.3 million acres, and the No Action
alternative.

BLM cast aside all other alternatives, including designating geothermal
and exploration areas, limiting geothermal leasing and exploration to
any extent, and denial of geothermal leases. (EA FONSI). BLM claims
there is a lack of surveys and research, yet BLM produced a map (EA at
2) that clearly shows many known concentrations of hot and warm water.
Concentrations of geothermal resources, as shown on the map, could
easily have been the basis for designating exploration areas, rather
than throwing the whole Shoshone-Eureka Planning Area open to geothermal
exploration. BLM could also have assessed alternatives that limited
certain types of exploration (such as seismic thumping and explosions),
but instead chose to analyze only a no action, and few-holds- barred
action alternative that allows virtually all known methods of
exploration.

In addition, there is a Known Geothermal Resource Area (KGRA) at Beowawe
(as shown on map of Exhibit 2). BLM could readily have developed an
alternative that focused on this KGRA and other areas of manifestation
of geothermal activity.

USFWS commented (USFWS comments page 3 included in EA): "Another
reasonable alternative that should be considered in the EA is to limit
leasing, exploration, and development to specific areas, including those
without sensitive resources such as threatened or endangered species or
species of concern. We recommend that this alternative be evaluated".

4\. BLM arbitrarily split the environmental process for activities
associated with geothermal resources on public lands. It failed to
consider and analyze an interrelated series of connected actions --
leasing, exploration and development, reclamation.

Connected actions means actions that are closely related and therefore
should be discussed in the same impact statement; cannot or will not
proceed unless other actions are taken previously or simultaneously; and
are interdependent parts of a larger action.

As USFWS commented: "We believe geothermal leasing, exploration and
development are interdependent parts of a larger action. Furthermore,
geothermal development cannot proceed without leasing and exploration
taking place. Therefore, geothermal leasing should be analyzed as part
of the proposed action, not as a cumulative effect." (USFWS comments
page 2 included in EA).

BLM repeatedly claims this EA covers only leasing and exploration, yet
includes as "mitigation" a lengthy chart/table with numerous elements,
measures and actions that are part and parcel of surface disturbing
production activities. See, for example, FONSI at "Allotment Management"
and Wild horses and burros". If Operations cause a water source to
become unavailable to livestock/wild horses and burros, the Authorized
Officer may require a new well to be drilled" (FONSI). BLM appears to
have developed a blended document that strays into operation of leases,
despite BLM disclaimers to the contrary. We fear this chart/table and
other partsof the EA may then be the basis for BLM failing to conduct
adequate future NEPA analyses on the portions of geothermal development
that it claims it does not analyze here (yet in reality provides
mitigation actions to cover).

Appendix G further blends actions, stating: "When issuing a lease or
approving a permit BLM may include stipulations ...., then provides a
laundry list blended with stipulations for both leasing and permitting
exploitation activities, even though the EA claims to only analyze a
portion of this series of connected actions. It seems as if even BLM
itself is confused over what actions are and are not being covered in
the EA!

Appendix B Technical Report identifies Geothermal Exploration and
Development Practices, with four "Stages of Implementation" --
exploration, development, operation and closeout". So here BLM considers
Exploration as an integral part of Implementation.

Yet, BLM in this warped analysis has somehow split this process in its
EA. The EA covers leasing and exploration, but not the other parts to
which exploration is integrally linked, and which like exploration may
have serious and long-lasting environmental impacts. Appendix B further
states: "the progression from one state to the next is dependent on the
success of each earlier stage. In practice, **one stage often blends
into another** and it would be common for exploration and development to
be undertaken in one part of a geothermal field, while production and
operation was going on in another part of the field".

The range of environmentally harmful activities that occur during
exploration are discussed in 1 above (BLM failure to prepare an EIS).
They blend into production-associated activities that represent a wide
range of harmful activities.

5\. BLM fails to adequately assess cumulative impacts. Instead, on EA
31-32, BLM presents a chart of "cumulative impacts" but does not compare
and contrast impacts between alternatives. The lands of the Shoshone-
Eureka Planning area and its surroundings have been subject to
widespread mining disturbance and de-watering. Water tables are known to
be dropping in many locations, as near Eureka where irrigation
sprinklers are increasingly idle due to lack of water. The cumulative
impacts of other de-watering activities on the 4.3 million acre planning
area lands have not been assessed. Livestock grazing has caused
widespread degradation and pollution of surface waters, and stream
entrenchment, downcutting, loss of floodplains and diminution of surface
flows. BLM's own studies in the Carico Lake allotment show an array of
harms including water pollution and violations of water quality
standards in scarce riparian habitats that are being caused by its own
current management of livestock grazing. Extensive mining has altered
watersheds, caused changes in aquifer levels, and otherwise impacted
both ground and surface waters. These impacts are not considered in
relation to the impacts of geothermal exploitation activities proposed
in the current EA.

6\. The EA fails to adequately assess impacts on ground or surface
waters.

USFWS commented at 4: "Actions during geothermal exploration or
development could affect the output of springs, springbrooks, and seeps
and may adversely affect their associated resources as well". Yet, BLM
failed to adequately assess the environmental impacts of the proposed
action on these waters. As described above, there are currently a host
of damages to, and demands on, waters in the Shoshone-Eureka Planning
Area.

The EA at 46 discusses the explosive method of seismic exploration, yet
provides no analysis of how detonating explosions near wetlands or
spring sources might damage water flows -- only mention in Appendix B.

Many watersheds in the mountainous Basin and Range landscape are in poor
condition, as a consequence of past and ongoing grazing and/or mining
activities. Slicing networks of new roads into already degraded
watersheds will accelerate soil erosion processes and lead to increased
runoff problems.

BLM appears to have hastily attached Appendix B -- which contains a
tremendous amount of information about harmful techniques used in the
process of geothermal exploration and site operation. When USFWS
commented (FWS comments at 5) on deficiencies in this document, BLM
responded ( BLM response #46): "Appendix B was taken from another
document and therefore should not be altered". BLM failed to answer and
provide analysis on the host of questions raised by commentors (FWS at
5) on seismic surveys, temperature gradient wells, drilling terms,
methods and procedures as they specifically relate to the
Shoshone-Eureka planning area.

Appendix C is entitled "Impact of geothermal development on water
resources". It fails to provide any data on actual water found in the
4.3 million affected environment, and instead merely provides estimates
of water demand by power plant type. As stated in USFWS comments page 4,
there is no discussion of water quantity as a critical element of the
environment.

7\. The EA fails to adequately address impacts on special status species
and habitats, and lacks baseline information on species populations and
habitats. These species include: Sage grouse, pygmy rabbit, burrowing
owl, spotted frog, bald eagle, geothermal powerlines posing hazards to
peregrine falcon hunting shorebirds on playas, endemic mollusks, etc.

For example, sage grouse are faced with increasing habitat loss and
fragmentation from fire and subsequent invasion of cheatgrass and other
exotic species. New gold mining and exploration activities result in
increased roading and loss of wetlands important to sage grouse. New
high tension powerlines such as the Falcon-Gonder line slice through
critical habitats. The habitat fragmentation and loss associated with
exploration is not adequately addressed.

Cross-country travel and road construction associated with geothermal
exploration and exploitation may create corridors for weed infestations,
and result in physical disturbance or death to burrowing mammals and
hibernating reptiles and amphibians. Noise from seismic exploration may
disrupt animal behaviors, and result in premature emergence of
amphibians such as toads from burrows.

The EA completely fails to provide maps or other information that
depicts species occurrence or habitats of native species in relation to
areas of most likely geothermal exploration -- or anywhere in the whole
planning area. It fails to provide any information on current condition
of habitats. Such information is necessary to assess impacts of proposed
action to habitats.

The vast array of environmental impacts associated with geothermal
exploitation

are largely unaddressed. For example, the EA at 24 acknowledges that
geothermal exploitation activity may occur on playas, and that it may
affect water-confining soil layers. Such activity could result in
permanent loss of wetted playa areas, spewing of pollutants associated
with drilling or blowouts on playa surfaces, etc. Powerlines and parked
equipment with wires that accompany operation, and may overlap
exploration phases, would be a particular hazard for migratory
shorebirds near playas, and provide perches for sage grouse predators.

8\. BLM has failed to consult with USFWS over proposed Threatened
species (snowy plover) likely to use playa habitat. The snowy plover is
a proposed threatened species, and thus BLM needs to consult with USFWS.
Plus, other proposed or listed species may be affected that require
consultation.

9\. BLM has failed to adequately assess impacts on soils, watersheds,
native vegetation, cultural sites, and recreational uses of the affected
lands.

10\. BLM has relied on an outdated Land Use Plan. The Shoshone-Eureka
RMP was prepared sometime before 1984, when the draft was released. It
was finalized in 1986. Weed invasions, widespread sagebrush habitat
loss, new gold mining and de-watering proposals, and a host of other
changes on the landscape have occurred since the days of the
commodity-driven RMP. Public awareness and appreciation of wild and
untrammeled western landscapes has increased.

12\. Failure to comply with existing land use plan provisions. The LUP
minerals Objective 2 directs BLM to insure that mineral exploration,
development and extraction is carried out so as to minimize
environmental and resource damage and to provide for rehabilitation of
lands. LUP minerals Objective 3 directs BLM to develop detailed mineral
resource data in areas where different resources conflict so that
informed decisions can be made. A host of conflicts and controversies
surrounds exploitation and alteration of geothermal sites in arid desert
lands. These conflicts range from religious significance to Native
Americans to hot springs bathing by recreationalists. BLM in the EA
repeatedly asserts it knows nothing about geothermal areas (a position
belied by the existence of at least one KGRA at Beowawe in the EA
lands). Thus, BLM must collect information on aquifers, water volumes,
rates of flow, recharge rates, etc. BEFORE finalization of the
Programmatic EA and DNAs, not after.

# PETITION FOR STAY

Appellant files this petition for Stay of the challenged decisions.
Appellants hereby request the Board of Land Appeals in the Office of
Hearing and Appeals, Office of Secretary of Interior, to stay this
contested decision until this Appeal is resolved.

RELATIVE HARM TO THE PARTIES -- HARM TO APPELLANTS

Appellants and their members, who actively recreate and use and enjoy
these portions of the public lands of the United States, will be harmed
if this decision (EA) and associated decisions (DNAs) are permitted to
proceed as proposed.

The implementation of this decision will result in a violation of
federal laws and regulations as documented in the Statement of Reasons
(incorporated herein by reference) and the loss of the ability of
Appellants and their members to experience the land in question without
ongoing degradation of important public resources and values. Further,
if this flawed decision is implemented the losses to the public will be
significant, and may be long term and irreversible. If an EIS is not
prepared, there is no way that all direct, indirect and cumulative
impacts of Assistant Field Manager Givens' decision, including on
fragile desert oases and hot springs and sweeping sagebrush plateaus and
rugged mountain slopes, can be analyzed.

If new weed invasion follows the network of new trails, roads, drill
pads and other development gashed into the landscape (itself
irreparable) as a result of this decision occurs, such loss will be
irreparable. Landslides, slumps and other soil erosion events resulting
from exploratory drilling will result in irreversible scarring of wild
lands. Disruption, puncture or explosion of water-holding soil layers
due to exploratory activity such as wells and detonated explosive
charges will result in permanent loss of surface waters, including
waters that may provide habitat for rare or imperiled native biota.

Appellant and the public will also be denied a full analysis of a series
of blended, interconnected actions and their environmental impacts.

RELATIVE HARM TO THE PARTIES- HARM TO BLM

The relative harm to BLM of an issuance of a stay as requested is
unclear. The BLM could prepare a concise analysis of impacts in the area
of the KGRA at Beowawe, and allow geothermal actions to proceed there to
provide energy for the Nation.

Indeed, the BLM and taxpayers may even financially benefit from such an
approach. While BLM issued the four DNAs here as noncompetitive leases
(we believe largely because it identified no KGRA here while so doing,
BLM's own maps on its minerals Website (Exhibit 2) show that a KGRA does
exist at Beowawe). Elsewhere in Nevada, BLM recently held competitive
lease auctions for KGRAs. (Exhibit 3). Collection of data necessary for
a full EIS would allow BLM to identify KGRAs, could streamline
administration of geothermal activities in such areas, and result in
competitive leasing.

APPELLANTS LIKELIHOOD OF SUCCESS ON THE MERITS

Appellants have established that they will likely succeed on the merits
of this case based upon BLM's failures to: 1)prepare an EIS ans
subsequent use of the Programmatic EA for tiering subsequent NEPA
documents such as DNAs to; 2) analyze a reasonable range of
alternatives; 3) consider and analyze the blended set of connected
actions that surround geothermal exploitation; 4) address a broad range
of cumulative impacts; 5) assess impacts on ground and surface waters;
6) impacts on special status species; 7) consult with USFWS over
imperiled species; 8) assess impacts on soils, watersheds, native
vegetation, cultural sites, and recreational uses of affected lands; 10)
adhere to provisions of its land use plan, as well as BLM's reliance on
an out-dated land use plan.

THE LIKELIHOOD OF IRREPARABLE HARM

The harm created by the implementation of this decision is irreparable
in that it will cause new and purposeful degradation of public lands and
waters. Environmental loss such as cheatgrass and weed invasion, gashed
20 foot deep road cuts, landslides, as well as springs dried up from
drilling, puncturing of soil layers, and explosive charges is by
definition irreparable.

Appellant will be deprived of the opportunity to enjoy thriving wildlife
populations, healthy and intact springs, seeps, springbrooks and
streams, and thriving populations of special status species.

Instead, Appellant will be faced with lowered water tables, diminished
stream flows, polluted playas and hot springs, plummeting populations of
sage grouse and other species whose habitat has become further degraded
and fragmented due to exploration activity, and new weed infestations.
These impacts, if permitted, will never be fully recoverable and
therefore represent, through the loss of existing soils, scenery, native
vegetation, wildlife habitat, special status species, surface waters, an
irreparable action on the part of BLM, which will harm the environment
and the ability of Appellant to carry forward a legal contest of this
action once it is place. The implementation of this decision pending
review by the Office of Hearings and Appeals on the merits of
Appellant's appeal is irreversible.

THE PUBLIC INTEREST FAVORS THE GRANTING OF A STAY

The public interest clearly favors granting the Stay. The significant
land, water and native biota of the 4.3 million acre Shoshone-Eureka
planning area will be degraded environmentally by the implementation of
the decision. This clearly violates the public interest, which supports
maintaining the health of these public domain lands to the highest
degree possible while allowing prudent geothermal energy activity to be
undertaken. In fact, careful study with an EIS may allow BLM to better
conserve energy resources for careful and productive future use, as data
on soil layers that hold geothermal water may help prevent layer
destruction by haphazard exploration. This clearly violates the public
interest, which supports maintaining the health of public domain lands
and waters and compliance with FLPMA, the APA and NEPA. In addition, the
public interest, as expressed by Congress through NEPA will be violated
because laws and regulations will be broken if a Stay is not granted
pending resolution of this Appeal at the Office of Hearing and Appeals.

Appellant Committee for Idaho's High Desert believe the granting of a
Stay in this matter clearly serves the interest of the health of native
ecosystems, native biota and humans, and a prudent energy policy.

Sincerely,

Katie Fite

Conservation Director

Committee for Idaho's High Desert

PO Box 2863

Boise, ID 83701

208-429-1679

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Katie Fite, hereby certify that on the \_\_ day of October 2002, the
foregoing document will be served, via certified mail return receipt
requested, to:

Mr. Robert Abbey

Bureau of Land Management

Nevada State Director

1340 Financial Boulevard

Reno, NV 89502

Office of the Field Solicitor

Suite 1602 Federal Building

125 South State Street

Salt Lake City, UT 84138

Bureau of Land Management

Battle Mountain Field Office

Attn:Gail Givens

50 Bastian Road

Battle Mountain, NV 89820

United States Department of the Interior

Office of Secretary, Board of Land Appeals

801 N. Quincy St., Suite 300

Arlington, VA 22203