Elko County Natural Resource Management Advisory Commission ELKO COUNTY NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ADVISORY COMMISSION MINUTES

Transcription

1 0 0 0 Elko County Natural Resource Management Advisory Commission 0 COURT STREET, SUITE, ELKO, NV 0 PH. ()-, FAX () - ELKO COUNTY NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ADVISORY COMMISSION MINUTES COUNTY OF ELKO, STATE OF NEVADA, REGULAR MEETING TO BE HELD AT :00 PM, P.S.T., SUITE OF THE NANNINI ADMINISTRATION BUILDING LOCATED AT 0 COURT STREET, ELKO, NV. MONDAY, JANUARY, 0 :00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Genseal called the regular meeting of the Elko County Natural Resource Management Advisory Commission to order at :0 p.m. on January, 0, in Suite of the Nannini Administration Building, 0 Court Street, Elko, Nevada. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Craig Spratling Ralph R. Sacrison Heston Johns Teresa Conner Richard Genseal Kristina Radel Absent: John C. Carpenter Others Present: Randy Brown, Assistant County Manager Eleanor O Donnell, Administrative Assistant Rex Steninger, Elko County Commissioner PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Chairman Genseal led the Pledge of Allegiance.

2 January, 0 Page ELECTION OF OFFICERS Chairman Chairman Genseal opened the nominations for Chairman for 0. Craig Spratling nominated Heston Johns, seconded by Ralph Sacrison. VOTE: Yea: Craig Spratling Richard Genseal Heston Johns Ralph R. Sacrison Teresa Conner Kristina Radel Nay: Absent: John C. Carpenter Abstain: Vice Chairman Chairman Genseal opened the nominations for Vice Chairman for 0. Rich Genseal nominated Teresa Conner for Vice Chairman seconded by Ralph Sacrison. VOTE: Yea: Craig Spratling Richard Genseal Heston Johns Ralph R. Sacrison Teresa Conner Kristina Radel Nay: Absent: John C. Carpenter Abstain: Commissioner Genseal turned the gavel over to the new Chairman Heston Johns. COMMENTS BY THE GENERAL PUBLIC: There were no comments.

3 January, 0 Page BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT Presentation of items by BLM Representative: Blue Basin Term Permit Renewal Environmental Assessment- Draft Discussion on possible feedback on the Adaptive Livestock Grazing Management strategy for development of the draft of the Proposed Action for the Blue Basin Term Permit Renewal Environmental Assessment. Comment period expired on January, 0. (Tuscarora Filed Office) Rich Adams (Tuscarora Field Office manager) explained the Blue Basin, they are trying to build in some adaptive management parameters for the permit renewal. There will be sideboards set where they are more interested in results than prescriptive type grazing. In the sideboards not only would we expect the abilities to make changes but also accountability by the operators to make it or not make it happen. If it doesn t happen there will be built in different stages of more prescription depending on how far from being successful it is. To incorporate the concept of more flexibility without hard dates, making the dates a little wider, with the AUMs the same to take in the conditions related to weather, insects, fires etc assisting to make judgements to adjust the numbers between those dates. Part of the concept is that there would be vegetation objectives, short term based on utilization and long term based more of a trend, photo point documentation. This will help determine if they are on the right course of not, so they can base judgements accordingly. Because of the snow, they were unable to finish other parts of the permit renewal process, such as archeological inventory or a certain percentage of potential high impact areas, to determine that there isn t any conflict between livestock grazing and the resources. They sent out the proposed action for comments to get the public feedback. There have been comments by the permitees, NDOW, USWS and others. The comments have been fairly neutral as long as there is accountability. This isn t really a new concept, except that there is a hierarchy built in of things are working, this is the direction we will go; if things aren t working, this is the direction we will go. In the past, there have been challenges on this type of management, but by having prescriptive management actions if we aren t meeting the objectives, we have addressed these types of issues. This was sent out to get preliminary feedback to see if there were any fatal flaws that weren t thought of. Commissioner Spratling commented that he supported the adaptive management concept. Hopefully, this will work and be applied to several other permits as they come up for renewal. Mr. Adams commented that is idea. This will be applied to allotments where there is a good relationship with the permitees. Commissioner Conner asked where the blue basin allotment is located. Mr. Adams explained just north of Elko. Up to Adobe Summit and over to Maggie Creek. Commissioner Conner questioned how the permitee feels about this. She expressed confusion with what the BLM is trying to do. Mr. Adams explained yes the permitee is comfortable and feels they can do this. Where there might be some confusion, please send in some feedback as to where the confusion is from your perspective, in order for us to have an opportunity to try to make it clearer.

4 January, 0 Page Commissioner Conner mentioned one thing is if it could be written in plainer English, there is a bunch of terminology in there that gets confusing if you aren t familiar with the language. Mr. Adams commented that is a symptom of not having the entire document, but just a part of it for the review. If you have, any suggestions give them to Eleanor and she can pass them along to us. Commissioner Radel commented on the adaptable release dates, does it help getting the cattle out earlier to deal with the early season cheatgrass and help with the wildfire issues. Mr. Adams commented that is the intent, depending on the conditions. Commissioner Genseal questioned the horses mentioned in the document. Mr. Adams explained they are domestic horses. This is outside of a herd management area there are no wild horses in the allotment. County Commissioner Steninger asked who is the permitee. Mr. Adams responded it is the Heguy s. Fire Closure Decision Development For Squaw Valley, Dixie, and Boulder 0 Fires Discussion on the fire closure decision development and the Emergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation plans for the 0 Squaw Valley, Dixie, and Boulder fires. Comments period ends January, 0. (Tuscarora Field Office) Mr. Adams commented that 0, from an Elko standard was a remarkably quiet wildland fire season. Within the Tuscarora field office about half of the fires were man caused and half were lightening caused. The acreage was less than,000 acres including private and BLM acres. There are still a few fires, the Boulder, Dixie and Squaw Valley fires that caused resource impacts to a few allotments. This is the standard scoping notice that rehabilitation and restoration efforts are being considered on these fires. The Dixie fire burned into a Lahontan Cutthroat trout stream, the Boulder fire burned in winter mule deer country north of Dunphy, and the Squaw Valley fire burned in some mule deer and antelope winter range, up by Midas The Boulder fire burned into mule deer country. Commissioner Genseal questioned were the reduced number of acres burned in relation to the quick attack of the fire or were there a reduced amount of vegetation to burn. Mr. Adams commented there are several reasons, part of it is our ability to respond quicker with enough resources, the conditions were favorable, and aggressive initial attacks. Within the Elko District there are ranch liaisons set up beforehand in the areas, so that fire resources can contact a start working together on the initial attack strategies. Having those lines of communications where they know who to call for information on how to get the resources to the fires efficiently and effectively as well as not having a lot of fires at the same time so that multiple engines could attack the fire. So the reduction in acres burned last year was due to all of the above, there weren t multiple starts, there weren t super dry conditions, there were adequate resources, and luck with where and how the fires burned. Commissioner Genseal expressed that he had seen that first hand, he witnessed a fire start that had multiple resources attacking the fire and knocking it down very quickly. Mr. Adams agreed that in particular working with the county and NDF as first responders they are much closer than the state or federal resources. There is a good working relationship with the

5 January, 0 Page volunteer fire departments and with the county to go after these fires more efficiently. Commissioner Radel mentioned she is on the Spring Creek VFD and the county and the federal agencies do work well together. The agencies assist with the training of the volunteers to ensure good relationships and quick responses to these fires. Commissioner Genseal commented that was evident on the fire he witnessed there was cooperative effort by everybody and they worked well together. Mr. Adams agreed the collaboration and ability for everyone to know each other and work together to put the fires out is very important. Commissioner Conner questioned acreage totals for how much area will be reseeded. How will the rehabilitation be funded? Mr. Adams explained the decisions would have actual acres; this is only the scoping documents. The partnership and funding have been through NDOW, particularly seeding the private acres. The conditions with the snow this year are very effective for seeding, so we have already aggressively started seeding. The Dixie and Boulder fires have already been seeded. NDOW provided the helicopter and seed for the private lands where they had agreements with the landowner and the BLM provided the seed for the public land portion. SAGE GROUSE PLANNING STRATEGY Up-date and discussion of issues related to recent activities concerning the Greater Sage-Grouse, pilot projects and the Sage Grouse FEIS/LUPA. Mr. Brown asked for an update on where BLM is at this point with Elko Resource Management Plan (RMP) and how the amendments will affect it and when they may possibly be implemented. Mr. Adams explained the BLM has already started to implement part of the Land Use Plan Amendments (LUPA), particularly the part related to the % cap on the disturbance. There have been about a dozen projects on the Tuscarora side that have been submitted for the project level calculations, including mining, right of ways, permit renewals and oil & gas. Mr. Brown stated any type of easement, right of way, permit will be within the % cap. Mr. Adams stated it would need to go through that calculation at the project level. For example, the Rossi Mine expansion is in the early stages of the draft Environmental Impact Statement. With it being over,000 acres and how the sage grouse habitat overlays the operation, the % cap was exceeded for a non-discretionary action. The restoration mitigation formula will be looked at to try to mitigate for those acres. The right of way we are working on for Cattle Drive going up toward Home Depot, is considered general sage grouse habitat, it has to be run through the % calculation as well. Mr. Brown stated so even any type of travel management will be considered in this % cap. I wasn t aware it was going into that detail especially within general habitat. It was my understanding that the % cap applied more to the priority sage grouse habitat. Mr. Adams explained that the focus is on the priority, but there is such a combination on most of these projects that the general habitat is being considered as well, at least at this stage. Mr. Brown stated that the implementation of travel management is going to be a priority within these amendments as well. What is the BLM planning as far as maintaining public access to public lands. Mr. Adams stated that even though the LUPA directs offices do travel management, the Elko office is so close to starting the Elko RMP that we are deferring the actual implementation until

6 January, 0 Page that stage so that there is an opportunity to have the robust discussions at our local level. The Elko office is trying to map as many of the existing roads as possible. The BLM will be asking the County to identify what is a county type of road. Mr. Brown stated the county has a good data set that identifies not only the location but also the status of the road. Whether it be a trail or developed road. The county would love to be involved in the process. Mr. Adams stated that he believes it would be beneficial to have the county as a cooperator from the start. Mr. Brown asked concerning the priority and general habitat mapping, is there a possibility for the BLM to consider redeveloping those maps more accurately when they come out in GIS. Mr. Adams commented that Secretary Jewell made a commitment to Governor Sandoval to make that happen. If those maps are incorporated into the LUPA, that document will have to be amended to incorporate those maps. Upper Spruce Spring Chaining and Mastication DNA Discussion on the completed Upper Spruce Spring Chaining and Mastication Determination of NEPA Adequacy (DNA), with the proposed action of completing mastication and chaining treatments within the Upper Spruce spring Treatment Area of the Spruce Restoration Project. (Wells Field Office) Melanie Petersen (BLM Wells Field office) explained that this DNA was to determine the NEPA adequacy, back in 0, an Environmental Assessment was issued for the project to reduce the pinyon-juniper to make it more suitable habitat for sage grouse and for fire breaks. One of the areas that were analyzed in the original EA was not analyzed for chaining. It was later decided to do chaining in that area so a DNA has been issued to include the practice for that area. The EA from 0 is being followed. Chairman Johns asked if there are any plans for the prescribed natural fires, letting any fire starts in the area burn. Matt Murphy (project leader/ Elko District fuels manager) explained this is a project started in 0, it encompasses,000 acres of treatments on Spruce Mountain. It is geared toward a mule deer habitat restoration project. Wildland fire natural management was analyzed within the document, there has to be a prescribed burn plan in place for each piece of ground with parameters outlined in the burn plan to meet the objectives once it falls outside those parameters the fire would have to be suppressed. There are not a lot of human caused fires in this area, so the suppression responses can be managed. This Upper Spruce was analyzed originally within the document there is not any change in acreage or anything, it is just one portion of the polygon after further investigation and site visits it was decided that it would be more beneficial for chaining. Commissioner Genseal asked how many acres will be this be and how much will be chained. Mr. Murphy stated this polygon is 0-acres. There is a 0-acre strip right down the middle. The rest has been identified for mastication. In 0, about 0-acres in the northern portion was treated with hand thinning, operations and piling, and there were 0 acres burned just last month.

7 January, 0 Page County Commissioner Steninger questioned the acreage. Mr. Murphy explained the overall Spruce Mountain Restoration project was,000 acres. The EA was based on the proposed treatment of,000 acres. Discussion followed on a map provided by the Forest Service that identified the polygons for proposed treatment. Chairman Johns questioned the timing for the proposed treatments. Mr. Murphy starting in the spring, pending on the migratory birds, into the summer and the fall depending on conditions. There is also a portion that will be masticated this fall in the Basco Chaining maintenance. Commissioner Radel asked how much the entire project will cost. Mr. Murphy stated it would be substantial. He has estimated figures for each of the practices but not a total cost. County Commissioner Steninger asked where this project is in relation to the Spruce trespass issue we discussed last month. Mr. Murphy showed on the map that they are in the same general area. County Commissioner Steninger questioned why the trespass fee was so high when this project is chaining trees in the same area. Ms. Peterson explained the reason is that we are not digging up fully grown mahoganies. The restoration project is based on science. A lot of time has been spent analyzing where the restoration project would be and whole washes and canyons are not being disturbed. County Commissioner Steninger commented he could understand if they were up in the mahoganies, but to say the pipeline was 0 feet wide, where these proposed treatments are a half a mile wide it doesn t seem fair. Ms. Petersen explained these proposed treatments are not taking everything out. Mr. Murphy explained these proposed project does create some ground disturbance but it does not have the amount of destruction that was done within the trespass. Chairman Johns asked have they decided anything with the horses down on Spruce. Ms. Petersen stated the horse eco-sanctuary is pretty much dead. There still needs to be a notice filed in the Federal Register to close the project. Chairman Johns asked if all the horses over the HMA will be gathered and removed. Ms. Petersen commented unfortunately, there just is not the funding or room to put them. The holding facilities have reached the maximum. Chairman Johns questioned what will be the impact if all this work is done for restoration, but the horses are not removed. Will there be any benefits? Mr. Murphy stated that within the original EA document in 0, protective measures were analyzed for all the treatments, putting in fences to reduce the impacts from wild horses or livestock grazing. That is not the preferred option, but it has been analyzed and can be implemented it the need arises. BLM Other Correspondence and Items of Discussion

8 January, 0 Page UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE: Presentation of items by USFS Representative: Nexus Walker Ridge Mineral Exploration Project Discussion and possible comments on the proposed Nexus Walker Ridge Mineral Exploration Project within the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest. The Nexus Gold Corp (Nexus) proposes to conduct Mineral exploration activities within the Independence Range in Elko County. Scott Ritchey (acting District Ranger, for a few more days) explained this is an exploration project that was drilled last year. There has been difficulty getting in touch with them, so the proposal that was submitted was analyzed. It has not been determined if this will be under an Environmental Assessment or a Categorical Exclusion. Commissioner Conner questioned the location of this project. Mr. Ritchey explained it about half way between Jerritt Canyon and the Big Springs Mine. Last summer there was a deep hole drilled about,00 feet that took about months to drill. They have asked for more holes, the Forest Service will be doing an analysis on the area. They don t expect to drill holes but want to have a variety of locations to move to depending on the drilling results. The permit is for one year. There is Lahontan cutthroat trout habitat in the area, so the US Fish & Wildlife Service will be consulted on this project and there might have to be an Environmental Assessment done. The Big Springs drainage event, at Big Springs deep holes were drilled back in 00, that drained the aquifer and killed many trees and trout. We are being careful so that type of event won t happen again with any deep drilling. The drill regulations were changed by the Division of Water Resources in 0, based on what happened at Big Springs. Commissioner Conner asked if Nexus encountered any aquifers in the first hole they drilled. Mr. Ritchey explained they were asked quite a few questions about their results and they said the first upper plate was the most challenging part of the drilling. The lower plate did not have any voids in it. The Big Springs hole actually had voids where the drill rods would drop anywhere from one to five feet. Deep holes can potentially intersect more than one aquifer. The Division of Water Resources was asked if they would review and approve a plugging plan for each drill hole. The Company agreed to have the Division of Water Resources involvement and it will be proposed in the analysis. Harrison Pass WRAP Expansion Discussion on the Harrison Pass Watershed Restoration Action Plan (WRAP) expansion. Mr. Ritchey explained the project and proposed expansions. The idea of the watershed action plan is to come up with a variety of projects to improve the watershed. In 0, the Forest Service had to review all of their watersheds and come up with WRAPs for the watersheds that could benefit the most and had multiple use. They chose the eastern side of the watershed first for the proposed projects to improve the watershed. Each proposed project will have to go through NEPA individually. The Forest Service will put funding towards the projects and try to find funding partners to complete those projects in three to five years. Some types of the projects being considered: Shanty Town fire reseeding, recreation management plans for the pass, closing abandoned mine features that have safety hazards, repairing and storm proofing roads and trails including the making the Green Mountain road passable for horse trailers, fuel

9 January, 0 Page reduction treatments and fuels breaks, stream, wetland and meadow inventory and restoration, weed treatments, improving range conditions including making fencing more wildlife friendly and in some cases asking private landowners for easements to allow more recreation access to the forest. Commissioner Conner asked why NEPA was being conducted on each individual project instead of the whole watershed. Mr. Ritchey stated it would depend on the project and if it needed analysis. For example, weed treatment would not need to go through NEPA. Commissioner Conner stated that most of the time the agencies would look at the project as a whole. Still looking at - years to implement. Mr. Ritchey stated it might be done that way it will depend on the proposed projects. It will be - years to implement the projects once they are approved. John Baldwin will be the new District Ranger and will be here next month. USFS Other Correspondence and Items of Discussion ELKO COUNTY WATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN Continue updating the 00 Elko County Water Resource Management Plan. Review and consideration for approval of Section - Plan Development Information. Commission Conner stated she still had some minor grammar and spelling corrections but is ready to approve Section. Discussion followed and everyone agreed they were ready to approve Section and move on to Section. Mr. Brown stated that a motion to approve Section of the Water Resource Management Plan and move to Section would be needed. We will go through both sections and then approve the plan as a whole to move forward to the County Commission for approval of the entire plan with a full revision. MOTION: Commissioner Genseal moved to approve Section of the Elko County Water Resource Management Plan, seconded by Commissioner Sacrison. Motion passed. VOTE: Yea: Craig Spratling Richard Genseal Heston Johns Ralph R. Sacrison Teresa Conner Kristina Radel Nay: Absent: John C. Carpenter Abstain:

10 January, 0 Page CORRESPONDENCE REPORT AND OTHER ITEMS OF DISCUSSION: Malheur County Commissioner Sacrison mentioned it is one of these situations that have developed over the years. Jarbidge Shovel Brigade and the Battle Mountain situation with the Tomera and Fillippini Ranches, they have been handled peacefully. I am not suggesting that we do anything, just asking if anyone is aware of the situation. Commends everyone in Elko on how situations are handled within Elko County. Discussion followed on events that have occurred. Commissioner Genseal mentioned that there is concern from the law enforcement side that it is not so much the protest occurring but how organized the armed protestors are becoming, these are actually becoming regional events that are being supported by regionally. It is interesting how these protests have been covered in the media and how law enforcement is viewing them. There will always be those cells out there that will be a little over aggressive in trying to make their stance. Each time these protest happen everyone is gaining experience. Discussion followed on the potential and concern of these type of protests continue happening and the possibility of the repercussions on the other side with the environmental extremists. CONSENT AGENDA A. Approval of Minutes - December, 0 B. Next Meeting Date - February, 0 MOTION: Commissioner Sacrison moved to approve the consent agenda seconded by Commissioner Genseal. Motion passed unanimously VOTE: Yea: Craig Spratling Richard Genseal Heston Johns Ralph R. Sacrison Teresa Conner Kristina Radel Nay: Absent: John C. Carpenter Abstain:

11 January, 0 Page NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ADVISORY COMMISSIONERS AND COUNTY STAFF COMMENTS: No comments COMMENTS BY THE GENERAL PUBLIC: No comments. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at :0 pm. The February, 0 and March, 0 NRMAC meetings were cancelled. Minutes Clerk: Eleanor O Donnell Date Approved: April, 0