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

Transcription

1 Elko County Natural Resource Management Advisory Commission 540 COURT STREET, SUITE 104, ELKO, NV PH. (775) , FAX (775) ELKO COUNTY NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ADVISORY COMMISSION MINUTES COUNTY OF ELKO, STATE OF NEVADA, REGULAR MEETING TO BE HELD AT 6:00 PM, P.S.T., SUITE 102 OF THE NANNINI ADMINISTRATION BUILDING LOCATED AT 540 COURT STREET, ELKO, NV. MONDAY, OCTOBER 26, :00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Genseal called the regular meeting of the Elko County Natural Resource Management Advisory Commission to order at 6: 01p.m. on, in Suite 102 of the Nannini Administration Building, 540 Court Street, Elko, Nevada. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Craig Spratling Ralph R. Sacrison Heston Johns Teresa Conner Richard Genseal Kristina Radel John C. Carpenter (arrived 6:04 pm) Absent: Others Present: Randy Brown, Assistant County & Natural Resource Manager Eleanor O Donnell, Administrative Assistant Rex Steninger, Elko County Commissioner Melanie Mitchell, BLM (Wells Field Office) Rich Adams, BLM (Tuscarora Field Office) Kyra Walton Reid, USFS PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Chairman Genseal led the Pledge of Allegiance.

2 Page 2 COMMENTS BY THE GENERAL PUBLIC: There were no comments. BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT Presentation of items by BLM Representative: John Carpenter arrived at the meeting 6:04pm Proposed Trespass Decision - Spruce Grazing Association LLC Discussion and consideration of the proposed trespass decision on the Spruce Grazing Association and the protest and comments in response by the Spruce Grazing Association for the unauthorized maintenance work and construction that exceeded the scope, terms and conditions of the Range Improvement Permits for the Basco Springs Pipeline, Spruce Pipeline, and the Spruce Springs Pipeline. (Wells Field Office) Melanie Mitchell (assistant field officer for the Wells field office) gave a brief overview with the timeline and details of the trespass. On June 9 th there was a report of some unauthorized activities going on at Spruce Mountain, and three specialists were sent to the site to investigate the report. On arrival, they noted a D8 dozer and a large disturbance area. They talked to the dozer operator, and he indicated he was working on behalf of the permittee. The specialist asked him to cease and desist, he said he was out of fuel and would do other things for the rest of the day. When they returned from the field, they called the permittee, and asked verbally that they cease and desist the activities, they said that they would. On June 16 there was cease and desist letter sent to the permittee. The Spruce Grazing Association (SGA) responded that they would cease & desist even though they did not feel they had done anything that was outside of their authorization. A notice of trespass was sent on August 6 th and received a response letter from SGA that said they would be happy to come in and talk as long as all evidence was disclosed prior to that discussion. Since it was an open case, protected under the law enforcement clause (section 6), they refused to come in and talk to the BLM. Upon that refusal, a proposed decision of trespass was issued on August 28 th. The SGA replied with a letter of protest on September 17 th. What was discovered was approximately 28 acres of land on the side of Spruce Mountain was bulldozed. There were 3 permits associated with 3 pipelines that were bulldozed at least one length up to 60 feet in many locations, in order to rip in a new pipeline. There were many issues associated with that the unauthorized disturbance including potential violation of the archeological resource protection act, since they were well outside anything that had been previously surveyed. The original pipelines were installed in the 70 s and early 80 s; it was very specific as to what had been done and what was allowable at that time. There were quite a few documented photo points of what had been disturbed previously, they did a nice job during the initial disturbance. The current permittees had disturbed over seven times what was originally disturbed to put in the pipelines and spring developments. The BLM is collecting all of the information and will respond to the protest, before a final decision can be issued. Commissioner Spratling asked if this was completely on public land or was there any private. Ms. Mitchell commented there are two 40 acre private parcels that are in the general vicinity. There are no cadastral surveys out there, the private parcels are described as being around the

3 Page 3 spring sources. They are recognized by both parties but there is no survey for it. The private is very small compared to the total acreage. Commissioner Carpenter asked how did you arrive on the value of the trees, since there are several projects to get rid of juniper trees other areas in the district. Ms. Mitchell stated the value of the trees is determined by the forestry department and what the trees would have been sold for. There are projects where trees are being removed to enhance other values. Because we identified those other trees to be removed, these trees are of high importance because of their wildlife value, since there wasn t a NEPA process completed for this area. Commissioner Carpenter questioned did you take into consideration the value to the wildlife due to the improved water resources/trough. Ms. Mitchell explained the value for the wildlife would have been at the spring sources, but there is no argument that these were range improvements and maintenance would have been an issue, but there is no dollar value affixed to that. Commissioner Genseal questioned the issue of no survey. Ms. Mitchell explained it is quite common that no cadastral surveys in many locations throughout Nevada. Surveys are very expensive and time consuming. At this point in time for both parties it is beneficial to assume a certain radius around the spring sources. Surveyors have noted that on Spruce Mountain it is very hard to find any of the caps or corners. Spruce was not well done back in the day, when they did the chaining and such. Commissioner Genseal expressed concern with knowing exactly where the damage was done. Ms. Mitchell explained it could take a year or two to take care of it. The big concern right now is that there are 28 acres on the side of the mountain that has been pushed and ripped and could be damaged by rain or snow melt. The concern is to get in there and do reclamation to prevent further damage. Commissioner Genseal asked if the permittee is off that portion of land right now Ms. Mitchell stated they are not grazing there right now, it is not part of their grazing system. Commissioner Genseal asked if they explained their intent in creating the additional disturbance. Ms. Mitchell explained they said their intent was to maintain the pipelines. Commissioner Genseal asked if that is their responsibility to maintain the pipelines. Ms. Mitchell explained it would be their responsibility to maintain pipelines within the regulations. Commissioner Genseal asked what is the basis for the trespass. Ms. Mitchell explained that under the range improvement permits there are very specific maintenance activities that they can and cannot do. Even when the pipelines were installed, they did not blade, so they are well outside of those. Commissioner Spratling asked if they would have done the work within the parameters set forth within the permit would they have been legal to just go out and do the work without notifying you, or would the BLM have had to go out and approve any work they would be doing. Ms. Mitchell stated we would always appreciate knowing if they were going to do any work before any work is done, so we could go over the plans in order to make sure we are all on the same page. However if they had kept within the parameters of maintenance on the range improvement permits there would not have been an issue. The original pipelines were ripped in with a small area that had some surface level scraping, there were several historic photos taken of the project when it was done. They did a great job back in the 80 s when it was done.

4 Page 4 County Commissioner Steninger asked did the BLM instruct them to make these improvements, according to their protest. Ms. Mitchell commented according to their protest, it is, but that is not what was instructed. Since this is still in the protest process and the BLM is formulating it s response many details cannot be discussed. County Commissioner Steninger asked that there is a 40 acre parcel of private property somewhere but you don t know where it is. It is safe to assume that they would have staked that 40 acres at the water source when it was originally claimed. Ms. Mitchell expressed exactly where it was staked, she couldn t tell us. Commissioner Carpenter asked what the procedure is now, does it go to a hearing officer. Ms. Mitchell explained procedurally, a final decision will be issued, including addressing their protest points and then if they appeal that decision it could be taken to an administrative law judge. It could ultimately go to district court, initially with the grazing appeals process it would go to an administrative law judge. There are two separate cases, there is a proposed decision on the grazing portion, and there is a potential archeological resources protection act violation that is a separate case at this point. Commissioner Johns asked how this would affect the livestock grazing portion and the horse sanctuary/ herd management area. Ms. Mitchell explained the horse sanctuary has officially been withdrawn. The BLM is working with the federal register to issue that notice that the eco sanctuary has been withdrawn and is not proceeding. As far as the livestock grazing it will depend if the water pipeline is functioning next spring, water sources will have to be taken into consideration. That particular allotment is very dependent on water and have limited water sources. Commissioner Johns asked since the horse sanctuary has been withdrawn, are there any plans to deal with the number of horses in the area. Ms. Mitchell stated there is no doubt that there are too many horses out there and some may not have made it through the summer because of the limited water supply. Nationally we will have to compete with every other state and district to see where that falls. Unless there is something to declare an emergency situation, it probably will not rank high. Commissioner Carpenter asked if the area could be reseeded. Ms. Mitchell stated that it definitely should be reseeded but there is some recontouring that desperately needs to be done before reseeding. Around one of the springs, that is clearly on BLM, the hillside has been removed and almost terraced. The hillside needs to be recontoured so that the water will run off appropriately and reseed behind that. On one of the drainages, they went straight up the middle of the drainage, so there will have to be some contouring done there as well and reseed. Commissioner Carpenter asked if there would be a tour so that everyone could see what has happened. Ms. Mitchell mentioned a tour is not planned, it would have to be coordinated with the solicitor s office. There were some signs posted in the area because it is such a high recreation area to try to keep the atv/utvs off the area. Commissioner Spratling questioned will the permittee be responsible for the rehab work. Ms. Mitchell stated it would be their responsibility. It remains to be seen if they will be charged for the work or responsible to do the work. There is a cost estimate in the damage assessment that was sent out within the proposed decision that addresses some of the recontouring and

5 Page 5 seeding. Commissioner Spratling asked if it was part of the fine that has been levied. Ms. Mitchell agreed it was part of the fine. Mr. Brown asked the board if we want to take any action on this item. County Commissioner Steninger commented more information is needed. Commissioner Genseal commented the county is not ready to become involved in this at this time. Ms. Mitchell clarified there are map layers and the disturbance has been GPS mapped. That is what is being worked off at this point regarding the public versus private. What is mapped as private is accounted for. The cadastral survey is the most official survey that can be done. Mr. Brown questioned if there has ever been a cadastral survey done in the area. Ms. Mitchell answered not in this area. It was surveyed back in the early 1900 s. Mr. Brown stated it would require an independent resurvey of that entire township which would be very costly and time consuming, and probably won t happen. County Commissioner Steninger commented there are too many unknowns at this point. It would be good to see pictures of the damage or a tour of the area. Is the water flowing? Ms. Mitchell stated it was not flowing the last time she was out there. Two of the springs, the Upper Spruce and Spruce springs were not flowing, Basco spring was and Basco is the one that is exclusively on BLM. MOTION: Carpenter made a motion to table any recommendation on the trespass between the BLM and the Spruce Grazing Association until more information could be gathered. Mr. Brown asked if the board would like to request the BLM to provide some pictures of the damage that was done and identification of the site. Commissioner Genseal expressed concern that because of the legal action that is going on we are not going to be able get a lot of information until it is settled or it is filed in some sort of court action. Mr. Brown disagreed because it is federally managed public lands. The physical evidence of the disturbance is there and shouldn t matter in the lawsuit if it is released, any action would be a different matter. A tour can be set up with the BLM if the board desires. The Kelly Springs issue was brought before the County several years ago that was similar in nature. There was a public demonstration. Commissioner Carpenter explained the spring was fenced and people were asked to bring a post, there was so many posts that they were about six inches apart. Mr. Brown stated as far as the survey, one of the things to look at is it might be a requirement somewhere along the line, but in Nevada, for private property ownership it is mandated that the private property be staked or identified by the owner. BLM will not provide that type of survey, due to the cost and the amount of work that would be involved. It would be thirty-six square miles not just one 40-acre parcel. Unfortunately private surveys rely on cadastral surveys 99% of the time. As far as that being provided by a private property owner, it is almost impossible, without doing a dependent contract survey through the BLM for the entire township. There are certain criteria

6 Page 6 that have to be followed to conduct a cadastral survey. It would be a hit or miss situation to do a private survey of this magnitude. Commissioner Genseal asked if photos of the disturbance would be a viable request. Ms. Mitchell stated the photos should not be an issue, they have before and after photos of certain points. They are a nice contrast to see what was done originally and what was done recently. Mr. Brown mentioned there was a similar issue over in Eureka County on the Tomera Ranch where before and after pictures were provided. Commissioner Genseal commented that if we could get them, it would help the board to have a better idea of any recommendations to the County Commission. Commissioner Conner agreed the pictures would be useful. She is questioning the right of this commission to take action, where the permittee has not come before this board and asked for assistance. Mr. Brown explained the jurisdiction of private property is held in the county in the State of Nevada. Public lands are held in the jurisdiction of the federal government. This board is making a recommendation to the governing body of the local government, which has jurisdiction of those properties. The permittee has filed an appeal stating certain aspects of the trespass that the federal government has placed on them, it is up to the county commissioners, with a recommendation through this committee as to where we should go with it. This board will be providing a recommendation to the County Commissioners as to how far we should proceed with the jurisdictional issue. The permittee has asked us in a matter of speaking, they delivered the letter of appeal through certified mail; that was provided to us so asking for some sort of interdiction, if the county feels they have jurisdiction. Commissioner Johns questioned where this is regarding water and the point of diversion how does that come into the private property issue. Mr. Brown stated the private property issue would come with the holding of the water rights, the point of diversion may or not be on federally managed lands. The jurisdiction of place of use is the primary overall encompassing umbrella. Where is the point of use? That is what the pipeline is for is to provide the water to the place of use? The point of diversion will not get into a jurisdictional issue as far as where the point of diversion is, if it is on federally managed land, the federal managers have jurisdiction as to how that point of diversion is maintained and approved. The federal government does have the jurisdiction to say this how this water source should be managed by our standards. There is a lot of confulsion because there is a state water right, private property, and federally managed lands. They have to work together to provide the water from the source to the place of use. It is a jurisdictional issue with several levels of jurisdiction: private property, federally managed lands and water rights. Commissioner Carpenter asked if the grazing permit been put on hold. Ms. Mitchell answered no it has not, they are still grazing. Mr. Brown asked if we are asking for pictures and a presentation next month on this item. Commissioner Carpenter added to the motion a request for photos of the disturbance from the BLM of before and after, seconded by Commissioner Spratling.

7 Page 7 MOTION: Commissioner Carpenter made a motion to table any recommendation on the trespass between the BLM and the Spruce Grazing Association until more information could be gathered and request photos of the disturbance from the BLM of before and after, seconded by Spratling. Motion passes. VOTE: Yea: Nay: Craig Spratling John C. Carpenter Richard Genseal Heston Johns Ralph R. Sacrison Teresa Conner Kristina Radel Absent: Abstain: Rossi Mine Expansion Discussion and consideration of the Rossi Mine Expansion Project Amendment to the Plan of Operations. (Tuscarora Field Office) Mr. Adams stated the scoping sessions were held in late September, in Battle Mountain, and the attendees were mostly individuals from neighboring mining operations. At the Elko session, there were representatives from the county as well as 2-3 people from the public. There were not any concerns raised from a scoping perspective but it was good to have the interest in what was going on. There has been some correspondence received from the EPA and a few others from the public. There is nothing substantial as far as identifying particular issues or concerns that should analyzed in the documents or be a part of the range of alternatives. The comment period ends on October 30 th. There will be a scoping report, which will be a summary of all of the comments provided by mid-november. The team will take the comments received, compare them to what has been identified internally and determine the alternatives. By the December meeting, there will be a better idea of adjustments that may be made to the alternatives. Regarding the proposed schedule: Mid-March a draft EIS should be available for public review. The upcoming election cycle may hold up the publishing within the Federal Register. The proposed timeline is to issue the ROD in May or June of Mr. Brown mentioned this mine used to be called the Sage Hen mine years ago. Commissioner Johns questioned if is this area is considered pre or post on the 3% disturbance related to the sage grouse. Mr. Adams stated it is post the Sage Grouse Record of Decision, so it will have to be part of the Environmental Impact Statement process. Mr. Brown commented this would fall under the IM of 2012, that does the same basic things that the Sage Grouse effort conservation measures. The 3% may not apply but the overall conservation measures will.

8 Page 8 Mr. Adams stated the 3% would apply as far as the overall land mass with any other projects associated within the general area. Mr. Brown stated considering that less than 2% of Nevada is occupied by mines, it should not go over the 3% rule. BLM Other Correspondence and Items of Discussion Mr. Brown asked about the status of the west Elko land. Mr. Adams commented we are working on it. Mr. Brown asked if there has been any progress on the Environmental Assessment. Mr. Adams stated the Environmental Assessment is being worked on but it was put on the back burner due to other reality actions and renewals that took priority before the Record of Decision was signed. UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE: Presentation of items by USFS Representative: USFS Other Correspondence and Items of Discussion Kyra Walton Reid (USFS wildlife biologist) gave a few updates on projects and changes in staffing. Scott Ritchey will be the acting district ranger, he is currently working out of the Elko office as a geologist, beginning November 2 nd for 120 days. Tina Gast, will be the acting deputy district ranger in Wells, she is currently a special uses staffer in Winnemucca on the Santa Rosa District. She has been in Winnemucca for 20 years in various positions. She will begin November 16 th. Both positions are open and will hopefully, be filled permanently by next spring Overland Project The NEPA has been completed on the Overland project and work will begin around Cherry Springs in the next month on both BLM and Forest Service. NDOW and the National Wild Turkey Federation are partners on this project. It has been funded this year, acres treated with mostly pinyon-juniper will be treated using removal processes including a combination of hand and mechanical thinning as well as some prescribed burns. Chairman Genseal asked how many acres are proposed for treatment. Ms. Walton Reid commented the number of acres is still to be determined. Additional SNLPMA funds should to come in be available around February. The estimate is about 1,200 acres for this fiscal year. Lamoille WUI (Wildland Urban Interface) Action Plan- there has been some hand thinning and chipping along the road. This week work thinning was being done at Thomas Canyon campground. Notices were posted for public awareness that fire crews would be working in the campgrounds.

9 Page 9 Bear Creek/ Jarbidge WUI project is still in the planning stages. A scoping letter is planned by the end of this year. It is anticipated to be a categorical exclusion under the Healthy Forest Restoration Act. Treatment is expected to begin by the end of 2016, and a combination of hand thinning and cable logging is planned. Highest priority for treatment will be the municipal watershed located in the Bear Creek Meadows and the South Canyon area. The tree mortality rate in the area is increasing faster than expected due to a combination of White Pine Blister Rust, Mountain Pine Beetle, and recently the regional pathologist found a new kind pathogen that is causing root rot in the fir trees. Sage Grouse Plan Amendment- A plan amendment implementation strategy by the Forest Service is being coordinated by the regional office in Ogden. There will be an actual implementation document available within the next six months. County Commissioner Steninger mentioned there was an received with concerns about a bridge in the south canyon area. Please check into the issue, there were concerns with the weight limits. Ms. Walton Reid stated she would pass on the request to Scott Ritchey. MALHEUR COUNTY RESOLUTION OPPOSING A NATIONAL MONUMENT Discussion and consideration of a possible recommendation to support the resolution by Malheur County opposing the creation of a new national monument proposed as the Owyhee Canyonlands Monument; and the establishment or designation of any other national monument, national conservation area or wilderness area on public lands within southern Malheur County, Oregon. Mr. Brown explained this is a letter received by the Malheur County, Oregon concerning the Owyhee Canyon and a national monument. The water out of Owyhee Canyon is used for everything from domestic uses to irrigation. They are asking for Elko County s support to join with them on a resolution against the formation of a 2.1 million acre national monument. The county commissioners asked for this to go before this board for a recommendation. Chairman Genseal commented that becoming a national monument would pretty much shut it down. Mr. Brown agreed. Commissioner Conner researched this and it appears that this is one of the cases where they are trying to do this through an executive order as opposed to using the proper congressional channels. She recommends that Elko County send a letter of support for this resolution. We are seeing time and time again millions of acres of land disappear from public use: ranching, mining, oil & gas and other uses. We have to stand up at some point and say enough is enough. Commissioner Radel asked what they are looking at to make this national monument. Mr. Brown explained these are the Owyhee Canyon lands, the Oregon version of the Grand Canyon, it is a very narrow swath of the area, but they are taking a very wide swath of the area. They are taking more than half of all the federally managed land in Malheur County to make a national monument that will subject all of the adjacent landowners to the same types of issues developing water sources, springs, they will be held to the wilderness standards. They can t clean ditches, or maintenance to water sources. Commissioner Radel asked if they mentioned any of the revenue side related to the recreation side.

10 Page 10 Mr. Brown stated this is more than the recreation. It mentions mining & natural gas exploration will cease, it will lose its #1 ranking of cattle production in the state, hunting & fishing will be severely limited, efforts to increase recreational appeal will suffer. In the letter, they mentioned dry onions ($85 million), hay ($21 million), wheat ($20 million), sugar beets ($19 million), and potatoes ($13 million) these crops depend on the availability of stored irrigation water from the high desert watersheds, which this designation would change. It would severely impact them. Commissioner Spratling asked if there is a private reservoir up on this land. Mr. Brown stated it would impact the sources of the irrigation water by limitation of access, no longer be able to use motorized vehicles. A national monument is basically a wilderness area with all the wilderness area management practices apply. MOTION: Commissioner Conner moved to recommend to the County Commission to support the resolution by Malheur County opposing the creation of a new national monument, Commissioner Sacrison seconded. The motion passed. VOTE: Yea: Nay: Craig Spratling John C. Carpenter Richard Genseal Heston Johns Ralph R. Sacrison Teresa Conner Kristina Radel Absent: Abstain: RESOLUTION TO IMPEACH EPA HEAD Discussion and consideration for possible recommendation to the County Commission to support a House Resolution to impeach EPA administrator McCarthy. Commissioner Sacrison explained he came across this a few weeks ago. The Congressman from Arizona is well placed in bringing this matter up. The basis primarily being on the recent Waters of the US action by the EPA. Representative Gosar submitted this resolution, and Representative Amodei is one of the co-sponsors. Commissioner Sacrison asked this board to the recommend support for this resolution to the County Commission. Commissioner Carpenter asked who was cosponsoring this resolution. Commissioner Sacrison commented the last time he looked, as of 3 weeks ago, there were 20 cosponsors including Amodei. Commissioner Radel asked if there is anything specific for the basis for the impeachment. Mr. Brown read from the resolution: she made false statements before the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology of the House of Representatives on July 9, 2015, made false statements before the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the United States Senate

11 Page 11 and the Committee of Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives on February 4, 2015, in violation of section 1001 of title 18, United States Code and committed perjury before the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform of the House of Representatives on July 29, 2015 in violation of section 1621 of title 18, United States Code. Which was the day we had the teleconference with numerous people, that she was stating a number of things that were not true. Commissioner Johns asked is the July 29 th one in regard to the Colorado incident. Mr. Brown stated the July 29 th was the third instance the first one was in March, second in the first of June. There were nine states that filed suit for a temporary injunction that has actually been increased to cover all lands in the United States, the injunction applies to all 48 contiguous states. The issue is that the Waters of the US is still in a position of being litigated. This call for her impeachment comes from all of her testimony. There were many questions that weren t answered, that were redirected. If Amodei did cosponsor this, it is something he felt strongly about. Many people were not happy with her answers and suggestions during the process, she basically, enforced the rule regardless of all of the thousands of complaints and appeals on the rule. Which is where the injunction is coming from at this point. Commissioner Conner asked where this resolution is in the congress. Commissioner Sacrison stated the document I seen had a number assigned to it. At the time, there were 20 sponsors who were predominantly from the west. Mr. Brown suggested that it appears that some of this came forth from the disaster in Colorado. On page 3 of 7 of the article it outlines what was said and done with a timeline. Commissioner Conner asked if we need to find additional information before we provide a recommendation. Commissioner Sacrison explained the three articles in the resolution are legally explicit in terms of what he is stating she has violated as far as the United States Code in three specific cases. On page 3 of 7 in the article expands on the details for each of the dates. The date of the article was September 9, Chairman Genseal asked Commissioner Steninger s opinion on this. County Commissioner Steninger expressed a desire for this board to give him a recommendation. Commissioner Sacrison stated that our congressional representative is a cosponsor on this, he feels the county should acknowledge his effort of stepping out in front on this and we endorse this as a sign of the support for Amodei. Chairman Genseal commented this is almost becoming acceptable in Washington, when there is documented proof coming out that these agencies are lying, it is our obligation as individuals and citizens of this country to step forward and make a stand. It might be a drop in the bucket but it also might be the drop that may get something done. County Commissioner Steninger agreed and Congressman Amodei might appreciate our support even if this doesn t do any good. Commissioner Radel commented giving what she said and what we do know, especially with our experience with the water act that we did oppose, because we knew more about it and we were very specific of why we were opposed. In a way that that does oppose specifically what she is trying to do and those actions are more useful than general overall. We should be very specific in what we are opposing and specifically which actions, which we have done.

12 Page 12 Chairman Genseal agreed that we did oppose a specific action she took to basically seize all of the waters within the United States. Taking this on face value, this should be vetted, this is a different action item, and she should be removed and held responsible for committing perjury. At a local level, we would be held accountable for committing perjury and would be spend jail time. Commissioner Radel agreed if she is found guilty. Chairman Genseal stated that is what they are doing in the House and we are just supporting this resolution to go forward to get to that point. County Commissioner Steninger mentioned an impeachment is just a hearing, she will have the right to defend herself. Commissioner Radel questioned if there are other processes to handle this. Chairman Genseal stated they are impeaching her to remove her from her position since she has been appointed by the President, which takes an act of Congress. All that we are doing is supporting that move forward because she overstepped her boundaries. Commissioner Carpenter commented it should be sent to the County Commissioner to support and contact Amodei with assistance on the wording of the resolution. If Amodei is sponsoring this, we should support him. MOTION: Commissioner Sacrison recommended to the County Commission to support this resolution and to grant our support to Congressman Amodei as a cosponsor of the resolution, seconded by Commissioner Johns. VOTE: Yea: Nay: Craig Spratling John C. Carpenter Richard Genseal Heston Johns Ralph R. Sacrison Teresa Conner Kristina Radel Absent: Abstain: SAGE GROUSE PLANNING STRATEGY Up-Date, discussion and consideration of issues related to recent activities concerning the possible listing of the Greater Sage-Grouse on the Endangered Species List, pilot projects, and all other items related, thereto. Mr. Brown stated there was a temporary injunction we filed in federal court in Reno. There nine counties and four individuals within the State of Nevada who are co-signers on the injunction. The initial hearing will be November 12 th. We have prepared several layers of testimony and have just about everything ready to go. It was nice to hear that our State Attorney General is supporting us.

13 Page 13 Commissioner Spratling asked what is going to happen since the governor is not supporting the AG. Mr. Brown commented the AG has the right to take action in public lands issues for the State of Nevada without the concurrence of the governor. The AG is representing the State of Nevada and the nine northern counties. We have asked the governor many times to interject and intercede as well and basically we were told no. It is not clear at what point NACO (Nevada Association of Counties) will come on board. NACO is a national organization, if they join, the government may ask for a change of venue and have it taken to D.C. They are assisting all nine counties and the coalition but are not officially joining at this time. Commissioner Johns asked if the governor has given an explanation. Mr. Brown commented that the governor bought off on the listing issue. The reason that the listing would be far worse than the FEIS and LUPA, when actually it is the other way around. The listing would not have created the management issues that we have with the changes and amendments to the land use plans that are going to be based on the FEIS. We consider the FEIS far worse than a listing, the listing would have been very specific in what it requires, a management plan, and recuperation plan. Recuperation would have been far simpler than the 2,200 pages of the FEIS and LUPA. Many of us were disheartened since we were involved in the development and contributed to the state plan but the federal government did not take it into consideration. It appears that Attorney General Laxalt saw that and that is why he came up with the determination he made to join the lawsuit. Commissioner Carpenter did not understand why the governor came our strongly against the plan and then changed his position. Mr. Brown commented his data quality review was very specific and detailed, and went along with all of the things we have discussed throughout the whole process. Yet when it was turned down, it was expected for the governor to be discontented but we didn t hear anything from that point until we found out what the review was dismissed on by the BLM instead of the State. The data quality review was excellent and brought up several points that should have been addressed, but was dismissed by the federal government completely. The federal government dismissed all of the appeals they received with the same short recourse. Commissioner Carpenter expressed that their mind was made up and they were not going to list it anyway. Mr. Brown agreed they came to that conclusion very quickly, and manipulated it to get more restrictions. This is where the sagebrush focal area came from. For example, they pushed more and held on to the listing issue until we lost 2.2 million acres in Elko County to the sagebrush focal areas, which, is basically wilderness at this point and has been slated for mineral entry withdrawal. Commissioner Carpenter commented they used it to their advantage and it would have been much easier to fight the listing than these regulations. Mr. Brown commented they would have been held to a certain standard if they had listed it and this way they can push those standards way beyond where they wanted to go by not listing it.

14 Page 14 ELKO COUNTY WATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN Continue updating the 2007 Elko County Water Resource Management Plan. Review of the progress on Section 1- Plan Development Information and all other items related thereto. Eleanor O Donnell explained she had met with Commissioner Steninger and Commissioner Conner and went over section 1, but was unable to incorporate all of the revisions before this meeting. The section 1 should be ready to review and approve at the next meeting. CORRESPONDENCE REPORT AND OTHER ITEMS OF DISCUSSION: No items CONSENT AGENDA A. Approval of Minutes - September 28, 2015 B. Next Meeting Date - November 30, 2015 Discussion on when to hold the next meeting. Thanksgiving is the week of the 23 rd. It was decided to combine the December and November meetings for the first week of December MOTION: Commissioner Carpenter moved to approve the minutes from the September 28, 2015 meeting and set the next meeting date for December 7, 2015, seconded by Commissioner Sacrison. Motion passed unanimously VOTE: Yea: Nay: Craig Spratling John C. Carpenter Richard Genseal Heston Johns Ralph R. Sacrison Teresa Conner Kristina Radel Absent: Abstain:

15 Page 15 NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ADVISORY COMMISSIONERS AND COUNTY STAFF COMMENTS: Commissioner Carpenter mentioned that Western Watersheds appealed the decision in the Argenta Allotment. The BLM, the permittees, and the special mediation group approved five or six riparian areas to be fenced and a couple of water haul sites. Western Watersheds protested the agreement and it shows how anti-livestock these people are. This could go clear to the Interior Board of Land Appeals, while in the meantime the permittees are limited to grazing for limited time periods due to the stubble height in the riparian areas. Mr. Brown commented what is unique is that we haven t heard of Western Watersheds appealing the FEIS/LUPA on the sage grouse. Commissioner Carpenter commented they probably wrote it, why would they appeal it. The Western Watersheds is exerting so much influence over this administration. Commissioner Spratling mentioned a proposal before the Department of Ag for the pesticide requirements. He asked a few people on the board and they haven t heard anything about it. It hasn t been brought before the State Board of Agriculture. Commissioner Johns commented they would be discussing it more next week in Ely at the state soil districts (conservation districts) annual meeting. The state Department of Ag would be implementing it from the EPA. Gerry Miller and Jamie Greer had talked about it. COMMENTS BY THE GENERAL PUBLIC: No comments. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 7:42 pm. Minutes Clerk: Eleanor O Donnell Date Approved: December 7, 2015