There Were Present: County Commissioners Sheri Eklund-Brown, V. Chair

STATE OF NEVADA, )

COUNTY OF ELKO ) ss. SEPTEMBER 8, 2005

The Board of Elko County Commissioners met in regular session on Thursday, September 8, 2005 at 1:30 p.m., in Room 105 of the Elko County Courthouse, 571 Idaho Street, Elko, Nevada.

There were present: County Commissioners Sheri Eklund-Brown, V. Chair

John Ellison

ABSENT Warren Russell

ABSENT Charlie Myers

Mike Nannini

County Manager Robert Stokes

CFO/Ast. Co. Mgr. Cash Minor

Deputy District Attorney Kristin McQueary

Deputy County Clerk Marilyn Tipton

Under Sheriff William Cunningham

Road Supervisor Otis Tipton

Juvenile Detention Dir. Pat Plaster

Juvenile Probation Officer Michael Pedersen

County Assessor Joe Aguirre

Ambulance Director William Webb

- - -

The proceedings were as follows:

CALL TO ORDER

Vice Chairwoman Eklund-Brown called the meeting to order at 1:35 p.m.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

Commissioner Nannini led the meeting participants in the Pledge of Allegiance.

COMMENTS BY THE GENERAL PUBLIC:

Paul Flanagan, Jarbidge District Ranger, reported that the Forest Service had selected a contractor for the construction of the bridges at Jarbidge. He stated that work would begin in early October. Commissioner Ellison inquired if the bid come in under budget and received an affirmative reply.

HUMBOLDT-TOIYABE NATIONAL FOREST:

Toiyabe Forest Plan Revision:

Michael Hampton, Forest Planning Staff Officer, gave a presentation on the status of the Humboldt – Toiyabe Forest Plan Revision including possible comments from the Commission and review of the County’s cooperating agency status. Michael Hampton informed them that he worked in the Supervisor’s office in Sparks, Nevada, and noted for the record that Ed Monnig, the Acting Forest Supervisor; Tom Baker, the Liaison to Legislative Affairs; and Pam Robinson, the Public Relations Officer for the Forest Service Plans revision was in attendance today. Michael Hampton stated this was their fifth County Commission meeting within the State of Nevada. He noted that they had sent a letter over a year ago to the County Commission on coordination on the plan revisions. He reported that there would be a public hearing held tonight at 5:30 p.m. in the Convention Center. Michael Hampton stated at 6:30 p.m. there would be a formal hearing procedure with questions and answers after the presentation.

Michael Hampton noted that the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest was the second largest national forest in the system. He reported that there were ten districts with seven district rangers. He stated that the Forest had about 1700 miles of trails, 16 different wilderness areas and over 6,000 miles of identified, managed Forest Service roads. There were 3.2 million acres of identified, inventoried roadless areas. Michael Hampton stated that in January the Forest Service published and finalized the 2000 Planning Rule that guided their work on the Plan Revision. He stated the focus of this planning revision was to bring a better balance than from the previous plan. This planning focused on a better balance between social values, economical interests, and ecological issues. He commented that the Humboldt-Toiyabe Forest was a combination of two forests. Therefore they currently operate under a number of plans inclusive of the: Humboldt Forest Plan, its amendments, and the Toiyabe Forest Plan and its amendments. He stated the Sierra Nevada Framework amended all the Forest Plans of the Sierra Nevada including the Toiyabe portion on the Carson and Bridgeport Districts. Michael Hampton reported that they also have one million acres which were previously Bureau of Land Management lands which had Resource Management Plans that date back to 1977. He stated that the most recent major amendment to the plan before the Sierra Nevada plan was the Spring Mountain National Recreational Area Plan which was in Las Vegas. He stated that Plan would not be included in this revision effort. Commissioner Ellison inquired why they separated the Humboldt and the Toiyabe plans. Michael Hampton replied that those two plans were done before the Forests were combined in 1995. Michael Hampton stated within the plan they would write geographic specific goals and conditions because the Forest was so spread out across the State. He stated they would work with the different communities to make what fits within that geographic area appropriate rather than just writing a general rule for the Forest. Michael Hampton stated the Ruby Mountains was identified as a separate geographic area because of the ecological difference versus the Jarbidge and Mountain City Districts. Michael Hampton stated the Jarbidge, Mountain City and Santa Rosa District were included into one geographical area within their analysis. Michael Hampton stated the Las Vegas area, the Mohave Desert, was declared as one region. He stated that there would be seven ecological regions. He stated they would have Forest wide desired conditions and Forest wide guidelines in some areas, in general. He stated they would have specific information for those seven geographic regions. Michael Hampton reviewed the four basic issues which they had identified: 1 Forest and Rangeland Health; 2. Fires and Fuel Management; 3. Grazing Management; and 4. Recreation.

1. Forest and Rangeland Health: He noted that a unique feature of the Humboldt-Toiyabe was the island of mountain ranges among the open desert. He stated this resulted in more endemic species than any other Forest within the system so it has become very involved assessing those species, what their needs were, and what management effects would have on those species. He spoke upon the loss of aspen habitat, the old forests’ habitat issues, and issues dealing with the riparian areas.

2. Fire and Fuel Management: He stated they would address the concern for public and firefighter’s safety, the increasing role of fire in the ecosystem, fuel reduction, and the high cost of fire suppression.

3. Grazing Management: He stated their primary objective was to develop more consistency between the existing Forest Plans so they can have one set of plans for the combined Humboldt-Toiyabe. They hoped to design more flexibility in management and address some of the conflicts between wildlife, horses and livestock. Commissioner Ellison inquired if there would be a creation of more AUMs. Michael Hampton stated that would not be the only outcome. He stated one of the issues in Eastern and Central was trying to balance what forage was available. He explained that the Forest Plans currently had over allocated what forage was out there. He stated when they have increased wildlife population and increased wild horse populations then there were areas that were not meeting desired conditions. Commissioner Eklund-Brown inquired if they were looking at a standardized measurement system as the BLM was trying to do in their unification of their monitoring efforts. Michael Hampton noted that the BLM had a new set of guidelines for management and regulations for grazing. He stated that the Forest Service was developing their grazing regulations which were not complete. Commissioner Eklund-Brown commented that the ranchers were frustrated because the BLM and the Forest Service had different grazing guidelines. Michael Hampton stated the process that the BLM was using for their planned revision was under a different set of regulations. He noted the Forest Service was moving toward a less strategic and detailed analysis approach without environmental impact statements.

4. Recreation: Michael Hampton commented that there was an increase in use and an increase in population growth in the State. He noted that there were different kinds of uses than what were taking place twenty years ago under the former plan. He stated the other issue was unmanaged off highway vehicle use. Michael Hampton stated the Forest Service was in the process of writing a rule for directing travel management analysis which was expected to be published in the next couple of months. He stated that because Humboldt-Toiyabe was both in Nevada and California so they have two sets of analysis that would be conducted. Michael Hampton stated that one of the issues that relate to the Forest Plan with regards to travel management was identification of suitability of areas for motorized recreation use but not the route designations. He stated that the route designations process involved more detail and would require more direct input from the public. He stated they were doing that process on a Ranger District basis. Michael Hampton stated regulations of 1982 were carried over in the 2005 regulations wherein they had to perform an analysis of inventoried roadless areas, wild and scenic rivers, eligibility assessments, update of Enhancement Act Lands, and biodiversity issues (species of interest or species of concern).

Michael Hampton reported that the Forest Service had over 400 inventoried roadless areas. He stated they have updated their protocol to refine that and there were now 262 areas across the six million acres. He stated those would be looked at for determination of wilderness, opened for further development, or should they be maintained in roadless character. Michael Hampton stated that each area would have its own evaluation. He noted the outcome of the Forest Plan was recommendation to the Congress. He stated Congress would then make a determination if something was proposed for a wilderness area. Commissioner Eklund-Brown inquired if there was a possibility of an area going back into multiple uses. Michael Hampton stated that the areas that were roadless, that have other higher uses than roadless or wilderness, yes. He noted they would look at those issues as part of their analysis. He stated they would take a look at other uses such as mining or uses that could go on.

Ed Monnig, Acting Forest Supervisor for the Humboldt-Toiyabe, stated that in many of those roadless areas they do have grazing and other multiple uses occurring. He stated those roadless areas were not necessarily defacto wilderness designated areas. Ed Monnig stated that they have received requests for mineral exploration in some of those roadless areas. Commissioner Eklund-Brown inquired if they were like Wilderness Study Areas. Ed Monnig stated that they were not Wilderness Study Areas because they have no Congressional designated status at this time. He stated it was purely an administrative determination that those areas were generally unroaded. Ed Monnig stated unless they go through specific procedures they were not allowing road construction in those areas. He stated there was a process which would entertain construction of roads in there. Commissioner Eklund-Brown inquired if some of the roadless areas had roads. Ed Monnig stated some have non system roads that were user constructed and were not engineered or constructed by the Forest Service. He stated those roads came into being from various users. Ed Monnig stated that there were roads in roadless areas. He stated that the roadless designation stated that the Forest Service would not construct new roads in those areas unless going through a strict approval process. Commissioner Eklund-Brown inquired if the general public could drive upon those existing roads. Ed Monnig stated at this time they could. Commissioner Ellison inquired if that would be allowed later on. Ed Monnig stated that in part of their travel management process they would be making a determination of which roads would be designated open for general public use. He stated that the present time those roads were open. He stated that in many cases they have duplicate roads out there.

Commissioner Eklund-Brown inquired how that would overlap with the designated trail system. Michael Hampton clarified that there were system roads that the Forest Service had built and there were existing roads that they were currently inventorying. He stated the rule that was proposed was to designate use on roads only. So, if there was a road out there, they would designate it for use for whatever type kind of vehicle was appropriate for it. Michael Hampton stated if it was in a roadless area then that could still occur but that would change the character of the roadless area. He stated then in the Forest Plan that piece would not be appropriate to be roadless anymore. Michael Hampton stated that their schedule for evaluation of the 262 roadless areas was to try to complete that by December. He stated that before they come up with a proposed action of each individual Ranger District on travel management they need to understand the relationship of what would be proposed after public input at a Ranger District level for what roads to be left open and designated and coordinate that with this roadless evaluation. Commissioner Eklund-Brown commented that it was important for the public to come forward and designate those routes or they may be closed. Michael Hampton stated the most direct way to do that was through the Travel Management Plan. He stated that indirectly they would have input and produce a draft of their evaluation of the inventoried roadless. He noted that draft would also have public input on it. Michael Hampton noted that the public would have input on specific roads through the Travel Management process. Ed Monnig stated that Paul Flanagan or Margaret Wood would review through the drafting process. He stated that a National Rule would be issued that they must travel on designated roads. Ed Monnig stated that National Rule would give them instructions to go out and designate those roads that would be open. He stated that the major impact of that National Rule was to prohibit cross country travel and they would have to stay on designated roads. Ed Monnig stated it would be up to local discretion to determine what those designated roads where. He stated that designation process must be consistent with their Forest Plan. Ed Monnig stated they wanted to be consistent between those two planning process. He stated they need to do a complete inventory and determine how many roads were out there and determine how many they want to keep open. Commissioner Ellison noted they may have a rancher with stock down and may need to make a trail in. He inquired if they would cancel permits, implement fines, etc. Michael Hampton stated that there was no intention to have any effect upon the grazing program. He stated that the hope and desire was to sit down with the range management folks and the permittees to clarify which roads were appropriate for access to the permittee. Commissioner Ellison explained that if they have livestock down and have to get to them they may have to make a road. Michael Hampton stated that would be an appropriate place to designate a trail perhaps. Commissioner Eklund-Brown understood that if a permittee had an emergency use then that would be authorized under their permit. Michael Hampton stated their objective was not to impact the grazing use program. Commissioner Ellison noted that mining would be impacted. Michael Hampton noted that currently when someone came in to explore in a roadless area if they approved that mining exploration proposal that party had to remove those roads once they were done with their exploration. He stated if there was a need for that use in that specific roadless area then they remove it from the roadless designation.