Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
>> So, good morning, everyone.
My name is Amy Lueders, for
those of you who don't know me,
State Director of the Bureau of
Land Management in Nevada and I
appreciate the opportunity to
get to visit with you at the
Tri-RAC where once a year all
of the Resource Advisory Council
members come together.
I really appreciate it.
I wanted to start with this
slide, and I have lost my prop
already.
I will get in trouble for
stepping outside the box by Art,
I know it.
These pictures here are from the
calendar that we put together
that all of you have on your
desk, and this was a photo
contest that we had in terms of
people putting together pictures
of the public lands in
celebration of Nevada's
sesquicentennial and we are
celebrating this year.
So I think this does a great job
recognizing the diversity of the
public lands that we manage here
in Nevada, and in many ways, a
reflection of the Resource
Advisory Councils, of the
diverse interests and
backgrounds that you all bring
that really match the diversity
of the lands that we manage.
So I hope you will enjoy this
and it will remind you of why we
are all in this in terms of the
public land issues.
So, I appreciate that everyone
came a long way.
We have people that have made a
long trip to get here and I
appreciate the time--
particularly for all of you, all
of the time that you volunteer
to help advise us on these very
complicated issues that we have
in managing the lands for the
public.
So I wanted to spend a little
time talking about some of the
priorities and my vision for the
BLM for 2014.
For me in terms of how we make
decisions and what we work on,
these are the kind of goals and
visions that guide me and the
team that I have.
So it's leaving the resources
better than we found them.
We should be judging our actions
against that.
Think big and manage across
broad landscapes, and that
requires us to work with our
neighbors and look across state
lines and work with many other
folks, because the landscapes
don't know a district boundary
or public lands, BLM-managed
lands.
So it's very important that we
think big.
We're going to make courageous
decisions wisely.
We're not going to be the
generation that kicks hard
decisions down the road.
We're going to tackle those
difficult issues because we have
the right folks and the folks of
the RAC to help advise us on
those decisions.
And then lastly, ensure our
processes are efficient,
transparent and consistent.
It's important to me that we
look to do things the best way
that we look about not adding
additional hurdles, and it's
important for our customers and
our stakeholders that regardless
of where they are, those
processes are consistent.
So that's a big issue for me
also.
I'm going to talk about some of
these programs.
I'm going to talk about fire,
minerals, grazing, drought,
tortoise.
You can read them.
Some of these will be talked in
more detail with Raul comes up
after me.
So I'll give a highlight of
these issues.
In 2013 I'd say we had a good
fire season.
Good to me means not many acres.
So you'll notice on BLM, less
than 100,000 acres burned in
2013, and across Nevada
significantly lower than the
previous year.
I think we were both good and
lucky.
We have a tremendously dedicated
and well-trained fire staff.
We have done a lot of work in
terms of prepositioning
resources and ensuring we have
resources in the right place at
the right time.
And we were also fortunate this
year to not have a lot of those
large fire multiple start days.
So on minerals, it's probably no
surprise to any of you, we have
the largest mining program in
the Bureau of Land Management,
and I think Nevada represents
about half of the entire
Bureau's workload in minerals.
We have more than half-- nearly
half of the Bureau's mining
claims.
We have more than $2 billion in
bonds that we hold to ensure
that we're not leaving a
long-term liability for future
generations to deal with.
We have a very large sand and
gravel program.
And we're continuing to use our
mine permitting teams to have
more consistency and efficiency
in permitting operations, and
it's important that we are both
consistent and efficient, but
also that the outcome leads to
projects that are not-- that
are environmentally sound.
So that's some of the important
pieces of the mine permitting
review team.
Certainly the very history of
Nevada, and we are celebrating
its 150th year of statehood
this year, mining is a very big
part of that history.
With that history comes the
historical issue of abandoned
mine land.
We have the largest program in
the agency.
We have a tremendous partnership
in place to address this.
And really have done an amazing
job of inventorying sites and
most importantly closing sites
to ensure that we are not
creating health and safety
issues.
Certainly I know the Northeast
RAC has spent time this year
talking about oil and gas.
We're not what you call in
Nevada one of the OPEC states or
one of the large oil and gas
producing states.
As a matter of fact we're one of
the lowest oil and gas producing
states in the country.
We do have four lease sales a
year.
We have generated in 2012 over
$11 million from lease sales and
rentals, and I think everyone is
aware there was a new interest
in he will co-county oil and gas
exploration.
In renewable energy, we did have
the solar programmatic
Environmental Impact Statement
signed in 2012.
These established Solar Energy
Zones, which were areas where
the potentials for solar was
high and the resource conflicts
were low, and really were about
putting renewable energy in the
best places in terms of having
economic value but having low
environmental impacts.
We have five Solar Energy Zones
in Nevada and we've been doing
quite a lot with them.
We were the first to develop the
Dry Lake solar energy mitigation
plan.
That was the first mitigation
plan done for a Solar Energy
Zone.
We are now working on one for
Dry Lake north in terms of the
mitigation plan.
We are also going to be looking
this year at having a
competitive process within the
Dry Lake Solar Energy Zone.
We have a lot of interest in
that zone in making that
available for competition.
We have a number of projects
ongoing... five solar projects,
one wind project, two geothermal
projects, and I think what we
saw this year is we started to
see demand flattening out and
that was largely driven by the
market.
I think people-- California
sort of said, we've got enough
for now, and so people were
trying to figure out the market
piece, couldn't get power
purchase agreements, and as a
result couldn't get financing.
We started to see this year
little uptick in terms of
interest on renewable energy, I
think largely driven by
legislation that was passed in
in the last legislative session
that will lead to additional
demand within Nevada for
renewable energy.
So we're starting to see a
little uptick, which I think
aligns really perfectly with our
work in the Dry Lake beds.
In BLM Nevada we have 663
grazing authorizations.
Some of the priorities for us
are renewing grazing permits,
assessing rangeland health,
ensuring that grazing use is in
accordance with the Rangeland
Health Standards, and developing
a statewide permit
renewal/issuance process.
Certainly for us we have not
been sort of keeping up where we
want to be in terms of the
permit/renewal and as I said we
want to make sure we have
consistent and efficient
processes, so one of the areas
we have been focusing this year
is just that, how do we have
additional accomplishments and
how do we do that in a more
consistent and efficient way.
We pay the state about $200,000
a year in grazing receipts, and
here are some of our
accomplishments for 2013.
It's certainly no surprise to
anyone who drove here or anyone
who lives in Nevada, drought is
an ongoing issue for us across
the state.
We're in the third year of
significant drought, and you'll
certainly be hearing more about
drought from Raul in his
presentation.
Really, I think, giving you a
good context of where we're at
relative to past year and how
significant this issue is for
the state.
We're continuing-- certainly
one every our focus areas this
year because of the severity and
continuance of drought, we've
been focused on monitoring range
conditions, working with
permittees to identify voluntary
actions, and you'll see we
really had great partnership
with our permittees this past
year in terms of taking
voluntary nonuse.
And certainly making sure that
we are educating people about
drought and what the it means.
We did last year kind identify
and develop kind of an outreach
strategy, our plans, what steps
we were going to take so-- we
had a very transparent and
consistent process in how awe
were addressing drought.
For those in the south, desert
tortoise continues to be a big
issue.
In 2014 two of our priorities
are going to be use the best
available science and it has
been a lot of evolution in terms
of the science that is available
to us to make decisions that
affect the tortoise,
particularly its habitat, and
particularly connectivity
issues, which I think we didn't
have as much information on in
the past and is a really
important issue for us.
Our second one is to work with
partners to develop a strategy
to cease taking unwanted captive
tortoise into the desert
tortoise conservation center
that we manage in Southern
Nevada.
We're working in partnership
with many of our Federal and
state agencies and nonprofits on
that.
In if you haven't heard sage
grouse, where have you been.
It's certainly a big issue for
many of the folks across the
West, across the range, and
certainly here within Nevada.
A lot of folks have invested a
lot of energy working on sage
grouse.
Clearly one of the important
things that we've been working
on is our plan amendments.
I certainly appreciate the
comments that we received from
both the Northeast and northwest
RACs in terms of that were
submitted during the public
comment period and I appreciate
the investment of time that you
put into preparing those for us.
It did close on January 29th.
We received over 15,000
comments.
Clearly a number of those were
form letters.
But we received really a lot of
substantive, deep comments that
we are currently working
through.
So that is going to be one of
our focuses, is pulling that
together.
We've been working very closely
with the state and the sagebrush
ecosystem council as they've
continued to revise the state
plan and so there is certainly a
lot going on both at the
planning level but also at kind
of the project level and I think
some of our challenges will be
once we get the planning effort
done, as hard as it is, the
implementation will be even
harder.
Certainly an area where I think
the RAC can help guide us in
terms of priorities as we
implement wherever we end up
with the Land Use Plan.
We also had the Bi-State plan
amendment that we did also in
cooperation with the Forest
Service.
That affects both the Carson
City and Tonapah offices.
The Forest Service is taking the
lead on that plan amendment.
The public comment period closed
on that draft, and we received
about 170 comments.
We really are at a pivotal
moment, I think, within Nevada
in terms of our Land Use
Planning efforts, and I don't
think there's ever been a time
where we have had so much of the
state undergoing plan revisions,
and it is a really important
place for the RACs and also
the public to engage because we
are fundamentally defining what
public land management looks
like on probably half of the
state right now, and so what
land management looks like on
those public lands for the next
10 to 20 years is something that
you all have an opportunity to
be a part of, and it's a huge
amount of work as we look-- I
know the northwest RAC was
engaged in the Winnemucca RMP.
We're close to having the
protest resolution, I hope, on
that.
We're also working on the
LasVegas, Battle Mountain and
Carson City RMPs, so that's a
significant part of the state
that impacts all three RACs.
So it's a really tremendous
opportunity, and getting it
right is really important,
because, as I said, it really
defines what public land
management looks like for the
next couple decades.
And then there's some-- we have
a lot to be proud of.
We have a lot to be proud of in
terms of the work of BLM
employees, in terms of the
partners that we have, and so
we're really-- I wanted to
highlight just a few of them.
There are so many.
One is completing the draft EIS
for sage grouse.
That was a huge lift.
Took the investment of a lot of
people's time and certainly our
work is not done but getting to
that milestone was very
significant.
We opened the seed warehouse in
Ely and I think Rosie and her
team, what a tremendous assess
to have.
We're so fortunate to have that
here in Nevada.
And it's part of a national
strategy that allows us to have
more flexibility and more
capacity to address not just our
fire restoration needs, but more
proactive restoration work, and
so it really increases our
flexibility as a Bureau and
increases our flexibility here
within Nevada.
Just a couple weeks ago we had a
Battle Mountain and our partners
with UNR co-op extension when
the Secretary conservation award
for the bootstraps program.
It's a tremendous program that
rod Davis heads out of UNR co-op
extension that not only gets
terrific work done on the ground
but really provides
opportunities and life skills
for at-risk youth, and I'm very,
very proud to be part of that
program.
We also have the Vegas Valley
veteran hand crew in Southern
Nevada.
We were the first state within
BLM to stand up a veteran hand
crew.
For those of you who haven't met
them, they are a tremendous
bunch of veterans who do
tremendous work for us across
the nation.
They this year won the Pulaski
award, which is an interagency
fire award for teamwork, and I
can't think of a more deserving
bunch to receive that award.
Everywhere they go they get
glowing reviews in terms of the
hard work and the great work
that they do, and it's a
tremendous-- I really encourage
you to visit with them and what
a great opportunity it provides
for them and for us.
And then we also completed the
supplemental EIS for the Ruby
pipeline.
I know many in the Northwest
were involved in the Ruby
project and we continue to
ensure not only we've done the
EIS but to ensure reclamation is
occurring on the ground.
So those are just a quick
overview of some of the things
we have going on.
Hopefully might give you some
thoughts in terms of things as
you do your breakouts over the
next day and a half of areas
where you might want to focus,
and some of the things I'm
particularly proud of and that I
hope we can be tackling in the
coming year.
So any questions for me before I
turn it to Raul?
We want to make sure you have a
mic.
>> Kind of a specific question,
but out of the 11.3 million that
you guys received in oil and gas
for 2013, how much stayed within
the state and does any money
stay within the districts of the
sale?
>> So I think, is it half,
Gary-- so half-- of what we
receive, half goes to the state.
>> To your office--
>> No, to the State of Nevada.
>> And then the other half just
goes to the treasury?
>> Goes-- yeah.
Yes.
>> Thank you.
>> Uh-huh.
>> I'm seeing on the Internet
that the number of organizations
that posted sage grouse comments
have been extended to February
15th.
Is that correct?
>> No.
So I think the-- there's been a
lot-- there are a lot of dates
going on.
So I think the February 15th
is the Fish&Wildlife Service
comments on the Bi-State
proposed listing decision.
Do I have that right, Raul?
Yeah.
The 10th-- so February
10th-- the date that was
extended Fish&Wildlife
Service's comment period on the
proposed decision to list the
Bi-State population as
threatened.
Any other questions before I
turn it to Raul?
I look forward to visiting with
you over the next day and a
half.
I will be here until we conclude
tomorrow.
So I look forward to catching up
with those of you I've met
before and those I haven't.
So thanks, everyone, for coming,
and I look forward to having a
good day and a half.
[applause]
>> Just a reminder so when we
get questions to get a mic.
How do we want to start-- I
guess I'll do this.
>> Tom Connolly, Northeast RAC
representing grazing.
>> Jeff White, chair, Northeast
RAC, representing energy and
minerals.
>> Kevin Lee, Northeast RAC,
transportation right of way.
>> Hughes, Northeast RAC,
dispersed recreation.
>> Larry high slip, Northeast
RAC, environment.
>> Dave Pierce, Northeast RAC,
energy and minerals.
>> Jack Prier, Northeast RAC,
environment and wildlife.
>> Jeannie nations, wild horse
and burros, Northeast RAC.
>> Doug Furtado, District
Manager, Battle Mountain
district.
>> David Meisner representing
academia.
>> Tanya Reynolds, Native
American interests.
>> Good morning, Laurie Carson
representing elected or
officials Northeast RAC.
>> Good morning, I'm Jill
Silvey, I'm the he will
co-District Manager for BLM.
>> Good morning, Rosie Thomas.
I was the designated Federal
official last year with the MOSO
and the incoming designated
Federal official for Northeast
RAC.
So I'm really not a traitor.
And District Manager Ely
district.
>> Megan Brown representing
Congressman mark.
>> Baker warrior Mojave southern
RAC.
>> Mike Carter, associate
District Manager Ely district
recently trade to the MOSO RAC.
>> Tim Smith, District Manager
Southern Nevada and designated
Federal official for the MOSO
RAC.
>> Jason Higgins, MOSO RAC
chair, energy and mineral
development.
>> Robert Adams, MOSO RAC,
representing organized
recreation.
>> Tom coward, Field Manager for
the Tonapah Field Office.
>> Mark Smith, southern District
Office, Southern Nevada District
office.
>> Hillerie Patton, RAC
coordinator for MOSO.
>> Good morning, Lisa Ross, car
sub city district opinion.
>> Lesli Ellis-Wouters and I'm
the RAC coordinator for
northeastern RAC.
>> Good morning, my name is
Lucas.
I'm with senator reed' office.
>> Good morning, Gary Johnson,
deputy State Director for
minerals.
>> Erica, communications chief,
BLM Nevada.
>> Everybody's going to see me.
My name is Kurt, nominee for the
Southern Nevada RAC.
>> Ron cherry, representing
public at large, Sierra Front
RAC.
>> Ray Hendrix, Sierra Front RAC
representing grazing.
>> Willie Molini Sierra Front
RAC representing wildlife.
>> Andy Hart Sierra Front RAC
representing recreation.
>> Tim.
>> Debie Lassiter Sierra Front
chair representing energy and
minerals.
>> Tom Hogan, Sierra Front RAC,
academia, Great Basin college.
>> David Von Seggern Sierra
Front RAC representing
environment.
>> Mark Freese, Sierra Front RAC
representing state agency.
>> Craig Young on the Sierra
Front, cultural resources and
historical resources.
>> Good morning, I'm Bernadette
low Vaught owe, I'm the Carson
City District Manager and it's
my first Tri-RAC so I am
looking forward to meeting more
of the RAC members and it's
really good to see the Sierra
Front northwestern RAC members
here.
>> Good morning, Matt Gingerich,
RAC representing right of way
and transportation.
>> Samuel Crampton, senator Dean
Heller.
>> That was very good.
Good morning, everyone.
My name is Raul Morales, deputy
State Director for resources,
lands and planning with the
Nevada State Office and I've
been here a couple times talking
to you about similar projects--
oh, I'm on.
Thank you.
These issues I'm going to talk
about, I talked to you guys
about in the past.
Some is going to be familiar but
it's going to be more updated
because we are a year further
down the road.
I have four topics.
We're going to go through
drought and sage grouse.
I do have a question period
after each topic.
I know we've got an hour.
So we'll just kind of monitor
that and just kind of-- Chris,
maybe you can help me out with
that and make sure I don't spend
too much time on one topic.
I will be around throughout the
course of the day.
If there are additional
questions that would be great.
So drought, before we hit the
first slide, let's talk about
the good news on drought.
One, two, three.
It's precipitation in Nevada.
Okay.
Yea.
We are getting some snow.
Looks like we are getting some
rain.
That's good.
We'll take any kind of moisture
we can get.
Now let's talk about the big
story.
Why has it been so dry in Nevada
and across the West?
In weatherman's terms we had
this big dome shield because of
high pressure centered over the
west and what this dome shield
is doing is it's forcing storms
to go over to the north or stay
out to the coast where they
dissipate, and I've been
watching the weather, our
friends to the central United
States and Eastern United States
have been taking brunt of this
dome.
It's been really tough on them.
We have been basically
experiencing dry, mild winter so
far this year.
So some of the current events,
recent current events, January
this year, 2014, NRCS said we
have a limited water supply
predicted for the Western United
States.
NOAA pre-deduction center calls
for a milder and somewhat drier
winter.
Also in 2014 all counties in
Nevada were declared
emergencies.
And-- which makes they will
eligible for drought assistance,
and basically most of the
western states are also in
similar conditions at this point
in time, even including Hawaii.
Recent article in the "New York
Times" this week predicted that
this is going to be the worst
drought in 500 years in the
United States.
Coming close to home, it was in
the paper this week, there's
only one spot in Northeast
Nevada that's registering
100%-- percent of average
snowpack this year and is that
the corral canyon?
Do you remember that?
In the paper.
Okay.
You can see the rest of the
information right there about
the OWYHEE river, Humboldt
River, definitely below 100%.
Nevada is entering the third
year of drought.
We're in the third year of
drought.
So it's going to be a very tough
year.
And we know the livestock
operators and others are going
to have to make some very
difficult decisions about what
to do with their operations this
year and we know it's going to
have a huge financial impact on
them.
So this is a map of the United
States.
The red and the brown basically
show those counties within those
states that are what are
declared by the USDA emergency,
meaning operators in those
counties are eligible for some
form of financial assistance to
aid in that.
And in the case of Nevada, both
the red and the yellow, two
different designations, one is
called the primary droughts and
the others are contiguous
counties under drought
emergency.
All it means is there's
different emergency aid under
both of those categories but
basically the whole State of
Nevada falls in that category.
There you can see Hawaii.
Oops, back there.
You can see the drought-- looks
like Kauai, if you want to visit
a non-drought island, Kauai is
the place to go.
This map I just want to show
kind of the picture across the
West.
Obviously you can see the dark
red blob, which is the extreme
and exceptional droughts in
California and Nevada.
You can see the extreme and
exceptional drought categories
across the United States in the
west.
I want to particularly draw your
attention to Oklahoma and
Kansas.
That will relate to my horse
discussion a little later.
Those are where we have a lot of
long of-term holding facilities
for our horses, and so those
folks that are taking care of
the horses out there are also
experiencing drought conditions,
which is affecting horses out
there, too.
I said we're in the third
straight year of drought.
Over the past six years Nevada
has had five drought years out
of six.
So this isn't anything new for
us, but what is new for us is
the past few years have really
been in that extreme and
exceptional category.
What that means to the
vegetative community that we're
responsible for the management
for is a lot of stress on those
plants.
So those plants are not in a
healthy condition, and we have a
lot of animals, whether it's
livestock, horses or wildlife,
that are dependent on that
vegetation for their survive,
and so we have that
responsibility to make sure that
we are managing those vegetative
resources properly and obviously
in a drought it's tough for
everyone.
So highlighting the past two
years, this year, last time I
showed you the map on the
left-hand side.
This is where we currently are
on the right-hand side.
The big point I want to point to
you here is what I'm considering
the really bad condition, the
severe, extreme and exceptional
droughts, we are right now at
80% of the state is in that
category.
Last year we were at 56% of the
state in that category.
If you look at the worst one,
the exceptional we had zero%
last year.
We're at 5% this year.
We can't spin it.
It is what it is.
But it's just not looking really
good.
This map is kind of a breakdown
of the counties that fit within
those drought categories.
The exceptional, the extreme,
the severe, and that's the--
the moderates-- I don't even
pay attention to that because
it's not big-- what is that
called anymore?
Moderate condition.
Kind amazing that LasVegas is
in the moderate condition class.
Just seems something is weird.
Here is the drought outlook
between now and April of '14.
You'll see last year at this
time more attention to the brook
trout where the drought is to
persist or intensify.
Last year that's what we looked
like.
Nevada was in tough shape last
year.
This year we're a little worse
off.
But in particular what caught my
attention is up here, the wet
states are in a drought
condition.
That's where we get a lot of our
moisture from.
It's not coming in.
That dome has set up and is
preventing even Washington and
Oregon from being wetter than
they usually are.
>> So what have we done over the
past year?
I think many of you know we have
completed drought management
EAs in all of our offices
except Elko.
Elko is in the process of
completing theirs.
Their drought EA just went out a
couple days ago for a two-week
comment period.
They will be done soon.
We know drought is not fair but
we do-- BLM does have to
proactively respond to droughts,
and we have to do what's right
for the land and the vegetation,
and as Amy said, some of those
things, we have to leave the
landscape in better shape than
we did and we have to make
courageous decisions.
We in Nevada are leading out on
what we think we need to do to
proactively to protect resources
for the long term.
Last year we got a lot of
voluntary nonuse from livestock
operators.
I want to applaud those
individuals that did that and
I'll show a little slide here of
what happened last year with
that, which is good.
Unfortunately we did have to
issue nine decisions to
permittees who did not want to
take their cattle off or adjust
accordingly to take care of the
drought issues, and as Amy said,
we will continue to protect the
resources and that we will
continue to seek voluntary
nonuse this year.
That's imperative.
I know all our districts sent
out drought letters to the
permittees this year alerting
them.
We will be looking for voluntary
nonuse.
But we will have to issue
decisions if necessary.
So this slide, just the
difference in the past year
basically.
In particular right here the
grazing allotments with
voluntary nonuse we had 41 in
2012.
I applaud that effort.
That's great.
I know a lot of people out there
are interested in taking care of
rangelands for future year.
Voluntary acres of reductions
went from 2.2 to 17 million
acres across the state.
And basically HMAs were also
monitored.
Sage grouse areas were a
priority for monitoring.
Both horse management areas and
sage grouse areas will be a
priority this year again as we
monitor our rangelands.
The other point I want to make
related to sage grouse is as far
as some of the really
complicating factors that
drought is posing for us is when
Fish&Wildlife Service makes
their listing decision on the
bird, how BLM addresses drought
is going to be looked at very
heavily.
And in particular we know we're
going to go to litigation on the
sage grouse plan, and when it
goes before a judge, that issue
will come up before the judge.
So we need to be able to show
that we have been proactive, and
when I say we, all of us
collectively, really.
Not just BLM.
All that voluntary nonuse I
think is positive to show what
folks, our stakeholders are
doing to help deal with the
drought issue but we can't
ignore droughts and we have to
consider that in relation to the
sage grouse.
What else are we going to be
doing about drought in the year?
As I mentioned we'll continue
voluntary nonuse requests of
permittees.
Monitoring will be a high
priority for Field Offices this
year on droughts.
We will issue range decisions as
necessary.
Wild horse and burro monitoring
flights to assess animal and
rangeland health will be a
priority this year.
Outreach and education on
drought will be ongoing.
And a lot of agencies are doing
the outreach on drought.
It's not just BLM.
We're taking it very seriously
and other agencies are taking it
seriously as it relates to their
mission.
Any questions on drought?
>> What [inaudible] practically
relive for sage grouse relative
to drought.
A permanent solution--
>> The question is what are we
proactively doing as relates to
sage grouse as relates to
drought.
Basically how we're addressing
eye livestock grazing, the
riparian areas.
Very important to birds.
When they have their chicks they
head for water and meadows.
We're looking at protecting
those areas.
Horses, you know, that's-- I'll
talk more about that.
In the past that truly is a
challenge for us.
At this point we have set up
some-- in our RMP, Land Use
Plan, sage grouse standards,
land health standards that will
kind of complement our Rangeland
Health Standards.
We're adding that into the
equation.
That will be part of the future
as far as what we need to look
at.
Those are some of the big
things.
Anything anybody else is doing
locally from the BLM?
Did I hit it?
That's good.
Any other questions?
>> I'm going to keep this mic.
I'm not very shy.
You talked about some of the
drought in relation to other
programs you have in the Midwest
for holding for horses.
Obviously those are contracts
and you guys can't move them to
other places.
So are you guys going to be
supplementing the contracts to
pay for additional cost for hay
or other things you guys are,
and if you are, where is that
money coming from in the budget?
>> That's a very good question.
The question is long term
holding facilities in the
Midwest for horses, what are--
how are we dealing with the
needs to take care of those
horses as relates to drought,
forage and the budget for it.
What we've been hearing over the
past couple years from those
contractors that have the horses
on there is that their forage
ban, their native grasses are
being hurt by the drought.
They're not growing like they
used to and they're having to
supplemental feed more with hay
than in the past and as a result
of the drought the hay costs
have gone up.
So we're at a point where a lot
of those long-term holding
contracts are coming up for
renewal in the month of March.
We're going out for proposals
also to solicit additional
long-term holding capacity
issues.
I guess we'll get a feel for the
costs this go-around on the
contracts based on drought,
based on cost of hay, based on
interest to continue having
horses in their facility.
What we're hearing is the cattle
prices are such that some may
decide they don't want to do
horses and want to go into
cattle.
These are things we are hearing
at this point.
And we will know more come March
what costs will be and what the
desire to stay with horses will
be, and our budget for this
year, basically, is equivalent
to last year's budget, but a
good chunk, 60%, plus or minus,
of that budget does go to the
care and feeding of horses in
long-term facilities.
So it is putting a strain on our
budget at this point.
>> Hi.
I was just wondering if you have
any roundups scheduled for the
year 2014 because of the
drought?
>> I'll talk about that when I
get into horses next.
I'll answer your question there.
>> Okay.
>> Any other drought-related
questions?
We'll go into horses.
Just a snapshot of where we're
at with our horse populations at
this point.
Nationally 37,000 horses on our
public lands.
Nevada we're estimating between
22 and 25,000 horses.
Their Appropriate Management
Level nationally is around
26,000 horses.
For Nevada we're about 12,600
animals as the Appropriate
Management Level.
So you can see we're about
double where we believe we
should be and what the range can
support.
84% of Nevada's HMAs are at or
above AML at this point and 70
of the 83HMAs are
approximately double-A ML.
I believe I mentioned before
wild horse and burro populations
double about every four years.
One of the things we will be
watching closely this year since
we're in the third year of
drought, it's a is the foal crop
going to be lower this year as a
result of limited resources.
Last year I thought we might see
some of that, but what I'm
hearing from the field folks is
our foal crop was kind of
average for last year.
So want to watch that.
I know wild animals a lot of
times when the environment gets
tough typically have reduced--
whether it's eggs laid, animals
born, animals surviving.
We'll see how that works for
horses this year.
What were removed last year,
2013?
In a nationally we removed 4200
horses.
Nevada removed 27, 2800 of those
horses.
We treated about 509 mares, 46
is Nevada.
We adopted out 89 animals.
We didn't have any sales in
Nevada last year.
As a result of the drought what
we're noticing is wild horse and
burros are moving outside their
HMAs trying to find water and
forage.
We've seen animals moving as
much as 30 miles away from their
HMAs and we're noticing this
year we're seeing some horses on
their summer ranges already.
National Academy of Science
report, I think I reported to
you last year we were waiting
for this report.
It was done and completed,
delivered to BLM late this
summer.
BLM put a team of folks together
to review the National Academy
of Science report.
So we have kind of a report of
our response to the NAS report.
It should be out soon, I'm told.
We haven't seen it yet.
At least I haven't seen it.
But they have a lot of
recommendations on that report
to BLM and I know one of the
recommendations was that they
did believe BLM was
underestimating the number of
horses out on the public lands.
So this year we are going to be
applying a survey method that
was requested or suggested in
the NAS reports.
So we'll get an idea this year
how our counts have been in the
past in relation to this new
survey method we'll be doing.
You know, one of the other
things, big parts of the report,
is that they were encouraging
BLM to continue to work on
partnerships across the local
communities, a variety of
partners and helping us develop
where we need to go with the
horses, and so that will be a
big part that we'll be looking
at.
And one of the other parts is
part of the report is that
population control was heavily
discussed and that the Bureau of
Land Management is going to go
out for requests for proposals
to help us deal with the
population control.
We're really hoping to target
the pharmaceutical companies.
Some of the other methods we've
been doing, the one-year PZP
treatments and the five-year
treatments, the one-year
treatments has been very
sporadic as far as
effectiveness.
Got to do it at the right time.
The five-year treatment at this
point, early tests, are not
conclusive that we can get a
five-year treatment on the
mares.
So we're looking at going out to
the pharmaceutical companies to
see if there is some help there
that they can provide us with
coming up with some different
tools to help control population
growth on the range.
Again, just the drought map.
With the Herd Management Areas
in the State of Nevada,
basically a majority of the
HMAs are in the severe to
exceptional drought categories.
As I mentioned in the drought
discussion, monitoring of HMAs
in relation to drought is going
to be a high priority for us.
Of course, a lot of those HMAs
are also within sage grouse
country.
So we'll be monitoring both of
them.
Having this map helps us-- it's
going to be beneficial for us to
kind of prioritize our
management actions as we move
forward.
So what is BLM doing about the
horses nationally?
As I mentioned earlier we're
looking at new techniques for
treating horses on the range to
try to control growth.
We'll continue partnership with
the USGS to improve that
inventory method, the counting
method I mentioned earlier.
We're going to be liking at how
to determine an ecologically
sustainable horses on
rangelands.
We're above AML right now
nationally.
It-- if it turns out we are
underestimating, I think we have
a lot of work to make sure to
see if we can actually sustain
those animals on the range that
we currently have.
Adoption program, adoptions have
been low the past few years.
Economy has been tough.
You need some land.
Price of hay is high.
Those have probably all figured
into low adoptions.
But we do think nationally we
need to do a better job
marketing horses for adoptions.
So we're going to be looking at
that, and I'll talk about that
from what Nevada is going to do
here in a second.
And nationally we are exploring
other opportunities with U.S.
aid to maybe help adopt horses
outside of the United States.
We also have a comprehensive
animal welfare policy that will
released soon this year.
Basically that tells us how we
should be treating animals when
we're doing gathers, again,
assuring the health of the
horses is taken into account as
we do our gathers.
One other thing I wanted to say
besides U.S. aid-- one of the
other areas we are really
exploring is trying to get more
prisons interested in training
horses like we have in Carson
City and they have in Colorado.
We're finding that those
prison-trained horses when we
adopt them out, they go really
fast.
People seem to like horses that
are already trained versus
taking the wild animals.
So really exploring getting more
horses into prisons across
particularly the east and the
south to try to bolster that
opportunity for getting trained
horses out to the public.
As far as Nevada, we're figuring
out how to deal with limited to
no gathers.
So your question for 2014 at
this point, because of budgets,
because of the fact our
long-term holding capacities are
filled up, our short-term,
mid-term holding facilities are
filled up, we don't have
opportunities for doing big
gathers.
So we're looking at how do we
address horses that are on the
road, horses entering private
ground, horses that are
providing a public nuisance.
That's a small number of horses.
We're hoping we can at least
place those horses into a
facility if we can't adopt those
horses out, and we're going to
try to adopt those horses out.
That at this point, based on our
budget, based on long and
short-term holding issues, will
probably be the best we can do
as far as removing horses off
the range today.
Could change, but that's what we
know today.
Water hauling, another big
touchy topic.
You know, it's expensive.
Costs a lot of money to haul
water.
And if we're just hauling water
with no real reason to haul
water, in other words, there has
to be a bridge if we're hauling
water for a reason to get horses
from point A to point B, whether
it's a turn in the climate or
something that's going to allow
them to survive, that makes
sense to us, but we don't have a
big budget to do that everywhere
and we're anticipating with
drought that's going to be a
real challenge for us this year.
We're also going to work with
our stakeholders.
So whether it's permittees or
others who might be interested
in hauling water, we're
exploring those options right
now to see if we can't do that.
So we just met last week.
We called in our wild horse
summit in Nevada where we talked
about all these issues, where we
want to go, and so that was a
topic we talked about, is
watering horses, what can we do,
who can help out with that, what
is the goal.
If it doesn't really get us
anywhere, we're talking about
what does that mean, what does
that look like, what should we
do.
We know there will be a lot of
interested people who don't want
to see horses die and starving
on the range.
Why aren't we watering horses?
A very emotional issue, for
sure.
But we are confined by budgets.
We're discussing how to deal--
you know, how-- when we see
declining animal health or
declining rangeland health we're
going to be talking about what
actions we need to do when we
spot that this year.
So that's going to be a big
thing for us.
And then due to the drought and
budget and holding capacity,
like I say, we will be having to
make some very tough choices
without very good options.
So we're really not in a good
place in Nevada.
I want to leave you with that
with horses.
We're just not in a good place,
and I liken it to a plate of
food that you have on it and
there's nothing really good on
that plate and you're kind of
looking at it and saying, "what
do I do?"
You're going to have to eat
something, and it's just not
going to be what you like.
So we're expecting a tough year
for horses this year.
Almost done and then we'll go to
the questions.
Ecosanctuaries... talked a
little about that last year.
We have three other states all
on private ground, Montana,
Wyoming, NewMexico, where we're
looking at ecosanctuaries.
Total holding capacity for those
three areas assuming they come
on board is 900 horses.
The save America's mustangs
ecosanctuary south of Elko, we
got a letter about a month ago
from SAM saying they want to
withdraw from the EIS process.
We are in the process of getting
ready to send them a letter
asking them are they sure they
want to withdraw from this
process?
At this point our Elko office is
kind of in a holding pattern as
far as moving forward with that
ecosanctuary and until we hear
back from them to make sure they
really want to stop.
Okay.
Questions.
>> I got a question I don't even
know if you know.
The slaughterhouse in
NewMexico, it's on, it's off,
it's on, it's off.
There are people that have old
horses that they wish they could
just get rid of and maybe they'd
want new horse.
I mean, if they're taking old
crippled horses just hanging
around and they're able to make
dog food or texture burgers or
whatever and then that opens up
people that want adoption.
Do you have any information on
what's going on with that down
there?
>> Just what I'm hearing on the
news, too.
It's very controversial.
Congress didn't approve any
funding for that facility.
I don't know if it's still up
and running or trying to get up
and running or if it's been put
on hold.
The old horses, like you are
saying, are private horses,
people who hold private horses.
>> Wondering if we could get
more volunteers possibly out on
the HMAs where the wild horses
are.
I volunteer quite often where I
live.
I'm close to the antelope Valley
herd HMA, and I have to say
those horses are in great shape
in spite of the drought and
everything else, and they have
plenty of water.
I see to it that the water
troughs are flowing.
So our area's in good shape,
actually, at this time anyway.
>> Thank you for bringing that
up.
I'm hoping-- and when you get
into your RAC subgroups as far
as what can you do to help, if
you guys could talk about
watering options.
Is there-- you know, how can
you help us-- help us think
about what things we can
consider about watering animals.
I know I've had a couple folks
come up to me saying my private
ground, I'm willing to take
horses.
It great.
I think you need to the cost of
taking the horses, kind of like
our long-term holding
facilities.
It costs almost $1.30 a day to
care for one horse.
If those are options you want to
talk about, BLM would definitely
entertain those ideas.
So I really hope when you break
out in your RAC subgroups, spend
some time thinking about what
ideas you can give us to
consider.
If you have ideas on options for
adoptions, we're interested in
that.
We are forming as part of the
Nevada team, we are forming up a
committee of folks from the
various offices to look at what
we believe is a better way
hopefully to market adoptions of
the Nevada horses.
We're looking at getting other
people outside the BLM engaged
in that committee.
So if there are folks on the
RACs who would like to be part
of that committee to help figure
out how we can increase adoption
of horses, we welcome that, too.
So-- is if that's the case, let
Amy and I know whenever you
have that discussion.
Over here?
>> Just a question.
>> Let's go here, here and I'll
go to the back.
>> How do you reconcile the two
statements that have been made
this morning, one making
courageous decisions, and the
second one not gathering any
horses from overstocked HMAs?
>> Great question.
[laughter]
We have been saying-- we have
been seeing this issue coming
for the past couple of years,
that facilities were getting
full, and I think the year
before I showed you the gather
from 2012.
Last year's number, 2013, very
small percentage of numbers, and
2014 we are basically faced with
a limited gathering issue.
From Nevada's standpoint, we
can't-- our ability to effect
the change on that is harder
because we don't control that.
That's at the national level.
Trust us, our national folks are
truly aware of this.
And we've been pushing very hard
that we have to address this
issue.
We have to take care of this
issue.
We've gone out at the Washington
national level for requests for
proposals for additional holding
capacities, facilities, but
because of the drought no one
has bid.
We haven't gotten any interest.
So we're trying-- trust us, we
are really trying to do that.
And the budget has been limiting
to us from that standpoint
because 60% of our budget right
now is definitely cost to hold
those animals.
We're trying to figure out ways
how we can get animals out of
the facilities.
So if we can get them into those
prisons, it frees up some space
but we're also trying to get
animals out of facilities to
reduce our costs, that 60%
long-term holding costs of the
animals so we can do more
proactive things.
It's a conundrum.
We don't have space to put
animals.
It's eating our budgets.
If we can get some of those
animals to some other place then
we'll reduce the budget to do
on-range stuff but we can't
replace animals we remove with
other animals to put back in
because then it defeats the
purpose of what we're trying to
do as far as reduce the costs.
So it's very tough.
It's very tough.
I got one over here and then
I'll come back to you and back
to you.
Yes?
>> One of your remarks-- or
goals was determine how many
horses are ecologically
sustainable on western ranges.
Okay.
We have HMAs now.
We have AMLs that were set up.
Supposedly this is scientific
stuff was done in the past.
Are you proposing to increase
the size of HMAs or go outside
the boundaries of HMAs in your
study?
>> Unfortunate I don't-- I have
not seen the Bureau's response
to the NAS reports at this time
but I know they have addressed
that.
I would say-- going beyond the
HMA will require a Land Use Plan
amendment, we have to do public
comment to do that.
Subsequently if we're going to
reduce our HMA area we will have
to do a Land Use Plan.
I think that's one of the things
they're talking about in
Washington, to do a programmatic
response and what the
Appropriate Management Level
should be for horses.
I think our budget will weigh in
heavily as far as where we can
go with the horses on how many
and how little.
>> But then the only thing
you're going to be using for a
management tool in the interim
period is the decrease of
domestic stock on ranges to make
up the difference, right?
>> To protect the rangelands?
>> And protect yourselves from
having-- being responsible to
take the excess horses off as
well.
>> So, yes, it is truly easier
for us to work with the
permittee as and have your
cattle removed at a certain time
or grazing cycle.
Definitely easier for that.
Because of the long-term, we
have no place to put the horses.
That's our big conundrum.
We have no good places to go.
I'm honest with you on this, we
don't have a place to put horses
at this point in time.
>> If I could-- one of the
other comments was that with the
declining number of animals and
range health, what animals
numbers are declining?
It can't be the horses.
You just told us they go up by
25% a year.
>> So we are-- as far as right
now-- some of horses seem to be
in good body condition.
So we're talking about over the
course of the year as the
drought and forage and water
starts disappearing we
anticipate seeing horses giving
into the leaner body conditions
and then we'll have to address
what do we do with those horses?
Once they get into that
condition, the horses are either
going to die on their own, make
it through, and so hopefully we
get some forage or water, and
those are tough decisions we'll
have to ask, what do we do
humanely with those animals that
will suffer at that point.
Did that answer your question?
>> More or less.
>> Probably less.
>> Raul, I'm really going to
step out there.
As you say that there's no more
room, it's on the taxpayers'
back in regards to funding,
making the hard decisions,
Department of Interior, it is a
political-- you know, it is a
fire starter big time, but I'm
going to step out there, and
when you talk about-- I don't
know if there is a humane way so
far as a slaughterhouse.
If it can be somewhat-- I think
it could be-- economically
viable if there was a slaughter
facility, and, you know, monitor
the way it should be monitored,
but we have an opportunity, the
U.S. has an opportunity, so far
as exporting to third world
countries where there's a need
for food, other European
countries it is served in
restaurants.
But it's a political fire bed,
and that's where when the rubber
he meets the road, those
decisions to be made.
It cannot continue the way it
is.
I know it's not popular.
I know there are lawsuits.
Take New Mexico
It's off, it's on.
But it has-- this decisions
have to be made by the
Department of Interior and
because it's-- it's on the
taxpayers' backs and it's not
working.
So food for thought, and I know
that that's probably not very
popular--
>> Food for thought?
>> No pun intended.
I apologize.
No pun intended.
And even talking to Tanya so far
as sovereign nations, whether or
not if they have the ability to
get started with something like
that.
Anyhow.
>> I definitely agree with
everything you say.
We know it's a tough one.
And I-- I believe this will be
a year where we'll probably see
more actions than we've had in
past years.
It's going to require more than
just the Department of Interior
to wrestle with this at the end
of the day.
>> Absolutely.
>> And I can't say-- what I
found out over the past year is
that our sovereign nations have
actually have more horses on
their range than we do on public
range.
So I was really surprise to do
hear that, to the tune of maybe
100,000 horses on native lands.
I need to go over here first.
I see what you're doing, getting
up, moving-- we're going to run
out of chairs up here quickly.
Was there a question--
>> Raul, if I understood that
slide right, it showed that
there was only 46 horses
fertility-- given fertility
control last year?
>> In Nevada.
>> In Nevada.
Well, knowing there's no holding
facilities to put them in
[inaudible] doubling every four
years, how come there isn't more
fertility control being done.
>> There's definitely plan.
That's one of the NAS report
recommendations and I know
Washington is like all over that
trying to figure out-- that's
why we're putting out that
proposal to hopefully get the
pharmaceutical companies to come
up with a drug that will be more
persistent over time than what
we've had in the past.
Those tools we've had in the
past haven't to this date
brought us the effectiveness
we've been looking for that the
PZP is good on small horses
where you can get to small herds
but in the case of Nevada where
we have wide-ranging herds, big
numbers, I don't think it's
quite as effective on those
herds because we just can't get
to them and treat them.
In Nevada's case we focus on
removing horses as much as we
could last year versus treating
animals.
But now we don't have that
option to remove, and as far as
treating animals, PZB this is
the time to do it now,
wintertime.
If we do it in the summertime we
are wasting time.
That's not effective.
And it still requires money to
do that.
It still takes a helicopter,
bait and trap techniques to
bring animals in in order to
treat them which kind of gets
into our budget question.
Here and then here.
>> Back to a far simpler
question to address is the
temporary watering.
If citizens were provided with,
say, troughs that they could
take out and put in the range
and a couple tanks that would
foot in the back of a pickup--
put in the back of a pickup,
people could check out for a
week or so, I know that citizens
would step up.
People have asked me about
things like this, about our town
providing the troughs and tanks.
We just don't have the budget.
But if the BLM could provide us
with those tanks and troughs, we
would get them out to citizens,
and as far as this year, that
watering problem would be
solved.
>> That's a good comment to
bring up in your break-out
sessions about figuring how can
we do that.
Who provides what?
Who would actually do it?
What are the funding constraints
associated with that?
And BLM managers can help talk
about any other issues that
might need to be addressed in
order to do that.
That's what I want to hear.
>> Volunteers would do it.
It's simply matter of the
troughs and tanks.
>> Appreciate that.
>> Also there's not going to be
any emergency gathers?
Is that correct?
>> If we have to do emergency
gathers it's going to be for
public health and safety,
nuisance animals, kind--
animals going onto private
ground.
>> So I'm going the other way
with Larry's thing about the
courage.
It's going to take a lot of
courage to deal with the public
outcry, the massive drought and
dead horses.
Is there some budget set aside
for a guy that's going to do
nothing but explain this to the
public?
Because there's going to kind of
have to be.
It's going to come to--
>> Part of our summit last week
we talked about the outreach,
the public communications plan.
We know this is going to be big.
We want to make sure our
Washington Office folks are
aware of what we're going to do
in Nevada.
We told our Washington Office
folks Nevada can't wait.
We've got to act.
We have to do things.
We're going to give them every
opportunity to say here's what
we're going to do.
But don't study it forever.
We've got to take some action
here.
And we delivered that message
last week, and they heard us,
and that's why I say, you know,
the outreach internally as well
as externally is just going to
be a big challenge for us.
Again, and then over here, and
over here.
Let me do a quick check.
Megan first.
Thank you.
>> Question: one, you talked
about priority of possible
removal with dealing with either
drought, safety issues
[inaudible] property.
Does that include other private
property rights like water and
those sorts of things?
>> As relates to horses?
>> Uh-huh.
>> That's a good question.
>> I'll follow up with you next
week on that.
>> There's a lot of private
water out there and we have a
lot of horses.
We're going to have to
prioritize.
>> Okay.
>> We're going to have to
prioritize.
>> I'll follow up with you next
week on that.
One other question is relation
to volunteer watering and that
sort of stuff, which I think is
great.
Again, that's another issue of
whose water are they pumping to
put in the troughs.
Is it something from town,
municipalities are donating or
do they own the water rights or
[inaudible]
>> I would like to put it to the
Tri-RAC here today.
The three RACs together would
like to make a statement
[inaudible] to the I think it
would be a very powerful
statement is all three RACs in
Nevada made a statement about
[inaudible] having any gathers
[inaudible] that it's a cowardly
decision rather than a
[inaudible]
>> Do you have a question over
there?
>> You put a proposal to the
group here.
Maybe you'll talk about it at
your break-out sessions.
I know-- where did I leave off?
>> Just to follow up on that
suggestion, which is a positive
suggestion, if it would help you
in budget allocation at the D.C.
level, then I would certainly be
supporting-- support doing
that.
If it wouldn't, then I'm not
sure what good it would do.
I mean, I wouldn't call it a
cowardly decision.
I think they're in a real bind,
and I understand that, but if
the three RACs could send a
letter to the BLM Director, I
guess we've got to go through
the State Director, but
saying-- you know, just
supporting that you get some
funding to address the dire
situation.
>> I definitely think there's
value to it.
If you don't say anything,
they'll say we never heard
anything from you guys.
I think there is value to
putting it on paper and seeing
where it goes.
I think it's a good discussion,
personally.
>> Raul, I know there's been a
lawsuit that the farm Bureau and
Nevada association [inaudible]
and where the process is going
to go [inaudible]
>> We've got the lawsuit filed
on December 30th.
Right now our lawyers are
looking at it right now and
preparing a response to it, but
the nexus of the lawsuit really
was, BLM, you're not following
the act.
You know, you're not following
the act.
You need to take care of those
animals.
It did point out clearly when
you remove horses from the range
you either sell them, you adopt
them, but it says there's
nowhere in the act that says you
should be paying for long-term
holding facilities like we've
been doing with that.
So basically what they're saying
is that you should put those
animals down if you can't sell
them or you can't adopt them.
Of course, the impact to the
rangeland and wildlife and
private lands and all that stuff
was part of it.
But in a nutshell they want us
to follow the act.
So our solicitor is kind of
looking at that right now and
preparing a response.
[inaudible] I just though they
got it in their hands.
They're looking at it and
however lawyers do their stuff.
>> I had one follow-up question.
Say come April the long-term
holding facilities, those
contracts haven't been renewed
and you're short, what are some
of the options BLM may be faced
with?
>> Good question.
Very good question.
You know, I've been talking to
Amy, Washington definitely needs
to discuss with the budget we
have this year what do we do in
case some folks decide not to
renew their contracts?
What are we going to do?
That will be definitely a topic
of discussion at the executive
leadership TEAM meeting in
March.
But we all recognize that as
being a big, big issue.
>> I just want-- as far as
hauling water goes and stuff, I
want also to say that if you're
going to move these horses to
outside their HMAs, in other
words, you're looking for more
feed, that's why you're hauling
water to them, and you just want
to be really careful, that
you're just scattering horses.
>> That's a good point.
That's not our intent.
We don't really want to do that
because horses aren't supposed
to be out there in the first
place.
But those also will be that
case-by-case situation.
We have to look at what the
horses are doing.
Can we put them back in the HMA?
Does water do anything if
there's no forage?
That's why I say the whole
watering piece is tricky.
There has to be a bridge ideally
to get them from point A to
point B so once they get to
point B they're good.
If you're just taking care of it
and there's no outcome at the
end, those are some tough
choices we will have to make as
far as why are we watering it.
Does it just feel good we're
watering the animals?
The impact of watt your Inc. the
animals-- if there is forage
outside the HMA in another spot
obviously impacts private land
users in that area that didn't
have to deal with horses in the
first place.
So we want to be very cognizant
of how we water horses.
>> Because we're-- there-- as
a grazing, we're already in
enough bad shape we don't need
to move horses outside where
they're supposed to be already.
>> I can talk sage grouse for
the rest of my time here a
little bit.
I'm not sure that will generate
nearly as much as the horses as
they're still-- if there's
still more horses we can go with
that.
I think sage grouse might be
quick.
I think we're kind of up on
that.
Okay.
>> What is your coordination
with other agencies like U.S.
Fish&Wildlife Service with
regards to ESA species and wild
horse gathering.
Are they supporting your efforts
as far as trying to maintain
healthy ecosystems or how is
that working?
>> The Fish&Wildlife
Service-- I know their comments
they provided to us on the sage
grouse EIS did talk about horses
and our ability to take care of
horses.
So they' very concerned about
BLM's ability to manage horses
within our AML level.
So they are very supportive of
whatever options we can to
address this issue.
With that, let's go right into
sage grouse and we'll see where
we're at.
As I mentioned, I'm going to
talk about Greater Sage-grouse
and then roll into Bi-State and
then we can open it up for
questions.
Just a quick picture of the Land
Use Plans that are going to be
amended by the sage grouse
planning effort here in Nevada
and Northeast California.
Time frames, as you guys know,
the comment period closed
January 29th for Nevada's,
California's, Utah, Idaho's,
Montana's.
Oregon is still open until
February 20th.
We're looking at having a
proposed RMP completed by this
summer with the goal of records
of decision being signed by this
fall.
That would then give
Fish&Wildlife Service the time
necessary they need to take a
look at our plans and evaluate
whether or not to list the bird
or not.
I should mention the Rocky
Mountain states are kind of on a
similar time frame, and this
kind of is a big coordinated
effort to get these plans
together so Fish&Wildlife
Service can cumulatively take a
look at all the states' plans
and assess the impacts of those
plans to the meeting of the goal
of keeping the bird and its
habitat healthy.
As mentioned earlier, we have
15,000 comments on the
Nevada-California plan, 97% were
form letters.
We are in the process of
beginning that analyzation of
the responses-- analyzations of
the responses we got.
We're hoping to have that
completed by April.
And the comments in the RACs
will be reviewed.
Then if we have any questions
we'll be following up with you
guys for clarification.
I do want to thank the RAC for
their efforts in the past not
only for providing comments to
the plan but also help
developing those sage grouse
standards that we put into the
plan.
So thank you very much for that.
A little bit about the
Governor's alternative, it's one
of the six alternatives in our
draft EIS.
The state's updated portions of
the state plan, we continue to
engage the governor's team in
ironing out some of the issues
under their alternatives.
That's been very good.
We're getting very close to
having agreements on where
things need to be from the
analysis standpoint of the plan.
So we're meeting basically twice
per month with them to address
topics.
We're really getting
clarification on the
conservation-- mitigation
credit system.
We're getting further
clarification on what does it
mean to avoid, minimize and
mitigate in their plan.
So that effort is really going
good and I think it's been very
positive.
We have recently completed a
sage grouse map with USGS's
help, Dr.Pete Coats which
further defined sage grouse
areas in the State of Nevada,
sagebrush ecosystem council of
the Governor's team basically
bought off and approved that
map, and BLM will be looking at
amending our interim management
guidance that we have to use
that USGS map.
So we'll be looking at updating
our interim guidance and getting
that out to field folks.
We have a few things we're
working out with Pete Coats
right now on the map.
So it's getting close to be in
shape.
So next steps... public comment
analysis happens February,
probably early April.
Response to public comments will
be coming out in April.
Cooperative agency review will
occur in May.
Final EIS will be July.
Protest period and Governor's
consistency will occur in July
and August and Record of
Decision shooting for September
2014.
This is a very aggressive
schedule, and we're really
trying to hold to that September
'14 date because Fish&Wildlife
Service is telling us they would
like a year before they make
their proposed listing decision
in September of 2015.
So engagement from the RACs,
we will continue to keep you
guys updated as the EIS process
continues over the next few
months.
I definitely see when we get
into the implementation of the
plan a lot of work to be done
there.
I enthuse you guys have heard me
say this in the past, completing
the plan is really the easy
part.
It's the implementation of the
plan that's going to be the
challenging part.
We need to make sure we start
off right.
We need to make sure we have
processes in place to make sure
that what we're doing on the
ground is actually having a
positive effect.
That's going to be monitoring.
We know folks are going to be
looking at us and seeing how
we're doing and seeing if we
stumble out of the blocks so
they can drag us back into court
whether BLM or Fish&Wildlife
Service.
So the implementation in my
opinion is critical.
That's where the rubber meets
the road.
As we get further along in the
planning process and we see how
things are going, I do see we'll
need help with some form of the
implementation.
Adaptive Management is kind of a
key component in the plan.
How do we address new science?
How do we adapt based on
monitoring data we're finding
when we do projects on the
ground.
You know, that's just going to
be something new for us, we
always say Adaptive Management.
We have to really mean it this
time if we're going to be
successful.
That's the next step.
Basically what do we do with the
county plans?
We'll have the consistency check
with various county plans.
Elements of Elko county plan
were incorporated into the
agency alternatives as well as
the state alternative.
I know raven control has been a
big topic, particularly in the
county.
From BLM's perspective we don't
hunt animals but we can do the
mitigation of best management
practices on our habitat
improvement projects.
And that's already kind of
Standard Operating Procedure for
us.
So we have designed base--
basically put some required
design features in there
reemphasizing when we do habitat
improvement projects they're
going to make sure they don't
encourage ravens or hawks or
whatever to come into the area.
Some of the other alternatives
we did receive were things like
a hunting alternative.
Again, BLM, Forest Service don't
deal with hunting, so it wasn't
followed through in the draft
plan.
Elko county plan mentioned about
letting the bird become listed.
We can't do that.
That does not meet the purpose
and scope of this EIS effort.
That was not forwarded onto the
draft.
A lot of Elko county's plans
were already contained in either
alternative A, B or E.
So there is a lot of their stuff
in the plan.
There was a proposal to increase
grazing.
Again, we don't have any science
that says increased grazing is
going to benefit the bird or its
habitats.
And I talked about the predation
part.
A lot of stuff-- particularly
Ravens, as far as why there's so
men Ravens, the state has better
control, local government has
better control of that, whether
it's land pits, removing dead
animals off the highways.
Those aren't BLM action items.
So-- I know those agencies are
aware of those things.
So that's where I think we'll
make a lot of progress on
dealing with that.
Bi-States, again to show you
where-- the hash mark is
basically the California-Nevada
stateline there.
Bi-State, genetically distinct
population of the Greater
Sage-grouse.
The comment period on the draft
Bi-State sage grouse plan that
the Humboldt-Toiyabe forest has
the lead on closed January
17th.
As mentioned earlier when Amy
was talking the U.S.
Fish&Wildlife Service has
extended their comment period on
the proposed listing decision of
the bird and identification of
critical habitat until February
10th.
These are the planning documents
that will be basically amended
by this planning effort.
Basically everything but the
bishop, California RMP Resource
Management Plan.
That plan basically the
conservation measures they have
in the plan, Fish&Wildlife
Service are saying is adequate
at this point.
So they're not doing a plan
amendment.
As mentioned earlier we had 170
comments on the Bi-State, which
surprised me, not that much.
But the general themes from
those 170 comments centered
around range management, OHV
restrictions, locatable/leasable
minerals, livestock grazing and
the economic effects.
Next steps... again, we'll be
analyzing comments and
developing a comprehensive
response to the comments.
Late spring, early summer the
BLM and Fish&Wildlife Service
will be completing the plan.
And then the Record of Decision
is being scheduled for
completion this September.
We are continuing with working
with the local area Working
Group.
They have been very instrumental
in developing the action planned
an helping prioritize those
treatments that need to be done
within that action plan.
Their efforts have resulted in a
budget that we--
Fish&Wildlife Service says
that if we can get roughly 30
million bucks over the next 10
years to address Bi-State
actions that would be very
favorable as they go through
their listing proposals.
So what the executive committee
and the agencies are doing, now
that we know that figure, the
Fish&Wildlife Service has kind
of said 30 million over the next
10 years seems like a good place
to start from a budget
standpoint.
We've raised that level up for
all agencies, not just BLM,
Forest Service, NRCS, Washington
Office folks to hopefully secure
that budget starting next year.
So we kind of raised the flag
this is what it's going to take.
We're going to continue to
leverage funds with our existing
partners.
There's a lot of private mix in
the Bi-State country.
A lot of important habitat on
the private grounds that is
needed for the Bi-State.
We're had a lot of willing
landowners working with to
security some conservation
easements with them.
We'll continue to do that.
Of course, we'll continue to
look at a landscape level
approach on how we deal with the
Bi-State across stateline.
So any questions?
Yep?
Questions on sage grouse?
>> Back to the [inaudible]
Letters that have been received,
presumably a big chunk-- a
chunk of those are form letters
or check a card kind of thing.
That aside, it suggests there's
a substantive volume of
comments.
What mechanisms is the Bureau
using [inaudible] and the
staffer involved to ensure those
comments are adequately
considered [inaudible]
Credible amount of work in a
very short period of time and
[inaudible]
>> Good question.
The good news, about 15,000
comments, in the fact most were
form letters.
Kind of got it, right?
It was like 2,000 of them say
the same thing, we don't need to
look at all 2,000.
I don't know at this point of
those 15,000 how much were kind
of individual substantive
comments but definitely a much
smaller percentage.
So that's what we work with.
We work all the different
comments we got.
It's not a numbers game.
But all the different
substantive comments we got and
analyze that and work through
that.
I was actually surprised it
wasn't more than that, honestly.
So I think it's a very doable,
but again to meet that
aggressive schedule it just
means all hands on deck to go
through all those comments,
individual substantive comments,
and make sure we have addressed
all of them.
So I do think it's doable.
>> [inaudible] I think the Elko
board an excellent letter, and
from my life experience it's
factual and the recommendations
are definitely valid.
Tuesday on Nye county declared
the raven as nuisance bird.
As a predator on the sage
grouse.
And a step to help stabilize and
increase or-- or reduce the
threat to the sage grouse
population.
Do you consider this a viable
means of-- a viable remedy?
>> So since the raven is
protected by the Migratory Bird
Act, that definitely-- they'll
be working with Fish&Wildlife
Service on that one.
Again, from BLM's perspective,
that's just not in our purview
from the management perspective.
So no doubt probably
Fish&Wildlife Service are
engaged in talking about that.
That just came out this week?
>> At the Tuesday morning
meeting.
>> Anything else?
>> Raul, just kind of a process
question... from what you just
indicated, the Record of
Decision for [inaudible]
>> Correct.
>> I don't remember exactly, but
I think the Service is mandated
to make their decision sometime
in 2015, summer of 2015.
>> September of 2015.
>> September 2015.
Do you know, are they going to
look at these distinct areas
like Nevada, northeastern
California, are they going to
look at the-- they have to
somehow look at the whole thing
because the act says that the
animal has to be threatened in
all or a significant portion of
its range.
So do you know if they're going
to, I guess, look at them all at
the same time?
>> That's why we want to make
sure we get all our planes both
in the Great Basin states and
Rocky Mountain states finished
kind of close to the same time
so that Fish&Wildlife can take
all our plans and look at it
from the range-wide perspective.
Fish clearly said in the past
all states have to come across
with a palatable plan that's
going to work.
It can't one state does good and
another state does bad.
However, they're also letting us
say that the states high on
their list they're watching are
Nevada, Oregon, Idaho and
Wyoming.
Those are the key states that
really need to make sure we do a
good job with it because that's
where the biggest habitat and
populations of birds are at.
So we know the Nevada plan--
based on what I'm hearing out
every comments on
Fish&Wildlife Service on our
plan, the Nevada-California one,
we did a pretty good job with
our alternative B but we still
have a little more work to do.
Anything else?
>> I have one.
A big part of this, I mean, this
projected date for the Record of
Decision, comes right about with
your budgeting time and your new
year, fiscal year.
I mean, we see all over the
place that you don't have a lot
of money to do a lot of things.
This is going to require a lot
of money, you know, a lot of
manpower, because if you don't
have the monitoring backup for
things-- I mean, are you having
an all hands on deck approach to
going after the budget?
I mean, it's going to be a key
component to this because you're
not going-- we are-- that's
where it's all going to matter
once this goes through.
>> That's a good point.
I should mention the
Fish&Wildlife Service PECE
policy.
What that policy does is
Fish&Wildlife Service has to
respond to when they make a
listing decision, one, they have
to look to see if a plan for a
species has adequate regulatory
mechanisms.
In our case of the bird we're
talking about the sage grouse
EISs.
They're going to review that,
provide their comments and make
sure the conservation measures
and amount of habitat we're
protecting are adequate.
That's check one.
Check two, and where they've
lost-- Fish&Wildlife Service
has lost lawsuits in the past,
in the past they would say if
that plan on paper looked good,
and they say good enough for the
bird, we don't need to list it,
they have lost lawsuits because
the judges have said how do you
know that plan will be
implemented.
That's why I say implementation
is the harder part of the thing
which is a budget picture.
So basically the judges told
Fish you have to also consider
the budgetary resources that are
going to be brought to the table
to implementing the plan.
It's a two-step process.
PECE is a two-step process.
Definitely has been elevated up.
Definitely needs to-- I think
Fish&Wildlife Service is going
to want to see a commitment from
the agencies in the fiscal year
'15 budget towards meeting the
plan.
So that definitely has been
brought to the top.
Back in Washington they're
talking about FY '15.
That's what we do in Washington,
is budget projections all the
time.
That's another good comment.
If the RAC wanted to address
that a little bit, I think it
would be very beneficial.
I see a hand over here?
Fish issue on time?
All right.
So if there's nothing else, I
think we'll take a break.
How long do you want?
Until 10:30.
Then we'll talk about recreation
related stuff.
You can catch me during the
break if you have any other
questions.
Thank you.