Carson Valley Chamber of Commerce member luncheon
PNMTA members with interest in the subject are invited to join the luncheon — don’t forget to sign up using the link below

The August Membership Luncheon will look at the upcoming release of the BLM’s Resource Management Plan, with a special look at the plans and the items that Carson City BLM has considered related to Douglas County and the surrounding area.

We will be joined by Colleen Sievers, the Acting Associate District Manager and RMP Project Manager in the BLM Carson City District. Don Holmstrom, the new Carson City District Acting District Manager, will also be joining us.

We’ll be treated to lunch at Jethro’s, and their luncheon offerings always get rave reviews.

View Calendar »

More info and sign-up »

Dear BRC Action Alert Subscriber,

The Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest has released the Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement (Revised DEIS) for the Greater Sage-grouse Bi-State Distinct Population Segment (Bi-state sage-grouse) Forest Plan Amendment. This Bi-state sage-grouse population occurs in portions of Lyon, Mineral, Esmeralda and Douglas counties in Nevada, and in portions of Alpine, Inyo, and Mono counties in California.

The Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest proposes to amend the Toiyabe National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) proposes to amend the BLM Carson City District and Tonopah Field Office Resource Management Plans to conserve, enhance and/or restore habitats to provide for the long-term viability of the Bi-state sage-grouse.

The management plan amendments will specifically enhance management direction for the Bi-state sage-grouse habitat. The amendments would add additional goals, objectives, standards, and guidelines to the existing management plans to address the key threats identified by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) in its October 28, 2013, proposal to list the Bi-state sage-grouse as threatened under the Endangered Species Act.

The Revised DEIS was developed to address public comments received on the August 2013 DEIS and to incorporate emerging science that will help guide restoration and habitat improvement projects. The Forest Service and BLM decided to prepare a Revised DEIS in April of 2014, after the USFWS announced the extension of the comment period for the proposed rule and has now delayed the listing decision to April of 2015.

The Revised DEIS displays the effects of the Modified Proposed Action (Alternative B – which is the preferred alternative), an alternative to the Proposed Action, the No Action alternative and Alternative C (the environmental alternative). The Revised DEIS will be available for public review and comment for 90 days following publication of the Notice of Availability in the Federal Register.

Of special note to the OHV community, Alternative B adopts a number of the managed OHV recommendations submitted by the BlueRibbon Coalition, with support from various NV and other OHV organizations. Those OHV standards and guidelines can be found on page 20 of the Revised DEIS.

OHV interests should review those proposed OHV management prescriptions with a special focus on any site-specific impacts they might have on existing casual and permitted OHV recreational activities.

The agencies are encouraging interested parties to review the Revised DEIS and provide input. After the 90-day comment period, the agencies will consider the comments provided, update the analysis and issue a Final EIS.  Based on the analysis in the Final EIS, the BLM and the Forest Service will issue separate Records of Decisions amending their respective management plans.

The Revised DEIS is available at http://www.fs.fed.us/nepa/fs-usda-pop.php/?project=40683, or a hard copy may be requested from the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest by contacting Susan Joyce at 775-355-5313.

Thanks in advance and, as always, if you have any questions or concerns, please contact BRC.

Don Amador

Western Representative

BlueRibbon Coalition

925-625-6287

The BlueRibbon Coalition (BRC) is a national non-profit organization that champions responsible recreation and encourages a strong conservation ethic and individual stewardship, while providing leadership in efforts to keep outdoor recreation alive and well — all sports; all trails. With members in all 50 states, BRC is focused on building enthusiast involvement with organizational efforts through membership, outreach, education

and collaboration among recreationists.

1-800-BLUERIB – www.BlueRibbonCoalition.Org

The latest meeting of the Nevada Commission on Off Highway Vehicles was held July 2, 2014.

The Commission continued working on language for the OHV Grant Regulations.

Language brought forth from the Regulations Committee meetings was discussed. Some of it was modified, then voted on by the full Commission. The resulting document will be sent to the Nevada State Legislative Bureau for legal scrutiny then brought back to the Commission to be presented in a public workshop.

The public workshop is where you and I get to comment on the Commissions ideas for how the State OHV grants are given out. This is the time for all of us to get involved.

 The grant regulations document should be posted on the NCOHV website prior to the  workshop. Dates and times of future meetings, and links to view the documents will be posted.

 For more information go to the Nevada Commission on Off Highway Vehicles website at nvohv.com.

Hi Folks,

Here are some of the high points for the recent sage grouse meeting:

1)The Record Courier put the wrong day in their article notifying the public that a meeting was going to happen.

2)Attendance was about 15 or 20 people.  The room was set up for hundreds..

3)We had about 5 speakers – Nate Littrell(PNMTA) , Bill Chernock(chamber of Commerce), John Helmer (PNMTA), and a few other concerned citizens

4)The topics that were brought up were common among the speakers

a.Economic impact – every speaker stressed this.  The article in the paper grossly underestimates the impact at a few million dollars.   Listing of the sage grouse as endangered will cost much more than that.

b.The draft report presented in wellington does not address economic impact, although it is a required topic.

c.Meetings:  there is a lot of dissatisfaction about how the meeting have been handled

i.      The wellington meeting – several speakers noted that the timing, location and notification of that meeting was awful.

ii.      Federal register – Ted Koch noted that notices were posted in the federal register as if that is really a good way to reach the public.  Nate noted on the record that posting in the federal register satisfies the legal requirements for notification, but is an ineffective method to reach the public.   We need accurate articles in the media if we are truly to be informed.

iii.      Cancellation of the previous meeting – no notice and no reason was given.   Again, this is unacceptable and this was noted in the record.

d.Mapping and Designation of critical habitat -There is no justification for the boundaries drawn on the maps for critical habitat.   The USF&W staffer acknowldeged that the west side of the pine nuts have never had a sage grouse population although the map shows the west side and a large portion of alpine county(!?!) as being critical habitat.   Nate mentioned the problems with the boundaries on the record.  This topic has also been addressed through written comments.   Overall, a serious look at  habitat designation boundaries is needed.  In general, the boundaries at this point are arbitrary.

e.The root need and motivation for this effort is political.  It was repeatedly noted that this effort is based in shaky science but has solid funding from the environmental lobbies.This is truly a battle of money and time.   Local citizens must stay engaged or we will lose all access to public lands.

f. Genetics  – the distinction of the “Bi-State” sage grouse as a separate species is arguable.  The genetic difference is minimal compared to normal sage grouse.  This was entered in the record.

5)News articles: after the meeting there was another sage grouse article from kurt kildebrand at the Record courier that had significant typos (again).  He left out a critical ‘not’ in reference to the impact from recreation.   Mr. Hildebrand either needs someone to proofread his work or he should stop writing articles.

Final verdict:if the purpose of this meeting was to engage the public, it was a failure.   There were not enough citizens there to really call the meeting ‘public’.  The people in the room were all the usual groups that have been engaged already.

Nate