-Certified Range Management Consultant Floyd Rathbun read from prepared comments on behalf of the Eureka County Public Lands Advisory Committee (PLAC). The purpose of his comments is to discuss the use of Northeastern Great Basin Area Standards and Guidelines in recent BLM Rangeland Health Assessments for Eureka County rangelands.

-Rathbun gave several examples of instances where the recent Rangeland Health Assessment varied from Standards and Guidelines. Those examples include:

Conformance Determinations which only identify livestock grazing and sometimes wild horse grazing as contributing factors to riparian problems.

Field notes which fail to identify streams or springs as perennial, ephemeral, or intermittent.

Failing to recognize encroachment of upland vegetation on riparian meadows

Not doing water quality sampling in accordance with State of Nevada standards

Making errors in blaming high fecal coliform counts on grazing when no livestock were present.

Inconsistencies in data analysis.

-Rathbun relayed the PLAC’s request that there are clear procedures and consistency in all reports; and technical training for people doing the work.Note - A complete copy of Mr. Rathbun’s statement is on file with the official copy of these minutes in the BLM Elko Field Office.

 

II. WATER QUALITY, PROPER FUNCTIONING CONDITION, AND RIPARIAN PANEL

Tom Porta – Nevada Department of Environmental Protection (NDEP), Bureau Chief of Water Quality Planning, echoed Floyd Rathbun’s remarks about water.

-Porta discussed what a water quality a program is, how it’s prepared, listing water, court decisions, and some of NDEP’s programs. Water quality standards include the use of the water, drinking, irrigation, wildlife, grazing, etc. Thirty years ago five people set these standards and that has changed. Standard, use is established, set standards of the water used. Numbers for use of the water, we are going through the water quality standards can go up or down we are setting new standards everyday, it is the state that sets the water quality standards. It is a very public and lengthy process that sets the standards – sometimes over a year. We take the information and revise if necessary and then we take it to the commission.

-Porta discussed there are many steps between a water sample and determining there’s a problem. He also talked about current court cases, SWANCC – Cook County versus Corps of Engineers

-Helen Hankins commented that BLM gives samples to NDEP under the 1992 Agreement.

-Porta said that NDEP sees if the sample is QAQC – i.e. were sampling protocols met? If samples were taken during drought or flood – they don’t count towards impairment [designation].

-Jon Hutchings asked Porta about the 303 List of Impaired Waters and what’s the difference between exceeding and making the list?

-Porta talked about methodology and total maximum daily loads, and non-point source pollution, non-point source is voluntary.

-Hutchings asked about the relationship between the State’s responsibility and Federal responsibility?

-Porta replied that per the Clean Water Act, it is the state’s responsibility to list the water with federal help providing samples.

-Dave Gaskin asked about new Arsenic MCL changes? New standard is 10 (?) out of tap in 2006.

-Porta discussed that they’re moving away from applying MCL to surface waters, except where there is an intake for drinking water, like the Truckee River. For areas were the water is not being used for human drinking, the MCL will probably not be applied. The state protects the ground water.Kent McAdoo, University of Nevada, Reno, Cooperative Extension in Elko, described his background and experience with riparian proper functioning condition (PFC). He described the national riparian team and the Nevada cadre – the goal is to get information to people on the ground. He described the team experience - I biologists, hydrologists, team approval, soil scientists, etc. When an assessment is made, need the permittee there. It is important to have functioning streams and PFC has to be a team approach.

Point 1 – Has to be a team approach.
What riparian areas are – transition between real wet and upland
It is – consistent measurement of physical function

Point 2 – Hydrology, Vegetation, & Soil/Landforms – 3 things, attributes
Rates physical functioning of streams for desired values

-McAdoo gave a powerpoint presentation about PFC – what it is and is not. PFC is a consistent assessment of the physical functioning of riparian wetlands areas.
PFC is not – desired condition
PFC is useful in watershed analysis
PFC is not – a monitoring method
PFC is a qualitative assessment on quantitative science in hydrology, soils, plant and animal biology for people with local knowledge

-The three stream types – perennial, intermittent/seasonal, and ephemeral. PFC is a 3-legged stool made up of Vegetation, Soil/Land Form, and Water. If it is not functioning properly, then one of three is out of kilter and the stream could be susceptible to degradation.

-Points from the presentation include:
-PFC describes a state of resiliency
-PFC rates physical functioning as the foundation for maintenance and recovery of desired values
-PFC isn’t desired future condition
-PFC helps prioritize restoration activities where the stream is "at risk"
-PFC helps determine the timing or correctness of management action
-PFC helps analyze management strategies and monitoring plans
-PFC isn’t a long term monitoring method but it strengthen a monitoring system
-PFC can reduce firePaul Blackburn, Resource Soil Scientist, Natural Resources Conservation Service discussed the importance of soils in PFC. He talked about lotic/lentic, attributes and processes, and potential and capability
-Lotic is running water habitat such as rivers, streams, and springs.
-Lenticis standing water habitat such as lakes, ponds, etc
-Attributes/processesare hydro-geomorphic, vegetation, Erosion/deposition, soils
-Potential and capability uses relic areas information and historic information; it’s important not overlook soils when doing PFC
-Potential is the highest ecological status a rip/wetland area can attain given no political, social or economical constraints
-Capability is the highest ecological status a rip/wetland area can attain given political, social, or economical constraints. Capability is less than potential
- In summary, interdisciplinary id teams must determine attributes and processes important to the lotic or lentic riparian area that is being assessed, and evaluate functionality based on potential and capability.

-Floyd Rathbun commented that all erosion is not bad, erosion is necessary for sediment down stream.

-Jon Hutchings asked if you must dig a hole to determine saturation? Answer YESSherm Swanson, University of Nevada, described his background and experience with PFC. PFC is a common language that puts things into a debatable form. This will allow people to do positive thing on rip/wetland. The PFC team must be interdisciplinary and interagency and hierarchical. Dynamics are important

-We can’t protect the BLM or private lands, we have to develop a common way to look at the watershed. Cooperation is needed for restoration. The PFC is based on the physical function of the system. Each stream is looked at based on what is the potential physical function of the stream, transport water, sediment, capture and store water in riparian area. Water is a very valuable resource in Nevada - this is the driest state. The question is this water going to run off or go to ground water. PFC is developing a common vision of what we want our watersheds to be.

-Patsy Tomera commented that years ago the Corps of Engineers wanted small and deep streams and used Dixie Creek as an example. Tomera and Swanson discussed Dixie Creek.

-Helen Hankins noted that the active stream channels which are cooler, and properly function help the Lahontan cutthroat trout.

-David Stine commented about wild horses - that many springs are stomped, aspens denuded, vegetation eaten, and lentic areas being hammered by wild horses.

 

10:00 a.m. Chairwoman Tomera announced the Public Comment period is open

-Gary McCuin commented that PFC is being done on streams that are not possible – springs and seeps

-Helen Hankins asked should we do PFC on springs and seeps?10:10 a.m. Chairwoman Tomera called for a break

 

10:20 a.m. Chairwoman Tomera called the meeting back to order-Tomera opened the Question and Answer session for the Panel Members – Porta, McAdoo, Swanson, and Blackburn for the next 30 minutes

-Gary McCuin’s restated his question – Are we applying water quality standards for flowing streams to seeps, water tanks, pipelines – are they lentic springs and seeps?

-Kent McAdoo answered Yes we apply PFC to lentic areas if done by interdisciplinary team. Pipelines and water troughs would not qualify as lentic areas – they would not have the proper soils

-Jerry Smith stated No, in BLM we should not do PFC on pipelines and water troughs.

-Art Gale commented that this is a concern about being dinged on something we built

-Jim Bowman added overflow in troughs as well.

-Ken Buckingham stated there were two instances of water troughs in the Battle Mountain Assessment.

-Sherm Swanson talked about lentic functionality.

-Barry Perryman noted we have BLM management folks and the Nevada cadre. PFC is a tool. If you have ten stream reaches that are NOT functional, the reaction is to what? It’s to manage them to get better.

-Gene Kolkman responded that you might walk away from them and prioritize the ones that are fixable.

-Jerry Smith added we may do a management practice to help concentrate on Functioning at Risk areas.

-Gene Kolkman commented that PFC originally was a quick tool to assess. PFC is not a causal analysis tool - not what caused the at-risk or problem.

-Barry Perryman asked if the default goal is to improve streams from …. Are we trying to impose management on systems that are in a natural system? Default Goal may be wrong.

-Sherm Swanson added that in the ID teams, it’s required to make a note – i.e. why a gully.

-Jon Hutchings asked can you capture the PFC assessment by recording the number of miles of functioning or non-functioning?

-Sherm Swanson said it was not the original intent. Learning is in the notes taken; understanding that is created in process, not the rating.

-Chairwoman Tomera asked do you take into account the public use of the land such as the impact of ATVs and off-highway vehicles?

-Kent McAdoo replied there is a question (#5) about uplands. Need to write in the description. The questions make you think and analyze with the team.

-Paul Blackburn commented that speaking for soil scientists, you have to dig a hole and look at the soil – it is a history book, tells the story of the processes and potential; if it’s blown out every year, the soils will tell you.

-Jon Hutchings commented that there are limitations of PFC. If you misdiagnose potential, then process doesn’t work. BLM is not doing it – he spent time in field last summer. A leaky water trough with sedges was evaluated.

-Sherm Swanson noted that the team members should be at journeyman level, have been in the country a while, and can make a qualitative assessment. If you have summer temps doing the work, be careful with what you do with the data.

-Gary McCuin said there is a disconnect between what PFC is supposed to be and how agencies use it. BLM does use it as a grading took to make assessments. Water quality is done on seeps, springs, and stock ponds.

-Tom Porta pointed out that Lake Tahoe and Lake Meade are protected differently – Meade is artificial, the water should be free from debris; it’s a public process – what is appropriate to use on this water. Depends on water and what the uses are. D List; 303 List – they use the last as a planning tool. If water impaired then they look at uses.

-Chairwoman Tomera asked Porta do they train people to do water sampling?

-Tom Porta responded that Yes, his offices defines and uses citizens monitoring as a flag – if critical data shows problems, then his office has more resources in concerns with metals

-Floyd Rathbun noted we do PFC to describe what we see on the landscape, not to measure.

-Gene Kolkman commented that it is compliance versus enforcement - use some water quality standard to identify problems. We must be able to go out on land is a user friendly way

-Tom Porta asked the BLM managers to NDEP your high priority streams.

-Helen Hankins noted that citizen gathered data is public information

 

11:05 a.m. Chairwoman Tomera called for a break

11:15 a.m. Chairwoman Tomera called the meeting back to order

 

III. Water Quality, Proper Functioning Condition, and Riparian Policy and Procedure - BLM Panel

-Helen Hankins described that when BLM does allotment evaluations, PFC is only one piece of information; it should include other information such as what’s happened on the allotment. BLM doesn’t just use PFC. Hankins agreed with Tom Porta regarding water quality, every BLM Field Office has a hydrologist and it helps the state. It is not BLM’s function to decide if water quality meets state standards - BLM cannot enforce water quality standards. BLM should look at all information on an allotment evaluation and should do this with the permittee.

-Jerry Smith said there are concerns about water quality and PFC. There’s a lot of information that BLM collects. Our evaluations are open to the public, they go all over. We set AML and review our grazing permits. We try to implement best practices to meet standards for rangeland health.

-Gene Kolkman remarked we need to review the training we give our field crews and review data standards and data adequacy. We’re losing more country to cheatgrass, weeds, pinion junipers, and losing sagebrush faster that we can inventory it. We need to get points of agreement.

-General discussion about fire exclosures on Trout Creek.

-Floyd Rathbun commented that there is a shift away from Allotment Management Plans. We need to get away from the regulatory approach and back to multiple use plans

-Helen Hankins remarked that she doesn’t agree that decisions are not multiple-use oriented. BLM is looking at the process to make it simpler.

-Jon Hutchings said that Allotment Evaluations that come out only focus in on grazing and AML, and ignore rest of the issues. The other issues are not being dealt with on the landscape. If you change grazing, it may depend on other issues. BLM only fixes a small part of the problem – grazing compliance – suggest using the RAC as a forum. He wants to work with BLM to fix things

-Jerry Smith commented that BLM plugs in a lot of information into our assessments – we have a lot going on – sage grouse, pinion juniper encroachment, sage brush – very real rangeland health issues. We must look realistically, not enough money or labor.

-Ken Buckingham remarked that the only thing that gets implemented is the livestock change.

-Jerry Smith added that the Great Basin Restoration Initiative (GBRI) is where we want to make changes

-Chairwoman Tomera asked about the impact of lawsuits on BLM?

-Gene Kolkman replied there are delays and they costs millions – the lawsuits are a long-term issue – BLM needs to evaluate whole watersheds. I have 15-20,000 acres ready to go, waiting on the right conditions for prescription. Fire two years ago went to Utah. We have fewer options. Public perception of fire in an issue.

-Ken Buckingham asked is it fair to only fix one causal factor and not the others?

-Jon Hutchings remarked that we need to work together and not butt heads over allotment evaluations.

-Dave Stine said he read the Diamond Gather EA He wants to see PFC assessments that include a horse EA – has impacted which springs are hammered in the EA

-Jerry Smith said that BLM didn’t have all the data standards and information then.

-Ken Buckingham discussed range improvements - BLM needs help; permittees use equipment and BLM provides seed, cooperate, more communication with the permittee is needed. Benson used the JD Ranch example, never got the seeding done. He wants to cost share. Nothing been done now and the land needs help

-General discussion about the impacts and costs of litigation.12:05 p.m. Chairwoman Tomera announced the break for lunch

1:00 p.m. Chairwoman Tomera called the meeting back to order-Jon Hutchings – wants to develop some outcomes we can follow through on:

-Art Gale remarked this has been the most educational meeting we’ve had in two years.

-Chairwoman Tomera asked Helen Hankins to send out the existing BLM/NDEP MOU to the RAC for review

-Gary McCuin asked if Department of Agriculture could be part of the review on the MOU.

-Jeff White asked if the state engineer’s office should be included, water rights needs to be involved.

-General discussion about including State Engineer’s office in the review. Gary McCuin suggested to not mix water quality and water rights issues.

-Dave Gaskin remarked that per Tom Porta, there is concern about consistency among BLM offices.

-Helen Hankins stated that she will provide a formal report at the next RAC meeting.

-Gene Kolkman said we need to keep Eureka County PLAC involved.

-Gary McCuin suggested involving/informing the Executive Committee of Coordinated Resource Management – Bob Abbey is the chairman; they are meeting in March and looking at GBRI. He asked for a letter from the RAC to the Executive Committee of Coordinated Resource Management, asking for support of GBRI

-Helen Hankins stated she would call Tom Porta tomorrow and asked for feedback from the RAC on the MOU. Mike Brown will send out the MOU to RAC members and ask for comment.

 

IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING