Agenda. 1. Call to Order Ed Partee, Nevada Department of Wildlife-- Call to order at 5:00 pm, Introductions around the room

Transcription

1 Team Members: General Sportsman, Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, Humboldt County Commission and Manage Wildlife Advisory Board, Farming, BLM Permittee, US Forest Service Permittee, Humboldt County Commissioners, Bureau of Land Management, US Forest Service, US Fish & Wildlife, Nevada Department of Wildlife Staff to the Meeting: Ed Partee Nevada Board of Wildlife Commissioners Humboldt County Elk Management Sub-plan Coordination and Oversight Team Meeting Winnemucca Inn Conference Room 741 W. Winnemucca Blvd. Winnemucca, NV MINUTES Tuesday, June 20, 2017 / 5:00 p.m. Agenda NOTE: The Chairman, in his discretion or upon request, may take items out of order; combine items for consideration by the Committee; and may remove items from the agenda at any time. TIME LIMITS: Public Comment will be taken on every action item after discussion but before action on each item, and are limited to three minutes per person. Public comment will also be taken on certain Informational items when indicated and at the end of the meeting for items not on the agenda. Persons may not allocate unused time to other speakers. Persons are invited to submit written comments on items or attend and make comment during the meeting and are asked complete a speaker card and present it to the Recording Secretary. To ensure the public has notice of all matters the Committee will consider, Committee members may choose to not respond to public comments in order to avoid deliberation on topics not listed for action on the agenda. FORUM RESTRICTIONS AND ORDERLY BUSINESS: The viewpoint of a speaker will not be restricted, but reasonable restrictions may be imposed upon the time, place and manner of speech. Irrelevant and unduly repetitious statements and personal attacks which antagonize or incite others are examples of public comment that may be reasonably limited. COT Members Kevin Gallio, Lyle Avey, Mike Sperry, Hank Dufurrena, Tom Cassinelli, Ron Cerri, Evan Myers, Brian Day, Ed Partee Absent: Tony Gildone, Boyd Hatch Nevada Department of Wildlife Personnel Mike Scott and Cody McKee Others in Attendance Eddie Booth, Kris Boatner, Joe Garratto, Keysha Fontaine, Terry Boyle 1. Call to Order Ed Partee, Nevada Department of Wildlife-- Call to order at 5:00 pm, Introductions around the room 2. Election of Chair Ed Partee, Nevada Department of Wildlife For Possible Action-- Ed Partee asked for any nominations for chairperson. Tom Cassinelli nominated Kevin Gallio for chairperson. Ron Cerri second the motion, motion passed 3. *Approval of Agenda For Possible Action The COT will review the agenda and may take action to approve the agenda. The COT may remove items from the agenda, combine items for consideration or take items out of order. Tom Cassinelli move to accept the agenda. Hank Dufurrena second the motion, motion passed 4. Member Items/Announcements and Correspondence Chair Members may present emergent items. No action may be taken by the COT. Any item requiring COT action may be scheduled on a future COT agenda. The COT will review and may discuss correspondence sent or received since the last regular meeting and may provide copies for the exhibit file. Review of the Committee purpose and ground rules. No correspondence 5. *Review of the Humboldt County Elk Management Sub-plan, Minutes from the Humboldt County Elk Management Sub-plan Steering Committee (April 12, 2016), and the Minutes from the NBWC Meeting May 13 and 14, 2016 Ed Partee, Nevada Department of Wildlife Informational Ed Partee provide the documents for anyone to

2 review. Kris Boatner asked when the final plan was approved and was told June Asked if there should be a date on that. Talked about maybe making that change on the final document. Kevin Gallio do we need to make a motion? Ed Partee-- no motion is necessary this is an informational item only. This is just to refresh everyone s mind as to what transpired at the last two meetings. Ron Cerri did the commission accept the plan as submitted. Ed Partee--Yes the plan was accepted with a few minor clarifications. Eddie Booth added to some of the changes that were done. The motion from the commission meeting was then read for those changes. 6. Status of Elk in Humboldt County Ed Partee, Nevada Department of Wildlife Report See attached presentation 7. Future COT Meetings and Assignments Chair For Possible Action Ron Cerri discussed some fence damage that has happened on his allotment. Discussions were talked about for compensating for the damage either paying for the repairs or installing jumps in the area. Ron Cerri motioned next meeting will be June 2018 unless any problems arise. Lyle Avey second the motion, motion passed. 8. Public Comment Period Persons wishing to speak on items not on the agenda should complete a speaker s card and present it to the recording secretary. Public comment will be limited to three minutes. No action can be taken by the COT at this time; any item requiring COT action may be scheduled on a future COT agenda. In addition to this Public Comment Period, Public Comment limited to three minutes per speaker will also be allowed on each agenda action item, but not, unless otherwise noted, on reports or informational items. No Comments meeting is adjourned.

3 *Support material provided and posted to the NDOW website (ndow.org), and updates to support material will be posted at ndow.org. Support material for this meeting is available for the public at the Nevada Department of Wildlife, 815 East 4 th Street, Winnemucca, NV or may be requested from Ed Partee at (775) In accordance with NRS , this agenda closes three days prior to the meeting date and has been posted at the following Department of Wildlife offices: Headquarters: 6980 Sierra Center Parkway, Suite 120, Reno, NV, 89511; Western Region Office: 1100 Valley Road, Reno, NV 89512; Eastern Region Office: 60 Youth Center Road, Elko, NV 89801; Southern Region Office: 4747 Vegas Drive, Las Vegas, NV NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC Nevada Department of Wildlife receives Federal Aid in Fish and Wildlife Restoration. The U.S. Department of the Interior prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, sex, or disability. Individuals with hearing impairment may contact the Department at (775) via a text telephone telecommunication device (TDD) by first calling the State of Nevada relay operator at Disabled individuals in need of special services should contact the Department at least 24 hours prior to the meeting at (775)

4 Committee Chairman: Eddie Booth Staff to the Committee: Ed Partee Nevada Board of Wildlife Commissioners Humboldt County Elk Management Sub-plan Steering Committee Winnemucca Inn Conference Room 741 W. Winnemucca Blvd. Winnemucca, NV Tuesday, April 12, :00 p.m. Minutes Prepared by: Kati Harmon, NDOW 1. Call to Order, Pledge of Allegiance, Roll Call of Steering Committee Members Chairman Booth Meeting called to Order By Chairman Booth at 1:59 pm Attendees Anderson, Fred; Committee Avey, Lyle; Committee Booth, Eddie; Chairman Boyle, Terry; Committee Cassinelli, Tom; Committee Cerri, Ron; Committee Day, Brian; Committee Evatz, Mark; Committee Gallio, Kevin; Committee, by phone conference Schultz, Brad; Committee Sperry, Mike; Committee Sappington, Steve; BLM for William Mack Garrotto, Joseph; District Ranger, FS for Boyd Hatch Partee, Ed; NDOW Harmon, Kati; NDOW Garrett, Clint; Sportsman Mori, Pete; Nevada Board of Wildlife Commissioners, Member Schweigert, Bob; IRC Scherer, Bettina; NV Conservation Districts Program Ensley, Horton; Rancher/miner, retired Echeto, Isidro; Sportsman Absentees Dufurrena, Hank; Committee Hatch, Boyd; Committee Mack, William; Committee 2. Approval of the Agenda Chairman Booth Action Item The Committee will review the agenda and may take action to approve the agenda. The Committee may remove items from the agenda, combine items for consideration or take items out of order. Motion by Avey, second by Cassinelli, to approve agenda as is; unanimously approved. 3. *Approval of the Minutes Chairman Booth Action Item The Committee will review the minutes of the February 20, 2016 meeting, make any necessary changes in the minutes and may take action to approve. Motion by Cassinelli, second by Schultz, to accept the meeting minutes from 2/20/16, unanimously approved. 1

5 4. Public Comment Period Open public comment on any agenda item, with each individual allowed a two (2) minute time limit per person or four (4) minutes if representing a group. No action can be taken by the Committee at this time. Any item requiring Committee action may be scheduled on a future Committee Agenda. Ensley - everything is in decline, wondering what is being done for diversion of water and pollution of water to protect the wildlife. o Booth this committee is trying to make an elk plan, we re not in charge of water, but there is a Rotary meeting with a water presentation tomorrow. o Cassinelli this committee is here to establish an elk plan for this county, the Humboldt County Commissioners, etc. would be better suited for this question. We have no power to make water decisions o Ensley nothing is being done about the water. 5. Member Items, Announcements, Correspondence Chairman Booth Informational Committee members may present emergent items. No action may be taken by the Committee. Any item requiring Committee action may be scheduled on a future agenda. The Committee will review and may discuss correspondence sent or received since its last regular meeting and may provide copies for the exhibit file. Review of the Committee purpose and ground rules. Drew, Jeremy, NV Board of Wildlife Commissioners Sent an correspondence (attached), as he was unable to attend the meeting Booth Ed Partee and I attended the Board of Wildlife Commissioners meeting last month to present the plan to the Commission for their first reading. Chairman Drew made the following motion (excerpt taken from the Board of Wildlife Commissioners meeting minutes draft): Chairman Drew moved to advance the Humboldt County Elk Management Subplan final draft dated 2/24/16 to a second reading, following review by the Humboldt County Commission and Humboldt County planning Committee. Further, that the committee review and suggest any changes as suggested by Mr. Schweigert in the letter and correspondence that he has provided to the Nevada Board of Wildlife Commissioners. Final the timeframe on page 10, to reflect revision stating upon recommendation of the cot team. confirm that management actions to be taken once the 75 percent population objective is reached and also provide or confirm description of process to arrive at the final objectives. Commissioner Hubbs seconded the motion. Chairman Drew asked if Mr. Booth is comfortable with the motion and direction provided, and is Mr. Schweigert comfortable and able to provide a clear list of the correspondence received so we are all on the same page. Commissioner Mori asked what the process would be if that is considered a second reading? Chairman Drew said his intent is second reading of plan based on any changes that come back after the committee s review, and if Commission comfortable with approving plan at that time if the committee and Commission are comfortable that all issues have been addressed. And if not, he has no issue with a third reading if necessary. Commissioner McNinch said as he was not present during the discussion, he will abstain from vote. He said he appreciates all the work done by the committee. Commissioners in favor of Motion: Chairman Drew, Commissioners Wallace, Bliss, Hubbs, Johnston, Mori, and Young. Commissioner McNinch abstained. Commissioner Valentine absent. Motion carried

6 6. Recommendations from the March 24, 2016 meeting of the Nevada Board of Wildlife Commissioners Committee Chairman Eddie Booth and Game Biologist and TRT Lead Ed Partee For Possible Action Chairman Booth and Mr. Partee will report on the Nevada Board of Wildlife Commissioners March 2016 meeting and will answer any questions from the Committee. At the meeting, the Commissioners moved to advance the Humboldt County Elk Sub-plan to a second reading and requested further considerations and clarifications. Mr. Partee will report on any recommended changes to the DRAFT Sub-plan that address the Commissioners requests. The Committee will also consider the suggestions Mr. Schweigert made to the Commissioners and may recommend incorporating or adopting those suggestions in part or in whole or may recommend the Commissioners reject the suggestions. Partee o Pg 8, added final bullet point to o Pg 10 Bullet Points Day Pgs & 28-29, Planning unit specifics for 33, going to have to go through NEPA for a hunt, management for FW, NEPA is covered under CCP for the pioneering of elk, but not for a hunt, so we need to add that because we will still need to go through NEPA to start a hunt on the Sheldon. Motion by Day, second by Cassinelli, regarding USFWS, to add a line to Pg. 29 #4, stating that a NEPA process will need to be completed if a hunt is established; unanimously approved. Motion by Cassinelli, second by Sperry, to accept the items on pg 8 and 10 as suggested by the Wildlife Commission and written by Partee; unanimously approved. Dufurrena asked Partee to relay the following information on his behalf as he could not attend Dufurrena is concerned about forage allocation, never really given a straight answer from BLM, even though he has gone into BLM independently, they still did not have an answer. o Sappington AUMs will change per renewal, we will not assign elk an AUM here, nor will we take away from cattle for the purpose of wildlife. o Schweigert There isn t one AUM allocated to Elk. Gallio sent in a correspondence in case he could not attend by phone, read into the record by Chairman Booth (attached) Wakeling sent in correspondence in his absence, read into the record by Chairman Booth (attached) Booth - Commission made a decision to send it back to this committee, the reason I believe is out of respect for the committee and your time and effort. I believe the Commissioners did not want to circumvent our efforts and wanted to bring Schweigert s concerns back here locally because they plan was developed by residents of our county. I feel they didn t want to make decisions or changes to the plan that would be negative or disrespectful to the committee because of the concerns that were made to the commission. Schweigert provided 2111 pages of correspondence to the commission. Schweigert The information I provided yesterday was not redundant, it was in addition to the 2111 pages and is approximately 4000 pages. Partee - The additional information was not provided to the committee members prior to the meeting. Schweigert Wildlife Commission wanted a complete list of documents supplied for revision. They asked us to compile that list and provide it to the committee for consideration going forward. Schweigert wants the meeting reconvened at a later date because he was not informed of this meeting and the correspondence in regards to water rights, grazing rights, FLPMA, etc. that he has provided was not distributed. Sappington - Data submitted yesterday is a moot point. Gallio Personal contact is absurd; we cannot personally contact anyone which is why we post publicly. We were directed to review the information from the Wildlife Commission not anything additional. Cassinelli during public comment at the March meeting, I told the Wildlife commission when and where this meeting would be held, Schweigert was at that meeting. Schweigert additional info that was provided does not change the fundamental issues they are concerned about, it more clearly states the concerns that they have, including the water rights, decrees, and grazing allocations. If you re going to stack elk on top of 3

7 the grazing act, it is a constitutional taking; a federal law judge is going to see it one of these days. You need to be cognizant of what you are doing. o Cerri not sure some of the issues you are bringing up are within the purview of this committee, water rights, forage allocation, etc. We re not doing anything other than saying if elk pioneer in this is how they will be managed. o Schweigert You are implicating those exact things. That s saying you are taking that much forage out of the mouth of cattle, deer, wild horse, bighorn, etc. o Schweigert can form one alternative of many that the federal agencies can use to amend their allotments Booth Pg 5 plan goal is to minimize conflicts this committee has taken everything into consideration and found a good middle ground. Has nothing to do with water rights, taking away AUMs, etc. as a committee, we have done our jobs. o Cassinelli we were put together to prepare for elk, and we ve done what we were asked to do. If a rancher is going to sue over this, it is such a bad precedence, you would lose. These elk have a right here like everyone else; we are getting ahead of the game. Keeping the numbers low, committee has done everything in its power to solve a lot of these problems ahead of time. If we are going to get sued, we are going to get sued, just like a conservation group. We have a plan, that is much more than other areas have. Schweigert The idea is not to have to sue you. That s why we got involved and provided as much information as possible. Cassinelli we re trying to keep the population low and work them up to acceptable numbers. Avey The purpose this committee was put together for has been accomplished. We kept the numbers low with a total of 800 elk in the hundreds of thousands of acres in this county; you aren t even going to notice them. Evatz We have affirmation from our two ranching representatives. The information Schweigert has provided is educational, interesting and has merit, but I don t see how we have missed anything. Established a very clear and concise method of continuing to minimize conflict by forming a very balanced COT. I stick with my comments, if we are going to open this back up, then I guess we will have to call the sportsmen up and have them weigh in on larger numbers too. Sperry this committee has been so great because of the respect for each other and in that we have compromised. That is why this group isn t 13 hunters or 13 ranchers, we are evenly represented and there has been a lot of compromise. We should recognize that and go forward. Cerri as a rancher, I was an advocate to getting the plan going, the sooner the better, if we had waited until the population was , that is the number we would have started with. We are already ahead of everyone else because of the lack of augmentation or transplantation of elk. We will not be playing catch up later, I think that is key, and I think that waiting is not the preferred option. Mori in reviewing some of the stuff Schweigert sent, something stuck out to me, that I believe is worthy of discussion by the committee. The language that you have on the established population states that 10 or more cow elk showing repeated use. What about bulls occupying the area seasonally or continually will be removed by harvest, because after rut, there could be bull groups that use these areas to stay protected during rifle season. o Cerri doesn t NDOW have that option; do we need it in the plan? Partee it is kind of already outlined in the plan as a depredation hunt. o Mori going to rely on NDOW and Commission to handle the repeated use? Cassinelli the COT team will meet at least annually to handle those problems. Booth could leave as a recommendation for the COT team for their first meeting next year. Sperry the bulls aren t going to leave the cows in September rut hunts. The season structure has a lot to say about it. 4

8 Boyle it won t always be September hunts once the numbers increase. Partee the nice thing for the COT will be to review it once elk are actually established in that area. Booth That is a substantial amount of information to expect this committee to review, unless there is a motion by the committee, I do not see delaying this process any further. 7. Technical Review Team (TRT) Report Game Biologist and TRT Lead Ed Partee For Possible Action Nothing to report 8. Presentation of Humboldt County Elk Management Sub-plan DRAFT Game Biologist and TRT Lead Ed Partee For Possible Action Humboldt County Elk Management Sub-plan Committee will review the final DRAFT of the Humboldt County Elk Management Sub-plan for consideration and possible approval. Possible approval by the Committee will be followed by a presentation of the sub-plan to the Humboldt County Commission and, upon County Commission approval, presentation to the Nevada Board of Wildlife Commissioners at their May meeting for final consideration and possible adoption. Motion by Cassinelli, second by Evatz, to accept the sub-plan with the revisions voted in today, to be presented to the Humboldt County Commissioners on 4/18/16 and the Wildlife Commissioners at their 5/13-5/14 meeting; unanimously approved. o Cerri get revisions to the county commission as soon as possible. Partee will revise tonight and send tomorrow 9. Coordination and Oversight Team (COT) Selection Chairman Booth For Possible Action The Humboldt County Elk Management Sub-plan Committee, based on action at prior meetings, will select a Coordination and Oversight Team (COT) consisting of one representative from each of the following agencies and special interest groups: 1. general sportsman, 2. Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, 3. Humboldt County Advisory Board to Manage Wildlife, 4. farming, 5. ranching representative on BLM permit, 6. ranching representative on USFS permit, 7. Humboldt County Commissioner, 8. Bureau of Land Management, 9. US Forest Service, and 10. Nevada Department of Wildlife. Committee members will be selecting respective representatives to serve on the COT and notification of the COT members will be provided to the Nevada Board of Wildlife Commissioners. General Sportsman - Gallio s correspondence states he would like to be considered for the Sportsman representative on COT. Avey nominates Gallio, Evatz seconds, Cassinelli moves that nominations be closed, second by Avey; unanimously approved. Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation - Evatz nominates Avey, Cassinelli seconds; Sperry moves that nominations be closed, second by Cassinelli; unanimously approved. Humboldt County Advisory Board (CAB) - Cerri nominates Cassinelli, Boyle seconds, Evatz motions to close nominations, second by Gallio; unanimously approved. Farming - Avey nominates Sperry, second by Cassinelli, motion to close by Boyle, second by Evatz; unanimously approved. BLM permittee - Cerri nominates Dufurrena, second by Cassinelli; Avey motions to close nominations, second by Boyle; unanimously passed. Motion to remove Cassinelli as the Humboldt CAB COT member, and replace him as the USFS permittee, and nominate Tony Gildone as the CAB member on the COT, second by Avey; unanimously approved. o Evatz motions, Cassinelli seconds, to list the Humboldt CAB COT representative as a designee for replacement purposes, but to still list Tony Gildone as the initial CAB COT representative; unanimously approved. Humboldt County Commissioners - Avey nominates Cerri subject to approval of the commission, Cassinelli seconds; unanimously approved. BLM Evatz motions that the BLM COT member will be a designee from the BLM District Manager; unanimously approved. USFS Cerri motions that the USFS COT member will be a designee made by the USFS District Ranger, second by Evatz; unanimously approved. NDOW Boyle motions, Evatz seconds, that the NDOW COT member be the local Game Biologist; unanimously approved. 5

9 USFWS Cassinelli motions. Boyle seconds, that the USFWS COT member will be a local designee from the USFWS; unanimously approved. Booth First COT meeting will be where you designate the chairman of the committee, and set to meet on an annual basis. Evatz Are the meetings open to the public? o Partee yes, same agenda posting, etc. o Cassinelli COT should be where all elk problems are taken first. CAB can pass any information they receive along to the COT. 10. Future Committee Meetings and Assignments Chairman Booth For Possible Action The next Committee meeting, if necessary, will be scheduled on an as needed basis as determined by the suggestions and/or direction of the committee, Humboldt County Commission or Nevada Board of Wildlife Commissioners. The Committee will review and discuss potential agenda items for that meeting. Motion by Avey, second by Cassinelli, to make note of the suggestion brought forth by Commissioner Mori, in regards to alternatives relative to established populations in the individual areas to be reviewed by the COT at their first meeting; unanimously approved. Booth thank you all for your attendance, the Wildlife Commission was pleased with the timeline and progress of this committee, job well done. Avey should we have a meeting after this plan has been submitted? o Booth if there are substantial changes by the Humboldt County Commission and/or the Wildlife Commission then there would be a meeting we would notify the committee of by Public Comment Period Open public comment on any agenda item, with each individual allowed a two (2) minute time limit per person or four (4) minutes if representing a group. No action can be taken by the Committee at this time. Any item requiring Committee action may be scheduled on a future Committee Agenda or discussed at a future COT meeting. Boyle Cake for Chairman Booth s birthday. Motion by Evatz, second by Sperry, to adjourn meeting at 3:58 pm, unanimously approved. *Support material provided and posted to the NDOW website (ndow.org), and updates to support material will be posted at ndow.org. Support material for this meeting is available for the public at the Nevada Department of Wildlife, 815 East 4 th Street, Winnemucca, NV or may be requested from Ed Partee at (775) In accordance with NRS , this agenda closes three days prior to the meeting date and has been posted at the following Department of Wildlife offices: Headquarters: 6980 Sierra Center Parkway, Ste 120, Reno, NV 89511, Western Region Field Offices: 1100 Valley Road, Reno, NV 89512, 380 West B Street, Fallon, NV and 815 East 4 th Street, Winnemucca, NV 89445; Eastern Region Field Office: 60 Youth Center Road, Elko, NV 89801; Eastern Region Field Office: 1218 North Alpha Street, Ely, NV 89301; Southern Region Field Offices: 4747 Vegas Drive, Las Vegas, NV and 744 South Racetrack Road, Henderson, NV NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC Nevada Department of Wildlife receives Federal Aid in Fish and/or Wildlife Restoration. The U.S. Department of the Interior prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, sex, or disability. Individuals with hearing impairment may contact the Department at (775) via a text telephone (TTY) telecommunications device by first calling the State of Nevada relay operator at Disabled individuals in need of special services should contact the Department at least 24 hours prior to the meeting at (775)

10 HUMBOLDT COUNTY ELK MANAGEMENT SUB-PLAN

11 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 2 BACKGROUND 3 PLAN GOAL 5 SCOPE OF THE PLAN 5 HUMBOLDT COUNTY PLAN PROCESS 6 POTENTIAL ELK CARRYING CAPACITY ASSESSMENT 7 STEERING COMMITTEE PROCESS 9 PLANNING UNIT SPECIFICS 10 UNITS UNITS UNITS UNIT UNIT UNIT MANAGEMENT ACTIONS 25 NDOW 25 BLM 27 USFS 27 USFWS 28 APPENDIX 30 1

12 INTRODUCTION Low densities of elk have been reported in many portions of Humboldt County with the bulk of the sightings occurring recently in unit 051. Based on observations that started as early as 1990 to 2014, it appears a small group of elk established a home range within the Santa Rosa Range. This small herd has continued to increase throughout the last two decades. In January of 2013, two cow elk were collared to track movement and use areas. Since the start of that project, to date, one collar has been recovered with data of known use areas. The second collar is due to fall off in August of In January 2014, the first elk survey flight was conducted. During this survey, a total of 21 elk were observed. All 21 animals were bulls with no cows being located. Prior to this survey, animals have been observed from the air on several occasions, incidentally during other specie surveys. Another follow-up survey was conducted in March 2015 to try to determine the number of elk existing in the Santa Rosa Range. During this flight no elk were observed. Conditions were very open with very little snow allowing elk to be in a wide variety of areas to vast to cover over the two day period. In 1997, the Board of Wildlife Commissioners adopted the Nevada Elk Species Management Plan (NESMP). This plan was prepared in response to Assembly Concurrent Resolution No. 46. One of the goals of the plan was to allow elk populations to expand their distribution consistent with Wildlife Commission Policy 26. A strategy outlined to accomplish this goal stated When it is evident that pioneering elk have established a core population, prepare a subplan in order to implement actions that would benefit the new population. The Elk Species Plan further stated that the preparation of subplans would be coordinated with land management agencies and affected interests. In February of 2015, the Nevada Department of Wildlife (NDOW) informed the Board of Wildlife Commissioners that they felt a core population of elk existed in the Santa Rosa Range. During the March meeting 2015, the State Board of Wildlife Commissioners supported the establishment of a Steering Committee by appointing chairman Eddie Booth. In addition, the wildlife commission directed NDOW to solicit individuals from the list provided in the sub-plan guidelines. In April, of 2015 the Nevada Department of Wildlife assembled the Steering Committee, representing various public interests, for the purpose of developing a plan for elk management in Humboldt County. At the May 2015 Commission Meeting, the Steering Committee was established by the commission. The commission then gave direction to have a technical review team (TRT) established by the existing steering committee in accordance to the Elk Sub-Plan Process. The TRT was directed to review available resource information, identify low, moderate and high potential elk habitats consistent with the NESMP, and to prepare a recommended approach to identify target elk populations for incorporation into the Humboldt County Elk Sub-Plan. The TRT included representatives from NDOW, the United States Forest Service (USFS), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Humboldt County, and the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS). 2

13 BACKGROUND Humboldt County is the fourth largest county in Nevada, and encompasses about 9,658 square miles. Humboldt County is the oldest county in Nevada which was created in 1856 and one of the original nine counties created in Elevations range from less than 3,900 feet above sea level in the Black Rock Desert to over 9,700 feet in the Santa Rosa Range. Annual average precipitation for Humboldt County is 8 inches with average snow fall being 22 inches. In Humboldt County, 82 percent of the land is managed by Federal Agencies with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) having 71 percent or 4,377,080 acres of the responsibility. The United States Forest Service (USFS) has responsibility for 5 percent or 279,425 acres of land. Within the north western part of the county, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) manages the Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge which accounts for 6 percent or 386,481 acres of land in Humboldt County. Lastly, both Summit Lake Indian Reservation and the Fort McDermitt Indian Reservation accounts for the remaining federal land which is only a small portion within Humboldt County. The Reservations encompasses less than 0.5 percent or 22,198 acres. Private lands contribute to the rest of the county with the main city being Winnemucca (Table 1). Table 1. Land Status in Humboldt County. Ownership/Management Acres Percent Bureau of Land Management 4,377, U.S. Forest Service 279,425 5 Private 1,112, USFWS 386,481 6 BIA 22,198 <.5 Totals 6,177, The state has been divided into Management Areas (MA) or hunt units to aid in the management of both small and big game populations. Humboldt County is divided into six management areas which include units 031,032,033,034,035, and 051(map 1). Although parts of unit 033 fall both in Washoe and Humboldt County, for this planning purpose, unit 033 in its entirety has all been included in the Humboldt County Plan. 3

14 Map 1. Humboldt County Elk Sub-Plan Area and the Associated Sub-Planning Area Humboldt County plan area currently has 7 Wilderness Areas and 7 Wilderness Study Areas (WSA). The Wilderness Areas fall in four of the six units within the planning area. Wilderness Areas are within the Santa Rosa Range, Jackson Mountains, Black Rock Range, and Pine Forest Range (new). The Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge is the only refuge within the planning area. Currently, there is 526,462 acres of wilderness within the planning area. WSA are located within four of the six units. Units 031,032 and 051 all have WSA s in them with a total of 99,931 acres (map 2). Map 2. Wilderness and Wilderness study Areas 4

15 There are 108 sheep and cattle grazing allotments within Humboldt County managed by BLM. These allotments vary in size from 1 acre to 374,175 acres with a total of 5,057,659 acres in Humboldt County. The Forest Service has a total of 12 grazing allotments that range from 5,800 acres to 56,400 acres with a total of 298,000 acres in the Santa Rosa Range. All of the allotments within Humboldt County are managed either by the Winnemucca District of BLM or the USFS Santa Rosa Ranger District. Several units within the planning area have Feral Horse and or Burro use in them. There are a total of 9 Herd Management Areas (HMA s) within Humboldt County. Of those nine HMA s, seven of them are designated as Horse while one is Burro and the other is both Burro and Horse (Table2). Total acreage encompassed by the HMA s is 1,021,066 acres in Humboldt County. Table 2. Shows the Appropriate Management Level for the 9 HMAs: HMA AML Horse AML Burro Black Rock East Black Rock West Calico Mountains Jackson Mountains Kamma Mountains Little Owyhee McGee Mountain Snowstorm Mountains Warm Springs Canyon PLAN GOAL The Steering Committee adopted the following goal for the development of the Humboldt County Elk Sub-Plan: Establish and manage healthy, sustainable elk herds in Humboldt County in all suitable areas not presently covered by a sub-plan and to manage this resource in a manner that minimizes conflicts and maximize cooperation with existing uses including livestock, developed private lands and other wildlife. SCOPE OF THE PLAN This plan is designed to be a subplan of the Nevada Elk Species Management Plan in accordance with the Assembly Concurrent Resolution Number 46. The purpose of this subplan is to define management goals, objectives, strategies and constraints for the management of elk within Humboldt County. This plan will guide NDOW in the management of elk while minimizing conflicts with existing users, including livestock, and other wildlife, as well as adjacent private land resources. 5

16 The US Forest Service, US Fish and Wildlife Service and BLM are responsible for management of the federal public lands within the subplan area. The Forest Service and BLM manage lands on a basis of multiple use and sustained yield. These agencies are committed to promoting healthy, sustainable rangeland ecosystems, contributing to a sustainable livestock industry, and providing habitat for viable wildlife populations. The BLM manages the public land resources under their administration through the Resource Management planning process. This plan area includes public lands guided by the BLM s Area Resource Management Plan (RMP) which was signed on May The Forest Service manages the public lands under their administration through the Land and Resource Management Planning process. This plan area includes public lands managed by the Forests Service s Humboldt National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan approved in Both the BLM s Resource Management Plan and the Forest s Humboldt National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan establish practices to manage and protect public land resources. They also establish monitoring to evaluate the status of resources and the effectiveness of management over time. The management of naturally expanding elk populations by the NDOW in accordance with goals, objectives and strategies outlines in this subplan is viewed by the Forest Service and BLM to be consistent with existing Management and Forest Plans. The Forest Service and BLM are committed to working with NDOW to enhance and expand habitat through development of various projects such as vegetative treatments, water developments and fencing. The Forest Service, NDOW and BLM will develop these projects consistent with existing forest and land use plans, Standards and Guidelines for rangeland health, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and other applicable federal, state and local laws. NDOW will coordinate with the USFWS on land management in accordance with the Sheldon NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan. During development of elk habitat enhancement projects, opportunities will be provided for public involvement including opportunities for review, comment, protest and appeal as appropriate. HUMBOLDT COUNTY PLAN PROCESS The Steering Committee recommended that Humboldt County be split into six separate planning units (map 1). The rationale for this separation was to evaluate areas that were likely to support independent elk populations. A description of each planning unit is presented in the planning unit specifics sections. Once the six planning units were established, the Technical Review Team (TRT) established a process to determine biological carrying capacities for each unit. The steering committee then discussed the issues in each planning unit, listened to public comment and then voted on elk population objectives and other management strategies to be included in the Humboldt County Elk Sub-Plan. The plan was then presented to the Humboldt County Commission who decided that no comments were necessary at this time and asked if it could be brought back to them after the first Wildlife Commission Meeting. The following section provides more detail on the methods used by the TRT to determine the potential carrying capacity. This is followed by a section that outlines in more detail the process used by 6

17 the Steering Committee in determining the final recommendations in this plan. The Steering Committee would like the plan to be revisited in 5 to 10 years once finalized. At that time numbers may be adjusted up or down depending on the following triggers. Property Damage including but not limited to crops, land, grazing, and water rights Availability of water resources Repetitive allotment fence damage Public Safety Hedging on Aspens/Mahogany Reduced regeneration of aspen and willow stands Devastating wildland fires The ability or effectiveness to manage herds once 75% of the population objective is reached POTENTIAL ELK CARRYING CAPACITY ASSESSMENT The existing White Pine County Elk Management Plan, Lincoln County Elk Management Plan, Central Nevada Elk Plan, Western Elko County Elk Management Plan, and the Elk Species Management Plan (ESMP) were referenced for guidance in assessing habitat potential and for consistency in mapping. The ESMP recommends that potential elk range be identified as LOW (0.5 to 1.5 elk/square mile), MODERATE (1.5 to 2.5 elk/square mile), and HIGH (2.5 to 4.0 elk/square mile). Each planning unit may need to be adjusted if utilization rates are too high or low to support the estimated numbers. Methods Used for determining elk carrying capacity A Geographic Information System (GIS) was the primary tool used to assess land status, sub-area boundaries, and vegetation overlays. The following process was used to determine the preliminary square miles of elk habitat and corresponding elk carrying capacity for each sub-planning area: GIS was used to overlay the elk plan area in Humboldt County. The McDermitt and Summit Lake Indian Reservations were removed from the planning area since NDOW has no management responsibilities within this area. All of the urban areas, water, barren ground, playas and agricultural areas were removed from consideration as potential elk habitat. The remaining areas were then separated into the six subplanning areas. Land status (i.e. private, BLM, USFWS, and USFS) was then over-layed on each of the six planning areas and the number of square miles of each land ownership type was determined. The Southwest Regional Gap Analysis Project (SWReGAP) vegetation classification system was used to analyze vegetation cover types throughout the planning areas. The number of square miles of each cover type for each land ownership was then 7

18 calculated (The Southwest Regional Gap Analysis Project (SWReGAP) is an update of the Gap Analysis Program s mapping and assessment of biodiversity for the fivestate region encompassing Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, and Utah). Polygons were then drawn around those areas with good densities and configurations of appropriate habitat/vegetation types that support elk (see maps in appendix). Actual data was utilized from collars that were deployed in the Santa Rosa Range in 2013 to compare with use land form data from SWREGAP and environmental setting from Utah State University (see charts in appendix). The technical team, using studies and professional knowledge, then determined if a vegetation cover type should be classified as high, moderate or low quality elk habitat. The number of square miles of low, moderate and high habitat classifications was determined for each land ownership. All private acreage within each of the sub-planning units was taken out for the purpose of calculating potential elk habitat and numbers. The Statewide Elk Species Management Plan provides guidelines in order to evaluate potential elk habitat. The statewide plan identifies low quality habitat as being able to support between.5 to 1.5 elk per square mile, moderate habitat able to support between 1.5 to 2.5 elk per square mile and high habitat as being able to support between 2.5 to 4.0 elk per square mile. (Elk densities found in similar type habitats to Nevada in the surrounding states were used to formulate the Elk Species Management Guidelines). Using these figures, the number of elk that the public land within each sub-area was able to support was calculated. These numbers are reflected in the tables within the section for each of the sub-planning areas. All of the areas that were classified as low quality habitat were eliminated for the purpose of calculating potential elk numbers. In order to account for livestock use, no habitat within a half mile of water was used in calculating potential elk numbers. In order to account for existing feral horse use, all horse management areas were eliminated from the calculations of potential elk numbers. Final elk numbers are determined by the Steering Committee In Humboldt County, much of the habitat has been classified by using GIS and the SWReGAP method. Inter-Mountain Basins Montane Sagebrush Step, Rocky Mountain Aspen Forest and Woodland, Inter-Mountain Basins Curl-leaf Mountain Mahogany Woodland and Shrubland, and Great Basin Pinyon-Juniper Woodland have all been classified as important habitats for elk in Humboldt County. Inter-Mountain Basins Semi-Desert Grassland has shown to be somewhat important to elk in the Santa Rosa Range during the winter and spring months. These areas would include the south facing warmer slopes that may have an early green up stage. Mid-elevational meadows and 8

19 seep areas along riparian areas are also classified as important use areas. Tables of all habitat classifications are listed in the Appendix. The potential elk numbers calculated by using this process are displayed within each of the planning unit sections. PROCESS USED BY STEERING COMMITTEE The Steering Committee conducted 9 meetings during the period of June 2015 through April During these meetings, the Steering Committee solicited public comment and presentations, asked questions of the agency staffs and discussed the issues amongst themselves. A member of the committee would make a motion, a second member would second the motion and then a vote of the entire committee would occur. If a tie occurred, the chairman would vote. The final recommendations of the Steering Committee are presented in the planning unit specifics sections. During the meetings it was decided to have a Coordination Oversight Team (COT). Members of this COT will be decided by the steering committee then will notify the State Wildlife Commission. If a vacancy occurs on the COT, the replacement for the team will be appointed by the County Commissioners with replacement recommendations from respective group s agencies or organizations. This team s responsibility will be to meet at least once a year and to coordinate amongst various agencies and affected interests and to provide oversight of management activities. The COT will be made up of one general sportsman s representative, one Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation representative, one County Advisory Board to manage Wildlife representative, one farming representative, one ranching representative on BLM permit, one ranching representative on USFS permit, one Humboldt County Commissioner, one BLM, one USFWS, one USFS and one NDOW representative. Each member appointed to the COT will reside within Humboldt County unless by exception that will be validated by the county commission. During the first meeting of every year a chairperson will be elected with no one individual sitting as chairperson for two consecutive years. The COT will be responsible for: 1. Requesting, reviewing, and commenting on reports concerning the various aspects of elk management 2. Reviewing private lands elk conflicts and affirming timely and fair resolution 3. Forming subcommittee to investigate complaints within the planning area 4. All meetings of the COT will be open to the public and public notification will be provided accordingly 5. Hearing and responding to public comments 6. Document current and potential resource/multiple-use issue 7. Transmitting an annual summary report to the Board of Wildlife Commissioners 8. Notifying the Nevada State Board of Wildlife Commissioners if the subcommittee needs to reconvene prior to the scheduled revision time frame 9

20 9. Given funding, establish a baseline utilization monitoring system by hiring a 3 rd party consultant at the discretion of the COT THE USE OF OUT-OF STATE ELK FOR TRANSPLANTS IN HUMBOLDT COUNTY The Steering Committee voted that the Humboldt County Elk Sub-Plan prohibit the transplanting of elk. This plan would then be utilized for pioneering elk only. TIME FRAME OF THE HUMBOLDT COUNTY ELK PLAN During the March 24, 2016 State Wildlife Commission meeting, the commission decided that the Coordination Oversight Team would have the ability to determine when a revision of the plan would be necessary. The COT will have the ability to determine if warranted an increase in the number of elk in the plan The COT will have the ability to determine if warranted a decrease in the number of elk in the plan Upon this determination the Coordination Oversight Team will notify the State Wildlife Commission of the necessity to revise the plan. PLANNING UNIT SPECIFICS Each planning unit section contains a map showing the planning unit in relation to Humboldt County, a written area description, land status and current estimated elk numbers and distribution. Also included in these sections are potential habitat and elk numbers and the final recommendations and detail as voted by the Humboldt County Steering Committee. 10

21 Unit 031 Area Description This area is that portion of Humboldt County south of the Oregon state line, north and east of State Route No. 140 from its intersection with U.S. Highway No. 95 to Denio Junction, east of State Route No. 292 from Denio to the Oregon state line, and west of U.S. Highway No. 95. This area includes the Double H Mountains, Montana Mountains, Bilk Creek Mountains and that portion of the Trout Creek Mountains along the Oregon border. Land Status The land status within this area is a mixture of BLM, BIA and private land. The McDermitt Indian Reservation is located at the northern end of the planning area. The McDermitt Indian Reservation was not included in the analysis since NDOW has no management authority within this area. Table 3 shows the number of square miles and the percent of land associated with each ownership group. Table 3. Land Status for unit 031 planning area. Ownership/Management Square miles Percent Bureau of Land Management % Private % BIA 5.3 1% Totals % 11

22 Current Estimated Elk Numbers and Distribution At this time, there has only been an occasional elk sighting in this unit. It is believed that elk are passing through at this time, with no evidence of a resident herd. Potential habitat and elk numbers, and the SC s final recommendations Table 4 portrays the square miles of elk habitat and the potential elk numbers as determined by the process outlined on pages seven and eight. These numbers were further defined using the process described on page nine with the end number being the Steering Committee s final recommendation. Table 4. Potential Habitat based on vegetation cover types on public land and.5 mile buffer from water Low Moderate High Total Sq. mi. of habitat Elk/square mile.5 to to to Potential elk #s 156 to to to to 918 Public land.5 mile buffer from water elk Public land.5 mile buffer from water HMA excluded elk Public land.5 mile buffer from water HMA excluded exclude low habitat elk TRT Biological Assessment Pioneering -200 elk Advisory Committee Action Pioneering to

23 Unit 031 has the potential to maintain a very limited elk population. At this time, many of the aspen stands, as well as mahogany, have been altered due to fire. Much of this unit burned in 2012 during the Holloway fire. This unit has been mainly classified as moderate at this time with potential good recovery from this fire. In future years, depending on moisture regimes, habitat in this area could be conducive for elk. Limiting factors for this unit are lack of aspen and Mahogany stands. This unit seems to have adequate water and forage available. When animals become established, collars will be used to determine use areas and to evaluate the amount of acreage used corresponding with the estimates provided in this plan. Collaring data will help evaluate movement corridors. With these numbers there will be the flexibility to increase numbers in the future if habitat allows. Unit 032 Area Description Unit 032 is that portion of Humboldt County south of the Oregon state line, east of the Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge, west of State Route No. 140 from the Leonard Creek Road to Denio Junction, west of State Route No. 292 from Denio Junction to the Oregon state line, and north of the Leonard Creek-Pearl Camp-Cove Camp-Idaho Canyon- Summit Lake Road to its intersection with the southeast corner of the boundary of the Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge. The major mountain ranges in this area include the Pine Forest Range, a portion of McGee Mountain and the Pueblo Mountains to the Oregon border. 13

24 Land Status The land status within this area is a mixture of BLM and private land. Table 5 shows the number of square miles and the percent of land associated with each ownership group. Table 5. Land Status for unit 032 planning area. Ownership/Management Square miles Percent Bureau of Land Management % Private % Totals % Current Estimated Elk Numbers and Distribution At this time there has only been an occasional elk sighting in this unit from sportsman. Elk have not established themselves at this time. In late 1990, one of the permittees in the Pine Forest Range was interested in converting cattle AUM s to Elk AUM s. Since that time, Elk AUM s were added in the Paradise Denio MFP III decision. Potential habitat and elk numbers, and the SC s final recommendations Table 6 portrays the square miles of elk habitat and the potential elk numbers as determined by the process outlined on pages seven and eight. These numbers were further defined using the process described on page nine with the end number being the Steering Committee s final recommendation. Table 6. Potential Habitat based on vegetation cover types on public land and.5 mile buffer from water. Low Moderate High Total Sq. mi. of habitat Elk/square mile.5 to to to 4.0 Potential elk #s 47 to to to to 311 Public land.5 mile buffer from water elk Public land.5 mile buffer from water HMA excluded elk Public land.5 mile buffer from water HMA excluded exclude low habitat elk 14

25 TRT Biological Assessment Pioneering -100 elk Advisory Committee Action Pioneering to 100 This unit has a good mixture of vegetation that ranges from a mountain brush zone in the upper elevations coupled with mahogany on the rugged mountain tops. Many aspen stringers run the length of the drainages with cooler moist north facing slopes. The mid to lower slopes have a good mix of sagebrush with perennial grasses. Large meadow complexes exist at mid elevations throughout this unit. Ample thermal cover exists within the aspen and mahogany stands and could be utilized throughout much of the year. The large mahogany stands could be used through most winters to provide the cover needed. There is adequate water availability due to a number of springs and seeps as well as reservoirs and perennial streams. When animals become established, collars will be used to determine use areas and to evaluate the amount of acreage used corresponding with the estimates provided in this plan. Collaring data will help evaluate movement corridors as well as adjustments in numbers if needed. Unit

26 Area Description Unit 033 is those portions of Humboldt and Washoe Counties that are within the boundaries of the Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge. Unit 033 in its entirety lies within the Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge. Land Status The land status within this area is mainly the USFWS with a little private ground mixed in. Table 7 shows the number of square miles and the percent of land associated with each ownership group. Table 7. Land Status for unit 033 planning area. Ownership/Management Square miles Percent USFWS % Private 3.8.5% Totals % Current Estimated Elk Numbers and Distribution Early excavations of the Last Supper Cave on the Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge showed presence of elk in the area. At this time, there has only been an occasional elk sighting in this unit. It is believed that elk are passing through at this time with no evidence of a resident herd. Potential habitat and elk numbers, and the SC s final recommendations Table 8 portrays the square miles of elk habitat and the potential elk numbers as determined by the process outlined on pages seven and eight. These numbers were further defined using the process described on page nine with the end number being the Steering Committee s final recommendation. Table 8. Potential Habitat based on vegetation cover types on public land and.5 mile buffer from water. Low Moderate High Total Sq. mi. of habitat Elk/square mile.5 to to to 4.0 Potential elk #s 84 to to to to 1683 Public land.5 mile buffer from water elk Public land.5 mile buffer from water HMA excluded elk Public land.5 mile buffer from water HMA excluded exclude low habitat 16

27 elk TRT Biological Assessment Pioneering -400 elk Advisory Committee Action Pioneering to 400 Unit 033, which lies solely on the Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge, has a vast and diverse fauna component. This high mountain desert has a combination of vegetation types that range from grassy meadows to juniper and mountain mahogany plateaus. Many of the rugged gorge type canyons have aspen stringers with perennial streams in them. Several reservoirs are scattered throughout this unit providing water in various locations. Springs and seeps are distributed throughout this unit which will provide forage and water throughout the year. The mountain mahogany, aspen, and juniper plateaus provide ample thermal cover for both summer and winter months. When animals become established, in order to have a hunt, the Sheldon will need to go through the NEPA process and complete a compatibility determination. Collars will be used to determine use areas and to evaluate the amount of acreage used corresponding with the estimates provided in this plan. Collaring data will help evaluate movement corridors as well as interaction between pronghorn and elk. Once more data is gained in these areas adjustments may be made to allow additional animals. Unit

28 Area Description Those portions of Humboldt and Pershing Counties south of the Leonard Creek-Pearl Camp-Cove Camp-Idaho Canyon-Summit Lake Road to its intersection with the southeast corner of the boundary of the Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge, east of old State Route No. 34 from Gerlach to the Soldier Meadows-Summit Lake-Idaho Canyon Road to its first intersection with the Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge, west of the Deer Creek Ranch-Jackson Creek Ranch-Sulphur Road, and north of the northernmost railroad track that runs from Sulphur to Gerlach. The major mountain range in this area is The Black Rock Range. Land Status The land status within this area is a mixture of BLM, BIA and private land. The Summit Lake Indian Reservation is located at the northwestern end of the planning area. The Summit Lake Indian Reservation was not included in the analysis since NDOW has no management authority within this area. Table 9 shows the number of square miles and the percent of land associated with each ownership group. Table 9. Land Status for unit 034 planning area. Ownership/Management Square miles Percent Bureau of Land Management % Private % BIA % Totals % Current Estimated Elk Numbers and Distribution At this time there has only been an occasional elk sighting in this unit from sportsmen. Elk have not established themselves at this time. Potential habitat and elk numbers, and the SC s final recommendations Table 10 portrays the square miles of elk habitat and the potential elk numbers as determined by the process outlined on pages seven and eight. These numbers were further defined using the process described on page nine with the end number being the Steering Committee s finale recommendation. Table 10. Potential Habitat based on vegetation cover types on public land and.5 mile buffer from water. Low Moderate High Total Sq. mi. of habitat Elk/square mile.5 to to to 4.0 Potential elk #s 57 to to 5 88 to to 316 Public land.5 mile buffer from water elk 18

29 Public land.5 mile buffer from water HMA excluded elk Public land.5 mile buffer from water HMA excluded exclude low habitat 8-12 elk TRT Biological Assessment Zero tolerance area Advisory Committee Action No established population area* *Establish population is a herd that consists of ten or more cow elk showing repeated use of an area during the same season for two consecutive years and/or continual use of an area for twelve consecutive months. Vegetation associated with this unit varies from a mountain and big sage community to juniper woodland on the south end of the range. This unit also contains aspen stringers through some of the canyons. Springs and seeps are available water sources with perennial streams in many of the canyons. The juniper woodland that is available through the south end of the range would provide ample thermal cover. These areas are found a little lower in elevation which would work well for elevational migrations in winter. The central and northern part of the unit provides a good understory perennial component with large patches of mountain mahogany available. Grassy meadows are available in many of the mid elevation drainages which will also provide forage and water. Within this unit, competition will exist between feral horses and elk. In the advent that horse numbers are lowered or removed this area will be re-evaluated for an established population. 19

30 Unit 035 Area Description That portion of Humboldt County south of State Route No. 140, east of the Leonard Creek-Deer Creek Ranch-Jackson Creek Ranch Road, west of U.S. Highway No. 95 and Interstate Highway No. 80, and north of the northernmost railroad track that runs from Winnemucca to Sulphur. The three mountain ranges that are associated with this unit include the Jackson Mountains, Slumber Hills and the Blood Run Hills. Land Status Lands status in this unit consists of BLM, BIA, and private in holdings. BIA has a very minor portion in this unit with the largest portion being BLM. Table 11 shows the land status associated with unit 035 planning area. Table 11. Land Status for unit 035 planning area. Ownership/Management Square miles Percent Bureau of Land Management % Private % BIA.9 <.1% Totals % Current Estimated Elk Numbers and Distribution Currently there is no established population in this unit. Reports have been made of Elk observed in the Jackson Mountains but those sightings are very few. The Bloody Run 20

31 Hills have had observations of young bull elk but those are believed to be passing through as well. Potential habitat and elk numbers, and the SC s final recommendations Table 12 portrays the square miles of elk habitat and the potential elk numbers as determined by the process outlined on pages seven and eight. These numbers were further defined using the process described on page nine with the end number being the Steering Committee s final recommendation. Table 12. Potential Habitat based on vegetation cover types on public land and.5 mile buffer from water. Low Moderate High Total Sq. mi. of habitat Elk/square mile.5 to to to 4.0 Potential elk #s 133 to to to to 487 Public land.5 mile buffer from water elk Public land.5 mile buffer from water HMA excluded elk Public land.5 mile buffer from water HMA excluded exclude low habitat.65 elk TRT Biological Assessment Zero tolerance area Advisory Committee Action No established population area* *Established population is a herd that consists of ten or more cow elk showing repeated use of an area during the same season for two consecutive years and/or continual use of an area for twelve consecutive months. The Jacksons has an abundance of aspen and mountain mahogany which would allow for adequate escape cover. The juniper tree cover in the lower elevations throughout the range would not only provide necessary escape cover, but thermal cover as well in the winter months. The upper basins in the Jacksons have a good amount of mountain brush with a fairly strong grass understory. As you move down slope, there is an ample sagebrush grass understory to the valley floor. This area has not had much influence of fire at this time. Plenty of water is available throughout the Jacksons with both perennial and scattered seeps throughout this range. Within this unit, competition will exist 21

32 between feral horses and elk. Forage utilization will provide a much better understanding on the number of elk that may inhabit this unit. Utilizations rate should be used to adjust the number or population objective for this unit. The Bloody Run Hills are also within this unit. This range has seen many fires and would be very limited not only in quality habitat but the number of elk that could use this area. There is good water availability, however, habitat cover and forage throughout the year is very limited. In the advent that horse numbers are lowered or removed this area will be re-evaluated for an established population. Unit 051 Area Description That portion of Humboldt County east of U.S. Highway No. 95 and north of Interstate Highway No. 80, excluding that portion north of the Midas Road from the Elko County line to its intersection with the Kelly Creek Ranch Road and east of the Kelly Creek Ranch-Chimney Creek-Shelton Road to the Elko County line. Unit 051 consists of all of Area 5. The three mountain ranges in this unit are Santa Rosa Range, Hot Springs Range and the Osgood Mountains. Land Status Land status for this unit is split into four different entities. The BLM has the largest area with 55% of this unit. Private land is the second largest part of that unit with the majority 22

33 of that being agriculture. The Santa Rosa Ranger District has the next largest portion with 16%, which at this time seems to have most of the elk use. Lastly the BIA has the smallest portion with just less than 1%. Table 13 shows the land status associated with the unit 051 planning area. Table 13. Land Status for unit 051 planning area. Ownership/Management Square miles Percent Bureau of Land Management % Private % USFS % BIA % Totals % Current Estimated Elk Numbers and Distribution More and more elk are being seen in this unit. Some of the earliest sightings were from the early 1990 s. More consistent sightings have occurred over the last five years. In 2013, a collaring project was done to try to track movement of the elk that resided in this unit. During this project, it was very difficult to locate any cows other than the group that contained the two collared animals. Collaring data was utilized for this plan to determine not only movement, but use and vegetation correlations as well. Data that was gained from this has shown elk movement from the south end of the Santa Rosa Range north into Oregon. See map 3. Once more collaring data is acquired it to will be added to the data set. Maps in the appendix show monthly movement in the Santa Rosa Range. At this time the population estimate for this unit is just under 100 animals. Map 3. Shows elk movement for 2013 through

34 Potential habitat and elk numbers, and the SC s final recommendations Table 14 portrays the square miles of elk habitat and the potential elk numbers as determined by the process outlined on pages seven and eight. These numbers were further defined using the process described on page nine with the end number being the Steering Committee s final recommendation. Table 14 Potential Habitat based on vegetation cover types on public land and.5 mile buffer from water. Low Moderate High Total Sq. mi. of habitat Elk/square mile.5 to to to 4.0 Potential elk #s 283 to to to to 1651 Public land.5 mile buffer from water elk Public land.5 mile buffer from water HMA excluded elk Public land.5 mile buffer from water HMA excluded exclude low habitat elk TRT Biological Assessment elk Advisory Committee Action Collaring data has been a tremendous asset in assessing this unit and the vegetation types that have been utilized by the newly established population (see charts and graphs in the appendix). This entire unit has an abundance of water spread throughout and an array of vegetation types. The south end of the Santa Rosas has an abundant mountain brush component with aspen stringers on many of the northern exposures and along creek bottoms. These areas have shown to be high use areas from the collaring data that was acquired. The southern exposures in the upper elevations are a sage and native grass component that is utilized as well. The lower elevations are comprised of a fairly good mix of sage and grass understory. The valley floor to the toe slope has experienced wildland fires converting many of these areas to annual grasses such as cheat grass. The more dry rugged sights are occupied by mountain mahogany and in some areas are very dense. 24

35 The northern end of the Santa Rosas is comprised of much of the same plant communities; however, fire has altered much of this area even in the higher elevations. This area still has much of the sage/grass and mountain brush component with aspen stringers in the canyons. Large dense patches of mountain mahogany exist and provide the cover needed to support elk numbers. The Osgood Mountains are also within this unit east of the Santa Rosa Range. This range has had elk use to a lesser extent. Habitat conditions on this range lack the components needed to support large numbers of elk. The Osgood s have had many fires occur over the years, converting most of this area to an annual grass. This area is beginning to see some regeneration of the brush community, which may help more elk in the future. Continued collaring efforts should continue in this unit. Both bulls and cows should be collared to identify use areas as well as future movement corridors. With gained information elk numbers may be added to this area if warranted. MANAGEMENT ACTIONS The following management actions pertain to the management of elk within all of the planning units. NDOW is responsible for wildlife population management while the BLM, USFWS, and the USFS are responsible for managing the habitat. Since population management and habitat management are so interrelated, effective elk management must involve a successful partnership with NDOW, the Forest Service and the BLM working in concert with private landowners, sportsmen and the public. The following breaks down the elk and habitat management responsibilities of each agency in Humboldt County: NDOW Population Management: 1. NDOW will assess the status of the elk populations including population composition, production, distribution, harvest and health data. Methods shall include, but are not limited to, aerial surveys, collaring data, ground surveys, observations, hunter return cards, computer models, life tables, necropsy, serology and tissue samples. All activities will be documented and population estimates will be prepared annually. 2. If there is a defined need for distribution or seasonal use data, radio collars or other marking devices may be used. Any animals that are released will be eartagged and an appropriate number of radio collars will be attached to document movements and establishment of seasonal use patterns. 3. Elk populations will be maintained within the population objectives defined within this subplan. When a population reaches 75 percent of population objective, the department shall work with the commission to implement harvest strategies that limit or stop population growth before the population objective is 25

36 reached or exceeded. Also, if elk are responsible for hindering the attainment of land use objectives, the Department will work with the land management agencies to implement projects to meet land use objectives or reduce elk numbers. Sport harvest will be the preferred means of population control in order to meet the population objectives and land use objectives. With newly established hunts in the state such as antlerless elk landowner tags, elk management tags, wilderness tags, emergency depredation tags, depredation tags, cow hunts during the rut, and winter cow hunts NDOW will have the ability to better reduce animals. 4. Sport harvest is considered a desirable use of the elk resource. The Department, with input from the Humboldt County Wildlife Advisory Board, will formulate annual harvest recommendations to be adopted by the Wildlife Commission. Guidelines within the Statewide Elk plan will be used in developing elk quotas. Elk Management of Private Lands and Public Lands: Elk damage and compensation issues are addressed specifically in the Nevada Department of Wildlife s Program and Procedure entitled Elk Management on Private Lands. The statewide Elk Species Management plan also outlines responsibilities relating to elk use on private lands. Options to address elk use on private lands include: 1. A landowner may receive elk tag(s) as an incentive to support elk use on uncultivated private lands. Large landowners are more likely to qualify for this program than the smaller landowners. 2. Exclusionary fencing may be provided and constructed for stored crops and standing crops. This is a preferred option to continual compensation payments each year to the same landowner. 3. The Department of Wildlife is authorized to pay for elk damage including losses to crops, grazing reductions and privately maintained improvements. A single claim is limited to $10,000.00: or greater with the Wildlife Commission s approval. Funding for this is provided through the Elk Damage Account, which is supported by a $5.00 fee for each elk application received. 4. Other options for dealing with elk on private lands include emergency depredation hunts, hazing, Department removal and landowner removal. 5. Where conflicts on private land caused by elk become excessive and cannot be resolved by implementing any of the outline options, recommendations to reduce elk numbers will be considered. Use creative strategies to increase elk tags in units or areas to reduce the number of elk 6. Should the Department of Wildlife and the private landowner disagree on value of loss, elk usage of private lands, or mitigation methods, the landowner has the option of seeking mediation through a Local Panel as set forth in N.A.C

37 7. Provide landowners with antlerless tags for use on private land No major elk depredation problems have occurred within Humboldt County at this time. It is imperative that the landowners and the Department work together and respond quickly to any problems that might occur. Deterrence at the onset of an elk problem will most likely shortstop a major problem from developing. See appendix for elk damage and incentive programs. BLM 1. Manage elk habitat on public lands within the subplan area consistent with the management prescriptions outlined in the Winnemucca RMP and in accordance with existing laws, regulation and policy to provide forage to sustain a total target elk population level identified in this subplan while minimizing impacts to existing uses. 2. Work with NDOW and the private landowners to complete the appropriate NEPA documentation for proposed habitat treatments designed to mitigate impacts of target elk populations to existing resources and uses, improve elk distribution and allow for more efficient use of available habitat within the sub plan area. 3. Apply elk habitat management objectives and monitoring efforts in the following priorities: a) crucial; b) seasonal; and c) yearlong use areas. 4. Continue to participate as a TRT member through implementation and review of this subplan as necessary. As a TRT member responsible for management of the public land resources, the BLM will provide habitat monitoring information to be used in resolving conflicts with existing land uses and/or attainment of the goals and objectives of this sub-plan as staffing and funding allows. Forest Service 1. Manage elk habitat on public land within the sub-plan area consistent with the Humboldt National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan as amended). Resource goals with underlying objectives define multiple-use direction for forest-wide management. Produce a sustained yield of forage on all lands available and suitable for livestock grazing while maintaining or enhancing the productivity of the land. Manage all allotments to maintain suitable range presently in satisfactory ecological condition and to improve suitable range that is in less than satisfactory condition. Improve the current productive level of wildlife habitat with the emphasis on maintaining or improving limiting factors. Manage livestock to recognize the special needs relating to wet meadows, riparian areas, and fish habitat. Reduce conflicts between livestock and wildlife for forage on key ranges. 27

38 2. Forest utilization standards guide allotment management and annual operating plans to maintain range that is in satisfactory condition and improve range that is not in satisfactory condition. Forest Service standards and guidelines for rangeland management will consider wildlife and livestock use. 3. Strive to establish partnerships with NDOW and other interested groups to monitor seasonal use and establish vegetation monitoring studies when elk use is impacting vegetation resources. Type and intensity of study or inventory will be determined when problems are identified and when populations have been established. Studies will depend on funding and staff availability. 4. Complete NEPA as funding and staffing allows for proposed actions on habitat treatments or structural improvements within the Forest boundary that would allow for more efficient use of available habitat. 5. Forest Service staff will participate as a TRT member through implementation and review of the sub-plan. The Forest is responsible for management of public land and will provide habitat monitoring information, as funding and staffing allows, that may be used in resolving conflicts with acceptable land uses. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1. Manage the habitat on public land within the Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge) consistent with the Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) that was completed in Our vision statement says: Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge will foster a strong land ethic and provide scientific leadership through collaboration with a diverse network of partners and utilize the highest principles of conservation. Sheldon Refuge will promote opportunities for people to actively seek and discover natural and cultural treasures in the vast and rugged high desert characterized by solitude, abundant wildlife, and wildland free from human influences. Management will focus on Sheldon Refuge s wild character, biological integrity, and contribution within the larger landscape of the Great Basin as driven by natural ecological processes. As a result, Sheldon Refuge will perpetuate its unique cultural history and critical role in the preservation and study of the sagebrush-steppe ecosystem with its diverse and vital native species. Under our selected alternative, current fish, wildlife, habitat, and public use management would continue with the following key enhancements. Improvement of native habitat conditions would be facilitated by removal of all feral horses and burros from the Refuge within 5 years. Nonnative rainbow trout in Big Spring Reservoir would be replaced with trout species indigenous to the region (i.e. Lahontan cutthroat trout, Alvord cutthroat trout, or redband trout), and populations would be maintained through restocking if necessary. 28

39 Increased control of noxious weeds and other invasive plants would be implemented, including increased weed control along road corridors. Removal of western juniper would be undertaken where juniper woodlands are encroaching upon sage-steppe habitats. Rehabilitation and restoration of degraded habitats would occur, using intensive management techniques (i.e., seeding, erosion control structures, and recontouring). Removal of abandoned livestock water developments would occur, along with restoration of spring, playa, wet meadow, and stream habitats to more natural conditions where beneficial to wildlife. Improved recreation opportunities would be provided by relocating and enlarging the visitor contact station, improving campground facilities, developing an accessible interpretive trail, creating a self-guided auto tour route, and improving signage of routes open to vehicle use. Vehicle access to the Refuge would be improved when we reopen existing routes, following revisions to proposed wilderness area boundaries. More frequent maintenance of improved gravel roads would also occur. Relocation of up to nine campgrounds and realignment of road segments would occur, to reduce erosion and impacts to sensitive riparian areas and cultural resources. Seasonal road closures would be implemented as appropriate, to protect sensitive species and habitats. Areas managed for wilderness values will include those currently proposed for wilderness designation under Alternative 1, and additional wilderness study areas identified during the 2009 Sheldon Refuge Wilderness Review. As a result a larger portion of Sheldon Refuge (424,360 acres) would be managed for wilderness character than under the other alternatives. There would be increased inventory, protection, and quality of interpretation for historic and cultural resources. 2. The CCP directs the USFWS to manage elk if they pioneer into the Refuge. No reintroductions were authorized under the CCP. 3. Establish partnerships with NDOW and other interested groups to monitor seasonal use and establish vegetation monitoring studies when elk use is impacting vegetation resources. Type and intensity of study or inventory will be determined when problems are identified if populations have been established. 4. The NEPA process was covered during the process of completing the CCP. However, if a hunt is to be established, NEPA will have to be done for compatibility for a hunt. 5. The USFWS will participate as a TRT member through implementation and review of the sub-plan. The USFWS is responsible for management of public land and will provide habitat monitoring information that may be used in resolving habitat damage. 29

40 APPENDIX NO PRIVATE.5 MILE BUFFER WATER Potential habitat based on vegetation cover unit 031 Low Moderate High Total Sq.mi. of habitat Elk/Square mile.5 to to to 4.0 Potential Elk #'s 156 to to to to 918 Potential habitat based on vegetation cover unit 032 Low Moderate High Total Sq.mi. of habitat Elk/Square mile.5 to to to 4.0 Potential Elk #'s 47 to to to to 311 Potential habitat based on vegetation cover unit 033 Low Moderate High Total Sq.mi. of habitat Elk/Square mile.5 to to to 4.0 Potential Elk #'s 84 to to to to 1683 Potential habitat based on vegetation cover unit 034 Low Moderate High Total Sq.mi. of habitat Elk/Square mile.5 to to to 4.0 Potential Elk #'s 57 to to 5 88 to to 316 Potential habitat based on vegetation cover unit 035 Low Moderate High Total Sq.mi. of habitat Elk/Square mile.5 to to to 4.0 Potential Elk #'s 133 to to to to 487 Potential habitat based on vegetation cover unit 051 Low Moderate High Total Sq.mi. of habitat

41 Elk/Square mile.5 to to to 4.0 Potential Elk #'s 283 to to to to 1651 NO PRIVATE.5 MILE BUFFER WATER NO HMA Potential habitat based on vegetation cover unit 031 Low Moderate High Total Sq.mi. of habitat Elk/Square mile.5 to to to 4.0 Potential Elk #'s 156 to to to to 918 Potential habitat based on vegetation cover unit 032 Low Moderate High Total Sq.mi. of habitat Elk/Square mile.5 to to to 4.0 Potential Elk #'s 35 to to to to 235 Potential habitat based on vegetation cover unit 033 Low Moderate High Total Sq.mi. of habitat Elk/Square mile.5 to to to 4.0 Potential Elk #'s 84 to to to to 1683 Potential habitat based on vegetation cover unit 034 Low Moderate High Total Sq.mi. of habitat Elk/Square mile.5 to to to 4.0 Potential Elk #'s 40 to to.25 8 to to 71 Potential habitat based on vegetation cover unit 035 Low Moderate High Total Sq.mi. of habitat Elk/Square mile.5 to to to 4.0 Potential Elk #'s 56 to to 167 Potential habitat based on vegetation cover unit 051 Low Moderate High Total Sq.mi. of habitat Elk/Square mile.5 to to to

42 Potential Elk #'s 143 to to to to 1134 NO PRIVATE.5 MILE BUFFER WATER NO HMA NO LOW HABITAT Potential habitat based on vegetation cover unit 031 Low Moderate High Total Sq.mi. of habitat to Elk/Square mile to to 4.0 Potential Elk #'s to to to 450 Potential habitat based on vegetation cover unit 032 Low Moderate High Total Sq.mi. of habitat to Elk/Square mile to to 4.0 Potential Elk #'s 0 25 to to to 126 Potential habitat based on vegetation cover unit 033 Low Moderate High Total Sq.mi. of habitat to Elk/Square mile to to 4.0 Potential Elk #'s to to to 1431 Potential habitat based on vegetation cover unit 034 Low Moderate High Total Sq.mi. of habitat to Elk/Square mile to to 4.0 Potential Elk #'s 0.1 to.25 8 to 12 8 to 12 Potential habitat based on vegetation cover unit 035 Low Moderate High Total Sq.mi. of habitat to Elk/Square mile to to 4.0 Potential Elk #'s to Potential habitat based on vegetation cover unit 051 Low Moderate High Total Sq.mi. of habitat

43 Elk/Square mile.5 to to to 4.0 Potential Elk #'s to to to 710 Nevada Department of Wildlife Elk Damage and Incentive Program NDOW has numerous programs to prevent damage by elk. These include the following: 1) Build elk exclusionary fences to prevent elk access to private lands 2) Compensate landowners or permittees for elk damage on private or public lands 3) Provide elk incentive tags to private landowners who may qualify 4) Provide landowners with antlerless tags for use on private lands 5) Hold emergency depredation hunts 6) Use creative strategies to increase elk tags in units or areas to reduce the number of elk 7) Hazing elk off of private or public land 8) Using department employees to remove offending elk. 1) Elk Fencing NRS Cooperative and reciprocal agreements. 1. The Director may enter into cooperative or reciprocal agreements with the Federal Government or any agency thereof, any other state or any agency thereof, any other agency of this state, any county or other political subdivision of this state, to the extent permitted by the provisions of chapter 277 of NRS, any public or private corporation, or any person, in accordance with and for the purpose of carrying out the policy of the Commission. 2. Such agreements do not relieve any party thereto of any liability, independent of such agreements, existing under any provision of law. [1:286:1949; 1943 NCL ] + [2:286:1949; 1943 NCL ] + [3:286:1949; 1943 NCL ] (NRS A 1961, 194; 1969, 1550; 1979, 895; 1981, 607; 1993, 66, 1657; 1995, 509; 2003, 1526) NRS Fences constructed by Department: Requirements concerning construction and maintenance. If the Department constructs or causes to be constructed a fence in carrying out its duties, the Department shall, to the greatest extent practicable, ensure that the fence is constructed and maintained in such a manner as to prevent livestock from being trapped in the fence. (Added to NRS by 2013, 504) 2) Elk Damage Payments NRS Disbursement of money: Regulations of Commission; proof required from claimant. 1. The Commission shall adopt regulations governing the disbursement of money to: 33

44 (a) Prevent or mitigate damage to private property and privately maintained improvements, including, without limitation, fences; (b) Prevent or mitigate damage to fences on public lands; (c) Construct fences around sources of water on private lands or public lands where there has been damage to the area near such sources of water; and (d) Compensate persons for grazing reductions and the loss of stored and standing crops, 2. The regulations must contain: (a) Requirements for the eligibility of those persons claiming damage to private property, privately maintained improvements, fences on public lands or areas near sources of water on public lands to receive money or materials from the Department, including: (1) A requirement that such a person enter into a cooperative agreement with the Director for purposes related to this title; and (2) A requirement that if the claim is for money or materials from the Department for the construction of a fence around a source of water on private land or public land, such a person must: (I) Conduct a physical inspection of the private land or public land upon which the fence is proposed to be constructed to determine the most effective manner in which to protect the source of water and to determine the most effective manner in which to provide access to a source of water for livestock and wildlife that is located outside the fence and within a reasonable distance from the fence; (II) Conduct the inspection described in sub-subparagraph (I) in consultation with the persons or entities which will be directly affected by the construction of the fence, including, without limitation, an owner of the private land on which the fence is proposed to be constructed, a governmental entity that manages the public land on which the fence is proposed to be constructed, a holder of a permit to graze livestock on the public land, if applicable, and a person who holds a water right which will be directly affected by the construction of the fence; and (III) Enter into a cooperative agreement with the persons and entities described in sub-subparagraph (II) for purposes related to the construction of the fence in accordance with the results of the inspection conducted pursuant to this subparagraph. (b) Procedures for the formation of local panels to assess damage caused by elk or game mammals not native to this State and to determine the value of a loss claimed if the person claiming the loss and the Department do not agree on the value of the loss. (c) Procedures for the use on private property or public lands of materials purchased by the State to prevent damage caused by elk or game mammals not native to this State. (d) Any other regulations necessary to carry out the provisions of this section and NRS The regulations must: (a) Provide for the payment of money or other compensation to cover the costs of labor and materials necessary to: (1) Prevent or mitigate damage to private property, privately maintained improvements and fences on public lands caused by elk or game mammals not native to this State; and (2) Construct fences around sources of water on private or public lands if: (I) Elk or game mammals not native to this State have caused damage to the area near such sources of water; and (II) A source of water for livestock and wildlife is available outside such a fence and within a reasonable distance from such a fence or will be made available at such a location. 34

45 (b) Prohibit a person who has, within a particular calendar year, applied for or received a special incentive elk tag pursuant to NRS from applying, within the same calendar year, for compensation pursuant to this section for the same private land. 4. Money may not be disbursed to a claimant pursuant to this section unless the claimant shows by a preponderance of the evidence that the damage for which the claimant is seeking compensation was caused solely by elk or game mammals not native to this State. 5. As used in this section, public lands means all lands within the exterior boundaries of the State of Nevada except lands: (a) To which title is held by any private person or entity; (b) To which title is held by the State of Nevada, any of its local governments or the Nevada System of Higher Education; (c) Which are located within congressionally authorized national parks, monuments, national forests or wildlife refuges, or which are lands acquired by purchase consented to by the Legislature; (d) Which are controlled by the United States Department of Defense, Department of Energy or Bureau of Reclamation; or (e) Which are held in trust for Indian purposes or are Indian reservations. (Added to NRS by 1989, 2020; A 1991, 269; 1993, 1678; 1997, 1380; 1999, 437; 2003, 512, 1554; 2013, 1629) PREVENTION AND MITIGATION OF DAMAGE CAUSED BY CERTAIN GAME ANIMALS NAC Definitions. (NRS ) As used in NAC to , inclusive, unless the context otherwise requires: 1. Claimant means a person claiming damage to private property or privately maintained improvements caused by elk or game animals not native to this State. 2. Damage means any change in the quality or quantity of private property or a privately maintained improvement which reduces its value or intended function and which is caused by elk or game animals not native to this State. 3. Site includes any land, other than native rangeland, that is planted, irrigated or otherwise manipulated to produce a crop. The term includes any native hay meadow if the native hay meadow is: (a) Evaluated by the landowner applicant and the Department to determine its suitability as native habitat for elk; and (b) Not recommended for inclusion in the program for the issuance of special incentive elk tags established pursuant to NRS Stored crop means any crop that has been reaped, severed, gathered and stored. (Added to NAC by Bd. of Wildlife Comm rs, eff ; A by R206-08, ) NAC Privately maintained improvements construed. (NRS ) For the purposes of NRS , privately maintained improvements include any structures or facilities on private property or public property which are privately maintained. (Added to NAC by Bd. of Wildlife Comm rs, eff ) NAC Accounting for and disbursement of money received by Department. (NRS ) 1. The Director of the Department shall ensure that all gifts, grants, fees and appropriations of money received by the Department for the prevention and mitigation of damage caused by 35

46 elk or game animals not native to this State, and the interest and income earned on the money, less any applicable charges, are accounted for separately within the Wildlife Account. 2. The Department may disburse that money to reimburse: (a) Members of a local panel established pursuant to the provisions of NAC , for their travel and per diem expenses. (b) The Department for the expense of administering the provisions of NAC to , inclusive. The Department may not be reimbursed for more than 10 percent of the money remaining at the beginning of each year. (Added to NAC by Bd. of Wildlife Comm rs, eff ) NAC Notice required from claimant. (NRS ) Except as otherwise provided in NAC , to receive money or materials from the Department pursuant to the provisions of NAC to , inclusive, a claimant must notify the Department in writing of any damage within 5 days after he or she discovers it. The notice must include the: 1. Dates on which the damage occurred or an estimate of the dates; 2. Estimated number of elk or game animals not native to this State that are causing the damage; 3. Type of damage; 4. Date on which the damage was discovered; 5. Estimated extent of the damage; and 6. Location of the damage. (Added to NAC by Bd. of Wildlife Comm rs, eff ) NAC Acceptance of late claim. (NRS ) The Department may accept a claim that is filed more than 5 days after the claimant discovers the damage if: 1. The claimant gives verbal notice of the damage to the Department within the 5 days; and 2. The claimant shows that his or her failure to give timely notice was: (a) For good cause; (b) Not caused by his or her lack of diligence; or (c) Caused by the Department. (Added to NAC by Bd. of Wildlife Comm rs, eff ) NAC Cooperative agreement between claimant and Director of Department. (NRS ) 1. To receive money or materials from the Department pursuant to the provisions of NAC to , inclusive, a claimant must enter into a cooperative agreement with the Director of the Department. 2. The cooperative agreement must state that: (a) If the Department and the claimant agree that the hunting of elk is necessary to control damage, the parties agree to negotiate the circumstances under which access to the land of the claimant will be allowed. (b) The Department agrees to: (1) Act expeditiously when it receives a complaint. (2) Assess the problem and recommend a course of action to the claimant. (3) Carry out an orderly progression of action to alleviate the damage as agreed to by both parties. (4) Compensate the claimant for damage if a preponderance of the evidence proves that the loss was caused solely by elk or game animals not native to this State. 36

47 (c) The claimant agrees to: (1) Consult with the Department and consider its technical advice regarding: (I) Damage which occurs because of the placement of stored crops; and (II) The relocation of stored crops and development of new agricultural fields. (2) Allow the Department to enter his or her property to: (I) Remove elk or game animals not native to this State when the Department so requests. (II) Prevent further damage by any method necessary, including, but not limited to, hazing, hunting, shooting and scaring. (3) Allow hunters to whom the Department has issued a wildlife depredation tag, to hunt on his or her property if the hunters will not constitute an undue safety hazard to persons or property. (4) Notify the Department in writing of any damage within 5 days after he or she discovers it. The notice must include the information and documentation required by the provisions of NAC (Added to NAC by Bd. of Wildlife Comm rs, eff ) NAC Offer, acceptance and use of materials for prevention of damage. (NRS ) 1. The Department may, after consultation with the claimant, offer the claimant sufficient and appropriate materials for the prevention of damage. The claimant shall use the materials to construct exclusionary devices according to a mutually agreed upon specification and maintain them in good repair. The claimant must sign a loan agreement for the use of such materials. 2. If the Department offers the claimant sufficient and appropriate materials for the prevention of damage and the claimant: (a) Fails to accept and use the materials to prevent and mitigate damage caused by elk or game animals not native to this State, the claimant is no longer eligible to receive money or materials from the Department for such damage unless a local panel determines that the failure to accept or use the materials is reasonable. (b) Accepts the materials, the claimant shall agree to use the materials to prevent or mitigate damage caused by elk or game animals not native to this State. (Added to NAC by Bd. of Wildlife Comm rs, eff ) NAC Losses for which reimbursement is prohibited. (NRS ) The Department shall not reimburse a claimant for losses for which the claimant is or can be reimbursed pursuant to a policy of insurance. (Added to NAC by Bd. of Wildlife Comm rs, eff ) NAC Inspection of damaged property. (NRS ) The Department and the complainant shall inspect the property that is damaged as soon as is practicable, but not later than 10 days after the Department receives the notice required by NAC (Added to NAC by Bd. of Wildlife Comm rs, eff ) NAC Agreement upon ways to prevent or mitigate damage. (NRS ) After the Department and the claimant inspect the property as required by NAC , they shall agree, if possible, upon ways to prevent or mitigate damage caused by elk or game animals not native to this State, including: 1. Hazing and scaring; 37

48 2. Erecting exclusionary devices; 3. Issuing depredation tags; or 4. Removing the animals which are causing the damage. (Added to NAC by Bd. of Wildlife Comm rs, eff ) NAC Subsequent discovery of damage on another site. (NRS ) 1. Except as otherwise provided in subsection 2, if a claimant files a claim for damage on one site and then discovers damage on another site, the claimant must file a separate claim for the damage on the second site, but is not required to enter into a second cooperative agreement. 2. The Department, upon a showing of good cause, may waive the requirement that a claimant file a separate claim for damage on a second site. (Added to NAC by Bd. of Wildlife Comm rs, eff ) NAC Ongoing damage: Periodic reports; notification when damage ends. (NRS ) 1. If damage is ongoing, the claimant shall periodically inform the Department of the status of the damage. 2. The claimant shall notify the Department in writing when the damage ends not later than 30 days after it ends. The notice must state: (a) The total extent of the damage; and (b) When the damage began and ended. 3. For the purposes of subsection 1, ongoing means not more than 20 days have passed since the property of the complainant was damaged. (Added to NAC by Bd. of Wildlife Comm rs, eff ) NAC Proof of damage. (NRS ) 1. The Department shall develop a form to be used by a claimant to prove damage. 2. The claimant shall submit the form to the Department within 30 days after he or she files the notice required by NAC The Department may return incomplete or incorrect forms. 3. The form must be accompanied by: (a) A statement that the damaged property was in good repair before the damage. (b) A statement setting forth the amount of property damaged, including the amount of material by type that is needed to repair or replace the property to its condition immediately before the damage. (c) An agreement between the claimant and an investigator of the Department, where possible, that the damage was caused by elk or game animals not native to this State. (Added to NAC by Bd. of Wildlife Comm rs, eff ) NAC Approval and payment of claims. (NRS ) 1. If the Department approves a claim that is filed by a claimant, the Director of the Department or the Director s designee shall sign the form required by NAC and date his or her signature. 2. The Department shall pay each approved claim as soon as is practicable, but not later than 30 working days after the Director or the Director s designee signs the form required by NAC (Added to NAC by Bd. of Wildlife Comm rs, eff ) 38

49 NAC Determining amount of award; proof of cause of grazing reductions. (NRS ) 1. The money that a claimant may receive for: (a) A loss claimed includes the costs of restoring the property to its condition immediately before the damage. (b) The loss of a stored crop must be based on the fair market value of the crop where it was stored. (c) A loss to private property or a privately maintained improvement must be based on the cost of repairing or replacing the property or improvement, adjusted for the remaining useful life of the property or improvement immediately before the damage. (d) A loss from grazing reductions on private or public property must be contingent upon whether the claimant can prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the loss was caused solely by elk or game animals not native to this State. The burden of proof is the sole responsibility of the claimant. (e) The loss of a standing crop or pasture meadow must be determined by: (1) Comparing the harvest yield on the damaged area with comparable undamaged areas, and adjusting for any difference in production, if comparable undamaged areas are available; (2) Using the best estimate of yield provided by the claimant from past records of harvest and agreed to by the Department, if comparable undamaged areas are not available; or (3) Any other method agreed upon in writing by the claimant and the Department. (f) A loss on one site must be limited to $10,000, unless the Commission determines that a claimant may be paid more and there is sufficient money to pay him or her. 2. For the purposes of paragraph (e) of subsection 1: (a) Pasture meadow means land which is: (1) Used primarily for the production of grasses or legumes; (2) Grazed on by livestock; and (3) Irrigated or maintained for livestock. (b) Standing crop means all products of the soil that are planted, managed, grown or farmed, including, but not limited to, grasses, legumes and grains which are growing and standing in a field. The term does not include windbreaks, gardens or ornamental trees and shrubs. (Added to NAC by Bd. of Wildlife Comm rs, eff ) NAC Appeal to local panel: Grounds; service of notice; partial payment required. (NRS ) 1. If the claimant and the Department do not agree on the amount of money the claimant is to receive or the claimant fails to accept or use materials offered by the Department pursuant to NAC , the claimant or the Director of the Department may seek relief from a local panel formed pursuant to NAC If such relief is sought, the person seeking relief shall serve notice upon the other, personally or by registered mail, indicating his or her intent to seek relief. 2. If the Director of the Department receives or serves the notice required by subsection 1, the Director shall pay the claimant 75 percent of the amount he or she estimates the value of the loss to be within 30 days after the Director receives or serves the notice. The value of the loss must be determined in the manner set forth in NAC (Added to NAC by Bd. of Wildlife Comm rs, eff ) NAC (NRS ) Appeal to local panel: Selection and terms of members; selection of chair. 39

50 1. If the claimant and the Department do not agree on the value of a loss or the claimant fails to accept or use materials offered by the Department pursuant to NAC , the Board of Wildlife Commissioners will select a local panel from the residents of the county in which the claimant resides to assess damage caused by elk or game animals not native to this State, determine the value of the loss claimed and, if applicable, determine whether it was reasonable for the claimant to fail to accept or use materials offered by the Department pursuant to NAC A local panel must consist of three members to be selected as follows: (a) One member representing the local business community. (b) One member representing persons actively engaged in the production of agriculture. Persons engaged in the production of agriculture shall, upon request, provide the Board of Wildlife Commissioners with a list of prospective members. (c) One member representing either a local hunting or sportsmen s organization, or the county advisory board to manage wildlife. The county advisory board to manage wildlife shall, upon request, provide a list of prospective members. 3. A member of a local panel must be a resident of the county he or she serves. 4. The term of office of each member of the panel is 2 years. 5. Each local panel shall select a chair from among its members. 6. A local panel will be called to serve at the request of the Director of the Department or the Director s designee. (Added to NAC by Bd. of Wildlife Comm rs, eff ) NAC Appeal to local panel: Duties of panel; effect of decision; payment of members. (NRS ) 1. A local panel shall assess damage caused only by elk or game animals not native to this State, make a final determination of the value of the loss sustained and, if applicable, determine whether it was reasonable for the claimant to fail to accept or use materials offered by the Department pursuant to NAC A local panel shall: (a) Review the evidence submitted by a claimant and the Department before making a determination; and (b) Render a decision in an expeditious manner, but not later than 20 days after receiving notification to serve on a claim. 3. The decision of the local panel is final and binding on the parties if it complies with the provisions of NAC to , inclusive, and applicable laws of this State. 4. Each member of a local panel serves without salary, but may receive the per diem allowance and travel expenses provided for state officers and employees generally while performing official duties of the local panel. (Added to NAC by Bd. of Wildlife Comm rs, eff ) NAC Mitigation of damages required. (NRS ) Each claimant shall mitigate damages where possible. A claim may be denied or limited if the claimant fails to exercise reasonable care and diligence to avoid the loss or to minimize or lessen damage. The burden of proving a failure to mitigate damages rests with the Department. (Added to NAC by Bd. of Wildlife Comm rs, eff ) 40

51 3) Elk Incentive Tag Program NRS Establishment of program for issuance of special incentive elk tags. 1. The Commission shall adopt regulations to establish a program pursuant to which the Department will issue special incentive elk tags. The regulations must: (a) Set forth the application and annual review processes for the issuance of special incentive elk tags. (b) Require that an application for a special incentive elk tag must be accompanied by: (1) The fee charged for an elk tag pursuant to NRS ; and (2) Any administrative fee charged in connection with the issuance of an elk tag pursuant to this chapter. (c) Provide for the issuance of a special incentive elk tag only to a person who: (1) Lawfully owns, leases or manages private land within an actual elk use area; and (2) If that private land blocks reasonable access to adjacent public land, provides reasonable access through the private land to allow a person or hunting party possessing a valid elk tag to hunt elk on the adjacent public land. (d) Establish criteria for the issuance of special incentive elk tags based upon: (1) The number of elk using private land controlled by the applicant; (2) The number of days the elk use private lands of the applicant in a calendar year; (3) The total number of elk; and (4) Limiting the number of special incentive elk tags issued in each calendar year to not more than one-half of the bull elk tags issued in that calendar year, the private land is located. (e) Provide that special incentive elk tags are valid for both sexes of elk. (f) Prohibit a person who has, within a particular calendar year, applied for or received compensation pursuant to NRS as reimbursement for damage caused by elk to private land from applying, within the same calendar year, for a special incentive elk tag for the same private land. (g) Allow a group of owners, lessees and managers of private land to qualify for a special incentive elk tag for their combined lands. (h) Ensure that the issuance of special incentive elk tags will not result in the number of bull elk tags issued in any year being reduced to a number below the quota for bull elk tags established by the Commission for (i) Provide that a person to whom a special incentive elk tag is issued by the Commission pursuant to this section may: (1) If the person holds a valid hunting license issued by this State, use the special incentive elk tag himself or herself; or (2) Sell the special incentive elk tag to another person who holds a valid hunting license issued by this State at any price upon which the parties mutually agree. (j) Require that a person who is issued a special incentive elk tag must hunt: (1) During the open season for elk. (2) In the unit or units within the management area or areas in which the private land is located. (k) Provide for the appointment of an arbitration panel to resolve disputes between persons who apply for special incentive elk tags and the Department regarding the issuance of such tags. 2. As used in this section, actual elk use area means an area in which elk live, as identified and designated by the Department. (Added to NRS by 1997, 1379; A 1999, 1226; 2003, 1534) 41

52 Special Incentive Elk Tags NAC Definitions. (NRS , , , ) As used in NAC to , inclusive, unless the context otherwise requires, the words and terms defined in NAC , and have the meanings ascribed to them in those sections. (Added to NAC by Bd. of Wildlife Comm rs by R057-98, eff ; A by R107-02, ; R206-08, ) NAC Actual elk use area defined. (NRS , , , ) Actual elk use area has the meaning ascribed to it in NRS (Added to NAC by Bd. of Wildlife Comm rs by R057-98, eff ) NAC Landowner applicant defined. (NRS , , , ) Landowner applicant : 1. Means any owner, lessee or manager of private land who supports: (a) The established management objective, as defined by the Department in any applicable subplan for the management of elk within the local area of the private land of the landowner applicant; and (b) Any elk in addition to the established management objective living on the private rangeland or private native hay meadow which are used to justify the issuance of a special incentive elk tag to the landowner applicant. 2. Includes the owner, lessee or manager of any native hay meadow, if the native hay meadow is: (a) Evaluated by the landowner applicant and the Department to determine its suitability as native habitat for elk; and (b) Recommended for inclusion within the private land of the landowner applicant based upon: (1) The desire of the landowner applicant; and (2) The evaluation conducted pursuant to paragraph (a). (Added to NAC by Bd. of Wildlife Comm rs by R057-98, eff ; A by R206-08, ) NAC Special incentive elk tag defined. (NRS , , , ) Special incentive elk tag means an elk tag that is awarded to a landowner applicant as an incentive to support: 1. The established management objective, as defined by the Department in any applicable subplan for the management of elk within the local area of the private land of the landowner applicant; and 2. Any elk in addition to the established management objective living on the private rangeland or private native hay meadow which are used to justify the issuance of the special incentive elk tag to the landowner applicant. (Added to NAC by Bd. of Wildlife Comm rs by R057-98, eff ; A by R206-08, ) NAC Denial of tag under certain circumstances. (NRS , , , ) The Department will not issue a special incentive elk tag to a person who does not currently possess a valid Nevada hunting license or who is not eligible to receive an elk tag pursuant to NAC (Added to NAC by Bd. of Wildlife Comm rs by R057-98, eff ) NAC Persons not eligible for tag. (NRS , , , ) 1. The following persons are not eligible for a special incentive elk tag: (a) A landowner applicant who, during the same calendar year he or she applies for a special incentive elk tag, has applied for or received compensation pursuant to NRS for damage caused by elk to the private land identified in the agreement for the special incentive elk tag. 42

53 (b) A landowner applicant whose private land blocks reasonable access to adjacent public land and who does not agree to provide reasonable access through his or her private land to allow a person or hunting party possessing a valid elk tag to hunt elk on the adjacent public land. (c) An employee of the Department and the employee s spouse or children if the employee processes the request and awards the special incentive elk tag to himself or herself or to his or her spouse or children. 2. If a landowner applicant: (a) Fails to comply with any provision that is included in the agreement made pursuant to NAC ; or (b) During the term of the agreement, prohibits or attempts to prohibit any hunter or hunting party holding a valid elk tag from entering or crossing the private land of the landowner applicant, tag to the landowner applicant. (Added to NAC by Bd. of Wildlife Comm rs by R057-98, eff ; A by R206-08, ) NAC Provisions of agreement between landowner applicant and Director. (NRS , , , ) The agreement made between a landowner applicant and the Director of the Department for a special incentive elk tag must provide that: 1. The landowner applicant shall: (a) Approve a document specified by the Department in which the landowner applicant specifies how he or she shall support: (1) The established management objective, as defined by the Department in any applicable subplan for the management of elk within the local area of the private land of the landowner applicant; and (2) Any elk in addition to the established management objective living on the private rangeland or private native hay meadow which are used to justify the issuance of a special incentive elk tag to the landowner applicant; (b) If the private land of the landowner applicant is adjacent to public land for which access is not available except through the private land, allow access to the public land: (1) By a person or hunting party possessing a valid elk tag for the purpose of hunting elk on the adjacent public land; and (2) At a location which is determined by the landowner applicant and the Department; and (c) Allow an employee or other representative of the Department to enter the private land, at any date and time agreed upon by the landowner applicant and the Department, to assess elk use to determine the number of special incentive elk tags that the Department will issue pursuant to NAC The Department will: (a) Determine the number of special incentive elk tags that it will award pursuant to NAC ; and (b) Assist a landowner applicant in determining the portions of his or her land that are used by elk. (Added to NAC by Bd. of Wildlife Comm rs by R057-98, eff ; A by R206-08, ) NAC Award, issuance and use of tags; fees. (NRS , , , ) 1. The Department will award special incentive elk tags based on the following formula: (This formula has been updated to include spikes harvested from previous year in addition to bull tags) NP x DP x (NT + TSH) NE 365 where: NP = The number of elk using the private land of the landowner applicant. 43

54 NE = The total number of elk in the actual elk use area in which the private land is located. DP = The number of days the elk use the private land during the year. NT = The total number of antlered elk tags that were issued during the previous year in the unit or units within the management area or areas in which the private land is located. 2. A group of landowners, lessees or managers may apply to receive special incentive elk tags for their combined private lands. The group may allocate the tags among the members of the group at its discretion. 3. The issuance of special incentive elk tags will not result in a reduction of the total number of antlered elk tags issued to the public during a year below the quota for antlered elk tags established by the Commission for 1997, which was 186 tags. 4. A special incentive elk tag is valid for both sexes of elk. 5. A landowner applicant to whom a special incentive elk tag is issued pursuant to this section may: (a) Use the tag himself or herself if the landowner applicant holds a valid hunting license issued from this State; or (b) Transfer the tag to another person who holds a valid hunting license issued from this State for any price upon which the parties mutually agree. 6. The Department will charge the same fees for a special incentive elk tag and for the processing of an application for a special incentive elk tag that are charged for an elk tag and for the processing of an application for an elk tag set forth in NRS An applicant who applies for a special incentive elk tag must indicate on the application the hunt for which he or she is applying. The Department will not issue a tag to the applicant for the hunt indicated on the application unless the Commission has established a hunt in the unit or units within the management area or areas in which the private land is located. 8. The Department will indicate on each special incentive elk tag it issues pursuant to this section the period during which the tag is valid and the unit or units within the management area or areas in which the private land is located for which the tag is valid. 9. A person possessing a valid special incentive elk tag shall hunt only: (a) During the period indicated on the tag issued pursuant to this section; (b) With the weapon designated for that hunt; and (c) In the unit or units within the management area or areas in which the private land is located, as indicated on the tag. (Added to NAC by Bd. of Wildlife Comm rs by R057-98, eff ; A by R104-99, ; R085-00, ) NAC Arbitration panel. (NRS , , , ) 1. The Commission may select an arbitration panel from the residents of the county in which an owner applicant resides to: (a) Decide a dispute between a landowner applicant and the Department concerning the number of special incentive elk tags that the Department should award; or (b) Determine whether a party who possesses a special incentive elk tag has adhered to the terms of the agreement entered into to obtain the tag. 2. An arbitration panel must consist of three members to be selected as follows: (a) One member representing the local business community. (b) One member representing persons actively engaged in the production of agriculture. Persons engaged in the production of agriculture shall, upon request, provide the Board of Wildlife Commissioners with a list of prospective members. (c) One member representing either a local hunting or sportsmen s organization, or the county advisory board to manage wildlife. The county advisory board to manage wildlife shall, upon request, provide a list of prospective members. 3. A member of an arbitration panel must be a resident of the county he or she serves. 4. The term of office of each member of the panel is 2 years. 5. Each arbitration panel shall select a chair from among its members. 6. An arbitration panel will be called to serve at the request of the Director or his or her designee. 44

55 7. Each member of the arbitration panel serves without salary, but may receive the per diem allowance and travel expenses provided for state officers and employees generally while performing official duties of the arbitration panel. 8. The arbitration panel shall: (a) Review the evidence submitted by a claimant and the Department before making a determination; and (b) Render a decision in an expeditious manner, but not later than 20 days after receiving notification to serve on a claim. 9. The decision of the arbitration panel is final and binding on the parties if it complies with the provisions of NAC to , inclusive, and applicable laws of this State. (Added to NAC by Bd. of Wildlife Comm rs by R057-98, eff ) 4) Antlerless Elk Landowner Tag Program Process and Regulatory Establishment #22 NDOW identifies private lands where unwanted elk use has or may occur in relation to standing crops or meadows; where private land may restrict access for standard draw tag elk tagholders to hunt; and where a limited tag quota has a high likelihood of solving private land elk issues that NDOW and private landowners mutually acknowledge. o For those landowners that have a past history of reoccurring unwanted elk use, a NDOW biologist will identify specific conditions, timing, location, elk numbers, potential hunt boundaries, and tag numbers through direct coordination with the landowner. An Investigation Report will be filed and the landowner will be considered qualified for antlerless elk landowner tags. o If NDOW estimates a strong potential for future unwanted elk use on a particular private land parcel, the local biologist with direct input from the landowner will fill out an Investigation Report and the landowner will be considered qualified for antlerless elk landowner tags. o There may be situations where unwanted elk use may not be foreseen but occurs unexpectedly. As quickly as possible, the local biologist, with direct input from the landowner, will fill out an Investigation Report that initiates an antlerless elk landowner tag hunt. All investigation reports for unwanted elk use situations will be reviewed and signed off by the Game Division s regional supervisor. Investigation reports will then be forwarded to the License Office so they may draft the antlerless elk landowner tag application. The Investigation Report is essentially a checklist of items that License Office will ultimately need to initiate/generate the hunt and tags including: o Geographic Location - includes unit or units where private and public land is located and physical boundaries of the hunt area including a map. o Season Dates Specific Season Dates will be set by the local biologist and landowner and if necessary, multiple back to back seasons may be set. Each separate season for a given geographic area will have a unique hunter choice number for issuing tags and tracking hunt questionnaires valid for each specific season. Big Game Hunt Questionnaire Deadline If a season ends on or before January 1, the deadline will be January 31 of the current year s hunt season, as per NAC If the season ends after January 1, the deadline will be January 31 of the following year s hunt season (e.g., if season dates are December 1, 2013 February 15, 2014, the hunt questionnaire deadline is January 31, 2015) o Quota specific to each season and geographic area. A limit of 25 tags exists per landowner per year. o 1 tag per applicant per year (includes the landowner) o Landowner contact information in case clarification or other questions are needed before tags are issued. o Landowner signature on the investigation report or from landowner acknowledging the report and hunt details 45

56 In the case of potential, future unwanted elk situations: Nov. 12, 2013 ver. 2 o Once elk are actually present, most likely observed by the landowner, NDOW biologist and landowner will finalize specifics for the antlerless elk landowner tag hunt. o The NDOW regional game division supervisor/biologist will forward a revised investigation report to the License Office. License office builds the specific antlerless elk landowner hunt and hunter choice numbers into the Hunt Application System Landowner will send to NDOW a list of hunters and pertinent information to confirm their eligibility (i.e., no past revocations, or other limitation) and from which office(s) hunters may obtain a tag. Not every known hunter s name is required initially, but by doing so, it will expedite the purchase of the tags at a regional office. License Office will contact administrative staff at regional office(s) alerting them the specific antlerless elk landowner hunt and applications are in the system, ready to be processed. Antlerless elk landowner tag applicants, as identified by the landowner, may travel directly to the previously identified regional office(s), walk in, fill out the hunt application, and once funds are collected, the tag will be issued. Regional administrative staff must deposit the funds according to the Fiscal revenue General Ledger (i.e., predator, elk damage, application and tag fee must go into separate GL accounts). Eligibility Issues in Relation to Other Elk Tags On page 21 of the 2013 Big Game Application brochure is the annual big game application Commission Regulation that sets the big game application eligibility requirements including how many tags a person may obtain during a single hunting season. The following sentence is the suggested new language to accommodate the antlerless elk landowner hunt and emergency depredation hunts to allow a person to obtain these tags and also to apply for draw elk tags. A person may not obtain more than one elk tag during a hunting season except for Heritage tags, elk incentive hunt tags, emergency depredation hunt tags, and antlerless elk landowner hunt tags. Waiting Period for Obtaining Certain Elk Tags NAC established the waiting periods for bull, spike and antlerless tags. It states that a person is eligible in any year for an antlerless elk tag no waiting period. So no additional language needed. Establishment of the Antlerless Elk Landowner Hunt will initially be through Commission Regulation We propose to identify and define the antlerless elk landowner hunt and tags initially in Commission Regulation as we do Emergency Depredation Hunts each and every year. It is recommended that the regulation and revised application eligibility be drafted for adoption at the February 2014 Wildlife Commission meeting. 5) Emergency Depredation Hunts CR Amendment #1 Emergency Depredation Hunts 2015 and 2016 Emergency Hunts The board of Wildlife Commissioner, under the authority of Sections , , and of the Nevada revised Statutes, does hereby adopt the following regulation for the big game resource , and of the Nevada Revised Statutes, does hereby adopt the following regulations for the big game resource. SPECIES MULE DEER PRONGHORN ANTELOPE LEGAL To be determined by WEAPON hunt HUNT Hunt number Hunt number #2104 NUMBER #1104 for for pronghorn FOR CLASS antlerless antelope with horns OF ANIMAL mule deer, shorter than ears, ELK Hunt number #4104 for antlerless elk, hunt 46

57 CLASS OF ANIMAL OPEN SEASON hunt number #1105 for antlered mule deer, and hunt number #1106 for either class of mule deer. hunt number #2105 for pronghorn antelope with horns longer than ears, and hunt number #2106 for either class of pronghorn antelope. To be determined by the Department for each designated emergency hunt Individual designated emergency hunts may occur between July 1 and February 28 of the following year. TAG QUOTA Not to exceed 2000 tags statewide for the species listed. APPLICATIONS In an emergency hunt for a particular geographic area (that may have multiple seasons) where the total quota for all seasons is less than 20 tags, participants will be selected from the unit group alternate list established for the nearest similar hunt. In an emergency hunt for a particular geographic area (that may have multiple seasons) where the Department designates a total quota of 20 tags or more for all seasons for a particular hunt, the Department will hold a computerized drawing. Submission of number #4105 for antlered elk, hunt number #4106 for either class of elk, and hunt number #4108 for spike only elk. 47

58 ELIGIBILITY RESTRICTIO NS No change to current Nevada Administrat ive Code for mule deer. applications for an emergency hunt drawing will be restricted to online at m. The application period and deadline for each emergency hunt draw will be determined at the time the hunt and season is established by the Department. Applicants must be currently eligible for the species identified in the hunt to be eligible to apply for an emergency hunt draw. Eligibility restrictions concerning successive years' hunts as stated in Nevada Administrative Code do not apply to this hunt. Eligibility restrictions concerning successive years' hunts as stated in Nevada Administrat ive Code do not apply to this hunt 6) Elk Hunt Strategies 1. Antlerless Elk Management Tag Awarded if Deer Tag Drawn ( Delk Tag) The premise for the delk tag is to increase cow elk harvest without adding additional hunters and hunter congestion during existing mule deer hunt seasons. This antlerless elk tag is considered a management antlerless elk tag without any bonus points associated with it. Mule deer applicant would check box on their application (for Hunts 1341, 1371, 1331, and 1181) if he or she would want to draw an antlerless elk tag if they were to draw a deer tag. The season for both the deer and antlerless elk management tags issued in this method would be the same season dates as the deer tag. The antlerless elk management tag may only be a select set of hunt units within the mule deer unit group depending on where the biologist needs additional cow elk harvest (i.e., Cow elk tag may only be good for Unit 061 or 062 within Deer unit group ). 48

59 The area biologist would set a quota for these antlerless elk management tags in case there is high demand by deer applicants to acquire an additional cow elk tag. The drawing of an antlerless elk management tag for the successful deer applications will occur in the order of the lowest draw number assigned to the deer applications NAC will need to be amended to add language to exclude management hunts tags from the bonus point program and not allow bonus point accumulation on these hunts. The hunter choices (unit groups and weapon class hunts) that would be associated with this application option would be identified in Commission regulation during the annual big game season setting process each February and quotas for the antlerless elk management tags set in May. 2. NAC to be amended to eliminate bonus points from depredation hunts. The premise is that bull elk depredation applicants that are building bonus points are more likely to trophy bull hunt once they draw the tag and not shoot a bull at all if the antlers are not large. The whole reason to have a depredation hunt is to kill elk regardless of age or antler size. The amendment would remove the term depredation from the bonus point categories and add language that would exclude the depredation hunts from accumulating bonus points. 3. Allow Both Antlered and Antlerless Elk Applications in same Draw Period - Allow for a hunter to apply for both bull elk and cow elk in the main big game tag draw application process. The outcome of the bull elk applications would need to be determined first. If applicant is successful drawing a bull tag, the cow elk application is deemed unsuccessful and the applicant is awarded a bonus point for cow elk. If the bull elk application is unsuccessful, a bull elk bonus point would be awarded and the cow application is assessed with all other species in the draw process to determine if successful or not. Premise is bull elk applicants would be willing and able to harvest a cow elk but they don t want to miss out on accumulating bull elk bonus points and apply for cow elk. With this program we are recruiting bull hunters to harvest a cow elk while waiting for their bull tag to be drawn. NAC would need to be amended to allow for more than one application per species. Then Commission regulations set during the big game season setting process in February would define the eligibility language to allow for both antlered and antlerless elk applications in same application period. 4. Wilderness Only Antlerless Elk Hunts Have separate any legal weapon cow elk seasons just for designated wilderness areas within certain unit groups where wilderness has severely limited hunter access and cow elk are utilizing wilderness more and more to avoid hunting pressure. The hunt boundary would be the wilderness boundary as defined by USFS or BLM. A map would be provided with the tag. 5. Spike Elk Hunts Initiate spike bull hunts in select unit groups where we are over population objective. Start with small quotas and increase once hunter success rate is estimated for a given unit group (Utah s spike hunts hunter success is typically around 15%.) Season dates for spike hunts would be same as cow elk hunts. Spike hunt quotas would be in addition to the standard antlered bull hunt quotas since our goal is to increase overall bull harvest but not to increase mature bull harvest 49

60 6. September Any Legal Weapon Antlerless Elk Hunt - Change muzzleloader weapon to any legal weapon hunt for the September cow elk season to increase hunter success for a couple of years during September when hunters can locate cow elk groups easier because of bugling bulls and no additional hunter congestion during the large quota deer hunt seasons in October. 7. Consider Changing NAC for the Waiting Period for Successfully Harvesting an Bull Elk - Reduce bull elk hunt waiting period to 5 years if a bull elk tagholder is successful. This would make both successful and unsuccessful bull tag holders have the same waiting period of 5 years. Premise is some bull elk hunters would be willing to kill more non-trophy bulls if they only have to wait 5 years compared to 10 years to start applying again for a bull tag. We acknowledge that it would increase the number of bull tag applicants that would have otherwise still have been in their waiting period. 8. Management Bull Hunts were considered but not recommended due to concerns over hunt implementation 7) Hazing Elk NRS Taking of wildlife by employee of Department. An employee of the Department may take any wildlife from any place, except private property without lawful authority, and in any manner for any purpose determined by the Director to be in the interest of conserving wildlife in this State if the taking of the wildlife complies with the requirements established by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service or any other agency of the Federal Government. (Added to NRS by 2005, 1307) 8) Department Removal NRS Taking of wildlife by employee of Department. An employee of the Department may take any wildlife from any place, except private property without lawful authority, and in any manner for any purpose determined by the Director to be in the interest of conserving wildlife in this State if the taking of the wildlife complies with the requirements established by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service or any other agency of the Federal Government. (Added to NRS by 2005, 1307) 50

61 SLOPE USE AREAS PER SEASON UNIT 051 Spring <1% <1% 7% nearly level plateaus or terrace 10% toe slopes, bottoms, and swales 41% very dry steep slopes 11% gently sloping ridges and hills very moist steep slopes 31% moderately moist steep slopes moderately dry slopes Summer <1% <1% <1% 1% 3% 11% cool aspect scarps, cliffs, canyons toe slopes, bottoms, and swales nearly level plateaus or terrace 41% 12% hot aspect scarps, cliffs, canyons very dry steep slopes gently sloping ridges and hills very moist steep slopes 32% moderately moist steep slopes moderately dry slopes 51

62 Fall 2% nearly level plateaus or terrace 31% 37% gently sloping ridges and hills very dry steep slopes 2% 0% 28% moderately moist steep slopes very moist steep slopes moderately dry slopes Winter 48% <1% <1% 2% 14% 11% hot aspect scarps, cliffs, canyons nearly level plateaus or terrace gently sloping ridges and hills very moist steep slopes very dry steep slopes 25% moderately moist steep slopes moderately dry slopes 52

63 Vegetation use Areas Unit

64 Unit

65 Unit

66 Unit

67 Unit

68 Unit

69 Unit

70 Unit

71 Unit

72 Unit

73 Unit

74 Unit

75 Unit

76 FIELDS REMOVED FROM DATA AS NONUSE AREAS "CN_LEVEL3" = 'Columbia Plateau Ash and Tuff Badland' OR "CN_LEVEL3" = 'Cultivated Cropland' OR "CN_LEVEL3" = 'Developed, High Intensity' OR "CN_LEVEL3" = 'Developed, Low Intensity' OR "CN_LEVEL3" = 'Developed, Medium Intensity' OR "CN_LEVEL3" = 'Developed, Open Space' OR "CN_LEVEL3" = 'Inter- Mountain Basins Active and Stabilized Dune' OR "CN_LEVEL3" = 'Inter-Mountain Basins Alkaline Closed Depression' OR "CN_LEVEL3" = 'Inter-Mountain Basins Playa' OR "CN_LEVEL3" = 'Inter-Mountain Basins Volcanic Rock and Cinder Land' OR "CN_LEVEL3" = 'No Data' OR "CN_LEVEL3" = 'Open Water (Fresh)' OR "CN_LEVEL3" = 'Pasture/Hay' OR "CN_LEVEL3" = 'Quarries, Mines, Gravel Pits and Oil Wells' OR "CN_LEVEL3" = 'Rocky Mountain Alpine Bedrock and Scree' OR "CN_LEVEL3" = 'Undifferentiated Barren Land' 66

77 Nevada Board of Wildlife Commissioners Meeting DRAFT MINUTES Agenda Truckee Meadows Community College 7000 Dandini Blvd Sierra Building, Room 108 Reno, NV Videoconferencing Locations: University of Nevada Cooperative Extension 8050 Paradise Road, Room A Las Vegas, NV Great Basin College 1500 College Parkway High Tech Center 121 Elko, NV #5 Public comment will be taken on every action item after discussion but before action on each item, and is limited to three minutes per person. The chairman, in his discretion, may allow persons representing groups to speak for six minutes. Persons may not allocate unused time to other speakers. Persons are invited to submit written comments on items or attend and make comment during the meeting and are asked to complete a speaker card and present it to the Recording Secretary. To ensure the public has notice of all matters the Commission will consider, Commissioners may choose not to respond to public comments in order to avoid the appearance of deliberation on topics not listed for action on the agenda. Forum restrictions and orderly business: The viewpoint of a speaker will not be restricted, but reasonable restrictions may be imposed upon the time, place and manner of speech. Irrelevant and unduly repetitious statements and personal attacks that antagonize or incite others are examples of public comment that may be reasonably limited. Please provide the Board of Wildlife Commissioners ( Commission ) with the complete electronic or written copies of testimony and visual presentations to include as exhibits with the minutes. Minutes of the meeting will be produced in summary format. NOTE: County Advisory Boards to Manage Wildlife (CABMW) Members and public comment allowed on each action item and regulation workshop items and at the end of the meeting. Nevada Board of Wildlife Commissioners Members: Chairman Jeremy Drew Vice Chairman Grant Wallace Commissioner Chad Bliss Commissioner Brad Johnston Commissioner Kerstan Hubbs Commissioner David McNinch Commissioner Pete Mori Commissioner Paul E. Valentine Commissioner Bill Young Secretary Tony Wasley Recording Secretary Suzanne Scourby Deputy Attorney General Harry Ward Administrative Assistant III Jordan Neubauer Nevada Department of Wildlife personnel in attendance during the two days: Deputy Director Jack Robb Division Administrator of Operations Bob Haughian Biologist 4 Tom Donham Conservation Education Division Administrator Teresa Moiola Division Administrator Habitat Alan Jenne Management Analyst 3 Maureen Hullinger Wildlife Diversity Administrator Jennifer Newmark Wildlife Staff Specialist Mike Cox Administrative Assistant 4 Kathleen Teligades Game Division Administrator Brian Wakeling Chief Game Warden Tyler Turnipseed Wildlife Staff Specialist Pat Jackson Fisheries Division Administrator Jon Sjöberg Management Analyst 3 Kim Jolly Wildlife Staff Specialist Cody Schroeder Administrative Assistant Natalie Pannunzio Biologist 4 Steve Kimble Biologist 4 Mike Scott Biologist 3 Ed Partee Administrative Assistant 2 Kati Harmon Wildlife Staff Biologist Cody Schroeder Wildlife Staff Specialist Mark Farman Wildlife Staff Specialist Matt Maples 1

78 Others in attendance Reno Location/two days: Caron Tayloe Gil Yanuck, Carson County Advisory Board Member (CABMW) Mark Jensen, USDA, Wildlife Services Fred Voltz, public Tom Cassinelli, chairman Humboldt CABMW Stan Zuber, Carson CABMW Sean Shea, chairman Washoe CABMW Glenn Bunch, Mineral CABMW Mitch Burns, chairman Lyon CABMW Furn Winder, Elko CABMW Joe Crim, chairman Pershing CABMW John Allen Tyler Kuraisa Eddie Booth, Humboldt CEMC Paul Dixon, chairman Clark CABMW Rex Flowers, self Cory Lytle, chairman Lincoln CABMW Don Molde, Nevada Wildlife Alliance Cathy Smith, Washoe CABMW Gerald Lent, Nevada Hunters Association Ray Sawyer, chairman White Pine CABMW Josie Crim, self Don Sefton, Systems Consultants Sharon Negrin, Wild Futures Monty Martin, Systems Consultants Paul Taggart, Taggart and Taggart, Ltd. Josh Vittori, Nevada Bighorns Unlimited Bobbi McCollum, self Lloyd Peake Lynn Cullens, Mountain Lion Foundation Genelle Richards, No Bear Hunt Nevada Constance Howard, Nevada Wildlife Alliance Jim Puryear, Nevada Bighorns Unlimited Jana Menard Marta Bunuel Darin Elmore Kathryn Bricker, No Bear Hunt Nevada Tom Fennell, Nevada Bighorns Unlimited Dan Warren, self Bob Cook, Douglas CABMW Jennifer Simeo Leann Dyer Pat Miller Joel Blakeslee Allen BiaggI, Nevada Mining Association Camilla Fox, Project Coyote Bob Schweigert, Humboldt County Ranches Carolyn Stark Mel Belding Leah Sturgis Carol-Anne Weed Others in attendance Las Vegas Location/two days: Stephanie Myers Jana Wright Fred Voltz Howard Watts, Clark CABMW Julius Fortuna, Nevada Firearms Coalition Sarah Bullock Karen Layne Lisa Puleo Friday, May 13, a.m. Others in attendance Elko Location/two days: None 1 Pledge of Allegiance, Call to Order, Introduction and Roll Call of Commission and County Advisory Board Members to Manage Wildlife (CABMW) Chairman Drew Chairman Drew called the meeting to order and asked the Recording Secretary to conduct roll call of Commissioners present for Friday, May 13, 2016: Chairman Drew, Commissioners Wallace, Bliss, Hubbs, Johnston, McNinch, Mori, and Valentine. Commissioner Young was absent at roll call and was marked present at arrival. CABMW Members Present at Roll Call: Cathy Smith, Washoe; Furn Winder, Elko; Stanley Zuber, Carson; Tom Cassinelli, Humboldt; Mitch McVicars, White Pine; Cory Lytle, Lincoln; Joe Crim, Pershing; Paul Dixon, Clark; Glenn Bunch, Mineral; and Sean Shea, Washoe. 2

79 Employee Appreciation Secretary Wasley Several Department of Wildlife employees will receive awards for various years of service. Employees recognized by Secretary Wasley: Helen Gilliam and Aaron Meier for 10 years; Katie Simper for 15 years; Shawn Espinosa and Chris Crookshanks for 20 years; Pat Cummings, Chris Drake and Suzanne Scourby 25 years; and Chris Healy for 30 years. Ted C. Frantz Employee of the Year Award was presented to NDOW Pilot Dale Coleman a five year employee at a regional meeting; Mr. Coleman will be honored further at the June Elko Commission meeting. 2 Approval of Agenda Chairman Drew For Possible Action The Commission will review the agenda and may take action to approve the agenda. The Commission may remove items from the agenda, continue items for consideration or take items out of order. COMMISSIONER WALLACE MOVED TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS PRESENTED. COMMISSIONER MCNINCH SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 3 Member Items/Announcements and Correspondence Chairman Drew Informational Commissioners may present emergent items. No action may be taken by the Commission. Any item requiring Commission action may be scheduled on a future Commission agenda. The Commission will review and may discuss correspondence sent or received by the Commission since the last regular meeting and may provide copies for the exhibit file (Commissioners may provide hard copies of their correspondence for the written record). Correspondence sent or received by Secretary Wasley may also be discussed. Secretary Wasley said correspondence received was forwarded to the Commission. Chairman Drew said he received correspondence questioning whether a Commission policy for wildlife contests is a priority for the Commission, and he affirmed the policy is a priority that will be addressed through the Commission s policy committee. Commissioner Bliss said he was there when fish stocked into Comins Lake and he really appreciated the number of fish (10,000) and size of fish as has been many years since the Department stocked fish into Comins. Commissioner Hubbs said she received correspondence from local groups who want to be part of the ground effort for the new policy regarding killing contests and she provided their contact information to NDOW. 3

80 Chairman Drew read the Mineral County letter supporting Mineral CABMW request for introduction of elk to Mineral County. He said all the other received correspondence falls under agenda items with the exception of correspondence received by him on the caliber regulation however that regulation is not on this meeting s agenda. 4 County Advisory Boards to Manage Wildlife (CABMW) Member Items Informational CABMW members may present emergent items. No action may be taken by the Commission. Any item requiring Commission action will be scheduled on a future Commission agenda. None 5 Approval of Minutes Chairman Drew For Possible Action Commission minutes from the Jan. 29 and 30, and March 24 and 25, 2016 meetings. Chairman Drew said the minutes will be addressed separately and the reason for the January and March meetings on the agenda is in response to the outstanding Open Meeting Law (OML) Complaint. At the March meeting it had been decided to table the January meeting minutes and he asked DAG Ward to explain. DAG Ward said the minutes were tabled from January meeting, and he read the section from the litigation report submitted as support material (exhibit file/website). DAG Ward said the Attorney General s Office did not find that there was an OML violation and his recommendation for the future is that all Commissioners be located in one place at the host location and if there are technical difficulties at satellite locations it will not be a OML violation. Again, with all Commissioners in one place, no violation. He said a written request from one of complainants, Bobbi McCollum, was to have their complaint be part of minutes and the text messages requested as well. With the matter dismissed is up to the Commission if they want to include that as part of the minutes. Commissioner Young said he can t understand why we can t fix this as it should be fixed for people to participate in Southern Nevada as the majority of the population lives in Las Vegas or Clark County. Persons with an interest in this Commission should get good service, he has been on the Commission for four years and we keep wasting time on this, technology not that tough. Chairman Drew said the issue has been compatible systems and having meeting rooms large enough for these meetings. Chairman Drew requested Ms. McCollum s letter be in the exhibit file for the meeting. 4

81 Public Comment on Jan. 29 and 30, 2016, Meeting Minutes - Fred Voltz said the way to verify the phone records and text messages is to get a copy of the phone records from your provider and he said the Commission should do that to see the communication between Reno and Las Vegas staff, as problem occurred early on in the meeting. Commissioner Hubbs said she is missing the point of why the Commission needs to research the text messages if no violation due to the fact that the Commission was all together at the Las Vegas location. Chairman Drew agreed. COMMISSIONER HUBBS MOVED TO ACCEPT THE MEETING MINUTES OF THE JAN. 29 AND JAN. 30 MEETING FOR APPROVAL. COMMISSIONER MORI SECONDED THE MEETING. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Chairman Drew said for the March meeting minutes there is a correction to page 4, Commissioner Hubbs was opposed and she is listed twice - in favor and opposed; the correction is to strike her name from being in favor. Commissioner Valentine said he will abstain as he was absent. Commissioner Johnston was absent on the second day, and Commissioner McNinch was absent for part of the first day but is comfortable voting as the agenda items he missed were administrative business. Commissioner Young said the Commission section with attendance on page 1 is incorrect: Commissioner Valentine was absent, and Commissioner Johnston was absent Friday. COMMISSIONER BLISS MOVED TO APPROVE MARCH 24 AND 25 MEETING MINUTES WITH TWO CHANGES DISCUSSED. COMMISSIONER WALLACE SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. MOTION CARRIED 7 0. COMMISSIONERS JOHNSTON AND VALENTINE ABSTAINED. 6 Commission Policy 26 Management Analyst 3 Kim Jolly For Possible Action Currently there are two existing Commission Policies that are numbered 26. One is entitled Transparency (2011), and the other is entitled Re-establishing, Introducing, Transplanting and Managing Pioneering Rocky Mountain Elk (1995). The Department is recommending that Re-establishing, Introducing, Transplanting and Managing Pioneering Rocky Mountain Elk (1995) be reaffirmed as Policy 26 and that Transparency be renumbered as Commission Policy 26A. The Commission may also take action to review the revised Commission Policy index and numbering system. 5

82 Chairman Drew said a CABMW suggested picking a different number for Policy 26A. His answer to their suggestion is that the Commission has an active committee that is reviewing all Commission Policies and before knowing the recommendation on the future disposition of what we are proposing as Policy 26A, that it does not make sense to use up an unused number. Public Comment Reno location - Bob Schweigert said he owns a consulting company and his employers brought comment and questions whether Policy 26 existed or not and have not seen the supporting material for this reaffirmation and would like to reserve the opportunity to comment on it pending receipt of that supporting material. COMMISSIONER MCNINCH MOVED TO APPROVE AND REAFFIRM POLICY 26 ENTITLED RE-ESTABLISHING, INTRODUCING, TRANSPLANTING AND MANAGING PIONEERING ROCKY MOUNTAIN ELK (1995) AS POLICY 26 AND RECOGNIZING THE POLICY ENTITLED TRANSPARENCY AS POLICY 26A. COMMISSIONER WALLACE SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 7 Humboldt County Elk Sub-plan (Second Reading) Committee Chairman Eddie Booth and Western Region Biologist 3 Ed Partee For Possible Action The Commission will be presented with the draft Humboldt County Elk Sub-plan for review and possible action. The draft Humboldt County Elk Sub-plan has incorporated edits from discussion with the Nevada Board of Wildlife Commissioners, Humboldt County Commission, and at a sub-planning meeting held on April 12, This draft is provided for final review and possible adoption. Chairman Drew said at the recent March meeting there was an issue with documents being received and subsequently two drives have been sent to the Commission with the documents and Chairman Drew confirmed receipt of documents by the Commission. Western Region Biologist 3 Ed Partee said since the March 23, 2016, meeting their committee held one other meeting to address comments of the Commission and they then presented the plan to the Humboldt County Commission. Mr. Partee confirmed that the Humboldt County Commission had received same documentation from Mr. Schweigert and at their meeting they unanimously passed the plan. Mr. Booth said he appreciates all of the work that the Commission does. Committee made up of Humboldt County citizens and held monthly meetings. He recognized NDOW Administrative Assistant Katie Harmon and Biologist Ed Partee for their outstanding efforts staffing the meetings. Mr. Booth said in spite of objections of Mr. Schweigert he wants the Commission to know that two days prior to their meeting, Mr. Schweigert sent out additional 4,000 pages for them to have at their meeting and he said that was a disservice to the 15 members who have jobs outside the committee to 6

83 not only look at the 2,100 pages brought to Commission initially and an additional 4,000 pages two days before. That is not a fair presentation on behalf of the committee and with due respect to Mr. Schweigert, that created controversy with sportsman, and now sportsman on the committee countered that if this continues they are willing to move above and beyond the compromise we have. He said that is not what was agreed to, the agreement was to follow the committee s goals, which were to minimize conflict which was done. When we got to the meeting, Mr. Schweigert blamed Mr. Booth for not calling him and telling him of the meeting. Mr. Booth said the meetings were noticed in accordance with the OML. At the end they agreed to have Coordinated Oversight Team (COT) Committee and on the COT there was a request to have a guide on the COT, and that will be addressed at first meeting; secondly, he spoke to Mr. DeLong who is represented by Mr. Schweigert and with due respect to all ranchers and sportsmen in Humboldt County, he believes we have a nice compromise and hopes Mr. Delong s concern which is trust, and the trust factor given to them was 15 members on the committee, and have come up with an elk management plan that will serve Humboldt County well. He said it is important the plan is followed and everything is done so that all can know they represented the county. Biologist Partee said also sent with the plan was recommendation for members of the COT Team, and will request approval. One part that was pending was the appointment of Ron Ceri to the COT and Humboldt County Commission did appoint Ron Ceri at their April 18 meeting. Chairman Drew asked Mr. Booth if two alternatives provided in the correspondence by Mr. Schweigert were considered and discussed by the committee and is Mr. Partee confident that the committee understood that by adopting this plan, the two alternatives were essentially rejected. Mr. Booth said no committee member made a motion to accept the alternatives, and it was brought up and explained by Commissioner Mori in public comment to address those. He said the plan in his opinion is a working living plan of the future of elk management will be in Humboldt County, and with the amount of documents provided by Mr. Schweigert (6,000 pages) to be read and understood and to appease the desire of Mr. Schweigert, it was a process not to be completed. He said the committee would address those issues at the first COT meeting consisting of 10 members of the county. Chairman Drew said one alternative proposes removing all of Area 3 Units from the plan, and the other suggests making no tolerance areas of zero elk populations in those Area 3 Units. He asked if the committee understood that. Mr. Booth said the committee understood that and had addressed it at previous meetings. He said there was a recall of previous meetings where that was addressed and no desire by any of the committee members or himself to change anything in plan. 7

84 Chairman Drew said to Mr. Partee that the Commission directed two clarifications in the plan: One was frequency of review of plan and updates, and the other was what happens when the population objective reaches 75 percent. Mr. Partee said on page 10 of plan there was statement that in five years the plan be reopened if need be, and since that meeting with Commission suggestions, they had changed that and put that purview under guidance of COT. The COT would take up any issues at their yearly meeting, and if item is substantial enough and cannot be dealt with at local level, the matter would be brought to the Commission for resolution. The other part was trigger, which is on Page 7, and that is ability to effectively manage herds upon arrival of population numbers 75 percent. From there the indication would be aggressive management to make sure the population did not go past the top number. Chairman Drew said along those lines, he understands where the committee is going, and his question is that he would prefer to have that in management actions of the plan. In particular on page 25, item #3 discusses elk populations will be maintained within population objectives defined within the sub-plan. His suggestion would be to add second sentence that reads when a population reaches 75 percent of the population objective, NDOW shall work with Commission to implement harvest strategies that limit or stop population growth before the population objective is reached or exceeded. He thinks that meets intent of sub-committee discussion and for the Commission it makes it very clear going forward what the course of action will be when thresholds met. Mr. Booth agreed and that it also empowers the plan and the Department with the appearance of trust and understanding for all the individuals in the county, that see the plan and wonder what will happen, this confirms that. Commissioner Mori said Chairman Drew s suggestion about trigger is one he asked too at the last meeting, and he attended every meeting but one. Commissioner Hubbs said she looked through Mr. Schweigert s information and for her she was trying to assess the issues coming up, and more importantly for ranchers they have the permit to graze cattle on federal land and appears there is fear that if numbers increase perhaps there will be overlap of habitat use and lack of resource to support the current permits and elk that may come into areas. She said she did look at our regulatory framework and does not know if permit holders are landowners, as regulatory structure only addresses landowners if there are disputes or issues. She is not sure how the ranchers will voice their concern with framework if not living on land and only have permits at hand. Chairman Drew said that discussion came up a lot within the committee, and is confusing that the BLM and Forest Service administer grazing permits, and the state has authority over wildlife. The questions were asked whether BLM had authority to allow elk to establish in those areas, and if resource management plans needed to be updated respectively. All the input he heard from the Forest Service and BLM staff was their belief that they would not have to update either of those plans and they were active 8

85 and willing participants in the discussions. He said we will hear more on this in public comment, and is interesting dynamic as to regulation of grazing and who is responsible, and who is responsible for wildlife regulation. Commissioner Hubbs said during her catching up she did take time to see if her concerns with carrying capacity are taking into consideration in their modeling for numbers that there are already permits issued, and did not see that. She read mention of habitat use near watering holes taking into account cattle grazing in that area, but really nothing else. Commissioner Hubbs said she did not know if another variable being assessed in terms of use and carrying capacity for permits issued today. Mr. Partee said in the document all private land was removed off the top, and the onehalf mile buffer within water came out. After those parameters were taken out, the plan went before a technical review team who assessed it from there as well, and the numbers were cut even further from the habitat assessment, just to start at minimal level with elk and that was recommendation to sub-committee. The sub-committee then took it and cut numbers additionally from there. There is more elk moved from the county then what it can hold, and also brought up several times at meetings, that many areas in the state that have a lot more elk present then what Humboldt County has or plans to have, and nowhere else in the state has there been a loss of AUMs for permittees. Chairman Drew said if issues crop up the COT should be able to deal with the problems. Commissioner Hubbs asked who will represent ranchers on COT. Chairman Drew answered a permitted BLM rancher Hank Dufurrena, and a Forest Service permitted rancher, Tom Cassinelli. Commissioner Johnston said he wants to understand that we are trying to avoid conflict between water right holders, grazing permit holders, and make sure that this number of elk in a unit do not impact those individuals. Mr. Partee said that is exactly how it took place. Commissioner Mori added that on the COT team he has been an advocate for keeping this process local in Humboldt County, and the Committee selected the COT members and as these members need to be replaced, that will be done by Humboldt County Commission, assuring that the COT will always be local. Mr. Partee said although appointed locally, the Commission will finalize the appointments. 9

86 CABMW Public Comment Tom Cassinelli, Humboldt CABMW, said they were in total support of plan and thanked Mr. Booth and Mr. Partee for what they accomplished. Sean Shea, Washoe CABMW, approved this unanimously and thanked them for all of their effort as process is grueling. Paul Dixon, Clark CABMW, said they approved plan unanimously, and would this is the most complete and complex plan he has seen in his nine years on the CABMW. He asked if the Commission will update the other elk plans to be consistent with level of detail in this plan. Public Comment in Reno Mr. Bob Schweigert, said he owns and operates Intermountain Range Consultants and represent the ranches, RDD Inc. or Oro Vaca Inc., Happy Creek Inc., and DeLong Ranches Inc. He provided his range management educational background and said conflict arose as he heard committee members say in the April 12 meeting that they did what the Commission asked, and he thinks that they did too, to best of their ability. The conflict has arisen from this Commission, in asking the committee to formulate a plan for all of Humboldt County, although not all of Humboldt County has elk occupying it. The Alternative 1 he presented accounts for elk where elk exist in Humboldt County Unit 051, and no elk exist in the 03s units. This alternative is in direct compliance with Policy 26 which the Commission just reaffirmed. He said he and his clients believe that the April 12 plan is not in compliance with Policy 26 and therefore they request that Alternative 1 should be selected. Alternative 2 that they presented presumes for planning for elk outside of where they presently exist under Policy 26 can proceed. All they have done is simply ask for the edits to the plan to have no established population in ranches particular areas of use in permitted use and private lands, and permittees own lands as in packets provided, these people own thousands of acres and they are permitted on hundreds of thousands of BLM acreage, in response to Commissioner Hubbs question. He continued that there has been discussion on triggers and 75 percent resulting in aggressive action by NDOW, and referred them to April 12 plan that reports two counts on Santa Rosa Range for existing population there. The first count located 21 bulls, second count found nothing including collared animals, so that gives pause to assurances that the number of animals can be tallied or effectively controlled. Secondly, these aggressive management tools were used in the Jarbidge population, and Jarbidge population rose on average at 8 percent and at 15 percent when released from aggressive hunts. Concerned that numbers should be established at all, considering the harm these animals can create, and concern that they can be effectively controlled at numbers prescribed. He said in response to Commissioner Hubbs that her observation that there is no accounting for present allocated AUM s is correct. The plan developed carrying capacity based on one to five animals per square mile, and he is familiar with BLM and Forest Service manuals and that methodology is not there. 10

87 Provision for one-half mile buffer around water is meaningless, because elk use within the one-half mile and cattle use outside the one-half mile. Paul Taggart said he is an attorney and he represents Happy Creek Ranch and Oro Vaca Inc. His comments focus on potential impact on water rights from the elk plan. His suggestions will be to add concerns for water rights to the plan. He said the plan indicates it was intended to address impacts to adjacent private land resources, and his comment is that it does not seem to intend to address water resources and his clients think it is important that be included. And include in the plan a way to address impacts to water resources if that were to occur. He cited a NRS statute that allows customary use/access by wildlife. However, the water rights he is concerned about were initiated prior to 1905, which means that they are water rights that existed before statutes were adopted they are vested. The situation and law in Nevada today is on public land a private individual can own water rights at a spring, even though they don t own the public land. Happy Creek Ranch has vested water rights that cannot be impacted by new activity, and the elk being discussed are not wildlife that has customarily used these water resources, and when additional populations are introduced to these water resources, that will be a concern that they want addressed in the plan. Also, impact to water resources can be mitigated the same as land. On page 7 bullet points and factors listed to amend the plan for management of elk in the area. His suggestion is to add additional bullet point stating: Impacts to private land, grazing permits or water rights, that should be a factor to analyze whether an amendment is needed to management plan. In the carrying capacity section, on page 7, they would like included that NDOW would consider the availability of water resources when determining carrying capacity, and if carrying capacity is re-analyzed, they think availability of water resources should be part of that. On page 25, of the plan, NDOW management actions are listed and they want to add language under that part of NDOW s assessment of status of elk populations in any impacts to private land and grazing permits or water resources. On page 26, series of management actions for private and public lands, and suggest in #3, under where it states: NDOW is authorized to pay for elk damage including losses to crops, grazing reductions and privately maintained improvements, they want it to also say losses to water rights. Last amendment is on page 33, has list of programs to prevent damage for elk and item #2 says compensate landowners or permittees for elk damage on private or public lands and want that to include or to privately owned water rights. They hope no negative impacts to water resources but if there are they want the understanding that water resources are important and need to be addressed. Chairman Drew asked Mr. Taggart if these comments had been provided to the committee or the Humboldt County Commission or anyone else locally. Mr. Taggart said comments submitted but they did not provide the specific amendments that he just described. Discussion and questions on water rights ensued (10:28 a.m.) 11

88 Chairman Drew said discussions and meetings he attended water was brought up and discussed. He said the assertion that there are no elk in Area 3 in his mind is a false assertion as he has personally seen elk in Area 3 and there have been documented observations from NDOW. Commission Policy 26 item #7 on page 3, states the Commission will retain ultimate authority on the course of action to be taken following identification of successful elk colonization. He said the Commission asked the Humboldt County Elk Sub-plan to develop a county wide plan for a county where elk have colonized and is comfortable with that direction. Chairman Drew said what concerns him that these specific comments while productive and collaborative were not provided to either the local planning committee or Humboldt County Commission. Commissioner Mori said his perspective on the plan goes back to when he first was appointed to Wildlife Commission, and discussion on re-opening an elk plan. The Commission got bogged down, and the director at that time, said we don t want to jam elk down anyone s throat. The reason it stuck out in his mind, is when we discuss elk and plans that issue always comes up as some people want elk and some don t. He said he gets that feeling here that if we approve the plan, we will be jamming elk down some people s throats. With that being said we did follow the process and looked at units, the sub-plan went from higher numbers to final lower conservative numbers. When the committee got done, there were advocates for higher numbers who were not happy, and some wanting zero elk and they were not happy. The committee was in the middle, and while not perfect, there may be problems that arise and COT can bring those issues to the Commission and he does not have a problem with adding language Mr. Taggart would add and will defer to Chairman Drew. Chairman Drew said he has a comment and concern with suggested change to page 33, adding water rights, as that actually is a NAC and cannot change that, as there is a whole separate process to do that. He said going forward, one thing to clarify concerns raised is on page 7, one of the triggers is property damage and in parentheses we say loss of crops and a fix would be to add within those parentheses damage to other private property and or water rights. That would clarify for the committee and COT as to what to look for going forward, and has no major concern with adding bullet point on list of triggers simply stating availability of water resources. Chairman Drew said the committee already discussed these to some degree and those additions bolster plan, and he asked Mr. Booth if he any concern with those additions. Mr. Booth said water rights were discussed at their meetings as a result of Mr. Schweigert s presentations. He said he is not a water rights attorney and his recall is that there were various factors within the whole process, and that was why they had 15 members on the committee to bring those perspectives. He appreciated Mr. Taggart s comments to make the plan stronger and his perspective would be to get a legal opinion from NDOW to insure that the proper procedures are followed regarding water rights. 12

89 Chairman Drew said his questions relate to triggers on page 7, when we say property damage and in parentheses we say loss of crops. He asked if that is consistent with committee s direction and going forward to add damage to private property and or water rights in that list. Mr. Booth said he is afraid to put something in there with there with water rights interpretation as he does not have the background on what those water rights really mean. Chairman Drew asked Mr. Booth if adding a bullet considering availability of water going forward. Mr. Booth said that is reasonable. Commissioner Johnston asked Mr. Taggart if it is all clients with water rights that have a concern or is there one specific concern? He asked what their concern is. Mr. Taggart answered that the NAC discusses damage being any change to quantity of private property. He said private property is water rights, and they did not go through each ranches water rights to determine which one may be impacted. Fair to say more concern with those on public lands in grazing allotments and thinks the plan did a good job addressing physical improvements and harm to them. He said resources on public lands and springs in mountain area. Commissioner Johnston said the plan addresses private property and with water rights being private property the issue has been addressed in administrative code and in the elk management plan. Mr. Taggart disagreed, as the NAC is clear that damage and protection of damage can include water rights, it is within NDOW s authority to mitigate for impacts to water rights. The plan itself is focused on land resources and does not have additional reference to water resources. Commissioner Hubbs said she sees no problem mentioning those rights in the plan themselves and obviously any changes to NAC would need to go through the workshops. Chairman Drew said the first bullet on page 7 of the plan is property damage, and property damage includes that, and availability of water is a good addition. Chairman Drew asked the Commission how they wish to proceed. Commissioner Young recommended referring plan back to committee and to work with Mr. Taggart. 13

90 Commissioner Johnston said he can understand people who hold water rights would have concerns and does not know if there would ever be a position where someone could say there is a certain amount of elk in an area and they are entitled to damage and does not see a problem addressing those issues as he would rather get this right the first time. Mr. Partee said the committee did talk extensively about water rights and did not feel committee responsibility to deal with water rights. Mr. Partee said they had understanding that wildlife has access to water rights no matter who has the right. The committee did not tackle that as that issue was out of their purview, and if another meeting needed then we can have another meeting. He is concerned that the comments were provided at the eleventh hour and not four or five meetings ago. Mr. Booth said no issue with water rights, and documentation provided by Mr. Schweigert of who holds water rights in the 2,100 pages. If damages occur to someone s water rights who is to say that elk caused the damage as it could be drought, the deer, coyote, and if this returns to their committee they need legal direction and time to give it thought. It is a good issue but what resolution will you find if spring goes dry and who determines who is at fault. Commissioner Hubbs said the plan needs trigger to respond, as NDOW will manage elk populations, if permittees are denied for a permit then NDOW would be notified and the agency would manage the population accordingly. She said she does not think NDOW would go out and be liable for every loss of property that would occur as that is too much liability to take on. NDOW would respond to manage elk population. Chairman Drew said that is why he is comfortable approving the plan with the addition of one bullet in terms of availability of water. For a few reasons: Living document and a local team, so if an issue arises they have the local team where that issue can be brought and resolution sought. If role for Commission, that role is managing harvest strategies and other issues NDOW could take action. He said he is comfortable advancing the plan today with the addition of the one word as he believes flexibility in plan. Commissioner McNinch agreed with Chairman Drew, with all due respect today water rights have been brought up, what will be next. The committee has taken it as far as they can, and now time to move forward. Commissioner Valentine agreed with moving forward with addition of bullet point on page 7. He said with the COT in place if problems arise, resolution will be available. Commissioner Young said he would like to hear from the experts hired by the ranches for water rights. Mr. Taggart said he appreciates suggestion of making that change and the other changes he suggested are important too. It is the interest of the private ranchers and 14

91 their hope that the population is managed with numbers presented; but if population explodes and impact occurs, that is what they are worried about. That is why they want these changes included. Secretary Wasley said there are many challenges with species management planning, in this instance with elk management it is being able to determine what the likelihood of occurrence is. There is a lot of speculation, a lot of what ifs and he thinks an element missing from this discussion is what has happened elsewhere. We have 29,000 elk in Nevada, and have we documented where there has been a loss of that right. He said we are not talking about cows going thirsty because of consumption of water, there is greater likelihood of impact from wallowing activity in those spring sources. He said he is not aware of any instance where we have seen an infringement on that property right as a result of elk at much higher densities that we are talking about here in habitats that are equally dry. Secretary Wasley said it is a good contingency to consider and that some of the language we are considering for an acknowledgement of that water right as property hopefully would cover that concern, but given the history and where we are with 29,000 elk elsewhere in the state and the absence of that materializing as a serious issue should provide a level of comfort. Commissioner Johnston said he is at different point and if they went through water rights at each meeting and this is best they can do, he is not inclined to send it back to committee. He said page 26 states NDOW is authorized to compensate for elk damage and with additional bullet point on page 7 he recommends moving the plan forward. Further discussion on suggested language changes: Commissioner Mori asked on #3 on page 25 would be added in, population management. Chairman Drew said that was his suggestion on sub 3 at bottom of page after first sentence adding: When a population reaches 75 percent of the population objective the Department shall work with the Commission to implement harvest strategies that limit or stop population growth before the population objective is reached or exceeded. Commissioner Mori brought up the other change from Mr. Taggart, and Chairman Drew said essentially what the COT is set-up for. CHAIRMAN DREW MOVED TO APPROVE THE HUMBOLDT COUNTY ELK SUB- PLAN AS PRESENTED TO THE COMMISSION BY THE COMMITTEE AND ENDORSED BY THE HUMBOLDT COUNTY COMMISSION WITH THE FOLLOWING CHANGES THAT ARE ADDITIONS: ON PAGE 7 THAT THE FIRST TRIGGER READ PROPETY DAMAGE INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO CROPS, LAND, GRAZING AND WATER RIGHTS. THAT AN ADDITIONAL BULLET BE ADDED: THAT WOULD READ AVAILABILITY OF WATER RESOURCES. THEN ON PAGE 25 UNDER NDOW POPULATION MANAGEMENT, ITEM #3, IMMEDIATELY RIGHT AFTER FIRST SENTENCE ADD LANAGUAGE THAT READS: WHEN A POPULATION REACHES 75 PERCENT OF POPULATION OBJECTIVE, THE DEPARTMENT SHALL WORK WITH THE COMMISSION TO IMPLEMENT HARVEST STRATEGIES THAT LIMIT OR STOP POPULATION GROWTH BEFORE THE 15

92 POPULATION OBJECTIVE IS REACHED OR EXCEEDED. NO FURTHER CHANGES TO THAT PARAGRAPH. COMMISSIONER VALENTINE SECONDED THE MOTION. Commissioner Mori said he would have liked language added on those other pages and does understand Chairman Drew s point on the addition of language on other pages, and he will support the motion. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Chairman Drew appreciated all the work by staff and staff in Winnemucca. Mr. Partee had question if separate motion for appointment of COT could be made. Chairman Drew read the proposed COT members and noted that most participated on the plan development. COMMISSIONER WALLACE MOVED TO APPROVE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR COT MEMBERS AS PRESENTED. COMMISSIONER MORI SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 8 Nevada Department of Wildlife Project Updates Secretary Tony Wasley Informational The Commission has requested that the Department provide regular project updates for ongoing projects and programs as appropriate based on geography and timing of meetings. These updates are intended to provide detail in addition to summaries provided as part of the regular Department report and are intended to inform the Commission and public as to the Department s ongoing duties and responsibilities. Secretary Wasley said at the March meeting a brief update on the Blue Ribbon Panel recommendations was presented. Secretary Wasley and Administrator Newmark prepared a PowerPoint presentation for this meeting showing what the Blue Ribbon Panel (exhibit file/website) is and specific recommendations that have come forward from the panel. The Blue Ribbon Panel effort is to find broader and additional funding for wildlife. Division Administrator Jennifer Newmark discussed what Nevada s Wildlife Action Plan (WAP) is and explained the plan through a PowerPoint presentation (exhibit file/website). She notes that one challenge will be finding the state match of 25 percent. Commissioner McNinch said this is a once in a lifetime opportunity and has the potential to affect many generations. This is the most important thing that moves the needle and need to work through having others at the table, find ways to engage with State Legislature to get the match. This is significant amounts of money, and really wants to engage. 16

93 Commissioner Hubbs said she is impressed with the WAP being the keystone plan, and asked about surveys for America s Wildlife Values survey. Secretary Wasley said the survey of society was done in 2004 and drives national discussion, and now is the time to re-administer the survey and assess if change of direction needed or other issues. Chairman Drew said in his personal job he uses the WAP almost daily, and thanked Administrator Newmark and encouraged people to read it as you can see how challenging wildlife management is in Nevada. Willing to help and push that trend. Funding estimates mentioned and he asked how you estimate for Nevada. Administrator Newmark said based on nationwide formula land/species that state s already used. 9 Presentation of Fiscal Year 2017 Draft Predation Management Plan (Final Draft) Wildlife Staff Specialist Pat Jackson and Game Division Administrator Brian F. Wakeling For Possible Action The Commission will review with the Department the third and final draft of the Fiscal Year 2017 Draft Predation Management Plan. The Commission may take action to modify or endorse the plan. Wildlife Staff Specialist Pat Jackson presented a 52 page PowerPoint presentation (exhibit file/website). He said with passage of AB 78 in the last legislative session the Department is mandated to spend 80 percent of the revenues from the $3 predator fee on lethal removal and are allowed to use a portion to monitor the effects of the lethal control. Mr. Jackson reviewed the projects. Commissioner Bliss said he has a question on Project At the committee meeting the projects were approved as presented and gave direction to staff to add more detail on the triggers but when he reads Project it is quite a bit different then project the committee approved. What was approved was a lion removal project around the sheep and now the project has changed to monitor sheep and maybe conduct lion removal. Mr. Jackson said at the meeting he understood he was instructed to discuss with area biologists the project and had the understanding the committee wanted to understand the progress of these projects and when they would be ended. When he had discussion with the biologist they felt predation was not an issue and that we should continue lion monitoring instead of lion removal and felt that was a natural process. Commissioner Bliss said he understands that but his issue is with this coming to this meeting for adoption and would have liked to know that and why would $90,000 be designated for this project as the money could have been used statewide. 17

94 Mr. Jackson said it could have and staff intend to purchase GPS collars with these funds to deploy on bighorn sheep as a monitoring component. Commissioner Bliss said he does not want to overstep the bounds on monitoring and what he read into the record from Senator Goicoechea was to monitor projects as they went along, and not go out and have big expenditures to buy collars. He would hope in the future when we are at this final meeting that we are closer without drastic changes. Commissioner Hubbs said this plan has been hard and in the Department s defense there was a lot of input for timing restrictions. She said that everyone is struggling with the plan in general and what makes good biological sense over time for predation management. Chairman Drew said everyone needs to keep this in perspective with the new change from the legislative mandate and still updating Policy #23, and whether you agree with the plan, this is probably the best plan ever presented. He thanked staff for their work. Commissioner Valentine said at Clark CABMW meeting there was quite a bit of discussion on Project 41, raven study, and decrease in funding and he asked where additional funding was transferred from. Mr. Jackson said on page 49 is the fiscal information and the ending balance for 2017 is almost $300,000 which is being spent down. He said these funds are a combination of reallocation from 2016 and to increase ability to track ravens across Nevada. Project 41 on page 33, and most agree Nevada is faced with raven challenge and the agency is limited by permit issued by USFWS for raven take. Raven movement has been studied very little and there are two types of ravens migratory and a mature pair. The mature pair is most problematic for sage-grouse as they stay in area and cache sage-grouse eggs. Migratory ravens are understood very little, such as if they are territorial or migratory. Increasing our understanding of raven s fine scale movements will help utilize the permit more effectively and also to be able to petition USFWS for an increase in the permit. Public Comment Reno Location Sean Shea, Washoe CABMW, said they approved the plan on a 4 1 vote. As mentioned previously would like to know more about the raven project to see progress, which would help in the future. Paul Dixon, Clark CABMW, approved the plan 5 1 and he asked for briefing packet on raven control projects for the CABMWs to have so people understand what is being done with those funds. Gerald Lent, Nevada Hunters Association, requested his comments be included in the minutes: 18

95 19

96 20