An actual threat to Nevada public land.

theCryptofishist · Post by **theCryptofishist** » Mon Apr 12, 2004 9:15 am

Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental
Impact Statement for the Gold Hill Project, Nye
County, NV

[Federal Register: April 12, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 70)]
[Notices]
[Page 19215]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr12ap04-69]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Land Management
[NV-065-1990]

Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for the Gold Hill Project, Nye County, NV

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior; Forest Service, Agriculture.
ACTION: Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to analyze the Proposed Plan of Operations for Gold Hill Project and notice of scoping period.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Pursuant to section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 40 Code of Federal Regulations subparts 1500-1508, and 43 Code of Federal Regulations subpart 3809, notice is hereby given that the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Battle Mountain District, Tonopah Field Station, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (USFS), Tonopah Ranger District as a cooperating agency, will be directing the preparation of an EIS for the gold Hill Project, a proposed gold mine located on public lands in Nye County, Nevada. Round Mountain Gold Corporation (RMGC) has submitted a 43 CFR 3809 Plan of Operations to the BLM for the proposed mining project. A third-party contractor will prepare the EIS under the direction of the BLM. During the scoping period, the Gold Hill Plan of Operations (Plan) will be presented to the local public during scoping meetings to be held in Round Mountain and Tonopah, Nevada. The BLM invites public comment on the scope of the analysis.

DATES: This notice initiates a 45-day public scoping period. Written comments on the scope of the EIS should be post-marked or otherwise delivered by 4:30 p.m. by May 27, 2004 to ensure full consideration. The public will be notified of the two scoping meetings through the local news media at least 15 days prior to the meetings.

ADDRESSES: Scoping comments should be sent to the Bureau of Land Management, Battle Mountain Field Office, Attention: George Deverse, Bureau of Land Management, P.O. Box 911, Tonopah, NV 89049. Comments, including names and street addresses of respondents, will be available for public review at the Tonopah Field Station, Tonopah, Nevada, during regular business hours, and may be published as part of the EIS.
Individual respondents may request confidentiality. If you wish to withhold your name or street address from public review or from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act, you must state this prominently at the beginning of your written comment. Such requests will be honored to the extent allowed by law. BLM will not consider anonymous comments. All submissions from organizations and businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, will be available for public inspection in their entirety.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: George Deverse at the BLM Tonopah address or call (775) 482-7800.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Round Mountain Gold Corporation has submitted a Plan of Operations (43 CFR 3809) for a gold mine (the Gold Hill Project), located 7 miles east of the town of Carvers, Nevada. The historic Gold Hill mine and mill operated in the 1930's within the proposed Gold Hill project area. The proposed Gold Hill Project is located in Nye County, Nevada, on public lands in sections 28, 29, 32, and 33, T. 11 N., R. 44 E., and sections 4, 5 and 6, T. 10 N., R. 44 E., Mount Diablo Meridian. The Project would disturb approximately 1,600 acres of public land. Major facilities at the proposed mine include two open pits of 380 acres and 105 acres in size. Gold-bearing ore and waste rock would be drilled, blasted, loaded and hauled from the open pits. Lower-grade gold ore would be loaded on the heap leach pad (280 acres) for chemical dissolution of the gold by a solution of sodium cyanide. Higher-grade ore would be trucked to a mill at the existing Round Mountain Gold mine located 5 miles to the south of the Gold Hill Project. Waste rock would be hauled to a waste rock dump (640 acres). The planned disturbances also include process plant (25 acres) for extraction of the gold and a network of access and haul roads (170 acres).
The U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Tonopah Ranger District will be a cooperating agency in the preparation of the EIS. Other Federal, State of Nevada, local agencies, tribal entities and public organizations that may be interested in or affected by the proposed action are invited to participate in the scoping process and, if eligible, may request, or be requested by the BLM to participate as a cooperating agency.

Mark Storzer,
Associate Field Manager, Battle Mountain Field Office.
[FR Doc. 04-8155 Filed 4-9-04; 8:45 am]

I'm not real up on modern methods of gold mining, but if I'm right than this means ruining a watershed with cyonide.

Rob the Wop · Post by **Rob the Wop** » Mon Apr 12, 2004 9:42 am

Not exactly. That's what's NOT supposed to happen. The leech pad should not allow the liquid to go anywhere.

In reality, gold mines using this method generally aren't that concerned about the environment. The gold mines around where I lived tended to do the following:

Open up a new or older mine using the cyanide process
Run the mine into the ground, leeching out every speck of gold
Pay token fines to the EPA for "minor violations", in essence- putting them off for the time being
Declare bankruptcy once all the gold is gone, thereby dodging the fines and not deal with that whole pesky "disposing of the leech pads properly" thingy (prohibitively expensive)

Seen it happen numerous times in the hills around where I lived. You can drive by the full pads. At least they put a chain link fence and barbed wire around the pools of deadly hydrocyanic acid. Unfortunately, sometimes there are "oopses" prior to them bailing out.

Tancorix · Post by **Tancorix** » Mon Apr 12, 2004 9:57 am

While the gold mine has a significant impact, imho the Sempra powerplant is a bigger threat. It's stack output covers states, while the goldmine and it's nasty pools stays relatively localized in comparison. The gold mine warrants an e-mail complaint, but the powerplant deserves a full court press to shut it down.

Rob the Wop · Post by **Rob the Wop** » Mon Apr 12, 2004 10:15 am

Depends. If there is a leak, where the leak empties out. An underground stream or other water supply, for example. The thing that makes it really fucked up is the extremely toxic nature of the pool. A very small amount of the cyanide mixture can create a fairly large amount of toxic water and you-can't-clean-it "stains" on a landscape.

theCryptofishist · Post by **theCryptofishist** » Mon Apr 12, 2004 10:39 am

Sounds like a nasty trap for migrating waterfowl. (Those poor geese in the Berkeley mine in Butte, Montana still give me shudders.) Not to downplay Sempra, Tancorix. I was thinking in relation to some of the other enviro scares we've seen on this board.

Tancorix · Post by **Tancorix** » Mon Apr 12, 2004 11:02 am

They both suck, and a trip down Jungo Road gave me a nice perspective of what mining does to the land out there. Some of those fenced off pools just West of that huge tailings pile alongside Jungo look and smell nasty. It's hard to prioritize which is worse...they kinda even out. In any event they both warrant taking advantage of comment periods and using various complaint processes.

Isotopia · Post by **Isotopia** » Mon Apr 12, 2004 11:15 am

I'm not real up on modern methods of gold mining, but if I'm right than this means ruining a watershed with cyonide.

Not really. Spoke to a friend/colleague and playa citizen who's works in our ES&H office as an environmentsl geologist. Prior to coming here he worked in Nevada in the same role. His job was to check such things at the various mining facilities throughout the state. His take is that the current means of retrival of some of the nastier by-products in Nevada mine facilities pretty much sets the indusrty standard for the rest of the country - especially when the operation is a large one involving a lot of capital. Got no reason to doubt Dwight as his creds are about as good as they get and he's one of the most competent, exacting and thorough guys I know doing science. His sweety happens to be a geologist who did her doctoral dissertaion on some obscure aspect of basin and range (Carson sink/Lahanton) Pleistocene geomorphology and is also a big burner pern (Martini camp). Dwight's father was head of the geology department for 30 years here at Stanford which is where he also took a degree. He's familiar enough with the are to that of which he speaks.

Isotopia · Post by **Isotopia** » Mon Apr 12, 2004 11:16 am

Damn when are we gonna get that efit button re-installed here?

theCryptofishist · Post by **theCryptofishist** » Mon Apr 12, 2004 11:48 am

Thanks for the input, Iso. I trust that you know a good bit about evaluating creds.
The company involved runs at least one other Nevada gold mine (the Round Mountain one, where they have the mill) so that at least gives us some sort of previous record we can check.
And Tancorix, I agree that we shouldn't be shy of our right to be involved in the process.

Simply Joel · Post by **Simply Joel** » Mon Apr 12, 2004 12:34 pm

**********NEWS FLASH**********
Human behavior is detrimental to the environment.

Zephryus · Post by **Zephryus** » Tue Apr 13, 2004 8:18 am

Depends on the behavior. We make our own fertilizer, y'know.

Apollonaris Zeus · Post by **Apollonaris Zeus** » Tue Apr 13, 2004 7:47 pm

Where's the mine going in?

Calico hills would be in view and in the conservation area. the power plant is fucked up too.

Today in Montana, our governor was the first person signing a petition to repeal the anti-cyanide act that the people of Montana passed several years ago. doesn't suprise me because she once sent a shovel to the Shovel Brigade of Nevada- you know the people that didn't care if the destroyed the remaining stream of the Lahonta trout in Nye, Nevada!

Cyanide leaching isn't too bad in a very dry state like nevada unless it gets into one of the few fresh water streams or creeks, but most of it just leaches back in arsenic type salt beds anyway.

theCryptofishist do you live here in Montana? The butte mine is nasty mainly because of the heavy metals that leach into the pit from the exposed underground water flows.

A II Z

Apollonaris Zeus · Post by **Apollonaris Zeus** » Tue Apr 13, 2004 7:56 pm

Sorry it's not Nye. I forgot the name and don't have a map with me at this moment in time.

A II Z

theCryptofishist · Post by **theCryptofishist** » Thu Apr 15, 2004 9:15 am

Apollonaris Zeus wrote:Where's the mine going in?

theCryptofishist do you live here in Montana? The butte mine is nasty mainly because of the heavy metals that leach into the pit from the exposed underground water flows.

A II Z

Question 1--Somewhere in Nye County according to the Federal Register. So that's to the south, more towards Vegas, I think.
Question 2--No, I've spent only about a week in Montana--December 1994?--with my sister who went to Bozeman. We drove to Butte, but didn't look for the Berkeley Mine. I hear that they water used to go into the "lake" but now the flow is reversing, which, if true, would be bad news, I guess. Part of my interest is that I live in Berkeley, CA, and I don't think that the name is a co-incidence, since that mine was one of the foundations of the Hearst fortunes, and their name is still pretty big around here. Partly, I'm my mother's daughter. The only person that finds sites of the industrial revolution to be tourist attractions.

theCryptofishist · Post by **theCryptofishist** » Thu Apr 15, 2004 9:43 am

From the Pyramid Lake Piute to Reno/Sparks area.

Truckee River Operating Agreement, California and
Nevada

[Federal Register: April 15, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 73)]
[Notices]
[Page 20025-20027]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr15ap04-81]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Truckee River Operating Agreement, California and Nevada

AGENCY: U.S. Department of the Interior.
ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare a revised draft environmental impact statement/environmental impact report.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended, the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and the California State CEQA guidelines, the U.S. Department of the Interior (Interior) and the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) intend to prepare a revised draft environmental impact statement/ environmental impact report (revised Draft EIS/EIR) for the Draft Truckee River Operating Agreement (TROA) which would implement Section 205(a) of the Truckee-Carson-Pyramid Lake Water Rights Settlement Act of 1990, Title II of Pub. L. 101-618 (Settlement Act). Scoping meetings were held for the original draft EIS/EIR and no additional scoping meetings are planned.

ADDRESSES: Kenneth Parr, Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), 705 North Plaza Street, Room 320, Carson City, Nevada 89701-4015, e-mail: [email protected]; or Michael Cooney, DWR, Central District, 3251 S Street, Sacramento, California 95816-7017, e-mail: [email protected].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kenneth Parr, Reclamation, telephone: 775-882--3436, TDD 775-882-3436, or fax 775-882-7592; or Michael Cooney, DWR, telephone: 916-227-7606. Information is also available at Reclamation's Web site at: http://www.usbr.gov/mp/troa/.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Section 205(a) of the Settlement Act directs the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary), in conjunction with others, to negotiate an operating agreement governing operation of federal Truckee River reservoirs and other specified matters. Interior, U.S. Department of Justice, States of California and Nevada, Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe, Sierra Pacific Power Company, Truckee Meadows Water Authority, and other entities in California and Nevada completed a draft of the TROA in October 2003. The Draft TROA is the first of a number of steps required before TROA can be implemented. The Draft TROA is now available to the public in advance of completion of the revised

[[Page 20026]]

Draft EIS/EIR. The Draft TROA can be viewed at
http://www.usbr.gov/mp/troa/docs/TROAdraft.pdf.
TROA would, in part, (1) Enhance conditions for threatened and endangered fishes throughout the Truckee River basin; (2) increase municipal and industrial (M&I) drought protection for Truckee Meadows (Reno-Sparks metropolitan area); (3) improve river water quality downstream from Sparks, Nevada; and (4) enhance stream flows and recreational opportunities in the Truckee River basin. At the time TROA takes effect, the Settlement Act provides that a permanent allocation between California and Nevada of water in the Lake Tahoe, Truckee River and Carson River basins will also take effect. The allocation of those waters has been a long-standing issue between the two States; implementation of TROA resolves that issue. In addition, Section 205 of the Settlement Act requires that TROA, among other things, implement the provisions of the Preliminary Settlement Agreement as modified by the Ratification Agreement and ensure that water is stored and released from federal Truckee River reservoirs to satisfy the exercise of water rights in conformance with the Orr Ditch decree and Truckee River General Electric decree. The Preliminary Settlement Agreement as modified by the Ratification Agreement was a 1989 agreement between Sierra Pacific Power Company and the Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe to change the operation of federal reservoirs and Sierra Pacific's exercise of its Truckee River water rights to (1) improve spawning conditions for threatened and endangered fish species (cui-ui and Lahontan cutthroat trout) and (2) provide additional M&I water for Truckee Meadows during drought situations.
Before TROA can be approved by the Secretary and the State of California, and signed by other negotiating parties, potential environmental effects of the agreement must be analyzed pursuant to NEPA and CEQA. Accordingly, Interior and DWR will jointly prepare a revised Draft EIS/EIR for that purpose. The revised Draft EIS/EIR is expected to be released for public comment in the summer of 2004. An initial Draft EIS/EIR was prepared and released for public review in February 1998. Since then, ongoing negotiations have substantially modified the proposed agreement, resulting in the need to prepare a revised Draft EIS/EIR.

Current Activities

With the public release of the Draft TROA by the negotiators, a new analysis can begin. This analysis will be based on current conditions as well as three alternatives: (1) No Action Alternative (current management continuing in the future, without TROA); (2) Local Water Supply Alternative (changed management in the future, without TROA); and (3) TROA in the future. A Notice of Availability/Notice of Completion will be filed and published announcing (1) the release of the revised Draft EIS/EIR, (2) dates for a public comment period, and (3) locations of hearings that will provide public involvement opportunities. Section 205 of the Settlement Act also requires that any final TROA be issued as a Federal Regulation. Accordingly, and concurrently with the preparation of the revised Draft EIS/EIR, a draft regulation is being prepared which will be issued for public comments by publication in the Federal Register.
Once public comments on the revised Draft EIS/EIR and draft TROA regulation have been received, the lead agencies will send any comments that might relate to provisions of the draft TROA regulation to the negotiators. Comments on the revised Draft EIS/EIR will be addressed in the final environmental analysis of TROA, together with any changes thereto, and a Final EIS/EIR will be published. The Secretary cannot sign a final TROA until a Record of Decision has been completed. The State of California cannot sign TROA until it has considered and certified the Final EIS/EIR in conjunction with making any necessary findings pursuant to CEQA. These and other steps, including approval by the Orr Ditch and Truckee River General Electric Courts, must be completed before TROA may be implemented. TROA will also be published as a Federal Regulation.

Description of Alternatives

No Action Alternative (No Action)

Under No Action, Truckee River reservoir operations would remain unchanged from current operations and would be consistent with existing court decrees, agreements, and regulations that currently govern surface water management (i.e., operating reservoirs in the Truckee River and Lake Tahoe basins and maintaining stream flows) in the Truckee River basin. Truckee Meadows Water Authority's (TMWA) existing programs for surface water rights acquisition and groundwater pumping for M&I use would continue. Groundwater pumping and water conservation in Truckee Meadows, however, would satisfy a greater proportion of projected future M&I demand than under current conditions. Groundwater pumping in California would also increase to satisfy a greater projected future M&I demand.

Local Water Supply Alternative (LWSA)

All elements of Truckee River reservoir operations, river flow management, Truckee River hydroelectric plant operations, minimum reservoir releases, reservoir spill and precautionary release criteria, and water exportation from the upper Truckee River basin and Lake Tahoe basin under LWSA would be the same as described under No Action. The principal differences between No Action and LWSA would be the source of water used for M&I purposes, extent of water conservation, implementation of a groundwater recharge program in Truckee Meadows, and assumptions regarding governmental decisions concerning approval of new water supply proposals.

TROA Alternative (TROA)

TROA would modify existing operations of all designated reservoirs to enhance coordination and flexibility while ensuring that existing water rights are served and flood control and dam safety requirements are met. TROA would incorporate, modify, or replace various provisions of the Truckee River Agreement (TRA) and the Tahoe-Prosser Exchange Agreement (TPEA). TROA would supersede all requirements of any agreements concerning the operation of all reservoirs, including those of TRA and TPEA, and would become the sole operating agreement for all designated reservoirs.
All reservoirs would continue to be operated under TROA for the same purposes as under current operations and with most of the same reservoir storage priorities as under No Action and LWSA. The Settlement Act requires that TROA avoid adverse impacts to Orr Ditch decree water rights.
The primary difference between TROA and the other alternatives is that TROA would expand opportunities for storing and managing other categories of water not addressed under the current permit or license of a reservoir (i.e., credit water). Signatories to TROA generally would be allowed to accumulate credit water in storage by retaining or capturing water in a reservoir that would have otherwise been released from storage or passed through the reservoir to serve a downstream water right (e.g., retaining Floriston Rate water that would have been released to serve an Orr Ditch decree water right). In cases with a change in the place or type of use, such storage could take place only after a transfer in accordance with applicable

[[Page 20027]]

State water law. Once accumulated, credit water would be classified by category with a record kept of its storage, exchange, and release.
Credit water generally would be retained in storage or exchanged among the reservoirs until needed to satisfy its beneficial use. The Interim Storage Agreement (negotiated in accordance with Section 205(b)(3) of the Settlement Act) would no longer be necessary and so would be superseded by new storage agreements between the Bureau of Reclamation and TROA signatories.

Dated: April 8, 2004.
Willie R. Taylor,
Director, Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance.
[FR Doc. 04-8570 Filed 4-14-04; 8:45 am]

http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-IMPACT/ ... /i8570.htm

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Thu Apr 15, 2004 10:31 am

Crypto,, the reason for this posting regarding the Truckee River operating agreement is?

Tancorix · Post by **Tancorix** » Thu Apr 15, 2004 10:45 am

Oh, I'm sorry. It didn't have anything to do with shutting down BM. That's too bad, it actually involves the most critical issue in the Western US today and that's water.

(I'm waiting for a reply, in Italian no less).

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Thu Apr 15, 2004 10:56 am

The operating agreement is old news, that is why I am wonder why he posted regarding it. You all pass Winnemucca lake on your way to BM, there is a boat out there, even though it is dry as a bone today, it is dry for the same reason the Pyramid Lake Trout became extinct, The NTROA is an attempt to readdress history. In the 1860's their was a massacre there, the army killed 28 women and children, one lone survivor was Sarah Winnemucca, daughter of Winnemucca, Granddaughter of Truckee.

Badger · Post by **Badger** » Thu Apr 15, 2004 11:03 am

there is a boat out there, even though it is dry as a bone today, it is dry for the same reason the Pyramid Lake Trout became extinct,

You mean they over-fished the boats in the early part of last century?

theCryptofishist · Post by **theCryptofishist** » Thu Apr 15, 2004 11:07 am

Sorry, I can't do Italian, Tancorix, (apart from my skooooooozee, which is no more than pidgin italian), but thanks for taking that question.

Aeons ago, in what is now the Mayoinnaise Thread, Iso mentioned something about the eventual draining of Pyramid Lake to slake the thirst of the Reno/Sparks area. As we don't actually post to the Mayoinasse thread, unless it involves actuall mayonaisse, I thought I'd throw it in here, because it seems to fit the topic of the thread as I originally started it--a sort of watch on other projects that are coming down the pike that Our Lord of the Pesky Irritants and Other Flies might not find as offensive as our (that is Burning Man's) very existence. If Iso is correct (and as all the information I have allows me to stipulate his being on the level on that matter until something comes along to throw that into doubt) then I wouldn't be surprised if this project has a bearing on that water grab. (As my title might have indicated.) I actually have trouble really reading and understanding these documents--the combination of legal and technical information doesn't always parse easily to even the intelligent amatuer mind. Many of the people who attend BM drive through Reno and have a relationship with these landscapes, although not as intement as some. They may care about changes done to these landscapes and as these are public projects with a process for Americans (and others) to comment and contribute, I was posting the document as a service for those who might care, but might not know that this is going on. On a personal level, I have a great moral problem that we (and as a member of a Johnny-Come-Lately family in the populating of this country I still count myself) took the most productive land from the tribal peoples and are now taking the water. Iso's mentioning of this prospect has turned a switch in my brain, so that when I see something that might relate, I note it and pass it onto anyone else I can think of who might care.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Thu Apr 15, 2004 11:08 am

Good picking apart of Grammar Badger. Yes, when Fremont came through Lake Winnemucca was chock full of boats. During the 1920 celebrities came from all over the world to catch them, and now, only one dried up old boat is left to bleach in the desert sunlight.

theCryptofishist · Post by **theCryptofishist** » Thu Apr 15, 2004 11:10 am

If "old news" is something that happened today, I wonder what time zone certain people live in. . .

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Thu Apr 15, 2004 12:05 pm

Don't be cryptic crypto,, you posted this for a reason,, can you explain why? I have not hidden agenda.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Thu Apr 15, 2004 12:08 pm

Read the original agreement

theCryptofishist · Post by **theCryptofishist** » Thu Apr 15, 2004 12:30 pm

I posted because I thought people might care.

I happen to see the Federal Register environmental documents almost daily, and because of the whole stopbmorgy crap, I have taken it upon myself to pass on those that might affect BM and the Black Rock Desert. If I am still doing this when the Sempra Power Plant comes up, I will be posting that as well. The right to know about and comment on these documents comes with our citizenship (at least) but I don't expect everyone to know where and how the stuff goes down. After all, you don't seem to know that this came up again today. (Check the date on that link.) Since I look anyway, why not share. Now, could you please explain why the Black Rock Desert isn't part of the Black Rock Desert, High Rock Mountain, Emigrant Trails National Conservation Area? It may help people decide to pay me no mind on these documents if I'm proven unreliable on them.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Thu Apr 15, 2004 12:56 pm

The document you posted is a curious one as the NTROA has been in effect for some years. In 1905 Derby dam was constructed which diverted the Truckee River to the Carson River drainage (Fallon) for irrigation. The springtime high water needed for spawinging runs of the Lahontan Cuthroat Trout and the Cui ui stopped. The cuthroat trout became extinct and the cui ui were on their way. Today water is sent down the river for spawning purposes, a fish ladder has been built at Derby Dam, the amount of water diverted has been reduced, the trout and cui ui are making a comeback. It is true that there is not enough water in the river, or in the West for the population. A couple of books to read, Cadillac Desert,, The Hydraulic Empire, Don't have the authors names at hand,, Google also Beyond The Hundreth Meridian by Wallace Stegner. The western part of the playa was left out of the National Conservation area largely because of BM. The eastern part is in the NCA,, so's my house.

Rob the Wop · Post by **Rob the Wop** » Thu Apr 15, 2004 1:31 pm

Black Rock Ric wrote: The western part of the playa was left out of the National Conservation area largely because of BM. The eastern part is in the NCA,, so's my house.

Not exactly. As you can see, the area designated "south playa" is for

Black Rock Desert-High Rock Canyon Emigrant Trails National Conservation Area Act of 2000 wrote:The Black Rock Desert playa is a unique natural resource that serves as the primary destination for the majority of visitors to the conservation area, including visitors associated with large-scale permitted events. It is expected that such permitted events will continue to be administered in accordance with the management plan for the conservation area and other applicable laws and regulations.

So the itty-bitty finger to the south of the NCA shares management resources, but is not actually part of the NCA. So it looks like roughly 15% of the playa is designated for seperate monitoring and usage than the rest of the NCA area outlined.

Is it the West playa? Yes, but definately not the West half. But from looking at the large area NCA involved- that space can easily be used by non-locals without deteriment. Besides, I'm willing to bet the money brought in by the BM permit had a lot to do with deciding the funds for monitoring the NCA.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Thu Apr 15, 2004 2:45 pm

Rob, I think we were quibbling over percentage of playa rather than the fact of a good sized piece being left out. And yes, I think dollars spoke loudly.

Rob the Wop · Post by **Rob the Wop** » Thu Apr 15, 2004 3:02 pm

Black Rock Ric wrote:Rob, I think we were quibbling over percentage of playa rather than the fact of a good sized piece being left out. And yes, I think dollars spoke loudly.

Well, 'good sized piece' is a relative term. In LA, 15k acres would be monsterous. In the desert, its nothing. I was just pointing out that the area we would use is on a 15% parcel of the playa. And we would use only a small section of THAT. And if you compare the 'south playa' portion compared to the whole of the NCA area- it is truely miniscule.

Dollars do talk loudly. Very loudly in politics. How much of the local BLM money used comes from the local populace versus our one festival? Its one helluva arm to twist, but we have one hell of an arm twister. Another question to ask is whether or not the NCA was created due to the influence of Burning Man. Either from those opposed to BM, from BM participant suggestions, or due to the influx of money/political power allowing the local BLM to make a successful case. Anyone know?

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Thu Apr 15, 2004 4:46 pm

The NCA came about because of the increasing numbers of visitors. Some level of protection was felt to be needed. It was largely former Nevada Senator Richard Bryants baby.

Since 75 % of the visitors to the Black Rock are burning man participants, yes Burning Man had a lot to do with the increase of government intrusion in the Black Rock High Rock area. That is my chief complaint about BM. I prefer my landscape empty of people..

Fortunately although the Playa now is just another urban wasteland, the high country is empty. My wife and I just got back from a three day ride through stream filled canyons with good technical rock climbs and German brown trout. No people... Nice place,, Diane O' Thirst I do appreciate your kind comments, I hear you have some nice mountains out east of you, The Blues.. Steens mountain is pretty cool too.

An actual threat to Nevada public land.

An actual threat to Nevada public land.

This could be part of the water grab that Isotopia mentioned

s

d

s

s

s

s

Re: s

s

Re: s

s