This is the report prepared by the National Riparian Service Team. It is also below as an attachment.

Black Rock Desert-High Rock Canyon Emigrant Trails National Conservation Area and Associated Wilderness Lentic (Small Springs) Workshop Report
Gerlach, NV - June 15-17, 2009
Prepared by the National Riparian Service Team

INTRODUCTION

The National Riparian Service Team (NRST) was asked to assist with fostering collaborative approaches relative to management of springs in the Black Rock Desert-High Rock Canyon Emigrant Trails National Conservation Area and Associated Wilderness (hereafter referred to as NCA). Specific objectives for this assistance included:
• Understand various stakeholder perceptions and positions and assist with the development of a shared vision and objectives for the management of these areas;
• Develop a toolbox of management techniques that support progress toward meeting the objectives and identify inventory and monitoring protocols for evaluating success;
• Reach agreement on the appropriate application of inventory, management and monitoring that will allow the shared objectives to be achieved.

The purpose of this initial workshop was to create a climate that enables NCA managers and staff, and the many involved public and users to engage, and begin working on meeting their current needs and enhance future management, utilization and enjoyment of this magnificent area. Inherent in this purpose was the development of a common vision for spring management on the NCA involving both technical aspects of riparian management and also the relationships among people necessary to achieve it. Importance was placed on bringing people together to meet and get to know each other on a more personal level.

The workshop was designed to begin meeting the stated objectives in a number of ways. Presentations that provided science-based and documented management information were designed to convey scientific information in a transparent manner and at a level of complexity that was understandable to a non-technical audience. Facilitation techniques were used to create opportunities throughout the three day workshop for participants to talk openly about their thoughts and feelings, and to be listened to with respect. Objectives were further addressed on the third day, when the NRST worked with NCA staff and willing publics to identify possible collaborative actions.

While this workshop addressed some of the assistance objectives noted above, additional steps are needed to reach agreement on inventory, assessment and monitoring protocol development and use, as well as management/restoration techniques and appropriate locations. The NRST has provided some recommendations on possible next steps at the end of this report.

Day 1 - Monday, June 15, 2009
People assembled at the Gerlach Community Center for an indoor workshop session. Gene Seidlitz, BLM District Manager, welcomed the participants prior to the following:
Grounding - The workshop began with participants seated in a large circle. After brief introductory information was provided by the facilitators, Diane asked Andrea Jackson (Rancher) to introduce and model the grounding. The questions asked of each person were:
• "Introduce yourself and your relationship to the NCA."
• "What outcomes would make your investments in attending this workshop worthwhile?"
• "How do you feel about being here?"
Beginning with a grounding enabled each person to get his/her voice in the room, discuss their workshop expectations and/or any personal situations, provide information for the meeting presenters, and set a model of listening with respect.
Session Overview - Mike gave an explanation of activities planned for the three day workshop.

Presentations - After grounding, the meeting room was re-arranged to classroom style to facilitate viewing and listening to the presentations.
Creeks and Communities - Mike Lunn explained the role and purpose of the NRST, the Creeks and Communities strategy, and the Creeks and Communities Network including State Riparian Teams in the western United States and the national/regional agency coordinators. The mission of the NRST is "Achieving healthy streams through bringing people together" and the emphasis is on an integration of technical science related to riparian management and engagement of the diverse people who either affect or are affected by management. Proper Functioning Condition, or PFC, is a fundamental tool that serves as both a science-based assessment tool and on-the-ground condition of riparian resources. It also provides an excellent basis for communication within diverse groups of people because a common vocabulary is created that helps people understand physical function and its relationship to the values that are important to them.

Introduction to Springs - Don Sada talked about springs; what they are and their importance. Landscape and hydrologic characteristics include the scale of the aquifer feeding the spring (mountain, local, or regional) and the physical setting (geology, climate, topography, recharge area, residence time, etc.). Don explained some of the important biological characteristics of springs, and alterations from human impacts that have occurred.

Overview of the PFC Process - Steve Leonard provided an introduction to the PFC process, which examines the interaction of water, vegetation and soils/landform within riparian-wetland areas, and focuses on the physical function that can lead to sustainable riparian resources when properly managed. The intent of presenting PFC at this workshop was to build awareness and understanding among participants of the attributes and processes of riparian function so that people would have a general familiarity with the assessment method, rather than to teach people to actually do PFC. Discussion included: what PFC is and isn't; the intent of the PFC concepts and methods; lentic PFC and definitions with emphasis on how to determine potential of small springs; and general instructions for conducting the assessments with an emphasis on pre-field investigation of information from many sources to best enable understanding the resources to be evaluated.

Hydrology Attributes - Using the PFC checklist, Janice Staats provided information on the hydrology attributes and processes of springs. She used photographs and explanations to help people reach common understanding of the checklist items.

Vegetation Attributes - Sandy Wyman introduced the participants to the vegetation attributes of the PFC checklist and explained how they are related to the soil and hydrology attributes.

Erosion/Deposition Attributes - Steve Leonard finished the discussion of the lentic checklist by explaining the attributes and processes related to erosion and deposition.

Completing the Checklist - Summary Determination - Steve Leonard explained how the final determination of condition is made from the checklist items, with a focus on attributes that received a "no" answer, and how important those "no" answers are in the context of physical function relative to the "potential" condition of springs or other wetlands. Steve noted that many wetland areas are able to be sustainable over time even though they may be below their potential. Some wetlands/springs have a reduced potential due to human causes that are outside the control of the land manager; this results in a reduced "capability" of the spring. This is often caused by such influences as highways, dams, water diversion, etc. He also discussed the importance of carefully documenting the rationale for the interdisciplinary team's findings on individual attributes, and explaining in the remarks section the overall basis for determination of PFC, Functional-At Risk and associated trend, or Nonfunctional. Management recommendations or other findings can be included in the remarks section.

Spring Inventory and Management - Don Sada discussed the inventory approach he has successfully used, and the quality control measures employed to ensure consistent application by different people. He also explained that most springs in the State have been altered to varying degrees by people, and that it usually is not possible to know what the true potential condition might have been, nor the biological resources that have been lost over time. He emphasized that is now takes a lot of experience and judgment to estimate the potential of spring areas. Don also shared some of the process he uses to prioritize protection and management of springs once they have been inventoried.

Day 2 - Tuesday, June 16, 2009
People gathered at the Community Center in Gerlach at 8:00 am on Tuesday for travel to the field site. Upon arrival at the McCarty Spring area, the group circled up and the NRST provided instructions for how the field exercise using PFC assessment would be conducted. People who were familiar with the area talked about the history from their perspectives. McCarty Spring, developed about 1960, had two collection sources embedded in the spring and two pipelines that were extended for several miles across the desert pasture to distribute water for livestock at tanks.

Four people were identified to be team leaders; a BLM employee, an environmentalist, a rancher, and a citizen who has been heavily involved in NCA planning. Remaining participants were asked to identify themselves with one of four groups; water, vegetation, soil or biology. They then counted off 1-4 within each group and joined the team leaders forming four diverse groups that were interdisciplinary. The team leader had people within his/her group introduce themselves, final instructions were given, and a timeline of 1.25 hours was established to visit the spring, assess and document attributes, and then to determine a final rating.

Once the assessments were completed, the small instructor interdisciplinary team (Janice Staats, Steve Leonard and Don Sada) led a discussion of how people rated the various attributes based on visual indicators. Potential condition, and how it is used in the assessment, was a topic that generated quite a bit of discussion. Potential is defined as the highest ecological status a riparian-wetland area can attain given no political, social or economical constraints; it is often referred to as the "potential natural community" (PNC). Capability is defined as the highest ecological status a riparian-wetland area can attain given political, social, or economical constraints. To gain an understanding of any riparian-wetland area and help shape appropriate management plans, the experienced interdisciplinary team needs to determine and document their approximation of potential and capability. The descriptions and rationale for determining potential and capability can be improved over time with adaptive management and monitoring. Each checklist item does not have to express its full potential to get a "yes" answer - rather, the site or system must be evaluated considering its potential. The experienced interdisciplinary team must determine the minimum conditions required for the area to physically function properly and answer the checklist items accordingly.

Given the disturbance and changes from development as a water source, this was a very complex spring area. The instructor team found it to be at PFC at the lower end of the range, as did several of the participant teams. One team had it rated Functional-At Risk with no apparent trend. Don Sada viewed the area as functioning more as a wet meadow now, rather than as a spring/brook system, given the reduced amount of water available in the spring area due to piping the water to tanks. Several people expressed a lack of confidence in the PFC methodology in terms of being very helpful to an overall understanding of the spring; while others felt the activity of assessing the area using PFC helped them better understand the complexity of riparian-wetland sites. It may be the concern regarding the usefulness of PFC was linked to the fact that many of the participants were not journey level resource specialists, and the complexity of these systems coupled with the qualitative nature of the protocol led participants to questions PFC's usefulness to people other than journey level team members. Others noted that they did not like the PFC assessment because it did not go far enough in terms of considering biological components of spring systems.

The group then spent a short time examining a spring in McConnell Canyon. This was a very different system, with the spring emerging in a channel that had downcut probably 50 years ago (possibly following the flooding events of 1964). Since that time, the channel had continued to widen out until it was able to begin developing a new flood plain at a lower base elevation, and is now in the early stages of natural channel evolution/restoration. A significant portion of the banks and floodplain were comprised of a species of obligate/facultative wet sedge. Many people observed the caterpillars feeding on the coyote willow, and it was noted that this is one of the reasons why at least two species of woody vegetation are required for a "yes" answer on vegetation item 9 - diverse composition (for maintenance and recovery). If only one species of willow is present, an outbreak of insects such as this could eliminate all the willow. Browse of the willows by animals was also noted. Also at this site, Steve Smith gave a short overview of the preparation steps for PFC assessments.

Day 3 - Wednesday, June 17, 2009
The group met back at the Community Center for the final day of the workshop.

Idaho Lentic Prioritization Guide - Steve Smith provided an overview of a system he used while working with Idaho BLM, explaining how it works, and how it guides an evaluation of both physical function and values to determine management priority among multiple lentic systems. Steve emphasized that this is only one of many possible tools to accomplish this important task. The guide emphasis is on not losing resources, so a higher priority for management and/or restoration is typically afforded spring/wetland resources that are rated Functional-At Risk with either a static or downward trend and have higher resource values. This guide uses a total of ten criteria to prioritize management and restoration activities. The prioritization does not discount the value of any spring or wetland resource; it provides a way to allocate scarce resources of money, time and staff to work towards improvement.

Stakeholder Discussions - The remaining four hours of the workshop consisted of facilitated discussions among the participants. Two local people helped facilitate the discussions; Metric Ebert (Friends of Black Rock-High Rock) began and was coached by Diane on process. In late morning, Aaron Collins (BLM) succeeded Metric, again coached by Diane.

To begin, each person answered the following question in turn around the large circle: What is your view of the situation in terms of opportunities to collaborate?. The intent of the question was to begin framing the opportunities, and to provide a foundation for increasingly specific discussions. Metric, the facilitator then asked: What are the barriers, or reasons why people will say collaboration is too difficult or impossible in this environment? The answers to this question were first recorded on a 3x5 card by each person, and then read aloud around the circle. Those recorded answers are shown below, in the exact words of the participants, arranged by categories developed by the facilitator; there is no prioritization intended by the order of presentation. Blank spaces were left in instance where handwriting could not be interpreted.

BARRIERS TO COLLABORATION

Is it worth it?
• We all go home and get involved with our lives.
• It takes too much time.
• Lack of faith in the effectiveness/ potential of the group.
• Too many other competing priorities.
• Not big enough to make a difference.
• We cannot change the way things are (red tape).
• Can be and often is not clean and linear, can be messy and abstract.
• Results are too slow or never occur.
• Not everyone values collaboration/cooperation.
• Competing priorities.

Lack of Skills or Knowledge
• Process and participation is too complex to access.
• Lack of confidence in skills to participate.
• Issue is too complex.
• Lack of understanding.
• Lack of understanding of potential for sustainable use.
• People don't have good listening skills.

Logistic Difficulties
• Requires OHV/truck, skills and confidence to assess springs.
• Too many different people to get together at one time.
• Distance between people.
• Black Rock is too far away.
• Logistics of bringing people together frequently.
• Remoteness of location.
• Location, size, money-cutbacks.

Process Concerns
• Constraint beyond control of the groups.
• Duplicative efforts of other groups.
• Too many sideboards.
• Lack of ground rules.
• Lack of administrative support.
• Too many meetings, not enough action.
• Can be uncomfortable.
• People not used to verbalizing vulnerable feelings-ideas.
• National-regional standards and processes.
• An amazing amount of educational opportunities feels overwhelming.

Differing Values/Agendas
• Feeling of lack of middle ground/options.
• Limited imagination of participants.
• Opinions are too strong for reconciliation.
• Limited common ground among interest groups.
• Agreement on highest priority/values.
• A group's interests or goals are at a conflict.
• Extreme and polarized views.
• Ability and willingness to understand each other's extreme views.
• People will cave to sentiment/myth vs. scientific and societal reality.
• Some people may not agree and not accept the disagreement.
• Different goals and agendas.
• Fundamental differences that can't be resolved.
• Folks can't find common ground.
• Narrow mindedness (in their opinion).
• Not willing to give and take.
• Too diverse of opinion/interests.

Inclusion of People
• Key stakeholders left out of process.
• Frequency of change/turnover key players or decision makers.
• Lack of desire to work with all groups.
• They're afraid they'll be excluded from the process.

Behavior, Interpersonal Relations
• It may require me to change my behavior.
• Personal conflicts amongst each other's views tend to get in the way.
• (Opinion) emotional response overriding need to collaborate.
• They can't get their point across - their point is so entrenched they only want their way.
• More comfortable staying in their "own box."
• Everybody has a real strong opinion.
• A real passion about how the land should be managed.
• Too many people not understanding their negative impact and becoming defensive - not learning.
• They get their needs and wants met by other means.
• Strong feelings.

Lack of Trust or Understanding
• Lack of trust between stakeholders.
• People participate without trust, too focused on their own narrow perspective.
• Threats of litigation that maintain distrust in a collaboration process.
• It requires understanding others viewpoints.
• Non-trust - alternative motives.
• Lack of trust that as individuals needs will be met.
• Lack of understanding.
• Passion for a single issue without understanding effects overall.

Collaboration Doesn't Work
• They're afraid the outcome won't be the one they want.
• If collaboration equals compromise on your passion, then you risk losing your soul.
• Belief that collaboration does not support personal or organizational agendas.
• Suffering for lack of give and take syndrome - lack of flexibility.
• Results are slow- people run out of patience.
• Too long a process.
• Too messy emotionally.
• Not enough give.
• Some things may feel like the opportunity to change is out of their hands.
• Others won't open up mind.
• I've already tried - I give up.

Money/Time/Staff/Leadership
• MONEY!
• Time.
• Lack of time.
• Time to go then process.
• Time consuming-most all participants have many other responsibilities.
• Lack of resources (money, time, energy, volunteers, etc.).
• No funding to make anything really happen on ground.
• Agency people too busy.
• Resources - time and money.
• Leadership support - agrees with group decisions.
• Lack of leadership.

It is important to identify barriers, or worst possible outcomes, because people often first perceive opportunities based more on what could go wrong, or what are all the difficulties that might be encountered rather than the other possibilities. Each of the above barriers is real, and the potential for them to lead to failure are real. And, that is only one possibility. It is also possible that the group could work towards achieving positive outcomes, and to do so in ways that minimizes the risk that the barriers will remain in the way of progress.

Facilitator Aaron then led the group through a process of exploring the possible outcomes that the group might choose to create. The participants were asked by Aaron to listen carefully as each person spoke in order to understand all the possibilities, and that in a subsequent step people could determine outcomes that all might support. The question for this portion was: If you chose to work with others in the future, what would be some specific outcomes you would want to create? After each person had the opportunity to speak and to be listened to by the group, Aaron passed out 3x5 cards. He asked people to record their answers to the following question on the card: What specific outcomes did you hear that you would support?

OUTCOMES SUPPORTED BY PEOPLE IN THE GROUP

Inventory/Assessment
• Eval/inventory assessment.
• Monitoring and adaptive management.
• Riparian inventory.
• Assessment.
• Spring survey "quick and dirty".
• An inventory of the springs and coordinate a committee to oversee the spring project with a common goal.
• Structured simple steps and forms for volunteers of all walks to assess springs.
• Form with stream drawn on it for volunteers to comment on/draw what they see.
• Develop; implement inventory analyses, implementation, monitoring protocol for springs.
• Complete comprehensive simple rapid inventory/assessment of BRHR springs.
• Look at issues if the spring _______ i.e. look beyond spring itself for issues and implications.
• Develop springs inventory that citizenry can help accomplish and get it going this summer or next spring.
• Develop and implement simple assessment/inventory.
• Gather sufficient information base to make management decisions.
• Collect necessary spring inventory data for group to prioritize, projects and ______ in the future.
• How to assess a spring and help get it back in order.
• Simple spring evaluation procedure.
• Finding/looking at springs on the ground.
• Start/develop inventory process of springs that can be implemented by volunteers.
• Get inventory process together, train folks and do it and evaluate.
• Assess by different members or others when on site with ______ to develop and plan for spring.
• Use existing info.
• Riparian inventory and assessment program.

Continued Collaboration/Communication
• Consensus results-happy participants.
• Sustained collaborative activity.
• Ownerships of results.
• Collaborate (Specific to Friends of Black Rock High Rock with Nevada Department of Wildlife) specifically for "boots on the ground" projects.
• Collaborate to work in springs initially volunteer inventory checklist, projects, evaluate
• Expand collaboration to other issues.
• Continue to include, expand opportunities for collaboration i.e. more people.
• Continue communication among all stakeholders to implement the next steps.
• Use the collaborative process.
• Keep people together until a collective agreement is found.
• Work together without compromising your beliefs.
• Collaborative process.
• Collaborative longevity.
• Work together, be flexible, adapt, and collaborate.
• Continue long term commitment to work together.

Project Activities
• Riparian improvements/action
• Project action.
• Implement.
• Low hanging fruit.
• Initiate some restoration/inventorying projects soon.
• Positive results at particular sites in the near future.
• Projects on the ground-at least two a year.
• Work to implement a few simple projects at springs to coalesce people and initiate momentum.
• Not just plan - implement.
• Continue to develop and monitor.
• Get work done to improve riparian conditions.
• Implement not just collaborate and plan.
• Pick (today) specific sites-work not to change the health and or function of resources.
• Maintain, improve and repair existing water developments on springs with float valves, pipelines, troughs etcetera to function properly and save, move, distribute water effectively.
• Get floats, etc on troughs to keep more H2O in spring systems.
• Repair/alter existing dev. springs so overflow/excess H2O is not lost or causes more degradation of key springs.
• Getting actual work done.
• Do projects on the ground with the stipulation that the direct cause of spring degradation is addressed properly and as affectively as possible - AMLs.
• Invasive weed project - white top.
• Getting something done.
• Repair - use only water needed.
• Providing tools needed by on the ground folks to accomplish designed goals.
• Get folks out on the ground for a project.
• ID weed projects to improve key spring/riparian areas.
• Positive multiple use activities sustained.

Staffing/Volunteers
• An on the ground group to do the hands on work to achieve the objectives.
• Volunteer weed pulls over and over and over.
• Using volunteers effectively.
• Use volunteers more too collect and monitor - build tools.
• Importance of integrating volunteers in maintaining, healing springs in BRHR.
• Use volunteers - photos
• Implementation of volunteer/citizen.
• Realize the appropriate "hook" to keep peoples/volunteers interest.

Planning
• Establish a vision statement for this group.
• Establish vision statement for this group.
• Goal statement.
• Come up with common agenda/goal.
• Develop goals/objectives.
• Creativity to meet goals as described in the NCA and RMP.
• Big vision goal.
• Objective.
• Action plan or course of action.
• Tangible short term goals.
• Basic plan-paper checklist.
• Use adaptive mgt. process.
• Long term focus.

Education
• Teach our children.........(the possibilities are endless).
• Greater understanding and continued interaction.
• Include Don Sada since he is the local and national/worldwide expert.
• Educate and learn using the land.
• Educate kids on ecosystem/environmental values.
• Learn, share,
• Educate children.
• Build understanding and support for priority projects and decisions thought ______ and educate.
• Educating users on their impacts.
• Efforts that link learning/education with demonstrated results.

Promote Success
• Celebrate success.
• Rapid evidence of success.
• Lead the trip.
• Learn from mistakes, but concentrate on success.
• Lighten up and enjoy.
• Celebrate success and share successful stories to inspire others and get more money.
• $

Management, Use, Organization
• Change the status quo, use the land.
• Organize standardize.
• Assess, prioritize, design, implement, monitor, adapt, utilize appropriate tools, maintain/care for the long term.
• Key relationships, momentum, money, management support.
• Using science to guide decisions.
• BLM broaden.
• Transfer results to other groups/areas/situations.
• Acquire/purchase tools, materials, guides to assist field work and learning.
• Making sure there is a strong focus on wildlife.
• Multiply effect by coordination efforts.
• Share knowledge, tools, techniques and science.
• Holistic landscape.
• Be adaptable and flexible as things change.
• Address issues with wild horse numbers.
• Use existing info.
• Defined leadership roles to ensure long-term effectiveness and success.

Expanded Involvement
• Getting young people involved.
• Engage youth and education.
• Getting people more involved-Glenn
• Work to include more folks.
• Leadership-org "go to org".
• Expand to others.
• Expand this to include other agencies and places.

Closing - Closing allowed each person to summarize both their perspective on the workshop, and also their advice for all the people who had met for the three days. At the beginning of the workshop, people were asked about the outcomes that would make their investment of time, energy and money in attending the workshop worthwhile. In the closing, people were asked to answer (not recorded) the following questions: How do you feel about the investment you made to participate in this workshop? and What advice do you have for people to help the NCA achieve its potential?

NRST Recommendations Regarding Possible Next Steps
Following the workshop, NRST members brainstormed some suggestions for possible next steps based on the issues discussed and the outcomes people supported. Key themes emerged relative to the vast and unknown number of springs, seeps and wetland areas within the NCA and also the diverse interests and energy represented by workshop participants. Beyond getting a more comprehensive inventory regarding the extent of these special resource areas, is the need to assess their condition and develop management and monitoring strategies based on specific objectives and guided by some sort of prioritization thought process. The complex nature of these lentic resources was also addressed during the workshop lending to an awareness of the skills needed for applying assessment and monitoring protocols. However, some basic inventory work could be accomplished by less technically trained people that would be of considerable value to the unit. This work could consist of locating and documenting springs with GPS and photographs. Managing these resources requires a number of steps and processes and the nature of these would have to be matched to the appropriate and corresponding skill levels of agency personnel and organizational staff and volunteers. Clearly, more detailed inventories would require more experienced personnel. Recognize that these recommendations were not part of the workshop discussion, or any subsequent discussions, so NRST members do not know whether they are completely realistic given existing NCA priorities, workload and funding. They are included simply as some possibilities to consider knowing that projects need to be NEPA compliant and adhere to all necessary agency planning processes.

1. Complete collaborative development of an inventory protocol for volunteers, including review by all workshop participants and other interested parties that will enable utilization of volunteer labor for locating, documenting, and photographing springs. Develop and conduct training needed for volunteers to ensure quality control. Also, host a meeting of various organizations in the area to identify ways to partner in this effort and examine how roles and responsibilities might be shared across organizations.
2. Develop a GIS layer containing all known or possible spring locations, combining data from BLM, National Wetlands Inventory (NWI), USGS, Nevada Department of Wildlife, and other sources. This would be a starting point for the volunteer inventory.
3. Using a prioritization rationale, inventory a set number of springs that currently lack adequate information for developing management and/or restoration strategies and determine which of those sites would be candidates for gathering additional information.
4. Develop a longer-term assessment and monitoring program to follow-up on inventoried springs, congruent with project planning efforts.
5. Identify springs where there are known accumulations of trash that could be removed by volunteers. Focus on those close to good camping and a hot spring.
6. As soon as is feasible, identify some projects where the condition of developed springs can be improved through maintenance or other related actions and where volunteers could assist with the field work. The purpose of this work would be to improve the protection or condition of an existing developed source. Tangible achievements made at the outset of collaborative efforts helps galvanize the group and create momentum.
7. Continue creating forums for learning and relationship building in support of managing the resources of the NCA.
8. Provide opportunities for learning collaboration/consensus processes and facilitation techniques. The NRST typically sponsors these types of trainings annually. Please contact Laura Van Riper at 541-416-6702 or laura_van_riper@or.blm.gov, if you would like to received information about these sessions

The NRST is available to assist with technical development and training, as well as facilitation, once decisions regarding next steps are made.

Workshop Participants

Helene Aarons, BLM National Landscape Conservation System Partnership Office
Willy Anderson, Friends of Black Rock High Rock
David Book, Friends of Black Rock High Rock
Bob Boyd, BLM Nevada State Office Hydrologist
Michael (Crow) Black, Friends of Black Rock High Rock Volunteer Coordinator
Susie Bunyard, Rancher
John Bunyard, Rancher
Aaron Collins, BLM Winnemucca District Wilderness Specialist
Meagan Conry (day one morning), BLM Winnemucca Acting Associate District Manager
Matthew (Metric) Ebert, Friends of Black Rock High Rock Director
Katie Fite, Western Watersheds Biologist
Clint Garrett, Nevada Department of Wildlife
Dave Hays, BLM Winnemucca Field Office Manager
Andrea Jackson, Rancher
Jenny Lesieutre, BLM Washington DC Wild Horse and Burro Program Specialist
Stuart Murray, Consultant
Jill Nannenga, BLM Winnemucca District Rangeland Management Specialist
Tina Nappe, Sierra Club
Shaaron Netherton, Friends of Nevada Wilderness
Don Sada, Desert Research Institute Research Professor
Gene Seidlitz (day one morning), BLM Winnemucca District Manager
Debbie Smith, Friends of Black Rock High Rock
M. Bashir Sulahria, retired Hydrologist
Steve Surian, BLM Surprise Resource Area Rangeland Management Specialist
Jim Linebaugh, Rangeland Management Consultant

Workshop Presenters & Facilitators

Mike Lunn, Conflict Management Specialist, Solutions for Sustainability
Diane Seehawer, Conflict Management Specialist, 4 C's Consulting
Steve Leonard, Riparian Ecologist and Grazing Management Specialist, Cowdance Consulting
Don Sada, Research Professor, Desert Research Institute
Steve Smith, Range/Riparian Specialist and Team Lead, NRST
Janice Staats, Hydrologist, NRST
Sandy Wyman, Rangeland Management Specialist, NRST