STEENS MOUNTAIN ADVISORY COUNCIL
MEETING MINUTES
November 18 & 19, 2010
Bend, Oregon
Thursday, November 18, 2010
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Bill Renwick, Local Environmental Representative
Tom Davis, Fish & Recreational Fishing
Hoyt Wilson, Grazing Permittee
Dan Haak, Mechanized Consumptive Recreation
Paul Bradley, Wild Horse Management
Fred Otley, Private Landowner
Stacy Davies, Grazing Permittee
Richard Angstrom, No Financial Interest
Pam Hardy, Dispersed Recreation
Dave Bilyeu, Statewide Environmental Representative
MEMBERS ABSENT
Burns Paiute Tribal Member
State Liaison
DESIGNATED FEDERAL OFFICIAL (DFO)
Kenny McDaniel, District Manager
DESIGNATED FEDERAL OFFICAL ASSITANT
Christi West, BLM, SMAC Coordinator
FACILITATOR
TERRY Morton, Klamath Falls, OR
PRESENTERS
Rhonda Karges, BLM, Hines, OR
Frank Wilson, BLM, Solicitor, Portland, OR
Joan Suther, BLM, Hines, OR
Mike Kelly, BLM, Hines, OR
COMMENTING PUBLIC
Jack Rinn, Consultant
Hilda Alison, High Desert Partnership
Matt Little, ONDA, Bend, OR
OTHERS PRESENT
Charles Biederman, BLM, Hines, OR
Terry Morton opened the meeting, self-introductions were made, housekeeping items were addressed
and the agenda was reviewed.
CHAIRPERSON UPDATE:
NRCS recently was able to get additional money to do Sage-Grouse projects particularly from
land owners. The main purpose of the grant is to ensure that the bird doesn’t get on the
endangered species list.
 Each state has an allotment. OWEB is willing to provide funds for Sage-Grouse habitat as
long as it has a watershed enhancement to it too.
DFO UPDATE:
John Witzel is concerned that juniper removal is not the right thing to do. Leaving it would bring
the area back to its natural mix. Needing evidence behind the science.
The BLM office was concerned about getting burning projects completed. On the contrary a lot
of burning was able to be done. We finished up the Five Creeks portion over 16k acres. Burned
Lavoy Tables and Divine Ridge. The burns were conducted as under burning and juniper
control/habitat improvements. Overall a very successful burning season.
The Warm Spring gather was successful. People were professional and did their best as
gathering horses is hard. Gathered about 300 horses with 2 dying as a result of the gather. Next
year will the Kiger and Riddle HMA gathers in late fall.
Starting work on the Burnt Car road system. Grater went through and made a little crown and
flatten out the travel way. Took Craig Miller out the next day and had a good discussion.
Getting a contract to hire an operator with an excavator with our goal to do the least amount of
vegetative removal as possible; reducing the berms that were created and complying with the
terms of the decision.
Transportation Management Plan. Judge ruled that the only final agency action that ONDA can
challenge is the transportation management plan.
Renewable energy summit - BLM created an opportunities map (GIS map with a lot of layers,
with variable data sheets), which is interactive on the BLM website.
SETTING FUTURE MEETINGS (tentative to appointments):
February 17-18 – in Burns
April 4-5—in Burns
June 9-10 – in Frenchglen
September 22-23 – in Diamond
November 17-18 – in Bend
OFFICES (recommended reconsideration of appointment every year):
Chair:
 Set the agenda
 Amending or adjusting agenda during the meeting
 Assist in managing public comment period
 Partner with facilitator to ensure continuity of meetings
Vice Chair:
 Help set agenda
 Take on duties of the Chair in his/her absence
 Represents balance between stakeholders
Nominations and acceptance of nomination for Chair:
 Daniel Haak
 David Bilyeu
Clarification- need of a facilitator
 Kenny- Wants a facilitator, but needs to consider the budget.
 David- Strongly feels that a facilitator is essential to the operations of the committee. If you
don’t have a facilitator, the job falls to a member of the committee. Too much strength of
opinion not to have a facilitator.
SAGE-GROUSE
Bill Renwick explained what Southeast Oregon RAC was and what its function towards Sage-Grouse
is, and who is involved. Invited the SMAC to sign onto the SEORAC proposal.
A question was posed: Where have the tools of CCA and CCAA been used?
 Roaring Springs Ranch is a perfect example. Stacy has a CCAA on red-banded trout. State of
Idaho adopted (this) as their management of Sage-Grouse. One of the downsides in the Oregon
plan, is there is no implementation offer in that plan. One of the things being challenged Landowners need protection from federal designation of the Sage-Grouse. Also to recognize the
work the landowners have been doing to help manage Sage-Grouse habitat. The CCAA seems to
be the only way to do that right now. Downside is the State of Oregon is not set up to do this.
The CCAA (Candidate Species Conservation Agreement with Assurances)—those properties that
are protected by that document are a safe harbor in case they were to list the Sage-Grouse or
any other species. It would recognize them (landowner) as already being in compliance with
federal law. (If they follow their plan.) Another thing talked about was to include the CMPA and
federal lands within the CMPA under a CCA. It is basically the same thing, just public lands
cannot do the assurances side. That would not prevent the FWS from also putting in their own
guidelines on how to manage habitat.
Primary concerns with ODFW:
Dan believes that the regulations for FWS habitat maintenance incentives are backwards. Where
there is Sage-Grouse they want to put a lot of restrictions and where there are few or none they
don’t want to put a lot of restrictions.
The area where the landowner has done a good job gets heavily penalized, and the opposite for
those that do not. There is no incentive to do better.
From a biology side of things. Focuses heavily on count of the birds. They define habitats where the
counts are the highest. That may not be the most appropriate habitat designation. The concept of
core areas is where the numbers are the greatest, and that happens to be on landowner properties.
Not looking out on the broader public land and what is going on out there.
Terry interjected for clarification that FSW should be focusing on the best habitat, the habitat with
the most potential, rather than where the birds actually are now? Because that may have been
fostered by restrictive or voluntary restrictive actions.
On the public side is where they are not doing active habitat management. It is believed they should
be focused on habitat outside of private lands.
It was stated that categories are applied across the board without consideration for the differences
in areas and without data to support it. No consideration for habitat and population.
Stacy wants to look at the bigger picture and try to come up with a solution that allows for
management of the land. Look at a way to manage public and private lands on the Steens Mountain
to manage for the uses we like and to manage for good sage-grouse habitat.
Tom agrees with Stacy, but the ODFW plan is the best way to ward off the EAS listing and
accomplish what Stacy is wanting.
Pam understands the need for the ODFW document, but should look at what this group could do by
the way of ideas of how to manage ½ a million acres on the Steens Mountain. It could serve as a
fundamentally different model, or might just be something that hasn’t been used in a while. It
might have something to do with CCA’s or CCAA’s, but there might be something else. It could be
comment on the plan, or it could just be something completely different.
Tom wants to protect what is good instead of restoration.
It was mentioned that it there is not a need to comment on ODFW’s plan, but it would be better to
make a recommendation to the BLM on the Steen’s towards building a CCA for sage-grouse.
Working with US Fish and Wildlife to accomplish it. Make recommendation to the BLM for sagegrouse on the mountain. Build a CCA that is defensible.
Paul feels that the State plan is going to tie-up southeastern Oregon. It will become the basis for a
federal plan in Oregon. We need to come up with a plan in the Steens that is new or inventive or
make comments on the State plan.
William likes the idea of including CMPA as a CCA, but that is not a protection for Fish and Wildlife.
It does not create safe-harbor. Suggest looking into the use of a Coordinative Resource
Management Plan, because it allowed cooperative management plan within the BLM land. Done
with cooperation with local landowners and public land. It takes money to accomplish.
Daniel wants to look at the short-term: Does the SMAC want to weigh in on the letter to ODFW?
Long-term: Look at a creative solution of CCA, should get started on at a sub-committee level.
Pam claims that ODFW doesn’t have the science showing that habitat can be improved successfully.
Due to the knowledge of successful habitat improvement by people in this group, there is something
that can be done. Is there a way to make that a basis for our difference? A CCA is based on current
available science, and ODFW’s current available science doesn’t know how to improve habitat
successfully. Are there ways of managing habitat so that we actually end up with more numbers of
sage-grouse out on the land? And, is there a way that we can set up an arrangement so there can
be some creativity and/or rewards for people who end up with more sage-grouse? Can we actually
do it better?
Stacy suggests that the only way to make it work is to tie the CCA and the CCAA together. You have
to manage on a landscape basis or you fail. CCAA comes with assurances, so when you tie them
together to transfer the discrepancies to the federal land. If all of the parties are in agreement, you
can adjust the plan. You set targets and goal and you manage for what you want.
It would be prudent to focus on riparian and stream restoration instead of protecting them (sagegrouse) in the first place. We need some proto-type studies, to find means for protection and
restoration.
Stacy suggested that a letter be written that says: “We encourage ODFW to allocate funds and labor
necessary to be involved in proactive efforts to restore, enhance, and manage based on habitat.”
Fred believes there has to be a procedural implementation and plan that focuses, lifts up and helps
make things happen on the ground.
David would like a presentation of what a CCA and a CCAA is, and how they work with the
endangered species act.
Terry asked if the SMAC want to put David’s suggestion on the agenda for next meeting. You are
going to want to develop an approach for CMPA that integrates the best of the CCA and the CCAA
for managing, on a landscape level, with developing data to support management actions that
support habitat for sage-grouse.
Terry lists items to carry forward: Develop a management plan, CCA and CCAA at landscape level,
public and private, improve habitat, and support sage-grouse.
David voiced that the goal should be healthy long-term populations of sage-grouse.
Lunch
EIS Transmission Line Update
Rhonda Karges, BLM NEPA coordinator
Public comment period closed in September. Received 250+/- public comments covering a wide
range of concerns, some were form letters. The contractor was supposed to send draft responses,
to those comments, to the BLM office. Hope to have the responses completed by December 1,
2010. Current goal is to put the final EIS out the last week of December.
Paul- What is the relationship the refuge plays in the EIS, would they be able to stop the route
across the refuge?
Rhonda- There is an MOU between BLM and FWS that says; we will collectively make a decision,
even though BLM will have its own record of decision. Theoretically FWS would have their own
decision, if they decided to go the west route. There are stipulations in the MOU should FWS and
the BLM disagree. There are steps to take to try to find some common ground.
Paul- What to make sure that the level of support from the Electrical Union, the Carpenters Union
and Operating Engineers Unions is indicated in the EIS. The social and economic issues are the core
of the project, not the environmental issues.
Rhonda - The EIS is not gear towards recognizing support of a particular entity; it is just supposed to
tell you the affects. Although, there is information in the EIS that indicates how many people will be
brought into the area to do the work, in the initial stages as well as maintenance following the
transmission line. There is a lot of economic information in the EIS.
Paul- The non-development easements and the conservation easements should be directed towards
the wilderness areas and the in-holder properties. Those are the thorns in BLM’s side, a thorn in our
side, about keeping unified, cohesive wilderness. As long as we have in-holder pieces it is going to
be a broken-up wilderness.
Terry- What the issue is: is it worth trying to develop some agreement over whether conservation
easements should be an option. Possibly tied to the $25million that was originally sketched out in
the Steens Act. If did have the $25million, and you had to prioritize it towards habitat restoration,
water development and in-holdings, forgoing wind energy development.
William suggested that the SMAC needs to look at all potential alternatives. It was allocated, and
not appropriated, to help preserve the nature and character of the Steens within the CMPA, and any
activities adjacent to the CMPA. There is a local land trust in the informative stages. Because of the
values of the proposals, it is going to be very expensive to buy and easement. It cannot be done
without the money allocated in the Steens Act.
David is in favor of moving towards getting the allocation of funds. The reason the council exists, is
to help the mountain retain its character. Therefore, the purpose of the funding is to hold the
character of the Steens. Regardless of the proposed projects the purpose needs to be retained.
Stacy brought up the issues of; what can we really do? At this point we can give advice to the BLM,
but that is really limited to the transmission line. Even though, the public comment period is over,
we could still come to a decision about west vs. north. This is what we could do:
 We could give advice on the transmission line.
 Specifics within the transmission line.
 Individuals will have to submit a package to Congress and the SMAC can weigh in and support it.
We could modify it slightly, saying we could support certain elements and not others. We can
weigh in and support or we can give the BLM advice on the whole subject.
Pam wants to put on this discussion on the agenda, for next meeting, a conversation about highest
priority for what we would do if we were to pursue getting the money. (concerning conservation
easements in the transmission line project)
SOLICITOR FRANK WILSON Q&A
(Disclaimer—the thoughts and comments made by Frank Wilson are of his own and do not reflect the
comments and thoughts of the solicitor’s office or that of the Department of Interior.)
Kenny- Introduction Frank is from the solicitor’s office in Portland. He deals with a lot of issues on the east side
(Eastern Oregon BLM districts), and a lot of issues in Burns.
Frank- Supervisory Attorney in the solicitor’s office Sisters, Oregon for the section that handles most
of the BLM issues.
Roles
If you look through the Steens Act, where the council is mentioned, it is advisory. Provide advice to
the BLM. There are specific thing in the Steens Act where the BLM is required to seek SMAC advice.
There are specifics on the development of a management plan, road closures and road construction.
The BLM is not supposed to do those things without consulting the SMAC. There are numerous
places where there is a statutory requirement for the BLM to come to the council, seek your input
and consider that input prior to action.
Under FACA, the statute that govern advisory committees, there are a number of procedural
requirements. Required to have open meetings, provided notice of meetings, records, transcripts,
minutes and recommendations are available for public inspection. Advisory committee shall only
meet at the request of the secretary or designated federal officer. There has to be an agenda.
There are a number of procedural roles that come from the Steens Act and FACA.
You are a public committee, made up by members of the public.
Administrative tasks do not fall under the need for a public notice i.e., meeting preparation work,
administrative work. It does all have to come back to the council for approval.
There are numerous regulations to protect against conflict of interests. If there are specific issues
discussed by the SMAC; what happens if a council member has a specific lease, license, permit,
contract, claim, agreement or related litigation. That member must step aside for that issue.
ROLE OF THE SOLICITOR OFFICE
The solicitor’s office is attorneys that provide legal counsel to the Department of the Interior. We
provide advice to all of the different Bureau’s and Agencies within the Department.
One of the few that are pan-departmental: FWS is just as much a client as the BLM.
Litigate, but also provide legal advice in a non-litigation context.
 Administrative litigation- performs duties as trial lawyers.
 Judicial litigation- (district court, appeals to the 9th circuit court) the department of justice is
the lead attorney and we assist in the case.
The role as advisors has the greatest potential to help the BLM avoid problems and to help create
solutions.
Pre-litigation is in place to work with BLM long before they make a decision. That way we can help
identify legal issues, to help avoid legal problems and to advice on risk before a decision is issued.
We have been out to the districts a lot; getting training, trying to develop personal relationships.
That way when something first starts to happen, they call us early to avoid litigation.
Once in litigation, we continue to provide legal advice about litigation strategy and options.
LEGAL RISK
Try to provide advice in a format of helping the BLM to understand legal risk; to make decisions
more defensively.
Two element:
 If you get sued, what are the odds of your winning? (administrative record and decision record
completeness in order)
 If you make a decision, are you actually going to get sued over it? (everyone likes the decision
and you are within the realm of legal)
For significant decision, BLM needs to call early.
For an EIS, especially if it is for an EIS that could have any potential for controversy, request the
purpose and needs statement and the range of alternatives before they start writing anything else.
As an office responsible to the Secretary, we have a responsibility to notice and respond to (elevate)
legal issues prior to being notified by the client. Try to ensure that the department as a whole is
taking consistent legal concerns across the country.
One role the office can play to help avoid legal issues is; the office is open to Kenny (Burns BLM
District Manager) contacting us. Meaning Kenny can share the solicitor’s advice, if he chooses, with
the SMAC.
An administrative record should be any document that was considered by the decision maker in
reaching a decision. A recommendation from the SMAC should be considered as part of the record,
for that decision. Anything supporting your (SMAC) recommendation is helpful.
For recommendations: Recommendations need to be writing in such a way that the reader can
understand that you reached this conclusion and this was your rational support for it. Write out
your reasoning, what you considered, and the factors at play and how they interact and are affected
by the individual facts.
Legal issues are rarely the determining factor. Lawsuits are lost, because there is not great factual
support or there is not a good decision record that makes it transparent in the decision process.
Making a hard decision, open and public, is a lot more defensible.
Is the SMAC a legal entity that can intervene, to argue points that are part of the case itself?
As a group, the SMAC does not have standing to intervene, but as individuals under certain
circumstances you do. The best anyone can do, is help the BLM build a solid administrative record.
Maybe as a role of the SMAC, when a public comment is made, we should review it and see what
may not be adequately addressed. At that point we can see if a comment needs to be made, as a
group.
If two agencies that are conflicting over the same issue, the solicitors office will step in and direct an
agreement before it reaches the legal decision paperwork. The idea is to have the Federal
Government speak with one voice.
Settlements:
 The legal risk for a particular piece of litigation and the claim brought against the client is with in
the case law, settlement is a viable option. Settlements should always be an option, for no
other reason than it can get the parties involved to a resolution. It could be a resolution to
modify the decision a little, to move the decision forward and reduces the cost and time of legal
action.
 If the settlement is to throw the decision out and go back and start over, that can be based on
the analysis of legal risk. Meaning that the odds of going forward are not great, and the judge
will side in favor of the complaint. It is best to take a settlement to prevent excess cost and time
of taking the case to court.
 Sometimes a new decision will come down from the 9th circuit, and the legal landscape changes.
In the light of new legal president the legal risk changes; a settlement may be the only way to
move forward.
Right and process of BLM decision:
 The BLM as a right to pull and/or change a decision up to the point that an appeal is filed. Once
an appeal is filed the IBLA then makes the choices for the Secretary, because the BLM no longer
has jurisdiction. If the BLM wants to change their stance on the decision, they can make a
request to the IBLA to vacate and remand the decision.
 The decision can also be declared moot, because the BLM doesn’t want to move forward with
the decision anymore.
 *Fees needed to pay for most cost associated with a lawsuit, are funded mostly by the district
being sued. There are some exceptions to this, but most all costs are absorbed by the field
office.
If the SMAC provides a recommendation and the documents that support the recommendation is in
the administrative record; that is really all the SMAC can do to support that decision. That is the
SMAC’s role; to provide a well-supported, well-reasoned recommendation to the BLM.
Is there a responsibility for the BLM to respond to the SMAC, if they choose not to use a provided
recommendation?
 The BLM should respond to all comments. The BLM has a special responsibility to the SMAC,
because Kenny is the designated official. In a NEPA context that is the responsibility of the NEPA
coordinator to respond to all substantive comments. This ensures a complete and strong
administrative record for the decision. The lack of explanation that makes a decision arbitrary.
What weight does the recommendation, if used by the BLM, have with the judge in a decision? (Due
to the diverse member make-up of the committee.)
 The SMAC is an organization that was formed to provide advice to the BLM. If the BLM issued a
decision, and did not explain why they did not take the SMAC recommendation; that would
probably be a bigger problem than from a single individual. The SMAC carries more weight,
because statutorily you are authorized to provide advice. Legally the SMAC doesn’t carry more
weight in court, but it does functionally.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Matt Little conservation director with ONDA- ONDA has been running a deficit in the legal
department for the past four years. A citizen shouldn’t have to pay the government to follow the
law. The government (offending agency) should have to recoup the citizen for not following the law.
The Ruby settlement money went to on the ground projects, through a separate group.
 Recommend cutting public comment period into smaller time periods after each discussion,
prior to a decision.
 Supports the idea of the CCA. Even though it doesn’t have assurances, it would be great for the
SMAC got proactive with a plan. A CCA may be able to spin off a CCAA for the private
landowners.
 Recommends inviting FWS to the next meeting, and ask what it would take to put something
together that they would be on-board with.
 Mentioned the debated over whether or not the established easement for the transmission line
through the refuge could carry transmission. Whether or not the deed exceeded some of the
laws that are being cited that would be wide enough and allow for transmission. Official
comments are available from FWS and EPA; they are part of public record.
Jack Rinn from Bend The Secretary should, for the benefit of the committee and the public, give a decision on
appointments to the council.
 Understands that Kenny only has to read the recommendation from the SMAC that has an
affirmative vote of nine members; even then he doesn’t have to follow the recommendation.
 Encourages the SMAC to take a vote, even if you know you will only get seven votes,
because Kenny doesn’t have to read it (the voted on recommendation) and the Secretary
doesn’t have to read it, but the public may want to read it. As a member of the public I may
want to use it to give to congress, press, or some judicial proceeding. Votes that don’t have
the standing of a recommendation are still important to the public for their use.
RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENT
Paul- addressing comment regarding protocol. It is posted on how to make a comment during the
meeting. The public can pass a note to their representative during the meeting and they can voice
your opinion at that time. The posted protocol also refers to being able to raise your hand, talking
over people, turning off your cell phone, etc… All types of courtesy things that need to be brought
back or readdressed. (Later decided to pass the note to DFO.)
Kenny- clarification to Matt’s comment about FWS and their recommendation for “no action”. That
recommendation did come from the Bend office (ecological services), not the refuge. They felt like
there was some information that they still wanted, and a lot of it was about raptors. The refuge is
part of the decision.
In reference to Matt’s recommendation about the public comment period- It may be a good idea to
invite public comment, during a discussion, but only on the issue at hand. It should not be done as
an expected part of the agenda, but as a vote of agreement during the discussion, made by the
committee.
End of day.
STEENS MOUNTAIN ADVISORY COUNCIL
MEETING MINUTES
Bend, Oregon
Day Two
Friday, November 19, 2010
Terry Morton opened the meeting, self-introductions were made, housekeeping items were addressed
and the agenda was reviewed.
PRESENTATIONS:

Dan put a motion on the table: That SMAC develop a subcommittee to learn about CCA’s and
CCAA’s and if they are a feasible option, and bring that information to the next scheduled
meeting.
 Question raised: Would it be an option to ask the BLM to bring in someone who already works
with and knows (legally and practically) about CCA’s and CCAA’s?
SMAC MOTION
Dan moved to create a subcommittee, volunteers from this committee, to pursue information
on CCA and CCAA cooperative management, in and outside the CMPA. To gather information
on financial resources (if required), the process of how to proceed with a CCA and/or CCAA
and the partners we would need (BLM, FWS and other federal agencies). Finally, bring the
information back to the committee to help the committee move forward.
Fred seconded
Amendment: Also, to bring other tools that are not limited only to the CCA and CCAA's.
The motion passed unanimously.
David, Pam, Stacy, Dan and William make up the subcommittee with Stacy taking lead.
JOAN SUTHER PRESENTATION:
A couple of EA’s will be coming out soon; the Basque Hills AMP and the Stonehouse pipeline
proposal (includes a pipeline and potentially a fence as part of an adaptive management process).
Received a FOIA (from ONDA) on the North Steens Ecosystem Management project; what we have
done, are doing right now and what our future plan.
(Information interjection) Richard- wanting to bring back the issue of the North Steens Allotment.
To help the BLM do a better job of putting together the administrative record and giving better
advice. Request to have the issue put on the agenda; to find the deficiencies and work on a broader
range of issues that may not have been covered from before.
 Something can be put on the table for the February meeting.
Question regard the Riddle Ranch Juniper project – Joan - The job was successfully completed.
Great comments on the project so far. We (BLM) will probably burn the piles this fall or winter.
 Is there a maintenance schedule to take care of all of the small juniper trees that come up after
a burn?



Yes. In projects like, the North Steens Ecosystem Management project, it actually calls for
staged treatment. After the trees are cut and piled they are burned. During a broadcast
burn many of those smaller trees are killed. In some areas that are more sensitive, and a
broadcast burn is not an option we will have to go back in and hand-cut those smaller trees.
Interval burns- There are some burns where there are numerous small trees. The trick is,
once you get rid of the heavy fuel, to learn how to apply fire the second and third time in a
manner that leaves the patchiness of the sage-brush and still stop the juniper from
dominating the landscape. It is important to note that a second burn doesn’t kill off as
much, and the decadent plants will still die. We will have to get creative when we do the
follow-up.
In the Vegetative EIS is an herbicide treatment EIS. In that are certain chemicals that are
crucial to medusa head treatments and control. It is to stop the growth of weeds that
legally, right now, cannot be controlled by BLM.
Update of the National Lands Conservations System Summit
 A major theme was multiple uses, with a need to focus on recreation within the NLCS.
 Key emphasis: where do we (NLCS) want to be in 10 years and 20 years?
 Incorporation of youth into programs like; interpretation and education. (Geology, plant life,
conservation, etc…)
 Talked about being able to share information; Oregon Explorer was just one site that would be a
great place to share information about the Steens.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
Jack Rinn Consultant Bend - Concerning the land trust issue from Thursday’s discussion. Claims that
the appraisal process for appraising public land (land that cannot be appraised) just doesn’t work.
Matt Little Conservation Director ONDA – Commented that he believes that the agencies are much
more upfront with the information they are thinking about; pre-scoping. That way groups can give
comments early, before it is on paper as official. Comments on where juniper control is natural or
not, and the document may sway towards claiming juniper control makes an area unnatural. ONDA
supports juniper control, but is cautious about different standards; if it takes herbicides to do it, and
it is done appropriately that is the best way to do it.
RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENT:
Comment to Matt Little’s natural juniper control issue. Because we are controlling fire, and we have
allowed the juniper to expand as much as they have, and we are not letting it burn onto private
property, the only way to manage it is through cutting and juniper control methods. We are trying
to replace the burning cycle with some mechanical things. Committee would like to hear responses
from opposing groups to hear their thinking on the subject.
 Matt - it may be an unappealing sight for someone from the east coast to see scattered stumps
lying about on the ground. It could be equated with a sight from logging. In this case juniper
cutting is coming from an ecological stand point. What they need to see is the big picture.
Interested in seeing the complete posted guidelines that the comment was made from.
Comment to Jack Rinn’s land appraisal comment. It can take around seven years to have an
administrative language change. We are looking at the private land trusts to help with that kind of
situation.
Earlier today we heard about ONDA’s FOIA and filed suit regarding the North Steens EIS project. You
(Matt) are also constantly claiming you are in favor of juniper project. Where’s the rough?
 Matt - The FOIA came up, because the attorneys wanted some follow-up questions. It is just to
figure out what are the upcoming plans regarding juniper control, and we still have to follow
what it set out by the litigation suit.
William - Pointed out that the current North Steens EIS was written under a different
administration; from both the BLM and ONDA. There is an opportunity to work more collaboratively
towards a more common goal.
RECREATION PLAN:
Update: Michelle is beginning to incorporate all of the comments that were made by the SMAC.
Purpose of the presentation is to show where the recreation department is in the planning process,
discuss some of the SRP and to introduce a network of trails to address the equestrian issue.
 Michelle had a meeting with Paul Davis and discussed many of the previous issues; toilet,
campground, parking area and what level he was comfortable with. He wasn’t comfortable, on
that day, making any decisions. He wanted to give it some thought. Paul was given a proposal
coving other successful BLM/landowner projects, and the BLM is waiting for his response.
Mike Kelly outdoor recreation planner Burns, BLM- Presenting trail proposal. 1) Trail proposals from
individual users and the backcountry horsemen. 2) Interpretative trail guide around the Wildland
Juniper Management Area (WJMA).
 Found that most people prefer loop trails. Loop trails are geared toward the general public that
isn’t looking for the more self-navigational experience that the Wilderness Act encourages.
 Cottonwood loop trail and Big Indian/Ankle Creek trail- Can originate out of South Steens
campground. A couple of miles might have to be new construction.
 Dan- One concern is that the Cold Springs road is an open road with permitted access into
the Cold Springs' cabin and Nye cabin area, and is the only motorized access in the entire
wilderness matrix. If this becomes a designated hiking trail, issues may arise between
vehicles and hikers. Having a designated trail can open the possibility of eliminating
motorized access to the Nye and Cold Springs cabin area.
 Fred- There needs to be an alternative put forward on a route that allows people to follow
along a road or route based on practical dual usage.
 Stacy-recommends staying on the desert trail, then bend around and go up Cold Springs
canyon along the creek. Go up Paiute Creek onto a road that is south of the current
proposed trail route, which goes out to the Little Blitzen. This would be an option that
would provide minimal use of the main road. There would be a hiking and motorized trail
designated and they would minimal overlap in a few areas. It is easier to design the trail
ahead of time, to avoid the possibility of conflict.
 The trails proposal is a work in progress, and comments and concerns are welcome. Contact
Mike Kelly at the Burns BLM office.
 The purpose of use (frequency) needs to be analyzed and documented in the proposal, to
continue with the objective of a wilderness experience.
 Pike Creek Trail: Purpose is to open access to the Steens for people on the eastside of the
mountain. Open for recommendation, because of access issues (rough access vs. private land
locations).
WJMA interpretive trail: Purposed for the North Steens loop road. Nice place for education on
juniper and issues surrounding it.


Recommended the possibility of incorporating a dispersed camp area into a designated camp
area, along the trail.
Recommended to pull the WJMA project away from the proposed trail project, if there looks to
be a legal battle ensued over the trail project as a whole. WJMA needs to move forward as it
was originally set aside by Congress.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Stacy Davies moves to approve the August 2010 and September 2010 minutes, with the addition of
Terry’s notes. William Renwick seconded.
 August 2010 and September 2010 minutes approved.
SPECIAL RECREATION PERMIT UPDATE:
Visitors:
 585 visitors associated with permits, compared to 70 last year.
 483 visitors (including staff) were from the Steens Mountain running camp.
 The permit holders were the same for both years. Seven permit holders operated in the CMPA.
 Two new letter of authorizations in 2010; one was a field trip from UC Berkley (one time event)
and one from Oregon State University to live-trap mammals for testing of diseases (long term
project).
 No new permit requests in 2010.
 Interest in permits for the Steens Mountain wilderness (hunting guides and recreational
packers).
Response: there has to be a needs assessment done, which is being done currently as
part of the plan.
Response to update: William - Wanted to make sure that the live-trapping was not being done on
private land. Also, wanted to address the issue of the enormous use made by the running camp.
Believes that more data needs to be taken on who the visitors actually belong to.
 Mike - BLM receives a post use report indicating: date, how many people and what percentage
of time on public land. Then the BLM charges according to the data.
Clarify permit issuance for wilderness use: To do a commercial, group, or family (over 12 people)
event, a permit in needed.
CHAIR AND VICE-CHAIR SELECTIONS:
Chair:
Vice-Chair:
Chair takes effect in January 2011.
The SMAC made corrections to specific wording of letter being presented to FWS, during the vote.
End of day.