Steens Mountain Advisory Council Final March 16-17, 2017 Summary Minutes

The Steens Mountain Advisory Council (SMAC) met March 16 and 17, in Bums, Oregon. In accordance with the provisions ofPublic Law 92-463, the meeting was open to the public. This document summarizes attendance, discussions that occurred, and decisions made. For the record, it is noted that to avoid a conflict ofinterest, Council members recuse themselves from the meeting when the Council discusses matters in which a conflict ofinterest may occur.

Council members in attendance: Owyhee Weikel-Magden (Local Environmental Representative) Leon Pie1stick (Chair, Wild Horse Management Representative) John Helmer (Dispersed Recreation Representative) Nathan Hovecamp (No Financial Interest Representative) David Bilyeu (State Environmental Representative) Mark Bagett (Vice Chair, Fish and Recreational Fishing Representative) Kali Wilson (Grazing Permittee Representative) Richard (Dick) Jenkins (Recreational Permit Holder Representative) Rod Klus (State Liaison) Fred Otley (Private Landowner Representative) Stacy Davies (Grazing Permittee Representative)

Members absent: Cecil Dick (Bums Paiute Tribe Member Representative) Karl Findling (Mechanized or Consumptive Recreation Representative)

Other participants/observers/presenters: Normandy Helmer (Private citizen) Jarod Lemos (Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Natural Resource Special1st - Riparian) Justin DeCroo (BLM Range Management Specialist) Emily Erwin (BLM Environmental Planner) Sean Rothwell (BLM Fuels Planner) Tara Thissen (BLM Public Affairs Specialist/SMAC Coordinator) Casey O'Conner (BLM Fire Management Specialist) Rhonda Karges (BLM Andrews/Steens Resource Area Field Manager/Designated Federal Official (DFO)) Autumn Toelle (BLM Range Management Specialist) Colby Marshall (Nature's Advocate) (second day) Dan Morse (Oregon Natural Desert Association (ONDA)) (second day) Michael Kelly (BLM Natural Resources StaffAdministrator) (second day) Tom Wilcox {BLM Outdoor Recreation Planner - Wilderness ) (second day) JeffRose (BLM Burns District ·Manager) (second day)

MARCH 16, 2017 Tara Thissen opened the meeting with a review ofhandout materials, the two-day agenda, and participant introductions.

Leon Pielstick followed Tara with a summary of the last meeting (January 20-21, 2017). Some highlights ofthis were a suggestion that meeting minutes be issued sooner, an examination of meeting protocols, a Pike Creek subcommittee update with a letter from Paul with his suggestions, and a discussion ofconflicting laws regarding inholder access on the Steens and how this relates to the Nature' s Advocate access request. It was voted to keep Cold Springs Road at maintenance level 2 and a letter to that effect was sent to the DFO. There was also a motion for the SMAC to approve alternative C for the inholder access, but the motion died for lack of a quorum.

FolJowing up on past assignments, Tara Thissell noted that she sent the link to North Steens Restoration online. Also, John Helmer put together a list for email contacts.

FIRE Casey O'Connor, Fire Planner for Bums District, briefed the SMAC on Bums District's fire history back to 1980 and on treatments. Treatments and wildfires in Steens have helped shape the mountain into what it is. There is lots ofdiversity on the Steens. (Casey showed some models - topography, resistance/resilience, gradients). Lower elevations have less resistance/resilience; fire promotes encroachment of invasive grasses. Resistance and resilience pretty much track together, but repeated disturbances could change that. Soil, moisture, and temperature correlate with vegetative communities.

Gradients-• Wyoming sage sites (annual grass issues) are not resistant to disturbance. • Big Sage/Pinon/Juniper (juniper encroachment) fuels treatment areas have more

resistant/resiIience. • Subalpine 01igher sites) are healthier and support good grazing and wildlife.

The Fire and Invasives Assessment Tool (FIAT} process breaks resistance/resilience up into ABC/ 123 with ones having high resistance/resilience. Integrated Landscape Assessment Project (ILAP) data is a tool composed ofmany different sources and is used as a mapping tool in the FIAT process. With juniper encroachment, native plants get crowded out and, depending on the site, eventually there may be soil erosion which can change resistance/resilience.

The BLM works together with the Forest Service and Fish and Wildlife and catches about 95 percent of fire starts. Burns Interagency Fire Zone (BIFZ) averages l 05 fires a year.

Questions were asked about why some places get more lightning strikes and fires than others do. Casey thinks the history ofgrazing on the Steens may contribute to controlling fire by reducing

2

fine fuels. Concern was expressed about the Riddle Brothers Ranch. Sean Rothwell said that while you can never be sure ofbeing 100 percent safe, the treatments at the Ranch are pretty close to being complete.

Currently, BLM's treatments consist ofcutting, piling, and burning.

Autumn Toel1e and Sean Rothwell talked about the North Steens Ecosystem Restoration Project, which focuses on removing threats, improving riparian areas, and improving aspen stands. The record ofdecision was completed in 2007. In 2008, the Oliver Springs prescribed fire covered about 5300 acres. In 2014, after litigation, the Moon Hill prescribed fire covered 10,500 acres. Originally there were five bums planned, but as sage-grouse became an issue (among other issues), it got harder to do broadcast bums. Right now Bums District doesn't have any more broadcast bums planned. The Oregon Greater Sage Grouse Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment (ORSO ARMP A) basically says before using prescribed fire you've got to look at why alternative treatments weren' t selected, how GRSG rules and objectives will be used, and how the Conservation Objectives Team (COT) report objective will be addressed in it, and do a risk assessment to address threats to sage-grouse habitat. (COT objective: To eliminate intentional fires in sagebrush habitats, including prescribed burning ofwinter and breeding habitats). Therefore, BLM is focusing on cutting, machine piling and hand piling, and then burning those piles. This costs from $350 to $700 an acre. The North Loop Road is the last place that we can do any machine piling. Within wilderness study areas (WSA), BLM can't machine pile unless it can grab it off of the road_; in this whole area we' ll have to work with hand piling. In addition, BLM can't cut and leave so it has to bum or remove everything cut. With the techniques we currently have to use, there's no way we can keep up with the regrowth. Sage­grouse breeding season and fire season add more constraints.

Rhonda said that the Hamey County Collaborative Project, whose mission is to reduce megafires, has selected a pilot project area in the Pueblos.

OREGON GRSG ARMPA (Rhonda Karges filling in as facilitator).

Bums District completes sage-grouse conformance fonns for a11 projects. Anthropogenic disturbances or activities disruptive to sage-grouse, such as maintenance activities, may not occur within seasonal ORSG habitat unless the project plan can document the actions will not impair the life cycle or behavioral needs of the GRSG population. Holly Higgins told the SMAC that all of the buffers for GRSG come from a United States Geological Survey (USGS) publication from 2014 titled "Conservation Buffer Distances for Greater Sage-Grouse." The Priority Areas of Concern (PAC) were developed using a model that incorporates four-mile buffers. Based on the latest science, they determined that 85 percent of the ORSG population spend their life cycle within four miles of a lek. Vegetation restoration and juniper cutting can be done within the four-mile buffer but only between two hours after sunrise to two hours before sunset and not for more than five days during the breeding season/early brood rearing period.

3

PHMA and GHMA are priority habitat management area and general habitat management area and are habitat quality assessments. Both were determined by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW). Travis Miller added that GHMA is sagebrush habitat without a lek nearby (outside ofthe PACs). Holly Higgins listed several more GRSG buffers for different circumstances.

Owyhee Weikel-Magden asked whether sagebrush can ever be removed in the four-mile buffer. Holly Higgins clarified that it can be outside ofbreeding season. Travis Miller further clarified that you want to retain seventy percent of sagebrush on the landscape and that removals should be in a mosaic pattern, not in a block. Travis and Holly also explained lek complexes and how they can extend buffers. Rod Klus and Holly pointed out some complexes on the map.

Emily Erwin pointed out that Burns District is working off old fuel plans right now. Between that and the ORSO ARMPA and the WSA restrictions, it' s complicated to find a treatment space and figure out how to go about treating it while complying with them all.

Casey said that in fire the priorities are life, property, and resources (in that order). There is an instruction memorandum that made GRSG the number one resource value (but as a resource, it's still lower priority than preservation oflife and property). While the GRSG ARMPA does allow the use ofnaturally ignited wildfire to meet resource and management objectives to improve GRSG habitat, Rhonda said that due to the many risks, it's not a tool Bums District is likely to use.

A few ideas were discussed, such as legislative fixes and asking Congress for more money for treatments. This led into Stacy involving the SMAC in an exercise to brainstorm items they would like to see legislative fixes for on the Steens. Stacy provided each member with a pad of sticky notes to write their ideas. Afterwards, the ideas were grouped by topics. Ideas SMAC came up with included-

• Ifno new appointmenthas been made, the current council member will continue to hold the position until a new appointment -is made.

• Road access based on historical use • Ability to use mechanical treatments • Treatments as BLM and SMAC see fit • Reassess need for WSAs on a unit by unit basis • Increase aspen management • Manage wild horses below appropriate management level (AML) • Reliable amount ofmoney for treatment annually • SMAC recommendations mandatory • Control juniper with mechanized treatments • Ability to use prescribed fire and to let wildfire burn with restrictions • Finalize travel management plan

4

• All environmental assessments (EA)/environmental impact statements (EIS) passed through SMAC

• Eliminate WSAs - wilderness or not? • Define reasonable access • Buy out private landowners • Trade for Pike Creek access • lnholders split costs for their fences/roads • Clear limits on development (power lines) • More wilderness • East side access and recreation • Financial staffing'support over multiple years • No wind power/turbines in the Steens • Inholder land trades and buy outs • Explore ways to manage wild horse populations • Standard for evaluation ofinholdings to facilitate acquisition • Let fires bum but decrease liability • Get rid of some WSAs • Scientific-based demonstration projects within special designations (such as WSA) to

meet goals and objectives of the Steens Act • Steens Act trumps Wilderness Act • Historical access for landowners and maintenance ofhistorical roads • Take out WSAs in terms ofoff-road management • Categorical exclusion for juniper and sage-grouse enhancement • Categorical exclusion for fire breaks and fuels treatments • Edgeholdings - trade or purchase • Inholdings - trade or purchase • Improve existing recreation opportunities • Identify additional recreation opportunities • Improved signage and interpretation for visitors • Interpretation of the human history of the area • Money for juniper removal and maintenance • Reduce conflict and litigation • Get out of National Landscape Conservation System, let Steens stand on its own • Mandate that wild horse numbers stay within AML • Access to private land

Rhonda Karges pointed out that the travel management plan is still in litigation.

John Helmer asked ifthere is already information in a recreation plan about where else recreation could happen? His constituents are interested in maintenance and improved access. There was a discussion of the recreation plan.

s

March 17,2017 Tara Thissen opened the meeting with a review of the day's agenda and participant introductions.

PREVIOUS DAY'S RECAP Leon Piel stick summarized the previous day. The BLM spoke to SMAC about fire and juniper and there was a good discussion. Stacy asked what we want to see on the landscape and is compiling the SMAC's suggestions.

Leon asked that the meeting participants talk about Pike Creek and inholder access before noon (when Stacy would be leaving) so there would be a quorum present.

PETER W ALKER/SMAC IDSTORY John Helmer introduced Peter Walker, a professor of geography at the University of Oregon.

Peter Walker thanked everyone for making time in the schedule for him. Peter is a human geographer and studies the social issues involved with resource management and conservation. He is working on a book of Harney County success stories and asked if the SMAC would be willing to talk to him about their history and where the SMAC is going. Stacy Davies, Fred Otley, and David Bilyeu volunteered to participate in a subcommittee to meet with Peter and share their knowledge of SMAC history. John Helmer offered logistical help.

Rhonda Karges asked if Peter was interested in the involvement of the the Sierra Club, ONDA, Southeast Oregon Resource Advisory Council (SEORAC), and the BLM. Peter replied that if tl1e people who were involved were available, be would appreciate their input. Fred Otley and Stacy Davies also brought up the Malheur Lakes Working Group. Rhonda suggested that Pam Hardy might be a good resource since she did a thesis on collaboration and interviewed many people.

Rhonda inquired about what else would be included in the book. Peter replied the sage-grouse agreement and the High Desert Partnership. He wants to teU the positive stories and put Harney County on the map for something besides the Malheur Refuge Occupation.

PIKE CREEK A subcommittee consisting of Leon Pielstick, Kali Wilson, and Rod Klus bas been in contact with Paul regarding the issue of access at Pike Creek. Stacy Davies also talked to Paul about animal unit months (AUM) that have been being authorized as temporary. nonrenewable that Paul would like to see made permanent. The subcommittee would like to see the two issues taken care of at the same time, tying the AUMs to a successful land exchange. Stacy said one is a realty issue and the other is a grazing issue and they can't be tied together. Leon thinks we should work on the land exchange and the AUM reinstatement concurrently because Paul lumps them together.

6

Stacy shared a history of the suspended AUMs. Stacy said that in 1965, the BLM suspended 1892 AUM.s under the condition that some fencing and water development needed to be done. By the mid-1970's, the BLM and Alvord Ranch had completed the projects. In the 1980's, an allotment management plan (AMP) was completed and recognized that all of those things had been done. Alvord Ranch then applied for the additional 1892 AUMs. The AMP was appealed and went to the Secretary's office. Stephen Griles wanted to study the AUM issue and gave the ranch half the AUMs, to be evaluated at the end oftwo years, with the other half to be added at that time and evaluated at the end of another two years before they could be fully authorized.

Fred Otley added that BLM had a new range employee at that time who was supposed to do the evaluations, but somehow they didn't get done.

Rhonda Karges brought up the fact that BLM already has legal access to Pike Creek. In addition, policy prohibits permanently reinstating AUMs in WSA. Most of the Desert Pasture is inWSA.

Rhonda read from the WSA manual (p. 1-18), "Grazing increases (increases in authorized grazing use) may be allowed if the impacts of such increases will meet the non-impairment standard or one ofthe exceptions. If the proposal meets the non-impairment standard or one of the exceptions a temporary nonrenewable increase may be authorized. If studies indicate the increase is causing impairment of the WSA's suitability for preservation as wilderness the increase will be reduced or discontinued."

Owyhee Weikel-Magden noted that what Rhonda read doesn't specifically bar permanent AUMs. Fred and Stacy argued that the AUMs aren't an "increase" because they are already there as temporary, nonrenewable.

The SMAC wants Paul to know the group understands his concerns about AUMs but really wants to see the Pike Creek access issue resolved, too. Leon will write a letter.

Some SMAC members are concerned about the fact that at the next meeting the SMAC will no longer have a quorum. Five positions are at the end of their tetms. John Helmer asked Rhonda about the import of an official recommendation by a quorum versus a non-quorum recommendation. Rhonda replied that an official recommendation obviously gives a little bit more weight but also gave an example of an instance in which she used an unofficial SMAC recommendation in her decision rationale. The BLM considers all SMAC's recommendations and all the public' s comments. Leon Pielstick asked if an official letter of SMAC's recommendation helps if an issue goes to court. Rhonda said it could, depending on the judge. Jeff Rose said BLM is delegated authority to make decisions by the Secretary. Rhonda added that she gets as much information as she can from specialists and/or legal advice to help her make decisions.

7

David Bilyeu asked if the monitoring to reinstate the AUMs bad occurred. Rhonda confirmed that it had but that no dete1mination as to whether or not those AUMs were sustainable and met wilderness characteristics, weren't banning the wilderness values, had been made. David said that determination would have to be made before he could agree to the permanent authorization of the AUMs. Fred pointed out that authorization doesn't mean that BLM wouldn't have the ability to cut back on grazing in a given year based on adverse conditions like drought.

Rhonda will seek an unofficial solicitor's opinion on the issue ofreinstating the AUMs in WSA.

A mmcmL nt wa., mude to appoint a subrommincc tn work on lnnd exchange alternatives w i1h

Paul. Owyhee seconded, and the motion was passed .

PUBLIC COMMENT Normady Helmer thinks it's important to educate people about how complicated the work is that BLM and SMAC do.

Dan Morse, as a member of the SEORAC, thinks SMAC, SEORAC, and BLM need to be communicating about sage-grouse management. Leon asked ifBLM could clear more land through mechanized piling, would ONDA be against that. Dan replied that ONDA regards juniper as a native species and will not engage in treating it as a weed. However, they understand that the expansion ofjuniper does affect sage-grouse habitat. The ONDA participates in treating (not mechanical} y) very young juniper. When asked by John Helmer about ONDA's take on the language in the Steens Act regarding reasonable versus adequate access, Dan said he would rather listen to SMAC's discussion ofit

Fred Otley said the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) requires action from BLM when watershed conditions decline. Fred told about a study about juniper removal and loss of soil. Not one plot that had juniper returned to historical levels lost soil.

Colby Marshall referred SMAC to the Blue Mountain Eagle to show the positive impact ofgoats on the landscape in regards to juniper eradication and grazing on the WSA.

He had a discussion in a meeting with a SMAC subcommittee (David Bilyeu, Owyhee Weikel­Magden, and Stacy Davies) and they put together some letters and a memo regarding congressional intent for inholder access in the Steens (Stacy and Owyhee have copies to share). Colby said, "The SMAC's work on this to address reasonable access, it's fundamental and critical at this point in time and you are appointed by the Secretary of the Interior to address just, in fact, this kind of important and critical issue on Steens Mountain. If this issue is not dealt with, and not addressed in a way that private landowners on Steens Mountain feel that the deal has been fulfilled, then landowners on Steens Mountain will retaliate and the nature of the management on the mountain will change. If there is litigation that comes along as part of addressing reasonable access then the Act has been gutted and all the work that has went in to getting to this point has not addressed what the fundamental issue was in the beginning, which

8

was a deal between private landowners, conservation community to move forward in a cooperative way. If there's litigation that guts the Act, it guts the SMAC. And if the Act is gutted, ifreasonable access is not upheld, then we are prepared to go to the Congress, in this environment, with this Congress, and this White House, and ask that the Act be repealed. That is how important this is." The writers of the Steens Act knew what the Wilderness Act language was and they chose a different path because that was a different time and a different situation and the Steens Act language on reasonable access is a different level of granting access than what was originally in the Wilderness Act. Otherwise, they would have just used the Wilderness Act language.

Peter Walker elaborated on the purpose of his project. Issues about inholdings are common throughout the West and it is hard work making these cooperative agreements fall into place and keeping them going takes a lot ofeffort. There are important lessons to be shared from the experience ofputting the cooperative agreement together, keeping it going, and getting past these sorts of challenges that you're dealing with right now. Harney County has an extraordinary concentration of some exceptional efforts to deal with these issues that communities are facing all over the West. It is not the first time a community has had to wrestle with a question of national monument designation and the question ofwhether there are viable alternatives available is really important. Where alternatives have worked out, how have they worked out, and how can they be sustained? Those are all questions he hopes to address in his book (which will be published by Oregon State University). Peter expressed his appreciation for the SMAC's assistance. Fred Otley asked if the book will address economy. Peter replied there's a chapter dedicated to history and economy.

John O'Connor of the Backcountry Horsemen said his organization has done a lot ofvolunteer work up on the Steens with the trails and just put in a round pen last fall. They took photos and Tara Thissell put an article in the paper. The beavers have moved into Ankle Creek in the last three, four years and they have dams everywhere. John O'Connor took photos where they've got the water backed up and gave them to Leon Pielstick.

Thanks to John O'Connor for the work he does.

INHOLDER ACCESS Leon Pielstick passed around pictures, including a cabin that Stroemple built.

Stacy Davies said that to landowners, access is the number one issue. During the creation of the Steens Act, access was the number one concern for landowners; for the State, it was limiting development/preserving wilderness. However, as the Act progressed, Federal law never governs development ofprivate property, that's a State issue, and that who]e section just got jerked out of the Act right at the end. The two highest tier issues (wildemess and access) for the people writing the Steens Act are in conflict. To Stacy, what "reasonable" access meant was the county and State land-use process. If a landowner can go through that process and get a pennit to build, then it's reasonable. Management should be ongoing, and that' s why the SMAC is here.

9

Stacy brought a map showing historical private landownership on the mountain. Discussed Nature's Advocate's access issues.

Owyhee emailed everybody a copy of the Interior Board of Land Appeals (IBLA) decision from Stroemple. She thinks it is very pertinent to the current issue. "As a matter ofstatutory construction, the specific provisions of the Steens Act, reasonable access for reasonable use, necessarily take precedence over the general rule reflected in the Wilderness Act. Necessary to assure adequate access. Congress articulated a different standard in the Steens Act. Had it intended the same standard to apply, it would not have enacted the special provisions found in the Steens Act. We have earlier observed that adequate access for reasonable use under the California Desert Protection Act is a statutory grant of access to inholders that is broader than that afforded by the Wilderness Act. ...We therefore agree with appellants that the statutory grant ofaccess wider the Steens Act is different from and potentially broader than under the Wilderness Act. On the other hand, landowner appellant's claim [to] unfettered, unrestricted, unlimited access is clearly overbroad and inconsistent with the Steens Act.. .. BLM must render a decision interpreting and applying reasonable access and reasonable use standard ofthe Steens Act to the facts presented. Before we can determine whether it properly acted in denying or granting access by other modes ....With respect to landowner' s appeal and their claim to entitlement to greater access under the Steens Act than under the Wilderness Act, we agree that their standards are different and that in making determinations under the special access provisions ofthe Steens Act, BLM is not bound by the general rules implementing the Wilderness Act.. . . We affirm BLM's decision under the Wilderness Act but modify it to the extent determined that BLM is bound by regulations implementing the Wilderness Act with making access decisions under the Steens Act. We leave it to BLM to detennine whether and to what extent those rules may be helpful in decision making affecting access under the Steens Act." A decade ago, a judge sent this case back to BLM and said define reasonable access.

The SMAC and BLM representatives agree that due to the current issue, we' re at a point where reasonable access needs to be defined.

David Bilyeu and Owyhee Weikel-Magden met with Jay Kirby of the Nature Conservancy on February 15, 2017. The Nature Conservancy's main interest is with working with BLM on issues and science policy. They are not really interested in being party to land exchanges on the Steens. On the same day, David and Owyhee met with the Sierra Club (Borden Beck). Borden's sense is the Sierra Club is watching these issues and probably will fall in line with ONDA on the access issue. David and Owyhee met with ONDA, and ONDA feels access (a new road) through wilderness is illegal. Colby Marshall and Stacy Davies reported there would be no sale or trade without access.

Owyhee thinks the access issue will wind up in court. If there is historical access to the Campbell property, the people who have that evidence need to bring it to the table. [t could change the conversation entirely. Fred Otley expressed that Stacy's historical ownership map

10

proves historical access and his belief that historical access and maintenance should govern reasonable access.

Tom Wilcox brought up consideration ofwilderness characteristics. Rhonda Karges reminded everyone that the Steens Act also says no new road construction. She acknowledged that SMAC is supposed to be involved in travel management planning, but said this would not be a travel management decision because it is only for access for one person, not the public. What is the rationale that would allow this piece ofroad to be built? Stacy offered several items. Stacy said there is evidence that wheeled vehicles crossed the property in the past, there are historical accounts, and the landowner is guaranteed reasonable access and this is the best and shortest route.

After a lot of discussion about reasonable versus adequate access, the definition of reasonable, and whether building a piece of road might actually be better for wilderness characteristics than some of the alternatives, a motion was made that SMAC recommend alternative C with all access roads at maintenance level 2 and that the Trait's End waterhole road not be allowed for access to the private land and that, in so doing, it's SMAC'sjudgement this meets the standard of reasonable access in the Steens Act. The motion was seconded and approved.

Roll call vote:

John-yes Nathan-yes David-no Owyhee-yes Stacy-yes Mark - yes Kali-yes Dick-yes Fred-yes Leon-yes

Tara will help Leon dran a letter to the effect, and Leon will run it by everybody for comments before sending the letter to Rhonda.

Rhonda Karges reminded the SMAC that BLM still has to put the EA out for comment. She will change the road maintenance levels to reflect a 2 instead of a 3 in the SMAC alternative. Kali Wilson asked ifa SMAC rationale might be sent out with the EA when it goes for comment. Rhonda said a paragraph could be added to the EA.

Owyhee Weikel-Magden and Stacy Davies expressed their hopes that there will be a land trade and the road will never need to be built. Owyhee suggested that SMAC recommend that BLM

11

hold offon putting out the EA for public comment for another six months to allow time to negotiate a trade.

Colby Marshall thanked SMAC for their work to get to this point. He would like work on the EA to continue with revisions per SMAC' s recommendation and inc1uding the rationale as Kali mentioned. The document should be reviewed again by the SMAC before going out to the public.

Stacy Davies motioned that the SMAC recommend BLM bring back an EA and a proposed decision that will not go out until the SMAC approves it at the next meeting and that reflect the SMAC' s recommendation and that he (Stacy) bring back draft legislation that includes a land trade regarding this property at the next meeting. Owyhee Weikel-Magden seconded the motion.

Rhonda Karges said SMAC was asking her to make a decision without public comment and that she cannot make a decision without public comment. NEPA requires public involvement

Owyhee Weikel-Magden withdrew her second. Nathan Hovekamp seconded. Nathan withdrew his second. Motion died for lack of second

Rhonda Karges offered for BLM to draft the rationale paragraph and send SMAC the paragraph via email rather than waiting until June.

Colby Marshall feels there is a significant amount of language in the EA that is written from the perspective of the Wilderness Act and its interpretation and would like to see that changed. Owyhee agrees that as written it could be misleading to the public. Colby would like SMAC to review the document in it's entirety. Rhonda said BLM could work on making it more objective and send it out to the SMAC. Owyhee feels that this should be done by a SMAC subcommittee. Rhonda said maybe some of the sections SMAC doesn ' t feel are important could be taken out, but it can't be slanted. Fred Otley thinks the opening section should reflect that there are questions ofdifferences between adequate and reasonable and what they mean.

Owyhee Weikel-Magden suggested SMAC could have a recommendation a subcommittee gets together with the specific purpose of analyzing and proposing modifications to the EA.

Rhonda Karges asked, '·What if I do a strike through ofBLM's thoughts in the introduction and send it out to you (via email] and then the subcommittee can look at it. We'll take the first stab at it, and then the subcommittee could take another stab at it and bring it back to the SMAC in June for its blessing."

Leon Peilstick appointed Owyhee Weikel-Magdcn as chair of the subcommittee and also assigned Stacy Davies to the subcommittee. He then asked for additional volunteers. John Helmer was also assigned.

12

DESIGNATED FEDERAL OFFICIAL UPDATE JeffRose introduced himself. He is the DFO for the SEORAC.

John Helmer asked what Jeff thinks BLM's big goals are? Jeff replied for BLM to continue to be a good neighbor and member of the community in Hamey County. He said we're in transition - Secretary Zinke has sent out five points. Sage-grouse is a big issue for us; we have to report to Fish and Wildlife in five years. The local economy, infrastructure, and multiple use.

Rhonda Karges briefed the SMAC on the progress of the comprehensive recreation plan (CRP). A vault toilet has been put in at Frog Springs. BLM is working on a DNA as well as putting a toilet facility at Fields; that will all be combined. Staffhas put in a work order to move the Black Canyon gate. At some point in time, BLM plans to put a vault toilet in that area, too. There's a new sign at Pike Creek to replace the damaged one.

The No Livestock Grazing Decision Record was signed and sent out. BLM is currently in the appeal process time period.

A gentleman by the name of Jergen Hess bas volunteered to design the accessible trail at the Kiger Viewpoint. He'll work with Tom. Then it is a matter ofputting it on Bums District's priority list and getting the money to proceed.

The SEO RAC had a presentation by BLM's State Office about the sage-grouse RMP. A process was outlined in an instruction memorandum about what BLM is supposed to do if it hits any hard or soft triggers. Bums District has three soft triggers within the Andrews Resource Area; one of those is in the Steens. The first one is the Miller Homestead Fire area; the trigger that was tripped there was sage-grouse population. Bums District has a team that will start gathering information. Bums District has also hit a soft trigger in the Trout Creek area due to the Holloway fire. Bums District believes that one is because ofvegetation. The final one, in the Steens, is vegetation and Bums District thinks it's a combination of two things: 1) juniper encroachment and 2) the ratio ofsagebrush habitat. We've exceeded that threshold; a lot of it may have to do with past wildfires. The BLM will need to analyze what happened and what else can be done (with help from the public). Dan Morse said that at the last SEORAC meeting, the SEORAC recommended to Jeff that the draft causal factor analyses on sage-grouse triggers be brought to the SEORAC before they're finalized because there was no other clear way to have public involvement and the SEORAC could be a good way to have that public involvement.

Cadastral surveys on the ground have been completed at Stroemple' s and Campbell's. Pike Creek will probably be finished sometime this summer. The BLM is working on getting a contract for the fencing. Burns District received $500,000 for the fence; it wasn't all used this year so the Burns District retumed the remainder, but it will be given back for Bums District to continue fencing projects next year.

13

The BLM is working on the priority list provided by SMAC regarding the Comprehensive Recreation Plan (CRP). Parking lots and North Steens equestrian site were among the priorities. The well has already been contracted and should be drilled this summer, but BLM does not have enough funding to put it in this year. BLM engineers will be on site with the drillers.

John Helmer asked if there is anything new about the timeline on the ground for something happening at Penland? (Nothing new). What's the status for the permit for Steens Mountain Running Camp? (Per Rhonda, Mandy is working with Harland. A proposal is in process and there do not appear to be any issues. A DNA will probably satisfy NEPA.)

Mark Bagett asked what happened with the Page Springs weir. Rhonda answered USGS offered BLM money to remove the weir, but BLM is not even done with the NEPA yet. The BLM suggested that they give the money to Fish and Wildlife so they could do fish studies which would help BLM by providing data to be used in its analysis.

BUSINESS ITEMS Approval ofJanuary 2017 minutes-John moved to approve the minutes with his amendments. Kali seconded. Motion passed.

Kali Wilson, Owyhee Weikel-Magden, and John Helmer came up with a draft modifying SMAC protocols, which they sent out mid-February for comment. Several were received and incorporated in the draft (now before the SMAC). One of the things they spent the most time on was clarifying the decision making section (section 4); one of the most difficult issues was whether absent members should be allowed to vote. Kali, Owyhee, and John think it is very important for voting members to be present for the discussion (at least by phone or skype). They developed a process for electing a chair (one-year terms- currently the term is two) and recommended that a chair-elect be chosen at the current meeting (to become chair next year). The role of the chair and the role ofthe facilitator aren't strictly defined, and the subcommittee left it that way. Fred Otley thinks the term for chair should be two years. Leon Pielstick would like more defined roles for the chair and facilitator, such as the chair should deal with the motions/voting. He agrees two years is a good term. He also thinks there needs to be leeway to collect votes from members who did not attend so that important decisions can be made in a timely manner. John pointed out that the first paragraph states that SMAC can vary from the operational guidelines (but not the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA)).

It was decided to go with a chair-elect for two years who will then serve as chair for two years. The next chair-elect wi11 be voted on at the beginning of the chair's term. Motion with term changed to two-years seconded by Fred and passed,

A motion that Leon continue as Chair until the end of the 2017 calendar year wu~ made by Fred. Seconded and passed.

Fred motioned that we elect a chair-elect at this meeting. It was seconded and passed.

14

John nominated Owyhee as chair-elect. Nomination seconded. No other nominations submitted. Owyhee elected chair-elect unanimously.

Some terms are expiring next month. Since it is uncertain when new appointments will be made, State Office and the District support meeting in June as usual by those who wish to attend. Expiring postions:

• State Environmental Representative (David Bilyeu)

• Private Landowner Representative (Fred Otley)

• Recreational Permit Holder Representative (Dick Jenkins)

• Bums Paiute Tribe Member Representative (Cecil Dick)

• Fish and Recreational Fishing Representative (Mark Bagett)

All of the positions are appointed at the Secretarial level, but they are recommended by either the B LM or the Governor of Oregon or the county. Applications are received at the BLM, then the BLM, Governor, and county look at the applications and submit primary and secondary nominations to the Secretary. It is becoming a more stringent requirement that at least two nominees be put forward for each position. Lengthy justifications have to be supplied for reappointments (especially for longer term/multiple term reappointments). The nomination period is in September (per Washington Office).

Leon suggested SMAC members contact their congressional representatives to ask for help getting this moving.

Dick will not be reapplying. The other position holders will consider reapplying (unknown whether Cecil will - he wasn't present). It was suggested that Harland ( of Steens Mountain Running Camp) be approached to apply for Dick's position.

AGENDA FOR JUNE • Pike Creek

• Vegetation treatment restrictions may be addressed as a legislative topic or a separate topic.

• History (for the book)

• There were a number of suggestions for a field trip in June.

FOLLOW UP ITEMS • A subcommittee will work on a land exchange or clarification ofPaul' s letter. Leon

plans to send a letter to Paul regarding Paul' s idea for land exchange and that the SMAC is supportive ofreinstatement of the AUMs.

15

• Stacy is expected to bring back something from the post-it note exercise regarding items that need a legislative fix. Tara will follow up with Stacy.

• Stacy will be working on legislation drafting for Nature's Advocate access.

• Rhonda will work on rationale and other changes to the EA and then send it to the subcommittee so they can work on it.

• Tara will check to see what SEORAC and SMAC might be covering that is being duplicated.

• Tara will locate the meeting minutes from 2013 that have SMAC's recommendation for the Nature' s Advocate Access EA alternative.

• Tara will research the Code ofFederal Regulations to make sure we' re doing everything right (procedurally).

• Tara will look into the RAC nomination process and see if there is a point ofcontact.

• Rhonda will look into the WSA policy for AUMs.

• Rhonda will check the status of Page Springs weir.

• SMAC members are going to talk to their congressional representatives about the nomination and appointment process.

• Group of SMAC members will work with Peter regarding history.

• John plans to clean up the revised protocols and get them to Tara to send out to everybody.

• John wiU contact Harland.

Nathan motioned to adjourn. Seconded and passed.

A full digital recording of this meeting is available upon request at the Bums District office.

The Steens Mountain Advisory Council approved these minutes on q,i1..1..Jl1

~ ~Signed by Leon Pielstick, SMAC Chair: /

~ ~~t 16