Download May 8, 2012 - Clackamas Stewardship Partners

582697055.doc
Page 1 of 5
Clackamas Stewardship Partners General Meeting
Tuesday ----- May 8, 2012 ----- 2:00pm - 4:30pm
Mt. Scott Fire Station, 9339 S.E. Causey Avenue, Clackamas, OR 97086
Notes
Facilitator: Nathan Poage
Notes: Tonia Burns
Snacks: Nathan Poage
Attendees:
Alex Brown (Bark)
Tonia Burns (Clackamas County)
Mike Chaveas (United States Forest Service, USFS)
Chris Frissell (Pacific Rivers Council, PRC)
Jeff Gerwing (Portland State University, PSU)
Bob Gill (USFS)
Michael Hamell (Oregon Hunters Association, OHA)
Rick Larson (Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, RMEF)
Cheryl McGinnis (Clackamas River Basin Council, CRBC)
Ben Meyer (NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS))
Lisa Moscinski (Gifford Pinchot Task Force, GPTF)
Steve Novy (Interfor)
John Persell (Pacific Rivers Council, PRC)
Nathan Poage (Clackamas Stewardship Partners, CSP)
Gradey Proctor (Bark)
Jenne Reische (Clackamas County Soil and Water Conservation District, CCSWCD)
Tom Salzer (CCSWCD)
Ron Schneider (High Cascade)
Rob Walton (NMFS)
Marlies Wierenga (Wildlands CPR)
Jack Williamson (USFS)
1) Welcome, Introductions, and Administrative Tasks
2:00 - 2:15
a) Introductions
b) Agenda
c) Approve Minutes from April 10, 2012 CSP General Meeting- no changes, motion approval Lisa M;
second- Cheryl M.
d) Announcements
i) Stand-level monitoring - with students from the Timber Lake Job Corps Center. This week
Wed-Fri Nathan will be working out at Unit 29 of Wolf Stewardship Contract with TLJCC
students. This is one of the stands thinned as part of the variable density thinning management
experiment comparing two approaches to marking leave trees.
ii) CSP Ungulates / Early Seral Habitat Monitoring Meeting
(http://doodle.com/23fypqyna8n5kd9d)
iii) Grant funding supports summer monitoring
iv) Other Announcements -- none.
582697055.doc
Page 2 of 5
2) NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Presentation
2:15 - 3:15
Ben Meyer (Chief of the Willamette Basin / Lower Columbia River Branch of the Oregon
State Habitat Office, NMFS) and Rob Walton (Senior Policy Adviser, Protected Resources
Division, NMFS Northwest Office)
Presentation by R.Walton and B.Meyer, followed by Q&A.
Endangered Species Act (ESA) listed species in the Clackamas:
Upper Willamette Chinook (spring)
Lower Columbia Coho
Lower Columbia Chinook (fall)
Lower Columbia Steelhead
Columbia River Chum
Clackamas Bull Trout (USFWS)
Chum almost all gone- recovery plan is not in the near term
Bull trout recovery plan. This is a “10J” experimental population, therefore not all of the regulations
apply. If the population does well it would be taken off this designation and given a normal recovery
status.
ESA- cannot take “take” harass harm kill etc. Cannot take unless you have a permit. Section 7 federal
agency will authorize, consult with NMFS to write a biological opinion showing what the resultant
impacts will be to the fish.
For private companies/individuals- Section 10 habitat conservation plan. The City of Portland went
through this process for their water supply.
Informal consultation
Biological Opinion in Clackamas - PGE- FERC licensing process.
USFS-Timber thinning sales will be ***NEED TO ADD***
Culvert replacement projects will “take” because the project physically handles the fish.
Programmatic consultation covers what types of projects? Culverts road decommissioning by USFS and
BLM have been covered in the Coast Range.
A restoration programmatic consultation is being worked on.
Will artificial selection of genetic stock harm native fish? At the North Fork Dam all marked (hatchery)
fish are removed, so there should only be non-hatchery fish above the dam.
When is recovery plan due? The Upper Willamette done; it is available on-line from ODF or NOAA.
The Lower Columbia Plan is almost complete.
North Fork Dam as an impediment- PGE is working on it. PGE has a bypass for juvenile fish. The
North Fork Dam is better than most; impacts to fish are significantly reduced. Is this one of the
primary impediments to the Spring Chinook?
J.Williamson requested in a e-mail dated 2012.06.12 to N.Poage that the following paragraph (italic font)
be read into the meeting notes as an answer to the previous question about the North Fork Dam:
Yes, if you look only at the USFS-lands. If you consider the entire range of the species, it is harder to pin down the
primary impediments. The four “H’s” cover the major impacts: hatcheries, over-harvest, loss of habitat, and
hydropower.
Pesticides- ODA, DEQ, ODF and ***NEED TO ADD*** form the Clackamas pesticide
management group. They have monitoring going on throughout the basin. They are actively
monitoring of chemicals and frequency. Six pesticides are prioritized for monitoring. DEQ-EPA say
that between the chemicals and “nano” elements (e.g., copper, silver) it is difficult to determine the
long-term synergistic effects on the ESA-listed species. Agriculture, timber, right-of-ways, and urban
areas all contribute. Insecticides and herbicides have spiked above the acceptable thresholds for
normal limits.
The question of where the bulk of water quality issues are located in the watershed was not answered.
582697055.doc
Page 3 of 5
Pushed for having partners work together with private landowners to help them manage their lands
better for the benefit of the community instead having to take the step to have federal regulatory
agencies to tell private landowners what they cannot do.
In the Clackamas what is working and what is not:
S.Novy commented that we are micro-managing the USFS portion of the watershed when the bulk
of the issues are downstream in the urban area.
Overarching strategy:
Land Use
Flood Control hydropower
Hatchery
Harvest
Research, monitoring and evaluation
Thinning sale- road decommissioning, where the sale is in relation to roads, what and how will it impact
riparian areas, thin line between likely to adversely affect and not likely to adversely affect.
NMFS does not think the (Oregon) Forest Practices Act is adequate because buffers are too small.
NMFS would like buffer widths of one site potential tree height; the 25-ft buffer does not get to what
they are looking for to protect the streams. NMFS has not had success with working with ODF.
A recent panel has looked at thinning in riparian buffers to help promote larger tree growth, for those
trees that are left in the buffer because the large trees will contribute more to the system. Report will
lay out the criteria of what will most likely to be. The panel includes NMFS, USFS, a specialist from
the East Coast, researcher from Seattle, Oregon professor, USGS scientist.
USFS sends in monitoring reports to show that they are following up on the elements that will be
implemented to avoid adversely affecting fish.
See presentation.
J.Williamson requested in a e-mail dated 2012.05.30 to N.Poage that the following three paragraphs of
comments (italic font) be read into the meeting notes:
Mr. Walton’s suggested two times that Bull trout are a threat to the recovery of listed salmon and steelhead in the
Clackamas River. While Bull trout predation of listed-salmonids in the Clackamas River may compose a
significant portion of their diet, it appears that their diet is composed of many species and not necessarily a threat to
native salmonids that are listed.
Contrary to his suggestion, there is evidence to the contrary. For example, Marcot et al. (2012) found the potential
impact of bull trout as very low or moderately low for spring Chinook salmon, coho salmon, and winter steelhead
and mostly none to very low for fall Chinook salmon. Wydowski and Whitney (2003) reported that adult Bull
trout in Montana fed extensively on whitefish, yellow perch, salmonids, and non-game fishes (percent of the diet by
weight was 48.1, 11.3, 10.3, 10.8 respectively). Also, they said the primary diet of adfluvial Bull trout in Lake
Chester Morse, Washington was composed of (shorthead) sculpin, crayfish, pygmy whitefish, and aquatic insects, in
that order of importance.
While the conditions have changed for all fishes in the Clackamas River because of hatcheries, over-harvest and loss of
habitat, the future is uncertain. Nevertheless, it is reasonable to assume any fish co-evolved with listed-fish, have a
reasonable chance of co-existing. To say listed-fish are in jeopardy because of Bull trout is an overstatement and
echos 100 years of bias against this native species in the Clackamas. I hope Mr. Walton is supportive of the
reintroduction and ecosystem management.
3) Break
3:15 - 3:30
4) Clackamas River Ranger District (CRRD) Topics
3:30 - 4:20
a) Overview (Mike Chaveas)
M.Chaveas requested in a e-mail dated 2012.06.07 to N.Poage that the following four edited
paragraphs (italic font) replace the corresponding paragraphs of the original meeting notes:
582697055.doc
Page 4 of 5
A great deal of transition has recently occurred, with many new employees on the CRRD and, more generally, on
the MHNF, as well as new Regional leadership. The Secretary of Agriculture and Chief of the Forest Service
have set as priorities the need for the USFS to strategically focus our efforts on restoration of ecosystems at a
larger scale, and in a more integrated manner, than we have traditionally tackled. At this point the Grove
project has been through scoping and is still in the development and analysis stages, no final decisions have been
made. No significant changes to the Grove project have been made since the field trip last year. The MHNF
does not currently have funding to conduct the NEPA analysis for Increment 4 meaning that effort is not
going forward in this fiscal year. Grove and Increment 4 were always two separate NEPA processes, which we
felt made sense to conduct concurrently but one did not hinge on the other. As a result of the fact that
Increment 4 is not moving ahead at this time, we have decided that Grove would incorporate some of the
Increment 4 elements which overlap with Grove, those roads which are within or adjacent to the Grove units.
This approach allows us to address at least a portion of the objectives of Increment 4. The agency needs to look
at management at a more integrated landscape approach with a priority to restoration across the landscape.
How “restoration” is defined on the west side of the Cascades is still to be determined. Additionally, the
Federal government is facing a large deficit, and the USFS, as well as many other agencies, must be more
efficient and strategic in how we do our work and prioritize what that work is. Coupled with these changes is
the focus on improving the economy and providing opportunities to support private sector jobs. The USFS
timber targets are being increased by 20% nationwide in future years, we don’t know yet exactly how that will
impact the MHNF’s targets. The USFS is seeking authority from Congress to combine several budget line
items under an integrated resource restoration (IRR) budget line item, which joins together vegetation
management, wildlife, and other line items to afford more flexibility in the prioritization of our work. If
Congress were to approve this combined budget line item (they have not yet), this may cause some changes in
how targets are assigned as well. Budgets are expected to continue to decline for the next several years so we
need to prioritize where work needs to happen, where we can be most effective in managing resources and
achieving “restoration” objectives with that limited budget. As a group, the CSP may want to start thinking
about some of these issues and questions, identifying where the common ground may be in finding that
definition of restoration on the west side of the Cascades. Does it include only thinning in plantations less than
80 years of age, or is there more to it? Where are the opportunities and would the CSP identify as priorities?
The Watershed Condition Framework was a rapid assessment using existing data to identify nationally which
watersheds are impaired and to help prioritize restoration efforts. A Terrestrial Condition Assessment process
is being developed.
The FY2012 timber target is 36 million board feet for the MHNF (not just the Clackamas River RD). How
would CSP give input? Targets are not set by us at a local level, the Regional Office assigns targets for a fiscal
year when the final budget is allocated to us.
How does this group collaborate within the emerging model of managing at landscape scales? M.Chaveas suggested
that we need to work on issues like creating the definition of “restoration on the West-side”. N.Poage suggested
that a member of CSP join the group that is working on the big picture questions like what is the definition of
“restoration on the West-side”.
b) Update on status of the next vegetation management project on the CRRD (Bob Gill)
B.Gill requested in a e-mail dated 2012.06.07 to N.Poage that the following two edited paragraphs
(italic font) replace the corresponding paragraphs of the original meeting notes:
B.Gill -- USFS would like to look at the next vegetation management project with CSP. 1,500 acres has been
typical in the past, but this cannot be done now in most areas on the CRRD. Ready-to-thin areas are more in
the 200- to 500-acre range, which would require an EA that connects areas not geographically connected or
creating 2 or more EAs annually, something the CRRD hasn’t traditionally done. Examples of potential
areas are combining Upper Clack with Hillock Burn. The North Fork and Cedar areas originally
mentioned have a large number of greater than 80-year-old stands, which may be higher risk. They will
probably not consider these areas until the terrestrial planning process is finished. Areas currently being
considered are 1828 in Zigzag (3-5 million board feet) and Lemiti, near South Pinhead Butte in the upper
582697055.doc
Page 5 of 5
Clackamas CRRD. Lemiti would be salvage of lodgepole pine killed by mountain pine beetle, (11-15 million
board feet, including chips).
S.Novy commented that this might benefit the Warm Springs mill(s), but not the companies in the Clackamas.
Is there a way to change the process so they can do multiple projects-EA’s annually to reach targets?
Do we really not have any larger tracts of areas with less than 80-year-old stands? If so then fine,
but if not, what is the threshold of efficiency of working in this way and meet targets and goals.
How can increasing targets and focusing on restoration work together? Right now there are not
answers to these questions, but there is still the expectation of meeting targets. The current
projects do not fit under this new strategy because they do not have assessments to guide
landscape-scale restoration projects integrated with reaching targets.
What is the next step? What is our collaborative process going to look like in the future and how will
it operate at landscape scales?
c) Projects that may be covered under an upcoming District Restoration EA (Jack Williamson)
USFS have put together an IDT team to do NEPA analysis for 20 different projects, including
erosion reduction and fish habitat improvement. Projects are scattered all over the Forest. These
are fisheries-related projects being supported through hydropower related funding.
Peavine / Chief Creek watershed is a tributary to the Oak Grove Fork above Lake Harriet. USFS
will fall trees into the water and riparian zones of tributaries to Peavine and into Peavine. Road
decommissioning will occur near Timothy Lake. The reason for decommissioning these roads is
because they are redundant and/or have problems. USFS will do field work this summer; a
project description will be ready by the end of the year. A scoping letter will be created. USFS
hopes that CSP will support this project.
d) Grove Project
How will CSP work with USFS on Grove? What are the next steps in the collaborative process? A
scoping letter is fairly general in terms of detail. What is the best way for USFS to provide CSP
with information necessary for CSP to be able to provide more detailed comments? Is the best
way to meet at a projects committee meeting? N.Poage will communicate with USFS to
coordinate a meeting with the CSP Projects Committee to provide additional information about
the project. Perhaps an update on Grove can be made at the CSP general meeting in June?
5) Other Business
No other business.
4:20 - 4:30