Mill Creek Watershed Collaborative Working Group Participants. Mill Creek Watershed Collaborative Working Group Meeting Minutes August 26, 2010

Transcription

1 September 20, 2010 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Mill Creek Watershed Collaborative Working Group Participants Mike Hernandez Mill Creek Watershed Collaborative Working Group Meeting Minutes August 26, 2010 Below is a summary of the meeting and held August 26 th at the Hood River Court House in Hood River, Oregon. If you have any questions, please feel free to call Mike Hernandez at x101, or Jennie O Connor Card at MEETING NOTES Collaborative Group Members Present Amy Harwood Bark Bill Noonan Facilitator Dan Richardson Mill Creek Watershed Group Dave Anderson City of The Dalles, Department of Public Works David Jacobs Oregon Department of Forestry Erik Fernandez Oregon Wild Jim Denton Individual Jim Mickel High Cascade Inc. Kate Merrick Wasco County Soil & Water Conservation District Rick Larson Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation Rick Ragan Individual Forest Service Employees Present Mike Hernandez Barlow District Ranger Jennie O Connor Card Natural Resource Planner (IDT Leader) Andy Tierney Presale Planner (IDT Co-Leader) Whitney Olsker Silviculturalist (IDT Member) Patty Walcott Wildlife Biologist (IDT Member) John Dodd Soil Scientist (IDT Member) Gary Asbridge Eastside Veg Management Leader Kim Valentine Eastside Fire Management Officer Linda Cartwright Liaison with City of The Dalles Watershed Review of Agenda: Introductions Review of the Previous Projects Project Overview Northern Spotted Owl Considerations Future Field Trip and Meeting Dates 1

2 Article I. Article II. Introductions Review of Previous Projects Mike Hernandez The Dalles Watershed Phase II is different from the previous due to the constraints of operating within the watershed. One of the most helpful roles of the collaborative group in the previous projects has been the collaborative group recommendations. The Forest Service has used the majority of the recommendations when developing the NEPA projects. History of collaboration on the Eastside of Mt. Hood National Forest includes: Sportsman s Park, Billy Bob Hazardous Fuels Reduction, The Dalles Watershed Fuelbreak, and North Fork Mill Creek. The Dalles Watershed Fuelbreak surrounds the watershed and North Fork Mill Creek is adjacent to the watershed. The intent of The Dalles Watershed Fuelbreak was to provide a speed bump to protect the City of The Dalles Watershed municipal watershed if a catastrophic wildfire occurs within the vicinity of the watershed. The Dalles Watershed Fuelbreak resulted in three sales (Willow, Hodi and Alder). Total acres of treatment for the project area was approximately 1,400 acres. The North Fork Mill Creek is adjacent to the watershed to protect the watershed from a catastrophic watershed from northwest. North Fork Mill Creek results in four sales: Appy and Buckskin are completed, Clyde is operating, and Roan is being advertised. Total acres of treatment for the project area was approximately 2,100 acres. Article III. Project Overview Mike Hernandez The Dalles Watershed Phase II focuses on fuels reduction treatment within the interior of The City of The Dalles Municipal Watershed. Mike will be the decision maker for this project. (See attached project maps.) Project timeline: 2-3 field trips in September, 3-4 meetings in October/November with goal of completing the recommendations by the end of the calendar year. Considerations for The Dalles Watershed Phase II Projects: Project will be completed under the Healthy Forest Restoration Act (HFRA). HFRA projects must focus on hazardous fuels reduction. Other restoration projects cannot be included under the HFRA authority. City of the Dalles has approximately 400 to 500 acres of in-holdings within the watershed. The City of The Dalles is responsible for the management of these lands. The City may request the Forest Service to assist with underburning the in-holdings in the future. The Northern Spotted Owl considerations include the habitat requirements of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). The considerations include owl cores, owl nest patches, and owl suitable/dispersal habitat. Approximately 75% of the project area includes habitat within one of these categories for Northern Spotted Owls. 2

3 Every two years, the Forest Service submits a request to USFWS for inclusion into the Programmatic Biological Opinion for Northern Spotted Owl Habitat Modification. The BO provide the Forest Service with sideboards on where and how can treat the lands within the project areas. The Identified Treatment Units were the units submitted to USFWS as part of the programmatic consultation process. If the Forest Service does not submit projects for the programmatic, each project would require individual consultation which would take a considerable amount of time. The Mt. Hood Forest Plan standards and guidelines for Research Natural Area (RNA) permit underburning to protect the characteristics of the RNA, but it does not permit timber harvest or other fuels reduction treatments. A Forest Plan Amendment would be required to complete other fuels reduction treatments within the RNA. The Dalles Watershed is a closed watershed, so the public is not permitted on the roads. As such, there is no proposed road decommissioning projects within the watershed. We don t want to lose site of the future restoration projects on and off-forest that potential retained receipts can fund. The collaborative group recommendations can provide information on potential restoration projects in and around the watershed. Discussion: Amy Harwood Was Phase II discussed in the previous collaborative group meetings? Bill Noonan Bark and other collaborative group members recommended that the group undertake The Dalles Watershed Fuelbreak because of it represented the common ground for all stakeholders. Jim Denton The group did discuss moving to the interior of The Dalles Watershed after the fuelbreak and North Fork Mill Creek was completed. Amy Harwood Is this the last phase within Mill Creek Watershed? Mike Hernandez The intent of this project is to complete the needed fuels reduction treatment within the watershed, especially given the owl issues. Ultimately, the number of phases and approaches would be determined by the collaborative group. Amy Harwood Has monitoring been completed for any of these fuels reduction projects? Mike Hernandez Don t know if there has been any formal monitoring on these projects. The Forest Service has taken before and after pictures of the project areas. It might be a really good idea to include monitoring in the recommendations. John Dodd The monitoring of the previous fuels reduction project have been incorporated into the Forest Plan monitoring. So, these areas have been monitored as part of the normal program of work. It is a good idea to incorporate specific monitoring within the recommendations. 3

4 Amy Harwood Knowing where on the Forest monitoring has been completed would help the group understand monitoring. Knowing this information would help show the group what has and has not worked. John Dodd In addition to the formal monitoring that has been completed, there is a lot of undocumented monitoring that has been completed when specialists are in the field. Jim Mickel What do you mean by treatment unit? What does treatment mean? Mike Hernandez The identified treatment units represent the areas that remains after taking the considerations described above into account, primarily owl considerations. No specific treatments have been determined within the treatment units. All the fuels reduction treatments are potential treatments, including commercial timber harvest, pre-commercial thinning, pruning, piling, and underburning. Article IV. Northern Spotted Owl Considerations Patty Walcott Based on a lawsuit, USFWS needed to develop a method to quantify the take for Northern Spotted Owls under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. USFWS, Forest Service, and BLM developed the core habitat method depicted on the maps (see attached maps). The core areas are defined by the location of the nest sites, which is based on known locations of owls. USFWS estimated the amount of habitat needed for owls to have functional habitat. Within the largest circle (owl home range), only 60% of the habitat can be disturbed. Within the next largest circle (owl core areas), only 50% of the habitat can be disturbed. Within the smallest circle (owl nest patch), the habitat must be maintained. The owl suitable/dispersal habitat was determined separately based on the habitat present onthe-ground. It is habitat suitable for owls based on the characteristics. Owls are not necessarily present within the habitats. Dispersal habitat is not limiting within the watershed. More important to consider the amount of suitable habitat within the owl home range when the project is completed. At least 40% of the owl home range needs to remain functional based on the USFWS biological opinion. The owl nest patches/owl core areas can move based on the actual locations of the owl pairs. Patty has completed surveys in 2010 and no owls have been found. The survey requires two years of surveys. If owls are found in 2011, the owl core areas may move. The owl habitat requirements are overlaid with the Forest Plan and Northwest Forest Plan land allocations. The considerations for matrix and late-successional reserves (LSR) are still applicable. Acres have been submitted to USFWS as part of the programmatic consultation process. The acres are capped, but the treatment units can be changed through the planning process as long as the acres are not increased. 4

5 Discussion: Jim Mickel What makes the other lands not suitable? Logging? Habitat? Patty Walcott Combination of past management activities (logging) and habitat presence. Do not typically find suitable habitat in large patches on south facing slopes. Dave Jacobs Programmatic Consultation submitted is just a process to get permission to complete treatment within the units. Does not determine what activities will be completed and does not mean there is a foregone conclusion that activities will occur. Gary Asbridge Can other activities/treatments occur that do not require take? For example, does underburning constitute take. Patty Walcott Yes. If the treatments/activities do not change the function of dispersal or nesting habitat, formal consultation is not required. Informal consultation may be required depending on treatments, but it is not as time consuming. Underburning can usually be completed through informal consultation. Jim Mickel What are the characteristics of dispersal habitat? Patty Walcott Canopy cover of 40% or higher with trees at least 11 dbh, maintaining the canopy structure, and maintaining some downed woody debris are the key components of dispersal habitat. Jim Mickel What is the difference between nesting and dispersal habitat? Patty Walcott Dispersal habitat is defined by 40% canopy cover and higher, and does not require larger trees. Owls just need to be able to move through the habitat. Erik Fernandez Good discussion, but it would be great to have Patty participate in the collaborative group process to make sure that we are not proposing treatments that cannot take place. Andy Tierney It would be great to have a rule of what is permitted within the owl circles. Rick Ragan Can we add additional acres to the project area? Mike Hernandez Yes, we can additional acres to the project area, if we complete additional consultation with USFWS. Rick Ragan Can you clearcut the entire number of acres that have been approved by USFWS? Mike Hernadez Not necessarily. All treatments need to meet the purpose of fuels reduction treatments and need to meet the guidelines set forth in the biological opinion by USFWS. 5

6 Article V. Future Field Trips and Meeting Dates Types of field trips/stops: 1) Unit that would require some pre-treatment before underburning; 2) Treatment unit in North Fork/South Fork project areas that is prepared for underburning; 3) Before/after potential treatment types; 4) Potential treatment units; 5) Suitable habitat; 6) Big game winter range; 7) Research Natural Area; Needed Forest Service attendees: Mike, Patty, Whitney, Mark, Ray/Kim, Jennie/Andy Jennie send out a Doodle of potential field trip dates: September 8, 10 or 17; October 1 or 6. Potential office meetings: October 6 or 29, November 1, 2, 8, 9, 12, 15, 16, 17, 19, 29, and 30, December 1 or 3. Schedule 2 field trips and 4 office meetings. Office meeting location: Hood River meeting space. Future Action Items: Forest Plan Land Use Allocation Map Northwest Forest Plan Allocation Map (LSR vs. Matrix) Add numbers to treatment units Recommendations (formal/informal) from previous Mill Creek collaborative group processes 6