Wasco County Forest Collaborative Group
April 7, 2016 1:00 – 4:00pm
Meeting Minutes
Opening Remarks and Introductions
Mr. Noonan called the meeting to order and led a round of introductions for all the guests. Mr.
Noonan provided the attendees with a quick recap of the Forest Collaborative workshops that
were held in the past few weeks. He also had members that attended the workshops state some of
their personal takeaways. Mr. Noonan started the discussion with the group how he is applying
some of the language from the workshops like active listening and asking good questions.
Rocky Burn Restoration Project
Mr. Noonan explained that in regard to the scoping letter that was distributed by the Forest
Service and after visiting with Andrew he is wanting to make sure the collaborative as a whole is
all on the same page. The Forest Service is waiting on reissuing the letter after the collaborative
has provided recommendations and the letter has been modified.
Casey Gatz provided additional detail about the scoping letter process and how the Forest Service
is gathering feedback. He said the scoping document is a rough draft of the proposed action for
what the Forest Service is wanting to accomplish in the project area. Mr. Gatz added that there
will be more public comment periods.
Mr. Noonan asked what the Forest Service wants the collaborative to do and in what level of
detail. Mr. Gatz said the items that are most important to the collaborative that need to be
addressed are what the Forest Service needs recommendations on to move forward. Mr. Gatz
discussed with the group actions and alternatives and how they are incorporated. Brenna Bell
asked if the Forest Service has discussed going forward under HFRA (Healthy Forest Restoration
Act). Mr. Gatz said the Forest Service hasn’t discussed that; however HFRA does require
alternatives.
After further discussion the consensus from the group was that the Purpose and Need section of
the scoping letter was there were items that were missing and those items are what the
collaborative has been working towards finding recommendations for. If some of the
recommendations don’t fit into the Purpose and Need and NEPA the Purpose and Need will have
to be redone. Mr. Gatz said so far the recommendations seem to all fit. The Purpose and Need are
not specific and is written as a more high level statement. The collaborative recommendations are
the things that are important in general that need to be incorporated.
The group discussed incorporating road density in the Purpose and Need or having something that
anchors or acknowledges it in there. There was also discussion about the Forest Plan standards.
Mr. Gatz said he has heard the groups concerns about road density and knows it’s an important
topic and it will not be overlooked.
Dan VanVactor moved the Forest Collaborative support the purpose and need as originally wrote
in the scoping letter, Rich Thurman seconded. There was brief discussion about being
collaborative about putting scoping letters together in the future.
Proposed Action
Jeremy Thompson provided an update on the original recommendation for Roads. The group’s
consensus was in favor of the recommendation.
The updated road recommendation states:







Overall road density should at a minimum be reduced to the Forest Service standard of
2mi/sq. mile.
We recommend a winter closure on all lateral roads to improve winter range utilization.
After use, non-system and temporary roads would be blocked, scarified and seeded.
Put all roads past the 4820-130 into level 2 closure.
Impacts to existing OHV trails should be minimized, and any used for logging should be
water barred and repaired.
Vegetative screens should be left along all current trails, and brushing should be kept at a
minimum.
Protect the integrity of the existing trail system, minimize disturbance of vegetation along
trail boundaries, keep higher tree density along trails and minimize trail crossing.
The roads subcommittee provided a recap of their field trip. They said there is still a lot of snow
and were unable to get to the top, but after driving around more there weren’t any concerns that
would change their recommendations. Mr. Thompson said the subcommittee was able to see
other treatment areas and scenarios, as well as visualize what thinning from below means.
Thinning
The group’s discussion around roads continued on into thinning. The roads subcommittee said
they would like to see the term “legacy” incorporated. They added that if they used the term
legacy in general it would allow the Forest Service to use it site specific. There was further
discussion around crafting a recommendation that is flexible but specific. Ideas for flexibility
were to keep the best trees, soils, etc. and allow it to be site specific as well as specific to the goal
of the group.
Preserving legacy trees was the next topic for discussion. The group was okay with the
prescriptions that were provided but recommended adding in “to preserve legacy trees where
available”. The general consensus from the group was a thumbs up for thinning with the add-in
preserving legacy trees where available.
WUI
The group will go into further discussion regarding the WUI that will include details and how to
pay for the projects in the WUI. There are external and internal forest grants for funding sources.
WUI’s carry a lot of weight for funding and in the future when the Forest Service are going after
funding it will really help to have letters of support from the collaborative groups. Although the
Forest Service may have to approach the sections differently and seek different forms of funding.
Down Woody Debris
Ms. Bell asked to see the tons/acre for down woody debris and what the desired tonnage is. Leo
Segovia said the desired tonnage is 12-15 tons/acre. Increased down woody debris is something
that would have to be negotiated. There are also different classes for down woody debris. There
are positives like wildlife habitat, but some of the negatives are fuels for fire. Ms. Bell shared
with the group a study that described impacts of treatments of reduced fuels and fire behavior.
Mr. Segovia explained that you can’t get hung up on the tons/acre because burn areas might not
have it. John Dodd add that the soil standard is 15 tons/acre.
The recommendation was to ask the Forest Service to maintain the maximum large down woody
debris as feasible for wildlife, and soil productivity in the cowigator.
Additional Topics
The group discussed any other topics that may have not been discussed and what additional topics
that may need a recommendation. The group decided at this meeting to discuss snags and water
quality at the next meeting and will let Mr. Noonan know of any additional topics that should be
added to the agenda.
The group will have Mr. Noonan start writing a letter with what the group has so far as far as
recommendations and then will continue to add to it at the next meeting.
Mr. Noonan asked what information the group needs for the next meetings topics. Mr. VanVactor
will work with Pat to provide the group with information regarding water quality. Chris Rossel
also volunteered to help with the effort.
The group also asked the Forest Service for information regarding the standard on snags, what
current conditions are, and what the standards should be for the area. Also what does the area
look like adjacent to the treatment areas?
Meeting adjourned at 3:50.
Minutes prepared by Abbie Forrest.