Wasco County Forest Collaborative Group
May 5, 2016 1:00 – 4:00pm
Meeting Minutes
Opening Remarks and Introductions
Mr. Noonan called the meeting to order and led a round of introductions. As a refresher Mr.
Noonan reminded the group to be clear and ask questions if you don’t understand something.
Mr. Noonan passed out a list of steering committee members. The group discussed the charter
rules regarding the amount of members present, compared to the number of members present to
be able to make a decision. Mr. Noonan discussed not having a hard number for members present
as long as all voices are being heard.
Mr. Noonan asked the group if they were comfortable with, or have any input regarding how the
decision making process works. He said he does not care for Roberts Rule of Order and majority
vote. He said he prefers the group to continue having discussions until they are all in agreement.
Discussion ensued. Ms. Bell said the Hood River Stew Crew has a great new method for decision
making. Mr. Noonan will have that topic for discussion added to the next meeting agenda.
Irrigation District Recommendations
Copies of the Irrigation District proposed recommendations for riparian areas were emailed out to
the group prior to the meeting for members to review. After the group had a chance to further
review the recommendations Mr. Noonan opened for floor for questions.
Mr. Van Vactor started the conversation with background information about the Rocky fire and
the discussions he had with Mr. Davis to produce these recommendations. He said their goal is to
prevent the area from going back to what it was, and protect the water ways and any natural
shading. Mr. Davis added to the conversation with how much water the irrigation districts use,
how much before and after the burn.
Mr. Long suggested changing number 8 of the recommendations (All natural watercourses within
the planning area will be fenced out of grazing allotments at the expense of the permittee)
because of the concerning use of words. Mr. Sam said the grasshopper allotment is vacant and
will require the NEPA process before someone will be authorized a grazing permit. Mr. Sam
agreed with Mr. Long’s concern and said fences will be something the Forest Service looks at
when they get to that part. Mr. Gatz added that this isn’t an issue to be addressed in this stage of
the planning process and there will be another process before a permittee is allowed in there.
There was further discussion on recommendation number 8 in regards to the term “All natural
watercourses”, and rewording to say fish bearing. The group also discussed grazing and the detail
the group should provide for a recommendation, or wait until later when the Forest Service is
ready. The group agreed to omit number 8 and decided on another recommendation. Note: All
recommendations are below.
Mr. Hernandez asked for clarification on recommendation number 6 (Road system crossings of
natural streams shall be by structures designed, built and maintained to avoid destruction from
naturally occurring storm/flood events in compliance with USFS regulations). After further
discussion the group agreed to reword recommendation number 6.
Steering committee members present approved the irrigation districts recommendations as stated
below:
Concern for sedimentation and the fire risk from the buildup of understory woody debris (brush
deadfall) in the stream corridors identifies the need to protect and enhance the reproduction forest
planted after the Rocky Fire within the planning area. To do so will enhance long term canopy
development creating shade that helps maintain lower water temperatures. (Excluding authorized
irrigation storage and delivery systems) The following steps would help achieve these goals.
1. Maintain compliance with the Northwest Forest Plan to ensure maximum shading and
minimize sedimentation of the natural water courses within the Rocky Burn.
2. Prescribed fire within riparian buffers shall be used to enhance riparian areas in
accordance with prudent forest practices as prescribed by the USFS.
3. The natural species to the riparian areas shall by recognized and supported (including
plant life, tree species, fish and wildlife).
4. Large woody debris should be retained in fish bearing watercourses as balanced against
the impact of sedimentation.
5. Bank stabilization will be provided where needed.
6. Road system crossings of watercourses shall be by structures designed, built and
maintained to avoid destruction from naturally occurring storm/flood events in
compliance with USFS regulations.
7. Those watercourses within the WUI boundary for ¼ mile on each side of those streams
inside the planning area shall be given the highest priority for thinning to maximize fire
protection to maintain the re-established canopy.
8. The grasshopper grazing allotment within the Rocky Burn shall be brought back to the
collaborative group before beginning the NEPA process that would address reissuing the
permit.
Snag Recommendations
Ms. Bell said she and Mr. Thompson have been working on putting together recommendations on
snags for the group. She asked Mr. Gatz if the current snag density meets the forest practice
standards. He said they are currently averaging 1 snag/acre and the standard is 2-2.5 snags per
acre. Ms. Bell said one of the recommendations they came up with was “Buffer all legacy
snags.” A legacy snag is something larger than 20 inches. A buffer by OSHA’s standards is by
marking, flagging and not allowing work within 2 tree lengths of a legacy snag. The second
recommendation proposed is “create snags with the goal of getting the area to the Forest Plan
standards.” The group discussed the two recommendations.
After discussion and a few amendments the steering committee members present agreed on the
following recommendation for snags:
1. Protect all legacy snags where they exist.
2. Proactively create snags to meet Forest Plan standards.
Cost Per Acre Prioritization
The issue on the table was what the group’s priority is for thinning and should the group provide
a recommendation. Mr. Van Vactor recommended the WUI be the first priority to be thinned
because money is available and should protect the landowners, but if money becomes available
elsewhere, allow flexibility for work to begin.
Mr. Gatz provided more clarification by drawing a map of the planning area that shows what part
of the area will be cost (WUI) and what may be gain (cowigator). The costs per acre are below.






Thinning - $150
Brushing / mastication - $400
Thinning and hand piling - $500
Thinning mechanical - $400
Burning created pile - $100
Underburning - $250
After discussion the steering committee members agreed on the recommendation for cost per acre
that states:
Where possible focus on WUI projects first and be cost effective.
Clackamas Steward Partners (CSP)
Ms. Bell briefly explained some of the background of the Clackamas Steward Partners and their
recommendations and issues with OHV. She said Bark has been bringing the issue of
unauthorized OHV use to other forest collaboratives to make them aware of the problem and
implementing BMP’s. Ms. Bell had copies of the recommendations, although these were wrote
for the west side, they are consistent with practices. Note: She had the group only focus on the
last 3 bullet points.
Ms. Bell explained that bullet number 3 is not an accusation that’s happening in the Barlow
district but is a best practice recommendation that doesn’t always happen in other areas. The
group continued discussion and shared their previous experiences.
The 3 bullet points are:



Including requirements in the stewardship or timber sale contract for the purchaser/logger
to complete the blocking (piling slash, de-compacting soils, etc.) of those temporary
roads and skid trails which connect to roads that will remain open upon completion of
logging ativity as each harvest unit is finished and prior to moving equipment away from
the area.
Requiring that blocking of temporary roads and skid trails which could be easily accessed
by OHV’s from open roads be done in conjunction with normal “winterization” activities
such as installing waterbars in harvest units that are not completed prior to end-of-season
equipment move-out.
Forest collaborative recommends that the sale administrator coordinates closely with the
purchaser and contractors to achieve timely blocking of temporary roads and skid trails to
prevent OHV use and inspects harvest areas to certify that adequate blockages have been
created prior to authorization of equipment move-out.
Mr. Noonan decided to write an open ended statement acknowledging the local OHV and
concerns dealing with previous issues.
Review of the Draft letter to the USFS
Mr. Noonan has drafted a letter of recommendations that he provided for the group to review. He
said the recommended changes that were made are in red. The first recommended change to the
letter states: Retain only the overall purpose and need statement in the scoping document. After
review the group did not have any suggestions to the recommendation on the overall purpose and
need statement. The second change that Mr. Noonan noted was the number two recommendation
for thinning. Alternative: The group was OKAY with the prescriptions for commercial thinning,
and recommends that the Forest Service focus on preserving the legacy trees in each stand,
understanding that what constitutes a “legacy” tree may differ given the age and history of each
stand.
Mr. Noonan asked the group for any further discussion or suggestions and concerns. The group
did not have any further recommendations to thinning.
Mr. Van Vactor and Mr. Davis said they put together their recommendations from the irrigation
district without the knowledge that riparian areas already had a recommendation. The group
discussed the difference in each document. Mr. Rossel asked Mr. Van Vactor for his definition of
riparian so that everyone is on the same page and it is clear. Mr. Van Vactor said he thought ¼
mile, but there must be a definition and will let the Forest Service make that determination.
After further discussion regarding the recommendations from the irrigation districts and the draft
letter, the group decided combine both documents and take out the add-ons in the draft letter. Mr.
Noonan will send the updated version to the steering committee members and said he will need a
reply by close of business Wednesday.
Next Steps
The group discussed having a field trip in place of a regularly scheduled meeting in June or July.
Mr. Van Vactor offered to have the group visit his place to see what active thinning looks like as
well as work they have completed on the 10 acres of their property that wasn’t burnt. The group
also discussed visiting the cowigator.
Mr. Spaeth suggested looking at different riparian areas in the treatment area to see the difference
in treated and non-treated areas as well as places adjacent to the riparian areas. The group
discussed looking at the riparian areas later on in the year.
The next meeting will be the field trip scheduled for June 2 nd from 11:00AM to 4:00PM to Mr.
Van Vactor’s residence. Mr. Noonan and Mr. Bessette will work together on the logistics.
Mr. Noonan said he has a scheduling conflict for the July meeting and asked if folks would like to
reschedule. Everyone decided to take a break and skip the July meeting. August will be the next
regularly scheduled meeting. The group will discuss what they would like to do next and maybe
work on more recommendations. They will also get an update on where they are in this process.
Mr. Spaeth and Mr. Noonan announced they are working on putting together a workshop on fire.
Meeting adjourned at 3:50.
Minute prepared by Abbie Forrest