Marys Peak Stewardship Group
Meeting Notes
February 23, 2017
Name / Affiliation / Name / AffiliationJane Brass Barth / Facilitator / Courtney Schreiber / SNF
Mick Mueller / SNF / Karen Fleck-Harding / Landowner
Mike Totey / ODF / Cindy McCain / Marys Peak Alliance
Jim Fairchild / Landowner / Deb Merchant / MRWC
Jennifer Ward / City of Corvallis / Deanna Williams / SNF
Meeting began shortly after 6:00 pm. Meeting notes approved by consensus.
Joint Meeting Debrief –
[Note: All presentations except for the Marten one can be found on CPRCD stewardship website: www.cascadepacificstewardship.org Update: an article on the martens has been posted.]
· Martens – compliments for this interesting presentation
o Deanna shared information on the Pacific Marten and where they are found on the Siuslaw. New dynamic of narrow zone of 2 habitats and unique species. Sense shrub and sand dune habitat; no snow
· Pollinators presentation
o Deanna shared information on the Rufous Hummingbird
o Discussion on importance of nectar sources and structure; caution to be sure have nectar species even non-native nectar sources while establishing native sources; life-function approach
· Multi-Party Monitoring and Adaptive Management Group recommendations recap
o Deanna shared information on small trappings in thinning units – Put in thinning units and natural stands to figure out if the land is providing prey
o Looking at ways to thin that will maintain those species
o Discussion on pre commercial thinning and post commercial thinning and the effects on the land
o The Siuslaw had only one nest of Spotted Owls be successful in nesting. It happened right in the heart of Barred Owl removal area
· Stewardship Project Analysis Review Changes – Mick Mueller
o Forest Service has to make sure have appropriate analysis of environmental effects and consultation with regulatory agencies and account for cultural effects for a projects funded with federal dollars, even if off-forest. Working to determine how to cover these requirements through partnerships that happen in the front end and/or with involvement of USFS staff – opportunities for Wyden projects; some partners with better capacity to cover NEPA, ESA, Clean Water Act (CWA), Clean Air Act (CAA), cultural effects (e.g. NRCS, USFWS, ODOT, etc.).
o Questions:
§ How would you see the project analysis working for an individual private landowner?
A: USFS would find someone that would work to check the boxes that would say that are complying
A: Don’t forget about resources: “Guide to Oregon Permits issued by State and Federal Agencies with a Focus on Permits for Watershed Restoration Activities” available on the OWEB website
§ Should we assume that this will fall to the Tech Team to conclude that the project was in compliance
§ How will the additional costs to do the analysis get covered?
§ Early Seral restoration project may have some compliance issues with listed plant species. Can that project be compartmentalized, or does all of the project need to follow federal constraints?
A: The overall work needs to fall under federal compliance
o Proposed schedule and timelines?
§ Add on sometime early on to proposal development schedule to account for the work that will need to cover;
o Next steps/Tools to be developed:
§ Some kind of documentation of ESA/CWA/CAA, etc. for stewardship groups to articulate to project proposers for compliance checks. Idea is a matrix and also decision tree that project developers could use to know what requirements have to be met and what resources, including FS staff, can help them meet the requirements. This could be an on-line tool connected with the proposal process; could be used to give the Tech Team a heads up, too
§ Give the forest a little bit of time to articulate exactly what it is that we are trying to cover with new requirements
§ Determine how to proactively put this in to planning
§ Good Neighbor policy to do a broader planning across boundaries – Mick to look into this option
§ Maybe setting up a meeting with the Forest Service so that projects on private land could come in with questions and answers to help with the matrix and what is missing
§ Jane and Kirk will meet with FS to clarify requirements, timing, tech team role, etc. SG participants interested in being part of this work should let Jane know so she can invite them to this meeting.
Outreach Fund Project Proposals
· General update: MRWC will not be expending about $1700 from a past outreach project contract. Those funds will go back into the pot making a total of $2054 available for new proposals. There is no rush to commit these funds as they can be spent through at least 2018. No additional outreach funds were included in CPRCD’s 2016-17 contract; unsure if funds will be included in future contracts.
· City of Corvallis/MRWC proposal – Jennifer Ward
o Proposal to fund watershed education at Rock Creek camp
o Requesting $1,500 [UPDATE: New request is $1300]
· AFRANA – Dave Eckert email shared with group
o Request for $500 to help with middle school field trips [UPDATE: New request is $350]
· Karen asked about holding some back for future outreach needs
· Jennifer commits to bringing a revised budget request to next meeting. Cindy will contact Dave Eckert about a reduced ask.
· Group agrees to hold off on making a decision till next meeting
General Updates
· All retained receipts project proposals are at Regional Office and expect approval soon. CPRCD will start writing contracts once funds are committed by RO.
· USFS
o Pioneer Butte Project Update – Are bird surveys being done? Dave Veseley is going to survey the City of Corvallis meadow site for 2 more years and it would be useful to have data for the SNF’s meadow, too, ideally by same researcher. Courtney to look into this.
o Frank Thin STWD Project – to be sold tentatively in June
o Anticipating huge crowds for August solar eclipse. Mick circulated Press Release.
o Marys Peak Telecommunications project – BPA is going through the comments and putting them in topical areas. This Thursday they will have the technical analysis done so they can put together a proposed action and then be able to go to scoping with concrete proposals out to public in May
o Planning for field trip on flying squirrels and red tree voles
§ Want to see good habitat and examine the questions, Where does the Forest need high abundance of prey to support predator species? What are the effects of thinning on these species? Worse on one than the other?
§ Like to visit locations where FS has done trapping studies and ideally when/where could have chance to see live animals.
§ Could be challenging to do both flying squirrels and red tree voles on same tour.
§ ACTION: Jane and Kirk will continue to provide Deanna with input to help her get this tour organized for all the SGs
· City of Corvallis – May 25th public tour of the watershed 5-8pm [Note: This is the same night was the MPSG meeting. SGs may switch to bi-monthly meetings, which would allow for the participants to go on this tour instead.]
· Marys Peak Alliance hosted the Confederated Tribes of the Siletz, the Grand Ronde plus USFS, BLM, City of Corvallis and Starker Forest on Feb 7th. The 2 tribes agreed to some up with names for 9-11 un-named tributaries in Kalapuya and Alsi languages. They will submit to the Oregon Geographical Names Board. MPA also will provide interpreters during the solar eclipse.
· Benton Small Woodlands Assn – Upcoming tours where thinning is the topic of discussion. Van Decker is doing one of them. Could be an opportunity to build off recent MPSG discussions about other values and other approaches to thinning. Karen will keep Jane informed.
· MRWC – March 1st presentation at the Corvallis library
Upcoming Meetings and Field Trips
· The group will meet on March 23rd in order to make a decision on outreach proposals. At that meeting, the group will consider moving to a bi-monthly meeting schedule.
· For spring meetings, people with Wyden project ideas can have time on the agenda to get input from FS staff. Ideally Forest Service staff will come talk about things they are doing that might inspire Wyden projects, too.
Approved 2