WHAT DO THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION’S EXECUTIVE ORDERS MEAN FOR OUR REGION?

Over the past months, the Trump Administration has issued a number of executive orders that have alarmed conservationists across the country and the Pacific Northwest in particular. The speed and volume of these orders have left many unsure of what their impacts will be and what can be done to ensure that communities, wildlife, and ecosystems in our region are protected.

To help answer these questions, CFC’s Communications Manager, Bryn Gray Harding, sat down with CFC’s Policy Manager, lawyer and environmental law and policy expert, Ashley Short, for a discussion about these orders and what they mean for the places CFC is working to protect. 

A transcript of that conversation, edited for length and clarity, is below.

 

Bryn Gray Harding

There have been a number of executive orders issued by the Trump Administration recently aimed at changing the way public resources are used, specifically related to increasing energy and timber production. Looking at these orders as a whole, what is the administration trying to accomplish? 

Ashley Short

There have been several Executive Orders aimed at increasing domestic energy production at all phases, and then other orders aimed at increasing timber production. These actions are largely focused on increasing domestic output and reducing reliance on imports, in part by speeding up how quickly projects happen. These orders direct agencies to use existing emergency authorities in potentially questionable ways and frame timber and energy production in terms of national security. Some timber and energy projects take a long time to get permitted from start to finish because agencies have to comply with current environmental laws. We would say that that’s a good thing. It helps make fine-tuned projects that don’t cause undue harm for species and ecosystems. Speaking very broadly, the administration is trying to speed up timelines for projects on federally managed land through these orders.

BGH

Do these orders create a threat of immediate changes to logging and mining processes in the places we’re seeking to protect? How are these actions actually going to impact conditions on the ground? 

AS

I don’t think we’re going to see things like old-growth logging on the Gifford Pinchot National Forest directly resulting from these executive orders for a number of reasons. The timber executive orders, in particular, are really just focused on streamlining how fast projects get done using existing authorities. Are there things in there that are concerning? Yes. Are there things we will monitor closely? Absolutely. However, many of the aspects of these executive actions will include administrative processes that will create opportunities for CFC and the public to engage with and, eventually, litigate if necessary.

BGH

What are the things that you’re concerned about?

AS

There are a number of things. For example, in one of the orders about timber, there is a note about allowing agencies to determine on their own, without meaningful oversight, whether they are complying with the Endangered Species Act. So, for example, if that authority to determine compliance was given to the Forest Service, the Forest Service would be deciding whether or not there projects are complying with the Endangered Species Act instead of another agency, like the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, looking over the Forest Service’s plans and determining whether or not they’re complying with the ESA. So, that could be concerning.

But even on that issue, we’re in a “wait and see” space. The Executive Order doesn’t mandate that that change happen; it directs agencies to explore opportunities to determine if it can happen. It’s not something that’s immediately happening. These orders are kicking off many processes to investigate and change rules, and we will have opportunities to be engaged in that.

The one thing that poses a more immediate threat is that copper is now listed as a critical mineral, which might increase the urgency regarding our efforts to protect Mount St. Helens from a gold, copper, and molybdenum mine. But again, we’re waiting to see how these changes around domestic mineral production are going to be implemented.

BGH

A lot of the text of these orders seems to suggest or imply that decision-making agencies should find ways to circumvent things like the Clean Water Act and the Endangered Species Act. Should we expect to no longer be able to rely on these laws to protect our shared natural resources?

AS

So yes, the orders are trying to minimize the effectiveness of laws like the National Environmental Policy Act, the Clean Water Act, and the Endangered Species Act. However, a lot of what these orders are doing is about using existing emergency authorities or invoking national security to speed processes up. In a lot of these cases, these emergency authorities are defined by law or have some sort of limitations on them. So, you can challenge whether using emergency authorities to avoid environmental reviews is justified or not in court. Invoking emergency authority isn’t a way for the administration to do whatever they want without any process at all.   

BGH

Are there things that CFC is doing right now or that our supporters can be doing to help push back against some of these actions?

AS

That’s a good question. At the moment, we are primarily watching to see what will actually happen. Many of the processes agencies are being ordered to begin have tight timelines. For example, some are directing agencies to develop these recommendations within the next 10 or 30 days. I believe that in the coming months, we will start to see many of these processes begin, and we must be prepared to articulate why these are poor ideas and what we stand for. 

When the time is right, we will create opportunities for our supporters to take action and make their voices heard!  Grassroots public engagement will be essential. Right now, we are closely monitoring the situation and working with coalitions of like-minded environmental groups to have strength in solidarity. Things are changing daily, all of which is impacted by the significant number of federal workers who were fired or in the process of losing their job. It’s still uncertain how quickly or slowly these changes or potential changes will occur. In short, we need to stay on top of everything, and we need to be ready to act when the time is right. 

BGH

Is there anything else that you think would be important for CFC supporters to know or to understand or information that would be helpful when they see a post or headlines about these orders?

AS

Yeah, at least from a local perspective, I think it’s key to understand how important the forest collaboratives* are and will be over the next four years. Our local Forest Service is invested and engaged in those spaces, and we’re hopeful that continuing to engage locally on specific projects and building on those existing and strong relationships will lead to outcomes that CFC and our supporters can support or at least live with. 

I think staying locally focused and being engaged with our local Forest Service staff is a good way to help protect the Gifford Pinchot National Forest in the long-term. We also intend to continue supporting individual civil servants who are being asked to do more with fewer resources, less capacity, and evaporating job security. Yes, it’s quite chaotic at the top, but we and our forest collaborative partners can ensure that decision-making doesn’t veer too far in the wrong direction, at least locally. And if there are pressures from above that mandate poor practices, then we will stand up as the watchdog we are, to hold them accountable, even if that means litigation. I think this is expected of us internally and externally. When and if this time comes, we’ll need strong backing from our supporters then too. 

* Forest Collaboratives are organizations that exist to create dialogue among federal agencies, Tribal governments, conservationists, the timber industry, other local governments, local businesses, and rural community members about land management projects like timber sales and restoration initiatives. Forest Collaboratives allow groups and individuals holding diverse perspectives and priorities to hear about and weigh in on projects from the earliest stages of planning processes. They help these various interests work together to create zones of agreement and to identify and address disagreements or concerns. By supporting these collaboratives and taking their recommendations seriously, agencies like the U.S. Forest Service can often address concerns about upcoming projects before plans are finalized, helping avoid unnecessary conflicts or litigation. CFC is a founding member and active participant of two forest collaboratives that help guide land management decisions in the Gifford Pinchot National Forest.

PROJECT UPDATE: AQUATIC RESTORATION AT CAMP CREEK

Below its picturesque and much-loved falls (accessible following a quick hike from a parking area along Forest Road 23), Camp Creek flows through a grove of beautiful mature, conifer forest before joining the Cispus River.

Camp Creek is spawning habitat for coho salmon and steelhead, as well as rearing habitat for juvenile Chinook salmon. But like many waterways in the Pacific Northwest, Camp Creek was (until recently) degraded and lacked many of the habitat features that fish depend on.

 

Prior to recent restoration efforts, Camp Creek was heavily channelized and lacked complexity.

 

Because of factors like a lack of instream wood, Camp Creek had become heavily channelized. Rather than spreading out across the landscape into a complex series of pools and side channels, the stream was flowing quickly in one direction, stripping away much of the gravel and sediment spawning fish depend on. 

But last summer, CFC oversaw a large aquatic habitat restoration project that is already having significant positive impacts. We installed more than 300 large logs to help Camp Creek re-engage its side channels and add habitat complexity. Because of the positive relationships we’ve built with the Forest Service and other organizations, we were able to complete this work for a fraction of what a project of this scale would typically cost.

 

CFC worked with local contractors to place more than 300 large pieces of wood into Camp Creek.

 

During a visit to the site in January, we saw indications that our restoration efforts were having the intended effects. Camp Creek’s side channels were flowing once again. We observed many new pools and other beneficial habitat features that are known to support spawning and maturing salmon and steelhead. We even observed evidence of recently spawning fish and feeding eagles! 

 

In-stream wood at Camp Creek is re-engaging side channels and improving habitat for salmon and steelhead

 

Our work at Camp Creek is complementing other nearby aquatic restoration work—such as a multi-year aquatic restoration project happening nearby at the confluence of the Cispus River and Yellowjacket Creek—making this entire segment of the watershed better for fish and wildlife.

 

A spawning Chinook salmon

 

As climate change continues to alter seasonal precipitation and flow patterns and warm water temperatures in streams across the region, projects like this will be essential to conserving local species and ecosystems.

A WIN-WIN FOR SALMON AND SW WASHINGTON COMMUNITIES

Working with the Department of Health, drinking water providers at Lewis County Public Works, and Lichen Land & Water, Cascade Forest Conservancy has been working for the last year to assess restoration potential in the Salmon Creek watershed. This is the Salmon Creek that flows into the Cowlitz River and serves as a drinking water source for the cities of Vader and Castle Rock, WA. Most of the project area is on properties owned by Weyerhaeuser.

 

 

Our hope is to identify areas throughout the watershed where instream restoration, and low-tech process-based restoration in particular, can improve both drinking water and habitat quality. These riparian corridors are important for anadromous salmon, resident fish species, amphibians, and a multitude of species that depend on healthy and biodiverse river corridors.

 

 

Through restoration, our aim is to improve the quality of drinking water by addressing the current high levels of sedimentation in the water and to attenuate flows, thereby reducing costs for the municipalities and reducing the amount of chemicals and filters needed to bring high-quality drinking water to the residents of Castle Rock and Vader.

 

 

ACTION ALERT: SPEAK UP FOR A HISTORIC OPPORTUNITY TO PROTECT THE NATION’S OLD-GROWTH

A Historic Opportunity

 

The Biden Administration has taken several steps to combat climate change and advance environmental stewardship, including a number of steps to preserve the nation’s old-growth.

On Earth Day, 2022, the Administration issued an Executive Order (EO) directing federal agencies to create a consistent definition for old-growth forests that accounted for regional and ecological variation and to complete an inventory of mature and old-growth forests on federal land. The EO also required the agencies to assess threats to mature and old-growth forests and develop policies to address those identified threats. Since April 2022, the Administration has released the inventory data, conducted an assessment of threats for mature and old-growth forests, and solicited public input to start developing a plan to make old-growth forests across the country more resilient.

The Administration’s effort to develop a plan to make old-growth more resilient is now nearing its final steps. The Forest Service has put forward a Draft National Old-Growth Amendment, which would revise forest plans (management plans unique to each of the country’s 154 national forests) to “establish a consistent framework for old-growth forests across the National Forest System.”

 

What the Draft Amendment Gets Wrong

 

The Draft Amendment is presented as a plan for resilient old-growth forests across the country. Judged by its stated goals, the Draft Amendment does not meet those goals and could do more harm than good. A nationwide amendment to forest plans represents a once-in-a-generation opportunity to safeguard old-growth forests, slow climate change, protect wildlife, and improve the quality of aquatic ecosystems. We need people like you to join CFC in asking the Forest Service to address the numerous flaws in the Draft Amendment by the September 20th comment deadline.

While the Draft Amendment’s stated intention to make old-growth resilient sounds positive, the proposed plan fails to adequately protect existing old-growth or recruit new old-growth.

For example, the Draft Amendment doesn’t include any language addressing the alarming deficit of old-growth on national forest lands. The Forest Service acknowledges the outsized role old-growth forests play in sequestering atmospheric carbon and their importance in preserving biodiversity, but the plan does not consider or speak to the need to create more (and more connected) old-growth by preserving and enhancing existing mature forests (those on the brink of becoming the next generation of old-growth).

Additionally, the amendment focuses on proactive stewardship (thinning, prescribed fire, and other treatments) in all old-growth types. A focus on active management for all old-growth is problematic. While proactive management to reduce wildfire risk may be appropriate in some forest types it is certainly not needed or beneficial in all. In wet forests west of the Cascade crest, these proposed management strategies could do more harm than good.  

The Draft Amendment also includes many inappropriate exceptions to the proposed standards—exceptions that could lead to meaningful losses of old-growth forests. Several of the exceptions are broad in scope. For example, an exception from the proactive stewardship requirement allows the Forest Service to ignore the stewardship standards for management in old-growth when “this standard is not relevant or beneficial to a particular forest or ecosystem type.” There is no explanation about what this means or what type of scenarios would fit, and without that explanation, it could be applied very broadly to exempt large portions of old-growth from the standards meant to protect them. While some ability to apply site-specific nuance is warranted, without parameters or explanation, this exception could easily become a large loophole.   

 

How to Comment

 

Amending each of the nation’s forest plans to protect old-growth could be a historic accomplishment, but the Draft Amendment would fail to meet this goal as currently written.

Individuals, business interests, and organizations of all viewpoints and political persuasions are currently weighing in on the Draft Amendment. It is imperative that as many voices as possible speak in favor of new meaningful protections for old-growth and urge the agency to address the fundamental flaws currently undercutting the Draft Amendment’s stated intentions. 

Take action today by submitting your comments electronically HERE by September 20th, 2024. Here are some talking points to help frame your comments.

  • I support the Draft Amendments vision of a system of resilient old-growth. The current Draft Amendment would fail to achieve that vision. 
  • The Desired Conditions should include language about increasing the amount of old-growth forests across the National Forest System since there is a deficit of old-growth currently on the landscape. 
  • Currently the plan does not consider an alternative that would require conservation of mature forests, or a portion of mature forests. I believe the Final Environmental Impact Statement should include an alternative that looks at conserving at least some portion of existing mature forests.  
  • Proactive stewardship of all old-growth forest types is inappropriate. The amendment language should be changed to acknowledge that some old-growth forests, like those west of the cascades, should be passively managed. In other words, leave old-growth west of the cascade crest alone. 
  • The standards as currently written in the preferred alternative Standard 2c. allow for too many inappropriate exceptions that could lead to meaningful loss of old-growth forests. While exceptions for tribal use are appropriate, all of the others should be removed from the plan.

If you have any questions or need help, please reach out to us at info@cascadeforest.org.

ACTION ALERT: SPEAK OUT FOR THE ECOLOGICAL & SCIENTIFIC VALUES OF SPIRIT LAKE

Mount St. Helens, the Pumice Plain, and Spirit Lake are special places Cascade Forest Conservancy has fought to protect since our founding. Now, we need your help speaking out to preserve the ongoing ecological recovery occurring here and the scientific insights this healing volcanic landscape is providing to us. 

 

The Spirit Lake Outlet Tunnel

 

The eruption of 1980 created a debris flow that blocked the natural outlet of Spirit Lake. Scientists and engineers realized that with nowhere to go, Spirit Lake’s waters threatened to overflow and destabilize this earthen dam, potentially leading to a massive mudflow that could pose a serious danger to downstream communities.

For the safety of these communities, the US Army Corps of Engineers built an outflow tunnel to prevent the most unstable parts of the debris blockage from being breached. But the existing tunnel was never meant to last forever and it has reached the end of its life expectancy. 

Between 2018 and early 2023, CFC fought specific elements of a project to temporarily repair the outlet tunnel’s gate. We took particular issue with the Forest Service’s plan to build a road across the Pumice Plain—a protected recovering ecosystem found nowhere else on Earth and the site of important ongoing research. We argued that the road (although temporary) would do long-term damage to an otherwise pristine natural laboratory, that the Forest Service had failed to adequately consider other ways to transport workers and materials to the job site, and that the plans provided by the agency did not adequately address the impacts of the road to watersheds and wildlife at the site. Although we lost that legal case, the story is not over. More decisions impacting the Pumice Plain, Spirit Lake, and Mount St. Helens are on the way. 

 

Speak out for the ecological and scientific value of Mount St. Helens, the Pumice Plain, and Spirit Lake

 

Official planning for what to do long-term with Spirit Lake’s outlet is just beginning. The Forest Service has started a process that will inform how project planners will weigh different values further into the planning process. 

We need people like you to speak up early in the planning process to advocate for a Spirit Lake outflow tunnel replacement project that keeps downstream communities safe WHILE ALSO preserving the ecological integrity and science happening in the Mount St. Helens National Volcanic Monument.

Your voice makes a difference! Take a moment to complete and return this attached survey by August 31st. 

Download the survey as an interactive PDF HERE.  E-mail your completed questionnaire to sm.fs.spiritlake@usda.gov no later than August 31, 2024. 

Email ashley@cascadeforest.org with questions.

UPCOMING DECISIONS IMPACTING OUR FOREST’S FUTURE

There are a lot of planning efforts both ongoing and new that will impact the future of our region’s forest ecosystems. All of these upcoming decisions will have a comment period or other opportunities to engage this summer and fall.  

Several of these decisions are around the implications of climate change and how we protect and steward our forests through a changing climate. 

 

Upcoming and ongoing planning efforts include:

 

  • Long-term management decision about Spirit Lake Outflow – planning has started to find a long-term solution to the tunnel at Spirit Lake as the original tunnel has reached its intended life span.

 

  • The National Old-Growth Amendment – planning has started on an amendment that would address how National Forests across the country manage for old-growth conditions.

 

  • The Amendment to the Northwest Forest Plan – planning has started on an amendment to update the Northwest Forest Plan, particularly around climate change, tribal inclusion, and wildfire.

 

  • The Little White Salmon Vegetation Management Project – planning has started in the Little White Salmon watershed with a focus on fire risk and resilience to climate change.

 

  • The Gifford Pinchot Forest Wide Thinning Project – planning has started on a Forest Wide effort to restore all plantation, monoculture forests, under 80 years old. This project would allow for treatment of plantations outside of the normal rotation of planning for particular watersheds.  

 

CFC will be sure to let you know how and when to engage on each of these issues as the opportunities come up. Be sure you are subscribed to our email list so you don’t miss an opportunity to use your voice to speak up for a sustainable future! 

NEWS RELEASE: Forest Service moves forward with timber sale in the Gifford Pinchot National Forest over objections of conservation groups

Vancouver, WA — on May 28, the US Forest Service released its final decision about the upcoming Yellowjacket timber sale. The decision came over the objections of concerned conservation groups, who say the agency’s plans do not adequately protect critical habitats and mature stands, and that the cumulative impacts of concentrated timber harvests on the area’s watersheds were not sufficiently considered by Forest Service planners.

The Yellowjacket sale will occur on national forest lands in Lewis and Skamania counties east of Mount St. Helens in the Camp Creek-Cispus River and Yellowjacket Creek watersheds. The sale includes a total of 4,651 acres of timber harvest, in addition to various infrastructure and habitat improvement activities.

Molly Whitney, Executive Director of the Vancouver-based Cascade Forest Conservancy, said in an email to the group’s supporters, “[o]ur national forests are on the frontline of climate change. These places contain the vast majority of our region’s remaining old-growth and mature forests; a resource that belongs to all of us. The science is clear. Protecting old-growth and mature forests in the Pacific Northwest is critical to slowing climate change and creating resilience to climate impacts for our local communities, ecosystems, and wildlife. It is imperative that we work to protect these forests and enhance connectivity, but in many ways, the decision released by the Forest Service fails to do that.”

 

 

The Yellowjacket timber units are primarily composed of forests dominated by Douglas fir, western hemlock, and silver fir. These forests are located west of the Cascade crest, an area with abundant annual precipitation and a relatively low risk of wildfires.

Whitney says that one of the problems with the Yellowjacket sale is the intensity of the logging, pointing out the agency’s use of a controversial practice known as regeneration harvests, which materials published by the Forest Service say are designed to create more of the young forest habitat preferred by deer and elk by removing up to 90% of an area’s existing canopy cover. Whitney says that regeneration harvests are essentially clear-cuts and that more young forest habitats are already being created by wildfire, drought, root disease, and insect outbreaks. 

“The Forest Service has acknowledged that protecting mature and old-growth forests is one of the simplest things it can do to combat climate change,” said Ryan Talbott, Pacific Northwest Conservation Advocate for WildEarth Guardians. “Yet the agency continues to approve sales like Yellowjacket that target the very forests that it knows should be left standing. And keeping mature and old-growth forests intact not only benefits our climate but protects watersheds and wildlife habitat.”

 

 

“We used every tool available to us to change the outcome of this decision,” said Ashley Short, Cascade Forest Conservancy’s Policy Manager, and that her organization had been discussing concerns and areas of agreement about the sale with agency officials and the timber industry for years. “We submitted official comments, collected data about stands out in the field, raised issues, and filed objections.” Short says some of her group’s concerns were heard and incorporated into the final plan, but that many of the issues raised, including concerns about the cumulative effects on watersheds of harvest concentrated near waterways, were ignored.

The Yellowjacket timber sale is happening during a time of major transition in how national forest lands are managed. Since taking office, the Biden Administration has been taking steps to rethink how public lands are managed, including executive orders focused on protecting mature and old-growth forests, the formation of a federal committee to formulate recommendations for an update to the Northwest Forest Plan, and the Infrastructure Bill which directs significant funding to climate-related programs.

Short says that while the Administration is trying to take steps to protect old-growth and mature forests, “the changes aren’t making it down to on-the-ground decision-making yet, and that will have consequences for years to come.”    

HISTORIC NEW PROTECTIONS FOR THE GREEN RIVER

On December 18, the Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology) announced new rules designating portions of three waterways, the Cascade River, Napeequa River, and Skamania County’s Green River, as Outstanding Resource Waters (ORWs). The new designations are the end result of a multi-year effort by several organizations, including Cascade Forest Conservancy, to safeguard some of Washington’s most exceptional waters.

Under federal law, individual states are directed to designate waterways of exceptional ecological and recreational value as ORWs. These designations provide a high level of federal protection under the Clean Water Act of 1972, but until now, Washington had never used this tool.

The Green River’s new protections are well-deserved. The upper reaches of this waterway flow from the foothills of Mount St. Helens. This section of the river is beloved by recreationists of all kinds, including hikers, mountain bikers, backcountry horseback riders, hunters, anglers, botanizers, foragers, and many others. The river also has unique ecological significance due to its role as a gene bank for wild steelhead—an area set aside for wild fish populations to protect genetic diversity and ultimately the long-term health and survival of the species.

“Protecting Washington’s pristine waters benefits all Washingtonians and is critical for the state’s salmon and steelhead,” said Molly Whitney, Cascade Forest Conservancy’s Executive Director. The Tier III A classification assigned to the Green River means that new forms of pollution along the designated portions are prohibited.

 

 

Securing these designations would not have been possible without the help of concerned citizens, including many CFC supporters! After attending an event supporting the new rule held at the beginning of September, Tara Easter submitted written comments and attended an in-person hearing in Kalama, WA. 

“I felt it was important to show my support for these designations as a Washington resident concerned with the health and resilience of our freshwater ecosystems,” she explained.

The passion and advocacy of our community was a significant help in our efforts to see these new protections enacted. Thank you to everyone who submitted comments or otherwise supported this effort!

 

Thanks to the supporters who came out in support of Washington’s first ORW designations

 

In addition to added protections for the ecosystems and wildlife of the Green River, this designation is particularly helpful towards our long-term efforts to defend the surrounding area against the threat of mining. While these new protections do not explicitly prevent mining in this area, they will make it more difficult and costly to develop a mine here. In this way, the designation of the Green River as an ORW directly compliments our ongoing work with the Green River Valley Alliance to secure permanent protections for the area through a legislative mineral withdrawal.

We are thrilled Ecology has recognized the unique values of the waterways that have become Washington’s first ORWs—especially of the Green. Keep an eye out for an in-person celebration of these designations in the new year as we mark a successful end of this multi-year, collaborative effort.

SALMON ARE ALREADY BENEFITING FROM HABITAT ENHANCEMENT AT STUMP CREEK

After building instream structures in a dry creek bed this past summer, we headed back to Stump Creek in early November to see how the structures faired following the first bout of rain. As we headed down to the project site, we saw new channels that had formed, sediment had built up behind structures, and huge, deep pools had appeared. And in those huge pools – we saw huge coho salmon!

 

 

Tributaries of large rivers provide off-channel spawning habitat that is critical for the end of an adult salmon’s life and their juvenile offspring. Stump Creek is a tributary that flows into the South Fork Toutle River,  then into the Toutle River, Cowlitz River, Columbia River, and ultimately to the Pacific Ocean. That’s roughly 100 miles of waterways that these adult salmon travel to the ocean to grow big and then back to freshwater to spawn. Their journey from Pacific Ocean to Stump Creek is completely undammed, which is a rarity for anadromous fish to encounter. We are luckily seeing a movement to get more dams removed in the Pacific Northwest to restore access to more historical spawning grounds. 

The fish that make it to Stump Creek in the winter are met with a flowing stream and many reaches with spawning gravel. Once the fry hatch, they have plenty of water to swim and forage. By the time August roles around, the creek begins to dry up, leaving juvenile salmon stranded in small pools. During the past two summers we have been at Stump Creek,  we have found many dried out stream reaches that have piles of desiccated salmon fry. For this reason and it’s degraded state caused by anthropogenic and natural disturbances, Stump Creek has been a high priority for CFC and project partner, Lower Columbia Fish Enhancement Group.

 

A LOW-TECH, PROCESS-BASED APPROACH

Following the promising results from last year’s successful Pilot Phase CFC staff and volunteers spent three weekends in August and September working to complete Phase 1 of our restoration plan for Stump Creek. 

During the Pilot Phase and Phase 1, we worked to restore and improve this important fish habitat using a low-tech, process-based approach.

 

 

COMPLETING PHASE 1

Given the impacts we observed from the Pilot Phase, we were excited to add more wood to the stream. Over the course of three weekends, we installed a total of 32 structures along 1500 feet upstream of the Pilot Phase.

The first group of volunteers and staff arrived at the site in August and found a situation similar to what we had encountered the year before; dried-out stream reaches and fish stranded in tiny pools. We didn’t assume our first ten structures would completely fix Stump Creek, but the sight we encountered reiterated the huge need for more woody debris to help enhance and restore the system.

 

 

Our first team of volunteers worked hard in sweltering heat under hazy skies to construct the first 12 structures upstream from the Pilot Phase. These structure types ranged from:

  • beaver dam analogs – wood structures that most closely resemble a beaver dam, used on smaller, less powerful side channels 
  • channel process structures – larger wood structures made from numerous alder logs and slash that were built up on one side of the bank to promote the movement of water to the opposite side of the structure
  • channel spanning structures – larger beaver-esque structures made of numerous alder logs and slash that hold back sediment and create large pools
  • habitat cover structures – tops of the alder trees that are placed over the stream to provide cover for our aquatic friends 

The second weekend of work brought nicer weather and an even bigger group of volunteers! They managed to finish up the rest of the structures for a total of 32 structures. A few weekends later, a handful of volunteers and I went to put some finishing touches on the structures, set up wildlife cameras so we could watch the system change through time, and create a few extra habitat cover structures to try and help the dozens of fish that still remained in the tiny pools.

 

ENCOURAGING EARLY RESULTS

A final staff trip was conducted on November 10th. It had been raining for weeks, so it was time to see how the structures were holding up. We started by checking out the structures constructed during the 2022 Pilot Phase. As we’d observed earlier in the year, water in the Pilot Phase area was spreading all over the landscape and creating new channels. 

We headed west toward the Phase 1 structures. We first passed several of our larger channel process and channel-spanning structures. Not only were they all in place, they were directing water in the direction and manner we had designed them to when we planned the project! 

 

 

As we went further upstream, we came to our BDA section that we created on a side channel of Stump Creek. Our four BDAs that were working exactly as designed. We had created four cascading pools and spread the water outside of the previously confined channel. It was the perfect habitat for salmon!

 

 

So perfect in fact, that it was where we saw the first adult coho salmon of the day! We ended up seeing numerous other adult coho salmon utilizing the habitat enhancements our structures created. Some of them were swimming in the pools formed by the BDAs, others were preparing their redds (gravel bed to lay eggs) for spawning, and another was headed up stream to find find a location to spawn.

It was an incredibly rewarding sight. The lives of these coho would end here in Stump Creek, but their eggs are currently being incubated and will hatch in the next month or so. Once they do, our instream structures will be there to provide habitat for the new juvenile coho until they swim to the ocean. 

 

GROUND-TRUTHING IN LITTLE WHITE SALMON TIMBER SALE STANDS

The Little White Salmon watershed is a 86,000-acre area spanning the transition zone between the wetter west-side forests and drier east-side forests of Washington’s southern Cascades, 80% of which is within the Gifford Pinchot National Forest. Due to its location, the watershed contains a unique mix of forest types and a high level of biodiversity, but it’s also at risk from significant climate impacts. 

It’s no surprise then that this watershed is at the center of conversations about how to best manage forests on the verge of change, or that there are differing opinions about what that means. 

 

 

The U.S. Forest Service is contemplating treating a huge area within the watershed through a combination of commercial and non-commercial thinning. In a break from other recent timber sales in the forest, the initial scoping plans for the Little White Salmon timber sale include considerations to thin thousands of acres of mature and transitional forests, although planners have publicly acknowledged they expect the amount to decrease as the agency moves closer to creating a final version of its plan.    

The agency is proposing thinning in mature forests to mitigate the increasing impacts from drought, insects, disease, and wildfire that this area is likely to experience.

 

 

Generally, Cascade Forest Conservancy doesn’t support plans that involve thinning activities in mature forests, as these are areas of high ecological and carbon storage value and it is unclear whether the potential benefits of thinning would offset the more immediate negative impacts of harvest.

However, we understand the situation is nuanced and there is a lot of complexity and uncertainty – particularly in this transitional watershed. Because of this, we have been visiting these stands and collecting data to help inform our efforts ensuring that forests and wildlife remain resilient to the threats of climate change.  

 

 

On the last weekend of September, CFC staff and volunteers ventured off the beaten path in the Little White Salmon watershed to collect on-the-ground information. 

We targeted some of the older stands (those between 120 and 300 years of age) for our data collection efforts to see for ourselves if the on-the-ground conditions matched up with age estimates and to gain information about forest conditions that spatial analysis cannot provide. 

Teams of volunteers spread out and conducted surveys collecting information about tree species, tree densities, tree diameters, the presence and amount of large downed wood, and species diversity in the understory in 30-foot radius circles. 

 

 

Each team worked hard to collect as many plots as possible and everyone gained some skills in estimating tree sizes and types by the end of the trip. Each team found well-functioning mature forest stands and a number of large trees in the survey area, with the biggest coming in at 57 inches in diameter. 

In the coming weeks and months we will be discussing this timber harvest proposal with the South Gifford Pinchot Collaborative and the Forest Service and working to make sure that critical habitats are protected and that management plans are well-tuned to ecosystem resilience. 

Thanks to all the volunteers who gave their time and energy to this project!