Payette NF Community Forum

Phase I Recommendations

Spatial Interest — 2010-03-09T10:50:08-08:00

The PFC adopted by consensus the pre-design project recommendations for Phase I of the Mill Creek - Council Mountain Landscape Conservation Project. The recommendations report summarizes objectives and priorities for Forest Service Line Officer to consider in preparation of the proposed action. Read more>>

RE: The Path Forward - Coalition Member Feedback

bswandby — 2010-02-22T11:00:34-08:00

Hi Dave et.al.

Sorry this is a bit late.

1. What Worked. I think the willingness of the participants to lay their agendas on the table early on and ensuring that environmental organizations were invited to the table at the beginning was a big part of our success. In addition, the extraordinary commitment of Suzaonne, Bob, Greg and the Payette Forest staff was really a huge benefit to those of us who were not

that familiar with the nuances of forest ecology and terminology.

What didn't work (bonus). From what I understand there may have been some communication problem between the Executive Committee and the Payette staff leading up to the Dec 16 -17 meeting. You were not at that meeting and I was not at the Oct meeting so we are each missing some personal experience. The problem going into the 12/16 meeting was that the three alternatives presented and the instructions to "pick one and if that's not possible give the pros and cons of all three" were too complicated and confusing to folks at my table. It turns out that other tables felt the similary. I could see by lunch that if we didn't change directionwe probably would not be meeting our objectives for that 2 day meeting, so I suggested we build a single alternative with the things that we could reach agreement on. By mid-afternoon we appeared to back on track. I could be wrong, but it felt to me that if we hadn't recouped quickly the discussion could have unravelled further. It lacked focus. The lesson, I believe, is keep it as simple as possible. If folks believe it's too simple they can bring in their amendments for discussion.

2. How can we improve the process. Everybodys' time is valuable on one hand, and on the other hand it takes eyeball to eyeball discussions to iron out differences and reach agreement. Also, the process is new to many of us.

Having said that, I think the better preparation and clearer agendas we have going forward will help to conserve some time and energy. Perhaps preliminary concerns and ideas can be aired in a format like this prior to holding the physical meeting. I think we are getting better at doing that and I think this web site is a huge boon to promoting the process. Thank You, Dennis!!!

3. Prior to moving into Phase II, any help the Payette NF can give us via reading material etc on NEPA and the nuances of stewardship contracting will be helpful background that can save time before we get into it. Also, for Phase III, I would volunteer (and maybe a few others would too), to think about and multi-party monitoring. I know there are some successful models out there.

Bob

RE: Draft Recommnedations - February 12

Mike Medberry — 2010-02-19T10:53:00-08:00

After living in the greater community of this landscape for a while, I have come to think that we have to actively encourage the cities within the community to survive. We have seen what we can do with opposition and everyone fears that this might continue. It could. But only at the price of our own welfare. The cities and rural areas in Valley and Adams Counties are suffering and suffocating and may continue to decline if we don�t get involved in trying to help save the culture. What I have written may seem harsh, or just long, but I hope that you will recognize that it is supportive and that I strongly support the biomass burning proposal that Adams County has advanced and the timber harvest that many have advocated in the Council District. Regardless, these comments are only my suggestions.

The beginning paragraph on page 8 of the section on Wildlife Habitat Restoration states that �The Payette Forest Coalition�s primary goal is to improve wildlife habitat for white-headed woodpeckers, by restoring appropriate forested stands to conditions within the Historical Range of Variability.� This definition fails to recognize the importance of other wildlife, such as elk, deer, bear, wolverine, lynx, pileated woodpeckers, great gray owls, goshawks and others, emphasizing, instead, to focus on whiteheaded woodpeckers and, ultimately north Idaho ground squirrels, as indicators. This is a very specific and limiting goal that may cause other rare, declining, or important species to be disfavored in the analysis area. I think that is OK in the suited timber acreage as long as we recognize that other plans and strategies, such as the Wildlife Conservation Strategy, will fill in a few blanks for us and make changes in what we can legitimately plan to achieve. Also we should define what the HRV is; does it span 500 years, 100 years, 25 or 5 years back? And at what scale is the HRV defined and by whose scientific principles? This matters as HRV is a broad range of qualities that we can only approximate as our economic environment and climate changes. It is a moving average not a concrete number of trees/acre across a uniform landscape; there are major variations defined by a microclimate and environmental conditions. We are just taking a pot shot at returning to points in the past. The Wildlife Habitat Restoration section also states that, �by restoring the landscape patterns through management actions, the underlying ecological processes will sustain wildlife habitat.� That remains to be seen, but it is hopeful.

On page 9 #9 we should acknowledge the impact of livestock grazing on aspen growth and regeneration.

On page 9 #10 we should provide specific reasons that this proposal is excluding specific species. For example, wolverine and sage grouse are not currently listed as threatened or endangered but they should be mentioned in this analysis as important and potentially determinative factors.

Table 1 on p. 15 indicates that 4,873 acres out of 16,338 acres are left to be determined. I assume that the work will be done before the EIS/EA is done, right? I have the same concern about PVG in undetermined riparian stands on page 25.

On page 25 below the Landscape Objective the text states: �If some of the stands in these areas are left untreated, the outcome could contribute to increased instability of the structure and composition of the watershed, and the likely decrease of wildlife habitat for a diversity of species.� (stet.) This statement is not documented and includes conditional assertions (eg. � some of the stands�,� �could contribute�,� �likely decrease��). Given this uncertainty, I suggest that the action in #1 below be amended to a medium or low level priority. In addition, # 4 should not be allowed to degrade wildlife habitat for avian or terrestrial species because these stringers of habitat are critical to the continued survival of a variety of species. If cut significantly, this habitat will be compromised as the density of the canopy is thinned. If the only species at stake were fish, the only thing to do would be to mitigate the road so that sediment would not continue being delivered to the stream right below it. However, with the RCA including land that may be critical for wildlife along the stream corridor but above the stream, you should consider protecting this habitat (by policy). The road cuts across the riparian habitat and has changed it in uncertain ways. #4 should be amended to state: �RCAs will be treated to protect a canopy density that will maintain critical wildlife habitat for this zone.� I assume that this will affect Restoration stands in the RCA.

On page 28 3b I find this statement inappropriate: �Incidental spurs that connect roads to landings can be used and will be authorized.� We should amend it to say: �Incidental spurs that connect roads to land may be used and could be authorized.�

On page 28 # 5 the document states: �Road costs for construction and remediation of detrimental conditions will be covered by a combination of the goods sold by the stewardship contract and other road restoration funding sources. � We should identify the �other road restoration funding sources� because I�m not sure that the funding will pay for the remediation. In any case this would help the coalition find the funding.

Finally, I think that a complete road inventory (of all built and rehabilitated roads since NFMA was passed as a law) should be done and updated annually so that people who want it can figure out which roads go where.

RE: Trail User Groups - Recommendations

Gordon Cruickshank — 2010-02-17T16:19:41-08:00

Before looking to close trails the access by the livestock producers need to be reviewed. Recently I have heard of trails being closed in other areas that blocked the regular cattle routes and the cattle then did more damage than if the trail had been left and maintained.

Trails were a vital portion of the settlement of the area so please understand their historic value as well.

Thanks Gordon

RE: The Path Forward - Coalition Member Feedback

Gordon Cruickshank — 2010-02-17T16:13:16-08:00

What Worked? All parties being able to share their opinions and concerns openly. The forum was a new tool to some and we had to understand how it could be used. Agree to disagree and come to a conclusion.

Improve the process? Better participation by others. Educate the public not just the interested parties. Possible more articles in papers.

Phase II? Phase II should go easier as we had to cover quite a bit of ground with Phase I. Some changes may be learned as Phase I is implimented that will help clarify Phase II.

Looking forward to seeing our recommendations used on the ground.

Gordon

RE: Draft Recommnedations - February 12

Gordon Cruickshank — 2010-02-17T16:01:32-08:00

Comments have captured the thoughts of the group in discussion of the topics. Great job. Thanks for getting these out for review.

Gordon

RE: The Path Forward - Coalition Member Feedback

Spatial Interest — 2010-02-17T11:57:34-08:00

Two recent Forest Service announcements are very encouraging for PFC's efforts:

The Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program
Proposed changes to the Planning Rule

Both announcements confirm the importance of collaborative efforts at a landscape scale for National Forest management decisions.

With that background, here are a few suggestions for Phase II.

Footnote - Phase II is the next (southern) 50,000 acres in the landscape.

RE: ID Team Project Map Revisions

Michele Crist — 2010-02-17T11:55:23-08:00

Hi all!

I can't seem to open the proposal process summary - is this the right file?

RE: The Path Forward - Coalition Member Feedback

M Roach — 2010-02-17T07:53:12-08:00

I have been there as my schedule has allowed. Was sorry to miss the field trip but my counterpart felt it was good and the trip has been referenced several times since the trip in the meetings. There is a lot of value in these trips and I would encourage as many as possible, when it works out.

Improving the process.....

To participate, you, or another rep, need to be there at all meetings and be punctual. There have been several times where participants were quite late and had to deal with the problem.

At the first of every meeting, maybe need to refresh everyone on the rules of the process and how we will proceed.

I am not quite sure about Phase II, but want to understand.

Might be good to map out the whole process as we envision it.....how many phases, issues to get thru such as NEPA, funding needs...

Mike Roach

RE: ID Team Project Map Revisions

mhuffman — 2010-02-17T06:51:17-08:00

I think that the IDT did an outstanding job of summarizing the process that we gave them and how they went about adding the last several hundred acres of treatment stands for the proposed action. It is very logical and flows easily. It also gets the prescribed burning more into the treatments than previously shown. The summary table gives us the overall treatment percentages for the large area. I think we have come to a good mix of treatments to move toward the PFC of objectives of improving wildlife habitat for certain species featured in the draft wildlife strategy amendment to the Forest Plan.

RE: Trail User Groups - Recommendations

Jean Revaul — 2010-02-15T09:42:45-08:00

Some suggestions for the Area in Trails from the Back Country Horsemen came from Al Becker our Vice President.

1) A Vault Toilet at the Desert Cabin Trailhead.

2) A Trailhead Location Sign

3) A Trailhead KIOSK

4) Several Trail Junction Signs.

5) Continued Support for Volunteer Trail Maintanence

These suggestions also came out of the process:

1) Loop Trail and new loop trails.

2) Improving existing road access for horse trailer use to existing trailheads.

3) Trails and Horse Trailheads.

There is a horse campground construction project in process at the WYI but is is not complete. It is on private lands.

Horse trailhead area near the Evergreem Campground with limited access for users to that Campground's facilities.

Trail Connections to the Project Area from this Evergreen Campground Area.

New Trails in Project Area from the Evergreen Campground Area connected to Weiser River Trail System.

Jean Revaul

HBCH

RE: The Path Forward - Coalition Member Feedback

ron hamilton — 2010-02-13T10:55:02-08:00

What worked well? The field trips to establish some commoon understandingand actually identify the various forest stand types that were being conidered as well as the roads, topography and general work situation.

Using Dennis's Spatial Interest as the tool for communication

Actually having the ability to interact with the FS project personnel developing the project and getting their response or map reaction to proposals, plus having actual loggers and other proffessionals to have give and take with. Keep out of the academic realm and determine what aactually can get done.

Having actual pictorial examples and data to talk to and about so that real situations are being discussed not some hypothetical word example that each person sees differently.

How to improve the process? Coalition members need to be included in the entire process. Although small groups are often more effective seperation of groups to put proposal together often fracturres group dynamics, reducing ownership.

Participants can not be shy and must make concerns and questions known and they should be dealt with effectively so that the people remain with the group.

People that can only rarely be involved need to be excused from the group. Participation, by making concerns, questions about processes and other things known so they can be dealt with in some fashion by the group is very important. Coming rarely to meeting usaully simply derails the process.

While fire personnel were involved discussions about execution problems and other concerns were not very effectively dealt with yet that is a major element in both execution and protection.

Recommendations for PhaseII; Maybe I needs to understand what phase II is! It appears that the current project has to move along befoe the agency can react to something that might be helpful. Do member of the coalition actually see themselves involved with the IDT during the NEPA process?

Ron H.

RE: Draft Recommnedations - February 12

bswandby — 2010-02-12T08:40:05-08:00

I think this document now very well captures the discussion and changes from our January meeting.

Bob

The Path Forward - Coalition Member Feedback

Spatial Interest — 2010-02-09T15:04:05-08:00

Dave Torell, in his role as Convener of the Coalition, would like to hear from members regarding the collaborative process for Phase I. The purpose of this Forum Post is to reflect on the Coalition's experience to date, and improve the process for Phase II and other future projects. Dave and the Executive Team will review the suggestions and discuss at a future PFC meeting.

Consider the following questions, and respond by February 18th to any or all by using REPLY (below right):

What worked well?
How can we improve the process?
What recommendations do you have for Phase II?

Trail User Groups - Recommendations

Spatial Interest — 2010-02-09T13:51:37-08:00

Trails are a part of the Payette's history and future. The Payette Forest Coalition provides this space on the Forum for Trail User Groups to submit recommendations to the Payette National Forest.

There are two methods to Submit your recommendations for trail system improvements:

Brief recommendations: Use the REPLY cursor below, and type the recommendations as a comment to this Post. A guest login is simplest - requires only your name and email address.
Detailed recommendations: Submit a file that contains your recommendations within a document (Word, PDF, text file). Use this form.

RE: Vegetation and Transportation Priorities - January 21 Revisions

Ron Hamilton — 2010-02-08T12:35:39-08:00

The transportation section refers to green and blue stands in the clean copy. That should be changed or the reference provided in the Vegetation section, otherwise it appears OK.

Ron H.

RE: Vegetation and Transportation Priorities - January 21 Revisions

Gordon Cruickshank — 2010-02-06T19:56:02-08:00

I believe the changes made to the Transportation section capture the thoughts of the meeting of the PFC.

Gordon Cruickshank

RE: Vegetation and Transportation Sections - Dec 28th - RCT

Brian Hawthorne — 2010-01-08T12:16:09-08:00

Dear Executive Team and All on Payette Forest Coalition

I would like the following changes before agreeing:

Proposed Change #1

Remove two items in the Transportation Section:

4. No net gain of roads in the project area.

8. Identify system and non-system roads needed to maintain travel access for resource management, fire suppression, and visitor use. The recently approved Forest Travel Plan provides supporting information for this analysis. Impacts of the project on the travel system should be considered. Candidates for decommissioning will be limited to non-system, closed roads.

Rationale:

I am concerned that the two items above indicate that the Coalition supports a wide ranging review of the existing travel system. The Payette National Forest (PNF) recently finished a comprehensive travel management plan that took nearly four years to complete. The final decision for our planning area was signed just one year ago. The PNF has begun, but not completed, its initial implementation. There is no need to review the travel plan at this time. Moreover, regulations direct forest managers to conduct an annual review of the travel plan. If the Coalition wishes to propose changes, I recommend it do so after the agency has finished its review. Finally, making changes so soon after completing the last travel plan will likely be controversial and the additional analysis will take more time to complete.

I want to emphasize that over the 4-year travel planning process �resource management, fire suppression and visitor use� were throughly discussed with all affected stakeholders. Also, impacts to recreation, recommended Wilderness, Inventoried Roadless Areas, soil, water, fisheries, wildlife and wildlife habitat were extensively documented in the Environmental Impact Statement prepared for the travel plan.

I understand and acknowledge that travel management is an ongoing process. If the Coalition wants to review the travel plan, I suggest we begin with the agency�s annual travel system review. Changes to the classified travel system are properly addressed via that review process rather than a forest restoration/woody bio-mass project.

Proposed Change #2

I would like the following added to the Transportation Section:

Should stewardship activities significantly change the character of any classified trail tread (i.e. widening), the stewardship contract should require that section of trail be restored to its previous tread within the Forest Service management objectives for that trail.

Rationale:

In one of the theme maps used at the December meeting a �new road� was suggested along a section of trail. I understand those three themes or scenarios were hypothetical, but there is a possibility that may occur. I acknowledge that locating a �new road� along a trail may well be appropriate as many trails began as roads. My concern is that, after the activities are completed, the trail is restored.

RE: Vegetation and Transportation Sections - Dec 28th - RCT

Jeff Rohlman — 2010-01-08T10:27:49-08:00

I am comfortable with most of the draft. However, in the Transportation Section, Item #8, I would like to see the last sentence "Candidates for decommissioning will be limited to non-system, closed roads." removed, or modified. The planning area has a high road density and flexibility needs to remain to be able to meet watershed and elk security objectives of the Forest Plan. I suspect that open road density will need to be reduced to meet the objectives, but that cannot be determined until a more indepth analysis occurs, probably sometime during the NEPA phase of the project. If the sentence was kept as it is it would preclude accomplishing these objectives.

RE: Vegetation and Transportation Sections - Dec 28th - RCT

Mike Medberry — 2010-01-06T13:44:34-08:00

All of the proposed work seems good if it is acceptable by the rest of the group, has the support of the Forest Service, and includes a request to the USFS that the whole Council Mountain area be part of the analysis. One thing that may need clarification is the part of the proposal stating that all native fish habitat should be connected. That should be clarfied to note that when making the connections will invite non-native fish into the native fish habitat; that it should not be done, simply as a precaution. In addition, I think that we have to 1) address the motorized use of this area and 2) address which wildlife habitat is being maintained or protected. We have not been at all specific as to which wildlife will be affected in this proposal and I think that we should. I also think that a 20% to 80% motrized use is appropriate for this part of the Forest but the 20% non-motorized must be defined and maintained.

Thank you for doing the good work in this Collaboration effort!

Mike