Payette NF Community Forum

Lost Creek/Boulder Creek Project Goals - 2.1

Spatial Interest — 2012-02-04T08:19:32-08:00

Project Goals
Draft Version 2.1 - for Review at February PFC Meeting

RE: Lost Creek/Boulder Creek Project Goals - 2.0

Bob Swandby — 2012-02-03T10:53:51-08:00

I am satisfied with the changes that have been made based on the comments
at our last meeting.

Bob

RE: CFLRP Announcement

Becky Johnstone — 2012-02-02T16:35:52-08:00

The link to the Weiser -Little Salmon project appears to be broken.

CFLRP Announcement

Spatial Interest — 2012-02-02T15:18:58-08:00

U.S. Forest Service Highlights Expansion of Restoration of National Forests and Funding For Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Projects
The highlight of the announcement includes approval of the Payette National Forest Project for the Weiser-Little Salmon Headwaters Project, $2,450,0000 for FY 2012.

Congratulations to the Payette NF & to PFC members. The awarded projects nationally only go to forests with strong collaboratives and sound project proposals.

Read more>>

RE: Draft Meeting Notes Jan. 26. 2012

Bob — 2012-02-02T08:33:43-08:00

Dennis & Mike, as always you did a great job capturing the points made.
I think we are truly showing the benefits of a Learning Organization by
approaching the New Meadows project from the landscape first and then working down. From my perspective, that shows we learned from the Mill Creek project that we don't have to get bogged down in the minutia of PVCs and stand treatment at the beginning, but that they can and should flow from the larger picture. Rick, thank you for suggesting that approach. Also, I like the concept of developing subcommittees, when appropriate, to address specific issues and develop recommendations that can be brought back to the whole PFC. That can help to more efficiently use our time.

Bob

Watershed Condition Framework

Spatial Interest — 2012-01-31T19:51:20-08:00

Watershed condition classification was completed on National Forest System lands last spring. During the summer and fall of 2011, priority watersheds were identified and work began on Watershed Restoration Action Plans.

The latest results of this Watershed Condition Framework planning work are available via a NEW publicly available map viewer website where users can:

� See each watershed's overall watershed condition rating and the individual ratings of the watershed condition indicators

� Locate priority watersheds

� Read about why the watershed was selected as a priority

� Download Watershed Restoration Action Plans

� Learn about other important planning items, including estimated costs and restoration partners

The watershed condition classification, priority watershed designation and Watershed Restoration Action Plans are the first three steps in the agency�s Watershed Condition Framework. The interactive mapping capability will better provide current and future partners important information on potential needs for watershed restoration and maintenance and will also increase the public�s awareness of their local watershed conditions and the role they can play in improving them. We are continuing work to make the last 3 steps available as well to complete the Framework cycle.

You can view the new interactive map using the link below:

The USDA Forest Service Watershed Condition and Prioritization Interactive map

And for more information on the Watershed Condition Framework visit: http://www.fs.fed.us/publications/watershed/

Anne Zimmermann

Director

Watershed, Fisheries, Wildlife, Air, Rare Plants

US Forest Service

RE: Draft Meeting Notes Jan. 26. 2012

Mike Medberry — 2012-01-30T10:55:14-08:00

Thank you for all of the notes on the PNF meeting. They were very thorough. Please keep me involved in the definition of the consensus process as it evolves. I think that the process should involve the broad public if the process will change what we can accoplish as a group. Perhaps the committees should adopt a 2/3 majority as the deciding factor for moving on. How to deal with interests that are outside the PFC's key goals should also be a factor in defining "consensus." That may allow the group to move forward more quickly but it may also unwisely eliminate significant concerns from the minority of people involved in the process for reasons other than financial income. All of the interests involved in USFS decisions deserve to be heard. What adaptations does the steering committee anticipate? Please keep me involved in defining the consensus process within the PFC. Thanks.

RE: Draft Meeting Notes Jan. 26. 2012

Wendy — 2012-01-30T07:31:37-08:00

Thanks, Dennis.

Bullet point 3 under Learning Organization should read "...PFC member think about their..." There's just a typo in there.

Your Scribe's Footnote re: the FS manual and consensus is helpful and something we need to keep in mind as we reconsider our decision making process.

Are the Facilitator's Notes going to be available on the forum as part of the history of the PFC? If so, we need to be careful that they are clear to readers who were not at the meeting. For example, the "Add to Recommendation #4" items represent input from one or two people; they were not discussed for adoption as the PFC's position.

Also, under "Specify species involved" in BC/LC, we might want to specifiy that we were referring to listed and indicator species or species of concern, not every species in the area. And we want to remember that we're talking about plant species as well as animals.

Wendy

Definition of Consensus

dalefisk — 2012-01-29T21:06:29-08:00

It seems to me that the "consensus" used at the Jan. 26 PFC meeting was not really consensus. A vote--call it a poll if you like--was taken on the roads recommendations, and all agreed except for one person (albiet representing a group). If a tiny minority can stop a consensus, that's not a consensus, that's a requirement for a unanimous vote.

RE: Lost Creek/Boulder Creek Project Goals - 2.0

Ron Hamilton — 2012-01-28T12:25:28-08:00

My comments are by columnar heading then by bullet.

Why restore a landscape- 1st bullet- Suggest adding the words "based on the concept of historic range variability(HRV)." It provides a basis for the statement relating to research.

Same column 2nd bullet- add to the sub-items timber managment production goals. This identifies the fact that timber production goals are not a factor and will be changed when the Wildlife Conservation Strategy is an official decision by the Forest Service. The LMP emphasis is shifted as well as the land plan management prescription.

Role of the PFC column- Implementation bullet. 1st sub-item change it to read "Review contract type and specifications" This change ties to the economics of communities. The Secure Roads and Schools program that replaced the 25% fund for most counties with National Forests will go away at the end of 2012. The 25% fund will be the source of funding for county roads and schools. Only Timber Sales Contracts provide that funding from gross reciepts, Stewardship Contracts do not. The shift to all Stewardship Contracting could cause significant impacts to county taxpayers if those reciepts go away and the PILT funds are not authorized as has been the trend.

KEY MEASURES PAGE- Forest Access column- 1st bullet- change to "Net change in open roads relating to the Transportation Analysis Process(TAP). Rationale- The Travel Management Rule requires the Forest Service to complete this process as a part of carrying out the Travel Manangement Planning process, Step A of 3 steps the Forest Service chose to do steps B and C before A, they will now go back through the process in alphabetic order. The PFC should help expedite the process since it is supposed to evaluate transportation needs for all management elements and resources.

Same column- 2nd bullet- I am not sure this statement fits with roads committee recommendations, especially relating to the effectiveness and cost efficiency. Of course maybe the roads issue may never have a solution with this group.

Same Column- 3rd bullet- This item needs to relate to transportation analysis needs or desires because systems costs are a factor that could be off-set by private or corporate fundings or donations to reach their desires without costs to the Forest Service.

Project Goals column- Restoration Economics - Note bullet- wood products needs to be changed to commercial wood products that way it indicates something of value in a market rather some type of economically inferred value such as viewing scenery.

Sorry this is long but sometimes the thought process is better at arms length.

Ron Hamilton

RE: Roads Subcommittee

Spatial Interest — 2012-01-23T07:16:04-08:00

Adams County Record - Article

The editor of the Adams County Record asked Wendy to write an article about the PFC Roads Subcommittee.

Wendy's request : It has to get to the editor not later than Tuesday morning; actually, this afternoon (1/23) would be better, so if anyone has comments, they should get back to me right away.

RE: New Meadows Project: Draft of Goals

Spatial Interest — 2012-01-22T20:00:21-08:00

Thanks for taking the time to comment on the draft, Mike.
Below is background information to consider on the issues you raised.
Healthy Landscapes

Substituting the word "may" makes sense to me, especially at a watershed scale.
Nationally, the Forest Service classified all watersheds into 3 categories: functioning normally, at risk, impaired function.
Many of the Payette NF watersheds fall into the categories "at risk" and "impaired function", but some watersheds are functioning normally.

Management History

Two sources support the statements on past management:

The final report of the Ponderosa Task Force, published in 2004.
A Wilderness Society paper on Restoration of Low-Elevation Dry Forests of the Northern Rocky Mountains. Michele Crist was a coauthor of the paper. The description of past management impacts includes several citations supporting the bullet point concerning management history.
The PFC Forum includes these publications and other research work relevant to forest restoration and collaboration. See the PFC Bibliography.

Monitoring

Agreed that multi-party monitoring should include baseline conditions and post treatment data collection. That is a recommendation that should be addressed in the design of multi-party monitoring.
If your reference to Column 6 is the Column entitled "Watershed Health", I'll describe the intent of this more at the next meeting. The bullet points in this Column are ideas for further discussion -specifically, metrics to be included in the NEPA analysis. What is the predicted change in the watershed condition to the "package" of treatments with respect to the condition class. This analysis is part of the Forest Service Watershed Condition Framework technical manual.

RE: New Meadows Project: Draft of Goals

mikecmedberry@msn.com — 2012-01-22T15:16:09-08:00

Sorry that comment got cut off. It should have begun by saying the following:

In column one I am requesting the following change: "The current conditions may depart from the structure and function of a healthy landscape." (Reason: I assert that there is no definition of a legitimate healthy landscape because that condition is constantly chaging. The statement is inappropriately definite. The healthy landscape was different 300 years ago than it will be 100 years from now with many plant and animal species in different relationships to one another. The simple insertion of "may" responds to that concern.)

The second sentence in column 1 should state:

(then go to the prior statement at 2012/01/22 3:33pm)

Thank you!

RE: New Meadows Project: Draft of Goals

mikecmedberry@msn.com — 2012-01-22T14:33:15-08:00

"The conditions are a result of past management: Harvest methods; Fire suppression; Road network design; Changing climatic conditions; and other factors. " (Reason: changing climatic conditions are one of the major causes for current conditions being uncertain and we haven't confirmed that the existing management is a major factor in the existing conditions. To say so is to misrepresent the facts unless we can tie all of the factors to cause and effect results. We haven't. It is only our hypothesis. It seems more prudent to show some humility in defining what the breadth of nature is responding to.

In column six change the statement to: "Monitor and document the condition class for each watershed prior to and post treatments." (Reason: It is unreasonable not to monitor and document what we are doing if we're going to make assertions about what the results of the actions are.) All of the other language seems acceptable.

Thank you for listening.

Mike Medberry

RE: New Meadows Project: Draft of Goals

Spatial Interest — 2012-01-20T05:48:38-08:00

The draft was modified following review by the Steering Team:

A statement of the PFC mission is included in the column entitled "Where are we going?
A change to the statement regarding forest resiliency (first column page 1)

RE: New Meadows Project - Recruiting New Members

Jeff Rohlman — 2012-01-13T11:24:29-08:00

The contact for Idaho Department of Lands will be Mike Payne, his e-mail is mpayne@idl.idaho.gov

RE: New Meadows Project - Recruiting New Members

Spatial Interest — 2012-01-09T21:36:40-08:00

Rick Tholen has invited Mike Peterson, the owner of C&M Lumber, to attend the meeting.
Mike Paradis will invite a rep. from the irrigation district.

RE: New Meadows Project - Recruiting New Members

Jean Revaul — 2012-01-09T08:40:05-08:00

I invited the gentleman that owns the Cafe on the way to Lost Reservoir. He commented that he wanted the meeting at his cafe, otherwise he was too busy.

RE: New Meadows Project - Recruiting New Members

Spatial Interest — 2012-01-08T09:00:06-08:00

NOAA and USFWS

Mike Beckwith NOAA and USFWS staff that will be the contacts for the New Meadows project (Johnna Sandow and Pam Druliner).

I've added Johnna and Pam to the PFC mailing list, and they are reading the broadcast emails.

RE: Roads Subcommittee

Melanie Vining — 2012-01-04T08:21:30-08:00

Just a couple of calrifications on the notes:

- Of the 45 miles of unauthorized roads that will not be addressed through treatment in the Mill Creek-Council Mountain project, there are multiple reasons for not including these. Several were left on the landscape because they were overgrown and within blocks of dense cover identified as elk security/cover; this was a case where interdisciplinary coordination resulted in prioritizing wildlife objectives in a specific area. Many roads were not surveyed on the ground due to personnel and time constraints and it was decided to address them at a later date. Priorities for roads surveyed and treated in this project were determined based on the location of a road relative to a stream (parallel or crossing), proximity to bull trout habitat, steep slope, sensitive landtype, or wildlife security stand/block. Roads with known erosion or frequent unauthorized use were also prioritized. I just want to make it clear that just because a road is part of the 45 miles not treated in this project is does not necessarily mean it is totally benign. These roads will also continue to be counted as part of overall road density.

- The Dewey Creek road in its current location parallels the cattle exclosure fence for approximately 1.8 miles. The 3.2 is the total that would be obliterated on Joker and Dewey Creeks should both reroutes be built.

- Under the section describing where possible "less than full obliteration" could occur, it should be noted that this could include a partial recontour in places where this would result in the best restoration of drainage, etc. This could include places where the fill slope is especially steep and unstable or where the road crosses a seep or spring. Partial recontouring provides better drainage than a waterbar or dip.

- Scaling back of full obliteration on certain roads would be a cost saving but it is hard to quantify this. The 10,000 per mile that is being used for an estimate for full obliteration is the top end.

- There is a reference to Elk Creek? I think this must be referring to the upper East Fork and Dewey Creek.

Thanks for all the work on the notes, John, and to everyone who participated.

Happy New Year to all!