Payette NF Community Forum

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

Vegetation and Transportation Priorities - January 21 Revisions

Spatial Interest — 2010-02-04T09:05:40-08:00

Vegetation and Transportation Priorities

At the January meeting, the group reviewed the stand alone document that contained the Vegetation and Transportation landscape objectives and priorities.

Revisions are available for review.

The Transportation Section includes the consensus revisions from the January meeting.
We agreed to keep the Vegetation priorities as reviewed in January, pending an addendum from the Council Ranger District ID Team. The Addendum will document the selection method applied by the ID Team to add candidate stands to the draft project map.

The documents below are provided to document the consensus items for Transportation. The full recommendations document will be posted by February 12:

Edit - Word document that tracks changes from previous draft.
Clean - PDF file without tracking of changes.

Bighorn Sheep Viability

Spatial Interest — 2010-01-28T10:06:49-08:00

The Forest Service released the updated Bighorn Sheep Viability Analysis and the Forest Plan Amendments. The documents are available on the Payette NF's Website.

Public Meetings Scheduled

Due to the complexity of the information presented in the Updated Information and the interest this issue generates the Payette National Forest is planning to hold four meetings for the public. The schedule is as follows:

Boise: February 11, 2010 at the Doubletree Riverside Inn, 2900 Chinden Blvd.
6:30-9:00 p.m. in the Northstar Meeting Room

McCall: February 16, 2010 at the Payette National Forest Headquarters, 800 Lakeside Avenue
6:00-8:30 p.m. in the Conference Room

Weiser: February 18, 2010 at the Vendome Event Center, 309 State Street
6:00-8:30 p.m. in Rooms 2 & 3

Lewiston: February 24, 2010 at the Idaho Fish & Game Office, 3316 16th Street
6:00-8:30 pm in the Clearwater Room

Examples of Decommissioned Roads

Spatial Interest — 2010-01-11T16:03:16-08:00

Decommissioned Roads

The December meeting generated discussion on decommissioning roads.
Melanie Vining (Hydrologist on the ID Team) thought some examples would benefit the group.
Melanie provided photos and descriptions that are now in a Photo Atlas.
The link (below) will take you to the Photo Atlas; a legend on the left side of the atlas displays list of the photo names, as hyperlinks.
Click on a photo name and the picture will appear, with a caption, centered on the map.

View the Photo Atlas>>

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

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

Mac Lefebvre — 2010-01-05T13:03:53-08:00

I think this document does a good job boiling down what we discussed. I did my best visualize how this set of guidelines will look when applied over the landscape, in general I feel we are close to something that is acceptable to the group and hopefully looks right when applied on the ground. I concur as written with the exception of two points that I would like to better understand before agreeing to.

1) I noticed north facing restoration stands received medium priority for treatment instead of high. Assuming these stands are outside HRV, I would like to see these stands managed with the assumption that these areas would retain more stems/acres post treatment than other aspects due to higher productivity.

2) Under 'Transportation' #5, there is reference to the cost of new road construction. I understand this to mean that if a new road doesn't pay it's way then we shouldn't build it. I am all for focusing on stands that are served by existing roads, and getting bang for our buck if we build road. However, would there be a situation where we would want to build road to restore stands that doesn't pay it's way? Just seems absolute and possibly confining to me.

At the risk of sounding pushy, it looks like we're behind the curve as group for hitting our Jan 8th goal :)

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

Bob Swandby — 2009-12-31T12:38:37-08:00

Concur as written.

RE: Meeting Notes - Dec. 16-17

Spatial Interest — 2009-12-22T06:33:15-08:00

If Michele's expanded priority list meets the FS needs, I'm all for it.

A few items should be conisdered, however, based on the line officer's comments in Council (Greg), and my experience in the 1990's preparing landscape plans on an industry ID team:

Greg's objective is to have a map version of a proposed action for a NEPA review. He told us this in Council, and the 3 scenarios were designed to help the Coaliton make progress towards that target.
The expanded priority list will produce a thematic map with ten or more priority categories.
Two general items are needed in order to move the list towards a proposed action: a measureable objective, and constraints.
An example of measureable objectives is a minimum number of acres per year to achieve economic viability - the second of the two top coalition goals. This objective was deferred for the 3 scenarios at the request of the Forest Service to leave the topic open for discussion. A related objective would be based on an acres target for stand conditions to reach HRV within the 10 year project period.
Constraints - resources to perform the work are limited, and there are constraints. The Forest Plan includes Elk Security Areas, and they were used in the scenarios as a realistic example of a constraint, limiting the amount of acres that could be treated. The ESAs were defined only by roads for the 17,000 acres but vegetation would have been incorporated in the 50,000 acre project area to address habitat quality.
The combination of acres in each scenario produces a different outcome for retained receipts. Using Mac's cost and stumpage value assumtions, even the low stumpage price and low logging cost assumptions resulted in major differences in retained receipts - $1.1mm for scenario 1, $2.1 mm for scenario 3. These receipts are prior to road construction costs and plantation thinning. The net after the costs provies the remainder for road restoration work.

So - if the expanded priority description meets the Council District's needs to propose an action, I'm happy and will move on to the next step.

I have doubts because we have overlooked the lessons of the 3 scenarios, and we will review a thematic map in January, without a proposed action.

RE: Meeting Notes - Dec. 16-17

Bob Swanby — 2009-12-21T21:47:00-08:00

Hi Michelle, Thanks for giving such a careful read to the workshop summary. I think your edits will add detail and clarity that the FS will appreciate. I approve and appreciate your extra effort Happy Holidays to you and everyone who are working so hard on this Collaboration! Bob

RE: Meeting Notes - Dec. 16-17

Michele Crist — 2009-12-21T14:31:07-08:00

I read through the objectives and priorities section and I have some edits for the
vegetation section and one edit for the transportation section. In a nutshell, I
think what the vegetation section is missing is exactly what the Forest Service is
looking for - a similar format as the transportation rule set. It is hard for the
Forest Service to select stands based on a very general rule set (exactly like what
we gave them initially). The vegetation rule set in this document is too watered
down (generalized) and broken up into separate sections so it doesn't read as a rule
set like the transportation section does. So I think if we expand our text and
include more detail - the rule set will be more along the lines of what the Forest
Service is looking for......

Here is the format that I would suggest based on everything we discussed in our
meeting and based on the commonalities (smiley faces) from each table last Thursday.

Description of forest stands targeted for restoration:

Plantation Stands: Plantations replanted in a grid pattern with ponderosa pine
seedlings after timber harvest, now in four age categories: older than 30 years; 10
to 30 years old; less than 10 years old and thinned within the last 10 years.
Plantations not thinned are dense, 150 trees per acre, and smaller diameter, up to
about 12 inches DBH. (leave out "biomass wordage....")

Restoration Stands: Restoration stands are dry forest types, with low to mixed
severity fire regimes, with a significant component of larger diameter seral species
of ponderosa pine, Douglas fir and western larch.

Reserve Stands: Some reserve stands have lost most seral species and larger
diameter trees from past timber harvest or disease, and some may have a larger
legacy of ponderosa pine/Douglas fir and larch and tend to be more dry. While other
reserve stands may be composed of large diameter over-story trees of grand
fir/mixed-conifer with a dense understory and are considered a "moist forest types"
- typical of natural forest succession.

Selection Criteria:

Wherever we can, in an economically viable way, restore these stands to mimic
natural stand structure and function:

All Vegetation Stands

1)    Any stand that has been thinned in the recent past should receive lower
priority for    mechanical treatment and prescribed fire and prescribed fire should
be considered for maintenance treatment.
2)    Any stand that has burned in the recent past either by prescribed or
wildfire should    receive lower priority for mechanical treatment and prescribed
fire and prescribed fire should be considered for maintenance treatment.

Plantation Stands (high priority)

1)    Higher priority for older (e.g. 30- 40 years plus) and larger patches of
Plantation stands.
2)    Higher priority for Plantation stands located next to Restoration stands to
create large    contiguous restored patches.
3)    Medium priority on Plantation stands located next to Reserve stands (create
edge and    juxtaposition habitat in the short and long term).
4)    Use existing road systems, which were put in to log Plantation stands, and
make improvements to the road system as required.

Restoration Stands (high priority)

1)    Highest priority on larger-sized stands that already have a well-developed
road system and that have a substantial history of past logging - "managed stands."
2)    Configuration and Size - Prioritize stands adjacent to either Plantation or
other Restoration stands, which are chosen based on the first criteria. This
process will create larger contiguous patches of restored forest habitat for
wildlife species.
3)    Medium priority for stands facing North. These stands will be naturally more
dense then south facing stands, because north    facing stands hold more
snow and moisture allowing for more undergrowth vegetation.
4)    Lower priority for stands without road access and that have likely not been
logged in the past. These will be lower priority than stands described above
because these stands will    likely be on steeper slopes and will likely still
retain their natural stand structure. If    restoration is warranted - because of
past suppression of fire - explore options for using    thinning of understory if
needed and/or prescribed fire as the tool for restoration.
5)    Lowest priority to Restoration stands that have not been had logged or
roaded in the past and are north facing slopes should be the lowest priority
for restoration in the    Restoration stand category.

Reserve Stands (lower priority compared to restoration and plantation stands)

1)    Higher priority for drier forest types in this stand class PVG1 through PVG5
and that have    a substantial logging history - "managed" and that are adjacent
to a Restoration or Plantation stand.
2)    Higher priority for dry PVG6 forest types that have been "managed" in the
past and are adjacent to a Restoration or Plantation stand.
3)    Medium priority for more moist PVG6 with a stand structure that does not
contain a    majority of large diameter trees in the overstory.
4)    Lower priority for PVG6 stands that are dense and have been "managed" in the
past but are dominated by large diameter trees in the overstory (e.g. Tour
stop #3). These stand    conditions are important for species (e.g. pileated
woodpecker) dependent upon dense    conditions with many large overstory trees.
5)    Lowest priority for the larger-sized moist forest PVG6 stands that have not
been "managed"    in the past.

Transportation section

In rule number 8 - specify that we are decommissioning non-system closed roads only
identified in the transportation management plan!!!!! That was the reason for
creating number 7 in the first place - but in reading the rules, especially number 7
and number 8 that concept has been lost in the text!!! And this clarification is
what was creating so much confusion when talking about decommissioning....and why
some were getting upset!!!

RE: Meeting Notes - Dec. 16-17

Jeff Rohlman — 2009-12-21T14:15:28-08:00

With the explanation in the last Spatial Interest entry, this draft look good to me. Thanks.

RE: Meeting Notes - Dec. 16-17

Jean Revaul — 2009-12-21T09:46:52-08:00

During the meeting I made a suggestion that Jon with the Forest Service suggest some areas within the project area that would be ideal habitat for the wood peckers and the lynx. It does seem that we are looking at managing the whole project area for only the woodpeckers and really ignoring the other species in the forest such as the elk, deer and other species.

We need to have a whole forest outlook rather than just a species specific outlook. Jon should point out areas that are already ideal for the woodpeckers and the lynx species.

These ideal small areas could be then be set aside and protected. Species could then be introduced to those areas, such as the lynx. It would then make it easier to study and protect those species and their specific needs. It doesn't mean that these species would not be in other areas of the work project, but that it would enable managers to focus their work. Light beam not shot-gun effect.

RE: Meeting Notes - Dec. 16-17

Spatial Interest — 2009-12-20T11:52:33-08:00

Plantations - the comment I remember on the younger plantations was Michele's question about thinning to create clumps/clusters, and the answer was yes, that prescription objective would be used for all plantations. I don' recall other issues, but let me know.

Blocks of red stands - I agree with Wendy's recollection. We agreed that the stands meeting those characteristics will be lowest priority, not excluded as candidates for treatment. I overstated the consensus.

Roads - We have an additonal smiley face - No net gain of roads in the landscape. I'll make that change.

RE: Meeting Notes - Dec. 16-17

Wendy — 2009-12-20T07:19:32-08:00

Two items for clarification:

Did we agree that we will only "lop stems" in all the 10-30-year-old plantations and leave all the woody debris on site?

Did we agree that "Large blocks of red stands that lack a mix of blue and green stands will not be treated," or that these should be the LOWEST PRIORITY for treatment?

As to John's point about "no net gain of roads" in the project area, I don't recall reaching agreement on that at either meeting, but it seems logical to include it, given our objectives and current conditions. I would support adding that language, so long as it says just what John suggests, "no net gain of roads," rather than no net gain of open roads or access.

RE: Meeting Notes - Dec. 16-17

Bob Swanby — 2009-12-18T12:29:21-08:00

I agree with the approach you�ve included for managed and unmanaged stands for the ID team to proceed.

RE: Meeting Notes - Dec. 16-17

John.McCarthy — 2009-12-18T11:33:19-08:00

I thought we agreed to a #4 in the Transportation Network to read:

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

Numbering for the other issues should be adjusted accordingly.

If there was disagreement I did not hear it, in McCall or in Council where I first suggested it. If there are additional issues or a prefered description I am open to it. If it didn't get a smiley face and stamp of agreement I missed it and would have continued to recommend it be approved. I am asking for it to be included now.

Although this provision does reflect the confines of the Forest Plan on road density, I think it is important for PFC to acknowledge it and support it - for both internal discussions and public recognition.

In considering the "No net loss in OPEN roads" proposal I think there is likely a way to do it and we probably should do it, for public support and to meet the directives of the Travel Plan, including all the recent effort put into it. I think it could be done to meet the interests of Mike P, Brian H and Jeff R. I am open to a off line discussion or here on the comment section...jm

USFS Initiates Process for New Planning Rule

Spatial Interest — 2009-12-18T08:50:31-08:00

Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack announced that the USDA Forest Service is beginning an open, collaborative process to create and implement a modern planning rule to address current and future needs of the National Forest System, including restoring forests, protecting watersheds, addressing climate change, sustaining local economies, improving collaboration, and working across landscapes. Read more>>