Payette Forest Coalition

Meeting Notes

April 21, 2016

Desired Outcomes

(1)  Review and discuss potential restoration opportunities on Huckleberry with Forest Service ID Team, gain consensus to move forward with project design. 

(2)  Review the FY2015 CFLRP Annual Report

(3)  Understand changes to Forest Plan Monitoring

(4)  Begin discussions about PFC’s Action Plan and other potential future activities.

Preliminaries

Brief introductions around the room.  Many new people in attendance.  Definitions of acronyms are available as handouts as well on the website.  Review desired outcomes/agenda and basic ground rules for the day. 

Review Forest Service Proposal Development Process (Steve Kimball and Mac LeFebvre) with regards to Huckleberry Project. 

·       Steve Kimball outlined NEPA, Proposal Development & Environmental Analysis, and Implementation.  Interaction between PFC committees and the ID (Interdisciplinary) Team is very important in this process. 

·       Steve is the liaison between the Forest Supervisor and Kim Pierson and PFC.  Goal today is setting boundaries for Huckleberry and setting the stage for PFC committees’ and the ID team’s work. Mac LeFebvre suggested we take this as an opportunity to form other committees in order to be more efficient.  They would then report back to the PFC with their results and suggestions. 

Review and discuss potential restoration opportunities on Huckleberry (ID Team)

·       Phil Burgess gave a brief summary of how the initial analysis area was set up and early discussions between PFC and Forest Service about the area.   

·       Forest Vegetation, Fire and Fuels Management, Paul Klasner.  Potential vegetation groups (PVG’s) 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, and 11 exist on the landscape.  PVGs 2, 5, 6 are predominant.  Alma Hanson spoke briefly about PFC’s need to preserve the genetic diversity of Whitebark Pine which exists in PVG 11.  To reach desired conditions there is a need to: 1) promote larger trees, 2) reduce high-density stands, and 3) late seral stands of grand and subalpine fir. 

o   Paul gave general information about desired canopy cover, an overview of fire regimes in the proposed area, spatial pattern/arrangement in consideration of tree density, and reviewed potential treatment opportunities. 

o   Sue Stewart, Keith Lannom’s temporary replacement, spoke about changing wildfire patterns (large, scouring fires) and longer seasons, the special challenges posed by the WUI (Wildland Urban Interface), and suggested that we can perhaps create better outcomes for landscapes and communities within by asking what kind of fire are we likely to have and then use treatments to stop scouring fires (i.e., reverse engineering).   

·       Wildlife, Russ Richards, Wildlife Biologist, New Meadows.  Russ reviewed PFC’s Wildlife Goal and addressed major species of interest. 

o   Northern Idaho Ground Squirrel: Colonies have been found mostly in Adams County.  Potential restoration activities include fire (they like disruption).  Plauge is a possible cause of population decline in that area. 

o   Lynx: There is habitat and two Lynx analysis units within the area.  Project will likely not disturb more than 30% of habitat.  PFC members mentioned new science showing the 30% rule can be deviated from and its wish to use it.  Difficulty is that Forest Plan must be amended to do so.  Kim Pierson will follow up with Keith Lannom about the feasibility of seeking an amendment.   

o   Wolverine: Not listed yet but we need to acknowledge them.  They have huge home ranges and are scavengers.  Because they den in the snow, constant/regular snow-cover into May is critical.  Northern portions of the analysis area favors their presence.   

o   Birds: White-headed woodpeckers are an indicator species.  The Forest Plan states we must improve their conditions.  Potential restoration actions include creating/restoring open canopy conditions with larger trees.  Northern Goshawk are present.  Creating denser foraging habitat in PVG 6 is one potential restoration action.   

o   Elk: Habitat primarily found in northern portions of analysis area.  This is a heavily roaded area.  Potential actions include closing motorized access in lower areas of landscape during rifle season to prevent overharvesting bull Elk within security areas.

·       Watershed Health, Leigh Bailey, Hydrologist, New Meadows.  There are two sub-basins within the analysis area (Weiser and Snake) to which creeks drain.  Data on watershed condition was collected last year on the Indian, Bear, Lick, and North Fork Hornet Creek watersheds draining into these sub-basins.  There are 175 miles of non-system roads and roughly 1/3 are designated as high priority for restoration activities.  GRAIP (Geomorphic Roads Analysis and Inventory Package) was used to analyze system roads and erosion issues were found.  North Fork and Bear Creeks are considered impaired; Lick and Indian Creeks are functioning at risk.  Potential restoration activities include reducing road networks in highly roaded areas, some road decommissioning and road-to-trail conversions.  

o   Discussion about where the most efficient use of time and efforts in this project would be.  Are there other ways to address issues in particular areas such as North Fork Hornet Creek where grazing issues complicate cumulative effects on the watershed and restoration actions complicate permittees’ grazing activities?  Kim Pierson will post the map package on PFC’s website for people to see. 

·       Soils-based restoration opportunities, Sam Prentice, CFLRP Soil Scientist.  Huckleberry is a semi-arid, water-limited landscape that gets drier moving from north to south and east to west.  We can look at the soil-terrain suitability to understand our ecotype potential (meadows to forests to grasslands) and use that to guide restoration.  For example, North Fork Hornet Creek is driest and best supports open-canopy grasslands.  In northern parts of analysis area, there are young, rich, resistant soils that best support forest vegetation. 

·       Aquatic Species, Jason Greenway, Fish Biologist, New Meadows.  Aquatic restoration areas are mostly in the northern part of the analysis area (Bear and Indian Creeks) and contain Bull Trout.  Brook and Rainbow Trout are also found in the analysis area.  Potential restoration activities include stream crossing and aquatic passages. 

·       Recreation, Jane Cropp, Recreation Specialist.  Relatively low recreational use of the analysis area which contains lots of dispersed camping.  Do we need to make changes to these existing campsites in order to preserve them? 

o   Potential actions include hardening, closing, and adding fire rings at these sites.  There is one permanent campground (Huckleberry) and one major potential action there would be fixing the well. 

o   At trailheads, actions could be fire rings, vault toilets, added parking, informational kiosks, and trailhead markers.

o   Winter recreation: Opportunities include attracting snowmobiling and skiing outfitters and guides. 

Video presentation of Weiser-Little Salmon Headwaters CLFRP Landscape over lunch courtesy of Dennis Murphy.  This is a summary description of the work done on the ground.  Forest Service would like to use the video to promote CFLRP and would like people’s feedback.  Action Item: Facilitator will post a message asking for comments under Coalition News and Events on PFC’s website where people can comment.   

Discussion about and consensus on Huckleberry Project area

·       Kim Pierson presented the potential project area and corresponding restoration actions being done in two ways: carrying out actions through CEs (Categorical Exclusions) on lower Indian Creek and North Hornet and after going through the NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act) process on Bear, upper Indian, and Lick Creek (55,135 acres).  Rationale was that controlled burns and non-commercial thinning would encompass the majority of restoration actions on those portions of the landscape and the rest could be addressed through administrative interactions between Forest Service and grazing permittees (on the North Hornet area where there are some livestock and grazing concerns).  Kim viewed this as the most efficient use of time and resources and expressed her wish to reach consensus today in order to move forward with scoping this field season. 

·       Discussion:

o   Mike Paradis expressed two concerns: 1) by treating the lower portion of Indian Creek through CE, commercial thinning (CT) opportunities—which could contribute to PFC goals—would be missed, and 2) non-commercial thinning (NCT) and prescribed fire would not reduce fuel loads enough to prevent a catastrophic wildfire from sweeping up the draw to Cuprum. 

o   Greg Lesch noted there are fewer roads in that area to accommodate commercial thinning and that, perhaps, the wildfire issue could be addressed via prescribed burning.  He and Kim agreed that CT could be looked at more carefully, however. 

o   Ron Hamilton agreed that treatment needs to be done to protect the area in the future and there will need to be more roads put in. 

o   Kim Pierson reminded the group that temporary roads are fundable with the grant monies, but not permanent roads.  Reiterated that there is limited time and personnel to do both the EIS and CE research.  The priority would be the EIS and hopefully within the next 6 months do the CE.  

·       Informal voting among voting PFC members showed that 12 of 14 supported an EIS on the area encompassing Bear, Lick and all of Indian Creek and a CE for North Hornet Creek.  Lin Davis agreed with this because he felt it supported most of the PFC’s goals in order for us to move forward.  Mike Paradis reiterated the need for burning, commercial and non-commercial thinning to prevent catastrophic wildfire in lower Indian Creek.  Kim agreed that this seemed the best path forward in light of the need to begin scoping and generating a proposed action for comment this summer.

·       Formal vote taken among PFC voting members: 12 supported and 2 abstained (Wendy Green, Jim Wassmuth).  Abstaining members noted they were not opposed: Jim didn’t feel he had enough information to decide/wanted more time to think it through, and Wendy wished she could have taken information to her constituents first. 

·       Ending conclusion is a CE for the North Hornet Creek landscape and going through NEPA for the rest of the area.  Total size of the project area (not including Hornet) is 63,250 acres. 

·       Handouts/presentations from ID team’s presentation will be forwarded to Dennis Murphy to post on the PFC website.

CFLRP FY2015 Annual Report, Amie Anderton.

·       CFLRP area encompasses 970,000 acres across 3 Ranger Districts (McCall, New Meadows and Council).

·       Purpose of the group was to restore the ponderosa pine dominated forests to historic stand structure and function; improve wildlife and fish habitats, improve floodplain function; reduce road related sediment; maintain and promote large tree forest structure; reduce risk of wildfire to local communities; encourage woody biomass; provide local economic benefits.  

·       This is an 8 year project, so we are ½ way through. 

·       Funding and partnership agreements are sometimes difficult for us to obtain based on our location, but we still working to obtain additional monies. 

·       The project will end FY2019. 

·       Paul Klasner spoke regarding commercial thinning, non-commercial thinning and prescribed burns completed in the CFLRP area, the footprint of which is 38,500 acres. 

Forest Plan Monitoring update

Patty Anderson Soucek spoke about changes to the Forest Plan monitoring program in light of new requirements set out in the 2012 planning rule.  Changes will begin by May 9, 2016.  The proposed changes are posted on the PFC website and need comments by May 5^th. 

PFC Action Plan

In regards to the Plan PFC put in place December 2015, are actions intended to address identified issues being carried out?  Primary issues are:

o   Balanced representation of interests on the Coalition

o   Improve communicating the PFC Success Story

o   Inefficiency of the Project Design Phase

Paul Litow asked if: 1) those who took on tasks would be willing to give a progress report next month and 2) for yet-unaddressed tasks discuss next steps?  Group agreement to review the plan.  Action item:  Those who agreed to take on tasks will send their contact information to Paul Litow (Facilitator) at plitow@gmail.com and he will contact them to discuss specifics. 

LCBC Update, Kim Pierson. 

No word yet from Forest Service’s attorney with regard to the outcome of the case.  It’s understood that a decision could be months away.  Forest Service will consult with their attorney about moving forward with implementation.  Mac LeFebrve expressed Idaho Forest Group’s desire to begin road work in May on the Fourth Rock Timber sale. 

Kim Pierson invited everyone to a LCBC (Lost Valley Reservoir) June 2^nd field trip.  She is the primary contact person for this.  Stay tuned for more information. 

Updates and Potential Future PFC Activities, John Robison

Land Use Allocation Committee.

·       There has been a lot of listening and collection of information and suggestions at past meetings.  He will draft a committee charter and post it on the PFC website for comments.  Please respond by May 13^th with comments.

·       John will schedule more in-depth presentations with specific groups explaining why they are attending meetings and how that ties into PFC’s plans.  Information from the meetings will be posted online afterwards. 

·       He needs more PFC members to attend the Land Allocation Committee meetings regularly, even if they attend just one meeting to see what it’s like.  He is in need of a co-chair, note-taker, would like some GIS support from Forest Service, and wants to ensure committee meeting information is posted on the PFC website. 

·       Meetings will be the evening prior to the PFC meeting.  The May meeting will be at The Bistro. 

eDNA Monitoring, John Robison and Clayton Nalder

The Rocky Mountain Research Association is trying to see if Bull Trout are expanding or not using environmental DNA (eDNA) monitoring which can detect their presence in streams.  This could be of use to PFC as a monitoring tool on its projects and is simple to use.  Potential presentation topic for future meeting?   

Brown-bag lunch with presentations, general discussion

·       Concerns about how effective a brown bag lunch would be because people often use lunches to eat, make phone calls, etc.  General consensus that presentations during lunch would disappoint presenters and they wouldn’t have an audience.  

·       In lieu of lunchtime presentations, possibilities include a special meeting focused on wildlife presentations or mixing wildlife-related (and other) presentations in with regular meetings as time allows.  

·       Latter suggestion seemed to gain most traction in light of fact that PFC must stay on track with regular work and pending with proposed actions. 

·       ACTION ITEM:  Facilitator will post a notice on PFC’s website under Coalition News and Events to collect suggestions and speakers for presentations on topics of interest to PFC members. 

Summer Field trips

Brief discussion about summer field trips and whether to hold meetings during months that PFC does field trips.  In light of time constraints, this discussion will be continued at next meeting (Action item). 

The next PFC meeting is May 19^th.  Adjourned:  3:00 pm

Action items:

o   The Facilitator will post a message asking for comments on the Weiser-Little Salmon Headwaters video under Coalition News and Events on PFC’s website.

o   Members who agreed to take on tasks under PFC’s Action Plan will send their contact information to Paul at plitow@gmail.com and he will contact them in regards to presenting progress reports at the May meeting. 

o   The Facilitator will post a notice on PFC’s website under Coalition News and Events to collect suggestions and speakers for presentations on topics of interest to PFC members.

o   Discuss summer field trips and whether to hold regular meetings during months PFC does field trips at May meeting.