Payette Coalition Community Forum hourly 1 1970-01-01T00:00+00:00 Huckleberry DEIS Comments/Questions <p class="plain">The May PFC meeting notes summarized the small work group discussions regarding the Huckleberry DEIS.  </p><div class="plain"><br></div><div class="plain">The purpose of this Forum Post is to continue the discussion prior to the June PFC meeting.</div><div class="plain"><br></div><div class="plain">As an example, <a link="" rel="" target="_blank" href="" class="plain">this document is a review of the alternatives with respect to the PFC Restoration Economics goal.</a></div><div class="plain"><br><br></div><p class="plain"></p> Spatial Interest 2019-06-06T07:38:19-07:00 Huckleberry DEIS Comments/Questions RE: Draft May Meeting Notes <p class="plain"></p><div class="plain">Received suggested edits from Forest Service under "<b>Clarification of harvest volumes" on page 5.  They are:</b>  </div><div class="plain"> <ul><li class="plain">Timber volumes expressed in ccf (hundred cubic feet) or board feet.  To convert from ccf to board feet, divide the ccf number by 2 and multiply by 1000.</li></ul> <ul><li class="plain"> Allowable sale quantity on the Payette, per the 2003 Forest Plan, is 65,000 ccf/year.  <strike> to be consistent with the Forest Plan and be sustainable</strike>.  This is more than can be done because of current staffing and funding <strike>limitations</strike><strike> </strike>levels.  </li></ul> <ul><li class="plain"> <strike>Historic yield is 30-40,000 ccf (15-20 million board feet). </strike> Current average capacity with existing staffing and funding is 30-35,000 ccf (15-17 million board feet).<br></li></ul><ul><li class="plain">Historic sustained yield under prior Forest Plans with different management objectives was much higher. Historically (1950s through 1990s) average annual volume sold was in excess of 100,000 ccf. </li><li class="plain">Paul Litow will confirm above numbers are correct with Paul Klasner. </li></ul></div><p class="plain"></p> Paul_Litow 2019-05-30T09:40:26-07:00 RE: Draft May Meeting Notes RE: IFRP Shared Stewardship Survey <p class="plain">Here is a <a link="" rel="" target="_blank" href="" class="plain">link to the IFRP survey solicitation email</a>.  The email message describes the purpose, references a few background documents, and contains an embedded link to the survey.</p><div class="plain"><br></div><div class="plain">The survey will be open until April 24th at 5:00 pm.</div><p class="plain"></p> Spatial Interest 2019-04-19T13:34:14-07:00 RE: IFRP Shared Stewardship Survey RE: Draft PFC Agenda: April 18, 2019 <div class="plain"><p class="plain">All,</p><p class="plain"> </p><p class="plain">We have a one hour open time slot.  I am looking into the possibility of a presentation on white headed woodpecker or a conversation with the Land Allocation Committee about trends they see regarding things like boundary shifts, theme changes, and national problems tied to the Roadless declaration/the Courts’ rulings about management actions.  </p><p class="plain"><br></p><p class="plain">If either of these things turn out to be doable, I will let you know and we can adjust. For now, <a rel="" link="" target="_blank" href="" class="plainlarge">here is how the agenda looks for April.    </a><a rel="" link="" target="_blank" href="" class="plainlarge"> </a></p></div><div class="plain"><br></div> payetteforestcoalition 2019-04-08T21:06:00-07:00 RE: Draft PFC Agenda: April 18, 2019 RE: Draft PFC Agenda: April 18, 2019 <p class="plain">I'll dig into it.  Thank you, Diane.  </p> Paul_Litow 2019-04-05T06:18:21-07:00 RE: Draft PFC Agenda: April 18, 2019 RE: Draft PFC Agenda: April 18, 2019 <p class="plain">Hi all -</p><p class="plain">I would like to hear from the white-headed woodpecker researchers (Vicki Saab and Jon Dudley) at an upcoming meeting.  Their most recent annual report had interesting results relative to veg treatments and I think it would be appropriate to check in on that front, especially as we continue to bring the same prescriptions forward on new projects. I see the April meeting has room on the agenda, but don't think we have enough time for them to plan a trip in that short a time.  Just planting the seed for a future meeting. </p><p class="plain">Diane</p> devansmack 2019-04-04T15:05:22-07:00 RE: Draft PFC Agenda: April 18, 2019 RE: Draft Meeting Notes - March 21, 2019 <p class="plain">Thanks Frank and Ron.  I will make those corrections.  I will also add the CFLR future projects roadmap to the end of the notes.    <br></p> Paul_Litow 2019-03-28T05:39:58-07:00 RE: Draft Meeting Notes - March 21, 2019 Sign-In Sheet Update <p class="plain">F rank - thanks for the additional attendees - missing on the sign-in sheet.</p><div class="plain"><br></div><div class="plain">I've added  a note on page three with the three names and the amended sign-in sheet will be archived with the final version of the meeting notes.</div><p class="plain"></p> Spatial Interest 2019-03-27T15:20:32-07:00 Sign-In Sheet Update RE: Draft Meeting Notes - March 21, 2019 <p class="plain">The guest for Erin Phelps was Jason Greenway</p> Ron Hamilton 2019-03-27T11:16:51-07:00 RE: Draft Meeting Notes - March 21, 2019 RE: Draft Meeting Notes - March 21, 2019 <p class="plain">Page 2, the bullet on grazing with sub-bullets should read "targeted grazing," since Jonathon was talking about asking permittees about targeted grazing and the need for fencing, same animal type. </p><div class="plain">Also, the attendees list never made it to the back of the room, and I see that my name as well as April Hulet and Austin Terrell are missing.</div><div class="plain"><br></div><p class="plain"></p> Frank Schwartz 2019-03-27T11:15:59-07:00 RE: Draft Meeting Notes - March 21, 2019 RE: Draft Meeting Notes - March 21, 2019 <p class="plain">Thanks, Rick.  I'll make that correction.  <br></p> Paul_Litow 2019-03-25T06:58:02-07:00 RE: Draft Meeting Notes - March 21, 2019 RE: Draft Meeting Notes - March 21, 2019 <p class="plain">One correction is that there is actually a $25 registration fee for the IFRP workshop. I encourage PFC members to attend and advise you to register soon as the workshop is filling up rapidly. </p> Rick Tholen 2019-03-23T17:45:10-07:00 RE: Draft Meeting Notes - March 21, 2019 RE: Draft Meeting Notes, February 21, 2019 <p class="plain"></p><div class="plain">Melanie's response to Diane's questions is that the canopy cover objective for MCCM and MFWR was to reduce to a minimum of 30%; for LCBC it was to reduce by a maximum of 20%. <br></div><div class="plain"><br></div><div class="plain">Main Points under post treatment monitoring in RCAs now reads:<ul><li class="plain"> Mill Creek Council Mountain (MCCM) project permitted RCA veg treatments within 240 and 120 feet on either side of perennial and intermittent streams, respectively.  Commercial thin permitted on outer 120 (perennial) and 90 feet (intermittent) feet of buffers.  Usually no equipment entry allowed.  <a link="_EXT_" target="_blank" name="_Hlk1705838">Objective was to reduce canopy cover to a minimum of 30%. </a></li></ul><ul><li class="plain">Lost Creek Boulder Creek (LCBC) allowed treatments on outer 120 feet of perennial stream and 60 feet of intermittent stream buffers.  Thinning done on case-by-case basis depending on ground cover.  Objective was to reduce canopy cover by a maximum of 20%.  </li></ul><ul><li class="plain">Middle Fork Weiser River (MFWR) aimed for same post-treatment canopy cover conditions as MCCM and used LCBC thinning distances.  Carried out a pilot fuel reduction project in a perennial RCA (treatments allowed throughout entire RCA) and ecology-driven trials in wet meadows and aspen stands.   </li></ul> <ul><li class="plain"> Prescribed burning follows thinning.  Fire set outside of RCA buffer and allowed to burn back into RCAs. </li></ul> <ul><li class="plain">Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program (CFLRP) requires multi-party monitoring.  Payette Forest Coalition (PFC) participates via field trips to observe pre and post-treatment conditions.  Collecting data in RCAs would also fulfill this requirement.<br></li></ul><ul><li class="plain">See Melanie’s presentation in the <a link="" target="_blank" href="">Monitoring Library</a>.</li></ul></div><p class="plain"></p> Paul_Litow 2019-02-26T16:17:31-08:00 RE: Draft Meeting Notes, February 21, 2019 RE: Draft Meeting Notes, February 21, 2019 <p class="plain"></p><div class="plain">Received a few suggestions from Melanie.  I'll check with her about your questions, Diane.   <br></div><div class="plain"> <ul><li class="plain">140 feet should be 120 feet (intermittent RCA buffer)</li><li class="plain">For LCBC, objective was to remove no more than 20% of existing (pre-treatment) canopy cover</li><li class="plain">For “used LCBC thinning guidelines”, instead should be “thinning distances” (we are using a combo of guidelines)</li></ul> The “a wet meadow and an aspen stand” should just be “wet meadows and aspen stands” – and these two treatment types are driven more by ecology than fuels reduction. The 15-acre perennial RCA is the one that is drive by fuels reduction as well as desired conditions (getting back to seral species), as it is adjacent to two main roads). </div><p class="plain"></p> Paul_Litow 2019-02-25T08:52:14-08:00 RE: Draft Meeting Notes, February 21, 2019 RE: Draft Meeting Notes, February 21, 2019 <p class="plain">Hi all, in the notes under the first topic, RCA treatments, it might be good to clarify the statements about canopy cover objectives under the MCCM and LCBC bullets. As the notes read, it's ambiguous as to whether the objective was to reduce canopy cover TO 30% and 20%, respectively, or BY 30% and 20%.  I think the latter was the objective.</p><p class="plain">Thanks.</p><p class="plain">Diane</p> devansmack 2019-02-25T07:55:33-08:00 RE: Draft Meeting Notes, February 21, 2019 RE: Draft PFC Agenda - January 17, 2019 <p class="plain"></p><div class="plain">Gloria,</div><div class="plain"><br></div><div class="plain">I think this might fit nicely into the discussion of increased regional timber harvest and fuels reduction under news and updates.  How about simply asking the question then?  </div><p class="plain"></p> Paul_Litow 2019-01-03T19:25:54-08:00 RE: Draft PFC Agenda - January 17, 2019 RE: Draft PFC Agenda - January 17, 2019 Can we add a discussion about the possibility of adding into all projects wording which will allow greater leeway in salvaging in case of wildfire? It seems like a very practical way to guard against fire salvage litigation/difficulties in the future, since we all know that wildfires are here to stay. Why not plan for the eventuality? Gloria Pippin 2019-01-02T08:50:59-08:00 RE: Draft PFC Agenda - January 17, 2019 RE: Draft November Meeting Notes <p class="plain"></p><div class="plain">Wendy,</div><div class="plain">Steve affirmed your interpretation.  I propose we leave the comment where it is and I'll add the following: Note: this is not specific to the Mesa fire.  It is a conceptual comment that more spacing between trees/crowns in a stand and more openings should break up fuel connectivity and inhibit fire spread or intensity to some degree.  Important to realize that this is situational as high temperatures, winds, fuel moisture levels, etc. may reduce or eliminate effects of beneficial stand structure with regard to fire behavior."</div><p class="plain"></p> Paul_Litow 2018-11-20T19:17:55-08:00 RE: Draft November Meeting Notes RE: Draft November Meeting Notes <p class="plain"></p><div class="plain">I've reached out to Steve to see what his intent was.  We were, in fact, talking about  Mesa Fire lessons learned when he expressed that thought.  <br></div><div class="plain"><br></div><div class="plain">On another note, I'd like to add the following bullet point under Steering Team elections to clarify that Ron is still serving.  "Ron Hamilton will continue to serve (his term ends next year)."</div><p class="plain"></p> Paul_Litow 2018-11-20T09:28:19-08:00 RE: Draft November Meeting Notes RE: Draft November Meeting Notes <p class="plain"></p><div class="plain">I believe an item found its way into the section on "Lessons Learned from Mesa Fire" when it was part of a more general discussion about treating Management Prescription Categories 5.1 vs. 5.2 (restoration emphasis vs. commodity production).  <br></div><div class="plain">"Restoration treatments (which encourage stand variability) seem to promote greater resiliency compared to areas managed for commodity production (less stand variation, higher density)."</div><div class="plain">I think Steve made that point speaking generally, not with regard to Mesa Fire. The sample size is far too small in Cottonwood Basin to draw that conclusion. Looking at the map produced for the field trip, you will see only a handful of small units that had "Recent Harvest," and treatment in those units also included non-commercial thinning. More and larger units were non-commercially thinned, and both harvested and NCT units received prescribed fire last spring. <br></div><div class="plain">Perhaps the statement above belongs under Key Points from the LCBC discussion.</div><div class="plain">Thank you.</div><div class="plain">Wendy<br></div><div class="plain"><br></div><br><br><p class="plain"></p> Wendy Green 2018-11-20T04:35:16-08:00 RE: Draft November Meeting Notes