Umatilla Forest Collaborative
Jan 24, 2013
Forest Supervisor’s Office – Pendelton, OR
Note: Meeting was postponed for 1 hour due to icy road conditions. The following is a summary of the
discussion between early arrivals during the 1 hour delay:
Funding and sustainability: Wallowa Whitman N.F. Collaborative is struggling with funding too, will they
continue? They have similar participants to those in our group. Federal Forest Advisory Committee (FFAC) is
working on the governor’s funding proposal so as to create messages and provide outreach through the current
legislative session. Does our group want to work with that and support it? Legislature is in formal session as of
Feb fourth. Budgetary issues are most controversial so they tend to happen last. There is not even a bill drafted
yet. Won’t know until June if this is approved and fiscal year begins in July 1. The chance of it passing is
probably 30-40%. But, John Buckman feels optimistic about the natural resource processes in this session.
Pulling money from PERS savings. We have very little influence on congress. While the state can positively
affect communities by doing this, the opposing argument is “Why is the federal government not paying for work
on federal land?” For every dollar we spend on this we get 1 1/2 dollars back. There will be a lot of political
support. Need to answer, how will it be allocated, how do we recognize and document success, what does it
contribute to. Could we articulate tangible kinds of projects to funnel it up the ladder? Can we measure it? Will
it be more board feet? Is that what the legislature wants to know. Why would taxpayers want to cough up $ for
more planning. Mason, Bruce, Girard report may answer the questions. The focus is on east side forests and
west side legislator’s don’t like that. 19 Reps are in Portland. 8% represent eastern Oregon. Need to show
money coming back into this. The state economy is the issue. Kitzaber watched when, in his second election,
only Portland put him in office and he realized he needed to do more for eastern OR. He wants, almost
personally to do better. Umatilla National Forest Budget is a mix. Some areas are hit harder than others. Down
by 5-10% overall, and we are regionally discussing investing. We are way behind on forest restoration. So does
forest need to do something better? Eastside is in need of vegetation restoration work. There is some social
and political opportunity there, and we don’t know where it will land. Malheur has a priority, but where else are
the priorities. If we lose momentum, that would be unfortunate. Cost of the collaborative includes: NFF grant
for $24,000 and $5,000 from FFF. Oregon solutions provided about $15,000. Looking at $45,000 – $50,000
total. Wonder if group can use momentum to redefine an O.S. project out of Thomas Creek, but need to show
the next tangible project. Cool, Moist could help. Concerns about the likelihood, but there is political
momentum.
Regular Meeting:
11:00 start - due to icy roads
Action Items:
Joani and Elaine update web site.
Link Bend workshop notes to web site.
Review Dave’s White Paper: Reviewers: Elaine, Kerry, Rex, Tim, Brian, Veronica
Let’s plan to present: gross scale analysis that we have so far at Feb meeting
Email John the comments:
Vinces message read. Scott will send to Elaine for notes.
Present:
Karlec Janislampi (CTUIR) , Scott Aycock (Facilitator), Kevin Martin (USFS), Tim Lillebo(OR. Wild), Mike Hayward
(Wallowa County), Rex Storm (Assoc. OR. Loggers), Carrie Spradlin(USFS), Mike Rassbach(USFS), John Day(USFS),
Todd Buchholz(USFS) , Lindsay Warness (BCC), Dave Powell(USFS) , Christine Nelson (GEODC), Ed Farren(USFS),
Jean Cassidy(Community), Mark Stern(TNC), Kathleen Cathey(Wyden), Mark Davidson (Union County), John
Buchman (ODF), Veronica Warnock(Hell’s Canyon), Johnny Collin(USFS), Dairlyn Brown(Hell’s Canyon), Monte
Fujishin(USFS), Hans Rudolph(ODF), Joanie Bosworth(USFS), Randy Scarlet(USFS), Allison Johnson(USFS), Angie
Johnson (ODF)
Agenda Overview:
December Notes:
Request for Comments on December Meeting Notes?
None
Website:
Agendas, Notes, Projects, Tour of Site through projector. Joani and Elaine will discuss linkages and
improvements.
Announcements:
 Sustainability NW announced cool Moist Mixed Conifer Workshop on April 15 & 16 in Hood River. We
need to provide final feedback to this event. Attendance is limited. Should get a flyer fairly soon.
Additional Information is coming. Agenda is in the works. Joint Fire Science Consortium is putting it on
with them. Emphasis is on fire as a disturbance in moist forests. Mixed severity issues could help us
make recommendations.
 America Fisheries will have a Thursday all day session at the Feb meeting. The schedule is on the AFS
website.
 SAF April 22nd regional meetings in Pendleton. OSU dean may come earlier. Thomas Mannis(?).
Governor’s Budget included 4.5 MM to cover eastside collaborative funding for support and
planning/implementation. It is partly to help Malheur N.F. What can local folks do to support that.
Kevin: Region 6 is looking at the gov. report and want to increase vegetative restoration on the east side. We
are preparing for some opportunities. Looking across the east side and particularly in Blue MTNS.
Collaboratives are instrumental and key around those. There have been only general discussions so far.
Rex: Oregon Board of Forestry mtg., governor spoke passionately about advancing forest restoration on the east
side.
Mark: The notes from the Workshop in Bend in end of Nov. 3012 are posted on web page. I’s on Conservation
Gateway Network. Put on UNF webpage.
Sustainability Going Forward: Started several years ago. OR. Solutions was very interested. Then, Gov.
Kitzhaber designated the first phase of this project. O.S. signed on a second time. The director says that the
project should, now, go out to its own sustainability. Goal for this phase of the effort is to develop momentum
on funding. What will group do starting July first? Admin Committee has discussed it. Governor’s proposal is
outside of our control. Ideas: CFLRP takes a long time period, provides mostly implementation and requires that
there be a very large landscape plan in place. County funds could be an option, Pay to Play – people don’t like
this, private foundations.
Lindsay: If we hire a facilitator it might help to have one facilitator for all three collaboratives. On west side
they have a common facilitator. We are all working with same people on common issues. Could work across
boundaries. Scott is here until June. Scott doesn’t want us to feel stuck with him. He is a free agent and so, is
available.
On an annual basis it looks like the budget is about $40,000 but could be tightened. We also talked about the
possibility to do good work for some lower amount, especially if we are asking for money. USFS will do best to
maintain their commitment. Wildhorse Casino might be a good option for some funding. There has to be a
tribal benefit- perhaps where it butts up to the forest. Work falls within guidelines and they want match. In the
future, there could be some harvesting going on with tribal involvement. First foods management for resilient
landscapes is another benefit. The University might at least give some contacts. They are helping with interns.
Funnel any ideas to admin committee and we will move ahead with them. We need to have the budget to ask
for funds.
Thomas Creek Project:
Dave’s White Paper: Active Management of Moist Forests in the Blue Mountains Silviculture
Considerations
A White Paper is an internal working document for the local forest. It won’t become a general technical
report designed to be used by employees on the forest. Background: 31/2 years ago, the Umatilla was
challenged on the scientific basis for proposing treatments on the moist forests in the blues. So, the leadership
team spent time discussing how to address the questions. This is one of several responses.
This is about silviculture only, while there are other issues and values. Dave would like people to review
and give feedback. Reviewers can look at small sections if desired.
Remember, this covers only moist forest relative to silviculture and management. Would be nice to
have a cool forest companion white-paper. Dave is comfortable with others looking at it too. Remember, it’s
first draft, and please note any grammar errors.
 Sections 1-3 are introductory.
 Disturbance ecologies principles and concepts
 Disturbance processes – There are 15 agents that are most applicable to moist forests. (There
are only three on dry forests).
 Active Management portion.
Sought to achieve easy readability and avoided large blocks of text. Glossaries are scattered throughout in small
groups (do people like this?).
Dave used figures, diagrams tables to break up the text because certain concepts can be better communicated
through pictures and people can learn as much from that, so captions to pictures are long in some cases.
Scott: What does this paper tell us?
Dave: Sections 2-5 focus on background, processes, description. Sect. 6 is the “therefore”. That context is the
first bullet. It is not a cookbook or a how-to guide. It is background info. Section 6 is not a cookbook or how-to
either. It doesn’t give a tree marking guide or management guidelines or courses of action. This is a practitioner
perspective. It is not a scientific paper, though it uses a lot of science. The synthesis is different than a scientist
would do. The scope is silviculture, nothing else.
There is a lot here and we could go into the weeds.
Scott: Does this help with Thomas Creek?
Dave: Page 204- Young stand development. It includes variable density thinning, reintroducing spatial
complexity, skips and gaps. Remember, there are no specific prescriptions, but it definitely relates to T. Creek.
Mimic disturbance with adjacent stands, so is there an opportunity to provide information that would help
integrate the managed stands and the adjacent stands. Soften edges to mimic disturbance.
Question: How can we place young stands in context of landscape scale? We have some 40 acre clear cuts that
could be altered to mimic a mixed severity fire situation.
Question: Is there a distinction between a natural young stand and a created one? Is there a difference in how
they are approached?
Dave: In a mental picture, a young stand includes a dense single cohort of young trees, especially young
lodgepole on moist forests. Plantations are what most people think of.
Tim: Is this for restoration, some other goal, or just silvicultural considerations?
Dave: I tried to keep hitting the concept of mimicking natural disturbance. We’ve used HRV for years and for
any biophysical area, any underrepresented species, it helps define the purpose and need. If HRV determines a
stand density class or structural type or condition, then we try to bring it back to that range. They are stratified
by cool moist or dry so we expect different representation.
Tim: We could choose a certain resilience level or historic range or choose to mimic some specific condition.
Dave: The conversation could end with the HRV step which is the basis for a proposal. But we didn’t want to do
that here. We want to take the other composition, density, and structure things and mimic the natural
disturbance regimes.
Carrie: Sections 4.4 and 4.5, specifically page 34, has a good table of disturbances to emulate.
Hans: Section 6 provided a nice discussion on mimicking options, thought it doesn’t discuss offsite pine, but it
offers applicable restoration ideas. We can use it to help find ideas to apply on the ground.
Rex: This is a great tool that demonstrates the role of active management on eastside forests. Section 6 is a
good reading assignment. Dave did a great job of synthesizing 50 years of knowledge and experience on the
USFS. Thanks to Dave and Kevin to provide that.
Dave: Please provide any cautionary thoughts (ex: “Don’t forget… such and such”).
Scott: At the next meeting we will dig into T. Creek to get a purpose and need, so are there implications to the
USFS from this for T. Creek?
Moist Mixed Conifer Workshop:
What else do we need to know for feedback to the synthesis meeting in April.
NEPA process does the comparison to current condition. Future condition is not considered either. Climate
change is considered as a disturbance process.
Group would like a similar synthesis meeting for wildlife too.
Kevin: As I was looking through this, we talked about old units, I’ve heard mention of a larger landscape. As I
look at this, would we want to explore the option of a larger landscape? This might tell you what to expect in
understanding of a larger landscape.
Scott: We’ve agreed to do analysis on a ridgetop-to-ridgetop basis, but the management and project is still
undecided.
Kevin: Maybe we can bring in research guys in to help monitor and manage. And, we could break new ground.
Mike: Dave has done a lot of hard work over 9 years.
Reviewers: Elaine, Kerry, Rex, Tim, Brian, Veronica
Lunch break.
Thomas Creek:
The question has arisen as to whether we engage in plantation stands for active management or beyond? This is
a big question. Mike and Carrie will start to give us their ideas on this.
Ed F: Plantations are designed for active management in the future. The concept of a plantation is to PCT going
forward. Have they been thinned?
Carrie: When they were cut, the intention was toward wood products. I would take the Landscape analysis,
HRV or other process and try to get the entire landscape within HRV. I think the theories are sound. That means
active mgt. in plantations and move the whole landscape to an historic or reference condition and it would
mean doing some things in areas that were not managed. That is the first step that I would take toward
deciding what we should do: look at moving the entire landscape toward historic condition.
Mike H: Is goal to turn entire forest to HRV if you could?
Carrie: It is not the only goal because the forest plan puts another set of goals out.
Dave: Now the term: Managed Wildfire could allow wildfire to play a better role. Once forests are in the
conditions desired, we could allow fire to go, and do active landscape management by letting the wildfires go.
Elaine: If we are managing to HRV, that assumes the natural, unmanaged stands are currently in balance with
HRV unless there are other factors than harvest affecting them. What activities put the other areas, that have
not been entered, out of whack with HRV?
Carrie: There are other areas that have been managed but not with even-aged management. And, some have
no record of entry and those may still be out of whack due to fire suppression, grazing, etc. I’m sure there is a
spectrum of that and I don’t know what lands fit the category, but we should leave the door open to look at it.
Lindsay: We don’t want to go into this with preconceived notion of only young stand. The land might be telling
us that there are other things happening. Experimenting is possible and other options.
Tim: I’m not there yet with moist forest management, there is not enough info.. I am excited about the
synthesis meeting. Long ago, we decided the USFS departed from the historic range on the clear cuts, but I’m
not there yet on the full landscape. I do want to take a look at the entire landscape and analyze it and
experiment on the plantations but I am not comfortable with going into uncut stands or ones that are still in
their historic range. I don’t know how you pick the mixed severity regimes.
Scott: The common theme that everyone is expressing is to be open minded and look at everything. Analyze on
a landscape scale and everyone is comfortable with active mgt in the plantation stands.
Tim: A clear and significant departure from HRV is evident in the plantations.
Veronica: Concur with Tim’s comments. If the goal is restoration, there is no definitive scientific basis of need to
restore lightly managed forests.
Mark: If looking R-top to r-top, we’d be making different prescriptions for the different areas. The treatments
would be different in different places.
Tim: I’d like to see the science synthesis panel and what they come up with.
Mark: I hope everyone’s mind is not yet made up totally,
Scott: This conversation lends itself to purpose and need, which we will do at the next meeting. Plantations
have definite interest. I’ve heard the words “experimentation, open mindedness,” as well.
Rex: In looking at the restoration opportunities, if we cast a wider net over more stands and look at more stands,
we have more economic favorability to do more restorations.
Mark: We support the idea of broader scale analysis, because scale, tempered components are more variable.
Are there roadless areas, wildernesses, etc. that we’d look at too? And, would they not be actively managed?
Elaine: Carrie explained that every acre has been touched by grazing, fire, etc. and that is important to keep in
mind.
Scott: Do we have the data on the historic fire, grazing etc.?
Carrie: We know there is an excess of ponderosa pine. I don’t know structure and density everywhere, we
aren’t that far into the process.
Scott: I haven’t see where fires have been prevented by suppression. Do we have a history of suppression
successes?
Todd: We get hundreds of starts a summer at times and we jump on them. We can make an inference of all the
keep-it-smalls to determine suppression success.
Tim: Mixed severity studies, would be good to see.
Dave: We will be working with P. Hessburg in the near future. If I set a person in dry p.pine on the Umatilla, they
probably we could agree on the % that was out of whack. In moist forest, it is harder to determine, but they are
only looking at the stand, not the whole landscape. On a small scale, it may feel right, but it, perhaps, should
have been a different species mix or structure or density. Any single stand looks like it has not exceeded HRV.
Scott: So what is the right landscape size to look at? No answer, but how do you decide an appropriate scale?
Dave: We have some recommendations for fire regime 1 (dry forest) use a HUC 3 scale, and on cool moist use 5
(full watershed 50,000-60,000 acres). Prevailing processes function at different scales for different biophysical
sites.
Dave: So ridgetop to ridgetop on T. Creek is just at limit of HRV analysis (the forest can only do HRV on 15,000
acres or more)
T. Creek is 15,000 acres.
Scott: some of the questions have to be asked at the 50,000 acre scale, so how do we do that?
Randy: Wildlife is analyzed for snags and down wood for 12,800 acres at a minimum in a single watershed and if
the acres are not in one watershed, we have to add another.
Mike: Do we want to go bigger to look at gross stand information?
Dave: The north and south end data set is done for HRV.
Mike: Those can be broken out for different watersheds.
HUC = Hydrologic Unit Code. And, a smaller number is a larger area, and as the numbers go up the size goes
down.
Mark S: It sounds like we should be at HUC 5 level for T. Creek for proportion of different stands.
Lindsay: Is it possible to do the analysis at HUC 5 level? Is it possible to redefine the T. Creek scale at this stage
in efforts?
Mike: The forest is moving into different way of looking at its program of work with large scale analysis for 1.
Value at Risk, and 2. HRV and 3. Special Habitats, to determine highest priority for integrated veg. management.
Integrated Veg Managment = directs where our future timber will be and prescribed fire too. It breaks down
some silos. Combines fire, and vegetation and ?.
Elaine: Remember to keep an awareness of why we chose T. Creek - to be a workable scale. It was selected
because we wanted a small experimental opportunity with which to break into cool/moist forest management. I
am fine with going down a different path, but hope that it is a conscientious decision as opposed to an
unplanned deviation.
Linday: It might be a better analysis at a larger scale.
Jean: If looking at the bigger picture in terms of science, it is wise. Then, we should look at a broad scale, but we
don’t need to address the whole picture. I see that as two different things.
Mark: I agree. If you look at a bigger picture, you get a better picture.
Jean: We might discover something that was unexpected that really needs to be addressed.
Kathleen: Within a project couldn’t you be looking at a variety of treatments. So, this would allow the whole
system to get a better picture.
Mark: Dave said a larger context gives a better picture. If we will be honest with ourselves we need to look at a
larger scale. Tim might still not be comfortable in treating some stands, but we’ll know the background
information.
Tim: Well, on roads, we are departed everywhere so…
Scott: I see two questions: 1. How much analyze outside the current confines of T. Creek. 2. Is this like a big ship
that’s on track we are trying to turn or can we easily change?
Mike R: We are still in a nimble state. We have HRV and some individual stand information and a little map
work.
Kevin: Sounds like HRV is already happening at HUC 6 so that includes all the project area plus more. Would
there be value in having Carrie and Dave present that info. to the group to see if there are other units to explore.
Mike: Gave HRV analysis to group and Carrie provided the analysis.
Scott: But that was within the current project area.
Kevin: What about doing it with the larger scale. It would generate conversations and see what else could
potentially be included. Might decide there are some other pieces and parts.
Tim: We said let’s go with something small. Are we talking about larger than T. Creek?
Mark: Yes- for the analysis.
Tim: I see no problem for the analysis.
Lindsay: It doesn’t say that we are expanding the project, necessarily.
Scott: Must keep in mind the capacity of the USFS staff.
Tim: The tollgate project is already underway so there must be some analysis on that.
Mike: Until we look at a map, it’s hard to say if it’s the same HUC 5. It would include Philips creek but I don’t
know if it goes north from there. 45,000 acres
Carrie: We have smaller Thomas Creek HRV and we have the whole north end HRV and we collected field data
this summer in Thomas Creek and the surrounding areas.
Scott: Let’s plan to present: gross scale analysis that we have so far at Feb meeting.
Mike: We could get the acre data by decade.
Scott: So next meeting, gross scale HRV analysis for HUC 5 that incorporates T. creek and maps of previously
managed stands by decade.
Lindsay: Then can we look at all previously managed stands, not just the clear cuts. Includes pre-commercial
thinning and all management actions.
Carrie: It’s already in GIS.
Scott: We agree to request that. We’ve made no decision about increasing the project size or not.
Lindsay: What is the time frame that we have to decide whether or not to change the project size?
Todd: We would need to look at summer hires now.
Dairlyn: You are vastly broading the analysis while, keeping the scale of the project open based on the HRV.
What determines that decision and how it is made?
Scott: It is definitely another decision. It is applying the broader info to any size project. Next question is: Do we
need to expand the project in order to make a project that makes sense? Depending upon where this analysis
lies, if it overlays other activities, then we have to consider that.
Feedback for Workshop: Moist Mixed Conifer Summit:
Scott summarized the feedback to date on the handout.
Elaine: Can we ask: Why do we manage to emulate what happened in the past. That is in addition to “how”. I’m
just curious, not questioning the process. Good management is about looking forward as opposed to backward.
Karlek: Good question.
Veronica: Do we want to manage for what happened in the past and if so why? Climate change and other
anthropogenic effects bring new conditions.
Scott: Is there a science element and a values element in that?
Mark: Some viewpoints could say we don’t want to manage back to past conditions and others would manage
for more active management. Good question.
Karlek: It is an easy way out, it defers all responsibility to scientists.
Todd: Is HRV valuable in the face of climate change?
Karlek: If it is a reference point, what other reference points might help us to manage going forward.
Stands that are resilient in Montana provide an example, there are contemporary reference points of stand
replacing fire vs. light fire that exist side by side.
Veronica: Scientists say climate change will have a greater impact on moist forests than on dry. There are a lot
of unanswered questions.
Rex: Forest plans and desired future conditions have been used as well as HRV.
Lindsay: I don’t see a risk reward situation either way. What are risks and rewards if you do and do not do
management. We should look at the Risk of active management vs. reward of inactive mgt..
Tim: Eventually the forest will use more fire, controlled or prescribed or hope-it-works or managed fire, to
actually manage these stands rather than think we can go out manually every 20 years on dry sites, but also on
moist.
Scott: Remember that Dave identified 15 disturbance factors.
Tim: May end up in some areas to start a mixed severity fire.
Mark: what is the appropriate scale to look at Moist Mixed Forest analysis?
Kahler: Project Initiation Letter:
John Day provided this in November. Now, we need to give feedback.
Brian said that it is a silviculture prescription that would then get modified by other disciplines. What if those
other disciplines wrote the PIL first and silviculture responded to the other disciplines?
Todd: A Project Initiation Letter is an internal document giving direction to the IDT. It is the marching orders.
This is not a NEPA document (it is not on the left side of the triangle). It precipitates that. Our first IDT meeting
was Tuesday and talked about expectations and red flags. It sounds silvicultural because ultimately that is what
will happen out there to push us toward a resilient landscape. We have done plenty of these in the past with
skips and gaps and all that. Randy Scarlet is wildlife biologist and can speak to that.
Randy: The specialist input goes into the purpose and need and I can come up with special actions that come
into that P&N. We’d speak to special habitats like mountain mohogony and white headed woodpecker.
Todd: This is a big game emphasis area, so that is going to be folded into the work in this area.
Randy: We are deficit in big game winter range cover and still trying to meet silvicultural goals at the same time.
Todd: The USFS use to have the motto: A Land of Many Uses in the USFS. So we have a dynamic of being in
opposition to one another. In the past there weren’t any elk on that landscape.
Randy: Elk are very important economically in Blues.
Angie: I don’t see private lands mentioned at all in project initiation letter. Remember that we are putting
together a Community Assistance Grant for private landowners. If we can’t show support from this group, we
may not get support for this grant. Just want to let you guys know we have put that grant together.
Scott: Brian’s thought was that the past paradigm might be changed. Is there an opportunity to have a new
starting place and have more pro-active statements around those other goals in a paradigm-shifting way.
Veronica: He would ask, if you were putting together a project for wildlife, what would it look like? How would
it change the outcome rather than try to harmonize with other predetermined values.
Scott: Whether this is a public document or not, it is early framing of what will happen.
Angie J: Some of the issues like juniper encroachment, drive for better in-stream structure. There will be
additional items such as to improve riparian plant communities. A goal for summer might be to get an ecologist
out there to really evaluate plant communities. Riparian corridors are very important for connectivity of big
game too.
Randy: Field time is limited, so I haven’t been in field in Kahler hardly at all.
Angie: We have been out to look at stream class issues and adjusuting RHCA and buffers to be able to apply
buffers. It’s a big area we will have to apply some methodology to get to all of it. Riparian Habitat Conservation
Areas – fish bios and hydros should look together. Most streams are designated critical habitat so consultation
is extensive. We will come out with some of the decisions on final treatment in some of the units.
Scott: Brian’s idea was, if there are goals that you know now before you do a lot of research then incorporate
them in here.
Todd: I challenged the ID team to do this, a bit differently. We tend to pick units and drop them. Beauty of
Kahler is that we have been on the ground a lot. Folks have been out looking at landscape a lot. Philosophical
thing is how much looking is enough. We are looking for NEPA efficiencies. We have good folks that can make
best professional decisions within sideboards. When we start the scoping letter you’ll see a lot of what Brian is
interested in. March is scoping letter date. Draft is started.
John: This is a pre-draft scoping letter.
Scott will forward to the group.
John: Any feedback will go into the scoping letter for Feb. Most of that PIL has been incorporated in to this
document.
Kevin: As this progresses, you’ll see how this adjusts and changes as part of the analysis. PIL has vegetation
landscape and dry and some old forest sites and such described. We know its elk winter range. As the ologists
start looking they make additional adjustments. You’ll see it affected and influenced as the process moves
forward.
Dairlyn: I’m wondering if Brian was posing the question: what kind of silvicultural prescriptions would we get if
we start from the wildlife perspective. This, instead of one responding to the other.
Ed: this is set up as a veg project so this project will follow the forest plan and existing laws to maintain and
improve water qualtity. Restoration can be active or passive. If it was my project I’d do active restoration but it
is not my project. During the field work we can look at stuff and if we have great ideas we can possibly
incorporate them into this or have another project that emphasizes water. I am not initiating this project.
Todd: It depends upon the definition of the project. This is a dry forest project but it can incorporate a fisheries
aspect. Some will look for soft money to put habitat improvements in the streams.
Scott: The emphasis was that we need to work most on veg. mgt. That is where conflict and appeals and
litigation occur.
Rex: Todd summarized it well. The pil integrated all the impact from the group. We need to respect Todd’s
people for what they’ve done.
Todd: It is an iterative project including all the disciplines. We could do a better job of defining the base of the
pyramid.
Jean: The PIL P&N reveal where someone might think it was a silviculutal project. It does have a flavor of
silviculture. There is another thing that is tangential. Sometimes arent’ there projects done because of a single
goal such as protecting humans or something else than forest health. Where we are if you don’t have the trees
you won’t have the same type of wildlife and hydrology. The trees are the structure that create the habitat that
the water flows through.
Lindsay: Suggest, this is silviculture but it might be helpful to the public if you say you will burn because you are
creating habitat. Perhaps some more explanation is necessary for why. That will come in scoping.
ODF has some emphasis on silvicultuure and we’d all like a comprehensive look. The whole gambit should be
considered. To make this a good package it has to have everything.
Todd: Don’t want a kitchen sink project. It takes too long, NEPA and all. Keep it simple.
Scott: USFS folks are brave. Thank you for giving the opportunity to have a first glance at this.
Elaine: I think the conversation here is that there has been some confusion in and outside of forest service as to
what the foundation of the project is. Clarity on that foundation would be important.
Todd: Thank you for the input, this is out of the comfort zone of some USFS, so thanks to them. This is very
valuable.
Dairlyn.: The discussions are fascinating and really important. I want to attend all the meetings. I am thinking,
Elaine is getting to it, let’s not have silviculture be the only driver. Remember we are at the table for a variety of
reasons.
Tim: Give John rest of day off!
Email John the comments:
Lindsay: Send the comments to Scott and the admin committee compiles to send to John. Do this by end of next
week Wednesday.
Todd: We will keep chugging ahead.
Scott: Send additional comments to me by Wednesday otherwise directly to John. Next meeting will be a draft
scooping letter.
Next meeting:
Draft scoping letter to review
Landscape HUC 5 HRV management history
Show how T. Creek relates to other ongoing projects
Planned on small group process to start workshopping the p&n for t. creek, but wonder if the questions of scale
allow us to be ready. Are we getting ahead of ourselves?
Lindsay: good exercise if not final
Kevin: Let’s do it after presentations
Funding
Date for march meeting: ?
Mark: Smaller group of people have been engaging to develop a coalition aimed at Collaborative support from
the state. Weekly call is through FFAC on Friday’s afternoon. Call in information is to be emailed. One
consistent package of messages for everyone to respond to .
Vinces message read. Scott will send to Elaine for notes.