SAGEHEN PROJECT Tahoe National Forest, Truckee Ranger District PSW Sagehen Experimental Forest UC...

SAGEHEN PROJECT

Tahoe National Forest, Truckee Ranger District

PSW Sagehen Experimental Forest

UC Berkeley Sagehen Field Station

SAGEHEN PROJECT

Agenda

10:00 Intros, Guidelines, Collaboration Lisa Wallace 10:15 SCP Overview Joanne Roubique 10:30 Issues List Kris, Scott, Peter 11:00 1st Small Group All 12 noon Lunch 12:30 Issues List – Am Marten Kris, Scott, Peter 1:15 2nd Small Group All 2:30 High Priority Issues Joanne, Peter,

Lisa 2:45 Next Steps Joanne, Peter




SAGEHEN PROJECT

Meeting Guidelines

Contribute and share your best thinking Develop creative proposals View disagreements as problems to be solved Share thoughts, concerns and info Do not ascribe motivations or intentions Keep commitments Listen to understand Review and comment per the timeline Attend or send a representative to all meetings Inform yourself if you miss a meeting




SAGEHEN PROJECT

Collaboration The goal of a collaboration is to reach a

decision everyone can accept

Not everyone will like the solution equally well or will have an equal commitment to it

But the group recognizes that it has reached the best decision for all involved




SAGEHEN PROJECT

Impasse… Step 1: Break the issue into smaller pieces that the

group can agree on separately Step 2: Brainstorm more options Step 3: Look behind the content – ask “Why” to get at

real issue or concern Step 4: Ask for alternative proposals to meet concerns Step 5: Review participants’ interests Step 6: Ask people to be more specific about their

concerns Step 7: Expand or reduce the number of people at the

table – i.e.: create subgroup to address specific issues between meetings and bring back more options for consideration

Step 8: Reach a procedural agreement (Project Leads)Tahoe National Forest, Truckee Ranger District



SAGEHEN PROJECT

Strength of Agreement & Disagreement 1. Enthusiastic Support: Full agreement with all aspects of a

proposal 2. Moderate Support: Agreement with all or most aspects of

a proposal; no fundamental disagreements with any aspect. 3. General Support: Agreement with most aspects of the

proposal; no fundamental disagreement with key aspects. 4. Can Live With the Decision: Significant disagreement

with one or more aspects of proposal; however, the participant can live with the proposal – i.e., the suggestion is better than the status quo.

5. Willing to Stand Aside. Can not support the proposal but is willing to step aside in order to let agreement move forward.

6. Can’t Tolerate the Decision. Fundamental disagreement with key aspects of proposal. Not willing to support or live with the proposal as it stands. Participants with this perspective will be asked to suggest alternatives that move the proposal forward.




SAGEHEN PROJECT

Overview – Outcomes

Thorough stakeholder participation and input in defining approaches for broad ecological restoration and vegetation management implementation methods

Significant stakeholder contributions toward development of the Proposed Action by the summer of 2011




SAGEHEN PROJECT

Roles Decision Signers: Joanne Roubique, Deanna

Stouder SCP Project Leads: Joanne Roubique, Peter Stine Meeting Planning Committee: Jeff Brown, Kris

Boatner, Scott Conway, Laurie Perrot, Joanne Roubique, Peter Stine, Craig Thomas, Lisa Wallace

Stakeholders: all of you Facilitator: Lisa Wallace GTR-220 Advisors: Malcolm North, Peter Stine




SAGEHEN PROJECT

Schedule

May 2010 Presentations, Tour – DONE Oct 14, 2010: Presentations, Tour - DONE Oct 29, 2010: Presentations, Tour - DONE Nov 16, 2010: Tour – DONE Dec 3, 2011: Presentations – DONE March 4, 2011: Issues, Veg/Marten Data April 18, 2011: Fire Modeling, Issues June 1, 2011: Draft Proposed Action July 12, 2011: Proposed Action




SAGEHEN PROJECT

SAGEHEN PROJECT




SAGEHEN PROJECT




SAGEHEN PROJECT

COLLABORATION End goal is a Proposed Action and

Purpose and Need (PA/PN) document that will be used to begin NEPA process

Use input from the collaborative group to write a draft PA/PN

Expect that pieces of PA/PN (i.e. prescriptions, mitigations) written over the course of the spring with opportunities for review by the collaborative group




SAGEHEN PROJECT

COLLABORATION Expectation is that FS will write the

PA/PN document Want feedback and review of a full

draft PA/PN from the collaborative group before it is finalized and before official NEPA scoping would begin




SAGEHEN PROJECT

COLLABORATION Project meeting April 18, 2011 - results

of fire modeling, proposed prescriptions, and treatments

Project meeting June 1, 2011 – review of detailed draft PA/PN document

Project meeting July 12, 2011 – final draft of PA/PN document, expectation is for only small edits before finalized as PA/PN for NEPA scoping




SAGEHEN PROJECT

NEPA PROCESS Scoping an early and open process

for determining scope of issues to be addressed and determining significant issues

Based on impacts, determine level of NEPA – Environmental Assessment (EA) or Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)




SAGEHEN PROJECT

NEPA PROCESS Issues drive number of alternatives

considered, project design and mitigation, and environmental effects analysis

Assuming EA, will have a formal 30 day comment period on EA (appeal regulations)

After consideration of comments, issue a decision with response to comments included




SAGEHEN PROJECT

APPEAL PROCESS After decision, 45 day appeal

period Assuming either no appeals, or

decision upheld, implementation could begin as early as fall 2012 or summer 2013

SAGEHEN PROJECT




SAGEHEN PROJECT




SAGEHEN PROJECT

SAGEHEN PROJECT ISSUES

All previous collaboration meeting notes were reviewed for any issue that was introducedAbout 75 separate issues were recordedIssues were then categorized Goal: effective/efficient collaboration meetings that focus on complex issues within the scope of the projectMoved issues that were thought to be immediately resolvable to “holding” area




SAGEHEN PROJECT

SAGEHEN PROJECT ISSUES

Current Needs:Were all issues captured?Were all issues captured accurately? Which issues in “holding” need more discussion?Which issues in “holding” can be “resolved” and filed accordingly?

SAGEHEN PROJECT




SAGEHEN PROJECT




SAGEHEN PROJECT

VEG/MARTEN SUBGROUP

Updates and Progress




SAGEHEN PROJECT

VEG/MARTEN SUBGROUPCURRENT MEMBERS

Peter Stine (FS R&D) and Joanne Roubique (TNF) – research, biology, and decision makersBill Zielinski (PSW) and Katie Moriarty (Oregon St) – research, species expertsSue Britting – Sierra Forest Legacy, interested stakeholder, resource and species expertiseKris Boatner, Scott Conway, and Sally Hallowell (TNF) – biology, silviculture, fire/fuels, veg management, GIS expertise




SAGEHEN PROJECT

SIGNIFICANCE OF MARTEN STATUS

American marten is considered a “species at risk” in the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment FS policy requires that proposed management actions address conservation objectives for such speciesPopulations have been declining in California, particularly in the northern SierraStudies at Sagehen over the last 30+ years indicate a significant local decline




SAGEHEN PROJECT

MARTEN DECLINECauses are unknown; potential influences include:

Macrohabitat concerns; changes in habitat due to timber removal

Microhabitat concerns; significant reduction of suitable resting/denning sites (downed logs, snags, large stumps, deformed trees with platforms or cavities, etc.)

Microhabitat concerns; loss of living ground cover, downfall cover

Warming climate Changes in prey populations Competition and/or predation, disease




SAGEHEN PROJECT

KEY HABITAT FEATURESRest Sites and Denning Sites

Stumps/downed logsSnags/cavities

Photos courtesy of Katie Moriarty (taken on Lassen NF)




SAGEHEN PROJECT

CONSERVATION/RESTORATION OF MARTEN HABITAT IS ONE OF THE PROJECT OBJECTIVES

Protection of existing habitat features, prevention/minimization of project impactsRestoration/enhancement of habitat that has been degraded in the past




SAGEHEN PROJECT

VEG/MARTEN SUBGROUPAgreement on definitions of high quality marten reproductive habitat

LPN4M, LPN4D, LPN5M, LPN5D (Lodgepole pine)

MRI5M, MRI5D, MRI6 (Montane riparian)

RFR4M, RFR4D, RFR5M, RFR5D (Red fir)

SCN4M, SCN4D, SCN5M, SCN5D (Subalpine conifer)

SMC5M, SMC5D, SMC6, (Sierran mixed conifer) - fir dominated stands only

WFR 4M, WFR4D, WFR5M, WFR5D, WFR6 (White fir)




SAGEHEN PROJECT

VEG/MARTEN SUBGROUPTo address different representations of vegetation, RSL did analysis for current condition

Compared 2005 TNF and 2007 RSLAnalysis to compare high quality marten habitatRecommended some changes – result in reconciled high quality habitat vegetation layer

In very general terms, RSL more accurate for veg type, TNF more accurate for tree size




SAGEHEN PROJECT




SAGEHEN PROJECT

VEG/MARTEN SUBGROUP

Performed GIS analysis that combined high value marten habitat, slope, and elevationGTR 220 suggests using topographic position on the landscape as a template for landscape heterogeneity




SAGEHEN PROJECT




SAGEHEN PROJECT

VEG/MARTEN SUBGROUPGIS analysis included:

North-facing, south-facing, canyon, ridgeAbove 2050m (upper basin), below 2050m (lower basin) (2050m = 6,725ft)High value habitat, not high value habitat

Sixteen classifications/categories




SAGEHEN PROJECT

VEG/MARTEN SUBGROUP Map Inputs Category

high habitat, canyon, above 2050m 1high habitat, north midslope, above 2050m 2

high habitat, canyon, below 2050m 3high habitat, north midslope, below 2050m 4high habitat, south midslope, above 2050m 5

high habitat, ridge, above 2050m 6high habitat, south midslope, below 2050m 7high habitat, ridge, below 2050m 8not high habitat, canyon, above 2050m 9

not high habitat, north midslope, above 2050m 10not high habitat, canyon, below 2050m 11not high habitat, north midslope, below 2050m 12not high habitat, south midslope, above 2050m 13not high habitat, ridge, above 2050m 14not high habitat, south midslope, below 2050m 15not high habitat, ridge, below 2050m 16




SAGEHEN PROJECT




SAGEHEN PROJECT

VEG/MARTEN SUBGROUPConsolidate classifications into 7

emphasis areas

1 High habitat, north midslope, GT 2050m1 High habitat, north midslope, LT 2050m1 High habitat, ridge, GT 2050m1 High habitat, south midslope, GT 2050m2 High habitat, canyon, GT 2050m2 High habitat, canyon, LT 2050m3 High habitat, ridge, LT 2050m3 High habitat, south midslope, LT 2050m4 Not high habitat, canyon, GT 2050m4 Not high habitat, canyon, LT 2050m5 Not high habitat, north midslope, GT 2050m5 Not high habitat, north midslope, LT 2050m6 Not high habitat, south midslope, GT 2050m6 Not high habitat, south midslope, LT 2050m7 Not high habitat, ridge, GT 2050m7 Not high habitat, ridge, LT 2050m




SAGEHEN PROJECT




SAGEHEN PROJECT

Emphasis Areas – High Value

Habitats

Total in Basin (ac)

Potentially Affected (ac)

Percentage

1 1,407 323 23%2 378 76 20%3 109 59 54%

Total 1,894 458 24%

Emphasis Areas – Not High Value

Habitats

Total in Basin (ac) Potentially Affected (ac)

Percentage

4 1,118 236 21%5 3,803 1,156 30%6 1,899 817 43%7 766 256 33%

Total 7,586 2,465 32%




SAGEHEN PROJECT

VEG/MARTEN SUBGROUP

Added another emphasis area = #8 Aspen

Collapsed emphasis area #3 into either emphasis area #1 or #2

Only 109 acres total in basin of emphasis area #3

Always bordered either emphasis area #1 or #2

Combined it with closest area, resulted in more conservative designation




SAGEHEN PROJECT




SAGEHEN PROJECT

Agree on veg map

Segregate landscape

(slope, elevation)

Create emphasis

areas

Develop objectives

Develop draft Rxs

Landscape analysis within

emphasis areas

Model Rxs with FVS, Farsite,

Flammap

Adjust Rxs/boundari

es




SAGEHEN PROJECT

VEG/MARTEN SUBGROUPOVERALL GOALS

Accelerate creation of or enhance microsite habitats for marten with high value rest sites/structures, large trees, snags, down logs, high stumpsMore heterogeneous forestGrow bigger trees faster, higher BA in large treesManage for different tree species compositions depending on landscape position




SAGEHEN PROJECT

VEG/MARTEN SUBGROUP

SAGEHEN PROJECT FLOWCHARTVIA EXCEL




SAGEHEN PROJECT

VEG/MARTEN SUBGROUPONGOING EFFORTS

Exploring another representation of current condition using LiDARWorking on the creation of a single “reconciled” historic high value marten habitat vegetation layer – will use this as another filter for proposed prescriptions and/or restoration opportunitiesDevelop prescriptionsModeling for post treatment fire behavior and forest stand dynamics/tree growth

SAGEHEN PROJECT




SAGEHEN PROJECT




SAGEHEN PROJECT

COLLABORATION Project meeting April 18, 2011 - results

of fire modeling, proposed prescriptions, and treatments

Project meeting June 1, 2011 – review of detailed draft PA/PN document

Project meeting July 12, 2011 – final draft of PA/PN document, expectation is for only small edits before finalized as PA/PN for NEPA scoping

SAGEHEN PROJECT Tahoe National Forest, Truckee Ranger District PSW Sagehen Experimental Forest UC...

Documents

Transcript of SAGEHEN PROJECT Tahoe National Forest, Truckee Ranger District PSW Sagehen Experimental Forest UC...