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

SAGEHEN PROJECT Tahoe National Forest, Truckee Ranger District PSW Sagehen Experimental Forest UC Berkeley Sagehen Field Station SAGEHEN PROJECT

Agenda  10:00 Intros, Guidelines, CollaborationLisa Wallace  10:15 SCP OverviewJoanne Roubique  10:30 Issues ListKris, Scott, Peter  11:00 1 st Small GroupAll  12 noon Lunch  12:30 Issues List – Am MartenKris, Scott, Peter  1:15 2 nd Small GroupAll  2:30 High Priority IssuesJoanne, Peter, Lisa  2:45 Next StepsJoanne, Peter Tahoe National Forest, Truckee Ranger District PSW Sagehen Experimental Forest UC Berkeley Sagehen Field Station 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 Tahoe National Forest, Truckee Ranger District PSW Sagehen Experimental Forest UC Berkeley Sagehen Field Station 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 Tahoe National Forest, Truckee Ranger District PSW Sagehen Experimental Forest UC Berkeley Sagehen Field Station 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 PSW Sagehen Experimental Forest UC Berkeley Sagehen Field Station 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. Tahoe National Forest, Truckee Ranger District PSW Sagehen Experimental Forest UC Berkeley Sagehen Field Station 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 Tahoe National Forest, Truckee Ranger District PSW Sagehen Experimental Forest UC Berkeley Sagehen Field Station 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 Tahoe National Forest, Truckee Ranger District PSW Sagehen Experimental Forest UC Berkeley Sagehen Field Station 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 Tahoe National Forest, Truckee Ranger District PSW Sagehen Experimental Forest UC Berkeley Sagehen Field Station SAGEHEN PROJECT

Tahoe National Forest, Truckee Ranger District PSW Sagehen Experimental Forest UC Berkeley Sagehen Field Station SAGEHEN PROJECT

Tahoe National Forest, Truckee Ranger District PSW Sagehen Experimental Forest UC Berkeley Sagehen Field Station 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

Tahoe National Forest, Truckee Ranger District PSW Sagehen Experimental Forest UC Berkeley Sagehen Field Station 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

Tahoe National Forest, Truckee Ranger District PSW Sagehen Experimental Forest UC Berkeley Sagehen Field Station 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

Tahoe National Forest, Truckee Ranger District PSW Sagehen Experimental Forest UC Berkeley Sagehen Field Station 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)

Tahoe National Forest, Truckee Ranger District PSW Sagehen Experimental Forest UC Berkeley Sagehen Field Station 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

Tahoe National Forest, Truckee Ranger District PSW Sagehen Experimental Forest UC Berkeley Sagehen Field Station 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

Tahoe National Forest, Truckee Ranger District PSW Sagehen Experimental Forest UC Berkeley Sagehen Field Station SAGEHEN PROJECT SAGEHEN PROJECT ISSUES  All previous collaboration meeting notes were reviewed for any issue that was introduced  About 75 separate issues were recorded  Issues were then categorized  Goal: effective/efficient collaboration meetings that focus on complex issues within the scope of the project  Moved issues that were thought to be immediately resolvable to “holding” area

Tahoe National Forest, Truckee Ranger District PSW Sagehen Experimental Forest UC Berkeley Sagehen Field Station 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?

Tahoe National Forest, Truckee Ranger District PSW Sagehen Experimental Forest UC Berkeley Sagehen Field Station SAGEHEN PROJECT VEG/MARTEN SUBGROUP Updates and Progress

Tahoe National Forest, Truckee Ranger District PSW Sagehen Experimental Forest UC Berkeley Sagehen Field Station SAGEHEN PROJECT VEG/MARTEN SUBGROUP CURRENT MEMBERS  Peter Stine (FS R&D) and Joanne Roubique (TNF) – research, biology, and decision makers  Bill Zielinski (PSW) and Katie Moriarty (Oregon St) – research, species experts  Sue Britting – Sierra Forest Legacy, interested stakeholder, resource and species expertise  Kris Boatner, Scott Conway, and Sally Hallowell (TNF) – biology, silviculture, fire/fuels, veg management, GIS expertise

Tahoe National Forest, Truckee Ranger District PSW Sagehen Experimental Forest UC Berkeley Sagehen Field Station 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 species  Populations have been declining in California, particularly in the northern Sierra  Studies at Sagehen over the last 30+ years indicate a significant local decline

Tahoe National Forest, Truckee Ranger District PSW Sagehen Experimental Forest UC Berkeley Sagehen Field Station SAGEHEN PROJECT MARTEN DECLINE  Causes 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

Tahoe National Forest, Truckee Ranger District PSW Sagehen Experimental Forest UC Berkeley Sagehen Field Station SAGEHEN PROJECT KEY HABITAT FEATURES Rest Sites and Denning Sites Stumps/downed logs Snags/cavities Photos courtesy of Katie Moriarty (taken on Lassen NF)

Tahoe National Forest, Truckee Ranger District PSW Sagehen Experimental Forest UC Berkeley Sagehen Field Station SAGEHEN PROJECT CONSERVATION/RESTORATION OF MARTEN HABITAT IS ONE OF THE PROJECT OBJECTIVES  Protection of existing habitat features, prevention/minimization of project impacts  Restoration/enhancement of habitat that has been degraded in the past

Tahoe National Forest, Truckee Ranger District PSW Sagehen Experimental Forest UC Berkeley Sagehen Field Station SAGEHEN PROJECT VEG/MARTEN SUBGROUP  Agreement 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)

Tahoe National Forest, Truckee Ranger District PSW Sagehen Experimental Forest UC Berkeley Sagehen Field Station SAGEHEN PROJECT VEG/MARTEN SUBGROUP  To address different representations of vegetation, RSL did analysis for current condition  Compared 2005 TNF and 2007 RSL  Analysis to compare high quality marten habitat  Recommended 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

Tahoe National Forest, Truckee Ranger District PSW Sagehen Experimental Forest UC Berkeley Sagehen Field Station SAGEHEN PROJECT VEG/MARTEN SUBGROUP  Performed GIS analysis that combined high value marten habitat, slope, and elevation  GTR 220 suggests using topographic position on the landscape as a template for landscape heterogeneity

Tahoe National Forest, Truckee Ranger District PSW Sagehen Experimental Forest UC Berkeley Sagehen Field Station SAGEHEN PROJECT VEG/MARTEN SUBGROUP  GIS analysis included:  North-facing, south-facing, canyon, ridge  Above 2050m (upper basin), below 2050m (lower basin) (2050m = 6,725ft)  High value habitat, not high value habitat  Sixteen classifications/categories

Tahoe National Forest, Truckee Ranger District PSW Sagehen Experimental Forest UC Berkeley Sagehen Field Station SAGEHEN PROJECT VEG/MARTEN SUBGROUP Map Inputs Category high habitat, canyon, above 2050m 1 high habitat, north midslope, above 2050m 2 high habitat, canyon, below 2050m 3 high habitat, north midslope, below 2050m 4 high habitat, south midslope, above 2050m 5 high habitat, ridge, above 2050m 6 high habitat, south midslope, below 2050m 7 high habitat, ridge, below 2050m 8 not high habitat, canyon, above 2050m 9 not high habitat, north midslope, above 2050m 10 not high habitat, canyon, below 2050m 11 not high habitat, north midslope, below 2050m 12 not high habitat, south midslope, above 2050m 13 not high habitat, ridge, above 2050m 14 not high habitat, south midslope, below 2050m 15 not high habitat, ridge, below 2050m 16

Tahoe National Forest, Truckee Ranger District PSW Sagehen Experimental Forest UC Berkeley Sagehen Field Station SAGEHEN PROJECT VEG/MARTEN SUBGROUP Consolidate classifications into 7 emphasis areas 1 High habitat, north midslope, GT 2050m 1 High habitat, north midslope, LT 2050m 1 High habitat, ridge, GT 2050m 1 High habitat, south midslope, GT 2050m 2 High habitat, canyon, GT 2050m 2 High habitat, canyon, LT 2050m 3 High habitat, ridge, LT 2050m 3 High habitat, south midslope, LT 2050m 4 Not high habitat, canyon, GT 2050m 4 Not high habitat, canyon, LT 2050m 5 Not high habitat, north midslope, GT 2050m 5 Not high habitat, north midslope, LT 2050m 6 Not high habitat, south midslope, GT 2050m 6 Not high habitat, south midslope, LT 2050m 7 Not high habitat, ridge, GT 2050m 7 Not high habitat, ridge, LT 2050m

Tahoe National Forest, Truckee Ranger District PSW Sagehen Experimental Forest UC Berkeley Sagehen Field Station SAGEHEN PROJECT Emphasis Areas – High Value Habitats Total in Basin (ac) Potentially Affected (ac) Percentage 11,40732323% 23787620% 31095954% Total1,89445824% Emphasis Areas – Not High Value Habitats Total in Basin (ac) Potentially Affected (ac) Percentage 41,11823621% 53,8031,15630% 61,89981743% 776625633% Total7,5862,46532%

Tahoe National Forest, Truckee Ranger District PSW Sagehen Experimental Forest UC Berkeley Sagehen Field Station 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

Tahoe National Forest, Truckee Ranger District PSW Sagehen Experimental Forest UC Berkeley Sagehen Field Station 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/boundaries

Tahoe National Forest, Truckee Ranger District PSW Sagehen Experimental Forest UC Berkeley Sagehen Field Station SAGEHEN PROJECT VEG/MARTEN SUBGROUP OVERALL GOALS  Accelerate creation of or enhance microsite habitats for marten with high value rest sites/structures, large trees, snags, down logs, high stumps  More heterogeneous forest  Grow bigger trees faster, higher BA in large trees  Manage for different tree species compositions depending on landscape position

Tahoe National Forest, Truckee Ranger District PSW Sagehen Experimental Forest UC Berkeley Sagehen Field Station SAGEHEN PROJECT VEG/MARTEN SUBGROUP SAGEHEN PROJECT FLOWCHART VIA EXCEL

Tahoe National Forest, Truckee Ranger District PSW Sagehen Experimental Forest UC Berkeley Sagehen Field Station SAGEHEN PROJECT VEG/MARTEN SUBGROUP ONGOING EFFORTS  Exploring another representation of current condition using LiDAR  Working 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 opportunities  Develop prescriptions  Modeling for post treatment fire behavior and forest stand dynamics/tree growth

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

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "SAGEHEN PROJECT Tahoe National Forest, Truckee Ranger District PSW Sagehen Experimental Forest UC Berkeley Sagehen Field Station SAGEHEN PROJECT."— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback

Log in

Auth with social network:

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

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "SAGEHEN PROJECT Tahoe National Forest, Truckee Ranger District PSW Sagehen Experimental Forest UC Berkeley Sagehen Field Station SAGEHEN PROJECT."— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback