Minutes of 04/23/09 Meeting 1. Minutes of the March 11, 2009 meeting approved. Moved by Jim M., 2nd – Tom L. 2. Announcement & Introductions: - WA state legislature passed a DNR sponsored bill to create 2 'woody biomass' demonstration projects – one east-side, one west-side of the state. - Two new participants: Jeff Logosz, who is studying the feasibility of a regional composting facility; and Jacob Anderson, who is working on a woody-biomass feasibility study. Otherwise, the usual suspects. 3. RAC Title II meeting report: - Could not get to the 2010 proposals. Meeting will reconvene on June 8. Some question as to how to proceed. - Cave/Bear Creek project was funded, but not the Bear Creek proposal. - Total amount is more than $200k over the allotted funds, in case of project drops. - Projects included road maintenance, weed eradication, trail maintenance, support of Visitors' Centers, Sawtooth Huckleberry Restoration, Big Pine Restoration, some pre-commercial thinning. Some projects were historically Title III, but were changed during the reauthorization process for the Secure Rural Schools bill. - Discussion of process of negotiations within the RAC. 4. John Nakae presented current long-term planning for the GPNF: - Winthin – currently laying-out a timber sale (430 acres). - 6+ MMBF of thinning – variable-density approach; - One small clear-cut to remove stand of Puget Sound seedling stock. - Planning for September sale date. - Wildcat – EA is out for public review. - First project from the current (new) 5-year plan; - All thinning, all in plantations (30 – 50 year-old trees); - 2-year plan with 3 current projects (A, B, and C); - 29 MMBF total? 15 MBF per acre estimated. - Sawtooth Restoration – lay-out stage. - Sale by September; - Twin Butte area has some commercial-sized timber; - 3.8 MMBF? - RAC Title II funds are for the non-commercially-viable work. - Big Pine Restoration – stewardship work via RAC Title II funds. - Small 'commercial' projects – firewood, Catherine Creek. - Discussion of biomass from Stray Cat, Bear Mountain projects: - AFRC (American Forest Research Council) meeting discussed the economics of capturing and using woody biomass. - Spencer mentioned countries such as Finland, Sweden, Germany that have well-developed systems for collection, processing, and use of forest 'waste'. One element of process is to leave slash and small-tree piles to 'age' for 6 months or more in order to reduce the 'green'. - John N. stated that the NF cannot leave such piles for long periods of time, citing vandal-set fire for one consideration. - Dan G., speaking for the Wind River Watershed Council, asked whether logs with rootballs could be obtained from some projects for use in habitat restoration in the Wind River. He will discuss with John N. about possibilities. - Particular reference to the Hemlock Dam removal project for which approx. 1,000 trees are being knocked over and transported to Trout Creek for same purpose. - Question asked: Was the EA done for the Hemlock Dam project? - Answer from Nancy R.: Yes. - Jim M. asked if past sales have “played out”, or if there could be residual harvest from them. - General discussion of the 5-year plan: - John N. showed a map with GPNF watersheds differentiated by a color code; - Cave/Bear is in the Trout Lake drainage; - Wildcat D, E, F projects are in the Lewis River drainage; - Most projects are for thinning, since this is “less controversial”; - Tom L. asked whether all of the designated segments of the 5-year plan will have NEPA documents finished by the end of the plan. Answer from Nancy R., “Not necessarily”. John N. doubted that the F.S. budget will be adequate for task. - Jim M. asked if the RAC Title II money for Cave/Bear will expedite the NEPA process there. John N.: “Yes”. - Jim M. - If GPNF lets the Collaborative Group know the plan, we could help with RAC proposals. John N.: “Yes”. John will e-mail a .pdf of the map to Jamie T. for distribution. - Jacob A. asked if there are any provisions for small business opportunities. John N.: “Not built in”. - The Wind River watershed is next on the list after the Cave/Bear Creek area. - Tom L. asked whether the GPNF will wait until the end of the 5-year period to begin the process again. John N. said that they were supposed to revise yearly. - Jim M. asked how many board feet can be harvested per the plan. John N. estimated about 25 MMBF per year. Jim M. stated that such an estimate must not be considering growth within the forest. - John N. mentioned a possible stewardship project on the south end of the lava beds, involving Chincapin restoration (removal?). 5. Discussion of RAC Title II meeting by MADCG project: - Cave/Bear Creek project approved for 2009 funds. - Stand analysis work – by contractor? Administered by Skamania County EDC? MARS (could both administer and perform the contract work)? - Jamie T. - can MADCG participate? Nancy R.: Possibly, but standards apply, training might be required, if available. - Tom L. - Asked whether the timeframe for the RAC funds would allow time for “boots on the ground” this year. - Nancy R. - More detail is needed to define tasks. Pre-NEPA to filter out non-useful stands. - Spencer suggested that the subcommittee which worked on this project continue to meet with Mt. Adams District staff to schedule tasks, report back to MADCG. - Bear Creek proposal did not make initial 'cut'. - Jamie T. described the mechanics of the RAC process. Conclusion is that we need to 'lobby' better. - Spencer described the events with respect to this project. - The F.S. sent a 'Concerns' letter to the RAC members, with the Bear Creek project at the top of the list; - After the meeting at least one RAC member said that, since the F.S. opposed the project, there was no point in voting for it. As a result, this project had two pre-meeting votes from Jay McL. and Arlene Johnson. All of the projects with three or more such votes were discussed and decided by vote at the meeting. Spencer presented the Bear Creek project and tried to make the case that, if the RAC approved the Bear Creek proposal, then the “technical debate” concerning the 'fuel break' section could take place at a Regional Ecosystem Office meeting. A RAC member proposed that the meeting review the projects which had not been approved, but had received three initial votes, before starting on two-vote proposals. The RAC members then approved projects that accounted for all of the available funds, plus conditional projects, in case any higher priority projects were dropped. - Spencer proposed that the Bear Creek project could be amended to start in 2010. - Jamie T. reported her conversation with Sue Ripp concerning a possible amendment to the proposal. Sue will investigate and report to Jamie. - Lisa M. said that the RAC board does not want to be involved with controversy. She recommended dropping the fuel-break segment. - Nancy R. said that debating the project at the REO would be her call in any case. - Discussion of fuel break design: Original proposal from 2006 called for a “thinned fuel break” along both sides of the 68 road system. Spencer explained that the 2009 proposal called for investigation of watershed by fuels/fire expert(s), and, if warranted, a recommendation of a fuel-break design. - Spencer will discuss proposal further with Nancy R. to try to find common ground and terminology (hazardous fuels treatment?). - Jamie T. proposed that we send out the proposal for another review by MADCG members; consider again at next meeting. 6. Field trip? - Lisa M. suggested a tour of a Clackamas District stewardship project; - Jamie T. suggested a tour of either site that we proposed for RAC funding; - We will discuss next meeting. 7. Next meeting will be on May 21, 13:00 – 15:00 @ the Hatchery office. Attendees: Jamie Tolfree, Paul Spencer, Joanna Grammon, Ed LaMotte, Rick Larson, Tom Linde, Jay McLaughlin, Jim Mickel, Lisa Moscinski, John Forsberg, Dan Gunderson, Nancy Ryke, Jacob Anderson, Jeff Logosz | 
