Staney Community Forestry Project
Results of 4th Public Planning Workshop – July 26-27, 2010
Coffman Cove, AK
The purpose of this document is to summarize the fourth public planning workshop for the Staney Community Forestry Project that took place in Coffman Cove on July 26-27, 2010. The purposes of the meeting were to 1) ratify the Staney Community Forestry Agreement; 2) view the Staney area; 3) discuss the monitoring plan and the PNW Role; and 4) discuss the future role of the Staney Collaborative Group. The discussion of the statement of purpose and need for actions and projects resulting from this project was put off to the IDT meeting in October.
The first day of the meeting included a field trip to the Staney area. Over 30 people participated in the trip and visited sites that are relevant to the DFCs adopted by the collaborative group.
The second day of the meeting included presentations by the PNW Forest Sciences Laboratory describing possible research projects that could be undertaken in conjunction with the projects that are approved during the environmental analysis stage. Copies of the proposed research projects can be found in the Documents page on this website. The remainder of the meeting was taken up with a discussion of the monitoring program that needs to be described in the final report; how participants can show their support for the collaborative effort; and the next stage in the process.
Completion of Report – A small working group consisting of Keith Rush, Dave Albert, Paul Alaback, and Bob Deal will complete the next draft of the report within two weeks (August 11th). The group determined that some mention of the potential effects of climate change should be included in the appendix.
Monitoring Portion of Report – A group consisting of Dave, Paul, Bob, and Sheila Spores will prepare a short description of the goals of monitoring and a general framework on how monitoring will be done. This description will be incorporated into the document prior to its distribution to the entire group.
Ratification – Each participant will be given 30 days to complete a final review of the report. Participants will be asked to write a letter of support or a letter describing their participation in the process, on letterhead, addressed to the Forest Supervisor, Forrest Cole, 648 Mission St., Ketchikan, AK 99901. Copies of these letters will be appended to the final report. Copies should be sent to TNC, Jason Anderson, and the Regional Forester in Juneau.
An initial IDT meeting will be organized for mid-October to begin to start the environmental analysis, including development of a purpose and need statement for the project area. Participants in the Staney Community Forestry Project are invited to participate in this meeting.
Staney Community Forestry Project Workshop 4 Agenda
July 26 & 27, 2010 Coffman Cove
· Ratify the Staney Community Forestry Agreement
· View the Staney area
· Discuss the monitoring plan and the PNW Role
· Discuss the future role of the Staney Collaborative Group
· Develop draft purpose and need for first Staney (NEPA) Project?
Day 1 Monday July 26
10:00 Meet at the Thorne Bay Ranger Station or for those driving on their own; see the following Field Day Schedule and Agenda to plan for meeting The Group.
10:15 – 10:35 Drive to Junction of Highway and Forest Road 2050 (Staney)
10:50 – 11:15 Stop 1. Active GAP YG thinning project (Terrestrial Habitat and Subsistence)) and completed road storage project (Aquatics) FR 2050
11:30 – 12:10 Stop 2. OG stand (Timber Supply example) and lunch at Staney Bridge on FR 2050
12:25 – 12:45 Stop 3. Winter Harbor Stewardship project (Terrestrial Habitat and Economics) on FR 2050
12:55 – 1:30 Stop 4. TWYGS YG thinning research (Timber Supply and Terrestrial Habitat) project on FR 2050
2:00 – 2:15 Stop 5. Horseshoe Creek Campground (Economic and Recreation) FR 2054300
2:50 – 3:30 Stop 6 & 7 Alaska Department of Forestry YG thinning project (Timber Supply) and look at potential in stream restoration project (Aquatic Habitat) FR 2058
3:50 – 4:30 Stop 8. Active Replicate YG Thinning Stewardship Project (Subsistence, Terrestrial Habitat, and Timber Supply) FR 2060
5:00 Coffman Cove/Naukati Highway Junction
This is obviously a full day of travel and stops. To see and discuss everything we need to leave on time and stay on schedule. If anyone is late, falls behind, or wants to split into smaller groups they can meet up with the group at later stops.
5:00 – 6:00 Travel to Coffman Cove or home
Day 2 Tuesday July 27
9:00 – 9:30 Welcome and introduction of all participants (Marcus)
9:30 – 10:00 Overview of workshop 4 (Marcus)
10:00 – 10:30 Review of Workshops 1, 2, and 3 (Keith)
10:30 – 10:45 Break
10:45 – 11:15 Discussion of how climate change effects should be included in Staney document. (Marcus)
11:15 – 12:00 Presentation by PNW Team on their Staney involvement and monitoring design, with follow up discussion. (Bob Deal)
· What does group want to monitor
· Who will do the monitoring
· Who will pay for the monitoring
· Development of research plan
12:00 – 1:00 Lunch
1:00 – 1:30 CFLR update (Jason)
1:30 – 2:30 Discussion of the ratification of the Staney Agreement (Marcus)
· How does the Group want to show support of the Staney document/process
· What form of support will most influence the FS to implement the Staney DFCs
2:30 – 3:30 Discussion of the future role and involvement of the Staney Collaborative Group (Jason)
3:30 – 3:30 Continued discussions of any unfinished business (Marcus)
3:30 – 4:00 Evaluation of the Staney Process (Marcus)
Staney Community Forestry Project Workshop 3 Agenda
April 15, 16, & 17, 2010
The Bay Chalet
–Further refine the desired future conditions.
–Reconcile any conflicts between the desired future conditions
–Solicit feedback and input from community residents on plan goals and outcomes
–Begin crafting implementation strategy
Day 1 April 15
1:00 – 1:15 Welcome and introduction of all participants (Marcus)
1:15 – 1:45 Overview of Workshops 1 & 2 (Keith)
1:45 – 3:00 Sector DFC presentations
3:00 – 3:15 Break
3:15 – 3:45 Plan for going forward – Discussion of: (Keith)
· Staney Project agreements
o Balance development and conservation
o Everyone gets something – no one gets everything
o Not everything on every acre
o Mitigate with management
o Compensate in other areas
o Timing of activities
· Introduction to Maps (Dave)
3:45 – 4:45 Break out – With maps, sector Groups identify areas to achieve sector DFCs.
4:45-5:00 pm Reconvene as full group. Review plan for evening and following day.
Day 2 April 16
9:30-10:00 Reflections and Observations from previous day (Marcus)
10:00-11:30 Sectors share with larger group the representative areas for achieving their Sector DFC. (Group leads show larger group on overhead map)
11:30-12:00 Discuss how plan fits together and begin identifying areas of reconciliation.
12:00 – 1:00 Lunch
1:00 – 1:15 Integration and reconciliation discussion
5:00 pm Adjourn
6:30 – 8:00 Evening session to explain Staney Community Forestry Project to interested public and for groups wanting to continue discussions on specific sites and issues.
Day 3 April 17
9:00 – 9:15 Observations and reflections from previous session
9:15-9:30 Tasks and next steps for June meeting (All)
9:30-10:30 Implementation strategies (Jason Anderson)
–CLFR–10-Year Stewardship Project
10:45-12:00 More on implementation and next steps
–Watershed Restoration Funding
Staney Community Forestry Project
Results of 3rd Public Planning Workshop – April 15-16, 2010
Bay Chalet – Thorne Bay, AK
The purpose of this document is to summarize the third public planning workshop for the Staney Community Forestry Project that took place in Thorne Bay on April 15-16, 2010. The purposes of the meeting were to 1) further refine the desired future conditions; 2) reconcile any conflicts between the desired future conditions; 3) solicit feedback and input from community residents on plan goals and outcomes; and 4) begin crafting an implementation strategy.
The majority of the meeting consisted of working through the DFCs for the various sector areas. The comments and suggestions made at the meeting have been incorporated into the current versions that are found on the Project Progress webpage – http://conserveonline.org/workspaces/staney-creek/documents/project-overview-and-goals/view.html , and are not repeated here. One of the purposes of the workshop was to reconcile conflicts among the DFCs.
1. Refine the DFCs further by incorporating comments and notes taken at the meeting.
2. Produce the most appropriate maps to show the DFCs spatially.
a. Young growth with current deer habitat
b. Young growth and future habitat value
c. Second growth in non-development LUDs
d. An un-thinned layer and a thinned layer.
e. Existing open roads
f. Proposed closed roads
g. Economic analysis
3. Run FPS model to show preliminary results
4. Produce a draft report for the July meeting.
5. Final approval
a. Statement of purpose
b. Draft for review with disclaimer, if necessary
c. Sign off sheet
d. Comprehensive map with indices
e. Forest Service to determine their status
6. Implementation options
a. CFLR – due by May 3rd – TRBD to take lead
b. Group approved participation in development of CFLR application
c. 10-year stewardship contracts/agreements
i. Create a wish list including
1. Things outside of Forest Plan
2. NEPA-cleared projects
3. Future projects
7. Next meeting – Coffman Cove – July 26-27
a. Review plan
b. Amend if necessary
c. Approve if possible
d. Begin monitoring portion of project
e. Day 1 – Field trip
i. Visit to Winter Harbor
ii. Request participation by PNW
f. Day 2 – complete work portion of agenda
February 3 & 4, 2010
Craig Community Association Building
Day 1 February 3
10:30 – 11:00 Welcome and introductions of all participants
11:00 – 11:30 Over view of Workshop 2
11:30 – 12:00 Review of Workshop 1
Vision of project area for 25 – 50 years
General goals of the project area
Specific Sector Goals
12:00 – 12:30 Introduction to CFLR
12:30 – 1:30 Lunch
1:30 – 2:00 Decision making
2:00 – 2:30 Discussion on the geographic area of the project
Decide geographic area
2:30 – 3:15 Introduction to Desired Future Condition
Discuss importance of a clearly defined DFC
Role of Staney collaborative group in relation to USFS planning
Specific input vs. prescriptive input
3:15 – 3:30 Break
3:30 – 5:00 Continue discussion DFC
Review sector issues (break out)
Develop DFC for each sector (break out)
Day 2 February 4
9:00 – 9:30 Review Flyer & Website
9:30 – 10:00 Report back from Sector Issues break out groups
10:00 – 11:00 Discussion of Current Condition to Desired Future Condition
Develop DFC measures for each issue
Discuss monitoring for success
11:00 – 11:15 Break
11:15 – 12:15 Continue discussion of Current Condition to Desired Future Condition
How to integrate all DFCs?
Set up next meeting – Integrate into project list
12:15 – 1:00 Wrap up
Summary of WS 2
Craig Community Association Building – Craig, AK
The purpose of this document is to summarize the second public planning workshop for the Staney Area that took place in Craig on February, 3-4, 2010. This summary is to correspond to the purposes for the workshop as laid out in the agenda. The purposes of the meeting were to: 1) review the results of the first workshop,; 2) agree upon a decision-making process; 3) agree upon a geographical scope of the project; 4) understand the role of the Staney collaborative in USFS planning; 5) develop desired future conditions; 6) discuss possible funding opportunities; 7) monitoring; and 8) communications.
1. Review the results of the first workshop
Keith Rush presented a review of the first workshop. Keith’s power point presentation can be found by clicking here.
2. Decision-making process
Marcus Kauffman led the group in a discussion of various decision-making models that could be used by the Staney collaborative group, including:
a) voting – 51/49% winner/loser
b) consensus – everyone agrees and supports the decision
c) modified consensus – can live with the decision – voting fall back with maybe a 2/3 majority.
Decision – modified consensus, a voice to dissenting opinions. Dissenting voices should put out alternate options. (No action is an alternate). Have to be able to explain your dissent and the reasons why.
3. Geographical scope of the project
Project boundary – Reason to consider the greater area because it may make it easier to find data for the project. Discussion of the topic. There are old growth values outside of the original six VCUs.
A proposal was made to remove VCU 5710 because it is not part of the watershed area. Also, it is likely to have more available for larger scale timber harvest. This proposal was not adopted.
The project assessment area is the full 9 VCUs.
4. Role of Staney collaboration in USFS Planning
Anderson – This process is looking at broader social values for the landscape area. Do not need to be constrained by the Forest Plan. The outcome of the process is to understand the competing values. Measurable – number of jobs, funding, and within the law. What we value from the landscape. Quantify what you want in a way that can be measured (e.g., acres that you want treated in young growth stem exclusion). Measurable outcomes. Avoid prescriptions. Provide DFCs by area. Looking for the work to be done in 2011. Will depend upon how complex the proposal is. The planning process will be long if the results will be complex.
5. Desired future conditions
Desired Future Conditions – The various sectors met and developed their desired future conditions (DFCs) for their individual sector areas. This process was done in stages. Below are the DFCs as agreed to by the sector working group. The sector groups were to refine their DFCs in the interim between the February and April meetings. To view Keith Rush’s presentation on DFCs, click here.
Timber – Problems – Mike Kampnich – Day 1
1. Insufficient long clear grained timber.
2. Inconsistent supply
3. Extreme young growth competition – can’t anticipate
4. Uncertain old growth availability
5. Focused on single dimension harvest approach
6. Uncertain market for a future young growth industry
7. Amount of acreage in non development LUDs. Reassess acreage of non-develop LUDs with idea of putting into timber base.
1. Variable quality in young growth
2. Access to timber and roads
3. What is sustainable?
4. Developing multiple harvest approaches
Need more measures to quantify better.
Markets – don’t know what the markets will be, especially in the young growth. Manage the timber base for a variety of products with a variety of treatments.
Timber – Keith Rush – Day 2
Based DFC on some assumptions – using TLMP with standards and guidelines to define timber base. Timber to come up in a predictable constant supply. Supply and business predictability. Within TLMP and timber base, be realistic, also will be based upon stands with economic feasibility. As supply comes out and divvied up, measurable will be existing industry. Both small and one large operator should get some of the supply from area. Once acres have been identified, no more than 10% of OG per decade. Sets you up on a 100 year rotation. YG resource – variable rotation basis. Not every acre treated. Some could be on 90 years, 120 years, and some on a long term rotation – 200 years. Build in quality wood in perpetuity. Try to keep existing structure in place. Type of prescription called variable retention harvest.
Aquatic habitat – Kyle Mozelle
1. 100% red pipes addressed for removal, correction, or request for 404 waiver
2. 100% grey pipes analyzed
3. Develop prioritization of all red pipes
4. Repair 100% of riparian
5. Stabilize all segments of roads with water quality concerns
6. No net gain in miles of road or fish stream crossing structures
7. No new introductions of invasive species
8. Maintain or improve miles of stream for fish migration
9. No net loss of fish habitat – would require baseline
1. Identify all red pipes
2. Variability of coho rearing
3. Long term stream
4. Impacts from upland canopy on hydrological functions
Terrestrial habitat – Bill Hanson
Young growth, old growth, other habitats
1. Reestablish abundant and diverse understory – focus on deer
2. Understory as a mosaic – provides a variety of diversity
3. Connectivity within stands and across the landscape
4. 200 acres for a unit of YG to get diversity and connectivity
5. Prioritizing where to go first –
6. Need for producing a certain number of deer for harvest – maintain the current available harvest. Prioritizing to make deer accessible. Consider wolves
7. Harvest of bear and marten may be better monitoring species.
8. Connectivity across the landscape – between patches of OG and within YG.
9. Avoid situations where corridors could be killing grounds.
10. Large dead wood – leaving or retaining snags, don’t remove. Protect residuals
1. In portions of landscape, where large amount of OG harvest – clearcutting should be avoided in a sliding scale.
2. OG reserves – heavily harvested are small and narrow following riparian corridors and beach fringe.
a. Closing or eliminating roads after restoration
b. Restoration within OG LUDs into a more productive condition.
c. Personal use on-going consideration in beach buffers.
Climate Change –
1. Alpine habitat may disappear – concern regarding alpine habitats. Data gaps and research needs. Management options or considerations.
1. Denning habitat may be in short supply.
1. Data gap – strong need to determine species that are present.
1. High risk from invasive – prevent and eradicate
Implement road density guidelines.
Terrestrial Habitat – Day 2
Are information needs that are available to put together the actual numbers? YG – Maintain or enhance understory – no net loss of understory. Assessment of array of stand conditions in categories that include age, understory condition, and productivity. Project out what we think the overall trends will be and compensate accordingly. Projecting it out in 5 year increments. No net decrease in the amount of harvest of deer – understory and access. Will require a certain level of analysis. Look at the use patterns and relate to stands.
OG – Should be a threshold when you do not have more old growth harvest within a watershed. Did not attempt to pin a threshold. Approach – look at from standpoint of productivity classes. Recognize – what remains is not representative of the productivity of previous old growth harvest. How would you set threshold – lot of work in the 1997 TLMP. Previous guidelines for goshawks and marten as a way of reviewing the thresholds.
Connectivity – Wildlife need to be able to move across the landscape. Deal with location.
Won’t know quantities until you look at landscape and learn about productivity. Not enough information to be fully quantifiable. Once you assess the current state of the YG and segregate on a sub-watershed basis, will be able to say when stands will be moving out of its stages. Will dictate the treatment schedule.
Subsistence – Dave Albert – Day 1
1. Access as important to subsistence – as access is reduced competition is increased
2. Think about a suite of resources – berries, mushrooms, and firewood
3. Habitat, populations, harvest as one system
4. Need better information (e.g., knowing habitats and harvest in prior years, traditional ecological knowledge survey)
5. Deer – Productivity – continue Todd Brinkman’s work – ongoing population estimates to be able to set population goals. Use change in habitat over time as the trajectory of population – goal of maintaining a certain population.
6. Data gap on populations of fish.
Economic Sector – Karen Hardigg – Day 1
1) Continuity and duration of work (i.e. year round)
a. Problem – unemployment on POW
i. Maintain existing jobs in natural resource management sector on POW
ii. Use locally manufactured products
iii. Reduce unemployment by 5%
1. 250 acres of thinning a year is a full-time job (could be 2 or 3 depending on prescription)
b. Enhance number of jobs –
i. Monitoring program instituted to determine effectiveness of projects
ii. Efforts to build capacity for local resource employment, particularly youth
c. Problem – continuity of jobs
i. Reliable supply of opportunity
2) Local Contractors (POW) would be awarded the projects
a. Problem – lack of knowledge about when jobs/contracts are available
i. Improve capacity of local contractors to bid on jobs in a timely manner
b. Problem – Open bidding process
i. More available Forest Service staff (COs) for bidding process
1. Hold pre-operational meetings
3) Long term supply in work and byproducts that leads to investment in equipment and manufacturing (e.g., 10 years)
a. Problem – Litigation slows down projects
i. Collaborative process to try and meet multiple objectives
b. Problem – existing bidding process is problematic
i. The FS evaluates all of the options available so local contracting benefits (i.e., stewardship authorities or best value contracting)
ii. Contracts that are greater than 1 year at a time
iii. Stewardship authority is used to implement the project
c. Enhance economic effectiveness of projects
i. Improve cost efficiency
Economics – Day 2
Number of jobs are created. Came up with a bunch of formulas. PCT – 1 person 150 acres per year. Can determine the economic benefit once you know the number of acres. Can determine the number of sawmills and logging jobs, once you know the amount of timber. Same for the number pipes, miles of streams, miles of roads closed, FS management jobs, monitoring jobs, recreation jobs, fishing industry jobs, value of subsistence, etc. To complete this, need to generate the numbers to put into the formulas.
Maybe should go from the other direction – decide the number of jobs/employment and then come up with the work to equal the DFC. Need to include economic multipliers. Jobs of residents vs. non-residents. Technology changes. The problem is that the plan is based upon federal funding. How do you create jobs that are self-sustaining? Will require very innovative thinking.
Next steps on DFC – Reconciling the 5 themes to develop synergies and strategies.
1. Need for more data.
2. Sectors that have overlap need to get together and try to work this out.
3. Have the sectors work through their DFCs.
4. Group leader – then everyone to send back to the group leader.
5. Have all 5 sector plans within the next month.
6. Pre-work for next meeting to how you fit them together.
7. How do they fit together?
6. Funding opportunities
CLFR Presentation – Keith Rush’s presentation on CLFR can be found by clicking here. The group supports pursuing more information regarding funding through this program.
Forest Service monitoring -did they do what they said they would do. But not a monitoring program to see if the work accomplished what they wanted. Trying to do a better job to developing monitoring questions.
Need to have measurable DFCs to monitor. Monitoring in multiple sectors. Feedback mechanisms. Revised subsistence discussion. Approach CCA to gather some information on traditional ecological knowledge. Resource use, subsistence issues, etc.
What is the process about? What is the outcome? Come to some level of consensus. How we will continue to participate? Need to do a better job of communicating what the work is about. Develop a buzz around the project. Use plan to get message out. Don’t leave people behind.
Have the next meeting on a Saturday. Ready to have a weekend meeting. Maybe investigate the social media – blog for people to discuss. Work through the Chamber group regarding tourism. An evening workshop to share the information. Prince of Wales evening workshop – just to inform a broader group of people. Radio – need to start reaching out to Friday presentation by KRBD. Evening sessions prior to Sat meeting. Website, flyer, communication plan for the outflow. Simplify the written product. Comprehensible direct language. Evaluation and monitoring of the process. Best way to focus on reaching the various entities. Radio, Facebook, Blog. OVK has a Facebook page. Blog linked up to the website. Can put a link to the blog in the Island News. Post flyer on various boards around town. Hat counting exercise to see all of the groups that are represented.
Coho presentation by Delilah Brigham
The question is whether there is a limitation in coho spawning and rearing due to the beaver ponds that have proliferated in the area.
Fish and Game does not look at beaver dams negatively unless they serve as a permanent blockage in association with culverts/roads.
Next meeting – April 15-17 – Thorne Bay -noon Thursday until noon Saturday
November 9-10, 2009 – Klawock, Alaska
Build common understanding
Identify desired conditions
Roadmap to get there
What participants want to see come out of planning process
Current Projects in Staney Creek
Staney Creek Environmental Assessment
Prince of Wales Island Access and Travel Management Plan
Unit 2 Deer
Prince of Wales Island Young Growth Strategy
Staney Creek Planning Issues
a. Deer habitat conditions and population trends (Brinkman)
i. Current Conditions
ii. Desired Conditions
b. Fish habitat conditions and population trends ( )
i. Current Conditions
ii. Desired Conditions
c. Hunting, fishing, and road management – subsistence/personal use/sport (
i. Current Conditions
ii. Desired Conditions
d. Availability of Old and Young Growth wood products
i. Current Conditions
ii. Desired Conditions
What are the strategies and approaches to achieve desired conditions. What are the barriers.
Decision-making process for the IRMP
Next steps in the process
Results of the 1st Public Planning Workshop – November 9-10, 2009
Klawock ANB Hall, Klawock, Alaska
The purpose of this document is to summarize the first public planning workshop for the Staney Area that took place in Klawock on November 9-10, 2009. This summary is organized to correspond to the purposes of the workshop as laid out in the agenda. These purposes included: 1) to define specific resource issues for planning within the Staney Creek area; 2) to review best available science to develop a shared understanding of existing conditions and current trends; 3) to review existing USFS strategies and management efforts; 4) to define specific parameters of desired condition for each resource sector; and 5) to discuss potential strategies to achieve desired results.
During the workshop, it was decided that the place “Staney Creek” is too limiting as the planning area is greater than the creek watershed alone. Consequently, we are now referring to the project as including the “Staney Project Area.”
1. Define Specific Resource Issues
The definition of the specific resource issues was accomplished in an iterative process. First, the participants were asked to identify their individual goals for the planning process. Then, the workshop focused on a vision statement that was initially developed by a steering committee. And finally, the participants broke into sector groups and refined their goals for each sector. What follows is a summary of the results of these sessions.
Vision for Staney Project Area in 25-50 years
- A landscape that has ecological integrity and resiliency in light of possible impacts from climate change.
- A landscape that provides opportunities for multiple uses.
- A landscape that produces economic benefit from young growth, with some limited economic opportunity for old growth products.
- A landscape that supports abundant fish and wildlife.
General Goals of the Staney Area Project:
To complete a collaborative, community-driven planning process that will result in:
- A plan that integrates the economic, social, and ecological opportunities that exist in the Staney Area.
- A plan that balances development and conservation.
- A plan that provides several years of economic opportunity for residents, businesses, and communities on Prince of Wales Island.
- A plan that includes a monitoring component that will establish a baseline and track progress.
- A plan that is adaptive based upon the ongoing results of the monitoring program.
- A plan and implementation projects that have broad community support.
- Successful implementation of the projects through the best tools that are available (e.g., Stewardship contracts, Stewardship agreements, etc.).
- Serve as a model for management of the Tongass through the transition from economic activity based on old growth to young growth.
Specific Sector Goals:
- No increase in access to undeveloped areas
- OK to close roads as planned in the ATM
- Staney area is the Fort Knox (i.e., storehouse for resources of western POW)
- Some timber harvest is acceptable, but not affect its ability to produce subsistence resources (small scale only)
- Create movies to show what is being proposed and what is expected to happen to the area.
- Maintain certain attributes of the forest in order to maintain species for which little information exists.
- Young growth objectives: restore complexity and restore understory diversity and productivity
- Reestablish a habitat mosaic – both within and among stands
- Develop an adaptive management approach that considers climate change
- Better utilize thinning slash/markets
- Develop old growth characteristics
- Old growth objectives: maintain structural complexity and understory diversity
- Maintain old growth functions across the landscape
- Where timber harvest is considered:
- apply uneven age management prescriptions (e.g., 2-10 acre patch cuts)
- Better utilization of by-products/markets (removal of slash)
- Species Considerations
- Maintain and restore habitat within deer winter range
- Protect denning habitats for black bears (large old hemlock trees)
- Protect forest canopy communities: e.g., mistletoe and canopy lichen
- Endemic species
- What endemics are present in the Staney Project Area?
- Review habitat requirements of known endemic species
- Encourage research on genetic structure of populations
- Hydrology – maintain hydrological functions
- Enhance sustainable flow regimes
- Maintain hydrological connectivity
- Restore fish passage at road crossings.
- Rehabilitate degraded aquatic habitat
- Maintain aquatic productivity
- Improve floodplain structure and function
- Explore opportunities for enhancement
- Continuity and duration of work (i.e., year round)
- Local contractors (POW) would be awarded the projects
- Long term supply in work and byproducts that leads to investment in equipment and manufacturing (e.g., 10 years)
- Sustainability – A sustainable level of cut over a rotation
- Old growth/young growth – how to transition – about 40 years away from a young growth industry – how do we speed up the transition
- Treat the forest to get to a marketable size
- Research, creating new markets, and marketing the products (uncertainty of value over time)
- Supply – huge supply of trees, but they are not readily available.
- Markets and products – what exists, what will be there in the future (e.g., biomass, gluelam, treated lumber, beams, need for old growth to be in the marketplace) (e.g., high end products – music wood, shakes and shingles)
- Transportation, size (use of niche markets)
- Promote highest level of local processing possible.
2. Review Best Available Science
There were several excellent presentations made on a variety of subjects. The power point presentations are posted on the project website: http://conserveonline.org/workspaces/staneycreek. Paul Alaback presented on the forest conditions of the planning area; Todd Brinkman and Kyle Moselle on deer habitat conditions and impacts on deer populations, plus population trends; Delilah Brigham presented on hydrology and fish habitat, with Kyle Moselle providing trend information for pink and coho salmon; Dennis Nickerson presented information about subsistence uses of deer; and Jay Anderson presented on the old growth and young growth resource. A longer summary of these presentations will be available as part of meeting notes for November 9th that will be posted soon.
3. Existing Forest Service Management Strategies and Projects
Jay Anderson and Greg Killinger made presentations about the following Forest Service studies, environmental analyses, and projects:
- Staney Creek Environmental Assessment
- Prince of Wales Island Access and Travel Management Plan
- GMU 2 Deer
- Prince of Wales Island Young Growth Strategy
Each of these studies can be found on the conserveonline website. More detail on these presentations will be posted soon as part of the November 9th meeting notes.
4. Specific Parameters for Desired Future Conditions
The current status of this agenda topic is covered in the outline of specific sector goals contained under defining specific resource issues, above. The participants worked on setting specific goals that will set the parameters for defining desired future conditions (DFCs). Initial work on developing these DFC’s will take place between now and the second public workshop in February.
5. Develop Potential Strategies for Achieving Desired Results
Undoubtedly, there are conflicts among the specific goals (and the resulting DFCs) that will have to be worked out by the participants. There was not sufficient time to work out a process for reconciling the various goals and DFCs. Marcus Kauffman, the workshop facilitator, agreed to make some suggestions for various options and share them with the participants.
Next Meeting – February 3-4, 2010, at the Craig Community Association building in Craig. Goal of meeting is to consider current and desired future conditions and activities that will get us there in a coordinated manner over time.
Complete planning aspects of the project by early summer 2010.
Video tape the presentations so that the community can see what is being done in the process.
Work to be done between now and next meeting:
- Take goals and write them into desired future conditions.
- Additional presentations that would help define desired future conditions (e.g., cohos – what does it mean if you want more).
- Some thorough review of existing conditions to help define desired conditions.
- Elaine Price and others to take to various groups – need to set a list of who will take to whom. (e.g., POWCAC, Chamber of Commerce, conservation groups, tribal groups) Need to have information as to the purpose of this process to these audiences.
- Communication planning – messengers to various publics and bring the message back. Use horizontal methods rather than vertical.
- Mariana Carter – Chamber of Commerce
- Develop a website – TNC
- James Williams will take it to Klawock entities.
- Description of the project – Dave Albert
- Decision-making – how this group make decisions (recommendations to the Forest Service) Marcus Kauffman to propose various models.
- Doing this for the young generation.
- Need for communication among the participants in the interim.
- Face to face meeting in February (watch for school conflicts)
- Finish by early summer – to get a recommendation to the Forest Service for the review process. Will rank high on the Forest Service priorities? Hard to say what level of work the Forest Service will need to undertake. It is on the FS radar screen. Will depend on what comes out.
Participants at Klawock Workshop
Norman Cohen, The Nature Conservancy
John Bruns, Klawock Watershed Council, Klawock Hatchery
Paul Coffey, Natural Resource Conservation Service
Todd Brinkman, University of Alaska Fairbanks
Karen Petersen, University of Alaska Cooperative Extension Service
Steve Bethune, Alaska Department of Fish and Game
Bob Claus, SEACC
Ron Sharp, POW timber industry
Mike Anderson, Forest Service
Keith Lander, POW Biofuels
Patrick Tierney, Forest Service
Dalilah Brigham, Forest Service
Jason Anderson, Forest Service
Raymond Slayton, Forest Service
Carolyn Thomason, POW timber industry
Keith Rush, The Nature Conservancy
Greg Killinger, Forest Service
Cindi Lagoudakis, Forest Service
Don Nickerson, Klawock Community Association
Dennis Nickerson, Klawock Community Association
James Williams, Klawock
Marla Dillman, Forest Service
Angela Coleman, Forest Service
Gregg Parsley, Naukati Bay
Steve McCurdy, Alaska Department of Fish and Game
Mike McKimens, POW Conservation League
Clarence Clark, Alaska Division of Forestry
Elaine Price, City of Coffman Cove
Bill Thomason, POW timber industry
Mike McClellan, Forest Sciences Laboratory
Karen Hardigg, The Wilderness Society
Paul Alaback, Retired University of Montana Forestry School
Mike Ausman, POW Gap Study Leader
Brandy Prefontaine, Naukati Bay
Mariana Carter, Coffman Cove
Kyle Moselle, Alaska Department of Fish and Game
Bill Hanson, US Fish and Wildlife Service
Larry Trumbly, POW timber industry
Dave Albert, The Nature Conservancy
Michael Kampnich, The Nature Conservancy
Evaluation of the process:
- Results driven.
- Get it better advertised
- Good to have the people who are involved know about Staney.
- Better upfront materials.
- Printer and be able to print
- Very positive – diversity and how much common ground there is
- Appreciate the FS and the State coming and presenting
- Need to have Klawock groups involved
- Great to have the science and the data brought to the meeting.
- Important to have it facilitated to accomplish what we planned on doing
- Would like to see more tourism/outfitter participants
- Need to get to some implementation