Transcribed Flip Chart Notes

Attachment 2 – Flip Chart Notes

Transcribed Flip Chart Notes

Breakout Groups Okanogan Liberty Bell Long Swamp Pasayten Rim (Billy Goat) Sawtooth/Kangaroo Ridge North Chelan – Sawtooth Backcountry Wenatchee North Entiat/Chelan: Myrtle, North Fork, Pyramid-south, Rock Creek SE, Twin Lakes Entiat/Chelan: Domke, Lightening, Copper) Wenatchee South Teanaway Alpine Lakes 5 – Icicle Alpine Lakes 3, 9, 10 1		Resources Summaries/Evals from March and May mtgs (detailed evaluation information) Roadless Rule “reminder” (current sideboards) Option 4 “special considerations” from PAC evaluation process Pie Charts: Percent of PAC recommended mgt themes by IRA Maps: Overlays of PAC-recommended mgt themes on IRAs Appendix 4: Descriptions of Veg/Rec mgt themes from July 2006 2
Breakout Groups -- “Question to Address” Do the PAC recommendations for Veg/Rec management themes, plus “special considerations” provide adequate guidance for how these IRAs should be managed? 3		PAC Evaluation of IRAs General statement of agreement: “Roaded Country” theme generally does NOT apply to IRA management. Alpine 5: Ok as is* Alpine 3, 9, 10: Ok as is Entiat – Chelan (Entiat): Ok as is Entiat – Chelan (Myrtle): Add “existing uses for rec (large groups, mtn bikes, and some motorized trails)” North Fork: Add “motorized rec trails maintained, and access by large groups” [*Facilitator note: “Ok as is” means that the Veg/Rec management themes, and “Option 4--Special Considerations” noted on the handout table (Attachment 3) provide sufficient recommendations from the PAC for management of these particular IRAs.] 4
PAC Evaluation of IRAs (cont’d) Pyramid (south): Add “maintain motorized winter recreation” Rock Creek SE: Add “maintain existing uses for non-motorized and motorized.” Heather Lake (ski unit): Ok as is Liberty Bell: Add “winter and summer rec uses and non-motorized, mechanized… Monitor recd uses and adjust as needed for impacts. Allow access needed to clean up CERCLA site.” 5		PAC Evaluation of IRAs (cont’d) Long Swamp: Add “monitor resource impact from motorized and non-motorized summer/winter rec. Assess current rec impacts and adaptively manage to protect currently listed values.” Add “meadow habitats” to currently listed values. Pasayten Rim (Billy Goat): Ok as is. Sawtooth (Kangaroo Ridge): Ok as is. Teanaway: Add “manage for special flora, maintain current winter motorized recreation. Look at possibility of separate motorized and non-motorized summer and winter use areas. Manage rec uses in balance with wildlife.” Twin Lakes (South): Add “wildland urban interface vegetation management.” 6
Suggestions/Considerations for Mgt of IRAs not Recommended for Wilderness* Apply Veg/Rec management themes the PAC developed. Manage IRAs adjacent to wilderness for buffering wilderness, where appropriate. Maintain existing rec activities in IRA areas (provide for use consistent with resource needs). Utilize adaptive management and monitoring. Manage areas for wildland urban interface issues, fuels reduction, and noxious weeds according to PAC veg management theme recommendations. Manage for roadless character (with or without the Roadless Rule). [*Facilitator note: These statements apply to IRAs that were not individually evaluated by the PAC. All statements from individual PAC members were recorded, but only those in bold face are consensus statements from the PAC.] 7		Suggestions/Considerations for Mgt of IRAs not Recommended for Wilderness* (cont’d) Use wilderness evaluation availability/need tables to evaluate trade-offs Try to provide opportunities to meet demand for accessible, quiet, non-motorized use/experience in both winter and summer months. Focus special management on priority areas (significant features) – manage as general forest. Pay special attention to wildlife recovery plans. Maintain current quality motorized and non-motorized uses in balance with wildlife and ecological needs and values. Existing rec uses are an important consideration. Wildlife and ecological interests and needs are an important consideration. Consider the importance of economic viability for communities. If it is a small, critical area for wildlife, close for all uses. 8
Individual PAC Member Comments on “Un-Evaluated IRAs” Devils Gulch/Nason Ridge: Rare and highly valued for mtn biking Motorized uses allowed “Wilderness characteristics,” but managed primarily for recreation. Hungry Ridge: Part of the “Hungry Hunter” stewardship area. Leave this available for management options. Jackson Creek, Bodie Mtn., Clackamas, Mt. Bonaparte – NE Washington Forestry Coalition proposing for Wilderness due to wildlife connectivity issues. 9		Individual PAC Member Comments on “Un-Evaluated IRAs” (cont’d) Bethel Ridge/Blue Slide: Heavily roaded, heavy recreation (hunting and winter snowmobile). Devils Gulch: Ideal location for “community forest.” Managed forest, bike/horse trails, proximity to city. Interp opps, and ADA opps. Stormy Mt. – Small portion become non-motorized winter rec area. Gov’t meadows: Heavily used, motorized year-round. Cabin used rec and military. Groomed snowmobile trails. Lion Rock: Road, high motorized use in summer; groomed snowmobile trails. 10
Individual PAC Member Comments on “Un-Evaluated IRAs” (cont’d) Manastash – heavily used, motorized Goat Rocks/William O. Douglas Adjacent: Should be wilderness. Small chunks, but helpful to get boundaries in better places. Goat Rocks/William O. Douglas: Popular backcountry snowmobile use. 11		Q&A – Travel Management Will local units be able to vary mapping requirements (e.g. signage vs. map only)? Map will be republished every year. Other ways to show people that they are in the right place are being considered (e.g. signage, physical barriers, GPS flash cards, etc.) Encouraged to have uniform, free maps (b&w, etc.) Trail number on map, plus matching signage would be helpful. Maps will have route numbers and corresponding specific route info. 12
Q&A – Travel Management (cont’d) Are you looking at making access from trail to trail (e.g. loops)? We are looking at ways to do this in a way that is safe and legal. Can we expect a look at problem trails in IRAs, LSRs, riparian units, etc.? Districts are evaluating these roads. Don’t anticipate being able to solve site-specific road resource problems. Must use site-specific analysis. I thought this WAS the site-specific process for doing this? FS will provide rationale for why a route should or should not be designated. May be an opportunity for PAC involvement. Clarify…Is this process addressing every route? Looking at changes needed to existing situation. 13		Q&A – Rec Facility Site Master Planning Will rec niche info be available on the Web? Yes, by end of July or beginning of August How were people notified of meetings? Scoping mailing list Website PAC mailing Newspapers How are dispersed camping areas going to be addressed? Depends on the level of development/dispersion Partially dealt with in Facility Master Planning, and partly dealt with in travel management. Isn’t there an objective to save maintenance $$? OWNF is really looking at how to address public needs and work together…not just looking to close sites. 14
PAC Opportunities – Topics of Interest RS-FMP: Input on niche discussion, 5-year proposed program of work, priorities Travel management Winter recreation opportunities Fire/salvage Trail classification system Prescribed fire issue. 15		PAC Opportunities – Topics of Interest (cont’d) Participation of other agency PAC members – select topics of interest to them (e.g. draft northern spotted owl recovery plan) Trails Fuels mgt/forest health Monitoring (doing it, or discussing results) Opportunities to turn fire-created “roads” into rec trails 16

Page of