Collaborator Forum hourly 1 1970-01-01T00:00+00:00 Background on Shared Stewardship <p class="plain"><font style="" class="heading2">Background on Shared Stewardship for the 2019 Conference Sessions</font></p><p class="plain"><font style="" class="heading2"><br></font></p><p class="plain"></p><ul><li class="plain"><a link="" rel="" target="_blank" href="" class="plain">Outline for introduction to Shared Stewardship</a> (David Groeschl and Dennis Becker)</li><li class="plain"><a link="" rel="" target="_blank" href="" class="plain">Conference Call notes - 01/17/2019</a></li><li class="plain">Narrated video of Shared Stewardship topics (below)</li></ul><p class="plain"></p><p class="plain"><br></p><p class="plain"><br></p><p class="plain"><br></p><p class="plain"><iframe allowfullscreen width="560" frameborder="0" src="" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" height="315"></iframe></p> idahoforestpartners 2018-12-07T18:37:02-08:00 Background on Shared Stewardship Video: Ecosystem Management and Decision Making <p class="plain"><iframe allowfullscreen webkitallowfullscreen width="640" mozallowfullscreen frameborder="0" src="" height="352"></iframe> <p><a link="" href="">Chris French, Environmental Analysis and Decision Making Worksho</a> from <a link="" href="">Forest Service</a> on <a link="" href="">Vimeo</a>.</p></p> Spatial Interest 2017-12-10T06:58:40-08:00 Video: Ecosystem Management and Decision Making 2017 IFRP Report: September Revision <p class="plain">Here is the September revision of the draft <a link="" rel="" target="_blank" href="" class="plain">IFRP Report on Collaborative Forest Restoration>></a></p> idahoforestpartners 2017-09-24T15:22:04-07:00 2017 IFRP Report: September Revision RE: Public Lands Planning in Central Idaho May 17 2016 <p class="plain">TO: Gina & Co.</p><div class="plain">FROM: Campbell Gardett (*not sure if my name will show up w/o this identifier)</div><div class="plain"><br></div><div class="plain">Your notes look accurate to me, thanks.  But personally I think we have a ways to go to get a process that will work to involve people and to make a meaningful contribution.  So I have the following thoughts:</div><div class="plain"><br></div><div class="plain">1) THE PRESENT PLAN -- While the visioning of what we want in a "blue-sky" way was valuable, it might be helpful to look at the existing Forest Plan to have something more concrete to chew on and stimulate thoughts (and also just to see how the FS approaches these plans, and what the structure is, etc.).  Fo FWIW, I offer the web address of the existing Plan (actually two plans, one for Challis and one for Salmon).  The Plans are available at <a link="" rel="" target="_blank" href="" class="plain">this Forest Service webpage</a>:</div><div class="plain"><br></div><div class="plain">2) WHAT'S HOT, WHAT'S NOT -- Likewise, to get more meat to chew on as we think what we want, it might be worthwhile to think what we don't want -- specifically, what things are NOT working well now in the S/C Forest, and what things ARE working well.  Sure, we want to get to the positive in the end.  But if you're replacing one thing with a new and hopefully better thing, you ask "what's good and what's not good with what we have, and how do we improve?"  The "blue-sky" approach only captures these viewpoints sort of "in reverse" or offhandedly, so to speak.</div><div class="plain"><br></div><div class="plain">3) WHY WOULD MAKE ME CARE ENOUGH TO COME? -- Also, in particular, the "what's working and what isn't" ("WWAWI") approach might help get more participation as well as better feedback, especially if we approached these questions subject-by-subject. So grazing permittees and outfitters, for example, would be much more motivated to come to a "WWAWI" meeting on their particular (and income-related) area of concern than they would to a Kumbaya session (no offense to Kumbaya when rightly used).  With their experience and thoughts registered, those could go into the mix to be incorporated as appropriate by a central group.  (This might also increase participation down the road when the FS does its public input stuff, and more feeling of ownership.)  So I guess I'm suggesting meetings for many different categories that would attract folks with specific interests.</div><div class="plain"><br></div><div class="plain">4) CUSTOMERS, PARTNERS ... AND PERFORMANCE PLANS -- One thing to look for especially from the "WWAWI" approach would be the "customer relations" and "partnership" aspects of managing the Forest, with a view toward a bigger part for these areas in the Forest Plan.  I suspect much of the success of a Plan has to do with month-to-month personal relationships between FS folks and the people who should, in my view, be considered "customers" or, even more important, "partners" in productive use of the lands, as envisioned by Congress.  "WWAWI" meeting would want to look hard at what really DOES work in these essentially personal relationships, and how a "partnership" atmosphere is nurtured.  And then, I believe, these should be more prominent in the Plan itself, and further should be translated down into each FS employee's Performance Plan, and in some Performance Plan as a Key Element of the Performance Plan (there's a term of art for these Key Elements, but I'm forgetting what it is.)</div><div class="plain"><br></div><div class="plain">5) UNSUNG ROLE OF "GOALS" -- The statement of goals in Plans like this FS are often treated as so much boilerplate and mush, but I think they are important and should be strong.  It will never be possible to get all the specific "rules" correct, and strong goals will help get the right spirit into the specifics, and help enable the FS folks to bend as needed using their judgment and the goals, and also help with flexibility over time, a point brought up at our meeting.</div><div class="plain"><br></div><div class="plain">6) Finally, if we come up with ideas that transcend the S/C Plan itself but might be important feedback to the USFS, we should write it down and send it to the Regional Forester, the Chief Forester and our Congressional offices.  My own candidate would be the Dinosaur nature of these Plans and for that matter of NEPA reviews.  The amount of time they take, which presumably reflects process requirements now in place, is harmful all-round.  A statement in the current plan says: "This plan will be revised when necessary, but no later than Oct. 1, 2000." It's time to stop winning at how out-of-whack the process requirements are with the benefit of the Forests.  The failure of the S/C Forest to customize the INFISH rules to local conditions, and the wasteful lawsuit that is going on as a result, is one example of the problem.  In addition, collaborative management is impeded by Dinosaur Processes.</div><div class="plain"><br></div><div class="plain">So those are my thoughts.  Thanks, and pardon the length.</div><div class="plain"><br><br></div><p class="plain"></p> Campbell Gardett 2016-05-25T10:17:16-07:00 RE: Public Lands Planning in Central Idaho May 17 2016 RE: Public Lands Planning in Central Idaho May 17 2016 I've heard back from a # of folks on the notes. Thanks to Roxane Gardett for reminding us that she and Campbell were indeed present at the meeting; Rob Mason of The Wilderness Society had sent an email that one of the small groups incorporated into their brainstorming session. Rob felt like some of his issues were captured, but wanted to add to the list: <p style="" class="plain">·         Recommended Wilderness and other Land Allocations (e.g. ACECs, backcountry conservation areas, etc.)</p><font style="" class="plain"> </font><p style="" class="plain">·         Wildlife Corridors and Connectivity</p><br>Tom Page had to leave early and was glad to see the Land Tenure issue brought forward as one of the issues we cared to collaborate on, but felt like that needed to incorporate the rights-of-way, irrigation trespass, etc. <br><br> SalmonValley 2016-05-25T08:58:54-07:00 RE: Public Lands Planning in Central Idaho May 17 2016 RE: Status: IDL's Proposal for a Non-Profit Entity <p class="plain">Having been a moderator for the IFRP meetings over the past few years I think John is correct. This resolution is highly charged politically and will likely drive people apart.</p><div class="plain"><br></div><div class="plain"><br></div><div class="plain">John Freemuth</div><p class="plain"></p> John Freemuth 2015-03-24T10:48:17-07:00 RE: Status: IDL's Proposal for a Non-Profit Entity RE: Status: IDL's Proposal for a Non-Profit Entity <p class="plain">The bill starts out with the statement that this new office shall "...oversee implementation of activities regarding public lands in this state including, but not limited to, citizen access to the public lands of this state,....". That should make it a political hot-button! The bill also creates a whole new "Public Lands Council" appointed by the Legislature and consisting primarily of Idaho legislators. The rest of the Idaho Department of Lands serve the Land Board.</p> John Roberts 2015-03-24T05:04:08-07:00 RE: Status: IDL's Proposal for a Non-Profit Entity Status: IDL's Proposal for a Non-Profit Entity <p class="plain"><font class="heading1">Update</font></p><div class="plain"><font class="heading1"><br></font><ul><li class="plain">During the IFRP February Conference, IDL described a proposal for a non-profit entity to support projects on Forest Service ownership.</li><li class="plain">The topic generated good questions and discussion during and between conference sessions.  </li><li class="plain">Due to the introduction of <a link="" rel="" target="_blank" href="" class="plain">Senate Bill 1134</a>, IDL has decided to defer a meeting of the Federal Lands NonProfit Task Force.  </li><ul><li class="plain">S1134, if enacted, would establish an IDL Office of Public Lands.</li><li class="plain">An Administrator in the Office would be the designated official to oversee implementation of activities regarding public lands within the state.</li></ul><li class="plain">Below is the explanation IDL provided to the Task Force Members on the status of the Task Force effort.</li></ul><br><font class="heading1">IDL Correspondence to Task Force Members</font><font class="heading2"><br></font><font class="heading2"><span class="plain"><font class="plainlarge"><i>“When we left Boise last month, the intent was to send out a doodle poll this month to schedule a meeting in April.  However, with the introduction of Idaho Senate Bill 1134, State Forester David Groeschl feels that it would be best to wait until this plays out before we proceed with anything.  Depending upon what happens here, our work could be a duplication/conflict of effort.  Please stand by and we will keep you informed as this evolves.  Thank you.”</i></font></span></font><br></div><p class="plain"></p> IFRP 2015-03-23T17:05:38-07:00 Status: IDL's Proposal for a Non-Profit Entity Final Approval: Idaho's Designated Treatment Areas <p class="plain"></p><div class="plain"><font class="heading2">Update: Idaho's Designated Treatment Areas</font></div><div class="plain"><br></div>Governor Otter submitted designated treatment areas to the Secretary of Agriculture in April 2014.  The requests were in response to the 2014 Farm Bill Amendments to the Healthy Forest Restoration Act.<div class="plain"><br></div><div class="plain">Following approval of the requested treatment areas, a few boundary adjustments were necessary.  The letter and maps listed below document the final approval of Idaho's designated treatment areas:</div><div class="plain"><ul><li class="plain">Chief Tidwell's letter to Governor Otter:  Explains the boundary adjustments.</li><li class="plain"><i><a rel="" link="" target="_blank" href="" class="plain">Map of Designated Treatment Areas</a>:  </i>A map provided to the Governor by the Forest Service that displays designated treatment areas and Forest Service ownership.</li><li class="plain"><a rel="" link="" target="_blank" href="" class="plain">Updated Map of Idaho's Original Request</a>: Displays the approved treatment areas and Idaho's priority landscapes.  </li></ul><br>IDL has retained the spatial database of the approved boundaries and can provide additional detail when needed.</div><p class="plain"></p> IFRP 2015-03-10T14:23:30-07:00 Final Approval: Idaho's Designated Treatment Areas Discussion Notes: What Should be the 2015 IFRP Focus? <p class="plain">On Day Two of the 2015 IFRP Conference, participants held a round table discussion on the question:  What should be the 2015 IFRP Focus?</p><div class="plain"><br></div><div class="plain">Please review <a rel="" link="" target="_blank" href="" class="plain">these discussion notes.</a></div><div class="plain"><br></div><div class="plain">The Partners invite feedback on the notes.  </div><div class="plain"><br></div><div class="plain">If you are new to the IFRP Open Forum, <a link="" rel="" target="_blank" href="" class="plain">here is a tutorial on using the features.</a></div><p class="plain"></p> IFRP 2015-02-20T02:02:25-08:00 Discussion Notes: What Should be the 2015 IFRP Focus?