Applegate River Watershed Forest Simulation Project

Community meetings February 19, 1998 Topic: Fire Modeling
Speakers: Jim Agee, Norm Johnson

Notes by Kevin Preister, facilitator and Todd Kesterson, community outreach coordinator, Applegate River Watershed Council
ph: 899-9982 (Watershed Council Office), fax: 899-1256
E-mail: arwc@mind.net

******************************************************* Applegate River Watershed Forest Simulation Project

Summary of Public Meetings February 19, 1998 K. Preister

1. OSU Extension Office, Central Point 2. Star Ranger Station, Applegate Valley

1. OSU Extension Office, Central Point
About 35 people in attendance, about half are technical people from BLM/FS, several from Headwaters,
private forestry consultants (Marty Main, Richard Brock), and Rogue Institute (Cate Hartzell).

Summary of Questions and Concerns

1. Effectiveness of fuel breaks

2. How human disturbance will be factored in to the model, such as grazing, roads, logging?

3. Given budget limitations of "runs" of the model, how will the runs be determined or prioritized?
What opportunity will be there for southern Oregonians to develop "runs?"

4. Groundtruthing: how accurate are the data entered? Some plot monitoring occurs on agency lands,
some on 10 year basis.

5. Does the growth modeling incorporate soil compaction data?

5. Are assumptions going to be made visible so that all can review the thinking?

6. The insect model should be linked with aspect--not just basal area. How about using "relative density"
measures from Orgonon or FDS?

7. There have recent severe wind events. Can we collect data from these events and enter them into the model?

8. Does the model include population growth?

9. Will modeling of logging occur? Will it be used to justify thinning?

10. The agencies have credibility issues at stake. The concern is that this could be a "management driven" model,
but agency representatives stated that they have maintained their distance deliberately.

11. How will agencies use the model?

12. Problems with aggregation. The loss of rare features. Wildlife information at six acres is not discrete enough.

2. Star Ranger Station, Applegate Valley
About 16 people in attendance, several residents, Applegate Partnership members and Forest Service staff.

Summary of Questions and Concerns

1. Will the model reveal trade offs between areas? (Yes, but options must be limited because of costs
and exponential equations.)

2. Groundtruthing: will it be done?

3. Perhaps small landholdings do not need to be aggregated, thereby providing greater benefit to non-industrial landowners.

4. Are weather differences modeled?

5. Will we be able to compare different management regimes? Yes, but harvest levels are never predicted
--not designed to do that.

6. Can locals use the model or have access to it?

7. Can the fire prevention budgets of the state be used to continue its development and use?

Summary of Major Points

Norm Johnson and Jim Agee made clear the kinds of input needed from their perspective: 1) What are, or should be,
the building blocks of the model. Of particular concern are the labels and criteria for vegetation layers.
Major quantitative data can be made available to them. 2) The goals meeting on March 13 is designed to seek
local input on indicators that would measure progress toward a goal.

From professionals, activists and residents, the overall concern voiced during the day was their ability to influence
the kind of runs to which the model would be subjected. Their wish is to develop scenarios of what they consider
appropriate options to include in the runs of the model. This question was not answered definitively, but interest
in further discussion and opportunities for input were expressed by participants, as well as by the OSU team.

****************************************************************************

Applegate River Watershed Forest Simulation Project

Notes from Public Meetings February 19, 1998 by Todd Kesterson

Norm's Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project (SNEP) paper is printed in January Journal of Forestry.
This project was the predecessor to the Applegate River Watershed Forest Simulation Project
(though SNEP was not as sophisticated in many respects).

Jim's fire modeling paper now has seven co-authors and is in third review.
Paper addressees shaded fuel breaks and larger scale landscape issues.
Final version will be available "soon" for public review on the OSU WEB site
(http://www.cof.orst.edu/research/safefor).

Jim distributed a handout on how fire will be addressed in general (few specifics).
For a copy, contact Todd Kesterson at ARWC (899-9982).

Model will address fire, wind, and insects as disturbance factors. Disease will

not likely be modeled (unless more interest is shown and/or more data becomes available).

Existing road density will be incorporated into model. Future road density (new

roads vs. no new roads) could possibly be incorporated into model.

Due to limited funding, there will be limits on the physical and biological characteristics
incorporated into the model (yet to be determined) and on the number of modeling "runs"
that can be performed by researchers.

Discussion of the importance of finding funding to run as many simulations as possible.
Possibly incorporate Oregon Plan objectives and apply for state funding.

Thirteen standard fuel models will be used as a basis for modeling certain areas

of the watershed. But site specific models will have to be developed in many areas.
Bernie Bahro will do much of the customization of fuel types.

Current landscape condition will have to be incorporated into model.

Researchers aren't sure what "original" forest condition was since historic info. is limited.

Concern expressed over groundtruthing.

Initial veg. data came from detained veg. analysis in Applegate. Some additional groundtruthing
will be done before model is completed. But Jim feels that the greatest potential for error in modeling
will come from the assumptions of change over time. Suggestion was made to model from the past
to the present in order to test how well model simulates change over time.

Based on initial data, model will simulate forest growth over time.
Computer models are more sophisticated at growing trees than at killing them.

Researchers hope to have someone from the Applegate Partnership (possibly a watershed council employee)
trained to run the model. Through this computer operator the community will have access to the model.

Suggestion to predict how development in valley will affect sediment in streams.

Concern over Boise Cascade involvement in project (indirect funding). Norm explained that he does not
speak with Boise Cascade or any other company or agency except through public meetings and indirect
feedback from Applegate Partnership. Researchers are not being directed by corporations or agencies.
No funding is coming from BLM or Forest Service (except for partial funding of Bernie Bahro's salary
from Forest Service Research Station).

Norm emphasized the importance of "transparency" in this process of model development. He wants to be
as open and honest with the public as possible to avoid any problems. He acknowledged that researchers
all come to projects with biases, and that this transparent approach is the best way to deal with the situation.

Resolution of map: pixels represent 25 m X 25 m.Discussion of aggregation (grouping of similar adjacent pixels).
Examples of different aggregation approaches were shown.
Maps and different aggregation attempts will be posted on the WEB.
Rare features tend to get lost during the aggregation process. Researchers are exploring this issue.
Community input is needed in order to determine what aggregation is most desirable.

Model will not allow us to track individual rare plant species. But we can track general habitat type.

People are proud of diverse landscape.

Admittedly, model is a simplified view of the world and limited in predictive accuracy. But the process
can teach us much about models and about the watershed.

Foreplan (model) attempted to predict "best management practice". This model is NOT intended to do that.
However, costs and benefits of different management scenarios will be calculated.

Private lands will be addressed in model. Likely future land use will be considered on these properties.

Management goals for public and private lands will be incorporated into model. Model will help us to predict
the possible implications of different management scenarios over 50-100 year period.

Levels of output can be simulated for practically any resource including salmon runs, timber harvest, etc.

Weather conditions will be modeled based on records of wind and moisture. Weather data will also inform the insect model.

The model will not directly address the effects of global warming due to the complexity of this phenomenon
and the difficulty in predicting such effects. But model will address moisture levels (drought days)
that influence fire and insects.

Air quality constraints will be incorporated into model as well (e.g. only so much smoke per year is allowed
from prescribed burns, but this might make natural fires more significant).

Discussion of incorporating soil compaction into model. Norm is interested but doesn't feel that we have
sufficient data to model soil compaction at this point. Suggestion to use Richard Hart's soil data.
Possibly could estimate how much of landscape might have equipment on it over time.

Shaded fuel break discussion:
Ways to lower fire severity: reduce ladder fuels, reduce crown density. Maintenance of fuel breaks is
as important as initial prescription.

Fire modeling is currently more advanced than other disturbance models.

Model will attempt to address wildlife response to fire.
Model will allow us to see visual representation of fire behavior on landscape.

Concern expressed over human attempts to "improve" on nature.

Concern expressed over possible misuse of model.

When model is complete, a record of underlying assumptions will be available for review.