Applegate River Watershed Forest Simulation Project

Applegate River Watershed Forest Simulation Project Public Meetings,
March 11 and 12, 1998
Meeting Summaries
(facilitation and notes by Keri Green)

Williams Community Meeting
March 11, 1998
14 Community Members in attendance
Sign-in sheet retained by the Applegate Watershed Council

Summary of Questions and Concerns

1.  Consistently question the assumptions.

2.  Really Really Really listen to what the community wants.

3.  Question the use of fuelbreaks; they are high maintenance and not convinced
    they are effective.

4.  Do not want Goal #5 (flow of wood products) to be the over-riding goal.

5.  It's important to keep the local economy connected to wood products harvested locally.

6.  Want an acknowledgment that there may be or will be a discrepancy between
    what the model says and how it's implemented on the ground.

7.  Suggest also model Restoration without Harvest.

8.  How to think through site-specific stuff affects the bigger spatial scale.

9.  The model should go through FS and BLM plans to incorporate what they're going to do.

10.  Address weather diversity in the model such as "time-dependent entropy increase".
    (Agee has suggested including implications of global warming.)

11.  Human and Natural distrubances need to go hand-in-hand (reference "B" in Agee's document.)

General Comments:

Norm Johnson:  "Frankly, this would be easier if you all weren't so involved in your community."

Community member1:  "This has been an inspirational evening.  I believe that something
can actually happen here.  I applaud your (Norm's) efforts to provide a transparent process.
Have long thought that scientists were our best hope to work with to achieve our interests.
We are very interested in working with you.

Norm:  "... want the goals to be a reflection/expression of community values.
These values will be assimilated into the models.  Intent is to work jointly
through the Applegate Partnership to develop the assumptions that go into different models."

Community member2:  "Excited about testing the assumptions in the NorthWest Forest Plan.
The Plan provides for community participation.  This is inherent in thePlan.
Ensures integrity in the process."

Norm:  "If this modeling shows our current path is perilous, I will say that."

Norm:  "...want to try out:  how robust is any strategy in the face of real extremes?"

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

Goals and Measurements
Star Ranger Station
March 12, 1998
20 people in attendance
Agency people, Applegate Partnership and Watershed Council members, interested citizens


Decision to add an "aesthetics" sub-goal.  It will refer to the value described by the term:
"happiness-quotient".  Thinking about it, broadly,in this way:  "When you look at it (the forest,
watershed, etc.) does it look happy?"

Acceptable, perhaps temporary, language for the sub-goal: 10)  Provide for aesthetic values

How to tell:
1.  map showing where activity has occurred 2.  3-D characterizations / photo simulation

Work "education" and "stewardship" into overall goals

Consider Reserves & Connectivity (Reed Noss)

Represent privately held riparian

Dynamics of material and energy flow affects net loss and gain of "flow of species"
in and out of watershed. i.e.  Ensure adjacent habitat exists for species whose habitat
will be / is burned

Subgoal #5:  reword  "help determine what is a predicatable and sustainable flow of wood products;
"add "sustainable" to special forest products.

Subgoal #3:  Include Roads (sediment, decommissioning).  Affects how water quality is determined.
Inquire/investigate Richard Hart's (Headwaters) ground surface temperature measurement study.

Include Carbon measurements.  Question:  "how could the Applegate Watershed become
as large a carbon sink as possible over time?"

Include Revenue and Output projections