REPORT ON POST‐FIRE RECOVERY
PUBLIC MEETINGS
March 2014 by Theresa Jensen and Jon Lange of Oregon Consensus INTRODUCTION Thisreportfocusesonasecondsetof2013‐14post‐firerecoverypublicprocesses
conductedbytheBLM,assistedbyOregonConsensusfacilitatorsTheresaJensenand
JonLange.Itfollowsearlierwork,summarizedinapreviousOregonConsensus
documentbythesameauthors(September,2013),andalludedtohere.Further,this
reportismostthoroughlyunderstoodbyreadingitscompanionpieceentitled“Report
onthePost‐FireRecoveryWorkshop,1/30/14,Canyonville.”
Inthe2013report,webeganbywritingaboutsomeofthecontextualfeatures,our
charge,andthedesiredoutcomesandobjectives.Allremainessentiallythesame,even
astheBLMhasrefinedtheirgoals,continuingitsowninternal planning,processes,
preparationandworkontheland.
CONTEXT BLMRoseburgandMedforddistrictscontinuetofacefire‐relatedandotherchallenges:
 Post‐fireseasonlossesandactivities
 MandatesoftheSwansonv.Salazarcase
 Politicalpressurefromcounties,neighborsandothers,representingoften
competingandsometimesmutuallyexclusivegoals
 Loominglegislativeactivity
 PossibleassociatedlitigationastheBLMencountersavarietyoflegaland
interest‐baseddilemmasorquandaries
OUR CHARGE: 2014 Post‐Fire Recovery Intheircontinuingefforttorespondtotheinterestsandvaluesoftheirmultiple
constituencies,theBLMsoughtfacilitationassistancefromOregonConsensusto doa
constituent“pulsecheck”aboutthepost‐firerecoveryworkdonetodateandthe
1
currentplans—totheextenttheywereknown‐‐fortheimmediatefuture.Wewere
askedtoreachouttostakeholdersandlistentotheirperspectivesontheseefforts.
Ourscopeofwork wasto:
 Helpplan,prepareandfacilitatetwopublicinputsessionsonpost‐firerecovery
efforts,oneclosertoMedfordandonefurthernorth.
 Helpplan,prepareandfacilitatealonger,full‐dayworkshopwithinterest
groupsandinterestedparties,asafollow‐uptotheoneheldinSeptember.This
washeldinFebruary,2014.
Thesesessionshadthemultiplepurposesof:
 continuingtoinformthepublicandstakeholdersabouttheBLM’scompeting
tasksinpost‐firerecovery,
 solicitingstakeholderinputaboutthosedilemmas,
 enablingstakeholderstolearnfromeachother,and
 perhapsfindingcommongroundinsomeareas.
Inaddition,theBLMwishedgenerallyto:
 Continuetoobtaininformationthatwouldinformtheagencyastheyidentified
andprioritizedtheirfuturesteps;
 Continuetoclarifyareasofhighestlikelihoodofsuccessinmeetingtheirown
requirementsandgoalswhilesatisfyingasmanyaspossibleconstituent
interests;
 Haveconversationswithallconstituencies,andensurethattheyallhaveequal
access;
 Characterize theseconversationsaspertainingtomorethanjust“salvage
logging”possibilities,asthereissomuchmore:safety,goodneighbors,
ecological,habitat,economicconsiderations,etc.;
 Respondasa“goodneighbor”,withthehighlightedcheckerboard patternof
ownership.
TofurtherexplicatetheBLM’sgoals,andintheinterestofthoroughness,thefollowing
arerelevantexcerptsfrom the“LeadersIntent”:
StateDirectorLeader’sIntent:EngagingthePublicandTransparency
Understandthepublic’sareasofcommonunderstandingandsupportforpost‐fire
activities,aswellastheirconcernsanddissent.Engageindialogwithstakeholdersina
mannerthatallowsustolearnfromeachotherandensurethatwearetransparent
fromthebeginning.
RoseburgandMedfordDistrictManagersLeader’sIntent:
Goal:PlanandimplementsouthwestOregonfire‐recoveryactionswithpublicand
constituentgroupconversationsseekingcommonground.
2
METHODS Planning Meetings Therewereseveralplanningmeetingsandconferencecallsbetweenthefacilitatorsand
varyingBLMpersonnel,includingtheProjectLead,Medford&RoseburgDistrict
leaders,FieldManagersfromMedfordandRoseburgDistrictsand publicoutreachstaff
frombothdistricts.
Public Meetings Glendaleon1/21/14andGrantsPasson1/23/14.Times:5:30‐
7:30PM
Goalsofthemeetings:
 Sharepost‐fireprojectinformationonBigWindyandDouglasComplexfires,and
hearfeedbackonvarioustopicareas;
 Showandtellaccomplishmentstodate;
 Shareanddiscusskeyissuetopicareas:whatinformationtheBLMhas,and
potentialprojectideas
AgendaforPublicMeetings
Facilitatoropening,agendareview,discussopportunitiesforparticipation
FieldManagersintroducethecontext
Projectleaddiscussesfire‐recoveryeffortstodateandcurrentplans.Provides
overview
FacilitatedQuestions&Answersfromaudience
InformationStationswerestaffedbyBLMpersonnel,whowereavailablewith more
specificinformation,includingvisualsandmaps.Membersofthepubliccouldroamand
interactinformally.Stationsincluded:
ESR/Reforestation
FirePlanning
Roads/RoadSafety
Riparian/Watersheds
Habitat
EconomicRecovery
NEPA
Day Long Workshop, 1/30, Canyonville (Forasummaryofthisworkshop,includingthe participantswho attendedandalistof
participantnotes,pleaseseethedocumententitled“ReportonthePost‐FireRecovery
Workshop,1/30/14,Canyonville.”)
3
Goals:
 BuildunderstandingofthedilemmastheBLMfacesastheyattempttobalance
issuessuchaslong‐termhabitatrestoration,protectionfromfuturefire,
minimizingsort‐termimpacts,safetyconsiderations,privatelandconcernsand
economicrecovery.
 Seekstakeholderinputaboutthosedilemmas;
 Enablestakeholderstolearnfromeachother;
 Learnaboutpossiblecommonground.
Agenda:
Facilitator‐ledopening:introductions,goals,groundrules,agendareview
BLMPresentations/ParticipantQuestions.Topicsincluded:
 Roads&RoadSafety
 FirePlanning
 PotentialUnitforSalvage
 Riparian/WatershedIssues
 Habitat
LayeredIssuesinDouglasComplex:MatrixandLSR
TheBLMFieldManagerspresentedinformationaboutaGIS‐layeredspecific
pieceofgroundthatincludedbothLSRandMatrixareas,inordertoshowthe
dilemmastheBLMfaces,includingallthedifferentconstituent interestsaswell
assomeofthelegalrequirements/constraints,discussedlayerbylayer.
SmallGroupWork
Groupsofmixedinterests discussed:
Howwouldyouapproachthevariousdilemmaspresentedbythismulti‐
layeredscenario?Whatwouldyouprioritize?
OUTCOMES Informing the Public and Stakeholders About the BLM’s Progress and Competing Tasks in Post‐Fire Recovery Asnoted,thetwopublicmeetingsinJanuaryinvolvedInformationStationsstaffedby
BLMpersonnelwhohadvisualsandhandoutsavailableforthepublic.Likewise, the
morningsegmentoftheJanuaryworkshopinvolvedBLMstafferspresentingspecific
updatesanddraftideasinanumberofsubstantiveareas.ThoughtheGrantsPass
publicmeetingdrewsomepointedquestions—aswellasanumberofstronglystated
preferences—ingeneral,thereactionstotheinformationandlevelofdetailappearedto
begreatlyappreciatedbythevastmajorityofaudiencemembers atallvenues.We
believethatthepresentationsforboththepublicmeetingandtheworkshopwerevery
helpful.
4
Theall‐dayworkshoponJanuary30hadaspecificgoalofbuildingunderstanding
amongconstituentswithvaryinginterestsregardingthedilemmastheBLMfacesas
theyattempttobalancecompetinginterestsofconstituentswithlegalconstraintsand
imperatives.Inparticular,thelayeredGISmodelofarepresentativepieceoflandthat
encompassedbothmatrixandLSR,wasanoutstandingtooltohighlightthecomplexity
ofdecisions theBLMfacesinpost‐firerecovery.
Soliciting Stakeholder Input: Encouraging Stakeholders to Learn From Each Other EventhoughtheJanuary30workshopturnoutwasdisappointing,therewasgeneral
agreementamongtheMedfordandRoseburgBLMleadershipthat,whentaken
together,withthepublicmeetingsinJanuaryandtheSeptember fieldtripsand
workshop,aclearpictureofconstituents’goals,interests,andreactionstothecurrent
tentativeplansemerged.Therewasamorethanreasonableassessmentofthepublic’s
“pulse,”variedasitmaybe.
Inaddition,thegoalofhavingparticipantslearnabouttheBLMdilemmasseemswell‐
met.ThiswasdemonstratedinoneoftheJanuarysmallgroups,wheretherewere
manyvoicesagreeingthattheBLMmustobviouslyfollowthelawsastheyapproachthe
LSR,andevenbeyondthat,theyshouldusetreatmentsthatare“standspecific,”
blendingallthattheymustwithregardtosafety,erosion,wildlifeconcerns,etc.Inthat
group,therewasageneralunderstandingofthevariousquandariestheagencyfaces.
Additionally,thisgroupaskedthattheBLM“becreative,”applyingwhattheymustdo
andwhattheyknowaboutconstituentinterestsastheyapproach theirtask.
Theaboveandotherinstancessuggestsuccessinhavingparticipants“learnfromeach
other,”asinbothoftheworkshops,theyexchangedinformationpreviouslynotshared.
Aparticularlycompellingexample,amongmany,includestheexchangesaboutfuture
firesafety,regardingwhatmust besalvagedandwhere,aswell aswhatkindsof
treatmentsyieldwhatkindsof(fireresistantorfireprone)effects.
Guidance About Where to “Aim” BLM Efforts Specifically,theBLMwasinterestedinwheretheyshould“aim” theirefforts.Someof
that“aim”hasbeenusefullynarrowed,astheagencywasabletohear morespecificand
refinedreactionsfromthevariousinterestgroups.Webelievethiswill“showup”as
thedecisionsbyfieldmanagersaremadepublic.
Withregardtopossiblelitigation(discussedinoneononeinterviewswithconstituents,
aswellasduringthesecondworkshop),itisourimpressionthat
conservation/environmentalgroupswillmostlikelynotlitigate onthefollowing:
 SalvageloggingintheMatrixlands
 IntheLSR,loggingthatmightbeacceptablewouldinclude:
o Ensuringroadsidesafetyandeliminatinghazardtrees
5
o
o
o
o
o
o
Deckedlogs
Providingfutureaccessforfirefighters
Selectedfirebreaks
Riparianrestoration(thoughwhatcountsas“restoration”maybeequivocal)
Somesmalldiametertreesandthinningfrommanagedplantations
Selectedreplantingdesignedtomimicnaturalprocessesandvarietyinareas
thatwerealreadyplantations
High Quality Dialogue Inthe(earlier)September,2013workshop,adjacentlandownerswerenoticeably
absent,whilethekeyconservationgroupswerepresent,includingKSWildandOregon
Wild.InthisJanuaryworkshop, arepresentativefromRoseburg ForestProducts
attendedandactivelyparticipated,whileKSWildwasnoticeablyabsent(thoughthey
didprovidealetterexplainingwhytheywouldnotbeattending;seebelow).
Oneofthecommoncomplaintsofconservationists‐‐voicedattheSeptembermeeting
andelsewhere‐‐isthatall(post‐fireandother)ecologicalconsiderationsneedtobe
addressedonfederallands,sinceprivatelandowners(andeven,largely,theOregon
DepartmentofForestry)seemtothemuninterestedinecological goalsastheyare
solelymotivatedbyprofitandmanagingtheirlandsfortimberproduction.Though
thisconcernwasrepeatedinJanuary,theRoseburgForestProductsrepresentative
challengedthisassumptionbystatingthathewasopentotalkingtohisownerabout
takingsomeaffirmativeactionontheirprivatelandtoaddressecologicalinterests.He
discussed,forexample,thepossibilityofa)avoidingsalvageloggingwithincertain
bufferzonesnexttoBLMland,andb)managingsomepartsoftheirlandswithgoals
similartoMatrixandLSRareas.Thoughskeptical,thefewconservationistswhoheard
thiswelcomedtheideas,particularlyastheyaffectedwildlife connectivity.
Atimberindustryrepresentativeengagedinanactivediscussionwithaparticipant
fromUmpquaWatershedsregardingapossibleagreementwhich,if joinedbyall the
relevantmajorconservationagenciesthattypicallybringlawsuits,seemedtorepresent
anopeningnegotiationstancethatwouldallowforbothanecologicalfocus(while
promotingactivemanagementforfuturefireprevention)andstrategicsalvagelogging
(towardthatend).Someof thediscussionincluded:
o Overallgoal:raisethelevelofecologicalfunction
o Leaveplenty ofsnags
o Variabledensityre‐planting
o “Smart”ridge‐toptreatments(limitsoildamage)
o Conventionalharvestonexistingroads(nonewroads)
o Possiblediameterlimit(20”wasmentionedbutnonumberwasagreed
upon)
o Activemanagementforfuturefireprevention,whichwouldinclude
strategicsalvageloggingthatwouldotherwisenotbedone
6
Althoughtheseideaswereinthenatureof a“brainstorm”betweenonlytwo
individuals,neartheendofthesession,onerepresentative ofadjacentprivatelanddid
put“onthetable”thathewouldbewillingtotalktohisowneraboutsettingasidea
specificpieceoftheirprivatelandtotryoutaspectsofthis approachasa“casestudy.”
Thiswasaninterestingendingtotheday,thoughitcallsforsomewariness.Previous
collaborativeattemptsatestablishingadiameterlimithave(perhapsjustifiably)
provedfutile;itwasonlytwopeoplebrainstorming,withoutmuchmoreinput(e.g.,
fromothersintheenvironmentalcommunityorfromtheownerofadjacentprivate
land).Nonetheless,itshowedsomeopennesstodialogue.
Common Ground Mostofthefollowinglist—areaswhereitseemsallconstituentscanagreeonlogging‐‐
repeatsinformationfromthelastreport(September,2013).Thatis,thereseemstobe
littlechange overtime.ItmaybeinstructivetoexaminetheNEPAscopingcomments
recentlysubmittedbytheenvironmentalcommunitytoprovethis issuefurther.
o Safetyroadsidehazardandothersafety‐relatedlogging
o Firedecklogs
o Smalldiameterthinningorsalvagelogging,evenintheLSRifin
unhealthystandsormanagedplantations
o Firebreaklogging
o Loggingrequiredtoprovideaccesstocriticalrecreationareas
o Re‐plantinginareasthatwere“plantations”orinunhealthystands
o Focusonmatrix
o Nosalvageinriparianareasexceptassafetyrequires
o Wherepossible,minimizeeffectsofsalvageloggingonsoils;forexample
usingpullsuspensioncableremoval,suchasonridgetops,orhelicopter
loggingwhereeconomicallyviable
o Restorationthinninginareasadjacenttogreentrees
o Fullconsiderationofhowtominimizethelikelihoodofintensefuture
fires(forexample,byavoiding leavinglargesnagpatches)
o PotentialforcreativepackaginginLSR(e.g.stewardshipcontractingif
economicallyviable;mimicking“Norm&Jerry”forestryinburnedareas,
wherereplantingisdonewith“skipsandgaps”etc.;fewertreesthanthe
10x10or8x8gridsmentionedinBAERreport;fallhazardtreesalong
roadsadjacenttostreamsandleavethelogsinstream)
o Explorationofthepossibilityofanewkindofsalvagelogging thatwould
createlongtermecologicalbenefits(withaneutralorminorimpactin
thepresent).
7
OTHER OBSERVATIONS
Correction/Clarification Needed Severalintheconservationcommunityreferredtotheirimpressionthat“TheBLMis
goingintotheLSR[i.e.,salvagelogging]inabigway.”Thiswasheardfrom
representativesofKSWildandOregonWildWhenaskedaboutthesourceofthis
impression,itappearedthatthemapof“potentialsalvageunits”waserroneously
understoodasamapofLSRlandsandnotthematrixlandsthattheyactuallydepicted.
BLMmanagersaremovingtocorrectthismis‐impression.Infact,nosalvagelogging
foreconomicgainisbeingplanned intheLSR.
Notes from the Workshop TheeditedflipchartnotesfromJanuary30,whichcaptureinputfromtheparticipants,
arelocatedinthedocumententitled“ReportonthePost‐FireRecoveryWorkshop,
1/30/14,Canyonville”.
8