Western Klamath Restoration Partnership (WKRP) Collaborative Process Discussion February 20, 2015 Six Rivers National Forest Will Harling Mid Klamath Watershed Council - Orleans/Somes Bar Fire Safe Council Photo: Thomas Dunklin

Where is the project landscape? 2

Prior to the open standards process How can the relationship be described between the FS and the local community: Not so great, definitely no social license Lots of fustration, lack of trust, quasi collaboration, Projects design based on threat of law suits rather than what best on the ground 3

Western Klamath Mountains Restoration Partnership Initial meetings in 2007 w diverse partners more of an emphasis on Stream Restoration In 2012/13 efforts shifted to more of a focus on Upslope Restoration/partnerships/collaboration Workshops with Fire Learning Network in Spring 2013, and a much more diverse group of participants, ~grassroots effort: Introduction of the Open Standards Process. Goal: Identify “Zones of Agreement” where all participants agree specific types of work can be done” Ultimate Goal: Restore “historic” fire regimes in the Western Klamath Mtns How did all of this come together? 4

How do we pay for all of this? Who, What, Where, When, why? How are you going collaboratively work with the community? Can we increase the pace and scale of ecological restortation? 5

6 Professional Facilitation: TNC and the Fire Learning Network Lyn Decker and Mary Huffman These folks work in many areas across the nation and other countries implementing the open standard process Their experience was key to efficient facilitation that eventually led to productive meetings, open discussions, and some good outcomes. Overarching outcomes: “social license” On the ground outcomes, prioritization scheme for treatments, project footprint,

7 A more organized approach to managing meetings

8 Situational Analysis

Ranking Scheme for Treatment Prioritization of Western Klamath Restoration Partnership Planning Area Community Wildfire Protection Plan Layers – Structures Layers – Public/Private Property Boundary Layers – Critical Access/Egress Routes – Complete Road System (Public and Private) – Manual Fuels Treatments (Public and Private) – Upper 1/3rd Slopes – Existing Firelines – Insolation (Solar Heating) - South/Southwest Slopes – Historic Trail System Layer – Klamath Mixed Evergreen (Tan Oak range) – Klamath Siskiyou Lower Montane Serpentine Woodland – Black Oak BpS – White Oak Bps Silvicultural Layers – Managed Stands Layer – Mid Mature Dense Stands Layer – Crown Fire Potential (97th percentile) or Flamelength (0-4’, 4-8’, 8+) – Plantations >40yrs. old Wildlife Layers – Spotted Owl Nest Sites Buffer – Elk Winter Range Restoration Potential Layer 9

Prioritizing Manual, Mechanical, and Rx Burn Treatments in 1.2million acres. Simple point scale (1-2 points per layer). Page in the WKRP plan. Colors based on number of overlaps. Collaborating with Happy Camp FSC, Orleans Somes Bar FSC, Salmon River FSC, Karuk Tribe and USFS. 10

Orleans Somes Bar What are the next steps? 11

Roadside Fuel Reduction/Plantations under 40 years. Plantations over 40 years. Prescribed Burning. 12

Roadside Fuel Reduction/Plantations under 40 years. Plantations over 40 years. Prescribed Burning. 13

Roadside Fuel Reduction/Plantations under 40 years. Plantations over 40 years. Prescribed Burning. 14

Roadside Fuel Reduction/Plantations under 40 years. Plantations over 40 years. Prescribed Burning. 15

Integrating Science and Research Silvicultural Prescription Group “ % pdfhttp://fpf.forestry.oregonstate.edu/system/files/Reinhardt%20Keane%20et%20al. % pdf

17 Work in progress So far, very effective method to utilize for large group collaboration For more information contact: Merv George, Jr., Forest Supervisor

18