HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-0318 Documents Submitted
MCA ,f, .~01
CITY OF
-ASHLAND 18, 2013 The following is a summary of key points related to the Ashland Forest Resiliency Stewardship
Project that might of interest to the Council and public. Recent photos sent to the Council present
a distorted sense of what this critical project has accomplished to date to protect the City's
watershed and adjacent homes and property. The context of each tree and management unit is
equally as important the tree cute or left, or treatment completed in an area. Individual photos of
a stump do not explain the setting and why a particular tree would be cut. The AFR Partnership
stands behind each and every decision to cut a tree, even if it was a mistake. We have gone to
painstaking ends to involve the public in the decision-making process of each phase of AFR. We
hosted 22 opportunities to date for the public to give input and/or come on a tour over the past
three years. The following addresses several of the pertinent issues being addressed by the AFR
~aa >
partners through project design, implemen;anon andlmonitoring. We will be happy to explain in
more detail or host a field tour to anyportion of the projeotat.any time.
The Issue of Large Trees 1 `f4c r p r '
At the beginning of the project, the AFR partners knew tree size/age would be an issue with the
public so we limited the renioval'of trees'to those`Under 1'50 yeaes''old, a number below what
could be considered "old growth". Size,is,als67important and any tree marked to cut over 24
inches diameter at 4.51feet'had to have:an-amplified justification. Feedback from our independent
review team indicated that too'manyftrees were marked at the upper end of social acceptability,
and combined with out project.monitoring results on canopy cover (shading) showing the need
for more shade, we blacked but tlielpaiht on the 97 largest ofahe marked treesZ hich are not by
any means the largest',trees'in'the area.al- which-were left.iri;place)>=Some+trees approaching
28-30 inches diameter were cue for appropriate,reasons (see Appendix )t op gh they are far and
away a small minorityof the,o~verall trees cut ormarked:fo`r cufting4n AFRaThe average tree
removed is 12.2 inches in diameter with rliany`„mariy-moeares•removed in the 8"-10" inch and
1 rr f ~1rr \ i.
10"-12" size classes than any,othersize~This data comes-from recordso f every tree marked for
r
cutting, an unusual, but extremely valuable piece of data collected by thepartnership for
accountability purposes.
The issue of specific tree and stump diametersneeds addressing. The scientific standard for
measuring trees is at 4.5 feet from the ground. This standard is used throughout all ecological
thinning efforts as well as general logging. Trees often taper quickly from the stump diameter to
the "regular" diameter at 4.5 feet. Based on extensive data collected for The Nature
Conservancy's fire history study, a 30 inch tree would have a 34 inch stump. One stump that
measures nearly 48 inches shows signs of rot, leading us to believe that the tree was dead and cut
down for worker safety, which is a necessary practice that we try hard to limit due to the
valuable nature of standing dead trees for wildlife habitat. It's important to understand that these
dead trees cut for worker safety are not removed for commercial value. The tree tally data
contains no record of a 44-inch tree being marked, nor would we have targeted a tree that large
except for safety.
ASHLAND FIRE & RESCUE
455 Siskiyou Boulevard
Ashland, OR 97520 ~r
(541) 482-2770 • Fax (541) 488-5318
TTY: 800-735-2900
MTFDONe[C1 Dmean
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Brush Re-growth
There has been concern that cutting trees will create situation of denser and drier forests. Though
this did happen in some fuel breaks cut decades ago, those were cut to very low densities,
nothing like the current AFR project prescriptions and execution. As has been presented at many
public tours, the design of AFR accounted for the issue of brush re-growth by limiting canopy
cover reduction at 60% coverage both to maintain northern spotted owl habitat and to greatly
reduce understory re-growth. Called Strategic Ridgelines, these areas encompass the majority of
AFR block 2 higher on the landscape on the western border of the watershed, which is a key fire
management zone for the entire Ashland Creek watershed. Data thus far shows that 60% cover
was maintained where prescribed (see table below). There are other areas where the canopy
closure can fall to 40% and we take advantage of those on dry slopes most appropriate for pine
species and to create conditions where our desired trees such as pine can regenerate with
sufficient sunlight to become tomorrow's.big
Subset of Ashland Forest Resiliency Steii~drdship Project subunits commercially thinned in 2012.
n all cases activityfuels wtlbbe piled and burned within thelife of the project. Canopy closure
t ~;~J(
as not collected in everyuburiitafter_treattnent..=,~ ~-_1 ff,' 1
Canopy'Clostire
ff
Subunit Acres I 'Pre Treatment Prescribed Post Treatment
Id 824: 55 70
4b 16 155=.65-, 1 / 77
4c 23 ,~82,. % V~40170~\ 67
7d 5 y,( 7X76 60-7,V, 70
7e 10 -1 w4<s. i, V l,40 50`„'' 59
7f+8c 10-88 60 75,_*
2f 15 `75 !ld d t %y
3c 5 77
28m 3 60 50-55 58
28o 17 65 45-60 58
28s 13 81 45-70 68
Photos
A recent photo submitted to council is worth addressing and shown below at left. What appears
to be 6 large stumps are shown. Upon review of this exact spot, the context and setting tell a
different story. Behind the camera are two larger trees, and one is a big California black oak.
Large black oak is relatively rare on the landscape and warrants considerable space to be cleared
around the tree, especially on the south side to promote limb growth.
ASHLAND FIRE & RESCUE
455 Siskryou Boulevard
'Ashland, OR 97520
(541) 482-2770 • Fax (541) 488.5318
TTY: 800-735-2900
RUME°ox PECY DMA
i
CITY OF
ASHLAND
This is a common strategy around large pines and also oaks known as "radial thinning" to
promote valuable and often large specimens. The average size of the trees thinned from around
the oak and adjacent fir is 15 inches diameter at 4.5 feet (estimated from adjacent trees). The oak
is 18 inches and the fir next to it is 21 inches. Relatively speaking when looking at the trees left
behind and the overall AFR cut tree average and distribution, the size of the stumps in the photo
aren't notable. In fact, they are desirable in order to promote an increasingly raze large black oak.
The picture at right shows the same stumps taken from the opposite angle to include the oak and
adjacent Douglas-fir. Suffice it to say that while it is easy to capture a single image of the
implementation of AFR and be critical, a far more appropriate approach is to understand the very
thoughtful, system based, judicially upheld, and scientifically backed work being performed.
AFR remains a well-monitored and transparent project and the partners stand behind the
implementation of the prescriptions.
.
v"R
w
4•
7{
111'.\
i
i-,
~ j.
~ty~7
Soil Disturbance and Erosion
Soil disturbance and the potential for erosion affecting" the-City's water supply is a real and
serious concern. To mitigate potential erosion the AFR project has built in protections in design
and during implementation. There are strict limits to the amount of ground that can be left
exposed or in a detrimental condition. The AFR partners have selected the best operators and
equipment that limits the impact on soils in the watershed. Innovative techniques on low angle
slopes (less than 20%) and existing roads and trails have been successful in limiting soil impacts.
This is in addition to helicopter operations, which have virtually no impact on steeper slopes.
Our monitoring program measures soil impacts (Appendix B) on the site before and after work is
completed. We also monitor water quality using different measures including macroinvertebrates
through a partnership with Southern Oregon University. These "water bugs" are a good indicator
of stream health and sediment input and are assessed each year at key points. Initial results after
two years have shown no critical issues with water quality, although more data is needed to
establish trends over longer periods.
ASHLAND FIRE & RESCUE
455 Siskiyou Boulevard
Ashland, OR 97520
/E
(541) 482-2770 • Fax (541) 488-5318
TTY: 800-735-2900
MWED ON REGYCIEa RARER
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Project Economics
Although the AFR project wood volume counts toward the annual tally that the U.S. Forest
Service compiles, there is absolutely no motivation to cut additional volume or larger trees to
satisfy a perceived need for timber production. Timber production for the sake of profit is not
compatible with a designated municipal watershed. Trees are only marked to satisfy ecological
and fire hazard goals. The limited amount of ground based ecological thinning allowed in this
project comes close to breaking even and could generate a small amount of income in a good
market for logs. It is important to know that in this Stewardship Project, ALL funds generated go
directly back to this project to accomplish further work on the grouhd. To date, the only reason
that any funds have been retained as a result of logs sent to the mill is because of the federal
Stimulus Funds being used to pay for the contracting work, including the helicopter thinning,
which loses over 900 dollars per acre. By nature in the AFR partnership, there is no profit motive
because all partners are non-profit and simply cover iheir costs in addition to contributing 10% in
matching funds in non-federal dollars.. There is simply no motive to produce timber for profit in
this project and the Ashland ~T✓atershed.
4 Y A! ~ 1
h ~
J t
- fi 1
ASHLAND FIRE & RESCUE
455Siskiyou Boulevard
Ashland, OR 97520
(541) 482-2770 • fax (541) 488-5318
TTY: 800-735-2900
PPoM ON IIEL1 UD PR ft
ASHLAND FOREST RESILIENCY
STEWARDSHIP PROJECT
FEBRUARY 2013
10 Commercial Thinning Cut Tree Data
9 ■ White fir
8 ■ Ponderosa pine
7
■ Douglas-fir
6
a 5 Average Diameters
(in inches)
a~
Euw 4 Douglas-fir 12.4
White fir 11.9
3 Ponderosa pine 11.7
2 All species 12.2
1
0
8-10 10-12 12-14 14-16 16-18 18-20 20-22 22-24 24-26 26-28 28-30
Diameter Class (inches) at Breast Height (4.5 feet)
Proportion of Total Volume
Y1-.~.r tt, ~d', out b S.t
S417M~1-~~OL ('J` cllr~l LI-c~+~''I
Ashland Forest Resiliency Project Monitoring - Siskiyou Mountains Ranger District T047:_,~
Effective Ground Cover and Detrimental Soil Disturbance - 2012 5 February 2013
MONITORING QUESTIONS
Implementation monitoring assesses whether treatments were implemented according to design, including
appropriate mitigation measures and management constraints. Ashland Forest Resiliency (AFR) stakeholders have
elevated the importance of securing baseline data to inform the Project design and contrast expected and
observed resource impacts.
1. Were treatments implemented according to design criteria, including appropriate mitigation measures
and management constraints, outlined in the plans for the Project and the subsequent decision?
2. Did the treatments meet or exceed key land use plan standards and guidelines for direct effects?
To evaluate the impacts of our forestry work on the watershed's soils, the AFR project monitors effective
ground cover and soil disturbance.
METHODS
Effective ground cover is any material which is attached to or lying on the mineral soil surface, which is
critical for slowing surface soil movement. The Rogue River National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan
(LRMP), as amended by the Northwest Forest Plan, and the Record of Decision (ROD) for AFR both have specific
guidelines for how much EGC needs to remain after treatments are complete, with the AFR criteria based on
project level soil information and modeling.. The Soil Cover Protocol in Steinfeld et al. (2007) and the Cover
Monitoring Assistant Program were used for characterizing ECG.
Soil disturbance is evaluated using 5 categories of detrimental effect: compaction, rutting, displacement,
severe burning, and surface erosion (Table 1) and the severity of those effects in a 4 class system (0-3) as in Page-
Dumroese et al. (2009a, b). The determination of the percent in a condition that is detrimental to long-term
productivity is based on cumulative observations made at each sample point. The Rogue River National Forest
LRMP standard & guideline for soil disturbance requires that no more than 20 percent of an activity area should be
displaced or compacted resulting from previous management practices. Additionally in the AFR ROD there can be
no more than 5% new detrimental disturbance from current project activities, not to exceed a cumulative of 20%.
Table 1: Soil disturbance assesses five categories of potentially detrimental soil conditions. Displaced and burned
soils refer to a contiguous area >100 square feet which is >5 feet wide.
Disturbance Definition
Compaction Increase in bulk density of ?15%, reduction in macropore space by ?50%, and/or a
reduction below 15% macro porosity
Puddling Soil deformation with ruts or imprints? 6 inches
Displacement Removal of >50% ofthe A horizon
Burned Mineral soil significarttly changed in color, oxidized to a reddish color, and the next %
inch of blackened
Surface erosion Surface soil loss 100 feet through sheet, rill or gully erosion over a contiguous area >100
square feet, or a reduction in effective ground cover below the acceptable thresholds
In operational units where trees will be removed using ground-based equipment, pretreatment soil
disturbance and effective ground cover data will be compared to post treatment data. Baseline, pre-project
implementation data was collected on 4 units, and post-implementation effective ground cover monitoring was
completed on one unit. Harvest continues on top of snow this winter, but effective ground cover and soil
disturbance monitoring will have to wait until later this spring.
For all other operational units the FS soil scientist will utilize professional judgment and collect
supplemental data as needed. More information about methods can be found in the detailed monitoring reports
located in the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest Soils Program Files.
Page 1 of 2
FINDINGS and EVALUATION:
Effective Ground Cover (EGC)
All units fell in the moderate erosion class (<35% gradient) and effective ground cover of >60% is required
in the first year after treatment and >70% is required after the second year. Prior to ground-disturbing AFR Project
activities EGC was quite high (Table 2). Post-implementation monitoring in Unit 282 found EGC standards and
guidelines were met, and are well within the requirements for both the AFR ROD and the Rogue River-Siskiyou
National Forest LRMP (as amended by the NWFP).
Table 2: 2012 effective ground cover (ECG) before treatment for four subunits, and after for subunit 282.
Unit (acres) Pre-Implementation mean EGC Post-Implementation mean EGC
281 (73 ac.) 98% To Be Determined
282 (16 ac.) 99% 97%
283 (5 ac.) 99% To Be Determined
67G (20 ac.) 99% To Be Determined
Soil Disturbance
All units have legacy soil disturbance from historic activities (Table 3) but conform to the Rogue River-
Siskiyou National Forest LRMP (as amended by the NWFP) standards and guides for soil disturbance cumulative
effects. It is important to note that unit 281 has residual ground disturbance impacts from past mining and historic
homestead activities as well as vegetation management activities.
Table 3: 2012 pre-implementation soil disturbance by severity class. -
AFR Units Soil Disturbance Severity Classes Estimated
(acres) 0 (none) 1 2 3 (most) Detrimental
281 (73 ac.) 69% 13% 0% 19% 19%
282 (16 ac.) 80% 13% 7% 0% 7%
283 (5 ac.) 70% 13% 10% 7% - 10%
• 67G (20 ac.) 63% 10% 17% 10% 10%
Based on these results, the project will conform to the ROD by not exceeding the existing detrimental condition
plus 5 percent (not including the permanent transportation system) with the total detrimental effect following
project implementation and restoration not to exceed 20 percent, including the permanent transportation system.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Complete post-implementation effective ground cover monitoring on AFR Units 281, 283, and 67G. Complete
post-implementation soil disturbance monitoring on AFR Units 281, 282, 283, and 67G once all ground-disturbing
activities are completed. Continue with monitoring of new units as implementation of the AFR Project progresses.
REFERENCES
Page-Dumroese, D., A. Abbott, and T. Rice. 2009a. USDA Forest soil disturbance monitoring protocol, Volume I:
Rapid assessment. USDA, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station GTR-WO-82a.
Page-Dumroese, D., A. Abbott, and T. Rice. 2009b. USDA Forest soil disturbance monitoring protocol, Volume II:
Supplementary Methods, Statistics, and Data Collection. USDA, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research
Station GTR-WO-826.
Steinfeld, D. E., S. A. Riley, K. M. Wilkinson, T. D. Landis, and L. E. Riley. 2007. Roadside revegetation: an integrated
approach to establishing native plants. Technology Deployment Program, Western Federal Lands Highway
Division, Federal Highway Administration, Vancouver, WA.
Page 2 of 2