Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTimber Cruise Report Timber Cruise Report City of Ashland Ownership Township 39 South, Range 1 East, Sections 16, 17, 20, 21, 28, 32 645.58 Acres Prepared by: Marty Main Small Woodland Services, Inc. 1305 Butte Falls Hwy Eagle Point, OR 97524 .__.._'~~._--,"~....--'-,........,-_.._-" '-~--""---'-'.--"~,.~ INTRODUCTION Objective The objective of this work was to estimate the standing volume of merchantable coniferous timber on the City of Ashland ownership in the Ashland Creek watershed just south of Ashland city limits in Jackson County, Oregon. It is believed that the City of Ashland has never had a formal cruise conducted on their ownership and subsequently have never had a clear idea of the amount and/or quality of timber resources on their ownership. This report establishes a baseline for future reference and monitoring as well as information to assist the City in future decision-making regarding management of their lands, Property Description The portion of the City of Ashland ownership included in this cruIse are as follows: Legal Description Township 39 South, Range 1 East, Section 16 Township 39 South, Range 1 East, Section 16 Township 39 South, Range 1 East, Section 16 Township 39 South, Range 1 East, Section 17 Township 39 South, Range 1 East, Section 20 Township 39 South, Range 1 East,: Section 21 Township 39 South, Range 1 East, Section 28 Township 39 South, Range 1 East, Section 32 TOTAL Tax Lot 200 300 1100 600 200 200 200 200 Acres 20.00 20.00 160.00 80.00 5.00 160.00 40.58 160.00 645.58 The above-described ownership is largely located in the canyon of Ashland Creek at the lower elevational end of the Ashland watershed. All of the ownership parcels in- '-""~-"'~'-~--'*'-'----'--- 2 Sections 16, 17, 20, 21, and 28 are located between the residential community of Ashland up to and including the 40.58 acres (39-1E-28-TL 200) in which Reeder Reservoir is located. The 160 acres of Tax Lot 200 in Section 32, more commonly known as the Winburn Parcel, is located higher in the watershed approximately one mile southwest of Reeder Reservoir on the west fork of Ashland Creek. Vegetation on the ownership is comprised of mixed hardwood and conifer forests very typical of the area. Douglas-fir is the primary conifer, with lesser amounts of ponderosa pine, incense cedar, white fir, sugar pine, and Pacific yew (generally in decreasing order of abundance. Pacific madrone and California black oak are the primary hardwoods in the ownership, with small amounts of Oregon white oak and, in riparian areas, alder and bigleaf maple. Primary understory vegetation includes poison oak, deerbrush ceanothus, hazel, oceanspray, hairy honey- suckle, snowberry, dwarf Oregon grape, piper's Oregon grape, and grasses and other herbaceous vegetation. Riparian vegetation dominates along Ashland Creek and the various tributaries of the ownership. The coniferous timber on most of the ownership (from the City limits to Reeder Reservoir) is fairly uniform in size and composition. Most of the trees in this portion of the ownership were initiated following intense wildfIres in 1901 and 1910. Only scattered older and larger trees that escaped these frres exist. Parts of this portion of the ownership on the west side of Ashland Creek burned intensely in a wildfire in 1959 and subse- quently supports few larger, merchantable trees. On the contrary, tree size and composition is quite variable on the Winburn parcel, with multiple age and size classes, including many mature trees of all species. The entire ownership was helicopter logged ill 1990, although removal was 3 scattered in small patches throughout such that the visual results of the harvest are not easily recognized. It appears that most of the harvest concentrated on the larger size classes within anyone stand. It is unknown how much actual volume was removed (or the species and grades of that volume) in that timber sale. Additional information regarding the vegetation, timber, and other resources on the ownership, as well as the management of those resources, is included in the following documents: (1) Ashland Forest Plan (1992) by R. J. McCormick and Associates (2) "A Silvicultural Prescription for High Priority Forest Management Areas" (1996) by Marty Main of Small Woodland Services, Inc. (3) "Silvicultural Prescriptions for Additional Forest Management Areas-An Update" (1998) by Marty Main of Small Woodland Services, Inc. TIMBER CRUISE Cruise Description The merchantable timber on the City of Ashland ownership was cruised using the variable plot method of timber measurement. Systematically spaced plots were installed at the rate of approximately one per acre. One-third to one-half of these plots were measure plots in which data was recorded including determination of species, diameter at 4 feet above stump height, merchantable height logs, grade, and defect. The remaining plots were "count" plots, measured to verify species composition and abundance within the cruise results. Plots were located on a systematic grid throughout the City of Ashland ownership: .' ~~.~-,...~.._~,..,~"-,.-.,-,.........,--"-_.,..._- 4 These plots were further separated into nine different timber types on the ownership-four on the Winburn parcel and five on the ownership block including and below Reeder Reservoir. These nine timber types were as follows: Lower Ownership Block - Reeder Reservoir to Ashland Citv Limits Timber Type 1 - Nine southerly aspects east of Ashland Creek in Section 16 Timber Type 2 - More northerly aspects east of Ashland Creek in Section 16 Timber Type 3 - More southerly aspects in Sections 21 and 28 Timber Type 4 - More northerly and easterly aspects in Sections 17, 20, 21, and 28, as well as west of Ashland Creek in Section 16. Timber Type 5 - Ashland Creek riparian habitat 225 feet wide (100-foot buffer on each side of Ashland Creek which averages 25 feet in width) in Sections 16 and 21. Winburn Block Timber Type 6 - More southerly aspects west of Ashland Creek on Winburn parcel in Section 32 Timber Type 7 - More productive northerly aspects and gentler slopes west of Ashland Creek on Winburn parcel in Section 32 Timber Type 8 - Forestlands east of Ashland Creek on Winburn parcel in Section 32 Timber Type 9 - Ashland Creek and associated perennial tributary riparian habitat 225 feet wide (100-foot buffer on each side of creeks that average 25 feet in width) on Winburn parcel in Section 32 Upland timber types were largely separated based on estimated stande productivities. For example, southerly aspects were separately delineated from adjacent 5 but more productive northerly aspects. Similarly, the less productive sites lower in the watershed east of Ashland Creek were separately delineated from those more productive sites in and/or further upcanyon. Cruise data was also separately delineated for the Winburn parcel that contains unique mature forestland values. Riparian habitat cruise values were also separately delineated from upland forestlands throughout the ownership. Acreages for the various timber types were determined using an area dot grid over an aerial photo, with deductions for non-forest areas. Deductions included 84 acres of forestland in which little or no merchantable timber existed (largely as a result of the 1959 wildfire) and 43.5 acres of non-forest including roads, quarries, powerline easement, improvements, and Reeder Reservoir. Volumes were estimated on west-side scale, using Scribner volumes for 32-foot logs. Log grades follow Southern Oregon Log Scaling and Grading Bureau rules. Log and tree measurement were checked with a diameter tape and a Spiegel relaskop. Variable log lengths and top diameters were used to estimate the merchantable bole length of each tree to a minimum top of five inches inside bark. The minimum tree size included in the cruise was one that contained at least one 32-foot log to a 5-inch inside diameter top. Shorter trees were cruised if they contained more than 30 board feet. All data were analyzed using the Super A.C.E. computer cruise program. This program calculates average number of trees per acre, basal area per acre, diameter, height, log size, and volume distribution by grade and sort. The results of those calculations follow. .,. '_._-.............----,-..~. ,. -." ',' ,"". 6 Discussion Timber cruise results on the City of Ashland ownership indicate 7.463 mmbf (million board feet) volume net Scribner westside scale. This total is spread over 645.5 acres cruised for this report. Included in the total acreage was 518 acres of commercial forestland, 84 acres of non-commercial forestland (younger stands with little or no volume as a result of the 1959 wildfire), and 43.5 acres of non-forest (roads, quarries, powerline easements, improvements, and Reeder Reservoir). Most of the net volume (86.9%) was Douglas-fIr, with the remainder split among four species: ponderosa pine (6.6%), white fir (4.4%), sugar pine (1.1%), and incense cedar (1.0%). A total of 215 mbf (thousand board feet) of merchantable cull material within all species was also cruised. Approximately half (50.4%) of the net volume on the City of Ashland ownership is currently located on the Winburn parcel. With only rare exception, this is the only part of the ownership that contains higher quality timber typical of larger, more mature forests. Net volumes per acre averaged about 23.5 mbf on the Winburn parcel, with timber type differences ranging from 16.7 (on more southerly aspects) to 29.2 net mbf/acre. The remainder of the volume on the City of Ashland ownership was located on 358 acres of commercial forestland located between Reeder Reservoir and the upper end of Lithia Park in the City of Ashland. In this area, net volumes averaged over 10.3 mbf per acre, with a range of timber type of 3.1 (on more southerly aspects) to 15.5 mbf/acre. Long-term strategies for managing the forest and associated resources on the City of Ashland ownership have been carefully outlined in other reports. Given the City of - Ashland's oft-stated management objectives of (1) protection of watershed values and <<<< < ,.....--<<-...-. 7 Ashland's oft-stated management objectives of (1) protection of watershed values and subsequent production of high-quality water, and (2) maintenance and/or promotion of forest health and, in the case of Winburn parcel, late successional reserve values, it is obvious that the volumes estimated in this cruise are not all available for timber harvest and/or removal. However, this cruise does establish baseline information for the City of Ashland, as well as provide important information to assist in resource management decision-making in the future. . _..__~_...-...,..._....__"_"~..".~..,...o..~~._. .~,,__~. .'__ Timber Cruise Results City of Ashland Ownership Timber Type 1 47.5 acres % Bd. Ft./Acre % Board Foot per Acre Board Total by diameter inside bark, small end SpeCies Grade Foot MBF Gross Net 05-08 09-11 12-15 16-60 Douglas-fir, 2 sawmill 17 449 383 18 69 31 Douglas-fir, 3 sawmill 60 1466 1325 63 48 40 12 Douglas-fir, 4 sawmill 23 512 508 24 100 Douglas-fir, cull 54 Douglas-fir - TOTAL 71 248/ 2216 105 52 24 19 5 Incense cedar,S sawmill 100 48 48 2 63 37 Incense cedar - TOTAL 2 48 48 2 63 37 P. pine, 5 sawmill 78 676 636 30 52 48 P. pine, 6 sawmill /7 143 /38 7 100 P. pine, utility 5 4/ 41 2 100 P. pine - TOTAL 26 860 815 39 57 43 P. pine - UTILITY I 41 41 2 100 Sugar pine,S sawmill 100 27 23 I /00 Sugar pine - TOTAL 1 27 23 I 100 PROJECT TOTAL 100 3416 3102 147 54 29 14 4 UTILITY TOTAL / 41 41 2 100 <~---.--_.._<._.<<_._< .- Timber Cruise Results City of Ashland Ownership Timber Type 2 94.0 acres % Bd. Ft./ Acre % Board Foot per Acre Board Total by diameter inside bark, small end Species Grade Foot MBF Gross Net 05-08 09-11 /2-15 16-60 Douglas-fir, 2 sawmill 10 824 740 70 61 39 Douglas-fir, 3 sawmill 56 4493 4101 386 59 35 6 Douglas-fir, 4 sawmill 31 2331 2299 216 100 Douglas-fir, utility 2 145 132 12 31 69 Douglas-fir, SP cull 48 33 3 100 Douglas-fir. cull 152 Douglas-fir - TOTAL 96 7994 7306 687 65 21 10 4 Douglas-fir - UTILITY 2 193 165 16 25 55 20 Incense cedar, 4 sawmill 27 /3 13 1 100 Incense cedar,S sawmill 73 41 36 3 50 21 29 Incense cedar - TOTAL I 54 49 5 37 15 48 P. pine, 5 sawmill 57 185 166 16 100 P. pine, 6 sawmill 43 125 125 12 100 P. pine - TOTAL 4 310 291 27 100 PROJECT TOTAL 100 8359 7646 719 66 20 9 4 UTILITY TOTAL 2 193 165 16 25 55 20 Timber Cruise Results City of Ashland Ownership Timber Type 3 38.0 acres % Bd. Ft./ Acre % Board Foot per Acre Board Total by diameter inside bark, small end Species Grade Foot MBF Gross Net 05-08 09-1/ 12-15 16-60 Douglas-fir, 2 sawmill 31 2351 2/76 83 49 51 Douglas-fir. 3 sawmill 48 3598 3372 128 36 32 3/ Douglas-fir, 4 sawmill 19 1362 1362 52 96 4 Douglas-fir, utility I 107 94 4 100 Douglas-fir, cull 65 Douglas-fir - TOTAL 86 7483 7004 266 36 16 32 16 Douglas-fir - UTILITY 1 107 94 4 100 Incense cedar,S sawmill 78 24 14 I 100 Incense cedar, 6 sawmill 22 4 4 100 Incense cedar - TOTAL 29 18 I 22 78 P. pine, SP mill 4 43 43 2 /00 P. pine, 4 sawmill 35 429 394 15 42 58 P. pine,S sawmill 43 499 477 18 29 54 8 10 P. pine, 6 sawmill 18 203 203 8 100 P. pine, cull 17 P. pine - TOTAL 14 1191 1117 42 30 23 18 28 PROJECT TOTAL 100 8702 8140 309 35 17 30 /7 UTILITY TOTAL I 107 94 4 100 ...~._.~..". d._.....~.~.~ Timber Cruise Results City of Ashland Ownership Timber Type 4 145.5 acres % Bd. Ft./Acre % Board Foot per Acre Board Total by diameter inside bark, small end Species Grade Foot MBF Gross Net 05-08 09-11 12-15 16-60 White fir, 2 sawmill 45 14 12 2 100 White fir. 3 sawmill 39 10 10 1 100 White fir, utility 16 4 4 I /00 White fir - TOTAL 28 27 4 16 39 45 White fir - UTILITY 4 4 I 100 Douglas-fir, 3 peeler 42 29 4 100 Douglas-fir, SP mill 50 45 7 100 Douglas-fir, 2 sawmill 36 5844 5429 790 39 61 Douglas-fir. 3 sawmill 50 8102 7486 1089 34 45 20 I Douglas-fir, 4 sawmill 12 1868 1824 265 99 1 Douglas-fir, utility I 155 144 21 13 42 45 Douglas-fir, cull 147 Douglas-fir - TOTAL 97 16208 14956 2176 29 22 24 24 Douglas-fir - UTILITY 1 155 144 21 13 42 45 Incense cedar, 4 sawmill 27 10 7 I 100 Incense cedar,S sawmill 36 II 9 I 34 66 Incense cedar, 6 sawmill 37 9 9 1 100 Incense cedar - TOTAL 30 25 4 49 24 27 P. pine. 4 sawmill 48 211 199 29 17 83 P. pine,S sawmill 43 204 180 26 51 34 15 P. pine, 6 sawmill 9 38 38 6 100 P. pine, cull /I P. pine - TOTAL 3 464 417 61 31 15 14 40 Sugar pine, 4 sawmill 68 30 21 3 100 Sugar pine,S sawmill 32 10 10 1 40 60 Sugar pine, cull 27 Sugar pine - TOTAL 66 31 5 13 /9 68 PROJECT TOTAL 100 16796 15456 2249 29 22 24 - 24 UTI L1TY TOTAL I 159 /48 22 15 41 44 -- ...._+_.~------t-.......,_.- --"-'---'-'._"~'--" .,~_.-- --~ Timber Cruise Results City of Ashland Ownership Timber Type 5 33.0 acres 0/0 Bd. Ft./Acre % Board Foot per Acre Board Total by diameter inside bark, small end Species Grade Foot MBF Gross Net 05-08 09-11 12-15 16-60 White fir, 2 sawmill 96 104 104 3 31 69 White fir, 3 sawmill 4 5 5 100 White fir - TOTAL I 109 109 4 4 30 66 Douglas-fir, SP mill 2 158 139 5 100 Douglas-fir, 2 sawmill 56 4613 42/3 139 33 67 Douglas-fir, 3 sawmill 28 2244 2107 70 23 46 29 3 Douglas-fir, 4 sawmill 6 450 433 14 94 6 Douglas-fir, utility 8 639 564 19 3 16 81 Douglas-fir, SP cull I 65 46 2 100 Douglas-fir, cull 97 Douglas-fir - TOTAL 90 8267 7502 248 12 14 26 47 Douglas-fir - UTILITY 7 705 610 20 2 15 83 Incense cedar, 4 sawmill 40 191 171 6 100 Incense cedar,S sawmill 33 149 141 5 42 44 14 Incense cedar, 6 sawmill /8 78 78 3 100 Incense cedar, utility 9 56 37 1 100 Incense cedar, cull 93 Incense cedar - TOTAL 5 567 428 14 41 15 5 40 Incense cedr - UTI L1TY 56 37 I 100 P. pine, 4 sawmill 85 318 282 9 8 92 P. pine,S sawmill 15 52 52 2 33 22 45 P. pine. cull 17 P. pine - TOTAL 4 387 334 " 5 3 7 85 PROJECT TOTAL 100 9330 8373 276 13 14 25 49 UTI LlTY TOTAL 8 760 647 21 8 14 - 78 .._"._--.~_._.,.__....._....."_.,..__.,._-,..,,_.__.._..-~_... Timber Cruise Results City of Ashland Ownership Winburn Parcel Timber Type 6 54.5 acres % Bd. Ft./Acre % Board Foot per Acre Board Total by diameter inside bark, small end Species Grade Foot MBF Gross Net 05-08 09-11 12-15 16-60 White fir, 2 sawmill 34 307 226 12 /00 White fir, 3 sawmill 43 295 290 16 51 49 White fir, 4 sawmill 23 157 157 9 100 White fir, cull 19 White fir - TOTAL 4 779 674 37 45 21 34 Douglas-fir, 3 peeler I 115 86 5 100 Douglas-fir, SP mill I 134 110 6 100 Douglas-fir, 2 sawmill 29 3132 2831 154 36 64 Douglas-fir, 3 sawmill 46 4977 4540 247 38 56 4 2 Douglas-fir, 4 sawmill 21 2162 2119 115 98 2 Douglas-fir, utility 1 77 64 3 100 Douglas-fir, SP cull I 133 133 7 100 Douglas-fir, cull 392 Douglas-fir - TOTAL 59 1112/ 9883 539 38 27 12 22 Douglas-fir - UTILITY I 209 197 II 32 68 Incense cedar, 4 sawmill 84 484 402 22 100 Incense cedar, 5 sawmill 16 79 75 4 17 24 60 Incense cedar, cull 183 Incense cedar - TOTAL 3 745 477 26 3 4 94 P. pine, 3 peeler 12 633 563 31 100 P. pine, SP mill 14 757 687 37 100 P. pine, 4 sawmill 57 2923 2722 148 26 74 P. pine,S sawmill 15 736 719 39 27 45 II 17 P. pine, 6 sawmill I 57 51 3 100 - P. pine, cull 71 - P pine - TOTAL 28 5177 4741 258 5 7 16 72 . .,..-.. <<- ---,. .-- 0,10 Bd. Ft./Acre 0/0 Board Foot per Acre Board Total by diameter inside bark, small end Species Grade Foot MBF Gross Net 05-08 09-11 12-15 16-60 Sugar pine, 3 peeler 12 118 118 6 100 Sugar pine, SP mill 5 52 52 3 100 Sugar pine, 4 sawmill 57 595 550 30 14 86 Sugar pine,S sawmill 17 /67 161 9 22 29 2 47 Sugar pine, SP cull 9 126 90 5 100 Sugar pine, cull 136 Sugar pine - TOTAL 6 1195 972 53 4 5 8 84 Sugar pine - UTILITY I 126 90 5 100 PROJECT TOTAL 100 /9018 /6747 913 26 /9 12 42 UTILITY TOTAL 2 335 287 16 22 78 . . -..,.............--.- Timber Cruise Results City of Ashland Ownership Winburn Parcel Timber Type 7 40.0 acres % Bd. Ft./Acre % Board Foot per Acre Board Total by diameter inside bark, small end Species Grade Foot MBF Gross Net 05-08 09-11 12-40 16-60 White fir, 2 sawmill 41 1240 1073 43 25 75 White fir, 3 sawmill 48 1334 1256 50 45 37 18 White fir, 4 sawmill 12 306 306 12 100 White fir, cull 393 White fir - TOTAL 9 3273 2634 105 33 18 18 31 Douglas-fir, 3 peeler 3 1159 789 32 100 Douglas-fir, SP mill 4 1304 1071 43 100 Douglas-fir, 2 sawmill 62 17995 16127 645 16 84 Douglas-fir, 3 sawmill 23 6440 6040 242 23 35 41 2 Douglas-fir, 4 sawmill I 384 384 15 100 Douglas-fir, utility 6 1797 1626 65 100 Douglas-fir - TOTAL 89 29080 26038 1042 7 8 19 66 Douglas-fir - UTILITY 6 1797 1626 65 100 Incense cedar, 4 sawmill 65 482 357 14 100 Incense cedar, 5 sawmill 35 199 192 8 13 24 63 Incense cedar, cull 79 Incense cedar - TOTAL 2 760 549 22 5 8 87 PROJECT TOTAL 100 33113 29221 1169 9 9 19 63 UTILITY TOTAL 6 1797 1626 65 100 ..<< -<<-------- --.< - << ..- .--,........--<< -...- .- -<<-- Timber Cruise Results City of Ashland Ownership Winburn Parcel Timber Type 8 39.0 acres 0/0 Bd. Ft./ Acre % Board Foot per Acre Board Total by diameter inside bark, small end Species Grade Foot MBF Gross Net 05-08 09-11 12-15 16-60 White fir, 2 sawmill 36 /113 858 33 23 77 White fir, 3 sawmill 42 " 71 1007 39 31 68 2 White fir, 4 sawmill 19 441 441 17 100 White fir, utility 3 75 75 3 100 White fir, cull 510 White fir - TOTAL 8 3311 2382 93 31 32 9 28 White fir - UTILITY 75 75 3 100 Douglas-fir, 3 peeler 1 165 148 6 100 Douglas-fir, SP mill I 286 214 8 100 Douglas-fir, 2 sawmill 58 15607 14454 564 21 79 Douglas-fir, 3 sawmill 29 7929 7281 284 20 58 21 Douglas-fir. 4 sawmill 5 1289 1186 46 97 3 Douglas-fir, utility 6 1828 1525 59 4 96 Douglas-fir, cull 849 Douglas-fir - TOTAL 86 27953 24808 968 II 17 18 54 Douglas-fir - UTILITY 5 1828 1525 59 4 96 P. pine, 3 peeler 12 152 152 6 100 . P. pine, SP mill 9 114 114 4 100 P. pine, 4 sawmill 74 1123 980 38 3 97 P. pine, 5 sawmill 5 71 71 3 50 50 P. pine - TOTAL 5 1460 1317 51 3 2 95 Sugar pine, 4 sawmill 93 431 387 /5 16 84 Sugar pine,S sawmill 7 30 30 I 63 37 Sugar pine - TOTAL I 460 417 16 5 3 15 - 78 PROJECT TOTAL 100 33184 28923 1128 12 18 17 54 UTILITY TOTAL 6 1904 1600 62 4 5 92 <."........-_.._.-.~ .._-< Timber Cruise Results City of Ashland Ownership Winburn Parcel Timber Type 9 26.5 acres % Bd. Ft./Acre % Board Foot per Acre Board Total by diameter inside bark, small end Species Grade Foot MBF Gross Net 05-08 09-11 12-15 16-60 White fir, 2 sawmill 73 2762 2309 61 II 89 White fir, 3 sawmill 18 639 575 15 29 52 19 White fir, 4 sawmill 8 263 263 7 94 6 White fir, cull 734 White fir - TOTAL 15 4397 3146 83 13 10 " 65 Douglas-fir, 3 peeler 3 800 599 16 100 Douglas-fir, SP mill 7 1352 1222 32 100 Douglas-fir, 2 sawmill 62 11394 10737 285 12 88 Douglas-fir, 3 sawmill 20 3776 3422 91 27 46 26 2 Douglas-fir, 4 sawmill 5 940 899 24 95 5 Douglas-fir, utility I 193 141 4 46 54 Douglas-fir, SP cull I 273 219 6 100 Douglas-fir, cull 932 Douglas-fir - TOTAL 83 19660 17240 457 10' 10 13 67 Douglas-fir - UTILITY 2 466 360 10 18 82 Incense cedar, 4 sawmill 64 114 99 3 100 Incense cedar,S sawmill 4 6 6 100 Incense cedar, 6 sawmill 33 51 51 I 100 I ncense cedar, cull 64 Incense cedar - TOTAL 1 235 155 4 33 4 64 Sugar pine, 3 peeler 34 125 1/3 3 100 Sugar pine, 4 sawmill 50 176 166 4 100 Sugar pine , 5 sawmill 16 54 54 I 22 78 Sugar pine - TOTAL 2 355 332 9 4 - 96 PROJECT TOTAL 100 24647 20874 553 " 10 12 67 UTI L1TY TOTAL 2 466 360 10 18 82 "..-'.--<<. -_.. IIIIU.lCI vi UI;>C nC~UIl::i City of Ashland Ownership Overall Totals - Net mbf 5 18 acres forestland fc-<< Lower Canyon Parcel, 358 acres Winburn parcel, 160 acres I Species Grade Timber Type Total Timber Type Total 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Totals White fir, 2 sawmill 2 3 5 12 43 33 61 150 155 White fir, 3 sawmill I 1 16 50 39 15 121 122 White fir, 4 sawmill 9 12 17 7 45 45 White fir, cull I I 3 3 4 White fir - TOTAL 4 4 8 37 105 93 83 318 326 Douglas-fir, 3 peeler 4 4 5 32 6 16 58 62 Douglas-fir, SP mill 7 5 12 6 43 8 32 90 102 Douglas-fir, 2 sawmill 18 70 83 790 139 1100 154 645 564 285 1648 2748 Douglas-fir, 3 sawmill 63 386 128 1089 70 1736 247 242 284 91 864 2600 Dougl.as-fir, 4 sawmill 24 216 52 265 14 571 115 /5 46 24 201 772 Douglas-fir, utility 12 4 21 19 56 3 65 59 4 132 188 Douglas-fir, SP cull 3 2 5 7 6 13 18 Douglas-fir - TOTAL 105 687 266 2176 248 3482 539 1042 968 457 3004 6486 .=nse cedar, 4 saw I 1 6 8 22 14 3 39 47 Incense cedar,S saw 2 3 I I 5 12 4 8 12 24 Incense cedar, 6 saw 1 3 4 I I 5 Incense cedr, util cull I I I Incnse cdr - TOTAL 2 5 I 4 14 26 26 22 4 52 78 P pine, 3 peeler 31 6 37 37 P pine, SP mill 2 2 37 4 42 44 P. pine, 4 sawmill 15 29 9 53 148 38 187 240 P pine, 5 sawmill 30 16 18 26 2 92 39 3 42 134 P pine, 6 sawmill 7 12 8 6 33 3 3 36 P pine, utility 2 2 2 P pine - TOTAL 39 27 42 61 II 180 258 51 310 490 Sugar pine, 3 peeler 6 3 9 9 Sugar pine, SP mill 3 3 3 Sugar pine, 4 sawmill 3 3 30 15 4 49 52 ,.. 1f pine, 5 sawmill I I 2 9 I I II 13 -...gar pine, SP cull 5 5 5 Sugar pine - TOTAL I 5 6 53 16 9 78_ 84 PROIECT TOTAL 147 719 309 2249 276 3700 913 1169 1128 553 3763 7463 . <<r---<< --- -PJ~ ~. ..: t~,..,.:--;, yI ;~ .~! ,. - ,~ l.';';: ....: ~'7 _.~"'~ ~.'/('" ~-_._<<. --'<. . \!.f!; 't,,' I ",~",~". I~~~.- .~. I ~ ~l }:i!lt ~ ~ r ." y .~ ,,-;;: . -- 'l-.-' ~, - .~. '..;::.::... ",.. . --; '.')'~...... .."l.~ _ -:.~;;:~ , ..... .-,. .~. " ':"'^:~.{.{ ._"': .' -. ~. . ':~~7~:~~ '.~. ~.~ " .~--\~. - '-~.' .-..;: ._". .. :,..r ..-- , ()(.:.,\'H"r~h'f bOt'hdary AShll.\.hd (~..ek o 'II m bu hJ p(:'5 N(.. ~;')('n(/)m.-n~r<'ILlJ NF:;. i){)n. t-C;t:'st ;~ .y~-: ""'-'1:., - r: -, '~:..:.~:--,' t~~~'\,~'L:_ .........-....".......--." /Y},:; 0"1 ~5 "/ {~ 'J: 1 -. ~..~.. I l . _~___________.w .... \ ---\ , \ -I(fi TAX LOT LOCATIONS L;.'j C I"J'/ of J\~h 14nc:l OlUne rsh.p Town~h'r 3-1 Sc.uih) Ra,,':1(' I eq~J ~ec'hOI"1S It liI/2.el 21,2<3',32 . ' ';- - ~ / -/~ '4~~ 'l~ ) .}, I , ,II II , I (. / / r,- :r \>~ \l ") i ! I h \ l-Pqq I Ot:5u-, phon 3'75 -II: - ;6- 71.. 200 3'15- it:: - ;6-,/" 300 3QS - iE -/6.- n./IO(j 3qs - IE - i 7 - TL 6CD 3'15- IE - 2D - TL 20D '2,Q-S- IE: - 2/- 1L.. 200 3QS -IE - 2S- TL 200 3Q5.-IE - 32- TL loO 10"1 ~L Ac re 5 '< I . ....