Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-0930 10/0J/96 09:27 ~002 september 30, 1996 Keith Woodley City of Ashland Ashland, O~egon 97520 Keith: Bill Rose and I met on the site of the proposed prescrit>ed rom unit (south side of Reeder Reservoir:) on September 25 to look over plans for the bum and discuss on-site objectives and any needed pre-burn treatments. The following are the principal outcomes of that Ireeting that I believe are ilnportant for you to be aware of. 1. I stated that the City's primary cbjective is watershed protection (Le. production of high qualities and quantities of water) and that the burn is prioritized primarily fram that point of view. This may be slightly different than the Forest service's oojectives, which may lean slightly towards hazard reduction as the prinary objective. Of course, the two are so closely intertwined in this instance (prevention of wildfire is the lOOst important watershed level objective) that in all likelihood the typical USFS burning pattern would likely easily meet the City's cbjectives. I suggested that a sIghtly cooler burn, however, way be appropriate in this situation, given 1) the units location on the shoreline of Reeder Reservoir 2) this being the initial prescribed burn on City- owned lands'. I suggested that this burn should be as ideal as poSSible for the aOOve two reasons and may, in fact, cost a little IIDre than usual as a result. Bill acknowledged that and added that he bad already estiJDated Slightly increased costs to assure that naxirnum quality of iIIi?lementation could be conducted. 2. I suggested that a 100 foot ftno-burn- buffer be considered i.Irmediately above t..l1e shoreline of Reeoer Reservoir as an additional protection against direct sediment inputs into Reeder Reservoir that could be perceived to be resultant from the prescribed burn. Bill indicated that even if he burned right to the shoreline, his experience in th~ watershed sugge~ tha.t there would be very little, if any, inputs into the reservoir "except in the case of a 1974-type major storm e'Vent and then all bets are off". He had no problem leaving a 100 foot buffer if we deemed that necessary, although he suggested that piling and burning of the residual helicopter logging slash in that buffer may t>e desirable. 3. Of critical irrportance to Bill is the flexibility to conduct tile burn when it fits most appropriately into his schedule and burn conditions on-site. He will Jrost likely do stage-burning (burning portions of the unit at different times or stages) in 1 \j. vJdHl 09: 27 Iii) 003 order to burn when condi tions are most sui ted to achieve cbjectives. Different styles of burning may be utilized in each stage in order to achieve desired results (i.e. jackpot burning may be utilized to reduce fuel accumulations on steeper northerly aspects which will come into prescription at different times than <trier, lOOre southerly aspects). 4. Burning will be minimized or non-existent in areas of suspected slope instability, such as steep, incised slopes above topographical draws. Although small stringers of fire may creep down in such loations, the effect of such fires on existing vegetation (and subsequent slope stability) will be very mi.ni.rnal. In these locations (most notably on the southern end of the unit), very light understory thinning with a chain saw may be a more appropriate method of fuel reduction, reduction of ladder fuels, and inI:>roving tree vigor. selection of smaller trees to be removed can be done somewhat rore selectively with a chain saw than can be Cbne with fire. 5. Larger, mature pooderosa pine and Douglas-fir are scattered throughout the unit. Tbese are trees that survived the last major wildfire in 1910 and Olrcently range from 115 to 175+ years of age. They are Olr~ently struggling from noderate to severe competition from other understory conifers, hardwoods, and brush species. If these trees are prioritized for retention by the City for any reason, several practices are suggested: 1) rom in the autumn, as opposed to the spring, if at all }X>ssible 2} pre- treat understory vegetation and ladder fuels to reduce fire intensity in their vicinity, reduce subsequent induced stress-loads en individual trees, and promote long-term survival of these individual trees. Very Often, individual trees are not killed directly by prescribed fire, but are subsequently made rote susceptible to rortality from other. agents, mst notably bark b:!etles. The importance of these pre-treatment activities should be decided py the City prior to initiating the burn. 6. Other pre-treatment activities were discussed, most notably the implementation of additional shaded fuelbreaks prior to prescribed bUrning. 'lWo locations for possible shaded fuelbreaks exist on the unit: 1) the major ridge line at the north end of the unit and 2) an extension of the existing USPS shaded fuelbreak. Everything else being equal, it would probably be ideal to have a shaded fuelbreak(s) installed prior to initiating prescribed lIDderburning _ However r the I!X)ney for- the OSFS portion of the burn is available this year, and Bill is quite confident that these tuelbreaks would not be needed to accomplish the proposed orescr~ b.1rn in a safe fashion. T'neir history of ~uccessfu11y ~forming such burns in the watershed certainly substantiate Bill's confidence. Both the prescribed burn and the shaded fuelbreak were suggested in the McCormick plan and in reality best serve long-term fuel and fire management objectives when implemented together. Major fuel management activities are particularly important in this location not only because j,~; '. J i ::Hi ~) ~ : ~ ~ ~:n 004 topographical realities and the existence of Reeder Reservoir offer a great place to stop an advancing wildfire, but also because it is above this fOint that water enters directly into Reeder Reservoir and, ultimately, the City's water supply. Bill offered that given a chOice, the northernmost shaded fuelbreak would be preferred over the southern one. A small reduction in costs may result by inlplementing the shaded fuelbreak following the prescribed burn and after some of the existing fuels have been consumed. 7. Post-treatment activities will also likely be needed to achieve long term. objectives for the unit. Long-term fuel m.:magement dJjectives cannot be net by a single burn alone; standing dead residual rraterial following the initial burn can often be a hazardous fuel component in it f s own right. Most probably another prescribed bUrn and/or treatment of standing dead residual material following the initial burn will be required. I suggested that the City's objectives might be more effectively met tq zrultiple cooler bums than by fewer hotter burns. The proposed underburn is generally designed to prioritize m::>rtality in trees 3- 4 inches DBH and srraller. Bill cautioned, however (and rightfullY 00, I believe), that a variety of intensities and outC011'eS occur anytime fire is utilized, and success IIl1st be measured 00 achieving unit-wide (or larger) objectives, rather than focusing on any particular site in a unit. 8. Bill suggested that the most likely negative public response will come from smoke management, particularly when smoke drifts downcanyon at night. He suggested than cutting off burning in the early to mid-afternoon will help to minimize this i.1rpact. 9. Bill suggested that burning of this unit may re able to occur as early as late Octorer of this year, if everything goes right. These were the najor points of discussion during our on-the- ground assessment. Bill and I were in close agreement on issues and objectives and in the possibilities for prescribed burning to achieve those objectives. Bill asked that he be included when we sit down to do an overview of the proj"ect and has offered that anytime on Octorer 10th or lith would be possible for hilll. However I he needs to know as soon as IX>ssible so that he doesn I t fit something else into that time slot. Those aays would probably \oIOrk OK for me as well. Let's plan for such a meeting and give Ire a call if you have any other questions. Sincerely, ffW1p- Marty Main