HomeMy WebLinkAboutWFPP_Attachment
Recommendations on Post-Fire Response and Practices
While is difficult to outline the specifics of a response to a wildfire in the watershed, it is possible and
important to outline guidance that reflects our values and understanding of the watershed. The
recommendations presented by Beschta, et ai, in March 1995 in IIWifdfire and Salvage Logging" are
perhaps the best document for those purposes and are quoted below. These scientific
recommendations were revised by Wayne Minshall and reiterated in a paper published in
Conservation Biology (2004).
1. Salvage logging should be prohibited in sensitive areas. Beschta lists the following situations as
examples that seem keenly appropriate to the Ashland watershed:
I n severely burned areas (areas with litter destruction)
On erosive sites
On fragile soils
In roadless areas
In riparian areas
· On steep slopes
. Any site where accelerated erosion is possible
2. "On portions of the post-fire landscape determined to be suitable for salvage loggJng, limitations
aimed at maintaining species and natural recovery processes should apply.
Dead trees (particularly large trees) have multiple ecological roles in the recovering li9ndscape
including providing habitat for a variety of species, and functioning as an important element in
biological and physical processes (Thomas 1979). In view of these roles, salvage logging must:
. Leave at least 75% (Minshall) of standing dead trees in each diameter class;
. Leave all trees greater than 20 inches dbh or older than 150 years;
Generally leave all live trees. JJ
3. IlBuilding new roads in the burned landscape should be prohibited."
4. Active reseeding and replanting should be conducted only under limited conditions.1I "If warranted,
artificial regeneration should use only species and seed sources native to the site, and should be
done in such a way that recovery of native plants or animals;n unhampered."
5. "Structural post-fire restoration is generally to 'be discouraged."
6. "Post-fire management requires reassessment of existing management."
Eric Navickas
Comments regarding Ashland Forest Resiliency Community Alternative
In 1990 the Forest Service completed and released a decision for managenlent in
the Rogue River National Forest referred to as the Rogue River Forest Plan. The plan
documented proposed timber yield from the McDonald Peak Roadless Area, the
unroaded area at the top of the watershed. The alternative chosen stated that in the first
decade the roadless area would yield 2.5 million board feet of timber and in subS€~uent
decades 4 million board feet. (Exhibit A)
During the Clinton years the area remained unlogged due to decreased tmtlber
extraction from public lands. Under Clinton's Northwest Forest Plan of 1993 the area was
defined as Late Successional Reserve (LSR) or areas set aside to protect Northwest
Spotted Owl habitat. However, one of the loopholes of the Northwest Forest Plan was
that it allowed logging into an LSR if it was done for Fuels Reduction.
In order to meet the timber yields proposed 14 years ago under the RogUl~ River
Forest Plan, the Forest Service, under the Bush Administration, is exploiting this
loophole to extract timber from areas that would otherwise be protected. The tactic is
very effective as a means to meet industry demands for public timber due the general fear
of fire among citizens and the general ignorance of the realities of what is actually being
done on the ground.
The City came to this conclusion in the early eighties in a summary presentation
to the EP A regarding management of the Ashland Creek Watershed when they stated,
"The City of Ashland agrees with the need for a fire management program in the Ashland
Watershed and is confident that a number of alternatives exist that are compatiblc:~ with
municipal watershed protection, however the Forest Service has appeared at timt::s to
justify a number of intensive activities within the Watershed in the name of fire
management." The City continued by fully describing their position and stating that they
would only support underburning. (Exhibit B) The 1979 statement from AI Alsing the
former Director of Public Works is even clearer, he states, "1. The City's position is that
logging should be eliminated from the watershed and the Forest Service has not agreed to
this approach to managing the watershed. 2. The City does not agree with salvage and
sanitation logging an the Forest service continues to discuss this as an alternative."
(Exhibit C)
The issue again came to the forefront of controversy in the late nineties \vhen the
Forest Service proposed the Hazred Timber Sale. They were proposing to remove another
three to five million board feet of timber in the name of fuels reduction. The issue::: was
especially controversial because the Forest Service has just complete a massive ~ue in
1992 when they remove 8 million board feet for fuels reduction or about 2000 log trucks.
The areas treated were generally high-graded for the best timber as it is difficult to find a
stump less than three feet in diameter with many as large as six feet. The Hazred project,
eventually renamed the Ashland Watershed Protection Project was heavily debatc~d and
eventually a decision was released that remove all commercial logging from the )~hland
Creek Watershed and placed a strict 1 T' limit on logging proposed outside of the::: Ashland
Creek drainage. The proposal, however, also included extensive noncommercial 'work in
the watershed consisting of hand-pile and bum projects and the use of prescribed fire.
The community and the City administration applauded the proposal. Keith Woodley was
quoted in the Daily Tidings stating, "} support Linda's decision, it seems appropriate
given the sentiments of the public and the input the Forest Service has received. I applaud
their willingness to work with broad and sometimes divisive public sentiments. "(Exhibit
D)
. \Vhat is most disturbing about this current proposal is the fact that the
noncotnmlercial work from the Ashland Watershed Protection Project has never been
completed. According to Bob Shoemaker, the project manager, about 25-30% of that
work has been completed but according to Linda Duffy about 50% of the project is
complete. Regardless, the Forest Service has shown complete negligence with regard to
really protecting homes and the watershed. This project should have been done this year
and at best estimate half of it has been completed. The Forest Service has instead invested
in expensilve analysis to promote this current logging project and the Ski Ashland
expansion.
The Forest Lands Commission team is now presenting an alternative to the Forest
Service's proposal. The proposal presents goals of protecting Late Successional habitat
much like the Forest Service however ultimately restricts nothing, they propose no
diameter limit and imply that helicopter logging will take place into the roadless area.
The docUlment they have presented relies heavily on John Leiberg's 1900 analysis of the
watershed and adjacent lands. I find this especially frustrating, as this document has
always been used as an argument for the protection of the watershed from logging, as he
states clearly, "But whether easy or difficult of access, it is obvious that maintenance of
the Ashland Creek water volume is prohibitive to lumbering operations in the
reserve."(Exhibit E) In 1910, when the City petitioned Congress to pennanently protect
the watershed they relied heavily on this document. Mr. Leiberg and Ashland's founding
citizens would be rolling in their graves if they knew this was now being used as a tool to
justify logging.
It is up to the Council to have clarity on this issue, to not get caught up in the fear
tactics or the attempts to complicate the issue by using esoteric silvicultural analysis. The
City has nlade clear statements in the past. Look back to AI Alsing's Statement, "The
City's position is that logging should be eliminated from the watershed and the Forest
Service has not agreed to this approach to managing the watershed." The City had seen
the results of mismanagement of the watershed and the tendency to exploit fire
managemc~nt as a means to extract timber in the form of massive sediment loads to our
reservoir. Is the Council willing to repeat history and allow this to take place again.
The most responsible choice for the Council would be to restrict logging and
require Oldy noncommercial fuels management. However, the Council must at least give
some respect to history and place some firm restrictions on this project. We need at least
a 1 T' diantleter limit, a firm demand that no logging is allowed into the roadless area at
the top of the watershed, a restriction on any further road building and a requirement that
the noncommercial work proposed under the Ashland Watershed Protection Project is
completed before any logging begins.
Th~s is a moderate position that is clear and understandable. The Forest Lands
team has offered enough complicated nonsense to confuse the most astute observer and
yet said nothing. This is our municipal watershed we need clear restrictions.
.... ,,,
-,. ,
7 .' 06146 - McDONALD PEAK
Av-r~A\hJf- "-
WAS C\-{OSE;f'.J
A...................
-"'~
. .
Table C-24
TIMBER OUTPUT (MMCF)
A B E G K
Decade 1 0.47 1.68 0.00 0.00 0.47
Decade 2 1.12 2.61 0.00 0.00 0.73
Decade 3 1.12 2.61 0.00 0.00 0.73
Decade 4 1.12 2.61 0.00 0.00 0.73
Decade 5 1.12 2.61 0.00 0.00 0.73
Altematives A, B, and K program harvest in all
decades. In decade one, harvest level for altema-
tives A and K is 2.5 MMBF; Altemative B is 9 MMBF.
Subsequent decade harvest levels are: Altemative
A - 6 MMBF; Altemative B - 14 MMBF; an~ Altema-
tive K - 4 MMBF. Altematives E and G have no
programmed harvest
Roads
Road construction parallels progralmmed timber
harvest and is a reflection of developmental needs
as roadless areas are entered by tho various alter-
natives. Table C-25 shows. the miles of road con-
struction needed to accomplish management goals
for the first two decades and also for the planning
horizon.
Table C-25
ROAD CONSTRUCTION (MILES)
A B E G K
Decades 1 &2 5.5 13.0 0.0 0.0 5.5
All Decades 11.1 16.3 0.0 0.0 7.4
The first two decades of road construction is great-
est in Alternative B because of timber volumes har-
vested. The miles of proposed road construction in
C -38
all decades reflects the harvest volumes pro-
grammed for the planning horizon.
I
I
~
Rogue River National Forest - FEIS - Appendices
. . - '. <( . -,:. -~ ,- . ...-: -". ,.:...:.~.:.l.r...t,;, -. '.: -:. -~.
.r.
13
FIRE MANAGE~1ENT
The City of Ashland agrees wi th .. the need for a fire management program in
the Ashland Watershed and is confident that a number of alternatives exist
that are compatible with municipal watershed protection, however the Forest
Service has appeared at times to be inclined to justify a number of inten-
sive activities within the Watershed in the name of fire management. The
basic fire management conclusions of the 1977 JMM study are summarized
below:
1. The history of fires and fire management in the Rogue River N.F.
indicates that the major problem fires were man-caused and
that natural fires were generally suppressed in a short time.
2. There is a high potential for increased erosion due to an
intense fire in the watershed. However, there is research
information available that demonstrates that wildfire in
unlogged watersheds ~ result in significantly less erosion
and sediment movement than wildfire (whether man-caused or
natural) in a logged watershed.
3. High levels of human activity such as that associated with
logging or extensive over-night camping could be expected to
increase the likelihood of a large man-caused fire.
4. Fire management involving intensive observation and quick
response in suppressing all fires is the most appropriate
program for the Ashland watershed.
5. Although the physical removal of. fuel from the watershed
would present certain benefits, the extensive logging
activities required to do this effectively would present
far more hazards and potential for loss than for benefit.
Prescribed burning for fuel reduction may present oppor-
tunities if the air quality impacts are minimized.
ASHLAND WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PRIORITIES
It is the City of Ashland's position that the most important management
objective for the Ashland Creek Watershed should be to maintain and protect
the mUnicipal water facilities and water quality currently depend~d upon by
the City. Although the Forest Service has implied that this is the case,
many of their actions and statements point in a different direction. For
ex~nple, in discussing the Forest Service policy regarding water quality
for municipal watersheds, the Forest Service stated (USFS, 1980 in a memo-
randum to the Ci ty of Ashland):
"Basically, we have the responsibility for providing raw water
that is capable of meeting standards in the Safe Drinking Water
Act (PL 93-523) after treatment. The treatment of the water to
n
~:
/
,/
1. No grazing Ylithin the vatershed.
2. No c.xpansion of the Ashland sk:f. area without a DEIS.
3. Recreation.activities such as skiing, fishing,-bunting and hi.king
would continue under present constraints with no ORV use or Clver-
night camping.
4. Fire protection p~ac~ices.wculd continue.
5. M1nimal road maintenance of certain roads.
6. Certain types of res~orat~on.for the road.~yst~m.
7. Fuel break construction of selected breaks.
c..
I
It is pointed out that these are somewhat minor concessions. On the
other hand the areas of nonagreement , . Which are summarized . as-follows ".
represent the major factors .contributing to the degradation of the Asllland
watershed, the interference with the City of Ashland's water supply system
and eventual impairment of downstream fisheries habitat, irrigation fncil-
ities and r~creation potential.
,
1. The City's position is that logging should be eliminated froIn
the watershed and the Forest Service "has not agreed to this
approach to managing the watershed~'.
2. The City does not agree with salvage and sanitation logging
-and the Forest. Service continues to discuss this as an alternative.
3. It is the City's position that no more roads should be built.
within the watershed and most of the current roads should be
"put to bed" except for minimal custodial-and fire protection
uses. .We feel that the available informa~ion and analyses
support this position. The Forest Service states that "this
option should be kept open".
4. The City has strongly recommended that the watershed be withdra~ro
from mineral entry in vi~w of the enormous impact that even ~mini-
mal exploration activities could have on our facilities -and the .
downstream waters. The Forest Service acknowledges that littles
if any, mineral potential exists in the watershed but states that
lithe Forest Service while recognizing that a withdrawal of Ashland
watershed per se to preserve a watershed's water quality would
have tremendous effects on the mining industry nationwide" e_
5. There is some disagreement between the Forest Service and the
C{ty concerning the type of fire management necessary for the
watershed. We feel that our approach of minimizing human
activities within the watershed and maximizing fire .obser-
vation and quick control is not only the mos-t logical but _. .
backed up by the history of fires within the Rogue.River area.
In summary, it is the City of Ashland's opinion that we are presentiy
operating on a program which _ represents the most cost .effective and -en-
vironmentally sound solution to the City's water supply problems and the
problems with downstream fisheries, water quality, irrigation systems .
and recreation. We do not disagree with the .co.ntention that much needs
to be done in the Bear Creek basin to.restore and enhance. the water resource
values which have been lost. However~. we feel that befo:r:e. a capital and
. .
energy intensive program is recommended, definite progress should be:made
~
-3-
.~.. ..,
~.. \.
'!:.....-<t.;. '\
; ~
.. ;,
l~....
..,~.~
...~
~.
....~
1'<":"'"
~~
-,:.r.
""'.c.:
....
j~.
""":
,,:s
;J
,..;...
.!..~~~l,
CJ)
~
C
Q)
o
o
l{)
.
-a
G)
...
:s
-
II
en
C
II
:k~-' .
;,
~' ..>.....
;~ . ~
s
re a ~ 6). O~ ~ ~ 'S ~(J) . ~ . ~ :>,bD ~ ~ F;
~..s::::! +-> ~ .~.~'en ~.. ~.rg ....-l q ~.g e en@
... .......... ...... . Q;...~ ~. ~ ~~. 6) ;; ~ ~ Oc ~ g ~ ~ ';;a
......~. ~Q) .'J~.-4;l$~.S~ ~'6b a1.c$ S rg
en....... ...."...... ....~..a>...-.~ .:.... j.... ....~~.8~tl....~.~ ~.o..;.C':S.........gs....o;i.-4.~ ...;~ ~." Jj.. . ~ @
. ... . .1i) ~"S~. :-? ~.~: ~: 8:>~.i5 ~ ~~ ~e 0) ~
, '. '. .~Q)~8 ~ . a>~Q). S 0 .1;)..... ~Q) ~ 9 ~ ~ :3
':CI). ... ...... . . ......r:t.!..0:.~.+.....~~..~.. ...a>....~.cs...c::... '.....g>o.~.~...~~.~ c-.11a. ..'S
.. . roO) ~.~ . .-4a>~ . ~ce Oco If:) 01
.......,. i'~J-S.:l3"' .. ....g)~~? .~.~.Q~ g~i~!
.~::..:.~,;;. '5~a..bl).~..~
,.._:... .:.:.p.t ~.;:;;~.. "',d ~. gs .~~.. :.Ea. 'c;
.. .'. ,.~:. ... .:~..J1).,. ,Q). .;~:::lu~. E:f~ _......
-. .:.:': ~-5,/ .ii 'ebD ctI::sOl~
'.:.::+~}. ,:/'~~:':- :.:o:..:;o~'~.~ ~..~
....._:..~..~:~:..c>, ," . .-;c,' :.~:;,.~:~...~~:g.~..~ !
= . 'rc-~~'.~~'s:l!O~_. 'C$ ~ ~':S;!:l r& oii
. "~-' -;:.s'.s~:.~:'gr_~'- /':.;.8:..-c:.~.ro~~'a: '..~ ~
;~ . ..":'1c;-~tn~:~" .:\t>.}....i=I.-~...-- .(3) 0) l:!
IV _ -,' bD:~' :tr~~'C1), ,,:;~...::~~,,~. .;#: ,~> r;j.......;:;:j
~~.'\,. . ~ :a'~~~-' ~Q)...~ ~.rci~.:.;~).~:E1)S~~S ~ ~.~ ~
. . i Q) ~ - ~ S Q) fa. ~;(I) .e; ~.~ s:: @ 0)
~~'t;:: "., --,. gfs s::'J:= ~ P:j ~.~ ~ rg: ~- .~ o:a.t:1
. . (1) Cd, CLl (J) o. S'''d ~ . Q) 'Ere (oa.. a> .s .> "C 'S
. . \ ~ ~ ~ C O;Q) -< ~'.(I) Oc 0 ~ ~ ~ i3
. . .. ~ (I) Cd Co). s... 0 re o.~ rn (J) ~ S bI)
.. \.-. .. . ..s::::!.c 00 0 0 0 J-i:C~, (J) (J) O)'.E
: '~l'~. Cl,) +J tIS ~:+-'...... ~ ~UJ Oc'~..c::< ~ ~ Q3 t!.. t::
. . _,. .'. u '~.c.S bf) S"d bJl ~: ~.P4 Q)_'bb.~' ~ .....c ~
.:I-.~..g-":~~~'~~~ ~.~~.S.S:5.~,~~ .~ C':S ~
- .~BOs::o-~.c~~~~~ ~~e ~~o
.....:E .~.~.w rr. ,...? +-' C) Ct-I (1.)' i> 0 .... C1>
. < E-< .~ J... S ~ ';:! ~ ~ J... en .0 CZ) ~ :. ~ ~;::;
. , Q) .::- 'g.. =.> ~ c:: 1j ..c:: ~.~ 8.;::.~ +-' .= "C ~ "C Oc. S.
.' a ~.~.ro.~.~~ ~~C3 A::...~ gs:~ ~ ~'~ ~i-4. ~
. . .. CJ-"';:lUJ....~5:h~!Jja.>~'OjC1>~l;j:l ~a>~.~~
'. . .:.~. :. .'-1"'4 ::2:'Cn~. 'S ~ ~ (J)';:: ::s en ;"c:j' I€;~ ~ . ~ 0)
'.. ;.......~<~.<.e..c~.ctl..e CJ!:""I~~ ;::s'C':S' ~frj1t$ ,
. :. :::';d>.;~: ~ " :::S.;.CIS ..ell r;-t. J... ~ ~ ~ ~'j; Q)~CI:S 0 J:l , ..~ 0) "
...:.. . . ...~~; 1" :.~~;:CQ\~';~~~~~a ~.~:~g ~ ~ ~ ~e:'E..a ~ ~!,-~o;:b1 ' " .
~
o
o
C\I
~
('f)
~
ro
~
.
c
o
0>
Q)
'-
o
.~ ~
"'C
c:
ro
.c:
CJ)
<(
.
(0
,......
CO
~
.j ..~~
I~".'~
.~..l~:'.. -.'~
~..
",,-. .
~'Y
l/~
. ~' .
, . .:,....;~
..r~; ;~.
i. .
...... .....
;. _,...:~;;":.i .;., ..'
. :..'.J.,:'. .-, _:.. . .. .
W;;':i', 1.:1 \~. '..
.,...;;....7'..J, 6.oI::n'~' .'~:..'.
. ,~..,._.~
',.' .~~E:
~I.
..
~ >,a>:: o~Ct-I CLl ' ...... I C1>' J-i C'l I
~ ~ ~ 1iS~ 'C'~ ~ a ~ ~ .; ~ ..a ~ ~ ~ I
e .~ 4-< ..s::::! ~ en (J) "C bO S ~ e rJ) 0 ^ ctl '
Clj ..... H :+:J ~ -. ;:j:;::::l re Q)' Q) Clj '~' !...
~@~O ~t)~~c;>F5 ~C1>~i. ~ i
~ ..... e re s.~ 0 Clj bO S .......t:: Q) ( ~ '
c 2e e :::H~.~ ~ ~.Q.S.c ~ ~:: ~l ~ .
o ;:j ~ Clj ~ ,... ctI $ ~ re .;::l .= a> =::
a>rJ)Oc~ Q)~@:~=C~ 8~ ~
SE~~ ~~-~=~ros ~fI) ~
~~~ ~QOc .g~~..a a>~ ~
00 ~ @ Q) ..... .... ..... Q)
~ .s.~ ~ ~ "C..s::::! e ~ ~ s.... rea> ~ .c .' t: .'
Q) 0 .... ~ '..., e:+:J Q) ..t:: Q) ..... ~ ~!
~ ~ ~::J a> Cd 1:: S 'g >, ~ =9 (i) .~ ~ !
..t:: .~ to 8 ~:t:l 0 Oc g.c S t c.-=4 :; .s <\JJj
~(J)"dQ) (J)OcS rea>~ rJ) a>
= .~ ~ ~ Q) <x: Oc 0 'g a>..t:: s.... >...... 'g
S E5 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ C) ~.~..... Oc . ~ 5 ~'
>, a> ..t:: Q) 0..... ~C1> S bO ~ "d ~..s::::! ~ .
:t: ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ O.S ~ . s .s.~ a ~ Q)
~ a> C1>.9 rd .ft~ ~ ~ a1'~ ~ ~....-l ~ ~ a
o ~..... C1> 0 0 ~ - ~.... ~
Oc~ ~re ctlo..... ..sa e ~gfo~ a>~:;
~C1>"C~~ ~Q)Q)~oso~~ SF~
..c:: ~ e c..c:: Z ..t:: ~ 'C 'fij :c ~ ~ re r' ~
C'l 't-..... e O)$l I , '~..c:: ell::;l Q) "bD
~~oogo. ~cg~~C1>(J)~.~~ S.~S
..... Oc ~ '"Cl (J) Q) re Q) ~ ~ e l;:l ~ to (,) .S ;S
~~oSe ~!~~~~..a'S5~ ~~o
b~!o~ mOc~~Q) 'O(J)Q)i ~roZ
>, e ~ -' .c . . ~~::: ro ~ :> a ~ ~ ~ g (J) ~
~ 0 ::J. '-' re C1> .5 5 i> (J) (1)..Q::J ....-l ..... -
g~~~~~~~(J)~sg!~~~~~~~
Clj 0 Q) 00 too -re t:;:l ~ ~ ..s::::! Q) ~ 8 s::.c
S.....aQ)(J).ctI~~g ..s'g~t~. .co~~C':S
roJ-it~oo C1>~~""'..c::~~roo~(J)C':S~
f1)~ Jj ~ CIS OlE:: e ro.~ .a (J)~ .~ ~:;.; .~ ~'bJl
~ ~Q)~~O)B
~~ ~~~~~~
C'l= c~~B.~~
~ @ t/J .~ S ct= 1a .....
eEl .~ C1J~~CdCl.las
o (J)~': eQ).~ ~ s:: .
~ a>. tnPo..... ...... ~ 0 re
C1> J-i tn: Po ~ - ~ +:l ~
."tt- ~ . . UJ . :;b .~ ;:::: Q)
"" '" . . ..CIJ.fI) ~ ..........
)
..~~~~l.'. __.:..kt-4,f,.. ,- I~ .-...~. .';'HJ. ,"):1:' ."0, .~"i.d'~,~ ....~......El=( ~ h:..'&......:.~...: -JJ "lJrAc1~""";" .L:~'.~~ ~..;...;..~ I;"~"". .,
i
,.
r- .
f'
~.
c
~"
o
Lf.IBERO .)
473
CASCADE RANGE AND ASHLAND RESERVES.
.~
Creek one.half mile east of the town of Ashland. In addition to
supplying wa.ter to this town, it furnishe~ irrigation for a number of
fruit ranches, supplies motive power to one sawmiJl and one elec:tric-
light plant located above the town, one gristmill, one woollen mill,
and a 5-stamp quartz mill located in the city,. besides water :for a
cJTanide reduction plant. It serves also in part as the tpwn 8e,wer.
All in all, the stream is very important to tbe town.
The reserve contains no proper a~ricultural lands; the summhs of
the low SpUTS in the eastern areaH might possibly be utilized for
orchard purposes if cleared. Most if not the entire area is gold hear-
ing. Qua.rtz ledges occur in many places on the slopes of Siskiyou
Peak and placer deposits exist, in all probability, Dear the head o:f the
creeks. No mining is carried on inside the-reserve area.. The sUInmit
and slopes of Siskiyou Peak and the high northern ~fount ."" agner spur
are grassy in many places. Sheep range here, or did the year ~:fore
l::lSt. True, most of. their runs had been on the slopes shedding water
into Applegate Creek and Klamath Riy-er, but some had left their
marks on the Ashland side. It the purity and stability of the ~'C1ter
volume in Ashland Creek is '~orthv of consideration, ~e prohipition
of sheep grazing within the reserve area .should be absolute. . A hand
of sbeep confined to such a limited tract as the grazing area in }...sbland
'ReServe soon makes the ground l:eek with most pestiferous exhala-
tions,which can not but find their way into the running water.
The forest consists of stands of alpine-hemlock, red-fir, and yellow-
pine types. The alpine-hemlock type occurs. on the summit of ~e
peak, and is composed almost wholly. of noble fir. The others have
the ordina.ry composition of their respective types elsewhere.
.. Fires have marked most of the forest, but haye not burned in the
reserve within the last ten or tweh"eyears to any great extent, except
.. on the summit of the range; at the' base of the peak, wher~ the timber
on 300 or 400 acres has been almost totally destroyed.
The mill timber in the reserve is of good quality, except in the east-
ern portion, where fires, years ago, badly seared the most of it. It is .
generally difficult of access for logging operations. But whether l:'asy
or difficult of nccess, it is obvious that the maintenance of the. Ashland
. Creek water voluDle is prohibitive to lumbering operations in the
reserve.
The areal and timber estimates are as follows:
..
t.;
~i
:-'
:~
f
. J
~-~
':'J
~.
.~'
.~
.J
l.
I.'
e.
f f
~ I
~ :
f;
l
,..
~: i
Fora~d and otllC' urtCU in ..hhland Foru/, Rc..~", Oregon...
Aera.
~~Aforcsted............................................................ 20,000
~rca naturnll)' Ilonro~ted........ . ~. . .................................... 1., iOO
Area dcfo~tcd b)' firc8 of modem ds.te..................................... 300
<-