HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-0804 Documents Submitted at Meeting
olif! o~
y/u4 ses~\f"1
197.656 Commission acknowledgment of comprehensive plans not in compliance with ;::6
goals; participation by state agencies; commission review of implementing regulations and
plan amendments; use of resource lands. (1) Upon invitation by the local governments in a
region, the Land Conservation and Development Commission and other state agencies may
participate with the local governments in a collaborative regional problem-solving process.
(2) Following the procedures set forth in this subsection, the commission may acknowledge
amendments to comprehensive plans and land use regulations, or new land use regulations, that
do not fully comply with the rules of the commission that implement the statewide planning
goals, without taking an exception, upon a determination that:
(a) The amendments or new provisions are based upon agreements reached by all local
participants, the commission and other participating state agencies, in the collaborative regional
problem-solving process;
(b) The regional problem-solving process has included agreement among the participants on:
(A) Regional goals for resolution of each regional problem that is the subject of the process;
(B) Optional techniques to achieve the goals for each regional problem that is the subject of
the process;
(C) Measurable indicators of performance toward achievement of the goals for each regional
problem that is the subject of the process;
(D) A system of incentives and disincentives to encourage successful implementation of the
techniques chosen by the participants to achieve the goals;
(E) A system for monitoring progress toward achievement of the goals; and
(F) A process for correction of the techniques if monitoring indicates that the techniques are
not achieving the goals; and
(c) The agreement reached by regional problem-solving process participants and the
implementing plan amendments and land use regulations conform, on the whole, with the
purposes of the statewide planning goals.
(3) A local government that amends an acknowledged comprehensive plan or land use
regulation or adopts a new land use regulation in order to implement an agreement reached in a
regional problem-solving process shall submit the amendment or new regulation to the
commission in the manner set forth in ORS 197.628 to 197.650 for periodic review or set forth in
ORS 197.251 for acknowledgment.
(4) The commission shall have exclusive jurisdiction for review of amendments or new
regulations described in sub~ection (3) of this section. A participant or stakeholder in the
collaborative regional problem-solving process shall not raise an issue before the commission on
review that was not raised at the local level.
(5) If the commission denies an amendment or new regulation submitted pursuant to
subsection (3) of this section, the commission shall issue a written statement describing the
reasons for the denial and suggesting alternative methods for accomplishing the goals on a timely
basis.
(6) If, in order to resolve regional land use problems, the participants in a collaborative
regional problem-solving process decide to devote agricultural land or forestland, as defined in
the statewide planning goals, to uses not authorized by those goals, the participants shall choose
land that is not part of the region's commercial agricultural or forestland base, or take an
exception to those goals pursuant to ORS 197.732. To identify land that is not part of the
region's.commercial agricultural or forestland base, the participants shall consider the
recommendation of a committee of persons appointed by the affected county, with expertise in
Concerns over Draft RPS Participants' Agreement
Hartzell, August 2008
~'/'flof
s/zuI~ $(S wOYJ
I ffS
I appreciate the effort that has gone into this process and agree with its intent.
1. The population numbers were adjusted to meet 2007 predictions or actuals? So, no ag
land was removed per our suggestion.
2. What are the legal implications of signing this agreement, beyond the requirement to
apply to the County for a minor or major amendment?
3. What impact will the UGB expansion activities that Medford and other cities are
undertaking have on the Plan?
4. The plan promises cities "...a wide latitude in their particular mix, concentration, and
intensity of land uses, as long as the sum of the regional parts contributes to a viable
balance of land uses that is functional and attractive to residents and employers and in
compliance with statewide goals." There and in goal #2, I would like to see some
mention of protecting the natural environment that is contained in the third
"whereas. "
5. There still appears to be insufficient documentation of the need for the 2200 acres
"parks" and "institutional" included in the Plan.
6. Dept of Agriculture appear to be opining that the Plan requires an exception: Section
197.656 (6) says that if they use part of the region's commercial ag base they have to
take an exception.
7. Pre-approval from LCDC? Is this legal and binding?
8. Page 12, Termination of Participation: If a jurisdiction withdraws, the Plan continues
but how does it readjust to development that could occur outside the agreement?
9. Does the plan schedule growth into adopted UGB areas or contain requirements that
result in meaningful staging of development?
10. Section 197 .656(2)(b )(A)-(F) requires the plan to have: (emphasis mine)
o Goals (there are three listed)
o measurable indicators of performance
o incentives and disincentives
o a monitoring program, and
o a system to make corrections if goals aren't being met.
Section VI Measurable Performance Indicators states:
1) Signatories complete self-evaluation monitoring report Addressing compliance
with the rest of this section. Those are:
3) Incorporating the Plan into comp plans as an element (procedural)
4) "Comply with the general and specific conditions of Section X. (see below)
August 4, 2008
page I
---.r--r
(Option 3) Critical Open Space Area Preservation: Points out that the COSA is not
mandatory, is an appendix that is an OPTION that could be refined or expanded on. No
condition here.
7. Page 8 Monitoring Plan. This requires cities to comply with their comp plan as a
monitoring plan. The monitoring, then is not coordinated or regional in scope. Violations
would be revealed as the result of lawsuits or the ten-year self-evaluation reports that will
be filed with the County and mailed to each signatory.
It's not clear what the process is for enforcement of the agreement if another signatory
violates a condition. It appears that the only firm requirements are what will incorporated
into each city's comp plan.
August 4, 2008
page 3
Dana Smith - RPS U date 8.04.08. t
P
ith - RPS U date 8.04.08. t
Pa
~------ -- ---Tlr-"r---
a Smith - RPS U date 8.04.08. t
p
~----------rr;-r ~~-
Smith - RPS U date 8.04.08. t
~----
mith - RPS U date 8.04.08. t
P
II I ---
t
Pa
II
Smith - RPS U date 8.04.08.
P
------rr--o-----------
a Smith - RPS U date 8.04.08. t
Pa e 8
II ,--
Smith - RPS U date 8.04.08. t
Pa e 9
II, ,----
Smith - RPS U date 8.04.08. t
II
ith - RPS U date 8.04.08. t
II
na Smith - RPS U date 8.04.08. t
Pa e 12
II~~~-
Smith - RPS U date 8.04.08. t
Pa e 13
II
ith - RPS U date 8.04.08. t
11.-----
Dana Smith - RPS U date 8.04.08. t
II
Smith - RPS U date 8.04.08. t
P
II
Smith - RPS U date 8.04.08. t
Pa
II
?tl6 nuJ1q
~J+lof D
17Ytsl- tJrIt€J \
ASHLAND FOREST LANDS COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS
FOR MODIFICATION OF THE ASHLAND FOREST RESILIENCY
PROJECT PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
Revised August 4, 2008
1. Silvicultural Treatments within the Research Natural Area
Description: The Research Natural Area (RNA) within the Ashland Watershed
was created on May 4, 1970, to provide examples of the Pacific Ponderosa Pine
and the ponderosa pine / Douglas Fir forest found west of the Cascade Range in
southern Oregon. The "Community Alternative" (CA) , proposes to treat 520 acres
(370/0) within the RNA, and the Preferred Alternate (PA) proposes to treat 1280
acres (91 0/0). The difference in total acres comes from three locations: 1) The CA
has no prescriptions for lower two-thirds slope positions on north and east
aspects, while the PA suggests treating almost all of the RNA. This distinction
probably accounts for most of the acreage differences between the two
alternatives, 2) The CA requires no treatments on unstable Landslide Hazard
Zone 1 (LHZ1) and on slopes greater than 65%, while the PA allows treatments
in these locations, although they tend to be light in LHZ1, 3) the CA shows no
acres being treated in the owl core (approximately 125 acres) while the PA treats
this entire acreage.
AFLC Recommendation:
Treatment Settings: Use the treatment settings as outlined in the CA,
accepting the PA proposed treatment in the lower 1/3 slope positions on south
and west aspects focused around thinning around Cohort 1 legacy pines; Reject
the PA inclusion lower 2/3 slope positions on north and east aspects in the moist
white fir PAG (Note: Don Boucher(USFS) will examine proposed prescriptions in
the upper half of the RNA on north and east aspects where he had mapped a
large area with no treatment in the CAY Reject PA proposed inclusion of LHZI
and slopes> 65 (Linda Duffy suggested that the USFS would apply mitigation
measures in these locations, including leaving half of the material less than 6",
orienting slash on slopes to minimize sediment movement, no removal of
overstory, no purposeful fire ignition, etc, Reject PA inclusion of treatment in owl
core (unless there are no owls surveyed currently, thereby allowing the CA
treatment for owl cores. (The PA prescription, which was not available to the
Forest Lands Commission at the time of preparation of their recommendations,
requires no treatment within 200 meters of an activity center, and treatment of
surface and ladder fuels only from there out to ~ mile radius. There were no owls
surveyed currently in the RNA.)
Prescriptions: Utilize CA prescriptions in all settings. Note: USFS prescriptions
had not been received and are yet to be reviewed.
2. Addition of Roadside Treatments Adjacent To US Forest Road 2060
Description: The PA includes 330 acres of roadside fuel treatments adjacent to
US Forest Road 2060. These treatments will extend from 200 linear feet below
the road to 50 to 75 feet above the road. The CA also provides for roadside
treatments spanning 100 linear feet below the road to 100 feet above the road.
However, the CA roadside treatments are less contiguous than those provided
for in the PA as a result of two factors: 1) the CA avoids treatments on slopes of
65% and greater, 2) the CA has stretches of the road that were not in close
proximity to other treatment areas, and thus were not treated under the mapping
rules developed in the CA.
AFLC Recommendation: Accept PA expansion of roadside treatments, but
including a requirement for an inventory of road conditions by an engineering
geologist to assess potential for existing road conditions to aggravate LHZ1
and/or other areas of potential slope failure associated with the road itself. In
such situations, modify treatments and/or address road engineering/maintenance
deficiencies (It was agreed that standard annual road maintenance be conducted
prior to fuels treatments as well as before more typical commercial treatments.
Linda Duffy agreed that this should be written into the FEIS to insure completion
on a regular basis, i.e.: no fuels treatments could be conducted until road
maintenance inventory completed)
3. Removal of Diameter Limits In The Roadless Area
Description: The CA provides for a seven inch diameter at breast height (DBH)
for understory treatments in the roadless area portion of the project. The PA does
not accept the imposition of diameter limits as per US Forest Service policy.
AFLC Recommendation: Accept the elimination of the 7 inch diameter limit in the
roadless area within the treatment settings agreed to in point 4 below. Forest
Service policy is to avoid setting diameter limits so this is merely an acceptance
of policy. (Linda Duffy indicated that the USFS strategy would be to adhere to the
spirit of the Roadless Rule and HFRA and basically thin from below to achieve
fuels objectives - not to "try to pay for the treatment with commercial extraction".
Don Boucher described the treatment as starting with the smallest material and
advancing upward until the desired densities are reached, as described by the
CA prescriptions for the identified PAGs / treatment settings. Boucher guessed
that diameters up to 12-15 inches might be reached, and that whether an
individual area was considered commercial would only be determined after
reaching downed woody debris targets, and dependent on market conditions and
other site factors)
4. Locations and Types of Treatments in Roadless Area
Description: There are three major distinctions between the CA and the PA.
These are as follows: 1) The PA eliminates all treatments above US Forest Road
2060 (except in the Panther Gap/Horn Gulch area- see below); 2) the CA utilizes
non-commercial understory treatments only in the roadless area (including the
Horn GulchlTalent WUI area), utilizing (as mentioned above) a 7 inch diameter
limit, while the PA utilizes standard prescribed treatments for CA priority settings,
but only in the Horn Gulch/Talent WUI area); 3) the PA proposes an additional
strategic ridgeline treatment at the top of Horn Gulch that was not part of the CA,
although the CA does include treatment in some of the settings within the Horn
Gulch strategic ridgeline.
AFLC Recommendation: Reject the PA's elimination of all treatments above the
2060 Road and instead restrict treatments to maintaining/promoting Cohort 1
pines and larger hardwoods within CA treatment settings in this area. Accept the
PA's utilization of standard prescribed treatments for CA priority settings in the
Horn Gulch/Talent WUI without a 7" diameter limit. Accept the PA's proposal for
an additional strategic ridgeline treatment at the top of Horn Gulch. (The Forest
Service states that adding more treatments, and chasing pine areas, would likely
be beyond purpose and need, would be hard to justify as important from a
wildfire management perspective and would be fragmented and expensive to
implement, offering little connection to the rest of the project. This portion of the
project was dropped. The possibility exists for inclusion of this initiative as part of
a future project. Current data is not sufficiently robust enough to provide mapping
of specific Cohort 1 pine stands and collection of this data at this time would
delay implementation of the project.)
5. Addition of Strategic Ridgeline Treatments & Canopy Closure
Description: The CA differs from the PA in that it proposes a more dispersed,
area-wide treatment strategy in comparison to the more aggressive strategic
ridgeline treatments of the PA intended to "compartmentalize" the landscape.
The PA accepts the prescriptions in treatment settings proposed by the CA in
what the PA labels "Fuel Discontinuity Areas", while retaining strategic ridgeline
treatments that overlay the CA in those areas. Within the strategic ridgeline
treatments, the PA prescribes maintaining a somewhat more uniform 60%
canopy closure throughout (in an effort to maintain higher fuel moistures of
remaining fuels, reducing understory vegetation and thereby reducing
maintenance costs), while the CA prescribes a greater diversity of treatments
depending on priority setting.
AFLC Recommendation: CA prescriptions should be retained throughout the
strategic ridgelines in identified CA treatment settings. Accept the PA proposal to
include additional settings to create a more consistent treatment area. Maintain
an average 60% canopy closure but encourage variability in canopy closure to
meet individual site conditions, such as by using the CA prescription for Cohort 1
pines and larger hardwoods (FEIS pg 11-76) throughout strategic ridgeline
settings. (Boucher indicated that he had tried to allow for more variability in
treatment by allowing for additional treatment around legacy pines and
hardwoods, including variations as a result of insects and disease, etc. - ways to
avoid the treatments being characterized as "engineered swaths". He also
proposed to do additional heavier treatments in non-strategic ridgelines as
comparisons to be monitored over time.)
6. Sedimentation Issue and DEQ TMDL Standards
Description: Neither the CA or the PA addressed recent regulatory standards
instituted by the Oregon State Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) for
Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) of sedimentation loading capacity which "is
set to natural background or an erosion rate of 3.62 cubic yards per day total for
the watershed. No significant increased delivery of sediment to Reeder Reservoir
over that which would occur naturally is allowed." In addition, the DEQ standards
require "Long-term monitoring and the adaptive management nature of this
TMDL will be used to evaluate this goal over time. It is recommended that in
addition to monitoring sedimentation in East and West Forks of Ashland Creek,
the Reeder Reservoir catchment basins be monitored to determine trends in
sediment delivery and to determine potential sediment sources. Monitoring of
stream cobble embeddedness or percent fines (through Wolman pebble count
method) and monitoring that continues to incorporate macroinvertebrates as
trend indicators for sedimentation in the East and West Forks of Ashland Creek
is requested." The USFS analysis of potential sediment delivery in the 3 action
alternatives suggests that "no significant change in sediment yields in the
streams, or in Reeder Reservoir as a result of surface erosion following
implementation of activities associated with the PA, CA, or Proposed Action"
(page 111-69). In addition, the "Reeder Reservoir Study" produced by Brown and
Caldwell for the City of Ashland made several recommendations that support the
DEQ's request for additional monitoring, specifically: 5) Monitor the nutrients in
tributaries; 8) Monitor sedimentation rate, and; 9) Monitor flood driven sediment.
AFLC Recommendation: Comply with DEQ TMDL standards. Assess and
monitor on-site soil and hydrological impacts as described in CA, including roads
and landings. Develop monitoring and implementation methodology such as
requested by USFS and presented by City in October 2007 letter. (The USFS
indicated they will comply with DEQ TMDL standards. They were trying to
determine what exactly is meant by the term "significant" increase in
sedimentation. They indicated that the Mt. Ashland project will bear costs of
additional monitoring.)
The original document, with its recommendations, was developed without updated prescriptions
for the three alternatives. In addition, a "replacement" Chapter 3- Affected Environment and
Environmental Consequences" was received one day prior to the AFLC meeting and had not
been fully reviewed. On August 4, 2008, as a result of a meeting held with the USFS officials,
further agreements and understandings were incorporated into the document.
Ashland, Oregon
Asland City Council
If you really want another C~tastrophi~Flood to Occur, you should
direct the U.S. Forest Service, per your explicit instructions,
to Load the contributing mountain streams of the Ashland Creek _
Bear Creek Watershed with large Woody Debris Materials, and then,
wait for a Hard Rain Situation of 2" to 4" of Rain over a 24 Hour Period.
If you want Ideal Conditions for a Water-Born Epidemiological
Vector, i.e. Water-born Epidemic, you should direct the U.S. Forest
Service, to Load the Streams of the City of Ashland Wate~rshed,
with Large Woody Debris Materials, that then break down Anaerobically
into Methanols, Aldehydes, and Ketones, a lethal Toxic Brew,
creating Anaerobic Conditions Ideal for Chronic Coliform Bacteria
Growth.
The Result will be Reeder Reservior clogged i!i~ with rotting
wood, fetid water, (and a very expensive Water Bill Clean-up Surcharge),
Ca9nons
that you have to Treat with Aerating Water ~&~, to kill the Coliform
Bacteria
~~f'U, or more Aluminum Sulfate, a chemical toxic to neuronal
development, and implicated in Alzheimers Disease.
Chapter 8 Ashland Forest Resiliency Community Alternative (AFRCA)
(~\ \i n
2. Manage the entire municipal watershed including protection and restoration of
aquatteandnp-anan co-ndltions, to_sJ!P~Q.~_andallow Jo[s.ontin.ue9-PIQQuction of }:ligh
quality dtj~.~i!.lg_\Y':l!et fQrJl)e ()!y. of !,-shland.
.
In riparian areas and upslope areas prone to landslide, snags of all size classes contribute the
large \!QQ.Qy pebris that is critical to creation and maintenance of stream structure andfuncifon.
. R~~nf!le~!__q(iad~-inp~s of (argewooaydebrlstOstieams~pro~ides import(int's~PP-ofi -fur
.~9u~tic ecosystem int~..8.~ty, ~m'p~~~~ysicaJ habit~t~J.f!:1cture as well as nutrient ~YS~ and
.~ther in-?tre.5l~~~ce~_~~. Snags in various size classes also are important to the recruitment
pathways of the down coarse materials important to soils.
conditions~ . Since 1960: nearly 75 lightning ignitions in the watershed have been suppressed,
with only four fires that burned more than an-acre(T973, 350 acres~ 1987, 13 acres; 1988, 60
acres:and 2003, 15 acres) (Upper Bear Assessment, 2093).
Riparian Areas
::~
~-
Riparian areas are dynamic portions of the landscape shaped both by disturbances characteristic
of upland ecosystems (e.g., tire, windthrow, erosion and landslides) and those unique to stream
systems (e.g.. lateral channel erosion, flood and debris tlow deposition). Important ecok'\gical
_functions that must be conserved include storage, processing and delivery of orgaoi~
i~the s~ maintenance of bank stability and shading~ delivery of large wood to streams and
_to riparian areas; establishment of riparianJ1).icroclimate~ maintenance of water quality
(particularly as it relates to temperature and sediment); provision of wildlife habitat and
moderation of hydrologic disturbances. Riparian habitat conditions, and as a consequence
aquatic habitat conditions and water quality, are susceptible to degradation by management.
Even fuel reduction treatments may alter the hydrologic function of the watershed by
contributing to chronic disturbance, and or elevated rate of disturbance that exceeds the rate of
recovery. These impacts to long-term aquatic ecosystem integrity can be greater than would
result from a wildfire burning through the system. Where riparian and aquatic habitat has been
degraded by past timber harvest and is not recovering naturally, however, management in and
--around nparian habitat can be used to restore conditions. --
----, --
(
processes and functions. Except for previously harvested areas, where special considerations are
provided below, riparian area protections will include:
· areas dominated by riparian vegetation, W e also have added 50 foot no treatment buffers
. outside of the areas of riparian vegetation~The buffers won't ~e treated e-ith~r.
· ~ands im ortant to the recruitment - athway of lar e woody-debris (both directly to the
~tream as well as to the riparian area) and sediment, an
· hea~water riparian ~?nes. ! _ - ,4 L S E-
~ithin the riparian a~eas, restoration treatments will occur ani where past timber harvest and ~
!'1anagement -activities (inclu~ing estab IS ment of plantations) have encroached into the riparian
area and natural recovery IS no~ occumng. Such treatments will address problems associated -
with ~he p~st timber harvest. In such circUmstances. recruitment of large~oody debris may have
J been Impaired and therefore.,. likely will heed to be supplemented: .. ';---" ..- · .
- -- - - --~_.: - r=- A L S- E
Public Works Tel: 541/488-5587 Page 47 _ ~
20 E. Main Street Fax: 541./488-6006 Jlllllli6
Ashland. Oregon 97520 TrY: 8001735-2900 ....
.vww ~shland_or IJS
G DuO-wrks'enq dePI.adm,nFOAEST'CommunIIV Wildfire PrOlectlon Plan-A<;hl.:tnrl r.WPP Q 11) f\4 t1nr
--~---~-Tr. ~
FALSE
i .
(4/
'---'"
FAL. ').
(~
/ -7"
\ -
~'
I request that the City of Ashland, Oregon, Planning Commission,
insert a single Ord enabling, Paragraph, to the Proposed Reparian
Resources Protection Corridors Ord, that you are planning to present
to the Ashland City Council, for consideraeion, and passage.
." All Streams, intermittant streams, ephemeral streams, and
wetlands, within the legal jurisdiction of the City of Ashland,
including the City of Ashland Watershed, Shall Have their respective
Water Table Step Cascades Properly Maintained, and Restored, by
the use of Stream Sourced Boulders and Rocks, with zero concrete,
and zero rebars. The Express Purpose is to Preserve, Protect, and
Restore Local Water Tables, Thereby Preserving, Protecting, and
Natural
Restoring a Limited W~~~f# Resource, Water. This substantially
^
Reduces the Threat of Fire in the Ashland Watershed Region"
In the Background Material Provided to the Planning Commission,
I have also included a Formal Request that the City of Ashland
re-Step the Water Table Cascades of Neil Creek, and Upper Ashland
Creek, effectively re-constructing over 500 feet (vertical) of
mini-Waterfalls, I,E" Cascades, during July, August, September, 2008,
Completion Date for Project: 30 September 2008. Your City Council
will have effectively Doubled the local Snow Pack of Mount Ashland,
guaranteeing healthy survival of your City Owned, Snow Pack Based
Winter Tourism Industry.
The Estimated Cost Id for the 3month Project upon Neil Creek,
and Upper_Ashland C~eek, including salaries ~or the 1 person ~rew,
is $ 50,000. The amount should be successfully billed to the
U.s. Forest Service as a Hazardo~s_Waste Fuel Reduction Project,
Reparian ~esources a Restoration[ under the Healthy Forests
Resto~~tion Act of 2003.
I am providing each member of the Ashland City Council with
a copy of material sent to the U.S. House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on National Parks, National Forests, and Public Lands,
concerning a completed Demonstration Project, for the Forest Service,
.
under the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003, located in Ashland
Creek, within Lithia Park. It involves a re-stepping of the Cascades
of Rainshadow Mountain Streams, such as Ashland Creek, to re-establish
Water Tables, Regionally, and, therefore, effectively ending Artificial
Drought Cycles. The local Demonstration Project includes id~!dd~j
320 Cascades *restored, 120 feet of water tables restored.
Six members of the House Subcommittee have, so far, accepted
the material: Congresspersons: Abercrombie, Hawaii, Baca, California,
Cole, Oklahoma, Brown,South Carolina, Gallegly, California, and
Miller,Californaa.
By following the Demonstration Model, utilizing a standard
Backhoe with 3 person team, and totally re-stepping the Cascades
of Neil Creek, and upper Ashland Creek, above Reeder Reservoir,
Re-establishing the Water Tables, effectively re-constructing over
500 feet of mini-waterfalls, I.E. Cascades, during July, August,
September 2008, Completion Date for Project: 30 September 2008,
your City Council will have effectively Doubled the local Snow Pack
of Mount Ashland, guaranteeing healthy survival of your Snow Pack
Based Winter Tourism Industry.
You may also utilize the Demonstration Model- by altowing it
to fulfill Stage One, Demonstration Model, Completed, of the State
of Oregon ~andabe: -tha t the Crty of Ashland 1) Lower Wa ter Tempera tures,
2) Lower Stream Turbidity, and 3) li~frBacteria- Counts in the
Ashland Creek - Bear Creek Reparian Zone.
Each mini-Waterfalls, Cascade, effectively kills 10% of all
Anaerobic Bacteria, since they cannot survive Super-Oxygenation
of the Stream Waters, resulting from air churning at each
mini-Waterfalls.
.
The Other Direct Benefit is Saturation of Local Air Cells,
nightly descending to Ashland Creek from the Rainshadow Mountain.
The Local Air Cells undergo Air- Water Churning at each mini-Waterfalls
resulting in Saturation of Local Air Cells, raising localized
Dew Points, and, therefore, causing Morning mists to reappear upon
surrounding Mountain Slopes. The Restored Morning Mountain Mists
reduce most significant Fire Hazards to local Forest Environments.
The Net Result is an increase in locally based Cumulus Clouds,
with corresponding increases in Winter Snow Pack.
That benefits Winter Tourism, regional Ecology, including Old Growth,
rare and endangered Species, and the continued prosperity of local
Vineyards, and Orchards.
The estimated cost for the 3 month Project upon Neil Creek, and
upper Ashland Creek, including salaries for the 3 person crew,
is $ 50,000. The amount should be successfully billed to the
Forest Service as a Hazardous Waste Fuel Reduction Project, Riparian
Restoration, under the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of !OOR 2003.
~ I --._m_
Terrence C. Stenson
172 Alida Street
Ashland, Oregon 97520
Senator Ron Wyden
700 NE Multnomah #320
Portland, Oregon 97401
Dear Senator Wyden;
.
I understand that you are Proposing Revision of the Healthy Forests
Restoration Act of 2003. PLEASE Read the Enclosed, Scientifically Based,
Reparian Resources Restoration Proposal, Presently being considered
by the U.S. House of Representatives, Subcommittee on National Parks,
Forests, and Public Lands, (second year under consideration), before
you press forward with your revised Ord, concerning Hazardous Waste
Fuel Reductions, and Forest Harvesting to Prevent Forest Fires.
There exists a large gap in the emphasis of the Present Ord,
that has NOT BEEN ADDRESSED BY YOUR EXPERTS, to any extent, whatsoever.
It concerns PROPER MAINTENANCE OF WATER TABLES, which is not a difficu~lt
concept to mentally grasp: "- - the flat water surface of any stream,
lake, pond, swamPl river, etc., -- _ft. You deal, scientifically, with
Restorlng
Drought by B!d*id~ the Underlying Hydrology of local streams, rivers,
i.e., Riparian Resources Restoration, NOT by removing CANOPY in
Rainshadow Effect Stream Valleys. Such Canopy provides extended Surface
Areas Available for Condensation at Dew 'di!~Point, once the underlying
Rainshadow Effect Stream Hydrology is Restored. The more Surface Area
Canopy Available, the greater the Condensation, in quantity, without
ANY SCIENTIFIC SHADOW OF A DOUBT, Will OCCUR, at Dew Point.
Six members of the House Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests,
and Public Lands have considered the Proposal, Congresspersons:
Abercrombie, Hawaii, Brown, South Carolina, Cole, Oklahoma, Miller, CA,
Baca, California, and tGallegly, CaLifornia.
P~S.: If you need more copies, please send a letter indicating the
requeste--d numbers of copies.
- S~=O~.:YLo-
Terrence C.~St~nson
r7l~ ; /.. ;;2 5' .. kJO 3-
- - - . .. - I"
Terrence C. Stenson
172 Alida street
Ashland, Oregon 97520
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger
State Capitol Building
Sacramento, California 95814
Dear Governor;
Enclosed are two copies of a Riparian Resources Restoration Proposal
.
to you, your Office, and the State and People of California.
It concerns a Completed Demonstration Project, Reparian Resources
Restoration, presently before a Subcommittee of the U.S. House of
Representatives, Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and Public
Lands (second year of consideration). It concerns a Requested
Legislative Mandate from Congress, to the Forest Service, for Proper
Restoration of Reparian Resources of the Source Waters Aquafer for
the Sacramento Valley Watershed (including headwaters for the Pit River
Riparian System), which supplies Needed Water to 8 Percent of the
National Food Supply.
As half of the Requested Prototype Reparian Resources Restoration
Project will occur in Northern California, the other Portion being
located in Southern Oregon, I wanted you, Personally, to become aware
of the Intended Prototype Project. The only other persons in California
presently aware of the Intended Prototype Project are Congresspersons:
Baca, Miller, and Gallegly.
I look forward to the day when California Rainshadow Effect Streams
and Rainshadow Effect River Systems, (including the Big Sur River),
FINALLY have their Water Table Step Cascades restored under your
Administration, and the Resultant Morning Mists are once again Restored
to the Hills and Mountains of Northern and Southern California.
__ s.i:nCerelY YOU~___
(~C~~~
Terrence ,C. Stenson
P.S.: If you need more cop~es, please send a l~er indicating
the requ~sted number of copies.
J7l cbI. e-(:L> ;LO 0 P
r -
-- ------rr ,--
Terrence C. Stenson
172 Alida Street
Ashland, Oregon 97520
Office of the Governor
Theodore R. Kulongoski, Governor
State Capitol Building
900 Court Street NE.
Salem, Oregon 97301-4047
.
Dear Governor;
Enclosed are two copies of a Riparian Resources Restoration Proposal
for you, your Office, and the State and People of Oregon. It concerns
a completed Demonstration Project, Reparian Resources Restoration,
presently before a Subcommittee of the U.S. House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands (second year
under consideration). It concerns a Requested Legislative Mandate
from Congress to the Forest Service, for Proper Restoration of Reparian
Resources of the Source Waters Aquafer for the Sacramento Valley
Watershed (including headwaters for the Pit River Riparian System),
which jd~~IUj supplies Needed Water to 8 Percent of the National Food
Supply.
As half of the Requested Prototype Reparian Resources Restoration
('
PRject will occur in Northern California, the other Portion being
located in Southern Oregon, I wanted you, Personally, to become aware
o
of the Intended Protkype Project. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has
also received the Same Material.
I look forward to the day when Rainshadow Effect Streams and
Rainshadow Effect River Systems of Southern (and eventually Northern)
Oregon, FINALLY have their Water Table Step Cascades restored under
your Administration, -and its Successors, andResult~nt Morning Mists
are once again Restored to the Hills and Mountains of- Southern Oregon
and Northern Califonia.
- P. S.: - If you -need~--more co-pies,
the requested number - -of copies.
~inCeeelY You.r.~.
"~ ~ C..~~
. _ . . Terrencr C. St.e.nson \')-
_ - _ -n14,..i:,~ ?-<), :zOO iF_
~lease send ~ ~et~er indicating
-----------rrT --
~
.Q
=
fIlL
.....
n
.Il'r
en 0 0
::t 'a 0
ii~cr
:s en ...
~i&'
o a S
,(1)'- tr
CQO"~
o ..... :II
:s CD ·
g !-'
CD
~
,..
,..
n
il
il
~ I
III
Ii
Iii
Iii
III
II
1111--
1,1 I-~---
20
c:: .'.~..
.~. '. .."""
~..'.I
!.~.
I'Gf...... '" .....:::.,1
(Q<
1J~ .."
:::r-t.-,
'<. >::J"' O. .....
........CD
.g.......m.......3
~.:.O...........II
!'!... ....0.... ...:;:tJ
~e8.ro
o...'<..~.....
:::::J .. '.. .~.
............. ..0 . :::J
-h. 0
"TI_
(Do..
Cf).(,IJ
::J"'
~.....~
Q) .....
r+.. .c.o
~'....... C)::)
~
.............,
).~>'.
O<6~
~?;~
......~
.~~
~~O
0< ..... ...""..............~...............
.." .
....
CI)--
3 .....~
(')>~ ...... ..."a. . <i.
Q).?"'~~fA
.... ..~Q ~...~..
c:=*
.....
m
..........:J.~. '> ..CJ .()C.....~ 'm..'r.1)
". ..'----.. tA................., c......
C'-,..'<o 0 ..$1). Q.S>>
O'..~
-"1.."0
~.......t
~r;o
<<B ra
.~........ W':..................... ,.............~...........
..~~
."'~...'....'. rJ'
~o
I I
III
~ i
II