HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-0419 Documents Submitted
Sv..""n--:+t.......L ro \.1/'lI\- <;5
.c::::I
.. D
DAVID EVANS
AND ASSOCIATES ONe,
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
PROJECT:
PROJECT NO:
COPIES:
April 16, 2010
Mike Faught (City of Ashland, Public Works Director)
Ethan Rosenthal
Review of Mt. Ashland Ski Area DSEIS Relative to City Water Qnality Concerns
City of Ashland Water Master Plan
Bob Eimstad (Corollo Engineers)
INTRODUCTION
This memorandum provides a brief summary review of the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement
(DSEIS) for the Mt. Ashland Ski Area Expansion project as it pertains to water quality issues that could affect the
City of Ashland, Particular emphasis is placed on the connection of the DSEIS and the Reeder Reservoir
Sediment Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL), which is part of the overall Bear Creek Watershed TMDL. A
draft comment letter that the City may wish to forward on to the V.S, Forest Service (Forest Service) as part of the
DSEIS public review is provided in the latter half of this memo.
BACKGROUND
The City of Ashland (City) is conducting master planning efforts regarding the City's future water supply needs.
It is also actively carrying out watershed management efforts, within its jurisdictional limits, in support of the
Reeder Reservoir Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) that was approved by EPA in 2007, The Mt. Ashland Ski
Area (MASA), which resides in the Ashland Creek watershed that feeds Reeder Reservoir, has been seeking to
expand its boundaries and facilities, The City has been concerned about how the MASA may impact the City's
water resources and its ability to effectively carry out its TMDL obligations, particularly the sediment TMDL.
In September 2004, the Forest Service issued a Record of Decision (ROD) for the MASA expansion. Legal
proceedings followed and ultimately the Ninth Circuit remanded the case to the district court and instructed it to
promptly enjoin the MASA expansion project contemplated in the 2004 ROD until the Forest Service corrected
the violations found in Opinion CV -05-03004-P A. The Court of Appeals found that the Forest Service failed to
properly evaluate the impact of the proposed MASA expansion on the Pacific fisher; in violation of both the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the National Forest Management Act (NFMA), and that it
violated the NFMA by failing to appropriately designate Riparian Reserves and Restricted Watershed terrain, The
Forest Service has prepared a DSEIS in response to these violations, The Forest Service began the 45-day public
review period for the DSEIS on March 9, 2010.
.....1'Vl ....AI n~'A~ nA.'_.._.. ...._....,__'" ""~____ "'"'7"V'1" .......___. en,=, ..........., cce.., "'___'_"_' en,> ........., ........n..
Mike Faught (City of Ashland, Public Works Director)
April 16, 2010
Page 2
DSEIS DOCUMENT REVIEW
The DSEIS provides project background information including a discussion of what the Court of Appeals found
to be d~ficient with the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) and 2004 ROD. The DSEIS then provides
supplemental information and analyses to address the court defined deficiencies, which broadly include issues
pertaining to the Pacific Fisher and Riparian and Restricted Watershed terrain. Of these two topics, only the
Riparian Reserves and Restricted Watershed terrain topic is relevant to City water resource concerns.
As noted in the DSEIS, "the rules governing the Forest Service's designation and management of Riparian
Reserves and watersheds are complex and overlapping, The principal source of these rules is the Northwest Forest
Plan (NWFP) itself, and, derivatively, the Aquatic Conservation Strategy (ACS) adopted pursuant to the NWFP,"
The court found that in several instances appropriate management designations were not applied as outlined
below:
I) Restricted Riparian and Restricted Watershed Terrain - NFMA Claims
. Failure to designate Restricted Riparian (Management Strategy [MS] 26) and Restricted Watershed (MS
22) terrain
· Failure to evaluate soils standards and guidelines for MS 26 and MS 22
Review SUmmary:
The DSEIS rectified the above issues as follows. All perennial streams within the Special Use Permit Area
(SUP) were incorporated into Restricted Riparian (MS 26) areas. Identification of perennial streams was
based on on-the-ground inventory work conducted in 2002 and documented in Appendix E of the FEIS.
Lands within 100-feet horizontal distance from the perennial streams and wetlands defined the area for
evaluation based on standards and guidelines associated with MS 26, Supplemental analysis determined that
the area ofMS 26 impacted by the 2004 ROD is 0,83 acres. The Restricted Watershed (MS 22) designation
was applied to portions of the SUP within the Ashland Municipal Watershed (approximately 796 acres),
which is subject to the standards and guidelines for MS 22,
The DSEIS notes there is a total of 48,8 acres of Restricted Riparian (MS 26) terrain within the Site Scale
Analysis Area of which 27,9 acres are within the Special Use Permit area subject to applicable (soils)
standards and guidelines. The DSEIS determined that the area of MS 26 that would be impacted by the
expansion project (i.e. "activity area") would be 0,83 acres. Clearing for ski area expansion would not
compact, puddle or displace more than 10 percent of this activity area because of mitigation measures
including the use of low ground pressure construction equipment.
The ski area expansion decision would occur within Landtype 52, The standard for MS 26 within Landtype
52 is twenty percent. The mineral soil exposure from ski area expansion is projected as 0,06 acre within this
0,83 acre area within MS 26, or 7.2%, Ski area expansion activities were designed to retain effective ground
cover. The specially designed thresholds for maximum bare soil from ski run construction is 10%.
Regarding the Restricted Watershed (MS 22) standards and guidelines, the "activity area" is assumed to be
the total area of impact for run and lift clearing for ski area expansion within the Upper Ashland Creek
watershed, Effects from compaction, puddling or displacement are minimized because of mitigation measures
including the use of low ground pressure construction equipment. The 2004 ROD disclosed and supplemental
analysis confirmed an estimated percent of detrimental conditions at 16,5% for the proposed expansion
project. This figure includes some construction within previously impacted areas, therefore allowing
detrimental conditions to approach 20%, For MS 22, the ski area expansion decision would occur within
Mike Faught (City of Ashland, Public Works Director)
April 16,2010
Page 3
several landtypes; the majority of clearing activities occur within Landtype 80, considered the most
restrictive, which has a mineral soil exposure standard of 30%, The 2004 ROD disclosed, and the
supplemental analysis confirmed an estimated percent of detrimental conditions at 16.5% for the proposed
expansion project, which is below the 30% standard,
2) Riparian Reserves - NFMA Claim
· Failure to designate Landslide Hazard Zone 2 (LHZ 2) as Riparian Reserve
Review summary:
Landslide Hazard Zone 2 areas were mapped and described in the FEIS; however, these areas were not
designated as being part of Riparian Reserves, The DSEIS made this change and now LHZ 2 areas are
designated as Riparian Reserves, The DSEIS analyzed the land cover effects of the proposed ski area
expansion with respect to the revised Riparian Reserves. At the Site Scale Analysis Area, Riparian Reserves
increased by 145, I3 acres (from 333.34 to 478.47), However, within expansion areas proposed for clearing
and grading the increase is considerably smaller at 10.08 and 0,56 acres respectively. According to the
DSEIS, clearing activities would occur primarily within upper portions of LHZ 2, not associated with streams
or wetlands, Much of this area is already non- or sparsely forested, Grnding activities would occur near the
top of the proposed C-6 Lift, relatively high on the slope and primarily in open dry areas and not associated
with streams or wetlands,
3) Restricted Watershed Terrain - NFMA Claim
. No Forest Plan Amendment to Exclude Restricted Watershed (MS 22) from Special Use Permit (SUP)
Area
Review summarv:
Because there is no amendment to the Rogue River LRMP in the record permitting the contemplated change
to the Watershed, the Court of Appeals found that the Forest Service violated the NFMA by failing to ensure
that the expansion will comply with the Rogue River LRMP standards and guidelines. Through the DSEIS the
Forest Service acknowledges that Restricted Watershed (MS 22) is not excluded from Special Use Permit
areas, The Forest Service subsequently addresses the various standards and guidelines of the LRMP,
In summary, the DSEIS addressed and rectified the above issues, incorporating the new areas into their proper
management units, The analysis work did not result in modifications to the proposed project described in the
FEIS, as it was determined that proposed actions still fell within the management restrictions of the various
management units. Generally speaking, between the FEIS, DSEIS, and supporting documentation, it appears that
considerable effort has gone into analyzing and documenting potential impacts to watershed resources and
outlining the methods with which to address them, particularly at a planning level of design. Additionally, the
2004 ROD, with associated appendices, provides considerable planning level detail regarding project
implementation, mitigation planning, and monitoring requirements,
DSEIS AND REEDER RESERVOIR SEDIMENT TMDL CONNECTION
The FEIS was completed prior to preparation of the TMDL and so the FEIS understandably does not include
discussion of the TMDL. The FEIS did however note that Reeder Reservoir is listed as water quality limited for
sediment. The TMDL on the other hand discusses the MASA Expansion Project and relied on the sediment
Mike Faught (City of AsWand, Public Works Director)
April 16, 2010
Page 4
modeling conducted as part of the FEIS, The DSEIS does not discuss the TMDL in the main body of the
document, as the DSEIS is intended to address issues identified by the court decision, which did not identify the
TMDL as an issue. Comments about the need to include TMDL issues into the MASA expansion project analysis
were received by the Forest Service from several non-profit conservation groups, These comments were received
during an evaluation by the Forest Service of new information or changed conditions that could have a bearing on
the authorized decision or its impacts, The Forest Service determined that the completion of the TMDL did not
warrant preparation of a correction, supplement, or revision to the FEIS. Although the issuance of the TMDL was
considered to be new and relevant information, it was not considered to be significant since the TMDL took into
account the MASA expansion project including the sedimentation analysis conducted by the MASA project.
The TMDL specifies a loading capacity "set to natural background or an erosion rate of 3,62 cubic yards per day
[1,320 cubic yards annual load] total for the watershed. No significant increased delivery of sediment to Reeder
Reservoir over that which would occur naturally is allowed." The TMDL provides a surrogate measure for
loading capacity in order to allow for easier monitoring and provide more useful information to guide
management activities. The surrogate measure is that amount of sediment resulting in less than 33 percent cobble
embeddedness in East and West Fork of Ashland Creek. This surrogate measure has been used in other TMDLs in
the region and has been recommended by Forest Service Fish Biologists as an appropriate indicator of fine
sediment impairment to salmonids (the most sensitive resident biological community),
Loading capacity can be divided into the sum of natural background load, allowable loads from NPDES point
sources, non-point sources, and reserve capacity, The TMDL notes that there are currently no NPDES-permitted
point source discharges of sediment within the Ashland Creek Watershed above Reeder Reservoir, However, it
acknowledges the future construction/development activities associated with MASA expansion to require NPDES
stormwater or construction permits. These permits (i.e, NPDES General 1200-C permit) would specify the rules
and requirements to prevent the discharge of significant amounts of sediment to surface waters,
A water quality management plan (WQMP) has been prepared in support of the TMDL to address potential non-
point sources of sediments. The WQMP was prepared by Oregon Department of Environmental Quality with
participation from Designated Management Agencies, which includes in part the Forest Service and the City,
Appendix E of the WQMP provides a management plan specifically for Reeder Reservoir. The Reeder Reservoir
WQMP acknowledges that "the Ski Area Expansion proposal has incorporated design features and mitigation
measures to minimize potential short-term increases in sediment production" and that "a Cumulative Watershed
Effects analysis showed no anticipated long-term increase in sediment input (above the natural range of
variability) to the headwaters of the East Fork of Ashland Creek."
CONCLUSION
The DSEIS focuses on issues identified by the Court of Appeals as deficient within the 2004 ROD. The DSEIS
appears to adequately address and rectify these issues, particularly with respect to management unit designations
tliat could have the potemial to impact water quality. The analysis did not result in modifications to the proposed
project described in the FEIS, as it was determined that proposed actions still fell within the management
restrictions of the various management units.
Between the FEIS, DSEIS, 2004 ROD, and supporting documentation, it appears that considerable effort has gone
into analyzing and documenting potential impacts to watershed resources and outlining the methods with which to
address them, particularly at a planning level of design, The Reeder Reservoir Sediment TMDL, prepared by
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, appears to agree with this assertion when it states that "the Ski
Area Expansion proposal has incorporated design features and mitigation measures to minimize potential short-
Mike Faught (City of Ashland, Public Works Director)
April 16, 2010
Page 5
tenn increases in sediment production" and that "a Cwnulative Watershed Effects analysis showed no anticipated
long-tenn increase in sediment input (above the natwal range of variability) to the headwaters of the East Fork of
Ashland Creek."
Because the DSEIS has adequately addressed issues identified by the Court of Appeals and this did not result in a
change to the proposed expansion project, there is likely no need to provide comment regarding specific analyses
within the DSEIS. Instead the current open comment period provides an opportunity for the City to express
overall concerns about water quality (i,e, sediment) issues, the need for close coordination during implementation,
and have those concerns included into the public record,
------------------------------------------------..--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DRAFT LETTER FROM CITY TO FOREST SERVICE
April 16, 2010
Attn: Steve Johnson
Ashland Ranger Station
U,S. Forest Service
645 Washington Street
Ashland, OR 97520
Subject: COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
STATEMENT, MT. ASHLAND SKI AREA EXPANSION
To Mr, Steve Johnson,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement
(DSEIS) for the Ml. Ashland Ski Area (MASA) Expansion Project, The City acknowledges and appreciates the
U.S, Forest Service's (Forest Service) detailed environmental assessment conducted for the Ml. Ashland Ski Area
Expansion Project to date, On behalf of the City of Ashland, I am submitting the following comments to be
included in the public record, The comments focus on City concerns about how the MASA Expansion Project
could potentially affect the City's water supply and ability to comply with the Reeder Reservoir Sediment Total
Maximum Daily Load (TMDL), which was established in 2007,
The Court of Appeals found that the Forest Service failed to properly evaluate the impact of the proposed
expansion on the Pacific fisher; in violation of both the National Environmental Policy Act (NEP A) and the
National Forest Management Act (NFMA) and that it violated the NFMA by tailing to appropriately designate
Riparian Reserves and Restricted Watershed terrain, The Forest Service prepared the DSEIS in response to these
violations, With respect to the DSEIS, the City is primarily concerned with Riparian Reserve and Restricted
Mike Faught (City of Ashland, Public Works Director)
April 16, 2010
Page 6
Watershed terrain designations, as these most relate to the City water supply,
Based on the City's review of the DSEIS, we believe that the Forest Service has addressed and rectified the issues
addressed by the Court of Appeals noted above, incorporating the new areas into their proper management units,
The City understands that the analysis work did not result in modifications to the proposed project described in
the FEIS, as it was determined that proposed actions still fell within the management restrictions of the various
management units. Generally speaking, between the FEIS, DSEIS, and supporting documentation, it appears that
considerable effort has gone into analyzing and documenting potential impacts to watershed resources and
outlining the methods with which to address them, particularly at a planning level of design,
The City has concerns about the potential for the proposed MASA Expansion Project to adversely affect the
City's water supply at Reeder Reservoir, particularly the City's ability to meet our obligations of the sediment
TMDL. The sediment TMDL is particularly strict regarding any increases in sediment load to the system, The
TMDL specifies a loading capacity "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."
Although the City appreciates the thorough work conducted by the Forest Service to date, it is now ultimately the
quality of project implementation that will determine the expansion project's resulting level of sedimentation. In
an effort to support TMDL compliance and protection of the City's water supply, the City requests that the Forest
Service continue close coordination with the City as the MASA Expansion Project proceeds from the planning
phases to the more detailed engineering design, construction, and post-construction monitoring phases.
Additionally, the City recommends close coordination between the Forest Service and the City regarding
monitoring efforts associated with the MASA Expansion Project and monitoring efforts associated with the
Reeder Reservoir Sediment TMDL.
In an effort to foster good communications and successful project implementation, the City recommends the
following actions:
. Establish a coordination committee between the Forest Service, the Mt. Ashland Association (MAA), and
the City to discuss project implementation on an on-going basis as needed (e.g, monthly during pre- and
post-construction periods, and weekly during construction),
. The City would like to have the opportunity to review and comment on project design plans, including
but not limited to the following: storm water system design, grading, clearing, and revegetation plans,
erosion control plans and l200-C permit application, and watershed restoration project plans within the
Reeder Reservoir Watershed, '
. The City would like to have the opportunity to visit project areas during and post-construction,
In addition to the above items, the City is also seeking clarification of statements made in the 2004 ROD
pertaining to the need for the MAA to post bond money to cover the cost of ski area restoration in the case of
bankruptcy and subsequent decision to abandon the ski area, Specifically, the City seeks clarification of the
following:
. The ROD states that, "the bond or assets available amount under the SUP will be proportionally adjusted
to account for the increase in developed area." ," What is meant by proportional? Or, how is the amount
determined?
Mike Faught (City of Ashland, Public Works Director)
April 16,2010
Page 7
. The ROD states that, "..,and the subsequently increased need for funding for reclamation (above the
current amount [i,e, $200,000 based on April 1992 Decision NoticeD in the event of ski area closure,"
How is the increased amount determined (e,g, $200,000 fuctoring for inflation, based on assessment of
actual current day costs, etc,)?
· What is the total new dollar amount required to be bonded?
· When will MAA be required to post the new full bond amount? The City requests that the new full bond
amount be posted prior to or at the time of the Forest Service authorizing the MASA expansion project,
In summary, 1he proper designation of riparian and watershed management units per the DSEIS and the proposed
impact avoidance, minimization, monitoring strategies, and watershed restoration projects per the FEIS should, in
combination, allow for successful development of the Mt. Ashland Ski Area in an environmentally sound manner
that allows for compliance with the Reeder Reservoir Sediment TMDL. However, proper implementation and
close coordination will be critical,
Thank you again for the opportunity to provide comment. If you need further clarification, please contact me at
(541) 488-5587 or via email atfuU!!htm@ashland.or.us.
Sincerely,
Mike Faught
Public Works Director
Copies: Bob Eimstad
File Name: O:\MARKET\ProposaJs FY09\Ashland\ Water Conserv\Contracting\TaskOrder~ l-SDEIS Jeview\EIS- TMDL-BackgroundLinks\DEA _ Mmo-
DSEISreview _ vrsn2 v-I.doc
....
S-b"",;-ri-<.J... To '-1/1 'I. It 0 Ss'
To:
Martha Bennett, Administrator, City of Ashland
Fr:
Julie Norman, Ashland resident (596 Helman, 488-9474)
Monday, April 19,2010
Dt:
Re:
Comment Letter to the USFS on proposed Ashland Ski Area Expansion
. Dear Martha,
I'd like to offer a suggestion for the City's Comment Letter to the Forest
Service on the proposed Ashland Ski Area Expansion:
I. Urge the Forest Service to drop its opposition and include climate change
impacts in their analysis of environmental and economic factors.
(a) As indicated in the enclosed ClimateWise Rogue Basin Summary (2009),
scientific data confirm that the impacts of climate change will decrease snowpack,
increase severe rainstorms, increase erosion rates, and increase forest fires. All
these factors will make Mt. Ashland's water supply less reliable and ecosystems
less resilient.
(b) Under these changing conditions, maintenance of the proposed ski runs and
associated infrastructure (roads, ski lifts, bridge over the Middle Branch, etc.) will
cost more than originally planned, increasing the economic risk for the Ski Area
Association and the City of Ashland.
(c) Under these changing conditions, a higher use for the area would be to optimize
the resilience of the ecosystem by limiting development of forests and riparian
areas and taking action to increase the capacity for holding and filtering drinking
water.
Thank you for your attention to this request,
.
~~
~~
~~
. Stretches from the
crest of the Cascade
Mountains near
Crater Lake to the
Pacific Ocean on
the southwest coast
of Oregon
. Home to
approximately
302,000 people
. Incorporates most
of Josephine,
Jackson, and Curry
Counties
. Encompasses most
of the Rogue and
Siskiyou National
Forests
. Agriculture,
forestry, tourism,
and a diverse
array of other
commercial sectors
support the local
economy
. Salmon and
steelhead fill the
rivers, and wildlife
is abundant
What Does a Climate-Changed
Future Hold in Store?
Climate change is not just future speculation affecting polar bears and icecaps in
faraway lands. It is here now, it likely will worsen, and the impacts to drinking water,
infrastructure, and wildlife will affect us in our own backyards. Preparing now for
climate change makes dollars and sense as impacts from climate change-driven fires,
floods, droughts, and rising sea level increasingly affect the Rogue Basin,
Through its ClimateWise "...communities must take the necessary
process, the National steps to learn how to cope with the
Center uses the best
science on climate effects of climate change, and to
change models to help develop the systems that will allow
people predict and them to recover from its impacts."
prepare for climate mCraig Uarper. Rogue \lallcy Council ofGovemmcllCs (;woS)
change impacts at the
local level. [In tl1e.RQg~e BasiiiOfSOuthwest O~gon,_c1imate,change,likely_means:.l
Temperature
. Annual average temperatures will increase 1 to 3. by 2040 and 4 to 8. F by
2080
. Summer temperatures may increase dramatically, going up 7 to 15. F by 2080
. Winter temperatures may average 3 to 8. F warmer by 2080
Precipitation and Snowpack
. More p'~ecipitation.will.be concentrated into winter months
. At lower elevations, rising'-remperatures wills,l1Lft wintersnowsfiiTaiii7
resulting in a loss of at least 50% of the January snowpack._ :'7
--- -.-.... '
Disturbance
. More severe'storms and sea level rise will affect coastal areas
. (Higner, flasliier winter ana spring runoff will cause more flooding]
. Wet anaary cycleswilrlast longer and be more extreme
. rlncr:~~,~.{forest fires will affecWarger area ofl~:~fdeach-year'7
Vegetation Patterns
. Less of the basin will have growing conditions favorable for coastal spruce and
fir and more will support hardwoods and mixed pines
. Growing conditions will favor different grape varietals and fruit trees
~ National Center for
-- -- Conservation Science & Policy
84 Fourth Street. Ashland, Oregon 97520 . 541,482.4459 . info@nccsp.org . www,nccsp,org
-;... .
, .
AsSESSING RISKS AND BUILDING PREPARATION PLANS
Recommendations from the Rogue
Climate Wise Workshops
In 2008, the National Center for Science & Policy in
partnership with the University of Oregon's Climate
Leadership Initiative, and working with the US Forest
Service Pacific Northwest Research Station MAPSS Team,
released a report on preparing for climate change in the
Rogue Basin,' "CI" h I
Imate e ange poses
The report was 1 h' h "
the culmination e ear, eatastrop Ie treats.
---Rupert Murdoch
of workshops
coordinated with the Rogue Valley Council of Governments
that brought scientists, natural resources managers,
policy experts, and community leaders together to
consider climate change risks and design cross-cutting
recommendations. The goal of the resulting preparation
strategy was to help local communities, businesses, land
managers, and the natural systems we depend upon get
ready for the effects of climate change.
Following are the integrated recommendations of the
workshop participants:
. I. Preparing Communities for Climate
Related Disturbance
With heightened risk of flood and fire already evident, and
increases projected for the coming century, action should
be taken to:
. Move permanent structures out of high risk areas
(floodplains, steep forested canyons) if and when
they are damaged by flood or fire
. Upgrade and maintain roads and culverts to
accommodate higher severity storm events
. Change disaster insurance policies and pricing
structures to ensure costs of loss coverage are
borne by those living In high-risk areas
. Shift costs of providing fire protection and other
emergency services to residents of high-risk areas;
constrain development and encourage preventive
actions in low-risk areas
. Use fire and ecologically-appropriate thinning
strategically to reduce fuel loads in critical areas
(e,g., tree plantations and around homes)
. Link public transportation systems to facilitate
movement of people and equipment in
emergency situations
INTEGRATED CLIMATE PREPARATION
The key to c1im;He readiness is prudent risk
management. Intl'gratnl preparation plans lllaximizl'
cn-bendits across ;III Sl'C(ors.
NATUHAL - hahitats, spl'cies, :llld
ecosystem ser\'lces
BUll:)' - buildings. roads, l'nngy and w,Her
sysrcl1ls. :lI1d other infrasrTlKlllre
HU"-1AN - puhlic hcahh) l'lllcrgl'llcy
managclllL'llt, am.! SOci;l\ sL'1'\'ices
ECONOMIC - forestry, agriclllrurc, Msheries,
husilless, and other industriL's
CULTUHAI. - Nati\'e American, and other \ocal
cultural traditions.
II. Preparing the Land for Climate Change
Impacts
The single most important strategy for buffering climate
change impacts is to increase the capability of natural
systems to withstand climate change impacts through
actions such as the following:
. Reduce existing stresses: Reduce road densities;
[limita~JQP-me~ of fOre5ts,<riparian areas, and
floocfplains; containinvasive specie's-an(n~e
means by which they are spread; lower fire risks
near homes
and flammable
tree farms; and
remove barriers
to fish passage
. ~~ge-1orestsJ
(OTetain-or'L
restor~.syus!uraJ7
~' and genetic
diVe!s. itY'L.
anQ,.oPJi.m_i2eJ
resilience to!
distUrb~rice-0v:7
~rotec6n~gofderfore-sts anaTciadles~reasJ
~ .-.--_.__.--..~-
. Manage rivers to restore degraded floodplains
and recover streamside riparian areas to'maxil]1ize J
pne.lana's apTIitYJ:~b.uJfeLthe_eff!!~ts offWo"cfilrldJ
~ugh.t,J
r -----u::~M;r~- se~_e and ~';~~ble ;~~ther \
( might mean longer and deeper droughts, '\
> as well as longer and more severe floods." I
L~:n ::~:~C~YO':,,:~s~Rmn~ch ~t:~~~\1A~:.c:n:_i
III. Preparing for Scarcer and Less Reliable
Clean Water
Water is an increasingly scarce commodity
throughout the West,[}o.und manag~.!!I~of.cJearLJ
fclriilRing wate!jwill take on~ater importance
in a'climatechanged future and requires the
following actions:
. Expand water and energy conservation in
agricultural, manufacturing, and residential
settings
. Research new cropping and farming practices
that promote efficiencies and reduce
ecological impacts
. t Restore capa,citT9!'I~a.n.a to"hojd"_~nD
Cfilt:E!r" water through floodplain, wetland,
and riparian conservation and beaver
reintroduction
. Re-examine the water allocation system
and groundwater use policies to avoid over-
appropriation
By about 2050, average moisture
balance conditions will mimic conditions
experienced rarely at the height of the
most severe historic droughts,"
"hHocr/illg and Eischeid (~:!.O07)
IV. Preparing for the Risks to Wildlife
Climate change will bring about forced migrations and
extinctions of wildlife and plants in the Rogue Basin.
Many of these impacts can be lessened if we take these
actions that reduce climate change risks:
. ~otect olderforests;roadlesS'aYeas, an~
cm!gr~fory cO,rri~c;>.r:s, tC:JTlain.!a!~il.r.;~~wJ1er:J
~lldlife can'liveand species can migrate 1
. (RestO!e rivers, ~trea~s,lhlgnel~ti6n ~~~~ar:'.side."]
lareas~ floodplams, tnbutary JunctlOns to Improve
spawning habitat, allow for fish migration, and
~~~~Iwater forfiili:]
. Manage wildlife populations and habitats to
protect genetic and life history diversity
V. Preparing for New Governance Challenges
Climate change brings risks on a scale that will strain
local communities and governments unless these
measures are taken:
. ~1~.oEateclim~~e,change preparation-into all7
~rrentand..!lJ!~Jre_p.uJ~!ic and (:1rivate pl,<lns a~
~ri~i~i:s_l
. ~ori~nfmanag~m~nJP9Ii~~~J97foc~s~
[on c.limate Cha-nge'projectio. ns. rat.her tl:jan
L:ontinuing to manage bas~9 .D_n ..hi~to!,!c]
c.~~d~ti~ns_J
. Evaluate how existing and new policies may
affect climate change readiness across all regions
of the basin
. Look for opportunities to identify strategies that
produce benefits for multiple sectors
. Expand planning and decision-making to at least
the Basin scale rather than planning in isolation
at the forest, county, city, or project levels
. Reorient research and monitoring efforts to
generate timely information on the speed,
trajectory, and consequences of climate change
.-~--- .
--- "...climate change has immediate
and local impacts - it literally affects
people in their backyards."
-..Jane Lubchenco, Undersecretary of Commerce for Oceans and
Atmosphere, and NOAA Administrator (2008)
1 Doppelt, B" R, Hamilton, C. Deacon Williams, and M. Koopman, 2008, Preparing for Climate Change in the Rogue River Basin of Southwest
Oregon: stressors, risks, and recommendations for increasing resilience and resistance in human, built, economic and natural systems.
Ashland, OR, 43 pp + appendixes,
Photo credits ,Ashley Hegewald (racks), Page 2: Cindy Deacon Williams (angler). Page 3: Cindy Deacon Williams (grapes and woodland
home), City of Ashland (flood), Back: Ashley Hegewald (coho)