HomeMy WebLinkAboutBarranca Unit Geo Survey
Small Woodland Services, Inc.
Forest & Resource Management
Marty Main, President
1305 Butte Falls Hwy.
Eagle Point, OR 97524
541/826-5306
~
..'... )
March 16, 1999
To:
From:
Subject:
Keith Woodley
Marty Main
Summary of Implemented Management Practices, Crowson Reservoir and
Barranca Units
Keith -
This report is being written to provide you with an update on management activities
implemented on two small but important units within City ownership-the Crowson
Reservoir parcel and the "Barranca" unit.
Crowson Reservoir Unit
We initiated additional brush clearing for fuel reduction and wildfire prevention
purposes on this unit as per instructions received from you (1/14/99) based on previous
work done by Bill Hicks, Engineering Geologist. In an attempt to balance wildfire
prevention objectives and slope stability concerns, Hicks outlined three areas of risk of
slope failure on easterly aspects immediately above Ashland Loop Road. As per your
instructions, we removed a substantial amount of manzanita brush in the low risk area
and none from that area classified high risk in Hicks' report. In the medium risk zone,
we removed an intermediate amount of brush, focusing removal around existing green
ponderosa pine while leaving strips of untreated brush on the contour. In effect, we
have a gradational amount of brush and associated fire hazard based on projected risk
of slope failure. All of the brush removed was piled and burned. On Thursday, March
11, we planted conifer seedlings throughout the Crowson Reservoir parcel. A total of
220 ponderosa pine and 55 sugar pine were planted. Spacing averaged 15 feet on the
westerly aspects above Crowson Reservoir; 8 to 10 feet on the less stable, easterly
aspects above Ashland Loop Road.
In addition, it should be noted that we installed the three water bars on the old, pre-
existing trail as recommended by Hicks in his 1119199 report. Although no work (other
than tree planting) has been done in the high risk area to date, we may want to fall and
remove the several dead hazard trees before they fall on or toward Ashland Loop
Road.
Barranca unit
Management planning for the Barranca unit has a longer history. I presented a report,
"Management Options for the Barranca unit, City of Ashland Forestlands," in Novem-
ber 1998, which outlined various options for management of the Barranca unit based on
objectives as outlined by the City of Ashland. Those options ranged from no action
(Option 1) up to stand density and fuel reduction activities throughout the unit (Option
4). This information was presented to the Forest Commission on January 13, 1999, at
"Specializing in sound forest management for private, non-industrial small woodland ownerships"
Forest Management Plans . Timber Cruising . Reforestation . Thinning & Stand Improvement . Timber Sales/Administration
,_ '__~~,~__",____.".'...._.,. ._.~.,__~___" .~,".u ...."....
March 16, 1999/ page 2
which time they decided that Option 3 was the appropriate course of action. Your
1/14/99 letter directed us to begin such work in the Barranca unit under these guide-
lines. Based on additional work by Hicks on the City's ownership and subsequent
development of a more site specific protocol for implementation of management
practices on more geologically sensitive terrain, you and I concluded that Hicks should
re-visit the Barranca unit for a more in-depth and site specific look prior to initiation of
management activities. His resulting report (2/24/99) suggested three levels of concern
and associated activity. On 3/2/99, you directed us to begin treatment of the unit based
on Hicks' recommendations, which were more restrictive than those originally approved
by the Forest Commission. Normal fuel reduction activities were completed on the
more stable, westerly aspects delineated as Option 3 area in Hicks' 2/24/99 report.
Along the draw itself and up into the headwall area, a lOO-foot wide zone was flagged
in which no vegetation removal or other management activity was conducted. In the
remainder of the Barranca unit (Hicks Option 2 area), only dead trees were removed.
All material felled during these operations in the Barranca unit was piled and burned,
with the entire operation completed by 3/5/99. In addition, conifers were planted in all
openings created by these management activities on the date of March 11, 1999. In the
larger openings on more westerly aspects, an approximate 8-foot spacing was imple-
mented. In the smaller openings elsewhere in the unit, planting on a 10-foot spacing
was completed. A total of 175 ponderosa pine, 30 sugar pine, and 70 Douglas-fir were
planted, with the fir heavily concentrated on the more northerly aspects in Hicks'
Option 2 area.
Additional Plantine: to Encourae:e Lone:-Term Slope Stabilities
Conifers were also planted in several other locations on the City of Ashland ownership
to encourage active rooting structures and subsequent long-term slope stability. Three
additional ares were planted/interplanted:
1. Minor headwall locations on the City ownership just below and east/northeast of
the old '~ice-in-Wonderland" trail (subunit A2). These had been planted last
year as well, and this year's effort was largely an interplanting. A total of 50
ponderosa pine, 15 sugar pine, and 50 Douglas-fir were planted to achieve an
average 8-foot spacing.
2. Oversteepened slopes immediately west of quarry in unit D and in area of
known slope slippage adjacent City of Ashland water pipeline. This area had
also been planted last year and was largely an interplanting this year. A total of
30 ponderosa pine, 20 sugar pine, and 50 Douglas-fir were planted to achieve an
average 8-foot spacing.
3. Openings within the shaded fuelbreak areas in subunits Gl, G2, and unit H.
These areas were planted in hopes of offering additional long-term slope stability
measures, as well as encouraging long-term establishment of conifers as opposed
to more flammable and wildfire-prone brush species. A total of 125 ponderosa
,~
March 16, 1999/ page 3
pine, 80 sugar pine, and 130 Douglas-fir were planted at spacings ranging from 8
feet on steeper, more northerly aspects, up to 15 feet on more southerly aspects.
Three-foot radius scalps for control of competing vegetation were implemented around
seedlings throughout the above described plantings. This treatment was not needed in
areas where little competing vegetation existed, most notably on the Crowson ReselVoir
parcel.
It must be noted that in each of the above areas described, stand density control will be
important in the long term to prevent undesirable stand densities from developing.
With the recent development of a much more active and intensive management and
monitoring of City of Ashland forestlands, it is suspected that appropriate stand density
control to balance silvicultural, geological, and wildfire hazard objectives can be
effectively implemented in these developing stands.
.' .,.",,- . """
~~
K~
1
B.G. mCKS
CONSULTING ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST
190 VISTA STREET OREGON E-729 ASHLAND, OR 97520
541-482-8451
FAX!PHONE 541-482-8638
Feb. 24, 1999
To: Chief Keith Woodley
Ashland Fire and Rescue
455 Siskiyou Blvd.
Ashland, OR 97520
Cc: Marty Main
Small Woodland Services
1305 Butte Falls Highway
Eagle Point, OR 97524
BARRANCA AREA FUEL TREATMENT AREA
ADDENDUM
VEGETATION AND FUELS DISCUSSION VS. STABILITY ISSUES
This area was discussed in my March 8, 1998 report which covered several areas of City
land. (I have included the entire Barranca area segment from this report and the map as
an attachment to this February 24 report.)
This current Addendum to the original submittal is based on a revisit to the site on
February 19, 1999-this time with Marty Main. At this field trip I reevaluated my
previous recommendations. Although I believe it is still advisable to have no "thumbprint
or presence in this watershed" as stated in my March 8, 1998 report, there are conditions
(i.e., dying vegetation) that indicate some benefit can be obtained by modifying the
existing stands. These were discussed in the field with Marty Main.
I have however modified my recommendation since our February 19 field trip. At that
time I was indicating that Option 2 ("take dead only") could be extended through the
'headwall' area. This modification was prompted by a reevaluation of the present and
potential future hazards in this drainage. As indicated on MAP 1 ( part of this
Addendum), one existing house and at least two potential houses could be built on the
private land in this drainage, These structures are along the path of any debris flow
discharging down this channel. Although I believe the risk is low for such an event it is
possible. It is prudent to state that any activity in this terrain does entail increased risk of
a landslide event. The level of knowledge regarding landslide initiation is not presently
sufficiently accurate to allow a better assessment.
_..,."_.,~",-""----~,",,,.,~,,- ._....~_..... ~.<".<..... ".,
2
In evaluating the "trade-offs" for this area I may have overlooked some factors. Future
discussions will allow this situation to be evaluated and changed if needed.
My recommendations are: SEE MAP 1: THE THREE ZONES ARE COLOR CODED
AS INDICATED BELOW.
[I am available to mark or flag these zones ifrequested.]
A. Exclude from any treatment a 100 feet wide zone centered on the bottom of the
channel or hollow - as indicated on MAP 1. RED ZONE
B. Remove (and bum) dead only on the northeast facing slope: OPTION 21ERRAIN OF
MARl'{MAIN -see MAP 1. YELLOW ZONE
C. Normal fuel loading reduction on the southwest facing slope: OPTION 3 TERRAIN
OF MARTY MAIN - see MAP 1. GREEN ZONE
)
NOTE: A separate issue is made apparent by this report. The City of Ashland would be
well advised to evaluate the need to remove from housing development any drainages
that present the potential for debris flow or avalanches. The identification process is
simple. there are few sites that would require this zoning. and the experience of areas to
the north of Ashland (i.e.. damage and deaths from avalanches) would indicate that any
costs encumbered by property purchase is less than the monetary or emotional costs
resulting from disastrous landslide events.
~~-
B.G. HICKS
~~'-~--
~
,
(
....
''--'--....
MAP 1
CITY OF ASHLAND
LANDSLIDE ZONATION
. ADDENDUM
"-..-.- -
BARRANCA
FUEL TREAMENT AREA
I
I
r ''-.
\
SCALE 1 INCH = 250 FEET
c.I. = 40 FEET ~
B.G. mCKS FEB.1999 h
.~, --.~.
(, \~-"
/ ) II II I
, <'."'...........~~.~._--
.
.
~fh WO~
All three downslope houses are contructed on 'pads' and at the upslope portion is an
excavated cuts/ope. All three cuts lopes have 'retaining' walls of different types placed
upslope from the houses. (Le., first = rock, second = wood (?), and third = cinder block.)
I do not know is these are "designed walls", i.e., if they were designed with professional
engineering input. (Engineered walls commonly have built in drainage systems 'Nhich
makes them much more stable, even when subjected to higher ground water flow
volume and resultant force.)
NOTE:
The depth of the accumulated material in the basins drainirfg toward the Development
is critical in the potential for failure. Auger holes can be drilled and the water table
monitored to assess the potential for failure.
Research into the methods and type of retaining wall constructed for the three houses
can be obtained from city planning records. (This latter information would be useful in
evaluating the risk to these walls.)
In addition, I am available to locate and design a drain dip for Loop Road, fo(the
reason discussed above.
(3) Vegetation Removal Remarks: Overall Hazard Level hl, due td- homes of Morton
development (see HSE. 1, KSE. 2, and HSE. 3). Minimal live tr~ should be cut; and
the City must judge risk of fire protection issues vs. risk to th9"Oevelopment houses.
The three drainages (ortly two shown on Map 3) should no additional trees cut; dead or
alive -- ("no impact = ()o entry").
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MGMT. UNIT 82 -- MAP 3: INCLUDING DRAINAGE TO THE NORTH (CALLED THE
'BARRANCA').
(1) Issue: Extension of Rogue River N.F. fuel break down the ridge along the Alice in
Wonderland Trail (See Map 3) to the northern end of the City land. Removal of dead
trees and brush on slope west of this Trail.
(2) Stability Remarks and Influence: Landslides and influence areas on these slope
are rated 121 to fJ1, i.e., {Jl to the west and I2l to the northwest. The west drainage
(rated overall ~), though relatively stable does focus ground and surface water'
downslope thus increasing the potential for slope failure. The north aspect drainage
('Barranca'), rated at overalll2l, contains subactive landslides at I2l and one, 'double-
draw', rated at 121-rJ1. The headwall area sloping at 33 degrees (see Map 3) is the
general location from which debris flows or avalanches originate. Field evidence (local
disturbance, hummocky ground surface) indicates movement occurred during a recent
a period of intense precipitation (1964 or 1974) but probably not 1997.
-9-
FILOA/f fi1!JrtC If ~I (q tf ~ MlJolC(;
,t l.-.C-14 0 SffOtT /l///tfJP/U6, ~O IJvlSkJ' Ft9JL (;oAltr
GPCFIP7C ~J ifF C/t1f k-4N() ..
..,.........-..~,....".;~_.,
..' '-"'"~-"'.'''~''''''-"~'-''"'-'''''~'---- ..~. .~ ......~ "'''
(3) Vegetation Removal Remarks: Because of the proximity of Glenview Street (below
the west rJJ. basin) and the houses and development below the 'Barranca' (rated at
overall 121 , these basins are rated at Hazard Level [2].
West Aspect Drainage and Slope: A minimum of headwall vegetation should be
removed; replanting as soon as possible is recommended. This basin is 'known' to
concentrate surface water as evidenced by 1997 and 1998 erosion along the old road
into the (East) old quarry area.
North Aspect Drainage (= 'Barranca'): High risk reo houses and development indicate
that it is prudent for the city to create no City "thumb-print" or presence in this
watershed. [As indicated below, some dead and brush cutting at the ridge line is judged'
acceptable. ]
Slopes Draining into the 'Barranca': Minimal removal is recommended; the zone along
the ridge and Trail comprising the fuel break can be cleared from the north boundary
south to the location of slope steepening, as discussed in the field.
MGMT. UNITS 81 AND 82 - MAP 3: ALICE IN WONDERLAND TRAr(
'DRAINAGE'.
(1) Issue: Redirection of drainage which now flows down the r'idge and along the Alice
in Wonderland Traif(See Map 3) toward the northern end of the City land.
(2) Stability Remarks and Influence: Prior to this phase of the fuel break work the
Trail concenfrated rainfall both falling and drainin~ronto it. This concentrated surface
flow has caused increased erosion for many year's. In most similiar situations periodic
diversipfls of such concentrated flow is recomtflended. However the unique situation
wners'"the Trail is located at the ridge top, 9ffen above steep 'landslide' headwall i!'
slopes, requires that any diversions are ~one cautiously. That is, that diversions.
lotated so that water will not be disch~ged onto slopes where a debris flow migMf be
initiated. If it had been observed (ancfjudged) that the concentrated water f1o)V'and
f aggravated erosion along the Traik~re a more serious issue than the hazafd from an
initiated debris flow, diversions of Water from the Trail would not have beefl an issue.
/.'
Map 3 show the approximate,i6cations of drains installed during the el break WOrk.
Inspection of these fea~tre ,fndicated those that should not be e ded. Most were
placed at wide portions 0 e ridge; water diverted would dissip ed on the relative
wide, concave ridge. R mmendations were made to not div Trail water so that any
flow could be directed into the drainage at '730 Draw', whi ows to HSE. 1 of the
Development. (The diversion at (A) was changed.)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-10-
...
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
Paul Nolte
Keith Woodley
01/07/9904:45:44 PM
Barranca Unit opinion
Keith, there are no limit to the legal theories now being thrust upon forest owners for liability arising from
landslides. I will need additional time to formalize a written opinion regarding the Barranca Unit alternatives
but here is a quick analysis. 1) The least liability still appears to be to do nothing. Liability in these types of
cases is usually pegged on the landowner when the owner has done something to disturb the natural
condition of the property. Discretionary immunity would protect the City if the City makes a policy decision
NOT to cut for the reasons described by Main. However, once the City chooses to act the city then
becomes responsible if its fix was negligent in either design or execution and as a result of that negligence
property owners were injured. 2) The analysis should not stop there, however, because doing nothing
may not be in the best interests of the city or those living below the Barranca Unit (in terms of fire danger,
etc.). Option 3 can be justified from a discretionary standpoint and if properly documented discretionary
immunity could apply (governmental units in Oregon are immune from liability for exercising discretionary
functions - ORS 30.265(3)(c)). If Option 3 is desired, a better course of action is to retain a geotechnical
engineer to further elaborate on the concerns raised by Main and make a decision from that report
whether and how to proceed under Alternative 3.
Paul Nolte
City Attorney
City of Ashland
20 East Main Street
Ashland, OR 97520
541-488-5350
FAX 488-5311
paul@ashland.or.us
cc:
Sharlene Stephens
...
January 14, 1999
Mr. Marty Main
Small Woodland Services
1305 Butte Falls Hwy.
Eagle Point, OR 97524
Dear Marty,
At their January 13, 1999, commission meeting the Ashland Forest Lands Commission
reviewed proposed forest work projects for the "Barranca" Unit, and units surveyed in Ashland
Canyon during the December 14, 1998, hike of the Forest Projects Site Review Subcommittee. In
the course of discussion, documents generated by Small Woodlands Services, RG. Hicks and
Paul Nolte (Ashland City Attorney), were reviewed relating to the projects. Issues of landowner
liability, forest health, water quality and geology were discussed as they have bearing on the
projects. The Commission felt strongly that due to the current range of forest conditions on the
sites under review, to take "no action" would not be consistent with responsible stewardship of
the land, nor in the best interests of the community. It was further decided to utilize the decision
matrix provided within the "Barranca" management options report for future deliberations
regarding units in other areas of special concerns. Specifically, the Commission directs the
following work to be completed:
UNIT
MANAGEMENT STRATEGY
Barranca Unit
Option #3, as presented in "Management Options
for the "Barranca Unit", page 9 - matrix.
Units P, Q, N
Option #3, as presented in "Management Options
for the Barranca Unit", page 9 - matrix. This level
of silvicultural treatment would be applied to all
head walls, drainages and also areas within 100 feet
of the water pipeline.
Option #4 would be applied to all other areas within
the project area.
If you have questions or concerns regarding the decision by the Forest Lands
Commission, please contact me.
Sincerely,
Keith E. Woodley
Fire Chief
,.'- .~.~-'_<.-.-
.. _.,.;"-~._-,."'. .'~-~_...',..~.,,~. . -";""-
Management Options for the "Barranca" Unit
City of Ashland Forestlands
(
'.
Prepared by:
Marty Main
Small Woodland Services
1305 Butte Falls Hwy.
Eagle Point, OR 97524
November 1998
__.._...............~_.,._,. _.__. '-0
...~
"Barranca" Unit / 1
Introduction
The "Barranca" unit was visited on July 24, 1998 by City of AsWand personnel
(Keith Woodley), a subcommittee of the Forest Commission (Bill Robertson, Richard
Brock, Eric Schehen), and Marty Main of Small Woodland Services, Inc., consulting
forester for the City of Ashland. A review of ecological realities and options for
management were discussed "on the ground" at that time. Woodley and Forest
Commission subcommittee members requested that I prepare a summary of management
options for the "Barranca" unit that could be then reviewed by the entire Forest
Commission. The following information will hopefully help the Forest Commission and
the City of AsWand develop an alternative that most closely balances achievement of pre-
stated objectives with increases/decreases in potential liabilities associated with any
proposed management activities.
b'M,N~ ......
......
"Barranca" Unit I 2
(,
Description of Issue/Concern
The "Barranca" unit is a small subunit located on northerly to westerly aspects
above and west of Ashland Loop Road along the northern City of Ashland property line
(see accompanying map). This small subunit (estimated at 2 to 3 acres) has remained
untreated to date due to the difficulty in determining management direction when
activities designed to enhance various objectives are in contrast with each other.
Proactive management activities are a high priority from both silvicultural (forest
health) and wildfire management perspectives. However, slope failure concerns are also
high in this subunit due to its steep headwall location, high potential for failure as
determined by engineering geologist B. G. Hicks, and the presence of a home(s) situated
in the draw (debris slide channel) below the Barranca unit. An obvious potential liability
exists if any manipulation of vegetation is undertaken by the City and a slope failure
subsequently occurs, causing damage or destruction to improvements. However, a failure
to conduct appropriate stand density reduction in the stands in this subunit will insure
continued mortality of preferred conifers through attack by deleterious bark beetles.
Similar stands in the near vicinity have lost up to 100 percent of overstory Douglas-fir,
which comprise up to 80 to 100 percent of the existing stand in most of this small
subunit. Patch mortality of conifers has already occurred, encroaching into the "Barranca"
unit from three directions, most notably from the top of the unit. This type of tree
mortality, if it is allowed to continue, will significantly increase the chance of slope
failure in the long term as roots of the dead and dying trees decay and lose their slope
retention capabilities. The current condition of the vegetation in this "Barranca"
"'-~""""""""""""~~-
..
"Barranca" Unit / 3
~
unit-dense, overstocked stands of mixed conifers and hardwoods interspersed with dead
and dying "snags"-represents a severe wildfire management problem, both in the short
term and the long term, as the current overstory trees fall and are replaced by more
flammable vegetation types typical of early seral vegetation such as dense thickets of
brush, sprouting hardwoods, and young coniferous seedlings and saplings. The "Barranca"
unit, and particularly the top of the unit, has been prioritized from a wildfire management
perspective as a key area in which to actively conduct fuels reduction and subsequently
minimize the spread of wildfIre in both directions, thereby protecting homes and real
estate both to the east and west of the subunit. The "Barranca" unit is the only portion
of this shaded fuelbreak that has yet to be treated.
Additional information regarding management considerations in these types of
situations is included in two documents completed for the City of Ashland by Marty Main
of Small Woodland Services, Inc.: (1) "A Silvicultural Prescription for High Priority
management Areas," February 1996; ,and (2) "SilvicuItural Prescriptions for Additional
Forest Management Areas-An Update," February 1998.
.......
"Barranca" Unit / 4
(, "
Primary Management O~tions
Option 1 - Do nothing. This option would limit any short-term exposure to
liability in the event of a slope failure and associated downslope damage to any
structure(s). Long-term potential for slope failure and possible damage to structures may
increase, however, as Douglas-fir continues to die, roots decompose, and slope instability
increases. Opportunities to improve forest health and wildfire management concerns
continue to decline under this option.
Option 2 - Minimal Management. Only removal, piling and burning of dead
material would be allowed. This would maintain the limited short-term liability exposure
of Option 1 in the event of a slope failure, as the actions taken would not include removal
of any live trees and associated increase in slope instability as roots decompose.. These
actions would help achieve a slight to moderate improvement in fuel reduction and
wildfire management objectives. Ongoing management (removal, piling, burning of dead
material) would be done annually or as needed to maximize the wildfire management
benefits that can occur without removal of live trees. Option 2 will not, however, improve
stand conditions and/or forest health, with ongoing mortality of Douglas-fir to be expected
and potential subsequent increase in long-term potential for slope failure. In-stand
mortality of 50 to 100 percent of existing Douglas-fir could be expected within 5 to 15
years and would be particularly aggravated in the event of a major drought.
Option 3 - Minimal Stand Improvement. This option would include the removal,
piling and burning of all dead material as described in Option 2 as well as piling and
burning of material that would result from a minimal thinning-from-below of live
_.~..",,-,->~.."--
....
"Barranca" Unit / 5
\,
understory conifers and hardwoods. These would be trees not exceeding 5 inches DBH
that would be expected to die within 5 years. This treatment would remove only very
suppressed conifers and hardwoods, but nonetheless would represent an active intervention
and subsequent potential liability in the event of a slope failure. Slight to moderate
improvements in forest health (stand vigor) and wildfire management potentials over
Option 2 would occur.
Option 4 - Maximize Stand Improvement. This option describes the most
aggressive form of stand management suggested for this parcel. It would include the
removal, piling and burning of all dead material, as well as live conifers and hardwoods
resulting from a more aggressive understory thinning than that described in Option 3.
Non-commercial thinning under Option 4 would be very similar to that already completed
in adjacent portions of Unit B. Typically, these entries are light in nature, particularly as
compared to more traditional forms of stand density reduction. Post-treatment full-site
occupancy is maintained and stand densities are retained that minimize tree shock,
windthrow, or other declines associated with excessive stand openings. This option would
optimize potentials for upgrading tree and stand vigor, although there can be no
guarantees that a stand can be "saved" when it has reached as advanced a state of decline
as currently exists in the "Barranca" unit. (Note: Fortunately, to date it appears that this
type of stand density reduction has been successful at stabilizing stand decline and
minimizing additional mortality in adjacent subunits of Unit B). A second, light thinning
within 5 years once the stand is stabilized is typically planned for under this option.
Option 4 would provide a moderate improvement over Option 3 from a stand vigor/forest
...............'.".,.~,.........-
.�__._. . _..T..._.._. ��.�_�_
"Barranca" Unit / 6
health perspective. If this treatment was successful in long-term maintenance of overstory
conifers, it would represent a significant long-term wildfire management improvement
over Options 1, 2, or 3, although short-term improvements over Option 3 would be
minimal. Similarly, this treatment, if successful, would provide the greatest opportunity
for long-term maintenance of larger conifers on-site and subsequent slope stabilities, but
would increase over Option 3 potential liabilities associated with slope failure in the short
term.
(
...
"Barranca" Unit / 7
\
Additional Management Considerations
It should be noted that planting of appropriate conifers in existing or developing
openings to help provide improvement in long-term slope stability is a management
activity that could be implemented as part of any of the four options.
It may also be possible to combine options in different locations in the "Barranca"
unit. For instance, Option 4 may be most applicable on slopes less than 50 percent
gradient and/or in areas where potentials for slope failure are minimal (as determined by
a professional geologist). On the contrary, the oversteepened headwalls on 60 to 70
percent slope gradients may best be managed to a lesser standard (Options 1, 2, or 3).
The steep westerly aspects north of the headwall area already have reduced vegetative
cover (basal areas average 75 to 100 square feet per acre, as compared to 200 to 250
square feet per acre in headwall locations and on more northerly aspects) and may be best
served by Options 1, 2, or 3 (including some light removal of understory brush or small
hardwoods), with an accompanied planting of conifers to fill in understocked openings.
Wildfire management and forest health objectives are much easier to accomplish on these
more westerly aspects due to the current reduced levels of vegetative cover.
Maintaining a small amount of untreated portions of the landscape within City of
AsWand forestlands, even if in critical locations from a particular perspective (i.e.,
wildfire management, slope stability, forest health), may be acceptable and perhaps even
desirable if treatment can create another set of unacceptable conditions (i.e., increased
likelihood of slope failure and subsequent potential damage to real estate). A small area
of unacceptable vegetational conditions from forest health and/or wildfire management
"""_-"'-'~~c_"~,..._,,...-,__.. M".~_...'.'... '_~_--"'~~-'''_'''.,_._'
"Barranca" Unit / 8
perspectives may be of minimal concern on a landscape level, particularly if forest health
and/ or wildfire management activities are undertaken throughout the area surrounding
these islands of untreated vegetation. The "Barranca" unit may fit this description,
depending mostly on how and to what extent the City of AsWand chooses to rate the
importance of minimizing negative consequences associated with each of the various
proposed options.
.. v__ ._ .__, ___.____
"Barranca" Unit / 9
Forest Health and Slope Stability &
Maintenance of W ildftre Reduced Associated
Option Existing Stand Management Liabilityl
Short Long Short Long Short Long
Term Term Term Term Term Term
Option l: "Do 1 1 1 1 4 2
nothing. "
Option 2: "Pile and 1 1 2 2 4 2
burn dead and
downed only."
Option 3: "Very light 3 2 3 3 3 3
thinning from below,
pile and burn result-
ing slash."
Option 4: "Stand 4 3 4 4 2 4
management light
thinning similar to
adjacent stands; pile
and burn resulting
slash. Re-entry after
stand stabilization."
I = most negative consequences
5 = most positive consequences
1 All of the entries in this column could be increased by one point by diligently planting
conifers if and when openings in the stands occur.
\,
~
...- --
:. ~tlli;V~ - -;
-~-,)j;.:-<._- ...
~i~;;
~....~
~
~ t.
, t
, I
USARRANCA" UN IT
c lt~ of Ash Jq nd Own ersh, e
T"wnsh,p 3QSI R,u'ge lEI sltG'hen tG
t
WNl
~
----------
Key
~
)
Clt~ cf A-shlQnd
pl'Ofert~ b~~ t1dat'Y
p" ve4 rt><! cis
$~(ondQr;J roads,d\"'"e'CA,/s
sellSor'l"J creejt,draw
fo"o.srctph,c hnes (t4ktF1 f.rcrn US6-S tOPl'<Jta"n.( Mtlp)
.s c a I e. ~ i '1:= 29'S"
Ma r-fl( mil,,,
5',.,IlI( lJJc,,,dkJlld St'r"L~sl r,c
t;.~fk ~tnt/~~,", ':7$'2'1
/(0. " . t
o~r('"nca U (1/
.. -. ,.-.............~""...-----
'"
I ,. 1: II '~~ ~~.'..J.J I . '~fr-'
..;0,', \ \ \'i .. '~) , ~ ' ~M~: ~?' I I ~ . /" '~,~ c'
.. \\' 'j}" j;" - ,u ~~ ='1.--?;.{IV: "
I~)~~~u~ ~1 ~) '~ <\~<1 ~r. '3~7. i~~;~~'rrl,j~~~.:~~
~I~,ti $c 0: :1' '0 "''':: ~ "'., "I r
i\,\, ~ l\~~;~'\ ~( "' " ~ ::! eM ",,":. . .. ,.':-:::J
~ 1))'\ 'J~2~\\\ (/ (r'1I\\~VffJ ~\, '.~ ~ , FEp k . ~!oHiif :
,III //-1 ')" C-i ~,-r~ '~\:::?'" . ~'x
, -, '3>~.;)1.'11 ~~ . .~,
~(<<<< II. 0. ,~l" ~ ? { . :ZI3lB" -
~ ~ r~ ,F \ \t III -.: ~i i
~ 1];"71~' \ ~ ~ ~;,. '~ F{: '~I:.
~ 71 -..., ,,'It ~ c.. " " ,Cc (
I (~~~L ~I(~~'-.;, , .'\. ~ ~ . !
) \:~ ':;/(( ~"- Ir),t:-- ~~\) 9t~ ~ ~ k :, ~ . c,.
"'~l(S'-' ~\ ~ ;11 ~\ \. "_ f:" :/\ L I ~.1) ',:0. t.::..L.i"\ ,r ~ ~
r;:. ~'~~;1., '-: ~ '\ \ \ \ ~~ ~ ~ ,,)a / / J c~ _ ~ ,
-) ~.~'" "l\l~~'~ j(,Ui(,,~~ "';, ~ '\';) ~:;~ t
. 8 ,10'!l~ "rli;~:o; G?)?~~~~II~;';"~-:~ ~
~ D '
/ ~ ~~,~~\,~ ~l ~ \~~ \~~ ~ ~ " ,\Y\l, )~~'\J "I:r-
):, ~~ 1~~~:f.1) I~ k~ ~~~1~~1~~;~ ~ ~~" '>>1 / })));)".At~~,J'_
!):;!), 'ii ~ / J{ 3&~ ~\' ~\\\\ 'l\:~~- 0~ ~~ ~ .I))) ~<..~( ,c,~ ~ >~-~~..;~-
W!~;I' , '8- ~~~\\~ \\\~I\\ "'-~ ~~ ( ~f)'\Y\1)';\...~~ !;"~,~~~J;
~ ., ra -V;: ~(\(~( .: >' ~~~ 7) d))~)lvr(!{ It!:; f~~'\ '~'~~
r~L:,~~~~~, '\\((~ ,~~~ ~, ~[" ~'\\\~~):}~'~(-;~ I !~~~~~,,'\\':,j
I/- ~~./W!rr:.J:,,:~ ""~J5~((.(.~ \ ~~--0J ~ fd:~1 /~~r~~'~'\
~ --;y;JjJg4 ~ > ~/, r&",,~ P ~.c,:.'" ~1~II' ,))dJ'i! 3), r(~(~ !IW ~tlW?1wl (~
5)' ~~~11~ ~;p;~~~. ~~-d~ ~-;)}~ V~~ :-;~~,<ff1~ 'l
W~J~J~~, \\ rc;( :(~ !(f~~ Slrt 7i W~#;G:~ft ~~~) 0))1)/~
~~'~ I,if"'~' a, ~~~,~ ~~, -~J1 ~~~'-~ ~~~~II,,'J~,,!,',.~~,-,',;-'
, III\~ ~,:z'" ~"~~ v '" '~""~;<~1l~~~0
~y\ \) B'!~ ~~ ,- - ,~'(~ (,fff{W ~/ ~~ ,~ ~ ~ ~~ .. ~-i?
1Ii~11J~ ,~'*~~~~~~. i ,:(1( '" .'?::.~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ W1~?-~F "~fs(
\.--v~ j ,.///-///fr'f";, / w'(,':;!:c0 ~~Ij\ I'~' \--, "'" ") 1/ ) W/..I/)Jj!L,'""-' ~_
~/~1/f(((, ) /' \. 1 " ~~"'~ -~ r-" /'./"..-/J'l ....... .
:::,~ //11 't' I ~ \ , ' c0"\\\\'\\'~'iW "0.~ /l,-':, '~~,\\~, .f ' IGJ," J ~~'" ) , :r~:~~~cf;
· II:; , :~ \ \\\~~~ ~'i , - '~'>~ r-YJ II 'n' \~
'!!!/. ,d%" rWv~~i"~\,, ~ ~, ",I1 !~ ~~4
_1.~~r~)btJI ~(r ,~' :U~,~!!:
~' Z ?-~~~~ ~((/rl/I'i/(r II ~n:-w~~', ~ \ 1\ 'rr \\U " ~ \~
. \, :::---, !!':_~":::~ ':= '~\) tl c _"JI:I ((" ~(j.),! ~~<, /'~r"JII~f ':'~_~I//"~:~" \. ~ ~~\' c=. ~~ ' " '/\ _
\ :, ,',~' ~\,'- " - '-" ~\, - ' ,...,--" "",' ,/ r~ ~ ",,-, \ '= ,,' ,,',-- "" / _ I
")'"'1 " f, ,\.\', [,' --==-~:,=",,~'_ ," ......... -:-:: ,"'" , '''_'_'.. '." _ ", , ...,,-:;'_--..(_ _" , ,_ '." _ . _
."' "'..............---,',_..,_..,-~'-'-,."-'^. ,'..-..-,,...-,,.... ,"-