Watershed thinning plan out

Forest Service releases one in-house option, one community option to reduce risk of fire

By Robert Plain
Ashland Daily Tidings

The much-anticipated proposal for protecting the Ashland watershed from a catastrophic fire was released by the U.S. Forest Service over the weekend. The Ashland Forest Resiliency draft environmental impact statement, which was mandated by the Healthy Forests Initiative, includes three options for “treating” the woodlands of the watershed in a manner that would ensure they not succumb to catastrophic fire.

The DEIS includes a preferred alternative, designed by Forest Service personnel, and a community alternative, designed by a subcommittee of the Ashland Forest Lands Commission. There is also a “no action” option.

The two actionable alternatives would thin trees on approximately 8,150 acres of old-growth forest inside the watershed. Both alternatives, said Linda Duffy, District Ranger for the Ashland Ranger District, were designed with a “bias towards leaving the large legacy trees.” And both alternatives were designed to protect “values at risk” within or near the watershed, such as the quality of municipal water, old growth forest habitat, the life and property of people living near the forest and the ecological conditions in the forest.

However, Duffy said the two alternatives differ in how they would achieve these objectives.

The Forest Service’s alternative would make use of a fire-suppression technique known as “compartmentalization.” This process, Duffy said, would prevent a fire from spreading from one area to another by creating fuel breaks throughout the forest.

Duffy said the canopy would be reduced from 80 to 100 percent coverage to 60 percent in the Defensible Fuel Profile Zones (DFPZ) and to 40 percent in the interface treatment areas, which are closer to the city.

“The canopies are spaced out so a fire can’t move from tree to tree,” she said.

The community alternative makes use of a technique known as “fuel discontinuity network.” This method, Duffy explained, would lighten the fuel load throughout the forest so that a fire could move through without making its way into the tree crowns.

She said the community alternative would be more precise, dealing with individual trees rather than given areas, and would allow for more oversight. But it would also take longer to implement, likely cost more and possibly leave the forest vulnerable to fire while it is being implemented.

“It’s a fine balance between meeting the needs of the forest and reducing the fire hazard,” she said, noting that the two options are more similar than they are different.

Duffy also said the community alternative calls for no tree removal in riparian areas whereas the forest service’s alternative would treat these areas.

She said neither alternative has called for either a limit on the size of trees that could be removed or a specific amount of lumber to be removed for the plan.

“We don’t know what the board-feet component,” she said. “It’s not a concern at this point. Our concern is in trying to create a more fire-resilient ecosystem.”

She said “resilient” has been defined for this project as “the ability of the forest to recover from a large-scale disturbance such as a wildfire.”

Both plans allow for what Duffy described as enough woody material to be left in the ecosystem to provide adequate habitat and soil regeneration. Any lumber above and beyond this level, which was determined by the Forest Service, can be brought to market and sold for a profit.

Both plans will cost approximately $8-10 million. Duffy said the Forest Service alternative could yield higher economic returns because it is less management intensive.

Duffy has asked for and received “stewardship authority” for this project, which means all profits incurred from the logging will be allowed to stay in this ranger district, rather than being applied to the national treasury as is otherwise congressionally mandated.

Some still believe both alternatives would be too heavy-handed for the old-growth forest ecosystem found within the watershed. Local activist Eric Navickas said stand thinning increases the potential for wildfires and does not serve the greater goals of Ashland’s forested areas.

“Under the Bush Administration’s Healthy Forests Initiative, we were only allowed two alternatives and unfortunately it appears the two alternatives are very similar,” he said, calling both alternatives “ridgetop fuel-break strategies.”

He added, “They both rely on some kind of compartmentalization.”

Navickas noted that the work would be done in the McDonald Peak Roadless area, on the top of Wagner Butte and up towards the Mount Ashland expansion area. All are pristine, old-growth areas that have never been cut before, he said.

“The Forest Service is exploiting the fear of fire to propose a massive logging project and still have community support,” he said.

Today marks the beginning of a 45-day comment period on the DEIS, during which members of this community and all citizens of the United States can express their feelings about the plan by sending comments to: Ashland Ranger District, 645 Washington St., Ashland, OR 97540-1402.

In September, an alternative will be selected by Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest supervisor Scott Conroy.

Then, there will be a 30-day objection period, as opposed to the normal appeal period known in the NEPA process. This difference is due to language in the Healthy Forests Act.

After that, said Duffy, “if people think we got it wrong, we would move straight into litigation.”

Staff writer Robert Plain can be reached at 482-3456 x 3040 or bplain@dailytidings.com.