· Why is the second property not thinned as much as the first property?
Conditions on the two sites were very different, so the finished look is also different.
(a) The northern property (the first one you get to going up the road) had many more large trees. It had also been thinned and had prescribed burning done 10-15 years ago, so the forest had all that time to regenerate. Oaks and madrones began to fill out almost immediately after being freed up from the deep shade.
(b) The southern property (the first one treated) had not had any thinning that we know of except along the ridgeline where the Alice in Wonderland trail is. Several areas below the ridge had severe canopy closure and very few pines or oaks. These areas were chosen for large gaps to meet the project’s restoration goals (canopy spacing, firebreak creation, meadow creation, and species composition shift).
· Does transporting infested logs to lumber mills spread the beetle infestation?
It can, but this is not really a concern. Many beetles are crushed during removal and processing before the logs leave the project site.
Also, the beetles are pretty much everywhere in southwest Oregon already. Mountain pine beetle has moved into our area more recently; the other beetle species affecting the pines and Doug firs are native to the area.
The beetle outbreak has two primary drivers:
(a) Cold snaps that kill them off in winter are becoming less frequent, and
(b) Their rate of reproduction has increased because more food is available to them (water-stressed trees that can’t fight them off).
· Are large trees being removed? Why? Aren’t large trees more fire resistant?
We realize that the removal of large trees is one of the most upsetting and confusing aspects of this project. We hope our answer is satisfactory:
(a) First, let’s get some context. We estimate that around 5% of trees greater than 20 inch DBH (diameter at breast height) were removed. If there were 500 trees of this size, 25 would be removed.
(b) Large trees are generally more fire resistant. But when they are growing close together they compete for water. Dense canopy also increases the risk of high severity fire. Clumps were reduced down to single trees in some areas.
(c) A few large trees were removed in order to meet the project’s restoration goals (canopy spacing, firebreak creation, meadow creation, and species composition shift).
(d) The decision was made to do a more aggressive treatment than many would have chosen to. Removing trees in decline in addition to some of those already dead has created a drastic change in the look of the forest. Overall forest health and fire risk reduction were given priority over esthetic concerns. This decision was not made lightly, but the lack of public outreach has created an atmosphere of confusion and mistrust. We hope answering these questions helps.
· Are snags (standing dead trees) and large downed logs a fire risk?
Most anything will burn if exposed to sufficient heat, but snags and downed logs generally pose less risk than living trees once their needles and branches have fallen off.
Individual snags are retained for their habitat and ecological value, but too many snags add to the fuel load.
· Are pines, oaks, or madrones being removed? Why?
(a) A few pines, oaks, and madrones were removed due to equipment access requirements. We used existing skid trails from prior logging, and some trees had to be taken because they were growing in the track.
(b) Some pines, madrones, and oaks were shade suppressed and in poor condition. These were removed to decrease canopy density and improve individual tree health.
(c) Some oaks and madrones were growing sideways, reaching across instead of up in their search for the sun. These were damaged when the surrounding trees came down and were cut back to the stump. These oaks and madrones are expected to sprout back from the roots, the same as they would after a fire, and will re-grow with a better growth structure.
· What about brush growth after this project?
(a) Without maintenance, brush will grow in. After 10-15 years it would be tall and dense. If a fire came through it would burn hot and fast. The owners know this, and are committed to ongoing maintenance.
(b) Fire regime data from our own Ashland watershed (sites at Horn gap, Coggins saddle [4-courners], and Winburn ridge) show that historic stand-level fire occurred every 5-8 years, so it’s expected that prescribed burning and other maintenance will be performed on a similar schedule.
· Will herbicides be used to control brush growth after this project?
No. There are no plans to use herbicides to control vegetation. The owners are committed to using fire and hand-thinning to maintain their land.
· Why is this different from what has previously been implemented in the rest of the watershed?
(a) The short answer is logistics and ecology.
(b) Please read our post here for the details.
· Is there a lot of profit being made from the sale of the trees?
No. Most of the revenue from the sale of the logs will be used to pay for the project, for slash and debris treatment, and for renovating and maintaining the road.
· Do restoration projects produce a profit by removing timber during fuel reduction?
In our experience, most projects hope to break even and cover the project cost. Even when there is a large commercial component, we don’t know of a forest restoration project that didn’t need additional funding to pay for treatment.
· Do many Fire Fuel Reduction projects include timber removal?
Yes. Commercial and noncommercial timber removal is common. Trees killed by beetles or by fire lose much of their value, so removing trees in decline before they degrade creates more revenue to cover project costs.
ความคิดเห็น