A lot of people have been asking what future development is planned for the Ashland Loop area. Will there be more treatments like this project? Why does this project look so different from previous fuel reduction treatments?
Let’s put these questions in context.
Much of the edge of town between Terrace Street and Park Street has the same problems as the site on Ashland Loop. Treatment prescription details are up to the individual land owners, so projects will vary, but the goals are the same.
These are neglected forests, oak savannah foothills that historically burned frequently with low intensity, keeping fuel from building up and keeping out species poorly adapted to drought and fire.
Natural fire and burning by indigenous peoples maintained an open, patchy forest structure. Restoration goals for our area suggest that canopy closure should range from 40-60%, depending on aspect and other topographic features. Like many sites in our area, the Ashland Loop properties had 90-100% closure in spots. There were over 300 trees per acre. Historically this landscape would have 30-50 trees per acre.
Restoring the foothills to these levels of canopy closure and tree density significantly reduces competition for water and light. Sun-dependant species are climate-adapted but die out from a site after sustained canopy closure. The Ashland Loop project owners are committed to healing this neglected forest. The areas that had the highest tree density and canopy closure are now gaps. These gaps will be seeded with native plants and become meadows with wildflowers, native grasses, and isolated brush patches.
Restoring density and canopy closure levels also significantly reduces fire risk. Less fuel means less heat. Fire can sweep through and the trees will have a better chance of surviving. The open, patchy forest structure also changes fire behavior, slowing its spread, which further reduces the heat produced. Gaps also help keep the fire on the ground and out of the tree canopy.
Projects will vary with the goals of individual owners, but we do expect to see more projects happening. Oregon’s Senate Bill 762, passed in 2021, provides $220 million to modernize and improve wildfire preparedness in Oregon, focusing on adapting communities to wildfire risk, increasing wildfire response capacity, and increasing landscape resiliency, including expanding access to prescribed fire for property owners. Rules are still being developed for the new programs funded by this bill, but once that’s done there will be a lot more money available to support owners who want to do fire risk reduction treatments.
So that’s our answer to the first question. People have also been shocked by how different this project looks compared to what they expect fuel reduction to look like.
This is jarring and dissonant and feels like ‘greenwashing.’ People see this shocking difference and think that a label was slapped on the project with the intention to mislead or obfusticate.
We can’t speak for the City of Ashland or for the project owners, but we at Rogue Siskiyou would like to explain what we think. Why does this look more like logging than like fuel reduction?
First let’s define our terms. What exactly is different? There’s really just one main difference: larger gaps.
Why large gaps instead of small? Small gaps don’t truly restore density levels but are the norm people expect. This is because our perception of what the forest should look like has historically guided fuel reduction projects, and our perception has been calibrated incorrectly by lack of exposure to truly healthy and natural forest.
We end up favoring esthetics over ecology.
There’s inertia at play here also. We see the norm and we expect the norm because it’s tried and true, and changing that public perception takes time.
Most land managers and scientists agree that the pace and scope of fuel reduction work is insufficient to reduce wildfire risk to communities and insufficient to restore the forest to a climate-adapted condition.
So why not do two treatments to soften the blow? There are two parts to this answer: logistics and ecology.
Coming back costs a lot more than doing all the work at once. It also impacts the ground and the road twice instead of once, and will delay the use of prescribed fire and interfere with seeding of native plants.
Taking more trees now also has immediate ecological benefits. It reduces the sites bug-load and fuel-load, and reduces competition for sun and water. The trees we want to promote are further stressed by doing two treatments.
So, should we favor softening the blow over ecology and fire risk? That’s up to the stakeholders involved.
And we really did neglect an important segment of stakeholders when we rolled-out this project: the neighbors, and forest users, and Ashland community. But we’re learning how to do it right next time. We’re deeply sorry for the confusion and anguish caused by our failure to do proper outreach and public comment period. We hope this post helps clarify things.
And we hope everyone who loves this forest will come with us on a tour of the project. It’s a great way to learn and refine our understandings of stakeholder priorities. It’s more fun than talking on social media, too.
Everything you say here makes sense on paper Joseph, the problem is it doesn't jibe with what we see on the ground at the sight. Natural forest fire takes out smaller, more densely growing trees and leaves bigger trees; drought kills trees that require more water (firs), and leaves trees that are more drought tolerant (pine and madrone). But that's not what you did on this site, and there's no way to deny it. If your motivation was to manage the forest in a way that would make its survival more likely, you would have at left the larger firs, and the pines and madrones, but you didn't. There is no way to look at what was done on these…