Op Ed: Ashland forest plan ignores collaboration

The Mail Tribune criticized Eric Navickas for standing alone against the community when we filed a lawsuit challenging the Ashland Forest Resiliency Project.

Logging in the Ashland watershed has been controversial for a long time. In 1996, the Forest Service met resistance when it proposed to remove 8,000 large trees to pay for hazardous fuel reduction. Citizens got together and created a better plan to reduce risk while protecting large trees and sensitive soils. The Ashland Watershed Protection Project went forward with National Fire Plan funding and drew no lawsuits.

The community understands that large trees are the most fire resilient in the forest with thick bark and tall canopies. Their removal increases fire hazard by leaving branches and needles on the ground, and stimulating shrub growth and invasive weeds.

On the other hand, thinning small trees and then underburning can slow fire spread and help land managers use natural fire on occasion without undue risk to human safety or the watershed. That is my expectation of forest management at Ashland.

I learned first-hand working in the woods as a biologist and firefighter that planned use of fire is the best defense against unwanted fires. Nobody likes smoke, but it is a fact of life in the West.

I collaborated with others organized by the City of Ashland to develop an alternative for the AFR Project. We negotiated and compromised in good faith, mindful of the urgency to get work done quickly, and we met Forest Service deadlines. Nobody left completely happy, but we all said that we could live with it.

Later, the Forest Service asked to work with two individuals from our group to blend our alternative with theirs. Those we trusted to represent our agreements walked away from them in closed-door meetings with the agency, and retreated to positions they held before collaboration. The result is the "preferred" alternative that the Forest Service adopted.

Fuel reduction will proceed this spring where it is needed most, at low elevations affected by fire suppression, and where risk to Ashland is high. Local contractors with strong ecological credibility will get first crack at the work. They will do a good job despite what the Forest Service has planned for later stages of the project.

Activities of concern would occur in the backcountry, where risk to town is low and environmental sensitivity is great. The Forest Service has stated that it will defer backcountry logging for at least a couple of years. Therefore, litigation will not slow work on the ground unless foresters drag their feet. We will not seek an injunction.

Given the $6 million subsidy available to AFR through 2015, a commercial sale of large trees is not necessary to fund work. Nevertheless, foresters insist on discretion to cut trees of any size, including in the McDonald Peak Roadless Area, and on sites where logging can trigger landslides and dirty Ashland's water.

With the Obama administration calling shots and contractors doing careful work, we expect good things to happen. However, if a new president lets funding dry up or demands more wood production, up to 85,000 of the largest trees may be removed under the AFR plan, according to Forest Service analysis.

The Mail Tribune incorrectly stated that our concern is for "a few" large trees in "some places."

Our lawsuit ensures that what everyone says they want in the form of sensitive hazard reduction will happen. It is necessary because collaborative agreements that would have fostered trust were ignored.

Jay Liningerof Flagstaff, Ariz., an ecologist, was born and raised in Ashland.