Eagle Creek Trail (Gorge) Closed by Fire (July 5)

[drm]

A friend told me that a small fire was started in the Hood River Valley by somebody throwing fireworks from a truck. Firefighters were nearby and put it out quickly. If we are getting sick copycatters, they will soon get strung up from a tree.

[caveat]I am not advocating vigilantism[/caveat]

[Lurch]

Thanks for the clarification guys, and I apologize for the frustration in my previous comments. The fire in the 90's was small fry in comparison to this, and no one has had to deal with this magnitude of fire, in this terrain, with this trail network, it's a new one to all of us. I know people are going to violate the area restrictions, they already have. It's frustrating, and honestly irritating when there's an appearance of encouragement for that, especially from people not aware of the dangers.

I've spent the last few days reading BAER reports, and post-burn trail assessments for other fires, that deal with far less popular areas, with far simpler terrain. I would encourage all of you to do the same. It takes a long time to recover, and they are truly hazardous places long after the fires are out. In some reports they estimate around 160 manhours of labor, for every mile of severely burned trail for restoration and rehabilitation. I would guess that would be exaggerated in this case due to remoteness of some locations, limited road access, and the fact that it's a wilderness area and power tools use are strictly limited.

Tree fall and slides are terrible, with trees continue to fall for over a decade as a result of a fire, but the majority in the first year (or most likely, the first winter), the pure abundance of hazard trees needs to be dealt with before opening trails, or the liability falls on the Forest Service, and I doubt they'll accept that. Rains are going to cause erosion, which will cause slides, downed trees will block existing water channels and divert flows (probably down trail) and cause more erosion and slides... It's going to take a LOT of work to ensure the area is remotely stable and safe, and a lot of questions aren't going to be answerable until after the rainy season and re-evaluation.

Remember if you go in there, and get lost/hurt/killed, it's not just your life you're putting at risk.

[Guy]

Hey Jake, I'm not arguing with anything you say here just looking for clarification.

You say the Forest Service has to make sure "every tree is safe" or accept liability is this really the case? If so it seems unfair. Once the major hazards have been assessed it seems it should be up to the individual to take the risk of a falling, tree not the Forest Service.

I know the terrain is totally different but after the huge Dollar Lake Fire on Hood a few years ago the trails were reopened only weeks after the fire going out if I remember correctly. While the risk of rock fall and landslide was obviously much less that of treefall was then same.

Again not arguing just looking for your thoughts.
Cheers.

[Lurch]

I didn't say or mean 'every tree is safe', obviously that's not reasonable.. That's not even coming from the FS themselves, just from reading through other burned area reports, and post-burn assessments a significant amount of effort is spent on mitigating hazard trees. We have enough blowdown out there as it is, it's going to be many many times worse now, I can't see them reasonably opening a trail with that sort of hazard hanging overhead.

[Guy]

I didn't say or mean 'every tree is safe', obviously that's not reasonable.. That's not even coming from the FS themselves, just from reading through other burned area reports, and post-burn assessments a significant amount of effort is spent on mitigating hazard trees. We have enough blowdown out there as it is, it's going to be many many times worse now, I can't see them reasonably opening a trail with that sort of hazard hanging overhead.

Understood Jake, thanks.

[pcg]

All of this makes sense in the context of popular trails close to a major metropolitan area. On the flip side, anyone who spends time in remote parts of national forest can be exposed to all kinds of objective hazards, ranging from widow-makers in forest where wind-storms have passed through, to areas of steep unstable slopes, to avalanche terrain. All of this can be found on less-popular trails. Where does the USFS draw the line and how do they make a determination to close a trail or mitigate a hazard?

A small percentage of public land in popular areas is already being “dumbed-down” for tourists who mostly are unprepared for the otherwise objective hazards they might meet. I’m OK with this because it makes our public land accessible to more people, but it also changes the character of that land. I just hope it remains a small percentage.

[Lurch]

I honestly don't know where those lines are drawn, and I'm in the same boat as you all are in terms of being completely removed from the line drawers. I would suspect that to them, saying a trail is "open" is akin to saying the trail is "safe", so they're probably going to be overly cautious about it.

[Bosterson]

DAMMIT. ENOUGH ALREADY.


(From KOIN Twitter)

[Don Nelsen]

DAMMIT. ENOUGH ALREADY.

No kidding! Looks like the Herman Creek area is really getting hit. Here is a photo I took yesterday from about three miles east of Stevenson:
This is looking up the Herman Creek drainage.


dn

[aircooled]

I have been curious just how "safe" safe has to be, by USFS standards. The Eagle Creek Trail was never really safe even on a good day. A few steps in the wrong direction and you die, which several people have in the past few years. There are some less sketchy but still potentially deadly cliffs along the Larch Mountain Trail. And a while back, I was coming down the switchbacks by Weisendanger Falls when a boulder of about 2 feet diameter came bouncing down the slope and nearly took out a Young Mazama. (Would have if somebody hadn't screamed "big f***ing boulder" just in time.) People have fallen off Angel's Rest as well. I once watched as a tree, not far from me, virtually imploded in on itself in the Olympics. Hiking carries some risk, and that's fine with me.

So, with respect to what Lurch was saying about 160 man hours of work per mile, I've also hiked through many miles of burnt and blackened trees in the Sisters Wilderness around Three Fingered Jack. Didn't appear all that cleaned up to me (esp. Jack) but that's speculation on my part. It's silly to hike in an area with active fires, but I'll take my chances with the odd unstable tree. I'm worried about gummint overkill here.