Bulldozers on Mt. Hood trails! (Cooper Spur Timber Sale)

General discussions on hiking in Oregon and the Pacific Northwest
User avatar
miah66
Posts: 2039
Joined: July 6th, 2009, 8:00 pm

Re: Bulldozers on Mt. Hood trails!

Post by miah66 » February 23rd, 2016, 3:08 pm

I appreciate what you're saying Matt, and I was actually surprised by how much consideration was given to certain factors in this EA. But the fact is, time and again, the FS is full of crap.

Look at this recent compilation to see what actually happens out there in the field. Unauthorized cutting, road building, no drainage, etc. These were all requirements in the EA, yet not implemented in any way and of course, there is no supervision or enforcement of these regulations anyway by the FS. Just ignore it and it will go away.

It would be fair to say that yes there is some alarmist sentiment here, but if you had the job of following up on these kinds of projects, day in and day out, and noting what destruction is left in their wake, I would tend to be worried as well.

The report with all the thoughtful commentary and fancy charts and graphs doesn't mean jack.
"The top...is not the top" - Mile...Mile & a Half

Instagram @pdxstrider

User avatar
Water
Posts: 1355
Joined: May 28th, 2008, 10:03 pm

Re: Bulldozers on Mt. Hood trails!

Post by Water » February 23rd, 2016, 4:09 pm

Seems like there would be plenty of grounds for a lawsuit, but I really have to wonder, unlike a business, is the FS going to 'pay' damages back to the government? If a private company did a the logging seems like they could be busted for all that.

Very interesting about the management, basically the same as managing things for outdoor recreationalists. new take away: FS exists to make reports, enact new permits and regulations, with an emphasis on not getting out of the office.

that report of before/after certainly sucks. Still wonder, are those like the 4 spots they found or was it wide-spread, I would love to hear FS response, and more understanding of the timeline of things. Like I said I think Bark does a necessary job and helps keep the FS honest, so I guess I also don't blame them for being hyperbolic given what they've seen.

That before/after still stands out, at a minimum it seems like a lawsuit could be brought and whoever was in charge of managing that could be held accountable. Even if it is a mid-level employee, as messed up as our system and public government is, it's still available to be pursued in that regard compared to a kingdom or totalitarian state..
Feel Free to Feel Free

rplaeger
Posts: 14
Joined: October 31st, 2014, 9:27 am

Re: Bulldozers on Mt. Hood trails!

Post by rplaeger » February 25th, 2016, 5:56 pm

Water wrote:Some questions.. first of all while I am not a big fan of the Forest Service and have definitely supported BARK! causes in the past, the read between them and the hood river article makes it seem like the Hood River News write-up is totally carrying water for the FS, is that linked write-up really that biased? Or is BARK! exaggerating a little bit?
No exaggeration; that's the article written by reporter with the HR News.
Water wrote:The other map shows that there is a project 'area' (22) around the terminus of cloud cap road. I am guessing that means that area is going to be given some type of burn treatment at some point. After the fire up there a handful of years ago it would make sense for fuels reductions around tilly jane on the inside of the wilderness boundary, esp if it is not a logging operation but a burn or wood mastication (or whatever other terms they used).
Mastication using mechanized equipment, inside the Wilderness, would be prohibited by the Wilderness Act.
Water wrote:So to suggest as BARK! does that the logging is going to affect the Tilly Jane trail is kind of a stretch imo. I would rather straight truth than any hyperbole (of the logging or canyon variety)
Tilly Jane trail – Shouldn’t be affected. The first information available about the timber sale was a map showing a large area within the project area boundary and minimal detail about where logging would specifically be done. Thus Bark listed all the trails that might be impacted. The subsequent EA makes it clear that no logging is planned along Tilly Jane.
Water wrote:I do however have major qualms about the areas to the East where it seems major road building will occur and 'untouched' areas will be logged. I am a little curious though that these areas were never logged once even though they're the very areas closest to the major highway (and presumably early wagon roads)? That is peculiar and not the usual case but I am not an expert and will deffer to BARK! in that case.
Logging on steep slopes by Highway 35 – Water wonders why some forests on the slopes above Hwy. 35 have not been logged before.

Very steep terrain was a limiting factor for earlier logging methods and the forests were seemingly endless so people cut the flatter, easy ground first. The fact that the FS is calling for helicopters, the most expensive form of logging, to be used on the steep slopes above the East Fork Hood River (“protected” in the Wild and Scenic River System) indicates that roads should not be built in the scenic corridor seen from the highway or river.
Water wrote:Lastly I'd be very curious to know about the finances behind this. I am guessing a commercial company will do the thinning and any road building, not the FS. The FS bills this as a fuels reduction/fire safety event. However BARK! seems to bill this as a commercial logging harvest. Truth being in the middle, I'm still curious what the value is for the FS, ie: will the FS be getting some money from timber sales of timber from public land? And what is the estimated value that the timber company would receive for that timber? Will the commercial entity will do the logging in the 'untouched' areas but FS workers will be doing the thinning and sapling reductions, which would give some indication that the company involved is getting to 'harvest' the good stuff while the FS does unprofitable grunt work in an area that probably needs that done.
Water asked about the finances of the project - The FS sells public timber and the cash goes to the federal treasury. The FS is told by Congress and the President to cut and sell a specified volume of timber each year (35 million board feet on Mt. Hood); the district ranger for Hood River has a volume target they’re expected to meet - their annual performance rating is based in part on “getting out the cut.” The logging companies pay for the trees, cut them into lumber, and keep the profits. That’s why Bark considers this to be a “commercial timber sale.”

This is a commercial timber sale - While the FS has planned it under the guise of “fuels reduction” the mechanism for project implementation is a commercial timber sale in which the trees are sold to the highest bidder. The value of the larger, older trees will subsidize the cost of cutting the smaller, lower value material. That’s been a reality of FS projects for many years; when I worked for the FS the timber sale planners would “sweeten the pot” by adding enough high value trees to make the project appealing to companies that would bid in the auction for the sale.

rplaeger
Posts: 14
Joined: October 31st, 2014, 9:27 am

Re: Bulldozers on Mt. Hood trails!

Post by rplaeger » February 25th, 2016, 6:10 pm

miah66 wrote:Looking at the map I posted shows the logging sites FAR below the slope where you can visibly see the burn scars. Also, BOTH sides of Hwy 35 all the way down to the road will be clearcut, possibly behind a buffer to hide the devastation. So frustrating.

As for trails impacted, it appears the Dog River trail would be completely through clearcuts on both sides for a good portion of it.
Regardless of what you think about the question of fuel reduction and whether you’re familiar with this area if you enjoy hiking I encourage you to send comments to the Forest Service about the importance of protecting trails with more than a 55 foot wide buffer.

As Miah66 notes the area contains some of the most heavily used trails in the Hood River Ranger District. As a trail user I’m very concerned about the proposal to leave only a 55 foot wide buffer on both sides of trails; that is ~ ½ of what is recommended by the volunteers from 44 Trails Association who have experience doing maintenance on trails, in this area, where logging has been done. 44 Trails recommends NO logging within the buffer, so the recreation experience and trail tread are protected, but the FS is planning to cut live trees up to 1 foot in diameter out of the buffer. If the FS goes ahead with these narrow, partially logged buffers that will probably set a precedent for how trails are “protected” in the districts on the east side of Mt. Hood. That would be a bad precedent.

No clearcutting is proposed but some areas will be very heavily thinned; to a degree that makes me and some retired FS folks nervous. Heavy thinning means more sunlight and a boost in growth in shrubs and understory plants thus contributing to an increase in fuel loading that could actually be counterproductive to the stated purpose. Shows that in fact the true purpose is to get the cut out.

Some background on Rplaeger - I’m a forester; I spent almost 10 years in the USFS as a recreation, trails, and wilderness mgmt. specialist on the Wind River district in the Gifford Pinchot NF. During the logging heydays of the late ‘70’s – ‘80’s it was my job to stand in front of the Forest Service timber sale machine and advocate for the protection of trails, wilderness and other values that are important to many of us. I had some success but was run over many times.

rplaeger
Posts: 14
Joined: October 31st, 2014, 9:27 am

Re: Bulldozers on Mt. Hood trails!

Post by rplaeger » February 25th, 2016, 6:43 pm

Markh752 wrote:I'm not going to send in an official comment on this project since I am unfamiliar with the area. But I thought I would leave some food for thought in this thread.

ETA; there should be at least a 100' buffer on each side of the trails. And does anyone know why there is a need to skid logs across trails?
1. Bulldozers on trails – Bulldozers will likely be used to build the two new roads across the Dog River trail and to expand the Surveyor’s Ridge trailhead so it can be used as a log landing where log trucks will be loaded with trees cut from areas along the trail. If trees are cut to expand the area it will be challenging to “fully restore it to existing conditions.”
Other types of track mounted logging equipment will be used to do ground-based yarding (see map of Logging Systems on p. 34 in EA). Where necessary those machines will cross trails to get from an area where trees have been cut to a road where log trucks have access to the piles of logs.

Trees will also be pulled across the Dog River trail using a skyline cable yarding system; that requires clearing long, 12 - 15 foot wide corridors that run down the steep slopes to areas where trees have been cut. Yarding logs across the trail is likely to damage the trail surface because one end of the logs will be dragging on the ground. The PDC (Project Design Criteria) A-8 (p. 43) calls for skyline corridors to be at least 100 ft. apart on average. Meaning that in the ~ 0.75 mile segment of the Dog River trail in the NE part of the project area the trail will be crossed by approx. 35 skyline yarding corridors.

What does skyline logging look like? See attached photos

2. An aerial view of skyline corridors; trees that have been cut are pulled laterally into the corridor and then dragged uphill to the landing at top of the corridor.

NOTE – I just looked in the EA; as far as I can tell there is no PDC (Project Design Criteria) requiring that trails be rebuilt in locations where they’re damaged by log yarding.
Attachments
Aerial view of skyline corridors in a logged area.jpg
Skyline yarder on a log landing.JPG

rplaeger
Posts: 14
Joined: October 31st, 2014, 9:27 am

Re: Bulldozers on Mt. Hood trails!

Post by rplaeger » February 25th, 2016, 7:01 pm

Water wrote:If they're thinning an area, bringing the logs out on a trail are easier than dragging through the forest AND wouldn't contribute to an effectively new 'use path', imo, that's my guess.

The broader factor that comes to play here is this WUI, it's the Wildland Urban Interface, same thing with around Bend and Sisters, basically there are human interests in proximity to the forest that drive this more than protecting the forest itself. That's kind of sad but a much bigger statement about society, similar to dams and salmon and wind farms and birds and all sorts of other human caused issues leading to a reduction in habitat and 'wild land'.


WUI – Wildland Urban Interface – Yes, there are homes on private land in the Cooper Spur area but the research shows that the most effective measures for reducing the fire risk to homes occur within 100 feet of the house. Reducing brush, a metal roof, moving your propane tank, and not stacking firewood on your deck are examples of actions that are effective.
Water wrote:...this entire project to me reads like the biggest take away is that in the past, the FS did a piss poor job of managing their timber harvests and are now paying the consequences with terrible forest health.
Actually, the FS was very enthusiastic about harvesting timber and they prioritized fire suppression because fires burned up what were perceived to be valuable, “crop trees.” The FS completely ignored, and to a large degree still does, the ecological benefits of fire.

Casey Gatz is the timber sale planner for the Hood River district - See http://www.shredhood.org/news/environme ... uppression “Russ Plaeger (Bark) and Casey Gatz (USFS) may not agree on many things when it comes to the forests of Mt. Hood, but they do share the perspective that 100-plus years of stopping every wildfire has created a large and complicated problem.”
Water wrote:Or likely they'll be harvested on rotation and hopefully planted properly this time?
Those dense, young plantations are exactly what professors teach foresters to create thus the areas that “need” thinning now were “properly” planted. Foresters generally plant more trees than needed so enough trees will survive insects and disease to become the final “crop” (don’t under utilize the land base or the years it takes to grow trees to merchantable size).
Water wrote:I'd like to see the Jazz area in 5 years, those pictures look terrible with the compacted mud but I'd love to know the acreage that is impacted like that vs if we are talking square footage...
The dimensions of the different types of landings are on p. 32 in EA (a ground-based landing = 0.08 acre; skyline = 0.078 Ac; helicopter = 0.46 Ac); we were unable to find the number of landings that will be cleared so it isn’t possible to do the arithmetic to calculate total acreage of the landings. However, in a project this large many landings will be cleared; that will impact lots of land.

Water included Table 6 re: Desired Future Condition and stand density in terms of the basal area of the trees that will remain after logging. Basal area is based on square feet but the landings will impact many acres of land. Basal area (BA) is used by foresters to describe the square footage of the tree trunks that are on an acre of land. An acre = 43,560 sq. ft.; if there was one huge tree that covered an entire acre the BA would be 43,560. Thus a desired future BA of 80 – 190 means that the total square foot of the cross sectional area of the tree trunks left after logging will only cover a tiny fraction of the acre (190 divided by 43,560 = ~0.00436 of the acre will be covered by the TRUNKS of trees (canopy cover = the area covered by limbs is a different ball of wax).

rplaeger
Posts: 14
Joined: October 31st, 2014, 9:27 am

Re: Bulldozers on Mt. Hood trails!

Post by rplaeger » February 25th, 2016, 7:07 pm

miah66 wrote:ARGH!!!

Image
The Polallie-Cooper Timber Sale is the latest example of the clear and urgent need to shift the management priorities for Mt. Hood National Forest to put more focus on protecting and restoring watersheds, high quality, well maintained trails and recreation facilities, decommissioning and rehabilitating unnecessary roads,[/b] Congressional funding that puts people to work for ecological and recreational benefits that best serve the public trust.

The Mt. Hood forest is managed under a plan adopted in 1990. The plan has not evolved but the communities around the mountain have changed significantly since the ‘90’s. The land based economy is driven by recreation, the effects of climate change on public lands need to be addressed, and the public’s expectation of federal land management has shifted significantly. I was surprised and pleased last summer to hear a high ranking Forest Service official in California say that clean water and recreation are by far the most valuable outputs from the forests they oversee, and wonder aloud why the timber industry still has any “clout” in the political discussions.

rplaeger
Posts: 14
Joined: October 31st, 2014, 9:27 am

Re: Bulldozers on Mt. Hood trails!

Post by rplaeger » February 25th, 2016, 7:21 pm

Water wrote:Will the commercial entity will do the logging in the 'untouched' areas but FS workers will be doing the thinning and sapling reductions, which would give some indication that the company involved is getting to 'harvest' the good stuff while the FS does unprofitable grunt work in an area that probably needs that done.
Most of the work will be done by the logging company that buys the timber or their subcontractors (some of them will be locals but the helicopter work will likely be done by an out-of-state company with its own employees; that’s what was done in the Jazz timber sale).

The FS has little or no capacity to do pre-commercial thinning unless they receive funding to hire contractors to do it. Even in the '80's when the FS was well funded most of the pre-commercial thinning was done by contractors.

rplaeger
Posts: 14
Joined: October 31st, 2014, 9:27 am

Re: Bulldozers on Mt. Hood trails!

Post by rplaeger » February 25th, 2016, 7:28 pm

Fire is an integral part of the conifer forests in the PNW. Foresters for too long have ignored the ecological role of fire.

Our attempts to manage complex, forest ecosystems have a mixed track record. Fire suppression is one of the best examples; Smokey has been way too effective for way too long. The FS has suppressed fires in these forests that evolved with fire and were shaped by periodic, low intensity fires. Thus the current situation and what to do about it is complicated.

Some of the fire management staff in Mt. Hood National Forest have said they’d like to have more flexibility to work with and manage fire as a tool that can create ecosystem benefits. Take a look at Nature’s Phoenix: the ecological importance of mixed-severity fires (DellaSala, D.A. and C.T. Hanson, eds. 2015).

See http://www.shredhood.org/news/environme ... uppression “Russ Plaeger (Bark) and Casey Gatz (USFS) may not agree on many things when it comes to the forests of Mt. Hood, but they do share the perspective that 100-plus years of stopping every wildfire has created a large and complicated problem.”

User avatar
Splintercat
Posts: 8328
Joined: May 28th, 2008, 10:03 pm
Location: Portland
Contact:

Re: Bulldozers on Mt. Hood trails! (Cooper Spur Timber Sale)

Post by Splintercat » February 29th, 2016, 7:22 pm

Russ, thanks for taking the time to respond to questions about the Cooper Spur timber sale -- you bring a wealth of knowledge and insight with you. Great information for people just trying to learn about what the implications of this proposal really are.

Tom

Post Reply