Hey Folks,
Many of you have probably heard through the grapevine that the likely start date for logging on Seven Streams is July 17th. We received more information on the morning of 7/13. The trail will now close on 7/20. Cutting will begin on 7/23. There’s a lot of confusion out there about why it’s being cut, and we’d like to help everyone understand the details. We’re planning a last ride party. Stay tuned for details.
Everyone’s first question is, “Why are they cutting?”
This winter’s ice storm caused massive damage in the Seven Streams trail corridor. It was the hardest hit elevation, with the most damaged trees. Total timber loss in the stand was over 30%. This is not good.
Leaving forestry practices aside for another day (selective harvest vs. clearcut vs. the age of trees in a stand), let’s talk about a bigger issue, the main reason this cut has to happen: bark beetles. You’re probably heard of them. They’re decimating forests across the country. Bark beetles love damaged timber, and they’re already in the dead and dying trees along Seven Streams. Look for little piles of shavings on the downed logs, and you’ve found a bark beetle home. Leave all those damaged trees on the ground (and standing dead, if the tops are broken off), and you’ll soon have bark beetles moving into surrounding healthy trees. We just can’t risk that happening. You’ve seen the dead forests in the news. We don’t want that here.
The next question we get is, “Well, why can’t the county leave a protected trail corridor? Don’t they realize the trail brings in money?” Yes, we assure you the county sees the tourism generated by the trail system. But remember, this is county land, and it’s a tree farm. A sustainable tree farm, but a tree farm that provides around 35% of county revenue. Back to the trail corridor question: each tree is worth $200-$500. If you were to leave a trail corridor with just one tree every 20 feet, and value that tree at $200, that would be a loss to the county coffers of $52,800 per mile of trail. And that’s just leaving one tree every 20 feet. A trail corridor would cost the county several hundred thousand dollars. It would take an awful lot of tourism to make up for that.
That’s one way to look at it. Here’s another, straight from the mouth of Doug Thiesies, your forest manager:
HRC has a sustainable tree farm with a fixed amount of acres. To be sustainable and even flow we have to measure what we grow/acre and then stay within that biological limit of growth. That sets our allowable cut (harvest rate), currently estimated at an average 9.5 million board feet/year.
However, it also assumes that the # of acres that you grow trees on remains the same. If you set aside a 100 foot buffer on every trail, with approximately 100 miles of recognized trails in the HRC Northwest Area you would effectively remove 2,424 Acres from production on paper. That’s about 24% of the NW area which is also much more productive in terms of tree growing capacity. In a practical sense it’s actually much more, even double, because you cut off access to adjacent ground, especially on steep cable ground.
So, it doesn’t take long on the set aside of acres before it takes a big chunk out of what you can produce on the forest. We already account for set asides for stream buffers and protected wildlife species to follow the forest practices act.
Another concern people have is that the trail runs near a stream, in what should be a protected riparian zone. Questions have been raised about the Riparian Management Area and whether that should protect the trail. The RMA requires a 50′ corridor on either side of a stream. The county forest manager, in order to help protect the trail, gave us a 60′ corridor on either side of the stream, at some cost to the county. On this count, he did more than he had to for us, and we thank him. As for the safety of the trail, it is inside this corridor at some places and outside at others, but it’s going to get torn up as they drag trees across it.
We’ve also fielded questions along the lines of, “Why don’t they have the loggers protect or rebuild the trail?” According to Ian Caldwell at Oregon State Parks, when loggers are required to protect or rebuild trails, it lowers the price of the timber sale. With no trail corridor (see above for reasons why), we’re looking at a rebuild as logs get dragged across the trail and machines drive over the tread. Rebuilding is expensive. Really expensive.
Why? Loggers contract out to professional trailbuilders (you really don’t want lumberjacks building your trails, do you?), who cost a ton of money. For example, the section of Seven Streams built by IMBA (from the Mobius entrance to the T intersection of Cardiac Hill) cost about $40,000. Loggers would factor that into their bid for the timber, costing the county money. And really, wouldn’t you rather rebuild your trails and make them better, and take ownership of them after logging happens? There’s more control, more flow and better riding if you’re involved!
Many people have expressed the concern that, “The county is just doing this for the money.” We assure you that isn’t the case. When damaged trees are harvested, or trees that aren’t full-grown, they don’t bring in top dollar. In the long run, this ice storm is costing the county and taxpayers a lot of money. And trust us, Hood River County isn’t rich, and they can’t seem to pass any sort of tax increase to raise more revenue.
Finally, we’d like to remind people that Hood River County, at significant cost, hired a local contractor to come in and clear the logs from Seven Streams so we could ride it for a few months before the start of logging operations.
Hopefully that answers most of the questions out there. Feel free to comment below, and we’ll get back to you as soon as we can with answers to any other questions.
If you’d like to learn more about how the trails are managed, we encourage you to come to the county trails meeting. The next is Tuesday, July 31st, at 4pm at 601 State in Hood River.
Disclaimer: This blog post does not reflect the views of Hood River County. It reflects the HRATS’ best understanding of county forest practices. Some of the information contained within may change upon editing by county forestry personnel. We’ll track those changes.
Thank-you for the lengthy explanation. That answers all my questions!
Some good answers but a lot of it sounds like fancy pr lingo from a timber industry flack. There is NO justification for clear cutting in my opinion. No forest has ever survived the third cut. Anyone ever been to Ireland? “Cutting to improve the health of the forest” is timber industry BS that apparently works well as most just accept it as the truth (repeat a lie often enough . . . ). The county needs to quit making excuses for their ugly clearcuts and start doing the right thing . . . eco-forestry . . . which will be more profitable in the long run, and insure that Hood River County is surrounded by a healthy landscape. If they had been practicing selective cutting, the ice storm would not have done nearly as much damage. It’s time for to society to start mimicing nature if it hopes to have a sustainable future.
Daniel, thank you for your thoughts and for your concern about the long-term viability of the County’s forestry practices. If you’d like to see things change, perhaps you could seek out an organization that helps entities transfer from large sale logging to selective cutting while still maintaining revenues. I’m sure there’s an NGO dedicated to that goal, and perhaps you could set up a meeting between such an organization and Hood River County. Until then, we ask everyone for respect of HRC’s decision about this timber sale.
Local eco-forestor Don Shaw, now deceased, met tirelessly and patiently with the county for decades trying to show them the long term benefits of practicing sustainable forestry. He had a model 200 acre forest just out of town where he practiced forestry the way it should be done. His forest was beautiful and he made money. Don died at age 94, in his forest, with a chain saw by his side . . . one of the unsung heroes of our region. The county only gave him lip service and basically dismissed his views. They showed no interest in changing their ways and they have a lot of scarred and ugly countryside to show for it. County foresters are mostly old-school types governed by short term profit. It’s not really their fault as our whole society is set up that way . . . governed by rules and regulations that do not favor future generations or the health of ecosystems one little bit. Change isn’t likely at this point until society crashes completely which isn’t too far down the road I’m afraid.
Daniel, it sounds like you’ve given up on working for the change you want, and are willing to stand aside and wait for the end of society as we know it. Once again, I encourage you to work towards your goal of changing local forestry practices by contacting some professional organizations who work in sustainable forestry and selective logging practices. Set up a meeting between an appropriate NGO and the county forestry department, and you’ll have a chance to create change, or at least to have your say. Your voice in the cybersphere is not enough to effect the change you want to see, and if you truly believe current forestry practices will end our society, it is your duty to work for change. Good luck in your battle. It is not the right battle for the HRATS at this time.
Clearcutting is just one manifestation of the insanity that will likely be the demise of society as we know it. I think enlightening the Hood River County forestry department and changing the unfortunate laws that govern them is a lost cause without a cadre of people that are interested in pushing the county to change. The mountain biking community is a BIG user of the county forest land and if they were a unified voice calling for change, maybe there would be a chance. With someone like you defending their every step though . . . well . . . I’m not interested in being a lone voice as I am working on too many other issues which have a higher probability of impact. If their was a group that wanted to take this on seriously then it might be worth trying to set up a meeting like you describe although I doubt it would have any impact unless there was some pressure from a group like HRATS and maybe HRVRC . . . and even more significantly, if there were a county forester or two who were really ready to open their minds to something different and likely less profitable in the short term.
Thank you for the explanation – this is great. I’m still confused by how the stream buffer works. If there is a 60′ setback they shouldn’t be cutting timber in it OR dragging timber through it. The buffer shouldn’t be disturbed and much of the trail would fall in that buffer. The explanation of costs for trailbuilding seems circular to me as well – we can’t afford to build a new trail at $40k a mile but we also can’t afford to protect the existing trail that as thousands of hours of volunteer time already invested in it? It just seems backwards given all of the money that other communities are putting into trail systems that we would so quickly destroy ours in Hood River. Thanks to all of you whom are working on this with the County and acting as advocates for the biking community.
Hi Nick. You raise some good points. First, to answer your RMA question, I’m going to have to talk to Doug Thiesies, the forestry manager, on Monday or Tuesday. But my understanding is that they are allowed to pull limited trees out of the RMA. Here’s a link to the Oregon Department of Forestry’s Forest Practices Act, if you’d like to research it: http://www.oregon.gov/ODF/privateforests/fpaGuidance.shtml. As for the cost of trail, pretend you are a county taxpayer who doesn’t like to ride bikes. The county budget is around $12,000,000. Would you want 2% of the yearly budget spent to build a 5-mile section of trail at $40,000/mile when the county doesn’t have enough money to fix the potholes on your road? Probably not. And so, until the county has a lot more money, we build with volunteer hours and donations. That said, the county does use OHV money to build motorized trail, so we are getting more trails, but those motorcycles and ATV’s you see while riding are paying for those trails. So, be nice to the motorized users!
What local contractor came to clear seven streams? I was there when those logs were cut and the trail cleared, it wasn’t done by any local contractor, it was done by HRATS volunteers. Also, where is concern about the bark beetle infesting other parts of the forest that recieved ice damage, like middle/upper 8-track and GP area? Why can’t the county just pull out the fallen trees and leave the rest there? Something smells fishy with this cutting.
Hi Joe. The local contractor was Paul Jones, working with Sam Cordell. I recommended him to the county. He’s a professional logger, and was hired to buck the logs to length so they could be winched off the trail by volunteers (Jim Skakel and Jeff Blackman, mostly, along with other help). As for other areas of Post/Binn’s/Riorden, including 8-Track, etc, they ARE being salvaged logged. Downed and damaged timber IS being removed from those areas. Thanks for your concern, and we encourage you to come to the county trails meeting on July 31st if you’d like to learn more.
So if they are just pulling out the damaged and down trees on 8-track and GP, why can’t they do that on 7-streams? Temira, I appreciate you trying to defend the county but I thought that HRATS advocated on the side of trails users. Saying, “let the county destroy it so that we can take control” doesn’t make much sense to me. It should be, “lets take control so that the county doesn’t destroy it”. I guess I had higher expectations for our supposedly “local mountain bike advocacy organization”.
Joe, that’s a good question. The damage was much more extensive in the Seven Streams area than it was up on Binn’s Hill in the GP and 8-Track areas. It was actually one of the hardest hit areas in the county during the ice storm. It just doesn’t make sense to leave such few trees standing in the Seven Streams area. If you’ve ridden it, you know how many trees are already down. Look up too, because everything with a broken top is also dead. In addition, I suspect the decision to clear cut Seven Streams rather than salvage has something to do with the lay of the land: it’s steep ground, and will be cable logged. That makes it difficult to just pull out damaged timber.
Remember, Post Canyon/Binn’s Hill is a tree farm, first and foremost, not a mountain bike park. We ride our bikes and build trails with the understanding that the county is on a 90 year cut rotation. Everything will eventually be cut and replanted.
Trails come and go. For example, I’ve been riding Seven Streams since ’97, and the trail runs a completely different path than it did then. Sure, losing the trees around our beloved trail sucks. But until the county has enough money to stop cutting services, they’ll keep cutting trees, and we’ll keep rebuilding.
You’ll have to trust me when I say that the county forest manager was also not happy about cutting this section of trail. Everyone loves it. Everyone. This was not a decision that was made lightly. He’s bummed too.
I’m not sure that I’ve ever seen you at a county trails meeting. Please come to the next one, on July 31st. I think you’ll walk away with a better feel for county practices and some faith in our forest manager and trails coordinator.
I guess my question would be: Is the forrest grown for as a farm especially for logging? And will it grow back?
Hi Texx, thanks for asking that important question. Yes, the entire trail system lies within Hood River County’s 28,000 acre tree farm. The trees were grown for cutting, and were planted long before the trail was cut through the woods. It will be replanted, and the trees will grow back eventually.
Farewell Seven Streams Trail and the beauty that makes you so unique. On my last ride today I apologized to the recovering forest ecosystem for the antiquated way of forest management our county is stuck in. I heard your song, hermit thrush, many times along the way. You will be missed as of course, you will not frequent the area again for decades. The county is giving the stream a 60′ rather than the required 50′ foot buffer . . . no big cause for celebration as it won’t, in reality, protect the old trees therein for long. As soon as the next big weather event blows through . . . next year or in 5 or 10 years . . . the trees along the stream will start falling down, unprotected and vulnerable as they will be with barren hillsides surrounding them. How unfortunate that this gem of a trail so close to Hood River will no longer amaze out of towners (not to mention locals). Now their first impression of Hood River mountain biking will be clearcutville. What an opportunity lost to showcase an enlightened eco-forestry management style that focuses on long term forest health and beauty . . . both which can equate to plenty of dollars with a little patience. Instead . . just another clearcut.
Yeah I know, “dream on buddy . . . it’s just the way of things”. The fate of the little forest in question as most things, all comes down to quick money and an industrial model as stated plainly by the forest manager. Such a style of management however, is not sustainable. It may seem so from the perspective of our puny human life spans but truly, it is not. No forest has ever been cut 3 times and grown back. The soil and the land is ruined.
The capitalistic rut the grips the wheels of the world is extremely tough to pull out of but clearly we must if we want a viable future for our grandchildren. Nature won’t abide our capitalistic approach to everything much longer and as they say . . . “nature bats last.”
I’m disappointed that HRATS is doing public relations work for the county instead of acting as an independent advocacy group. Maybe much of what the county says is true, but I don’t get the sense that HRATS is independently questioning any of it. Instead, all of the responses here simply try to argue against whatever anyone else says, all in support of the county. This has essentially squelched any attempts by others to advocate for the trails, because others thought it would be done by HRATS. I talked to people on the trails committee and others who are involved, and I went to county trails meetings, and now that it is too late I am sorry that I didn’t act and organize independently. I blame myself.
If the issue is bark beetle, why not take out the dead trees and leave what can be left, thereby recognizing the recreational value of the unique corridor through Seven Streams? And did anybody contact an independent forest entomologist to ask about the bark beetle problem, or otherwise do independent research on this?
If the issue is economics, did anybody actually do an economic comparison of the recreational value of the corridor? You say it would take “an awful lot of tourism” to make up for “hundreds of thousands of dollars” of lost revenue if a corridor was retained. Well, obviously it wouldn’t mean hundreds of thousands of dollars if the total sale is less than a half million dollars. And the county could look to other trees to make up the revenue, thereby recognizing the unique nature of the corridor.
More to the point, the potential tourist revenue should be measured over the 20+ years it will take the forest to grow back to anything even close to what it is today. Even more to the point, nobody has even tried to come up with numbers to present to the county!
By arguing forest health on the one side and need for revenue on the other, the issue gets confused. By blindly accepting the county’s position and then shouting down community members who try to question these issues, HRATS suppresses those who might have advocated independently. (It’s depressing to see how much energy has gone into fighting the Naitos’ waterfront proposal while the county gets away with this travesty.)
In hindsight, I can only blame myself. I can also cancel my membership in HRATS.
Jay, thank you for your thoughts. A more constructive thing to do than cancelling your HRATS membership would be to make a large donation to HRATS in order to help them advocate for, build, and rebuild trails. Given the County’s financial situation at this point, we’re unlikely to change things without significant financial support. We hope that you’ll consider this approach, as your pocketbook could help us support your trails.
In addition, please understand we are a new (less than 6 months old) trails organization of volunteers. Doing the studies you suggest would take a full-time staffer, or at least someone trained in such things. It sounds like you may have some expertise. If you would like to volunteer your time to do such studies now, or in the future, so we have some comparison to present to the county in future situations, we would love your help. We (the board) all donate 5-20 hours per week to HRATS, and we’re doing our best given our human limitations.
If you truly feel so strongly about the trails, we’d love to see you at the County Trails Meeting or the next HRATS meeting, and we’d love to have your energy and time. Despite your passion here, you’ve been missing at those meetings in the past. If you want to change the way things are done, you have to be involved in person, not as just another disappointed voice on the HRATS blog.
I’d like to weigh in on this. HRATS is very new, and we haven’t focused on organizing for advocacy yet. Mostly we’ve been trying to get people on the ground maintaining and building trail. Obviously protecting existing trails is part of the picture. As people step up who can share those advocacy skills we’ll get better and more effective at this. This ice storm and subsequent salvage plans were a pretty overwhelming thing to deal with before we even lined up insurance.
Temira did her best to gather information and share it. She clearly has a viewpoint which she expresses in her post and her reply. I don’t see Temira’s responses as shouting anyone down– she’s standing up for her argument, which aligns pretty closely with the county’s position.
It would be great to do some independent research and verification– that should absolutely be part of our role– but it’s not likely to happen spontaneously. Anyone who can call an expert to get a quick “smell test” on the info we’re receiving, please step to the head of the line. I’m happy to help with political strategy, but our effectiveness depends on having solid facts behind our arguments.
Clearly this is a sensitive topic and 7 Streams is near and dear to everyone’s hearts. I want to thank Temira for single handedly responding to all of the comments – she is tireless.
The only thing that I want to add is that HRATS is really made-up of about 8 dedicated individuals. It is a volunteer organization and we all have other full time jobs. This year, we have had fantastic turnout at the three work parties and many have joined IMBA/HRATS, but at the end of the day, the thing that really matters is volunteering TIME and energy. So, if there are people out there that would like to get involved in advocating for HR County to revise their policy by dedicating time and energy to pursue that agenda, we welcome you. I think everyone on the HRATS Board and Committees would love to see a “Forestry Advocacy” committee that could focus on this effort. As it stands, we all really only have time to do what we can. For me, that is working on Family Man, for Temira it is keeping the Facebook Page and Website refreshed, for Patty it is keeping our accounting in order, for Sam it is keeping Bad Motor Scooter rideable, for Jill and Heather it is working on events, for Douglass it is building and maintaining miles of trail, for Arthur it is managing the City.
So I guess what I’m saying is that if you want to get involved, you have a vision and you have the time and wherewithal to see something through, then get involved and help us. We only have so much time and energy.
Cheers, Matt
Actually I have been at the County Trails meeting – I sat in the back last time. It was a very disillusioning process. And I spoke with committee members afterwards. And I spent hours winching logs off Seven Streams trail with Jeff, Jimmy and a bunch of others – trees that the county wouldn’t let us cut, and that they are now selling. And I have spent many more hours building a new trail at the Woopdee, and even spent a morning running a brush mower along both sides of the trail from the last woop down to the road and back.
I will continue my volunteer work for the trails, I assure you.
I understand you are a volunteer organization with limited ability to independently verify the county’s claims, but I don’t think you should accept and repeat everything the forestry department says, unquestioningly, and then use it to shout down others who question the county’s actions.
I can’t wait to build log rides in 7 streams again!! It’s been 14 years.
Yeah. It’s a tree farm that has allowed (sometime not) great mtb trails to be built in. Time to making a better trail for the future.
I would love to see a pump track on the yarder landing spiraling out and dropping into a “super” flow trail like Bad Motor Scooter. This could intersect the original trail (at an uphill slant of course) with trees planted on the inside curves and planting flowering idigenous plants along with vine maple. Make the early undergrowth pleasing. Maybe even a few fruit trees at the bottom and top for inseason snacks. Time to think forward.
“If you were to leave a trail corridor with just one tree every 20 feet, and value that tree at $200, that would be a loss to the county coffers of $52,800 per mile of trail. And that’s just leaving one tree every 20 feet. A trail corridor would cost the county several hundred thousand dollars. It would take an awful lot of tourism to make up for that. ”
One has to remember that the $52,800 per mile of trail must be amortized over the 60 year cut cycle. Forest tourism dollars, on the other hand, are captured every year. This makes a big difference when you think about implementing a user fee to offset preservation and lost timber dollars.
Thanks Jay, for chiming in on this topic! I appreciate your views tremendously because I know you have been involved in trying to change regional logging practices for decades. It would have been nice to have an independent forester evaluate the Seven Streams area. I believe the damage and danger from beetles is way overstated and simply used to justify another clearcut. It’s really a shame that the long term recreational value of this particular forest was not factored in to their equation. It is rare to have such an enchanting and beautiful place so close to town. I’d venture to say it is used by more people than any other county owned forest. It would be the perfect place to implement a new vision of forestry. Geeeezzzz, you’d think they’d be willing to try a bit lighter touch and a more enlightened approach here! Because of the unique appeal of this place, the county would come out dollars ahead In the long run.
First, thanks to the dedicated HRATS volunteers for all they do. I wish I could do more, but between working very long hours everyday and two kids, etc., there isn’t much left in the tank.
I wonder if in the future we could draw on IMBA resources to show the economic benefits of trails as recreation vs. logs. They have a number of economic impact studies posted on their website which show the huge amounts of money that trails generate. For instance, I believe Jackson Hole’s trail network contributes $18million per year to its economy. I know I’ve read a lot of stuff over the years in mountain bike magazines, Outside, etc. that shows that using forest land for recreation can contribute more money to a local economy than logging. Not saying that this land shouldn’t be logged, but wouldn’t it be nice if it was done in such a way that respected its value as a recreational resource?
But at the end of the day I guess I am just happy this isn’t Portland, where you have to drive 45 minutes to find dirt to ride on.
I’ve viewed HRATS as a trail BUILDING organization. I am not sure it makes a lot of sense for HRATS to do ADVOCACY. It needs to maintain a good relationship with the county to ensure continued access to land to build the trails, and advocating against county policy is probably not compatible with that. Maybe a separate non-profit or if there were a local IMBA chapter that we could donate to to do advocacy, i.e. stop the county from what we trail users consider to be unnecessary and imprudent clear-cutting? I have to say that I don’t trust the county (or any other gov’t agency) when it comes to managing the land for multiple uses. The financial incentive, short-term though it may be, is too great. And I am sure there is science that goes both ways with respect to the beetles as a reason for clear-cutting, and I don’t know if all sides were vetted in the process. The bottom line is that we’ve degraded a resource that could last for generations to realize a financial gain that it seems to me will last for a much shorter time. I can understand cutting up the hill a ways, but Post was the gateway, the gem of the forest, and it was not just for MTB. But it is spilt milk at this point and I know everyone involved did the best they could with a difficult situation. Last but not least, many thanks to the HRATS for all the hard work up in Post.
PS – Just got back from a trip to Lake Wenatchee and rides on the many miles of trails above the lake, trails that were built by and with moto riders in mind. Super flowy, bermed, fast and incredibly fun trail. I don’t know a ton about trail construction, but it seems to me that moto folks are good partners.