ziggy Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 Index Logging Proposed Comment Deadline Oct 6 at 4pm You must reference Forest Practice Application #2808730. Comments to : Linda.utgard@wadnr.gov Bill Wallace, DNR NW Regional Manager 919N Township St Sedro-Woolley, WA 98284-9333 360-856-3500 W. Buse Foresters of Stanwood WA has proposed a clear-cut of 95 acres directly across from the Town of Index. They will cut from the road next to the N. fork of the Skykomish River to the hilltop above (above the Index town bridge). They will cut trees and cable yard down steep slopes (some slopes overhanging), build 6000 ft of road at a 30% slope, and build a ½ acre rock pit at the base. Five culverts will be built across small streams. Slopes are rated “unstable” and soil maps indicate “Highly Erodible & Very Unstable.” According to Al McGuire, WADNR, due to strict legal issues, aesthetic and, economic impacts are not relevant to the decision makers. What is relevant regards impacts to public resources: the Skykomish River and its fish resources, water quality issues, impacts to roads, etc. The real issues boil down to potential impacts to salmon and other fish, slope stability on the steep slopes, erosion of sediment and the potential for sediments to get into streams. Potential for land slides, existence of wetlands are important, but undocumented. Peak storm events (like 100 year storms) provide opportunities for soils on steep slopes to become saturated and without tree and vegetative cover, they will likely fail. Failed slopes will likely cause massive slides and sediments will enter the streams and the North Fork of the Skykomish River, as well as impact the railroad line and the Index-Galena Road. Wetlands are not noted on the permits, but locals believe they exist on site, and with steep slopes, it is reasonable for them to be found at the base of slopes. No EIS or Environmental Checklist is required because it is a Class III permit. If it was a Class IV permit, they would be required. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olyclimber Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 damn it. Here is the view that will be mangled. You can't protest/object due to aesthetic reasons, but please do so for the other reasons mentioned. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rat Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 do you have a link to the actual fpa for review (not just the #)? i don't currently have a password for the fpar site. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ziggy Posted October 3, 2006 Author Share Posted October 3, 2006 I have no link, and talking to the DNR today it takes about 3 days to get a password (nice) to get access. I can scan what I have and try to put them up. Maybe you can do a search somehow.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MisterMo Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 I'm in a huge rush this exact instant but I think the following deserve a quick mention: 1) The vast majority of trees in your photo are second growth. Rightfully or wrongfully the world of your photo survived a lot of previous logging. 2) This was, rightfully or wrongfully, very much a logging community and a logging economy until fairly recently when we instead became pretty much a bedroom community for commuters. There are some downsides to this, one of which is that the Sky Valley has become a traffic hell...maybe equally as damaging to the world, the environment and the eye as the logging that commuting replaced. 2) One of the reasons there's all those pretty green trees and no hideous subdivisions in your photo is that the land is zoned for forestry: minimum parcel size of 20 acres for land not previously subdivided. That doesn't appear to bother people at all...until harvest time. 3) The upper Sky valley is rife with recent clearcuts, on private land, many of which face the same environmental issues as the one proposed above. None of these seem to have generated much hullaballoo hereabouts, because, I submit, they cannot be seen from here. NIMBY, NIMBY, NIMBY. 4) Notwithstanding all else you are most correct that objections to issuance of a FP Permit must be based on environmental issues under the law. These do not include esthetics and any objection based on such will fail as there is no provision for such under the law. I'll stop now, at least for the moment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MisterMo Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 If all else fails you can get a copy of the FPA App at Idex Town Hall. Open Mon and Tues Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ziggy Posted October 3, 2006 Author Share Posted October 3, 2006 Ok, I have scanned the permit apps. them. any easy way to upload the jpegs here? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mos_Chillin Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 Thanks, Mo. I know about the previous clearcut, and though I appreciate the impact, it's not like it is going to effect your climbing, or hasn't been done before. BTW, the visual impact does not elude me, I am just being realistic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ziggy Posted October 3, 2006 Author Share Posted October 3, 2006 It ain't the good ol' days with horseback and killing griz like you want, when we drove the salmon to the edge of extinction and didn't have to worry about George Bush, but I think those trees should stay where they are growin' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rat Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 i agree with mistermo on this but wouldn't mind seeing the application. if i get to index in the next day or so, i will take a look. since you say it is not a class IV permit (not spotted owl or marbled murrelet habitat), you will have to call them on their riparian zone layout and/or potential unstable slopes. forested wetlands can be logged. the department of natural resources, department of fish & wildlife and the affected indian tribes review these issues both in the office and on the ground. provided buse did the fieldwork and paperwork correctly, you will not stop the permit but may get some piecemeal adjustments. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mos_Chillin Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 Those are the words that keep you and my buddy Mike in biz! BTW, he seemed pretty happy with his new girl last time I saw him... Erik Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olyclimber Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 I agree with you Mr. Mo...I know from growing up on the Olypen and seeing 3rd gen cuts...I just think the letter of the current law should be followed. I printed out that picture and I have had many people ask me what village in Europe it was. Its a pretty unique view, and inspires me to want to invest in some property up there when I can afford it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MisterMo Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 i agree with mistermo on this but wouldn't mind seeing the application. if i get to index in the next day or so, i will take a look. since you say it is not a class IV permit (not spotted owl or marbled murrelet habitat), you will have to call them on their riparian zone layout and/or potential unstable slopes. forested wetlands can be logged. the department of natural resources, department of fish & wildlife and the affected indian tribes review these issues both in the office and on the ground. On the FP app the Marbled Murrelet question only seems to apply if the proposed unit is with in 50 miles of salt water AND the applicant owns over 500 acres of timberland. This was checked no by the applicant. I have no idea how much land they own. It is my understanding that Marbled Murrelet issues would not preclude logging but only modify the practice. provided buse did the fieldwork and paperwork correctly, you will not stop the permit but may get some piecemeal adjustments. This seems to be the essence of the issue; that comment can force closer scrutiny and compliance on environmental issues but not prevent logging. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MisterMo Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 I do not wish to jinx matters by spraying about it but I am aware that negotiations are in progress between local parties and the landowner seeking alternatives to timber harvest acceptable to both parties. The proposed cut is at this point neither a foregone conclusion nor a dead issue. This could result in a win for everyone. to those who are working towards that end. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matt_m Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 Can we ask them to clear out more foliage at the base of LTW? Put in a nice grassy area? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MisterMo Posted October 7, 2006 Share Posted October 7, 2006 From today's pile: The Dept. of Natural Resources has denied the forest practice application for logging because the owners withdrew the application. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hubris Posted October 7, 2006 Share Posted October 7, 2006 (edited) Friggin' loggers ruining our environment I engineer cut-blocks for a living and see such a small amount of merch wood in that photo it is not funny. There is a 40ha patch at center right that looks decent. Mixed stand=garbage growth and yield Edited October 7, 2006 by hubris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G-spotter Posted October 7, 2006 Share Posted October 7, 2006 Hey, alder and maple are $60-100 a cubic meter right now I heard that's better than a lot of hardwood? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hubris Posted October 7, 2006 Share Posted October 7, 2006 (edited) They have to do something with it within 1.5 months though. It (Dr,Mb) can't sit in the water. Utilization up to 2.5 rads though. No idea what the FDP's are like in the States.....grapple shows are not conducive to mixed harvesting. At least 15% deflection needed for hardwood (no ground lead). Did you mean better than a lot of softwood? Ya it is worth more than Lodgepole after Dendroctunus is through with it. I wouldn't lay that shit out for Interfor! Edited October 7, 2006 by hubris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G-spotter Posted October 7, 2006 Share Posted October 7, 2006 hardwood softwood deadwood whatever Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.