This article has Arborists in the title, but the main story is about opposition by conservation groups:
Arborists say ODOT post-fires tree cutting is excessive, rushed
More than 20 conservation groups sent a letter Tuesday to Interior Secretary Deb Haaland and Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack opposing the post-fire roadside logging proposed or actively being carried out by federal agencies.
The roadside salvage (and cutting along power lines) I’ve seen in the Beachie Creek and Lionshead fire areas is indeed extensive, but not unusual compared to hazard tree removal in other areas.
Also, one can imagine the lawsuits should one tree that wasn’t cut falls on a car and injures or kill someone. As happened recently in California. This wasn’t a fire-killed tree, but some folks have pointed to the state and feds for failing to identify the hazard and remove the tree.
Well, there is also the likelihood that additional trees will die, after the loggers have left. That seems to be the one minus of proceeding too early.
Folks, here’s a short video from the Oregon Dept. of Transportation, featuring a forester/certified arborist, about roadside hazard tree removals along a state highway in the middle of the 138,000-acre Riverside Fire area.
“This article has Arborists in the title, but the main story is about opposition by conservation groups.”
Curious (and somewhat bizarre…but expected) framing there, Steve.
Yes, the word “Arborists” is in the title of the article. It’s also clearly true that a number of arborists with decades of experience are extensively quoted in the long article, which (by the way) also includes the word “arborist” nearly 20 times.
Funny, yet again expected, that you didn’t bother to highlight any of the quotes from arborists or extensive sections of the article covering the arborists perspective.
Here are some of the arborist quotes you neglected to highlight while attempting to frame the article to make it seem like it was “only” about 20 conservation groups’ opposition. Also, highlighted below is a section featuring Dr. Bev Law, professor emeritus at Oregon State University’s School of Forestry (whom some people on this blog have loved to hate on).
Matthew, I knew I could reply on you to point out all of the points you think I ought to have made. I figured that Smokey Wire folks would read the article and judge for themselves.
In any case, most of the dead trees may not be immediate threats — some ARE immediate threats — but they will be within a few years. If you were the responsible state or federal authority, would you wait until trees start falling en mass before taking action?
If your house was surrounded by fire-killed trees, would you cut them down or wait until they started falling?
And without that letter of opposition by conservation groups, there wouldn’t have been a story. I’m sure the groups sent copies to reporters, hoping they’d write articles about the hazard tree removals.
Hey Steve, since I was involved with this story toward the end, I’ll just point out that the letter of opposition was the last thing added to this article. Note that the letter was sent Tuesday, and the story came out the next morning. OPB actually delayed the release of the article so they could get that one tiny sentence included. OPB’s investigation of ODOT’s work had been happening for at least a month before that. I’m not sure if I get your angle, insisting that its all the conservation groups’ fault that we’re having this conversation?
Thanks so much for adding some important context and facts Michael.
It seems very clear to me that Steve (and some other people on this blog) are upset with Oregon Public Broadcasting, the Oregonian, and other investigative journalists for investigating various timber industry shenanigans in the Beaver State over the past few years.
Thanks to you and BARK for keeping an eye on things in Oregon. Please always feel welcome to provide your comments here, or contact me directly and I’ll always been happy to post your perspectives as a stand-alone guest column.
Michael, OK, my assumption about the letter was wrong.
This quote about Matt Allen, an arborist who worked on the hazard tree removal project, highlights the crux of the matter:
“Allen said he believes most of the trees he marked would have died and become a hazard in the future, but they were not hazardous when they were marked for removal.”
So the question is when these hazards will be removed — now or when they start breaking and falling. Why is this controversial?
I read this article earlier today but didn’t have time to write a comment. I’m glad I waited and now have the benefit of reading the comments made in the interim.
Based on the quotes attributed to arborist Matt Allen it sounds like ODOT has been managing a highly questionable project. That’s very concerning when a project is on Federal land that many people are interested in; haphazard work does nothing to increase public confidence in federal or state agencies. It’s unfortunate because ODOT actually did a good job with roadside hazard tree removal along Interstate 84 in the Columbia River Gorge in the aftermath of the Eagle Creek Fire. Whoever did the marking for cutting was careful to leave patches of green trees rather than going overboard and taking everything that may have been scorched. The trees that survived the fire can still be seen along the side of I-84.
As an aside to Steve Wilent, a lack of confidence in and trust of land managing agencies is a key reason why conservation groups keep a sharp eye on proposed projects; they’ve learned the hard way that agencies don’t always do a good job. I know Steve likes to stir the pot on things like this so I’m not surprised by his comment re: the letter from conservation groups.
As Matt Allen and Bev Law point out there are methodologies that can be used to evaluate whether or not a tree is in fact hazardous. I’m sure things have evolved significantly since I was a U.S. Forest Service forester and participated in the Region 6 Hazard tree evaluation training in 1979. The training was developed by the regional pathologist and other specialists and was intended primarily for people who were managing campgrounds and other developed recreation sites where the presence of actual hazard trees was a concern.
Although the methodologies and our knowledge have evolved since I was trained to do Hazard tree evaluations there’s one important element that I suspect hasn’t changed; how long will people be exposed to the risk of a tree falling? A large Doug fir with a pronounced lean and a conk on it was judged to be more of a risk if it was leaning over a campsite than if it was along a trail or campground access road. Why? Duration of exposure to the hazard was a key factor in determining whether or not to remove a tree. People sitting at the picnic table or sleeping in a tent in the campsite would be exposed for many hours whereas people walking or driving by would be exposed for significantly less time.
My hunch is that ODOT is cutting heavily now because they don’t want to deal with roadside trees that may fall in the future and present a maintenance challenge. It’s more convenient for them to do a linear roadside clear-cut now rather than only removing the trees that are obviously hazardous at present. Back to the question of how long will people be exposed to the potential hazard of a particular tree; unless there are parking pull outs along a road most people can be expected to drive through the potential “hazard zone” fairly quickly and thus have minimal risk. That means that fewer trees may actually need to be removed.
Some readers of this blog would be upset if a silviculturist developed a haphazard prescription and marking rules for a large area of National Forest land. Those folks should not be surprised when some of us are upset about a relatively large project that seems to be haphazard, lacking clear prescriptions for marking and is being implemented, in part, by people who have no experience in PNW forests. That combo is a recipe for a poor project outcome and further erosion of the public’s trust of agencies. That’s sad because we know enough to do a much better job! We need to learn from past mistakes.
Ironically, no one is talking about Dr. Smith’s salvage guidelines, ‘re-imagined’ about 15 years ago. There was also a fairly recent re-work of Region 6’s roadside hazard tree guidelines. No one seems to be talking about those items.
Hmm, so it’s an ODOT project, and it sounds like they didn’t use the federal R6 roadside hazard tree guidelines? (Larry, maybe that’s implied?) So maybe they thought “hey, let’s get this done once so we don’t have to keep coming back, making taxpayers pay and risking making a mistake.” Maybe their lawyers suggested this as the safest option. Perhaps they didn’t realize there was a potential Timber Wars Drama aspect to the project.
What’s confusing to me is the letter, which is about federal lands and questions how the feds are going to do hazard tree analysis… but since we’ve seen hazard tree analyses get litigated, e.g. in California, we know the feds have to do NEPA. So is this concern ahead of any NEPA document? I’m confused.
There’s also the idea that once the hazard trees are on the ground, most of the eco’s concerns would become moot. I’m not a fan of ‘smoke and mirrors’ finagling to get a desired outcome. I prefer total transparency. Looking at some of the pictures, there are plenty of trees that would meet the USFS guidelines. I do think there is a lot of potential for borderline trees turning completely brown in the next 2 months. Designating entire stands ‘by description’ isn’t a good way to go. Apparently, the Forest Service is OK with ODOT doing just that.
I don’t know who is legally responsible for what when it comes to state highways crossing federal lands, maybe someone else does?
These highways run through many different land ownerships, not just Forest Service managed land. The Forest Service is in charge of managing road-side hazards on Forest Service roads. ODOT is responsible for management of the highway right-of-way.
Region 6 has both “hazard tree” and “danger tree” guidelines. There is thought of combining these, but that is a work in progress. Danger trees refer to trees where imminent failure of the tree is likely – for example, decay that has compromised more than a certain amount of the bole or a burned out catface on a tree that has left very little solid wood to hold up the tree.
There are also guidelines for salvage (I think those are the ones that were just reworked). The salvage guidelines are for determining which trees are likely to die.
Having traveled these corridors several times and as recent as this week and there is no end to the amount of trees that need to be removed. Of course we get a laugh out of 20 people with hard hats and clip boards watching two cutters work while traffic is held up.
It appears that this fire burned so fast and was so hot it killed just about everything. I think it only makes sense to remove all the potential hazard trees. So much of the landscape on the public lands will be left untouched that the worries of the environmental community are unfounded.
I believe our time would be better spent preparing for the next fires than trying to stop the cutting of roadside hazard trees.