The proposed project includes Variable Density Thinning, which was at issue in a court decision of a 2020 project on the Mt. Hood National Forest, the Crystal Clear Restoration Project, which we have discussed before, such as here. A significant portion of the Crystal Clear project area burned not long after the 9th Circuit’s decision, in the 2020 White River fire. I’ve heard anecdotal info on the specific areas of the Crystal Clear project that burned, and at what intensity/severity, but haven’t seen documentation. Anyone have access to such info?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Dear friends and neighbors of the Willamette National Forest,
The McKenzie River Ranger District on the Willamette National Forest, in collaboration with the Oregon Department of Forestry using the Good Neighbor Authority (GNA), is beginning the planning process for the Tie Project. The project area encompasses 36,982 acres and is located on the McKenzie River District of the Willamette National Forest, about 5 miles east of McKenzie Bridge in Linn and Lane Counties (see attached vicinity map). The project website is located at: https://www.fs.usda.gov/r06/willamette/projects/68829.
The purpose and need for this project includes, (1) Providing a sustainable timber supply to support local economies, (2) Reducing wildfire risk through strategic thinning and shaded fuel breaks, (3) Improving forest health and resilience by enhancing forest structure, species diversity, and stand density, and (4) Maintaining and improving road systems for management, recreation, and wildfire response.
To meet the purpose and need, the proposed action would treat up to 7,898 acres (6,108 acres of variable density thinning, including 772 acres of roadside shaded fuel breaks overlapping with thinning units; and 1,790 acres of roadside shaded fuel breaks) within the McKenzie River Ranger District through:
- Variable Density Thinning: This treatment meets objectives by improving wildlife and plant habitats, increasing structural and compositional diversity, boosting resilience to insects, disease, or other stressors, and enhancing aesthetic values in stands that are currently lacking spatial variability. The “skips and gaps” method of variable density thinning is flexible, allowing for the preservation of unique habitat features leading to greater landscape diversity. Areas that are not thinned (“skips”) will protect existing features by excluding logging activity. “Gaps” are created to closely approximate natural disturbance regimes, like landslides and fires, through harvest of small patches of trees. Gaps create diversity and increase growth and crown lengths of neighboring trees. Furthermore, gaps may be created in locations that favor underrepresented tree species that are either already present or may be planted after treatment to increase landscape diversity. Areas that are not within skips or gaps, are thinned to encourage growth and development of the overstory trees and understory plants.
- Roadside Shaded Fuel Breaks: This treatment creates fuel breaks along key roads and corridors to provide firefighters with opportunities to improve their effectiveness and safety, prevent further wildfire spread, and protect resource values at risk from wildfire. A shaded fuel break selectively removes vegetation in the treatment area to a specified spacing that allows safe firefighting operations while maintaining an overstory. This treatment favors the growth of large native species by removing the understory, ladder fuels (fuels that enable a wildfire to climb to an overstory tree or canopy), and invasive species to improve fire suppression capabilities and reduce risk to firefighters. Shaded fuel breaks favorably modify wildfire behavior while providing the foundation for a healthy and resilient forest.
- Road System Improvements: These improvements will provide maintenance of existing roads for safe access and will build temporary roads to support harvest operations. Temporary roads will be decommissioned after use to reduce environmental impacts.
An Environmental Assessment will be prepared in accordance with the Interim final rule issued on July 3. 2025 (Federal Register: National Environmental Policy Act) to guide planning, inform decision-making, and ensure transparency with the public. The assessment will evaluate potential environmental, social, and cultural impacts of the proposed actions, providing a solid foundation for determining how the project should proceed. By taking a focused approach to this analysis, we can concentrate on the most critical issues, streamline the planning process, and increase the efficiency and effectiveness of project development.
A community meeting will be held to provide information and gather feedback about the project:
- Date: December 4, 2025
- Time: 6- 8pm
- Location: McKenzie Fire and Rescue Training Center 42870 McKenzie Highway Leaburg, OR 97489
Your input is a vital part of our planning process. It helps us consider alternative approaches to achieving the project’s purpose and need, as well as determine the scope of our Environmental Analysis. When submitting comments, please focus on the potential effects of specific proposed project activities. We are interested in your thoughts on how the project may impact natural, cultural, and community resources and which issues should be prioritized in our analysis.
Comments received by December 26th, 2025, will be most helpful as we finalize the design of the project and evaluate its potential effects. Comments should be site-specific and directly related to the proposed activities and project area. If you reference supporting materials, please include the source and explain its relevance to the project.
Comments may be submitted through the project website, by mail, or in person during the community meeting. Comments received, including the names and addresses of those who comment, will be considered part of the public record for this project and will be available for public review.
- Scoping comments can be submitted electronically through: https://cara.fs2c.usda.gov/Public//CommentInput?Project=68829
- Mailed to McKenzie River Ranger District, Attn: Jessica Eves, 57600 McKenzie Highway McKenzie Bridge, OR 97413
A field trip may be scheduled when analysis and project design are further developed prior to the close of the comment period on a draft Environmental Assessment. If you are interested in attending a potential future field trip to view sites within the proposed project area, please express interest in your scoping comment or by contacting the project lead below.
You will have an additional opportunity to comment when the draft Environmental Assessment is prepared. A decision regarding this project is expected to be made in the Fall of 2026 with implementation following shortly afterwards.
For more information, please contact Jessica Eves, NEPA Planner at [email protected].
Thank you for your interest in the management of the McKenzie Ranger District of the Willamette National Forest.
Big fan of all the above; variable density thinning is a form of restoration prescriptions, just more obvious in WUI’s. Shaded fuel breaks? You bet, that increases mean stand diameters and lessens mid-level and canopy bulk densities! Makes good sense and good policy so I figure the environmental community will fight it like the last monkey on the Arc !
Steve, if VDT got thrown out by a judge last time (can’t remember exactly, nor why) what are they going to do differently this time?
I dunno, Sharon. Some of our eagle-eyed readers may find indications in comparing the two plans. One significant factor is BARK (https://bark-out.org/), an environmental group that challenged the Crystal Clear project and coaxed 9th Circuit judges that VDT and other proposed actions were “highly controversial and uncertain.” Since 2020, BARK has shifted from opposition as its main strategy to a more collaborative approach. BARK focuses on the Mt. Hood. Is there a BARK equivalent for the Willamette? Maybe not. However, I wouldn’t be surprised if
Cascadia Wildlands and Oregon Wild, which joined BARK in appealing Crystal Clear, also litigate the Tie Project.
If I understand well, in the 2020 court decision the central issue was a real or perceived lack of scientific consensus regarding the effect of thinning on fire risk or crown fire in the project area, and how the USFS dealt with information on this issue. I don’t think the court took issue with VDT as a silvicultural treatment applied to meet other objectives, but I didn’t do a deep dive into the court docs.
In the Tie scoping letter the USFS/state/NEPA contractor appear cautious about linking the VDT action with fire risk or fire behavior.
Bark essentailly says that NOT managing these stands is better. Here’s an excerpt from Bark’s lawsuit:
…”reducing forest canopies significantly dries surface fuels due to increased light levels, surface winds and temperatures; increased sunlight to the forest floor can stimulate regrowth of small trees and shrubs, which become new ladder fuels); 17452 (“though it may appear counterintuitive, when all else is equal, open canopies lead to reduced fuel moisture and increased mid-flame windspeed, which increase potential fireline intensity.”); Ex. A, p. 68(“These changes in stand structure and composition may be more influential drivers of fire risk and severity than the actual direct increase in fuels caused by beetle outbreaks.”)Recent research also found that the more protected the area (i.e. unmanaged) the less severe the fire. AR20152.Contrary to findings in scientific research, the proposed logging will dramatically reduce canopy cover in most units.”
As I read it, Bark was not advocating for “no management,” rather, they were critical of the FS’ specific proposal for Crystal Clear, which involved significant logging in natural stands that served as suitable habitat for the northern spotted owl, and the fact that logging these stands would cause excessive canopy removal, which has very serious trade-offs with respect to fire hazard. Unfortunately, this a common problem when commercial logging is used as a tool for fuel reduction.
Many citizens agree that “thinning is good”, but some only want non-commercial thinning, which doesn’t address much of our forest issues. There are always trade-offs, even if a decision to ‘do nothing’ is made. America seems unwilling to understand objective science, which should be guiding our Forest Service. Both extremes are wearing blinders.
“Crystal Clear … involved significant logging in natural stands…” Yes, and from what I saw, these natural stands were overcrowded, and the treatments that did occur before the project was halted thinned them from below, leaving the largest, oldest trees. In it brief to the court, BARK and others claimed, among other things, that “Recent research also found that the more protected the area (i.e. unmanaged) the less severe the fire.” That may be true in some cases, but a stand with heavy down/dead and ladder fuels is far more likely to experience a stand-replacing fire than thinned stands where fire-resistant older ponderosas and Doug-firs remain, with low levels of surface/ladder fuels.
One thing that’s curious to me.. and maybe others can explain… if the judge didn’t think the FS addressed the scientific controversy adequately, then why didn’t the judge just ask the record to be supplemented?
Because the judge is reviewing how the decision was based on the administrative record at the time the decision was made. Not in the record = ignored by the decision maker and in this case arbitrary. But they can do that now and make a new decision based on a new record.
Reducing fire risk is still in the purpose and need. Of course, so is producing boards – have they added purposes to blur the role of VDT? (Follow-up question would be whether the purposes are all in the forest plan.)
Here’s the language from that earlier opinion (per the previous post): “In its responses to these comments and in its finding of no significant impact, the USFS reiterated its conclusions about vegetation management but did not engage with the substantial body of research cited by Appellants. Failing to meaningfully consider contrary sources in the EA weighs against a finding that the agency met NEPA’s “hard look” requirement as to the decision not to prepare an EIS.”
It may be possible for the Forest to “meaningfully consider contrary sources” in a way that supports their conclusion that VDT achieves the fire-related purpose.
The Forest Service has not yet disclosed the ages or origins of the stands it plans to target in the Tie Project. If the Forest Service targets older, naturally regenerated stands, the Tie Project will be heavily scrutinized by the public, just like the withdrawn Flat Country Project that this new project overlaps.
According to the district ranger’s letter withdrawing the Crystal Clear Project decision, the White River Fire burned approximately 1,400 acres in logging units, just under 12% of the entire area targeted for logging by that project.
https://www.fs.usda.gov/r06/mthood/projects/archive/50582
Most of the 17,942-acre White River Fire burned at low severity:
https://edcintl.cr.usgs.gov/downloads/sciweb1/shared/MTBS_Fire/data/baer/whiteriver_sbs_final.jpg
That JPG image comes from this link:
https://burnseverity.cr.usgs.gov/baer/baer-imagery-support-data-download/2020/white-river
Thanks for the burned area link! I can’t use the GIS data files there, and the one image is low-res and preliminary. I’d love to see burn severity for the entire 17,602-acre Crystal Clear project area, including the 12,799 acres of treatment areas — untreated, plus the areas treated before the lawsuit, as well as the rest of the area not in treatment areas, including treated areas from projects conducted in the ~10 to 20 years previous to the fire (they looked like VDT, but may not have been called that). My guess, based on visits to the area before and after the fire, is that treated areas fared well, while untreated areas burned at high severity, high mortality. IMHO, this project offers an excellent location to assess the fire effects (and other conditions) of VDT. It’d make for an interesting study or master’s thesis.
I think we old people need to learn GIS.. can anyone recommend a course we could take so we could use GIS datasets? I tried to load ARCGIS a few years ago and my computer didn’t have the space.
QGIS is free, open-source software for Windows, Mac, Linux. The web site has some tutorials.
https://qgis.org/
Thanks, I’ll try it!
I would like to see a more fully developed purpose and need, clear descriptions of the proposed actions, verb choices aligned with purpose and need, and less unnecessary commentary about effects. As the project moves through scoping and analysis improvements in these areas are likely.
Jay, this is very vague. Are you AI? If not please give specific examples of “unnecessary commentary about effects.”
I admit my comment is brief. To put it another way, after reading the scoping letter it is not clear to me what exactly the McKenzie RD is proposing or why it is necessary. I can make assumptions that may or may not line up with the IDT, but I shouldn’t have to.
Two examples of what I consider to be unnecessary commentary:
“Gaps create diversity and increase growth and crown lengths of neighboring trees.”
“Shaded fuel breaks favorably modify wildfire behavior while providing the foundation for a healthy and resilient forest.”
Thanks! It sounds to me like they are proposing developing gaps and shaded fuel breaks, and the two statements you quoted describe the purpose.. create diversity and favorably modify. Not to critique your read, but to point out that different people read the same words differently.
It takes a keen eye to be able to pick out optimal spots for both ‘gaps’ and ‘skips’. In my experience, it was far easier to pick the ‘skips’, where terrain could be a major factor for selection.