[puzzlr]

It's a pain to download a 247 page PDF document and find the relevant parts. I saw this in the USFS SOPA announcements a while back and I'm glad that a number of organizations were able to comment on it at the scoping phase. If it were one valley north I'd be all over it. Generally I'm glad to see the the units being restricted to the lower elevations. [Edit] removed map of alternative 4 that I thought was proposed because of the map labelling, but according to the document alternative 2 is proposed. This is alternative 2:

Proposed alternative 2

I'm sure many of you have noticed the thinning being done along road 9031 to the Ira Spring trailhead in recent years. This continues that and extends it up the 9030 to the Talapus Lake trailhead (and a little beyond). I'm not too thrilled about that extension of the thinning. But it's not like it's virgin forest as the Bob & Ira Spring photo from Trips and Trails 2 shows.

Road 9030 area logging

1960s era Bob & Ira Spring photo

That forest near the old logging road below the Talapus Lake trail looks like this now

Second growth forest near old logging road below the Talapus Lake trail

Finally, I think there's a mistake in the EA. The overview map for the proposed alternative doesn't show units 18.1 and 18.2. 18.1 includes the beginning of the Pratt Lake and Granite Mountain trails. The scoping comments recommended removing this units and the proposed alternative apparently responded to that. But then the title on this map is wrong. [Edit, rereading the doc says alternative 2 is the proposed one, which includes these two units]

Units 18.1 and 18.2

[Kim Brown]

Thanks puzzlr. The Cover Letter does mention some units being taken out altogether, but does not name which ones. I'm confused on the map you posted. I see units 18.1 and 18.2, and the map on page 16 of the EA does include 18.1 and 18.2. The chart on page 17 discusses these units, as we. Where are you seeing 18.1 and 18.2 taken out? I'm glad you're helping me read the thing and come up with questions, if any, to ask before sending a comment.

[puzzlr]

[Kim Brown]

It is confusing to go through these, because they have to address all points for each alternative, so there's a lot of repetition. It's easy to get lost in these things, not remembering which alternative you're reading about. I wish they'd use section breaks with footers so you can keep track of where the hell you are in the document. Plus sometimes stuff misses the editing process.

[puzzlr]

Yeah, and I can imagine the project manager sending "Map Update Request Form 1032.F" to the GIS department to get an updated map with a title change and being rejected because of the short lead time! Just making that all up, but I wouldn't be surprised.

[nordique]

Sorry but it's far past time to 'thin' in this area. Go to any trailhead within 50 miles of Seattle on a weekend and what do you see? Trailhead parking full and cars parked down approach roads for miles, often illegally, and with families, including kids and dogs, walking on busy roads to get to those trailheads. With thinning on the road to the Ira Spring trailhead, we ended up with mudslides down to I-90. Send those loggers over the pass to the GOP side of the state to do their logging--if there is any logging left.

[Ski]

Kim - I read the first dozen or so pages and then skimmed through the rest of the document quickly. Bear in mind that I'm not familiar with that area - the only one of those trails up there I've climbed was Granite Mountain, and that was at least 20 years ago, so my take on this is strictly from the documents you've cited here.

[Kim Brown]

Thanks, Ski; I'm still going with the inappropriateness of portions of the project's location. Oh, and I hope you had a happy Pi Day yesterday

[Ski]

well.... to be quite honest, I'd prefer that no activity take place that impacts trails or other recreational facilities, but I don't think that's realistic. from the maps puzzlr posted above, it appears they've got the buffers along the trails already drawn in, and unless I'm misreading the maps, those are pretty short little sections of trail being impacted: I'm not seeing anything on there where more than half a mile is being affected, and (again) they're proposing 75-foot buffer zones, so what you'll actually see from the trail will be more light coming through the canopy (provided that you can actually see through that 75-foot buffer.) most likely from vista viewpoints things might look a little ragged for a couple years, but they're required to replant on those units, and with 70% canopy retention my guess is that the project areas will be difficult to pick out in a dozen years. the proposed openings (with 30% canopy retention) will be a mess for a few years, but as above, after replanting they'll all be green again in 3-5 years and (hopefully) host some variety of species instead of what appears to be almost a monoculture stand in that photo of puzzlr's above. but, as with the tiny logging project on Tiger, it won't matter where they do any harvesting, somebody's ox is getting gored. In addition to the usual comments from industrial concerns and local tribes and a couple "environmental" groups, I think it would be appropriate and effective if both WTA and the Mountaineers submitted comment on their own (as opposed to the way it was done with "Washington Wild") and insist that every practicable and appropriate mitigation measure that can be done is effected to minimize impacts to the trails and users. (just my lousy opinion, but the WW's headline link to the story ("adjacent to Alpine Lakes") reeks of alarmist hyperbole, and I think both WTA and the Mountaineers would do well do distance themselves from that. again - just my lousy opinion.)

[Kim Brown]

It's on WTA's website. Easy to comment through their site if you agree with that position. Add a personal story to the letter. Packs a better punch.

[Ski]

thanks Kim. as I said previously, I think Andrea did a bang-up job on that letter. hope they get it done with minimal impact and disruption to the recreational users. bk

[Bernardo]

Looks like they will only be using the first part of the road out of the Ira Spring TH up till the hairpin turn. From just before the TH, they will be cutting from the current road up to the trail where it crosses the Mason Creek. Looks like they will take the logs down hill to the road. That's pretty steep terrain and the creek there floods and causes erosion. They have planed an opening right below the TH which will open up nice views across the valley to McClellan Butte and the other peaks on that side. I'm suppose I'm OK with everything below the road, but cutting above is pushing it for me. I've often wished a few of the trees below the TH were gone so they've cleverly placed that opening to appeal to the masses.

[Brucester]

Earlier this week,I passed some thinning on a drive towards Windy Pass at Snoqualmie.

[Randito]

[MyFootHurts]

I would have thought occasional closures of the busiest, highest-impact trails into the wilderness would please the folks who think humans are pollution that need to stay out of the mountains. Gives the land and the lakes "time to heal" from all the human pieces of sh## who dare to leave their sustainable 50-square ft microhousing units to go trespass upon Mother Nature.