[Schroder]

I'll toss my opinion into this - some of these monoculture stands from the 40's and 50's need to be logged out and replanted to reestablish some diversity in the forest.

[Ski]

thank you. please see the Swift Thin project proposal. monoculture forests (the current result of regeneration harvests and replanting several decades ago) are not the way nature intended things.

[ThursdayHiker]

The idea of thinning the 2nd growth forests along I-90 is very appealing to me. I have always thought that many areas are so densely populated with trees that understory is almost totally choked out. This Hansen Creek project is an ambitious one. I was pleased to read in the project document that the thinned areas will retain at least 50% of the trees and the largest trees will be retained for the most part. What really concerns me are the "Openings". I agree that retaining only 30% of trees (mostly the small ones) is essentially a clear cut. I don't understand how the forest service thinks that this simulates a natural system. There are very few natural openings in a virgin forest. A 21 acre opening would be unusual at this elevation. Today I decided to go out and inspect the conditions in section 16.1 where 5 large openings are proposed. This section is essentially between 1-90 and the Mason Lake trailhead. The detailed map is on page 226 of the project document. A little known but nicely maintained trail traverses ground zero of this proposed logging. It is sometimes referred to as the lower Putrid Pete Peak trail or the Defiance Peak trail. The unmarked trailhead is off exit 42. This is a link to a trip report that I wrote in May of last year(Maddy): http://www.wta.org/go-hiking/trip-reports/trip_report.2014-05-31.5769204235 There are many nice trees in this forest. The forest is however moderately crowded. It would be much more appropriate to thin here and not clearcut. It makes me sick to think of how this trail will be negatively affected by the logging. The devil is always in the details.

[Ski]

[puzzlr]

I got this email from the [edit, not Mountaineers] WTA today. Nice to see that some feedback had an effect.

[Ski]

errr.... I thought Andrea was with WTA. (she did put together a pretty cogent argument in the letter she sent in.)