July 1, 2015

!
!
PO Box 1544
Hood River
Oregon
97031
www.hrvrc.org

President
Polly Wood
Board Members
Lee Christie
Ron Cohen
Margo Earley
Scott Franke
Judie Hanel
Jeff Hunter
Larry Martin
Mike McCarthy
Executive Director
Heather Staten
Administrative
Assistant
Kristyn Fix

Lisa A. Northrop, Forest Supervisor
Mt. Hood National Forest
16400 Champion Way
Sandy, OR 97055-7248

Dear Supervisor Northrop,
We received your letter of June 19, 2015. We are disappointed that we still
do not have a proposal from you to get the deal done consistent with
Congressional direction. The simple fact that the exchange has been delayed
nearly five years past the deadline of the 2009 Act is egregious. We think a
neutral arbiter would agree. While we would prefer to avoid pursuing this in
court, we are beginning to feel that legal action is our only option to get this
Congressionally mandated exchange completed.
We want to respond to two specific points from your letter: 1) Congressional
intent regarding the conservation easement on the wetlands and 2) your
assertions regarding alleged delays caused by Mt. Hood Meadows proposed
“forest management plan.”
With respect to the conservation easement, we believe the Forest Service is
in violation of Congressional direction. First, let us be clear that we think
you should have circulated a draft of the easement shortly after Congress
passed the bill in 2009. Instead you waited for years to produce the first
draft, then many months elapsed between drafts, and still there is no
workable conservation easement.
Congress inserted the conservation easement language into the legislation at
our request so we have a very clear understanding of legislative intent when
it comes to that section of the Act. The goal of including the conservation
easement section was simply 1) to have the wetlands delineated and
2) ensure basic protections of the sort provided by state and local law.
The language of the 2009 Act is very simple:
(G) RESERVATION OF EASEMENTS.
As a condition of the conveyance of the Federal land, the
Secretary shall reserve—

!

(i) a conservation easement to the Federal land to protect
existing wetland, as identified by the Oregon Department of
State Lands, that allows equivalent wetland mitigation measures
to compensate for minor wetland encroachments necessary for
the orderly
development
of livability
the Federal
and since 1977
Protecting
farms,
forests and the
of ourland;
community
(ii) a trail easement to the Federal land that allows—
(I) non motorized use by the public of existing trails;
(II) roads, utilities, and infrastructure facilities to cross the

!
!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 to compensate for minor wetland encroachments necessary for the orderly
development of the Federal land; and
(ii) a trail easement to the Federal land that allows—
(I) non motorized use by the public of existing trails;
(II) roads, utilities, and infrastructure facilities to cross the trails; and
(III) improvement or relocation of the trails to accommodate development of
the Federal land.
As Meadows has outlined in numerous letters to you -- and we agree -- the current draft
of the conservation easement goes far beyond both the plain language and Congressional
intent of the Act. The draft easement does not fulfill the Forest Service’s claim that it
was trying to “minimize restrictions on private development.” Instead, the easement
makes the land in Government Camp nearly unmarketable because it is vague, encumbers
title on parcels with no wetlands, and adds expensive and unclear future review processes
for the development of the properties. Instead of just the eight acres of actual wetlands,
you now seek to apply the easement to an additional 20 acres of “buffer” land. As you
know, both the Oregon Department of State Lands and Clackamas County already have
specific code provisions that will be applied to protect the wetlands on these properties,
We scratch our heads in wonder to see the Forest Service approving extensive logging
and other management activities that harm riparian areas on its Federal land and then
taking an approach that is so prohibitively restrictive here.
A process-heavy, vague conservation easement on the Government Camp properties
drives down the development potential of the land, limits allowable density, and blocks
the use of the corridor for possible alternative transportation options that may be sought
by Timberline Lodge in the future. As you well know, your approach likely widens the
gap between the values of the exchange properties. A conservation easement that so
severely limits future development greatly reduces the value of the Government Camp
parcels and works against the prime goal of the land exchange -- which is to bring 770
acres of land around Cooper Spur into Federal ownership.
You end your letter by listing the delays that would be caused by Mt. Hood Meadows
proposed forest management plan. First, Mt. Hood Meadows has agreed to postpone their
timber harvest for a year, so your concerns about its impact on the trade are moot. Or
they would be moot, if Forest Service delays and inaction did not cause the exact same
issues that you claimed would be caused by Meadows timber harvest. With or without
Meadows logging this summer, the timber cruise is already stale and will probably have
to be redone. The property boundary surveys may need to be updated because you have
failed to act in a timely fashion. The Agreement To Initiate likely needs to be updated.
Again, this is because you have failed to complete the steps of the exchange in the timely
fashion directed by Congress.
It appears that the Forest Service has knowingly caused the need for a new cruise, new
boundary surveys and drafted an over-reaching conservation easement to either make the
deal fail or to receive considerably less land around Cooper Spur in exchange when the
properties are equalized. Your failure to meet Congressional intent threatens a great

 public benefit -- additional Wilderness and protection for the Crystal Springs drinking
watershed on the north side of Mt. Hood.
The Forest Service has deflected for too long. We again ask that you clarify your timeline
for completing the remaining steps of the trade. When do you expect the appraisal and
NEPA to be completed now that Meadows has cancelled their logging? Once the
appraisal and NEPA are complete, what are the remaining steps to consummate the trade
and when will the entire exchange be complete? By working with-- not against—Mt.
Hood Meadows, the Cooper Spur Wild and Free Coalition and the public, you can get
this deal done in less than 1 year.
Please advise by July 10th of your intent or we are likely to pursue alternative courses of
action including going to Federal court for an injunction to require you to perform your
mandatory statutory duties.
Best regards,

Heather Staten
Executive Director

Cc: Ron Wyden, United States Senator
Jeff Merkley, United States Senator
Greg Walden, Member of Congress
Earl Blumenhauer, Member of Congress
Jim Pena, Regional Forester, Pacific Northwest Region