Stumps in stein's woods and other man made hazards

[Hardbooter]

There are some really dangerous stumps left from the cutting in stein's woods (in the top third). It would be good if the mountain could do a tour of the woods there and remove these before the summer ferns obscure them. They are about 8 inches tall or more. In the past, the mountain has done an excellent job of cutting woods lines (for example, at north) but some of the new ones at lincoln peak seem a little sloppier.

Also, the blow downs have pulled a power cable up to about neck to head height on skiers left (in the woods) at the bottom of steins. It might be a good idea for someone to get in there and fix that before we electrocute a woods skier or cut power to Allyn's lodge or where ever it goes. BTW, if I remember correctly, the power line is orange and as thick as a garden hose and is yanked out of the ground to go over an eight foot high root ball of a felled tree so it should be easy to find.

[Treeskier]

Like these:
http://clubxtaski.com/110415_Exquisite_Corn_web/photos/030_110417.jpg

http://clubxtaski.com/110415_Exquisite_Corn_web/photos/044_110417.jpg

http://clubxtaski.com/110415_Exquisite_Corn_web/photos/046_110417.jpg

A little work over the summer would be great. Lew's Line could use work also.

[summitchallenger]

There are some really dangerous stumps left from the cutting in stein's woods (in the top third). It would be good if the mountain could do a tour of the woods there and remove these before the summer ferns obscure them. They are about 8 inches tall or more. In the past, the mountain has done an excellent job of cutting woods lines (for example, at north) but some of the new ones at lincoln peak seem a little sloppier.

Also, the blow downs have pulled a power cable up to about neck to head height on skiers left (in the woods) at the bottom of steins. It might be a good idea for someone to get in there and fix that before we electrocute a woods skier or cut power to Allyn's lodge or where ever it goes. BTW, if I remember correctly, the power line is orange and as thick as a garden hose and is yanked out of the ground to go over an eight foot high root ball of a felled tree so it should be easy to find.

Allyn's doesn't have electricity.

[atkinson]

This is not due to sloppiness. The USFS makes us leave the stumps as a soil-stabilization technique.

[shadyjay]

Allyn's doesn't have electricity.

Allyn's Lodge definitely has power, but I think it's fed from the line that goes underground at the base of Heaven's Gate and up - shouldn't be near Stein's.

[Hardbooter]

This is not due to sloppiness. The USFS makes us leave the stumps as a soil-stabilization technique.


Wow, that's completely nuts.

Does anyone know how leaving a foot of stump is better than cutting it flat the ground? Isn't the soil equally stable with both?

[gostan]

This is not due to sloppiness. The USFS makes us leave the stumps as a soil-stabilization technique.


Wow, that's completely nuts.

Does anyone know how leaving a foot of stump is better than cutting it flat the ground? Isn't the soil equally stable with both?You expect rational regulations/thought from a government administrative agency? :roll:

I would at least expect some from the mountain operations team. I probably should not go down this route, but if the USFS is really requiring the mountain to leave odd length stumps for erosion control, then it is really up to the mountain to spend the time and effort to counter/question this odd regulation; especially on designated in bounds woods trails. I am in an administrative regulation battle with the Commonwealth of Massachusetts regarding a "no spray" edict on our privately owned shortline railroad right of way, due to liability concerns. Different use, same issues. If it makes no sense, the operator should not acquiesce, but should seek to effectuate change.

Everyone have a great April/May spring skiing weekend.

There has to be more to this, than posted.

[Hawk]

This is not due to sloppiness. The USFS makes us leave the stumps as a soil-stabilization technique.


Wow, that's completely nuts.

Does anyone know how leaving a foot of stump is better than cutting it flat the ground? Isn't the soil equally stable with both?You expect rational regulations/thought from a government administrative agency? :roll:

I would at least expect some from the mountain operations team. I probably should not go down this route, but if the USFS is really requiring the mountain to leave odd length stumps for erosion control, then it is really up to the mountain to spend the time and effort to counter/question this odd regulation; especially on designated in bounds woods trails. I am in an administrative regulation battle with the Commonwealth of Massachusetts regarding a "no spray" edict on our privately owned shortline railroad right of way, due to liability concerns. Different use, same issues. If it makes no sense, the operator should not acquiesce, but should seek to effectuate change.

Everyone have a great April/May spring skiing weekend.

There has to be more to this, than posted.
OK, from my impact accessment course years ago........ The stumps are left up a bit so that they collect debris and thus slow down the downhill flow of water. This limits the impact of erosion. The government does not make this stuff up, engineers do. ;-)

[gostan]

This is not due to sloppiness. The USFS makes us leave the stumps as a soil-stabilization technique.


Wow, that's completely nuts.

Does anyone know how leaving a foot of stump is better than cutting it flat the ground? Isn't the soil equally stable with both?You expect rational regulations/thought from a government administrative agency? :roll:

I would at least expect some from the mountain operations team. I probably should not go down this route, but if the USFS is really requiring the mountain to leave odd length stumps for erosion control, then it is really up to the mountain to spend the time and effort to counter/question this odd regulation; especially on designated in bounds woods trails. I am in an administrative regulation battle with the Commonwealth of Massachusetts regarding a "no spray" edict on our privately owned shortline railroad right of way, due to liability concerns. Different use, same issues. If it makes no sense, the operator should not acquiesce, but should seek to effectuate change.

Everyone have a great April/May spring skiing weekend.

There has to be more to this, than posted.
OK, from my impact accessment course years ago........ The stumps are left up a bit so that they collect debris and thus slow down the downhill flow of water. This limits the impact of erosion. The government does not make this stuff up, engineers do. ;-) And, like all professions, there are good engineers and then there are ? :oops: Only one thing that those very few intermittent stumps are going to slow down, and it ain't the water.

[Hawk]

In theory this is generally a good practice and is the norm.
What I think is totally funny is Booter and Tree complaining about a few stumps. This compaired to the thrashing through thickets, early and late season mud/grass/moss sking when the snow runs out and the oh so famous "I think I might have gone a little to far" episodes, these pale in comparison. Come on now. :lol:

[Brew Ski]

You mean to tell me that you actually go in the woods? With skis on your feet? and go DOWNhill? With all those...things... in your way? That is nuts. :lol:

I suppose someone could carry a tool with them. Oh say a foldable hand saw, perhaps, and take care of such dangers as they encounter them. Especially when the snow pack is melting and you have easy access. You know, for safety. :roll:

Or maybe a can of orange spray paint to at least "highlight" the danger. The mountain IS giving you a ride up, it seems that you could help the mountain out on the way down.

Just a suggestion.

[castlerock]

This is not due to sloppiness. The USFS makes us leave the stumps as a soil-stabilization technique.

This is an interesting topic that has been up before
http://forums.skimrv.com/viewtopic.php?t=2229

At that time I thought it was a mistake, and possibly a technique developed in the western US, that was being mis-applied here.

So I contacted the USFS, specifically,
Chad Van Ormer
Recreation, Wilderness & Heritage Program Manager
Green Mountain & Finger Lakes National Forest

Here was my note:

Hello Chad,

I apologize in advance if you aren't the appropriate contact for this inquiry. I'd appreciate it if you could forward it to the correct individuals.

I am a regular user of the GMNF both as a Sugarbush skier, a backcountry skier and hiker. I am aware that Sugarbush has expanded their "on-map" woods skiing this year and has done some cutting in the forest to do so. Apart from the superficial angst of "now they have exposed all of our stashes", I have been informed, and found that the cut trees have been cut to a rather significant height. (approx 1 foot).

This is extremely dangerous.

I'm going to make an educated guess and assume that this is for some sort of erosion mitigation, but upon more thought even that makes no sense, at least for the type of forest we have here in Vermont. What good does leaving a foot of dangerous stump do?

Is this a policy that might have come from the Western forests?

I am at a loss to understand why such hazards have been added to the forest skiing.

Regards,

Mike Fennelly

He forwarded the note to Thomas Paquette of the USFS
Here is Thomas' response:

On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 11:25 AM, Thomas Paquette <tpaquette> wrote:

Mike,
The new tree skiing areas at Lincoln Peak were authorized by the Forest Service in August 2009 following an environmental analysis. Sugarbush was approved to begin implementation immediately following signature of the decision document by the Forest Service Authorized Officer.

There is no Forest Service (or Sugarbush) policy to keep high stumps. In fact, public safety to ski area guests while participating in activities on National Forest is one of our primary concerns.

As permit administrator, I monitor ski area activities that occur on National Forest lands. I walked through the newly approved tree skiing areas several times while the trail crew was working. I felt they were proceeding according to what was approved, perhaps even a bit conservative on the number of trees removed. In some cases, I asked them to go back to lower some stumps, further lop down the fallen trees, or to remove them entirely from the intended ski path.

Sugarbush was not required to remove all the natural features on the ground, such as rocks, fallen logs and stumps of fallen trees. As you are aware, there has yet to be sufficient snow to cover all these features, including the newly cut tree stumps. As part of my follow-up monitoring this coming summer, I will have Sugarbush reenter these areas and lower any stumps that may have been left too high. In a few cases, they may also remove a few more trees in areas that were left too tight.

Thank you for bringing this to my attention. The higher stumps will be cut lower this coming summer. Meanwhile, without the normal depth of snow in the woods, use your best discretion when considering using the new tree skiing areas.

Tom Paquette
Permit Administrator
Eastern Region Winter Sports Team
99 Ranger Road
Rochester Vermont 05767


And Finally my response to Tom:
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Mike Fennelly <dmfennelly>
Date: Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 11:39 AM
Subject: Re: tree skiing stump height
To: Thomas Paquette <tpaquette>
Cc: jhammond@sugarbxxx.com


Thanks very much for the response Tom.

It is interesting the rumors that get around about issues like this. The buzz around Sugarbush is that the Big Bad Forest Service, required Sugarbush to leave dangerous stumps.

Here is a link to a thread on a Sugarbush-centric bulletin board.
http://forums.skimrv.com/viewtopic.php?t=2229

I had followed up with private discussions with several of the posters, and heard more of the Forest service = stumps idea. That prompted my email.

My own leanings tend towards cut way less, tight is good, but try to lower to the ground any stumps and any deadfall.

And yes, I'm sadly aware that the snow pack is meager.

Thanks again,

Mike

So....S'bush thinks the stumps need to be that high, it is probably a communications error. And at a minimum, Sbush was copied on the email from Tom Paquette to me (and in my response back) that 1 foot stumps aren't required.

[Brew Ski]

Great post Castlerock. Thanks for the detective work to set the truth free.

Hopefully we can use this USFS mantra when we work on Slidebrook this summer.

"cut'em flush folks!"

Moreover, it will be great if the dead and fallen trees blocking descents get cut up and cleaned. There is a mess in Christmas tree, Steins woods, Egan's and even Grotto have blow downs that should be tended too.

If the mountain needs some laborers, I'm sure some people on this site would help out with woods clean up. Just ask. Might be a nice way to earn some lift passes.

[summitchallenger]

Sugarbush, John, Win, whomever... - this is important... I've posted on this forum before that I thought the recent cutting was sloppy and then I injured myself badly on one of these stumps this year....

What is the truth here and what are you going to do about it???

If you are going to cut the tree down and leave a foot of stump in the middle of the line... LEAVE THE TREE ALONE..

That and the fact that I recall Exterminator Woods just abruptly ends. Has that been completed? What are the plans for clearing this year?

[Hawk]

Why not leave the woods alone in general? Why cut lines at all? The woods have always skied great at Sugarbush and we had no issues with people complaining about stumps prior to the latest endeavor. Marking the trails and cutting lines only serves to dumb the woods down for less experienced skier that probably should pass anyways.

Present company excluded of course. :wink:

[atkinson]

I am researching the issue and will respond. Whenever I have asked about this in the past, the answer was "we are required to do it this way." Many thanks to Mike for researching deeper, pun intended.

Just to be clear, Egan and I (and many others) have always advocated for flush stump cuts in woods lines and on the edges of trails.

More to come ...

[HowieT2]

I am researching the issue and will respond. Whenever I have asked about this in the past, the answer was "we are required to do it this way." Many thanks to Mike for researching deeper, pun intended.

Just to be clear, Egan and I (and many others) have always advocated for flush stump cuts in woods lines and on the edges of trails.

More to come ...

speculating here but maybe cutting the stumps flush has a tendency to disturb the ground with the saw and thats what they are trying to avoid??

[Last Tracks]

I am researching the issue and will respond. Whenever I have asked about this in the past, the answer was "we are required to do it this way." Many thanks to Mike for researching deeper, pun intended.

Just to be clear, Egan and I (and many others) have always advocated for flush stump cuts in woods lines and on the edges of trails.

More to come ...

Still interested in your update on this issue...

[atkinson]

We are supposed to be cutting flush going forward and ask for help in identifying previously cut spots that need attention. Sorry for the delay in updating.

Does this help with the concerns?

John

[Tin Woodsman]

We are supposed to be cutting flush going forward and ask for help in identifying previously cut spots that need attention. Sorry for the delay in updating.

Does this help with the concerns?

John
Certainly does from my perspective. Maybe we can use this thread to bring to light specific areas in need of improvement?

[notorious]

We are supposed to be cutting flush going forward and ask for help in identifying previously cut spots that need attention. Sorry for the delay in updating.

Does this help with the concerns?

John

Yes, thanks.