« BEATfest Rocks out for Allegheny Forests | Main | Laying it on Thick... »
June 07, 2004
Painter Run Rip Off
The Painter Run Area is a special place. With parts of this area proposed for inclusion in an old growth landscape corridor we were unhappy with a proposal to intensively salvage log on 300 acres of windblown trees on this plateau area above the Wild & Scenic Clarion River. This is an awesome area unfortunately targeted by the Forest Service.
Painter Run Blowdown. Photo by RJ Mauk.
A lot of folks don't realize that "salvage" logging is an economic reference to salvaging the economic value of a tree before it is lost. "Salvage" logging has nothing to do with forest health. In the Painter Run Environmental Assessment the Forest Service complains that there is a "...need 'to initiate timely salvage of downed and damaged trees." So, getting at the economic value is apparently urgent.
That same document goes on to proclaim that only salvage logging alternatives will make money with anticipated gross revenue for chosen Alternative 2 being $149,520. After costs of $57,377 and reduced value from tree defects the total anticipated revenue was to be $47,287. Or so they claimed.
The Painter Run Windthrow Salvage was noticed for bidding and opening of the bids was scheduled for March 31, 2004. The original bid notice can be viewed here. If you calculate the "minimum" bid out you'll see that the minimum anticipated bid was $34,908.46. That is only $69,755.54 less than the anticipated revenue minus tree defects.
The final bid summary and award can be viewed by clicking on the image below.
Woah! Only one bidder. And the total bid was only $35,908.46 or exactly $1,000 higher than the minimum bid. And exactly $68,755.54 less than the anticipated revenue predicted in the Environmental Assessment. Anticipated losses using planning costs and road maintenance costs assumed by us tax-payers = $21,468.54.
We've never traced out the differences between revenue claims made in EAs and bids before. Partially this is because there is usually short-term and long-term contracts anticipated and it would take years to do. But in this case the sale was justified by its urgency. The total volume in the bid prospectus appears to be at least 80% of what was anticipated in the Environmental Assessment. So I don't see an adequate explanation for this massive gap in claimed economic benefits. There was no delay on this project - it has been implemented as scheduled.
Maybe there is an explanation. There better be a good one.
Posted by jkleissler at June 7, 2004 05:24 PM
Comments
The only explanation I can come up is that the original gross income was intentionally inflated to make the project go forward.
Posted by: rj at June 9, 2004 03:14 PM
I spent a few hours in Painter Run this weekend. There is no salvage activity, yet. This area continues to amaze!
Posted by: RJ at June 13, 2004 08:15 PM
I sent an e-mail to Ranger Blashock asking for an explanation for the revenue differentials. His only explanation was that market conditions may have changed. That is not a satisfactory explanation from my point of view for the gap between claimed revenue and generated revenue. We'll have to push this issue on future projects.
RJ - I'm glad to hear they aren't logging yet. And thanks for the Heart Content photos!
Posted by: Jim Kleissler at June 14, 2004 10:01 AM
Jim,
At least you got a response. My communications with Supervisor Elliott go unanswered.
Wow. Poor market conditions. I hope they incorporate that into the LRMP revision process.
Rj
Posted by: Rick Mauk at June 16, 2004 07:22 AM
I spent some time in the lower stretches of Painter Run this past weekend. This area is outside the project area. This area is MA 6.1. The small stream and tremendous trees, white pine, made for a merry morning. I don't want to be too specific, but this tiny tributary holds a natural resource which I have never seen the likes of in any of the tiny trout streams I have ever spent time on.
As I proceeded upstream, travel was made difficult by theriously thick rhododendron and mountain laurel. It was impossible to stay on the stream, though I tried to travel onto the East Branch of Painter.
One purpose of my pursuit was to seek the sites where the IUP archeological department found lithic fragments left by previous visitors to the Painter Run watershed. The five sites were supposed to be marked, but, alas, I didn't find anything.
The laurel and rhododendron kept me crawling on my belly for an hour. I kept near the stream until there was just a wet spot in the leaves. I was a bit bewildered as to my whereabouts, walked sidehill over to what was supposed to be the West Branch, but I never did see anything familiar.
I was sweating hard as I dashed downstream to the truck parked at the gravel pile on the Clarion R. I enjoyed my ride downriver to Belltown, then back to Brookville.
Rj
Posted by: RJ at August 18, 2004 07:54 PM
Post a comment
Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)