Real Estate Information Archive

Blog

Displaying blog entries 1-10 of 365

National Housing Trends to Watch

Friday, March 28, 2025
by Liz Warren

Add Comment

What You Need To Know About Homeowner’s Insurance

Wednesday, March 19, 2025
by Liz Warren

What You Need To Know About Homeowner’s Insurance



 

Homeowner’s insurance is a must-have to protect what’s probably your biggest investment – your home. And while you never want to think about worst-case scenarios, the right coverage is basically your safety net if something goes wrong. Here’s how it helps you.

  • Covers Repairs and Rebuilding Costs: If your home is damaged by fire, storms, or other covered events, your policy helps pay for repairs or even a full rebuild.
  • Protects Your Belongings: Many policies can also cover personal items like furniture, electronics, and clothing if they’re stolen or damaged.
  • Provides Liability Coverage: If someone gets injured on your property, homeowner’s insurance can help cover medical bills or legal expenses.

In the simplest sense, it gives you peace of mind. Knowing you have protection against unexpected events helps you worry less. And with such a big purchase, having that reassurance is a big deal.

And while your first insurance payment will be wrapped into your closing costs, you’ll want this to be a part of your budget beyond closing day too. That’s because it's a recurring expense you’ll have once you get the keys to your home.

Here’s what you need to know to help you budget for this important part of homeownership today.

Costs and Claims Are Rising

In recent years, insurance costs have been climbing. According to Insurance.com, there are four big reasons behind the jump in premiums:

  • More severe weather events and wildfires are leading to higher claims.
  • Insurance companies are pulling out of high-risk areas, reducing options for homeowners in some states.
  • Past rate increases haven’t kept up with the rise in claims.
  • The cost to rebuild or repair homes has gone up due to higher material and labor costs.

Basically, disasters are happening more often, repairs cost more, and insurers have to adjust their rates to keep up. Data from ICE Mortgage Technology helps paint the picture of how the average yearly premium has climbed over the last decade (see graph below):

What You Can Do About It

Homeowner’s insurance is a must to protect your home and your investment. But with costs rising, you’ll want to do your homework to balance the best coverage you can get at the best price possible.

Homeowner’s insurance rates vary widely based on location, provider, and coverage. Shop around and compare quotes before settling on a policy. And don’t forget to ask about discounts. Things like security systems or bundling with auto insurance could help lower your insurance costs.

Bottom Line

When you’re planning to buy a home, it’s important to look beyond just your mortgage payment. You’ll also want to budget for your homeowner’s insurance policy. It gives you a lot of protection against the unexpected. And while it’s true those costs are rising, there are things you can do to try to get the best price possible.

What’s your biggest concern when it comes to budgeting for homeownership? Let’s talk through it and make sure you’re set up for success.

Add Comment

The History of the Government Camp-Cooper Spur Land Exchange

Tuesday, January 28, 2025
by Liz Warren

This is a summary of the history of the Government Camp-Cooper Spur land exchange in a two part story written by Nathan Wilson of the Columbia Gorge News with their permission to reprint. 

This is the first of a two-part series on the history, changing terms and dysfunctionality of the Government Camp-Cooper Spur land exchange. Part II will run in next Wednesday’s edition.

Mt. Hood — Sprawling cities confined by urban growth boundaries. Protection for critical, endemic farmland and open space. Broad rights of public participation in land use decisions. How Oregon has managed its growth since statehood stands as an outlier.

In the late 1960s and early 1970s, Gov. Tom McCall, Sen. Hector Macpherson and many others sought to strike a balance between conservation and development — to encourage compact, efficient growth while preserving Oregon’s character. With the passage of Senate Bill 100 in 1973, they largely succeeded. Robust metropolises border — but don’t overreach into — fertile valleys and forests.

 

Those successes, however, didn’t come without challenges, and land use conflicts continued. Locally, the United States Forest Service, Mt. Hood Meadows, the board of county commissioners and conservation group Thrive Hood River have spent over two decades in a cycle of failed agreements, muddled bureaucracy and lawsuits over the north side of our famed mountain.

The entire dispute revolves around 770 acres of land at Cooper Spur owned by Meadows. Since opening in 1968, Meadows has made two attempts to construct a destination resort at Cooper Spur, and Thrive, formerly the Hood River Valley Residents Committee (HRVRC), coalesced in part to oppose those bids.

“It’s really about the long-term survival of natural lands in the Hood River Valley for future generations,” said Mike McCarthy, a Thrive Board member and orchardist near Meadow’s property.

But in 2001, Meadows purchased the Inn at Cooper Spur and the Cooper Spur Ski Area, and in 2002, Hood River County exchanged 614 acres of forest it owned near Cooper Spur with 786 acres Meadows held. The newly acquired land made development ever more possible, so the two parties wrangled again.

“We respect Mount Hood, we respect the land and its natural resources, and we really have since day one. We’re all native Oregonians,” said Matthew Drake, the CEO of Meadows, during a presentation to Hood River’s Rotary Club last November. “We also expect to receive fair value for our assets.”

Much has happened since 2002, oftentimes obscure and occurring behind closed doors. This story will walk through part of the Government Camp-Cooper Spur land exchange, including its early history and a promising deal that has since changed, but remains sought after.

The first land swap

Hood River County pursued the original trade to consolidate county-owned forests and gain access to premium timber. Commissioners held the first public hearing on Aug. 6, 2001, and a critical sticking point was the Crystal Spring watershed, which runs directly through Cooper Spur and provides drinking water to about 6,000 county residents.

According to Oregon Revised Statute 275.335, counties may exchange land when “such exchange is for equal value and is in the best interest of the county.” With the county’s land appraised at $1.3 million and Meadows’ holdings valued at $2.3 million, commissioners satisfied the equal value clause by paying just over $1 million to Meadows, making up the difference. But HRVRC claimed the deal wasn’t in the public’s best interest.

“While we are terribly concerned about the potential for development in this area, even more offensive to us and to the taxpayers of Hood River County is the transfer of public funds to pay a private developer for land that has been illegally estimated at a fraction of its fair value,” said McCarthy in a 2002 interview.

Though the county considered land and timber value when appraising the parcels, HRVRC argued they also must account for commercial value. At the time, developable property nearby was selling for $40,000 per quarter acre, but the county slated its own land at $328 per acre.

“The formula for appraisals has to be based on the land’s highest and best use under current zoning, the law doesn’t allow for speculation,” said Will Carey, then county land use attorney, in response to McCarthy. “If you try to go outside that boundary, you’re acting on pure conjecture.”

Given that Meadows had publicly stated plans to build a 450-unit complex, golf course, amphitheater and other amenities at Cooper Spur, it was far from speculative for HRVRC. They also alleged the county failed to give adequate notice of the public hearing. Officials listed the hearing date in two editions of the Hood River News the week prior, but state law requires publication in two different media sources if a two-week notification period was not given.

Government Camp – Cooper Spur

Under the “clean sweep” settlement agreement, Mt. Hood Meadows would exchange 770 acres of property it owns at Cooper Spur (purple) to the United States Forest Service for rights to develop 120 acres in Government Camp (orange). 

 

As such, HRVRC and McCarthy filed an Amended Petition for Writ of Review to Hood River County’s Circuit Court on March 27, 2002, based largely on those arguments. Judge Donald Hull, now retired, dismissed the case in July, but Thrive successfully appealed Hull’s decision in June 2004. Put on hold after separate legislation, federal review and litigation, the case reignited in 2021.

Judge John Olson presided over the trial on Aug. 3, 2023, and issued his verdict a few months later on Nov. 14, rejecting the petitioners’ claims with one exception.

“I cannot discern from the record that the requisite underlying valuation reports were ever presented to the BOC [board of commissioners] for its review,” wrote Olson, clarifying he could only find that a summary of the reports was provided. “I will therefore enter a judgment remanding the case back to the BOC to allow it to review the underlying reports.”

Commissioners then simply had to reexamine the necessary documents and include them in the public record. As previously reported by Columbia Gorge News, commissioners did so and reaffirmed the original trade during an Oct. 21 meeting last year. But that’s just one small piece of the puzzle.

An idealistic compromise: the “clean sweep”

After Hull originally dismissed HRVRC’s case, the committee, McCarthy, the county and Meadows began mediation talks, clearly at a stalemate. As a private and confidential process, Columbia Gorge News does not know what was discussed in mediation, only that it occurred in good faith.

“If you agree to something and you all work on it, it’s a promise,” said McCarthy. “It’s like a sacred promise.”

And they did reach an agreement — the fabled “clean sweep” — in 2005. Under the settlement, Meadows would trade all 770 acres of its land at Cooper Spur for rights to develop 120 acres in Government Camp, effectively preserving the north side of Mount Hood. Another land exchange to resolve the original one.

Congress codified those terms in the Omnibus Public Lands Act of 2009, mandating the trade to occur no later than 16 months after the bill was passed. Upon completion, the exchange would also create the Crystal Springs Watershed Resource Management Unit, setting aside 2,700 acres as a protected riparian zone, and incorporate 1,710 more acres into the Mt. Hood Wilderness. Enter the United States Forest Service (USFS).

USFS owns the Government Camp land and is the agency responsible for carrying the trade out, but by 2015, nothing had been finalized. USFS was reportedly busy adjusting boundary lines, resolving title issues, configuring right-of-way easements and more during that time.

“I think the delay was caused by several things. Part of it was just turnover in staff,” said Heather Staten, the former executive director of HRVRC, now Thrive. “The Forest Service is also very process-oriented — there’s like 60 steps to a land trade.”

As a result, Thrive filed suit against USFS for “unreasonable delay” in the U.S. District Court of Oregon. Judge Anna Brown agreed with Thrive and required the agency to provide monthly progress updates. Sens. Ron Wyden and Jeff Merkley, along with Reps. Earl Blumenauer and Greg Walden, also moved things along by passing the Mt. Hood Cooper Spur Land Exchange Clarification Act in 2018, with one section reading:

“In addition to or in lieu of monetary compensation, a lesser area of Federal land or non-Federal land may be conveyed if necessary to equalize appraised values of the exchange properties, without limitation, consistent with the requirements of this Act and subject to the approval of the Secretary and Mt. Hood Meadows.”

While the Omnibus Act laid out very specific terms — 770 acres at Cooper Spur for 120 acres in Government Camp — the Clarification Act provided more leeway “if necessary.” The section above, and that actionable language, is critical to remember as USFS got further into its formal decision process.

•••

Part II will focus on the last six years of the Government Camp-Cooper Spur land exchange, particularly why the deal collapsed and two pending court cases key to resolving it.

This is the second in a two-part series on the history, changing terms and dysfunctionality of the Government Camp-Cooper Spur land exchange.

MT. HOOD — Drive up Highway 35 and turn onto Cooper Spur Road. Atop a winding, slick climb sits the inn, Crooked Tree Tavern, several cabins and the Cooper Spur Ski Area — a small slice of Mount Hood’s shoulders, contested since the 1970s. A microcosm of the push and pull between profitable development that serves recreational interests and environmental sanctity.

The United States Forest Service (USFS), Mt. Hood Meadows, Hood River County’s Board of Commissioners and conservation group Thrive Hood River have long pursued conflicting visions for these 770 acres, still owned by Meadows. There have been tense public meetings and consequential votes. Lawsuits followed by mediation sessions and more lawsuits. Delays and federal intervention all fixated on the Government Camp-Cooper Spur land exchange.

Last week, Columbia Gorge News unpacked the exchange’s early history and the “clean sweep” agreement, where Meadows would trade all its Cooper Spur property for rights to develop 120 acres in Government Camp, which USFS owns. The story also explained how the Omnibus Public Lands Act of 2009 and the Mt. Hood Cooper Spur Land Exchange Clarification Act of 2018 fit in. 

Now for the more recent history, beginning after Thrive sued USFS in 2015 for unreasonably delaying the exchange and Congress passed the Clarification Act.

Disputed appraisals and changing terms

All land trades hinge on fair market appraisals, so USFS hired Richard Maloy from Alabama, who is certified in Oregon and works along the West Coast, to make those assessments. Maloy released his results in summer 2017, but Thrive and longtime partner Crag Law Center tapped Donald Palmer, another appraiser based in Portland, to evaluate his findings. Palmer identified such egregious errors that, after mediation, USFS ordered another round of appraisals, which came out in December 2019.

Like the previous round, Thrive again claimed that USFS grossly undervalued the land in Government Camp, which Maloy slated at around $5.7 million. Maloy used four comparable properties in West Salem, Camas, Vancouver and Ridgefield to land on the number, but Palmer found that Maloy failed to deduct unusable acres from two of the four properties, deflating the per acre value. He also violated basic principles of the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice, according to Palmer.

“Maloy confirmed only one of the sales presented with the broker ... Relying on the deed documents does not provide you the necessary details regarding the physical characteristics of the site and financial aspects of the transaction,” Palmer wrote in his report. “Without confirming the sales data, the final conclusion is flawed.”

USFS contends the report did not include all sales information that Maloy considered.

The comparable sales were also located in areas with a different character and market than Government Camp, among other issues. Using the lowest range of Palmer’s estimate, he valued the land in Government Camp at $8.3 million and Meadows’ Cooper Spur holdings at $7.2 million, which Maloy listed at $9.1 million.

“Both internal agency experts and independent consultants reviewed the appraisal reports,” said Heather Ibsen, USFS public affairs officer for the Mt. Hood National Forest. “In their multiple reviews, experts concluded that the appraisals met standards required by federal laws, regulations and policies.”

“I don’t feel like [USFS] has done much to get value for the public,” said Heather Staten, former executive director of Thrive who led the nonprofit from 2015 until late 2021. “Normally when you have a land trade, both sides are trying to get a high value for their property or get a fair value. The Forest Service is just interested in following steps.”

While Thrive and USFS still disagree on their validity, those appraisals informed USFS’s Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) on the Government Camp-Cooper Spur Land Exchange, an analysis of the proposed action and other alternatives, which was released in January 2021. Thrive objects to several aspects of the FEIS, but it generally advanced the clean sweep.

In February 2021, however, USFS released its Draft Record of Decision (ROD) under different terms: Meadows would retain 159 acres and ownership of the Cooper Spur Mountain Resort for rights to develop 67 acres in Government Camp, receiving only one parcel in the ski town instead of two as originally planned. While still operating the Cooper Spur Ski Area on a short-term extension, Meadows could seek the 40-year permit again, effectively leaving an open door for development on the north side.

“It’s at odds with what’s good for the community, what’s good for the mountain and the deal that they had previously struck,” said Staten. As laid out in the 2009 Omnibus Act, the deal would protect 2,701 acres of the Crystal Springs watershed and add 1,709 acres to Mt. Hood’s National Forest.

Dodged answers

So, what occurred between the FEIS and ROD? How did USFS decide to reduce the land exchanged in Government Camp from 120 acres to 67 acres — from two parcels to one?

On May 5, 2021, USFS held a meeting to hear objections to the ROD, and Jesse Buss, an attorney for Thrive, asked that question. No complete recording of the meeting exists, but three people affiliated with Thrive who attended the meeting gave similar accounts independently. 

Essentially, Thrive maintains that USFS said it was not an agency decision and promised to provide a more detailed explanation after consulting their notes. One week later, though, Thrive received an email from USFS saying they must file a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to obtain that information.

Meadows spokesman Greg Leo disagreed and claimed the opposite. “Meadows played no role in that whatsoever. It was really a Forest Service determination based on the Forest Service’s work and the appraisals by the Forest Service of both pieces of land,” he said. Ibsen confirmed Leo’s comments and referred to the 2018 Clarification Act, which authorized the agency to exchange less federal or non-federal land “without limitation,” but only if it’s “necessary.”

When USFS formally responded to Thrive’s ROD objections, however, there was a slight distinction: “The private lands not included in the proposed exchange is property that Mt. Hood Meadows, following the 2019 appraisals, did not offer to convey and which the Forest Service is not authorized to ‘take’ under the exchange legislation,” wrote USFS.

In short, Thrive believes that Meadows intentionally sought only one parcel in Government Camp, creating a larger difference in conflict with the equal value clause of land exchanges, allowing the company to retain some land at Cooper Spur. 

But the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976 also played a role. According to FLPMA, exchanges involving federal land must be for equal value, and if payment is needed to make up the difference, it must not exceed 25% of the federal land value. Using Maloy’s appraisals, the clean sweep would violate FLPMA. Using Palmer’s wouldn’t.

FLPMA further directs the acting authority to reduce any payment “to as small an amount as possible.” In May 2022, USFS issued its Final ROD negating the clean sweep.

“I think Mt. Hood Meadows is operating like a profit-motivated company,” said Staten, who stepped down as Thrive’s executive director just prior to the Final ROD. “They saw an opportunity to have their cake and eat it too.”

 

When asked about development at Cooper Spur, Leo said he couldn’t provide a specific answer until the exchange was completed, but affirmed any building would be consistent with Meadows’ core values of respecting Mount Hood and the environment.

Through FOIA requests, Thrive obtained a version of Meadows’ conceptual plans for the Cooper Spur Ski Area and the Cooper Spur Mountain Resort, created in 2017 and 2018, respectively. The ski area would grow from 50 to 296 acres, extend to the resort, include a new quad chairlift and have the capacity to park 775 cars. For the resort, Meadows considered adding an outdoor commercial spa, banquet hall, 83 camping areas and a 7,500-square-foot recreation area.

“It’s not beyond the limits of Mt. Hood Meadows to get a bill passed in the legislature,” said local orchardist Mike McCarthy. “They have worked over the years with the county and also with the state to get bills passed that allow them to have destination resorts.” McCarthy’s mother helped form Thrive and his family has owned land near Cooper Spur for generations.

Meadows’ Cooper Spur land is zoned Forest (F-1), a resource area primarily for timber harvesting while providing opportunities for agriculture, recreation and other uses. In 2001, Hood River County Commissioners wrote that destination resorts “should be pursued vigorously” in a related resolution and decided to allow the complexes as a conditional use later that year. The current zoning ordinance, amended in 2015, now prohibits destination resorts in F-1 Zones.

Tying up loose ends

With the final decision in place, the Government Camp-Cooper Spur land exchange is nearly complete, but three court cases remain unresolved: one in Hood River County’s Circuit Court, another in the Court of Appeals in Salem and a third in Portland’s U.S. District Court. The trade will not move forward until those cases are closed.

The circuit court case, as Columbia Gorge News explained in last week’s edition, centers on the first land swap made in 2002, when Hood River County exchanged 614 acres of forest it owned near Cooper Spur with 786 acres Meadows held, leading to the entire dispute.

By accounting for land and timber value, but not commercial value that would come if Meadows built a destination resort at Cooper Spur, Thrive claims that exchange conflicts with Oregon Revised Statute 275.335 because the exchange wasn’t for equal value and the public never got a chance to challenge appraisals the county obtained.

Judge John Olson, serving in Hood River’s Circuit Court, denied most of Thrive’s claims in November 2023, but remanded the case back to county commissioners because it wasn’t clear they had actually reviewed the appraisals. After appealing Olson’s decision, Thrive, Meadows and the county began a mediation program administered by Oregon’s Court of Appeals in Salem, which will finish Feb. 20 barring another extension.

Commissioners reaffirmed the original land exchange last October, but Olson has yet to issue his supplemental judgment and will hold a hearing on Feb. 5. Beyond public interest arguments and equal value arguments, Thrive will also assert commissioners failed to adequately consult the public by not allowing comments during the meeting.

“It was a very narrow scope, the record was closed and taking public testimony would basically reopen the record, which was not advised,” said Commissioner Ed Weathers. He assured that Olson gave a very clear order and that the board followed it per the county’s legal counsel.

In the U.S. District Court, Thrive, local grower Mike McCarthy, Oregon Wild, the Sierra Club and other conservation groups argue their “aesthetic, recreational, scientific and spiritual interests” will be “adversely affected and irreparably injured” if USFS implements the exchange as written. In their view, USFS not only violated the 2005 settlement agreement, 2009 Omnibus Act and 2018 Clarification Act, but also the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

NEPA offers direction on how federal agencies should evaluate the environmental impacts of proposed actions, and Thrive contends that USFS failed to consider an adequate range of alternatives, a NEPA requirement. For one, USFS didn’t declare which parcels of land would be exchanged in its FEIS, obscuring specific ecological consequences.

“The final mix of the Federal parcels and non-Federal parcels to be exchanged ... will be determined in the final Record of Decision,” wrote USFS.

Even with FLPMA stipulations, specifically the 25% rule, Thrive provided several options that would convey more land than USFS offered. The agency also failed to include any appraisal information in its FEIS, which the group says is critical to proving the necessity of exchanging less land as required by the 2018 Clarification Act. For these reasons and others, Thrive maintains that the FEIS “serves only to justify a decision already made.”

Ultimately, Thrive and USFS fundamentally disagree on the intent and language of the Omnibus and Clarification acts. While Thrive believes the acts mandate USFS to maximize the land exchanged, USFS maintains the Clarification Act “expressly allows” the parties to not undertake a clean sweep and exchange less land “without limitation,” overruling the good faith settlement made in 2005 and the specific provisions of the 2009 Omnibus Act.

Magistrate Judge Jeffrey Armistead will make the final decision in the district court, subject to review by an Article III judge. But that can't happen until the merits of the case are briefed and argued via a process called summary judgment. Briefing, however, is paused until USFS compiles a privilege log, a document that lists and describes withheld materials USFS considers “privileged” information.

The other parties and Armistead will review the privilege log to determine if additional, withheld materials must be added to the official case record. Thrive, USFS and Meadows have until Jan. 31 to submit a schedule for releasing the log, any related challenges and subsequent briefing on the merits. With arguments likely coming later this year, there is no timeline for Armistead’s decision.

A complicated relationship

In many ways, the Government Camp-Cooper Spur land exchange is like a divorce: Relationships eroded with time, third parties introduced more complications and everything eventually ended up in court. Meadows, USFS and Thrive simply can’t agree on how to split up the north side of Mount Hood, and both sides have different motivations.

“One of the narratives out there is we’re just unreasonable, we’re just crazy and we’re just pursuing this 20-year-old litigation out of a vendetta,” said McCarthy, a longtime Thrive member who owns land near Cooper Spur. “Well, we’ve proposed extremely generous compromise solutions just to get this done, and [Meadows] won’t engage.”

“That allegation is kind of disingenuous. Thrive has, multiple times, said that we should be driven out of Hood River County,” Leo, the spokesman for Meadows, responded. “We have tried to work with Thrive and similarly feel that we’ve been rebuffed when we’ve reached out.”

Looking back to 2005, Leo said Meadows supported the clean sweep agreement, but as USFS initiated the exchange, they came to understand that FLPMA requirements made some of the original terms moot. In his view, conflicts with FLPMA instigated the 2018 Clarification Act, which allowed USFS to exchange less land with proof that it was necessary.

“The bipartisan Clarification Act aimed to resolve the longstanding land dispute on Mount Hood so it wasn’t an either/or solution. Instead, it sought a win for both wilderness protections and responsible development that protected this natural treasure,” said Hank Stern, a spokesman for Sen. Ron Wyden.

Thrive no longer believes they’ll achieve the clean sweep, but the deal will still protect 2,701 acres of the Crystal Springs watershed and add 1,709 acres to Mt. Hood’s National Forest. Even more, the property Meadows will retain at Cooper Spur technically sits outside of the watershed, which provides to about 6,000 county residents. The company also plans to construct employee housing on the land in Government Camp. “Many generations of young people have come to the mountain to work and enjoy the mountain lifestyle, but also learn how to work in the hospitality business,” said Leo. “We bring, we think, economic benefits to all the people in Hood River County through having a viable tourism business.”

According to Greg Pack, the president and general manager of Meadows, the company employs around 120 people year-round, but that swells to about 1,200 during the winter months.

To make the most of Mount Hood, people need places to eat, rest and gather, which Thrive acknowledges. They also hope Meadows continues to operate the Cooper Spur Ski Area. Thrive just doesn’t want to see a massive expansion.

“The north side of the mountain is a really special place — it’s the place people go for backcountry, undeveloped recreation,” said Staten. “The community has spoken again and again that they want to keep the north side of Mount Hood special and a place for wilderness, quiet contemplation and not highly developed.”

Thus, as it has for so long, the Government Camp-Cooper Spur land exchange continues. Environmentalists in the pursuit of quaintness on one side. Economic and recreational interests on the other. A dispute that embodies the American West, the ball is in the courts.

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Add Comment

Forest Service News Release for Winter Safety on Mt. Hood

Friday, December 20, 2024
by Liz Warren

Mt. Hood National Forest

www.fs.usda.gov/mthood

 

Forest Service News Release

 

Enjoy the Winter – Safely! – on Mt. Hood National Forest

 

 

As we approach the solstice, more and more people are searching for winter adventures on Mt. Hood National Forest. National forests are ideal for sledding, skiing, snowmobiling, and more, but there are necessary precautions to take before heading out. The best way to enjoy your public lands safely is to plan ahead, especially in the winter.

 

Always check the weather forecast and visit TripCheck.com for highway conditions in Oregon before leaving home. Driving in the winter at high elevations can mean snowy and icy roads, limited visibility, snowplows, and heavy ski traffic. Prepare your vehicle – carry tire chains and a winter weather kit, which should include extra food, water, layers, and blankets. Consider carpooling or using public transit, such as the Mt. Hood Express or Gorge-To-Mountain Express buses.

 

Most of the Forest has no cell service. Online mapping services are not always reliable, and Mt. Hood National Forest roads aren’t plowed. Many Forest roads are closed seasonally due to snow, winter range wildlife habitat, or resource protection. Motor Vehicle Use Maps are free and show all Mt. Hood National Forest roads, as well as seasonal closures. Pick up a paper copy at one of our offices or download a georeferenced PDF for your smartphone: https://www.fs.usda.gov/goto/mthood/mvum

 

Sno-Parks are popular for winter recreation and can fill up quickly on weekends. If a parking lot is full, it’s important to have a backup plan. Do not park along the highway, in no-parking zones, or block other vehicles. Emergency vehicles need unobstructed access to operate safely. Vehicles blocking traffic or parked illegally are subject to ticketing and towing. For more information on snow levels, check the weekly Mt. Hood Sno-Park conditions report or follow us on Facebook.

 

Nearly all Sno-Parks on Mt. Hood require vehicles to display a Sno-Park permit. The Oregon Sno-Park permit program is managed by ODOT (Oregon Department of Transportation) and money earned from permits sales directly funds plowing and maintenance of Sno-Parks. Learn more: https://www.tripcheck.com/Pages/Sno-Parks-Permits

 

Have a fun and safe winter on the mountain!



 

Winter Driving Essentials: cell phone charger; flashlight & flares; full tank of gas; extra water and food; extra clothes, boots, gloves, hat; blankets or sleeping bag; ice scraper/snow brush and shovel; snow tires or chains and jumper cables; first aid kit. Layering basics: 1) Base layer, 2) middle layer, 3) outer layer, 4) protect your extremities, 5) suitable footwear, 6) accessorize.

 

 

 

Add Comment

Flood Information on Mt. Hood

Wednesday, December 4, 2024
by Liz Warren

Flood information on Mt. Hood's history

Add Comment

Investors Are Not Buying Up All The Homes

Friday, November 29, 2024
by Liz Warren

         

Add Comment

How to Get Your Mt. Hood Home Ready to Sell in 2025

Friday, November 22, 2024
by Liz Warren

         

Add Comment

Slash Burning in the Mt. Hood National Forest

Thursday, October 31, 2024
by Liz Warren

Mt. Hood National Forest

Forest Service News Release

 

Pile burning begins on Mt. Hood National Forest

 

The arrival of cooler weather has allowed firefighters to begin burning piles of slash on Mt. Hood National Forest. Pile burning operations will continue over the next several weeks as conditions allow. 

 

Woody debris, also known as slash, is created from post-fire restoration, fuels management, and vegetation projects. The slash is placed in piles and left to cure for about a year before burning during the wet season to reduce the fire footprint. Allowing time for the vegetative material to dry out means piles burn more efficiently and produce less smoke. Removing these large accumulations of hazardous fuels during the fall and winter months is part of an ongoing effort to reduce wildfire risk.

 

All prescribed burns are carefully and methodically thought out. Fire personnel consider many factors before burning, including temperature, moisture levels, wind speed and direction, and relative humidity. Before implementing a burn, weather is assessed, a test fire is lit, and its behavior is monitored to determine whether conditions are safe to continue and will meet burn objectives.

 

Firefighters plan to ignite slash piles along the following roads, focusing first on higher elevations:

 

East Zone

  • Forest Roads 16/1610/1630/1640
  • Forest Roads 17/1720/1721/1722
  • Forest Roads 27/2710
  • Forest Roads 44/4430/4431
  • Forest Roads 48/4810/4811/4820/4885 

 

West Zone

  • Forest Road 4220
  • Forest Roads 45/4545
  • Forest Roads 46/4630/4640/4660/4661
  • Forest Road 57
  • Forest Roads 58/5810
  • Forest Roads 63/6330/6340
  • Forest Roads 70/7010

 

Smoke may be visible in the vicinity during ignition operations and for a short time afterward. Fire personnel follow policies outlined in the Oregon Department of Forestry smoke management plan. These guidelines help minimize smoke impacts to visibility and public health.

 

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.

 

Pile burning on Mt. Hood National Forest, 2019.
 
Mt. Hood National Forest
 
Facebook  Twitter  
 

Mt. Hood National Forest | 16400 Champion Way | Sandy, OR 97055 US
Add Comment

New Fires Around Mt. Hood

Tuesday, August 6, 2024
by Liz Warren

 

Thunderstorms spark new fires around Mt. Hood region

 

Mt. Hood National Forest firefighters responded to several new lightning starts on Monday, August 5 after a storm system passed through the area in the early morning hours.

 

Sandstone Fire is located on the Clackamas River Ranger District on the south side of Thunder Mountain, several miles north of Forest Road 70. It's currently burning in the 2006 Blister Fire burn scar and is estimated at approximately 350 acres. More accurate mapping will be provided once an infrared flight is available.

 

The fire is located in a challenging area with multiple hazard snags around the perimeter. Personnel are working to get ground resources closer to the fire. Scooper planes are using Timothy and Detroit Lakes to retrieve water and help slow the fire's growth.

 

Barlow Ridge Fire, located along Barlow Ridge south of OR Route 35 and east of U.S. Highway 26, was fully lined around the perimeter yesterday at roughly 0.25 acre. A helicopter from nearby Whisky Creek Fire dropped water on the fire, keeping the footprint small with the help of local engines and firefighters. Fire personnel will continue to patrol and mop up, which includes extinguishing and removing burning material, over the next several days.

 

Hunchback Fire is estimated at 0.1 acre. Containment lines held overnight and firefighters completed line construction today. Mop-up operations have begun. Smokejumpers are assisting and personnel will remain on scene and patrol for several days.

 

Fish Creek Divide Fire is estimated at 0.25 acre. Resources are on scene.

 

There are no closures at this time. We ask people to avoid the fire areas to allow firefighters to work safely.

 

Any evacuation notices for Sandstone Fire will be shared by the Clackamas County Sheriff's Office. Please be sure to follow them for updates and sign up for emergency alerts: www.clackamas.us/dm/publicalerts

 

Public use fire restrictions are in effect and open campfires are prohibited in Mt. Hood National Forest. For more information on fire restrictions, visit our website: www.fs.usda.gov/main/mthood/fire

Photo: Smoke from the Sandstone Fire, viewed from Estacada on Aug. 5. (Photo courtesy of Cara Lewis)
 
 
 
Mt. Hood National Forest
 
Facebook  Twitter  

 

Add Comment

Fire Restrictions in the Mt. Hood National Forest

Wednesday, July 10, 2024
by Liz Warren

Mt. Hood National Forest

Forest Service News Release

 

Fire Restrictions on Mt. Hood National Forest

 

 

Due to dry and hot conditions, campfires are prohibited across the Mt. Hood National Forest beginning Friday, July 12, 2024.

 

All campfires, charcoal or briquette fires, pellet fires, or any other open fires are prohibited under a Forest Order, including in developed campgrounds. Portable cooking stoves, lanterns, and heating devices using liquefied or bottled fuel, such as propane, are still allowed as they can be instantly switched off. 

 

The recent hot weather has caused Fire Danger Indices to rise, and with no rain or cool-down in the forecast, fire personnel anticipate the potential for fires to continue to remain high through the summer. With the current dry and warm long-range forecast, wildfire starts pose a greater threat to firefighter safety, public safety, and personal property. 

 

“Most wildfires are human-caused. With our hot, dry summer conditions any fire can become a big problem fast, putting lives and property at risk,” said Dirk Shupe, Fire Management Staff Officer for the Mt. Hood National Forest. “We’re thankful for the vast majority of folks who take fire safety seriously and help us protect our public lands.”

 

More wildfire information and the full text of the Forest Order.

 

For more information about the local and regional fire outlook visit: https://gacc.nifc.gov/nwcc/predict/outlook.aspx

 

Neighboring national forests are also beginning to enact public use restrictions for the wildfire season. Find more about restrictions and fire safety on adjacent national forests:

 

And remember, fireworks and other explosive devices are always prohibited on national forests.

 

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.

 
 
 
Mt. Hood National Forest
 
Facebook  Twitter  
Add Comment

Displaying blog entries 1-10 of 365

Syndication

Categories

Archives