Pinestrip Timber Sale
Forest Service accidentally clearcuts streamside protection buffers.

06/26/01: The Pinestrip timber sale in Fish Creek was recently exposed in The New York Times in a full page ad. Download the PDF file here. (You will need Adobe Acrobat to view PDF files.)

10/26/00: A few weeks ago the Umpqua National Forest accidentally allowed Boise-Cascade to clearcut about 12 acres of old-growth forests in the streamside protection buffers of the Pinestrip timber sale, a sale closely associated with the Snog timber sale now being protested by tree-sitters. Other old-growth reserves could also have been mistakenly cut in Pinestrip, though at this time the Forest Service is only admitting to the one discovered by us.

John Ouimet, Diamond Lake District Ranger, said this morning, "It was a mistake.... There's nothing we can do about it now."

These reserves were set aside by the Northwest Forest Plan to protect old-growth dependent wildlife, such as the northern spotted owl and fish. The stream-side reserves (aka Riparian Reserves) serve as wildlife travel corridors between larger reserves. The reserves along streams are twice as wide for fish-bearing streams to afford this corridor. The Umpqua National Forest accidentally clearcut the outer half of the Riparian Reserve in unit 8 of Pinestrip where Grave Creek, a fish-bearing stream, meandered through the unit.

This isn't the first time the district has been caught clearcutting, or trying to clearcut, Riparian Reserves. In fact, it's the third time in recent history in just the North Umpqua watershed. Besides Pinestrip, other violations were discovered in the near-by Snog and Watchdog timber sales. This latest "mistake" is the first one (that we know of) that was clearcut before we could stop it.

In 1995 we brought these three sales, Pinestrip, Snog and Watchdog, to court because the Forest Service's own fisheries biologist said they violated the Aquatic Conservation Strategy of the Northwest Forest Plan. But Judge Hogan ruled that the congressional "Logging Rider" prohibited us from enforcing environmental laws.

Stack of logs cut from streamside old-growth reserve.

Later, the Forest Service was caught by Phil Nanas (then from Native Forest Council) trying to clearcut over 16 acres of wetland protection buffers in the Watchdog timber sale. The Forest Service apologized, saying "this has been a learning experience for the Diamond Lake Ranger District timber sale shop... we have adjusted our field procedures to ensure compliance in the future." This has proven to be an incredibly hollow promise. Again, we caught the District marking wetland protection buffers for clearcutting in unit 2 of the Snog timber sale. It was only after tree-sitters moved into unit 2 this summer, that the Forest Service admitted their error in Snog. When activists insisted they re-check other units, the Forest Service admitted they also accidentally marked for clearcutting the stream-side reserves in unit 14 of Snog. And just now, the Riparian Reserves in Pinestrip have been "accidentally" clearcut.

The consistent pattern of "mistakes" for Snog, Pinestrip and Watchdog timber sales in the North Umpqua is deplorable. Undoubtedly, many more mistakes have happened that we have not caught. The Forest Service is playing a 'catch-me-if-you-can' game. The most recent apology, "There's nothing we can do now," shows that the District is simply intent on clearcutting our old-growth forests and is not concerned with other forest amenities, such as water -- especially on the timber sales where the logging rider prohibits us from enforcing environmental protections. There IS something the Forest Service could do about this terrible mistake. They could protect 12 acres of old-growth standing elsewhere that would otherwise be cut.

Riparian reserve accidentally clearcut
seen at the top of the picture above.

One would think that on sales, where several federal fisheries biologists have stated logging violates aquatic protection rules (even without the "mistakes"), the Forest Service would be especially careful not to accidentally clearcut the old-growth reserves. In spite of promises to improve, mistakes continued to happen. We don't need any more apologies and promises of "improved procedures." What we need is an improved attitude, an attitude that cares about environmental protections. In Pinestrip, the Northwest Forest Plan requires that Grave Creek receive a 360’ no-cut buffer. Unit 8 was clearcut, leaving only half the buffer for the entire 3,000’ of stream banks that wind through the middle of the unit. Other riparian reserves could have also been accidentally cut.

11/3/00

Yesterday, the Roseburg News-Review ran a story (pasted in below) on the Umpqua National Forest's accidental clear-cutting of 12 acres of old-growth in a forest reserve. Incredibly, the Forest Service put the entire blame for the mistake on the district fish biologist who didn't even work at the district when the sale was laid out near Grave Creek.

In shifting blame away from the timber department, the Forest Service claimed the fisheries biologist "failed to enter it into the GIS data system" when he discovered fish in Grave Creek in 1997. The computer system is not the issue.

What the Forest Service didn't say is that the timber planners: 1) neglected to look for fish when they laid out the sale in 1995, 2) use the Watershed Analysis, which had all the information they needed and was available for them to use a full year and a half before the mistake happened, and 3) failed to notice Grave Creek was a large creek when they checked the boundaries in 2000.

1) The sale was laid out according to the Northwest Forest Plan in 1995, a full year after that plan was in effect (April 1994). The Diamond Lake timber sale department had virtually no data on fish in Grave Creek, so instead of looking, they decided to error on the side of more logging. Only half the buffer required for a fish-bearing stream was left. Documents show the District failed to even have a District Fisheries Biologist on their ID Team. They did however, have the services of the main Umpqua Forest Fisheries Biologist. He warned: "little is known about the fish resources... Information on the distribution, abundance, or even species present is decidedly lacking... Site-specific data on existing physical or biological condition is not available...". The Forest Biologist then decided that Pinestrip was Likely to Adversely Affect fish. Even though the 1995 Pinestrip final decision referred to this report, it ignored the warning and retained the small buffer on Grave Creek.

2) Afterwards, a District Fisheries Biologist was hired. He did a fish survey in Grave Creek, and along with other biologists completed a detailed Watershed Analysis of the Pinestrip area. It was indexed, bound, and sitting in the timber department's office by May 1999. The Northwest Forest Plan says that Watershed Analysis must be used. But the timber planners simply let it sit there for 18 months unread, and then "accidentally" clearcut 12 acres that the Watershed Analysis identified as an old-growth reserve.

3) One look at Grave Creek and I could see immediately the Forest Service made a mistake. I don't have a GIS system. If ordinary citizens can spot these mistakes, you would think the Forest Service timber department could spot them, too. In fact, the Forest Service inspected that boundary twice just before clear-cutting it, once on 9/14/00, and again on 9/28/00. They refurbished the boundary markers and even put up fresh tags -- all within the old-growth reserve. If the Forest Service cared about ancient forest reserves, why didn't they have noticed their mistake while standing next to the creek?

The Forest Service has not offered the public an apology or any mitigation for their mistake. They simply told the newspaper they cannot be punished ("no legal penalties exist," they said), no matter how many mistakes they make. This is the third time in 5 years environmentalists have caught the district attempting to, or succeeding in, clear-cutting protected old-growth reserves. It is unknown how many total errors have occurred.

Francis Eatherington

In the following newspaper story, text between [brackets] are my comments.

-------------------------
The News-Review of Douglas County
Thursday, November 2, 2000. Page 1

ERROR LEADS TO LOGGING OF STREAM BUFFER

FOREST SERVICE: Agency admits 12 acres should have been protected.
by Garret Jaros

TOKETEE -- Forest Service errors led to the logging of 12 acres within a protected streamside buffer in a 23 acre timber sale on the Umpqua National Forest.

Forest Service officials confirmed that the sale's buyer, Boise Cascade, was allowed to cut timber within the buffer on the Pinestrip timber sale in September because of an agency mistake. The cut was discovered Oct. 23 by Francis Eatherington, forest monitor for Umpqua Watersheds, Inc. of Roseburg.

The Northwest Forest plan requires protective buffers be left around water sources to protect fish and maintain water quality as well as provide a protective corridor for endangered species. But no legal penalties exist if logging occurs in those areas, said Steve Nelson, assistant timber manager for the Diamond Lake Ranger District.

Twelve acres of mature timber in the Pinestrip sale equals 512,000 board feet, Nelson said. That's enough lumber for 64 homes. Boise Cascade paid $245,000 for those 12 acres. The company mills timber cut from the Umpqua in Medford.

The Forest Service claims miscommunication caused the mistake. The Pinestrip sale was laid out in 1995 when Grave Creek was listed as not having fish, said Rick Abbott, silviculturist at the Diamond Lake Ranger District.

In 1997, Diamond Lake fisheries biologist Rick Golden discovered fish in the creek but failed to enter it into the GIS (Geographic Imaging system) data system that would have alerted timber planners to the change in classification, which would then dictate a change in protection, said Abbott and Golden.

"Here is where the honest mistake came in," Abbott said. "The fish biologist never communicated the fact there was a change in stream channel classification so it was a communication problem, not a conspiracy."

Eatherington points out this is the third time in five years the district has been caught clear-cutting or trying to clear-cut in riparian reserves in the Fish Creek watershed.

Besides Pinestrip, she said other "violations" were discovered in the nearby Snog and Watchdog timber sales.

In 1995, Phil Nanas of the Native Forest Council in Eugene discovered a planned clear-cut in 16 acres of wetland protection buffers in the Watchdog timber sale. The Forest Service acknowledged the mistake and the timber wasn't cut, Abbott said.

"On Watchdog, I actually laid that buffer out myself and it was a very meandering stream," Abbott said.

At that time, only one person did layouts, Abbott said. In parts he measured too wide a buffer and in other parts too narrow, he said. The mismarking was noticed by a fellow employee.
[Then why did they make Phil Nanas argue with them for days before they changed it? --f.e.]

"So we changed it and the riparian reserve was protected," Abbott said. "There was no logging in the reserve. And what we did is change the way we lay out riparian reserves."

Now two or three people do the layout with someone standing in the stream channel to account for any meandering, Abbott said.

At that time, district officials assured environmentalists that field procedures would change to ensure compliance in the future.

But environmentalists say it wasn't until tree sitters moved onto the Snog timber sale early this summer that Forest Service officials admitted they also made mistakes marking that sale.

"I think the problem is a bad attitude toward the Northwest Forest Plan," Eatherington said. "We don't need any more changes in procedures to make sure this doesn't happen again. What we need is a change in attitude. It was careless mistakes caused by a bad attitude toward the forest plan."

But Abbott, who wrote the 1995 letter assuring future compliance, said, "We all believe in the Northwest Forest Plan and are trying to implement it the best we can."

In the Snog sale unit 2 was marked to be cut inside a wetland protection buffer and unit 14 was marked within the streamside protection buffer, Eatherington said.

Diamond Lake District ranger John Ouimet said mistakes were made in Snog, but he says they were corrected.
[They still aren't corrected. The boundaries have still not been moved. - f.e.]

There was a wet area in Unit 2 and our crews laid out one acre of wetland on the edge," Ouimet said. "Francis (Eatherington) pointed out [in 1996] that it was more than an acre, which we found then to be true [in 2000] so we have to protect it with 180-foot buffer."

Buffer zones are site specific but are usually 360 feet for fish-bearing streams and 180 for wetlands and nonfish-bearing streams. According to the forest plan, wetlands more than an acre must be protected.

"In Unit 14 (of Snog) we didn't change anything on the ground," Ouimet said. "The area was actually already protected as a 'wildlife leave group.' So on paper [!!] we will need to change the boundary from wildlife to riparian, but there is no change necessary on the ground. It will be fully protected."

In 1995, Umpqua Watersheds challenged in court the legality of the Pinestrip, Snog and Watchdog sales. The group pointed out that the Forest Service's own fisheries biologist said the sales didn't meet the standards set by the forest plan's Aquatic Conservation Strategy.

The judge dismissed the suit, however, because the sales fell under the Congressional salvage logging rider. Even though the sale was laid out in 1995, a year after the 1994 forest plan, the salvage rider exempted from litigation all 1995 and 1996 sales.