Update 04/06: Along with the Class of '98 sale, all of the following sales except Final Curtin are now being sold in the South Myrtle Creek Regeneration Harvest Sale.
Update 05/01: These sales (Buck Fever, Dream Weaver, Final Curtin, and
Sweet Pea) were held up by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
Update 10/99: This sale is held up in two law suits (S&M and ACS), and
an IBLA stay.
The Upper South Myrtle Harvest Plan from Roseburg BLM proposed to clearcut of 11.2 mmbf from 438 acres of old native forests (2,240 log truck loads) in the Cascade Range near Myrtle Creek.
When this sale was announced in January, 1997, the public could not look at the sale to evaluate it without some long hikes. All the roads leading to the units were closed by landslides.
The Environmental Analysis was broken up into 4 timber sales: Buck Fever, Sweet Pea, Dream Weaver, and Final Curtin. All but Final Curtin were sold in late 1997. We appealed all three sold sales.
Buck Fever clearcuts right next to some domestic water sources. BLM considers these secondary to selling off the standing old-growth forests. Dream Weaver has a very rare species of mollusk discovered in one of the units. Yet logging the forests is so important to BLM that they will give this rare species over 42,000 square feet of habitat then they previously determined it needs to survive and perpetuate itself. Sweet Pea will log one of the last old-growth stands along a scenic highway that is featured in a tourist brochure published by the towns of Canyonville and Myrtle Creek. BLM claims it never had an agreement with those towns that it would not clearcut the tour route. BLM will 'mitigate' the clearcut on both sides of the highway by "quality clean up."
All the Upper South Myrtle Creek timber sales will continue the logging in the headwaters of Myrtle Creek, in an area where BLM's own documents state that regeneration harvests should be the lowest priority, and restoration should be the highest priority (Louis and Weaver creeks). However, BLM just continues its tradition of clearcutting all old-growth.
Last winter, the towns of Myrtle Creek and Tri City had devastating floods because the watershed could not absorb the high amount of rainfall. Many homes were damaged, and five were pushed off their foundations. Those homeowners who did not have flood insurance became homeless. Now BLM proposes to clearcut over 400 more acres of their watershed.
After the roadbuilding needed to get through all the landslides blocking the sale, BLM will then build 1.6 miles of new roads to access these forests. BLM claims that these roads are "temporary" (so they don't have acknowledge them in their road inventories), but how would they ever obliterate the road in Unit R, which cuts deep into a steep mountain side slope?
The project area is well known for soil instability. The soil scientists recognized the instability of the area, and cited unstable soils in units B,C,E,I,J,N,O,Q,R,S,T, and U. The E.A. only recommends clumping retention trees in some of the unstable areas (units O,T,I, and J). The rest will be logged as usual.
This is a serious violation of the Forest Plan standards and guidelines, which requires that Riparian Reserves include landslide prone areas (B-17), and "unstable and potentially unstable areas." (B-14)
Just the fact that these units have unstable areas, according to the soils report, means that they must have at least "potentially unstable areas". BLM is in direct and clear violation of the Forest Plan by not reserving out these areas. The mitigation measures recommended, clumping retention trees, is an illegal use of retention trees. The Forest Plan requires that these areas must not logged at all.
Previous BLM documents (Broken Buck soils report) says the use of retention trees for landslide prevention is dangerous: "There are potential pitfalls. The validity of using retention trees for slope protection is largely unproven. Blowdown can eliminate the intended protection and may even trigger a slide...."
Clumping retention trees to prevent future landslides is not the stated purpose of retention trees, which should instead be used: "to provide support for those organisms that require very old forests."
The S. Myrtle Harvest Plan is apparently in a major Indian travel corridor between the North and South Umpqua - and there are lots of artifacts around. BLM is having to spend over $50,000 for the harvest plan 'cultural surveys', and maybe another $30,000 for 'mitigation' (whatever that could be). Timber industry will not be picking up the tab (not included in minimum bid).
Because of the older trees, this watershed supports coho salmon, winter steelhead, resident rainbow trout, and resident cutthroat trout (an endangered species). Even though aquatic habitat surveys were not completed for the watershed analysis, it recommends "protecting upslope areas," not clearcutting them.
The timber sale project area also contains two potential nesting sites for Peregrine Falcons and ten Northern Spotted Owl sites. Five of these sites will be so heavily impacted by the logging, BLM had to get permission to incidentally take (kill) them.
This sale is objectionable in many of its heavy handed approaches to "ecosystem management," but there are at least three places where it is just down right illegal: Logging on unstable slopes, Riparian Reserve reduction, and slash burning on sensitive soils.
BLM has decided that the riparian buffers on each side of non-fish bearing creeks should be reduced by 18' from the width analyzed in the Watershed Analysis. Fish bearing streams will have their riparian reserves reduced by 26 feet on each side. This is because BLM 'averages' their site class trees over the watershed, instead of using the site class for individual units.
BLM is planning on burning the slash (useless small trees, limbs and tops from the big trees, etc.), in spite of the fact that it breaks their own rules not to burn on 'sensitive soils' (Category 1 soils), in units B, C, T and U. The soils scientist wrote: "I do not recommend broadcast burning... burning of the above mentioned units will increase surface erosion and reduce site productivity..." The E.A. says burning is detrimental to "the potential loss of seed trees, retention trees, and/or existing regeneration pockets. Seedling growth rates could be reduced due to nutrient loss, and ceanothus [brush] growth could be stimulated". Then the E.A. goes right ahead and RECOMMENDS burning these units. Why? To increase planting spots and diminish wildfire risk. How's that for sensible forest health management.