5/09/00

Right View Timber Sale Unit 1
BLM Allows Illegal Logging
in Stream Side Reserves

BLM promised that no stream side
reserves would be logged in
Right View.

So why was this stream side logged?


BLM sold over a hundred trees in the stream side reserves in a "Right View Contract Modification", in spite of BLM's promise that the Right View project "will not enter any riparian reserves."

Why?

Perhaps BLM thinks they won't get caught. Most of the time, they are probably right.


The Right View timber sale contract was modified on July 27, 1999, to add a four-acre thinning unit adjacent to unit 1, increasing the contract by 536 trees (or 46 thousand board feet). We recently learned this when, as a result of a FOIA request, we received "Modification No. 5" describing the add-on to unit 1 of the Right View contract.

Incredibly, about half of the four-acre add-on was illegally in the Riparian Reserve of Cole Creek. Trees were cut as close as 33 feet to the creek. Perhaps hundreds of trees were cut and yarded from the Riparian Reserve. There was evidence of tractor logging in the four acres, including in the Riparian Reserve. The Decision Document for Right View allowed no Riparian Reserve logging and no tractor logging anywhere. It appears modification #5 was far outside the scope of the impacts analyzed in the Environmental Analysis, and thus, very illegal.

We confronted BLM with this information and asked for an explanation. After a week of refusing to acknowledge our requests we called the BLM State Office, who in turn ordered Roseburg BLM to respond. Only then did BLM offer an excuse.

BLM's excuse is weak and still illegal.

BLM claims they didn't move the boundaries of Right View, unit 1. Even though the four-acres is an add-on to the Right View contract, it was analyzed in a different EA, called "Early Commercial Thinning", (E.C.T.), that BLM decided to log in November of 1997. BLM claims it was simply "administrative efficiency" to give it to Herbert in a Right View contract modification. But this is even more illegal then moving the Right View boundaries.

In April of 1998, E.C.T. was found illegal by a federal court. It was included on the July 22, 1997 Biological Opinion that Judge Rothstein revoked. The add-on to unit 1 (E.C.T.) does not comply with the Endangered Species Act or the Northwest Forest Plan -- just like Right View. But unlike Right View, E.C.T. is NOT sheltered by the salvage logging rider. BLM has no loophole to use to log it. In fact, BLM promised the federal court they would not log E.C.T.

Right View was also found illegal by the federal court, but BLM continued to log it using a loophole (Congress declared that no 1996 timber sales had to comply with environmental protections). But if the add-on to unit one was a 1997 timber sale decision, as BLM now claims, the loophole doesn't apply and BLM must comply with all environmental protections. If a federal court ruled this add-on was illegal, why did BLM give it to Herbert Lumber to log as a "Contract Modification Right View"? I have asked Roseburg BLM this question, and they say they will eventually have an answer.

Either BLM illegally moved the boundary markers on the Right View sale, or they logged a sale that was thrown out by a federal court long ago. Either way, BLM has done a very bad thing.


The Contract Modification

On BLM letterhead, dated July 27, 1999:

Modification No. 5

Dear Mr. Beck,
This letter is to modify timber sale contract No. OR100-TS95-1, Right View, for the following purpose: to add an approximate four (4) acre thinning unit adjacent to Unit 1 to the timber sale. The need for this modification was discussed between Steve Radford, your representative, and our representative, Craig Holt, on July 8, 1999. ...No. of Trees: 536;

Species: Douglas-fir;
Estimated Volume M: 46;
Price Per M: $136.00;
Value: $6,256.00.

3. Exhibit "A" showing the contract area shall be modified by revised Exhibit "A", Modification No.5, which shows the approximate location of the additional timber described above. The boundary of the thinning area is posted with green boundary of timber reserve tags and painted orange."...


But the Right View EA promised ...


Even more Reserve trees were logged ...

I looked at the four-acre Right View add-on in early May, 2000. For a distance of a couple hundred feet along the western boundary of the add-on unit, the green boundary tags were less than 40 feet from the Cole Creek. Some green tags were within 25 feet of the creek. The closest tree cut was 33 feet from the edge of the creek. Over a hundred trees were taken from the stream side reserve.

Mysteriously, in the southwest corner of the add-on, the green tags drew away from the creek, yet orange painted retention trees were marked outside the unit, between the green tags and the creek. About a dozen trees were felled and not yarded in this area. Some of the trees cut and left were Cedar trees that were painted orange -- retention trees. Very close to the creek were trees that had evidence of green boundary tags torn off and the orange paint covered with black paint.


BLM must explain themselves. We want to know:



Perhaps the most important question is: Why is BLM insisting on logging more trees in unit 5, around the tree-sitters, claiming they must meet their "contractual obligations"? BLM has already sold Herbert 46 thousand board feet of extra trees in unit 1. The tree-sit buffer in unit 5 is only 37 thousand board feet.

If BLM allowed no more logging in Unit 5 of Right View, the volume lost to Herbert would be less than the 46 thousand extra board feet they've already been given. Roseburg BLM has no excuse not to allow the tree-sitters to come out of their tree BEFORE bulldozers, yarders and swinging logs work next to the already unsafe buffer, further endangering the lives of the people. BLM has met their volume contractual obligations to Herbert. Allowing Herbert to cut even more trees in Unit 5 is unnecessary and uncalled for.

But incredibly, BLM is now considering giving the loggers even more reserve trees. To “compensate” the loggers for the tree-sit buffer, BLM is considering giving Herbert the wildlife reserve trees in unit 5. The Northwest Forest Plan requires some wildlife trees left within all clearcuts for “green tree retention”. The original Right View Environmental Analysis talked about how these trees are protecting wildlife, as well as protecting important wetlands in unit 5. BLM wants to give the loggers these important reserve trees in trade for sparing the lives of the tree-sitters by not logging their buffer.

BLM must stop this madness now. BLM must not cut any more trees in Unit 5. Click here to tell them yourself.

written by:
Francis Eatherington

Also see Pictures of: