portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article reporting oregon & cascadia

forest defense | sustainability

Rosboro Lumber steals trees, logs some of last Willamette Old Growth in Blue River Face

Rosboro Lumber steals trees, logs some of last Willamette Old Growth in Blue River Face, putting a rare lichen in danger of extinction. Call Wyden, McKenzie RD, and Willamette NF, tell them to stop the theft before the rest is logged, and investigate the lack of Sensitive species protections for Pseudocephalaria rainerensis.
Old Growth in Blue River Face (BRF) off of Hwy 126
Old Growth in Blue River Face (BRF) off of Hwy 126
Pseudocephalaria rainerensis on logged old growth doug fir in Blue River Face
Pseudocephalaria rainerensis on logged old growth doug fir in Blue River Face
Pseudocephalaria rainerensis on logged old growth doug fir in Blue River Face
Pseudocephalaria rainerensis on logged old growth doug fir in Blue River Face
Remarked Old Growth Cedar in Blue River Face
Remarked Old Growth Cedar in Blue River Face
Old Growth Logged in an 'understory thinning' of Blue River Face
Old Growth Logged in an 'understory thinning' of Blue River Face
Rosboro Lumber of Springfield, is illegally taking hundreds of thousands of board feet of cedar and fir, destroying some of the last remaining old growth in the Mid Oregon National Forests, all because the Willamette National Forest's McKenzie River Ranger District is too lazy to do something about it.
In a sale that was touted as an example of the National Forests Service's adaptive management strategy, the Blue River Face Timber Sale in the Willamette National Forest was supposed to be an "understory thining project". The sale passed NEPA regulations and NFS timber sale requirements on the assumption that logging was going to be limited to thinning the understory of this old growth drainage by selectively cutting and dragging out a few of the smaller diameter (<2.5 ft) trees. As recently as a month ago, cutting hadn't been initiated, likely in part to mid-willamete valley residents' discovery of an extremely rare, and endangered lichen (Pseudosephalaria rainerensis).
Under rules in the North West Forest Plan's Survey and Manage program, logging is not permitted within ~180 feet of any known remaining populations of this lichen as it would likely go extinct without, and can only regenerate within, surrounding stands of old growth.

But just a few weeks ago, the Bush administration suspended those rules, and magically old growth trees marked to be saved (orange) in the Blue River Face timber sale were re-marked for cutting (blue). Ironically valley residents had just submitted several samples and verified with forest service biologists that rainerensis was in fact present in sale days before survey and manage rules were suspended. Since then, Rosburo moved in fast and began cutting.
Within a week Rosburo lumber cut as much as 60% of existing old growth in units 5c and 5e. Recent surveys of these units found that anything but understory thining occurred in Blue River Face. Douglas fir as large as 5.5 feet in diameter had been cut. Several trees were aged to over 400 years old! Greater than 50 trees in excess of 4 feet in diameter had been felled in this small subsection of the Blue River Face sale.
Aside from the size and age of the trees, recent survey of the sale identified the rare lichen, rainerensis, amoung the limbs of the fallen old growth trees. Some of what may very well be the last pockets of rainerensis in the Oregon Cascades now lie on the forest floor off of Highway 126, never again able to reproduce, soon to be trampled by heavy logging equipment.
When the regional forester (Monty Wilson out of the Mckenzie River Ranger District) was notified as to the presence of rainerensis and the logging of old growth in this "understory thining project", he refused to review the project and promised valley residents that this was a "properly managed" sale and that it is an example of "sustainable forestry". There was nothing sustainable about the logging in units 5 d and 5e. Even if the forest service leaves this area un-logged for the next 400 years to grow trees nearly as big as the ones they cut, there will be now old growth forest for thes new trees to grow into. The few remaining old growth trees will likely fall in the next 5 years during windstorms, and with them, the last of all the species that rely on a dense multilayered forest canopy.
When confronted about the cutting of any old growth in this sale, McKenzie District forester Monty Wilson said that Rosburo might need to make way 'corridors' for dragging out (yarding) the other logs cut in the "understory thining project". However, recent surveys into the area have shown that there is no rhyme or reason as to which old growth trees have been cut. There are no discernable 'corridors'. Some trees that were marked to save were cut, some that were marked to save were re-marked and cut, others that have no marking to save or cut were cut, and a few were left (both with and without marking). When pressed about the lack of corridor cutting patterns Wilson stumbled and suggested that maybe the corridors were larger because they now had to haul out the large old growth they had cut to make corridors in the first place. When asked why old growth had been cut on the opposite side of the road of the unit, he again mumbled about how Rosboro might need place guy lines for support towers to haul out the old growth that had to be cut to make way for a larger corridors that were needed to haul out the old growth trees that had to be felled to make a yarding corridor to haul out the trees cut from an "understory thinning project" all of which was designed NOT to log old growth, but instead IMPROVE forest health through adaptive management.
It should be noted that the amount of board feet of old growth felled (hundreds of thousands) in order to make way for the removal of the trees targeted in this "understory thinning" far exceeds the total board feet of those targeted "understory" trees. It is a sort of circular logic.

'We must log the understory to save the old growth. We must log some old growth to remove the understory we logged in order to save the old growth. We must log some more old growth, in order the remove the old growth that we logged in order to remove the understory that we logged to save the old growth.'

The result is clear. Rosboro takes home WAY more lumber than the sale listed for; McKenzie River Ranger District claims they followed the law; and one of the last stands of old growth in the public holdings of the Willamette National Forest is gone forever... .all at taxpayer expense. So much for multiple use. So much for wise use. So much for sustainable forestry. So much for NFS accountability.

Slanted View 13.Mar.2005 21:25

Native

The story about Rosboro cutting too much old growth is yet another veiw of those that would lock up the forests to any business other than a leisurely stroll. - It's hogwash

'native' is disengenuous, avoids facts and issues at hand 12.May.2005 20:59

capitan pooh-pooh head

Dear Native,

Do you have any reason to suggest that the above story is false?

Can you cite any logic or fact or theory as to why or how the above story is false?

Why didn't you summon facts, logic, or a theory as to how or why the above story is false?

I can only see that the author of the story has presented verifiable fact, lending creedence to the entire story. I know this because I googled the blue river face timber sale and found Willamette NF documentation of the Sale that verified:

1. The Blue River Face timber sale location as described above
2. Its timing for logging as described above
3. The bider as Roseburo Lumber as described above
4. Its status in the adaptive managment area of Willamette NF as described above
5. The various sections (a. b. c.....) and the timeline for 'thining' as described above
6. The name of Monty Wilson as the contact at the McKenzie District as described above
7. The plans listing of yarding as described above
8. A separate document on NFS Survey and Manage listing the lichen Pseudocephalaria Rainerinsis as described above
9. To my untrained eye, I would also say that the pictures of lichen above look strikingly similar to the pictures of the lichen listed in the survey and manage document.
10. AP, CBS, NPR and other news outlets stories re: the bush admin's droping of the survey and manage guidlines all in the three weeks prior to the posting date of the above story
11. The pictures in the above story match the Willamette NF in that area (from my many times driving through, camping, skiing, and hiking off of Hwy 126) and match the description in the story of the trees cut and the location of the lichen
12. Heck even the pictures look like the same time of year as the post date of the story

All of this I was able to discern in about 10 minutes of googles and web page searches.

What about you?

Did you research this at all, or did you just yell 'lie!' and hide behind the name 'native'.

Why would even bother calling yourself native on a anonymous open posting wire?

Is it to try to somehow lend credence to your completely unverified statement that the above story was fabricated by someone who would like to keep NF's closed to everything excepting walking?

I would argue that your 'name' was designed to do that.

I would argue that you didn't have the time or the ability to refute the above story, but wanted people not to believe it.

I would argue that to do that you gave youself a name you thought would give you some semblence of believability and denounced the story as a lie ("hogwash") and tried to make readers mistrust it by stating that the author had an agenda that you thought people would find unpalatable ("those that would lock up the forests to any business other than a leisurely stroll.").

I would also argue that all of that was silly on your part as most people actually quite intelligent and capable of detecting spin and an attempt to influence. I also think that most folks reading this understand that this is annoymous posting and we can give ourselves what ever name we want...it doesn't mean the name or description is true.

Any response?

With the lack of any evidence to contrary and plenty of consistent and independant evidence tying the story to other well documented events, I am gonna have to tend to believe the original authors version until some substantiatibe reason can be presented why not to believe them.

actually... 13.May.2005 20:23

pkz

actually the author never said Rosburo cut too much old growth....They said the cut old growth period, and that cutting of that old growth was not what was called for in the timber plan when it passed NEPA review.

The author actually said cutting of any oldgrowth allowed Rosburo to take way more board footage than was in the plan. It sounds to me like the author very cleary made the case that NO old growth was supposed to be logging according to the timber sale plan...so therefore your comment that it is just the authors 'view' that Rosburo is cutting 'too much oldgrowth' is very indicative. It suggests you think cutting oldgrowth is called for and that the author is just someone who can't get the details right.

Interesting...so in your view cutting old-growth is ok.....but reporting on a company violating timber plans and stealling lumber means youre a crack-pot.

Well thats one way of looking at it I suppose.

Cutting old growth trees 13.Jun.2006 09:00

Dave

A. Political and socio-economic perspective:

Multiple use of public forests and public land may have been a good idea in Gifford Pinchot's time; and it may still be; but how many old growth forests is America's society allowed to consume? All of them? 20%, 30%, 80%? How do we "consume" them? Do the use "boundaries" and physical (mapped) boundaries change with political whim, or are they set in stone? We have already taken over 90% of the old growth (you got that - NINETY PERCENT)(1), so from that standpoint alone, we are DONE "LOGGING" old growth forests, PERIOD. In other words, from the standpoint of "multiple use", the oil in ways still not fully understood. We get ALL our food because of fertile soil. Salmon need forests to survive. Fishermen need salmon to survive. Trees are part of a complex cycle that makes oxygen available to humans and other mamals (3). Trees hold back more than 50% of the precipitation from the surface of the earth slowly releasing some of it to evaporation and the rest to the ground and some to the tree itself (5). Forests moderate climate conditions. Forests hold carbon - they take in carbon dioxide and release it slowly over hundreds and thousands of years when they die and decay (3). They help to create a living planet. We need the living planet to survive. No; we are not the masters of our plantet. Don't believe logging industry has already taken way more than its share (2). Some people use the justification that loggers need to make a living too. This is true, however, there are lots of trees to log and we don't need old growth. The reason old growth is taken is because the government pays construction companies to put in the roads that allow access to the trees so the profits are higher (much higher) on old growth logging. There are only so many old growth trees. At some point in time they will all be gone. How many do the "loggers" get 10% 20% 80%, 90%? The "validity" of this "multiple use" policy can be argued from the standpoint of ethics; most probably because it is, of essence, a point of view.

B. Scientific (empirical) viewpoint:
Forests clean our water, hold it - and then release it slowly. We die or get really sick without clean water. Old growth forests create fertile sme?
Check out Biosphere 2. There is a reason why they called it "2" the first one failed miserably.
Biosphere 2 has also failed (4). The best scientists and the richest investors could not create an artifical "environment" that would support life. It has now sadly become only a profit producing device (2). Until we FULLY understand the workings of all the life on this planet, we are in effect gambling with our lives and the lives of our children's children when we continue to destroy ecosystems which we do not even fully understand. The worst part is that with as much as we now DO understand, we know we must stop destroying old growth forests - not necessarily because the "trees have a life of their own" ( although that could be ) but because, damnit, we need them to survive.

references:

1.) Jorgenson, Lisa. Grand Trees of America:
Our State and Champion Trees.
Roberts Rinehart Publishers:
Niwot, Colorado 1992, p. 4
pictures from this url:
 http://www.advancedrepair.com/architectural_epoxy/oldgrowth.htm

here is a good explanation of old growth forest from the east coast
in Pennsylvania where there is .002 percent old growth left. They value
it appropriately.
2.)  http://www.dcnr.state.pa.us/wrcf/keynotes/summer99/forests.htm

and from the university of Michigan here is more info:
3.)  http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange2/current/lectures/deforest/deforest.html

4.)  http://www.oswego.edu/~schneidr/CHE300/envinv/EnvInv01.html

5.)  http://www.enlight-inc.com/total_rainfall_2005.html

6.)  http://www.bio2.com/