SHARE THIS SHOW:
RELATED CONVERSATIONS:
RECENTLY ON TOL:
TOL Our Town
- A tumblr site dedicated to the people and places that make up Oregon and Southwest Washington.
TAGS:
After years of long and often rancorous debate, it seems that Oregon's eastside "timber wars" may be over. That was the news this week from Senator Ron Wyden, who introduced a bill (pdf) based on a historic agreement between logging and environmental voices. Under the bill, logging in 8.3 million acres in six national forests east of the Cascades would increase in return for beefed up protections of large trees and waterways. Loggers and mill owners are applauding the potential for new or saved jobs; environmentalists are celebrating watershed and habitat safeguards.
Regular listeners of Think Out Loud — who might have heard us talking over the last two years about thinning, or old growth, or how you assess the value of a forest, among many other shows — might be surprised to hear that groups as divergent as Oregon Wild and the American Forest Resource Council could find themselves on the same side of a sweeping bill. The question is: now what?
If you've been frustrated that too much — or not enough — logging was being allowed in national forests, what do you make of this new announcement? Are you satisfied that you've gotten as much as you've given up? What would this agreement mean for Eastern Oregon? And are there any lessons — or accrued goodwill — that could be applied to the even more intractable disagreements on the other side of the mountains?
GUESTS:
- Josh Kardon: Chief of staff to Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR)
- John Shelk: Managing director of Ochoco Lumber Company
- Andy Kerr: Lobbyist for various conservation organizations, "czar" of The Larch Company, senior counselor and former executive director of Oregon Wild
- Ivan Maluski: Conservation program coordinator for the Oregon chapter of the Sierra Club
Tagged as: forest · logging · ron wyden
Photo credit: dalylab / Creative Commons
-
Thinning trees from below old ponderosa pine trees seems like a good way to protect these trees from fire - otherwise, a ground fire becomes a crown fire, killing trees that have survived centuries. If we take a "hands off" approach to these old forest stands, we run the risk of losing young, old, live, and dead trees.
-
jeff2day,
The bill does protect all old-growth trees 21" or greater. This is a legislative solidification of an administrative rule. It is important to remember that simply because the bill does not explicitly outline protections for down logs or dead trees, it does not mean that it encourages the removal of either.
Aside from the 21" protections, the bill contains strong language protecting streams and riparian areas. It also mandates no new road construction and a net reduction in roads.
For sticky issues like cutting trees after a disturbance like fire, the legislation calls for the creation of a science panel to advise the envisioned restoration projects. As mentioned below by Ivan with the Sierra Club, the science generally favors more protection than we currently have.
-Sean Stevens
Oregon Wild -
Why would we want to keep huge mills like Boise Cascade in business when their logging operations are clearly not sustainable and when they get the chance they close a mill to bust the union and put hundreds of locals out of work?
-
I find this agreement inspiring for a country seemingly inconsolably divided on many issues. I am interested in whether your guests believe this agreement could have been reached years earlier or was it dependent on climate change and biomass power plant markets.
Dylan Leeman
Portland
-
What about new logging roads?
Density of logging roads is known to increase runoff and erosion (detrimental to salmon) as well as allow recreational OHV access.
Is there anything in the bill to limit or mitigate for existing and/or new logging roads?
-
This was one of the strong conservation gains made in the bill. The legislation mandates no new road construction and places limits on temporary roads.
In addition, it requires a net reduction in roads over time.
-Sean Stevens
Oregon Wild -
In looking at the News Release today from Sen. Wyden's office (at his web site), apparently the bill requires logging (thinning) 80,000 -120,000 acres in each of 3 consecutive years. There is no way the current system can handle that level of effort even if the lumber market was up. What am I missing here?
-
charlieb-
The legislative language is important here. The treatment acres (80k-120k) are not meant to be only in the form of logging/thinning. Much of the treatments may come in the form of prescribed burns, brush mowing, and other restoration activities that the Forest Service is already using effectively.
-Sean Stevens
Oregon Wild -
I'd like someone to address biomass in this issue. Oregon Wild says they are okay with it if the fuel comes from slash and logging detritus. What happens in 5 years when the biomass plants want standing trees?
-
nocompromise-
Again, this was another area where conservationists felt like we made strong gains. The future of biomass has been bandied around quite a bit by politicians as a panacea to energy and forest health woes.
There have been some hair-brained proposals out there that make biomass out to be more than it is. This legislation makes sure that biomass production in eastern Oregon only comes as a byproduct from restoration work that is guided by the science panel.
So, if restoration work runs out in 5 years (which is unlikely), biomass production runs out as well.
-Sean Stevens
Oregon Wild -
Since an enforcable global 'forest practices act' is not likely; the market will not reflect the true cost of producing a 2X4.
We know how to log better than we can afford to.
Consequently, society must subsidize what we do in our forests if we are to both get the forest outcomes we desire, as well as keep the timber workers employed.
-
I wish the logging industries would get honest. The reason logging was shutdown in the 90s was that they had logged the forests into a hole, a deficit, they were used to clearcutting and then running to somewhere else, and that was not sustainable. Loggers used to run the USFS and the Oregon FS through their lobbyists and they were not only hurting the public with their practices, they hurt themselves. But instead of taking responsibility they just blamed "environmentalists" and "spotted owls", and anything else they could shift blame to. They overcut so much that the FS had to put the brakes on to save the industries, the forests, and the jobs.
Now it sounds like they are coming around to sustainable logging practices that will keep them in business for many many years and keep small town community jobs too.
Geez, you had to hit them over the head with an uncut 2x4 just to get their attention and teach them how to save them from themselves and save the public forests for the public and for the industries.
I hope this bill works out for all and gets modified if and when needed.
-
The elevated logging will degrade these degraded forests still further by damaging soils & streams & increasing the damage caused by roads. It won't help the forests, with respect to fire, because only an end to fire suppression and a let burn policy can do that--not logging. If this approach is implemented, the result will be more unhealthy forests, more unhealthy streams, all at significant taxpayer expense.
-
dedicate groves to soldiers as sponsored by donation and Timber (on par with wall street IMHO) Companies? treehugger in a milltown
-
testing one two three
-
A few key points I didn't get time to make on the air:
1) There is greater scientific consensus on the value of brush removal and small diameter thinning in lower elevation dry ponderosa pine forests on the eastside with a history of fire suppression and logging. There is greater scientific disagreement as you start to look at mid to higher elevation dry and moist mixed-conifer stands, particularly in unroaded areas and old growth stands. The Forest Service often tries to apply what might work in low elevation dry forests to higher elevation moist forests, often with devastating consequences.
2) Rather than being used to block logging, we've found that when the process works correctly, the right to administratively appeal and settle disputes with the Forest Service ends up allowing appropriate work to go forward more quickly and keeps projects out of court. The Sierra Club and other groups have been successful in central and eastern Oregon negotiating with the Forest Service during the appeal period to allow thousands of acres of work to move forward while preventing the least scientifically justifiable logging and roadbuilding from occurring. This leads to active restoration projects that simultaneously protect clean water, sensitive soils, fish, wildlife, and old forest stands - without having to waste time in court.
3) The historically low timber prices over the past few years make it clear that aggressively creating economic diversification and promoting non-timber forest restoration activities such as road obliteration, fish passage improvements, culvert replacement and invasive species removal are key to helping weather the boom and bust cycles tied to relying too much on timber. With the housing collapse and lack of demand, private landowners in eastern Oregon reduced logging of their lands by roughly 50% between 2006 and 2008. Federal lands logging stayed steady during the same time period. According to a 2009 study by the University of Oregon's Ecosystem Workforce Program, for every $1 million invested in river and road restoration, we could create or retain 20 jobs and create $2.3 million in total economic activity. There is a concern that too much emphasis on supplying logs to maintain mill capacity could end up leaving fewer resources available for important non-timber related watershed restoration work that can also create quality jobs in rural areas.
-
Comments are now closed.
Shouldn't this bill be called the "big old tree" bill since it only protects big old trees and not the other vital features of old growth forests such as dead trees, down logs and soil health? And doesn't it allow continued logging in old growth stands as long as the big old trees are protected? Those don't seem like very good protections to me.