Our Sponsors:

Read more »

Our Members

Many thanks to David Williams and Kathleen Johnson some of our many supporters.

ALL MEMBERS »

NW Forest Plan: Warfare rages out of the spotlight

While it's being treated as a local issues, a fight in Oregon over old-growth logging could create larger threats for spotted owls and even other endangered species.

"Most people think the Northwest forest war is over," says Andy Kerr, who attended Bill Clinton's 1993 Portland forest conference as a leader of the group that is now Oregon Wild, "but it isn't." A lot of the main action in that war has always taken place in Oregon.

As a last-minute gift to the forest products industry, the Bush administration came out with the Western Oregon Plan Revision (abbreviated as WOPR and pronounced "whopper"), which would have opened a lot of the land administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in southern Oregon to increased logging. The O&C Act of 1937, which brought 2.5 million acres originally granted to the Oregon and California Railroad back into federal ownership, sends revenue from logging on those O&C lands to southern Oregon counties. But federal courts have long since ruled that Congress' Depression-era concern for the economies of those counties doesn't trump federal environmental law.

One court ruled in favor of WOPR. Another ruled against it. The Obama administration hasn't tried to follow up. The BLM continues to plan, as it pretty well has to. "They're recycling a lot of the data that underpinned the WOPR," Oregon Wild's conservation director Steve Pedery says, "but they're trying to do something legal this time."

Management of the O and C lands could have been settled by the forest plan, says Pedery, but Oregon's then-Sen. Mark Hatfield didn't want that to happen. Now, 20 years on, no one denies that Oregon's southern coastal counties are economically depressed. However, that's nothing new. Earthjustice attorney Kristen Boyles acknowledges that "the economic problems of [Oregon's] coastal logging communities are real [but] far predate the logging restrainst that have followed the listing of the Northern Spotted Owl."

Some communities in those counties are far more dependent on timber income than just about anywhere in Washington, says Conservation Northwest's science and conservation director, David Werntz. He suggests that on the O and C lands, we're "basically seeing a battle over the last remaining vestiges of a natural resource economy."

And even in depressed coastal counties, the benefits of increased logging may not exceed the costs. Before the Forest Plan went into effect, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service decided that 44 planned BLM sales there would jeopardize recovery of the Northern Spotted Owl. The BLM appealed to the "God Squad," the Cabinet-level committee that can decide whether or not the economic benefits of an action that violates the Endangered Species Act would outweigh the environmental costs. This was one of the very few times the God Squad has been called into action. It let only 13 of the sales go forward. It decided that costs outweighed benefits on the other 31.

At the edge of a clear cut in Oregon's Coast Range (2010) M.O. Stevens/Wikimedia Commons

Two influential Oregon Democrats, Sen. Ron Wyden and Rep. Peter DeFazio, have introduced bills designed to pump more timber money into those counties and reshape the management of the O&C lands. DeFazio's bill has already passed the House. "Oregon’s rural communities cannot afford another 20 years of gridlock in our federal forests," DeFazio proclaims on his website. "Without a new path forward, mills will continue to disappear, forest jobs will be outsourced, counties will be pushed off the budgetary cliff, forest health will continue to decline, and irreplaceable old growth will be one court decision away from liquidation." Then, he explains, "After years of hard work and negotiation, we crafted the bipartisan 'O&C Trust, Conservation, and Jobs Act' (OCTCJA) and passed our plan on a bipartisan basis."

Many conservation groups don't see it that way. In fact, some are alarmed. Earthjustice's Boyles suggests that the DeFazio bill is "a basic King Solomon solution: split the baby down the middle." One half would essentially be handed over to the forest products industry — the legislation would establish a trust that would fund county governments and would in turn be funded by logging on nearly half the O and C land in south Oregon — the other reserved as natural habitat.


Like what you just read? Support high quality local journalism. Become a member of Crosscut today!

Comments:

Posted Tue, Apr 15, 12:21 p.m. Inappropriate

Chasan does his homework and produces in-depth articles of high value. Any plan that saves a few old tree habitats deserves to be supported, even if its ESA goals are unmet. Environmentally we are in a triage mode now and need to adjust our goals accordingly.

woofer

Posted Tue, Apr 15, 7:42 p.m. Inappropriate

Humans make their living extracting resources from their environment. If those resources which are closer to the population centers are denied, then the extraction takes place somewhere else. It's the out of sight, out of mind approach to resource management. Both sides are equally guilty.

Djinn

Posted Fri, Apr 18, 8:11 a.m. Inappropriate

When the NW Forest Plan put an end to the carnage of old growth on the west side of the Cascades twenty years ago I applauded. Today, while still happy that old growth on the west side was saved, I have a big problem with the NW Forest Plan as it affects the east side of the Cascades where I live. Little publicized is the fact that while the spotted owl lost most of it's historic habitat on the west side, it actually gained a huge amount of habitat on the east side, due to changes in the forest coming about from fire suppression. In the absence of fires our forest over here has become on the whole far more dense than it was historically, making it good for spotted owls- temporarily. Inevitably these overly dense stands are going to burn big time, if they cannot be managed. The larger trees are also susceptible to bark beetles due to sharing limited water with too many small trees. A policy of no management/ no tampering guarantees nothing in the long run for the spotted owl, and will lead to the destruction of whatever big trees the loggers missed.

Posted Sat, Apr 19, 12:08 p.m. Inappropriate

The way these choices are presented is that an ideal exists: all trees, or at least most of them, should be allowed to live out their natural lives… 200 years, 500 years? why should that be a goal? what spiritual or practical goal does that pursue? "shotgunning" (careful choice of words there) the barred owl is not just distasteful, it's risible, a clear indication of the futility of the "environmental" quest. If you must murder some creatures to spare others you have entered into the indefensible.

kieth

Login or register to add your voice to the conversation.

Join Crosscut now!
Subscribe to our Newsletter

Follow Us »