Old growth and the BLM: time for a pledge?

Much uncertainty surrounds management of the Western Oregon forests of the Bureau of Land Management now that the Obama administration has withdrawn the Western Oregon Plan Revisions. The habitat reserve requirement of the revised Northern Spotted Owl Recovery Plan is one important unknown, since it will provide the foundation for further BLM analysis. Will the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ground its plan in the Late Successional Reserves of the Northwest Forest Plan or set a lesser hurdle? What planning guidance will emerge from the Department of Interior? Will Congress offer a permanent solution to the county payments issue?

One thing is certain, though, over a wide variety of BLM planning outcomes: Pictures will be taken at proposed BLM timber sales, and circulated on the Web, showing people standing in front of a giant tree with the caption, "Can you believe it? This majestic old-growth tree will be cut down." Such powerful images can take down timber sales and entire timber programs, severely limiting BLM's social license to practice forestry.

Perhaps it is time for the BLM to make a pledge that it will not cut old-growth trees. Ecologically, these are the most significant and irreplaceable trees in the forest for wildlife habitat, carbon sequestration and other ecological services. Obviously, they also have great social significance. This one commitment could take an incredibly contentious issue off the table, avoiding a battle that the BLM is not likely to win.

Which age would be chosen? Age is one of the defining attributes of old-growth trees, but it is difficult to argue that a single age exists at which trees become "old growth." Use of 160 years for individual trees would certainly capture all old-growth Douglas fir, pine and other conifers — the focus of this effort. Using 200 years might miss some that exhibit old-growth characteristics, while using 120 years also would capture some younger trees.

Thus, it is hard to select one age that provides 100 percent accuracy in meeting this goal, even for a single species. This is not an unusual policy problem. We use a specific age to determine how old people need to be to drive, to drink alcohol or to join the military. Yet no one would argue that everyone reaches the capability to do these things at the same age. If we are willing to designate an age at which our young people have enough maturity to drive, to drink and to fight for their country, why can't we take an age-based approach to identify when a tree is old enough to be conserved?

Why not use more sophisticated approaches? Certainly such an age-based approach can be seen as overly-simplified. Some proposals for identifying old-growth trees and stands utilize the full suite of old-growth characteristics — number of old trees, presence of multiple stories, presence of dead wood. Why not take this comprehensive approach?

Over 15 years' experience with the Northwest Forest Plan suggests that attempts to implement these more complex descriptions breed disagreements, appeals and lawsuits. Harvests that have occurred on federal forests in the Northwest have largely been made possible by two simple rules: The 80-year limit on thinning in Late Successional Reserves in moist forests and the 21-inch limit on thinning in dry forests. Those rules not only limit activities that agencies can undertake, they also protect the discretion of agencies to act by giving clear guidance. A similar approach is needed for identifying old-growth trees.

Can age-based rules be implemented? Some question whether an age-based approach to limit tree cutting can be implemented, since the surest way to establish age of a live tree is to take a small core with a long increment borer (a time-consuming endeavor). We believe relatively few trees will need to be bored after establishing protocols, as most trees can be readily identified as either above or below any age limit that might be set. We suggest that age-based rules be designed following a four-step process:

* Have scientists and managers design and test the protocols that will be used.
* Give agencies deference to implement the protocols.
* Monitor the degree of success in implementation.
* Use independent review by scientists, managers and stakeholders to suggest improvements.

The Obama administration has its work cut out in providing the policy guidance for the next BLM plan for Western Oregon forests. A clear statement that old-growth trees will no longer be cut would ease the path to a long-term solution.

For more details on conserving old-growth trees and old-growth forests, please see www.cof.orst.edu/cof/fs/PDFs/JohnsonRestoration_Aug15_2009.pdf.

Norm Johnson is a professor in the College of Forestry at Oregon State University. Jerry Franklin is a professor in the College of the Environment at the University of Washington.