Wyden forest plan meets skepticism
Both sides in the forest debate find fault with the proposed legislation
Document Actions
Both sides in the
forest debate are a bit leery of a plan drafted by U.S. Sen. Ron
Wyden, D-Ore., to resolve the long-running argument over how to best
manage federal forestlands in the Pacific Northwest.
Timber industry groups and the environmental community applauded Wyden
for his efforts, but said the plan falls short of what is needed in
Oregon.
The draft Oregon Forest Restoration and Old Growth Protection Act,
released Thursday to gather comments from interested individuals and
organizations, would prohibit cutting most old- growth trees on
federal lands.
In addition, it would redirect the U.S. Forest Service and the U.S.
Bureau of Land Management to focus their activities on improving
forest health and protecting rural communities from catastrophic
fires.
"Unfortunately, his proposal has a fundamental flaw: Forests
can't be managed based on the age of individual trees," said Tom
Partin, president of the Portland-based American Forest Resource
Council, in a prepared statement.
"Tree diameter, like age, does not tell us anything about the
ecological significance of a tree to the stand or of the stand
itself," he added. "Simple solutions just don't work when
you are trying to manage for forest health and type diversity across
the landscape."
The point, he said, is that a "one-size-fits-all" approach
by prohibiting harvesting a single tree above a certain age doesn't
work.
"We believe it will result in more gridlock, litigation and less
work accomplished on the ground," he concluded.
But Joseph Vaile, campaign director of the Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands
Center in Ashland, said the draft has a loophole that would allow the
harvest of old-growth trees.
"We are concerned it would leave out some older trees that are
important for wildlife and fish habitat," he said. "It
doesn't really give protection for older forests, especially those in
watersheds that provide clean water and old-growth habitat."
Vaile also is concerned that the measure would provide less protection
for old-growth trees on BLM forests.
"But there are certainly some goals in this bill which we think
are very worthy to pursue," he said, citing the act's stated goal
of restoring forest health. "We're hopeful this is the type of
framework we can help improve on to get real protection for older
forests and clean water."
Steve Pedry, conservation director for Oregon Wild, agreed.
"But it is important to find the right balance, and unfortunately
this plan falls short," he said, noting the group wants to work
with Wyden to improve the draft.
The factions should take a closer look at the draft legislation before
passing final judgment, said Josh Kardon, Wyden's chief of staff, who
presented the legislation during the AFRC's annual meeting in
Stevenson, Wash.
"I hope their individual responses don't indicate they are
satisfied with the status quo," Kardon said in a telephone
interview, referring to years of legal battles over federal timber
harvests.
Although Wyden included many of the factions in creating the draft, he
will continue to gather comment on the measure, Kardon said. The
senator plans to introduce final legislation later this spring, Kardon
said.
"I anticipate we will bring small groups of reasonable people
from both sides of the issues into our drafting discussion," he
said.
The draft legislation would prohibit cutting any tree older than 120
years in "moist" forests on Oregon's west side while
protecting those older than 150 years on most drier federal forests,
according to the draft summary. In addition, no trees larger than 21
inches in diameter could be harvested from federal forestlands east of
the Cascade Range.
It also would give the U.S. Forest Service $50 million and other
incentives to shift their focus from traditional logging to
restoration work that reduces the risk of wildfire and prepares
forests for global warming.
Reach reporter Paul Fattig at 776-4496 or e-mail him at pfattig@mailtribune.com.
