Published: Sunday, August 21, 2011, 12:28 PM
Sarah ParkerIn a state with so many trees, forests are easy to take for granted. Nearly half of Oregon is covered in forests that have an impact on individuals through their inherent aesthetic, recreational, economic and educational values, and through the ecosystem services they provide. While trees are a renewable resource, research shows that established forests provide many more benefits than industrial forests, including enhanced carbon storage, freshwater regulation, soil protection and wildlife habitat.
While logging on public land has decreased, timber yields on private land have remained steady. The 1971 Oregon Forest Practices Act regulates logging on private land. Today it is evident that this obsolete law is failing citizens of Oregon by allowing detrimental harvest practices that endanger public safety and damage the surrounding environment.
The rights of private landowners must be respected, but the extent of their freedoms should be examined, especially in terms of their implications to the landscape and neighboring communities. In Williams, Oregon, the shortfalls of the Oregon Forest Practices Act are blatant. Currently in Williams, private timber harvests are pending on 1,700 acres. Many of these acres will be clear-cut, and harvests that meet legal qualifications for "partial cuts" are deceptive; the trees that remain might as well be marooned on a deserted island.
One parcel that has recently gained a lot of attention is the Williams 320 (W320): 320 acres situated on a highly visible ridge slated to be clear-cut by a private landowner from Idaho. The Oregon Forest Practices Act allows clear cuts of up to 120 contiguous acres. On the W320, 250 acres will be clear-cut, separated into three sections by two 300-foot buffers. With so much habitat lost, the Northern Spotted Owls, Pacific Fishers, and other wildlife that use the land will be displaced.
Additionally, the Act gives no regard to the three freshwater streams that flow on the property; buffers are not required to protect them. These waterways will sustain heavy sediment loads as the topsoil erodes away, and the reduced canopy cover will likely cause them to dry up in the summer months. Downstream local families and farmers use the water to irrigate crops, but herbicides sprayed on the W320 to suppress competing vegetation will contaminate the streams (these herbicides can also be measured in rain). Unsightly clear-cuts increase the risk of catastrophic fire and spread diseases like Phytophthora lateralis, which is deadly to the threatened Port Orford cedar.
Economically, harvesting on private lands does represent a boon to some individuals. Private cuts employ road builders, tree fellers and truckers, but their salaries are subsidized by the loss of a major environmental resource and the negative impacts experienced by local residents. In many cases the benefits end there, as wood is increasingly transported to China to be processed.
In one fell swoop the Oregon Forest Practices Act allows a resource that has taken years to mature on Oregon soil to be removed, leaving behind a paltry gain for few and an overwhelming loss for all. With so many detriments, it is time to rewrite the Oregon Forest Practices Act so that it supports our communities by promoting ecological forestry practices on private lands.
Sarah Parker is project manager of the Williams Community Forest Project.
Forest Practices Act helps to bolster forest owners
ReplyDeletePublished: Thursday, August 25, 2011, 7:23 AM
By Guest Columnist
As a small forest owner, I take issue with Sarah Parker's recent critique. On The Stump recently, she asserted that the practice of forestry in Oregon results in "a paltry gain for few and an overwhelming loss for all" ("Private timber of public concern," Aug. 21).
We all benefit from working forests.
I own one of Oregon's family forests. Some 59,000 of these small (10-499 acres) forestlands, 1.2 million acres in all, ring our cities. We want them freed of invasives and managed to protect air and water, provide recreation and wildlife habitat, and resist fire and disease. The Forest Practices Act both requires and enables forest owners to meet these goals.
Many small landowners will harvest trees from their land; many won't. Half of us are over 65, about the same age as the trees we grow. The prospect of some economic return from those trees allows us to manage our forests thoughtfully and keep them healthy.
SUSAN WATKINS
McMinnville
Watkins is a Master Woodland Manager and at-large landowner representative on the Committee for Family Forestlands, which advises the Board of Forestry.