Logging roads, not logging roadblock

Logging roads, not logging roadblock

Published: Saturday, May 26, 2012, 2:01 PM

 By The Oregonian Editorial Board 

Nobody doubts that a gravel road cut through a forest can, under hard rain, lose some dirt that washes into a nearby stream. Neither does anybody doubt that the same road, gullied by a torrent of stormwater, could send loads of silt downhill and choke waterways that are spawning grounds for protected fish. 

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, charged with enforcing the Clean Water Act, has known and acted on this for decades. And that's why the agency was right last week to oppose a federal court ruling that would undercut the agency's ability to coordinate with Oregon and other states wanting to manage forest roads to their own standards. 

In 2010, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the EPA require federal Clean Water Act permits for logging roads -- a step that would classify logging operations in the same category as sewage treatment plants and further complicate logging approvals. While EPA considers forestry to be among the top 12 "probable sources" of waterway impairment, a logging operation is no sewage treatment plant. And Thursday, the U.S. solicitor general issued an opinion to the U.S. Supreme Court arguing that the 9th Circuit erred by not allowing EPA to interpret its own regulations and role in clean water enforcement. 

At issue is logging. Oregon can no longer afford to manage logging by lawsuits. Oregon can no longer withstand the chokehold that lawsuits have put on the prudent harvests of trees in our forests. 

A lawsuit forced the stormwater question before the 9th Circuit. And it will be another lawsuit another day that keeps logging sales from going forward, citing another federal requirement designed for another purpose. 

Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr. avoided recommending that the Supreme Court review the 9th Circuit's flawed decision. That's a disappointment. But the high court may yet do so, deciding once and for all whether forest roads are, as the 9th Circuit found, "point sources" of water pollution requiring industrial discharge permits. A Supreme Court review would create the kind of certainty needed by foresters and agencies managing logging sales. 

Significantly, however, Verrilli recommended that the issue return to Congress. Last December, with Oregon Sen. Ron Wyden's advocacy, Congress had the good sense to pass a moratorium preventing the 9th Circuit Court decision from taking effect until Sept. 30. In doing so, Congress backed EPA's historic position that road building for forestry constitutes a "non-point source" of pollution, which Oregon and other states can handle through wise forestry practices. 

That position is especially defensible now. Part of EPA's proposal last week was to review best management practices by states and tribes nationally to decide who's doing theirs best. 

Oregon should be a contender in that review. And Oregon should, with Congress' help and perhaps the Supreme Court's, be able to step up the pace of logging without fear of being shut down by the next lawsuit.