Seabirds Threaten School Funding

Quiet meetings turn intense

The usually calm Oregon State Land Board, SLB, meetings have produced a lot of attention since environmental lawsuits brought forest management activity to a screeching halt on the Elliott State Forest.

Over 50 protesters set up outside of the SLB meeting on December 10, 2013 as Governor John Kitzhaber, Secretary of State Kate Brown and State Treasurer Ted Wheeler decided to take competitive bids on 2,700 acres of the 93,000 acre Elliott State Forest, ESF.

Constitutional Requirement

Historically, the ESF has supported the state’s Common School Fund, as directed by Oregon’s Constitution. However, due to the litigation over the Marbled Murrelet, a small seabird that may use a tree on the ESF for a nest, incoming revenue has ground to a halt. In fact, so far in 2013 the Common School Fund has paid over $3,000,000 to support the ESF! This is something the Treasurer’s Office and school funding advocates loathe.

A DEMOCRATIC Process

Governor John Kitzhaber allowed all of the protesters a try at testifying before the SLB. Many of the commenters were disgusted by the notion that Oregon would cut trees to help fund schools. Historically, public forests at the national and state level have always supported schools, not to mention roads and public safety.

Forest management activities were not the only thing that confounded the protesters, several that spoke decried the fact that the three Democrats, Governor Kitzhaber, Secretary of State Brown and State Treasurer Wheeler that compose the State Land Board were adopting a strategy that puts a price on the ESF. “It’s a LIE that Democrats protect the environment!!!”

What it used to be

Making a return visit to the SLB was former Elliott State Forest Manager Jerry Phillips. As he told the SLB, Phillips spent 33 years on the ESF, 19 as Manager.  During his time on the ESF, the forest brought in $300 million for the Common School Fund.

Phillips spent much of his time on the Elliott working out land exchanges, which needed State Land Board approval, to increase the size of the 93,000-acre forest. The 2,700 acres that were approved for the initial bidding process included tracts that Phillips added.

News Coverage of the State Land Board Decision

Kitzhaber, Oregon officials approve exploring Elliott State Forest land sale

Oregon board OKs controversial forestland sale

As Oregon weighs Elliott State Forest sale, marbled murrelet habitat raises financial questions

State Land Board agrees to sell off parcels in Elliott State Forest

SW Oregon Logging Plan Moves Ahead

Elliott forest sale only alternative

Follow Wyden into the woods

Follow Wyden into the woods Editorial

By The Oregonian Editorial Board 
Follow on Twitter
on December 05, 2013 at 5:21 PM, updated December 06, 2013 at 9:22 AM

Email

You can see why the Oregon timber counties would be disappointed in Sen. Ron Wyden's new plan for cutting some more timber on the federal government's checkerboard Oregon & California Railroad land holdings. Wyden's plan won't produce as much timber, or as much county revenue, as the language that passed the House, and county officials say they're less confident that it could avoid getting bogged down in litigation.

Sen. Ron Wyden explains his Oregon timber proposal.Stephanie Yao Long

Douglas County Commissioner Doug Robertson, president of the Association of O&C Counties, declared "I have to admit disappointment," saying the Wyden proposal comes up short for the association's three bedrock principles: sharply reduced litigation, increased timber cut and increased financial support for local counties. By Wyden's estimation, his bill would approximately double the timber cut in the lands, to 300 million to 350 million board feet, and raise support to county governments.

For Southwest Oregon counties near the edge of disintegration, with public safety resources far below any definition of safety, Wyden's plan must indeed seem inadequate. The O&C language that passed the House allowed for a cut that might reach 500 million board feet, which could provide considerably larger revenue stream to the counties.

The problem is that with opposition by both the Senate and the White House, there is no chance of the House language becoming law. The best, most promising approach is to pass something through the Senate and get it to a conference committee with the House, creating the prospect of something that might actually become law and provide some assistance to the counties.

Even that possibility is far from certain, considering the barren recent record of congressional conference committees. It would be a long shot to expect the current arrangement in Washington to produce anything substantive. But considering the desperate condition of the counties, where in places ordinary law enforcement has vanished as a daily fact of life, the effort is vital.

Both bills increase the logging cut while putting a considerable amount of the 3 million O&C acres beyond logging forever. They both try to limit unending litigation, although the Association of O&C Counties expresses doubt about Wyden's version. With these similarities of direction and goals, it seems that something workable might be made from the two of them.

What's unlikely to survive are two particular aspects of the House bill that are essentially deal-killers to the Senate and President Obama. After dividing up the O&C lands into two different trusts, the House bill places extensive federal lands under state management, an arrangement certain to draw resistance. It also lacks the protections against clear-cutting in the Wyden bill, which offers an approach of "ecological forestry" that may indeed be more expensive and inconvenient, but is also more publicly acceptable.

There are limitations to what any Congress might produce on this issue. The cut is never going back to the billion-board-foot boom times of the late '70s. Even if it somehow did, with all the mechanization of the past decades, that would not recreate the historic levels of jobs. For the counties, whatever comes out of this process – if anything comes out of this process – won't be a full solution, but only part of a pathway to one.

The O&C counties aren't the only groups critical of Wyden's proposal. Some Oregon

environmental groups, such as Oregon Wild, have their own objections to its litigation rules, and some would simply oppose any increased cut on federal lands.

To refuse to advance with the process now would be a long-odds bet on dealing with a more friendly president and Senate in 2017. 

Considering the current emergency conditions of many of the counties, it would be a long time to wait, for an outcome that may not arise – and years of full Republican control of Washington in the last decade didn't exactly resolve the problem, either.

Despite the counties' deepest hopes, 1978 is not coming again. What the counties, and all of Oregon, needs is to begin finding a path to 2020, and the years beyond.

Alternative harvesting method provides foundation for Wyden O&C plan

Alternative harvesting method provides foundation for Wyden O&C plan: Guest opinion

Print

By Guest Columnist 
Follow on Twitter 
on November 30, 2013 at 9:00 AM, updated November 30, 2013 at 9:04 AM

By Jerry F. Franklin
and K. Norman Johnson

Variable retention harvesting is prescribed in Sen. Ron Wyden's proposed legislation for harvesting in younger highly-productive Douglas fir and Western hemlock forests (the "moist forests") on the O&C lands of western Oregon. Understanding the forestry technique is critical to understanding the senator's plan.

View full sizeIn variable retention forestry, portions of forest are retained throughout the harvest. area providing "lifeboats" for ecosystems. (Computer simulation by Laura Hardin, OSU)

Variable retention harvesting is modeled on patterns of natural disturbances, such as wildfire.  In contrast to clear-cutting, where essentially all of the trees are removed, significant amounts (about 1/3 in the proposed legislation) of the pre-harvest forest are retained throughout the harvest area (see top photo). The retention would typically include unlogged forest patches up to several acres in size well distributed through the harvest area – "aggregated retention" -- as well as individual or small clusters of live and dead trees and down logs, distributed over logged portions of the harvest area -- "dispersed retention." Some of the aggregated retention will be along streams within the harvest area.

One important objective of variable retention harvesting is to "lifeboat" many of the forest-related plant and animal species, sustaining them within the harvest area until the new forest becomes established. For example, forest-dwelling small mammals and amphibians can be sustained by retaining heavily rotted logs that provide critical habitat for them. 

Variable retention also provides for continuity in life-sustaining flows of energy into the soil from trees. In addition, the un-harvested forest patches or aggregates have special ecological value since they include undisturbed forest floors, a full range of tree sizes and mellow microclimates.

View full sizeThe openings created in variable retention forestry aid development of highly bio-diverse ecosystems. (Photo by Jerry Franklin)

Variable retention harvesting is being widely applied globally as a versatile and effective silvicultural approach, particularly where management goals require integration of ecological, economic, and cultural objectives. It is currently being used on five continents in countries as diverse as Sweden, Canada, Australia, Argentina and Chile. It also is being used on a diversity of forest ownerships including federal, state, and local public lands, trust lands, and private forest lands. Hundreds of peer-reviewed publications document the scientific underpinnings and the ecological benefits of variable retention harvesting.

Of course, a key question is what stands would receive variable retention harvesting in Sen. Wyden's proposed legislation. Harvesting would occur only in moist forest stands designated for sustained yield management. All of these would be stands currently less than 120 years of age and most would be stands that originated after previous harvests (usually clear-cutting) 60-90 years ago. No old-growth forests or trees would be harvested.

As proposed for the Bureau of Land Management lands, variable retention harvesting has the additional major ecological benefit of providing the significant openings needed for development of the highly bio-diverse "early successional ecosystems." These are the ecosystems that initially develop on forest sites after a harvest or other major disturbance, such as wildfire. They are biologically rich communities of herbs, shrubs and trees that, in turn, support an immense variety of animal life because of the abundant and diverse sources of food – herbage, nectar, fruits, nuts, seeds and prey. (See bottom photo.)

Many of the species found in these early successional ecosystems are habitat specialists that require early successional habitats. These include many songbirds and butterflies. Also, as hunters know, they are favored and critical habitat for deer and elk, because there is food for them to eat. Research at Mount St. Helens – the biodiversity hotspot of the Cascade Range -- has been critical in helping us to understand the ecological importance of early successional ecosystems.

While private forest lands might be expected to provide for biologically rich early successional ecosystems, they generally do not. Production forestry on industrial lands -- the source of most private harvest in Western Oregon -- seeks to maximize economic returns with intensive practices, such as intensive site preparation, dense tree planting, and control of shrubs and herbs with herbicides. Encouraging shrub-dominated communities and gradual re-establishment of tree cover is not consistent with such goals.

In summary, variable retention harvesting proposed in Sen. Wyden's legislation is fundamentally different from clear-cutting and associated practices. Variable retention is grounded in principles derived from natural forest ecosystems. As proposed it will provide for both continuity in forest biota and creation of openings needed for early successional species and processes.

Jerry Franklin is a professor in the School of Environmental and Forest Sciences at the University of Washington; K. Norman Johnson is  a professor in the Department of Forest Ecosystems and Society at Oregon State University. They each worked on development of the Northwest Forest Plan and on development of Sen. Ron Wyden's forest management plan unveiled this week.