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.

Ron Wyden faces great opportunity or peril In navigating federal forest policy

Will Oregon’s Senior Senator Grab the gold ring?

As Chairman of the U.S. Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Sen. Ron Wyden is perfectly positioned to resolve the federal forest health/timber supply/county payments conundrum and claim a grand prize.

By rescuing the nearly insolvent O & C counties, restoring forest health in Eastern Oregon while providing much needed timber supply to create family-wage jobs in rural Oregon and also increase business for banks, technology developers, and lots of other suppliers in Metropolitan Portland.

Such achievements will cement Sen. Wyden’s legacy alongside other Oregon political greats such as Mark O. Hatfield and Tom McCall. Reps. Greg Walden, Peter DeFazio and Kurt Schrader, along with Governor John Kitzhaber’s O & C task force spent months developing a compromise plan for the 2.3 million acres of forestland in 18 Western Oregon Counties.

Sen. Wyden has labored for three years crafting a collaborative plan for improving forest health on the National Forests of Eastern Oregon while reinvigorating the timber dependent communities a long way from the I-5 corridor. His new leadership position in the Senate provides the platform to craft and pass generational federal forest legislation.

Ron Wyden once again faces perils of trying to navigate federal forest policy

Oregon O&C forest proposal receives House hearing and a promise: negotiations will continue

Wyden proposes giving some O&C timberlands to tribes

House Takes Up Proposals to Raise Revenue Through Logging

Timber split

The great divide

Two bills would expand Rogue wilderness

Wyden, Merkley wrote Senate bill; Walden's House bill has timber industry backing

March 23, 2012

By Paul Fattig

Mail Tribune

Testifying before a Senate subcommittee in Washington, D.C. on a bill that would increase protection of the lower Rogue River, Grants Pass native Dave Strahan said the watershed enriches lives and livelihoods.

"The Rogue and its watersheds provided my family and me countless hours of outdoor recreation and enjoyment — family camping, fishing, hunting and boating was what we did when I was growing up," he testified Thursday morning before the subcommittee on public lands and forest chaired by U.S. Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore.

"When I die, I hope to leave a Rogue River that my kids, my grandkids and their peers can continue to build memories around for generations to come," said Strahan, a 1972 graduate of Grants Pass High School who now sells recreational equipment.

Strahan was testifying in support of the Rogue Wilderness Area Expansion Act of 2011, submitted late last year by Wyden and fellow U.S. Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Ore. The bill would expand the existing wilderness area by some 60,000 acres, place 93 miles of the river's tributaries under wild and scenic protection and withdraw some 50 miles of tributaries from mining activity.

But on the same day that Strahan testified, the American Forest Resource Council, a timber industry coalition based in Portland, announced its opposition to the Senate bill. In 2010, the coalition had dropped its opposition to additional wilderness designation in the area following negotiations between it and environmental groups.

On Thursday, however, council President Tom Partin said the group supports a bill in the House which also would set aside the additional wilderness and provide "real certainty for local governments and industries" dependent on timber dollars. That bill has been introduced by Oregon representatives Greg Walden, a Republican, and Democrats Peter DeFazio and Kurt Schrader.

"We cannot support additional restrictions on federal forests in Western Oregon unless they are part of a broader resolution to the real threats facing our rural communities," Partin said in a prepared statement.

"The time for partial solutions that meet the needs of single-interest groups is past," he added. "We need a comprehensive solution that considers both the economic and environmental contributions we deserve from our federal forests."

Both bills would officially create a wilderness out of the nearly 60,000-acre Zane Grey tract, a largely roadless area immediately upstream from the 35,800-acre Wild Rogue Wilderness in the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest. The Zane Grey area, named for the famous writer who fished the Lower Rogue from World War I into the early 1930s, is on the U.S. Bureau of Land Management's Medford District.

The Rogue River was one of the first rivers in the nation protected by the 1968 Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. A decade later, Congress created the Wild Rogue Wilderness.

During Thursday's hearing, Mike Pool, the BLM's deputy director, said the agency supports the bill introduced by Wyden and Merkley.

The area where protections would be expanded is the natural habitat for bald eagles, elk, bear, sturgeon, salmon and steelhead, Wyden told the committee.

"The Rogue River is part of Southern Oregon's recreational tradition attracting thousands of hikers, rafters and outdoor enthusiasts each year and pumping millions into the local economy," he said. "Preserving this land will protect the ecosystem for generations and ensure that the recreational economy in this area is allowed to thrive as well."

Strahan, who is a regional salesman for outdoor recreational equipment, agreed. He was representing 110 Oregon businesses as well as the Northwest Sports Fishing Association of some 300 outdoor businesses in the region.

A 2009 economic study estimated that economic benefits generated from fishing, hiking and white-water rafting on the Rogue exceeded more than $18.1 million each year, he said.

"The Rogue has long been an international draw for tourists and has also provided sanctuary for notable celebrities over the years," he said, noting that list includes former heavyweight champion George Foreman and writer Grey.

" 'The happiest lot of any angler would be to live somewhere along the banks of the Rogue River, the most beautiful stream in Oregon,' " Strahan said, quoting Grey.

Reach reporter Paul Fattig at 776-4496 or email him at pfattig@mailtribune.com.

Oregon congressional delegation pushes plan to bring millions to prop up county services

By Charles Pope, The Oregonian

 

Matthew Preusch/The OregonianIn 2008, Jackson County closed all its libraries when federal payments to timber-dependent counties stopped. The payments were renewed and services resumed, but now county payments have ended again.

 

WASHINGTON – With rural counties in Oregon on the brink of financial crisis and even bankruptcy, Sen. Ron Wyden announced a deal Wednesday that could extend a federal program that pours millions of dollars into communities to underwrite law enforcement, schools and libraries.

The deal, supported by all six members of Oregon's congressional delegation, would extend the life of the county timber payments program for five years, bringing Oregon as much as $400 million in gradually decreasing installments. That would give the counties, Gov. John Kitzhaber and others time to find a more permanent solution to financing schools and other crucial services.

"This is really good news," said Kitzhaber, who is in Washington this week. Rural counties in Oregon "are teetering on the edge."

The federal program was created in 2000 to reimburse local communities for lost income from the sale of timber on federal lands. Counties get 25 percent of the revenue from federal timber sales, but when logging plummeted, so did revenue.

More than 700 counties in 41 states have received payments. But western states are the biggest recipients and Oregon, where more than 50 percent of the land is owned by the federal government, has been at the top. The program ended in 2008, but was temporarily renewed. It ended again Sept. 30.

Thirty-three of Oregon's 36 counties get payments, but rural communities are the most dependent. In most of those counties, the federal government owns the majority of the land, pinching the property tax base and limiting local officials' ability to develop their local economies.

Without the money, counties face closed libraries, shorter school years, cuts in sheriff's patrols, and in extreme cases, bankruptcy. If the counties fail, the state would be forced to help, sending a financial ripple through services statewide.

Eric Schmidt, spokesman for the Associated Oregon Counties, said an extension simply means a continuation of the cuts to federal spending that already have put deep strains on county services. "While we certainly appreciate what Sen. Wyden and the rest of Oregon's congressional delegation have done, we're certainly hopeful that ... they will be able to work with their colleagues to improve the funding."

Douglas County Commissioner Doug Robertson said his timber-dependent community needs all the help it can get.

"Even though the amount is disappointing and the ramp down over five years is disappointing, it keeps the issue in front of Congress, and that's very important," he said.

In a joint statement issued by Wyden, Kitzhaber, Sen. Jeff Merkley, Democratic Reps. Earl Blumenauer, Kurt Schrader, Peter DeFazio and Republican Rep. Greg Walden, the lawmakers said the deal could provide the momentum needed to push the payments into law.

Under the plan, Sen. Jeff Bingaman, a New Mexico Democrat, will introduce a bill for the program next week. Bingaman chairs the Senate Energy Committee, and is a crucial gatekeeper in making sure the bill gets to the Senate floor.

Wyden said Bingaman's support clears most – but not all – hurdles in the Senate. The goal, supporters say, is for the Senate to approve the legislation with a solid majority so it can be added in the House to a giant spending bill that will keep the government operating for the rest of the fiscal year, which expires Sept. 30, 2012.

"If it passes the Senate with a substantial majority, that puts us in a good position" to be part of a larger funding bill, DeFazio said in an interview.

"I don't believe there's any way to bring the bill up separately in the House under Republican rules. You can't pay for it by closing tax loopholes; you can't pay for it by raising revenue. All you can do is cut something else. So what are we going to do? Eliminate the Forest Service?"

Walden, the delegation's lone Republican, said he's committed to pushing a bill forward in order to buy time.

"For the long term, we have to get back to using our own resources to generate the jobs and revenue," he said in an interview. "Frankly, that's what the counties want, what the schools in these communities want; it's the best alternative."

To get there, the counties must have "bridge funding," he said. "The situation has only grown more desperate in the rural communities."

The most promising idea is to put certain federal lands in trust status. Some would be used to raise revenue that would go to local communities while other lands would be more highly protected as wilderness.

Both DeFazio and Walden are working on plans.

Harry Esteve of The Oregonian staff contributed to this story.

-- Charles Pope

Changing forest trends create some unusual partnerships

The lumber company stalwart and the firebrand environmentalist had nothing in common ... until they discovered they both cared for trees

John Shelk

Related Documents

Oregon’s forestland
Our state’s forests are some of the most diverse and productive found anywhere in the country. While the percentage of forestland hasn’t changed much since the days of Lewis and Clark, their structure and composition certainly have.

Posted: Friday, March 25, 2011 12:09 pm | Updated: 12:41 pm, Fri Mar 25, 2011.

Changing forest trends create some unusual partnerships By SCOTTA CALLISTER
East Oregonian Publishing Group Daily Astorian | 0 comments 

 

JOHN DAY — Longtime Oregon lumberman John Shelk remembers the first time a colleague suggested that if he was interested in the idea of collaboration, he might want to talk to Andy Kerr.

“My first reaction was, ‘Oh, really ... there aren’t enough hours in the day,’” recalled Shelk, the managing director of Ochoco Lumber.

Wade Mosby, a Collins Pine Co. executive, had suggested the conversation because of Kerr’s involvement in Lakeview’s Federal Sustained Yield Unit, home to one of the longest running and most productive collaborative efforts in the state.

Kerr was better known, however, as a firebrand environmentalist with a knack for making headlines and leaving the old industry guard spitting mad.

Mosby also had been telling Kerr to talk to Shelk – and getting an equally skeptical response.

“We knew of each other, and we had low opinions of each other,” Kerr recalled. “We came from opposite sides of the timber war.”

 Eventually, Kerr met with Shelk at his office in Prineville. A tentative discussion led to a couple of trips into the woods. One was to the Malheur National Forest, where Tim Lillebo of Oregon Wild and Mike Billman of the Ochoco subsidiary, Malheur Lumber, had already been promoting collaboration.
“We realized that the world had changed, and we had a lot more in common than we thought,” said Kerr.

Partnership helped foster legislation

The unlikely alliance between the two men fostered perhaps the most high-profile legislative effort to date to bolster active management in the federal forests. The Oregon Eastside Forest Restoration, Old Growth Protection and Jobs Act was unveiled in December 2009 by U.S. Sen. Ron Wyden, flanked by a coterie of environmental and industry representatives – including Shelk and Kerr.

The bold plan was to require the U.S. Forest Service to identify and develop landscape-scale projects – at least 25,000 acres – on the federal forests in Eastern Oregon, with an aim of supplying timber for local mills, improving over-dense forest stands and retaining or creating jobs.

Despite an 11th-hour push, the bill stalled out last December as the Senate minority blocked virtually all attempts to pass public lands bills before the end of the session. Wyden hasn’t given up, however. On Jan. 27, he reintroduced the proposal, with revisions, as Senate Bill 220.

Whatever happens in the new session, proponents say the proposal has focused a national spotlight on the plight of the fire- and disease-prone forests of Eastern Oregon. It also reflected an evolving approach to forest management – one that puts former foes like Shelk and Kerr at the same table in an attempt to shortstop the litigation that has shut down logging on the eastside forests over the past two decades.

Wyden says the eastside alliance arose out of a mutual recognition by forest stakeholders – many of them former adversaries – that the forests and the communities amidst them are in crisis.

“We saw that there’s this window of time,” he said in a recent interview, “and it’s going to close in a hurry. The mills are going to close, the fires are going to burn down the forests.”

Wyden said it’s no surprise that the citizens who gathered to hash out the Eastside Forests bill include “principled and pragmatic folks” from both camps. They saw dwindling options.

“If we lose the mills, we won’t have jobs for the communities, and we won’t have that infrastructure that’s so necessary for environmental restoration,” he said.

Observers say the press conference helped to plant the seeds of that message in an important arena – the halls of Congress.

For Kerr and Shelk, the journey began with some trips into the woods to kick the duff and talk about trees.

“The idea was to see if we could find any common points of interest, beyond thinking the other is an SOB,” Shelk said. Despite a tension headache or two, the meetings generated some agreement – and the tantalizing idea that the group should work on legislation for a compromise over the forests of Oregon.

The discussions proceeded with a hand-picked group of environmentalists and industry people – seven from each side. Shelk said that by seeking out moderates, “it took out the bomb-throwers on either end of the spectrum.”

The “7x7” group still represented an array of views – from the Oregon Wild to Roseburg Lumber, from Pacific Rivers Council to the American Forest Resources Council. Shelk remembers the first meeting for its classic body language: “Everybody was armed for battle.”

Participants knew that the forests were overgrown, and that fires and insects were destroying thousands of acres of trees. Yet they were wary of each other’s motives for still-polarized stands on active management. Shelk recalls it went something like: “You’re blocking any sort of activity in the forest” vs. “You just want to cut down more big trees.”

Throughout, the participants tested each other on specific scenarios.

“Let’s say a 36-inch tree blows over and has to be removed. What do you do with it? They wanted to cut it but leave it in a stream or on the ground for habitat,” Shelk recalled. “My answer was, how about if I could take that tree to a mill and generate positive revenue, enough revenue to pay for thinning five acres of overgrown land?”

As the talks continued, the group narrowed its focus to the dry eastside pine forests where they had more in common.

At the time, Wyden had some discussion drafts of forest legislation that neither side liked. Instead, the group proposed a new approach, and Wyden’s chief of staff agreed to work with them.

The result was the bill unveiled at the December 2009 press conference.

Critics attacked plan

However, in hearings in Oregon and Washington, D.C., the bill ran into criticism – some of the harshest from the territory it would affect.

Grant County Judge Mark Webb conceded that while the backers were well intentioned, he opposed the bill. He said it would significantly increase regulation without giving the Forest Service any new authority or funding to manage the land. Environmentalists would gain more rules on which to appeal or litigate forest projects, he said.

Opponents particularly disliked a proposal for a science panel – a group of experts who would vet the large projects. Webb said that would put the federal forest managers under the control of outsiders, likely academicians, and further erode local influence on decision-making.

Shelk understood the concerns but also defended the intense discussion and debate that went into the bill.

He said the idea was to be prepared if, or when, a project gets to court.

“We were looking at key questions: How will this be viewed by a judge? How do we create a forest  project that is bullet-proof?” he said. “We worried these subjects to death – from two separate ideological viewpoints. But we agreed that we were looking for ways to move biologically defensible projects forward – projects that would be practical, economically viable and defensible in court.”

Kerr also acknowledged that the bill had its detractors, but he said it had been adjusted to reflect concerns from both sides. Asked about the concerns voiced by some environmental groups, he said, “There are some organizations that are unhappy with the bill as it was introduced. There are some that will be unhappy with anything.”

Wyden also finds that people are often suspicious until they can see a strong law at work on the ground, but he sees hope for a solution in the future – if industry and conservation groups can work together.

“Keeping the forests healthy can translate into a healthy economy,” he said. “It’s good for the mills, it’s good for the ecosystems.”

More Coverage

• Lumberman ‘shot at from almost all sides’
• Environmentalist teases: ‘I don’t have horns’
• Ecotrust manager creates a forest ownership option
• Skeleton crew at mill reflects many Northwest operations
• Editor's Notebook: This special series stretched our talent