Photo from Friends Of Mt. Emily.

An icon of Northeast Oregon has a date with the logger, unless a lot of money can be raised quickly.

What’s at risk is 500 acres of the Mt. Emily Recreation Area near La Grande. A timber company is getting ready to cut down most of the big trees in the Trails Unit, a section that’s hugely popular with hikers, bikers and horseback riders.

Local efforts to save the trees are falling behind and falling short. So the group Friends of Mt. Emily is appealing statewide for help.

Here’s the threat. Forest Capital Partners owns most of the timber rights in the Mt. Emily Recreation Area even though the land is owned by Union County. The company wants to begin logging the 500 acre trails unit on July 1st.

Here’s the rescue plan. If Union County can raise $600,000 by the end of May, it can buy the trees and would operate the area under a sustainable forestry plan.

Sue Miller of the Friends group says with two weeks to go, they still need $500,000. “This is a one time opportunity for our generation to leave a legacy of sustainable forestry” she says. “We urgently need all donations, large and small.”

Complicating things – this is an all or nothing proposition. Raising some of the money won’t save some of the trees. The timber company wants all of the cash up front before calling off the harvest.

If you want to help out, check out the donation page on the Friends of Mt. Emily website. There are two ways to donate, either through the county or the Blue Mountains Conservancy. Either way, the contributions are tax deductible.

The Film Club at Eastern Oregon University has produced a short video about efforts to save the trees.

Video: MERA Trails Unit

www.youtube.com/watch?v=dcZXpjl-yOo

Does this land need "liberating" from the federal government? Photo of the Umpqua National Forest from the U.S. Forest Service.

Apparently they do, according to Oregonians in Action. The property rights group says it will lobby the next Legislature to pass a law giving Oregon the power to condemn and seize federally owned land in the state.

That includes 15 National Forests and Monuments, a National Park, and millions of acres of land managed by the BLM. About 55% of the state is federal land, according to OIA.

The group argues the state could do a better job of managing forests than the federal government. It complains of environmental rules that, “have gone too far”.

“The results have been predictable,” says OIA, “the failure to properly manage federal forestland has resulted in catastrophic wildfires, the loss of wildlife habitat, and the slow destruction of Oregon’s timber industry.”

While the group raises some legit issues, the intent here is to increase logging in Oregon forests and put more timber land into private ownership.

The proposed legislation is modeled after a law passed in Utah earlier this year. The sponsors of that legislation want to take over the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument and open it up for coal mining.

Utah’s Attorney General and the Legislature’s legal counsel admit the law probably will be overturned by federal judges. The real purpose is to ignite a legal battle that could go all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court where conservative justices might come up with a friendlier ruling.

For More Information:

Natural Resource Report: OIA plan: Use state to condemn and liberate Federal land
Salt Lake Tribune: Utah lawmakers propose using eminent domain to take federal land (Written before the law was passed.)
Deseret News: American Indians first to face land-grab controversy

The reason? More timber revenues for counties, schools and other local governments. But environmental groups say wildlife will be hurt.

The areas most impacted by change are the Tillamook and Clastop State Forests in Northwest Oregon. They make up more than 80% of those 630,000 acres.

Under the plan, the Board expects about 196 million board feet to be harvested every year – an increase of 7 percent. Less land will be preserved as “older forests”. Instead of trying to protect 40-60% of state forests, the new goal is 30-50%.

The Oregon Sierra Club says this also means more clear cutting. It says that under the old rules, no more than 15% of a forest can be a recent clear cut. Now that’s increasing to 25%, or another 50,000 acres.

In a press release the group says, “Among the chief concerns from conservation groups are the increased levels of clear cutting, the lack of an independent scientific review of the changes, and the lack of any permanent protected areas for salmon, older forests, and clean water.”

Local officials in Northwest Oregon have complained for years that they’re not getting enough timber revenue from the forests. The last forest management plan was approved back in 2001 and according to the Forestry Board the “economic returns” have never lived up to expectations.

The group had been withholding judgement ever since the deal was announced almost two months ago. But now, the group’s Conservation Director Ivan Maluski tells me that without some changes, the Sierra Club will oppose the measure.

His critique of the logging bill is, in many ways, similar to concerns raised by the Obama Adminstration.

Here’s what Maluski says is wrong with Wyden’s bill.

It doesn’t increase protection for old growth forests.

Maluski says that many of the protections in the bill are already enforced through regulations. While putting them into law is a good idea, Maluski says there’s nothing new here for old growth.

The bill doesn’t allow administrative appeals of Forest Service logging decisions for several years.

A bad idea, says Maluski. He says the Sierra Club has made good use of administrative appeals. He thinks they’re a way to get the attention of the Forest Service when the agency makes a bad call. Maluski estimates the group has protected about 50,000 acres of forests this way during the past few years. He adds the appeals process avoids court fights. Take away that option and Maluski says will be more likely to go court.

That’s pretty much what Agriculture Undersecretary Harris Sherman says, too. In his testimony Wednesday before the Senate Sherman told the subcommittee, “An administrative review process serves as an important and useful process for resolving issues and averting litigation. With no established administrative method to review decisions and areas of disagreement, we could see more litigation during the interim period as a result of having no administrative review process.”

Maluski also doesn’t like the mandated levels for logging during the first three years of the bill. In year one, the Forest Service would have to log 80,000 acres of Eastside forests – more than double current levels. That would grow to 120,000 acres in year three.

He says the mandates ties the hands of the Forest Service, threatens forest restoration and increases pressure for more road building.

Again, Undersecretary Sherman raised similar concerns. He says the mandates may give Eastern Oregon residents, and the timber industry, “unrealistic expectations” about how much logging the Forest Service can handle.

For more information on the Sierra Club’s position see this post on their blog.

Sierra Club Weighs in on Senator Wyden’s Eastside Legislation

A view of Steins Pillar in the Ochoco National Forest. Photo from BLM.

Long time adversaries in Oregon’s timber wars told the Senate today they’re ready to make peace, at least in Eastern Oregon.

The setting was a hearing on the Eastern Oregon Logging bill sponsored by Senator Wyden. Based on a historic compromise between timber and conservation groups, the bill hopes to revive the region’s logging industry while at the same time protecting old growth trees and restoring forests.

But despite the talk of peace and collaboration, it’s clear there are still some hard feelings out there.

About the only thing all the witnesses agreed on is that Eastern Oregon’s forests are in deep trouble and need help.

One of the key players in the compromise is Andy Kerr, a senior advisor for Oregon Wild. Kerr says he’s still very much part of the wilderness movement, and still believes in protecting areas from logging and development. But as hard as it may be for people to change their views, he says that’s exactly what he’s done regarding Eastern Oregon forests. The science, he says, now tells him these forests need “active management.”

“Eastern Oregon forests are not pristine, but sick and wounded.”

Kerr thinks it’s time to bring back controlled fires and forest thinning projects to remove trees that have become an ecological threat to overall forest health and stands of old growth. He’s talking about what he calls an “unnatural concentration” of younger and smaller trees that are susceptible to fires. Kerr says they are outcompeting old growth, robbing them of moisture and nutrients, leaving them vulnerable to disease and insects.

“While it is not a perfect bill,” says Kerr, “it is nonetheless a great bill.”

Kerr’s partner in the talks is John Shelk with the Ochoco Lumber Company of Prineville.

Shelk paints a desperate picture of the timber industry in Eastern Oregon. Since 1990, 23 mills – many owned by Ochoco Lumber – and 2,000 jobs have disappeared.

“How much longer the eight remaining mills can survive,” says Shelk, “depends on supply of saw logs.” He says the timber industry in Eastern Oregon depends on timber from federal forests and increasing the volume of that timber is “critical”.

But like Kerr, Shelk says he’s also worried about the health of the forests. Falling timber harvests have led to overcrowded forests which he says leads to insect and disease infestations and increased risk of fire.

“I think it is fair to say that it is not the bill any of us would have written, but we believe it is a workable compromise that will improve the health of Oregon’s Eastside forest and help to preserve the livelihoods and tax base of our rural communities.”

One critic at the hearing was Larry Blasing of the Grant County Forest Commission. Calling the bill a “bureaucratic nightmare”, he says it addresses the wrong problem. He says the problem isn’t how the Forest Service manages the land, but rather the environmentalists who oppose how they do it and the appeals court that support the environmentalists.

Blasing says what’s happened is that the Forest Service does a long “mating dance” with environmental groups before projects even get off the ground. “This isn’t the best way to manage forests,” he says.

Blasing also criticized the bill for not including jobs or economic considerations among its goals. “Each timber job is critical to our economy,” says Blasing. “As timber goes, so goes our economy.”

Wyden disputed that argument later in the hearing.

But a more interesting moment came when Idaho Senator Jim Risch talked about what he went through getting an agreement on wilderness areas in his state. Speaking directly to Blasing he says, “You have to go forward on this.” Both sides, says Risch, need to realize that the only way to get this done is through a collaborative process.

1:29pm: Kerr admits the conservation community is split over the bill. Many groups still believe in preserving forests from development because that activity has been harmful in the past. More are recognizing that restoring forests are now what’s needed.

1:05pm Not a fan of the bill, Larry Blasing of the Grant County Forest Commission. Calls it a bureaucratic nightmare that doesn’t address the need for jobs and the economy.

12:48pm: John Shelk of Ochoco Lumber. The bill is an “agreeable compromise” that protects forests and the Eastern Oregon tax base. Nearly two dozen mills have closed. Eight are remaining. How much longer than can survive depends on a steady supply of logs from federal forests.

12:42pm: Oregon witnesses are up.  Andy Kerr of Oregon Wild says, “It’s not a perfect bill, but it is nonetheless a great bill.”

12:27pm: Back on topic.

12:24pm: The hearing has temporarily moved to other topics.

12:16: Wyden talks about the importance of the timber industry to making the bill work, and to restoring forests. “If we don’t move quickly, there’s a real risk we’re going to lose those folks. We aren’t going to be able to get it done if we lose those remaining mills and put more loggers on the unemployment line.” “We need them right now,” he says, to get biomass out of the forests.

12:08pm: First witness is Harris Sherman of USDA. He says the Obama Administration supports the bill.  This is restoration on a “comprehensive landscape scale basis” and the “only way to get to the root causes” of problems with the forests.

12:02pm: He adds the result is gridlock on more than 9 million acres of choked, at risk forests, in need of management.

12:00pm: Wyden says each side on the logging issue has armed itself politically, with enough resources to survive, but not enough to succeed.

11:50am: Senator Ron Wyden opens the hearing by saying it’s time to “end the timber wars.”

A Whitebark Pine in the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest. Photo by Dave Powell, U.S. Forest Service

Tomorrow, the Senate gets its first look at a compromise logging bill for Eastern Oregon.

Ideally, the bill is supposed to end years of timber wars. No more logging for the sake of logging. Instead, timber harvests happen as part of a greater effort to restore forests. Old growth trees are off limits. But Eastern Oregon lumber mills get a steady supply of smaller trees to help them stay in business.

The compromise came after 18-months of negotiations between Oregon environmental and timber groups. Senator Wyden, who helped organize the talks is sponsoring the bill and Senator Merkley has joined him.

The Senate subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests opens a hearing on the bill at 11:30am Pacific time, Wednesday.

Witnesses from Oregon include:

• John Shelk – Ochoco Lumber Company – Prineville
• K. Norman Johnson – Oregon State University – Corvallis
• Stephen Fitzgerald – Oregon State University – Redmond
• Larry Blasing – Grant County Public Forest Commission – Prairie City
• Andy Kerr – Senior Counselor to Oregon Wild

Oregon Wild released some of the pre-written testimony Kerr plans to make at the hearing.

“Enactment of this legislation can mark the end of the timber wars for the eastside forests of Oregon. When fully implemented, the new statute can result in the comprehensive conservation and restoration of forests and watersheds on over eight million acres of National Forest System lands.

In the isn’t-life-ironic department, the best available science tells conservationists that we need a right-sized timber industry to aid in the conservation and restoration of forests and watersheds. Conservationists also need a relevant and working Forest Service to be in service to forests.

Enactment of this legislation will result in new rules of engagement for national forest stakeholders. Confrontation can give way to collaboration. Walking and talking in the woods can become more prevalent that litigating and arguing in the courts.”

-Andy Kerr

Reaction from the timber industry, and from east side communities has been carefully optimistic. A “step in the right direction”, but no panacea according to an editorial in the La Grande Observer.

Oregon environmental groups are split. The Hells Canyon Preservation Council has come out against the bill, in part because logging will increase over the short term. During the first few years of the bill, citizens won’t be able to appeal Forest Service logging decisions.

The Oregon Sierra Club has also expressed reservations. While not yet taking an official position, an alert sent to members last week warns that the bill “threatens” Eastern Oregon forests. It says the bill doesn’t do enough to protect old growth, and does allow for the building of new roads. They’re asking members to write Wyden to get him to change the legislation.

Finally, the hearing will be available live at this link. If I can figure it out, I will also stream it on Natural Oregon.

A Whitebark Pine in the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest. Photo by Dave Powell, U.S. Forest Service

Senator Wyden’s logging bill for Eastern Oregon forests picked up the support of Senator Merkley today.

Merkley’s office issued a press release saying he’ll co-sponsor the bill, officially known as the Oregon Forest Restoration and Old Growth Protection Act of 2009. It has a first hearing March 10 with the Senate Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests.

The bill has divided Oregon’s environmental community.

Several groups, including Oregon Wild, the Klamath Siskiyou Wildlands Center and the National Center for Conservation Science and Policy are behind this legislation. They were also among the environmental groups that negotiated with timber companies to put the deal together.

In some ways, it’s a change in how the Forest Service does business.

Instead of timber sales, the Forest Service in Eastern Oregon will work on large scale plans to restore watersheds and old growth forests. Trees larger than 21 inches in diameter won’t be cut. But the timber industry is expected to be able to log more smaller trees through forest thinning projects.

The idea is to stabilize the timber industry in Eastern Oregon by providing it with a more reliable source of wood, but to also protect old growth trees.

It also creates a science advisory panel to guide the process. The deal covers about ten million acres on six national forests.

But it’s controversial because for the first few years under the deal, logging could actually increase, and the public won’t be able to appeal Forest Service decisions. Those are some of the reasons the Hells Canyon Preservation Council came out against it.

The Oregon Sierra Club says it has reservations about the bill, but so far hasn’t taken a public stand.

The deal, put together after 18-months of negotiations between environmental groups and the timber industry, opens the door for logging on about 8 million acres of federal forests east of the Cascades.

The council’s decision to oppose the deal was previously covered in this Oregonian story. But today, the HCPC posted the reasons for its decision on the group’s blog.

“Upon first hearing about the bill, we felt excited at the potential,” writes Executive Director Greg Dyson. “But after analyzing the language, it was clear that our concerns outweighed the positives.”

News of the logging compromise broke back in December when Senator Ron Wyden held a news conference in Washington to announce the breakthrough.

See: “Historic” Deal Reached For Eastern Oregon Forests

The idea of the deal was to change the way the Forest Service thinks about timber harvests. Instead of logging for the sake of logging, the new focus is on forest restoration projects. Logging will occur when it helps forests and watersheds. Large trees will be protected. The plan will be guided by a panel of scientists.

But today, Dyson writes…

“When we read the bill, we found some disturbing aspects:
• It would unnecessarily use time and resources to convene a new scientist advisory panel, instead of adopting the findings of a 1994 scientist advisory panel convened for the exact same purpose.
• It does propose some protections for big old trees, but does not protect intact old growth stands or ancient forests.
• It proposes an “Interim Period” of more intensive logging on the eastside, with mandated acreage targets and no firm end date.
• During this Interim Period, the public’s rights to provide input on projects would be limited.
• Even though it would create a scientist advisory panel to create recommendations for managing our eastside forests, it does not require the Forest Service to actually follow these recommendations.
• It would allow continued road building, even though roads are perhaps the single biggest threat to our eastside forests.”

You can read the full post here.

The Hells Canyon Preservation Council also published a letter it wrote to Senator Wyden explaining why it won’t support the deal.

The deal was negotiated by timber and conservation groups, with the help of Senator Wyden’s office. Wyden will introduce legislation to make it happen.

“The forests of eastern Oregon have reached a crisis condition as has our wood products industry,” says Kulongoski in his statement. “Our communities and rural economies are stressed beyond tolerance and Senator Wyden’s bill is the kind of solution to this triple threat that Congress should adopt as quickly as possible.”

The bill has been described as historic, and for good reasons.

It gives legal protection to old growth forests by banning the logging of trees more than 21 inches in diameter. On top of that, it changes how the Forest Service manages the forest. Instead of logging for the sake of logging, the Forest Service would focus on restoring forests and watersheds. Logging will be part of the restoration process. Wyden’s office estimates that during the first year, about 80,000 acres would be logged.

The law would affect about 8 million acres of federal forests in Eastern Oregon.

See: “Historic” Deal Reached For Eastern Oregon Forests.

Timber is signing on because they believe it will assure their industry of a steady supply of wood from public lands.

The Oregon Sierra Club, which wasn’t one of the negotiators, issued a statement expressing some concerns.

That’s because the bill calls for a three year ban on administrative appeals of timber sales. The Sierra Club and other groups have used administrative appeals to block controversial sales in the Umatilla National Forest. The process allows them to challenge Forest Service decisions without having to sue.