A view of Mt. Hood from Timothy Lake. Photo by K. Carpenter/U.S.G.S.

Off roaders are going to start seeing a lot of “closed” signs in the Mt. Hood National Forest.

A new Forest Service plan dramatically cuts back where off road vehicles are allowed. Environmental groups couldn’t be much happier.

Just how much of a reduction are we talking about? Currently, off road vehicles are allowed on more 2,300 miles of roads and trails. Under the new rule, they’re allowed on 146 miles in four distinct areas around the forest.

Here’s another big change. The current rules allow off roaders into areas where they are no roads or trails. It’s officially called “cross country” travel. Right now 395,000 acres are open to cross country travel. Under the new plan, it’s zero.

Bark, the environmental watchdog group for the Mt. Hood National Forest calls the new travel plan, “A huge victory.” The group is especially pleased because the travel plan moves off roading away from Wilderness Areas.

From the environmental point of view, here’s the problem. Off roading is a lot more popular than it was 20 years ago. More users mean more stress on the system. Plus, the vehicles are bigger and more powerful. They can do a lot more damage to environmentally sensitive areas. In 2004, the U.S. Forest Service named unregulated off roading as one of the four top threats to National Forests and Grasslands.

They are also conflicts with other users of the forests. When hikers and off roaders share trails, it can be a safety problem. That’s a big reason why Mt. Hood officials say they’re closing off so much of the forest. Besides, if you’re going on a hike to get away from it all, who wants to hear a noisy OHV?

Off roaders will be understandably upset by the new travel plan. They’re losing a huge chunk of the forest. But compared to what’s happening elsewhere in Oregon, Mt. Hood is the exception. All of the national forests have issued new travel plans, or are working on them. Most of them provide lots of miles for off roaders to roam.

Just across the river in Clark County, Washington DNR is planning a major expansion of the the off road trail system in the Yacolt Burn State Forest.

For more information:

Mt. Hood National Forest Travel Management Plan

Earlier Stories:

New Hiking, Off-Road Trails Coming To Clark County

Mt Hood: Putting The Brakes On OHVs In The Forest

Quiet Forests: It’s Decision Time On Mt. Hood

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

A view of the Calapooya Mountains in the Umpqua National Forest. Photo from U.S. Forest Service.

If you’re not happy with what’s going on in our National Forests, then this is the year to do something about it.

The Obama Administration is working on a new planning rule that will guide the future of all 155 National Forests and Grasslands across the country. What’s at stake? Big issues such as logging, mining, old growth, stream and river quality, wildlife and recreation.

On Tuesday, the Forest Service holds a series of public meetings in Portland to hear from Oregonians.

The Forest Service hasn’t had much luck with planning rules lately. Versions written in 2000, 2002 were dropped, 2005 and 2008 updates were blocked by courts. The result? National Forests are still working under the 1982 rule – written almost three decades ago. An update is long overdue.

Bark, the watchdog group for the Mt. Hood National Forest, recently sent a message to members urging them to attend Tuesday’s public meetings. It’s asking members to show up and support clean water, protecting wildlife habitat and quiet recreation over timber harvests and other corporate uses of the forest. Bark says dealing with climate change should become a priority for the Forest Service. A recent study by the Wilderness Society found that National Forests in Western Oregon are the best in the nation for carbon storage.

The Wilderness Society has its own list of priorities for the a new forest planning rule. They include:

• Using sound science to guide forest planning decisions
• Protect habitat for fish and wildlife
• Address climate change by preserving large areas of old growth forest for carbon storage
• Preserve water and watersheds for safe drinking water
• Protect America’s outdoor legacy by making sure recreational uses of the forests are sustainable
• Protect more areas as Wilderness

This month, the Forest Service is holding a series of public meetings called roundtables. Here’s what you need to know about Tuesday’s event in Portland.

• Where: In the Multnomah Room of the Doubletree Hotel near Lloyd Center, 1000 NE Multnomah Street, Portland.
• When: There will be three discussion sessions, starting at 9:00am, 1:00pm and 6:00pm. There will also be two open houses from Noon to 1:00pm and 5:00pm to 6:00pm.

The Forest Service is asking you to e-mail ForestServiceMtg@LSAResults.com if want to attend, and to include your name, address and any affiliation if you have one. But this is not mandatory.

For more information:

Bark: Forest Service Planning Rule

Wilderness Society: Our Forests Our Future

U.S. Forest Service: Forest Planning Rule

U.S. Forest Service: Planning Rule Blog

Natural Oregon: They’re Not Forests, Think Of Them As Lungs For The Earth

A view of Mt. Hood from Lolo Pass Road. Photo by Dennis Newman.

The Mt. Hood National Forest is giving itself more time to make a huge decision that will affect just about everyone who uses the forest.

It’s going to spend the spring and summer doing additional environmental studies before making a final ruling on where to allow off road vehicles.

That ruling was expected by today, but now it’s being put off until August.

Mt. Hood officials say they want the extra time to study what are called “survey and management” species. These are animals and plants that require old growth forests to survive. But they’re so rare, or so isolated, they’re especially vulnerable to activities that disturb their habitat.

Federal officials, timber and conservation groups have been fighting for years over how to apply survey and management rules. During the Bush years, the feds tried to eliminate them. But recently a federal judge told the federal officials they had to follow the rules. That decision is what led to today’s announcement.

Of all the National Forests in Oregon, Mt. Hood is by far doing the most to limit off road travel. The preliminary plan calls for creating a handful of places where off road vehicles are allowed – effectively separating them from “quiet users” such as hikers, campers and hunters.

Right Now:

• Off roading is allowed on about 2500 miles of roads and trails.
• Off roaders can drive off trails, officially known as cross country travel, on about 395,000 acres of the forest.

Under the preliminary plan:

• Off roading is allowed in six areas with about 221 miles of roads and trails.
• Cross country travel is banned.

Related Stories:

Mt Hood: Putting The Brakes On OHVs In The Forest
Quiet Forests: It’s Decision Time On Mt. Hood

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.

A view of the Calapooya Mountains in the Umpqua National Forest. Photo from U.S. Forest Service.

We all know there’s something special about Oregon’s forests.

A new study by the Wilderness Society says if you’re looking for a place to store carbon, Oregon forests are the best in the nation.

Using Forest Service data, the Society says the top ten best forests for storing carbon are all in the Pacific Northwest. Six of them in Oregon, three of them are in Washington and one is in Alaska.

What makes our forests so good?

Mike Anderson with the Wilderness Society’s office in Seattle says it’s a combination of factors. A moist climate, the kinds of trees we have here, a longer growing season, old growth trees and fewer fires allow our forests to build up massive amounts of carbon.

Map of the top ten carbon storing National Forests from the Wilderness Society. Click on image for larger version.

On average, these forests store about 135 metric tons of carbon per acre, which is equivalent to about 500 metric tons of carbon dioxide, a major greenhouse gas.

The top carbon storing powerhouse of all is the Willamette National Forest in the Central Oregon Cascades. It holds about 164 metric tons of carbon per acre, about the same as 600 metric tons of carbon dioxide.

Here’s another way of looking at it. Compared to how much carbon we burn by using fossil fuels, there’s about a 20-month supply in these trees.

Anderson says this has implications for how we manage these forests.

“The best thing we can do,” he says, “is to leave them alone. These trees can retain the carbon for centuries. We know these westside moist forests are holding a lot of carbon and it’s best to let them do that.”

The study’s co-author, Ann Ingerson says, “Loss of a portion of this stored carbon can add to our greenhouse gas emissions burden just as we are struggling to achieve the drastic reductions needed.”

Getting the feds as well as state and local governments to think of these areas as “carbon banks” will take some effort.

The Bush Administration wanted to dramatically increase logging on Western Oregon forests under the control of the Bureau of Land Management. There’s a lot of carbon in those trees, too. The Wilderness Society says BLM’s forests in Western Oregon store nearly as much carbon, per acre, as do the National Forests. The Obama Administration has put those plans on hold.

But the real top dogs of carbon storage? They are the Pacific Northwest’s National Parks. Crater Lake, Mt. Rainier, Olympic and the North Cascades National Parks store an average 644 metric tons of carbon dioxide per acre.

Here’s irony for you. Anderson says the Forest Service collected the data not to evaluate carbon storage, but to see how much potential National Forests have for logging.

Thanks to the Public News Service for the tip!

Wilderness Society Video: A Visit To One Of America’s Top Ten Carbon Storing Forests