Going on field trips with the Forest Service can be fun, and always informative. Sometimes they are to projects we generally can support, like thinning in younger, previously managed forest stands. And sometimes they are to areas that we'd prefer the agency leave alone, like the D-bug project.

Today I visited the "Certification Thin" on the McKenzie Ranger District of the Willamette National Forest. To be honest, I didn't like this project going in. It's just 65 acres and is intended to benefit elk and deer that need open areas with shrubs and other understory plants to thrive. Sounds ok so far, right? Unfortunately, this small patch of forest is prime older forest habitat for other species that need things that are very different from elk - namely big trees and a denser canopy.

In our support of some thinning of plantations, we can see the benefit of some more heavily thinned areas - or gaps - to allow for better elk browsing and understory growth. But up here at Certification, we're talking about natural forest that averages 160 years in age. It's gorgeous and healthy - plenty of snags and down wood, a diversity of tree species in the canopy and growing up underneath, and a tangle of greenery on the ground. If not prime habitat for the threatened northern spotted owl already - it will be given another few decades.

The agency's reasoning for the project includes a general lack of open areas elk need in that particular area, the fact that it is in the "matrix" land use allocation under the Northwest Forest Plan (meaning it is supposed to be managed for multiple resource objectives like timber), and the demand (even in a down market) for larger trees. Fine, but what about the fact that this stand is ecologically healthy, is surrounded by a landscape of roads and clearcuts in various stages of regrowth, and that spotted owls continue to decline due in large part to a lack of habitat? All arguments that were discussed on the field trip, were brought up in our initial comments on the project, and will be reiterated as it moves forward through planning. 

It's not the worst project, but it's not the best and I'd rather it not be done. There's so much we can agree on with the Forest Service, I hope this is just a small, temporary setback in our way forward towards better forest management.