Today the Senate subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests (housed in the Energy and Natural Resources committee) is holding a hearing on the Oregon Eastside Forest Restoration, Old-Growth Protection and Jobs Act (S.2895), introduced by Senator Ron Wyden in December.

Oregon Senator Jeff Merkley signed on as a co-sponsor last week.

Senator Wyden’s legislation builds on common ground reached between conservationists and the timber industry and would protect old growth forests and refocus national forest management in eastern Oregon on science-based restoration. Future logging would remove primarily smaller diameter trees and serve landscape-wide forest and watershed restoration goals. The legislation is the product of months of intense negotiations between conservationists, timber industry leaders, and Senator Wyden’s staff.

Watch the hearing live from the Senate website

Send your questions to me, Chandra LeGue at cl@oregonwild.org.

11:45am:

The hearing is supposed to start at 11:30 am PST (2:30 pm EST), but seems to be running a bit behind.

Scheduled to testify on S. 2895 today are Harris Sherman for the US Forest Service; Andy Kerr, Senior Council for Oregon Wild; John Schelk, with Ochoco Lumber; Norm Johnson, forest scientist; Larry Blasing, with Grant County Public Forest Commission; and Stephen Fitzgerald, silviculturist representing the Society of American Foresters.

11:52am:

Finally getting underway. Senator Wyden is talking about how important the bill is to help the timber industry, get our forests healthy, and protect our treasured old-growth. He wants to end the "timber wars" in Oregon to help our rural communities and our forests. He says insects and fires are a big threat (though we know these can also be natural forces).

He's encouraged by the way both sides of the old wars have come together to work with him to make progress on these issues. And he's glad Senator Merkley is joining him to support the bill.

He sees the bill as important to maintain the timber industry in eastern Oregon - both for communities as well as to get restoration done.

Noon: 

Senator Wyden hopes other Senators see the value in folks working together to find solutions to economic and ecological problems. He's also concerned with funding the Forest Service to make sure needed restoration gets done.

12:05pm:

Harris Sherman, of the US Forest Service, is testifying on the other bills being heard...

Ah, here's S. 2895: He's impressed with the folks coming together. And...

He says the administration strongly supports the goals of the bill! That's great! Here's why:

- It focuses on comprehensive landscape scale restoration. That's the only way to address the root causes of ecological problems.

- He also likes the focus on collaboration. It's needed to accomplish goals of restoration.

- He also likes the focus on right-sizing the road system, basing restoration and protection on science, and on the maintenance of a sustainable timber industry.

- The bill reflects Secretary Vilsack's goals announced last summer.

There are concerns he'd like to work with Senator Wyden on, and these are in his written testimony.

12:15pm:

Senator Wyden is asking Sherman about industry infrastructure, and the essential role it plays in eastern Oregon for restoration and biomass. (Oregon Wild has a more cautious approach to biomass than the Senator does...)

Can critical restoration happen if timber companies go out of business? Sherman says no. The agency needs to work with the industry as a partner to meet their needs as well as the forest's.

12:30pm:

Back after the hearing moved on to other bills briefly.

Senator Wyden has asked Mr. Sherman about using landscape-scale analyses. Sherman says it's important to do this so the agency can be efficient in it's analysis of environmental impacts.

He also says collaboration and good science is a key to doing landscape-scale restoration. And he believes stewardship contracts need to be constructed well.

Senator Wyden is also asking about collaboration, and it's essential role in moving beyond the "timber wars" of the past. If you get everyone at the table, folks are less likely to "run off to the courthouse".

By the way, Mr. Sherman's written testimony calls out Oregon Wild's role in the Glaze Meadow Project and its successful collaboration. Mr. Sherman thinks there are some challenges to collaboration, but sees a lot of promise.

12:40pm:

Andy Kerr is giving his testimony. I just noticed that the hearing room is pretty empty. What a bummer. I'd love for more Senators to hear these comments.

"Confrontation can give way to collaboration." This is important since there is so little old-growth left in eastern Oregon. Andy's explaining the need for restoration of some of these dry forests - how past management has led to unnatural conditions.

Andy's concerned that Forest Service funding should be reprogrammed to do ecological restoration, instead of fighting fires that could play have a natural role in our forests.

"This is not a bill I would have written... But it's a great bill."

12:45pm:

John Schelk, manager of Ochoco Lumber, is speaking now. He says he'd see a 40% increase in jobs with the passage of this bill. He notes the compromises made in negotiating this bill, but the support he has for it.

He's talking about the decline in industry infrastructure in eastern Oregon - for various reasons. He also sees a corresponding decline in forest health and the need for active management. He sees this bill as having the potential to provide a predictable supply of logs to keep eastside mills in business, and utilize the biomass industry.

Mr. Schelk's testimony might be hard to swallow for some long-time environmentalists. But, as Senator Wyden is pointing out, both sides are taking a lot of flack for working with one another. We've come a long way in working to understand each others' positions, while not necessarily agreeing.

12:55pm:

My colleagues in the office are distracting me with lunch plans. And Dr. Norm Johnson is giving testimony for himself and Dr. Jerry Franklin - involved for a LONG time in forest science in the Pacific Northwest.

He notes that there are different needs for restoration in moist and dry forest types and that we're mostly talking about the dry forests in this bill.

He's making the point that we could lose our forests to fires if we don't act now.

He likes the focus on using science to develop comprehensive restoration for forests and watersheds.

He thinks third party review will be essential to gain support for the activities in the bill.

The two scientists support this bill moving forward, and appreciate the steps the two "sides" have made towards working together.

That was badly captured. Here's the written testimony.

1:00pm:

Larry Blasing from Grant County is on deck now. He's saying he agrees wholeheartedly, in principle, everything that has been said.

But he thinks the Forest Service isn't doing a good job creating projects and doing environmental analysis that environmentalists won't challenge. He sees environmental group challenges to projects as a big threat to forest management. The Blue Mountains Collaboration Group is moving too slowly.

The goals of the Act don't reflect the need for jobs and the economy enough. He'd like to see support from County Courts in eastern Oregon, and noted Grant County's concerns with stewardship contracting's lack of economic returns to the county.

Mr. Blasing's has concerns with much of the subjective language in the bill, and how it may contribute to litigation and confusion in management. He  thinks the focus on old-growth is overrated, and he believes reducing road densities is detrimental to forest users who like to drive.

He'd like to see a sunset clause on the bill to reduce the level of bureaucracy in the future.

1:10pm:

Now, Mr. Fitzgerald is speaking. He's a professor in silvaculture at OSU and representing the Society of American Foresters. 

He says that diameter limits for forest management are not in line with forest ecology. He's outlining why foresters need flexibility in determining the needs of forest restoration and density, and he takes issue with restoring forests to an "old-growth" condition.

Good points, but we believe that this bill does allow for flexibility - based on the best available science and what's best for the forest.

1:15pm:

Senator Risch also thinks it's unfortunate there aren't more people at the hearing. He's got a forestry background and thinks more Senators need a bit of education.

He's commending Mr. Schelk for working with the environmentalists to try to stay in business.

He's also saying that Mr. Blasing makes some good points: the Forest Service does know how to manage forests, and they need to be allowed to do that in appropriate places. When Mr. Risch was governor of Idaho, he worked to develop his state's own roadless area management (allowed under President Bush). He tried to get environmental groups at the table to work collaboratively on that rule, and claims success. (Oregon Wild has it's own opinion about this rule and roadless areas.) He's encouraging Mr. Blasing to not give up on the collaborative effort - it'll reap rewards for his county and the rural economy.

1:25pm:

Senator Wyden is asking Andy Kerr about how the conservation movement is not of one mind on the type of restoration proposed in this legislation. Andy notes the slow movement from a preservation mindset towards restoration - slower for some than others. There are philosophical and aesthetic issues for many. He notes, though, that there is a scientific majority saying that some forests are in need of restoration - sometimes including creating some stumps. He's supportive of the bill because it relies on the best information out there to determine what's best for the forest.

Andy cited the success of collaboration in the Siuslaw National Forest and the movement towards agreement, away from appeals and litigation. Senator Wyden wants to see more successful models like this.

1:35pm:

Sandwich has arrived and John Schelk is calling Andy Kerr the devil incarnate.

Senator Wyden asked John to tell the story of how this landmark agreement came together. He says "it started with a walk in the woods" with the devil incarnate. Andy and John found that they had some common goals and worked to expand on those, while setting aside the things they couldn't agree on. Cheers to that. It's how this bill got made.

Norm Johnson is asked to respond to Mr. Fitzgerald's criticism of the bill. He's sensitive to forest dynamics, but has learned that the Forest Service is best able to move forward when there are clear boundaries (like the 21" limit on logging in eastern Oregon). Limits need to make some sense, but they can help build trust between forest stakeholders.

1:40pm:

Senator Wyden has assured Mr. Blasing that he IS concerned with the economy of rural eastern Oregon. And he's asking about how he'd like to see the Forest Service process streamlined to allow for the management he'd like to see done - given that the bill has already made steps to accommodate these concerns.

Mr. Blasing says it's litigation, not appeals that are the real issue.

But Mr. Blasing, Americans have the right to go to court... I wouldn't mess with that. In fact, in this bill, we very carefully worked to not mess with that right. Wyden says he thinks the bill has struck the right balance too.

1:45pm:

Oh boy. Wyden's asked how Mr. Fitzgerald would define "old-growth." Thanks for opening THAT can of worms...

Answer: Old-growth is diverse, depending on forest type. It'll have a variety of structures, ages and sizes. You know, a simple answer.

Mr. Johnson's take on  it: Diameter is a starting point for defining old-growth, but there are exceptions. Forest structure is helpful, but hard to measure and reach agreement on. Age can be useful, but where do you set it? You've got to consider both societal and ecological factors in a definition. (In Ponderosa-pine forests, he and Mr. Franklin have set 150 years.) He thinks the diameter limits in the legislation are an interim measure, but encourages the shift towards an age-based old-growth sideboard. (By the way, this is allowed for in the bill)

2:05pm:

Finally! Closing remarks! (I'm excited by this hearing, but 2 hours is a pretty long time...)

From John Schelk: This bill kicks off a massive educational opportunity for everyone involved.

From Larry Blasing: Concern about a diameter limit for forest management, mainly because he feels it's important to log trees of all sizes. And, he thinks it's necessary for forest health and the economy.

Senator Wyden wants to move forward with this opportunity since there is so much buy-in for the majority of forest management

From Andy Kerr: Notes that the bill addresses the ecological problems with roads, and the need for some watershed restoration. Also notes that protecting old-growth trees with a diameter limit is workable - it'll protect our most valuable trees and forests, and allow for limited ecologically-based exceptions. Conservationists need this limit as an assurance as the Forest Service and its stakeholders build up trust. Finally: let's hear it for dead trees - We need 'em, wildlife needs 'em.

From Steve Fitzgerald: The science panel needs to have practical,  on-the-ground folks who can translate science into implementable projects.

Last word, Senator?: He's really committed to making this legislation happen. We can't wait. We need to address the forest health problem and the plight of rural Oregon's economy.

All righty, Senator. Let's get on it - for whatever our reasons. For Oregon Wild, it's our precious old-growth, clean water, and healthy wildlife. For the timber industry it's staying in business and keeping people employed. If we can agree on getting both, that's just super.