Finding the right solution for old growth

Oregon Wild Conservation Director Steve Pedery talks about ways to make sure old growth protection is done right.

When it comes to old-growth forest protection in Oregon, sometimes it is hard to see the forest for the trees.

Today most Oregonians view these majestic giants as natural treasures, but the U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management have not kept up with the times. Today the BLM is seeking to remove 2.6 million acres of public forests from the science-based protection of the Northwest Forest Plan, allowing for a 700 percent increase in old-growth logging. It is just one example of how land managers stubbornly continue to head down the wrong path.

That's why the news that Sen. Ron Wyden and Rep. Peter DeFazio are working on new forest legislation is so welcome. Their aim is to protect our remaining old-growth forests while directing federal agencies to focus on conservation-based thinning programs. These thinning projects avoid pristine roadless areas and protect clean water, salmon, and recreation while still providing wood and jobs to rural communities.

Oregon Wild has long advocated for such thinning projects, and we have been part of a pioneering collaborative group working on the Siuslaw National Forest that has developed projects that now serve as a national model. As a member of the Clackamas Stewardship Partners in the Mount Hood National Forest, in January we won a national award from the Forest Service for our work to find common ground between conservationists and timber communities.

While these projects offer important lessons on how to find consensus on forest management and move forward, they can also provide cautionary examples of how to avoid getting lost in the woods.

Sen. Wyden's proposal, which was released publicly just a few weeks ago, provides an important vehicle for moving the forest management debate forward. After almost eight years of the Bush administration, it is a breath of fresh air. But several key provisions need strengthening.

For example, Wyden's proposal would fast-track numerous extremely large forest thinning projects, without carrying out important scientific analysis or giving the public much chance to weigh in on how their lands are being managed. While we share the senator's desire to move restoration projects quickly, we must be careful not to sidestep scientific and environmental reviews. The largest project the Bush administration tried to advance in this fashion was only 70 acres. Wyden is proposing several 25,000 to 50,000-acre chunks.

Another area where the proposal should be strengthened is in protecting salmon and clean water. When the Northwest Forest Plan was written in the early 1990s, careful consideration was given to the role forests play in the health of our rivers. The resulting Aquatic Conservation Strategy (ACS) has been a success in managing our forests in ways that help protect dwindling salmon runs. Wyden's proposal includes provisions to protect our rivers, but it is absent the necessary details that have made the ACS so successful.

Finally, public forests in Oregon have been chain sawed, bulldozed, starved of fire, and degraded by decades of industrial logging and mismanagement. On the west side of the Cascades some areas now sit as dense, single-species tree plantations. On the east side Ponderosa pine forests suffer from misguided fire suppression and drought stress. These areas need thinning and restoration. Conversely, some special areas have been spared from development and mismanagement. Sen. Wyden's proposal should clarify that westside forests over 80-years-old that have escaped the harmful effects of modern logging and development remain pristine, and that eastside forests receive the restoration they need to protect fire-resistant old growth over 120-years-old.

The old battles over the fate of Oregon's cherished ancient forests could soon be at an end. With leadership from our elected officials and the potential for a new environmental ethic in the White House, the time is now to protect the little old growth we have left. We must be sure that our long-term vision for these public lands is scientifically driven, far-reaching, and lasting.