This is the first of two Public Lands Blog posts that are not about public lands but rather the conservation of public resources on private land. I offer my take on the Oregon Private Forest Accords (OPFA) because several readers asked for it. Part 1 examines the Oregon OPFA deal and its significance. Part 2 will examine whether the OPFA is a grand bargain, a mere détente, or a great sellout.
Top Line: The OPFA—an agreement between Oregon private timberland interests and conservation and fishing interests to convince the Oregon Legislative Assembly to rewrite the Oregon Forest Practices Act in the 2022 short session—is epic. If legislators agree, conservation requirements on the state’s private timberlands will be strengthened significantly.
Figure 1. A clear-cut on private land in the headwaters of the Lewis and Clark River as viewed from the summit of Saddle Mountain in the eponymous state park. Source: Wikipedia (Walter Siegmund).
Facilitated by the governor of Oregon, an agreement has been reached between thirteen conservation and fishing organizations and twelve private timber concerns (the so-called 13x12 group). Among other things, the Oregon Private Forest Accords (OPFA) is an agreement among the parties to jointly (along with Governor Kate Brown) lobby the Oregon Legislative Assembly to rewrite the Oregon Forest Practices Act (OFPA). The OFPA, enacted in 1971, is the primary statute that “regulates” logging on private timberlands.
In the words of the governor’s office:
The parties agreed on a framework for:
· Riparian buffers for streams, rivers, and bodies of water;
· Steep slopes protection to minimize erosion and protect habitat;
· An approach moving forward to improve forest roads; and
· A path forward to make adjustments and adaptation to forest practices in the future.
The OFPA rewrite—along with new regulations promulgated by the Oregon Board of Forestry—will be the basis for the Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF) to develop a fifty-year habitat conservation plan (HCP) in hopes of being issued an incidental take permit (ITP) for several aquatic species protected under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA). If NOAA Fisheries does not issue the ITP, everything will reset to today’s status quo, which is not good.
The plethora of detail, substance, and process supporting each of the governor’s bullets above amounts to far more than can be reported herein. Thus, we won’t be doing a deep dive into the actual details but rather analyzing the OPFA in broad policy and political contexts. More details can be found in the Wild Salmon Center’s excellent summary.
Increased Protections Offered by the Deal
Suffice it to say that protections for riparian areas and steep slopes will increase significantly. Table 1 and Figure 2 compare and contrast current and agreed-upon protections for riparian areas and steep slopes.
Table 1. The current rules under the Oregon Forest Practices Act (OFPA) versus the agreement. Source: Fishing and conservation parties to the OPFA.
Figure 2. Current stream buffers compared with those that will take effect under the new rules. Streams without fish that are nonetheless important to fish will receive some level of protection if the Oregon Legislative Assembly codifies the Oregon Private Forest Accords into statute. Source: Wild Salmon Center.
Figure 3. What a difference a state government makes. Stream buffers have long been required on private timberlands in the state of Washington. Source: Oregon Wild.
The Timberlands Affected by the Deal
Let’s be clear about the Oregon private timberlands that are the subject of this agreement.
The Oregon Forest Resources Institute reports that 47 percent of Oregon is “forested.” This is a generous figure that includes thrice-hammered clear-cut/plantations alongside magnificent old-growth forests and above-timberline alpine lands. The largest landowner of the forested landscape is the federal government (60 percent). The 34 percent of Oregon’s forests that are privately held is where 76 percent of the state’s logging is done (see Graph 1). It is these private forestlands that are the subject of the Oregon Private Forest Accords (OPFA).
Graph 1. Forestland acreage and timber harvest by owner. Almost two-thirds of Oregon’s logging is done on large industrial private timberlands, even though these represent a little more than one-fifth of Oregon’s forestlands. Source: Oregon Forest Resources Institute.
Certainly as a matter of tax law, and somewhat as a matter of regulations, private timberlands in Oregon are owned by either “large” (always industrial) or “small” (more often than not nonindustrial) landowners. According to the Oregon Forest Resources Institute’s Oregon Forest Facts, 2021–22 Edition, large (≥5,000 acres per owner) industrial timberlands in Oregon total 6,487,000 acres (Map 1), while small (<5,000 acres per owner) private timberlands total 3,702,000 acres (Map 2), for a grand total of 10,189,000 acres.
Map 1. Private timberlands of more than 5,000 acres. Source: Oregon Forest Resources Institute.
Map 2. Private timberlands of 5,000 acres or less. Source: Oregon Forest Resources Institute.
The Species Affected by the Deal
Twenty-three fish species found in Oregon have federal ESA protection. Habitats for three of these species (Warner sucker, Lahontan cutthroat trout, and Hutton tui chub, if you must know) are not found on private forestlands, but twenty of these species, to varying degrees, are affected by logging on private timberlands in Oregon. Here is the roll call:
• bull trout (rangewide)
• Columbia River chum salmon
• green sturgeon (southern distinct population segment)
• Lost River sucker
• Lower Columbia River chinook salmon
• Lower Columbia River coho salmon
• Lower Columbia River steelhead
• Middle Columbia River steelhead
• Oregon Coast coho salmon
• Pacific eulachon/smelt (southern distinct population segment)
• shortnose sucker
• Snake River chinook salmon (fall)
• Snake River chinook salmon (spring/summer)
• Snake River sockeye salmon
• Snake River steelhead
• Southern Oregon/Northern California coast coho salmon
• Upper Columbia River spring chinook salmon
• Upper Columbia River steelhead
• Upper Willamette River chinook salmon
• Upper Willamette River steelhead
We’ll see if Big Timber actually agrees that all fish should be covered in the fifty-year HCP. If any ESA-listed species notincluded in an HCP are harmed incidentally by logging operations on private property, the timberland owners in question are subject to prosecution for violating the ESA.
By the way, the 13x12 group included these imperiled—but not yet ESA-protected—amphibian species that will for the purposes of the HCP be treated as already listed (but only for a term of twenty-five years):
• Columbia torrent salamander
• southern torrent salamander
• coastal giant salamander
• Cope’s giant salamander
• coastal tailed frog
While amphibian and fish habitats often overlap, amphibians cannot rely just on fish habitat to be adequately protected from logging. Amphibians can often be found higher in the watershed than any fish.
The Cascade torrent salamander (Figure 4) is expressly not part of the OPFA as its habitat is farther upstream in the watershed than Big Timber was willing to allow stream buffers. The same is true for imperiled mollusks. Oh well, time to list the salamander under the ESA. (The US Fish and Wildlife Service has found that the listing “may be warranted.”)
Figure 4. The Cascade torrent salamander. Source: Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife.
In exchange for adhering to conservation requirements set forth in an HCP, which are expected to help recover the ESA-listed species, property owners will be able to “take” certain numbers of those species incidental to other lawful activities.
Figure 5. Clear-cutting along the East Fork Coquille River (look for the blue water below the road). Not only is there no stream buffer of trees, but also the road is in the stream zone. Source: Oregon Wild.
Figure 5. Clear-cutting along the East Fork Coquille River (look for the blue water below the road). Not only is there no stream buffer of trees, but also the road is in the stream zone. Source: Oregon Wild.
The Parties to the Deal
Thirteen fishing and conservation organizations signed the OPFA:
• Audubon Society of Portland (Bob Sallinger)
• Beyond Toxics
• Cascadia Wildlands
• Klamath Siskiyou Wildlands Center (Joseph Vaile)
• Northwest Guides and Anglers
• Oregon League of Conservation Voters
• Oregon Stream Protection Coalition
• Oregon Wild (Sean Stevens)
• Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations
• Rogue Riverkeeper
• Trout Unlimited (Chrysten Lambert)
• Umpqua Watersheds
• Wild Salmon Center (Bob Van Dyk)
Twelve private timber concerns also signed on:
• Campbell Global
• Greenwood Resources
• Hampton Lumber (Heath Curtiss)
• Hancock Natural Resource Group
• Lone Rock Resources
• Oregon Small Woodlands Association (Jim James)
• Port Blakely
• Rayonier (Adrian Miller)
• Roseburg Forest Products (Eric Geyer)
• Seneca Sawmill Company (Cameron Krauss)
• Starker Forests
• Weyerhaeuser (Diane Meyers)
The people named in parentheses were the actual negotiators. By law, the number of negotiators was limited to six on each side. The sixth conservation and fishing negotiator, not listed above, was consulting aquatic scientist Dr. Kelly Burnett. The timber industry representatives were afraid to make a move without their attorney, so they actually had seven negotiators in the room. “Room” in this case was often pronounced “Zoom” for many of the discussions. At the end, the two sides were together in a room, but only with each other, with mediators going back and forth between the two rooms.
(There were supposed to be thirteen timber concerns involved in the agreement, but Andrew Miller, CEO of Stimson Lumber, who participated in the talks, failed in the end to rise to the occasion and will now fail to be even a footnote in history.)
Figure 6. Smoke ‘em if you got ‘em. After clear-cutting, apply fire to “prepare” the site for planting a monoculture of trees. Source: ClearcutOregon.com (George Sexton).
The Events Leading to the Deal
How did we get to the day when the Oregon Private Timber Accords deal was made? Let us follow the bouncing ball.
The OFPA is passed. The Oregon Forest Practices Act (OFPA) was enacted in 1971 (when I was in the tenth grade) and was at the time considered progressive. Today, forest practice acts in Washington, California, and most other states have left Oregon in shame. Finally, conflicts escalated enough to create a political crisis, which precipitated this prospective policy reform.
Decades of reform attempts fail. If decades of countless valiant and tenacious efforts to reform Oregon’s forest practices resulted in any reform at all, such could be measured in literally a few feet of less-horrible stream buffers. During most of the half century since OFPA was enacted, Big Timber leased and rented the Oregon Legislative Assembly, if it didn’t buy and sell it.
Enviros file ballot measures. In 2019 the enviro community was fed up. So they filed what were eventually six petitions with the Oregon secretary of state to put forest practice reform on the ballot. Only one would proceed—the one that received the best all-important ballot title, which all voters would read.
Big Timber counter-files ballot measures. Big Timber freaked out and countered with three initiative petitions of their own, including one that would require the state to compensate landowners for losses due to new regulations.
The governor brokers a cease-fire. For reasons analyzed in Part 2 of this post, both sides wanted to avoid a ballot measure fight or fights. So in February 2020, Governor Kate Brown brokered a cease-fire that led to discussions.
Hard negotiations are conducted in secret. Lots of intense and detailed negotiations went on, all in secret under agreed-upon ground rules.
Agreement is reached. Early in the morning on October 30, 2021 (just about the time the bars closed), the 13x12 group, presided over by Governor Brown, signed the Oregon Private Forest Accords (OPFA).
Figure 7. Aerial application of herbicides. This practice is central to the industrial short-rotation monoculture model of “forestry.” The use of herbicides indicates a forestry failure. Source: ClearcutOregon.com.
What Happens Next
The deal reached in late October of this year, while more than merely an agreement in principle, was not a polished final document. That is in the works now. The OPFA needs to be polished for a couple of reasons. First, it is always important that all the parties to an agreement know precisely what they have agreed will be done for them and to them. Second, the legislative language submitted to the legislature for consideration will incorporate the final OPFA document into the statute.
The legislature is expected to take up the bill during its short session in early 2022. The 13x12 strange bedfellows will be jointly lobbying for the same bill while at the same time trying to fend off any attempts to weaken, strengthen (it all depends on your point of view), or kill the bill. Prepare for a news report that one or several members of the Oregon Legislative Assembly have had their heads explode. (I’m guessing several members.)
The Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) language will further direct the Oregon Board of Forestry (OBF) to adopt Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) provisions consistent with the new OFPA, which is consistent with the OPFA.
After all of this, ODF will—with the new administrative rules as a basis—develop a fifty-year habitat conservation plan (HCP) for Oregon private timberlands with Endangered Species Act-listed aquatic species, in hopes of being issued an incidental take permit (ITP) for these aquatic species. If NOAA Fisheries does not issue the ITP, OPFA says everything will revert back to the status quo of today.
Next week’s Part 2 will examine whether the Oregon Private Forests Accords deal is a grand bargain, a mere détente, or a great sellout.