This is the second 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 examined the Oregon OPFA deal and its significance. Part 2 examines whether the OPFA is a grand bargain, a mere détente, or a great sellout.
Figure 1. A Gerry Ellis print, available from Walmart.com ($99.99), entitled “Replant of Douglas Fir in Clearcut, Siuslaw National Forest.” Yes, this clear-cut is on public rather than private land, but the photo illustrates that there is apparently a market for such art. Also, clear-cutting no longer takes place on the Siuslaw (thanks to the Northwest Forest Plan, the northern spotted owl, the marbled murrelet, imperiled salmon, et al.). I’m no art critic, but I’m speculating that the “beauty” some see in this piece is the yellow plastic protectors that envelop Douglas-fir seedlings. Hope for the future, I guess. Clear-cutting remains rampant on Oregon’s private timberlands and will continue under the OPFA. Source: Walmart.
As mentioned in Part 1 of this post, both sides to the OPFA came to the table because they wanted to avoid a ballot measure fight or fights. It turns out both timberland owners and enviros felt it was in their own best interest to strike a deal with the opposing side. Let’s look at their reasoning before evaluating the result.
What Were They Thinking?
While I wasn’t in either room for this matter, I have been in similar rooms in the past. I watched with great interest as the OPFA went through labor on the way to being birthed. Occasionally, my counsel was sought by some on the conservation side.
Since I cannot (and would not) attribute anything to particular conservation leaders, and since the timber industry did not and would never read me in on their side, I can only imagine what went on in the minds of the parties to the accord. Here I do my best to channel the thoughts of a composite large timberland owner and a composite Oregon conservation leader. I’ve not been the former, but I have been the latter. It also helps to think occasionally like one’s opponent.
Figure 2. The OPFA rewrite of the OFPA will address problems with roads. Source: ClearcutOregon.com (Francis Eatherington).
Channeling the mind of a timberland executive:
As a ballot measure campaign poses a potential existential threat to Oregon timberland owners, I’m sure we can outspend the enviros on it. However, I’m not sure we can win. We polled on their measures, which focused on water, and Oregonians love their water. Voters also don’t like clear-cuts. And our own polling showed that even in timber country, people hate aerial herbicide spraying.
We’ve lived with stronger regulation in Washington and California for decades and we are still in business. We’ve used our power in Oregon to forestall reforms for decades, but our power is waning. Back in the day we could count on the Democrats in the legislature because even if they were in the majority, the leadership had to protect their downstate members who came from timber country. Today that’s still the case, but far less so. As for the Republicans, yes, they are still generally in our pocket, but they will likely forever be in the minority given Oregon’s continuing demographic shift from rural to urban.
Without an incidental take permit (ITP), we risk going to jail—or at least paying very large fines—for “taking” an Endangered Species Act–protected species. Those fuckin’ enviros sue every chance they get under ESA, and they usually win. Having a statewide habitat conservation plan (HCP) developed by the Oregon Department of Forestry that applied to all private timberlands in the state could get us that stay-out-of-jail-free card, an ITP from NOAA Fisheries.
The Oregon Board of Forestry used to be in our pocket, but over the decades that has changed. A Republican has not been governor of Oregon since January 12, 1987 (but who’s counting?). Democratic governors appoint new members who see forestry as something more than maximization of net present value. The BOF is no longer a firewall for us.
We also used to have the Oregon Department of Forestry and rural counties in our pocket. But then some counties sued ODF for not cutting enough on state timberlands. ODF is starting to see that the “special relationship” it once had with those counties isn’t as special as it once was. Those counties are essentially demanding that ODF employees risk jail time under the ESA to keep getting the cut out.
Speaking of counties, we can’t rely on them as much as we once did. Demographic change. We have only one sawmill left in Clatsop County. Hell, there are four microbreweries within six blocks of each other in Astoria. Our mills may have more workers, but brewpubs have more customers. While the local beer has improved, the local politics is going the other way.
Automating lumber mills helped profitability, but fewer workers means fewer voters who care about timber.
We can hope that our concessions on stream protection will keep attention focused there and not on the fact that Oregon timberland owners pay very little property, timber, or income tax compared to other industries and individuals.
Our industry killed the big carbon bill a few sessions back, mainly because the mill owners didn’t want us selling our trees into a future carbon market rather than to their local timber market. If those mills cannot buy our logs for at least what we can earn keeping our trees standing for carbon, then screw ’em. To my insurance company owners, it’s just about money.
We timberland owners are also being associated with those whack-jobs at Timber Unity. It’s nice to have a “grassroots” base supporting our industry, but these guys are bat-shit crazy—and closet (or overt) racists to boot. We don’t need the enviros milking that for all it’s worth in a ballot measure campaign.
In both absolute and relative terms, the timber industry in Oregon continues to shrink economically and politically.
Any good capitalist is willing to pay money or reduce profits to hedge or eliminate risk. That’s what we’d be doing here.
We’ve had a good run, but now we need to try something different.
Figure 3. The OPFA rewrite of OFPA is expected to address slope failures on steep headwall areas. Source: ClearcutOregon.com (Chandra LeGue).
Channeling the mind of a conservation leader:
Goddamn those deep-pocket funders. They say they’re interested in bankrolling a ballot measure campaign, but they won’t commit. Each begins with telling me how cutting edge they are in their funding. However, the first question they ask is, “Who else is funding you?” None want to give any of their money until they see the money others have given. We can’t allow ourselves to commit to an initiative fight and then not have the money in hand to go forward. That’s what happened in 1998 when the Clean Streams Initiative was crushed at the polls. We started out with great polling numbers, but we didn’t have any money to get our message out. So Big Timber spent their money defining the measure and us. Two decades later we are still paying the price.
Yes, Oregon’s politics have moved dramatically in our favor, but it’s still tough. A strong majority of Oregonians favor forest practices reform, and we should have a majority of votes for a reform bill. If it got to a vote in the legislature, we would likely prevail. However, Democratic leadership won’t force their few downstate members to take a tough vote, so they prevent any bill from getting a vote. To most Democratic legislators, any other issue is more important than the natural environment. Social services, education, justice, labor, all trump issues like forest practices reform. With the Republican members always threatening to flee the state to prevent a quorum, it’s a no-brainer for Democratic leaders to throw our bills aside to keep the Rs in the building so they can pass other stuff.
We’ve been trying for decades to reform Oregon’s forest practices rules, to very little effect. Such could continue for more decades.
To the timber industry, a ballot measure would be an existential threat. To the conservation community, it’s one opportunity among many. All enviros won’t drop everything else they are doing to wage this initiative fight. Big Timber will.
We’ve had a bad run, so now we need to try something different.
Figure 4. Not a pretty picture. Drones don’t lie. Source: ClearcutOregon.com (Tim Giraudier).
What Did They Achieve?
There are 10.2 million acres of private timberlands in Oregon, and these will be subject to the OPFA. Perhaps 5 percent of private timberlands in Oregon are presently “encumbered” by OFPA rules about stream buffers and slope protection—though very lightly encumbered, as almost none of the current stream buffers actually prevent logging.
Industry sources say that they expect implementation of OPFA to really encumber another 10 percent of their land base. Permit me to do the math, if you haven’t already. 10 percent * 10.2 million acres = 1.02 million acres. Add to that the 5 percent (0.51 million acres) already nominally encumbered that now will be truly encumbered from logging, and you get a grand total of 1.53 million acres.
If the OPFA becomes law, more than 1.5 million acres of Oregon forestlands will no longer be logged. That is big—not big enough (it is not only my job to say this, but it is also true) but nonetheless very big.
This is a grand bargain, not a mere détente or a great sellout.
Still, while this is a grand bargain, it’s not a comprehensive one. The parties agreed to limit their discussions and the eventual agreement to reforming the Oregon Forest Practices Act enough for industry landowners to get incidental take permits to shield them from prosecution for criminal violations of the Endangered Species Act. There is more left to do, which I’ll detail at the end of this post. First, though, let us rest on our laurels long enough to give out some kudos.
Take a Bow
Success, rightfully, has many parents.
I daresay that the OPFA is the greatest conservation accomplishment to date of Governor Kate Brown.
On the conservation and fishing side, all the negotiators at the table acquitted themselves with honor and effectiveness and deserve the thanks of the conservation community.
In particular, Sean Stevens deserves a shout-out for his leadership on the issue, especially on the policy and political aspects—all the while still executive directing Oregon Wild.
In most particular, the Oregon conservation community is indebted to Bob Van Dyk of Wild Salmon Center. His mastery of technical detail, ability to gain the trust of opponents, and capacity to herd the cats that are the Oregon conservation community was nothing less than brilliant. Sean noted that while he and Bob were nominally co-chairs of our team, Sean was definitely and happily second chair in the sextet at the table.
While not a signer of the final accord, Ralph Bloemers of Crag Law Center nonetheless has fingerprints all over this accord. His work on the prospective initiative and continued counsel all along were invaluable.
Though she is not presently in Oregon to do it, an aquatic conservation legend who deserves to take a bow is Mary Scurlock, coordinator of the Oregon Stream Protection Coalition (OSPC). From 2012 to 2021, Mary represented the OSPC. For several years before that, Mary was with Pacific Rivers Council. I know of no one who has worked longer and harder to reform OFPA stream protection requirements than Mary. After signing the February 2020 ballot measure cease-fire, Mary embarked to sail the world. When she returns to Oregon, it will be a better Oregon for her decades of selfless service.
It’s also worth calling out the thirteen conservation and fishing organizations that made the deal. Several of those organizations had to step out of their comfort zone and take some risks.
Permit me to offer a cautionary note to those organizations with a, shall we say, litigious and/or in-your-face modus operandi that signed the OPFA. You, in good faith, stepped out of your comfort zone to deal differently with your enemies. You, in good faith, made a deal. I expect that you, in good faith, will follow through on the OPFA by behaving differently from how you normally behave. However, never forget that the reason the OPFA came to be was because of what you normally do. A great opportunity was seized, not a new model invented.
When we can again do so without fear of death, I look forward to buying the representatives on our team an Oregon microbrew, pinot x, or something locally distilled of their choice.
Figure 5. A typical clear-cut on private timberlands in Oregon. Source: ClearcutOregon.com (Sam Beebe).
What’s Still Left to Do?
The OPFA rewrite of the OFPA is necessary but not sufficient. There are matters of import that are not addressed in the OPFA and still do need to be addressed. I’ve taken the liberty of making a list, in no particular order.
• ESA-listed terrestrial species. The OPFA addresses only aquatic species already listed under the federal Endangered Species Act. ESA-listed (or potentially ESA-listed) terrestrial species that are affected by logging on Oregon’s private timberlands include the northern spotted owl, the marbled murrelet, and the coastal marten (and the fisher and the red tree vole, along with some mollusks and other enigmatic microfauna).
• Forest carbon. As a price is put on carbon to help the climate, there is a point where the value of trees to sequester and store carbon into old age is greater than the value of trees for lumber and wood products. Coincidentally, the most productive timber-growing sites are precisely the same as the most productive carbon-sequestering sites (and often the most productive salmon-producing watersheds).
• Clean Water and Acts compliance. Water and pollution from logging continues to degrade water and air quality so that it doesn’t meet regulatory requirements in many areas.
• Clear-cut, burn, and spray forestry. Though streams will now be buffered, clear-cutting will still be followed by burning, then spraying herbicides, then planting a monoculture of Douglas-fir seedlings, followed perhaps by a thinning or two, and then clear-cutting again at just about one-half the age that Doug-fir would naturally reach in maturity. Clear-cut, spray, repeat.
• Municipal and community drinking water supplies. Many communities get their water from surface sources. Rampant logging and herbicide spraying are not helpful in providing either water quality or quantity.
• Reconverting private timberlands to public forestlands. For optimal benefit to current and future generations, Oregon has too much private timberland and not enough public forestland. See my Public Lands Blog posts “Converting Private Timberlands Back to Public Forestlands” and “A North Oregon Coast Range National Park: Sorely Needed but a Hell of a Long Shot.”
• Timber and Timberland Tax Reform. Oregon timberland owners pay a pittance in property taxes (at the expense of the rest of us) and no tax on revenues when timber is cut.
Some of these matters might best be addressed by regulation, litigation, ESA species listing petitions, and the like. However, others are best addressed by paying money to entities to change their behavior.
Figure 6. Under the OPFA, stream buffers will be required on streams that have no protection now. Source: ClearcutOregon.com (Chandra Legue).
For More Information
• Oregon Office of the Governor. October 30, 2021. Governor Kate Brown Announces Historic Timber Agreement (media release).
• Oregon Legislative Assembly. 2020. Senate Bill 1602 (enrolled). (This legislation directed the governor to mediate the matter that had come to this result and also established a new process of notification of affected persons and of buffering of certain lands from the aerial application of pesticides.)
• Wild Salmon Center. November 4, 2021. Landmark Deal Reached on Oregon Private Forest Accords (web page).
• Oregon Wild. ClearcutOregon.com (website).
Available on this shared drive are the official agreements, issue-by-issue excerpts, and other documents the 13x12 group has agreed to.
Bottom Line: While the Oregon Private Forest Accords is a grand bargain with a great net gain for the conservation of Oregon forestlands, it is not a complete one. A comparable grand bargain is needed for terrestrial species conservation on Oregon’s private timberlands. Regulation of private land is inadequate to provide optimal public benefits. More private timberland should be reconverted to public forestland.