Seven Days; The Northwest Forest Plan and the Oregon Coho Recovery Plan

Wouldn't you. Like. Me to meet. You. I am Stephanie Fowler and this is seven days our topics this week new challenges for the Northwest forest plan and a court ruling that could have a dramatic effect on Oregon's recovery plan for Coho salmon. Let's meet this week's panel. Richard Hensley is the editor of The East Oregonian. Sarah Shipley covers the environment for the Salem Statesman Journal. Lance Robertson is the environmental reporter for the Eugene register guard and how so Herring is the editor of the Albany Democrat Herald. This week the regional forester in Portland asked the head of the Forest Service to reduce logging and Northwest National Forests even further than the already reduced level called for in the Clinton forest plan. Federal forest

managers say the timber harvest levels set in the Clinton plan five years ago threaten fish and wildlife habitat. And last week a coalition of environmental groups sued the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management over their implementation of the forest plan lancers the request for a reduced cut related to the lawsuit was not directly related. It's related more to the forest plan and one of the reasons why the original Forester made the request was that they're finding that once they implement the forced plan. Particularly in many of these watersheds they're having to protect a lot more forests than what they had thought they would under the forest plan when it was adopted five years ago. So they're making a request to cut their timber targets by around 10 percent or so. The lawsuit is more related to the implementation of the forest plan. The lawsuit doesn't directly attack the forest plan itself but the agency's implementation of that plan.

Well but isn't that one of the roots of the lawsuit that they're not doing this surveying and monitoring wildlife that the plan calls for them to do before any cuts are made that all of a sudden a week after the suits filed. The Forest Service says hey you know we've got a lot more habitat here and we thought we had and how would they know I think it was a survey and monitor I think it's more coincidental. I don't think it's a direct I don't think this is a direct for service response to that lawsuit I think. I think both sort of occurred simultaneously nothing in the Forest Service ever happens really suddenly so if something is one of you can something else happens week later that's almost never related but I think that's what I mean Lance is obviously right about this I think that the forest play in the Northwest forest plan implemented by the Clinton administration in 1993. I called for all kinds of work to be done before certain logging practices could resume or certain harvest could be done and it turns out that those were just simply unrealistic

goals. Surveys had to be done were to be done on all kinds of species of plants and animals that might be affected by logging activities on old growth forests on the remaining growth forests. And the point is that there are just so many species and so little time and so little money that the Forest Service has these days that these things cannot be done at the same time. The plan mandated certain levels to harvest and that was as a as a consolation to the people who to the industry that relied on these farmers and to the Congress of course. But the fact is that those two things simply don't go together Stephanie you can't have you can't require all kinds of things and then say depending on what you find you have to do certain amounts of logging. There's a clear contradiction and this lawsuit pointed out in the situation of the Forest Service really pointed out they've not been able to do the work that they think that that maybe this plan requires. So simple as that were they weren't they supposed to not permit the logging if they

hadn't done the survey. Well it's but on the other hand there's Congress and in the hands of the forest committees are concerned of conservative Republicans that are very strong in favor of logging Not only that but we have Oregon communities where Mills still depend on those on some of that some of those timber sales where for example unemployment is much higher than it is in the Willamette Valley in the Portland metropolitan area because those community communities still depend on the harvest that is now much diminished so there is a good deal of pressure on the Forest Service. I think originally there were something in the neighborhood of 77 plants and animals that were supposed to be not only surveyed but they were supposed to develop what they call protocols which I would use. Let us know how you go about surveying for those species Well they've only done about six out of the seventy seven and they have until May be I think October 1st to finish the rest. And there I would be

surprised if they if they did that by October 1st. But the problem is they were not supposed to do any what they call ground disturbing activities which means like logging and road building before until they finished those protocols that then they could go out and do the surveys. So they're way behind. And one of the reasons is as hasa pointed out money but they've also had it had a employment cutback they've had many force of had. 30 or 40 percent cutbacks in there. In their workforce seems ironic that the Forest Service also their funding is tied into that. Their timber sells and things like that so they're kind of in a Catch 22 they need to be selling timber and same time they're supposed to be doing these surveys and I'm a bad situation and I think it points out that the budget problem that the Forest Service is in in this sort of post logging era which is their home their entire budget was built around logging and if you didn't log it and get money.

And so when they stop logging they don't have money so they have to lay people off and they get way behind on all this so you know you have to do weird things like star like church for access to certain trailheads you know certain wilderness trail there that's so that's a topic that really doesn't belong here but it's it's another out of love of the new situation and the Forest Service and the land agencies face. I think that's also an effort on their part to try to get the broader public involved in paying for those services. Now if they have to pay out you know to use the trailheads maybe they'll be more likely to support the forest rather than just having income strictly coming from logging. With the lawsuit. Really makes a makes a point of looking back at the original decision to approve President Clinton's forced plan and the judge in Seattle said you know I'm not going to not having any money as an excuse. And if you don't follow through on this plan then I'm going to have to revisit it. And there's at least some evidence that both the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management have not been following

through on it and some of it is circumstantial. So what was the implication of revisitation I mean do we know that revisiting the plant would automatically be a decision in favor of the environmentalist or is it possible that that this same judge and obviously there is some history with him. And might say OK this isn't really fair to the timber companies we've got to be able to get them more and we can't do these surveys. And in terms of the surveying and monitor I think the I think the implication of last time this particular judge looked at this case was that certain things were going to have to be done or logging was not going to be allowed or the logging targets at least in this plan or the plan window plan was going to be thrown out. And it's easy of course for judges to say that kind of stuff because you know they I mean they they look at the letter of the law and they don't very often pay a whole lot of attention to the implications on the ground especially for communities that depend on this kind of work. And so but beyond that really the

whole history of the timber management controversy which is now what 15 years old is always or has always been greater and greater restrictions. So now I mean if you want to step in if you're looking for some kind of prediction the prediction would be that somehow the federal judiciary is going to once again restrict or go along with the drive to restrict logging more than it's already been restrict that's been cut back about 80 percent as it's been reported all over the place from the levels of the 1980s that is in the Northwest public forests the harvesting activity has been cut back 80 percent and now we're talking about you know on federal lands that's right BLM and Forest Service and I would cut talking about a cutback of several more points. Now you know the question is What does that mean. I mean hasn't the damage already been done and a lot of places people are asking the mills already closed the ones that are going to close and so on and I don't really know the answer to that but

my guess is that a lot of communities still depend to a great to stand on this federal timber and to put it in perspective. Isn't it a very small percentage of federal time romantic interest in the total number harvested in the united behind her said I don't think so as an example I think there were some provisions in this in the forest plan. That certain watersheds that were people got drinking water or so forth you couldn't have any less than say 15 percent growth. So you had to. Always maintain a certain level of older for old growth forests Well what the Forest Service has found in some of these watersheds is that. They're below 15 percent. Like there isn't there isn't 15 percent there. So they're they're saying well do we have to sit here for decades on end. You know until you know the forests you know age enough so they become more like an old growth forest isn't that one of the reasons they asked for the reduced because some rare forest that they thought they could harvest

their way to yeah right there's there's been in some watershed there has been a lot of logging that has reduced the number of old growth forests to a certain percentage and that would be both. Federal land and private land. So they're combining both all land ownership within a watershed and they're saying well this particular watershed has below 15 percent so we can't do any logging until until we reach at least at least reach that level. It just seems to be that sometimes we're in some kind of a downward plane as far as the harvesting of federal force for federal laws is concerned. Years ago you know these things were set aside as partly partly a reserve for for timber supply in people but I laughed as if somebody had said you know we're not going to cut any temper at all in the federal force and yet some time ago built to that to that very effect was introduced in the house with certain bipartisan co-sponsorship. Now it's not going to get very far this time but it's one of those things that and ideas

so to speak and then pretty soon it's going to grow we're going to grow sooner or later people especially you know east of the Rockies that don't really know very much about the federal force in the northwest and the economy partly depends on them and so on. They say well sure these are federal forces they ought to be like parks we ought to just leave them alone. We ought to just cut trees how could we. Congressional sentiment is changing I mean even from last year I think earlier this month or the month before the House refused. To Pass Oregon represented Bob Smith so-called forest health bill which would have increased the cut which was a change in it. You know here is what is going on there's a fundamental change throughout the forest service. I think throughout the country on this part that probably has to do with there's a lot of timber coming from Canada and elsewhere New Zealand I think there's a big long I so I think you don't see the prices going up. You don't see that kind of pressure I think if you saw timber prices getting high and then I think we might start really looking at this a lot closer but right

now I mean even the Forest Service the managers of these forests are saying hey we need to you know we've got to be careful we're taking too much timber you know when's the last time that ever happened you know the culture of the Forest Service is please let's remember that I make. Somebody pointed out the main job of the Forest Service for the last what 30 years used to be that they're prepared to harvest the timber sales. Now we haven't charged Mike Dombeck the head of the Forest Service who has told his managers look our job is to preserve the force to preserve ecosystems to manage them as entire watershed to look at all the kinds of things and harvest and he has said we are not going to skirt environmental laws. I mean that is it's not as though his predecessors ever said Well you know we're going to go over the laws on the contrary I mean this recent posts certainly have not. But now we have a dedicated preserver really as head of the forest service I'm sure that makes a big difference. I mean the idea of timber harvest is no longer in the forefront of the Forest Service and that I think is perfectly alright with most much of the country I would say

except of course those people who rely on the remaining supplies for their livelihood. And that's going to there's a few issues with that because it's become known recently that the Forest Service is actually losing money on timber harvest and I think that when Congress heard that it was maybe a shock and it might have influenced some people to think again about the value of cutting trees on public lands. And I also think that people are beginning to perceive the federal lands as more of a kind of a repository of trees and of wildlife so that federal lands are seen as having most of the responsibility to protect wildlife and to protect water. So that they need to have the strictest laws whereas state lands private lands do not have the same restrictions. One of the one of the missions of the Clinton forest plan was supposed to be to have timber dependent communities the people who depend on it for their livelihood transition into some other healthy sort of livelihood. Has the

plan been successful in doing that in helping local communities survive reduced. It's hard to say because the economy's been so so good in Oregon I mean. Particular along the I-5 corridor and frankly most most mills are located along the I-5 corridor so it's hard to draw a conclusion about whether the three or four or five billion dollars that was pumped into the region has actually helped to build a lot of sewers and roads and things like that is there still a lot of retraining going on I mean people can still qualify for retraining grants for these various local agencies just the other day the Labor Department announced several more million dollars in grants for retraining of displaced workers and others displaced fishery workers to that kind of thing I mean everybody relies on natural resources that better be a regulator that no longer provide the kinds of jobs that they used to. But Lance is right I mean the I mean most. Most workers who most mill workers who lost jobs what 10

years ago they found other work obviously. Many many of them have retired and some of moved I mean years ago some moved out of state but all that is now been completely erased I mean the traces of that have been washed away by this this great wave of economic expansion that we've seen building I mean you would not look at the Willamette Valley communities that you see driving down the freeway right and left and think that there was anything at all wrong with the people of building like crazy that building with wood. I mean I would say that it becomes something from someplace nobody would say well we've got a Federal as Richard what have we got to harvest federal timber in order to get would know you were a wash and lumber and you know construction activity everywhere. In that context you know it is it is perfect makes perfect sense to say you know we ought to slow down. The barbs especially if we can't meet the requirements might not have been a better time for these logging cutbacks to occur in Oregon and Washington which is

at a time of economic expansion in other industries and I think the predictions that we do have another Appalachian just sort of not come true. If we hadn't had the economic experience to point out one little thing that is and Gordon Smith senator mentioned this in a speech in the south the other day that there are still two different or I mean there are two separate organs one is the one in Portland as I mentioned earlier and the other is the rest of Oregon specially story southeastern Arkansas where some of the smaller less populated counties the unemployment rate is what the high as high as 15 14 up to 20 percent it was around 20 percent and it's mainly got a log but you know on the other hand those percentages tremendous but the numbers of people involved and I think great because it is not that many people there still I mean the economy of those smaller areas is not healthy for either the current to the second claim let me describe for us I mean if 5 than 10 has been fixed that.

I think it's been a success and that is it is by and large resolve the issue. I mean I think I think for years it was sort of over this anymore. It's it's sort of over. I mean there's you know we had the solid writer a couple years ago and there are hints now that there's going to be some so maybe another rider. But by and large you know you look at the logging cutbacks it's pretty much over essentially it was inspired by this by the fate of the mother in spite of the well we have not up to now received any reliable information on whether this spot of the aisle and some of the other species are doing better than they used to be that they were assumed to be on their way out and that's you know what prompted the whole thing and we don't know how they're doing now. That's all there is to it. Congress some time ago got some information about it but from people who opposed the forced plan they thought that I was doing great but. Officially we don't know. OK let's move on to our second topic in two weeks the fate of Oregon's Coho recovery plan will be decided by a federal judge. As you recall the plan is Oregon's attempt to

head off an endangered species designation by enlisting voluntary action through public private partnerships. A federal magistrate ruled this spring that the National Marine Fisheries Service should not have substituted the state's voluntary recovery plan for listing the fish under the Endangered Species Act. Since the coastal Coast sorry condition qualifies it to be listed. Governor Kitzhaber has appealed that ruling but the judge set a deadline of August 3rd for the federal government to adhere to the Endangered Species Act. Richard what's the judge's problem with approval of the recovery plan. Well the judge basically is saying that the the the governor's plan has no teeth in it. I believe. Her words were something of which they left the whole effort to the whim of politics and promises of future state conservation efforts. The governor makes a good case saying it takes a while to get this set up and that's what has been going on and then in February I think of this last year. You know there was talk that things aren't going quite as fast as they would like. But but I think everyone's basically in

agreement there's a good plan and I don't and I don't know what this federal magistrate would have to say about that. But but the fact is if it is listed I believe that they're going to use this plan as a blueprint but they want some teeth in it to make that the timber companies and and the ranchers and whoever else abide by the plan that they've set forth. I think that's really what it's all about. And what's wrong. Well one thing that's wrong with it is the money angle and that is that under the agreement approved by the Oregon legislature the timber companies were going to pay about 13 million dollars in extra taxes and this money was going to go toward funding this project that the various projects in you know hundreds of watersheds logs in streams and getting cattle away from the river from the water and fencing all this kind of stuff. And the one point of this one proviso was that if the fish was listed as endangered or threatened by the government then these taxes would not we're not do. So they're

not going to be collected. If if in fact the fish is listed. I mean that's a practical thing they'd have they'd have to look for the money elsewhere to do some of those things now. It could be that the timber industry would say well you know we like this plan of are so committed to it we're going to pay anyway but we're going to just voluntary voluntarily contribute which are likely. But you know what I want to you on likely side. I mean they've said although that I mean they've said that they that even though they whore the idea of this listing the timber industry has said we like the plan we're going to stick with it anyway. I have not read I have not actually gave any say they didn't say they didn't have the money. But you know they have know how committed are they. And is doesn't the fact that they're willing to withdraw the money for to feed into a judge and anyone else who thinks well you know we need to have some force behind this thing because these aren't people who have proven their commitment every time they've done quite the opposite. It's not quite like that stuff and I think the Congress and everybody else involved in this process on the

coast in the street in these watersheds has done a whale of a lot of stuff. I mean what have I read. Twelve hundred projects of individual history at which less than half of which met minimum size for the pieces of woody debris that are supposed to be in St. Louis I mean it's all very nice and well intentioned there is no direction to it there's no coordination to it there's no one saying well this is what you have to do because this is what's being done downstream here. So as you know there's not a systematic approach you're talking about it lacks the money to pay the experts to go out and supervise these projects. Well I think the political angle is is the real key here and you know we have 65 percent of the Coho habitat is on private land. So there has to be some like by some some acceptance by private landowners that that they're a part of this and if they sort of feel like they're they're being forced to do something. There's going to be a lot of resistance now I think on the ground I think. It it doesn't have to be either or. In other words it doesn't have to

be either a listing or the Oregon plant. I think you could you could as as Richard pointed out you could use the Oregon plan as the main element for for the recovery of the Coho. But. You have to have that buy in. That was sort of the brilliance of the governor's plan and even even the environmental groups sort of agreed to that is that. That he got people to participate and he got the private landowners to participate in it. If you scare them off there's a there's a high likelihood that they're just going to put on the brakes and I just don't want to hear that one of the problems in the report on the first year was that there wasn't sufficient private participation. Well I think you can talk as if all right 65 percent of these private landowners are you know all gung ho about it takes one it takes one bad land owner on a stream to most of the rest of us some of the aspects to it one of them is that is that. The government insists that Oregon's restrictions on logging near

streams are not sufficient. They want to be much larger. Now the timber industry is not going to go along with that part of it. They happy to put all the stumps they can find in streams but they're not going to take out 500 feet from every stream for from their logging private program. I mean that you know runs into the billions of dollars they can't afford that. I think there's a key question because it goes to the point of how much what is the depth of their commitment. I mean they're willing to put stumps in streams which may be an easy thing to do but when it comes to the hard questions of the timber industry going to be willing to still remain seated at the table I think that will come about when we start talking about forest logging rules when that when the Department of Forestry and the board of Forestry start really getting into the meat of the rule changes which were promised as part of the governor's plan when when when the state made the original agreement with with the federal government it was to take another look at logging rules. Well they're still kind of you know dancing around that a little bit. And when that

finally really comes to the fore I think that's going to be a major element in weather. This state plan is really going to work or not. Well it's interesting to see if that committee that's working on logging practices remains intact if the Coho is listed. Because it seems pretty fragile already. It's interesting that we have so much trouble with the Coho salmon because it's a relatively simple thing I mean that we're talking about coastal strains and we're talking about a relatively unsettled part of the state. And those dams for example. Another subject is coming along and that has to do with the similar kind of fish Steelhead and others and the lemon system especially in the upper Willamette. Now it turns out that that is going to be a whole lot more whole lot trickier if it turns out that on the coast voluntary things don't work and we end up in the morass of one lawsuit after another and court decisions and all that kind of stuff. Then there's almost no hope of doing anything for fish in the

Willamette system which is you know as everybody knows much more settled industrialized and there are lots of dams. Jim Martin the fellow who was the architect pretty much of the Oregon plan he was at the advisor. He was a long time employee of the fish and one of the State Department Fish and Wildlife. JIM MARTIN I'm talking about was the adviser to the governor on the Oregon plan and helped write it and helped bring it about and helped get all kinds of cooperation from people and it's easy to see how he can do that when you talk to the guys are very persuasive. Not only that but he knows everything there is about every last fish. But he has not quit. He has quit the Oregon plan. His role in the governor's office and gone back to work for the fish and wildlife and plant Well that's right. He was loaned to the governor's office for three years the three years are up he finished the plan and he's now at work at the well on the Willamette problem. No not that he would get the scores he's about to retire in another year or so anyway but the point is that if it doesn't work on the coast with

this voluntary approach How is that going to work. Oh how I how is anything going to work in the alarm system which is a lot more complicated. Maybe if you have some teeth. I mean Arthur what is Why are there places in southern Oregon where there were salmon are listed under the Endangered Species Act and they're using the recovery plan correctly so well using it in sort of a persuasive kind of where they're all knowing about the savage referendum for example Rogue River which is a low dam that has been blamed for stopping all kinds of fish on their way downstream as I understand it now the irrigation district that has control of the dams has been has been resisting the idea of getting rid of it because they you know they rely on the water but the government is trying to force them somehow or persuade them really I don't think they forced them get this from the parent we have forced them and we're out of time so very simply hussar herring Richard Hensley and Lance Robertson thanks for joining us this week on seven days and thank you for watching. Good night.