USA: Is an Obama forest a consensus forest? a too idealistic forest? or just the same old greed greased forest?
Will we see another avalanche of collaborative groups springing up in
the West after January 20th? Will the Obama Administration mirror the
Clinton Era when Chris Wood was the top aide to Forest Service chief
Mike Dombeck and collaboration was the default approach for
controversial Forest Service projects? And if the Forest Service does
move system-wide to “engage communities in (forest) restoration” will
we once again see the sort of high profile conflicts that groups like
the Quincy Library Group engendered? There are some strong indications
that the world has changed and that reactions to Obama Administration
forest restoration efforts will not be nearly as controversial as has
been the case in the past. Here’s what has happened: There appears to
be an emerging scientific consensus that “thinning” second growth, old
clearcuts (also known as “plantations”) and other younger forests can
be done in a manner that will both reduce fire risk and which
accelerates the development of old forest habitat. Progress has also
been made toward a political consensus that favors “thinning” younger
forests. Oregon representative Peter DeFazio and Oregon senator Ron
Wyden are each contemplating legislation that would provide greater
protection for Old Growth while accelerating “thinning” of younger
forest stands. And while the Wyden approach to date is viewed by
environmental groups as problematic, DeFazio’s ideas have received
favorable reviews from at least some of those who are most active on
public forest issues in the region. Leading Northwest forest
protection groups like Oregon Wild and Conservation Northwest have
indicated that they might embrace careful thinning of younger forests
in exchange for permanent protection of Old Growth. This change of
heart has been spurred on in recent years by collaboration within the
environmental community. Lead by American Lands, the National
Restoration Collaborative brings together forest activists, scientists
and community-based forest groups ” to advance comprehensive forest
and watershed restoration that is ecologically sound and also benefits
rural communities.” The Collaborative has developed principles and
guidelines for forest restoration. Meanwhile Oregon Wild (OW) appears
to have done an about face on the issue of forest thinning –
particularly in “eastside” Ponderosa Pine forests.
Long time OW
staffer Tim Lillebo was quoted recently on the subject in the Capital
Press: “I believe there are hundreds of thousands of acres out there
that could use active restoration management.” At the same time some
folks in the timber industry appear ready to go along with protecting
Old Growth in exchange for getting to log younger public forests.
While big timber continues to focus on using fear of wildfire to
justify logging older forests, smaller operators in isolated valley’s
around the West have retooled for smaller diameter logs and appear
ready to move beyond the industry’s large tree fixation. It remains to
be seen how the budding political consensus and the emerging
scientific consensus will work out on the ground. So far the economic
realities of timber management have been largely absent from the
discussion. Most of the West’s public forests are remote; logging and
production costs in these forests are high and it is unclear whether
“thinning” timber sales can compete with cheap imported logs. Some
skeptics like this author have suggested that the timber sale is the
wrong tool if the objective is forest restoration. But to date the
Forest Service has expressed no interest in decoupling work in the
woods from the sale of commercial timber.
http://www.hcn.org/blogs/goat/is-a-new-consensus-on-public-forest-management?utm_source=wcn1&utm_medium=email
Posted via email from Deane’s posterous