Taking a new tack on the fate of our forests

Editorial commentary on the Blue Mountain Eagle's reporting of collaborative work on the Malheur National Forest.

The amount of forest land in Oregon has essentially remained constant in the past 50 years – 30.7 million acres then, compared to 30.4 million today, according to a 2009 report by the USDA Forest Service. But there is little doubt that the nature of that land – along with the industry and communities that rely on it – has gone through substantial change.

A special report in this week’s Eagle, Fate of our Forests, looks at some of the trends, challenges and opportunities in Oregon’s forests.

On the western side of the state, the biggest impact is seen from changes in ownership, as private forest lands shift from production uses to residential and recreation uses.

On the east side, however, the forests are largely federal, but also marked by change. These dry-side forests, largely federal, have been the focus of conflicts between environmentalists and forest industries, with litigation halting almost all harvest activities and active management.

The stalemate over how to manage the public forests, combined with decades of aggressive firefighting that squelched even beneficial fires, has left a legacy of overstocked, fire- and insect-prone stands across Eastern Oregon.

But the damage done to this once proud resource seems finally to be hitting home.

Across the region, people are seeking new perspective on how to better manage our forests and restore them to health. Increasingly, even former combatants in the timber wars of the 1980s are realizing that a key to forest survival is found in the symbiotic relationship between the forests and the communities – the people – who live and work in them.

Communities once robust with timber money are struggling to survive and to preserve the last of the region’s active mills. The realization is clear that without some industry infrastructure, it won’t be possible to complete the thinning, clearing, reforestation and other tasks needed to bring timber stands back to resiliency. People are coming to the table – the collaborative spirit – to talk about solutions.

In Grant County, we’re seeing positive steps into a new world of forest management.

The partnership that produced the new pellet plant in John Day is one piece of evidence of that trend. Another can be found in the work of the Blue Mountains Forest Partners, who have overcome early challenges to get traction on important forest health projects.

A related boon, the Southern Blues Restoration Coalition proposal recently got the nod at the Region 6 level and advanced to the next level of review for possible Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Act funding. If approved, that could set the stage for significant work on a large swath of the forest.

The Grant County Court meanwhile is continuing its discussion about the future of the local forest industry. A proposed feasibility study looks likely, although it hasn’t been decided, and that could help the community chart a course for future activity that would blend conservation and economic goals on the forest.

County Judge Mark Webb has floated the idea of the county using funds to provide interdisciplinary teams for the Forest Service, speeding up the required groundwork toward forest projects that in turn supply local mills and retain local jobs. That would require some tinkering with the laws governing investment of the public funds, but Webb and other officials say it’s time to begin that discussion.

All of these things show the extent to which people locally and beyond are trying to adjust to a new set of circumstances – to think outside a box that no longer fits our legal and socio-economic structures.

In this issue of the Eagle, you’ll read about the efforts of such people to find solutions and heal the forests. You’ll also read about innovative partnerships, investment models, conservation easements and products that seek to serve a dual purpose – managing the forests and preserving community opportunities.

As the discussion continues, the issues likely will only get more complex. Through it all, it’s important to remember that we can’t go back. There’s no returning to the commodity-intensive view of forest management that prevailed decades ago. Nor is it realistic to expect a lessening of environmental regulation or controls over federal lands. With water issues burbling to the surface, we can expect ever new layers in that area.

Yet, there are opportunities for those with the patience to press ahead, to give the Rubik’s Cube another twist, and another, and still another … What’s at stake, for the land and the communities, is too great not to try.