Opposing views, but WOPR dialog unveils ‘common ground’
From our weekly issue dated November 26, 2008
(From left) Guenter Ambron, Jim Frick, Jack Swift and Peggy Goodwin. Below, Roger Brandt makes his point with visual aids. (Photos by Michelle Binker, I.V. News)
Economic recovery of Josephine County and its links to timber harvests and tourism was a major topic during a town hall meeting on forest practices on public land held Wednesday night, Nov. 19 at Anne G. Basker Auditorium in Grants Pass.
Approximately 45 persons attended the meeting. They were there to hear discussion of issues surrounding the Bureau of Land Management’s final environmental impact statement (EIS) of the Western Oregon Plan Revision (WOPR/pronounced “whopper”). The final EIS is the chosen alternative for management of O&C land.
A six-person panel answered written questions from the audience.
Representing divergent views on best forest practices were Boyd Peters, Guenter Ambron and Roger Brandt, who champion a reduced harvest from the WOPR recommendations. Advocates for wider resource use were Jim Frick, Jack Swift and Peggy Goodwin. Moderator Keith Heck, executive director of Grants Pass Gospel Rescue Mission, kept the gathering orderly, prohibiting “vitriolic words” and spontaneous expression from the audience.
BLM’s chosen plan to manage federally owned forest land has not been well received by either side. According to the agency, the planning area includes some 2,550,000 acres of public land, of which some 2,100,000 acres are revested from the Oregon & California Railroad, and are managed under the O&C Lands Act of 1937.
The plan calls for timber harvests less than half of the timber industry’s preferred alternative. But the proposal angers those who see dedicated timber production as eliminating other uses and values of that land.
Question topics during the town hall ranged from the definition of “old growth” to the future of funding for county services. Among the only common ground uncovered, as Wolf Creek resident Peters pointed out, is the consensus that future timber revenue, even the maximum available harvests, would be insufficient to fund county services by itself.”
Said Goodwin, of Southern Oregon Resource Alliance (SORA), “Seventy percent of the land in this county is owned by the federal government. How else are we going to sustain it? We don’t get tax revenue from that land.”
Later she said, “I believe we need to maximize (timber receipts) before we turn to the taxpayers and ask them to make up the difference.”
Swift, SORA vice chairman, asserted that in light of projected budget deficits, timber receipts would likely not cover all expenses.
“But the day is coming,” he said, “when we’re out of bail-out money. That day the commissioners are going to have to be able to sell a tax increase,” Swift said. “The best way to change the minds of county voters who have repeatedly rejected tax increases, would be if the commissioners can say, ‘We have recovered every penny that’s owed to you; all the money that the federal government has squandered on the owl,’ then you can get those voters to change sides.”
The three members of the Josephine County Board of Commissioners did not attend, as they were at a conference of the Association of Oregon Counties in Eugene.
The purposes to which the land should be put also were a matter of debate.
“O&C is only about 6 percent of federally owned forest lands,” said Goodwin. “And they can manage the other 94 percent for late-successional growth, spotted owls -- whatever they want.
But this 6 percent, by law, was dedicated for the primary purpose of timber production for the benefit of the economies of these counties.”
Cave Junction resident Brandt, who is involved with promoting tourism, spoke passionately about the need for all sectors of the community to be allowed to discuss the use of forest land.
With a bag of pennies to underscore his point, he held 96-cents in one hand and pinched four pennies in the other, to demonstrate the small percentage of land he said remains outside the control of timber interests.
“The point was made,” he said, “that we can produce 1.2 billion board feet per year, but the problem with that is we are going to commit every acre of land out there, under the BLM’s notion of sustainable production, to a production cycle of 80 to 100 years. Meaning that acre of land will be sitting there for the lifetime of a human being before we get any economic benefit out of it.
“You’re going to do that by throwing (other uses) off the land,” said Brandt.
He recommended looking to the O&C act itself.
“The O&C act will produce timber to make the community economy stable -- the economies of communities and industries,” said Brandt. “Even quality of life is a factor to attracting businesses and people with retirement funds to these communities, that’s all income,” Brandt stressed.
“The O&C Act says manage the forests to maximize income; make every acre productive every year, so we are generating income from O&C land every year, not just every 80 to 100 years,” he said.
Frick, SORA chairman, was adamant that timber harvest should be a part of maintaining stability.
“We have always had a diverse economy in Southern Oregon, with timber as a part of that,” Frick said. “Instead, we are saying that we are going to replace that with more tourism, and I don’t see the business model that supports that.”
Advertisement:
Later, Frick said, “The sustained yield timber management in this county on O&C lands is 1.2 billion board feet annually. This has been calculated by the scientists and silviculturists in the BLM district. Under the watered-down version WOPR we are talking about only 520 million-something board feet.
“You still have more volume growing than you’re harvesting. You still have late-sucessional reserves, wildlife corridors and riparian setbacks along stream corridors.
“I hear special-interest groups acting as though not one stick should be taken off of these forests. I don’t know when (the quantity of timber) is low enough, but high enough is 1.2 million board feet. We’ll never get that back, but somewhere in-between is where we need to be.”
Said Peters, “We all benefit from the benefits that come from older forests,” which includes fresh water and intact nutrients cycles. Peters repeatedly stated that second-growth stands are more fire-prone and in need of management than older forests.
He declared that at least one regional timber company derives its livelihood from its own second-growth decks.
Afterward, Ambron, affiliated with the Community Media & Education Center of Cave Junction, said that he would like to petition to have future discussions, specifically on the need for community participation and the science of land practices.
Said Heck, “We’ve hopefully laid some groundwork to continue this discussion in the future. Regardless of which side you come from there are common grounds, and places we can work on, and open up a dialog.”
Advertisement:
