Forest Practices on Private Lands in Oregon
Improvements to Oregon's forest practice rules seriously lag behind the more protective standards used on federal forestlands and the recently adopted improvements to the Washington State Forest Practices rules.
Private forestlands in Oregon encompass stream habitats essential for the recovery of imperiled salmon, trout, and other native aquatic species. As the number of federally protected species and degraded waters on these forestlands grows, it has become clear that many of Oregon's policies governing logging on private forestlands are inconsistent with the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the Clean Water Act (CWA).
Pacific Rivers Council is working to ensure that the best available science is used to reform Oregon's policies to reflect our national goals of protection and recovery for dwindling species and water quality. Alignment of state programs with federal law may be the most powerful tool currently available for protection and recovery of rivers and streams on private lands.
For two years, PRC's Policy Director, Mary Scurlock, served on Oregon's Forest Practices Advisory Committee. PRC's recommendations for aquatic management standards on nonfederal forests in the Pacific Northwest are contained in our regional Forest Practices Guidelines. We used our guidelines to assess the adequacy of committee proposals and offer suggestions for improvements. Unfortunately, only incremental changes were made, and harmful land management practices continue to be a part of Oregon's forestry program.
Improvements to Oregon's forest practice rules seriously lag behind the more protective standards used on federal forestlands and the recently adopted improvements to the Washington State Forest Practices rules. For example, riparian buffers protect fishbearing streams in Washington for 30 to 50 feet from the stream's varying edges. On federal lands managed under the Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP), virtually all logging is prohibited for 300 to 340 feet from the edge of the stream channel. In Oregon, on the other hand, no cut buffers are only 20 to 25 feet wide.
Washington also does more to protect its small, nonfishbearing streams on private lands. For example, the state provides a 50 to 100 foot buffer when these streams are perennial, with all cutting prohibited in some portions of the buffers. Oregon provides no buffers for many of these streams, and only a 10 foot buffer, in which timber harvest is allowed, on others. This is in striking contrast to the 150 to 170 foot buffers that are required on NWFP lands. And while the NFWP provides 110 to 170 foot virtually no-cut riparian buffers for small, seasonal nonfishbearing streams, Oregon requires no buffers at all for these streams on private lands. Washington at least provides a 30 foot equipment limitation zone, although this prescription is also highly inadequate to protect aquatic species. For a graphic display comparing state and federal forest practices, click here.
More information
Read PRC's July 2008 testimony here to the Board of Forestry in light of the Oregon Coast coho's relisting.
Read our 2006 comments to the Board of Forestry concerning stream protection rules under the Oregon Forest Practices Act.
Read PRC's testimony before the Board of Forestry on two September 2003 proposed stream protections.
Read about our 2002-2004 case against the State of Oregon for allowing take of coho salmon through private logging practices.
