On an uncharacteristically rainy morning in mid-June, myself, along with my fellow Cascadia team members, pulled into the Middle Fork Willamette Ranger Station. Here, we would meet with representatives from Oregon Wild, as well as a number of Willamette National Forest District Rangers and fuel planners.

The purpose of the visit was twofold. First, we were going to visit sites within the Oakridge/Westfir Thinning and Fuel Reduction Project (OWTFR). Visiting these sites would open the door to discussion on the effectiveness of these projects, and allow us to visually assess outcomes. Second, we sought to use discussions about these projects as a jumping off point to discuss future fuels reduction projects proposed in the Forest.

As an intern, I had the luxury of being able to quietly take it all in. Legal issues and logging concerns aside, I found it fascinating to watch the interpersonal interactions between the different groups unfold. Forest management and fire suppression is a fascinating subject matter and certainly not straightforward. At the end of the day, I’d like to believe that all groups represented on that tour share a mutual respect for the natural world. The bottom line, however, is that different organizations have different priorities, not to mention the motivations underlying them. Thus, as you might imagine, the tour was not a simple walk in the woods filled with idle chatter. Rather, the tour functioned more as a respectful, but not reserved, opportunity for different parties to present their viewpoints in an effort to inform future decision making.

The purpose of the OWTFR Project is to reduce the risk of future catastrophic wildfires. The project operates in two parts. First, forests are thinned. This is accomplished by removing trees from stands in order to decrease the density. Second, fuels reduction takes place. This is accomplished through prescribed burning of the debris left over on the forest floor after thinning. By reducing ground fuels and increasing space between the canopy, these methods aim to slow the spread of fire and keep it closer to the ground, allowing firefighters to more effectively intervene. These thinning and fuels reduction projects make sense in theory, but the reality is much more nuanced.

Often times when thinning and fuels reduction projects are proposed, older stands are slipped into the proposal alongside younger stands. Logging mature forests is problematic for far more reasons than a simple blog post can hash out. Further, thinning old forests is by no means the most effective method of fire reduction. On the contrary, the ramifications of logging old forests can often lead to an increased fire risk. Thus, mature stands are often tossed into thinning and fuels reduction proposals more as a money grab than a fire risk reduction strategy. That being said, it should come as no surprise that one of our goals on the tour was to address this concern of mature forest logging.

The extreme downsides of mature forest logging should not undercut the fact that logging of any kind comes with drawbacks. While Cascadia recognizes that in some cases thinning can be beneficial to protect communities from the spread of wildfire – more on that later – it comes at a cost. Interestingly, one of the points brought up by a District Ranger on the tour was that many people who own homes in high fire risk areas are opposed to the logging. These people would rather run the risk of a fire destroying their home than intentionally remove the trees that attracted them to the area in the first place. Risky? Perhaps. But in many ways these community members might be onto something. When discussing 2020’s Holiday Farm Fire, District Ranger Darren Cross commented that thinning and fuels reduction projects would not have made much of a difference in stopping the fire’s spread. The force of the wind and the speed with which the fire was traveling rendered it nearly impossible to slow down. The fire crossed rivers, and it’s difficult to imagine a much more effective fire break than a body of water.

On a related note, during the tour I noticed the terms “extreme” and “unusual” being used to discuss the 2020 fires. Given the rate of climate change and the effects already occurring, it is entirely likely that 2020 was not unusual so much as it was the start of a new normal. In that case, we need to critically examine the steps we are taking to preemptively reduce fire risk, especially when fuels treatment projects contribute certain negative climate impacts, and uncertain positive outcomes.

I’ll step off my soapbox now to say that fuels reduction projects do have a time and place. Agencies using prescribed fire and commercial thinning to fight fires can be a good thing when done correctly.

The devil is in the details, and one critical detail to keep in mind is that fires are a natural part of the forest ecosystem. The Forest Service has a bad legacy of fire suppression. Wildfires that should have burned in the past were put out. Consequently, stands have become overstocked, tree size and growth has been stunted, and species that don’t belong have moved in. On the one hand, ensuring public safety must be balanced with naturally allowing areas to burn. On the other hand, the reality is that often these wildfires have been put out not to protect the general public, but to protect neighboring private timber plantations.

If all of this sounds a bit confusing, it’s because it is. There’s a lot to unpack here. Fire management is not black and white, but in some ways that is a good thing. It means there is lots of room for compromise.

During the tour, discussions about compromise took place. More importantly, these discussions were productive. For instance, representatives from the environmental groups shared the aforementioned points on the necessity of fire to a healthy forest ecosystem. They suggested that the Forest Service might let more fires burn naturally, so long as they do not pose a safety risk. In theory, the more that fires naturally thin the forest, the less intentional thinning must be done. This benefits not only the ecosystem, but also the Forest Service itself. The reality is that fuels reduction projects are expensive; if more natural burning is allowed to occur, the Forest Service can save time and resources.

As it turns out, the Forest Service has already been considering a fuels reduction strategy along these lines. Inspired by fire management techniques in New Mexico, the fuels reduction planners shared their plans to implement the use of Potential Operational Delineations (PODs) to manage fire.

According to the Rocky Mountain Research Station (RMRS) branch of the Forest Service:

PODs are spatial units or containers defined by potential control features, such as roads and ridge tops, within which relevant information on forest conditions, ecology, and fire potential can be summarized. PODs combine local fire knowledge with advanced spatial analytics to help managers develop a common understanding of risks, management opportunities, and desired outcomes to determine fire management objectives.

Perhaps more importantly than what PODs are, is what they are intended to achieve. Echoing the sentiments I shared earlier, the RMRS explains,

Sometimes, fires resulting from natural ignitions can be strategically managed to achieve goals similar to a prescribed fire: ecological restoration, watershed health, reduced risk of catastrophic wildfire, and reduced future fire suppression costs. When values are likely to benefit, the right kind of fire can be managed for risk reduction and restoration objectives rather than immediately suppressed. Collaborative pre-planning during the PODs process helps to identify these opportunities, as well as conditions and locations where rapid initial attack may still be the best option to protect sensitive resources and assets. Where and when possible, leveraging natural ignitions for non-suppression objectives can reduce fire risk to adjacent high-value PODs over the near term, with benefits for maintaining lower risk conditions with future actions.

Essentially, PODs provide a method of forest management that would allow for a better balance between allowing fires to operate naturally within the ecosystem and ensuring community safety. As far as the Willamette National Forest is concerned, the idea of implementing PODs into fire management planning is still in the early stages, but the concept sounds hopeful.

Overall, I’d deem the tour worthwhile. Attendees were able to share perspectives, tradeoffs were acknowledged, and collaboration, at least to some degree, ensued. The trip ended on a positive note with ideas being floated for future tours including longer hikes to older stands, as well as rotating ranger districts and discussion topics. Most importantly, all parties agreed collaboration and communication are in everyone’s best interest.

Danielle Curtis
University of Oregon School of Law
J.D. Candidate 2023

The post BLOG: Reporting Back from the Oakridge/Westfir Field Visit first appeared on Cascadia Wildlands.

We’ve been keeping our eyes on the forests during the Pandemic. The crisis and response is revealing hidden priorities, shifting alliances, and revealing inequities. The public land agencies, the Forest Service and BLM, and the State governments, have been closing recreation, canceling restoration, and moving forward with logging projects. The basic grassroots work of forest monitoring has never been more important.

Priorities Laid Bare

The disparity between recreation and restoration on the one hand, and resource exploitation like logging on the other, is striking. In our area of Western Oregon, all of the controversial timber sale projects are going forward, even as trailheads, campgrounds, parks and waterways are broadly closed to public access. Restoration projects and prescribed burning to reduce wildfire danger are also on hold.

The timber industry, on the other hand, has sacrificed nothing and is receiving special treatment to boost their bottom line. BLM and USFS staff telecommute to keep logging projects running, granting exceptions to environmental rules, and pouring more native forests into the timber pipeline. The BLM went so far as to issue a press release bragging about how much timber it had sold during the Pandemic.

Here is a quick run-down of what we’ve seen recently in the forests of Western Oregon:

Rock Creek

On the coast range, the Coos Bay BLM district has projects in all the phases of development.

We passed active yarding in this unit on Kenyon Mountain, part of the BLM’s Rock Creek project, on April 8, while scouting a nearby project slated for auction. It is incredible and dismaying that, in the year 2020, during a global Pandemic, we are still clearcutting old-growth on public land in the Oregon coast range. I count 205 rings on this stump, one of many old-growth trees cut in the area.

While forests fall at Kenyon Mountain, the BLM announced its decision to auction off another 84-acre cut on the Upper Rock Creek Project, just up the road.

This forest is the kind of forest grove that is especially sad to find when field checking. Oregon, especially the coast range, is at its best in this kind of small-featured beauty. There aren’t documented spotted owl nests that are legally protected, or towering waterfalls to support a busy trailhead. It is *merely* a beautiful, diverse natural grove of healthy mature trees that is full of life. If we loved the world better, these are the kinds of forests we could save.

Cascadia filed a legal Protest of that sale decision. Among other objections, we are crying foul at the agency’s total failure to address the implications of the Pandemic and logging. With restoration canceled, would the planned mitigation still take place? How can the public and expert processes take place when offices are closed? Are workers safe? Does anyone at the Federal government even care?

Typical of their byzantine procedures, even now BLM refuses to accept email protests. Never mind that those same offices are closed to the public. So we masked up and hand-delivered the Upper Rock Divide Protest.

Thurston Hills – Destroying backyard forests, increasing fire danger

At Thurston Hills at the edge of Springfield, the BLM is still going forward with the Pedal Power timber sale. Just off of 79th street and the Willamalane natural trails, these are exactly the kinds of under appreciated backyard forests that are proving their value during the lock-down.

The recreation and fire safety benefits of the forest there are more important now than ever. The proposed clearcutting would create “high” fire hazard to the neighborhood and make things that much more dangerous for residents and firefighters. Both BLM and Seneca have obstinately refused to consider thinning alternatives, which we support.

While the agency has not made a decision, the sale is still under contract to Seneca and every indication is it is on the fast-track to be clearcut. The neighboring recreational trails may be closed, but the logging roads in the timber sale area are grubbed out and trees marked to log (photo below).  

Our volunteers have been keeping close tabs on this project, and we are not about to let industry take advantage of the Pandemic to log it.

> > > You can take action to stop the Thurston Hills project HERE.

Poor Windy

In southwest Oregon, the Medford BLM thinks their timber sales are “mission critical” and have insisted on charging forward. The Poor Windy project is a large and especially terrible sale that would log old-growth west of I-5 and south of Canyonville.

Cascadia joined Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands Center and Oregon Wild in filing a legal Protest of the “Blown Fortune” project. At times like these, we have been grateful to work with so many other wonderful, local grassroots organizations.

Showing the recent pattern, that timber sale auction on April 21 did not draw any bids. “The BLM seems committed to meeting arbitrary volume targets regardless of whether anyone wants the timber or not,” George Sexton of our close friends at K-S Wild, told the local newspaper.

Mission Critical?

The timber industry touts itself as an “essential” industry and the BLM thinks selling old-growth timber is “mission critical,” but a closer look shows that is mostly bluster. Timber is no more important than anything, and in fact mills have been closing down due to “severe oversupply.” Local leaders have options, if they want to use them.

Shortly after the National Emergency was declared, the CISA Guidance designated “essential” workers and industries. These are those “who conduct a range of operations and services that are essential to continued critical infrastructure viability,” and so ought to try and remain operating.

On the list, under the heading “food and agriculture” is the bullet “Workers who support the manufacture and distribution of forest products, including, but not limited to timber, paper, and other wood products.” But, exactly what is critical about the logging industry is left open to interpretation. Industry press put out their spin in the immediate aftermath, pointing out that new hospitals would be made of wood.

You might assume that public agencies would use health-related logic, but that assumption would be incorrect. As the Medford BLM manager explained in an email, they think BLM’s timber program is “mission critical” because logging results in jobs.

Why logging jobs are any more important than other jobs is a mystery.

Mill closures cause real pain to real people. Despite a generation of job-killing automation and exports, mill jobs remain truly central in many rural communities. So, if mill jobs are important (and they are!), then keeping mills open and small operators in business is what matters. Generating massive amounts of bargain-priced logs does not.

Supplies of logs are not where the supply chain is limited. Mills are operating right now on a “severe oversupply.” Many have scaled back or closed altogether.

A closer reading reveals that the Homeland Security designation shows it is only a recommendation. Our Governors have a lot of leeway to make their own priorities. The Homeland Security advisory reads:

“Accordingly, this list is advisory in nature. It is not, nor should it be considered to be, a federal directive or standard in and of itself.”

“Instead, State and local officials should use their own judgment in using their authorities and issuing implementation directives and guidance. … All decisions should appropriately balance public safety while ensuring the continued delivery of critical infrastructure services and functions.”

A better world is possible

As our Grassroots Organizer, Sam Krop argues in her brilliant op-ed, “What is really essential,” a better way is possible.

To that end we are rallying behind this Petition, directed to the western state (Cascadia) governors, demanding that Pandemic strategies prioritize natural and human health, not corporate profits.

The post FIELD REPORT / BLOG: In the Forest in the Age of COVID-19 first appeared on Cascadia Wildlands.