Oregon lawmakers move to cut timber industry ties on forest board, seat environmentalists

(The Center Square) – Two bills in the Oregon Legislature aim to tighten rules on how close the state’s forest managers can come with the companies they regulate.

Senate Bills 335 and 337 would reset limits on the amount of money Oregon’s forest regulators are allowed to make off of the timber industry and expand the kinds of expertise expected of them.

Oregon’s forestlands are overseen by the state’s current Board of Forestry whose seven members are appointed by Gov. Kate Brown and confirmed by the Senate. Up to three members are allowed to claim a big portion of their income from the timber industry. Its board members, who serve four-year terms, are tasked with setting good forest management practices, which include reforesting rules, land permits, and labor codes.

Each of the state’s three major forest regions must be represented on the Forest Board, which in turn appoints Oregon’s three Forest Practice Committees whose nine members must include six representatives of private forestlands. The initial idea behind those rules were to ensure regulators had the necessary experience to do their jobs, but state lawmakers say overhauling the Forest Board has been long overdue.

SB 337 would subtract the number of Forest Board members allowed to pocket timber money from three to two and neither could take in more than $1,000 in the past five years. One member alone could make up to $1,000 from woodlands greater than 5,000 acres. Moreover, the bill would hand the power to hire or fire the State Forester to Brown and set a deadline for the governor to enact changes on New Year’s Day of 2022.

Under SB 335, Oregon’s Forest Practice Committees would see private forestland representation shrink from six members to five. The bill would also require the Forest Board to seat at least one member of a forest conservation nonprofit on each of the committees in addition to one member of a local forest collaborative.

Both bills, introduced by state Sen. Jeff Golden, D-Ashland, come months after an investigation by Oregon Public Broadcasting and ProPublica found state forest regulators’ close ties to Oregon’s timber industry undercut forest practices and cost taxpayers billions over the past 30 years.

Speaking with his colleagues on the Senate Natural Resources Committee which he chairs, Golden said on Monday that the bills would broaden the perspectives on the Forest Board, citing state lawmakers’ own indirect role in setting forest management.

“Certainly, there are people who know a lot about forest policy and are qualified by education and experience in natural resource management,” Golden said. “We’re not members of the industry.”

The timber industry, Golden said, can still contribute through ad hoc committees and state workgroups to have its say in forest laws. To date, the Forest Board is four members strong with three vacancies. Its sitting members include two forest management consultants, a cattle rancher, and a logging industry veteran.

Support for the two bills has largely come from environmental groups who argue the Forest Board, as it exists now, is weighted in favor of timber barons immune to the ballot box. Those conflicts of interest, they say, will forever keep the state from meeting its ambitious climate goals, which include fireproofing forests.

“Until there is a better balance of interests among the board members to protect, manage, and promote stewardship of Oregon’s forests to enhance environmental, economic, and community sustainability, it does not seem reasonable to assume that mission can be met,” the League of Women Voters of Oregon wrote in a statement.

Golden’s two bills have received anything but a warm welcome from forestland owners and timber industry lobbyists who see them as more pointless red tape.

Washington County resident Annabelle Morgan, who has forestland in Lincoln County, told the committee that the Forest Board works well as it is.

“Instead of layering one more mandate on both state and regional boards, it is in the best interest of all Oregonians to allow the Board of Forestry to devote their time and energy into working with public and private landowners on wildfire recovery efforts and mitigating future devastating wildfires which we saw in 2020,” Morgan said.

Amanda Astor, a lobbyist with the Associated Oregon Loggers, suggested in her testimony that the Forest Board could diversify its membership across the timber industry, like forest contracting sectors and small woodland owners.

Jon Stewart, a 1992 appointee to the Northwest Forest Practices Committee and the owner of Raincloud Tree Farm near Sandy, Oregon, called it “absurd” to cut small woodland owners like himself out of the conversation for making a mere five-figures a year off of some 120 acres.

“Active management can preserve Oregon’s forests to help fight rapid climate change,” Stewart said. “Closing them down with blind bureaucracies and simple misguided oversight as proposed in this bill is a recipe for disaster.”

SB 335 is scheduled to receive its next hearing by the Senate Natural Resources Committee on Wednesday at 3:15 p.m.

Disclaimer: This content is distributed by The Center Square