Be the Spark!

contribute now

seanstevens's comments:

on A Forest Agreement

nocompromise-

Again, this was another area where conservationists felt like we made strong gains. The future of biomass has been bandied around quite a bit by politicians as a panacea to energy and forest health woes.

There have been some hair-brained proposals out there that make biomass out to be more than it is. This legislation makes sure that biomass production in eastern Oregon only comes as a byproduct from restoration work that is guided by the science panel.

So, if restoration work runs out in 5 years (which is unlikely), biomass production runs out as well.

-Sean Stevens
Oregon Wild

posted 3 years, 5 months ago
view in context

on A Forest Agreement

charlieb-

The legislative language is important here. The treatment acres (80k-120k) are not meant to be only in the form of logging/thinning. Much of the treatments may come in the form of prescribed burns, brush mowing, and other restoration activities that the Forest Service is already using effectively.

-Sean Stevens
Oregon Wild

posted 3 years, 5 months ago
view in context

on A Forest Agreement

This was one of the strong conservation gains made in the bill. The legislation mandates no new road construction and places limits on temporary roads.

In addition, it requires a net reduction in roads over time.

-Sean Stevens
Oregon Wild

posted 3 years, 5 months ago
view in context

on A Forest Agreement

jeff2day,

The bill does protect all old-growth trees 21" or greater. This is a legislative solidification of an administrative rule. It is important to remember that simply because the bill does not explicitly outline protections for down logs or dead trees, it does not mean that it encourages the removal of either.

Aside from the 21" protections, the bill contains strong language protecting streams and riparian areas. It also mandates no new road construction and a net reduction in roads.

For sticky issues like cutting trees after a disturbance like fire, the legislation calls for the creation of a science panel to advise the envisioned restoration projects. As mentioned below by Ivan with the Sierra Club, the science generally favors more protection than we currently have.

-Sean Stevens
Oregon Wild

posted 3 years, 5 months ago
view in context

on Bull Run Water

Curious if Mr. Shaff would prefer no treatment plant at all if the LT2 rule didn't exist?

-Sean

posted 3 years, 9 months ago
view in context

on Cows v. Elk v. Wild Horses

"Letting wild horses run free..." said as if it were somehow an instrinsically bad thing. That seems strange...and backwards.

Society has long known of the devastating impacts that public lands cattle grazing has (as zbeckerd2 described from his 35 year experience working on the land) and yet when someone does a study for a few months and then sues it becomes big news.

ONDA went to court to defend the public's interest in have clean streams and landscapes not denuded by cows. They went to court with decades of science backing their claim. Why should we legitimize the Stouts for one summer's worth of study?

They certainly have a right to seek redress in court, but we shouldn't be treating the Stout's case as if it is somehow on par with ONDA's successful case from before. I sure hope that ONDA gets more time on the show tomorrow than the Stouts...they've earned the right to speak on this matter.

posted 4 years, 3 months ago
view in context

on The Changeover: Farms, Food, Forests, Fuel

Over the last eight years we have seen a constant attack on the scientific underpinnings of decisions related to forest management. Often times, the Forest Service has floated with the political winds rather than carry out the mission the people have entrusted it with.

Can we expect the agency, under your direction, will pay greater heed to science and the management practices that science suggests--namely ones that support clean water, global warming defense, biodiversity protection, etc.

Thanks, Sean

posted 4 years, 3 months ago
view in context

on Age Old Question

A wise conservationist once said, "We all want to save the old growth. The question is: What do you mean by 'save' and what do you mean by 'old.'"

While there is merit in debating the minutiae of the definition of what an ancient forest is, where we can certainly move beyond debate is in deciding what to do with our old growth. The answer is pretty simple. We need to protect it.

With just 1% of nation's old growth remaining (most of that standing in the Pacific Northwest) we have a duty to future generations to make sure there is old growth left for them to enjoy. And when I say enjoy, I don't just mean marvel at during a hike through the forest (although walking through an ancient forest is a transformational experience).

Enjoying our old growth forests is also about saving millions of dollars through the natural water cleansing properties of older trees. Enjoying our old growth forests is about keeping them standing to fight global warming by storing carbon pollution more efficiently than any type of land in the world. Enjoying our old growth is about maintaining habitat for fish and wildlife to support salmon economies and maintain essential biodiversity.

posted 4 years, 6 months ago
view in context

on What's an Uncut Forest Worth?

Researchers at OSU have done a lot of good work on this topic and their findings tend to suggest a few things that don't quite jibe with the previous post.

It is true that younger forests sequester carbon at a faster rate than older forests, but the math just doesn't work out when you start cutting down old growth and replanting trees in an effort to reduce overall global warming impact. The math doesn't work out because it takes over 100 years to get close to restoring the amount of carbon stored in a forest filled with big old trees. That's because old growth forests STORE carbon at a far greater capacity than do young forests.

I've seen in prior posts and heard on the show the concept that wood products can store some of the carbon when you cut down trees. It is true that wood products can store SOME of the carbon, but not that much and not for as long as a standing forest. The problem is that not all of the carbon stored in a forest is stored in the trees. Much of the carbon is pumped into the soil beneath the tree. When you log, the carbon release from the soil combined with the common practice of slash burning and the loss of carbon during processing, makes it so that only about 15% of the original carbon stored in the tree makes it to a wood product. Worse yet, that wood product could be a 2x4 which might have a somewhat long life (although not as long as a healthy forest) but it also could be paper or pallets which have very short lifespans and will likely be transformed into atmospheric carbon pretty soon down the road.

A whole different idea that has great merit if executed wisely is to incentivize private forest owners to let there forests grow longer and reduce the impacts they have on the soil when they do log.

Also, when we are talking about this concept of "what is a standing tree worth" let's remember two things. 1) Standing forests have all sorts of benefits for water quality for clean drinking water, species habitat, recreation opportunities and more. and 2) We shouldn't reduce our world-renowned forests to a simple game of economic calculation. Our forests, specifically the little old growth that we have left standing, are, in many respects, beyond economic measurement.

See more at: http://www.oregonwild.org/oregon_forests/global-warming-and-northwest-forests

posted 4 years, 9 months ago
view in context

Thanks to our Sponsor:
become a sponsor
Web Analytics