In Oregon, Timber Industry and Environmental Groups Join Forces in Support of the “Private Forest Accord”

Oregon state lawmakers are currently considering new forestry regulations that are supported by both environmental advocates and the timber industry.

The Private Forest Accord, which is currently being considered by the state’s legislature, is a compromise deal on logging rules, which expands no-harvest buffers and makes other management changes. The bill also would strengthen rules for roads to ensure they do not obstruct fish passage and does not increase sediment in streams.

Diane Meyers, the vice president and assistant general counsel at the Weyerhaeuser timber company, in speaking in favor of the legislation before the Oregon Senate’s Natural Resources and Wildfire Recovery Committee said the passage of Senate Bill 1501 would ensure decades of regulatory predictability for forestland owners and sawmills.

“The stability makes Oregon an attractive place for the forest product industry’s continued investment,” Meyers stated.

Separate from the Private Forest Accord, lawmakers will be considering other landmark timber legislation this year, including a new management regime from the Elliott State Forest. The state forest has long been controversial because the logging revenues it generates are obligated to provide funding for schools and because it was considered for privatization. Under Senate Bill 1546, the forest would remain in state ownership and its revenues would be decoupled from the Common School Fund after generating $121 million for the fund.

The vast majority of future logging would occur on tree plantations younger than 65 years, and more than a third of the 90,000-acre property would be set aside in a reserve for older forests.

The forest would be dedicated to public use and research, with Oregon State University taking a key role in its management.


FEA compiles the Wood Markets News from various 3rd party sources to provide readers with the latest news impacting forest product markets. Opinions or views expressed in these articles do not necessarily represent those of FEA.