How conflict shapes policy By Kelly Andersson Oregon's Forest Practices Act was not enough to save lives on Hubbard Creek, where four people were buried in a November debris torrent originating in an old clearcut. How do other states deal with logging, roadbuilding, and slide risk, and what's planned in Oregon? Record rainfall and storms lashed the Pacific Northwest in 1996. Parts of western Oregon in November received seven inches of rain in a 10-hour period. Some areas were drenched with as much as 30 inches. The storms caused extensive flooding and triggered hundreds of landslides. Highways caved in and hillsides slumped. Rivers overflowed. People lost homes. Dairy cows drowned. In Douglas County, a torrent of mud and rocks and logs raged down from a hillside clearcut and buried several homes, killing four people. Environmental groups demanded a ban on clearcutting. Lawyers filed lawsuits. Oregon Department of Forestry staff who had inspected and approved the logging operation years before the slide explained that they'd followed the law and the rules. State legislators drafted new bills. Gov. John Kitzhaber charged several state agencies with developing a plan to prevent further tragedy. Landslides are nothing new. Conflict over land use in the West isn't new, either. Last year's tragedies in Oregon were the latest in a decades-long history of fatal landslides. Oregon is not the first state in which people have been buried in landslides. Other states have faced the issue -- some more effectively than others. In Colorado -- as in Oregon -- state land use laws are administered by county governments. Colorado's land use rules state that "natural hazard areas" will be managed "in a manner that will allow man to function in harmony with, rather than be destructive to, these resources." "As a forester, I am concerned about clearcutting on steep slopes," says Peter Barth of the Colorado State Forest Service (CSFS). "Carefully planned clearcutting has a place in American forestry -- but perhaps steep slopes and delicate sites in high precipitation areas isn't one of them." California defines slide hazard areas according to factors that contribute to risk. Unstable soils, shallow soils, and heavy rainfall, for example, are factors considered in designating slide-prone sites. In Oregon, though, there is no statewide standard for determining slide hazards, and only some regions of the state have been mapped for geologic hazards. Oregon's current slide-hazard crisis has already been stared down by its neighbor to the north. Because the state of Washington came out on the wrong end of several landslide-related lawsuits, the state got a leg up on Oregon in dealing with the issue. Washington's Department of Natural Resources (DNR) reviews logging and other forest activities for hazard risk. According to Supervisor Kaleen Cottingham, state forest practices rules restrict timber harvest and road construction on unstable slopes. Washington assesses forest lands to identify, prior to logging, hazardous areas that need extra protection. "This requires a more thorough environmental review under Washington's State Environmental Policy Act,"says Cottingham. Logging or road building may have special conditions added by the DNR, or the agency can deny the permit. Lawsuits resulting from landslide damage are nothing new in Washington. A winter storm in the 1980s resulted in more than a dozen landslides in Skagit and Whatcom Counties, killing one person and causing extensive property damage. "It was early morning, and people were running around in the dark in their pajamas," says Matt Brunengo, a DNR forest practices geologist. "It's a wonder there weren't more injuries." A 1985 slide in Skagit County roared downhill from a logging road and tore into a trailer park. "It bashed a trailer and killed four people," says Brunengo. "In this case both the DNR and Georgia-Pacific were sued as landowners, and the DNR was also sued as a regulator." The suit proceeded under claims of landowner responsibility and negligence, and the jury awarded the plaintiff $2.6 million. The state's share was $2.3 million. The series of lawsuits propelled the state toward a solution, and resulted in the forging of the state's Timber/Fish/Wildlife Agreement (TFW). Parties to the agreement included state agencies, Indian tribes, the timber industry (including small-scale operations and large corporations), and environmental groups. "Everyone involved agreed on cooperative ways to address logging and environmental problems," says Brunengo. The state hired more on-the-ground people, including foresters, geologists, hydrologists, and wildlife biologists. Changes in the law were adopted. Slide hazard areas were identified and mapped. The addition of more field people, according to Brunengo, maintained flexibility while reducing risk. "The rules gave field techs the ability to make decisions in concert with the landowner or operator," he says. "We're also going to the Legislature every couple years and asking for money for applied forestry research in wildlife, slope hazards, and so on." Washington also requires title notification on real property transactions. "If your property is in a hazardous area," says Brunengo, "whether it's flood-prone or a volcanic area, there's a notice on the deed. The buyer then has the knowledge to deal with the risk." Brunengo acknowledges that the process, while effective, can't be perfect. "There's always the conflict," he says, "between the agencies telling people what they can't do, and then protecting the rest of the public and the public purse." Protecting the public is not just a question of restricting logging. Residential development in forested or rural areas can put life and property at risk, and as residential development increases, so does the risk. Oregon's statewide land use goals cover natural disasters and hazards -- including landslides -- and each county in the state must develop regulations addressing these hazards in its comprehensive plan. The theory behind Oregon's land use laws is that the state sets down "goals," and the local governments write and enforce specific regulations. Very democratic in theory. In practice, however, citizens are often put at risk. Regulations on land use that are meant to protect individual landowners and the public at large are often made ineffective in the process. A person who plans to build a house on a dangerous site will probably have the building permit denied, but it can be appealed. In many rural communites, the people who decide appeals are friends and neighbors of the would-be home builders. Kathleen Kavanagh, with the Oregon State University Extension Service, notes that Clatsop County requires a geology report for a building or development permit. She explains that clay soils in and around Astoria are prone to sliding when saturated. "To limit activity in these areas," she says, "they have mapped these sites as geologic hazard, and as a requirement for a building permit you have to have a geologist's report." Tom Horning, a geohazards specialist in Seaside, produces reports for Clatsop County. He remembers a slide on a homesite that resulted in tragedy. "These people lost their yard, and it headed downhill and smacked a neighbor's house," he says. "It went like a domino to the house below it. Their house was perched on the side of hill. The water table was rising, and water just squirted like a fire hose out of the hill." He says the debris flow was caused by water-saturated soils. Horning, who's been in the Seaside area for more than 30 years, explains that parts of the community are expanding beyond easily buildable land. "Many of the good-view homesites are on potentially dangerous ground," he says. As property values along Oregon's coast have increased, land once considered unbuildable is now developed. The engineering costs are simply added to the re-sale value of the property. "Places get developed even though it's potentially hazardous," Horning says. "You can build on a slope that will probably last 200 years. The house won't be worth much by then, but even if it slides in 50 years, most mortgages are for only 30 years." "One fellow wanted to put in a trailer on a site in an active landslide area," he says. "He was within an area that had slid in the last 50 years -- based on tipping of trees -- and it was likely to go in the next 50, using local history as a guide." The county denied the permit based on Horning's report, but the landowner appealed to the county commissioners, who then approved his application. The trailer went in. "I did a property for another guy who wanted his trailer on a lobe of earth flow that was slowly moving out into a swamp," says Horning. "I tell him it looks like an active earth flow, and it will break up whatever pad you put down. He asks me, AIsn't there some way you can you say it differently?' I told him the county would probably deny his permit, but that he could appeal." The authority and willingness of county officials to allow residential development in slide-prone areas of the state has been largely ignored by legislators who have sponsored recent bills. Protecting public safety is politically popular, as evidenced by a rash of new proposed legislation. Rep. Floyd Prozanski (D-Eugene) and Rep. Cynthia Wooten (D-Eugene) recently drafted a bill that would not only revise the Oregon Forest Practices Act (FPA) but also designate ODF as the agency responsible for landslides originating on forest land. It would increase the number of written plans required for approval of logging and other forestry operations. ODF staff, already hard-pressed to keep up with written plans, would be required to designate slide-prone areas. "The bill will allow the state forester to disapprove a written plan if it is determined the cut would threaten lives, real property or water, fish or wildlife resources," says Prozanski. "It establishes 'marginal for safety areas' in forest lands. This bill will just provide the state forester the ability to take these threats into consideration. Currently, they can not!" "My goal with this bill," says Prozanski, "is to let public safety to be factored into the decision process." The bill's language, though, rather than solving the public safety problem, attempts to deal with forestry operations that "may threaten lives or property." Rep. Jeff Kruse's district includes the Hubbard Creek area where November's fatal slide occurred. He says personal responsibility and individual property rights must be considered in legislation that deals with landslides and public safety issues. "We cannot and should not be expected to plan for ways to avoid the results of all catastrophic natural events," says Kruse. "Floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, and earthquakes are not the fault of government. The incident in question was indeed tragic, but the fact is that the area that slid had been logged for a decade and had maintained its integrity through some major weather events for all of that time." "Any plan that is developed statewide tends to not fit anywhere," he adds. "To develop a plan at that level, one that would take into account all of the geographic diversity we have in this state, would by its very nature have to be so complicated and filled with minutia as to make it a roadblock rather than a pathway." Geographic diversity is not considered in most of the recent bills, including one introduced on March 3 by Sen. Thomas Wilde (D-Portland), a member of the Senate Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee. Wilde called for a moratorium on all logging and road building in high-risk areas. "At risk are human life, the destruction of fragile ecological systems, and immense cost to the taxpayers in infrastructure costs and repair," said Wilde. Another problem not addressed in recent proposals is the authority of county officials to approve residential development in high-risk areas. State agencies from the governor's office on down, though, have faced the issue head-on in recent weeks. On March 4, the day before the Oregon Board of Forestry met in Salem to consider the issue, Kitzhaber released his "Debris Avalanche Action Plan." "I firmly believe we can do a better job preventing these slides and protecting Oregonians from their effect," said Kitzhaber. The governor proposed that the Board of Forestry require written plans for all harvest and road building on high-risk sites. He asked the Board to guarantee financial resources to identify high-risk sites, and he wants downslope landowners to be notified of logging operations. He also recommended deferral of clearcuts and road building in high-risk areas. Kitzhaber asked that state highways be assessed for slide hazards, and recommended that the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) increase road patrols during heavy precipitation periods. Kitzhaber wants modifications of structural, drainage, and landscaping codes to reduce risk from landslides, and he recommended new regulations to restrict development in canyons and on debris avalanche fans. Local governments should prepare debris avalanche action plans, and Kitzhaber recommended that the Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries (DOGAMI) assess geologic hazards statewide. He suggested that the state will help counties identify federal funding sources. Kitzhaber also asked that OSU and ODF begin hazard mapping, and that DOGAMI develop a public education campaign. At the Board of Forestry meeting the day after the governor's announcement, Rep. Wooten spoke on behalf of the bill she co-sponsored with Prozanski. "The people of Oregon deserve to feel protected," Wooten said. She asked the Board to support her bill, claiming it would advance the process suggested by Kitzhaber by about a year and a half. She suggested that the governor's salmon restoration plan, intended to avoid a listing of the coho salmon, would not be accepted by the federal government if the issue of slides and forest practices was not addressed. Sen. Bill Dwyer (D-Springfield), who was a prime sponsor of the 1993 rewrite of Oregon's Forest Practices Act, told the Board that restrictions on residential development should be part of the solution. He said there are areas where people should not be allowed to build. "We can't turn back the clock," he said, "but we shouldn't allow some activities in slide-prone areas." Francis Eatherington, with the Umpqua Watersheds environmental group, asked the Board for a moratorium on logging and road building. She stressed the threats to fish populations, human lives, and property, and showed the Board photos of landslides that she said were from logging roads built to current standards. Karen Henderson, a neighbor of the Hubbard Creek residents killed in the fatal November slide, also lobbied the Board for a moratorium. "The FPA must be amended to provide protection," she said. "Why should we as residents be punished because Roseburg Forest Products bought and held unstable land?" In addition to public testimony from environmentalists and concerned homeowners, the board heard from some of Oregon's leading scientists in landslide research. Marvin Pyles, a geotechnical engineer with the OSU Extension faculty, explained why studies have produced such a wide range of results. "In 90 percent of the studies published," he explained, "researchers used aerial photos or Awindshield studies.' This produces a bias: Harvested units show a higher frequency of slides." Pyles added that even ground-based studies will produce an inflated number of slides in cut-over areas. "It's still harder to see the slides in forested areas than it is to see them in clearcuts," he said. Though Pyles did not deny that slides occur more frequently in clearcut areas, he stressed the difficulty of providing solid evidence and incontrovertible numbers. "It is just not a clear picture," he said. "We are forever thwarted in our attempts to get clear answers." Board members asked Pyles about the slides in Eatherington's photos -- why had apparently identical slopes adjacent to or across from some landslides remained in place? What was different about these slopes, and why didn't they give way? "Answering your question," said Pyles, "is the business of science." Keith Mills, ODF geotechnical specialist, presented preliminary results of a recent study on slides. He explained that the ground survey area overlapped an adjacent area studied with aerial surveys by the Forest Service. Mills found 40 slides on the ground study that were missed in the aerial study. The Board also requested that Kitzhaber appoint a "blue ribbon panel" to develop a comprehensive solution. The panel would make recommendations on land use, public safety, transportation engineering, and forest practices safeguards to the 1999 Legislature. The Board agreed to recommendations submitted by ODF staff, including most of Kitzhaber's proposals. Landowners will be asked to voluntarily defer any clearcutting on unstable sites, and ODF will help landowners identify slide-prone areas. The Board also called on Kitzhaber to ask local governments to defer approval of building permits for residences in high-risk areas through June 1999. "There are some places we shouldn't run logging shows," said Board member Brad Witt. "And there are some places where we shouldn't site homes." He expressed concern that a voluntary ban or deferral of logging on steep slopes might not be enough. Board member Sam Johnson said public safety must be the short-term priority, but land use problems need a long-term solution. "How much are we going to support forestry as an industry in Oregon?" he asked. Johnson added that he was not convinced that high-risk sites are easily identified. Staff scientists agreed. "You need to recognize that we'll never identify all of them," said ODF's Charlie Stone. He said the Board should address two primary policy issues. "One is the precision with which you want the staff to identify hazard areas. The more precision you want, the more information you'll need, and the more capital and time it will require." The second issue, Stone said, is public safety. "How much public risk are you willing to accept?" Witt questioned the conflicts likely to arise over hazard mapping and land use restrictions. "This presents profound public policy implications for the state of Oregon," he said. "Do we continue to allow Oregon families to live in those areas? If we as a society decide we don't want them living there, we have another big decision in front of us." Land use conflicts have long been a hot issue in Oregon, and they're not likely to go away quietly in the search for a long-term solution. Environmentalists, homeowners, state agencies, scientists, and politicians all view the issues differently. Each group seeks the solution from a different vantage point. Oregon's forestry challenge is to reduce landslide risk in areas where people live. The public safety challenge lies in effectively identifying hazard areas, and keeping people away from them. The biggest challenge -- reducing the land use conflict -- is to develop policy that limits the building of homes and roads and the harvest of timber without unnecessarily restricting property rights. Though the issue's seen differently by everyone involved, no one wants to see another tragedy like the one at Hubbard Creek.

TRAGEDY ON HUBBARD CREEK: Fixing accountability By Kathie Durbin

THE SCIENCE OF LANDSLIDES: Causes and effects By Jen Shaffer

LANDSLIDE RESEARCH: How much is enough? By David Hockman-Wert

CLEARCUT CONTROVERSY: How conflict shapes policy By Kelly Andersson

LINKS to other resources

HOME PAGE