Logging prohibitions around Oregon streams would be greatly expanded under a new deal struck between the timber industry and environmental groups.

However, the no-cut buffers would be more flexible for small forestland owners, who’d also stand to gain tax credits for voluntarily adhering to stricter rules.

The different treatment recognizes that small forestland owners harvest roughly one-third less timber from their land than larger timber companies while having fewer acres to spread the impacts of regulation, said Jim James, former executive director of the Oregon Small Woodlands Association.

“Pretty soon, that takes up a significant portion of their property,” James said of the riparian buffers.

In exchange for specific environmental concessions, the state’s timber industry expects to realize a more abstract benefit: less controversy and more predictability in forestry regulations.

“These buffers should provide more regulatory certainty for landowners going forward,” said Adrian Miller, director of public affairs for Rayonier, a timber company that participated in the negotiations.

Estimating how many fewer acres will be logged under the recently announced “private timber accord” isn’t yet possible, he said. That’s because some of the restrictions will be based on a model of potential landslides on unstable slopes.

“We are looking at predicting where we think landslides will occur,” Miller said.

The model will be used to leave trees below slopes prone to landslides, filtering sediment from streams and contributing to woody debris in riparian areas if they do happen, he said.

While such changes would result in “encumbrances” on timber harvest, the industry felt those were “acceptable” to minimize regulatory uncertainty, Miller said.

The negotiations that led up to the agreement were initiated by Oregon Gov. Kate Brown a year ago to avert competing ballot initiatives sought by the timber industry and environmental groups.

“This was an opportunity that had never existed before,” said James of the OSWA. “I believe we’ve set a new stage for how these issues are resolved in the future.”

Under the accord’s system, these two groups would design studies to underpin regulation, with the goal of creating a less adversarial process, Miller said. “It will be both sides together putting together that science.”

Restrictions on logging near streams are a major component of the accord and will move Oregon’s regulatory system closer to Washington’s, said Bob Van Dyk, policy director for Oregon at the Wild Salmon Center nonprofit.

In general, no-cut buffers are currently 20 feet per side of a stream, surrounded by tree retention areas that depend on the size of the stream, he said.

Under the accord, no-cut buffers would expand to 100-110 feet for fish-bearing streams and 75 feet for medium and large non-fish-bearing streams.

“The real driver there is the temperature,” since shade prevents water from heating to unhealthy levels, Van Dyk said.

Another important change would be the 50- to 75-foot no-cut buffers around smaller perennial tributaries that don’t have fish but flow into streams that do, he said. Those currently don’t have such buffers at all.

“They’ve long been a point of contention,” Van Dyk said. “This is a longstanding shortcoming that is addressed in this revision.”

Small forestland owners — those with fewer than 5,000 acres and who log less than 2 million board-feet a year — would abide by a range of smaller no-cut buffers.

Those who follow the restrictions for large forestland owners would qualify for tax credits to compensate for the revenue loss. The credits are intended to serve as an incentive, he said.

Small forestland owners are generally better able to convert to farmland or low-density residential development near cities, which the accord doesn’t want to encourage, James of the OSWA said.

Timber owners have long battled environmentalists, but the negotiations showed that “we have more in common than we have different,” he said. “I feel good about where we’re at in this process.”

For the accord’s terms to become law, they must be approved by the state’s lawmakers, Miller said. They’re also intended to pave the way for a federal “habitat conservation plan” that will protect landowners from liability under the Endangered Species Act.

Both of those processes will provide opportunities for public comment on the revisions, he said.

The hope is the agreement’s terms will pass muster on both fronts without major alterations, given the broad environmental and industry coalition that supports the accord, Miller said.

“We hope others see the value in this,” he said. “We’ll cross that bridge when we come to it.”