Photo by Ellen Miller

Sunday, June 30, 2013

Bringing back good old days of logging difficult


GRANTS PASS, Ore. (AP) — Nothing came to symbolize the difficulty of bringing back the good old days of logging in Oregon like the Bush administration's plan to boost timber production on 3,750 square miles of federal land in 18 counties, an area about three times the size of Rhode Island.
Big promises of logs and revenue for timber counties won the Western Oregon Plan Revision the nickname of "The Whopper," spoken affectionately by timber interests and contemptuously by conservationists. But after five years of planning, it all came crashing down. Unable to pass muster under the Endangered Species Act, it was withdrawn by the Obama administration in 2009.
Now, the U.S. Bureau of Land Management is working on a kinder and gentler approach. Though some people are calling it "Whopper Junior," the BLM pointedly is not. In a preliminary planning document released this month, the BLM's state director, Jerome E. Perez, said the new approach will be based on what the public wants, science, the law and on the goals of healthy forests, not board feet of timber.
"These 2.5 million acres have an important role to the social, economic and ecological wellbeing of Western Oregon, as well as to the greater American public," he wrote. "In an effort to try to change the dialogue, besides changing how we engage the public, I want to focus our discussions around outcomes, not outputs."
The BLM says it will finish the new plan by fall 2015. It has been asking tribes, conservation groups, counties and the timber industry what they want from the lands. The agency has hired a facilitator to make sure they keep in close touch with fish and wildlife scientists at other agencies — a requirement of the Endangered Species Act that was not followed in the first go-round.
With the details still to be worked out, conservationists warily welcomed the new approach. But the timber industry and some county officials worry the new plan won't allow the amount of timber production they think is necessary to improve the financial health of Oregon's timber country, some of whose counties are near bankruptcy.
"It is difficult. There is a lot of history. And it's a complex issue," said Mark Brown, a conservation biologist who is managing the project for BLM.
The stakes are high. Spotted owls continue to decline and some timber counties that depend on a share of federal logging revenues are struggling to pay for basic services, like jails and sheriff's patrols.
Timber has been a leading part of Oregon's economy since the days leading up to World War II, when it became the nation's leading timber producer. But the industry is a shadow of what it was before the 1990s, when logging on national forests was cut by 90 percent to protect the northern spotted owl and salmon.
After 30 years of fighting, the issues remain the same. The timber industry argues for more logging to produce logs, generate jobs and prevent wildfires. Conservation groups argue for less logging to prevent wildfires, protect fish and wildlife habitat, and maintain clean water.
The O&C lands are named for the Oregon & California Railroad, which got land in the 1860s to finance the railroad. After the company went bust, the government in 1916 took back a checkerboard of one-mile squares interspersed with private timberlands.
A special law enacted in 1937 governs management of the lands, an early attempt at managing federal lands for multiple uses, including clean water and recreation. They became a cash cow for the counties. Unlike the national forests, which share 25 percent of logging revenues with counties to help pay for schools and roads, the O&C lands share 75 percent, with no restrictions.
During the 1980s, BLM was selling 1 billion board feet of timber a year, producing so much money that some O&C counties did not have to assess property taxes. But in the 1990s, conservation groups won lawsuits demanding BLM and the U.S. Forest Service stop cutting old growth forests where salmon and spotted owls lived.
To settle the lawsuits, the Clinton administration produced the Northwest Forest Plan, which cut logging 90 percent to protect fish and wildlife. The O&C lands now produce a fifth of the timber they used to. That means less money for the O&C counties. Congress created a safety net for the counties that paid them a subsidy to make up for the lost logging revenues while they developed new sources of revenue. But the amount was steadily ramped down, and now has run out. Renewal is uncertain and voters have been loath to raise their own taxes to make up the difference.
The timber industry and the counties recognize there is no chance of hitting 1 billion board feet again. Even the original "Whopper" promised only half that. They view the 500 billion mark as a minimum and worry the new BLM plan won't produce the logs or revenues from timber they would like to see.
"More credence is being given ecological values, wildlife species and recreation, rather than the main emphasis being what the O&C Act calls for, which is sustainable timber supply," said Tom Partin, president of the American Forest Resource Council, a timber industry group.
He and Doug Robertson, a Douglas County commissioner and president of the Association of O&C Counties, have pinned their hopes on Congress enacting proposed legislation that splits the O&C lands in two, with half going to timber production without the constraints of federal environmental laws, to produce $100 million for the counties.
Conservation groups are wary, but encouraged to see BLM taking a different approach. And they have little sympathy for the counties, noting they could solve their fiscal crises by raising taxes to levels that are still below the state average, and that industry automation is trimming jobs even as production increases.
Doug Heiken of the conservation group Oregon Wild said the O&C lands already produce more than a third of the timber of all the federal lands under the Northwest Forest Plan, and producing any more would threaten a key habitat bridge for wildlife between the Coast Range and the Cascades.
BLM has made a point of not promising anything in terms of timber or county revenues. The formal statement of what BLM hopes to achieve calls for large connected blocks of mature forests, clean water, conservation of threatened and endangered species, restoring the natural role of fire in the ecosystem, and a sustained yield of timber.
That all points to some level of timber less than the industry and the counties want.

Thursday, June 27, 2013

Court’s Ruling in O&C Case a Victory for Oregon’s Rural Communities





Contact: Ann Forest Burns 
June 27, 2013 (503) 222-9505 

Court’s Ruling in O&C Case a Victory for Oregon’s Rural Communities 

Portland, OR - A federal district court in Washington, D.C. yesterday handed down a key victory for Southwest Oregon communities that are entitled to sustained yield timber harvests from Oregon and California Railroad Grant Lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). While this decision is focused on the O&C lands in Southwest Oregon, it has positive implications for communities throughout Western Oregon. 

U.S. District Judge Richard Leon ruled the BLM failed to comply with timber harvest requirements under the federal O&C Act. The judge ordered the BLM to offer timber sales on its Medford and Roseburg Districts to the level identified under its existing resource management plans. In applying the O&C Act, the ruling confirms the agency is required to follow sustained yield timber harvest requirements that guide the management of over 2 million acres of O&C timberlands in Western Oregon. 

“This case is a victory for rural Oregonians who’ve been suffering through 20 years of gridlock on our federal forests,” said Tom Partin, President of the American Forest Resource Council (AFRC), one of the plaintiffs in the case. “We’ve been trying for years to get the BLM to comply with the law when it adopts a resource management plan. The judge confirmed the requirements under the O&C Act are clear, and they can’t be ignored by agency officials or interest groups who might wish to sever their connection with our rural, forested communities.” 

Partin said the ruling will generate new economic activity in rural communities while producing new revenue for cash-strapped county governments. However, he said federal agencies must take additional action to assure increased sustained yield harvests across all BLM districts. 

In the Medford District, for example, the timber sale program under the ruling would increase to 57 million board feet, up from the Fiscal Year 2013 level of 19 million board feet. For the Roseburg district, the level would be increased to 45 million board feet, up from Fiscal Year 2013 level of 29 million board feet. These harvest levels are just a small percentage of the annual growth volume of timber on these lands. The BLM lands in Western Oregon have 73 billion board feet of standing volume. These timberlands are capable of growing 1.2 billion board feet per year. The O&C Act clearly mandates that this entire growth be offered for sale each year. 
Partin said the industry will continue to push the agencies, through the courts if necessary, to fully implement the O&C Act. Partin added that every million board feet of timber harvested 

supports 11 forest sector jobs and an equal number of indirect jobs, such as car dealerships and grocery stores. 
“Sustainable timber management on the O&C lands is not only required by law, it’s critical to the health and economic well-being of our forests and our rural communities,” Partin said. “Increasing sustained yield harvests will create more family wage jobs and lift more Oregonians out of poverty. This ruling is a major step toward a permanent and comprehensive solution for managing these lands and assuring timber counties survive the crisis we’re facing today.” 

Partin said the ruling should be noted by Oregon’s Congressional delegation as they continue to work on legislation to increase harvests. 
“This decision confirming the clear commitment made to rural Oregon communities in the O&C Act comes at a key time as the Oregon Congressional delegation continues developing legislative proposals for the BLM lands,” Partin said. 
The case was filed in 2010 by Swanson Group Mfg. LLC, Rough and Ready Lumber Company, Washington Contract Loggers Association, AFRC and Douglas Timber Operators. Unfortunately, the decision comes too late for Rough and Ready, which closed its doors in May due to a lack of available timber from federal lands. 

In addition to requiring BLM to increase harvest levels, the judge also prohibited federal agencies from continuing to use a flawed method for estimating the number of owls affected by timber management activities unless they comply with the public notice and comment requirements of the federal Administrative Procedures Act. 

The “Owl Estimation Methodology” is a computer model that generates virtual owls on the landscape where none actually exist. The agencies then manage around these phantom owls, which has had a major impact on timber harvest levels. 

“Using a computer model that creates imaginary spotted owl home ranges and exaggerates the impact of forestry activities on these “virtual” owls that do exist is ridiculous and does nothing to protect the owl,” Partin said. “The judge did the right thing by telling the agencies they can’t use this method without subjecting it to public scrutiny, giving the public a chance to see what it’s all about.” 
Another lawsuit before the same judge, filed in 2011 by AFRC and the Carpenters Industrial Council, seeks to require BLM to meet its full O&C Act obligation on all of its districts. That case has been on hold pending the ruling made yesterday. 

The American Forest Resource Council represents forest product manufacturers and landowners throughout the west and is based in Portland, Oregon. www.amforest.org 

Judge orders BLM to sell more timber

Judge orders BLM to sell more timber


Judge orders BLM to sell more timber

June 26, 2013, 6:10 p.m. PDT
AP
GRANTS PASS, Ore. (AP) — A federal judge on Wednesday ordered the U.S. Bureau of Land Management to sell more timber in Southern Oregon, and vacated a system federal scientists use to avoid harming the northern spotted owl.
The ruling out of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia came in a case filed by the timber industry against the Department of Interior.
Judge Richard J. Leon ruled that BLM has failed to consistently offer as much timber as called for in its 1995 resource management plans for the Medford and Roseburg districts since 2004.
And he found that a computer model used by government agencies to estimate spotted owl numbers in timber sale areas was adopted without input from the public, as required by the Administrative Procedures Act. He prohibited government agencies from using the protocol until it goes through a public comment process. The ruling did not address whether timber sales that have been sold based on the invalidated owl estimation protocol, but not yet cut, were still valid.
That portion of the ruling leaves the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service without a scientifically valid method of estimating whether spotted owls, a threatened species, can survive the harm from losing a portion of their forest habitat to logging, said Andy Stahl, director of the Forest Service Employees for Environmental Ethics, a conservation group. An earlier method was struck down in an earlier court ruling.
"It means, I suspect, that they will actually have to go look for them, which is something they have not wanted to do," he said.
BLM and Fish and Wildlife had no immediate comment on the ruling.
The timber industry called it a clear win, validating their longstanding position that a 1937 law known as the O&C Act sets timber production as the top priority for the BLM forests.
"This is clearly a victory for timber dependent communities in southwest Oregon, and it's a victory for the forest, that has not been managed appropriately," said Anne Forest Burns, vice president of the American Forest Resource Council, a timber industry group involved in the lawsuit.
The judge ordered the agency to fulfill its obligation to meet 80 percent of the amount set in management plans in future years. The next fiscal year begins Oct. 1.
Burns estimated that BLM will have to offer double the timber it now sells on the Medford District, and increase it by 55 percent on the Roseburg District. The extra 54 million board feet would be enough to fuel more than 400 logging and mill jobs.
She noted that the extra timber will come too late for one of the plaintiffs, Rough & Ready Lumber Co., which shut its O'Brien sawmill last month for lack of logs.
But conservation groups that intervened in the timber portion of the lawsuit said BLM would have a hard time offering more timber for sale without Congress increasing their budget, and without violating other environmental laws, such as the Endangered Species Act and the Clean Water Act.
Kristin Boyles, an attorney for Earthjustice, which represented conservation groups, said she felt an appeal was likely, from the government as well as conservation groups.

Wednesday, June 19, 2013

Spotted Owls & the Spotty Sciences that Spawned Them

Spotted Owls & the Spotty Sciences that Spawned Them

5 Questions



Dr. Ben Stout in spotted owl habitat, near Mt. Jefferson Wilderness on west shore of Rund Lake, May 15, 2004 (Photo by B. Zybach)
Dr. Ben Stout in spotted owl habitat, near Mt. Jefferson Wilderness on west shore of Round Lake, May 15, 2004 (Photo by B. Zybach)
By Dr. Bob Zybach, PhD
Program Manager, http://www.ORWW.org
June 19, 2013
[Note: This is the text version of an illustrated article written for the current issue of Oregon Fish & Wildlife Journal.]
Spotted owls have now been in the news for more than 40 years; were listed as an endangered species via the Endangered Species Act in 1990; have been actively managed since 1992 by classification of millions of acres of federal forestlands in Washington, Oregon, and California as “critical habitat” — and have still declined in population at an estimated rate of 2-3% a year ever since.
No one will argue that these results are based on political decisions that have had unexpected and wide-ranging cultural, biological, economical and aesthetic repercussions; particularly in the Pacific Northwest. Some have even referred to these circumstances as a “major social experiment.” According to federal legislation and much of the popular press, spotted owl legislative decisions have been based on the “Best Available Science,” the “newest” scientific information, and “scientific consensus.”
But were they really? And even if true, was all of this “newest science” used to make wise or thoughtful legislative decisions? Efforts to stabilize or increase spotted owls numbers have cost American taxpayers tens of billions of dollars, been partly responsible for unprecedented numbers of catastrophic wildfires, caused the loss of tens of thousands tax-producing jobs for western US families, created economic hardships for hundreds of rural counties, towns, and industries, and indirectly resulted in the deaths of millions of native plants and animals.
Was that part of the plan? Should we continue down the same path to “recovery” that has resulted from these decisions? My personal concern is not the politics involved in making such decisions – that’s what politics are for. My concern is that the scientific process is being misused and degraded via such politics, thereby reducing public faith in the credibility and capability of science in general and scientists in particular. Also, I think the public should be directly involved in such decision-making processes and not continue to leave it up to university and agency committees and the courts. Lawyers on both sides of the table get paid in these disputes, and so do politicians and government scientists; it is just the loggers, truck drivers, sawmill workers, foresters, engineers, tree planters, and construction workers — and their families and communities — that are left with the consequences.
The American public has been told that the scientific information used to drive spotted owl political decisions has been “peer reviewed,” often with the declaration that it is the latest and best information available for making such decisions (and thus leaving “science” and scientists as scapegoats when things don’t work out; i.e., “politics”). The quality of peer reviewed science, however, depends on the chosen method of review, the qualifications of reviewers, and the review criteria – which are typically expressed as a series of questions.
The US agencies in charge of managing public resources have not been forthcoming about the scientific information and quality of peer reviews used to drive their policies and decisions. There is no logical reason the American public has been excluded from this process, nor is there any logical reason to continue such exclusion. The following five questions are intended to begin a more transparent and scientifically credible review of the “science-based” management decisions involving spotted owls. These criteria are just as valid for public discussion as they are for scientific review, and I believe should become part of the public debate on these animals.
1. Are Spotted Owls Even a Species?
This is a trickier question than you might suspect. When I was a kid in public schools I was taught that animals that could biologically breed and produce viable offspring were considered the same species. A few anomalies such as lions, tigers, horses, and burros usually stretched the limits of these discussions; otherwise, viable offspring was the rule. The generation of Americans who taught this basic approach to biological taxonomy were members of the same generation that passed the Endangered Species Act in 1973, as spotted owls were first being introduced to the general public. What was the principal intent of this legislation? More importantly, how were they defining “species?”
The most common owl in North America is called the “hoot owl,” or “barred owl.” It looks and sounds almost exactly like a spotted owl, occupies the same range, and has successfully bred and produced viable young with spotted owls. Are spotted owls therefore, just the western-most cousins of the brown-eyed hoot owl family? Or did some committee of nameless scientists give them separate Latin names that somehow transformed them into separate species?
And if they really are the same species, shouldn’t this whole “critical habitat” operation be shut down ASAP and the people who assembled it be held accountable?
The analogy I have been using for several years is probably not politically correct, but makes this key point in terms most audiences can relate to: ‘there are far greater variations in physiology, vocalizations, coloration, preferred habitats, diet, and appearance between a Pygmy and a Swede than between a barred owl and a spotted owl.’ Sometimes some people seem uncomfortable by this comparison, so potatoes, red and yellow roses or German shepherds and French poodles can be substituted as discussion points if the audience is more familiar with those species.
The point is, humans have mastered selective breeding and domestication of many species of plants and animals – and now we are trying to do the same thing with a particular group of wild owls. The public, at least, should know what it is spending such enormous sums of money on – and if it’s only to breed a particular variety of common hoot owl, shouldn’t that information be known and perhaps reconsidered?
2. What is so “Critical” About “Habitat”?
In 1992 the federal government designated several million acres of Pacific Northwest forests as “critical habitat” for spotted owls, thereby fundamentally changing the management methods and focus of our public forests. These lands were no longer managed by the US Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management foresters, but rather put into the hands of US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) biologists – who declared them off-limits to logging and most other commercial activities. These same lands had been used for subsistence and recreation by generations of American families, and for hundreds of generations of local Indian families before them. Now it was being made into a massive and unprecedented reserve for a single species: spotted owls.
These so-called “critical” properties were designated by dozens of 2.7 mile diameter “crop circles,” supposedly based on the “home range” of a nesting spotted owl. The final result was much like the cookies or biscuits shaped for your mom with drinking glasses or teacups when you were first learning to bake. The circles mostly correlated to owl sightings and were concentrated in public lands the USFWS did not want logged. Thus, about seven million acres of some of the world’s finest timberlands were abruptly removed from management for human uses for the first time in history. These designations were transformative and unprecedented, yet quickly adopted without independent scientific review or substantive public discussion.
Environmental activists and some scientists have long claimed that spotted owl habitat used to exist in far greater amounts before 1940 than it does now — therefore, spotted owl numbers must have been greater in the unknown past than they are now. This is a baseless assumption that cannot be documented and therefore needs serious critical examination before acceptance – much less widespread adoption at an enormous cost to taxpayers or treatment as a “fact.”
In 1996 I wrote a research report for a Portland, Oregon law firm dealing with this issue. My study area was the Columbia River Gorge, including thousands of acres of private and federal forestlands along both Oregon and Washington sides. My findings showed – and documented – that spotted owl “habitat” (by current definitions at that time) was likely never more than 5% or 10% of the total study area during anytime since the 1790s. Subsequent research over two million other forested acres in western Oregon have yielded similar documented findings.
There is no demonstrated correlation between owl populations and artificial designations of “critical habitat” zoning. These areas appear far more critical for the survival of agency biologists and ecologists than for owls of any stripe or spot. Predator-prey relationships seem to have much more to do with owl populations than forest structure – an assertion borne out by efforts used to restore endangered condor populations, which are kept and bred in cages, and by the fact that at least one agency wildlife biologist caught and kept a spotted owl as a family pet for 30 years.
3. Are Barred Owls a Living Example of “Natural Selection?”
“Darwin’s Finches” are 15 species of closely related birds – but with entirely different beaks and feeding habits, adapted to their local environments. These birds, and their individual variations, were first noted by Charles Darwin in his exploration of the Galapagos Islands in 1835, and were instrumental in the development of his theories of biological evolution and “natural selection.”
Darwin’s finches aren’t really finches at all, but passerines: members of an order of songbirds and perching birds containing more than 110 families and more than 5,000 species – including Darwin’s 15 finches. Passerines are the second most numerous vertebrate families on the planet, following bony fishes, and the basis for most subsequent findings and theories regarding evolution.
In the mid-1900s, Darwin’s thoughts on natural selection were being refined into “ecological niche” theory, a systematic look at “how ecological objects fit together to form enduring wholes” (Patten and Auble 1981). It is basically an effort to systematize Darwin’s theories so they can be diagrammed and programmed into mathematical computer models.
Spotted owls were first described in California in 1857, in Arizona in 1872, in Washington in 1892, and in Oregon in 1914. Barred owl were first described in 1799 in the eastern US, expanded their range westward to Montana in the 1920s, and were interbreeding with spotted owls in Western Oregon and Washington by 1975. From all historical perspectives, it appears as if two isolated populations of hoot owls – western and eastern – have coincidentally expanded their ranges during the past century or so, and have now joined together to form viable hybrids that are replacing former spotted owl populations. How is this any different than Europeans and Africans colonizing North America and replacing Native American populations as they “expanded their range?”
In 2007 the US Fish & Wildlife Service began a long-term program of systematically killing barred owls in order to maintain the genetic purity of local spotted owl populations. You can use dogs or roses – or humans – as analogies here to see how artificial breeding precedence is being used. Is this a god-like attempt to control evolution, simply another human effort to artificially produce desired breeding characteristics, or some kind of ecological niche theory testing opportunity?
Depending on the rationale used to justify these actions, the next questions become: “Is this method logical or practical?” And, “How much does it cost?”
4. How Reliable Are Computerized Predictive Models?
Modeling isn’t rocket science – it isn’t even a science. Computer sciences made rapid gains in quality during the 1970s and 1980s, with one result often being modeling predictions accepted as reasonable substitutions for actual field observations and independent analysis — especially by other modelers.
Wildlife models are almost exactly the same thing as “Sims” computer games, but with a lot more acronyms and algorithms in their attempts to mimic actual life. And then predict the future. Making predictions and comparing them with actual outcomes is a hallmark of scientific methodology, but when predictions are based on unstated assumptions, unproven theories, and “informed” speculation – all typical modeling characteristics — then the product can be little different than any other computer game. Models are a very useful tool for summarizing current knowledge and suggesting possible futures, but they have proven no more capable of predicting future conditions and catastrophes than ancient oracles or modern religious leaders and politicians. Or most scientists.
In his book ”Best Available Science (BAS): Fundamental Metrics for Evaluation of Scientific Claims” (Moghissi et al. 2010), Dr. Alan Moghissi categorizes computerized predictive models into five basic types. Those typically used to model wildlife populations and habitat correlations he terms “primary” and “secondary” models. Despite their inherent weaknesses, he observes that society “has no other choice” but to use primary models in making certain decisions. Regarding secondary models, however, he states, “a society that bases its decisions on these models must accept the notion that it may waste its resources.”
Often, the only people said to be “qualified” to assess models and modeling methods are “other modelers.” The results have not been good. It is time to shine some daylight on this industry and have actual environmental scientists and concerned members of the public take a better look at “the man behind the curtain.”
5. What Do Government Scientists Say About Owl Recovery Plans?
Certainly, if the US government was going to spend billions of our dollars, ruin the economies of hundreds of our communities, and kill millions of wild plants and animals in the process, they would have at least used “peer reviewed” science – and been transparent in their methods — wouldn’t they?
In 2007 a number of prominent university and agency scientists that had help create the spotted owl “recovery plans” were asked, in essence, by USFWS to review their own work. Not surprisingly, they decided it was pretty good stuff and – despite declining spotted owl numbers – we should be doing more of it.
The “Scientific Review of the Draft Northern Spotted Owl Recovery Plan and Reviewer Comments” was written by Steven Courtney, Jerry Franklin, Andy Carey, Miles Hemstrom, and Paul Hessburg, several of who also appear prominently in their review bibliography – often for work done for, or used by, the USFWS. Despite the obvious potential for bias with this arrangement, the work was conducted openly and transparently and resulted in several useful observations and recommendations, including:
*Current models of owls and their habitats are largely heuristic. Hence decisions on important issues such as reserve size, spacing, etc., must be made with relatively weak predictive tools.
*The approach of the Draft Recovery Plan for designating habitat goals is deeply flawed. However the need to set locally appropriate and sustainable habitat goals remains a valid goal.
*The threat from wildfire is underestimated in the Draft Recovery Plan . . . This threat is likely to increase given both current forest conditions, and future climatic change.
Conclusions
1) Federal spotted owl regulations have been implemented during the past 25 years at an enormous cost to American taxpayers — particularly those living in rural timber-dependent areas of the western US.
2) Current plans are a proven failure. Targeted owl populations continue to decline despite an unprecedented public investment into their maintenance.
3) Barred owls and spotted owls may be the same species, in which there is no logical need to continue managing for the survival of either one. Or, they may be different species and we are simply witnessing natural selection in progress.
4) The scientific basis for these plans should be considered in full light of public and scientific review before they are continued much longer; the methods by which agency modelers and university theorists apparently dictate federal policies should also be publicly reconsidered.
5) Scientific research and review teams dealing with spotted owl and critical habitat issues should also include scientists with an understanding of current and historical roles of people in the environment, such as landscape historians and cultural anthropologists.

Wednesday, June 12, 2013

Legislators are Barking up the Wrong Tree


As the 2013 Oregon legislature inches toward adjournment House Democratic leaders are looking for creative ways to raise revenue, i.e. taxes, without any Republican votes.

Oregon’s Constitution requires that a “Super Majority” approve bills that raise revenue.[1] This session that means two Republicans have to join all Democrats in both the House and Senate to approve tax increases.

The Democratic leaders most recent strategy, scheme?, is to have the Joint Committee on Tax Credits end some previously approved but not yet utilized tax credits and magically increasing taxes to offset the as yet, unused, tax credits. Sound confusing? Reportedly legislative attorneys have approved the plan.

These pseudo legal shenanigans are completely needless! Raising more revenue and revitalizing rural communities would be two sure-fire results of active forest management of Oregon’s State Forests.

Clatsop & Tillamook State Forests
In northwest Oregon, the former Tillamook Burn forests have failed the Counties that deeded the land to the state 80 years ago following the fires. These World Class softwood forests are embroiled in a decade of changing forest management systems. Meanwhile, these abundant forests with millions of trees planted by school children in the black ash from fires in 1933, 1939 and 1945. The legislature has repeatedly tried to increase harvests from these forests only to be thwarted by the past two Democratic Governors.

Elliott State Forest
The Common School Fund’s Elliott State Forest in southwest Oregon has literally been shut down from a lawsuit environmentalists have filed over the Marbled Murrelet, a seabird that spends that vast majority of its life on the ocean. Although murrelets can fly over freeways, cities and towns at 60 miles per hour, the lawsuit claims the bird will give up and die if it encounters a few harvested trees in the Elliott State Forest.

National Forests
The situation is even worse on federal forestlands in Oregon. Governor Kitzhaber has earmarked $4.6 million to help U.S. Forest Service Collaboratives in Eastern Oregon. The only way the Forest Service can produce timber without ending up stymied by the courts is to utilize collaboratives that include local community “Stakeholders”, environmentalists and timber representatives to develop consensus forest heath restoration projects that may or may not include cutting trees.

Restoring sanity, or scientific forest management, to Oregon’s state and federal forests could alleviate the legislatures’ addiction to more and more revenue while putting hundreds of rural Oregonians back to work at family-wage jobs.




[1] From Greg Miller, Certified Forester:
Article IV.  Legislative powers
Section 25. Majority necessary to pass bills and resolutions; special requirements for bills raising revenue; signatures of presiding officers required. (1) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (2) of this section, a majority of all the members elected to each House shall be necessary to pass every bill or Joint resolution.
     (2) Three-fifths of all members elected to each House shall be necessary to pass bills for raising revenue.
     (3) All bills, and Joint resolutions passed, shall be signed by the presiding officers of the respective houses. [Constitution of 1859; Amendment proposed by H.J.R. 14, 1995, and adopted by the people May 21, 1996]

Monday, June 10, 2013

Quiet Board Meeting Turns Feisty


Quiet Board Meeting Turns Feisty
What started as a fairly routine Board of Forestry Meeting on June 5, 2013 turned passionate and intense as the BOF reviewed a report from the Subcommittee on State Forests Financial Viability.

Following Department of Forestry Staff’s recommendation to accept the subcommittee’s report, BOF Chair Tom Imeson opened the meeting for public testimony. Chuck Bennett from the Confederation of Oregon School Administrators, COSA, and Mary Botkin from the Association of Federal, State, County and Municipal Employees, AFSCME, spoke to the vital need to increase timber harvests from all public forest lands, including State Forest lands.

Environmentalists from Northwest Oregon sought further restrictions on State Forest management. The timber industry responded with timber war veterans Jim Geisinger, Associated Oregon Loggers, Dave Ivanoff, Hampton Affiliates, and Chris Jarmer, Oregon Forest Industries Council.

Meanwhile, BOF member Sybil Ackerman tried in vain to get the presenter’s to focus on the narrow issue of State Forest Financial Viability. Mary Botkin responded with her long-time experience on the timber issue, including trips to Washington D.C. to encourage the Clinton Administration to try to solve the timber crisis that has decimated rural communities in Oregon.

Botkin reminded the BOF that the Clinton Administration’s Northwest Forest Plan was intended to solve the debate. Instead, the timber supply of the “compromise” has never been seen. Botkin also pointed out the most Oregonians that see dead, gray trees can’t decipher if the trees are on state, federal or private forests.

Eventually, the BOF accepted the subcommittee’s report and will continue to develop plans that will increase the financial viability of State Forests.

Sunday, June 9, 2013

Ore. Forestry seeks more timber and more habitat

Ore. Forestry seeks more timber and more habitat

Capital Press

GRANTS PASS, Ore. (AP) -- The Oregon Board of Forestry has taken on a tough job: figuring out how to produce more logs as well as better fish and wildlife habitat through logging on state forests.
The board voted unanimously Wednesday in Salem to embark on a new management plan for three state forests in the northwest corner of the state -- the Tillamook, Clatsop and Santiam.
There has been widespread dissatisfaction with the current plan -- including from the governor -- for failing to meet the statutory goals of producing economic, environmental and social benefits through active management.
Board Chairman Tom Imeson said in a statement that the current plan, from 2001, was based on the best information of the time, and he believes they can do better.
But conservation groups are skeptical that the forests can produce more logs while improving fish and wildlife habitat.
After national forests in Oregon, Washington and Northern California cut logging by 90 percent to protect habitat for the northern spotted owl and salmon in 1994, Oregon adopted a new vision for state forests, where logging would be designed to crate forests with old growth characteristics. However, the new policy did not satisfy the timber industry, which depends on state forests for logs, local counties, which share in state forest timber revenues, or conservation groups, which felt the forests were being thinned too heavily, and too many roads were being built.
The board increased logging and cut goals for older forests in 2009, but the dissatisfaction continued. In 2001, Gov. John Kitzhaber spoke to the board, urging it to find a new approach that makes state forests a model for resolving the conflicts between logging and fish and wildlife habitat that have beset the region for 30 years.
In that spirit, the board also created a new system to make it easier for the public to see just which state forest lands are dedicated to fish and wildlife habitat and conservation, rather than logging.
"Commitments to conservation -- and to economic and social values - will all be important outputs of the future state forest management plan we must achieve," State Forester Doug Decker said in a statement.
Jim Geisinger of Associated Oregon Loggers said the forests in Oregon's northwest corner are highly productive, and should be managed more intensively for timber than national forests.
"There is absolutely no reason they shouldn't be turning a substantial profit for the state and in turn for the counties," he said. "They need to be selling more timber -- recognizing their growth potential-- and be more efficient about selling those timber sales."
Bob Van Dyk of the Wild Salmon Center said the financial structure, where the Department of Forestry is directly funded by the sale of timber, gives the state an incentive to cut trees rather than protect fish and wildlife habitat.
"It remains to be seen whether such a solution is out there," where state forests can produce more logs and more habitat, he said. "We think the governor is going to need to come to the table with assistance to diversity revenue sources to diminish the incentive to just cut more to pay the bills."