Biomass in Oregon: Think 'farmers market of the energy sector'

By Guest Columnist


By Greg Blair and Wade Mosby

Much as our local farmers markets in Oregon provide local products, biomass facilities in Oregon use local products, too, converting them into energy that powers our homes and businesses.

This helps Oregon import fewer fossil fuels for energy, which most scientists stress is crucial for reducing pollution and promoting clean air. Also similar to vendors at a farmers market, most of Oregon's 16 biomass facilities are "mom-and-pop" operations: small but hearty local businesses providing local power and local jobs.

We are constantly surprised and puzzled by people in Oregon and elsewhere who attack biomass. Most of them don't understand our industry. But the science behind it speaks for itself. Virtually every study we have seen that has measured the carbon profile of waste wood -- as opposed to whole trees or forests -- has found biomass carbon emissions negligible, even going so far as to deem biomass "carbon neutral."

Just this summer, University of Washington environmental scientist Bruce Lippke released a study concluding that biomass releases only 4 percent of the emissions released by coal. This study looked comprehensively at carbon inputs and outputs resulting from biomass energy production, and found biomass "better than carbon neutral."

The materials used in biomass would not otherwise be utilized. They would decompose on forest floors where they would serve as fuel for the next forest fire, or they would rot in landfills, or they would be piled and burned. Each of these alternatives would release the ozone-harming methane gas that biomass facilities trap and contain. Carbon released from biomass energy production is easily and quickly reabsorbed by forests, completing the carbon cycle.

Meanwhile, while we are bickering about carbon profiles, biomass in Europe -- a far more environmentally conscious society -- is gaining in popularity and enjoying wide support from the public and government alike. It's time to clear up a few myths about the biomass industry here in Oregon. We do not contribute to pollution. We do not overharvest our national forests. We do not contribute to deforestation.

The facts are that our often-misunderstood industry is undeniably preferable to the use of fossil fuels for energy. We use wood materials that would be otherwise wasted to provide clean, renewable, "local" energy for Oregonians. We employ hundreds of Oregonians directly, and we support dozens of businesses statewide by purchasing unwanted wood waste and collecting slash from logging operations.

An effective energy program should responsibly utilize all sources of energy that we have at our disposal. Limiting or eradicating biomass because we are measuring its carbon profile inaccurately would be a huge mistake costing hundreds of jobs and an increase in fossil fuel use.

There's no reason that biomass and environmental advocates can't coexist peacefully. In fact, the two should be a natural partnership.

Greg Blair is the managing general partner at Biomass One in White City. Wade Mosby is senior vice president at the Collins Cos. in Portland.

Congress must maintain forest conservation

From the Statesman Journal

Written by

Clint Bentz

Along with Oregon's other 141,000 family forest owners, I am proud that my woodland property provides my community with clean air, clean water, wildlife habitat, recreational opportunities and forest products.

Most people think the federal government or big industry owns most of America's forests; but in fact, most of the nation's forests are cared for by people like me.

Family forest owners know the threat to our land is real and growing every day. Invasive plants and pests, severe weather, loss of markets and development pressures are constant challenges. They threaten the livelihoods of many who rely on good paying rural jobs in forest communities. In Oregon, $4.1 billion of the state's economy comes from forests and related industries.

Because private forests provide such important economic and conservation benefits, it's important that there be tools available to woodland owners like me to combat threats and improve our forest stewardship. These programs help us remove diseased trees, protect streamside areas or create wildlife habitat. USDA Farm Bill conservation programs provide essential tools that forest owners use to match our dollars and sweat equity to keep our forests healthy and productive.

Congress is deciding the fate of these USDA Farm Bill conservation programs right now. Some of the federal deficit reductions are likely to come from conservation programs that help family forest owners. I realize that we can't be immune to what needs to be done to get the deficit down. It's important, though, to be sure that conservation programs don't take an unfair hit at the chopping block.
Rep. Kurt Schrader and others in the Oregon delegation have long been champions for family forest owners in Congress. Mr. Schrader is uniquely positioned, given his seat on the Agriculture Committee, to continue to fight this fight. We're glad to have a strong leader positioned to help ensure that forest conservation programs do not take disproportionate cuts in the budget process.

Comprising only a small percent of total Farm Bill funds, conservation programs are a great deal for Americans because they are so effective in ensuring the clean water, clean air, wildlife habitat and good paying jobs our forests produce. Maintaining these opportunities for forest owners in the Farm Bill is essential to preserve America's forest heritage. And that benefits all of us.

Clint Bentz of Scio is a second-generation Oregon family forestland owner and the chairman of the American Forest Foundation, the nation's oldest and largest family forestland conservation organization. He can be reached at (541) 928-6500 or cbentz@bcsllc.com.

Using Oregon's forests for bioenergy production has a down side: increased carbon emissions

By Eric Mortenson, The Oregonian

View full size 

Matthew Preusch/The OregonainWood chips are piled next to a biomass burner at the D.R. Johnson Company's Prairie City power plant.

 

Oregon's blue-sky thinking on alternative energy envisions the state's forests as a terrific source of biomass. Woody debris from thinning, brush clearing and removing dead trees could generate electricity, heat manufacturing plants and be turned into biofuels.

 

Better yet, the thinking goes, such work could restore forest health and provide jobs in rural communities in addition to helping the state meet its renewable energy goals. The Oregon Forest Resources Institute calls it the "woody biomass triple win."

 

Researchers at Oregon State University rain on that notion.

 

In a four-year study OSU describes as the largest and most comprehensive to date, researchers say managing the forests for biofuel production will increase carbon dioxide emissions from the forests by at least 14 percent.

 

"Most people assume that wood bioenergy will be carbon-neutral, because the forest re-grows and there's also the chance of protecting forests from carbon emissions due to wildfire," researcher Tara Hudiburg  said in an OSU news release. But the study shows removing forest debris for bioenergy use will release more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere than current practices burning it or leaving it in place, she said.

 

The study, published in the journal Nature Climate Change, involved 80 types of forests in 19 regions of Oregon, Washington and California, ranging from wet coastal forests to semi-arid woodlands.

 

Hudiburg and OSU forestry professor Beverly Law, co-author of the report, said the implications of managing forests for energy production have not been fully considered. "If our ultimate goal is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, producing bioenergy from forests will be counterproductive," Law said in the news release.

 

Others believe the researchers examined the issue from too narrow a view.

 

Paul Barnum, executive director of the forest research institute, said Oregon's dry eastern forests have "unnaturally high levels of biomass" that can be used to generate electricity and heat.

 

"If we don't actively manage these forests, we run the risk of catastrophic wildfire" that would be disastrous to wildlife, water quality and buildings, he said in an email.

 

Norm Johnson, also a forestry professor at Oregon State, is a biomass supporter. Burning wood doesn't produce energy as efficiently as burning fossil fuels. But new tree growth will recapture the excess carbon emissions from biomass over time, he said.

 

"In the long run, it's better" than burning fossil fuels, Johnson said. "In the short run, yes, we'd probably conclude it's not as efficient."

 

At this point, Oregon burns "slash," mainly branches and tree tops, left over from logging to reduce fire risk. Using it to produce energy in place of fossil fuels is a better alternative for the environment, Johnson said.

 

The idea has bipartisan political backing in Oregon and nationally. Gov. John Kitzhaber, U.S. Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., and U.S. Rep. Greg Walden, R-Ore., are among its strong supporters.

 

Oregon treats biomass as renewable power, the same as solar and wind, when it comes to meeting green power generation requirements. Oregon and the federal government also subsidize forest biomass energy projects.

 

Kitzhaber remains committed to developing biomass energy for the wide range of benefits it provides, said Tim Raphael, the governor's communications director.

 

Rural economic development, forest health, reducing the use of fossil fuels and even international energy security are among the factors, Raphael said.

 

"That's really the filter that we've looked at it through, and I'm not sure that was the filter of the study," he said.

 

"I don't know much about producing jobs, habitat restoration or wildlife restoration -- I know a lot about carbon," Hudiburg responded in a telephone interview. "If your goal is reduce carbon emissions, then it will not help. But if you have other goals, then yes, maybe."

 

"It's never going to be a win-win situation for everything," she said.

--Eric Mortenson

Ninth Circuit decision further hamstrings Oregon's economy

By Arnie Roblan and Bruce Hanna Guest Columnists

The Oregonian reported on a decision by the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals that overturns 35 years of established Environmental Protection Agency policy for regulating forest roads under the Clean Water Act ("Oregon will appeal ruling aimed at curbing logging road pollution," July 25). This court case decision creates immediate problems for Oregon's timber economy – problems which our state simply cannot afford.

As Co-Speakers of the Oregon House, we know that Oregon has a rich history of responsible use of its natural resources, and has in place a strong regulatory system through the Oregon Forest Practices Act and various administrative rules. In Oregon, we have a very successful track record of protecting water quality and aquatic habitat. These "Best Management Practices" are updated regularly and strengthened in  response to new scientific research. We take great pride in the way private landowners and foresters are protecting our state's natural resources.

The 9th Circuit court decision would put new burdens on both the small and large owners of Oregon's 11 million acres of private forestlands. The forest products industry is a vital part of Oregon's economic survival. With unemployment lingering close to ten percent statewide, and up in to the teens in our forestry-dependent counties, the threats presented by the 9th Circuit Court's short-sighted opinion will only further depress economic recovery.

The Court's decision potentially creates legal paralysis threatening 120,000 forest related jobs (with payroll totaling $4 billion) and $130 million in state income and severance tax revenues that pay for vital public services. The new court ruling will not achieve its intended environmental benefits. The uncertainty could force some forest landowners to convert their forests to other uses, like commercial or residential developments. And perhaps most importantly, if this decision stands, Oregon's forestry industries and those employed by it will lose market share to competitors overseas or in other regions of the country who are not subject to these burdensome permit requirements and their resulting legal exposure.

We cannot imagine a worse time to implement unnecessary and bureaucratic regulations on such a critical contributor to our state's economy. Senator Ron Wyden and Congressmen Kurt Schrader and Greg Walden have stepped up for Oregon and introduced federal legislation aimed at correcting this flawed court decision. Their legislation will restore the long-standing, sensible, state oversight that has encouraged sound stewardship and provided good jobs and clean water for Oregonians.

It is our hope that Congress will pass this legislation, and that the Obama administration will work with Congress to protect much needed jobs in our state.

Arnie Roblan, D-Coos Bay, and Bruce Hanna, R-Roseburg, are co-speakers of the Oregon House of Representatives.

Are the Moon and the Stars aligned?

To date President Obama and Congress have shown a distinct inability for accomplishing anything that would help the economy and generate jobs.  However, in these bleakest of economic times, could restoring scientifically sound forest management to our publically-owned forests be a possibility over twenty years after the Northern Spotted Owl was listed as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act leading to the destruction of rural communities in Oregon, Washington and Northern California

The recent release of the NSO Recovery Plan and Critical Habitat may provide a line that allows us to move on.  In 1973, world-renowned spotted owl biologist Eric Forsman estimated that there were only 25 spotted owls in the Pacific Northwest.  After the owl was listed in 1990, estimates ranged from 10,000 pairs in Oregon, Washington and Northern California.

Now, after reducing timber harvests by over 90% from our federal forests, Northern Spotted Owl numbers are declining, not from logging, but because the larger, more aggressive Bared Owl is taking over Northern Spotted Owl habitat.

Ok, back to possible alignment of the Moon and the Stars.  Oregon Congressman Greg Walden, R-Hood River, told the membership of the Oregon Forest Industries Council that maybe, just maybe, Congress will return forest management for to produce economic activity and to restore the health of hundreds of thousands of acres of federal forests that are in a condition which makes them vulnerable to catastrophic wildfire.

Congressman Walden recently put a placeholder in a piece of legislation as he works to generate widespread support for his idea.  Since the Debt Crisis, Walden has been ready to add federal forest management language to any Congressional vehicle that is moving.

Would President Obama also support restoring forest management activities knowing that timber sales return millions to the federal treasury and to ailing rural counties.  Not to mention the 18 jobs every 1 Million Board Feet harvested generate for loggers, mill workers, grocery clerks and schoolteachers.

Many have tried in the past, but failed.  In fact, a former Congressman said the timber issue was the “worst issue” he had to deal with.  While Congress has to deal with abortion, stem-cell research and world peace, how could this be?  Well those critical matters are either black or white, for or against.  The forest/timber wars are grey, elected officials can’t be for or against; they have to carve out a position somewhere in the middle.

Here’s hoping the economy, celestial alignment, or the President’s desire for reelection will lead to putting forest management back into our federal forests.

EPA signs off on new Oregon water quality rules -- strictest in the nation

Published: Tuesday, October 18, 2011, 1:23 PM     Updated: Tuesday, October 18, 2011, 1:38 PM

By Scott Learn, The Oregonian

View full sizeJamie Francis, The OregonianThe Environmental Protection Agency has added the Columbia River to its list of priority great water bodies, in large part because of toxic pollution. Pollutants of concern include mercury, the now-banned pesticide DDT and fire retardants released to the river from sewage treatment plants.

The Environmental Protection Agency has approved Oregon's new standards for toxic water pollution, the strictest in the United States.

The new standards, approved Monday by the EPA's Seattle office, are designed to protect tribal members and others who eat large amounts of contaminated fish.

Oregon's current water quality standards are built on an assumption that people eat 17.5 grams of fish a day, about a cracker's worth and typical of most states. The proposed standard boosts that to 175 grams a day, just shy of an 8-ounce meal.

The change dramatically tightens Oregon's human health criteria for a host of pollutants, including mercury, flame retardants, PCBs, dioxins, plasticizers and pesticides.

That could boost cost for industry such as paper mills and for municipal sewage treatment plants, increasing sewer rates.

It could also lower the health risks for those who eat a lot of local fish -- an estimated 100,000 Oregonians, including 20,000 children, according to a committee set up to consider the health effects of the new standard.

The Department of Environmental Quality, which will implement the new standards, has said waivers will be available for industry and treatment plants that can't meet them right away.

EPA endorsed DEQ's approach on variances, but said it will review each variance request. Polluters getting variances will also have to submit a pollution reduction plan.

DEQ has assured farmers and foresters -- and concerned legislators -- that it will continue to allow the departments of agriculture and forestry to take the lead on enforcement of water quality violations for polluted runoff from farms and forests.

The concessions worry environmental groups, who say the new rules could end up being a paper exercise.

But EPA declined to weigh in on regulation of farm and forest pollution, saying it's a state matter.

The agency also said it understands reaching the tough new standards won't happen overnight.

"The EPA understands that the implementation of these standards is on a long-term path," wrote Michael Bussell, director of the EPA's Office of Water and Watersheds in Seattle.

Processing variance requests and addressing other issues arising from the more stringent standards is "a high priority," Bussell said.

The standards take effect immediately, DEQ said, but will only be applied as water pollution permits come up for renewal.

-- Scott Learn

Spotted owl advocates pipe up over Whistling Ridge wind farm proposal

From Bill Dryden <billdryden.fra@gmail.com>:

Oct 06, 2011 (The Columbian - McClatchy-Tribune Information Services via COMTEX) -- 

Five conservation groups have asked the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to formally reconsider its finding that a proposed wind project in Skamania County would not harm the northern spotted owl. In a letter to the agency sent Wednesday, the groups cite a biologist's report that nine owl sightings near the proposed wind turbine sites were documented in surveys last year.

Washington's Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council is scheduled to announce its recommendation on the controversial wind project at a special meeting in Stevenson on Thursday. The meeting is scheduled for 2 to 6 p.m. at the Hegewald Center. The agency has not released a final environmental impact statement, and no testimony will be taken.

Gov. Chris Gregoire will have the final say on whether the wind project goes forward. She has 60 days to announce her decision.

The Whistling Ridge project, first proposed by SDS Lumber Co. of Bingen in 2008, would erect as many as 50 turbines on 1,152 acres of industrial forestland owned by the company in Skamania County, just outside the north boundary of the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area, about seven miles northwest of White Salmon. The southernmost turbines would be located just north of the scenic area boundary.

The project would generate 75 megawatts of electricity.

SDS President Jason Spadaro initially hoped to expand the wind farm to the north by leasing 2,560 acres of adjacent state forest trust land. But in August 2009, the Department of Natural Resources announced it was no longer considering leasing the land because it was required to manage the stands of mixed old growth and second-growth forest as a "spotted owl emphasis area," with restrictions on logging.

In July 2010, Ken Berg, director of the service's Western Washington office, concurred with the Bonneville Power Administration's conclusion that the project "is not likely to affect" the owl. In order for the project to go forward, SDS Lumber must also win agreement from the BPA that it will connect energy produced by the wind turbines to its electrical grid.

Because the BPA is a federal agency, it is required to consult with the Fish and Wildlife Service before taking any action that might harm a threatened or endangered species.

Wednesday's letter was signed by Seattle Audubon, Friends of the Columbia Gorge, Conservation Northwest, the American Bird Conservancy and the Gifford Pinchot Task Force. It said the Fish and Wildlife Service made "multiple factual errors" in its earlier finding.

Among them: The agency implied that the owl documented in 2010 in the vicinity of the project was detected only three times. In fact, conservationists say, the owl, likely the same male adult, was documented at nine distinct locations, indicating that it was actively moving around the site of the proposed wind farm and might attempt to fly through it.

The agency also misstated how close the owl flew to the proposed site of the northernmost turbines and erroneously concluded that the area does not contain suitable spotted owl habitat, conservationists said. In fact, they said, the site contains a patchwork of stands, including some more than 80 years old, that can support foraging owls. They noted that the DNR itself stated in formal comments that "this project may interfere with a spotted owl's ability to disperse" from two designated owl circles on state land.

A revised recovery plan for the owl, issued by the Fish and Wildlife Service in June, recommends that in the face of its continued decline, state and private lands must play a larger role in its recovery.
Fish and Wildlife officials said Thursday afternoon they had not yet seen the letter and could not respond.

Kathie Durbin: 360-735-4523; Twitter: col_politics; kathie.durbin@columbian.com.
.

___ (c)2011 The Columbian (Vancouver, Wash.) Visit The Columbian (Vancouver,
Wash.) at www.columbian.com Distributed by MCT Information Services

Kathie Durbin
Copyright (C) 2011, The Columbian, Vancouver, Wash.

New Elliott State Forest management plan will significantly increase logging, clear-cutting and revenue

Published: Tuesday, October 11, 2011, 9:04 PM     Updated: Tuesday, October 11, 2011, 9:04 PM

By Eric Mortenson, The Oregonian

Enlarge Motoya Nakamura, The Oregonian SALEM, OREGON -- October 11, 2011 --People protest against the Oregon Land Board's approval of increased logging for Elliott State Forest in front of the Department of State Lands building in Salem, OR. On the left is Tre Arrow, singing and playing the guitar. Motoya Nakamura/ The Oregonian Protesters at Elliot State Forest management vote hiss and chant gallery (5 photos)

• 
• 
• 
• 

SALEM -- With hisses and jeers from protesters providing the background, the Oregon Land Board on Tuesday unanimously approved a management plan for the Elliott State Forest that significantly increases logging, clear-cutting and revenue flowing to the Common School Fund.

The land board members -- Gov. John Kitzhaber, Secretary of State Kate Brown and Treasurer Ted Wheeler -- acknowledged the plan isn't popular with environmentalists, who believe management of the Elliott is deeply flawed. Board members said they want to review the plan annually.

"This is not a black and white issue," Kitzhaber said. The land board is constitutionally mandated to manage the Elliott to produce the greatest amount of revenue for the school fund, he and others noted, and less than one percent of the 93,000 acre forest will be logged in a given year.

The Elliott, in the Coast Range near Coos Bay, is a tiny slice of the 30 million acres of public and private timberland in Oregon, but has become the focal point for the heated arguments over how we use our natural resources. Protesters perched in trees and blocked roads last summer in an attempt to halt a timber sale.

About 50 people chanted and sang outside the Department of State Lands building Tuesday as board members discussed the management plan with staff from the Oregon Department of Forestry. Protesters filed into the meeting room as the board approved the plan, standing at the back holding signs such as "CLEARCUTTING FOR SCHOOLS IS BAD BUSINESS." Some said "Sell out, sell out," and "liar," before chanting "Kitzhaber lies, forests die." Oregon State Police troopers ushered shouters from the room without incident.

Afterward, Wheeler defended the board's action with protesters outside the building. "We'll see you in the forest," they chanted as he left.

Under the plan, the Elliott's annual timber harvest will increase to 40 million board feet, compared to 25 million board feet under a plan implemented in 1995. The new plan increases the targeted annual harvest to 1,100 acres with up to 850 acres for clear-cutting; up from 1,000 acres, half for clear-cutting.

Oregon Land Board unanimously approves a new management for the Elliott State Forest as protesters yell during vote The Oregon Land Board unanimously approved a  new management for the Elliott State Forest at its meeting in Salem this morning. Protesters hissed during the vote and yelled out: "Sellout, sellout" and " liar." Watch video

The new plan will produce annual net revenue of up to $13 million, compared to up to $8 million currently.

The plan requires foresters to survey for northern spotted owls and marbled murrelets on proposed timber sales. Surveys replace long-term habitat conservation plans. State foresters estimate the plan will make 28,000 acres of timber off limits for logging, compared to 22,370 acres now reserved for owls, murrelets and riparian management areas.

Josh Laughlin, campaign director for the Eugene-based Cascadia Wildlands, said the Elliott represents the "worst of the worst" in forest management. The state's work harms threatened wildlife such as northern spotted owls, marbled murrelets and coho salmon, he said, and damages watersheds.

He and other environmentalists believe the Elliott can be managed in a way that produces money for schools while avoiding clear-cuts. Thinning younger trees and aggressively seeking markets for the Elliott's ability to store carbon dioxide provide a "new way forward," he said.

To date in 2011, loggers have cut 28 million board feet of timber in the Elliott, 29 percent more than 2010. Its produced $8.1 million for the school fund, about $1 million more than 2010.

The approval by the land board, which owns 91 percent of the Elliott, concludes its action on the management plan. The state Board of Forestry, which owns the remaining 9 percent, votes on the plan Nov. 3.

-- Eric Mortenson

Ending federal timber payments to Oregon: Rural economic collapse will harm metro area, too

The Oregonian

By Dennis Richardson
If you aren't hungry or worried about your next meal as you read this, be grateful. One of every five Oregonians is now receiving food stamps.

If you aren't checking Craigslist for a job or sending out résumés, be thankful. Almost 10 percent of Oregon's workforce is in the unemployment line.

Somber statistics, but the deepest devastation lies in Oregon's rural counties. And it's about to get worse, much worse. U.S. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack predicted during his recent visit to Oregon that the federal program that provided as much as $253 million a year in payments to rural Oregon counties, the Secure Rural Schools Act, will not survive the Congressional supercommittee's work to cut $1.5 trillion from the federal budget deficit.

If you live in an urban area and you still have a job and a home, maybe you don't care that this will likely bankrupt at least two Oregon counties. Maybe you don't have time to worry about rural unemployment rates that have hovered near 20 percent for almost two decades.

But if you do care, then before you leave for work or go out for lunch, take a close-up look at poverty in our state; take a moment to google Coos County or Curry County, or for that matter just view the sweeping satellite image of our state – nearly half of which is blanketed with deep green forests -- Oregon's richest natural resource.

And yet these are Oregon's poorest areas, where methamphetamine destroys already broken lives, where hopelessness evicts the young and ambitious, where urban idealism has outspent and outlawed rural initiative. Where generations of hard-working timber families once labored and thrived, depression now is a way of life.

Imagine if you lived in the midst of the natural resources necessary to save yourself and your family, and were ordered to abandon your tools, your dreams, and your community.

Rural Oregonians acted in good faith and believed in their elected leaders when they helped negotiate President Clinton's 1994 Northwest Forest Plan, but since then teams of environmental lawyers have blocked the timber sales, closed the mills, and thwarted alternative recreation plans, leaving rural Oregon underemployed and dependent on government hand-outs.

How could the urban elected officials who set the agenda for our federal forests turn away from our most plentiful renewable resource? How could they ignore our comparative advantage over other states? Who is responsible for Oregon's rural poverty, high unemployment rate and declining income? How did this happen?

During the 1980s and '90s timber revenues from federal forests in rural Oregon counties plummeted. Well-funded eco-elites shut down Oregon's timber harvests by obtaining federal court rulings over the endangered species listing of the spotted owl. More than 100 mills closed. Thousands of family-wage jobs were eliminated, drying up incomes and businesses in small mill towns across our state. Annual timber harvests now hover at around 10 percent of levels associated with a more thriving Oregon. Rather than correcting the misuse of the Endangered Species Act, Congress approved the Secure Rural Schools Act. Instead of continuing to fund county services from timber harvest revenues, rural counties were paid hundreds of millions of dollars in federal welfare payments.

The counties were ordered to develop alternative economic plans. Having achieved their goals of making Oregon's rich forests of renewable timber legally off-limits and unavailable to be managed or harvested, Portland's urban eco-elites promptly turned their backs and abandoned the counties to fend for themselves with meager resources.

For the past decade, politicians and the environmentalists have allowed rural Oregon counties to deteriorate and become ever more dependent on government handouts. Now, in the face of massive federal deficits, nobody wants to defend any longer what are essentially welfare payments to counties in 40 states.

Portland and Oregon's other major cities should wake up. The last federal timber welfare payment checks are being issued, and they will mark the end of the primary source of revenue to some of Oregon's rural counties. There will be consequences felt in Portland, Salem and Eugene from the bankruptcy of Oregon rural counties. As the urban eco-elites watch placidly from the sidelines, they should realize this rural economic meltdown will financially affect their schools, their county services, and their tax rates. State government is already being asked to intervene. What will be the cost and how should we respond?

The solution is clear. Ignoring Oregon's vast timber resources is a failed policy and must be reversed. Democratic leaders now must "man-up" and face their coalition of environmental supporters and say, "No more lawsuits. Our neighbors are suffering; our rural communities are collapsing; our rural counties must be saved. We must moderate our forest policy."

Action is needed now. Words are not enough. The federal government controls 53 percent of Oregon land, and rural counties depended on effective and productive management of those resources. They have been abandoned and betrayed.

The truth stares rural folks in the face day and night. There are no alternatives. There is no replacement economy. There is only the forest -- one of the richest, greenest, fastest-growing forests in the world.

There is only one solution -- it's vast, green and sustainable. The particulars of a new Oregon timber policy must be hammered out in Salem and in Washington, D.C. Management and control of Oregon's federal forests should be placed with the counties in which they are located. And, safeguards must be included that will stop the use of our federal courts as an eco-elitist weapon against responsible timber harvesting.

The time has come to reopen Oregon's forests in a responsible manner. The time has come to reclaim our bounty, our birthright, and rebuild Oregon's natural resource-based economy. The economic future of both rural and urban Oregon depends upon it.

Dennis Richardson is co-chair of the Oregon House Ways & Means Committee, and co-chair of the Oregon Transformation Project. In his Oregon House District he represents two Southern Oregon counties that would be affected by the cessation of federal timber payments.

GUEST COLUMN: Are we poor enough now?

Roseburg News Review

 

By ALAN BAUMANN

Baumann

Back in the 1990s a German forester asked me a deep question about our late-successional reserve federal forest land allocation and the lack of management there. He said “You must be a really rich nation to be able to afford such a management plan.”

When I asked him what he meant, he relayed a short story about German forests and plans that were dropped after World War II, since Germany lost the war and had to make reparations to all the other European countries while itself was starving. Germany decided to drop their partial harvest and long-term plans and was basically forced to clear-cut in order to make the reparation payments and purchase potatoes to avoid starvation. He asked me whether the United States would ever be poor enough to change forest management direction.

Considering the current state of affairs in Douglas County and beyond in our nation, maybe we have reached this point after many years of timber slowdown and shutdown. Our schools are hurting and teachers have been laid off; our road managers do not have funds for needed repairs; the library is working hard to stay open and provide services to the main branch and the other 10 municipal branches; we have had to have special elections to adopt a service district to retain our county Oregon State University Extension program; our unique “free” garbage disposal system is cutting hours; the fairgrounds need assistance; unemployment is up; emigration from Douglas county by our youth is accelerating due to the lack of opportunities to stay here; numerous small and large businesses have closed in Roseburg and throughout our rural communities; and forest fires are more active than ever when they start burning due to the annual in-growth in all age classes across the Umpqua National Forest.

Not managing forests in Douglas County and in our national forests is similar to deciding to not harvest corn in Iowa, soybeans in Illinois or providing commercial fishing off of our coastlines. It is similar also to stopping production from our oil fields or fruit and vegetable production from our orchards in Florida and farms in California. In reality, we have chosen to be poorer than we need to be.

We are wasteful, as well as hypocritical, as we now import timber from Canada and beyond to supply our local mills with products. The NIMBY approach (not in my back yard) has affected all communities, businesses, retirees and students in Douglas County. We know we can do better in providing a sustainable and resilient healthy forest and local rural communities.

It seems to this retired federal forester that perhaps the tide may be turning. Certainly reading that Mr. Rasmussen, as the new director of Umpqua Watersheds, is willing to work with industry on management projects can be a pivotal and huge deal. We simply cannot afford the same litigations and stalemates that the last 30+ years have left us. We also know how the characterizations of each other have led to major distrust, which has crippled our abilities to think and act big.

We need bold, far thinking, long-term and watershed-scale management plans for our Umpqua National Forest and we can all have a seat at the planning table together, if we choose to participate. Will we help create local job opportunities? When does the under-performing and dismal state of our county outweigh our individual, organizational and group mistrust and “hurt feelings?” Trust is a gift. Are we as individuals and organizations big enough to trust again? I don't believe that we will truly restore and sustain the various communities of the Umpqua National Forest (human and natural), our forests nor our waters until we heal ourselves first.

Our current social dilemma trumps our resource problems. Washington, D.C., the U.S. Forest Service, our Congressional representatives, and the state of Oregon are all waiting for someone, somewhere to provide the courage and leadership out of this rut. Is our community ready to lead by rejecting our old reasons for conflict? If we really reconciled our differences and pledged to work together to solve our social problems, we would find support and aid from all these entities to help resolve our resource needs.

While not advocating the WWII German solution of simply increasing clear-cutting, we do have the tools and the expertise to manage our lands and protect our resources. We need to again relearn to trust our professional foresters and specialists to provide a balanced plan for our Umpqua National Forest lands that ensures greater resiliency to fire effects and ecological sustainability. We can all have a valuable role in supporting sound management and helping to modify selected treatments where needed.

Are we poor enough yet? Seems an odd question, but I hope so; and maybe our children do too, before another 30 years pass by with lost opportunities.

Alan Baumann of Idleyld Park retired as a forester with the U.S. Forest Service after 31 years. He has worked as a forest consultant and has been involved with the Alder Creek Community Forest, the Douglas County School Forestry Tour, the Glide Nature Trail and Project Learning Tree for many years and currently volunteers at the Wolf Creek Job Corps in its forestry program. He can be reached at alan_baumann@yahoo.com.

Oregon congressional delegation pushes plan to bring millions to prop up county services

By Charles Pope, The Oregonian

 

Matthew Preusch/The OregonianIn 2008, Jackson County closed all its libraries when federal payments to timber-dependent counties stopped. The payments were renewed and services resumed, but now county payments have ended again.

 

WASHINGTON – With rural counties in Oregon on the brink of financial crisis and even bankruptcy, Sen. Ron Wyden announced a deal Wednesday that could extend a federal program that pours millions of dollars into communities to underwrite law enforcement, schools and libraries.

The deal, supported by all six members of Oregon's congressional delegation, would extend the life of the county timber payments program for five years, bringing Oregon as much as $400 million in gradually decreasing installments. That would give the counties, Gov. John Kitzhaber and others time to find a more permanent solution to financing schools and other crucial services.

"This is really good news," said Kitzhaber, who is in Washington this week. Rural counties in Oregon "are teetering on the edge."

The federal program was created in 2000 to reimburse local communities for lost income from the sale of timber on federal lands. Counties get 25 percent of the revenue from federal timber sales, but when logging plummeted, so did revenue.

More than 700 counties in 41 states have received payments. But western states are the biggest recipients and Oregon, where more than 50 percent of the land is owned by the federal government, has been at the top. The program ended in 2008, but was temporarily renewed. It ended again Sept. 30.

Thirty-three of Oregon's 36 counties get payments, but rural communities are the most dependent. In most of those counties, the federal government owns the majority of the land, pinching the property tax base and limiting local officials' ability to develop their local economies.

Without the money, counties face closed libraries, shorter school years, cuts in sheriff's patrols, and in extreme cases, bankruptcy. If the counties fail, the state would be forced to help, sending a financial ripple through services statewide.

Eric Schmidt, spokesman for the Associated Oregon Counties, said an extension simply means a continuation of the cuts to federal spending that already have put deep strains on county services. "While we certainly appreciate what Sen. Wyden and the rest of Oregon's congressional delegation have done, we're certainly hopeful that ... they will be able to work with their colleagues to improve the funding."

Douglas County Commissioner Doug Robertson said his timber-dependent community needs all the help it can get.

"Even though the amount is disappointing and the ramp down over five years is disappointing, it keeps the issue in front of Congress, and that's very important," he said.

In a joint statement issued by Wyden, Kitzhaber, Sen. Jeff Merkley, Democratic Reps. Earl Blumenauer, Kurt Schrader, Peter DeFazio and Republican Rep. Greg Walden, the lawmakers said the deal could provide the momentum needed to push the payments into law.

Under the plan, Sen. Jeff Bingaman, a New Mexico Democrat, will introduce a bill for the program next week. Bingaman chairs the Senate Energy Committee, and is a crucial gatekeeper in making sure the bill gets to the Senate floor.

Wyden said Bingaman's support clears most – but not all – hurdles in the Senate. The goal, supporters say, is for the Senate to approve the legislation with a solid majority so it can be added in the House to a giant spending bill that will keep the government operating for the rest of the fiscal year, which expires Sept. 30, 2012.

"If it passes the Senate with a substantial majority, that puts us in a good position" to be part of a larger funding bill, DeFazio said in an interview.

"I don't believe there's any way to bring the bill up separately in the House under Republican rules. You can't pay for it by closing tax loopholes; you can't pay for it by raising revenue. All you can do is cut something else. So what are we going to do? Eliminate the Forest Service?"

Walden, the delegation's lone Republican, said he's committed to pushing a bill forward in order to buy time.

"For the long term, we have to get back to using our own resources to generate the jobs and revenue," he said in an interview. "Frankly, that's what the counties want, what the schools in these communities want; it's the best alternative."

To get there, the counties must have "bridge funding," he said. "The situation has only grown more desperate in the rural communities."

The most promising idea is to put certain federal lands in trust status. Some would be used to raise revenue that would go to local communities while other lands would be more highly protected as wilderness.

Both DeFazio and Walden are working on plans.

Harry Esteve of The Oregonian staff contributed to this story.

-- Charles Pope

Federal wildlife service will decide if 26 Pacific Northwest snails and slugs deserve endangered species designation

The Oregonian

Published: Tuesday, October 04, 2011, 8:58 PM     Updated: Wednesday, October 05, 2011, 5:49 AM

By Eric Mortenson, The Oregonian

View full size 

William P. LeonardThe Chelan mountain snail of Washington is among 26 slug and snail species considered for endangered species designation.

 

Northern spotted owl, we get it. Marbled murrelet, OK. But Masked duskysnail and Cinnamon juga?

They are among 26 rare slugs and snails will be studied for possible protection under the federal Endangered Species Act, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service announced Tuesday.

The decision, involving mollusks in Oregon, Washington and Northern California, does not guarantee listing under the act. Instead, it touches off a detailed biological review.

Unlike the 1990 listing of the Northern spotted owl, which led to logging restrictions, listing the mollusks as threatened or endangered won’t drastically change forest practices, said Tierra Curry, a conservation biologist with the Center for Biological Diversity. On federal forests, officials already must survey timber sales for slugs and snails and manage the sale accordingly, she said. “If they do get listed, it won’t keep projects from going forward.”

Jim Geisinger, executive vice president of Associated Oregon Loggers, said the cost of complying with restrictions that might follow a slug and snail listing could be astronomical. Issues include whether restrictions are extended to private timberland and whether the mollusks require “two-square yards or two-square miles” of protected habitat, he said.

“The potential is certainly there,” he said. “The devil is always in the details.”

The mollusks being studied include the Basalt juga, a river snail with three yellow bands on a white shell that lives in cold springs of the Columbia River Gorge, and the white-shelled Nerite pebblesnail, which lives in the Klamath River drainage in Jackson County. Others include the Masked duskysnail of the Wenatchee National Forest, the yellow-shelled Canary duskysnail of Northern California and the dark reddish-brown Cinnamon juga of the upper Sacramento River drainage.

All are susceptible to harm from logging, mining, grazing, pesticide and fertilizer use and water diversion, Curry said.

The creatures may not look appealing, but they are important to the forests and streams of the Pacific Northwest, Curry said. "They're part of the food web, they're important for nutrient cycling, they eat decaying matter and they're unique to the Pacific Northwest -- they're not found anywhere else," she said.

Officials with Portland's American Forest Resource Council, which often represents the timber industry's view on endangered species issues, were not immediately available for comment Tuesday.

The Center for Biological Diversity and other conservation groups reached an agreement with the Fish and Wildlife Service earlier this year to expedite decisions on 757 species, including the slugs and snails.

However, the process of listing creatures as threatened or endangered moves about as fast as the objects of the study. If wildlife officials decide listing is warranted, they will then solicit independent scientific review and ask for public input. It takes about a year to move from proposing a species for federal protection to arriving at a final decision, according to a Fish and Wildlife news release.

Among other options, the wildlife service could decide listing the snails and slugs is warranted, but defers work because other animals are at greater risk.

Also Tuesday, the Fish and Wildlife Service announced the northern leopard frog, found in 19 western states, will not be listed as threatened or endangered.

The service also reduced by nearly 190,000 acres the amount of forest designated as "critical habitat" for the marbled murrelet, a threatened seabird that nests in older forests along the Pacific Coast.

The removed areas are not essential to the conservation of the species and do not meet the definition of critical habitat for marbled murrelet, the wildlife service said in a news release. About 3.8 million acres in northern California and southern Oregon retains a critical habitat designation, however.

Designation as critical habitat doesn't establish a refuge or affect land ownership, the wildlife service said.

--Eric Mortenson

Federal programs: Steadfast support for Oregon's rural communities

U.S. Secretary of Agriculture responds to critical Oregonian Editorial

By Tom Vilsack

Published: Wednesday, October 05, 2011, 4:30 AM

A recent editorial in The Oregonian described my vision of the future of Oregon's rural forested communities to be bleak. It also indicated that I did not fully understand or appreciate the importance of renewing the Secure Rural Schools Act. The reporting in this editorial could not be further from my actual feelings: I have high hopes for Oregon's rural counties. And I provided support for those communities by calling for the Secure Rural Schools Act to be fully funded in the president's 2012 budget.

The argument for supporting rural communities surrounded by public forests has never changed in my mind, nor do I expect it to, even in these difficult economic times. The federal payments provided to local counties through the Secure Rural Schools Act have played an important role in supporting public schools and maintaining roads. They have helped provide key public safety services as well as libraries. The kind of support this program provides is critical.

But as Congress continues to look for ways to make spending cuts, it is only realistic to recognize that critical funding for the nation's rural communities -- in Oregon and elsewhere -- will be at risk. As I often remind audiences and lawmakers, in these difficult fiscal times, we must remember we cannot only cut our way out of a deficit, we must also grow our way out. To do that we have to be smarter and more determined than ever before to look for creative ways to generate economic growth and job creation.

Since 2009, the Obama administration and the U.S. Department of Agriculture have focused on new approaches to improve economic opportunity in rural America. And today, we will continue to work with Congress to ensure that the needs of Oregon's rural communities will still be met. Yes, the timber industry has been ailing, but we have taken steps to reinvigorate it and are seeing returns on our investments. In the past two years we have not only stopped the decades-long decline in the Forest Service timber sale program, but have reversed it, actually increasing the amount of timber being sold in Oregon and nationwide. Further, we are pursuing a number of initiatives, including stewardship contracting and landscape-scale forest restoration, that will allow the Forest Service to continue to increase timber production in coming years.

We have also invested millions of dollars to partner state, local and private organizations to improve landscapes while creating jobs in rural America. Already this investment has created and maintained more than 1,550 jobs and generated nearly $59 million in labor income in nine states across the country. In Oregon, the Deschutes Skyline Project has received $1.2 million to restore forest ecosystems and create jobs for the local community.

Despite the cynicism apparent in The Oregonian's editorial, the draft Forest Service planning rule is not the same old Washington, D.C., song and dance. USDA and this administration have repeatedly made it clear that we recognize the reliance of rural communities on sharing receipts from Forest Service land, while also recognizing the need to manage those lands more effectively to stimulate local economies. That's why when developing the proposed planning rule, we relied heavily on the input of the communities that will be impacted to ensure we are working together to create economic opportunities for rural areas in addition to allowing land management projects that improve the health of forests and public safety.

So, while The Oregonian called my outlook bleak, I see it more as cautiously optimistic. Every American knows he can rely on the resiliency and collaborative spirit of rural communities. Healthy, thriving forests and healthy, thriving communities go hand in hand. That's why it's incumbent on all of us to work together to find traditional and nontraditional ways to ensure that rural America remains strong.

Tom Vilsack is U.S. secretary of agriculture.

Oregon leaders go to bat for counties

Portland Business Journal
Date: Wednesday, October 5, 2011, 2:26pm PDT

 

Andy Giegerich 

Business Journal Staff Writer - Portland Business Journal

Oregon’s federal representatives have united in support of continuing so-called “county payments” to Oregon’s rural governments.

Republican Rep. Greg Walden joined Democratic House members Rep. Earl Blumenauer, Rep. Peter DeFazio and Rep. Kurt Schrader — along with U.S. senators Jeff Merkley and Ron Wyden — in saying the payments are “essential to ensuring a lifeline for Oregon’s rural communities.”

The payments subsidize counties in the West that can’t collect timber harvest taxes when work is performed on public lands.

The Oregon delegation is backing what it touts as "bipartisan legislation" to extend the program for five years.

Oregon counties are set to receive $201 million from the program this year. Without it, such counties as Douglas and Jackson could need to cut essential services, such as public safety and health care.

“In the current budget environment, renewing even essential programs is an uphill battle,” the officials said in a joint statement. “But without the financial certainty offered by the county payments program, there is no future for Oregon’s rural counties.”

Walden originally co-authored the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self Determination Act of 2000, which launched the program.

The program is set to expire next year.
agiegerich@bizjournals.com | 503-219-3419 | @AndyGiegerich

Andy Giegerich covers government, law, health care and sports business.

Southern Oregon's 'red zone' dodged a major wildfire, as a plague of pine bark beetles primes the forest for wildfire and leaves control difficult

Published: Sunday, October 02, 2011, 12:00 PM

By Eric Mortenson, The Oregonian

View full sizeThomas Boyd/The OregonianA wildfire southeast of Sisters burned August. The "red zone" in the Klamath and Lake counties avoided any catastrophic fire this year, but with the forest hit by an infestation of pine bark beetles, residents are worried that could change quickly, with a new climate report says the risk of wildfire may be greater next year and with many beetle destroyed trees for fuel.

As cooler, wetter weather takes hold across Oregon, relieved foresters say the state once again sidestepped a catastrophic fire in what's called the "red zone" - a 300,000-acre section of the Fremont-Winema National Forest in Klamath and Lake counties.

 

A pine bark beetle infestation has decimated vast stands of lodgepole pine there, providing plenty of explosive fuel. Foresters and firefighters held their breath when lightning storms swept through in August, sparking numerous fires but sparing the Fremont-Winema.

 

Although a decade or more in the making, the beetle infestation and resulting damage is getting a fresh look. The Oregon Board of Forestry toured the red zone Sept. 8, and industry groups have asked the board and Gov. John Kitzhaber to intervene with federal agencies. Private timber owners have twin worries: The beetle outbreak has damaged their trees, and they believe a monstrous fire in the federal forest will consume their land as well.

 

Environmental groups and some forestry professionals view the beetle damage, while severe, as a natural, cyclical occurrence. Forests across the West are struggling with the beetle plague.

 

"Bugs in lodgepole, that's kind of what they do," said Sean Stevens, spokesman for Oregon Wild. "The public looks at it and gasps, but in 50 years there will be a new lodgepole forest growing up in its place."

 

The U.S. Forest Service is clearing "safety corridors" along roads and has long-range plans to strategically reduce the fuel load of dead trees in the Fremont-Winema, Deputy Forest Supervisor Rick Newton said.

 

"Certainly we're very concerned," he said. "It's hard to watch a beetle epidemic such as this one move across an area."

 

Lodgepole pine grows fast and thick, and has less commercial value for wood products than Ponderosa pine. It's more susceptible to insect damage, Newton said. Damaged trees can be used to make wood chips, in bio-mass operations or for firewood.

 

Many in the timber industry believe the red zone is an indictment of a federal forest policy that is hobbled by legal gridlock. The infestation could have been stopped years ago, they argue, and timber now useless could have been salvaged.

 

"That situation down there is just a tinderbox waiting to explode," said Jim Geisinger, executive vice president of Associated Oregon Loggers. The Forest Service has to move more quickly, he said.

 

"They can't spend years and years preparing (environmental study) documents to acknowledge what's obvious to anybody who knows about the forest and natural processes."

 

Rex Storm, a forester with the logging association, said the red zone could have been harvested and reforested years ago. "They waited too long," he said. "This is just a symptom of a larger disease, and the disease is broken federal policy."

 

Bob Zybach, a former reforestation contractor turned wildfire expert, said the Forest Service should be removing dead wood from the forest on a "massive scale" of 10,000 to 40,000 acres a year rather than a patchwork of projects.

 

"This passive management is unprecedented, and it's led to highly predictable bug outbreaks and catastrophic wildfires," he said.

 

Collins Companies of Lakeview, which owns timber 25 miles outside the acknowledged red zone, found beetle damage in its forest, said Paul Harlan, vice president of resources. Lodgepole pine makes up 10 percent of the tree species on Collins' land, and beetles damaged 80 percent of them, he said.

 

The company spent three years cutting and removing lodgepole, Harlan said. "We went right after it," he said.

 

Federal forest managers can't move that quickly, he said, and two-thirds of the dead or dying pines in the red zone are "just sitting there" as a result. The Forest Service has limited resources, Harlan said, and he supports its decision to create safety corridors and clear dead trees in selected areas. Reducing the fuel load "mosaic" could interrupt a fire's spread, he said.

 

Stevens, of Oregon Wild, said the Forest Service's limited funding makes it important to correctly prioritize work in the Fremont-Winema. Thinning projects provide jobs and help restore the forest's health, but in beetle-killed areas it makes more sense to "let nature do its thing."

 

Newton, the deputy forest supervisor, said the Forest Service is clearing lodgepole pine within 150 feet on either side of selected road segments. The work will clear up to 7,500 acres of safety corridors, assure trees won't fall across roads and create access and staging areas for firefighting crews, he said.

 

The Fremont-Winema also is implementing the "Deuce Project" to help private landowners create defensible spaces on forests adjacent to the red zone, Newton said.

 

The prospect of an explosive red zone fire actually decreased in recent years, he said. Dry needles in the dead trees provided a fuel path for fire to spread quickly up to the crown, and from there to surrounding trees. The dead pines have since dropped their needles, Newton said.

 

"From that standpoint, we dodged one of the bullets," he said.

 

But as the trees topple and break, they provide fuel for what could be a hotter ground fire that would be harder to fight and more damaging to the soil, Newton said.

 

"We're in this for the long run," he said.

 

-- Eric Mortenson