'Privatizing' Elliott State Forest a consequence of environmental law, litigation

'Privatizing' Elliott State Forest a consequence of environmental law, litigation: Editorial

comments

'Privatizing' Elliott State Forest a consequence of environmental law, litigation: Editorial

Protesters from Earth First! and Cascadia Rising Tide wait for transport the Douglas County Jail in Roseburg after they were arrested in 2009 for blocking access to an 80-acre parcel in Elliott State Forest. (The Oregonian/Thomas Boyd)

Print

By The Oregonian Editorial Board 
Email the author | Follow on Twitter
on May 15, 2014 at 11:00 AM, updated May 15, 2014 at 11:01 AM

The Elliott State Forest, covering about 90,000 acres in the Coast Range near Coos Bay, provides a large and dependable stream of cash for the Common School Fund, which in turn sends millions of dollars to the state's public schools every year. Well, that's the theory, anyway. In reality, timber harvests have been constrained so severely by environmental litigation and Endangered Species Act restrictions that the Elliott cost the Common School Fund about $3 million in 2013.

That's bad news for schoolchildren, sure. But at least it's good news for the marbled murrelet and the environmentalists who've sued to protect the threatened seabird, right? Only if their definition of good news includes the sale of large chunks of the forest.  Two timber companies bid successfully last month for about 1,400 acres of the Elliott.

A handful of environmental groups, including Cascadia Wildlands and the Audubon Society of Portland, sued to stop one of the sales, which would transfer 788 acres to the Seneca Jones Timber Co. But last Friday, a Lane County judge denied a request for a preliminary injunction. The sale isn't a done deal yet, says Seneca co-owner Kathy Jones, but if it goes forward the company will manage the former Elliott acreage for harvest, just as it manages the 165,000 acres of forestland it already owns.

Meanwhile, additional pieces of the Elliott are likely to be sold later this year, says Department of State Lands spokeswoman Julie Curtis, continuing what environmentalists like to call the "privatization" of state forestland.

In retrospect, this outcome shouldn't surprise anyone. The primary purpose of the "Common School" land within the Elliot is revenue generation. Reduce the land's money-making capacity severely enough, and unloading acreage begins to make a lot of sense. That's true even though the land may sell for a relative pittance thanks to the presence or likely presence of murrelets. Last month's winning bids for three parcels covering about 1,450 acres amount to only $4.3 million, but the cash could be enough to delay further losses to the Common School Fund.

"That's something that's not sustainable," says Curtis of the red ink, noting that theState Land Board "is concerned about it because they're the trustees" of the Common School Fund. Those who consider selling off state land an extreme response should consider the composition of the State Land Board, which made the call. Gov. John Kitzhaber, state Treasurer Ted Wheeler and Secretary of State Kate Brown are not the Clear-cut Club. They're responding reasonably to an extreme situation brought about by federal policymakers and by litigious environmental groups.

The selling will continue, at least in the short term. The state plans to unload another 1,300 acres or so later this year and, perhaps, even more in the future. "Privatizing" the Elliott in this fashion may continue to encounter resistance, but barring the appearance of a better solution, the state should keep right on selling. If timber companies want to buy the property with the expectation of logging it, that's fine. Their management will sustain jobs and provide tax revenue, and the new owners will be required to follow state and federal laws protecting threatened species.

It's also fine if bits and pieces of the Elliot are snapped up by conservation interests who don't want to touch a twig. This, in fact, is something the Department of State Lands would like. Among the criteria it established for selecting parcels to sell is a requirement that they "be of a size, configuration, and in a location that will solicit the greatest diversity of potential buyers." The state included this requirement "to see if we could attract conservation buyers for some or all of the parcels," says Curtis, who notes that officials hope to find such buyers for the remaining parcels to be sold this year.  

In the end, what matters most is that the State Land Board remain focused on the primary purpose of the Elliott, which is to make money for public schools. If the best way to honor that purpose is to sell the forest, piece by piece, then sell it to the highest bidder. Oregon needs teachers far more than it needs underperforming public land.

‘The Oregon Way’ explains state’s unique efforts to protect fish habitat

The Oregon Way

Forests and Fish Video

Portland, Ore. —

The Oregon Forest Resources Institute’s newest special report offers an introduction to the state’s unique approach to protecting fish habitat in forest streams.

The 16-page publication, titled “The Oregon Way: Forests and Fish – Protecting Aquatic Habitat in Oregon’s Forests,” features an introduction by Gov. John Kitzhaber. “Oregon’s tiered approach to habitat conservation, while unique, may not be perfect. However, it is a good reflection of the people of this state: adaptive, responsive, inclusive, innovative – and committed to protecting our rich natural resources, for Oregonians and fish alike.”

OFRI Executive Director Paul Barnum says he hopes the publication will help inform the public debate as the recovery of listed fish species continues to be in the news.

“Private forest management is facing environmental litigation, potential regulatory changes and a public that continues to be skeptical about modern forest practices,” Barnum says. “With this special report, we’ve produced a highly readable introduction to this complex topic, to help people understand the issue and how it’s evolved over the past 40 years.”

The publication explains the three prongs of Oregon’s effort to protect habitat:

1. Land-use planning laws discourage housing and commercial development from sprawling into forestland; water quality and habitat on forestland, public or private, are generally far better than in developed areas.
2. Strong rules regulate forest practices, and these rules continually evolve as scientific research improves understanding of fish, habitat and the effects of forest management.
3. The Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds encourages local watershed councils and private landowners to collaborate to voluntarily improve and restore habitat.

“Ongoing science continues to be directed at understanding forest management’s effects on fish and streams, with studies going back to the 1960s,” Barnum says. “Results of current studies are quite encouraging. They indicate we’re doing a good job of balancing the benefits of a competitive wood-products industry while protecting Oregon’s native salmon, steelhead and cutthroat. We still have work to do, but I think Oregon is currently doing it as well or better than anyone.”

OFRI worked with the Watersheds Research Cooperative, the Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board, the Oregon Department of Forestry, the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, the Governor’s Natural Resources Office, Oregon State University and private landowners to produce the report.

The publication and an eight-minute companion video are available for viewing, downloading or ordering, free of charge, at OregonForests.org. 

For more information contact Contact: Dave Kvamme – 971-673-2948

Salmon litigation threatens state forest production

Salmon litigation threatens state forest production: Guest opinion

By Guest Columnist 
Follow on Twitter
on March 22, 2014 at 12:22 PM

0

Reddit

By Tim Josi

38

comments

Salmon litigation threatens state forest production: Guest opinion

Coho salmon swim up Johnson Creek in December 2013. (The Oregonian)

Print

When the coho salmon was listed as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act, (ESA) the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) was charged with developing a recovery plan, which included objective, measurable criteria for protection and ultimate delisting. They have deferred to Oregon’s recovery efforts.

Oregon’s results have been remarkable. Coho salmon spawning numbers in Oregon have reached record levels. In 2011, 356,246 native coho have returned to spawn. This is the largest return since recording began in 1950.

From 1998 through 2004 the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) placed non-lethal fish traps in two fairly short stretches of the Little South Fork of the Kilchis River and the Little North Fork of the Wilson River. The results were remarkable. When multiplying the numbers counted by the hundreds of miles of streams in the Tillamook State Forest, we can conclude millions of coho smolts migrate to our marshlands and the ocean.

What did we do? We started by developing the Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds, which included improvements in forest practices. We also created watershed councils, which use lottery dollars to improve salmon habitat.

Between 1994 and 2003 the Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF) spent $29.1 million on fish-friendly culverts, bridges and road improvements. Significantly more improvements have been made since 2003.

What did we get for our efforts? Coho remains listed as a threatened species, as determined in 2007 by a ruling in federal district court. Even with the continued listing, the ODFW allows anglers to catch and keep adult native coho in certain areas due to their abundance.

Now we’re being threatened with a lawsuit. On Feb. 13, the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) sent the state of Oregon a 60-day notice of intent to sue under the ESA. The CBD alleges that coho are “on the brink of extinction.”

Why is this threat of litigation happening now?  Last June, the governor asked the state board of forestry (BOF) to start a planning effort to improve forests’ financial viability. 

They aren’t producing adequate timber revenues to cover their costs. There is a general acceptance that the forest management plan must be modified and timber harvest levels increased. The Tillamook and Clatsop forests are growing at a faster pace than current harvest levels. Other sources of revenue are also being explored, but their potential is minimal. One might assume the CBD is not happy with the proposal to increase timber harvest levels – even if not doing so might put the ODF out of business.

State forests were deeded to the state over 70 years ago by 15 counties, including Tillamook. In exchange for the land transfer, the state agreed to manage these lands for a variety of purposes, but primarily for timber production to benefit the 15 trust counties. The counties were granted a share of timber sale receipts to fund county services, schools and districts such as recreation and transportation.
  
Forest management through litigation has been very effective at halting timber harvesting.  Harvest levels in our federal forests dropped by 93 percent after the spotted owl was listed under the ESA in the early 1990s.    Almost every timber sale is challenged in court. The result is overstocked forests that are prone to insect attacks, disease, blow-downs and massive forest fires.

Recent marbled murrelet ESA litigation on the Elliot State Forest, in Coos Bay, has resulted in the removal of over 90 percent of that forest from timber production.

Now we have a threat to sue for coho ESA violations. If the CBD does litigate and succeeds, it may result in the shutting down of all state forestlands for timber production. Private forestlands are also in peril.

Litigation is also lucrative. Oregon paid $391,000 in litigation fees to those who sued the state over the marbled murrelet.  In their intent to sue over the coho salmon, the CBD states:  “If the Center is successful it will also seek recovery of its litigation expenses including attorney’s fees and costs.”

Tillamook County Commissioner Tim Josi is chair of the Council of Forest Trust Land Counties.

Activists warn ‘big timber’ to leave Elliott State Forest alone

News Review Today, Roseburg

http://www.nrtoday.com/news/Activists warn ‘big timber’ to leave Elliott State Forest alone10669252-113/timber-state-forest-elliott

Christina George
cgeorge@nrtoday.com
Follow Me

Anti-logging activists say they would physically block timber harvests on Elliott State Forest parcels sold by the Department of State Lands.

Cascadia Forest Defenders, in an open letter addressed to “big timber” Monday, said protesters “will not respect new property lines, signs or gates.”

“If timber companies are buying this, they are not just buying a piece of land they can log, they are buying a giant controversy with a large and unified movement encompassing a spectrum of tactics and a spectrum of people,” organizer Erin Grady said Tuesday in an interview.

Three other groups last week threatened to sue any timber company that bought pieces of the Elliott, a 93,000-acre forest between Reedsport and Coos Bay.

The twin warnings aren’t likely to discourage timber companies from bidding, Douglas Timber Operators Executive Director Bob Ragon said today.

“We’re a mature industry. We recognize the hazards, and we’ll conduct our operations in full compliance with the laws,” he said.

The Department of State Lands will go ahead and open bids March 28 despite the threats of lawsuits and blockades, the department’s assistant director, Jim Paul, said.

“We can’t control how other folks are going to react to this sale,” he said.

The State Land Board — made up of Gov. John Kitzhaber, Secretary of State Kate Brown and Treasurer Ted Wheeler — decided to sell 2,738 acres to make up a $3 million deficit in the Common School Fund. The shortfall opened after the state curtailed logging because of lawsuits filed by environmentalists.

In its message to timber companies, Cascadia Forest Defenders accused the State Land Board of “trying to wash their hands of the Elliott.”

“If these forests are privatized, we know what the outcomes will be. We have seen the way that private timber companies have destroyed the land they own,” the letter states.

The group charged the land board with not caring about residents of Douglas and Coos counties “who are sick of seeing the hills above their homes yarded away to a timber mill while their counties grow poorer.”

The activists promised to disrupt operations.

“Do not bid on these sales. If you become the owner of the Elliott, you will have activists up your trees and lawsuits on your desk. We will be at your office and in your mills.”

Said Ragon: “I think it’s kind of an affront to be threatened like that.”

“Who do they think we are? Hooligans running around the woods with chain saws cutting down trees without regard for the environmental consequences?”

Cascadia Wildlands, Audubon Society of Portland and the Center for Biological Diversity have threatened any timber company that buys a piece of the Elliott with litigation. The groups claim logging would harm marbled murrelets and violate the Endangered Species Act.

Cascadia Forest Defenders’ tree-sitters have been effective in stopping since June the 187-acre White Castle timber harvest on Bureau of Land Management timberlands east of Myrtle Creek.

Grady declined to comment on whether tree-sitters have remained there since Oregon Wild and Cascadia Wildlands sued in January to stop the timber harvest.

Cascadia Forest Defenders has staged previous anti-logging protests. Tree-sitters were arrested in the Elliott three years ago when state forest managers proposed increasing annual timber harvests.

The state will open bids this month for the 788-acre East Hakki Ridge in Douglas County and the 355-acre Benson Ridge and 310-acre Adams Ridge Tract 1 parcels in Coos County.

The state plans to auction off another 1,300 acres within the Adams Ridge parcel in the fall.

•You can reach reporter Christina George at 541-957-4202 or at cgeorge@nrtoday.com.

Seabirds Threaten School Funding

Quiet meetings turn intense

The usually calm Oregon State Land Board, SLB, meetings have produced a lot of attention since environmental lawsuits brought forest management activity to a screeching halt on the Elliott State Forest.

Over 50 protesters set up outside of the SLB meeting on December 10, 2013 as Governor John Kitzhaber, Secretary of State Kate Brown and State Treasurer Ted Wheeler decided to take competitive bids on 2,700 acres of the 93,000 acre Elliott State Forest, ESF.

Constitutional Requirement

Historically, the ESF has supported the state’s Common School Fund, as directed by Oregon’s Constitution. However, due to the litigation over the Marbled Murrelet, a small seabird that may use a tree on the ESF for a nest, incoming revenue has ground to a halt. In fact, so far in 2013 the Common School Fund has paid over $3,000,000 to support the ESF! This is something the Treasurer’s Office and school funding advocates loathe.

A DEMOCRATIC Process

Governor John Kitzhaber allowed all of the protesters a try at testifying before the SLB. Many of the commenters were disgusted by the notion that Oregon would cut trees to help fund schools. Historically, public forests at the national and state level have always supported schools, not to mention roads and public safety.

Forest management activities were not the only thing that confounded the protesters, several that spoke decried the fact that the three Democrats, Governor Kitzhaber, Secretary of State Brown and State Treasurer Wheeler that compose the State Land Board were adopting a strategy that puts a price on the ESF. “It’s a LIE that Democrats protect the environment!!!”

What it used to be

Making a return visit to the SLB was former Elliott State Forest Manager Jerry Phillips. As he told the SLB, Phillips spent 33 years on the ESF, 19 as Manager.  During his time on the ESF, the forest brought in $300 million for the Common School Fund.

Phillips spent much of his time on the Elliott working out land exchanges, which needed State Land Board approval, to increase the size of the 93,000-acre forest. The 2,700 acres that were approved for the initial bidding process included tracts that Phillips added.

News Coverage of the State Land Board Decision

Kitzhaber, Oregon officials approve exploring Elliott State Forest land sale

Oregon board OKs controversial forestland sale

As Oregon weighs Elliott State Forest sale, marbled murrelet habitat raises financial questions

State Land Board agrees to sell off parcels in Elliott State Forest

SW Oregon Logging Plan Moves Ahead

Elliott forest sale only alternative

Follow Wyden into the woods

Follow Wyden into the woods Editorial

By The Oregonian Editorial Board 
Follow on Twitter
on December 05, 2013 at 5:21 PM, updated December 06, 2013 at 9:22 AM

Email

You can see why the Oregon timber counties would be disappointed in Sen. Ron Wyden's new plan for cutting some more timber on the federal government's checkerboard Oregon & California Railroad land holdings. Wyden's plan won't produce as much timber, or as much county revenue, as the language that passed the House, and county officials say they're less confident that it could avoid getting bogged down in litigation.

Sen. Ron Wyden explains his Oregon timber proposal.Stephanie Yao Long

Douglas County Commissioner Doug Robertson, president of the Association of O&C Counties, declared "I have to admit disappointment," saying the Wyden proposal comes up short for the association's three bedrock principles: sharply reduced litigation, increased timber cut and increased financial support for local counties. By Wyden's estimation, his bill would approximately double the timber cut in the lands, to 300 million to 350 million board feet, and raise support to county governments.

For Southwest Oregon counties near the edge of disintegration, with public safety resources far below any definition of safety, Wyden's plan must indeed seem inadequate. The O&C language that passed the House allowed for a cut that might reach 500 million board feet, which could provide considerably larger revenue stream to the counties.

The problem is that with opposition by both the Senate and the White House, there is no chance of the House language becoming law. The best, most promising approach is to pass something through the Senate and get it to a conference committee with the House, creating the prospect of something that might actually become law and provide some assistance to the counties.

Even that possibility is far from certain, considering the barren recent record of congressional conference committees. It would be a long shot to expect the current arrangement in Washington to produce anything substantive. But considering the desperate condition of the counties, where in places ordinary law enforcement has vanished as a daily fact of life, the effort is vital.

Both bills increase the logging cut while putting a considerable amount of the 3 million O&C acres beyond logging forever. They both try to limit unending litigation, although the Association of O&C Counties expresses doubt about Wyden's version. With these similarities of direction and goals, it seems that something workable might be made from the two of them.

What's unlikely to survive are two particular aspects of the House bill that are essentially deal-killers to the Senate and President Obama. After dividing up the O&C lands into two different trusts, the House bill places extensive federal lands under state management, an arrangement certain to draw resistance. It also lacks the protections against clear-cutting in the Wyden bill, which offers an approach of "ecological forestry" that may indeed be more expensive and inconvenient, but is also more publicly acceptable.

There are limitations to what any Congress might produce on this issue. The cut is never going back to the billion-board-foot boom times of the late '70s. Even if it somehow did, with all the mechanization of the past decades, that would not recreate the historic levels of jobs. For the counties, whatever comes out of this process – if anything comes out of this process – won't be a full solution, but only part of a pathway to one.

The O&C counties aren't the only groups critical of Wyden's proposal. Some Oregon

environmental groups, such as Oregon Wild, have their own objections to its litigation rules, and some would simply oppose any increased cut on federal lands.

To refuse to advance with the process now would be a long-odds bet on dealing with a more friendly president and Senate in 2017. 

Considering the current emergency conditions of many of the counties, it would be a long time to wait, for an outcome that may not arise – and years of full Republican control of Washington in the last decade didn't exactly resolve the problem, either.

Despite the counties' deepest hopes, 1978 is not coming again. What the counties, and all of Oregon, needs is to begin finding a path to 2020, and the years beyond.

Alternative harvesting method provides foundation for Wyden O&C plan

Alternative harvesting method provides foundation for Wyden O&C plan: Guest opinion

Print

By Guest Columnist 
Follow on Twitter 
on November 30, 2013 at 9:00 AM, updated November 30, 2013 at 9:04 AM

By Jerry F. Franklin
and K. Norman Johnson

Variable retention harvesting is prescribed in Sen. Ron Wyden's proposed legislation for harvesting in younger highly-productive Douglas fir and Western hemlock forests (the "moist forests") on the O&C lands of western Oregon. Understanding the forestry technique is critical to understanding the senator's plan.

View full sizeIn variable retention forestry, portions of forest are retained throughout the harvest. area providing "lifeboats" for ecosystems. (Computer simulation by Laura Hardin, OSU)

Variable retention harvesting is modeled on patterns of natural disturbances, such as wildfire.  In contrast to clear-cutting, where essentially all of the trees are removed, significant amounts (about 1/3 in the proposed legislation) of the pre-harvest forest are retained throughout the harvest area (see top photo). The retention would typically include unlogged forest patches up to several acres in size well distributed through the harvest area – "aggregated retention" -- as well as individual or small clusters of live and dead trees and down logs, distributed over logged portions of the harvest area -- "dispersed retention." Some of the aggregated retention will be along streams within the harvest area.

One important objective of variable retention harvesting is to "lifeboat" many of the forest-related plant and animal species, sustaining them within the harvest area until the new forest becomes established. For example, forest-dwelling small mammals and amphibians can be sustained by retaining heavily rotted logs that provide critical habitat for them. 

Variable retention also provides for continuity in life-sustaining flows of energy into the soil from trees. In addition, the un-harvested forest patches or aggregates have special ecological value since they include undisturbed forest floors, a full range of tree sizes and mellow microclimates.

View full sizeThe openings created in variable retention forestry aid development of highly bio-diverse ecosystems. (Photo by Jerry Franklin)

Variable retention harvesting is being widely applied globally as a versatile and effective silvicultural approach, particularly where management goals require integration of ecological, economic, and cultural objectives. It is currently being used on five continents in countries as diverse as Sweden, Canada, Australia, Argentina and Chile. It also is being used on a diversity of forest ownerships including federal, state, and local public lands, trust lands, and private forest lands. Hundreds of peer-reviewed publications document the scientific underpinnings and the ecological benefits of variable retention harvesting.

Of course, a key question is what stands would receive variable retention harvesting in Sen. Wyden's proposed legislation. Harvesting would occur only in moist forest stands designated for sustained yield management. All of these would be stands currently less than 120 years of age and most would be stands that originated after previous harvests (usually clear-cutting) 60-90 years ago. No old-growth forests or trees would be harvested.

As proposed for the Bureau of Land Management lands, variable retention harvesting has the additional major ecological benefit of providing the significant openings needed for development of the highly bio-diverse "early successional ecosystems." These are the ecosystems that initially develop on forest sites after a harvest or other major disturbance, such as wildfire. They are biologically rich communities of herbs, shrubs and trees that, in turn, support an immense variety of animal life because of the abundant and diverse sources of food – herbage, nectar, fruits, nuts, seeds and prey. (See bottom photo.)

Many of the species found in these early successional ecosystems are habitat specialists that require early successional habitats. These include many songbirds and butterflies. Also, as hunters know, they are favored and critical habitat for deer and elk, because there is food for them to eat. Research at Mount St. Helens – the biodiversity hotspot of the Cascade Range -- has been critical in helping us to understand the ecological importance of early successional ecosystems.

While private forest lands might be expected to provide for biologically rich early successional ecosystems, they generally do not. Production forestry on industrial lands -- the source of most private harvest in Western Oregon -- seeks to maximize economic returns with intensive practices, such as intensive site preparation, dense tree planting, and control of shrubs and herbs with herbicides. Encouraging shrub-dominated communities and gradual re-establishment of tree cover is not consistent with such goals.

In summary, variable retention harvesting proposed in Sen. Wyden's legislation is fundamentally different from clear-cutting and associated practices. Variable retention is grounded in principles derived from natural forest ecosystems. As proposed it will provide for both continuity in forest biota and creation of openings needed for early successional species and processes.

Jerry Franklin is a professor in the School of Environmental and Forest Sciences at the University of Washington; K. Norman Johnson is  a professor in the Department of Forest Ecosystems and Society at Oregon State University. They each worked on development of the Northwest Forest Plan and on development of Sen. Ron Wyden's forest management plan unveiled this week.