This is the first of three Public Lands Blog posts on state-owned forestlands in Oregon. Part 1 focuses on a prospective habitat management plan for state forestlands in western Oregon. Part 2 will survey state forests in Oregon by location, owner, and manager. Part 3 will examine several key issues pertaining to state forest management in Oregon and explore how to secure the greatest permanent value of state forestlands to the state.
Figure 1. The imperiled Columbia torrent salamander, one of seventeen endangered species that inhabit western Oregon state forests. Source: US Geological Survey.
The seven-member Oregon Board of Forestry will decide next Tuesday, October 6, whether to proceed in seeking a habitat management plan and concurrent incidental take permit for sixteen imperiled species that inhabit western Oregon state forests. If the modeling in the draft Western Oregon State Forest Habitat Conservation Plan (summary here) is correct, seven decades after the Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) is adopted there will be a fivefold increase in northern spotted owl habitat and an eightfold increase in marbled murrelet habitat in western Oregon state forests, along with comparable improvements for other species. Plan implementation will be funded by a 5-percent fee (perhaps it should be pronounced “fine”) on the sale of timber from state forestlands.
The draft HCP is not a done deal and is facing strong opposition from Big Timber and the Addicted Counties. In fact, at the moment, the draft HCP is causing my friends in Big Timber and certain county commissioners to defecate a common building material—and it is not wood. Such is generally an indicator that I should be feeling good. However, my brain is wired in two halves: the political and the ecological. Politically, the draft HCP is a significant advance for public land conservation (not unlike the federal Northwest Forest Plan of 1995). On the other hemisphere, the draft HCP is still inadequate, and even if adequate as an HCP, it is neither ecologically nor sociologically adequate. Ecological realities are immutable, while political realities are mutable. I still have issues.
Why Is a Habitat Conservation Plan Being Considered?
Like any landowner, the Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF) must comply with the Endangered Species Act. At the same time, the ODF is mandated by statute to manage the state forests “so as to secure the greatest permanent value of those lands to the state.” The ODF currently meets these objectives through an approach of “take avoidance,” which means making sure it doesn’t kill listed species. It’s a risky and expensive strategy (as the ODF spends millions of dollars surveying for murrelets so it doesn’t “take” them), both for the land managers and for the species, although execution only applies to the latter. This approach doesn’t directly address protecting the quality and durability of habitat for imperiled species. A habitat conservation plan, in the words of the ODF, “potentially can improve certainty around outcomes for timber harvest, conservation, county revenues, and other public values articulated in greatest permanent value.” The ODF sees developing an HCP as “an opportunity to provide a more holistic and cost-effective way to comply with the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA), while managing state forests for economic, environmental and social benefits.”
Figure 2. The threatened marbled murrelet, a seabird that nests in old-growth forests. Off the Oregon coast, the bird hangs out behind breakers and can dive up to 164 feet (50 meters) deep in search of food, although <114 feet (35 meters) is more the norm. The species nests in older trees in inland intact forest stands usually higher off the ground than the depth of its dives in the ocean. Source: US Fish and Wildlife Service.
Most, but not all, state forestlands are managed by the ODF. Besides Oregon Board of Forestry (OBF) lands in both western and eastern Oregon, the ODF administers certain Common School Fund (CSF) lands in western Oregon. However, because of gross and repeated mismanagement, the ODF no longer administers the CSF lands in the Elliott State Forest in Coos and Douglas Counties. Therefore, the draft HCP being considered doesn’t include the Elliott State Forest (save for some relic remnants of OBF lands still administered by ODF) and doesn’t include eastern Oregon state forest lands (the Gilchrist and Sun Pass State Forests and scattered small parcels throughout the region).
The draft HCP, covering about 640,000 acres of ODF-managed land west of the Cascades, would include conservation strategies for current and likely-to-be-listed species under the ESA, as detailed in Table 1. If such an HCP were approved by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and NOAA Fisheries, the ODF will be able to legally proceed with logging outside designated conservation areas without having to worry about “taking” (killing) a species protected under the Endangered Species Act, a serious crime where conviction can result in large fines and jail time (up to $50,000 and one year for each violation).
Figure 3. The threatened eulachon, or candle fish (it will burn on a stick). In my day we called them smelt and ate them only at my grandmother’s place, as my mother wouldn’t have them in her house—and always with piles of mashed potatoes in reach lest one choke on a smelt bone. Source: James Crippen via Wikipedia.
The Extent of the Proposed HCP
Map 1 depicts the western Oregon state forests included in the draft HCP proposal. (Part 2 of this Public Lands Blog post will include a breakdown of the acres with maps.) The plan would dedicate ~275,000 acres of the 639,489 acres in the HCP permit area (lands now owned by the State of Oregon) to Habitat Conservation Areas (HCAs) and ~77,000 acres to Riparian Conservation Areas (RCAs) (Map 2). Deducting the ~37,000 acres where HCAs and RCAs overlap, ~315,000 acres or 49.2 percent of western Oregon state forests (WOSFs) would be included in conservation areas. In addition to the permit area, another 84,206 acres of presently private land might be exchanged for or purchased by the State of Oregon where the HCP would already be in place.
Map 1. Permit area (owned by the State of Oregon now, shaded orange) and plan area (additional private land that could be owned by the state later, outlined in purple) in western Oregon. A full-sized PDF can be downloaded here. Source: Oregon Department of Forestry.
Map 2. Proposed Habitat Conservation Areas (light green) and Riparian Conservation Areas (dark green) on the Clatsop State Forest. The area shaded light red would be a free-fire logging zone limited only by Oregon Forest Practices Act rules (that’s a joke, as they are a joke). You can download this and other such maps here. Source: Oregon Department of Forestry.
Figure 4. Red tree vole. The North Oregon Coast Range Distinct Population Segment of the red tree vole has been found “warranted but precluded” from protection under the Endangered Species Act, as other species are at higher risk of extinction. Have you ever seen a cuter old-growth-forest-obligate species?! Source: Stephen DeStefano.
Issues of Concern in the HCP
While the draft HCP is a good start, it still needs some work. Following is a list of some major issues that the Oregon Board of Forestry (OBF) needs to ensure are addressed in the HCP. My list is by no means comprehensive. I am certain that others in the conservation community will raise several legitimate concerns about the biological and legal adequacy of the HCP.
Fisher, Where Art Thou?
One older-forest-dependent species that is conspicuously absent from the draft HCP is the fisher (Pekania pennanti). The reasoning for not including the fisher in the HCP is that 183,932 acres of OBF lands in southwest Oregon and the Santiam watershed in the Oregon Cascades are already enrolled in a “candidate conservation agreement with assurances” (CCAA) for fishers in Oregon. The CCAA is a voluntary agreement among landowners to head off listing of the species under the Endangered Species Act. The Southern Sierra Nevada Distinct Population Segment of the fisher is already ESA-listed as endangered.
Figure 5. The fisher, greatly imperiled in Oregon. Its conservation should be incorporated into the Western Oregon State Forests Habitat Conservation Plan. Source: Emily Brouwer, National Park Service.
Some CCAAs are fine, some are not. This one is not. Most conspicuously missing is high-value fisher habitat on the Tillamook and Clatsop State Forests in northwest Oregon (Map 3). There is also habitat overlap with the sixteen imperiled species included in the draft HCP. The Oregon Fisher CCCA expires in 2048—far short of the seventy-year span covered by the draft HCP. From the perspective of a logging landowner, a CCAA is far less of a legal shield than a habitat conservation plan.
Map 3. The areas shaded dark reddish brown are OBF lands enrolled in the Oregon Fisher Candidate Conservation Agreement with Assurances. Notice the high-quality fisher habitat (shaded blue) in the four northwest Oregon counties that include the Clatsop and Tillamook State Forests.
Half-Assed Riparian Conservation Area Buffer Width
The draft HCP proposes a 120-foot buffer along fish-bearing streams, measured horizontally. The steeper the slope, the greater the actual buffer (think like a hypotenuse), but also the greater the need. However, a well-established metric as to the width of the buffer is site-potential tree height (SPTH), or how tall the trees could get if they were left alone. It takes well over a century for trees to reach their maximum height. Given the relatively high productivity of WOSFs, SPTH ranges from 160 or so to 240+ feet. If one wants maximum recruitment of large wood into a stream (fish love large logs that slowly decay), one should not be logging any tree, or portion thereof, that could not someday fall into the water. The Forest Service uses two times the SPTH as a buffer metric, while the Bureau of Land Management uses just the single SPTH. As you can see by the numbers, a 120-foot buffer is half-assed on the most productive sites and quarter-assed on the least productive sights.
Figure 6. The imperiled Cascade torrent salamander. Source: John Clare via Wikipedia.
Omission of Some Older Forest Stands
Table 2 shows the acreage of older forest stands (90 to 175+ years of age) in western Oregon state forests. Given their age and the history of logging and planting on western Oregon state forestlands, these stands are generally natural (not monocultures). While a significant amount of this acreage is undoubtedly included in the proposed HCAs and RCAs in the draft HCP, a significant amount is not. These stands not only have high habitat value for the sixteen species, they also are at such an age and of such a character that the social license to log has expired. If the ODF attempts to clear-cut them, the shield of a habitat conservation plan will not protect the ODF from public scorn and active opposition. All older forest stands should be included in the HCAs and RCAs.
Figure 7. Coastal marten, a species that requires older complex forests. Source: US Fish and Wildlife Service.
A Deal Must Be a Deal
In the case of the Elliott State Forest (which is mostly Common School Fund lands “owned” by the Oregon Department of State Lands but managed by the ODF), the ODF obtained a multidecade habitat conservation plan. Disingenuously (the kindest word I can think of), the ODF took its “take” (legal killing of murrelets and northern spotted owls) immediately and then renounced the HCP as it would not be convenient to actually do the conservation measures required by the HCP. This must not happen again. One way is for the Oregon Legislative Assembly to enact a bill that (1) provides for dedicated funding for HCP implementation, and (2) would prevent the ODF from withdrawing from the HCP without approval of the legislature.Need for an Aggressive Policy on Roads and Off-Road Vehicle Use
The HCAs and RCAs should have an aggressive road rationalization program that decommissions unnecessary roads and makes necessary roads more wildlife and watershed friendly. Similarly, the HCAs and RCAs should be off-limits to off-road vehicles.
Maximizing “the Maximum Extent Practicable” on Public Forestlands
The Endangered Species Act requires that the federal government find that an applicant for an incidental take permit or ITP (through an HCP) “will, to the maximum extent practicable, minimize and mitigate the impacts of such taking.” What is maximally practicable for a profit-maximizing private timberland owner is far different from what is maximally practicable for a public forestland owner who is statutorily mandated to manage the WOSFs “so as to secure the greatest permanent value of those lands to the state.” More on greatest permanent value (GPV) in Part 2 of this Public Lands Blog post.
It is reasonable to expect the Oregon Board of Forestry to conclude that the greatest permanent value of WOSFs is secured not merely by complying with the Endangered Species Act (and keeping foresters out of jail) but also by maximally contributing to the “conservation” (the point where the ESA protections are no longer needed) of the sixteen (seventeen with the fisher) imperiled species. More fish, more and cleaner water, more carbon storage and sequestration to help the climate, more compatible recreation, and fewer stumps all contribute to greatest permanent value. Private timberland owners should support having as much of the “conservation burden” on public forestlands as possible so that less of the burden falls on private timberland owners.
Figure 8. The imperiled Oregon slender salamander. Source: Wikipedia.
What You Can Do
The Oregon Board of Forestry has on its agenda to vote on Tuesday, October 6, on whether to direct the ODF to proceed in obtaining an HCP (and ITP) for WOSFs. Masochists can livestream the event. Rationalists may just send a comment to the Board of Forestry anytime via the ODF website well before the meeting. You might urge the Oregon Board of Forestry to do the following:
· Proceed with obtaining a habitat conservation plan.
· Include the fisher along with the other imperiled species in the HCP.
· Adopt a one-SPTH (site-potential tree-height) buffer on both sides of all fish-bearing streams (and commensurate buffers on other streams).
· Declare a moratorium on logging older (79+ year-old) forest stands anywhere (both in and out of the proposed HCAs and RCAs) and include all older forest stands in additional HCAs.
· Take steps to ensure that the Oregon Department of Forestry never abandons the HCP during the life of the HCP—as they did on the Elliott State Forest HCP, including requesting “critical habitat status” for all HCAs and RCAs in the final HCP.
· Direct that the HCP rationalize the road system (decommission unnecessary ones and make necessary ones less damaging to wildlife and watersheds) and prohibit off-road-vehicle use in the HCAs and RCAs.
For More Information
• Oregon Forest Conservation Coalition
• Oregon Department of Forestry Habitat Conservation Plan Initiative
• Detailed maps of the draft proposed Habitat Conservation Areas and Riparian Conservation Areas
Figure 9. Last, but certainly not least, the imperiled northern spotted owl. Source: US Fish and Wildlife Service.
My thanks to Bob Van Dyk of Wild Salmon Center for his leadership on this issue and for taking the time to tutor me in many nuances.