All posts by Bronwen

OSPC Testimony Re: Update on scoping riparian protection monitoring questions, methods and timelines in eastern Oregon and Siskiyou geographic regions

Mary Scurlock, Oregon Stream Protection Coalition
Re: Update on scoping riparian protection monitoring questions, methods and timelines in
eastern Oregon and Siskiyou geographic regions
(Agenda Item 9)
January 3, 2018 (transmitted to the Board on January 5, 2018)

Download this testimony as a PDF

Thank you for the opportunity to testify on behalf of Oregon Stream Protection Coalition’s 25 national, regional and local organizations.

We continue to urge the Board to focus on its clearest, most unequivocal, mandatory duty: to meet water quality standards through the stream protection rules. Your duty here is to serve the interests of the public at large, not only those of the regulated community.  And while the Forest Practices Act urges you to seek the least burdensome regulatory solutions, these solutions must nonetheless actually meet water quality criteria, including the Protecting Coldwater Criterion.

This Board has long had before it, via the RipStream study, strong evidence that current stream protection rules are inadequate to meet the Protecting Coldwater Criterion applicable to Salmon, Steelhead and Bull trout streams and upstream reaches that feed them.  You have decided on at least two separate occasions since these study findings first came to you in 2009 that not to act on this evidence to make a rule change in either Eastern Oregon or in the Siskiyou. Yet neither of these decisions was supported by evidence that valid inferences could not be made to either region, nor has this Board acted to date to collect additional evidence. (This Board specifically chose in 2012 not to include studies from interior forests in its scientific evidence review for the SSBT rule, guaranteeing that Eastern Oregon would remain “out of scope” on the question of rule adequacy for stream temperature).

There is no question that the Board has a duty to monitor its rules to determine whether they actually meet water quality standards. It is important to remember that the OFPA explicitly provides assurances to landowners that they will not be prosecuted for water quality violations if they follow these rules. The Board’s priority should be to validate that the rules merit what amounts to a blanket statutory finding of legal sufficiency. Otherwise this whole arrangement is just a shell game.

From where I sit the current situation in the Siskiyou and Eastern Oregon rises to a dereliction of duty.

I repeat my admonishment to you made at prior meetings: the best available evidence supports a working presumption that the current rules are inadequate in eastern Oregon and in the Siskiyou and that sensitive resources are being degraded. There are strong inferences that can be made from existing research that likely can be validated or calibrated short of launching an entirely new long-term research study.

Eastern and Southern Oregon streams are not more complex than other streams in terms of temperature and shade relations, and there is no credible reason to believe that current rules are working any better there than they are in western Oregon.

The need to act in the Siskiyou is illustrated by widespread elevated water temperatures, the findings of EPA and NOAA Fisheries with regard to their CZARA disapproval of Oregon’s nonpoint plan and with NOAA Fisheries findings in its recovery plan for southern Oregon Coastal Coho and other sources.

The need to act in Eastern Oregon is illustrated by widespread elevated water temperatures and the recognition that forest practices on private lands are a problem for imperiled coldwater fishes in science-based federal recovery planning documents (see e.g. USFWS Columbia River/Klamath Bull Trout ESU Recovery Plan, 2002 and others), and other sources. There is a significant amount of private forest land in the Eastern Cascades and Blue Mountains regions, as illustrated by the attached maps from Trout Unlimited. Many acres overlap with salmon, steelhead and bull trout streams and connected upstream reaches.

We note that Washington state’s rules protect all available shade within 75 feet of Bull Trout streams east of the Cascade crest in Washington and requires significant retention of overstory trees outside that area on most streams — a region comparable to eastern Oregon. Oregon’s buffers provide only a 20 foot no cut buffer and relatively low basal area requirements that often result in 20 feet being the total size of the buffer on small and medium streams.

I commend to you the testimony of Rogue Riverkeeper dated January 3, 2018 encouraging you to approve a monitoring project focused on the Protecting Coldwater Criterion in Eastern Oregon and the Siskiyou at your next meeting in March.

Respectfully submitted,
Mary Scurlock, Coordinator
Oregon Stream Protection Coalition


Eugene Weekly Article: Throwing Shade, or Not: Oregon missing out on EPA funds for clean water programs

Summary:   The State of Oregon has been losing EPA funding because of its failure to adequately protect Oregon’s coastal watersheds.  Although Oregon’s own scientific study found that Oregon’s laws for stream buffers on private timberland did not insure adequate protection for cold water, Oregon has been unwilling to step up and address the issue through adequate regulation.  New rules to increase buffers on some fish-bearing streams are a step in the right direction, but the rules are still not strong enough to protect cold water in streams.  Oregon’s inaction in turn harms watersheds because it leads to reduced money from the EPA for the DEQ and projects to improve watershed health.

Throwing Shade, or Not: Oregon missing out on EPA funds for clean water programs

by Carl Segerstrom
Eugene Weekly
October 26, 2017

Photo: Ed Cooley
Photo: Ed Cooley

On Oct. 4 the Environmental Protection Agency announced it was granting $1.7 million to Oregon’s Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) to help with projects and programs that reduce water pollution. In the press release, EPA administrator Scott Pruitt says the “EPA is making investments like this grant to help empower states who know best how to protect resources, and grow their economy while solving real environmental problems in local communities.”

But there’s a problem with Pruitt’s statement: The EPA doesn’t think Oregon “knows best how to protect its resources.”

Since 2015, the state has lost more than $1 million in funding from the EPA’s nonpoint source water pollution program because federal agencies say Oregon isn’t doing enough to protect coastal watersheds from forestry practices.

Losing this money reduces federal funding for DEQ staff and takes funding away from projects that promote healthy watersheds. But federal agencies say significant measures haven’t been taken to address the concerns of federal regulators.

Forestry Pollution

According to EPA spokesman Mark McIntyre: “Reevaluation of Oregon’s program will begin when Oregon informs the agencies that it has addressed all of the coastal nonpoint program conditions and provides supporting documentation. The agencies continue to encourage Oregon to continue to improve and refine its program to satisfy all coastal nonpoint program requirements.”

Nonpoint sources of pollution are any pollution source that doesn’t come directly from a single area, such as a factory or sewage treatment plant. Pesticides, oil on roadways and sediment from landslides are a few examples of nonpoint sources.

One of the most common causes of nonpoint source pollution is the warming of waters that lose shade cover due to human activities like logging, road building and floodplain development.

According to a DEQ report published in June, pollution from nonpoint sources accounts for nearly 75 percent of state waterways that exceed legal pollution limits.

Each year since 2015, the EPA has reduced funding by 30 percent of the previous year’s grant level. The penalty stems from disapproval of Oregon’s coastal nonpoint pollution control program (CZARA) by EPA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

The federal agencies found that Oregon “has not implemented or revised management measures, backed by enforceable authorities” to protect riparian areas for small and medium-sized fish bearing and non-fish bearing streams; to address the impacts of forest roads; to protect high-risk landslide areas; or to ensure adequate stream buffer herbicide application, particularly on non-fish bearing streams.

Industry groups and state agencies have pushed back against the decision. In a March 2016 statement titled “Refuting the CZARA disapproval,” the Oregon Forest and Industries Council states, “The federal agencies are in error, and their continued focus on forestry is puzzling.”

OFIC states that “Oregon has a sound and thorough defense of its regulation and outcomes around all issues raised by the EPA and NOAA — a defense that is backed by extensive research and monitoring.”

The organization argues that the goal of federal regulators “seems to be the implementation of prescriptive regulations rather than achieving positive environmental outcomes based on rigorous science.”

Shading the Water

One of the best ways to reduce these pollutants is by planting shade cover along waterways and reducing runoff by slowing down polluted water with berms and native vegetation that naturally filter water before it gets to streams and rivers.

In the Eugene area, the Long Tom Watershed Council receives grants from the EPA nonpoint source program that aids them in partnering with local businesses and manufacturers to reduce water pollution.

But Oregon will keep losing money for these types of projects if it doesn’t meet federal standards for water protection on the coast.

Though the state DEQ receives federal funding and is responsible for administering water quality programs under the Clean Water Act, Oregon state law gives the Board of Forestry and Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF) the authority to set rules for logging near water bodies.

Coastal rivers are habitat for cutthroat trout and chinook, steelhead and coho salmon — all of which are considered “species of greatest conservation need” by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. Elevated water temperatures, sediments and herbicide levels in streams and rivers can have harmful effects on these iconic and economically valuable species.

One of the principal means of protecting these fish and the watersheds they depend upon is requiring a buffer of forested area around streams and rivers during logging operations. Federal regulators listed buffers for fish bearing and non-fish bearing streams as a primary concern when they decided not to approve Oregon’s coastal water protection plan.

Both California and Washington have larger forest buffer requirements and coastal pollution programs than are approved by federal regulators.

On July 1, the Board of Forestry put in place new streamside buffer rules that provide additional protection for rivers and streams.

The board’s decision was informed by data from ODF’s multiyear and multi-million dollar RipStream study that tracked the impacts of Oregon Forest Practices rules for private timberlands and compared them with ODF’s own management practices. The study found that Oregon’s laws for stream buffers on private timberland did not insure adequate protection for cold water.

In correspondence with EW, ODF public affairs director Ken Armstrong writes that the Board of Forestry used the study, “including its limitations and uncertainties, to establish new rules and best management practices to ensure that forest practices meet the ‘Protecting Cold Water’ criterion of the water quality standard to the maximum extent practicable.”

Implementing the new buffers, which will reduce the timber that operators can harvest, is expected to cost timber owners upwards of $100 million. Small timberland owners will receive some exemptions under the new rules.

The new buffer rules put in place by the Board of Forestry don’t match the buffer distance that ODF’s study models found necessary to keep stream warming below 0.3 degrees Celsius.

Data from ODF’s RipStream study found that, on average, a treed area of at least 90 feet was necessary to prevent warming the water above 0.3 degrees Celsius. Under the rules adopted by the Board of Forestry in July, medium-sized fish bearing streams would get 80-foot buffers and small fish bearing streams would get 60-foot buffers.

In testimony to the Environmental Quality Commission, OFIC representative Heath Curtiss argues that the new rules are based on different management practices than those modeled by the RipStream project. He says the approach adopted in the new rules “has not been modeled, and we believe it is likely that, given an opportunity to implement the rule and observe the results, the new prescriptions will prove efficacious.”

Bob Van Dyk, the Oregon and California policy director for the Wild Salmon Center, says the rulemaking was a step in the right direction but doesn’t go far enough to protect salmon habitat and prevent warming rivers.

“The buffers that the Board of Forestry picked are less than what ODF and EPA science has shown is necessary to prevent stream warming,” Van Dyk says, adding that salmon advocates are worried about the effects climate change might have in further warming these coastal watersheds and have raised concerns that the new rules left out many Southern Oregon watersheds, which have significant salmon populations.

Van Dyk says the new rules are “a political decision about what we value, not just a science decision.”

ODF’s Armstrong writes, “While most everyone agreed the decision was not easy, the Board reviewed and weighed the merits of the various proposals and adopted a policy believed to provide the least-burdensome impact to landowners while also meeting the Protecting Cold Water standard.”

Whether Oregon can prove to federal regulators that the new rules go far enough to protect coastal watersheds, and that EPA should stop withholding funding, is the million-dollar question.


The article previously stated that there were new rules for non-fish bearing streams, it has been corrected. There are no new rules protecting non-fish bearing streams.

Guest column: Streams pay a price for forest roads

by Mary Scurlock
The Bulletin, Sept. 24, 2017

On Aug. 26 The Bulletin editorialized about a recent research publication under the header “Forest roads don’t always damage streams.” The piece makes fair points that there are sound social and economic reasons why we build roads in forests, and that modern road designs can reduce harmful sediment delivery to streams.

What is missing from this editorial is the bigger picture. At the most basic level, the scientific literature is overwhelmingly clear that forest roads provide no benefit to the health of our rivers and streams. Forest roads are a necessity, but one that comes at a cost to clean water.

As The Bulletin correctly notes, there is much about harm from roads that this study doesn’t tell us. For example, harm from roads doesn’t come from just a few logging road segments. Anyone who has flown over the Coast Range or the Cascades knows that most of our watersheds have dense road systems that look like thousands of miles of silly string. A range of effects from road systems across the landscape creates a combined impact. For example, sediment pollution that enters headwater streams from multiple roads ends up in downstream salmon habitat. Among other impacts, fine sediment can smother spawning gravel for salmon.

Critically, the cited Oregon State University study only measures sediment delivery to small headwater streams from a narrow set of activities associated with single logging events. But we know these activities are drops in the bucket, occurring on top of other impacts from harvest and haul on other roads across the entire landscape. Additionally, the study does not address failure of high-risk road segments during large storms. Upgrading and removing old roads at risk of failure is something that conservation groups strongly support on federal lands, and that forward-thinking private timberland owners also invest in.

Local evidence of low sediment impacts is something to celebrate. However, it would be a mistake to assume that these results mean that there are no cumulative sediment pollution or other impacts from forest roads. In fact, the authors themselves admit that “it is difficult to make broad generalizations from our findings.” Without a better understanding of these cumulative effects, it is an oversimplification to claim that the impact of forest roads is overblown or imaginary. Ignoring the bigger picture misdirects public attention away from a pressing stream protection and restoration problem in Oregon, while critical advances are made in Washington and California.

— Mary Scurlock is the coordinator of the Oregon Stream Protection Coalition.

Testimony Re: Eastern Oregon, Blue Mountain and Siskiyou Geographic Region Streamside Protections Review

Download a PDF of the testimony

Mary Scurlock, Oregon Stream Protection Coalition
Re: Eastern Oregon, Blue Mountain and Siskiyou Geographic Region Streamside
Protections Review (Agenda Item 7)
July 25, 2017

This agenda item reports on work in progress, and staff is not requesting a specific Board
decision. The focus today is on whether the information staff currently intends to generate
for the Board will be adequate for the Board to make a decision about how it will focus
monitoring resources to address the adequacy of stream protections.

On behalf of Oregon Stream Protection Coalition’s 25 national, regional and local
organizations, I would like to take this opportunity to comment on project focus, the
decision timeline, and landowner advisory committee input.

A word on process. Because the staff work is extremely preliminary, it seems to us that the
Board should request at least one more report from staff before the Board actually selects
its path forward, at which interim point the Board could consider the adequacy of a more
developed conceptual decision framework.

Project Focus and Timeline

We fully appreciate that there are other riparian functions than those related to shade and
stream temperature that are relevant to Forest Practices Act objectives and Board duties.
But given that the Charter Work Plan states a broad objective for this project: to develop “a
list of monitoring questions related to the effectiveness of FPA riparian protection
standards in Eastern Oregon and the Siskiyou geographic region,” we’d urge the Board do
what it can to focus monitoring resources on specific questions as quickly as resources

It is clear that this Board’s decisions to exclude these regions from the westside Protecting
Coldwater Criterion/SSBT rulemaking precipitated initiation of this geographically–
focused monitoring project. Therefore, it would be logical for the Board to prioritize
adequacy of the stream protection rules to protect stream temperature in these regions. As
we did when the PCW/SSBT rulemaking was initiated, we urge attention to the specific
parameters of state water quality standards for temperature as expressed by the PCW,
ambient standards and TMDL load allocations for nonpoint sources.

Whether or not other questions also are addressed, initial priority should be placed on
addressing: 1) whether best available information supports a finding/presumption that
the current stream protection rules are adequate to maintain and restore stream
temperatures as required by water quality standards in eastern Oregon and the Siskiyou.
This would address whether there is a strong basis NOT to extend the scope of inference
from Ripstream to these regions; 2) whether there is additional information the
Department gather or generate with existing resources and within some reasonable
timeframe to inform the question of what rules would be adequate? We concur with staff’s
idea of presenting options for the Board that address study rigor; we would add that this
consideration should be explicitly linked to an assessment of the level of scientific
uncertainty around an issue.

Regarding timeline, we urge the Board to set clear expectations on a timeline for staff to
generate the information it will need to make a decision about the critical questions it
wants answered and how. We have concerns about any timeline any longer than four to six
months for selecting questions for the monitoring unit to focus on.

Advisory Committee Input

We won’t respond in detail here to the input from the three landowner advisory
committees. In general, we have concerns about why the opinions of these landowner
representatives are being shared on behalf of the committees when no other stakeholder
input is being shared with the Board or the public. The appearance is that input from
landowner stakeholders is given more weight and Board airtime than that from other
stakeholders, despite the fact that staff has characterized the purpose of stakeholder input
in this context to elicit the full range of stakeholder views. Further, the development of
committee opinions and positions about how and whether to conduct scientific research
seems outside the scope of these committees, i.e. the operational implications of actual
policy change proposals.

We will also make a couple of initial responses to the committees’ input.

• The landowner perspective seems to be that each region should be assumed to have
“unique riparian functions” that can only be understood by launching new region-­
by-­region research projects to determine whether a problem with current rules
exists. In our view, recommending this approach makes unsupported assumptions
that valid inferences adequate to the purposes of this monitoring program cannot be
made from existing research. We look forward to seeing the monitoring team’s own
analysis in this regard.

• The landowners also call for biological monitoring, such as “fish abundance and
size.” Respectfully, we disagree that these are likely to be informative metrics for a
host of reasons. While this kind of research is important and has a place, at the
present time it is not in the ODF’s underfunded monitoring program. We urge the Board
to focus on monitoring for parameters that relate directly to attainment of the objectives
of the Forest Practices Act – the water quality standards designed by DEQ to
protect fish and other beneficial uses. It is DEQ’s job to determine what parameters
are necessary to protect beneficial uses, and it is ODF’s job to meet those parameters.1

• The Committee for Family Forestlands provided opinions about the “general
approach to collecting appropriate data to inform” the streamside protections
review. We believe that that adding a fish population study would be costly, time
consuming, highly unlikely to be scientifically informative as proposed, and
irrelevant to the already extant policy and legal context, which has already been
considered at length and integrates known effects on fish.

• Regarding the EOAC’s endorsement of the 2003 “ERFAC” report, the Board should
recognize that this report reflected only landowner views: the sole conservation-­
oriented member of that committee actually wrote a letter attached to the report
that expressed the view that conservation interests were not adequately
represented. With respect to the EOAC’s opinion on the extreme complexity of
Eastern Oregon ecosystems, we must respectfully disagree. Eastern Oregon streams
are no more complex than any other streams. In terms of temperature and shade
relations specifically, they are the same.

• The EOAC does make some astute observations on Idaho rules and how they lay
down on the ground, and we urge ODF to explore this further, in addition to both CA
and WA rules. In Idaho, it is our understanding that the common outcome of no-­cut
50-­foot buffers being required to achieve shade and stocking objectives simply
reflects the biophysical reality of the riparian forest situation in the interior west.

• We are further concerned about the EOAC’s implication that that fish use streams
that are dry or have intermittent dry reaches in the summer should not be equally
considered as other fish streams purposes of riparian protection. This implication
bears further scrutiny for its ecological basis. In Oregon, a stream or lake has fish use
if it is occupied—at any time of year—by fish that are anadromous, game species, or
listed as threatened or endangered under the state or federal endangered species acts,
unless fish are present due only to introduction. There is currently no regulatory or
other reason of which we are aware to treat periodically dry reaches of perennial
fish use streams differently than other fish use reaches.

The protection goal for water quality, per ORS 527.765 is to ensure through the described forest practices that, to the maximum extent practicable, non-­point source discharges of pollutants resulting from forest operations do not impair the achievement and maintenance of the water quality standards.

New logging rule allows continued harm to streams (Oregonian guest opinion)

The authors argue that salmon in the Rogue River can't afford another 15-year process to make changes that the state of Washington and California made over a decade ago.
The authors argue that salmon in the Rogue River can’t afford another 15-year process to make changes that the state of Washington and California made over a decade ago. (Randy L. Rasmussen/The Oregonian)


Too little, too late is the name of the game when it comes to protecting streams from harmful forestry practices in Oregon.

On July 1, a new rule that pushes clearcut logging on private forestlands farther from the edge of streams that support salmon, steelhead and bull trout took effect. Essentially, the rule requires a small increase in the amount of trees near streams, known as a “stream buffer.” More trees and vegetation along stream banks helps to keep our rivers cool. The science is clear that removing trees contributes to warming stream temperatures, which can stress or kill native fish.

The problem is that the rule change is both too little and too late for Oregon streams. Not only will the new rule still allow logging too close to salmon streams to reliably prevent warming, it will only apply to part of Western Oregon, and, at most, a small distance upstream of salmon, steelhead and bull trout reaches.

After 15 years of taxpayer-supported research and public process, the vast majority of the forest streams on Oregon’s more than 10 million acres of private timberlands will still be subject to clearcutting within 20 feet or less of streams, with most streams receiving no buffer at all.

Streams that are left behind include the iconic waters of the Siskiyou region that flow into the Rogue River. The waters of the Rogue support habitat for threatened salmon, and many are consistently too warm. Despite sound science and policy logic for extending even the modest improvements of the rule to the rest of the state, the Siskiyou and eastern Oregon remain excluded.

The Board of Forestry, which makes stream rules, has directed its staff to start looking into new rules for the Siskiyou and Eastern Oregon. But there seems to be little urgency for action.

Salmon in the Rogue River can’t afford another 15-year process to make changes that the state of Washington and California made over a decade ago. The governor, the Environmental Quality Commission and the Board of Forestry should move quickly and decisively to keep all Oregon streams cool, starting with updated standards for the Siskiyou region.

Stacey Detwiler is the conservation director of Rogue Riverkeeper; Moary Scurlock, coordinator of the Oregon Stream Protection Coalition.

View opinion in the Oregonian

Oregon’s Forest Practices Act Requires: Wider Stream Buffers & A New Stream Classification

View original email notice from the Oregon State Forester

Oregon’s Forest Practices Act Requires:

Wider Stream Buffers & A New Stream Classification
Dear Friend,

I write to update you about changes to the Forest Practices Act Water Protection Rules. New rules to protect cold water streams that support salmon, steelhead or bull trout are effective July 1, 2017.

The Oregon Board of Forestry added the salmon, steelhead and bull trout stream
classification, known as SSBT. It made this change based on science and public input.

These rules changed:

  • Division 600: Definitions
  • Division 635: Water Protection Rules: Purpose, Goals, Classification and Riparian Management Areas
  • Division 640: was deleted and replaced by Division 642
  • Division 642: Water Protection Rules: Vegetation along Streams

The changes may impact your forest management plans. If you have questions, please contact your local office for help using the Find a Forester tool.

To check on stream classifications go to LocatOR.

To learn more about submitting a notification of operation or subscribing to receive information about potential forestry work go to E-Notification.

Thank you for your time and help managing forests in Oregon for their many benefits!

Peter Daugherty
Oregon State Forester

Save the Date: Carbon Friendly Forestry Conference

Mark your calendar for September 12, 2017.  Washington Environmental Council will be bringing together the best minds on the West Coast to discuss how forest management practices can maximize carbon sequestration to combat climate change.

Join us at Cedarbrook Lodge for Carbon Friendly Forestry: A West Coast Forest Carbon Conference.

Registration will open soon!

For questions, please contact Arianne Jaco at

OSPC Testimony Voluntary Restoration Efforts Report

Download these comments 

These comments relate to the ODF-OWEB  Report on Voluntary Resoration Efforts by Forest Landowners

June 7, 2017
Public Comment on Agenda Item 5
ODF/OWEB Report on Voluntary Restoration Efforts by Forest Landowners
Mary Scurlock, Coordinator, Oregon Stream Protection Coalition (OSPC)

We appreciate the collaborative effort that went into producing March 2017 report entitled “Voluntary Efforts by Forest Landowners to Restore Salmon Habitat and Watersheds in the Oregon Coast Range.” We strongly support full recognition of land managers who voluntarily go above and beyond minimum regulatory requirements to improve aquatic habitats for their intrinsic value at their own expense. These efforts should continue to be encouraged.

However, OSPC is concerned about the extent to which the report implies that completion of projects is known to have benefited coho salmon in one way or another without reference to either implementation or effectiveness monitoring studies, or to whether the actions taken actually address recovery priorities under the federal ESA recovery plan. We note that, in general, NOAA Fisheries has cautioned that we will need to evaluate returns affected by the poor marine conditions of the last several years to understand the sufficiency of freshwater habitat.i  The 2016 Status review specifically notes that:

“New information available since the last status review indicates that a number of restoration and protection actions have been implemented in freshwater and estuary habitat throughout the range of OC coho salmon. However, at this time we do not have information that would reveal improvements in habitat quality, quantity, and function. Future status assessments would benefit from a systematic review and analysis of the amount of habitat addressed against those high priority strata identified in the NMFS 2015 Proposed Recovery Plan. We remain concerned about degraded habitat conditions throughout the range of the OC coho salmon ESU, particularly with regard to land use and development activities that affect the quality and accessibility of habitats and habitat-forming processes such as riparian condition and floodplain function as well as water quality. Overall, we conclude that the risk to the species’ persistence because of habitat destruction or modification has not changed since the last status review.ii

Effectiveness Monitoring is Needed.  The report itself acknowledges that effectiveness monitoring still is needed. Many of the projects acknowledged in the report were likely carefully designed for benefits to aquatic habitat, including the primary limiting factor for  coho recovery of habitat complexity. But this report does not itself evaluate the effectiveness of specific projects or the overall cumulative effectiveness of projects relative to any particular criteria or metrics (e.g. increased numbers of pools, channel-to-floodplain connectivity, off-channel habitat, stream temperature/water quality concerns, location of projects in priority reaches or which address priority recovery actions). In our view, the most important investment that the Department of Forestry’s monitoring unit can make related to voluntary efforts goes beyond merely counting the number and cost of projects to robust effectiveness monitoring — something that this report only aspires to do under next steps, resources permitting.

Until such monitoring is done, it is premature to make statements about the benefit of restoration projects – voluntary or otherwise – for coho.

We further encourage the Board’s attention to the participation of small forest landowners whose management objectives and need for incentives differ from those of industrial owners.

Expectations for the ecological benefits of voluntary restoration efforts should be realistic and based on metrics that relate to recovery outcomes. This effort to catalogue the last 20 years of voluntary restoration is an important piece of information because it will help set realistic expectations for voluntary efforts. The federal coho recovery plan recognizes the potentially positive role of these efforts.iii But unless and until such voluntary efforts are demonstrated to be effective and obviate the need for regulatory change, the need for stronger land use controls will remain.

Also needed is a further clarity about the metrics that will be used to demonstrate attainment of desired habitat recovery outcomes through any mechanisms, including those identified in the federal recovery plan. For timberlands, these metrics should relate to increased shade through increased retention of riparian trees, increased sustainable natural recruitment of large wood, and other factors related to habitat complexity and road system impact reductions. iv

i See e.g. NOAA-NMFS, 2016, 2016 5-Year Review at 12: “it is only when marine survival is low that it becomes apparent whether habitat quality and quantity are sufficient to support self-sustaining populations. With marine survival rates expected to decrease for OC coho salmon entering the ocean in 2014 (Peterson et al. 2014a and b), 2015, and 2016, it may be advisable to wait to observe how populations fare during this potential downturn before deciding to change their status (NWFSC 2015).”

iiId. at pp. 19-20, emphasis added.
iii iv


Voters approve ban on aerial pesticide spraying in Lincoln County

Post from Citizens for a Healthy County

A majority of voters who returned to sign unsigned ballots approved Measure 21-177, bringing the total vote to 6994 for the ban versus 6933 against it, making the ban on aerial pesticide spraying in Lincoln County a reality. Thanks to the many people who volunteered and campaigned so valiantly, the vast amounts spent by corporate opponents failed to convince voters that profits are more important than health, safety, and the right to informed consent.

By this victory, Lincoln County is the first county in the United States to ban aerial spraying of pesticides by the vote of the people. This is not the first time Lincoln County has spoken truth to power and won.

“Back in 1976, folks here put Lincoln County on the map by winning a huge landmark case against the United States government, stopping federal spraying of Agent Orange on our forests and homes and waterways,” said Susan Parker Swift. “Now Lincoln County has done it again. I couldn’t be prouder to share this repeat victory!”

Barbara Davis, co-petitioner of measure 21-177, says our win brought to her mind the following quote by Margaret Mead:

“Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it’s the only thing that ever has.”

This election was the first major hurdle Measure 21-177 had to overcome to become a reality. Implementation of the measure, and the obstacles to it that opponents will raise, among them superior “rights” to override the rights of the people, including the people’s right to vote and their constitutional right to safety, are next. Citizens for a Healthy County will continue to meet those challenges, and welcomes all who are willing to join us in the effort.

Citizens for a Healthy County

For more information


It’s unanimous: Elliott State Forest will remain publicly owned (Oregonian article)

By Rob Davis,
The Oregonian

The Elliott State Forest, the 82,500-acre Coast Range parcel the state nearly sold to a timber company, will stay in public ownership, bringing an end to Oregon’s years-long flirtation with divesting the land.

Oregon Gov. Kate Brown, Secretary of State Dennis Richardson and state Treasurer Tobias Read voted Tuesday in Salem to halt the sale, pulling the remote forest back from the brink of a plan that was wildly unpopular with hunters, anglers and environmental groups.

The potential divestiture had put Oregon at the forefront of a nationwide debate over publicly owned land, leaving a Democrat-controlled state positioned to do something that some Republicans, including President Donald Trump’s interior secretary, have rejected.

Huge questions about the forest in Coos and Douglas counties remain unanswered. Chief among them: Which agency will manage the land, what role logging and recreation will play in its future and how many acres of the forest will be protected with a proposed $100 million investment from state taxpayers.

The sale had been driven by the archaic system by which Oregon holds the state forest. The state is constitutionally required to use revenue from logging the land to benefit schools. But logging was curtailed by environmental lawsuits after the state in 2011 tried to nearly double the amount of clear-cutting allowed each year.

The vote was a major win for Brown, who successfully fought back a February attempt to sell the land. Her plan would use $100 million in taxpayer-funded bonds to end the state’s obligation to earn money for schools from the forest’s old growth trees, riparian areas and steep slopes.

Under Brown’s proposal, decisions about the rest of the land would be entrusted to what’s called a habitat conservation plan, a blueprint that would dictate where logging could occur and where habitat for threatened species like the marbled murrelet and northern spotted owl would be protected. It would need federal approval, something that federal agencies withheld the last time Oregon tried to draft such a plan for the Elliott.

Liz Dent, a state department of forestry official, said the expected timber harvest under Brown’s plan would be about 20 million board feet each year – roughly half as much as the state’s aggressive 2011 plan that led to the situation today.

The vote was a remarkable turnaround for Read, a Democrat who has been assailed by environmental groups since siding in February with Richardson in rejecting Brown’s effort to keep the land public. Oregon Wild and the Oregon League of Conservation Voters had attacked the new treasurer through a social media campaign with the hashtag #betrayedmyvote.

Read and Richardson would have sold the forest for $221 million to Lone Rock Timber Management, which bid in conjunction with Native American tribes and The Conservation Fund. The state would’ve received an assurance that half of the forest would be kept open to public access.

Three months later, Read is now touting his own plan to build on Brown’s, offering Oregon State University the option to buy the forest for $121 million after the initial $100 million state investment.

Such an idea, which would decouple all of the forest from its school-funding obligation, appears to be a long shot.

Ed Ray, Oregon State’s president, described Read’s idea as “a burst of imagination,” noting that the university would use revenue from logging it to pay for its purchase. “I haven’t got $120 million lying around,” Ray said.

Thomas Maness, dean of Oregon State’s forestry school, said the university’s 15,000 acres of timber holdings do not include any old-growth habitat home to threatened species including the coastal Coho salmon, northern spotted owl and marbled murrelet. The Elliott would provide the school with a place to conduct long-term research to understand how active timber harvesting impacts them.

“If we don’t learn how to manage with these listed species we’re going to see disaster” in the state’s timber industry, Maness said. “We’ve learned nothing about managing with spotted owls.”

Rather than borrowing $100 million from taxpayers and paying additional interest on the debt, Richardson proposed swapping the high value state land for federal forests that aren’t home to endangered species. He offered scant detail, saying it would be modeled on similar transfers in Minnesota, California and Utah.

— Rob Davis