By NICOLE BALES/The Astorian
In a divided 4-3 vote last week, the Oregon Board of Forestry decided to stay the course on a draft habitat conservation plan amid growing pressure from counties and the timber industry to start over.
The special virtual meeting was called late last week after county and timber industry leaders raised alarm over new data on timber harvests released by the state Department of Forestry.
The 70-year plan would designate no-logging areas across nearly 640,000 acres of state forests, mostly in Clatsop and Tillamook counties. The protected areas are intended to keep species under the federal Endangered Species Act safe and keep the state in compliance with federal law.
However, some county and timber industry leaders say the plan goes further than it needs to protect habitat. They also say reductions in timber harvests will have major ramifications on jobs and the 15 counties that depend on revenue from logging state forests.
Throughout the process, county and timber industry leaders have disputed the state’s projections for the loss in timber revenue, suggesting the declines would be much higher.
‘Sad truth’
Clatsop County projected a 30% to 38% reduction in revenue to the county as a result of the habitat conservation plan.
New timber harvest projections recently released by the state for the next two years match the reduction the county anticipated, and county leaders fear what that could mean for harvest volumes over the 70-year life of the plan.
Jim Kelly, the chairman of the Board of Forestry, acknowledged the estimates are alarming, but asked for patience and trust while the board goes through the process.
“Yesterday, one of our former governors said to me that it looks like the Timber Wars have started again,” Kelly said at the start of the meeting on Wednesday. “I had an urge to laugh, but that quickly sort of turned to an urge to cry.
“On various fronts, in particularly, the Private Forest Accord — we have made real progress working together in recent years towards dealing with our economic and climactic realities. But the sad truth is, that with some early and admittedly alarming harvest level estimates, the camps have quickly gone once again to war filling our inboxes.
“Everyone’s struggling to be heard and convince us that their side is right and the other side all wrong. Rumors spread, and in some cases convenient exaggerations and distortions. This is not a path for success. If you are happy with what the Timber Wars produced, then be that way. But I don’t want to play that way. Let’s not repeat what has failed us in the past.
“I hope you all will be able to accept that every member of this volunteer board cares deeply about healthy and resilient forests, clean water, the plight of rural communities, the plight of the trust land counties, the timber industry, and about what we leave for our children and grandchildren.”
Michael Wilson, the state forests division chief, also acknowledged that the new projections were unexpected, which creates consternation. “But I also want to acknowledge what it is and it isn’t,” he said.
Wilson said the new data only applies to implementation plans for the next two fiscal years, which are necessary as the Department of Forestry transitions from its current forest management plan to the proposed habitat conservation plan and a new forest management plan.
He said the department is conducting additional modeling for the new forest management plan and expects to have better estimates and provide the board with a range of scenarios this summer.
Joe Justice, a board member and region manager of Hancock Forest Management lands in northeast Oregon, argued that the new projections compel the board to explore an alternative plan.
He said the potential economic impact on communities is too great.
“Bringing harvest levels down to even the highest estimates recently provided by staff would result in mill closures,” Justice said. “These new estimates do not achieve middle ground.”
He read a motion that would direct staff to prepare a second habitat conservation plan based on the draft plan, but would alter conservation measures to allow for more logging.
Kelly said the board will have more information in six months and argued the board should wait before throwing out all the work that has been done so far. Staff agreed with Kelly’s assessment.
Following an executive session, Justice’s motion failed in a 4-3 vote, which means the draft stands for now.
Ben Deumling, a board member who manages the family-owned Zena Forest Products, said that while he does not disagree with Justice’s sentiments, he is not convinced a new plan would result in better outcomes.
“And I would dearly love to modify the (habitat conservation plan) in order to get a better outcome,” said Deumling, who voted against the motion. “I’m very concerned that we severely risk getting a worse outcome in the end if we choose to pursue changes.
“And in the interest of the forest, in the interest of the rural communities surrounding these forests, I think we may have the best outcome we might ever get with this, as much as that pains me to say. I wish we had more, better options. I wish we had more tools at our disposal, more ways of maneuvering within this federal process and the legal process.
“So, I struggle with this. I don’t know that we will get anything better by trying, as much as we’d like to try.”
‘Worst fears’
A day before the meeting, Mark Kujala, chair of the Clatsop County Board of Commissioners, asked the Board of Forestry to postpone the approval of the habitat conservation plan and re-engage with local elected officials to prepare a new plan.
He said the new projections by the state “confirms our worst fears.” Kujala said the plan would create an estimated $8.5 million annual reduction to the county and local taxing districts without any offset funding in sight.
“Good public policy is founded on a broad consideration of interrelated and interdependent factors,” the commissioner, who represents Warrenton, said in the letter. “The (habitat conservation plan) must consider and balance this myriad of factors to produce a framework that protects and safeguards Clatsop State Forest and the broader community.”