1 / 38

Elliott State Forest Planning Update

Elliott State Forest Planning Update. Tuesday, October 13 , 2009. Oregon Department of Forestry and Department of State Lands “Stewardship in Forestry”. Overview. Background Current management Issues driving the plan revision The proposed Habitat Conservation Plan Current issues

glain
Download Presentation

Elliott State Forest Planning Update

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Elliott State ForestPlanning Update Tuesday, October 13 , 2009 Oregon Department of Forestry and Department of State Lands “Stewardship in Forestry”

  2. Overview... • Background • Current management • Issues driving the plan revision • The proposed Habitat Conservation Plan • Current issues • Contingency planning • Summary and Next Steps

  3. Background . . .

  4. Elliott State Forest • 93,000 Acres • East of Reedsport • 91% Common School • 9% Board of Forestry • Established in 1930 Elliott State Forest

  5. Current management • In accordance with DSL Asset Management Plan: • “…manage forest lands to increase timber harvest levels to the extent possible while maintaining a sustainable, even-flow harvest of timber, subject to economic, environmental and regulatory considerations…”

  6. Sustainable Harvest Level • Estimated annual biological growth • 75 million board feet per year • 2005 Cost-Benefit Analysis by Mason, Bruce, and Girard • Assumed one-third of forest primarily for protection of threatened and endangered species and Forest Practices measures • Resulted in sustainable harvest level of 50 million board feet per year

  7. Current ManagementSince murrelet ITP expired in 2001... • 1995 HCP for owl • Take Avoidance for Murrelet • Two seasons of dawn watch surveys • A/R Strategies of 1995 Plan • 100-foot buffer on fish-bearing streams • 50-foot on perennial non-fish • Protect channel integrity on all other

  8. 55% of forest in 160-240 year rotations (green) 45% of forest in 80-135 year rotations (light blue) 23% of forest in reserves (overlaying) (dark blue) Current ManagementLandscape view...

  9. Current ManagementHarvest and gross revenue... • 475 acres clearcut harvest per year • 500 acres commercial thinning per year • Approximately 25mmbf and $13.5 mm / yr • Avg Annual Vol/Value 1991-1995 • 17.8 mmbf, $7.9 mm • Avg Annual Vol/Value 1996-2009 • 25 mmbf, $13.5 mm

  10. Issues Driving Plan Revision • Marbled murrelet ITP expired Oct. 3, 2001 • Coho salmon listed February 2008 • Broader scientific knowledge base now • Other species at risk for listing

  11. Predicted Murrelet Habitat About 17,269 acres or 19% of the forest

  12. Proposed HCPMulti-Species FMP/HCP... • Greatest long-term benefit to people of Oregon • Enhanced management certainty • Protects and enhances habitat for threatened and endangered species • Covers northern spotted owl, marbled murrelet, coho salmon, and other species of concern

  13. Proposed HCPDraft Covered Species List… Birds • Northern spotted owl • Marbled murrelet • Bald eagle • Northern goshawk Amphibians • Red-legged frog • Southern seep salamander • Tailed frog Fish • Coho salmon – coastal • Chinook Salmon • Steelhead trout • Coastal cutthroat trout • Chum salmon • Pacific lamprey • River lamprey • Brook lamprey Mammals • Fisher

  14. Proposed HCPKey Strategy Concepts... • Sustained, even flow of timber harvest to provide revenue to the Common School Fund • Conservation areas to protect most important existing habitat • Aquatic / riparian strategies that provide for properly functioning aquatic habitats • Habitat defined by structural characteristics of forest

  15. Proposed HCPLandscape View... • Advanced Structure 40-60% of forest; includes 20-30% in conservation areas • Intermediate Structure 25-55% of forest • Early Structure 5-15% of forest

  16. Proposed HCP • Legend • Management Basins • Forest Boundary • Lakes • T&E Core Areas • Unique, Steep, Visual Areas • <50% Advanced Structure • >50% Advanced Structure

  17. Proposed HCPHarvest and net revenue... • 650 acres clearcut harvest per year • 1400 acres commercial thinning per year • Approximately 40mmbf and $16 mm /yr net • Clearcut Volume 24 mmbf • Thinning Volume 16 mmbf

  18. Current Issues • Substantive comments on draft HCP/DEIS • Regional joint policy – USFWS/NMFS • Center for Biological Diversity Lawsuit • Other related issues – • Murrelet listing status • Withdrawal of BLM’s WOPR • Vacation of 2008 owl critical habitat revision • Review of 2008 owl recovery plan

  19. Current IssuesSubstantive HCP/DEIS Comments… • USFWS • Level of murrelet take • Amount of owl habitat remaining at end of ITP • Addressing potential future barred owl issues • Monitoring habitat effectiveness • Monitoring unlisted covered species • NMFS • A/R strategies re: large wood, temperature, increasing road miles, mitigation for upland activities, identification of unstable slopes and implementation of BMPs • Consistency with other regional HCPs – WA DNR

  20. Current IssuesRegional Joint Policy… • USFWS/NMFS policy on ESA procedures • Inappropriate to use ESA Section 10 (HCP) for one agency’s species while using ESA Section 7 (Consultation) for the other agency • USFWS indication it may be possible to move forward with HCP that does not include NMFS species

  21. Current IssuesCBD Lawsuit… • Plaintiffs • Center for Biological Diversity • Umpqua Watersheds, Inc. • Cascadia Wildlands Project • Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands Center

  22. Current IssuesCBD Lawsuit… • Filed on August 11, 2008, in U.S. District Court against USFWS regarding the 1995 Elliott HCP • Failing to reinitiate consultation on impacts of logging on northern spotted owl in light of new information • Increased threats from habitat loss, barred owl and disease • Plaintiffs have requested that USFWS be enjoined to reinitiate consultation • Lawsuit stayed until Dec 31, 2009 • Effect on HCP process unknown at this point

  23. Current IssuesOther Related Issues… • Murrelet listing status • Withdrawal of BLM’s WOPR • Vacation of 2008 owl critical habitat revision • Review of 2008 owl recovery plan

  24. Contingency Planning • A – Retain 1995 owl HCP and take avoidance for murrelet • B – Suspend work on revised HCP, develop new plan using take avoidance, terminate 1995 HCP • C – Continue managing under 1995 HCP and revised HCP until revision process is successfully concluded • D – Sell Elliott State Forest • or Combination of B & C

  25. Contingency PlanningAlternative A… • Retain 1995 owl HCP and take avoidance for murrelet • Estimated volume 15-20 mmbf • 27 percent of biological growth • Pro – Certainty in relation to owl impacts • Con – Relatively low harvest volume • Timing – Immediate upon decision by SLB, BOF

  26. Contingency PlanningAlternative B1… • No HCP, State Forests take avoidance / modify 2006 FMP • Conservation areas 20-40% • Estimated volume 40 mmbf • 54 percent of biological growth • Pro – Potential for higher economic return • Con – Legal uncertainty in regard to take avoidance standard; uncertainty in terminating/mitigating 1995 HCP • Timing – possibly begin take avoidance Sept 2011

  27. Contingency PlanningAlternative B2… • No HCP, State Forests take avoidance / new FMP that manages to FPA or other standards • Conservation areas 15-25% • Estimated volume 45 mmbf • 60 percent of biological growth • Pro – Potential for higher economic return • Con – Greater legal risk in relation to listed species ; uncertainty in terminating/mitigating 1995 HCP • Timing – possibly begin take avoidance Sept 2011

  28. Contingency PlanningAlternative C1… • Continue multi-species HCP with USFWS and NMFS • Conservation Areas 25-30% • Estimated volume 30 mmbf • 40 percent of biological growth • Pro – Increased flexibility and legal certainty • Con – Complex and lower harvest level than take avoidance • Timing – unknown – depends on federal processes –October 2010 at the earliest

  29. Contingency PlanningAlternative C2… • Continue multi-species HCP with USFWS only • Conservation Areas 25% • Estimated volume 35 mmbf • 47 percent of biological growth • Pro – Increased flexibility and legal certainty • Con – Complex and lower harvest level than take avoidance; joint regional policy may prevent • Timing – unknown – depends on federal processes –October 2010 at the earliest

  30. Contingency PlanningAlternative C3… • Continue revised owl only HCP with USFWS • Conservation Areas 25% • Estimated volume 35 mmbf • 47 percent of biological growth • Pro – Increased flexibility and legal certainty • Con – Complex and lower harvest level than take avoidance; continued murrelet surveying and set asides; joint regional policy may prevent • Timing – unknown – depends on federal processes –October 2010 at the earliest

  31. Contingency PlanningAlternative C4… • Suspend work on HCP while WOPR and NSO critical habitat is resolved • Conservation Areas 25% • Estimated volume 15-20 mmbf • 27 percent of biological growth • Pro – Clarity on how issues may affect process • Con – Could take several years to resolve issues; harvest level relatively low during this period; may not be a benefit to wait • Timing – unknown.

  32. Contingency PlanningAlternative D… • Sell Elliott in part or complete • Pro – Potential for higher returns to Common School Fund. • Con – Resistance by some constituent groups and public; unknown long-term whether this would produce best economic return for CSF • Timing – Begin implementation upon SLB decision; process may take 1-2 years

  33. Issue Summary • NMFS unlikely to accept proposed a/r strategies • Additional USFWS issues will reduce harvest • Uncertainty in regard to regional joint policy • Uncertainty in regard to CBD lawsuit • Other factors – WOPR, Owl Recovery Plan, Owl Critical Habitat

  34. Basic Policy Questions • Is the volume and revenue cost of meeting the federal services request for changes to the HCP worth the management certainty an HCP would provide? • Would the potential for increased volume and revenue of a take avoidance plan be worth the uncertainty in sale planning, public trust and potential legal challenges?

  35. Next Steps • December 8, 2009 SLB meeting • Details on alternative planning pathways for future management of the ESF • Public comment forum provided • February 2010 SLB meeting • Board decision on next steps for ESF management

  36. Elliott State Forest Oregon Department of Forestry and Department of State Lands “Stewardship in Forestry”

More Related