Elliott State Forest Planning Update

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

6. 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…”

7. 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

8. 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

9. 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...

10. 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

11. 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

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

13. 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

14. 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

15. 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

16. 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

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

18. 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

19. 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

20. 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

21. 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

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

23. 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

24. 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

25. 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

26. 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

27. 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

28. 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

29. 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

30. 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

31. 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

32. 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.

33. 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

35. 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

36. 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?

37. 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

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