April » 2011 » One Voice for Working Forests

Archive for April, 2011

More comments on spotted owl plan, but is it enough?

April 29th, 2011

After months of delay, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service last week made a big move on the new spotted owl recovery plan, but it’s a move that few people expected.

It was just two months ago that the feds planned to release a final plan, without any further chance for public comment or changes. No one, from timber companies to environmental groups, was happy with the plan, and yet it appeared the federal government was still going to ram it through.

Then last week the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service made the surprise announcement that it was going to reopen the public comment period after all. But with two major caveats.

First off, the Service is only taking comment on just one appendix of the 181-page recovery plan, not the whole document. This appendix covers a key portion of the plan, a computerized model that “assesses the owl’s habitat and the effectiveness of various conservation measures” but it’s only an appendix in a much larger plan.

From the Medford Mail Tribune:

Basically, the model compares potential spotted owl population responses to different habitat-management scenarios and conservation measures such as barred owl management. For instance, the model suggests that if the barred owl moves into areas already occupied by spotted owls, the latter’s population is likely to decline.

The model brings together information from some 4,000 spotted owl sites in Washington, Oregon and far Northern California, according to an agency spokeswoman. Information gathered in the model includes such factors as forest stand characteristics, slope locations and elevation, she said.

That data is combined with more than 20 years’ worth of demographic information, such as survival and reproductive rates, from annual surveys, she added.

Second, the Service made its announcement so late in the game that the new comment period may not make any difference in the final plan. The new 30-day comment period will run until May 23, just seven days before a court-ordered deadline of June 1 for the Service to complete the plan.

Forestry groups across the country said the full spotted owl plan — not just an appendix — should have been opened up for public comment, and that the limited comment period that was announced won’t do anything to improve the final version of the plan.

From the forestry groups’ statement:

Further public review is sorely needed in light of the chorus of criticism raised by Members of Congress, the Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, the forest products industry, environmental groups and scientific peer reviewers.

David Bischel, President of the California Forestry Association:

“Ironically, some of the most robust populations of Northern Spotted Owls occupy sustainably managed private forests of Northern California.  The first draft of the recovery plan completely ignored the positive benefits provided by pro-active forest management.  We hope the Service recognizes the proactive measures that private and state landowners have already made towards owl conservation, and not add more regulatory gridlock.”

The Fish and Wildlife Service has run out of time to come out with a fully researched plan, the forestry groups said. The only solution is to try to get an extension of the June 1 deadline, said Tom Partin, President of the Portland-based American Forest Resource Council.

“We hope the agency will ask the Court for additional time to complete the Recovery Plan.  That way, whatever comments come from the public can be used and not just ignored.”

No comments »

Posted in Federal Issues, Oregon, Pacific Northwest, Spotted Owl, Timber Industry

Making Wash. state government better

April 22nd, 2011

We wrote earlier this month about a misguided campaign in Washington to raise forest practice fees on timber companies. State Lands Commissioner Peter Goldmark and environmental groups are trying to convince legislators to pour millions of dollars in increased fees into the state’s already bloated forest practices program.

In a year when our Legislature faces a $5 billion deficit, and all signs point to increasing deficits in the future, and when even Gov. Chris Gregoire has advocated for a fundamental streamlining of government operations, environmental groups have the gall to ask for an increase in an inefficient and badly designed government bureaucracy. Our state can’t afford to throw good money after bad, especially when what’s really needed is reform.

On top of all this, the environmental groups are still trying to spread falsehoods about the timber industry’s stance on the forest practice fee issue. Look at what Kerry McHugh of the Washington Environmental Council told the Vancouver Columbian today.

“What industry is saying is, ‘We’ll pay more fees, but that means protections need to be rolled back,” McHugh said. “We can’t support fees that reduce protection…”

What the timber industry is calling for is not less protection at all, but a more efficient permitting system that doesn’t have multiple inspectors from different state agencies doing the exact same thing. This bloated bureaucracy is not good for the environment and it’s not good for a state that is desperately trying to be more efficient and save money.

Even in the current permitting system, the timber industry is in 91 percent compliance on state forest practices. Most of what environmental groups try to claim are compliance issues are deemed by the state to be “trivial or minor.”

The forest industry is one of the state’s leaders in ensuring our streams, wildlife and other natural resources are protected, contributing $130 million a year in fees, taxes and environmental protection, and committing to the 50-year Forests & Fish Habitat Conservation Plan to protect salmon and clean water.

Meanwhile, the state’s forest practices permitting program’s budget has ballooned by 64 percent – to $23 million – while state timber harvest volumes have declined during the same period by 44 percent.

The state of Oregon is the number one timber-producing state in the country and the budget of its forest practices program is only $15 million, 35 percent smaller than Washington’s.

Washington’s forest practices permitting process is the most needlessly complex in the nation, and it’s this government inefficiency that environmental groups want to protect, not the environment and certainly not taxpayers. The time for real reform is now.

No comments »

Posted in DNR, Pacific Northwest, Timber Industry, Washington, Washington Legislature

Banking on biomass and “Wood First”

April 15th, 2011

U.S. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack this week announced $30 million in federal biomass projects, just two weeks after he said the U.S. government would promote and research the use of wood as a green building material.

The departments of Agriculture and Energy will devote $30 million to the Biomass Research and Development Initiative, which will pay for 5-10 projects over the next 3-4 years. The research projects will cover not just woody biomass but also feedstock, biofuels and other farm waste.

“These projects will help to reduce America’s dependence on imported oil by accelerating the development and commercialization of cleaner, alternative fuels that can power our vehicles and our industry,” said U.S Energy Secretary Steven Chu. “Producing renewable fuels from biomass right here in the United States will improve our nation’s energy security and give us an innovative edge in the global market for clean energy technologies.”

In an op-ed in the Oregonian this week, Tom Holt, the chairman of the Oregon Forest Industries Council, compliments the USDA for its stance on using wood as a green building material and says that the Oregon Legislature might take it one step further.

House Bill 3429….would direct the state of Oregon to use wood as a preferred building material. Called the Oregon “Wood First” bill, it states that for structures built with state funds after July 1, 2012, the building materials used should be — to the maximum extent possible and economically feasible — made from wood…

The Oregon bill is modeled after British Columbia’s Wood First Act, passed in October 2009. Passage by the Oregon Legislature would make the bill the first of its kind in the United States.

Holt points out that British Columbia’s Jobs Minister even flew to Salem to testify in favor of the bill. With British Columbia and Oregon leading the way on “Wood First,” it’s only a matter of time before Washington and California step to the plate.

Holt describes why “Wood First” is so critical for Oregon, but the sentiment holds true for all the states on the West Coast.

Oregon is the nation’s number one supplier of softwood lumber and plywood panels. We are among the nation’s most forested states, second only to Alaska. The forest and wood products sector makes up about 8.5 percent of Oregon’s total payroll and ranks in the top four among Oregon traded sectors — those industries producing income for goods and services sold out of state…

…Just think of the possibilities if Oregon were to become the nation’s leading advocate for wood products — more innovation, more stable markets, more jobs and a cleaner environment. The sustainable use of forests and wood products defines us as Oregonians. In this state, it just makes sense to embrace “wood first.”

No comments »

Posted in Biomass, British Columbia, Green Building Standards, Oregon, Pacific Northwest, Timber Industry

Wash. timber permit program needs reform, not increased fees

April 8th, 2011

Peter Goldmark, Washington’s Commissioner of Public Lands, this week came out in favor of pouring millions of dollars in increased fees into the state’s forest practices program, rather than reforming a program that keeps expanding despite a declining demand for its services.

In a Washington state legislative session that demands innovative solutions and government reform, Goldmark is ignoring the problems in the Department of Natural Resources bureaucracy that he oversees and is instead pushing to raise fees on a timber industry that already devotes more than $100 million a year to environmental stewardship and is in 91 percent compliance on state forest practices.

The state’s forest practices permitting program’s budget has ballooned by 64 percent – to $23 million – while state timber harvest volumes have declined during the same period by 44 percent.

For perspective on how expensive the forest practices program has become, the state of Oregon is the number one timber-producing state in the country and the budget of its forest practices program is only $15 million, 35 percent smaller than Washington’s.

While other states, such as Oregon, have found a way to regulate timber activity in a practical and efficient way, Washington’s forest practices permitting process is the most needlessly complex in the nation.

The timber industry has said it wants to be part of the solution in filling the budget gap. But any fee increases must be reasonable and joined by a streamlining of a permitting process.

  • The timber industry not only pays its own way but last year alone contributed $130 million in fees, taxes and environmental protection to the state. The industry is one of the state’s leaders in ensuring Washington’s streams, wildlife and other natural resources are protected, and the industry has decades of financial commitment to back it up.
  • The forest practice fee is designed to be a small fee to help pay for paperwork, and the timber industry already bears the cost of environmental protection. The language in the 1993 bill that approved the forest practices fees is clear in stating the fees are intended to “assist” in the cost of the permitting process but not pay for the FPA program. The new fees were also described during the legislative process as “a small fee for processing and handling.”
  • The timber industry is in 91 percent compliance on state forest practices. Commissioner Goldmark is twisting the numbers to try to portray the industry as out of step with forest practices.
  • The state’s forest permitting program needs genuine reform, not more money thrown at it in the form of increased fees. A single state agency, rather than multiple agencies, should oversee the permits, and with existing federal and state habitat protection plans, many forest practices can be reviewed with a notification system, rather than formal permits.

No comments »

Posted in DNR, Pacific Northwest, State Issues, Washington