by Ann Vileisis
Time to finish the job: Protecting our Wild Rivers Coast from strip mining
As longstanding KAS members know, we’ve been working to protect the headwaters of Hunter Creek, Pistol River, the North Fork Smith and the Illinois Rivers from the threat of nickel strip mining, ever since a foreign owned mining company proposed to explore Forest Service lands behind Gold Beach at Red Flat back in 2013. After working together with a coalition of organizations, communities, tribes—and our members of Congress, in 2016, we helped to secure a temporary 20-year administrative mineral withdrawal, which precludes the staking of new mining claims in these headwater areas to give our lawmakers time to pass a law to make the mineral withdrawal permanent. Since then, every year, our Senators and Congressman have introduced the Southwestern Oregon Watershed and Salmon Protect Act (SOWSPA). Last fall, the bill made it farther than ever before, with important hearings completed on both the House and Senate side!
However, with the pending retirement of our Congressman Peter DeFazio, we will lose an important champion who has long worked to protect Southwest Oregon’s rivers from the threat of mining. (By the way, Rep. DeFazio recently secured funding to clean up the horribly polluting Formosa Mine Superfund site over in the Cow Creek-South Fork Umpqua watershed!) Before Rep. DeFazio leaves office at the end of his session, we will need for him to work with our Senators to finally get SOWSPA across the finish line. With redistricting, a much bigger chunk of the upper Illinois River will move into the district of Rep. Bentz of eastern Oregon, who is already on record opposing protections for our rivers’ headwaters. Moreover, there is rising opposition to our bill based on the interests of one small but loud Grants Pass mining company that has gotten the ear of the Josephine County Board of Commissioners (BOC), as well as Rep. Bentz and other influential Republican lawmakers in D.C. – arguing that rising demand for battery metals means SW Oregon should be open to mining development and pushing a false narrative that local people don’t want any mining restrictions. In one Congressional hearing, a Josephine County Commissioner even claimed (falsely) that Curry County opposed SOWSPA!
Knowing we’d need to counter that misinformation, I approached Curry County Commissioner Court Boice—our commissioner most interested in public lands—and reminded him of the longstanding local effort to protect our rivers’ headwaters. Mr. Boice offered to put the issue onto the BOC agenda on Dec. 1. I am extremely grateful for the dedicated and articulate KAS members and local residents who showed up to testify in person at the Curry BOC meeting. One person after another got up to speak –giving voice to many concerns, from mine waste and pollution, to drinking water and wells, salmon and steelhead, and unique botany –all important reasons for the BOC to support SOWSPA.
As each person spoke of love for our rivers and place, the positive momentum grew. Ultimately, we built up a powerful wave of inspiration that literally washed over them. In the space of that BOC meeting, any larger political divisions evaporated, and we were all people who loved and cared deeply about our special “Curry Corner of Oregon,” as Mr. Boice often puts it.
When the public comment ended, Board Chair John Herzog led with enthusiasm. He exclaimed: I think we should just support this right now! He gave Boice “the honor of making the motion.” Then the Board voted unanimously to support, eliciting appreciative applause from the entire room. In the end, Mr. Boice said: “This is almost inspiring,” and Mr. Paasch added that he wanted to make sure the letter included specific direction to get the bill passed soon!
It couldn’t have gone any better. Two weeks later, on Dec. 15, the Curry BOC adopted a final letter in support of SOWSPA. Meanwhile, KAS member and Native Fish Society (NFS) Hunter Creek steward Dave Lacey went to the Gold Beach City Council, and they too voted to renew their support for SOWSPA. These letters–on top of the well-established and substantive record public support from the extensive public process for the 2016 administrative mineral withdrawal—should help to give Rep. DeFazio and our Senators the concrete and current evidence that they need to counter the mis-information. There are many reasons to feel despair about national politics, but our work locally gives me some hope that people can come together around common ground for conservation.
On another front, you may recall that, despite the mineral withdrawal, the Red Flat Nickel Company (RFNC) asserted that it had a “valid existing right” to continue exploratory drilling on its 1,776-acre block of claims at the Hunter Creek headwaters. (Mineral withdrawals do not apply to “valid existing claims) In response, the Forest Service has been preparing a “Surface Use Determination” to provide technical details that will inform whether such a continuation is even legally possible. The SUD is expected to be completed soon, and Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest Supervisor Merv George will make a final decision about whether to allow any further mineral exploration. Because hard rock mining on federal public lands is still governed by the outdated Mining Law 1872, our Mineral Withdrawal solution is not perfect, but it’s the best tool we have to protect our cherished watersheds.
There will be more to do on this issue in the coming year, and so I hope I can count on your continued backing and support. Please stay tuned, and sign up for KAS HOOT OUTs for timely opportunities to help.
BOEM to announce Wind Energy “call areas” soon
The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) is slated to officially announce “call areas” proposed for wind energy development off Oregon’s coast next month. In the last Storm Petrel, I reported that KAS had spearheaded efforts to pull together Oregon Audubon chapters and other important marine wildlife conservation groups into a coalition to proactively identify key issues for birds, fish, and wildlife early in the wind energy facility siting process. In late October, our coalition sent a letter to BOEM, expressing concern that official opportunities for public comment would come only after the areas for energy development were already picked. To us, it has seemed to be a cart-before-the-horse approach, especially since the floating offshore turbines are a totally new technology, and siting turbines in one of our planet’s largest upwelling current zones—the California Current—is also wholly new. If there is anything I’ve learned about minimizing the impacts of wind turbines on wildlife, it’s that getting the siting right is the single most important decision to be made.
In our letter, we provided specific information about the important values of Oregon’s rich offshore marine ecosystems—with productive upwelling of exceptionally clean, cold water that provides for fisheries/fish habitat areas, draws nearly 100 species of birds from all around the Pacific to forage, and provides foraging habitat for thru-migrating gray whales and other marine mammals. We provided preliminary maps and recommendations on important areas to be avoided.
We also recommended and requested more opportunities for public and scientific input early in the siting and planning process; a full consideration of the high value biological resources in the California Current ecosystem off Oregon and the cumulative impacts multiple West Coast wind energy projects will pose to wildlife; formation of a technical science advisory group to provide an independent review and expertise for both siting and management considerations; developing a comprehensive coastwide framework for adaptive management, including robust monitoring and a way to bring new scientific information on board; and developing a meaningful compensatory mitigation program to make up for environmental harm caused by the implementation of offshore wind facilities, including cable landing and port/terminal sites.
After sending the letter, in early December, we had a chance to discuss some of our concerns with BOEM officials. When we asked for a better understanding of what specific criteria BOEM was using to choose its call areas, they pretty much said: “Trust us! There will need to be some judgement calls.” Coming from a massive federal agency with a long background of siting offshore oil drilling platforms, this response was not entirely reassuring. In the big picture, we recognize the Biden Administration is racing to fast track its climate crisis response with offshore wind energy as a key component, but as local caretakers, we must voice concerns for the wildlife that depends on Oregon’s rich, clean, and pristine offshore marine ecosystems. After BOEM announces its call areas, we expect a notice in the Federal Register that will start a 30-day “call” for public comment and site nominations from wind energy companies.
Meanwhile, the Oregon Department of Energy (DOE), under direction from the State legislature’s HB 3375, put forth by our own State Representative David Brock Smith, is starting a study to identify benefits and challenges to offshore wind development –focused on the energy aspects (eg. hook up to the grid, port infrastructure, transmission lines). On Jan. 20, DOE gave an overview and kicked off a public comment period. Comments will be accepted via an online portal in response to “prompt questions” about different topics (not all have to be answered). To learn more and to participate, google: Floating Offshore Wind Study Oregon.
The need to transition to a carbon-free energy system has never been more urgent, but it is important to make sure we don’t inadvertently harm our wildlife as we proceed! Stay tuned.
Humboldt Marten: critical habitat proposed
In December, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USF&WS) proposed critical habitat to help support the survival and recovery of the Humboldt marten (Martes caurina), which was listed as a threatened species in 2020. KAS submitted supportive comments.
Humboldt martens live only in the forests of Northern California and Oregon, including those dominated by old-growth firs but also coastal shore pine forests and serpentine forests. The coastal martens have been eliminated from 93-95% of their historic range and continue to be threatened by logging of mature forests, loss of habitat to wildfires, rodent poison used in growing marijuana, vehicle strikes, and loss of genetic diversity owing to such a small population size. The decline of these animals started with the historic fur trade that decimated not only martens but otters, minks, and beavers, too. Not until 2019 did the State of Oregon ban trapping for these very rare animals–and only then, after a petition and lawsuit from conservation groups.
The proposed Humboldt marten critical habitat in our KAS “beat” includes the Floras Lake Natural Area, Cape Blanco and Humbug State Parks, as well as large forested areas of Siskiyou National Forest—all areas where martens have been sighted and that still retain or have potential to retain the old growth, closed canopy character, and dense brush habitats that the animals favor. According to the USF&WS, 42% the area proposed for Humboldt marten critical habitat is already managed as such for marbled murrelets and spotted owls, other species that depend on old growth forest.
Humboldt martens have pointy ears and bushy tails. They grow up to 2 feet long but weigh less than 3 pounds. Martens are solitary animals except during mating and when females are raising young. They favor denning in cavities of large old trees and foraging in dense brushy areas. Martens eat small mammals, birds, berries, reptiles and insects, and are eaten by larger mammals and raptors so they once played an important role in coastal forest ecosystems.
Drones on the coast
Oregon Parks and Recreation Department (OPRD) will soon consider new rules for drones in state parks. Through the years, some of you have reported observing drones flying too close to osprey nests. In addition, data from the ongoing coastal Black Oystercatcher study (orchestrated by Portland Audubon with help from volunteers, including some KAS members) has also documented a troubling trend of increased disturbance of these shorebird nests. This will be an important concern to bring up. A public comment period is expected in February. If any of you have observations or experiences with drone impacts to birds or wildlife, please let me know. I’ll be sharing more info about how to provide comments in an upcoming HOOT OUT.