by Ann Vileisis
Drones in Oregon State Parks
Thanks to everyone who sent letters to the Oregon Department of Parks and Recreation (OPRD) about proposed new rules for drones in state parks. On behalf of KAS, I submitted comments and testified in both the OPRD public process and also to the OPRD Commission in mid-April, raising concerns about the disturbing impacts of drones to birds and wildlife and also to park-user experiences. The Oregon Black Oystercatcher Survey has documented at least 3 nest disturbances per week as a result of drones on our coast, and there are many other examples of drone disturbance of colonial seabirds, including tufted puffins. And, of course, I’ve heard from many of you about unpleasant personal experiences with intrusive drones.
I was dismayed to learn that the public process for this rulemaking has been decidedly unfair. Only drone-users were invited to OPRD’s initial “Resource Advisory Committee” to develop drone rules, and they managed to change OPRD’s initially proposed rule—to allow drones nowhere except where expressly permitted—to a permissive approach allowing drones everywhere except where prohibited. When two conservation groups were invited to the second RAC meeting and asked for a more-restrictive approach, they were told it was too late to change. Moreover, no bird or wildlife experts were consulted—even though Oregon’s coast hosts half of the West Coast’s seabird habitat, mostly in Oregon Islands National Wildlife Refuge, which is managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and lies directly adjacent to so many state parks.
Even more troubling, drone industry- and user-groups have organized nationally, asking their members to send comments to OPRD, and literally turning our Oregon OPRD rulemaking process into a venue for their national campaign to loosen-up the strong precedent of no drones in state parks across America. As OPRD has tabulated the comments, the agency has repeatedly said opinion is evenly split, and used that as rationale for the more permissive rules. Meanwhile, the park experience of the majority of Oregonians and visitors who cherish the opportunity to peaceably enjoy our state parks and to watch birds and wildlife that is vulnerable to drone disturbance is regarded as merely “one side” in an issue framed to be polarized when it shouldn’t be. To be clear, National Parks and other states parks, including those in Colorado, Washington and Florida and many, many more, have restrictive drone rules. OPRD incredibly took an approach that would make our Oregon state parks into a mecca for drone users from elsewhere! This is not over, and KAS will continue to work on this issue with other Audubon chapters to protect our coastal parks, birds, and wildlife.
Floating offshore wind energy
In late February, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) announced its draft “call areas” for potential floating offshore wind (FOSW) energy development on Oregon’s outer continental shelf. They are big blocks—2,200 square miles—on the outer continental shelf (about 13-20 miles out), reaching from the California-Oregon border north to Florence, with a break in the middle for the sub-marine Rogue Canyon, which extends roughly from the Rogue River north to Cape Blanco. It’s a lot of area that will soon be officially offered up for leasing to big wind-energy-development companies. And we learned, still more areas will be offered up in the future. We learned, too, that bird and wildlife values have not yet been considered.
Because siting is the single most important decision that will be made about these industrial installations, I testified for KAS at BOEM’s February Oregon Task Force meeting about the unique values of our SW Oregon marine environment as part of the California current—one of only 4 eastern boundary upwelling ecosystems (EBUS) in the world. I emphasized the need for better analysis early on to consider cumulative impacts, especially for birds, fish, and wildlife that use the entire ecosystem, migrating north-south, or onshore-offshore. To get a sense of the super productivity of EBUS—they encompass less than one percent of the world’s ocean surface but providing for over 20 percent of the world’s ocean fish harvest.
Oregon’s fishing community also testified—in force, indignant that the promise of tens of thousands of new green jobs hid the fact that their “sustainable food” jobs could be lost. They reported that displacement of wildlife and fishers by wind turbine arrays would mean crowding fish and fishing boats into smaller areas creating more conflicts. Because both conservation and fishing groups asked for more and better analysis early on, we subsequently worked collaboratively to develop a joint conservation-fishery letter—again asking BOEM for better analysis in the form of a programmatic environmental impact statement, which is generally required for large federal projects that will have multiple sub-projects and parts. The current BOEM process lets energy companies pick their favored sites first, which puts the cart before the horse.
This is a challenging issue. One KAS member asked me if raising concerns with BOEM would cause delays that we don’t have time for given the urgency of addressing the climate crisis. I share the concern about the urgency of the climate crisis. Yet the headlong rush to lease our oceans makes it even more imperative that we raise concerns about birds and wildlife now. Floating offshore wind is an entirely new technology that’s been implemented only on a very small scale in just a few places in the world —not yet in deep waters nor upwelling zones. According to Oregon Department of Energy (ODOE), the world’s largest FOSW farm in Scotland has just 5 turbines. There will be many important aspects to consider.
The cost of developing FOSW here off Oregon’s coast will be extremely high given the costs of “floating” wind farms, which are much more expensive than offshore windmills in shallower water and far more expensive than land-based wind energy. The need for port upgrades, massive infrastructure needs, and significant transmission upgrades force costs even higher. According to recent analysis, the Oregon grid could carry about 2-3 gigawatts (GW) of energy from FOSW arrays, which would mean about 200 very large (1,000 foot tall) turbines. However, at the recent BOEM and ODOE meetings, there were discussions about the possibility of a much larger build out in the future to 17 or even 20 GW—a massive industrialization of our ocean and coastline advocated by the wind energy industry. Also, unlike ours, all other FOSW projects currently proposed have far lower transmission costs because they are more proximate to significant population centers.
I keep returning to the fundamental fact that the ocean is not just an empty space. One old time salmon fisher I talked to told me that the waters out there near the continental-shelf drop-off move like rivers, with an abundance of fish, birds, and whales. Local offshore coastal ecosystems are literally wind-adapted, with birds and animals especially suited to high-winds and the upwelling waters stirred by those winds. It’s a place few people know with albatross and other soaring seabirds that glide across the Pacific to forage and microscopic plankton that depend on cold nutrient-rich waters and sustain complex food webs that feed salmon, tuna, and whales. The adaptation to wind extends onshore, as well, to the redwoods that depend on the fog drip caused by summer upwelling.
And so, there is much to learn and attend to in these challenging times. It’s expected that BOEM will “publish” its call areas in the Federal Register soon, which will kick off a short comment period. KAS will continue to work with a coalition of conservation groups to provide constructive comments to ensure consideration of birds and wildlife. (Since this article was published, BOEM published its call areas in the Federal Register. See here: https://www.boem.gov/renewable-energy/state-activities/Oregon
Colebrook Quarry
Thanks to everyone who sent letters to the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) raising concerns about Colebrook Quarry, up Hunter Creek. Hoot-out recipients know this is an enormous new quarry proposed for BLM land, adjacent to Hunter Creek Bog ACEC. But even though it’s Bureau of Land Management (BLM) land, the public process is being run by ODOT on behalf of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA).
The Colebrook Quarry would be located about 8 miles up Hunter Creek Road, a mile before the Hunter Creek Bog but directly adjacent to the Hunter Creek Bog Area of Critical Environmental Concern. Despite the large scale of this project, ODOT says the quarry will proceed with the minimum review possible—in National Environmental Protection Act parlance called a CE (categorical exclusion). According to ODOT, the proposed quarry is expected to supply a minimum of 300,000 tons of rock for ongoing repair of Highway 101. ODOT expects the quarry will be used for 3-5 months every few years—during summer paving season and/or during winter, when landslides affect the highway—generating truck traffic of 30-60 round trips per day. Operations at the quarry will include drilling, blasting, excavating, crushing, processing, batching, and hauling.
KAS raised concerns about the insufficient process, including lack of consideration of alternatives (local people have pointed to an existing private quarry already in operation lower in the watershed and closer to Hwy 101). We also raised key environmental issues that demand more careful project planning: that Hunter Creek hosts habitat for threatened coho salmon, with sedimentation from road runoff as a key limiting factor; that the site is part of proposed critical habitat for threatened coastal marten; that the quarry site is located in the Sudden Oak Death infected area and may well have the potential to spread the pathogen with so much traffic; and that the quarry site hosts old-growth trees. We also raised concerns about the impacts of traffic to local residents and growing recreational use on Hunter Creek Road for walking and mountain biking. ODOT says it’s pulling together analysis for BLM based on public input, but what happens next remains unclear. Stay tuned!
Wild Rogue conservation news
In mid-April, Congressman Peter DeFazio introduced the Wild Rogue Conservation and Recreation Enhancement Act, a bill that will help to protect the Wild and Scenic Rogue River in its remarkable canyons, upstream of Curry County. The bill would establish a Rogue Canyon National Recreation Area between Hog Creek and Mule Creek Canyon, and would also expand the current Wild Rogue Wilderness by 59,000 acres, extending it upstream along the river into BLM lands.
The bill is needed because conservation groups have for decades fended off old-growth logging proposals in the Rogue canyon where the wild and scenic corridor is too narrow to protect the river’s outstanding values. The proposed upstream protections will help to sustain water quality and salmon runs enjoyed by citizens of Curry County. The bill also directs land management agencies to develop a Wildfire Management Assessment and would match up with legislation already introduced by Senator Wyden called the Oregon Recreation and Enhancement Act. Of special importance to us, this includes our Southwest Oregon Mineral Withdrawal—a critical measure that has been a top priority of KAS for nearly a decade.
Passage of the Wild Rogue bill would certainly solidify Representative DeFazio’s legacy as a champion for Southwest Oregon’s rivers, wildlife, and public lands before he retires at the end of this year after 37 years of public service. Please thank Rep. DeFazio by going to his website’s contact page where you can send a short thank you note. https://defazio.house.gov/contact/email-me
Sample thank you note: Dear Rep. DeFazio, Thanks for your longstanding efforts to protect Southwest Oregon’s wild rivers! I appreciate your recent bill to conserve the Wild Rogue River, which will help protect clean water, salmon and steelhead runs, and wildlife habitat, while enhancing outdoor recreation opportunities—all valued by our communities. I also hope that you’ll steward the Southwest Oregon Watershed and Salmon Protection Act to its final passage. Thank you for being such a champion for Oregon’s rivers, forests, and wildlife and for your exemplary public service!
Rogue River black bears
Seeing a black bear ambling along the river’s edge is a highlight of floating or hiking the Rogue. However, over the past few years, there have been increasing human-bear conflicts as a result of black bears getting habituated to human foods improperly stored by visitors.
A couple of years ago, ODFW proposed to address the problem by opening a new hunt for bears in the canyon, even though it’s not really a “bear problem” but rather a people-problem of getting visitors to store their foods properly.
Owing to strong public opposition, ODFW dropped its hunt idea. Since then, KAS has collaborated with Rogue Riverkeeper and the Humane Society of the United States, as well as with ODFW, BLM and the Forest Service to figure out how to inspire Rogue visitors to better store their foods to reduce conflicts and help keep both people and bears safe. This winter, with a grant from River Network, we convened a collaborative meeting to launch a bear canister rental pilot project, together with the Merlin-based-river rental and shuttle company, Orange Torpedo. The pilot project will give Rogue River Trail hikers the opportunity to rent bear canisters to safely store food when they hire their shuttle. Currently there is no easy way to rent a canister, and there are no food storage requirements in the Rogue canyon. We hope that providing a ready way to store food properly can help people take responsibility and do their part to keep Rogue bears wild and free.
The same principles of storing food on the Wild & Scenic Rogue apply in rural settings too. Curry Transfer and Recycling now offers special trash receptacles with lids that cinch down, to keep trash secure and wildlife out.
Good news for Oregon’s forests!
In early March, the Oregon conservation community had two great wins in the state legislature related to forest management. First, the legislature passed SB 1501 to reform the Oregon Forest Practices Act, which regulates more than 10 million acres of private forestland. The reform bill was the result of a long, hard negotiation convened by Governor Kate Brown’s office to engage representatives from the timber industry and the conservation community. The resulting agreement, called the Private Forest Accord, became this basis for legislation, which passed with rare bi-partisan support. The new law will provide stronger protection for both fish and non-fish bearing streams on private forest lands. It requires wider riparian buffers, more protection against steep-slope logging, and more requirements to prevent roads from bleeding sediments, all to the benefit of salmon and other aquatic species. Still more reforms are needed, but this is a significant step toward more science-based management of private forests. We can thank our friends at Portland Audubon, KS Wild, Oregon Wild, Trout Unlimited, and the Wild Salmon Center for their thoughtful work at the negotiating table.
Second, the legislature passed SB 1546 and allocated $121 million to create the Elliott State Research Forest, affording new protections for old growth forests, imperiled species, and water quality. Following decades of conflict owing to the state forest’s remaining old growth forests being logged to provide funding for Oregon’s Common School Fund while destroying habitat for threatened wildlife and other values, a new vision for a different future for the Elliott took hold. Over the past three years, stakeholders including conservation groups, tribes, timber interests, recreational interests, rural counties, the Oregon School Board, the State of Oregon, and Oregon State University (OSU) have worked to develop a new collaborative path forward for the Elliott.
The legislation establishing the Research Forest, based on the stakeholder proposal, also decoupled the Elliott from the Common School Fund, an essential step in prioritizing conservation as it removes the pressure for the forest to fulfill a financial obligation to the schools. The bill passed with strong support from more than 25 conservation groups (including KAS), and overwhelming bipartisan support in the legislature with a 22-4 vote in the Senate and 50-9 vote in the House.
Be aware of spring aerial sprays
Most timber companies spray herbicides in either the spring or fall, so this is the time of year to check and see if there are any herbicide applications planned near your community. Visit https://sprayfreecoast.org/sprays-across-oregon/ to use an interactive map that displays areas where chemical applications or clear cuts are planned. Click on the shapes in the map to learn more. In the case of planned aerial sprays, you can call operators to ask for more specific dates and details, or to express concern. Sprays are allowed by law, but respectfully voicing concern can be effective in reminding aerial spray operators to take special care when spraying near homes or water supplies.