Tag: aerial spray

Posted on

Spring 2022 Conservation News

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.

Posted on

Conservation News, Spring 2021

by Ann Vileisis

Representative DeFazio Leads on SOWSPA!

I am pleased to report that, since the last Storm Petrel, the bill to protect the headwaters of Hunter Creek, Pistol River, the Illinois (Rough and Ready Creek), and North Fork Smith from the threats of strip mining — the Southwestern Oregon Watershed and Salmon Protection Act (SOWSPA) — has passed the whole U.S. House of Representatives as part of a larger public lands bill (the Protecting America’s Wilderness and Public Lands Act), thanks to a big
push by our Representative Peter DeFazio! If you’ve not yet thanked Congressman DeFazio, please send a quick note via the contact page on his website to express appreciation (and help to keep him engaged!): https://defazio.house.gov/contact/contact-peter.

Now it’s time to ask our senators to do their part! They have already introduced a different bill, the River Democracy Act, which — based on nominations from hundreds of Oregonians — would designate thousands of miles of new wild and scenic rivers throughout our state, giving clear guidance to federal land managing agencies to accord our wild rivers with a higher level of protection. But most important, we need our senators’ help to finish the business of passing SOWSPA, which remains crucial to protecting threatened headwaters from mining. As longtime KAS members know, SOWSPA builds on years of communities coming together — on both sides of the Oregon and California border — to advocate for protecting outstanding wild rivers, drinking water, salmon and steelhead runs, recreation opportunities, and other natural values. The initial impetus was a proposal for mineral exploration in the headwaters of Hunter Creek/Pistol River by a company that also held a large block of mining claims in the headwaters of the North Fork Smith River. The laterite soils (what we often call “serpentine”) are rich in minerals but are of low grade — so mining would require removal of massive amounts of overburden. Such strip mining, plus piling and leach-processing of rock, in our high-precipitation area would be like opening a Pandora’s box at the headwaters of our special wild rivers. Working for increased protections for our public lands is a long process that demands perseverance, but I know that all our local voices together — YOUR VOICES — have been absolutely critical in getting us this far. Please let’s press ahead together. I thank you for your help in keeping this ball rolling along!

ACTION NEEDED: Please send an email to Senators Wyden and Merkley thanking them for introducing the River Democracy Act and encouraging them to introduce and advance SOWSPA in the Senate. Here is the contact page for Senator Wyden:
https://www.wyden.senate.gov/contact/email-ron

Here is the contact page for Senator Merkley:
https://www.merkley.senate.gov/contact

Here is a sample message to help you with writing
your own note:

Dear Senator Wyden/ Senator Merkley,
Thank you for introducing the River Democracy Act.
I appreciate your listening to Oregonians and giving
federal agencies clear guidance to better protect the
rivers that flow through our federal public lands.
However, in southwest Oregon, we have some rivers
that need additional protection from the threat of
strip mining at their headwaters. To address this
issue, I urge you to please re-introduce the Southwest
Oregon Watershed and Salmon Protection Act
(SOWSPA). The U.S. House of Representatives recently passed this bill, and so your leadership is now needed on the Senate side to get this important act
passed into law. Please re-introduce SOWSPA soon!

Floating Offshore Wind Power: Coming SOON to a Coast Near Us

In late March, KAS along with the Oregon Audubon Coalition (OAC) hosted a webinar with planners from the federal Bureau of Ocean Energy Manage-ment (BOEM) and the State of Oregon about current planning for future installation of floating wind tur-bines in federal waters off our coast. In short, BOEM is now preparing to identify potential leasing areas, called “call areas,” for wind energy development companies, and the agency wanted to “engage” with us to tell us what they are doing to address concern about impacts to birds.

Of course, we’re very interested to know. Our “beat”— Oregon’s South Coast — is seabird central! Oregon hosts one-half of the West Coast’s breeding bird colonies, and our part of the coast hosts more than one-half of Oregon’s colonies. We have millions of seabirds that come to breed here precisely owing to the wind, which churns the surface and causes upwelling of deep, cold water and nutrients that nourish the invertebrates and fish they forage on; it’s one of the richest and cleanest marine ecosystems on the West Coast. Moreover, these rich waters also attract nearly 100 species of pelagic birds from all across the Pacific, including albatrosses, shearwaters, fulmars, and more. I’ve never yet been out on a pelagic birding trip, but friends who have say that 25 miles out is where one starts to see many of these unique species. Of course, fish and wildlife, including whales and other marine mammals, depend on rich offshore waters, too. So what is BOEM doing? It is currently assembling and starting to analyze known data with the aim of identifying areas where presumably impacts to birds, fish, and wildlife can be minimized. I am grateful that BOEM is making this effort, but I have no delusions. This is the same agency that oversees offshore oil and gas leasing, and its process aims to expedite installation of industrial-scale energy production facilities by big energy companies. Though it sounds at first like BOEM’s planning will inform the site selection, actually the companies decide where they want to site facilities first, and then a public process follows from there. It is expected that BOEM will invite companies to propose sites for projects later this year (likely in November). Then there will be two opportunities for public input — the first in response to general siting of “call areas” and another with the NEPA-required public process — after areas have been leased and companies have put forth their specific plans, which is, of course, quite late in the game for making meaningful adjustments.

Meanwhile, with the Biden Administration’s big push to address climate change with green energy projects, there is now a rush to bring these facilities to Oregon to take advantage of substantial, time-limited federal subsidies. On the state level, in early April, the Oregon House Committee on Energy heard a bill put forth by our Representative David Brock Smith to expedite installation of three gigawatts of power — roughly 250 to 300 massive turbines — off our coast by 2025 or 2030. The initial bill called for a task force to expedite development and included no mention of birds, fish, wildlife, or ecosystems, but it was substantially amended to instead direct the Oregon Department of Energy to collect information about the benefits and challenges of connecting the offshore energy facilities with Oregon’s electric grid. The amended version includes a statement about minimizing impacts to ocean ecosystems and also, very fortunately, includes clear language about the need to plan for decommissioning of such facilities. This improved bill has bipartisan support, is expected to pass, and aims to give different economic stakeholders and the State of Oregon greater leverage in deciding where and how wind energy facilities might be sited — though to be clear, the primary permitting process will be federal.

In the past, land-based wind power on our coast had been deemed economically infeasible because the big BPA (Bonneville Power Administration) transmission lines stop at the California border and so could not carry electrons south to lucrative, larger markets seeking renewable energy. Now, however, a new model is being put forth — to tap Oregon’s offshore wind to supply power to coastal communities and then use our state’s existing grid infrastructure to also convey electricity into the Willamette Valley, freeing up other energy for energy-demanding metropolitan areas to the north and south. It is widely thought from a national perspective that wind power will help to reduce our dependence on polluting fossil-fuel energy sources, namely oil and gas, with an overall benefit of ultimately reducing impacts of climate change.

National Audubon has a policy of supporting wind energy development that minimizes impacts on birds — recognizing that the environmental stressors associated with climate change are already affecting birds, fish, and wildlife. The harsh reality is that we now live in a time of increasingly heartbreaking tradeoffs based on the tragic failure of past energy policy decisions.

One thing I have learned about reducing impacts of wind turbine arrays is that siting is supremely im-portant; wind generators are a good idea but are not suitable everywhere. With concern about potential impacts of industrial wind installations on birds, fish, and wildlife in the rich waters off Oregon’s coast, KAS and the OAC intend to engage to ensure that the expedited federal permitting process will not sidestep these concerns.

Honestly, when I listened to the state hearing online, heard our coast described as the “Saudi Arabia of Wind,” and saw that the initial bill to expedite energy development included not a single word about birds, it was hard not to worry about the gold-rush mentality of wind developers. It made me realize we’ll surely need to stand up for the albatrosses, petrels, and puffins, and hopefully be a force to make sure these potentially massive industrial facilities get sited in the least damaging locations and operated in the least damaging manner possible. Please stay tuned on this important emerging issue.

Administration Revokes Bad MBTA Opinion

In early March, the Biden Administration revoked the controversial opinion made by the former administration’s Department of the Interior Solicitor, the so-called “M-Opinion,” which in 2017 had weakened the Migratory Bird Treaty Act — one of America’s bedrocks for bird conservation. Reversing decades of legal interpretation, the “M-Opinion” declared that the Act did not prohibit incidental — albeit the predictable and preventable — killing of migratory birds by commercial activities. In addition, the Biden Administration started a public process that hopefully will also revoke the pending regulation intended to further codify the unfavorable-to-birds “M-Opinion.”

With ever increasing development along their migra-tory flight paths, our birds face increasing threats — from potential for collisions with tall buildings, wind turbines, and communications towers, to finding former wetland resting and feeding habitats reduced to crowded, disease-ridden, or polluted-by-industry sinks. Several industries, including wind energy, have made great effort to develop best practices and miti-gation measures to reduce incidental bird mortality, owing precisely to the “stick” of the MTBA. This bedrock law remains critically important as a tool for bird conservation into the future.

Protect Forests to Address Climate Crisis

President Biden’s first big action on the environment was to re-enter the Paris climate agreement, and his administration has hit the ground running with efforts to accelerate a transition to renewable energy. How-ever, there is another important approach that many in the conservation community would like to see advanced, too: protecting our forests.

Safeguarding current carbon stored in forests and in-creasing those stores is recognized by the Intergov-ernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as an essential strategy for addressing the climate crisis. U.S. forests already sequester nearly 12 percent of our nation’s annual carbon emissions, but they could do more if public lands forests were strategically managed to retain carbon.

Mature trees in old-growth forests play an outsized role in storing and sequestering carbon because they serve as a centuries-old bank. Intact, primary, or un-logged forests store 30 percent to 70 percent more carbon than logged forests. It will take quite a long time for newly planted trees to catch up — 100 or 200 years, of course. In addition, protecting mature forests would have the multiple benefits of also pro-tecting clean water and biodiversity.

For all these reasons, Kalmiopsis Audubon joined with more than 100 conservation and environmental groups in sending a letter to Biden Administration climate policy leaders, urging them to include protection of mature and old-growth forests as a key strategy to assure compliance with the Paris climate treaty. At a global climate summit on Earth Day, Biden announced an ambitious new goal of reducing carbon emissions by 50 percent by 2030 — signaling greater urgency and commitment to addressing the climate crisis. There is a lot of focus on new technologies, but let’s not forget the value of our trees and forests as tried-and-true carbon sequesterers.

KAS Supports ODFW Efforts to Protect Habitat

Earlier this year, the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) submitted applications for “in-stream water rights” to ensure future flows for fish in more than 100 streams around the state, including in our area the Sixes, Chetco, and Winchuck. The flows of all our local rivers are pretty much already “fully-appropriated” for the low-flow summer months, which means that water users already have the rights to take all the water that is available down to a fairly minimal flow level, not always leaving enough as would be optimal for fish and aquatic life. Like most states in the West, Oregon’s water allocation system is based on the antiquated doctrine of first in time, first in right — established long before anyone could envision a scenario of scar-city and certainly before anyone remembered to leave some water in the river for fish.

Fortunately, many of our rivers already have some minimal in-stream water rights for fish, and in some cases, farmers or ranchers have worked with ODFW to allow their water rights to flow in-stream for the purpose of conservation — so the new ODFW applications were submitted as a kind of insurance policy, giving fish priority should any flows become available in the future. Nevertheless, Curry County’s commissioners decided to oppose the in-stream flow proposals, suggesting that they would preclude “future development” that would be more important. I honestly can’t imagine many local residents prefer-ring more development to rivers with insufficient water in the summer or fish in the fall. On behalf of KAS, I submitted a letter to the commissioners and also to the State Water Resources Department to back up ODFW’s applications for local in-stream flows, and I appreciate other KAS members from the specific watersheds who helped by sending addition-al letters. We also sent a letter to support ODFW in updating the state’s Essential Fish Habitat maps. These official maps determine where the many laws intended to protect salmon habitat actually apply — and affect activities such as mining and logging.

Port Orford Dark Sky Ordinance

Keeping Port Orford’s skies dark — for natural beauty, birds and wildlife, human health, and energy conservation — has been an issue championed by KAS for more than two decades with notable success, but evolving LED lighting technology has made an up-grade of the Port Orford outdoor lighting ordinance necessary. The public process has taken longer than expected, but we’re now getting close. At its March meeting, the City Council sent the latest version back to the Planning Commission (PC) with a request for some specific fixes related to enforcement provisions, street lights, and security lights. At its April meeting, the PC stated its intent to make the fixes in May and then to hold another public hearing in June. The ordinance will then head back to the City Council, hopefully for final approval. Please sign up for the KAS HOOT OUT to learn more about how you can help at the critical junctures. It will be important to show public support!

Interactive Map of Clearcuts and Sprays Across Oregon

If you haven’t done so yet, I’d recommend checking out the map created by Coast Range Forest Watch that compiles all the clearcuts and sprays planned so far in 2021. A zoomed-out view shows just how much forestry activity is planned in the Coast Range, and zooming in will allow you to see if activities may be planned in a specific area you care about. It also al-lows you to see which clearcuts and sprays are taking place within municipal drinking watersheds. You can view the map online at www.sprayfreecoast.org/sprays-across-oregon/ which also provides information about more of the map’s functions and how to use it.

If you’re interested in helping to monitor forestry activity in a watershed near you, please contact teresa @kalmiopsisaudubon.org. – Teresa Bird

Posted on

Conservation News, Summer 2020

Port Orford Dark Sky lighting

On Tuesday August 11 at 3:30pm, the Port Orford Planning Commission (PC) will have its final hearing on the city’s new outdoor lighting ordinance. Last year, the City Council directed the Commission to update the old ordinance to reflect new advances in lighting technology (eg. LEDs) and to tighten language to make it more enforceable. KAS has attended monthly meetings over the past year as the PC has worked to upgrade the ordinance, drawing upon municipal ordinances from other small towns. Once the ordinance is passed at the official hearing in August, it will be referred to the City Council. 

It will be helpful for KAS members and other citizens in Port Orford to participate in the PC meeting, probably via zoom, and even more important, in the subsequent City Council meetings to voice support for the new ordinance. I will let everyone know more via our HOOT OUT about meeting call-in information when it becomes available. 

As long-time members know, Kalmiopsis Audubon, under the leadership of board member Al Geiser, has been involved for more than two decades in efforts to conserve the dark night sky in Port Orford—from installing “night caps” to getting the first “dark sky” ordinance passed. The gist is that light fixtures need to be pointed down to reduce light trespass (onto neighbor’s property) and also to avoid pink sky glare. Bright light at night can be harmful to human health, can be disruptive to birds and wildlife, and diminish the beauty of the night sky and our ability to enjoy sights like the recent Neowise Comet. Please talk to your neighbors and friends about the value of conserving the night sky and the benefits of a sensible lighting ordinance. For more background, see: www.kalmiopsisaudubon.org/dark-sky

Jordan Cove project update

In the last Petrel, we reported that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), had approved the Jordan Cove LNG facility and pipeline, despite the fact that the Canadian company Pembina, had not yet qualified for state permits needed to move forward. Shortly thereafter, landowners whose property would be condemned by eminent domain for pipeline construction—plus community groups, conservation groups, and tribes—filed lawsuits against the decision. In mid-June, the state of Oregon submitted its own petition to challenge the project since the FERC seemed intent to totally preempt the state’s critical roles in permitting under the Clean Water Act and the Coastal Zone Management Act.

In early July, around the same time that several other large energy pipelines were struck down by court decisions (Dakota Access and Keystone XL) or cancelled owing to the declining market for natural gas (Atlantic Coast), the Trump administration went ahead and approved gas exports from the Jordan Cove facility, further signaling disdain for state environmental laws and its intent to keep pushing oil and gas production, despite mounting scientific concerns about fossil fuels damaging our climate and a marked downturn in the natural gas market. 

Our organization has long opposed this proposal because of its promotion of fossil fuels at a time of climate crisis, condemnations of private property owned by rural landowners, hundreds of pipeline crossings of our fine southern Oregon rivers and tributaries, infringement on irreplaceable forest and estuary habitat for birds, fish, and wildlife, and threats to public safety, water quality, and commercial and sport fisheries. We’ve helped at the local level, with our members showing up at hearings in Coos Bay. [Breaking news is that Oregon’s Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) has just denied Pembina a key local land use permit, too.] At this point, the fate of the pipeline will lie mostly in the hands of the federal courts, but Governor Kate Brown will continue to play an important role to make sure state laws are followed.

ACTION ITEM: Please thank Oregon Governor Kate Brown for her leadership thus far. Make a quick phone call (503) 378-4582); make a comment via her email portal; or send a note with a message like this: Dear Governor Brown, Thank you for challenging FERC’s approval of the Jordan Cove LNG facility and pipeline and for voicing your commitment to make sure all state laws are followed. I appreciate your standing up for citizens of Oregon. (personalize or add reasons!) Snail mail address: Governor Kate Brown, 900 Court Street NE, Suite 254, Salem, OR 97301-4047.

Floras Lake exchange update

In early June, I attended a Curry Board of Commissioners (BOC) meeting (with a mask!), aiming to keep the Floras Lake Land exchange on track. As stipulated by the land swap agreement finalized by the BOC last fall, the county must vacate the roads and right of ways in its parcel. Yet again, there was a delay, this time owing to a disagreement between the county assessor and attorney over the format of the order. Ultimately, two weeks later, the BOC passed the final order unanimously. However, around the same time, Oregon State Parks announced massive staffing cuts owing to a huge budget shortfall related to the pandemic reducing revenues from camping and lottery. Despite pandemic and budgetary chaos, we’ll need to make sure the final steps of the exchange are completed to close the deal before the agreement expires at year’s end. 

A Tragedy in Progress: Elk River Chinook update

Over the past several years, we’ve tracked the troubling situation with the wild (also called natural origin) Elk River fall Chinook. In 2013, we were shocked when ODFW determined that wild Elk River fall chinook run was the only non-viable chinook run on the entire coast and that our fish had an alarmingly high risk of extinction (16.9 %). Owing to questions about older data used in the 2013 population viability analysis, ODFW recently completed a new one, with far more alarming results. According to the new population viability analysis, Elk River fall Chinook have a 97 percent risk of extinction over the next one hundred years, under the most likely scenario, with current climate and fishing conditions.

This situation is utterly tragic because the Elk River has been renowned for its salmon habitat, with a highly intact forested watershed that Jim Rogers and so many of us have worked hard to protect, plus an undeveloped mouth (though there is a lack of adequate summer rearing habitat in the lower river), and positive restoration efforts underway for coho that will also benefit chinook. Most all other fall chinook runs up and down the coast have extinction risks less than 5%, typically considered the threshold for concern.

What’s gone so wrong at Elk River? A key problem is hatchery interactions. Because the local hatchery has pumped so many smolts into our small river over the past 50 years (>325k annually until a few years ago, and upwards of 500k in decades past), there has been too much interbreeding between wild and domesticated hatchery fish. Because too many hatchery fish are not caught and do not return into the hatchery, the unfortunate outcome is that natural- origin fish now have depressed productivity.

Wild fish that have returned to Elk River for hundreds of thousands of years are adapted to river conditions. Hatchery fish are adapted best for life in a hatchery through epigenetic changes (also called domestication), but when they interbreed with wild fish, the result is offspring that are less fit and less productive. Imagine breeding chihuahuas with wolves—the outcome would be offspring less capable of surviving in the wild. 

Since 2013, ODFW has taken some actions to try to reduce the crisis of interbreeding of wild and hatchery salmon. Aiming to reduce the number of hatchery fish spawning in the wild, ODFW reduced smolt output by 50k, and fixed the hatchery pump and fish ladders. These actions have slightly improved the situation. In addition, the Oregon Hatchery Research Center has been studying the strategy of adding a special scent to hatchery water during incubation with hopes of better drawing returning fish back into the hatchery. After many years of study, 2020 was the first year the new scent was added to chinook incubation water; we’ll not really know how well it works for another 3 to 7 years.

But ODFW’s new population viability analysis indicating up to a 97 percent risk of extinction for fall Chinook in Elk River raises serious alarm bells. How much longer do we wait to see what happens—especially since questions have been raised about this problem since at least 2005? The 2013 Coastal Multi-Species Management Plan stipulated that ODFW must revisit the situation with Elk River chinook in 2021. 

The Elk River hatchery was built not to mitigate for lost habitat but as a way to “enhance” sport fishing. That was back in 1969 when people were unaware of the insidious risks that hatcheries posed to wild fish runs. Instead of enhancing our sport fish run, it appears this very oversized hatchery program is now putting our local wild chinook run into a dangerously unsustainable position. This is not theoretical. Over the past few years, with poor ocean conditions, there have been years with extremely poor returns of hatchery fish, years with no bubble fishery for Chinook off the river’s mouth, and this year there will no longer be retention of wild fish for sport anglers. 

To build ecosystem resilience in the face of climate change—or even earthquakes—we need for our fall Chinook to be able to evolve with changing conditions, and the locally adapted native Elk River fish will be far better suited to that task than their domesticated hatchery cousins. Ultimately, to conserve our locally adapted fish into the future, we will need to reduce the smolt output and right-size the hatchery program for our small river. Stay tuned. 

Calling for more Wild and Scenic Rivers

Last fall, Senator Ron Wyden put out a call to citizens throughout the state to nominate more Oregon rivers to be designated in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers system. In response, Kalmiopsis Audubon nominated a number of important tributaries to our local rivers. Wild and Scenic designation most notably prohibits dams, but it also affords greater protection through the requirement that public land agencies plan and manage to conserve the rivers’ “outstandingly remarkable values.” To follow up on our advocacy for the Southwest Oregon Mineral Withdrawal, we nominated public land tributaries of Hunter Creek and Pistol River and the North Fork Smith. We also nominated some outstanding tributaries of the lower Rogue, the Sixes, and the Chetco. 

As long time KAS members know, our region currently has one of the highest concentrations of wild and scenic rivers in America—and the designations have helped to conserve water quality, fish habitat, ecological values, and recreational opportunities in our public lands. Senator Wyden’s wild rivers initiative has understandably been delayed owing to the pandemic and its economic fallout, but we expect the Senator will press forward with this project as soon as he can. We are also hope he’ll continue his efforts to make the Southwest Oregon Mineral Withdrawal permanent. 

ACTION ITEM: To help, please call (202) 224-5244/ (541) 858-5122 —or send Senator Wyden a short note (via his website portal) with this message: Thanks for your efforts to advance the Southwest Oregon Mineral withdrawal legislation and to protect more Wild and Scenic Rivers in Southwest Oregon (you can add in your favorites and otherwise personalize!). 

ODFW proposes and drops new Rogue River Bear hunt

In mid-July, ODFW announced a proposal for a new black bear hunt in the Wild and Scenic Rogue River canyon—the one place in Oregon where it’s been off limits since 1965. A week later the proposal was dropped owing to strong public opposition. 

The agency’s primary aim was to address an issue with so-called “problem bears” that have become habituated to human foods, improperly stored by campers who hike and raft in the Wild & Scenic Rogue River canyon. Black bears generally mind their own business and have ample wild foods to eat (except for in some drought years), but periodically, managing bears in the Rogue canyon has been a challenge. In years past, some lodges and campers backpacking and rafting the river neglected to take sufficient care with food and trash storage, with the unfortunate effect of drawing in bears. There is an old truism: a fed bear is a dead bear. 

About 20 years ago, citizen groups and public land and wildlife agencies pulled together and came up with a partial solution: for river campers to use mini-electric fences to store food at campsites known for bear problems. This approach worked relatively well for many years, but owing to a delay in putting out the food storage fences last year, there was a season of especially troubling interactions between campers and bears. ODFW and public land agencies have also tried to educate campers about proper food storage, but there is no requirement, or even a recommendation, for hikers or boaters to use bear proof storage containers, as required in so many other wilderness areas with high bear activity.

The good news is that this year, fences went in early and problems have lessened, but it remains critically important that Rogue River campers and hikers take personal responsibility to store their food and trash properly—and for ODFW and public lands agencies to redouble their efforts to educate the public about proper food and trash storage. In many other places where there have been conflicts between people and bears, proper storage of food and trash has been the key to reducing problematic interactions. 

This is critical to recognize in storing food and trash at home, too. Curry Transfer and Recycling (CTR) recently offered new bear-proof trash cans to its customers. They were so popular that CTR is already out of stock! The containers have a special lock that is automatically opened when trash is retrieved. If you are interested in getting one of these bear-proof trash cans (also good for wind), call CTR (541-469-2425) and ask to be placed on the waiting list. They expect to get them in again next year. Also, please pay attention to bird feeders and pull them down for a while if you suspect bear activity.

National environmental rollbacks, finally coming to fruition

Those who follow national environmental news know that the current Administration has been on a determined path to rollback many laws intended to safeguard public health, wildlife, and nature. Unfortunately, in mid-July, the Trump Administration finalized rules to weaken the most fundamental law, the National Environmental Policy Act, known by its acronym NEPA. For fifty years, NEPA has required that federal agencies consider environmental consequences, and alternatives, before they take actions. The law also provides for transparency in federal decision making and public input from citizens. From local experience, we know public input is critically important because sometimes agency staffers (which come and go) lack crucial knowledge or perspective or are subject to political pressures. 

The new rule gives federal agencies broad discretion to exempt certain projects from NEPA and to avoid consideration of cumulative and indirect impacts, though the law’s statutory language requires such consideration. What this means locally is yet to be seen. The Forest Service may start to fast track projects through the new streamlined regulatory process. Though the rule change will purportedly fast-track approvals for pipelines, mines, logging, and oil drilling, it will no doubt be litigated, which may well lead to more delays. 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act rollback proceeding apace

The Trump Administration has also targeted an even more longstanding bedrock conservation law. The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) has been in effect since 1918, when leaders in the U.S. and Canada recognized the important value of migratory birds to the economies and enjoyment of all citizens. Treaty protection was soon expanded to include Mexico, Japan, and Russia. For a century, the threat of MBTA prosecution had served to deter those who would harm birds. 

That changed in 2018 when the Trump Administration decided to “celebrate” the 100th anniversary of this critical law by issuing a new legal opinion that effectively gutted it. Under this new interpretation, the MBTA forbids only intentional killing, such as hunting without a permit, and no longer applies to industries that inadvertently kill a whole lot of birds, such as the oil and gas industry (with their toxic wastewater pits and oil spills), communications and wind power (with their towers), and fishing (with long lines). To be clear, many of these industries, to comply with the MBTA, had already adopted bird friendly practices that have no doubt saved the lives of millions of birds. In addition, financial penalties imposed under the MBTA have helped recover species harmed by reckless negligence, such as the Exxon Valdez and Deepwater Horizon oil spills.

In response to the Trump Administration’s rollback of the MBTA, a bi-partisan group of former wildlife officials from previous presidential administrations (going back to Nixon) sent a letter strongly urging reinstatement of traditional rules. Shortly thereafter, a bipartisan group of Congress members, led by California Rep. Alan Lowenthal introduced a bill to close the loophole and restore the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Our Congressman, Peter DeFazio, was one of the original co-sponsors of this bill, H.R. 5552. In March, a group of 23 Senators, including Senators Wyden and Merkley, sent a letter, strongly urging the Secretary of the Interior to reconsider the Administration’s decision, calling it “the most significant rollback of migratory bird protections in our nation’s history.” 

Nevertheless, the Trump Administration has pressed ahead. KAS recently joined with other Audubon chapters in Oregon (and across America), to comment on a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) to oppose the damaging rule change. 

So far, HR 5552 has moved ahead with a markup in the House Natural Resources Committee, but it has not yet been referred for a full House vote. Honestly, the bill has little chance of passage with the current political configuration, but it’s heartening to know that our elected officials are fighting to keep the MBTA intact. It’s important that they know we care and appreciate their efforts to stand up against rollbacks to environmental protection laws. 

ACTION ITEM: Please give our federal elected officials a call (or send an email via their website portals) to thank them for standing up against rollbacks to the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and other bedrock environmental protection laws. 

Rep. DeFazio (202)-225-6416/541-269-2609

Sen. Merkley: (202) 224-3753/541-608-9102

Sen. Wyden: (202) 224-5244/ 541-858-5122

Cormorants under siege again

In tandem with rolling back the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, the Trump Administration has also pursued a new rule that specifically targets Double Crested Cormorants, one of the most persecuted birds in the United States. The new rule would allow killing of more than 120,000 birds each year. Based on current estimates, this could potentially result in the annual killing of up to 14% of the national population and represents nearly a 140% increase over the average annual take between 2007 and 2018. The rule would also turn over jurisdiction for management of these birds over to state wildlife agencies.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) already has a poor record of protecting this species. You may recall that the agency permitted killing nearly 11,000 cormorants and destroying more than 28,000 nests at in the Columbia River Estuary, resulting in the complete collapse of this colony, which represented 40% of the entire Double-crested Cormorant population west of the Rocky Mountains.

However, we are concerned that turning over cormorant management to states with such high ceilings for lethal take could be far worse. State agencies are already strapped for funds to manage non-game species, and we know that ODFW managers are frequently pressured by fishermen to kill or haze cormorants in order to reduce competition for fish. KAS joined other Audubon chapters in Oregon and around the U.S. to submit comments opposing this overreaching proposal that flies in the face of 100 years of federal bird protection policy. 

Help Monitor for Aerial Spraying on the Curry County Coast!

For the last few years, KAS has been helping our community to better understand and find out about aerial herbicide spraying on timberlands. You may have already heard that the Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF) has an online notification system called FERNS, which will send emails to notify subscribers about pending chemical applications in particular areas. Our goal is to recruit KAS members who can use FERNS to help us monitor sprays in all the watersheds on the Curry County coastline. Basically, all you need to do is sign up and start paying attention. We are looking for volunteers who can cover watersheds north of Elk River (eg Floras Creek, Sixes River), South of Hubbard’s Creek to Gold Beach (eg Euchre Creek, Lobster Creek), and in the Brookings area (we just got some great volunteers to monitor Hunter Creek and Pistol River – thank you!!). Having better information about aerial spraying in our communities can help us advocate for better practices, and it can enable you to better protect your and your neighbors’ health and wellbeing. If you are interested to help, please contact Teresa Bird: teresa@kalmiopsisaudubon@org.

Posted on

Conservation News – Spring 2020

Langlois Asphalt Plant Proposal, Withdrawn

In February, KAS submitted comments regarding a proposed asphalt processing plant in Langlois, south and across highway 101 from the KOA campground. While we recognize the need for locations where rock can be stockpiled and made into asphalt from time to time, this proposal was clearly out of compliance with county ordinances. The project proponent claimed “temporary” use but, in fact, was trying to get blanket permission to make asphalt at the site, on and off, indefinitely. KAS also pointed out the need for state air quality permits and called for special conditions to protect riparian areas from runoff since threatened coastal coho spawn right in the reach of Swanson Creek (a tributary to Floras Lake) that runs through the property. The Oregon Coast Alliance also submitted comments in opposition, and several citizens from Langlois attended the Curry Planning Commission meeting to voice their concerns about noise and noxious fumes. The application was withdrawn.

Local Action for Inaction on the Climate Crisis

Earlier this year, the Oregon Legislature again considered a cap-trade-and invest bill (SB 1530) as a way to start tackling the global climate crisis. The cap, trade, and invest approach would cap emissions, set up a system to charge for and trade emission credits, and use proceeds to start investing in infrastructure, technology and restoration needed to adapt to climate change, especially in Oregon’s rural areas. To be clear, there have been debates for decades about the pros and cons of cap and invest versus a carbon tax versus regulation. Each approach has pros and cons, but at this point, with the ever-growing urgency of the climate crisis, it was time to make a decision and move ahead.

It didn’t happen. The group “Timber Unity” organized a rally in opposition, with hundreds of big trucks driving around the capitol. The group claims to be grassroots, representing loggers, truckdrivers and others whose livelihoods depend on extraction, but its major donors, no surprise, include corporate logging interests. As a result, for the second year in a row, despite many compromises made in the bill, the minority party Republican senators walked out, leaving a lack of quorum for any action.

While this was happening in Salem, county commissioners organized in rural counties—to back-up Timber Unity and Republican legislators—by passing resolutions opposing the climate bill. When Curry County considered such a resolution in early February, KAS board member Tim Palmer attended, urging the Curry Board of Commissioners (BOC) to not pass the resolution that assured more gridlock but instead to offer support for some constructive way forward. He explained how rural areas will be hardest hit by the climate crisis—that acidifying and warming oceans will affect our local fisheries, that rising sea level will affect our roads and towns, and that higher temperatures and lower humidity will amplify wildfire threats. He pointed to changes in the bill specifically intended to provide for investment in rural areas to start addressing these issues. Local leaders from Curry Democrats also asked the BOC to hold off on the resolution and instead hold a workshop to consider pros and cons more carefully. In the end, two commissioners, Chris Paasch and Court Boice, voted to support the resolution, while Commissioner Sue Gold voted to hold a workshop to learn more. We appreciate Commissioner Gold’s thoughtful response to this critical issue.

It’s deeply unfortunate that the climate crisis has become such a partisan and paralyzing issue to our society. Ultimately, in response to the legislature’s failure, Governor Kate Brown issued Executive Order 20-04, pressing state agencies to take actions within her administrative purview to reduce emissions. This happened right before the covid-19 outbreak came to dominate everyone’s attention, but the EO should initiate some meaningful changes. Please call Governor Brown to thank her for moving forward to address the climate crisis: (503) 378-4582.

Jordan Cove Update

Many of you heard news in mid-March that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) approved the Jordan Cove facility for the north shore of Coos Bay. This was hugely disappointing but not surprising. Though the FERC is supposed to be an independent, bipartisan body, the current administration stacked it with its own pro-development Republican appointees and neglected to follow longstanding tradition to appoint another Democrat for balance. In the wake of this “rigged” FERC decision, Senator Wyden joined Senator Merkley and Rep. DeFazio in condemning the project. Despite FERC approval, the state of Oregon has denied Jordan Cove several key permits, including for dredging. Meanwhile, natural gas prices have been dropping precipitously, so the economics of this project are in limbo. In mid-April, a coalition of groups and tribes, as well as Oregon state agencies, asked FERC to withdraw or re-hear its decision, on grounds that the decision process was procedurally flawed and violated multiple federal environmental laws.

Jordan Cove and the Pacific Connector gas pipeline would cross 400 streams in southern Oregon (including the Rogue), condemn thousands of acres of private property, degrade the Coos Bay estuary, and become Oregon’s largest carbon emitter—all so a Canadian corporation can export natural gas to Asia at a time when we need to reduce emissions. Despite the FERC decision, this house of cards may be starting to collapse. Stay tuned. 

Floras Lake Land Swap

I am glad to report that on April 1, the Curry BOC voted unanimously to take next steps to advance the Floras lake land swap. The agreement made last fall between Curry County and Oregon State Parks had stipulated that platted road right-of-ways be vacated before the swap could proceed. The Curry BOC directed the road-master to proceed with this necessary “vacation.” We’re grateful to Commissioners Sue Gold, Court Boice, and Chris Paasch for keeping the ball rolling on this matter. 

Protecting Forest Waters

In mid-February, KAS sponsored an educational program in Port Orford about grassroots efforts to press for increased protections for streams that flow through industrial forest land. Logging on private industrial forests is governed by the Oregon’s State Forest Practices Act, which has come under increasing criticism for lagging behind other states. In particular, buffers to protect streams and communities from aerial spraying and logging are woefully inadequate. Grassroots groups up and down the coast were planning a ballot initiative effort to finally put these issues before voters. KAS had intended to help with this important effort. But then, upping the stakes considerably, the timber industry put forth its own set of ballot initiatives, including one that would require the state to compensate private landowners for any future changes in regulations. Ultimately, the governor’s office negotiated an agreement between statewide environmental groups and big timber companies to withdraw all ballot initiatives so that some compromise could be made through the legislature. However, the walk-out of Republican senators nixed the possibility of this agreement leading to legislation.

In early April, parties to the agreement re-iterated interest to Governor Brown in working toward a compromise rather than proceeding with the ballot initiatives. Of course, the covid-19 epidemic has made collecting signatures impossible. At this point, everyone recognizes the need for reform, but we don’t yet know what form it will take or if it will go far enough without broader citizen input.

Regardless of the uncertainties, we felt it was important to keep sharing information about these issues that affect so many of our members who live in watersheds predominantly managed for industrial timber production. At our program, assistant conservation director Teresa Bird gave an excellent talk describing the impacts of aerial spraying of herbicides on forests and the shortcomings of Oregon’s rules. She shared maps showing the extent of spraying planned for local areas this spring and explained how people could use the Oregon Department of Forestry’s FERNS program to sign up for notifications, and then make calls to spray applicators to get more information.  

We’d hoped to be able to sponsor workshops in Gold Beach and Brookings, too, but, of course, covid-19 has prompted us to cancel all programs. Still we’d like to reach out to our members in watersheds most likely to be affected by aerial spraying this spring—including Floras Creek, Sixes, Hubbard Creek, Euchre Creek, Hunter Creek and Pistol River— to help everyone become better informed about how to keep safe and to better track what is happening. We’ll be in touch about this via email HOOT OUTs, or for more information about how you can help please contact Teresa Bird at kalmiopsisaudubon@gmail.com.