Tag: offshore wind energy

Posted on

Conservation News Winter 2025

By Ann Vileisis

Elk River Hatchery Expansion Plan Update

In the last Storm Petrel and HOOT OUT, I reported on the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW)’s plan to expand Elk River Hatchery to raise potentially hundreds of thousands more fish from different rivers. A fire at Rock Creek Hatchery (on the North Umpqua River) plus spiraling costs for food and electricity and prospects of climate change are now compelling ODFW to look for ways to raise more fish at fewer hatcheries—and so, to put it bluntly, they have identified our very special Elk River as the place to balance their budget.

To address this threat, I made two trips to Salem in November. I testified on behalf of KAS at a public hearing about “hatchery resilience.” I also made an appointment to speak directly with Dr. Shaun Clements, Deputy Director for Inland Fisheries, about the issue. I highlighted the decades of conservation work that have helped to make Elk River such a special place as well as millions of dollars of restoration projects now underway in the Elk River watershed, with the aim of benefiting our local, self-sustaining salmon and steelhead runs.

I also expressed concern that expanding hatchery operations would potentially degrade the values of Elk River. Our South Coast rivers flow very low in late summer –local salmon are adapted to this –but with climate change, margins may be growing narrower. Already the Elk River Hatchery uses more than 20 cubic feet per second (cfs) of the river’s flow –and in late summer, the river’s flow has been dropping down to 38 cfs. That means during a critical time, more than half the river is already diverted through the hatchery. The river downstream of the hatchery already is considered to be impaired for temperature during summer so adding any thermal load to the hatchery effluent would be highly concerning because the juvenile fall Chinook need cold water in the lower river for summer rearing. The population of local Elk River fall Chinook fell below critical status last year, as did local SONCC coho, and so we need to keep our eyes on the prize of protecting what we have.

However, despite these concerns (which ODFW doesn’t seem to think merit consideration), the agency had already made its decision to proceed with expansion, without any outreach to the community. Because information about the plan (on the ODFW website) had been fragmented, disjointed, and even incorrect, local residents and neighbors on Elk River, in coordination with the South Coast Watershed Council, invited Dr. Clements down to Port Orford to provide the community with more specific information about the project. At a meeting held at Port Orford Library on January 9, nearly 100 local people showed up. Thanks to all KAS members who attended! The Q&A format moderated by Nate Radcliffe (Elk River representative on the South Coast Watershed Council) provided ODFW an opportunity to explain its project and to perhaps allay some concerns, but as many of you observed with frustration –not all questions were answered and there was no opportunity for actual dialogue. At the meeting’s end, the extent of the project remained unclear, and there was a sense that ODFW wasn’t particularly interested in public input. This was unfortunate.

Meanwhile, the Elk River Hatchery expansion project did go out to bid in December, but bids came in too high for the monies that had been allotted ($850k). So, at this point, ODFW has tucked its work to “expand ponds” (note the euphemism for concrete) at Elk River Hatchery into the Governor’s Budget, now headed to the Oregon Legislature, which, this year, will be faced with all manner of budget crises. Governor Kotek has prioritized spending on housing, education, and mental health, and so the conservation agencies—Fish and Wildlife (ODFW), State Parks (OPRD, State Lands (DSL)—will be strapped to carry on their basic services. ODFW has also proposed to strip out basic monitoring that is needed to manage native fisheries in order to make budget. There are many larger factors swirling around, and I am still trying to figure out our best next steps, so I will keep you posted.

Northwest Forest Plan Amendments

Old-growth forests are among our region’s most iconic and cherished landscapes, and so it’s concerning that the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) has proposed an amendment that could substantially weaken the Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP). First adopted in 1994, the NWFP resulted from a science-based, landscape scale planning effort that aimed to end the Timber Wars of the 1980s –a time when ramped-up logging was leveling the last five percent of our region’s old growth forests putting the birds, fish, and wildlife that live in these forests at grave risk of extinction, sparking massive protests and unrest. The Spotted Owl was the posterchild/ scapegoat of this effort, but the NWFP also protected murrelets, tree voles, martens, steelhead and coho –plus all manner of other forest denizens from lichens to salamanders. In addition, protecting old growth was a climate solution before its time, sequestering carbon in the boles of big old trees, and it turns out that big old trees are an important component for health of aquatic ecosystems, providing structure and cover, while forests also serve as sponge and filter for watersheds, helping to assure high water quality and flows year-round. In the thirty years since the NWFP’s adoption, climate and biodiversity concerns have only grown, making continued protection and recruitment of mature and old-growth forests ever more important.

However, recent massive wildfires resulting from drought and global warming have resulted in public and political pressure for the USFS to now make reducing fire risk its top priority. What exactly does that look like? In today’s polarized political realm, there seem to be two primary poles of response—aggressive forest management (logging, heavy thinning, and salvage) versus a strategic focus on thinning/prescribed burning of previously managed stands in the wildland urban interface (WUI) zone, and on preventative home hardening. There is, of course, a lot more nuance, and it’s important to recognize that different types of forest –especially in our Siskiyou National Forest backyard—are subject to different fire regimes and micro climates that can heavily affect how wildfires might behave.

In addition to fire risks, the USFS proposed amendment aims also to address the need for greater tribal engagement. Eighty tribal nations have ancestral territory within the NWFP area but were never consulted on the original plan. The amendment also states a need for more timber production (no doubt owing to heavy lobbying from the timber industry). The USFS published its Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) in November, and comments on proposed NWFP amendments are due on March 17. It is a major disappointment that the Biden Administration did not complete this amendment process they started before the Trump Administration took office. President Trump, who famously promoted the need to “rake” forest floors to reduce fire risk, has a decidedly aggressive forest management approach in mind—so it will be extremely important for Pacific Northwest wildlife conservationists and public lands enthusiasts to participate in the NWFP amendment process.

One troubling provision of the proposed amendment entails changing the definition of old growth—from trees that are 80 years old to trees that are 120-years old. The conservation group Oregon Wild estimates that this change could open ~800,000 acres of forest to logging –and these are trees already well on their way to providing mature structure needed by wildlife, already sequestering carbon, and already the most fire resistant. The survival of forest wildlife depends on increasing mature forest habitat in the future, but this change will almost certainly prevent trees from ever growing over 80 years except in reserved zones–and to what end?

In general, the plan amendment puts forth three alternatives and a no action alternative –one that is ostensibly conservation oriented (C), one that is extraction oriented (D) and one that is purportedly somewhere in the middle (B), but from my initial read, it looks like the options are rigged, such that the conservation option appears to markedly increase fire risk to communities –so who would ever choose that? The cynical view is that the proposed amendment exploits everyone’s fear of wildfire to advance an extractive aim of doubling – and potentially tripling – commercial logging from current levels. This would be the worst possible outcome for wildlife habitat, carbon sequestration, and climate resilience, and it’s not clear how it would actually reduce fire risks.

That said, the plan does put forward some approaches that could help reduce fire risks, such as integrating Tribes’ traditional ecological knowledge of cultural burning. Previous established science, based on long term vegetation studies conducted in the Siskiyou National Forest, found that a regime of both thinning and burning, could reduce fire risk while also improving biodiversity. Cultural burning has the additional benefits of supporting traditional indigenous practices related to procurement of first foods and cultural materials, such as for basket making. Also, strategic management aimed at reducing fire risk near communities could have co-benefits of creating jobs and even “biomass” that could be a product with economic value. However, in our region, thinning can also open up the forest to drying sun and brush development, which may bring greater fire risks and the need for more continuous and costly brush abatement. Moreover, as big fires in eastern Oregon (mostly all in grass and sage) and in southern California demonstrate, clearing a narrow swath of forest may or may not actually help to contain a fire that is moving at > 45 miles per hour. If saving lives and property is most important, investments in protecting homes from ember ignition may be most cost-effective. The example that drove this home for me was when the 2017 Eagle Fire jumped across the massive COLUMBIA RIVER!

This is a complex and consequential issue, KAS will be working with other Oregon Audubon/Bird Alliance chapters to develop substantive comments on the proposed NWFP amendment, and it will be helpful for everyone to send in personal comments as well to demonstrate that many people care about the future of the Pacific Northwest’s forests. I will send out talking points in the March HOOT OUT to make it easier for you to engage. Stay tuned.

Headwaters Mining Risks Grow

I am disappointed, though not surprised, to report that there was no omnibus public lands bill at the end of the last Congress so Senators Wyden and Merkley and Rep. Hoyle did not have a chance to pass the Southwestern Oregon Watershed and Salmon Protection Act to make permanent the mineral withdrawal that protects the headwaters of Hunter Creek, Pistol River, North Fork Smith and Rough and Ready Creek at the head of the Illinois River. This is troubling because with the election of President Trump, the Southwest Oregon Mineral Withdrawal could again be at risk. You will remember, the previous Trump Administration tried to undo all mineral withdrawals. Ours was saved by our members of Congress, who championed the cause—no doubt inspired by the overwhelming public support still fresh in everyone’s minds! To make the Southwestern Oregon withdrawal safe from “undoing,” it needs to be passed by Congress, and so we’ll be encouraging our delegation to reintroduce it once again.

Meanwhile, the threats to our rivers’ headwaters are increasing with the growing national interest in sourcing metals, like nickel, from within the U.S. Last summer, the Canadian mining company Homeland Nickel submitted a Plan of Operations to the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest to proceed with “confirmation sampling” at Red Flat at the headwaters of Hunter Creek/ Pistol River. Through a records request, I was able to finally obtain their proposal. In short, the company now wants to drill forty-four sonic holes to a depth of up to fifty feet each and also take 25 “bucket samples” from existing trenches to “confirm” the extent of minerals it claims to have unearthed prior to the area’s withdrawal. At this point, the Forest Service is waiting completion of an internal review (surface use determination) before deciding whether or not the sampling can reasonably proceed. Of course, in areas that are withdrawn, there can be no new claims and no mining unless claims are proven to be “valid,” but a loophole persists that may possibly allow for confirmation sampling. This could enable the mining company to make a stronger case that its claims are, indeed, “valid” (aka economically profitable) –and therefore eligible for mining, despite the mineral withdrawal and community concerns.

In addition, the same company reports that it has staked several thousands of acres of new claims in the vicinity of the cone-shaped Eight Dollar Mountain, where a lovely botanical area sits above the Illinois River, over near Cave Junction. We have concerns about surface mining in such a sensitive area. Neither the botanical area nor the wild and scenic river has any protections from mining. Last summer, KAS (together with KS Wild and Friends of the Kalmiopsis) nominated the stellar wild and scenic reach of the Illinois River—from the Forest boundary near Eight Dollar Mountain down to Lawson Creek, upstream of Oak Flat and Agness— for designation as an Outstanding Resource Water (ORW). This special designation under the Clean Water Act is intended to prevent degradation of high-quality waterways. We also supported the nomination of Rough and Ready Creek, an upstream Illinois tributary that also merits and needs extra protection. In November, KAS testified in favor of both nominations at a public meeting where DEQ identified priority projects to pursue over the next three years. We are hopeful that DEQ will include consideration of the ORW nominations for the Wild and Scenic Illinois and Rough and Ready Creek in its next three-year work plan.

Floating Offshore Wind Energy update

Last fall, shortly after the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) cancelled its Oregon lease auction, Curry County voted 80 percent and Coos County voted 60 percent against locating floating wind energy off the South Coast. This followed significant concerns raised by Tribes, fishers, conservationists, and elected officials at all levels of government. On his first day in office President Trump, who vehemently detests wind turbines, issued an Executive Order to pause offshore wind energy development, but that doesn’t mean it is going away altogether.

The State of Oregon, as directed by the legislature in 2024, is now tasked with developing a “Road Map” for wind energy development as a means to meet its greenhouse gas emission goals. In November, the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) convened a public “roundtable” to develop the plan. KAS President Ann Vileisis was appointed to participate in the eight-month long process. You may recall that KAS participated in an informal offshore wind energy roadmap group last winter, but this roundtable is the official state process. Thus far, the group of many diverse stakeholders, including Tribes, fishers, conservationists, labor unions, energy developers, and climate activists, has been meeting each month to envision and think through the steps that would be needed if wind energy were to come to Oregon’s coast. The roundtable presents an important opportunity to raise concerns that would otherwise not be considered. The meeting has been rotating up and down the coast, with opportunities for public comment and engagement. There will be only one meeting in Curry County –to be held in Brookings on March 31 –so it will be a good opportunity for the public to weigh in. I will share more details in the HOOT OUT about how to participate when they become available. (THIS DATE HAS BEEN RESCHEDULED TO A DATE IN APRIL TBA)

Posted on

CONSERVATION NEWS, Winter 2023

by Ann Vileisis

SWO Mineral withdrawal bill hits dead end

It is with great disappointment that I report that the Southwest Oregon Watershed and Salmon Protection Act (SOWSPA)—the legislation to make permanent the temporary 20-year mineral withdrawal for the headwaters of our wild rivers—did not make it across the finish line to become enacted as law in the last Congress. I know many of you have been wondering about it.

As I’ve reported in previous Storm Petrels, this bill was a high priority for Congressman DeFazio and also for our Senators, who had put it forth in the Oregon Recreation Enhancement Act. On the House side, the bill had already passed the entire body of lawmakers, and on the Senate side, the bill had been reported favorably out of committee with a bipartisan vote –and so we’d been told it was all queued up and ready to become part of a public land omnibus (package of bills combined into an act) at the end of the session. We were very hopeful, and all eyes were on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources (SENR) Committee to develop an omnibus bill.

However, no public lands bill ever came together. Exceedingly close elections in Alaska and Georgia meant control of the Senate remained up in the air until early December. This left too little time for negotiations. Higher priority bills to fund the federal government and defense took precedence. And perhaps most significant was the threat of “poison pill” amendments. West Virginia Senator Manchin kept trying to attach riders to any moving bills to weaken environmental safeguards for the benefit of the fossil energy industry (dubbed Machin’s “dirty deal”) while Senator Daines of Montana tried to push a bill that would have undermined the Endangered Species Act. Given these larger factors, there was just no way to advance a public land bill through the closely divided Senate. 

And so where does this leave the headwaters of our cherished Wild and Scenic Illinois and North Fork Smith rivers and Hunter Creek and Pistol River? Fortunately, owing to our successful advocacy back in 2015-2016, we still have the 20-year temporary administrative mineral withdrawal in place –so there is more time for Congress to act to make it permanent. The purpose of the temporary administrative withdrawal depends on the bill being introduced again into the House and Senate again in the new session. 

We will no longer have our longstanding champion Rep. Peter DeFazio to help us, and the headwaters of the Wild and Scenic Illinois River are now in the district of Rep. Cliff Bentz, who has already voiced more interest in boosting mining in southwest Oregon than in conservation. I trust that Senator Wyden and Merkley will help, and I hope that we’ll soon have a chance to help educate our new Representative Val Hoyle about why protecting the headwaters of our South Coast’s wild rivers is so important. That said, given the current chaos in Congress, it looks like we may be in for a long wait until there is another opportunity to pass this bill. 

Securing the permanent mineral withdrawal to protect our region’s finest wild rivers and their clean water and salmon runs from the irreversible risks of mining must remain a high priority for conservation in our region. The surface strip mining needed to extract nickel from our local mountains would require removal of massive amounts of overburden for relatively small amounts of minerals—with untenable risks for our local watersheds. Clean drinking water and adequate flows in our rivers are going to be more and more precious as climate change ratchets up stresses on our aquatic ecosystems.

Our nation should prioritize research into alternate battery metals for the electric vehicles that we’ll need to transition to a clean energy economy. For example, researchers are already investigating sodium and saline—minerals that are far more common, less costly, and less irrevocably damaging to obtain than those that require strip mining. European nations are farther along in working toward a “circular economy” with metals recycling baked into manufacturing planning from the outset. We will never get to these much-needed innovations if our economic system allows wrecking whole landscapes—including some of America’s last best rivers and salmon streams—as a legitimate activity. Clean energy cannot be called “clean” if it depends on destructive mining. This nineteenth-century thinking needs to change as we aim to tackle twenty-first century challenges. 

Rocky Habitat conservation advances

In early December, I testified on behalf of KAS to the Oregon Policy Advisory Committee (OPAC), in support of proposed Rocky Shores designations. There were six areas proposed along the entire coast for Marine Conservation Areas (MCAs), including Cape Lookout, Cape Foulweather, and one in our area at Blacklock Point, which is contiguous with parts of Floras Lake Natural Area. The Blacklock MCA is intended to protect unique rocky habitat and nearshore kelp areas that are adjacent to the Floras Lake Natural Area. I am pleased to report that OPAC voted to recommend all six areas as MCAs.

Developing a strategy to conserve the important values of our state’s Rocky Habitats is a key part of Oregon’s Territorial Sea Plan. The public process to nominate and designate suitable areas has been going on for several years now. Rocky habitats are unique and important areas for marine life—think tidepools filled with snails, limpets, sea stars, mussels, barnacles, nudibranchs, and all manner of beautiful algae, plus shorebirds, including Black oystercatchers and turnstones and surfbirds! These rich ecosystems can also be extremely vulnerable to visitation and overuse, which has already resulted in unfortunate habitat degradation along the North Coast. 

The newly designated MCA sites will get added to the list of Rocky Habitat areas already designated last year, including the Cape Blanco Marine Research Area and the Coquille Point Marine Garden, and will be recommended for final approval by the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) this spring. As the designations suggest, different areas are intended to have different emphases—some research, some public education with the aim of both reducing impacts and also helping the public to understand the unique values that rocky shore habitats provide. 

How these newly designated areas will be managed will depend on LCDC rulemaking that is yet to come. The Blacklock MCA will bring no explicit change of rules in terms of harvesting marine life but will hopefully help to marshal more resources to study and protect its important values into the future. 

Update on Floating Offshore Wind development

In January, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) completed its qualification review and finally announced the results of its “call” for nominations for floating wind energy development off Oregon’s Coast. Four multinational corporations put forth qualified nominations: Avangrid, Ocean Winds, Bluefloat Energy, and Mainstream Renewable Power. Their nominations cover the entirety of both the Brookings and Coos Bay call areas.

With nominations now reviewed, BOEM will continue with its own evaluation of potential impacts of energy projects on the nominated areas, which entails “suitability modeling” to determine which parts of the call areas are most suitable for future wind energy development. We hope they will also consider input from all other Oregon stakeholders before they identify Wind Energy Areas (WEAs) –the subset of the call areas—that will be considered for leasing to these private companies.

Down the coast in California, BOEM is much further along in its process of leasing offshore areas for wind energy development, which enables us to see what will be coming in Oregon. Having identified California WEAs last year, BOEM hosted its first West Coast wind lease sale in early December. Five companies won leases for five areas that will cover more than 370,000 acres—almost 600 square miles—off the coasts of central California near Morro Bay and of northern California, near Eureka, with the promise of generating 4.6 gigawatts (GW) of energy. The leases give developers the right to assess the WEAs in a proprietary way so they can propose more specifically how they will seek to further develop them in the future.

The auction drew bids much lower than recent lease sales on the East Coast, reflecting the greater uncertainties on the West Coast—with still unproven floating technologies in deeper waters, the lack of a clear plan to offtake the energy, and the need to build ports, a supply chain and a workforce. The average price offered to the government by the wind companies was $2,028 per acre in comparison with the $8,951 per acre price of lease areas off New York and New Jersey last February. Interestingly, none of the companies that won the California leases are the same as those now seeking leases in Oregon.  With its great demand for renewable energy and enormous population centers, California has already boosted its offshore wind energy goals to 25 GW by 2045, aiming to see more call areas identified for consideration soon.

With California racing ahead to adopt FOSW technology and other regions proceeding apace with OSW development, Oregon, coming a little later to the game, will hopefully have the benefit of learning from the mistakes of other places. Already BOEM’s suitability modeling is apparently becoming more robust and, in Oregon, will be used ahead of leasing instead of afterwards. Oregon’s outstanding marine natural resources certainly merit careful consideration. We should avoid and minimize impacts not only to fisheries but also to the seabirds and marine mammals that depend on the rich upwelling waters of the West Coast’s California Current large marine ecosystem. 

As longtime KAS members know, our group has been engaged in the public process for wind energy siting at both the state and federal level—advocating for earlier consideration of impacts to birds, fish, and wildlife and for a cumulative impacts assessment given the multiple wind energy areas and projects now under consideration for development from California through to Washington. The next opportunities for public input will be after BOEM identifies Oregon WEAs later this year. Please consider attending the upcoming presentations sponsored by KAS in Brookings and Gold Beach on February 9 to learn more about this important topic for our region. 

Elliott State Research Forest update

A bit north of our usual beat, KAS has long supported the goal of greater conservation of the important old-growth forest habitat remaining in the Elliott State Forest, located north east of Coos Bay. Longtime KAS members will recall that these valuable forests were being steadily logged-off to support the state school fund despite their irreplaceable habitat for marbled murrelets and other forest dependent wildlife. A big chunk of the state forest lands was even sold off with the express purpose of avoiding habitat protection laws that apply to public lands –until a deal was finally reached to de-couple the forest from the school fund and find a new path to provide for public benefit as a research forest. In early 2021, the Oregon Legislature established the Elliott State Research Forest (ESRF) to be managed by Oregon State University (OSU).


Over the past couple of years, there has been a concerted planning effort with OSU and an appointed advisory board to set up the ESRF. Now comes the test –will it will truly be managed as a living laboratory that helps to conserve critical natural habitat values? In December, the Oregon Land Board appointed a new group of nine stakeholders to the Elliott State Research Forest Authority Board, which will now work with OSU to oversee the research and management of the ESRF. Representatives from Southwestern Oregon include Teresa Bird, an ecological consultant who has conducted numerous murrelet surveys in the Elliott (and who is a KAS member!), and Jack Williams, a fish biologist who has served in the past as chief scientist for Trout Unlimited and as Supervisor for the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest. Bob Sallinger, who has worked as Portland Audubon’s Conservation Director for several decades, has also been appointed to represent conservation interests.

In addition, the state has recently put forth a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) for the federally threatened and endangered species that inhabit the ESRF. The HCP must be approved by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service and will become the binding document that outlines specific protections for these species, including marbled murrelets, northern spotted owls, and Oregon Coast coho. KAS recently submitted comments and joined with other Oregon Audubon chapters in pressing the federal agencies to require better mapping, larger buffers, and greater protections for known occupied marbled murrelet nest sites and also provisions to improve aquatic habitat in the ESRF. 

Posted on

Conservation News, Winter 2022

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.

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