Board approves state forests plan, spotlights intent to preserve mill infrastructure, contractors

Presenter: The Board of Forestry approved a state forest management plan July 22 by a vote of 5-2. But recent changes from the Trump administration left many concerned. From the Forest Trust Lands Advisory Committee, Margaret Magruder: 

Margaret Magruder (Oregon Forest Trust Lands Advisory Committee): I’m Margaret Magruder, Columbia County commissioner and the FTLAC chair. The vote today for the forest management plan will complete a long planning process started in 2018, when the board adopted guiding principles over the eight years needed to develop this plan.

FTLAC members have felt both optimism and concern about the plan, and we feel the same today. A key concern is the commitment of the board and ODF to greatest permanent value (GPV). We—FTLAC—also remain concerned about the willingness of ODF to work with the counties as partners.

Finally, recent federal direction on endangered species has created even more concern. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration recently rescinded the definition of harm under the Endangered Species Act.

This change to the harm definition changes over 40 years of Endangered Species Act enforcement. The impacts of this change are likely to be wide-ranging. Past modeling from ODF has shown that harvest levels could be as low as 165 million board feet, or as high as more than 300 million board feet per year under different modeling scenarios.

At the same time, uncertainty that the proposed FMP will provide GPV has never been higher. For that reason, county commissioners are split on the best path forward. 

Presenter: The board had questions for the Department of Forestry, and specifically about incidental take permits, or ITPs. Board member Joe Justice:

Joe Justice (Board of Forestry member): The definition of harm that just changed with the Endangered Species Act—you know, we based this decision to move into an HCP (habitat conservation plan) and a companion FMP (forest management plan) as an alternative to take avoidance. 

Has take avoidance truly now just changed? You know, have we seen a significant movement and a change in how we should be looking at this and how take avoidance would be looked at today with that definitional change? 

Presenter: State Forest Division Chief, Mike Wilson:

Mike Wilson (ODF, State Forest Division, chief): That’s a great question. I don’t think it changes our course in what we’re doing right now. 

That decision, of course, was litigated right out of the gate and it’s going to be tied up in the courts for some time. So I think it’s a little bit premature to pull away from the incidental take permits. 

If it turns out at the end of the day that this new harm definition holds, that it has to be direct harm to an individual critter, then we’ll have to consider what we do next.

We can say, ‘Well, it doesn’t have to be habitat-based anymore,’ and so we could tailor it back to whatever the policy context is. We could walk away from the HCP. If this new definition of harm holds, then there would be no basis for the mitigated take anyway.

So a safe route is to go ahead and say, ‘We may need these things. We don’t know if we’re not going to need these ITPs yet. Let’s go ahead and acquire them. If we find we don’t need them, we can always make those changes down the road.’

We can always—I mean, it’s just adaptive management at a policy level, 

Presenter: Board of Forestry member Heath Curtiss:

Heath Curtiss (Board of Forestry member): I wanted to ask, in your view, is this a vote on whether or not we proceed with an HCP? Or is this a vote on just how we would manage under an HCP if we got it? 

Mike Wilson (ODF): Thank you for that. Again, Mike Wilson, State Forest Division chief. This is a motion on how we would manage going forward under that HCP—

Heath Curtiss (Board of Forestry member): And that vote on the HCP itself happened in March of 2024, and this is not revoting on that decision. This board—ODF has the authority to proceed with the HCP. This is a question about the forest management plan that would guide your management under the HCP. 

It seems likely to me that the rescission of the harm rule kind of throws a lot into question, as you suggested. If I were a betting man—in some ways, I am,  in the profession—it seems unlikely to me that the services are going to be motivated to act on issuing Section 10 permits while this question remains in play.

And so what happens, in your view, if you don’t get incidental take permits for three years? What will we do then as a body or what will we have to do then as a body?

Presenter: He said Oregon would continue developing annual operations plans, or AOPs. Mike Wilson:

Mike Wilson (ODF): Yeah, that’s a very good question.

Because of the differences in the covered aquatic species, we entered a stewardship agreement with (the ODF) Forest Resources (Division) already to basically show that our management standards have exceedance with the FPA (Forest Practices Act), so we’re good to go there.

Which is important just in terms of stability for those riparian conservation measures, which are also consistent then with the settlement agreement that we have in the coho lawsuit.

But if we don’t get ITPs, it would be prudent for us to continue under our survey and management approach until this all gets sorted out, 

But yeah, we would just continue managing under the current FMP, extending and revising as possible those implementation plans and developing new AOPs. 

Presenter: As they moved toward approving the state forest management plan, the board considered some final tweaks. Board member Ben Deumling:

Ben Deumling: The language that I would like to add is to add approval by the board of a set of FMP performance measure targets and trends as also required for the final implementation of this FMP. 

And the reason for that is it really highlights the role that the board plays in oversight and accountability going forward. 

Presenter: After that amendment was approved by a vote of 4-3, the board took up an amendment to address the county commissioners’ concerns. Board member Heath Curtiss:

Heath Curtiss (Board of Forestry member): The intent statement in the board packet should be amended to include an additional intent statement. And this would be: ‘The Forest Trust Land Advisory Committee is informed and involved in management of county conveyed lands pursuant to the FMP as required by statute.’

Presenter: Board chair Jim Kelly:

Jim Kelly (Board of Forestry, chair): That passes unanimously. All right. Heath, back to you. 

Heath Curtiss (Board of Forestry member): All right. The intent statement in the board packet should be amended to include: ‘that state lands will be managed in a manner that does not compromise existing milling infrastructure or forest contractor capacity.’

I think that this board by statute is precluded from kind of speaking to harvest volumes. And that’s been a thing that’s, you know, been difficult in terms of the certainty that we want to see out of an FMP like this.

I think that a part of greatest permanent value is ensuring that, you know, we have the ability to manage these lands and our ability to manage these lands is contingent on having the infrastructure around us.

The intent statements themselves aren’t actually like concrete. They say, ‘This is what we intend by adopting this FMP, we want to see these outcomes.’ And I think that this is a fair statement in terms of an outcome we would like to see.

It may or may not necessarily manifest, I suppose, but I think it’s important that this board say that’s a thing we want. And I would encourage it.

Presenter: Joe Justice:

Joe Justice (Board of Forestry member): We’ve seen this time and time again across our state and across the West, how we’ve lost this infrastructure, how we’ve lost our ability to manage these forests, whether it’s for conservation values or economic values. 

And I think it’s so critical in all the, everything we’re trying to do for greatest permanent value, to maintain that infrastructure.

I just think it’s incredibly, incredibly important for everybody concerned that we have the people, we have the equipment, we have the resources by which to continue to actively manage these forests. And this addition to the motion would really, really lock that in. So thank you. 

Ben Deumling: Ben Deumling, for the record. Heath, I like that. I think I’m generally in favor of it. 

A quick technical question: If I understand correctly, these intent statements are not part of the rule. They are a set of intent statements that we are approving in explaining our adopting this rule. Am I correct there? I see nodding. Okay.

So yes, I would echo what Heath and Joe have said, that infrastructure is critical for the continued management of these forests. 

I think there’s a give and take. And these forests do not exist solely for that infrastructure in those industries, but they are inextricably linked. And an acknowledgment of that critical link is important and that’s how I how I see this.

Presenter: Board member Liz Agpaoa:

Liz Agpaoa (Board of Forestry, member): I just want to echo what everyone before me has said on this amendment, is that just we know across the West and in Oregon, these very important skills for restoration of our forests are dwindling. And if the intent can put a spotlight on that, I would support it too.

Presenter: Jim Kelly:

Jim Kelly (Board of Forestry, chair): I totally agree with Joe how incredibly important and tragic the loss of mill structure has been in many parts of the state. 

But I will make the point that generally in the areas of our state-owned lands, they are some of the richest forests, and honestly, I’m not too worried about the loss of mill structure, given the kind of management that we have, both by the state and by the neighbors. 

Presenter: Board member Brenda McComb:

Brenda McComb (Board of Forestry, member): While I agree with what Heath has proposed in principle, there are many reasons why mill structures and infrastructure would be compromised in the future and go far beyond how state lands are managed.

So I think this amended intent statement is likely to come back to a board in the future for future clarification, when certain mills begin to close for other reasons, because they’re going to point towards state lands, even though that may not be the reason. 

Presenter: With Brenda McComb voting no, that intent statement also passed by a vote of 6-1.  With one more proposal, Heath Curtiss:

Heath Curtiss (Board of Forestry member): I would move to amend the motion as drafted by removing the words ‘targets and trends’ and have ‘measures’ be plural. 

My thoughts there is that I’m uncomfortable in most circumstances with the ideas of targets here. They become elusive and are used just to bludgeon the agency.

And I would encourage something more along the lines of trends, but even when it’s trends, as we saw when we last engaged the performance measures conversation, this stuff, it all works different depending on the circumstances, depending on what it is we’re talking about.

It may be that neither a target nor a trend is the appropriate way to style it, and certainly not a numeric target. And so, I only mean to keep our options open. I don’t know that this actually compromises your motion, Ben, but what it doesn’t do is with this amendment, we would not be obligated to produce targets. We still could. 

Ben Deumling: Ben Deumling. I would argue that I would not be in support of this and here’s why. The performance measures themselves are simply a statement of what we will choose to measure. The targets and trends are how we assess that measurement.

And there is no value judgment on a performance measure itself. The value judgment comes on how we set the result, how we interpret the result. And therefore there can be no accountability if we are just measuring.

The board needs to create some direction by saying, ‘This is what we expect these performance measures to be, what the results should be.’ And so targets and trends may not fully encompass— I was trying to encompass a broad range because I agree, Heath, that there are different ways of assessing these performance measures.

So I would be open to expanding targets and trends to include other words if we chose. But to me, we cannot have oversight and accountability if we are just measuring. We need that oversight and accountability is an interpretation of those results.

And I think the board needs to own this and it is not easy work. I would agree, and it would need to be evaluated regularly. And I think the current suggestion from the staff is to do this every two years, is to have a report on these performance measures.

And if a measure was not meeting the target or trend that the board had set, well, then maybe the board needs to decide that they set it wrong, that we have set it wrong, and that there was a trade-off that we hadn’t anticipated, or the board needs to decide that staff have not been implementing correctly and the staff needs to make a change.

The changes could come from any number of places, but it needs to be an honest accounting of how this plan is actually playing out on the landscape. And without setting some assessment of those performance measures, it is purely measurements for just measurement sake. 

Alexi Lovechio: Alexi Lovechio, for the record. Yeah, I would have to agree a lot with what Ben is saying that I think throughout this whole FMP process, we’ve heard consistently from members of the public and even other board members that we’re all looking for greater specificity in how the plans, goals, and outcomes are going to be measured and achieved.

And yes, the performance measures is that specificity. But we need targets, trends, whatever else we would like to, to put on that, to translate that vision into clear, measurable and accountable actions.

And I’ve never gone through targets and trends. And so maybe there is another way to get really clear, measurable, outcomes, but I do think we need to keep those just so we can hold the FMP accountable and to really assess and to say, ‘What are we measuring? Like, what are our goals?’ with some quantifiable targets and measures.

Presenter: Brenda McComb:

Brenda McComb (Board of Forestry, member): Yeah. Thank you. Setting targets and trends as part of a monitoring program, as a component of adaptive management, is very basic monitoring science. 

There’s nothing different from what is being proposed here than what is being proposed at any monitoring effort where scientific principles are at stake.

So I support keeping it the way it is with targets and trends. We can always add other things later, but this is basic foundational monitoring as part of adaptive management.

Presenter: Liz Agpaoa: 

Liz Agpaoa (Board of Forestry, member): I would just like to note that in our document here that the staff report has, there was broad support for clear and enforceable performance measures. So there’s an alternative, descriptors there. I just want to note that.

Presenter: Jim Kelly:

Jim Kelly (Board of Forestry, chair): I’m going to just chime in and say that that I’m in agreement with Ben on this one. I understand what you’re saying about sometimes these targets get hammered and it’s not always fun. But I agree that we really, we need to have targets. Heath. 

Heath Curtiss (Board of Forestry member): In full transparency, I mean, the HCP itself includes a lot of this. It includes a lot of monitoring and benchmarking and it includes an adaptive management process.

My concern here is that these performance measure targets are going to be a tool to further handicap management of the forest. And you can expect to hear me bring that up in September when we return to this conversation.

And if I’m going to lose this vote, that will further substantiate my ‘No’ vote on the main motion. 

That is to say, I am very concerned about the further we get away from the vote on the HCP, the less people remember the spectacular conservation commitments that were made in adoption of that HCP: the profound cost to the industry, the log trucks and the contractors and the mill employees standing outside of the building with signs saying, ‘Please don’t do it.’

And here we are opening the door to another conversation that I’m very fearful will drive further restriction of the forest. And I just have to say my part: I wish this weren’t in there at all. 

Ben Deumling: Ben Deumling. Heath, I hear your concern, and for whatever it’s worth, I would just like to publicly state, my intention here is not to further hamstring this plan, this forest, to create more restrictions on harvest. That is not my intention whatsoever here.

My intention is for the board to exercise its oversight accountability. And I don’t have any preconceived ideas of how the board will come out on this and I may or may not end up being for some of these targets and trends, but I think this is about accountability more than it is about trying to take another bite of this forest.

This intention is about accountability, not taking more. 

Heath Curtiss (Board of Forestry member): I’ll hold you to it, Ben. Thanks. 

Presenter: That final amendment failed by a 4-3 vote, and the board moved on to approve the forest management plan, as amended. Jim Kelly:

Jim Kelly (Board of Forestry, chair): Okay. We have our original motion that has been amended… The intent statement in the board packet should be amended to include: 

The FTLAC is informed and involved in management of county-conveyed lands as required by statute. 

State lands will be managed in a manner that does not compromise existing infrastructure or forest contractor capacity.

Okay. With that, I will move to a vote. So prepare yourselves… and it passes on a 5-2 vote. 

Thank you all. Did a big sigh. I—you know, it’s hard. It’s hard. This is why we all get paid the big bucks—because this work is so hard. 

Anybody would like to make closing comments before we adjourn? State Forester Kacey KC. 

Kacey KC (Oregon, state forester): Well, I would just like to thank you all for the thoughtful conversation and the years of hard work that you’ve put into this. 

It really does matter to us as an agency how we manage these forests. And we’re hearing everything that you all are saying, and we look forward to working with you on the implementation and all the changes that could potentially come as we go forward with all the uncertainty. So thank you for that. 

Presenter: With a final reminder of the uncertainty facing the state, Board of Forestry member Heath Curtiss:

Heath Curtiss (Board of Forestry member): Yeah. I mean, for the public, I think I’d like to offer:  I’m not sure we just did anything. That is to say, we did have a vote and we did have a contested vote. But adoption of and the effectiveness of the FMP is contingent on issuance of the ITPs.

And I think there’s room to be very skeptical that those ITPs will ever issue and on the terms that we understand. And so I think it would be a mistake to conclude that the story is over and it’s never actually over as it pertains to state lands.

So I think this conversation will remain live, and I would like to commit to the public that to the degree that the rules fundamentally change relative to incidental take and how we have understood those rules to work over time, then, you know, as a board member, I will advocate for us to be able to manage in the way that benefits the most Oregonians and Oregon’s resources.

I think there are other Oregon statutes and rules that pertain to management of resources even in the absence of, the threat of a Section 9 lawsuit, and the interpretation of harm. And we would have to grapple with those.

But I hope people stay engaged. I think it just seems exceedingly likely to me that what we did just now was mostly an academic exercise. And we’ll see how it plays out over time.

Presenter: The Board of Forestry on July 22 approves a state forests management plan to accompany its 2024 habitat conservation plan.