Created by statute, the committee mirrors the Board of Directors of the Council of Forest Trust Land Counties

A group of county commissioners representing Oregon counties where county land was transferred to the state to create state forests met October 20 in Salem as the Forest Trust Land Advisory Committee (FTLAC).

The agenda focused on the State Forests Safe Harbor Agreement and Candidate Conservation Agreement with Assurances and reports from state forest districts.

The seven-member board of directors of the Council of Forest Trust Land Counties (CFTLC), chaired by Tillamook County Commissioner Tim Josi, operates as the FTLAC. CFTLC represents the 15 counties that deeded their land to the state for purposes of growing, harvesting, and sustaining forest land.  In return, these counties and the local taxing districts located there share revenue with the state resulting from harvest and other activities in the forests.  The FTLAC, staffed by the State Forest Division of the Department of Forestry, was created by statute in 1987 to advise the state forester and Board of Forestry on matters in which counties may have a role related to forestland managed by the department. The 15 counties are Benton, Clackamas, Clatsop, Columbia, Coos, Douglas, Josephine, Klamath, Lane, Lincoln, Linn, Marion, Polk, Tillamook, and Washington.

Noteworthy items from the meeting included:

  • The Governor has offered a replacement for recently resigned Board of Forestry (BOF) member Gary Springer.  Gary gave the board a practical viewpoint, is aware of and respected the history of the state forest acquisition program, and is a professional forester. The Governor will nominate Evan Smith to replace him. Mr. Smith is senior vice president of Conservation Ventures, which invests in green business and working forests to generate economic and environmental return. In 2015, the Conservation Fund invested to help add 29,000 acres to the Gilchrist State Forest in Klamath County.  At this point, it is unknown whether Mr. Smith has knowledge of the distinct history of the state forest acquisition program.  He will appear for Senate confirmation during December Legislative Days (the week of December 12th).
  • The newly installed state forester, Peter Daugherty, described himself as a blunt communicator, with core values of integrity and giving equal access to all stakeholders. He expressed frustration that public benefits of the state forests are not funded separately from the working – and shrinking – Forest Development Fund. He wondered out loud whether the dual goals of financial viability and increased conservation was asking too much of the forests.
  • The BOF Chair Tom Imeson announced that the first draft of a new site index to track growth and yield of the forests is showing that there is indeed faster growth and more potential yield that first measured. If this is confirmed by the final inventory update scheduled for February, 2017, it will lead to more harvesting.
  • The State Forest Division of the Department of Forestry (ODF) typically manage state forests under a “take avoidance” regime to account for protected species. Take avoidance, however, is expensive to administer, creates significant management conflicts, and requires ongoing resolution of technical, operational and policy issues, both by ODF and the federal services (US Fish & Wildlife Service and NOAA-Fisheries). As a consequence, ODF has sought  programs that protect the state’s interest in harvest while reducing administrative costs. One such tool is a Safe Harbor Agreement (SHA), which is being utilized in the West Lane State Forest District as part of a large-scale experiment to assess the effects of barred owl removal on spotted owl site occupancy, reproduction and survival. The SHA provides ODF with formal assurances that no additional restrictions will be required, other than what is in the agreement for existing sites and new sites where spotted owls show up after barred owls are removed. The SHA is in the best interest of the forest trust lands, because these restrictions would happen anyway under take avoidance, but it provides an incidental take permit allowing for take of individual owls in new spotted owl sites and planning certainty over the next ten years. The SHA will expire in August, 2025. Another tool under discussion is the Candidate Conservation Agreement with Assurances (CCAA). The CCAA is intended to set the stage for eventual reintroduction of the fisher and preclude the need to list the species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Industry has played a big role in discussions leading to the current template. The US Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) made the decision not to list the fisher in April. Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands Center and three other organizations sued to force a listing. What the CCAA does is permit the landowner to manage their land to remove or reduce threats to species that may become listed under the ESA.  In return, the landowner receives assurances that additional regulatory measures will not be imposed if the species is listed. ODF will make a determination whether it remains in the best interests of its land management.
  • In other ESA news, the Center for Biological Diversity and others petitioned the State Fish & Wildlife Commission (FWC) in June to uplist the marbled murrelet in Oregon to endangered. Under its rules, FWC has 12 months from filing to decide whether the species is in danger of extinction throughout a significant portion of its range in Oregon, and if so, whether existing state and federal regulations are adequate.
  • Final note:  the USFWS has a work plan to review the status of 25 species over the next seven years, some of which (e.g., the black-backed woodpecker) are present on state forests.