Oregon Board of Forestry announces Sept. 9 meeting on state forests – more logging while failing to protect and restore rivers and streams

Why is the Kulongoski administration failing to protect Oregon’s Tillamook and Clatsop state Forests?

At its meeting on Wednesday, September 9, the Oregon Board of Forestry plans to move forward with a proposal to significantly reduce environmental protection across the 500,000 acre Tillamook and Clatsop state forests in NW Oregon, at the expense of wild salmon, clean water, a healthy climate and recreation.

In its plans to run state forests more like industrial tree farms, the Board, with assistance from the Oregon Department of Forestry, will also begin revising the Greatest Permanent Value (GPV) mandate that governs these state lands in order to put a greater focus on timber production instead of other values like recreation, clean water, carbon sequestration and fish and wildlife habitat.

Unfortunately, Governor Kulongoski has shown strong support for efforts to shift state forest management to a ‘timber first’ approach.

Please contact Governor Kulongoski today and urge him to:

• Support a strong salmon protection plan by opposing clearcuting in Salmon Anchor Habitats

• Support the creation of long term and permanent conservation areas

• Reduce conflicts of interest on the Board of Forestry by appointing more conservation advocates and scientists

• Support a state forest management plan that restores watersheds damaged by past logging and enhances values like recreation, wild salmon, carbon sequestration and clean water .

The Board of Forestry meeting, which is open to the public, is scheduled for Wednesday, September 9 from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. at the Oregon Garden hotel, 895 W. Main St., Silverton. Join the Sierra Club and other conservation advocates in showing your support for more environmental protection on our state lands.

Background:

At its June 3 meeting, the Oregon Board of  Forestry – in a controversial decision opposed by fishing and conservation groups – decided to move forward with plans to dramatically increase clearcut logging on the Tillamook and Clatsop state forests between the Portland area and the Coast. This started the ball rolling on a plan to open up tens of thousands of acres of older forests on state lands to new logging in coming years, despite strong evidence this logging increase will lead to damaged rivers, streams and fisheries. Based on flawed assumptions that increased logging will create jobs in the timber industry during extremely weak demand for lumber and a depressed housing market, the timber-centric Board of Forestry has chosen to prioritize logging over all other important values in these state forests, including the growing recreation economy, carbon sequestration and healthy fisheries.

How you can make a difference:

The Oregon Board of Forestry is planning a public meeting on Wednesday, September 9  from 8 am to 4pm in Silverton (note change from the regularly Salem location). It is at this meeting that they will decide how to move forward with their misguided logging plans, as well as whether to fundamentally alter the ‘greatest permanent value’ rule which currently  requires that logging be balanced with other non-timber values on these state forests.

If you care about protecting our state forests from unsustainable logging, please consider attending the Sept. 9 Board meeting in Silverton and testifying to your opposition to their June 3 decision. At a minimum, please visit Governor Kulongoski’s comment website to register your opposition to the Board’s pro-timber bias and failure to protect watershed health, recreation and non-timber values on our state lands. The Governor is currently backing the Board’s decision to prioritize logging above other values such as healthy fish runs, clean water, recreation and carbon sequestration.

Join us for a Field Trip to Bradwood Landing!

You are invited to join the Sierra Club Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) Committee and the Portland LNG Working Group on a day trip to visit the proposed site for the Bradwood Landing LNG terminal.

Come see the gorgeous lower Columbia River estuary being threatened by the Bradwood Landing proposal, get information about what is proposed, meet local community members who have been fighting for 5 years to save the river, and get involved in the fight against LNG!

Saturday, September 12th @ 9am

Agenda for the day:

• Bus and Carpool meet at the Sierra Club office at 9am (1821 SE Ankeny, Portland) — depart promptly at 9:30
• Arrive at our destination Puget Island beach just across the river from Bradwood at Noon. The beach is a stone’s throw from the Bradwood site and sits adjacent to the turning basin that would require 700,000 cubic yards of dredging for the Bradwood Landing LNG terminal.
• Picnic, hear presentation, talk with locals from Noon-3pm (motor boat shuttles will be available for closer view of site).
• Arrive back in Portland by 5:30pm (departing from beach at 3:30)

This is a great opportunity to see the Bradwood site first hand, learn more about LNG proposals in Oregon, talk with dedicated volunteers and have a beautiful day on the Columbia River.

Food will be provided — Sierra Club is sponsoring sack lunches that will be available and the wonderful communities living in the Columbia River estaury will provide additional eats including grilled salmon, salads, refreshments and desserts.

Join us and see first hand what we are fighting for!  Please RSVP to oliviariver@gmail.com to ensure we provide room on the bus/carpool list.

Sierra Club Comments on Steens Mountain Transmission Line Project

Public Scoping Comments,
North Steens Transmission Line Project EIS
Submitted by the Oregon Chapter Sierra Club
High Desert Committee

We would like to thank you on behalf of the Sierra Club for the opportunity to comment on the development of North Steens Transmission Line Project EIS.

First and foremost we have a concern regarding the isolated evaluation of the environmental impact this proposed transmission line will have on Steens Mountain in the absence of considering the cumulative impact of both the Echanis wind farm and future proposals for energy development which would access this transmission line. We believe that if evaluated and considered without regard for the whole, the true impact of the development will not be realized. It would be as if someone considered the construction of a single wind turbine alone, finding minimal impact and then considering a second turbine and its stand alone impact, also minimal, and multiplying this process a hundredfold to determine that 100 turbines have no impact because individually the impact of each one is insignificant. As silly as that sounds, this appears to be the process being used. Given that the proposed transmission lines will have far more capacity than the Echanis project will need (at its current level) it is reasonable to predict that other wind projects (perhaps including ones previously identified within the SMCMPA) will be proposed piece meal as separate developments, to be evaluated individually without the oversight of any concern for a cumulative effect. The fact that the proposed line will operate at half capacity (115kV of 230 kV circuit) and that a second circuit is proposed for the future more than implies that addition development is intended. We believe the BLM and USFW should consider the environmental impact of not only the transmission lines and associated infrastructure, but also the combined impact with the Echanis project as well as future development of wind farms on the mountain up to the capacity of the transmission lines proposed.

Given that Steens Mountain is a major staging and migration point for raptors and Malhuer Refuge is likewise for waterfowl, there needs to be serious concern given to the impacts these lines (and wind farms, proposed and potential) will have on the flight of these varied species and others. Given that the line will bisect Steens Mountain, migrating birds will be forced to navigate over, under, or through the lines. Although the proposed line only crosses a narrow portion of the formal refuge, any waterfowl or other bird species will also be forced over, under, or through the lines as they move between the north and south parts of the refuge. There will undoubtedly be casualties from strikes in a landscape supposedly protected first and foremost for wildlife and ecosystem integrity, not to mention the additional effects of the wind turbines.

Given that sage grouse remain a struggling species perpetually on the cusp of receiving protected status as threatened through much of its range, it would seem that additional caution should be given to the effect these lines will have on breeding leks and the migration patterns of these species as well. Sage grouse are notorious for avoiding areas with tall structures (power poles and wind turbines) that might appear to provide perches for predators. Given that the Steens ecosystem might appear to have a marginally stable population of sage grouse, a long barrier such as the transmission line would no doubt diminish such stability in an otherwise lightly developed ecosystem.

Undoubtedly there will be impacts to wildlife and these should be documented explicitly with mitigation efforts such as habitat improvements and land acquisitions and protection which would take place to reduce these impacts. It would seem fair and prudent that such mitigation would be funded with income from the power production.

While no new roads seem proposed within the actual CMPA, the staging areas and the construction and maintenance of the lines will no doubt disturb the vegetation and provide a potential foothold for invasive species across the breadth of the mountain. Given the number of roads currently on the mountain already providing vectors for dispersal of invasive plants, this may seem insignificant, but this development is a new disturbance of significant length and much greater width than a single track road. We also have concerns regarding the temporary but perhaps ongoing use by ORVs along the transmission line and would like to know what measures will be taken to rehabilitate disturbed lands and prevent ongoing unauthorized use.

Many people come to Steens Mountain for the spectacular views. While this project may be marginally visible from the famous viewpoints, we are concerned that future projects intended to fill the capacity of the power line will likely be far more prominent and visible and this potential or inevitability should be considered in evaluating the transmission lines. In addition to passing through the CMPA, the lines appear that they may be visible from nearby wilderess study areas along with the wind turbines. Because of the special nature of Steens as a special place, protecting its views from development (again, lines and turbines – proposed and future combined) should be considered.

We wonder whether anyone has looked at the physical viability and analyzed the impacts of burying the power lines either in their entirety or at least in sensitive areas. We also wonder whether anyone has considered having the lines follow or replace current access roads or routes, and what other potential routes have been explored, including directing the transmission line toward the Fields FollyFarm road to the east. We would hope that financial cost of alternatives would not be the foremost consideration in this incredible and nationally protected landscape.

The Sierra Club supports wind development in general as a means to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and to reduce our carbon footprint as well as to bring jobs and income to rural economies, but we also support such development only in appropriate locations and with thorough review and evaluation of the effects such development will have on the surrounding environment.  It would seem absurd to propose wind turbines say on the rim of the Grand Canyon. There are undoubtedly many other appropriate sites for wind development in Harney County and we hope that the various communities (local, state, and federal) will consider a more comprehensive evaluation and approach to siting wind farms, transmission lines, and the associated infrastructure with the goal that such developments be pursued efficiently and with sensitive consideration of their environmental impact. Strong wind cannot become the sole criteria for selecting wind power generation sites as the environmental costs and sacrifices are just as real as the benefits of clean energy.

The Oregon Chapter of the Sierra Club has been actively engaged in advocating for and protecting Oregon’s desert wildlands for nearly 20 years. The Sierra Club is the nation’s oldest and largest environmental organization. Its mission is to:  (1) explore, enjoy and protect the wild places of the earth; (2) practice and promote the responsible use of the earth’s ecosystems and resources; (3) educate and enlist humanity to protect and restore the quality of the natural and human environment; and (4) use all lawful means to carry out these objectives. The Sierra Club is primarily a volunteer run organization with over 1.4 million members and supporters nationwide including nearly 25,000 members in Oregon.

Over the course of this time, volunteers with the Chapter’s High Desert Committee (“HDC”) have explored and inventoried BLM Wilderness Study Areas, commented on numerous proposals and plans regarding wildlands management decisions, lead countless trips and outreach activities to expose Oregonians to the High Desert, and participated in consensus based advisory councils. The mission of the HDC is to protect the ecological integrity of Oregon’s desert wildlands and to advocate for the eventual designation of some of these lands as wilderness. The Club was a core partner with other environmental groups involved with the process to protect Steens Mountain, eventually resulting in the Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Act, and members have continued such involvement by serving on the Steens Mountain Advisory Council, writing comments on various land use decisions, and participating in service projects on Steens.

Thank you for considering these comments toward the further planning of how to manage potential wind development on Steens. We look forward to participating further in this matter.

Sincerely,
Borden Beck – chair, High Desert Committee
Oregon Chapter Sierra Club
1821 SE Ankeny St.
Portland, OR 97214

Portland General Electric Ignores Low Carbon Alternatives and Increases Reliance on Fossil Fuels

New Resource Plan Increases Reliance on coal and natural gas

Portland, OR: Friday, Portland General Electric (PGE) announced its plan to increase reliance on coal by increasing Oregon’s share of the power generated by the Boardman coal plant and further increasing carbon liabilities with the addition of a new 406 MW natural gas plant.

PGE is currently engaged in Integrated Resource Planning, which is a process for the utility to evaluate different options for meeting future and current electricity demands and to select a mix of resources that reflects a reliable low-cost plan.

The business-as-usual plan fails to take into account the growing fiscal liability of coal power. For example, PGE is now required to invest over $600 million into the Boardman coal plant for long overdue pollution controls. It is likely that the federal government will introduce carbon pricing soon. Despite these price impacts, PGE has chosen to increase Portland’s dependence on dirty energy.

During a record-breaking heat wave in Oregon last week, PGE’s Boardman coal-fired power plant was not available due to unexpected delays in getting the plant back online after a scheduled maintenance. Boardman’s unreliability during the heat wave underscores the imprudence of PGE’s announcement on Friday that it will pursue an action plan that will increase reliance on PGE Boardman until at least 2040.

“It certainly is ironic that on the very day PGE unveiled their proposal to extend Boardman by decades, during the hottest weather on record, the plant wasn’t available to meet our needs,” stated Fred Heutte, Energy Chair for the Oregon Sierra Club.  “This is a sign that PGE needs a better plan.  It’s time to phase out Boardman and turn to efficiency and renewable energy to clean up our air, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and keep the lights on.”

In the 15 scenarios that PGE seriously considered, a plan to shut-down Boardman by 2014 was dismissed because PGE failed to adequately assess all the alternatives to Boardman.  Instead, PGE only looked at a scenario where two natural gas plants replaced the power.  PGE failed to consider an option that would replace Boardman with energy efficiency and renewables with decreased dependence on natural gas.

Furthermore, PGE rejected another option that would reduce PGE’s carbon emissions significantly compared to its chosen plan.  PGE has often expressed a commitment to a new, clean energy future, but when faced with two options that have roughly the same costs and risks, PGE has chosen the portfolio with a significantly higher carbon output.  Surprisingly, at a time when the public is calling on PGE to reduce its dependence on dirty coal, PGE’s chosen plan actually increases the amount of power PGE will provide from the Boardman coal-fired plant.

“Continuing coal-generated power is an irresponsible, costly path,” said Robin Everett, organizer with the Sierra Club. “Oregon communities are investing heavily in solutions to the climate crisis, but every year the Boardman coal plant emits 5 million tons of carbon pollution into the air. It affects our health and clean water, and will have long-term economic liabilities. We deserve better.”

PGE will release their draft Integrated Resource Plan in late August, and the Public Utilities Commission will review it and ultimately decide, after a public input process, whether to accept their plan early in 2010.

Tell PGE to stop powering our communities with dirty 19^th century technologies—smarter solutions exist! Click here to send your letter TODAY!