Posts Tagged ‘ interior department ’

Breaking: Sage Grouse Won’t Be Listed – At Least Not For Now

March 5, 2010
By

A Greater Sage Grouse near Burns, Oregon. Photo from BLM.

Faced with a difficult decision about protecting – or not protecting – the Greater sage-grouse, Interior says it’s going to split the difference.

Secretary Ken Salazar announced Friday morning that the sage-grouse deserves to be listed by the Endangered Species Act, but that’s not going to happen anytime soon. The official label is that listing is “warranted, but precluded.”

So it becomes a candidate species. The bird’s status will be reviewed yearly. But Interior says it can’t protect every species that deserves it, and it has to set priorities. The sage-grouse falls into the bottom third of the candidate list.

Read more »

Interior Releases New Logging Plan For Western Oregon

October 14, 2009
By

Interior Secretary Salazar is stepping into the middle of one of the Northwest’s longest running environmental battles, logging the vast federal forests of Western Oregon.

Old growth forest on BLM land at Esmond Lake. Photo by Kristian Skybak. For more see flickr.com/kristiansven.

Old growth forest on BLM land at Esmond Lake. Photo by Kristian Skybak. For more see flickr.com/kristiansven.

The challenge is this: how do you create a steady supply of timber for local economies without hurting those forests and the endangered species that live there?  The two previous administrations have tried, and failed, to come up with logging plans that could win widespread support. Clinton’s Northwest Forest Plan was bitterly opposed by the timber industry. Bush’s WOPR was so badly flawed that the Obama administration decided it would be a waste of time to defend it in court.

Which brings us to today’s announcement.

First, Salazar says he’s moving forward with a one year plan to allow the logging of some 230 million board feet during 2010.  He’s approved 46 timber sales and another 16 are still under consideration.  Most of the sales involve thinning and restoration projects, the kind that are less likely to be controversial.

That’s not much of a change from what’s been happening the past few years.  From 2005 to 2008, the Bureau of Land Management says it’s offered an average of 206 million board feet for logging each year.  But the actual amount that was harvested is much less, about 150 million board feet.

So far, so good.

But the bigger challenge is coming up with a long term strategy for managing the 2.4 million acres of BLM forests in Western Oregon.

Salazar has ordered the BLM and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to work together on finding long term solutions.  The two agencies will form a special task force that will report back to him by next spring.  Getting these two agencies to cooperate is extremely important.  Because while BLM has authority over the forests, Fish and Wildlife as well as other agencies, have a legal duty to protect the endangered species.  Lack of cooperation is one of the big reasons the Bush WOPR logging plan was killed.

One sign that Salazar might be on the right track is that Senator Wyden and Congressman DeFazio attended today’s announcement and offered their support.  Wyden called the plan, “good old fashioned common sense”, saying that bringing all the agencies together now the plan will save time and lead to healthier forests.

The reaction from the environmental community is not as enthusiastic.  Oregon Wild has been following the logging dispute closely.  Steve Pedery, the group’s Conservation Director, says “Increased cooperation between the BLM and Fish and Wildlife is a good start, but the bottom line is that the BLM must begin to place as much value on wild salmon, clean water and old-growth forests as they do on logging volume.”

Oregon Wild is also concerned because the Salazar plan for next year includes clear cut logging on about 1,000 acres of BLM land.  ”The public rejected clear-cutting decades ago,” says Pedery.  ”If the Obama administration wants to avoid conflict and controversy, they should rein-in BLM clear-cutting.”

What’s Not So Great About The Klamath Dam Agreement

October 13, 2009
By

I’m no expert on dams, hydropower, agriculture or fisheries.  Keep that in mind as you read further.  But after taking some time to digest the draft agreement to remove dams from the Klamath River, I find good reason to be skeptical about whether this deal is really going to happen.

The Copco 1 Dam on the Klamath River. Photo courtesy U.S. Fish and Wildlife.

The Copco 1 Dam on the Klamath River. Photo courtesy U.S. Fish and Wildlife.

Lots And Lots Of Loopholes.

Let’s take a look at what has to happen to make this work.  Interior Secretary Salazar has until 2012 to decide if removing the dams is in “the public interest”.  Oregon and California have to come up with about $450 million to pay for it, and if the costs go higher, no one knows where the extra money will come from.  Plus, Congress has to come up with another $500 million.  Finally, the nearly 30 groups that signed on to this draft plan have 60 days to think things over and reconsider their support.

That’s a lot of “ifs” and “buts”.

The only serious progress shown so far is here in Oregon.  The state has come up with its share of $200 million by letting Pacific Power (which owns the dams) collect the money from its Oregon customers through a special surcharge.  But California is expected to raise $250 million, mostly through bonds, and so far legislators south of the border are having second thoughts about that idea.  Considering the budget mess in Sacramento, it’s questionable whether California will come through.

This deal is contingent on approval of a Klamath Basin water sharing agreement.  This is a separate and far more controversial process, pitting agriculture against fishermen, environmentalists and other salmon advocates.  Oregon Wild, for example, thinks the tentative water sharing deal is far too generous to agriculture and does little to make sure there’s enough water for salmon.  Opposition to the water sharing plan could kill any chances of removing the dams, unless somehow the linkage between the two plans is broken.

What’s also not clear to me is what kind of veto power local governments, industry, tribes and environmental groups will have.  It’s hard to imagine a coalition of 30 holding together without any dissent.  But will a single holdout be able to block the whole deal?

The Deadlines Are Far, Far Away.

Let’s say everything goes according to plan.  Even then, work on removing the dams doesn’t begin until 2019 or 2020.  That’s long after Obama has left office, even if he wins a second term.  A new “dam friendly” Administration or Congress would have time to unravel the agreement. We’ve seen how waiting things out can dramatically change the outcome of big environmental decisions.  When the timber industry objected to the Clinton logging plan for the Northwest, it was able to wait until the Bush Administration took over to get better terms for harvesting old growth forests in Oregon. Now that Bush is out of office, that logging plan has been put on hold.  So sometimes this strategy works for you, sometimes against you.

Plus, Secretary Salazar has 2 and a half years to decide on removing the dams.  His ruling could be influenced by the results of the 2010 elections.

Is The Obama Administration Really Committed To Removing Dams?

The Interior Department had a chance to show some kind of interest in dam removal when it released its plan for salmon recovery in Columbia and Snake rivers.  Many environmental groups say removing four dams from the Lower Snake River is essential to help salmon populations bounce back over the long run.  Governor Kulongoski says breaching the dams should be considered now, with deadlines to take them out if salmon numbers don’t recover.

This Administration won’t go that far.  Instead it only agreed to study how it would study removing the dams.  There’s no guarantee that the dams will come down, even if the Obama salmon plan fails.

There are a lot of differences between what’s happening on the Columbia and Snake rivers and what’s happening on the Klamath River. Columbia Basin dams have far more political support than Klamath dams, they produce far more power and provide much more water for drinking, industry and irrigation.  There is more widespread interest in removing the dams along the Klamath.

But all of the above suggests Interior is easily influenced by political pressure on the issue of dams.  That’s worrisome because it may take strong federal leadership to keep the Klamath dam removal deal from falling apart.  I’m not sure the Obama Administration is up to the task.

We have an opportunity to create a 300 mile, dam free stretch of the Klamath River.  It will serve as a proving ground to see just how well removing dams will work for salmon, agriculture, and the communities that rely on the water.  It could restore one of the great salmon rivers of the West.  And if all goes well, will serve as a model for possibly removing dams in the Columbia Basin.

Klamath Basin Agreement “Within Reach”

July 1, 2009
By

Here’s a tantalizing headline from the Interior Department.

Secretary Ken Salazar says a final agreement to manage water in the Klamath River Basin, and to remove hydropower dams from the river, is “within reach”. All we need, according to Salazar, is “one more push” and the agreement could be finalized by the end of summer.

Along with today’s bold prediction, comes an announcement that the deadline to reach that agreement was extended from June 30 to September.

Copco 2 dam. Photo Courtesy State of California

Copco 2 dam. Photo Courtesy State of California

If Salazar is right, this could bring to a close one of the ugliest fights over water in the west. Removing the four hydropower dams would be the largest dam breaching project in U.S. history, and the Klamath River could regain its position as one of the mighty salmon producing rivers along the Pacific.

But considering how long it’s taken to get to this point, you can’t blame environment groups for feeling skeptical. Oregon Wild posted a statement about the missed June 30th deadline with concerns that talks could drag on for years. The posting was made before today’s announcement.

But the group’s Conservation Director Steve Pedrey seemed to have a premonition of it when he said, “If I had a dollar for every time I’ve heard backers of this deal say that a final agreement is ‘right around the corner,’ I’d have enough money to pay for dam removal myself.”

Oregon Wild has been critical of the overall agreement, saying it guarantees water supply for agriculture, but has no guarantees for salmon. It also says the deal will hurt the Lower Klamath Lake and Tule Lake National Wildlife Refuges by giving agriculture the right to farm on 22,000 acres of refuge land for 50 years. During dry years, the farmers will have first rights to the water, and there may not be enough left over for the thousands of birds and other wildlife who call these areas home.

Another piece of the agreement is that Pacific Power, which owns the four hydropower dams, doesn’t want to have to pay for their removal. The costs will be passed on to residents of Oregon and California. In our state, the legislature recently agreed to increase electricty bills for Pacific Power customers by 2% to help pay for dam removal.

Where Does The Mercury In Your Seafood Come From?

May 1, 2009
By

If you’ve ever wondered whether pollution in Asia can affect your health, wonder no more.

A new government study concludes that emissions from Asia are a major source of mercury in the North Pacific Ocean, and that if current trends continue the problem will get much worse. That could lead to higher levels of mercury in seafood, particularly tuna.

Read more »

Stimulus Money Coming To National Park Sites In Oregon

April 22, 2009
By
Crater Lake National Park

Crater Lake National Park

The Interior Department is sending more than a million dollars in stimulus money for improvements at National Park sites in Oregon.  That’s the state’s share of a $750 million nationwide plan.

Here’s where in Oregon the money will go:

  • Crater Lake National Park: $376,000 for a new heating system and fire protection.
  • John Day Fossil Beds: $420,000 to replace a building and repair historic structures on the James Cant Ranch
  • Lewis and Clark National Park: $207,000 for trail and boardwalk rehabilitation.
  • Oregon Caves: $21,000 for trail work and a new viewing platform.

Oregon’s share is small stuff compared to the $62 million being sent to Washington.  Most of that money, almost $58 million, goes for improvements at Olympic National Park.

But just across the river, Fort Vancouver will receive $99,000 to install fire alarms and resurface walking trails.