The Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF) has developed a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) to provide a comprehensive way to comply with the federal Endangered Species Act, while managing state forests for social, economic and environmental benefits.
Two goals of current forest policy are to increase spotted owl populations and reduce carbon emissions by increasing forest habitat and curtailing timber harvesting. I oppose the HCP because the evidence shows that these goals have not, and will not, be achieved with these policies. The HCP doubles down on decades of bad policy which has devastated the communities that live, work, and recreate in these forests, resulting in raging wildfires and the loss of jobs and revenue to these once-thriving rural communities.
The HCP would continue this, significantly reducing annual timber harvests for the next several decades. The HCP establishes Habitat Conservation Areas (HCAs), and in some modeling assumes no harvesting in the HCAs after 30 years. The models are designed to increase the habitat for endangered species. The ODF highlights as an added benefit an increase in carbon storage.
One assumption in the model is that locking up state forest lands in HCAs, and stretching out harvest cycles to 90+ years in other areas, are important strategies for carbon storage. I would argue these strategies do the opposite. Forestry researchers at the U.S. Department of Agriculture have consistently found that locking up forests ends up emitting more CO2 than sustainable harvests. The research shows that a 45-50 year timber harvest cycle is optimal for carbon storage – you grow a tree through its highest carbon storing years, harvest and ‘sequester’ that carbon in lumber to build homes, and plant another tree to repeat the cycle.
The HCP will also not reach its species protection goals. I talk more about that in my blog, which is linked at the end of this article.
The science supporting the HCP is foggy at best and has serious flaws. But the economic impact to the state could not be clearer: the reduced harvests called for by the HCP models result in a $60 million revenue loss to the state in the first biennium and increasing every biennium thereafter. That’s a $4.5 billion revenue hit to the state over the model’s timespan. Most of this revenue is transferred to the counties for essential services such as fire departments, emergency services, and other public services. So, what is the ODF expecting the state legislature to do? Raise taxes to make up the difference? Short the counties of essential funding? Pull more money out of the state’s General Fund? And if we pull more money from the General Fund, what state programs would we cut? Drug addiction treatment? Youth mental health services?
Our state forests are the gem of the Northwest: a beautiful resource for recreation, providing jobs, and generating much-needed revenue. The HCP doubles-down on turning our state forests from an asset into a liability. I urge you to join me in opposing the HCP.
Learn more: https://eddiehl.com/news-and-updates/habitat-conservation-plan/.
Ed Diehl
Oregon State Representative, House District 17
