Month: August 2024

Oregon’s Elliott State Research Forest, the state’s oldest, may soon join a select group of state forests across the U.S. that are managed for climate change mitigation and revenue generation through carbon credits.

Located near Coos Bay and spanning 83,000 acres, the Elliott was heavily logged for much of the 20th century to support Oregon’s schools. It transitioned to a research forest in 2022. Now, Oregon Department of State Lands (DSL) officials envision its future role in reducing greenhouse gas emissions by sequestering carbon dioxide in its trees and selling these benefits as carbon credits.

On October 15, the State Land Board—comprising Governor Tina Kotek, Secretary of State LaVonne Griffin-Valade, and State Treasurer Tobias Read—will vote on a new management plan. This plan aims to prioritize forest and habitat health, as well as carbon capture and storage, in exchange for revenue from companies seeking to offset their emissions. Although the plan has support from state lands officials, it has sparked concerns among past collaborators like Oregon State University and the Confederated Tribes of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians. They worry that focusing the forest’s management on carbon storage could limit research opportunities and logging activities.

Between June 12 and August 4, more than 400 individuals provided feedback on the plan. An analysis of these comments is expected to be released in early September.

The proposed 40-year feasibility study, conducted by the carbon and crediting company Anew Climate, suggests that the Elliott State Research Forest could potentially capture and store up to 435,000 additional metric tons of carbon dioxide. This amount is equivalent to removing about 100,000 gas-powered cars from the roads for a year. Each ton of stored carbon would generate a carbon credit, which could be sold to companies aiming to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions.

According to Anew Climate’s study, these credits could be worth nearly $9 million on the carbon market over the next decade. The forest would also need to comply with an 80-year Habitat Conservation Plan recently submitted to federal agencies for approval to protect endangered species.

Under the proposed plan, around 25% of the forest would continue to allow intensive logging, including clear-cutting. Selective logging, considered “eco-forestry” by the DSL, would be permitted on about 13% of the forest. The rest of the forest could be thinned to enhance habitat and biodiversity but would otherwise be managed mainly for research, animal habitat, and carbon storage, rather than logging.

Brett Brownscombe, Elliott State Forest transition director at the Department of State Lands, explained, “The department and the State Land Board aim to focus more on carbon, climate, and biodiversity goals, while still allowing timber harvests. We want to explore and debate various forestry approaches to potentially influence broader forest management policies.”

Operational Details

Trees play a crucial role in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, with mature trees being especially effective at storing carbon. The U.S. Forest Service reports that forests absorb nearly 12% of the nation’s total carbon emissions. Northwest forests, renowned for their carbon storage capabilities, are also valuable to the wood products industry.

Brett Brownscombe highlighted the productivity of these forests, noting that they are among the best for growing trees, whether for logging or carbon storage. Research by Bev Law, a forest scientist and professor emeritus at Oregon State University, indicates that allowing Douglas firs to mature to 80 years old instead of 40 could capture up to 25% more carbon dioxide. In Washington, similar studies found that older trees captured 50% more carbon dioxide and produced more lumber.

Under the proposed plan, Anew Climate would manage the surveying, accounting, and compliance with the American Carbon Registry’s rules. The state would provide annual compliance reports and undergo third-party audits every five years to ensure adherence to the management plan’s restrictions and objectives.

The state plans to participate in the voluntary carbon crediting market, where companies with emission reduction goals can buy credits. This differs from California and Washington’s state-run markets, where carbon credits are used to meet regulatory emissions targets. While Oregon has several city and county forests engaged in carbon markets, the Elliott could be the first public forest fully registered with the American Carbon Registry.

To participate in California’s market, the state would need to commit to a 100-year carbon crediting plan. Instead, the state prefers a 40-year plan, the minimum required for voluntary market participation.

Challenges and Criticisms

Despite the potential benefits, key collaborators have stepped back. In November 2023, Oregon State University and the Confederated Tribes of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians withdrew from active involvement with the Elliott, citing concerns about the carbon crediting plan limiting research and commercial logging opportunities.

Critics argue that carbon credit markets lack sufficient regulation and may offer only a temporary fix for emissions problems. Concerns include the potential for landowners to log or repurpose land after a contract ends and whether these markets effectively reduce the need for a transition away from fossil fuels.

Brett Brownscombe acknowledged these concerns but emphasized the evolving nature of carbon markets. “We aim to be part of this evolution, not just by observing but by actively shaping future practices.”

Looking Ahead

If approved, the Elliott State Research Forest would join a handful of U.S. state forests generating revenue from carbon credits. The Michigan Department of Natural Resources has two state forests in carbon crediting projects, but no public forest is fully registered with the American Carbon Registry yet.

Oregon’s approach could serve as a model for integrating carbon crediting with forest management, balancing conservation and logging interests. “Showing that a middle ground works on a large scale like the Elliott could have significant implications,” Brownscombe said.

Democratic leaders in Oregon’s House and Senate have expressed strong opposition to a November ballot measure that proposes raising corporate taxes to provide cash payments to every Oregon resident.

Key Democratic figures in the legislature, including House Speaker Julie Fahey, House Majority Leader Ben Bowman, Senate President Rob Wagner, and Senate Majority Leader Kathleen Taylor, have joined Republicans and Governor Tina Kotek in criticizing Measure 118, also known as the Oregon Rebate. This proposed measure, one of five statewide questions on the November ballot, aims to increase the corporate minimum tax by 3% on sales exceeding $25 million, with the additional revenue being distributed to all Oregonians.

A recent legislative fiscal analysis suggests that the increased tax could lead to approximately $1,600 in annual payments for eligible Oregonians, ranging from those collecting small amounts from bottle returns to the state’s wealthiest individuals, like Nike co-founder Phil Knight. The measure is projected to generate an additional $7 billion in tax revenue annually. However, analysts warn that the state could see a reduction of about $400 million in funds available for essential government services in the 2025-27 budget cycle. They also predict that costs for goods could rise more significantly due to the new tax and rebate system.

In response to these findings, Democratic leaders issued a joint statement urging Oregonians to reconsider their support for Measure 118. “As a matter of public policy, we believe this is a bad deal for Oregonians,” the statement reads. “We ask Oregonians to take a closer look at Measure 118, and we ask you to join us in voting no.”

The Democratic leaders argue that the initiative, funded by a California venture capitalist, could have severe consequences for critical government services such as health care, infrastructure, and public safety.

Governor Kotek also voiced her opposition, stating in a July interview with Portland’s Willamette Week that while the measure might appear beneficial on the surface, its flawed approach could create significant budget shortfalls and jeopardize services for low-wage and working families.

Republican lawmakers share the concerns, with Senate Minority Leader Daniel Bonham describing the measure as “another out-of-state and dangerous experiment that doesn’t align with the needs of Oregonians.” He argued that it threatens economic stability by increasing costs for businesses and consumers, potentially leading to job losses and higher prices. Bonham warned that the measure could force severe cuts to vital public services, including education and public safety.

The state’s leading business lobby, Oregon Business and Industry, is actively opposing the measure and has invested over $500,000 into a political action committee against it. In contrast, supporters, led by Josh Jones, a California venture capitalist who advocates for universal basic income, have raised nearly $900,000 to promote the measure.

Oregon Capital Chronicle is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit network supported by grants and donations. Oregon Capital Chronicle maintains its editorial independence. Contact info@oregoncapitalchronicle.com.

Oregon’s House Bill 2005, enacted in 2023, bans the sale, transfer, and importation of “undetectable” firearms, often referred to by gun control advocates as “ghost guns.” Ghost guns is a term used to describe homemade firearms or firearms without serial numbers. According to federal law, firearms that are manufactured and sold by gun manufacturers are required to be stamped with a unique serial number. Firearms that are manufactured by private citizens, and not manufactured for sale are not subject to this requirement. The law goes into effect September 1st of this year.

The Oregon Firearms Federation, a gun rights advocacy group, has filed suit to enjoin, and eventually overturn the law.

Oregon imposes a tax on on gross corporate receipts, known as the corporate activity tax, as well as a tax on corporate income. Passed into law in May of 2019 as Oregon House BIll 3427, the corporate activity tax imposes a 0.57 percent on all “corporate activity” in excess of $1 Million. With few exceptions, all sales within Oregon over $1 Million per year are subject to the tax. The law does allow for a 35 percent deduction to account for the cost of goods sold. Businesses that are located outside of Oregon that sell more than $1 Million of goods or services are also subject to the tax. The tax is based on gross sales, not on profits (as with the corporate income tax). For instance, if a business were to sell $10 Million of merchandise in the state of Oregon, they would be liable for a $33,595 tax ($9 Million x .65 + $250), regardless of how much profit they made on those sales.

November’s ballot will include a measure that would send an annual rebate check to every Oregonian. Referred to as “The Oregon Rebate,” the measure would provide for an annual tax rebate for every Oregonian that qualifies. The rebate would be funded by an increase in the Oregon corporate activity tax, with the amount of the rebate to be determined based on the amount of taxes collected by that tax. According to an analysis by the Oregon Legislative Revenue Office, if the measure is successful, Oregonians could expect rebate checks of $1,600 for the first year.

Corporations in Oregon currently pay a corporate activity tax equal to 0.57% of gross sales over $25 Million, minus a maximum deduction of 35 percent. Measure 118 would increase that tax to 3 percent

Per the measure, Oregonians must have resided in Oregon for 200 days or more during the year to be eligible for the rebate. Eligibility for the rebate would not be based on a person’s income. With no means testing included in the measure, Oregonians would be elgible for the rebate, regardless of how much money they made during the eligibility year. Oregonians of all ages, to include children, would be eligible for the rebate.

Proponents of the measure indicate that the measure would have a sizeable impact on the lives of everyday Oregonians, and greatly reduce childhood poverty, while the measure’s opponents claim the the measure would increase inflation, and disincentivize business investment in the state.

A long-delayed casino project in southern Oregon, which has sparked a clash between competing Native American tribes, has now caught the attention of congressional appropriators. Opponents are pushing for a provision in the upcoming Interior-Environment spending bill that would halt the project.

The Coquille Indian Tribe has been working for years to establish a new casino, a plan that faces opposition from other tribes and a broad coalition of politicians. This group includes Oregon Governor Tina Kotek, all four senators from Oregon and California, and various members of the House delegations from Oregon and northern California.

Last month, representatives from the Cow Creek Band of Umpqua Tribe of Indians, based in Oregon, and the Karuk Tribe of northwest California urged House appropriators to include language in the fiscal 2025 bill to block the Coquille casino, which is currently under review by the Interior Department.

This request is the latest development in an ongoing dispute among the tribes. Coquille Chair Brenda Meade criticized the Cow Creek and Karuk tribes for seeking congressional intervention. “Indian gaming was never intended for specific tribes; it was meant for all tribes,” Meade said. “There is a process and a law that has been reviewed repeatedly and approved by Congress.”

The opposing tribes argue that the Coquille proposal would place a casino far from their lands and negatively impact other tribes’ gaming operations that fund vital services. Cow Creek CEO Michael Rondeau testified that the Coquille project could lead to reductions in healthcare, housing, education, and employment assistance for members of five tribes.

The Coquille tribe submitted its casino application in November 2012, aiming to convert a bowling alley into a gaming facility on a 2.4-acre site in Medford, Oregon. The Bureau of Indian Affairs initially rejected the proposal in 2020, but the Biden administration reversed this decision in late 2021, citing incomplete environmental review. A final decision is still pending.

The Cow Creek and Karuk tribes operate casinos along the I-5 corridor, which runs through Medford. Cow Creek owns Seven Feathers Casino in Canyonville, Oregon, and Karuk operates Rain Rock Casino in Yreka, California.

The Coquille tribe argues that the federal Coquille Restoration Act, which sets a legal definiton of Coquille tribal lands, includes Medford in their service area, allowing them to benefit from federal services even if it’s not within their primary reservation of 1,000 acres in Coos and Curry counties. The law also permits the Interior Secretary to accept additional land into trust for the tribe based on various factors.

Opponents, including Rep. Doug LaMalfa, R-Calif., argue that the casino’s location is too far from the Coquille’s primary land and constitutes “reservation shopping.” LaMalfa’s spokeswoman noted that the Coquille tribe is attempting to bypass other tribes and casinos to reach a more populous area.

The Coquille tribe is pursuing the project under an exemption to the 1988 Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, which allows newly recognized tribes to open casinos on their land under an expedited process. Opponents are advocating for a “two-part determination” process, which involves more engagement with other tribes and stakeholders.

Sen. Laphonza Butler, D-Calif., expressed concern in a December letter to Interior Secretary Deb Haaland that favoring one restored tribe over others could undermine equitable treatment. However, the more complex process might ensure that the Medford casino project is shelved due to opposition from local officials.

Meade said it’s unsurprising that local politicians oppose the Coquille project, citing Cow Creek’s significant political influence. Cow Creek has spent considerably more on campaign contributions and lobbying compared to Coquille.

The opposing tribes are asking appropriators to exclude funding for off-reservation gaming applications where tribes lack ancestral or cultural ties to the land, and where state governors are not involved in the process. Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., supports this request, emphasizing a balanced approach where each tribe has an equal chance for economic success.

However, appropriators might not favor this intervention. Senate Interior-Environment Appropriations Chair Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., is publicly opposed to the project but is focused on passing a bill without controversial additions. The House’s Interior-Environment appropriations bill is expected to be released later this month.

Meade urged the Interior Department to base its decision solely on legal grounds rather than political pressure. “We expect the Department of Interior to make a decision based on the law, not on political influence,” she said.

During Tuesday night’s city council meeting, the Coos Bay City Council voted to add a bond measure to the November 2024 ballot to fund the construction of a new library. The council needed to make several decisions regarding the specifics of the bond measure, most notably determining the duration of the bond. Expensive projects like constructing new buildings are typically funded through the issuance of municipal bonds. The money is often borrowed for multiple decades, and the borrowed amount is paid back to creditors with interest, similar to a home mortgage.

The council voted for a 20-year bond. Compared to a 30-year bond, a 20-year bond would result in significantly less interest paid, but it would also impose a higher tax paid during the duration of the bond. The bond measure will require taxpayers to pay an additional $1.51 per $1,000 of assessed property value. If the measure passes, based on a house assessed at $170,000 (approximately the average home value in Coos Bay), the average property owner would pay about $250 more per year in property taxes.

The councilors took ample time during the discussion to ensure that the language of the ballot measure was clear. An advisory vote previously sent to voters had asked whether the new library should be built at the current site on Anderson Avenue or elsewhere. The confusing language of that measure led to misunderstandings among voters. To avoid similar confusion, the Coos Bay Council aimed to make it clear that the new library would be constructed at the site of the existing library at 525 Anderson Avenue. With a 175-word limit for ballot measure descriptions, the council had to ensure the description was concise yet comprehensive, clearly outlining the implications of both passing and failing the measure.

The councilors voted unanimously to add the measure to the November ballot.

Oregon officials reported that a 17-year-old foster child died by suicide on Saturday while staying at a hotel with child-welfare workers assigned to supervise them.

The Oregon Department of Human Services and the Oregon Health Authority offered limited details about the teen’s death in a news release on Monday, including the city where it occurred and specifics about the supervision provided.

Jake Sunderland, a spokesperson for the Department of Human Services, noted that this incident marks the first time in the department’s history that a child has died while in a hotel setting, which was used due to the need for more specialized care than a general foster home could offer. The exact duration of the teen’s stay at the hotel was not specified, but the agencies described the hotel as a temporary measure until a suitable placement could be arranged. They stated that efforts had been ongoing to connect the child with appropriate services and supports.

The teen’s death comes after a federal judge criticized the state last year for continuing to place foster children in hotels despite previous assurances to end the practice. U.S. District Judge Michael McShane expressed frustration with the state’s progress, noting that the argument of working diligently to find better placements had become a “stale mantra.”

In the first half of 2023, 75 children were housed in hotels, with 20 staying for over two months.

Fariborz Pakseresht, director of the Department of Human Services, expressed condolences in the news release, stating, “Our hearts go out to the child’s family, loved ones, and community during this incredibly difficult time. Words cannot express the sorrow we feel for this devastating loss.”

Both agencies are focused on improving access to mental health services for children. Dr. Sejal Hathi, director of the Oregon Health Authority, emphasized the need for a strong prevention system and support for those affected by this tragedy.

Oregon law mandates an investigation and Critical Incident Review Team (CIRT) report for all child deaths under state care. This year, DHS has initiated CIRT investigations into the deaths of 10 other children, aged between 9 months and 16 years. The causes of these deaths include an overdose, a firearm-related incident, complications from medical conditions, and other unspecified reasons.