The Trump administration is drastically changing the way the country protects endangered species, potentially jeopardizing years of policymaking in Oregon.
Still, Oregon land regulators are moving ahead with plans for protecting Oregon’s forests that are essential for endangered species, including marbled murrelets and spotted owls.
“I think everybody who actually works in this environment on a day-to-day basis is just waiting to see how things play out,” said Michael Wilson, Oregon Department of Forestry state forest division chief. “I don’t see anybody taking any real drastic measures at this point.”
For more than six years, Oregon land agencies, conservationists and loggers have been crafting plans that will protect Oregon’s most sensitive habitats, while also helping landowners avoid lawsuits when their logging projects harm federally endangered species.
They’re called habitat conservation plans. They set aside specific areas for conservation, while allowing logging elsewhere.
If recent changes to the Endangered Species Act hold, they could render Oregon’s habitat conservation plans obsolete, since they hinge on the idea of protecting federally endangered species. Even so, Oregon policymakers aren’t ready to throw in the towel just yet.
What it means to ‘harm’ a species
Earlier this month, the Trump administration announced it is removing the definition of “harm” under the Endangered Species Act, effective in September. With this change, logging, mining and other projects could be allowed to destroy sensitive habitats, as long as they don’t directly kill or injure an endangered species.
For example, a logging project could cut down old-growth trees that marbled murrelets need for nesting, as long as there are no marbled murrelets actively nesting in those trees at the time.
The Trump administration proposed removing the definition of “harm” last year, alarming many conservation groups. They say destroying habitat that a species needs for survival will push that species closer toward extinction.
“Habitat destruction and habitat fragmentation is the biggest cause of species decline,” said Joe Liebezeit, statewide conservation director at the Bird Alliance of Oregon. “To change the definition of ‘harm,’ it really jeopardizes hundreds, if not thousands, of species across North America.”
The Trump administration faces multiple lawsuits over the administrative change. Conservation groups and tribes allege it violates federal laws, including the Endangered Species Act itself.
Last year, Gov. Tina Kotek and multiple Oregon state agencies submitted comments opposing the change. In letters to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, they argued that allowing habitat destruction violates the congressional intent of the law.
“In Oregon, where approximately 53% of the land is federally managed, habitat protection is essential to ongoing conservation efforts,” Kotek wrote.
State leaders worried the change would complicate years of conservation policymaking in Oregon.
“It’s just disregarding a generation of work to try to be the best we can be as a state in terms of how we show up for our fish and wildlife,” said Davia Palmeri, ODFW strategic adviser and federal policy director.
What about Oregon’s state Endangered Species Act?
Like many states, Oregon has its own Endangered Species Act.
Oregon and the federal government share many of the same plants, animals, fish and insects on their endangered species lists. But there is a key difference: The Oregon Endangered Species Act only applies to state-owned land, not federal and private land.
And for the most part, the Oregon Endangered Species Act doesn’t regulate logging and mining. State agencies don’t assess projects to ensure they won’t harm endangered species. They have largely left that up to the federal government.
If lawmakers wanted the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife to take over that regulatory role, they would need to allocate a lot more funding to the agency.
“There would be a lot greater need for staff,” Palmeri said.
Moving ahead
Although the Trump administration’s move could put Oregon’s habitat conservation work at risk, Oregon forest regulators are moving ahead.
On Wednesday, the Oregon Board of Forestry approved a new forest management plan for the 640,000 acres that make up state forests. This high-level framework outlines Oregon’s economic, recreation and conservation goals for the next 70 years.
The management plan calls for restricting logging and protecting sensitive habitats on half of Oregon’s state forest lands. The other half will have fewer logging restrictions.
During their Wednesday meeting, multiple forestry board members questioned whether recent changes to the federal Endangered Species Act were cause for pausing the process. They also used the moment to highlight their views that the plan favors conservation over logging.
“I don’t feel confidence that we are improving economic outcomes, which is part of our charge to reach greatest permit value,” said forestry board member Joe Justice, citing Oregon’s law that calls for forests to balance multiple values, including habitat conservation and timber revenues.
But the board ultimately approved the plan at Oregon State Forester Kacey KC’s urging.
“Regardless of a federal law, how does Oregon want to manage our forests going forward, in a responsible way that provides those economic, social, and ecological values?” KC said. “We have a responsibility to future generations to ensure that we are doing the best for the future. And so I think this plan is a good balance.”
Many local conservation groups celebrated.
“The Board’s vote today reflects Oregonians’ overwhelming support for fish and wildlife protections, cold clean water and abundant recreation opportunities on state forests,” Michael Lang, senior policy manager with the Wild Salmon Center, said in a statement.
