SUSAN ELIZABETH DRUMMOND (WSB #30689) Law Offices of Susan Elizabeth Drummond, PLLC 5400 Carillon Point, Bldg. 5000, Ste. 476 Kirkland, WA 98033 (425) 576-4040 (FAX) susan@susandrummond.com LORI LYNN HOCTOR (WSB #39009) Klickitat County Prosecuting Attorney 205 S Columbus Avenue, MS-CH 18, Rm. 106 Goldendale, Washington 98620 (509) 773-5838 (509) 773-6696 (FAX) lorih@co.klickitat.wa.us ADAM N. KICK (WSB #27525) Skamania County Prosecuting Attorney P.O. Box 790 Stevenson, WA 98648 (509) 427-3790 (509) 427-3798 (FAX) kick@co.skamania.wa.us RONALD S. YOCKIM (OB #81430) Law Offices of Ronald S. Yockim P.O. Box 2456 Roseburg, Oregon 97470 (541) 959-5900 (541) 957-5923 (FAX) ryockim@yockimlaw.com THOMAS P. GUARINO (CAB #149409) Siskiyou County Counsel P.O. BOX 659 Yreka, CA 96097 (530) 842-8711 (530) 842-7032 (FAX) tguarino@co.siskiyou.ca.us Attorneys for Plaintiff-Intervenor-Applicants COMMISSIONER PAUL PEARCE - 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CARPENTERS INDUSTRIAL COUNCIL, AMERICAN FOREST RESOURCE COUNCIL, SWANSON GROUP, INC., ROUGH & READY LUMBER CO., and PERTETUA FORESTS COMPANY, and Plaintiffs, Case No. 1:08-cv-01409-EGS DECLARATION OF SKAMANIA COUNTY COMMISSIONER PAUL PEARCE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO INTERVENE BY SKAMANIA, KLICKITAT, DOUGLAS AND SISKIYOU COUNTIES SEATTLE AUDUBON SOCIETY, NATIONAL CENTER FOR CONSERVATION SCIENCE AND POLICY, OREGON WILD, KLAMATH- SISKIYOU WILDLANDS CENTER, THE WILDERNESS SOCIETY, SIERRA CLUB, CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION INFORMATION CENTER, CONSERVATION NW, AUDUBON SOCIETY OF PORTLAND, NATIONAL AUDUBON SOSICETY, CASCADIA WILDLANDS PROJECT, AMERICA LANDS ALLIANCE, KLAMATH FOREST ALLIANCE, CONSERVATION CONGRESS, AMERICAN BIRD CONSERVANCY, UMPQAU WATERSHEDS, and GIFFORD-PINCHOT TASK FORCE, and Plaintiff-Intervenors COMMISSIONER PAUL PEARCE - 2
SKAMANIA COUNTY, a municipal corporation of the State of Washington, KLICKITAT COUNTY, a municipal corporation of the State of Washington, DOUGLAS COUNTY, a municipal corporation of the State of Oregon, AND SISKIYOU COUNTY, a municipal corporation of the State of California, [ Proposed] Plaintiff-Intervenors, v. KEN SALAZAR, Secretary of the Interior, and U.S. FISH and WILDLIFE SERVICE, Defendants. I, SKAMANIA COUNTY COMMISSIONER PAUL PEARCE, declares as follows: 1. My name is Paul Pearce. I have served on the Board of County Commissioners for Skamania County, Washington, since 2004. 2. As a County Commissioner, I have worked on rural economic and community development issues. Since 2005, I have served as a Board Member (and have twice Chaired) the Mid Columbia Economic Development District (MCEDD), which represents three Oregon counties, and two Washington Counties (Klickitat and Skamania). In this capacity, I have chaired the MCEDD Loan Committee, hosted the MCEDD Regional Workforce Housing Summit, and hosted the MCEDD Regional Transportation Summit. I have also served as Second Vice President on the National Forest Counties and Schools Coalition; served on the Partnership for Rural America Campaign Committee Executive Board/Steering Committee; worked for the National Association of Counties (Chaired the Federal Payments Subcommittee of the Public COMMISSIONER PAUL PEARCE - 3
Lands Steering Committee); served as Washington State Association of Counties (WSAC) Vice President; and, am the current WSAC President. 3. Given this background, I am familiar with the economic, socio-economic, and other impacts the spotted owl listing has had on rural county economics. While I am most familiar with impacts in the County I am Commissioner for, Skamania County, the impacts are similar in forest communities throughout Washington, Oregon, and California, including Klickitat County, Washington; Douglas County, Oregon; and Siskiyou County, California (referred to throughout as the Four Counties.) 4. The draft of the proposed critical habitat designation rule was issued on March 8, 2012; the economic analysis was not completed until May 29; and the environmental analysis was not issued until June 4. Comments are due no later than July 6, 2012. (Originally, comments were due June 6, 2012, but USFW extended this deadline ostensibly in response to an extension request, but also because the economic and environmental analysis was not publicly available until just days before the original June deadline.) 5. The proposed critical habitat rule would impact 4.8 million acres in Washington State; 3.6 million acres in Oregon; and 3.2 million acres in California. The acreage proposed for critical habitat designation within the Four Counties is as follows: Klickitat County, Washington: 65,000 acres Skamania County, Washington: 635,000 acres Douglas County, Oregon: 999,000 acres Siskiyou County, California: 708,116 acres COMMISSIONER PAUL PEARCE - 4
6. The proposed rule would double existing critical habitat. It would also expand existing habitat designations currently limited to federal lands onto state and private lands. 7. The Counties derive tax revenue from both state and private lands. State forests in Washington are managed to support the educational system, including schools within Skamania County, and the Counties derive tax revenues from property taxes imposed on private property. 8. The Counties have special expertise on the economic and other impacts associated with designating critical habitat within their boundaries, as well as the cumulative and connected environmental issues likely to result from the proposed rule. 9. After reviewing the proposed rule and related documentation, the Counties realized USFW did not have before it sufficient information on local impacts. 10. Consequently, to better inform review of the proposed rule, the Counties requested cooperating agency status under Council on Environmental Quality regulations and Department of Interior Guidelines. USFW denied the request on June 4, 2012. 11. The Counties also requested a 90-day extension on May 7, 2012, to afford sufficient time for the Counties and general public to knowingly review and comment on the proposed major federal action. USFW denied the request on May 23. The Oregon Congressional Delegation requested a time extension on May 18, 2012. USFW denied the request on June 11, 2012. 12. The denials were ostensibly based on the November 15, 2012 deadline established in this litigation, although the requested extensions would not have altered this date. The Congressional Delegation was clear on this point: This should still provide the FWS with enough time to finalize the rule by the court-ordered deadline of November 15, 2012. COMMISSIONER PAUL PEARCE - 5
13. The time extension request was necessary as the Four Counties need additional time to prepare analysis on local economic and other impacts associated with critical habitat mapping. This is data which must be considered by USFW if it is to consider the best information available, as ESA requires. 14. To ensure necessary data is compiled and provided to USFW before it acts on the proposed rule, the Four Counties joined together to prepare economic analysis on the cumulative effects associated with the proposal, which includes cumulative impacts from the past 20 years of spotted owl recovery efforts. This analysis is critical for USFW consideration of exclusion of state and private lands. As explained to USFW: It is only with this information that the true cumulative and connected effects on the economic infrastructure and education opportunities in our State and region can be understood. Our review will not be limited to economic impacts only, but will also demonstrate that related deterioration of the regions physical and social infrastructure. 1 15. This analysis cannot be completed by the July 6, 2012, deadline, which is why the Counties requested a modest extension. 16. Any failure to provide this analysis to USFW before it acts will significantly impact the Counties. The impact on the Counties interests is demonstrated by the Counties past experience with USFW decisions on critical habitat designations. 17. The economic analysis is being developed to address how the current proposed rule is adding to the cumulative economic and biological actions of past USFW decisions. The Four Counties had a thriving logging industry before the spotted owl listing. For example, in Skamania County, from 1970 through 1991, the National Forest produced 350 million board feet 1 Attachment 1 (Extension request submitted to USFW by Washington State Ass n of Counties on May 7, 2012). Also included with Attachment 1 is the Oregon Delegation s extension request and USFW responses to WSAC and the Delegation (a single copy of the form letter provided to the seven representatives is attached). COMMISSIONER PAUL PEARCE - 6
per year, on average. The spotted owl listing resulted in three-quarters of the mills shutting down and the loss of over 1,000 timber related jobs. There were also accompanying socioeconomic impacts. For example, the middle of Skamania County was hit hardest by the spotted owl listing. This is where domestic violence rates are high, and over half the children require subsidized school lunches. 18. The listing and critical habitat designation decisions also impacted the County s tax base, significantly reducing revenue, and forcing budget reductions. Absent federal funding to help counter impacts from the spotted owl listing, the County would have laid off half its workforce and the schools would have lost 40% of their funding. Three of our four school districts would have closed. With 2012 unemployment ranging between 10.4 and 12%, the County has never recovered. 19. Based on this experience in Skamania, and what I have witnessed in rural forest counties throughout Washington, Oregon, and California, including the Four Counties, USFW decisions on the designation of critical habitat are likely to significantly impact the economic base, including employment rates, tax-base, and socio-economic issues. Further erosion of the socio-economic structure is likely to occur should the proposed rule be extended into private and state lands. 20. The inadequacy of the time being provided for comment to the Counties and public was impressed upon the Counties after reviewing the recently issued draft economic impact study, which asserts proposed rule impacts are not likely to be significant, and may even be positive. The Counties experience is to the contrary, given the mill closures; forest industrylay-offs; eroding tax bases; and related socio-economic impacts which followed designation decisions on federal lands. USFW does not have this information, partly because the Four COMMISSIONER PAUL PEARCE - 7
Counties were not involved in rule development and have not been consulted in developing the economic analysis and designation proposal. 21. Economic recovery requires maintaining the forest industry which still remains after 20 years of spotted owl recovery efforts. Expanding existing designations, and designating critical habitat on state and private lands will interfere with recovery. The Counties need the opportunity to provide USFW economic analysis on local economic impacts so that USFW has current and accurate information, and considers private and state land exclusion from critical habitat designation based on accurate information. 22. When and how critical habitat mapping decisions are made impact land use and development codes and policies the Counties adopt and implement at the local level. This is less of an issue with the present critical habitat designations on federal lands. But, with the proposed rule, these designations would be extended into private and state lands, which the counties have regulatory jurisdiction over. This increases ESA litigation risks associated with County permitting activities. The risk is reduced if the state and private lands are pulled from the proposed rule. For that to occur, accurate information on economic impacts is required. 23. Additional time is also needed to ensure USFW has adequate analysis on the barred owl. A recently issued Draft Environmental Impact Statement on a pilot barred owl removal project proposed by USFW recognizes the significance of the barred owl to spotted owl recovery. The larger and more aggressive barred owls "compete for the same habitat" and without removal, within a designated study area, the "spotted owl populations would likely continue to show declines..." 2 USFW has issued a draft EIS on the pilot barred owl removal project, but is not considering barred owl removal as part of the critical habitat designation 2 See USFW Barred Owl Draft EIS, pgs. 2 and 138. COMMISSIONER PAUL PEARCE - 8
mapping effort. This is another factor in considering limiting extending critical habitat mapping onto state and private lands. Additional time is required to provide additional analysis on the barred owl s role in recovery efforts. 24. The modest extension requests would have allowed the Counties to complete their economic analysis, and analysis on related issues, to ensure USFW has before it the data the ESA requires for making informed decisions. 25. At Attachment 1, included are true and correct copies of: (1) the extension request submitted to USFW by Washington State Ass n of Counties on May 7, 2012; (2) the Oregon Delegation s extension request submitted to USFW on May 18, 2012; (3) the USFW response to WSAC, dated May 23, 2012; and (4) the USFW response to the Oregon Delegation dated June 11, 2012 (one copy of the form letter provided to the seven representatives is attached). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1746, I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge. Executed this day of June, 2012, at, Washington. Paul Pearce, Skamania County Commissioner COMMISSIONER PAUL PEARCE - 9