Conservation Leaders Network's

WOPR Comments

Western Oregon Plan Revisions                                                                                                             P.O. Box 2965                                                                                                                                    Portland, OR 97208

I am commenting as a former O&C county commissioner, one of the many American owners of these public lands, the Executive Director of the Conservation Leaders Network and as a neighboring property owner.  Please enter my comments into the record for the Western Oregon Plan Revisions.

I do not support the Revisions nor the preferred Alternative.

BLM is acting as though it believes its prior management plans were illegal.  On p. XLIII of the DEIS it says, “(3) the BLM has re-focused the goal for management of the BLM-administered lands to the objectives of its statutory mandates . . .”   This implies that the agency was not managing for the objectives of the statutory mandates.  I do not believe this is correct.  BLM is acting as though the settlement agreement was based on a lawsuit the agency would have lost had it been defended in court—rather than on one the timber industry had lost repeatedly.

BLM has misrepresented the O&C Act numerous times throughout the DEIS.  The agency repeats its erroneous assertion that the Act mandates the agency to create a very narrow purpose and need and lists two reasonable-sounding “Reasons for Revising the RMPs Now” and then erroneously claims that “The statutory requirements of the O&C Act, which governs most BLM-administered lands in western Oregon, include, but are not limited to, managing the O&C lands for permanent forest production by selling, cutting, and removing timber . . .”  Yet a review shows the Act itself nowhere states that logging is the means by which the agency must manage the O&C lands as your statement claims.  I also note the agency doesn’t mention the settlement agreement with the timber industry.

BLM’s position that “permanent forest production” equals timber production is demonstrably false, as shown by the decade-plus of management under the Northwest Forest Plan.  I have heard from BLM staff that if anyone wants other values, there needs to be new legislation.  BLM is acting as though the agency has no choice in the matter and that is not true.  The agency has managed for a range of forest values under the Northwest Forest Plan, which has been upheld in court, which is more than can be said for the WOPR.

Yet the purpose and need and the revisions do not comply with the O&C Act itself, for they do not provide for “permanent forest production,” nor “providing a permanent source of timber supply,” nor “protecting watersheds,” nor “regulating stream flow,” nor “contributing to the economic stability of local communities and industries,” nor “providing recreational facilities.”  Some of these are perhaps more obvious than others.   The logging proposed in all Alternatives is clearly detrimental to protecting watersheds and regulating stream flow as is the significant reduction in riparian reserves.

On p. XLIII of the DEIS it says, “because (1) the BLM plan evaluations found that the BLM has not been achieving the timber harvest levels directed by the existing plans . . .”   This implies that the existing plans specified minimum harvest levels which I don’t think is true.  If it is true, BLM should quote those levels and indicate which you haven’t achieved and why.  I understand that there are at least two reasons BLM timber harvests have been lower than the agency might desire:  one, the agency has not received the funding required to implement those sales, and two, the agency has chosen to prioritize controversial timber sales, which have, of course, led to controversy and litigation.

The amount of logging proposed will not provide a permanent source of timber supply.

It does not contribute to the economic stability of local communities and industries.  It would return those communities to the boom and bust cycle of the timber industry.  And it focuses on only one local industry—the timber industry—while ignoring the many other local industries.  And it is unable to control the stability of the timber industry, as that industry is dependent upon national and global economic factors.

It will harm tourism, the recreational industry, fishing and a long list of other industries.  It will harm the economic stability of local communities:  those whose municipal drinking water systems will be impacted by increased sediment from logging; those whose real estate prices will drop due to nearby “regen harvests”; and those whose ability to attract and keep Oregonians who want a high quality of life will be diminished.

The settlement agreement called for BLM to, as the Draft DEIS points out, “revise its resource management plans in western Oregon and in that revision the BLM would consider an alternative (emphasis added) that would not create any reserves on the O&C lands, except those reserves required to avoid jeopardy to species listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act.”  I am concerned that, rather than develop and consider a range of alternatives--one the did away with reserves as the settlement requires, one that increased reserves, the no action alternative—instead the agency chose to develop and consider only alternatives that greatly shrink the reserves and has eliminated the no-action alternative from serious consideration.

I am concerned that BLM has pulled “economic benefit to local communities” out of the list of several benefits in the Act and elevated it to support logging of these lands.  On page 2 of the August 2007 newsletter, the agency states:

The management of most of these BLM-managed lands is distinctive because of the unique requirements of the O&C Lands Act of 1937, directing that these lands be managed in permanent forest production providing economic benefit to local communities.

I recognize that the language from the Act itself is then quoted, which allows a careful reader to see how the agency has misrepresented the Act, but the agency has already set the stage for a less-cynical reader to skim over it and buy into the agency’s version.   The Act clearly states that economic benefit is one of five benefits and does not place it as the priority.

The Conservation Leaders Network’s attached rebuttal of flawed information and statements made dealing with socio-economics “(p)rovide(s) new or missing information that would have a bearing on the analysis.

I am concerned that BLM developed such an unnecessarily narrow purpose and need statement, which excludes most of the existing and almost all of the potential uses of these lands.

The DEIS, p. 12, states:  “Based on the language of the O&C Act, the O&C Act’s legislative history, and the decision by the Ninth Circuit County in Headwaters v. BLM, (914 F.2d 1174 (9^TH Cir. 1990), it is clear that the management of timber (including harvesting) is the dominant use of the O&C lands in western Oregon.”  Rather, I understand that this case only showed that timber was dominant over wildlife, not over all the other uses outlined in the Act.  Additionally, “(t)hen the Portland Audubon sued the BLM and had better results. In 1993 the 9th circuit court of appeals upheld a lower court's ruling that BLM was violating NEPA and the O&C Act. BLM had claimed that the O&C act required them to log 500 mmbf a year, and that implementing NEPA would illegally reduce that volume. The courts ruled that the O&C Act gave BLM discretion to sell less than 500 mmbf. The court also concluded that nothing in the O&C act authorized a NEPA exemption for O&C lands. The 9th circuit noted the differences in the Headwaters and Audubon NEPA claims -Headwaters was on a single sale, while Audubon's was on the RMP.

The U of W law booklet says:

'(t)he implication of Portland Audubon Society for the BLM was obvious: The agency could no longer use the O&C act to exempt timber sales from the requirement of federal environmental status like NEPA and the ESA... Portland Audubon Society confirmed that BLM management of the O&C lands was subject to the same environmental constraints and judicial review as other public lands.’  Oregon Heritage Forests website

I am concerned that the agency invested in an extensive analysis of the socio-economic impacts of timber (and included irrelevant economic information in an attempt to buttress the agency position pro-timber industry position) but neglected to do an analysis for fishing, hunting, recreation, tourism, impacts on drinking water and other societal and economic benefits of these lands, most of which will be harmed by the agency’s proposal.  There was no economic analysis of the detrimental impacts on local communities.

I am concerned that the agency feels it needs to mislead the public through its Analysis of the Management Situation and the DEIS.  For example, false economic arguments serve to weaken your case.  When the public knows the agency cannot be relied upon to provide factual information, it does not serve the public good.  On page LII of the newsletter cited above, BLM claims the No Action Alternative “would result in a net decrease of 3,770 jobs and $125.5 million of earnings.”  This statement is meaningless except to confuse the public and create ill-informed demand for the preferred Alternative.  If the No Action Alternative is truly no action, then the number of jobs remains the same as it is now.

I am concerned that the DEIS does not deal with global warming, which will have serious impacts on the agency’s ability to maintain these lands in “permanent forest production” and which could be mitigated to some extent by how these lands are managed.  Since forests are a significant repository of carbon and therefore help mitigate global warming—and older forests hold more carbon than younger forests—and the agency has an obligation under the O&C Act to keep these lands in “permanent forest production,” the agency has a mandate to protect the older forests on O&C lands.  Cutting big trees will make global warming worse, which will have serious ramifications on existing forests, including insect infestations, increased severity and number of forest fires, and the inability to replant successfully due to drought, all of which will prevent these lands from being in “permanent forest production.”   BLM has received numerous directives to incorporate global warming concerns in its decisions, from the General Accounting Office to the Secretary of Interior, and should have done so in this DEIS.   By bringing this flaw to your attention, I am providing “new or missing information that would have a bearing on the analysis.

For example, below are a variety of relevant quotes dealing with forests and global warming from a variety of sources:

• Through photosynthesis, forests naturally remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and store it as carbon (i.e., carbon stocks) in trunks, branches, leaves, and roots, which are often referred to as “carbon pools.”  When forests are disturbed through events like deforestation (e.g., development), harvest or fire, carbon is released back into the atmosphere as emissions of CO2.  On a global level, forests are the second largest source of human-caused CO2 emissions, contributing roughly 25% of the world’s total CO2emissions – largely due to forest loss.  The Pacific Forest Trust.

• Forest management can contribute significantly to reducing and perhaps even ending the ongoing rise of carbon concentration in the atmosphere, providing a cumulative sequestration of 25 billion metric tons of carbon globally over 50 years.  Forests, Carbon and Climate Change: A Synthesis of Science Findings. A project of The Oregon Forest Resources Institute/ Oregon State University College of Forestry/Oregon Department of Forestry, p.28.

• . . . by carefully designing and implementing a large-scale forest and agricultural carbon sequestration strategy, the United States could substantially reduce its net carbon dioxide emissions.   Much of the infrastructure needed to increase carbon sequestration on agricultural and forestlands is already in place.  Agricultural & Forestlands: U.S. Carbon Policy Strategies, Executive Summary.  September 2006.

• . . . converting a productive old-growth Douglas-fir forest into a plantation with management for timber production can decrease carbon stores by as much as 45%.  Forests, Carbon and Climate Change: A Synthesis of Science Findings. A project of The Oregon Forest Resources Institute/ Oregon State University College of Forestry ODF, p.27

• “Rising global temperatures are causing a host of environmental problems including the loss last year of 10 million acres to wildfires in this country alone.  This is a devastating loss compounded by the fact that trees help slow global warming by sequestering carbon,” said Deborah Gangloff, Ph.D., executive director of American Forests, during a press conference held at the National Press Club.  American Forests Launches Global Releaf2 Campaign With Goal to Plant 100 Million Trees by 2020. American Forests. April 24, 2007.

• Millions of acres of Canada’s lush green forests are turning red in spasms of death.  A voracious beetle, whose population has exploded with the warming climate, is killing more trees than wildfires or logging.  Rapid Warming Spreads Havoc in Canada’s Forests: Tiny Beetles Destroying Pines. Doug Struck, Washington Post Foreign Service. March 1, 2006.

• The projected 2◦C (3.6◦F) warming could shift the ideal range for many North American forest species by about 300 km (200mi.) to the north.  Global Warming – Impacts: Forests. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

• Climate change will exact a major cost on North America’s timber industry and could drive as much as 40 percent of its plant and animal species extinct in a matter of decades, according to a new report from an international panel. . . .North American forests also will suffer from a warming climate, the report states, and increases in wildfires, insect infestations and disease could cost wood and timber producers $1 billion to $2 billion by the end of the century.  U.N. report warns warming will harm timber industry.  Juliet Eilperin, The Washington Post.

Furthermore, BLM should not be treating public domain lands as O&C lands.  Neither the O&C Act nor the settlement agreement requires it.  On the front page of Newsletter Issue No. 7 of the Western Oregon Plan Revisions News dated August 2007, BLM writes, “Only about 406,600 acres are classified as “public domain” lands and are managed under the principles of multiple-use and sustained yield as provided by the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976.”  Yet on page 20 of the Proposed Planning Criteria and State Director Guidance, the agency states that:

About half of those public domain acres are widely scattered and intermingled with O&C lands (Figure 3).  Although FLPMA requires that public domain lands be managed for a multitude of values, it does not require that every parcel be managed for every value.  Given their small size and scattered nature, these public domain parcels will be managed primarily for sustained yield of timber resources along with the surrounding O&C lands consistent with the goals and objectives of the land use plan.  There will not be a separate set of objectives and management actions for these scattered public domain lands.

And the DEIS, on p. XLIII says, “The remaining BLM-administered lands within the western Oregon planning area are public domain lands, and other statutory authorities direct the administration of those lands.”  So which is it, really?

To sum up, BLM did not produce a DEIS with the necessary analysis and information, and is out of step with both Oregon and national public opinion as well as with the O&C Act itself.   The Act does not require what the agency is proposing.  If it did, why would the industry lawsuits have been rejected?

When I was a county commissioner from an O&C county in the early 90’s, I enjoyed an excellent working relationship with BLM.   It pains me to see the tack the agency is now taking.

I have heard repeatedly that no decisions have been made yet.  I wonder how this can be true, given the agency’s “decision” to create an exceedingly narrow purpose and need statement and the agency’s “decision” to disregard both the No Action Alternative and the Citizen’s Conservation Alternative because they don’t meet that narrow purpose and need.

But if it is to be believed, the agency could honestly say you gave it your best shot but that there was so much opposition and so many good and varied arguments against the revisions and the alternatives, that now that you ARE making a decision, a decision of reasonableness and sustainability, one that will comply with the O&C Act and maintain these valuable federal lands in permanent forest production, one that will comply with the ESA and other applicable laws, one that will ensure that there will be functioning forests on these lands for generations to come.  The agency still has the discretion to do that.  I urge you to reject the proposed Alternatives.

Sincerely,

Peg Reagan
Executive Director

Home