| |
O&C
Forest Lands
Published in the Oregonian, August 2010, by three O&C county
commissioners:
Our Oregon forests are special to us. They provide our drinking water,
building materials for our homes, places to recreate, habitat for fish and
wildlife and spectacular scenery. They are also economic drivers providing
jobs and revenues for our communities. More recently we’ve discovered
these towering forests are world champions at capturing carbon and keeping
our planet cooler.
As elected County Commissioners, we have the responsibility to give
voice to public concerns and interests in how the lands within our county
boundaries are managed. With over half the land in Oregon in federal
ownership, we recognize the economic and environmental values of our
public lands, including their contribution to the high quality of life
Oregonians enjoy. Our citizens care so strongly about these lands that
they are volunteering and forming collaborative groups and working to
ensure that the land stewardship agencies understand how special these
forests are to the public. We are listening and we hope federal land
managers are as well.
Just over a year ago, Secretary of Interior Ken Salazar withdrew the
Western Oregon Plan Revision (WOPR). WOPR was intended to be a blueprint
for how the 2.4 million acres of forests in western Oregon -- owned by all
Americans -- would be managed. The agency entrusted with the stewardship
of the great bulk of these lands is the Bureau of Land Management. As the
head federal agency official, Secretary Salazar determined there were
substantial concerns raised by scientists, citizens, politicians and other
federal agencies regarding the scientific and legal credibility of WOPR.
Understandably, he withdrew the plan.
WOPR would have unnecessarily weakened the Northwest Forest Plan that
currently governs land management for both the United States Forest
Service and BLM in the Pacific Northwest. The Plan was developed
recognizing the many benefits forests provide us and that a timber
dominant focus in past management had caused serious environmental
problems. It was jointly produced by federal agencies, scientists and land
managers and found to be legally sufficient by the courts. The Northwest
Forest Plan has enough flexibility to allow collaboration between citizens
and land managers in developing forest management proposals that are
restoration oriented, manage for healthy forests, and can provide
commodities such as wood products for our mills. Indeed, that is the
approach the U.S. Forest Service and even some BLM Districts are taking in
their timber sale proposals.
Some have recently claimed that as a result of WOPR being withdrawn,
very little timber is being produced on BLM land. Our review shows that
this is not the case. For example, the Roseburg BLM district is proposing
36 million board feet of timber volume for sale in 2010 The Salem BLM
district recently sold over 17 million board feet. Likewise, Eugene BLM
district sold over 20 million feet this year. Even with so much of the
BLM’s resources being consumed with planning the WOPR, board feet are
moving from thinning projects on Western Oregon BLM lands.
Unlike what was proposed in WOPR, the timber projects that are being
implemented successfully on both BLM and USFS lands do not focus on
logging the older forests that Oregonians care deeply about. Instead they
focus on protecting and restoring the special values of the forests --
whether it is water quality, wildlife habitat, or recreation opportunities
-- and recognize that more often than not, providing timber volume is
compatible with the land management proposed.
Oregonians are not interested in the past practice of only seeing board
feet when they look at the forest. They want land managers to recognize
the multitude of values these healthy forests provide to Oregonians and
all Americans. The Northwest Forest Plan is over ten years old and no
doubt needs to be updated to reflect new science and information that is
available now. However, any update should: 1) reflect strong coordination
and agreement by the federal agencies responsible and accountable for
protecting and stewarding our land, 2) ensure a process where the public
is actively involved and where agency officials truly listen and respond
to the needs and desires of Oregonians for how they want their land to be
managed, and 3) focus on the millions of acres of small diameter thinning
in second growth and fire prone forests, not on our last old-growth
forests.
Fortunately our citizens are not waiting around for the federal
government; they are taking the initiative, forming collaborations and
making headway with federal land managers. It’s time that BLM recognizes
the merit of this pathway and leaves the old polarizing forestry methods
in the past. Secretary Salazar acted appropriately in withdrawing WOPR.
Let’s ensure that future plans capture the ideas, energy and spirit that
our citizens are bringing to the collaboration table.
Commissioner Dave Gilmour, Jackson County, an O&C county Commissioner
Pete Sorenson, Lane County, an O&C county Commissioner Bob Austin,
Clackamas County, an O&C county
Interior
Withdraws Legally Flawed Plan for Oregon Forests,
Presses
For Sustainable Timber Harvests
The Conservation Leaders Network worked with
county commissioners from O&C counties and forest advocates in
opposition to the Western Oregon Plan Revisions (WOPR) since the
Bush Administration first proposed it several years ago. We
are delighted that sound management of these federal forest lands
has prevailed.
Following are excerpts from the Department’s
July 16 press release.
WASHINGTON, D.C. –
Because the previous Administration failed to follow established
administrative procedure before leaving office, its plan to
intensify logging in western Oregon – known as the Western Oregon
Plan Revisions (WOPR) – is legally indefensible and must be
withdrawn, Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar said
today. . . . . With
the withdrawal of the WOPR, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) forests
in western Oregon will again be managed under the Northwest Forest
Plan, which guided BLM timber sales from 1994 until December
2008.Salazar noted that
the legal problem with the Western Oregon Plan Revisions, which was
finalized in late December 2008, arose from the previous
Administration’s decision not to complete consultation on the plan’s
impacts on endangered species under Section 7 of the Endangered
Species Act. The WOPR also partially relied on spotted owl
protections that have been challenged in federal court and have been
called into question by Interior’s Inspector General, who determined
that the integrity of the decision making process was potentially
jeopardized as a result of the improper political influence of a
former Bush Administration official.Assistant Secretary
for Fish, Wildlife and Parks Thomas Strickland said today that the
federal government will conduct a thorough review of the 2008
Spotted Owl Recovery Plan, which informed both the WOPR and the Fish
and Wildlife Service’s 2008 revision of critical habitat for the
spotted owl.
“We will work with the scientific community to
ensure that the spotted owl recovery plan lives up to its name, by
accounting for scientific and technical reviews by prominent
national scientific organizations, as well as forthcoming new data
on the status of the spotted owl population,” said Strickland. “A
solid, peer-reviewed recovery plan will provide a road map for the
spotted owl's return to health, enabling us to designate critical
habitat areas and help develop a forest management plan that
meaningfully contributes to its recovery.”. . . . Secretary
Salazar said that despite the late actions of the previous
Administration, Senator Ron Wyden, Governor Ted Kulongoski, Senator
Jeff Merkley, Congressman Peter DeFazio, and others have helped
build consensus around a vision for forestry on Oregon’s BLM lands
that moves the region beyond the battles of the past. “There is
broadening agreement that it is time to reevaluate the logging of
old growth forests on BLM lands,” said Secretary Salazar. “There is
also agreement that logging should not occur in areas that would put
water quality at risk, and we should fully consider advances in
forestry and increased knowledge of species’ needs over the last two
decades.”. . . . Acting
Assistant Secretary for Land and Minerals Management Ned Farquhar
emphasized that forest restoration and timber harvest are dual,
compatible goals. “We can support a strong and sustainable forest
industry by focusing on thinning, forest restoration projects, and
certain types of regeneration harvests,” said Farquhar. “Done right,
timber harvests can increase the structural complexity of stands,
provide better habitat for spotted owls and other wildlife, reduce
the risk of catastrophic fire, provide revenue for Western Oregon
counties, and generate a reliable and robust supply of timber for
local mills and biomass plants.”So as to keep much
of the research and work available to the public, you can click here to
read the Conservation Leaders Network's comments to the WOPR.
You can also check out our
rebuttal of the BLM's economic arguments. And you can read
the comments submitted collectively by organizations based
throughout the Pacific Northwest, including the Conservation Leaders
Network.As part of a
settlement arranged between the Bush Administration, the Association
of O&C Counties and the timber industry, BLM was instructed to
develop new forest management plans and to consider one alternative
that does away with all reserves on O&C lands except those
required to avoid jeopardy under the Endangered Species Act (which
provides the lowest level of protection). Unfortunately,
they considered only alternatives that make timber the dominant use
of these lands.About two-thirds of
BLM-managed land in western Oregon is currently within some type of
reserve. The logging that has taken place on both federal and
private lands in the last decade has been allowed because the courts
determined that protecting species in reserves on federal forest
lands was sufficient. If these reserves were done away with,
the federal forest lands would not be providing the level of
protection approvals of other timber sales on non-federal lands were
predicated upon.
This would have
plunged the Pacific Northwest back into the timber wars of the early
nineties.
“These forests are
some of the richest forests in the world, and absolutely critical to
fish, wildlife and the citizens that live around them and others who
come to take in the spectacular beauty. The low-elevation
forests in the Western Oregon BLM region are critical connecting
blocks to the largely mountainous National Forests in Oregon.
Western Oregon’s BLM forests are some of the most productive in the
world. They are also extremely diverse, as they are found on three
distinct mountain ranges: the Siskiyous, the Coast Range, and
the Cascades. The forests feature ancient, coastal hemlock on
the Coos Bay District, biologically rich forests on the Medford
District, and towering Douglas fir forests on the Roseburg, Salem,
and Eugene BLM Districts.”
Photo of Unit 5, Cow Catcher timber sale
The Conservation
Leaders Network is one of many groups fighting to protect these
publicly-owned lands. Because counties containing O&C
lands have a unique relationship with the federal government, the
Conservation Leaders Network plays an important role providing
county-focused insight and building bridges between conservation
groups and county commissioners.
What do county commissioners from
Oregon's O&C counties have to say?
“It appears from
your [BLM's] summary that most of the comments you received oppose
BLM’s plan to manage these lands for timber production as the
dominant use. Please add my voice, as a county commissioner
from an O&C county, to those of the many Oregonians who
recognize the value of these lands, the need for the Forest Plan and
the success of the existing resource management plans. . .
.These lands have
value to counties. I want these lands to continue to produce
goods and services for my county over the long run. I support
sustainable management of the O&C lands, which cannot be
achieved by having timber production as the dominant use of these
lands.”
Lincoln County Commissioner Bill
Hall
“As you are well
aware, Multnomah County is the home of close to 700,000 citizens and
is the most populous county in Oregon. I represent more owners
of BLM lands than any other county in the state. I understand
you received almost 3,000 public comments during the scoping
period. In common with most of those who submitted comments
during that period, my constituents do not want these lands managed
for timber production as the dominant use, or existing reserves
eliminated.”
Multnomah County Chair Diane
Linn
“If I remember
correctly, no court has ruled that BLM must allow timber harvest in
old-growth reserves. No court has ruled that BLM must allow
timber harvest in riparian reserves. No court has ruled that
BLM must allow logging on every square inch of O&C
lands.It is clear from
your statement that, since this [timber-as-dominant-use]
interpretation supercedes other BLM interpretations, your agency has
successfully managed these lands in compliance with existing laws,
including the O&C Act of 1937, with other, more inclusive
interpretations that respect the diversity of values Oregonians
derive from O&C lands.I urge you to
reconsider this direction.”
Lane County Commissioner Pete
Sorenson
To read letters
from county commissioners, click
here.
|
