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logging in western Oregon – known as the Western Oregon Plan Revisions (WOPR) – is legally indefensible and must be withdrawn, Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar said today.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, Roseburg BLM and quote are from www.oregonheritageforest.org, the best place to get up-to-date information about the current threat facing the 2.5 million acres of publicly owned O&C lands in Oregon.

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.

“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.