BLM Should Move Forward Under Its Western Oregon Plan Revisions

In the final days of 2008, the Oregon office of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) completed a major land planning exercise.  On December 30, 2008, Assistant Secretary of Interior Stephen Allred signed six records of decision (RODs) for the Salem, Eugene, Roseburg, Medford and Coos Bay Districts and the Klamath Falls Resource Area of the Lakeview District in Oregon.   Together, the RODs comprise the Western Oregon Plan Revisions (WOPR or the Revisions) covering approximately 2.6 million acres of land in southern Oregon.  www.blm.gov/or/plans/wopr/

The Revisions took nearly five years of effort by federal and state agencies and numerous cooperators to complete.  Predictably, detractors now seek, through various means including political pressure and litigation, to forestall implementation.

Much is at stake for rural Oregon in WOPR implementation.  The BLM estimates that 1,200 jobs will be created under WOPR; without it, 3,800 will be lost.  If the WOPR is fully implemented, some $75 million would be available annually for distribution to the 18 O&C counties.  This is 85% of the average historic annual revenues prior to curtailment of federal timber harvesting in the late 1980's.  Without the plan, mills in southern Oregon will be forced to continue to look to California and Washington State for raw material.  Forest health will continue to decline, not only on our federal forests, but on neighboring private forests as a result of insect and disease infestations exacerbated by overcrowding.  Catastrophic fires will continue to dump up to 100 tons of carbon per acre burned into the atmosphere.  

The circumstances surrounding the Revisions are unique.  2.1 million acres of the land is governed by the Oregon and California Lands Act of 1937 (O&C Act).   The Act requires the lands to be managed "for permanent forest production, and the timber. . .[to] be sold, cut, and removed in conformity with the principal [sic] of sustained yield for the purpose of providing a permanent source of timber supply, protecting watersheds, regulating stream flow, and contributing to the economic stability of local communities and industries, and providing recreational facilities . . ."  (43 U.S.C. §1181a) http://frwebgate5.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/TEXTgate.cgi?WAISdocID=725052271066+0+1+0&WAISaction=retrieve

The BLM began the planning exercise in 2003 to satisfy the terms of a settlement agreement with the American Forest Resource Council (AFRC), Western Council of Industrial Workers, affected schools, businesses and companies, as well as the counties which share in the revenues from timber sales on these lands.  The purpose of the lawsuit, begun in 1999, was to force the BLM to manage the lands on a sustained yield basis, rather than under the National Forest Management Act (NFMA). 36 USC 1600, et seq. http://www.fs.fed.us/emc/nfma/includes/NFMA1976.pdf

The Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) was issued in October, 2008. http://www.blm.gov/or/plans/wopr/final_eis/index.php

The plan estimates the annual timber growth as 1.2 billion board feet per year.  The allowable annual harvest is set not to exceed 502 million board feet. Of the 2.6 million acres under the plan, just over 1 million are to be managed for timber objectives.  Thus, despite the stated purpose of the O&C Act, the plan calls for harvesting less than half of the volume grown annually and excludes 61% of the acres from timber management.

Relative Sizes Of The Land Use Allocations In The Western Oregon Plan Revisions

Land Use Allocations

Source:  Bureau of Land Management

Because the plan is not based on a true sustained yield harvest calculation, excludes acres from the timber base and fails to achieve the O&C Act's mandate for sustainable timber management, AFRC has filed an action in District of Columbia federal district court seeking judicial review.  Plan implementation would not be delayed pending outcome of the case.

Environmental organizations are opposed to WOPR implementation.  On January 15, 2009 Earthjustice brought suit on behalf of Oregon Wild and 12 other environmental organizations, including the Sierra Club, claiming that the best available science had not been used in planning under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and seeking to enjoin WOPR implementation. http://www.earthjustice.org/news/press/2009/conservation-and-fisheries-groups-defend-streams-and-forests-from-bush-administration-attack.html

On the same day, the Western Environmental Law Center (WELC) filed an action on behalf of ­­­­­­­­­­­­ Pacific Rivers Council and McKenzie Flyfishers, seeking an injunction against the plan claiming NEPA violations. http://www.westernlaw.org/news/welc-and-river-advocates-file-legal-challenge-to-bush2019s-plan-for-western-oregon-forests.  Both Earthjustice and WERC have also filed 60 day notices of intent to sue for violations of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) based on BLM's decision not to engage in formal consultation under Section 7 of the Act.  Correspondence between BLM, the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service concerning that decision is available at http://www.blm.gov/or/plans/wopr/esa.php.

Further complicating WOPR implementation are challenges to the USFWS spotted owl critical habitat designation issued in 2008.  The WOPR is tiered to that designation.  In late March, the Department of Interior announced its intention to seek a voluntary remand of both the critical habitat designation and the recovery plan on which it is based.  The agency's determination to seek a remand is apparently based on an Inspector General's reort issued December 15, 2008.  The report expresses concern over the possibility that a former Interior Department official took inappropriate actions in the decision process.  The named official left the department April, 2007, some 11 months prior to the issuance of the recovery plan and 16 months prior to the publication of the critical habitat revisions.  Opponents of the WOPR hailed the Department's announcement as marking the plan's demise.  While that is an overstatement, it has placed projects under the plan in an administrative limbo.

Because of its importance to forest health, the future of the forest products industry and community stability in southern Oregon, the agencies clearly should press onward toward implementation of the Revisions.  The completed plan falls short of its potential to restore forest management to its proper place on the O&C lands.  Yet, enjoining implementation pending further lengthy environmental studies will only add to both Oregon's economic and environmental burdens.  Full WOPR implementation is needed now.