**Cover Letter for the**

**Native Forest Council\'s Comment and Protest of the DEIS of the BLM
\"WOPR\"**

**The Bureau of Land Management has been relentlessly stripping
publicly-owned assets from the O&C lands ever since the O&C Act was put
in place in 1937. They have exponentially exceeded any definition of
reasonable or responsible levels of \"sustainable harvest\" and have
rarely, if ever, fulfilled the letter or intention of the Act.**

**The public\'s vital and irreplaceable forests and watersheds have been
plundered with the collusion and criminal misconduct of BLM managers, by
logging industry operatives and local politicians, who were thrown a
bone to keep them in line.**

**The trail of squandered publicly-owned assets winds from the
bureaucratic morass of the BLM through the dishonest timber barons, and
into the pockets of our local bought and paid for politicians. None of
these politicians believe they can survive the ire of a disappointed,
let alone angered, timber industry. The logging companies\' special
interest money always seems to carry the day.**

**The \"WOPR\" is yet another criminal, immoral, unethical plan to
defraud the people of their assets. Assembled by a collection of
industry shills and forwarded by \"foresters\" (\"economic and
environmental terrorists\" anyone?), this document is not worth the
paper it is written on. It deserves to be thoroughly damned and
repudiated with prejudice.**

**Why has the BLM allowed the lungs of the planet, our public forests
and watersheds, to be slaughtered and squandered so that a few robber
barons and their shareholders can profit? Why has the BLM aided and
abetted the fraudulent logging industry in this crime against nature,
which, by extension has become a crime against humanity? Why would they
do that? What would have them sell their children\'s future and possibly
the very survival of our race to pad the pockets of a few greedy
corporate parasites? Tree growing companies indeed! They never have and
never will be able to replace a native cathedral forest. They don\'t
know how.**

**That being said, here are the Comments and Protests that we have
prepared in response to your egregious plan, a mockery of public
process.**

**Native Forest Council**

This Comment and Protest has been prepared in response to the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement for the Revision of the Management Plans
of the Western Oregon Bureau of Land Management Districts.

After a rigorous review of the DEIS submitted for public comment of
proposed revisions to the management plans for the public lands managed
by the BLM in western Oregon, we find the plan lacking in many critical
areas, illegal, and not in the best interest of the citizens of the
United States of America who own these forests. In addition to the
omission of science and a lack of discussion of a number of critically
important issues, this document makes some claims that are not supported
by the best available science.

It appears this document was compiled by selective use of data and
scientific references to support a pre-determined preferred
outcome---that outcome being the maximum cut rate possible while
maintaining an ***appearance*** of compliance with existing laws and
regulations. It is the position of The Native Forest Council that
alternatives 1, 2, and 3 are all fatally flawed and that the no action
alternative, while less destructive than the others still does not
provide the protection and regard that our public forests, irreplaceable
assets in the ongoing livability of our planet, deserve.

***I. Legal Context***

> *[1937 O & C Act]{.underline}: . . . timberlands . . . shall be
> managed . . . for **[permanent forest production]{.underline}**, and
> the timber thereon shall be sold, cut, and removed in conformity with
> the principal of **[sustained yield]{.underline}** for the purpose of
> providing a **[permanent]{.underline}** source of **[timber supply,
> protecting watersheds, regulating stream flow]{.underline}**, and
> contributing to the **[economic stability]{.underline}** of local
> communities and industries . . . .*
>
> *The **[annual productive capacity]{.underline}** for such lands shall
> be **[determined and declared]{.underline}** as promptly as possible
> after the passage of this act . . . .* \[Emphasis added.\]

For 70 years the BLM has successfully avoided establishing a permanent,
scientifically sound determination of the \"annual productive capacity\"
of the affected lands that complies with \"permanent forest production .
. . protecting watersheds,\" etc., required by the O&C Act of 1937.

This has allowed a condition of delay, resignation and chaos to exist
inside the agency. Chaos has the agency scrambling to satisfy the timber
industry, the O&C counties, the environmental groups, and other local
stakeholders. To this point, the process has met with very limited
success.

The \"WOPR\" was triggered by litigation which was brought by industry
and the O&C counties to address a perceived lack of logging. That
\"perception\" is an opportunistic spin that takes advantage of the
vacuum created from the lack of a permanent, peer reviewed,
scientifically valid determination of what constitutes a sustainable
forest.

In this vacuum, other laws, NFMA, NEPA, The Northwest Forest Plan, *et
al.*, have been forwarded to try and create long-term workability on our
federal lands. These laws attempt to protect the value of our public
lands and the complex forest ecosystems that exist there. They are the
best protections we have at this time. To abandon them and implement
unproven and deceptively selective \"science\" in our priceless public
forests violates statutory law and constitutional principles of the
general welfare. A number of statutes apply. For example, federal land
managers must maintain habitat for migratory birds,[^1] use an ecosystem
approach to assess effects of their activities,[^2] comply with air
quality standards in the Clean Air Act designed to \"protect the public
welfare,\"[^3] and reduce harm to EPA\'s \"303(d)\" listed waters,[^4]
to name just a few.

The Precautionary Principle (impeccable common sense) tells us that
until we have a proven plan to shift things for the better, we must err
on the side of protection. The BLM must establish rigid standards that
define and describe sustainable management on our public lands before
cutting another road or tree. The \"WOPR\" does not do that.

***II. Critical Gaps in Analysis***

A. Valuation, accounting, econometrics

The entire analysis of impacts is done without a baseline of economic
and ecological values and without valid cost accounting of the
alternative proposals for action on the ground. There is no
comprehensive discussion of what these forests provide to the public as
standing, living, breathing complex ecological systems, including the
"ecological services" performed by these irreplaceable ancient forests.

There is no definition of "normal market conditions" and no discussion
under what conditions logging or sales would be suspended because of
"abnormal" market conditions as required by the O&C Act. There is no
discussion of poor market conditions (including the current glut of wood
products) and the effect of these conditions on the counties that depend
on BLM logging to provide basic services. These conditions would further
deteriorate with the proposed large increase in the volume of trees
being cut. Market conditions have deteriorated even since this DEIS was
written.

There is no discussion as to the value of these forests and activities
in the forests. What would it cost to buy them? What would it cost to
replace them? What does it cost to log them? Why are these costs not
transparent? Who pays to have these trees removed? Replaced? Who
profits? Where is the public accounting on which to base responsible
comments?

There is no discussion of how the new stewardship authorities would
apply to the O&C lands managed by the BLM. Do the new authorities trump
the O&C Act? Could the harvest levels mandated by the \"WOPR\" be
shunted into stewardship contracts, effectively leaving any funding for
the O&C counties out of the equation? What is the BLM's responsibility
for interpreting parallel authorities on behalf of O&C counties and for
keeping the affected public informed in a realistic and timely manner?

The lack of clear accounting data in the WOPR makes it impossible to
discern whether ***any*** of the logging being proposed under this plan
can be done ethically, morally, or profitably. The General
Accountability Office has been unable to determine the true costs of
administering USFS and BLM timber sales because of obscure accounting
practices and untracked administrative costs being paid for out of other
divisions within the agencies. On top of covert accounting, no value is
assigned to the forest as a complex, life giving ecosystem.

Our position is that the BLM should cease all sales until the true costs
of all sales are covered, with honest and fully costed accounting, all
externalities included. This means damage to infrastructure, fisheries,
water treatment expenses, dam capacity reduction, tourism/recreation,
carbon emissions, air quality/health and wellbeing issues associated
with smoke, endangered species mitigation, flooding, landslides,
property damage and any other issues that will occur as a direct result
of the implementation of these practices. Watershed and infrastructure
destruction, increased flooding, landslides, and loss of jobs in the
farming, recreation, and fishing industry are all probable outcomes of
these alternatives and do not meet the requirement of the O&C Act of
"contributing to the economic stability of local communities . . . ." It
would be crystal clear if these social and physical costs were all
factored into the equation that there is ***no value*** to the public in
removing any more of these forests in our lifetime. There are in fact,
***great costs and hazards***. And, it would show that the American
taxpayer is actually subsidizing the liquidation of our ancient forests
and, in the process, subsidizing the logging industry to our detriment.

B. Missing, deceptive, and ridiculous \"science\"

***Carbon Sequestration:***

There is no discussion of what the impact of the forest's possible
removal would be on the worsening global climate situation. There is no
valuation given for the trees standing as carbon sinks, nor the
difference between small trees and large for surface carbon absorption.
Living, growing forests are one of the most efficient systems known to
remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and store it for extended
periods of time. Of all the proposed alternatives, WOPR Alternative 2
removes the most volume and therefore will contribute the largest amount
of greenhouse gas to our atmosphere. How much carbon dioxide will the
various alternatives contribute? Why was this not included? How much
carbon is currently stored and how much will be sequestered each year in
these living public forests? Why was net loss and gain not provided? How
will the loss of these services increase our national and regional
carbon debt in the coming carbon economy?

***Water/Fisheries:***

The proposed revisions do not assign any value to the water generation,
purification, and absorption processes present in a living forest. Tall,
thick canopies in an ancient forest catch snow, block wind exposure, and
freeze and thaw slowly. This delays and protracts the runoff from these
stands during heavy rains and snowmelt events, reducing slides and
floods. These conditions preserve coolness and moisture in the forest,
reducing summer flammability long after clear-cuts, thins, and young
replacement stands are hot and dry, and also releasing cooler water into
fish-bearing streams further into the summers.

Complex forest conditions are a profoundly effective absorption and
filtration system that cleans water and minimizes peak flow, river level
spiking, sedimentation, and damage to fisheries. The O&C act is very
clear that these forests shall be managed in a way that results in
"protecting watersheds \[and\] regulating stream flow." All three action
alternatives of the WOPR reduce watershed protections and radicalize
water flow levels and therefore would appear to be in violation of the
O&C Act.

This set of revisions does not discuss large flood and rain/snow melt
events and the impact they would have on the 13,679 miles of
intermittent streams from which the WOPR would remove riparian
protection. One has to look no farther than the Dec., 2007 flooding in
the Chehalis, Washington area to see the horrific impact of
clear-cutting on intermittent streams and as a result, on year-round
streams. In the DEIS, BLM states that there is no model to predict or
quantify exact mechanisms of delivery of sediment, so they cannot
predict effect of that delivery on fish.[^5] It is very clear that
logging and forest roads in combination with large rain, rain/snowmelt
events are the most powerful mechanisms for mass soil movement and
debris flow generation that occur on these lands. These mechanisms were
well known even when the O&C Act was authored, which is why watershed
protection was included in the Act. Clear-cutting over seasonal streams
has been shown to increase the number and severity of these slides.

The DEIS, however, ignores this science and does not predict what floods
and slides in logged over areas will do to drinking water, spawning
beds, roads, or infrastructure downstream from these lands. The
discussion in the DEIS about fish is all done with no modeling of large
flood events. No model of siltation from active logging operations is
put forward. Floods and active logging both produce spiking of silt and
sediment that are significant.

Since large flood events and the erosion off of roads are the primary
delivery systems of sediment which chokes spawning beds, the information
in the DEIS is at least to some extent immaterial. It seems a lot of
effort has been spent putting together a rosy outlook for the affected
streams based on dishonest science and omission. It is clear that logged
over seasonal streams will contribute huge amounts of sediment and
rubble to the year-round streams whenever one of these flood events
takes place. This [will]{.underline} have a detrimental effect on listed
fish species and our drinking water supplies. The DEIS omits these
impacts. Why?

***Air Quality:***

All of the alternatives put forth by the \"WOPR\" worsen the fire risk
in these public forests. Alternative 2, preferred by the BLM, leaves our
public forests the most vulnerable to fire. This is clearly not in the
best interest of the public. Wildfires exceed air quality standards over
large areas and over time putting human health at risk. At this time of
increasing global temperatures it makes no sense to knowingly create
conditions more conducive to wildfire. Private industrial "salvage"
profit is not enough.

C. Intentional outcome

Without a clear, supported, intended result of management, decisions
such as the current DEIS are haphazard, reactive, and conflict over time
resulting in a tremendous waste of time, loss of habitat and forest, and
a failure to learn from mistakes. For example, why does this plan call
for clear-cutting (regeneration harvesting)---the most damaging type of
logging---to "maximize potential growth and yield,"[^6] when the O&C Act
of 1937 never says a word about maximizing growth or yield?

The O&C Act of 1937 calls for ***sustained yield*** not maximum yield.
It also calls for a determination of [what that is]{.underline}.
Sustained yield and maximum yield are distinct from each other. Maximum
yield is not sustainable. Even in 1937, the people and their
representatives in Congress were aware of the wasting of soils and water
from reckless and excessive tree cutting and road building, and the
resulting degradation (unsustainability) to the forests. Yet the BLM
continues to lobby for these egregious practices.

The definition in Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the
English Language[^7] for the word sustain is "to keep up or to keep
going, as in an action or process." This is a far cry from the BLM's
definition in the DEIS, as follows:

> ***"Sustainability can be defined as using, developing and protecting
> resources in a manner that enables people to meet current needs and
> provides that future generations can also meet future needs, from the
> joint perspective of environmental, economic and community
> objectives."***

This is a ***very creative*** abstraction, but sustainability has
nothing to do with people's needs, or generational entitlements.
Sustainability speaks to conditions on the ground. In order to sustain a
permanent, steady product from a forest, one cannot clear-cut it.
Extraction processes that obliterate large patches of microbial and
symbiotic fungal communities, that lay waste to soil stability and
water-retaining humus, that expose undergrowth to hot, drying winds and
solar exposure, cannot be considered to "sustain" the forest. They are
just reckless, quick-gratification consumption.

What is abundantly clear is that these proposed revisions maintain a
maximum outflow of trees from our public forests, with priority on the
larger trees first, with shrinking iterations of stump size over time,
as the largest are liquidated until finally we are down to industrial
fiber and biomass consumption from increasingly unproductive
soils---"cessation yield." That's not a forest. What is also clear is
that this plan does not provide any clear assurance of community
financial stability or environmental sustainability. Removal of
permanent forests specifically violates responsible watershed and
streamflow management and economic stability under the O&C Act. More
generally, the DEIS violates General Welfare and NEPA responsibilities
for the management and protection of the public assets that are a
foundation of our climate, water, wildlife, soil stability, health,
forest fire moderation, recreation opportunities and ultimately, the
quality and survival of human life in this region.

***III. Conclusion: Operating on top of an illegal, immoral, and
irresponsible lack of standards***

The science used to justify the removal of ancient stands on public
lands seems to get more convoluted, abstract and disconnected from
ground truth over time. The only consistent demand is that more of the
primeval forests be opened up for logging. The science always morphs to
match the industries\' desired outcome. What is needed is a
comprehensive definition of what outcome we are committed to creating.
Much of the "science" that the WOPR alternatives are based on is "new."
The "modeling" is based on theory and has never been tried in practice.
There is no strict framework that fulfills the O&C Act\'s demand for
sustainability.

This lack of distinct, on the ground, acceptable conditions clearly
violates the demand of the O&C Act to promptly define sustainability and
set it up as the baseline for [all]{.underline} further action. If there
is any doubt as to the impact of a specific management choice, then the
precautionary principle must be used so as to ***do no damage*** and
minimize, if not eliminate risk of harm*.* This, in combination with a
full accounting of all variables, provides the best chance of creating a
truly sustainable plan for our public land. There are plenty of ground
examples and valid studies to answer most relevant impact questions. BLM
managers and logging company executives have just not liked the answers,
so they're avoided in sophistry and misdirection.

Constantly changing the definitions of science to fit the political mood
or demand of the timber industry does not cut it. We must set up
inflexible, outcome-based standards and stick with them until
***proven*** improvements are available. Then and only then should we
allow those standards to evolve. The science in the WOPR does not
fulfill this demand. It is clear that it does not meet the requirements
of the O&C Act, the needs of wildlife, and most importantly the basic
values, laws and needs of our nation and civilization. It\'s a loser and
should be thrown out.

***[We can and must do better.]{.underline}***

[^1]: Migratory Bird Treaty Act, 16 USC 703 *et seq.*

[^2]: *See*, 40 CFR 1508.8.

[^3]: *See*, 42 USC 7409(b)(2)

[^4]: Clean Water Act, 33 USC 1313(d)*.*

[^5]: DEIS p 356

[^6]: DEIS p 72

[^7]: 1989, dilithium Press, Ltd.