**Memo To: Bureau of Land Management**

**Memo From: Melissa Buehler, Environmental Ethics, Humboldt State
University**

**Subject: Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact of the Western
Oregon Plan Revisions (WOPR).**

The Western Oregon Plan Revisions (WOPR) is the Bureau of Land
Management's (BLM) chance to balance the economic interests of the rural
logging communities with the preservation efforts set by the Northwest
Forest Plan of 1995 (NWFP). This DEIS is a rollback of regulation set by
the NWFP. The purpose of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) is
lost in this Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). This is
**"NEPA's purpose is not to generate paperwork but to foster excellent
action..." (Section 1500.16)**[^1] It is important for the BLM to
remember why NEPA was created:

> "The Congress, recognizing the profound impact of man's activity on
> the interrelations of all components of the natural environment,
> particularly the profound influences of... resource exploitation...
> and recognizing further the **critical importance of restoring and
> maintaining environmental quality** to the overall welfare and
> development of man, declares that it is the continuing policy of the
> Federal Government... to use all practicable means and measures... to
> create and maintain conditions under **which man and nature can exist
> in productive harmony**, and fulfill the social, economic, and other
> requirements of present and future generation of Americans." (Sec. 101
> \[42 USC SS 4331\][^2]

The WOPR flawed in many ways. These include:

1.  **The purpose and need of the DEIS doesn't balance the need for
    timber production with preservation.**

2.  **The report appears to weigh the economic effects heavier than the
    preservation efforts. It seems to ignore the impacts of industrial
    scale logging and favors the alternative that does the most amount
    of environmental damage.**

3.  **The plan is highly controversial and goes against public will. The
    WOPR's preferred alternative is an inadequate response to the
    scoping process.**

4.  **The plan overlooks impacts of its actions. For example, the impact
    of genetically modified tree plantations on the native species
    population and fire threat level, and the impacts to the private
    residence from land use practices weren't considered.**

5.  **A broad range of alternatives weren't evaluated. Alternatives not
    within the range of the jurisdiction of the BLM must be considered
    if it fulfills the purpose and need of the DEIS.**

6.  **Mitigation measures are not likely to minimize or eliminate the
    impacts.**

7.  **The impacts of salvage logging in disturbed areas ignore the
    science on the irreversible cumulative impacts of the two
    disturbances.**

A more detailed look into the management of the O&C lands is necessary.
The narrowness of the purpose of the project eliminates reasonable plans
for the rural communities. The elimination of the O&C lands and
diversification of the local economies would eliminate the problem. The
WOPR seeks to reverse restrictions set by the NWFP and possibly violates
many environmental laws. The preferred alternative is very
controversial, and will need to be redone before it's accepted by the
local communities as a legitimate plan.

**[I. Need and Purpose]{.underline}**

**The purpose and need of this DEIS is misleading.** A prime example of
this tactic is, in fact, the true underlying reason why this DEIS was
mandated. A lawsuit filed by timber industry groups, *AFRC v. Clarke*,
Civil No. 94-1031-TPJ (D.D.C.), claimed that the:

"Specific contribution of the BLM lands to the overall conservation
strategy of the Northwest Forest Plan was not sufficiently analyzed in
the Northwest Forest Plan's supplemental environmental impact statement
to determine whether the extensive reservation of the O&C lands from
timber harvest in the Northwest Forest Plan was required in order to
comply with the Endangered Species Act."[^3]

This lawsuit was settled out of court on August 28, 2003. Under this
agreement with the timber industry, the BLM agreed to revise its
resource management plans in Western Oregon and in this revision, the
BLM would consider an alternative that would not create any reserves on
the O&C lands, expect those mandated by the ESA.

The WOPR states that the need for the change to the Resource Management
Plans (RMPs) is due to the declared allowable sale quantity of timber
not being met since the restrictions set by the NWFP were implemented.
Currently, the declared allowable sale quantity is set at 211 million
board feet (mmbf), and 40-70% of it has been met in the since the
passing of the NWFP[^4]. **The allowable sale quantity is a limit, not a
minimum standard**. The courts ruled in *Portland Audubon Society v.
Babbit,* 998 F.2d 705 (9^th^ Cir. 1993) that the O&C Act did not
establish a minimum volume that must be offered every year
notwithstanding any other law.[^5] Under the preferred Alternative (#2),
the allowable sale quantity nearly triples, increasing to 727 mmbf from
the 268 mmbf under no action[^6]. The BLM is tripling the allowable sale
quantity by opening critical habitat, old growth forests, and riparian
forests to regeneration logging.

Riparian and critical habitat regions shouldn't be compromised to
regeneration harvesting, because the forest will naturally increase the
allowable sale quantity allowed. Since the implementation of the NWFP,
the GIS software and remote sensing technology have been used to prove
that the amount of lumber on the O&C lands is actually more than what
they estimated in 1995. The report states that, "Given to the low
harvest levels of the last decade, the total standing volume has
increased since the 1995 estimations."[^7] **The restrictions set by the
NWFP can be maintained if adaptive management is used to adjust the
levels of allowable sales accordingly as the forest matures.**

The report doesn't use new science in many of their impacts; but new
terminology implies new science, which can be misunderstood by the
public. For example off-road vehicles (ORV) are now called Off-Highway
Vehicles (OHV), but the effects from ORV and OHV are the same. Another
terminology difference is clear cutting is now "regeneration
harvesting." The new word for "even age management" is "regeneration
planting." **New terminology for well-established resource impacts and
processes will create misunderstandings, and does not assist the public
in evaluating this DEIS.**

**The goal of the BLM and National Forest Service has switched from
habitat protection to resource extraction.** The WOPR states that there
has been a refocused goal of the BLM due to the outcome of *Headwater v.
BLM,* 914 F.2d 1174 (9^th^ Cir. 1990) which "mandates timber production
to be the dominant use of the lands designated by the O&C Act."[^8]
\*\*\*NEED EXAMPLES\*\*\*

The projects need and purpose needs to be redone. If the purpose of the
O&C lands is to provide revenue to rural communities, then this should
be the need of the plan. If a settlement is mandating the BLM to
consider what would happen if there weren't restrictions, then that
should be the purpose. The reasons laid out by the BLM for the RMP
adjustment is in the favor of timber industry. **A revised need and
purpose is needed to produce a fair plan which takes into account what
everyone wants from their land; the private residents, the
environmentalists and the lumber industry.**

**[II. Plan not in compliance with other laws.]{.underline}**

**Under the preferred alternative, impacts, public comments and
environmental laws are not adequately considered**. Some other impacts
ignored by the preferred alternative include: fragmentation of habitat,
risk of spreading invasive species, and increased fire hazards. The O&C
lands are being managed for dominant-use. Under the preferred
alternative, the lands are being managed for timber extraction and those
activities that are compatible with it (mining and Off Highway Vehicle
(OHV) use) are receiving the benefits from the plan. The report states,
"The dominant use of O&C lands (for timber production) must be in full
compliance with subsequent laws that direct how the BLM accomplishes
that statutory direction."[^9] Yet, some of the plan will not likely
comply with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), the
Clean Water Act (CWA), and Endangered Species Act (ESA).

Sustained-yield management of the O&C lands is mandated by law under
Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) 43 U.S.C. SS 1701 et seq.
This requires the BLM to adopt "multiple-use sustained yield" management
standards to prevent over-utliization of public resources. This includes
balancing the protection the watersheds and wildlife with economic
stability of local communities and industries by contributions made by
lumber production. The preferred alternative uses the principle of
maximum-yield, not sustained-yield by tripling the harvest rate as shown
on page \_\_. Stability of the logging industry is placed ahead of
preservation. **Tripling the harvest rates of these lands isn't in line
with sustained-yield if it compromises critical habitats and riparian
buffers of the area.**

The Clean Water Act protects water bodies that are fishable and
swimmable, and sets limits for total maximum daily load (TMDL) for
impaired waterways. The new RMP are proposing to reduce the buffer area
around the water bodies in half. Under the preferred alternative, the
buffer width has been decreased to 25ft. The buffer widths set by the
NWFP have been improving the water quality. The current buffer levels
have been sufficient. David Powers, the EPA's regional manager for
forests and rangelands, is reported to have said, "A recent survey of
250 watersheds in the Northwest Forest Plan area found that 57% were in
better condition from 1998 through 2003.[^10] In this case, the BLM is
choosing to ignore the science and impacts, and plan to change the
buffer widths anyway under all the action alternatives.

The environmental impacts to the O&C lands cannot be ignored. The BLM
isn't required to choose the environmentally preferred alternative, but
they should not choose the most environmentally degrading alternative.
The legislation for the NEPA states:

**"The NEPA process is intended to help federal agencies make decisions
based on an understanding of the environmental consequences of their
actions, and to take actions that protect restore and enhance the
environments (40 C.F.R. 1599.1(c)).**[^11]

**[III. Highly Controversial]{.underline}**

**None of the action alternatives selected in the report are supported
by the local residents, as expressed during the scoping section of the
WOPR.** Rural residents or timber companies own every other square mile
of the checkerboard patterns of ownership of the O&C lands will be
affected by this plan. During the scoping stage, 3,000 comments were
submitted which asked for protection of mature and old growth forests,
second growth thinning, and safeguard measures to protect communities
from wildfire.[^12] The local newspaper, *Register-Guard*, reported that
80,000 comments were received during the public comment period about the
recovery plan.[^13] The DEIS needs to be redone, taking into account
what the local residents want to see happen to their land.

**The preferred alternative ignores the public's growing interests in
non-motorized uses of the BLM lands**. Under this action, there are over
105 acres that will be designated as Off Highway Vehicle (OHV) areas,
which is a four-fold increase from current settings within the Medford
District[^14]. During the scoping session of the plan, it was found that
OHV travel is growing by 2.3%/year.[^15] The same data demonstrate that
non-motorized sports are growing faster than this; non-motorized boating
is growing at 7.0%/year, fishing is growing 5.8%/year, and wildlife
viewing, interpretation and nature study is growing 5.2%/year.[^16] The
report states that there are 634,823 people who participate in OHV,
while there are 2,748,317 people who use the BLM land for wildlife
viewing, interpretation and nature study (the most popular activity of
the scoping session).[^17] The preferred alternative plans to open more
lands to OHV use, which will eliminate them from non-motorized uses.
This is a significant impact that needs mitigation if the preferred
alternative is chosen.

**[IV. Missing Impacts]{.underline}**

The WOPR didn't consider the impacts to the private neighbors in the
area. The EIS didn't include possible impacts to the drinking water
supply of the rural communitites. The report didn't include the impact
to the private residences from increase of OHV areas under Alternative
2. The aesthetic impacts to these private citizens from even aged
management were also not considered.

The impacts of the missing late succession forests to the environment
weren't considered in full detail. Not only will the Northern Spotted
Owl and Marbled Murrellet be threatened, but the forests benefits of
**contribution to clean air and sequestering carbon must be
considered**. \*\*\*Proof of Carbon Sequester\*\*\*

This human action may not destroy the resources, trees will grow back,
but the setting is changed. Oregon has one of the largest last standing
ancient forests within its state's border; this legacy of Oregon will be
compromised by this plan.

The impacts of genetically "improved" tree plantations on its native
neighbors weren't stated. Under the no action alternative, 50,800 acres
of genetically modified trees will be planted, which has been increased
to 115,700 acres under Alternative 2. \*\*\*Proof of Spreading
Genetically Modified genes to Native species\*\*\* A risk assessment
should be done and included in the new DEIS.

**[V. Missing Alternatives]{.underline}**

The alternatives selected in the DEIS are inadequate. Alternatives that
were environmentally friendly were eliminated based on the purpose and
need, which needs to be rewritten as discussed earlier. For example, the
sub-alternative to Alternative One addressed under the Forests section
of Chapter Four of Environmental Consequences, was eliminated because it
didn't meet the declared allowable sale quantity that is set by that
Alternative.[^18] A new level of allowable sale quantity should have
been set for the sub-alternative, since not all of the harvested land
under Alternative One would be open. Also, the high harvest rate under
Alternative Two was justified by comparing it to commercial logging
practices. The O&C lands are unlike commercial logging land because they
are smaller in size and are not contiguous. **Alternatives that set the
allowable sale quantity at rates where wilderness and riparian buffers
aren't compromised, need to be included in the DEIS.**

Alternatives that balance economic and environmental benefits weren't
considered in the DEIS. Restrict cutting to second growth, while
preserving old growth, endangered species, and fish is an option. By
focusing on forests previously logged and thinned for fire-suppression,
it has been estimated that these lands could offer more than 2 billion
board feet of commercially valuable timber over the next two decades if
actively thinned.[^19]

NEPA requires agencies "to include reasonable alternatives not within
the lead agency's jurisdiction... if applicable" (40 C.F.R.
1502.14).[^20] This includes **other economic options for revenues to
the rural towns.** Millions of dollars are contributed to local
economies through tourism, recreation. The diversification of a town's
economy is way of bringing in additional revenue. Outdoor recreation is
a \$350 billion industry with approximately \$140 billion attributable
to public lands[^21]. The livelihoods of these rural communities
shouldn't be compromised, but healthy environmental initiatives
shouldn't be ignored. **The possibility of eliminating the O&C lands
wasn't explored.** If the O&C lands were sold to as private property,
property taxes would contribute to the economies of rural residents. If
the lands were transferred to the National Forest lands, then one
management plan could be applied to all the lands.

[**VI.** **Mitigation Measures**]{.underline}

The report noticeably was missing mitigation measures. **NEPA requires
that "Mitigation measures must be discussed for all impacts, even those
that by themselves would not be considered significant."**[^22] Many of
the impacts identified by the report were not mitigated. For example,
the report states: "The lack of special management attention for those
that require it \[critical habitat\] would result in the eventual
degradation or loss of those important and relevant values."[^23] There
is no mitigation for the impact of the elimination of these critical
habitat areas. The Northern Spotted Owl Activity Centers are eliminated
under Alternative 1 and 2. Some possible mitigation may be to preserve
habitat for this species somewhere else where it is better suited. The
preferred alternative will have the biggest impact on the environment,
but minimal mitigation measures were presented under the description of
that alternative.

**[VII. The Impact of Salvage Logging in Disturbed Areas]{.underline}**

Many studies have been done on the effects of salvage logging in already
disturbed areas. **Many have documented that salvage logging often
creates more damage to an area than the initial disturbance.** In a 2004
article in the respected journal [Science]{.underline}, scientists write
that "natural disturbances are key to ecosystem processes rather than
being a disaster that needs human repair."[^24] A more recent (2006)
scientific article concludes that "Natural disturbances at various
spatial and temporal scales and intensities are fundamental to the
generation and maintenance of biodiversity in ecosystems across the
world."[^25] Ten forest ecologists rote (again, in the peer-reviewed
journal Science) that Letters in [Science]{.underline}, state:
"Scientific advances in recent decades demonstrate that disturbances are
not catastrophes, trees in these landscapes are not wasted if they are
not harvested and post fire logging is not forest restorations."[^26]
The DEIS should consider the benefits of little or no management of
ecosystems after natural and man-made disturbances.

Ecosystems in fire-prone areas have evolved to recover quickly after a
natural disaster. The burnt logs on the ground decompose and become
nutrient-rich soil. The large trees that are burned are used by various
bird species as their homes. In [Conservation Biology]{.underline},
(another peer-reviewed scientific journal) two fire ecologists state
that, **"**Burned forests are hotspots of biodiversity... some 60% or
more of bird species that nest in severely burned conifer forests of the
western United States use snags as nest sites, and large snags are
disproportionately valuable."[^27]

**The cumulative impacts of salvage logging and the impacts of natural
disasters (fire, hurricanes, and volcano eruptions) should be
analyzed.** When there are two disruptions in the same area (for
example, fire followed by salvage logging), the ecosystems are less
likely to recover. In 2004, fire ecologist list three impacts of salvage
logging on ecosystems: "First, Salvage harvesting activities undermine
many of the ecosystem benefits of major disturbances. Second, the
removal of large quantities of biological legacies can have negative
impacts on many taxa. Third salvage logging can impair ecosystem
recovery."[^28] The cumulative impacts of natural and man made
disturbances need to be includes in a revised DEIS.

**[VIII. Recommendations]{.underline}**

I recommend that the BLM redo their DEIS for the WOPR. A better purpose
and need should be selected that can meet the needs of the rural
communities without compromising preservation. The plan's need and
purpose is the limiting factor of the DEIS. It has produced a report
that has highly controversial alternatives. The missing impacts
overlooked in the DEIS need to be included in the new and revised DEIS.
More information on the effects of genetically engineered trees and
salvage logging need to be examined. Mitigation measures need to be
presented for every impact identified by the DEIS. It NEPA requires that
mitigation be provided for every impact, unless mitigation is not
feasible; lack of feasibility has not been proven in this DEIS.

[^1]: Bass, Ronald E., Herson, Albert I. and Bogdan, Kenneth M. [The
    NEPA Book; step-by-step guide on how to comply with the National
    Environmental Policy Act (2^nd^ Edition).]{.underline} Point Arena,
    California: Solano Press Books, 2001. (p. 117))

[^2]: Bass (p207)

[^3]: BLM (p. A-929)

[^4]: Bureau of Land Management. [Revision of the Western Oregon
    RMPs]{.underline}. August 2007 (p. 4)

[^5]: BLM p. A- 931

[^6]: BLM (p.4)

[^7]: BLM (p.566)

[^8]: BLM (p. 6)

[^9]: BLM (p12)

[^10]: Palmer, Susan. "EPA worries new forest management plan and
    spotted owl recover strategy could harm Oregon rivers," *The
    Register-Guard* Wednesday, October 17, 2007.

[^11]: Bass (p. 163)

[^12]: Oregon's Heritage Forest

[^13]: Palmer

[^14]: BLM (p.778)

[^15]: BLM (p. 413)

[^16]: BLM (p. 423)

[^17]: BLM (p. 413)

[^18]: BLM (p.560)

[^19]: Oregon Heritage Forest

[^20]: Bass

[^21]: Faust Reading

[^22]: Bass (p.117)

[^23]: BLM (p. 807)

[^24]: Lindenmayer, D.B., Foster, D.R., Franklin, J.F., Hunter, M.L.,
    Noss, N.F., Schmiegelow, F.A., and Perry, D. *Salvage Harvesting
    Policies after Natural Disturbances*. [Science]{.underline} Vol 303,
    27 February 2004. p. 1303

[^25]: Noss, Reed F. and Lindenmayer, David B. *The Ecological Effects
    of Salvage Logging after Natural Disturbances.* [Conservation
    Biology.]{.underline} Vol 20, No. 4, August 2006. p 946-948.

[^26]: Dellasala, Dominick A., Karr, James R., Schoennagel, Tania,
    Perry, Dave, Noss, Reed F., Lindenmayer, David, Beschta, Robert,
    Hutto, Richard L., Swanson, Mark E., and Evans, Jon. *Post Fire
    Logging Debate Ignores Many Issues.* [Science.]{.underline} Vol 314
    6 October 2006. (p.51)

[^27]: Lindenmayer

[^28]: Lindenmayer