BLM’s Draft Management Plans for Western Oregon: A Summary June 2015

Our Backyard Forests

Conservation values on BLM lands From The Nature Conservency and Wild Salmon Center report on conservation values of BLM lands: “ The assembled data makes clear that BLM lands in Western Oregon are important. They support a diverse assemblage of habitats and species of conservation concern, and provide ecosystem services and resources to Oregonians, which include water quality protection, harvestable salmon, and recreation. …over 83 percent of BLM’s holdings in Western Oregon have been identified as priority lands and waters for the conservation of native species and habitats.” Clean water for drinking Fish habitat and water quality Scenery Recreation Carbon storage for a livable climate Wildlife habitat Intact ecosystems Soil stabilization Flood control

BLM forests provide the best habitat for many native wildlife.

Trout and salmon depend on BLM forests to provide the clean, cold water they need for survival.

BLM lands play a vital role in providing drinking water for over 1.8 million Oregonians.

Recreation on the Wild & Scenic Rogue River brings in $13 million annually to the local economy.

Older forests store far more carbon than young plantations, for far longer.

National Forest Carbon Storage — Six of the nation’s “Top 10” are in Oregon

O&C lands shall be managed... for permanent forest production, and the timber thereon shall be sold, cut, and removed in conformity with the principal of sustained yield for the purpose of: 1937 O&C Act  providing a permanent source of timber supply,  protecting watersheds,  regulating stream flow,  contributing to the economic stability of local communities and industries, and  providing recreational facilities.

2.6 million acres of public forest land managed by BLM 1937 O&C Act applies to most of it Other federal environmental laws, and the Northwest Forest Plan also apply Uniquely tied to funding for counties Throughout the 1980s, over 200,000 log truck-loads of old-growth forests were hauled off O&C land each year. Picture taken May 2006, Highway 38, East of Elkton, Oregon

During the 1960’s-80’s, extensive clear-cutting of old-growth forests was a major focus on federal lands.

The Northwest Forest Plan  Integrated management on Forest Service and BLM lands to provide both timber and habitat for salmon and threatened wildlife. It is essentially a zoning scheme for federal land west of the cascade crest in Oregon, Washington, and northern California. Consists of 4 land allocations…  Late Successional Reserves (LSRs) to protect and restore habitat for old- growth dependent species such as owls and murrelets.  Matrix to provide for timber harvest, while upholding other federal laws.  Adaptive Management Areas (AMAs)  Riparian Reserves to protect fish and provide travel corridors for other wildlife. …And 3 mitigation measures/processes:  Watershed Analysis  Aquatic Conservation Strategy  Survey and Manage

Late Successional Reserves on BLM checkerboard help link large blocks of habitat.

The NW Forest Plan is working The rate of habitat loss has slowed. Forests are regrowing faster than they are being lost. Road impacts are being addressed. Watershed indicators are improving. Agencies succeed when they focus on thinning young stands. Plenty of timber sales are moving forward. New reasons for conservation: carbon, climate, barred owl.

Successful shift from clearcutting old- growth to thinning of second-growth plantations and doing watershed restoration. At least 20 years more of this work to do without needing to log older forests. Less litigation and conflict, more benefits to the land. Shift towards restoration

Since 1995 the BLM has: Offered 84% of ASQ Volume Offered 96% of the Congressionally-funded ‘target’ Sold 96% of the volume offered Sold 80% relative to ASQ and 92% relative to the Congressionally-funded target From the “O&C Lands Report: Prepared for Governor John Kitzhaber” Feb. 6, 2013, pg 29 Figure B-15. Annual BLM Timber Volume performance under the NW Forest Plan versus ASQ and Congressionally- funded Target. Current ASQ = 203 MMBF.

BLM Plan Revision Timeline Bush administration-timber industry sue & settle scheme led to plan revision – the Western Oregon Plan Revisions (WOPR). Failed WOPR developed Rejected by Obama administration in New planning process begun 2012 with scoping, public input sessions. Planning criteria released early Draft EIS released late April 2015, with 90 day comment period. Decision expected 2016.

Purpose & Need for New BLM Plan (WOPR Jr.) Deliver a predictable supply of timber Comply with federal environmental laws, including Endangered Species Act Respond to new information and changed circumstances to update 1995 plan, such as threatened species needs and climate change Meet the O&C Act requirements

WOPR vs WOPR Jr. WOPR would have:  Mandate clearcutting on 140,000 acres of mature and old-growth forest in the first decade  Reduced reserve acres by about half  Reduced stream buffer area by 75%.  Increased timber harvest levels to about 500 million board feet per year. This new plan could:  Leave nearly 300,000 acres of mature & old-growth forest available for logging  Roughly double reserve acres  Reduce stream buffer area by 50%  Mandate roughly 50,000 acres of clearcuts with zero trees left standing in the first decade.  Increase timber harvest levels on average about 60% of current levels  Protect more potential Wilderness and special areas

Dismantling the Northwest Forest Plan The new plan:  Removes BLM from integrated NWFP landscape plan.  Gets rid of the Aquatic Conservation Strategy  Reconfigures reserve system currently in place under NWFP.  Loses strong language for Late Successional Reserve restoration goals.  Relies on “guidelines” not “standards” for restoration and protection goals.  Gets rid of the Survey & Manage program.

Congressionally Reserved – WSR, Wilderness, same in all alternatives District-Designated Reserves – Purpose isn’t for timber production. Can be infrastructure, rocky areas that can’t sustain tree growth, ACECs and RNAs, recreation areas, or other areas protected for sensitive species. These can be changed as the BLM sees fit. Eastside Management Area: Defined as lands in the Klamath Falls Field Office area east of Hwy. 97. Objectives are to manage for multiple uses and promote development of fire-resilient forests. Late-Successional Reserve  Structurally-complex forest (SCF): No logging is allowed here.  Large block forest reserves (LBFR): Defined differently per alternative, but can thin in most.  Moist: Stands have to support NSO, and can’t degrade habitat.  Dry: Treatments like “uneven-aged timber management area” but with more rules Riparian Reserve: All shrunk by half or more. Land Use Allocations defined in draft plan

Protecting old growth?  “Structurally complex forest” (we’ll call it old growth) is defined differently in each alternative, but protected from logging.  Within reserves, but outside of defined “SCF”, older forests can be thinned  Outside of reserves, hundreds of thousands of mature and old-growth forests are available for logging. Structurally- complex forest SCF acres (no logging) Over 80 avail for logging NWFP 444,000 Alt. A ,125104,000 Alt. B “stands identified by existing, district- specific information” 463,910294,000 Alt. C ,522331,000 Alt. sub C Adds all stands over 80 1,036,2180 Alt. DHigh productivity = over 120; Moderate prod.= over 140; Low prod.= over ,920271,000

Shrinking streamside protections  New riparian reserves generally shrink buffers by half, moving the rest of current reserves into the “harvest land base.”  Reductions of streamside buffers put at risk drinking water for nearly 2 million Oregonians.  Streamside buffer reductions have impacts to water temperature and sediment that affect salmon and trout.  Reduced stream buffers ignore needs of terrestrial connectivity & species

RR limitsNo-cut inner zone Management in outer zone Acres that can be logged Total acres NWFP 2 SPTH fish, 1 SPTH non-fish not specified 927,721 Alt. A1 SPTH all 120’ fish & perennial, 50’ non-fish interm (acres?) Thinning as needed to provide stable wood to streams. No commercial in moist. Px fire & commercial in dry to reduce risk of fire. Retain 30% cover or 60 tpa. (acres?) Dry outer zone (ACRES?) 676,917 Alt. B 1 SPTH perennial & fish, 100’ debris-flow- prone non-fish interm., 50’ other non-fish interm 60’ fish & perennial, 50’ non-fish interm (acres?) Thinning as needed to develop diverse & structurally-complex stands. retain 50% cover or 80 tpa. Up to ½ acre opening limit(acres?) Moist and dry outer zone (ACRES?) 382,805 Alt. C150’ fish, 50’ non-fish 60’ fish & perennial, 50’ non-fish interm (acres?) Thinning as needed to develop diverse & structurally-complex stands. retain 50% cover or 80 tpa. Up to ½ acre opening limit (acres?) Moist and dry outer zone (ACRES?) 372,739 Alt. D1 SPTH all120’ all (acres?)Thinning as needed to provide stable wood to streams. Retain 30% cover or 60 tpa. (acres?) Moist and dry outer zone (ACRES?) 714,629 *For Eastside Management Area: Perennial & fish-bearing streams 150’, non-fish intermittent 100’

Harvest Land Base  High Intensity Timber Area (HITA): Regen 8-17% each decade, in stands of all ages, with zero retention. Thinning ok too. Salvage after disturbance.  Uneven-Aged Timber Area (UTA): Aims for density target between 20%-45%. 10% in skips, ½ of these not along edges. Up to 30% in openings up to 4 acres. Salvage after disturbance.  Medium Intensity Timber Area (MITA): Regen 8-10% each decade, in stands of all ages, retaining 5-15% basal area in variety of patterns. Allow early seral development/maintenance in regen areas. Thinning with skips and gaps. Salvage with same rules as regen.  Low Intensity Timber Area (LITA): Manage for complex early-seral, development of late seral in some areas. Regen 6-10% each decade, in stands under 100, retaining 15-30% in a variety of patterns. Thinning with skips and gaps. Salvage with same rules as regen.  Owl Habitat Timber Harvest Area (OHTA): Treat non-nesting/roosting habitat to speed development of NSO habitat. Do uneven-aged harvesting as in UTA. Salvage after disturbance. Land Use Allocations defined in draft plan

“ASQ” = Allowable Sale Quantity, in millions of board feet per year, from the “harvest land base.” Total volume includes logging in non- structurally complex LSR lands, and outer zones of riparian reserves, as defined in each alternative. ASQ from Harvest Land Base Volume from reserve thinning Total volume NWFP Alt. A Alt. B Alt. sub B Alt. C Alt. sub C Alt. D Timber Harvest Volume

Mandating more aggressive logging  Logging under the new plan would be focused more on clearcuts.  In the first 10 years of the plan we could see, on average, about 40,000 acres of clearcutting, or more than 6 square miles per year.

Climate impacts BLM does an analysis showing that climate risks outweigh benefits 2 to 1, but still doesn’t capture the complete picture. Impacts could actually be up to 30x higher. Climate-related costs per job could be $100,000-$1.6 million CO 2 Equivalents from logging under Wyden O&C bill +50% increase in Portland Boardman coal plant +566,366 cars to Oregon’s highways +6.3 million barrels of oil Dominick DellaSalla, GeosInstitute, _09.pdf

Wildlife Marbled Murrelet – Requires old forests within range of coast. Alternatives A, B, & C would result in a loss of nesting sites. Northern spotted owl (NSO) – BLM land needed for connectivity, reduce competition with barred owls. Some Alternatives protect owls in the harvest land base, others don’t. Consultation with Fish & Wildlife Service will occur before the decision, but biological assessment not available during this comment period. Survey & Manage no longer required. Protections for red tree voles removed except in North Coast population.

Recreation Recreation Management Areas – where recreation is emphasized. The BLM is asking for more engagement and wants to emphasize recreation more. Weigh in and let BLM know you value recreation on these lands.

Lands with Wilderness Characteristics  Many areas are large and unroaded, and would qualify for Wilderness protection.  Some areas are additions to existing Wilderness  Includes part of proposed Devil’s Staircase Wilderness, the proposed Wild Rogue Wilderness, and several large areas in southern Oregon.  No Action: No LWC protections  Alt. A: Adds 88,070 Wilderness character protections Includes all LWC outside Harvest Land Base  Alt. B: Adds 50,727 Wilderness character protections Lower than A because excludes areas that have non-compatible recreation Drops all but Wild Rogue and Table Rock Wilderness Additions  Alt. C: Adds 50,727 Wilderness character protections Lower than A because excludes areas that have non-compatible recreation Drops all but Wild Rogue and Table Rock Wilderness Additions  Alt. D: No LWC protections

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern Each alternative would designate a different number of ACECs. Boundaries of several ACECs are adjusted so as not to include any Harvest Land Base (HLB) if designated. In general, ACECs are managed to protect/maintain their Relevant & Important Values. To do this, timber harvest, OHV use, grazing, and mining is still allowed in many areas so long as the designated values are not harmed by such activities.  No Action: 89 (50,073 acres), and 53 potential (54,310 acres) that would be managed to protect ACEC values  Alt. A: 119 (105,990 acres)  Alt. B: 114 (99,427 acres)  Alt. C: 111 (98, 104 acres)  Alt. D: 118 (105,784 acres) A separate comment period on ACECs ends June 23. Use the interactive map to check these out.

Roads & OHVs There are currently 15,000 miles of roads on western Oregon BLM lands, with a maintenance backlog of $300 million. Alternatives would result in hundreds of miles of new roads in the first decade of the plan. Closure of some roads under the plan would still result in a net increase. OHVs would not be allowed off roads (an improvement!), but would be allowed in many sensitive areas and areas focused on recreation where there could be conflicting uses.

County funding Historically 50% of harvest revenue from O&C lands went to counties Decrease in logging under NWFP to deal with species protection and restoration of habitat = decrease in funding to counties from timber. Secure Rural Schools and Self Determination Act cut the ties between logging volume and payments to counties.  Initially passed in 2001, reauthorized in 2008 for lower payouts, and expires completely in 2013 after recent 1-year extension.  Continued payments based on logging levels of the late 1980s are not a valid reference point because those harvest levels were boosted by illegal and unsustainable clear-cutting This plan does not solve county budget problems – nor should it.

 To fund counties at SRS levels, logging would have to increase nearly ten-fold to reach current funding levels. That just can’t happen legally or without great environmental destruction.  Draft plan would provide between about double and 5x current payments.

What’s the best Alternative? No alternative in the draft plan includes all the conservation measures we’d like to see. The BLM plans to create a final plan out of a mixture of the draft alternatives. We plan to encourage them to adopt elements of different alternatives that will likely include:  Protecting all forests over 80 years old  Does not include “high intensity” or “moderate intensity” timber areas that focus on clearcutting  Full stream protections under the current Northwest Forest Plan (No Action)  The most Lands with Wilderness Characteristics (Alt A), ACECs (Alt A), and Wild & Scenic Rivers (Alt D)  More emphasis on non-motorized recreation  Maintaining the Survey & Manage program to protect rare plants and animals (No Action)

A common sense opportunity To avoid controversy and find success, proposals for BLM lands should: Separate county funding from forest management issues. Protect and restore public values like recreation, clean water and air, and abundant fish and wildlife. Maintain and build on the Northwest Forest Plan. Protect mature and old-growth forests. Refocus efforts toward ecological restoration of dense young forests, crumbling roads, degraded streams, weeds, and native fire regimes.

What can you do? Check out the BLM’s interactive map to see how your backyard forests could be affected: Write comments on the plan  ACEC comments due June 23  Overall comments due July 23  By mail to: RMPs for Western Oregon Bureau of Land Management P.O. Box 2965 Portland, Oregon 

What can you do? Attend workshops and open houses to learn more, ask questions of the BLM Write a letter to the editor  LTEs are seen by politicians who use them to gauge general public opinion. Tell your friends  We need as many people to be aware of these places at risk and this issue as possible. These are our lands! Sign up for Oregon Wild’s s and Backyard Forests Action List to stay up to date on this issue at