ONE TOWN SQUARE: at the intersection of peak oil, climate change, and land use

Mike Walker is retired BLM where his staff career was 100 percent involved in land use planning and/or the NEPA process. He is presently the President of NEPA Design Group; the Educational Chair of the Hugo Neighborhood Association & Historical Society; a past Director and present Advisory Board Member of the Goal One Coalition; and a Director of Rogue Advocates.

You may be interested in the BLM’s planning process to revise its resource management plans (RMPs) for the six BLM districts in western Oregon. This process will revise the management of over 2.5 million acres of forest lands.

Several folks have suggested or hinted that I get involved in the BLM planning process. I did provide extensive scoping comments as an individual to the BLM last October 20, 2005. My testimony focused on an understandable planning and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process that leads to an informed public and informed decisionmaking.

I will probably not get actively involved as a volunteer in the draft environmental impact statement (EIS) phase. My rationale is that I believe I can better utilize my time on others issues where I can make a much bigger difference. For example, it looks and is scientific, but I believe the BLM process at this point of the draft EIS is mostly a political process for the design of the important Preferred Alternative. My view is that there is already so much time and money invested by the BLM that it can not change its Preferred Alternative (Alternative 2) in any significant way. This is not a suggestion for others to cease their testimony efforts in trying to make the process better (e.g., alternatives, inventories, impact methodologies, monitoring, etc.). Active involvement can make the final decision more informed. However, the rationale for my belief that the big allocation picture will not change follows.

The BLM informed the public during scoping that part of the reason for the planning process was to satisfy a settlement agreement resolving long-standing litigation of the Northwest Forest Plan (Clinton Plan; AFRC v.Clarke, Civil No. 94-1031-TPJ (D.D.C.)) that alleged the current RMPs violate the O & C Act).

The BLM’s RMP evaluations showed the BLM’s timber harvest levels directed by existing plans were not being achieved. Except for the Klamath Falls Resource Area of the Lakeview District, BLM’s evaluations for the other districts documented that regeneration harvest was 30 to 60 percent of the levels anticipated. Even when thinning volume was added, except for the Klamath Falls Resource Area, BLM’s evaluations showed that the timber offered from the harvest land base was 40 to 70 percent of the anticipated allowable sale quantity (ASQ). The BLM states that “This failure to meet the harvest levels is largely due to unanticipated legal and practical implementation issues involved in managing designated critical habitat for the northern spotted owl that was different then the land use allocations in the Northwest Forest Plan, and court decisions regarding the survey and manage mitigation measure, and the Aquatic Conservation Strategy.” (Page 4, Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need, Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Revision of the Resource Management Plans of the Western Oregon Bureau of Land Management Districts, Volume I).

The BLM’s Purpose and Need Statement in the draft EIS identified that the goals for the Northwest Forest Plan were broader than the specific requirements of the Endangered Species Act and Clean Water Act, and sought to provide more consistent management of federally-managed lands by applying National Forest Management Act (U. S. Forest Service) requirements to BLM-administered lands. The selected alternative for the Northwest Forest Plan was selected because it would “maintain the late-successional and old-growth forest ecosystem and provide a predictable and sustainable supply of timber, recreational opportunities and other resources at the highest level possible.” The BLM’s Purpose and Need Statement for this effort to revise the BLM’s western Oregon plans identified that the need for this plan revision is focused on specific legal requirements and intended benefits of the BLM’s unique mandate under the O&C Act, distinct from the mandate to the U.S. Forest Service under the National Forest Management Act.

The bottom line for me is that the Bush Administration has decided to change the BLM’s land use policy allocations and prescriptions for BLM lands in western Oregon just as other administrations have in the past (i.e., Clinton Northwest Forest Plan). I believe that BLM can legally change its policies through the political/NEPA process it is using.

The BLM has now identified Alternative 2 as its Preferred Alternative. It believes that based on the language of the O & C Act, the O & C Act’s legislative history, and the decision by the Ninth Circuit in Headwaters v. BLM, (914 F.2d 1174 (9^th Cir. 1990), that it is clear to BLM that the management of timber (including harvesting) is the dominate use of the O & C lands in western Oregon (Page 12, Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need, Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Revision of the Resource Management Plans of the Western Oregon Bureau of Land Management Districts, Volume I).

Implementation of the Alternative 2/Preferred Alternative probably means that the land base for management of timber will increase from 25 percent of the lands to 48 percent of the lands and the ASQ will increase from 268 million board feet a year to 727 million board feet a year (Page XLVIII, Summary, Page 112, Chapter 2 – Alternatives, Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Revision of the Resource Management Plans of the Western Oregon Bureau of Land Management Districts, Volume I).

I believe the only way to maintain the Northwest Forest Plan’s harvest levels versus those for Alternative 2/Preferred Alternative of the revised BLM plans is to demonstrate that the assumptions in Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need are in error and/or demonstrate to the BLM that the politics of the vote are so huge in favor of the No Action Alternative that it would be prudent to not change its present policy. I have not completed any comprehensive research into the validity of the defined Purpose and Need. However, my gut suggests that it would be difficult to impossible to demonstrate any significant error.