Dave Eisler is a private land owner whose 80 acres lie in the valley bottom of the coast range of the Siuslaw National Forest between Eugene and Florence. His neighbor is the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), an arm of the US Department of the Interior, which owns 2.5-million forested acres mixed like a checkerboard into the area between the Willamette and Rogue Valleys and the Cascade and Coast Ranges. Eisler’s property is sandwiched between two BLM late successional reserves—a mixture of old growth trees and multi-age tree stands that have been preserved to cultivate old growth habitat.
However, the old growth stands that flank Eisler’s property are in serious jeopardy. In August, 2007, the BLM proposed a revision to their longstanding forest management plan. Their current plan takes its mandate from the 1994 Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP) which was adopted to protect local economies dependant on timber dollars and wildlife dependant on old growth habitat that were threatened by heavy logging.
The new Environmental Impact Statement for the Western Oregon Plan Revision (WOPR) proposes drastic changes to their forest management strategy. The proposal includes three alternative scenarios, but the BLM’s preferred alternative includes increasing logging by 700% over the next decade (targeting the state’s last remaining old growth stands); dramatically decreasing the riparian buffer (streamside forests that are essential to maintain water quality and aquatic species habitat including salmon); and using clear cutting methods over thinning methods for logging purposes.
To date, the BLM has been neighborly. When Eisler determined that a huge amount of sediment was pouring down on to his property from BLM lands, he suggested that they dig settling ponds on his property that would collect the debris and filter the sediment before the water made its way to Chickahominy Creek. This saved the BLM from spending close to an estimated $1 million to access the area by building a new road and it eliminated the need for excavation equipment. Eisler and BLM staff have engaged in many collaborative efforts over the years. After all, managing issues like water quality, protecting endangered species habitat and cultivating biodiversity extends beyond property lines. Land managers of all kinds—from federally-owned forests to private landowners—need each other’s assistance to achieve success on their own lands as well as collective success for the region.
The ecological and economic health of the region depends on this mindset. In scientific terms, it is called ‘cumulative effects’—the impact of actions on an environmental resource, ecosystem or human community. Federally owned lands are the only properties that are legally required to assess the cumulative effects of their actions. State lands and private land owners, which include timber companies, are not held to the same standard. For this reason, federally owned lands like those managed by the BLM are some of Oregon’s best remaining habitats. At least they have been until now.
This is why Eisler and many others around the state were outraged when the BLM released the WOPR. If the BLM changes their forest management strategy from protecting habitat to timber production, who should be responsible for providing an alternative for the loss of habitat? If the last healthy Oregon forests are scheduled for intensive harvesting, what becomes of our prized heritage?
The cumulative effects of such an action are far-reaching. For someone like Eisler, having a clear cut on one neighboring BLM parcel severely undermines his goal to create a conservation easement between the two BLM properties. He is striving to support the surrounding old growth habitat that happens to be home to two Spotted Owls on the adjacent BLM parcel. That is, he was when his assumptions were based on BLM’s commitment to preserving those lands. Now, will the measures he takes be enough?
For one million Oregonians whose drinking water is derived from BLM lands, there is great concern about water quality. Dave Powers, Regional Manager for Forests and Rangelands for the Environmental Protection Agency, explains that when the riparian buffer decreases and timber production increases, the resulting increased sediment can be difficult to filter out of the water supply and can also raise the water’s turbidity levels. Sediment blocks water supply intakes creating a costly, complex challenge to water processing facilities to remove it. Additionally, turbidity spikes significantly increase the chance of viruses, parasites and some bacteria making it into our drinking water.
For the diminishing salmon populations, increased sediment has numerous effects including decreased oxygen in the water which makes it difficult to impossible for salmon eggs to survive long enough to hatch. Air spaces are needed so the eggs have oxygen. Significant sediment can smother salmon eggs and even bury them.
For wildlife on the endangered species list, decreased habitat means, well, decreased habitat. Unfortunately, Oregon is running out of places that species like the Spotted Owl and the Marbled Murrelet can thrive. The 1994 Northwest Forest Plan was put into effect to protect the needed old growth habitat and with those protections removed, the threat to these species is greatly increased.
Aerial photographs taken by the Scappoose Bay Watershed Council for a watershed assessment project show cumulative effects in stark relief. A map of the area delineates the checkerboard property lines of private timberland and BLM property. The aerial photo taken in 1994 depicts a contiguous forest. The aerial photo taken in 2005 reveals aggressive logging on private land and BLM property left in tact. This is an example of what could happen were BLM allowed to pursue their WOPR plan. Those remaining forest patches may be as bald as their neighbor. Across the state, anyone can consult GoogleMaps to see the condition of their region. It isn’t a pretty sight.
The WOPR is unnecessary on many levels. Lands assigned under the WOPR are also known as O&C lands. A 1937 federal law directed the BLM to sustainably log the Oregon and California Railroad lands and return 50% of the revenue back into select local counties. The 1994 Northwest Forest Plan established a different precedence due to the devastated state of the forests. The timber industry then sued the federal government stating that it was unable to fulfill its financial obligation to Oregon counties as dictated by the O&C Act. They lost the case in court. Three different courts. When the timber industry trying to resurrect the case yet again in a D.C. District court, the Bush Administration decided inexplicably to settle the case out of court, even though the issue had already been defeated three times. The unnecessary settlement allowed the BLM to rewrite their Regional Management Plan. Hence, the WOPR.
There are alternatives. Forestry projects that have developed since the NWFP are achieving successful results. They have focused on practices like thinning rather than clear cutting as well as collaborative stewardship restoration. The Siuslaw National Forest, for example, has come to be known by some as the profit-making, litigation free forest. With 94% of the forest designated for habitat preservation, they have met and exceeded their timber production target for the last ten years.
Marcus Kauffman of Resource Innovations, a non-profit affiliated with the Institute for a Sustainable Environment at the University of Oregon, has helped to establish collaborative stewardship groups in the Siuslaw and other forests in the region. He explains that the brilliance of stewardship is that diverse groups come together and design restoration projects on public land that improve late successional habitat for Spotted Owls and Marbled Murrelets. The projects move forward with everyone’s blessing from the environmental community, local community, and timber industry. They produce timber which goes to the local mills like Georgia Pacific or Swanson Superior who receive a steady supply of wood. The money is then re-invested in restoration projects on both public and private land.
With viable alternatives and a rapidly diminishing landscape, the WOPR is an unnecessary approach to replacing lost timber dollars for Oregon’s communities. If the WOPR is put into effect, what will happen to the Oregon landscape? What agency will take a bird’s eye view and ensure that a healthy balance of timber production and habitat protection will provide for the short-term economic needs of our communities and the long-term viability of our forests?
