BLM isn’t forced to change plans

The article "Old trees, new plan" (Register-Guard, Oct. 28) compels me to clarify the true legal context in which the Bureau of Land Management is proposing forest management changes for approximately 2.6 million acres in Western Oregon.

Advocates for the current proposal have vastly overstated the extent to which a lawsuit settlement agreement legally requires the BLM to choose an alternative that significantly reduces environmental protections. The settlement actually requires:

1. That the agency revise the Resource Management Plans by Dec. 21, 2008, considering at least one alternative that limits reserves to those needed to comply with the Endangered Species Act's prohibition of jeopardizing listed species.

2. That all alternatives comply with the Oregon and California Lands Act as interpreted by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Nothing in the settlement requires BLM to "return to its timber production roots" or releases the agency from "Northwest Forest Plan oversight," as the article states. The BLM is free to choose from a variety of alternatives that continue to provide fish and wildlife protection comparable to the existing forest plan.

The agency is required to provide only one alternative that might reduce reserves. The decision to propose multiple alternatives that all reduce protections is the agency's policy choice.

Furthermore, the court already has determined that the Northwest Forest Plan complies with the O&C Act, and BLM doesn't suggest otherwise in the settlement. Many reasons are behind the BLM's proposal to slash environmental protections. None of these reasons is a legal mandate.