BLM plans need your attention
Jim Moorefield
On Monday, March 16th, as the Corvallis City Councilor representing Ward 3, I’m asking the Council to vote in support of sending the following letter to the Bureau of Land Management. The issue is the BLM’s alarming plan to revise the “Northwestern and Coastal Oregon Resource Management Plan and Southwestern Oregon Resource Management Plan” in order to restore logging to “historically higher levels of production” that will allow clear-cutting of old growth forests, gut rules that protect our rivers and fish, ignore endangered species protections, and do all this on 2.5 million acres of BLM lands in 17 Oregon counties, including Benton County.
If you think the Council should support sending this testimony to the BLM (or if you think we should not), let the Mayor and City Council know by emailing them at mayoran...@corvallisoregon.gov. We vote on this Monday, March 16th so time is short to comment. You can email me directly at jim.moo...@corvallisoregon.gov.
Also consider submitting your own testimony to the BLM. Comments must be received by March 23rd! More information about the BLM’s proposed rule and contact information can be found at: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2026/02/19/2026-03290/notice-of-intent-to-revise-resource-management-plans-for-northwestern-and-coastal-oregon-and?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email .
The letter I’m asking the Council to support says:
We oppose the proposed Resource Management Plan (RMP) revisions impacting 2.5 million acres of public lands across 17 Oregon counties. The BLM’s Notice of Intent says the purpose of the revision is “…to seek an increase in sustained yield of timber harvest that aligns with the historically higher levels of production on BLM-administered public lands…”
The problem is that the “historically higher levels of production” were never sustainable. Instead, by prioritizing timber harvests over other important values we experienced the degradation of waterways, wildlife habitat, and recreational opportunities; the loss of critical migratory fish runs; and the clear cutting of some of our last remaining old growth forests. The BLM eventually adopted a more balanced approach. Undoing this progress would be a tragic mistake.
Our specific concerns over the proposed RMP revisions include the following:
§ Alsea Falls, Marys Peak Outstanding Natural Area, and Valley of the Giants (among others) are unique, irreplaceable, beautiful and among the special places that make Oregon the place we’re proud to call home. Places like this are why tourists want to visit Oregon.
§ The rivers born from these lands provide drinking water and support fisheries still struggling to recover from decades of decimation. We know (as does the BLM) that large increases in logging and clear-cutting and a reduction in buffers between logging operations and streams will reverse this progress. The physical and economic well-being of our citizens depends on clean water. Coastal fisheries depend on healthy populations of migratory fish that begin in our rivers.
§ We understand the importance of timber production to our economy and support the wise use of these resources. However, the proposed RMP revisions only offers a choice between no change and a return to practices that maximize logging. This is a false choice. Here in Corvallis, Oregon State University continues to be a leader in lands management and the development of innovative forest products, and OSU continues to demonstrate that economic benefits from our forests can be compatible with a balanced approach to economic and environmental sustainability.
§ The proposed RMP claims that heavily logged forests will prevent wildfires. Research at OSU has identified many factors that work to increase or decrease wildfire risk. We have no expertise in this matter, but we do offer some common sense: when many factors are at work, relying on one (questionable) strategy to the exclusion of all others won’t work.
Thank you for your careful consideration of our comments.