The legal and regulatory setting affecting timber supply on Oregon's public lands Public Deposited

http://ir.library.oregonstate.edu/concern/defaults/th83m419r

Graduation date:

Descriptions

Attribute NameValues
Creator
Abstract or Summary
  • The three major public forest land managing agencies In Oregon (USDA - Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management and State of Oregon) were studied to determine how public lands are allocated to different uses. This project looked at pertinent laws and policies to develop an understanding of the impacts these have on the supply of public timber available for harvest. Three forests were closely evaluated: the Siskiyou National Forest, the Coos Bay BLM District and the Elliott State Forest. These three forests established a base for comparing and contrasting the various laws and policies between agencies. Each forest manages its lands in much the same way. All have a mandate to meet multiple-use objectives. The Forest Service must follow this direction because of the Multiple-Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960 (P.L. 86-517) and the National Forest Management Act of 1976 (P.L. 94-588). The Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (P.L. 94-579) gave the Bureau of Land Management the authority to manage with multiple-uses In mind. With a recent revision of the Oregon State Board of Forestry mission statement, they also are directed toward multiple-use management (passed 22 October, 1988). The Bureau of Land Management and the State both also have direction that may conflict with the idea of multiple-use management. On Oregon and California railroad lands the BLM Is directed to manage for timber production In perpetuity (0 & C Act of 1937, P.L. 75-405). Managing for the "best interest of the state" (maximize profit) is the primary goal for state owned forest lands (OHS 530.050 and OHS 530.490). Nineteen aspects of forest management were identified ranging from water quality to harvest dispersion to recreation. These were classified as either a legal, legal with exception or discretionary requirement for each of the public agencies. Although all manage with multiple-uses in mind, the Forest Service has more restrictions placed on land allocation decisions. For example, maintaining species viability and diversity is a legal requirement for the Forest Service but discretionary for both the BLM and the State. All three agencies have legal requirements for water and air quality, riparian/wetland, threatened and endangered species, reforestation, prevention of irreversible damage and cultural resources. The Clean Water and Air Acts, the Endangered Species Act, the National Forest Management Act, the Federal Land Policy and Management Act and Oregon Revised Statute Chapter 527 are several of the various laws which specify regulations for these categories. Species viability and diversity, old-growth and suitability of forest lands for timber production are legal requirements for the Forest Service but discretionary for the BLM and State agencies. Harvest dispersion and minimum harvest age are also discretionary for the BLM and State but they are legal with exception requirements for the Forest Service. The National Forest Management Act of 1976 specified certain requirements for both harvest dispersion and minimum harvest age but allowed for several exceptions. For example, exceptions for determining the minimum harvest age were made for thinning and other stand improvement measures and catastrophic events. There are two parts to economic considerations: maximize profits and community stability. The State must manage with profit maximization in mind, however, both the Forest Service and BLM are not required to look strictly at generating the most revenue. The BLM and State agencies have a direct mandate toward local communities while the Forest Service does not. Both the Forest Service and BLM have legal direction to consider departures from sustained yield. The State, however, has a legal requirement to consider only sustained yield management. Visual quality, fish and wildlife enhancement, dispersed and developed recreation and management intensity must all be managed. There are, however, no specific requirements concerning the implementation of these general objectives. The actual management alternatives are discretionary to all three agencies. The impact on timber available for harvest was also studied between the agencies. This impact was evaluated on acres that have not been legally withdrawn through wilderness designation, etc. The Forest Service has allocated more acres to uses other than timber on a larger percentage of national forest lands than has either the Bureau of Land Management or State agencies. Forest Service acres allocated to timber also have more restrictions in place which impact the amount of timber available for harvest. Large constraints on the amount of lumber available for harvest were felt on the Siskiyou National Forest as a result of water quality, riparlan/wetland, old-growth, harvest dispersion, minimum harvest age, visual quality, and dispersed recreation. Species viability and diversity resulted in a medium constraint on the Siskiyou's harvest level. Old-growth was the only category which significantly constrained on the Coos Bay BLM District's harvest level. A medium constraint resulted from the riparlan/wetland and visual quality categories. Both the Forest Service and BLM incorporated the allowable cut effect. The allowable cut effect means that the harvest level can be based on potential increases in volume resulting from intensified management. For example, precommercial thinning increases projected growth of forest stands. The allowable cut effect takes advantage of this increase in the calculation of long term sustained yield. This had a positive impact on the amount of timber available for harvest for both the Siskiyou and Coos Bay forests. The State did not implement the allowable cut effect. Only riparian/wetland had a large constraint as a result of incorporating the nineteen categories evaluated on the Elliott State Forest. A medium constraint on the harvest level resulted from the visual quality objective. There are both similarities and differences between the three agencies. Multiple-use is a common management theme to all three, however, the Bureau of Land Management and the State have fewer legal requirements than the Forest Service. Impacts on timber available for harvest are greatest on the national forests when compared to Bureau of Land Management and State forest lands.
Resource Type
Date Available
Date Copyright
Date Issued
Rights Statement
Digitization Specifications
  • File scanned at 300 ppi (Monochrome) using Capture Perfect 3.0.82 on a Canon DR-9080C in PDF format. CVista PdfCompressor 4.0 was used for pdf compression and textual OCR.
Replaces
Additional Information
  • description.provenance : Submitted by Patricia Black (patricia.black@oregonstate.edu) on 2012-08-07T19:45:34Z No. of bitstreams: 1 PeckmanNancy1989.pdf: 1504644 bytes, checksum: c327f11c9557e07baf41c4e2b2406ab0 (MD5)
  • description.provenance : Approved for entry into archive by Patricia Black(patricia.black@oregonstate.edu) on 2012-08-07T20:38:13Z (GMT) No. of bitstreams: 1 PeckmanNancy1989.pdf: 1504644 bytes, checksum: c327f11c9557e07baf41c4e2b2406ab0 (MD5)
  • description.provenance : Made available in DSpace on 2012-08-07T20:38:13Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 PeckmanNancy1989.pdf: 1504644 bytes, checksum: c327f11c9557e07baf41c4e2b2406ab0 (MD5) Previous issue date: 1989-04-20

Relationships

Parents:

This work has no parents.

Last modified

Downloadable Content

Download PDF

Items