Timber vs. Conservation: Inside the Proposed 2026 Western Oregon Resource Management Plan

Introduction - Resource Management in the Pacific Northwest

The management of federal public lands in the Pacific Northwest has historically been defined by an intricate and often contentious balance between economic extraction and ecological conservation. On February 19, 2026, the United States Bureau of Land Management published a Notice of Intent in the Federal Register, initiating a formal process to revise the Resource Management Plans for Northwestern, Coastal, and Southwestern Oregon.¹ Encompassing approximately 2.5 million acres of public forests, the proposed revisions represent a sweeping paradigm shift in federal land management, designed to align timber harvest levels with historic, pre-conservation production benchmarks.¹

By proposing to open nearly two million acres—or approximately 77 percent of the decision area—to maximized timber production, the preliminary action alternatives suggest a stark departure from the conservation-oriented frameworks that have largely governed the region for the past three decades.⁴ This expansive research report provides an exhaustive analysis of the socioeconomic, legal, and ecological dimensions of the proposed 2026 Resource Management Plan revisions. Through a detailed examination of the underlying legal frameworks, county revenue dependencies, carbon sequestration dynamics, imperiled avian and aquatic ecology, and the deeply debated science of wildfire resiliency, this document synthesizes the multivalent impacts of a return to aggressive timber harvesting on federal lands.

The Legal and Historical Framework of Western Oregon Forests

To comprehend the magnitude and legality of the current policy shift, it is necessary to examine the unique statutory history of Western Oregon's public forests. The lands in question consist primarily of the Oregon and California Railroad Revested Lands, commonly referred to as the O&C Lands, alongside the Coos Bay Wagon Road grant lands.⁵ The genesis of these parcels dates back to 1866, when the United States Congress established a land grant program to subsidize and promote the rapid completion of a railroad line stretching from Portland, Oregon, to San Francisco, California.⁵ The federal government deeded approximately 12,800 acres of land per mile of laid track to the Oregon and California Railroad Company, under the explicit condition that the company sell 160-acre parcels to qualified settlers at a maximum price of 2.50 dollars per acre.⁵

However, the railroad company failed to comply with the settlement and land sale provisions of the grant. Consequently, in 1916, Congress took legislative action to revest title to more than two million acres of these lands back to the federal government.⁵ Three years later, in 1919, Congress similarly revested 93,000 acres of the Coos Bay Wagon Road grant lands due to analogous violations.⁵ These revested lands formed a distinct checkerboard pattern of federal ownership spanning eighteen counties in western Oregon, fundamentally complicating landscape-scale ecosystem management for the next century.⁵

The defining legislative mandate for these territories arrived with the passage of the Oregon and California Revested Lands Sustained Yield Management Act of 1937.⁵ The O&C Act placed these lands under the jurisdiction of the Department of the Interior and explicitly classified them as timberlands to be managed for permanent forest production.⁵ The statute required that the timber be sold, cut, and removed in conformity with the principle of sustained yield for the purpose of providing a permanent source of timber supply.⁵ Concurrently, the Act stipulated that the lands must be managed to protect watersheds, regulate stream flow, contribute to the economic stability of local communities and industries, and provide recreational facilities.⁵

For decades, the Department of the Interior interpreted the O&C Act strictly as a "dominant-use" statute that prioritized maximum timber extraction over all other ecological considerations.⁸ When Congress passed the Federal Land Policy and Management Act in 1976 to mandate multiple-use management across the broader federal estate, the legislation included specific language exempting O&C lands insofar as the new laws related to the management of timber resources and the disposition of revenues.⁸ This legal exceptionalism was continually challenged by environmental groups. In a landmark 1989 lawsuit brought by the conservation group Headwaters, plaintiffs argued that the Bureau of Land Management violated both the Federal Land Policy and Management Act and the O&C Act by failing to administer the lands for multiple uses.⁸ The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ultimately ruled in favor of the agency in 1990, concluding that Congress intended to use "forest production" and "timber production" synonymously, and that the O&C Act did indeed establish timber production as the dominant use.⁸

Despite this legal affirmation of timber dominance, the listing of the Northern Spotted Owl under the Endangered Species Act in 1990 forced a systemic reevaluation of federal logging practices across the Pacific Northwest.¹⁰ To comply with the strict biological requirements of the Endangered Species Act, federal agencies adopted the 1994 Northwest Forest Plan, an unprecedented ecosystem management framework that drastically reduced logging on federal lands to protect late-successional old-growth forests and contiguous riparian corridors.¹²

The tension between the Northwest Forest Plan's conservation mandates and the O&C Act's sustained yield requirements persisted for decades. In 2016, the Bureau of Land Management officially withdrew its Western Oregon lands from the Northwest Forest Plan, finalizing new Resource Management Plans designed to assert independent management over the O&C lands.³ The 2016 plans allocated approximately 20 percent of the land base, or roughly 500,000 acres, to a "Harvest Land Base" dedicated to sustained-yield timber production, while retaining the remaining 80 percent in various reserve categories to protect water quality and endangered species.¹

The 2026 proposed revisions fundamentally argue that the 2016 plans failed to meet the statutory requirements of the 1937 O&C Act.¹ Citing Executive Order 14223, which addresses national security threats from imported timber, and Executive Order 14225, which mandates the immediate expansion of domestic timber production, the Trump administration seeks to lawfully address what it perceives as longstanding management constraints.¹ By pivoting from the 2016 compromise, the 2026 initiative signals a return to the pre-1990 interpretation of the O&C Act as a mandate for absolute, maximized timber extraction.

Socioeconomic Drivers: The 18 O&C Counties and Revenue Dependency

The administrative push to maximize timber harvests is inextricably linked to the economic stability of the eighteen Western Oregon counties that encompass the O&C checkerboard: Benton, Clackamas, Columbia, Coos, Curry, Douglas, Jackson, Josephine, Klamath, Lane, Lincoln, Linn, Marion, Multnomah, Polk, Tillamook, Washington, and Yamhill.⁵ Because federally owned lands are exempt from local property taxation, the original 1937 O&C Act established a unique revenue-sharing model to compensate these counties and fund essential municipal services.⁵

Historically, the distribution formula allocated 50 percent of total O&C timber sale revenues to the eighteen counties, distributed according to the proportionate value of the O&C land and timber within each county as calculated in 1915.⁵ Throughout the mid-twentieth century, this arrangement provided a robust and consistent stream of capital, underwriting the construction of public infrastructure, the maintenance of rural road networks, and the operations of local sheriffs' departments and public health services.¹⁵

However, the implementation of the Northwest Forest Plan in the 1990s triggered a precipitous decline in logging volumes, subsequently devastating the revenue streams upon which these rural municipalities relied.³ In response to the economic fallout, the federal government enacted the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act in 2000.²¹ This legislation functioned as a critical stopgap, guaranteeing federal funds distributed to counties based on historically high national forest timber revenue levels, effectively decoupling county budgets from contemporary, reduced harvest volumes.²¹

The original Secure Rural Schools Act expired in 2006, initiating a period of profound fiscal instability for Western Oregon.²² Although Congress authorized subsequent extensions, these reauthorizations were often delayed and consistently phased down the payment levels.²⁰ By the 2011 and 2012 fiscal years, payments had fallen to less than half of the levels established in the original 2000 legislation.²³ This ongoing budget crisis pushed many rural jurisdictions to the brink of insolvency.¹⁷ In Curry County, the sheriff's department was forced to limit responses strictly to life-threatening emergencies, while Coos County had to close half of its jail capacity and eliminate public service positions due to revenues failing to keep pace with inflation.¹⁷ Klamath County officials warned that without federal intervention, the county would be entirely unable to maintain a law enforcement presence.¹⁷

A watershed legislative development occurred with the passage of the Fiscal Year 2026 Interior Appropriations Bill, which structurally altered the historical O&C revenue distribution mechanism.²⁰ The new legislation reversed a 1982 administrative revision, returning the O&C counties to a 75 percent share of timber receipts from federal lands within their borders, up from the previous 50 percent split.²⁰ This policy shift effectively increases the baseline revenue share for O&C counties by 50 percent annually.²⁴

When combined with the Bureau of Land Management's 2026 proposal to quadruple the allowable timber harvest to roughly one billion board feet per year, this augmented percentage structure aims to generate an unprecedented influx of capital into rural economies.³ In fiscal year 2025 alone, even under the restricted 2016 harvest guidelines, the agency's timber sales in Oregon and Washington netted over 67 million dollars from the sale of 241 million board feet.¹⁹ Proponents of the 2026 RMP revisions, including the American Forest Resource Council and the Association of O&C Counties, emphasize that aligning harvest volumes with the maximum biological capacity of the forests will revitalize local mills, generate thousands of private-sector jobs, and permanently resolve the municipal funding deficits that have plagued the region for over thirty years.¹⁵

Fiscal Factor	Historical Structure (pre-2026)	2026 Legislative & Proposed RMP Structure
Revenue Share	50 percent of timber receipts allocated to counties.5	75 percent of timber receipts allocated to counties.20
Target Annual Yield	~250 million board feet under 2016 RMPs.19	~1 billion board feet under 2026 proposed maximum yield.3
Economic Reliance	Heavy dependence on fluctuating Secure Rural Schools Act funds.17	Shift toward direct, unmitigated timber market revenues.20

The 2026 RMP Revisions: Scope and Preliminary Alternatives

The operational mechanics of this socioeconomic revitalization are detailed in the Bureau of Land Management's Notice of Intent to revise the Resource Management Plans.¹ The agency is formally analyzing two primary preliminary alternatives through an Environmental Impact Statement for the Northwestern, Coastal, and Southwestern Oregon management districts.¹

Alternative 1 functions as the mandatory No Action Alternative, which would continue land management as described in the existing 2016 Southwestern Oregon RMP and the 2016 Northwestern and Coastal Oregon RMP.¹ Under these existing plans, only about 20 percent of the total land base (roughly 500,000 acres) is allocated to a Harvest Land Base for sustained-yield timber production, with the remainder protected in various late-successional and riparian reserves.¹

Alternative 2, the Preliminary Action Alternative, proposes to manage the lands to provide a sustained yield of timber production consistent with the maximum productive capacity of the soil and climate.¹ Under this aggressive framework, the Bureau of Land Management identifies only three specific categories of land that would be exempt from sustained-yield timber harvest:

1. Congressionally Designated Lands: Approximately 4 percent of the decision area is reserved because it holds specific protective designations enacted by Congress, such as formal Wilderness Areas or National Monuments, which explicitly forbid commercial timber extraction.¹

2. Incapable and Non-Forest Lands: Approximately 13 percent of the decision area is reserved because the soil chemistry, elevation, or topography is biologically incapable of supporting sustained-yield timber production over commercial rotations.¹

3. Streamside Buffers: Approximately 6 percent of the decision area is reserved to maintain compliance with the federal Clean Water Act.¹ These proposed riparian buffers represent a severe contraction from historical norms, ranging from a mere 25 to 100 feet depending on stream classification.¹

By subtracting these exemptions, Alternative 2 effectively opens nearly 2 million acres—or 77 percent of the entire Bureau of Land Management Western Oregon estate—to maximum commercial timber harvesting, including clearcutting and regeneration forestry.¹ This requires the potential elimination of Late Successional Reserves and the dissolution of long-standing old-growth habitat protections.⁴

Ecological Ramifications: Forest Carbon Dynamics and Climate Mitigation

While the socioeconomic benefits of maximizing harvest yields are easily quantified in board feet and county receipts, the ecological costs—particularly concerning carbon sequestration—are complex and profound. The temperate rainforests of the Pacific Northwest contain some of the most productive and carbon-dense ecosystems on the planet.³¹ As atmospheric greenhouse gases rise, understanding the carbon storage potential of these forests, and their response to rotational management, is fundamental to global climate mitigation scenarios.³¹

Extensive biometric modeling and empirical field research indicate a stark divergence in carbon storage capacity between undisturbed old-growth forests and managed, even-aged timber plantations. A critical variable in this dynamic is the disproportionate role of large-diameter trees. Research analyzing forest inventory data across millions of acres in Oregon and Washington demonstrates that trees greater than 21 inches in diameter at breast height account for only 2.0 to 3.7 percent of all stems in a given forest, yet they store between 33 and 46 percent of the total aboveground carbon.³³ The mass of a tree, and therefore its stored carbon, increases sharply and exponentially with its diameter.³³

The carbon pools in Pacific Northwest ecosystems are distributed across living overstory boles, coarse roots, fine roots, fine woody debris, coarse woody debris, the forest floor, and mineral soils.³⁴ Total ecosystem carbon in mature and old-growth stands is massively superior to secondary growth. Studies evaluating paired old-growth and second-growth stands of Douglas-fir and Western Larch have proven that old-growth forests can store over three times the total carbon of their younger counterparts.³⁵

Specifically, the physical architecture of ancient forests allows for immense below-ground and detrital carbon sinks that are functionally absent in younger plantations. Coarse roots in old-growth stands harbor an average of over 40 Megagrams of carbon per hectare (Mg C/ha), compared to approximately 6 Mg C/ha in second-growth stands.³⁵ Similarly, the accumulated forest floor organic matter in old stands stores 23.8 Mg C/ha, dwarfing the 4.9 Mg C/ha found in second-growth areas.³⁵ Perhaps the most dramatic difference lies in the accumulation of coarse woody debris—the massive, decaying logs that litter an old-growth forest floor. Coarse woody debris in old-growth ecosystems accounts for nearly 19 times more carbon than the minimal debris left behind in meticulously managed secondary timberlands.³⁵

Carbon Pool Component	Old-Growth Stand (Mg C/ha)	Second-Growth Stand (Mg C/ha)	Relative Difference
Forest Floor	23.8	4.9	~4.8x greater in Old-Growth 35
Overstory Trees	144.2	23.8	~6.0x greater in Old-Growth 35
Coarse Roots	~40.0	~6.0	~6.6x greater in Old-Growth 35
Coarse Woody Debris	Highly Elevated	Minimal	~19.0x greater in Old-Growth 35
Mineral Soil	Stable / Elevated	Stable	Not statistically significant 35

The proposed 2026 RMP initiative to institute "maximum" logging capacity inherently relies on the conversion of these mature, carbon-dense stands into short-rotation plantations.⁴ Standard industrial timber rotations in the region typically span 35 to 50 years. At this rotational age, the forest is harvested before it can regain a fraction of the carbon density of the original stand.³² Advanced growth-and-yield models that incorporate site productivity and stockability variables reveal that simply doubling the rotation length from 35 to 70 years results in 2.35 times more live tree carbon stored on the landscape.³²

Furthermore, comprehensive modeling of landscape-scale scenarios against business-as-usual frameworks highlights the immense climatic value of the current public lands. Private industrial forests, which cover approximately 39 percent of the Oregon Coast Range study areas, are heavily harvested and perpetually maintained as young plantations, resulting in functionally low carbon stocks.¹⁴ Conversely, federal lands managed with restricted harvests have continually accumulated carbon.¹⁴ Long-term climate modeling suggests that maintaining current practices, which preserve old forest on federal lands, will retain up to 105 Teragrams more carbon across a 2.1-million-hectare landscape by the end of the century compared to accelerated harvest alternatives.¹⁴

Climate change itself introduces dynamic variables into this equation. Rising temperatures are expected to increase forest productivity by 30 to 41 percent over the next century, as warmer winter temperatures allow for extended physiological growth during the cooler months.¹⁴ These climatic shifts could theoretically increase total ecosystem carbon storage by 11 to 15 percent.¹⁴ However, harvesting mature timber results in an immediate and drastic net loss of carbon to the atmosphere. Although a fraction of the harvested wood is sequestered in long-term wood products, this temporary storage fundamentally fails to offset the massive amounts of carbon immediately oxidized and lost from the rapid decay of slash, subterranean roots, and disturbed soils during clearcutting operations.³⁴

Biodiversity and Imperiled Avian Ecology

The structural conversion of complex, multi-canopy old-growth forests into uniform, even-aged timber plantations fundamentally alters the habitat suitability for numerous highly specialized species native to the Pacific Northwest.³⁶ The proposed elimination of Late Successional Reserves and the reopening of formerly protected parcels present acute, existential threats to regional biodiversity.⁴

The Plight of the Northern Spotted Owl

The Northern Spotted Owl represents the most prominent indicator species for the health of Pacific Northwest old-growth ecosystems. The owl relies exclusively on the complex structural attributes of ancient forests for nesting, roosting, and foraging. These attributes include an unbroken, multi-layered canopy that provides thermal regulation, a high density of large trees with natural cavities or broken tops for nesting, and an abundance of coarse woody debris on the forest floor that supports their primary prey base of small mammals.¹¹

The fragmentation of this habitat caused by aggressive logging exposes the owl to increased predation and drastically reduces the biological viability of its hunting grounds.³⁶ In 1990, recognizing the severe population declines driven by commercial logging, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service listed the Northern Spotted Owl as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act.¹⁰ At the time of listing, the timber industry predicted catastrophic economic consequences, estimating a loss of up to 130,000 jobs. However, retrospective economic analyses indicate that actual job losses in the timber sector were a small fraction of these predictions, representing an approximate 14 percent decline compared to broader regional employment trends, equating to a loss of about 16,000 regional jobs.⁴¹

Despite decades of habitat protection on federal lands, the species continued to decline, prompting the Fish and Wildlife Service to conclude in 2020 that the owl met the criteria to be reclassified as an endangered species.⁴² This continued decline is driven by a dual threat: legacy habitat loss and the aggressive encroachment of the non-native Barred Owl.¹⁰ Barred owls, native to eastern North America, have expanded into the Pacific Northwest and now vastly outnumber spotted owls in many areas.⁴⁴ Larger, highly adaptable, and significantly more aggressive, barred owls actively displace spotted owls, disrupt their nesting cycles, and violently outcompete them for scarce prey resources.⁴³

To mitigate this inter-species competition, the Bureau of Land Management has formally adopted a barred owl management strategy, which includes the lethal removal of the invasive species to protect native spotted owls.⁴³ The 2026 RMP revisions explicitly incorporate this management strategy as a mechanism to address threats to the species.¹ However, wildlife biologists and conservation advocates argue that lethal culling cannot serve as a biological substitute for habitat preservation.⁴² If the 2026 RMP proposal successfully eliminates old-growth reserves and facilitates clearcutting across nearly two million acres, the carrying capacity for the spotted owl will permanently collapse, rendering the barred owl mitigation efforts functionally irrelevant.⁴⁰ Legal challenges have already mounted against recent BLM logging operations, such as the 42 Divide Forest Management Plan and the Last Chance Forest Management Project, with plaintiffs arguing that the agency consistently utilizes biological survey methods that systematically undercount spotted owl pairs to justify aggressive timber harvests in critical habitat.⁴⁰

Marbled Murrelet Nesting Requirements

Equally imperiled by the resumption of maximum-yield forestry is the Marbled Murrelet, a small, threatened seabird that exhibits one of the most unique reproductive strategies in the avian world. While the murrelet spends the vast majority of its life foraging in the nearshore marine environment, it flies up to 58 kilometers inland to nest in the high canopies of mature coastal coniferous forests.⁴⁸

Crucially, Marbled Murrelets do not construct traditional nests from twigs or mud. Instead, they rely entirely on naturally occurring, broad platforms found almost exclusively on the branches of massive, ancient trees—typically Sitka spruce, Western hemlock, and Douglas-fir that exceed 200 years of age.⁴⁸ Comprehensive field studies evaluating murrelet nest sites indicate a strict biological requirement for platforms with diameters greater than 10 to 15 centimeters.⁴⁸ These platforms must be covered in deep, naturally occurring moss or duff to provide a soft depression for a single egg, and they must be situated within dense canopy cover to physically hide incubating adults and chicks from opportunistic avian predators, primarily corvids like ravens and jays.⁴⁸

The proposed 2026 RMP directly threatens murrelet populations through two primary mechanisms: the direct felling of platform-bearing ancient trees, and the exacerbation of edge effects. Murrelets are notoriously sensitive to the creation of "hard edges" within a forest canopy, which occur when a clearcut is placed adjacent to a nesting stand.³⁶ Increased edge habitat severely elevates the exposure of interior nesting sites to high wind events that can blow chicks from platforms, and it drastically increases the predation rates of eggs and nestlings by allowing corvids easier visual access into the canopy.³⁶ Past habitat conservation plans, such as those implemented on the Elliott State Forest, demonstrated that attempting to harvest timber while leaving minimal habitat patches resulted in catastrophic population collapses, with murrelet and owl populations plummeting despite theoretical mitigations.⁵¹ The Pacific Seabird Group has forcefully argued that maintaining all existing Late Successional Reserves and minimizing fragmentation near occupied habitat is the only scientifically viable strategy for ensuring the continued existence of the species in Oregon.³⁶

Aquatic Ecosystems, Salmonids, and Water Quality Degradation

The ecological impact of maximum-yield timber harvesting extends far beyond the terrestrial canopy, deeply affecting the hydrological integrity of coastal and inland aquatic ecosystems. The 2026 Notice of Intent proposes a severe reduction of streamside logging buffers, shrinking protected riparian zones to between 25 and 100 feet, depending on the specific classification of the stream.¹ This represents a radical contraction from previous scientific frameworks, which often required variable-width buffers extending up to one or two full site-potential tree heights—approximately 200 to 400 feet—to adequately shield aquatic habitats from the impacts of industrial logging.⁵²

Reduced riparian buffers pose an immediate and existential threat to the habitat of anadromous fish, including federally protected populations of Coho salmon, Chinook salmon, steelhead, and Pacific lamprey.²⁹ The degradation of aquatic ecosystems following clearcutting operations is driven by several interconnected physical mechanisms:

Thermal Pollution and Dissolved Oxygen

Intact riparian canopies provide essential, dense shade that regulates the thermodynamic profile of mountain streams. Studies measuring the net heat load on headwater streams demonstrate that the removal of streamside vegetation significantly increases both average temperatures and extreme diurnal temperature fluctuations.⁵⁴ When solar radiation directly strikes an unshaded water surface, summer temperatures can quickly elevate beyond the biological tolerance thresholds of juvenile salmonids.

A foundational 1966 study in the Alsea watershed of the Oregon Coast Range perfectly illustrated these vulnerabilities. Researchers compared an unlogged control watershed to an entirely clearcut watershed.⁵⁴ Following the clearcut logging operations, the maximum temperature of the stream spiked to a lethal 30 degrees Celsius (86 degrees Fahrenheit), with extreme diurnal fluctuations of 16 degrees Celsius.⁵⁴ By contrast, the pre-logging maximums were a stable 16 degrees Celsius with fluctuations of only 1.5 degrees.⁵⁴ Concurrently, the dissolved oxygen levels of both the surface and intragravel water in the clearcut watershed plummeted to below 2 milligrams per liter, inducing severe respiratory distress and mortality in resident coho salmon and cutthroat trout populations.⁵⁴

Sedimentation and Substrate Embeddedness

Logging operations, and particularly the extensive road construction required to haul heavy timber out of mountainous terrain, severely disturb highly erodible soils.⁵⁶ During winter precipitation events, these disturbed soils wash into river networks, introducing massive quantities of fine sediment into the aquatic ecosystem.⁵⁶

This sediment settles into the interstitial spaces of the coarse gravel stream beds, a metric biologically quantified as "embeddedness".⁵⁸ Female salmonid species construct their redds (nests) by excavating depressions in the gravel at pool tail crests.⁵⁸ High levels of embeddedness effectively cement the gravel with fine sand and silt. Consequently, female fish are forced to expend biologically lethal amounts of energy attempting to excavate redds in highly embedded substrate.⁵⁸ Furthermore, even if spawning is successful, the fine sediment restricts the subsurface flow of highly oxygenated water over the incubating eggs, resulting in high embryonic mortality rates before the fry can emerge from the gravel.⁵⁸

The Loss of Large Woody Debris

Mature riparian zones serve as the primary recruitment source for large, persistent woody debris—massive fallen logs that naturally enter the stream channel.⁵⁹ This debris is the primary physical architect of a healthy salmonid stream. Large logs alter the hydrology to create deep plunge pools, slow-water refuges, and complex braided channels that are essential for juvenile salmon to survive high-velocity winter floods.⁵⁹ Shrinking protective buffers to a mere 25 feet fundamentally starves the stream of future large woody debris recruitment, permanently simplifying the stream architecture into a uniform, fast-flowing channel completely devoid of the resting habitats required for salmonid maturation.⁶⁰ Historical assessments of the Alsea watershed note that the eradication of big timber drastically simplified the channels, directly correlating with the collapse of the native salmon runs.⁶⁰ Similarly, ongoing monitoring in the Sandy River basin has highlighted the critical need for mature riparian forests to maintain the complex, deep pools required by wild spring Chinook salmon.⁵⁹

Landscape Connectivity and the Threat to Special Management Areas

The Bureau of Land Management lands in Western Oregon are not monolithic, contiguous blocks; rather, they exist in a highly fragmented, checkerboard pattern resulting from the original nineteenth-century railroad land grants.⁵ Despite this deep historical fragmentation, the remaining federal parcels harbor exceptionally rare micro-ecosystems and tracts of low-elevation old-growth that have otherwise been completely eradicated from adjacent, privately owned industrial timberlands.²⁹

The 2026 proposal introduces a controversial administrative mechanism to reevaluate and potentially eliminate all currently designated Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs) and outstanding natural areas, legally opening them to commercial harvest.⁴ Several distinct, ecologically irreplaceable reserves face immediate, landscape-level alterations under this proposal:

Valley of the Giants

Located in a remote section of the Coast Range near the ruins of the abandoned logging town of Valsetz, the Valley of the Giants is an unparalleled ecological preserve.⁶³ Originally designated as a 51-acre Outstanding Natural Area in 1976, the Bureau of Land Management expanded the protective boundaries to over 1,600 acres in 2016 to acknowledge the ecological importance of the entire valley.⁶³ The preserve contains massive Douglas-fir and Western Hemlock specimens, many reaching 20 feet in circumference and towering nearly 300 feet tall, with estimated ages between 400 and 500 years.⁶⁴ The valley serves as a critical, irreplaceable baseline for biological researchers studying the internal element cycles, fungal biodiversity, and soil decay dynamics of fundamentally undisturbed ecosystems.⁶³

Crabtree Valley

Carved by prehistoric glaciers, Crabtree Valley features steep walls that have historically protected pockets of ancient trees from devastating wildfires for nearly a millennium.⁶⁶ The valley is distinguished by an uncharacteristically high concentration of massive, old-growth Western Redcedar (Thuja plicata).⁶⁷ Historically revered by indigenous populations for its rot-resistant wood, which was essential for crafting massive dugout canoes and totem poles, the remaining redcedars in this 1,251-acre Area of Critical Environmental Concern represent a vital genetic and cultural reservoir.⁶⁶ The area is currently an isolated oasis of old-growth surrounded by a maze of logging roads and private clearcuts; subjecting it to sustained yield harvest would destroy the fragile, moisture-dependent microclimate required by the redcedars.⁶⁶

Marys Peak

Standing at 4,097 feet, Marys Peak is the highest point in the Oregon Coast Range and a prominent geographical landmark.⁷¹ The high-elevation environment supports a unique 924-acre Scenic Botanical Special Interest Area.⁷¹ Unlike the lower-elevation Douglas-fir dominated stands, the peak sustains rare grass meadows, xeric rock gardens, and pure, high-alpine stands of Noble Fir (Abies procera).⁷² The ecological gradient from mid-seral coniferous forests to high-alpine botany makes the entire mountain uniquely susceptible to wind-shear and edge effects if adjacent, lower-elevation parcels are maximized for timber extraction.⁷²

Alsea Falls and the Sandy River Gorge

These regions represent critical confluence points for public recreation, hydrology, and wildlife habitat.³⁰ The Sandy River gorge is celebrated for its low-elevation old-growth forests, fern-laden cliffs, and critical migratory routes for salmonids.⁶² Similarly, the Alsea watershed is the focal point of intense conservation battles, such as the proposed Aloha Trout Forest Management Project, which aims to log up to 1,305 acres of public forest surrounding Honey Grove and Seeley Creeks.⁵³ Local conservationists argue that maintaining these areas is essential not only for salmon recovery but for the burgeoning recreation economy that relies on intact, scenic trails.⁵³

Subjecting these specific management areas to aggressive, sustained yield logging protocols would irretrievably alter their localized biomes. The understory complexities—characterized by shade-tolerant species like sword fern and vine maple, deep moss layers, and decaying organic matter—cannot survive the extreme microclimatic changes, including increased solar radiation and decreased humidity, triggered by the removal of the overstory canopy.³⁴

Wildfire Resiliency and the Active Management Debate

Perhaps the most heavily contested justification advanced by the Bureau of Land Management for quadrupling the allowable timber harvest is the mitigation of catastrophic wildfires.¹⁶ The agency asserts that aggressive active management, including the salvage of dead timber and the vast reduction of fuel loads via clearcutting, is a necessary response to battle unprecedented and destructive fire seasons exacerbated by climate change.¹ Proponents of the 2026 RMP, including timber industry associations, contend that decades of restricted logging have resulted in dense, overstocked forests that act as ticking time bombs.¹⁵ By aligning timber production with historically higher levels, they argue that the state can reduce the sheer volume of combustible biomass available on the landscape.¹⁵

However, this rationale is fiercely debated within the ecological and academic sciences. The relationship between timber harvest and fire severity in the moist, temperate rainforests of the Pacific Northwest differs fundamentally from the fire dynamics observed in the dry, frequent-fire pine forests of the interior American West.³⁹

Empirical ecological research suggests that old-growth forests in Western Oregon are inherently resilient to wildfire. The physical and structural characteristics of an ancient forest serve as natural firebreaks.⁴ Massive trees develop exceptionally thick, fire-resistant bark over centuries.³⁹ The high, complex canopies prevent ground fires from easily "laddering" up into the crowns, while the dense, multi-layered foliage traps atmospheric moisture, maintaining a perpetually cool, humid microclimate on the forest floor even during the height of the summer drought.³⁹

Conversely, the conversion of complex old-growth into even-aged timber plantations can actively exacerbate fire risks. When a mature stand is clearcut and subsequently replanted, the resulting landscape consists of millions of densely packed, uniform young trees with low-hanging branches that reach all the way to the ground.⁴⁷ These plantations are highly susceptible to rapid, explosive fire spread because they are structurally continuous, completely lack the protective, moisture-retaining microclimate of a mature canopy, and expose the forest floor to intense solar radiation and drying winds.⁴⁷

Environmental analyses have consistently demonstrated that clearcutting and the subsequent establishment of early-seral plantations can actually increase fire hazards on a given landscape for up to 50 years.⁴ While active management techniques, such as meticulous thinning from below (the careful removal of small ladder fuels while leaving the mature, fire-resistant overstory completely intact), can be highly effective in dry, fire-prone ecosystems, the application of regeneration harvesting (clearcutting) in the wet, complex ecosystems of Western Oregon is scientifically unlikely to yield the stated fire-mitigation benefits.⁷⁶ In fact, the aggressive removal of mature, fire-resistant legacy trees under the broad guise of fuel reduction may perversely increase the landscape's overall vulnerability to high-severity conflagrations.²⁶

Synthesis and Conclusion

The Bureau of Land Management's 2026 proposed revisions to the Western Oregon Resource Management Plans represent a profound and consequential pivot in federal environmental policy. By prioritizing a strict, historical interpretation of the 1937 O&C Act's mandate for timber production over the complex ecosystem management frameworks that have defined the past thirty years, the proposal seeks to engineer a massive transfer of biological wealth into the regional economy.

The socioeconomic rationale driving this initiative is undeniably powerful. Restoring harvest levels to a target of one billion board feet, paired with the recently enacted 75 percent revenue-sharing model, has the potential to inject immense, much-needed capital into rural Western Oregon counties. For municipalities that have struggled to fund fundamental civic services—such as basic law enforcement, road maintenance, and public health—following the expiration of the Secure Rural Schools Act, the capitalization of the federal timber base represents a permanent structural solution to decades of fiscal insolvency.

However, this economic revitalization necessitates severe, and in many cases irreversible, ecological tradeoffs. The transition from protected late-successional reserves to active, maximum-yield timber matrices will result in significant net losses in terrestrial carbon storage, directly undermining regional and global climate change mitigation efforts. The drastic reduction of protective riparian buffers will fundamentally alter the thermodynamic and physical properties of mountain watersheds, introducing lethal thermal pollution and sediment embeddedness that will accelerate the decline of critically endangered salmonid populations.

Furthermore, highly specialized avian species that rely exclusively on the complex architecture of ancient canopies, such as the Marbled Murrelet and the Northern Spotted Owl, face existential threats from habitat fragmentation—threats that cannot be biologically resolved solely through the lethal culling of invasive competitors like the barred owl. Finally, replacing naturally moist, fire-resistant old-growth ecosystems with dense, structurally uniform timber plantations runs the acute risk of inadvertently elevating the severity and spread of regional wildfires, directly countering the agency's stated management goals.

Ultimately, the 2026 Resource Management Plan proposal forces a stark administrative reckoning regarding the fundamental purpose of federal public lands in the twenty-first century. It violently highlights the irreconcilable friction between an antiquated, single-use statutory mandate drafted during the Great Depression, and contemporary scientific understandings of ecosystem services, carbon dynamics, and biodiversity conservation. As the environmental review and implementation processes advance, the long-term prognosis for Western Oregon’s socio-ecological landscape will depend entirely on how policymakers choose to weigh the immediate imperative of municipal economic stabilization against the permanent liquidation of the Pacific Northwest's remaining ancient forest ecosystems.

Works cited

1. Notice of Intent To Revise Resource Management Plans for Northwestern and Coastal Oregon and Southwestern Oregon in Oregon/Washington and Prepare an Associated Environmental Impact Statement - Federal Register, accessed February 22, 2026, https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2026/02/19/2026-03290/notice-of-intent-to-revise-resource-management-plans-for-northwestern-and-coastal-oregon-and

2. Project Home - BLM National NEPA Register, accessed February 22, 2026, https://eplanning.blm.gov/Project-Home/?id=a591dee8-500c-f111-8406-001dd8029ed0

3. BLM proposes quadrupling allowed logging on millions of acres in western Oregon - OPB, accessed February 22, 2026, https://www.opb.org/article/2026/02/20/blm-proposes-logging-millions-acres-western-oregon-oc-lands/

4. Initial Analysis of Trump Administration's Proposal to ... - Oregon Wild, accessed February 22, 2026, https://oregonwild.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/Oregon-Wild-Initial-Analysis-of-Notice-of-Intent-2-18-26.pdf?emci=8c6ce1cc-190d-f111-a69a-000d3a57593f&emdi=338fcf54-270d-f111-a69a-000d3a57593f&ceid=14816520

5. O&C Lands - Bureau of Land Management, accessed February 22, 2026, https://www.blm.gov/programs/natural-resources/forests-and-woodlands/oc-lands

6. O&C Sustained Yield Act: - the Land, the Law, the Legacy - BLM.gov, accessed February 22, 2026, https://www.blm.gov/sites/blm.gov/files/OC_History.pdf

7. History of the O & C Lands: 1937 to 1990 - Association of O&C Counties, accessed February 22, 2026, http://www.oandc.org/o-c-lands/history-of-o-c-lands/history-of-the-oc-lands-1937-to-1990/

8. Legal History of O&C Land - Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands Center, accessed February 22, 2026, https://www.kswild.org/conservation-efforts/2017/3/24/legal-history-of-oc-land

9. ARTICLES - Scholars' Bank, accessed February 22, 2026, https://scholarsbank.uoregon.edu/server/api/core/bitstreams/837674ab-8114-416e-b1fd-32b17f789ec5/content

10. Wildfire and Northern Spotted Owls in the Pacific Northwest | WMI Outdoor News Bulletin, accessed February 22, 2026, https://wildlifemanagement.institute/outdoor-news-bulletin/august-2024/wildfire-and-northern-spotted-owls-pacific-northwest

11. Ethics and the Environment: The Spotted Owl - Santa Clara University, accessed February 22, 2026, https://www.scu.edu/environmental-ethics/resources/ethics-and-the-environment-the-spotted-owl/

12. Stakeholder Groups Challenge Oregon Forest Management Plan - Earthjustice, accessed February 22, 2026, https://earthjustice.org/press/2016/stakeholder-groups-challenge-oregon-forest-management-plan

13. Act Now: Protect and restore old-growth forests and watersheds in the Pacific Northwest, accessed February 22, 2026, https://conservationnw.org/news-updates/act-now-protect-and-restore-old-growth-forests-and-watersheds-in-the-pacific-northwest/

14. Forest management scenarios in a changing climate: tradeoffs between carbon, timber, and old forest - PMC, accessed February 22, 2026, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11851340/

15. AFRC Applauds Interior's Decision to Revisit Western Oregon BLM O&C Management Plans | American Forest Resource Council, accessed February 22, 2026, https://amforest.org/afrc-applauds-interiors-decision-to-revisit-western-oregon-blm-oc-management-plans/

16. Feds propose opening millions of acres of western Oregon forests to 1960s logging levels, accessed February 22, 2026, https://dailyastorian.com/2026/02/20/feds-propose-opening-millions-of-acres-of-western-oregon-forests-to-1960s-logging-levels/

17. 'We are sinking': Oregon timber counties flail, awaiting Congress to renew key funding, accessed February 22, 2026, https://www.opb.org/article/2025/08/18/oregon-timber-counties-fail-congress-funding/

18. Map Footnotes – Association of O&C Counties, accessed February 22, 2026, http://www.oandc.org/resources-solutions-2/map-footnotes/

19. BLM FY 2025 timber sales in Oregon and Washington net over $67 million, accessed February 22, 2026, https://www.blm.gov/press-release/blm-fy-2025-timber-sales-oregon-and-washington-net-over-67-million

20. Oregon counties get pay bump from federal logging - OPB, accessed February 22, 2026, https://www.opb.org/article/2026/01/30/oregon-logging-revenue-forests/

21. Secure Rural Schools Act - Oregon Legislature, accessed February 22, 2026, https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/lpro/Publications/SecureRuralSchoolsAct.pdf

22. Secure Rural Schools | U.S. Department of the Interior - DOI.gov, accessed February 22, 2026, https://www.doi.gov/ocl/hearings/110/S380030107

23. Impacts to Oregon Counties from Loss of Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act (P, accessed February 22, 2026, https://ruralstudies.oregonstate.edu/sites/agsci.oregonstate.edu/files/srs_termination_oregon_economic_impacts_final.pdf

24. Act of Congress Restores Historical Funding Back to O&C Counties, accessed February 22, 2026, https://www.douglascountyor.gov/m/newsflash/Home/Detail/335

25. Jackson County Board of Commissioners Announces Passage of FY 2026 Interior Bill Restoring Funding to Oregon and California Counties, accessed February 22, 2026, https://jacksoncountyor.gov/news_detail_T10_R887.php

26. BLM proposes quadrupling allowed logging on O&C Lands in Western Oregon, accessed February 22, 2026, https://www.ijpr.org/environment-energy-and-transportation/2026-02-19/blm-proposes-quadrupling-allowed-logging-on-o-c-lands-in-western-oregon

27. AOCC Encouraged by Interior's Action to Revise BLM's O&C Resource Management Plan, accessed February 22, 2026, https://www.douglascountyor.gov/CivicAlerts.aspx?AID=344

28. Congress Restores Timber Revenue Share to O&C Counties, Delivering Fiscal Relief to Rural Oregon - Grants Pass Tribune, accessed February 22, 2026, https://www.grantspasstribune.com/congress-restores-timber-revenue-share-to-oc-counties-delivering-fiscal-relief-to-rural-oregon/

29. Trump Admin Announces Old-Growth Clearcutting Plan for Western Oregon, accessed February 22, 2026, https://oregonwild.org/trump-admin-announces-old-growth-clearcutting-plan-for-western-oregon/

30. Marys Peak, Alsea Falls Targeted by Trump Administration Clearcutting Plan, accessed February 22, 2026, https://corvallisadvocate.com/marys-peak-alsea-falls-targeted-by-trump-administration-clearcutting-plan/

31. Forests of the future: Climate change impacts and implications for carbon storage in the Pacific Northwest, USA | Request PDF - ResearchGate, accessed February 22, 2026, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/348277956_Forests_of_the_future_Climate_change_impacts_and_implications_for_carbon_storage_in_the_Pacific_Northwest_USA

32. Forest carbon sequestration on the west coast, USA: Role of species, productivity, and stockability - PMC, accessed February 22, 2026, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11142670/

33. Large Trees Dominate Carbon Storage in Forests East of the Cascade Crest in the United States Pacific Northwest - Frontiers, accessed February 22, 2026, https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/forests-and-global-change/articles/10.3389/ffgc.2020.594274/full

34. Effects on Carbon Storage of Conversion of Old Growth Forests to Young Forests, accessed February 22, 2026, https://andrewsforest.oregonstate.edu/pubs/pdf/pub1046.pdf

35. Carbon storage in old-growth and second growth fire-dependent western larch (Larix occidentalis Nutt.) forests of the In, accessed February 22, 2026, https://naes.agnt.unr.edu/PMS/Pubs/862_2017_05.pdf

36. 21 August 2015 RMPs for Western Oregon Bureau of Land Management P.O. Box 2965 Portland, Oregon 97208 blm_or_rmpwo_comments@blm. - Pacific Seabird Group, accessed February 22, 2026, https://pacificseabirdgroup.org/policy/PSGCommentsBLMResourceMgtPlan2015.pdf

37. Mature and Old-Growth Forests - Bureau of Land Management, accessed February 22, 2026, https://www.blm.gov/old-growth-forests

38. Defending Science-Based Forest Management in Oregon, accessed February 22, 2026, https://westernlaw.org/defending-wildlands/protecting-public-lands/defending-science-based-forest-management-in-oregon/

39. Old-Growth Forest Management in the Pacific Northwest | U.S. Department of the Interior, accessed February 22, 2026, https://www.doi.gov/ocl/hearings/110/OldGrowthForestMgmt_031308

40. groups say Oregon logging project endangers northern spotted owl - Missoula Current, accessed February 22, 2026, https://missoulacurrent.com/northern-spotted-owl-2/

41. Protecting spotted owls cost far fewer jobs than timber industry claimed, accessed February 22, 2026, https://news.uchicago.edu/story/northern-spotted-owls-conservation-timber-jobs-endangered-species-act

42. Legal Intervention Defends Northern Spotted Owl Habitat - Oregon Wild, accessed February 22, 2026, https://oregonwild.org/2025-northern-spotted-owl-habitat-intervention/

43. BLM takes steps to advance northern spotted owl recovery - Bureau of Land Management, accessed February 22, 2026, https://www.blm.gov/press-release/blm-takes-steps-advance-northern-spotted-owl-recovery

44. Barred Owl Management | U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, accessed February 22, 2026, https://www.fws.gov/project/barred-owl-management

45. Position on S.J. Res. 69, Barred Owl Management Strategy, accessed February 22, 2026, https://www.npca.org/articles/11204-position-on-s-j-res-69-barred-owl-management-strategy

46. Barred Owl Management Strategy and Implementation of the Barred Owl Management Strategy in Western Oregon | Bureau of Land Management - BLM.gov, accessed February 22, 2026, https://www.blm.gov/announcement/barred-owl-management-strategy-and-implementation-barred-owl-management-strategy

47. Environmentalists sue to stop Oregon logging project in spotted owl habitat, accessed February 22, 2026, https://www.courthousenews.com/environmentalists-sue-to-stop-oregon-logging-project-in-spotted-owl-habitat/

48. Nesting habitat characteristics of Marbled Murrelets occurring in near-shore waters of the Olympic Peninsula, Washington, accessed February 22, 2026, https://www.fs.usda.gov/pnw/pubs/journals/pnw_2016_wilk001.pdf

49. 23 B. MARBLED MURRELET 23 Species Ecologyd Literature Review 23 Introduction 23 Taxonomy 23 Physical Characteristics 23 Geograph - dnr.wa.gov, accessed February 22, 2026, https://dnr.wa.gov/sites/default/files/2025-03/lm_hcp_ch3b.pdf

50. TERRESTRIAL HABITAT MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS FOR MARBLED MURRELETS | Pacific Seabird Group, accessed February 22, 2026, https://pacificseabirdgroup.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Terrestrial-Habitat-Management-Recommendations-for-MAMU-2024.pdf

51. importance of western oregon blm lands and reserves to fish and - Conservation Biology Institute, accessed February 22, 2026, https://consbio.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/OC_Report_Final.pdf

52. BLM Density Management and Riparian Buffer Study: Establishment Report and Study Plan, accessed February 22, 2026, https://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2006/5087/pdf/sir20065087.pdf

53. Take Action Against the Aloha Trout Logging Project - Cascadia Wildlands, accessed February 22, 2026, https://cascwild.org/actions/join-coast-range-communities-take-action-against-the-aloha-trout-logging-project/

54. Effects of Logging on the Habitat of Coho Salmon and Cutthroat Trout in Coastal Streams' - Regulations.gov, accessed February 22, 2026, https://downloads.regulations.gov/FWS-R2-ES-2024-0081-0011/attachment_13.pdf

55. an annotated bibliography of the effects of logging on fish of the western united states and - USDA Forest Service, accessed February 22, 2026, https://www.fs.usda.gov/pnw/pubs/pnw_gtr010.pdf

56. Streamflow and Water Quality:, accessed February 22, 2026, https://faculty.washington.edu/emer/eic/Streamflow~and~Water~Quality1.htm

57. Impact of Forest Management on Stream Water Quality in Western Oregon, accessed February 22, 2026, https://andrewsforest.oregonstate.edu/pubs/pdf/pub436.pdf

58. UPDATED GUIDE TO THE REFERENCE VALUES USED IN THE SOUTHERN OREGON/NORTHERN CALIFORNIA COHO SALMON RECOVERY CONSERVATION ACTION P, accessed February 22, 2026, https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/nps/docs/wqmp_forests/comments/bowman_comments_appc.pdf

59. SANDY RIVER BASIN TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY LOAD ( TMDL ) - Oregon.gov, accessed February 22, 2026, https://www.oregon.gov/deq/FilterDocs/sandytmdlwqmp.pdf

60. Salmon and Forests - ODFW, accessed February 22, 2026, https://nrimp.dfw.state.or.us/DataClearinghouse/default.aspx?pn=ViewFile&att=Watershed+Councils%2FWatershed+Councils_414_DOC_Alsea+-+salmon+and+forests.doc

61. Sandy Basin Spring Chinook Spawning Surveys – 2010, accessed February 22, 2026, https://odfw-wsrme.forestry.oregonstate.edu/sites/default/files/chs/2012_sandy_basin_spring_chinook_spawning_surveys_0.pdf

62. Sandy Wild and Scenic River and State Scenic Waterway Management Plan -, accessed February 22, 2026, https://rivers.gov/sites/rivers/files/documents/plans/sandy-blm-plan.pdf

63. Valley of the Giants Outstanding Natural Area | Bureau of Land ..., accessed February 22, 2026, https://www.blm.gov/visit/valley-giants-outstanding-natural-area

64. Valley of the Giants - Sustainable Northwest Wood, accessed February 22, 2026, https://www.snwwood.com/Valley-of-the-Giants

65. Valley of the Giants - Oregon Travel Information Council, accessed February 22, 2026, https://oregontic.com/oregon-heritage-trees/valley-of-the-giants-2/

66. Crabtree Valley: Protecting Ancient Forests Never Gets Old - Oregon Wild, accessed February 22, 2026, https://oregonwild.org/crabtree-valley-protecting-ancient-forests-never-gets-old/

67. Western Redcedar, “Tree of Life” - Oregon.gov, accessed February 22, 2026, https://www.oregon.gov/ODF/Documents/ForestBenefits/WesternRedCedar.pdf

68. Western red cedar - The Oregon Encyclopedia, accessed February 22, 2026, https://www.oregonencyclopedia.org/articles/western_red_cedar/

69. Western Redcedar - Oregon Forest Resources Institute, accessed February 22, 2026, https://oregonforests.org/forest-types-tree-guide/tree-variety/western-redcedar

70. Red Cedar: The Amazing Giving Tree - Ancient Forest Alliance, accessed February 22, 2026, https://ancientforestalliance.org/red-cedar-the-amazing-giving-tree/

71. Marys Peak Scenic Botanic Area - Siuslaw National Forest, accessed February 22, 2026, https://www.oldgrowthforest.net/or-marys-peak-scenic-botanic-area

72. Marys Peak Scenic Botanical Area - Native Plant Society of Oregon, accessed February 22, 2026, https://www.npsoregon.org/kalmiopsis/kalmiopsis19/4maryspeak.pdf

73. Marys Peak - Department of Energy, accessed February 22, 2026, https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2020/10/f79/draft-ea-2050-marys-peak-2020-10.pdf

74. Alsea Meteorological Tower Scoping Record - Bureau of Land Management, accessed February 22, 2026, https://eplanning.blm.gov/public_projects/nepa/58150/69350/75594/MetTowerScopingRecord.pdf

75. BLM launches public comment on western Oregon timber plan to advance Trump administration priorities | Bureau of Land Management, accessed February 22, 2026, https://www.blm.gov/press-release/blm-launches-public-comment-western-oregon-timber-plan-advance-trump-administration

76. Wildland Fire Management: Are actively managed forests more resilient than passively managed forests?, accessed February 22, 2026, https://nwfsc.forestry.oregonstate.edu/sites/default/files/publications/PAG_IB_15_wildfire-resiliency_active-passive-management.pdf

77. MONGABAY: Ancient forests, modern fires, and the debate over active management, accessed February 22, 2026, https://mavensnotebook.com/2025/08/19/mongabay-ancient-forests-modern-fires-and-the-debate-over-active-management/

78. Fixing forests or fueling fires? Scientists split over active management - Mongabay, accessed February 22, 2026, https://news.mongabay.com/2025/08/fixing-forests-or-fueling-fires-scientists-split-over-active-management/

79. Federal Public Land - Clearcutting Oregon, accessed February 22, 2026, http://www.clearcutoregon.com/federal-public-land.html