BLM wants to increase logging on our timber lands

On February 19, 2026, the Bureau of  Land Management (BLM) issued a Notice  of Intent to increase timber production  back to the logging levels of the 1970s  and ’80s. In a BLM press release, Acting  Director Bill Groffy declared this move  “essential for reviving local economies  and reducing the threat of catastrophic  wildfires.”    

Timber production levels of the ’70s  and ’80s were based on the 1937 O&C  Act, which required BLM to manage  former railroad-grant lands in Oregon  and California (O&C) “for permanent  forest production, sustained-yield timber  harvesting, watershed protection, and  economic stability for local counties.”  Historically, the annual cut was set at 500  million board feet. From 1960 through  1989, the cut exceeded that figure, as  O&C lands produced an annual average  of 1 billion board feet (“O&C Lands in  Brief,” congress.gov).

In 2025, that figure had dropped to  250 million (BLM press release, Dec. 15,  2025, blm.gov). 

Recognition of ecological values was  minimal in 1937, so it’s not surprising  that the O&C Act did not consider them.  But by the 1990s the ecological harm of  logging was apparent: species decline,  soil degradation, damaged water quality  and quantity, loss of flood control, and  reduction of fish and wildlife populations  and of the biological diversity needed  to sustain forests. Consequently, timber  production declined.

It would be economically and  ecologically detrimental to return to  the former level of cut. Our trees have  more value than the income they bring  in at the mill or to the O&C counties.  All Oregonians suffer if we lose the  ecosystem services that trees provide. In  a congressional testimony, Ernie Niemi, a  Senior Economist with ECONorthwest,  lists 16 “goods and services” derived from  federal forests, including production  and regulation of water, atmosphere,  and climate; regulation of nutrients and  pollution; formation and retention of soil;  habitat for economically important fish and  wildlife and for birds and microorganisms  that control pests and diseases; production  of genetic and medicinal resources; carbon  retention; and recreational and aesthetic  resources that also influence the economic  wellbeing of the community.

Niemi’s argument is that timber is not  the only value found in our federal forests,  that these forests generate jobs and income  in different ways, and that the trees serve  the community as living beings.

A second argument against BLM’s  proposal is that the stated goal of reducing  wildfire is not justified by science. A  BLM-funded 2018 study at Oregon State  University found that “intensive plantation  forestry characterized by young forests  and spatially homogenized fuels… [was  a] significant driver of wildfire severity,”  and that the “historical and current  forest management practices for timber  production contribute more to increased  wildfire risk” (co-author Christopher  Dunn, quoted in “High wildfire severity  risk,” news.oregonstateuniversity.edu).

Mature forests, as opposed to early seral forests, form canopies of multi layered foliage that trap moisture and  cool the forest, even in summer drought. Mature trees, with fire-resistant bark, serve  as natural firebreaks.

We do not want to return to  antiquated methods of forest management.  We need to manage our forests for our  wellbeing and safety.  

Insanity is the repetition of management that does not work.

Cheryl Bruner 

Williamscommunityforestproject.org 

Williams, Oregon