Alan Journet Ph.D., Co- Facilitator, Southern Oregon Climate Action Now
Co-Chair, Climate, Energy and Environment Team, Consolidated Oregon Indivisible Network March 2026

I submit these comments in two capacities. First, I comment as Cofacilitator of, and on behalf of, the 2,000 Southern Oregonians who are Southern Oregon Climate Action Now (https://www.socan.eco ). As rural and coastal Oregonians, we live on the frontlines of the impact of climate change as we experience increasing temperatures and frequency of heat waves, reducing snowpack, increasing drought frequency and extent, rising wildfire risk, rising sea level, ocean acidification and increasing flood risk. We are thus very aware of efforts at the regional, state and federal levels that are likely to mitigate these trends or accentuate them. This intended action clearly falls into the latter category. For this reason, we strongly oppose the Notice of Intent to Revise Resource Management Plans designed to increase logging on our region’s BLM lands. Second, I comment as co-chair of the Consolidated Oregon Indivisible Network (COIN https://www.coinoregon.org/) Climate, Energy and Environment Team. COIN is a coalition of over 75 local Indivisible groups throughout Oregon that cooperate and amplify their joint efforts to advance or oppose important federal and state legislation or proposals. We also engage with elected officials to promote progressive causes for the benefit of all Oregonians.

In summary, the proposal to revise Oregon BLM Resource Management Plans to increase logging is based on a misrepresentation of the 1937 O&C Act and a complete misunderstanding of regional forest ecology, especially as it relates to fire.

In an effort to create the impression that timber harvest should be the management priority, when referring to the Oregon and California Railroad Lands, proponents of timber harvest often offer statements such as this by Roseburg (Oregon) based Association of O & C Counties  (AOCC undated): “The lands were to be retained and Congress required management according to principles of sustained yield….” To their credit, AOCC (undated) acknowledge, without drawing attention to it, that the more complete statement from 43 U.S. Code § 2601 decrees the lands “…shall be managed…for permanent forest production, and the timber thereon shall be sold, cut and removed in conformity with the principal [sic] of sustained yield for the purpose of providing a permanent source of timber supply, protecting watersheds, regulating stream flow, and contributing to the economic stability of local communities and industries, and providing recreational facilities…” (Cornell undated). It is critical to underline that the 1937 act included an array of values to be considered in the management of these forests beyond timber harvest.

Read the full paper below.