- Home
Up Legislative History Regulating Fees...03/2003 Poll Taxes on Citizen Involvement User Fees Versus Mission Independence Local Appeal Fees Legislative History Regulating Fees...12/2006 For the Record, or Not Land Use Compatibility....
| |
LAND USE
COMPATIBILITY & BLM RIA/RESOURCE LANDS ALLOCATION IN WESTSIDE OREGON
- Cooperate and Collaborate Paper:
- Land Use Compatibility & BLM RIA/Resource Lands
Allocation
- In Westside Oregon
- Hugo Land Use Committee
- Hugo Neighborhood Association & Historical Society
- Resource Lands Working Group
- Rogue Advocates
- Goal One Coalition
- Save Our Applegate Valley
Environment (SAVE)
Draft March 22, 2011
Outline
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
I. PURPOSE Of PAPER
II. LAND USE COMPATIBILITY ISSUE
III. BRAINSTORMING LAND USE
COMPATIBILITY ISSUE
- A. BLM RIA/Resource Lands-Related Land Use Planning
- B. Future Land Use Planning Processes Could Be To
Cooperate and Collaborate
- C. Application Of Oregon Statewide Goal 4: Forest
Lands - OAR
- 660-015-0000(4)
- D. Commercial Forest Operations Has Been Primary
Driver
- E. BLM Continues Managing Low Elevation
BLM-Administered RIA/Resource
- Lands
- F. Benefits For BLM To Continued To Manage Low
Elevation
- BLM-Administered RIA/Resource Lands
- 1. NIMBY Effects Minimized.
- 2. Compatible Land Use Planning
- 3. Employment And Economic Effects
- 4. Neighborhood Support
- G. Consensus: Majority Of The Public, Stakeholders,
And Cooperating Agencies
- H. Compatible Land Use Guide
- I. BLM Assistance
- J. Roles and Responsibilities
- K. Legislation and Regulations Relating to Management
Of BLM RIA/Resource
- Lands and Compatible Land Use
Planning
- L. Local Land Use Planning
- M. Coordination and Implementation of Future BLM RMPs,
Including
- RIA/Resource Lands, and
Local Land Use Planning
- N. Public Education and Awareness Programs
- 1. Information Dissemination
- 2. Information Exchange
- O. Local Governments Interpretation: ORS
197.829(1)(d)
- P. Conclusion
IV. COMPATIBLE LAND USE PLANNING
- A. Compatibility Guidance Interest
- B. Compatible Land Use Planning Task Force
- C. Compatible Land Use Planning Resource Guide
D. Compatible Land Use Planning Research Papers
V. SIGNIFICANT BENEFITS OF COMPATIBLE
LAND USE PLANNING
- A. Compatible Land Use Planning Between Local
Governments And BLM
- B. BLM Expert Testimony Provides Foundation For
Neighborhood Support
- Base
- C. Promotes Employment And Economic Development
Through Stable And
- Efficiently Managed BLM
RIA/Resource Lands
VI. SUMMARY
Appendices
- Appendix A. BLM Westside Oregon Evaluations of Coos
Bay District, Eugene District,
- Medford District, Roseburg District, Salem District,
and the Klamath Falls
- Resource Area of the Lakeview District 1995 Resource
Management Plans (RMPs)
-
- Appendix B. Authors Of Cooperate and
Collaborate Paper: Land Use Compatibility & BLM RIA/Resource Lands Allocation In
Westside Oregon
-
- Appendix C. BLM Adaptive Management Areas & Rural
Interface Areas: A Case Study For Josephine County
-
- Appendix D. Interagency Cooperation and Collaboration:
Western Oregon Task Force, Final Report to the Secretary of Interior
-
- Appendix E. Oregon Statewide Goal 4: Forest Lands -
OAR 660-015-0000(4) & Case Study for Josephine County
-
- Appendix F. Local Governments Interpretation:
ORS 197.829(1)(d)
Acronyms
- AMA Adaptive Management Areas
- BLM Bureau Of Land Management
- CLUPTF Compatible Land Use Planning Task Force
- EIS Environmental Impact Statement
- EPA Environmental Protection Agency
- ESA Endangered Species Act
- FLPMA Federal Land Planning Management Act
- FWS Fish And Wildlife Service
- GFMA General Forest Management Areas
- HLUC Hugo Land Use Committee
- ID Interdisciplinary
- JCCP Josephine County Comprehensive Plan
- LUBA Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals
- MDO Medford District Office
- NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
- NIMBY Not In My Back Yard
- NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service
- NWFP Northwest Forest Plan
- OARs Oregon Administered Rules
- ODFW Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife
- ORS Oregon Revised Statutes
- PAPA Post-Acknowledgement Plan Amendment
- RIA Rural Interface Areas
- RA Rogue Advocates
- RMP Resource Management Plan
- ROD Record of Decision
- RLDC Josephine County Rural Land Development Code
- SORA Southern Oregon Resource Alliance
- SAVE Save Our Applegate Valley Environment
- SEIS Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement
- USDI United States Department of Interior
- WOPR BLMs Western Oregon Plan Revision
-
- Cooperate and Collaborate Paper:
- Land Use Compatibility & BLM RIA/Resource Lands
Allocation
- In Westside Oregon
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Purpose. The purpose of this
Cooperate and Collaborate Paper is an initial land use report of a proposal without any
commitment to action; it is brainstorming. It is potentially the first step in enhancing
the land use compatibility between private lands and nearby BLM-administered lands. It is
about lands adjacent to or nearby lands to BLM Rural Interface Lands (RIA)/Resource Lands
in Westside Oregon.
This paper is open ended. It can also be
known as an initial consultation document proposing a BLM Westside Oregon management
strategy to be considered during BLMs on-going evaluation of BLM Westside
Districts and the Klamath Falls Resource Area of the Lakeview Districts 1995
resource management plans (RMPs). It is anticipated that it will be updated as it is
refined through the involvement and networking of other co-sponsors.
Interest is growing with landowners
adjacent to and nearby BLM RIA/Resource Lands, and land use groups in having the BLM play
a significant role in land use compatibility planning for BLM RIA/Resource Lands. Although
the BLM cannot dictate local land use policies, it can play a role in facilitating the
coordination, cooperation, and collaboration between management of BLM RIA/Resource Lands
and local, county, and regional planning agencies to ensure that compatible land use
planning is considered around our nations BLM RIA/Resource Lands.
This issue is not a BLM operational
management issue about BLM project-level actions; it as a Western Oregon BLM and local
government land allocation issue. For example, it is not about the seemingly never ending
conflict over BLM project-level actions that can shift with a new Federal Executive Branch
and Executive Departments.
Land Use Compatibility Issue.
Although a Westside BLM Oregon land use compatibility issue, this paper in some cases
focuses on its form in Josephine County, Oregon and the interior Rogue Valley.
In the 1990s the BLM in Westside Oregon,
including the BLM Medford District Office (MDO), needed its own management tools to try to
effectively manage public RIA resources lands it administered adjacent to or nearby the
countys private RIAs as BLMs and local governments attempts to solve the
conflicts between the activities on resource lands and adjacent residential lands had not
been effective.
In most private RIAs concerns of the
residents are related to forest and range managementpractices, wild fire, visual quality,
and potential effects on domestic water sources and water supplies. More than 500,000
acres in the BLM MDO have been inventoried as RIA lands, 220,084 acres are private RIA
lands (43 percent) and 292,096 are public RIA lands (57 percent).
Rural interface areas were a new
innovative idea for the BLMs 1990s planning cycle for Westside Oregon. They were the
result of the consistent and persistent concerns of the general public and the residential
public living on lands adjacent to or nearby BLM managed resource lands. It had become
difficult for BLM to accomplish its resource management job with the numerous public
complaints and lawsuits, and BLM decided to address the public concern issue directly.
Addressing the public controversy of the
management of BLM resource lands adjacent to or nearby rural residential living activities
resulted in the RIA concept becoming standard for BLMs 1990s planning cycle Westside
Oregon-wide, including the BLM MDO, because, in part, local governments mitigating
measure/conditions of approval provided by the local governments planning systems
were not effective in mitigating the conflicts between the management activities on
BLM-administered resource lands and the home living activities on adjacent residential
lands. This included Josephine Countys planning efforts associated with ineffective
conditions of approval and conflict preference covenants.
The 1995 BLM MDO Record of Decision
(ROD)/Resource Management Plans (RMP) objective for the RIA is to consider the
interests of adjacent and nearby rural residential land owners in the private RIA during
analysis, planning, and monitoring activities occurring within the managed public RIA.
These private interests include personal health and safety, improvements to property, and
quality of life.
When adjacent or nearby private lands
are allocated to residential under a local governments post-acknowledgement plan
amendment (PAPA) proposal, their benefit as an impact buffer to BLM/RIA Resource Lands
become lost and a portion of any nearby BLM Resource Lands could become a public RIA. In
Josephine County the reallocation of adjacent or nearby private RIA lands from Woodlot
Resource to Rural Residential 5 acres will be a loss of the impact buffer benefit to BLM
and will interfere with accepted forest operations on BLM lands by significantly impeding
or significantly increasing the cost of the practices or operations on the public RIA.
This private allocation PAPA impact is not an isolated impact to individual tracks of
public RIA, but part of a cumulative impact significantly increasing the cost of the
forest management practices or operations to potentially 292,096 acres of public RIA lands
in the Rogue Valley.
In the 1990s the BLM spent an enormous
amount of energy recognizing the RIA issue, identifying the private and public RIA lands,
lands with the highest potential to become conflict RIA lands, and developing RIA
prescriptions to attempt to address adjacent residential landowners concerns. All
BLM Westside Oregon districts have this RIA management issue and RIA prescriptions in
their existing RMPs because BLM and local government mitigating measures/conditions of
approval were not effective.
History has since shown that BLM was no
more successful than Josephine County in effectively mitigating the conflicts between
resource use practices on BLM-administered lands adjacent to rural residential living
activities.
In summary, the development of land uses
that are not compatible with management of BLM RIA/Resource Lands is a growing concern
across Westside Oregon. In addition to commercial forestland management, there are other
environmental impacts to land uses around BLM RIA/Resource Lands which need to be
considered when addressing the overall issue of land use compatibility. Forest land
includes lands which are suitable for commercial forest uses including adjacent or nearby
lands which are necessary to permit forest operations or practices, and other forested
lands that maintain soil, air, water and fish and wildlife resources.
Compatible Land Use Planning. The
following ideas about compatible land use planning are open ended as is this entire paper.
They are part of the brainstorming ideas identified in Section III or future ideas yet to
be expressed. They are a draft recommendation for BLM Westside Oregon to consider framing
a management strategy to consider compatible land use planning objectives.
If it occurs, it is assumed that it will
occur on the existing checkerboard of BLM-administered forests Westside Oregon where the
land is meant for timber production -- after laws like the Endangered Species Act are
accommodated. Once the needs for those laws are satisfied, then BLM looks at what's left
of its land base, and then it applies different management prescriptions to determine the
allowable cut.
The main objectives of compatible land
use planning are to encourage land uses that are generally considered to be incompatible
with management of BLM RIA/Resource Lands, such as residential, schools, churches, etc.,
to locate away from BLM RIA/Resource Lands, and to encourage land uses that are more
compatible, such as industrial, commercial, commercial forest, woodlot resource,
agricultural, farm, etc. to locate adjacent to or nearby BLM RIA/Resource Lands.
There is known interest from neighbors
and land use groups for BLM to provide guidance on how to establish and maintain
compatible land uses around BLM RIA/Resource Lands, and/or, if not possible, for BLM to
consider trading the existing BLM RIA/Resource Lands out and concentrate on higher
elevation lands away from the normal conflicts with private residential property owners,
including selling these BLM RIA/Resource Lands outright.
The BLM could consider establishing a
one time Compatible Land Use Planning Task Force. The Task Force could be charged
with identifying how to better cooperate, coordinate, and collaborate through the BLM RMP
planning processes, and its local site specific projects with local governments
comprehensive land use planning processes by considering the brainstorming issues. The Task
Forces mission could be to develop a resource guide to assist local governments
and BLM in identifying and implementing appropriate compatible land use tools (i.e.,
maintenance of forest land resource allocations, private RIA allocations, legal resource
compatibility easements, compatible land use planning research papers, testimony papers on
whether land falls within the Oregon Statewide Goal 4 definition of forest lands,
and other related compatibility issues) as one way to prevent or slow down the
proliferation of incompatible land uses adjacent to or nearby BLM RIA/Resource Lands.
The Task Force could consist of
representatives from National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) interdisciplinary (ID)
teams, land use planning consultants, city/county planning departments, state land use and
resource departments, and BLM supervisors and managers. It could be disbanded after the
Compatible Land Use Planning Resource Guide was finalized and published. The Compatible
Land Use Planning Resource Guide could be developed by the Task Force. It would be
a resource to local planners, governments, neighbors, and other interested parties and
would not be construed as BLM regulations or official agency policy. Case studies could be
contained within the Guide as examples to illustrate specific techniques and
strategies of how and where some of the compatible land use tools across the country have
been applied and implemented. Inclusion of these examples would not in any way represent
official endorsement by the BLM.
Compatible land use planning research
papers would be encouraged by the public, stakeholders, and cooperating agencies,
including BLM professionals and work groups. These papers could cover the range of pros
and cons of the land use compatibility issue. The papers might be published as determined
appropriate by the public, stakeholders, and cooperating agencies, including BLM, on their
web sites.
Significant Benefits of Compatible
Land Use Planning. The objectives of compatible land use planning are to encourage
land uses that are generally considered to be incompatible with management of BLM
RIA/Resource Lands (e.g., residential, schools, churches, etc.) to locate away from BLM
RIA/Resource Lands and to encourage land uses that are more compatible (e.g., industrial,
commercial, commercial forest, woodlot resource, agricultural, farm, etc.) to locate
adjacent to or nearby BLM RIA/Resource Lands, or, conversely, for BLM to consider trading
the existing BLM RIA/Resource Lands out and concentrate on higher elevation lands away
from the normal conflicts with private residential property owners, and/or sell these
lands outright.
A public BLM education and outreach
compatible land use planning program for BLM RIA/Resource Lands have a significant
potential to provide benefits to BLM, local neighbors, and local governments. In a
nut-shell there are opportunities for BLM to cooperate and collaborate with local
governments, and especially private landowners adjacent to or nearby BLM RIA/Resource
Lands located below approximately 2,000', that can be realized through the State of
Oregons land use planning system, especially the application of Oregon Statewide
Goal 4 - Forest Land.
Compatible Land Use Planning Between
Local Governments And BLM. A significant opportunity for BLM to meaningfully cooperate
and collaborate with local governments and neighbors is the development of a compatible
land use planning program. This could be one foundation element of any future
collaborative planning effort toward the goal of developing consensus around BLM
management alternatives which will bring together the support of the majority of the
public, stakeholders, and cooperating agencies.
A major benefit could be compatible land
use planning between local governments and BLM. The BLM could share with local
government decision-makers its vision concerning the allocation and management of BLM
RIA/Resource Lands as there appears to be a disconnect between local governments
normal support for BLM project-level actions, and their normal support for an expanded
private residential RIA land allocation adjacent to or nearby BLM RIA/Resource Lands. For
example, local governments normal support of an expanded noncompatible private
residential allocation is in conflict with their normal support of project-level BLM
actions.
Local governments could share with
BLM their desire to expand residential allocations adjacent to or nearby BLM RIA/Resource
Lands, and the need for BLM to consider the goal of trading out or selling these low
elevation BLM RIA/Resource Lands. BLM could eventually trade these lands out and
concentrate on higher elevation lands away from the normal conflicts with private
residential living activities, or just sell them outright reducing the forest land base.
Regardless of whether BLM stays or
leaves, the objectives of compatible land use planning are to encourage land uses that are
generally considered to be incompatible to locate away from BLMadministered lands and to
encourage land uses that are more compatible to locate around BLMadministered lands. The
objectives of compatible land use planning is not to encourage or have allocated
incompatible land uses to be located adjacent to or nearby BLM RIA/Resource Lands.
BLM Expert Testimony Provides
Foundation For Neighborhood Support Base. The BLM has opportunities to cooperate and
collaborate with local governments, and especially private landowners located adjacent to
or nearby BLM RIA/Resource Lands located below approximately 2,000' that can be realized
through the State of Oregons land use planning system, especially through Oregon
Statewide Goal 4 - Forest Land.
Benefits to BLM could be the development
of a neighborhood base that supports the management allocation for BLM RIA/Resource Lands
in their communities backyards (i.e., strive for a common vision on the allocation
prescription of BLM RIA/Resource Lands).
Benefits to local neighbors could be the
BLM as an expert witness testifying to the value of private forest lands adjacent to or
nearby BLM RIA/Resource Lands remaining compatible forest lands: private resource lands
and private RIA resource lands.
Promotes Employment And Economic
Development Through Stable And Efficiently Managed BLM RIA/Resource Lands. In the
long-term a stable land use pattern of BLM RIA/Resource Lands, that is effectively and
efficiently managed, promotes local employment and economic development opportunities. The
O & C lands in Westside Oregon have an obligation to generate revenue. BLM owes the
counties some stability n whatever that is, so that they have something to plan against.
The issue of jobs, the issue of timber sale receipts as the law is currently structured,
is critically important to them, and it's critically important to BLM.
When land allocations involve forest
land, Oregon families depend on stewardship of BLM RIA/Resource Lands to promote the
social welfare of the citizens of the area by working to preserve, protect, and enhance
the livability and economic viability of its farms, forests, and rural neighbors. Forest
land includes lands which are suitable for commercial forest uses including adjacent or
nearby lands which are necessary to permit forest operations or practices, and other
forested lands that maintain soil, air, water and fish and wildlife resources.
If potentially harvestable timber lands
are identified as one of the uses of the land under BLMs allocations to General
Forest Management Areas (GFMA), Adaptive Management Areas (AMA), and
Connectivity/Diversity Blocks, they should be effectively and efficiently managed toward
the goal of the allocations in order to contribute to the economic stability of local
communities, and providing recreational opportunities.
Compatible land use planning between
local governments and BLM for BLM RIA/Resource Lands promotes a long-term stable land use
pattern of BLM RIA/Resource Lands that can be effectively and efficiently managed. This
efficiency promotes local employment and economic development opportunities by lower
operating costs and increasing economic sustainability.
I. PURPOSE Of PAPER
- This Cooperate and Collaborate Paper is an initial
land use report of a proposal without any
- commitment to action; it is brainstorming. It is
potentially the first step in enhancing the land use compatibility between private lands
and nearby BLM-administered lands. It is about private lands adjacent to or nearby lands
to BLM Rural Interface Lands (RIA)/Resource Lands in Westside Oregon. Rural interface
areas are areas where BLM-administered lands are adjacent to or intermingled with
privately owned lands zoned for 1 to 20-acre lots or that already have residential
development. Westside Oregon is a term used to identify all BLM districts west of the
Cascades.
-
- This paper is open ended. It can also be known as an
initial consultation document proposing a BLM Westside Oregon management strategy to be
considered during BLMs on-going evaluation of BLM Westside Districts and the
Klamath Falls Resource Area of the Lakeview Districts 1995 RMPs (Appendix A). It is
anticipated that it will be updated as it is refined through the involvement and
networking of other co-sponsors (Appendix B). Hopefully it can serve as part of a solution
where BLM issues a paper released to launch a public consultation process, or perhaps
establishes a Compatible Land Use Planning Task Force.
-
- Interest is growing with landowners adjacent to and
nearby BLM RIA/Resource Lands
- (Appendix B), and land use groups in having the BLM
play a significant role in land use
- compatibility planning for BLM RIA/Resource Lands.
Although the BLM cannot dictate local land use policies, it can play a role in
facilitating the coordination, cooperation, and collaboration between management of BLM
RIA/Resource Lands and local, county, and regional planning agencies to ensure that
compatible land use planning is considered around our nations BLM RIA/Resource
Lands.
This issue is not a BLM operational
management issue about BLM project-level actions; it as a Western Oregon BLM and local
government land allocation issue. For example, it is not about the seemingly never ending
conflict over BLM project-level actions that can shift with a new Federal Executive Branch
and Executive Departments.
This paper is also a request to Westside
Oregon BLM to provide guidance on how to establish and maintain compatible land uses
adjacent to and nearby BLM RIA/Resource Lands.
II. LAND USE COMPATIBILITY ISSUE
- Although a Westside BLM Oregon land use compatibility
issue, this paper in some cases focuses on its form in Josephine County, Oregon and the
interior Rogue Valley (Appendix C).
-
- In the 1990s the BLM in Westside Oregon, including the
BLM Medford District Office (MDO), needed its own management tools to try to effectively
manage public RIA resources lands it administered adjacent to or nearby the countys
private RIAs as BLMs and local governments attempts to solve the conflicts
between the activities on resource lands and adjacent residential lands had not been
effective.
-
- In most private RIAs concerns of the residents are
related to forest and range management
- practices, wild fire, visual quality, and potential
effects on domestic water sources and water
- supplies. More than 500,000 acres in the BLM MDO have
been inventoried as RIA lands,
- 220,084 acres are private RIA lands (43 percent) and
292,096 are public RIA lands (57 percent).
-
- Rural interface areas were a new innovative idea for
the BLMs 1990s planning cycle for
- Westside Oregon. They were the result of the
consistent and persistent concerns of the general public and the residential public living
on lands adjacent to or nearby BLM managed resource lands. It had become difficult for BLM
to accomplish its resource management job with the numerous public complaints and
lawsuits, and BLM decided to address the public concern issue directly.
-
- Addressing the public controversy of the management of
BLM resource lands adjacent to or nearby rural residential living activities resulted in
the RIA concept becoming a standard element for BLMs 1990s planning cycle Westside
Oregon-wide, including the BLM MDO, because, in part, local governments mitigating
measure/conditions of approval provided by the local governments planning systems
were not effective in mitigating the conflicts between the management activities on
BLM-administered resource lands and the home living activities on adjacent residential
lands. This included Josephine Countys planning efforts associated with ineffective
conditions of approval and conflict preference covenants.
-
- The 1995 BLM MDO Record of Decision (ROD)/Resource
Management Plans (RMP) objective for the RIA is to consider the interests of
adjacent and nearby rural residential land owners in the private RIA during analysis,
planning, and monitoring activities occurring within the managed public RIA. These private
interests include personal health and safety, improvements to property, and quality of
life.
-
- When adjacent or nearby private lands are allocated to
residential under a local governments post-acknowledgement plan amendment (PAPA)
proposal, their benefit as an impact buffer to BLM/RIA Resource Lands become lost and a
portion of any nearby BLM Resource Lands could become a public RIA. In Josephine County
the reallocation of adjacent or nearby private RIA lands from Woodlot Resource to Rural
Residential 5 acres will be a loss of the impact buffer benefit to BLM and will interfere
with accepted forest operations on BLM lands by significantly impeding or significantly
increasing the cost of the practices or operations on the public RIA. This private
allocation PAPA impact is not an isolated impact to individual tracks of public RIA, but
part of a cumulative impact significantly increasing the cost of the forest management
practices or operations to potentially 292,096 acres of public RIA lands in the Rogue
Valley (Appendix C).
-
- In the 1990s the BLM spent an enormous amount of
energy recognizing the RIA issue,
- identifying the private and public RIA lands, lands
with the highest potential to become conflict RIA lands, and developing RIA prescriptions
to attempt to address adjacent residential landowners concerns. All BLM Westside
Oregon districts have this RIA management issue and RIA prescriptions in their existing
RMPs because BLM and local government mitigating measures/conditions of approval were not
effective.
-
- History has since shown that BLM was no more
successful than Josephine County in effectively mitigating the conflicts between resource
use practices on BLM-administered lands adjacent to rural residential living activities.
-
- In summary, the development of land uses that are not
compatible with management of BLM RIA/Resource Lands is a growing concern across Westside
Oregon. In addition to commercial forestland management, there are other environmental
impacts to land uses around BLM RIA/Resource Lands which need to be considered when
addressing the overall issue of land use compatibility. Forest land includes lands which
are suitable for commercial forest uses including adjacent or nearby lands which are
necessary to permit forest operations or practices, and other forested lands that maintain
soil, air, water and fish and wildlife resources.
-
- Although BLM Westside Districts include RIA standards
or guidelines as part of their RMPs, the primary responsibility for integrating BLM
RIA/Resource Lands considerations into the local land use planning process rests with
local governments. The objectives of compatible land use planning are to encourage land
uses that are generally considered to be incompatible with BLM RIA/Resource Lands (e.g.,
residential, schools, churches, etc.) to locate away from BLM RIA/Resource Lands, and to
encourage land uses that are more compatible (i.e., industrial, commercial, commercial
forest, woodlot resource, agricultural, farm, etc.) to locate around BLM RIA/Resource
Lands.
III. BRAINSTORMING LAND USE
COMPATIBILITY ISSUE
A. BLM RIA/Resource Lands-Related Land
Use Planning
The objectives of compatible land use
planning are to encourage land uses that are generally considered to be incompatible with
BLM RIA/Resource Lands (e.g., residential, schools, churches, etc.) to locate away from
BLM RIA/Resource Lands and to encourage land uses that are more compatible (i.e.,
industrial, commercial, commercial forest, woodlot resource, agricultural, farm, etc.) to
locate around BLM RIA/Resource Lands.
B. Future Land Use Planning Processes
Could Be To Cooperate and Collaborate
Many think that any future effort must
be collaborative in order to develop consensus around alternatives which will bring
together the support of the majority of the public, stakeholders, and cooperating agencies
(Appendix D).
C. Application Of Oregon Statewide Goal
4: Forest Lands - OAR 660-015-0000(4)
Oregon Statewide Goal 4 defines forest
lands and requires local governments to inventory them and adopt policies and ordinances
that will "conserve forest lands for forest uses." A determination whether land
falls within the Goal 4 definition of forest lands (Appendix E) requires
analysis of:
- (1) whether the land is suitable for commercial forest
uses;
- (2) whether the land is necessary to permit forest
operations or practices on adjacent or nearby forest lands; and
- (3) whether the forested land is necessary to maintain
soil, air, water and fish and wildlife resources.
The BLM has opportunities to cooperate
and collaborate (Appendix D) with local governments, and especially private landowners
located adjacent to or nearby BLM RIA/Resource Lands located below approximately 2,000'
that can be realized through the State of Oregons land use planning system,
especially through Oregon Statewide Goal 4 - Forest Land (Appendix E).
Benefits to BLM could be the development
of a neighborhood base that supports the management allocation for BLM RIA/Resource Lands
in their communities backyards (i.e., strive for a common vision on the allocation
prescription of BLM RIA/Resource Lands). Benefits to local neighbors could be the BLM as
an expert witness testifying to the value of private forest lands adjacent to or nearby
BLM RIA/Resource Lands remaining compatible forest lands: private resource lands and
private RIA resource lands.
D. Commercial Forest Operations Has Been
Primary Driver
While not the only compatibility issue,
commercial forest operations has been the primary driver for the land use compatibility
conflict issue. Since the 1990s there has been a constant technical effort to reduce site
specific project conflicts with neighbors. Although it is believed there has been a
significant reduction in neighbors concerns, little more is expected. Consequently
another idea to reduce conflicts could focus on BLM RIA/Resource Lands and land use
compatibility planning.
E. BLM Continues Managing Low Elevation
BLM-Administered RIA/Resource Lands
This idea of this paper is probably only
applicable if BLMs strategy is to continue to manage low elevation BLM-administered
resource lands versus eventually trading them out and concentrating on higher elevation
lands away from the normal conflicts with private residential property owners.
F. Benefits For BLM To Continued To
Manage Low Elevation BLM-Administered RIA/Resource Lands
There is always the possibility that a
future BLM strategy could be to eventually trade these lands out and concentrate on higher
elevation lands away from the normal conflicts with private residential property owners.
Some benefits of a stable BLM RIA/Resource Lands land use pattern follow.
- 1. Compatible Land Use Planning. Compatible land use
planning by BLM and local
- governments could minimize the PAPA effects with fewer
proposals approved by local
- governments. This could reduce the cumulative
interference of non-compatible land uses
- with forest operations on BLM resource lands.
-
- 2. Employment And Economic Effects. Compatible land
use planning by BLM and local
- governments could contribute to significantly holding
down increases in the cost of
- practices or operations on the public RIA. This
positive impact is not the reduction of
- isolated impacts from individual PAPAs to site
specific areas near or adjacent to the
- public RIA, but part of a cumulative impact
significantly holding down the cost of the
- forest management practices or operations on
potentially 292,096 acres of public RIA
- lands in the MDO.
-
- 3. Neighborhood Support. Benefits to BLM could be the
development of a neighborhood
- base that supports the management allocation for BLM
RIA/Resource Lands in their
- communities backyards. This result could occur
from BLM acting as an expert witness
- testifying to the value of private forest lands
adjacent to or nearby BLM RIA/Resource
- Lands remaining compatible forest lands as BLM would
be perceived as allies to local
- land owners.
-
- 4. NIMBY Effects Minimized. Adjacent or near-by
neighbors and landowners have
- interests addressed, including personal health and
safety, improvements to property, and
- quality of life. These interests are more effectively
realized by BLM standards for citizen
- involvement involved with site specific projects and
resource management operations
versus the often lower standards of the Oregon
Forest Practices Act.
G. Consensus: Majority Of The Public,
Stakeholders, And Cooperating Agencies
If implemented, it is doubtful this
approach would quickly develop into a consensus around BLM alternatives and/or management
with a majority of the public, stakeholders, and cooperating agencies, especially for
project-level actions. It does, however, have a significant potential as an effective tool
that BLM has management control over in beginning a local collaborative process toward the
goal of a common land allocation vision. A BLM program could start small with an
educational and outreach program applicable to all Westside Oregon BLM districts with
private and public RIAs. For example, a program could focus on web publications that is
potentially expanded to include testimony for private site specific Oregon Statewide
Goal 4 - Forest Land proposals to local governments (Appendix E). By private site
specific actions it is meant private land use PAPA proposals to change a local
governments comprehensive plan allocations from resource to residential for lands
adjacent to, or nearby, BLM-administered resource lands.
H. Compatible Land Use Guide
- A compatible land use guide could be prepared for BLM
managers, local land use planners,
- developers, and elected or appointed public officials.
Its purpose would be to provide
- information on BLM programs and sources of support and
to promote an understanding of land use compatibility planning issues around BLM
RIA/Resource Lands that could result in
- improved compatibility on nearby or adjacent private
lands to BLM RIA/Resource Lands.
-
- The guide could identify a wide variety of possible
land use methods as they relate to compatible land use planning efforts. The guide would
also recognizes that state and local governments are responsible for private land use
planning, zoning and regulation, and could present options or tools that can assist in
establishing and maintaining compatible land uses around BLM RIA/Resource Lands.
E. BLM Assistance
- To assist in those efforts, the BLM could expend
significant funds related to BLM RIA/Resource Lands planning and land use compatibility
planning in Westside Oregon. These efforts can take the form of future RMPs, site specific
projects, research on compatibility studies, land acquisition and/or compatibility
easements, public consultation processes, and a Compatible Land Use Planning Task Force.
-
- Interest is growing with landowners adjacent to and
nearby BLM RIA/Resource Lands, and land use groups in having the BLM play a significant
role in land use compatibility planning for BLM RIA/Resource Lands. Although the BLM
cannot dictate local land use policies, it can play a role in facilitating the
coordination, cooperation, and collaboration between management of BLM RIA/Resource Lands
and local, county, and regional planning agencies to ensure that compatible land use
planning is considered around our nations BLM RIA/Resource Lands.
This paper is also a request to Westside
Oregon BLM to provide guidance on how to establish and maintain compatible land uses
adjacent to and nearby BLM RIA/Resource Lands. The authors of the paper are identified in
Appendix A.
J. Roles and Responsibilities
- There are many entities involved in implementing or
supporting actions directed toward
- improved land use compatibility nearby or adjacent to
BLM RIA/Resource Lands. These entities include the neighbors, BLM, (list of users of BLM RIA/Resource Lands), Southern
Oregon Resource Alliance (SORA)?, etc.), state and local governments, and the community at-large. Knowing
the interwoven roles and responsibilities for land use compatibility planning and
implementation is important to helping understand the responsibilities placed on each
entity and individual involved.
K. Legislation and Regulations Relating
to Management Of BLM RIA/Resource Lands and Compatible Land Use Planning
- With the advent of comprehensive management and
increasing site specific operations at the
- nations BLM RIA/Resource Lands, along with the
increasing conversion of private resource lands nearby or adjacent to BLM RIA/Resource
Lands to non-compatible land uses (e.g., residential, schools, churches, etc.), it was
recognized that site specific projects could become a major constraint on effective and
efficient management of BLM RIA/Resource Lands. To address the issues of BLM RIA/Resource
Lands and land use compatibility, future legislation and regulation could be considered.
-
- 1. Providing assistance to prepare and carry out BLM
RIA/Resource Lands-compatibility
- programs.
- 2. Providing funding for BLM RIA/Resource Lands
compatibility planning and projects.
- 3. Encouraging local government to consider their
actions for compatibility land uses
- around BLM RIA/Resource Lands.
4. Other ideas.
L. Local Land Use Planning
- Historically comprehensive plans and zoning prepared
by local governments have only
- minimally recognized the implications of planning for
BLM RIA/Resource Lands and off-site, BLM RIA/Resource Lands-related development. Local
land use planning, as a method of determining appropriate (and inappropriate) use of
properties nearby or adjacent to BLM RIA/Resource Lands could be an integral part of the
land use policy and regulatory tools used by BLM managers and local land use planners.
Very often such land use planning coordination is hampered by the fact that BLM
RIA/Resource Lands can be surrounded by a multitude of individual local governmental
jurisdictions, each with their own comprehensive planning process.
M. Coordination and Implementation of
Future BLM RMPs, Including RIA/Resource Lands, and Local Land Use Planning
- Coordination during the early stages of planning RMPs
and local land use planning is extremely critical for ensuring some level of land use
compatibility. Ideally, this coordination must occur before the creation, adoption, and
implementation of both BLM RIA/Resource Lands and local land use plans.
-
- In this case, BLMs RMPs and the local
governments comprehensive plans and zoning maps are in place. Local governments
comprehensive plans and zoning maps are officially acknowledged in Westside Oregon by
LCDC. The focus then could be on coordination, collaboration, and implementation of future
revisions to BLM RMPs, including allocations to RIA/Resource Lands, and local land use
planning allocations. Cooperating and collaborating with local governments, and especially
private landowners adjacent to, or nearby, BLM RIA/Resource Lands located below
approximately 2,000' would be critical to the success of compatible land use planning.
Such coordination requires open dialogue
and, at the least, some type of basic understanding of each others planning
processes.
- It turns out this issue is timely as the BLM Westside
Districts and the Klamath Falls Resource Area of the Lakeview District are in the process
to complete plan evaluations of their 1995 RMPs. The evaluations will evaluate the
implementation of the RMPs through FY 2010. The evaluations will begin in January 2011 and
will be completed by July 30, 2011. The Oregon State Office (OSO) will provide overall
coordination for the evaluations and will complete the plan evaluation findings report
with the assistance of the districts (Appendix A).
N. Public Education and Awareness
Programs
BLM managers or local planning agencies
that expect a reasonable chance of success in their planning efforts must provide for
public education and awareness in the planning process.
1. Information Dissemination
-
Dissemination of information is a one-way flow
of a desired message or philosophy.
- The type of
audience may range from a very narrow one to the community at-large.
- Among the
information dissemination opportunities are brochures, newsletters, paid
-
advertising, newspaper inserts, and Internet
Web pages.
2. Information Exchange
- Information
exchange is a two-way flow of information. Once the information is
-
disseminated, a dialogue occurs that may be
used to enhance the education process
- and
ultimately improve land use compatibility planning and to determine the publics
- attitude
toward or acceptance of the disseminated message. Among the information
- exchange
opportunities are public workshops, public advisory committees, radio/T.V.
- talk shows,
and speaking engagements.
O. Deference To Local Governments
Interpretation: ORS 197.829(1)(d)
ODFW v. Josephine County, LUBA
2008-022, 6/18/2009 (Appendix E).
- Where a local code provision mirrors a state statute, the
local officials interpretation of the local code provision is not entitled to the
usual deference for interpretation of local code provisions. Rather, LUBAs standard
of review, under ORS 197.829(1)(d), is whether the interpretation is contrary to the state
law that the local law implements. That review requires interpretation of state law
according to the usual LUBA rules of statutory construction.
Research Question: Do Josephine County
PAPAs involving JCCP GOAL 11: Policy 3.C. and RLDC 46.050.B.C.) satisfy the ODFW v.
Josephine County standard for a local code provision mirroring a state statute? If
this connection is made ODFW v. Josephine County applies, and LUBAs standard
for review would be Oregon Statewide Goal 4: Forest Lands - OAR 660-015-0000(4) and its
applicable OARs.
P. Conclusion
- Management of BLM RIA/Resource Lands and community
planning processes are intertwined. To that extent, the material contained in this
paper and the proposed compatibility land use guidebook would focused on communication and
cooperation, and directed toward the establishment of those common goals that are
necessary for the development of compatible land use programs.
IV. COMPATIBLE LAND USE PLANNING
- The following ideas about compatible land use planning
are open ended as is this entire paper. They are part of the brainstorming ideas
identified in Section III or future ideas yet to be expressed. They are a draft
recommendation for BLM Westside Oregon to consider framing a management strategy to
consider compatible land use planning objectives (Appendix A).
-
- If it occurs, it is assumed that it will occur on the
existing checkerboard of BLM-administered forests Westside Oregon where the land is meant
for timber production -- after laws like the Endangered Species Act are accommodated. Once
the needs for those laws are satisfied, then BLM looks at what's left of our land base,
and then it applies different management prescriptions to determine our allowable cut.
-
- The main objectives of compatible land use planning
are to encourage land uses that are
- generally considered to be incompatible with
management of BLM RIA/Resource Lands, such as residential, schools, churches, etc., to
locate away from BLM RIA/Resource Lands, and to encourage land uses that are more
compatible, such as industrial, commercial, commercial forest, woodlot resource,
agricultural, farm, etc. to locate adjacent to or nearby BLM RIA/Resource Lands.
A. Compatibility Guidance Interest
- There is known interest from neighbors and land use
groups for BLM to provide guidance on how to establish and maintain compatible land uses
around BLM RIA/Resource Lands, and/or, if not possible, for BLM to consider trading the
existing BLM RIA/Resource Lands out and concentrate on higher elevation lands away from
the normal conflicts with private residential property owners, including selling these BLM
RIA/Resource Lands outright.
B. Compatible Land Use Planning Task
Force
- The BLM could consider establishing a one time
Compatible Land Use Planning Task Force. The Task Force could be charged with
identifying how to better cooperate, coordinate, and collaborate through the BLM RMP
planning processes, and its local site specific projects with local governments
comprehensive land use planning processes by considering the brainstorming issues. The Task
Forces mission could be to develop a resource guide to assist local governments
and BLM in identifying and implementing appropriate compatible land use tools (i.e.,
maintenance of forest land resource allocations, private RIA allocations, legal resource
compatibility easements, compatible land use planning research papers, testimony papers on
whether land falls within the Oregon Statewide Goal 4 definition of forest lands,
and other related compatibility issues) as one way to prevent or slow down the
proliferation of incompatible land uses adjacent to or nearby BLM RIA/Resource Lands.
-
- The Task Force could consist of representatives
from National Environmental Policy Act
- (NEPA) interdisciplinary (ID) teams, land use planning
consultants, city/county planning
- departments, state land use and resource departments,
and BLM supervisors and managers.
- The Task Force could be disbanded after the
Compatible Land Use Planning Resource Guide was finalized and published.
C. Compatible Land Use Planning Resource
Guide
- The Compatible Land Use Planning Resource Guide could
be developed by the Task Force. It would be a resource to local planners,
governments, neighbors, and other interested parties and would not be construed as BLM
regulations or official agency policy. Case studies could be contained within the Guide
as examples to illustrate specific techniques and strategies of how and where some of
the compatible land use tools across the country have been applied and implemented.
Inclusion of these examples would not in any way represent official endorsement by the
BLM.
-
At a minimum of Guide could be published on
the BLM Oregon-Washington web site.
D. Compatible Land Use Planning Research
Papers
- Compatible land use planning research papers would be
encouraged by the public, stakeholders, and cooperating agencies, including BLM
professionals and work groups. These papers could cover the range of pros and cons of the
land use compatibility issue. The papers might be published as determined appropriate by
the public, stakeholders, and cooperating agencies, including BLM, on their web sites.
V. SIGNIFICANT BENEFITS OF COMPATIBLE
LAND USE PLANNING
- The objectives of compatible land use planning are to
encourage land uses that are generally
- considered to be incompatible with management of BLM
RIA/Resource Lands (e.g., residential, schools, churches, etc.) to locate away from BLM
RIA/Resource Lands and to encourage land uses that are more compatible (e.g., industrial,
commercial, commercial forest, woodlot resource, agricultural, farm, etc.) to locate
adjacent to or nearby BLM RIA/Resource Lands, or, conversely, for BLM to consider trading
the existing BLM RIA/Resource Lands out and concentrate on higher elevation lands away
from the normal conflicts with private residential property owners, and/or sell these
lands outright.
-
- A public BLM education and outreach compatible land
use planning program for BLM
- RIA/Resource Lands have a significant potential to
provide benefits to BLM, local neighbors, and local governments. In a nut-shell there are
opportunities for BLM to cooperate and collaborate (Appendix D) with local governments,
and especially private landowners adjacent to or nearby BLM RIA/Resource Lands located
below approximately 2,000', that can be realized through the State of Oregons land
use planning system, especially the application of Oregon Statewide Goal 4 - Forest Land
(Appendix E).
A. Compatible Land Use Planning Between
Local Governments And BLM
- A significant opportunity for BLM to meaningfully
cooperate and collaborate with local
- governments and neighbors is the development of a
compatible land use planning program. This could be one foundation element of any future
collaborative planning effort toward the goal of developing consensus around BLM
management alternatives which will bring together the support of the majority of the
public, stakeholders, and cooperating agencies (Appendix D).
-
- A major benefit could be compatible land use planning
between local governments and BLM. The BLM could share with local government
decision-makers its vision concerning the allocation and management of BLM RIA/Resource
Lands as there appears to be a disconnect between local governments normal support
for BLM project-level actions, and their normal support for an expanded private
residential RIA land allocation adjacent to or nearby BLM RIA/Resource Lands. For example,
local governments normal support of an expanded noncompatible private residential
allocation is in conflict with their normal support of project-level BLM actions.
-
- Local governments could share with BLM their
desire to expand residential allocations adjacent to or nearby BLM RIA/Resource Lands, and
the need for BLM to consider the goal of trading out or selling these low elevation BLM
RIA/Resource Lands. BLM could eventually trade these lands out and concentrate on higher
elevation lands away from the normal conflicts with private residential living activities,
or just sell them outright reducing the forest land base.
-
- Regardless of whether BLM stays or leaves, the
objectives of compatible land use planning are to encourage land uses that are generally
considered to be incompatible to locate away from BLMadministered lands and to encourage
land uses that are more compatible to locate around BLMadministered lands. The objectives
of compatible land use planning is not to encourage or have allocated incompatible land
uses to be located adjacent to or nearby BLM RIA/Resource Lands.
B. BLM Expert Testimony Provides
Foundation For Neighborhood Support Base
- The BLM has opportunities to cooperate and collaborate
(Appendix D) with local governments, and especially private landowners located adjacent to
or nearby BLM RIA/Resource Lands located below approximately 2,000' that can be realized
through the State of Oregons land use planning system, especially through Oregon
Statewide Goal 4 - Forest Land (Appendix E).
-
- Benefits to BLM could be the development of a
neighborhood base that supports the
- management allocation for BLM RIA/Resource Lands in
their communities backyards (i.e.,
- strive for a common vision on the allocation
prescription of BLM RIA/Resource Lands).
-
- Benefits to local neighbors could be the BLM as an
expert witness testifying to the value of
- private forest lands adjacent to or nearby BLM
RIA/Resource Lands remaining compatible forest lands: private resource lands and private
RIA resource lands.
C. Promotes Employment And Economic
Development Through Stable And Efficiently Managed BLM RIA/Resource Lands
- In the long-term a stable land use pattern of BLM
RIA/Resource Lands, that is effectively and efficiently managed, promotes local employment
and economic development opportunities. The O & C lands in Westside Oregon have an
obligation to generate revenue. BLM owes the counties some stability n whatever that is,
so that they have something to plan against. The issue of jobs, the issue of timber sale
receipts as the law is currently structured, is critically important to them, and it's
critically important to BLM.
-
- When land allocations involve forest land, Oregon
families depend on stewardship of BLM
- RIA/Resource Lands to promote the social welfare of
the citizens of the area by working to
- preserve, protect, and enhance the livability and
economic viability of its farms, forests, and rural neighbors. Forest land includes lands
which are suitable for commercial forest uses including adjacent or nearby lands which are
necessary to permit forest operations or practices, and other forested lands that maintain
soil, air, water and fish and wildlife resources.
-
- If potentially harvestable timber lands are identified
as one of the uses of the land under BLMs allocations to General Forest Management
Areas (GFMA), Adaptive Management Areas (AMA), and Connectivity/Diversity Blocks, they
should be effectively and efficiently managed toward the goal of the allocations in order
to contribute to the economic stability of local communities, and providing recreational
opportunities.
-
- Compatible land use planning between local governments
and BLM for BLM RIA/Resource
- Lands promotes a long-term stable land use pattern of
BLM RIA/Resource Lands that can be effectively and efficiently managed. This efficiency
promotes local employment and economic development opportunities by lower operating costs
and increasing economic sustainability.
VI. SUMMARY
- The purpose of this Cooperate and
Collaborate paper is an initial land use report of a proposal without any commitment
to action; it is brainstorming. It is potentially a step in enhancing the land use
compatibility between adjacent or nearby private lands and BLM rural interface area
(RIA)/resource lands in Westside Oregon. This paper is open ended. It is an initial
consultation document proposing a BLM Westside Oregon management strategy to be considered
during BLMs 2011 evaluation of its 1995 RMPs.
Historically the RIA issue was the
consistent and persistent concerns of the general public and the residential public living
on lands adjacent to or nearby BLM managed resource lands. It had become difficult for BLM
to accomplish its resource management job with the numerous public complaints and
lawsuits, and it decided to address the public concern issue directly. Therefore, in the
early1990s the BLM in Westside Oregon, including the BLM MDO, decided they needed their
own management tools to try to effectively manage public RIAs administered adjacent to or
nearby local governments private RIAs. The need was because the BLM and the local
governments attempts to solve the conflicts had not been effective. History after
1995 demonstrates that the BLM MDO was no more successful than Josephine County in
effectively mitigating the conflicts between resource use practices on BLM-administered
lands adjacent to rural residential living activities.
The issue is alive today when adjacent
or nearby private lands are reallocated to residential under a local governments
PAPA proposal because their benefit as an impact buffer to public RIAs become lost. For
example, in Josephine County the reallocation of adjacent or nearby private RIAs from
Woodlot Resource to Residential will be a loss of the impact buffer benefit to BLM as it
interfere with accepted forest operations by significantly impeding or significantly
increasing the cost of the practices or operations on the public RIA. The private
reallocation of a PAPA impact is not an isolated impact to individual tracks of public
RIAs, but part of a cumulative impact over the long-term significantly increasing the cost
of the forest management practices or operations to potentially 292,096 acres of public
RIA lands in the Rogue Valley.
- If compatible land use planning occurs, it is assumed
that it will occur on the existing
- checkerboard of BLM-administered forests Westside
Oregon where under current laws the land is mostly meant for timber production -- after
laws like the Endangered Species Act are
- accommodated. Once the needs for those laws are
satisfied, then BLM looks at what's left of its land base, and then it applies different
management prescriptions to determine the allowable cut.
-
- The objectives of compatible land use planning are to
encourage land uses that are generally
- considered to be incompatible (e.g., residential,
schools, churches, etc.) with management of BLM RIAs to locate away from BLM RIAs and to
encourage land uses that are more compatible (e.g., industrial, commercial, commercial
forest, woodlot resource, agricultural, farm, etc.) to locate adjacent to or nearby BLM
RIAs. From a basic zoning 101 scheme you place industrial uses next to industrial uses,
you do not locate residential activities next to industrial activities.
-
- A BLM education and outreach compatible land use
planning program for public RIAs has a significant potential to provide benefits to BLM,
local neighbors, and local governments. In a nut-shell there are opportunities for BLM to
cooperate and collaborate with local governments, and especially private landowners
adjacent to or nearby public RIAs located below approximately 2,000', that can be realized
through the State of Oregons land use planning system, especially the application of
Oregon Statewide Goal 4 - Forest Land.
-
- A major benefit could be compatible land use planning
between local governments and BLM. The BLM could share with local government
decision-makers its vision concerning the allocation of resource lands. Local
governments could share with BLM their desire to expand residential allocations
adjacent to or nearby BLM RIA/Resource Lands, and the need for BLM to consider the goal of
trading out or selling these low elevation BLM RIA/resource lands. BLM could eventually
trade these lands out and concentrate on higher elevation lands away from the normal
conflicts with private residential living activities, or just sell them outright.
Regardless of whether BLM stays or leaves, the objectives of compatible land use planning
are to encourage land uses that are generally considered to be incompatible to locate away
from BLMadministered lands and to encourage land uses that are more compatible to locate
around BLMadministered lands.
-
- In the long-term a stable land use pattern of public
RIA/resource lands, that is effectively and efficiently managed, promotes local employment
and economic development opportunities. The O & C lands in Westside Oregon have an
obligation to generate revenue. BLM owes the counties some stability n whatever that is,
so that they have something to plan against. The issue of jobs, the issue of timber sale
receipts as the law is currently structured, is critically important to them, and it's
critically important to BLM.
-
- When land allocations involve public forest land,
Oregon families depend on stewardship of
- public RIAs to promote the social welfare of the
citizens of the area by working to preserve,
- protect, and enhance the livability and economic
viability of its farms, forests, and rural
- neighbors. Forest land includes private and public
lands which are suitable for commercial forest uses including adjacent or nearby lands
which are necessary to permit forest operations or practices, and other forested lands
that maintain soil, air, water and fish and wildlife resources.
-
- Compatible land use planning between local governments
and BLM promotes a long-term stable land use pattern of public RIAs that can be
effectively and efficiently managed. This efficiency promotes local employment and
economic development opportunities by lower operating costs and increasing economic
sustainability.
Appendix A. BLM Westside Oregon
Evaluations of Coos Bay District, Eugene District, Medford District, Roseburg District,
Salem District, and the Klamath Falls Resource Area of the Lakeview District 1995 Resource
Management Plans (RMPs)
- The BLM Westside Districts and the Klamath Falls
Resource Area of the Lakeview District are in the process to complete plan evaluations of
their 1995 RMPs. The evaluations will evaluate the implementation of the RMPs through FY
2010. The evaluations will begin in January 2011 and will be completed by July 30, 2011.
The Oregon State Office (OSO) will provide overall coordination for the evaluations and
will complete the plan evaluation findings report with the assistance of the districts
(December 21, 2010 Instruction Memorandum No. OR-2011-015. From: BLM State
Director, Oregon/Washington To: DMs, DSDs, Staff, and Branch Chiefs. Subject: Western
Oregon Resource Management Plan Evaluations).
The background to the BLM evaluations is
that the BLM 1601 Land Use Planning Manual and the BLM Land Use Planning Handbook
(H-1601-1) state that RMPs should be periodically evaluated (at a minimum of every 5
years). The purpose of evaluations is to determine whether the land use plan
decisions and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analyses are still valid and
whether the plans are being implemented. The RMPs for the 6 west-side districts were last
evaluated in 2004. An RMP revision effort for western Oregon districts was completed in
December 2008. The new Record of Decision (RODs)/RMPs were withdrawn by the Department of
the Interior in June, 2009 (i.e., the WOPR - Western Oregon Plan Revision). Due to the
withdrawal of the 2008 RODs/RMPs, the districts have continued implementation of the 1995
RMPs. The 5-year evaluation cycle means that evaluations are now past due.
A new BLM Westside Oregon RMPs revision
process, like the past WOPR, is likely in the near future. The 2011 plan evaluation of
Westside Oregon RMPs is required prior to plan revisions or major plan amendments to
understand why certain RMP objectives have not been met and what issues should be brought
forward into the planning process. The plan evaluation serves as the starting point for
the preparation plan. The preparation plan serves as the foundation of the entire planning
process. A new plan revision or major amendment will take years to complete, the plan
evaluation will identify needs for interim plan amendments or maintenance.
Appendix B. Authors Of Cooperate
and Collaborate Paper: Land Use Compatibility & BLM RIA/Resource Lands Allocation In
Westside Oregon
This Cooperate and Collaborate Paper
is an initial land use report of a proposal without any commitment to action; it is
potentially the first step in enhancing the land use compatibility of lands adjacent to or
nearby BLM RIA/Resource Lands in Westside Oregon. This draft brainstorming paper is open
ended. It can also be known as an initial consultation document merely proposing a BLM
Westside Oregon management strategy to be considered. It is anticipated that it will be
updated as it is refined through the involvement and networking of other co-sponsors.
Appendix C. BLM Adaptive Management
Areas & Rural Interface Areas: A Case Study For Josephine County
- Adaptive Management Areas (AMA) are one BLM allocation
prescription in Westside Oregon that can be managed as commercial forest land. Most timber
harvest volume comes from matrix lands, which includes General Forest Management Areas,
AMAs, and Connectivity/Diversity Blocks. This paper is, in part, a case study of AMAs,
Rural Interface Areas (RIA), and private lands in Josephine County which are suitable for
commercial forest uses including adjacent or nearby lands to BLM RIA/Resource Lands which
are necessary to permit forest operations or practices on BLM RIA/Resource Lands. It
applies to all of Westside Oregon.
-
- Adaptive Management Areas The BLM
MDOs policy, for land it administers in Josephine County, Oregon, is that commercial
forest land is all forest land that is capable of yielding at least 20 cubic feet of wood
per acre per year of commercial tree species (Reference 1, Reference 2, & Reference
3). It does not matter that Josephine Countys internal rate of return (IRR) standard
for private lands is 85 cubic feet of wood per acre per year of commercial tree species. What
matters is that the private lands are adjacent or nearby resource zoned lands (BLM
RIA/Resource Lands) managed by BLM using the 20 cubic feet of wood per acre per year standard.
Reference 1 USDI, BLM,
Medford District Office. August 1992. Draft Medford District Resource Management Plan
and Environmental Impact Statement. Volume II, Appendix 3-T-1: Timber Production
Capability Classification. provides, in relevant part, page Appendix 3-46.
Reference 2 USDI, BLM, Medford District
Office. October 1994. Final - Medford District Proposed Resource Management Plan and
Environmental Impact Statement. Volume I. provides, in relevant part, pages Chapter 2-20 -
Chapter 2-22.
Reference 3 USDI, BLM, Medford District
Office. June 1995. Record of Decision and Resource Management Plan. provides, in
relevant part, pages 36 - 39,103, & 108.
- A the largest forest manager in Jackson and Josephine
counties, the BLM, has large amounts of land in the Applegate area it administers as AMA.
Land allocated by BLM to AMA inventories as commercial forest land, and except for a small
amount of land withdrawn for riparian protection, it can be managed as commercial forest
land under the AMA land use allocation.
-
- The BLM MDO RMP records that lands allocated to AMAs
available for timber harvest and management for future harvest (USDI, BLM, Medford
District Office. June 1995. Record of Decision and Resource Management Plan. provides,
in relevant part, pages 36 - 38). The allocation objectives for AMAs follow.
-
- Objective.
Develop and test new management approaches to integrate and achieve
-
ecological and economic health and other social objectives. (RMP, page
-
36)
-
- Objective.
Contribute substantially to achievement of SEIS ROD objectives including
-
provision of well-distributed late- successional habitat outside reserves,
-
retention of key structural elements of late-successional forests on lands
-
subjected to regeneration harvest, restoration and protection of riparian
-
zones, and provision of a stable timber supply. (RMP, page 36)
-
(emphasis added)
Objective.
Specific emphasis for the Applegate AMA
includes development and
testing of forest management practices including partial cutting,
prescribed burning, and low impact approaches to forest harvest
(e.g., aerial systems) that provide a broad range of forest values, including
late-successional forest and high quality riparian habitat. (RMP, page 36)
(emphasis added)
- The BLM MDOs stated objectives for the Applegate
AMA from its 2009 Program Summary And Monitoring Report follows: [BLM Medford District
Office: Medford District Annual Program Summary And Monitoring Report For Fiscal Year
2009,
- http://www.blm.gov/or/districts/medford/plans/files/MDO_FY09_APS_web.pdf]
-
- The
Medford Districts Applegate Adaptive Management Area is managed to restore
- and
maintain late-successional forest habitat while developing and testing management
- approaches
to achieve the desired economic and other social objectives. [page 77]
-
- Most
timber harvest volume comes from matrix lands, which includes General Forest
- Management
Areas (GFMA), Adaptive Management Areas (AMA), and
-
Connectivity/Diversity Blocks. [page 8]
-
- The land is not vacant in terms of its
natural resources, its ecological functions, and the jobs resulting from BLM management.
AMAs are managed with ecological, economic and social objectives, including management for
wildlife habitat and timber production.
-
- Rural Interface Areas The 1995 ROD/RMP
[BLM Medford District Office Record of
- Decision/Resource Management Plan] objective for the
rural interface areas (RIAs) is to consider the interests of adjacent and nearby rural
residential land owners during analysis, planning, and monitoring activities occurring
within managed public RIAs. These interests include personal health and safety,
improvements to property, and quality of life [BLM Medford District Office: Medford
District Annual Program Summary And Monitoring Report For Fiscal Year 2009, page 29]
-
- Fire management, including hazard fuels reduction, is
part of the safety and property protection issue. This is certainly a hot topic for the
citizens located in the interior Rogue Valley. Hazard fuel reduction projects reduce the
unnatural build-up of fuel in the forest. Fuels can be natural fuels, forest vegetation or
debris, activity fuels, debris left over from woodcutters or forest thinning projects or
ladder fuels, small trees or brush that carry a ground fire up into the canopy.
-
- The following information about RIAs in southwestern
Oregon, including Josephine County, is from a BLM planning document: USDI, BLM, Medford
District Office (MDO). October 1994. Final - Medford District Proposed Resource
Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement. Volume I [Final BLM MDO EIS]
-
- Rural
Interface Areas - Areas where BLM-administered lands are adjacent to or
-
intermingled with privately owned lands zoned for 1 to 20-acre lots or that already have
- residential
development [page - Glossary - 13, Final BLM MDO EIS].
-
- Rural
Interface Areas - BLM Issue and Concern. Which BLM-administered lands
- should be
allocated to receive special management practices due to concerns of
- residents
who live in close proximity? Rural interface areas (RIAs) are areas where
-
BLM-administered lands are adjacent to or mingled with the privately owned lands
- where
county zoning has created or allows for creation of lots as small as 1 - 20 acres.
- In
most RIAs, concerns of the residents are related to forest and range
-
management practices, visual quality, and potential effects on domestic water
- sources
and water supplies [page 1-8, Final BLM MDO EIS]. (emphasis added)
-
- The areas
where rural residential and/or farm/forest zoning occur near
-
BLM-administered land have been labeled RIAs. Private RIAs are defined as private
- land zoned
for rural residential or farm/forest ½ mile from adjoining BLM-administered
- land.
Public RIAs are defined as BLM-administered land ½ mile from the land zoned
- for rural,
ruralresidential, or farm/forest [page 3-116 Final BLM MDO EIS].
-
- More than
500,000 acres in the planning area [BLM Medford District] have been
- inventoried
as RIA lands, 220,084 acres are private RIA lands (43 percent) and
- 292,096 are
public RIA lands (57 percent) [page 3-116 Final BLM MDO EIS].
-
- There are
151,298 acres of private land zoned for lots as small as 6 to 20 acres within
- one-half
mile of BLM-administered land [in the BLM Medford District]. This
- represents
a potential maximum of 7,500 residences adjacent to BLM-administered
- land [page
3-116 Final BLM MDO EIS].
-
- The total
land open for potential residences in the private RIA is 220,084 acres
-
(approximately 35,000 residences) [page 3-116 Final BLM MDO EIS].
-
- Rural interface areas (RIAs) were a new innovative
idea for the BLMs 1990s planning cycle for Westside Oregon. They were the result of
the consistent and persistent concerns of the general public and the residential public
living on lands adjacent or nearby BLM managed resource lands. It had become difficult for
BLM to accomplish its resource management job with the numerous public complaints and
lawsuits, and BLM decided to address the public concern issue directly. [December 27, 2010
Interview of Mike Walker by Leta Neiderheiser and Evelyn Heinrichs: Mike Walker was the
1986 - 1994 BLM Rural Interface Area/Outdoor Recreation Planner Interdisciplinary Team
Member for the Medford District Proposed Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact
Statement; Walker wrote the rural interface chapter of the BLM MDO Final EIS (USDI,
BLM, Medford District Office. October 1994. Final - Medford District Proposed Resource
Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement. Volume I.. Chapter 5 Consultation
and Coordination, pages 5-16 through 5-20, List of Preparers].
-
- Addressing the public controversy of the management of
BLM resource lands adjacent to rural residential living activities became necessary for
BLM. It resulted in the RIA concept becoming a standard element for BLMs 1990s
planning cycle Westside Oregon, including the BLM Medford District Office, because, in
part, local governments mitigating measure/conditions of approval (e.g, Josephine County
Rural Land Development Code (RLDC) 46.050.C.5. & 6. etc.) provided by the local
governments planning systems were not effective in mitigating the conflicts between
the management activities on BLM-administered resource lands and the home living
activities on adjacent or nearby residential lands. (December 27, 2010 Walker Interview)
-
- The BLM in Westside Oregon, including the BLM MDO,
needed its own management tools to try to effectively manage its public RIA resources
lands adjacent to the countys private RIAs as local governments attempts to
solve the conflicts between the activities on resource lands and adjacent residential
lands were not effective. This included Josephine Countys planning efforts
associated with ineffective conditions of approval and conflict preference covenants (RLDC
46.050.C.5. & 6.).
-
RLDC 46.050.C.5. A lot or
parcel shall not be considered necessary to permit farm practices or forest
operations on adjacent or nearby lands if the necessary
benefit can be preserved through the imposition of special restrictions or
conditions on the use of the subject property which reasonably assure
continuation of the benefit. (emphasis added)
-
- RLDC 46.050.C.6. As a condition upon the
approval of all plan and map changes from resource to nonresource designations, the
property owner shall be required to execute and record in the county deed records a Conflict
Preference Covenant, which recognizes the rights of adjacent and nearby resource land
owners to conduct normal farm practices and forest operations. The covenant shall provide
that all land use conflicts between non-resource uses on the subject property and adjacent
or nearby resource operations will be
resolved in favor of accepted farm and forest practices and operations. (emphasis added)
-
- History has since shown that BLM was no more
successful than Josephine County in effectively mitigating the conflicts between resource
use practices on BLM-administered lands adjacent to rural residential living activities
(December 27, 2010 Walker Interview).
-
- If adjacent or nearby private RIA lands becomes
Residential under a PAPA, their benefit as an impact buffer (RLDC 46.050.C.1.) to the
nearby BLM Resource Lands, or adjacent BLM/RIA Resource Lands, will become lost and a
portion of the nearby BLM Resource Lands will become a public RIA. The reallocation of
adjacent or nearby private RIA lands from Woodlot Resource to Rural Residential 5 will be
a loss of the impact buffer benefit to BLM and will interfere with accepted forest
operations on BLM lands by significantly impeding or significantly increasing the cost of
the practices or operations on the public RIA (RLDC 46.050.C.2). As an example, this
impact is not an isolated impact to 40 acres of public RIA, but part of a cumulative
impact significantly increasing the cost of the forest management practices or operations
to potentially 292,096 acres of public RIA lands, especially those surrounding the subject
property and the surrounding forest operations (RLDC 46.050.C.3.).
-
- It is a fact that BLM spent hundreds of thousands of
dollars recognizing the RIA issue,
- identifying the BLM private and public RIA lands with
the highest potential to become conflict RIA lands, and developing RIA prescriptions to
attempt to address adjacent residential landowners concerns. All BLM Westside Oregon
districts have this RIA management issue and RIA prescriptions in their existing resource
management plans because local mitigating measures/conditions of approval were not
effective (RLDC 46.050.C.5. & 6).
Appendix D. Interagency Cooperation and
Collaboration: Western Oregon Task Force, Final Report to the Secretary of Interior
(Page 21 of 63, July 22, 2010 )
- Interagency Vision: The NWFP was an
unprecedented effort by the Federal Government to
- develop a common vision for forest management of
public lands in the Pacific Northwest. It was an attempt, by the highest levels of
Government, to resolve natural resource conflict by
- addressing species conservation and habitat needs,
while ensuring a sustainable flow of goods and services from Federal forests to help
secure rural communities that depend upon those Federal lands for their livelihoods.
Essential to successful implementation of the NWFP was a system of interagency governance
composed of policy and implementation oversight teams ranging from the agency executives
to staff. (Page 21 of 63, Western Oregon Task Force)
-
- A common vision can provide the integration between
the agencies missions. For example,
- species conservation is a dominant feature under the
ESA and is used as a measure in evaluating jeopardy. Land management agencies operating
under FLPMA or NFMA have a conservation mandate. It is generally accepted that the O&C
Act is subject to the ESA and hence has a conservation mandate as well. Illuminating the
conservation component of these statutes is a way of harmonizing the agency missions to
create a common vision. (Page 21 of 63, Western Oregon Task Force)
-
- The WOPR planning effort, and reaction to the ROD,
calls attention to the perception that the Federal agencies and the public do not share a
common vision on the management of the O&C lands and the lands encompassed by the
NWFP. This lack of common vision creates tension and conflict in the development of
project-level actions designed to meet the goals and expectations of the overlying plan.
Tension and conflict, both with the WOPR and the NWFP, have been expressed through the
time it takes to get projects through the ESA Section 7 consultation process, the lack of
up-front collaboration in designing projects, and frequent litigation on project actions.
Lack of commonly agreed upon standards and commitment to adhere to those standards for
project design criteria stalls
- project consultations. (emphasis added) (Page
21 of 63, Western Oregon Task Force)
-
- There is a wide range of viewpoints on how well
agencies cooperated and collaborated on
- WOPR. The Federal family consists of the management
agencies, the BLM and FS, and the
- regulatory agencies, FWS, NMFS, and the EPA. In
addition, numerous Oregon State agencies and many counties were involved in the
development of WOPR and many had formal cooperating agency status. The Coquille Tribe had
a seat on the steering committee. Many of these groups felt the Purpose and Need statement
for the WOPR was narrow and overly constraining and developed without adequate
collaborative involvement. Additionally, the deadline set by the settlement agreement for
completion of the planning revision, December 31, 2008, prevented them from engaging in a
more collaborative manner. For example, several State agencies stated that they were
unable to adequately resolve issues, resulting in the letter of concern sent by Governor
Ted Kulongoski (Appendix 7). The WOPR was viewed by many as disassociated from the NWFP,
which reduced agency and public support of the effort. Although extensive outreach and
interagency coordination opportunities were offered, some cooperating agencies felt the
outcome was predetermined and did not fully engage. (Page 21 of 63, Western Oregon Task
Force)
-
- Several cooperating agencies stated that, due to
constraints of the Purpose and Need, they felt this would not be a truly collaborative
effort. Consequently, this affected their commitment to the effort. Some expressed strong
differences of opinion on the science and the assumptions used in modeling. The regulatory
agencies stated consultation was difficult at the landscape level because plans do not
provide the detail necessary to evaluate the effect of an action on a species. The
question of whether consultation was required led to considerable debate among the Federal
agencies. These events led to frustration, a feeling of not being heard, and again, that
the decision was preordained. (Pages 21 - 22 of 63, Western Oregon Task Force)
-
- Several Federal agencies expressed concern over their
inability to thoroughly examine models, assumptions, and outcomes during the planning
process. The schedule appeared to drive very tight timeframes that inhibited opportunity
for full interagency discourse on those efforts, which lead to the disagreement and
distrust. On the other hand, the WOPR steering committee clearly established a science
team that was to provide advice, direction, and oversight on the underlying science and
analysis; however, the science team did not include scientists from cooperating agencies.
Because the science team did not have all requisite backgrounds necessary for the full
range of analysis undertaken, team members contracted with outside scientists on certain
modeling efforts. It appears that most modeling and analysis efforts either directly
involved expert scientists, or relied upon their research. (Page 22 of 63, Western
Oregon Task Force)
-
- While the lack of up-front agreement and understanding
of the underlying science and models used in the plan-level analysis created concerns with
the regulatory agencies, this was of much greater concern for NMFS. This resulted in a
basic distrust of the science and has translated into distrust at the project level when
projects are proposed using this science. Largely due to the underlying statutes governing
each agencys role in the consultation process, adoption of a precautionary
principle has driven changes to project design. The precautionary principle is one
in which, in light of inadequate information (or disagreement on the science), the most
conservative approach is taken in developing final action design. The consultation
process, unlike the NEPA process, does not employ an interdisciplinary team and projects
can be modified by the action and consulting agency biologists to a point that raises
issues about the scope of the existing NEPA analysis. (Page 22 of 63, Western Oregon
Task Force)
-
- Some people raised a concern that proposed critical
habitat for the northern spotted owl did not align with the late successional reserve
allocations in the NWFP. This comment was also made regarding the involvement of the BLM
with the FWS in identifying critical habitat, and whether there was undue influence in
this process. These people believed the regulatory agencies must operate independent of
the land management agencies in developing critical habitat. A similar concern was raised
that key watersheds did not align with the high intrinsic potential habitat for fish.
(Page 22 of 63, Western Oregon Task Force)
-
- Public Outreach and Involvement: The BLM
had a massive and broad ranging public outreach effort during the development of WOPR. In
addition to the involvement of cooperating agencies, the BLM maintained a mailing list of
1,600 individuals and organizations, held a total of 75 scoping meetings, and numerous key
contact meetings during the 45-day formal scoping period. During the 5-month public
comment period for the draft EIS (a minimum of 90 days is required), BLM held over 150
formal public meetings, open houses at District Offices, and meetings on request from
organizations. The BLM used an innovative online web comment forum to both inform the
public about the plan and to gather comments. The BLM received 3,000 comments during
public scoping and 29,500 comments on the draft EIS. The agency also issued eight
newsletters during the 29-month period from plan initiation until the draft EIS, detailing
each step in the planning process. (Page 25 of 63, Western Oregon Task Force)
-
- Even with this level of outreach, many people believe
the public involvement was not effective or collaborative. Concerns were expressed
that only those people with a keen interest in the outcome participated and the general
public did not participate. Some people and organizations only participated to the extent
required to maintain standing for future Court actions. People also indicated there was
distrust in the planning process. They felt the plan was an attempt to increase harvest
levels, decrease protection for species and water quality, and the decision was made at
the start. The settlement agreement was often cited as a reason for this distrust.
(emphasis added) (Page 25 of 63, Western Oregon Task Force)
-
- In general, representatives of the wood products
industry were complimentary of BLMs efforts to solicit public comments and the
state-of-the-art online interactive public comment forum. Several noted that BLM went
above and beyond the minimum requirements to solicit public input. In
contrast, representatives from environmental organizations deemed the WOPR to be
dead on arrival due to the settlement agreement which they felt dictated a
plan revision with narrowly defined parameters. Although there were abundant opportunities
for the public to participate, the environmental representatives stated these were not
meaningful. Some stated the online interactive comment forum was established late in the
process (i.e., when the draft plan was released); and, as a result, they felt it was an ineffective
collaborative tool. (emphasis added) (Page 25 of 63, Western Oregon Task Force)
-
Members of Federal agencies, cooperators, and the
public expressed a desire to have a meaningful collaborative process.
Many think that any future effort must be collaborative in order to develop consensus
around alternatives which will bring together the support of the majority of the public,
stakeholders, and cooperating agencies. Many cited the efforts at the local level
demonstrating collaborative, early engagement of the public as seen in the Siuslaw
National Forest, the Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board watershed councils, and
non-Governmental organization work in numerous areas of Oregon. The Roseburg BLM Office
was cited for beginning a local collaborative process to develop forestry projects.
Some suggested designing an outreach process that would go to the stakeholder
first, rather than holding large public meetings to inform the public of a proposed
project. (emphasis added) (Pages 25 - 26 of 63, Western Oregon Task Force)
Appendix E. Oregon Statewide Goal 4:
Forest Lands - OAR 660-015-0000(4) & Case Study for Josephine County (Goal 4 -
http://www.lcd.state.or.us/LCD/docs/goals/goal4.pdf)
Oregon Statewide Goal 4 defines forest
lands and requires counties to inventory them and adopt policies and ordinances that will
"conserve forest lands for forest uses."
- To
conserve forest lands by maintaining the forest land base and to protect the state's
- forest
economy by making possible economically efficient forest practices that assure
- the
continuous growing and harvesting of forest tree species as the leading use on
- forest land
consistent with sound management of soil, air, water, and fish and wildlife
- resources
and to provide for recreational opportunities and agriculture.
-
-
Forest lands are those lands acknowledged as forest lands as of the date of adoption
- of this
goal amendment. Where a plan is not acknowledged or a plan amendment
- involving
forest lands is proposed, forest land shall include lands which are suitable for
- commercial
forest uses including adjacent or nearby lands which are necessary to
- permit
forest operations or practices and other forested lands that maintain soil, air,
- water and
fish and wildlife resources.
A determination whether land falls
within the Goal 4 definition of forest lands thus requires analysis of:
- (1) whether the land is suitable for commercial forest
uses;
- (2) whether the land is necessary to permit forest
operations or practices on adjacent or nearby forest lands; and
- (3) whether the forested land is necessary to maintain
soil, air, water and fish and wildlife resources.
An affirmative answer to any one of
these three inquires means the land is forest land protected by Goal 4. DLCD
v. Curry County, 33 Or LUBA 728 (1997).
- Approval of local governments
post-acknowledgement plan amendments (PAPAs) requires
- findings of compliance with Oregon Statewide Goal 4 -
Forest Land, including for Josephine County, the Josephine County Comprehensive Plan
(JCCP) Goal 11 Policy 3.B.[3], JCCP Goal 11 Policy 3.C., Josephine County Rural Land
Development Code (RLDC) 46.050.B.3. and RLDC 46.050.C.
-
- Goal 4 defines forest land to include adjacent
or nearby lands which are necessary to permit forest operations or practices. JCCP
Goal 11 Policy 3.B[3] implements this element of Goal 4 and requires findings that the
subject property is not necessary lands. JCCP Goal 11 Policy 3.C., RLDC
46.050.B.3. and RLDC 46.050.C explain what facts and factors are to be considered and how
the analysis is to be conducted.
Appendix F. Local Governments
Interpretation: ORS 197.829(1)(d)
ODFW v. Josephine County, LUBA
2008-022, 6/18/2009 http://www.oregon.gov/LUBA/docs/Opinions/2009/06-09/08222.pdf
- Where a
local code provision mirrors a state statute, the local officials interpretation
- of the
local code provision is not entitled to the usual deference for interpretation of
- local code
provisions. Rather, LUBAs standard of review, under ORS 197.829(1)(d),
- is whether
the interpretation is contrary to the state law that the local law implements.
- That review
requires interpretation of state law according to the usual LUBA rules of
- statutory
construction.
-
- Research Question: Do Josephine County PAPAs
involving JCCP GOAL 11: Policy 3.C. and RLDC 46.050.B.C.) satisfy the ODFW v. Josephine
County standard for a local code provision mirroring a state statute? If this
connection is made ODFW v. Josephine County applies, and LUBAs standard for
review would be Oregon Statewide Goal 4: Forest Lands (Appendix D) - OAR 660-015-0000(4)
and its applicable OARs rather than the countys interpretation.
-
- Josephine County Comprehensive Plan (JCCP) GOAL 11:
Policy 3.C.
- (http://www.co.josephine.or.us/files/gp2005.pdf)
-
- C.
Land is necessary to permit farm practices or forest operations on
- adjacent
or nearby lands when the land within the lot or parcel provides a special
- land use
benefit, the continuance of which is necessary for the adjacent or nearby
- practice or
operation to continue or occur. . . . (emphasis added)
-
- Josephine County Rural Development Code (RLDC)
46.050.B.C.
- (http://www.co.josephine.or.us/Files/complete_code_2005.pdf)
-
- C.
Land is necessary to permit farm practices or forest operations on
- adjacent
or nearby lands when the land within the lot or parcel provides a special
- land use
benefit, the continuance of which is necessary for the adjacent or nearby
- practice or
operation to continue or occur. . . . (emphasis added)
-
- GOAL 4: Forest Lands, OAR 660-015-0000(4) (Appendix
D)
- (http://www.lcd.state.or.us/LCD/docs/goals/goal4.pdf)
-
- Forest lands are those lands acknowledged as
forest lands as of the date of adoption of this goal amendment. Where a plan is not
acknowledged or a plan amendment involving forest lands is proposed, forest land shall
include lands which are suitable for commercial forest uses including adjacent or
nearby lands which are necessary to permit forest operations or practices and other
forested lands that maintain soil, air, water and fish and wildlife resources.
(emphasis added)
C:\Documents and
Settings\mike\My Documents\AAA Applications\Rogue Advocates\Issues\BLM Necessary Forest
Lands\Land Use Compatibility And BLM Lands Paper 032211.wpd
Back to Top
|