Regna Merritt is Executive Director of Oregon Wild, the most important environmental advocacy group in Oregon. As described on their website:
Founded in 1974, Oregon Wild works to protect and restore Oregon’s wildlands, wildlife and waters as an enduring legacy for all Oregonians.
Oregon Wild (formerly the Oregon Natural Resources Council or ONRC) has been instrumental in securing permanent legislative protection for some of Oregon’s most precious landscapes, including nearly 1.7 million acres of Wilderness, 95,000 acres of forests in Bull Run/Little Sandy watersheds (to safeguard the quality of Portland's water supply) and almost 1,800 miles of Wild and Scenic Rivers. As a leader of the national grassroots charge for conservation of roadless areas in our national forests, Oregon Wild helped secure administrative protections for more than 58 million acres of spectacular roadless areas across the country.
Our wilderness, old-growth forest and clean rivers/watersheds programs protect pristine drinking water, unparalleled recreation opportunities and fish and wildlife habitat across Oregon.
Nobody in the Pacific Northwest is a better resource for learning about environmental issues, and about the political complexities of addressing them; and she was gracious enough to answer a series of emailed questions.
In terms of your work and your issues, what would you say were the greatest overall failures of the Bush Administration?
You could write a book (or two) about the catastrophic failures of the Bush administration in dealing with public lands, forests, rivers, and endangered species. In fact, I’m sure people are writing those books right now (if they haven’t already hit shelves). For Oregon Wild, one issue might stand out above all when evaluating the Bush years. From the jump, the Bush White House made its allegiance to special timber interests clear. They hired former lobbyists for the timber industry to run day-to-day operations in our National Forests. They settled lawsuits that the timber industry had brought behind closed doors and before those claims could be fairly heard in court. For eight years, they took a hatchet to the science-based protections established by the Northwest Forest Plan. They went after our last remaining old-growth forests and cut citizens out of process. Now, eight years later, many of their policies have failed or are on their way to the dustbin of history. However, in an era where there is more consensus than ever over responsible and beneficial forest management, the Bush onslaught was a huge waste of time, money, and energy. Of course, not heeding the good science, favoring development interests over all other public lands users, attempting to dismantle critical provisions in the Endangered Species Act, completely ignoring the climate crisis—these were all pretty backwards policies as well.
What were the most immediate challenges faced by the new Obama Administration, after the Bush Administration?
I think the broad challenge for the Obama team was to restore credibility to agencies that had been run for political purposes when they should have been running based on sound science-based policy. The Julie MacDonald scandal at US Fish and Wildlife. The bevy of former (and now current) industry lobbyists that filled important posts. The complete disdain for science, including the muzzling of agency scientists. These issues combined to make many agencies pretty dysfunctional. To face down the specific challenges that these agencies face, the Obama administration first needed to clear the air.
To what degree have these challenges been addressed?
I think we’ve seen some concrete changes, but more needs to be done. It’s great to hear President Obama address Interior Department employees telling them that "science is back." But, it is a whole other thing to see actual policy decisions reflect that. Policies related to global warming, automobile emissions, and other clean energy related issues have been a focus of the administration. But with certain decisions, we’ve seen politics play a more significant role than science. The administration’s attempt to follow through on a Bush-era proposal to remove gray wolves from Endangered Species Act protections is a prime example of that.
Did candidate Obama make any specific promises related to Northwest environmental issues?
A few come to mind. As a Senator and on the campaign trail, President Obama made clear his support for the protections provided by the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. Oregon alone has almost 2 million acres of roadless forests protected by the 2002 Rule. Of course, this Clinton-era policy was consistently attacked by the Bush White House and as a result, roadless policy is wandering in the wilderness right now. That is an area where President Obama’s leadership is really needed. Another issue that we heard from the President on while he was campaigning in Oregon was old-growth forest protection. In the Northwest, we have some of the last remaining ancient forests in the lower 48. And even here, up to 90% of our old growth has already been logged. President Obama said that timber operations on public lands should stay out of old-growth.
http://www.barackobama.com/...
http://www.flatheadbeacon.com/...
Has his administration already followed through on any of these promises, in any degree?
The Obama administration took the first step towards clarifying and codifying the protections of the 2001 Roadless Rule in May. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack issued a directive mandating secretarial review of all projects in roadless areas across the nation (including in Alaska’s Tongass National Forest). I say first step because we still have a long way to go to make sure that roadless areas are ultimately protected. Eventually, that means fully reinstituting the original 2001 Rule across the entire country, and ultimately pursuing legislation that would ensure the roadless protections remain no matter who is in the White House. On old growth, we’ve seen a "wait and see" approach from the administration so far. The big threat in the Northwest is right here in Oregon where the Bureau of Land Management finalized a plan in late December 2008 that would see a drastic increase in clear-cut logging of old-growth forests. This logging scheme is called the Western Oregon Plan Revisions (or WOPR, like the burger) and conservationists immediately went to court to protect the public’s interest in keeping our last ancient forests standing. The Obama administration has asked, and conservationists have assented, for time to evaluate the plan. We hope this leads to a rethinking of this damaging proposal and a brand new effort to redefine protections for old-growth forests while providing for a sustainable timber economy of appropriate scale through restoration-based thinning.
Has his administration already indicated that he won't follow through on any of these promises, and if so, how has it been explained?
Not really indicating they won’t follow through, but...see below.
Do you feel that his administration is now ignoring any of these promises, without overtly indicating that they won't follow through?
With all the major challenges facing the country right now, President Obama has a lot on his plate. Considering this, I think conservationists have to be realistic in our expectations as far as the relative speed at which western public lands decisions are going to be made. That being said, there are some big issues out there that are crying out for attention and action. From our perspective, the Obama administration isn’t ignoring these issues, they just aren’t tackling them as quickly or with the passion that we would have hoped. After suffering through Bush, the worst president ever for the environment, there is a whole lot out there that needs fixing. Things aren’t going to happen overnight, but the longer we wait, the more these bad precedents settle in and the harder they are to reverse.
Are there any important Northwest environmental issues to which neither the candidate nor his administration have paid enough attention?
One issue that certainly stands out is the role that Northwest old-growth forests can play in mitigating climate change. These forests store more carbon than any terrestrial ecosystem on Earth. All the talk has been about cap-and-trade. If we manage our publicly owned forests with carbon mitigation as a strong consideration (as insurance against inadequate caps and unsustainable trades), we can go a long way towards capturing and storing massive amounts of carbon pollution already in the atmosphere. Now that would be making a real change! The old growth/global warming relationship is one that the President and everyone on Capitol Hill should take a close look at.
To what degree do you feel that the Obama Administration listens to environmental organizations such as yours?
President Obama rose to the White House in large part due to a strong grassroots effort. So, we know that his team has a large degree of respect for groups that are tapped into and supported by the grassroots and know what is going on in their area. Environmental groups have always been very good at that. I think we are definitely seeing a trend right now that shows us that the Obama team is willing to hear us out. Certainly much more so than the prior administration.
To what degree do you feel that his federal appointments have included and excluded the Northwest environmental community?
This is an area where the President has made some pretty disappointing decisions. In the coming months and years, we will see just exactly how these appointments play out but, as it stands right now, the agency appointments have not been what you would expect if you were looking for people to really lead the charge in reversing Bush-era decisions. There was some trepidation from conservationists over the appointment of Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar and he has proven to be hit-or-miss with his decisions so far. Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) released a statement in late June on another Obama appointee—the nominee to head the US Fish and Wildlife Service, Sam Hamilton. PEER points out that Hamilton, who would oversee the implementation of the ESA, has "by far the weakest record on Endangered Species Act enforcement of any comparable official in the country." Other troubling appointments seem to contradict the policy positions of the President. Harris Sherman has been rumored to be the new selection for Undersecretary of Agriculture after the initial nominee Homer Wilkes withdrew his name. Sherman is one of the key architects Colorado’s effort to supplant the strong protections of the 2001 Roadless Rule with a weaker state-based plan. Similarly, the newly named head of the Forest Service, Tom Tidwell, cites his work designing a similar Idaho roadless plan (that would put hundreds of thousands of acres of pristine backcounty at risk) as a model for his new job.
http://www.peer.org/...
http://www.dailykos.com/...
http://durangoherald.com/...
http://www.google.com/...
To what degree do you feel that his federal appointments have included and excluded those antagonistic to the Northwest environmental community?
Really don’t know what the level of inclusion was. I think you’ve seen conservation groups be more concerned about his appointees whereas industry lobbyists seem more pleased with his natural resource appointments. Not sure what that amounts to though. One bright light from the Pacific Northwest: Jane Lubchenco. We wish there were more appointments like that!
If you could sit down, alone, with President Obama, what's the first thing you would tell him?
Environmental conservation not only means clean air, clean water, scenic vistas, and a natural legacy for our children and grandchildren—it means sustainable jobs, vibrant economies, and a healthy climate for all. By ending conflicts over old-growth logging, we can focus on restoration activities that create jobs and provide wood products. In restoring the Klamath River, from the wetlands of the upper basin to the salmon spawning grounds of the lower basin, we can bring a river back to life and help communities that rely on the river recover. Pursuing Wilderness designations for our pristine backcountry will bolster local tourism and recreation economies.
Is there anything you want the public to know about your work, and about the current political climate's impact on your work, that you feel I haven't addressed?
When the American public elected President Obama they had good reason to expect change in environmental policies. However, as a citizenry, we have the tendency to cast our vote and then think everything is going to be okay overnight. Folks who care about conservation would do well to remember lessons from the past. In 1992, environmentalists were thrilled to be moving away from Bush 41 and towards a much more friendly administration (I mean, Al Gore was gonna be Vice President). I think looking back we can count all manner of conservation successes from that era. But, we can also see that, once in power, even our "friends" were not as willing to take action on important issues as we had hoped they would be. So, what I would want the public to know about our work and how it relates to the current political climate is this: we may have a friendlier Congress and White House, but it is up to all of us to push from the grassroots, hold their feet to the fire and demand the kind of policies that we know we need. We fought so hard during the eight years of the Bush administration to keep bad policies at bay. We need the same passion, intensity, financial support, and activism to get good things done under President Obama.
Are there any websites, other than your own, of which you think blog readers should be aware?
Included above where relevant.