[Senate Hearing 110-430]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 110-430
OLD-GROWTH FOREST IN THE PACIFIC NORTHWEST
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC LANDS AND FORESTS
of the
COMMITTEE ON
ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
TO
RECEIVE TESTIMONY REGARDING OLD-GROWTH FOREST SCIENCE, POLICY AND
MANAGEMENT IN THE PACIFIC NORTHWEST
__________
MARCH 13, 2008
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
----------
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
43-391 PDF WASHINGTON : 2008
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico, Chairman
DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico
BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho
RON WYDEN, Oregon LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota RICHARD BURR, North Carolina
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana JIM DeMINT, South Carolina
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington BOB CORKER, Tennessee
KEN SALAZAR, Colorado JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama
BLANCHE L. LINCOLN, Arkansas GORDON H. SMITH, Oregon
BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont JIM BUNNING, Kentucky
JON TESTER, Montana MEL MARTINEZ, Florida
Robert M. Simon, Staff Director
Sam E. Fowler, Chief Counsel
Frank Macchiarola, Republican Staff Director
Judith K. Pensabene, Republican Chief Counsel
------
Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests
RON WYDEN, Oregon, Chairman
DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana RICHARD BURR, North Carolina
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington JIM DeMINT, South Carolina
KEN SALAZAR, Colorado JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama
BLANCHE L. LINCOLN, Arkansas GORDON H. SMITH, Oregon
BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont JIM BUNNING, Kentucky
Jeff Bingaman and Pete V. Domenici are Ex Officio Members of the
Subcommittee
C O N T E N T S
----------
STATEMENTS
Page
Barrasso, Hon. John, U.S. Senator From Wyoming................... 19
Beck, Paul H., Timber Manager, Herbert Lumber Company, Riddle, OR 33
Brown, Marvin D., State Forester, Oregon Department of Forestry,
Salem, OR...................................................... 30
Caswell, James, Director, Bureau of Land Management, Department
of the Interior................................................ 8
Craig, Hon. Larry E., U.S. Senator From Idaho.................... 15
Goodman, Linda, Regional Forester, Pacific Northwest Region,
Forest Service, Department of Agriculture...................... 2
Perry, David A., Professor Emeritus, Department of Forest
Science, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR................ 20
Smith, Hon. Gordon, U.S. Senator From Oregon..................... 16
Spivak, Randi, Executive Director, American Lands Alliance....... 39
Tappeiner, John, Professor Emeritus, College of Forestry, Oregon
State University, Corvallis, OR................................ 26
Wyden, Hon. Ron, U.S. Senator From Oregon........................ 1
APPENDIX
Responses to additional questions................................ 59
OLD-GROWTH FOREST IN THE PACIFIC NORTHWEST
----------
THURSDAY, MARCH 13, 2008
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests,
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:30 a.m. in
room SD-366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Ron Wyden
presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RON WYDEN, U.S. SENATOR FROM OREGON
Senator Wyden. The subcommittee will come to order.
The purpose of today's hearing is to receive testimony
about old-growth forest science policy and management in the
Pacific Northwest.
For too many years, old-growth forests have clearly been a
political battleground, but recently the groundwork for an
ideological truce has started to emerge. If all sides can agree
to bury the hatchet when it comes to protecting this country's
natural resources, we can also find common ground for
sustainable forest management in less sensitive areas.
When you take the pulse of the public, the resounding
outcome is that citizens want their old-growth protected. It's
my hope that today's hearing will highlight the unique role of
these forests, and help guide us to a policy that leads to the
protection of the public.
It's also been my sense that it is critical to stop the
needless, excessively costly battles, particularly legal
battles, surrounding efforts to log old-growth. It's been shown
again and again, there's disproportionate cost, energy, and
time spent on planning and litigating unpopular projects, such
as logging old growth, and this eats up the limited funds that
our agencies require to plan more urgently needed forest health
projects. Of course, those projects are exactly the kind of
projects needed to get ahead of the fires that now eat up more
than half of the Forest Service budget.
So absent compelling forest health concerns, it is time to
end logging of our ancient forests and close this chapter of
the debate on timber management.
As I've indicated in prior hearings, addressing the forest
restoration needs in the Northwest is an issue that I will be
moving forward very quickly with, with legislation.
It's clear that there is a need to thin out the overstock
stands, there are hundreds of thousands of acres there of
merchantable, you know, timber, and I think it is possible to
thin out those stands while still protecting the old growth
that our citizens care so much about.
We are going to have a particularly hectic morning, with
lots of votes on the floor, so I'm going to put all of my
remarks into the record, and I think Senators who do come will
do the same.
We want to welcome Linda Goodman, in particular. I know you
will be retiring before long, we thank you for your terrific
service. William Peter Wyden, and Eva Rose Wyden are very
grateful to have those wonderful t-shirts that were delivered
yesterday, they will be wearing them, and wearing them proudly.
Mr. Caswell, we welcome you, we welcome all of you. At
10:15 this morning, we also will be taking a moment of silence
here in the committee to honor the wonderful men and women who
serve this country in uniform, with such courage and valor.
So, it's going to be a hectic morning, and we'll start with
Linda Goodman, Regional Director of Pacific Northwest Region,
from my home town, the Honorable James Caswell, Mr. Caswell,
we're glad that you're here, you have colleagues, as well.
I would like to ask each of you to put your prepared
remarks in the record, and just summarize your key concerns--I
know there's always a kind of almost biological compulsion to
read, kind of, statements, and if you can just kind of
recognize--we'll put them in the record, and just highlight
your principal concerns, we'll have some time for questions,
that would be great.
We're also very grateful to Senator Barrasso and all his
good staff folks. We work in a bipartisan way in this
subcommittee, that's why we've be able to work successfully on
county payments and forest health, and the folks sitting in
back of me, on both the Democratic and Republican side are true
professionals, and we're anxious to follow up on your concerns.
So, we'll go right to you, Ms. Goodman. Welcome.
STATEMENT OF LINDA GOODMAN, REGIONAL FORESTER, PACIFIC
NORTHWEST REGION, FOREST SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Ms. Goodman. Thank you.
So, I will shorten my opening remarks, and tell you that
I'm pleased to have Dr. John Lawrence here with me. He's the
Program Manager of the Pacific Northwest Research Stations
Ecosystem Processes Programs.
So, I will submit my formal testimony, and I also want to
submit the first decade results of the Northwest Forest Plan.
This certainly gives you a lot of background information that
will be helpful for you.
So, I'd like to give you a little perspective on what we in
the Forest Service have learned about the science of old
growth. Of course, the question is really, what is old growth?
Old-growth forests mean many things to people. They are often
perceived as icons of stability, but they were not immune to
disturbance by nature over the centuries.
Today's old-growth forests result from a long journey
through time, and scientists are learning that the journey
forests take as they become old matters.
So, I think you know that we've heard lots of different
definitions about old growth. There isn't a widely accepted old
growth definition. The term ``old growth'' did not come from
science, but from foresters in the early days of logging. So I
want to give you one general definition developed by Tom Spies,
Research Forester from the Pacific Northwest Region Research
Station, and Jerry Franklin, Professor of Ecosystem Analysis,
College of Forest Resources at University of Washington in
1989.
It reads, in part, ``Old-growth forests are ecosystems,
distinguished by old trees, and related structural attributes
that may include tree size, accumulation of large, dead, woody
materials, a number of canopy layers, species composition, and
ecosystem function.''
To many people this translates to large trees, large down
logs, and a feeling of awe. Others think of relative islands of
trees that have been unchanged by time and disturbance. Our
research has taught us that this last picture, in particular,
is not accurate.
Others, such as Tom Bonnickson, in his book, America's
Ancient Forests, offers an additional perspective on how
forests have been shaped and changed over hundreds and
thousands of years, by physical and biological forces,
including people--we'll also enter this into the record, so I
won't quote you page by page of information, here.
But what old-growth forests look like, depends on where you
are. Old forests look strikingly different across the Pacific
Northwest, and different management is appropriate. So, I want
to give you a couple of examples.
The first is a wet old--if you look over here--the first is
a wet old-growth forest, and you've seen these many times,
Senator Wyden. It's characterized by very large Douglas Fir and
Western Hemlock trees, multiple layers in the canopy and large
dead logs on the forest.
The second is on the east side, the Ponderosa Pine Stand,
more open and park-like, with a simpler canopy and little
undergrowth on the ground. You might notice that the bases of
these trees are charred from a low-severity fire on the, burn
fuels on the forest floor.
So, let me talk a minute about threats to old-growth.
Although old-growth forests developed in the face of natural
adversity, they face many contemporary threats, particularly
fire, insects and disease.
In the dry forest of Eastern Oregon and Washington, fire
and insects constitute the most important threat these days.
Landscapes with too many trees and not enough open spaces are
vulnerable to high-intensity fire, different from what occurred
historically--they can kill large old trees.
We see many stands with too many trees, that are vulnerable
to insect attacks, that also kill old trees.
In moister areas, where the fire regimes are referred to as
mixed, meaning, historically, fires were of higher intensity
and lower frequency than in dry forests, fire still remains the
greatest threat to old forests, due to the accumulation of
fuels.
In wet forests, such as on the west side of the Cascades,
large, infrequent fires are the greatest natural threat, but
typically, those fires occur hundreds of years apart. For
instance, the last major fire on the west side, Biscuit,
occurred in July 2002 and burned approximately 500,000 acres
across all jurisdictions.
An emerging threat that causes us a great deal of
uncertainty and concern, is a rapidly changing climate, and how
it will affect natural threats to old forests. For example,
regional droughts could affect tree vigor across entire
watersheds. This, in turn, can invite beetle infestations
across whole landscapes, and we're seeing that right now in
Colorado, and British Columbia.
For thousands of years, forests of the region developed
without active management, in largely unpopulated areas. That's
not the case now. Our current management, and that for the
foreseeable future, will continue to focus on developing a
landscape with a diversity of forest agents that will
accumulate--accelerate the development of old growth. You know,
it's working. Between 1994 to 2003, gains well outpaced losses
from all causes, included limited stand replacing, harvest and
fire.
In dry and moist forests, that will mean fuels and density
management. This poster shows a before and after example. The
first picture was taken before a fuel treatment, the second,
after B&B. Same area, after the B&B fired in Central Oregon
burned through the treated stand, and the old trees survived as
a result of that treatment. You can see, the same area that--
how densely populated it was, many stands, we treated it, we
did prescribed burning, and when the fire went through, the old
trees survived.
Although science helps inform our management of current
forests of all ages, it's only part of the equation. You can
see that we get out quite a bit and spend time with our
scientists. The public's interest in the social, economic and
intangible values associated with old growth can not be
overlooked or underestimated, and you mentioned that in your
opening statement--the public really cares about old growth.
Some members of the public espouse the precautionary
principal--don't touch the forests at all. Other members of the
public expect us to be more aggressive in our management, and
want us to get the work done now. In an ideal world, we would
have a balanced approach everyone could agree on. However, as
we've seen through numerous appeals and litigation, the ideal
world does not exist.
As an agency, we continue to seek to strike a balance,
while fulfilling our professional responsibility to manage the
land for the public good.
We all know that if we reduce fuels in and around forested
ecosystems, including old-growth forests, we will protect them
from fire. Yet, there are those who say, ``Let nature take its
course.'' Hundreds of years ago, that approach worked, but now
that humans have become a large part of the old-growth
ecosystem, we must play an active role in managing these
systems.
Science can and does help us devise a portfolio of
management approaches to protect and develop diverse old-growth
forests. We believe science hold the keys, successfully
ensuring old-growth forests are always part of our legacy. We
also believe with the key of science, comes the responsibility
to use it properly, and I'm proud to say, we do.
So, let me finish by what we should be doing now. I believe
we must use all the resources we have at hand to manage
existing and future old-growth forests. This means we need to
protect current old growth from fire, insects and disease that
are threats because of conditions that we know are not right--
high fuel loads and old Ponderosa Pine on the East Side, for
instance. This means that we need to use the best science
available, couple d with innovative management to implement new
approaches to accelerate the development of complex forests,
that function as old growth, perhaps before their time.
It is our duty to work with all of the people to ensure the
forests of today become vibrant, living, legacies for future
generations to use and enjoy.
Thank you for letting me talk to you today, and I look
forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Goodman follows:]
Prepared Statement of Linda Goodman, Regional Forester, Pacific
Northwest Region, Forest Service, Department of Agriculture
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to testify on old growth management in the Pacific
Northwest. I am Linda Goodman, Regional Forester for the Pacific
Northwest Region for the USDA Forest Service. I would like to share
with you our perspective on science and management of old growth
forests in dry, wet, and mixed forest types across the Pacific
Northwest.
general characteristics
Old growth forests have high ecological, social, and economic
values and mean many things to people. While they are often perceived
as an icon of stability, old growth forests have not remained
undisturbed for centuries by nature. Today's old growth forests
developed and are continuing to develop along multiple pathways with
many low-severity and some high-severity disturbances along the way.
Scientists are learning that, as a result of the multiple pathways and
different timeframes forests take towards becoming old growth,
heterogeneity exists in old growth ecosystems.
What is an old growth forest? This is a simple question without a
simple answer for there is no single, widely accepted definition of old
growth. The term ``old growth'' did not originate as a scientific term
but came first from foresters in the early days of logging and later
from others who sometimes replace the term with the more dramatic, but
even less precise ``ancient forests''. There are many strong opinions
from different scientific disciplines and policy perspectives on the
appropriate definition(s) of old growth, including from forest ecology,
wildlife ecology, recreation, spirituality, economics, and sociology.
In 1989 a general definition for the Pacific Northwest was developed by
Tom Spies (Research Forester, Pacific Northwest Research Station) and
Jerry Franklin (Professor of Ecosystem Analysis, College of Forest
Resources, University of Washington). The definition reads, in part:
``Old growth forests are ecosystems distinguished by old trees and
related structural attributes . . . that may include tree size,
accumulation of large dead woody material, number of canopy layers,
species composition, and ecosystem function.'' Most scientists would
now include vertical and horizontal diversity in tree canopies as
important attributes of old growth forests.
The common features of many old growth forests are old trees and
structural complexity. We have learned that old growth forests are
diverse, varying in structure, function, and role of disturbance. In
the wetter provinces,\1\ old growth is characterized by dense multi-
layered forests; in drier provinces, by relatively open crown canopies
and understories. Many scientists believe that the diversity of forest
types within the Pacific Northwest and elsewhere necessitate multiple
definitions of old growth, and that these definitions should reflect
the inherent patterns and dynamics of the forest landscape mosaic of an
area. Just as there are many different types of forests for the diverse
array of climates, soils, and topography, there are many different
types of old-growth forests.\2\ For example, old growth forests east of
the Cascades and in the Klamath Province of southern Oregon
historically ranged from open, patchy stands, maintained by frequent
low-severity fire, to a mosaic of dense and open stands maintained by
mixed severity fire. In these areas, old growth structure and
composition were varied and were shaped by a complex disturbance regime
of fire, insects, and disease.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP) area has 12 distinct
provinces, classified by their differences in climate, vegetation,
geology, and landforms. One especially important difference is the fire
regime, or characteristic combination of fire frequency, intensity,
seasonal timing, and fire size in an ecosystem. Provinces are
considered to be dry and fire-prone are the Washington and Oregon
Eastern Cascades, Oregon and California Klamath, and the California
Cascades.
\2\ See, for example, PNW-GTR-720, January 2008, First-Decade
Results of the Northwest Forest Plan and Supplemental Materials, as
well as Kaufman et al. 2008. Defining Old Growth for the Fire Adapted
Forests of the Western United States, Ecology and Society 12(2): 15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tree (or stand) age or tree size are not by themselves adequate
descriptors of either the structure or function of old growth forests,
yet these two attributes are commonly used descriptors by the media and
public. Others use the absence of clearly visible human activity as a
necessary criterion for old growth, but there is no consensus on this
in the scientific community nor any real basis in experience or fact.
current science
Science has made great strides in refining our understanding of the
ecological roles of older forests and the structure associated with
those forests, which are important in the understanding of what old-
growth is in healthy, dynamic forest ecosystems. The ecological
functions of old growth include unique wildlife habitat, high levels of
carbon storage and cycling of nutrients, and capture, storage, and
release of clean water into streams and rivers. The Forest Service,
drawing on its research expertise, is exploring management strategies
to accelerate the development of multi-storied, complex structure (old-
growth) in forests of the Pacific Northwest where it has been lost
through previous logging or fire suppression and where, through that
loss, forest ecosystem function and resiliency are diminished or
impaired.
Research has demonstrated that, historically, the amount of old
growth forest across the Pacific Northwest region ebbed and flowed,
with natural disturbances creating a patchwork of forest ages across
landscapes. By 2004, ten years after the approval of the Northwest
Forest Plan,\3\ the total area of late-successional and old growth
forest (often referred to as ``older forest'') in the Northwest Forest
Plan area ranged from about 3 million acres to 8 million acres,
depending on the definition of late successional and old-growth forest.
Monitoring during this time has shown that the rate of increase of
acres of older forest is somewhat higher than expected. Between 1994 to
2003, gains well outpaced losses from all causes, including limited
stand-replacing harvest and wildfire. Overall losses from wildfire are
in line with what was projected, but the rates of loss have been highly
variable among different locations, with the highest rates of loss
occurring in the dry provinces. Increased densities of fuels and
development of ladder fuels increase the probability of high-severity
fire and the loss of late successional forest. Increasingly widespread
and prolonged outbreaks of insects and disease that, in turn, can lead
to higher and more widespread mortality and the cascading effects of
increased fire severity have the potential to further lower the overall
amount of older forests and trees. Monitoring suggests that rates of
fuel treatments and restoration of structure and disturbance regimes in
fire-dependent older forest types have been considerably less than is
needed to reduce potential for losses of these forests to severe
disturbance.\4\ As a consequence the old growth forests and landscapes
of the dry provinces are among the most threatened and degraded
coniferous forest ecosystems within the Northwest Forest Plan area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ In April, 1994 the Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior
issued a Record of Decision (ROD) for the Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP).
The ROD affects the management and administration of 22.1 million acres
of Federal land within 19 national forests in western Oregon, western
Washington, and northern California administered by the Forest Service
and Bureau of Land Management. The NWFP created 10 million acres of
reserves where development of late successional or riparian habitat is
the primary objective.
\4\ See PNW-GTR-720, January 2008, First-Decade Results of the
Northwest Forest Plan and Supplemental Materials.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
climate change
Changes in climate increase the uncertainty associated with forest
development and associated management. Climate and weather have changed
periodically during the development of our old forests. They will
continue to change at uncertain rates into the future (thereby
constituting a disturbance in their own right). Climate also interacts
with other disturbance factors that shape the development of forests.
Within the Pacific Northwest, the natural disturbance agents
potentially affected by climate include insects, disease, windthrow,
and fire. These disturbances often occur sequentially or in
combination. For example, when regional droughts affect tree vigor
across entire watersheds and contiguous blocks of host trees are
available, beetle populations can build and attack trees across whole
landscapes or regions. The resulting increase in dry fuels increases
the probability of fire. As a result of warming trends, it is possible
that insect and disease outbreaks could become quite large, as we
already are seeing in Colorado, British Columbia and elsewhere.
management implications
The mission of the Forest Service is to sustain the health,
diversity, and productivity of the nation's forests and grasslands to
meet the needs of present and future generations. The National Forest
Management Act (NFMA) establishes the goals of maintaining species
diversity and ecological productivity on National Forest System lands.
Ensuring a diversity in forest ages and stand structures across
landscapes and the region supports this goal and mission. Old growth
has an important role in that mixture, in ecosystem dynamics and in
providing unique wildlife habitat. In many cases active management is
needed to restore old growth or reduce the risk of loss of old growth
to high severity fire. We believe that, on the east side of the
Cascades, it will be necessary to treat stands to manage fire and
insects to re-establish and maintain a diversity of forest age and
stand structures. On the west side, thinning and other such treatments
are necessary to accelerate and/or continue the development of desired
future structural conditions in dense, uniform young forests.
Current research supports the view that to achieve conservation
outcomes it is best to avoid ``one-size-fits-all'' approaches as much
as possible. Using different definitions of late successional and old-
growth will result in different silvicultural approaches taking into
account the differences in the role of fire, insects and disease for
the different forest types. In managing old growth forests, it also is
important to consider multiple spatial scales including trees, stands,
landscapes, and regions. This is why we develop site-specific
integrated management prescriptions at the stand and landscape level.
The classic conservation approach of dividing the landscape into
reserves and production areas may not work well in dynamic landscapes--
new approaches need to be tested and applied using adaptive management
principles.
Because dry old-growth forests (such as ponderosa pine) likely
developed as a result of frequent low intensity fires that created
relatively open forests with scattered large trees and patches of
regeneration across the landscape, re-establishing the structure of
these forests and the natural role of fire will require a combination
of mechanical removal of trees and the use of prescribed fire on a
site-by-site basis. Many such projects have been implemented in the dry
forest on the east side of the Cascade Mountains, for instance near
Black Butte Ranch in Oregon, with demonstrable success. In more moist
forests (such as mixed conifer), fire has also been a predominant force
historically, but the fire regime is more variable and includes some
infrequent, large, intense fires, but with significant patchiness,
leading to a more complex mosaic of forest on the landscape. Management
might make use of strategically placed area treatments (SPLAT) to
reduce fuels and protect important older forest stands in mixed types.
This strategy has been implemented at the Sagehen Experimental Forest
and is part of an amendment to the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan. The
wetter old growth forests typically developed following infrequent
stand replacement disturbances that were sometimes caused by fire, but
in coastal areas, could also be caused by extreme wind. Such
disturbances killed most or all of the canopy trees and created large
patches of diverse young forest that required centuries to become
structurally complex old growth. In the Coast Range of Oregon, active
management projects, such as the Five Rivers Landscape Management
Project, are testing alternative approaches to accelerating the
development of old-growth characteristics through thinnings, dead wood
management, and riparian rehabilitation.
Management treatments to accelerate the development of complex
structure can be undertaken in any of the forest types and are most
effective in younger, uniform stands including both natural stands and
plantations, or dense older forests where fire suppression has allowed
dense understories to accumulate, increasing the risk of high severity
fire. It should be noted that many of the habitat values of old growth
forests can occur in younger forests where some structural complexity
(e.g. large old live and dead trees, shrubs, canopy openings etc.)
occurs. Management might be appropriate at many ages to achieve a goal
of re-establishing the dynamic mosaic of forest ages across the
landscape, especially in light of changes in management of private
forest lands. This highlights the need to evaluate older forests in the
context of landscape-level planning and longer time frames. Our forest
planning process provides the best vehicle for accomplishing this
assessment. By contrast, broad `one-size-fits-all' legislative
prescriptions are less useful.
conclusion
Multiple definitions of old growth are appropriate for the
diversity of forest types within the Pacific Northwest. Old growth
definitions and management strategies should be refined to reflect the
inherent patterns and dynamics of the forest landscape mosaic of an
area.
To re-establish a diversity of forest age and stand structures in
some locations it will be necessary to treat stands on the east side of
the Cascades to manage fire and insects. On the west side of the
Cascades, treatments will be needed in some locations to accelerate
and/or continue the development of desired future structural conditions
in dense, uniform young forests.
The most threatened and degraded coniferous forest ecosystems
within the Pacific Northwest are the old growth forests and landscapes
in dry provinces. Conserving the ecological diversity of these forests
is a major challenge. Increasing the amount of active management
through use of mechanical treatments and prescribed fire is critical to
restoring and protecting these important landscapes. On the westside of
the Cascades, thinning tree plantations and other silvicultural
practices can help to restore ecological diversity in young forests and
accelerate the development of old growth characteristics.
We are committed to using all the tools at our disposal to ensure
that landscapes include older forests that are sustainable through time
and able to weather the multitude of changes that are predicted to
occur in the future. We are also committed to using these tools to
produce the myriad ecological and economic values the public demands
from the National Forests.
I will be happy to answer any questions the Subcommittee Members
may have.
Senator Wyden. Thank you for your professionalism, and I
note that you began you career when Mary Gautreau, who is a
terrific member of our staff, began her career at the Forest
Service. We thank you for all of your professionalism and your
many years of service.
Ms. Goodman. Thank you, sir.
Senator Wyden. We'll have some questions in a minute.
Mr. Caswell, welcome.
STATEMENT OF JAMES CASWELL, DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF LAND
MANAGEMENT, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Mr. Caswell. Thank you, Senator.
Mr. Chairman, Senator Craig. It's a pleasure to be here
today. I will also abbreviate my oral statement further from
the testimony that's already been submitted.
BLM manages about 3.5 million acres of forests, woodlands,
about 2.2 million acres generally known as the O&C, contains
some of the most productive forests in the world. They're in a
checkerboard ownership, intermingled with private lands that
are generally managed from an industrial timber production
base.
Old-growth forests have engendered passionate debate from a
wide spectrum of interested parties, and we recognize that
discussions on this issue are highly charged.
Due to the differing opinions about the appropriate
management, as well as divergence as to the actual definition
of old growth, generally, scientists agree that on the west
side of the Cascade Range, old-growth Douglas Fir and Western
Hemlock forests contain certain structural characteristics.
Large over-storied trees, multiple tree canopy levels, large,
coarse, woody debris, a lush under story shrub layer, and
infrequent stand replacement fires.
Science has contributed to our understanding of the
complexity of these older forests, and the ecological functions
these forests provide on the landscape. This complexity
increases the resiliency of the forest systems to disturbance,
and provides a suite of environmental services, including clean
water, clean air and wildlife habitat
In addition to the ecological benefits, however, the
forests of O&C provide substantial social and economic benefits
to the communities. In fact, the O&C Act of 1937 requires the
BLM to manage these lands for several purposes, including a
permanent source of timber supply, and contributing to the
economic stability of local communities and industries.
The BLM also must comply with requirements of statutes
enacted, subsequent to the O&C Act, including the Endangered
Species Act, the Clean Water Act, and of course, the National
Environmental Policy Act.
Since 1994, BLM has managed these lands under the Northwest
Forest Plan, which categorizes old growth as 200 years, or
older. The Northwest Forest Plan had dual purpose--one was to
maintain late successional old-growth ecosystems, and the
second was to provide a predictable, sustainable supply of
timber.
The Northwest Forest Plan has met its first objective, but
not its second. In the 14 years since the plan was implemented,
about 3,500 acres of old growth have been harvested from BLM-
managed lands in Western Oregon, and approximately 41,000 acres
of in-growth has occurred. Since 1998, there have been very
little harvest of old growth or late succession forests in the
Pacific Northwest.
The majority of harvest during this period has come from
thinning in stands less than 80 years of age. This cannot
continue. I testified before the subcommittee last December,
thinning alone does not constitute sustainable forestry.
BLM has proposed revisions to our existing land-use plans
that would balance the environmental, economic and social needs
of these unique Western Oregon forests. More than half of the
land base, BLM land base, about 51 percent would be managed for
conservation of habitat needed for the survival and recovery of
listed species, and for other purposes.
About 49 percent of that land base would be managed for the
permanent production of timber in conformity with the
principles of sustained yield, consistent with the O&C Act and,
of course, subject to all other laws.
Proposed revisions acknowledge that not all acres can be
managed to achieve all outcomes, but we believe that if these
proposed revisions to our land-use plans take effect, BLM can
manage the O&C Forest to both provide late successional
habitat, and contribute to the economic and social benefits and
communities throughout Western Oregon.
In 1950, the standing volume on the O&C Lands was estimated
to be greater than 50 billion board feet. Fifty years later,
after the harvest of some 45 billion, over that 50-year period,
the standing volume today is estimated at 70 billion board
feet.
Given the sensitivity and controversy over these issues, we
are certain the dialog will continue, and Mr. Chairman, I'd be
glad to stand for any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Caswell follows:]
Prepared Statement of James Caswell, Director, Bureau of Land
Management, Department of the Interior
Thank you for the opportunity to discuss the status of old-growth
forests on public lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM)
in the Pacific Northwest region. As a lifelong forest manager, these
issues are of particular interest and importance to me.
Approximately 69 million acres of diverse forests and woodlands are
managed by the BLM throughout the western United States, including more
than 3.5 million acres in the Pacific Northwest states of Oregon and
Washington. The BLM's largest forest management program is in western
Oregon, and my comments will focus primarily on this program. I will
also briefly address the BLM's management of Public Domain forest
resources in eastern Oregon and Washington.
forest management by the blm
Old Growth Forests have engendered passionate debate from a wide-
spectrum of interested parties. We recognize the importance of old
growth forests from an ecological, social, and economic perspective. We
also recognize that discussions on this issue are highly charged, due
to differing opinions about appropriate management as well as
divergences at a more fundamental level concerning the definition of
old growth. Science has contributed to our understanding of the
complexity of older forests and the ecological functions these forests
provide on the landscape. The complexity found in older forests
increases the resiliency of these forest systems to a variety of
disturbances and helps maintain healthy and dynamic forest ecosystems
that provide a variety of environmental services, including clean
water, wildlife habitat, carbon sequestration, along with a variety of
recreational opportunities.
While there is disagreement on when a forest reaches old-growth
condition, generally scientists agree that west of the Cascade Range,
old-growth Douglas-fir and western Hemlock forests contain certain
structural characteristics. These characteristics consist of old large
overstory trees, multiple tree canopy levels, large course woody
debris, a lush understory shrub layer and infrequent stand replacement
fire events. In contrast, the dryer eastern and southwest Oregon old-
growth forests generally contain widely-spaced or small groups of large
overstory trees with a more open grassy understory maintained by
frequent low intensity fire.
Overlying these issues are additional factors that add to the
complexity of the BLM's management. The BLM must comply with a distinct
statutory mandate, the O&C Act. The lands managed by the BLM are in a
checkerboard ownership pattern, intermingled with private lands, which
are generally managed for industrial timber production. Forest science
informs the sustained yield management of the O&C forests. Compliance
with environmental laws and policy guidance add another layer of
scientific considerations. The BLM's forest management actions are
analyzed by an interdisciplinary team of specialists, including
wildlife biologists, soil scientists, forest ecologists and
hydrologists. These specialists utilize the available body of science
in their discipline to design, implement and monitor the BLM's forest
management actions. Other environmental factors, including climate
change, affect natural disturbances such as fire, insects, disease,
windthrow or storm damage, which have a profound impact on the health
of the forests under BLM's care.
o&c lands
The BLM's western Oregon districts manage 2.5 million acres that
contain some of the most productive forest lands in the world. Of
these, about 2.4 million acres are managed under the ``O&C'' lands
designated by Congress in the ``Revested Oregon and California Railroad
and Reconveyed Coos Bay Wagon Road Grant Lands Act of 1937'' (O&C Act).
The O&C Act directs the BLM to manage the western Oregon public lands
``. . . for permanent forest production, and the timber thereon shall
be sold, cut, and removed in conformity with the principal of sustained
yield for the purpose of providing a permanent source of timber supply,
protecting watersheds, regulating stream flow, and contributing to the
economic stability of local communities and industries, and providing
recreational facilities . . . . '' (43 U.S.C. Sec.1181a).
Consistent with this statutory mandate, the BLM recognizes that the
dominant use of the O&C lands is the management of timber resources,
including cutting and removal. A 1990 opinion by the 9th Circuit Court
of Appeals affirmed this interpretation and recognizes that the O&C Act
places limitations on BLM's discretion on managing the O&C lands. The
BLM also complies with the requirements of statutes enacted subsequent
to the O&C Act such as the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and the Clean
Water Act of 1972. The Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA),
enacted in 1976, specifically provides that if there is a conflict
between the O&C Act and FLPMA relating to the management of timber
resources, the O&C Act shall prevail. Neither the O&C Act nor Federal
Land Policy and Management Act, however, contains specific provisions
that govern the management of old-growth.
In addition to these statutes, the BLM's management of public land
resources in the Pacific Northwest is guided by administrative policy.
Until 1990, BLM's implementation of the O&C Act was conducted in such a
way that the volume sold approached the calculated and declared
allowable harvest from the available timber lands. From 1950 to 1990,
the BLM averaged over one billion board feet of timber sold annually.
In 1950, the standing volume on the O&C lands was greater than 50
billion board feet (BBF). Fifty years later, after selling 45 BBF, the
standing volume is now 70 BBF due to better information, in-growth and
rapid reforestation of harvested lands.
Since 1994, the BLM has managed the forested lands in western
Oregon under the guidance of the Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP). The NWFP
was adopted by the Department of the Interior and the Department of
Agriculture for federal forests within the range of the northern
spotted owl as an ``ecosystem management plan for managing habitat for
late-successional and old-growth forest related species.'' The NWFP has
a dual purpose--to maintain the late-successional old growth ecosystem
and to provide a predictable and sustainable supply of timber. The NWFP
has met the first objective, but not the second objective. Since
adoption, timber outputs have been at just 49 percent of the called-for
harvest levels. Balancing the dictates of the O&C Act, the Endangered
Species Act, and other laws with the policy in the NWFP has been a
constant struggle for the BLM over the past 14 years.
BLM-managed lands comprise ten (10) percent of the NWFP's total
area of 24 million acres in Oregon, Washington, and northern
California. In very broad terms, the NWFP, prior withdrawals, and
Congressional designations placed approximately 80 percent of this
entire area in reserves, and thus excluded them from the calculation of
the allowable sale quantity (ASQ).
In 1995, the BLM's land use plans for western Oregon were amended
to incorporate the policy guidance of the NWFP. The NWFP categorizes
old-growth forests as 200 years and older. Age is not the only factor
in management decisions regarding old-growth forests. NWFP policy
requires the BLM to manage the reserved areas for the purpose of
``managing habitat for late-successional and old-growth forest
dependent species.'' Standards and guidelines, applied in association
with timber harvest, require the retention of snags, live trees, down
logs and woody debris, measures designed to promote diversity and
protect late-successional and old-growth forests and associated
species.
The BLM's existing land use plans for western Oregon respond to
multiple, often competing, needs for late successional--old-growth--
habitat, and for forest products. Late-successional, old-growth habitat
is needed to promote a healthy forest ecosystem that will support
populations of species protected under the Endangered Species Act. A
predictable, sustainable supply of timber and other forest products is
needed to help maintain the stability of local and regional economies
and contribute valuable resources to the national economy. To meet
these multiple objectives, our western Oregon land use plans provided
that some mature and old-growth stands would be harvested and that
younger stands would be thinned.
As a result, BLM had anticipated that approximately 3 percent of
late-successional and old-growth forests (approximately 11,000 acres)
outside of the reserves would be harvested during the first decade of
the NWFP's implementation. That level of harvest has not occurred.
Since the inception of the NWFP in 1994, 3,500 acres of old-growth has
been harvested from BLM-managed lands in western Oregon; approximately
41,000 acres of in-growth have occurred. Since FY 1998, there has been
very little harvest of old-growth or other late-successional forests in
the Northwest. The majority of harvest during this period has come from
thinning in stands less than 80 years of age.
The NWFP's policy objective of ``maintain[ing] the late-
successional and old-growth forest ecosystem and provid[ing] a
predictable and sustainable supply of timber, recreational
opportunities and other resources at the highest level possible'' has
been extraordinarily difficult to implement on-the-ground. For example,
under the NWFP, approximately 500,000 acres of BLM-managed land are
available for timber harvest. Under the NWFP, BLM's target is 203
million board feet per year of allowable sale quantity and 100 million
board feet of non-sustained yield LSR thinning volume pursuant to the
settlement agreement in AFRC et al. v. Clarke. Each year the BLM comes
closer to achieving the target. The majority of the volume offered has
come from thinning sales.
The BLM is striving to balance the environmental, economic, and
social needs of these unique O&C lands. Under the proposed revisions to
the existing Western Oregon land use plans, BLM-administered lands in
western Oregon will be managed for a variety of outcomes including late
successional habitat for listed species, riparian objectives to protect
aquatic habitats and water quality, and to contribute to economic and
social benefits. The proposed revisions acknowledge that not all acres
can be managed to achieve all outcomes. In the preferred alternative,
more than half of the land base (51 percent) would be managed for
objectives other than forest products, including conservation of
habitat needed for the survival and recovery of listed species. About
49 percent of the land base in the BLM's western Oregon districts would
be managed for permanent forest production in conformity with the
principles of sustained yield, consistent with the O&C Act. BLM
management activities on these acres will also comply with all other
applicable laws.
public domain forestry
I turn now to address the BLM's Public Domain forest program, under
which the BLM manages approximately 67 million acres of diverse forests
and woodlands throughout the western United States and Alaska. In
eastern Oregon and Washington, the BLM's Public Domain forestry program
manages about 223,000 acres of commercial forests (ponderosa pine,
lodgepole pine, and Douglas-fir) and 815,000 acres of woodlands
(predominantly western juniper) under the principles of multiple use
and sustained yield as directed by the Federal Land Policy and
Management Act (FLPMA).
Since 1993, BLM policy direction for Public Domain forestry has
shifted away from commercial outputs and toward a balance of natural
resource benefits to current and future generations, to ``maintain and
enhance the health, productivity, and biological diversity of these
ecosystems.'' Timber harvest is used as a tool to meet a variety of
objectives, where appropriate. Many Public Domain acres, however, are
not suitable for commercial forest products, and therefore the BLM does
not calculate an annual ASQ.
Under the BLM's Public Domain forest management policy, forests and
woodlands are managed to maintain or create desired forest conditions,
including those that contribute to biodiversity and wildlife habitats.
Where appropriate, forests are treated to reduce hazardous fuels
buildups to provide for public safety.
The Public Domain forestry program manages those areas that contain
old-growth (native species that are at least 150 years old) stands
where they exist in their natural range. A certain percentage of old-
growth occurs in non-commercial forest types, such as the juniper
woodlands of eastern Oregon. The continued health and vigor of these
older trees is considered in the treatments that are designed to
improve forest resiliency, reduce wildfire hazards, and support a high
level of biodiversity.
Most older forest communities on BLM lands are choked with higher
tree densities than in the past when periodic low-intensity fires
maintained these systems. In many cases these are no longer natural
self-sustaining forest communities. Active management, with thinning
from below and the introduction of prescribed fire, is necessary to
return these forest communities to fully functioning ecosystems.
conclusion
The BLM recognizes the importance of old growth forests from an
ecological, social, and economic standpoint. Given the sensitivity and
controversy over these issues, the unique characteristics of old growth
forests, the importance of old growth for the health of forest
ecosystems and the wildlife who live there, the statutory mandate under
the O&C Act to provide for permanent forest production on a sustainable
yield basis, other environmental statutes including the Endangered
Species Act, and the NWFP, we are certain the dialogue on old-growth
will continue.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I will be
pleased to answer any questions that you or other members of the
Subcommittee may have.
Senator Wyden. Thank you very much, Mr. Caswell.
We've been joined by Senator Craig and Senator Smith. I'm
going to say to my colleagues, as I announced earlier, we're
going to have a moment of silence at 10:15, we've got the votes
at 11, so we're going to have to really speed through this, and
I'll take 5 minutes, and Senator Craig, Senator Smith will all
take 5 minutes, and see if we can get this accomplished. Thank
you all for putting up with what's going to be a challenging
morning.
First question to you, Ms. Goodman, we had Secretary Rey
here recently, and of course his knowledge in the forestry
area--he has so much expertise. We finally, after a bit of
sparring back and forth, got him to say that the budget for
thinning this year would be less than last year's budget. This
strikes me as a very wrong-headed approach to our challenge.
Because, somehow we've got to break this cycle of skewed
priorities in forestry. What happens is, you don't have enough
work being done in the thinning area, and then we have these
huge fires, these infernos, and all of the money then goes off
to fire suppression.
So, my first question to you is, isn't it correct--from a
purely forestry standpoint--set aside all of the debate about
what's being spent in the accounts--that if you have more
thinning and forest health projects funded, doesn't that
provide an opportunity to reduce the amount of money that gets
burned up by the fire suppression budget?
Ms. Goodman. I certainly agree with you that there's a lot
of work that needs to be done, Senator Wyden, and I----
Senator Wyden. But just--a yes or no on the question of, if
you do more thinning and forest restoration, isn't that an
opportunity to reduce some of the money that gets chewed up on
fire suppression?
Ms. Goodman. Long term, the answer is, yes. You saw the
pictures where we actually did some thinning, and the fire
burned through and the old-growth trees survived.
So, yes, long term. Short term, we won't see that major
reduction, and that's why we need assistance with our----
Senator Wyden. Fair enough.
I've been very impressed with the kind of projects going on
in the Siuslaw and in Lakeview. They've essentially been the
restoration thinning kind of approach, in terms of plantations,
and they go out and they get the timber industry folks together
and the mills and the environmental people and your folks and a
good cross-section of people. It strikes me that this is a
pretty good model to pursue. The Government Accountability
Office, I guess, is releasing a report today, indicating it's a
pretty good model.
I gather that you all have been interested in this, as
well. Can you tell us your thoughts about restoration and
thinning, and why you think maybe this is a chance to reduce
some of the public controversy and delay and litigation as
compared to what's gone on in the past?
Ms. Goodman. I certainly agree with you, it's a great
model, and actually, we've taken that model past Lakeview and
the Siuslaw--you see it in almost every forest. We have
collaborative approaches. In fact, HEFRA has really helped us
on the East Side, where we're bringing folks together to talk
about what should be done on the landscape. We're seeing
thinning models throughout the region, where we are using a
collaborative approach, and it is working. We're seeing less
litigation, even though we still have people taking their right
to appeal and litigate, but we certainly are seeing that
collaborative approach throughout the region. So, I agree
wholeheartedly it's a good model.
Senator Wyden. What's your sense about the transformation
of the timber industry's infrastructure? My sense is that we've
got a lot of mills now, we're putting a great deal of effort
into making the changes in their infrastructure--their
equipment and the way they run their business--to move away
from old growth. Do you have any sense of how fast that
transformation is taking place?
Ms. Goodman. I really don't. I know that a lot of the mills
are spending millions of dollars improving their millworks, and
I think you'll have somebody testifying on the next panel who
could probably answer that better than I.
Senator Wyden. Last question for my round is, Mr. Caswell,
the Forest Service, to their credit, is indicating that they're
trying to move away from planning old-growth sales in
responding to the public. But BLM continues to plan a number of
old-growth sales, and the Western Oregon Plan revision proposes
a large-scale resumption of old-growth logging in BLM lands. My
guess is this is going to be a huge lawyer's full-employment
program, that there's going to be a tremendous amount, you
know, of litigation.
Why can't we get you all to pick up on some of the thinking
that Ms. Goodman just described as so promising?
Mr. Caswell. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I think you still
have to reflect back to the O&C Act and the purpose around
which the O&C lands were established, that's No. 1.
No. 2, within the matrix of the Northwest Forest Plan
that's currently in place, you know, there is a really large
component of the harvest level, the ASQ that was prescribed,
that was to come from those lands. Now, some of that is old
growth, some of that is thinning. I mean it's, you know, it's a
mix of age classes. Over 14 years, however, almost all of those
projects in the matrix that was available, was called for as
part of that second objective of Northwest Forest Plans has had
the, you know, we've been met with the same kind of resistance.
We work very hard--we do the same kind of collaborative things
the Forest Service does. We have groups that get together and
try to plan sales and operations. But, the fact remains that if
folks want to stop the activity, they can certainly do that.
If we are going to uphold our responsibilities under the
O&C Act for the benefit of the O&C counties, and given the land
pattern that we have, and the stand structures that we have, we
have to manage timber at a larger scale in older stands.
I'm not necessarily talking about stands 200 years and
plus. I mean, we can argue a long time about where that cutoff
is, that's why age really doesn't work very well. So, there's
stands in the 160 to 180 and the 150 to 160 that look like old
growth--there's stands that are 140 that look like old growth,
or people would be inspired to believe that they are, in their
mind, and that's fine.
But those are also part of the solution, here, to provide a
sustainable supply of timber.
STATEMENT OF HON. LARRY E. CRAIG, U.S. SENATOR
FROM IDAHO
Senator Craig. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I
appreciate our panelists being with us this morning, and
reexamining as this committee ought to, on a regular basis,
forest policy.
You and I and Senator Smith have been involved in forest
policy a long while. I've been involved in it 28 years here in
Congress, so I've seen a reasonable span of time, and a
reasonable change--different changes in policy, right through,
of course, the Pacific Northwest, through the Northwest Forest
Plan in the 90s, and what I believe was a false base for its
creation. I've been very blunt and very bold about it. I've
followed the debate and participated in the debate as it
relates to late successional forests and the complex forest
policy that we tried to design to do that.
I've drawn a rather simple conclusion based on the last few
years. We saved the tree from the logger, but we haven't saved
it from Mother Nature. Because an old-growth tree is, quite
simply, a tree that has matured and is starting to die. Now, it
may take 200 years for it to get there, but it is no longer the
robust, active, growing tree that it once was in its youth.
While I know that has been the mantra of the large part of
the debate, it is fascinating to me the phenomenal
destructiveness we've turned loose in the system. That is,
because of our involvement with Mother Nature, our fire
suppression for 80 or 90 years, and a failure to replicate a
fire-like scenario by man's presence in the forest. Now we're
having unprecedented situations occur, that I must tell you,
when Mother Nature decides to start burning, she will not burn
up to the old-growth line and say, ``Oops, gotta stop there,
because policy won't allow me to touch that.'' She will sweep
through, and in a catastrophic way destroy--and destroy in a
way, oftentimes, that we've not seen in the past. The intensity
of these fires are phenomenal.
So, we wring our hands, we try to do something different.
Ron and I became involved in trying to create a new policy of
thinning and cleaning and changing the dynamics of our forests
through the Healthy Forests Act.
Then we get to something like this, Ms. Goodman. In giving
us an estimate of what we might do with NEPA, or ESA or the
National Forest Management Act and the requirements for a
typical forest management project, Undersecretary Rey mentioned
when he was last here, when we said, ``OK, we develop
categorical exclusions in healthy forests, what does it cost to
do that?'' Roughly $50,000, but then we've got a judge that
says, ``No, no, no, you can't do all of that kind of thing.
That's wrong.''
So, then, OK, then let's do an environmental assessment--
what does that take? That's roughly $250,000, and about a year
to put together.
What about a full-blown environmental impact statement?
That requires a million dollars and 2 or 3 years to put
together. The last time I looked at the statistics and the fuel
loads in our forests, and the ramping up of fires that are
going on out there, Mother Nature isn't waiting for us--she's
taking over. We're simply following along. I understand there's
a great satisfaction on the part of some communities, that fire
is a natural episode, and we can praise its coming and its
going, and hope that the forest moves up from the ashes. I
don't think it will, as readily and as--in the way we want.
The question of you, Jim, the O&C lands are a unique
parcel, I wish they were in Idaho and not in Oregon. Because
they are a phenomenal resource, and over the years they have
served our nation well, and certainly served Oregon well, and
serving those counties well.
You just gave us a scenario that I think is absolutely
fascinating. Because the Northwest Forest Plan would suggest
that we were just cutting the heck out of the O&C lands, when
in fact we were harvesting them on a reasonable approach that
kept the watershed quality up, that kept a productive life
going on out there for the human species, and for a lot of
wildlife.
Your statistics tell me that there is as much as 40 percent
more standing timber in the O&C lands than there was in 1937.
Is that an accurate statement?
Mr. Caswell. Senator Craig, I would say that's fairly--I
mean, in round numbers, I would say that's right.
Senator Craig. I find that remarkable, because that isn't
the story we were told. That isn't what we led to believe, by
those who were so dramatic in pushing forth a plan that, at
best, was never met. It's certainly frustrated me, and its
frustrated the Senators from Oregon, it has destroyed jobs and
industry and counties and infrastructure, and yet there's now
40 percent more timber on those lands than there was in 1937.
Thank you.
Senator Wyden. I thank my friend.
Senator Smith.
STATEMENT OF HON. GORDON SMITH, U.S. SENATOR
FROM OREGON
Senator Smith. Mr. Chairman, I have a statement I'm anxious
to give. It may be 5 minutes, it may be a few more than that.
Senator Wyden. Why don't we have that statement and--I
would just say, Senator Smith, we're going to have the moment
of silence----
Senator Smith. Exactly.
Senator Wyden. At 10:15, and I want to be accommodating and
get everybody in.
Senator Smith. But stop me if I'm anywhere close to that.
Senator Wyden. You go ahead.
Senator Smith. All right.
I thank you, my colleague, for holding today's hearing on
the management of old growth. Since our time together in the
U.S. Senate, we've used our positions on this committee to
bring constructive oversight to the management of Oregon's
forests, and I thank you for that.
We'll continue to act on forest protection proposals that
have the support of local elected officials, and also protect
Oregon's ability to sustainable harvest of timber for
generations to come.
Reasonable people can agree on specific and unique places
to protect, including older stands of trees. However, to set
aside every old tree in every forest, is something that has
always been met with distrust from timber-dependent
communities.
The reason for that distrust is history. Time after time,
acre by acre, Oregon communities have watched the manageable
public land base erode by roughly 92 percent. They've been told
that, if we just protect this area, you can continue--or even
increase--logging in the remaining areas.
But protection on a map does not always materialize into
protection on the ground. Keeping timber towns alive from an
ever-shrinking forest is an unmet Federal promise, proven by
the county payments crisis, and alarming unemployment rates in
rural Oregon.
The public policy debate over old growth is decades old. It
is inseparable from the saga of the Northern Spotted Owl.
In 1976, shortly after the Endangered Species Act became
law, an Oregon State graduate by the name of Eric Forsman,
published a Master's thesis. It surmised that the Northern
Spotted Owl of Oregon was declining as a result of habitat
loss. That habitat was, ostensibly, old growth--a phrase that
defined the legal effort to preserve older forest stands.
In their own words, those who have sought for preservation
of these forests needed a surrogate species--one that lived in,
and needed, old growth for its habitat. At a law clinic in
1988, one of these activists stated, and I quote, ``Thanks to
the work of Walt Disney and Bambi, and his friends, wildlife
enjoy substantive statutory protection. While the Northern
Spotted Owl is the wildlife species of choice to act as the
surrogate for old-growth protection, and I've often thought--
thank goodness the Spotted Owl evolved in the Northwest, for if
it hadn't, we'd have to genetically engineer it. It's a perfect
species for use as a surrogate. First of all, it is unique to
old-growth forests, and there is no credible scientific dispute
on that fact. Second of all, it uses a lot of old growth,
that's convenient because we can use it to protect a lot of old
growth.''
After years of litigation surrounding the survival of the
Spotted Owl, the loss of over 35,000 timber jobs in Oregon,
then-newly elected President Bill Clinton offered a middle path
between old-growth protection and owl protection and timber
harvest. The ensuing Northwest Forest Plan promised to produce
a predictable and sustainable level of timber sales that will
not degrade or destroy our forest environment.
The predicted harvest level was 1.1 billion board feet. The
sad irony is that neither the 1.1 billion board foot harvest
level, nor the recovery of the Spotted Owl has been
accomplished. The 2004 Federal status review of the Spotted Owl
introduced a new antagonist to the saga--not the logger, not
the loss of old growth--but another owl.
The Barred Owl is not native to the Pacific Northwest. It
is larger, more aggressive, more successful in predation and
reproduces faster than the Spotted Owl. Eric Forsman, the
Oregon State University Master's student who wrote the first
major opus on the decline of Spotted Owls in 1976, is now a
biologist for the Forest Service, and a leading researcher of
the Barred Owl.
He recently commented, and I quote, ``In the past, we could
assume that what we were seeing in terms of habitat would help
us to understand what was happening with the Spotted Owl. Now
we don't know if the Spotted Owls aren't there because there is
no habitat for them, or because of the Barred Owls.''
The second question haunts our discussion of old growth
management and protection. Why more old growth forest has
resulted in fewer Spotted Owls? A 10-year review of the Clinton
Northwest Forest Plan found that there are 600,000 more acres
of old growth in Western Oregon and Washington than there was a
decade ago. However, the sharpest decline in Spotted Owl
populations actually occurred where the least amount of Federal
timber harvest took place, namely the Olympic peninsula of
Washington State.
This is also the location of the greatest number of Barred
Owls. The owl actually increased its population in Southern
Oregon, where the most Federal harvest activity took place, and
had the smallest incident of Barred Owl invasion.
These paradoxes remind us to ask, what have we been
protecting Old growth for? What are we really protecting old
growth from?
The discussion of old growth protection must acknowledge
that wildfire--not timber harvest--is the primary threat to
old-growth habitat. Over 100,000 acres of old-growth habitat
were severely burned over the last 10 years. Most of this was
in the 2002 Biscuit fire, the largest fire in Oregon's history
and the most expensive to fight in Forest Service history,
costing in excess of $150 million.
The Biscuit fire incinerated 65,000 acres of Spotted Owl
habitat, as seen in this picture. This is more than four times
the amount affected by timber sales in the 50 years preceding
the fire. One notable difference is that the areas harvested
were replanted. As old growth continues to burn, we will face
the same dilemma of land managers after the Biscuit fire--how
do we get old growth back? If old growth characteristics are
important, then they should be used as forest management,
namely salvage and reforestation, to accelerate their return
after a fire.
These are questions that need to be answered in the old-
growth discussion. What I do know is that after 15 years of not
logging in old growth, growing new old growth, and burning
protected old growth, the Federal Government really isn't sure
what to do for the Spotted Owl.
But worse, the Federal Government doesn't know what to do
with Oregon's timber towns and counties that are facing
cataclysmic consequences of the failure to produce jobs in the
woods.
The poem, Rhyme of an Ancient Mariner, tells of a ship
driven far off course. The ship's crew lament their painful
thirst in the famous words, ``Water, water everywhere, but not
a drop to drink.''
In Oregon, the ship of our Federal forest policy has
drifted too far astray. Timber, timber everywhere, nor any
stick to cut.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Wyden. Thank you, Senator Smith.
We'll give you all the last word, and then we'll have to
move on.
Ms. Goodman, Mr. Caswell, anything else you'd like to add?
Mr. Caswell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to add something to what Senator Smith said--
--
Senator Wyden. Briefly.
Mr. Caswell. Briefly, it'll be brief.
That is that the irony, further, is that the Barred Owl
which--if we do determine, ultimately, that it is one of the
key, the very key components to the demise of the Spotted Owl--
is further protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. So, I
mean, you were truly on the horns of a dilemma as to what to do
in this situation.
Senator Wyden. Ms. Goodman.
Ms. Goodman. Thank you for letting me come here today,
Senators. I really appreciate the opportunity. What I'd like to
say is that I would ask you not to try to define old growth by
using an age class or a size class. We need to have all the
tools in our toolbox to be able to manage old growth, so that
we do have protection, and we do have diversity of our
landscape.
So, thank you for this opportunity.
Senator Wyden. We'll be working closely with you, and Ms.
Goodman, we hope to have something to show you on our
legislation before you retire, and we wish you well, and the
twins will wear those shirts with pride.
Ms. Goodman. Thank you very much.
Senator Wyden. Thank you both.
Let's go right to our next panel, Dr. David Perry of Oregon
State, Dr. John Tappeiner of Oregon State, Marvin Brown, Oregon
Department of Forestry, Paul Beck with Herbert Lumber in
Riddle, Oregon, Randi Spivak of the American Lands Alliance.
We're very pleased that Senator Barrasso has taken such a
great interest in forestry issues, and I would ask unanimous
consent that his statement be put into the record, his opening
statement, without objection, that will be done.
[The prepared statement of Senator Barrasso follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. John Barrasso, U.S. Senator From Wyoming
Thank you, Chairman Wyden, for scheduling today's hearing on old
growth in the Pacific Northwest.
I am told this Subcommittee held a similar hearing on this very
subject back in the fall of 2001.
I look forward to hearing about new developments since then.
I want to thank both the Administration and the public panel for
agreeing to testify at this hearing.
I am especially pleased that Professor David Perry (Emeritus) and
Professor John Tappeiner (Emeritus) both from Oregon State University
have agreed to testify. They have decades of forestry experience and
will provide us wise counsel I am sure.
As we discuss forest health issues in the Northwest today, many of
us from the West are watching carefully.
I am concerned that whatever happens with forest issues in Oregon
tends to ripple eastward.
Your trends seem to drive how those issues get dealt with in other
states.
Having said that, I have to make a few observations:
Oregon and Washington have approximately 41 million acres of
Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management lands.
Of that, approximately 7-8 million acres are considered to
be large and older stands.
Since the Pacific Northwest Forest Plan was put in place,
the number of acres of large and older stands has grown by 1.25
million acres. This is about double what was predicted and five
times the amount of older stands that have been harvested.
During this same time period only 17,000 acres of large, old
stands of trees have been harvested or thinned.
Most disturbing is that we have seen wildfires significantly
impact 102,500 acres of large old stands within the Pacific
Northwest Region.
Given that the number of acres of older stands are growing; Given
that wildfire has out paced harvesting by six-fold; It would seem to me
fundamentally unwise to deny any future opportunities to manage and
protect these areas.
I am not a forester, but have observed that nature often completely
modifies the forest environment all on its own. I have to question the
wisdom behind efforts to pass a law in Congress that demands permanent
and full protection for old growth, expecting nature to alter its
normal course.
Rather, I think of events like Mount Saint Helens, and the large
insect epidemics we are currently seeing in Wyoming, Colorado, South
Dakota, Alaska and other states. These events suggest to me that we
should give our federal land managers the maximum flexibility to adapt
to both man-made and natural events.
Giving resource managers the opportunity to adapt to changing
conditions and to optimize forest health priorities just makes more
sense.
I mention fires because I found Professor K. Norman Johnson's
answer to my question at our December hearing unsatisfactory.
I asked about how to deal with older forests in northern Colorado
and Wyoming that are currently being ravaged by pine beetles He
answered that in high elevation intermountain forests, insects and fire
are a natural part of the system. He also shrugged and said there may
not be much we can do to avoid mega-forest disasters in these forests.
Given the dead and dying forests of Southern Wyoming, we cannot
take the attitude that ``there may not be much we can do to avoid
this.'' The people of Wyoming should not be forced to accept that
outcome.
True, we cannot eliminate fire and insect issues, but we can reduce
the amount of devastation through effective management.
It is clear that there were steps we could have--and should have--
taken over the last 20 years to ameliorate the disaster we are now
seeing.
And there are steps we need to be taking now to protect our forests
for the future.
When I think about that apathetic attitude about thinning and
combine it with the ``lock-up-all-old growth policy'' being articulated
by some, I do not believe it will be an acceptable policy in any State.
Thus, Chairman Wyden I applaud you for having this hearing and
searching for a third path through the forest wars, including these old
growth issues.
Data from the Pacific Northwest Forest Plan implementation would
suggest to most people our problem is not protecting old growth from
logging; it is protecting it from fires. And I fear lines on a map
cannot provide the protection for those forests that many hope to
provide.
Finally, I hope that you will carefully consider the scope and
potential consequences of any policy you might include in legislation.
When forest policy in Oregon gets nudged to the left or right, forest
practices and policy in the intermountain states tends to run
completely off the road.
Senator Wyden. Thank you all very much for coming.
What we're going to do, I told colleagues, we're going to
have you all testify and at the time that the Senate floor, the
Senate--as a body--is going to be taking time today to
recognize the extraordinary courage of our men and women
serving in our military, we're going to take a break for a
moment of silence here, in the room, so we're going to have to
try to coordinate that. We thank you for your patience.
We'll make your prepared remarks as part of the hearing
record in their entirety. I know the compulsion is just to put
your head down and read, and if you can summarize your key
concerns in 5 minutes, or so, that will leave us some time for
questions.
Welcome to all of you, and to have so many Oregonians on
hand is a privilege, and we're glad you've made the long
journey.
Dr. Perry, please begin.
STATEMENT OF DAVID A. PERRY, PROFESSOR EMERITUS, DEPARTMENT OF
FOREST SCIENCE, OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY, CORVALLIS, OR
Mr. Perry. My name is David Perry, I am a Emeritus
Professor in the Department of Forest Science at Oregon State
University.
Let me begin by quoting a recommendation of the National
Research Council's Panel on Environmental Issues in Pacific
Northwest Forests. Their recommendation goes, ``Forest
management in the Pacific Northwest should include the
conservation and protection of most or all of the remaining
late successional and old-growth forests. The remaining late
successional and old-growth forests could form the cores of
regional forests, managed for truly and indefinitely
sustainable production of timber, fish, clean water, recreation
and numerous other amenities.''
A great deal of evidence indicates that when Euro-Americans
arrived in the Pacific Northwest, about two-thirds of the
forested landscape west of the crest of the Cascades was old
growth. East of the crest of the Cascades, the number was
probably closer to three-quarters.
The most recent studies that we have, show that of that
about 28 percent is left on the, in both areas--west side and
east side. Of that that's left, on the west side, 14 percent
has some degree of protection, and on the east side, the number
of protected forest is much lower, it's closer to 5 percent.
These numbers are far below what conservation biologists
would consider is a minimum amount of habitat needed to support
the species. I'd like to point out that the Spotted Owl--as
central as it is--there are many more species involved in these
forests than just the Spotted Owl.
So, if we protect what's remained, we push the amount
that's saved up into the area--which is a bare minimum of what
conservation biologists would believe is necessary to maintain
species that depend on that habitat.
So, there's no question in the scientific community that
these forests are centers of biological richness. What else are
they? Before I get into what else they are, I want to just
clarify some definition here. What--and again, I'll go to the
NRC Panel on Environmental Issues, and quote them, ``Old-growth
forests are forests that have accumulated specific
characteristics related to tree size, canopy structure, snags
in woody debris and plant association. Ecological
characteristics of old-growth forests emerge through the
processes of succession. Certain features do not appear
simultaneously, nor at a fixed time in stand development.
Specific attributes of old-growth forests develop through
forest succession until the collective properties of an older
forest are evident.''
So, there's no one age that you can stand at and say, ``On
this side is old growth, on the other side, it isn't.'' We
have--most scientists will say that all of these properties
have been accumulated by the time a forest gets to be 180, 200
years old. But, forests younger than that, or what I would term
emerginal growth, are exhibiting a number of these properties,
probably beginning at least when they're 120 years old.
So, why are we interested in saving what's left? The
habitat and biological richness is one reason. Another reason
is their carbon storage--it's clear that they store huge
amounts of carbon. A study done about 15 years ago showed that
if those forests were harvested, even accounting for the
storage of carbon in boards, that it will take at least 200
years for the young re-growing forest----
Senator Wyden. Dr. Perry, excuse me for interrupting you.
The moment of silence is just beginning on the floor. This is a
very important time, because we recognize the 5 years of
service and sacrifice of our troops in Iraq, as well as those
serving in Afghanistan and around the world. We want to honor
the families, especially, who have given so much--the husbands
and wives, and let us now, as part of this effort in the entire
Senate this morning, let us take a moment of silence to
appreciate those who, with such courage, serve our country.
[Moment of silence observed.]
Senator Wyden. We are very grateful--very, very grateful,
as a Nation, to all who have served our country.
Let us begin, again, with you, Dr. Perry.
Mr. Perry. So, we have--we have biological diversity as an
issue, we have carbon storage as an issue, water regulation is
a third issue. Studies have clearly shown--controlled studies--
that the old-growth forests are much better at regulating water
flows, especially during peak run-off periods in the spring,
than younger forests.
Finally, we have the fire-resistance--and fire has come up
a number of times, and it should come up a number of times--and
let me make it really clear, that under the proper--under
severe weather conditions, anything is going to burn up. Under
mild weather conditions, nothing is going to burn up.
What we're got to be concerned with right now is that broad
middle ground. It's really clear from the evidence over the
last few years, plus just common sense, that in that broad
middle ground, a fire is much more likely to go into the crowns
of a young stand than it is into the crowns of an old-growth
stand. So, keeping those old-growth stands out there helps
control the chance of mega-fires across the landscape, which
we're going to be looking at more chance of that with climate
change.
Now, I want to emphasize that--in the dry forest types that
you've heard in past testimony, I'm sure, there is a problem.
We've got to get into those old-growth forests and reduce
fuels, and we've got to do that by going to the source of the
problem, which is with those smaller trees, and we've got to do
it in such a way that we protect the necessary closed forest
habitat and so, also, water.
But, we do need to deal with that problem, and that's part
of the protection issue, in the dry forest.
So, I think my time is close to up, and I'd just like to
summarize by saying, old-growth forests are centers of
biological diversity, they perform unique functions with
respect to carbon storage and hydrologic regulation, and they
serve as a relatively stable components of the landscape.
These forests begin exhibiting these properties probably as
young as 120 years, maybe even younger. The area of old growth
has been sharply reduced, compared to historic, and amounts
currently protected are far below what conservation biologists
say are needed to protect species.
Saving all remaining, greatly enhances the probability of
protecting these successional species, and rebalances the
landscape and makes it more stable in the face of what's going
to be coming up to a pretty stressful time, because of climate
change.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Perry follows:]
Prepared Statement of David A. Perry, Professor Emeritus, Department of
Forest Science, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR
Mr. Chairman, Senators, thank you for the opportunity to testify
regarding pending legislation to protect old-growth forests in Oregon
and Washington.
My name is David A. Perry.
I am a Professor (emeritus) in the Department of Forest Science,
Oregon State University.
I am a member of the National Commission on the Science of
Sustainable Forestry, and serve on the Board of Directors of the
National Center for Conservation Science and Policy. I am a former
member of the Marbled Murrelet Recovery Team, The Scientific Societies
Panel on Interim Protection for Old Growth Forests in eastern Oregon
and Washington, and the National Research Council's Panel on
Environmental Issues in Pacific Northwest Forests.
I'll begin by quoting a central recommendation of the National
Research Council's Committee on Environmental Issues in Pacific
Northwest Forest Management (NRC 2000):
Forest Management in the Pacific Northwest should include the
conservation and protection of most or all of the remaining
late-successional and old-growth forests . . . . The remaining
late-successional and old-growth forests could form the cores
of regional forests managed for truly and indefinitely
sustainable production of timber, fish, clean water,
recreation, and numerous other amenities of forested
ecosystems.
Note the terminology used here differs somewhat from other uses. By
``late-successional'', the NRC panel refers to what is also called
``mature'', the seral stage immediately preceding old-growth.
In the following I'll first discuss the common definitions for old-
growth and its current status as compared to historic. I'll then
briefly go into the ecological rationale for protecting what remains.
I'll close by discussing mature forests and the rationale for
protecting them as well as old-growth.
i. defining old-growth
Both old-growth (OG) and mature are best defined by their structure
(which may vary with forest type). From an ecological standpoint, the
most accurate definition for OG is that given by the National Research
Council Panel of Environmental Issues in Pacific Northwest Forests (NRC
2000)
Old-growth forests are forests that have accumulated specific
characteristics related to tree size, canopy structure, snags
and woody debris and plant associations. Ecological
characteristics of old-growth forests emerge through the
processes of succession. Certain features--presence of large,
old trees, multilayered canopies, forest gaps, snags, woody
debris, and a particular set of species that occur primarily in
old-growth forests--do not appear simultaneously, nor at a
fixed time in stand development. Specific attributes of old-
growth forests develop through forest succession until the
collective properties of an older forest are evident.
It is generally accepted that forests develop the full set of OG
characteristics by 180 to 220 years, although as the NRC definition
indicates there is no sharp dividing line and forests usually begin
displaying OG characteristics at a younger age; I will refer to these
as ``emergent OG''. Note also that not all of the characteristics cited
in the above quote hold in all forest types. In particular, multi-
layered canopies are not a characteristic of old-growth pine on dry
sites.
ii. the current extent of old-growth forests in oregon and washington
is only a small fraction of the original
The amount of OG at the time of European settlement varied by
region, but for the two states together is estimated to have composed
nearly two-thirds of the total land area of western Oregon, western
Washington and the east slopes of the Cascades (Strittholt et al 2006).
Historic proportions in the Blue Mountains, Klamath Plateau, and
Colville area were similar; a USFS inventory of the latter three areas
in the mid-1930's classed 65 per cent of forests as either as OG or, in
types where OG wasn't distinguished, as ``large''. This was after a 20
year period of heavy logging, so it is reasonable to assume that the
pre-logging area of OG forest in the eastern portions of the two states
was even greater than in the western portions.
Strittholt et al (2006) used remote imagery to document current OG
amounts in western Oregon, western Washington, and the east slopes of
the Cascades (forests within the range of the northern spotted owl
(NSO). At the turn of the 21st century approximately 28 per cent of the
original OG remained, largely concentrated on public lands (Strittholt
et al. 2006). One-third of the OG remaining on public lands,
representing approximately 7 per cent of the original, is in relatively
secure protected status ( e.g. Wilderness, National Parks). OG
contained within Late Successional Reserves and Designated Roadless
Areas is less securely protected (e.g. the recent attempt by the USFWS
to include a no-LSR option in the draft NSO Recovery Plan), but
including these areas increases the proportion of original OG within
the range of the NSO that is presently in protected status to
approximately 14 per cent. Remote imagery detects complex canopy
structure rather than age per se, and it's almost certain that the OG
cover measured by Strittholt et al (2006) includes emergent OG stands
that are younger than 180 years.
In eastern Oregon and Washington outside the range of the NSO,
Henjum et al. (1994) estimated that one-quarter of the original OG
remained on National Forest Lands in the mid-1990's, 22 percent of
which was protected in Wilderness or administratively withdrawn areas.
Less than one-half of the areas designated as ``dedicated old-growth''
contained more than 70 percent OG, and nearly one-third contained none
(Henjum et al. 1994). Logging all unprotected OG in the eastern regions
of the two states would reduce that remaining to approximately 5
percent of the original.
iii. values of og: habitat
There is little question that ``(m)uch of the biological diversity
of the Pacific Northwest is associated with (mature) and old-growth
forests'' (NRC 2000). From the standpoint of conservation ecology there
are at least six reasons for protecting all remaining OG:
The science is clear: when habitats have been sharply
reduced the probability of maintaining viable populations of
organisms that depend on those habitats increases directly with
the amount of remaining habitat protected. The amount of OG
currently protected in Oregon and Washington is far below the
minimum amounts of habitat that conservation biologists believe
is necessary to maintain species viability (Noss and
Cooperrider 1994). Protecting all remaining OG (as detected by
remote imagery) would raise levels into the low range of that
considered adequate.\1\ Moreover, saving all would provide an
important buffer against future losses. Natural disturbances
are likely to destroy some of the remaining OG and mature
habitat before younger forests have aged sufficiently to
provide suitable replacement habitat, a risk significantly
increased by the combined effects of changing climate and the
increased vulnerability of older forests when embedded within a
matrix of fire-prone young forests. On the east slopes of the
Cascades, 14.5% of NSO habitat was lost between 1994 and 2003
(Spies et al. 2006), and approximately 80,000 acres of NSO
habitat was lost in the Biscuit fire. The more saved now, the
greater the buffering against such losses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ``Adequate'' may vary widely depending on specific
circumstances and must be determined on a case-by-case basis. For
example, the amount of area needed in strictly protected status depends
on what is done in the matrix.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Many species that occupy stable habitats--of which old
forests are a prime example--have poor dispersal capabilities,
hence risk isolation, genetic deterioration, and ultimate
extinction when suitable habitat is spread too widely (Kareiva
and Wennergren 1995). Studies suggest that many OG associates
in the PNW may be limited more by dispersal than by the
abundance of habitat per se, including species of lichens,
bryophytes, mollusks, fungi, and invertebrates. This implies
that every remaining piece of suitable habitat becomes an
important focus for eventual colonization of the surrounding
landscape. Potential problems with dispersal are exacerbated in
the Pacific Northwest because young forests presently
dominating the matrix do not have the structural complexity and
legacies characteristic of naturally disturbed forests (e.g.
Tappeiner et al 1997), resulting in a much starker contrast
between old and young forests than occurred historically.
Species, species assemblages, and the genetic structure of
populations may vary at relatively fine scales for small
organisms (which account for by far the largest share of
diversity), raising the possibility that each remaining older
forest is to some degree unique in its biological structure.
For instance, many mollusk species are restricted to one
region, or even one river drainage (Frest and Johannes 1993).
Even small fragments of older forest may be significant
biological reservoirs. Amaranthus et al. (1994) found that 3.5-
ha fragments of mature forest harbored 13 species of truffle-
forming mycorrhizal fungi not found in surrounding plantations.
iv. other values of og
OG forests store large amounts of carbon that may take to several
hundred years to recoup following logging. Some OG stands, especially
those with infrequent fire regimes, accumulate large stores of carbon
in the soil compared with mid-aged forests.
OG has a strong influence on stream flows relative to younger
stands. In an experiment comparing logged and unlogged basins in the
Cascades, logged basins have had elevated stream flows for 40 years
compared to their OG controls (Jones and Post 2004). Stream flows
during the snowmelt season have been particularly slow in recovering to
OG conditions. Another experiment that compared logged with 100 year-
old forest rather than OG has shown a similar pattern.
Considerable evidence over the past two decades shows that OG is
more resistant to crown fire than younger forests, and hence helps
buffer the landscape against the possibility of mega-fires. Modeling
shows that western Oregon is likely to become drier with climate
warming, which means more fire and therefore an increased value of
relatively resistant components on the landscape.
The situation with fire is complicated in the dry forest types,
where various factors have allowed understory fire ladders to develop
in OG forests, increasing their susceptibility to crown fires.
Appropriate levels of fuels reduction are badly needed in many these
dry forests, however at least three strict guidelines should be
followed. First, large, fire resistant trees should be retained.
Second, habitats for closed forest species should be protected, which
means taking a landscape approach to thinning. Third, all caution
should be taken to protect soils and streams.
v. mature forests
As recognized by FEMAT, a conservation strategy for the Pacific
Northwest must consider mature forests as well as OG. Forests are
considered to enter maturity when their mean annual increment
culminates, following which time they begin developing the
characteristics that ultimately produce OG. Mature forests serve
various important ecologic functions. They serve as future replacements
for old-growth, help protect existing OG by reducing the starkness of
age-class boundaries, and provide landscape connectivity and
transitional habitat that compensate to some degree for the low levels
of OG. Moreover, they are almost certainly more resistant to crown
fires than younger forests, and hence contribute to buffering the
landscape.
According to FEMAT, mature and old-growth forests together compose
approximately 51% of federal forest lands within the range of the NSO
in Oregon and Washington. Protecting all of these would have clear
benefits from the standpoint of conservation and landscape ecology. A
majority of the landscape dominated by large trees within forests that
have or are developing complex structure provides habitat connectivity
for late-successional species and lowers the risk of mega-wildfires.
Complete hands-off is not necessary, and in the case of dry forests,
management will be required to reduce fire hazard. In mesic forests
there is unlikely to be any ecological justification for thinning in OG
and older mature forests, however thinning may be both appropriate and
beneficial in some younger mature stands. Such evaluations must be made
on a case-by-case basis and involve both silvicultural and habitat
considerations.
In summary, OG forests are centers of biological diversity, perform
unique functions with regard to carbon storage and hydrologic
regulation, and serve as relatively stable components of the landscape.
Mature forests share many of the OG values. The area of OG has been
sharply reduced compared to historic conditions, and amounts currently
protected are well below scientifically accepted minimum habitat levels
required to maintain species viability. Saving all remaining OG forests
greatly enhances the probability of late-successional-dependent species
persisting through this period of extreme habitat bottleneck, reduces
the chance of flooding, and lowers the risk of mega-fires. Saving
mature forests that are effectively emergent OG contributes
significantly to these goals in the short run, and will be essential in
the long run.
Senator Wyden. Thank you very much.
Dr. Tappeiner, welcome.
STATEMENT OF JOHN TAPPEINER, PROFESSOR EMERITUS, COLLEGE OF
FORESTRY, OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY, CORVALLIS, OR
Mr. Tappeiner. Thank you for the opportunity to testify
before your committee.
I agree with most of the testimony that's been presented,
and certainly the descriptions we've had about old-growth
forests, on wet and dry sites, and there being threatened by
fire and insects--especially on the drier sites--and the
variability in the old-growth forest throughout the Pacific
Northwest. You know, I simply agree, so I'm going to avoid--
avoid, I'm not going to present that part of my testimony.
I would just like to move right on to some ideas about
managing old forests, managing to maintain or enhance old
forests.
I think that it's--we would agree that thinning is a way to
grow young forests, to have old-growth forest characteristics.
We've found that--in our work, we've found that the, that the
big tress in old-growth forests grew at low densities, and that
their ages and sizes when they were 200 years old could be
predicted by how fast these trees were going when they were 50
years old.
So, by managing young stands, we can increase the size of
the trees, it seems to be that these old trees grew at low
densities. We can also grow trees quickly with large stems,
deep bark characteristics, things that resemble old-growth
trees.
We know also that when you thin young stands, you develop a
diverse under story, which is part of an old-growth
characteristic. Also, you get an under story of shrubs growing,
and they become good habitat for birds long before they really
achieve characteristics that resemble old growth. So, those are
some additional values for thinning these young stands,
especially on the moist sites, to get old-growth
characteristics, growing them more rapidly.
In the dry forests if you have young stands you can thin
them for the same purposes, but of course, like Dr. Perry and
others have said, we need to reduce the density of the fuels,
especially the ladder fuels in the old forests, fuels that
carry fire from near the ground up into the crowns of these old
forests.
Also, there--thinning, commercial thinning, prescribed fire
and cutting small trees by hand or tractors are all ways of
reducing fuels and achieving these characteristics. I've seen
this applied on a sister's district, for example, and I'm
impressed by how well these work. I've also worked with the BLM
in establishing studies in young stands to produce these old-
growth characteristics, and I'm really impressed with how well
that agency was able to implement these prescriptions, simply
by--with their own people.
So, I think the potential is there for lots of good
management, and they simply need to have the opportunity to do
it.
Another thing we've found that I think that might be useful
to know is that these old-growth trees respond positively to
removal of trees from around them. When we went back and looked
at old stands that have had trees removed from around them
about 20 or 30 years previously, we found that the old trees
that were remaining in those stands, actually increased their
growth rates, which indicate that they were under stress, and
that possibly it indicates, also, that they could develop
resistance to insects, and so forth. That they were growing in
dense stands, because the density of the stand appeared to be
suppressing their growth.
So, I think there's a good biological reason--other than
fire--to remove some of these trees from old stands, just to
reduce the stand density.
I'm impressed about how important it is to have local
definitions of old forest, other people have talked about this.
The definitions that we have that we think about, use to think
about old forest, I think, are primarily developed from the
moist sites in the Cascades and the coastal forests. In the
mixed conifer forest, or Ponderosa Pine forests, on the drier
sites, we need quite different definitions. I think we need to
take into account the fire in defining those definitions, too,
in coming up with those definitions. How many, in 100-acre
stand, how much of it needs to be treated? Do we want it all to
be treated, or do we need to leave parts of it untreated, and
so forth? I don't think we've really addressed those questions.
Finally, I had a picture that I hope is before you. It's a
small one----
Senator Wyden. Let's see.
Oh, yes, I've seen this--let me just show our colleagues on
the committee, Doctor, yes. A very important picture.
Mr. Tappeiner. Thank you, sorry. That's it. Sorry I didn't
get a big one like the Forest Service had.
Senator Wyden. It only counts around here if you have
charts or big pictures.
Mr. Tappeiner. OK.
Senator Wyden. You have got it in front of the Senators.
Mr. Tappeiner. That picture, I believe, illustrates an
example for the need for flexibility in managing these forests.
Now, that's a big Sugar Pine tree in that picture, it's taken
on the road from Medford up to Crater Lake. That tree is
probably well over 100 years old, but in order to save that
tree from fire, to reduce the ladder fuels, you probably want
to cut trees around it that are 30 or 40 inches in diameter,
because they're the ladder fuel in some of these old forests.
You know, that doesn't mean you do that always, all the time,
everywhere, but it may be important--it may be important in
certain cases to remove some pretty big trees, in order to save
even larger ones.
In the case of the Sugar Pine, it's even more important,
because Sugar Pine is threatened by White Pine blister rust,
and that's a disease that was introduced from Asia in the
1930s, and it threatens the Sugar Pine.
So, if you can find Sugar Pine trees that are healthy and
free from rust--even though they're small trees--they may not
be old-growth trees, it would be important to save those trees,
it might be important to cut some bigger trees, in order to
save the small, rust-resistant Sugar Pine.
Also, by cutting around resistant trees, you might want to
be, be able to reproduce new, hopefully rust-resistant Sugar
Pine, and try to get that resistance into the population.
So, this is just an example of why flexibility is needed in
dealing with this issue of old-growth forests, and especially
when the managers come to apply prescriptions to conserve or
enhance them.
So, those are our proposals, my remarks, thank you for
having me testify.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Tappeiner follows:]
Prepared Statement of John Tappeiner, Professor Emeritus, College of
Forestry, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR
Good morning, Chairman Wyden and members of the subcommittee, my
name is Dr. John Tappeiner and I appreciate this opportunity to testify
before the committee. My remarks today will focus on managing forests
on public lands to maintain and achieve old-growth forest
characteristics.
1. Old Growth forests (OG) are an important part of western
forests. They provide habitat for a wide range of organisms.
They have spiritual, aesthetic, and historical value; they
contain valuable commercial wood.
2. Each of us has our own image of an OG forest---usually
large, majestic trees in undisturbed forests. Typically OG has
few very large overstory trees, multiple layers of intermediate
size and smaller trees, herbs and shrubs in the understory and
large standing and fallen dead trees (7,9). It is this varied
structure that makes OG unique. These characteristics vary
widely even within a stand, and especially throughout the
forests of Washington, Oregon, and northern California from
moist coastal forests east to the Cascades, to the drier
ponderosa pine and lodgepole pine forests east of the Cascades
and the mixed conifer of southwestern Oregon and northern
California. OG may be fragmented and occur in small patches
(<5-10 acres) with few trees. The effects of land ownership,
fire, logging, windstorms, etc. cause fragmentation. Stands
that are classified as young stands may contain some OG trees.
3. Fire and other disturbances like wind and insects have had
and continue to have major effects on the OG forests in the
Pacific Northwest--especially on drier sites in mixed conifer,
ponderosa pine and lodgepole pine forests (1, 8). Before about
1900 relatively frequent, low severity fire in the ponderosa
pine and mixed conifer forests reduced fuel levels by burning
small trees and shrubs, and these fires killed few large trees.
Since the beginning of fire control in the early 1900's, fuels
have accumulated in OG forests especially on dry sites.
Consequently today's fires are much more severe, killing trees
over 1000's of acres. Insects can kill young and OG trees in
dense stands during drought periods in ponderosa pine and mixed
conifer forests and especially in lodgepole pine forests. These
dead trees increase the fuels and potential for severe fire. On
moist sites fire is much less common, but when forests become
dry enough to burn, fire may kill many acres of trees. In many
landscapes it is likely that fire will start in young forests
and burn into adjoining OG, so effects of fire on today's OG
also need to be viewed from a landscape perspective.
4. There are four different goals for thinning which need to
be considered. They vary with the ecosystem in which the forest
occurs: (a) perpetuating old forest conditions threatened by
severe fire from high density of fuels, (b) bringing forest
conditions to higher resilience to drought and insects, (c)
accelerating development of structural complexity and old-
growth characteristics in young forests, and (d) growing trees
for wood. (A) and (b) apply to dry forests, (c) mainly to young
moist forests. The goals can overlap, for example: (a) and (b)
on dry sites, (c) and (d) in productive moist forests, also in
some dry forest stands. In both moist and dry forests,
reduction in stand density favors rapid growth of large trees
with full crowns and large branches and furrowed bark (OG tree
characteristics) (11). We found that in western (6,10) and
southwestern (8) Oregon, large, old trees grew rapidly when
they were young. Tree size (diameter) at 200+ yr was strongly
related to growth rate when trees were young (50 yr) (6). In
addition OG trees grew much more rapidly than the fastest
growing trees in nearby plantations, because of the high
density of the plantation. In addition to growing large trees,
commercial thinning also initiated the beginning of a multi-
layer of trees, the establishment or maintenance of shrubs and
a yield of wood (2,3). In young stands, even before they
develop OG characteristics, the establishment of shrubs and
growing trees with large crowns provides habitat for a variety
of birds (5).
Thinning stands on dry, fire-prone sites also produces the
characteristics described above. In addition, it can make a
stand more resistant to severe fire (11). This is done by (a)
spacing overstory trees when needed to reduce the density of
the forest canopy and thus the potential of a crown fire that
burns from one tree to the next, (b) growing larger trees with
thick bark that are more fire resistant than smaller trees and
dense stands and (c) lowering the density of small trees and
shrubs in the understory which reduces ``fuel 4 ladders'' that
can carry fire into the crowns of the large, overstory OG
trees. The fire scorches and kills the needles and vegetative
buds, causing mortality. These treatments may yield commercial
wood.
5. Removal of trees by commercial thinning, prescribed fire,
and cutting small trees by hand and tractors with cutting
devices, etc. are all ways of thinning stands to grow large
trees and to reduce fuels and flammability (11). When the goal
is to reduce flammability, often no one treatment will suffice.
Slash disposal by treatments like broadcast burning, piling and
burning or chipping must follow thinning. If the slash (dead
tree tops, shrubs, etc) is not treated on fire prone sites the
potential for severe fire may be higher than before thinning,
at least temporarily. On fire prone sites treatment may be
needed (about every 15 to 20+ yr) to control ladder fuels as
new trees and shrubs become established. On many sites it is
difficult to use fire, because (a) smoke conflicts with air
quality standards, and (b) the short periods between conditions
that are too wet to burn in the winter and too dry to burn
safely in the summer. In ponderosa and lodgepole pine forests
insects may breed in the slash and emerge to attack nearby
green trees. Prompt slash disposal and timing of thinning so
that the slash dries rapidly can avoid this problem. On moist
sites, slash disposal is not usually needed because it
decomposes more rapidly than on dry sites and fire is less of a
concern.
6. Thinning for fire resistance or to promote development of
OG trees, need not result in a uniform and homogeneous stand.
The main purposes of thinning are a marked reduction in ladder
fuels, decrease in canopy density and space to grow large
trees. Species, sizes and spacing of overstory and understory
trees will vary to achieve desired results.
7. OG trees respond positively to tree removal. Surprisingly
stem area growth of over 68% of large (40+ in. diameter)
Douglas-fir, ponderosa and sugar pine increased by over 10% for
20+ yr after trees were removed from around them. About 30% of
the trees increased their growth by more than 50% and 1.5%
decreased growth. Increased growth rates suggest improved vigor
that may make trees more resistant to insects and pathogens
during periods of drought. It also suggests that when thinning
young stands to provide OG characteristics, thinning can
continue well beyond 100yr.
8. Local descriptions of OG trees and stands are needed to
aid conservation and management of OG stands. As mentioned
above, the species composition and tree sizes in the overstory
and understory of OG stands vary throughout Pacific Northwest
OG forests. Forest managers, the public and scientists need
guidelines to help agree on what is OG. These guideline are
needed to set goals for managing young stands to achieve OG
characteristics. Guidelines will vary with species composition,
site productivity, and other factors such as the potential for
fire, severe insect outbreaks and windstorms. In stands that
are managed to reduce fuels and flammability, the sizes and
numbers of trees will differ from those where fire is not a
concern.
Age is not likely to provide a useful description of OG. It
is difficult to determine the ages of OG trees (especially
large trees). Large trees growing on productive sites with few
trees around them can be quite young. Small trees growing on
poor sites and in dense stands can be quite old. OG stands
often contain large trees with a wide range of ages. Thus the
average tree age does not adequately describe the stand.
Localized definitions of stand structure (numbers of trees of
different species and sizes per unit of land) are likely to
provide the most useful guidelines.
It is important to consider spatial variability within OG
stands. Over how large an area should OG characteristics occur?
Within a 50 to 100 acre stand some acres may have 10 OG trees,
others 30+ and still others 0. What is sufficient? In fire
prone forests are OG characteristics or fire proof stands
needed on every acre? What is the tradeoff (if any) between
fire resistant stands and ideal OG?
Guidelines should ensure a genuine understanding and
description of local OG trees and stands, including spatial
variability. They should be local and practical to enable
forest managers to implement treatments to protect and develop
OG trees and forests.
These remarks represent my view and not those of Oregon State
University.
Senator Wyden. Very good, Doctor. I just had to ask the
experts a fine point of your excellent testimony.
Mr. Tappeiner. Thank you.
Senator Wyden. Thank you.
Mr. Brown, welcome. Thank you for your help.
STATEMENT OF MARVIN D. BROWN, STATE FORESTER, OREGON DEPARTMENT
OF FORESTRY, SALEM, OR
Mr. Brown. Thank you, Chair Wyden, members of the
committee, good morning. My name is Marvin Brown, I'm the
Oregon State Forester. I also serve as Forest Policy Advisor
for our Governor, Ted Kulongoski. It's a pleasure to be here
and speak on behalf of him this morning about this topic, old
growth.
It is important to the State, the old-growth issue. Just to
give you some perspective, there's about 30 million acres of
forest land in Oregon, 16 million of those acres are managed by
either the Forest Service or the Bureau of Land Management, and
pretty much all of the old growth that exists in this State,
exists on these Federal lands. So, it boils down to a Federal
issue that's important to the State.
Folks have described, you know, why old growth is
important. It's certainly the unique biology that is
represented by these stands, is something that we want on our
forested landscapes, it's important to maintain that. It's
also, from a, kind of, a workman standpoint, I think scenic
value is really important to the average person in Oregon, the
large trees that come with preserving these lands as old growth
is important.
There's kind of a reassurance value to a lot of people,
just out there in general society, that we've got lands that
are not being particularly disturbed by individuals. I think
all those are the values that are wrapped up in old growth.
There's another one too, from our standpoint, and that's if
public lands can successfully deliver these values, then it
makes it that much sense for private lands to have another
focus, a focus on, say, early successional habitat for wildlife
or for producing, you know, intensive timber production issues.
So, it is important in a State.
Kind of setting that aside for a minute, the Federal lands
in general, by policy, have been directed to provide a full
range of benefits, economic, environmental, and social. The
policies you all are fully aware of, the western side of the
State is primarily dominated by the Northwest Forest Plan. The
eastern side of the State, forest policy is profoundly impacted
by what's called the East Side Screens. Both of those policies
have provisions that directly focus on old growth, but they are
also, again, like I said, the policy direction that it says
that these lands need to providing economic and social benefit.
The reality is that they're not doing a very good job of
delivering those benefits for the State of Oregon. Oftentimes,
I think people would agree, that the reason they're not
delivering many of those benefits, is because of conflicts
about what is old growth and how much of it should be existing
on Federal lands. So, I think it is important that we get some
new policy direction that tries to get past some of this old-
growth conflict, specifically, policy direction that would
clearly articulate just what is old growth, what are we talking
about when we talk about old growth, and what is an appropriate
amount on Federal lands.
I think it would be important for that policy to also
recognize, as gentlemen have said here, that it takes sustained
re-entry into these areas to maintain the kind of climax
conditions that are characterized by old growth. It's not a
one-time thing, manage these lands and go on. It does take
sustained, indefinite work, treatment to maintain them.
Ihere also needs to be policy direction that actually
allows this work to get done, policy and funding to allow this
work to get done. One of the big impediments that seems to be
thrown up there and inhibiting what actually gets done on the
ground, is the cost of NEPA analysis, the length of time it
takes to get through NEPA analysis, to some decision, and the
fact that, oftentimes, even after this very lengthy analysis,
the work is still not allowed to go forward.
So, I think dealing with that particular piece of the
puzzle would be really important, because in the end, all the
definitions are great, but you still have to be able to get the
work done on the ground.
Just, you know, one view I have, is that I've always found
it interesting that forest management is viewed as a threat to
environmental values, when in fact, you know, much of what
we're talking about here would be forest management that would
improve environmental values. I think if we can kind of get
that recognition somewhere in policy, then it could be
appropriate to take a little different approach in the whole
NEPA analysis part of the process.
So, those are our views. I appreciate it, and obviously
I'll be here for questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Brown follows:]
Prepared Statement of Marvin D. Brown, State Forester, Oregon
Department of Forestry, Salem, OR
Chairman Wyden and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to provide testimony on the science, policy and management
of old growth forests. My name is Marvin D. Brown. I am the Oregon
State Forester, and also serve as forest policy advisor to Oregon
Governor Ted Kulongoski. I am here today speaking on behalf of Governor
Kulongoski.
Slightly less than half of Oregon is forested, about 30 million
acres in total. Approximately 60 percent of this land, 16 million
acres, is managed by either the U.S. Forest Service or Bureau of Land
Management. These federally-owned lands are the focal point for
discussions about old growth in our state.
The federal lands are capable of producing a broad range of
benefits, including the unique values associated with old growth
forests. These values include types of biological diversity found only
in old growth forests, the inspirational beauty of large trees, and a
simple reassurance that some places in nature are being left generally
undisturbed by people. Such values are important to the people of
Oregon, and federal lands play the dominant role in providing them.
These are values that Governor Kulongoski assigns to old growth
forests. Shaped by those values, the Governor firmly believes that we
must resolve to shift the debate about management of federal forest
lands from whether or not harvest should occur in old growth forests to
agreeing that such forests should be off limits to commercial harvest
so we can turn our attention to properly managing the rest of national
forest lands for multiple benefits.
As a practicing forester, however, I have yet to find a
straightforward, easily agreed-upon definition of old growth, or a
formula for determining how much old growth we need. Ultimately,
questions about defining old growth--and about managing our federal
forests in general--come down to policy decisions informed by science,
but based on a shared vision about the purpose and range of benefits we
seek from these lands.
It's important to acknowledge that disturbances, in addition to
natural events such as fires or floods, also include removal of trees
as part of a management strategy. Mechanical removal of some trees can
be more practical, more economical than, and just as effective as,
allowing natural disturbances that perpetuate a climax condition.
A management regime that leads to sustained re-entry for thinning,
general improvement of forest health, and for creating an appropriate
distribution of size classes can successfully achieve and maintain old
growth benefits.
Assuming a workable definition for old growth can be developed, the
next challenge is being able to implement policy. The Northwest Forest
Plan, approved in 1994, represents current policy for federal lands in
western Oregon. Developed in response to the listing of the northern
spotted owl as a threatened species, it designates large areas as late
successional reserves (LSR), where forests would grow to old growth
conditions. Notably, the Forest Plan also committed to restoring a
predictable, sustainable federal timber supply for rural communities,
although at lower levels than those of previous years. While most of
that supply was intended to be derived from lands classified as
`matrix' lands under the plan, the plan also recognized the management
of lands classified as late successional reserves would also produce
merchantable timber by thinning such stands to accelerate their
progression to an old growth forest ecosystem.
Almost 15 years after the Plan's adoption, little of its vision has
been realized for Oregon and its communities. Instead, controversy has
stymied needed management--from thinning of LSRs to harvest in matrix
lands, the plan is not being implemented as intended. This is of great
economic and social consequence to Oregon. The loss of a predictable
and sustainable supply of timber from federal lands has resulted in the
loss of jobs, community vitality and forest industry infrastructure.
Worse, it has severely reduced revenues to counties in Oregon which
were promised a reasonable stream of funding from federal land
harvests, creating uncertainty and hardship for local schools, law
enforcement and other county services. In this light, resolving the
issue of what constitutes old growth would be most welcome if it
facilitates successful implementation of the Northwest Forest Plan.
In adopting a definition of old growth, it must be recognized that
desired old growth conditions vary depending on several factors to
include annual precipitation, elevation and tree species. For example,
in eastern Oregon, old growth values on federal lands are presently
addressed through what are called the ``Eastside Screens.'' Among other
things, this provision significantly inhibits the harvest of any tree
over 21 inches in diameter at breast height. From a forest management
perspective, this is a very coarse filter that does not meet the
critical management need on these lands, which is to keep stand density
low enough and size distribution varied enough to promote acceptable
forest health.
As a consequence, eastside federal forest lands are overcrowded
with diseased, insectinfested, dead or dying trees--the result of years
of suppression of the fires that once were a natural part of the
ecosystem, and of climate change. What we see now are unusually hot,
large fires that damage the resource, threatening even those reserve
areas intended to grow into older forests. About three-quarters of the
federal forested acres in Oregon are now considered vulnerable to
unusually severe fires, and fire is a genuine threat to older forests
and the habitat they provide.
This is why a definition of old growth must not only consider the
length of time trees have been growing, it must also consider the
overall forest health and other conditions that provide the ecosystem
benefits desired of old growth forests.
Improving the definition of old growth in these instances will
help, but in order to implement policy, there are also improvements
needed in application of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
and in concepts for funding federal land management.
Costs, appeals, and litigation associated with NEPA analysis have
severely limited the number of forest management projects that actually
make it to implementation. If federal policy were to recognize that
such projects enhance environmental benefits (as opposed to the current
presumption that they threaten environmental values) then there would
be justification for significantly less analytical cost. The key would
be to identify the circumstances under which management projects are
accepted as environmental enhancements. And taking controversial
projects that target cutting of old growth off the table would also do
a great deal in reducing controversy, litigation and the need for
extensive NEPA analysis.
Regarding funding, investment in federal lands has clearly declined
at the same time that timber harvests on federal lands have been
reduced to a small fraction of historical highs. This disinvestment has
resulted not only in a failure to manage designated forest lands
towards an old growth condition, it has also resulted in a loss of
recreation facilities as well as significant threats to water quality
and fish habitat because of seriously backlogged road maintenance.
Rural counties in Oregon are in jeopardy of losing roughly $280
million in safety net payments under the Secure Rural Schools Act. No
one expects timber revenues to ever again approach their historic
levels.
But achieving a harvest level that offers these counties some
financial relief, and that provides economic sustenance for forest-
dependent communities should also be part of creating the right
balance. Harvest levels and revenue to counties could be largely
achieved if we simply implemented the Northwest Forest Plan. However,
the failure to agree on a definition of old growth and how we will
manage areas to an old growth condition curtails our ability to produce
intended benefits on other federal forest lands. Just like the problem
we face with fire severity, the loss of a predictable and sustainable
supply of timber from federal lands for the benefit of communities
speaks to the need to resolve the question of old growth.
Whether you focus on social, environmental or economic values, the
federal forests clearly are not contributing benefits in proportion to
the extent to which these lands dominate Oregon's landscape. Given that
dominance, we cannot expect to have a sustainable forest resource in
Oregon if federal lands are not well managed.
If we are successful at achieving some improvements, we think that
a host of important forest related benefits, including those related to
old growth forests, can be more fully realized. Those improvements
should include the following: a commitment to eliminate harvest in old
growth forests except when managing to accelerate or protect old growth
conditions; the creation of a legally-recognized definition of old
growth would benefit management of Northwest forests, a recognition
that harvesting trees for management to a desired condition or to
produce multiple benefits that include timber may both produce revenue,
but that such harvests are for entirely different objectives and both
should be allowed; and that funding federal land management in the
future requires an analysis of return on investment to include the
values of minimizing fire risk and associated losses as well as the
role of forests in producing biofuels and sequestering carbon dioxide.
Mr. Chairman and Subcommittee members, this concludes my remarks.
Senator Wyden. We'll have questions in a moment.
Mr. Beck, welcome, long journey for you.
STATEMENT OF PAUL H. BECK, TIMBER MANAGER, HERBERT LUMBER
COMPANY, RIDDLE, OR
Mr. Beck. Thank you. Chairman Wyden, Senator Craig, Senator
Smith, I really appreciate being here, it's an honor for me.
I'm Paul Beck, I'm Timber Manager of Herbert Lumber Company in
Riddle, Oregon. We cut big trees.
This room is an amazing room. It's beautiful wood. If this
wood was Douglas Fir, it may have come out of our mill. This is
the type of thing that we make. The difference between this
room and the wood in it, and the product we make, is our
product is certified as sustainable by the Forest Stewardship
Council, either that or it's controlled by the Forest
Stewardship Council. We submit our entire log procurement
program to SmartWood, a division of the Rain Forest Alliance,
for scrutiny.
Historically, our log sourcing area was the Tiller Ranger
District of the Umpqua National Forest. Today, that sourcing
area runs from Humboldt County, California to the tip, northern
tip of Vancouver Island. The Umpqua National Forest grows
upwards of a half a billion board-feet per year, and will do so
forever. We're barging wood from Canada to fill our needs.
One of the questions that we hear constantly, is our
dependence on foreign oil, something here is wrong. If you walk
through a house you'll see a lot of different types--if it's
under construction--you'll see a lot of different types of
wood. You'll see a lot of two by fours, but you'll see a lot of
bigger pieces of wood in there too. You can not build a house
out of a single type of wood or a dimension of wood, you need a
lot of other things to go into that house, also.
You can not build an industry that builds--that makes one
type of wood. You need to have mills that produce all these
other things that society needs. I would hope we would produce
them here, where we have the environmental laws that we have,
rather than buying them offshore somewhere.
While some segments of our industry, right now, are going
through one of the worst economic busts ever, of all time, some
segments are doing pretty well. The appearance-grade market,
markets that we cut into, are actually pretty good. Not all
products follow the same cycles. The dimension market has very
big highs and lows. Our markets don't have the highs and lows
and they're not in the same phase. So you've got a community
like ours, with lots of different types of mills, you get a
balance. Somebody's having bad economic times, at least you've
got somebody in the community that's still employing people.
Our company has existed for 62 years, we've never had a
single lay-off in that entire time. That's a real stability for
our area. Our ability to operate depends on the ability to
procure a quality of log. We're fond of saying that we don't
make it any better, we just make it a different shape.
In the Fourth Congressional District of Oregon, we have the
highest concentration of saw mills and veneer plants, plywood
plants, in the United States, and probably the world. There's
34 mills in that area, 17 of those mills are designed to cut a
large diameter log. There isn't just one or two of us left,
there's a whole bunch of us.
Of the small log mills, there's two of those that cut
species that aren't readily available on small diameter
thinnings that come off of the Forest Service land at this
time.
I find no need to define old growth. We're never going to
agree on a definition. What we have a critical need to define
is protection. You can't draw a line on a map or through an age
class or through a size class, and pretend or try and fool
people into thinking that that's magically protected. It
doesn't work that way. We had lines drawn on the map, we had a
line drawn around Biscuit, it's call the Kalmiopsis Wilderness
Area, didn't protect it. We had a line drawn on the map on the
Umpqua, around Boulder Creek. Seventy-five percent of that
wilderness area burnt up. We had a line on the map that was
called the Last/Slick Creek Roadless Area, didn't protect it,
it burned up. Lines on maps protect--protect nothing.
We need to empower the agencies to go out and actively
manage the very stands that we want to protect. We need to
reduce fuel loads to protect these big trees that we're talking
about. These lands have been managed for 10,000 years. When the
first settlers of this continent came across the land-bridge or
in boats from Asia, they brought the management tool of fire,
and they burnt this land often. To think that this land, when
the European settlers got here, was a wilderness area, is
wrong. It had been managed.
The fuel loads that we see out there today, they're not
natural. The fires that we see today are not natural. To think
that we could draw a line on a map and let nature take its
course, is foolish. We need to roll up our sleeves and protect
these lands.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Beck follows:]
Prepared Statement of Paul H. Beck, Timber Manager, Herbert Lumber
Company, Riddle, OR
Chairman Wyden, Senator Smith, members of the committee, good
afternoon and thank you for inviting me here today; my name is Paul
Beck and I am the Timber Manager for Herbert Lumber Company in Riddle
Oregon. I am a fourth generation sawmill worker. The Forests of the
Umpqua and the Rogue have not only been my office of thirty years, they
have been my home and my recreation for over fifty three. I am here
today representing Herbert Lumber, Douglas Timber Operators (DTO) and
American Forest Resource Council (AFRC). My goal here today is to help
you better understand our company, our industry, our community, our
forests, and the true history of those forests. There are many myths
surrounding all of these things. My desire is to dispel those myths.
Herbert Lumber Company was founded in 1947 by Milton Herbert near
Lowell Oregon. The following year the company moved to Canyonville and
continued there until operations were consolidated with our planing
mill in Riddle. We have operated continuously since 1947. We employ 62
people directly. Our employees have full benefits including medical,
dental, and a retirement plan. At last calculation our average employee
had been with the company for just over eleven years.
Our entire product line is either certified as sustainable by the
Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) or is FSC controlled. We submit our
entire log procurement program to rigorous third party scrutiny and
audit by Smartwood an affiliate of the Rainforest Alliance.
We manufacture larger diameter trees into a wide variety of
products ranging from door and window parts, appearance grade timbers,
to industrial grade structural items. These products are in wide demand
here domestically and on every inhabited continent on earth.
Manufacturing these products in the United States ensures the highest
environmental and labor standards are met, not mention keeping family-
wage jobs in the U.S., something that is often discussed on the
campaign trail and in Congress. Moreover, it's environmentally
responsible to produce these products in the U.S. where we can ensure
our high standards are met, rather than depending on products from
developing nations with few standards and little enforcement.
Historically our log sourcing area was the Tiller Ranger District
of the Umpqua National Forest. This area is within thirty miles of our
mill. Today that sourcing area has grown to include the entire Douglas
Fir region, which could be describe as the West slope of the Cascade
Range to the Pacific Ocean, from Humboldt County in Northern California
to the far northern tip of Vancouver Island. We travel this entire
three state and two country sourcing area to procure the twenty million
board feet of timber that we need to supply our mill. Senator Wyden and
Senator Smith: our state of Oregon is the Nation's wood basket, and our
mill is situated in the heart of timber country. Our neighbor, the
Umpqua National Forest is growing a half a billion board feet per year
and will do so in perpetuity. Yet we're barging logs from Canada to
feed our mill. Senators, when one of the major environmental and
political challenges of our time is a dependence on foreign oil,
something here is wrong.
The timber wars of the last twenty years in Oregon are full of
villains and heroes, which vary by storyteller. But as policymakers, I
urge my senators from Oregon and other Members of Congress to separate
reality from mythology.
myth 1
If manufacturers would convert to only small log operations then we
could thin young stands to provide all the material necessary to supply
society's needs for wood products.
Just as you cannot build a house out of one dimension of lumber,
say 2x4's, you cannot build an industry that produces nothing but one
type of wood. If you walk through a house under constructions you
certainly will find a lot of 2x4's. This is a primary framing
component. But if you look closer you will see a vast number of various
other grades and dimensions. The timber industry of the Northwest has
evolved to fill the needs of this market.
Primary manufacturers in the Pacific Northwest can be divided into
four basic categories; Dimension Sawmills, Grade Cutting Mills, Veneer
Mills, and Chipping Facilities.
Dimension Mills cut a set of specific dimensions of lumber such as
2x4, 2x6, and 4x4 in varying lengths. A stud mill is a type of
dimension mill.
Veneer mills turn a log on a lathe and produce the components for
plywood and laminated veneer lumber.
Chip mills simply chip the whole log. These chips are used for
manufacturing paper and can be used in the generation of electricity.
Grade Cutting mills do not concentrate on a specific dimension of
lumber but rather seek to capture the highest grade of wood products
from a log. These mills make products that are used in the manufacture
of doors, window parts, paneling, industrial products, and appearance
and/or structural grade framing material. One example of large log
consumer products is the headers above doors and windows that need to
bare a structural load. Thinning young stands alone will not supply the
raw materials needed to produce these higher grades and structural
types of wood products. Thinning only young trees will also not provide
the long-term sustainable supply needed for existing mills in many
areas, nor will it truly maintain forest health. In order to meet
consumer demand for renewable and sustainable wood products, we need to
manage our forests to provide a variety of tree species, sizes and
quantities. This type of management will also lead to improvements in
forest health.
myth 2
There is one Timber Industry and all economic cycles affect the
``industry'' the same way.
While the dimension portion of the industry and to a lesser degree
some segments of the veneer sector, is suffering through one of the
worst ``busts'' ever, the chipping markets are red hot, and cutting
markets are decent. It is important to note that the portion of the
veneer market that is doing well is the high end or the appearance
grade product.
The ability of cutting mills and veneer plants to manufacture
appearance grade products is completely dependent on our ability to
procure quality logs. As Milton Herbert, the founder of our company is
fond of saying, ``We cannot make the wood any better. We simply make it
a different shape.''
While all portions of the timber industry experience market cycles
those cycles are not in sync and they do not have the same variations.
Dimension lumber markets fluctuate dramatically. Cutting markets do not
have the same extremes, which is reflected in the fact our company has
operated continuously for nearly 62 years. In those 62 years there has
never been a layoff. Part of that is due to the stability of our
markets. It is also due in large part to the philosophy of the Herbert
Family. That is, when the market is bad that is when the community
needs these jobs the most. I can think of no other mill that can make
this same claim, but in general cutting mills provide stability to the
local economy. They do not have the highs and lows of the other types
of mills and their cycles are often ``out of phase'' with other
segments of the industry.
Just as it would be unwise for our government to encourage the
agriculture sector to solely produce one agriculture commodity, say soy
beans, it is equally unwise to adopt a policy that does not recognize
the diverse demands and influences on wood products markets. Just as
you would diversify your own economic portfolio, so too should rural
timber economies be diversified. If federal forest policy forces every
mill to create the same, low-grade product-then downturns in the
housing market such as we see today will have even more dire effects in
Oregon and elsewhere in the West.
myth 3
Only those mills that manufacture small logs are state of the art.
It is often said that our industry needs to upgrade or modernize
its facilities to manufacture small logs. The truth of the matter is
that the entire industry, across all mill types, has modernized to
remain competitive in the world marketplace, to more efficiently
produce what consumers demand and to be good stewards of the land. The
log supply in the last decade has been so critically short there is no
room for inefficient mills anywhere, which is obvious if you look at
the long list of sawmill closures.
The Herbert Family has invested millions of dollars in continually
upgrading our facility to more efficiently produce our products. Our
mill is still housed in a building that was erected in 1962 but the
equipment inside more resembles the set of Star Wars than the original
machinery used in 1947. This investment allows us to conserve and fully
utilize the forest resource for the benefit of the forest, our
community, and society.
myth 4
There are only a small number of mills that need or can even
process large diameter logs.
The 4th congressional district of Oregon is the area that I am most
familiar with. This district has the highest concentration of lumber
and plywood manufacturing facilities in the United States. In this
district there are approximately 34 manufacturing facilities. This is
over half the mill capacity of Oregon. Of those 34 mills a full 17 are
designed for and need large diameter logs for their operations. There
are also companies that rely on mills to manufacture larger logs into a
quality of veneer that is then utilized at other manufacturing
facilities. So, while some companies may rely primarily on small
diameter logs at most manufacturing locations, they may also need the
quality of material that comes out of these larger trees to produce
products such as plywood.
It should be further noted that of the 17 small log facilities, 2
have announced permanent closure and 2 only operate when they have
accumulated a volume of the species required to run their mill. One is
a small pine mill and the other uses cedar. These species are not
typically found in merchantable size from Forest Service small diameter
thinnings. Oregon's wood products industry needs a diverse mix of
species and diameters to produce the products society demands. Since
the Federal government manages over 50 percent of Oregon's forest, it
has an important role to play in helping to meet these needs. Ignoring
this reality has both economic and environmental consequences.
myth 5
In order to protect and ensure that we have biological diversity in
our National Forest we need to define ``Old Growth''.
There are many definitions of ``Old Growth''. I find none of them
accurate and none of them useful. I have tried to eliminate the term
from my vocabulary, and I see no benefit in coming up with what could
only be an arbitrary standard for its definition. What we have a
critical need for is a definition for Protection. All of our forests
are at risk of catastrophic and historically unprecedented wildfire as
well as the effects of climate change and we need to devise a way to
protect them from this. Active management will be required to help
forests adapt to climate change--no management will only result in
losing the very forests we're seeking to protect. Surely by now we know
with certainty that we cannot arbitrarily draw a line on a map, through
an age class, or through a diameter class and fool ourselves or the
public that it is somehow magically protected. Unnatural stocking and
fuel levels are threatening all forest of all ages in the Pacific
Northwest. It wasn't logging that destroyed 25% of the Spotted Owl
habitat in one year on the Rogue-Siskiyou National Forest in 2002. It
wasn't logging that destroyed the ``Last/Slick Creek Roadless Area'' of
the Umpqua National Forest that same year. It wasn't harvest that
consumed over seventy-five percent of the Boulder Creek Wilderness on
the North Umpqua. It wasn't logging that consumed over ten percent of
the Umpqua National Forest in one summer. These lands had arbitrary
lines drawn around them and were called ``protected''. Surely we
understand that these lines are just that, lines on a map and do
nothing to protect anything. If we are to truly protect something, then
we must take action toward that end and empower the agencies to
implement fuel reduction projects in the very stands of older forests
we seek to protect. This will take trust and it will take courage on
your part. But my children, the inheritors of your decisions, deserve
both.
myth 6
These Catastrophic Fires are a historical part of the forest
landscape.
When the first (first means first) settlers came to North America
across the land bridge or in boats across the Pacific they brought with
them forest management. The management tool of choice was fire. By most
accounts they burnt often and once a fire was set they had no way of
putting it out and depended on winter rains to do the job for them.
These fires were frequent to a point that there was often little fuel
accumulation and thus a low heat/intensity. Studies do tell us they
also created clearings of various sizes, some huge, especially in the
Coast Range. These set fires, and not natural fires, were the single
largest contributor to shaping the forests that European settlers and
explorers found in the New World. When the question was posed; ``How
often did areas burn before European settlement?'' Charles Kay who has
done extensive research on the subject gave the following answer.
As often as native people wanted. There is little doubt that
Native Americans fully understood the benefits they could
receive by firing their environment (Anderson2005). To suggest
otherwise is to assume aboriginal people were ecologically
incompetent, a supposition that is not supported by any reading
of the historical or ethnographic record (Mann 2005). Thus, the
idea that the Americas were a pristine wilderness, untouched by
the hand of man (Vale 2002) is a statement of belief, not a
fact supported by science (Kay 2002, Pyne 2003).
He further states that:
Nevertheless, even with the simplifying assumptions that were
employed, aboriginal use of fire most likely overwhelmed
lightning ignitions as Stewart (1956,1963,2002), Anderson
(2005) and others contend.
With the introduction of European diseases of which Native
Populations had no defense there was a massive die off of indigenous
people. It is estimated that as much as 90% of the population vanished
before European settlers arrived. With this decreased population came a
decrease in native burning. Forests are not static. Existing trees
grow. New tree trees sprout and grow. When they grow fuel loads
increased and fires became less frequent but more intense with a much
greater mortality of older trees. Compounding this growth, European
settlers started putting out naturally igniting fires.
While human-caused fire was very much a part of shaping the forest
we inherited, the fires we are currently facing are very different and
threaten the very forest we want to protect. If we are to save these
forests we need to redefine the concept of protection and focus on
removing ladder fuels that are threatening older forests and reduce
fuel loads to actually change condition class.
myth 7
If we only thin overstocked stands of planted trees our forests
will be healthy and protected.
Second growth plantation forests only represent a small fraction of
our National Forests. Limiting management to only these stands will not
address the threats that exist to forest health on all stands, planted
and natural. Moreover, given the historic role of indigenous and
natural fire and the decision 100 years ago to suppress fires as means
to protect communities, the reality we face today is more stems per
acre now then previously. Trees grow in all forest types not just in
young managed stands. To assume otherwise defies all logic. If we
assume that because we have over-harvested and underthinned in young
planted stands that we need to correct this by human intervention, then
we also need to recognize that because we have excluded fire/harvest
from other naturally regenerated stands we need to also correct this
through human manipulation. We have stands of all ages of trees that
are overstocked when compared to historic levels. These stands are fuel
loaded to the point that any attempt to reintroduce fire would be a
catastrophe.
The forested landscape we inherited, and that species that adapted
to it, were greatly influenced by both natural fire and by man using
the tool of fire over a period of some ten thousand years. These fires
were not like fires we see today which do great damage to entire
ecosystems. For many reasons, including development and the need to
protect and life and property, fire is not likely to play the role it
once did. We can and have, however, achieved similar results in a more
predictable way using modern harvest techniques. We need to redefine
protection of our National Forests to promote a more extensive and less
intensive program of removal of trees. Just when we are perfection
those methods it would be counterproductive to limit them by
implementing arbitrary prohibitions.
myth 8
Clear Cutting is the only tool available for the Forest Service to
manage and regenerate older forest types.
On private timber lands in Oregon the goal is to maximize growth
and thus profit. On these lands clear cutting helps create optimal
growing conditions. These lands are some of the most productive in the
world. The growth on our National Forests, however, far exceeds current
or foreseeable levels of extraction. As a result, maximizing growth is
not necessarily a desired goal.
There are many things that we do require of our National Forests.
We expect clean water, recreation, wildlife habitat, solitude, and some
contribution to our local and national economies. These expectations
often require different management approaches and won't be accomplished
through a one-size-fits all forest management prescription. For
example, populations of elk and deer are suffering in many areas due to
a lack of forest openings for grazing habitat and thinning won't
address this problem. What should be the goal is an approach to
management that meets the needs of all of the important objectives
listed above. I am here to tell you that if we earnestly work to
achieve this goal the byproduct will be the production of a quality
material from our National Forests.
For the first eighty years of managing our National Forests in
western Oregon we tried to mimic nature by excluding fire and creating
manmade disasters called clear cuts. These did regenerate fir well but
to the possible detriment of some tree species. They obviously offended
some segments of society. For the last twenty years we have tried to
exclude both fire and any meaningful amount of harvest. Forests and
fuel loads continue to grow and we are seeing fires that, while they
are a natural consequence they are not a socially or environmentally
acceptable result if our National Forests are to provide us all the
things we require of them.
Given that conservative estimates tell us that burning at any scale
by indigenous people ended some 150 years ago and other reasonable
estimates tell us that large scale burning probably ended 100 years
before that, it is safe to assume that there are trees that are at
least 150 to 250 years old that would not be on the landscape given the
pre-European management regime and the more recent suppression of fire.
As a result, any Forest Service management approach should recognize
the need to selectively harvest larger trees to manage and protect
older forest types. I believe any approach that fails to do this will
fall short of producing the many objectives, including healthy older
forests, we all desire.
In summary, it would be simple and politically expedient to define
``Old Growth'' as an age, size, or draw a line on a map. This will do
nothing to protect it for future generations and in fact would doom the
entire forest to risk of catastrophic, unnatural, and historically
unprecedented wildfire. We need to concern ourselves with the entire
forested landscape. We need to not make simple decisions that will rob
our children of their rightful inheritance.
There are those on both sides of this issue that have made a living
off this conflict. There are those extremes that will choose to not
agree. There are also reasonable people on both sides that can agree
that humans have a natural role in helping to shape, manage, and
protect landscape again and are poised to work together toward that
end. I would hope that you wouldn't prematurely hamstring those
efforts. This is not a case of jobs versus the environment. We have the
opportunity to benefit both.
I can show you examples on the Umpqua and the Rogue that were not
appealed or litigated that successfully met this challenge and
harvested 130 to 250 year old timber. I have come here today to your
office here in the Senate. Senators Wyden and Smith I have had both of
your staffs spend time with me and I challenge both of you with your
history of working across the aisle to come to my office, the Umpqua
and Rogue, so I can show you my vision of what forest management should
look like in the century ahead. I am here to tell you that Herbert
Lumber, DTO, and AFRC are ready to work with you.
Thank you.
Senator Wyden. Mr. Beck, thank you very much. It's a long
trek from Riddle, and we really appreciate your coming, and
there's a lot of economic hurt out there, and we're trying to
respond to it and also address the old-growth protection. So,
we thank you for coming.
Ms. Spivak, welcome. You've worked with the subcommittee
often.
STATEMENT OF RANDI SPIVAK, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AMERICAN LANDS
ALLIANCE
Ms. Spivak. Good morning, thank you, Senator Wyden.
Thank you. Good morning, Senator Wyden and Senator Smith.
Thank you very much for inviting me to testify today to talk
about the importance of old-growth forests in the Pacific
Northwest.
We've heard today about the standing value of timber of
old-growth forests, but I think it's really important to
underscore that the value of these forests goes way beyond the
timber value, a little has been talked about, but just
underscore. These forests clean the air we breathe, they
produce oxygen, they produce abundant supplies of clean water,
they're critical for the last, best salmon runs. The bigger
trees are, in fact, more fire resistant, and the older forest
protect from flood protection, which is a pretty big issue in
the Pacific Northwest.
From a social value, these are places that Americans and
Pacific Northwesterners go to play, hike, bike, camp, relax,
these are the spiritual retreats for millions of Americans. In
short, they're the natural forest legacy of the Pacific
Northwest. From an economic standpoint, there's been a
tremendous recreation boom, and those activities all contribute
to local economies.
Mr. Perry touched a little bit on the carbon sequestration
benefits of old forests, but I do want to underscore, because
as climate change becomes more and more in the front view and
we have to think about policies, sequestering carbon is
critically important.
Ihere's a very unique situation in the Pacific Northwest,
especially the west side, because those forests are more carbon
per acre than any other forest, including rain forests, on
earth. Just to underscore how important they are, West Oregon,
Washington, and Northwestern California forests are about 19
percent of the forest area in the U.S., but they account for 39
percent of the U.S. forest carbon storage. When you log old-
growth forests and the carbon is released, this can't be
recovered, even for centuries.
There's also been talk about, well how much old growth is
appropriate? That question, in a way, is premature because
there's an extreme deficit of old growth across the landscape.
It used to be, in the Pacific Northwest, about two-thirds of
the land were covered with older forests. Now, about 18
percent, that's a precipitous drop. The majority of this 83
percent is, in fact, on public lands.
So, our first order of business needs to bring the
landscape back into balance, which is very much now dominated
by younger trees. We need to bring it--shift it back into the
balance dominated by older forests.
I would urge, in any legislation and policy, that there is
a definition of old growth and mature trees, because without
such clear direction to the agencies, we'll continue to see the
pressure to log old-growth forests. An example is the BLM
Whopper Plan revision, which proposes to increase old-growth
forest logging by 700 percent.
The mature forest or the emerging old growth that Dr. Perry
talked about, we need to protect the old growth, but the
emerging class is critically important because there is such a
severe deficit across the landscape, and this is the
recruitment class for future old growth. As older trees do die,
fire is part of the natural cycle, we need to make sure that
there's more old growth coming online.
There's tremendous public support for protecting old
growth. Poll after poll shows Americans want these trees
protected, 1992 polls show that 75 percent of Oregon and
Washington voters wanted old growth protected, including in
timber-dependent towns.
For the most part, the Pacific Northwest timber industry
has transitioned away from logging old-growth timber, and only
a handful of mills remain dependent. No wood product made from
old forests is worth the destruction of these forests.
Substitute materials can be found for these products, and
engineered wood products that are equally structurally sound.
It was once thought that only ivory from elephant tusks
would do for piano keys and billiard balls or whale oil for
lighting, but killing whales and elephants to make products out
of old-growth wood that could be made from substitute materials
is no longer socially acceptable. It's morally wrong. The same
is true for logging old-growth and mature forests.
It's time to resolve the controversy over this and move on
to more productive ground and focus on restoring the--our
natural forests. These are the economic engines for local
communities and while Congress did not create late successional
forests, only Congress can protect them for this and future
generations.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Spivak follows:]
Prepared Statement of Randi Spivak, Executive Director, American
Lands Alliance
My name is Randi Spivak and I am the executive director of American
Lands Alliance. I want to thank the subcommittee for holding this
hearing and for inviting me to talk about the importance of the Pacific
Northwest's mature and old-growth forests. American Lands was created
at the height of the Pacific Northwest ancient forest wars to give
local citizens a voice in how their public forests are managed. My
organization has worked on forest policy issues and specifically for
the protection of old-growth forests since our inception 16 years ago.
When I speak of ``late-successional'' forests, I am referring to
both mature and old-growth forests as defined in the Northwest Forest
Plan (NWFP). Both kinds are extraordinarily valuable--not just
ecologically, but socially and economically as well. Without question,
they are some of the most beautiful forests in this country, maybe even
in the world. These magnificent forests cleanse the air we breathe and
filter and produce clean drinking water. They are home for countless
rare animals and plants and they shelter the rivers that produce some
of the last best runs of wild salmon. Late-successional forests are
more resistant to fire and can also reduce damages from flooding. These
older forests are the playground and spiritual retreat for millions of
Americans who go there to hike, hunt, fish, camp, and bike. These
activities also generate significant revenues to local economies. In
short, late-successional forests are the natural legacy of the Pacific
Northwest.
pacific northwest forests, carbon sequestration, and climate mitigation
A mere 0.017% of the earth's land surface, old-growth forest
conversion [in western Oregon and western Washington] appears
to account for a noteworthy 2% of the total [Carbon] released
[into the atmosphere] because of land use changes in the last
100 years. (Harmon, Ferrell and Franklin 1990)
Another crucial role that these late-successional forests play is
helping to mitigate climate change by absorbing and storing substantial
amounts of carbon from the atmosphere. More carbon is stored per acre
in the moist ``Westside'' portions of the Pacific Northwest than any
other forests in the world (Smithwick et al. 2002, Franklin and Waring
1980). Though the forests in Washington, Oregon, and California
comprise only 19% of the forested area of the United States (USDA ERS
2002), they contain 39% of the United States' total forest carbon
(Birdsey 1992). Logging late-successional forests releases this carbon
into the atmosphere. And these carbon emissions will not be absorbed by
younger managed stands for centuries to come (Janisch 2001).
historic and current extent of late-successional forests
Late-successional forests once blanketed the Pacific Northwest.
Before European settlement they covered approximately two-thirds of the
landscape. But today, after decades of logging, they cover less than
one-fifth. The majority of the remaining old growth, about 83%, is on
public land in Washington, Oregon, and in Northern California. (See
Appendix A)
defining ``old growth''
In order to develop sound and effective policies that protect
mature and old-growth forests, we must be able to identify late-
successional stands and trees. So a central question is, how do you
define ``old growth?''
While there are several definitions of old-growth forests, there is
not a lot of variation among these definitions. According to the Forest
Ecosystem Management Assessment Team (FEMAT), which laid the ecological
foundation for the Northwest Forest Plan:
Old-growth stands are usually at least 180 to 220 years old
with moderate-to-high canopy closure; a multi-layered, multi-
species canopy dominated by large overstory trees; high
incidence of large trees, some with broken tops and other
indications of old and decaying wood (decadence); numerous
large snags; and heavy accumulations of wood, including large
logs on the ground (FEMAT 1993).
From an ecological perspective, a key component of protecting old
growth is to also protect mature forests. Mature forest characteristics
generally begin to appear at 80 to 100 years of age depending on site
conditions. Like old growth, the mature age class is also ecologically
valuable, but the most important role these forests serve is as the
recruitment class for future old growth. As mature trees transition to
old growth, they replace old growth lost to disturbance, ensuring that
viable amounts of old growth will remain across the landscape.
Mature forests are those that have reached the culmination of mean
annual increment (CMAI). CMAI is a time-tested method of foresters that
identifies where the maximum rate of tree growth has peaked. CMAI also
serves to generally define the beginning of the transition of a stand
of trees to the mature stage.
Mature forests continue to grow--both upward and outward. An
important transition between the mature and old-growth conditions is
that while old-growth trees continue to grow, they do so mostly in
diameter rather than height.
Besides scientific definitions, there is a social definition of
``old growth.'' How does the public define old growth? Approximately
three-quarters of Oregon and Washington voters say that trees are old
growth when they are 100 years old. (Davis and Hibbitts 2002)
Given the tremendous ecological deficit of late-successional
forests across the landscape, any policy must protect both the mature
and old growth age classes. CMAI can serve as a workable demarcation
point that will provide enough specificity to accurately identify
mature trees and enough flexibility to distinguish between species and
local site conditions.
If we are serious about restoring ecological integrity and
resilience to our publicly owned forests, late-successional forests
must also be restored across the landscape over time, allowing these
forests to return to historic levels.
public support for protection
There is very strong public support for such a policy. Poll after
poll has shown that Pacific Northwesterners and Americans in general
want to protect old-growth forests. In a 2002 poll of Oregon and
Washington residents, 75% wanted to protect old growth. (See Appendix
B)
protection and restoration of late-successional forests
Legislative protection for late-successional forests is essential
to permanently resolve this resource conflict and provide clear
direction to land management agencies concerning management priorities.
Without it, we will continue to see efforts to eliminate and weaken
existing protections, more litigation, and public controversy. The NWFP
leaves over 1 million acres of mature and old growth open to logging.
The Bush administration seeks to eviscerate what protections exist for
water quality, salmon, rare species, the northern spotted owl, and the
marbled murrelet in order to pave the way for even more logging of
mature and old-growth forests than is already allowed by the NWFP.
The Bush administration proposes to significantly increase the
logging of mature and old-growth forests. On BLM lands in western
Oregon, they are proposing a 700% increase in old growth logging. There
is a better path. That path is restoration of degraded public forests.
Past logging, grazing, and fire suppression has transformed many
northwest forests creating a need for ecologically-based thinning that
can both help restore the landscape and produce non-controversial
timber volume. In the moist forests on the westside of the Cascade
Crest, there are hundreds of thousands of acres of monoculture
plantations that would benefit from variable density thinning to
accelerate the re-establishment of late-successional forests. On dry
forests east of the Cascade Crest, thinning small-diameter trees from
below reduces fuels and therefore helps restore natural fire regimes
which in turn, protects and restores the original structure of old-
growth forests. Many conservation groups, community-based forestry
organizations, mill owners, and loggers have found common ground
focusing on small-diameter thinning. Such projects are moving forward
without controversy or litigation (examples include the Siuslaw,
Gifford Pinchot and Rogue-Siskiyou National Forests).
For the most part, the Pacific Northwest timber industry has
already made the transition away from logging old-growth timber. Only a
handful of mills still rely on old-growth logs. Today, no wood products
are worth the further loss of mature and old-growth forests as every
acre counts. Substitute materials are readily available to replace
products made from old-growth trees.
These last few old-growth mills are like the last whaling stations.
It was once thought that only ivory from elephant tusks would do for
piano keys and billiard balls or whale oil for lighting. Killing whales
or elephants to make products that can be made from other materials is
no longer socially acceptable; it is morally wrong. The same is true
for logging mature and old-growth forests. Consider the recent public
outrage over the Bureau of Land Management's Western Oregon Plan
Revision to increase old-growth logging by over 700% in western Oregon.
It is being opposed even in counties that would benefit greatly from
increased logging revenues. The public will not stand for it.
conclusion
It is time to resolve the controversy and get on with the business
of protecting mature and old growth logging and restoring our national
forests. Only clear direction from Congress to the federal forest
management agencies can do this.
Unlogged mature and old-growth forests are more valuable to society
than logged for short term economic gain. Late-successional forests are
economic engines for commercial and sports fisheries, recreation, and
tourism, as well as for the ecosystem services, carbon sequestration
and social benefits they provide. There is significant wood volume and
related jobs that can come from ecologically-based thinning of
plantations and fire-suppressed stands. Logging the last of the mature
and old-growth forests would simply be morally wrong.
In addition to a focused program of forest restoration, a
comparable program of aquatic restoration is urgently needed. When we
speak of forests we also mean watersheds. As degraded forests are
restored to health, so too must degraded watersheds. One cannot
separate the trees in a watershed from the watershed itself. There are
countless miles of old and unnecessary roads that neither the public
can afford to maintain nor the fish can afford to tolerate.
Please see that the Pacific Northwest protects and restores one of
its most important natural legacies. While Congress did not create
late-successional forests, only Congress can protect the last of the
old-growth forests and restore them for this and future generations.
appendix a.--the need for protecting both mature and old-growth forests
in the pacific northwest
Mature and old-growth forests of the Pacific Northwest are
irreplaceable reservoirs for plants and wildlife, provide clean air and
pure water, and mitigate climate change by storing vast amounts of
carbon. Yet these magnificent forests are in great danger of being lost
unless they are preserved on public lands. Old-growth forests used to
comprise roughly two-thirds of the forestlands in Washington, Oregon,
and Northern California, but today cover less than one-fifth. Mature
forests, which become old growth as they age, have also been greatly
diminished. The vast majority of remaining old growth is on public
lands and there is little likelihood that mature growth on private
lands will be allowed to transition to old growth. Therefore, in order
to maintain current levels, and to promote the gradual return of old
growth across the forest landscape, all mature and old-growth forests
on public lands need to be protected.
Why older forests are important: Older forests and the structure
provided by their large, live trees, standing dead trees (snags), and
downed trees (often called logs) are essential to many ecological
functions that make forests healthy. Specifically, older forests:
Provide habitat for numerous fish (such as various Pacific
salmon stocks) and wildlife species, including rare species and
others threatened with extinction. Many wildlife species also
depend on large blocks of dense older forests whose canopy\1\
layers are closed for shelter and nesting (e.g. northern
spotted owl, Pacific fisher, American martin, and deer).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The forest canopy describes the area above the forest floor
where the tree crowns meet to form an interactive web of life.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Provide invaluable ecosystem services including clean
drinking water, filtering the air we breathe, and cycling
nutrients, which are essential for soil development.
Are less susceptible to pest outbreaks and large-scale
disturbances, like fire, than younger forests (NRC 2000).
Diversity of tree and plant species, and the abundance of
spiders and other invertebrates limit pest outbreaks in older
forests that could otherwise over-run densely packed
monocultures (Schowalter 1995). The thick bark of older trees
allows them to withstand more heat, and their great height
allows them to escape many surface fires. The heterogeneous
structure, higher humidity, and litter moisture of many older
forests also inhibit fire (NRC 2000).
May be more resilient to climate change than younger forests
because of the diverse plant and animal species they sustain
(NRC 2000; Elmqvist et al. 2003; Hooper et al. 2005; Tilman et
al. 2006). Some of these plants may contain invaluable
medicines. For example, the Pacific yew tree, long considered a
``trash tree'' by lumber companies, contains taxol, an
anticancer chemical.
Store more carbon than any other terrestrial ecosystem on
earth (including tropical rainforests) and therefore play a
pivotal role in long-term carbon sequestration and climate
change mitigation. Carbon storage in western Pacific Northwest
forests is higher per acre than other forests in the United
States (Smith et al. 2006; EPA 2007; Woodbury et al. 2007) and
is in fact the highest in the world (Smithwick et al. 2002,
Franklin and Waring 1980) because:
--Favorable climate conditions promote growth during all seasons,
not just during the normal summer growing season.
--The dominant tree species of the region grow in diameter and
height throughout their lives and produce large amounts of
decay-resistant litter.
--Infrequent natural disturbances such as wildfires and windstorms
allow trees to grow very old (Wayburn et al. 2000).
Birdsey (1992) found that forests in Washington, Oregon, and
California contain 39% of the United States' total forest carbon.
Smithwick et al. (2002) estimated that if allowed to return to
historical old-growth status across the landscape, Pacific Northwest
forests could store two to three times more carbon than they currently
store. Considering that the U.S. net forest carbon sink offsets over
10% of all annual U.S. CO2 emissions (EPA 2007), allowing forests in
the Pacific Northwest to return to old-growth conditions would play a
significant role in helping to mitigate climate change.
The Westside and Eastside forests are generally separated by the
Cascade mountain range, which extends through Washington and Oregon to
Northern California. Westside forests, which include 24 million acres
of federal forests, have very high rainfall and moderate seasonal
temperature variability. Eastside forests, which include 15 million
acres of federal forests, generally grow in less productive soils than
the Westside, in a climate that is hotter and drier in summer, and
colder in the winter. Historically, the Westside forests have been most
associated with Douglas-fir, while the Eastside forests have been most
associated with ponderosa pine.
how much old growth was there and how much is there now?
Estimates of how much old growth existed in the Pacific Northwest
prior to Euro-American settlement in the early 1800s generally rely on
the first forest surveys. Those surveys (Andrews and Cowlin 1942;
Cowlin et al. 1940), conducted in the mid-1930s for both the Douglas-
fir (Westside) forests and ponderosa pine (Eastside) forests, revealed
that despite extensive logging and related fires like the Tillamook
Burn that had already occurred, the forests were still primarily old
growth. The National Research Council (2000), relying heavily on the
1930s forest surveys, concluded that roughly two-thirds of western
Oregon and Washington forests were old growth when Euro-Americans
arrived in the area, and that similar old-growth coverage had existed
in the Eastside forests. This is in line with a more recent study by
Strittholt et al. (2006) that found that 64% of the entire land area of
western Washington, Oregon, and Northern California was covered in old
growth (which it defined as 150 years or older) before settlement, as
well as the Forest Service's estimate (Moeur et al. 2005) that 60 to
70% of the Northwest Forest Plan area had been late-successional (older
than 80 years) before settlement.
Since the 1930s, other studies have sought to measure the extent of
current old growth in the Pacific Northwest. Despite the differing
parameters of each study, including the definitions used for old
growth, time frames, geographic areas (e.g. Westside forests, Eastside
forests, individual states), ownerships (various federal jurisdictions,
state, and private), and land uses (forests only, or forests combined
with other land cover), every study has shown that there has been a
substantial decrease of old-growth forests caused by logging. The
estimates of current old growth have generally ranged from 13% of
forests in western Washington and Oregon (Morrison 1991) to 18%
(Bolsinger and Waddell 1993) of forests in the entire states of
Washington, Oregon, and Northern California. Strittholt et al. (2006)
employed satellite imagery from 2000 to examine the over 60 million
acre area of the western Pacific Northwest, regardless of ownership or
land cover, and found that 18% of the land is currently covered in old
growth. A Forest Service survey (Bolsinger and Waddell 1993) examined
56.5 million acres of forest inventories from virtually all public and
private forests in Oregon, Washington, and Northern California, and
found that 18% of forests were old growth (based on varying old-growth
definitions for different states and ownerships). Therefore, based on
the various studies:
There has been more than a 70% decline in the amount of old
growth in the states of Washington, Oregon, and in Northern
California.
Another key finding, by the Bolsinger and Waddell survey (1993) is:
The majority of remaining old growth (83%) in the states of
Washington, Oregon, and in Northern California is on public
land.
westside older forests
The Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP), implemented in 1994, covers 24
million acres of U.S. Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, and
National Park Service lands in the Westside forests of Oregon,
Washington, and California, and a small portion of Eastside federal
forests in Oregon and Washington near the Cascade crest. The NWFP
largely shifted federal lands management from resource extraction to an
ecosystem management focus within the range of the northern spotted
owl, which was listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act in
1990. This dramatically reduced the amount of logging on federal lands
by 80% (Strittholt et al. 2006). The NWFP is based on the ecological
framework of protecting ``late-successional'' forests, which includes
both ``old-growth'' and ``mature'' stands.\2\ According to the NWFP,
old-growth stands are:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ A classic definition of ``late-successional'' forest was a
state ``in which shade-tolerant tree species, such as western hemlock
and grand fir, begin to attain dominance'' and such ``conditions in the
Pacific Northwest forests occurred rarely, only after many years in the
old-growth condition and in the absence of significant disturbances
that maintained dominance of less shade-tolerant species (most commonly
Douglas-fir or ponderosa pine).'' (NRC 2000 citing Spurr and Barnes
1973). With the publication of FEMAT (1993) and the Northwest Forest
Plan Record of Decision (1994), ``late-successional'' has generally
come to mean forests that have attained the culmination of mean annual
increment and includes both ``mature'' and ``old-growth'' forests.
Usually at least 180 to 220 years old with moderate-to-high
canopy closure; a multi-layered, multi-species canopy dominated
by large overstory trees; high incidence of large trees, some
with broken tops and other indications of old and decaying wood
(decadence); numerous large snags; and heavy accumulations of
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
wood, including large logs on the ground (FEMAT 1993).
Old-growth stands generally contain trees with a larger average
diameter, more age class variation, and more structural complexity than
mature-growth stands of the same forest type. Mature stands are
generally greater than 80 to 100 years and less than 180 to 200 years
old. Mature forests are those that have reached the culmination of mean
annual increment (CMAI), or where the maximum rate of tree growth has
peaked. Mature forests continue to grow rapidly, both upward and
outward. An important transition between the mature and old-growth
states is that old-growth stands continue to grow, but less so in the
height of trees and more so in the diameter, and not as rapidly. Like
old growth, the mature age class also plays an important ecological
role, but perhaps most importantly, mature trees are the recruitment
trees for future old growth. As mature trees transition to old growth,
they replace old growth that has been lost to disturbance, ensuring
that viable amounts of old growth will remain across the landscape.
Strittholt et al. (2006), in addition to determining that large
substantial losses of old growth have occurred in western Pacific
Northwest (see chart below), also determined that there is very little
mature growth (which it defined as 50 to 150 years or older) left in
western Pacific Northwest:
There are 11.76 million acres of existing mature growth
compared with 11.53 million acres of old growth.
There is significantly less mature growth (5.9 million
acres) on public lands than there is old growth (9 million
acres) on public lands.
eastside older forests
Like the Westside forests, every study measuring the Eastside
forests of Oregon and Washington (``Eastside'' forests do not generally
include any forests in California, though a portion of the Modoc
National Forest is, in fact ``Eastside'' in character), have shown that
significant old-growth logging has taken place (Lehmkuhl 1994,
Bolsinger and Waddell 1993). The Eastside Forests Scientific Panel
(Henjum 1994) concluded that late-successional/old-growth forests,
which it defined as forests with trees at least 150 years old or
greater than 21 inches in diameter in the overstory (dominant or upper
part of the forest as seen from above), make up between one-quarter and
one-third of Eastside national forests. When other public and private
land is considered, the amount drops to below one-fifth. This is well
below historical levels; the first extensive survey of Eastside forests
in Oregon and Washington (but excluding northeastern Washington)
conducted in 1936, showed that 73% of all commercial forest was old
growth (Cowlin et al. 1942).
The 1936 survey also found that nearly two-thirds of Eastside
forestlands were dominated by ponderosa pine, with typical stands
containing trees up to 60 to 70 inches in diameter at breast height
(dbh) with most of the stand volume in trees of 20 to 44 inches dbh.
Based on the 1936 survey, Henjum et al. (1994) concluded that:
Less than 15% of the original ponderosa pine of Eastside
forests remains.
Only 3 to 5% of the pre-settlement ponderosa pine old growth
remains in Deschutes National Forest, and only 2 to 8% remains
in Fremont National Forest.
conclusion
There is a severe deficit of mature and old-growth forests across
the Pacific Northwest. Like old-growth forests, mature forests are
ecologically important as habitat for species that depend on closed-
canopies and as replacements for older forests in a dynamic landscape.
Protecting and restoring mature and old-growth forests are critical to
restoring ecologically robust forests. To have fully functioning
forests that are resilient to natural disturbances, able to support
abundant levels of plants and wildlife, capable of maximum carbon
storage over time, all mature and old-growth forests need to be
protected. To do so will require not only protecting what is left, but
also restoring older forests across the landscape and over time.
appendix b.--new poll shows 75 percent of oregon and washington
residents support protection of old-growth forests from logging on
public lands
Even in ``Logging Counties'' a Clear Majority Now Favor No More Cutting
of Old-Growth Forests
PORTLAND, Ore.--A new poll conducted by Davis & Hibbitts, Inc.
finds an overwhelming majority of 75 percent of Oregon and Washington
state residents support protecting old-growth forests from logging on
public land. ``The message from this poll is loud and clear: our
citizens want to protect our last remaining old-growth forests from any
further logging,'' said Regna Merritt, executive director of the Oregon
Natural Resources Council.
The most striking finding in the poll was that support for
protecting old-growth forests cut across all groups and regions in both
Washington and Oregon. Even in Oregon's counties where logging and
other natural resource-based activities occur (every county except
Multnomah, Washington, Clackamas, Benton, Lane and Deschutes), 67
percent of respondents support protection of old-growth. Adam Davis who
oversaw the poll said, ``[t]hese findings demonstrate an unusually
strong consensus in every subgroup tallied in favor of protecting old
growth.'' The 600-person poll of randomly selected registered voters
has a margin of error of +/-4.0%. Davis & Hibbitts, Inc. is a highly
respected, nonpartisan public research firm with a 20-year history of
work on natural resource issues in the Northwest.
With only ten percent of old-growth forests still standing on
our publicly owned lands, the continued logging of these
majestic trees is bad economics, bad for the environment and
bad public policy,`` said James Johnston, director of the
Cascadia Wildlands Project. ``The threat to old-growth is very
real with the Forest Service this year alone scheduling 114
timber sales that target 20,000 acres of national forests in
the Pacific Northwest. Half of these acres could be logged as
soon as this summer,'' Johnston added.
When the poll asked why respondents support protection of old-
growth forests on public lands, the top three reasons given were 1)
preserving what's left for future generations, 2) protecting the source
for clean drinking water and air and 3) protection of endangered
species that live in old-growth forests.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Wyden. Thank you very much. I think we can all have
different opinions with respect to how to resolve the
controversy, but it's clear there's a lot of support for
getting it done, so that's what we're going to explore now.
We're still looking at the prospect of having votes at 11,
so, that may or may not happen, but what we'll do, is I'll take
5 minutes and recognize Senator Smith for 5 minutes. Then at
least we'll get some questions in and see if we have some
prospects then of more time.
Thank you all.
Dr. Perry, let's start with you, in terms of what you think
are the important management objectives for the landscape? I
mean, we want to get it all done. We want to protect all our
values, water, salmon, old growth, all the things that
Oregonians care about. What do you see as the appropriate long-
term management objectives to get it all accomplished?
Mr. Perry. I would say moving the--rebalancing the
landscape, moving it back to a higher proportion of forests
that are older, have bigger trees. I would envision in--that if
we've got, say, 30 percent of it protected and we put another
30 percent or so into these--into managed, but managed
horticulturally in such a way to perpetuate a dominance of big,
old trees.
Then, the remainder of the landscape managed as fast-
growing plantations or whatever we might choose to do. I think
that balance would give us the best combination of protection
of water protection against mega-fires and the maintenance of
biological diversity.
I'll emphasize that--that that's going--for two-thirds of
the landscape--that's going to involve management. I'm not
suggesting that we lock those away from timber harvest, but I
think, you know, as Dr. Tappeiner pointed out, for those
portions of the landscape, we have very powerful and effective
civil-cultural tools to shape the forest toward a dominance by
larger trees.
Senator Wyden. That really leads the question I wanted to
ask for Dr. Tappeiner and you, Doctor, you know, Perry. The
fire season is getting longer, these, you know, enormous, you
know, inferno-like fires. Both of you seem to have touched on
the concept of thinning old-growth stands in order to protect
old-growth trees. I think people are just starting to get their
arms around what that would mean.
Dr. Tappeiner, can you kind of elaborate on that and how
something like that would work?
Mr. Tappeiner. First of all, I would say that's really
important in the drier forests, not necessary for the west side
forest, the hemlock, Douglas Fir forest. But in a mixed
conifer, Ponderosa pine, Lodgepole, and pine forest, it's very
definitely needed.
By thinning, it reduces flammability in old forests, it
means removing the ladder fuels, smaller trees and the shrubs
that will carry the fire into the bigger trees, OK? It also
means having some space between the crowns of the bigger trees,
so if you do have a severe fire, it won't burn from one big
tree to the next.
Now, in order--as I mentioned earlier--in order to do this
in some sites, it may be necessary to cut some fairly large
trees, it may be necessary to cut some fairly old trees. Aged
trees and size isn't necessarily very well correlated, so in
these--especially on dry forests, some very old trees might
actually be ladder fuels for larger trees that you want to
save.
Senator Wyden. OK, let me go to you, Mr. Beck, because
we're going to clearly want to understand more about your
business model and your needs, and some of this I may even ask
you in writing. What percentage of your timber now comes from
the private forests and what percentage comes from the public
forests?
Mr. Beck. There is actually a couple of other groups there,
and I would be guessing because I don't break it out that way.
But I would guess Forest Service, BLM, probably at this point
15 percent, last year, Indian Nations, probably--probably 30
percent, 35 percent, and the remainder would be private land in
one country or another.
Senator Wyden. What is the smallest tree that you can
process in your mill now?
Mr. Beck. We're totally market-driven in what we cut, and
that's why we've survived, we jump around. At times we cut down
to a 12-inch diameter, small end. So, that would be, probably a
18, 1-inch at breast height on a tree.
Senator Wyden. I'll have some more questions, if we have
time, otherwise we'll do it in writing. The point is, we want
to learn more about your business model, and my pledge to you
is to really try to walk the system through, in terms of how it
works for you today and the various approaches that we might
take to resolve the controversy.
Senator Smith.
Senator Smith. Thank you, Senator Wyden.
Let me first say to Dr. Tappeiner and Dr. Perry, how
honored we are to have you here.
Mr. Perry. Thank you, we're honored to be here.
Mr. Tappeiner. Thank you.
Senator Smith. We respect you, we thank you for being the
experts you are in a State as great as our own. I think the
Chairman and I agree on that.
I think I heard you both say that old-growth trees respond
positively to tree removal. Is that--are we clear on that?
Mr. Perry. I----
Senator Smith. In other words----
Mr. Perry [continuing]. Dr. Tappeiner said that and----
Mr. Tappeiner. I said that.
Mr. Perry [continuing]. I will not dispute him on that. He
knows more than I do about the old growth response to thinning.
Senator Wyden. Is that your feeling as well?
Mr. Tappeiner. Yes, Senator, it is.
Senator Smith. Your testimony, Dr. Tappeiner, indicates
that guidelines for understanding and describing of old growth
should be local and practical, to enable forest managers to
protect and develop old-growth trees and forests. Given that
many forest types, climates, and diversity across the
Northwest, do you think Congress should develop such
guidelines, or would these be better left to professionals?
Mr. Tappeiner. I hope that Congress would facilitate
developing those guidelines. Yes, I think it has to be done
forest ecologists, agriculturalists, foresters, wildlife
biologists, who know their local forests. Then they have to be
adaptable, they have to be flexible enough so that those
guidelines can be implemented. So it takes, you know, it takes
an understanding of logging equipment, it takes an
understanding of fire regimes, what, you know, just the whole
infrastructure of what's available locally.
Senator Smith. Dr. Perry, do I understand that you--it's
your feeling that old growth refers to a forest condition and
not the size of a single tree?
Mr. Perry. It does refer to a forest condition, and part of
that condition depends on the size of individual trees. So it's
both the size of individual trees and it's the forest
structure, in total.
Senator Smith. Are you familiar with the Coos Tribe
proposal to assume management of a portion of Siuslaw National
Forest?
Mr. Perry. I am not.
Senator Smith. Their plan would be a thinning-only program
to accelerate old growth characteristics and wildlife habitat
on about 60,000 acres. Is that something that you could
support?
Mr. Perry. Oh, yes.
Senator Smith. Very good.
Mr. Perry. I think it's, you know, I would have to look at
it and say, on the Siuslaw, where there is no old growth, to
speak of, left, then they're going to be going into younger
stands. I'd just specify that I'd very much support that
approach and I think it needs to be applied to the younger
stands for a number of reasons.
Senator Smith. Randi, thank you for being here, as well. I
want to ask you a few questions, because I want to try to
understand the differences of--that you and I may have.
Are you--were you saying in your testimony that to cut a
tree and to turn it into a room like this, that it releases
carbon? Or is the carbon still here?
Ms. Spivak. If you--there is some carbon in the stored
wood, but if you take into account logging old growth and the
emissions that are released by--from logging, from the tree in
the soils, only about 15 percent of that carbon remains in the
wood product. The life of a wood product may only be about 50
years.
Senator Smith. It's my understanding that, as we talk about
global climate change and the ability of trees to sequester
carbon, that as a tree--and please tell me if I'm wrong, any of
you, but I'm directing this to Randi initially--that younger
trees are much better attracters of turning carbon into wood
than older trees. As they die, they begin emit carbon. Is that,
am I incorrect in that understanding?
Mr. Perry. Could I respond to that?
Senator Smith. Yes, sure.
Mr. Perry. The evidence that's been coming in over the last
few years, is that the older forests are much more productive
than we once thought they were. It--the standard wisdom was
they build up a lot of biomass and that respires and then
throws away a lot of carbon, so their productivity drops
accordingly. But in fact, what it looks like they do, is that
as they get older, they use water much more efficiently than
the younger forests. So, their productivity does not drop as
much as we thought it did.
Senator Smith. That, that's--I'm glad to know that.
There's--I've just been confronted with lots of scientific
evidence that's saying otherwise, but if that's not the case,
then I'm anxious to learn that, and that's why I asked this
question.
Because one of the things I do know, is when you burn up a
Kalmiopsis Wilderness of old growth, you're not capturing
anything, are you? It's just turned into global warming.
Mr. Perry. When it burns?
Senator Smith. Yes.
Mr. Perry. You're capturing it rarely, except in small
stands, do the boles burn up, so the standing boles are left
there, where the bulk of the carbon is. So the carbon that's in
the crowns goes up in the air, the carbon that's in the big
standing boles stays onsite, depending on where it--or it gets
hauled off to a mill, depending on what we choose to do about
salvage.
Senator Smith. I think my time is up, Senator.
Senator Wyden. Senator Craig, what we're doing, given the
nature--you recognize for 5 minutes, and then if we haven't
gone to votes, we'll come back for another round.
Senator Craig. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
Panelists all, thank you. I've--I'm sorry, I had to step
out, I had a meeting in the other room, but I appreciate, not
only your observations, your obvious experience and knowledge
of the issues at hand. I'm also pleased to hear that some
believe that in old growth--some form of management, some form
of activity, of the thinning, the cleaning, is appropriate, as
it relates to the vitality of old growth itself.
Dr. Perry, Dr. Tappeiner was mentioning that and gave us
the example of this one Sugar Pine. Do you agree with him, that
the kind of active management that he talks about, about under
story and the thinning and cleaning, in some respects, enhances
or ensures at least the stability of an old-growth stand?
Mr. Perry. I agree very much with the point that we need to
retain some flexibility. I also agree with the point that John
Tappeiner made, that this is--on the moist forest types, it's
almost certainly not necessary, in terms of fire protection, to
go in and do any thinning in old growth. In the dry forests
types it's different. There, where you need the flexibility,
that if you have--if you're trying to save a large, old, fire-
resistant species like Ponderosa Pine or old-growth Douglas
Fir, on these dry sites, and it happens to be surrounded by
White Fir fire ladders that may be fairly large in diameter,
then I think, to save that big old fire-resistant tree, we may
have to log out some of those larger diameter White Fir. It's a
judgment call that has to be made on the ground in those
particular situations.
Senator Craig. But it's an active judgment call, is it not?
It's not old growth as museum pieces that we put fences around
and windows up to and simply observe or walk through. You're
talking about an active decisionmaking process as it relates to
the state of play in that old-growth stand, are you not?
Mr. Perry. I am. Again, I'll emphasize that it's the dry
forest types that this applies to, but yes, I definitely am
talking about an active decisionmaking process.
Senator Craig. When I came back into the room you were all
having a discussion about sequestration and I missed, I think,
Randi, your testimony, as it relates to--or at least you were
responding to a question. Ron and I--Senator Wyden and I--have
spent a good deal of time and made efforts to introduce
legislation over time that recognize and reflect on the value
of sequestration as it relates to climate change.
In the latter years of the Clinton Administration, I spent
about a 24-hour period stopping the Clinton negotiators, at a
Climate Change Conference in Belgium, from giving away our
sequestration values, and that's when the Russian's were in
there dealing and making their play with the forests of
Siberia, because I saw it as a value we could not give away nor
should we negotiate away.
Last year--let me put it this way, I serve on the
Environment and Public Works Committee, which has been very
active in attempting to look at legislation that addresses the
issue of climate change. As a result of that, I asked some of
our agencies to look at last year's burn on public lands, both
forest and grasslands, but, of course, dominantly forest lands,
as it relates to the total acres burned and the approximate
release of carbon into the atmosphere, and what it--what was it
an equivalent of.
This is a guesstimation, but a reasonable guesstimation
based on some pretty good minds--it was equivalent to taking 12
million passenger cars off the road, if that carbon had not
been released, but had been retained inside the log, inside the
tree, inside the grass blade.
Now, how do we compare that? That's like taking nearly all
of the passenger cars off the highways of California. I think
we're--I'm always amazed that we just pass this one by. We are
rushing to judgment on climate change in other areas, trying to
control man, but we're not actively engaging Mother Nature in
her releases, in ways that we probably ought to. I think it is
extremely important that we do that.
I'm very anxious to look at the science that says old
growth does more than we thought it did, because I started
looking at the science about 15 years ago, when we believed
that young and active forests and their growth cycles
sequestered a great deal more than older trees, and the trees
that had peaked and were, if you will, just sustaining
themselves.
So, those are extremely valuable pieces of information for
us to have. Because, as we equate climate change and as we
legislate--if we do--and if I'm still here, I'll make every
effort to put a forest provision in climate change. Because I
think it is a valuable factor in our overall understanding of
what we might be able to effectively do.
If any of you wish to make comment to those comments,
please do. If not, Mr. Chairman, I have no further questions of
the panelists.
Senator Wyden. I thank my colleague. The vote hasn't been
called, so let's see if we can get another 5 minutes in on our
questions. I won't even take 5 minutes.
Ms. Spivak, question for you--I'm going to be, on Sunday
afternoon, in beautiful Baker County in our State on the east
side, and I know that you all have been supportive of the idea
of working with industry folks and environmentalists and
scientists, looking at thinning on the east side, and I think
that's appreciative, and certainly that's something that I'm
going to hear a lot about on Sunday afternoon. We'll want to
follow up with you more on your thoughts in terms of how that
ought to go forward.
Tell me, if you would, just so we get a--almost a set of
data points to let us build the record--what your sense is of
old growth, and the amounts. How much there used to be, how
much there is now, and what you think it ought to be. I realize
this is a very inexact, you know, science. I think you had some
numbers earlier. Again, this is in area where people have
differences of opinion, but just from your standpoint and the
efforts that you've made over the years--how much did there
used to be, how much is there now, and what's your sense of how
much there ought to be?
Ms. Spivak. OK, good question, thank you.
There have been a number of studies over the years to try
to get a good handle on those numbers, and of course, it's not
an exact science to calculate the past, but based on a series
of studies, it looks like there was, across the Pacific
Northwest, pre-European settlement, about two-thirds of the
landscape was covered with older forest, old-growth forests.
Now, based on current data, which is accurate--fairly
accurate, anyway--it looks to be there's about 18 percent
across the landscape. So, it's about a 72 percent drop.
So, we're in a significant deficit state of old-growth
forests across the landscape. To answer the question of how
much there should be, as we talked before and you heard Dr.
Perry testify, the landscape is sort of out of balance now,
with a lot of younger forest plantations, more fire-prone.
To restore the ecological balance, we'd like to see the
landscape go back to a dominance by older forests, getting
closet to the historic composition.
I just wanted to mention one other thing on thinning, if I
may, and I was cutting my testimony so I didn't--I had to cut
some things out, but--I did also want to say that, you know, as
tenacious and as important as conservationists are to protect
the old growth, we totally recognize that in dry forests there
has been a buildup of fuels because of grazing and fire
suppression.
So, we're not talking about a complete hands-off approach,
just let nature take it's way. I absolutely recognize and, you
know, I learn a lot from Dr. Perry and other scientists, that
it is important to go in there and reduce the ladder fuels and
do some active management in these stands.
But, you know, we need to be careful--it's talking about
protecting the older trees, making sue there's not damage to
soils, to water quality, to wildlife habitat and to fish. So,
you know, again, not hands-off, but careful management.
Senator Wyden. That's a good message for Baker County on
Sunday, and I thank you for it.
Let me ask one question of you, if I could, Mr. Brown. You
know, this subcommittee has tried very hard to strike a balance
in natural resources--we've been right at the center of the two
pieces of legislation in the last 15 years that actually became
law--the County Payments legislation, and the Forest Health
legislation. I'm going to see if I can help spur along the
third effort with this thinning bill.
You've heard a little bit about some of the concepts, you
know, today. We want to make sure, particularly in these, you
know, hundreds of thousands of acres of, you know, overstocked,
you know, second-growth stands, that we get some of that
merchantable timber to the mills, and you know, we protect old
growth--and that's going to be the general, you know,
direction.
But one of the reasons I feel so strongly about trying to
make this effort is I'm now old enough to remember some of the
battles, where our wonderful Senator Hatfield was holding, you
know, the big Timber Summits and we would have throngs of
protesters, and the timber wars with all the lawsuits were just
sort of notorious for, sort of bringing everything to a halt.
Instead of the win-win kind of situation--being sensitive to
economics and environmental values, essentially we got, you
know, a whole lose-lose.
I think my question to you is--what's your sense about the
impact of something like that in the State of Oregon? I mean,
when you have something like that, essentially, total, you
know, gridlock, it strikes me that the impact can just be, you
know, devastating. You remember some of those old battles, and
what can you tell us about what happens when you have total
impasse in a State like ours?
Mr. Brown. Senator Wyden, it is devastating. It covers the
gamut of environmental costs, as well as social and economic
costs.
The social cost comes a lot from rural communities no
longer being able to support family wage jobs, the education
system suffers because the infusion of dollars aren't there any
longer. There's a migration of people out of those communities,
because they don't have the opportunity to earn a family wage
job.
I've even heard folks talk about it showing up in things
like higher rates of domestic violence, and people accessing,
kind of the social welfare infrastructure because of the lack
of economic opportunity, and the stress that goes with that.
It's interesting, on the environmental side, there's also
significant issues. One of the ones that I get real concerned
about with Federal lands is the road maintenance. Because
Federal lands no longer have the economic infusion that allows
them to maintain their roads, they're not being maintained,
they represent a water quality threat, and they're not doing as
well a job as, say, industrial timberlands at eliminating fish
passage barriers that, you know acts, and allow salmonettes to
be much more successful at spawning.
So there are environmental consequences that go with, with
all of that conflict. Not to mention the millions of acres of
dead, dying, and diseased trees that are on the landscape right
now, and certainly the economic piece of that. We know, you
know, there's only a fraction of the mills in Eastern Oregon no
that there once used to be. So, it has had very significant
impact.
When, you know, our landscape, our forested landscape is 60
percent under the management of Federal policy, you can expect
that to also bleed over into what happens on private lands.
Private lands adjacent to Federal lands are threatened by the
fires that burn off of them, they're threatened by the insect
and disease issues that come from Federal lands.
When those mills in Eastern Oregon go away, that private
landowner that used to be able to take his logs 50 miles has to
go 300 miles. It greatly impacts our ability to manage.
Senator Wyden. Very helpful.
There are about 12 minutes in the vote, so if Senator Smith
takes 5, we'll be able to make it.
Senator Smith.
Senator Smith. Thanks, Senator.
Paul, thank you for being here. When you cut a tree, how
much carbon is released when it's harvested and processed?
Mr. Beck. You know, I've never done the science. But, the
actual log, probably 99 percent of it is----
Senator Smith. It's still carbon, right?
Mr. Beck. We do utilize log fuel, the bark, to generate
electricity. There's a co-generation facility about a quarter
mile from our plant.
But, I question the logic of a burnt tree----
Senator Smith. Being better than a harvested tree?
Mr. Beck. Yes. I mean, it's decomposing. Yes, the roots
decompose when we log, but so does a burnt, dead tree. It
decomposes.
Senator Smith. You indicated that, you know, where you're
living, you are surrounded by some of the most productive
forestlands in the world, you now go to other countries to get
your logs, is that correct?
Mr. Beck. Yes, it is.
Senator Smith. Is that Canada?
Mr. Beck. Canada.
Senator Smith. Do they have any standards on old-growth
harvest?
Mr. Beck. The private lands that we deal with on Vancouver
Island, have a pretty rigorous set of forest practices law. I
don't think they probably compare to ours. I think----
Senator Smith. Are they over-cutting up there?
Mr. Beck. What's that?
Senator Smith. Are they over-cutting their old growth up
there?
Mr. Beck. I don't think so.
Senator Smith. Ms. Spivak I think compared mills like yours
to the whaling industry of a century ago. I wonder if, in
fairness, you ought to have a response to that.
Mr. Beck. I think it might have been a fair response to my
great-grandfather's mill, he did have a saw mill, he did log,
that was 100 years ago. It's not a fair comparison to what I am
proposing now. Our mill still sits in a building that was built
in 1962, but the equipment inside is nothing like the mill we
had in 1947--it more resembles something out of Star Wars. It's
a state-of-the-art saw mill, designed specifically to cut large
trees in a very efficient manner.
You know, what I would like to see is man become a native
species on a landscape again. I said that the Native Americans
managed this land by fire for 10,000 years, and the fuel that
was removed kept those forests healthy.
What I would like to see, and what Linda's people have been
doing on the Umpqua, on the Rogue, is just that--they've been
removing some trees. It's no the clear-cut of my great-
grandfather's. What I'm proposing is more like the Inuit whale
hunting, I guess, if we want to use the whale hunting analogy,
and it wasn't the Inuits that destroyed the whale populations
of the world.
Senator Smith. Thank you for being here, Paul.
Ms. Spivak, I appreciate your testimony, as well, and your
perspective. I respect it, and I also want to state for the
record I do value forests as a place of recreation, as a place
where there is an economy.
I would just note for the record that Ron Wyden and I this
week have been besieged with county Commissioners and mayors
who frankly are at an absolute dead end as to how to fund
things like schools and paved roads and have public protection
and police and sheriff departments. While recreation is
important, it does not provide these local communities with the
basic building blocks for civil society, and they are
landlocked by Federal timber, and the deal has been changed on
them, and it has been an enormously difficult challenge for us,
working in a bipartisan way, to get the rest of the country to
agree to pay us not to log. That is, essentially, the deal.
The feeling around here is, we don't want trees cut, and we
don't want to pay you not to cut them anymore. When recreation
is a full replacement, I'll be the first to admit it, it just
simply isn't. There's a lot of people that are falling victim
by a change in forest policy, and it does seem to me that the
ultimate tragedy for the environment, for Spotted Owls is when
it all goes up in smoke. Because then, while there may be some
ecological value in fire in a forest, the extent and intensity
with which they burn in these overgrown areas now, leaves the
environment and the economy all the losers.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Wyden. I thank you, Senator Smith.
Let me thank all of you, and particularly for the tone, the
constructive tone that all of you have brought. Because for me,
this completes the second of our two-part effort to look at
this issue, the first hearing was devoted just to the thinning
question. This was designed to look at old growth, but of
course the two are intertwined, and we've seen that in both of
the hearings, and then I've had a number of sessions at home,
you know, in rural Oregon, you know, listening to people.
I will tell you, I think in Oregon, folks really get it. I
mean, they understand that this is a critical time, both from
the standpoint of the economy and the environment. They don't
give people election certificates to just go out and sloganeer.
They give us election certificates to do the heaving lifting,
to really try to think through how to deal with these issues.
You've given us a lot of very good suggestions. They have
been specific, they have been pointed, I think it's fair to say
that not everybody on this panel agrees with all of the other
witnesses, but you've all show an inclination to work together.
We've be able to thread the needle a couple of times on
this subcommittee--particularly County Payments, and Forest
Health--I see Ms. Goodman there in the second row, you know,
nodding. That's what you do when you have people like
yourselves who have demonstrated goodwill and a desire to reach
out and get ideas and suggestions for our forests, where a lot
of the good work that you all propose is actually being done
today.
So, I leave today with a real sense that we can do this,
again. We're going to be calling on you often, I hope to have a
piece of legislation to show you, to ask you for your input and
your ideas on, very shortly.
I'm sorry that the morning doesn't allow us to do more in
terms of questioning, we'll probably have some additional
matters we want to ask you in writing.
But thank you for your input, and particularly, thank you
for the way that you have approached a very difficult issue,
which is not through name-calling and rock-throwing, but
through a desire to try to find some common ground, and by God,
I think we can do it.
With that, the subcommittee's adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:25 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
APPENDIX
Responses to Additional Questions
----------
Responses of David A. Perry to Questions From Senator Barrasso
Question 1. If the goal is to foster and improve the old growth
attributes in a stand of timber, do you think that large, catastrophic
fire is a better management method than allowing thinning in old growth
stands?
Answer. In dry forest types, NO. Proper fuels reduction (e.g.
underthinning, retaining large trees, treating logging slash) is
important to restore and protect dry old-growth. In moist forest types,
thinning within OG is unlikely to help prevent a large fire and may
even increase the risk.
Question 2. Do you think that management can improve old growth
stands or maintain old growth characteristics or would you recommend a
hands-off approach to optimizing old growth in all instances?
Answer. Proper management can improve OG characteristics in dry
forest types that have experienced an influx of younger trees during
the era of fire suppression and high-grade logging. Management should
focus on the source of the problem--the smaller trees; large, fire
resistant trees should not be removed (unless to protect an even larger
adjacent tree).
In moist forest types management will detract from OG values.
Question 3. Let's say we come to an agreement on a definition or
set of definitions for old growth--and we then draw a line around the
existing old growth--and that old growth gets blown down or burned up.
How should the Forest Service and the BLM handle that kind of
situation?
Question 3a. Should salvage harvesting be allowed or should they
just walk away and allow the material to rot?
Answer. Areas allowed to recover naturally from disturbance are
among the rarest community types we have. From an ecological
standpoint, it is crucial that some natural recovery be allowed. The
LSR's and IRA's are the logical places for that. Where salvage is
allowed, there are various reasons why we should take some and leave
some (I've always liked 50-50). The idea that leaving wood in the
forest is ``waste'' or hampers recovery of the system has no support in
the ecological sciences. In fact, from an ecological standpoint leaving
it is a plus.
Question 3b. What if the fire was not started naturally or did not
originate in the old growth stand?
Answer. It's important to keep the focus on what we want on the
landscape. What is perceived to be ``natural'' can be a useful guide,
but we shouldn't become prisoners to it.
One of the witnesses today advocated for full protection of mature
trees and went on to suggest that trees over 100 years in age are
mature. In my state of Wyoming--and I am told in parts of both eastern
Oregon and Washington--we have large stands of Lodge-pole pine and
Ponderosa pine that regenerate in very thick and dense stands that have
stagnated. The trees never grow large in diameter or very tall. We call
them dog-hair stands.
Question 4. If Congress were to adopt either an age limit or a
definition that says the land managers should stay out of mature stands
of timber, what would you recommend be done in these stands that have
stagnated but are mature or over 100 years in age?
Answer. I started my career as a lodgepole researcher in the
northern Rockies, so I know about doghair. In all cases--whether
lodgepole or some other species--we have to stay flexible with regard
to the mature stands. Depending on site and stand history, some won't
need thinning and some will if we want to keep them healthy.
Silvicultural expertise will be crucial in making these calls.
Dr. Perry you suggested a good mix of management for old growth
protection would be 30% old-growth reserves: 30% in mature forest
(recruitment areas for old-growth); and 30% in production forest
plantations to be managed. The most recent data we have on land
allocations in the Pacific Northwest Forest Plan is 24.5 million acres.
Of that approximately 66% of the land is in old-growth and mature
forest reserves; approximately 4.2 million acres (17%) in Adaptive
Management Areas and Riparian Reserves where harvesting is
significantly restricted and about 4 million acres (16%) in the Matrix
Lands but estimates are that about only 3 million of that is really
been open to management.
Question 5. Currently there are between 3 and 4 million acres in
the Pacific Northwest Forest Plan that are allocated to the matrix
lands which can be actively managed. What steps would you recommend the
Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service take to assure the 30%
of its lands become available for active timber management as you
called for in your testimony?
Answer. I'm glad to have the chance to clarify this. The 30-30-30
mix I mentioned referred to land allocations within the region, and not
just federal lands (a basic principle of ecosystem management is to
look across ownership boundaries and plan accordingly). Using a general
target allows us to evaluate what role the federal lands should be
playing in a particular subregion. In the Oregon Coast Range, for
example, intensive management is well represented on private lands and
federal lands have another role to play. In the southern Cascades and
Siskiyou's, with less private land, some intensive management on
federal lands will probably be necessary to attain the 30% figure.
However, even in the later case, intensively managed federal lands must
be subject to riparian reserves and harvesting restrictions similar to
those imposed by FEMAT. Those restrictions are subsumed within my 30%
figure. I am definitely not suggesting that federal lands go back to
the era of industrial-style management, or that 30% of federal lands
opt out of FEMAT.
30-30-30 are not magic numbers and there will be some variation
around these depending on the context (especially since they don't add
up to 100%). The key concept is that in order to protect diversity and
reduce the chance of very large disturbances, immature stands should
exist as islands within a sea of late successional (i.e. mature plus
OG) rather than vice versa.
Finally, achieving these land allocations is a long-term goal. If
the objective is to produce healthy and resilient forested landscapes,
timber harvest from federal lands over the next several decades should
come from thinning overstocked young stands and removing fire ladders
from older dry stands. Thousands of acres are in need and the agencies
are not able to meet those needs with their current resources. Given
the looming threat of more fire and insect activity, this situation is
a powder keg. By putting young, fire-susceptible stands on the
landscape, regeneration harvests exacerbate risks and should occur only
under special circumstances (e.g. if there is a demonstrated shortage
of early-successional habitat). Once large, fire resistant trees
dominate the regional landscape again, we can consider regeneration
harvests in those areas where they are appropriate.
Thank you for the chance to address these follow-up questions. I'd
be happy to continue this dialogue.
______
Responses of Paul H. Beck to Questions From Senator Barrasso
Question 1. You talked about the fires that have occurred on the
Umpqua National Forest and the old-growth that has been destroyed by
those fires. Do you have any idea, on an acres basis, how much old-
growth forest on the Umpqua National Forest has been harvested since
2000 vs. how many acres of old-growth has burned?
Answer. The Umpqua is 984,602 acres. Of that, well over 10% is non-
forested and is water, rock, ice, or roads. In the period between 1996
and 2003 a total of 108, 595 acres burned at unnaturally high
mortality. Well over two thirds of this acreage was mature forest
types. That is 11% of the total Umpqua and over 12% of its forest. Of
critical importance to understand is that, of that burned area over
13,000 acres burned at High Severity. The Severity is measured by
several criteria the most important being soil damage. An intense fire
or one with high mortality is one thing, as it will often be able to
support a new forest. A high severity fire has so damaged the soil
itself that a new forest may be hundreds of years in the making. It may
take a hundred years to grow a large tree but it may take several
hundred years to recreate the soil that makes that possible. High
severity fires are an indication of extreme fuel loading. This
unnatural fuel loading allows the fire to burn at a heat and duration
that will actually ignite and consume the soil itself. These High
Severity fires occurred in mature stands.
The Umpqua regeneration harvested less than a thousand acres of
older timber in that time period. Regeneration harvest is as close as
the Forest Service gets to an actual clear cut. Regeneration retains as
few as three trees per acre but more often as many as 20 or more trees
per acre and always has green tree retention areas, stream buffers and
wildlife corridors. It is not my Grandfather's forestry. Most all of
these regeneration harvested acreages were from sales that predated the
North-West Forest Plan. They were planned, laid out, and auctioned
prior to its implementation. For one reason or another, including
litigation, they were harvested after the plan went into affect. The
Umpqua has all but abandoned the use of regeneration harvest for any
new sales. It is important to note that none of the soil conditions in
high severity burn areas are present in regeneration harvested areas.
Question 2. Compared to 2000 do you have any idea how much old
growth has been added to the Umpqua National Forests inventory of older
trees?
Answer. The Forest Service estimates that 40,000 acres of the
Umpqua have grown into ``late-seral condition'' since 1996. On the
surface this would seem positive but when compare to the number of
acres that have ``burned out of late-seral condition'' it is a large
net loss. We need to do something to keep the growth from burning up.
Question 3. Before the implementation of the Northwest Forest Plan,
how much of your mill's lumber supply was from the Umpqua? How much do
you receive from the Umpqua now?
Answer. Prior to the implementation of the Northwest Forest Plan
Herbert Lumber purchased over 90% of its wood from the Federal
Government. The majority of this volume came from the Tiller Ranger
District, the center of which is within 30 miles of our plant. Last
year our supply from the Umpqua and adjacent BLM lands were less than
10% of our total usage. That percentage is actually up from zero the
year before. The reason for this bump up is twofold. A sale that sold
in 1997 finally worked its way through the courts and the purchaser was
able to operate it. In that ten year period they had changed their
operations to the point that this wood better fit us than them.
Secondly the Umpqua had planned, laid out, sold, and operated a series
of sales in older stands that were, for a lack of a better term, light
touch. These were excellent projects that reduced fuel loading and
greatly improved deer and elk habitat. They were esthetically pleasing
and had the added benefits of being profitable and producing a much
needed size and grade of wood. These sales included no regeneration
harvest. To the best of my knowledge, these sales were not litigated.
There are hundreds of thousands of acres on the Umpqua that would
benefit from this type of management.
Question 4. How much of the 20 million board feet your mill
processes each year is brought in from Canada?
Answer. Last year our Canadian suppliers accounted for
approximately 40% of our needs. This was our highest import year and
likely will be. Our expectation going forward is that we will rely on
these sources for a third of our needs.
Question 5. Are these logs from Canada larger or of better quality
than logs from Oregon or Washington or approximately the same?
Answer. The quality and size of logs that we obtain in Canada exist
on the Umpqua. We manufacture products from logs that are typically 16
inches and sometimes as small as 12 inch diameter on the small end and
up. Our average log size for 2007 was over 23 inches and it was 22 the
year before. Where a dimension mill may only make a half dozen
products, we literally make hundreds. The key to our success and to our
survival is our ability to shift from one product to another as markets
dictate. Our ability to do this depends on having a wide range of logs.
We do not cut all of our products out of 16 inch logs. We cannot cut
all of our products out of 30 inch logs. We need a full range of
diameters and grades of logs. This entire range exists in the
overstocked stands of the Umpqua. If the Umpqua is to survive as a
green forest it needs to have some of that material removed.
Question 6. All else equal, if you could sustainably meet your
board foot requirements from Oregon's forests would you still need to
bring in logs from Canada?
Answer. In a perfect world it makes no sense to go to Canada to
purchase wood that exist in our own back yard. Indigenous burning
halted and fire suppression started over a hundred and fifty years ago.
These stands of all ages, that are quite literally within view of our
mill are overstocked beyond what they were historically. The wood is
here, it is growing, it needs to be removed if the forest is to
continue to meet all the needs that society is putting upon it; why
would society want us to buy our wood anywhere else? As a pure business
decision on Herbert Lumber's part it would be extremely unwise for us
to trust the Federal Government to provide any raw materials. It has a
dismal track record of keeping its promises over the last two decades.
Our Canadian trading partners are our most dependable and consistent
suppliers of quality raw material. Congress would have to make some
ironclad guarantees before we would even consider turning our backs on
this relationship.
Question 7. In your mind, given the demand for wood products that
Americans use, is it moral to supply our wood product demands from
countries with lower environmental standards that we impose on our own
federal forests?
Answer. While I do not like to pass moral judgment, the simple
answer is no. I feel confident that our raw material sources are
environmentally sound. As I stated in my testimony we submit our raw
material purchase program to third party scrutiny to make sure that our
environmental standards are met. Two things are of great concern for me
though. 1) Not all companies have those standards and not all countries
have the same high standards that Canada has. 2) Even given our
company's high standards, our consumption of energy to get a product to
mill when that same product exists within a few miles and exists in
such quantity as to put a whole ecosystem at risk of unnatural and
historically unprecedented high intensity fire seems ridiculous. The
raw material is here in our local forests. The forests are in desperate
need of stewardship if they are to continue being green ecosystems. We
have the ability to remove some of this material in such a way as to
insure and improve the future viability of these forests. We can remove
this material in perpetuity. We have the ability to do this in a manner
that would return money to the treasury. Why would the public want us
to go anywhere else for our raw material needs?
Thank you for the opportunity to answer these additional questions.
If any of these answers need clarification, or if they in turn foster
further inquiry please do not hesitate to ask, as I would welcome the
opportunity to continue this discussion.
______
Responses of Linda Goodman to Questions From Senator Barrasso
Question 1a. In your written testimony you wrote: ``Management
Implications--The mission of the Forest Service is to sustain the
health, diversity, and productivity of the nation's forests and
grasslands to meet the needs of present and future generations. The
National Forest Management Act (NFMA) establishes the goals of
maintaining species diversity and ecological productivity on National
Forest System lands.''
In reviewing the National Forest Management Act, we do not see that
law established that goal, rather we believe you may have been
referring to Section 1604 of the Forest and Rangeland Renewable
Resource Planning Act that established a goal to provide for diversity
of plant and animal communities (see below).
16 USC Sec. 1604 FOREST AND RANGELAND RENEWABLE RESOURCES
PLANNING(B) provide for diversity of plant and animal
communities based on the suitability and capability of the
specific land area in order to meet overall multiple-use
objectives, and within the multiple-use objectives of a land
management plan adopted pursuant to this section, provide,
where appropriate, to the degree practicable, for steps to be
taken to preserve the diversity of tree species similar to that
existing in the region controlled by the plan;
Do you agree and would you like to correct that oversight? If not
could you please provide the language from the National Forest
Management Act that you were referring to in your testimony.
Answer. The National Forest Management Act (NFMA) amended the
Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 in part
to add the provision quoted above. The Forest and Rangeland Renewable
Resources Planning Act (RPA) of 1974, as amended by NFMA, is codified
at 16 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 1600 et seq. Specifically, Section 6 of NFMA
amends section 5 of the RPA Act. Section 6 added subsections (c)
through (m), including the diversity provision (see 90 Stat. 2952,
2953). The proper, formal citation for the diversity provision is
section 6(g)(3)(B) of the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources
Planning Act of 1974 Act (16 U.S.C. 1604(g)(3)(B)). As you correctly
note, we were referring to this provision in our testimony. However,
because NFMA added the provision to the RPA Act, it is not incorrect to
cite NFMA as the source of the diversity provision.
We agree that it requires the agency to provide for diversity of
plant and animal communities.
Question 1b. The 10 year Assessment of the Pacific Northwest Forest
Plan showed that between 7 and 8 million acres of older forests
currently exist in Oregon and Washington. It showed that since that
plan was implemented in 2000, the number of acres of old forests have
increased by about 1.25 million acres. It also showed that only 17,000
acres of these stands have been harvested which is far less than the
230,000 acres the plan anticipated would be managed. Most importantly,
I see that fires have impacted 102,500 acres of older forests since the
plan was implemented.
My question is: given the data I have quoted above, should we be
more concerned about fire or more concerned about harvest and
management when it comes to protecting old growth and older stands?
Answer. Fire has a potential for much greater impact on old growth
and older stands than harvest.
Concern regarding the impact of fire on older stands is warranted:
One quarter of the Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP) older forest
is in dry provinces.
Between 1994 and 2003, about 1.3% of Late Successional Old
Growth burned in wildfires. The Biscuit Fire accounted for
about three quarters of the total.
More large fires have burned since the last inventory
(mapping) period, 1994-2002.
Monitoring results indicate that at least 1.7 million acres
of older forest was present in fire adapted ecosystems in dry
physiographic provinces in the NWFP area at the end of the last
ten-year NWFP monitoring period. A majority of this area is
currently in a fire condition class where at least one and
possibly more fire return intervals have been missed and there
is an excessive buildup of fuels. Stands in these conditions
are at elevated risk from catastrophic wildfire.
Harvest within mature and older stands in the dry provinces is an
important tool to maintain older stand characteristics and habitats in
the event of fire. We now have several examples of forested areas that
experienced fire after management treatment that survived because the
fire burned through on the ground at lower intensity.
Question 2. Can you help us understand the variety of definitions
used in the forest plans in Region Six for the terms old-growth stand,
old-growth, and old growth habitat and the variety of definitions used
on the East-side forests versus the West-side forests?
Answer. The variety of definitions used on East-side and West-side
forests is primarily related to the differences in forest types which
occur among the Forests. For example:
Malheur NF (east side)
Mixed-conifer, old-growth stands are multistoried with large-
diameter trees commonly older than 230 years. Understory trees are
usually shade-tolerant species like white fir, uneven in size and age,
and range from saplings to large sawtimber. Although density and
closure of individual canopy varies considerably, the overall closure
is generally high (70-80 percent) because of the layered structure.
Old-growth ponderosa stands generally have a more open, parklike
appearance with overstory trees exceeding 250 years. Lodgepole pine
stands are characterized by dense stands of even-aged trees with canopy
closure exceeding 70 percent and trees generally 70 to 80 years old.
Mt. Hood NF (west side)
Douglas fir and Pacific Silver Fir stands below 3600 feet elevation
used PNW-Research Note 447 as the guiding document to describe
attributes which include at least eight live trees per acre > 32 inches
in diameter, at least four 20-inch snags per acre, a minimum number of
large logs, and the presence of a deep multilayered canopy. The Region
6 Interim Old Growth Definitions extended the definitions to other
vegetation zones, each of which has different threshold values
depending on native site productivity. For example, in the Pacific
Silver Fir zone above 3600 feet, the diameter limit is between 22 and
26 inches, and the minimum number of live trees depends on site class,
ranging from 1 tree per acre for site class 6 to 6 trees per acre for
site classes 2&3. Likewise, snag and log density thresholds vary by
site class.
References
Old-Growth Definition Task Force. 1986. Interim definitions for
old-growth Douglas-fir and mixed-conifer forests in the Pacific
Northwest. PNW Research Note RN-447.
USDA FS Pacific Northwest Region. June 1993. Region 6 Interim Old
Growth Definitions.
http://www.reo.gov/ecoshare/Publications/documents/
FirsWesternHemlockSeries.pdf
follow-up questions
Question 2a. With the release of Region 6 Interim Old Growth
Definition all forests reviewed their definitions for old growth in
their plans and adjusted accordingly.
In your mind is it realistic to develop one definition for old-
growth, or old-growth stands and attempt to apply that definition to
all forest or portions of forests in the States of Oregon and
Washington?
Answer. It is not realistic to develop one definition to encompass
all old growth forest types in the Pacific Northwest Region. The result
would be a definition so generic that it would have little site
specific, practical applicability. Old growth definitions should be
fine-tuned to the patterns and dynamics of the forest landscape mosaic
of an area. Many scientists believe that multiple definitions of old
growth are needed to encompass the diversity of forest types within the
Pacific Northwest.
Example: Old growth forests east of the Cascades and in the Klamath
Province of southern Oregon historically ranged from open, patchy
stands, maintained by frequent low-severity fire, to a mosaic of dense
and open stands maintained by mixed severity fire at variable
frequency. In these areas, old growth structure and composition were
spatially diverse and were shaped by a complex disturbance regime of
fire, insects, and disease. This is very different from old growth
forests on the west side where forests are characterized by the
presence of large (> 32-inch diameter) or old (> 200 years) Douglas-fir
trees per acre, one or more shade-tolerant associates such as western
hemlock, high amounts of large snags and logs, and complex canopy
layering.
Question 3. I know that this hearing is focused on old-growth in
the Pacific Northwest, but I also know when forest policy gets
developed for the Pacific Northwest it has the tendency to strongly
influence other parts of the country. I had my staff look at the terms
old-growth stands, old-growth, and old-growth habitat in the National
Forest plans in all regions of the country. As you can imagine there
are lots of different definitions for each of the terms depending on
which plan you examine. In some forests they didn't even bother to
define one or more of the terms.
Do you think it wise (given the variety of forest types and
specific conditions on forests across the country) to even attempt to
come up with a one-size-fits-all definition of any of the terms I have
been asking you about today; or would we be better off to allow these
terms to continue to be defined through the forest planning process and
tailored to local conditions?
Answer. A one-size-fits-all definition, at the scale of the Pacific
Northwest region, is not useful. It is much more appropriate to define
attributes through the forest planning process and tailor them to the
stand types and local conditions of each forest.
Question 4. Are you familiar with the moratorium on harvesting in
the Giant Sequoia stands in California?
Answer. Yes, we are familiar with the 1992 Presidential
Proclamation, subsequent language in appropriations bills, and a
judge's ruling in October 2006 regarding harvesting in giant sequoia
groves.
Question 5. If so, at what risk are we putting those stands when we
can't harvest some of the large White-fir than now provides potential
fuel ladders that could put the Giant Sequoia at risk if there are
fires in those groves?
Answer. Protection of the giant sequoia groves from ``wildfires of
a severity that was rarely encountered in pre-Euroamerican times'' is
identified in the Presidential Proclamation that formed the Giant
Sequoia National Monument in California. The Proclamation also states,
``Outstanding opportunities exist for studying the consequences of
different approaches to mitigating these conditions and restoring
natural forest resilience.'' It is difficult to determine the risk to
these stands ``when we can't harvest some of the large White-fir.'' The
degree to which risk could be reduced by harvesting some large white-
fir would need to be compared to other options, including thinning
smaller trees and/or reducing surface fuels by mechanical means or by
prescribed burning.
Question 6. Dr. Perry suggested a good mix of management for old
growth protection would be 30% old-growth reserves: 30% in mature
forest (recruitment areas for old-growth); and 30% in production forest
plantations to be managed. The most recent data we have on land
allocations in the Pacific Northwest Forest Plan is 24.5 million acres.
Of that approximately 66% of the land is in old-growth and mature
forest reserves; approximately 4.2 million acres (17%) in Adaptive
Management Areas and Riparian Reserves where harvesting is
significantly restricted and about 4 million acres (16%) in the Matrix
Lands but estimates are that about only 3 million of that is really
been open to management.
Given Dr. Perry's recommendation what would Congress have to do
increase the matrix lands up to the 7.35 million acres he is calling
for?
Answer. It is difficult to tell from Dr. Perry's testimony whether
he was actually recommending 7.35 million acres in matrix lands. We
have tried to lay out more clearly the acres meeting the older stand
definition used within the NWFP, within matrix/Adaptive Management
Areas and Reserves of all kinds.
Using the 10 Year Monitoring Report for the NWFP, the following
information may be helpful:
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Land allocation in the NWFP
There are approximately 23.3 million acres of forest-capable area
in the NWFP
18.6 million acres (80% of forest-capable area) allocated to
Reserves of all types (Administratively Withdrawn,
Congressionally Reserved, Late Successional Reserves, Riparian
Reserves)
4.7 million acres (20% of forest-capable area) allocated to
Matrix or AMA
Distribution by size class in 1996
In 1996 there were 7.9 million acres (34% of NWFP) of forest 20''+
(meeting the older forest definition)
6.5 million acres in Reserves (35% of Reserves)
1.4 million acres in Matrix/AMA (30% of Matrix/AMA)
In 1996 there were 6.1 million acres (26% of NWFP) of forest 10-
20'' (``recruitment areas'')
4.8 million acres in Reserves (26% of Reserves)
1.3 million acres in Matrix/AMA (28% of Matrix/AMA)
In 1996 there were 9.3 million acres (40% of NWFP) of forest 0-10''
(``plantations'')
7.3 million acres in Reserves (39% of Reserves)
2.0 million acres in Matrix/AMA (43% of Matrix/AMA)
Expected ingrowth
Based on rates reported in the NWFP 10-year report, older forest is
increasing at a rate of about 19% per decade. Between 1996 and 2006,
In Reserves, older forest increased about 1.5 million acres
In Matrix/Riparian Reserves, older forest increased about
260,000 acres
Most recruitment occurs from the 10-20'' class into the
20''+ class (older forest)
Question 7. Several of the witnesses' testimony on carbon
sequestration seemed to differ.
What is the Pacific Northwest Research Stations assessment of both
Dr. Perry's and Ms. Spivak's testimony related to how much carbon is
stored in wood products once a forest has been harvested, as well as on
the relative ability of old growth forests to capture and store carbon
compared to younger forests?
Answer. Finished forest products in the PNW contain about 20-35% of
the carbon that was in the stand; Old forests may be either sinks or
sources of carbon, depending on the year; Carbon storage is only one of
myriad functions of forests on the landscape.
Wood is approximately 50% carbon, but only parts of the above-
ground portion of trees, and none of the root systems or associated
soil carbon end up in most wood products. In 125 year-old rapidly
growing Douglas-fir, about 70% of stand carbon is in the live tree.\1\
Based on studies of old Douglas-fir at the Wind River Experimental
Forest,\2\ about 40% of stand carbon is in heartwood and sapwood. Given
these numbers, it is likely that finished forest products from the
Pacific Northwest contain somewhere between 20 and 35 percent of the
total carbon in the harvested forest stand, including associated soils.
Other parts of trees (e.g. bark, branches and tops) may offset
emissions of fossil carbon if they are used, for example, to generate
energy that displaces energy produced by oil, natural gas, or coal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Smith, J. E., L. S. Heath, K. E. Skog, and R. A. Birdsey. 2006.
Methods for calculating forest ecosystem and harvested carbon with
standard estimates for forest types of the United States. Gen. Tech.
Rep. NE-343. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service, Northeastern Research Station. 216 p.
\2\ Harmon, M. E., K. Bible, M. G. Ryan, D. C. Shaw, H. Chen, J.
Klopatek, and X. Li. 2004. Production, respiration, and overall carbon
balance in an old-growth Pseudotsuga-Tsuga forest ecosystem. Ecosystems
7: 498-512
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When a forest stand, regardless of age, is harvested, a large
amount of carbon is released through decomposition of roots, branches,
and needles and through disturbance of the soil. How much depends on
the type of harvest, the amount of soil disturbance, and post-harvest
management. Some of that carbon will be fixed again in the short-term,
but much of it will reside in the atmosphere until existing vegetation
and newly establishing stands can once again fix it.
Old forests store very large amounts of carbon, however, they are
about carbon neutral\3\ \4\ over time--that is, the rate at which
carbon is taken up and removed from the atmosphere by photosynthesis is
mostly offset by the rate at which carbon is released to the atmosphere
through respiration and decomposition. In some years it appears that
old forests in the Pacific Northwest are carbon sinks, and in some
years, carbon sources;\5\ mostly, old forests store carbon fixed over
the life of the stand. That carbon will eventually be released to the
atmosphere when old trees die and decompose or when the stand is
replaced through natural disturbance such as fire.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Field, C.B. and J. Kaduk. 2004. The Carbon Balance of an Old-
growth Forest: Building across approaches. Ecosystems 7: 525-533
\4\ Harmon, M. E., K. Bible, M. G. Ryan, D. C. Shaw, H. Chen, J.
Klopatek, and X. Li. 2004. Production, respiration, and overall carbon
balance in an old-growth Pseudotsuga-Tsuga forest ecosystem. Ecosystems
7: 498-512
\5\ Ibid
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Younger, rapidly growing forests take up more carbon from the
atmosphere than do old forests: Depending on the year, a 40-year-old
Douglas-fir stand took up 2 to 7 times the amount of carbon compared to
a 450 year old stand on an area basis,\6\ but younger stands have not
yet developed the massive carbon storage in large boles, snags, and
downed logs that is present in old forest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Chen, J., K. U, S. L. Ustin, T. H. Suchanek, B. J. Bond, K. D.
Brosofske, and M. Falk. 2004. Net ecosystem exchanges of carbon, water,
and energy in young and old-growth Douglas-fir forests. Ecosystems 7:
534-544
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carbon uptake and storage is only one of myriad functions of
forests on the landscape. A distribution of forest ages is necessary to
assure multiple ecosystem functions such as water management, wildlife
habitat, and biodiversity.
______
Responses of Marvin Brown to Questions From Senator Barrasso
Question 1. How many acres of state forests do you manage in trust
for counties and schools?
Answer. 781,615 acres.
Question 2. Do you manage to provide old growth values on State
trust lands?
Answer. Yes.
Question 3. How many acres of state trust lands are virgin or old
growth forest?
Answer. To my knowledge there are no significant acres that have
not been either harvested, or wholly regenerated after a modern-day
fire. There will be scattered acreages of 100 year old, plus, trees,
but I would not equate these with the virgin stands that once existed
in these parts of the State. We manage our lands under a long term plan
that seeks to have 25% of the land provide ``older forest structure''
over time, but the actual location of the structure is expected to
shift around on the landscape.
Question 4. How much of that is permanently preserved?
Answer. Timber harvest is not categorically forbidden on any of
these acres. Perhaps 20% of the acres are located such that harvest is
unlikely, as they may be inoperable land, a riparian zone, along a
scenic corridor or intensive recreation area, etc.
Question 5. What percentage of Oregon's state forests that you
administer do you manage either intensively or extensively resulting in
harvests for wood products?
Answer. Nearly all, but the 20% referenced above would probably
only experience a harvest if there were a defined need related to
forest health, critical wildlife habitat or human safety.
Question 6a. I assume the public also visits Oregon state forests
for recreation, solitude, etc. and that these needs are met in
conjunction with other needs, such as timber management and older
forest values. Is this correct?
Answer. Yes.
Question 6b. So you can manage for both recreation, wildlife and
fishery values while also managing for timber production and older
forest values?
Answer. Yes.
Question 7. Do some of the classic ``old growth dependent'' species
that have driven much of land management in the PNW also reside on
state lands under your management? How are they doing?
Answer. Yes. Northern Spotted Owls are experiencing declines
similar to that found on federal lands. Marble Murrellets appear to be
holding fine.
______
Response of Randi Spivak to Question From Senator Wyden
1. Ms. Spivak, there were a number of statements made at the
hearing regarding the carbon sequestration abilities of old growth
forests, whether or not and how much carbon is emitted in logging and
wildfires and how much carbon would ultimately be sequestered in a wood
product. What is your understanding of the science on these issues?
Answer.
Old-Growth Forests Remain Effective Carbon Sinks
Senator Craig said that, ``An old-growth tree is quite simply a
tree that has matured and is starting to die. It might take 200 years
for it to get there, but it is no longer the robust, active growing
tree that it once was in its youth.'' He went on to state that he is
``very anxious to look at the science that says old growth does more
than we thought it did, because I started looking at the science about
15 years ago, when we believed that young and active forests and their
growth cycles sequestered a great deal more than older trees, and trees
that had peaked and were if you will, just sustaining themselves.''
Similarly, Senator Smith said, ``It's my understanding, that as we talk
about global climate change and the ability of a tree to sequester
carbon, that, and please tell me if I'm wrong, any of you, but I'm
addressing this to Randi initially, that younger trees are much better
at attractors of turning carbon into wood, and that as they die, they
begin to emit carbon, is that, am I incorrect in that understanding.''
As Dr. David Perry mentioned during the hearing, the conventional
wisdom that old-growth forests emit carbon and are no longer carbon
sinks is a claim that is contradicted by recent research. For purposes
of clarification, the term carbon sink refers to a carbon dioxide
reservoir (e.g. forests, oceans) that is increasing in size, which is
the opposite of a carbon dioxide source. In the case of forests, a
forest is a carbon sink when it sequesters more carbon than it emits
through respiration. Forests withdraw carbon from the atmosphere and
incorporate it into biomass through photosynthesis as well as into
their soils, and release carbon to the atmosphere through both plant
and microbial respiration.
The following studies demonstrate how mature and old-growth forests
remain effective carbon sinks in forest ecosystems around the world,
including the Pacific Northwest, where the most rigorous studies have
been done: Douglas-fir-western hemlock, Washington (Janisch and Harmon
2002; Harmon et al. 2004; Paw U et al. 2004) Oregon (Van Tuyl et al.
2005); Douglas-fir, Pacific Northwest, westside (Mills and Zhou 2003);
ponderosa pine, central Oregon (Law et al. 2000; Law et al. 2001; Law
et al. 2003); whitebark pine-subalpine fir, northern Rocky Mountains
(Carey et al. 2001); spruce, central British Columbia (Fredeen et.
2005); spruce-hemlock-fir, aspen-birch, hardwood, Maine (Hollinger et
al. 1999); northern hardwoods-conifer, New York (Keeton et al. 2007);
hemlock-hardwood, upper Midwest (Desai etl al. 2005); eastern hemlock,
Massachusetts (Hadley and Schedlbauer 2002); beech, central Germany
(Knohl et al. 2003); Scots pine, Siberia (Wirth et al. 2002); Dahurian
larch, Siberia (Schulze et al. 1999); multiple forests of various
European countries (Valentini et al. 2000); and multiple forest types,
worldwide (Lugo and Brown 1986; Buchmann and Schulze 1999; Law et al.
2002; Pregitzer and Euskirchen 2004).
The main reason that older forests remain effective carbon sinks is
that they have much lower rates of respiration than younger forests.
Additionally, old-growth forests, which store more carbon in the forest
floor than younger forests, also release carbon from soil and litter at
a slower pace than younger forests. The exhaustive Pregitzer and
Euskirchen study (2004) showed that one of the reasons that older
forests are effective carbon sinks is because their heterotrophic
respiration, which is the sum of respiration from the litter (course
woody debris) and soil carbon pools, levels are lower than younger
forests. Specifically, they found that the rates of heterotrophic soil
respiration for temperate forests (similar to those of Western Pacific
Northwest) range from 9.7MgC ha-1 yr-1 in younger
forests to 2.8MgC ha-1 yr-1 in older forests--a
decrease of roughly 346%. When you consider that ``fluxes from soil are
clearly the largest source of ecosystem respiration,'' for instance
accounting for roughly 70% of total ecosystem respiration in a
ponderosa pine forest in central Oregon (Law et al. 1999), it is clear
that soil respiration can dictate whether or not a forest is a net sink
or a net source of carbon to the atmosphere. For example, on the dry
eastern face of the Cascades, where trees grow slowly, replanted clear-
cuts give off more CO2 than they absorb for as much as 20 years (Law et
al. 2001).
In addition to storing more aboveground carbon in trees and other
vegetation, older forests also store more carbon in the forest floor
than younger forests do. Pregitzer and Euskirchen (2004) found that
mean and median organic soil horizon (forest floor) pool sizes
increased with age in all major forest types--boreal, temperate and
tropical forests, reaching a peak in the 71 to 120 or older age
classes. This finding was echoed by Zhou et al.'s (2006) study that
found that carbon stored in the top 20 centimeters of soil of an
undisturbed old-growth forest in China increased 68% from 1979 to 2003.
Depending on the species of tree and the climate it is in, an old-
growth tree is not necessarily ``starting to die'' as Senator Craig put
it. Trees in the Pacific Northwest continue to grow for centuries, and
if left undisturbed, will often live to be well over 500 years old and
sometimes live in excess of 1,000 years. Second, there is no scientific
basis for Senator Craig's statement that ``young and active forests and
their growth cycles sequestered a great deal more than older trees.''
Senator Craig appears to be confusing the term ``carbon sequestration''
with the term ``carbon sink.'' In terms of carbon sequestration, the
amount of carbon sequestered in a forest is mostly a product of how
much biomass is in the forest, and how long the forest has been
undisturbed.
Regarding younger forests ability to be effective carbon sinks, it
is important to distinguish between trees and forests. The key variable
is not the rate of sequestration by a single tree, but the total amount
of carbon stored by a forest. In all of the component pools within a
forest (e.g. live trees, standing dead and down, soil, litter) growth
of individual trees slows as they grow older, but when all pools of
carbon stored in the forest are considered, carbon storage continues to
increase in old forests. Pregitzer and Euskirchen's 2004 exhaustive
study of carbon cycling and storage in forest ecosystems around the
world, which utilized a database of approximately 1200 entries, taken
from 120 references, found that ``living biomass carbon increased
through time, peaking in the 71-120-year age class in boreal forests,
but increasing steadily with age in temperate and tropical forests. The
older age classes contained two to 10 times as much living biomass
carbon as the youngest age class.''
Forest Fires and Carbon Emissions
Senator Craig also cited the amount of carbon released from forest
fires, ``This is a guesstimation, but a reasonable guesstimation, based
on some pretty good minds. It was equivalent to taking 12 million
passenger cars off the road. If that carbon had not been released, but
had been retained inside the log, inside the tree, inside the
grassland. Uh, now how do we compare that, well that's like taking
nearly all of the passenger cars off the roads of, off the highways of
California.''
Senator Craig is correct that forest fires emit carbon dioxide to
the atmosphere. However, it is misleading to look at a single event in
time at a single point on the landscape and draw conclusions relating
to the carbon consequences. A few points should be considered. First,
the carbon dioxide released in a forest fire is carbon that has been
cycling back and forth between forests and the atmosphere for
millennia. Fire or decay releases carbon to the atmosphere, and
regrowth ties it back down. Burning fossil fuels, by comparison, takes
carbon out of geological deposits and adds this paleo, non-cycling
carbon to the atmosphere, thereby causing a net increase in total
ecosystem carbon.
``Natural forest disturbances, including fire, kill trees but
remove very little of the total organic matter. Combustion rarely
consumes more than 10 to 15 percent of the organic matter, even in
stand-replacing fires, and often much less. Consequently much of the
forest remains in live trees, standing dead trees, and logs on the
ground.'' (Franklin Agee 2003).
Live trees will continue to store carbon and dead trees will decay
and slowly release carbon dioxide for tens of years. Regrowth after
fires fixes carbon from the atmosphere reversing the emissions caused
by fire over time. About 5-10 percent of the biomass consumed by
wildfire is converted to charcoal, a uniquely stable form of carbon,
which, if mixed into mineral soil or washed into water bodies, may
remain there for thousands of years. (DeLuca and Aplet 2008)
Carbon Emissions: Logging vs. Wildfire
News stories in late 2007 highlighted findings that burning
vegetation (including agricultural burning, prescribed fires and
wildfires in both forest and non-forest vegetation) in the United
States during 2002-2006 released carbon dioxide equivalent to 4-6
percent of all human-caused emissions, nationally (Wiedinmyer and Neff
2007). But when emissions associated with logging and processing of
wood products (see calculations below) are compared with emissions from
forest fires as reported by a 2007 EPA report (Smith and Heath 2007),
emissions from logging are more than twice as much as wildfires.
Estimates at smaller scales, for instance the state of Oregon, (Law et
al. 2004; Turner et al. 2007) or Shasta County, California (Pearson et
al. 2006) also indicate that annual emissions from logging and wood
products production typically exceed those from fire.
Calculation of Carbon Emissions from Forest Fires
Wiedinmyer and Neff (2007) estimate average annual U.S. emissions
from fire (all vegetation fire: agricultural burning, prescribed fire,
wildland fire in forests, grasslands, chaparral and shrub-steppe) for
2002-2006 to be 293 Tg of CO2, which, multiplied by .2727 (because only
.2727 of the mass of CO2 is from carbon) is equivalent to 79.9 Tg of
carbon.
Smith and Heath (Smith and Heath 2007) provide estimates of CO2
emissions from fire in U.S forests, which average to 25.5 Tg of carbon
for 2001-2005 as shown in Table 7-12 below. They also provide estimates
of emissions of methane and nitrous oxide (also greenhouse gases) for
2005, which, when converted to equivalents of carbon, would bring the
total to 29 Tg of carbon and carbon equivalents.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Calculation of Carbon Emissions from Timber Harvest
The calculation starts with 191,629 thousand metric tons, the mean
annual dry weight of roundwood (logs) removed from U.S. forests (Howard
2007) between 2001 and 2005. This figure needs to be adjusted to
reflect the fact that more biomass is harvested in the forest than is
removed as logs. Birdsey (1996, Table 1.8) provides figures for the
ratio of total harvest to harvest removed for both hardwoods and
softwoods, for different regions in the U.S. Averaging across hardwoods
and softwoods and across regions yields an average ratio of 1.525,
which yields a total harvest of 292,234 thousand metric tons of wood.
Since this biomass is approximately 50% carbon, dividing by 2 yields
146,117 thousand metric tons of carbon. Multiplying this figure by 58%
[the mid-point of the one-half to two-thirds estimate of total
harvested biomass that is released at or near the time of harvest (EPA
2005)] yields 84,748 thousand metric tons, or 85 Tg of carbon emitted
annually as a result of timber harvest and processing, not including
emissions from forest products or fossil fuel emissions associated with
harvest.
Wayburn et al. (2000) explains that, ``on average, forest fires
release roughly 10-20% of the carbon that harvest does in an old-growth
stand and 5-10% of that in a second-growth stand'' as shown in the
graph* below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Graph has been retained in subcommittee files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The below table (Table 4) from the Turner et al. study (2007) shows
the disparity between the amount of carbon released to the atmosphere
because of harvest and the amount of carbon released to the atmosphere
because of wildfire in the entire state of Oregon. The ratio of
emissions from harvest to emissions from fire is roughly 30 to 1.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Responses of Randi Spivak to Questions From Senator Barrasso
Question 2. Are you concerned with the fact that 5 times as many
acres of old growth has burned as have been harvested?
Answer. American Lands is extremely concerned that mature and old-
growth forests continue to be logged. The Western Oregon Plan Revision
that proposes to increase old-growth logging by over 700% is a case in
point. Logging mature and old-growth forests causes significant harm to
forest ecosystems and the life support services that humans and
wildlife depend upon from these forests. Logging mature and old growth
also releases substantial amounts of carbon and can make forests more
prone to uncharacteristic wildfires. Further, tree plantations tend to
burn very hot. According to research from the Klamath Siskiyou region
in Northern California, tree plantations experienced twice as much
severe fire as multi-age forests (Odion et al. 2004).
Regarding wildfire, I would like to make the following points:
1. Natural disturbances, especially wildfires are essential
ecological processes by which forests regulate and renew
themselves, especially western forests. It is impossible, and
not ecologically desirable to manage fire out of forests that
have evolved with fire, including characteristic stand
replacing fires, as natural starts will always occur. Wildfires
reset the ecological clock for forests, watersheds and aquatic
systems.
2. Past and current management on public forests has in some,
but not all cases, severely altered forest structure,
biodiversity, natural fire regimes and related ecosystem
processes. More recently, climate change and drought have
caused fire seasons to be longer, and fires in some areas to
burn hotter than during historic conditions. In these
instances, where there is a risk of uncharacteristic
wildfire,\1\ American Lands supports management practices--
mechanical thinning, prescribed fire and wildland fire use--
that can restore ecological integrity and resilience to forests
and reduce unnatural fuel loads that can contribute to
uncharacteristic wildfires.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Fire events of a severity that is well outside the historic
range of variability based on site-specific vegetation reconstructions
of stand age structure and fire history or early historic records.
Adapted from Noss et al. (2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Restoration needs of forests differ depending on the
characteristic fire regime, Plant Association Group (PAG), and
degree of ecosystem degradation from past and current
management. Reintroduction of fire is the most effective method
to restore ecosystem processes and resilience and maintain
appropriate fuel levels. If it is determined that prescribed
fire alone is not appropriate because fuel loads are
unnaturally high, then thinning should be done as a pre-
requisite to prescribed fire where soil health can be
maintained. Prescribed fire should be used following thinning
to burn highly flammable slash and brush that can actually
increase fire risk and cause subsequent fires to burn
uncharacteristically severe if left untreated. American Lands
supports variable density thinning in young managed stands and
thinning certain dry forest types where fire suppression and
grazing has significantly altered natural fire regimes.
Thinning should focus on removing small diameter material and
ladder fuels.
Question 3. From a silvicultural standpoint, do you think that the
kinds of large and severe wildfire we've seen in recent years are more
beneficial to advancing old growth forest than allowing thinning and
harvesting activities to take place?
Answer. As noted above, American Lands supports management
activities that can reduce inappropriate fuel loads and facilitate the
onset of late-successional characteristics in certain forests. Attached
for the record is a document, Management Principles for Protecting and
Restoring Old Growth Habitat Washington, Oregon, and Northwestern
California National Forests and Bureau of Land Management Holdings,
spearheaded by American Lands that sets forth management principles
supported by our organization.
It is important to stress, however, that tradeoffs should not be
made that may reduce the risk of uncharacteristic fire but cause harm
to other important long-term aspects of the forest that are vital to
its health, most especially soils. Soils are the foundation of healthy
productive forests now and in the future.
Specifically, thinning must not increase fire hazard by either
leaving flammable logging slash and branches on the ground or by
opening up stands so widely that the ground is exposed to drying
sunlight. Increased sunlight results in rapid growth of plants, which
act as ladder fuels for fire and increased winds resulting in increased
fire severity. In order to reduce the risk of opening forest canopies
too much, thinning needs to concentrate on smaller diameter material
such as ladder fuels and surface fuels. Additionally, many wildlife
species require large blocks of dense forest cover therefore canopy
closure needs to be maintained.
Thinning is a not a panacea. There are two situations in
particular, where thinning is not likely to decrease fire severity: (1)
where fire behavior is determined more by local weather such as high
winds, hot temperatures and climate conditions rather than fuels, which
may be increasingly the case with climate change; (2) where fire
behavior is governed more by steep terrain and access is limited.
Question 4. If fires continue to consume 9 or 10 million acres per
year or even at a faster rate, how does that advance the protection of
the wildlife, watershed and other resource values your organization
advocates for?
Answer. Short of clearing all trees from the landscape, logging
will not stop fires nor will logging avert the causes or impacts of
climate change. Forests have burned and will continue to burn.
Ecological restoration of certain forests, including restoration
thinning in previously managed forests combined with prescribed fire
will move forests towards a more natural and fire tolerant state.
Aggressive clearing of timber and biomass around homes in communities
immediately adjacent to forest landscapes also will help protect
investments and lives.
Currently, the Forest Service actively suppresses more than 85
percent of fires. Fires in natural, wild landscapes far from
communities should be allowed to burn for the forest's long-term
health. This will save taxpayer money and allow forests to adjust to a
warming, more fire-prone climate.
Question 5. Let's say we come to an agreement on a definition or
set of definitions for old growth and we then draw a line around the
existing old growth, and that old growth gets blown down or burned up.
How should the Forest Service and the BLM handle that kind of
situation?
Answer. Naturally recovering forests following disturbance events
are some of the rarest forms across the landscape. These areas need to
be allowed to recover on their own. Although people see wildland fires,
wind and ice storms, and insect outbreaks as ``catastrophes'' affecting
federal and nonfederal lands, over time, such events have in fact both
created and helped sustain the character of many regional ecosystems.
Question 6. Should salvage harvesting be allowed or should they
just walk away from the away and allow the material to rot?
Answer. As one prominent forest ecologist has put it, ``Timber
salvage is most appropriately viewed as a `tax' on ecological
recovery.''
In answer to this question, the following summarizes testimony of
Dr. James Karr, noted ecologist and professor emeritus at the
University of Washington before the Senate Agriculture Subcommittee on
Rural Revitalization, Conservation, Forest and Credit on August 2,
2006.
The first point that I would like to make is that logging
after natural disturbances is not an ecosystem restoration
tool. Such logging damages forest landscapes by limiting
populations of species crucial to the maintenance of these
landscapes and by impeding the natural processes that have long
sustained these ecosystems. A substantial body of evidence
(some dating from the early twentieth century) demonstrates
that post disturbance logging impairs the ability of forest
ecosystems to recover from natural disturbances (Frothingham
1924; Isaac and Meagher 1938; Beschta et al. 1995, 2004; McIver
and Starr 2001; Karr et al. 2004; Lindenmayer et al. 2004;
DellaSala et al. 2006; Donato et al. 2006; Foster and Orwig
2006; Hutto 2006; Lindenmayer and Noss 2006; Lindemayeer and
Ough 2006; Reeves et al. 2006; Schmiegelow et al. 2006).
Specifically, post disturbance logging prevents or slows
natural recovery by slowing the establishment of plant and
animal populations and degrading streams. Logging after natural
disturbances damages terrestrial and aquatic systems, plant and
animal communities, sensitive areas, and crucial regional
resources such as soils. For example, the dramatic physical
changes in forest structure resulting from hurricanes and
insect infestations in New England do not disrupt
biogeochemical cycles or degrade water quality, but post
disturbance logging increases nitrogen loss and does degrade
water quality (Foster and Orwig 2006). Post disturbance logging
also threatens species listed under the Endangered Species Act
and places more species at risk, making future listings a near
certainty.
Damage from post disturbance logging may consist of direct
effects from logging, such as increased mortality of tree and
other seedlings, damage to soils, or destruction of key
biological legacies (that is, intact understory vegetation,
snags and logs, patches of undisturbed or partially disturbed
forest; Lindenmayer and Noss 2006). Equally important are the
indirect effects of activities associated with logging, such as
more traffic on existing roads, development of new roads,
spread of invasive species, further loss of biological
legacies, and damaged soils as a result of burning of slash
(the leaves, twigs, branches, and other organic material left
after logging).
These observations are not mere points in an abstract
scientific debate; they constitute an accumulation of on-the-
ground evidence that logging after disturbances harms rather
than helps the regeneration of forests. As one prominent forest
ecologist has put it, ``Timber salvage is most appropriately
viewed as a `tax' on ecological recovery.''
The second point I wish to make is that recommendations exist
for how to avoid damage from post disturbance treatments and
how to speed recovery of both terrestrial and aquatic systems
(Karr et al. 2004; Foster and Orwig 2006; Lindenmayer and Noss
2006; Reeves et al. 2006):
Protect and restore watersheds before
disturbance occurs, because healthy ecosystems
sustained by natural processes are more resilient to
natural disturbances. Such protection is far less
expensive than post disturbance rehabilitation, which
often brings new rounds of damage.
Allow natural recovery to occur on its own,
or intervene only in ways that promote natural
recovery. For example, ensure that unburned and
partially burned patches within the perimeter of a
disturbed area are exempt from logging or subject only
to low-intensity harvesting that leaves high levels of
biological material behind.
Retain old or large trees and other
biological material because they provide habitat for
many species, reduce soil erosion, aid soil formation,
maintain desirable microclimates, and nourish streams.
Protect soils because soils and soil
productivity are irreplaceable on human time scales.
Protect ecologically sensitive areas such as
streamside, or riparian, corridors; roadless areas; and
steep slopes because of their importance in maintaining
local and regional biodiversity and protection of water
quality and because physical and biological instability
in these places often has repercussions that spread
across landscapes. For example, after a disturbance,
riparian areas should receive the same protection they
received before the disturbance.
Avoid creating new roads and landing zones
(for logging by helicopter) in the disturbed landscape
because they damage soils, help spread noxious weeds or
pests, and alter ground and surface water relationships
across the affected landscape; indeed, postdisturbance
logging may affect a larger area or have a greater
impact on forests than the disturbance itself
(Frothingham 1924 and others cited by Foster and Orwig
2006).
Limit reseeding and replanting, especially
with nonnative species, which can impede native plant
regeneration, or even with varieties of native species
that may not be appropriate for local ecosystems.
Do not place structures such as weirs,
riprap, or artificially placed large wood in streams
because their ecological benefits rarely outweigh the
physical damage or expense of installing and
maintaining them.
Continue research, monitoring, and
assessment that will improve our knowledge of post
disturbance ecosystems, but do this in ways that do not
ignore or distort established principles of forest and
river ecology.
Educate the public so that they recognize
that fires, storms, or insects on landscapes are not
always catastrophes but crucial components in the
evolution and maintenance of ecosystems.
More than 500 scientists--from diverse disciplines,
institutions, and geographic areas--have to date acknowledged
the ecological merits of the recommendations I have outlined
here, including the recommendations' broader applicability in
ecosystems other than national forests and affected by
disturbances other than fire.
The letter referred to by Dr. Karr is attached for the record.
Finally, I would like to clarify that what may be commonly regarded
as rotting wood and therefore seen as a waste of timber, is actually
one of nature's most important processes whereby organic matter
decomposes from the action of bacteria or fungi. Decomposing wood and
associated litter plays a vital role in returning nutrients to the
forest floor, provides an energy base for the detritus food web, and
contributes to the formation of soils.
Question 7. What if the fire was not started naturally or did not
originate in the old growth stand?
Answer. From an ecological perspective, the origin of a fire does
not change the fact that post-disturbance logging is damaging.
Question 8. Have you surveyed the membership of the American Forest
Alliance to understand what their collective annual use of wood is?
Answer. First, the name of our organization is American Lands
Alliance. Given our focus on forests, I could see how our name can be
easily confused. Regarding surveying our membership for their
collective wood use, no we have not done that. We are not against wood
use. We are opposed to damaging logging practices that harm water
quality, destroy wildlife habitat, degrade recreational opportunities,
especially on public lands.
Question 9. Has your organization considered asking your members to
reduce their use of forest product to help facilitate the protection of
our federal forests by reducing the overall demand for forest products
in this country? If not, why not?
Answer. We engage our membership in protection and restoration
efforts on publicly owned forests and watersheds. But I think that is a
great idea and will send out an alert to our network with your
suggestion. Thank you.
I'm glad that you brought up the important point of reducing demand
for forest products. I think you may find the following information on
materials such as engineered wood that provide effective substitutes
for old-growth wood very informative. May I suggest that you pass this
onto Paul Beck at Herbert Lumber? These approaches could provide
Herbert Lumber with a more viable business model than their current one
that relies almost exclusively on logging the last of the remaining
mature and old-growth forests. (Livingston 2004; 2006)
The United Nations' ECE/FAO Forest Products Annual Market Review in
2000 stated that manufacture and use of the world's Engineered Wood
Products (EWPs) is expanding globally. with much of the impetus coming
from the global need for efficient construction techniques, growing
environmental concerns, and the universal requirement for affordable
shelter.
There are numerous reports and sources, including from the U.S.
Forest Service such as http://www.fpl.fs.fed.us/documnts/techline/wood-
flooring-made-from-forest-restoration-materials.pdf that discuss how
composite wood products made from small-diameter Douglas fir are just
as strong as products made from old-growth Douglas fir and how (Burke
and Draper 2003).
For example, laminated wood beams reduce large dimension lumber use
because they are made of smaller sized lumber glued together to achieve
longer and thicker dimensions with superior strength and can thereby
replace large beams from old growth.
In your testimony you suggested only 15% of the carbon is stored in
the wood products generated from the trees harvested from federal
lands. But Dr. Perry estimated that it could be as high as 30%. Other
research from the forest products industry and from federal research
papers suggests that approximately 50% of the wood in a tree is carbon.
Question 10. Could you provide the Committee with the research
citations to support your claim that only 15% of the carbon sequestered
in forests is stored in the lumber from trees cut in our forests?
Answer. First, it is true that about half of the dry weight of wood
is carbon. However, I was not referring to what percent of the wood in
a tree is carbon, but rather that wood products represent only a
fraction of the carbon stored in forests and that the process of
converting forests into wood products releases the vast majority of the
stored carbon to the atmosphere.
In my testimony I said that only 15% of the carbon stored in
forests ends up stored in wood products. This small fraction of carbon
storage results from cumulative carbon emissions at each step in the
logging, milling, manufacturing, and transporting of wood products. The
carbon losses are related to logging waste known as slash, milling and
manufacturing waste such as sawdust, and transportation and process
emissions. This statistic comes from Figure 8 in Ingerson 2007 which in
turn cites these two studies: Gower et al 2006 and Smith et al 2006.
The difference between Ingerson's 15% and Dr. Perry's 30% is
because Figure 8 (below)* accounts for ``process and transport
emissions'' by subtracting 17% of the carbon from the 32% found in wood
products at the end of the manufacturing process. It makes sense to
account for the carbon consequences of using fossil fuels to process
and transport wood products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Figure retained in subcommittee files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The bottom line is that logging forests, milling and transporting
wood products transfers to the atmosphere the majority of the carbon
once stored in the forest. It is easy to conclude that carbon is stored
more securely in forests than in wood products because forests can be
long lived and continue to sequester carbon for long periods, while
wood products represent only a fraction of the carbon in the forests
they came from and wood products have relatively short useful life
spans.
______
Responses of John Tappeiner to Questions From Senator Barrasso
Question 1. One of the witnesses today is advocating for full
protection of mature trees and suggests that trees over 100 years in
age are mature. In my state of Wyoming--and I am told in parts of both
eastern Oregon and Washington--we have large stands of Lodge-pole pine
and Ponderosa pine that regenerate in very thick and dense stands that
have stagnated. The trees never grow large in diameter or very tall. We
call them dog-hair stands.
If Congress were to adopt either an age limit or a definition that
says the land managers should stay out of mature stands of timber, what
would you recommend be done in these stands that have stagnated but are
mature or over 100 years in age?
Answer. I think that there are many definitions of ``mature.'' They
are based mainly on the experience, values and orientation of the
person using the term. It is applied to both trees and stands in a
variety of ways. Mature may mean that the growth of merchantable volume
is slowing down; or it may mean that a stand is habitat for a
particular species of wildlife, or that the trees are a certain size.
Western conifers can grow to very old ages and a wide range of sizes.
There is no reason that a tree that is 100 or 200 years old should be
considered ``mature'', when it may live 400 years or more. It is a
difficult concept to apply without criteria based on species and local
conditions.
To me ``dog-hair'' stands are so dense with conifers, and tree
growth is so slow, that no self thinning occurs. Thus these stands
remain ``stagnated''--with little change in tree size and stand
structure.
If the rule is not to cut trees defined as mature, then I do not
see what could be done within the stand. There could be an attempt to
protect these stands from fire by reducing fuels in stands around them.
In many places dense stands of pine are susceptible to bark beetles.
Often the larger trees are killed rather than the smaller ones. Of
course the forest becomes very susceptible to fire after tree mortality
from bark beetles.
Question 2. You mention that old-growth trees respond positively to
the removal of competing trees. You mention that these trees are larger
than 40 inches in diameter. How big were the trees that were removed in
the studies that showed this? How old were they?
Answer. These studies reconstructed the effects of tree removal by
BLM timber sales. They were not designed studies in which the number
and sizes of trees were carefully controlled. We took advantage of
sites where trees were removed from around old-growth trees about 20 to
50 yr previously to see how these old trees responded to tree removal.
Tress removed varied in sizes and amounts. On some sites only a few big
trees were left (about 10 to 20/ac) as shelterwood trees for
regeneration of a new stand. On some sites big and small trees that
were judged to be likely to die were removed. We wanted to see if
removal damaged the remaining trees as evidenced by a reduction in
their stem growth rates. We found, however that the stem area growth
rates of many trees increased, indicating a positive effect of
reduction in stand density. Others found similar results: (McDowell,
N., J. R. Brooks, S. A. Fitzgerald, and B. J. Bond. 2003. Carbon
isotope discrimination and growth response of old Pinus ponderosa trees
to stand density reduction. Plant Cell and Environment 26:631-644.).
Question 2a. Does this suggest that a national, legislated limit on
diameter or age is an appropriate prescription for all the old growth
stands in the Pacific Northwest?
Answer. No. Flexibility is needed. Decisions regarding what trees
to leave or to remove are best made case by case. In old-growth Douglas
fir stands in western Oregon, practically no tree removal is needed to
conserve these stands. There may be a few exceptions in fire prone
sites at low elevations. In the pine and mixed conifer forest in
southern and eastern Oregon considerable removal of trees of a wide
range of species, sizes and ages is needed--again depending on
conditions at a specific site. The work mentioned above suggests that
removing trees from around old-growth trees need not damage them.
Question 3. If you were going to map all stands of old growth in
the Pacific Northwest--or anywhere, for that matter--could you write a
single prescription that could uniformly be applied to all of them in
order to perpetuate old-growth characteristics?
Answer. Based on my answers to the questions above, no I could not.
Forest stands are fairly complex. Some would need considerable work in
and around them, others would need very little and other would need no
treatments. What might be needed would depend on the conditions within
the old-growth stands themselves as well the conditions in the stands
around them. Variables like susceptibility to fire, insects, wind,
etc., as well as expectations of local communities, protection of
private lands, wildlife habitat, etc. etc. could all affect
prescriptions from site to site.
Question 4. A majority of the current national forest plans in the
Pacific Northwest contain a definition for old-growth stands that does
not specify age. Are you familiar with this definition?--Since you
state in your testimony that ``age is not likely to provide a useful
description'' of old growth, what are your concerns with the current
definition?
Answer. I am not familiar with definitions other than those
reported by the PNW Research Station. Those deal mainly with Douglas-
fir/hemlock forests. I am not familiar with definitions for mixed
conifer, lodgepole, etc. The definitions that I am familiar with do not
take into account variability within a stand, nor the area over which
old-growth conditions might occur. The definitions mainly describe
average values per acre. Questions like what is an acceptable condition
for an old-growth forest treated to reduce fire susceptibility are not
addressed, to my knowledge.
______
[Responses to the following questions were not received at
the time the hearing went to press:]
Questions for James Caswell From Senator Wyden
Question 1. Mr. Caswell, your testimony states:
In 1950, the standing volume on the O&C lands was greater
than 50 billion board feet (BBF). Fifty years later, after
selling 45 BBF, the standing volume is now 70 BBF due to better
information, in-growth and rapid reforestation of harvested
lands.
You seem to be saying that in 50 years BLM removed 90% of the
standing volume it started with in 1950 and still has 40% more standing
volume. By this measurement, if no logging had occurred, the standing
volume on the O&C lands would have more than doubled in 50 years. Can
you please provide a detailed summary of your calculations for these
numbers? Its my understanding that in the mid-90s the BLM changed its
commercial inventory and utilization standards a number of times -
trending toward a decrease in the minimum tree diameter at breast
height to qualify for inventory as commercial timber and a greater
allowance for defects - do your calculations account for those changes?
Question 2. Turning more specifically to old growth, can you give
your agency's estimate of what the change in standing acreage of old
growth has been between 1950 and today? And please indicate how you are
defining old growth in coming up with these answers.
Questions for James Caswell From Senator Barrasso
Question 3. I know you spent a lot of time as a forest supervisor
in Idaho and I know you understand how many acres have burned in Oregon
as well as in Idaho that once contained older forests. In your
estimation, which is the greater threat today to old growth stands,
fires or timber harvesting? And why?
In past hearings some witnesses have spoken about protecting old
growth trees, some have discussed using an age or a diameter limit as
the criteria for what must be protected. If I recall, the federal
agency still uses a diameter limit on their lands in eastern Oregon and
Washington.
Question 1. Can you tell me how that diameter limit has worked out
for the Bureau of Land Management? Does it make sense to try and define
individual trees as old-growth and then protect our forest on an
individual tree basis?
Question 2. Would that protect old-growth stands in a way that you
think is appropriate for old-growth stands or habitat?
Question 3. If Congress were to impose a no-harvest restriction on
all trees within old-growth stands, wouldn't the risk of crown fires
destroying old-growth stands increase?--particularly on dry sites east
of the Cascade Range?--and even the south facing slopes in the west-
side forests of Oregon?
Question 4. Are you familiar with the moratorium on harvesting in
the Giant Sequoia stands in California? If so at what risk are we
putting those stands when we can't harvest some of the large White-fir
trees that now provide potential fuel ladders that could put the Giant
Sequoia as risk if we do have fires in the Giant Sequoia stands?
Dr. Perry suggested a good mix of management for old growth
protection would be 30% old-growth reserves: 30% in mature forest
(recruitment areas for old-growth); and 30% in production forest
plantations to be managed. The most recent data we have on land
allocations in the Pacific Northwest Forest Plan is 24.5 million acres.
Of that approximately 66% of the land is in old-growth and mature
forest reserves; approximately 4.2 million acres (17%) in Adaptive
Management Areas and Riparian Reserves where harvesting is
significantly restricted and about 4 million acres (16%) in the Matrix
Lands but estimates are that about only 3 million of that is really
been open to management.
Question 4. Given Dr. Perry's recommendation what would Congress
have to do increase the matrix lands up to the 7.35 million acres he is
calling for?
Several of the witnesses' testimony on carbon sequestration seemed
to differ.
Question 5. What is the Bureau of Land Management's assessment of
both Dr. Perry's and Ms. Spivak's testimony related to how much carbon
is stored in wood products once a forest has been harvested, as well as
on the relative ability of old growth forests to capture and store
carbon compared to younger forests?