[Senate Hearing 111-565]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 111-565
MISCELLANEOUS PUBLIC LANDS AND
FORESTS BILLS
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC LANDS AND FORESTS
of the
COMMITTEE ON
ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
ON
S. 2791 S. 2966
S. 2895 H.R. 3759
S. 2907 H.R. 4474
MARCH 10, 2010
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
57-765 PDF WASHINGTON : 2010
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska
RON WYDEN, Oregon RICHARD BURR, North Carolina
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho
ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey JOHN McCAIN, Arizona
BLANCHE L. LINCOLN, Arkansas ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah
BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont JIM BUNNING, Kentucky
EVAN BAYH, Indiana JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama
DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan BOB CORKER, Tennessee
MARK UDALL, Colorado
JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire
Robert M. Simon, Staff Director
Sam E. Fowler, Chief Counsel
McKie Campbell, Republican Staff Director
Karen K. Billups, Republican Chief Counsel
------
Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests
RON WYDEN, Oregon, Chairman
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington JOHN McCAIN, Arizona
ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah
BLANCHE L. LINCOLN, Arkansas JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama
MARK UDALL, Colorado BOB CORKER, Tennessee
JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire
Jeff Bingaman and Lisa Murkowski are Ex Officio Members of the
Subcommittee
C O N T E N T S
----------
STATEMENTS
Page
Blasing, Larry, Member, Grant County Public Forest Commission.... 39
Fitzgerald, Stephen A., M.S., Professor and Silviculture &
Wildland Fire Specialist, Oregon State University, Redmond, OR. 44
Johnson, K. Norman, University Distinguished Professor, College
of Forestry, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR............ 33
Kerr, Andy, Senior Counselor, Oregon Wild........................ 20
Murkowski, Hon. Lisa, U.S. Senator From Alaska................... 14
Roberson, Edwin, Assistant Director, Renewable Resources and
Planning, Bureau of Land Management............................ 10
Shelk, John, President, Ochoco Lumber Company.................... 30
Sherman, Harris, Under Secretary, Natural Resources and
Environment, Department of Agriculture......................... 4
Wyden, Hon. Ron, U.S. Senator From Oregon........................ 1
APPENDIXES
Appendix I
Responses to additional questions................................ 65
Appendix II
Additional material submitted for the record..................... 77
MISCELLANEOUS PUBLIC LANDS AND FORESTS BILLS
----------
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 10, 2010
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests,
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:52 p.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 on
several bills pending before the committee. These include S.
2895, the Oregon Eastside Forests Restoration, Old Growth
Protection, and Jobs Act of 2009; the Federal Land Avalanche
Protection Act of 2009; S. 2966 and H.R. 4474, the Idaho
Wilderness Water Facilities Act; and S. 2791 and H.R. 3759, the
Forest Harvest Opportunity Act.
Before we get started, I would like to say just a few words
about S. 2895. This is legislation that I have introduced to
get saw logs to Oregon mills, get our forests healthy again,
and protect our treasured old growth forests on the east side
of Oregon.
I am very pleased that my colleague in the Oregon
congressional delegation, Senator Merkley, has joined me as a
co-sponsor of this legislation. I look forward to working
closely with Senator Merkley to pass this bill, for it is
urgent business, priority business for rural communities in my
State that every single day are walking on an economic
tightrope trying to survive.
This legislation was the result of years of work, months
and months of negotiations with leaders from the timber
industry and leaders from environmental groups and scientists.
Bringing both sides together to craft this legislation, in my
view, significantly increases its chances to succeed, and on my
watch, what we seek to do is end the timber wars in my home
State of Oregon.
The gridlock that has come about from the timber wars has
taken its toll on both the well-being of our rural communities
and the health of our forests. Nowhere has that impact been
greater than in Oregon's eastside forests. With each passing
month, the failure to address the needs of Oregon's
increasingly unhealthy forests means that they have grown more
and more at risk from preventable fire, insect infestation, and
disease.
Now each side in this fight I call the timber wars has
thoroughly armed itself politically. Each has enough to
survive, but never enough to succeed when Oregonians that I
meet at community meetings and certainly on the east side
consistently tell me, ``Ron, we need the tools in order to have
good-paying jobs in our communities, and we want to protect our
treasures.''
The end result of all this gridlock across Oregon's Federal
forest landscape is more than 9 million acres of choked, at-
risk forest in desperate need of management. Millions of acres
of old growth are in danger of dying from disease, insects, or
fire. Certainly, the infrastructure of the forest products
sector, our mills and our loggers and the jobs that are so
essential for them, are now facing a very uncertain future.
Unless there are fundamental changes, the economic and
environmental dangers that result from the lack of attention
that our forest products and environmental coalition have been
working on, these dangers are going to grow and not shrink in
coming years.
I am certainly encouraged, however, by the opportunity that
we have got in front of us today. I am encouraged because we
have had some real courage shown by folks in the forest
products sector, folks in the environmental community, who came
together with me to introduce legislation that, in my view, can
bring jobs, a healthier forest, and new well-being to
communities across rural Oregon and particularly 8.3 million
acres of Federal forest in eastern and central Oregon.
Timber executives are now standing shoulder to shoulder
with leaders in the Oregon environmental community to take
shared responsibility for saving endangered forests and the
economies of rural areas. Today, in eastern Oregon, only a
small handful of mills have been able to survive. Without
giving them greater certainty of a supply of saw logs and an
immediate increase in merchantable timber, more mills are going
to close. If that happens, our eastside forests will pay the
price, and on my watch, I am not going to let that happen.
Without mills to process saw logs and other merchantable
material from forest restoration projects, there isn't going to
be any restoration of our eastside forests. My legislation will
provide an immediate supply of logs in the short term to jump-
start restoration efforts and keep the mills alive.
Job one must be saving our remaining mills and our loggers,
what I call the infrastructure of forestry in central and
eastern Oregon, while preserving old growth and watersheds.
Three years from its passage, this legislation will provide
long-term certainty required to restore each of the 6 eastside
national forests, restore good-paying jobs to rural
communities, and protect our most sensitive environmental
treasures.
Now we are very much aware that the road ahead will see
significant challenges, and I expect that our coalition is
going to be tested. But I have a lot of faith, great faith in
the folks who developed this agreement. I know that they are as
committed as I am to preserve the agreement that we have
codified in our legislative proposal.
We have already demonstrated something that I think
colleagues here in the Senate are going to be thinking more
about in the days ahead. That is the importance of working
together on difficult issues and, as a result, achieving far
greater results by working together than working apart. I am
not going to consider a success, though, until Oregon's Federal
forests are adequately funded to properly manage and restore
their health as the valuable Federal assets that they are.
I expect to lead the fight for funding that is needed to
manage all our national forests, and that, too, is priority
business for this subcommittee. As part of that effort, I am
going to pull out all the stops to secure funding for the
administration's priority watershed and job stabilization
initiative because I think the administration is on the right
track by working to promote collaborative solutions to meet the
economic and environmental needs of our forests and rural
communities.
Let me close by thanking the individuals and organizations
who have been in the trenches during what has clearly been
hundreds and--I am looking out at some of them--I suspect it is
thousands of hours of difficult work and negotiations to reach
an agreement on this bill.
One final comment, if I might? Today, we are going to have
a witness here from Grant County, Oregon. I just want to take a
moment, as chairman of this subcommittee, to applaud the
residents of Grant County for the extraordinary rejection of
hatred that they demonstrated last month.
When the Aryan Nations, a neo-Nazi group known for
violence, announced plans to relocate to Grant County, the
people of Grant County rose as one to rally around their
community and prove that racism is not welcome in Grant County.
More than 1,000 people, a sixth of the county, attended public
meetings to discuss how they would protect their community. So
I am proud to be an Oregonian, and I am very proud to represent
Grant County in the U.S. Senate.
We have got a lot of Oregonians in the audience. I thank
all of them for making the trek across the country. My friend
and colleague, Senator Barrasso, is not here at this time. So
let us go right to our witnesses--Harris Sherman, Under
Secretary of Agriculture for Natural Resources and Environment,
Department of Agriculture; Mr. Edwin Roberson, Assistant
Director, Renewable Resources and Planning, Bureau of Land
Management.
Mr. Sherman and Mr. Roberson, if you will come forward,
that will be very helpful. While you are coming forward, let me
also give a special thanks to Mr. Sherman. I suspect he thinks
that much of his waking time is being consumed talking to
Oregonians, talking to our constituents about this legislation
and other matters. I see his staff smiling in the back. So
there is general recognition of that.
Mr. Sherman, let me express my appreciation to you. I know
you have got a lot on your plate. You have just come to this
position, and suddenly, you have Oregonians camping out every
which way, every time you turn around. We thank you for your
thoughtfulness and responsiveness to them. We will make your
prepared remarks a part of the record in their entirety.
Mr. Roberson, BLM is a frequent guest before this
subcommittee as well, and we appreciate the cooperation you
have always shown us as well.
So, gentlemen, let us begin and start with you, Mr.
Sherman.
STATEMENT OF HARRIS SHERMAN, UNDER SECRETARY, NATURAL RESOURCES
AND ENVIRONMENT, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Mr. Sherman. Thank you very much, Senator Wyden.
Let me first begin by apologizing. I have somewhat of a
cold. So, if I hack my way through this testimony, I apologize
in advance for that.
It is a great pleasure to be here, and I am here to present
the administration's position on 3 separate bills--S. 2966, S.
2907, and S. 2895. I want to focus most of my comments on your
bill, S. 2895, but let me offer just a few quick comments on
these other 2 pieces of legislation.
I would ask, Senator, if my written testimony can be
incorporated into the record?
Senator Wyden. Without objection, it is done.
Mr. Sherman. Thank you very much.
Very quickly, on S. 2966, this is the Idaho Wilderness
Water Facilities Act. I just want to go on the record as saying
the administration does support this bill. We have reviewed the
bill very carefully, and I think that it provides for very
specific criteria upon which the Secretary can issue special
use permits for in-holdings within 2 wilderness areas in Idaho.
Unless there are questions, I would then move on to the
next bill.
Senator Wyden. You have full rights to move quickly.
Mr. Sherman. OK. Second, S. 2908 is the Federal Land
Avalanche Protection Act. My written statement clarifies the
administration's general support for the concepts contained in
this bill. We do have some concerns about section 3 of the
bill, principally relating to added potential responsibilities
for the Forest Service concerning active management of
avalanches and some comments on a requirement for a centralized
depository and advisory committees concerning avalanche issues
and our role in avalanche issues.
We would like to work with this committee and the staff of
the committee on the language of this legislation, and I am
happy to answer any questions with respect to that piece of
legislation.
Senator Wyden. Very good.
Mr. Sherman. OK. Then turning to your bill, S. 2895, at the
outset, Senator, I want to express my appreciation to you for
your extraordinary leadership and energy and just effort in
bringing this highly diverse group of Oregonians together and
coming up with a consensus as to how to focus and deal with the
challenges on the six eastside Oregon national forests.
This administration strongly supports the goals and the
principles of S. 2895, and I would like to be specific in
clarifying why we support this. First, the bill's focal point
is on restoration of these 6 national forests. This is
restoration not on a random basis, but this is restoration on a
comprehensive land-scale basis.
That is the only way we are going to get to the root causes
that we are facing today is a broad, systematic effort. So,
that is exactly what needs to be done, and we applaud your
focus on a landscape-scale effort.
Second, the bill recognizes that collaboration is essential
in getting the work done. It is very clear to me in my first 4
months on this job that without collaboration, whether it is in
Oregon or anywhere else in the United States, we are going to
have a very, very hard time accomplishing our goals of
restoring the Nation's forests. So collaboration is essential,
and I think this bill places appropriate energy on bringing
people together in a collaborative mode.
Third, the bill gives careful direction to the protection
of the environment, to the right siting of our road systems on
national forests, and the building of science into
decisionmaking. The bill also recognizes the importance of the
woods product industry, without which restoration cannot
happen.
Having a strong, viable, sustainable timber industry is key
to providing jobs, to sustaining our rural communities, and to
getting this restoration work done. I wholeheartedly endorse
your opening comments, Senator. I think they are right on.
The bill also highlights the importance of biofuels and its
potential role as part of the restoration process. The bill
also addresses the appeals process and better approaches to
resolving conflicts before they turn into litigation.
As my written testimony outlines, these principles are very
consistent with the themes that Secretary Vilsack has outlined
beginning back in his speech last August in Seattle and the
consistent message that USDA has brought to these issues in the
past 6 or 7 months.
There are certain clarifications and other concerns that we
would like to work on, Senator, with you and your staff and the
committee staff in the weeks ahead. I have identified what
those concerns are in my written testimony.
So I think I will stop with that, and I would welcome any
questions that you might have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Sherman follows:]
Prepared Statement of Harris Sherman, Under Secretary, Natural
Resources and Environment, Department of Agriculture
s. 2895
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, thank you for the
opportunity to share the Administration's views on S. 2895, the Oregon
Eastside Forests Restoration, Old Growth Protection, and Jobs Act of
2009.
S. 2895 directs the Secretary of Agriculture to establish a science
advisory panel, conduct an assessment of forests located in eastern
Oregon and subsequently undertake ecological restoration projects.
While the assessment is prepared, the legislation directs the Secretary
to mechanically treat 80,000 acres of forest in the first fiscal year
following enactment, 100,000 acres in the second fiscal year, and
120,000 acres in the subsequent year. During this ``interim'' period,
the projects on the forests within eastern Oregon would not be subject
to an administrative review process (appeals). The legislation also
requires the Secretary to promote use of biomass and encourages the use
of long-term stewardship contracts.
I would like to express my appreciation to Senator Wyden for the
leadership, energy and effort that went into developing this
legislation and his work to bring diverse interests together. There are
numerous concepts in the bill that the administration fully supports
including collaboration, achieving restoration results on the ground,
conducting assessments at a broad landscape scale to focus our efforts,
reducing our road system to what is needed, establishing a pre-
decisional administrative review process, maintaining our much needed
wood products industry and infrastructure, and promoting sustainable
use of biomass as an energy source.
current efforts
On our national forests, we are currently engaged in numerous
administrative efforts to encourage and expand many of the concepts
included in this legislation.
When Secretary Vilsack articulated his vision for America's
forests, he underscored the overriding importance of forest restoration
by calling for complete commitment to restoration. He also highlighted
the need for pursuing an ``all-lands'' approach to forest restoration
and close coordination with other landowners to encourage collaborative
solutions.
To that end, the Forest Service portion of the President's 2011
budget proposes to invest $50 million to improve watershed conditions
through a new initiative, Priority Watersheds and Job Stabilization, as
a part of the Integrated Resources Restoration budget line item in the
National Forest System appropriation. Under this initiative, priority
watersheds will be identified through a rapid watershed assessment or
State forest assessment. Large-scale (greater than 10,000 acres)
watershed restoration projects within these priority watersheds will be
selected through a national prioritization process which favors
projects that demonstrate coordination with other federal and state
land management agencies; improve watershed function and health; create
jobs or will contribute to job stability; create or maintain biomass or
renewable energy development; and use youth programs. Restoration
projects will clearly show restoration needs and goals, and will be
developed in a collaborative manner with local communities.
Throughout the nation, the Forest Service is engaging with a
variety of citizens' groups to develop collaborative solutions to help
us provide the best possible stewardship of the national forests. Two
notable efforts in eastern Oregon include the Glaze Forest Restoration
Project and the Lakeview Stewardship Group.
The Glaze Forest Restoration Project on the Sisters Ranger District
of the Deschutes National Forest was initiated in 2005 when Oregon Wild
and the Warm Springs Biomass LLC approached the Forest Service with a
proposal to restore 1200 acres of eastside Cascades old growth
ponderosa pine forest so that it can function more naturally in a fire-
prone environment. A collaborative partnership of diverse interests
agreed to cooperate and apply ecosystem, community and economic values
on the land. After five years of active engagement and bringing these
diverse groups together to plan and analyze this stewardship project,
implementation began this January. No appeals were filed on the
project, making it one of the few Deschutes National Forest projects
involving commercial forest products interests to avoid appeal since
1996. The project work is ongoing, and aims to jumpstart the old growth
characteristics in the Glaze area while protecting the aspen stands,
scenery and wildlife habitat.
As important as the results achieved on the ground are the outcomes
of the collaborative process that have resulted in strong relationships
built on trust that will provide the basis for future collaborative
work and projects that restore our national forests on a a larger scale
and over the long-term.
The Forest Service also employs a variety of assessment methods to
gather information at the landscape or watershed level to guide our
restoration efforts and develop projects. For example, the Pacific
Northwest Region has an Aquatic Restoration Strategy in place which
identified priority basins and watersheds for restoration. The Region
is conducting a region-wide assessment of terrestrial habitat
restoration needs and is working with the Western Wildland
Environmental Threat Assessment Center to conduct a regional assessment
of wildfire risk. These assessments will help identify the highest
priority landscapes for integrated forest and watershed restoration
treatments. In addition, the Region is working closely with the states
of Oregon and Washington as they complete their State-wide Forest
Resource Assessments and Strategies as required by the 2008 Farm Bill.
The State-wide assessment is an analysis of forest resource conditions
and trends, threats, and opportunities for the purpose of identifying
and treating priority forest landscapes. The Region is using this all
lands approach to mutually identify priority landscapes and plan how to
best leverage resources.
Another tool that has been helpful in building relationships and
improving agency decision making is use of the objections process prior
to a decision, rather than using an appeals process after a decision is
made. Our experience with the objections process indicates that the
process tends to increase direct dialogue between the agency and
stakeholders and often results in resolution of concerns before a
decision is made, and thus a better, more informed decision results.
One example is the Sportsman's Paradise Fuels Reduction Project on the
Mt. Hood National Forest. This project was initiated by local
homeowners, who along with the Oregon Department of Forestry and an
environmental group worked collaboratively to develop recommendations
for the District Ranger. The most positive aspect of this effort is
that the Sportsman's Paradise homeowner's group, which previously had
not engaged with the Forest Service became an active participant in the
planning process resulting in new relationships. The Mt. Hood National
Forest received an objection from a participating environmental group.
After discussions with the group, the District Ranger made some minor
revisions to the document which resulted in the group withdrawing their
objection. Upon implementation, the authorized work will decrease
potential catastrophic fire loss for approximately 900 acres
surrounding the Sportsman's Paradise community of approximately 170
lots.
I am very interested in expanding these successes not only within
the State of Oregon, but throughout the country. I am focusing on
advancing several principles I believe are paramount to accomplishing
restoration on the entire national forest system. These principles
include collaboration with diverse stakeholders, efficient
implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act, greater
dialogue over areas of conflict prior to the decision, ensuring
opportunities for local contractors, expansion of the use of
stewardship contracting, and monitoring to track our results on the
ground. S. 2895 includes many of these principles I believe lead to
success.
areas of concern
While the Administration supports the key concepts in this bill, we
do have some specific issues.
I look forward to further dialogue with Senator Wyden and the
committee to address the following areas of concern and offer other
minor technical input into sections of the legislation.
Inclusion of existing management guidance and direction in
statute: While we appreciate the intent to ensure adequate
protection of riparian areas and the species dependent upon
them, we are concerned about codifying any particular strategy
that is intended to change over time. We want to work with the
committee to ensure that as new information becomes available
or there are changed circumstances in the forests that we can
easily and quickly adapt our plans and strategies.
Mandate to treat specific acreage levels. These specific
levels of treatment may result in unrealistic expectations on
the part of communities and forest product stakeholders that
the agency would accomplish the quantity of treatment required.
The levels called for in the first year would require the
forests involved to more than double their current levels of
treatment. We want to work with the committee to ensure these
treatment levels do not affect other forests and programs in
Oregon or the rest of the country.
Establishment of a formal science advisory panel. I am
concerned that the proposed advisory panel could be costly and
process laden. It appears likely that the tasks assigned to the
advisory panel would not be achievable within the timeframes
provided. Reaching consensus among a broad array set of
scientists on a wide variety of management recommendations for
a landscape as diverse as eastern Oregon will be a challenging
task. Often, there is conflicting peer-reviewed science
regarding appropriate management actions and disagreement over
the geographic applicability of scientific conclusions. The
selection of restoration projects could be affected if the
scientific panel cannot achieve consensus, or if it makes a
recommendation that the Forest Service found inappropriate to a
specific management situation. Finally, we believe that
establishment of an advisory science panel is unnecessary,
because personnel on the eastern Oregon forests currently work
very closely with scientists from the Pacific Northwest
Research Station and other scientists, including those from
Oregon State University and the University of Washington, to
ensure that management practices reflect current science and
that decision makers are aware of relevant disagreements within
that science.
Exemption from the appeals process for certain projects
during the interim period. An administrative review process
serves as an important and useful process for resolving issues
and averting litigation. With no established administrative
method to review decisions and areas of disagreement, we could
see more litigation during the interim period as a result of
having no administrative review process. Further, the bill
provides for an objection process for decisions on ecological
restoration projects that is only subtly different than the
objection process in our current regulations. Our preference
would be to have the authority to use our current regulations
at 36 CFR 218 to manage an objections process for all interim
and ecological restoration projects.
Collaboration: The provisions in the bill that provide for
recognition of collaborative groups are much more formal than
necessary to ensure collaboration on restoration projects.
Collaboration can and has been achieved without formal
recognition; I am cautious about adding more process to our
already rigorous public engagement process. Further, it is not
clear whether these groups would be subject to the Federal
Advisory Committee Act.
The precedent setting nature of the legislation and the
movement toward greater disaggregation of the national
framework under which the national forests are managed
continues to concern me. The Agency has a meaningful national
approach to management of the forests that takes into account
local conditions and circumstances through the development and
implementation of Land and Resource Management Plans.
S. 2895 includes many of the concepts embodied in the president's
proposed 2011 budget. We will use the full and comprehensive range of
authorities available to the agency to restore and sustain forest
landscapes in a collaborative open manner.
I want to again thank Senator Wyden for his leadership and strong
commitment to Oregon's national forests, their surrounding communities
and forest products infrastructure. I look forward to working with the
Senator, his staff, and the committee, and all interested stakeholders
on this bill and to help ensure sustainable communities and provide the
best land stewardship for our national forests.
This concludes my prepared statement and I would be pleased to
answer any questions you may have.
s. 2907
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, I am Harris Sherman, Under
Secretary of Agriculture for Natural Resources and the Environment.
Thank you for the opportunity to share the Department's views on S.
2970, the Federal Land Avalanche Protection Act of 2009.
S. 2970 directs the Secretary of Agriculture to establish a
coordinated avalanche protection program to identify the potential for
avalanches on Federal lands and inform the public about the hazard; to
carry out research related to avalanches to improve forecasting; and to
reduce the risk and mitigate the effects of avalanches on Federal
lands. S. 2970 also requires the Secretary to establish an advisory
committee to assist in the development and implementation of the
avalanche protection program. The bill would require the establishment
of a central repository 2 for weapons for avalanche control purposes,
and would authorize the Secretary to make grants to carry out projects
and activities under the avalanche control program.
I would like to thank the sponsors of this legislation and the
committee for recognizing the importance of the Forest Service
avalanche program. The Forest Service supports the general concept of
S. 2907, but asks the committee to consider revising Section 3 to
clarify intent and to reflect changes to the Forest Service avalanche
program that have occurred in the last several years. We would like to
work with the committee and the sponsors in this regard.
background
The Forest Service was the first agency to initiate avalanche
control and forecasting in the United States. When the first ski areas
began operating on National Forest System lands in the 1930s, the
Forest Service began using explosives for avalanche control work to
protect visitors. In 1948, the agency worked with the U.S. Army and
pioneered the use of artillery for avalanche control. In the years
since, the Forest Service has gradually transferred day-to-day
responsibilities for avalanche control work to ski areas, though it
supervises and manages the artillery program at the resorts. This is
the case because the Department of Defense prohibits acquisition of
artillery by private entities and because the Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco, and Firearms requires that artillery programs be under federal
``dominion and control'' at ski areas.
Departments of transportation in Alaska, California, Colorado,
Utah, and Washington also use artillery to control the avalanche danger
in a number of transportation corridors in those States. In these
areas, artillery is fired into avalanche starting zones on National
Forest System lands. This effort is usually authorized and monitored by
the Forest Service under a special use permit issued to the respective
transportation department.
As the Forest Service gradually moved into more of an oversight
role for avalanche control work, the agency increasingly focused on
providing forest visitors the education and information necessary to
avoid or minimize avalanche hazards in the mountain backcountry. In the
early 1970's, the Forest Service established the Colorado Avalanche
Information Center. Through the 1980's the agency created a number of
other backcountry avalanche centers around the country. Today, there
are a total of 15 avalanche forecast centers operating in nine States,
providing avalanche training and regular backcountry avalanche hazard
forecasts throughout the winter.
Were it not for these avalanche centers and the information they
provide, the number of avalanche-related fatalities would be much
greater than the 28 that have occurred each year on average over the
past 15 years. Nearly all of these avalanche-related fatalities were on
National Forest System lands and involved backcountry recreationists,
including snowmobilers, skiers, and others. As populations increase and
technology supports easier access to avalanche-prone areas, public
exposure to this hazard has been heightened.
We are convinced the avalanche forecast and education programs
literally save lives. We are fortunate that others, including States
and local community non-profit organizations, have joined with us to
provide these services.
comments on sections 3(a) and 3(b)
We are concerned that parts of subsections 3(a) and 3(b) may be
interpreted to require the Forest Service to move beyond its
traditional role of informing and educating backcountry users, into
active avalanche control work. This concern is heightened if the intent
is to have the Forest Service assume responsibilities on both National
Forest System lands and federal lands managed by agencies in the
Department of the Interior or others such as the Department of Defense.
We would like to work with the Committee to clarify and limit the scope
of Forest Service responsibilities under this legislation.
comments on sections 3(c) and 3(d)
Presently, the Forest Service avalanche program has three main
components. The first is avalanche backcountry forecasting, public
education and information distribution, and research and technology
transfer to avalanche forecast centers. The second is oversight of
permitted ski areas and their avalanche control programs. The third
component is oversight of the military weapons used for avalanche
control.
Section 3(c) mandates that the Secretary establish a 15-member
advisory committee to assist in the development and implementation of
the avalanche protection program. As it concerns the 5 avalanche
forecast centers and their information and education programs, we do
not believe an advisory committee is necessary. As it concerns civilian
use of military weapons for avalanche control, the Avalanche Artillery
Users of North America Committee (AAUNAC) was formed in 1987 and
encompasses all of the users of avalanche artillery in Canada and the
U.S., as well as the U.S. Army. AAUNAC is an ad hoc consensus-based
working group established to address the need for an informal
coordination body for civilian use of military weapons for avalanche
control. AAUNAC has proven to be an effective organization to establish
standard operating procedures, conduct training, and provide a central
point of contact for U.S. Army. We feel it would be helpful if AAUNAC
could be formally recognized as the coordinating body for using
military weapons for avalanche control purposes. We look forward to
working with this Committee to determine the best approach for
providing this designation.
Section 3(d) requires the establishment of a central Depository for
weapons for avalanche control purposes. A central depository has
already been established by AAUNAC, working with the Department of
Defense. The facility is located at the Sierra Army Depot in Herlong,
California and contains an estimated 20-year supply of artillery and
parts. The Army has assured AAUNAC that the Army will reserve at least
a twenty year supply of ordnance for AAUNAC users. Additionally, ski
areas operating under a permit issued by the Forest Service can obtain
ordnance for future use in their programs and store that ordnance at
other Army Depots. Consequently, section 3(d) is not necessary.
comments on section 3(e)
We request removal of the grant program. This subsection also
identifies two criteria for awarding grants. If a grant program is
retained in S.2907, we ask the committee to consider 6 recognizing the
avalanche centers, and their forecasting and education work, as the
first priority, and public safety the primary criteria for any grants.
comments on subsection 3(f)
This section amends Section 549(c) (3) of title 40, United States
Code to provide that, when a state agency selects surplus artillery
ordnance suitable for avalanche control for distribution through
donation within the state, the Administrator of the General Services
administration shall transfer the ordnance to the user of the ordnance.
Currently, munitions are purchased by the various entities in the
military weapons program. We defer to the Department of Defense and the
General Services Administration on this proposed change.
In closing, I want to thank the Committee for the opportunity to be
with you today to provide testimony on this legislation and we look
forward to working with you on refinements to S.2970.
s. 2966
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, thank you for the
opportunity to share the Administration's views on S. 2966 the Idaho
Wilderness Water Facilities Act.
The U.S. Forest Service supports S. 2966. The bill authorizes the
issuance of a special use permit for the continued use of water
storage, transport, or diversion facility located on National Forest
System lands in the Frank Church-River of No Return Wilderness and the
Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness in Idaho. The permits will only be issued
to the water system owners of the water systems identified on the two
maps accompanying S. 2966, and if certain conditions are met.
Currently, there are over 20 water developments within the Frank
Church River of No Return and Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness Areas that
predate establishment of the wilderness, in some cases by decades.
These developments include hydropower developments, irrigation, and
domestic water uses. The legislation establishing both wilderness areas
did not address these pre-existing water developments. S. 2966 would
direct the Forest Service to issue special use authorizations, if the
Secretary makes the following determinations: the facility was in
existence when the wilderness area on which the facility is located was
designated as part of the National Wilderness Preservation System; the
facility has been in substantially continuous use to deliver water for
the beneficial use on the owner's non-Federal land since the date of
designation; the owner of the facility has a valid water right for use
of the water on the owner's non-Federal land under Idaho State law,
with a priority date that pre-dates the date of designation; and it is
not practicable or feasible to relocate the facility outside the
wilderness and achieve the continued beneficial use of water on non-
Federal land. We understand that the bill does not create any rights
beyond what is provided in the special use permit and that both
maintenance responsibilities and liabilities continue with the permit
holder, and not the Federal government.
This concludes my prepared statement on S. 2966 and I would be
pleased to answer any questions you may have.
Senator Wyden. Mr. Sherman, again, that is very helpful and
reflective of the kind of cooperation you have shown us and my
constituents. I will have some questions in a moment when your
colleague has spoken from BLM.
But I think with your opening comments, this ought to send
a message across Oregon that we now have a partner at this
agency who is going to be hands-on, who is going to work with
us. Of course, no piece of legislation is set in stone. I think
all of the negotiators in our effort realize that.
But to have this kind of cooperation, the opportunities to
secure funding through the innovative approach that the
administration has taken in the budget is the kind of approach
my constituents want to hear. So we will have some questions in
a moment, and I thank you for your help and cooperation.
Mr. Roberson.
STATEMENT OF EDWIN ROBERSON, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, RENEWABLE
RESOURCES AND PLANNING, BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
Mr. Roberson. Mr. Chairman, thank you for inviting me to
testify on S. 2791, the Forest Harvest Opportunity Act, and
H.R. 3759, the BLM Contract Extension Act. I, as with Harris
Sherman, respectfully request that my written testimony be made
a part of the record.
Senator Wyden. It is done.
Mr. Roberson. The Department of the Interior supports the
goal of the bills to allow timber sale contract extensions for
market-related reasons. This action would assist timber sale
purchasers whose industry is facing serious economic
challenges. We appreciate Senator Merkley's effort to address
this very time-sensitive issue and would like to work with the
subcommittee on technical changes that give the Secretary the
discretion to grant the extensions.
Of the 253 million acres of public lands administered by
the BLM, more than 60 million acres are forests and woodlands.
About 11 million acres are commercial forest land, including
2.1 million acres of Oregon and California grant lands in
western Oregon. Our goals of forest management include
restoring and maintaining healthy forests; improving their
resistance to wildfire, insect, and disease outbreaks; and
promoting sustainable economic development for local
communities.
Each year, the BLM offers about 270 million board feet of
timber for sale. Both large and small businesses purchase the
timber sales through competitive bidding, and contracts are
awarded for 3 years.
Many purchasers bought BLM timber in good faith at prices
that are no longer economically viable. Under current
regulations, the BLM may grant a 1-year contract extension, but
that extension may not be granted due to market changes.
However, the BLM and timber contract purchasers may agree to
cancel a contract, and mutual cancellation relieves the
purchasers' duty to perform their contract obligations and
allows the BLM to reoffer the sales at a price that reflects
current market conditions.
To date, we have received 46 requests for contract
cancellation and have authorized 39 of these requests. We are
now contacting purchasers and beginning the cancellation
negotiations.
We support the intent of S. 2791. The legislation would
provide the Secretary with an additional tool for assisting
timber sale purchasers in weathering current economic
conditions. However, the legislation as written requires the
Secretary to grant 3-year economy-related timber contract
extensions. BLM is concerned about mandatory timber contract
modifications and would like to work with the subcommittee to
make the extensions fall within the discretion of our
Secretary.
H.R. 3759 passed by the House on January 19th this year,
and we support this bill, which authorizes but does not require
the Secretary to grant 3-year market-related contract extension
for qualified contracts.
We are currently negotiating with purchasers to authorize
mutual cancellation of timber sales. Most of these same
purchasers would also qualify for the timber sale contract
extension under both bills, the H.R. and the Senate bill. Many
purchasers have expressed a preference to extend their
contracts rather than to proceed with contract cancellation,
and having the option to extend these contracts would be
beneficial to the BLM, to the industry, and to western
communities.
We look forward to working with the committee on this
important legislation. Thank you for the opportunity to
testify, and I, too, will be happy to answer questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Roberson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Edwin Roberson, Assistant Director, Renewable
Resources and Planning, Bureau of Land Management
s. 2791 and h.r. 3759
Thank you for inviting the Department of the Interior to testify on
S. 2791, the Forest Harvest Opportunities Act, and H.R. 3759, the BLM
Contract Extension Act. The Administration supports the goal of the
bills to allow timber sale contract extensions for market-related
reasons. This approach would assist timber sale purchasers whose
industry is facing serious economic challenges. We appreciate Senator
Merkley's efforts to address this very time-sensitive issue, and we
would like to work with the Subcommittee on technical changes that give
the Secretary the discretion to grant the extensions.
background
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) manages approximately 253
million acres of surface lands, of which more than 60 million acres are
forests and woodlands. Approximately 11 million acres are commercial
forestland within the 11 western States and Alaska, including 2.1
million acres of Oregon and California Grant lands in western Oregon.
Our goals of forest management include restoring and maintaining
healthy forests; improving their resiliency to wildfires, insect, and
disease outbreaks; and the BLM promoting sustainable economic
development opportunities for local communities.
Each year, the BLM offers approximately 270 million board feet of
timber through sales contracts. Both large and small businesses
purchase BLM timber sales. Timber sale contracts are sold primarily
through competitive bidding and are awarded for a contract period of
three years.
The forest products industry is facing an unprecedented struggle
due to the downturn in the national economy and the housing market.
According to the Western Wood Products Association, western lumber
production in 2009 decreased by approximately 21 percent to 10.2
billion board feet, the lowest since the 1930s, about half the volume
Western mills produced in 2005. The value of lumber has declined even
more steeply. The estimated wholesale value of western lumber was $3.66
billion in 2008, a decrease of 40 percent from its 2007 value of $6.1
billion according to the Western Wood Products Association.
Many timber purchasers bought BLM contracts in good faith at prices
that, under current market conditions, render the completion of their
contract obligations no longer economically viable. BLM timber sale
purchasers have been faced with difficult decisions of whether to
default on their contracts or harvest the wood at a great economic
loss, both of which could result in severe consequences to their
companies and to the local communities that support them. Under current
regulations, the BLM may grant a one-year contract extension, but that
extension may not be granted on the basis of market fluctuations.
However, the BLM and timber contract purchasers may mutually agree to
cancel a contract. Mutual cancellation would relieve existing
purchasers' duty to perform their contract obligations and allow the
BLM to reoffer the sales at prices reflecting current market
conditions. On October 14, 2009, the BLM provided direction to its
State Offices to offer timber contract purchasers the option to request
a one-time mutual cancellation of contracts.
On November 14, 2009, all eligible timber sale contractors received
a letter from the BLM with information regarding the opportunity to
make such a request within 60 days. The BLM received 46 requests for
mutual cancellation of timber sales from purchasers in Oregon and
Wyoming. The BLM State Directors evaluated the requests and authorized
contract cancellation for 39 requests. The BLM Oregon State Director
recommended that the agency not consider mutual cancellation on four
sales where no contract obligations remain. The Oregon State Director's
staff is still evaluating three additional requests. Contracting
Officers are now contacting purchasers to initiate negotiating the
process. The BLM has developed procedures to ensure that the process is
fair to the BLM, the taxpayer, and the purchaser.
h.r. 3759
The House passed H.R. 3759, as amended, on January 19, 2010. The
Administration supports H.R. 3759, as amended, which authorizes, but
does not require the Secretary to grant three-year market-related
contract extensions to qualified contracts upon a written request made
by a purchaser within 90 days of enactment. Qualified contracts must
meet certain criteria: 1) the contract has not been terminated; 2) the
contract was awarded during the period beginning on January 1, 2005,
and ending December 31, 2008; 3) there is unharvested volume remaining
on the contract; 4) the contract is not a salvage sale; and 5) there is
no urgent need to complete harvest under the contract due to
deteriorating timber conditions. The House bill also requires the BLM
to promulgate new regulations authorizing the BLM to extend timber
contracts due to changes in market conditions and to negotiate new
contract terms.
s. 2791
S. 2791 requires the Secretary of the Interior to grant three-year
economy-related timber contract extensions within 30 days of a request
from the timber purchaser. The bill would apply to contracts executed
on or before December 31, 2008, for which there is unharvested timber
volume remaining and the contract is still in effect. The purchaser
would be required to make a written request for an economy-related
extension within 90 days of enactment of the Act. The BLM is concerned
about mandatory timber contract modifications, and would like to work
with the subcommittee to make the extensions within the Secretary's
discretion (as provided for in the House-passed H.R. 3759).
conclusion
Thank you for the opportunity to testify on S. 2791 and H.R. 3759.
The BLM is currently involved in negotiations with timber sale
purchasers to authorize mutual cancellation of timber sales. Most of
these same purchasers would also qualify for timber sale contract
extensions under either bill. In order for the purchasers to have
either the option to request a three-year contract extension or to
complete mutual cancellation negotiations, enactment of legislation is
necessary. Many purchasers have expressed a preference to extend their
contracts rather than to proceed with mutual cancellation. Having the
option to extend these contracts would also be administratively
beneficial to the BLM. We look forward to working with the Committee on
this important legislation.
Senator Wyden. Thank you very much.
I think I am advised by the staff, that last bill is in the
jobs legislation, isn't it?
Yes, just yesterday. So thank you, and good points from
both of you.
Let me start with you, if I might, Mr. Sherman? What I am
struck by, and I am going to just tick off a number of the
points that you made in terms of the features of the
legislation that you have indicated move in the right direction
and go to this question of maintaining the infrastructure, the
industry infrastructure and its importance.
I know in Washington, DC, people talk about infrastructure
all the time. Everybody kind of scratches their head and tries
to figure out what in the world you are talking about. But in
the real world of eastern Oregon and eastern Oregon
communities, what people are talking about are mills and
loggers.
What we are concerned about is if we don't move and move
quickly, there is a real risk that we are going to lose those
folks, and we are going to lose those folks at a critical time.
Because, of course, they are a substantial part of the economic
livelihood of rural communities, and we so need them right now
as we seek to go forward and tap these exciting opportunities
for biomass.
We know that there is a tremendous economic opportunity in
eastern Oregon in the biomass sector. Take wood waste, turn it
into clean energy, get it to the mills. It is going to be good
for the forests. It is going to be good for the economy. It has
the chance to be a huge multiplier in terms of benefits to the
region.
We aren't going to be able to get it done if we lose those
remaining mills and if we put more loggers on the unemployment
line. So this has been a key part of our whole coalition's
efforts to come together, and I wanted to ask you a question
with respect to the important forest restoration work that you
all have been doing. You can kind of comment on how this is
something you have analyzed even in the context of other parts
of the country.
What are the prospects for the Forest Service to accomplish
this critically needed forest restoration work if we lose
infrastructure? It just strikes me as once again the dominoes
are going to start falling, and they are not going to be
collapsing in a positive way.
But tell us, even in light of your national experience,
what happens when you are trying to do forest restoration work
and you keep losing infrastructure?
Mr. Sherman. As I have indicated in my opening remarks,
Senator, the key to getting this restoration work done is to
have a viable, healthy, strong timber industry. We have to get
this material out of the forests, and we have to look to our
partners in industry to help us do the restoration work.
I think you have been privy to some of these discussions
about stewardship contracts, where we are trying very, very
hard to go forward with contracts where the companies will not
only take the timber out, but they will do a lot of the hard
restoration work that needs to be done. But if these companies
are not there, it becomes very problematic to get the
restoration work done.
My home State of Colorado, we are down to one mill in
Colorado. It is very, very hard to do the restoration work that
is necessary when you get to that kind of a situation.
So, without question, we have to work with the industry to
make sure it is viable and healthy and it has adequate product
and it has an environmental review system that is responsive to
its needs. We have to have a system here of collaboration that
really works.
I know collaboration can be a relatively slow process
sometimes. But I think as we get better and better in our
collaborative skills, hopefully, that will go more smoothly
than it has in the past and it will go more quickly. But it is
a combination of things that we need to work on to ensure that
the industry will be viable and healthy and help us with this
restoration work.
Senator Wyden. I am going to have some additional
questions. But our ranking member has arrived, Senator
Murkowski. I want to recognize her for an opening statement
before we go any further.
STATEMENT OF HON. LISA MURKOWSKI, U.S. SENATOR
FROM ALASKA
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate
that.
Welcome to the gentlemen before the committee today.
On the calendar this afternoon is legislation that I have
introduced, which is S. 2907 to establish a coordinated
avalanche protection program. I understand comments have been
made on this, but I wanted to take just a couple minutes today
to speak to this legislation. I am a member of the
Congressional Hazard Caucus and introduced this legislation to
tackle the impacts of our Nation's natural hazards, and that is
avalanches.
In my home State, we are paying very close attention to the
avalanches because, as we speak, we have had 2 in the past 18
hours on the highway from our popular ski resort into town. I
was on that road myself Monday morning and experienced the most
intense whiteout of 35 miles that I have been privileged to go
through in a while. The good news for me is I made it on this
side of the avalanche safely and am here to tell the story.
The legislation that we have introduced is identical to the
measure that we favorably reported out of this committee back
in 2005. The goal is to better protect people in avalanche
zones nationwide, reduce the growing potential for avalanches
to damage property, and as more and more building is taking
place on mountainsides and in valleys that are threatened by
avalanches, I think we recognize we have a problem in this
country.
Just last month, in the space of just 2 days, we had 3
Alaskans that were killed by avalanches in 2 separate
instances. One, we lost the president of ConocoPhillips in an
extremely tragic and sad incident as they were out snow
machining.
Last year, we had 49 avalanches in 10 States and Canada,
which caused 54 fatalities in North America. What we are seeing
is not unusual. In the 2007-2008 season, we had 36 Americans
lose their life as a result of avalanches. Another 16 Canadians
died that season, 43 reported avalanches. In 2002-2003, we had
58 people in North America die.
When you look at what we are seeing in terms of averages,
38 people have died on average each year in North America from
avalanches, and most of these occur in western States--
Colorado, Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Utah, Alaska, California,
Oregon, and Washington. But we have also had some in our
eastern States. But when you put that into perspective, that is
38 people on average. There were 29 deaths within the ranks of
the wildland firefighters from 1990 to 1998. So that is 3.2
fatalities per year. Thirty-nine deaths from 1999 to 2006, 4.9
fatalities per year.
The agency expends millions of dollars working to keep
these firefighters safe which is absolutely appropriate. But it
expends comparatively little on work to protect the millions of
folks who visit our Federal lands during the winter time. We
have issues that need to be addressed.
The bill directs the Secretary of Agriculture to establish
an avalanche protection program to identify the potential for
avalanches on Federal lands and inform the public, carry out
ongoing research to improve avalanche forecasting, and reduce
the risks of avalanches and mitigate their effects.
Now, I have mentioned a couple different instances up in my
State right now, and I think we appreciate that avalanches are
a concern not just in the back country, whether it is Hatcher
Pass or for heli-skiing enthusiasts outside of Valdez. But we
see it in the urban areas. We see it in Juneau, our capital
city, and as I mentioned, the motorists who drive daily from
Seward Highway to Girdwood to Anchorage or through the
Turnagain Pass.
We have to do more on Federal lands. We need to do more to
assist the States to lessen the severity of avalanche dangers
on State and private lands.
Now I understand that you are willing to talk to us about
how we might implement such a measure, the concern that we
don't have enough funding to carry out some of the requirements
of that legislation. But I guess I would respond that if the
Forest Service wants to shift away from commodity resource
management toward a recreation-based program, we have to be
prepared to provide a safe recreational experience within
budgets that it is now receiving.
It is not acceptable to be losing 20 to 40 Americans to
avalanches and so many on Federal lands, without the agency
doing what it can to predict, control, and mitigate. I know
these are difficult, but I would like to think that many of
these deaths are preventable.
I think the proposal that we have takes logically fiscally
prudent steps to do just that, and I would look forward to
working with you, Mr. Chairman, and with all those involved to
see what we can do to make a difference.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I thank you for the opportunity to
step in and make a statement. I look forward to working with
you.
Senator Wyden. I thank my colleague, and I think it is
clear these are areas that we can work together on. I am
interesting in working with you. It is something that I have
always enjoyed in my time in the Senate. We will work very
closely on this.
Senator Murkowski. I appreciate it.
Senator Wyden. Good. Senator Risch, who has also been
working hard and very constructively on natural resources
issues, why don't we recognize you for any statement you would
like to make?
Senator Risch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I am honored you would say that, and thank you for holding
this hearing.
I would like to talk about S. 2966 that Senator Crapo and I
are co-sponsors on, if----
Senator Wyden. Please, go ahead.
Senator Risch [continuing]. The chairman would permit that?
I am going to be brief on this. Although it doesn't affect
a lot of people, it is very important to the people that it
does affect.
Very simply, what this bill does, it allows--it permits,
but does not require, but does permit the Secretary of
Agriculture to issue permits to allow people who have
individual water systems within 2 wilderness areas in Idaho--
the Frank Church-River of No Return Wilderness Area, which was
established by Congress in 1980, and the Selway-Bitterroot
Wilderness, which was established by Congress in 1964, one of
the oldest wilderness areas in the United States.
But in any event, what has happened is the water diversion
systems in these areas have been deteriorating over the years,
and it is important that they be maintained and that they,
where necessary, be rebuilt in order to be safe and, for that
matter, to protect the watershed that they are in and the
resource that they are in.
At the present time, there is, at the very least, a
question as to whether the department can do this. This will
answer that question, and it allows the permit only to be
issued if, No. 1, the facility existed--that is, the water
diversion facility existed prior to the designation as
wilderness. Second, the facility has been used to deliver water
to the owner's land since the designation, that the owner has a
valid water right, and that it is not practical to move the
facility outside the wilderness area.
So it has got some pretty tight sideboards on it. It is
something that is really needed by what I think is just a
handful of people that it does affect. There has been an
estimate that it is several dozen people who have these
systems. I am not quite sure it is that high. I think that is
generous.
But in any event, I am not aware of any opposition to this
bill. I think that it is supported, as I understand it--and I
certainly don't want to speak for the Department of
Agriculture, but I understand it is supported by the Department
of Agriculture. The environmental groups that generally keep a
close eye on these things I understand are not in opposition to
this.
So, with that, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for the
ability to be able to present this bill, and we look forward to
moving it forward.
Senator Wyden. I thank my colleague. It certainly sounds to
me like you have done good work on this, and let us get our
staffs together. If there are anybody who has any questions, we
will get on it.
But I look forward to working closely with you and moving
this ahead.
Senator Risch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Wyden. A couple of other questions, if I might? For
you, Mr. Sherman, I was very pleased to hear you, in your
comments on the Oregon legislation, talk about landscape-scale
planning because to my constituents, this really means that you
can get more work done more quickly and produce greater
benefits to the region.
But if you might, tell me a little bit about your interest
in moving toward this kind of approach, because it certainly
sounds to me like the agency wants to go in this direction, how
you seek to go about doing it and what you think the gains are
in going that route?
Mr. Sherman. Thank you, Senator.
I think we fully agree with you that on a landscape-scale
basis, you can get a lot more work done. So that is clearly our
desire and intent. I think there are many ways in which we move
to get there, one of which is to do a very comprehensive
assessment early on as to what are the conditions of these
forests and what are the priorities so that we can make better
decisions about how to allocate our resources. I commend you in
your bill for calling for an assessment during the first 2
years so that we get a comprehensive picture of the priorities
that we want to address.
I think, in addition to that, we need to, again, focus on
how we can make the National Environmental Policy Act as
responsive as possible to identify what those environmental
concerns are, how to mitigate those environmental concerns, and
then get on with the implementation of these programs. So
having an efficient NEPA process is important.
I think, in addition to that, in order to get to a
landscape-scale program, we have to come back to this issue of
collaboration. How do we get groups working together to make
sure that we are on the same track, we have a consensus about
how to do this, as opposed to the timber wars that you have
mentioned in the past? So that is very important.
We need to incorporate good science into landscape-scale
restoration work, and we need to tailor our stewardship
contracts to make sure that they are allowing us to remove the
timber that is necessary and, at the same time, allow us to do
comprehensive restoration. I think those are the main
components of how we need to move forward on a landscape-scale
basis.
Senator Wyden. Tell me a little bit more about
collaboration, and I think that is an appropriate one to kind
of wrap up this part of the hearing. We will have guests from
around Oregon and continue to work with your folks.
We have come to feel that without that kind of
collaboration, what folks in eastern Oregon showed as we tried
to get this bill together, that you really get a lose-lose
situation. In other words, everybody in Oregon wants a win-win.
They want to have jobs and a real economic future in rural
Oregon, and they want to protect treasures. But without
collaboration, what you usually get is somebody running down to
a courthouse somewhere and suing each other, and you don't get
either.
So we are very interested in the administration's approach
on collaboration, and we look forward to working with you to be
as creative as we possibly can in this room. I think about
Senator Craig--Senator Risch will remember this. We were
stalled on the county payments legislation. We went round and--
--
Senator Risch. Excuse me. Is that the Craig-Wyden bill?
Senator Wyden. There was a lot of joking. Frank Gladics
remembers the history about this. Whether it was called Craig-
Wyden or whether it was called something else, the fact was
that people did then what Secretary Sherman is talking about,
is look for new ways to collaborate. That was the point of the
resource advisory committees.
Nobody had ever really thought about anything like that.
Senator Craig and I basically said, coming out of this huge and
bloody battle about sufficiency language--talk about
litigation, that was a lawyer's full employment program there
for a while. Let us use these RACs, resource advisory
committees, to try to get people working together.
So let us close this part of the discussion, Secretary
Sherman, by hearing some of your thoughts about the
opportunities for collaboration, areas where you may want to
try some new approaches to bring people together because I am
pleased the administration is going that route. We ought to
push the envelope just as hard as we can to find ways to get
people together. That was, of course, the point of the eastside
effort.
So close this part of the discussion with your thoughts on
collaboration.
Mr. Sherman. Senator, I am gratified by the examples I am
seeing around this country on collaboration. I think it is
fascinating how we go to the Northeast now, we are seeing major
success in collaboration. We come out to Montana and Oregon and
California, Colorado, Wyoming, Idaho. We are seeing people
getting together because I think there is a common recognition
that we have got a problem, and we have got to address the
problem.
One of the frustrations with collaboration is it takes
time. I am hopeful as we go through some of these initial
collaborative processes, we are going to get more more skillful
in dealing with collaboration, which will allow us to expedite
some of these collaborative efforts. I think people are gaining
experience, which should be helpful later on.
In addition to that, these collaborative efforts within a
given State build trust, and over time, people learn to trust
each other in a way that they haven't before. So, initial
collaborations may take more time, but subsequent
collaborations may go faster because of that trust level that
grows.
So I think we have got to try everything in this respect. I
believe that the informal collaborative processes sometimes are
more adaptable, and they work faster than sometimes these
highly structured collaborative processes. But that is the sort
of issue that we want to have a chance to talk to you about and
your staff and the committee staff in terms of the specifics of
this legislation.
Senator Wyden. I appreciate that, and I think you know how
strongly folks feel in my part of the world. The Federal
Government owns most of our land. The folks that are going to
be testifying in a little bit are from communities that are
extraordinarily dependent on national forests.
So I think on our watch, we have got a chance to literally,
as I would like to put it, I want to see us end the timber wars
on my watch in the State of Oregon. They have gone on for more
than 2decades. It has not served our State well. It has not
been good for our economy. It has not been good for protecting
our treasures. That is what I am going to do everything I can
as chairman of the subcommittee to reverse.
So we thank you for your constructive approach. We will be
following up with you often, and I promise not to send more
than half of the adults in my State to visit with you and your
staff. I know that we have been keeping you busy, and we are
appreciative.
Mr. Sherman. Thank you, Senator. Once again, let me thank
you for your leadership, and rest assured we always welcome
Oregonians at USDA. Thank you.
Senator Wyden. Very good. Thank you.
Mr. Roberson, you are getting spared, I guess, questions
from me today. But as you know, we will be working very closely
with you as we move to the timber payments legislation and
reauthorizing that. Senator Risch has a great interest in that
and some good ideas on that as well.
Senator Risch, do you have any questions for our witnesses?
Senator Risch. No, thank you very much. I appreciate it.
Senator Wyden. OK. Let us go to our next panel. We will
excuse you both. Look forward to working closely with you.
Our next panel--Andy Kerr, senior counsel of Oregon Wild;
John Shelk, managing director of Ochoco Lumber; K. Norman
Johnson from--Norm is from Oregon State University, the College
of Forestry. Stephen Fitzgerald, associate professor of Oregon
State University, and Larry Blasing, member of the Grant County
Public Forest Commission from Prairie City, Oregon.
My thanks to all for coming, and I can certainly identify
with everybody making the long trek from the Pacific Northwest,
and we appreciate the attendance of all.
Let us start with Mr. Kerr. We are going to make your
prepared remarks a part of the record in their entirety. If you
would like to summarize your comments, that would be helpful.
Mr. Kerr, welcome.
STATEMENT OF ANDY KERR, SENIOR COUNSELOR,
OREGON WILD
Mr. Kerr. Thank you, Senator. Thanks for having this
hearing today.
You know, I come from the wilderness movement. As a public
land conservationist, nothing is more satisfying than to
achieve one's conservation goals than when Congress draws a
line around an area and says this piece of public land is so
special and sacred that it shall be managed primarily by
leaving it alone for the benefit of this and future
generations.
I still have one foot firmly planted in the wilderness
movement. There have been plenty of worthy roadless areas in
eastern Oregon that ought to be part of the national wilderness
system. However, most of our eastside forests of Oregon are not
pristine and are, in fact, sick and wounded.
My other foot is firmly planted in the best available
science. The general consensus of this best available science
for dry Ponderosa pine and dry mixed conifer forests on the
east side of Oregon is that much of this forest in these types
is in need of active restoration, ecological restoration that
includes not only the careful reintroduction of fire into these
fire-dependent forests, but often the judicious use of a
chainsaw and the removal of ecologically problematic trees.
Enactment of this legislation can mark the end of the
timber wars for the eastside forests of Oregon. It can result
in new rules of engagement for national forest stakeholders.
Confrontation can give way to collaboration. Walking and
talking in the woods can become more prevalent than litigating
and arguing in the courts.
The amount of old growth Ponderosa pine forest in eastern
Oregon today is but 2 to 8 percent of what it was before
European settlement. The result is unnatural concentrations of
fire-susceptible younger and smaller trees that are out-
competing the residual old growth Ponderosa pine for moisture
and nutrients, leaving the old growth trees more likely to
suffer premature death from insects and disease.
An additional, but sometimes overblown concern is that the
encroaching trees can also serve as a ready fuel ladder and
carries otherwise beneficial low-severity surface fires into
the residual old growth canopy, resulting in the loss of this
rare old growth Ponderosa pine.
It is the dry forest types of the east side that are
generally unhealthy. For a century and a half, the natural and
beneficial frequent low-severity surface fires have been
interrupted due to domestic livestock grazing, which removes
the grass that carried those fires. For well over a century,
the forests have been high-graded for their wood by removing
the largest and most naturally fire-resistant trees for timber.
For well over half a century, the fire industrial complex has
effectively deprived these forests of vital fire.
From the standpoint of both habitat and hydrology, row
densities on these forests are extreme. Restoration of dry
forest types across eastern Oregon needs to be done on a very
large scale. It is not feasible to solely rely on either
prescribed or wildfire to achieve these ends.
First, the wildfires may not be adequate in scale. Second,
the acceptable level of prescribed burning is limited to the
appropriate weather windows and available staffing. Third, fire
is imprecise tool to surgically excise ecologically problematic
small trees while saving ecologically vital live trees.
A major challenge in implementing this legislation will be
securing adequate funding. Society owes an ecological debt to
these forests that Congress must honor. The best source of
funds to pay down this ecological debt is to reprogram the
current Forest Service annual appropriations that now go to a
fire industrial complex that wastes billions of dollars
attempting to extinguish fires that cannot or should not be
extinguished.
Reprogramming this money to ecological restoration and to
private land owner incentives to make their dwellings resistant
to fire is a much better use of taxpayer funds.
Unlike other bills pending in Congress that address forest
health issues on Federal lands, what distinguishes this
legislation, I think, is that it does not presuppose a specific
ends or a means to achieve them. Rather than declaring as a
matter of legislative fact that all bugs are bad and all
diseases disastrous and all fires are fatal, this legislation,
rather, sets broad goals of how the forests should be managed
that most people can agree to and leaves to the Forest Service
to manage consistent with the best available science to achieve
those goals.
You know, in sum, this legislation is not a bill I would
have written on my own. It is a product of what you, Senator,
could convince a critical mass of the conservation community
and the timber industry to agree on.
While it is not a perfect bill, it is nonetheless a great
bill. It will provide for new and better goals for national
forest management that can result in the conservation and
restoration of old growth forests and watershed for the
eastside forests of Oregon, benefiting clean water, fish and
wildlife, and helping mitigate the effects of climate change,
and leaving these forests and watersheds in a healthier state
for future generations.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Kerr follows:]
Prepared Statement of Andy Kerr, Senior Counselor, Oregon Wild
s. 2895
I come from the wilderness movement. As a public lands
conservationist, nothing is more satisfying to achieve one's
conservation goals than when Congress draws a line around an area and
says this piece of the public's land is so special and sacred that it
shall be managed primarily by leaving it alone for the benefit of this
and future generations.
I still have one foot firmly planted in the wilderness movement;
there are plenty of worthy roadless areas on the eastside forests of
Oregon that ought to be in the National Wilderness Preservation System.
However, more of the eastside forests of Oregon are not pristine and
are, in fact, sick and wounded.
Humans have already caused them great harm from livestock,
chainsaws, bulldozers and Smokey Bear mythology. Many of Oregon's
eastside dry forests are in bad shape.
best available science
My other foot is planted firmly in the best available science. The
general consensus of the best available science for dry ponderosa pine
and dry mixed-conifer forests on the eastside of Oregon is that much of
the forest of these types is in need of active restoration--ecological
restoration that includes not only the careful reintroduction of fire
to these fire-dependent forests, but often the judicious use of a
chainsaw and the removal of ecologically problematic trees.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For more on my views on this subject, see: Kerr, Andy. 2006.
Thinning Certain Oregon Forests to Restore Ecological Function.
Ashland, OR: The Larch Company (http://andykerr.net/Downloads)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not only have bulldozers, chainsaws, bovines and flame-retardants
screwed up these forests, human-caused climate disruption that is
further stressing these already stressed forests. This additional
stressor all the more requires the application of the best available
science to restore these forests, including the removal of site-
specific stressors.
when the facts change consider changing your mind
When the facts change--be they ecological, economic or political
facts--it is appropriate to at least consider changing one's mind. This
historic legislation that has brought together historic enemies is
possible because the facts have changed. My goals for eastside forests
haven't changed, but my strategies and tactics have changed in light of
the facts. Consider these changes:
1. Less logging and less old-growth logging. During the
height of the timber wars in the late 1980s and early 1990s,
there were approximately 30 wood products mills in eastern
Oregon cutting nothing much else but old-growth trees. Today,
there are about five still running and cutting little--but
still too much--old growth.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Shelk, John. Managing Director, Ochoco Lumber Company. Personal
Communication. 28 December 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Increased scientific consensus on the need for active
management to achieve ecological restoration. The best
available science is clear and convincing that unhealthy dry
forests can benefit from prescribed fire and careful and
constrained restoration thinning to restore them to ecological
health.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See Noss, R. F., J. F. Franklin, W. L. Baker, T. Schoennagel,
P. B. Moyle. 2006. Managing fire-prone forests in the western United
States. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 4(9): 481-487.
(Ecological Society of America. Washington, D.C.). With the permission
of the lead author, this paper is available for download for limited
educational purposes only at www.andykerr.net/downloads. And Brown,
Richard T., James K. Agee and Jerry F. Franklin. 2004. Forest
Restoration and Fire: Principles in Context of Place. Conservation
Biology 18:903-912.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. A matured conservation community. The conservation
movement is diversifying from a historic focus centered on the
preservation of pristine natural landscapes to also being
equally concerned about the restoration of degraded natural
landscapes.
4. The timber industry on the eastside of Oregon is no longer
a monolith. The timber companies that remain are of two
species:
(A) Sylvanus adaptus adapted to changed conditions
and recognize that they've lost their social license to
log old growth and in roadless areas; and
(B) Sylvanus horribilis survived so far by not
changing one damn bit. Pure stubbornness and resistance
to change have served S. horribilis well enough until
now, but they are just dead men walking.
S. adaptus is the one that can help the Forest Service conserve and
restore degraded dry forests, while at the same time profiting for
themselves and prospering for their communities.
I will work as hard to keep this new timber industry alive to
restore Oregon's eastside dry forests as I have worked and will work
for the old timber industry to die before it cuts the last of the old
trees.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ For more of my views on how the timber industry has changed and
society's views of forests are continuing to change, see: Kerr, Andy.
2008. ``Starting the Fight and Finishing the Job,'' Page 129-138 in
Spies, Thomas A and Sally L. Duncan (eds). Old Growth in a New World: A
Pacific Northwest Icon Reexamined. Island Press. Washington, DC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
What the role of the eastern Oregon timber industry should be after
needed ecological restoration period (approximately three-decades) is a
question that need not be answered--or even debated--now.
the end of the timber wars for the eastside of oregon
Enactment of this legislation can mark the end of the timber wars
for the eastside forests of Oregon. When fully implemented, the new
statute can result in the comprehensive conservation and restoration of
forests and watersheds on over eight million acres of National Forest
System lands.
In addition to new management goals that emphasize natural
structure, process and functions over the historic emphasis on timber
production, this new law can also result in more timber going to the
mills than in recent times.
These logs will be from trees that are ecologically problematic--
smaller trees that have grown in during the past century and a half of
livestock grazing, high-grade logging and fire exclusion in dry forest
types and that are threatening the little remaining old-growth
ponderosa pine and other species.
In the isn't-life-ironic department, the best available science
tells conservationists that we need a right-sized timber industry to
aid in the conservation and restoration of forests and watersheds.
Conservationists also need a relevant and working Forest Service to be
in service to forests.
Enactment of this legislation will result in new rules of
engagement for national forest stakeholders. Confrontation can give way
to collaboration. Walking and talking in the woods can become more
prevalent that litigating and arguing in the courts.
I am still a happy warrior when it comes to logging natural young,
mature and old-growth moist forests types, or to conserving the greater
sage grouse and the Sagebrush Sea, to prohibiting energy development
off the Oregon Coast, or other matters.
However, the times for and the politics of eastside dry forests of
Oregon have changed and all these changes require the conservation
community and the timber industry to reinvent themselves. Senator Ron
Wyden's introduction of this path-breaking legislation is an important
milestone in those efforts.
As we humans continue and increase our messing with Mother Earth,
the response of the conservation community must be to diversify to
complement our preservation paradigm with a restoration paradigm.
converting ecologically problematic small trees into commercially
valuable logs
The amount of old-growth ponderosa pine forests in eastern Oregon
today is but 2-8% of what it was before the European invasion.\5\ The
result is unnatural concentrations of firesusceptible younger and
smaller trees that are outcompeting the residual old-growth ponderosa
pine trees for moisture and nutrients--leaving old-growth trees more
likely to suffer premature death due to insects and disease.\6\ An
additional--but somewhat overblown--concern is that these encroaching
trees can also serve as a ready fuel-ladder to carry otherwise
beneficial lowseverity surface fires into the residual old-growth
forest canopy, resulting in the loss of rare oldgrowth ponderosa pine.
Unnaturally dense stands are less suitable habitat for white-headed
woodpeckers and other wildlife,\7\ as well as a variety of understory
plants.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Noss, Reed F., Edward T. Laree, J. Michael Scott. 1995.
Endangered Ecosystems of the United States: A Preliminary Assessment of
Loss and Degradation. Biological Report 28. USDI-National Biological
Service. Washington, DC: (unpaginated) (citations omitted) (available
at biology.usgs.gov/pubs/ecosys.htm).) Comparable losses have occurred
on the Ochoco, Malheur, Umatilla and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests.
\6\ Brown, R. 2000. Thinning, Fire and Forest Restoration: A
Science-Based Approach for National Forests in the Interior West.
Defenders of Wildlife. Portland, OR. 40 pp. Available at http://
www.defenders.org/resources/publications/programs_and_policy/
biodiversity_partners/thinning,_fire_and_forest_restoration.pdf
\7\ Johnson, D. H., and T. A. O'Neil, editors. 2001. Wildlife-
habitat relationships in Oregon and Washington. Oregon State University
Press, Corvallis, Oregon, USA.
\8\ Dodson, Erich Kyle; Peterson, David W.; Harrod, Richy J. 2008.
Understory vegetation response to thinning and burning restoration
treatments in dry conifer forests of the eastern Cascades, USA. Forest
Ecology and Management. 255: 3130-3140.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
the problems the legislation will address
By ``eastside forests'' in Oregon, I mean approximately 8.3 million
acres of National Forest System lands not within the range of the
northern spotted owl and covered by the Northwest Forest Plan. These
forests range from ponderosa pine at the lowest elevations at the edge
of the Sagebrush Sea to alpine parklands above timberline. In between
one can find western larch, western white pine, mountain Douglas-fir,
whitebark pine, western juniper, white fir, grand fir, subalpine fir,
Engelmann spruce, incense cedar, quaking aspen, black cottonwood,
limber pine, mountain hemlock, lodgepole pine and other tree species.
Ponderosa pine-dominated forests outside of designated Wilderness
and Inventoried Roadless Areas are found on 4.6 million acres of the
lands covered by this legislation.\9\ It is only the dry forest types
of Oregon's eastside that are generally unhealthy. For a century and a
half, natural and beneficial frequent low-severity surface fires have
been interrupted due to domestic livestock grazing, which removes the
grass that carried these fires. For well over a century, these forests
have been high-graded for their wood by removing the largest and most
naturally fireresistant trees for timber. For well over a half-century,
the fire-industrial complex has effectively deprived these forests of
vital fire. From the standpoint of both habitat and hydrology, road
densities are extreme.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Fernandez, Erik. F. Oregon Wild. Personal Communication
September 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The evidence and effects of fire exclusion are obvious. The harm to
these forests is chronic, ongoing and severe.
passive versus active restoration
It is reasonable to ask if the best course is to simply withdraw
human-caused site-specific ecological irritants and let nature heal
itself. Passive restoration is what I always prefer philosophically and
in many cases it is the right ecological course of action. However, a
general scientific consensus exists that says that--either on a tree,
stand and/or landscape basis--active management is necessary to
ecologically conserve and restore ponderosa pine-dominated forests on
the eastside of Oregon.
The absence of further interventions by humans to correct previous
interventions will likely--according to most scientists--result in the
loss of the remaining dry old-growth forests and the species that
depend upon these endangered ecosystems.
The best available science tells us that careful and constrained
ecological restoration thinning will heal, not further harm, dry
forests.
to thin or not to thin--before to always burn
In dry ponderosa pine-dominated forests of eastern Oregon, the
reintroduction of fire into these fire-dependent ecosystems is always
necessary. Wildfire is either the continuation of the present forest or
the birth of the next one. Merely thinning a dry forest--without also
reintroducing fire--will not achieve ecological restoration.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Brown, R. 2000. Thinning, Fire and Forest Restoration: A
Science-Based Approach for National Forests in the Interior West.
Defenders of Wildlife. Portland, OR. 40 pp. Available at http://
www.defenders.org/resources/publications/programs_and_policy/
biodiversity_partners/thinning,_fire_and_forest_restoration.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In many cases restoration goals in fire-dependent forest types can
be met with only the careful reintroduction of prescribed fire.
However, there are many other cases where the careful and constrained
scientifically based restoration thinning is necessary or desirable.
In these other cases, the presence of ``ladder'' fuels (younger
trees in the understory that can carry otherwise beneficial surface
fires into the residual old-growth overstory) makes for an unacceptable
risk to the relatively few remaining old-growth ponderosa pine
trees.\11\ Though the risk of loss to wildfire of old-growth ponderosa
pine trees in a particular stand is relatively low, the introduction of
prescribed fire before restoration thinning can--in many but not all
cases--result in unacceptable risk of old-growth tree loss.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Brown, Richard T., James K. Agee and Jerry F. Franklin. 2004.
Forest Restoration and Fire: Principles in Context of Place.
Conservation Biology 18:903-912.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is very important to conserve the remaining old-growth ponderosa
pine trees in Oregon, as perhaps only one-twelfth to one-fiftieth
remains. Today, the number and extent of such trees are so perilously
low that extraordinary measures are necessary to conserve them. As more
old growth is again found on the landscape it will be both desirable
and possible to leave these forests to the vagaries of wildfire.
Because of this severe shortage of live old-growth ponderosa pine
across the landscape, it's important to make extraordinary efforts to
conserve these habitats until such time that fire can again be
expressed naturally across the landscape. While the conversion to a
standing dead tree from a standing live tree is not a ``loss'' to
nature per se--but rather just a change--given there are not enough
live old-growth trees means that special care needs to be taken. There
are not enough dead old-growth trees either, but live trees will turn
into dead trees in time.
There is also the matter of scale. Restoration of dry forest types
across eastern Oregon needs to be done on a very large scale. It is not
feasible to solely rely on either prescribed or wild fire to achieve
these ends. First, the wild fires may not be adequate in scale. Second,
the acceptable level of prescribed burning is limited to appropriate
weather windows and available staffing. Third, fire is an imprecise
tool to surgically excise ecologically problematic small trees while
saving ecologically vital live old trees.
invoking the best available science rather than the worst possible
politics
Besides the statutory protection for large trees and streams,
limitations on roads and changes in management goals for the eastside
forests of Oregon, perhaps the most important concept of this
legislation is that Congress would be establishing a process to
conserve and restore the forests and watersheds of the eastside forests
of Oregon. This process is based on strong protections and clear
directions from Congress to the Forest Service and is to be guided by
the best available science.
Unlike other bills pending in Congress to address forest health
issues on federal lands in the American West, what distinguishes this
legislation is that it does not presuppose specific ends or means to
achieve them. Rather than declaring all bugs bad, all diseases
disastrous and all fires fatal--as a matter of legislated fact--the
legislation rather sets broad goals for the management of forests that
most can agree with and leaves it to the Forest Service to manage
consistent with the best available science to achieve those goals.
this is compromise legislation, not comprehensive legislation
The legislation fails to address many aspects of national forest
management and use that I believe Congress should address. In many
instances, I would have preferred more explicit direction and
protection. However, a critical mass does not exist for my wishes to
prevail.
An important missing element in the legislation is the provision of
federal tax credits to leverage industry investment in state-of-the-art
logging, yarding, hauling and milling equipment that reduces soil
impacts and energy consumption, while at the same time making those
ecologically problematic, generally smaller trees into more generally
economically valuable logs.
A major challenge to implementing this legislation will be securing
adequate funding. Society owes an ecological debt to these forests that
Congress must honor. The best source of funds to pay down this
ecological debt--by undertaking the necessary comprehensive forest and
watershed restoration--is to reprogram current Forest Service annual
appropriations that now go to a fire-industrial complex that wastes
billions of dollars attempting to extinguish fires that cannot or
should not be extinguished. Reprogramming this money to ecological
restoration and to private landowner incentives to make their dwellings
resistant to fire is a much better use of taxpayer funds.
conservation community not of one mind regarding restoration thinning
The conservation community is not of one mind when it comes to
ecological restoration thinning of dry forest types. While a large
critical mass of the conservation community is in support of careful
and constrained ecological restoration thinning--as part of a
comprehensive forest and watershed restoration strategy that also
includes the removal of unnecessary roads and the improvement of
necessary roads, limitations on livestock grazing, efforts to limit
invasive species, and the careful reintroduction of fire into these
fire-dependent forests--some environmentalists are not.
Their objections can be categorized as scientific, philosophical
and esthetic.
Scientific
The science on how best to manage dry forest types is not
unequivocal. Science never is totally settled. However, the vast
majority of the relevant science concludes that careful and constrained
ecological restoration thinning broadly applied across the landscape
helps to restore these forest types to ecological health.
Unfortunately, some of my colleagues who disagree with this scientific
consensus are inclined to selectively interpret selected sources to
support their viewpoint. I am troubled that some of my conservation
colleagues embrace the best available science that says leave moist
forest types alone, yet ignore the best available science for dry
forest types that says careful and constrained thinning is necessary
for their ecological restoration.
Philosophical
Like most of my colleagues, I believe that federal public lands
should provide goods and services to society that the private sector is
unwilling or unable to provide. I do not believe that logging (or
mining or grazing for that matter) merely for commercial purposes is a
legitimate use of public lands. However, in the case of eastside dry
forest types, the removal of ecologically problematic trees by
converting them to commercially valuable logs is a coincidental
convergence of ecological and economic interests that I can support.
Timber production as a byproduct of ecological restoration is an
economic opportunity, a social good and an ecological necessity. Of
course, it's easier when the best available science coincides with
one's philosophy, esthetic sense, re-election or self-interest.
Esthetic
Part of the objection that that part conservation community has to
ecological restoration thinning is esthetic. Logging--even that done
well--with all its stumps, usually looks like hell. When I visit a dry
forest that recently has been subjected to ecological restoration
thinning, I think of visiting my father after his triple bypass. He was
in intensive care and he was so cut up and bruised that it looked like
the old man had been beaten to within an inch of his life. Yet
afterwards, he was the better for the surgery that had a purpose and
the desired effect. Aldo Leopold said, ``One of the penalties of an
ecological education is that one lives alone in a world of wounds. Much
of the damage inflicted on land is quite invisible to laymen.''\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Leopold, Aldo., Luna Bergere Leopold, and Charles W. Schwartz.
1991. Round River: From the Journals of Aldo Leopold. Page 165.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
burden of proof and standard of evidence: upon whom and how much?
Most conservationists and many governments give great weight to the
precautionary principle. Wikipedia says: ``The precautionary principle
states that if an action or policy has suspected risk of causing harm
to the public or to the environment, in the absence of a scientific
consensus that harm would not ensue, the burden of proof falls on those
who would advocate taking the action.''\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle; accessed
on 30 December 2009
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Always in ecological preservation and often in ecological
restoration, the best course is to do nothing--just leave an area or an
ecosystem alone (while stopping degrading activities). However, in the
case of these dry eastside forests degraded from past management, doing
nothing is doing something. Doing nothing--most of the evidence
suggests--will cause these forests to remain unhealthy, if not
irreversibly converting to a new ecological state that is not desirable
for wildlife, watersheds or re-creation.
The differences among conservationists come down to both who should
bear the burden of proof and what should be the standard of evidence.
Yes, there is not 100% agreement among the best available scientists as
to the best available science. In determining either civil liability or
criminal guilt, American law has developed three distinct standards:
Preponderance of the Evidence. ``[T]he matter asserted seem
more likely true than not.''
Clear and Convincing Evidence. ``[I]t is substantially more
likely than not that the thing is in fact true.''
Beyond a Reasonable Doubt. ``[C]lose to certain of the truth
of the matter asserted.''\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof
The fundamental question is whether restoration thinning will help
degraded dry forest types to live or help them to die. To deprive one
of life or liberty, the criminal standard is ``beyond a reasonable
doubt'' (``beyond a shadow of a doubt'' is not a legal standard). If
the evidence in support of ecological restoration thinning in dry
forest types turns out to be true, then to not thin will be to condemn
these forests. If such evidence is incorrect, then to thin will
similarly condemn such forests. In either case, the consequences of
being wrong argue against requiring the highest standard of evidence to
determine a course of action (or inaction).
Yet, having the ``preponderance of the evidence'' seems like too
low of a standard of evidence to determine the ecological truth. Merely
being barely more likely than not to choose the correct course is not
something to bet the forest on.
Therefore, we are left with ``clear and convincing evidence'' as an
appropriate standard of evidence, as it requires that the evidence be
substantially more likely than not to turn out to be true.
An insurmountable problem is that standards of evidence are usually
applied after the fact. If the alleged fact that occurred previously is
true, one goes to jail or pays a judgment. In the case of dry forest
types, society must consider evidence not on what has happened, but
what will happen if a particular course of action is taken or not
taken. At best, society must choose the best-reasoned prediction in the
hope of avoiding the worst reasonably anticipated outcome.
In the case of degraded dry forest types, doing nothing does not
ensure that nothing will happen. If only the precautionary principle
had been applied long before now.
hedging against both ignorance and arrogance
Scientific consensus does not mean scientific unanimity. There are
still scientists who argue there is no link between tobacco and cancer
or carbon dioxide and climate disruption. However, if nine out ten
doctors tell me I have cancer, it is prudent of me to believe them and
to follow a course of action that most of them agree on.
While today's best available science that says that careful and
constrained--but widespread--thinning of dry forest types on the
eastside of Oregon is the best course of action, such may not be the
case in the future. The existing scientific consensus may either grow
stronger or turn out to be wrong. To mitigate this risk of wrong
prediction it is prudent for society to hedge against the risks of both
ignorance and arrogance.
Today, the best available science says careful and constrained
restoration thinning of much of these degraded dry forests is necessary
to return them to ecological health. However, we should no more thin
every acre than not thin any acre of dry forest types in eastern
Oregon. Perhaps one-half should be thinned, while perhaps one-half
should not be thinned. In this way, if the best available science of
today turns out to be correct, we will have done well for the forest on
a landscape scale. If the best available science of today turns out to
be wrong, at least we won't have made the entire landscape worse.
conclusion
In sum, the proposed Oregon Eastside Forests Restoration, Old
Growth Protection and Jobs Act is not the bill I would have written. It
is the product of what Senator Wyden could convince a critical mass of
the conservation community and timber industry to agree on. While not a
perfect bill, it is nonetheless a great bill. It would provide for new
and better goals for national forest management and can result in the
conservation and restoration of old-growth forests and watersheds for
the eastside forests of Oregon--benefiting clean water, fish and
wildlife; helping to mitigate the effects of climate change; and
leaving them in a healthier state for future generations to enjoy.
supplemental statement from oregon wild
For the last two decades, Oregon Wild has struggled over the
question of how best to defend oldgrowth forests and important
watersheds in eastern Oregon from logging, road building, and other
destructive activities, while at the same time promoting needed
restoration on degraded lands. We believe there is a need for both.
Oregon Wild has long sought to protect the last remaining old-
growth forests in eastern Oregon, and we have used the existing
regulations that protect large trees and riparian and aquatic resources
to do this. We also understand that Oregon's eastside forests have been
altered drastically by more than a century of fire suppression,
livestock grazing, road building and industrial logging. Past
management has left eastside landscapes in desperate need of
restoration, which begins with conserving intact watersheds, remaining
mature and old-growth forests, and habitat for at-risk fish and
wildlife
Oregon Wild supports this legislation because it expands upon
existing protections for large trees and aquatic resources. These
protections are important to us. But the bill also directs the Forest
Service to use the best available science to restore forest and
watershed health as its primary goal. We believe this is equally
important.
Beginning with the lush forests of the Siuslaw National Forest more
than a decade ago, conservation, industry, and community interests have
begun to come together to seek common ground on managing our public
lands around the concept of restoration. This has led to broad
agreement on the treatment of thousands of acres of previously
harvested forests that benefit the restoration of old-growth habitat,
and the restoration of many miles of salmon habitat.
In the drier forests of eastern Oregon, this shift has been
happening as well. Tim Lillebo has been working for Oregon Wild to help
design and implement forest management projects that advance ecological
restoration in the Deschutes, Ochoco and Malheur National Forests for
more than two decades. In particular, he is currently working with the
Sisters Ranger District to get the Glaze Forest Restoration Project
implemented, and to facilitate a broad collaborative effort to engage
the community in designing what might have been a highly controversial
project within an oldgrowth pine forest. That project can hopefully
serve as a model for collaboration and for prescriptions that benefit
wildlife and forest health.
Senator Wyden's Oregon Eastside Forests Restoration, Old Growth
Protection and Jobs Act represents a compromise. It is not perfect, but
based on our experience working in eastern Oregon for three decades, we
believe that it makes significant improvements in forest management
that will yield real benefits for water quality, fish and wildlife,
healthy forest structure and function, and help prepare for and
mitigate the effects of climate change. It will also support the trust
and common ground that has begun to be built between the US Forest
Service and its stakeholders.
appendix
Oregon Wild,
March 16, 2010.
Hon. Ron Wyden,
Chair, Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests, Committee on Energy
and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Wyden, I wish to append this letter and attached table
to my written statement for the record for the hearing held by the
subcommittee on March 10, 2010 in the matter of your proposed ``Oregon
Eastside Forest Restoration, Old Growth Protection and Jobs Act''
(S.2895).
The table depicts the timelines for the current Administrative
Appeals process and the proposed Administrative Objection process in
S.2895. There would be an estimated time-savings of 45 days for an
administrative review of a project supported by an Environmental
Assessment and 75 days for one supported by an Environmental Impact
Statement. Yet, the essential due-process elements for citizens remain.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Andy Kerr,
Senior Counselor.
Senator Wyden. Mr. Kerr, thank you. Very helpful and very
much appreciate your cooperation.
Your partner is here with us, Mr. Shelk, and we are so glad
to have Prineville well represented here with Mr. Shelk. We
will make your prepared remarks a part of the record as well
and just want to note the tremendous contributions Mr. Shelk
makes to our State. Not just in forestry, but in lots of other
areas as well.
Mr. Shelk.
STATEMENT OF JOHN SHELK, PRESIDENT, OCHOCO
LUMBER COMPANY
Mr. Shelk. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I am
John Shelk, and I am the managing director of Ochoco Lumber
Company in Prineville, Oregon.
Ochoco Lumber Company's roots in central Oregon and eastern
Oregon go back to 1924 when we began buying timberlands there.
So, in sum, we have over 80 years of experience in managing
timberland and in operating mills in eastern Oregon.
Altogether, Ochoco's operations employ approximately 100
people now. That is down from 350 people at the peak of its
operation in 1993. Successful implementation of S. 2895, the
subject of my testimony today, would make it possible for us to
reemploy about 40 people, so an increase of 40 percent beyond
our current employment base.
Our company has been decimated the last 15 years due to a
lack of Federal timber available to us. We are a small company
that has been dependent upon Federal timber. When the Federal
timber program began to decline in 1990, that marked the
gradual decline of our company as an employer in eastern
Oregon.
As you know, Mr. Chairman, the bill that we are talking
about today came about as a result of months of discussions
between representatives of the environmental community and
eastern Oregon lumber manufacturers who are dependent upon
Federal timber from public lands. The bill contains compromises
on the part of all of those who participated in these
negotiations.
I think it is fair to say that none of us individually
would have written this bill the way that it is currently
configured. We have worked out an agreeable compromise that
will improve the health of Oregon's eastside forests and help
preserve the livelihood and tax base of our rural communities.
Since 1990, 23 eastern Oregon mills that employed nearly
2,000 workers have shut down, and several of those mills have
been ours. How much longer the eight or so remaining mills can
survive will depend upon the availability of raw material, and
that is saw logs. That is done by increasing the volume of
timber coming off the Federal forests of eastern Oregon, and it
is absolutely critical to keep the sawmill--in keeping the
sawmill infrastructure in place.
This has become even more acute as private land owners in
our region have held their timber off the market because of low
stumpage prices due to the economic dislocation we have had the
last several years. Paralleling the decline in eastern Oregon's
milling infrastructure has been a decline in the health of our
Federal forests. Prior to 1994, Ochoco National Forest
harvested 130 million board feet and is now down about 90
percent. This is roughly paralleled on the other forests east
of the Cascades.
As the decline has taken place, it has been replaced by a
continuing growth of forests east of the Cascades. Hence, an
overgrowth of material on the forests that really brings about
a condition that leads to insects and disease manifestation and
increased risk of fire. As of July 2008, there were nearly 5.5
million acres in fire condition class 2 and 3 on acres in
eastern Oregon's Federal forests. This can only be reversed by
active intervention, mechanical treatment of these forests.
Over the last 2 decades, it has become increasingly
difficult for our Federal land managers to utilize timber
harvest activities as part of their forest management program.
It is these projects that could provide raw materials to our
mills and maintain living wage jobs. At the same time, we can
improve forest health by reducing the overcrowded condition of
the forest stands.
In order to survive, eastern Oregon's mills need a
predictable supply of raw material from Oregon's Federal lands.
To produce timber, we need saw logs, and that is logs that are
large enough to be made into boards.
At the same time we are doing this, we can also provide
biomass for the various other facilities that are coming
onboard that will completely utilize the products coming off of
Federal forest lands.
There are those who criticize this bill because they
disagree with including diameter limits and other specific
details, believing that such decisions reduce the flexibility
of our Federal forest agencies to best manage our forests. For
the most part, we are managing under the conditions that we are
describing in our bill right now. We believe that this bill can
transition very nicely into the current management regime that
we are experiencing.
Senator Wyden, we appreciate the work that you and your
staff have done with our group in bringing this bill to the
Senate, and we look forward to working with you constructively
in the future.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Shelk follows:]
Prepared Statement of John Shelk, President, Ochoco Lumber Company
s. 2895
Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee: I am John Shelk, Managing
Director of Ochoco Lumber Company, Prineville, Oregon. Ochoco Lumber
Company's roots in Eastern Oregon go back to 1924 when it began buying
timber lands. Milling operations began in Prineville Oregon in 1938.
The company built and operated a large log mill and later built a small
log mill. Ochoco closed its Prineville sawmill operations in 2000.
Ochoco Lumber Company's wholly owned subsidiary Malheur Lumber Company,
located in John Day, Oregon, started up in 1983 and has been in
continuous operation since. Malheur Lumber Company produces
approximately 42 million board feet (99,000m3) of quality Ponderosa
Pine annually, as well as Douglas fir and white fir products. All
together, Ochoco's operations employ approximately 100 people, down
from 350 people at the peak of its operation. Successful implementation
of S. 2895, the subject of my testimony today, would make it possible
for us to re-employ about 40 people.
I am here today to testify in favor of S. 2895, ``the Oregon
Eastside Forests Restoration, Old Growth Protection and Jobs Act of
2009'' introduced by Senator Wyden. As you know Mr. Chairman, this bill
came about as the result of months of discussions between
representatives of environmental organizations and Eastern Oregon
lumber manufacturers dependent on timber from federal lands for a
source of raw materials. The bill contains compromises on the part of
all those who participated in these negotiations. I think it is fair to
say that it is not the bill any of us would have written, but we
believe it is a workable compromise that will improve the health of
Oregon's Eastside forests and help to preserve the livelihoods and tax
base of our rural communities.
Oregon's eastside counties and communities are in dire straits. In
Grant County, the unemployment rate for December, 2009 was 14.9%;
unemployment was below 10% (9.7%) in only one month since October 2008.
In Union County, things are only slightly better: December unemployment
stood at 10.8%; the monthly average unemployment for 2009 was 10.6%.
Since 1990, 23 Eastern Oregon mills that employed nearly 2,000 workers
have shut down. How much longer the 8 or so remaining mills can survive
will depend on the availability of raw material--saw logs. Increasing
the volume of timber coming off our federal forests is critical to
keeping this sawmilling infrastructure in place. This need has become
even more acute as private landowners hold their timber off the market
because of low stumpage prices.
Paralleling the decline of Eastern Oregon's milling infrastructure
has been a decline in the health of our federal forests. Prior to 1994,
the Ochoco National Forest harvested 130 million board feet (mmbf)
annually on a sustainable basis; the Malheur National Forest harvested
210 mmbf annually, sustainably. In 2009, only 13.0 mmbf were sold on
the Ochoco and 34.0 mmbf on the Malheur. These figures show that we are
growing vastly more wood than we are removing from these forests. As
the amount of wood growing on these forests has continued to greatly
exceed the amount harvested and removed, our federal forests have
become seriously overcrowded. This leads to insect and disease
infestations and increased risk of fire. As of July, 2008, there were
nearly five and a half million acres of fire condition class II and III
acres on Eastern Oregon's federal forests. These forests can be
restored to health only through active management: a program that plans
for and uses mechanical treatment to reduce overcrowding, maintain
forest health and at the same time produce raw materials for our mills
each and every year.
Over the last two decades, it has become increasingly difficult for
our federal forest managers to utilize timber harvest activities as
part of their forest management program. It is these projects that
could provide raw materials to our mills, maintaining living wage jobs
(according to the Oregon Department of Forestry, each 1 million board
feet harvested supports 11.2 direct and indirect jobs with an average
annual wage of $43,200) and a tax base for local government, at the
same time improving forest health by reducing overcrowding in forest
stands. Overcrowding leads to insect and disease infestations and
increased fire hazard.
In order to survive, Oregon's mills need a predictable supply of
raw material from Oregon's federal lands. To produce lumber, we need
saw logs--logs large enough to make into boards. When trees of this
size are harvested, the interspersed smaller trees and the tops and
limbs can be turned into chips and biomass to produce other products,
electricity and perhaps other types of energy. Without the larger, more
valuable materials to support the removal of the less valuable biomass,
removing the smaller materials is not economically feasible. The simple
reality is that the federal coffers are not sufficient to pay for all
the work our forests need. Selling sawlogs puts private capital to work
in the restoration of our federal forests.
SB 2895 contains provisions designed to restore forest health while
assuring a sustainable supply of sawlogs for our industry. It
emphasizes planning at the landscape scale and ecological restoration
projects based on those plans. It requires the Forest Service to
prioritize its projects to both improve forest health and maintain the
infrastructure necessary to maintain forest health.
Of course, these landscape scale plans will take time and will not
result in timber outputs for the next few years. In order to maintain
our logging and milling infrastructure, the bill calls for the Forest
Service to do interim projects comprised predominantly of mechanical
treatment totaling 80,000 acres per year distributed across all of the
Eastside national forests and increasing to 120,000 acres in the third
fiscal year after enactment of the bill. Existing and new funding for
vegetation management, timber management and hazardous fuels reduction
will be prioritized to complete these projects. The bill authorizes the
appropriation of $50,000,000 for the work needed to carry out these
projects.
Like most Western national forests, work on Oregon's Eastside
forests has been hindered by appeals and litigation. The bill would
foster collaboration among agency personnel and affected members of the
community. In this way, we hope to avoid the gridlock resulting from
appeals and litigation and get our forests back to work. The bill calls
for a streamlined objection process for ecological restoration projects
and for expedited judicial review of any action which give rise to
legal action. For interim projects, administrative appeals would be
eliminated, but the right to challenge the project in court remains.
There are those who criticize this bill because they disagree with
including diameter limits and other specific details, believing such
decisions reduce the flexibility of our federal forest agencies to best
manage our forests. For the most part, our federal land managers are
already managing under these restrictions. In our view, the legislation
is a necessary improvement on the status quo. We simply must find a way
to restore the health of our Eastside forests. We believe this bill
will provide the reassurance that both the industry and environmental
organizations need to establish trust and eliminate the gridlock our
forest managers now face.
Yet, passage of the bill alone will not result in success. Once the
legislation is in place, the Forest Service must move promptly to
implement both the interim projects and the large scale ecological
restoration plans. Congress must appropriate the funds necessary to
carry out this ambitious and far-reaching program. We request that you
continue to monitor both implementation and outcomes to assure that the
agency has the will and the means to succeed. The projects simply must
result in the production of material suitable for the current
infrastructure. If we go out of business, there will be no one to do
the work necessary to restore forest health on the Eastside.
Senator Wyden, we appreciate the work of you and your staff to get
this bill before this committee today. We know that you are committed
to working with all of us to assure the survival of our mills and our
loggers and to restore the health of our Eastside forests and
communities. There is much that needs to be done for this legislation
to result in the hoped-for outcome. We know that you are committed to
continue that work with us to ensure its goals are realized.
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today.
Senator Wyden. Thank you very much, Mr. Shelk.
I have been urged to carry around the picture of you and
Mr. Kerr standing side by side at the launch of all of this,
just to convince the disbelieving that it was on the level. I
just reviewed with Mr. Gladics, almost the subcommittee's
historian at this point, the prospect of the 2 of you coming
together on something like this. If you had thought back years
ago to the prospect of something like that happening, the odds
would be infinitesimally small.
So it is just great that you 2 have led this effort, and I
just want to note so it is in the record that I know both of
you took a lot of flak from some of your best friends on this.
Mr. Kerr. For the record, taking a lot of flak. But, OK.
Senator Wyden. Took/taking. I am sure that that is the
case. Therein lies the effort to try to get breakthroughs.
I continue to have the only bipartisan health reform bill
here in the U.S. Senate, and I am still trying to bring people
together on that. So I just want both of you to know how much I
appreciate the very constructive way that you all have gone
about this. It took a lot of courage to do it. I know both flak
has been directed at you in the past, and Mr. Kerr corrects the
record to make sure everybody knows you are still taking it. So
we are very, very appreciative.
Let us go now to Dr. Johnson, who is really the
intellectual force behind the kind of approach we have been
talking about here. Professor Johnson has gotten many a late-
night phone call from me to discuss a lot of these issues, and
consistently, it has been Dr. Johnson's scholarship and good
work, work that is respected by all sides--by folks in the
scientific community, folks in the timber industry, folks in
the environmental community.
Dr. Johnson, our thanks to you for all of your service, and
any remarks you would like to make are welcome.
STATEMENT OF K. NORMAN JOHNSON, UNIVERSITY DISTINGUISHED
PROFESSOR, COLLEGE OF FORESTRY, OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY,
CORVALLIS, OR
Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I testified before
you 2 years ago when you had a hearing on the state of eastside
forests, and I am delighted to be part of the hearing today on
this remarkable day.
I am Dr. K. Norman Johnson, and I am here to give testimony
for myself and Dr. Jerry Franklin, who worked with me and with
you for quite a long time.
I am a professor in the College of Forestry at the Oregon
State University, and Jerry is a professor of ecosystem
sciences in the School of Forest Resources at the University of
Washington. The comments represent our views and not those of
our respective institutions.
The proposed legislation that you have introduced has the
goals of restoring forest landscapes, protecting and increasing
old growth forests and trees, and creating an immediate
predictable and increased timber flow to support locally based
restoration economies. This testimony provides our advice on
achieving these goals in the national forests of eastern
Oregon. We believe that the legislation captures many of these
elements.
The first--I am going to make five points. The first one is
that restoration needs to recognize different strategies for
moist and dry forests. As Andy Kerr mentioned, really, the dry
forest ecosystems are the topic today. They have evolved
primarily with low and mixed severity disturbances, including
wildfire and localized insect outbreaks.
Active management often is required to reduce the potential
for uncharacteristic and ecologically damaging wildfire and
insect outbreaks in these dry forests, and many of them will
require restoration where there are existing populations of old
growth trees.
The second point, eastside Federal forests in Oregon face a
bleak future without swift action. My comments here are very
similar to the comments from Andy Kerr. We will lose many of
these forests to catastrophic disturbance events unless we
undertake aggressive active management programs.
The potential for loss of our eastside forests and the
residual old growth trees that they contain to fire and insects
is greatly magnified by expected future climate change. We know
enough to take action.
Furthermore, it is critical for stakeholders to understand
that active management is necessary in stands with existing old
growth trees in order to reduce the risk that these trees will
be lost. Finally, to avoid this loss, we need to significantly
increase the rate of treatments to reduce stand densities at
least by 2 or 3 times.
My third point, the proposed legislation is based on
scientific principles for restoration of dry forests. They
include focusing on comprehensive ecological restoration.
Rather than focus on a single goal, such as fuel hazard
reduction, timber production, or carbon sequestration, the bill
addresses comprehensive restoration needs for both forests and
watersheds.
Second, developing management guidance by plant
association, recognizing the infinite variety in these forests.
Third, conserving existing old growth trees and restoring the
old growth populations where they have been depleted. We are
preparing these forests for coming potential threats from
climate change.
Next, starting with historical information as a guide to
restoration goals and modifying that as needed to reflect
climate change; creating heterogeneity both to stand and
landscape scale, as mentioned by Under Secretary Sherman and
you, Mr. Chairman, and also Andy; restoring large areas such as
whole watersheds, moving rapidly in restoring these forests;
and finally, utilizing commercial wood products from the
restoration to defray costs, maintain processing capability,
and provide employment.
Both Dr. Franklin and I firmly believe that as the bill
moves through Congress, it is important to retain these
principles.
My fourth point is that citizen-driven collaboration
efforts are a key here, as been said, and I have just got to
add that I teach a collaboration course. This winter, I have
had many of the collaboration groups talking in the course,
including the Blue Mountain partners. It is an amazing
transformation in eastern Oregon, and the creative energy of
Federal forestry in eastern Oregon now runs through these local
collaboration efforts.
The proposed legislation acknowledges the importance of
them in the achievement of the long-term purposes of the act.
They also can play a crucial role in successful implementation
of the interim, that is the first 3 years of projects.
Finally, that management discretion should be combined with
third-party review. Managers will need latitude to adapt
general policies to specific problems and places. Successful
restoration of these forests will require large-scale actions
over time and space, as we discussed above, and managers will
need the discretion to adapt general policies to the specific
situations, and this is an important element to provide in the
bill.
Also, the third-party review will be essential to gain and
retain broad public acceptance. The proposed legislation
acknowledges this need through its purpose of providing
periodic independent review of agency programs to carry out the
act. Review of the interim first 3 years' projects will be
crucial in this regard, this independent review.
Ffinally, I want to say I have worked in the dry forests of
eastern Oregon for over 40 years. We have seen, with the help
of Andy Kerr and John Shelk, a remarkable coming together of
different interests that have helped craft and support this
legislation. I hope we will not lose this convergence of views
in sustaining the wonderful forests of the east side.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Johnson follows:]
Prepared Statement of K. Norman Johnson, University Distinguished
Professor, College of Forestry, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR,
and Jerry F. Franklin, Professor, Ecosystem Sciences, School of Forest
Resources, University of Washington
s. 2895
I am Dr. K. Norman Johnson and I am here today to give testimony
for myself and Dr. Jerry F. Franklin on S. 2895. I am a University
Distinguished Professor in the College of Forestry at Oregon State
University. Jerry Franklin is Professor of Ecosystem Sciences in the
School of Forest Resources at University of Washington. These comments
represent our views and not those of our respective institutions.
Our testimony focuses on the national forests of Oregon outside of
the area of the Northwest Forest Plan--the eastside forests named in
the bill. Collectively, we have studied these magnificent forests and
the amazing variety of benefits that they provide for almost 100 years.
In addition to our research efforts there, we have served on many
scientific panels analyzing forest policy issues, including the
Northwest Forest Plan. We recently completed for the Klamath Tribes a
comprehensive restoration plan for their historic tribal lands, which
are currently a part of the Fremont-Winema National Forest. Also, we
have just finished a proposal for restoring northwest federal forests
which can be found at http://www.cof.orst.edu/cof/fs/PDFs/
JohnsonRestoration_Aug15_2009.pdf. That report covers the points made
in this testimony in much greater detail.
S. 2895 has goals of restoring forest landscapes, protecting and
increasing old growth forests and trees, and creating an immediate,
predictable, and increased timber flow to support locally based
restoration economies, among other purposes. This testimony provides
our advice on achieving these goals in the national forests of eastern
Oregon; we believe that the legislation captures many of these
elements.
restoration needs to recognize different strategies for moist and dry
forests
Division of federal forests into Moist and Dry is the initial step
in forest restoration planning. Plant associations provide the basis
for assigning sites into these categories; these plant associations
reflect contrasting composition, growth conditions, and historic
disturbance regimes. We recognize that there is a broad gradient in
fire behavior in Pacific Northwest forests considering variability both
in site and landscape conditions. ``Dry Forests'' grow on sites that
have pre-dominantly low-and mixed-severity fire regimes while ``Moist
Forests'' grow on sites that are characteristically high-severity fire
regimes. We include plant associations typically subject to mixed-
severity disturbance regimes (such as moist Grand Fir and moist White
Fir) in the Dry Forest category; this reflects their probable shift
toward more frequent and severe wildfires on these sites with climate
change. While shifts will occur in plant associations with climate
change, we expect that they will continue to be valuable ecological
reference points.
Moist Forest ecosystems evolved with infrequent but severe, stand-
replacement disturbance events, such as intense wildfires and
windstorms. The composition and structure of intact existing old-growth
forests in Moist Forests have not been significantly affected by human
activities. Generally, it is not necessary to conduct silvicultural
treatments to maintain existing old-growth forests on Moist Forest
sites. Silviculture can, however, be used to create diverse early seral
communities and accelerate development of ecological diversity in
plantations and other young stands.
Dry Forest ecosystems have evolved primarily with low-and mixed-
severity disturbances, including wildfire and localized insect
outbreaks. On Dry Forest sites, the composition and structure of
existing old-growth forests typically have been significantly altered
by human activities, resulting in increases in stand density and
compositional shifts toward less fire-and drought-tolerant tree
species. Active management often is required to reduce the potential
for uncharacteristic and ecologically damaging wildfire and insect
outbreaks. Many of these forests that require restoration have existing
populations of old-growth trees.
eastside federal forests in oregon face a bleak future without swift
action
The majority of federal forests in eastern Oregon fall into the Dry
Forest category. Ponderosa pine and dry mixed conifer plant
associations predominate.
These forests have been greatly simplified during the last century
by a variety of management actions including fire suppression, grazing
by domestic livestock, logging, and establishment of plantations.
Consequently, they differ greatly from their historical condition in
having much higher stand densities and basal areas, lower average stand
diameters, much higher percentages of drought-and fire-intolerant
species (such as white or grand fir), and many fewer (or no) old-growth
trees.
We will lose many of these forests to catastrophic disturbance
events unless we undertake aggressive active management programs. This
is not simply an issue of fuels and fire; because of the density of
these forests, there is a high potential for drought stress and related
insect outbreaks. Surviving old-growth pine trees are now at high risk
of death to both fire and western pine beetle, the latter resulting
from drought stress and competition. Many fir-dominated stands are now
at risk of catastrophic outbreaks of insect defoliators, such as the
spruce budworm, as has already occurred at many locations on the
eastern slopes of the Cascade Range in both Oregon and Washington.
The potential for loss of our eastside forests--and the residual
old-growth trees that they contain--to fire and insects is greatly
magnified by expected future climate change. Historically, much of the
loss of old growth trees and forests has come during time of drought.
The expected longer and more intense summer drought periods with
climate change will put additional stress on the forests here. The
stress on old growth trees will be especially severe where they are
surrounded by dense understories.
We know enough to take action (uncertainties should not paralyze
us). Inaction is a much more risky option for a variety of ecological
values, including conservation of old-growth related wildlife. We need
to learn as we go, but we need to take action now. Furthermore, it is
critical for stakeholders to understand that active management is
necessary in stands with existing old-growth trees in order to reduce
the risk that those trees will be lost.
To avoid the loss of eastside forests, we need to significantly
increase the rate of treatments to reduce stand densities. Elsewhere,
we have estimated that we need to double or triple current efforts,
using both mechanical treatments and prescribed fire.
s 2895 is based on scientific principles for restoration of dry forests
As Senator Wyden stated when he introduced this bill in late
December, 2009, his proposed legislation resulted from months of
discussion with stakeholders. The bill resulting from that negotiation
(S 2895) contains scientific principles of forest conservation. It is
important that these principles be retained in any further negotiation
that may be needed to move the bill through Congress. We briefly
summarize eight key principles here:
Undertake comprehensive ecological restoration. Rather than
focus on a single goal such as fuel hazard reduction, timber
production, or carbon sequestration, the bill addresses
comprehensive restoration needs for both forests and
watersheds.
Develop management guidance by plant association--an
ecologically relevant way of differentiating forest sites.
Plant associations integrate environmental variables; the bill
utilizes plant associations as a vehicle for adapting
prescriptions to individual sites.
Conserve existing old growth trees and restore old tree
populations where they have been depleted. A maximum diameter
limit on harvest is used to protect old growth but exceptions
can be allowed to protect small old growth trees and to harvest
larger young trees that compete with old growth. To be
successful, both ecologically and socially, management needs
directly to address conservation of old growth trees.
Prepare these forests for coming potential threats from
climate change. The bill recognizes that current forest
conditions can result in uncharacteristic wildfire, insect
outbreaks, and disease and that these threats will worsen with
climate change. Conditioning forests to be resilient in the
face of increased summer temperatures and longer fire seasons
is a central theme.
Start with historical information as a guide to restoration
goals and modify as needed to reflect impacts of coming climate
change. Historical forest conditions remain a useful reference
for ecological restoration, even in a time of environmental
change, as they have been tempered by many climatic
oscillations in the past.
Create heterogeneity at both the stand and landscape scale.
Increasing the complexity of simplified landscapes and
restoring meadows and riparian zones are critical elements of
forest restoration as recognized throughout the legislation.
That will include leaving dense forest patches scattered
through a treated landscape.
Restore large areas, such as whole watersheds, in
restoration projects. The bill calls for planning and
undertaking needed forest and watershed treatments on large
areas in an integrated fashion.
Move rapidly in restoring these forests. Given the threats
to eastside forests, resource managers will need to move
rapidly over the next few decades, treating a large proportion
of at-risk landscape. Increasing the rate of activity is an
important objective of the legislation.
Utilize commercial wood products from the restoration to
defray costs, maintain processing capability, and provide
employment. Investment will be needed, but wood products
associated with restoration can help pay for the effort,
maintain infrastructure, and support local communities.
As the bill moves through Congress, it is important to retain these
principles. With such a solid scientific foundation, this legislation
has the potential to model approaches to forest restoration throughout
the West. These principles have applicability both to the interim
(first three years) projects discussed in the legislation and the
longer-run ecological restoration projects.
collaborative efforts can provide essential creative energy,
understanding, and support for forest restoration
Citizen-driven collaborative efforts are beginning to break the
gridlock that has stalled restoration in eastern Oregon. The creative
energy of federal forestry in eastern Oregon runs through local
collaboration efforts. Groups such as the Blue Mountain Partners (John
Day), the Harney County Restoration Collaborative (Burns), and the
Lakeview Stewardship Group (Lakeview) have recently played invaluable
roles in engaging local communities in helping to guide forest
restoration, working cooperatively with the Forest Service.
The Blue Mountain Partners have invited us to demonstrate the
application of the principles discussed here to restoration of the
Malheur National Forest. We hope to work with them this summer; I am
sure that you and your staff also would be welcome to see how these
principles play out on the ground.
These collaboration groups can play a key role in future forest
restoration efforts. With their knowledge, understanding, and support,
rapid progress can be made. Without their involvement, progress will be
much more difficult. Thus, it is important that any new directives
support and complement their ongoing efforts.
S. 2895 acknowledges the importance of collaboration groups in
long-term achievement of the purposes of the Act. They also can play a
crucial role in successful implementation of the interim (first three
years) projects.
trust but verify: management discretion should be combined with third-
party review
Managers need latitude to adapt general policies to specific
problems and places. Successful restoration of these forests will
require large-scale actions over space and time, as we have discussed
above, and managers will need the discretion to adapt general policies
to specific situations. The legislation contains many important
concepts to guide restoration, as described above; the Forest Service
will need latitude in interpreting and implementing them.
A needed shift to age-based conservation rules will be aided by
such an approach. Elsewhere we have argued that an age-based approach
would more consistently protect old-growth trees than the current
diameter-based approach. Some, though, question the practicality of an
age-based approach. We believe that relatively few trees will be in
question after development of protocols, as most trees can be readily
identified as being either above or below any age limit that might be
set. We suggest that age-based rules be designed following a four-step
process: 1) have scientists and managers design and test the protocols
that will be used, 2) give agencies deference to implement the
protocols, 3) monitor the degree of success in implementation, and 4)
use independent review by scientists, managers, and stakeholders to
suggest improvements. S 2865 begins this process and we believe that
its successful completion is essential to restoration of eastside
forests.
Demonstration of success and learning will be needed. Public
acceptance and support will be needed; the social license for these
efforts is tenuous in many places. As mentioned above, collaborative
efforts can help here, but more is needed. Key components in gaining
public support will be credible evidence that actions are moving the
forests toward restoration goals and a mechanism for changing
management where the actions do not achieve desired objectives.
Monitoring is necessary but not sufficient. Given the uncertainties
that we face in forest restoration, keeping track of the state of the
forests and the effects of actions is a first principle of forest
management. We believe, though, that people are increasingly skeptical
of an agency keeping score on the effectiveness of its own actions.
Third-party review will be essential to gain and retain broad
public acceptance. We need mechanisms that provide trusted evaluations
of the linkage between actions and goals along with the ability to
suggest change as needed. Creation of third-party review as a regular
part of forest restoration would go a long way toward this goal.
S. 2895 acknowledges this need through its purpose of providing
periodic independent review of agency programs in carrying out the Act
and with the creation of a scientific and technical advisory committee
which has, as one of its goals, evaluation of the implementation and
effectiveness of the Act. Review of the interim (first three years)
projects will be crucial in this regard. If the committee is given an
assignment of reviewing these projects, year by year, it could go a
long way toward instilling trust in the public about the purpose and
results of forest restoration programs.
Senator Wyden. Very well said. I think ensuring that we
build on something of a genuine breakthrough, as you have
described, is exactly our charge, and very well stated, Dr.
Johnson. We thank you.
Mr. Blasing, we welcome you. I know you have had a long
trek across the land to come and share your insight. You have
had a long career working on forest policy issues and giving
more of your time to work on the Grant County Public Forest
Commission. So we welcome your remarks. We will make any
prepared remarks part of the record, and you just proceed as
you wish.
STATEMENT OF LARRY BLASING, MEMBER, GRANT COUNTY PUBLIC FOREST
COMMISSION
Mr. Blasing. Yes, in order to get here, I even had to give
up the last game of the Oregon State-Washington series.
Senator Wyden. Painful.
Mr. Blasing. Yes, it was.
Senator Wyden. All right.
Mr. Blasing. Yes. Thank you for the kind words about Grant
County. The Aryan nation certainly stirred up a hornets' nest
when they come around looking for property.
In your introductory remarks and most of the remarks that I
have heard here today, I wanted to jump up and say ``right
on.'' We are with you. We agree with everything pretty much
conceptually, but the devil is in the details, in our opinion.
The bill addresses the wrong problem. Management science is
not the problem. The Forest Service knows how to manage lands.
The problem is that they don't know how to write an
environmental impact statement that will pass the Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals.
Because of this, there have been those who have taken
advantage of that, who basically made a practice out of it,
that we now have the Forest Service basically going through a
mating dance with environmental groups to try to get some
project off the ground that they can agree on without having to
get into court. This isn't the best way to manage the forests.
We need to do it differently, as you say.
Even though some of the groups have agreed not to appeal
and to litigate--Mr. Kerr, I thank you--not everybody has
agreed to that. You have testimony that is in written testimony
from, I believe, the Hells Canyon Preservation Society that
says that they do not want to give up that option. We have
people in the Blue Mountain collaborative group that Dr.
Johnson referred to who have indicated the same thing.
I attend the Blue Mountain collaborative--Blue Mountain
Forest Partners--I am sorry--which is a collaborative group. I
have been to 3 meetings. So far, we are still discussing the
shape of the table. This process is going to take a long time
to go through there to come to any kind of a decision that we
can actually take a look at.
The goals of the bill do not include any economic jobs or
consideration. The goals of the act do not line up with the
title. We would like to see those goals reflect the importance
of the economy and the jobs.
We are a county of cows and trees. Unemployment is
currently over 15 percent. Each timber industry job is critical
to our economy since research shows that a direct job in the
industry creates seven supporting jobs. As timber goes, so goes
our economy.
At this point, we note that Grant County Court has not
endorsed the bill, and no other eastern courts that I am aware
of. Incidentally, the Grant County Court knew I was going to be
here today, and so they asked me to point out one thing.
It says, ``Incidentally, the county court a few minutes ago
asked me to mention that given the emphasis on stewardship
projects, that the bill emphasizes timber as a byproduct. The
moneys from the sale of the products from restoration programs
will go back to the Forest Service. Funding for the rural
insecure schools is only for a limited time. Stewardship
returns no funds to schools, the same as those in this bill. If
the bill is passed, funding for county roads and schools, for
communities associated with the 6 national forests will be
greatly damaged.''
Back to me. We are advised in conversations with the Forest
Service that the timeline for actions under this bill will be
impossible to keep. All of the projects under this bill are
subject to NEPA, and that law has its own timeline. The
requirements of the bill contain numerous nebulous, unclear,
and even litigious wording, and management direction with
subjective concepts. The terms such as ``best available
science,'' ``historic levels,'' ecologically appropriate,''
``special complexity'' are subjective, subjective terms that
should not be codified into law as they are controversial and
simply lawsuits waiting to happen.
Old growth is more of a concept than a definable matter.
Old growth lodgepole is different from mixed fir stands, which
are different from pine stands. This bill defines old growth as
an individual tree, and in the bill, it has 2 different
definitions. This confuses forest management, as management is
done on a stand basis with old growth being one consideration.
The Forest Service has already dedicated many thousands of
acres to the preservation of old growth. This bill adds old
growth restrictions upon existing old growth restrictions. The
Forest Service has more than 100 years invested in the
management of these forests. Stands have been modified for fire
hazard reduction, growth, forest health, and many other
reasons. This bill's program to return to historic conditions
basically throws this effort out the window.
Roads are necessary for any forest management program.
Codifying road management assures that management costs will
rise and long-term problems are a certainty.
Incidentally, pleasure driving is the number-one use of
national forests, more than hiking, hunting, or other uses.
This bill will restrict the public from its favorite use of
their national forests.
In the event that this bill is enacted into law, it must
have a real sunset provision including all the provisions of
the bill. We are looking at basically a bureaucratic nightmare
where replacing one level of--my tongue is sticking to the top
of my roof, the roof of my mouth. We are placing a level of
bureaucracy over the top of the bureaucracy that we now have in
place, and that has never worked well.
We will continue to help resolve these problems. I thank
you for your time. I thank you for your effort. We will look
forward to doing our part to make sure that these things are
resolved.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Blasing follows:]
Prepared Statement of Larry Blasing, Member, Grant County Public Forest
Commission
s. 2895
My name is Larry Blasing, member ofthe Grant County Public Forest
Commission. My forestry career began on the Malheur national Forest in
1956. I eventually graduated from Oregon State University in Forest
Management in 1964. I have held positions as logging manager, sawmill
manager, consultant and company representative. I have represented the
forest products industry including companies such as: Boise Cascade, in
Montana, Idaho, Eastern Washington, and Alaska. Much of this experience
has been in eastside forest types. I have been involved in most major
forest policy issues that affect the western states ITom the local
level to the White House. I have represented the forest products
industry in litigation and numerous appeals. At one time I worked with
Senator Hatfield on the National Forest Management Act. I am currently
serving in a position elected by the voters of Grant County, Oregon on
the ``Grant County Public Forest Commission''. I am presenting
testimony as a member of the Grant County Public Forest Commission.
The Grant County Public Forest Commission was established by an
initiative of the electorate of Grant County, Oregon for the purpose
(in part) to ``prescribe actions to promote the efficient beneficial
and timely stewardship of public lands and resources''. The members of
the Commission are elected by the voters of Grant County. The enabling
initiative passed by the voters of Grant County in 2002 recognized and
stated ... ``forest health is paramount to our natural environment,
including watersheds, wildlife habitat, fisheries, native ecosystems,
timber production, grazing and other beneficial activities''. Our
purpose as a commission is to work to ensure that these principles are
met in a timely fashion.
We are fully aware of the raw material plight of our three Grant
County sawmills. Weare in support and contribute to any effort to
provide relief to the raw material paralysis. We believe that the risks
associated with SB 2895 ``Oregon Eastside Forests Restoration, Old
Growth Protection and Jobs Act of 2009'', hereinafter referred to as
``Act'' far outweigh the benefits and will, in-fact, exacerbate our raw
material supply problems. This is the primary concern which causes us
to oppose the Act in its current form and offer the following comments.
It is highly unlikely that the Act will be successful in the
attempts to address several issues that are controversial within the
National Forest Management Act. The Act addresses the wrong problem. It
is not management science that is the problem. The problem in getting
projects initiated on the ground and the inability of the Forest
Service to write a NEPA document which is acceptable to the 9th Circuit
Court of Appeals. While appeals delay Forest Service programs, they do
not entirely stop the programs. It is the continued threat of
litigation by the ``Environmental Litigation Industry'' what stops the
process and this Act does not resolve that problem.
The Act's goal was to address process stagnation, a major and
systemic problem associated with natural resource management on our
National Forests in Eastern Oregon, and provide relief to the economies
and industries reliant upon our National Forests. However, the Act
fails to limit process, and actually dramatically adds to the process
required to get a project on the ground. As for resolving the timber
supply and economic accountability problems on the Eastside National
Forests, the Act fails again.
Throughout the Act the Commission found that economic and social
considerations are always placed secondary to anything else, in stark
contrast to the objectives of forest management spelled out in the
Forest Service Manual (FSM 2402) which includes six (6) goals and the
first is ``To provide a continuous supply of National Forest System
timber for the use and necessities of the citizens of the United
States.''.
The Goals established by this Act, Section (4)(a)(1), do not
include any Economic or Jobs consideration. Economics is only included
as a secondary issue in determining methodology ofproject initiation,
Section (4)(a)(2)(B). Then ``wood harvests to sustain adequate industry
infrastructure'' is included as number 9 in a list of 15 things which
could potentially be helped to achieve when choosing methodologies for
projects.
The Commission advocates and supports the need to expedite
providing of raw materials for the local timber industry and ensure the
retention of local industrial infrastructure to support local dependant
economies. However, Section (9), which defines and describes the
projects under the Act states seven criteria that must be met in
developing the ecological restoration projects and activities, none of
which address economic or jobs considerations. After meeting these
criteria the Act states that the projects shall be prioritized based on
the degree to which the projects will improve forest and watershed
health based on plant association groups and (then lastly) the need to
maintain industrial infrastructure to carry out restoration activities.
The Commission does not agree that the Act's attempts to help
``local'' economies by specifying that the required Stewardship
contract ``give preference to local businesses'' will help local
business and workers. The Act defines ``local'' to be a 100 mile radius
around any National Forest, Section (13)(d)(3) which for the Malheur
National Forest can reach from the Cascades to the Idaho border and
North to the Washington border. The Commission believes this will kill
small resource dependant communities within Grant County, Hamey County,
Wallowa County, Wheeler County and other small remote communities
within the Eastern Oregon national forests.
The new processes spelled out will do little to get more projects
on the ground.
1) The Advisory Panel as proposed in the Act is destined for
disaster;
a. Legislated advisory panels (like the Committee of
Scientists in RPA) have been shown to be ineffective and a
waste of taxpayer money;
b. The Advisory Panel specified in the Act will add a
cumbersome layer of process to a variety of decisions;
c. How can one, seven (7) person panel be expected to provide
the mandated site specific input to the issues on each of the
six (6) National Forests and the associated Collaborative
Groups? This will easily be a full time job for the panel;
d. The combination of mandates including the Advisory Panel,
the Collaborative Groups and coordination with the
``Secretary'' will absolutely guarantee paralysis; and
e. The addition of the Advisory Panel and the Collaborative
Groups will add two (2) additional layers which are being
legalized, codified and mandated by Congress which will direct
US Forest Service management programs, essentially bypassing
the Secretary of Agriculture.
2) The myriad of reports mandated within this Act will by
definition increase process and will add layers of
administrative work to an already overly complicated process;
3) We are advised in conversations with Forest Service
personnel that the timelines for actions required in this Act
will be impossible to keep;
4) The Advisory Panel and Collaborative Groups leave out the
mandated coordination required by current law to include county
government, grazing permitees, neighboring landowners and other
valid interest holders; and
5) The new processes, procedures and restrictions spelled out
in the act are by definition ``more process''.
6) The bill places layers of new bureaucracy upon existing
bureaucracy, a sure recipe for stagnation.
7) It should be made clear that the Secretary only needs to
``consider'' the input of Collaborative, as well as others, but
the Secretary's decision is final. The Secretary has to run the
Forest Service, not Oregon State University or any other group
no matter how well intentioned through ``Advisory Panels''.
The Commission believes that the Act, while attempting to limit
appeals and litigation, actually will provide additional fuel to the
environmental litigation industry through:
1) Ambiguous definitions including:
a. ``Old Growth'' which includes a single tree, Section
(3)(14), then prohibits harvest or removal, Section (4)(b)(1),
then discusses limiting harvest of trees over 150 years old in
Section (9)( d);
b. ``Forest Health'' which includes ``to maintain or develop
species composition, ecosystem function and structure,
hydrologic function, carbon cycling, and sediment regimes that
are within an acceptable range that considers-(i) historic
variability; and (ii) anticipated future conditions, Section
(3)(6);
c. ``restoration economies'', Section (2)(2); and
d. ``Plant Association'', Section (3)(17), which includes as
part of the definition ``vegetation community that--(i) would
potentially, in the absence of disturbance occupy a site ...
``; and
2) Nebulous, unclear and even litigious wording and
management direction, such as:
a. ``restore ecologically sustainable forest stands to
incorporate characteristic forest stand structures and older
tree populations'', Section (4)(a)(2)(B)(viii) ;
b. ``natural structure'' which is undefined and not agreed
upon by scientists;
c. ``best available science'' which is absolutely subjective
and a recipe for litigation;
d. ``restore historical levels of within forest stand spatial
heterogeneity'' Section (4)(a)(2)(B)(iv);
e. ``the restoration and maintenance of historic population
levels of older tree'', Section (4)(a)(2)(B)(vii);
f. ``ecologically appropriate spatial complexity'', Section
(4)(a)(2)(B)(xi);
g. ``In developing ecological restoration projects under this
Act, the Secretary shall-(A) ... , and achieve, a net reduction
in the permanent road system;'', Section (6)(c)(1), which will
ultimately result in zero miles of permanent roads on the
forest if carried out as written; and
The Commission believes that Section 10 of the Act while providing
codification to the current Collaborative process, goes on to provide
for a new process which will certainly result in more process and
litigation. The Commission believes that any advisory group or
collaborative group must include valid permit holders, valid interest
holders, neighboring landowners and local governments to a larger
degree than spelled out in the Act. Recommendations from Collaborative
groups need to be site specific.
The provisions in the Act that direct the harvesting restrictions
on Old Growth and the recruitment of replacement trees will have a
negative effect on the economic productivity of the national forest
lands. While the Act directs that a single tree is Old Growth the
timber resource is managed as a stand. Not all trees in a stand are the
same diameter. When a stand reaches the size and condition where
harvest is desirable, it is likely that some trees will exceed the 21''
dbh screen. Since they cannot be harvested under the provisions of the
Act, those trees will occupy a growing site that cannot be used for
commercial harvest until that tree dies. Over time this will ratchet
down the amount of growing site that is available for commercial
harvest.
Restricting the harvest of trees less than 150 years of age and
less than 21'' dbh is going to cause a management nightmare. In eastern
Oregon trees will grow to 21'' dbh in about 60 years on the average
sites. On higher sites 21'' dbh can be achieved in 40 years. The normal
rotation for eastern Oregon stands is about 100 years. Therefore, under
this Act, 40 to 60 years of the most productive period of timber volume
growth will be lost.
``Old Growth Protection'' is only a temporary concept at best.
First of all, old trees die with or without the help of man. Pine trees
weaken, often get diseased and then are killed by insects. Douglas fir,
true firs, and others are subject to many diseases and if left without
management are the areas where the most serious catastrophic fires
occur. Old mixed conifer forests burn up--then what? If you want to
reduce catastrophic fires on national forests then you must reduce the
hazards on old growth mixed conifer stands. The Santiam Pass is an
example and stands as a glaring reminder to everyone who drives through
what stupidity looks like.
The forests of Eastern Oregon are dynamic and were constantly
changing even before any human forest management began. The attempt in
this Act to codify management details (some not even proven) does not
fit all conditions in Eastern Oregon and certainly will not be
appropriate over time. Conditions such as climate change, yearly
weather patterns, insect and disease cycles, windthrow, microbursts,
catastrophic fires, etc need to be dealt with as they occur. They are
never the same. Therefore, codifying management details to the degree
proposed in this Act is destined to failure and provides the
``Environmental Litigation Industry'' with hundreds of new issues to
challenge.
The Commission believes that, as written, this Act will only
exacerbate the problems associated with forest management in Eastern
Oregon. In reality, the environmentalists will get everything they
could hope for, while local communities and dependent industries are
assured of a timber program largely based on a weak promise through:
1) Codification by Congress of the flawed Eastside Screens;
2) Codification and Expansion of PAC FISH and INFISH by
Congress;
3) Having a congressionally mandated definition of Old Growth
which is functionally unattainable;
4) A mandated reduction in the National Forest Road system
which mathematically will result in NO permanent roads;
5) A mandated collaborative process which will result in
major stagnation of the entire process; and
6) Having congress officially mandate some ``historic
population level of older trees'' (what are older trees?) and
those items discussed above 2) (a)--(g) to name just a few
ofthe gains.
The Forest Service has ongoing management projects where they have
already invested large amounts of money and manpower. Under this Act,
will these projects be allowed to continue? Will the necessary funds
come from the normal appropriations process or from the special
appropriations for this Act?
The Act authorizes a one time sum of $50,000,000 that will be
available until it is used up. Only 3% of this money can be used for
administrative purposes, requiring the balance of the administrative
costs including the costs of the Advisory Panel, Collaborative groups
and extra assessments and reports to be taken from the already anemic
Timber Management budget in these six (6) national forests. It is
highly unlikely that: 1) There will be additional appropriations for
the increased overhead associated with this Act; or 2) The other
National Forests within either Region 6 or the other Regions of the
nation will voluntarily relinquish funds from their allocated budgcts
to make up the increased overhead associated with this Act. Therefore,
each of the forests will be required to make up the difference in
overhead from other projects.
It is unlikely that the revenues from the sale of forest products
generated from the restoration projects can sustain the program of
Ecological Restoration Projects on the Large Landscape basis. The
restrictions placed on harvest of ``Older Trees'' and the reliance on
harvest of ``Biomass'' is highly unlikely to provide a sustainable flow
of income large enough to fund the intent of this Act. Biomass and
small diameter trees have the lowest product value and the highest cost
to produce. Biomass barely pays its way to the mill in the best markets
and therefore, there will be little revenue to sustain a very expensive
program. As a result, the USFS will be stuck trying to comply with a
very expensive and legally mandated program with little money to
comply.
The tax payers of the United States will again be burdened with an
extensive and expensive program mandated by congress. When in fact the
products of these six (6) national forests should be easily capable of
producing enough income, from the sale of even a minor part of the
sustained yield from the forests, to not only pay for the harvest
program but the associated restoration work necessary to improve the
declining health of the forests. In these times of skyrocketing
national deficit and astronomical national debt, congress should
recognize that our vast renewable natural resources are one area
available to produce the income necessary to dig our nation out of the
fiscal mess we find ourselves in at this time. We need less
restrictions not more expensive process at this time.
The Commission finds that enormity of the problems associated with
this Act are so overwhelming that we can not support it. Any purported
benefits pale to the increased process, increased costs and the areas
of potential litigation created by this Act.
[Note: Growth, Mortality, Removals graph has been retained in
subcommittee files.]
Senator Wyden. Very good. Anxious to work with you.
Professor Fitzgerald.
STATEMENT OF STEPHEN A. FITZGERALD, M.S., PROFESSOR AND
SILVICULTURE & WILDLAND FIRE SPECIALIST, OREGON STATE
UNIVERSITY, REDMOND, OR
Mr. Fitzgerald. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I brought a little bit of Oregon's forests here.
Senator Wyden. I can tell.
Mr. Fitzgerald. This is the first time I have been to DC,
and I feel usually a little bit more comfortable when I am
surrounded by trees. I thought you would enjoy it as well.
For my oral remarks, I have a handout--I think it is in the
back of your packet--on some diagrams that I am going to
describe as I go through. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you for
inviting me here today to testify on S. 2895. My name is Steve
Fitzgerald, and I am a professor in silviculture and wildland
fire extension specialist at Oregon State University.
I am here on behalf of the Society of American Foresters, a
professional organization of over 14,000 forest managers,
scientists, and educators. My perspective is somewhat unique in
that as extension specialist, I am immersed both in the
academic arena as an applied researcher and educator, as well
as in the forest practitioner's realm.
First, let me say, Senator Wyden, that you deserve
tremendous credit for bringing the opposing sides together to
compromise and come to agreement on this legislation, as we
heard today. But before I get into the main portion of my
testimony, I have a couple of just quick comments.
First, the appropriation of the $50 million to implement
this legislation, if enacted, is essential. I mean, it is
vital. Second, this bill, along with other State-specific
Federal forest legislation, like that in Montana, are symptoms
of a much larger problem, as we know. That is the lack of a
clear and consistent national or regional policy for our
national forests.
For the rest of my testimony, I would like to talk about
forest dynamics and the 21-inch diameter limit specified in the
bill. Although I understand the interest in diameter limits, as
it assures that large trees won't be cut, it cannot be stated
more clearly that permanent fixed diameter limits are not based
on ecology and forest science. These artificial limits remain
static while forests and the larger ecosystems are constantly
changing.
With this in mind, the bill's goals of restoring old growth
and improving forest health in younger stands must consider 2
ecological truths. First, the amount of resources available to
trees on an acre of land--sunlight, water, nutrients, space--is
finite, that this defines the carrying capacity of the site. In
other words--and then, second, the resources a tree needs to
survive and grow is roughly proportional to its size. In other
words, bigger trees need more resources.
Together, these 2 ecological truths demonstrate that a site
can support only so many trees of a given size at a particular
point in time.
With that background, let me talk about historic old growth
structure, and figure 1 is a graph of trees per acre for an old
growth mixed conifer stand from 1917. This old growth stand
contains 77 trees per acre, ranging from 5 to 42 inches, and
note how the number of trees progressively decreases from the
smaller diameter classes to the larger. This example represents
the carrying capacity for this site.
Because of the wide range of diameters and ages of trees in
such forests, old growth cannot be defined by a single age or
diameter. Figure 2 is a graph of trees' diameter by age.
Looking at the dashed 21-inch diameter line on the graph,
notice the large variation around the diameter along with wide
variations in age, and others have shown this poor correlation
as well.
Therefore, old growth forests and goals for their
restoration should be based upon their structural condition.
For a given forest type, this includes a range of tree
diameters, multiple age classes, a mix of tree species, snags
and downed wood, and a range of trees per acre. Legislation can
seek to improve forest health and resiliency, but to be most
effective, forest scientists and managers need flexibility to
develop specific stand structural objectives and metrics based
on plant association, historical information, current research,
and local experience.
For dense, younger forests, it is often unclear what the
overall long-term restoration goal is. Is it to eventually move
these forests to an old growth condition? The 21-inch diameter
limit seems to reflect that intent, but what might be the
outcome of such a limit? Figure 3A and B shows a dense 80-year-
old pine stand that I marked for a thinning as part of a study
to enhance forest resiliency and accelerate large tree
development.
Because this is national forest land, the trees were marked
under the 21-inch diameter limit. The average tree diameter was
only 11 inches before thinning. So the 21-inch limit was not an
issue at the time that this was implemented.
Figure 4 depicts a computer simulation of this thinning
treatment and the subsequent stand growth over 4 decades when
the average tree diameter grows to about 20 inches. At this
point, the 120-year-old stand will need another thinning to
reduce competition and move the stand to the large tree
structure. That will include removing trees above and below 21
inches if that was allowed.
Although this is a long-term example, there are many stands
that are at this stage right now. See figure 5. Although S.
2895 allows for exemptions to the 21-inch limit, it appears
that this would require the agreement of the collaborative
group or the science advisory panel or both. How difficult
would this process be?
Would the 2 panels need to visit each and every tree
proposed to be cut above 21 inches? From my example, this might
encompass thousands or tens of thousands of trees on a 25,000-
acre landscape.
Fixed diameter limits can be cumbersome and constrain our
ability to adjust stand density as appropriate for each site
and set of management objectives and may compromise the health
of large trees, hinder understory vegetation development, and
affect tree regeneration. They can have economic implications
as well.
But we have not adequately addressed such questions for
future stands in which most trees begin to exceed the diameter
limit, and this may result in yet another forest health problem
down the road. Although such conditions would take time to
develop, experience shows that prescriptions must change as
forests change.
In closing, I hope these oral comments and my written
testimony are useful to the committee. Thank you for your time
and attention and for the opportunity to provide a perspective
from the forestry profession on this legislation.
I would invite you, Senator Wyden, to come and see this
study and other treatments around central Oregon.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Fitzgerald follows:]
Prepared Statement of Stephen A. Fitzgerald, M.S., Professor and
Silviculture & Wildland Fire Specialist, Oregon State University,
Redmond, OR
s. 2895
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, thank you for inviting
me here today to testify on S. 2895, the Oregon Eastside Forests
Restoration, Old Growth Protection, and Jobs Act of 2009. My name is
Stephen Fitzgerald, and I am a Professor and Silviculture & Wildland
Fire Specialist at Oregon State University. I am here on behalf of the
Society of American Foresters (SAF), a professional organization of
over 14,000 forest managers, scientists and educators. There are nearly
1,000 SAF members in Oregon, including hundreds who have been directly
involved in federal forest management. SAF supports and represents the
forestry profession in advancing the science, education, technology,
and practice of forestry. SAF has not taken a formal position on S.
2895, but my comments reflect a professional perspective with our
mission and members clearly in mind, including the input of experienced
SAF leaders who have reviewed the bill. In addition, my views are
generally consistent with those expressed in several statements (Oregon
SAF 2005, 2007, 2008) developed by the Oregon Chapter of the SAF that
address issues and concerns reflected in S 2895.
My perspective is somewhat unique in that as an Extension
Specialist I am immersed in both the academic arena as an applied
researcher and educator as well as in the forest practitioner's realm,
which allows me the opportunity to evaluate the application of research
and silvicultural methods on the ground. Most of my time is spent in
the eastside forests of Oregon and my expertise is in the ecology and
management of ponderosa pine, a species of high ecological, social, and
economic importance to communities in central and eastern Oregon. It is
a species that is experiencing increasing impacts from insects, disease
and uncharacteristic wildfire, and, at the same time, it is at the
center of debate how to deal with these threats to manage and improve
forest health and sustainability in the long run.
First, let me say, Senator Wyden, that you deserve tremendous
credit for bringing opposing sides together to compromise and come to
agreement on this legislation. I support your goal of creating a
strategy to provide for predictability and sustainability for local
economies and governments, to address the challenges of climate change,
and to restore these forests to a healthy and resilient condition. I am
also supportive of your attempts to deal with larger landscapes rather
than continuing an approach of random acts of restoration. And, I am
grateful that your proposed legislation recognizes the importance of
biomass as part of the solution to our goal of energy independence. I
hope that this legislation is offered in the spirit of opening a
dialogue for further input and discussion. In that spirit, I offer the
following comments for consideration as this bill moves through the
legislative process.
section 4. forest management
Language throughout Section 4 of the bill stresses conservation and
restoration. I am in strong agreement that there is much restoration
work to be completed in the ``covered area'' as defined in the
legislation. However, the restoration focus could be misinterpreted by
some to reflect a light entry everywhere, every time. I would note that
some forest types in eastern Oregon, such as lodgepole pine, naturally
regenerate via stand replacement disturbance. Some natural
disturbances, or management to mimic natural disturbance, would not
necessarily meet the stated goals in Section 4(a)(2)(B)--increased mean
diameter, maintenance of older trees, or retention of old growth as
100-year old lodge pole pine is typically at a stand replacement age.
The legislative language allowing for ``ecologically appropriate
spatial complexity (xi) and spatial heterogeneity (xii),'' may be
attempting to address this type of situation. I believe the language
could be strengthened to make clear that management intervention may be
more aggressive as ecologically appropriate.
I am also concerned that the economics of the scale of restoration
activities have not been adequately addressed in terms of both
operational feasibility and compatibility with existing management
mandates. Although forest restoration often emphasizes environmental
concerns, economic and social considerations must also be integrated--
contemporary views of sustainability recognize these three elements as
mutually supporting (Oregon SAF 2007). Neither Section 4(a) or (b)
address the economic viability of these restoration treatments, which
is a serious concern given the scale of restoration needs and the
projected federal deficits. I believe a Section 4(a) (2) (B) (xvi)
could be added that would address this oversight. Language such as,
``Integrate economic viability of treatments so as to maximize acres
treated within the constraints of ecologically appropriate spatial
complexity and heterogeneity,'' could be helpful. In our reading of
Section 4(b) (3) (A) (the Ecological exception) it is not clear that
such economic considerations are part of the decision tree. Additional
language to this section [addition of a subsection (iv) to address
economics] would be helpful. Recognition of economic viability in, (B)
Administrative Exception section may be appropriate as well.
Paragraph (b), PROHIBITIONS ON REMOVAL OF CERTAIN TREES, calls for
a diameter limit of 21 inches above which no trees can be cut. Although
I understand the interest in diameter limits--it gives direct assurance
that large trees won't be cut--it cannot be stated more clearly:
Permanent, fixed diameter limits are not based on ecology and forest
science but rather political science. These artificial limits remain
static while forests, and larger ecosystems, are invariably dynamic:
that is, they grow, compete for resources, and are continually affected
by disturbance.
Given this context, I'd like to talk about restoration of old-
growth and restoration treatments in younger stands. But first, there
are a couple of ecological truths that I need to explain for
background. First, the amount of resources available to trees on an
acre of land--sunlight, water, nutrients, physical space--is finite.
This defines the carrying capacity of the site. In the dry, interior
forests of the west, water is the most important of these resources
because its limited supply directly impacts tree growth and survival.
Second, the amount of resources a tree needs to survive and grow is
roughly proportional to its size. In other words, big trees with big
crowns (a lot of needles/leaves), require more resources to maintain
themselves, grow, and reproduce. And, as trees grow, they consume
increasingly greater resources. These two ecological truths combine in
the fact that a given site can support only so many trees of a given
size. That is, it can support a lot of small trees or fewer large
trees.
With that as background, I like to discuss historical old-growth
structure. This example is from central Oregon, but it is likely to be
similar to other historic old-growth forests in central and eastern
Oregon. Figure 1 is a graph of trees per acre by diameter class for a
virgin old-growth mixed conifer stand from 1917 in south central
Oregon, near Klamath Falls (Munger 1917).
This old-growth stand contains a total of 77 trees per acre ranging
from 5 to 42 inches, of which 40 are ponderosa pine. Approximately 25
trees are above 21 inches in diameter, 19 of which are ponderosa pine.
Note how the number of trees per acre progressively decreases from the
smaller diameter classes to the larger size classes. This multi-aged
stand is relatively open as a result of frequent understory fire, which
kept the fir species in check (but didn't eliminate them) as they have
thin bark and are easily killed by fire. Frequent fire kept stand
density and fuels low and favored large fire-resistant pines; however,
sufficient small diameter trees usually escaped or survived fire and
will eventually replace the larger trees over a long period of time
(Fitzgerald 2005). The number of trees per acre by diameter class and
the maximum tree size would vary across the landscape according to a
site's carrying capacity. For example, a less productive site could
have a similar shaped bar graph, but there would be fewer trees in each
diameter class and the maximum tree diameter would likely be smaller.
This example represents full stocking or the sustainable tree density
for this site. However, most old growth stands in this region today
have an overabundance of understory trees, placing the large trees at
risk to bark beetle attack and wildfire. Reducing stand density can
help increase the health and longevity of large old growth trees on the
landscape (McDowell et al. 2003, Kolb et al. 2008).
Because of the wide range of diameters and ages of trees comprising
interior old-growth forests, old-growth cannot be defined by a single
age or diameter. For example, Figure 2 shows a graph of tree diameter
by age (courtesy of J.D. Arney (unpublished)). Looking at the 21-inch
diameter line (dashed) on the graph, you can see the large variation
around this diameter along with wide variations in age. Others have
shown this poor correlation between diameter and age (Van Pelt 2008).
Therefore, old-growth forests, and goals for their restoration,
should be defined or based upon their structural conditions, consistent
with the professional definition of old-growth (SAF 1998). For a given
plant association, this includes: a range of tree diameters; multiple
age classes; a mix of tree species likely to occur with disturbance;
snags and downed wood; and a range of trees per acre. Legislation can
provide directives to improve health and resiliency, but to be most
effective; forest scientists and mangers need flexibility to develop
specific stand structural objectives and metrics based on plant
associations, historical information, current research and local
experience. If, after specifying this ``target'' structural condition,
more trees grow into any one of the specified diameter classes, those
excess trees would be thinned to maintain the health of residual trees
and promote the desired old-growth structure. This approach would
create a working landscape that provides a suite of benefits: old-
growth aesthetics; resilience to insects, disease, fire and climate
change; mature forest habitat for wildlife; carbon sequestration; and
some level of sustainable timber output.
For dense, younger forest stands, it is often unclear what the
overall long-term restoration goal is. In the short run, improving
resiliency to insects and fire and improving habitat diversity may be
vital ecological needs and will require a variety of management tools
(Busse et al. 2009). But, in the long run, is the goal to move these
forests to an old-growth condition? The 21-inch diameter limit seems to
reflect that intent, but what might be the actual outcome of such a
limit? Assuming the objective is to move younger stands to a larger
tree structure--or some semblance of old-growth--then the 21-inch limit
could become very cumbersome and cause problems in the future. I will
illustrate with an example from a research study I have implemented on
the Deschutes National Forest in central Oregon.
Figure 3a* shows a dense 80-year old ponderosa pine stand that I
marked for a wide thinning (leaving the larger trees) to promote stand
health and vigor, reduce ladder fuels, and to accelerate large tree
development. The thinning reduced stand density from 148 to 44 trees
per acre (Figure 3b). Because this is National Forest, the trees were
marked with the 21-inch diameter limit that is current Forest Service
policy in this region. Because the average tree diameter was 10.7
inches before thinning, the 21-inch limit did not pose a significant
problem for the thinning objective at this time, and harvest of small-
and medium-size sawtimber was possible. Figure 4 depicts a computer
simulation of the thinning and the subsequent stand growth over a 40-
year period as the average tree diameter grows to about 20 inches. At
this point, the 120 year-old stand will need another thinning to reduce
competition as the trees will be much larger and consuming more
resources (Fitzgerald and Emmingham 2005). With the likely range of
tree diameters shown here (Figure 2), removing trees both above and
below the 21-inch limit will be needed to maintain forest health and
vigor of residual trees and move towards the desired large-tree
structure. Although this seems a long way off, there are stands that
are at this stage now. A case in point is shown in Figure 5. This is a
130-year old ponderosa pine stand that is already at this stage and
will require thinning of trees above 21 inches to maintain the health
of this stand and promote even larger trees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* All figures have been retained in subcommittee files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although S. 2895 allows for exemptions to the 21-inch diameter
limit, it appears that this would require agreement of the
collaborative group, the science advisory panel, or both. How difficult
would this process be? Would the two panels need to visit each and
every tree? For the previous example, this might encompass a handful of
trees on ten acres; 50 trees or more on a hundred acres; and tens of
thousands of trees on 100,000 acres, far too many for either group to
realistically examine. How will this be accomplished efficiently, both
for stands now in this condition and those that grow into this
condition in the future? Fixed diameter limits constrain our ability to
adjust stand density as appropriate for each site and set of management
objectives, and may result in slow tree growth, hinder understory
vegetation development, and affect tree regeneration (Abella et al.
2006), and they can have economic implications (Larson and Mirth 2001).
The reduction in treatment effectiveness due to diameter limits depends
on how high or low the diameter limit is set relative to the current
average stand diameter and density. But we have not adequately
addressed such questions for future stands in which a majority of trees
begin to exceed the diameter limit and again compete fiercely for site
resources. This could result in yet another forest health crisis down
the road--the problem that S. 2895 seeks to solve.
Although such conditions would take time to develop, forestry
professionals have a long-term perspective and our experience shows
that treatment prescriptions must change (sometimes dramatically) as
forests change.
I would like to add a few final comments that, while less detailed
than the previous discussion, I believe are also very important to
consider:
First, my sense is that this legislation is prescriptive and
narrowly defines forest management on federal lands. The
legislation seemingly redefines the purpose of federal lands by
reframing forest management to a ``restoration-centric''
emphasis with timber as a by-product (e.g., Section
9(c)(5)(A)(ii)). Moreover, it is unclear how this bill meshes
with existing federal law and mandates such as those under the
Organic Act, the National Forest Management Act, the National
Environmental Policy Act, and others. The legislation is vague
in this regard. Perhaps your staff could develop a flow chart
to help illustrate how this legislation dovetails, overlaps, or
is in conflict with these other laws.
Second, the forest management and other issues that S. 2895
seeks to address do not stop at the Oregon border. This bill,
and other state-specific federal forest legislation (e.g.,
Montana Senator Tester's Forest Jobs and Recreation Act), are a
symptom of a much larger problem--the lack of a clear and
consistent national or regional policy for our National
Forests, with specific management goals that effectively
integrate the diverse mandates of existing laws. Clearly,
federal forest management today is not working and our forests
and communities suffer and show the consequences. A piecemeal
approach to federal forest policy may provide some local,
short-term relief, but over time it is likely to create more
problems than it solves. In contrast, a comprehensive approach
could leave an enduring legacy, perhaps not unlike the laws
that established our National Forests over a century ago. I
know that the forestry profession would welcome such a
legislative effort and SAF would be ready to assist in any
possible way. We need to have a national dialogue to develop a
shared vision of what we want our national forests to be and,
more broadly, what goods and services we want them to provide
society in perpetuity.
Third, in SECTION 15 AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS, the
appropriation of $50,000,000 is extremely important and
necessary to implement this legislation. I am concerned that if
funds are not authorized by Congress, that some groups will get
their objectives met while others won't get what was promised,
and the Forest Service and taxpayers are left with unfunded
mandates and additional regulation. In the end, forests and
communities will lose out if this does not happen.
Lastly, S. 2895 seems process heavy and would add to an
already substantial array of regulatory requirements, require
much assessment and analysis, and runs the risk of achieving
less on-the-ground results. Perhaps your staff could map out
all the meetings, reports, assessments, interim periods, etc.,
directed by S. 2895 alongside the existing procedural
requirements for the Forest Service, to clarify the additional
process burden it would place on the agency.
In closing, I hope that these comments about S. 2895, Oregon
Eastside Forests Restoration, Old Growth Protection, and Jobs Act of
2009 are useful to the Committee. Thank you for your time and
attention, and for the opportunity to provide a perspective from the
forestry profession on this legislation.
Senator Wyden. I have seen many treatments in central
Oregon, and I am certain to see more. So I thank you, and that
is very helpful of you to come. Thank you.
Let us begin our questions with Senator Risch. He has been
very patient. I have got a considerable number of areas to get
into, but we are going to begin with Senator Risch.
Senator Risch. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I am glad I was able to attend the hearing, quite
interested in this legislation and commend you for bringing
this legislation. I think there have been some legitimate
comments here to help further hone the bill.
It gives me some modest pleasure to sit here presiding or
semi-presiding with Dr. Johnson, Mr. Fitzgerald. I spent 4
years at the College of Forestry at the University of Idaho and
listened to you guys pontificate for 4 years. So it is good to
be up here for a change.
I am also an alumni of the Society of American Foresters,
Mr. Fitzgerald. So thank you for coming.
Mr. Fitzgerald. I am also a Vandal.
Senator Risch. All right, you are the man.
I graduated in forest management a year after Mr. Blasing
did, in 1965. You know, it is really unfortunate more of our
colleagues couldn't be here. I am told I am the only one out of
the 435 Members of Congress and the 100 in the Senate with any
background in forestry at all. So we wrestle with these issues
all the time, and it is interesting to talk to people. I think
the chairman would agree with me that there is a, putting it
kindly, modest lack of knowledge of the forest industry and how
forests and landscapes work and grow.
Mr. Shelk, when I graduated from the College of Forestry at
the University of Idaho, there were 41 operating mills in
southern Idaho. Today, there is one. It is the result of a
combination of things, but not the least of which is the
tension and the acrimony that has taken place between the
environmental community and the industrial community.
The only way you are going to continue to cut boards is to
do exactly what you are doing right now, and I think most
anybody would tell you that that is what the situation is. I am
sure you probably recognize that.
Let me see, Mr. Blasing, I listened to what you had to say.
By the way, just so you know who you are talking to here, they
list me as the fifth most conservative member of the Senate. My
wife and I run about 500 pair of black and black baldy cows. So
I know trees. I know cows, and I know the area that you are
talking about.
But let me say this. I think that some of the suggestions
you had were very constructive. I couldn't agree with you more
that the Forest Service does know how to manage. I mean, we
have been at this a long, long time, since the fires in Idaho,
northern Idaho of 1910 and on forward. We have gained a lot of
information about how to manage forests.
I agree with you. I don't think that is the problem. It is
actually doing it that is the problem. I think that the
environmental community is coming to the recognition, and I
think it was conceded here that there are parts of the national
forest that deserve management. There are certainly parts that
deserve our protection and that not be managed, not be used for
multiple use, although multiple use is certainly the desired
use of the forest.
But there are parts that should be managed, large parts
that should be managed. But I want to tell you a little bit
about what happened in Idaho. You are probably not familiar
with it.
When I was Governor--in fact, it wasn't long after I became
Governor--the Bush administration urged the States to take a
run at writing an appropriate State rule for the roadless areas
in the State. The environmental community had apoplexy, of
course. They thought that it could be done better from the
banks of the Potomac than in the individual States.
Most of the States declined. My friends all told me don't
touch that with a 10-foot pole. But it was a true love for me.
There are 9.2 million acres of roadless in Idaho, and I have
watched them fight over it. I can't count the lawsuits that
have taken place over the last 40 years while we have sat and
really abdicated our responsibility to do something about
roadless.
So I took it on, and I did it in a collaborative fashion. I
got the industry to the table. I got the environmental
community to the table. At times, I had to use what a Governor
sometimes uses to get those people to the table, but we did get
almost everyone to the table. The only one we didn't was the
Wilderness Society, and I think they still regret not coming to
the table.
We only argued very briefly about the size of the table--or
excuse me, the shape of the table. I urged everyone that we had
to be working in good faith and trust each other in good faith.
We proceeded in a 6-month period of time to write a roadless
rule for 9.2 million acres, the largest bloc--well, it wasn't
blocs, it was pieces--of roadless of any State in the United
States, certainly the most diverse.
We did it in a give-and-take fashion. We did it by starting
with counties and engaging the counties in the areas. We went
through in a give-and-take fashion and eventually got a rule.
That rule now is the law of the land of the United States. We
are the only State that has a rule that designates how our
roadless areas are to be managed.
I am not going to go into the details of it. But it is a
good rule, and it recognizes that there are pristine pieces
that have to be left alone, but there are other pieces that
need to be managed to a larger or lesser degree of
aggressiveness.
But in any event, my point is, don't give up. I heard your
criticism of this bill. I think some of the criticisms are
probably well founded. I am sure they are all well intended. I
suspect that Senator Wyden will be more than happy to sit down
with you talk about some of the criticisms that you have with
the bill.
I would only urge that you not overreach and that you do
attempt to come to resolution of this because if, as you say
that your county is so dependent on harvesting and cutting
boards, believe me, the process that is on the table here is
going to be the process that is going to get you to the point
where you can employ people in your county.
So, given that, and it sounds to me like there are people
who have signed off on this that need to sign off on it. It
sounds like people are willing to give and take. So, I would
urge you to go forward, and certainly, the academics that are
here are willing to lend their support, it sounds like. They
know a lot about this.
The Forest Service, we all get frustrated with the Forest
Service. They are back here with the enviros pulling on one arm
and the ``God gave us this resource to use'' people like myself
pulling on the other arm, and they have a difficult time. But
in the end, they can't do it by themselves, and they really
need the help of people like Senator Wyden, people who are
willing to do that.
So I have pontificated long enough. I got even with Dr.
Johnson and Mr. Fitzgerald a little bit.
[Laughter.]
Senator Risch. I appreciate you giving me this opportunity.
Thank you, Senator Wyden, for what you are doing.
Senator Wyden. Thank you, Senator Risch.
You have once again made the point, ``Blessed are the
peacemakers,'' because I think what you did in Idaho in
bringing people together is very much a part of where we have
an opportunity to go now in Idaho and Oregon and this
subcommittee. We are very pleased you are on this subcommittee.
We are going to have a chance to work together often in the
days ahead, and I thank you very much for your very helpful
comments.
Senator Risch. I appreciate that, and I think what Mr. Kerr
said about--in his paper about the maturing of the
environmental movement is really quite an observation. I
couldn't agree with you more. I think both sides have matured,
and I think both sides have realized if, indeed, a side is not
particularly interested in just fundraising or just
philosophical argument, I think that both sides have realized
the way this stuff is going to get done is through a
collaborative method and both sides giving because you can't do
it without both sides giving.
So, with that, Mr. Chairman, I apologize. I am 20 minutes
late for my last meeting. I am going to excuse myself.
Senator Wyden. Thank you very much for staying and your
patience.
Mr. Blasing. Thank you for your comments, Mr. Risch.
I just wanted to point out that one of the last jobs I had
for the Forest Service was being the ranger alternate for the
Big Creek Ranger District, which is a big bunch of the Frank
Church-River of No Return Wilderness Area.
The other thing I would only say is that if you had--when I
represented the forest products industry in north Idaho, when
you had Dick Bennett and Potlatch on the same board of
directors, you do know how to negotiate.
Senator Risch. Amen to that.
Senator Wyden. He does. You are on target on that point,
too, Mr. Blasing. We thank you, and thank you, Senator Risch.
Senator Risch. Thank you.
Senator Wyden. So let us see what we can do to find some
kind of common ground here because it seems to me on this
question of unanimity--I mean, it is almost like elections.
There has never been a unanimous election.
What we are looking for is common ground, and it seems to
me, Mr. Kerr, you are, for all practical purposes,
acknowledging one of Mr. Blasing's concerns about not all the
environmental groups are on the program. Your written statement
for the record notes that the conservation community is not of
one mind as the need for restoration thinning.
Then you go on to sort of amplify it in a whole number of
areas with regard to restoration, thinning, burden of proof,
standards of evidence. You make that point, I think, very well.
Can you elaborate on what you are trying to say? Because I
think it is another opportunity to start bridging the gap and
continuing to bring more people together.
Mr. Kerr. Thank you, Senator.
I would like to think that when the facts change that I at
least consider changing my mind. Now, and that is easier said
than done for anybody. It is just kind of human nature
sometimes.
So, the facts have changed on the eastside forests, and the
science has come along and said, you know, they need some
active treatment. The conservation movement originated and is
still steeped in a preservation paradigm. There are pieces of
wild nature that ought to be left alone, and we will continue
to fight for those. You have been instrumental in getting
additional wilderness areas and wild scenic rivers in Oregon,
and thank you for that, and we would like more.
But more and more, the conservation community is moving
into a restoration paradigm on public lands on these degraded
landscapes, as been pointed out here today. So, not all people
move at the same rate, and so some of the objections of my
colleagues are scientific. They do not agree with the science.
They cite other science and such, or they are philosophical.
They just feel that public lands should not have commercial
activities because they have historically equated commercial
activities with harmful activities.
They also--there is an aesthetic objection. You know, we
are talking about to restore the ecological health of these
forests to often remove a lot of trees, not the biggest ones,
but a lot of little ones. That leaves a lot of stumps, and that
bothers people. So, as Aldo Leopold spoke to being an ecologist
is living in a world of wounds when you know something. So, you
could look at these forests, and they look pretty. They are
nice to hike in, but they are not healthy. They are not in good
ecological condition.
So the conservation community has been wrestling with this,
but the majority of the science says action is needed. Not all
of the science. There is differences of opinion among
scientists. But what are you going to do? When most of the
science says a certain thing, you should go with that.
I think the analogy that I use is there are 3 legal
standards we use in this country. One is beyond a reasonable
doubt. When you are going to deprive somebody of their liberty,
you need to be absolutely sure that the evidence says that is
the correct thing to do.
The science of the forest management and forest ecology is
not beyond a reasonable doubt. It is subject to change. There
is dispute. But it is far more than simply merely the
preponderance of the evidence. It is not just a question of,
well, 51 percent of the information from the scientific
community says that action is necessary. It is far greater than
that.
I think the appropriate standard to use is clear and
convincing evidence. There is clear and convincing scientific
evidence that to restore the ecological health to these forests
that aggressive treatment across the landscape is going to be
necessary--not on every acre, but many of them. So, the
conservation community has--is wrestling with that.
I think that much of the conservation community is there. I
believe there is a strong critical mass in favor of this
legislation, but not everybody is. What I like about this
legislation is that it says experts shall be impaneled to
advise the Forest Service on what is the best available
science, and that is a good process.
This legislation does not dictate a particular, specific
outcome. It says we are going to use good information. Here are
broad goals, and we are going to engage all the stakeholders in
a collaborative way. That is working. There is evidence that
that is working already.
If you go to the Fremont National Forest in Lakeview, much
of what this bill would do wouldn't change what is going on
down there. The Forest Service is doing an excellent job.
Similarly, our conservationists and the timber industry on the
Colville National Forest in Washington, on the Siuslaw National
Forest in western Oregon are all doing excellent collaboration.
On the Siuslaw National Forest, there hasn't been litigation
over a timber sale in well over a decade.
Senator Wyden. That last point that you made is a very
striking one, and we are going to want to work with you on that
point, Mr. Blasing. I just had a town meeting over in Lakeview,
and I think this was the first time when we didn't really hear
those kinds of concerns. I think it is reflective of the fact
that you and Mr. Shelk, in particular, have picked out a model
that, based on the evidence, can work in the real world, can
deliver the economic benefits, can help us to stay out of the
litigation derby that I think Mr. Blasing is correct to be
concerned about.
I want to turn to Mr. Shelk now to hear a little bit about
how you 2 began this. But we sit here today with the American
Forest Resources Council, the premier group for the timber
industry, in support of this effort. They stood with Mr. Shelk
and Mr. Kerr at the kickoff, and I think the point Mr. Kerr
just made about how there are models out there--smaller models,
obviously--that, in effect, helped us as we tried to make our
judgments about how to go forward demonstrate that this can
work.
So I think those are valuable points, and I think I want to
go to Mr. Shelk to tell us a little bit about how the
discussions began and how you pulled this off. There is a
pretty amazing story, as I understand it, about this whole
process, where you and Mr. Kerr found a way to lead folks who
haven't agreed a whole lot.
So just for the record, let us hear how this came about,
how the process unfolded and how did you do it?
Mr. Shelk. It initially started with a walk in the woods. I
think that there was some hesitancy on both of our parts to
begin a dialog with each other because, for my part, there was
a lot of pain and a lot of distrust and a lot of anxiety with
talking with the devil incarnate next door here. But as we----
Senator Wyden. Wearing a suit today.
Mr. Shelk. Pardon me?
Senator Wyden. Devil incarnate wearing a suit today.
Mr. Shelk. Yes. As we continued our discussion, I
recognized, No. 1, a facile mind, one that picked up on
concepts and, as Andy mentioned earlier, recognized that things
change and is capable and the thought that he is capable of
adapting to that. I recognized that things have changed, too.
We were--in 1980, things were good for us. By 1994, we were
in a lot of trouble, just the change in national forest policy
and where it went. At that point, I think we both recognized
that there potentially was some mutual goodwill that we could
bring to the table and some creative things that we could put
together that might benefit the forest and the industries at
the same time.
I think jokingly the first or second time we talked, we
said, well, heck, we can make some legislation up. We can put
something together that is going to work. It was said in a
joking fashion, but I think that both of us were testing the
other to see whether there was the will, whether there was the
inclination to go forward and actually make this move.
Enter your office and your encouragement and then a
movement forward to other people in our industry and the
environmental community that either were of like mind or could
be brought about to a sort of collaborative discussion. It was
awfully helpful to have the people from Collins Companies
participate in this process with us because they had seen it
actually work on the Fremont in Lakeview.
So we moved forward, and it was--we were not always holding
hands. We were occasionally perhaps holding each other's hands
so that the dagger couldn't be put in to the opposing party.
But it was a gradual agreement on things, recognizing where
there were points that we could not come together and, in some
cases, choosing to leave those discussions aside. Essentially,
the elements of collaboration working between the 2 of us and
then expanding that amongst a somewhat like-thinking group of
industry and environmental participants.
Senator Wyden. The walk in the woods, almost like a great
foreign policy agreement, is how it began. I will have some
more questions in a moment, but I wanted to get that on the
record.
Dr. Johnson, your thoughts in response to your colleague,
Professor Fitzgerald, who I think is a little concerned that
maybe there is a little bit too much prescription here and
concern that you won't get timber. How would you react to your
colleague?
I know professors are kind to each other, and we are not
going to have any blood bath here. But what is your reaction to
your colleague's comment, particularly on those 2 points?
Mr. Johnson. First, I congratulate him on some well
representation of the dynamics of the eastern Oregon forests.
I, of course, was involved in the development of the Northwest
Forest Plan and involved in also much eastside policy. One
thing I learned over the last 20 years was that the Forest
Service is best able to move forward when they have clear
boundaries. The 2 examples I will give are the 80-year
limitation on thinning and plantations under the Northwest
Forest Plan and the 21-inch limit on the diameters to cut in
eastern Oregon.
What we learned is that, yes, these policies do restrict
the agency, but they also protect its discretion. That is
something I didn't fully realize. So, in Oregon in the last
decade, in both western and eastern Oregon, we have actions by
the Forest Service are largely associated with these clear
directions. It is imperfect, but that has taught me something.
I have found that with the agency and the many, many good
people in it, that they kind of go through a process of first
resisting these limits, growing to accept them, growing to need
them, and it is very--there is a tension here. It is very
important that they make some sort of sense from a forestry
standpoint, but given the lack of trust that we have on Federal
forest management and given the dynamic, this has been--these
clear directions have an important element in the agency being
able to undertake action.
Senator Wyden. Dr. Johnson, that is very helpful. I am
going to ask a question of your colleague in a minute, and
maybe we will have some back and forth with the 2 of you.
Mr. Blasing, for you, first of all, I want to make sure
that it is clear on the record that we are very much committed
to the economic benefits here, the saw logs getting to the
mills. It is practically the first words in the proposal. It
says create an immediate, predictable, and increased timber
flow. That is at page 2. At page 38, the emphasis on the need
to maintain industry infrastructure. I mean, that is all about
keeping those mills. So we very much share your concern about
the economics.
As you know, I have open meetings in every county every
year and have been out to Grant County many, many times,
talking to folks there that you work with and the county
commissioners. What I consistently hear is about the endless
appeals, the appeal, an appeal, an appeal. So we were able with
Mr. Kerr and Mr. Shelk--and this took a lot of effort--they
were able to eliminate some of these appeals in this
legislation.
I want to kind of follow up on your concern because it
seems to me perhaps what you are saying is even eliminating
appeals isn't going to speed things up. So how would you--and
you can even take some time after you get home and work on
this, too. How would you propose streamlining the appeals
effort?
Because now, we have something that is acceptable to not
all, but a significant number of environmental groups, a
significant number of people in the forest products sector,
whether it is Mr. Shelk or the American Forest Resources
Council. So we have been able to get a pretty good collection
of folks in the industry and the environmental community to say
they think this is a sensible way to proceed with respect to
appeals. What would be your suggestions on this point?
Mr. Blasing. First of all, I wholeheartedly agree with the
efforts to streamline the appeals process. I am not nearly as
concerned about appeals as I am about litigation, and I
understand people are talking about appeals because more
appeals happen. But it isn't the appeals that stopped the
process. The appeals get the Forest Service's attention, and
they can tinker around with their program a little bit and
still have a program go forward.
But when it gets into court, even if they get a favorable
decision, say, in the district court, it is ultimately
regularly appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which
has a wholly different idea on how the law should be
interpreted. Because this has been going on for so long, the
Forest Service is adjusting their programs not on the basis of
forest science, but on the basis of what they think they can
get past the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Again, it isn't the appeals that bother me. They are
basically a part of the public participation process with
national forests. The part that bothers me is that it is so
easy to take this and go through and litigate it, and you don't
even--the people that are doing the litigations don't even have
to win the case and they still get paid costs and other things.
So it is a no loss or a no risk situation for them.
You mentioned you want to get away from running out the
door and filing a lawsuit. So do I. But I am not sure--I am not
attorney enough to tell you how to fix that part of the
process. But that, to me, is where the issue is.
Senator Wyden. I just want it understood that I am very
open to getting any suggestions and ideas you might have. I
think that we now have a significant part of the forest
products industry and a significant part of the environmental
community that on this issue of appeals/litigation thinks that
we have hit a good balance.
I just want to keep building on it. We will keep the record
opened so that any ideas you would like to offer on litigation
or appeals, we will be very open to it. Again, you made the
longest trek to be back here from beautiful Grant County, and
we really appreciate your coming.
Mr. Blasing. Thank you.
Senator Wyden. Let us go to Professor Fitzgerald. I think
almost we are probably getting close to the end. People's blood
sugar is starting to wind down.
But I have got to ask you about old growth. No forestry
hearing, probably no topic gets more attention before this
subcommittee. I think Professor Johnson is smiling as well
because he has only spent a gazillion hours on this topic. How
would you recommend this subcommittee define ``old growth,''
Professor Fitzgerald?
Mr. Fitzgerald. I probably gave you a surrogate definition.
But it really depends on the forest type. Lodgepole old growth
would be way different than Ponderosa pine or mixed conifer. So
what we tend to look at are the composition, the species
composition, the range of tree diameters that would typically
occur there, the layers--the canopy layers, the amount of dead
wood.
So an old growth forest would likely have much wider range
of diameters and ages than, say, a young forest or even age
forest. So it is much more diverse, has a lot of gaps and
openings depending on the forest type.
Senator Wyden. All right.
Mr. Fitzgerald. That is kind of why I spent some time
talking about the structure. When we look at where we are
restoring forests, we need to not just look at the short-term,
that we are going to do a thinning or a burning, but where we
are going to take that stand over the long run? We really need
to have the long run in mind.
Senator Wyden. Let us get Professor Johnson into it, and I
also just want to make sure that everybody has a chance--if
they are watching on C-SPAN or somewhere else--that they know
that this report by Professor Johnson and Professor Franklin, I
think, is really an extraordinary document, an extraordinary
public service. It is called ``The Restoration of Federal
Forests in the Pacific Northwest: Strategies and Management
Implications.''
I can tell the people of the Pacific Northwest how much
sweat equity went into this effort on the part of Dr. Johnson
and his spouse, I would note, who was also very much involved
in it, and Professor Franklin. So it is an extraordinary
document, and I would recommend it to anybody who wants to
really understand Restoration Forestry 101.
So, Dr. Johnson, tell us your response on the old growth
definition question because, generally, having heard you hold
forth on this eloquently in the past, I have sort of gotten the
sense that you feel at some point you have got to get a
definition. You have got to get a set definition. Why don't you
lay out for us if that is actually the case? If so, why and
how?
Mr. Johnson. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Yes, Dr. Franklin and I stewed over this for quite a bit.
In our report, we talk about stand age for the moist forest,
but today, we are talking about the dry forest, and we are
talking about tree age. We actually use started with diameter
limits and realizing that they were a first approximation.
But we were concerned then. We are concerned now that
unless we directly address over time the--directly address old
growth, that we might high center or make much less productive
the restoration efforts that Andy Kerr and John Shelk are
talking about on 2 ends.
First off, there are many Ponderosa pine trees less than 21
inches that are very old. I doubt for long that we can cut
those without some uproar. Second, there are trees greater than
21 inches, young trees, that are threatening other old growth
trees by their proximity.
So we then began to say, OK, if we did this directly, how
would we do it? We did first try to look at some broad
structural definitions, which are very satisfying to scientists
but are incredibly difficult to get agreement on from
collaboration groups, or as we move forward.
So then we got interested, more and more interested in just
using age. Age is one component of old growth. Everyone agrees
with that. We would not argue, and we don't argue, that there
is a single age ecologically or physiologically when a tree
becomes old growth.
However, it is pretty clear that when trees--these are,
say, Ponderosa pine and mixed conifer trees. I agree. I put
lodgepole in another category. But the Ponderosa pine and the
Douglas fir, when they are over 200 years old, they generally
would be called old growth. We started there.
OK. But where would we set the age? Any age that we set has
a lot of social component to it. It is not strictly an
ecological definition. But we did realize that when we have
these problems about maturity and where to say something is
mature or old, we in society often use age--for when people can
drink alcohol, for when they can learn to drive, for when they
can vote and when they can fight for their country.
We thought if we can use it for those important decisions,
then as a social decision, we would choose--we can find an age.
We happened to pick for the Ponderosa pine and mixed conifer
150 years. It could be other ages for the individual trees. But
I am very concerned that unless we directly address this,
unless we make that social decision, that we will get a high
centered over this, and many of the dreams that are expressed
today won't be realized.
I think that diameter is very much an interim measure. Now,
people have rightly said, well, we don't yet have the protocols
to do that, and we don't want to totally--on the other hand, if
you suddenly switch to age, you could high center everything.
OK, fair enough.
The way you wrote the legislation, which I must tell you,
Dr. Franklin and I, when we first read it, we read it with
great apprehension. ``What has happened to our favorite
ideas?'' We were not very much liking where you ended up. Start
with diameter. Work hard on age. We plan to help on that and,
over the next couple of years, help make that shift and have
the protocols--help develop the protocols where people can do
that without greatly slowing things down.
So we concluded age is central for really dealing with some
of the ecological and some of the social issues, that we could
pick an age. It will be a social decision based on ecological
and other information. That we need to get started and working
on how to do that on a practical level. We don't think we are
far off.
Senator Wyden. Very good. I think at this point, we have
been at it a little over 2 hours. I have had a tradition over
the years that when Oregonians make this very long trek to come
back here, I think it is very fitting that our guests ought to
have the last word.
Now, you aren't compelled to say anything else if you don't
want. You have been at it for a couple of hours. But if there
is anything any of you 5 thoughtful Oregonians who want the
best for our State would like to add, we will give you the last
word. Not required, but welcome.
Mr. Shelk. Senator, as I mentioned earlier in my remarks,
our company has been managing timberland for over 80 years in
central Oregon. I have some issues with Professor Johnson and
some of his artificial designation of old growth.
But what we are putting in place here is an educational
process. The process of collaboration is--just automatically
implies a lot of education in this. It is going to be informed
education because the scientists and the technical people are
going to be able to have their input. But ultimately, there is
going to be the exchange of an awful lot of information, and
that information is going to inform our decisionmaking down the
road.
We can then hand that information to the Forest Service and
give them a larger bank of knowledge with which to go forward.
That is what I hope is going to come from this process.
Senator Wyden. I think I can call that the Shelk spirit
because that is exactly the way you have always done it, and we
are very appreciative of it.
Anyone else? Mr. Kerr? Dr. Johnson? Mr. Blasing? Mr.
Fitzgerald?
Go ahead, Mr. Blasing, and we will give everybody a chance.
Mr. Blasing. OK. I am concerned about what is essentially
an artificial diameter limit for the designation of old growth.
In eastern Oregon on any average site, we can grow a 21-inch
tree in 60 years. On good sites, we can do it in 40 years.
The typical rotation for forests in eastern Oregon from a
timber harvest standpoint is about 100 years. So, basically,
what we are doing on those stands where we are going to
perpetuate timber harvests, we are giving up either 40 or 60
years, depending on the site, of the very best volume
production, which will produce the most economic benefit as
well as the other benefits in the management program.
I don't want to cut all the old growth trees. I love old
pine trees as much as anyone else. But I am extremely concerned
when I go out south of Prairie City and I find literally
hundreds of what you would consider to be old growth pine
trees, which are the highest value trees in the stand, that are
either dead, they are dying, or they are going to die very
shortly.
I was lucky enough to, when I worked for the Forest
Service, to mark a couple of hundred million feet of timber out
in that area in the late 1950s. I am really old.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Blasing. In going back out there after being gone for
quite a long time, going back to the same area, I go out there,
and we spend some time camping out there every Fourth of July.
Those forests are in worse shape now than they were when we
marked the virgin stands.
The problem is that--I think I heard some agreement here,
but I am not sure. But my assessment of the problem is that the
dry cycle that we are in climate wise has stressed these large,
old trees, and they are probably being taken out by bark
beetles because of the stress. Nonetheless, they are dying.
Any one of these trees out there probably is worth, in good
times, 1,000 bucks apiece in stumpage value to the national
forest. To John Shelk, in terms of product value, I am not sure
what clears are worth now in molding, but I would imagine it is
a hard thing to imagine. I would think in terms of product
value on some of these trees, you are looking anywhere upwards
of maybe $15,000 to $20,000.
So I am out there watching these trees die, and it just
bugs the heck out of me. We need to be salvaging this material.
When we first marked those stands out there, the process was
going to be that we went through and put our forests in shape.
Then we would go through--at that time, they were planning
every 10 years--and put it back in shape again. This is the
type of program that I would like to see.
When we marked those stands out there, we cut everything
over 3 feet in diameter. Now there are all kinds of 4- and 5-
foot trees, and this is in a 50-year period. So we can manage
old growth. We can manage large diameter trees. We can retain
the value out of them. The process can go on.
Senator Wyden. I think that there is certainly no
disagreement, not for me or any of the panelists, on how bad
the condition of the forest is. We have got a lot of material
dying out there.
What I don't want to do is miss the opportunity, when we
have some of the most influential voices in the forest products
sector--Boise Cascade, the American Forest Resources Council,
people like John Shelk and their compatriots who hold similar
positions in the environmental community--I don't want to miss
the opportunity when they agree about how to go in there and do
something about the horrendous state of the forests you are
talking about.
I think we all just got to keep at it and keep working
together, and that is what I am committed to doing.
Any last words, Mr. Kerr? We will go to Mr. Kerr, and then
we will go to Mr. Fitzgerald.
Mr. Kerr. A couple of closing points. The legislation also
addresses roads, which are a big problem. We talk a lot about
forest health today, but watershed health is equally as
important problem, and this legislation does address that as
well.
There are too many roads out there. There are too many
roads from an ecological standpoint, a hydrological standpoint.
No single citizen could drive all those roads, and the
taxpayers can't afford to maintain all those roads. So we have
a problem that is ecological and fiscal that needs to be
addressed.
This legislation would urge the agency to reduce the number
of unnecessary roads and to make the roads that remain more
storm proof so they are not causing harm to the environment.
The question is on appeals, I want to state that that was
probably the toughest thing for the conservation community that
is endorsing this bill. We didn't want to give up
administrative appeals. We think that they are an important
process. But when we looked at this legislation in total, and
the opportunity that it affords and the protection that it
affords and the fact that the administrative appeal process
would be foregone for a relatively short time period and be
replaced by a similar process that saves a significant amount
of time, primarily by putting the Forest Service on a schedule
with the aggrieved parties.
Right now, the aggrieved party has to file an appeal and a
statement of reasons in a certain period of time, and then the
Forest Service often sits on it. So the Forest Service should
either defend or abandon their plan, but not just sit on it.
That is a big problem for things going forward.
In terms of old growth, it was in a different context. But
a Supreme Court justice named Potter Stewart said--and I will
paraphrase. He was actually thinking of something else, but he
said he couldn't define it, but he knew it when he saw it. That
is sort of old growth.
Twenty-one inches is arbitrary, but rational for the
reasons that Norm said. You could do age. You could do
structure. There is legislative exception in this bill that
speaks to if the scientific panel and a case could be made that
there are trees over 21 inches that need to be removed to
restore ecological function, they can be. If there are trees
under 21 inches in diameter that need to be retained for
ecological structure and function, they can be.
So it is a--there is a diameter limit. It is actually more
of a landmark than a limit because there can be exceptions
either way. The reason that is important to have is that if
there is no standard, the conservation community gets very
nervous with the agency abusing their discretion. As Dr.
Johnson pointed out, the agency works well with boundaries.
What this legislation does is provide boundaries. It says the
old growth is important. Forest health is important. Watershed
health is important. Manage for those things.
So, in closing, I think this legislation provides an
excellent opportunity. One of the issues that we did not agree
on was question of the relative worth or the ultimate value of
trees that are no longer transpiring. We like dead trees. They
have ecological value. There is more life in a dead tree than a
live tree. Many species of wildlife depend upon standing dead
trees and fallen trees and things like that.
So that is an example of an issue that we did not come to
agreement on, but we are not going to let that difference get
in the way of the tremendous potential that this legislation
provides to move us beyond the historic places that we have
been to be--the forest to be a better place.
Thank you.
Senator Wyden. Very good.
Dr. Fitzgerald.
Mr. Fitzgerald. Yes, I would like to make a comment about
the scientific advisory panel and perhaps a suggestion for
adding a discipline. We have economics on there, but it is like
timber economics, ecosystem economics. We really need, really,
a social or community stability, which kind of helps to
integrate economics and viability on that.
The other part is----
Senator Wyden. Sure sounds sensible to me.
Mr. Fitzgerald. When you have a group of scientists
together, they are very good at what they do. Norm is good at
policy. I am good at silviculture. But many scientists don't
have their foot on the ground.
So, what I would recommend is integrating that committee
with forest managers so that when the scientific committee
comes up with kind of the broad goals and stuff, that it is
implementable. Because scientists, you get them in a room and
they can really think up some creative things, but is it
implementable? So, that is a very important part of that.
Thank you.
Senator Wyden. Sounds good to me.
Norm.
Mr. Johnson. I just want to finish--I think we are coming
to a close--that Steve Fitzgerald and I may disagree on some
things. We definitely agree about some managers, a manager on
that committee, and I think it is safe to say we both like the
color of your tie.
Senator Wyden. Yes. Orange. I am the Duck. So I have got to
keep the peace. I will wear green tomorrow.
[Laughter.]
Senator Wyden. Let me leave you with one last thought. This
subcommittee has been involved in all of the major forestry
issues before the Senate in the last decade. You look, for
example, at the timber payments legislation. I wrote that a
decade ago. A Democratic president didn't really want to sign
it, and I got it reauthorized in the last Congress when a
Republican president didn't want to sign it.
Our State got $2.7 billion by the time we were done, and I
think Mr. Blasing knows that Grant County folks have told me
often when I have been out there that, without that, a real
question about how the county could pay for essential services.
We did the same thing with President Bush's effort on the
Healthy Forest Restoration Act. When that came over from the
House of Representatives, that pretty much didn't have a pulse.
A big group of us stepped in, Democrats and Republicans. We
came together. We got close to 80 votes for that piece of
legislation. I think that was a sensible step.
I am just as committed to getting this done because I think
it is urgent. Mr. Blasing is spot on about how serious the
problem is in eastern Oregon about forests dying. We do not
have time to wait. If we wait, we lose the mills. We lose
loggers. We lose all of the infrastructure in order to deal
with the problem that all of you have correctly identified.
So we are going to put every bit of persistence and
tenacity into this cause that we can. We are going to do it in
a bipartisan way, which is what I think is essential for
balanced forestry. You all have been great. You make me proud,
5 Oregonians out offering thoughtful ideas to the U.S. Senate.
It doesn't get any better than that.
I thank you for it, and the subcommittee is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 5:04 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
APPENDIXES
----------
Appendix I
Responses to Additional Questions
----------
Responses of John Shelk to Questions From Senator Murkowski
Question 1. To all of the Panel 2 witnesses: You have all heard
each other's testimony and that of the Administration. I have a
question that I want each of you to answer: If there were one thing
that you could change in this bill what would that be?
Answer. The change I would most like to see is a limitation on the
use of appeals and litigation as a tactic to kill projects through
delay and/or analysis paralysis. The bill currently eliminates
administrative appeals for interim projects, which will last
approximately 3-4 years. The legislation does not protect against
injunctions once a project has been advertised and sold. This is a
particular problem in the Ninth Circuit, where the courts are more
inclined to issue nearly-automatic injunctions when a challenge is
based on environmental grounds, without regard to the balancing of
harms tests used in other circuits.
Projects now moving through the approval process on Eastern Oregon
forests demonstrate the apparent unwillingness of the Sierra Club and
other environmental organizations not directly involved in the
negotiations that led to this bill to forego appeals and litigation as
a tactic to get what they want, regardless of the outcome of
collaborative processes involving the local community. As a
consequence, our forests capitulate to the demands of these groups and
modify projects or withdraw them altogether rather than face the costs
and time delays that result from going through the litigation process.
My wish is not to deny anyone the right to challenge a project they
honestly see as potentially detrimental to the environment. We all want
healthy, sustainable forests.
Should this obstructionism continue, one possible solution would be
to require all parties to submit to some form of binding arbitration
before a panel of experts, rather than relying on the current,
antiquated system under the Administrative Procedures Act and the
National Environmental Policy Act. This would assure that the
legitimate interests of all parties were weighed in the final solution
and would relieve the Forest Service of the burden of defending itself
in court.
Question 2. Are you certain that layering on new process while
legislating current and new restrictions is really going to be good for
the Forest Products companies that are struggling to survive on the
eastside?
Answer. It is a certainty that continuing the status quo will lead
to the demise of our industry on the eastside. We are currently being
held hostage by the demands of extremist environmental organizations,
such as the Sierra Club, Blue Mountain Biodiversity Project, Hells
Canyon Preservation Council and others, whose objective to prevent all
commercial timber harvest on our national forests. This bill responds
to the willingness of moderate environmental organizations to recognize
the role of timber harvesting in forest health restoration and
community stability. It is our hope that its passage will lead to
greater cooperation among reasonable environmental groups, the industry
and community members while increasing our chances of survival as an
industry.
Question 3. Don't you think that having shut out the eastside
environmental groups is only going to make them more motivated to head
to court on the sales that do get through the Scientists?
Answer. No one was shut out of the process. Initial negotiations
involved those environmental organizations, companies and associations
willing to work toward consensus. Once an initial framework was
achieved, it was shared with other organizations and companies. Not
surprisingly, there were those within both the environmental community
and the industry who were not supportive of various aspects of the
process. We negotiated long and hard to achieve as much consensus as
possible. This is not the bill that any of us would have written if we
had only our own interests to address.
Included in our working group that crafted the bill are
environmental representatives that have been most active in Eastside
timber issues. Primary among these is Oregon Wild, the former Oregon
Natural Resources Council, the primary litigant on former national
forest timber sales in this region. They were joined by Defenders of
Wildlife, who have also been very active in Eastside national forest
activities for the past twenty or so years as well as the Pacific
Rivers Council whose focus is on clean water and riparian protection.
We were mindful of the problems associated with earlier attempts to
reach consensus in other states where failure to include representative
environmental organizations led to the downfall of the final product.
Since the legislation includes no changes to judicial reviews it is
possible that the most extreme environmental organizations may continue
attempts at blocking all projects. This is certainly the case today as
well.
Question 4. Do you think the scientists are somehow better at
coming up with defensible projects? If so, why?
Answer. Under this bill, the Forest Service planners will continue
to identify areas in the forest that are most in need of forest health
treatments or other silvicultural work. The collaboratives will discuss
the projects and offer suggestions as to how they might be improved.
The Scientific and Technical Advisory Panel (STAP) will provide initial
oversight and prioritization regarding the general forest health needs
of Eastern Oregon's federal forests and the stakeholders that depend on
them. The STAP will also act as a consulting body to the
collaboratives. The STAP will, it is envisioned, render recommendations
that could provide additional scientific support to allow projects to
withstand a court challenge, if that happens. It is hoped the STAP's
input will provide a basis for the courts to confirm the work of the
Forest Service so that projects can go forward without being enjoined.
Question 5. In the past your company looked, first to Siberia for a
raw log supply and then eventually to Lithuania for a manufacturing
facility to allow your company to sell lumber both in Europe, and also
to the east coast of the United States.
Help us understand your experiences in Siberia and Lithuania as
compared to dealing with the federal government here in this country.
If you started on a timber sale today in Siberia how long would it
before you began logging and milling that timber? And in Lithuania? And
finally on the Ochoco or National Forests?
Answer. Our businesses in Russia and Lithuania are now largely
defunct. In Lithuania, we were stopped by the banking crisis that hit
the Baltics harder than nearly anywhere. We had our line of credit
frozen, then cancelled. Even before the banking crisis, we were
destined for failure because we relied primarily on Russia for our raw
material. Our business model had worked well for ten years, but relied
on a continuously rising market to purchase raw material from the
Russians. When the market began to decline about four years ago, the
Russians didn't understand or accept that we could not continue paying
high prices for their product and so gradually curtailed their
deliveries to us.
In Siberia, we have recently had our port facility in Sovetskaya
Gavan nationalized by the Russians. It was confiscated by Vladimir
Putin and is going to be used as a major port to support the oil
exploration venture on Sakahlin Island, opposite our port facility. We
currently have an insurance claim registered with the Overseas Private
Insurance Company. There is no way to compare our experiences in
Siberia and Lithuania with the Ochoco National Forest.
Question 6. If this bill were to be passed today and consensus can
only be found on half the projects, could you describe the forest
conditions and the type of forest products industry that is likely to
exist 40 years from now?
Answer. There are currently only three sawmills manufacturing
Ponderosa Pine in the operating area of the six National Forest which
encompass most of the National Forest area east of the Cascade
Mountains in Oregon. For the last decade and a half, we have been able
to access a moderate amount of private timber to keep our plants in
operation. However, studies by the Oregon Forest Resources Institute
show this private timberland has been overharvested by roughly 20
percent per year during the past decade and a half due to lack of
supply from Forest Service lands. This harvest rate cannot continue,
and in fact has dropped off significantly in the past two years.
Therefore, we need a doubling or tripling of volume from our federal
forests in Eastern Oregon just to keep existing plants and shifts in
operation. If, as Sen. Wyden's bill directs, there could be a tripling
of volume sold from the Eastern Oregon National Forests, then cutting
that volume in half, as your question poses, would still allow the
existing mills to operate on a single shift. However, you must
understand that we are in competition with other sawmills nationwide
that are working two shifts per day and historically all sawmills in
Eastern Oregon were working a two-shift basis. Not only does our
industry need the extra volume that Senator Wyden's bill would offer,
the forests need these treatments to reach the targeted number of acres
treated through thinning, or run the risk of falling prey to the
massive insect outbreaks that currently plague Colorado, Wyoming, and
inland British Columbia. This would in turn increase the risk of
catastrophic wildfire and could include the possibility of large swaths
of public and private land being burned and made non-productive for our
lifetimes.
______
Responses of K. Norman Johnson to Questions From Senator Murkowski
Question 1. To all of the Panel 2 witnesses: You have all heard
each other's testimony and that of the Administration. I have a
question that I want each of you to answer: If there were one thing
that you could change in this bill what would that be?
Answer. In the testimony by Jerry Franklin and myself, we state:
Third-party review will be essential to gain and retain broad
public acceptance. We need mechanisms that provide trusted
evaluations of the linkage between actions and goals along with
the ability to suggest change as needed. Creation of third-
party review as a regular part of forest restoration would go a
long way toward this goal.
S. 2895 acknowledges this need through its purpose of
providing periodic independent review of agency programs in
carrying out the Act and with the creation of a scientific and
technical advisory committee which has, as one of its goals,
evaluation of the implementation and effectiveness of the Act.
Review of the interim (first three years) projects will be
crucial in this regard. If the committee is given an assignment
of reviewing these projects, year by year, it could go a long
way toward instilling trust in the public about the purpose and
results of forest restoration programs.
We could not tell from reading the bill if the scientific and
technical advisory committee would evaluate the effectiveness of the
interim (first three years) projects. We feel that the scientific and
technical advisory committee should have the assignment of doing such a
review.
Question 2. Would you agree that the scientific process by its very
nature evolves and the accepted thinking today, could well be debunked
tomorrow or in the future?
Answer. Scientific knowledge changes sometimes in increments and
sometimes with major shifts. However, the more fundamental the
knowledge the less likely it is to change, Hence, general principles
about how forest ecosystems are organized and respond to disturbances
is quite stable, while very specific and detailed knowledge may undergo
constant revision as more research occurs.
Question 3. Can you tell me if there is broad agreement in the
world of academia as to the meaning of ``uncharacteristic disturbance
event''?
Answer. Generally, there is much agreement. This particular
terminology is used and defined in a review of ecological conditions in
western US forest ecosystems by Dr. Reed Noss and others in a recent
article in Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment.
Question 4. Can you tell me if there is broad agreement in the
world of academia that leaving a 21-inch diameter tree is better than a
20-inch diameter tree vs. say a 30-inch diameter tree?
Answer. I suggest that you query a spectrum of members of academia
to answer this question.
Question 5. Would you agree that protecting individual large and
old trees does not mean that one is necessarily protecting old growth?
Answer. Old trees are a key element of all old growth forests and
this is profoundly the case in the dry forests of the western US.
Therefore, protecting old trees is an important part of a strategy to
protect old growth forests and, particularly, to restore dry forests to
conditions that are within their historic range of variability.
Question 6. Can you give us a definition of old growth that is
widely accepted in academia or with most forest scientists? If so, what
is that definition?
Answer. Again, I suggest you query a spectrum of members of
academia to answer this question.
Question 7. You have to be fairly excited about the provisions of
this bill that hand over management decisions of the Forest Service
lands to the Scientific and Advisory Committee. In the bill what
responsibility does that committee have to ensure the outputs called
for in the bill are achieved?
Answer. We have not proposed that the Forest Service hand over
management decisions to a Scientific Advisory Committee.
Question 8. If I am not mistaken, weren't you on the Gang of Four
and then FEMAT that wrote President Clinton's Pacific Northwest Forest
Plan?
Answer. Yes, that is right.
Question 9. It would seem to me that part of the problem in the
failure to implement that plan was that the agencies and Department of
Agriculture did not listen and failed to implement much of what the
scientists called for--is that correct?
Answer. For our evaluation of implementation of the Northwest
Forest Plan, please see the attached article by the Gang-of-Four.*
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Articles have been retained in subcommittee files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question 10. Do you think the Eastside Scientific and Advisory
Committee should have full sufficiency from all environmental laws to
implement what they believe is needed, if they conclude violation of
one or more of those laws is needed to restore the health of the
eastside forests?
Answer. No.
Question 11. If this bill were to be passed today and consensus can
only be found on half the projects, could you describe the forest
conditions and the type of forest products industry that is likely to
exist 40 years from now?
Answer. Please see our testimony for our description of the future
of the dry forests without comprehensive forest restoration.
______
Responses of Stephen A. Fitzgerald to Questions From Senator Murkowski
Question 1. To all of the Panel 2 witnesses: You have all heard
each other's testimony and that of the Administration. I have a
question that I want each of you to answer: If there were one thing
that you could change in this bill what would that be?
Answer. We need a national/regional policy that sets management
priorities for our national forests. But short of that, I would
eliminate the diameter/age limits and have the legislation primarily
define the overall (umbrella) restoration and related socio-economic
priorities for this region. Professional foresters and other resource
specialists would use their local expertise and experience to define or
prescribe the desired forest structure and other outcomes, and then
apply the best tools to get the job done.
Question 2. Would you agree that the scientific process by its very
nature evolves and the accepted thinking today could well be debunked
tomorrow or in the future?
Answer. The scientific process is reflected in the ``Scientific
Method,'' which is is a set process for gaining understanding about a
particular question (a hypothesis) that the researcher wants to answer.
Science, and the body of knowledge that it generates, does evolve as
additional studies and study designs add information and knowledge that
address the question we are asking. Not all current scientific thinking
will be completely debunked in the future, unless particular studies
are flawed or the questions weren't framed correctly. Scientific
studies in forest ecosystems often produce only partial answers because
of their complexity and site-specific nature. The results of those
studies generate additional questions, which spur additional studies.
Collectively, over time, the body of science can help answer the
question(s) more completely and consistently. In essence, the
scientific process is a continuum.
Some studies may appear, at times, to conflict with one another.
For example, I can find fire studies that show that fire is beneficial,
detrimental, or neutral when it comes to effect on ponderosa pine tree
growth. Does this mean these studies conflict? Not necessarily. In
interpreting these studies, one has to delve closer to see under what
conditions these studies were conducted, what assumptions were made by
the researchers, and over what time timeframe the studies considered.
In addition, what may be true on one forest site may not be true on
another. You can often find a single study to support any management
premise, but it takes a body of studies to show the broader patterns
and enduring responses of ecosystems.
Question 3. Can you tell me if there is broad agreement in the
world of academia as to the meaning of ``uncharacteristic disturbance
event''?
Answer. For some forest types there is agreement on what
constitutes an ``uncharacteristic disturbance event.'' For example, in
the ponderosa pine and dry mixed conifer forests, fires today are much
more destructive (stand replacing and high severity) and out of
character than fires historically in these forest types, which were
frequent but of low and mixed severity. This change in fire behavior is
due to a buildup surface and ladder fuels, increasing stand density,
and the loss of large, fire-resistant trees. In lodgepole forest, we
know that fires were typically of stand-replacement and of high
severity, even to the point of damaging soils and watersheds. However,
what we don't know is how large these fires were historically. Some
evidence suggests that they were patchy or mosaic type of fires of
several hundred to several thousand acres, rather than the larger fires
we see today of tens of thousands of acres. In mid- to high-elevation
moist forests (mixed fir, hemlock, and spruce), it appears that fires
were a mix of high- and moderate-severity and were patchy. Again, there
is no agreement on the extent or size of these patches of high- and
moderate-severity.
Question 4. Can you tell me if there is broad agreement in the
world of academia that leaving a 21-inch diameter tree is better than a
20-inch diameter tree vs. say a 30-inch diameter tree?
Answer. No, there is not. What is meant by the term, ``better''?
Better for what: habitat, wood, carbon sequestration? It's really not a
science question as it depends on the objective, which is determined by
individual or societal values. And even from a science standpoint in
evaluating a specific forest value, those trees would need to be
assessed in the context of the surrounding forest and its unique
conditions.
Question 5. Would you agree that protecting individual large and
old trees does not mean that one is necessarily protecting old growth?
Answer. I agree with that statement because old-growth is not
comprised individual old trees. From a science perspective, we need to
talk about old growth forests. It takes several trees per acre
comprised of different ages, sizes, and, sometimes, species (in most
forest types) to comprise an old growth forest, as mentioned in my
testimony. Having said that, individual old trees can add structure,
habitat, and genetic diversity within stands and landscape comprised
mostly of younger forests.
Question 6a. Can you give us a definition of old growth that is
widely accepted in academia or with most forest scientists? If so, what
is that definition?
Answer. I gave a definition in my written testimony. Here is a
definition that would be widely supported, as it was developed and
reviewed by knowledgeable forestry professionals:
The (usually) late successional stage of forest development.
Old growth can be defined in many ways; generally, structural
characteristic used to describe old-growth forests include (a)
live trees: number and minimum size of both seral and climax
dominants, (b) canopy condition: commonly including multi-
layering,'' [although some may be a single canopy layer, such
as in some dry pine forests] ``(c) snags: minimum number of
specific size, and (d) down logs and course woody debris:
minimum tonnage and the number of pieces of specific size.
(from The Dictionary of Forestry)
Question 6b. You have to be fairly excited about the provisions of
this bill that hand over management decisions of the Forest Service
lands to the Scientific and Advisory Committee.
Answer. Actually, I'm concerned that most scientists and other
members of this Committee would have little or no forest management
experience, so would be ill-prepared to make such decisions. Some
forest scientists have had academic training in forest management but
this is not a consistent trait, and even fewer have had experience
managing forest lands. And, having managed forests myself, I can
appreciate how essential such experience is in good decisions and
outcomes from management. The scientists and other members of the
Committee could provide some valuable perspective about proposed
projects but their most appropriate role is advisory rather than
decision-making.
Question 7. In the bill what responsibility does that committee
have to ensure the outputs called for in the bill are achieved?
Answer. The committee should not only have the responsibility to
develop broad goals and related recommendations, they should have the
responsibility of reviewing results of short- and long-term monitoring
and of preparing reports on whether the targets have been met.
Question 8. Do you think the Eastside Scientific and Advisory
Committee should have full sufficiency from all environmental laws to
implement what they believe is needed if the conclude violation of one
or more of those laws is needed to restore the health of the eastside
forests?
Answer. This is a complex political and legal question. I am
neither a lawyer nor a policy specialist.
Question 9. If this bill were to be passed today and consensus can
only be found on half the projects, could you describe the forest
conditions and the type of forest products industry that is likely to
exist 40 years from now?
Answer. On half of the projects that are not implement due to non-
consensus, stand conditions would be expected to worsen; that is, stand
density and tree competition would increase and mortality would
increase. These stands would remain susceptible to fire and bark
beetles. We can use forest growth models to predict forest conditions
40 years out, as I demonstrated in my testimony. We can also use the
same models to show potential management options and their
consequences, including no action.
With respect to the second part of the question regarding what the
forest products industry would look like, that depends on the amount
and type of timber that comes off the other half of the projects that
have consensus. If the timber volume and quality are less than what is
currently being offered, then we would expect some further declines in
milling infrastructure, which would reduce the ability of the National
Forests to do ecological restoration treatments. A quantitative study
to develop a milling infrastructure model could provide more detailed
answers to this question.
______
Responses of Andy Kerr to Questions From Senator Murkowski
Question 1a. To all of the Panel 2 witnesses: You have all heard
each other's testimony and that of the Administration. I have a
question that I want each of you to answer: If there were one thing
that you could change in this bill what would that be?
Answer. As I said in my written statement:
In sum, the proposed Oregon Eastside Forests Restoration, Old
Growth Protection and Jobs Act is not the bill I would have
written. It is the product of what Senator Wyden could convince
a critical mass of the conservation community and timber
industry to agree on. While not a perfect bill, it is
nonetheless a great bill.
Since the legislation introduced by Senator Wyden and supported by
Senator Merkley is the product of thoughtful and intense discussions
between interests with an epic history of animosity, the product of
compromise is quite delicate. If I, as a conservationist, were to want
significant changes, so would my timber industry counterparts. While it
is likely that some minor changes could occur to the bill and not
jeopardize the unprecedented and path-breaking compromise that is S.
2895, changes to the core of the bill that brings together
conservationists and the timber industry would certainly destroy the
coalition that has developed in support of this bill and therefore
result in a failure to enact the legislation. Therefore, I can honestly
say, I prefer that the Committee mark up the bill as introduced.
However, since you asked, a provision for an automatic
appropriation would be nice.
Question 1b. The Hell's Canyon Preservation Council was supposed to
testify here today but backed out and sent a fairly insightful letter
to Senator Wyden commenting on his bill. In that letter they make a
variety of points that I would like your insight on.
Answer. I too found the comments of HCPC instructive and
constructive.
Question 1c. In that letter they said: ``The non-inclusive process
by which the bill was developed was not an auspicious start. We find it
highly ironic that a bill encouraging eastside local collaboration was
developed without any eastside conservation groups.''
Answer. I would think it is the prerogative of a United States
Senator to use any kind of process they want to aid them in drafting
legislation that they introduce. I will leave it to Senator Wyden to
answer, if he so wishes, why he and his staff under his direction did
what they did.
An auspicious (``conducive to success'') start I think it was.
Perhaps a better word in defining the start is that it was not
congruous (``in agreement or harmony''). While the bill was initially
developed came out of talks that included a subset of the conservation
community and the timber industry, it is important to note now that the
bill has been introduced it is subject to the long-established process
of congressional consideration which includes hearings, comments,
analyses, and lobbying.
The zip code of where a conservation organization receives its mail
is not dispositive to neither its credibility nor its commitment. To my
knowledge there is only one ``eastside conservation group'' if defined
by the zip code of their headquarters. There are several other
conservation organizations that commit significant resources to
Oregon's eastside forests, though their headquarters are on Oregon's
westside, out of state or even in Washington, DC.
Oregon Wild is headquartered in Portland, in the state's westside,
but has a full-time staff person that lives in and works exclusively on
Oregon's eastside forests. Defenders of Wildlife, based in Washington,
DC, has a staff person that, while living on Oregon's westside, spends
most of his time working on eastside. The Wilderness Society, based in
Washington DC, has staff that commit significant resources to eastside
forests though they live in Washington state. The Pacific Rivers
Council, though based on Oregon's westside, also has a distinguished
record of conservation on behalf of eastside forests and watersheds.
Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands Center, though based on the westside and
primarily focused on westside forests and watersheds does do some of is
work in Oregon's eastside. Finally, The Nature Conservancy, works both
domestically and internationally--its Oregon Chapter, while
headquartered in Portland, has 4 field offices in eastern Oregon with
over a dozen employees, and dedicates significant resources to the
restoration of eastside forests.
Before coming to Senator Wyden with the news that critical masses
of the conservation community and timber industry had reached a broad,
very tentative and skeletal agreement in concept for the conservation
and restoration of eastside forests and watersheds, John Shelk and I
had convened a group of seven card-carrying conservationists and seven
representatives of milling companies. John and I each chose six
colleagues, wanting to keep the number of participants large enough to
be representative of our respective interests, but small enough to have
a workable group dynamic.
Our choices were based on a multitude of factors and, at least in
my case, far more than six of my colleagues could have fit the bill.
John and I both chose six that I felt that--if an agreement could be
reached--could deliver a critical mass of the conservation community or
timber industry respectively.
In choosing my team, I considered expertise, experience,
credibility, diversity (biological and political), risk-taking ability,
ability to play well with others, and clout. There are several
conservation colleagues that were similarly qualified but not chosen.
Question 1d. I also note that none of the counties have come out in
support of the bill. But that none have come out against it either. My
guess is they may not like it, but do not want to embarrass the
sponsors by speaking out against it.
Answer. Rather it might be the case that the elected county
officials are responding to their divided political constituencies by
not responding to their two Senators. Imagine county commissioners
being told that the county's largest manufacturer supports the bill--
but so do most conservationists. Having battled so long the latter in
concert with the former, it may take awhile for local elected officials
to recalibrate. Given the game-changing nature of S.2895, it may be
politically prudent for local elected officials to wait and see.
Question 2. Should Congress accept this bill if none of the
eastside environmental groups and none of the Country Commissioners
were involved in its development or are willing to speak in support of
it? Why?
Answer. Congress has often designated Wilderness Areas and Wild and
Scenic Rivers in eastern Oregon over the objection of local county
commissions. Bitterly opposed by local interests, such protected areas
designated in the 1980s on the eastside of Oregon now enjoy widespread
local support.
Congress should enact S.2895 because it would be good public policy
for a portion of the National Forest System that is a public trust for
the benefit of all Americans.
Question 3. If this bill were to be passed today and consensus can
only be found on half the projects, could you describe the forest
conditions and the type of forest products industry that is likely to
exist 40 years from now?
Answer. Two decades from now I expect and desire to see millions of
acres of eastside forests of Oregon on a trend of improving forest and
watershed health with more jobs in the woods and in the mills than is
now the case.
Four decades from now is not something I can even imagine with any
high likelihood. I began my conservation career about 35 years ago (by
the way, an effort to prevent the roading and logging of an eastside
roadless area [it's still roadless]). At that time I did not imagine,
nor could I have imagined, today's forest conditions and what the wood
products industry would be like today.
I can only tell you my expectations and desires two decades from
now, which are based on hope, evidence and commitment.
I have hope that people change; if not the individuals themselves,
then the successors.
While most change comes at funerals or retirements, I offer as
evidence the changes in my views and tactics, which I detailed in my
written statement for the record. Permit me to, perhaps immodestly,
quote from an editorial in the state's largest newspaper that ran a
week after the hearing on S.2895: ``It was a remarkable sight, with
Andy Kerr, once the most hated environmentalist in timber country,
standing with John Shelk, the mill owner who fought the hardest to keep
the industry alive east of the Cascades'' (The Oregonian, March 18,
2010).
There is even better evidence that people change and forests can be
restored while mills can be kept running. The Lakeview Stewardship
Group has been in operation for a decade, focusing on 500,000 acres of
the Fremont National Forest. ``Consensus'' has been found on nearly all
restoration projects. There have been a few administrative appeals that
have been resolved without litigation. Each year, the number of treated
acres each year has been generally increasing and is expected to
continue to do so. Lakeview is a model for multi-stakeholder
collaboratively based engagement that S.2895 seeks to emulate across
Oregon's eastside.
I project I have 20 years left in my conservation career. I am
committed to seeing this legislation not only enacted into law, but
also effectively implemented.
I must also note that S.2895 is drafted in ways that strongly
encourage collaboration, but do not require ``consensus'' of a
recognized collaboration group for the Forest Service to act. Consensus
groups would be advisory.
Though advisory, as in the case of the Lakeview Stewardship Group,
consensus groups are critical to conserving and restoring forests and
watersheds and getting those ecologically problematic trees converted
to economically profitable logs. Based on the Lakeview and other
experience, I would project that most projects will go forward with the
agreement of most parties most of the time.
______
Responses of Larry Blasing to Questions From Senator Murkowski
Question 1. If there were one thing that you could change in this
bill what would that be?
Answer. The most scary aspect of the Bill (there are several) is
the codification of processes and management program details that
should be nothing more than administrative decisions made on a site
specific basis. Many of the concepts of the Bill are worthy objectives
and in fact, should be a part of regular practice. However,
codification of an advisory committee; collaborative groups; management
concepts that are unproven, not universally accepted and maybe just the
current management craze; specific road management requirements; trees
to cut or not to cut; and more. It will tie land managers hands to the
point where they cannot effectively manage the forest resources.
Question 2. Mr. Blasing, am I correct that you are an elected
member of the Grant County Public Forest Commission?
Answer. The Grant County Public Forest Commission was established
by an Initiative of the voters of Grant County. The Commission members,
of which I am one, are elected to four year terms.
Question 3. Were you or any of the other members of the Grant
County Public Forest Commission invited to participate in the
development of Senator Wyden's Bill?
Answer. None of the members of the Grant County Public Forest
Commission were invited to participate in the development of Senator
Wyden's Bill. None of the members that I am aware even knew the Bill
was being considered.
Question 4. In your experience which takes longer, appeals or
litigation?
Answer. The Administrative Appeals process has a set schedule of
times that have to be met, therefore, keeping the process moving.
Litigation typically moves on the Courts schedule and often takes much
longer.
While Appeals are irritating and often delay programs where
scheduling is critical to the success of a project, they generally do
not stop the project. It is the subsequent threat of Litigation by the
Environmental Litigation Industry's misuse of the Equal Access to
Justice Act that stops the projects.
The environmental litigation industry uses the threat of litigation
to stop scientifically sound projects, even where there are no
legitimate issues and only philosophical differences, just because they
can. Under the Equal Access to Justice Act, the Forest Service gets to
pay the legal bill, from appropriated funds whether or not the
environmental litigation industry wins or loses. This causes a
shortfall in funding for projects that are already approved. The Forest
Service has to balance losing the funds or paying for a frivolous
lawsuit against not completing a project that provides critical jobs
for local economies. The decision becomes coerced capitulation on the
part of the Forest Service.
Question 5. In reading the HCPC letter to Senator Wyden do you
detect a threat that they will litigate on the sales that they used to
appeal? And if so, what do you think the chance of this bill
successfully resulting in timber sales in the Eastside of Oregon over
the next three years?
Answer. My reading of the Hell's Canyon Preservation Council
written testimony clearly tells me that they do not plan to stop the
use of Appeals or Litigation if it suits their purpose. The details of
their land management objectives tell me that there is little chance
that land management programs where commercial timber is harvested will
go unchallenged. The Forest Service will again have to look at coerced
capitulation.
Question 6. If this bill were to be passed today and consensus can
only be found on half the projects, could you describe the forest
conditions and the type of forest products industry that is likely to
exist 40 years from now.
Answer. At the present time we have the remnants of a diverse
forest products industry that can provide the infrastructure to manage
all of the forest types in eastern Oregon. This includes trees over
21'' dbh--Incidentally, logs over 21'' dbh go by my house regularly to
local mills. They are coming from Idaho where they have never heard of
eastside screens -. If this Bill is passed as written, there will be no
need to have a sawmill that is designed to manufacture large logs.
Malheur Lumber is an example. In addition the high quality products
that come from these larger trees provide the raw material that goes
into cut-stock plants. Both of these types of plants are more labor
intensive than the ones that use smaller logs. The products that come
from smaller logs have lower product value and, therefore, the
manufacture plants that use them must be more efficient and use less
labor to be competitive. The result will be a smaller less flexible
infrastructure.
The forest products industry as a whole has been moving toward
utilizing more biomass. The products are low value with large
investment costs in manufacturing facilities. This means that profits
are lower and much more subject to market fluctuations. In many cases
the raw material must be subsidized in some fashion for the operation
to be feasible.
Even with the emphasis on science and forest restoration, the
forest health and conditions after the Bill may be worse than before.
Eastside forest health is deteriorating due to lack of management and
in my estimation, climate cycle. The Bill will attempt to improve
forest health in less than 21'' dbh trees (not stands) and that should
be positive. These positive effects will be lessened when wildlife
requirements, watershed requirements, diversity requirements, etc. are
incorporated.
As trees move into the 21''dbh plus category to live until they
die, they will be the carriers of disease, insect infestation, and the
lightning rods for catastrophic fire. Even with the emphasis on small
timber restoration, we can expect the overall forest health conditions
to deteriorate. We stand to lose many of the forest management gains
that we have made in the past.
If you have any additional questions we will be happy to respond.
______
Responses of Harris Sherman to Questions From Senator Murkowski
Question 1. As I recall the last time you testified before this
Committee you came to deliver some fairly negative testimony on S. 1470
Senator Tester's Forest Jobs and Recreation Act of 2009.
Over the weekend I came across an article that said: ``The Obama
administration could support the logging mandate in Montana, Sen. Jon
Tester's wilderness bill as a `pilot project,' said U.S. Agriculture
Secretary Tom Vilsack.''
That same article reported that ``At the time, Agriculture
Undersecretary Harris Sherman said the logging targets were
`unworkable' for the agency and could set a precedent in which each
national forest is managed differently by Congress.''
Can you explain what a ``pilot project'' is and what changes from
S. 1470 the Administration will make to that ``pilot project'' to make
it acceptable to Secretary Vilsack?
Answer. The Secretary's comments helped convey general support for
the broad goals of S. 1470 because they align well with his vision for
collaboratively restoring America's forests. There are increasing
demands on the Forest Service to undertake forest restoration at a
scale and in a manner that benefits forest health while protecting
local jobs. S. 1470 potentially provides a mechanism that allows for
such restoration with broad public support. As such, the Secretary
expressed his willingness to test such approaches, particularly when
they are developed collaboratively with diverse interests. There have
been no decisions made regarding what the term pilot project means or
how it could be implemented.
Question 2. Now the Secretary has announced S. 1470 acceptable as a
``pilot project'' is it your view that this can be implemented without
legislation? Could this just be done by having the Secretary wave his
administration wand to deem these other bills acceptable too?
Answer. Many of the restoration aspects of S. 1470 could be
completed administratively since this title contains very little new
authority for the agency. However, as I testified in December, I am
very concerned about placing priority use of existing resources on
portions of these three national forests which would result in
transferring much needed resources from other units of the National
Forest System where priority work must also be accomplished.
Title II requires congressional action for the land designations it
contains.
Question 3. Do you think the same changes to Senator Wyden's S.
2895 converting it into a pilot project would make this bill we are
hearing today acceptable to the Secretary?
Answer. As I testified at the March 10th hearing, the
administration is generally supportive of S. 2895, although we have
several areas of concern we wish to discuss with Senator Wyden and the
committee. We look forward to those discussions, and, if there is a
need to test some of the provisions of S. 2895, we would be open to
discussing how best to do that. S. 2895 was also developed through a
collaborative process which brought diverse stakeholders together to
address forest health issues and the needs of local communities.
Question 4. If the Secretary can just turn the Tester logging
mandates into a ``pilot project'' and find that an acceptable
investment; can he do the same for S. 2895 or for S. 2798 Senator
Udall's National Forest Insect and Disease Emergency Act of 2009?
Answer. Each of the bills you mention must be reviewed carefully
and thoughtfully. We have provided our testimony on both S. 2895 and S.
2798 conveying our general support and indicating areas we wish to
discuss further.
Responses of Harris Sherman to Questions From Senator Barrasso
Question 1. I noted that Secretary Vilsack made comments in Montana
over the weekend in support of logging mandates related to Senator
Tester Montana Wilderness bill, S. 1470. As you know, Senator Tester
has proposed legislation that includes a provision similar to Chairman
Wyden's bill, S. 2895, that we discussed at Wednesday's hearing. Both
bills require certain parameters of timber harvest to benefit local
communities.
Secretary Vilsack was discussing Senator Tester's bill when he made
those comments. However, you testified on Senator Tester's bill that
it: ``could set a precedent in which each national forest is managed
differently by Congress.''
Could you explain whether USDA has changed is mind about mandated
timber sales?
Answer. The administration has not changed its position on S. 1470,
and I still believe that mandated levels of mechanical treatment may
create unrealistic expectations on the part of communities and forest
products stakeholders that the agency would accomplish the quantity of
mechanical treatments required.
The Secretary did not endorse ``logging mandates'' while in
Montana, his comments conveyed his willingness to try new approaches to
achieve his vision of restoring America's forests. The Secretary's
comments included statements that expressed that passing legislation
for 155 national forests and grasslands would be in appropriate.
Question 2. Will you support a mandate for timber sales in Wyoming
National Forests?
Answer. Each piece of legislation must be individually evaluated
for its content, purpose and potential outcomes. The Secretary's
comments in Montana, and my testimony in December, both include
statements that convey the administration's concern about the precedent
of site specific legislation because it may lead to each forest
operating under different authorities which would add further
complexity to the management of our forests. Senator Tester's
legislation draws upon years of effort by diverse local stakeholders to
advance forest restoration, protect wilderness areas, and provide a
sustainable supply of timber to forest products companies. We would
welcome the same type of collaborative process in Wyoming, or anywhere
else, particularly when such efforts promote forest restoration for the
benefit of water resources, the climate and local communities.
[Responses to the following questions were not received at
the time the hearing went to press:]
Questions for Edwin Roberson From Senator Murkowski
We are told that the Forest Service has enjoyed a timber sale
contract provision called Market Related Contract term addition since
the early 1990's. And that provision was developed as a result of past
lumber market slumps in the early 1980's and again in the late 1990's.
Question 1. Why did the Bureau of Land Management never put such a
provision in its timber sale contract or ask Congress for that type of
contract relief before?
Question 2. If this bill were to be signed into law next week, how
long would it take before the holders of BLM timber sales that
qualified to get their contract extensions?
Question 3. In relative number or on a percentage basis, what
percent of the timber sale volume under contract is located in the
State of Oregon compared to the rest of the states?
Question 4. Is this not just a bail out for the timber industry in
Oregon?
Appendix II
Additional Material Submitted for the Record
----------
Statement of Opposition to S. 2895
We the undersigned strongly oppose Senate Bill S. 2895, introduced
by Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR), the name of which--the Oregon Eastside
Forests Restoration, Old Growth Protection, and Jobs Act of 2009--
belies its true effects. S. 2895 represents a concerted effort on the
part of the timber industry and its political allies, with support from
some not-for-profit organizations, to cripple essential environmental
laws in order to increase logging across 8 million acres of publicly-
owned forests--forests which have already been severely degraded by
logging. This bill is the latest in a series of bills that increase
logging on our national forests, weaken legal protections, and consign
the trees from our national forests to be burned in wood energy plants
all across our nation.
We oppose this and all other legislation that will increase logging
on our public forests, whether federal, state, or local, especially
when the ``product'' will be utilized as fuel for biomass-to-
electricity plants or biofuel plants creating cellulosic ethanol. S.
2895 is unacceptable and cannot be fixed or improved by amendments, and
we urge you to vote against it.
S. 2895 claims it will protect, restore and increase the old growth
forest stands and trees, but offers heavy logging of these forests as
the supposed magic elixir that will ``restore'' them. Logging is what
caused the tragic degradation of these great eastside forests in the
first place.
The only proven method of growing--or regrowing--natural old growth
forest ecosystems is for natural processes--nature, not humans with
chainsaws--to manage the forest--a process that takes centuries. The
remaining primary old-growth forests on Earth are living proof of
nature's ability to grow forests hundreds or thousands of years old.
However, there is not a single example anywhere on Earth of a
natural centuries-old forest ``grown'' by humans using chainsaws.
Therefore, there are no scientific studies of these non-existent old-
growth forests ``restored'' by chainsaws. This legislation's assertion
that using heavy logging will ``restore'' old-growth forests is without
scientific foundation.
S. 2895 claims that the increased logging mandated by this bill
will somehow mitigate the effects of climate change. Recent scientific
studies (Public land, timber harvests, and climate mitigation:
Quantifying carbon sequestration potential on U.S. public timberlands,
Depro, B.M., et al, Forest Ecology and Management, 2007; Forest carbon
storage in the northeastern United States: Net effects of harvesting
frequency, post-harvest retention, and wood products, Nunery, J.S.,
Keeton, W.S., Forest Ecology and Management, 2010) have shown
conclusively that forests which grow without logging grow more biomass,
and subsequently sequester more carbon, than forests that are logged,
and that it takes a newly-planted forest from 50 - 100 years to attain
the level of carbon sequestration the logged forest was providing when
growing. Further, another study (Peters, W. et al., An atmospheric
perspective on North American carbon dioxide exchange: Carbon Tracker.
PNAS, 2007) concluded that North American ecosystems, mostly forests,
remove 0.65 Pg C/year, offsetting one-third of the country's estimated
1.85 Pg carbon emissions. Compromising the capacity of forests is
therefore equivalent to increasing emissions. Therefore, the increased
logging mandated by this bill will not only increase forest
destruction, it will decrease the amount of carbon stored by these
forests, diminishing the ability of our public forests to combat global
climate change.
However, this legislation goes even farther in contributing to
global climate change. It instructs the Forest Service to take the wood
logged from these forests and burn it in wood-energy plants. Nothing
could possibly contribute more to global climate change than increasing
logging on our national forests and then burning the wood in biomass
plants. According to a recent study (Matera, Chris, Wood-Fueled Biomass
Power Plants and CO2 Emissions, http://www.maforests.org/
MFWCarb.pdf February 2010) wood-burning energy plants contribute
greatly to global climate change. Using data from a permit application
in Massachusetts and from the Department of Energy, the study
concludes, ``Overall, wood fueled biomass power plants emit about 50%
more CO2 per MWh than existing coal plants, 150% more than
existing natural gas plants, and 330% more than new power plants.''
But there are also tremendous amounts of carbon released by the use
of petroleum when logging and chipping the forests and the burning of
gasoline used by the trucks that will make thousands of trips totaling
thousands of miles transporting the cut wood fiber to the biomass/
biofuel plants. Burning trees from our national forests in biomass
plants is a net carbon-loss disaster for global climate change. A
recent article (Searchinger, et al., Fixing A Critical Climate
Accounting Error, Science, 2009) reveals that emissions from biomass
burning are entirely uncounted, either under land use change or under
smoke stack emissions from utilities. This failure in accounting has
resulted in the claim that biomass burning is ``carbon neutral'' and
led to a flow of public-funded subsidies into these biomass burning
facilities. This accounting error must be fixed. Doing so will reveal
that logging and burning of forest biomass is not a viable solution to
climate change. The claim by this legislation that burning wood in
biomass plants will reduce global climate change is no more than a
disproven, unscientific fabrication.
S. 2895 goes so far as to suspend all applicable laws in favor of
biomass removal. In Section 12 of the bill titled, BIOMASS, the
specific language reads:
(a) IN GENERAL.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law
(including regulations) relating to the use of biomass energy,
in accordance with each purpose and goal of this Act, and any
applicable recommendation of the advisory panel, the Secretary
shall take such actions as are necessary to further enhance the
use of woody biomass in the covered area.
The area covered by this legislation is more than 8 million acres
of public forestlands across Eastern Oregon.
S. 2895 also tilts towards commercial interests, stating;
On a determination by the Secretary that forest conditions,
commercial interests, and an adequate supply from a combination
of Federal and non-Federal sources indicate a viable economic
supply and demand for establishing a regional biomass project,
the Secretary may designate an area within the covered area in
which--
(A) the removal of biomass is necessary to restore
forest health; and
(B) a sufficient volume of material is expected to be
available to support a 20 year-lifespan of capital
investments for biomass use.
S. 2895 is honest in at least one respect, when it admits its
purpose is to supply the wood industry with a guaranteed supply of wood
from our federal forestlands. S. 2895 guarantees a minimum of 20 years
of vastly increased logging to supply these newly constructed wood
energy plants. This mandated amount of logging will devastate the very
forest ecosystems that S. 2895 claims to be restoring. Biomass burning
utilities require about 13,000 tons per megawatt per year, and
transportation logistics require sourcing feedstocks from a limited
distance (generally around 50 mile radius). Providing and maintaining
sufficient feedstocks to biomass burning facilities is unlikely to be
harmonious with the goal of forest protection and ``restoration.''
The stripping of our forests for biomass means that woody debris
that previously had been left for mulch in the forests and which
enriched the forest soil and provided essential habitat for
biodiversity will now be taken away from the forests and burned. If
this legislation and other bills like it proceed, our national forest
soils will be stripped of nutrients and our forests will die of
starvation.
S. 2895 clearly cripples environmental laws which have given our
forests some level of protection, not only by unconscionable suspension
of the laws, but also by rushing the normal environmental enforcement
procedures. S. 2895 would effectively circumvent NEPA by having pre-
made decisions come out of advisory committees, even though NEPA will
ostensibly be followed. NEPA requires an objective analysis of
alternatives before decisions are made. Under this process, in effect,
the decision is made before the analysis, making NEPA a pro-forma
exercise. The process is further tilted toward increased logging of
these forests by the use of advisory groups made up primarily of paid
employees of the timber industry and others who are forced to either
agree with this increased logging program or be denied from
participation. This disenfranchises the American people of our and our
children's heritage, the national forests of Oregon--it is no less than
grand theft and destruction of federal property. This bill is the
equivalent of allowing a small number of people from New Jersey,
subsidized by federal tax dollars, to dismantle the Statue of Liberty
and sell it for scrap metal while claiming it is good for the economy.
S. 2895 claims that one of its goals is to protect large trees,
trees larger than 21 inch diameter, and it even lists exceptions for
protecting trees smaller than 21 inch diameter. However, S. 2895 gives
all final authority, stripped of any legal check and balance, to the
Secretary of Agriculture to determine what trees can logged, rendering
the supposed protections of trees of any size, including any and all
large trees, completely meaningless. This legislation is a green light
to demolish our public forests, even allowing logging of the giant old
trees the bill is allegedly supposed to protect.
Roads are one of the greatest causes of forest degradation. S. 2895
will allow an unlimited number of new roads, including permanent roads,
to be constructed.
A new scientific report (Bond, Monica L., et al., Influence of Pre-
Fire Tree Mortality on Fire Severity in Conifer Forests of the San
Bernardino Mountains, California, The Open Forest Science Journal,
2009) suggests that bark beetle outbreaks will not lead to greater fire
risk, and that tree thinning and logging is not likely to alleviate
future large-scale epidemics of bark beetle. The report's findings
apply to millions of acres of lodgepole pine and spruce-fir forests
across North America. This report completely contradicts the goals and
unscientific claims of this bill that increased logging will reduce
these naturally occurring events.
``Drought and high temperature are likely the overriding factors
behind the current bark beetle epidemic in the western United States,''
said Scott Hoffman Black, executive director of the Xerces Society for
Invertebrate Conservation. ``Because logging and thinning cannot
effectively alleviate the overriding effects of climate, it will do
little or nothing to control these outbreaks.'' (Black, S. H., et al.,
Insects and Roadless Forests: A Scientific Review of Causes,
Consequences and Management Alternatives, National Center for
Conservation Science & Policy, Ashland OR, 2010).
S. 2895 will lead to hundreds of millions of dollars of additional
subsidies to log our national forests at a time when Americans are
saddled with a soaring national debt.
Since the rise of large scale civilizations around 8,000 years,
over 80% of the Earth's forests have been either completely wiped out
or severely degraded by humans. Logging by humans is the greatest
threat to the survival of the remaining natural forests on Earth, yet
this legislation will increase logging. All the verbiage in S. 2895
about so-called ecological forest restoration, watershed health,
conservation, ecosystem function, carbon cycling, and scientific
advisory panels are thin cover for a timber industry logging bill.
S. 2895 was written without public participation, contrary to the
claims of some of the bill's supporters. It is undemocratic in
conception and would also be so in implementation. Senate Bill 2895 is
an environmental disaster-in-the making for our national forests and an
economic disaster for the American people and will contribute greatly
to lost biodiversity and increased atmospheric carbon dioxide levels.
We urge you to completely oppose it.
Signed,
Michael Donnelly, Friends of the Breitenbush
Cascades, OR; Tim Hermach, Native Forest
Council, OR; Tom Giesen, MS, Citizens for
Public Resources, OR; Samantha Chirillo,
M.S., M.P.A. Cascadia's Ecosystem
Advocates, OR; Shannon Wilson, League of
Wilderness Defenders, OR; Carl Ross, Save
America's Forests, Washington, DC; Rachel
Smolker, Biofuelwatch, VT; Michael Garrity,
Alliance for the Wild Rockies, MT; Ara
Marderosian, Sequoia ForestKeeper, CA;
Scott Mathes, California Environmental
Project, CA; Ernie Reed, Heartwood, TN;
Gary Macfarlane, Friends of the Clearwater,
ID; Sherman Bamford, Virginia Forest Watch,
VA; Jonathan Carter, Forest Ecology
Network, ME; George Wuerthner, RESTORE: The
North Woods, ME; Jana Chicoine, Concerned
Citizens of Russell, MA; Chris Matera,
Massachusetts Forest Watch, MA; Margaret E.
Sheehan, The Biomass Accountability
Project, Inc., Massachusetts.
______
Statement of Robert Freimark, Senior Policy Analyst, The Wilderness
Society, on S. 2895
The Wilderness Society is a national, non-profit conservation group
with about 500,000 members and supporters. The mission of The
Wilderness Society is to protect wilderness and inspire Americans to
care for our wild lands. S. 2895 applies to six national forests in
eastern Oregon, totaling nearly 10 million acres. Lands covered by the
Northwest Forest Plan (parts of the Deschutes and Winema National
Forests) are not affected by the legislation.
Since its establishment in 1935, The Wilderness Society has
advocated for the protection and wise stewardship for these National
Forests (Umatilla, Malheur, Wallowa-Whitman, Deschutes, Ochoco, and
Fremont-Winema). We have been involved in all stages of land and
resource management planning for these forests since the implementation
of the National Forest Management Act of 1976, and have advocated for
Wilderness and Wild and Scenic River protection, roadless area
conservation, and other protective designations for those lands with
high conservation values.
We are pleased that Senator Wyden has a strong interest in the
protection and stewardship of these lands belonging to all Americans,
and which contain incredible resources including old growth forests. We
respect the collaboration efforts that made this legislation possible.
Collaboration is not easy especially among interests who traditionally
had opposing viewpoints. Because the values and resources of these
National Forests are so substantial and do belong to all the American
people, we are concerned that others who have a stake in these National
Forests were not adequately involved in the discussions. When key
public processes impacting public involvement on these National Forests
may be altered because of this legislation, it is very important to
allow a robust public discussion about the merits of such a proposal.
We commend Senator Wyden for holding a Congressional hearing and
encourage other hearings and forums where the merits of this
legislation can be discussed.
In the spirit of constructive collaboration, we are submitting the
comments below to demonstrate our support for key provisions, and in
hopes of the legislation getting modified to address concerns we have
identified.
forest and stream protections
We support the old growth protection provision in the legislation.
The bill prohibits the cutting of live trees over 21 inches in diameter
(which is comparable to the administrative protection of live old
growth trees), currently provided by the ``Eastside Screens.'' However,
neither the bill nor the Eastside Screens (the current administrative
requirement) directly addresses the controversial issue of salvage
logging of large dead trees. Since fire is such a common ecological
force in the geography covered by this legislation and there is usually
considerable pressure to have a timber sale after a fire, we recommend
that timber salvage sales and other post fire projects be covered by
this legislation.
We also support the watershed protection provision of the bill
which requires the Forest Service to comply with the PACFISH and INFISH
administrative requirements for riparian area protection (Sec.
5(b)(1)). These protections are already administratively in operation,
but legislation would ensure the protections will not be weakened and/
or eliminated with future Administrations.
We support the bill's general prohibition on the construction of
permanent roads (Sec. 6(a)) and several limitations on construction of
temporary roads, such as requiring prompt decommissioning after a
project is completed (Sec. 6(b)). In addition, we support the bill's
requiring the Forest Service to reduce the density of permanent roads
when it designs Ecological Restoration Projects (ERPs, Sec. 6(c)).
However, we believe the bill could be made stronger by defining the
term ``decommissioning'' in the legislation and by requiring a 3 year
deadline in which temporary roads are decommissioned.
management goals and purposes
We support the four management goals stated in the legislation: to
conserve and restore forests and watersheds; reduce the risk of
uncharacteristic natural disturbances; allow for characteristic
disturbances; and increase resistance and resiliency to
uncharacteristic events. Essential to these goals is restoring fire as
a natural disturbance to low and moderate fire regimes. We believe the
purposes of the legislation should be more aligned with these goals.
For example, an increase of quantity and predictability of timber is
likely from successful achievement of the four management goals, but
should not be a key purpose of the legislation. One suggestion is to
include a ``findings'' section of the legislation, and to edit the many
purposes to fit into that section. We are concerned that one purpose
(number 11) concludes an ``emergency'' status for threats to forest
health, watershed health, and rural economies. A Congressional
emergency determination is serious, and we do not believe the
legislation provides enough information to understand why such a
determination is warranted in all three categories listed: ``forest
health, watershed health, and rural economies.'' Again, we believe a
findings section might provide an opportunity to articulate the threats
to eastern Oregon economies and environment.
interim treatment targets
Until the Forest Service initiates mechanical treatments under an
ERP within each Eastside national forest, the bill requires the Forest
Service, ``to the maximum extent practicable,'' to plan and implement
specified acreages of interim projects or other projects during each of
the three years after the bill is enacted (Sec. 9(c)(5)). The projects
must be predominantly comprised of mechanical treatments and emphasize
sawtimber as a byproduct (Sec. 9(c)(5)(i) and (ii)). The minimum
project acreage targets are 80,000 acres in the first year, 100,000
acres in the second year, and 120,000 acres in the third year (Sec.
9(c)(5)(i)). The acreage of interim projects must be evenly distributed
across the roaded, at-risk forest lands within the Eastside national
forests (Sec. 9(c)(5)(C)).
We have concerns with the language in Section 9(c) ``Location of
Treated Acres,'' which states, ``to the maximum extent practicable, the
Secretary shall. . .'' The direction provided by this language for the
Secretary is direct and makes clear that treating the acreage targets
defined in the legislation is a priority over other considerations. Our
concern is that there may be other considerations in managing these
lands that will not be adequately addressed because of the pressure of
this legislative language. We support the bill's intent to increase a
predictable supply of timber to mills to keep the timber manufacturing
infrastructure intact, but we believe this provision could be
misinterpreted by the agency and result in trading off environmental
protections for making sure mechanical treatments are expedited.
restoration assessment and 10 year plan
We support the bill's requirement for the Forest Service to prepare
an Eastside Landscape Forest Restoration Assessment within two years
(Sec. 8(a)). The assessment would include identification of proposed
ERP areas, along with evaluation of the existing road system and local
infrastructure and workforce needs (Sec. 8(b)). It would also contain a
10-year restoration plan comprised of activities aimed at restoring
forest and watershed health (Sec. 8(c)). The public would have an
opportunity to comment on the assessment (Sec. 8(d)). The Forest
Service would have to incorporate the findings of the assessment into
its forest plans (Sec. 8(e)). We recommend that the legislation should
clarify the relationship between the Section 8 assessment and the
collaborative strategies and proposals that may be developed pursuant
to the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program established
by Congress last year in the Forest Landscape Restoration Act (FLRA).
For example, the Long-Range Strategy for the Lakeview Federal
Stewardship Unit in the Fremont-Winema National Forest, which The
Wilderness Society has helped to create and update for the FLRA,
contains elements that are similar to those in the Section 8
assessment. The bill should not complicate efforts by collaborative
groups and the Forest Service to comply with the FLRA by imposing
redundant or conflicting requirements.
ecological restoration projects
We support the legislation directing the Forest Service to prepare
landscape-scale ERPs in consultation with local collaborative groups
and specifying several factors the agency must consider in prioritizing
ERPs (Sec. 9(a)). The bill requires the Forest Service to plan one or
more ERPs covering a gross planning area of at least 25,000 acres in
each of the six Eastside national forests per year, starting within
three years (Sec. 9(b)(1)). The bill states that each ERP ``shall
provide a quantity of timber based on the need to maintain a
sustainable industrial capacity to perform the ecological restoration
activities under this Act'' (Sec. 9(b)(2)). However we believe the
``shall'' should be changed to ``should,'' since we believe that timber
production in this instance should be a by-product of restoration
projects, and not a rationale for developing the projects. Indeed, the
inclusion of similar mandatory language in the Tongass Timber Reform
Act--requiring the Forest Service to ``meet market demand for
timber''--has provided the basis for litigation and injunctive relief
that has resulted in less timber being sold on the Tongass National
Forest.
interim projects-administrative appeals exemption
The bill provides direction to the Forest Service for ``interim
projects'' until the Forest Service begins mechanical treatments under
an ERP in an Eastside National Forest. The interim projects, which
include ``all vegetation management contracts (including commercial
timber sales and stewardship contracts),'' must comply with the bill's
provisions on old-growth logging, riparian area management, and
permanent and temporary roads, as well as with the recommendations of
the science advisory panel (Sec. 9(c)(1)). The bill exempts interim
projects from administrative appeals (Sec. 9(c)(2)).
We oppose the administrative appeal exemption. We believe
administrative appeals provide the public with a non-polarizing
mechanism for addressing their grievances with the federal government.
Without an administrative appeals option, the public will quickly need
to consider formal litigation if the public believes their concerns are
not being adequately heard and addressed. Once litigation commences, it
is likely that conversations and dialogue by stakeholders will end, and
the natural resource decisions will end up in the court room. Such a
result is contrary to the intent of the collaboration desired by this
legislation. In addition, we believe that, from a national perspective,
including this provision will set a negative precedent whereby public
involvement processes, such as administrative appeals, are offered as
trading stock in return for environmental protection considerations. We
believe the appropriate forum for determining National Forest System
public involvement processes, including grievance procedures, is
through the nationwide federal agency rule making process, rather than
regional or forest-specific legislation.
experimental projects
We support the bill requiring the Forest Service to test ways of
identifying and protecting old-growth trees based on their age (>150
years) instead of diameter (>21 inches) (Sec. 9(d)(1)). We understand
the prohibition on cutting trees greater than 21 inches in diameter
would not apply to experimental projects (Sec. 9(d)(2)).
nepa analysis and objection process
The bill requires the Forest Service to prepare no more than one
environmental impact statement on each ERP (Sec. 11(b)(2)). At the end
of the NEPA process, the Forest Service would issue a ``proposed
decision'' (Sec. 11(c)(5)). For the next 30 days, persons who submitted
comments on the ERP would be able to file an administrative
``objection'' to the proposed decision (Sec. 11(d)(1) and (2)). If the
objector and the Forest Service agree to have an objection resolution
meeting, members of the local collaborative group would be able to
attend (Sec. 11(d)(3)). The Forest Service would have to respond to any
objections within 30 days after the end of the 30-day objection period
(Sec. 11(d)(4)). Until then, the Forest Service would not be able to
implement the ERP (Sec. 11(d)(5)(B)(i)).
The bill's objection process is similar to the one used for
projects authorized by the Healthy Forest Restoration Act. We question
whether HFRA objection process has any advantage over the standard
administrative appeals process. In fact, a recent study by the
Government Accountability Office found that hazardous fuels projects
have been challenged twice as often by HFRA objections as by normal
administrative appeals, which suggests that the HFRA objection process
may be causing more controversy. We believe that further analysis of
the GAO study and its underlying data is warranted before Congress
attempts to expand the usage of the HFRA objection process.
judicial review
The bill ``encourages'' the court reviewing a lawsuit challenging
an ERP to expedite the proceeding ``to the maximum extent practicable''
(Sec. 11(e)(1)). The court would be required to consider the short- and
long-term impacts of undertaking and not undertaking the ERP (Sec.
11(e)(2)). Any person who commented on either an ERP or an interim
project would be allowed to intervene in any lawsuit challenging those
projects (Sec. 11(g)). We do not think it is necessary or appropriate
for Congress to tamper with the separation of powers between the
legislative and judicial branches of government in this way. The
federal courts should be allowed to prioritize its case load and weigh
the equities of each side in accordance with the courts' best judgment
and normal judicial standards.
biomass
The bill requires the Forest Service to ``take such actions as are
necessary to further enhance the use of woody biomass'' in the Eastside
national forests (Sec. 12(a)). The Forest Service would be required to
estimate the volume of biomass--consisting of slash, brush, and trees
that are too small for sawtimber--that could be supplied sustainably
over a 20-year period (Sec. 12(b)(2)). The bill authorizes the agency
to enter into biomass supply contracts for a term of up to 20 years,
with an option of adjusting the contracts after 10 years (Sec.
12(b)(4)).
For the most part, we support this provision of the legislation.
The Wilderness Society sees biomass as a potential resource that these
Eastside National Forests have capacity to produce sustainably for at
least the next few decades. However, we want to be assured that the
biomass studies and evaluations will be produced realizing an honest
appraisal of supply. Otherwise our National Forests could become
biomass fiber farms instead of providing a balance of multiple uses to
the American people. Overall, we believe that biomass should be a tool
and not a master of forest management. Not every acre of National
Forest is appropriate for providing supplies for biomass. There are
locations in these National Forests where there is general agreement
that materials for biomass supply are appropriate. In other areas there
may be disagreement and/or uncertainty. Any evaluations should insure
scientific and public disagreements and uncertainty are included in its
study of biomass supply potential on these public lands. However, we
are concerned about the long-term (20 year) contracts authorized in the
legislation. We understand the importance of these long-term contracts
to investors considering biomass plants, but we believe any contract
agreed to should have provisions which enable the federal government to
terminate, as well as effectively modify, the contract based on new
scientific information that significantly alters the government's
understanding of the environmental, economic, or social impacts of the
contract.
stewardship contracts and county payments
The bill requires the Forest Service, ``to the maximum extent
practicable,'' to use 20-year stewardship contracts to carry out
restoration projects, with an option to adjust the contract after the
first 10 years (Sec. 13(a) and (b)). Local businesses located within
100 miles of the project's National Forest would receive preference in
contractor selection (Sec. 13(d)).
The Wilderness Society supports stewardship contracting for bona
fide restoration projects in our National Forests and supports this
provision of the legislation with a modification in the length of
contracting time. We believe 10 years, not 20 years, should be the
maximum time frame for long-term stewardship contracts, since there
should be an opportunity for the agency to change contract terms and
for other contractors to compete at least once a decade. We also
recognize the strong dependency of Oregon counties on revenues from the
federal government whether through the existing Secure Rural Schools
program, or through the 25% federal logging receipts sharing that would
presumably be re-established in the event that the Secure Rural Schools
program is not reauthorized or replaced with a similar program during
the next two and a half years. Congress needs to determine a mechanism
for providing additional revenue to counties with large acreages of
federal lands in their borders. Our concern is that stewardship
contracting would not provide funds for the counties under a re-
established 25% revenue-sharing system, and would result in counties
not supporting needed and beneficial stewardship projects for fears of
receiving less federal funds.
appropriations and retained receipts
The bill authorizes appropriations of $50 million, of which no more
than three percent could be used to pay for Forest Service overhead
(Sec. 15(a) and (b)). Any sale receipts generated from projects
authorized by the legislation would be retained and used by the Forest
Service for project planning and implementation (Sec. 15(c)(1)). The
Wilderness Society's concerns for county revenues extends to these
provisions of the legislation as well (see prior discussion).
conclusion
S. 2895 is a complex bill that would fundamentally change the
management goals and procedures of national forests in Eastern Oregon.
The Wilderness Society supports key provisions of this legislation,
especially the protections for old growth forests and the riparian
areas within the geographic region. We believe the emphasis of the
legislation on landscape forest restoration assessments and projects
will have the additional benefit of providing the timber industry with
an increase and predictability of timber supply.
We have concerns with the modification of the public involvement
mechanisms, including the elimination of the administrative appeals
process. We believe that such elimination is not appropriate and could
result in a negative national precedent. We believe there should be
broader stakeholder discussion regarding this provision. We believe
that not dealing with fires and resultant timber salvage sales is a
major omission of the legislation which will likely put stresses on the
collaboration the legislation is hoping to foster and encourage.
Finally, we have concerns that county governments may be put in a
position of not supporting the stewardship and restoration projects
encouraged by this legislation because of the potential reductions on
county revenues that may result.
We commend Senator Wyden, his staff, and the stakeholders who
participated in developing S. 2895. The collaboration that resulted in
the introduced legislation is impressive. The Wilderness Society
believes there is merit in many of its provisions, and we would like to
offer our experience and expertise to improve the legislation as it
moves forward.
______
Sustainable Northwest,
Portland, OR, March 12, 2010.
Hon. Ron Wyden,
U.S. Senate, 223 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Wyden, Sustainable Northwest appreciates the
opportunity to comment on the Oregon Eastside Forests Restoration, Old
Growth Protection, and Jobs Act of 2009 (S.2895). Recognizing the need
for landscape-scale restoration throughout the forests of eastern
Oregon is commendable. These forests and the communities that depend
upon them are currently facing increasingly significant threats, such
as, but not limited to, uncharacteristic wildfire, decline in economic
viability, lack of trust, poverty, and unemployment. We applaud the
effort made by the negotiators to craft a solution that addresses these
issues from opposing perspectives and interests. Sustainable Northwest
encourages thoughtful and open discussion by diverse stakeholders
working together to solve a common problem or achieve a common
objective.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Refer to the Rural Voices for Conservation Coalition's issue
paper on Collaboration here: http://www.sustainablenorthwest.org/
resources/rvcc-issue-papers/Collaboration%202007.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our comments focus on the bill's management goals, composition of
the technical advisory panel, recognition of collaboration, biomass
considerations, and contracting structure. We also recommend the
creation of a Collaboration Support Grant Program to be funded with a
small portion of the appropriation allocated for the implementation of
this Act. Section specific opinions and recommendations are offered in
an attempt to recognize and improve upon critical components and aims
of the bill.
Sustainable Northwest is a regional nonprofit organization based
out of Portland, Oregon established in 1994 to bring people, ideas, and
innovation together so that the environment, local economies, and
communities can flourish. We work with communities, businesses, local
elected officials, tribes, agencies, and other interest groups in
Oregon, California, Washington, Idaho, Montana, and others across the
West and the nation. Our efforts seek to create the conditions that
enable communities to thrive in harmony with the landscape, and
contribute to and participate in resilient and sustainable local
economies that provide quality jobs that benefit human and natural
communities. Sustainable Northwest distinguishes itself in the natural
resource conservation sector through an ability to bring together
multiple, often opposing sides of an issue, and to craft and promote
solutions through a collaborative process.
Sustainable Northwest has worked in eastern Oregon since we were
founded in 1994. We helped to create Wallowa Resources, in Enterprise,
Oregon; Lake County Resources Initiative and the Lakeview Stewardship
Group in Lakeview, Oregon; have been involved in the development of the
Blue Mountains Forest Partners in John Day, Oregon; and have partnered
and supported other eastern Oregon nonprofit organizations and
collaborative groups such as Central Oregon Intergovernmental Council,
the Harney County Restoration Collaborative, and several other
collaborative groups in that part of the state. We are intimately aware
of the acrimony and degraded forest health conditions that have
characterized this region for decades. We recently raised over $2.5
million dollars from private foundations, USDA Rural Development, and
individual investors to support community capacity building, forest
stewardship for multiple value streams, and integrated biomass
utilization across a twelve county area of eastern Oregon and the three
most northern counties of California. We know that any solution to the
environmental, social, and economic problems of this region will have
to be integrated in nature and create systemic change in order to be
lasting.
We are deeply committed to working with the rural communities of
eastern Oregon to solve the ecological and economic problems facing the
region. However, we are also cognizant of the fact that the challenges
facing the forests and communities of eastern Oregon are not theirs
alone: the fire adapted ecosystems of the interior West are all
suffering from past management, insufficient reinvestment, lack of
social agreement on forest management, and loss of local capacity to
perform land management, as well as the processing infrastructure to
utilize the material. We are concerned about the trend of state
specific legislation, but understand that the frustrations with
transforming the broader systems that have created these conditions are
too large and complex to change within the context of political
viability and social agreement. Nonetheless, we think it is unfortunate
that our community partners in similar dry ecosystems in other parts of
the West, or those in the wet, coastal systems on the west side of the
Cascades will not benefi t from the increased fi nancial investment
associated with this Act. Sustainable Northwest believes that at some
point, as a nation, we will have to commit to reinvesting in all of the
landscapes and rural communities that sustain the American West.
Furthermore, the short title of this bill states that the bill is a
``Jobs Act.'' We believe that creating healthy, resilient communities
requires the establishment of systems that will shape a strong economy,
which in a public land setting necessitates looking at the procurement
systems that determine who benefits and has access to the work on
public lands. We have offered comments below, which we believe will
strengthen those components of the legislation.
The following comments (by section), are offered in the spirit of
collaboration. We hope they will strengthen the legislation and
influence and catalyze thoughtful and fruitful discussions in order to
ultimately establish a successful solution to the problems the forests
and communities in eastern Oregon, and other communities across the
nation currently face.
section 4: forest management
(a)(1): Insert additional Management Goal as (E) to read;
(E) to increase the economic viability and stability,
including job creation and utilization of woody
biomass, of forest-dependant communities located within
the covered area.
section 7: eastside forest scientific and technical advisory panel
Our comments related to the Eastside Forest Scientifi c and
Technical Advisory Panel relate to 1) The role and purpose of the
panel, 2) The composition of expertise represented on the panel, and 3)
The relationship of the Advisory Panel to the collaborative group
recommendations.
Sustainable Northwest believes that any solution to the forest
health problems facing eastern Oregon must refl ect an integration of
ecological, economic, and social strategies. The current make-up of the
Advisory Panel does not recognize this basic principle of
sustainability. To remedy this oversight, we suggest the following
modifi cations (in italics):
SEC. 7. (a) In General
(2) To advise periodically the Secretary, collaborative
groups, and the public regarding the development and
implementation of--
(A) forest and watershed management goals;
(B) the restoration assessment, including workforce,
contractor and manufacturing capacity;
(C) ecological restoration projects; and
(D) social and economic impacts of these activities.
SEC. 7. (b) Composition
(1) APPOINTMENT--The advisory panel shall be composed of 9
members, each of whom shall be appointed by the Secretary, in
consultation with the appropriate committees of Congress.
(2) REQUIREMENTS--
(A) (ii) the Panel shall be comprised of individuals
with expertise in fields relating to the areas they
will advise of as described in SEC.7 (2)(A),(B), (C),
and (D)--
(VIII) Environmental Economics;
(IX) Natural Resource Economics;
(and adding)
(XV) Natural Resource Social Science,
(c) Duties--
(1) RECOMMENDATIONS REPORT--
(B) REQUIREMENTS--In carrying out subparagraph (A),
the advisory panel shall ensure that the
recommendations contained in the report--
(i) are based on the best available science; and
(ii) provide management guidance to the Secretary
regarding--
(adding)
(VIII) the types of business processes that will
increase local capacity to compete for projects within
the area of legislation;
(IX) opportunities to increase coordination and
technical assistance provided to businesses, existing
and new, that will compete for contracts offered under
this Act;
(X) opportunities to secure bonds and other
financial support to enable small and local contractors
to participate in federal contracting; and
(XI) lessons that could be applied across the
covered area, beyond the scope this legislation that do
not require new legislation.
As part of the initial assessment required under this Act (in
section 8 (b)(7)), baseline information on ecological, economic and
social conditions shall be established. However, long-term measures
relating to these are not required data to assess the success and
impact of this Act on the covered area. We urge you to include both
economic and social along with ecological impacts on the covered area
in the assessments.
(d) Report--
(2) REQUIREMENTS--
(A) conduct an assessment regarding the
implementation and effectiveness of this Act with
respect to--
(i) quantitative and qualitative improvements to
forest and watershed health, including resiliency,
aquatic function, and the restoration of plant
composition, structure, and function in the covered
area;
ii) the development of--
(Modify (iii) to read:)
(iii) quantitative and qualitative improvements to
maintaining industry infrastructure through the
provision of supply to mills and biomass energy
facilities, creating local jobs, development of local
markets for biomass and other value-added wood
products, and improvements to the process and projects
of existing and new collaborative groups.
section 10: collaboration
Sustainable Northwest supports the use of collaborative processes
and the involvement of collaborative groups to participate in the
design, implementation, and monitoring of projects on National Forest
System lands. We are pleased that this legislation attempts to raise
their stature and importance in the process. However, we have several
concerns which are elaborated below.
(a) Collaborative Groups--
(2) RECOGNITION--
Requiring that collaborative groups receive formal recognition by
the Secretary, coupled with a process to submit a complaint about a
collaborative group, creates the potential for political gridlock.
Collaborative groups, unlike FACA chartered groups, are self-convened,
develop their own systems for making decisions, and generally are based
on willing participants sitting down to solve problems together. The
best practices for collaborative groups are well known, and include: 1)
Operate in an open, transparent, and inclusive process, 2) Include and
encourage a diverse set of interests and community leaders to
participate, 3) Articulate clear sets of ground rules and operation
procedures to assist the group in moving forward together, 4) Make
decisions through a consensus process, and 5) Generally have some paid
staff capacity to carry forward the work of the group.
The recognition process as outlined in the bill legitimizes certain
interests over others, by requiring that the minimum requirements for
diverse representation come from just three interest group categories:
the environmental community, timber and forest interests, and county
government. This means if any one of these interests refused to
participate, or withdrew their participation from a collaborative
process, or lost staff capacity to participate, the ``recognition'' of
the group could be in jeopardy. Furthermore, we are concerned that the
recognition process creates unnecessary federal oversight over non-
federal entities. The bill does not provide any mechanism for funding
the operation of these collaborative groups. In addition, the
requirement that members of a collaborative group be from the state of
Oregon is too restrictive. Any individual who is willing to participate
in the process of a collaborative group and adhere to their operational
procedures should be able to count toward the composition of the
collaborative group. Several collaborative groups that Sustainable
Northwest has worked with have benefitted from the participation of
interest groups from outside their state, and even their region, and as
these are national forests, the threshold for involvement should not be
based on where you live, but on your willingness to engage, learn, and
find solutions.
(a) Collaborative Groups--
RECOGNITION:
(A) APPLICATION--
(B) STANDARDS FOR RECOGNITION--To recognize a
collaborative group under subparagraph (A), the
Secretary shall ensure that the collaborative group
provide documentation of--
(i) a commitment to involving a diversity of
perspectives in their process;
(ii) operation procedures and decision-making
protocols that support consensus-based or voting
procedures to ensure a high degree of agreement among
participants and across various interests;
(iii) processes for resolving decisions when they
cannot come to agreement;
(iv) processes for transition and replacement when
staff changes occur at any involved organization and
ways to engage new participants at any point in the
collaborative process;
(v) a way to share and disseminate information to
people interested in the work of the collaborative
group; and
(vi) a level of participation sufficient to ensure
that members of the collaborative group are adequately
informed before each vote.
(C) WITHDRAWAL OF OFFICIAL RECOGNITION--
(i) REVIEW OF COMPLAINTS--The Secretary shall:
a) not accept any complaints regarding
collaborative group recognition status for the first
three years after receiving recognition to ensure that
the groups have the opportunity to work together
without the threat of complaint or withdrawal of one
the interest groups;
b) only accept complaints from individuals who
are currently participating in, or have participated in
recognized collaborative groups; and
c) once a qualified complaint has been filed, it
will be promptly reviewed to determine if a recognized
collaborative group has failed to meet the requirements
described in subparagraph (B).
(4) ROLE OF COLLABORATIVE GROUPS--
We do agree that the recommendations of collaborative
groups should be weighted heavily by the Secretary, and
support the increased stature provided by the
legislation to collaborative group involvement and
recommendations. It is unclear how the recommendations
of the collaborative groups and the Eastside Forest
Scientific and Technical Advisory Panel would interact.
Please see our comments on SECTION 7 of the
legislation.
(5) MULTIPARTY MONITORING--
We are pleased to see that the legislation recognizes
the importance of monitoring within the collaborative
process and its role in building trust and increasing
understanding across diverse stakeholders. However, the
US Forest Service currently prohibits the use of
retained receipts from stewardship contracting to pay
for multi-party monitoring, and is positioned so that
the programmatic multi-party monitoring required by the
stewardship contracting authority should be narrowly
focused only on process monitoring.
Sustainable Northwest disagrees with this narrow
approach to funding multi-party monitoring. Multi-party
monitoring is an important tool to increase trust and
understanding, can help improve the type of information
that is collected, and can contribute to real
understanding of the outcomes of specifi c management
actions.
In addition, we believe that it is time that the U.S.
Forest Service considered how its business procedures,
especially how it offers contracts for work and access
to material on public lands, affect rural economies. We
believe this Act should require the agency to report on
how this legislation creates and maintains jobs and
contributes to the manufacturing sector essential to a
vibrant rural economy.
Therefore, we believe section (5) Multiparty
Monitoring should be amended as follows (italics
indicate our suggested language additions):
(5) MULTIPARTY MONITORING--
(A) AUTHORITY OF COLLABORATIVE GROUPS--Each
collaborative group may monitor and evaluate each
ecological restoration project carried out under this
Act and may use retained receipts generated from
stewardship contracts or other funds appropriated by
this Act to support their activities.
(B) SCOPE OF EVALUATION--In carrying out an
evaluation under subparagraph (A), a collaborative
group may assess each aspect of the ecological
restoration project, including--
(i) the status of the development, execution, and
administration of the ecological restoration project;
(ii) each specific accomplishment that has resulted
from the ecological restoration project; and
(iii) each ecological, economic, and social
benefit, and the cost, to local communities and the
Federal Government resulting from the ecological
restoration project.
(C) REPORTS.--A collaborative group may submit to the
advisory panel a report containing the results of the
evaluation of the ecological restoration project that
is the subject of the evaluation.
(D) AGENCY ACCOUNTABILITY.--The Forest Service shall
submit to Congress on an annual basis a report that
accounts for the:
i) number and percent of jobs retained or created
as a result of the activities under this Act;
ii) number of people trained to perform restoration
work or other activities related to this Act;
iii) number and percent of local businesses awarded
contracts using the authorities described in Section
13;
iv) amount and percent of woody material removed
from projects implemented under this Act that is
processed at local facilities;
v) the result of local multi-party monitoring
efforts; and
vi) areas of needed improvement and steps to be
taken to improve implementation of this Act.
(E) PUBLIC ACCESS TO DATA.--The Secretaries shall
ensure that all data collected and analyzed under this
Act are made available to the public in an electronic
format that is easily shared and understandable. The
Secretaries may collect and disseminate data related to
this Act using contracts, cooperative agreements, and/
or grants with nonprofit organizations, universities,
community colleges, small or micro-enterprises, youth
groups or other entities.
Adding in new subsection 6 establishing a
``Collaboration Support Grant Program''. In order to
establish this Program, we suggest the new following
language (in italics):
(6) COLLABORATION SUPPORT GRANT PROGRAM--The Secretary shall
establish a portion of the funds obligated by this Act to
establish a ``Collaboration Support Grant Program'' to provide
financial and technical support to collaborative groups within
the region. The program shall make funds available for:
(A) staff support, including facilitation of
collaborative groups;
(B) travel related to collaborative group activies;
(C) workshops related to scientific, facilitation,
and other topics that will assist collaborative groups
in advancing the goals of this Act;
(D) dissemination of ecological, social, and economic
information;
(E) training; and,
(F) collaborative group involvement in multi-party
monitoring.
section 12: biomass
Sustainable Northwest has been a strong supporter of utilizing the
woody biomass byproducts of forest restoration as a means to offset the
associated costs of land management activities. From our perspective,
options for utilization include both manufacturing of solid wood
products and energy, or densified energy products. We have promoted the
distribution of appropriate-scale facilities that capture the
ecological restoration goals and economical efficiencies associated
with co-location and an integrated business model to add the most value
to woody biomass.
Subsection (b): Establishing an estimate of available supply
over a 20 year period is a worthwhile request from the Agency.
These estimates are needed for business owners and
entrepreneurs seeking to diversify their business models and
invest in utilization infrastructure in eastern Oregon.
However, subsection (b)(1) directs the Secretary to make this
estimate based on a ``viable economic supply'' and not
explicitly based on an estimate of carrying out the ecological
objectives in the bill. Sustainable Northwest has long promoted
the need for restoration to drive the amount of potential
supply available to business interests. This tenet has led us
to support the development of ``appropriately scaled''
facilities. Depending on the scope of ecological need for
restoration and forest harvesting economics, an appropriately
scaled facility may be:
using wood-based heat in a community facility (annual supply
need: 300-1000 dry tons),
an integrated facility such as proposed in Wallowa County
(annual supply need: 35,000 dry tons) or
a 15 MW combined heat and power facility (annual supply
need: 150,000 dry tons).
We believe the determination to cite a particular biomass
utilization business over another--particularly in the case of
energy infrastructure--is the role of the private sector and
should be driven by the estimated volume of ecologically
appropriate removals provided by the Agency. In addition, while
biomass supply from private land will undoubtedly be factored
into a business decision to build any facility, it is not the
role of the Secretary to make a supply estimate on private
forests, but could provide funding to support the development
of those estimates if the public benefit is clear. The private
sector will factor in the estimate from public forests and
obtain similar estimates from private landowners as due
diligence of developing a business plan.
Barriers to developing the biomass utilization sector have
been the inability of the Agency to deliver ``consistent''
volumes due to necessary environmental rigor, reduced Agency
staffing and budgets, mistrust among various stakeholder
groups, and lack of access to capital markets in a public lands
setting due to the previous factors. Even with a 20-year supply
contract, several of these barriers will not be addressed. In
the past, no mill had a guaranteed contract for supply from the
Agency, yet the industry was able to grow its capacity. We
would caution that a single, long-term contract limits the
ability of forest managers to capture markets developed in
subsequent years that may utilize biomass more efficiently and
provide a larger revenue stream to offset the costs of
treatments. We strongly believe that it is the role of the
private sector, using current market dynamics, to successfully
bid on contracts offered by the Agency.
Subsection (b)(2)(A): In estimating the volume of biomass
available, this subsection provides some language for what
material qualifi es as biomass, but stops short of using this
language as a definition of renewable biomass. This issue has
been particularly relevant in the Federal policy dialogue with
respect to renewable energy legislation. The language used here
prevents some challenges in implementation, specifically the
use of ``minimum size standards for sawtimber.'' These
standards are out of date with current forest products markets
and would disallow some large, unhealthy or ``cull'' stems from
being utilized. Other similar attempts at a biomass defi nition
have used language similar to ``otherwise not used for a higher
value purpose'', which more effectively provides a reasonable
ecological sideboard and allows for low-value material
(diameter not specific) to be utilized to offset costs.
Subsection (b)(4): This enables the Forest Service to develop
contracts for biomass utilization that can be authorized for a
twenty year period, with a review at the 10 year point.
However, the legislation is unclear if this a different
contracting authority then the one described in Section 13, or
a separate authority that applies to a uniquely designed
``biomass project contract.'' This should be clarified to avoid
confusion in implementation. Sustainable Northwest does not
believe that a separate, new contract instrument specifically
for biomass utilization should be created; we strongly believe
that stewardship contracts and agreements, service contracts,
and timber sales, if administered to the best of the Agency's
ability, offer a sufficient suite of tools.
Although only focused on public forests, this bill should
capitalize on the common ground built elsewhere in the bill to
propose a workable definition for renewable woody biomass from
Federal lands. In previous efforts, you have introduced
legislation (S. 536) to address the definition of renewable
biomass. Section 3 (Definitions) of this bill should include a
definition of `renewable biomass'. We suggest the following
language that builds upon Senator Wyden's previous work:
RENEWABLE WOODY BIOMASS--The term `renewable woody biomass',
in respect to woody materials harvested from National Forest
System land or public lands (as defined in section 103 of the
Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, means--
(A) materials, pre-commercial thinnings, or removed
invasive or exotic species;
(B) residues or byproducts from milled logs from
wood, paper, or pulp products facilities;
(C) byproducts of ecologically-based restoration
treatments (such as trees, wood, brush, thinnings,
chips, and slash) that are removed--
(i) to reduce hazardous fuels;
(ii) to reduce or contain disease or insect
infestation; or
(iii) to restore ecosystem health;
(D) would not otherwise be used for higher-value
products, such as sawtimber, pulp or composite
panelboard products
(E) are harvested in accordance with--
(i) Federal and State law and
(ii) applicable land management plans;
(F) are not harvested from:
(i) components of the National Wilderness
Preservation System,
(ii) Wilderness Study Areas, Inventoried Roadless
Areas,
(iii) old growth stands,
(iv) late successional stands, unless material is
harvested in accordance with (C),
(v) components of the National Landscape
Conservation System,
(vi) National Monuments,
(vii) National Conservation Areas,
(viii) Designated Primitive Areas,
(ix) Wild and Scenic Rivers corridors, or
(x) any areas designated by Congress to be
administered for conservation purposes.
In addition, a clarification needs to be made to the section that
explicitly qualifies woody biomass (as defined above) as a feedstock
for renewable energy. We suggest the following language:
(5) RENEWABLE ENERGY--Any renewable woody biomass produced as
a byproduct in accordance with carrying out the purpose and
goal of this Act shall qualify as a feedstock for renewable
energy.
section 13: local contracting
Sustainable Northwest has been actively engaged in the development
and implementation of stewardship contracting. We have supported the
Forest Service in its use by assisting with training sessions,
providing technical assistance to collaborative groups, providing
comments on their procedures and guidelines, and participating in the
programmatic multiparty monitoring that is required. We are pleased to
see stewardship contracts, as well as stewardship agreements recognized
in this legislation.
However, the section, as currently written, is confusing. Current
law requires that all stewardship contracts or agreements offered by
the Agencies be awarded on a best value basis and consider: 1) Past
Performance, 2) Technical Approach, and 3) Price. Furthermore, the
Forest Service handbook requires that all stewardship contracts be
developed collaboratively and ensure that local community benefit is
considered when awarding contracts. We agree with the current language
in the law, and agency guidance may not be specifi c enough to support
increased local capture of stewardship contracts or agreements, or
ensure that the contract is awarded to the bidder who is most able to
meet the ecological objectives of the project. However, we do not
believe the bill will do much to change the impact of existing
authorities. We believe the language in this legislation should be
modified to ensure that contracts help to: 1) Retain existing
contracting capacity and processing infrastructure, 2) Rebuild capacity
where it has been lost, 3) Ensure the ecological objectives of the
project can be achieved, and 4) Help to contribute to the creation of
local markets for products resulting from the restoration activities.
Therefore, we suggest that (d) be amended to read:
1. PROCUREMENT PROCEDURE.--In selecting a source for
performance of an agreement or contract under subsection (a),
the Secretary shall award all stewardship contracts and
agreements and service contracts related to forest management
on a best value basis, and shall consider the following
evaluative criteria:
a. The ability of the offeror to benefit local economies
through the retention or creation of employment and/or training
opportunities;
b. The ability of the offeror to ensure that wood and other
by-products are processed locally to the maximum extent
feasible and contribute to the development of a low-carbon
economy, including thermal applications of wood utilization,
integrated utilization strategies and facilities, and/or other
value added products that can be marketed in existing or
emerging markets;
c. The ability of the offeror to meet the project's
ecological objectives with appropriate attention to the
sensitivity of the resources being treated, especially soils
and water;
d. Consider past performance, including, but not limited to,
past employment and hiring practices, such as instances of
wage, safety, or other violations; and
e. To ensure price factors are considered but do not override
non-price factors, confirm that nonprice factors are weighted
heavily enough to make certain they will receive significant
consideration in selecting contractors.
Thank you, again, for the opportunity to provide comments to this
bill. We look forward to working with you and your staff to strengthen
the bill and incorporate our ideas and suggestions. We believe that
these suggestions will make the goals of this bill more achievable,
fair and successful. If you have any questions, please feel free to
contact me or our Policy Director, Maia Enzer
([email protected] or (503) 221-6911 x 111).
Sincerely,
Martin Goebel,
President.
______
March 16, 2010.
Dear President Obama and Members of Congress: As scientists
conducting research in the fields of forest and fire ecology, we feel
compelled to provide input to Congress when proposed legislation does
not accurately represent the current state of scientific knowledge.
Some current bills, including the ``Oregon Eastside Forests
Restoration, Old Growth Protection, and Jobs Act of 2009'' (the
``Act''), sponsored by Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR), propose measures to
increase logging levels on national forests based upon the assumptions
that the current levels and intensities of wildland fire and beetle
mortality in these forests are ``uncharacteristic'', are harmful to the
forest ecosystems, and increased logging will reduce the extent or
intensity of these natural processes. Because these assumptions are not
based upon a sound scientific foundation, and because of the concern
that these bills include annual logging-level mandates that might
undermine existing environmental laws, we urge you not to support such
proposals as currently written. Ecological considerations should guide
what we do on our national forests, rather than setting logging targets
independently of ecological considerations.
Below, we briefly outline some important current scientific
information that should be reflected in any Act dealing with forests of
eastern Oregon or elsewhere in the western United States:
There is currently a significant deficit of large snags
(dead trees) in Oregon's forests relative to the minimum
habitat needs of many native cavity-nesting wildlife species,
especially in eastern Oregon (Donnegan et al. 2008). This
Forest Service report, based upon thousands of field plots,
concluded that large (over 20 inches in diameter) snags are
``currently uncommon'' in eastern Oregon, at only 1 per acre
presently, and determined that ``management may be necessary to
produce a greater density of large snags'' (Donnegan et al.
2008 [pp. 47-48]).
Fire and insect-mortality are probably the most effective
natural processes for providing the snags and large wood that
are currently in deficit in these forests.
Where snag densities are relatively higher, these areas do
not tend to burn at higher severities (Bond et al. 2009).
The scientific data contradicts the assumptions that, prior
to fire suppression, wildland fire in eastern Oregon's forests
burned only at low-intensity levels and patches of high-
intensity fire are somehow ``uncharacteristic'' or unnatural.
We now know that forests of the intermountain west, including
ponderosa pine forests, have burned at various severities
historically, and high-severity fire is a natural part of this
mix (Pierce et al. 2004, Sherriff and Veblen 2006, Baker et al.
2007, Hessburg et al. 2007, Sherriff and Veblen 2007, Klenner
et al. 2008, Whitlock et al. 2008, Baker 2009).
In the eastern Cascades, high-severity fire occurrence is
very low, with a current (since 1985) rotation interval of 889
years, i.e., at current rates, high-severity fire will only
affect a given stand every 889 years--well beyond the normal
lifespan of the conifer species (Hanson et al. 2009, Hanson et
al. 2010). Moreover, fires are not getting more intense in
eastside forests (Hanson et al. 2009, Hanson et al. 2010), and
overall fire occurrence is far below is historic extent (Medler
2006). It is also apparent that recent levels of fire
occurrence make it highly unlikely that fuel treatments could
affect fire behavior even in the forest types that tend to burn
most frequently (Rhodes and Baker 2008). There is no good
evidence that current high-severity fire in eastern Oregon
exceeds the natural range of variability.
Fuel treatments do not always reduce fire severity in the
relatively rare cases when fire affects treated areas.
Fuel treatments are not effective in maximizing carbon
storage relative to fire alone (Mitchell et al. 2009).
Fire has numerous ecological benefits, even when it is high
severity. Patches of high-severity create the forest and
montane chaparral habitats that are some of the most
ecologically important, highly biodiverse, and rarest forest
habitat in our western U.S. forests (Hutto 2006, Noss et al.
2006, Swanson et al. 2010). Many rare and imperiled wildlife
species native to eastern Oregon, such as the Black-backed
Woodpecker, depend upon unlogged patches of high-severity fire
for nesting and foraging (Hutto 1995, Hutto 2006, Hanson and
North 2008, Hutto 2008, Swanson et al. 2010). High-severity
fires also provide a bonanza downed wood which benefits aquatic
systems (Beschta et al. 2004, Karr et al. 2004, Swanson et al.
2010).
Fuel treatments in many widespread forest types are likely
to be ineffective in restoring natural fire behavior (Veblen
2003; Schoennagel et al. 2004; Noss et al. 2006; Baker et al.
2007).
The Act's diameter limit of 21 inches is excessive, and
allows far too many mature, old trees to be removed
unnecessarily.
Extensive logging typically involves road activities,
including the construction of ``temporary'' roads and landings
which have negative impacts on watersheds and aquatic systems.
The negative watershed impacts of so-called ``temporary''
landings and roads are not temporary, but persistent (Beschta
et al. 2004, Karr et al. 2004).
Many imperiled fish species depend on habitats that are
affected by land use on public lands in Oregon (USFS and USBLM
1997). Many of these habitats are already widely degraded
(Henjum et al. 1994). Additional degradation from extensive
logging, elevated use and/or construction of roads and landings
is likely to further imperil these fish species and increase
the likelihood of extirpation.
Remaining roadless areas are critical to biodiversity and
larger roadless areas typically have the lowest potential for
altered fire regimes, especially due to their location at
higher elevations (Henjum et al. 1994). Such areas should be
protected from logging.
Due to the foregoing, we urge that any legislation aimed at
restoring forests on public lands include the following:
Explicit statements that all activities must fully comply
with existing environmental laws.
Retention of citizen review provisions. As stated in Karr et
al. (2004): ``Managing public lands for the benefit of present
and future generations is challenging--a process most likely to
succeed in an open atmosphere that actively uses existing
scientific and technical information and expertise.''
Restrict fuel treatments only to areas where multiple lines
of empirical evidence clearly indicate that the fire regimes
have been altered and that there is currently more high-
severity fire than there was prior to fire suppression. In such
areas, limit thinning to small-diameter trees beneath the
forest canopy. Ensure that treatments do not occur in systems
where fire regimes have not been altered.
Prohibit construction of new landings and roads. Require
significant levels of permanent road decommissioning and
closure prior to any fuel treatments.
Retain all mature trees, including those that pre-date
settlement (Baker et al. 2007).
Significantly curtail fire suppression in areas where human
infrastructure is not at risk. Curtail domestic livestock
grazing in areas where it has contributed to fire regime
alteration.
Exclude treatments from roadless areas greater than 1,000
acres. These areas are scarce, biologically important, and
serve as important controls for monitoring effectiveness of any
fuel treatments.
Require sound scientific analysis and disclosure of the
potential ecological costs and benefits of fuel treatments,
prior to initiating treatments.
We are happy to answer any questions about these issues. Please
feel free to contact us.
Sincerely,
Chad Hanson, Ph.D., Director and Staff Ecologist,
John Muir Project (email:
[email protected]) Research Associate,
Plant & Environmental Sciences Department,
University of California at Davis; Dennis
Odion, Ph.D. (Ashland, OR), Institute for
Computational Earth Systems Science,
University of California at Santa Barbara;
Jonathan J. Rhodes, M.S., Hydrologist,
Planeto Azul Hydrology, Portland, OR;
Richard Hutto, Ph.D., Professor and
Director, Avian Science Center, University
of Montana; James Karr, Ph.D., Professor
Emeritus, University of Washington; Monica
Bond, M.S., Ornithologist; Derek Lee, M.S.,
Mammalogist; Peter Moyle, Ph.D. Center for
Watershed Sciences, University of
California at Davis; Thomas Veblen, Ph.D.,
Director, Biogeography Lab Department of
Geography, University of Colorado, Boulder;
Philip Rundel, Ph.D., Distinguished
Professor of Biology, University of
California at Los Angeles; Shaye Wolf,
Ph.D., Ecologist, Center for Biological
Diversity.