[House Hearing, 112 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
U.S. FOREST SERVICE LAND MANAGEMENT: CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR
ACHIEVING HEALTHIER NATIONAL FORESTS
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON CONSERVATION, ENERGY,
AND FORESTRY
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
MARCH 27, 2012
__________
Serial No. 112-32
Printed for the use of the Committee on Agriculture
agriculture.house.gov
_____
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
73-659 PDF WASHINGTON : 2012
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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 AGRICULTURE
FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma, Chairman
BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia, COLLIN C. PETERSON, Minnesota,
Vice Chairman Ranking Minority Member
TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania
STEVE KING, Iowa MIKE McINTYRE, North Carolina
RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa
K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas JOE BACA, California
JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska DENNIS A. CARDOZA, California
JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio DAVID SCOTT, Georgia
GLENN THOMPSON, Pennsylvania HENRY CUELLAR, Texas
THOMAS J. ROONEY, Florida JIM COSTA, California
MARLIN A. STUTZMAN, Indiana TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota
BOB GIBBS, Ohio KURT SCHRADER, Oregon
AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia LARRY KISSELL, North Carolina
SCOTT R. TIPTON, Colorado WILLIAM L. OWENS, New York
STEVE SOUTHERLAND II, Florida CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine
ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD, Arkansas JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut
MARTHA ROBY, Alabama PETER WELCH, Vermont
TIM HUELSKAMP, Kansas MARCIA L. FUDGE, Ohio
SCOTT DesJARLAIS, Tennessee GREGORIO KILILI CAMACHO SABLAN,
RENEE L. ELLMERS, North Carolina Northern Mariana Islands
CHRISTOPHER P. GIBSON, New York TERRI A. SEWELL, Alabama
RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois JAMES P. McGOVERN, Massachusetts
VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri
ROBERT T. SCHILLING, Illinois
REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin
KRISTI L. NOEM, South Dakota
______
Professional Staff
Nicole Scott, Staff Director
Kevin J. Kramp, Chief Counsel
Tamara Hinton, Communications Director
Robert L. Larew, Minority Staff Director
______
Subcommittee on Conservation, Energy, and Forestry
GLENN THOMPSON, Pennsylvania, Chairman
BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania, Ranking
MARLIN A. STUTZMAN, Indiana Minority Member
BOB GIBBS, Ohio KURT SCHRADER, Oregon
SCOTT R. TIPTON, Colorado WILLIAM L. OWENS, New York
STEVE SOUTHERLAND II, Florida MIKE McINTYRE, North Carolina
MARTHA ROBY, Alabama JIM COSTA, California
TIM HUELSKAMP, Kansas TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota
RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine
REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin MARCIA L. FUDGE, Ohio
KRISTI L. NOEM, South Dakota GREGORIO KILILI CAMACHO SABLAN,
Northern Mariana Islands
Brent Blevins, Subcommittee Staff Director
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Holden, Hon. Tim, a Representative in Congress from Pennsylvania,
opening statement.............................................. 4
Prepared statement........................................... 5
Thompson, Hon. Glenn, a Representative in Congress from
Pennsylvania, opening statement................................ 1
Prepared statement........................................... 3
Witnesses
Tidwell, Tom, Chief, U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Washington, D.C................................... 6
Prepared statement........................................... 7
Submitted questions.......................................... 126
Barth, Gary, Director, Business and Community Services, Clackamas
County, Oregon City, OR........................................ 28
Prepared statement........................................... 30
Hoover, Gregory A., Ornamental Extension Entomologist, Senior
Extension Associate, Department of Entomology, College of
Agricultural Sciences, Pennsylvania State University,
University Park, PA............................................ 34
Prepared statement........................................... 35
Watkins, Charles ``Chuck'', Chief Operating Officer, Rex Lumber,
Graceville, FL; on behalf of Federal Forest Resource Coalition. 42
Prepared statement........................................... 43
Zimmer, Gary, Certified Wildlife Biologist',
Coordinating Wildlife Biologist, Ruffed Grouse Society, Laona,
WI............................................................. 47
Prepared statement........................................... 49
Submitted Material
Armstrong, Marcia H., Supervisor District 5, Siskiyou County, CA,
submitted letter............................................... 63
Muse, Rhonda, National Institute for the Elimination of
Catastrophic Wildfire, submitted e-mail........................ 108
Petik, Jerry, Director, Grand River Grazing Cooperative
Association, submitted statement............................... 86
U.S. FOREST SERVICE LAND MANAGEMENT: CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR
ACHIEVING HEALTHIER NATIONAL FORESTS
----------
TUESDAY, MARCH 27, 2012
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Conservation, Energy, and Forestry,
Committee on Agriculture,
Washington, D.C.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in
Room 1300 of the Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Glenn
Thompson [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Members present: Representatives Thompson, Stutzman,
Tipton, Southerland, Hultgren, Ribble, Holden, Schrader,
McIntyre, Costa, and Sablan.
Staff present: Brent Blevins, Tamara Hinton, Patricia
Straughn, Lauren Sturgeon, Wyatt Swinford, Heather Vaughan,
Suzanne Watson, Liz Friedlander, Lisa Shelton, Anne Simmons,
John Konya, Jamie Mitchell, and Caleb Crosswhite
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GLENN THOMPSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM PENNSYLVANIA
The Chairman. Good morning, everyone. I want to welcome
everyone to today's hearing to review the U.S. Forest Service
land management and its impact on the health of our National
Forests.
The question of the health of our National Forests is an
important one for Members of our Subcommittee, a number of whom
represent National Forests in different regions of the country.
As Chairman of this Subcommittee and a representative whose
district includes the Allegheny National Forest, I have a keen
appreciation for the value of our nation's National Forests.
The health of our National Forest is an issue of vital
importance for rural America. Not only are our National Forests
a source of immense natural beauty, but they provide us with
natural resources, recreational opportunities, wildlife
habitat, and serve as economic engines for our local
communities. By promoting healthier forests, everyone wins.
Healthier National Forests are more sustainable for generations
to come due to decreased risk of catastrophic fires and
invasive species outbreaks. Rural economies will benefit
economically from increased timber harvest. We can continue to
support a diverse population of wildlife through active land
management practices such as prescribed burns.
Our National Forests are not museums and never were
intended to sit idle. I say this frequently, National Forests
are not National Parks. This is why the U.S. Forest Service is
housed in the U.S. Department of Agriculture rather than the
Department of the Interior. Our National Forests are meant to
provide timber, oil, natural gas, wildlife habitat,
recreational opportunities, and clean drinking water for rural
communities across America.
For today's hearing, we will focus on a few specific areas
of forest management. Now, I want to draw particular attention
to the timber harvest occurring in our National Forest system.
Timber harvesting is an important means for achieving healthier
National Forests and is crucial to supporting rural economies.
Yet, the level harvesting on most National Forests is nowhere
near the target each Forest Plan recommends. The Forest
Service's timber harvest has dropped dramatically from a high
of 12.7 billion board feet in 1987. Last year, we harvested a
mere 2.4 billion board feet, though that has increased slightly
over the last 10 years.
Now, I am sure I speak for many in this room when I say I
was pleased by USDA's announcement last month that it intended
to increase the annual harvest to 3 million board feet off
National Forest land by 2014. However, for the sake of our
forest health and the health of our rural economies, I believe
we can and must go beyond that figure. I look forward to
hearing about some of the tools the Forest Service is using to
increase its timber harvest like stewardship contracting. I am
also interested in learning about the steps the Forest Service
is taking to simplify the process of harvesting timber.
Another important factor affecting forest health is
invasive species outbreaks. In recent years, we have seen
numerous outbreaks of invasive species such as the pine bark
beetle in the West, emerald ash borer in Pennsylvania in other
areas in eastern United States. Invasive species outbreaks
can't be avoided. However, we can be sure that our forests are
managed in such a way that they are more resistant during
outbreaks. We want to also be certain that the remnants from
the outbreaks do not become hazardous fuel. Catastrophic
wildfires are a perfect example of what can happen when our
forests are not well managed. The country witnessed a series of
wildfires during the last decade that were the worst we have
seen in more than 50 years. I am concerned that the frequency
and intensity of these fires is a result of forests that have
not been adequately managed.
In 1736, as a famous Pennsylvania said, ``an ounce of
prevention is worth a pound of cure.'' Many people have heard
Benjamin Franklin's maxim but are unaware of its origins. He
was referring to the threat of fire in Philadelphia and the
steps that could be taken to reduce fire-related risks. I
believe his advice is no less sage today than it was 276 years
ago.
And we have taken steps to reduce the threat of wildfires
and reduce the associated costs to the agency, but more work
remains to be done. I am going to be certain that our National
Forests are managed so that they are good neighbors with
adjoining state and private forests and do not pose an
unnecessary fire threat.
Last, the Forest Service recently released its preferred
alternative for its planning role. This Subcommittee held a
hearing to review the planning rule last May, and I look
forward to hearing how the changes will impact forest
management practices.
I want to welcome Chief Tidwell and thank him for appearing
before us today. I have had the opportunity to work extensively
with Chief Tidwell and the Forest Service since I was elected
and I look forward to continue to collaborate to promote
healthier National Forests across America.
I also look forward to hearing from our second panel of
witnesses today. We have a wide variety of stakeholders who
will tell us what the Forest Service does well and what they
should be doing better. I particularly want to welcome Mr.
Gregory Hoover, who is testifying on our second panel this
morning. Mr. Hoover is a constituent from the Penn State
Agricultural Extension who brings considerable experience in
research in combating various invasive species, including the
emerald ash borer, which has been a problem in Pennsylvania.
And finally, I want to recognize--I know he is in the
room--Mr. Ross Gorte of the Congressional Resource Service who
is retiring this week after 29 years of service. Ross has been
a valuable resource on forestry matters for Members and staff
of this Committee, including my own staff, and I wish him a
very enjoyable retirement.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Thompson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Glenn Thompson, a Representative in Congress
from Pennsylvania
Good morning. I want to welcome everyone to today's hearing to
review U.S. Forest Service land management and its impact on the health
of our National Forests.
The question of the health of our National Forests is an important
one for Members of our Subcommittee, a number of whom represent
National Forests in different regions of the country.
As Chairman of this Subcommittee and a representative whose
district includes the Allegheny National Forest, I have a keen
appreciation for the value of our nation's National Forests.
The health of our National Forests is an issue of vital importance
for rural America.
Not only are our National Forests a source of immense natural
beauty, but they provide us with natural resources, recreation
opportunities, wildlife habitat, and serve as economic engines for the
local communities.
By promoting healthier National Forests, everyone wins.
Healthier National Forests are more sustainable for generations to
come due to decreased risk of catastrophic fires and invasive species
outbreaks.
Rural economies will benefit economically from increased timber
harvests.
We can continue to support a diverse population of wildlife through
active land management practices such as prescribed burns.
Our National Forests are not museums and were never intended to sit
idle.
I say it frequently, but National Forests are not National Parks.
This is why the U.S. Forest Service is housed in the U.S.
Department of Agriculture, rather than the Department of the Interior.
Our National Forests are meant to provide timber, oil, natural gas,
wildlife habitat, recreational opportunities, and clean drinking water
for rural communities across America.
For today's hearing, we will focus on a few specific areas of
forest management.
I want to draw particular attention to the timber harvests
occurring in our National Forest system.
Timber harvesting is an important means for achieving healthier
National Forests and is crucial to supporting rural economies.
Yet the level of harvesting on most National Forests is nowhere
near the target each forest plan recommends.
The Forest Service's timber harvest has dropped dramatically from a
high of 12.7 billion board feet in 1987.
Last year, we harvested a mere 2.4 billion board feet, though that
has increased slightly over the last ten years.
I am sure I speak for many in this room when I say that I was
pleased by USDA's announcement last month that it intended to increase
the annual harvest to 3 billion board feet off National Forest land by
FY 2014.
However, for the sake of our forests' health and the health of our
rural economies, I believe we can and must go beyond that figure.
I look forward to hearing about some of the tools the Forest
Service is using to increase its timber harvest like stewardship
contracting.
I am also interested in learning about the steps the Forest Service
is taking to simplify the process of harvesting timber.
Another important factor affecting forest health is invasive
species outbreaks.
In recent years, we have seen numerous outbreaks of invasive
species such as the Pine Bark Beetle in the West and the Emerald Ash
Borer in Pennsylvania and other areas in the eastern United States.
Invasive species outbreaks are inevitable.
However, we can be sure that our forests are managed in such a way
that they are more resistant during outbreaks.
We must also be certain that the remnants from the outbreaks do not
become hazardous fuel.
Catastrophic wildfires are a perfect example of what can happen
when our forests are not managed well.
The country witnessed a series of wildfires during the last decade
that were the worst we've seen in more than 50 years.
I am concerned that the frequency and intensity of these fires is a
result of forests that have not been adequately managed.
In 1736, a famous Pennsylvanian said ``An ounce of prevention is
worth a pound of cure.''
Many people have heard Benjamin Franklin's maxim but are unaware of
its origins.
He was referring to the threat of fire in Philadelphia and the
steps that could be taken to reduce fire-related risks.
I believe his advice is no less sage today than it was 276 years
ago.
We have taken steps to reduce the threat of wildfire and reduce the
associated costs to the agency, but more work remains to be done.
I want to be certain that our National Forests are managed so that
they are good neighbors with adjoining state and private forests and do
not pose an unnecessary fire threat.
Last, the Forest Service recently released its preferred
alternative for its planning rule.
This Subcommittee held a hearing to review the planning rule last
May and I look forward to hearing how the changes will impact forest
management practices.
I want to welcome Chief Tidwell and thank him for appearing before
us today.
I have had the opportunity to work extensively with Chief Tidwell
and the Forest Service since I was elected and I look forward to
continuing to collaborate to promote healthier National Forests across
America.
I also look forward to hearing from our second panel of witnesses
today.
We have a wide variety of stakeholders who will tell us what the
Forest Service does well and what they should be doing better.
I particularly want to welcome Mr. Gregory Hoover, who is
testifying on our second panel this morning.
Mr. Hoover is a constituent from Penn State's Agricultural
Extension who brings considerable experience in researching and
combating various invasive species, including emerald ash borer, which
has been a problem in Pennsylvania.
And, finally, I want to recognize Mr. Ross Gorte of the
Congressional Research Service, who is retiring this week after 29
years of service.
Ross has been a valuable resource on forestry matters for Members
and staff of this committee, including my own staff and I wish him an
enjoyable retirement.
I now recognize the Ranking Member, Mr. Holden, for his opening
statement.
The Chairman. I now recognize the Ranking Member, Mr.
Holden, for his opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. TIM HOLDEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM PENNSYLVANIA
Mr. Holden. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to
thank Chief Tidwell and our other witnesses and guests for
coming today to discuss the U.S. Forest Service land management
and the challenges and opportunities for achieving healthier
National Forests.
This hearing presents an opportunity for Members of this
Subcommittee to get reacquainted with the national framework
for forest land management and to learn how we can best assist
the agency in maintaining and improving the health of the 155
National Forests and 20 grasslands in the National Forest
System.
As we discuss reauthorization of the current farm bill
under tight budgetary constraints and even tighter budgetary
expectations, it is important to hear from those in and around
our forest communities about which programs are working and
which are not, and what we can do better to promote both a
healthy forest and a hearty economy. The Forest Service should
always consider the multiple uses of our National Forest land,
including timber production, habitat preservation, natural
resource management, and recreation and ensure local economic
development and environmental protections work in harmony
instead of in competition with each other. We need to make sure
the Forest Service and its partners work together to improve
forest restoration and conservation while promoting a robust
forest industry that supports local stakeholders and results in
restored jobs and a vibrant rural economy. Only in partnership
can we ensure the viability of our forest land and forest
communities in the 21st century.
I look forward to today's expert testimony and the
opportunity to listen, learn, and question those on the
forefront of this very important issue. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Holden follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Tim Holden, a Representative in Congress
from Pennsylvania
I would like to thank Chief Tidwell and our other witnesses and
guests for coming today to discuss U.S. Forest Service land management
and the challenges and opportunities for achieving healthier National
Forests.
This hearing presents an opportunity for Members of the
Subcommittee to get reacquainted with the national framework for
forestland management and to learn how we can best assist the agency in
maintaining and improving the health of the 155 National Forests and 20
Grasslands in the National Forest System.
As we discuss reauthorization of the current farm bill under tight
budgetary constraints and even tighter budgetary expectations, it is
important to hear from those in and around our forest communities about
which programs are working, which are not, and what we can do better to
promote both a healthy forest and hearty economy.
The Forest Service should always consider the multiple uses of our
National Forestland including timber production, habitat preservation,
natural resource management and recreation and ensure local economic
development and environmental protections work in harmony instead of in
competition with each other.
We need to make sure the Forest Service and its partners work
together to improve forest restoration and conservation while promoting
a robust forest industry that supports local stakeholders and results
in restored jobs and a vibrant rural economy. Only in partnership can
we ensure the viability of our forestland and forest communities in the
21st century.
I look forward to today's expert testimony and the opportunity to
listen, learn and question those on the forefront of this important
issue.
The Chairman. I thank the Ranking Member.
Now, the chair would request that other Members submit
their opening statements for the record so that the witnesses
may begin their testimony to ensure there is ample time for
questions.
And I would like to welcome--we have one witness, our first
panel, Mr. Tom Tidwell, Chief, the Forest Service, United
States Department of Agriculture. Chief Tidwell, please begin
when you are ready.
STATEMENT OF TOM TIDWELL, CHIEF, U.S. FOREST SERVICE, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, WASHINGTON, D.C.
Mr. Tidwell. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee,
once again it is a privilege to be here today to discuss the
challenges and the opportunities for achieving healthier
National Forests. I appreciate the support this Subcommittee
has shown the Forest Service in the past and I look forward to
working with you to help address this very important issue that
we are facing on our National Forests today.
Our ability to sustain the National Forests and provide all
the benefits that the public wants and needs is increasingly at
risk. The droughts that we are seeing, the invasive species,
more development in the wildland-urban interface,
uncharacteristically severe wildfires, unprecedented outbreaks
of insect and disease, all of these stresses and disturbances
are affecting America's forests. The Forest Service recognizes
that we need to increase the pace and scale of our restoration,
our active management of our National Forests to address these
threats, these threats to the resiliency of our National
Forests and watersheds, to address the threats to the health
and safety of America's forest-dependent communities. We also
recognize a need for a strong integrated wood products industry
to provide the skills to do the restoration work and to be able
to use the markets to reduce the cost to the taxpayer.
There are between 65 and 82 million acres of our National
Forests that need some form of restoration, and we are
committed to increasing the number of acres treated by 20
percent over the next 3 years. This will not only increase
forest health but it will increase jobs and increase timber
harvest to 3 billion board feet. Now, how are we going to get
this done? Well, I have a series of opportunities I want to
share with you.
And the first one is to increase our collaboration with
projects like the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration
Program, which is proving to be a very effective model for
increasing the amount of work that is being accomplished and
increasing the number of jobs that are being created. We want
to be able to demonstrate that we can restore more acres with
our pilot authority for a more efficient integrated resource
restoration budget structure. We are going to complete our
wildland fire management strategy that will reduce wildland
fire hazards to communities by thinning forests, helping
private landowners to remove fuels and hazards on their
property, and increasing the effectiveness of our suppression
efforts.
We are going to continue to implement our bark beetle
strategy to deal with 18 million acres of dead and dying timber
out West on our National Forests by focusing our timber harvest
in areas to protect the public and communities and slowing the
spread where we can. We want to continue to work with Congress
to make permanent our stewardship contracting authority, which
has proven to be a very effective tool to increase the
implementation of restoration work, timber harvest, and
increase jobs. And we need to continue to explore ways to
expand our markets for wood products through our work at our
Forest Products Lab and to continue to develop the science: on
how we need to manage our forests to protect wildlife, to
provide clean water, to provide the recreational settings that
170 million people enjoy every year.
And then, of course, we are going to move forward with
implementing our new planning rule, which is going to reduce
the time, reduce costs to revising our plans to ensure that our
Forest Plans address the need for restoration of our National
Forests. We are also working on improving the efficiency of our
NEPA processes through our work with CEQ to reduce the time and
cost of doing analyses saving time and be able to implement the
projects and put people back to work.
The opportunities are here for us to increase the health of
our National Forests and I look forward to working with
Congress to implement these opportunities. Restoring our
National Forest to ensure that they provide the benefits, the
goods and services, the benefits of clean water, clean air,
wildlife habitat, the recreational opportunities like hunting
and fishing, the economic activity that employs hundreds of
thousands of Americans, it is a good investment for America.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to address the
Subcommittee and I look forward to answering your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Tidwell follows:]
Prepared Statement of Tom Tidwell, Chief, U.S. Forest Service, U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to present the views of the U.S. Department of Agriculture
regarding U.S. Forest Service Land Management: Challenges and
Opportunities for Achieving Healthier National Forests.
Today, people understand that forests provide a broad range of
values and benefits, including biodiversity, recreation, clean air and
water, forest products, erosion control and soil renewal, and more. We
have National Forests in 42 states and Puerto Rico that comprise a land
area of nearly 193 million acres. Our mission is to sustain the health,
diversity, and productivity of the nation's forests and grasslands for
present and future generations. The Forest Service does this through
working with numerous Federal, state, and local partners, citizens, and
industry.
Our collective ability to sustain the nation's forests and provide
ecosystem services is increasingly at risk. Drought, invasive species,
loss of open space, uncharacteristically severe wildfires,
uncharacteristically severe outbreaks of insects and disease--all these
stresses and disturbances are affecting America's forests on an
unprecedented scale.
The Forest Service is responding by restoring the functions and
processes characteristic of healthy, resilient ecosystems. Our goal is
to sustain and restore ecosystems that can deliver all the benefits
that Americans want and need. Due to changing climate, we may not be
able to restore them to their original condition, but we can move them
toward ecological integrity and health. The Forest Service recognizes
that increasing the pace and scale of restoration and active management
of the National Forests is critically needed to address these threats
to the resiliency of our forests and watersheds and the health and
safety of America's forest-dependent communities.
The Forest Service also recognizes the need for a strong forest
industry to help accomplish forest restoration work. A vibrant industry
can provide both the manpower and the know-how to undertake mechanical
treatments and other restoration activities. Forest industry also
lowers the cost of restoration to the taxpayer by providing markets for
forest products. The Forest Service is committed to increasing the
number of acres being mechanically treated by 20% over the next 3
years. This increase would allow the Forest Service to increase the
number of acres and watersheds restored across the system, while
supporting jobs and increasing annual forest products sale to 3 billion
board feet of timber. A critical part of this effort is building public
support for forest restoration and management activities. To this end,
the Forest Service continues to emphasize the importance of
collaboration among diverse stakeholders in developing restoration
projects on National Forest lands. Such collaboration not only results
in better projects, but it also reduces the risks of litigation.
An additional benefit of this restoration work is job creation. For
example, through implementation of the Collaborative Forest Landscape
Restoration Program (including the use of stewardship contracts), the
proponents of projects on National Forest lands anticipate creating or
maintaining 1,550 jobs. The benefits of maintaining a robust forest
industry flows not only to local communities but also to the Forest
Service itself as the agency relies on local forest contractors and
mills to provide the work force to undertake a variety of restoration
activities. A study has shown that every million dollars spent on
activities like stream restoration or road decommissioning generates
from 12 to 28 jobs.\1\ In addition, restoring the health and resilience
of our forests generates important amenity values. Healthy, resilient
forests and grasslands are magnets for outdoor recreation, with more
than 170 million visits per year to the National Forest System. That in
turn leads to jobs and economic opportunity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Cassandra Moseley and Max Nielson-Pincus, ``Economic Impact and
Job Creation from Forest and Watershed Restoration: A Preliminary
Assessment'' (Ecosystem Workforce Program Briefing Paper #14; winter
2009; Institute for Sustainable Development, Eugene, OR).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Forest Service continues to work toward restoring more land to
accomplish restoration objectives, maintain a robust forest industry,
and in turn create jobs. We are striving to efficiently implement
existing programs and policies, as well as pursuing a number of new
policies and initiatives to increase the pace of forest restoration and
conservation through collaboration and management of the National
Forests. The aim of these efforts is to move beyond the conflicts which
have characterized forest policy in the past and toward a shared vision
that allows environmentalists, forest industry, local communities, and
other stakeholders to work collaboratively toward healthier forests and
watersheds, safer communities and more vibrant local economies.
Within the framework of the overall restoration program, the Forest
Service is focused on the role of active forest management--including
hazardous fuels reduction, reforestation, stream restoration, road
decommissioning, forest thinning and harvesting, prescribed fire, and a
range of other practices--as important tools to accomplish needed
restoration work. The following are a series of actions that will allow
the agency to further restoration and management on the National
Forests:
Investing in restoration projects with partners though the
Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration (CFLR) Program. In Fiscal
Year 2012, the Forest Service received slightly less than the full $40
million authorized by the CFLR Act. The Secretary funded ten new
projects, in addition to the continued funding for ten projects
selected in 2010. Three additional high priority collaborative projects
were also funded from other appropriated FS funding. These 23 projects
have demonstrated that collaboration among stakeholders can facilitate
large, landscape scale restoration, thereby improving forest health,
reducing wildfire risk, restoring fire-adapted ecosystems, and
increasing timber and biomass production from our National Forests.
Current CFLR projects range from longleaf pine restoration in
Florida to restoration of several forest types on both public and
private land in the Sierra Nevada. One example is the Four Forest
Restoration Initiative in Arizona, where we are working with partners
to implement a collaborative landscape-scale restoration strategy
across 2.4 million acres on the Coconino, Kaibab, Apache-Sitgreaves,
and Tonto National Forests. This project will implement treatments in
dry ponderosa pine that is overgrown and in need of thinning and under-
burning to restore the role of fire in this fire-adapted forest type.
Watershed Condition Framework (WCF). This framework provides a
consistent and comprehensive approach for classifying the condition of
the 15,000 watersheds that comprise the National Forests and
Grasslands, and for prioritizing our restoration needs. The WCF informs
project planning by identifying the essential suite of projects to
improve a watershed's condition and aids in project location
effectiveness. The WCF also will inform Integrated Resource Restoration
project planning and implementation.
Integrated Resource Restoration (IRR).--This approach is a better
way for the agency to align its budgeting to focus on landscape scale
restoration projects across resource areas, and with partners, by
combining the restorative focus of several line items into a single
item. It combines work done under vegetation and watershed management,
forest products, wildlife and fish habitat management, hazardous fuels,
legacy roads and trails, and road decommissioning into a single
account. IRR will provide the Forest Service flexibility to focus on
priority work using a more integrated approach to management and allows
the needs of the land to drive what work gets done. In FY12 this
program is being piloted in Forest Service Regions 1, 3, and 4. The
emphasis in these regions will be on program integration, and the
outcomes will be measured using traditional targets such as timber
volume sold, miles of road decommissioned, acres of hazardous fuels
treated, and miles of stream habitat restored, while also including new
measures related to the watershed condition framework. The three pilot
regions, located in North Dakota, Montana, Idaho, Nevada, Utah, western
Wyoming, Arizona, and New Mexico, have already determined the condition
class of all 5,926 watersheds containing significant portions of NFS
lands. Among them, 78 priority watersheds were selected for restoration
activities in the next 3 to 5 years. The IRR pilot regions will have
increased flexibility to focus restoration treatments on the priority
watersheds in a more efficient manner.
National Cohesive Wildland Fire Management Strategy. (Cohesive
Strategy)--The Federal Land Assistance, Management, and Enhancement
(FLAME) Act of 2009 charged the Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior
to create a cohesive wildfire management strategy. Federal Land
Managers responded by working through the Wildland Fire Leadership
Council to direct the development of the Cohesive Strategy. The
Cohesive Strategy is a collaborative process with active involvement of
all levels of government and non-governmental organizations, as well as
the public, to seek national, all-lands solutions to wildland fire
management issues. The Cohesive Strategy addresses the nation's
wildfire problems by focusing on three key areas: (1) Restore and
Maintain Landscapes, (2) Fire Adapted Communities, and (3) Response to
Fire.
The Cohesive Strategy will soon be moving into Phase III where a
trade-off analysis of national risk will be conducted. We expect one
result will be a better understanding of how the Forest Service can
play a larger role in restoring and maintaining fire-adapted ecosystems
and landscapes within an all-lands context. This understanding should
help focus and support efforts that I've already described under
Integrated Resource Restoration and the Collaborative Forest Landscape
Restoration Program.
The Forest Service Bark Beetle Strategy.--Bark beetles have
impacted nearly 18 million acres of National Forest System lands. The
Bark Beetle Strategy, developed in 2011, focuses management efforts on
priority treatment areas to ensure human health and safety and to
reduce hazardous fuel conditions. In FY 2011, a total of approximately
16,800 acres were treated to reduce safety hazards to forest visitors,
50,100 acres were reforested, and 237,000 acres were thinned to improve
resilience, producing approximately 300 million board feet of timber,
153,800 green tons of biomass, and resulting in removal of hazard trees
along 978 miles of road.
Use of Stewardship Contracting.--This tool helps the Forest Service
to acquire additional restoration services. Stewardship contracting
allows the Forest Service to offset the value of the services received
with the value of forest products removed pursuant to a single contract
or agreement. Reauthorizing this authority and expanding the use of
this tool is crucial to our ability to collaboratively restore
landscapes at a reduced cost to the government. In Fiscal Year 2011,
19% of all timber volume sold was under a stewardship contract and
funded activities such as watershed and wildlife habitat improvement
projects, trails projects, road decommissioning, and hazardous fuels
reduction.
Expand markets for Forest Products. Struggling markets have made it
more difficult for the Forest Service to undertake restoration
projects. The Forest Service is taking steps to assist in the
development of new markets for woody biomass utilization and green
building materials by working toward providing a reliable and
predictable supply of biomass for potential investors through 20
coordinated resource offering protocol studies. In addition, the Forest
Service is working in partnership with two other USDA Agencies on 12
Wood to Energy emphasis areas that will assist in creating jobs. The
Forest Service continues to promote wood as a green building material.
Rigorous, applied research supports new and emerging markets with
innovations that enhance and diversify the forest products industry.
The Forest Products Lab (FPL), located in Madison, Wisconsin, plays a
key role in research related to forest products markets. The FPL's
mission is to identify and conduct innovative wood and fiber
utilization research that contributes to conservation and productivity
of the forest resource, thereby sustaining forests, the economy, and
quality of life.
Since 1993, the Forest Products Laboratory (FPL) has focused some
of its research effort on characterizing small-diameter logs and woody
biomass, identifying potential uses, and providing technology that can
help rural-based communities create successful businesses from the by-
products of sustainable forest management. FPL research projects are
exploring the potential of the small-diameter roundwood as a structural
material for uses such as bridges, boardwalks, trail structures, picnic
shelters, storage sheds, and other rustic-type buildings. Other FPL
research is finding other innovative ways to use underutilized woody
biomass.
Restoration Research.--Our research staff develops new technologies
and brings cutting-edge science to land managers that bears on the
sustainable management of the nation's forests and rangelands. Long-
term research from our experimental forests and rangelands contribute
to an understanding of the impacts of forest disturbance on natural and
cultural resources. This knowledge assists land managers in forest
restoration--restoring the functions and processes characteristic of
healthy forested ecosystems.
To restore Sierra Nevada forest ecosystems, for example, our
researchers have recommended an emphasis on the ecological role of
fire, adaptive strategies for changing climate conditions, and the
importance of diverse forest structures. In the South, Forest Service
research has helped focus our Longleaf Pine restoration efforts. There
the objective is to reestablish the natural structure and function in
these ecosystems by adjusting species composition, modifying stand
structure, and facilitating ecological processes, such as periodic fire
and longleaf pine regeneration.
Implement a new forest planning rule.--The new rule corrects the
inefficiencies of the 1982 planning procedures and provides a modern
framework for planning in order to sustain and restore the health and
resilience of our National Forests. The final rule provides an
efficient planning process to guide management of National Forest
System lands so that they are ecologically sustainable and contribute
to social and economic sustainability, with resilient ecosystems and
watersheds, diverse plant and animal communities, and the capacity to
provide people and communities with a range of uses including timber,
grazing, minerals and energy as well as hunting and fishing,
sustainable recreation, wilderness, and cultural uses.
This rule was developed in the most collaborative effort the agency
has ever used in rule making, possibly ever in its history. The rule
reflects what people told us as well as the experience of the agency
gained over thirty years of land management planning. We have created a
final rule that emphasizes restoration, public involvement, and
sustainable management to provide benefits and services both today and
for future generations.
New Objections Process.--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 for hazardous fuel reduction projects authorized
under the Healthy Forest Restoration Act 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 better, and more informed decisions result. 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 project 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 project which resulted in the group withdrawing their
objection. Upon implementation, the authorized work will reduce the
risk of potential catastrophic fire loss for approximately 900 acres
surrounding the Sportsman's Paradise community of approximately 170
lots.
The 2012 Consolidated Appropriations Act includes a provision for
the Secretary to expand and establish a pre-decisional objection
process in lieu of the appeal requirements of the Appeal Reform Act.
This provision allows the agency to apply the positive experience
gained from use of the pre-decisional objections process for Herger
Feinstein Restoration Act authorized fuel reduction projects. We have
begun work on drafting the regulations.
Improved efficiency of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
process for restoration.--A robust comprehensive and extensive
Planning/NEPA program is needed to accomplish the hundreds of thousands
of acres of natural resource projects we do across the country each
year. We continuously strive to save time and money in this program.
The agency has initiated a NEPA learning networks project to learn from
and share the lessons of successful implementation of streamlined NEPA
analyses. The goal of this effort is to ensure that the agency's NEPA
compliance is as efficient, cost-effective, and up-to-date as possible.
Specifically we are looking at expanding the use of focused
environmental assessments (EAs), iterative environmental impact
statement (EIS) documentation, expanding categories of actions that may
be excluded from documentation in an environmental as or an
environmental impact statement, and applying an adaptive management
framework to NEPA. Our landscape-scale NEPA projects will also increase
efficiencies by analyzing across broad swaths of land, avoiding
repetitive NEPA analysis. For example, our Mountain Pine Beetle
Response Project on the Black Hills National Forest will implement a
landscape-scale adaptive approach for treating future pine beetle
outbreaks. We are also preparing for the NEPA decision on the Four
Forest Restoration Initiative project in the Southwest for landscape-
scale forest restoration projects.
In summary, in the 21st century the Forest Service will continue to
strive to adopt and improve our ability to meet our mission of
sustaining the health, diversity and productivity of the nation's
forests and grasslands for present and future generations. Doing so
will require working closely with our partners, including Congress and
local governments.
I want to thank the Committee for its interest, leadership, and
commitment to our National Forests, their surrounding communities and
the forest products infrastructure.
This concludes my prepared statement and I would be pleased to
answer any questions you may have.
The Chairman. Thank you, Chief, for your testimony.
The chair would like to remind Members that they will be
recognized for questioning in order of seniority for Members
who were here at the start of the hearing. After that, Members
will be recognized in order of arrival and I appreciate the
Members' understanding.
I now will recognize myself for 5 minutes.
Once again, Chief, thanks for your leadership and your
testimony. I am going to come right back to the thing I led
with in my opening statement. Most National Forests are not
harvesting anywhere near how much their individual Forest Plans
call for as a sustainable yield. And how specifically will the
preferred Planning Rule encourage more harvesting on National
Forests? How far will that move us towards meeting those
sustainable yield goals?
Mr. Tidwell. Well, Mr. Chairman, with our new Planning Rule
as we move forward to revise our current plans, this Planning
Rule will require that we have components that address the
restoration needs on our National Forests. So it will be
required that every forest will address what needs to be done
out there on those National Forests to ensure that we are
providing for healthy, productive National Forests.
From that effort, by working with the public, we also are
required in this new plan to be able to establish what is going
to be the expected timber harvest. I think this will be a
better approach than what we did under the 1982 rule where we
developed an allowable sale quantity that basically set a
maximum amount of harvest which could occur but it never did
predict what we would expect to be able to produce when we deal
with all the multiple use and also with the budgets we can
expect. So under this Planning Rule, we are going to have a
much better estimation of the amount of harvest that is going
to occur, the amount of biomass that needs to be removed, and I
think it will prove to be a better approach, especially for
industry to be able to make their investments around those
numbers versus what we did with the 1982 rule.
The Chairman. Thank you. I remain troubled by the Forest
Service's apparent reluctance--and I expressed my concern in
our hearing last May--to deal with the viability standard. The
language in the existing rule has been a magnet for litigation
and so my question is why hasn't the Forest Service acted to
improve the viability standard?
Mr. Tidwell. Well, Mr. Chairman, I share your concerns with
the problems we had with the 1982 rule when it came to
viability for two reasons. Our approach that we used in 1982
rule didn't work. The approach of using management indicator
species is not science-based and it did not produce the results
that we wanted to ensure we had wildlife diversity. With our
new Planning Rule, we have taken an approach to focus on
providing the ecological conditions, the habitat that species
need to be able to thrive. And we believe by focusing on the
habitat that we are going to satisfy the majority--85, 90 to
maybe 95 percent--for all the needs for wildlife diversity.
In those few cases where we need to do something else,
where there is scientific evidence that we need to do something
else to ensure a species doesn't trend towards listing, then we
will take some additional steps to deal with the viability of
those species. And we want to use an approach that is science-
based and will do a better job, first of all, to provide for
wildlife and to ensure that we are doing what we can to prevent
a species from being listed.
The Chairman. In my district within the multiple uses,
shale gas production obviously is one viable use and it has
ramped up dramatically. There is a strong chance that some
level of production will be occurring in the National Forest
since 93 percent of the mineral rights are privately owned.
Have you given any thought to forests like the Allegheny? How
would this preferred Planning Rule impact water withdrawals in
areas such as the Allegheny National Forest?
Mr. Tidwell. The question was how would it affect water?
The Chairman. The water withdrawal which is kind of a key
component for shale gas, for the process of extracting shale
gas. There is a large water requirement.
Mr. Tidwell. Well, with the new Planning Rule, we will be
required to address the access needs and to also be able to
have a component that addresses energy production. And so we
will be required to be able to look at what we need to do on a
forest like the Allegheny to ensure that we have the standards
and guides in place that will allow the private interests to be
able to access their private minerals.
As far as the water that is necessary, we are going to be
focused on the surface impacts to minimize those as much as we
can. But as far as the water, we will work with the state
through the state's requirements to deal with subsurface water
or in a few cases where there are federally owned minerals
working with the BLM. But the focus for the Forest Service is
going to be on managing that surface resource.
The Chairman. Okay. Thank you.
I now recognize Mr. Schrader, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Schrader. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate you
having this hearing today. I think it is extremely important. I
think everybody is concerned about the health of our National
Forest and I agree with your comment about them being National
Forests and not National Parks. And so we have to look at a new
paradigm.
I would suggest--and I am really worried, Chief--that the
management styles we have tried in the past and despite all
your best efforts and the agency's best efforts that given the
litigious society we live in that so far it is not working,
just not working. So while I wish you the best on your new
approach, I would like to see the Committee get your targets
for the new plan and how the plan is going to be implementing
them and hopefully some benchmarks as we hit those going
forward.
The biggest concern I guess I have along the lines of my
opening remark here is that we are not focusing on the health
of the communities that live and nest inside our National
Forests, and despite these strategies, the overstock is
growing. And I would ask one basic question up front. Why is it
that most states and local communities actually are able to
harvest at a greater level and still provide the sustainable
benefits you describe with the diverse species, healthy streams
and that sort of thing? Why are they harvesting at higher
levels for their small acres than our National Forest?
Mr. Tidwell. Well, Congressman, I think one of the
differences is that our mandate to manage the National Forest
under multiple use where we need to address all of the
different benefits that the public wants and needs off of these
lands and then be able to find that----
Mr. Schrader. So you are suggesting that the states and
counties don't have that same goal?
Mr. Tidwell. I think at least my experience with states and
a few counties is that they are often under state law required
to look at how to maximize more of the revenue to provide for
State School Trust, for instance.
Mr. Schrader. Well, that is not true in my state. I can
tell you that much. And I will tell you that both in our state
forests and on our county forests we actually do a better job
of harvesting timber while meeting all the same guidelines in
terms of diverse multiple use that you are talking about.
How has our strategy worked with regard to the bark beetle?
How many acres are not being infested now as a result of the
strategy that the National Forest Service is implementing?
Mr. Tidwell. Well, the bark beetle strategy has been
focused on providing for public safety and community safety and
then in the few areas where we can make a difference to slow
the spread is where we have been focused. So the bark beetles'
spread is actually starting to decline but it is primarily in
areas where we just basically are running out of forested
areas, at least mature forested areas where the bark beetles
have actually run through that area. We are having some limited
success in places like the Black Hills. We are in the Ponderosa
Pine type where we are trying to quickly move to each of the
new outbreaks and be able to deal with that small area to be
able to slow down that----
Mr. Schrader. How about my neck of the woods, which is
Oregon and Northern California?
Mr. Tidwell. We are using the same strategy there, when we
see a new outbreak to be able to move quickly in there, to be
able to take out the trees that are infested, to be able to
slow down that spread.
Mr. Schrader. So it is still spreading. That would indicate
to me it is not working very well.
Mr. Tidwell. The bark beetles are a native pest and we have
always had to deal with bark beetle infestation.
Mr. Schrader. So are we doing better with the emerald ash
borer, gypsy moth and some of these others? Are we doing much
better with them, then?
Mr. Tidwell. We are struggling with all the invasives. The
emerald ash borer is another significant problem, especially
here in the East. And it is one of the things that it is
essential that we are able to maintain our research efforts to
be able to try and find some type of a biological control for
that pest.
Mr. Schrader. With all due respect it doesn't sound like we
are being as successful perhaps as we would like to be. And I
hope that with the new rule and new orientation that we will be
doing a little bit better.
You refer to the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration
Program. Those are good initiatives. We have some of those in
my home State of Oregon and really like them. How many are
there if I may ask?
Mr. Tidwell. With the Fiscal Year 2012 appropriations bill,
we were able to receive full funding for that authority and so
we now have 20 projects that have been identified and we have
three more that we hope to bring on next year.
Mr. Schrader. So that is not a whole lot across the United
States of America. It is hard for me to conceive we are going
to get to even your limited target increase of 3 billion board
feet when we have only 20+ projects that really seem to be
making a difference, and offering a new approach. Do you really
think you are going to hit your targets with 20 projects?
Mr. Tidwell. The Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration
Projects are just part of our strategy to move forward. But
they will provide the model about how to look at much larger
landscapes. Many of these projects are looking at 100,000 acres
at a time. That is where we can really make a difference, to be
able to use these projects as a model, to be able to
demonstrate the difference by looking at large landscapes with
a commitment to provide the funding over multiple years. It is
going to encourage investment to be able to make sure that the
mill owners and the loggers have the equipment that they need
to be able to do the work. And so we expect that through these
demonstration areas we can then encourage this approach across
much larger areas than we currently are.
Mr. Schrader. In Oregon where we are looking at different
ways to manage what has been known historically as our O&C
lands. We are maybe looking at turning some of them over to the
National Forest Service, for work and stewardship while also
providing a trust concept to manage some of the lands. We want
to find that balance between preserving our old growth and
making sure that the values in different parts of my state are
respected. There has been a discussion draft circulated
regarding the strategy and approach there. I wonder if you have
seen it and if you could comment on that.
Mr. Tidwell. Congressman, I haven't seen that discussion
draft but I will look forward to having the opportunity to look
at it and look forward to working with you to find this
balance. It is one of the things we spend a lot of our time on,
finding this balance of the different uses on every piece of
our National Forest.
Mr. Schrader. Well, those people that think setting them
aside is the answer and we see that is not the case based on
your testimony. And there are those that think that thoughtful
management under some of the states' Forest Practice
Managements Act and setting aside a certain amount of
wilderness but setting aside some certainty for our communities
and our employers that would like to get jobs created back in
America is where we should be going. And I will make sure you
get that draft, sir. Thank you for coming.
Mr. Tidwell. Thank you.
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman. I now recognize the
gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Ribble, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Ribble. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chief Tidwell, thanks for being here. I also want to
express my personal appreciation to you for attending a
forestry conference that I hosted in Rhinelander, Wisconsin.
And it was very beneficial for those folks that care about our
forests in Wisconsin to have you there, and I very much
appreciated your time.
I want to just read a quote from your testimony and then
just talk a little bit about that. ``Our collective ability to
sustain the nation's forests and provide ecosystem services is
increasingly at risk. Drought, invasive species, loss of open
space, uncharacteristically severe wildfires,
uncharacteristically severe outbreaks of insects and disease,
all of these stresses and disturbances are affecting America's
forests on an unprecedented scale.''
Mr. Tidwell. Yes.
Mr. Ribble. Well, it seems to me that all of these threats
except drought could be improved by using the army of experts
already available to us that are provided by the U.S. timber
industry. And it would be at no cost to the taxpayers simply by
allowing and speeding up the process for them to harvest
timber. I mean if we have a loss of open space, let's take some
trees out. Wildfires, as you are aware, are caused by a bunch
of different sources--drought being one of them--but also space
that is too compact. Invasive species and outbreaks of insects
and diseases can happen when we have single types of trees
growing in a single area. And all of these are improved by a
more robust management of the forest.
I would like to ask a question specific to my district at
the Chequamegon National Forest. Right now, the plan that the
Forest Service has is to allow roughly 130 million board feet
per year to be harvested there but we are only harvesting at 50
percent of that level. I am curious. This has been going on for
a number of years. Why does this continue to happen and what
can we as Congress do to facilitate your agency to use the
resources more efficiently so we can harvest more timber there?
Mr. Tidwell. Congressman, once again, the allowable sale
quantity is a requirement that we had in our 1982 regulations
that established the maximum amount of harvest. The amount that
is harvested each year is based on the analysis of the work
that needs to be done and then the ability to get those
decisions implemented. On your forest in the past we have
struggled a little bit with the appeals and litigation. I am
pleased to know that our folks have now worked through some of
those issues and that some of our previous decisions that were
held up, we are now going to be able to move forward with
those.
And so the way to move forward to be able to do more of the
work that we need to do there is to continue to work with the
communities to be able to reach agreement on the type of work
that needs to be done and then to move forward and to be able
to use that integrated wood products industry, those skilled
folks that know how to do the work. We rely on them to be able
to do this work.
We also want to be able to look at much larger areas so it
would improve our NEPA efficiencies so we are not spending as
much time or as much of our funding on doing the analysis, but
to be able to look at these large areas so that we can do one
analysis that will cover tens of thousands of acres at one time
and to be able to allow that amount of work to go forward over
the next few years.
We are also looking at how we can be more efficient in our
timber sale layout, to do some things like sample weight
scaling or designation by prescription, instead of doing the
level of marking that we have done in the past so that we can
be more efficient with our resources so we can actually get
more work done.
But you are right. We rely on the timber industry to be
able to do the work that needs to be done in these National
Forests, and it is essential that we work together to be able
to find ways to get more of these acres treated, get more of
this biomass removed that needs to be removed and thus create
more jobs and keep those mills operating.
Mr. Ribble. I am glad you mentioned NEPA. Are there reforms
that need to happen there to basically lower timber sale costs
and speed up the process? Are there things that we ought to be
looking at on NEPA?
Mr. Tidwell. Well, we are. We are looking at several things
that NEPA allows us, and one of them is to look at using what
we are calling an adaptive EIS. We look at hundreds of
thousands of acres at one time, and to develop the analysis in
the way that not only will address the issues we need to deal
with today but also will allow us to move toward the next--
where we have an insect and disease outbreak or if we have a
windstorm that comes through--to be able to move forward and do
that work without any additional analysis.
The other thing that we are working very closely with CEQ
is how to do a better job to focus our analysis. We are
definitely doing more analysis than we need to and most of this
has been driven by past court decisions. And I accept the
knowledge that we have a tendency to take the last ruling and
then apply it across the board whether we probably need to or
not. So we are doing a better job stepping back and really
doing more of a focused NEPA just to address the issues that
need to be addressed. And CEQ has been very helpful to provide
some guidance on this to help our folks have a little more
confidence.
The challenge that our employees have is that they know if
we do this outstanding level of NEPA analysis, we can get the
decision implemented. For them to take a chance to do a little
bit less, it is not just that that project is not going to go
forward; it is also that the jobs are not going to be created.
There is opportunity of potential for another mill to close. So
it puts a lot of pressure on our folks to make sure that as
they move forward that they can implement this and be
successful because that is what we are focused on is getting
the work done, not just completing the analysis, not just
making a decision. We want to be able to implement that
decision. So our work with CEQ is going to help build more
confidence about how we can do this to be more effective, more
efficient and really be able to reduce the amount of time we
are spending on doing our analysis but at the same time to be
able to address the issues, provide for the protections for the
environment that the public wants, but at the same time,
improve the health of our National Forests.
Mr. Ribble. Okay. Thank you very much, Chief. Again, thank
you for being here.
Mr. Chairman, sorry I went over time. If there is a little
chance to circle back, I would appreciate that. And I yield.
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman and now it is my
pleasure to recognize Mr. Sablan, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Sablan. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
And good morning, Mr. Tidwell, Chief, welcome.
You were discussing earlier in your testimony that the 1982
viability rule didn't work and you said the new rule focused on
it. How exactly is the new rule adjusted to make work what
didn't work in the 1982 rule?
Mr. Tidwell. Well, the 1982 rule we relied on what is
called management indicator species. We relied on being able to
track the population of an individual species that would then
indicate that we are providing for the diversity of wildlife in
the whole. And the science has borne out that that approach
doesn't work. So what we are doing with the new Planning Rule
is to take the approach to focus on providing ecological
conditions, the habitat needs of species to be able to provide
for by far the majority of the species. And then when we have
situations where there is scientific evidence that there is a
species at risk, then we are required to take some additional
steps to ensure we are doing what we can to provide those
additional habitat requirements to ensure we are doing what we
can to prevent listing. This is a better ecological approach
that in our view will do a better job to provide for diversity
and where we need to address the viability of specific species.
Mr. Sablan. And thank you. I join my colleague from Oregon
in looking forward to the new rule working.
In the second panel, one of the witnesses sets the cost of
Forest Service for NEPA compliance at over $300 million, $356
million exactly. Is the Forest Service the source of this
estimate?
Mr. Tidwell. Could you please restate the question? I am
sorry; I couldn't hear it.
Mr. Sablan. On the second panel there will be a witness,
Mr. Watkins, who sets the cost of the Forest Service for NEPA
compliance at $356 million. Is the Forest Service the source of
this estimate, and if so, how was it determined? How did they
come up with $356 million? Because I am leading to a second
question.
Mr. Tidwell. Well, that is the cost for doing all the NEPA
analysis that we do that deals with forest restoration, timber
harvest, along with everything else that we do. We do about
3,600 analyses each year in the Forest Service, and so some of
the things that I have laid out about how to do a better job is
to focus on much larger landscapes to be able to address all
the restoration needs through one decision. Those are going to
increase the efficiency and it is my expectation that we will
be able to reduce the costs of doing that analysis.
Mr. Sablan. So the $356 million is fairly accurate?
Mr. Tidwell. It is.
Mr. Sablan. And it comes from your----
Mr. Tidwell. Yes.
Mr. Sablan. So are you saying that the EIS that you
referred to earlier reduced NEPA compliance?
Mr. Tidwell. It won't reduce NEPA compliance; it will just
allow us to be able to do a better job to meet NEPA compliance.
And so it is just so that we will be more efficient to be able
to do the analysis that needs to be done and not to do
additional analyses that really aren't necessary to address the
issues that have been raised through the public involvement
process.
Mr. Sablan. Thank you, Mr. Tidwell. I come from the islands
so we are not one of the 42 states. I am from Northern Mariana
Islands and I can understand my colleagues' concerns also and
your relationship with the timber industry. We import our
timber from Oregon, too, so we still have to ship that.
But we thank you, sir, for all you do and thank you for
joining us this morning.
And I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman, and now recognize the
gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Tipton, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Tipton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thanks for being here, Chief Tidwell. I am pleased to hear
some of your testimony. We have had a few conversations in
terms of our ability to be able to harvest in Colorado downed
or standing dead timber to be able to turn that into biomass to
be able to keep a mill going and also some problems that we
have with our utilities as well, being able to get in and clear
out under those lines. But what do you see as the biggest
impediment to managing forest in the bark beetle epidemic?
Mr. Tidwell. You know, probably just the scale of the work
that needs to be done right away to protect our communities and
provide for the public safety. And then the biggest challenge,
especially there in Colorado, is the loss of the
infrastructure, the integrated wood products industry to be
able to use this material and to be able to have markets that
will offset the cost of removing it. That is, I would say, in
Colorado one of the biggest challenges. And where I have worked
in other parts of the country where we have lost that wood
products industry, it is very expensive for us to be able,
then, to do the restoration work to be able to thin out these
forests not only to protect the communities from wildfire but
just to improve overall forest health.
That is why we are focused on doing everything we can to be
able to maintain the infrastructure that we currently have and
then in a few places be able to look at using long-term
stewardship contracts to be able to provide the incentive for
someone to come in and make a new investment, either in a new
mill or in a new operation. Those are the things that I look at
as some of the biggest challenges that we have.
Mr. Tipton. Okay. Could you maybe describe for us a few of
the ideas that you have in terms of our local Forest Service
officers exercising creativity and having some regulatory
flexibility to be able to address some of those concerns?
Mr. Tidwell. Well, I have talked about the NEPA
efficiencies----
Mr. Tipton. Right.
Mr. Tidwell.--so that we can look at these much larger
landscapes, I mean instead of looking at 500 to 1,000 acres at
a time, to be looking at tens of thousands of acres so that we
can have one analysis that will cover a lot of country and
provide a lot of work over many years. The other thing is
through our stewardship contracts. We have found that this
contracting authority has been very beneficial. We find that we
have less appeals, less lawsuits when we are using stewardship
contracting authority, and it allows us to be able to do
multiple-year contracts, to have contracts up to 10 years that
will encourage someone to make the investment.
The other thing is to look at using all the flexibility we
have with when we are laying out a project, instead of in the
past, I often would go out there and mark every tree that
needed to be cut. We have other flexibilities to be able to use
either weight scaling or this designation by prescription so
that we can lay out how we want the area to look afterwards and
then be able to then let the timber operator go in there and
remove the trees based on that prescription. And we find this
is another way that we can save some of the cost and make it a
little bit easier for us to be able to get more work done.
These are some of the things that we are looking at.
We also are doing everything that we can to work with the
industry, especially with some of the past timber sale
contracts that they have purchased when we had a better market
and be able to do everything we can to adjust those rates, or
in the case there in Colorado, to actually cancel some timber
sales that just were no longer economically viable because it
is essential that we do what we can to be able to maintain the
industry.
Mr. Tipton. Okay. Could you speak maybe briefly a little
bit to the importance of the existing utility infrastructure on
Forest Service lands, providing electricity to America which we
need, and how we can help protect that?
Mr. Tidwell. Well, it is essential that we work with
utility companies, they can maintain their lines and that they
are able to do the clearing underneath all those power lines so
when we do get a fire started, we don't lose that line. So one
of the things there with the challenges with the mountain pine
beetle outbreak, especially in your state and other parts of
the West, is that utility companies were faced with a much
larger job to be able to clear those lines and not only the
material underneath the lines but any of the trees that had
fallen----
Mr. Tipton. I am going to run out of time. Could you maybe
just give a little touch and let us know are there any
regulatory or legal impediments to the Forest Service to use
contractors for the utilities themselves as contractors to be
able to remove underneath the lines?
Mr. Tidwell. I believe we have the flexibility in our
current authorities to work with the utility companies to be
able to remove what they need to underneath their lines and
then also to be able to work with them to actually address
adjacent areas, too. It is one of the things we are looking at
is being able to use that contracting flexibility for not just
within the permit but also how we can work together to be able
to get more of the work done where they have the equipment in
place.
Mr. Tipton. So just to be clear, so you don't see any legal
impediments----
Mr. Tidwell. We are looking into our current authorities
and I would like to get back to you on that. If I find that we
have exhausted our flexibility and there is a need for
additional flexibility, I would like to come back to you with
that.
Mr. Tipton. Okay. I would appreciate that. Thank you, sir.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman. I think we have a
request for one more round if that is okay with the chief. And
I will start that out with my 5 minutes.
Chief, I want to come back to stewardship contracts. You
had talked about those with Mr. Tipton and you obviously
identified the key role that they play within our forests. I
believe within your written testimony it was like 19 percent of
the timber that was harvested was under stewardship contracts.
And I appreciate that you identified the long-term--my question
really has to do with the economic benefit to the communities.
Now, obviously, there are some long terms that you address. The
healthy forests are good for our communities because they keep
that viable forest available for timbering and all the other
uses and then obviously fire safety. And this is just a point
of clarification; I am not sure about this. Do stewardship
contracts have the same short-term economic benefits that other
timber sales have in terms of monies coming back into the local
counties and communities and school districts that a
traditional timber sale would have?
Mr. Tidwell. With the stewardship contract, there aren't
any of the revenues that are set aside to go back to the
counties. But the difference is that in the number of jobs that
are created because through a stewardship contract we look at
the landscape and look at all the work that needs to be done,
and then we put together one contract that not only does the
timber harvest but it also does the roadwork, the culvert
replacement, the trail improvement. And all of that then
creates jobs so that the revenue that would come from the
biomass from the timber harvest, it goes back into the site to
do more work. So it creates more jobs. So the economic benefits
are in more jobs that are created through a stewardship
contract versus a timber sale contract. We need both and we are
going to continue to hopefully have both authorities so that we
can look at any one project and pick what is the right tool. Is
the timber sale contract the right tool or should we use a
stewardship contract?
The Chairman. Well, I appreciate hearing that because that
would be what I would hope for is we would use it to expand
both. The one thing I wouldn't want to see obviously is that
that 19 percent of production next year go to 25 percent of
production because that tells me that on the traditional timber
sales--and you worked your way up the ranks to position chief
so you have lived in those rural communities and you know how
important economically the lifeblood is of timbering really is
the key function within those communities. It can either crush
a community or keep it economically viable.
So you noted in your testimony that the market for forest
products is critical for forest restoration efforts. And Forest
Service policies have arguably contributed to the struggling
markets that you reference. ``Dramatic reductions in timber
sales in some parts of the country decimated market ecology of
the local timber industry.'' And I would appreciate your
thoughts on ways the Forest Service can partner with industry
to facilitate the development of consistent, sustainable
markets for forest products across the different regions of the
National Forest System. What did you have in mind when you
identified that in your testimony?
Mr. Tidwell. Well, one of the things, we can do a better
job to work with the industry to be able to lay out our planned
program of work in conjunction with what is expected to come
off of state or private land. For instance, right now, we have
a very high demand for our timber sales. I think last year,
even in this market which, as explained to me, one of the most
difficult especially softwood markets that we have had in a
long, long time, but we were able to sell 98 percent of the
timber sales that we put up last year and that is because of
being able to work together. And so in markets like this where
we see a significant reduction in the amount of timber sales on
private land there is a greater need for us to be able to work
with the industry to be able to have more of our restoration
work ready to go in times like this.
These are the sort of things that, ideally, we need to be
able to do a better job in the future to have more of an all-
hands approach on the work done, but at the same time, we are
doing what we need to do to support the industry and especially
in these tough times that we are facing right now.
The Chairman. Thank you, Chief.
And I recognize Mr. Schrader, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Schrader. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you, Chief, for listening to us and responding to
our concerns and questions.
One of the species I am most worried about in the forest
areas is called the human species and rural America is slowly
dying on the vine here. I would hope that in your landscape
NEPA analysis you would take that into account a little bit.
In my state, the NEPA analysis does not work very well. In
some of the testimony we are going to hear later it actually is
so cost-prohibitive that very few sales get done and frankly a
lot of the sales are not subscribed to at all. So that would be
an indicator that indeed things are terribly wrong and I look
forward to you changing things there.
I would hope that part of the strategy might be to use HFRA
1 and maybe even go to a HFRA 2. We are trying to work that
through our process here to look at Class II and Class III
lands. How are you trying to approach Class II and Class III
forests?
Mr. Tidwell. Well, we want to be able to look at the work
that needs to be done on the landscape and then to be able to
move forward and implement that decision. Once again we want to
use all the authorities we currently have in place and to make
sure that we are using the right authorities so that we
actually can implement the decision. We made a lot of good
decisions in the past and we often win in court. I mean we
win----
Mr. Schrader. Not in my state you don't.
Mr. Tidwell. Well----
Mr. Schrader. The other states you do but not my state.
Mr. Tidwell. The majority of the time we will win, but what
happens is it takes years. And so we will go 2 or 3 years----
Mr. Schrader. You have a statement in here, Mr. Tidwell,
``due to changing climate, we may not be able to restore
them''--talking about our river and ecosystems--``to their
original condition but we can move them toward ecological
integrity and health.'' You know what the courts in Oregon say?
They say even if originally the streams were at a certain
temperature that is not necessarily conducive to anadromous
fish, you have to do it even better than what history has. I
mean that is the type of stuff we are up against in Oregon. You
know, out West it is a little different than back East here. We
have huge, huge obstacles to get this done.
In your new landscape NEPA analysis, it is going to take
longer because it is obviously watershed-wide and trying to be
more comprehensive. What assurances do you have from the legal
community or some of the more extreme environmental groups that
they are not going to sue you on a project-by-project basis
after you do all that work?
Mr. Tidwell. Well, I am confident as we move forward and we
do the work and we do the required analysis that we will be
able to implement those decisions. The other thing that we see
that is changing is that we have a lot of support from the
conservation community and a lot of the environmental groups
that want to work with us, and especially on these large-scale
projects that----
Mr. Schrader. Would you agree--I am sorry, again; I have
limited time, too, and I apologize for interrupting. But would
you agree that the constant litigation is a huge barrier to
getting any of these management projects done in our National
Forest?
Mr. Tidwell. Litigation takes up a lot of time and has been
a barrier. However, we are doing a better job to have less
appeals and less litigation. In fact, last year in 2011 we only
had three percent of our timber sales that were litigated,
which is the lowest level of any time that I can ever remember.
So these things that we are doing----
Mr. Schrader. It is just not doing it.
Mr. Tidwell.--this collaborative approach is making a
difference.
Mr. Schrader. Well, I appreciate that, Chief. I know your
intentions are honorable and good and I don't want to be a
contrarian. It is just that in the real world that I live in,
in my state, where \1/4\ of the land mass of Oregon is National
Forest System, my communities are dying. And I would ask you to
put your attention on that.
And by the way, you do have the analysis draft I talked
about to deal with our O&C-enforced lands out West. I urge you
to take a look at that if you don't mind.
Mr. Tidwell. Thank you.
Mr. Schrader. Sure. I yield back.
The Chairman. Thank you. I recognize Mr. Ribble for an
additional 5 minutes.
Mr. Ribble. Thanks again, Mr. Chairman.
And the comments from my good friend from Oregon resonate
with me a bit because I want to talk about a small community in
northeastern Wisconsin called Laona. They are right in the
heart of the Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest, which used to
have one of the most robust timber harvesting areas in the
state. Now, due to lost employment and lost harvesting
capacity, we are about to lose our school district. If we lose
our school system, we lose our community. There is no reason
for families to stay; there is no reason for children to come
home. And without those jobs, we are going to lose those
communities.
And so to my colleague from Oregon, I completely appreciate
the dilemma your communities find themselves in because
Wisconsin has the same problem.
Chief Tidwell, along that same line in following up with
Representative Schrader, in Wisconsin you have been a bit more
successful on some of your court challenges and court cases. In
fact, 300 million board feet of sales have passed through the
court challenges now and are ready to be harvested; yet only 65
million board feet will be sold this year. Why the discrepancy?
Can you help me understand that a little bit?
Mr. Tidwell. Well, Congressman, when we were able to work
through those past decisions, we can move forward with them. It
takes a little bit of time to then be able to get out there and
be able to put that decision on the ground, to be able to
prepare the timber sales. So we have actually sent some
additional money up to that region and the region itself had
already focused on moving forward with that. And so there is a
little bit of a lag to be able to move our limited resources to
move forward in an area. Ideally, it would be nice if we had
additional resources that we could just quickly move there, but
as you have heard from the other Members that we are dealing
with this same issue everywhere across the country in all of
our National Forests. And so there has been a little bit of a
lag and I would hope that not only will they be able to
increase it this year but then also next year they will be able
to put those additional sales up.
Mr. Ribble. On behalf of several hundred school children, I
would ask you to hurry.
Just another comment. Back in 1987 we were harvesting about
12.7 billion board feet off our National Forests. With your
proposed plan you want to get back to 2.6 billion, maybe to 3
billion by 2014. That is still only about 20 percent of where
we were at 2 decades ago. Right now, some of my lumber mills
are importing lumber from Canada when we should be exporting to
Canada. If we really want to talk about the job paradigm, that
would be one way of getting there. Rather than buying Canadian
timber, let's harvest our own.
But going back to my question earlier about forest fires,
insect, open spaces, all your comments, will annual forest
harvest of 3 billion board feet be enough to address the nearly
82 million acres of National Forest lands in need of
restoration?
Mr. Tidwell. The answer is no. We will need to be able to
do more. Of that 65 to 82 million, there are a lot of those
areas we will treat with just fire. A lot of it is not
commercial timberland. But there are a minimum of 12\1/2\
million acres that we know we have to use mechanical tree
timber harvesters on to restore those acres. And so to be able
to do that along with maintaining all the other areas--because
we have to also continue to do the maintenance and not just the
restoration--we are going to need to do more. I am optimistic
as we move forward with implementing this list of opportunities
I laid out today that we are going to continue to be able to
increase our efficiencies to be able to actually treat more
acres and thus will produce more saw timber, more biomass.
I feel confident that we are going to be able to do this
and that we are going to do this with our current budgets. That
is the other thing that my estimations are all based on the
President's budget request. If that doesn't hold true, then I
will probably have to be up here having another discussion with
you. But with a flat budget, we feel that we can increase the
number of acres we are treating and increase the amount of saw
timber by 20 percent. When we get the 3 billion and talk about
the successes we have had there, then we will be talking about
what else we need to do to be able to move forward.
Mr. Ribble. Thanks again for being here.
And I yield back.
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman and now recognize my
colleague from Florida, Mr. Southerland, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Southerland. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Tidwell, thank you very much. And I want to say how
much I appreciated your personal visit to my office to discuss
our forests. And I want to really echo the sense of urgency. As
a small business owner who had never served in elected office
before, you can imagine my dismay that this city has no sense
of urgency when it comes to really meeting the needs of the
American people. The communities that are dying, the children
who, unfortunately, are not going to be able to go to rural
schools because we are not producing what is our responsibility
to produce. And I have been here 15 months and yet that
aggravation and anger that is inside of me has not subsided
because I am interested in results and I am not interested nor
are the American people in talk. And that is cheap and that
doesn't put food on the table for the American people, the
hardworking men and women who are struggling to survive.
And you have a very unique opportunity in your position. I
was pleased with our visit but I am going to hold you
accountable to results because I do believe that we must do
more than just talk. The American people expect a Congress, for
example, to pass a budget and yet we haven't. So they are
aggravated and they should be.
Our small communities, especially around our National
Forests, expect us to harvest our timber and yet we don't. So
therefore, the same aggravation that I think is leveled at us
is leveled at your department and your agency because we are
not doing what the American people need us to do.
Closer to my home, Florida, the Apalachicola National
Forest is critical to the rural communities around the
Apalachicola National Forest. And now, I mean, we are only
cutting 6.8 percent of its annual growth. The mortality rate
exceeds the harvest rate. And you may have addressed this and
if you have before I came in a few moments ago I apologize, but
I would ask you to state again does that create any sense of
urgency deep inside of you? Because the anger that I feel about
this place that doesn't even sometimes appear to be listening
to the cries and the hurts of the American people. Deep inside
of you does that statistic, 6.8 annual growth when our
mortality rate is higher than that, what does that produce
inside of you?
Mr. Tidwell. It produces what I have shared, the urgency
for us to be able to increase the pace and the scale of our
restoration work, the active management of our National Forest
to be able to address the forest health concerns. And so I
share your same concerns and it is one of the reasons why we
are focused on doing what we can to improve our efficiencies so
that we can get more work done out there on the ground, get
more----
Mr. Southerland. But let me say this--the American people
work faster than your people, something I have noticed about
government, okay? Give me two serious, serious people that are
out there in the private sector, okay, they are risking their
life each and every day in one of the most dangerous
professions in the country, okay, but what creates more fear in
them than the danger of their job is the danger of defaulting--
--
Mr. Tidwell. Yes.
Mr. Southerland.--on the skidders and the loaders and the
bunchers, okay, that they are leveraged against and then to
come in and have to deal with people that have no sense of
urgency, that are not in a hurry, that don't work fast. You can
see the aggravation of the American people. What I am saying
is: several of my colleagues have said hurry. We need hurry.
And I want to be honest and I don't want to be mean-spirited,
but there is a sense of urgency that I do not see. And these
numbers do not bear out that there is this sense of urgency
that the American people have.
The President can talk about jobs being the number one
priority in his Administration, but quite honestly, sir, that
is not true. It is just not true. Because if it were in the
sense of urgency that you claim is inside of you would bear out
in increased production from our National Forest in helping our
communities and our schools that we made reference to all over
this country. Do you understand how what the rhetoric that is
said does not match the facts?
Mr. Tidwell. Well, Congressman, I share your urgency. I
have lived in those rural communities. Our employees live in
those rural communities. I know exactly what you are talking
about. And that is why you will see that each of the last few
years we have been increasing the amount of work, increasing
the timber harvest that has been occurring without an increase
in budget, without changes in the authorities or in the laws,
but we have been able to do that. And we are going to continue
to maximize these efficiencies so that we can get more work
done.
I share with you that urgency. The other reason why we are
doing everything we can to work with the industry to do rate
adjustments on contracts, to do everything we can to keep them
in business so that they can do the work, so that they can
employ people to be able to get the work that has to be done on
these National Forests. So I share the urgency but I also----
Mr. Southerland. I want to be very candid. I know I am over
my time and I apologize, Mr. Chairman, but I know that if you
look at the number of mills we had in this country in 1970
compared to what we have now, what you just said is banter. And
I want to be very polite, okay, but you can't eliminate because
of policy--hundreds of mills in this country--and the statement
you just made hold any validity with the American people that
are in the timber industry. America needs what we say to match
what we do, to restore integrity that we lost a long time ago
with the American people. And you are on the frontlines of that
and I urge you, I implore upon you to make sure that our banter
matches our actions.
Mr. Chairman, I apologize. I have gone over and I yield
back time that I have exceeded.
The Chairman. Well, I thank the gentleman. And Chief, I
want to thank you for being here. Obviously, this is a
Subcommittee that--I think we share the same passion as you do
and that is vibrant healthy forests and vibrant rural
communities. And I will say our public policy for forestry for
decades has been hijacked through the courts and special
interest groups that self-fund their organizations by suing
your agency and keeping us from having healthy forests and
keeping us from having healthy rural communities. But I know
your commitment to work with us to bring a new public policy
along the issue of forestry that has vibrant healthy forests
and vibrant healthy communities.
You know, it is a sad fact today that in many rural
communities across this great nation that the number one
endangered species are the citizens in the communities that are
located in or near our National Forests. And, it is all of our
job to change that obviously and get them off that endangered
species list.
So thank you, Chief. We really appreciate you coming in.
Mr. Tidwell. Okay. Well, thank you.
The Chairman. That is fine.
I would like to now welcome the second panel of witnesses
to the table. We have our second panel of witnesses here, and
as they find their place at the table, we will proceed with
some introductions.
I want to thank our second panel and for purpose for the
introduction of the first speaker, our first witness, I will
turn to my good friend from Oregon, Dr. Schrader.
Mr. Schrader. Thank you again, Mr. Chairman.
We are really pleased to have Gary Barth, Director of
Business and Community Services from my home County of
Clackamas, Oregon. As director, Gary oversees the Economic
Development Department, county parks, North Clackamas Parks and
Recreation District, county libraries, property resources, and
quite a bit of my county's efforts, and management of nearly
3,000 acres of county-held forestland. Prior to his public
service career, he worked in the financial industry, earned a
business degree from Portland State, an MBA from University of
Portland.
I really appreciate Mr. Barth for coming. Thank you.
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman. It is my pleasure to
introduce our second witness to the panel, and that is Mr.
Gregory Hoover from the Department of Entomology at the great
land-grant university, Pennsylvania State University. And he
has over his lifetime dedicated himself to healthy forests and
the studies of all those bugs that just provide a tremendous
risk to healthy forests and the wildlife habitat and all the
good things that come with it. So Mr. Hoover, I want to thank
you for being here to testify.
And I now turn to my good friend from Florida, Mr.
Southerland, for purposes of introduction.
Mr. Southerland. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is always a
great honor to have our constituents here from our districts.
And today, I am proud to introduce Chuck Watkins. Chuck is the
Chief Operating Officer of Rex Lumber Company, which operates
businesses in multiple areas throughout Florida. The family-
owned company is a founding member of the Federal Forest
Resource Coalition, which represents purchasers of Forest
Service timber across the country. The coalition has members in
more than 24 states with approximately 650 member companies
representing 350,000 workers and about $19 billion in payroll.
I want to say that Rex Lumber Company traces its roots back
to northwest Florida back to 1926, 10 years prior to the
establishment of the Apalachicola National Forest, which I made
reference to a few moments ago in my questioning. Rex currently
operates mills throughout my district in Bristol and
Graceville, Florida, and other regions of the country employing
434 people and sourcing much of their materials from the
Apalachicola National Forest in Florida.
Mr. Watkins, thank you so much for being here today.
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman.
Now, for purposes of introduction, Mr. Ribble, from
Wisconsin.
Mr. Ribble. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
It is an honor today to introduce Gary Zimmer. Gary is the
lead wildlife biologist for the Ruffed Grouse Society in charge
of the Society's four regional biologists. As an interesting
side note, Mr. Zimmer spent 20 years in the U.S. Forest
Service. He coordinated multifaceted district fish, wildlife,
and endangered and threatened species program. He has been in a
small town that I referenced with Mr. Tidwell of Laona,
Wisconsin. He is acutely aware of what is going on in our
National Forests in northern Wisconsin. And his role with the
Ruffed Grouse Society is increased public understanding of the
role of forest management to society members, landowners, and
the general public and to provide technical and financial
assistance in support of habitat development on public lands
and habitat management.
Mr. Zimmer, it is an honor to have you here and thank you
for coming.
Mr. Chairman?
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman.
We will begin with our testimony now. Mr. Barth, please
begin when you are ready. The timing system is in front of you
there, and please proceed with your 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF GARY BARTH, DIRECTOR, BUSINESS AND COMMUNITY
SERVICES, CLACKAMAS COUNTY, OREGON CITY, OR
Mr. Barth. Good morning, Chairman Thompson, Congressman
Schrader, and Subcommittee Members. I certainly appreciate the
opportunity to testify today on the opportunities and
challenges facing the management of our National Forests. And
as Congressman Schrader said, my name is Gary Barth. I am the
Director of Business and Community Services for Clackamas
County, Oregon.
As the Director of Business and Community Services, I
oversee a diverse number of divisions that include county
libraries and urban park and recreation district, county-owned
forest land, a county-wide park system, and the economic
development team. My job title reflects the recognition of the
integral relationship that exists between economic vitality and
the services we provide to offer improvement to the quality of
life of our citizens.
In my position I have a unique perspective on seeking to
improve all aspects of the ``triple bottom line'' so often
discussed and considered in establishing public policy. How do
we produce economic value, ensure environmental responsibility,
and provide for social benefits? I believe that our county's
management of our 3,000 acres of the county-owned forest land
is a great example of delivering that ``triple bottom line'' to
our local residents through good stewardship of public assets.
My testimony is intended to provide greater detail on how we
manage our forests and how our approach could serve as a model
for needed changes in Federal forest management policies.
As Congressman Schrader mentioned, the State of Oregon is
vastly made up of Federal forests and Clackamas County even
more so. Seventy-five percent of Clackamas County is
forestland. We are perceived as an urban county. We are part of
the greater Portland metro region, one of three counties making
up the greater Portland area, but only five percent of our land
is urban, 38 percent is rural agricultural land and over 50
percent is forestland. Over 50 percent is in ownership in
control of the U.S. Forest Service and the BLM.
Forests have always been an important part of our economy
and culture. Unfortunately, employment in our forests and wood
products manufacturing has been in steady decline for decades.
The primary cause of this decline has been changes in the
Federal forest management policies. The amount of timber sold
on Mt. Hood National Forest has declined 87 percent over the
last 2 decades from 230 million board feet in the late 1980s to
an estimated 30 million today. But the annual mortality rate is
190 million board feet. Putting that into context, the Mt. Hood
National Forest is dying six times faster than it is being
harvested. The annual growth of the forest is 745 million board
feet. Again in context, it is growing 25 times faster than it
is being productively harvested. The economic opportunity lost
through mortality and lack of harvest is enormous, as is the
growing risk to the forest health and the lack of management.
We are reliant on Federal payments. That is what we are
here today also talking a little bit about the reauthorization
of Secure Rural Schools. But since the early 1900s when the
National Forest System was established, our government has
shared in 25 percent of the receipts generated off the
commodity of the forest. BLM O&C lands, once private, were
brought back under Federal control at initial commitment to
share 75 percent later reduced to 50 percent. For decades,
Clackamas County received millions of dollars in shared timber
receipts annually and many local residents were employed in the
forest products sector. Through the vast amount of land in
Federal ownership and the dramatic decline in timber harvest,
unemployment has risen, mills have closed, and counties have
had to deal with devastating declines in revenue.
Again, this has been partially offset by the introduction
of spotted owl guarantee payments in the early 1990s and Secure
Rural Schools funding from the Self-Determination Act of 2000,
since reauthorized twice. However, the current Secure Rural
Schools has now expired. We received our last payment and
because of the calculation in the final year of the
reauthorization, our last payment was a quarter of what we have
historically received on Secure Rural Schools. And even that
was less than what we had received on commodity revenue
sharing.
Clackamas County Board of County Commissioners supports the
reauthorization of Secure Rural Schools. It is abundantly
clear, however, that the Secure Rural Schools Act does not
represent a long-term sustainable funding solution, nor does it
provide needed employment opportunities.
Now, specifically about our plan, as mentioned, we have
3,600 acres of forest owned by Clackamas County. That is
roughly split \1/4\ in active parks and preservation areas,
about \3/4\ in a Sustainable Timber Harvest Program. All
activities in our Timber Harvest and Reforestation Program are
done in accordance with and actually exceed the requirements of
the Oregon Forest Practices Act. We manage harvests on a 55
year rotation so that we can grow that product locally and we
can harvest the amount of annual growth. This annual harvest is
very outcome-based. We look to generate roughly $750,000 a year
in revenue. That pays for the management of our Forest
Management Program and provides needed funding to support my
thousand acres of active park space. I do not receive any
general fund support for any of my divisions in Business and
Community Services. They are all self-funding through various
other revenue streams, including county parks and forests.
So we often think what if? What if the U.S. Forest Service
lands were managed similar to Clackamas County in the way we
manage our forests. If you just took half of the U.S. Forest
Service lands in Clackamas County, that would be the equivalent
of 90 of my 3,000 acres. If I can generate $750,000 a year, 90
times that would be $67 million per year. That would be enough
revenue to certainly fund local Forest Service operations and
the management of those harvests, provide shared receipts to
the county comparable to the historic levels we used to face,
and provide net revenue to the U.S. Treasury. The impact on the
private sector is just as dramatic. We harvest 2 million board
feet per year. Ninety times that would be 180 million board
feet. That is 17 direct jobs per million board feet. That would
be 3,000 new high-wage jobs and probably double that when you
look at the indirect and inducted. Lower unemployment equals
less dependency on public support. We would have additional
revenues coming in for needed public services with less demand.
That is a great combination for our county.
Forest Management legislation, Clackamas County believes
that Federal legislation is needed to restore responsible
management to Federal forest lands to provide a sustainable and
predictable long-term solution to county revenue needs to
restore economic vitality to our communities. The current
Federal forest management policies are broken and our rural
communities and forests are paying the price. Ultimately, any
legislation should balance economic, social, and environmental
values. We in fact exceed Oregon's Standard Practices Act as
well as SFI certification standards in our management
practices.
Congressman Schrader recently joined Congressman DeFazio
and Walden to release the O&C Trust, Conservation, and Jobs
Act. Similar to the what-if scenario just discussed, that plan
would manage approximately half of Oregon's 2.5 million acres
of BLM O&C lands to yield timber production to benefit 18 O&C
counties. This stable timber supply would support manufacturing
and other jobs while providing revenue to cash-strapped
counties. I would like to commend the efforts of Congressman
Schrader and other Members of the Oregon delegation, for
proposing management that will provide a sustainable and
predictable long-term solution to county revenue needs and
create much-needed employment opportunities for our citizens
and ensure economic protection.
As this Committee considers possible legislation for the
National Forests, I would hope it will look to the management
of our forest as well as the proposed O&C legislation as
examples. I greatly appreciate the opportunity to appear before
you today and will be happy to answer any questions you might
have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Barth follows:]
Prepared Statement of Gary Barth, Director, Business and Community
Services, Clackamas County, Oregon City, OR
Good morning, Chairman Thompson, Congressman Schrader, and
Subcommittee Members. I appreciate the opportunity to testify today on
the opportunities and challenges facing the management of our National
Forests. My name is Gary Barth and I am the Director of Business and
Community Services for Clackamas County, Oregon.
While I have lived here in the Portland area for 3 decades, I also
have a strong connection to other areas of Oregon. I was born and
raised in Springfield, Oregon, which was a middle-class, blue collar
town with a strong traded-sector employment base. A large Weyerhaeuser
plant, constructed under the supervision of my wife's grandfather
provided significant employment opportunities for the residents of
Springfield for decades. My uncle, a chemical engineer designed the
pulp processing system. My father-in-law had a career at that plant,
and my wife worked in the office of that plant as her first full time
job out of school.
Numerous other mills and related value chain businesses thrived in
Springfield, Oregon providing residents with ample employment
opportunities and solid living wages to support themselves, their
families and their community. Timber was a competitive economic
advantage that helped contribute to a solidly middle class community,
with good schools, outstanding parks and other public amenities and
with many career paths to pursue.
My family and I retain a strong connection to Springfield and
return often to visit family and friends and to attend games at the
nearby University of Oregon.
Sadly, Springfield is a shadow of its former self. It is no longer
the vibrant traded-sector community I recall growing up in. Area
unemployment rates are among the highest in the state and average wages
that once mirrored the U.S. average are far below that today. My
brother is a policeman in Springfield and deals with the negative
social effects of serving in an economically depressed community on a
daily basis.
It is now clear to me that changes in Federal forest management
policies and practices have had a profound impact on rural communities
like Springfield and others across Oregon, including Clackamas County.
As I have reflected on those earlier years in Springfield and the
turmoil of the past 2 decades, I have a much greater appreciation for
the importance of sustainable forest management. It remains quite
personal to me and many other residents of rural Oregon.
After a lengthy career in the financial services sector, I made the
transition several years ago to the public sector in order to serve the
public and the community in which I live. As the Director of Business
and Community Services for Clackamas County, I oversee a diverse number
of divisions that include county libraries, an urban Park & Recreation
District, county-owned forest land, a county-wide park system and our
Economic Development team. My job title reflects the county's
recognition of the integral relationship that exists between economic
vitality and the services we are able to offer to improve the quality
of life. In my position I have a unique perspective on seeking to
improve all aspects of the ``triple bottom line'' so often discussed
and considered in establishing public policy; how do we produce
economic value, ensure environmental responsibility, while providing
for social benefits? How do we accomplish that with limited public
funds to stimulate private sector investment?
I believe that our county's management of nearly 3,000 acres of
county-owned forest land is a great example of delivering that triple
bottom-line of environmental, economic and social benefits to our local
residents. My testimony provides greater detail on how Clackamas County
manages its forests and how it could serve as a model for needed
changes in Federal forest management policies that can help revitalize
and restore rural, forested communities here in Clackamas County, in
Springfield and across the country.
About Clackamas County
Clackamas County, Oregon, is located in north-central Oregon,
ranging from the Portland metropolitan area to the summit of Mount
Hood. The county encompasses 1,879 square miles (1.2 million acres),
and has a current population greater than 375,000. The county
encompasses all or part of 15 cities.
While many might consider Clackamas County part of the Greater
Portland urban area, that is only a fraction of the county as a whole.
Only 5% of Clackamas County's land area is urban, yet contains 80% of
the population and 90% of the jobs. The rest of the county is rural and
contains some of Oregon's richest farmland. 57% of Clackamas County is
in public ownership with the U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land
Management overseeing nearly all of it. Forested land comprises a
staggering 75% of the land in Clackamas County, containing some of the
most productive forest land, by many measures, anywhere in the world.
Sustainable forest management practices are vital to our perceived
``urban'' county as well as to the greater Portland-Vancouver economic
region.
Since Clackamas County was created in 1843, agriculture and timber,
along with the associated metals manufacturing and commerce have been
the county's principal economic activities. In recent years, as the
County and its communities have continued to grow, the County has
maintained and developed key industry clusters in advanced metals
manufacturing, business & professional services, healthcare, high tech
and software development, transportation and warehousing, forestry,
food and beverage processing, and nursery and greenhouses. These
clusters combine for over 50% of Clackamas County's economic activity.
Federal Forests
As a heavily forested county, forests have always been an important
part of our economy and culture. Unfortunately, employment in forestry
and wood products manufacturing has been in steady decline for the past
2 decades. The primary cause of this decline has been changes in
Federal forest management policies. As noted, 51% of Clackamas County
is comprised of Federal forests, including portions of the Mt. Hood and
Willamette National Forests that account for 540,421 acres of the
county and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) oversees 78,749 acres of
the county with Oregon & California (O&C) Grant Lands accounting for
52,448 acres of that total. This has a major impact on our economic
livelihood and our ability to provide county services.
Since the National Forest System's establishment in the early
1900's the Federal Government has shared 25% of the receipts generated
from timber harvests and other commercial activities with local
counties as compensation for our inability to tax these lands. The once
private BLM O&C Grant Lands, which are unique to Oregon, were brought
back under Federal control with an initial commitment to share 75% of
timber harvest receipts. That was later reduced to 50%. For many
decades Clackamas County received tens of millions in shared timber
receipts and many local residents were employed in the forest products
sector.
In the 1990's controversy, lawsuits and changes in Federal policies
dramatically reduced timber harvest levels on Federal lands. For
example, the amount of timber sold on the Mt. Hood National Forest has
fallen from over 230 million board feet (mmbf) in the late 1980's to
approximately 30 mmbf today, an 87% reduction. Yet, the annual
mortality of the forest is over 190 mmbf. Put in context, the Mt. Hood
National Forest is dying six times faster than it is being productively
harvested. The standing timber volume of the forest is 33.6 billion
board feet, with an annual growth of 745 mmbf. At the current annual
harvest rate of 30 mmbf, the forest is growing 25 times faster than it
is being harvested. The economic opportunity loss through mortality or
lack of sustained harvest is enormous as is growing risks to forest
health due to a lack of management.
Federal Payments
Due to the vast amount of land in Federal ownership and the
dramatic decline in timber harvests, counties have had to deal with the
associated impacts on revenue. Congress has recognized this through the
passage of a number of payment programs to partially offset, at least
temporarily, these loses. Beginning in the early 1990's Congress
approved ``Spotted Owl Guarantee Payments'' to provide payments to
counties in the Pacific Northwest impacted by reductions in Federal
timber sales following the listing of the Northern Spotted Owl as an
Endangered Species.
The Secure Rural Schools and Community Self Determination Act of
2000 (SRS) was enacted to further transform traditional timber receipt
sharing into a nationwide payment program to offset the loss of revenue
to rural counties with Federal forest land. The SRS program has been
reauthorized twice since 2000 with further changes made in 2008 that
shifted the formula away from actual historical receipts to also
consider the amount of Federal forest land and local poverty. The
current SRS expired at the end of 2011 and our county received its last
payment in January.
Clackamas County has relied heavily on SRS payments over the past
decade as a substitute for the timber receipt revenue we received in
the decades prior. For most of the program's life, Clackamas County
received approximately $13 million annually in Forest Service and BLM
O&C payments. The changes made during the 2008 reauthorization have
gradually reduced those payments and the final 2011 payment was less
than $3 million, \1/4\ the SRS average and significantly lower than the
timber receipt sharing that existed before SRS. If the program is not
reauthorized, and we revert back to actual revenue sharing, Clackamas
County's projected 2012 payments from the Forest Service and BLM based
on today's harvests will be less than $750,000.
The Clackamas County Board of County Commissioners supports the
reauthorization of the Secure Rural Schools Act. However, it has become
increasingly clear that the Secure Rural Schools Act does not represent
a long-term, sustainable solution for meeting county funding needs. The
level of funding provided in 2011, and likely to be included in any
reauthorization, is inadequate to meet the needs of timber dependent
communities in our area. In Clackamas County, our road fund alone will
experience a loss of up to $3 million per year. The significant
reductions in SRS payments in recent years has also meant cutbacks in
public safety, natural resource protection and assistance to schools.
Forest Management Legislation
Clackamas County believes Federal legislation is needed to restore
responsible management to Federal forest lands to provide a sustainable
and predictable long-term solution to county revenue needs and to
restore economic vitality to our communities. Our current Federal
forest management policies are broken and our rural communities and the
forests are paying the price.
Ultimately, any legislation should balance economic, social and
environmental values so that significant areas of Federal forest are
focused on environmental protections and equally significant areas are
focused on producing forest products and economic benefits. Our
county's small forestry program produces a mix of benefits to the
environment, the economy and local residents.
Of the 3,600 acres of forest owned by Clackamas County,
approximately 2,800 acres are managed utilizing sustainable forest
management practices, including scheduled timber harvest and
reforestation. All management activities are done in accordance with,
and actually exceed, the requirements of the Oregon Forest Practices
Act. Approximately 850 acres of forest are natural areas and parks
where trees are only removed for public safety concerns or
infrastructure development.
Clackamas County manages it timber harvests on a 55 year rotation,
to approximate annual growth rates and harvest timber that can still be
milled locally. This translates to approximately 2 million board feet
(mmbf) of timber harvested annually from our 2,800 acres of forest
land. This annual average harvest has generated approximately $750,000
in annual revenue for the county over the last 10 years. These revenues
cover the cost of managing our forest lands as well as provide funding
for the operations and maintenance of our nearly 1,000 acres of parks
and preservation land. Our most recent timber sale went to a local
mill, yet only produced enough raw material for a 2 week production
run. The mill advised us that they could add a third shift of jobs with
minimal capital investment if they could be assured of increased timber
availability.
By comparison, the Forest Service annually sells approximately 30
mmbf of timber from the 1.1 million acre Mt. Hood National Forest and
generated less than $270,000 in timber receipts for the U.S. Treasury
in 2011. The county generates almost three times the revenue from
timber harvests as the Forest Service does on less than .3% of the
acreage. This massive discrepancy has only intensified in recent years
and underscores the need for reform if counties are expected to return
to actual 25% payments.
The Forest Service is hamstrung by excessive bureaucracy,
regulations and administrative costs. These costs typically consume up
to 75% of its forest management budget, which severely restricts the
amount of on-the-ground work and timber volume that can be
accomplished. The type of timber sales offered by the Forest Service
today also generate little-to-no receipts for the U.S. Treasury or
local governments due to how the projects are designed and the
extensive use of Stewardship Contracting Authority. Currently, no
receipts are shared with counties for timber sales conducted under the
Stewardship Contracting Authority. If the counties will again return to
shared Forest Service receipts then Congress should amend this
authority to ensure counties receive 25% of the value of stewardship
contracts.
Clearly if just a portion of the Mt. Hood National Forest were
managed similar to how Clackamas County manages our forest land there
would be significant revenue available to fund county payments and
other important projects. Perhaps more importantly, it would be a
tremendous boost to the local economy with an estimated 17.4 direct
jobs annually per mmbf of timber harvest. This would lessen our
citizen's dependence on public assistance while at the same time
providing much needed revenue for schools, roads and other public
needs. Using the values Clackamas County received from its last timber
sale, if a little less than 4,000 acres (.7%) of the 540,421 acres of
the Mt. Hood National Forest in Clackamas County was managed like this
each year it would generate our average Secure Rural School Forest
Service payment of approximately $8.5 million, deliver over $25 million
to the U.S. Treasury in receipts and support approximately 1,700 jobs.
Congressman Schrader recently joined together with Congressman
Peter DeFazio and Congressman Greg Walden to release the ``O&C Trust,
Conservation and Jobs Act.'' The plan would manage approximately half
of Oregon's 2.5 million acres of BLM O&C Grant Lands by a board of
trustees for sustained yield timber production to benefit our 18 O&C
counties in Oregon. This stable timber supply would support
manufacturing and other jobs and provide revenue to cash-strapped
counties that have few options to recover lost income from Federal
lands. The legislation would also protect all remaining old growth
stands on more than 1 million acres. I expect our Board of
Commissioners to formally adopt a resolution in support of this
proposal later this week.
I would like to commend the efforts of Congressman Schrader and
other Members of the Oregon delegation to promote the responsible
management of Federal forest lands that provides a sustainable and
predictable long-term solution to county revenue needs, while ensuring
environmental protection, stewardship and restoration efforts. Our
County's management of its lands shows that these can go hand in hand
as does the O&C Trust Act. As this Committee considers possible
legislation for the National Forests I hope it will look to these
examples.
The situation is extremely urgent as our county and other rural
counties across the country grapple with the reductions in Secure Rural
Schools payments.
I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today and would
be happy to answer any questions you might have.
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Barth.
Mr. Hoover, you can go ahead and proceed for 5 minutes
testimony.
STATEMENT OF GREGORY A. HOOVER, ORNAMENTAL
EXTENSION ENTOMOLOGIST, SENIOR EXTENSION
ASSOCIATE, DEPARTMENT OF ENTOMOLOGY, COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURAL
SCIENCES, PENNSYLVANIA STATE
UNIVERSITY, UNIVERSITY PARK, PA
Mr. Hoover. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee,
thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to
provide an entomologist's view of the impacts and challenges of
the invasive pests on the management and maintenance of the
health of our forests. I appreciate the Subcommittee's interest
in this matter of great importance and that is the health of
our nation's forests for future generations.
More than 400 species of invasive forest insects and
disease are currently established in the United States. Some of
these insects are able to spread quickly and cause significant
economic and ecological impact to our nation's forest and urban
trees. An estimate of the management costs associated with
invasive insect and mite pests in our nation's forestland is at
least $2.1 billion a year. The cost of insecticides applied
against introduced pest insects is approximately $500 million a
year in the U.S. Suburban and urban areas of the Northeast
through the years have been locations of first detection of
many invasive forest tree pests. For many years, scientists
conducting basic and applied research and extension education
activities in the disciplines of entomology and plant pathology
have a long history of studying the biology and ecology of
invasive forest pests and strategies and methods for their
effective management. Collaborative research between
entomologists and plant pathologists at land-grant
institutions, state and Federal Government agencies, and others
on tree diseases vectored by insects often leads to discoveries
that result in the development of decision-making tools for
achieving the goal of healthy forest and urban landscape trees.
Some invasive species that impact the health of forest
trees on which research and extension activities are currently
being conducted include the emerald ash borer, hemlock woolly
adelgid, the Asian longhorned beetle, and for years the gypsy
moth. Some examples of diseases in the forest that are caused
by invasive plant pathogens include sudden oak death and
butternut canker. Some insect-vectored tree diseases that many
of us are already familiar with include elm yellows, oak wilt,
beech bark disease, Dutch elm disease, and most recently,
thousand cankers disease on the black walnut.
In my written testimony, I discuss a few invasive insect
pests that have impacted the health of our trees in our
nation's forests. Additionally, I have highlighted some
research that has been conducted on these pests by
entomologists, plant pathologists, chemical ecologists,
horticulturists, regulatory agency employees, and others. Some
research priorities associated with these invasive pests are
also suggested that may lead to discoveries allowing for more
effective management and maintenance of the health of the trees
in our forests and landscapes.
Many Members of the Subcommittee have used that word that
frustrates many forest tree managers and that is the word
drought. I can only tell you that with wood-boring insects,
their olfactory abilities to sense trees that are stressed is
beyond belief as to what we have been able to discover and
there still is an awful lot of insight we need to investigate
in how they perceive direct attack on trees that they can
visualize, and when they get closer, there are chemical cues.
And yes, with some longhorned beetles, when they land on the
tree, they determine that those plant cells are collapsing due
to lack of water. And so we really have our work cut out when
it comes to wood-boring insects' attack on trees in our
nation's forests.
This concludes my prepared statement and I would be pleased
to answer any questions you may have regarding the role
invasive pests play in the challenge of managing and
maintaining the health of our nation's forests.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hoover follows:]
Prepared Statement of Gregory A. Hoover, Ornamental Extension
Entomologist, Senior Extension Associate, Department of Entomology,
College of Agricultural Sciences, Pennsylvania State University,
University Park, PA
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you today to provide an entomologist's
view of the impacts and challenges of invasive pests on the health of
our forests. I appreciate the Subcommittee's interest in a matter of
great importance and that is the management and maintenance of the
health of the nation's forests for future generations.
More than 400 species of invasive forest insects and diseases are
currently established in the United States. Some of these insects are
able to spread quickly and cause significant economic and ecological
impact to our nation's forest and urban trees. An estimate of the
management costs associated with invasive insect and mite pests in our
nation's forest is at least $2.1 billion/year. The cost of insecticides
applied against introduced pest insects is approximately $500 million/
year in the United States. Suburban and urban areas of the Northeast
through the years have been locations of first detection for many
invasive forest tree pests. For many years scientists conducting basic
and applied research and extension education activities in the
disciplines of entomology and plant pathology have a long history of
studying the biology and ecology of invasive forest pests and methods
for effective management. Collaborative research between entomologists
and plant pathologists at land-grant institutions, state and Federal
Government agencies, and others on tree diseases vectored by insects
often leads to discoveries that result in the development of management
strategies and decision-making tools for achieving the goal of healthy
forest and urban landscape trees.
Some invasive species that impact the health of forest trees on
which research and extension activities are currently being conducted
include the emerald ash borer, hemlock woolly adelgid, Asian longhorned
beetle, and gypsy moth. Some diseases in the forest that are caused by
invasive plant pathogens include sudden oak death and butternut canker.
Some insect-vectored tree diseases include elm yellows, oak wilt, beech
bark disease, Dutch elm disease, and most recently thousand cankers
disease on black walnut.
I would like to discuss a few invasive insect pests that impact the
health of trees in our nation's forests. Additionally, I'd like to
highlight some research that has been conducted on these pests by
entomologists, plant pathologists, chemical ecologists,
horticulturists, regulatory agency employees, and others. Some research
priorities associated with these invasive pests will also be suggested
that may lead to discoveries allowing more effective management and
maintenance of the health of the trees in our forests and landscapes.
Emerald Ash Borer
Ten years ago the emerald ash borer, Agrilus planipennis, was
discovered as the cause of extensive ash, Fraxinus spp. mortality and
decline in southeastern Michigan. The emerald ash borer is responsible
for killing more than 40 million ash trees throughout much of the
Midwest and in some states in the Northeast. This beetle is a member of
the insect family Buprestidae whose adults are commonly called metallic
wood-boring beetles and the larval stages are referred to as flatheaded
borers. What's really important to note is evidence suggests that A.
planipennis first entered Michigan from China at least 15 years ago
prior to its detection in 2002, presumably from solid wood packing
materials used to ship manufactured goods. The emerald ash borer is now
found in at least 15 states and Ontario, Canada. Research has
demonstrated that spread of the emerald ash borer results primarily
from the flight of this invasive pest and human transport of infested
ash firewood, logs, lumber, and nursery stock. As an example in 2003
emerald ash borer infested nursery stock from Michigan was illegally
sold to a nursery in Prince George's County, Maryland and sold in
Maryland and Fairfax County, Virginia. In an attempt to limit the all
too common human-assisted spread of this invasive pest from areas
infested with the emerald ash borer, many states imposed orders of
quarantines and regulations on the transport of ash trees and ash wood
related products. Additionally, Federal quarantines were issued by both
the USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) as well as
the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.
Early detection of new infestations of the emerald ash borer is
important for the success of any effective management efforts to
protect the health of ash trees. Research has led to the development of
sticky traps and associated lures that are being used to survey for
this invasive pest. The emerald ash borer is very difficult to detect
at low population densities. Continued research on the identification
of an effective pheromone for the emerald ash borer should be
supported. Further research on the identification of suitable natural
enemies and biological control of this pest needs to occur.
The movement of ash and ash-related products from emerald ash borer
infested areas continues to be prohibited by Federal quarantines. One
frustration is the unintentional movement of ash materials continues to
occur due to the lack of awareness and understanding of the quarantine
regulations and the impact this species has on forest products
(baseball bats, etc.) and the green industries. An increase in
cooperative extension education efforts that target the public and
other stakeholders groups needs to be supported.
A survey of communities in Ohio found losses in landscape value for
ash trees within community boundaries were estimated to be between $800
million and $3.4 billion assuming the complete loss of ash resulting
from the emerald ash borer. Tree replacement costs in these communities
would range between $300 million and $1.3 billion. The total losses for
these Ohio communities, including ash landscape losses, tree removal
and replacements, are estimated to range between $1.8 and $7.6 billion
for a single insect pest in this one state. The potential total costs
in Ohio were estimated to be between $157,000 and $665,000 per 1,000
residents. It's suggested in this survey that communities can use these
figures to begin developing contingency plans for the impact of the
emerald ash borer on their budgets.
Ash should make up no more than 10 to 25 percent of the basal area
of a forest. If ash exceeds that level and you believe that you have
marketable ash trees in the forest, you may want to get estimates and
consider selling the ash trees. The level of urgency will depend on how
close your property is to sites known to be infested with the emerald
ash borer, your overall objectives for the property, and the abundance
of ash compared with other species on the site. If you think you have
marketable ash trees, work with a professional consulting forester.
Decisions about timber sales and stumpage values can be complicated and
it's important to work with a professional forester. Consulting
foresters can help identify the markets that are available in an area.
They may also know of portable or custom sawmills that can be hired to
saw ash trees into boards for your own use or sale. It may be important
to work with neighboring forest landowners. They may be facing a
situation similar to yours. Often the per-acre costs of setting up a
timber sale decrease when larger areas are involved. Cooperating with
neighbors may lead to lower costs and better timber prices for
everyone.
Other tree species may be part of a timber harvest that removes
ash. Many forests can benefit from a well-planned harvest in which ash
reduction is only one of several landowner objectives. A mixed-species
sale may be of interest to more buyers or result in higher profits for
a forest landowner. Again, it is important to work with a professional
forester to ensure that the productivity and the health of a forest are
maintained or even enhanced by a harvest.
The emerald ash borer as an invasive, wood-boring pest has already
placed tremendous economic pressure on both state and municipal budgets
as well as their human resources. Scientists estimate the cost of
treatment, removal, and replacement of ash trees due to the impact of
the emerald ash borer will exceed $10.7 billion over the next 10 years.
Hemlock Woolly Adelgid
The hemlock woolly adelgid, Adelges tsugae, is a small, soft-
bodied, insect that removes plant cell fluid with its piercing-sucking
mouthparts. This forest health pest is closely related to aphids and
has caused widespread decline and eventual death of hemlock trees in
the forests and landscapes the eastern United States. The hemlock
woolly adelgid is native to Asia and was first detected in the eastern
United States in 1951 in a park in Richmond, VA. It was first observed
in southeastern Pennsylvania during the mid-1960s. This pest species is
believed to have been unintentionally introduced into the United States
on Japanese hemlocks that were planned for use in landscapes. The
hemlock woolly adelgid spread slowly until the late 1970s when this
invasive insect pest reached forest areas and began to cause death of
host trees. This key pest of hemlock has since spread into at least 17
states that include those in the Southeast to southern Maine. The
hemlock woolly adelgid has few natural enemies in eastern North
America, and our native eastern hemlock, Tsuga canadensis and Carolina
hemlock, Tsuga caroliniana are highly susceptible to its attack.
Currently, insect predators and an insect-killing fungus are the only
known natural enemies of populations of the hemlock woolly adelgid. To
date, it has no known parasitoids that reduce its populations on
hemlocks. Research conducted by entomologists with the USDA-Forest
Service, at land-grant institutions, state governmental agencies, and
their cooperators has been focused on identifying effective management
options for the hemlock woolly adelgid on forest and urban trees. The
hemlock woolly adelgid and an another non-native insect pest that was
detected in New York in 1908 known as the elongate hemlock scale,
Fiorinia externa, poses another health risk to our eastern hemlocks.
This armored scale insect species is attacked by some parasitoids, but
it is very difficult to effectively manage when it infests forest
trees. The elongate hemlock scale and the hemlock woolly adelgid pose a
very serious threat to the sustainability of hemlock. Research on the
biological control and the ecology of these pests in our forests needs
to be investigated to an even greater extent. The loss of hemlocks in
our eastern forests will have an impact on both wildlife habitat and
the survival of wild trout. The loss of hemlock will also cause change
in the structure and biodiversity of our eastern forests.
There is often a desire to manage a forest in a way that is most
``natural.'' However, the current widespread outbreak of the hemlock
woolly adelgid is not like any other form of natural disturbance known
to affect hemlock trees in our forests. Harvesting options and related
costs will differ depending on the size structure of hemlock in a
particular forest and whether the management goal is aesthetics,
wildlife habitat, water quality protection, future forest successional
dynamics, timber revenue, or a combination of these management goals.
Unless timber revenue is the main objective, pre-emptive cutting or
pre-salvage of uninfested forests is not recommended, as the future
interactions between hemlock and the hemlock woolly adelgid are
uncertain, and cutting could remove potentially resistant hemlock.
There are a variety of silvicultural alternatives available to
forest landowners with hemlock stands threatened by the hemlock woolly
adelgid. The options range from doing nothing to directly influencing
vegetation succession with a variety of cutting methods, depending on
the forest landowner's objectives, overall hemlock health, and stand
conditions. All options and associated costs should be considered
carefully when planning the appropriate management strategies.
Feeding by the hemlock woolly adelgid on susceptible hemlocks may
cause rapid decline in tree health, followed by quick mortality.
Hemlocks may die within 4 years of being infested. Stressed hemlock
trees are more susceptible to attack by other insects, mites, or
diseases. Eastern hemlock is an ecologically important species in our
nation's forests. Hemlock stands provide unique habitat to many forest
species that are dependent on the dense canopy of hemlocks. Wildlife
species such as ruffed grouse, turkey, deer, snowshoe hare, and rabbit
are afforded cover by healthy hemlocks. Many songbirds use eastern
hemlocks as nesting sites, food source, roost sites, and winter
shelter. Many plant species also inhabit hemlock stands. The impact of
feeding injury caused by the hemlock woolly adelgid on hemlocks affects
and disrupts the entire ecosystem as well as the health of our eastern
forests.
Gypsy Moth
The gypsy moth, Lymantria dispar, was accidentally introduced into
Massachusetts in l869. By 1902 this pest was widespread in the New
England states, eastern New York, and regions of New Jersey. The gypsy
moth was first detected in Luzerne and Lackawanna Counties in
northeastern Pennsylvania in l932. Heavy defoliation and subsequent
tree mortality has occurred along mountain ridges in forests comprised
primarily of oak. The gypsy moth is often considered the most important
insect pest of forest and shade trees in the eastern United States.
Egg masses are light tan, and each mass may contain 400-600 eggs. A
mature larva is 50-65 mm long with a yellow and black head. The thorax
and abdomen have five pairs of blue spots (tubercles) followed by six
pairs of brick red spots. The pupal stage is dark reddish-brown. Male
moths are dark tan and fly readily during the day. Females are white
with black, wavy markings; they have robust abdomens and do not fly,
and their wingspan can reach 5 cm.
Egg masses deposited by females during July overwinter on trees,
stones, and other substrates in the forest and landscapes. Eggs hatch
from late April through early May with most eggs hatching by mid-May.
Small first instar larvae do not feed right after they hatch and can be
dispersed by wind. Young larvae feed on foliage and remain on host
plants night and day. In late May when about half-grown, larvae change
their behavior and usually feed in the trees at night, and move down to
seek shelter in bark crevices or other protected sites during the day.
Larvae reach maturity from mid-June to early July. Pupation takes place
during late June and early July. The pupal cases may be observed
attached to tree bark, stones, buildings, and other similar sites.
Adults start emerging in late June with peak emergence in mid-July. The
gypsy moth produces one generation a year.
This key invasive insect pest is indirectly responsible for causing
mortality of susceptible host trees in forests. Heavy defoliation by
the larval stage of this pest causes stress to infested host plants.
Secondary organisms such as the twolined chestnut borer, Agrilus
bilineatus, and shoestring root rot, Armillaria spp., successfully
attack stressed trees causing mortality.
Preferred host plants for all larval stages of the gypsy moth in
the forest include oaks, Quercus spp., alder, Alnus spp., aspen,
Populus spp., gray birch, Betula populifolia, white birch, B.
papyrifera, hawthorn, Crateagus spp., larch, Larix spp., linden, Tilia
spp., mountain ash, Sorbus spp., Lombardy poplar, Populus nigra,
willows, Salix spp., and witch-hazel, Hamamelis spp. Plants favored by
older larvae but not by young larvae include beech, Fagus spp., red
cedar, Juniperus spp., chestnut, Castanea spp., hemlock, Tsuga spp.,
plum, Prunus spp., pine, Pinus spp., and Colorado blue spruce, Picea
pungens.
Light defoliation in the forest is defined as 0 to 30% loss of
foliage and has little effect on the health of trees. Defoliation is
barely detectable. Moderate defoliation is described as 31 to 50% loss
of foliage. At this level caterpillars may be abundant enough to be a
nuisance in an area if not managed. Trees will have enough foliage
remaining to stay green and little mortality is expected. Heavy
defoliation is when 51% or more of the foliage is removed from a tree.
Tree mortality may result from one year's defoliation to hemlock, pine,
and spruce in the forest. Deciduous trees can normally withstand one
year of defoliation, but 2 or more successive years may result in
moderate to high mortality. Around the 50% defoliation level, most
deciduous trees produce auxiliary leaf buds and new foliage by mid-
August. Refoliation in the same growing season creates a stress to an
infested tree.
A normal outbreak pattern for the gypsy moth may be described as 2
years of light infestation with minimal defoliation followed by 2 years
of moderate to severe defoliation with population collapse after the
second year of heavy defoliation. Infestations may flare up in future
years; however, caterpillar density and level of defoliation in the
forest will probably not be as severe or widespread as encountered
during an initial infestation.
Some people are dermally allergic to the caterpillars. The
urticating hairs cause skin rashes on some humans. This is most
noticeable in May when larvae are small. Children appear to be more
prone to this problem than adults.
Air temperatures of ^20F or colder during the winter will destroy
exposed eggs. Unfortunately, numerous egg masses are deposited on
rocks, near the base of tree trunks and these may be covered with an
insulating blanket of snow. Freezing temperatures in early May, after
hatch, may also kill many larvae in the forest.
When gypsy moth larvae are half-grown, many of them feed at night
and crawl down the tree in the morning to seek shelter during the day.
Tree trunks may be encircled with a 14-18 inch wide piece of burlap or
similar material. Place it at about chest height and arrange it so it
hangs apronlike around the tree trunk. Tie off the center of the burlap
band with string and fold the top portion down over the string. This
burlap apron provides a place under which larvae rest and can later be
killed. The apron must be checked daily, and all ``trapped'' larvae and
pupae should be destroyed on valuable trees in a landscape. This
technique works best in light to moderate infestations from late May
through early July or until males begin to fly. This management method
is usually effective enough to keep defoliation levels less than 50% of
the tree's crown. A few shade trees can be well protected with this
method. Do not expect this technique to be effective on trees that are
part of a heavily infested forest.
Male moths readily respond to the female's sex pheromone. Males can
be attracted to traps baited with a synthetic pheromone; however, such
traps are not effective control measures. These traps do assist in
monitoring an area for low level populations of this pest in the
forest.
There are some native predators and parasitoids that attack life
stages of the gypsy moth in the forest. Several introduced species of
fly and wasp parasitoids of the gypsy moth are established in
Pennsylvania and other states. Parasitoids and predators do not provide
an immediate solution to a gypsy moth infestation. However, once a
gypsy moth population collapses, the value of these natural enemies is
exhibited by helping maintain populations in forests at low levels for
extended periods of time. These parasitoids and predators appear to be
contributing to stabilizing the gypsy moth population in several areas.
Native predators, such as birds, white-footed mice, and ground beetles
assist in keeping gypsy moth populations in the forest at tolerable
levels.
A naturally occurring virus called the ``wilt'' has resulted in
massive mortality of caterpillars causing populations to collapse in
areas of severe defoliation. Although the virus is always present, it
seldom affects the larval stage until they are under stress, due to
overcrowding or reduced food availability in a forest. In recent years
during wet spring weather, the fungal insect pathogen, Entomophaga
maimaiga, has also caused collapse of heavy infestations of this pest
in many areas.
Several insecticide formulations (microbial, insect growth
regulators, etc.) are registered for effective management of this key
pest. To maintain good plant health, applications should be made before
serious defoliation occurs in the forest. When healthy egg mass
densities are approximately 500/acre, aerial suppression of gypsy moth
populations is indicated in forest stands with oak and other
susceptible trees species. Aerial applications of registered
formulations should be made according to label directions after the
majority of eggs have hatched during early to mid-May, when larvae are
small. Be sure that small larvae have dispersed and they have begun to
feed causing the characteristic shothole injury to host plant foliage
in the forest.
Asian Longhorned Beetle
The Asian longhorned beetle, Anoplophora glabripennis, is an
unintentionally introduced, invasive species with the potential to
become a major pest in the United States. This wood-boring pest is a
member of the insect family Cerambycidae whose larval stages are called
roundheaded borers. The Asian longhorned beetle was first discovered
around New York City in 1996. Additional infestations were discovered
in Chicago (1998) and Jersey City, NJ (2002), and Toronto and Vaughan,
Ontario, Canada (2003). In 2008 a large infestation was found in
Worcester, MA. A total of 66 square miles are now under quarantine with
more likely to be added as the area is surveyed. As of 2009,
established populations of the Asian longhorned beetle have been
detected in Austria (2001), France (2003, 2004, 2008), Germany (2004,
2005), and Italy (2007).
In the United States, the USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service (APHIS) has implemented an eradication program whereby all
trees with signs of an Asian longhorned beetle infestation are removed
and destroyed. The eradication program for the Asian longhorned beetle
has greatly impacted the local areas where this invasive species has
been found because of the removal of thousands of trees that cost
states, municipalities, and residents millions of dollars. The United
States has implemented stricter trade regulations to prevent further
introductions of this wood-boring pest. The Asian longhorned beetle
could pose serious economic and environmental threats to many important
stakeholders such as the maple sugar industry, forest products
industry, fall-foliage tourism, natural ecosystems, recreational areas,
and many highly valued landscape and street trees. This is another
invasive, wood-boring pest that has placed tremendous economic pressure
on both state and municipal budgets.
Little was known about ALB when it was first discovered in the
United States, however, scientists have since provided considerable new
information on detection and control methods now used by USDA APHIS in
their Asian longhorned beetle eradication program. Although APHIS is
progressing in its goal to eradicate this pest that attacks maple,
boxelder, buckeye, horsechestnut, birch, willow, and elm, additional
improvements in control methods are still needed to reduce costs,
improve efficiency, and ensure successful eradication of the Asian
longhorned beetle.
Thousand Cankers Disease
Thousand cankers disease or TCD as it's known, was discovered in
Bucks County, Pennsylvania in 2011. This insect-vectored disease poses
a significant new threat to black walnut in Pennsylvania. Thousand
cankers disease is a pest complex that is caused by the walnut twig
beetle, Pityophthorus juglandis, and an associated fungus, Geosmithia
morbida. Black walnut, Juglans nigra, is highly susceptible to this
disease.
It has been estimated that the value of the walnut nut crop in
California is approximately $500 million. The economic value of black
walnut for use in many different types of wood products is estimated to
be $580 billion. Since Pennsylvania is the top producer of hardwoods in
the United States, thousand cankers disease is of great concern to
forest health managers and hardwood products manufacturers.
The walnut twig beetle is native to North America. Its native range
in the Southwest appears to coincide largely with the distribution of
Arizona walnut, J. major, the likely original native host. Records from
California suggest that the walnut twig beetle may be native to that
state. The first published record of a cluster of black walnut
mortality associated with the walnut twig beetle was in the Espanola
Valley of New Mexico where large numbers of mature black walnut died in
2001. Similar widespread decline also occurred about this time in the
Boise, Idaho area where the insect was first confirmed in 2003. Black
walnut mortality and the walnut twig beetle have been noted in several
Front Range communities in Colorado since 2004 and in most infested
cities the majority of black walnut has since died. The walnut twig
beetle was detected in Portland, Oregon in 1997.
Prior to these recent reports, the walnut twig beetle was not
associated with any significant Juglans mortality. In most areas where
the die-offs of black walnut have occurred, drought was originally
suspected as the cause of the decline and death of trees, with the
walnut twig beetle as a secondary pest. The widespread area across
which Juglans spp. die-offs have been recently reported, combined with
the documented presence of the associated canker producing fungal
pathogen carried by the twig beetle, and the occurrence of black walnut
death in irrigated sites not sustaining drought, all suggest an
alternate underlying cause.
The first confirmation of the walnut twig beetle and fungus within
the native range of black walnut was in Knoxville, Tennessee in July
2010. Geosmithia morbida was confirmed in samples under regulatory
controls in August 2010. The potential damage of this disease to
eastern forests could be great because of the widespread distribution
of eastern black walnut, the susceptibility of this tree species to the
disease, the capacity of the fungus and walnut twig beetle to invade
new areas, and apparent ability to survive under a wide range of
climatic conditions.
On J. nigra, the walnut twig beetle prefers to colonize the
underside of branches in rough areas and prefers branches larger than 1
inch in diameter. Tunneling by the walnut twig beetle sometimes occurs
in trunks and it prefers the warmer side of the tree. Winter is spent
in the adult state sheltered within cavities excavated in the bark of
the trunk. Adults resume activity by late April and most fly to
branches to mate and initiate new tunnels for egg galleries; some may
remain in the trunk and expand overwintering tunnels. During tunneling,
the Geosmithia morbida fungus is introduced and subsequently grows in
advance of the bark beetle. Larvae develop just under the bark and then
enter the bark to pupate. Larval development takes 6-8 weeks to
complete. Two overlapping generations were reported per season in
Colorado. Adult beetles fly from mid-April to late October in Boulder,
Colorado. The adult walnut twig beetle is estimated to fly one to 2
miles. Peak adult captures occur from mid-July through late August.
Data suggest that two or more generations may be produced annually.
Walnut twig beetle populations can reach levels of 30 per square inch;
a single black walnut tree may produce tens of thousands of beetles.
Small, diffuse, dark brown to black cankers, caused by Geosmithia
morbida, initially develop around the nuptial chambers of the walnut
twig beetle in small twigs, branches and even the trunk. Geosmithia
spp. are associates of bark beetles of hardwood and conifer trees but
have not previously been reported as pathogens of Juglans or fungal
associates of the walnut twig beetle. Branch cankers may not be visible
until the outer bark is shaved from the entrance to the nuptial
chamber; although a dark amber stain may form on the bark surface in
association with the cankers. Cankers expand rapidly and develop more
expansively lengthwise than circumferentially along the stem. On thick
barked branches, cankers may at first be localized in outer bark tissue
and extend into the cambium only after extensive bark discoloration has
occurred. Eventually multiple cankers coalesce and girdle twigs and
branches, resulting in branch dieback. The number of cankers that are
formed on branches and the trunk is enormous; hence the name thousand
cankers to describe the disease.
Potential movement of thousand cankers disease may occur on veneer
logs, sawlogs, burls, stumps, firewood, wood packaging material,
nursery stock, scion wood for grafting, and natural spread. However,
the unexpected discovery of this disease deep in native black walnut
range, over one thousand miles from the nearest known infestation has
confirmed some assumptions while diminishing others. It is important to
keep in mind that the Tennessee infestation has likely been present for
10-20 years. An important question is where else in the native range of
black walnut could this disease be present but not yet detected.
Drought, walnut anthracnose, and other symptoms may have masked
thousand cankers disease from being readily detected.
Thousand cankers disease is scattered throughout western states and
reports of walnut mortality are occurring simultaneously in areas that
are connected by major highways. This distribution along major commerce
routes suggests that movement of thousand cankers disease and its
vector may be human assisted. Extension education programs on thousand
cankers disease need to be developed and delivered by specialists and
educators at our land-grant institutions. Research conducted by
scientists in both academia and state and Federal Government agencies
should play a major role in disseminating applied research to
stakeholders on this complex, insect-vectored disease of black walnut.
Solving problems associated with thousand cankers disease will
necessitate collaborative as well as interdisciplinary efforts to
preserve the health of this important tree species.
Conclusion
Research priorities on invasive species that impact the health of
our forest as well as landscape trees needs to be focused on the
development of prevention, prediction, detection, monitoring,
management, and genetic evaluation as well as restoration of trees in
the forests of our nation. With the global movement of many different
products, the sustained health of our forests is being placed at a
higher risk for survival. We need to be even better stewards of the
health of our forests for future generations.
This concludes my prepared statement, and I would be pleased to
answer any questions you may have regarding the role invasive pests
play in the challenges of managing and maintaining the health of our
nation's forests.
Some References on Invasive Forest Pests in the United States
Cranshaw, W. and N. Tisserat. 2008. Pest Alert: Walnut Twig Beetle
and Thousand Cankers Disease Of Black Walnut. Colorado State
University. http://wci.colostate.edu/Assets/pdf/ThousandCankers.pdf.
Drooz, A.T. (ed.) 1985. Insects of eastern forests. USDA, Forest
Serv., Misc. Publ. 1426, 608 pp.
Johnson, W.T. and H.H. Lyon. 1991. Insects that feed on trees and
shrubs. 2nd ed. rev., Cornell Univ. Press, Ithaca, New York, 560 pp.
Newton, L. and G. Fowler. 2009. Pathway Assessment: Geosmithia sp.
and Pityophthorus juglandis Blackman movement from the western into the
eastern United States. USDA-APHIS Rev. 19 August 2009.
Pimentel, D., R. Zuniga, and D. Morrison. 2005. Update on the
environmental and economic costs associated with alien-invasive species
in the United States. Ecological Economics 52: 273-288.
Seybold, S.J., D. Haugen, J. O'Brien, and A. Graves. 2010. Pest
Alert: Thousand Cankers Disease. USDA Forest Service, Northeastern
Area, State and Private Forestry. Rev. August 2010.
Sydnor, T.D., M. Bumgardner, and A. Todd. 2007. The potential
economic impacts of emerald ash borer (Agrilus planipennis) on Ohio,
U.S., Communities. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 33: 48-54.
Tisserat, N., W. Cranshaw, D. Leatherman, C. Utley, and K.
Alexander. 2009. Black walnut mortality in Colorado caused by the
walnut twig beetle and thousand cankers disease. Plant Health Progress.
Websites on Invasive Forest Pests in the United States
Forest Disturbance Processes--Invasive Species, Northern Forest
Research Station, USDA-Forest Service: http://nrs.fs.fed.us/
disturbance/invasive_species/
Orwig, D.A., H. Forest and D. Kittredge. Silvicultural Options for
Managing Hemlock Forests Threatened by HWA, Univ. Mass. Extension:
http://na.fs.fed.us/fhp/hwa/silvi-mgt/silvi-mgt.shtm
Introduced Species Summary Project, Hemlock Woolly Adelgid (Adelges
tsugae) http://www.columbia.edu/itc/cerc/danoffburg/invasion_bio/
inv_spp_summ/Adelges_tsugae.html
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Hoover.
Mr. Watkins, go ahead when you are ready, proceed for 5
minutes testimony.
STATEMENT OF CHARLES ``CHUCK'' WATKINS, CHIEF
OPERATING OFFICER, REX LUMBER, GRACEVILLE, FL; ON BEHALF OF
FEDERAL FOREST RESOURCE COALITION
Mr. Watkins. Good morning. I am here as a representative of
Rex Lumber. As Mr. Southerland said, we employ 434 people,
produce about 450 million feet of lumber, and it is important
to mention as Mr. Ribble said before, we are a gross exporter
of lumber. About 20 percent of our lumber is exported out of
this country to the Caribbean.
So our mill is sitting on the doorstep of the Apalachicola
National Forest and in 1980 that mill was built----
The Chairman. Mr. Watkins, hold on. Mr. Hoover, is your
microphone still on by chance?
Mr. Hoover. It is off.
The Chairman. I don't know where the feedback is--sorry
about that, sir. We are used to getting all that feedback here.
We don't want it to interfere with your testimony.
Mr. Watkins. Is that better?
The Chairman. That is great. Please go ahead. I am sorry
about that.
Mr. Watkins. So we built a mill, a lumber-producing
facility in Bristol, Florida, in 1980 with the kind of verbal
agreement with the Forest Service that we would get a lot of
timber off of that land. That land covers a vast, vast area
around us. So as that timber supply was basically reduced, it
took a lot of our area away. Over the course of the 1990s and
the 2000s, we are forced to buy timber and outsource and
basically push away from the mill. And we all know with fuel
costs, what that does to us. The reason was this little bird
called the Red Cockaded Woodpecker. Well, we essentially
reduced a lot of the harvesting on that forest, and so what we
have found through some studies through between 2000 and 2009
is that the density of that forest has gone up by 30 percent
and that Red Cockaded Woodpecker likes open park spans, pine
park-type of an environment and its population has actually
decreased by 15 percent. So that is a little story of our mill.
And we wonder as business owners and employers and members
of our community, why? Why is that happening? Our National
Forest supports over 770 Red Cockaded Woodpecker clusters, over
2,000 black bears, over 60 bald eagle nests, and frankly, we
could do better. We could certainly do better.
But I am here representing the Federal Forest Resource
Coalition with membership in 24 states. We have 650 member
companies, 350,000 employees, and $19 billion payroll. And what
we ask of you is that the Forest Service has stated that they
are going to increase their harvest to 3 billion board feet and
we are asking to increase it again to 3\1/2\ billion board feet
in 2013. But keep in mind that that represents less than ten
percent of the growth of our forests. And actually, that
represents less than 50 percent of what their targets are, what
their goals are now. So what we ask as a group is that we need
some transparency in the Forest Service. We need to see what
they are doing and understand what they are doing and see some
results. We would like to see some type of progress reports.
The recession from 2008 to 2011 was very tough on our
industry. Our employment decreased by 50 percent across the
country. And the ironic part of that is that as we lose these
employees and we lose these mills and these manufacturing
facilities, that actually is detrimental to the Forest Service.
The Forest Service is losing partners in managing this land, in
managing their timber harvests.
So what we would like to stress to the Committee is that
the health of the National Forests, the economic health of the
member companies of our group, and the health of the
communities where we live are all linked together. We would ask
for your support with the Forest Service in some transparency,
some progress reports in assuring that we reach those goals. We
are optimistic but we are very cautious.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Watkins follows:]
Prepared Statement of Charles ``Chuck'' Watkins, Chief Operating
Officer, Rex Lumber, Graceville, FL; on Behalf of Federal Forest
Resource
Coalition
Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Holden, and Members of
the Subcommittee. My name is Chuck Watkins, and I am Chief Operating
Officer Rex Lumber, which operates businesses in both Florida and
Mississippi. Our family owned company is a founding member of the
Federal Forest Resource Coalition (FFRC), which represents purchasers
of Forest Service timber across the country. The coalition has members
in more than 24 states, with approximately 650 member companies
representing 350,000 workers and about $19 billion in payroll.
The FFRC supports sustainable management of the National Forests
lands to produce clean water, enhance wildlife habitat, produce forest
products including timber and biomass, support rural economic
development, and to reduce the threats of catastrophic wildfires and
insect outbreaks. Our members come from every link on the forest
products value chain, from loggers to landowners and from large pulp
and paper facilities to forest bioenergy plants. Our member companies
are frequently located in rural areas, which have higher than average
unemployment, poverty, and population loss compared to their states'
averages.
About Rex Lumber
Rex Lumber traces its roots in Northwest Florida back to 1926, 10
years prior to the establishment of the Apalachicola National Forest.
Rex currently operates three mills in Bristol and Graceville, Florida,
as well as Brookhaven, Mississippi. We source our raw materials from
the Apalachicola National Forest in Florida and the Homochitto in
Mississippi, as well as from private timberlands.
Our mills employ 434 people directly. We have the capacity to
produce 458 million board feet of Southern Yellow Pine lumber, most of
which is subsequently pressure treated and sold for residential and
commercial use. We export our products widely, including to the
Caribbean where it is preferred for its strength and stability in an
area known for hurricanes and seismic hazards. We purchase logs from
over 100 local loggers, and employ over 30 other contractors for heavy
maintenance and engineering projects on our facility. Our mills are one
of the largest employers in our communities, where other jobs are
frequently lowering paying and less desirable.
The National Forests in Florida: A Conservation Success Story
The Homochitto and Apalachicola forests are, like the rest of the
National Forests east of the Mississippi, conservation success stories.
Most of the lands in the eastern National Forests were acquired in the
1920's and 1930's after an era of ``cut and run'' logging that left
watersheds subject to large fires, erosion, and depletion of both
forests and their wildlife. Although it is hard to imagine today,
conservationists in the 1920's and 1930's feared for the extinction of
species like the wild turkey and the Whitetail deer. Reforestation and
careful management have helped restore the 1.2 million acres of
National Forests in Florida.
Today, the National Forests in Florida support over 770 Red
Cockaded Woodpecker clusters, 60 active bald eagle nests, and over
2,000 Florida Black Bears. In total, these forests provide habitat for
some 145 species of rare plants, and 52 threatened, endangered, or
sensitive species of animals. Like much of the National Forest system,
however, we firmly believe that these forests could produce far more of
these benefits, while providing a steadier and more reliable source of
wood fiber to our mills.
Like most pine forests across the country, our forests are adapted
to frequent wildfires. Overstocking of pine forests makes it difficult
for forest managers to introduce fire, which controls understory
vegetation and helps create and maintain the habitat preferred by such
species as Red Cockaded Woodpecker, gopher tortoise, and bobwhite
quail. Harvests which produce an open stand condition produce ideal
wildlife habitat, while also providing high value sawtimber to a market
which needs this raw material.
As you can see from the table we've included here, over the last 5
years the National Forests in Florida have been inconsistent in the
harvests they have offered. Dropping from a high of 42.1 million board
feet in 2007 to a low of 21 million feet in 2009, the forest has also
been inconsistent in the level of sawtimber offered for sale.
NF's in Florida Sold Totals
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$ Total
Fiscal Year MBF % Sawtimber (Millions)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2011 31.9 39% $2.90
2010 22.4 $2.04
2009 21.5 $1.78
2008 25.4 22% $1.99
2007 42.1 36% $3.20
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This inconsistent level of harvest makes it difficult for loggers
to find consistent work to make payments on expensive logging
equipment, makes it difficult for mill managers to find consistent
supplies, and in particular makes it difficult for businesses to make
long-term plans and investments. Other forests in the Forest Service's
Southern Region have been able to consistently offer considerably
higher volumes of timber for sale, all while meeting their other forest
plan objectives for wildlife and plant habitat.
Increasing the Pace of Forest Restoration
Recently, Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack announced that the
Forest Service would step up both the pace and scale of their land
management. We applaud and support this effort, but we believe it does
not go far enough to meet the needs of the forests or the needs of our
rural communities.
Increased management and forest products outputs, from the current
low level of 2.4 billion board feet nationwide to 3.5 billion board
feet in 2013, would provide a much-needed economic boost to rural
America, creating thousands of jobs. The health of the National
Forests, the economic health of our member companies, and the health of
the communities where we live and work, are inextricably linked. Moving
from the current projected harvest level of 2.6 billion board feet to
3.5 billion board feet could produce some 14,400 direct jobs, with
thousands of additional indirect jobs. The current forest plans in
place across the country call for a harvest level of roughly 6 billion
board feet, still only \1/2\ of the peak harvest levels of the late
1980's.
Even in these challenging wood markets, some FFRC member companies
have been frustrated by the Forest Service's lack of commitment to sell
adequate log supplies. The result is idled investments, reduced shifts
at sawmills, jobs lost to foreign competition, and a failure to sustain
or enhance a value-added, manufacturing industry that can capture
greater domestic and international market share. Our member companies
are extremely competitive in the global market, and only need a fairly
priced raw material to capture more of those markets. The time
available to capture these opportunities is limited, and we urge you to
reward the Forest Service's recent initiative by investing in more
aggressive management of the National Forests.
We have worked--and will continue to work--closely with the
leadership in the Forest Service and USDA to find ways of reducing
overhead and making the forest products and fuels reductions program
more efficient. We believe some of the steps taken by the Forest
Service in their February 2, 2012 report will help achieve these
efficiencies. However, other authorities, like allowing the Forest
Service to use designation by description on regular timber sales, much
as they do on current Stewardship contracts, will help reduce unit
costs even further.
Investing in Land Management
We were pleased and thankful that the Omnibus appropriations bill
for 2012 set a harvest goal of 3.0 billion board feet for 2012. We urge
the Agriculture Committee to reinforce the importance of this new
target by seeking frequent progress reports this fiscal year, and
asking the agency to increase its outputs in 2013 to 3.5 billion board
feet. The current annual harvest from the National Forests represents
less than 10% of annual forest growth, and less than half the allowable
sale quantity under existing forest plans. In many regions, the Forest
Service is falling short of its own management goals; including in
reacting to the pine beetle outbreak in the Rockies, salvaging beetle
and drought killed timber in the Southeast, and managing aspen habitat
in the Lake States.
Stepping up management, through formal collaboratives where they
exist and normal timber programs elsewhere, will help address pressing
forest health concerns while helping bolster employment in rural
communities where unemployment is frequently near 20% and poverty is
well above state averages. Investing in the Forest Service timber
program is a very effective job creator, generating 16.5 new direct and
indirect jobs per million board feet harvested.
Reducing NEPA Costs
The President's Council on Environmental Quality issued a memo on
increasing the efficiency and effectiveness of environmental reviews
required by the National Environmental Policy Act in December. The
Forest Service has told Congress that complying with NEPA and other
environmental laws costs them $356 million annually, which is more than
the agency spends on timber management, or Research, or State and
Private Forestry. Saving even a portion of these expenses would free up
resources to actually manage forests and reduce the threat of wildfire
and insect outbreaks.
Timber purchasers across the country report that Forest Service
personnel frequently conduct exhaustive NEPA analysis, only to propose
and implement small scale land management projects which do not meet
the objectives the agency set out to meet. Examples include leaving
higher than called for stand densities, or dropping entire units from
proposed sales even though doing so leaves forest stands susceptible to
insects and mortality. The Forest Service's February 2nd report on
increasing the pace of forest restoration touches on this subject, but
we believe direction from this Subcommittee would help reinforce the
urgency of directing the resources to management rather than paperwork.
When National Forests in the Lake States are up to 75% behind on
their management goals for early successional habitat, and the National
Forests in the Rocky Mountains are falling woefully behind in dealing
with a massive, 41 million acre and growing pine beetle outbreak,
finding some way of reducing NEPA costs is urgently needed.
Forest Health and Forest Restoration
2011 demonstrated that the poor health of our National Forests and
other Federal Forests impacts everyone, from the industries that depend
on useable wood fiber to casual weekend visitors to the Forests. The
large fires in Arizona and New Mexico last year forced the closures of
popular campgrounds, destroyed dozens of recreational cabins, and
forced cancellations of Fourth of July events at popular mountain
resorts. Many miles of forest roads and several campgrounds in Arizona
remain closed. The large scale beetle infestation in the Black Hills
has forced local campground owners to spend more than $100,000 annually
to remove beetle killed trees and spray others in an effort to stop
beetles from spreading off of the National Forests. The Pagami Creek
fire in Minnesota disrupted popular hiking and canoeing areas in an
around the Boundary Waters Canoe Area. Campers, hikers, hunters, and
skiers all want to visit healthy, green, and growing forests.
In each of these cases, wood using industries, from start-up
biomass plants to family run sawmills to internationally competitive
pulp and paper facilities, stand ready to help the Forest Service to
actively manage the National Forests. Opportunities to expand this
management, and the benefits that come from it, abound nationwide.
Reduce Overhead Costs to Expand Meaningful Management
The Forest Service must reduce overhead and project preparation
costs in its land management programs, particular forest products,
hazardous fuels reduction, and salvage sales. Current overhead rates
are over 50%, and in some regions, 70% of appropriated dollars go into
NEPA compliance, not project design and implementation.
Specific approaches currently available to the Forest Service and
the Administration that would reduce costs include:
1. Reduce project preparation costs (e.g.,--greater use of
designation by description and designation by prescription in
lieu of marking);
The Forest Service allows the use of this management technique on
some timber harvests, including on Stewardship contracts. Expanding its
use can help reduce costs and move lower value wood fiber at lower
costs, which should be a high priority given the slack markets for
products like pulpwood and biomass. Allowing purchasers to harvest
trees that meet sale specifications, while instituting controls such as
post-harvest surveys and periodic scaling of sample loads, can reduce
costs of sale administration to reflect the lower value of wood fiber
being removed.
2. Achieve economies of scale by conducting project planning and
associated economic analysis and NEPA analysis at larger
scales, and then marking all sales to reflect the NEPA that is
conducted;
As noted above, the Forest Service is spending over $350 million
per year on NEPA and associated environmental reviews. In many cases,
purchasers report that the Forest Service staff then mark timber sales
that do not meet the objectives outlined in the NEPA documents. This
leaves stands more susceptible to subsequent bug infestation,
mortality, and fires.
3. Declare an emergency on forest lands in Condition Class II and
III, in particular in lands impacted by large scale beetle
infestations, allowing the use of alternative arrangements for
NEPA compliance; and
The scale of the current pine beetle infestations in the Rocky
Mountains is unprecedented. Yet NEPA analysis continues to take too
long, while the infestations spread to new areas and threaten the
viability of what little remains of the regions wood using industry. We
urge rapid action to capture value and help prevent further loss of
valuable forests and habitat.
4. Move rapidly to implement the new objection authority enacted as
part of this year's Omnibus Appropriations Act.
The Fiscal Year 2012 Omnibus Appropriations Act provided for a new,
streamlined objection process to apply to all NEPA actions of the
Forest Service. This authority, modeled on the objection process
authorized by the Healthy Forest Restoration Act, which this Committee
helped create, will allow the Forest Service to consolidate similar
objections and work with interested parties to find a way forward on
vital land management projects. We urge the Forest Service to finalize
regulations to implement this important provision as soon as possible.
Stewardship Contracting Reauthorization
The FFRC supports long-term reauthorization for Stewardship
contracting, which was first authorized as a pilot program in 1999. In
2003, the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) were
granted 10 years authority to enter into Stewardship Contracts or
Agreements. Stewardship Contracting allows the Forest Service and BLM
to enter into a variety of different contracts which allow them to
trade goods (usually timber or biomass) for services (which can cover a
variety of land management practices, including habitat improvement,
fish passage, and other activities which would otherwise have to
obtained through service contracts). Stewardship Contracting has proven
an effective, and increasingly important, mechanism to help Federal
land management agencies achieve land management goals. Further, in
many regions, timber volumes produced through Stewardship Contracts
make up a significant percentage of the Forest Service's annual sale
program. Authority for Stewardship Contracting expires on September 30,
2013.
It is important to recognize that Stewardship Contracting is one
tool for achieving land management goals; in many cases, the same land
management results can be--and are currently being--achieved with
traditional timber sale contracts. Reauthorization of Stewardship
Contracting authorities must not be considered a way to replace or
supplant other contracting tools.
We recommend minor changes to Stewardship contracting authority
which will help the Forest Service and BLM to achieve greater program
efficiency in the use of Stewardship Contracts, while ensuring local
support for the projects performed using this important tool. They will
also help attract a broader variety of potential partners who want to
support and participate in Stewardship Contracting projects.
We recommend the following minor changes to the existing authority
for Stewardship Contracts:
Provide the Forest Service with the discretion to choose
whether to use ``best value'' selection criteria.
Provide the Forest Service and BLM with greater discretion
to select personnel responsible for awarding and administering
Stewardship contracts and agreements.
Make retention of existing wood products infrastructure a
co-equal objective with other goals of Stewardship contracts
and agreements.
Where Stewardship contracts or agreements result in payments
to the Forest Service, 25% of these payments should be directed
to the County where the project is being performed.
Provide liability limitations for operations fires
consistent with those in existing timber sale contracts.
Secure Rural Schools Reauthorization
As this Subcommittee is aware, authority to make guaranteed
payments to National Forest Counties from the treasury expired late
last year. National Forest Counties are facing potentially devastating
cuts to services if they are forced to rely solely on receipts without
policy changes which direct higher levels of harvest and revenues.
The guaranteed funding provided under SRS was never intended to
permanently replace shared revenue from active management on Federal
public lands. Congress should not provide further extension of
mandatory funds without ensuring a transition that makes improvements
in both the health of Federal forests and the economic condition of
forest dependent counties through active forest management. H.R. 4019,
approved last month by the Natural Resources Committee, would help re-
establish the connection between National Forest management and
revenues to local communities.
Alternative land management paradigms, including identification of
lands to provide stable funding on a trust-trustee basis, whether in
Federal or other ownership, should be encouraged, while restoring and
strengthening the overall multiple use framework on Federal forests. We
applaud the Oregon delegation for exploring these alternatives for the
O&C lands managed by the BLM in Oregon.
Conclusion
FFRC appreciates this Subcommittee's focus on these important
issues. The recession of 2008 to 2011 was particularly cruel to the
wood products industry. In some states, employment in wood using
industries dropped by 50% or more. The Forest Service has been helpful
in offering some timber for sale even in these economically trying
times.
However, we believe a more concentrated effort is needed to help
ensure that further losses in wood using capacity do not take place
near the National Forests. Whether the Forest Service is attempting to
create early successional habitat for grouse and woodcock in the Great
Lakes, maintain or improve quail or woodpecker habitat in the
Southeast, or restoring habitat diversity in older forests in the
Pacific Northwest, the existence of viable wood consuming mills helps
reduce their management costs and improve the quality of life in
adjacent communities. We appreciate your efforts to keep these issues
front and center at the Department, and look forward to working with
you to achieve healthier National Forests and more prosperous rural
communities.
The Chairman. Thank you, sir.
I now recognize Mr. Zimmer for 5 minutes of testimony.
STATEMENT OF GARY ZIMMER, CERTIFIED WILDLIFE
BIOLOGIST', COORDINATING WILDLIFE BIOLOGIST, RUFFED
GROUSE SOCIETY, LAONA, WI
Mr. Zimmer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I am going to stray a little bit from my comments just from
what I have heard today. One point that I would like to make is
that 12 years ago I made one of the toughest decisions--
probably almost the toughest decision of my life when I left
the U.S. Forest Service. It was the first organization that
really gave me the chance to become and exercise my wildlife
management skills that I have learned and grew up loving as a
career. While that lasted we did some great work, had a good
family relationship with the folks I worked with, some of the
best people I have ever worked with. That changed as things
changed in the organization and I became a NEPA writer. All I
did every day was writing documents, writing documents, writing
documents, and writing documents.
I left 12 years ago. One of the documents that I was
working on 12 years ago was one of the documents that Chief
Tidwell referred to that just finally passed the court system
and is now being implemented. I feel good about that. I was
part of the start and I guess I will be part of the finish.
Sitting back in the audience today, I realized yesterday would
have been my first day I would have been eligible for
retirement from the U.S. Forest Service. I made a good choice
because I feel I do a lot more on-the-ground work for the
benefit of wildlife species, especially those of my
constituents in the society and those 15,000 members of the
society nationwide asked me to do. I am not sure in the last 12
years I could have done that being employed in a sense by the
taxpayer of this nation.
Also, I would like to say one other thing. I am also proud
that I have 157 acres of woods in northern Wisconsin that is
certified under the Forest Stewardship Council and the
Sustainable Forestry Initiative third-party certification
process. I join many, many other private landowners in the
State of Wisconsin, many industry landowners, many state and
county forests that have this certification. The only large
forest landowner in the State of Wisconsin that is not
certified is our National Forest. That is sad. It is very, very
sad. We meet all the criteria of all these other landowners and
I wish the Forest Service would.
A pilot study was done a few years ago and the Chequamegon-
Nicolet was in that pilot study, and one of the biggest
impediments to going forward with certification was that they
weren't sustainable. These forests weren't sustainable and it
in part was because of litigation.
I am really here today, though, to emphasize the critical
role that active forest management plays in sustaining wildlife
populations dependent on young forest habitats. Today, active
forest management through the use of commercial forest provide
the only realistic opportunity to maintain the range of
forested habitats needed to sustain wildlife diversity.
Unfortunately, this act of forest management, especially on our
National Forests, has fallen well behind forest management
goals, as you have heard today. As a result, young, deciduous
forest habitats, those less than 20 years old, have decreased
by 33 percent over the past decade and has had a significant
effect on wildlife habitats.
In 2007, the American Bird Conservancy listed the early
successional deciduous forest habitats in the eastern part of
the country as one of the nation's 20 most threatened bird
habitats. The dense, young forests that provide important
protection from predators and feeding areas for young birds are
being lost at an alarming rate. In the absence of fire, even-
age silvicultural systems are the most appropriate method of
regenerating young forest habitats. However, acreage treated
using even-age silvicultural prescriptions on National Forests
in the East has declined by 52 percent since 1995.
In the past 10 years, the Chequamegon-Nicolet National
Forest in northern Wisconsin, one of the most actively managed
forests in the eastern region, has only met 28 percent of its
Forest Plan goals for aspen forest type; 28 out of 100 percent
is failure in any test I have ever taken and it is a failure
here, too. And we are currently behind on over 17,000 acres in
the Forest Plan of aspen forest communities. No species can
tolerate this 72 percent drop in habitat.
Really only through a balanced approach to forest
stewardship, an approach that recognizes the ecological
necessity of periodic disturbance today impacted primarily
through commercial forest management, can the needs of our
forest wildlife resources be adequately addressed.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Zimmer follows:]
Prepared Statement of Gary Zimmer, Certified Wildlife
Biologist', Coordinating Wildlife Biologist, Ruffed Grouse
Society, Laona, WI
Mr. Chairman:
I am a lifelong resident of Northern Wisconsin and live within the
boundaries of the Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest (NF). Since 2000,
I have been a Wildlife Biologist for the Ruffed Grouse Society, a
nonprofit wildlife conservation organization dedicated to improving the
environment for ruffed grouse, American woodcock, and other forest
wildlife. Eighteen years prior to that, I was a U.S. Forest Service
employee on the Chequamegon-Nicolet NF, the majority of those years as
a District Wildlife Biologist. From both inside and outside the
organization I have seen the impacts that a reduction in forest
management on our National Forests has had on some wildlife
populations.
Periodic forest disturbance is essential to maintain healthy forest
ecosystems. Vibrant populations of a diverse array of forest wildlife
are critical components of healthy forests. In order to maintain the
full array of forest wildlife, a landscape must support the full array
of forest habitats--forests of various types and various ages--very
young, very old, and ages in between. Today, wildlife dependent upon
young forest habitats, sustained only through active forest management,
are declining as a result of reductions in management of these
habitats.
Throughout time across North America, disturbance events have
shaped the composition, structure, and distribution of wildlife
habitats and, therefore, of wildlife populations. Changes in
disturbance regimes beyond the range of natural variability due to
man's actions, or lack thereof, can affect the sustainability of
wildlife populations on altered landscapes. Disturbance agents
historically affecting vegetative communities included fire, wind, ice
storms, disease, insect infestation and grazing. Since the early 20th
Century, society has worked to minimize the effects of fire on the
landscape through rigorous suppression in an effort to safeguard lives
and property. Today, active forest management through the use of
commercial timber harvest provide the only realistic opportunity to
maintain the range of forest habitats needed to sustain wildlife
diversity.
In February 2007, the American Bird Conservancy classified early
successional deciduous forest habitats (young forests) in the eastern
United States as one of the nation's 20 most threatened bird habitats.
Throughout the eastern United States today, young (1 to 20 years old)
deciduous forest habitats have decreased by 33% over the past several
decades, while total forest land has increased by approximately 7%. In
the absence of fire, young forest habitats are sustained primarily
through the natural succession of open lands to shrub-dominated fields
or through the use of silvicultural treatments in existing forest
stands. Even-age silvicultural systems (clearcut, seed tree, two-aged,
shelterwood) are the most appropriate methods to create young forest
habitats.
Acreage treated using even-aged silvicultural prescriptions on
National Forests in the East has declined by 52 percent since 1995.
Over the past 10 years, the Chequamegon-Nicolet NF, one of the more
actively managed Forests in the Service's Eastern Region, has only met
28% of its Forest Plan goal for aspen management, a critical early
successional forest species, and is currently over 17,000 acres behind
in managing its aspen forest communities. Neither we nor the suite of
wildlife species that utilize this important young forest habitat can
tolerate a 72% drop in available habitat.
Thick, young forest habitat provides protective cover from
predators for many wildlife species that are being negatively impacted
by a decline in forest management. The Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources' Wildlife Action Plan identifies 27 vertebrate Species of
Greatest Conservation Need with declining or vulnerable populations
associated with young forest and shrub-like habitat. Included in this
list are the Kirtland's warbler, a Federal Endangered Species found
primarily in regenerating jack pine forests less than 15 years old in
Michigan and Wisconsin. There are currently an estimated 1,800 breeding
pairs of Kirtland's warblers in the world--as compared to 2,260
breeding pairs of northern spotted owls in the U.S. alone. The Huron-
Manistee NF in central Michigan supports approximately half of the
global population of the Kirtland's warbler.
The New England cottontail rabbit is a candidate for protection
under the Federal Endangered Species Act. Once found across the
Northeast, the New England cottontail rabbit has seen its range shrink
by 86% since 1960 as the thicket habitats it requires become less and
less abundant.
Another bird found only in young forests and shrub-like habitats is
the golden-winged warbler, a bird petitioned for Federal listing under
the Endangered Species Act in 2010. It is estimated that 78% of the
continents golden-winged warbler population resides in the upper
Midwest and is dependent on young aspen forests and other shrub-like
habitats. The Great Lakes National Forests include some of the primary
sources of golden-winged warbler populations in the entire United
States and some of the last opportunities to halt the downward decline.
Over 40 species of songbirds in the Eastern United States are
considered dependent on young forest habitat. More than half of the 187
species of neo-tropical migratory songbirds that breed in the Midwest
use shrub or young-forest habitats to some degree during the breeding
season. Breeding Bird Survey data document that bird species dependent
upon shrub-dominated and young forest habitats are approximately twice
as likely to be experiencing population declines in the Eastern United
States as are birds that breed in mature forests.
Wildlife that rely upon young forest habitats also include the
ruffed grouse, the state bird of Pennsylvania, and the American
woodcock, two important game species pursued by over one million
sportsmen and women each year in North America. These hunters have a
significant economic impact, spending an estimated $500 million in
local communities.
Without a doubt, a diverse landscape that includes a wide array of
forest ages and forest types is essential for the survival of a litany
of species. National Forests and other public forestlands play an
important role in the conservation of wildlife dependent on young
forest habitats. Only through a balanced approach to forest
stewardship, an approach that recognizes the ecological necessity of
periodic disturbance, today imparted primarily through commercial
forest management, can the needs of our forest wildlife resources be
adequately addressed.
Well-intended laws and regulations including the National Forest
Management Act (NFMA) and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) have
guided the management of our National Forests for many decades but have
been used by some to strangle the agency. It took the Chequamegon-
Nicolet NF 8 years and thousands of staff hours to complete their
latest Forest Plan revision in 2004. As Forest Plan implementation
began nearly every resource management project that involved timber
harvests was appealed and litigated by a single environmental group.
Legal challenges have resulted in continuing forest health issues, a
failure to protect the forest from damaging agents and as noted
earlier, a significant decline in young forest habitats. The National
Forest system is the only publicly owned forest system in many eastern
states currently lacking third party certification. This is due in
large part to legal challenges delaying the implementation of approved
management activities for sustainable forestry. The cost for the
Federal Government to implement NEPA on National Forests exceeds well
over $300 million annually.
We must increase the use of active forest management on National
Forests if we are to safeguard wildlife that requires young forest
habitats. We must reduce the ability of groups or individuals to tie up
habitat management activities for years and years at little cost to
them, but at a very high cost to those that live and work in the
vicinity of the National Forests and to the taxpayers of this great
nation. These forests provide some of the last opportunities to
maintain essential young forest habitat as an important part of the
biodiversity of our National Forests and meet the social and economic
demands of the public.
Thank you for your time.
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Zimmer.
We will now proceed with 5 minutes of questioning, and I
will take the first 5 minutes.
Mr. Hoover, you mentioned in your testimony that additional
research in identifying suitable natural enemies, pheromones,
and biological controls for the emerald ash borer is greatly
needed. Has there been any success on these fronts? And also
what successes have there been with other invasive species that
you can recount?
Mr. Hoover. Well, to effectively manage forest pests, we
really don't have the tools in the way of chemical materials,
so what needs to be relied on and what has been effective are
those successes where parasitoids and predators have been
released targeting the gypsy moth. There is a rearing facility,
USDA facility in Brighton, Michigan, that is rearing three
parasitoids, two larval parasitoids, and one egg parasitoid of
the emerald ash borer. In Pennsylvania just last year, there
were three release sites made of those natural enemies of the
emerald ash borer. In 2012, there is successful establishment
and evaluation will be taking place. I believe, Mr. Chairman,
that the long-range effective management of many of these
invasive pests in our forests is hinged to establishing
effective natural enemies to keep their populations at
tolerable levels.
The Chairman. Thank you. In your experience, has there been
research--research obviously is incredibly important in this
area in terms of our previous discussion, the invasive species
can change the entire characteristic of a forest having all
kinds of ramifications. Has there been a positive research
partnership between institutions of higher education, private
organizations, industry, state governments, and Federal
Government? And particularly, what has the collaboration been
that you have seen with the U.S. Forest Service on invasive
species both in terms of prevention and suppression?
Mr. Hoover. It has been my experience in Pennsylvania, we
formed--instead of having task forces that addressed each
individual invasive pest, those have all been consolidated into
a Forest Pest Council that is made up of state and Federal
Government agencies, which includes the Forest Service out of
their Morgantown office. My experience has been that
collaboration between state and academia with the Forest
Service has been very good in the way of human resources, in
the way of experimental materials that need to be evaluated on
a statewide basis. So it has been my experience that the Forest
Service role in research regarding invasives has been what you
would want in the way of an interaction that benefits state
governments and our National Forest, as well as state and
private forests.
The Chairman. The method of transport appears to be where
it is carried in. You know, in another situation in California
where logs were imported and now there is significant outbreak
of a specific invasive species--I know in my own National
Forest, there are signs about, use the firewood that you find;
don't carry wood in and out. And I know your role with the
agriculture extension, how important is education in terms of
preventing invasive species from being inadvertently introduced
into an area?
Mr. Hoover. Well, Mr. Chairman, from a frustrated former
biology teacher, I regret to say we have a scientific
illiterate society. And what cooperative extension's role is is
to try to educate the public as to the impact of unintentional
movement of firewood that is infested with invasive wood-boring
insects. And so again in collaboration with funding that
supports publications, USDA Forest Service, along with
regulatory agencies have been trying to make inroads along with
Penn State cooperative extension in the case of Pennsylvania
trying to provide outreach programming.
I can give you one specific example where I provided some
training to our county extension office. One of the people
present there was a blogger and they put the information on
emerald ash borer up on their blog, and lo and behold, someone
saw it and said I think I have that in my backyard. And as it
turns out, the regulatory agencies went there and indeed they
had emerald ash borer about 30 miles south of State College in
Lewistown, Pennsylvania.
The Chairman. Thank you.
I will now recognize Mr. Ribble, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Ribble. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First of all, Mr. Barth, thank you for taking the long trip
from Oregon all the way to Washington, D.C. You had quite a
distance to come. I think we could transplant you into northern
Wisconsin and you would feel right at home based on your
testimony. We could probably transplant you to Pennsylvania or
to Florida and you would feel right at home. Do you believe
this is a national problem, the description that you made of
your county?
Mr. Barth. Absolutely, just listening to some of the
comments made by the Subcommittee Members, it certainly
resonated with everything that we deal with on a daily basis.
Mr. Ribble. I would like to invite you sometime to come to
northern Wisconsin. I think you would find it beautiful. And
our lakes and streams are something else. And Representative
Schrader and Representative Walden who you mentioned in your
testimony and I have spoken often about the issues in your
forest, in ours, and they compare very favorably or unfavorably
depending on your perspective.
Mr. Zimmer, thank you for coming from northern Wisconsin. I
know that you have been a lifelong resident up there and you
have really dedicated pretty much your entire professional life
from your college days all the way to today. I would almost
describe you as an environmentalist. You care about our
National Forest, you care about the habitat, you care about the
wildlife, and yet when I hear from the national environmental
movement and they contact me, they would paint somebody like
Mr. Watkins as a person who wants to rape and pillage for
profit. What has having lived in northern Wisconsin having
managed those forests, seen the current Chequamegon-Nicolet
Forest under the National Forest Service management and also
seeing private land management, what recommendations would you
have for Congress and for the Forest Service to better achieve
their forest management goals?
Mr. Zimmer. Thank you, Congressman. I appreciate you
introducing me also today.
I think three things that really stick out in my mind, one
is better accountability. And the accountability has to come
down to the forest supervisor and regional forester levels at
least, but they are better held accountable to planned goals
and targets rather than just funded. We recently got the
monitoring plan from the Chequamegon-Nicolet. It has taken a
long time to put together, but they came out and they
constantly said in there, we achieved our funded targets. That
is doing the job on the ground. I did hear Chief Tidwell
mention earlier about wildlife habitat goals in the new
planning regs, and I hope those goals are carried down in
something before supervisors have to hold on to. And also
things like making jobs or retaining jobs in the community
should be a targeted goal, not just those funded things that
come down.
I think also these forests need better flexibility. You
mentioned clearly in your statement earlier the forest at
Chequamegon-Nicolet now has over 300,000 million board feet
available that is through the NEPA process but hasn't increased
their sell hardly at all. They have plenty of people in the
NEPA, in the planning shop. Let's shift that shop now as any
industry as this gentleman over here. This gentleman would
shift his industry to get things done out there. And by doing
that, it may not have to cost you a dollar more, but we can
shift the needs to implementers instead of planners now and
even stop the need for anymore NEPA for about 2 or 3 years on
that forest.
Mr. Ribble. How would you advise us and how would you
advise the nation's environmental movement that seems to have
similar goals? I mean they want robust forests; they want
habitat. Where is the disconnect happening? Is it that they
don't have the science or there is a disagreement on science?
What is the problem here? Why can't you all get along?
Mr. Zimmer. That is a million-dollar question I think. I
think it is some want it all and I think that is a big part of
it. When the Forest Service did the last planning process that
took nearly 8 years on the Chequamegon-Nicolet, they tried
their darndest to work closely with these environmental groups,
especially the group in Madison which has been the constant
appeals in litigants to the plan. And they tried their darndest
and the result was 40 percent of the forest was off-limits to
any type of active forest management. In my thinking if I got
even 40 percent in my ballpark, I would be kind of happy.
Instead, they weren't; they wanted more. So they want it all.
They want to actually shut down commercial forests thinking
that that is a bad thing, and in my mind from a wildlife
habitat standpoint, at least have some young forest, have some
old forest, and have all those stages in between. And to have
that end of the spectrum that meets the needs of young forest,
we definitely have to have forest management and the use of
commercial timber harvest. I understand it. I think those that
live in your district understand it but there are a few folks
or a few organizations that don't understand that yet.
Mr. Ribble. Mr. Chairman, would you yield an additional 3
minutes? Thank you.
Going along the lines since you have had so much experience
in the National Forest Service yourself, the next round of
Forest Plan revisions are coming up on the horizon. Right now,
in your role at the Ruffed Grouse Society, how active do you
and your members plan on being in that? Will you participate in
the hearings? And what role does your organization play in
that?
Mr. Zimmer. It is hard to justify to my boss that while we
spent 8 years in discussions to get the last plan through, the
result was a significant reduction in the target goals--about
\1/3\ reduction in the targeted goals for aspen management,
which was key to our group. It also resulted in about 40
percent of the forest closed to harvest and now, even though we
did all that work and cooperated with the Forest in the
management planned discussions, we are only getting 28 percent
of our aspen targets at this current time. Putting that all
together, my boss is not too happy with me devoting a lot more
time to that.
And, one other thing I can say is for years, groups,
conservation organizations, and industry state the Department
of Natural Resources and others have been close partners with
the National Forests. I think a lot of those partners have been
forgotten or lost. And in our part of the world, as you know,
you want to stick with your friends because they should always
be there for you. It is tough to be a partner and a friend
right now to this agency.
Mr. Ribble. Yes. I was with a constituent not too long ago
and he asked me, he said, Congressman, do you trust me? And I
said, well, sure, I trust you. He said, then give me your
wallet. And so I reached in my pocket and I gave him my wallet.
He proceeded to pull out a Sharpie and he wrote on my wallet.
And it says, develop a sense of urgency. Did you hear that, Mr.
Southerland?
Mr. Southerland. I got it.
Mr. Ribble. Develop a sense of urgency. This is a
constituent that wrote it on my wallet so every time I open it
every single day--do you think our Forest Service needs a sense
of urgency?
Mr. Zimmer. Yes.
Mr. Ribble. I yield back.
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman and recognize my good
friend from Florida, Mr. Southerland, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Southerland. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I did not
know that was on the inside of his wallet when I made my
comments a few moments ago.
But thank you all very much for coming. And I find your
testimony fascinating and very helpful. And I commend the
Chairman for this panel and this hearing today.
You know, Mr. Zimmer, much of your comments were regarding
culture. And so much of the time we spend as Members, we talk
about at hearings about symptoms. And we appropriate money
towards symptoms but we never get to the core of what the
problem is. And I found your comments fascinating because you
were very honest today in your tenure and your retirement and
that you left an organization that you felt was time to leave.
But so many of the challenges that I hear you state really deal
with a culture that really needs a controlled burn to go all
the way through it.
You know, down in north Florida, we have controlled burns
down pretty well. We have great organizations like Tall Timbers
that are doing some incredible research to maintain a
sustainable forest where humans and the environment can get
along. I would throw out a congratulatory thanks to what they
do. You talked about 28 percent that in any test you have ever
taken that represents failure. Twenty-eight percent here in
this culture and you get an attaboy and you get more dollars
appropriated. That is nuts. So I can see why you wanted to
exit. And the sense of urgency that my colleague mentioned, it
is clearly something that we do not see. And that is really
just a statement as I listen to your honest testimony today and
thank you very much.
Mr. Hoover, you made some fascinating statements and I
enjoyed reading through your testimony educating me on some of
the issues that you find that are very, very disturbing. What
would a private landowner do by comparison to what the Federal
Government is currently doing regarding invasive pests? And is
there anything they could do or should do? You know, what does
success look like? But really is there a good way that maybe a
private landowner could and should do compared to what the
government is doing regarding invasive pests?
Mr. Hoover. I assume, Congressman Southerland, that when
you said private, you mean a private forest landowner----
Mr. Southerland. Yes.
Mr. Hoover.--or a residential situation?
Mr. Southerland. Yes.
Mr. Hoover. Because as I said, there are complete different
strategies and tools that exist between a landscape and a
forest.
Mr. Southerland. Sure, but I mean I know that we have
individual landowners that own sizeable investments and they
believe in aggressive forest management plans. And there may be
nothing different I guess, but is there something different
that someone who didn't have to deal with the culture that
would say you know what? There is a need, we are going to meet
it today, get it done.
Mr. Hoover. Yes, and you are absolutely correct. That is
what a private landowner has in the way of abilities to use in
any state based on your question the extension system that is
associated with every land-grant institution where in
Pennsylvania, as an example, we extension foresters who would
go out and help a landowner write a management plan for their
forestland based on what their personal goals are. And those
goals may be growing 2x4s----
Mr. Southerland. Right.
Mr. Hoover.--habitat for wildlife, or aesthetics. And so to
compare Federal forest land management with a private landowner
if they are indeed informed has the ability or maybe more
accurately the flexibility to bring about management or
effective management when compared to some of the restrictions
that are put on Federal landowners or the management of Federal
lands.
Mr. Southerland. Very good. Very good. Are we going to have
another round or could I have just--okay. Thank you very much.
Now, you mentioned earlier, it is hard right now to be a
partner and a friend. I would say that to the Service--and I
would say oftentimes you have to start. If you are going to
have a partner, you are going to have a friend, you have to
start with a mutually agreed-upon goal. What is the purpose of
our friendship, of our partnership? And unfortunately, I think
that we enter into efforts assuming that we all have the same
common goal. And we don't, which is apparent because if you
cared about these rural schools, if you cared about these rural
communities, then you certainly would act in a more concerted
effort to increase the hardest rates in a management plan. You
would sit down and work together.
And that brings me to my next point. Chuck Watkins, again,
thank you for being here. You know, one of the owners of the
family was here last year--Caroline was here to testify and she
made some statements regarding some things that I found
interesting as I look back over her testimony. She claimed that
there were some things, some solutions that could be pushed
forward. I am interested in the FFRC's position on some of the
things that she mentioned. She mentioned that, for example, one
of the things that could be done is streamlining environmental
documentation and outsourcing fieldwork would get foresters out
of the office and into the field. That was one thing.
Number two, including a resource advisory committee. Now,
we mentioned the word partnership, and to have a resource
committee where you had participants and stakeholders that
worked together on a management plan since it is the people's
forests and the taxpayers' forests. That is a novel idea.
And then last, that we should require selected National
Forests to test the feasibility of timber programs self-
financing as is now done in DOD land. But those were some of
the things that I know we heard from last year. What does the
Coalition think of some of these ideas in order to really get
us where we need to be in a management plan?
Mr. Watkins. Well, the first topic you mentioned were the
NEPA rules and the costs of those rules.
Mr. Southerland. Yes.
Mr. Watkins. You know, if you think of forest and trying to
manage the forest efficiently, and when I mean efficiently I
mean economically. If you put a lot of effort, there are some
instances in certain forests in this country where we spend
millions of dollars on administration and a NEPA process to
just decide we are not going to cut, that we are not going to
cut that timber, we are not going to harvest that timber, or to
just cut a lot less of it. In some instances, 70 percent of the
value is spent on administration or NEPA rules. We spend more
on NEPA and those rules than we do management of the forest, on
state forestry, on education. So, the big thing we prefer is we
make a plan together.
So, for example, the Apalachicola Forest, we put a 10 year
plan together, we do our documentation on our NEPA rules on
that and follow the plan, streamlined, efficient, it is an
economy of scale like any good business would do or perform. So
in that process, that is where we stand.
Mr. Southerland. Well, I think that there is a difference
and a business owner who is sweating a payroll and working as
hard as they can, I have often said that our family loves 40
hour workweeks. That is why we squeeze two into every 7 day
period. And, we understand the difference between activity and
productivity.
Mr. Watkins. Yes.
Mr. Southerland. It sounds like the culture that is inside
of many of the agencies and departments of the Federal
Government. They are interested in activity but they do not
know what true, positive, healthy productivity really looks
like. And so I would say before spinning your wheels in working
in a partnership--and I commend you for wanting that
partnership--we have to have a clear, concise goal. Why do we
exist? What is our purpose? Don't spin your wheels. Don't allow
a Federal bureaucracy to eat up your time, your resources
without that definition. Why do we exist? And what does success
look like?
I thank you all for caring and coming here to educate us
and we need that. And I commend you. We want to be partners
with you to do what is right for our rural communities and for
healthy forests.
And again, Mr. Chairman, I just commend you on the hearing
today. Thank you. I yield back.
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman. We will take the
opportunity for another round of questions.
Mr. Barth, I want to start with you. You discussed your
work with stewardship contracting. In addition to seeing a 25
percent share of revenue go to localities, what other changes
would you like to see to the program?
Mr. Barth. Well, some of the concerns with the stewardship
contracting and the value is that the revenues stay on the
land. I think the challenge is, though, that none of the
revenue is shared again with the locals. And I don't
necessarily know that that is a sustainable long-term strategy
as well. I think we are even starting to hear from our
stewardship alliances that if we don't have more productive
force economically, we won't have long-term revenue for
stewardship.
Right now, we a very successful Dump Stoppers Program that
we consider part of our stewardship as well. It is partners
with private and Federal landowners to clear up illegal dump
sites throughout all of our wilderness and forested areas. We
use our funding from our Timber Harvest Program to match grant
funding from the agencies. Both of our funding streams are at
risk now because of the Secure Rural Schools payment issues as
well as kind of the lack of productivity in the harvest. So, it
kind of goes hand-in-glove. I think we need to have productive,
healthy, sustainable forests that regenerate in order to
produce the revenue for us to do the conservation and the
stewardship efforts on the preservation lands.
The Chairman. Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Zimmer, how important is forest diversity? That is what
you were describing in one of your last responses, having
forest in many different stages of development and really only
evident to me through proper management to have that forest
diversity. How important is that to wildlife habitat?
Mr. Zimmer. Well, to get the full array of wildlife
species, some require very old forests, some require very young
forests, and some require those in between or those that
replace them. And in our instance, when we are talking about
the range of species that utilize young forest habitat, that
includes over half of the neotropical migratory birds in our
part of the world. I think there are 187 listed in Midwest,
neotropical migratory birds. At least half of them use young
forest habitats at least some time during the breeding season
often to hide their young and to feed their young even if they
are in older habitats. You need kind of a mosaic; you need
different sizes; you need the whole ball of wax out there to
really truly meet the needs of all the wildlife species, at
least all of the wildlife species found in our forests.
If you just concentrate on going to one extreme and that is
done artificially in a sense when we are restricting harvest
and restricting disturbance to our forest, we do that with our
fire suppression efforts especially in the eastern part of the
country. So it comes down to if we are going to think about
those species that need that younger end of the spectrum, we
are going to have to use this forest management. At the same
time, we have to look at these species that utilize older
forests and older forest communities. So a nice mix of habitats
and types of forests out there is essential to have the full
range of forest wildlife species.
The Chairman. And in your opinion that would be consistent
with good, healthy----
Mr. Zimmer. Correct.
The Chairman.--production of timber?
Mr. Zimmer. Correct. And commercial forest management is a
key component of that. It is a key tool.
The Chairman. Mr. Watkins, why do you believe that we are
not harvesting as much on National Forests as each plan
generally calls for?
Mr. Watkins. Mr. Thompson, I don't know the answer to that
question.
The Chairman. Okay. In your time in northwest Florida, what
has been the overall trend in terms of the health of the
National Forests? Any observations on that?
Mr. Watkins. The forests--like I said, we are cutting a
very small amount of the growth. The mortality rate is six
times the cut rate, as you mentioned in Oregon as well. I
believe they are actively managing the health of the forest.
However, when the densities increase to that level, there is
certain habitat there that it affects. It certainly creates
issue with fire protection and control and insect and disease
control. So that density has increased over 30 percent, and
that creates problem, particularly when the Forest Service
tries to control burn of the understory of the forest. It makes
it extremely difficult.
The Chairman. Okay. Thank you.
I now recognize Mr. Schrader for 5 minutes.
Mr. Schrader. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize for
having to step out for a little bit.
Mr. Zimmer, I actually appreciate your comments. In Oregon
through this O&C National Forest Service Plan we are trying to
develop as a delegation, trying to look at the stage which
seems to be lacking in our state so we get that continuum of
biodiversity to make it conducive to the panoply of species
that are out there.
Just say if you can real quick your comment on--we have a
spotted owl issue out where we come from and so a few years
back we set aside large swaths of old growth forest which seem
to be their preferred habitat. Recent data has come in and Fish
and Wildlife has concluded that that hasn't helped at all. And
indeed, the species is on an accelerated decline. The answer to
that was to set aside more old growth forest. That doesn't
sound smart to me. There is also apparently another species of
barred owl that is a predator on the spotted owl, at least on
their habitats. Does it make sense to you to set aside vast
amounts of forest when we already concluded through the study
that the increased forestland, old growth, wasn't really the
answer at all? I am not saying we shouldn't have old growth
forest, don't get me wrong, but to increase it even more when
that didn't work in the first place, your comment?
Mr. Zimmer. Yes, Congressman. One thing, I am not a spotted
owl expert----
Mr. Schrader. Fair enough.
Mr. Zimmer.--but I am aware of the influence of the barred
owl on the spotted owl and it appears at least at this time to
be more of a factor in the limitations on the populations of
spotted owl. It is going to be tough to justify having more, as
you say, having more acreage of old growth for spotted owl. I
would hope that when we are looking and those that are looking
at the Forest Plans in your area address that and look at the
whole community and the whole value of those forests and those
that play an important role for spotted owl and spotted owl
management be maintained----
Mr. Schrader. Yes.
Mr. Zimmer.--but if it is not needed or isn't doing the
job, that decision has to be made by----
Mr. Schrader. I appreciate your commonsense approach.
Hopefully, people will get religion in Oregon and adopt some of
what you are suggesting here.
Mr. Watkins, you list in your prepared testimony some
recommendations that you thought would be pretty helpful, in
terms of reducing costs and getting better results. Is the
National Forest Service implementing them?
Mr. Watkins. Not that I am aware of.
Mr. Schrader. Okay. Which speaks volumes. Okay. I would
just make a comment on Mr. Barth's testimony, which I
appreciate and maybe just reiterate what he talked about. On
less than 3,000 acres their annual revenue goal which they seem
to get is about $750,000. And in our neighboring Mt. Hood
forest of 1.1 million acres, basically 300 times the size of
acreage that Mr. Barth and my county manage, they get \1/3\ of
the revenue he gets, about $275,000. I think that is a dramatic
statement, Mr. Chairman. And I yield back.
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman. I now yield to my
friend from Wisconsin for an additional 5 minutes.
Mr. Ribble. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am going to come
back to Mr. Zimmer.
You know, since about 1970, there has been a kind of ever-
increasing amount of Federal involvement in our forests and in
our environmental issues, an ever-increasing regulatory burden
all with the intent of actually improving things at the Ruffed
Grouse Society would kind of support from my understanding that
the whole idea here was to make those habitats better. Has kind
of the onslaught of regulations improved things or not?
Mr. Zimmer. Regulations----
Mr. Ribble. Yes.
Mr. Zimmer.--improved things?
Mr. Ribble. Yes.
Mr. Zimmer. Well, I am not sure. I think really common
sense is better. Let us use the specialists we have out there.
The Forest Service on the Chequamegon-Nicolet is blessed or has
been blessed. In fact, it is the envy of the state folks that
they can go to one office and get specialists from all around,
trained professionals that could do the best management of the
job. The state folks often have to call others in from academia
or find some specialist in another state or something like that
to help them with an issue, which the Forest Service has those
professionals. Why do we need more and more regulations to
hinder the work of people that are paid and have the training
to do the job? I think that is where it makes sense to me to
limit the regulations and have the people who are your
employees--or our employees, the people the taxpayers hire to
do the best job and limit the restrictions on those people to
do that job. I worked with many of those folks, top-quality
people, many of them are frustrated at all the regulations that
they have in place.
And I may say that in the Chequamegon-Nicolet National
Forest plan in 2004, I believe it has 368 standards and
guidelines are in place to regulate the management of any
action on the forest. It is endless. And the pages in each
document for a site-specific project that just shows how many
other little things they have to cover is just way, way too
much.
Mr. Ribble. Mr. Watkins, I am assuming that in your line of
work you have to comply with a number of Federal agencies on
the regulatory standpoint. What should we as Members of
Congress be doing? We want to make sure that we have clean air,
clean water, forests that actually work and produce, but what
role have regulations played in your business and what should
we be looking at doing here?
Mr. Watkins. Well, for example, Mr. Zimmer mentioned the
SFI, that Sustainable Forestry Initiative. That is what we do.
Our company is certified, our practices, by our certification,
are more stringent than I understand the Forest Service's own
regulations are and we don't have issues. We don't spend these
volumes of dollars on administrative tasks where they seem to
have to do that. And I don't quite understand that. I would say
streamline that process and eliminate that overburdening items
that are just not necessary. There are other private industries
that use certification programs that don't do that or don't
cost or put that burden on companies.
Mr. Ribble. Surely there is a profit incentive for you to
manage the forests that you are involved in in a way that is
sustainable, is that correct?
Mr. Watkins. Oh, certainly.
Mr. Ribble. I mean at the end of the day, then, maybe the
objectives could actually be met, couldn't they, that we could
have a sustainable forest that is environmentally sound and
profitable and provides some benefit to the taxpayer?
Mr. Watkins. Absolutely. That is the perfect way to do it.
Mr. Ribble. Very good. Thank you.
And I yield back my time.
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman for yielding back.
And I want to thank both the Members and the members of the
panel, the witnesses for coming here, bringing your expertise
and your specific individual expertise. I thought we had a
great diversity on this panel all focused on healthy forests
and in the end our healthy rural communities. I appreciate
everyone's patience. We took some liberties in terms of the
amount of questions that we did, didn't adhere too well to the
clock, but this is a pretty important topic that I don't think
we have talked about near enough and deserves a tremendous
amount of vetting. We certainly did well today, bringing your
expertise here to Washington to be able to offer that to help
us as we look at future forest policies.
Under the rules of the Committee, the record of today's
hearing will remain open for 10 calendar days to receive
additional material and supplementary written responses from
the witnesses to any questions posed by a Member.
This hearing of the Subcommittee on Conservation, Energy,
and Forestry is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:14 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
Submitted Letter by Marcia H. Armstrong, Supervisor District 5,
Siskiyou County, CA
March 27, 2012
Subcommittee on Conservation, Energy, and Forestry,
House Committee on Agriculture,
Washington, D.C.
Re: Additional comments submitted in connection with today's hearing on
forest health, including timber harvests, wildlife management,
invasive species, and the U.S. Forest Service's planning rule.
To Whom It May Concern:
My following statements will describe:
(1) In detail, how our local economy and public health and safety
has declined precipitously since the advent of the Northwest
Forest Plan, the listing of various endangered species, and
implementation of other environmental and land/water management
regulations;
(2) The scope of environmental and land management regulations that
affects access to and the continued productive use of local
natural resources for the economic benefit, health, safety and
enjoyment of local communities;
(3) Certain specific international credos, policies, platforms and
programs that have unduly influenced various Administrations,
the scientific community, Federal agencies, and influential
environmental groups;
(4) How those international agendas have been specifically
implemented in Siskiyou County;
(5) An Appendix showing timber harvest trends for the past two
decades on several of our local National Forests.
Siskiyou County joins with other western counties in asking for
your assistance in:
(a) restoring balance to the management of our National Forests;
(b) recognizing the direct relationship between active forest
management and multiple use and the economic health,
cultural vitality and prospects of our local communities
and Counties;
(c) mandating a real and substantive voice for local government
to communicate local needs and provide input on the
management of our Federal lands;
(d) recognizing the value of retaining our surviving timber
infrastructure and the need for a stable supply of material
for our wood products industries;
(e) stepping up the pace and scale of wildland fuel reduction in
the name of public safety (H.R. 1485 Herger Catastrophic
Wildfire Community Protection Act [http://www.govtrack.us/
congress/bills/112/hr1485])--providing and supporting new
opportunities for biomass utilization; and
(f) passing reforms to the Equal Access to Justice Act so that a
handful of special interests from outside our area cannot
hold the active management of our National Forests hostage
for profit.
Background on Siskiyou County and its Economy
Sixty-three % (63%) of the land base in Siskiyou County is in
Federal (or state) ownership. There are portions of the Klamath
National Forest; Shasta-Trinity National Forest; Six Rivers National
Forest; Modoc National Forest; and Rogue Siskiyou National Forest in
Siskiyou County. The Klamath National Forest's 1.7 million acres alone
comprises 42% of Siskiyou County's land base. The KNF has 381,100 acres
allocated to wilderness, 396,600 acres allocated to late-successional
reserves for the northern spotted owl and old growth species and
another 458,000 acres allocated to riparian reserves for species such
as salmon. 161,500 acres are designated an Adaptive Management Area.
The remaining 300,000 acres (approx. 17.6% of KNF lands) are ``matrix
lands'' or general forest where timber harvest may be conducted,
(although not all matrix lands are even technically suitable for timber
production.)
(Ref: Charnley, Dillingham, Stuart, Moseley, and Donoghue
(2008) Northwest Forest Plan--The First 10 Years (1994-2003):
Socioeconomic Monitoring of the Klamath National Forest and
Three Local Communities Northwest Forest Plan. General
Technical Report PNW-GTR-764, August 2008 [http://
www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/pnw_gtr764.pdf])
The county also includes the Tule Lake and Lower Klamath National
Wildlife Refuges, as well as the Lava Beds National Monument. There are
various BLM lands administered by the Redding, Medford, Ashland and
Susanville BLM offices. There are lands held in tribal trust for the
Karuk and Quartz Valley Indian tribes.
The entire land base of Siskiyou County is 4,038,843 acres or 6,287
square miles. Of this, 1,153,246 acres is in farmland, however only
138,000 acres of these are irrigated. 2,525,216 acres is considered
rangeland/woodland/ forest. Our population of 44,301 classifies the
county as ``frontier.'' There are nine small incorporated cities that
date back to the California Gold Rush.
All communities in Siskiyou County are listed on the August 17,
2001, Federal Register (Notices) as ``Urban Wildland Interface
Communities Within the Vicinity of Federal Lands That Are at High Risk
From Wildfire.'' Approximately 3.2 million acres in the county are in a
high, very high or extreme fire hazard severity zone. There have been
564 fires in the county since 2005 that burned 330,000 acres and caused
in excess of $3.6 million in property damages. The fifth largest fire
in California since 1932 occurred in Siskiyou County in 2008. The
Klamath Theater Complex fire, which started by lightning, burned
192,038 acres and caused two fatalities. Since the year 2000, the
county has seen an average of 95 wildfires a year with an average of
55,000 acres burned each year. The value of buildings and contents
exposed to damage by wildfire are $1,855,175,933 in moderate fire
areas; $964,520,981 in high risk fire areas; and $1,346,823,331 in very
high risk fire areas. In total, 671 critical public structures are
located in areas at risk of wildfire.
The economy of Siskiyou County is based on small business. In 2008,
there were 6,857 non-farm proprietors in Siskiyou County. According to
2007 data, 61% of non-farming establishments in Siskiyou County had
less than 4 employees; 82% had less than 10 employees and 93% had less
than 20. The Small Business Association has documented that the cost of
regulations hit small businesses disproportionately hard.
In the year 2000, the average unemployment rate for the year was
7.5%. By 2008, it had risen to 10.2%, rising again to 15.8% in 2009. In
January of 2012, the unemployment rate was 18.6%, ranking Siskiyou 53rd
out of 56 counties in the state. There are many forest-dependent
communities in our county where local unemployment is estimated from
30-40%. The average wage per job in 2008 was $32,707. That was only 63%
of the state average. The median household income was $36,823--or 60%
of the state median. Non-household median income is currently $27,718--
a ranking of 47th in the state. The AP Economic Stress Index ranks
Siskiyou County as the 14th most economically stressed county in the
United States.
Agriculture is a major economic sector of the county. Our 2010
Siskiyou County Annual Crop and Livestock Report indicates that the
agricultural valuation in the county was $195,711,956 (gross and
excluding timber.) According to the USDA Ag Census, in 1992 Siskiyou
County had 647,446 acres in farms. By 2007, this had been reduced to
597,534 acres. In 2000, there were 895 farm proprietors in Siskiyou
County. This declined to only 730 in 2008. The county lost 81 livestock
ranches from 1992 to 2007, with an accompanying loss of 20,882 fewer
cattle and calves in inventory. According to the CA D.O.T. Siskiyou
County Economic Forecast, since 1995, Siskiyou County's agriculture
industries have experienced substantial job loss of about 586 jobs,
declining almost 45%.
During the past 20 years, there has also been a restructuring of
size and sales in agricultural operations. Since 1992 to 2007, there
has been an increase in the number of small farms: farms under 10 acres
doubled to 80. Farms under 50 acres increased 59% to 229. Farms 50-179
acres increased 27% to 228. Farms from 180-449 acres remained about the
same at 79. However, there was a 19% reduction in farms 1,000 acres or
more to 100 farms in 2007. One aspect of this is land conversion from
private to Federal lands. Since 1999, 8,625.71 acres valued at
$3,922,179 have been converted to Federal land. Another 11,236 acres of
ranch land in the Shasta Valley is currently proposed for conversion to
a new wildlife refuge. In addition, the proposed Klamath Basin
Restoration Agreement seeks to convert 44,479 acres of farmland in the
Upper Klamath Basin to wetlands, (some of which may be in Siskiyou
County.) It also proposes to secure 21,800 acres of farmland by
acquisition or conservation easements in the Scott and Shasta Valleys
of Siskiyou County.
At the same time, farms having less than $2,500 in sales increased
105% to 359. Farms selling $2,500-$9,999 stayed about the same at 151.
Farms selling $10-$24,999 decreased 10% to 95. Farms selling $25,000-
$49,999 decreased about 18% to 60. Farms selling $50,000 to $99,999
decreased 45% to 44 and farms with sales in excess of $100,000
increased by 28% to 137.
Siskiyou County accounts for 15% of the timber harvested in
California. At one time, it was the second largest timber production
area in the state. However, our forest industries have been devastated
by Federal and State regulations. For instance, the forestry section of
Siskiyou County's 1972 Conservation Element of the General Plan
indicated that there were 17 sawmills in the county (employing 2,055
people or 24% of the employment base) and 8 wood processing facilities
(employing 294 people or 3% of the employment base). There were 46
logging contractors and support establishments employing 501 people or
5% of the employment base. By 2007, all 17 sawmills were gone. The
census indicates that there were a total of 6 wood products
manufacturing establishments (including veneer mills) employing 380
people (one mill has subsequently closed in Butte Valley). There were
38 Logging, Forestry and Support Establishments employing 157
employees.
There is no doubt that the restrictions on timber harvest from
public lands under the Northwest Forest Plan have played a significant
role in this decline. In 1978, 239 MMBF of timber was harvested from
the Klamath National Forest (KNF), 274 MMBF from the Shasta Trinity
National Forest (STNF) and 73 MMBF from the Six Rivers National Forest
(SRNF.) In 2008, 20 MMBF was harvested from the KNF, 22 MMBF from the
STNF and 8 MMBF from the SRNF (see Appendix A).
The Klamath National Forest alone went from having 636 employees in
1993 to 441 in 2003, a loss of 31%. This job loss was related to a
decline in the forest budget of 18% between 1993 and 2002 and had a
strong impact on local employment opportunities. Declining budgets and
staffing caused some of the KNF's Ranger District offices to close or
consolidate in the 1990s. Between 1990 and 2002, the KNF spent a total
of $44.5 million procuring land management services. Most of this
spending (64%) took place between 1990 and 1993. After 1993, contract
spending on the KNF dropped off sharply. Between 1990-1992 and 2000-
2002, contract spending declined 78%.
(Ref: Charnley, Dillingham, Stuart, Moseley, and Donoghue
(2008) Northwest Forest Plan--The First 10 Years (1994-2003):
Socioeconomic Monitoring of the Klamath National Forest and
Three Local Communities Northwest Forest Plan. General
Technical Report PNW-GTR-764, August 2008 [http://
www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/pnw_gtr764.pdf])
Regulatory Environment in Siskiyou County
Siskiyou County has suffered through more than its share of
environmental regulations and has experienced long-standing regulatory
fatigue.
* Several local species have been listed under the state and
Federal endangered species acts: bald eagle; great gray owl; Lost River
and shortnose sucker fish; northern spotted owl and associated old
growth species, including those under ``survey and manage''; northern
CA coastal coho salmon; vernal pool fairy shrimp; Shasta crayfish;
delta smelt; California red-legged frog; western yellow-billed cuckoo;
western pond turtle; Siskiyou salamander; Scott Bar salamander;
California wolverine; Swainson's hawk; peregrine falcon; greater
sandhill crane; Sacramento splittail fish; bank swallow; marbled
murrelet; northern goshawk and Oregon spotted frog (candidates.) We
have also experienced endangered species reviews of the green sturgeon;
Pacific lamprey; Pacific fisher; steelhead trout; McCloud redband
trout; and spring, fall, and winter run chinook salmon (currently under
additional review in the Klamath River System and proposed for re-
introduction in the Sacramento River system in Siskiyou County.)
Consultations and opinions are a regular factor in the delay of
processing timber sales, water quality and other permits. Endangered
Species provide rich fodder for outside of the area environmental
litigation, particularly on National Forest projects.
Forest Litigation by out-of-county Environmental Groups
mostly on the Klamath National Forest projects:
1998 Upper South Fork Timber Sale--Klamath Forest Alliance (KFA)
Appeal [http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/ecoplan/appeals/1998/
fy98_0075.htm]
1998 Little Horse Peak Research Timber Sale--KFA Appeal [http://
www.fs.fed.us/r5/ecoplan/appeals/1998/fy98_0011.htm]
1998 Jack Timber Sale--KFA, Klamath Siskiyou Wildland Center
(KSWILD), Wilderness Coalition, ONRC Lawsuit [http://
www.fs.fed.us/r5/ecoplan/appeals/1998/fy98_0103.htm]
1999 Bald Elk/Hard Rock Timber Sale--KFA Appeal [http://
www.fs.fed.us/r5/ecoplan/appeals/1999/fy99_0013.htm]
1999 Happy Thinning Sale--KFA Lawsuit [http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/
ecoplan/appeals/1999/fy99_0014.htm#correction]
1999 Little Deer/Davis Cabin YG Timber Sale--Forest Guardians (FG)
Appeal [http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/ecoplan/appeals/1999/
fy99_0019.htm]
1999 Bogus Thin Chip Timber Sale--FG Appeal [http://www.fs.fed.us/
r5/ecoplan/appeals/1999/fy99_0020.htm]
1999 Kelly Pass YG Timber Sale--FG Appeal [http://www.fs.fed.us/
r5/ecoplan/appeals/1999/fy99_0021.htm]
1999 Twice Helicopter Timber Sale--KFA Appeal [http://
www.fs.fed.us/r5/ecoplan/appeals/1999/fy99_0075.htm]
2000 Salmon River Flood Road Damage Project--KFA Appeal [http://
www.fs.fed.us/r5/ecoplan/appeals/2000/fy00_0022.htm]
2001 East Fire Salvage Project--KSWILD Lawsuit [http://
www.fs.fed.us/r5/ecoplan/appeals/2001/fy01_0039_40.htm]
2001 Jones CT Timber Sale--National Forest Protection Alliance
Appeal [http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/ecoplan/appeals/2001/
fy01_0056.htm]
2002 Knob Timber Sale--KFA, KSWILD, Environmental Protection
Center (EPIC) Lawsuit [http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/ecoplan/
appeals/2002/fy02--0035.htm] [http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/
ecoplan/appeals/2003/fy03-0020-21.htm] [http://
www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/920116/posts]
2003 Beaver Creek--KSWILD EPIC KFA Lawsuit [http://www.fs.fed.us/
r5/ecoplan/appeals/2002/fy02_0035.htm]
2003 Little Grider Fuelbreak--EPIC Appeal [http://www.fs.fed.us/
r5/ecoplan/appeals/2003/fy03-0029.htm]
2003 Five Points Timber Sale--KSWILD Appeal [http://www.fs.fed.us/
r5/ecoplan/appeals/2003/fy03-0034.htm]
2004 Westpoint Westpoint Vegetation Treatment Project--KSWILD EPIC
Lawsuit [http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/ecoplan/appeals/2004/fy04-
0006.htm]
2005 Meteor Timber Sale--KSWILD, EPIC, American Lands Alliance,
Cascadia Wildlands Project Lawsuit [http://www.fs.fed.us/
r5/ecoplan/appeals/2005/fy05-0004.htm] [http://
www.envirolaw.org/cases/
Meteor%20First%20Amended%20Complaint.pdf]
2005 Pomeroy Timber Sale--KSWILD Appeal [http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/
ecoplan/appeals/2005/fy05-0015.htm]
2005 Elk Thin Timber Sale--KSWILD Appeal [http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/
ecoplan/appeals/2005/fy05-0023.htm]
2006 Tamarack Timber Sale--KSWILD, Calif. For Alternatives To
Toxics Appeal [http://users.sisqtel.net/armstrng/
timber%20appeals.htm]
2007 Tennant WUI Hazardous Fuel Reduction--KSWILD Appeal [http://
users.sisqtel.net/armstrng/timber%20appeals.htm]
2007 Happy Camp Fire Protection Phase 2 (HFRA)--KSWILD Objection
[http://users.sisqtel.net/armstrng/timber%20appeals.htm]
2007-08 Pilgrim Vegetation Management Project (Shasta Trinity
NF)--KFA, Conservation Congress lawsuit [http://dmd-
plt.ecosystem-management.org/appeals/
displayDoc.php?doc=VjFab1EyUXhjRmhTYms1cVpXNU9OVl
JXVWxkYWF6RnhWbGhuUFE9PQ==]
2008 First Creek Forest Health Project--American Forest Resource
Council Appeal [http://dmd-plt.ecosystem-management.org/
appeals/
displayDoc.php?doc=VjFab1EyUXhjRmhTYms1cVpXNU9OVlJXV
WxkYWF6bFZXbnBKUFE9PQ==]
2010-2011 Elk Creek/Panther Salvage--KSWILD, EPIC, KFA, Center for
Biological Diversity lawsuit [http://www.leagle.com/
xmlResult.aspx?xmldoc=In%20FCO%2020110325169.xml
&docbase=CSLWAR3-2007-CURR]
Use of the Federal forest lands of the county, particularly
for timber harvest, has been severely reduced by the Northwest
Forest Plan and Aquatic Conservation Strategy. The current
critical habitat designation for the northern spotted owl is
anticipated to sequester more land from harvest (see previous
section on economy and Appendix A).
In 2001, The Biological Opinions for sucker fish and salmon,
shut down the headgates for water delivery to Federal Klamath
Water Project farms. This caused mass economic hardship with
farmers losing their farms and migrant farm workers becoming
stranded without work. Protests were held at the headgates and
a civil disobedience event called the ``Bucket Brigade'' drew
20,000 people.
With the concurrent Federal and state listing of the SONCC
coho salmon, an attempt was made to create a programmatic
incidental take permit (ITP) and watershed-wide streambed
alteration permit. This was challenged by environmentalists and
the permit defeated in court as not being restrictive enough.
With some of the oldest water rights in the state dating back
to the 1850-70s allocated by long-standing adjudications,
permitting requirements and imposed conditions are being used
in an attempt to redirect private water to instream flows for
fish. Currently, two lawsuits are underway regarding permitting
for irrigation diversion and the regulation of groundwater use
under public trust for fish. Just this week, an environmental
group filed a notice of intent to sue a municipal water
district to remove an earthen dam under the claim that it
``takes coho salmon.''
Recently, a Federal agent from NOAA accompanied by a state
fish and game warden in full armed flack jacket regalia visited
a local rancher on a complaint by an environmentalist that they
had dewatered a stream through irrigation, therefore ``taking''
listed coho. The rancher was told they were looking into
whether to prosecute the rancher civilly or criminally. For the
past several years, many public hearings on fish and water
issues now take place with armed game wardens present.
In 1996, the ``17 rivers'' lawsuit against the U.S. EPA and
the SWRCB (CA State Water Resources Control Board) brought
water quality regulation to the county's major northern water-
bodies (Klamath, Scott, Shasta, Salmon Rivers.) The lawsuit
directed the establishment of Total Maximum Daily Loads for
sediment, temperature, dissolved oxygen and nutrients.
Considerable (expensive) efforts must be made to reduce
sediment sources from roads. Tailwater recapture and recycling
systems are being installed and one irrigation district has
been given a mandate of donating a portion of its adjudicated
water right to instream flows for fish. New requirements
throughout the Klamath River system will require permits for
irrigated agriculture.
Siskiyou County was also among the counties impacted by the
state legislature's moratorium on suction dredge mining for
gold--an important historic industry to the area. Gold miners
are unable to exercise their Federal mining rights.
Local agricultural operations have been affected by the
California Wildlife Protection Act of 1990. This protected
mountain lions, which are a livestock and wild game predator.
Local deer herds have been decimated by predation, depressing a
once robust tourism opportunity for hunters. Depredation
permits are issued annually and sheep operations have been
particularly affected. Siskiyou County is the first county in
California to see a gray wolf stray into its environs--another
dangerous predator. Environmentalists have already petitioned
the state for protection of the species.
In 1996, the Federal Government initiated plans to acquire
additional lands. In 1998, the National Forests commenced road
decommissioning and implemented buffers of non-use around
wilderness areas. In 1999, the Presidential ``roadless policy''
was implemented to declare additional areas off limits. This
impacted the Klamath National Forest which had scheduled an
Annual Planned Offer from Inventoried Roadless Areas of 1.49
MMBF, which was 4% of Average Volume Offered, 1996-1998. The
Shasta Trinity National Forest had an Annual Planned Offer from
Inventoried Roadless Areas of 3.68 MMBF, or 6% of Average
Volume Offered, 1996-1998. Last year, local USFS began another
round of road recognition, leading up to abandonment and
decommissioning of additional roads. In 2003, a road that had
been closed had to be re-opened for wildfire fighting. Its
condition contributed to the death of eight firefighters when
the engine rolled.
``Rangeland Reform'' restricted traditional use of public
land grazing allotments for century-and-a-half-old local
ranches. In addition, the State Board of Forestry has further
restricted the management and use of private timber lands.
Integrated Pest Management has affected lease lands on Federal
refuges. Five-hundred-foot pesticide use restrictions will soon
affect riparian farmlands on salmon streams.
There are more than 152 miles of wild and scenic rivers in
the County.
Large areas of northern Siskiyou County have been under
discussion for designation as National Monuments. In 2000,
President Clinton declared the Cascade Siskiyou National
Monument over the border in Oregon. This was originally
proposed to include a portion of northern Siskiyou County, but
was locally opposed. Documents appear to indicate that the
Obama Administration is again considering expanding the Oregon
Monument into Siskiyou. Also, a second 200,000 acre National
Monument appears to have also been put forth for consideration,
known as the ``Siskiyou Crest.'' This is widely opposed by
local residents. Periodically, expansion of our already
substantial Wilderness Areas in Siskiyou County has been
proposed. For instance, in 2007, the proposed California Wild
Heritage Act, S. 493, proposed the addition of 64,160 acres to
the more than a quarter of a million acre Marble Mountain
Wilderness; 19,360 acres to the 12,000 acre Russian Wilderness;
and 51,600 acres to the 19,940 Red Butte Wilderness in Siskiyou
County. This would have brought Wilderness right to the edge of
Wildland Urban Interface areas. Portions of the 525,000 acre
Trinity Alps Wilderness and the 182,802 acre Siskiyou
Wilderness also fall into Siskiyou County. Also, the Castle
Crags Wilderness and Mt. Shasta.
Siskiyou County is the home of three of the four
hydroelectric dams on the Klamath River that a bi-state group
of several parties, including Federal agencies, wants removed.
Siskiyou County does not want the dams removed. There has
already been some litigation on this and it is likely that
there will be more. Despite: (1) several local water
adjudications with continuing jurisdiction by the Superior
Court; (2) the Klamath River Basin Compact between the States
of Oregon and California, ratified on April 17, 1957 which
delegates in-county, non Federal project jurisdiction over
surface water to the Siskiyou County Water Conservation
District; and (3) state law which leaves jurisdiction over
groundwater use to the county; the proposed Klamath Basin
Restoration Agreement (KBRA) establishes a new chartered
regional governance structure called the Klamath Basin
Coordinating Council (KBCC). The Council will implement the
KBRA resource, water management and fisheries restoration plan
in contravention of County and District jurisdiction. The KBCC
will include Federal and state agencies, tribal
representatives, two counties (not Siskiyou,) certain Klamath
Project water districts, environmental and commercial fishing
groups.
The Bureau of Reclamation has included the Klamath River
system in its WaterSMART (Sustain and Manage America's
Resources for Tomorrow) program [http://www.usbr.gov/
WaterSMART/bsp/]. A study will look at the impacts of climate
change on water resources and develop potential adaptation
strategies. The program will create another multi-party
regional group to manage water. Although a letter has been sent
to the Bureau of Reclamation asking for coordination with the
Siskiyou Flood Control and Water Conservation District and
Siskiyou County, it has been ignored.
Sustainable Development, Ecosystem Management, Biodiversity and Re-
wilding
The American system of policymaking has a clear set of
principles governing the relations between various actors in
the process. Congress, acting on the preferences of the voters
who elected it, makes laws that establish the objectives for
programs. Administrative agencies, with Congressional grants of
authority and appropriations of funds, implement the objectives
established by Congress. In pursuing their statutory mandates,
agencies are expected to marshal expertise, from both within
and outside the agency. The role of the courts is to ensure
that agencies do not deviate from their statutory mandates.
--Congress and the Administrative State by Lawrence C. Dodd,
Richard L. Schott, 1979
This section uncovers the reasons for the confusion felt by
Counties when comparing the statutes with current Forest Service
management direction. It explains where we seem to have gone off track
and why our National Forests no longer contribute much to the social
and economic well-being of local communities and rural Counties. It
explains why our National Forests experience huge, severe fires that
threaten forest communities and leave our summers choked with smoke.
For some reason, we no longer appear to be governing or managing for
the people and human communities. It is like people are now a parasite
to be protected against.
It is why the proposed Planning Rule stated:
The requirements for ecological sustainability would require
responsible officials to provide plan components to maintain or
restore elements of ecological sustainability. The requirements
for social sustainability would require plan components to
guide the unit's contribution to social and economic
sustainability. sets of requirements recognizes the Agency has
more influence over the factors that impact ecological
sustainability on NFS lands (ecological diversity, forest
health, road system management, etc.) than it does for social
and economic sustainability (employment, income, community
well-being, culture, etc.). National Forest System lands can
provide valuable contributions to economic and social
sustainability, but that contribution is just one in a broad
array of factors that influence the sustainability of social
and economic systems.
Congress authorized presidents of the United States to reserve
certain forest lands from the public domain by what is now called the
Forest Reserve Act of 1891, and provided for management of these forest
reserves by the Organic Act of 1897:
``. . . to improve and protect the forests . . . securing
favorable conditions of water flows, and furnish a continuous
supply of timber for the use and necessities of United States
citizens.'' In a later court decision, the court ruled that the
Secretary of Agriculture may also consider the economic well-
being of the citizens of a state wherein timber is located in
administering national forest lands ``for the use and
necessities of citizens of the United States.''
As the National Forest System evolved to its current size of almost
193 million acres, the U.S. Forest Service managed these lands to
provide an increasingly wider range of multiple uses and benefits in
terms of commodity and amenity resources for the American people.
Later, the Multiple Use-Sustained Yield Act of 1960 (MUSYA) provided
that the plans for forest management ``. . . shall provide for multiple
use and sustained yield of goods and services from the National Forest
System'' [36 CFR 200.1(c)(2) (1997). Section 219.1] and that
administration of the Forests should be ``. . . for outdoor recreation,
range, timber, watershed, and wildlife and fish purposes . . .''
Multiple-use was defined as ``management of all the various renewable
surface resources of the National Forest System so that they are
utilized in the combination that will best meet the needs of the
American people.'' Sustained yield was defined as the ``achievement and
maintenance in perpetuity of a high-level annual or regular periodic
output of the various renewable resources of the National Forest System
without impairment of the productivity of the land.'' [36 CFR 219.3
(1997)]
In 1970, the Bolle Report criticized the Forest Service's emphasis
on timber production and its reliance on clearcutting, and a court
decision against the Forest Service in the Monongahela National Forest
clearcutting case lead to the subsequent passage of the National Forest
Management Act (NFMA). A fatal flaw in the 1976 NMFA opened the door to
management according to an international platform never intended by
Congress. NFMA requires that forest planning ``provide for diversity of
plant and animal communities based on the suitability and capability of
the specific land area in order to meet overall multiple-use
objectives'' [16 U.S.C. sec. 1604(g)(3)(B)]. Congress ordered the
Forest Service to set a goal of diversity in developing its forest
plans, but it did not define the meaning of diversity.
In 1982 National Forest System Land and Resource Management
Planning Regulations [http://www.fs.fed.us/emc/nfma/includes/
nfmareg.html#Fish%20and%20
wildlife%20resource] for developing forest plans transformed this
general guideline into a stringent requirement: Sec. 219.19 Fish and
wildlife resource ``Fish and wildlife habitat shall be managed to
maintain viable populations of existing native and desired non-native
vertebrate species in the planning area. For planning purposes, a
viable population shall be regarded as one which has the estimated
numbers and distribution of reproductive individuals to insure its
continued existence is well distributed in the planning area. In order
to insure that viable populations will be maintained, habitat must be
provided to support, at least, a minimum number of reproductive
individuals and that habitat must be well distributed so that those
individuals can interact with others in the planning area. fish and
wildlife habitat shall be managed to maintain viable populations of
existing native and desired non-native vertebrate species in the
planning area.'' Sec. 219.26 Diversity. ``Forest planning shall provide
for diversity of plant and animal communities and tree species
consistent with the overall multiple-use objectives of the planning
area. Such diversity shall be considered throughout the planning
process.''
That regulation directs that effects of alternative management
plans be measured by ``management indicator species'' (both vertebrate
and invertebrate species) because their population changes are believed
to indicate the effects of management activities. The second management
directive included a requirement that ``management prescriptions . . .
shall preserve and enhance the diversity of plant and animal species,
so that it is at least as great as that which would be expected in a
natural forest.''
This regulation would eventually lead to a fundamental
transformation of forest policy when Judge Dwyer ordered the Forest
Service to develop ``revised standards and guidelines to ensure the
northern spotted owl's viability'' by March 1992. Then Dwyer proceeded
to reject the Forest Service's attempt to adopt the Interagency
Scientific Committee to Address Conservation of the Spotted Owl report
of 1990, requiring the agency to address viability issues related to
other species in addition to the spotted owl, which led to the creation
of the Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team (FEMAT). In
developing a response, the Forest Service relied on the new science of
conservation biology, which had helped to formulate an international
agenda. Although the act was explicitly designed as a multiple-use
statute, the implementation of its viability regulations forced the
agency to subordinate timber production and other economic outputs to
the preservation of ecosystems.
Ref: Science, Politics, and U.S. Forest Law: The Battle over
the Forest Service Planning Rule. George Hoberg, June 2003,
Discussion Paper 03-19 [http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/
10604/1/dp030019.pdf]
U.S. Involvement in an International Platform
See: History of Dialogue Related to U.S. Government Commitment
to Sustainable Forest/Resource Management--Updated October 2002
by Ruth McWilliams of the USDA-Forest Service [http://
www.fs.fed.us/sustained/history-updated-oct02.rtf])
1968--UNESCO held a Biosphere Conference on ``ecosystems'' and
ecological planning. Recommendations were to establish natural areas
for the preservation of species.
1970--The Man and the Biosphere (MAB) program established a
statutory framework for a world network of biosphere reserves. The
reserves were to contain three elements: one or more core areas
securely protected for conserving biological diversity; a clearly
defined surrounding buffer zone used for compatible sound ecological
practices; and an transition area that might contain agriculture
activities or settlements where resources are managed collaboratively
on a sustainable basis. This pattern was later to be followed by the
USFS in the designation of Late Successional and Riparian Reserves,
Adaptive Management Areas and Matrix Lands.
1980--The World Conservation Strategy--Living Resource Conservation
for Sustainable Development [http://data.iucn.org/dbtw-wpd/edocs/WCS-
004.pdf] was formulated as an international framework for the
preservation of species and sustainable development by the
International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural
Resources (IUCN) in cooperation with the U.N. Environmental Program
(UNEP) and World Wildlife Fund (WWF), FAO and UNESCO.
1983--UNESCO and UNEP jointly convened the First International
Biosphere Reserve Congress in Minsk, in cooperation with FAO and IUCN.
The Congress's activities gave rise in 1984 to an Action Plan for
Biosphere Reserves which was formally endorsed by the UNESCO General
Conference.
1987-88--The Brudtland Commission Report, or Report of the World
Commission on Environment and Development: Our Common Future [http://
www.un-documents.net/wced-ocf.htm] popularized term ``sustainable
development.'' It defined sustainable development as ``. . .
development that meets the needs of the present without compromising
the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.''
Note how this is reflected in the current stated USFS mission:
``The mission of the USDA Forest Service is to sustain the health,
diversity, and productivity of the Nation's forests and grasslands to
meet the needs of present and future generations.'' That is not the
mission as stated by the Organic Act or MUSYA.
1990--Congress directed the Forest Service under The Global Climate
Change Prevention Act to establish an Office of International Forestry
under a new and separate Deputy Chief in the Forest Service to assume a
greater role in international environmental affairs.
International Forestry, a new ``leg'' of the Forest Service
(along with the National Forest System, Research, and S&PF),
was established in 1991 to coordinate and cooperate with other
countries on matters dealing with forestry and the environment.
Although previous programs had worked closely with other
countries to provide expertise and experience in these matters,
the International Forestry program area has given higher
priority to engaging in dialogue and cooperation with other
countries to solve global resource problems. The 1992 signing
of the Forest Principles and Agenda 21 at the United Nations
Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED)--the ``Earth
Summit''--was coordinated by this new branch of the agency.
[http://www.foresthistory.org/ASPNET/Publications/
first_century/sec8.htm]
1990--The USFS shifted emphasis from ``sustained yield to
sustaining ecosystems'' including ``biological diversity and ecological
function'' or ``ecosystems'' as exemplified in a paper by USFS research
scientists entitled ``New Perspectives for Sustainable Resource
Management'' (by Kessler, Salwasser, Cartwright and Caplan (1992)
Ecological Applications, Volume: 2, Issue: 3) also known as ``New
Forestry'' or ``ecosystem management.''
1991--``Caring For The Earth: A Strategy for Sustainable Living''
[http://coombs.anu.edu.au/ vern/caring/care-earth5.txt] was published
by the IUCN--The World Conservation Union, UNEP--United Nations
Environment Programme, and WWF--World Wide Fund For Nature. Items
included: 4.1. Adopt a precautionary approach to pollution; 4.3. Reduce
greenhouse gas emissions; 4.5. Adopt an integrated approach to land and
water management, using the drainage basin as the unit of management;
4.6. Maintain as much as possible of each country's natural and
modified ecosystems; 4.8 protect large areas of old-growth forest; 4.9.
Complete and maintain a comprehensive system of protected areas.
1991-1992--A series writings from USDA Forest Service employees
described changes happening at the USFS. ``Research in a New Role'' by
Winifred B. Kessler, Asst. Director for Research and Development, New
Perspectives Staff, USDA Forest Service, states:
The research goal for New Perspectives is to enhance the
scientific basis for managing the national forests and
grasslands in an ecologically sound and socially acceptable
manner. New Perspectives presents new research and management
challenges that must be addressed from a whole-system
perspective. The new challenge is to sustain the integrity of
landscapes and ecosystems with their diverse values, rather
than simply sustaining a flow of use outputs . . .
Increasingly, scientists must take a landscape-level approach
in the study of ecosystems and natural resource interactions.
The time has never been better, as new developments in remote
sensing and geographic information systems provide
unprecedented capability for landscape-level research. [http://
www.fs.fed.us/eco/eco-watch/ew910322]
In addition in 1992, Dave Iverson talks about ``ecosystem
management'' and ``overcoming organizational sickness'' in ``Building
Quality into National Forest Management'' [http://www.fs.fed.us/eco/
eco-watch/ew921014].
1992--
The Forest Service participated in a January 1992 conference
called ``Defining Sustainable Forestry.'' This conference was
attended by ``[e]cologists, foresters, economists, and
sociologists.'' The purpose of the conference was to develop
the idea of ecosystem management. The participants' ideas were
reduced to chapters in a book entitled Defining Sustainable
Forestry which was updated and published in 1993. In a chapter
written by Forest Service officials, the Forest Service
outlined ``four principles to guide the evolution of ecosystem
management'':
1. Protect land health by restoring or sustaining the integrity
of soils, air, waters, biological diversity, and ecological
processes, thereby sustaining what Aldo Leopold (1949)
called the land community and what we now call ecosystems.
2. Within the sustainable capability of the land, meet the needs
of people who depend on natural resources for food, fuel,
shelter, livelihood, and inspirational experiences.
3. Contribute to the social and economic well-being of
communities, regions, and the nation through cost effective
and environmentally sensitive production and conservation
of natural resources such as wood, water, minerals, energy,
forage for domestic animals, and recreation opportunities,
again within sustainable capability of the land.
4. Seek balance and harmony between people, land, and resources
with equity between interests, across regions, and through
generations, meeting this generation's resource needs while
maintaining options for future generations also to meet
their needs.
(from The U.S. Commitment to Agenda 21: Chapter 11 Combating
Deforestation--The Ecosystem Management Approach, Susan
Bucknum. [http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/
viewcontent.cgi?article=1005&context=delpf])
1992--
The first objective of a strategy for conserving biodiversity
must be the development of national and international policy
frameworks that foster the sustainable use of biological
resources and the maintenance of biodiversity. Additionally,
national networks of protected areas must be strengthened and
expanded to cover all key biomes and ecosystems, and the
management objectives of protected areas must be harmonized
with those for the surrounding ecosystems and human
communities.
(from Global Biodiversity Strategy Guidelines for Action to
Save, Study, and Use Earth's Biotic Wealth Sustainably and
Equitably; World Resources Institute (WRI), The World
Conservation Union (IUCN), United Nations Environment Programme
(UNEP), in consultation with Food and Agriculture Organization
(FAO), United Nations Education, Scientific and Cultural
Organization (UNESCO) ``Building a Sustainable Society: The
Context for Conserving Biodiversity.'' [http://pdf.wri.org/
globalbiodiversitystrategy_bw.pdf])
1992--Rio Earth Summit, President George H.W. Bush signs the
Framework Convention on Climate Change, endorses the Rio Declaration
[http://www.un.org/documents/ga/conf151/aconf15126-1annex1.htm], the
Forest Principles [http://www.un.org/documents/ga/conf151/aconf15126-
3annex3.htm], and adopts Agenda 21 [http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/agenda21/
res_agenda21_00.shtml] on behalf of the United States of America. This
was coordinated by the new International Forestry branch of the U.S.
Forest Service.
Agenda 21 Section II, Conservation and Management of Resources for
Development, Chapter 11, Combating Deforestation, Section A: Sustaining
the multiple roles and functions of all types of forests, forest lands
and woodlands is [http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/agenda21/
res_agenda21_11.shtml].
According to Hal Salwasser et al., (in Salwasser, Hal; MacCleery,
Douglas W.; Snellgrove, Thomas A. 1993. An ecosystem perspective on
sustainable forestry and new directions for the U.S. National Forest
System. In: Aplet, Gregory H.; Johnson, Nels; Olson, Jeffery T.;
Sample, Alaric V.; eds. Defining Sustainable Forestry. Washington,
D.C.: Island Press. 44-89) Section A posed a mandate for change to U.S.
Forest Service policy. The historic management policies of the Forest
Service ``focus[ed] on producing and renewing selected resources (such
as timber, game fish, and livestock forage) or single sectors of
forest-related enterprises (such as wood products, recreation, and
cattle industry).'' The selected-use policies only considered
sustaining certain resources and not protecting the forest as a whole.
In order for the United States to fulfill its commitment to Chapter 11,
it needed to assess its management directives and implement sustainable
management practices which was not management for multiple uses but
rather for sustaining the forest ecosystem as a whole. The recommended
``activity'' for attaining sustainable management was to adopt planning
techniques that protect the biodiversity of a forest.
Agenda 21 Section II, Section A, Chapter 11.4 required data
collection as to land classification, land use, forest cover,
endangered species, ecological values, traditional/indigenous land use
values, biomass and productivity, correlating demographic,
socioeconomic and forest resources information. GAP Analysis--Land use
classification and biological assessment [http://gapanalysis.usgs.gov/
gap-analysis/] was later used as a tool to identify areas for set
asides/roadless/wilderness and for private land regulation or
acquisition.
Agenda 21 Section II, Section B has the major goal for nations to
plan for the maintenance of their forests as a whole, and not for
consumption of particular resources. Enhancing the protection,
sustainable management and conservation of all forests, and the
greening of degraded areas, through forest rehabilitation,
afforestation, reforestation and other rehabilitative means was
specified in Chapter 11.13:
(b) Establishing, expanding and managing, as appropriate to
each national context, protected area systems, which includes
systems of conservation units for their environmental, social
and spiritual functions and values, including conservation of
forests in representative ecological systems and landscapes,
primary old-growth forests, conservation and management of
wildlife, nomination of World Heritage Sites under the World
Heritage Convention, as appropriate, conservation of genetic
resources, involving in situ and ex situ measures and
undertaking supportive measures to ensure sustainable
utilization of biological resources and conservation of
biological diversity and the traditional forest habitats of
indigenous people, forest dwellers and local communities.
(c) Undertaking and promoting buffer and transition zone
management;
This is the Man and Biosphere system of core areas, buffers and
transition areas.
Prior to the adoption of Agenda 21, the U.S. Forest Service's
management objectives were directed toward providing for multiple-use
and sustained yield of resources via the Multiple Use--Sustained Yield
Act of 1960 (Public Law 86-517). Multiple-use management means managing
renewable surface resources so that they are utilized in a way that
best meets the needs of the American public. It does not include
consideration of effects on sustaining biodiversity.
Ref: The U.S. Commitment to Agenda 21: Chapter 11 Combating
Deforestation--The Ecosystem Management Approach, Susan Bucknum
[http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/
viewcontent.cgi?article=1005&context=delpf].
From the Rio Declaration, Annex III Non-legally Binding
Authoritative Statement of Principles for a Global Consensus on the
Management, Conservation and Sustainable Development of All Types of
Forests [http://www.un.org/documents/ga/conf151/aconf15126-
3annex3.htm]:
Preamble (d) These principles reflect a first global consensus
on forests. In committing themselves to the prompt
implementation of these principles, countries also decide to
keep them under assessment for their adequacy with regard to
further international cooperation on forest issues . . .
Principles/Elements 1.(b) Forest resources and forest lands
should be sustainably managed to meet the social, economic,
ecological, cultural and spiritual needs of present and future
generations.
Principles/Elements 3.(a) National policies and strategies
should provide a framework for increased efforts, including the
development and strengthening of institutions and programmes
for the management, conservation and sustainable development of
forests and forest lands.
Principles/Elements 8.(e) Forest management should be
integrated with management of adjacent areas so as to maintain
ecological balance and sustainable productivity.
Principles/Elements 8.(f) National policies and/or legislation
aimed at management, conservation and sustainable development
of forests should include the protection of ecologically viable
representative or unique examples of forests, including
primary/old-growth forests, cultural, spiritual, historical,
religious and other unique and valued forests of national
importance.
Principles/Elements 13.(c) Incorporation of environmental costs
and benefits into market forces and mechanisms, in order to
achieve forest conservation and sustainable development, should
be encouraged both domestically and internationally.
1992-1993--President Bush did not sign the Convention on Biological
Diversity in 1993. It was signed by President Clinton in 1994, although
never ratified by Congress. From Article 8. In-situ Conservation
[http://www.cbd.int/convention/articles/?a=cbd-08]:
(a) Establish a system of protected areas or areas where
special measures need to be taken to conserve biological
diversity;
(b) Develop, where necessary, guidelines for the selection,
establishment and management of protected areas or areas where
special measures need to be taken to conserve biological
diversity;
(c) Regulate or manage biological resources important for the
conservation of biological diversity whether within or outside
protected areas, with a view to ensuring their conservation and
sustainable use;
(d) Promote the protection of ecosystems, natural habitats and
the maintenance of viable populations of species in natural
surroundings;
(e) Promote environmentally sound and sustainable development
in areas adjacent to protected areas with a view to furthering
protection of these areas;
(f) Rehabilitate and restore degraded ecosystems and promote
the recovery of threatened species, inter alia, through the
development and implementation of plans or other management
strategies;
* * * * *
(i) Endeavour to provide the conditions needed for
compatibility between present uses and the conservation of
biological diversity and the sustainable use of its
components;.
* * * * *
(l) Where a significant adverse effect on biological diversity
has been determined, regulate or manage the relevant processes
and categories of activities.
This is the document upon which the infamous map [http://
www.proliberty.com/observer/20091223.htm] entitled ``simulated reserve
and corridor system to protect biodiversity'' was based.
1993--The Helsinki Conference defined ``sustainable management of
forests'' as the stewardship and use of forests and forest lands in a
way, and at a rate, that maintains their biodiversity, productivity,
regeneration capacity, vitality, and their potential to fulfill, now
and in the future, relevant ecological, economic, and social functions,
at local, national, and global scales, and that does not cause damage
to other ecosystems.
1993--The United States became a signatory to The Montreal Process
[http://www.rinya.maff.go.jp/mpci/evolution_e.html]. Countries
identified the following seven criteria as essential components in the
sustainable management of forest ecosystems, as well as 67 different
indicators specific for each criteria [http://www.rinya.maff.go.jp/
mpci/rep-pub/1995/santiago_e.html] (1) Conservation of biological
diversity; (2) Maintenance of productive capacity of forest ecosystems;
(3) Maintenance of forest ecosystem health and vitality; (4)
Conservation and maintenance of soil and water resources; (5)
Maintenance of forest contribution to global carbon cycles; (6)
Maintenance and enhancement of long-term multiple socioeconomic
benefits to meet the needs of societies; and (7) Legal, institutional
and economic framework for forest conservation and sustainable
management.
1993--Eldon W. Ross Associate Deputy Chief for Research, USDA
Forest Service submitted a statement [http://www.fs.fed.us/sustained/
ross-june-93.doc] to the Second Ministerial Conference on the
Protection of Forests in Europe indicating that ``the United States
believes that the conservation and sustainable management of forests is
on of our most pressing global needs'' and stating that:
At a Forest Congress held on April 2, 1993, wherein all
interests were gathered, the President proposed this
fundamental question related to harmonizing human, biological,
and economic imperatives: ``How can we achieve a balanced and
comprehensive policy that recognizes the importance of forests
and timber to the economy and jobs of this region, and how can
we preserve our precious old-growth forests, which are part of
our national heritage and that, once destroyed, can never be
replaced?''
This Forest Conference initiated an aggressive assessment, with
ensuing announcements to be released this summer.
This situation is an example of a larger commitment by U.S.
forest land management agencies towards implementation of
Agenda 21. As announced in June 1992, all U.S. Federal forests
are to be managed using an ecological approach. This policy
will continue to uphold multiple-use, but with an emphasis on
blending the needs of people and environmental values--with the
result that our national forests and associated ecosystems will
be diverse, healthy, productive, and sustainable.
1993--Presidential Decision Directive/NSC-16 Environmental Policy
on International Desertification, Forest Conservation and Fresh Water
Security, The White House November 5, 1993 [http://www.fs.fed.us/
sustained/pres-decision-11-1993.doc] stated:
Our strategy includes bilateral programs to conserve forests
and biodiversity and maintain existing carbon reservoirs, and
support for appropriate activities in the proposed World
Commission on Forests and Sustainable Development, the United
Nations Commission on Sustainable Development, the Food and
Agriculture Organization, and other fora to foster
international agreement on forest management . . .
The United States is committed to a national goal of achieving
sustainable management of U.S. forests by the year 2000.
1993--Vice President Al Gore called for the Federal Government to
adopt an approach for ensuring sustainable economic development while
also sustaining the environment through ecosystem management. An
accompanying report of the National Performance Review, Improving
Environmental Management [http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/npr/library/
reports/env.html] concluded ``The President should issue a directive
that: establishes a national policy to encourage sustainable economic
development and ensure sustainable ecosystems through ecosystem
management . . .''
The White House Office of Environmental Policy (OEP) took the lead
for the Federal initiative on ecosystem management by establishing the
Interagency Ecosystem Management Task Force (IEMTF) to carry out Vice
President Gore's mandate.
The EPA published an internal working document (NPR) [http://
www.discerningtoday.org/members/Analyses/EPA_Ecosystem.htm] outlining
the Administration's environmental strategy: Evaluating National
Policies/International Obligations:
The Executive Branch should direct Federal agencies to evaluate
national policies on environmental protection and resource
management in light of international policies and obligations,
and to amend national policies to more effectively achieve
international objectives. The State Department, USDI, EPA,
USFS, NMFS, and other involved agencies should be directed to
further develop national and international policies related to
ecosystem management. In addition, the U.S. should to [sic]
develop human population policies that are consistent with
sustainable economies and ecosystems. Regional Landscape
Planning: ``EPA can take a number of actions that would
stimulate land use planning by state and local governments in a
constructive manner, and which would not result in an overly
intrusive Federal role in land use planning. EPA should direct
grants to states and local governments to form regional
planning units around ecosystem protection and sustainability
values. EPA should provide technical assistance to the state
and local governments, and will develop a list of suggested
criteria for use by the state and local governments in their
planning decision making.''
1993--When Congress refused to pass legislation to establish the
National Biological Service [http://www.doi.gov/pfm/par/acct1995/
ar1995nbs.pdf], DOI Secretary Babbitt unilaterally created it and
shifted funding to it. In 1995, the NBS report Our Living Resources
[http://archive.org/details/ourlivingresourc00unit] outlined trends on
the distribution, abundance and health of U.S. plants, animals and
ecosystems.
1993--President Clinton created the Office of the Federal
Environmental Executive, the Office of Science and Technology Policy,
and the President's Council on Sustainability [http://
clinton2.nara.gov/PCSD/] by Executive Orders. The Council adopted the
Brundtland Commission's definition of sustainable development: Towards
a Sustainable America: Advancing Prosperity [http://clinton2.nara.gov/
PCSD/Publications/suscomm/ind_suscom.html], The Road to Sustainable
Development: A Snapshot of Activities in the United States of America
[http://clinton2.nara.gov/PCSD/Publications/Snapshot.html], Sustainable
Communities Task force Report Fall 1997 [http://clinton2.nara.gov/PCSD/
Publications/tsa.pdf], and Advancing Prosperity, Opportunity, and a
Healthy Environment for the 21st Century, May 1999 [http://
clinton2.nara.gov/PCSD/Publications/TF_Reports/amer-top.html].
1993--The Forest Ecosystem Management Team (FEMAT) was chartered
(Northern Spotted Owl case).
1994--The Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project (SNEP) was chartered.
1994--The Ecosystem Management Coordinating Group (IEMCG), focused
the resources of 20 Federal agencies to achieve ``comprehensive
integrated resource management'' on an ecosystem basis (see CRS Report
to Congress [http://www.cnie.org/NLE/CRSreports/Biodiversity/biodv-
4f.cfm]).
1994--President Clinton signed Executive Order 12906,
``Coordinating Geographic Data Acquisition and Access: the National
Spatial Data Infrastructure'' [http://www.archives.gov/federal-
register/executive-orders/pdf/12906.pdf]. (GAP Analysis)
1994--United States GAO Report is issued on Ecosystem Management
Ecosystem Management: Additional Actions Needed to Adequately Test a
Promising Approach [http://archive.gao.gov/t2pbat2/152537.pdf].
1995--The GBA Global Biodiversity Assessment [http://
jrscience.wcp.muohio.edu/studentresearch/climatechange02/kyoto/
articles/UNEP.pdf] is developed at the behest of the United Nations
Environment Programme (UNEP) with funding provided by the Global
Environment Facility (GEF) provides a blueprint for implementation of
the Convention on Biological Diversity.
Chapter 10.4--Measures to Conserve and Restore Ecosystems:
Ecosystem conservation measures seek to limit human activities
in limited geographic areas where they may adversely impact
populations of species or interfere with ecosystem processes.
The goal of conservation biologists is to use conservation
measures in enough areas to protect a representative array of
ecosystems and their constituent biodiversity.
10.4.2.1--Protected Areas Protected areas are defined by the
Convention on Biological Diversity as ``a geographically
defined area which is designated or regulated and managed to
achieve specific conservation objectives.''
10.4.2.2.2--Corridors in Fragmented Landscapes Biotic: movement
in a fragmented landscape requires movements between individual
fragments (protected areas). Corridors of native vegetation
linking fragments are commonly seen as a solution to this.
10.4.2.2.3--Protection and Management of Fragments: The
protection and management of fragments requires a reduction in
the deleterious effects of matrix-derived influences on
remnants and an increase in the area and connectivity of
habitat. This means that representative areas of all major
ecosystems in a region need to be reserved, that blocks should
be as large as possible, that buffer zones should be
established around core areas, and that corridors should
connect these areas. (This basic design is central to the
``Wildlands Project'' in the United States. Reed F. Noss, The
Wildlands Project land conservation strategy. WildEarth,
Special issue, 1992).
10.4.4--Restoration and Rehabilitation Landscape restoration
aims at improving the design of the existing system of
fragments by increasing habitat area and connectivity, and by
providing buffer zones around existing fragments to protect
them from external influences.
1995--the President's National Science and Technology Council
(NSTC) established an Ecosystem Working Group. It concluded (1) that
pursuit of improved quality of life often threatens the sustainability
of ecosystems, (2) continued decreases in productivity and vitality of
ecosystems which can result in increased deterioration of ecosystems
that are incompletely understood, (3) the basis for human development
has been the availability of healthy natural ecosystems and the
resources they provide, and (4) that to sustain further human
development, the ecological base to support it must be sustained.
1995--The Seville Strategy and the Statutory Framework for the
World Network of Biosphere Reserves [http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/
0010/001038/103849e.pdf] was completed under UNESCO:
1.1 1. Promote biosphere reserves as means of implementing the
goals of the Convention on Biological Diversity.
1.1 2. Promote a comprehensive approach to biogeographical
classification (GAP analysis) that takes into account such
ideas as vulnerability analysis.
1.2 4. Link biosphere reserves with each other, and with other
protected areas, through green corridors and in other ways that
enhance biodiversity conservation, and ensure that these links
are maintained.
2.1 2. Incorporate biosphere reserves into plans for
implementing the sustainable use goals of Agenda 21 and the
Convention on Biological Diversity.
3.1 7. Integrate biosphere reserves into regional planning.
In 1996 UNESCO began Implementation of the Seville Strategy and
Statutory Framework of the World Network of Biosphere reserves [http://
www.iisd.ca/forestry/ipfhist.html]. The Intergovernmental Panel on
Forests (IPF) was established in 1995 by the United Nations Commission
on Sustainable Development to follow up the UNCED recommendations on
sustainable forest management.
1995--The U.S. agreed to the Santiago Declaration [http://
www.fs.fed.us/sustained/santiago3_e.html], Statement on Criteria and
Indicators for the Conservation and Sustainable Management of Temperate
and Boreal Forests:
Affirming their commitment to the conservation and sustainable
management of their respective forests . . . Endorse the non-
legally binding Criteria and Indicators for the Conservation
and Sustainable Management of Temperate and Boreal Forests
annexed to this Statement as guidelines for use by their
respective policy-makers . . .
1995--Fourteen Federal agencies signed a Memorandum of
Understanding to Foster the Ecosystem Approach (OEP 1996) [http://
library.fws.gov/Pubs9/ecosystem_approach98_files/
intro_projconcept.htm].
The memorandum defines the ecosystem approach as A method for
sustaining or restoring ecological systems and their functions
and values. It is goal driven and it is based on a
collaboratively developed vision applied within a geographic
framework defined primarily by ecological boundaries. (Section
1 Definitions).
The goal of the Ecosystem Approach as stated in this
interagency memorandum, was to: restore and sustain the health,
productivity, and biological diversity of ecosystems and the
overall quality of life through a natural resource management
approach that is fully integrated with social and economic
goals.
An Interagency Ecosystem Management Task Force issues The Ecosystem
Approach: Healthy Ecosystems and Sustainable Economies Volume II
Implementation Issues (Overcoming statutory and jurisdictional barriers
to a unified approach) [http://www.denix.osd.mil/nr/upload/
ecosystem2.htm].
1996--The President's Council on Sustainability issues a report
entitled Sustainable America: A New Consensus for Prosperity,
Opportunity, and A Healthy Environment for the Future [http://
clinton2.nara.gov/PCSD/Publications/TF_Reports/amer-top.html]. This
report outlined goals for ``economic prosperity, environmental
protection, and social equity together'' (known as the 3 e's). An
Excerpt on Sustainable Forest Management, Chapter 5, Natural Resources
Stewardship [http://www.fs.fed.us/sustained/pcsd-1996.doc] includes the
statement:
In 1992, during the United Nations Conference on Environment
and Development in Rio de Janeiro, the United States announced
its commitment to carry out ecosystem management on all Federal
forest lands. And, at the Second Ministerial Conference on the
Protection of Forests in 1993 in Helsinki, the United States
declared its commitment to the goal of achieving sustainable
management of all U.S. forests by the year 2000.
1996--A Framework for Ecosystem Management in Interior Columbia
Basin (including parts of the Klamath and Great Basin) was released.
1996--The Secretary of Agriculture established Dept.-wide policy on
Sustainable Development (Scty. Memorandum 9500-6) focusing on
sustainable agriculture, sustainable forestry, and sustainable rural
community development.
1997--The President's Council on Sustainability released Building
on Consensus: A Progress Report on Sustainable America [http://
clinton2.nara.gov/PCSD/Publications/Progress_Report.html]. It
recommended:
Fully Participate in International Sustainable Development
Activities in 1997. Next year's observance of the fifth
anniversary of the Earth Summit in Rio will provide several
opportunities for the United States to demonstrate continued
international leadership on sustainable development. We
encourage you to ensure that the U.S. government fully
participates in these fora.
1997--The Rio Earth Summit+5 Resolution [http://www.un.org/esa/
earthsummit/] adopted by the General Assembly includes:
We reaffirm that Agenda 21 remains the fundamental programme of
action for achieving sustainable development . . . Progress has
been made in incorporating the principles contained in the Rio
Declaration on Environment and Development--including the
principle of common but differentiated responsibilities, which
embodies the important concept of and basis for international
partnership; the precautionary principle; the polluter pays
principle; and the environmental impact assessment principle .
. . Economic development, social development and environmental
protection are interdependent and mutually reinforcing
components of sustainable development . . . . Sustainable
development strategies are important mechanisms for enhancing
and linking national capacity so as to bring together
priorities in social, economic and environmental policies . . .
In integrating economic, social and environmental objectives,
it is important that a broad package of policy instruments,
including regulation, economic instruments, internalization of
environmental costs in market prices, environmental and social
impact analysis, and information dissemination, be worked out
in the light of country-specific conditions to ensure that
integrated approaches are effective and cost-efficient.
Unsustainable patterns of production and consumption,
particularly in the industrialized countries, are identified in
Agenda 21 as the major cause of continued deterioration of the
global environment. While unsustainable patterns in the
industrialized countries continue to aggravate the threats to
the environment, there remain huge difficulties for developing
countries in meeting basic needs such as food, health care,
shelter and education for people. All countries should strive
to promote sustainable consumption patterns; developed
countries should take the lead in achieving sustainable
consumption patterns; developing countries should seek to
achieve sustainable consumption patterns in their development
process, guaranteeing the provision of basic needs for the
poor, while avoiding those unsustainable patterns, particularly
in industrialized countries, generally recognized as unduly
hazardous to the environment, inefficient and wasteful, in
their development processes . . .
1997--The Nairobi Declaration [http://www.ourplanet.com/imgversn/
86/nairobi.html] of the Governing Council of the United Nations
Environment Programme on the Role and Mandate of UNEP is issued, in
which the role of UNEP is confirmed as ``the leading global
environmental authority that sets the global environmental agenda, that
promotes the coherent implementation of the environmental dimension of
sustainable development within the United Nations system and that
serves as an authoritative advocate for the global environment . . .''
1997--Information Provided by the Government of United States to
the United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development--
Implementation of Agenda 21: Review of Progress Made Since the United
States Conference on Environment and Development, 1992 [http://
www.un.org/esa/earthsummit/usa-cp.htm] includes the statements:
Chapter 10: Integrated Approach to the Planning and Management of
Land Resources
. . . With respect to Federal lands, the U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA) and the U.S. Department of the Interior
(USDI) have embraced the Ecosystem Approach to land management.
The Ecosystem Approach to land management entails a
comprehensive evaluation of all natural resource areas when
making land management decisions within both Federal and non-
Federal territory . . . TNC [The Nature Conservancy] has also
helped establish a network of ``Heritage Programmes'' which are
in place in all fifty states. These programmes inventory
endangered and threatened species and provide the scientific
basis for prioritizing and guiding development away from
critical habitat areas. The USDI National Biological Service
(NBS) is establishing mechanisms to collect and assess
biological information that will assist decision makers in
developing management and protection strategies.
Chapter 11: Combating Deforestation
. . . The U.S. is moving forward to enforce its commitment to
sustainable forestry by several measures, including:
establishing an ecosystem approach to sustainable forest
management, inventorying forest area by ecosystem, and
adjusting the balance between environmental and commercial use
of publicly owned lands. It also includes developing domestic
criteria and indicators for sustainable management of U.S.
forests and participating in the development of internationally
agreed criteria and indicators for the conservation and
sustainable management of temperate and boreal forests.
1997--The Kyoto Protocol of the UN Framework Convention on Climate
Change, adopted at the third Conference of the Parties makes explicit
reference to land use change and forestry under several of its
articles.
1997--A Committee of Scientists is appointed ``to provide
scientific and technical advice'' to the Secretary of Agriculture and
the Chief of the Forest Service on improvements that can be made in the
National Forest System Land and Resource Management planning process.
Instead, the Committee declared that ecological sustainability should
be given priority over social and economic sustainability. In their
report entitled Sustainability: The Overarching Objective of National
Forest Stewardship (no longer available online) they wrote:
Accordingly, based on the statutory framework for the national
forests and grasslands, the first priority for management is to
retain and restore the ecological sustainability of these
watersheds, forests, and rangelands for present and future
generations. The Committee believes that the policy of
sustainability should be the guiding star for stewardship of
the national forests and grasslands to assure the continuation
of this array of benefits . . . Sustainability is broadly
recognized to be composed of interdependent elements,
ecological, economic, and social. It operates on several
levels. As a collective vision, sustainability means meeting
the needs of the present generation without compromising the
ability of future generations to meet their needs. As an
approach to decision making, it calls for integrating the
management of biological and ecological systems with their
social and economic context, while acknowledging that
management should not compromise the basic functioning of these
systems.
In Ecological Sustainability: ``A Necessary Foundation for
Stewardship'' is the statement:
Ecological sustainability entails maintaining the composition,
structure, and processes of a system. The National Forest
Management Act (NFMA) establishes the goals of maintaining
species' diversity and ecological productivity; these goals are
consistent with the concept of ecological sustainability. The
Committee recommends that ecological sustainability provide a
foundation upon which the management for national forests and
grasslands can contribute to economic and social
sustainability. This finding does not mean that the Forest
Service is expected to maximize the protection of plant and
animal species and environmental protection to the exclusion of
other human values and uses. Rather, it means that planning for
the multiple use and sustained yield of the resources of
national forests and grasslands should operate within a
baseline level of ensuring the sustainability of ecological
systems and native species. Without ecologically sustainable
systems, other uses of the land and its resources could be
impaired.
1997--The fifth Council on Sustainable Development and the 19th
Special Session of the UN General Assembly (UNGASS) endorsed the
Intergovernmental Panel on Forests' (IPF) outcome and recommended a
continuation of the intergovernmental policy dialogue on forests.
Subsequently, the UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) established
the Intergovernmental Forum on Forests (IFF) to continue this work
under the auspices of the CSD. In its final meeting in 1997, the UN Ad
Hoc Intergovernmental Panel on Forests recommended more than 150
Proposals for Action to the international community to address a range
of forest problems that countries should address at the domestic level.
The IPF Proposals cover five themes: (1) Implementation of the United
Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) decisions
related to forests at the national and international levels; (2)
International cooperation in financial assistance and technology
transfer; (3) Scientific research, forest assessment, and development
of criteria and indicators for sustainable forest management; (4) Trade
and environment in relation to forest products and services; (5)
International organizations and multilateral institutions, and
instruments, including appropriate legal mechanisms. See A Brief to
Global Forest Policy [http://www.iisd.ca/process/
forest_desertification_land-forestintro.htm].
1998--A UN Workshop on the Ecosystem Approach produced the Malawi
Principles [http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/006/Y4773E/y4773e0e.htm], twelve
principles/characteristics of the ecosystem approach to biodiversity
management which were presented at the Fourth Meeting of the Conference
of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity.
1998--Secretary Dan Glickman made these opening remarks [http://
www.fao.org/DOCREP/006/Y4773E/y4773e0e.htm] at the Sustainable Resource
Management Meeting:
It is my hope and expectation that the same level of commitment
that led to international development and agreement on the
criteria and indicators for sustainable forest management, will
now occur at the national level as we work to implement and
build on this framework.
1998--G8 Foreign Ministers, including President Clinton, approved
an Action Program on Forests [http://www.mofa.go.jp/policy/economy/
summit/2002/g8forest2.html]. The action program commits G8 countries
(the world's major industrial democracies) to take specific actions in
five areas: monitoring, remote sensing data and assessment, national
forest programs, protected areas, private sector, and illegal logging.
G8 members are providing financial and technical resources for work to
utilize remote sensing, promote decentralization of forest management,
consolidate establishment of cross-boundary Peace Parks, encourage
public-private partnerships, and strengthen forest law and governance.
1999--The Presidents Council on Sustainable Development issued a
report entitled Natural Resources Management and Protection Task Force
Report [http://clinton2.nara.gov/PCSD/Publications/TF_Reports/
natural.pdf] which stated:
Convene a National Forestry Advisory Council comprised of a
representative balance of stakeholders to define and help
achieve sustainable management of forests on a national basis
by the year 2000.
. . . this recommendation would include reviewing the possible
classification of public and private forestlands in states by
management goal categories . . .
The United States announced its commitment to implement
ecosystem management on all Federal forestlands at the Earth
Summit in June 1992 at Rio de Janeiro. The United States also
made a commitment to a national goal of achieving sustainable
management of U.S. forests by the year 2000 at the Ministerial
Conference on the Protection of Forests in June 1993 at
Helsinki, Finland.
1999--Doug MacCleery, Assistant Director of Forest Management for
the USDA/Forest Service, wrote in Ecological Sustainability,
Consumption and NIMBYism [http://www.inwoodlands.org/storage/past-
issues/EcologicalSustainability.htm]:
Over the last two decades there has been a substantial shift in
the management emphasis of public lands in the United States.
This shift has increased the emphasis on managing for
biodiversity protection and amenity values, and reduced
commodity outputs. Terms like ``ecosystem management'' and
``ecological sustainability'' are used to describe this change
in management emphasis, which is often referred to as a
``paradigm shift.''
McCleery goes on to decry the fact that consumption patterns have
not decreased, redirecting timber production to Canada and private
forests. He advocates for an individual behavioral ethic of reduction
in personal consumption.
1999--The Board on Sustainable Development, Policy Division,
National Research Council at the National Academy of Sciences released
Our Common Journey
[http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309067839] to address the
research needs for the global commons of atmosphere, land, and water as
well as to respond to the Academies' desire to reinvigorate the role of
science and development in sustainable development.
1999--The UNCED Committee on Forestry, Inter-governmental Panel on
Forests (IPF) [http://www.fao.org/docrep/meeting/X0703e.htm] issued a
final report containing 143 proposals for action in four areas relating
to the implementation of UNCED decisions: (1) formulation and
implementation of national forest and land use plans, (2) international
cooperation in financial assistance and technology transfer, (3) forest
assessment and development of Criteria and Indicators for sustainable
forest management, (4) trade and the environment relating to forest
products and services, international organizations and multilateral
institutions and instruments, including appropriate mechanisms.
2000--The UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC), responding to
recommendations of the ad hoc Intergovernmental Forum on Forests (IFF),
outlined an international arrangement on forests and established a new
permanent subsidiary body, the UN Forum on Forests (UNFF). The
international arrangement and UNFF were established to facilitate
implementation of the IPF/IFF Proposals for Action, provide forum for
policy dialogue, enhance coordination of work of international
organizations, foster international cooperation, monitor and assess
progress, and enhance political commitment to sustainable forest
management.
2000-2005--The UN Forum on Forests (UNFF) operated under a multi-
year program of work from 2000-2005, focusing on thematic areas related
to sustainable forest management, including: deforestation, forest
restoration, biological diversity, forest health, forest products,
economic aspects of forests, forest-related scientific knowledge,
social and cultural aspects, traditional forest-related knowledge, and
monitoring, assessment and reporting. Also through this process, the
Collaborative Partnership on Forests (CPF) [http://www.cpfweb.org/en/],
a partnership among international forest-related organizations, was
established to provide a means for United Nations agencies and
multilateral donors to improve coordination of their efforts to
facilitate sustainable forest management. The interagency partnership,
which includes fourteen key institutions, is contributing to
international cooperation through work, among other things, on:
Sourcebook on Funding Sustainable Forest Management [http://
www.cpfweb.org/73034/en/]; Streamlining Forest-Related Reporting
[http://www.cpfweb.org/73035/en/]; Harmonizing Forest-Related
definitions [http://www.cpfweb.org/73036/en/]; Establishing a Global
Forest Information Service [http://www.cpfweb.org/73037/en/]; Forests
and Climate Change [http://www.cpfweb.org/73031/en/].
2000--A Federal MOU was signed on Sustainable Forest Management
Data [http://www.fs.fed.us/sustained/commitment.html] making data
available on an ongoing basis related to the Montreal Process Criteria
and Indicators.
2000--Sustainable Forest and Resource Management, Domestic Actions
of the Forest Service, List of Actions Being Taken was issued [http://
www.fs.fed.us/sustained/sus-res-mgt-accom-fs-apr21.doc], as was the
Integration Of Sustainable Resource Management and Criteria And
Indicators In The USDA Forest Service
[http://www.fs.fed.us/sustained/sdit-action-plan-2-26-01.doc].
2000--The USFS published its USDA Forest Service Strategic Plan
(2000 Revision) [http://www.fs.fed.us/plan/stratplan.pdf] listing
``Ecosystem Health'' as its #1 Goal--Promote ecosystem health and
conservation using a collaborative approach to sustain the Nation's
forests, grasslands and watersheds. Goal #2 was ``Multiple Benefits to
People''--Provide a variety of uses, values, products, and services for
present and future generations by managing within the capability of
sustainable ecosystems.
2000--Ruth McWilliams (USDA Forest Service) gave an address to the
National Planning Conference on ``Healthy Ecosystems . . . Healthy
Communities'' [http://www.fs.fed.us/sustained/apa-april-2000.doc],
stating ``Sustainability is the goal'' and ``Collaboration is the
Approach''.
2000--At the Federal Interagency Leadership Meeting on Sustainable
Forest Management, USDA Deputy Secretary Richard Rominger spoke on the
U.S. Commitment to Sustainable Forest Management [http://www.fs.fed.us/
sustained/rominger-aug-00.doc]. Rominger stated:
Sustainable forest management . . . builds on and advances the
work of the Brundtland Commission that articulated sustainable
development in 1987 . . .
Action on sustainable forest management is at a critical
juncture--internationally and domestically.
* Internationally, the United Nations is establishing a new
Forum on Forests. This should expedite implementation of
existing agreements, provide a policy framework, and coordinate
the work of international organizations.
* Domestically, the multi-stakeholder Roundtable on Sustainable
Forests is using the framework provided by the Montreal Process
Criteria and Indicators to move us closer to achieving
sustainable forest management. As the Roundtable moves from its
first phase of building understanding, to assessment and
reporting, it's important that we clearly identify the Federal
leadership role.
2000--Regarding the Roundtable on Sustainable Forest, Phil Janik
wrote
[http://www.fs.fed.us/sustained/ltr-rsf-janik-10-12-2000.doc]:
I am the Federal lead for the Roundtable. In that capacity, I
advocate the use of the Criteria and Indicators as a common
framework for the discussion and dialogue at Roundtable
meetings. I participate personally in related national and
international activities. For example, I chaired the eleventh
meeting of the Montreal Process Working Group, and I work with
State Foresters to promote the use of the Criteria and
Indicators in their endeavors within states.
2001--Doug MacCleery, USDA/Forest Service, wrote a memo on
Measuring SFM (Sustainable Forest management): What are some of the
elements and scales? [http://www.fs.fed.us/sustained/measuring-
smf2.rtf]
2001--In an address to the Executive Leadership Meeting of the
Roundtable on Sustainable Forests entitled The Forest Service's
Commitment to Sustainable Forest Management And the Roundtable on
Sustainable Forests [http://www.fs.fed.us/sustained/bosworth-sfm-11-14-
2001.doc], Forest Service Chief Dale Bosworth stated:
Work done by the Brundlandt Commission during the 1980s, the
agenda identified at the Earth Summit in 1992, and efforts now
underway by Montreal Process countries on the Criteria and
Indicators for the Conservation and Sustainable Management of
Temperate and Boreal Forests define the basic elements of
sustainable development and serve as anchors for Federal policy
. . .
Last year the Forest Service incorporated these ideas into an
updated expression of the agency's mission. Our long-term
Strategic Plan states: ``The mission of the USDA Forest Service
is to sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of the
nation's forests and grasslands to meet the needs of present
and future generations.'' . . .
At the national level I do intend to continue strong support
for sustainability. We are advancing use of the Montreal
Process Criteria and Indicators as a common framework for
measuring progress. For example, we used the seven Criteria to
organize the 2000 Assessment of Forest and Range Lands, and we
are applying the Criteria and Indicators to local conditions on
six national forests in the east and west to test their
usefulness and better understand how to integrate processes
across scales . . . More work is underway at the ecoregional,
national, and global levels--and so now the key is to integrate
our local to global efforts in ways that make sense.
Bosworth reiterated these ideas in a speech to the Society of
American Foresters entitled The Forest Service's Role in Fostering
Sustainability [http://www.fs.fed.us/sustained/2001may29-
bosworth.html].
2002--The Pinchot Institute published Linkages Between the IPF/IFF
Proposals for Action and the Montreal Process Criteria and Indicators
[http://www.fs.fed.us/global/aboutus/policy/multi/reports/
Crosswalk1.pdf].
2002--The Johannesburg Plan of Implementation was agreed upon at
the World Summit on Sustainable Development (Earth Summit 2002) [http:/
/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Summit_on_Sustainable_Development]. It
affirmed UN commitment to ``full implementation'' of Agenda 21,
alongside achievement of the Millennium Development Goals [http://
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Development_Goals] and other
international agreements. The Millennium Development Goals Report 2010
Environmental Sustainability [http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/pdf/
MDG%20Report%202010%20En%20r15%20-low%20res%2020100615%20-.pdf#page=54]
includes: Target 7.A: Integrate the principles of sustainable
development into country policies and programmes and reverse the loss
of environmental resources; Target 7.B: Reduce biodiversity loss,
achieving, by 2010, a significant reduction in the rate of loss.
2002--A memorandum [http://www.fs.fed.us/sustained/wssd-respons-
upd.doc] was issued outlining the U.S. Forest Service Responsibilities
for Covering and Coordinating Activities at the World Summit on
Sustainable Development in Johannesburg.
2002--A memorandum from Joel D. Holtrop, Deputy Chief State and
Private Forestry, talked about their attendance at the World Summit on
Sustainable Development in South Africa and discussed the USFS's
commitment to championing sustainable development, including chairing
the Roundtable on Sustainable Forests (Montreal Process).
2002--Chief Dale Bosworth addressed Leadership for Sustainable
Development within the Forest Service [http://www.fs.fed.us/sustained/
leadership-sustainable-development.doc], attaching a Sustainable
Development Portfolio of Work [http://www.fs.fed.us/sustained/final-
enclosure.doc], which included such items as: United Nations Forum on
Forests (UNFF)--Proposals for Action; U.S. assessment underway; World
Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD)--Follow-up to Earth Summit
with preparations through Federal interagency, USDA, and FS teams;
World Forestry Congress--Preparations for 2003 event getting underway;
WO-Sustainable Development Issues Team (SDIT)--Chartered by Ecosystem
Sustainability Corporate Team (ESCT) to advance use of CI through
annually updated Action Plan.
2007--After 15 years of discussions and negotiations on a global
approach to protect the world's forests, countries (meeting at United
Nations Headquarters in New York ) adopted an agreement on
international forest policy and cooperation (International Forest
Policy--the instruments, agreements and processes that shape it [http:/
/www.un.org/esa/forests/pdf/publications/Intl_Forest_Policy_
instruments_agreements.pdf]), as well as a new multi-year program of
work through 2015. The new agreement, although not legally binding,
aims to promote both international cooperation and national action to
reduce deforestation, prevent forest degradation, promote sustainable
livelihoods and reduce poverty for all forest-dependent peoples.
Another area of disagreement that has long plagued forest negotiations
concerned a financing mechanism to mobilize funding for sustainable
forest management. The agreement calls on countries to adopt, by 2009,
a voluntary global financing mechanism for forest management.
2008-2009--A briefing paper entitled ``Completion and Outcomes of
the United Nations (UN) Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD),
Third Implementation Cycle (2008-2009), Policy Session on Thematic
Areas: Agriculture, Rural Development, Land, Drought, Desertification,
and Africa'' described the USDA and Forest Service's close association
with the CSD. This report is no longer available on the Net. One
section more than adequately documents the fact that USFS policies and
rules have been heavily molded and driven by an international agenda
embraced by the Administration, rather than Congressional statute.
Implementation in the Siskiyou County/Klamath Area
Tom McDonnell wrote in his Technical Review Of The Wildlands
Project And How It Is Affecting The Management Of State, Federal And
Private Lands In The United States [http://citizenreviewonline.org/
april_2002/wildlands_project_history.htm]:
In the introduction to the Wildlands Project, Dave Foreman
states that this project serves as a coming together of grass-
roots conservation activists and as a foundation for their
active vision of how to protect and perpetuate native species
and systems across the North American continent. He states,
``Our vision is continental . . . we seek to bring together
conservationist, ecologists, indigenous peoples, and others to
protect and restore evolutionary processes and biodiversity.''
He then states that areas such as National Parks and
wildernesses are insufficient for they are designed ``to
protect scenery and recreation, or to create outdoor zoos.'' He
goes on to state that the ``Wildlands Project in contrast calls
for reserves established to protect wildlife habitat,
biodiversity, ecological integrity, ecological service and
evolutionary processes--that is vast interconnected areas of
true wilderness.'' ``[W]e see wilderness as the home for
unfettered life, free from industrial human intervention.'' He
also says that this wilderness will be ``extensive areas of
native vegetation in various successional stages, off-limits to
human exploitation. Vast landscapes without roads, dams,
motorized vehicles, powerlines, overflights, or other artifacts
of civilization.'' Over half the North American land mass is
envisioned as making up this massive wilderness reserve system.
The project calls on the establishment of systems of core
wilderness areas where human activity is prohibited, linked
with biological corridors. Around these core reserve areas and
their interlinking corridors, buffers are to be established.
The buffer areas are to be managed to restore ecological
health. Human activity associated with civilization--
agriculture, industrial production, urban centers--will be
allowed to continue outside these buffered regions.
Using the Noss model, the activist groups will identify and map
all existing protected areas including Federal and state
wilderness areas, parks and wildlife refuges, heritage areas,
monuments, BLM Areas of Critical Concern (ACC) and USFS
Research Natural Areas (RNA). To assist in this step, activists
rely on a variety of other maps including: National Park system
maps, National Wildlife Refuge maps, Forest Service RNA maps,
Bureau of Land Management ACC maps, BLM Wilderness Status maps
and Nature Conservancy preserve maps.
After all the currently protected areas are laid out onto a
single map, the third step is to overlay this map of currently
protected areas with a map of large roadless areas. Roadless
areas, also called Big Outside Areas, are defined as roadless
areas of 100,000 or more acres in the West, and 50,000 or more
acres in the East. These roadless areas may include state,
Federal and private land. Roadless maps may include protected
areas such as National Parks, and unprotected areas such as
Federal multiple-use lands, state lands and private lands. The
only qualify factors of this roadless area map is size in term
of acreage and the fact that there are no roads. The Wildlands
Project's central Tucson office has at least 385 maps of large
roadless areas available and has been working the last year on
the development of more detailed state maps to assist regional
groups in their work.
The fourth step is to analyze the geographical arrangement of
the map of currently protected areas, with its overlay of
roadless areas, for logical complexes of wild places and
probable linking corridors. The protected areas such as
wildernesses and National Parks within the Big Outside
(roadless) areas are identified as key core areas. Protected
areas found outside identified roadless areas are examined to
see if they can ``serve as beads in Biological Corridors
linking Core Wilderness together.'' Identified roadless areas
that are not already protected with National Park, wilderness
or other similar designations, are considered unprotected and
given the highest priority for conservation. Unprotected
roadless areas which are Federal and state lands are targeted
for future wilderness bills, heritage sites or other protective
legislation. Private lands within these areas are given the
highest priority for public agency or trust group acquisition.
In addition to legislation, this map also establishes the
priorities for appeals and litigation. As stated within
Wildlands documents, ``It is usually more important . . . to
stop an old-growth timber sale within a Big Outside area or in
a corridor between two core areas than to stop an old-growth
sale in a fragmented area far from potential cores or
corridors. It is usually more important to establish a
Wilderness Area that is part of a large complex, than one
isolated in a matrix of intensive human use.''
Siskiyou County, specifically the Klamath River Basin, has long
been a target for implementation of rewilding strategies under
``biodiversity,'' ``ecosystem management'' and ``sustainable
development.'' Drs. Michael Soule and Reed Noss recognized three
independent features that characterize contemporary rewilding: large,
strictly protected core reserves (the wild), connectivity, and keystone
species (aka the 3C's: Cores, Corridors, and Carnivores). Ref: Soule,
M., and R. Noss. 1998. Rewilding and biodiversity: Complementary goals
for continental conservation. WildEarth 8(3):18-28.
Noss indicated that in selecting keystone or focus species, he
would (1) identify and protect populations of rare and endangered
species; (2) maintain healthy populations of species that play critical
roles in their ecosystems (keystone species) or that have pragmatic
value as ``umbrellas'' (species that require large wild areas to
survive, and thus if protected will bring many species along with them)
or ``flagships'' (charismatic species that serve as popular symbols for
conservation); (3) protect high-quality examples of all natural
communities; and (4) identify and manage greater ecosystems or
landscapes for both biodiversity conservation and sustainable human
use.
Core reserves are wilderness areas that supposedly allow
biodiversity to flourish. These typically followed the pattern of
UNESCO's Man and the Biosphere (MAB) program with the set-aside of
``protected'' or ``core'' areas; ``managed use areas'' or ``buffer
zones''; and ``zones of cooperation'' or ``transition Areas.'' These
strategies were adopted under FEMAT for the Northwest Forest Plan for
the northern spotted owl, as well as the Sierra Nevada Framework.
In his article ``The Wildlands Project,'' WildEarth, Special Issue,
written in 1992, Noss stated that ``It is estimated that large
carnivores and ungulates require reserves on the scale of 2.5 to 25
million acres . . . For a minimum viable population of 1,000 (large
mammals), the figures would be 242 million acres for grizzly bears, 200
million acres for wolverines, and 100 million acres for wolves. Core
reserves should be managed as roadless areas (wilderness). All roads
should be permanently closed.''
In 1985, an effort was made by Reed Noss, author of the Wildlands
Project, to have four million hectares of the Klamath/Siskiyou area
designated a UN Biosphere Reserve. The NGO coordinating the work was
the Klamath Forest Alliance. The project sought not only to develop a
successful bioregional plan for Klamath/Siskiyou, but also to develop
methods for planning and implementation that were transferable to other
regions. The Klamath Corridors Project selected large unfragmented
habitat areas to be protected, connected by wide corridors to be set
aside for migration and genetic biodiversity. The area covered
approximately four million hectares, about \1/3\ in Oregon and the
balance in California. The project was funded by the W. Alton Jones
Foundation, the Foundation for Deep Ecology, The Wildlands Project, the
USDA Forest Service, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
In 1992 the World Conservation Union declared a 12 million acre
area of the Klamath-Siskiyou to be an Area of Global Botanical
Significance. This was one of seven such areas in North America and was
classified by the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) as a Global 200 site
[http://www.worldwildlife.org/science/ecoregions/global200.html].
In 1995, work began on an ambitious Klamath-Siskiyou Biodiversity
Conservation Plan, sponsored by the Siskiyou Regional Education Project
of Cave Junction, in partnership with the World Wildlife Fund. In 1997
The First Conference on Siskiyou Ecology was held and a petition was
sent from the conference to President Clinton, calling upon him to
preserve ``for posterity the principal values of biodiversity,
ecological stability, and aesthetic enrichment which the Klamath-
Siskiyou Province represents.''
In 1999, Noss and Strittholt completed A Science-based Conservation
Assessment for the Klamath-Siskiyou Ecoregion. In 2001, Noss and the
World Wildlife Federation set forth recommendations for preservation of
the Klamath-Siskiyou Forests. A proposed ``roadless map'' with
designated wilderness was developed for the region. Recommendations
included: the elimination of grazing; the listing of the fisher and
wolverine; reintroduction of wolves and grizzlies; halting of all
logging; establishing a system of parks and reserves; protecting
roadless areas; and purchasing of private lands for endangered species.
This was accompanied in 2002 by a case study of the Klamath-Siskiyou
Ecoregion on the ``Importance of Roadless Areas in Biodiversity
Conservation in Forested Ecosystems.''
In 2000, the Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument was established in
southern Oregon. Siskiyou County successfully fought the portion
proposed in its county. In 2003, the Klamath Basin Coalition of
environmental groups produced ``A Conservation Vision for the Klamath
Basin'' with a map of proposed ``protected areas.'' In 2004, the
Klamath Basin was named among the Top 10 ``Most Endangered Areas'' in
California. In 2005, the World Wildlife Fund named the Klamath among
California's Most Threatened Wild Places.
In 2004, the Nature Conservancy conducted an Assessment of the
Klamath Mountains Ecoregion. The California Wilderness Coalition
modeled a network of habitat linkages in the Klamath-Siskiyou Region.
The 2004 Siskiyou Private Lands Conservation Assessment identified 19
areas of private lands to be targeted for their high conservation
values.
In 2006, the Siskiyou National Monument was proposed to establish
corridors for biodiversity conservation.
In 2007, the CA Wild Heritage Act proposed several areas of
Wilderness expansion in Siskiyou County. The California Wildlife Action
Plan prepared for the California Department of Fish and Game by the UC
Davis Wildlife Health Center. The document listed 76 bird, 26
mammalian, two reptilian and 42 fish taxa on the ``Special Status
Vertebrates List'' and an additional 71 invertebrates on the Special
Animals List. The report targeted water management; instream gravel
mining; forest management; fire; agriculture; urban development,
livestock grazing and invasive species as ``stressors'' to wildlife
habitats.
In 2009, California Wild 2009 created another map targeting
Wilderness Expansion, additional Wild Rivers designation, roadless area
designation and reserve designs in the county. In 2009, another group
proposed 3,500,000 acres in California and Oregon to be called the
Ancient Forest National Park. The National Park Service has established
the Klamath Vital Signs Network of regional parks to be to be
inventoried and monitored. Documents appear to indicate that the Obama
Administration is again considering expanding the Oregon monument into
Siskiyou. Also, a second 200,000 acre national monument appears to have
also been put forth for consideration known as the ``Siskiyou Crest''
by KS WILD.
By 2011, the Nature Conservancy (TNC) and the Federal Government
had acquired 100,000 acres of private farms and ranches from the Upper
Klamath Basin and converted them to wetlands. The Secure Act allocates
WaterSMART funding for studies and a ``trade-off'' analysis leading to
a cooperative watershed management program. This would focus on
sustainable development; climate change; water supply and demand;
endangered species; flow; and flood control.
As mentioned in the prior section, since 1999, 8,625.71 acres have
been converted to Federal land. Another 11,236 acres of ranch land in
the Shasta Valley is currently proposed for conversion to a new
wildlife refuge. In addition, The proposed Klamath Basin Restoration
Agreement seeks to convert some 44,479 acres of farmland in the Upper
Klamath Basin to wetlands, (some of which may be in Siskiyou County.)
It also proposes to secure 21,800 acres of farmland by acquisition or
conservation easements in the Scott and Shasta Valleys of the county.
For several years, a campaign has been waged for the removal of
four (three hydroelectric) dams on the Klamath River. Three of those
dams are located in Siskiyou County. The Board of Supervisors is firmly
against dam removal and the associated Klamath Basin Restoration
Agreement that accompanies it. Negative impacts will be severely felt
by the people who live in Siskiyou County.
I sincerely thank you for this opportunity to comment.
Marcia H. Armstrong
Supervisor District 5,
Siskiyou County,
Yreka, CA.
appendix a
Timber Harvest Levels on the Major National Forests in Siskiyou County
(Portions of the Shasta Trinity and Six Rivers lie outside of Siskiyou
Co.)
Volume of Timber Sold by Forest
1978-2009 *
National Forests in Siskiyou County
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year Klamath Shasta Trinity Six Rivers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1978 238.78 273.93 72.95
1979 286.69 243.15 165.43
1980 255.3 212.29 146.99
1981 280.2 243.15 149.53
1982 243.73 219.59 120.14
1983 230.71 227.48 206.27
1984 128.66 198.76 128.07
1985 189.64 215.02 154.07
1986 173.64 160.39 129.53
1987 182.08 208.3 145.48
1988 311.66 243.11 137.77
1989 168.69 175.55 107.15
1990 99.82 179.95 55.16
1991 86.15 30.81 66.38
1992 27.93 52.94 11.08
1993 32.48 31.24 54.03
1994 23.82 19.9 3.49
1995 25.7 29.9 4.3
1996 39.6 52.7 10
1997 52.2 57.6 18.9
1998 29.5 87.1 14.7
1999 30.6 58.8 11.7
2000 2.9 4.2 2.8
2001 23.9 24.6 2.3
2002 24.3 39.1 1.8
2003 12.2 46.7 4.6
2004 14.4 44.4 4.5
2005 27.8 63.2 7
2006 20.7 40.4 12.7
2007 29.2 71.6 7.1
2008 19.8 21.9 8.2
2009 50.1 12.1 11.5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Data supplied by CFA (California Forestry Assoc.)
Volume of Timber Sold by Forest 1978-2009
In 2009, the Klamath NF sold 50.06 MMBF. It had a net growth of
125.7 MMBF and an annual mortality of 90.1 MMBF
In 2009, the Shasta Trinity NF sold 12.07 MMBF. It had a net
growth of 459.7 MMBF and an annual mortality of 99.4 MMBF
(Data Source: Western Core Table Reports [http://www.fs.fed.us/
r5/rsl/publications/westcore/] and 2009 Accomplishment Report.
Data from growing stock on available, productive forestland.
______
Submitted Statement by Jerry Petik, Director, Grand River Grazing
Cooperative Association
Mar. 27 2012
The Grand River Grazing Association thanks the Committee for the
opportunity to submit comment to the Record regarding the hearing held
on March 27 titled ``U.S. Forest Service Land Management: Challenges
and Opportunities''
The Grand River Grazing Association was organized in 1940 for the
purpose of managing the newly acquired land, 136,000 acres, by the
Federal Government in Corson and Perkins Counties in Northwestern South
Dakota. The Association now consists of 90 members nearly all family
farm operations, running about 14,600 cattle plus sheep on these
National Grasslands.
The National grasslands evolved from lands purchased under the
Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act. According to the Act, ``The intent of
the government was to re-vegetate these lands and to stabilize the
local economies.''
The objectives of the Association is and always has been to produce
meat for the country and world consumers, provide for the well-being
for the families on these diverse lands and local communities, allow
for the diversity of the rangeland and strive to improve the range,
doing it all in a sustainable manner.
In this testimony the Grand River Grazing Association would like to
address the general management processes of the Forest Service
including how they deal with people and organizations that are directly
impacted by their decisions.
Unfortunately, the Forest Service has a history of retaliation,
intimidation, abuse of power and harassment toward the grazing
associations that represent the farmers and ranchers using the National
Forests. That ill treatment is documented in a report issued by the
Grand River Cooperative Grazing Association:
Documentation of retaliation, intimidation, abuse of power, and
harassment By the Forest Service toward the Grand River Cooperative
Grazing Association
Date: March 2011
Report by: Van C. Elsbernd (e-mail: [Redacted]), manager, Great Plains
Consulting LLC, [Redacted], Fort Collins, CO
Overall, the Forest Service personnel have not followed Forest
Service policy and have not implemented the protocols for dealing with
impacted people and their representative organizations, like Grand
River Grazing Association in an effective way. This leaves ranchers
unprepared for new regulations and changes to their grazing practices
and unable to plan for their operations OR the best use of all grazing
lands in the region.
Forest Service personnel have made a habit of not following the
plans and Forest Service policy but expect the ranchers to follow it to
a Tee. Actions such as Removal of allotments without cause and
developing projects without any intention to garner input or support
from the Grazing Association and local government are just two examples
of clear violations of the Grazing Agreement.
One reason this happens so frequently is due to the appeals process
within the Forest Service. ``The appeal process in house'' is a term
used within the Forest Service to allow personnel's actions to be
evaluated, revised, approved or rejected by that person's supervisor.
However, the more controversial plans often circumvent this in house
approach and projects are only developed in conjunction with one's
immediate supervisor. This limits the ability for more creative
thinking and new ideas to be injected into these plans and also limits
the ability for the impacted ranchers to give input.
The FS has set up a new grazing assn. without following FS policy
or South Dakota state laws as to the incorporation of associations.
We only need to look to the Founders of our Constitution for the
best example as to conduct the business and to work and communicate
with the ranchers using the national Grasslands. The Constitution
provides for three branches of Government each meant to keep the others
in line. This emphasizes the need for respect and all parties to
understand the `rules of engagement'. This allows for independence yet
assures others can participate and provide for an amicable atmosphere
for debate and decision making. It also provides an avenue for finding
positive solutions with peers, and not a confrontational struggle for
dominance or a struggle from weakness just to be heard or to
participate!
In other cases the Forest Service attempts to amend Grazing
Agreements even when it is not agreeable to both parties. We believe it
is essential that any amendments must be agreeable to both parties
involved. Forest Service policy requires cooperation with impacted
groups and a mechanism for cooperating has been in place since the
founding of our Grazing Association in 1940. However, the Forest
Service is unwilling, in many cases, to use that process and come to an
agreement through negotiation. The Forest Service personnel must
recognize this policy of cooperation and make good-will efforts to
negotiate any changes or amendment to Grazing Agreements through the
process established and historically utilized.
Communications about the actual management of the grasslands has
been sparse and input from ranchers who have taken care of this land
for generations has not been sought. Two examples of unclear
communication and decisions without input are regarding the Prairie
dogs and Crested Wheat Grass.
For Prairie Dogs, the official plan shows where the Forest Service
wants the colonies and what minimum size is needed but gives no
information as to what the maximum size would be and how to deal with
the dogs after the size and number of colonies has been reached. The
development of the general plan and how the plan would be managed was
never discussed with the Assn. other than told where the colonies were
going to be. Also, there is no plan to control the dogs that leave and
go to private lands where they are not wanted. However, there is a
``good neighbor policy'' that states that the dogs are to be controlled
when they go to private land. But, when asked, there has not been any
information as to how large the colonies would be permitted to grow or
how to control the dogs after needed numbers were achieved.
Crested wheatgrass was developed and introduced during the 1930s to
stop the wind erosion because of the drought. I would say it this way
``crested wheatgrass is what held the world together.'' However, the
Forest Service is now planning to drastically reduce it from the
National Grasslands.
Burning of heavy old growth/crested wheat grass can be an
indication of failed management practices. If there were better
relations between the Forest Service personal and the ranchers, it
could be possible to increase and decrease the cattle numbers to
reflect the prairie growing conditions.
Burning can be a good tool but it can do long term damage as well.
The soil and material moisture needs to be right. If too dry, the
crowns of the preferable grass species will burn and they will not grow
to take advantage of the burned out crested wheatgrass. The results
will be an even more vigorous stand of crested wheat grass. Burned
areas need to be grazed reasonable heavy the years following the burn
to keep pressure on the crested wheatgrass or it will just come back
and all your efforts will be lost. Burning should be the tool of last
resort after heavier grazing and better rotation practices.
Unfortunately, the Forest Service did not take these factors into
account when burning the grasslands in our region.
I must confess that ranchers could also have done a better job in
dealing with crested wheatgrass and getting better usage of it. Grass
species diversity is always good for rangeland's health.
The Forest Service has not been willing to allow the ranchers and
college experts (NDSU) to participate in developing the objectives that
would enhance the health of plant life in our region and have not even
involved them in developing the criteria for determining how that
objective should be approached or even if it should attempted.
Some personnel have lost sight of the diversity goals for National
Grasslands and are now monitoring for single and specific objectives.
One of those objectives is improving the habitat for the grouse. They
think the grouse need high native grasses. The FS says the National
Grassland in pastures 1-5 are 97% capable of tall grass. A rangeland
specialist, Dr. Kevin Sedivec from NDSU puts that number at 3%.
However, it is clear that our region is a short grass prairie and
grouse have thrived on that short grass prairie for generations.
Finally, in 2012, there is going to be research to determine how
much of the range is capable to produce tall grass. One would think
that this research should have been done before any decision to strive
for tall grass for the grouse.
The Forest Service has not only used these strong arm tactics with
individual ranchers and the Grazing Association. They have attempted to
over-ride state law in closing roads on section lines, and require the
county to build roads on private lands to be incorporated into forest
service road systems.
Building a ``road to no-where'' and locating a camping site in a
flood-plain are other examples of non-cooperation and plowing ahead
with a single person's idea.
Very recently, two Forest Service personal have been replaced.
Lines of communication have improved. Time will tell how successful
that will be. Both sides see a window of opportunity and are working in
a positive direction. This came about because of intervention by South
Dakota and North Dakota Congressional delegations and the states'
Secretaries of Agriculture not because of any internal Forest Service
policy.
In closing, I would like to ask you to re-evaluate the oversight
process and make policy very clear, that impacted individuals and
groups are to be included in a meaningful manner at all steps in
project development and implementation.
Thank you for this opportunity to provide comment and taking our
recommendations into account. If you have any questions or would like
additional information, please contact me at [Redacted] or [Redacted].
Sincerely,
Jerry Petik,
Director,
Grand River Grazing Cooperative Association,
Lemmon, SD.
attachment
Grand River Cooperative Grazing Association
Documentation of retaliation, intimidation, abuse of power, and
harassment by the Forest Service toward the Grand River
Cooperative Grazing Association
March 2011
1. Allotments 1-5 Project
During the working group meetings with Grand River Cooperative
Grazing Association (GRCGA), District Ranger Joby Timm and writer/
editor Dan Swingen both promised the P. 1-5 ranchers the following:
Reductions would be temporary.
Reductions would be reinstated ASAP after the decision.
The FS will keep reductions to a minimum, hardly any impact
to the ranchers.
At a Board of Directors meeting in April of 2010, Joby Timm told
the GRCGA Board of Directors the following:
Joby said the new Reviewing Officer on the Mediation Process of
Pastures One thru Five is Rick Brazell. He is with the Clear
Water National Forest in Idaho. We can expect his written
comments within 30 days. Joby said Grand River's appeal has one
more level, to the Regional Office. In the meantime there is a
stay on projects, no new fences, no new NEPA done. Question--no
cuts/reductions? Joby said yes, unless resource concerns arise,
drought, etc. (Doc #1).
In 2009, long before the Decision Notice for Pastures 1-5 was
signed, the Grand River Ranger District implemented most of the
reductions for the Pasture 1-5 Project through the AOIs that year and
continued them into 2010. District Ranger Joby Timm tried to explain
this away in his letter and attached table (Doc #2) to GRCGA on April
28, 2010. District Ranger Joby Timm states the following:
``The table shows planned stocking rates for 2009, actual
stocking rates for 2009 and planned stocking rate for 2010''
What District Ranger Joby Timm doesn't tell which is the basis for
the reductions, is that the reductions where taken off the 2008
stocking rates. This is explained in an analysis by Van C. Elsbernd,
Great Plains Consulting LLC (Doc #3) which shows what the true
reductions were for each allotment compared to the 2008 stocking rates
outlined in the Decision Notice and EA for Pasture 1-5 Project. The
2010 AOI's for the Grand River Cooperative Grazing Association were
prepared by the Forest Service on April 12, 2010. In each of the AOI's
the following statement is added (Allotment 4A is used as the example):
``4A is taking partial nonuse for resource protection, reducing
the stocking rate to 2.9ac/HM''
Van Elsbernd asked Tim Smith, President of the GRCGA, if all the
allotments had actually requested this type of partial nonuse. He said
that upon checking with each Director, that they knew of only one
Allotment that had made that request, Allotment 2A.
What the Forest Service has done by making the above statement is
imply that the permittees are requesting the partial nonuse for
resource protection. This is not the case at all. The above statement
should read as follows:
``The Forest Service is requiring Allotment 4A to take partial
nonuse for resource protection, reducing the stocking rate to
2.9ac/HM''
The Forest Service is implementing the reductions outlined in the
DN and Final EA for Pastures 1-5, which was at that time stayed. Since
the Grand River Ranger District has the final approval of the AOIs, and
the fact they actually prepare them, they could put anything they
wanted in the AOI with no consequences. It was not the members who
requested to take the reductions being implemented by the FS through
each AOI.
The Grand River Ranger District would then meet with each Pasture
Director and say to them that if you don't sign the AOI, then you won't
be allowed to graze this year. Having no recourse, each Director
signed.
During the 2011 AOIs Pasture meetings, the Grand River Ranger
District did not tell the GRCGA members that the stay had been lifted
from the Decision Notice and that they the FS was supposed to implement
the 10% per year reductions as outlined in the DN. The reason for this
is they had already implemented those reductions in 2009 and 2010 AOIs
and did not want to give those up. This was confirmed in the Pasture 3A
meeting when Tim Smith asked Joby Timm and Paul Drayton if they had
told the members in the other Pasture meetings that the FS was to
implement the reductions schedule as outlined in the DN. Both Joby and
Paul said they had not.
2. Retaliation Against GRCGA AOI Stocking Rates
Before the 2010 grazing season started Grand River District Ranger
Joby Timm announced a 35% reduction in livestock grazing for the 2010
season on Pasture 3A, which is grazed by several permittees, including
the President of the GRCGA. Mr. Timm explained: ``We are not
implementing the plan this year, because of the appeal. I can stock it
[Pastures 1-5] at any rate because I am the district ranger. It is my
call.''
Mr. Timm also said that the Forest Service would not approve any
range projects this year on the allotments covered by the Decision
Notice also because of the appeal. Finally, he then stated ifGRCGA were
to drop the appeal, he would return to the phased-in reductions in the
Decision Notice and allow range improvement projects identified in the
same decision to go forward.
By tying an offer to return to the 10% reductions identified in the
Decision Notice to dropping of the appeal, Mr. Timm clearly connected
the recently announced reductions to the Association's exercise of its
right to file an appeal. Even though GRCGA did not appeal the range
improvements in the decision, Timm halted that work unless GRCGA would
drop its appeal. This action violates the constitutional rights of the
Association members and is per se arbitrary and unlawful action.
A federal agency cannot interfere with the exercise of
constitutional rights, and that exercising the right to appeal a
decision is protected under the First Amendment. La Compania Ocho v.
U.S. Forest Service, 874 F. Supp. 1242, 1247-49 (D. N.M. 1995). An
agency ``may not take retaliatory action against an individual designed
either to punish him for having exercised his constitutional right to
seek judicial relief or to intimidate or chill his exercise of that
right in the future.'' Harrison v. Springdale Water & Sewer Commission,
780 F.2d 1422, 1428 (8th Cir. 1986). Constitutional claims against
federal agency officials enjoy the same protection as actions against
state officials under the Civil Rights Act. 42 U.S.C. 1983. Gordon v.
Hansen, 168 F.3d 1109, 1113 (8th Cir. 1999).
Mr. Timm is also incorrect when he stated that he has unlimited
authority to impose reductions. The Grazing Agreement requires the
Forest Service to mediate with the Association about any reductions.
``Any changes in management policy including but not limited to changes
in permitted numbers and/or adjustments to the grazing season will be
mutually resolved. Every effort will be made by both parties to settle
disputes in good faith in an honest and open manner. Impasses will be
negotiated through the C.R.M. (Coordinated Resource Management)
process, or the M.O.U. (Memorandum of Understanding--Allotment
Management Planning of South Dakota).'' Grazing Agreement at C4.
Forest Service grazing policy also precludes reductions of more
than 20% in any single year. Forest Service Manual (FSM) 2200 Range
Management, Chapter 30, WO Amendment, 2231.61--Modification of Grazing
Permits; Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 2209.13, Chapter 10, R-1 Interim
Directive No: 2209.1302007-1, 16.1--Modification of Grazing Permit;
compare FSH 2209.13, 08/3/92 (for reference).
GRCGA understands that the Forest Service attributes the reductions
to resource conditions, due to drought and ``impacts of continuous
livestock grazing.'' The Forest Service rules provide ``Where the
modification is the result of concerns about the condition of rangeland
resources, 36 C.F.R. 222.4(a)(8) requires the authorized officer to
provide the permittee with one year's advance notice prior to
implementation of the modification.''
The inescapable conclusion is that Mr. Timm does not have unlimited
power to impose a 35% reduction two months before the start of the
grazing season. The Grazing Agreement and Forest Service rules and
policy impose procedures and limit the scope of reductions. Timm has
ignored everything to bring more pressure on GRCGA to drop the appeal
and this violates the law.
On June 22, 2010 GRCGA filed a request for modification of stay
Grand River District Ranger's post-appeal livestock grazing reductions
following its September 30, 2009 Notice of Decision (Decision Notice),
Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI), and Environmental Assessment
(EA). The Decision Notice notified GRCGA's members of changes in the
terms and conditions for livestock grazing on Allotments 1-5 for the
Grand River National Grassland located in Perkins County, South Dakota
and managed as part of the Dakota Prairie Grasslands (Doc #47).
A modified stay is warranted under 251.91(b), which allows for
the issuance of a stay if harmful effects occur during the pendency of
the appeal. Since GRCGA's appeal of the Decision Notice was filed and
in direct retaliation therefore, the District Ranger Joby Timm has
unlawfully imposed without process required by the 2002 Grazing
Agreement, law, Forest Service rules and policy, significant reductions
in livestock grazing for the 2010 season on the majority of the
allotments that are the subject of this appeal. The decision was
verbally implemented in a meeting held on March 25, 2010, and more
recently through the affected grazing permittees' 2010 AOIs, under the
false premise of non-use for resource protection.
The unwarranted retaliatory reductions are over and above, and
directly contradict, the District Ranger's September 30, 2009 Decision
Notice which imposes a maximum 10% or less reduction on Allotments 1-5.
That decision was issued through a public NEPA decision-making process
in which the GRCGA was afforded the opportunity to administratively
appeal. On November 16, 2010, GRCGA exercised its right of appeal under
36 C.F.R. Part 251, and as demonstrated below, the harmful and adverse
livestock reductions are in direct retaliation for GRCGA's appeal of
the Decision Notice.
On February 15, 2010, Tim Smith gave a deposition on the meeting
his Allotment 3A had with the Grand River Ranger District confirming
the retaliation by District Ranger Joby Timm in the above comments. Tim
states in his deposition:
``During the discussion, the District Ranger then said if GRCGA
were to drop the appeal of his decision then he would return to
the phased in reductions and allow range improvement projects
to go forward.Range improvements are designed to improve
resource conditions, and without them, the range will suffer
environmental harm. The retaliatory range improvement freeze
will also preclude projects that could potentially mitigate the
reductions, leaving my livestock operation without any means to
offset their economic losses. The District Ranger's retaliatory
stocking rate reduction is causing irreparable economic harm to
my livestock operation. These livestock grazing reductions will
greatly decrease revenue while increasing my operating expenses
through the need to lease or purchase alternative pasture. In
the current climate of lower livestock prices and tightening or
unavailable credit, my ranch operations is even more vulnerable
to the significant changes being unilaterally implemented by
the District Ranger (Doc #4).''
On April 28, 2010 District Ranger Joby Timm responded to the above
stay request. He stated; ``We derived the information you have
requested from the 2009 and 2010 annual operating instructions (AOIs)
that permittees and the Association received in March 2009 and April
2010.'' What Ranger Timm fails to mentions is that the FS created the
AOIs, and they have the final say on what goes into the AOs. When
presented with the AOI, Pasture Directors are told to sign or they
won't be allowed to graze that year (Doc #48).
3. Mediation on Pasture 1-5 Decision
At the start of 2010, GRCGA spent four days in mediation with the
Grand River Ranger District at Bismarck, ND. There were two mediation
sessions. At the first mediation session, District Ranger Joby Timm
stated he would not change anything in the Pasture 1-5 Decision Notice.
And he didn't. During mediation the FS rejected all offers made by
GRCGA to compromise and end mediation.
District Ranger Joby Timm did not go into mediation to ``mediate in
good faith'' as required in the process.
4. Earmarked Weed Money
Under a Participating Agreement, GRCGA entered into Noxious Weed
Eradication with the Dakota Prairie Grasslands in 2004. The last
Participating Agreement that was signed by both parties was in 2007,
and it was good for the 2007 and 2008 calendar years (Doc #5). In the
Participating Agreement, GRCGA was supposed to do the work on the
ground and the FS was supposed to administer the agreement.
A summary of how the Agreements came about is provided in a
statement by Kevin Ormiston, Range Foreman for GRCGA (Doc #6). In 2009,
at the GRCGA told the FS it would not be able to participate in the
earmarked FS program for spraying noxious weeds. Kevin told GRCGA, the
Forest Service is planning to hire an additional seasonal for this
purpose and it is the hope that will prove sufficient. (Doc #7). The
same happened in 2010.
Grand River Cooperative Grazing Association (GRCGA) had Weed
Agreements for the Senator Dorgan Earmark weed money for years 2004 to
2008. GRCGA did not have weed agreements in 2009 and 2010. The Forest
Service took the earmarked money and used it to supplement their
appropriated dollars to purchase equipment (6 wheeled HOV's), pay for
their weed crews and purchase other materials.
The Forest Service should have held the earmarked money in an
account, carried it over for use by GRCGA over the next two years. The
Forest Service misappropriated the funds, spent them to either
supplement or augment their appropriated funds and used their
appropriated funds elsewhere. This could be a misuse of earmarked funds
and an investigation should be done on how the FS spent the money.
As far as we know this is the only documentation by GRCGA letting
the FS know they will not be using the earmarked money in 2009. The
following sentence shows the FS was already counting on hiring an
additional seasonal with the earmarked money:
The Forest Service is planning to hire an additional
seasonal for this purpose and it is the hope that will prove
sufficient.
The process that should have been used between the two people that
are involved in how this money is spent, that being Grassland
Supervisor David Pieper and GRCGA President Nate Skjoldal is as
follows:
GRCGA President Nate Skjoldal notifies the Forest Service
that GRCGA will not be able to use the earmarked money in 2009.
This should have been done by letter, However, letting District
Ranger Joby Timm know at the Board Meeting that GRCGA will not
be able to use the earmarked money in 2009 should be
sufficient.
Grassland Supervisor David Pieper should notify GRCGA
President Nate Skjoldal that the earmarked money will be held
and carried over to the next year for GRCGA use in weed
control. Another option Supervisor Piper would have is to
notify GRCGA that he had return the earmarked money to be
reallocated to the other Grazing Associations for 2009.
Grassland Supervisor David Pieper did not send a letter to
GRCGA, and we do not know if Ranger Joby Timm ever notified
Supervisor Pieper that GRCGA was not going to use the earmarked
money in 2009.
GRCGA does know Ranger Timm spent the earmarked money for
his own use. Without an accounting from the FS, GRCGA doesn't
know how he spent the money, they can only guess.
In 2010, there wasn't any discussion at a Board Meeting on the use
of the earmarked weed money. However, according to Kevin Ormiston,
Chancey O'Dell, Range Specialist with the GR Ranger District asked
Kevin if they were going to use the earmarked weed money in 2010. The
reason he asked him was Ranger Timm wanted to know if GRCGA was going
to use it or was it available for him to spend. Kevin replied to
Chancey that he would not be able to make use of the earmarked money in
2010.
Kevin later asked Chancey what Ranger Timm used the earmarked money
for. Chancey did not know since he was being excluded by Ranger Timm
from any decisions on the District (Doc #8).
A congressional Investigation or at least an oversight hearing
needs to be implemented to find out what the FS did with earmarked
money.
Kevin Ormiston also talked with Chancey O'Dell on September 15,
2010 and he said that since GRCGA didn't use the Ear Marked weed money,
Ranger Joby Timm spent the money in 2009 on FS weed spray equipment. In
2010 Ranger Timm came to Chancey and asked him if GRCGA wasn't going to
use that weed money again in 2010. Chancey said no they weren't. So
Joby took the money and spent it again (Doc #9).
Kevin talked with Paul Drayton on September 16, 2010. Kevin was
collecting as much information on the weed program as he can so he can
have a complete summary of the entire program for the review. Paul
Drayton said he shouldn't even worry about the review; they won't even
talk about the weed program. This review isn't about that at all. Paul
said ``you would be surprised what it is really about''.
Kevin Ormiston said in Sept. 2010 he knew the FS wanted to go to
direct permits and that would directly affect his job, like he wouldn't
have one. Drayton did not deny the direct permit allegation. He just
said that there would be enough of the permittees left who would hire
him to do work for them. (Doc #10).
Kevin was talking with Chancey O'Dell again on September 17, 2010,
and had asked him for the Quad maps of the riparian areas for Pastures
1A, 1B, 2A, 3A, and 5A. Chancey asked him what for. Kevin informed
Chancey that Van Elsbernd was coming to do PFC monitoring and that the
FS was welcome to come along. At that point Chancey said he remembered
the FS talking about that and that Ranger Joby Timm had said the
following (Doc #11):
``If I catch him (Van Elsbernd) out their doing that
monitoring, I'll have him arrested for trespassing''.
5. Notice of Civil Rights Complaint January 25, 2010
It is well known that the FS has wanted to eliminate all the
Grazing Associations and go to direct FS grazing permits on all the
National Grasslands. R-1 past Director of Range Management, Bruce Fox;
R-1 Range Staff Jim Wickel, and Grassland Supervisor David Pieper have
all said the GPG Grazing Associations have out lived their usefulness
and should be eliminated. All three have been heard to say this at FS
meetings.
However, Grassland Supervisor David Pieper is the main proponent of
this effort. He dislikes the Grazing Associations so much he will go
extreme measures to eliminate them. He has a severe dislike of Keith
Winter, MCGA, because he views Keith as the main person who beat him in
court over many issues. He has spent the last 10 years getting the
Grassland Plan completed and has worked very hard to line up the people
he wants in place (staff and Rangers) to do whatever it takes to go to
direct permits. His direction to the Rangers and Staff--look for ways
to make it happen.
The FS has made civil rights discrimination allegations against
GRCGA. District Ranger Joby Timm and Range Specialist Paul Drayton have
created the civil rights issue, and have done everything they can
through threats and intimidation to make this an issue. For the FS to
say they want to go direct permits on the National Grasslands, means
the Grazing Agreement will either be canceled or the FS will take
enough members to direct permits, approximately 40% of GRCGA
membership, to create an Association that is financially unsound.
On January 25, 2010, Grassland Supervisor Dave Pieper sent a letter
to GRCGA President, Tim Smith (certified mail) giving GRCGA their first
notice that allegations had been made against them by a GRCGA member,
although it does not specify which member or what the specific
allegations are. Grassland Supervisor Dave Pieper states:
. . . Specifically, under II.D. 11. of the current grazing
agreement, the association will ``Comply with nondiscrimination
conditions of Executive Order No. 11246 and Civil Rights Act of
1964, and on subsequent amendments. Recently, DR Timm informed
me of a member's allegations of unequal treatment and
discrimination by the GRCGA. Based upon my discussion with Timm
and as required by USDA policy, I have asked him to begin an
administrative review of the complaint and to engage the R-1
Civil Right office and the Office of the General Counsel.''
However, what Grassland Supervisor Dave Pieper doesn't tell GRCGA
is that this ``complaint'' started back in November, 2008 (Refer to Doc
#12 for a complete breakdown of FS actions in the civil rights
investigation). This is when District Ranger Joby Timm is working with
Matt Lopez and Standing Rock Sioux Tribe to get Matt Lopez a permit
with GRCGA. He campaigned for him over Rock Creek Local District to get
the permit. He did this because he is good friends with Matt's brother.
Joby tried to influence the GRCGA board to give a permit to Matt Lopez
(see meeting notes, Jan 15, 2009--original Platte Map found) (Doc #13).
Dec 11, 2009 is the date that Rock Creel Local District and the
Grand River Ranger District start the discrimination complaint, the
direct permit talks, and putting all responsibility for what has
happened on GRCGA. FS does not accept any responsibility or feel they
were a part of the letters or discussion with RCLD. Grand River Ranger
District had from the Sept. 22, 2009 meeting to Dec. 11, 2009 to talk
RCLD into what is about to take place in the following notes and
messages.
In a FS Issue Paper prepared on January 13, 2010 by District Ranger
Joby Timm, he states; ``No contact was made by the GRCGA to the FS
concerning Rock Creek.'' District Ranger Joby Timm is not telling the
truth at this point. It was hard for GRCGA to contact the FS concerning
Rock Creel Local District's actions when it is the FS who is meeting
with them without the GRCGA. The following is a sequence of events that
demonstrate that GRCGA did contact the FS and the members:
April 29, 2009--meeting with RCLD, Lonnie Hall and the FS.
Aug. 17, 2009--GRCGA calls Paul Drayton that Rock Cree's
livestock were in the wrong pasture. Forest Service contacted
the pasture director to inform him of the situation.
Aug. 19, 2009--Violation letter from GRCGA to RCLD about not
following AOI. A letter went out to RCLD from GRCGA as a follow
up to a call made to RCLD for the purpose of informing them
that the cattle on Shambo Allotment are not in the correct
pasture, which the FS determines a violation of their AOI. Jane
also encouraged RCLD to call the FS so they could aid in
explaining their AOI.
August 20, 2009--Paul Drayton's notes to Joby Timm on how
the FS found Rock Creek Local District livestock in the wrong
pasture and how RCLD was not following the FS AOI. Paul Drayton
called Len Hofer to let him know of the situation. Len in turn
called Jane who then called RCLD.
Courtney Brownotter then called Paul Drayton to apologize and said
he would have them moved into the correct pasture by 8/21. He
said they really didn't know much about the allotment since
this is the first year running in there.
Courtney said Jane had faxed them another copy of their AOI. He
also told me (Paul Drayton) they turned out 41 less head than
permitted including bulls.
Sept. 4, 2009--Paul Drayton's conversation with Len Hofer
calling to notify FS that the bulls were still out past the
date when they were to be removed from the Shambo Allotment.
Also discussed was the problem of Rock Creek turning out open
cows which is against state policy due to tric. concerns.
Sept. 4, 2009--Paul Drayton calls Lonnie Hall about having
his bulls out past the removal date.
Sept 4, 2009--Paul Drayton calls Rock Creek and left a
message to ``leave their cows in the west pasture on Shambo
until 9/16 when they are to rotate with Lonnie Hall back to the
east pasture. At that time, the bulls are to be removed.''
Again, At this point, Paul waves any violation on the part of
Lonnie or Rock Creek.
Sept 4, 2009--Paul Drayton's notes documents a conversation
with Cathy Evans, secretary at GRCGA, and at Paul's request she
said she would be sending a letter to Rock Creek about
violating their AOI (I called Cathy on Dec. 23, 2010, and she
confirmed that Paul told her to send the letter). Paul says he
told Cathy that both Rock Creek and Lonnie Hall should receive
a letter because neither one of them were following their AOI
by not being in the right pasture and not removing their bulls
on time.
Sept 4, 2009--GRCGA sends out second letter of violation to
RCLD based on Len Hofer's report of RCLD not following bull
policy and not following AOI.
Sept. 15, 2009--Paul Drayton received a copy of a letter
from the GRCGA to Rock Creek Local District requesting their
attendance at the special meeting to be help on Sept. 22, 2009
to discuss issues concerning their allotment.
Sept. 22, 2009--Paul Drayton records he has notes from the
special meeting held with the GRCGA and RCLD discussing issues
concerning their allotment.
Dec. 11, 2009--Paul Drayton received a phone call from
Courtney Brownotter expressing concern about receiving 2
letters and possibly losing their permit if they receive 1 more
letter. Paul reports that RCLD feels like they may be
discriminated against.
It is after Dec. 11, 2009 that the FS is the one who does not
contact GRCGA about the situation with RCLD. It is the FS who
goes on to encourage the actions proposed by RCLD and actually
openly criticizes GRCGA for their management practices.
On Jan 13, 2009, a meeting was held at the Grand River Ranger
District Office. Present were Rock Creek Local District, GRCGA and FS.
This meeting was held because of questions Matt Lopez asked on Nov. 8,
2008 (see above). Dan Anderson showed everyone a map of the base
property of the Shambo ranch from 1942. There was 2,636 ac. of base
property. There were letters from the FS in 1985, 1986 and 1995, that
showed the base acres had changed. Dan informed everyone that this was
``incorrect''. Dan said the FS had confused ``base'' acres with
``commensurate'' acres. So the FS misled everyone. Eric Bogue said the
base acres had not changed since 1942. Joby Timm said Gary Petik had
written the letters above.
These meetings start the Grand River Ranger District down the road
of taking two letters of violation and a supposed ``racially motivated
remark'' by a Pasture Director and turning it into a USDA investigation
in the form of a compliance review of the grazing program which is
administered by GRCGA and which could result in enforcement proceedings
as provided in DR 4330-002.
On August 16, 2010, Regional Forester gives GRCGA its second
notification that the Northern Region of the USDA Forest Service will
conduct a compliance review of the grazing program administered by the
Grand River Grazing Association (GRGA). The letter refers to
allegations of violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act and then
states that the Forest Service has received ``written and verbal
allegations from program participants of discrimination, harassment,
and mistreatment by members and directors.''
The claims include the following:
disparate treatment by use of threats and intimidation
reports of racially motivated or discriminatory remarks by
board members
concerns that all permit holders are not able to participate
in officer election meetings
use of economic sanctions to force compliance with arbitrary
rules
selective application of economic sanctions
failure to comply with primary purpose of GRCGA bylaws,
conservation of natural resources
disparate treatment of permittees through arbitrary
application of Rules of Management
An analysis of August 16, 2010 letter from the RF is attached (Doc
#14). A statement taken from the analysis by Chet Anderson is as
follows:
In a conversation Chet Anderson had with Joby Timm and Paul
Drayton, Chet asked Drayton if the members they interviewed
came in on their own or if the FS called them in. With Joby
Timm standing there, Drayton said they called the members in to
question them.
The written and verbal allegations came from the members the Grand
River Ranger District called into question.
The GRCGA has tried to identify where the ``reports of racially
motivated or discriminatory remarks by board members'' would have come
from. From an analysis of the documents received on October 18, 2010 at
the start of the USDA investigation through a compliance review, GRCGA
thinks it comes from a conversation Pasture Director Len Hofer had with
Grand River Ranger District employee Paul Drayton. Attached is a
statement made by Len Hofer on what he actually said to Paul Drayton
concerning the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe permit (Doc #15). A summary of
what Len said is as follows:
``I did say that considering all the rules the Forest Service
has and the Grazing Association has that Rock Creek might not
keep their permit very long. I made the comment only in the
light that Rock Creek had only used part of their permit the
last few years, leasing out the entire allotment before that
and they do have issues with distance, etc. and meeting the
requirements might not be worth the hassle. There was no malice
in my comment, skin color was never an issue; I have friends
that are Native American. I say this because I'm suspecting
that a personal comment I made to Paul has been misconstrued.''
Len Hofer did not make a ``racially motivated remark''. It was Paul
Drayton who made it a ``racially motivated remark'' by reporting it
incorrectly. In a letter from Mr. James Cerney on April 7, 2010 to
District Ranger Joby Timm stating (Doc #16):
Of greater concern were comments that may have been made at an
Association meeting in the fall of 2009. It has come to my
attention that one of the Board members may have made, what
appears to be, a racially motivated statement. The alleged
statement was that if the Association makes things tough for
Rock Creek, they (Rock Creek) will withdraw from the
Association.
In early October, GRCGA President Tim Smith sent a letter to GRCGA
membership explaining what the compliance review entailed. Tim did not
at any time tell the membership they shouldn't or could not meet with
the FS. What he does say is, ``The Association and any member are
entitled to have counsel or a personal representative'', ``We have
asked the FS to contact counsel rather than communicating with the
Board, Officers or employees directly'', ``You are entitled to have
counsel or the personal representative present during the interview'',
``If you want counsel present'', and ``you may call the GRCGA office
for guidance, if you so desire''. These are all first amendment rights
which the GRCGA is exercising (Doc #17).
On October 6, 2010, Grassland Supervisor David Pieper sent a letter
to the GRCGA membership, contrary to the request made by GRCGA. In the
``unofficial'' copy of the Program Compliance Review Report, the FS
states that ``It appeared that the GRCGA attempted to limit membership
participation in the compliance review.'' This is not true and a
statement made to make GRCGA look controlling (Doc #18).
Summary of Notice of Civil Rights complaint:
At no time has the Forest Service provided the Association with
factual information regarding the allegations that GRCGA has violated
the Civil Rights Act. Nor has the Forest Service adequately explained
the alleged violations of the Grazing Agreement other than to report
allegations from a long-time member, who unsuccessfully sued the
Association making the same or very similar allegations.
When the Civil Rights Compliance Director for Region 1 of the
Forest Service met with the GRCGA Board in February 2010, the
Association's lawyer Eric Bogue asked for a copy of the complaint.
Nothing was ever provided. Forest Service Civil Rights investigation
policy requires the Forest Service to produce the case file and it has
not done so despite requests for the file.
GRCGA does not currently receive financial assistance from the
federal government. In the past, it received ear-marked weed control
funds but has not for the last two years. The Forest Service relies on
the fact that GRCGA is its agent in administering the grazing
agreement. GRCGA does not receive federal financial assistance or
payment for the duties it assumes under the grazing agreement.
The Forest Service appears to be combining the investigation
conducted under the Civil Rights program, with a `grazing program
compliance review,' even though they are independent factually and
legally. In both cases, GRCGA faces vague statements alleging ``written
and verbal allegations from program participants of discrimination,
harassment, and mistreatment by members and directors.'' The letter
also alleges the Board members have made discriminatory remarks,
arbitrarily enforced the Rules of Management, threatened economic
sanctions to enforce the Rules of Management, and failed to conserve
natural resources.
At this point, GRCGA is left in the dark as to whether this is a
civil rights case or a grazing agreement compliance matter. Forest
Service employees from the Grand River office have said that the Forest
Service will soon cancel the grazing agreement for these violations and
that the outcome of the investigation is a `done deal.'
GRCGA can say that its Board has endeavored to always treat its
members with respect and has not intentionally or knowingly
discriminated on the basis of race, religion, gender or ethnicity.
GRCGA has always worked to comply with the grazing agreement and
Rules of Management and to ensure that all members comply.
6. Direct Permits
It is well known that the FS has wanted to eliminate all the
Grazing Associations and go to direct FS grazing permits on all the
National Grasslands. R-1 past Director of Range Management, Bruce Fox;
R-1 Range Staff Jim Wickel, and Grassland Supervisor David Pieper have
all said the GPG Grazing Associations have out lived their usefulness
and should be eliminated. All three have been heard to say this at FS
meetings.
Listed below are statements and incidents where the FS has talked
to members, directors and GRCGA employees about direct permits and
actually issued a direct permit:
1. On Sept. 24, 2010 Chet Anderson made the following statement: In
the fall of 2009 Director Ed Wiesinger and I, members of the
resource committee, attended a tour of pastures 1through 5.
Representing the Forest Service and conducting the tour were
Joby Timm and Paul Drayton. The tour itself was fine and
informative, but as we neared the end of the tour, Joby and
Paul changed the topic of the conversation to direct permits.
They promoted the idea that direct permits would have a much
lower cost to individual producers than being members of an
association. They made a comment that members of the Grand
River Grazing Association paid the highest costs of any
association members they were aware of. They were also
wondering if we knew of any association members that would be
interested in changing to direct permits. I was alarmed that
they would present this idea to two board members and that it
was presented in this setting. I felt that if they were this
bold with board members, are they doing the same thing every
time they get alone with a member (Doc #19)?
2. Kevin Ormiston, GRCGA Range Foreman, had a conversation in
September 2010 with Paul Drayton on direct permits. When Kevin
said he knew the FS wanted to go to direct permits and that
would directly affect his job, like he wouldn't have one.
Drayton did not deny the direct permit allegation. He just said
that there would be enough of the permittees left who would
hire him to do work for them. (Doc #10).
3. During the 2010 GRCGA Annual Membership meeting in December
2010, District Ranger Joby Timm talked to the members about
direct permits with the Forest Service.
4. On January 10, 2011 District Ranger Joby Timm sent a letter to
GRCGA concerning the expiration of the existing grazing
agreement between the FS and GRCGA. In the second paragraph of
the letter, Ranger Timm states the following (Doc #20):
``I would like to begin by holding meetings with the
membership of the Grazing Association and other
interested parties. During the meeting(s) we will
openly discuss options that may provide additional
opportunities and flexibility to improve livestock
operation while meeting DPG LRMP goals and objectives.
As I outlined to the membership during the annual
meeting, I would expect us to discuss a variety of
issues that include individual grazing permit
options..''
The individual grazing permit options discussed by Ranger Timm at the
annual meeting were ``direct permits''.
District Ranger Joby Timm can't say he supports the Grazing
Agreement (GA) and campaign for wit the members to go to direct
permits. He is working against the GRCGA and the GA and
encouraging as many GRCGA members to go to direct permits. At
some point of diminishing returns, GRCGA is unable to function
as an Association because of not enough members.
5. Grassland Supervisor David Pieper sent a letter on February 11,
2011 to GRCGA notifying them that the FS would be administering
the Tribe's grazing privileges as follows (Doc #21):
``Given my trust responsibilities to the Tribe and my
determination that, at least for the near term, the
Forest Service should administer the Tribe's grazing
privileges based on their specific request, I have
decided to remove the Shambo Allotment and associated
Animal Unit Months (AUMs) from administration under the
Grazing Agreement and work directly with the Standing
Rock Sioux Tribe in authorizing grazing on the
allotment.''
``When the Forest Service finalizes the Annual
Operating Instructions (AOIs) and prepares the bill for
the next grazing season in April 2011, those documents
will reflect the withdrawal effective May12, 2011. At
this time, we will also provide amended Brazing
Agreement exhibits reflecting this change in lands and
AUM's covered by the Agreement.''
The Shambo Allotment has 1530 Animal Months (AMs) associated with
it. What Grassland Supervisor David Pieper will issue to SRST
is a ``direct permit'', even though he never says those words
in his decision.
7. Threat Imposed by District Ranger Joby Timm and Range Specialist
Paul Drayton on GRCGA staff
On Oct. 18, 2010 the US Forest Service (FS) conducted a civil
rights review of the grazing program administered by the GRCGA. During
that review it came to GRCGAs attention that there Secretary, Cathy
Evans, and past secretary Jane Peterson felt threatened and intimidated
by District Ranger Joby Timm and Range Specialist Paul Drayton when
they come to the GRCGA office and Cathy is alone at the office.
On Oct 26, 2010 and Nov. 1, 2010 counsel for GRCGA wrote letters,
to District Ranger Joby Timm and Grassland Supervisor David Pieper, who
supervises Ranger Joby Timm and asked the following (Doc #22):
``The GRCGA Board requests that the District Ranger and his
staff call to make an appointment prior to any future visit to
the Association's office and with any Association employee so
that members of the Association's Board of Directors can be
present as well. This should go a long way towards avoiding the
opportunity for `miscommunication' between the Association and
the Forest Service.''
On November 3, 2010 Grassland Supervisor David Pieper wrote a
response to GRCGAs letters of Oct. 26, 2010 and Nov. 1, 2010 (Doc #23).
Supervisor Pieper states he wants to first establish guidelines for
both parties. He wants his staff to set appointments with GRCGA and FS
to develop guidelines for business operations. GRCGA declines the offer
and states there is no need to establish any guidelines; they have
already been established in the first two letters.
On January 10, 2011, Ranger Timm called Cathy Evans at the GRCGA
office and asked if someone from his office could come to the GRCGA
office and deliver some letters. Cathy Evans assumed that their FS
Secretary would come with the letters. Cathy Evans agreed it would be
OK. Ranger Timm and Paul Drayton both came to deliver the letters. They
stayed about 2 minutes. They did not honor GRCGA request as outlined in
the attached letter. Because of their actions, GRCGA contacted the
Lemmon Police Department and asked if Cathy Evans would be able to call
the Lemmon Police Department and be able to request a civil assist if
either Range Joby Timm or Paul Drayton, or both show up at the office,
for whatever reason (Doc #24).
The procedure GRCGA Board of Directors will instruct Cathy Evans to
use is: if either one or both of the above FS employees comes to the
office when she is alone is:
1. If either one or both, Range Joby Timm or Paul Drayton come to
the GRCGA Office will she is alone, she will instantly call for
a civil assist from the Lemmon Police Dept.
2. Next, she will ask them to leave.
3. When the officer from the Lemmon Police Dept. makes it to the
GRCGA office, and either Ranger Timm or Paul Drayton, or both
are still there then GRCGA would ask that they be removed from
the office.
8. Threat Made by District Ranger Joby Timm to GRCGA
At the Board meeting on November 9, 2010, District Ranger Joby Timm
threatened GRCGA by making the following statement to Mr. Tim Smith:
``You tell the Board that, and you are going to have a fight on your
hands!'' This is prohibited retaliation (Doc #25).
The threat was made in reference to the letters that were sent to
Grassland Supervisor David Pieper and District Ranger Joby Timm about
the acts of intimidation by Ranger Timm and Paul Drayton creating a
hostile work environment and altering the working conditions of the
Grand River Cooperative Grazing Association (GRCGA) employees.
District Ranger Joby Timm was telling GRCGA President Tim Smith
that if he told the Board about the letters and they acted on them,
that Mr. Smith was going to have a fight on his hands with Joby Timm.
Joby Timm was very angry and upset when he made the statement. This
is a very threatening and intimidating statement to have been made by a
line officer in the FS. However, it does demonstrate Joby's dislike for
Tim Smith and the GRCGA, and his continued harassment of both.
Pasture Directors Gary Frisvold and Raymond Akers were both present
when Joby Timm made the threat. Tim Smith had turned to Gary when Joby
walked away after making the threat, and said to Gary, ``Did you hear
that. Gary said, `I sure did.' ''
Disciplinary action needs to against District Ranger Joby Timm for
his abuse of power in the position he is in, making threats against the
President of GRCGA and the entire GRCGA. The continued abuse and
threats by Joby Timm are making for a hostile work environment for the
entire Board of Directors and the GRCGA.
9. Shadehill Recreation Project
GRCGA appealed the Shadehill Recreation Project on august 19, 2010
(Doc #26).
On September 24, 2010 Chet Anderson attended a meeting at the Grand
River Ranger District office to discuss his appeal of the Shadehill
Lake Recreation project. Chet made the following statement concerning
statements made by Acting District Ranger Tanya Weisbeck:
``On Sept. 24, 2010 Chet Anderson made the following statement:
In the late summer of 2010, at the request of Pasture 8 member
John Bartell, I attended a meeting at the Forest Service office
to discuss his appeal of the Shadehill Lake Recreation project.
In attendance were Vivian Lyon, John Bartell, Tanya Weisbeck
and Barbara from the FS office in Bismarck, and I. One of
John's concerns was that with a horse riding trail in the
pasture, cows and their grazing patterns would be disturbed.
Tanya proceeded to explain that in the Ft. Pierre National
Grasslands, where she used to be employed, it is common for
people to hunt on horseback. `There've been instances where
producer's livestock have been shot by hunters' said Tanya.
John expressed that having cattle shot would be much worse, but
having cattle disturbed is also detrimental. Tanya responded
that considering the `cheap grazing fee' we pay, we should be
expected to tolerate the disturbance, injury, or death of some
livestock. I feel this comment was extremely prejudiced and
implied two things: (1) That grazing associations are similar
to government assistance programs, and (2) That if government
assistance is received, the recipients should be expected to
tolerate poor treatment. I will reply to both of these
implications. First, our association doesn't receive one cent
of government assistance. Second, for anyone, especially
someone in a supervisory governmental position, to suggest that
we should tolerate livestock mistreatment in any form, is very
concerning. In my opinion, her comment implied that it should
be okay to kick the dog of someone who receives food stamps, or
that someone on Medicaid should tolerate the mistreatment of
their pet because they are receiving federal assistance. I am
gravely concerned that Tanya, with her supervisory position,
has this underlying opinion of our association and the
livestock we manage.
I would be willing to comment more on this topic, but am having
trouble putting all of my thoughts onto paper. I have never
felt discriminated against until now.''
During the appeal the Grand River Ranger district agreed to try and
resolve the appeal through informal resolution. On December 8, 2010 an
informal resolution meeting was held to discuss the GRCGA's appeal. The
GRCGA and the FS narrowed the appeal down to the following issues (Doc
#27):
Issue potentially resolved.
1. GRCGA proposed reducing size of exclosure at the Shadehill
Campground. Forest Service agreed to reduce size of exclosure
from 450 acres to approximately 110 acres. FS would be
responsible for the construction of the fence and GRCGA would
maintain it. If fence does not keep cattle out of campground,
additional fence would be constructed increasing the size of
the exclosure to approximately 185 acres. See attached maps.
2. GRCGA proposed that there would not be a reduction in permitted
animal months due to the building of the approximately 110 acre
campground exclosure. Forest Service agreed to this proposal.
3. GRCGA proposed that the FS monitor the use of the facilities
constructed in phase 1 (as described in the Decision Notice) of
the campground before building phase 2. No ``trigger point''
for amount of use was proposed. FS agreed to monitor the use
before building phase 2.
Attempts to agree on the proposed three issues above failed and
District Ranger Joby Timm moved ahead on January 19, 2011 with his
responsive statement to Grassland Supervisor David Pieper (Doc #28).
The main issue the FS would not agree to is the maintenance of the
fence they would build to fence off their campground. The FS wanted to
assign maintenance of the fence to GRCGA.
In District Ranger Joby Timm's responsive statement, he used two
and a half pages to describe the ``informal resolution process''
stating that even though he tried very hard to make it work with Chet
Anderson from GRCGA who would not return his calls. When Chet was asked
why he didn't return his calls, Chet said he never got a call or a
message to call Ranger Timm back.
In the Responsive Statement, Page 18, Ranger Timm makes the
following statements:
``The decision was to fence the 450 acres out of Pasture 8 and
to review annually to determine if cattle can graze the area.
Because grazing may still be authorized annually, it is
difficult to quantify the economic impacts due to the fact that
there are several possibilities to achieve this reduction in
authorized use.
The appellant also state that the reduction in livestock will
have a negative effect on the economy of our area of $138,600.
In 2009, the Hettinger Research Extension Center conducted a
study of the potential effect of reducing livestock numbers on
22 allotments in the Pasture 1-5 area of the Grand River
National Grasslands on the regional economy. Under the
parameters of this study, the reductions in livestock proposed
may negatively impact individual permittees involved, but are
not forecast to adversely affect the regional economy.''
In the Responsive Statement, Page 10, Ranger Timm makes the
following statements:
``Livestock grazing may still be allowed. Any changes in
livestock grazing would be reviewed annually, there are no
permanent adjustments proposed. Actual reduction in livestock
grazing would be no greater than 6%. If grazing does not occur
in the exclosure in a given year, the reduction does not have
to be in livestock numbers, the grazing season can be shortened
(approximately 11 days less).
This project will involve installation of a new fence and
watering locations which will in fact affect the operating
costs of the GRGA. The 450 acre exclosure which was in the
selected alternative will add approximately 6,000 feet (1.14
mi) of fence. Whereas, the 240 acre exclosure which was also
analyzed would add approximately 7,300 feet (1.38 mi). So
utilizing the 450 acre exclosure will have an overall lower
maintenance cost than the smaller exclosure.''
``The FS says the reductions in livestock proposed may negatively
impact individual permittees involved, but are not forecast to
adversely affect the regional economy.'' So it is OK to impose
reductions because a study says it will not adversely affect the
regional economy. Somehow the logic is flawed. The FS should consider
the individual members first in any reduction, especially if one is not
warranted.
What the Ranger Timm is saying from in the above paragraphs is,
because grazing may still be authorized annually, there are no
permanent adjustments proposed. It should be noted that grazing that
does occur in exclosures across the DPG is ``incidental'' to the
regularly scheduled grazing. Incidental is described as; 1. Secondary
or minor, 2. Miscellaneous or minor items. Incidental use should not be
counted on the normal operation of the Pasture grazing system.
Therefore, it is a true reduction is use and should be considered a
cancellation of part of the permit. To say there are no permanent
adjustments proposed is misleading when the FS knows it is not going to
be grazed. The purpose of the campground is for public safety and to
prevent resource damage, which if livestock were allowed to graze, the
FS would say they damaged the campground.
The reasoning behind where the fence should be installed is based
on 1,300 feet of fence (.25 mi.) difference because the maintenance
costs will be lower. And this justifies an actual reduction in
livestock grazing would be no greater than 6%. Again, this is flawed
logic. The reductions may not cause the FS to rethink their logic, but
to Pasture 8 members, it is significant.
On February 7, 2011 the Grand River Cooperative Grazing Association
(GRCGA), on behalf of its members, submits this reply to the Responsive
Statement in the Appeal of the Decision Notice (DN) and Finding of No
Significant Impact (FONSI) for the Grand River Recreation Projects
Environmental Assessment, Grand River Ranger District, and Dakota
Prairie Grasslands. It asked Grassland Supervisor David Pieper to
reconsider the size of the fenced area from 450 ac. To 185 ac. as was
proposed and agreed to in informal resolution (Doc #29). Decision from
Grassland Supervisor Pieper is pending.
10. Civil Rights Complaint, Program Compliance Review Report and
Standing Rock Sioux Tribe Direct Permit
On January 25, 2010, Grassland Supervisor David Pieper sent a
letter to GRCGA President, Tim Smith giving GRCGA their first notice
that allegations have been made by a GRCGA member. Supervisor Pieper
states in his letter;
``Specifically, under II.D. 11. of the current grazing
agreement, the association will `Comply with nondiscrimination
conditions of Executive Order No. 11246 and Civil Rights Act of
1964, and on subsequent amendments. Recently, DR Timm informed
me of a member's allegations of unequal treatment and
discrimination by the GRCGA. Based upon my discussion with Timm
and as required by USDA policy, I have asked him to begin an
administrative review of the complaint and to engage the R-1
Civil Right office and the Office of the General Counsel.'
Supervisor Pieper has just given GRCGA its 1st notice that
allegations of unequal treatment and discrimination by the
GRCGA have been made.''
In Mr. Pieper's next sentence he calls the allegation a
``complaint''. Supervisor Pieper is careful not to disclose any
information about who made the allegations or how long this has been
going on.
The Program Compliance Review Report is the culmination of an
effort that started in January of 2009 by the Grand River Ranger
District to get the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe (SRST) to a direct
permit. Grand River Ranger District planned and implemented a strategy
between September 22, 2009 and December 11, 2009 to get Rock Creek
Local District, a tribal entity with SRST, to request a direct permit
with the Forest Service and make the claim they are being discriminated
against by Grand River Cooperative Grazing Association (GRCGA.) Grand
River Ranger District then spent the next twelve (12) months working
with SRST and their lawyers, with no involvement by GRCGA, to get
Charles W. Murphy, Chairman, and Standing Rock Sioux Tribe to a point
of sending a letter dated December 20, 2010 to Grassland Supervisor
David Pieper. The letter states; ``Therefore, based on the foregoing,
the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe is hereby requesting that it be issued a
grazing permit from the U.S. Forest Service for the national grasslands
in relation to the grazing privileges of Shambo Ranch. The Rock Creek
District of the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation looks forward to
working directly with the U.S. Forest Service beginning with the 2011
grazing season.''
The FS conducted an investigation in the form of a compliance
review which could result in enforcement proceeding as provided in DR
4330-002 (Oct. 18, 2010 Regional Forester, Leslie Weldon letter to
Constance E. Brooks, P. 3, paragraph 1, sentence 4). GRCGA is not a
``Forest Service Federally Assisted Program''. GRCGA administers a
grazing program on the Grand River National Grasslands (Aug 16, 2010
Regional Forester, Leslie Weldon letter to Tim Smith, President, GRCGA,
P. 1, paragraph 1, sentence 1).
A letter from Regional Forester Leslie Weldon to Constance E.
Brooks, counsel for GRCGA, along with 19 documents, were hand delivered
on October 18, 2010, by Lindsay Carter at the GRCGA office. This letter
was in response to the September 17, 2010, FOIA request. On page 2,
paragraph 1 of the letter, the regional forester states,
``The objective of the compliance review, as stated in our
letter, is to ascertain whether the allegations have merit and
to ensure compliance with and enforcement of the prohibition
against discrimination. Specifically, a compliance review is an
investigation that assess and evaluates the civil rights and
equal opportunity policies, procedures, and practices of an
organization or its instrumentality, funded in whole or part by
USDA, to determine compliance with applicable civil rights
statutes, regulation, standards, and policies.''
A summary of the timeline and documents and what lead to a Civil
Rights complaint by the Forest Service for Standing Rock Sioux Tribe/
Rock Creek Local District--member of GRCGA is attached (Doc #30).
On page 3, paragraph 1 of the October 18, 2010 letter the Regional
Forester states, ``The USDA is undertaking an investigation in the form
of a compliance review which could result in an enforcement proceeding
as provided in DR 4330-002.''
On the afternoon of October 18, 2010, review team leader Lindsay
Carter conducted a pre-review meeting at the GRCGA office with the
review team, Eric Bogue, counsel for GRCGA, Van Elsbernd, consultant
and Cathy Evans, secretary treasurer for GRCGA. Lindsay Carter opened
the meeting by saying the Review Team was there to conduct a compliance
review of the grazing program. When questioned by Eric Bogue about the
investigation, Lindsay Carter said that it was not an investigation,
even though the October 18, 2010 letter expressly says it is. Lindsay
Carter continued the meeting by making the following opening comments;
``I am here to clear up any misconceptions/misunderstandings
about some of the things I've said. There must be some pretty
serious misunderstandings about what we are here to do.''
``What we are here to do is a compliance review. It is a
programmatic review. Pat Jackman is here to serve as technical
advisor.''
``The Grazing program is a USDA program. The Grand River
Grazing Association is our agent; it's the Forest Service
agent, therefore is a recipient and as a recipient the Grazing
Association has obligations to meet and the FS has obligations
to tell them what they are.''
``What this is, is a review of how the program is being
delivered.''
``We are here to conduct some interviews, hopefully with
Grazing Association directors, pasture directors, and grazing
association members. So you all can tell us your concerns with
the program, so we can listen to those. If there is something
the Forest Service needs to do to improve our service to you at
all we want to know what that is.''
``What we are here to do is help make the program better and
whether that is on the Forest Service side or the Grazing
Association side, we don't know what that is going to be yet.
So that is really why are here.''
``One of the things I want to know is what the Grazing
Association impressions, what their perceptions of how the
grazing program is supposed to work so that if there is any
misconceptions there we can start working to achieve a more
common understanding of what the expectations are. And we need
to know what you alls expectations of the Forest Service are.
And you all need to know what the Forest Service expectations
of the Grazing Association are.''
``This has nothing to do with canceling the Grazing Agreement
as has been mentioned in letters we've received and also on the
radio broadcast of your meeting last Saturday.''
``Once we are through the requirements dictate that we generate
a report within 30 days. You all will be furnished a copy of
the report. In there will be issues identified, there will be
findings identified, and there will be recommendations about
what we need to do whether it's a recommendation for the
Grazing Association or recommendation for the Grand River
District of the Forest Service. And I can tell you there is
going to be some recommendations for the Forest Service.''
``So that report will be done and then we will work with you on
it to develop a corrective action plan. So that our goal is to
help you all recognize whatever deficiencies there are, if
there are any.''
At this point, GRCGA was very confused by the direct reversal by
Lindsay Carter saying this was not an investigation, when the Regional
Forester stated in the letter of October 18, 2011 that was handed to
GRCGA that afternoon stating ``The USDA is undertaking an investigation
in the form of a compliance review which could result in an enforcement
proceeding as provided in DR 4330-002.''
GRCGA was very guarded in its approach to the civil rights
investigation, especially since the FS intentionally kept GRCGA in the
dark for almost a year as to what they were working on with their
members and changing the investigation to a review on Oct. 18, 2010.
The FS is openly critical of this guarded attitude in the Program
Compliance Report of February 2, 2011, especially in how the GRCGA
conducted itself during the FS interviews (Program Compliance Report
February 2, 2011, IX. Observations of Treatment of Program
Participants, P. 15, point #4.)
On January 10, 2010, District Ranger Joby Timm sent GRCGA a letter
stating on December 20, 2010 the FS received a request from the SRST
for an individual grazing permit (direct permit) in regards to the
Shambo Allotment. The FS stated it would like to consult with GRCGA
about removing the NFS lands in the Shambo Allotment from the Grazing
Agreement. The FS then states; ``Please add this topic to your agenda
for discussion at your board meeting on January 11, 2011.'' The
consultation the FS was after was removing the Shambo Allotment from
the Grazing Agreement. The FS had already determined they were going to
issue SRST a direct permit (Doc #31). Consultation with GRCGA was
merely a formality.
The FS stated in their January 10, 2011 letter that:
``As indicated in the current Grazing Agreement on page 9,
section F #4--Lower priority withdrawals of service lands may
be made after consultation with the Association and upon 90
days written notice, but not to be effective prior to the end
of the current grazing season.''
In the current Grazing Agreement, Section F--It is Further
Understood That, #4 actually reads as follows:
#4--In the event the Service lands and facilities, or any
part thereof, are needed for military, or other similar
priority purposes, this Agreement may be terminated, or the
necessary lands and facilities may be withdrawn from this
Agreement any time upon 30 days written notice to the
Association by the Service. Lower priority withdrawals may be
made after consultation with the Association and upon 90 days
written notice, but not to be effective prior to the end of the
current grazing season.
Section F, #4 is referring to the Service lands (National
Grasslands) being needed for military, or other similar priority
purposes. Using this clause in the Grazing Agreement to go to a direct
permit does not meet this criteria and the FS is wrong in their
interpretation of the Grazing Agreement. If #4 stands as being
applicable to remove land and AMs from the Grazing Agreement, then the
entire National Grasslands can be classed as a ``lower priority
withdrawal'' and the grazing agreement canceled and direct permits
given to anyone.
GRCGA has a grazing permit with the FS through the Grazing
Agreement. If the FS is going to suspend or cancel all or part of the
permit, in this case it would be cancel, then that is an adverse action
that has to be taken against GRCGA. There has to be just cause to do
so.
On January 11, 2011 the Board took the following stand with the FS:
The District Ranger (DR) delivered the first letter 4 p.m.
the day before the Board meeting, without sufficient notice to
get it on the next day's agenda. The Board properly deferred
discussion when it had no information. Mr. Timm did not bring
SRST's request with him when he attended the meeting.
The Board requested a copy of the SRST request. The DR said
he would provide it; it was not provided till Feb. 9, 2011, two
days before Grassland Supervisor Pieper made his decision. So
the Board did not have the relevant information they could not
discuss it with the DR.
The Board has insufficient information in order to begin
consultation. Announcing the request without providing any of
the background information or the FS file, is not consultation.
GRCGAs interpretation of the Grazing Agreement requires a
90-day consultation period. A final decision by 2/11/11 is not
consistent with the Grazing Agreement.
At the Board meeting Tim Smith asked District Ranger Joby Timm for
a copy of the SRST request. Joby responded that he had left it on his
desk and he would get it to right away.
The GRCGA wanted to contact Standing Rock Sioux Tribe (SRST),
because they were still a member of the Association, to explain from
their point of view what had transpired over the last two years to get
SRST to the point of requesting a direct permit. On January 28, 2011
GRCGA sent a letter to Charles W. Murphy, Chairman, SRST, asking the
Tribe to come to Lemmon and meet with the Board on February 14, 2011 at
2:30 p.m. (Doc #32).
On January 31, 2011 GRCGA sent a letter to Joby Timm requesting the
following (Doc #33):
``Before Grand River Cooperative Grazing Association (GRCGA)
can consult with or respond to your January 10, 2011 letter
stating the Forest Service received a Dec. 20, 20011 request
from the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe (SRST) for an individual
term grazing permit (direct permit) in regards to the Shambo
Allotment, GRCGA will need to receive a copy of the request
made by SRST. At the Jan. 11, 2011 Board meeting when Tim Smith
asked for a copy of the letter of SRST's request, you stated
that you had it but it was at your office. Please provide a
copy and all additional documentation pertaining to the
request.''
On January 31, 2011 a letter was sent from Grassland Supervisor
David Pieper to GRCGA stating (Doc #34):
``If GRCGA wishes to discuss this matter I propose a meeting
with Ranger Timm at 10 a.m. on February 4, 2011 at the GRRD
office.'' ``The agency intends to conclude consultation and
make a decision concerning the SRST's request by February 11,
2011.''
Tim Smith called District Ranger Joby Timm on February 4, 2011 to
advise him that a letter was forth coming to Grassland Supervisor David
Pieper. Ranger Timm asked Tim Smith if they had sent a letter to SRST,
and he said he they had. On February 9, 2011 GRCGA responded to
Grassland Supervisor David Pieper with a letter that explained GRCGA
concern for withdrawing the Shambo Ranch under Section F, #4 as follows
(Doc #35):
``Your letter of Jan. 31, 2011 states, `to Grand River
Cooperative Grazing Agreement (GRCGA) on Page 9, section F#4,
provides lower priority withdrawals may be made after
consultation with the Association and upon 90 days written
notice, but not to be effective prior to the end of the current
grazing season.' It also states the Jan. 10, 2011, letter to
GRCGA initiated the process outlined in the Grand River
Cooperative Grazing Agreement. Even assuming that the above
provision in the GRCGA Grazing Agreement applies to this
situation and even assuming that the Jan. 10, 2011 letter
triggered a 90-day consultation period, it would not expire
until April 11, 2011.''
``Therefore it is GRCGA's contention that the FS has clearly
misinterpreted this clause. The Federal Land Policy and
Management Act defines a withdrawal as:
[W]ithholding an area of Federal land from settlement,
sale, location, or entry, under some or all of the
general land laws, for the purpose of limiting
activities under those laws in order to maintain other
public values in the area or reserving the area for a
particular public purpose or program; or transferring
jurisdiction over an area of Federal land, other than
`property' governed by the Federal Property and
Administrative Services Act, as amended (40 U.S.C. 472)
from one department, bureau or agency to another
department, bureau or agency.
43 U.S.C. 1702(j). This clause clearly applies to situations
when the administration of the federal land is transferred to
another agency, not the removal of land from a grazing
agreement.''
``GRCGA believes that a direct permit and a term grazing permit
are similar, neither one being a lower priority withdrawal. It
is also GRCGA's assumption that since the only term permit that
has been issued on the Grand River National Grasslands is to
the GRCGA, any actions pertaining to that permit would be done
according to FS rules and policies regarding changes in the
grazing permit, i.e., FSM, 2200, `Cancellation, in whole or in
part, applies if a permanent change in the permit is necessary'
and just cause has to be produced for any cancellation. The FS
Handbook governing the administration of the grazing agreement
further provides: `22.1--Changes in Lands or Improvements. The
grazing agreement shall require that the Forest Service notify
the organization of all proposed changes in lands and/or
improvements included in the agreements and the reasons for the
changes. The parties to grazing agreements must agree to the
changes before they are effective.' FSH 2209.13, ch. 20,
22.1.''
On February 11, 2011 Grassland Supervisor David Pieper sent GRCGA a
letter stating (Doc #36):
``First you state that Mr. Timm failed to provide you a copy of
the Tribe's letter and, you declined to initiate consultation
for the reason. However, on January 18, 2011, Mr. Timm spoke to
your counsel Mr. Eric Bogue by telephone and informed him that
he would be sending by fax a copy of the Tribe's letter. Mr.
Timm did so on January 18 in accordance with the telephone
call.''
``Given my trust responsibilities to the Tribe and my
determination that, at least for the near future, the Forest
Service should administer the Tribe's grazing privileges based
on their specific request, I have decided to remove the Shambo
Allotment and associated Animal Unit Months (AUMs) from the
administration under the Grazing Agreement and work with the
Standing Rock Sioux Tribe in authorizing grazing on the
allotment.''
The GRCGA could not have stopped the FS from withdrawing the Shambo
Allotment from the Grazing Agreement, even if they would have consulted
with the FS in January, 2011. Some keys points about the withdrawal are
as follows:
1. There was nothing that GRCGA could have done to prevent this.
The FS was on a mission to get SRST to a direct permit, as
stated in their first letter of January 10, 2011:
``The FS takes its tribal trust responsibilities very
seriously and would like to consult with you about
removing the NFS lands in the Shambo Allotment from the
Grazing Agreement.''
2. Even if GRCGA would have met with the FS prior to Feb. 11, 2011,
just by the way the letter is written the FS would have made
the same decision.
3. If the FS can withdraw this lands and AM's from the Association,
they can do as many as they want, for whatever the reason
maybe; i.e., wildlife area, recreation area, direct permits,
etc.
4. GRCGA only has to lose 35-40% of their membership to direct
permits, before the Association becomes unprofitable to
operate.
1. Even if GRCGA would have agreed to everything so far, no
appeals, etc., GRCGA would end up in the same place. The FS
wants GRCGA replaced with direct permits.
On February 9, 2011, Eric Bogue talked with Mr. Timm about the fax.
Mr. Timm asserted that he sent the letter to me previously and said it
was a ``lie'' to state otherwise in the letter, basically calling Eric
a liar. Mr. Timm also told Eric that they (FS) are recording all of the
meeting now and that he didn't ``promise'' anyone regarding the SRST
letter at the meeting. He said he ``confirmed'' that discussion when he
re-listened to his recording of the meeting, basically calling Tim
Smith a liar.
Eric Bogue was asked to check his fax log, which he did and sent
the following e-mail on what he found on Feb. 16, 2011:
``I did just print that received log. It does go back far
enough. I did get a fax on the 18th, however, it does not
indicate from whom. Interestingly enough though, the fax that I
can confirm getting from them (FS) on the 9th does show their
fax number ([Redacted]). Without doing a full file search I
don't think I can tell you which other matter the fax was in
reference to.''
So I think we can safely say Bogue Law Offices fax machine records
do not show the receipt of any telefax from the District Ranger's
office fax machine, [Redacted] on 1/18/11 as claimed by the District
Ranger Joby Timm.
On February 9, 2011 District Ranger Joby Timm did fax a copy of the
December 9, 2010 SRST request for a direct permit (Doc #37).
11. GRCGA Development of AOIs
On December 28, 2010, GRCGA sent a letter to District Ranger Joby
Timm concerning the development of Annual Operating Instructions
(AOIs). In the letter GRCGA stated the following (Doc #38):
``The Grand River Cooperative Grazing Association (GRCGA)
recently determined from a review of the Grazing Agreement that
the authority to prepare annual operating instructions (AOIs)
is delegated to GRCGA. Even though the FS assumed this aspect
of the administration of the grazing program, GRCGA will accept
its responsibility of preparing AOIs for the 2011 grazing
season. The format for the 2011 AOIs would be similar to the
2010 AOIs that the FS completed and sent out.''
On January 10, 2010 District Ranger Joby Timm delivered a letter to
GRCGA office stating the following about the GRCGAs letter of Dec. 28,
2010 (Doc #39):
``Keep in mind that if all AOIs are not completed and delivered
to the Forest Service (FS) office by March 15, the FS will have
to develop the AOIs. This deadline will ensure the AOIs are
completed in a timely manner to allow the calculation of the
grazing bill. As you know, livestock cannot be turned onto the
National Grasslands until the bill is paid.''
GRCGA sent a letter to Ranger Timm on January 31, 2011, and
reviewed the 2010 AOIs that were prepared by the FS, and noticed the
following (Doc #40):
The AOI date and the District Ranger signature were assumed
to be the same, as no date accompanied the Ranger's signature.
Only two AOIs were dated before March 15, 2010 (March 4 and
March 7)
The rest of the AOI's were signed after March 15.
Once again, Ranger Timm is trying to intimidate the GRCGA by
stating a policy that doesn't exist. Even his office doesn't have the
AOIs prepared by March 15.
The GRCGA makes a request of the FS to help facilitate the AOI
process with GRCGA as follows:
``To facilitate the process, GRCGA requests that the FS use the
same first billing for 2011 that was made for the first billing
in 2010. Any differences between 2010 and 2011 first billing
can be adjusted in the second billing. This will help meet our
concern of a timely calculation and payment of the grazing bill
so livestock can be turned onto the National Grasslands.''
The Grand River Ranger District did not respond back to GRCGA on
this request.
12. District Ranger Joby Timm Gives GRCGA SOPs for Board Meetings and
Directors
At the Board meeting on January 11, 2011 District Ranger Joby Timm
gave the GRCGA a set of draft outline of ``Standard Operating
Procedures'' for the GRCGA monthly meetings (Doc #41). It appears
Ranger Timm is trying to put the GRCGA in a staff role to his position
as Ranger and have them report out each month on what they did. GRCGA
informed Ranger Timm they already had a set of standard operating
procedures for their meetings and would continue to use those.
13. District Ranger Joby Timm Gives GRCGA a Grand River National
Grasslands, USFS, Answers to Your Questions ``Fact Sheet''
At the Board meeting on January 11, 2011 District Ranger Joby Timm
gave the GRCGA a Grand River National Grasslands, USFS, Answers to your
questions ``Fact Sheet'' (Doc #42). Ranger Timm said these were
questions he was getting asked most often and wanted GRCGA to have a
copy to disperse. He said look it over and get back to me if GRCGA
see's anything they would like to comment on.
On page 2 of Fact Sheet, #9 references ``Program Compliance
Reviews''. This topic must be receiving a lot of attention. GRCGA is
still working on a response to the Fact sheet, but doubts if their
comments will convince the FS to change it.
During the pre-briefings of the Program Compliance Review Report by
the FS with South Dakota and North Dakota officials, the Fact Sheet was
handed out as part of the briefing packet provided by the FS. The name
on the Fact had been changed to ``Grand River National Grasslands, 2010
Compliance Review: Answers to your questions `Fact Sheet' ''. It is the
same fact sheet, only with one word noticeably put in bold print. That
word lies in the following sentence:
4. Currently the GRCGA, working as an agent for the U.S. Forest
Service, helps administer the grazing program on the Grand
River Ranger District. The Forest Service allows the GRCGA to
administer the grazing program through a grazing agreement. The
Grazing Agreement and Rules of Management outline the processes
and responsibilities of both the Forest Service and the GRCGA.
The current grazing agreement expires on December 31, 2011.
The Fact Sheet must serve many needs depending on what emphasis the
FS wants to put on it. And the FS wanted to make sure the officials
knew that the ``Forest Service'' allows the GRCGA to administer the
grazing program through a grazing agreement.
14. District Ranger Giving GRCGA 5 Letters on January 10, 2011 and
Expecting Some of the Letters To Be Answered at the Board
Meeting on January 11, 2011
On January 10, 2011, District Ranger Joby Timm and Range Specialist
Paul Drayton came to the GRCGA office at about 4:00 p.m. and hand
delivered 5 letters from the FS. Some of the letters required immediate
answers, i.e., next day Board meeting. Others were answers to previous
GRCGA letters. This delivery of letters was done to send a message of
intimidation and harassment to the GRCGA and Cathy Evans, GRCGA
Secretary. The number of letters delivered and with both Ranger Timm
and Mr. Drayton delivering the letters, which they were notified not to
do, clearly sends a message that Grand River Ranger District can do
whatever they want and GRCGA can't do thing about it.
15. District Ranger Joby Timm Gives GRCGA a FS Agenda for Board
Meetings
Prior to the February 14, 2011 Board meeting, Paul Drayton sent an
e-mail on February 8, 2011 to GRCGA with an agenda for the Board
meeting titled (Doc #43):
``United State Forest Service, Grand River Ranger District
Monthly Grazing Administration Meeting with Association,
February 14, 2011.''
In Mr. Drayton's e-mail he states:
``Hi Cathy. Here is an agenda we would like you to forward on
to the directors before the meeting next week. This will give
them a chance to look it over and prepare for any items they
need or want to discuss. I also scanned in your January meeting
notes with some edits/corrections/suggestions that Joby and I
came up with. Thanks and see you next week.''
The FS agenda provide in the e-mail had many topics that the FS
proposed to spend approximately three (3) hours of time and requiring
seven (7) decisions by the FS. Many of the topics needed more
information or could have been handled with a letter or an email. GRCGA
prepared a response to FS on their agenda (Doc #44).
Upon review of the current Grazing Agreement GRCGA could not find
the above mentioned meeting or any reference to a monthly grazing
administration meeting. In the future GRCGA will provide the FS an
agenda for its Board of Directors monthly meeting the day before the
meeting. This may help the FS's understanding of what GRCGA is doing in
the administration of the grazing program on the Grand River National
Grasslands as outlined in the Grazing Agreement. This may help the FS's
understanding of what GRCGA is doing in the administration of the
grazing program on the Grand River National Grasslands as outlined in
the Grazing Agreement.
It appears Ranger Timm is trying to put the GRCGA in a staff role
to his position as Ranger and have GRCGA structure their meetings each
month with an agenda provided by the FS.
16. District Ranger Joby Timm Gives GRCGA Corrected Board Minutes
Prior to the February 14, 2011 Board meeting, Paul Drayton sent an
email on February 8, 2011 to GRCGA with an agenda for the Board meeting
titled:
``United State Forest Service, Grand River Ranger District
Monthly Grazing Administration Meeting with Association,
February 14, 2011.''
In Mr. Drayton's e-mail he states:
``Hi Cathy, Here is an agenda we would like you to forward on
to the directors before the meeting next week. This will give
them a chance to look it over and prepare for any items they
need or want to discuss. I also scanned in your January meeting
notes with some edits/corrections/suggestions that Joby and I
came up with (Doc #45). Thanks and see you next week.''
During the Civil Rights Investigation the week of October 18, 2010,
one of the issues brought forward by the Civil Rights Investigation
review team (review team) was an accusation by the Forest Service (FS)
that Grand River Cooperative Grazing Association (GRCGA) had changed
their monthly Board of Director minutes. Upon a review of the minutes,
the review team found the minutes had been changed, but not by the
GRCGA, but by the FS.
It appears the FS is again making an attempt to once again change
the minutes of the GRCGA monthly Board of Director minutes. A review of
the FS changes to the minutes shows they are mostly points of
clarification, misspellings, or wording preferences. Aside from
clerical errors, the Association minutes cannot be changed just to suit
a participant. The minutes are recorded sessions and principles of
corporate governance preclude efforts to rewrite the previous meeting.
If the minutes contain an issue of significance that was not
transcribed to the satisfaction of the FS, then the FS should bring
that issue to the next Board meeting where it can be discussed again
and recorded.
GRCGA responded to the FS's attempt to correct the minutes with a
letter dated February 11, 2011 (Doc # 46). GRCGA advised the FS a copy
of the GRCGA monthly Board of Director minutes are provided to the FS
as so they can have a record of each meeting. GRCGA will continue to
provide copies of the minutes.
17. Statements of Forest Service Harassment and Intimidation
1. Intimidation and threat by District Ranger Joby Timm
On March 2 and 3, 2010, Ranger Timm suggested the GRCGA participate
in funding the biologically capable study for which the Ranger District
had received about $250,000.00. Tim Smith, President, GRCGA instead
stated that the Association members would develop a monitoring program
using the NDSU baseline range assessment and that the FS would be
invited to participate.
Ranger Timm told Tim Smith that unless the monitoring plan was
approved by him (Ranger Tim), Ranger Timm would end livestock grazing
for the 2010 season, should the Association proceed without his
approval (Doc #49).
2. Intimidation by Dan Swingen
On September 9, 2010 Kevin Ormiston, GRCGA employee made the
following statement. This documentation was from a Prairie Dog Tour in
Pastures 7 & 8 on July 27, 2010.
On July 27, 2010 I was at a Prairie Dog meeting in Pastures
7&8 with 2 of my directors and various Forest Service
personnel, including Dan Swingen and Fish & Wildlife biologist
Scott Larson out of Pierre. After viewing the town in 7 Dan
asked the group starting with me what do you think & I
responded ``I was hoping to retire here but if you introduce
the ferret here you're going to destroy this land like down at
Wall.'' ``There is 2800 Acres of Dogs & it looks like the moon.
What's more important for families that work for Grand River
Grazing Assn or animals? The cuts that the permittees take is
less money in the bank to pay us and finance the
improvements.'' With a nice smile he did not answer me he moved
on to the next person & asked him ``what do you think?'' I knew
then my job is in trouble.
Later after the tour we were going to town and I was in the back
and Swingen and Larson were talking in the seat ahead of me
talking about how they should burn and transplant dogs to
expand the towns quicker. Dan said the ``Dems'' were probably
going to lose the house and Senate and the Presidency in the
next election. The republicans would slow down the process of
putting the Black Footed Ferret on the Grand River Ranger
District. It's a sad world we live in when we have to fear our
Govt.
Kevin Ormiston
Foreman Grand River Grazing Assn.
Signed: Kevin Ormiston 9-23-2010
3. Harassment by Joby Timm
On Sept. 24, 2010 Chet Anderson made the following
statement: As a member of the prairie dog committee, pasture 8
director, and resource committee member, I have had several
opportunities to meet with Forest Service personnel. During one
of our meetings the topic turned to a project that I felt would
be worthwhile, but would be impossible to complete due to a
lack of funds. Joby made a comment that if we (GRCGA) weren't
paying lawyers to appeal the Forest Service Decision on
pastures 1-5, we would have more funds available for projects.
Chet Anderson, Pasture Director
4. Abuse of position and intimidation by Joby Timm of the GRCGA Board
In late 2008 and early 2009, Joby Timm tried to get Matt Lopez a
permit with GRCGA. He campaigned for him over Rock Creek Local District
to get the permit. Joby tried to influence the GRCGA board to give a
permit to Matt Lopez (see meeting notes, Jan 15, 2009--original Platte
Map found).
5. Intimidation by Joby Timm on two Pasture Directors
In 2009, Joby Timm talked with Pasture Directors Dan Anderson and
Len Hofer on why they should go with direct permits, outlining the cost
of doing so. He tried to influence the directors to leave the
Association and go with direct permits.
Report by: Van C. Elsbernd (e-mail: [Redacted]), Manager, Great
Plains Consulting LLC, [Redacted], Fort Collins, CO.
Date: March 8, 2011
______
Submitted E-Mail by Rhonda Muse, National Institute for the Elimination
of Catastrophic Wildfire
March 30, 2012
To: House Agriculture Committee
Subject: U.S. Forest Health comments
To: the House Committee on Agriculture, Subcommittee on Conservation,
Energy, and Forestry
We are sorry we missed your subcommittee meeting on the topic of
U.S. Forest Health and Job Creation in Rural America. We are working
hard on a similar proposal to improve forest health and would like to
submit to you a recent position paper that you may use as supplemental
comments. If you are interested in meeting or talking with participants
of our Institute, please contact Bruce Courtright at [Redacted] or by
phone at [Redacted].
Thank you for taking the time to look over our documents for
potential use in your efforts. Please notice the cover letter indicated
there are 12 enclosures, most of these are supplemental documents to
our position paper and I have not included them here. If you would like
to obtain the entire packet of information please let me know.
Sincerely,
Rhonda Muse,
National Institute for the Elimination of Catastrophic Wildfire.
www.stopwilfire.org
attachment 1
Something of Value: The National Forest System
Congressional Action is Needed for the Revitalization of the National
Forest System.
March 12, 2012
Executive Summary
America's 193 million acre National Forest System is in serious
decline. The United States Forest Service (USFS) was created to be the
Congressional designated manager of the forests and to be the leader of
professional forestry in the United States. As much through designed
neglect as benign neglect, the national forests are being allowed to
change from productive forests to fire-prone, insect-infested, and
disease-wracked lands of declining value to the public, and the USFS
that manages them for their citizen-owners is declining in its ability
to carry out its mission of ``caring for the land and serving people.''
Congress must act immediately to save the National Forest System and
its invaluable commodity and amenity resources, and to restore and
revitalize the beleaguered USFS charged with their management.
During the past decade, the natural resources on over 12 million
acres (an area larger than the State of Maryland) of National Forest
System lands have been damaged or destroyed by catastrophic wildfires,
insects, and disease. This devastation is a consequence primarily of
improper and inadequate management in a time of rapidly changing
environmental conditions caused by climate change. Science-based
resource management by Forest Service professionals has been preempted
by those with ideological agendas and the political power to impose
them. Congress's statutory direction for management of the national
forests on a sustained yield-multiple use basis has been subverted by
special interest groups. This situation will only get worse without
immediate congressional intervention.
Congress must act now to charter a comprehensive review of the
legislated mission and physical status of the forests and their
resources, and then reverse and remedy the situations in those forests
and their administration that threaten the nation's economical and
ecological well-being. If it does not, and current trends continues,
the nation's needs for vital economic goods and ecosystem services
provided by the National Forest System will not be met (such as water),
and Forest Service capabilities to manage the national forests will
decline with the decline of its corps of professional resource managers
and other specialists.
We believe the necessary review would best be led by a new public
land law review commission, or Congress's investigative arm, the
Government Accountability Office (GAO), with input by members of the
Forest Service along with representatives of state and local
governments directly concerned with national forest issues, citizen
dependent on the forests, resource management experts, and user group
members. This review should focus on: (1) the biological and physical
condition of the National Forest System; (2) the management needs and
challenges which must be met to restore those lands and resources
through active management, as well as restore public confidence in the
process; and (3) The indicators of needed service and products being
delivered to American citizens. As a result of this review, Congress
should: (1) revise the often-conflicting statutes governing National
Forest System management and stewardship; and (2) revise, restore and
reaffirm the mission of the Forest Service to manage those lands to
produce ``the greatest good for the greatest number in the long run''
that was its original charge, as well as provide for accomplishment of
that mission.
Steps toward these ends are listed in the white paper.
attachment 2
Something of Value: The National Forest System
A Position Paper
The National Institute for the Elimination of Catastrophic Wildfire
March 2012
Something of Value: The National Forest System
Congressional Action is Needed for the Revitalization of the National
Forest System.
March 12, 2012
The Congress of the United States of America began the evolution of
today's National Forest System over a hundred years ago, and Congress'
attention is needed now to return these treasured lands to healthy and
bountiful lands for the welfare of all American citizens.
Currently, as much through designed neglect as benign neglect, the
national forests have been allowed to change from productive forests to
fire-prone, insect-infested and disease-wracked lands of declining
value to the public. This condition is caused, in part, by lack of
clear management direction for these lands, lack of human and financial
resources to protect and manage these lands, and lack of public
understanding of the importance of effectively managed forests.
The first step to national forest recovery is for Congress to
charter a comprehensive review of the legislated mission of the
forests, the role Congress sees for the forests in meeting the nation's
increasing need for natural resources, and the actions needed to
protect the forests from natural and anthropogenic damage and
destruction. This review would be best led by a new public land law
review commission, or Congress's Government Accountability Office (GAO)
with input by representatives of state and local governments directly
concerned with national forest issues, citizen dependent on the
forests, resource management experts, and user group members. This
would be a formidable task; however, these lands and their proper
management are of vital importance to the nation.
Origin and Value of the National Forest System
Congress authorized presidents of the United States to reserve
certain forest lands from the public domain by what is now called the
Forest Reserve Act of 1891, and provided for management of these forest
reserves by the Organic Act of 1897 ``. . . to improve and protect the
forests . . . securing favorable conditions of water flows, and furnish
a continuous supply of timber . . . .'' The Forest Service's Organic
Act specified the purposes for which forest reserves (national forests)
could be created: (1) to insure ``a continuous supply of timber for the
use and necessities of United States citizens''; and (2) to secure
favorable conditions of water flows. (In a later court decision, the
court ruled that the Secretary of Agriculture may also consider the
economic well-being of the citizens of a state wherein timber is
located in administering national forest lands ``for the use and
necessities of citizens of the United States.'') Congress shifted
jurisdiction of the forest reserves from the Department of the Interior
to the Department of Agriculture by the Transfer Act of 1905--which
also established the U.S. Forest Service--and designated the forest
reserves as national forests by the Designation Act of 1907. The Weeks
Act of 1911 authorized the Secretary of Agriculture to purchase certain
lands for addition to the National Forest System. As authorized by
still other Acts, additional lands were acquired by exchange, donation,
transfer, and condemnation. As the National Forest System evolved to
its current size of almost 193 million acres, the Forest Service
managed these lands to provide an increasingly wider range of multiple
uses and benefits in terms of commodity and amenity resources for the
American people. Congress reaffirmed that administration ``. . . for
outdoor recreation, range, timber, watershed, and wildlife and fish
purposes . . .'' when it passed the Multiple Use-Sustained Yield Act of
1960. Since its founding, the Forest Service has been designated by
Congress to administer these critical natural resources for the
citizen-owners of the national forests.
Today, when the United States population has grown from slightly
more than 50 million in 1897 to 313 million, the purpose of the
National Forest System and the mission of the Forest Service are more
important than ever. In the midst of a worldwide economic crisis, the
American people and their industries are fighting to survive and thrive
in an increasingly challenging global marketplace. The renewable
natural resources of the National Forest System, one of the nation's
most valuable and competitive assets, are in extreme peril. Active and
effective scientific management and stewardship of these lands that
provide fresh water for domestic, industrial, and agricultural use;
habitat for fish and wildlife; a sustained yield of essential wood
products to support local and national economies--and, yes, outdoor
recreation to sustain a mentally and physically healthy population--is
absolutely essential to national survival.
Adverse Impacts Affecting the National Forest System and the U.S.
Forest Service
Myriad impacts are adversely affecting the National Forest System
and the Forest Service charged with its administration.
(1) Rapidly changing environmental conditions caused by changing
climate conditions.
(2) Single-species habitat protection policies which have caused
dramatic increases in the frequency, severity, and size of
wildfires which annually consume millions of acres of precious
natural resources and damage or destroy soils which may take
1,000 years to rebuild.
(3) Insect infestations exceeding four million acres in the West
which, if not treated, will fuel future catastrophic wildfires.
(4) Invasive vegetative species are taking over huge numbers of
acres of potentially productive forest and grasslands.
(5) Reduction and deterioration of water quality and quantity which
causes increasing water shortages for domestic, industrial, and
agricultural uses and fisheries.
(6) Unnatural overstocking of forest vegetation that leads to
declining forest health and insect infestations that are direct
results of overstocked stands. This is a direct result of the
Forest Service not being permitted to actively manage these
valuable forested lands by thinning and harvesting because of
frivolous court challenges that result in:
(a) Severely reduced monetary return to the U.S. Treasury,
(b) Severely increased unemployment,
(c) Unnecessary suppression and restoration costs to taxpayers,
and
(d) Dramatic detrimental changes in stand structure and
composition.
(7) A major and perverse shift in use of the justice system during
the past 30 years to block active resource management and use
and garner economic windfalls for anti-forest management
activists that has:
(a) Drastically reduced sustainable harvesting of the timber
resource from about 11 billion board feet 20 years ago to
less than 2 billion today, and
(b) Significantly increased catastrophic wildfires in which
overstocked stands and dense canopies contribute to such
disastrous fires as the 2002 Hayman Fire in Colorado, the
2008 fires in Trinity and Siskiyou counties of California,
and the 2011 New Mexico and Arizona fires; more than 1
million acres of valuable National Forest resources have
been destroyed by these wildfires alone. Overall damage
costs of wildfires range from three to 10 times fire
suppression costs, not counting associated property losses
and personal injuries and deaths.
(8) The excessive costs of red tape and legal minutia that hinder
forest planning and execution of management projects to the
point only a small percentage of critical forest health and
wildlife habitat projects are accomplished. An example is the
death of over four million acres of Colorado and Wyoming
forests cause by insect infestations in large part a result of
ineffective forest management.
(9) The shift from professional forest management programs to a
passive caretaker mode because the Federal Government fails to
meet the legislated promise to the American people and instead
permits special interest groups, through misguided legislation,
to curtail sound Forest Service forest management. This has
taken a heavy toll not only in terms of deteriorating forest
health but also in reduced county and school revenues,
increased unemployment, and depressed economies that destroy
forest-dependent communities.
(10) The inability to salvage dying and fallen trees after fires or
other catastrophic events that leaves large volumes of
hazardous fuel for the next fire and creates life-threatening
conditions for firefighters and residents.
(11) Agency fire strategies that contribute to catastrophic fire
occurrences rather than limits them, and closures of roads
necessary for forest work, firefighting, law enforcement,
public use, and search and rescue operations.
(12) The Forest Service--the strength and effectiveness of which is
critical to sustaining and improving forest resource health,
providing services to an expanding population, and meeting
growing demands for natural resources--has been and continues
to be subjected to impacts that severely curtail its efficiency
and effectiveness. It has gone from being rated one of the most
effective Federal Government organizations in 1984 to one of
the least now. These adverse impacts include:
(a) Tight control of Forest Service by the U.S. Department of
Agriculture may limit executive decision space and
constrains creativity.
(b) Reduced staffing has caused lack of depth in most of the
organization.
(c) Loss of credibility with cooperating organizations, local
communities, and individuals has resulted from erosion of
effective training programs for leaders and managers.
(d) Lack of leadership at various levels of the organization has
affected quality decision making.
(e) An administrative and accounting system that does not meet
the needs of on-the-ground land, natural resource, and
business management. The existing system tends to over-
manage in critical areas, does not provide sufficient
decision latitude for local program managers, and does not
provide a positive program review system. Major
centralization of administrative tasks accomplished in the
early 1980s to reduce administrative costs resulted in
project personnel spending an inordinate percentage of time
doing administrative work previously done by an efficient
and effective support staff. This has damaged management
effectiveness, reduced morale, and drastically reduced
customer service throughout the entire organization as
evidenced by the latest GAO review of Forest Service
business consolidation effectiveness.
Indicators provided for the review of National Forest System.
The proposed Congressional review of the Forest Service efforts to
implement legislative direction regarding National Forest
administration should have the following indicators of effectiveness.
They were developed with extensive input from state and local
officials, diverse resource groups and knowledgeable citizens.
(1) The National Forest System meets the needs of all American
people and contributes to the economic well being of local
communities. Local governments are actively included in all
Forest Service resource plans and decisions that affect them.
(2) Congress, the Administration, and domestic and international
cooperators receive quality professional Forest Service advice
and technical assistance.
(3) Forest Service research and development programs expand
scientific knowledge required by managers of the nation's and
the world's renewable natural resources and at the same time
involve local resource managers in identifying emerging issues
and challenges.
(4) Forest Service land management programs are harmonized and
integrated with those of other public agencies and private
ownerships to ensure greater protection of the health of
forests and rangelands from wildfire, insects and disease, and
human and other threats.
(5) The Forest Service has the financial resources to employ the
full range of management tools including, but not limited to,
planned prescribed fire to establish resilient landscapes able
to adapt to changing climate conditions and public needs.
(6) The true cost of wildfire is recognized and fuel reduction
programs are funded to achieve the national goals necessary to
establish and maintain healthy, productive forests. Grant
funding is available to all critical areas regardless of the
ability to provide matching funds.
(7) The Forest Service planning system is consistent with statutory
direction and responsive to public users and local community
needs as well as to changing climate conditions. Local
cooperators are involved in local forest planning from start to
project completion.
(8) Forest Service resource decisions and plans take into account
the need for healthy ecosystems balanced with the social and
economic needs of counties, local citizens and groups.
(9) A reliable ``feedstock'' supply from the National Forests
supports investment in various local forest product industries
that contribute to forest health, carbon storage, and local
economies. Efforts are made to support local citizens in
development of new projects such as wind, solar, geothermal,
hydropower and use of woody renewables for energy and heat.
(10) There is adequate long-term funding separate from the timber
sales program to support the sale and removal of excess forest
fuel materials. There is a method of sharing income from
cooperative programs with local communities for schools, local
roads and investment in future resource projects.
(11) There is true government-to-government coordination and
cooperation between the Forest Service and state, tribal, local
groups and local government entities to ensure harmonization of
their respective goals and objectives.
(12) National Forest management goals recognize local public health
and safety as well as consider the social and economic well-
being of forest-dependent communities. This is evident by the
creation of collaborative areas set up by forests to support
stewardship projects that are mutually designed to meet Forest
Service and local goals. In addition there is a revived and
robust timber sale program that is able to use emerging
legislation allowing product removal for forest health and
safety.
(13) A viable timber sale program exists to provide feedstock to
local mills. With this revitalized sale program struggling
mills are able to put more people to work to supply the
nation's needs for timber products. The outlook for meeting the
bulk of the nation's wood supply needs from our own lands is
bright.
(14) Forest recreation plans provide for maximum use of National
Forest Service lands to all types of visitor activities.
Special efforts are made to include local citizens and groups
along with state and local unites in recreation development use
plans.
A Desired Future State to Meet the Nation's Current and Future Needs
Numerous groups that support restoration of critical natural
resources throughout the United States advocate cooperative efforts on
both public and private lands to ensure the needs of future generations
are met. These groups are achieving results in ensuring sustained
abundance of these resources because some of the roadblocks referred to
herein have been removed by Congress. Such positive steps are essential
to restoration of the National Forest System and resolution of the
nation's financial crisis.
Recommended Actions to Attain the Desired Future State of the National
Forest System and the U.S. Forest Service
A healthy National Forest System and Forest Service may be attained
if and when the nation's leaders take the following actions to save
precious natural resources in a way that reduces overall losses and
associated costs to the American taxpayer:
(1) Produce a report that recommends Congressional action
Based on the findings and recommendations of a new public land law
review commission or GAO report on its proposed study of the
National Forest System, Congress should enact legislation
affirming the mission of the U.S. Forest Service and provide
congressional direction to manage and restore the National
Forest System and provide national and international leadership
in all aspects of natural resource management.
(2) Review the Consequences of Legal Challenges
A primary roadblock to natural resource management progress is the
obstructionism of the few who use the courts to impede or
terminate needed resource management work by using (some would
say ``perverting'') the Equal Access to Justice Act of 1980 to
force taxpayers to reimburse them for legal expenses for often-
frivolous lawsuits. Some of these plaintiffs and the suits they
file state they want no commercial use of the public lands,
especially timber harvesting. Such litigation has become a huge
and harmful industry that costs the Federal Government millions
of dollars per year and many more millions--if not billions--in
the costs consequent of not managing public forest lands. Some
of these issues could be effectively dealt with through
bipartisan support of H.R. 1485, the Catastrophic Wildfire
Community Protection Act, and H.R. 1996, the Government
Litigation Savings Act; the latter bill would limit
reimbursements to law firms for expenditures in lawsuits. If
passed, both bills would enhance needed resource work and
provide needed employment while costing the nation little.
(3) Reduce the Costs of Catastrophic Wildfires
(a) Catastrophic wildfires in 2011 consumed 1.73 million acres of
National Forest System lands at a tremendous cost.
Suppression costs are but a fraction of the true costs of
these wildfires. True costs include impacts on homes,
communities, and invaluable natural resources that include
watersheds that yield high-quality fresh water,
timberlands, fish and wildlife habitat, and outdoor
recreation; impact on lands that provide essential
ecosystem processes and services; and release of air
pollutants that contribute to global warming.
(b) Allocation by Congress of half these lost dollars to work on
National Forest System lands that reduced fuel hazards
could not only prevent a large percent of catastrophic
wildfires and their myriad expensive consequences, but
provide jobs for many citizens who sorely need them. The
concept of ``Invest to Save'' must become an essential
element in funding National Forest System management.
Submitted Questions
Response from Tom Tidwell, Chief, U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Department
of Agriculture
Questions Submitted By Hon. Glenn Thompson, a Representative in
Congress from Pennsylvania
Question 1. I'm very concerned that the Forest Service's attempts
to revise the viability section of the new rule will lead to endless
legal wrangling, not more responsible forest management. Do you agree
that the Nation Forest Management Act requires wildlife diversity as an
objective within the overall multiple use framework? If so, why don't
you change the viability section to, at the very least, reflect that?
Answer. Section 219.9 of the final rule fulfills the diversity
requirement of the National Forest Management Act (NFMA), which directs
the Forest Service to ``provide for diversity of plant and animal
communities based on the suitability and capability of the specific
land area in order to meet multiple-use objectives . . .'' (16 U.S.C.
1604(g)(3)(B)). NFMA explicitly recognizes plant communities as well as
animal communities. The final rule provides protections for all native
plant and animal communities, including protections to fish,
invertebrate, and plant species. By including both vertebrates and
invertebrates, the final rule is more consistent with NFMA. The final
rule will focus on the ecological conditions needed to support
diversity, instead of taking a species-by-species approach. Maintaining
or restoring ecological conditions offers the best assurance against
losses of biological diversity, maintains habitats for the vast
majority of species in an area, and avoids the need to list species
under the Endangered Species Act. The new approaches under the final
rule for addressing species viability and diversity, along with the
recognition of local land and unit capabilities and limits, will
increase the flexibility and feasibility of responding to species and
ecosystem sustainability and recovery needs.
The Forest Service has had a long standing policy to provide
habitat to support the viability of both common species including game
species, and rare species in order to avoid their listing under the
Endangered Species Act. The requirements for viability are habitat
based, not species' population based, which makes this manageable
within our capability. Under the 1982 planning rule, the concept of
viability was focused on existing native and desired non-native
vertebrate species, as well as viable populations, at potentially both
the plan and project level, which was very difficult to meet. The final
rule establishes a viability requirement that is within our capacity to
implement. The final rule acknowledges both the limits of our ability
to control or influence species' viability and the inherent limited
capability of the land area to sustain a species, while considering the
ecological capacity to produce the desired ecological conditions. The
final rule also removes the 1982 requirement that viable populations
must be maintained on the planning unit. Rather, under the final rule,
units would ensure that ecological conditions help support viable
populations across the range.
Question 2. Congress, and only Congress, has the authority to
designate wilderness areas. Why, then, does the new rule provide the
protection and maintenance of the ``ecological and social
characteristics that provide the basis for their suitability for
wilderness designation''? Isn't the Forest Service, by doing so,
creating de facto wilderness areas?
Answer. It can often take years between the time an area has been
recommended for wilderness and the time Congress makes a final decision
on whether to designate an area or not. The Agency believes that it is
important to preserve Congress's options to designate or not. The new
rule does not change the current management requirements for
recommended wilderness. The Department believes the requirement in the
final rule meets the Agency's intent to ensure the types and levels of
use allowed would maintain wilderness character and would not preclude
future designation as wilderness if Congress so chooses to designate
it. The rule requirements are consistent with many State wilderness
acts which require that any areas recommended for wilderness
designation are to be managed for the purpose of protecting the area's
suitability for wilderness. The Utah Wilderness Act of 1984 is one
example (Pub. Law No. 98-428. 201(b)(4); 98 Stat 1660).
Question 3. Are you at all concerned that the new rule includes
mandatory requirements for the use of the ``best science?'' Isn't
science itself is always undergoing revision? Isn't this just setting
up plans and subsequent projects for litigation by those who are not
interested in seeing the agency achieve its goals, particularly the
goal of multiple use?
Answer. The Agency believes that using the best available science
to inform the planning process leads to more durable plans and more
credible, legally supportable decisions. The Agency is currently
required to take relevant scientific information into account in
decision-making and already has a fundamental legal requirement,
grounded in the Administrative Procedure Act, to consider relevant
factors, including relevant scientific information, and explains the
basis for its decisions. Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe,
401 U.S. 402, 416 (1971). The rule is not intended to impose a higher
standard for judicial review than the existing ``arbitrary and
capricious'' standard of the APA, 5 U.S.C. Section 706(2)(A). The rule
also sets specific stages in the planning framework when consideration
of the best available scientific information must be documented. The
rule includes such documentation requirements in recognition that lack
of documentation has sometimes been a basis for courts to overturn
agency decisions. The Department believes that defining its
accountability for use of best available science in the planning
process is preferable to leaving it open to interpretation and will
lead to fewer litigation losses.
Question 4. These new regulations add more process, prescriptive
requirements, highly subjective criteria for ``species viability'' and
``best available science'', and require the most expensive and time-
consuming NEPA process (an EIS) for all forest plan revisions. How does
this comply with Executive Orders and other policies providing that
regulations should be more cost effective and less burdensome?
Answer. The new planning rule will create a more efficient and
effective process through an adaptive framework for land management
assessment, planning and monitoring. This framework should help the
Forest Service use resources more effectively; keep plans more current
through frequent amendments. The rule's focus on achieving desired
conditions and objectives should mean less time in planning and more
time implementing plans through projects and activities.
The new planning rule incorporates many of the best practices
already widely used by the Forest Service across the National Forest
System. It supports restoration, and provides a platform for
collaboration that has proven effective in allowing stakeholders to
move beyond conflicts of the past to find agreement for accomplishing
work on the ground.
Question 5. How long will the Forest Planning process take under
the new rules? Given how little impact forest plans have had on
subsequent management, do you think it's fair to the American taxpayer
to ask them to take that amount of time to participate in the planning
process?
Answer. The Forest Service estimates plan revisions will take, on
average, 3 to 4 years as compared to 5 to 7 years under the 1982
planning rule. The agency believes that the shorter timeframe for
revisions will help the public stay engaged throughout the entire
planning process and will be a more effective use of their time than
longer, more drawn out revision processes which have occurred under the
previous rule. The most common request from the public, state, local
governments and Tribes during the collaborative rule making process has
been that they want to be involved early and throughout the planning
process. The final planning rule will provide greater opportunities for
people to engage early and throughout, and to interact directly with
the decision maker, and to be able to stay engaged than under current
procedures.
Question 6. Where in statute does the Forest Service derive the
authority to manage wildlife for ``viable populations''? Are wildlife
not managed by the states, and in some cases the Fish and Wildlife
Service?
Answer. The National Forest Management Act (NFMA) requires that
plans provide for diversity of plant and animal communities (16 U.S.C.
1604(g)(3)(B)). The Department's ability to maintain the diversity of
plant and animal communities is dependent on managing for effective
habitat for plant and animal species within the communities. The
Organic Administration Act and the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act,
provide authority to manage for wildlife purposes and provide the
agency the discretion to manage habitat to maintain wildlife viability.
The new planning rule does not authorize the Agency to manage wildlife.
It requires that plans provide for the ``ecological conditions''
(habitat) that species require to persist on NFS lands. While the
intent of the rule is that ecological conditions on a unit provide for
the persistence of all species, the specific requirement for
maintaining habitat for viable populations is limited to species of
conservation concern (SCC). The rule also recognizes circumstances
where ensuring a viable population of a SCC on a unit is beyond the
authority of the agency or not within the authority of the land. In
those cases, the rule allows the responsible official to document this
conclusion and instead, include plan direction to contribute to
viability across the species range.
The agency believes that this rule is an appropriate approach to
meeting the NFMA requirement for providing for diversity of plant and
animal communities. This approach allows the agency to focus management
direction on species for which there is a documented concern about the
species' capability to persist over the long-term in the plan area. By
focusing management direction on those vulnerable species, the agency
can work to reduce the risk these species will be listed as endangered
or threatened. Once a species is listed under ESA, it is very difficult
to recover the species and there are very few options for management to
meet other objectives of the plan such as restoration, timber
production or recreation.
While the new rule focuses on providing the habitat necessary to
support the diversity and persistence of native plant and animal
species, it also requires that NFS units work collaboratively with
State fish and wildlife agencies, State and local governments, other
Federal agencies, and others, to conserve fish, wildlife, and plant
habitats and populations on NFS lands and to contribute to shared
goals, such as those provided in state wildlife action plans or in
threatened or endangered species recovery plans. Requirements in Sec.
219.4, 219.6, 219.10, and 219.12 of the final rule complement and
support interagency collaboration on habitat and species conservation.
Question 7. In your written testimony you stated ``The Forest
Service also recognizes the need for a strong forest industry to help
accomplish restoration work.'' I encourage you to also emphasize that
timber production is an end goal of the National Forest System. One of
the multiple uses the forests serve is to help supply the forest
product needs of the United States.
Answer. The Forest Service recognizes the role of a strong forest
products industry in accomplishing restoration. The willingness of
industry to pay for forest products and biomass resulting from
restoration treatments increases our ability to achieve restoration
goals, protect communities and provide healthy forests. The combination
of treatments and product removal is often the least-cost alternative.
In addition to restoring the forest, this combination provides
employment and helps sustain the social and economic well-being of the
communities we serve. The agency sets goals for both acres restored and
forest products produced. Our commitment to accelerating our
restoration includes both an increase in acres and forest products.
Question 8. How do you expect timber and biomass production to
shift over the next several years under the new planning rule? How many
board feet of timber? How many tons of non-timber biomass?
Answer. The Forest Service is continuing to increase the pace of
forest restoration on National Forest System lands. The new planning
rule will enable us to work more collaboratively with our partners. As
a result, we expect the volume of timber production to increase over
the next few years from 2.6 billion board feet to 3.0 billion board
feet. We also expect the green tons of non-timber biomass to increase
from 2.7 million green tons to an amount commensurate with the increase
of timber extracted.
Question 9. You noted that the market for forest products is
critical for forest restoration efforts. Forest Service policies have
arguably contributed to the ``struggling markets'' your reference, as
dramatic reductions in timber sales in some parts of the country
decimated market `ecology' of the local timber industry. I'd appreciate
your thoughts on ways the Forest Service can partner with industry to
facilitate the development of consistent and sustainable markets for
forest products across the different regions of the National Forest
System.
Answer. The Forest Service has been increasing the volume of timber
sold for the last several years even though the nation is struggling
with one of the worst downturns in housing starts and lumber
production. Every possible contract and legal authority has been
employed to help struggling timber purchasers through this downturn. In
addition, the use of stewardship contracting has steadily increased
enabling longer-term contracts and expanding the job opportunities for
communities. Stewardship contracting has also enabled the agency to
continue restoration treatments and hazardous fuels reduction by
offsetting some of the cost with appropriations to compensate for the
decline in timber values. As you are aware, the authority to use
stewardship contracting expires on September 30, 2013.
Additionally, the agency is using the Collaborative Forest
Landscape Restoration Act (CFLRA). This legislation has helped to
provide collaborative ways and means for all stakeholders to come
together to facilitate landscape scale restoration and development of a
consistent and sustainable market for forest products. The agency is
also implementing the pilot authority for the Integrated Resource
Restoration line item, which will enable the agency and communities to
focus on the right treatments in the right place, including the needed
removal of forest products.
Question 10. The most recent timber sale reports from the Forest
Service seem to suggest that the agency is somewhat behind on its goals
for timber sales for the year. I'd appreciate your comments on this.
Answer. The timber sale volume accomplishment for the first half of
fiscal year 2012 is about 9 percent less than the accomplishment in the
first half of fiscal year 2011. Five regions are ahead of or similar to
last year.
Question 11. You noted at several points in your testimony
recommendations to restore the ``ecological role of fire'' in our
forests. How will the forest service balance the use of fire as a
management tool with the risks posed by fire to other multiple use
objectives, as well as the risks posed to property in and near the
forest?
Answer. The Forest Service manages all wildfires with a singular
approach where we first establish a protection strategy for those
values at risk. Incident objectives, strategies, and tactics can change
as the fire spreads across the landscape, due to changes in
environmental conditions (weather, vegetation, topography), human
influence, land ownership/jurisdiction, planning unit objectives,
perceived threats to human safety, predicted threats to property,
infrastructure, and natural resources, opportunities to achieve
resource benefits, and availability of firefighting resources to
accomplish the work. Responses to wildfire are also coordinated across
levels of government, regardless of the jurisdiction at the ignition.
The agency puts firefighter and public safety as the first priority
in every fire management activity. No natural or cultural resource,
home, or item of property is worth a human life. All strategies and
tactics seek to mitigate the risk to firefighters and the public. We do
however; recognize that a policy of full suppression of all wildfires
does not eliminate risk. Over time, exclusion of wildland fire can
result in fuels accumulation and deterioration of forest conditions
which can contribute to even greater long-term risk.
We also recognize that after all strategies, tactics and objectives
are established and risks have been identified and mitigated,
undesirable outcomes sometimes still occur when managing wildfires, as
it is still not possible to predict every possible weather scenario
that could play out over weeks or months that a fire may be managed.
The agency is committed to completing reviews after wildfire incidents
to learn from our successes and our failures in the spirit of
continuous improvement.
Question 12. Chief Tidwell, the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals has
recently upheld a District Court ruling that no Federal permit is
required for access and development of the private mineral estate on
the Allegheny National Forest. Why and under what delegated regulatory
authority does the Forest Service continue to require oil, gas, and
mineral owners to pay a set $400 fee for a Forest Service road use
permit just for the privilege to use Forest Service roads in accessing
their private mineral estates when the deeds expressly reserve the
rights of access over these roads at no cost and without preconditions.
Answer. All commercial use of Forest Service infrastructure (in
this case, roads) is subject to a use fee. The $400 charge for use of
Forest Service System roads is for use of the infrastructure, not for
access to any private mineral estate.
Question 13. In March 2008, then Allegheny National Forest
Supervisor Leanne Marten issued a directive to all oil and gas
operators stating that District Rangers will not allow development of
the ``mineral materials'' on private mineral estates and based this
edict on authority of 36 CFR 228 Subpart C. As I understand it, 36 CFR
228 Subpart C applies only to FEDERALLY-OWNED mineral estate--not
unacquired PRIVATE mineral estates. In light of the recent Third
Circuit decision holding that the Forest Service has extremely limited
regulatory authority over private mineral estates, this strikes me as
an unlawful directive that is intended to impede and prevent oil, gas,
and mineral development.
Is this a national policy? When will this directive be canceled?
Answer. The Forest Service position on mineral materials (sand,
gravel, stone, pumice, clay, etc.) is that such materials are part of
the surface estate, not the private mineral estate, unless explicitly
and clearly reserved in a mineral severance deed. Because these
materials are part of the federal surface estate, their development is
subject to regulatory provisions at 36 CFR 228 Subpart C--Disposal of
Mineral Materials.
Questions Submitted By Hon. Bob Goodlatte, a Representative in Congress
from Virginia
Question 1. Last year, I had the pleasure of attending an
announcement by Sec. Vilsack concerning USDA's green building policy.
Based on his comments at that announcement, I think we agree that
restoration of both public and private forest lands requires resources.
Strong markets for forest products can help fund restoration and
reinvestment in our forests. The USDA Green building policy changes
that were announced that night could go a long way towards increasing
demand for forest products in building construction markets. What steps
have you taken internally to implement this policy? Have you increased
wood use in Forest Service buildings?
Answer. The Forest Service updated its policy to require all new
buildings over 10,000 square feet be designed to meet a third-party
``green building'' certification systems, e.g., U.S. Green Building
Council's Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) rating
system (minimum Silver certification); Green Globes (minimum Two Green
Globes certification); or other equivalent third-party certification
system. Additionally, all other buildings, whether new or major
renovation projects larger than 2,500 square feet, must be designed to
incorporate sustainable principles into the systems and components
appropriate to the building type and project scope.
In a March, 2011 letter to Forest Service leaders, Chief Tidwell
affirmed our commitment to increase our ability to support the use of
sustainably grown, domestically produced wood products, including wood
from the National Forests as the preferred green building material for
all USDA facilities and buildings. Our Forest Products Laboratory is
facilitating research and development of environmental product
declarations (EPD's) for wood products based on Life Cycle Assessments
(LCA). LCA identifies the flow of materials and energy through various
stages, from the point of extracting raw materials from the
environment, through manufacture, construction, use and final disposal.
The life cycle information in EPDs can be used to compare the
environmentally preferable benefits of wood products versus non-wood
products for alternative designs of building components (such as walls,
floors, and roofs).
Question 2. In testimony before the Senate Energy and Natural
Resources Committee on March 6th, you stated that you plan on
decommissioning over 2000 miles of roads in FY 2013. How is the Forest
Service supposed to affordably manage National Forests when it is
removing access making it more difficult for management interests to
get to areas in desperate need of management? Additionally, why is the
FS making it more difficult for recreational interests to access FS
lands?
Answer. Appropriate access is very important in the management of
National Forest System lands. The agency utilizes a process called
Travel Analysis to inform the size of our road system and to inform the
creation of motor vehicle use maps, which guide the use of our road
system. This analysis includes National Forest System roads, as well as
unauthorized roads. If this analysis identifies a road as not needed
for safe and efficient travel and for administration, utilization and
administration of National Forest System lands, the road is identified
for decommissioning following appropriate NEPA. This process helps to
ensure the agency has the road system necessary for the management and
public enjoyment of National Forest System lands, while reducing the
ecologic impacts of unneeded roads, and also reducing the costs
associated with the roads system.
Question Submitted By Hon. Reid J. Ribble, a Representative in Congress
from Wisconsin
Question. Chief Tidwell, invasive species management represents a
significant challenge to the U.S. Forest Service as well as to other
Federal, local and private entities that are concerned with land
management. Furthermore, due to the current fiscal climate, the Forest
Service and others have been forced to continue the invasive species
fight with less funding. A September 2010 Office of Inspector General
report made numerous recommendations on how invasive species programs
may be improved in light of the current budget issues, and the Forest
Service largely agreed with those recommendations. Please provide a
status update on implementation of those recommendations as well as any
other additional thoughts you may have regarding how invasive species
management can continue to be improved regardless of the ultimate
budget.
Answer. The Forest Service (FS) is committed to responding to the
threat of invasive species by addressing the significant challenges
associated with invasive species management identified in the OIG Audit
Report (08601-7-AT). To date the FS has carried out OIG Recommendations
1-5, and 7-11. OIG Recommendation 6 is in the review stage and expected
to be completed in December 2012.
OIG Recommendations 1-4 are being carried out by developing and
issuing the final invasive species directive (Forest Service Manual
2900--Invasive Species Management) to compile the internal policies
specifically on ``Early Detection and Rapid Response'' (EDRR) within
the Forest Service, and to develop an adequate, cohesive, internal
control environment for managing the invasive species program. The
final directive was issued on December 5, 2011. For OIG Recommendation
4, the National Forest System revised the national NFS budgeting
database known as ``Workplan'' to allow the field to track all the
programmatic expenditures and costs associated with Invasive Species
Management on the National Forest System. Direction has been provided
to the field to implement the revised ``Workplan'' work activity coding
system to track their invasive species management expenditures on
National Forests and Grasslands.
OIG Recommendation 5 is being implemented through the development
of an ``Invasive Species Systems Approach'' (ISSA) which is being built
to address concerns raised under OIG Recommendation 5 and to help
improve program effectiveness, increase accountability, and standardize
operational procedures to ensure consistency across the agency. The
draft ISSA identifies 12 specific actions for an improved comprehensive
and integrated approach, which will provide a foundation for the FS
Invasive Species Management Program.
OIG Recommendation 7 called for the development of an inventory
plan for inventorying all invasive species, the risk each species
poses, and the efficacy of available treatments. Progress has been made
on the development of guidance, criteria, protocols, and other
direction for quantifying the extent and impacts of invasive species
infestation across the National Forest System, within Chapter 40
(Invasive Species Detection, Surveys, and Inventories), of the draft
Forest Service Handbook 2909.11. A draft of FSH 2909.11 is expected to
be ready to being the review process in 2013. Once finalized, the
direction provided in Chapter 40 will help National areas. Forest
System personnel quantify populations of invasive species in all
aquatic and terrestrial
OIG Recommendation 9 (establishing national standards for reporting
performance results) has already been established for all NFS invasive
species program activities, record keeping, and reporting. Direction is
provided on-lie and in the annual budget and performance program
direction. OIG Recommendation 9 was accomplished soon after the OIG
Report was released. In the intervening time period, NFS national
program performance measures have undergone many modifications,
including those for Invasive Species Management. Corrective actions are
underway to meet the national Performance and Accountability System for
the FY 2013 field season. OIG Recommendation 10 is completed annually
during end-of-year performance data validation processes conducted for
all NFS invasive species program performance records. OIG
Recommendation 11 has been initiated, beginning with informal reviews,
conducted in FY 2012, and formal reviews planned for FY 2014. The ISSA
(noted above) give the FS the opportunity to establish and conduct a
formal review system to verify the accuracy of invasive species
accomplishment data by comparing reported information to actual work
accomplished during projects on the ground.
OIG Recommendation 6 called for the revision of the 2004 National
Strategy and Implementation Plan for Invasive Species Management and
for establishing control for revising the strategy every 5 years. The
draft National Strategy has been released draft for a Forest Service-
wide review. The revised National Strategy will be completed by
December 2012, and a revision schedule will be established on a 5 year
basis, completing the FS obligations under OIG Recommendation 6.
As invasive species populations continue to invade our aquatic and
terrestrial ecosystems and prevent us from reaching our landscape-scale
restoration goals, we will continue our work against aquatic and
terrestrial invasive species by implementing the efforts and program
improvements I have described. In light of increasing economic
constraints, our approaches and policies call for increasing our
cooperation and collaboration with partners and other external
stakeholders, to share knowledge, share information, and share the
resources necessary to address invasive species across the landscape.
By utilizing our new policy (FSM 2900) and integrating our invasive
species management activities under the ISSA to increase our collective
capacity across the agency, we are hopeful that we will be able to keep
up the pace against the spread of invasive species. In addition, with
the expected issuance of the final Forest Service Handbook (FSH
2909.11) in FY 2014, we hope to improve our efficiencies and
effectiveness against invasive species, even in times of budget
volatility.