[Senate Hearing 113-349]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 113-349
FORESTRY
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON
ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
TO
RECEIVE TESTIMONY ON THE FOLLOWING BILLS: S. 1784, THE OREGON AND
CALIFORNIA LAND GRANT ACT OF 2013; and S. 1966, THE NATIONAL FOREST
JOBS AND MANAGEMENT ACT OF 2014
__________
FEBRUARY 6, 2014
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
_______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
88-999 PDF WASHINGTON : 2014
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
RON WYDEN, Oregon, Chairman
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho
BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont MIKE LEE, Utah
DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan DEAN HELLER, Nevada
MARK UDALL, Colorado JEFF FLAKE, Arizona
AL FRANKEN, Minnesota TIM SCOTT, South Carolina
JOE MANCHIN, III, West Virginia LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee
BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii ROB PORTMAN, Ohio
MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota
TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin
Joshua Sheinkman, Staff Director
Sam E. Fowler, Chief Counsel
Karen K. Billups, Republican Staff Director
Patrick J. McCormick III, Republican Chief Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
STATEMENTS
Page
Barrasso, Hon. John, U.S. Senator From Wyoming................... 9
DeFazio, Hon. Peter A., U.S. Representative From the 4th District
of Oregon...................................................... 11
Dombeck, Mike, Board Member, Trout Unlimited..................... 87
Ellis, Steven A., Deputy Director for Operations, Bureau of Land
Management, Department of the Interior......................... 15
Franklin, Jerry F., School of Environmental and Forest Science,
University of Washington....................................... 40
Georg, Clint, Partner, Saratoga Forest Management................ 97
Leiken, Sid, Commissioner, Lane County, OR....................... 75
Matz, Mike, Director, U.S. Public Lands, The Pew Charitable
Trusts......................................................... 49
Miller, Andrew, President/CEO, Stimson Lumber Company, Portland,
OR............................................................. 46
Murkowski, Hon. Lisa, U.S. Senator From Alaska................... 7
Riddle, Dale, Senior Vice President, Seneca Sawmill Company,
Eugene, OR..................................................... 68
Risch, Hon. James, U.S. Senator From Idaho....................... 38
Robertson, Doug, Commissioner, on Behalf of the Association of
O&C Counties................................................... 55
Stevens, Sean, Executive Director, Oregon Wild................... 58
Tidwell, Hon. Thomas, Chief, Forest Service, Department of the
Interior....................................................... 23
Wyden, Hon. Ron, U.S. Senator From Oregon........................ 1
APPENDIXES
Appendix I
Responses to additional questions................................ 107
Appendix II
Additional material submitted for the record..................... 127
FORESTRY
----------
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 6, 2014
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:40 a.m. in room
SD-366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Ron Wyden,
chairman, presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RON WYDEN, U.S. SENATOR FROM OREGON
The Chairman. The committee will come to order. We have a
busy forestry agenda this morning.
But with Senator Murkowski's leave, I have just a few
comments to make on another matter. I think we both know it is
always a challenge to definitively predict the schedule here in
the U.S. Senate. But it does appear that this morning is going
to be my last hearing as chair of the committee. I just want to
offer up a couple of big thank-you's and make a couple of
comments about the last year.
On the thank-you front, Senator Murkowski, I just want you
to know that I believe you are essentially the gold standard
for how you go about trying to promote principled
bipartisanship, and particularly bipartisanship on difficult
issues.
Everybody knows you can be bipartisan if you just want to
stand around and issue press releases. But to take core
principles, principles that I think, in our discussions, both
of us know we have, and still find common ground, that is
something of a lost art. I just want to say thank you for all
of that this morning.
I'm going to have some more to say about Senator Murkowski
in a minute.
When Oregonians honored me with the opportunity to
represent them in the Senate, I made a beeline for this
committee. I did so because I believe getting natural resources
policy right represents what is best about our country: wise
use of our treasured lands, air, and water so there are
sustainable good-paying jobs for our people and protection for
the environment.
Without delivering a filibuster, I just want to mention a
few things that happened on our watch, Senator Murkowski. The
first is we gave a big boost to renewable energy with a
hydropower law projected to generate 60,000 megawatts of clean
renewable power. We actually moved Government toward that sweet
spot in terms of natural gas, where we take this energy source,
50 percent cleaner than the other fossil fuels, and make sure
that it was available to boost our key industries, and at the
same time help the environment, particularly getting renewables
into a base-load power.
We also, together, funded rural schools, police, and parks.
We wrote a bipartisan plan for dealing with nuclear waste after
years of gridlock on that issue. As you and I have talked
about, after 5 Congresses and 3 Presidents failed to figure out
what to do about the Government's enormous stockpile of helium,
we produced a law that works for our vital American industries
and for taxpayers.
All told, based on what our staffs are telling us, no other
committee during our watch has passed out more bipartisan
legislation.
Now, for everybody who's listening in, I want it understood
that it's my view that Senator Landrieu and Senator Murkowski
are going to do an outstanding job of building on the common
sense that I see from the members of this committee every time
that I'm in this room. It's going to be an honor, Senator
Murkowski, to continue to sit next to you and Senator Landrieu
as we deal with these important issues.
I think by way of wrapping up, it's a thank-you for a great
ride, an exciting ride where I think we did what we were sent
here to do, which was try to make good policy in a polarizing
time. I think people also know that you and I swap ideas on
subjects we don't take up in this room, and I know we're going
to continue that as well.
So, as I'm going to hear this weekend at town hall meetings
in southern Oregon, we always come back to forestry policy. I
have some comments to make on the O&C legislation. But let me
turn this over to you for any statement you'd like, since I've
consumed a little extra time.
[The prepared statement of Senator Johnson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Tim Johnson, U.S. Senator From South Dakota,
on S. 1966 and S. 1784
Thank you, Chairman Wyden and Ranking Member Murkowski, for holding
this hearing on forest management. As you know, forest management and
forest products play an important role to the economy and communities
of the State of South Dakota and many other states across the country.
I appreciate your efforts to improve the management of forest lands and
support crucial rural jobs across our country.
As you know, the pine beetle epidemic has struck the Black Hills of
South Dakota hard. Roughly a third of the beautiful forests for which
the Black Hills are named have been affected. The Forest Service,
private forest land owners, and forest products companies need to have
the tools to treat the land and process the wood in a timely manner if
we are to get ahead of the curve on this epidemic. Though tremendous
work has been accomplished in response to the pine beetle, we simply
must accelerate the treatment and restoration of these lands.
Because of the significance of the Black Hills National Forest to
the economy and quality of life in western South Dakota, I would like
to focus my remarks specifically on the National Forest Jobs and
Management Act (S. 1966).
I agree with the bill's goals of improving the certainty in forest
products supplies, strengthening the associated jobs supporting rural
economies, and streamlining the process of getting access to forest
products from our public lands.
However, it is important that these goals be met through
responsible policies and programs that protect our nation's water,
land, fish, and wildlife and the legacy of our public lands.
The 2014 Farm Bill contains several provisions I supported that
take strong steps to do just that. The Good Neighbor authority that
Senator Barrasso and I have worked to expand, the insect and disease
treatment areas that was piloted in the Black Hills, the permanent
reauthorization of stewardship contracting, and the permanent exemption
of silvicultural activities from Clean Water Act permitting all improve
the ability to responsibly bring wood products to market. With the
recent passage of the Farm Bill, we need to give these tools time to
work.
I have concerns that S. 1966 proposes to prioritize and streamline
timber sales on our national forests by reducing or eliminating
provisions that help to make sure that the sales and subsequent harvest
activities are carried out responsibly and consistently with the
established multiple uses of national forest system lands. The bill
designates timber management areas based on forest plan designations
that may be a decade or more out of date, and it limits the opportunity
of land managers to reassess those designations due to changed
conditions. Additionally, as introduced, the bill effectively
eliminates alternatives to be analyzed under NEPA, so that an
appropriate range of alternatives will not be known to the public or
decision makers. While limits on NEPA reviews may accelerate projects,
the public input process and consideration of alternatives helps bring
about better decision-making and can reduce conflict among different
users of our national forests. Finally, I am concerned that S. 1966
would establish a binding arbitration process in lieu of court review
that requires an arbitrator to select one of the submitted proposals
without modification and without any process to determine whether they
are within the scope of the NEPA analysis or the authority and
resources of the national forest.
In closing, I support the stated purposes of S. 1966 but have
reservations about the approach taken in the bill. The Mountain Pine
Beetle Response Project in the Black Hills National Forest has shown
that the Forest Service is capable of undertaking landscape-scale
planning and adapting its management to changing conditions. I believe
we can build upon this approach, and I look forward to working with the
Chairman, the Ranking Member, Senator Barrasso and the rest of my
colleagues to improve forest management and the responsible use of wood
products from our forest lands.
Senator Murkowski. Mr. Chairman, before we get to the
substance of the issues that we have before us, and again, in
this committee we take up good, substantive stuff. Not to
suggest that other committees don't roll up their sleeves and
dig into it, but I think that through your leadership and
guidance, and working with you, we have gained a reputation in
this body for being the committee that works, the committee
that really operates with a process that is respectful of one
another, our issues, and the policies that we have put forward.
We have taken some relatively controversial issues, and we
have had good, constructive dialog. Mr. Chairman, when we
started off last year, I had been kind of operating with the
hope that if the Republicans were successful that I might be
sitting in your chair and holding that gavel. In anticipation
of that, I worked with my staff pretty aggressively to build my
framework, my Energy 20/20.
All throughout that process, you were there, not being
critical and willing to come out in opposition to things that
you didn't even know where I was going to be coming from. You
sat back, and you said, ``This is great stuff! Because this
will help us begin that dialog.''
As you know, I have said many, many times that 115 pages of
Energy 20/20 can be distilled into one bumper sticker: ``Energy
Is Good.'' Mr. Chairman, you have made that true, but you've
also expanded that so that I can honestly say that energy is
fun. We have had a good time working on some great, meaty
issues.
I'm going to miss Wyden Wednesday. This is the time that we
gather every Wednesday morning for at least an hour to talk
about calendar, to talk about policy, to talk as leaders in the
energy sector here in this Senate about what we can build. That
commitment to a working relationship has been incredibly
important to me.
But I think it goes beyond what you have built with your
ranking member here. I think every member of this committee
feels that you have gone the extra step to seek out their
opinions, to see if we can't work out the differences. Whether
it was how we dealt with North Carolina beaches and turtles or
how we deal with nuclear waste issues, you have made a very
concerted effort to make sure that every member, majority and
minority, is heard and heard fully.
So, I thank you for the guidance that you have given this
committee. I'm pleased for you that you can move to another
committee and give that leadership there. But I will miss the
collaboration that you and I established. I'd also like to
acknowledge your staff, who has worked extraordinarily well
with our side. I'm going to miss them, too. So we may have to
be doing some borrowing here.
But I will look forward to continuing to work with you on
not only energy issues, but on so many of those other areas
where we can take areas of controversy and say, ``This is
important to address. Let's begin the discussion. Let's begin
the dialog.''
Final point, you have made mention in hearings past, when
you're talking about LNG and the prospect for export. Exports
can be a pretty controversial issue around here. You've made
the connection that, well, they're not like Oregon blueberries.
Mr. Chairman, when I had my blueberry smoothie this morning, I
was thinking about you and your willingness to have a graham
cracker dipped in LNG with me when you came to Alaska.
[Laughter.]
Senator Murkowski. So I'll continue eating blueberries,
thinking about you. I don't know that I'm going to ask you to
do any more LNG graham crackers. But I think that was just yet
another example of your willingness to meet me halfway in
understanding the issues that are important to my State and to
others around the country. So, thank you for your leadership.
The Chairman. Beyond being overly kind, I think it's
appropriate, as we begin to hear from the witnesses, that as a
Williamette grad, you do have Oregon blueberries in that
special place.
Senator Murkowski. That's true.
The Chairman. We appreciate it.
Let's go now to the O&C bill. We're also going to be taking
up Senator Barrasso's bill, the O&C bill, S. 1784. Then later,
we'll hear from Senator Barrasso about his bill, S. 1966, the
National Forest Jobs Management Act.
I think it is fair to say that, with respect to the O&C
Lands Act of 2013, we Oregonians feel these lands are truly
unique both in their legal status and their history. It really
goes back to the middle 1930s and the 1937 O&C Act.
That Act established a checkerboard of public lands mixed
in with private land. The Bureau of Land Management now
oversees O&C lands with a unique mandate for forest management
that exists nowhere else in our country. I think it's fair to
say folks in these 18 Oregon counties feel like they have been
hit by a wrecking ball. Unemployment is high. The newspapers
are full of stories about crimes going unpunished because law
enforcement doesn't have the manpower to respond.
These counties need jobs in the woods, in the mills, and
for plumbers and restaurants and small businesses that are so
vital to the rural Oregon economy. Instead, folks in these
communities feel that they have nowhere to turn.
I want to spend just a moment talking about how we actually
got to this point. My own take is a big part of it is the
conversation about managing these lands has now been
monopolized by the ideological extremes who seem allergic to
the idea of a compromise. The answer always seems to be
cutting, clear-cutting away the old growth, or blocking even
responsible timber harvest.
It's my view that neither of these extremes are a long-term
winner for our State. That's why leaders from the forest
products sector, from recreation, from conservation groups, and
local officials stood up with me and Governor Kitzhaber in our
State capital when I rolled out recently a fresh vision for the
O&C lands.
Our legislation ends the stop-everything approach that has
paralyzed forest management, and at the same time it
acknowledges the days of billion-board-foot clear-cuts are not
coming back. The approach substantially increases the timber
going to our mills. It creates certainty for our working
families, certainty for our counties, and certainty for every
employer who's going to invest in the future of our rural
timber communities.
By doubling the harvest compared to the average harvest of
the last decade, these communities can save the jobs that
they've got now and create more. Assuring future decades of
reliable harvests that averaged 300 and 350 million board-feet
per year will give employers confidence they can grow their
businesses and provide more good-paying jobs.
In working with the best scientists in the Northwest,
including Dr. Jerry Franklin, who's going to testify today on
behalf of himself and Dr. Norm Johnson, the priority was to
make timber harvesting as ecologically friendly as possible.
Ironclad protections for clean drinking water, wildlife, and
Oregon salmon in this bill stems from discussions that were
held with many conservation groups.
This is legislation that I believe can pass both houses of
the Congress and actually be signed into law by the President.
Our forests, our counties, and our mills cannot keep waiting
while lawyers for both sides litigate away. Forest management
has been stalled so thoroughly it is virtually fossilized.
My bill amends the law that established these unique
Federal lands to make clear how O&C lands are to be managed in
the future. First, the bill puts approximately half of the O&C
land into a forest-emphasis area, and the other half into a
conservation-emphasis area, so there is no question where
sustainable timber harvests are the priority and which areas
will be permanently conserved.
In timber-emphasis areas, the bill rules out the
controversial sales that are most likely to end up in court. It
creates the first-ever legislative ban on harvesting old growth
on the O&C lands. Critically, the bill tells the natural
resources agencies to offer timber sales according to harvest
that mimic natural processes.
In addition, the bill streamlines an environmental review
process that in many cases has bogged down timber harvesting to
the point of stagnation. It does that while maintaining--while
maintaining carefully our country's bedrock environmental laws.
The point of this legislation is to bring together all of
the stakeholders at the outset and come up with a plan for 10
years of timber harvests that will be approved at the start. So
instead of dealing with dozens of individual studies, foresters
will have the certainty that the harvest can proceed without
some group parachuting in out of nowhere and throwing up last-
second roadblocks.
I want it understood that Oregonians have the right to be
heard when they disagree with forestry policy, but every tree
should not get its own lawsuit. Advocates for this bill are
especially proud of its conservation gains. The bill creates
87,000 acres of wilderness and 160 miles of Wild and Scenic
Rivers. In all, it will permanently conserve over 1 million
acres of O&C lands.
An essential element of the bill is strong protections for
streams and watersheds. We were able to have the good fortune
of working with one of the Northwest's foremost water resource
experts, Dr. Gordon Reeves, to establish the first-ever
legislative protections for the O&C streams. It includes
special areas protected for recreation, which is an especially
important part of our rural economies and is responsible for
141,000 jobs in our State alone.
Make no mistake about it: In Oregon and much of the
country, recreation is going to be a powerful economic engine
for the future. The reality is logging by itself does not
address all of the economic challenges facing the O&C counties.
So, we have made the judgment that there are two parts to
the equation. For one, there is the safety net. In this room,
back in 2007, Larry Craig and I wrote the bipartisan Secure
Rural Schools Bill, and that got extended for 1 additional
year. It's the helium legislation. Then there is this
legislation, which is designed to get people back to work in
the woods.
Together, these approaches can get rural counties off the
roller coaster that has produced so much uncertainty for our
counties trying to fund police, roads, and other basic
services.
The bottom line with this bill is there will be more jobs
for loggers, for millwrights and sawyers making lumber for our
homes, and work for plumbers, hardware stores, and other small
businesses needed to meet the demand for more goods and
services in our rural communities. Most importantly, these are
good-paying full-time jobs that offer an alternative to
grinding underemployment in rural Oregon.
Now, it's fair to say that not everybody gets what they
want here. Not everybody gets what they believe they ought to
get. But this is going to deliver what Oregon needs. It does so
because it is designed to end the tyranny of the extremes. It
ought to be a new day for the brave who are willing to try
something new, and this committee is especially pleased to hear
from some of those brave souls today.
I want to make it clear I'm going to work in a bipartisan
way with Senator Murkowski and all of our colleagues to quickly
mark up this legislation and bring it to the Senate floor.
Hundreds of hours went into working on this bill, and while
I've always been open to suggestions, I want it understood
we're going to move forward to this bill.
I want to thank Govenor Kitzhaber, the Governor of our
State, who has invested an enormous amount of time and effort
into this issue. I'm very pleased that Congressman DeFazio, who
represents most of the O&C counties, will be able to testify
here as well. I want it understood that I'm looking forward to
working with all of our colleagues in the House, and I'll have
more to say about Congressman DeFazio's good work in a moment.
I also want to turn to S. 1966 before recognizing Senator
Murkowski for her comments. This is the National Forest Jobs
and Management Act. This legislation has a number of striking
similarities to Title I of H.R. 1526. The administration has
issued a veto threat against H.R. 1526 when it passed the House
last fall.
I'm anxious to hear from Senator Barrasso and others on it.
My concern is, as it has always been with those kinds of
approaches, that we would reignite the timber wars in our part
of the United States.
Finally, as Senator Murkowski and I have indicated in past
meetings, she and I are going to be working very closely
together to find bipartisan, collaborative approaches to
addressing these issues on a national level. Senator Heinrich
has some very good ideas on this topic as well. Suffice it to
say there are a lot of us on this committee who share Senator
Murkowski's view that we have to work on these issues on a
national level as well.
Last point I'll make is we're going to be spending a lot of
time in addition dealing with the greatest threat to national
forest management, which is the absolutely untenable situation
with fire funding. That's why Senator Crapo and I, along with
Representatives Simpson and Schrader in the House, have
introduced bipartisan legislation to deal with funding these
fires.
This idea that would neglect, as you and I have talked
about, Senator Murkowski, the preventive efforts in the forest,
and then you have these massive infernos, and the bureaucracy
then raids the prevention fund to put out the fire--that seems
foolish even by Washington, DC, standards. So, we are committed
to changing that as well.
Finally, I'm very appreciative of the good work that was
done by Senator Stabenow on the Farm Bill. The Farm Bill
includes provisions on national forest management to promote
stewardship contracting. We have the chief here, who has been
an eloquent advocate of that. I'm also pleased that that bill
includes Senator Barrasso's Good Neighbor Authority that we
dealt with here.
I so appreciate all our Oregon witnesses making the trek
back here. I understand you got the usual delays in Chicago and
other faraway spots. So we appreciate your coming.
With that, let me turn to Senator Murkowski for any opening
statement she'd like to make.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LISA MURKOWSKI, U.S. SENATOR FROM
ALASKA
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll be quick
in my remarks this morning.
The bills that we have before us today, I think we
acknowledge, address the critical topic of management of our
Federal timberlands. In addition to the description that you
have given of your bill and the background on that, I
appreciate your willingness to work to include Senator
Barrasso's bill in this hearing as well, and then his work to
really prepare the bill to accommodate a more accelerated
schedule. So, I'm pleased that we were able to work together to
make it happen today.
Just a quick mention on process before my comments with
regards to the respective bills. We noticed this hearing a week
ago. It's been in the works for sometime prior to that. So I
think everyone has been on notice that this was going to be on
deck for us here as a committee. But we only received testimony
from the administration on both of these bills very late last
evening. The Forest Service got us its testimony at 5:40 p.m.
The BLM testimony wasn't submitted until 8 o'clock.
This makes it tough, Mr. Chairman. This isn't constructive
to a committee process that--I think most folks heard that we
were just lauding, we can do our work, but we do need to have
that input from the administration in a timely manner. So I
would certainly hope that we're going to improve that.
Turning to the bills first, Mr. Chairman, I know that the
management of the Oregon and California lands in your State is
a very important issue to you. Very early on, as we talked
about issues to bring before the committee, you clearly
indicated to me that this was a level of priority for you. It
was back last summer.
When we were talking about those obstacles that get in the
way of active management of our forests, you had indicated that
this was something that you had been working on for some time.
So, it's good to be able to have it here before the committee.
As I understand it, in Oregon, on the O&C, at issue is the
management of more than 2.4 million acres of timberlands that
were, by statute, to be managed for permanent forest production
under the principle of sustained yield. That mandate was upheld
in Federal court.
But yet, despite that mandate, it's not happening. I think
you know, because we've had this discussion, we've got a
similar mandate in Alaska; we're not seeing the timber harvest
levels increase either. So I clearly know your frustration and
desire to try to legislate a better result.
Like you, I think we know that it is about certainty within
the industry. It's about jobs for the people who live in these
communities, and not just about raising revenue for the
counties. So, lots of good reasons for how we can do better
when it comes to the management aspect.
This bill also seeks to modernize existing Federal laws,
including NEPA, to provide certainty that timber harvests will
occur and end the vice grip litigation has had on the harvest.
I do appreciate the acknowledgement that these laws need
modernizing. Certainly, from all the press accounts, the debate
has already begun about whether or not these provisions would
work, what levels of timber harvest and revenue the bill would
generate, and the appropriate management regime for these
lands.
So, given the good panel of witnesses that we have before
us today, given the level of interest that we're seeing with
just folks who are here to listen, I think that probably that
debate is probably going to continue here today.
The other bill that we have before us, Senator Barrasso's
National Forest Jobs and Management Act, would launch a
national pilot to accelerate the pace and scale of timber
harvest on the acres already identified in existing forest
management plans as suitable for such harvest. The bill would
expand concepts already reflected in the Healthy Forest
Restoration Act to streamline NEPA compliance and reduce the
cost and time of planning.
The bill also introduces arbitration as an alternative
dispute resolution process to the courts, where I think we all
know we've seen a lot of good projects die when they get to the
courts. So, I think it is fair that we have both measures
before us here today. They both raise critical issues that I
think deserve our attention.
As we noted at the outset, this could very well be your
last hearing. Based on your comments, I have to believe it is.
So I think it is appropriate that we should be taking up a
topic that is so important to you and those that you represent.
So I'm looking forward to hearing from our witnesses today and
further discussion about the importance of timber management on
our Federal lands.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Murkowski, and thank you
again for giving me this opportunity to have this
extraordinarily important Oregon issue aired today. I'm very
appreciative.
Senator Barrasso.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARRASSO, U.S. SENATOR
FROM WYOMING
Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also want to
welcome Clint Georg, who's going to be testifying a little
later today, and I want to thank you, Senator Wyden, for
scheduling this hearing. I look forward to hearing more about
your O&C Bill. I am pleased we're hearing my bill, the National
Forest Jobs and Management Act. As chairman, I'm appreciative
that you've prioritized forestry-related issues. I appreciate
your emphasis on these critical issues and hope you're going to
continue to be engaged as a senior member of this committee.
The committee has talked at length about how our national
forests' health is declining. The forests are dangerously
overgrown and suffering from severe disease and insect
infestation. We've discussed the increasing severity of
wildlife fire and the escalating costs of suppression. You
mentioned that in your opening remarks. We've talked about how
increased soil erosion, loss of wildlife habitat and species
and economic opportunities are the result of this.
The committee recognizes timber harvest is a good thing. We
need to get the cut-up to help our forests and communities get
healthy again.
We've heard testimony about how chronic high unemployment
and the resulting financial crisis is hurting rural communities
around America. We have seen sawmills close down. We've seen
them lay off employees. The committee has examined how the
National Environment Policy Act and Endangered Species Act are
preventing needed forest management. We've observed how the
high cost of compliance with NEPA and the Endangered Species
Act Regulations are draining forest service budgets, they're
preventing dollars from being spent actually improving forests.
We've heard countless testimony of litigation preventing
desperately needed forest projects. That's why I introduced
this bill, the National Forest Jobs and Management Act. The
primary purpose of the bill is to solve the forest health and
rural community crisis.
The administration estimates that between 65 and 82 million
acres of national forest lands are in need of treatment,
between 65 and 82 million acres. My bill only directs the
Forest Service to treat a small percentage of that, 7.5 million
acres, over 15 years. So it's a fraction of what we need to do.
This acreage only represents about less than 4 percent of the
national forest system in total.
So, to avoid resource conflicts about where timber work
should be done, my bill limits the projects to lands already
identified in forest plans as suitable for timber production.
The bill builds on the bipartisan approach of the Healthy
Forest Restoration Act by identifying high-priority lands for
management, then utilizes streamlined procedures to comply with
Federal environmental laws, including NEPA.
The bill allows forest projects to be developed and managed
from the cooperative middle, not the radical extreme. It
applies the forest service objection's process to resolve
disputes early on. If disputes can't be resolved, the bill
provides arbitration as a new avenue for a timely independent
review of an agency decision. Legislation also provides
counties with an extra 25 percent of the revenue collected from
the forest projects.
Additionally increasing active management creates needed
wildlife habitat, which enhances recreational hunting and
wildlife viewing. These are important economic drivers in many
States, including Wyoming. I'd like to submit for the record
letters from the Ruffled Grouse Society, the Rocky Mountain Oak
Foundation, the Boon and Crocket Club, and the National Wild
Turkey Federation.
The Chairman. Without objection. So ordered.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
You know, this committee has studied these issues, now time
to act before it's too late to save our treasured national
forests and the local communities around them.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Barrasso.
Congressman DeFazio, you have been very patient. I just
want, by way of, you know, introducing you, to make sure that
it's understood both in Oregon and in the Congress that there
is no one better qualified to talk about the need for a
permanent solution for the O&C counties than Congressman
DeFazio.
Not a day goes by when he doesn't have his sleeves rolled
up trying to find a solution to the crisis facing the rural
communities in his district. Congressman DeFazio's fourth
congressional district has the most O&C acres in the State.
Suffice it to say, I think I mentioned this, Peter, that my
last round of town meetings, I remember being in Corvallis late
afternoon, early in the evening, when people said I was cutting
too much. Then the next morning, I was in Eugene for another
town hall meeting, and they said I wasn't cutting enough. I
think that pretty much is what you deal with every single day.
So, we welcome your remarks. On a personal level, I just
want you to know how much I appreciate the chance to work with
you on this. Folks understand at home that we're having a lot
of discussions about trying to build this and welcome any
remarks you'd like to make.
STATEMENT OF HON. PETER DeFAZIO, U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE
4TH DISTRICT OF OREGON
Mr. DeFazio. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I look forward to
continuing to work with you on this issue and hopefully get a
final resolution this year. Thanks for your leadership by
introducing a Senate version, and thanks for inviting me to
this hearing today.
When I ran for Congress in 1986, BLM was logging 1.53
billion, B, billion board-feet a year, about 10 times the
current level of harvest. They were clear-cutting irreplaceable
old growth. They were logging on steep slopes. We had
destabilization. We had degradation of streams and threats to
drinking waters.
Logging 1.53 billion board-feet in irreplaceable old growth
helped put the spotted owl on the endangered species list. In
1986 when I ran, I said that level of harvest was
unsustainable. It was. It continues to be out of step with the
environmental and social values of most Oregonians.
In the 1990s, we tried to reform forest management in the
Pacific Northwest with something called the Clinton Northwest
Forest Plan. I opposed that plan, too. I didn't think it would
solve the fundamental problem in western Oregon, permanently
protecting old growth and conservation values while ensuring a
predictable, sustainable supply of timber that's necessary to
support rural communities and basic county services.
Unfortunately, I was right. The pendulum has now swung the
other way. Timber harvests on the O&C lands are down 80 to 90
percent, a reduction beyond anyone's wildest imagination, and
not necessary to protect critical environmental values. Old
growth still lacks protection.
Due to the lack of a predictable timber supply, the last
remaining mill in Josephine County, a family owned business for
90 years, recently closed its doors. They laid off 88 people in
a rural community with a population of less than 2,000.
Josephine County is 70 percent owned by the Federal Government,
surrounded by Federal forests in need of management; and yet,
the mill had to close for lack of timber supply.
Current management of the O&C lands has also left rural
counties whose budgets are statutorily linked to these lands on
the cusp of insolvency. In some counties, there's little or no
law enforcement. In fact, a year-and-a-half ago, news reports
encountered the devastating story of a woman in Josephine
County who was assaulted and raped by an ex-boyfriend. He was
standing on the doorstep trying to break down the door while
she was on the phone with the 911 dispatcher, who said they
don't have anybody to send.
The status quo: bankrupt counties, 15 to 20 percent real
unemployment, one out of every 4 people on food stamps, 25
percent of the school-aged children growing up in poverty,
unhealthy forests, lack of opportunity. That's not what
Oregonians want, either.
It's time to move away from the extremes, from the swinging
pendulum, to find and legislate a reasonable and balanced
solution. Chairman Wyden, I know together, working with the
rest of the delegation and the Governor, we can do that. You
and I, together with the Governor and members of the
delegation, have agreed to principles: predictable revenues to
help counties provide basic services, meet their State-mandated
responsibilities; a sustainable, uninterrupted timber supply to
create good-paying jobs, support the local infrastructure; and
significant, lasting conservation victories like protection for
old growth, drinking water, and imperiled species.
On the House side, Congressman Walden, Congressman
Schrader, and I took our best shot at a balanced plan. It's not
the bill any one of us individually would have written. But
it's one that we could ultimately agree on and compromise, and
one that we believe was consistent with the principles that I
just enunciated earlier. It did manage to pass the House of
Representatives.
Our solution used the trust concept. Mr. Chairman, you've
made it clear that a trust concept cannot pass the Senate and
would likely face opposition from the Obama administration. I
still think there's benefits to it. It's a pretty simple
approach, but I acknowledge the political reality, and I
believe our agreed-upon principles can be legislated through a
different construct along the lines of the construct you've
proposed in your O&C legislation.
I believe we'll need to work on changes to the bill in
order to get the level of revenues and harvest we need for
jobs, employment, and county revenues. We're going to need to
expand the land base. We need to look at the public domain
lands, the management of the controverted lands, and other ways
to creatively move through this issue.
The harvests need to be geographically dispersed to provide
for the remaining local infrastructure so we don't neglect the
management needs of our forests in southwest Oregon, which are
more fire prone, and opportunities for litigation over
scientifically sound, sustainable timber projects needs to be
reduced.
A huge priority for me and the Governor is a more coherent
policy for protecting our rivers, streams, and aquatic
features. In the House bill, we were able to secure language to
dedicate 5 percent of net revenues to protecting rivers and
streams on neighboring private lands by purchasing easements
from willing landowners to create continuous riparian buffers
on private and Federal lands, since the O&C lands are a
checkerboard.
This is something that is supported by industry, the
counties, Governor Kitzhaber, who's committed to matching the
dollars with State money. If we're going to pass a bill into
law, everybody at the table needs to know what they're getting.
We need reasonable certainty. The counties need to know the
range of revenues they can expect so they can plan accordingly.
Local businesses in the timber industry need to know what
timber supply can be expected so they can build viable business
plans. The general public and conservation community need to
know that iconic, irreplaceable, natural treasures will be
protected and conserved for future generations.
Certainty is going to require compromise. Congress is not
going to solve all the counties' financial problems. But we can
pass a bill that creates jobs, provides a reasonable level of
revenues, and gets rural economies growing again. Who knows?
Maybe if real unemployment dropped below 15 to 20 percent,
which is the real rate in my rural counties, the voters would
vote to pass ballot measures to build on the revenues coming
from the Federal lands to have more funding for public safety,
public health, and other critical services.
Congress can't and won't legislate a 1986 timber plan. But
Congress can and should pass a timber plan that increases the
volume to a meaningful level. The House and Senate bills
propose to increase timber harvest to 30 to 40 percent of
historic levels. That's not unreasonable, it is achievable, and
can be done protecting environmental values.
Finally, more conservation groups need to come to the table
and engage constructively in the legislative process. We have
better science, data, information, and experience than when the
Northwest Forest Plan was adopted. Because we lacked this
information, the Northwest Forest Plan adopted very
conservative protection measures that should be revisited.
Thanks to work being done by scientists at Oregon State, we now
know that one-size-fits-all riparian protections can, in some
cases, be reduced without sacrificing ecological or aquatic
function.
We now know that some terrestrial and wildlife goals of the
Northwest Forest Plan have not been met. The lack of
regeneration harvests in O&C lands has led to a deficiency in
early seral-stage forests, which support numerous species of
plants and animals, including elk and deer. Two of the gang of
4 who wrote the Northwest Forest Plan, one of whom is going to
testify here today, have proposed cutting-edge science that
address this ecological issue and to improve forests'
resiliency and health in the long term.
Questioning the motives of esteemed scientists, the same
scientists who wrote the Northwest Forest Plan, many
conservation groups like to tout and defend endlessly
challenging and litigating modest scientific demonstration
projects sponsoring misleading and downright false billboards
and advertisements back home to scare the general public and
flat-out refusing invitations to join with diverse stakeholders
to build a balanced Oregon plan for a uniquely Oregon problem.
Those things aren't going to work.
These same people are advocating for the status quo. But
the status quo has failed us. It's failed the children of these
counties, who have walked up to their county library looking to
check out a book from a school, for a school project, to find a
locked door. It has failed the sheriff's department, who have
been served--the sheriffs have been served pink slips because
the Federal Government couldn't live up to its obligation.
It's failed the justice system, which has been forced to
turn a blind eye to criminals as they walk out the doors of the
county jail due to a lack of available beds. The status quo has
failed victims of horrific violence who have dialed 911,
desperately looking for help, only to be told, ``There is no
help coming.''
This is it. This is the best and maybe the last opportunity
to fix the crisis in Southwest Oregon before counties
completely dissolve. Once they dissolve, we don't know how to
get them back. The delegation wants to move forward. Oregon
wants to move forward. We need a long-term solution to stop the
endless forest wars that are undermining our rural communities,
our counties, and the health of our forests.
We can do this. Together, I know we can, Mr. Chairman. We
need to get it done this year. Thank you.
The Chairman. Congressman DeFazio, I think you've given an
excellent statement, and it is very constructive both in terms
of the substance and the tone. I think much as you have
discussed, we ought to just say, this is going to get done this
year. I mean, we'll never have a better opportunity. This has
been the longest-running battle, practically, since the Trojan
War. I mean, you and I can remember debate after debate after
debate.
Oregonians deserve the kind of solution that our delegation
is talking about, which is getting the harvest up in a
sustainable way and protecting our treasures and protecting our
counties. You know, when we wrote that law back in, you know,
2000, we thought that would be a lifeline for rural
communities, and it has been.
But even with it, just as you've said, there has been so
much hurt. So in addition to the safety net, which we're going
to continue to try to find creative ways to fund, we've got to
get people back to work in the woods.
I think what you have said this morning gives us a chance,
once more, to change the conversation from one that has been
monopolized, dominated by these ideological extremes, who seem
just allergic to the word ``compromise,'' and get back to what
Oregonians do best, which is to find ways that people can make
a living in rural communities, protect our treasures, and fund
basic services like you've talked about with respect to the law
enforcement needs.
So, if any of my colleagues have any questions for my
colleague from Oregon, we can do that. Or we can excuse you at
this time.
All right. Thank you very much. It's been very helpful,
your presentation.
Mr. DeFazio. Mr. Chairman, just one quick anecdote.
The Chairman. Of course.
Mr. DeFazio. I ran into Jerry Franklin, who you've invited
to testify. He had first written, I believe his first public
presentation on new forestry, which has evolved considerably
since he conceived it, was at a conference I sponsored as a
freshman member of the House, because there was such
controversy over our forests.
I said, ``Let's figure out a way how we can bring together
people and agree.'' So what I did was I sponsored a
conversation. I said, ``We'll put it so far in the future it
will be unimaginable.'' The conference was called Our Forests
in the Year 2010.
[Laughter.]
Mr. DeFazio. The idea was if we looked way out to the
future, we would be able to agree on what we would want them to
look like out in the future and go forward.
Jerry testified there, and now he's still working the
issue.
The Chairman. You and I are determined not to have another
conference in 2030 that would address problems that are going
to get resolved in 2014. I thank you very much. You've been
very helpful.
Mr. DeFazio. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. All right. Our next panel will be witnesses
from the administration. Steve Ellis, who is Deputy Director of
Operations, Bureau of Land Management, and Chief Tom Tidwell
with the Forest Service. As they come forward, just by way of
another quick comment, we're so pleased to have Steve Ellis
here.
Gentlemen, just please, be seated.
He's still got his ranch in Baker. We're glad that he's
kept that. I think some of his family is still there.
Previously, he was a forest supervisor on the Wallowa-Whitman
National Forest. He's been one of our very best forest
supervisors. We're really pleased to see him here today.
I also want to thank the chief, Chief Tidwell, for all the
help that he's given. Chief, I got a little bit of an update on
the eastern Oregon front, and what is going on with Ochoco and
the folks there, I think is going to be a model for the kind of
forestry that we need that gets the harvest up in a sustainable
way in eastern Oregon. It simply couldn't have happened without
you practicing good forestry.
So we're very glad that both of you are here. Why don't we
begin with you, Mr. Ellis, given the interest in BLM? Then
we'll have the chief. We'll put your prepared statements into
the record in their entirety. If you can, perhaps you can
summarize your key views. There seems to be a special place in
heaven for those who can summarize their views.
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. We'll make your prepared remarks a part of
the record.
Mr. Ellis, welcome.
STATEMENT OF STEVEN A. ELLIS, DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS,
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Mr. Ellis. Chairman Wyden, ranking Member Murkowski,
members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to be
here today. I'm Steve Ellis. I'm Deputy Director for
Operations, and I'm here for the department to testify on S.
1784, the Oregon and California Land Grant Act.
This is a complex bill concerning the BLM managed lands in
western Oregon known as the O&C lands. My oral statement will
briefly summarize our written testimony.
S. 1784 would establish new designations and principles for
the management of O&C forest lands, transfer into trust status
on behalf of two tribes, and amend the Coquille Restoration Act
and establish new conservation designations in western Oregon.
The Department appreciates the Chairman's work in
developing this legislation and views it as a continuation of
discussions about improving the management of these western
Oregon lands. We support many of the goals of the bill, we
supports Title III, and would like to work with the sponsor and
the committee on amendments to Title I and II.
We have concerns with the bill as it's drafted. We are
committed to continuing to work with the sponsors to address
them and further develop the proposal. We are encouraged by the
ongoing discussions among the stakeholders.
The 1937 O&C Land Act placed 2.2 million checkerboard acres
of Oregon and California and Coos Bay Wagon Road land grants
under the jurisdiction of the Department of the Interior. In
addition to these O&C lands, the BLM manages over 200,000 acres
of public domain forest in western Oregon. BLM's management
involves complex legislative frameworks and resource management
goals, including the predictable and sustainable yield of
timber, endangered species habitat, clean water, and recreation
opportunities.
The BLM is revising the 1995 Resource Management Plans that
govern management of the O&C lands. We have actively sought
engagement from stakeholders and the public and will continue
to strive for a cooperative approach on the complex issues of
these lands.
Title I of S. 1784 provides guidance for managing forestry
and conservation emphasis areas. We share the goals of
providing a sustained yield of timber while protecting older,
complex forests in support of conservation for threatened and
endangered species. While we support many of the goals in Title
I, we have concerns with the language and would like to work
with you to address these.
We are concerned that there's a lack of clarity in the bill
about the relationship and potential inconsistencies between
this bill and other environmental laws and authorities. We are
also concerned about the timeframes and some of the deadlines
in the bill. We would like to work with you on these and other
issues.
Title I also provides for numerous conservation
designations, including the expansion of the Cascade-Siskiyou
National Monument, several Wild and Scenic Rivers, and a number
of other designations. We'd like to work with you to clarify
the management goals and the boundaries of these special areas.
Title II would provide that roughly 32,000 acres of BLM
managed lands would be held in trust for the benefit of two
tribes. The BLM welcomes the opportunity to work with Congress
on the transfer of lands into trust status and supports the
goals of this title. We would like to work with you to address
various issues, including access rights and timber harvest.
This title would also amend the Coquille Restoration Act to
provide for changes in management of the Coquille Forest. We
support this modification.
Title III would establish new wilderness and Wild and
Scenic River designations in Oregon. The bill would enlarge the
Wild Rogue Wilderness and extend the Rogue Wild and Scenic
River. It would establish a Devil's Staircase Wilderness and
would designate the Molalla River and Table Rock Fork as part
of the Wild and Scenic River system.
The department supports this title, which would conserve
and protect these special places, which are treasured both
locally and nationally.
Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member, we want to thank you again
for your hard work in developing this proposal. We look forward
to working further with you on a committee to address the
concerns we have with this bill as drafted and to accomplish
our shared stewardship goals for BLM managed lands in western
Oregon.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Ellis follows:]
Prepared Statement of Steven A. Ellis, Deputy Director for Operations,
Bureau of Land Management, Department of the Interior
Thank you for the opportunity to discuss the views of the
Department of the Interior on S. 1784, the Oregon and California Land
Grant Act of 2013. The bill concerns the 2.2 million acres of Revested
Oregon and California Railroad and Reconveyed Coos Bay Wagon Road Grant
Lands (the O&C Lands) in western Oregon administered by the Bureau of
Land Management (BLM).
S. 1784 would establish new designations and principles for the
management of O&C forest lands (Title I), transfer certain lands into
trust status on behalf of two tribes and amend the Coquille Restoration
Act (Title II), and establish new conservation designations in western
Oregon (Title III). Due to the complexity of the bill and the issues it
addresses, the Department of the Interior's testimony summarizes the
views of the Administration on each title of the bill.
The Department appreciates the Chairman's work in developing this
legislation and views it as a continuation of discussions about
improving the management of these western Oregon lands. The Department
supports many of the goals of the bill, supports Title III, and would
like to work with the sponsor and the Committee on substantive,
clarifying, and technical amendments to Titles I and II. The Department
has previously testified on many of the ideas contained in the
provisions in Title II and Title III. We have concerns with the bill as
drafted, but we are committed to continue working with the sponsor to
address concerns and we are encouraged by the ongoing discussion
between stakeholders. We look forward to working with the sponsor and
the Committee to further develop the proposal.
management of o&c lands / background
Current BLM Management of O&C Lands
The O&C Lands Act of 1937 placed 2.2 million checkerboard acres of
Oregon and California Railroad and Coos Bay Wagon Road grant lands
under the jurisdiction of the Department of the Interior. Under the O&C
Lands Act, the Department of the Interior manages the O&C lands for
``the purpose of providing a permanent source of timber supply,
protecting watersheds, regulating stream flow, and contributing to the
economic stability of local communities and industries, and providing
recreational facilities.'' The Act also provides that the 18 O&C
counties receive yearly payments equal to 50 percent of receipts from
timber harvests on O&C lands in these counties.
After the historic highs of the late 1980s, timber harvests and the
associated payments to counties decreased significantly in the mid-
1990s due to many factors, including business cycles, changes in
logging practices, and a better understanding of conservation
requirements for threatened and endangered species such as the Northern
Spotted Owl, Coho Salmon, and Marbled Murrelet. The 1994 Northwest
Forest Plan was developed by Federal agencies and scientists in
consultation with the public and industry to be a balanced, long-term
management plan striving for a stable supply of timber along with
protection of fish and wildlife habitat for 24.5 million acres of
Federal forest, most of which is managed by the U.S. Forest Service,
and the majority of which occurs in western Oregon, western Washington,
and northern California. The BLM's western Oregon Resource Management
Plans were amended in 1995 (1995 RMPs) to incorporate the Northwest
Forest Plan management guidelines and land use allocations.
In addition to the O&C lands in western Oregon, the BLM manages
212,000 acres of public domain forests and other acquired lands within
the boundary of the Northwest Forest Plan. The Department of the
Interior continues to manage the O&C lands under the 1995 RMPs and the
guidance of the Northwest Forest Plan, along with management
recommendations derived from the 2011 Northern Spotted Owl recovery
plan and 2012 Final Critical Habitat Rule, as well as a number of court
decisions. The BLM's timber management program involves complex
legislative frameworks and resource management goals, including
providing a predictable and sustainable yield of timber and other
forest products vital to rural communities, maintaining endangered
species habitat and recovering populations, providing clean water,
restoring fire-adapted ecosystems, and providing recreational
opportunities. In the last three years, the BLM in western Oregon has
offered approximately 620 million board feet of timber from O&C lands
and generated over $60 million dollars in timber receipts. These and
other BLM-managed lands in western Oregon also provide outstanding
recreational opportunities, with over 5 million visits per year to
enjoy hiking, camping, hunting, and fishing.
Collaborative Approaches
In western Oregon, the BLM strives to strike a balance between the
need for a predictable and sustainable timber supply, provision of
recreational opportunities and other non-timber products, and achieving
conservation objectives, such as protecting older forests and aiding in
the recovery of the Northern Spotted Owl and other threatened and
endangered species. Despite decades of controversy surrounding these
issues, many in Oregon continue to work hard to look for solutions that
meet the needs of industry, rural communities, local governments, and
the conservation of habitat, species, and water resources. As provided
under Title II of the Secure Rural Schools Act, the BLM has
collaborated with Resource Advisory Committees to prioritize and
allocate funding for restoration projects.
As part of the Administration's ongoing commitment to improve
forest resiliency, aid in the recovery of the Northern Spotted Owl, and
support economic opportunities for local communities in the Pacific
Northwest, leaders from the FWS, BLM, and U.S. Forest Service met in
2013 with employees from all three agencies to articulate a common
vision and intent in approaching these goals. We are aware that during
the past year, Governor Kitzhaber; Senator Wyden; and Representatives
DeFazio, Walden, and Schrader have initiated efforts to better
understand and address these multifaceted concerns. We are eager to
engage with them on these issues and we appreciate both the challenges
and the possibilities that result from collaborative efforts involving
the wide range of stakeholders.
Resource Management Plans
The BLM is currently revising the 1995 RMPs that govern management
of the O&C lands. The BLM has actively sought significant engagement
from the public and key stakeholders and will continue do so throughout
this effort, striving for a cooperative approach to the complex issues
associated with managing these lands.. The BLM in western Oregon is
employing a series of collaborative approaches and meetings to engage
over 25 formal cooperators and interested stakeholders during the
current efforts to revise the RMPs. We have received positive feedback
on these efforts. The revised RMPs will provide a management framework
for O&C lands that furthers the recovery of threatened and endangered
species, produces a reliable and sustainable yield of timber products,
provides for clean water, restores fire-adapted ecosystems, and ensures
diverse recreational opportunities. The BLM has completed public
scoping as part of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process
and used input derived during the scoping period to help craft the
Purpose and Need for the planning effort. As the BLM moves forward in
developing draft RMPs, it will consider public input as well as lessons
learned from 20 years of experience implementing the Northwest Forest
Plan, the BLM's ecological forestry pilot projects, and threatened and
endangered species recovery plans and critical habitat designations
from both the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS).
s. 1784 title i
Management of O&C Lands
Title I pertains to management of the O&C lands. This title
allocates certain forest lands as ``Forestry Emphasis Areas'' and
others as ``Conservation Emphasis Areas'' and provides guidance for the
management of each area. The BLM shares the goals of providing a
sustained yield of timber, establishing a large block network of older
forest habitat, and protecting older, more complex forests in support
of improved conservation of threatened and endangered species. The BLM
understands that one of the goals of S. 1784 is to simplify management
direction and environmental analysis for the O&C lands and we also
share that goal. BLM believes that the goal of addressing management
challenges in Western Oregon must be achieved collaboratively and with
the best available science. However, rather than simplify management
for the O&C lands, BLM is concerned that that the current draft of the
bill could create increased complexity and uncertainty.
In support of some of the same broad goals of Title I, in 2010, the
Department of the Interior initiated four collaborative pilot projects
applying the principles of ecological forestry in the BLM's Roseburg,
Coos Bay, and Medford districts. These pilot projects have involved
collaboration with resource professionals from the BLM, FWS, NMFS, and
the Coquille Indian Tribe, as well as industry and the conservation
community. The BLM is exploring the further application of ecological
forestry principles in preparing ongoing timber sales while it
undertakes efforts to revise its RMPs.
Although the BLM supports many of Title I's broad policy goals, we
have concerns with the language of Title I and the impacts of its
implementation. We would like to highlight some of those concerns and
we would like to continue to work with the sponsor and the Committee to
address them.
The BLM's management of the O&C lands, as well as public domain
forests in western Oregon, is currently governed by a number of
statutory and other requirements, including the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA), the Endangered Species Act (ESA), the Clean Water
Act, the O&C Lands Act of 1937, the Federal Land Policy and Management
Act (FLPMA), and the relevant implementing regulations and plans. We
are concerned that there is a lack of clarity about the relationship
between the various statutory provisions in this legislation and other
related laws and regulations. This could lead to duplicative analyses
and planning efforts, disputes or confusion over appropriate BLM
management actions, delayed compliance, and potentially increased costs
of litigation. In addition, the Department is concerned that the very
prescriptive management requirements will undermine flexibility
necessary to manage in changing circumstances, use the best available
science, engage the public, or achieve recovery goals for key
threatened and endangered species. For these reasons and others, it is
difficult for the Department to determine the full scope of the impact
this bill would have on existing environmental laws, public involvement
in, and sound management of, these lands and to provide comments on
that basis.
As drafted, the bill could be inconsistent with important
protections provided by current laws for environmentally sound
management of these lands and could reduce public involvement in the
management planning process. The Department has concerns about
provisions that are inconsistent with the species protections afforded
by the ESA, such as the apparent allowance for certain projects to go
forward in spite of a jeopardy determination by the FWS or site
specific analysis.
Additionally, the Department has concerns regarding the time frames
established in the bill, including the timelines prescribed for
compliance with NEPA--the cornerstone law guiding environmental
protection and public involvement in federal actions. Many deadlines in
the bill are not sufficient to allow for the necessary level of
analysis, the public participation necessitated by the high level of
public interest and involvement in these issues, and the complexity of
the issues and information that must be analyzed. In our experience,
mandatory deadlines can often result in incomplete or rushed analyses,
increasing litigation risk and delay. We are also very concerned with
using an environmental impact statement prepared for a large area as
the only NEPA review for any subsequent site-or project-specific
activity for a period of 10 years precluding consideration of changes
on the ground that occur during that 10 year period. The
Administration's concerns include: (1) the temporal and spatial scale
of the EIS; (2) the limitation precluding consideration of more than
two reasonable alternatives; (3) the limitation precluding
consideration of impacts beyond specific authorized actions; (4) the
limitations on the public's ability to review and challenge; and (5)
the limitations on the consistency document that replaces a tiered,
site-or project-specific, environmental review. These concerns cut to
the very core of the ability to prepare a reasoned and considered NEPA
environmental review. We would like to work with the sponsor and the
Committee to ensure that the processes required under the bill allow
for the necessary analyses and sequencing to produce environmental
reviews for informed and defensible analyses and decisions.
Finally, the bill does not incorporate direction for the 212,000
acres of public domain lands that are found within western Oregon and
currently managed under the Northwest Forest Plan guidance. The BLM is
concerned that implementing different management direction on public
domain versus O&C lands that are intermingled, ecologically similar,
and have historically been managed under the same guidance could lead
to confusion and further management challenges and associated costs.
The Department has a number of substantive and technical concerns,
and would like to work with the sponsor on clarifying amendments.
Revenue Distribution
The Administration has a number of concerns with the language
regarding revenue distribution as drafted and we look forward to
working with the sponsor on clarifying amendments. Title I would depart
from the historic formula of sharing revenues from O&C timber sales
with the O&C counties and Treasury's General fund for the benefit of
all taxpayers. Additionally, the bill caps receipts allocated to the
General Fund at no more than $4 million and provides that money be
taken from the U.S. Treasury and BLM administrative payments if a
minimum county payment threshold is not met. BLM takes seriously its
responsibility to the public as stewards of our nation's natural
resources and ensuring that public resources on federal and Indian
lands provide a fair return to the American people. As drafted, the
bill may set an undesirable precedent by diverting receipts from the
Treasury and thereby reducing the net return to taxpayers.
Conservation Designations
Title I would establish or modify several conservation designations
that would be included in the BLM's National Landscape Conservation
System. Section 112 proposes to add approximately 2,050 acres to the
Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument in southwestern Oregon. The Monument
was established by Presidential Proclamation on June 8, 2000, and was
later modified with the addition of wilderness and additional
management direction by P.L. 111-11, the Omnibus Public Lands Act. The
Monument's nearly 53,000 acres are a place of great biological
diversity due to its location at the confluence of three converging
mountain ecoregions--the Cascade, Klamath, and Eastern Cascade. The
proposed additions would enhance this biodiversity and provide
important habitat connectivity. The BLM generally supports the proposed
additions, and would like to work with the sponsor to ensure
consistency in management across the entire Monument and to consider
any minor boundary modifications.
Section 114 establishes a protective corridor for sections of the
Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail where it travels through and
adjacent to Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument. While the BLM generally
supports these provisions we would like to work with the sponsor to
improve consistency with the National Trails System Act, BLM policy,
and BLM management objectives. Finally, section 103 would protect over
50 miles of Oregon rivers with new designation as either recreational
or scenic rivers under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. The BLM supports
these designations.
Title I also establishes a wide variety of designations, including
two National Recreation Areas four Drinking Water Special Management
Units, and the Illinois Valley Salmon and Botanical Area Special
Management Unit. Additionally, the bill establishes Special
Environmental Zones, Primitive Backcountry Special Management Areas,
and Special Management and Research Areas. Many of these designations
are new to BLM and it is unclear whether they will meet their stated
conservation objectives. We would like to work with the sponsor on
language that would clarify the management goals for each of these
designation types. Likewise, we would like the opportunity to consider
boundary modifications for manageability.
s. 1784 title ii, tribal land
Title II of S. 1784 provides that approximately 14,804 acres of
BLM-managed lands in western Oregon be held in trust for the benefit of
the Confederated Tribes of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians
and that approximately 17,826 acres of BLM-managed lands in western
Oregon be held in trust on behalf of the Cow Creek Band of Umpqua Tribe
of Indians. This title would also require the Department of the
Interior to reclassify an equal number of acres of public domain lands
as O&C lands to compensate for the loss of O&C lands transferred by the
bills. Finally, Title II provides for an amendment to the Coquille
Restoration Act.
Many of the BLM-managed lands in this area have significance for
nearby tribes. Both the Confederated Tribes of the Coos, Lower Umpqua,
and Siuslaw Indians and the Cow Creek Band of Umpqua Tribe of Indians
have expressed their desire to acquire culturally significant tracts of
land in the region as well as forest lands to be managed for the
financial benefit of tribal members. The BLM strongly believes that
open communication between the BLM and tribes is essential in
maintaining effective government-to-government relationships, and the
BLM has a positive working relationship with the tribes in the area.
The Department welcomes opportunities to work with Congress on the
transfer of lands into trust status and supports the goals of this
title. The BLM would like the opportunity to work with the sponsor and
the Committee to address various issues related to the bill, including
access rights, utility and facility encumbrances, and timber harvest.
The bill would require the BLM to identify sections of public
domain lands to be reclassified as O&C lands within 18 months. It is
our understanding that the sponsor intends the bill to transfer or
reclassify only BLM-managed lands. The BLM would like to work with the
sponsor to clarify language in sections 206 and 216 accordingly. The
timeframes provided in the bill to complete reclassification of public
domain lands are insufficient considering the workload, staffing and
costs involved. Additionally, the BLM is concerned that lands of
approximately equal acreage, habitat condition, productivity, and land
use allocation are unavailable for reclassification within the affected
planning areas. The BLM would like to work with the sponsor on a
timeline that would add flexibility and language providing specificity
regarding the lands to be reclassified and their subsequent management.
Because many of the lands to be taken into trust through this title
have been identified for potential future timber sales, the BLM
believes that the transfer of these lands into trust status would
reduce the land base from which the BLM could offer timber sales,
thereby reducing the quantities of timber that could be offered by the
BLM in future timber sales and resulting in a potential reduction of
timber revenues to the United States and to the O&C counties, and
potentially impacting the BLM's implementation of the provisions in
Title I.
Subtitle A, Oregon Coastal Land Conveyance
The bill's Oregon Coastal Land Conveyance provisions (Title II,
Subtitle A; introduced separately as S. 1414) provide that seven tracts
of land currently managed by the BLM, totaling 14,804 acres, be held in
trust for the benefit of the Confederated Tribes of the Coos, Lower
Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians (the Tribes). The bill directs all right,
title, and interest of the United States to the identified lands,
subject to valid existing rights, to be held in trust for the benefit
of the Tribes. These parcels are located in western Oregon's Coos,
Douglas, Benton, and Lane Counties, and include tracts such as the Coos
Head, Talbot Allotment, and Umpqua Eden parcels, which are of
particular cultural significance to the Tribes, as well as areas such
as the Lower Smith River and Tioga tracts, managed for timber
production. While the transfer would be subject to valid existing
rights, we have concerns about access and withdrawal. Finally, the
lands identified for transfer contain 6,236 acres of critical habitat
for the northern spotted owl, as well as critical habitat for the
marbled murrelet and other threatened species. The Department notes
that transfer of these lands could impact recovery of these species,
and would like to work with the sponsor to clarify language related to
the protection of wildlife.
Subtitle B, Canyon Mountain Land Conveyance
The bill's Canyon Mountain Land Conveyance provisions (Title II,
Subtitle B; introduced separately as S. 1415) provide that
approximately 17,826 acres of BLM-managed land in Douglas County,
Oregon, be held in trust for the benefit of the Cow Creek Band of
Umpqua Tribe of Indians (Tribe). The bill directs all right, title, and
interest of the United States to the identified lands, subject to valid
existing rights, to be held in trust for the benefit of the Tribe. The
lands identified for transfer would be used to restore and expand the
historic and economic base for the Tribe in southwestern Oregon. The
parcels are scattered and interspersed with private lands, and include
many areas popular with hunters, anglers, and campers. While the
transfer would be subject to valid existing rights, the BLM has access
concerns related to some parcels. These lands also include populations
of the Federally-threatened Kincaid's Lupine and roughly 14,600 acres
of critical habitat for the northern spotted owl. The Department notes
that transfer of these lands could impact recovery of these species.
The BLM would like to work with the sponsor to clarify language related
to the protection of recreational, wildlife, and cultural resources.
Subtitle C, Coquille Restoration Act
Subtitle C of Title II would amend the Coquille Restoration Act
(P.L. 101-42) to provide for a change in management direction for the
Coquille Forest. The Department supports this modification to the
Coquille Restoration Act.
s. 1784 title iii, oregon treasures
The BLM also manages many extraordinary lands in western Oregon
that are proposed for conservation designation under this legislation.
Title III of S. 1784 includes the following wilderness and wild and
scenic river designations in Oregon: the Wild Rogue in southwestern
Oregon (introduced separately as part of S. 353); the Devil's Staircase
in southwestern Oregon (introduced separately as S. 352); and the
Molalla River in northern Oregon (introduced separately as part of S.
353). It also makes technical corrections to the Wild and Scenic Rivers
Act (introduced separately as part of S. 353). The Department supports
this title, which would conserve and protect these special places that
are treasured both locally and nationally.
Wild Rogue Wilderness
Over millions of years, the Rogue River, one of the initial eight
rivers recognized in the 1968 Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, has carved
its way through western Oregon's mountains. Dense, old-growth forests
flank the Rogue providing habitat for forest-dependent species. The
cold, clear waters of the river provide a home for Pacific salmon,
steelhead trout, and green sturgeon. Recreationists drawn to the Rogue
River watershed are a critical economic engine for local economies and
include fishing, rafting and boat tours, and hiking and backpacking.
The bill (Section 301) proposes to enlarge the existing Wild Rogue
Wilderness by adding nearly 60,000 acres of land administered by the
BLM and extend the existing Rogue Wild and Scenic River by adding 93
miles of 35 tributaries to the wild and scenic river system. In
addition, the bill withdraws 50 miles of 20 other Rogue River
tributaries from land laws, mining laws, and mineral leasing laws and
prohibits the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) from
licensing new water resource projects and associated facilities along
these tributaries.
The BLM supports this section of the bill. This wild and rugged
area is largely untrammeled and has been influenced primarily by the
forces of nature with outstanding opportunities for primitive
recreation or solitude.
Devil's Staircase Wilderness
The proposed Devil's Staircase Wilderness near the coast of
southwestern Oregon is wild, reminding us of what much of this land
looked like hundreds of years ago. A multi-storied forest of Douglas
fir and western hemlock towers over underbrush of giant ferns,
providing critical habitat for the threatened northern spotted owl and
marbled murrelet. The remote and rugged nature of this area provides a
truly wild experience for any hiker.
Subtitle B of Title III proposes to designate over 30,000 acres as
wilderness, as well as portions of both Franklin Creek and Wasson Creek
as components of the Wild and Scenic Rivers System. In previous
testimonies, the U.S. Department of Agriculture has supported
legislation to designate Devil's Staircase as Wilderness as well as
Franklin and Wasson Creeks as components to the Wild and Scenic River
System. Our understanding is that USDA continues to support these
designations. Additionally, the Department supports the designations
that would be managed by the BLM, including approximately 6,830 acres
of the proposed Devil's Staircase Wilderness and 4.2 miles of Wasson
Creek.
Molalla Wild & Scenic River
At an elevation of 4,800 feet, the Molalla River flows undammed for
49 miles west and north until it joins the Willamette River, providing
drinking water for local communities and important spawning habitat for
several fish species. Within an hour's drive of the metropolitan areas
of Portland and Salem, the Molalla watershed provides significant
recreational opportunities for fishing, canoeing, mountain biking,
horseback riding, hiking, hunting, camping, and swimming and draws over
65,000 visitors annually.
Section 321 of the bill proposes to designate 15.1 miles of the
Molalla River and 6.2 miles of the Table Rock Fork of the Molalla as
components of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. The
Department supports these designations.
Corrections to the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act Section 322 of the bill
pertains to lands managed by the U.S. Forest Service, and the
Department defers to the Department of Agriculture on this
provision.
conclusion
S. 1784 would modify and direct the BLM's management of the O&C
lands for timber harvest and conservation purposes, transfer certain
lands into trust status for the benefit of tribes, and establish new
conservation designations in western Oregon. The Department does
support the goals of transferring lands into trust status and modifying
management of certain lands for the benefit of tribes and supports the
conservation designations that would be made under Title III.
Additionally, the Department supports the goal of identifying a
collaborative solution to conflicting management goals in western
Oregon and the Department looks forward to continuing to work with the
sponsor, the Committee, and stakeholders to address concerns with the
bill as drafted, and to accomplish our shared stewardship goals for
BLM-managed lands in western Oregon.
The Chairman. Mr. Ellis, I'll have some questions for you
in a moment. But I do want to acknowledge at this time all the
work that your staff did, an enormous amount of work that they
did over the last few months to get our office what we needed
to go forward with this draft. I'll have some questions in a
moment, but I want people to know how much we appreciate the
professionalism of the people that you all have at BLM.
Chief, please proceed.
STATEMENT OF THOMAS TIDWELL, CHIEF, FOREST SERVICE, DEPARTMENT
OF AGRICULTURE
Mr. Tidwell. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I need to thank
you for your support and leadership on this committee. We will
miss you in the chairmanship, but look forward to continuing to
work with you in your new role, but then also through this
committee.
So, Chairman, Ranking Member Murkowski, and members of the
committee, thank you for the opportunity to be here to testify
on S. 1966, the National Forest Jobs and Management Act of 2014
that's sponsored by Senator Barrasso. We agree with the goals
of this bill.
But we cannot support it as it's currently written. We
agree that we need to increase the pace of restoring the health
of our national forests. As Senator Barrosso mentioned, we're
on record of showing and knowing that there's over 65 million
acres of our National ForestS that needs some form of
restoration. Of that 65 million, there are at least 12 to maybe
15 million that are going to require some form of mechanical
treatment and timber harvest to be able to restore those lands.
Over the last few years, we've been making good progress to
build support for restoring the resiliency of our National
Forest. Even though our funding for resource management has
declined due to the transfer of funds to cover fire-suppression
costs, we've been able to continue to increase the acres
treated and timber harvested over the last 2 years. This has
been accomplished through our collaboration and management
efficiencies that have allowed us to overcome a reduction of 35
percent in our staffing over the last 12 years.
There are a few key components of the bill that we'd like
to work with Senator Barrasso and the committee on. The first
point is that we need to be careful to not restrict or limit
our ability to address restoration at a landscape scale. We're
having good success now looking at tens of thousands of acres
under one analysis. Using an EA to document analysis could be
limiting our ability to look at these landscape-level projects.
We also need to include all the restoration in the
analysis, and not just the biomass removal of the timber
harvest. We agree that we must be able to provide some level of
certainty to the industry and to our communities on the amount
of restoration work that's going to be done, such as we've been
able to accomplish with stewardship contracting authority. I
cannot thank you enough for your support for giving us that
authority.
Second of all, we need to continue to improve our
processes. We've done a good job to reduce our costs over the
last 12 years. In fact, we have reduced our costs by 28 percent
over the last 10 years. But we need to continue to improve on
that. I'd like to expand the use of using designation by
description so that we can focus on what's left on the land,
not what needs to be removed.
Following a strong collaborative process using focused
NEPA, we can reduce the number of alternatives analyzed that
can reduce the cost and save time, just like we have with the
Healthy Forest Restoration Act. I appreciate that you
acknowledge we need to use our pre-decisional objection
process, and also be able to use authorities like the Good
Neighbor Authority. Senator Barrasso, I too want to thank you
for your work to be able to get that for us.
The third point that I need to raise, it's essential that
we honor public involvement in the management of our National
Forests. If interest groups, local governments, if they believe
that their opportunity to be involved is cut out or reduced,
there's just going to be more controversy and delays.
The arbitration proposal, it's interesting. But I need to
make sure that it doesn't add more process. I also need some
level of reassurance that an arbitrator would make a better
decision than what the Forest Service does in conjunction with
the public. We're willing to explore this idea of some type of
maybe a nonbinding, reviewable arbitration on a trial basis.
But it's definitely something we want to work with you on.
Fourth, we also need to be careful not to create public
distrust by reducing some of the regulatory agency's roles.
Their role, to be able to concur with what our biologists
determine and our biological assessments and evaluations,
provides the public with that reassurance. I think we need to
be careful not to lose some of that trust we've built.
Then last, we need to have the resources to be able to do
the work. Even with the efficiencies that S. 1966 would
provide, it's still not going to be enough. We need to be able
to have the resources to be able to increase the amount of work
that's being done. We need to stop this annual transfer of
funds every year to deal with fire costs.
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you and Mr. Crapo for your
leadership to be able to put a stop to this disruptive practice
of fire transfer and to provide additional funding to manage
and restore our forests. I look forward to working with the
committee to build on the new authorities in the 2014
Appropriations Act, and the forestry title of the Farm Bill, to
increase restoration of our national forests. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Tidwell follows:]
Prepared Statement of Thomas Tidwell, Chief, Forest Service, Department
of Agriculture
Chairman Wyden, Ranking Member Murkowski, and members of the
Committee, thank you for inviting me here today to testify on the
National Forest Jobs and Management Act of 2014 (S. 1966) sponsored by
Senator Barrasso. With our many partners, Secretary Vilsack and the
USDA Forest Service share your commitment to increase the pace and
scale of forest restoration and management in our National Forests.
Restored acres and timber volume is up on the National Forests and we
must continue to invest in current management regimes and not lose
focus on legislative changes that may only polarize and create more
conflict. However, USDA cannot support the bill as it is currently
written.
We must manage and restore more acres to reduce the threat of
catastrophic wildfire, to address insects and disease, and to restore
the ecological health of forests for the benefit of all Americans. We
greatly appreciate recent efforts in Congress to provide key
authorities through the FY 2014 Consolidated Appropriations Act
(highlighted below) that are essential in carrying out our work. The
Forestry Title in the recently enrolled Farm Bill also includes
additional tools that will assist the Forest Service, along with our
partners, to improve the condition of the Nation's forests.
We cannot address the management of the National Forests without
addressing the fire budgeting challenge. The Forest Service and
Department of the Interior have had to increasingly transfer money from
non-fire programs to fight fires due to longer fire seasons and more
acreage of forests and rangelands burning each year. But, this is not
just a problem of fire borrowing during difficult fire years. The
Forest Service once spent 10%-15% of its budget on fire--today we spend
over 40%. As a result, over the long term, the Forest Service has had
to shift resources away from forest management and other activities. We
support efforts by Chairman Wyden, Senator Crapo and others to address
this issue in a way that both ends the disruptive practice of fire
transfers and provides resources to manage and restore our forests so
they are more resilient to wildfire.
S. 1966 aims to ``provide for the restoration of the economic and
ecological health of National Forest System (NFS) land and rural
communities.'' The Forest Service strongly agrees that more forest
management and restoration work needs to occur, but cannot support the
bill as it is currently written as it rolls back key environmental
safeguards, diminishes public participation, sets artificial management
targets in statute, and leads to potentially more conflict (including
potentially more objections and challenges), not less, in regards to
management of the National Forests. We are implementing the following
approaches to increase the pace of restoring the health of our National
Forests and Grasslands.
the agency is saving costs by gaining efficiencies in our environmental
review process under the national environmental policy act (nepa) and
other regulatory responsibilities and stewardship commitments
We are identifying NEPA efficiencies by focusing on improving
Agency policy, learning, and technology. These NEPA process
improvements are designed to provide certainty and integrate the
applicable review and permitting processes. This will improve the
overall planning process to increase decision-making efficiencies and
result in on-the-ground restoration work getting done more quickly,
collaboratively, and across a larger landscape. The Agency has
initiated a NEPA learning networks project to learn from and share the
lessons of successful implementation of efficient NEPA analyses and
develop and institutionalize a more integrated and predictable planning
process that will provide for timely and better decisions. 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), identifying any additional categories of actions that may be
appropriately excluded from documentation in an EA or an Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS), and applying an adaptive management framework
to the planning process whether a Categorical Exclusion, EA, or EIS is
prepared in conjunction with other processes under statutory and
regulatory regimes including the Endangered Species Act (ESA), Clean
Water Act, and Clean Air Act.
We are implementing Section 428 of the 2012 Consolidated
Appropriations Act, which authorized the Agency to establish a pre-
decisional objection process for projects. Considering public concerns
before a decision is made aligns with and strengthens our collaborative
approach to forest management increasing the likelihood of resolving
potential concerns, and resulting in better, more informed decisions.
The Agency also believes the predecisional objections process will aid
efforts to be more efficient with documenting environmental compliance
and stewardship with the goal of providing better outcomes for our
communities and our environment. We greatly appreciate the provision
included in the FY 2014 Consolidated Appropriations Act and the
recently enrolled Farm Bill which allow categorical exclusions to
remain unencumbered by administrative procedures that are not
commensurate with the nature of these decisions.
the forest service is utilizing the collaborative forest landscape
restoration (cflr) program to restore large landscapes
Currently, 23 CFLR projects are underway that emphasize restoration
across large scale landscapes in order to reestablish natural fire
regimes and reduce the risk of uncharacteristic wildfire. In addition
to finding efficiencies in planning and treating larger landscapes,
CFLR emphasizes collaboration. Through work with partners, land
managers are able to leverage funding, knowledge, and support to
accomplish additional work on the ground. In FY 2012, these projects
exceeded the targets for the majority of performance measures. In
addition to proposed projects under CFLR, we are developing and
implementing broad-based, landscape scale, project planning whenever
appropriate.
the agency is completing restoration activities utilizing stewardship
contracts and timber sale contracts
In FY 2012, 25 percent of all timber volume sold was under a
stewardship contract. Stewardship Contracting includes forest product
removal (goods) and restoration projects (services), which are offset
by the value of the goods. Further, stewardship contracting allows the
Forest Service to use best value contracting to evaluate contractors'
proposals. Stewardship contracting authorities enable the Agency to
fund watershed and wildlife habitat improvement projects, invasive
species removal, road decommissioning, and hazardous fuels reduction
activities. This builds public support for forest management
activities. The permanent reauthorization of stewardship contracting is
critical to our ability to collaboratively restore landscapes at a
reduced cost to the government by offsetting the value of the services
received with the value of forest products removed. We greatly
appreciate the provision included in the recently enrolled Farm Bill
and FY 2014 Consolidated Appropriations Act to extend the Stewardship
Contracting Authority.
the forest service is conducting watershed restoration activities on
nfs and adjacent state and private forest land
In 2000, Congress authorized the Forest Service to undertake a
pilot program referred to as ``Good Neighbor'' in Colorado and granted
authority for the program in Utah in 2004. This legislation authorizes
the Forest Service to enter into cooperative agreements or contracts
with state foresters to conduct certain watershed restoration
activities--such as reducing hazardous fuels, addressing insect
outbreaks, and improving drainage to prevent sediment from eroding into
forested watersheds--on NFS land. Although projects are conducted by
the State, projects on Federal land remain subject to our Federal
management and stewardship responsibilities, many of which cannot be
delegated to a tribal, state or local governments. The Forest Service
greatly appreciates efforts by Congress to permanently extend this
authority and expand its use to other states through the FY 2014
Consolidated Appropriations Act and the recently enrolled Farm Bill.
the agency is reviewing our business practices
We are reviewing our business practices around timber sale
preparation, specifically regarding designation of timber for harvest
and accounting for merchantable volume, to determine how to reduce the
cost to the government for selling timber.
S. 1996
Title I of S. 1996 would authorize the Secretary of Agriculture to
carry out covered projects (projects involving the management or sale
of national forest material) in Forest Management Emphasis Areas (areas
of national forest land in western forests that are identified as
suitable for timber production in the forest plan). The bill would
direct that timber sale contracts would be the primary means of
carrying out covered projects and would set a target of 7.5 million
acres to be treated over a 15 year period.
S. 1966 would modify the process for NEPA compliance in carrying
out covered projects, and could be read to modify the consultation
process under the ESA by directing that the Forest Service make the
determinations required under section 7 of the ESA. Covered projects
would be subject to notice and comment during development of the EA and
to a predecisional objection process. In lieu of seeking judicial
review after completion of the objection process, S. 1966 would
establish a fifteen year pilot program that requires the use of
arbitration instead of judicial review as the sole means to challenge
for a covered project in a Forest Management Emphasis Area (FMEA).
The bill also contains other provisions relating to the
distribution of timber receipts generated by covered projects and
requires the agency to develop performance measures to evaluate whether
targets for acres treated are achieved.
We share Senator Barrasso's commitment to improving the management
of the NFS. The Administration has a number of concerns with the
legislation, as drafted, and cannot support it in its current form. We
offer the following observations and concerns regarding S. 1966:
The mandate to identify, prioritize, and carry out projects
on 7.5 million acres lands identified as suitable for timber
production represents roughly a three-fold increase in workload
beyond our current restoration efforts and is beyond our
existing capacity. A significant amount of new funding would be
needed to accomplish the targets set forth in S. 1966 without
having to redirect funds from other essential programs and
initiatives within the Agency. In addition, S. 1966 prohibits
the Forest Service from reducing the acreage deemed suitable
for timber production in any subsequent forest plan revision
which would, among other things, reduce the agency's ability to
engage in adaptive management of the area based on the best
available science, particularly in combination with the target
harvest requirements;
The Forest Service is responsible for upholding numerous
Federal laws (e.g., Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, National
Historic Preservation Act, and the ESA). Compliance with these
laws generally occurs in association with the NEPA process and
will require more time than the 180 day time limit (set forth
in S. 1966) to complete an EA or other appropriate environment
review under NEPA. As a general matter, the Administration
cannot support arbitrary deadlines in the NEPA process, as they
have the potential to constrain decision-making, lead to rushed
or incomplete analyses, and potentially lead to more litigation
and delay;
The provision regarding ESA consultations is unclear as to
what is intended. The provision could be read either as
authorizing Forest Service employees to make determinations
required under Section 7 of the ESA in lieu of the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS) as presently called for by the ESA, or as
requiring the Forest Service to use qualified individuals to
make those ESA determinations that are already within the
Forest Service's authority or responsibility under the ESA. To
the extent that S. 1966 is suggesting that the Forest Service
take over ESA compliance responsibilities from FWS and NMFS, it
is not clearly stated and, in any event may cause confusion and
controversy that could negate any efficiency gained. To the
extent the provision is only intended to require the Forest
Service to use qualified professionals to make ESA judgments
that are already within the Forest Service's purview under the
ESA, the provision is still ambiguous because it is unclear
what it meant by a qualified professional;
Further clarification is needed regarding the requirement
for indirect or cumulative effects analyses and the public
comment process as part of the EA. To the extent that this
portion of S. 1966 eliminates the typical NEPA requirement to
analyze the indirect and cumulative effects of a proposed
action, it will significantly diminish the nature and quality
of the information available to the public and the decision-
maker;
The Agency fully supports collaboration with our partners
and stakeholders from all interest areas as one way to be more
efficient, through a shared understanding of the desired
condition, across the landscape. In some Forest Service
Regions, litigation remains a challenge we face in striving to
increase our restoration efforts. The Forest Service has
limited experience with arbitration and will need to complete a
technical and legal review relating to its use within the
Agency. As an initial matter, we have concerns with the
mandatory nature of Sec. 5 of S. 1966 and the lack of standards
to guide selection of and decision by an arbitrator. We are
also concerned with the strict limitations on the potential
remedy available to an arbitrator, the lack of reviewability,
and the very short timeframe during which arbitration must be
completed. That said, we are willing to explore the use of non-
binding, reviewable arbitration (through a collaborative
approach) on a trial basis before implementing such a change
nationwide; and
Clarification is needed regarding the process to determine
location, extent and determination of lands that are suitable
for timber production in the designated FMEA.
We have recognized for some time the importance of increasing our
restoration efforts and continue to explore new and existing tools to
become more efficient. We are making progress and need to continue
investing in existing land management programs and tools included in
the recently enrolled Farm Bill. S. 1966 could undermine many of those
efforts. We want to work with the Chairman, Ranking Member, Senator
Barrasso and other members of the Committee to build on the authorities
provided in the FY 2014 Consolidated Appropriations Act and through the
Forestry Title of the recently enrolled Farm Bill. We look forward to
continued dialogue to identify ways to increase restoration efforts on
the National Forest System.
The Chairman. Chief, thank you very much. Just so you know,
we so appreciate the leadership that you've shown on this
stewardship contracting issue. I can tell you, every single
town meeting that I've had in eastern Oregon, this has come up.
This has been a top priority of the county commissioners. So we
thank you for it.
I also want to note that Senator Merkley, my colleague in
the Oregon delegation, pitched very hard for this as well.
Mr. Ellis, with respect to the O&C legislation, S. 1784, my
understanding is not only is the BLM in Oregon not meeting the
timber targets established in the resource plan, I guess, your
allowable sale quantity, but they're largely focused on
thinning harvest, and that there are limited places that rely
on timber from thinning.
Is continuing to rely on just thinning those harvests going
to produce a sustainable approach? What are the implications
for running out of volume just by dealing with those harvests?
Mr. Ellis. Mr. Chairman, two things. First of all, I should
mention that in 2014, this fiscal year, BLM plans to offer 231
million board-feet of timber, which is about 25 million board-
feet above the 206 million we offered in 2013.
As for thinning, we are, yes, primarily doing thinning.
Commercial thinning is a sound silvicultural practice. But one
thing about thinning, it won't last forever. So what our staff
tells me in western Oregon is that if we continue at this pace
for thinning perhaps another 15 or 20 years, what we need to do
is have a silvicultural practice where we can get some early
seral development in some younger trees coming up.
The Chairman. Now, many of the sales that the BLM designs
on the O&C lands never seem to result in any timber being cut,
because of the continual appeals and litigation and the fact
that you just seem to have this legal demolition derby, where
people just insist on suing each other till one side is
crushed.
How serious is this in terms of the work for BLM? Is it
your view that legislation that provides more explicit
direction with respect to the management of these lands at
least would help get more timber harvest and help address this
problem?
Mr. Ellis. Mr. Chairman, we don't lack for appeals on
litigation. What we do on public lands, whether it be on O&C or
other areas, but what I would say is, in the O&C, I think the
appeals that we have and the litigation that we have really
reflects the many values that we have from our publics in
western Oregon.
The Chairman. So your sense is that trying to come up with
a piece of legislation to embody those values would be
constructive as long as we strike the right balance between
giving you direction and not trying to micromanage from
Washington, DC.'' Would that be another way to say it?
Mr. Ellis. Balance is important. Collaboration is
important. I believe earlier, you know, what I heard in your
statement was about Oregonians collaborating. We feel that this
is very important.
We have, as you know, a resource management planning effort
that is currently underway. We've held a series of listening
sessions. We have many cooperators in the west side. We're
moving forward in that effort and attempt to listen to our
publics and try to come up with a suite of alternatives for
management of these O&C lands that reflects all the values that
are reflected, and also to try to come up with some
sustainability for the O&C lands and some predictability for
these counties, for these O&C counties.
The Chairman. Very good.
Senator Murkowski.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Before I direct my questions to the two bills in front of
us, Chief, I want to raise with you an issue that we discussed
when you were visiting the State when we were touring the
Tongass summer of last year.
I think you got a real sense in terms of the challenges
that we face in really doing any level of development or
activity within the 9.5 million acres of the Tongass there when
it comes to how we might develop our renewable energy
resources, how we might access our mining potential, how we
might deal with transmission lines when you have the very, very
heavy burden of the Roadless Rule in front of us.
Now, I have insisted that that Roadless Rule needs to be
repealed, but short of that, we need to have some flexibility
here. I appreciated your very public statement when you were in
the State, acknowledging that you felt that there was
flexibility that was built into the rule and your willingness
to really work with us to see how we can move forward in the
Tongass.
I've had a lot of folks from the State ask me about how
we're coming with that. I would ask that if we can have an
opportunity for a sit-down to discuss this more thoroughly;
obviously, this is not the appropriate venue. But it is
something that we've allowed for a period of time to go by. We
haven't really seen anything from the department. I'd like to
have a further conversation with you if we can make that
happen.
Mr. Tidwell. Yes.
Senator Murkowski. I would appreciate that.
Let me ask you, Chief, because you mentioned in your
testimony the fact that we need to have resources to do the
work; we certainly understand that. I know that you believe, as
I do, that it's critical that we get the timber harvest up on
our national forests. The Chairman has certainly worked
aggressively in this area.
You have seen the impacts in the State of Alaska where
folks are literally hanging on by their fingernails there. So
how we're able to advance these priorities is significant from
a policy perspective. But really, to ensure that the folks on
the ground are being heard, that those jobs that are so key to
these timber communities are truly there, and jobs that can
sustain a family in a high-cost area.
So, you mentioned that funding is important. We acknowledge
that. But it's also about management priorities. I hear from my
constituents and from others that this should be a bigger, if
not a top, priority of the agency--that is, getting the timber
harvest up.
Chief, I guess the question to you then is, Wouldn't it be
helpful to you to have clear direction from the Congress that
timber harvest is a management priority for the national
forests? I think that as S. 1966 gives the forest service that
direction, does that help you?
Mr. Tidwell. Senator, what would be helpful is to have
clear direction about the importance of our National Forests
and restore those forests. Yes, timber harvest is a tool that
we need to apply in many of those acres, as I've already
stated.
But the purpose of it is to be able to restore these
forests so they will be able to provide the full mix of
benefits. A big part of that is to be able to sustain
communities, sustain the economies. So that is where, I think,
the more that we can focus on the need to do the work, that we
can continue to build more support.
Whenever it comes across that we look at the National
Forests for one purpose--and there's parts of the forest that
that can be the dominant use. But whenever we start to talk
about it that way, it's my experience it just creates more
controversy and more concern about our management.
Where we have been able to look at large landscapes and be
able to address all the restoration needs, besides the timber
harvest, the biomass renewable, but at the same time deal with
wildlife habitat, fisheries, recreation facilities, when we can
put that all together under one project, that's when we've had
tremendous success and we build support and we're able to get
the work done.
Senator Murkowski. I have always been a strong advocate of
multiple use. But sometimes, I feel that, particularly when it
comes to the Tongass, it's every other use except timber
harvest. It's everything but. It's kind of like what we're
seeing when the President says, ``Well, I support an all-of-
the-above energy plan, except for oil and except for coal and
except for.''
When we're talking about multiple use, that priority on
timber harvest has to be, in my view, a priority that is given
great significance than I think that we're seeing in the
Tongass. I recognize that not all forests are situated
similarly.
Let me ask very quickly, because my time is running here.
Mr. Ellis, this relates to the O&C Bill. You mentioned this
checkerboard pattern of O&C land. In section 117, there is a
requirement there, before exchanging any land the Secretary has
to determine that it is in the public interest.
I have had some recent experience with designation by the
Secretary of public interest as it related to the Isenbeck
legislation. As my colleagues know, that didn't go very well. I
don't want this public interest determination language to be a
precedent, then, for all Congressionally authorized land
exchanges. I think it's a mistake for Congress to basically
seed its authority to determine what's in the public interest
to folks in the administration and agencies that are not
elected.
So, I guess what I would like to know, Mr. Ellis, is,
explain to me how the BLM would determine, under this bill,
whether or not it is in the public interest to exchange lands
that the agency has identified for disposal. Do you have a
process that you have laid out, or thought through the
criteria? If you can outline for me how that process would
work.
Mr. Ellis. Senator, as far as exchanging under this bill,
I'm not, I guess, familiar enough with the details or
specifically how it would work for this bill. But I could
comment, speculate generally on how I've done that in my career
on finding out the public interests.
Generally, when we look at a piece of public land, there
are many values on that public land. As you indicated, there
are many multiple uses, there are many values that our public
has. When we dispose of a piece of ground, a piece of land,
whether it be an exchange or sale, we look in terms of, what is
in the public interest or what will be gained if we exchange
that piece of land?
For example, if we're going to pick up a piece of ground
that's part of a sensitive riparian area or sensitive species
habitat, that we feel that that may be in the public interest.
So, it really, there's not, I guess, a one-size-fits-all for
this. My experience has been that it does vary.
Senator Murkowski. That's where, I think, the devil may
really be in the detail. I think we learned that with the
Isenbeck legislation, which allowed or gave the Secretary that
discretion to determine that best interest. Again, it's a very
subjective process. I think we've looked at it and said, ``If
this is going to be precedent, it would be helpful to know that
there is a set of criteria that doesn't allow for such
discretion, again to an unelected official.''
So I would caution you in that. I've had a lot of red flags
go up about it. So I raise it to you.
Mr. Chairman, my time has expired. I'm sorry.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Murkowski.
The ever-collegial Senator Heinrich has indicated that
Senator Udall can go next.
Senator Udall, please proceed.
Senator Udall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Yes, Senator Heinrich is the epitome of collegiality, and I
thank him for yielding to me.
Mr. Ellis, good to see you. Chief, great to have you here.
Before I make a comment and ask a couple of questions, I
want to make sure we acknowledge that two Coloradans are here,
Mr. Mike Matz, who is a member of the Pew Charitable Trust
team. Then Mr. Clint Georg is also here, and he represents the
Saratoga Forest Products Company. They're both going to have a
chance to testify later, and they have important things to
share with the committee.
The issue of forest health is one that's near and dear to
my heart because Colorado's forests are critical to our clean
water supplies, and they provide places where we work, we live,
we play, we recreate. We've been seeing--and, Chief, you know
this; Mr. Ellis, you know this--insect outbreaks and
catastrophic fires that are unprecedented in our recent
history.
At the same time as Senator Murkowski just alluded to and
Senator Wyden, our forest products infrastructure, like our
sawmills, continue to struggle. I recognize we've made
substantial efforts to help solve these issues. I'm very
pleased, for example, that there's a Farm Bill finally on the
way to the President, and that the forestry title includes many
provisions that support more on-the-ground work by encouraging
cooperation and streamlining agency processes.
Some of these, such as the Good Neighbor Authority, are
provisions I've worked on for years, and I'm proud to have done
so with Senator Barrasso, who was here earlier. I'm sure he
will return because he cares deeply about this as well. I look
forward to working on more bipartisan initiatives like that
because more needs to be done.
I say this not as a Coloradan, but as someone whose home
has been subject to a wildfire evacuation order. In Colorado,
the question is not if we will have another mega-fire; it's
when. In Colorado communities like my hometown of Eldorado
Springs and major cities like Glenwood Springs, Fort Collins,
and Colorado Springs are increasingly living under the threat
of major wildfires.
So we've got to do everything we can to protect Colorado's
communities and thousands more across the West. Make no mistake
about it: Wildfire threatens our water supplies and our very
way of life in Colorado. I appreciate your listening and your
attentiveness, because you both understand this. You live it
every day.
So, let me turn to the forest products industry. It's a
critical partner. It's helping us improve the health of our
forests, Chief, and it provides jobs at the same time,
particularly in rural Colorado communities like Montrose,
Kremmling, and Sawatch.
I'm concerned that there's a substantial gap between the
acreage that the U.S. Forest Service has provided for
management and the capacity of the forest products industry.
Given the conditions of the forests in Colorado, what can you
do to provide additional acreage?
Mr. Tidwell. Senator, first of all, thank you for your
support and your leadership to get the authorities in the Farm
Bill. Those are going to be very helpful as we move forward.
There's no question that we need to increase the pace of
the restoration. I do believe that, through some of the
improvements in our internal processes that we're making to be
as efficient as we possibly can are helping.
We need to be able to do even a better job to look at these
large areas to be able to do an analysis that looks at the tens
of thousands to hundreds of thousands of acres at one time, and
then to be able to use something like stewardship contracting
so that there is some certainty so that the timber industry,
they can have some confidence that they can make the
investments that they need because they know that they've got
maybe up to 10 years worth of work in front of them that's
guaranteed.
I think the more that we can do that, the better we can get
more work done. There's no question I want to work with the
committee to find more ways to be more efficient. I think with
Senator Barrasso's bill, the idea of if we can use a strong
collaborative process in our focused NEPA, we can reduce the
number of alternatives that need to be considered. I think
those are the things we need to continue to work on, be able to
get more work done.
Then last, there's just no question. We just have to stop
this fire transfer.
Senator Udall. Yes. I'm on that.
Mr. Tidwell. If at all possible, find ways to add some
additional resources.
Senator Udall. Let me move to that, and let me make the
point as you just did that the forest products industry is
about providing timber, biomass, and most importantly, forest
health. Forest products industry will really help us return to
a time when our forests are healthy.
I think that's been an epiphany for many. That's certainly
been--a light went on for many of us that that's really the
utility of and the importance of the forest products industry.
They're ready and rearing to go. So I want to work further with
you on that.
Let me talk about what you just alluded to. I'm a co-
sponsor of the Wildfire Disaster Funding Act of 2013 with
Senators Wyden and Crapo. They would allow the Forest Service
and the Department of the Interior to access emergency funding
to fight what are becoming expensive modern mega-fires.
Can you talk about fire borrowing and the forest service
activities that get cut back year after year because of the
growing expense of wild land fire fighting?
Mr. Tidwell. It seems like it's almost every year now that,
starting in August, we have to stop some of the work that we're
doing to not only be able to do the work that was planned for
August and September, but where it has even more impact is
we're not able to have our staff out doing the prep work for
the next year's projects.
So, year after year, this continues to just slow us down,
not only in the work that we normally would get done in
probably the best part of the field season, in August and
September, but then we cannot do the prep work, be out doing
the surveys or doing the marking during those months for the
next year's work.
So it's just been just a chronic problem. That if we could
change that, I can guarantee that you'll see an increase in our
level of production, without any question.
Senator Udall. We've got to turn it around. We truly have
to turn this around.
Mr. Tidwell. Yes.
Senator Udall. Thank you, Chief. Thank you, Mr. Ellis.
The Chairman. Chief, thank you. There was kind of almost a
modest Murkowski--Wyden addendum to your comment. Apparently,
it's 8 out of the last 10 years that we have faced the
situation you're talking about. That's what we're going to try
and correct.
Senator Flake.
Senator Flake. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you both.
Chief Tidwell, as you know, the White Mountain Stewardship
Contract is the first large-scale 10-year contract. It expires
this year. While there's always room for improvement, the
contract is considered by many to be a success, an example for
future contracts.
In response actually to the contract, we've seen about $130
million of investment in the area of revitalization of the
timber industry, desperately needed after a couple of decades
of neglect, certainly. We hope that the Four Fry Program, the
Four Forests Initiative, will foster continued restoration.
But that may take awhile to get going in a big way. We're
concerned there that we'll lose a lot of the investment that
has been made. Once you do, as you know, it takes a long time
to ramp back up.
It seems to me that Senator Barrasso's bill, which I'm
happy to cosponsor, would establish a framework for
establishing forest treatments in the Apache-Sitgreaves
National Forest, where it's just right next to where I grew up.
But can you provide me some concrete examples of where the
forest service intends to make efforts to make sure that we
don't strand the investment that has already occurred in the
White Mountains? What can we do to bridge that gap between the
White Mountains Stewardship Contract and Four Fry?
Mr. Tidwell. Senator, I'm confident that we're going to be
able to move forward with Four Fry. We had some of the problems
with the original contractor, but now we've been able to move
past that. So that the new company that's in place, I've met
with them, and I can tell you I'm confident that they are going
to be moving forward. This would be demonstrated this year by
the number of task orders that they're going to take on to be
able to continue to do that work.
There's no question that we have to be able to demonstrate
that this is the right way to go forward. The White Mountain
Stewardship has been the model, and there's just no question of
the difference it's made on the ground.
Senator Flake. Yes. You and I have toured some of these
areas, particularly after the Wallow fire, where, you know, the
town of Alpine would not be there were it not for the
stewardship contract and the thinning that has gone and the,
you know, forest--community interface. But obviously, we've got
to go deeper, deeper into the forest here.
As you know, the Farm Bill reauthorized stewardship
contracting in perpetuity. That's a good thing. That's one of
the good things about the Farm Bill, among many other good
things, in my view. But, and it did include some of the
technical corrections that I've been working on with the forest
service and BLM.
But we didn't get done some of the cancellation ceilings,
ceiling requirements, regulations that would give some more
flexibility to the forest service in entering into these
public--private partnerships.
Can you commit to work with us on that in the areas where
it's problematic to have these contracts? I know that the
forest service is concerned with the cancellation ceiling and
how we deal with it. But can we work together on this issue to
make sure that we can move forward more quickly?
Mr. Tidwell. Yes, Senator, I will make that commitment. I
need to also thank you for your leadership on the stewardship
contracting. Your amendments, the changes to that, not only is
it now permanent, but it's better. With the changes, it does
address some of the concerns that our communities had and some
of the industry had over that. So it's going to actually be a
better authority for us as we move forward.
Senator Flake. I thank you. I thank you for working with us
on this. I know of your concern personally for the forests in
Arizona. We hope to be able to move forward quickly. We've lost
too much already. I appreciate your work on this. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Flake.
Senator Heinrich.
Senator Heinrich. I want to pick up where Senator Flake
left off. I want to start just by commending the work that he
has done on stewardship contracts. Unlike Senator Flake, I have
some real concerns about S. 1966, but I think the work that he
has done around stewardship contracts is absolutely critical,
including in the Farm Bill.
One of the concerns I have, and I'm very glad to hear that
you think Four Fry is moving forward, because these forests,
you know, when you look at the Southwest and you look at a map
on Google Earth, the Mogollon Rim stretches across both Arizona
and New Mexico. The forests, the heel in the forest, the
Apache-Sitgreaves, are right next door to each other. If you're
hiking from one to the other, you would never notice the
difference.
S. 1966 has some strong language bias, in my view, for
timber contracts rather than stewardship contracts as a
preferred management tool in our national forests. In my view,
that's a less than perfect fit for Southwestern forests and for
forests in New Mexico. I would like to see--well, I believe
that stewardship contracts are really a much more holistic way
to manage our forests, particularly in the Southwest, where we
had a lot of very high-end sustainable cut a number of years
ago. Now we're struggling more with fire issues.
Stewardship contracts really help us create contracts that
make sense, where you can have timber management and timber
harvest, but you also incentivize the harvest of small fire-
prone trees that have sometimes minimal, sometimes negative
economic value. But removing them is a way to make the big
trees grow faster, and it's a way to get ahead of the mega-
fires that we've seen in recent years.
The other thing that we've seen as a very beneficial
outcome of these stewardship contracts is that they incentivize
other multiple uses within the management and restoration of
those forests. You know, they reinstall culverts. They do
travel management post-cut, as well as providing some fire
prevention values.
So I want to ask you, Chief Tidwell, do you have any
concerns about the language in S. 1966 relying too exclusively
on timber contracts to the near exclusion of stewardship
contracts as the primary tool for managing our national
forests, and in particular with an eye toward the Southwest,
where we have dry forests that are different than in other
regions?
Mr. Tidwell. Senator, we need both tools. We need
stewardship contracting. We also need our timber sale
authority. But we also need the flexibility to be able to
choose the right tool for the situation.
Senator Heinrich. Right.
Mr. Tidwell. There's no question that there's a lot of
places where stewardship contracting is building more support,
more trust, because folks can see that we're not only just
doing the timber harvest, the biomass removal, we also
accomplish all the other benefits that you mentioned. It gives
them trust in that the things they're concerned about are also
going to be addressed versus just doing the timber harvest and
then, with a hope and a promise maybe from the Forest Service
that eventually we'll get around to doing the wildlife habitat
work, the fisheries work.
So we need to keep both tools, but we need to have the
flexibility to be able to choose which is the right tool for
the right job.
Senator Heinrich. I appreciate hearing you say that,
because I think that one of the great things about these
stewardship contracts is they really represent a coordinated
effort at multiple use. They recognize all the important values
of the forest, not just one to the exclusion of others.
I can say, as, you know, someone who in a previous life
managed 540 acres adjacent to the Cibola National Forest in
western New Mexico, these areas, depending on their history,
require very different approaches. The Ponderosa pine forest
that I managed, and certainly I, you know, personally harvested
1,000s of very-small-diameter stunted trees that grew up after
the very heavy harvests 80 years prior, 80 years of fire
suppression, and the big saleable trees. As you know, in the
Southwest, sometimes it takes 300 years to produce a 42-inch-
diameter DBH Ponderosa pine--weren't there.
But it was very important that we were able to go in and
thin those forests out and getting them to look and function
like they did previously, before, you know, we lost the big
trees and before you had the level of fire suppression that we
have today.
So having that flexibility to tailor the tool to the area
and its specific history, I would say, is something that we
need to make sure you continue to have the flexibility to do.
Mr. Chair, I'm over my time.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Senator Barrasso.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Chief Tidwell, first, I really appreciate your oral
testimony today. Of course, I'm disappointed in the written
testimony that you were required to give on my bill at the
direction of the White House. The statement contains very
limited constructive feedback. It dismisses an important
opportunity to comment on a potential nationwide effort to
improve timber production.
From the language of the first paragraph of the written
testimony, it's evident that testimony on this bill is
influenced by the political advisers within the administration.
You know, just this past week, President Obama's former
Secretary of Energy said at a Keystone XL Pipeline, ``The
decision on whether the construction should happen,'' he said,
``was a political one, not a scientific one.''
Just like the Keystone XL Pipeline, it looks like forest
management decisions in the administration are being dictated
more by political influence than by science. I say that
because, just like the pipeline, the President's activist base
is mobilizing and fighting against the good American jobs that
my bill would create.
The Washington Post gave the NextGen Climate Action agenda
4 Pinocchios. They're the folks that take a look at the
validity of statements. Four Pinocchios for its ad that was
critical of the pipeline.
Using similar tactics, the Wilderness Society is concluding
that my bill would, they say, ``require a massive increase in
logging and other mechanical treatments across tens of millions
of acres,'' they say, of national forestland in the West, when
the fact is my bill covers, as you nodded your head as I was
reading my earlier statement, 7.5 million over 15 years, not
tens of millions of acres.
The political double standard in the written testimony is
also apparent. The administration opposes my bill, in part
because it sets a management target in statute. But it's
supported bills introduced by Democrat members of this
committee, including S. 37 and S. 1301, which do exactly the
same thing.
When testifying on my bill, the administration says it
wants to invest in current management regimes and not lose
focus on polarizing legislative agendas. Perhaps the
administration should consider its support of bills sponsored
by Democrat members of this committee on the same grounds. Nor
do I buy the administration's political rhetoric that
legislative changes would cause the forest service to lose
focus.
I want to just go on. In answering Senator Murkowski's
question, you characterize my bill as making timber production
the dominant use, I think you said, of forest service lands.
The 7.5 million acres to be treated over 15 years is like 3.8
percent of the national forest system--3.8 percent. The
wilderness system makes up 36 million acres. So wilderness is
36 million acres, or 19 percent of the national forest service.
The Roadless Rule covers an additional 60 million acres, 31
percent of the system. The fact is wilderness and limited-use
de facto wilderness are the dominant use in today's national
forest, not timber.
You also spoke about collaboration. Are you suggesting that
the forest service isn't going to be allowed to work in areas
where there are no collaboratives and where stewardship
contracting are not the proper tool?
Mr. Tidwell. No. The concerns that I have is I want to make
sure that we're not doing something there maybe that we don't
fully understand. Any time when we start to, you know, change
the processes, for instance through our forest planning
process, based on the input we get from communities, based on
input from our scientists, there are times we need to adjust
the suitable base. We need to, I think, be able to keep that
flexibility.
There's nothing in your bill that limits our collaborative
efforts. I think it's essential that we make sure that the
public understands that they're still going to, you know, have
that role.
I think I've been on record for many years now being able
to say we need to be able to increase the restoration. There is
millions of acres that we need to use timber harvest to be able
to get that accomplished; there's just no question.
But when we've taken this approach we're looking at, the
restoration across large landscapes, we are having very good
success. So, as we move forward with opportunities like your
bill could provide, some ways to improve our processes, I want
to make sure that we just don't add any more to the conflict
that we've had in the past that I feel we're really moving
past.
I think your ideas about limiting alternatives, that's
something we had experience when Healthy Forest Restoration
Act, and it's worked well. Where we've had strong collaborative
efforts, we've been able to reduce the number of alternatives
because there's strong support about the work that needs to get
done.
So there are ways to be able to do that. I just want to
make sure that we do it in a way where the public feels that
they still have their role to play in the process and that no
one feels that they're being shorted in any way.
Senator Barrasso. That's, of course, the concern with what
I see coming out of the--not you in particular, but the
administration in the White House is. Is the White House and
how the forest service sits in its decisions support replacing
the forest system with State-by-State forest placed bills?
Mr. Tidwell. There is definitely some need for us to make
some changes because we've not been able to get the work done.
We have had a couple of State-by-State bills that have come
forward. We've had some concerns about our capacity to be able
to implement those with our current funding.
But where we have been able to see a strong collaboration
come together where there is strong support for being able to
do the work, those are the things that we're interested in.
Ideally, it would be great to have a national bill that would
embrace all these key elements. But that being said, if you
look at the diversity of our forests across this country,
there's probably going to be a need for some site-specific or
forest-specific bills at the same time, you know, hopefully
some opportunities for some national direction that would help
us to be able to improve our efficiencies.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Senator Risch, you have just arrived.
STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES RISCH, U.S. SENATOR
FROM IDAHO
Senator Risch. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I
will be brief. I was--one of the things that I'm a little
disappointed with in the hearing, ordinarily we talk about what
a great hearing--and it is. These are important issues that
need to come up.
The Chairman. You can still call it a great hearing.
Senator Risch. I will, for you. By the way, is today your
last, is today the----
The Chairman. Kind of.
Senator Risch. Today's the day, huh?
In any event, one of the things I wanted to talk about is
that how the States manage their lands versus how the Federal
Government manages its lands. I understand that this is not
something that's just happened; this is something that's grown
up over decades, really, of the management of lands.
But as an example, in recent, in fiscal year 2012, the
Idaho Department of Lands sold 330 million board-feet and
generated $50 million in revenue. This came from 2.4 million
acres of State endowment lands. Comparing that with the forest
service, they don't own 2.4 million; they own 20.4 million
acres. They sold 79 million board-feet, compared to the 330
million board-feet that we sold.
So, what does this tell us? It isn't that our land is
better than the forest service land. Indeed, this came off of
land which was randomly selected from the land in Idaho. We
received two sections of land out of every township on July 4th
of 1890 when we became a State. Those are essentially our
school trust lands. There's a few others in there, but it's
primarily school trust lands.
But I mean, this isn't a little bit of difference. I mean,
this is a tremendous amount of difference between the two. Now,
I don't think we'll ever get to the point where the Federal
lands are managed the same as the State lands are. But having
said that, there's a concept that's been talked about around
here for some time, and that is the trust concept, where indeed
the States could get some Federal land, some more Federal land.
As you can see, what we've done in Idaho, we could do
really, really well if we could get a little bit more land. I
know there's people that talk about a wholesale takeover of the
Federal grounds. I think everyone with common sense knows that
that simply is not going to happen. But having said that, I
think some modest step toward the State having more say in the
management of these lands, and the ability to withdraw some of
those Federal lands in trust so they could do as they're doing
now with their lands, would be very helpful.
They could do it without decimating Federal lands or
decimating what the Federal vision is, which is very different
than the State vision for Federal lands.
So, having said that, I was kind of hoping we'd get a panel
where we could talk about this concept. I understand it's going
to be controversial as we go down the pike. But perhaps we can
do this at a future date, and you'll come back as a
distinguished guest.
The Chairman. I'm going to be sitting right there.
Senator Risch. I understand that. But give us the wisdom of
the many years you've had in this committee.
The Chairman. Senator Risch, you know how much I value your
opinion. Especially, we've already talked about the effort you
and I and Senator Crapo have underway in terms of fighting
these fires. We really haven't gotten into it.
But what is just astounding about this debate is we have
already seen fires in our country in January. The combination
of fires this early, plus drought, that ought to be a wakeup
call to everybody for the kind of preventive effort that
Senator Risch has been talking about. So I'm going to be
working closely with you on that.
Senator Risch. Senator, I think that's absolutely right.
I've often wondered why when we have these disasters and
everyone wrings their hands at the time, there is no follow-
through.
The best example I can give is I really thought we were
headed for some significant reform after the Biscuit Fire that
was in Oregon. That's probably one of the more significant ones
that caught the headlines around America. I mean, it was front
page for some time, and as soon as it was out, we seem to have
moved on to other things. It's really unfortunate.
But as you point out, we're starting early already this
year, and the acres keep growing every year. We're talking
about it more; that's a good thing. But I think we need to
really roll up our sleeves and get active in it. I appreciate
your commitment to that, and I appreciate you working with
Senator Crapo and I with the serious issues.
I used to carry around with me the fire starts in the
United States. Each one was represented by a little tiny red
dot. The epicenter was right in southwest Idaho, and it went
out from there. So our State has a real interest in that. Thank
you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. All right. I think we saw that when I was
over with you and Senator Crapo in Boise this summer, this past
summer, how important this is. We are going to get that bill
passed this year. We came so close, as you know, in the budget
discussions, where we had a lot of support on both sides of the
aisle. We're going to get that done.
Senator Risch. Senator, can I take just one more second?
The Chairman. Of course. Of course.
Senator Risch. I would be remiss if I didn't thank both Mr.
Ellis and Mr. Tidwell, who have been very active in Idaho in
supporting the kinds of things that we're doing there. Mr.
Tidwell, of course, is a native of Idaho. I really appreciate
working with these two gentlemen. They have been good to work
with, and I appreciate their service.
The Chairman. We've having a little bit of a Western
sparring over who gets to claim Mr. Ellis.
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. Because his ranch is in Baker, and he's
working in Idaho. We appreciate it.
I'm going to not have any further questions. I do want to
put into the record, because we've got a lot of bipartisan work
to do on this, that during the Bush administration, the George
W. Bush administration, according to documents reviewed by the
staff, the cut was about 2.2 million board-feet per year. So
far, in the Obama administration, it is about 2.6 million
board-feet.
So, by any calculation, we have got to work together in a
bipartisan way to get these numbers up. I'll just put that into
the record, and we will excuse both of you at this time. Thank
you.
[Pause.]
The Chairman. Let's now welcome our next panel. Dr. Jerry
Franklin with the University of Washington, Mr. Andrew Miller
with Stimson Lumber, Mr. Mike Matz with the Pew Charitable
Trust, Mr. Doug Robertson with the Association of O&C Counties,
Mr. Sean Stevens with Oregon Wild, Mr. Dale Riddle with Seneca
Sawmill, and Mr. Sid Leiken with Lane County. He is one of the
commissioners.
Big thanks to all of you for coming. Under the best of
circumstances, it is a long trek. Yesterday was not an easy day
to fly, as I understand it. So I very much appreciate all of
you coming. You're each a leader in this field, and we are glad
to have you share your thoughts.
As I indicated, we'll put your prepared statement into the
record in its entirety. If you can summarize your oral remarks,
we'll begin with you, Dr. Franklin. Welcome. And thank you,
thank you, thank you for all of the hours that you and Norm put
in to putting our legislation together.
STATEMENT OF JERRY F. FRANKLIN, SCHOOL OF ENVIRONMENTAL AND
FOREST SCIENCE, UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON
Mr. Franklin. Thank you very much for the opportunity to be
here. I think everybody's probably aware that Dr. K. Norman
Johnson, Oregon State University, and I have worked together on
this. We've functioned in a way as science consultants to
Senator Wyden and the staff of this committee in terms of
working on this bill, responding to such questions as, you
know, What do we need to be thinking about when we write this
bill?, What would be the scientific and management consequences
of particular alternatives?, and so forth.
Certainly, they provided us with some definite goals that
they had in mind for the legislation as they put it together.
Specifically, for example, how do we provide for protection of
older forests?
So, I just want to begin by saying that I find the outcome
in terms of this bill to be quite extraordinary in the sense of
being outstanding in terms of incorporating a very strong
scientific basis and doing so while attempting to do good for
both the forests and for society.
I'll take just simply, you know, as the example the
recognition of the need in policy to distinguish between moist
forests and dry forests, where on the one hand the dry forests,
we could call them, what were historically the frequent-fire
forests, but have not been for sassafras tree. The moist forest
being typical, the Doug fir, hemlock forests, that don't burn
except with many centuries, usually, intervals.
Because of these different ecologies and because of these
different approaches, it simply was imperative in policy
development that that be recognized and that they will, in
fact, require different approaches. I just want to say that
that was our most important recommendation, and it's profoundly
embedded in this bill.
Number of really extraordinary features of this bill. One
of them is it provides for statutory protection of all older
forests for the first time. We've never had statutory
protection for old-growth forests.
The Chairman. You can repeat that as often as you like, Dr.
Franklin.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Franklin. The Northwest Forest Plan was a wonderful
thing, but it was developed and has been an administrative
decision process only. It's never had legislative protection or
support of any kind. So, this is just really outstanding, and
in the case of the moist forests, it not only provides for
protection of all old growth forests and all old growth trees,
but also most of the mature forests, which is extraordinary.
In the case of the dry forests, it recognizes that we want
to protect the old growth trees, but that in fact we may need
active management in order to help sustain those old growth
trees. So, and that policy, incidentally, is a permissive one,
and it doesn't require treatment. It simply allows managers to
carry forward treatments, while at the same time retaining and
actually nurturing the old trees.
The bill adopts a very different approach to forest
management than we have practiced historically in this country
on all Federal lands, as well as private lands. That is an
adoption of ecological forestry as a basis for management.
Ecological forestry is not a silvicultural prescription. It is,
in fact, a philosophy and an approach. It contrasts with the
traditional approach to forestry, which has been use of an
agronomic model as constrained by the economic.
It does provide for variable retention harvesting, for
regeneration harvests in the moist forests, and interestingly,
not just for wood, but also very much for the ecological
objective of creating early successional conditions, which in
fact, in the moist forests, are the most biologically diverse
stages of forest development.
Finally, I just want to say that variable retention
harvesting and ecological forestry are not experimental.
They're widely practiced throughout the globe. However, we do
very strongly need to have an adaptive component in the
activities, and perhaps this might be one area in which the
bill could be strengthened.
Finally, I just want to say I really want to reinforce
Senator Wyden's comments when he initiated this, that perhaps
the most important thing about this legislation is, for the
first time, it begins to define a new pathway forward, a third
path, that kinder and gentler forestry that I first talked
about at Peter DeFazio's conference back in--what was it?--
1998, something like that. So, thank you.
[The joint prepared statement of Mr. Franklin and Mr.
Johnson follow:]
Prepared Statement of Jerry F. Franklin, School of Environmental and
Forest Science, Univ. of Wash., and K. Norman Johnson, Dept. of Forest
Ecosystems and Society, Oregon State Univ
I speak today for myself and Dr. Norm Johnson. These comments
represent our own views and not those of our respective institutions.
Our testimony today concerns our work with Senator Wyden to
integrate ecological forestry principles into S.1784 direction for
management of the BLM O&C lands in Western Oregon.\1\ Specifically, we
address how utilizing ecological forestry principles in managing these
lands could provide ecological benefits and a sustained yield of timber
harvest and revenue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The BLM in western Oregon administers a collection of land
ownerships resulting from various Congressional actions. They include
the Oregon and California Railroad Lands, Coos Bay Wagon Roads Public
Domain, and other lands. The legislation addresses the Oregon and
California Railroad Lands, and Coos Bay Wagon Roads that we will call
,. ``BLM O&C lands'' in this testimony. They cover approximately two
million acres of forest in western Oregon, with Moist Forests occupying
approximately two-thirds of that area and Dry Forests the remainder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
consideration of ecological forestry in s. 1784
Ecological Forestry--A Philosophy of Forest Management
``Ecological Forestry'' is an approach to managing forests
utilizing principles from natural forest development, including the
role of natural disturbances, in the initiation, development, and
maintenance of forest stands and landscape mosaics (Seymour and Hunter
1999, Franklin et al. 2007, Franklin and Johnson 2012). Ecological
Forestry is based, therefore, on application of our best current
ecological understanding of forest ecosystems in managing these
ecosystems to achieve integrated environmental, economic, and cultural
outcomes.\2\ S.1784 embraces this philosophy of forest management,
incorporating the latest ecological science in the process, as we
describe below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ For a more in-depth description of ecological forestry see
Franklin and Johnson (2012) at http://fes.forestry.oregonstate.edu/
sites/fes.forestry.oregonstate.edu/files/PDFs/
JOF%20Article%20with%20Case%20Studies_2.pdf and previous testimony by
Franklin and Johnson on the O&C lands at http://
fes.forestry.oregonstate.edu/sites/fes.forestry.oregonstate.edu/files/
PDFs/Johnson_June%202013.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recognition of Moist Forests and Dry Forests
A distinction between Moist and Dry Forests is essential in setting
policies for O&C lands because of their contrasting disturbance regimes
and responses to management. This distinction is especially critical in
developing policies and practices intended to protect old-growth
forests and trees. S.1784 recognizes this critical distinction between
Moist and Dry Forests within the range of the Northern Spotted Owl and
provides distinctive policy direction for each throughout its forest
management stipulations.
Conservation of old forests and trees requires fundamentally
different management approaches on Dry and Moist Forest sites because
of contrasts in their disturbance regimes and the impacts of past
management on current forest conditions. For example, existing intact
old-growth forests on Moist Forest sites have undergone limited changes
as a result of >100 years of fire suppression; active management to
restore conditions within such stands is not only unnecessary but would
adversely affect them. Setting aside existing older Moist Forests is,
therefore, an appropriate conservation approach.
Dry Forest sites, on the other hand, have undergone dramatic
changes from European pre-settlement conditions as a result of many
human activities, including elimination of fire. Consequently, Dry
Forests have undergone significant changes and many are currently
dense, fuel-loaded stands dominated by fire-and drought-intolerant
species. These forests and the old trees that they contain are,
consequently, at significant risk of stand-replacement wildfire as well
as highly susceptible to drought and insect attack. Hence, policies
need to permit active management of such forests (including those with
older trees) to create more resilient conditions.
S. 1784 recognizes this need to provide for different policies for
Moist and Dry Forests while providing the first statutory protection
for old forests and trees on federal forest lands. All old-growth and
the vast majority of mature forests are reserved on Moist Forest sites
as well as all older trees that are present in younger forests subject
to timber harvest. All older trees are reserved in Dry Forests but
active management is permitted around them to improve their longevity.
Active management of Dry Forests is also permitted (but not required)
to improve the ability of Dry Forests to tolerate fire, drought, and
insect epidemics, which is also an initial step in improving their
ability to accommodate climate change.
Ecological forestry in Moist Forests
In addition to conserving older forests, S.1784 includes two other
key components of ecological forestry for Moist Forests: 1) thinning in
some younger forests to accelerate structural development and 2)
creating structurally-rich openings in some younger, mostly previously-
harvested stands to create early successional conditions and regenerate
Douglas-fir and other tree species.
Thinnings in younger stands in Moist Forests, mostly plantations
that developed after previous harvests, have been the source of most
recent timber harvests from O&C lands. Under S.1784, thinning these
stands can continue to occur across the landscape and they would be an
important source of harvest volume over the next 20 years.
Unfortunately much of the thinning during the past two decades has
contributed little to enhancement of ecological values even on land
allocations where that was the primary intent under the Northwest
Forest Plan. Language in S.1784 will dramatically improve the quality
of future thinning by requiring the use of recent scientific findings
to improve the ecological content of thinning, such as creation of
spatially heterogeneous outcomes.
Thinning opportunities will substantially decline after 15-20
years, as the program progresses through younger stands, with a
resulting sharp reduction in thinning harvests (Tuchman and Davis
2013). Additional problems with the thinning program is that it
produces only modest revenue, requires extensive road systems, and
contributes little to the array of habitats needed to sustain regional
forest biodiversity.
Silvicultural treatments that create significant but structurally
enriched openings in the Moist Forests are necessary to provide high-
quality early successional habitat. The early successional stage, which
occurs between creation of an opening and re-establishment of a closed
stand of trees, is the most biologically diverse condition that occurs
on Moist Forest sites. There are many habitat specialists (e.g., birds
and butterflies) that depend on early successional habitats and even
more species, such as elk and deer, for which it provides critical
resources. Openings need to be large and persistent enough to allow for
full development of the shrub-and herb-dominated communities and
regeneration of the sun-loving Douglas-fir. Both natural and artificial
tree regeneration can be used. The openings also need a significant
legacy of scattered trees, snags, and logs (Figure 1).* Private
landowners cannot be expected to provide this kind of habitat and so
the only place where society can predictably provide for high-quality
early successional habitat is on federal lands--just as in the case of
old-growth forests!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Figure has been retained in committee files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To contribute to the goal of providing structurally-rich openings,
S.1784 calls for variable retention harvesting, a highly flexible
harvesting approach modeled on natural forest disturbances. Extensive
ecological research has shown that natural forest disturbances
typically kill many trees but leave behind large quantities and
varieties of biological legacies from the pre-disturbance stand,
including snags and logs. These legacies are profoundly important in
providing for continuity in biota, habitat, and forest function between
forest generations in contrast to the discontinuity created by
clearcutting.
Variable retention is a harvesting method that emerged over 35
years ago and has exploded into world-wide use in the last 25 years. It
has been extensively tested and shown to produce ecologically favorable
outcomes (Lindenmayer, et al. 2012; Gustafsson, et al. 2012). Variable
retention is a highly flexible approach that can be adapted to an
immense variety of conditions and management objectives.
We favor the use of ``aggregated retention'' in which most of the
retention is in the form of intact forest patches, including areas that
buffer streams and other aquatic features. This type of retention works
best in achieving the very complex goal of both sustaining most forest-
related biota and processes (within the aggregates) while also
providing sufficient openings to provide habitat for species dependent
upon openings, including elk, deer, and Douglas-fir.
These structurally rich openings are not clearcuts.\3\ Labeling
such structurally-rich openings as ``clearcuts'' flies in the face of
scientific terminology and concepts (Lindenmayer, et al 2012;
Gustafsson, et al. 2012). In fact, variable retention as proposed in
S.1784 can achieve the complex goal of both sustaining most forest-
related biota and processes while also providing sufficient openings to
provide habitat for most species that depend upon early successional
conditions, including song birds, butterflies, and elk and deer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ For a visual comparison of clearcutting and variable retention
harvest, see http://fes.forestry.oregonstate.edu/sites/
fes.forestry.oregonstate.edu/files/PDFs/Smith_combined.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, variable retention harvests in Moist Forests as
described here can provide a sustained-yield of timber harvest through
time. In fact, they provide the foundation of sustained yield in
S.1784. Without them, any significant sustained yield from the O&C
lands is not possible.
Despite the evidence we have presented on the broad scientific
basis for variable retention harvests some may still see them as risky
or experimental. Thus, it is important to estimate the extent of these
harvests. Under S.1784, variable retention harvests for a decade are
limited to 8-12% of Moist Forest allocated to sustained yield
management. Given the proportion of the O&C lands in these areas, we
estimate that implementation of S.1784 would result in variable
retention harvest being applied to approximately two percent of the O&C
lands in the first decade.
The landbase available for variable retention harvest includes some
stands 80 to 120 years old. By our estimates, these stands make up less
than 10 percent of the landbase; over 90 percent of the landbase for
variable retention harvest comes from stands that developed after a
previous harvest.
Ecological forestry in Dry Forests
The general management approach to Dry Forest landscapes under
S.1784 primarily utilizes partial cutting to reduce risks from fire,
drought, and insects in the majority of forest stands, while retaining
approximately one-third of the forest landscape in large dense forest
patches to provide habitat for dense-forest dependent species, like
Northern Spotted Owls. Silvicultural prescriptions in the treated
stands are focused on retaining and enhancing the survival of all older
trees (by eliminating neighboring competitors and fuels) and, in the
remainder of the stand, reducing tree density, increasing average tree
size, and shifting composition to more fire-and drought-tolerant
species, such as pines.
Protection of aquatic systems
S. 1784 uses scientifically-credible methodologies to design
riparian buffers, while still achieving the aquatic ecosystem goals of
the Aquatic Conservation Strategy (ACS) of the Northwest Forest Plan
and other ecological goals for these those forests. This design of
riparian buffers is embedded in the continuance of the other components
of the ACS, including recognition of key watersheds and requirements
for watershed analysis.
Interim buffers (aka Riparian Reserves) of two-site potential tree
heights on fish-bearing streams and one-site potential tree height on
non-fish bearing streams occupy almost 40% percent of Matrix under the
Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP). These interim buffers were identified as
part of the NWFP in 1994, with the expectation that subsequently they
would be revised during implementation of the NWFP. With rare
exception, the interim buffers have not been revised (Thomas et al.
2007).
Recently developed science and analytic tools have opened the way
to possible refinement of those buffer sizes. Applying these tools and
science to streams in BLM Matrix, Reeves et al. (2013) concluded that
alternatives exist to the current implementation of the ACS that
reshape and reduce the buffer area needed to meet the goals of the ACS.
One alternative has fixed widths and one has variable widths based on
stream segment features. Both alternatives utilize ``tree tipping'' to
ensure that thinning within buffers does not negatively affect wood
delivery to the stream.\4\ In both approaches most of the NWFP riparian
buffer will be retained, placed where it will make the most significant
contribution to aquatic ecosystem protection. Also, both options limit
harvest to younger stands (stands generally less than or equal to 80
years of age). S.1784 allows the use of both alternatives, with
scientific review guiding the development of variable width buffers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See Reeves, et al. (2013) for detail on the analysis and
alternatives beyond that covered here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Taking a landscape approach
Both Dry and Moist Forest strategies require landscape level
planning and implementation to be successful in achieving their
ecological and economic objectives. S.1784 recognizes this need by
calling for landscape assessments and plans for both Moist Forests and
Dry Forests that will guide the actions for each decade.
In Dry Forest landscapes a comprehensive assessment is needed to
identify the locations of the denser forest patches for Northern
Spotted Owls and other species before restoration treatments are
implemented. One way to accomplish this quickly could be by creating an
inter-agency, inter-disciplinary team of forest and wildlife scientists
and managers, including participants from the US Fish and Wildlife
Service, and providing them with resources and an appropriate time line
for completion.
In Moist Forest landscapes, a comprehensive assessment is needed to
identify the potential locations for variable retention harvest and
thinning activities that would meet the goals of the legislation,
including support of the Northern Spotted Owl recovery plan. This
important and challenging work could best be accomplished over a
relatively short time period by an inter-agency, inter-disciplinary
team of forest and wildlife scientists and managers, including the
important contributions from the US Fish and Wildlife Service and NOAA
Fisheries.
A first estimate of resulting harvest levels
Last fall, Dr. Johnson worked with the BLM to estimate the harvest
levels that would result from full application of S.1784 to the BLM O&C
lands. This work included recognition of the many land allocations and
management strategies recognized in S.1784--a daunting task!\5\ He
could not have made these estimates without the sustained and creative
support of BLM professionals for which he is very thankful.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The language on roads in S.1784 is difficult to understand in
some places. This work assumes that any of these difficulties will be
smoothed, allowing harvest to occur where it has been designated in the
legislation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under full implementation of S.1784, Dr. Johnson concluded that
harvest on BLM forests in western Oregon could equal or exceed 300
million board feet per year for the next 20 years. That harvest would
come from a mixture of variable retention harvests and thinning on
Moist Forests and partial cutting on Dry Forests, with Moist Forests
providing over three-quarters of the total harvest.
The ecological forestry strategies embedded in S.1784 will enable a
sustainable harvest into the distant future. However, Dr. Johnson did
not attempt detailed estimates of that level beyond the first 20 years.
Embracing adaptive management
Ecological forestry provides a broad conceptual basis for adaptive
management based on principles derived from natural forest ecosystems.
Ecological forestry is most certainly not a specific silvicultural
system or prescription but, rather, a commitment to manage using our
best current knowledge about forest ecosystems and how they work.
Insuring that there is the opportunity to practices to evolve as new
knowledge becomes available must be an essential part of any program.
Strong commitments to an adaptive management approach are important
in moving away from stasis and into the kind of complex, integrated
management proposed in S.1784. The legislation contains five-year
reviews by regulatory agencies and 10-year reviews by scientists and
managers but does not include a commitment to an adaptive management
approach within which these reviews can be utilized. The strategy and
tactics of adaptive management can and should be added to the
legislation. That would include both provisions for monitoring and the
ability to modify prescriptions for management based on the results of
the monitoring results and periodic reviews. It would also make
explicit that silvicultural approaches would evolve as our
understanding of these forest ecosystems, their responses to
ecologically-based management, and effects of environmental changes
become apparent. One major focal point for scientific research should
be an expanded understanding of early successional ecosystems and their
role in sustaining regional biological diversity. The portion of the
O&C lands co-managed by the Secretary and Oregon State University as
special management and research areas under the legislation could
provide a focal point for this research and monitoring.
personal reflections
Collectively, we have been at work as foresters for over 100 years.
Much of that time has been focused on charting the course for our
federal forests that would better incorporate and sustain the multiple
values that we all have for them. We took on this work to explore
management options for federal lands, in part because we sensed a
general perception in society and among decision makers that there are
only two alternatives for management of federal forests--either
clearcuts and even-aged management or preserves, perhaps after an
initial period of thinning remaining plantations. In fact, there are
many alternatives to these two extremes, although there are places
where each has application.
S. 1784 utilizes ecological forestry to develop and present a
``third path'' for management of federal lands--one firmly based on
science and directed toward achieving integrated environmental,
economic, and cultural goals. We are pleased to have contributed to its
development.
The Chairman. Dr. Franklin, thank you. We would not be at
this point without the wonderful work you and Norm Johnson did.
We thank you very, very much.
Mr. Miller, you had delays yesterday in the friendly skies,
and so appreciate your coming and your expertise.
STATEMENT OF ANDREW MILLER, PRESIDENT/CEO, STIMSON LUMBER
COMPANY, PORTLAND, OR
Mr. Miller. Thank you, Senator. I appreciate the
opportunity to address you and your committee.
I really want to thank you for taking the bold step to put
this in play and to commit with your colleagues,
Representatives DeFazio, Walden, and other members of your
committee, to reach a resolution now. I think you know as well
as any of us living in Oregon that time really is running out
for these rural communities, and I applaud your willingness to
step into the fray and find a solution that, albeit nobody will
be happy with, but I think that's the essence of good policy in
a bipartisan world, where everybody has to come to the middle
and find a solution which is really best for the people of
Oregon and, particularly, southern rural Oregon.
I've been in this industry for 30-plus years, and I've
watched the comings and goings of markets and policies. Change
is just the nature of our industry, but it's time to just come
together here. My business is not directly affected by this
legislation. My business is principally located in northwest
Oregon and north Idaho. But grown up and raised in Oregon, and
I can see what goes on in these rural communities. That's where
I have lived; that's where I conduct my business.
The folks in rural Oregon deserve the opportunity to go
back to work. The Federal Government is their landlord, and
it's been 20-plus years where these issues have been debated
and studied. Governor Kitzhaber, you know, did a remarkable job
of bringing the parties together for yet another time, and his
O&C Commission.
So, we know that the bookends of these issues and your bill
is an appropriate place to begin the process to finally come to
the middle and do what we need to do for Oregonians. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Miller follows:]
Prepared Statement of Andrew Miller, President/CEO, Stimson Lumber
Company, Portland, OR
Good morning, Chairman Wyden, Ranking Member Murkowski, members of
the Committee. For the record by name is Andrew Miller, President and
CEO of Stimson Lumber Company family-owned company based in Portland,
Oregon.
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before the Committee to
discuss Senator Wyden's S. 1784.
The issues being addressed by S. 1784 are complex and have long
defied resolution to the satisfaction of Oregon's rural communities
which are dying away due to inaction, although the nearly two decade
long debate about management of Oregon and California Grant Lands (O&C
lands), is meeting the environmental organizations' goal of ending
active management on these lands.
We are have arrived at the point where two more decades of debate,
or even two more years, are not an option for many families,
businesses, and communities in Oregon. They do not have that long to
live. Several Southern Oregon Counties are bordering on lawlessness due
to lack of resources to support basic public safety services. Congress
bears responsibility for this dire situation because the Federal
government owns approximately 70% of the land in these Counties and
thus determines the economic and social well-being of these
communities.
Before continuing I would like to take a moment to acknowledge and
thank Senators Wyden, Stabenow, Crapo, Risch, their colleagues is the
House, Representatives Walden, Schrader, Herrera, and others for their
courageous leadership in seeing that vital private forest roads
legislation was included in the just passed Farm Bill.
I use the word ``courageous'' because that is what will be required
to pass O&C legislation which actually works on the ground to bring
stability, certainty, and sustainability to Oregon's rural communities.
The complex web of laws governing management of O&C lands have offered
a treasure trove of opportunity by opponents of active, sustainable
management to use the Federal Courts to systematically block actions
long promised by the Northwest Forest Plan to successfully grind the
harvest level down to virtually nothing today.
It took courage to see that the forest roads legislation made it
into the Farm Bill, as there was strong opposition to it from
environmentalists who wanted to continue to use litigation under the
Clean Water Act to impose new permitting requirements for forest roads
on private lands.
I applaud Senator Wyden for his willingness to step into the
circular firing squad which O&C lands have become, to propose, and I
hope to guide through the Senate, legislation which can be joined with
O&C land legislation already passed in the House, to deliver a solution
which restores hope and opportunity to many Oregonians.
Stimson Lumber is a seven generation family operated company, of
which I am a member, which was founded in Michigan in the 1850's and
began operating in Oregon in the early 1890's when timberlands were
acquired in Northwest Oregon. A mill was built near Forest Grove,
Oregon on the eve of the Depression. Six mills have occupied this site
over the decades reflecting adaptations to changes in timber and wood
products markets, timber type, the impacts of the great Tillamook Burn
fires, technology innovations, environmental regulations, and Federal
Forest management policies.
I have been working in various forestland and mill operations
management positions at Stimson and other companies for 32 years.
Stimson today operates seven mills in Northwest Oregon and North
Idaho employing 750 people. Stimson owns and manages 175,000 acres in
Oregon and 338,000 acres in Panhandle region of Idaho.
We at Stimson are tree farmers who grow a 40-60 year crop. We plan
for and make investments with a two generation mind-set. Stimson's
employees have a deeply held regard and reverence for the forest and
all it provides. They live in and about the forest. It is their home.
There have been tens of thousands, probably hundreds of thousands
written pages of study, testimony, and analysis of the issues involved
in active management of the O&C lands. Here today are individuals with
more experience and knowledge who can speak to legal, forestry, County
impact aspects of S. 1784. Oregon Governor Kitzhaber's O&C Task Force
brought together experts and diverse interests in 2012 to once again
plow the ground of O&C lands. They produced a comprehensive report
detailing the book ends of the issues.
This is now simply a political issues. All the facts are out on the
table for all to see. There is no reason for further study. It is time
for action. Rural Oregonians deserve transparent and honest leadership
from the men and women in this Chamber who hold their fate in their
hands.
I spent years as a dirt forester.
While I may not have the pedigree in forest sciences of others in
this room, or who have contributed to various O&C studies, I have spent
enough years walking around in the forest to know that there is a
potentially large gap between legislative language and results in the
woods.
I also have spent years tangling in court and in state houses with
opponents of timber harvest and public and private lands. Their goal of
zero harvest and tactics of using complex Federal and State laws
achieve their goal through the Courts is clear. It has been for
decades.
Your leadership will be measured not by what is written in
legislation, but what concrete actions transpire from your legislation
in the forest to improve conditions for the communities of rural
Oregon, and the lives of the people who live there.
S. 1784 leaves important questions to be answered. Is the projected
annual harvest of 300-350 million board feet sustainable? The bill
designates one million acres of O&C lands for permanent conservation.
The counterbalance is that this harvest level also be sustained
indefinitely.
Language around the ten-year project Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS) is vague from the standpoint of implementation and truly
streamlining the legal process which has been so artfully used by
opponents of O&C timber harvest to stop, or delay current timber sales.
There are experts in these matters who need to be part of the
legislation drafting process to insure that whatever legislation passes
actually works for Oregonians, and is not just another kick in the gut
to people already doubled over by current Federal practices.
I have concerns, as do many private forestland owners in Oregon,
that conservation measures contained in S. 1748, especially those
dealing with aquatic resources, which exceed those in place under the
Oregon Forest Practices Act governing conservation practices on private
forestlands, could result in the ``Federalization'' of private forest
practices regulations in Oregon. I ask that S. 1784 make clear that
conservation measures to be applied to O&C lands are unique to those
lands, and in no way are intended to impinge on State regulations, or
rulemaking processes governing private forestlands.
In closing I would like to again thank Senator Wyden for stepping
into fray on this very contentious, yet vital issue, to many rural
Oregonians.
Few are entirely happy with S. 1784. This is a process. We all know
it. We simply have to persevere. The perfect cannot be the undoing of
the good. The pieces of a good, but not perfect solution, to provide
sustainability, certainty, opportunity, and hope for rural Oregonians
are right in front of us. From industry side I believe there is solid
support for a final bill which reflects elements of S. 1784 and the
House passed O&C bill. The question is whether the environmental
opposition side really wants a solution, or simply wants to continue
the political debate and legal joisting to run out the clock on rural
Oregon.
Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you. What's striking about this is that
we won a major victory in the Farm Bill. That dealt with the
private lands. As you know, that was so important because we
would have seen a lot of our private landowners subjected to
every manner of litigation, had we not cleared that up. So
we've got one down. Now we have two others that I think we can
get done in this session, the O&C Bill and the fire prevention
effort that Senators Crapo and Risch and I have been talking
about.
It's just going to take the kind of stakeholders that are
here today. The fact that on short notice you'd fly across the
country to weigh in from private forestry is very, very
helpful.
Mr. Miller. I would like to thank you and your colleagues
for the tremendous lift on the forest roads legislation in the
Farm Bill. I know a lot of work went into that, and there were
a lot of folks on the other side of the issue that did not want
to see that in the final bill. That's the kind of thing that we
need. I mean, that type of stability and certainty is what
gives private industry the confidence to hire, to invest, to
plan.
You know, we're in a business where we plan 40, 50, 60
years in the future in our investments. When Government policy
is coming and going, and when very, very smart and well-funded
folks use our legal system--and many of these folks don't live
in these communities; they live in swanky places, and they fund
activities that derail life for people in our rural
communities--I think that's just intolerable.
I thank you for bringing a certainty around some of the
really critical issue on forest roads. I believe you and your
colleagues will be able to do the same with the O&C
legislation.
The Chairman. I have plenty of questions for this panel,
but I know my colleague has got to get out the door very
quickly. I have had a tradition, and especially if this is the
last hearing, I don't want to break it. Would you like to say
anything at this point, there for a last word for you?
Senator Murkowski. Mr. Chairman, just a thank-you, too, to
the panelists. I think the perspective that they have to share
today is important. As has been noted, this is not easy stuff.
What you have been able to advance today has certainly moved
the conversation forward in a way that is important, not only
to the residents of your State, but really as we're talking
about forestry management in general around the country.
So, just a thank you to each of you. See you down the road,
my friend.
The Chairman. Count on it. Count on it.
I think it's also worth noting, apropos of Senator
Murkowski's point that, even when you pass legislation, the
conversations continue. As Mr. Miller and environmental folks
and I have talked about, we're going to have plenty of
discussions with respect to, you know, private lands in our
State and bringing together forest products folks and
environmentalists and scientists and others.
But now, Oregonians have a chance to make judgments about
those issues, rather than having them dictated by courts from
afar. So the point's well taken, Mr. Miller.
So, Mr. Matz, welcome.
STATEMENT OF MIKE MATZ, DIRECTOR, U.S. PUBLIC LANDS, THE PEW
CHARITABLE TRUSTS
Mr. Matz. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. So, yes, my name is
Mike Matz. I'm Director of U.S. Public Lands at the Pew
Charitable Trusts. It's an honor to appear before you in what
may be your last hearing in that particular seat. We appreciate
the opportunity to share views.
The Chairman. It's starting to sound a little funereal.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Matz. The good thing is that you're just moving over
one.
The Chairman. I have 3 children 6 or under. I don't want
them to hear about all this.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Matz. Finding a balance between land production and
resource development is not an easy task, as Senator Murkowski
just mentioned. There's oftentimes a tendency to revert to
entrenched roles with some who want no development and others
who want no protection.
We strive to work together to find reasonable resolutions
to these conflicts. It doesn't mean everybody gets everything
they want. But each side can get much of what's important to
them. It can result in a win/win situation. Mr. Chairman, we
believe you're well along the path toward achieving that kind
of balance.
So, to begin my specific remarks on the bill, I'd like to
start with what we see as the clear benefits. One of the most
important is the recognition of the need to protect water
quality. More than 1.8 million local residents get their
drinking water from watersheds in the O&C lands.
With the establishment of the Ford drinking water, special
management units, and nearly 165 miles of Wild and Scenic
Rivers, and by legislating the Northwest Forest Plan's key
watersheds and riparian reserves in its aquatic conservation
strategy, the bill protects drinking water and saves wild
salmon and steelhead habitat. The commendable attention paid to
water quality is one of the bill's signature features.
The land designations included in the bill are also quite
impressive. The bill safeguards parts of this majestic
landscape for future generations with two new wilderness areas,
the Devil's Staircase and the Wild Rogue, and two new national
recreational areas. The special environmental zones and the
Illinois Valley botanical and salmon special unit are examples
of the care given to the little biological gems.
These enhancements, and the management prescriptions for
the ancient forests that grace this part of the country,
account for about 1 million acres on the conservation side of
the ledger.
One other aspect of this bill we think highly beneficial is
the assistance it provides to O&C counties. It's not a panacea,
and local political leaders will still need to address fiscal
issues and find other sources of revenue. But doubling timber
harvests, as BLM modeling projects, in the ecologically
sensitive manner called for in the bill, and providing a steady
stream of revenue, does help these counties stave off draconian
cuts in services that affect everything from law enforcement to
libraries. It will also sustain and create resource-dependent
jobs for the people who live there.
In the end, creating opportunity for local residents of
southwestern Oregon and improving the quality of their lives is
important to us, just as protecting water quality and
conserving forests are.
I would like to mention a couple of provisions that we
think should be improved as the bill moves forward. We
understand that crafting legislation as complex as this is a
fluid process and that you haven't finished fine-tuning it.
The first area we believe needs to be improved is the way
the bill relates to the Endangered Species Act, bedrock
environmental law enacted 40 years ago this year. Changes to
ESA requirements and procedures aren't necessary to achieve the
goals on the timber production side of the ledger. We
appreciate your stated intent that you don't want to undermine
compliance with ESA or its regulations. We believe minor edits
would address our concerns and align the legislation with your
intent.
The second issue involves the National Environmental Policy
Act. We understand the desire to provide stability to
communities and their finances, and certainty to industry in
business decisions, so their business decisions can be planned
and implemented. We support those goals.
By requiring more environmental analysis up front, as well
as increasing timelines for objections to be heard, the bill
can achieve more certainty and stability, and more
participation on the part of the public, whose lands these are.
So last, Mr. Chairman, we would like to see some additional
wilderness protections included in the bill for the backcountry
of the Kalmiopsis, the North Umpqua River, Mt. Hebo, and a few
other places. They have important fish and wildlife habitat and
recreational values, and designating them as wilderness
wouldn't detract from the available timber supply.
Mr. Chairman, it's been a real pleasure and a privilege to
work with you on this issue, you and your staff. We look
forward to continuing that work together when you move over to
that next seat. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Matz follows:]
Prepared Statement of Mike Matz, Director, U.S. Public Lands, The Pew
Charitable Trusts
I wish to thank you, Chairman Wyden, Senator Murkowski and members
of the Committee for the opportunity to testify today regarding the
Oregon and California Land Grant Act of 2013. Chairman Wyden, we
appreciate your leadership on this important issue for the State of
Oregon.
My name is Mike Matz and I am the Director of U.S. Public Lands at
The Pew Charitable Trusts. Our U.S. public lands work is focused on
achieving lasting protection for threatened wild lands. We proactively
work to preserve some of the nation's last, best wild places in three
ways:
1. Secure new legislatively protected designations for
special areas on federal public lands across the country as a
part of the National Wilderness Preservation System;
2. Secure legislative or administrative protection for other
ecologically important areas as national monuments, national
conservation areas or national recreation areas; and
3. Secure enhanced protection for critical ecological gems on
Bureau of Land Management holdings through administrative
procedures.
To conduct this work we partner with local wilderness organizations
across the country to provide expertise in campaign planning and
implementation. We are currently working with over 20 local groups in
12 states on 24 separate wilderness bills that are before Congress.
We engage in campaigns where we believe our expertise and efforts
can help bring about balanced protections for the lands for which we
care deeply, and needed stability for the local communities whose
residents often depend on the natural resources around them for their
livelihoods. We don't shy away from complex, or ``tricky,'' issues. We
have found that by talking these matters through with stakeholders,
asking questions, and throwing out ideas, you can often find solutions
where it was assumed none existed. We've discovered that one can
simultaneously protect many thousands of acres of ecologically
important wild lands while providing some economic stability for local
communities and certainty for resource-based businesses.
It was with this balanced approach that we engaged in the Oregon
and California Lands issue over a year ago. We are working with
conservation partners--both local and national--as well as local
business owners to ensure that any agreed-upon solution is balanced,
protects water resources and sensitive old-growth habitat in western
Oregon, and promotes the regional economy.
o&c lands background
Nestled throughout western Oregon are 2.8 million acres of federal
lands--commonly referred to as O&C lands--rich with biodiversity and
fraught with management challenges. These lands are some of the most
unique landscapes in the world, harboring many distinct plant
communities--temperate rain forests, ancient conifer forests, oak
forests, and savannas--which include more than 300 plant species found
nowhere else on Earth and which provide a home to a variety of
endangered species, including wild salmon, steelhead, spotted owls, and
marbled murrelets. At the same time, the ancient trees that once graced
these lands were the economic backbone of many rural communities, and
as such, for decades these lands have fallen into the all-too-familiar
debate between species protection and timber production.
In 1866, Congress established a land-grant program to the Oregon &
California (O&C) Railroad Company for the completion of the rail line
between Portland and San Francisco. The grant required the company to
sell the deeded land to settlers to promote economic prosperity. Forty
years later, when the company failed to fully meet the terms of the
agreement, the federal government reclaimed the remaining unsold lands.
The lands are currently managed under the 1937 Oregon and California
Revested Lands Sustained Yield Management Act (O&C Act of 1937) that
reclaimed these mostly forested lands. As such, these lands are unique
in the country--their management structure is based on a combination of
the O&C Act of 1937 and the Northwest Forest Plan.
Prior to the development of the Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP) in
1994, timber production from O&C lands annually generated large amounts
of revenues for the so-called O&C counties. Counties became dependent
upon this revenue source and when it became clear that application of
the NWFP would result in significantly less timber revenues for these
counties, a short-term legislative ``fix'' was crafted as a
transitional funding source to ease the financial pain to counties as
they adjusted local tax policy and made other economic changes. Most
counties did not make the necessary budget changes, hoping instead for
further timber revenues, and Oregon's tax structure made certain tax
changes more difficult for these counties. As a result, many O&C
counties have found themselves in financial trouble, with some likely
to go insolvent in the next year if additional funding is not secured.
Through the late 1980s, during the height of logging in the Pacific
Northwest, intensive cutting liquidated many vulnerable and
ecologically valuable stands of old-growth habitat on O&C lands. Yet
despite decades of timber harvest, the 2.8 million acres still harbor
some of the best old-growth habitat in the western United States.
moving forward on o&c
For decades the appropriate management regime for these lands has
been debated. But the continued fighting has left rural communities in
disarray, timber production uncertain and protections of our clean
drinking water and precious landscapes at the whim of federal courts.
It is time to find a solution to this decades-long issue and move
forward--to find more certainty for all sides.
Mr. Chairman, we believe that your bill, S.1784, the Oregon and
California Land Grant Act of 2013, is a step in the right direction in
finding a balanced solution. We appreciate the leadership you have
undertaken regarding this issue. With some important adjustments--such
as clarifications and modifications to sections of the bill related to
the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA)--this bill would protect some of the most unique landscapes and
river resources in western Oregon while at the same time providing a
more certain source of timber production than the status quo. In fact,
it doubles the current timber production on these lands.
Engaging some of the original authors of the Northwest Forest
Plan--Dr. K. Norman Johnson, of Oregon State University, College of
Forestry, and Dr. Jerry F. Franklin, of the University of Washington,
College of Forest Resources--to craft the timber management provisions
in the bill has helped to ensure that your bill's approach is
thoughtful and scientific. The important effort made to reach out to
the conservation community and other stakeholders to discuss the
important ecological components of the landscape and the rivers that
flow through these forests has ensured a vast array of conservation
protections for some key areas in the O&C landscape.
conservation protections
In particular, Pew would like to highlight just a few of the
important conservation protections that S. 1784 provides.
1. Wild Rogue and Devil's Staircase Wilderness Areas.--Title
III of S. 1784 sets out the protection of two of the region's
most important wild areas, the Rogue and Devil's Staircase. We
appreciate the work your office has done to continue to move
these protections and look forward to the full Committee's
support for these provisions.
2. Rogue and Molalla National Recreation Areas.--Sections 106
and 107 provide protection for two notable river systems in
Oregon, the Rogue River and the Molalla River, respectively.
These areas, while important ecologically, also provide
important recreational and economic opportunities in the state.
The protection of these places as National Recreation Areas
illustrates the point that protecting the environment is also
beneficial for the economic bottom line.
3. Wild and Scenic River Protections.--Titles I and III
designate almost 180 miles of wild and scenic river. These
rivers are the bloodlines of Western Oregon, providing clean
drinking water to more than 1.8 million Oregonians in rural and
urban communities and the habitat necessary to protect and
restore Oregon's fabled wild salmon populations.
4. Legacy Old Growth Protection Network.--Section 102
legislates the protection of old growth forests on O&C lands.
Preserving the remaining stands of old-growth forests on
federal lands in the Northwest has long been recognized as
essential to the long-term health of the forests and the plants
and animals that depend on them for survival. Protecting these
ancient forests on O&C lands ensures that these invaluable
trees continue to play an important role in producing clean
water, absorbing carbon, and providing refuge for flora and
fauna alike.
5. Primitive Backcountry Areas.--In Section 115, the bill
identifies six Primitive Backcountry Areas--Grizzly Peak,
Dakubetede, Wellington Wildlands, Mungers Butte, Brumitt Fir,
and Crab-tree Valley--all of which contain large swatches of
land identified by the Bureau of Land Management as lands with
wilderness characteristics. These areas are respites for
hunters and anglers alike, as well as important for plant and
wildlife species. While we believe at least some of these areas
could and should be protected as wilderness, we appreciate the
current designations and look forward to working with your
staff on refinements.
6. Special Environmental Zones.--The O&C lands include more
than 80,000 acres identified by the Bureau of Land Management
and citizens as ``Areas of Critical Environmental Concern''--
habitats, resources, or landscapes in need of special
management. These ecologically important locations, found in
approximately 133 places, are scattered throughout western
Oregon. They range in size from the 1,700-acre Bobby Creek
Research Natural Area, with its rare plants and endangered
stands of Port Orford cedar, to a 10-acre tract of land that is
home to the northernmost grove of rare Baker cypress. The
Valley of the Giants, a 1,300-acre tract in the central Oregon
Coast Range, is valued for its scenic beauty, its fish and
wildlife habitat, and as an example of a healthy, ancient-
forest ecosystem. These are truly some of the most unique acres
in the O&C landscape and we support and appreciate their
protection as designated under Section 116.
7. Illinois Valley Salmon and Botanical Area Special
Management Unit.--The Illinois River Valley in southern Oregon
is renowned for its remarkable salmon runs and it spectacular
and truly unique botanical resources. Visitors from around the
globe come to fish these waters and to admire the beauty of
this valley. Section 113 ensures the protection of these
resources for future generations.
8. Drinking Water Special Management Units.--Sections 108
through 111 identify four special areas--McKenzie, Hillsboro,
Clackamas, and Springfield/Eugene--dedicated to the protection
of clean drinking water for various communities. The rivers
that run through the O&C lands produce clean drinking water for
more than 1.8 million Oregonians, and the protection of these
key areas from contamination is both imperative to retain the
high quality of clean drinking water available in the state
while at the same time reducing secondary filtration costs
otherwise necessary for delivering safe and affordable potable
water to citizens across the state.
9. Riparian Reserves & Watershed Protections.--The Northwest
Forest Plan's (NWFP's) Aquatic Conservation Strategy (ACS) has
proven to be one of the most effective management strategies on
federal lands. This provision has ensured the protection and
restoration of aquatic resources throughout the Northwest. We
are pleased that S.1784 legislates the ACS's goals and
objectives of the NWFP, protects Key Watersheds, and applies
the NWFP's current riparian reserves on approximately two-
thirds of the O&C landscape. This approach is critical for
clean drinking water resources, and protections for wild
salmon.
We commend you for including these provisions and others I have not
specifically listed above (including the expansion of the Cascade-
Siskiyou National Monument, the protection of the Pacific Coast Trail,
and the protection of critical habitat for fish and wildlife). These
protections are essential to the balance we believe the bill's
framework exhibits.
We know getting this far was not easy and we appreciate the time,
dedication and leadership you have shown to craft a bill around these
conservation pillars.
areas of improvement
As you know, we are continuing to work with you and your staff on
several areas that we believe could use clarification, refinement, and
improvement. In particular, I'd like to highlight five sections where
changes would make this legislation a better policy prescription for
these O&C lands:
1. Endangered Species Act Protections.--We understand your
stated intent when advancing this bill was to refrain from
undermining key provisions of the Endangered Species Act (ESA).
As you well know, the ESA, while often touted as a litigation
roadblock to timber production in Oregon, does not in fact hold
up timber production in the courts. Litigation limiting timber
sales in Oregon is found under other federal law claims, but
not under ESA legal claims. Changes to the ESA are not
necessary to move more timber from our public lands and to
revise ESA procedures based on mistaken assumptions about the
law would be unsound public policy. As currently written, we
have some concerns in this regard, but appreciate the effort
you and your staff are making to ensure that the bill does not
undermine this important federal environmental law.
2. National Environmental Policy Act.--The National
Environmental Policy Act ensures that federal agencies follow
appropriate procedures to ensure the protection of our natural
resources while at the same time ensuring that policy makers
and the public are fully aware the potential environmental
impacts of agency actions. This law has been instrumental in
allowing public oversight of federal actions.
We also understand the desire to apply this law in a way that
ensures clarity without undermining the basic tenants of the
law. There are several clarifications and changes we have
suggested to achieve this balance and are working closely with
your staff to work through potential changes. In particular, we
believe that there is a way to ensure that there is more
information analyzed and assessed upfront in the agency
decision-making process so that actions can move forward with
more certainty once decisions are indeed made. This would also
give the public more information at the start to understand the
implications of the agency decisions. We believe this type of
approach will provide the certainty the timber industry is
seeking while at the same time ensuring the proper level of
assessment of the environmental impacts of any future timber
sales.
3. Monitoring and Evaluation.--As we stated, we appreciate
the scientific approach you have taken in this bill by bringing
together some of the leading forestry experts in the region to
help guide the management strategies identified in this bill.
At the same time, these are new approaches and new scientific
ideas. We urge you to include a provision in the bill to
provide for robust monitoring and evaluation of the proposed
timber management regime, and its impact on water quality and
fish and wildlife. The provision we suggest would require
annual monitoring, analyses after the first five years and each
five years after that, and an ability to adaptively manage and
change course if the science illustrates that the path laid out
in the bill is indeed having impacts--positive or negative--
that were not anticipated at this stage.
4. Land Consolidation.--Section 117 of the bill includes a
land ownership consolidation provision. Pew supports the
general concept. We believe that consolidating the checker-
board of O&C lands could have positive impacts for fish and
wildlife in the region. At the same time, the language in this
section as introduced appears to provide an incentive to sell
or trade public lands without assurance that such a sale would
indeed promote important conservative objectives.
5. Additional Wilderness Opportunities.--Six large blocks of
contiguous O&C land--both BLM managed lands specifically
addressed under S.1784 and Forest Service managed lands, not
currently addressed under this bill--are excellent candidates
for federal wilderness protection: Rogue River Canyon, Devil's
Staircase, Mt. Hebo, McKenzie River headwaters, Kalmiopsis
backcountry, and North Umpqua River wilderness. While S.1784
sets forth wilderness protection for two of these areas, the
Wild Rogue and Devil's Staircase, these four other areas are
also worthy of wilderness designation. These areas cover both
O&C and adjacent inventoried roadless areas--public lands
managed by the U.S. Forest Service and under a policy limiting
road construction and the resulting environmental impact.
Ancient forests and rare flowers, as well as bears, cougars,
eagles, wild salmon, and threatened and endangered species make
their homes in these places. The checkerboard land ownership
patterns may complicate management, but these lands have
outstanding wild character. They deserve to be safeguarded for
future generations and granted special protection by the
federal government. Attached to this testimony, and released
today, is a list of more than 50 local businesses which also
support the protection of these areas. We urge you to consider
the protection of these special places in S.1784 as well.
conclusion
On behalf of The Pew Charitable Trusts, I want to thank you for the
opportunity to come before you today to voice our views on S.1784. We
are committed to continuing to work with you and the Committee to
ensure we achieve a final bill that incorporates values we all hold
dear--the protection of our natural environment and the economic
vitality of rural communities in Oregon.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. Matz. Without making
this a bouquet-tossing contest, the expertise that you all have
on environmental issues has been absolutely invaluable in terms
of trying to address these issues.
I think everybody knows that I have made protecting
Oregon's treasures one of my priorities on my watch in the
Senate. When the President that was sworn in in 2009, we got
those big batch of bills passed. Mr. Stevens, I think his
organization remembers that the Mt. Hood and the Badlands and
the copper salmon and southern Oregon treasures, I mean, that
was really, in my view, one of the moments in public service
that I will always remember.
So we will be working very closely with you. I think it's
fair to say that what Oregonians want is they want us to find a
path to ensure that people in rural communities can make a
living and make sure that we protect our treasures. I'm just
not going to buy that these are mutually exclusive. The fact
that you all have been willing to reject what I call the
tyranny of the extremes has been hugely helpful.
Mr. Robertson, welcome. I'm going to be in your hometown
for a town meeting on Saturday afternoon, so you can give me a
little bit of a preview now. We appreciate your being here.
STATEMENT OF DOUG ROBERTSON, COMMISSIONER, ON BEHALF OF THE
ASSOCIATION OF O&C COUNTIES
Mr. Robertson. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. My name
is Doug Robertson. I'm a county commissioner in Douglas County,
Oregon, and also President of the Association of O&C Counties.
As you know, Mr. Chairman, but I think it's important to
emphasize, the O&C lands exist only in the State of Oregon.
There are no O&C lands in any other State. The lands were part
of a grant in the late 1800s to the Oregon California Railroad
Company. The railroad was built, completed in 1887, but the
terms of the grant were violated. So after decades in private
ownership, and at the urging of Oregon citizens and local
governments, the lands were taken back by the United States in
1916 with the intent that they be re-conveyed back into private
ownership as rapidly as possible.
The policy of disposal of the lands was unsuccessful and
ended with the passage of the O&C Act of 1937, which is still
on the books today.
The O&C Act directed that the grant lands remaining in
Federal ownership in 1937 be retained and managed primarily for
timber production and the principles of sustained yield to
produce revenue for local governments and to provide a stable
source of timber supply in perpetuity. The O&C lands are unlike
any other Federal lands. They are unique historically, legally,
and physically. They are not national forests, and their
management mandate is not multiple-use.
The United States followed the intent of the O&C Act
closely for 50 years, but not so on in the last 20 years. The
O&C lands are capable of producing 1.2 billion feet of wood
fiber every year. But over the last 20 years, because of many
factors, harvest levels and revenue generation have declined by
almost 90 percent. The consequences of these declines are more
than just numbers. It's the people who pay the price.
While counties teeter on the brink of insolvency and
chronic unemployment remains well above the national average,
the social ills of substance abuse, gambling addiction,
homelessness, and a spike in property crimes continues to rise.
Senator Wyden, your bill is an attempt to restore some
semblance of rational management to the O&C lands, and we
certainly applaud your efforts. While we are not ready to take
a position on the bill at this time, it appears that the volume
generated would only be available for 10 to 20 years, not on a
sustainable basis, and that revenue generation was not a goal
of the bill at all. Governor Kitzhaber has set in motion a
process for objectively analyzing the bill to independently
assess the sustainable levels of timber harvest and revenues it
would produce.
Meanwhile, there are more questions. What about legal
certainty? It should be noted that, just 2 weeks ago,
environmental organizations filed litigation challenging the
White Castle pilot project. The pilot project, sponsored by
former Secretary of Interior Ken Salazar, that uses the same
ecological forestry methods that form the basis of this bill.
We applaud you, Senator Wyden, for the initial efforts to
streamline procedural requirements pertaining to the
environmental impact statements and the National Environmental
Policy Act. We fear, however, that improvements in this area
might be more than offset by loopholes in new substantive
requirements in other sections of the bill.
In September of last year, with the support and sponsorship
of Congressmen DeFazio, Walden, and Schrader, the House of
Representatives passed the O&C Trust Conservation Jobs Act,
which the Association of O&C Counties strongly supports. It is
our hope that your committee will come together in conference
with the House delegation and incorporate the best elements
from each of these pieces of legislation into a bill that
provides the legal certainty, the harvest levels, revenue
generation, and environmental safeguards that all stakeholders
can accept.
Finally, Senator Wyden, those of us who live in the
counties that are impacted by these lands, we can't change our
geography. We live where we live. It happens that we live among
some of the most productive and valuable low-elevation
timberlands in the world. Yet, with all that potential, because
of a maze of Federal rules, restrictions, regulations, and
requirements, these lands are not and cannot be managed for
their stated purposes.
BLM land managers don't manage these lands anymore. They
manage paper, process, and litigation. That is of no benefit to
the Federal Government, to the counties, to our economies, or
the environment. It simply must change. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Robertson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Doug Robertson, Commissioner, on Behalf of the
Association of O&C Counties
Mr. Chairperson, Ranking Member and Members of the Committee:
My name is Doug Robertson. I am a County Commissioner from Douglas
County, Oregon, and am President of the Association of O&C Counties.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today concerning Senator
Wyden's proposed Oregon and California Grant Lands Act.
This bill addresses management of about 2.1 million acres of land
in 18 counties in Western Oregon. A quarter of these lands are
scattered across my County, the rest are spread out in a checkerboard
pattern across the other 17 counties western Oregon. In spite of the
name, the O&C lands exist only in Oregon and nowhere else.
The lands were part of a grant in the late 1800s to the Oregon and
California Railroad Company, in exchange for construction of a rail
line from the Columbia River to the California border. The grant was
for alternating sections of land on both sides of the rail line, in a
checkerboard pattern, which the railroad company was supposed to resell
in 160-acre parcels to actual settlers for no more than $2.50 per acre.
The railroad was built but the terms of the grant were violated, so
after decades in private ownership and at the urging of Oregon's
citizens and local governments, the lands were taken back by the United
States in 1916, with the intent they be reconveyed back into private
ownership as rapidly as possible. The policy of disposal of the lands
was ended with passage of the O&C Act of 1937, which is still on the
books today. The O&C Act directed that the grant lands remaining in
federal ownership in 1937 be retained and managed primarily for timber
production under principles of sustained yield to produce revenue for
local governments and to provide a stable source of timber supply, in
perpetuity. The O&C lands are unique, and their statutory mandate is
unique. On the O&C lands, the law provides for one dominant use---
timber production---very unlike the multiple use mandates applicable to
National Forests and most other federal lands.
The United States followed the intent of the O&C Act closely for 50
years, but not so much for the last 20 years. The O&C lands are capable
of producing 1.2 billion board feet of timber on a sustained yield
basis, forever, but over the last 20 years harvest levels have declined
by almost 90 percent, to less than 200 million board feet per year. The
generation of revenue for local governments, which was the primary
objective of the O&C Act, likewise shrank by almost 90 percent, a loss
that would have bankrupted many O&C counties had Congress not
intervened repeatedly to provide assistance as part of the temporary
Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act program. The
consequences of these declines are more than just the numbers that
measure them. It is the people who pay the price. While counties teeter
on the brink of insolvency, the last of the mills in some areas
continue to close for lack of raw materials, contributing to
unemployment that is chronically well above the national average, and
the populace nears the end of the painful slide into the swamp of
poverty, with all the attendant social ills that plague broken
communities. And of course, the great irony is that the forests
``saved'' from timber harvest by the environmental movement are burning
up all around us every summer. In my County alone last summer, wildfire
destroyed over 50,000 acres of valuable timberland, an economic loss,
to be sure, but also a great loss to the environment. The federal
system for managing these lands is in desperate need of repair or
replacement.
Senator Wyden's bill is an attempt to restore some semblance of
rational management to the O&C lands. We applaud the Senator's
intentions. Unfortunately, I fear the bill will do less than intended,
and not nearly enough for local communities, considering what these
lands are capable of producing. We are not yet in a position to judge
what the bill would do, because it has not been properly analyzed.
Governor Kitzhaber has set in motion a process for objectively
analyzing the bill, to independently assess the sustainable levels of
timber harvest and revenues it would produce, but that effort has been
delayed by the BLM, which has been very slow to respond to requests for
the information necessary for the Governor's experts to proceed with
their analysis. We have been told that the Governor's experts will not
have results until mid to late March.
Meanwhile, we are left with more questions than answers:
How much timber would be made available on a sustainable basis?
One estimate heard is about 330 million board feet per year, but
preliminary information suggests that would only be for 10 to 20 years,
after which the harvest level would drop substantially, perhaps by as
much as 50 percent. The Counties believe that 500 million board feet
per year on a sustained yield basis is the minimum acceptable,
considering that amount is less than half of the amount of new growth
added by the timber on these lands each year.
How much revenue would be produced to share with Counties?
Senator Wyden's staff told the Counties that no revenue projections
were made by them or for them, and generating revenue was not a goal of
the bill. I must report that the Counties were chagrined to hear that
County revenue concerns were not a factor in the design of the bill
that is before you today. When the Governor's revenue analysis is
available, we will know better if the bill is worthy of our support.
How certain is it that the bill would reduce litigation that has been
obstructing rational management?
Even if the bill were projected under ideal conditions to produce
adequate harvests and revenues, would appeals and litigation prevent
achieving the intended results? It should be noted that just 10 days
ago environmental organizations filed litigation challenging the White
Castle pilot project that uses the same ecological forestry methods
that form the basis for S.1784, which is a clear indication that the
litigation onslaught will continue as long as it is allowed to
continue. We applaud Senator Wyden for his initial efforts to
streamline procedural requirements by the creation of a programmatic
EIS and partially limiting the NEPA requirements for individual
projects. We fear, however, that improvements in that one area might be
more than offset by loopholes and new substantive requirements. We hope
that Senator Wyden will be willing in the coming weeks to discuss
possible ways to increase the certainty of achieving the outcomes
intended by his bill.
The Association of O&C Counties remains supportive of the
bipartisan O&C Trust, Conservation and Jobs Act sponsored by
Congressmen DeFazio, Walden and Schrader, which was passed by the House
of Representatives in September. There are some broad, common themes
underlying it and Senator Wyden's proposal. It is our hope that Senator
Wyden and others from this body will work with Congressmen DeFazio,
Walden and Schrader to identify the best parts of each proposal,
blending them to produce a combined bill that earns widespread support
in Congress as well as the support of those of us who live and work
among the O&C lands.
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Robertson. I think you saw
when Congressman DeFazio was here, and from the constructive
tone of his comments, that our delegation is very much
determined to make these kinds of changes. We will look forward
to following up with you.
Mr. Stevens, welcome.
STATEMENT OF SEAN STEVENS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, OREGON WILD
Mr. Stevens. Thank you, Chairman Wyden, for the opportunity
to testify today. My name is Sean Stevens. I'm the Executive
Director of Oregon Wild. We're a conservation organization
representing over 13,000 members and supporters. This year in
2014, we celebrate 40 years of protecting and restoring
Oregon's wild lands, wildlife, and waters.
Over the past two decades, we've worked closely with
Chairman Wyden and his staff on important environmental
policies for Oregon. With the chairman's leadership, we work
together to protect more of Mt. Hood and the Columbia Gorge as
wilderness, as the Senator mentioned, and joined with the
chairman's staff and the logging industry to negotiate the
compromised Oregon East Side Forest Restoration Old Growth
Protection and Jobs Act of 2009.
Oregon Wild has sought to balance the protection of
Oregon's special places with science-based management that
benefits the environment and sustains rural communities. It is
from this perspective of this appreciation for our past work
together that we must oppose S. 1784. The vast majority of
local and national conservation organizations are similarly
opposed and have sent letters to this effect.
S. 1784 seeks to re-link funding for 18 Oregon counties to
aggressive logging of publicly owned Bureau of Land Management
lands in western Oregon. The bill would dramatically weaken
President Clinton's historic 1994 Northwest Forest Plan and
significantly undermine Federal environmental laws, such as the
Endangered Species Act and the National Environmental Policy
Act.
In one sense, S. 1784 was drafted with the best of
intentions, attempting to keep county governments in Oregon
from going bankrupt. No one wants to see public services in
rural Oregon disappear. However, while we face these budget
challenges in real time, we must not forget how we got here.
For decades, the BLM and forest service operated as if their
only mission were to clear-cut public lands. It took a
tremendous outpouring of public demand to reform the agencies
to ensure wildlife, wild salmon, clean water, and clean air
received equal priority to logging, as the law then and today
requires.
Had Oregon not clear-cut nearly 90 percent of our ancient
forests, pushed numerous wild salmon runs to the brink of
extinction, and muddied clean drinking water through excessive
logging, we may have faced a much different world today. The
O&C Land Act of 2013, had it been written and passed in 1984,
could have been a sane alternative to the destruction that
occurred.
But this isn't 1984, and we cannot ignore the huge mistakes
of the past. We must chart a path forward that repairs the
damage to our forests, not a path that makes it worse.
Chairman Wyden, you were right when you worked to pass the
Secure Rural Schools Act and de-linked logging on public lands
from funding for county services. At the time, you said in The
Oregonian, ``The new relationship between the counties and the
Federal Government means that the twenty-first century
relationship is not just going to be about cutting trees.''
That statement is as wise today as it was 14 years ago. It
makes no sense to fund local county governments, counties that
have some of the lowest local tax rates in the Nation, by
logging public lands that belong to all Americans.
When we see our forests as national resources to steward
rather than simply as piggybanks, amazing things happen. Oregon
Wild has seen it on the ground. While we are often accused of
being so, we are not anti-logging. For nearly two decades, we
have worked alongside the forest service, timber companies, and
other local stakeholders to push collaborative forest
restoration. We've heard it from both the forest service and
BLM earlier how they're working in collaboratives.
We worked in the Siuslaw National Forest. Because of our
work there restoring forests and sending trees to the mills,
we've twice been recognized with the Two Chiefs Award from the
forest service and NRCS.
Still, we should be clear-eyed. In 2014, logging is no
longer the driver of Oregon's economy, even its rural economy.
Last year, Oregon ranked third in the Nation in job growth,
thanks to a thriving high-tech industry and our tourism and
outdoor recreation economy. Oregon's quality of life, our
forests, rivers, and mountains, are integral to that success,
bringing new people and new investment to our State.
Chairman Wyden, while the goal of your legislation is
laudable, it puts Oregon's economic and environmental future at
risk in an attempt to resurrect the economy of the 1980s. As
you wisely pointed out more than a decade ago, funding budgets
by aggressively logging public lands is a failed model.
We can and should find a balance between active management
and preservation. We appreciate your efforts to write into this
legislation protection for some of our oldest forests and
wilderness gems. However, during the last century, the scales
have tipped so far toward harmful logging that in the future,
we must create balance by restoring lands we have mismanaged
and protecting other natural resource values that will drive
Oregon's future.
Will this cautious, sensible approach we recommend result
in a massive bailout check for county politicians? No, it will
not. Will it preserve Oregon's environmental values and pass on
a natural legacy to future generations? Yes, it will. That's
the balance that we need today.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Stevens follows:]
Prepared Statement of Sean Stevens, Executive Director, Oregon Wild
Thank you to Chairman Wyden and the members of the committee for
the opportunity to testify today on the O&C Land Grant Act of 2013.
My name is Sean Stevens, and I am the executive director of Oregon
Wild, a conservation organization representing over 13,000 members and
supporters. In 2014 we celebrate 40 years of protecting and restoring
Oregon's wildlands, wildlife, and waters.
Over the last two decades we have worked closely with Chairman
Wyden and his staff on important environmental policy for Oregon. We
worked together to protect more of Mount Hood and the Columbia Gorge as
Wilderness, and joined with the Chairman's staff and the logging
industry to negotiate the Oregon Eastside Forest Restoration, Old-
Growth Protection and Jobs Act of 2009. Oregon Wild has sought to
balance the protection of Oregon's special places with science-based
management that benefits the environment and sustains rural
communities.
It is from this perspective of appreciation for our past work
together that we must oppose S.1784. Dozens of other conservation
groups with membership numbering in the millions are similarly opposed
and have sent letters to you, and to other members of Congress, to this
effect. (See Appendices A and B).
This bill seeks to re-link funding for 18 Oregon counties to
aggressive logging of publicly-owned Bureau of Land Management lands in
western Oregon. S.1784 would dramatically weaken President Clinton's
historic 1994 Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP) and significantly undermine
federal environmental laws like the Clean Water Act (CWA), Endangered
Species Act (ESA), and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
The legislation, as introduced, represents a significant departure
from the principles laid out in Chairman Wyden's document titled
``Principles for an O&C Solution: A Roadmap for Federal Legislation to
Navigate both the House and Senate,'' released in 2012. Those
principles represented a good starting point for discussion to craft a
workable, balanced, and realistic legislative proposal that did not
sacrifice conservation values that Oregonians, and all Americans, hold
dear.
endangered species
S.1784 proposes to override critical and long-standing requirements
of the ESA in some sections, and weakens them in others. Harmful
logging in critical habitat for listed species is allowed (see Figs 1
and 2 below).* The bill appears to create weaker ESA consultation
requirements than exists under current law. The BLM can, but does not
have to, ask federal wildlife agencies for a determination of whether
activities will impact threatened species, and whether a project can
move forward or if it requires consultation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* All figures have been retained in committee files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Furthermore, S.1784 eliminates the survey and manage program of the
NWFP on Forestry Emphasis Areas. This ``look-before-you-log'' program
is specifically designed to avoid logging impacts that could result in
future ESA listings. The survey and manage program was deemed a
``foundational'' element of the NWFP by the courts when the Bush
administration tried to remove it.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Northwest Ecosystem Alliance v. Rey, 380 F. Supp. 2d 1175, 1192
(W.D. Wash. 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
public process
In regards to NEPA, the bill would severely undermine the law by
eliminating environmental analysis and public review of individual
timber sales, and mandating a single large-scale analysis covering 10
years of logging spread over one million acres of western Oregon.
Currently, individual timber sales go through rigorous
environmental review and public vetting to ensure they are consistent
with applicable law and do not irreparably harm the environment.
However, S. 1784's mandate to analyze 10 years of logging in a single
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) disregards the critical need for
site-specific reviews of a project's impacts. By eliminating project-
level review under NEPA, the public will be largely unable to ensure
that BLM makes informed decisions and carefully considers the best
available science, public input, local conditions, and changed
circumstances.
While members of the public may still challenge the large-scale
EISs, severe timing and content restrictions are placed on those
seeking to hold federal agencies accountable to federal laws. Chairman
Wyden, we are disappointed to see you endorse significant and
precedent-setting restrictions on the ability of citizens to
participate in a federal process, particularly given your commitment to
other government transparency and accountability issues.
northwest forest plan
Along with eliminating the survey and manage program, S.1784
further undermines the landmark Clinton NWFP by dismantling the current
system of old-growth and wildlife reserves for protecting and restoring
older forest habitat. Allowing some young forests to grow into old-
growth forests is a major underpinning of the NWFP.
By changing the reserve system, the bill eliminates the integrated
landscape conservation approach to conserving fish and wildlife habitat
across both Forest Service and BLM lands.
disposing of public lands
Provisions in S.1784 allow for land sales and exchanges. Historic
consolidation and privatization proposals involving the transfer of
public lands to private logging interests have resulted in losses to
the environment and American taxpayers.
Rather than giving careful consideration to consolidation or land
sales/exchanges, S.1784 allows the fast-tracking of privatization of
public lands by reducing public oversight. These provisions do not
ensure that such land trades are in the public interest, and
shortchange the American public and the long-term conservation of
public resources.
climate change
For the last century logging in western Oregon has contributed to
climate change by emitting millions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere.
After harvest levels were reduced by the NWFP, the USFS and BLM have
shifted emphasis toward conservation and a program of extensive
thinning in young stands. Consequently, the flow of carbon has
reversed, and at least on federal lands, there is now more carbon being
absorbed and stored by growing trees, and less carbon being emitted by
logging.
However, there is still a long way to go before our public forests
recapture all the carbon transferred to the atmosphere during decades
of old growth liquidation. S.1784 would increase logging on BLM lands
in western Oregon, including reducing the area of reserves and
clearcutting of carbon-rich mature forests. This represents a shift
from land uses that store more carbon to land uses that store less
carbon. This will increase emissions of CO2 and curtail
progress on climate change mitigation in direct conflict with current
administration climate policy which is to ``preserve[e] the role of
forests in mitigating climate change.''\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ President's Climate Action Plan. http://www.whitehouse.gov/
sites/default/files/image/president27sclimateactionplan.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is particularly troubling because the highly productive
forests on BLM lands in western Oregon are very well suited for carbon
storage, and conservation of carbon is highly compatible with many
other important public values, such as clean water, fish and wildlife
habitat, recreation, and quality of life.
historical context
In one sense, this legislation was drafted with the best of
intentions--attempting to keep county governments in Oregon from going
bankrupt. No one wants to see public services in rural Oregon
disappear. However, while we face these budget challenges in real time,
we must not forget how we got here.
For decades, the BLM and the Forest Service operated as if their
only mission were to clearcut public lands. It took a tremendous
outpouring of public demand to reform the BLM and Forest Service to
ensure wildlife, wild salmon, clean water, and clean air received equal
priority to logging.
Had we not clearcut nearly 90% of our ancient forests, pushed
numerous wild salmon runs to the brink of extinction, and muddied our
clean drinking water through excessive logging--we may have faced a
much different world today. The O&C Land Grant Act of 2013, had it been
written and passed in 1974, could have been a sane alternative to the
destruction.
But this isn't 1974, and we cannot ignore the huge mistakes of the
past. We must chart a path forward that repairs the damage from past
mismanagement of our forests, not a path that makes it worse.
Chairman Wyden, you were right when you worked to pass the Secure
Rural Schools Act and de-linked logging on public lands from funding
for county services.
At the time, you said in The Oregonian newspaper: ``The new
relationship between the counties and the federal government means that
the 21st century relationship is not just going to be about cutting
trees.''\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Barnett, Jim and Hogan, Dave. ``Senators Offer Plan To Rescue
Forest Counties.'' The Oregonian 8 September 2000: A20. Print.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
That statement is as wise today as it was 14 years ago. It makes no
sense to fund local county governments--counties that have some of the
lowest local tax rates in the nation (see Fig 3)--by logging public
lands that belong to all Americans.
restoration based logging
When we see our forests as natural resources to steward rather than
simply as piggy banks, amazing things happen.
Oregon Wild has seen it on the ground. While we are often accused
of being so, we are not anti-logging. For nearly two decades we have
worked alongside the Forest Service, timber companies, watershed
councils, and other local stakeholders to push collaborative forest
restoration in places like the Siuslaw National Forest. Because of our
work restoring forests, putting people to work in the woods, and
sending trees to the mills we've twice been recognized with the Two
Chiefs Award from the Forest Service and NRCS.
In the 1980s, the Siuslaw National Forest was ground zero in the
timber wars. Under the visionary leadership of former Forest Supervisor
Jim Furnish and his successors, the Siuslaw decided to abandon
controversial clearcutting and move away from logging forests older
than 80 years old. Instead, they focused on working collaboratively
with the local community to develop sustainable thinning projects in
younger stands. Over the last twenty years, these projects have allowed
the Siuslaw to consistently meet or exceed timber production goals
while improving environmental health.
The Siuslaw model was made possible by President Clinton's historic
1994 Northwest Forest Plan. Under the plan, some areas were set aside
as old-growth and wildlife reserves, while others were managed for
multiple values. Logging was to be a secondary goal, taking a back seat
to protecting clean drinking water, recovering old-growth forests, and
restoring abundant populations of endangered salmon and wildlife.
The clear playing field and ground rules the plan created was the
starting point for government agencies, responsible logging companies,
and conservationists to work together to develop a new model of
forestry--one that did not rely on clearcutting forests and sacrificing
rivers and wildlife. No place epitomizes that progress better than the
Siuslaw National Forest.
On federal public lands the Siuslaw model has great potential and
should become the norm all across western Oregon. However, private
forest lands also hold a key to solving our county funding mess. The
past five years have seen a dramatic jump in log exports from Oregon
and Washington.\4\ Exports off of private lands in Oregon send jobs to
China while doing nothing to pay for county services. Addressing this
growing trend could not only alleviate pressure to log federal public
lands but help to keep milling jobs in Oregon.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Templeton, Amelia (Producer). (2013, November 13). ``China's
Building Boom Revives Northwest Log Export Debate.'' Portland: OPB
News. http://earthfix.opb.org/land/article/chinas-construction-revives-
northwest-log-export-d/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While exports have increased, state revenue from severance taxes on
logging has gone down. In the early 1990s, the state collected about
$50 million per year related to harvest in western Oregon. The tax was
phased out by the late 1990s and now logging companies pay almost
nothing to support the county infrastructure (roads, etc) that they use
to extract logs.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Niemi, Ernie. ``Timber changes reflect inequality.'' Eugene
Register Guard 2 February 2014: Online. http://www.registerguard.com/
rg/opinion/31069622-78/workers-industry-timber-inequality-
percent.html.csp
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reforms to local and state tax structures combined with federal
subsidies that are de-linked from logging levels form a three part,
shared responsibility solution that maintains forest values while
putting counties on the path to financial stability.
the economy of the future
Still, we should be clear-eyed--in 2014, logging is no longer the
driver of Oregon's economy. And that's okay. Recent reports show Oregon
ranking third in the nation in job growth last year, thanks to a
thriving high tech industry, and to our tourism and outdoor recreation
economy. Oregon's quality of life--our forests, rivers, and mountains--
are a big part of that success, bringing new people and new investment
to our state.
The Outdoor Industry Association recently reported that Oregon's
annual outdoor recreation economy accounts for $12.8 billion in annual
consumer spending and is responsible for 141,000 direct jobs.\6\
Furthermore, a recent analysis by Georgetown University found that in
Oregon, employment in recreation and related industries is expected to
grow by 31 percent by 2020--far surpassing the 3 percent expected job
growth in logging and related industries.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ https://www.outdoorindustry.org/images/ore--reports/OR-oregon-
outdoorrecreationeconomy-oia.pdf
\7\ http://cew.georgetown.edu/recovery2020
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oregon State economists have observed a so-called ``changing of the
guards'' (Fig 4) from the old economy dominated by logging to a new
economy based more on attracting talented workers from across the globe
who desire to live in a setting like Oregon.
conclusion
Chairman Wyden, while the goal of your legislation is laudable, it
puts Oregon's economic and environmental future at risk in an attempt
to resurrect the economy of the 1970s. As you wisely pointed out more
than a decade ago, funding county budgets by aggressive logging on
public lands is a failed model.
We can and should find a balance between active management and
preservation--and we are appreciative of your efforts to write into
this legislation protection for some of our oldest forests and
Wilderness gems.
However, during the last century, the scales have been tipped so
far towards harmful logging that the future must create balance by
restoring lands we have mismanaged and protecting other natural
resource values that will drive Oregon's future.
Will this cautious, sensible approach result in a massive bailout
check for county politicians? No.
Will it preserve Oregon's environmental values and pass on a
natural legacy to future generations? Yes it will--and that is the
balance that we need.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you here today.
appendix a
American Bird Conservancy * Audubon Society of Corvallis * Audubon
Society of Portland * Bark * Benton Forest Coalition * Cascadia
Wildlands * Center for Biological Diversity * Conservation Northwest *
Coast Range Association * Dakubetebe Environmental Education Programs *
Earthjustice * Environment America * Environment Oregon * Forest Web of
Cottage Grove * Gifford Pinchot Task Force * Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands
Center * Lane County Audubon Society * Oregon Wild * Sierra Club * Soda
Mountain Wilderness Council * Threatened and Endangered Little
Applegate Valley * Umpqua Valley Audubon Society * Umpqua Watersheds *
Western Environmental Law Center * Willamette Riverkeeper
January 23, 2014.
Hon. Ron Wyden,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Wyden, On behalf of our tens of thousands of members
and supporters in Oregon, and millions of supporters nationally, we
write to express our disappointment with the recently introduced ``O&C
Land Grant Act of 2013.''
The legislation, as introduced, represents a significant departure
from the principles laid out in your document titled ``Principles for
an O&C Solution: A Roadmap for Federal Legislation to Navigate both the
House and Senate,'' released in 2012. Those principles represented a
good starting point for discussion to craft a workable, balanced, and
realistic legislative proposal that did not sacrifice conservation
values that Oregonians, and all Americans, hold dear.
Unfortunately, S. 1784, the ``O&C Land Grant Act of 2013'' (O&C Act
of 2013) falls far short. Some of our major concerns are listed below.
Weakens environmental laws and policies
Despite assurances that you intended to maintain all environmental
laws in any O&C legislation, provisions of your proposed O&C Act of
2013 would both undermine and override federal environmental laws,
including the Endangered Species Act (ESA), Clean Water Act, National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and Administrative Procedure Act.
In regards to the ESA, for example, the legislation attempts to
override critical and long-standing requirements of the ESA in some
sections, and weakens them in others. The ESA provides a safety-net for
our most imperiled species, and the ESA's consultation process gives
the federal fish and wildlife agencies the chance to review and balance
proposed projects against harmful impacts to species and their habitat.
These vital protections must not be undermined as proposed in the O&C
Act of 2013.
In regards to NEPA, the bill would severely undermine the law by
eliminating environmental analysis and public review of individual
timber sales, and mandating a single large-scale analysis covering 10
years of logging spread over a million acres of western Oregon.
Currently, individual timber sales go through rigorous environmental
review and public vetting to ensure they are consistent with applicable
law and do not irreparably harm the environment. However, S. 1784's
mandate to analyze 10 years of logging in a single Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) disregards the critical need for site-specific reviews
of a project's impacts. By eliminating project-level review under NEPA,
the public will be largely unable to ensure that BLM makes informed
decisions and carefully considers the best available science, public
input, local conditions, and changed circumstances.
While members of the public may still challenge the large-scale
EISs, severe timing and content restrictions are placed on those
seeking to hold federal agencies accountable to federal laws. We are
disappointed to see you endorse significant and precedent-setting
restrictions on the ability of citizens to participate in a federal
process, particularly given your commitment to other government
transparency and accountability issues.
Dismantles the Northwest Forest Plan
The system of conservation reserves set up under the Northwest
Forest Plan (NWFP) to both protect and restore fish and wildlife
habitat will be effectively dismantled under the O&C Act of 2013.
Streamside buffers and the strong provisions of the Aquatic
Conservation Strategy are severely reduced. The ``Survey & Manage''
program--deemed a ``foundational'' element of the NWFP by the courts
when the Bush administration tried to remove it--is eliminated in
Forestry Emphasis Areas. And, by changing the reserve system, the bill
eliminates the integrated landscape approach to conserving clean water
supplies and fish and wildlife habitat across public lands managed by
both the U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management (BLM).
Does not solve county budget problems
One of your original stated aims for legislation was to provide
stable funding for the 18 O&C counties facing budget shortfalls due in
part to the expiration of Secure Rural Schools funding. In 2012, we
were heartened that your principles for legislation pointed out that it
is not reasonable for local and state elected officials to rely solely
on federal funding to make up for county budget shortfalls. A lasting
solution to this problem will require local, state, and federal
components.
Your proposed legislation aims to double logging to generate
revenue for counties, but at the same time recognizes that this revenue
alone will fall far short what counties say they need to balance their
budgets. And because the legislation shifts the BLM logging program
from relatively less controversial thinning of young stands towards
more controversial clearcutting of older forests, any logging revenue
is far from certain.
We thank you for your reauthorization of the Secure Rural Schools
program for FY2013 and urge you to reauthorize this vital program while
we work with you on finding alternate proposals that decouple payments
from resource extraction and do not jeopardize our conservation values.
Mandates aggressive logging and harms water quality
Your goal of ``sustainability'' of timber harvest in last year's
principles has translated into the designation of zones where logging
is the only prioritized resource value and other public values, such as
clean water, are ignored. Management of the Forestry Areas in the O&C
Land Act is overly prescriptive and blatantly disregards the need for
using the best available science information and site conditions to
dictate appropriate management.
Last year's principles mentioned using ``ecological forestry
principles'' as one way of meeting timber production goals. In
contrast, your legislation mandates its use. Moving this experimental
concept forward with such broadscale application on nearly one million
acres of public lands is dangerous. Experimental logging methods such
as those from Johnson and Franklin have only been applied on a limited
number of pilot projects in western Oregon. They have not been tested
over long periods or large scale, and this raises questions of
consistency with water quality, wildlife, carbon storage, or social
acceptance.
Furthermore, your legislation undermines two critical requirements
of the method proposed by Johnson and Franklin, making its application
all the more concerning. According to their key publication on the
subject in the National Journal of Forestry in December 2012, their new
approach is heavily dependent upon monitoring and adaptive management.
But your legislation explicitly eliminates monitoring and survey
requirements in forest management areas and prevents adaptive
management by limiting review to one generalized look every decade for
the two forest types and by mandating the use of certain ecological
forestry logging principles without providing any opportunity to
deviate from this approach.
The O&C Act of 2013 also drastically shrinks riparian buffers--
putting at risk threatened salmon populations, clean water, and
sensitive soils--and reducing the forests' resilience to withstand
climate change impacts such as increased heavy rain events. Buffers for
streams and other bodies of water are significantly reduced in many
areas, and monitoring of impacts is inadequate or nonexistent.
Falls short on old growth protection
The bill also falls short on one of your legislative principles of
which we were most supportive: safeguarding old growth forests. While
we support setting aside the ``Legacy Old Growth Protection Network''
within moist-forest Forestry Emphasis Areas and the general prohibition
of cutting and removing old growth trees in both moist and dry forest
types, other provisions in the bill leave hundreds of thousands of
acres of mature forests and old trees available or specifically
designated for logging. This is unacceptable. Under the Northwest
Forest Plan, forest stands over 80 years old are recognized as being
essential habitat for old-growth dependent species. This habitat is
also recognized as important to the growth of future old growth
forests.
In addition, exceptions and loopholes that allow cutting and
removal of old-growth are found throughout the bill.
Disposes of and fragments public lands
By abandoning the Northwest Forest Plan reserves and promoting
aggressive logging techniques, this legislation will result in extreme
fragmentation of the O&C lands--making an even less sensible pattern
out of the O&C checkerboard.
Furthermore, provisions in your O&C Act of 2013 concerning land
sales and exchanges are of great concern to us. Historic consolidation
and privatization proposals involving the transfer of public lands to
private logging interests have resulted in losses to the environment
and American taxpayers. We point to the failed Lower Umpqua Land
Exchange Project as an example that would have resulted in a
significant loss of older forests on public lands, in exchange for
logged-over industry lands.
Rather than giving careful consideration to consolidation or land
sales/exchanges, your bill allows the fast-tracking of privatization of
public lands by reducing public oversight. These provisions do not
ensure that such land trades are in the public interest, and
shortchange the American public and the long-term conservation of
public resources.
Offsets major environmental harms with small conservation gains
Our organizations were heartened by your indications leading up to
the introduction of this bill that you were committed to proportional
conservation designations, including Wilderness. As you know, with just
4% of its land safeguarded as Wilderness, Oregon lags far behind
California (15%), Washington (11%), and Idaho (8%).
Unfortunately, the conservation measures proposed to balance
increased logging and reduced stream buffers fall far short of
Wilderness protection standards. While the O&C Act of 2013 would
designate areas nearing 900,000 acres for conservation, recreation,
backcountry, drinking water, and Wild & Scenic Rivers, much of the land
in these new conservation designations is already currently protected
under other laws and regulations (including the Northwest Forest Plan),
and could still be subject to logging under the guise of ``fire threat
reduction'' and other logging loopholes found in your bill.
Sets a dangerous precedent for public lands across the nation
We are deeply concerned that the advancement of this bill will
encourage far-reaching federal forestland legislation that further
endangers public resources and values. The allowance in the O&C Act of
2013 for private citizens and local governments to remove vegetation
from public land with minimal oversight is but one small example of a
precedent that could open the door to losing the environmental laws and
policies that have helped protect our public lands for 40 years.
We sincerely hope you will consider making changes to your proposed
legislation based on our concerns, and that we can continue to work
with your office on forest management and county revenue programs that
do not impair the clean water, wildlife, and public lands that
Americans hold dear.
appendix b
American Bird Conservancy * American Rivers * Defenders of Wildlife
Earthjustice * Environment America * Friends of the Earth League of
Conservation Voters * National Audubon Society Natural Resources
Defense Council * Sierra Club
January 24, 2014.
Dear Senator:
On behalf of our millions of members and activists we write to urge
you to oppose the 2013 Oregon and California Land Grant Act (S. 1784)
(``O&C Act'') as introduced and any other national forest legislation
containing similar damaging provisions that may be advanced. The O&C
Act undermines federal environmental law and sets out detailed
management prescriptions for newly designated ``forestry emphasis
areas'' across 2.1 million acres of western Oregon forest land.
The O&C Act strikes at the heart of the Endangered Species Act
(ESA) on its 40th anniversary. For example, it eliminates the
requirement that the managing federal agency (the Bureau of Land
Management) consult with expert federal biological agencies on whether
individual logging projects on these public forestlands harm endangered
species and their habitat. Federal agency consultation is a fundamental
component of the ESA.
The O&C Act also reduces the application of the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to a shell of its current self. It goes
much further than ``streamlining '' NEPA. The bill would severely limit
analysis and public disclosure of the direct environmental impacts of
individual projects, as well as any cumulative effects analysis of
other actions affecting these forestlands and resources. Instead, it
requires only a once-a-decade cursory review with a largely
predetermined outcome. In addition, it severely limits judicial review,
closing the doors of the courthouse to citizens who are unable to
analyze the entire NEPA decision and file a complaint during the 30
days immediately following release of NEPA documents.
In addition, the legislation has Clean Water Act (CWA)
implications. For example, the bill only allows water quality impacts
under the CWA to be measured a full two years after a harvest which
could mask all near term negative impacts of a timber project. The bill
could also be interpreted to establish a potentially degraded water
quality baseline that could affect all future determinations of impact.
We support post-treatment monitoring to measure the effects on water
quality, but not in the context of defining the water quality under the
CWA.''
Accordingly, we oppose S. 1784, along with any national forest
legislation that may be modeled after the O&C Act or other proposals
that curtail application of bedrock environmental statutes. Our federal
environmental laws are a safety net for our forests, protecting a broad
array of benefits including clean drinking water for millions of
Americans, wildlife and their habitat, hunting, fishing, and hiking
opportunities cherished by generations of Americans, and a multi-
billion dollar outdoor industry important to rural communities and
regional economies.
We are also concerned by any legislative effort to dictate timber
harvest prescriptions that cannot be modified to reflect the best
available science without a subsequent act of Congress. Forest managers
must be able to use the best available information in making decisions
about where, when, and how to proceed with logging projects. They need
to be able to incorporate new information about the health of wildlife
populations, potential air or water pollution, or changes in the forest
from climate change. Ensuring healthy forests and healthy wildlife in a
time of climate change will require greater reliance on evolving
science, not less.
Just this past September, the Administration echoed these
sentiments when it issued a strong veto threat against national forest
legislation in the House H.R. 1526. As the Senate considers the O&C Act
or national forest legislation it is worth noting that the
administration made clear that it strongly opposed the House bill
because it ``includes numerous harmful provisions that impair Federal
management of federally owned lands and undermines many important
existing public land and environmental laws, rules and processes.'' The
September 18, 2013, Statement of Administration Policy made clear that
such legislation could ``significantly harm sound long-term management
of these Federal lands for continued productivity and economic benefit
as well as for the long-term health of the wildlife and ecological
values sustained by these holdings.'' The statement also provided that
the ``Administration does not support specifying timber harvest levels
in statute, which does not take into account public input,
environmental analyses, multiple use management or ecosystem changes.''
Our nation's public forestlands, including those covered by the O&C
Act, are national treasures that provide a wealth of benefits to all
Americans. The O&C Act flouts environmental laws that have provided
longstanding and vital safeguards to help ensure the health and
resilience of these great assets. Without these protections and
adequate reliance on science in management, our national forests would
be threatened with declining wildlife populations, increased erosion,
polluted rivers and streams, and substantial ecological and economic
decline. We cannot let this happen.
We urge you to oppose S. 1784 and any other forest legislation that
undermines sound forest management or undercuts our bedrock
environmental laws.
Sincerely,
George H. Fenwick, President, American Bird
Conservancy; Robert, Irvin, President and
CEO, American Rivers; Jamie Rappaport
Clark, President & CEO, Defenders of
Wildlife; Trip Van Noppen, President,
Earthjustice; Margie Alt, Executive
Director, Environment America; Erich Pica,
President, Friends of the Earth; Gene
Karpinski, President, League of
Conservation Voters; David Yarnold,
President & CEO, National Audubon Society;
Frances Beinecke, President, Natural
Resources Defense Council; Michael Brune,
Executive Director, Sierra Club
The Chairman. Mr. Stevens, thank you. It's always ominous
when somebody quotes you in behalf of their point.
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. What's striking about it is I never said that
the future was about cutting virtually no trees at all. I think
that's what we're trying to do in this legislation is to strike
a balance. We will certainly be interested in your input in the
days ahead.
Let's go to Mr. Riddle.
STATEMENT OF DALE RIDDLE, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, SENECA SAWMILL
COMPANY, EUGENE, OR
Mr. Riddle. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. My name is Dale
Riddle, Senior Vice President of Seneca Sawmill Company, a
family owned company located in Lane County, Oregon. I
appreciate the invitation to appear before your committee to
discuss S. 1784.
Although I'm here to discuss a few concerns we have with
the bill, I wanted to thank you, Mr. Chair, for putting a
proposal forward and starting a process from which we can work
together.
The roots of Seneca Sawmill Company date back to post-World
War II, when Aaron Jones, himself a war veteran, entered the
lumber business. In the last 1980s, however, we became
concerned about the threats to the Federal timber harvest, and
we invested in our own timberlands. Seneca now manages 165,000
acres of timberlands on a sustained-yield basis.
The O&C lands grow 1.2 billion board-feet of timber
annually, and for the decades prior to the listing of the
spotted owl, the BLM harvested 1.2 billion board-feet without
any reduction in the standing volume of timber on those lands.
Environmental lawsuits today, however, have reduced the harvest
to less than 200 million board-feet.
The reductions in harvest have taken a terrible toll on
local governments. This was made all too real last year when
dozens of prisoners were released from Lane County jails for
lack of funding. One of those prisoners was awaiting trial for
murder. In a neighboring county, a 911 dispatcher informed a
woman that the sheriff's office no longer took calls in the
evening. That woman was ultimately attacked and raped when the
assailant broke into her house with a crowbar.
There are 4 key components that need to be addressed in any
O&C legislation. The first component is certainty. A solution
is not a solution if it can be overturned by the courts. The
House legislative fix for the O&C lands provides certainty by
establishing a public trust. If the Senate doesn't support the
trust concept, then it will be critical to identify an
alternate approach. There's more than one way to skin the cat,
but in the end, the cat--and by that I mean the endless
litigation--has got to be skinned.
The second leg of the stool is an adequate and sustainable
supply of timber to maintain the current mill jobs and healthy
forests. Most of our industry, like Seneca, is comprised of
multi-generational family owned companies. Family owned
companies don't plan for the next quarter's stockholder
meeting; we plan for our children's future. Proposals that
offer increased timber volumes in the short term, but don't
sustain those volumes into the future, do not meet the needs of
our communities.
It has been estimated that the proposed legislation will
produce about 300 to 350 million board-feet annually. Our
initial review, however, of documents recently received by the
BLM indicates the legislation provides a front-loaded 20-year
harvest plan that cannot be sustained in the future, and it
will produce on a long-term sustained yield of no more than
probably 150 million board-feet.
The third leg of the stool is adequate revenue to counties.
The counties must be self-sufficient. They can't rely on
continuous Federal aid. Even when Federal aid does come, it
does not provide a paycheck to the residents of those counties.
We do not lock up wheat fields in Kansas, nor do we ask farmers
in Iowa to stop raising corn. So why do we tell Oregonians to
stop farming their trees?
The last, but very important, leg of the stool is to ensure
that the legislation does not harm private lands. We're
extremely concerned that the proposals will increase the risk
of catastrophic fire. Seneca's forest lands share 561 miles of
common boundary with the O&C lands. Every day, the O&C forests
are burdened with additional fuel loadings. The annual growth
rate is 1.2 board-feet, and the mortality rate is 140 million
board-feet.
Simply put, every year, these lands continue to build an
astonishing rate of fuel. Exacerbating the fuel problem, the
legislation calls for road closures. The key to effective fire
suppression is an aggressive initial tack, which is dependent
upon an effective road system. Any legislation that harms our
road system will increase the likelihood that fires that start
on Federal lands will burn onto private lands.
In closing, you should note this legislation is personal to
me, as it is to many Oregonians. I grew up in a tranquil
setting, in a beautiful mill town. Many of my friends lived in
company homes, bought food at the company store. When the mill
closed, my father and my friends lost their jobs. The town,
including the homes and the store, were bulldozed.
This is personal. We all know there is a connection between
poverty, drug abuse, and child abuse. My wife and I have been
foster parents of children born addicted to meth and suffering
from fetal alcohol syndrome. We've also adopted, and are proud
parents of, a drug baby who's now 17 years old. It is not my
daughter's fault that her biological mother used meth during
her pregnancy, but it is my daughter who has had to suffer the
consequences of that decision.
There is no reason that a sustainable compromise cannot be
forged that creates jobs for Oregonians, protects the current
mill infrastructure, sets counties on a sustainable economic
path, protects our forests both public and private from fire,
and most importantly, guarantees that the policy decisions made
by this body will not be overturned by the courts.
It will take, however, people of good faith, willing to
take criticism from their peers, in order to accomplish this. I
am here to affirm the Jones family's willingness to reach out
their hand to the other side if someone is willing in good
faith to reach out their hand in return.
Chairman Wyden, I want to thank you for your commitment to
resolving this challenging problem. I appreciate very much your
work on the forest roads fix. We wish you the best. Thank you
very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Riddle follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dale Riddle, Senior Vice President, Seneca
Sawmill Company, Eugene, OR
Good morning, Chairman Wyden, Ranking Member Murkowski, and members
of the Committee. For the record my name is Dale Riddle, Senior Vice
President for Seneca Sawmill Company, a family-owned company located in
Lane County, Oregon. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before the
Committee to discuss Senator Wyden's S. 1784 and the need for a
permanent, comprehensive solution to restore active management to the
Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Oregon and California Grant Lands (O&C
lands) for the benefit of Western Oregon's rural communities and the
health of our forests.
While I am here today to outline concerns we have identified with
the proposed legislation, I want to thank Chairman Wyden for putting
his proposal forward. This legislation represents a good start and
provides us another framework to work from as we mutually seek to
provide certainty that harvests sufficient to sustain Oregon's forest
products industry, local governments, and rural communities can be
achieved.
We have been encouraged by the Senator's public statements about
the need to adopt legislation that provides real certainty for
significantly increased harvest levels to restore the health of these
forests and battered communities. While we currently lack critical
information about the potential effects of S. 1784, Oregon Governor
John Kitzhaber's O&C Task Force is modeling the proposal to better
detail the sustained harvest levels, the geographic distribution of
those harvests, the effect on key habitats, and the likely county
timber revenues. We believe this information is critically important to
understanding what S. 1784 would mean back home in Oregon as our
delegation continues to search for an effective plan.
In the meantime, our initial review of the legislation and
materials recently released by the BLM raise significant questions
about whether the legislation, as drafted, will accomplish the goals
outlined by Chairman Wyden. We do want to work with Chairman Wyden to
fashion a solution that does meet these important goals.
introduction
The roots of Seneca Sawmill Company date back to the post World War
II period when Aaron Jones, himself a World War II veteran, entered the
lumber business based on the promises of the federal government to open
some of its holdings of Pacific Northwest timberlands to harvest to
provide local jobs and wood products to a growing nation. Many other
entrepreneurs of this era made substantial investments in industry
infrastructure based on the same promise of a steady timber supply,
building the economic backbone of much of the rural Northwest as they
did so. Since the establishment of Seneca Sawmill Company in 1954 the
company has grown from 25 employees to 400 employees. In the late
1980's we became concerned about growing threats to federal timber
harvests and invested in our own timberlands. Seneca Jones Timber
Company now owns and manages approximately 165,000 acres of Oregon
timberlands on a sustained yield basis. With the majority of our
timberlands interspersed with the BLM's checkerboard ownership in
Western Oregon our company has a strong interest in the future
management of the O&C lands.
The success of Seneca Sawmill is based on the dedication of our
people and Aaron's insistence on excellence which has led to
technological innovations that have resulted in over 20 patents, four
new sawmills, three new planers, a log merchandiser, a renewable energy
electrical plant and at least a dozen technical and mechanical
creations, allowing us to stay at the forefront of efficiency in
sawmill manufacturing. Today the company has successfully transitioned
to Aaron's three daughters, Becky, Kathy and Jody Jones, and remains
committed to the health of Western Oregon's communities and forests.
blm o&c lands are statutorily unique
As you may know, the 2.6 million acres of O&C lands in Western
Oregon have a unique history, statutory mandate, and connection to the
industries, communities and county governments of Western Oregon.
Douglas County Commissioner Doug Robertson will undoubtedly speak to
the unique connection between the O&C lands and Western Oregon's O&C
Counties in the form of shared timber receipts to meet the funding
needs for essential county services. It is important for the Committee
to understand that these unique lands do not have a multiple-use
mandate like most other federal lands. Instead they have a dominant-use
mandate to produce wood products for America, economic opportunity for
the communities in which these forests are located, and revenues for
local governments.
The Oregon and California Lands Act of 1937 (O&C Act) requires that
the O&C lands be managed for ``permanent forest production'' with
timber to be ``sold, cut, and removed in conformity with the principal
[sic] of sustained yield\1\ for the purpose of providing a permanent
source of timber supply, protecting watersheds, regulating stream flow
and contributing to the economic stability of local communities and
industries, and providing recreational facilities'' and mandates that
``not less than the annual sustained yield capacity. . .shall be sold
annually.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ``Sustained yield'' forestry is a system that balances the
amount of timber grown and the amount of timber harvested. Dictionary
of Forestry, Helms, ed. Society of American Foresters, 2008. http://
dictionaryofforestry.org/dict/term/sustained_yield
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The primacy of the O&C Act was affirmed in Section 701(b) of the
Federal Land Policy and Management Act enacted by Congress in 1976.
This has been confirmed by the 9th Circuit. In Headwaters v. BLM, (9th
Cir. 1990), the Court, held that timber production was the primary use
of these lands and any other uses identified in the Act, including
protecting watersheds and providing recreation, were advanced through
sustained yield harvesting. Distinguishing between primary and
secondary uses the Court stated:
``*** Nowhere does the legislative history suggest that
wildlife habitat or conservation of old growth forest is a goal
on a par with timber production, or indeed that it is a goal of
the O&C Act at all.''
Similarly, in the case of U.S. v. Weyerhaeuser (9th Cir. 1976), the
Court stated:
``***In order to protect watersheds and maintain economic
stability in the area, long-term federal timber yields were
guaranteed by limiting the maximum harvest to the volume of the
new timber growth.''
From 1937 to 1994, the BLM and its predecessor agencies always
interpreted and implemented the O&C Act to mandate timber production
from suitable timberland as the primary use of the O&C timberlands. As
described above, over a period of two decades and on five separate
occasions, the Ninth Circuit has endorsed the BLM's dominant-use
interpretation of the O&C Act. Just last year Judge Richard Leon of the
D.C. District Court affirmed a key aspect of the dominant-use timber
harvest mandate of the O&C Act, ruling that it clearly requires the
agency to actually sell, on an annual basis, its declared annual sale
quantity. As a result of the Leon decision the BLM is currently under a
court order to more than double its timber sale levels in southwest
Oregon's Medford and Roseburg Districts to meet the Clinton Northwest
Forest Plan harvest levels. Meanwhile, there is another case pending
before the D.C. District Court challenging the BLM's authority under
the O&C Act to reduce the sustained yield and resulting annual timber
sale volumes through the application of extensive set-asides and
reserves.
recent history
The over 2 million acres of O&C lands managed by the BLM in Western
Oregon grow over 1.2 billion board feet (bf) of timber annually. In the
decades prior to the listing of the Northern Spotted Owl as
``threatened'' under the Endangered Species Act in the early 1990's,
the BLM managed these lands under the sustained yield timber production
mandate of the O&C Act, which generated annual timber harvests of
approximately 1.2 billion bf without any reduction in the standing
volume of timber on these lands. Environmental lawsuits, conflicting
federal regulations and laws, and broken federal policies have reduced
these harvest levels by over 80 percent to less than 175 million bf
annually.
This severe reduction in timber harvests has had a profound impact
on rural communities, our industry, and the ability of local
governments to provide essential services when the federal government
owns 50-70 percent of the land and doesn't pay taxes. The drastic
reduction in timber receipt revenues was made all too real last year
when dozens of prisoners were released early from the Lane County,
Oregon jail due to a lack of criminal justice funding. One of these
released prisoners was awaiting trail on murder charges. One prisoner
robbed a bank within hours of being released. Other counties in Western
Oregon have been even harder hit. Law enforcement in some rural Oregon
counties is nearly non-existent. In one instance last year a 911
operator informed a desperate caller that the sheriff's office no
longer responded to evening calls. That caller, a woman being attacked
by an ex-boyfriend, was ultimately attacked and raped when the
assailant broke into the house with a crowbar. Communities throughout
Western Oregon continue to suffer under stifling levels of unemployment
and high poverty rates, as well as the resulting social ills like
crime, domestic abuse, sexual abuse, and drug addiction.
Harvesting less than 15 percent of the annual growth on the O&C
lands over the past two decades has led to marked increases in disease,
insect infestation, and a general, overall decline in forest health.
Overstocked stands of timber are more vulnerable to the frequent
droughts that occur in the region, and the increased fuel loads have
very predictably brought about dramatic increases in the frequency and
severity of catastrophic wildfires. As a private landowner with lands
interspersed within the BLM checkerboard we have significant exposure
to catastrophic wildfires, insects, and disease caused by the gross
mismanagement of neighboring BLM lands. This summer's record fire
season in southwest Oregon provides a glimpse of the future if action
is not taken. Our friends at Roseburg Forest Products, which lost
11,000 acres in the 48,679-acre Douglas Complex Fire, know all too well
the consequences of the tinderbox BLM forests threatening their lands.
I know we can all agree that Oregon deserves better.
key components of any solution (the ``4-legged stool'')
Governor Kitzhaber's O&C Task Force, on which I served, spent a
great deal of time modeling potential solutions for the BLM lands,
including the House-passed O&C Trust, Conservation and Jobs Act. The
modeling and our extensive discussions continually returned to four key
components that any solution must satisfactorily address in order to
solve the O&C crisis. Each component is like the leg of a 4-legged
stool, and if any one component is not addressed and resolved, will
cause the entire stool to fall over.
Certainty
Any proposed solution is no solution at all if it doesn't deliver
real legal certainty to ensure that planned, offered, sold and awarded
timber sales will actually be harvested. Without certainty, it does not
matter what the projected harvest levels are or what silvicultural
approaches are mandated. The O&C Act already requires sustained yield
timber harvests on these lands, but a complex web of conflicting (and
often broken) laws and regulations have stymied this common sense
vision of sustainable forest management.
The intent of S. 1784's ten-year large scale Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) is laudable, but it does not address the complex web of
conflicting laws and regulations used to block timber harvests,
including the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the
Endangered Species Act (ESA). Based on over two decades of experience
we know that these complex EIS documents will be litigated and highly
vulnerable without additional statutory protections. S. 1784 would also
replace the very clear mandate of the O&C Act with a complex series of
new silvicultural prescriptions, legal requirements, and undefined
terms, thereby creating even more new hooks for litigation. The current
litigation challenging the White Castle ecological forestry timber sale
reminds us that some organizations are determined to block these
projects regardless of positive ecological and economic benefits. These
groups routinely take advantage of the complexity of conflicting
statutory mandates to accomplish their agendas. There are additional
legal risks embedded in S. 1784, including the fact that even if the
EIS survives legal challenges the subsequent projects will be
susceptible to ``consistency based'' challenges. I would be more than
happy to work diligently with you and your staff to address these and
other legal risks.
Congressmen DeFazio, Walden, and Schrader's vision of a legislative
fix for the O&C lands would deliver certainty to rural Oregon by
establishing a public trust board, appointed by the Governor, to
responsibly manage only the lands identified for timber harvests under
their O&C Conservation, Trust, and Jobs Act. If the Senate doesn't
support the trust approach, then it will be critical to identify an
alternate approach to provide real certainty. There is more than one
way to skin the cat, but in the end, the cat, and by that I mean the
endless litigation, has to be skinned.
Certainty not only applies to sustainable timber harvests, but must
include the other conservation gains in the legislation, including
wilderness protection and riparian set-asides. However, we cannot have
certainty for one side of the equation, but not the other. In other
words, certainty for the additional conservation protections must be
tied to certainty that the sustainable timber harvest objectives be
met. Our rural communities and their people cannot afford to once again
give up half the pie, only to discover that after giving up half of the
pie, the other side wants their half of the pie also. Our people
deserve better than that.
Unlike the game of horseshoes, almost doesn't count when it comes
to certainty for Oregon's timber communities. All it takes is one
successful lawsuit, a change in administrations, or nonsensical
policies from the US Fish and Wildlife Service to bring O&C timber
management to a standstill. After two decades of forest wars and
summits, well meaning forest plans, and years of broken promises, the
people of Oregon want a solution that provides real certainty to all
sides in this debate.
Adequate, sustainable, and geographically distributed harvest levels
A significant increase in timber harvest volumes from the O&C lands
is appropriate given the unique statutory mandate of the O&C Act, the
need to maintain forest health and be good neighbors to neighboring
private lands, and the clear role these lands must play in restoring
the economic and fiscal well-being of the communities.
Geographic distribution
Adequate timber harvest levels must be distributed throughout
Western Oregon, including the drier southwest Oregon forests, if we are
to maintain the health of the forests and keep the remaining industry
infrastructure. We continue to lose mills in this part of the state,
putting our ability to manage both public and private forests and the
future of communities at risk. Unfortunately, the BLM's November 22,
2013 letter to Senator Wyden did not outline likely geographic
distribution of harvests under S. 1784. Based on our initial review of
information recently disclosed by the BLM and the highly experimental
ecological forestry principles championed by Drs. Johnson and Franklin,
it appears that S. 1784 will generate short-term harvest levels of
approximately 56 million board feet (mmbf) in the drier forests of
southwest Oregon. If true, this level of harvest is below the needs of
local mills and communities in southwest Oregon and may well be below
the levels established under Judge Leon's court order. The extensive
modeling being performed by Governor Kitzhaber's O&C Task Force should
provide us a confirmation of how southwest Oregon's communities would
fare under the legislation.
Long-term sustainable harvests for certainty
Most of our industry remains comprised of multi-generational,
family-owned companies committed to the long-term future of our
communities. Our companies need long-term certainty regarding future
harvest levels to plan investments and make other critical business
decisions.
Family-owned companies do not plan for the next quarter
stockholders' meetings--we plan for our children's and grandchildren's
future. Proposals that offer short-term promises of increased timber
volumes but don't sustain those into the future do not meet the needs
of our industry or the communities. That is precisely why Governor
Kitzhaber's Task Force modeled both the short-term and long-term
sustained yields.
On November 22, 2013, shortly before the release of S. 1784, the
BLM sent Chairman Wyden a letter indicating that Dr. Norm Johnson, with
the help of agency analysts, estimated that the legislation would
generate 300-350 million bf annually over the next two decades. It is
noteworthy that the BLM did not claim that this represented the long-
term sustained yield under the proposal. While we will need to wait for
the O&C Task Force modeling to determine the precise sustained yield of
S. 1784, documents recently disclosed by the BLM allow us to draw a
number of conclusions about Dr. Johnson's estimate:
It provided a potential 20-year harvest plan under S. 1784,
not the long-term sustained yield calculation the legislation
calls for.
It relied on front-loaded harvest volumes in the first and
second decades that can't be sustained under the silvicultural
prescriptions, land allocations and restrictions in S. 1784.
It relied on the ability to implement variable retention
regeneration harvests in spotted owl critical habitat, near
spotted owl nest sites, in marbled murrelet critical habitat,
and near marled murrelet nest sites despite the fact that S.
1784 doesn't change the underlying laws and regulations that
make that impossible today.
When the ecological forestry prescriptions, land
allocations, restrictions, and critical habitat acres are taken
into account it results in a long-term sustained yield land
base of approximately 252,000 acres, or just 12 percent of the
total O&C land base.
Based on a preliminary review of the information received by the
BLM it appears that the long-term sustained yield of S. 1784 would be
approximately 126 mmbf. It is possible that some relatively modest
level of additional thinning volume could be achieved under S. 1784.
However, it is very difficult to assign any reasonable degree of
certainty to achieving that volume under the legislation.
Adequate county revenues
Any O&C solution must provide an adequate, predictable source of
timber receipt revenue for our counties. The fiscal challenges facing
the O&C Counties due to reductions in timber revenues are very serious
and no one understands them better than Douglas County Commissioner
Doug Robertson, who will speak to them today. The continuation of
Secure Rural School payments won't address the problem. Contrary to the
claims of some, raising property tax rates in some of the poorest areas
of the state isn't a viable option either, particularly when
encouraging home ownership and housing affordability has been a
national policy goal enjoying broad, bipartisan support for decades.
The counties must be self-sufficient. They cannot survive relying
upon federal aid that is tenuous at best. Federal aid may, at times,
provide monies to the counties, but it does not provide a paycheck to
the residents of these communities.
Don't fall for the scare tactics about timber revenue not being
dependable due to large swings in log prices and demand. Our neighbors
in Washington have managed 2 million acres of state trust lands to
generate consistent levels of annual revenue for their schools,
counties, and other trust beneficiaries. In fact, over the past decade,
which includes some of the most trying years of recession our industry
has ever seen following the crash of the housing market, the Washington
Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has averaged over $125 million in
annual timber revenue for trust beneficiaries.
washington dnr timber sale program (2.2 million acres)\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ FY 2008 & FY 2009 saw lower stumpage due to high proportions of
blowdown salvage. Volume Sold and Total Receipts do not include FIT
(Forest Health Treatment) Sales
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
In addition to providing timber receipt revenue, restoring balanced
active management to the O&C lands would generate industry and non-
industry private sector employment in these communities and the
significant economic stimulus and tax revenue that results. This is the
only truly sustainable solution for our rural, forested communities,
not handouts from Washington, DC.
We do not lock up wheat fields in Kansas. We do not stop cattlemen
in Nebraska from raising cattle. We don't tell farmers in Iowa to stop
raising corn. It is no different in Oregon. So, why do we tell
Oregonians to stop farming trees?
I have heard it said that the results of our O&C policy are akin to
allowing our citizens to starve while standing in the middle of a
supermarket. It is actually worse than that--not only are we starving
unnecessarily; we are setting up a chain reaction of permanently
closing down the supermarket, then the hardware store, then the gas
station, and ultimately, the entire community.
No harm to private lands
Our industry is incredibly reliant on timber harvests from Oregon's
private lands since the drastic reductions in BLM and Forest Service
harvests. With many mills hanging on by a thread due to incredibly
tight demand for logs, it is essential that legislation not negatively
impact the ability to access and harvest private forestlands. As a
private landowner, we appreciate the intent of S. 1784 to honor all
existing reciprocal right-of-way agreements that are common amongst the
checkerboard ownership pattern.
However, the legislation does contain provisions that will make new
right-of-way agreements more difficult to obtain due to various
prohibitions against the construction of new roads and restrictions on
the harvest of any trees within certain protected areas established in
the legislation. S. 1784 also directs the Secretary to reduce the
number of existing ``nonessential'' roads, but provides no definition
of this term. These provisions will likely limit the ability of private
landowners with existing reciprocal right-of-way agreements to access
their lands and it will make it extremely difficult, if not impossible,
to obtain a right-of-way in areas where they currently do not exist or
when the owner buys a new piece of land. It also appears that smaller
landowners would not be protected since they lack formal right-of-way
agreements and instead rely on case-by-case permits.
Finally, and of extreme importance to private landowners such as
Seneca, is the increased risk of catastrophic fire that is likely to
result from S. 1784 as it is currently written. Seneca's forestlands
share 561 miles of common boundary with the O&C lands. To the extent
fire risk is increased on O&C lands, it increases on Seneca's lands.
Fire has spread from federal land to Seneca's land in the past and
is likely to increase in the future if significant changes are not
made. Every day, the O&C forests are burdened with additional fuel
loadings from tree mortality. The annual growth rate is 1.2 billion bf
and the mortality rate on O&C lands is approximately 140 million bf per
year. Simply put, every year the O&C timberlands continue to build fuel
loadings at an astonishing rate and this would not be appreciably
reduced under S. 1784. The lands are turning into world class kindling
and the owners of the timberland, the Federal Government, are turning
into the slum lords of the Northwest--placing everyone's lands at risk
of horrific fires.
Exacerbating this fuel problem, the legislation calls for road
closures, obliteration and decommissioning. The key to effective fire
suppression is aggressive initial attack. Initial attack is dependent
upon an effective road system. Any legislation that harms that road
system will increase the likelihood of catastrophic fires originating
on federal lands overrunning and burning out private lands.
conclusion
Chairman Wyden, I want to thank you for your commitment to
resolving this challenging problem and your work on other important
issues, including the recent forest roads fix. Congratulations on your
pending move to chair the Finance Committee. Since I understand that
this could be your last hearing chairing this important committee, I
want to encourage you continue your work to resolve a problem that
continues to harm our great state. The residents of our rural, forested
communities just want a chance to responsibly manage this renewable
resource and for their children to be able to make an honest, decent
living in the rural communities they love.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. Riddle. You are very
right. This is going to take an awful lot of effort to reach
out. I'm telling you. Your seatmate there, Commissioner Leiken,
has definitely been one of the brave here that I was talking
about in terms of trying to reach out to all sides.
Commissioner Leiken, we very much appreciate your
willingness to step up when it would have been plenty easy to
sit this one out. I appreciate your being here.
STATEMENT OF SID LEIKEN, COMMISSIONER,
LANE COUNTY, OR
Mr. Leiken. Thank you very much, Chairman Wyden, and I want
to thank you for the invitation to testify today before S.
1784.
My name is Sid Leiken, and I have the pleasure of serving
as a county commissioner for Lane County, Oregon. For the past
2 years, I served as chairman of the board. For 10 years prior
to that, I was able to serve my city of Springfield, Oregon, as
their mayor.
I think I know my communities. They need your help, and I
mean right now.
Lane County spans two mountain ranges and the Williamette
Valley and is approximately 80 percent forest. In fact, it's
roughly the size of the State of Connecticut. The combination
of our climate, our elevation, our soils produce some of the
greatest quality timber species in the world. With all that
timber, our value-added wood products industry was simply
unparalleled. However, the Federal timber supply has all but
disappeared, taken with it a ton of community fabric, leaving
in its place a great deal of community uncertainty.
I'm here today to ask you to help restore enough of that
timber supply to reestablish certainty. With certainty comes
predictability. As a community leader, I can sell
predictability all day long.
I know there's a lot to this bill, and I'd like to
congratulate Senator Wyden for his work and endless energy for
striking a balance that provides a wealth of environment,
community, and economy. We have seen over-management and under-
management, neither acceptable nor sustainable.
Here are the things that are especially important to the
folks in my county--jobs, clean air and drinking water, and
essential public services. This bill has implications for each
of these values. I was born and raised in western Oregon, where
my family owned and operated timber and building development
companies. In fact, I'm a fifth-generation Oregonian. My great-
great-grandfather was somewhat iconic in the industry, Nils
Peter Hult.
You know, there was a time where life in rural Oregon truly
embodied the American dream, where families and communities
enjoyed modest prosperity. Natural resource jobs paid 120
percent and up of the average salary of our county. Enough time
has now passed that we are seeing the unintended consequences
of not managing timberlands. That is, trees do grow. Natural
processes like fire do occur in the absence of management.
I know that there's no chance we're going back to the days
of vast, unsustainable clear-cuts. That's just not politically
a viable option, nor does it represent the most recent science
embodied in Senator Wyden's plan. But the current paralysis
can't continue, either--not without causing even more pain for
folks who could be making a good wage working to cut trees and
drive log trucks, mill lumber, and restore forests.
While it is relatively easy to maybe invest in a log truck
or maybe infrastructure to harvest trees, we need to see more
investment in our private mills, and our investment in our
mills. Note, a sawmill today is a high-tech enterprise
requiring clean technology and high-paying jobs that will help
cement the advanced manufacturing that our region is now
finally getting established, something that I heard very
clearly during President Obama's State of the Union.
A well-managed forest produces clean water. We in the
region are all smart enough to appreciate this. I don't know of
a Federal land manager anywhere that wakes up in the morning
wanting to think to themselves, ``How can I pollute our rivers
or streams or lakes?''
The limits imposed on access to legal challenges found in
S. 1784 will not lead to impure water. Indeed, the measure
establishes 4 drinking water protection zones with enhanced
policies to ensure this resource is protected, building on
local drinking water protection overlay zones I helped pass in
Springfield in 1999.
I want to talk briefly about fiscal policy. Voters in
Oregon, as in other parts of the West, ultimately pass property
tax caps with the assumption that Federal revenue would remain
in place. Voters saw no need for additional local revenue, but,
in hindsight, were unaware that in some cases that local
revenue was as much as 70 percent Federal timber revenue.
The only tool I have as a county commissioner to replace
Federal timber revenue is the up to 5-year local option levies.
I've got to tell you, that's not a way to run a county.
In the 15 years I've been in public office, today
represents the single best opportunity for a solution, a
solution that will provide certainty to your land managers, and
that certainty will drive investment by private industry. This
investment will create jobs. Those employees will build homes
in reinvigorated communities. They will pay income taxes and
property taxes. Through the combination of Federal revenue
sharing and giving taxpayers a job, it will be far easier to be
a county commissioner in western Oregon.
Mr. Chairman, again I want to say thank you very much for
the invitation, and glad to be here, and will continue to work
with you as much as possible as we move down this road. Thank
you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Leiken follows:]
Prepared Statement of Sid Leiken, Commissioner, Lane County, OR
Chairman Wyden and Members of the Committee, thank you for inviting
me to testify on Senate Bill 1784.
My name is Sid Leiken and I have the pleasure of serving as a
County Commissioner for Lane County, Oregon. For the past two years, I
served as Chairman of the Board, and for the ten years prior to that I
was the Mayor of Springfield, Oregon. I know my communities, and they
need your help, right now.
Lane County spans two mountain ranges and the Willamette Valley and
is approximately 80% forest. It contains 765,000 acres of private
forest land, 1.1 million acres of forest land under management by the
National Forest and 315,000 acres of Oregon & California Railroad Lands
under management by the Bureau of Land Management. It is these lands we
refer to as the ``O&C'', and in total in western Oregon there are 2.2
million acres found in 18 counties.
The lands were returned to public ownership nearly 100 years ago.
While they may be described as unique in their checkerboard pattern and
management by BLM, I can assure you that the residents of Lane County
fully understand the foundational role these lands played in ensuring
key services such as public safety in our County. And in my world,
budget document after budget document shows the significant portion of
Lane County's budget supported by O&C revenue.
Quite simply, the combination of our climate, our elevation, and
our soils produce some of the greatest quality timber species in the
world. With all that timber, our value added wood products industry was
simply un-paralleled. We used to produce more plywood than any other
place in the world. However, the federal timber supply has all but
disappeared, taking with it a ton of community fabric and leaving in
its place a great deal of community uncertainty.
I am here today to ask you to help restore enough of that timber
supply to re-establish certainty. With certainty comes predictability.
And as a community leader, I can sell predictability all day long.
There's a lot to this bill, but as a representative of Lane County,
I want to first eliminate a misconception about forestry policy
automatically driving people to polar opposites. I'd like to
congratulate Senator Wyden for his work and endless energy for striking
a balance that provides a wealth of environment, community, AND
economy. We have seen over-management, and under-management. Neither
are acceptable, nor sustainable.
Here are the things that are especially important to folks in my
county: Jobs, clean air and drinking water, and essential public
services. This bill has implications for each of these values.
I was born and raised in Western Oregon where my family owned and
operated timber and building development companies. I'm dating myself,
but over the past 3 decades I have seen how important federal forests
are to creating jobs in mills, in the forests and providing an economic
foundation for the rest of the community. Unfortunately, much of that
knowledge was gained by seeing the impact to our economy when the
supply of federal timber was severely impacted by the listing of the
Northern Spotted Owl as an threatened species beginning in 1989,
perhaps not un-coincidently a peak year of timber harvests and revenue
sharing in Western Oregon. Until that time, life in rural Oregon truly
embodied the American Dream, where families and communities enjoyed
modest prosperity. Natural resource jobs paid 120% and up of the
average salary in our county.
I think we all were optimistic that the NW Forest Plan of 1994, and
then the initial implementation of the Secure Rural Schools Act in 2000
would buy us enough time to transition our economy to something that
could replace the timber industry. That goal has proved elusive. NW
Forest Plan harvest goals were not met, and the management plan
formulated and practically finalized to move forward on the O&C was
administratively withdrawn at the beginning of this Administration.
Interestingly, enough time has now passed that we are seeing the
unintended consequences of not managing timberlands. That is, trees do
grow. And natural processes like fire do occur in the absence of
management. In Oregon, your national forests budget has been fully 1/3
committed to actual fire suppression costs since 1996.
Right now, in Western Oregon, which is typically known for its wet,
wet, wet winters, we haven't seen appreciable rain or snow at all this
winter. The fires of last summer on the O&C in my native Douglas County
are on everyone's mind. While you are certainly aware of the $4 billion
dollars now in the federal budget for fighting forest fires, what you
may not know is that the Bureau of Land Management contracts with the
State for forest fires on the O&C, and our legislature is, as we speak,
grappling with $40 million in un-planned for expenses from the fires of
the summer of 2013, the most expensive firefighting season ever.
I know that there's no chance we're going back to the days of vast,
unsustainable clearcuts--that's just not a politically viable option,
nor does it represent the most recent science embodied in Senator
Wyden's plan.
But the current paralysis can't continue either, not without
causing even more pain for folks who could be making a good wage
working to cut trees, drive log trucks, mill lumber and restore
forests.
The policy element that will provide for economic benefit is
certainty. Certainty will drive private investment, and stabilize
funding for public services. The O&C Act of 2013 attempts to deliver
certainty for the federal agencies which manage these lands by limiting
and constraining legal challenges that hamstring agency staff, eat up
agency budgets, and makes private investors leery.
While it is relatively easy to invest in a log truck and a tree
feller, what we are no longer seeing is investment in mills. I believe
when this bill is signed by the President, private money will again
look at mill infrastructure. And note, a saw mill today is a high tech
enterprise requiring clean technology and high paying jobs that will
help cement the advanced manufacturing that our region is now finally
getting established.
That advanced manufacturing, and indeed one of the world's oldest
industries, beer manufacturing, depends on pristine water. A well-
managed forest produces clean water, and we in the region are all smart
enough to appreciate this. There is not a federal land manager anywhere
that wakes up in the morning wanting to pollute our rivers, streams,
and lakes. The limits imposed on access to legal challenges found in S
1784 will not lead to un-pure water. Indeed, this measure establishes
four drinking water protection zones with enhanced policies to ensure
this resource is protected; building on local drinking water protection
overlay zones I helped pass in Springfield in 1999.
I want to close with a brief statement about fiscal policy. Almost
exactly a century ago, County Commissioners from Western Oregon sat
right here in Washington DC and expressed their concern about federal
ownership of vast stretches of land exempt from local property tax
rolls. A solution was established that federal revenue sharing would be
placed into federal law. We coexisted under that model, and evolved
fiscal policies around it. Voters in Oregon, as in other parts of the
west, ultimately passed property tax caps, with the assumption that
federal revenue would remain in place. In fact, our own Measure 5 was
initially passed at the moment in time that represents the apex of
federal revenue from the O&C. Voters saw no need for additional local
revenue, but in hindsight were unaware that in some cases that local
revenue was as much as 70% federal timber revenue. Under Measure 5, the
only tool I have as a County Commissioner to replace federal timber
revenue is the up to five year local option levy.
Voters in my county did approve, last year, a 55 cent per thousand
valuation property tax that will remain in place for five years. That
measure generates about $13M annually, against what in 1995 was $53M in
federal timber revenue. The reality is that I cannot gain the
difference of $40M from my local voter, especially when their economy
suffered so much from the loss of timber related jobs, followed a
decade later by the Great Recession.
In the ten years I have been in public office, today represents the
single best opportunity for a solution. Since 1999, the inception of
the Secure Rural Schools Act, we have not seen solution-oriented
legislation actually gain passage in the House much less have another
one poised for introduction in the Senate. I hope you can appreciate my
interest in, and my advocacy for, your continued advancement of S 1784.
The need for a solution is immediate and I am only aware of one
other proposed legislative solution to this problem, House Bill 1526.
Yet, that proposal has already received a veto threat from President
Obama here in Washington and is threatening to reignite the timber wars
back home in Oregon. Furthermore, it appears unlikely that the Bureau
of Land Management will be able to achieve an acceptable solution
without additional tools and direction from Congress. For these
reasons, I believe Senate Bill 1784 is the only politically viable
solution for managing these lands currently on the table that could
help avert the current crisis in Oregon.
You may well know, as I do, that this measure will not provide my
county with $40M in revenue. I can't advise that you attempt passage of
a bill that creates that kind of revenue due to the amount of harvest
it would require. What I do know, is that this measure will increase
harvest on these lands. It will provide certainty to your land
managers, and that certainty will drive investment by private industry.
That investment will create jobs. Those employees will build homes in
reinvigorated communities. They will pay income taxes and property
taxes, and through the combination of federal revenue sharing, and
giving taxpayers a job, it will be far easier to be a county
commissioner in Western Oregon.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Commissioner. You are
going to be key in this effort in terms of bringing people
together.
I want to start by trying to pick up on what I imagine
people listening on the live streamer are thinking. Or maybe
they've had a chance to see some of the statements that have
been made.
Mr. Riddle, who is sitting toward that end, doesn't think
the legislation provides certainty because, in his view, it
really doesn't touch the Endangered Species Act and the
National Environmental Policy Act. Sitting next to him is Mr.
Stevens, who says that the bill undermines the Endangered
Species Act and NEPA. It's hard to see how the two of you can
both be right.
So, the question, I think, is, Is it possible that you both
may be a little bit wrong and that the other witnesses who have
come here--Mr. Miller and Commissioner Leiken and Mr. Matz and
Dr. Franklin--that they may be right in terms of the effort to
strike a balance?
I want to give you, Mr. Stevens, and you, Mr. Riddle, a
chance to comment on that, because the two of you are so far
apart, I guess we can kind of maybe find you. But you're way,
way apart. We've got to, if we're going to get this done, as
Congressman DeFazio and I talked about here over the last 3
hours or so, we've got to find a way to bring people together.
Tell me a little bit about your reaction to what I said and
how maybe I can bring the two of you a little bit closer so we
can help pass the bill.
Either one of you? Mr. Stevens.
Mr. Stevens. Yes. It's a good question, Chairman Wyden.
I think, you know, from our experience working with your
staff on the East Side Forest Bill in 2009, we addressed the
similar issue with regards to NEPA in trying to figure out ways
to work within the constraints of NEPA that allow public access
to decisionmaking and allow access to the courts of regress. We
found a way to do that without tampering with the overarching
structure of NEPA, to use some of the things that both the BLM
and forest service that Chief Tidwell was talking about
earlier, some of the efforts that they've been making within
the agency to do the same thing. I think collaboration is
another tool, also, to achieve this goal.
When we look at this bill, at S. 1784, we don't see the
same approach to NEPA. We see a 10-year EIS that essentially
closes the door to public access to decisionmaking, once that
EIS is through. So, I think it's a very different thing. Our
experience on the east side bill shows that there's a better
way to do it.
The Chairman. What the challenge is, Mr. Stevens, is to try
to take our principles, which is to make sure that everybody
gets a chance to be heard with respect to forestry policy, and
deal with the fact that the west side is very different than
the east side. The west side has this patchwork of land, some
public, some private. It's very, very different. So that alone
is part of the thinking that's gone into it.
So what we said is, ``You bet we're going to hear from the
stakeholders. But we're going to do it all up front. We're not
going to do it in 15 minutes.'' I mean, for over a year, for
over a year, all the stakeholders are going to be at the table
on both types of forests, so that they have a chance to be
heard. But then, once we get there, we're not going to have
this policy that I've characterized where every tree has its
own lawsuit.
Mr. Stevens. I think I have to disagree with the concept
that every tree has its own lawsuit. I think in reality, the
amount of appeals that go to court is very small, and it tends
to be when sales are of the most egregious character. Oregon
Wild does not take it lightly to go to court, because it takes
our time and resources. Despite how we've been characterized,
we are not sitting in our wealthy homes thinking of ways to
ruin rural America.
I would say, though, that I think that the 10-year
provision is very troubling. Even if there is a lot of planning
that goes into that original EIS, once you put it in place,
every timber sale from then on, you don't get to get the hard
look that we get now to know what the impact is. So, we have
this 10-year plan, and we don't know, I think--Dr. Franklin
said it earlier. We don't know everything about forests now,
and we certainly didn't 25 years ago. We're going to learn more
in 2 years, 5 years. We're going to need the opportunity to be
able to be flexible as we look at these individual sales.
Furthermore, we don't need that overarching ability,
because there isn't a huge problem. We heard Mr. Ellis say
earlier that they're planning 230 million board-feet of timber
sales this year. Hey, it's a far cry from 1.2 billion. But
that's not nothing. I think the characterization that there is
zero management on BLM lands is inaccurate.
Certainly, the industry would like more. I would like to
only see restoration management. Somewhere in between there, we
can find the----
The Chairman. I want to give Mr. Riddle a chance to get
into this.
Mr. Stevens. Sure.
The Chairman. Yes, we hope that they will get it up. But
the reality is the average for the last decade has not gotten
close to that, not gotten close.
Mr. Riddle.
Mr. Riddle. Thanks. To follow up on the comment, planning
for the sale is different than implementing the sale. We all
know that. The numbers are far different.
But getting back to the issue about certainty. Timing and
streamlining is a different issue than whether or not there's
legal certainty. If it's simply a timing issue and you're
streamlining the process, but the underlying law--in other
words, the legal standard remains the same and nothing's
changed--you're just going to get to the lawsuit a little
quicker, but you're not going to get necessarily a different
result in the lawsuit. That's the concern.
It's not where you have here, you said a tyranny of the
extreme. That's not where we're at or I'm at. It's whether or
not it will be effective legally, which is different than an
argument over, you know, what is sustainable scientifically, or
how many dollars does it take, or how much is needed for mill
infrastructure?
The other problem with certainty is it's not like
horseshoes where close is good enough. If you increase what you
think is certainty by 70 percent in a bill, that doesn't mean
you're going to get 70 percent, let's say, of the harvest. If
there is a hole in your legal certainty, you lose it all. 70
percent certainty, in other words, is zero harvest.
[Pause.]
The Chairman. Excuse me.
Mr. Riddle. That's OK.
The Chairman. We're calling some audibles for the votes. Go
ahead.
Mr. Riddle. The point I was making about--and I think you
heard the first part, but maybe not the last part--is legal
certainty isn't like horseshoes where, if you're close, then
you still get some points.
If you have, let's say you've drafted something, you think
we're 70 percent of the way there, 70 percent of legal
certainty does not equal 70 percent of the hope of volumes you
thought we were going to get in the bill. It's zero percent.
Because to the extent, once you have that loophole, that
loophole can be used for everything. So certainty is just a
tricky, very difficult, very difficult subject.
The other issue on this certainty issue regarding what
you've done in the bill, the 10-year EIS and things of that
nature, that is not, I would argue strongly, that is not far
out. It's only the ninth circuit that requires the EIS process
at the plan level, as you suggest in your bill in the
streamlining. Then you have to go through it all over again on
every single timber sale. The other circuits throughout the
United States don't require that. It's basically redundant.
So that certainly isn't extreme, and I don't think our
position on that--and I certainly don't think I'm part of that
tyranny of the extreme.
The Chairman. Let's kind of get Dr. Franklin into these
numbers.
Mr. Riddle has talked, Dr. Franklin, about how it would be
sustainable to harvest 1.2 billion board-feet per year. Because
in his view, there is so much timber growing in the forest.
Give us your take on a scientific basis with respect to that,
and what the difference is between what the agency has
identified as sustainable to harvest versus harvesting the full
volume of what has been grown. Because I think it's important
as we, again, our delegation tries to find this common ground,
get a sense of what is scientifically defensible. So, can you
unpack that?
Then I want to bring some of the rest of our witnesses into
this.
Dr. Franklin.
Mr. Franklin. Thank you. The 1.2 billion figure just simply
has to do with the estimated total growth on the entire
property. If you were managing that property solely for
optimized wood production, it might be sustainable. But of
course, we have a whole array of other goods and services that
we want from our Federal lands. So, obviously, there's no way
in the world that you can obtain that kind of harvest level and
still sustain those other values.
I think there's a principle here that goes far beyond
timber. That is, you know, whenever you manage a property for
essentially optimizing or maximizing a given output, whether
it's timber or fuels or owls or water, then you marginalize a
whole array of other values. Obviously, the rules of the game
that we've laid down says, ``No. We're not going to do that.
We're going to manage that property for an array of values
including values that are very important to the counties.''
So, you know, it's totally moot. We can't sustainably grow
2.4 billion board-feet of timber on those properties, or 1.2
billion rather, and sustain the other values. Period.
The Chairman. All right. Let's go to you, Mr. Matz, and
you, Mr. Miller, because I want to talk about, again, the
balanced kind of effort. I know this is very hard. I think you
heard me talk with Congressman DeFazio literally within 12
hours of town meetings, going to Corvallis. We were cutting,
you know, too much. We were going to Eugene, and we're cutting,
you know, too little. You're just kind of trying to find a way
to get to common ground.
I gather that Pew, that spends a lot of time on these
issues, feels that on balance, we have moved in the right
direction with respect to natural resources. But you'd like us
to do some fine-tuning in some areas that would certainly be
important to the people who Mr. Stevens works for. Is that a
fair characterization?
Mr. Matz. That would be a fair characterization, sure. The
thing about these processes is that not everybody is going to
get everything that they want.
The Chairman. You think?
[Laughter.]
Mr. Matz. I mentioned that in our oral testimony. But that,
you know, you can work to try to find a reasonable balance that
gets people much of what they would like to see out of this
process. That's where, you know, we've worked with you on this
particular issue. We've worked with Senator Tester on some of
these, on legislation that he has, the Forest Jobs and
Recreation Act.
It's not easy to try to balance these resource,
development, and land protection issues. But I think that if
people sit down, talk about it, learn about the concerns of
others, you can get to that sweet spot. We do think, with a few
minor improvements, you're pretty much there.
The Chairman. So, one last question for you, Mr. Miller,
and then I want to bring Commissioner Leiken and also our
commissioner from Douglas County, Commissioner Robertson, into
this discussion as well.
You said something to me once, Mr. Miller, about how so
many opportunities were missed over the last 10 to 15 years,
opportunities where the industry could have found reasonable,
you know, approaches, and environmental folks who might want to
come together. That very much has been central to my thinking.
I think it's what Congressman DeFazio was talking about
earlier when he mentioned the fact that he had Dr. Franklin to
a conference, you know, decades ago.
We don't want to miss this opportunity again. Would it be
fair, and perhaps you could just put it in your own words, to
talk a little bit about the history of the missed opportunities
and how it could have meant a lot for the industry and for
rural jobs and others if we hadn't missed those, you know,
chances, and could have had the talks we're having now back
then?
Mr. Miller. Sure. We could all look backward and wish maybe
we had struck a bargain or done something a little different.
But I think it's the nature of rural natural-resource-based
communities. I mean, people make their living off the land.
When policies change, I mean, these are proud people. Many
of them have been living in these communities for generations,
and they've been doing the same kind of work generation by
generation. When Federal policies or State policies change and
pull the carpet out from under that life, the natural reaction
is to dig in and try and do all you can to maintain it and
protect it.
So, I think that clearly is a limiting factor in one's
ability to see, how do I accept something that's less than what
I have known? I mean, that's just a very, very difficult
process psychologically.
I've done business in Northern California. We used to have
a substantial business in the Redwood region. I'm very, very
well acquainted with the legal aspects of forestry and the very
clever and well-funded tactics that people use, in this case,
to try and up-end private business. We had mills in Montana
that were largely based on forest service timberlands. Those
mills don't exist today. I've had the grim responsibility to
stand in front of hundreds of men and women and tell them that,
in 2 weeks time, their world as they have known it will come to
an end, and watch them react as one can imagine they would
react.
This is just the fabric of society, of communities, of
changes. I lived in Iowa during the upheaval of the farm crisis
in the late 1970s and the early 1980s. Drive down the road,
you'd see those auctions, miles of cars lined up where they
were selling everything, the pots, the pans, the bed sheets.
So, this is all very difficult, I think, for everybody.
It's not easy to let go of what you believe in, what has been
your life. You understand that. I know you do. I've talked to
you about this on a number of occasions.
Life moves on whether we like it or not. That's not said
with callousness. It's just it's the nature of society, and
certainly a democratic and capitalistic society.
On the other side, there is this reality that these lands
are governed by, and really essentially owned by, the people of
the United States. They just happen to be heavily concentrated
in a corner of Oregon.
The Chairman. God put the trees in our part of the world.
Mr. Miller. Yes. So, you know, that's a particularly
challenging problem to address. I think the issue is that for
so long, both sides have denied the reality of change. I mean,
people would talk about it. But I think what's been missing is
to sit down with the folks that live in these communities and
put all the cards face-up on the table.
With all due respect, you know, the folks from the
environmental communities, they're entitled to their position.
But frankly, most of them don't live in these communities. The
people that fund them don't live in these communities. I think
if they really want to pursue their goals, they should show up
in places like Roseburg and Grants Pass, like you do.
The Chairman. I'm certain they're going to be there.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Miller. No, and look these people in the eye and say,
``I do not believe your job needs to continue because I think
there are other values for these forests that I believe take
precedent,'' and just have the courage to do that.
You have had the courage to go to these places and take the
slings and arrows. They're trying to bring people together to a
place that, you know, is the best we're going to do. Frankly,
the political reality of this situation and the laws that
govern these properties and the politics of how legislation
passes through this body and your accompanying chamber and,
hopefully, gets signed by the President.
The Chairman. I appreciate that sort of approach, because
these are very difficult, you know, issues. I mean, it's a
piece of cake to go into one camp over here and another camp
over here and basically just put out your press releases and
say, ``Our way is the right way.''
I do think that, had we had these conversations,
particularly on the west side, as you suggested, you know,
years ago when people basically were in denial, we wouldn't be
faced with some of these situations. I touched on it in my
opening statement. Mr. Robertson talked about it. Congressman
DeFazio talked about it. We're literally in some of our rural
communities, if there is a serious, violent crime being
committed, people don't know where to turn. That is just
unacceptable.
I want to give Commissioner Robertson and Commissioner
Leiken the last word. But I hope you two commissioners, and I
know you've had differing views on this issue, are walking out
of here encouraged. Because what Congressman DeFazio said
today, because he has led the effort on the House side, and
I've had the bill here as Chairman of the Energy and Natural
Resource Committee--he made it clear there's an urgency behind
finding common ground. He's trying to get the yes, not trying
to find ways to keep on saying, ``Let's put it off for somebody
else and some other day.''
I think that set of comments by Congressman DeFazio ought
to leave people plenty encouraged. I'm going to work very
closely with him and the members of our delegation to show that
sense of urgency that means, as Mr. Miller touched on, that
we're not going to be talking about this years and years from
now because everybody denied it in 2014.
So, Mr. Robertson, the last word, you get one. Mr. Leiken,
you get one. We'll liberate you all here from the hearing.
Mr. Robertson.
Mr. Robertson. Thank you, Senator Wyden.
You know, one of the issues that seems lost in these
discussions is the unique nature of these lands. Again, these
are not large contiguous blocks of forest lands. These are
scattered bits and pieces of a checkerboard never intended to
be in Federal ownership. For 40 years, these lands were in
private ownership, and 3 attempts by the Federal Government to
sell these lands into the private sector.
So I think it's important that we keep in the discussion
the context that these lands are very unique, very different,
governed by different rules and different laws.
Having said that, I am encouraged. I'm very encouraged,
because I think we are closer than we--well, there's no
question we're closer than we've been in 75 years in solving
this problem. With your efforts, with Congressmen DeFazio,
Schrader, and Walden, I think we can reach a resolution.
Congressman DeFazio pointed out that one of the things that
needs to happen, and I think Dr. Franklin would agree, is that
if we are going to achieve the outputs in terms of harvest
levels and revenue, we're going to have to grow the job base--
the land base a bit. That means public domain lands. That means
perhaps some controverted lands.
That can be done. If that land base is increased, our
ability to reach the balance that's going to be necessary to
provide the output, I think is achievable.
I also think it's important to point out that this
discussion began 2.5 years ago when the counties recognized
that our myopic view of just looking at county issues had to be
expanded. We had to look and take into consideration the
concerns of the environmental community and the industry.
That's why we were willing to put 1 million acres of these
O&C lands into a permanent reserve, never to be managed. As you
pointed out, the first attempt to protect old growth, 1 million
acres, add to that 50,000 acres in the Rogue Wilderness, a
brand-new wilderness area, and the Devil's Staircase, another
36,000 acres, 150 miles of river to be re-designated as Wild
and Scenic. I would suggest the counties have come a long ways
in meeting the balance.
Again, we recognize this is not 1937 anymore. But we also
recognize the values of the principles of the O&C Act--
sustained yield, the purpose of the land to support the
counties. I think, with your leadership and your congressional
colleagues, we can get there.
The Chairman. Thank you. I very much appreciate that.
You're absolutely right with respect to the counties and their
central role. They were central back in 2000, when Senator
Craig and I in this room wrote the Secure Rural Schools Bill.
Without that, as you know, there are some counties in our State
that probably would have had difficulty funding education 3
days a week. Even with that, obviously, as we've been talking
about this morning, there's enormous hurt. That's why we've got
to get people back to work in the woods in rural Oregon.
I think it's appropriate, because we're going to need the
counties', you know, input. Your involvement with the national
counties, I want in the days ahead, as we look at both parts of
the equation, today is about getting people back to work in the
woods. But we're going to have more work to do on the safety-
net side as well. We are going to need the counties to work
with us on another challenge that we've begun to think about.
That is to make common ground between all the communities in
this country where there is Federal land and Federal water.
Because I think if you went back and looked at how this
patchwork of different programs was created, nobody would argue
for doing one thing for renewable energy and Federal waters and
another for some other use on land or something of that nature.
We try to play to the common strengths that we've talked about
in our State, which is multiple use. That is the bedrock
principle when it relates to our State. So, we are going to be
working with you not just on this legislation, which is to get
people back to work in the woods, but also on the safety net.
Now, we pulled a rabbit out of the hat here a few months
ago when we were able to sell off the helium reserve and get
some of that money, which will be arriving for rural counties
here shortly. But we've got to get rural counties in Oregon and
across the country off this roller coaster. So we will be
following up with you on that as well.
Last word for you, Commissioner Leiken.
Mr. Leiken. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I appreciate
Commissioner Robertson's words on this as well and kind of
giving the history of the O&C lands.
As I mentioned before, you know, I lived primarily in two
places, Douglas County and Lane County. My great-great-
grandfather migrated to Oregon in the 1870s. My wife and I have
chose to live in Oregon, chose to live in Lane County. We've
chose to raise our family there. I have such commitment to it.
So not only as an elected official, this is where I planted
my roots. My business interests have been in Lane and Douglas
County.
I find it interesting, you know, when I hear the piece
where it suggests that Oregon is third in job growth. You know,
about a year ago--actually, it was less than a year ago--there
was a most interest op ed piece called ``The Tale of Two
Oregons.'' The significant job growth is happening in the
Portland metro area. Then there's the rest of the State.
For me, I sit back and I look at, well, we have the
incredible species of timber that we have in our counties. I
looked, we have this opportunity to continue to provide these
critical jobs to our citizens here. So we don't feel like that
we're constantly left out. So, I appreciate your leadership on
this. I appreciate the work that Congressman DeFazio is doing
on the House side. I know the two of you will get together, and
our colleagues throughout Oregon and throughout the Northwest,
and come up with a plan that I think will be sustainable for
the future.
So I appreciate it. As you know, I'm not going to speak for
Commissioner Robertson. But I assure you that the both of us
will clearly be working with you very closely as we go on. I
think you can expect the counties will be a player in this.
So, I thank you very much. Glad to be here this, I guess
it's close to this afternoon. Still morning in Oregon. So, glad
to be here, and thank you so much for this opportunity.
The Chairman. Big thanks to all of you. Suffice it to say
on these kinds of tough natural resource issues, it is not a
walk in the park or something that you're easily going to find
common ground on. But I think in the course of the last 3
hours, we've certainly moved in the right direction.
I want to thank all of you, and we'll excuse you at this
time.
[Pause.]
The Chairman. Our next panel will address the Barrasso bill
S. 1966. We're glad to welcome Dr. Mike Dombeck. He has a
wealth of experience in Federal land management. We have worked
with him often over the past years. It is always good to see
his cheerful countenance here. He's a real visionary on
national forest management, and we appreciate him.
We're also joined by Clint--and I hope I'm pronouncing this
right--is it Georg?
Mr. Georg. It is Georg.
The Chairman. OK. Clint Georg.
We're going to summarize your oral remarks, and we'll
include all of your written testimony into the record. I'm glad
that my colleague from Wyoming has arrived so that we can have
the real authority on this matter here.
Why don't we begin with you, Dr. Dombeck, and then go to
you, Mr. Georg?
STATEMENT OF MIKE DOMBECK, BOARD MEMBER,
TROUT UNLIMITED
Mr. Dombeck. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We've had many, many
hearings together in this room, and I think back to county
payments maybe 12 or 14 years ago. At any rate, it's good to be
back.
Senator Barrasso, while we haven't had an opportunity to
work together, I spend a lot of time in your State with having
family members there. I hunt and fish and really enjoy Wyoming.
The dialog of this hearing for someone that's been in so
many hearings in this room has been very, very instructive this
morning. Much of my testimony actually has been said by one
person or another. So I'm just going to summarize very briefly
in the hopes that the chairman's implication that there might
be a closer place in heaven for someone with a shorter oral
statement, maybe I'll gain something by that.
But a couple of points. No. 1, you know, I don't think
anyone assumes that the national forests are simply a
breadbasket of timber to be harvested anymore. What I'd like to
lay out is just a set of 7 very brief principles that I think
if we adhere to, we will make lots of progress. Obviously,
there are--all of us have experienced, you know, frustrations
of the debates over resource allocation, and those debates are
not going to go away.
But sort of in the spirit of being constructive, not only
on S. 1966, but basically the entire forest management debate
across the country, I'd just like to mention the 7 principles.
No. 1 is to promote collaboration and collaborative
stewardship. That's Chairman Wyden, former Chairman Bingaman.
There's been a lot of progress made on that front. The
collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration program I think is
one of the highlights there. I've asked my home State, Senator
Baldwin, to say that that should be extended east of the 100th
meridian as well.
No. 2, protect roadless areas, riparian areas, and old
growth forests. I just want to echo Dr. Franklin's points about
his praise of the old growth protection in your bill, Senator
Wyden, because we've got to get these controversies off the
table to make progress, which was one of the reasons that I
pushed the old growth, or rather the roadless area protection.
There was a tremendous resource drain on all, basically all
parties involved, particularly the forest service, and a
liability for taxpayers as well. So that's, I just commend you
for that.
No. 3, focus on timber harvest to restore and improve the
health of forests and reduce fire risk.
No. 4, solicit ideas from a broad range of interests on
ways to overcome obstacles to sustainable management
activities. I think we're all seeking to do this in many, many
ways, and we need to just keep on trying and appreciating the
fact that every American wants to have a voice in government
decisions.
No. 5, move away from the reliance on the traditional
timber sale contract as the sole source of vegetation
management. I'm so pleased to see the AG bill and the support
for authorization of the forest service and of the Stewardship
Contracting Authority. That, I think, is a tremendous step
forward. The more we can move in that direction, the better off
all of us will be.
No. 6, and this has been mentioned many times, a fixed fire
funding issue of the forest service to really restore the
capability of the agency to work more broadly on the land. This
will go a long way, I think, in getting more work done on the
land where it really counts--so to speak, where the rubber
meets the road.
No. 7, and perhaps as important as any, the first Chief of
the Forest Service, Gifford Pinchot, said that, you know, we
manage forests for the greatest good for the greatest number in
the long run. One of those new greatest goods, I believe, is
forests managed for climate change, storehouses of carbon.
Reinforcing the importance of water, that was part of the
original establishment of the national forests more than a
century ago. That's so important.
Keep an eye on integrated forest management that includes
timber harvest, includes thinning, includes putting roads to
bed where they're not needed, includes the whole array of fish
habitat improvement, water quality, recreation, hiking, biking,
and all those things where kids can go and enjoy public lands
and not have to worry about ``No Trespassing'' signs.
With that, I'll conclude and will be happy to answer
questions anytime.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Dombeck follows:]
Prepared Statement of Mike Dombeck, Board Member, Trout Unlimited
Thank you for inviting me to testify today on S. 1966, the National
Forest Jobs and Management Act of 2014. I greatly appreciate this
Committee's important role in the oversight and protection of our
nation's precious natural resources and public lands. I'm very familiar
with this hearing room, having testified here many times as Chief of
the Forest Service and as the acting-Director of the Bureau of Land
Management. I am here today on my own behalf, and also as a Board
member of Trout Unlimited--an organization with a strong knowledge of,
and mission interest in, management of our National Forests.
The public ownership of land is rooted in the founding of the
United States. The original 13 colonies--the eastern states--ceded
their ownership of western lands to the federal government. In exchange
for extensive land grants within their territories, western territories
relinquished claims to the unappropriated lands inside their
boundaries. Congress required that these agreements be reflected in
each new state's constitution as ``ordinances irrevocable.'' The Public
Lands belong to all citizens of the United States.
Disposition, allocation and management of public lands have always
been very important and controversial work. As this nation matures, the
population increases, and more land is urbanized and developed, how we
manage our public land becomes even more important. Recall the old Will
Rogers' cliche, ``buy land, they ain't making it anymore.''
For nearly the past half century the public lands managed by the
Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management, have been managed for
multiple uses as mandated by law. However, translating multiple-use on
the ground is no easy task. Every constituency--forest products,
grazing, mining, recreation, wilderness, and so on--pushes to maximize
its interest. Couple this with constantly changing economic needs and
social values, and the challenge gets even messier.
The most important recommendation I have for this Committee, the
Congress and the Executive Branch is focus on is how to maintain the
long term health and productivity of the land. The challenge as defined
by Gifford Pinchot is to manage for the ``greatest good for the
greatest number for the longest time.'' Water was a basic value, and
watershed protection and restoration a basic concern that led to the
establishment of the National Forests in both the eastern and western
United States. The critical role forests play in the carbon cycle and
moderating climate change is perhaps the most recent value we must take
seriously. The severe drought in California and parts of the West and
other extreme weather patterns are reminders that maintaining and
protecting forests and their sound management is of the utmost
importance.
I appreciate Senator Barrasso's interest in the need for properly
managing multiple-use on our public forests. From World War II to the
1980's, an era of different values, the Forest Service focused
primarily on timber harvest. The all-time high was reached in the
1980's with harvests approaching 12 billion board feet per year. Since
1990, the agency has struggled to cut two billion board feet per year.
Nearly everyone agrees that 12 billion was unsustainable--way too
high--and most agree that we can do better than the 2.5 billion board
feet being harvested today.
No longer do we look at National Forests as bread-baskets of timber
to be brought to market. They are managed for forest health, water
supplies, hunting and angling, and yes, timber production, among many
other multiple use values. But the truth is that the Forest Service is
in its 24th year of transition, and we need to model new approaches to
help the agency meet its multiple-use objectives including, but not
limited to, cutting more timber from public lands.
The guiding principle of my testimony is the need to manage for the
long-term health and sustainable productivity of the land. And therein
lays my primary concern with S. 1966. Rather than making the long-term
health of the land, or even improving multiple-use management of the
land its objective, this bill would make timber production from a
portion of our publicly-owned forests the primary objective. Keep in
mind the many long, protracted controversies of the past. Let's not
repeat them by pushing the pendulum back so far and making one use
dominant.
In the spirit of offering solutions, I offer the Committee seven
principles to consider as it debates how to help the Forest Service
manage our public lands for land health while also achieving its
multiple-use mandate.
one, collaboration and collaborative stewardship work
This committee has discussed several bills that model new
approaches to help the Forest Service achieve its mandates. The Forest
Jobs and Recreation Act introduced by Senator Tester is a good example
of bringing conservation interests and timber interests together to
protect wilderness quality lands; promote hazardous fuels treatments;
and ensure more stability in timber management from certain forests in
Montana.
I encourage this committee to increase its support of science and
local community-based collaborative groups, such as has been done by
Chairman Wyden in Oregon and Senator Crapo in Idaho, and was led by
former Chairman Bingaman and his support to for the Collaborative
Forest Landscape Restoration Program. We also need to support Forest
Service efforts to implement the new forest planning rule, allowing for
greater collaborative participation by all communities with forest
interests.
In my home state of Wisconsin there is a grassroots effort
beginning to take shape called the North East Wisconsin Collaborative.
It brings together a diverse group of stakeholders from conservation,
loggers, Tribal members, and forest industry representatives to find
ways to accelerate the sustainable management of the Chequamegon-
Nicolet National Forest. This effort is being modeled from the many
Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program projects (CFLRP)
that have been establish across the country, predominately around
National Forests impacted by large scale wildfire. While wildfire
typically isn't a the threat in the Great Lakes States as it is in the
West, the effort in Wisconsin is aiming to promote the health of
watersheds that drain into the Great Lakes while producing timber and
jobs. Established CFLRP projects have shown that when diverse
stakeholders come together significant progress can be made and should
be extended to the National Forests east of the 100th Meridian.
two, protect roadless areas, riparian areas, and old growth forests
Any new National Forest policy should recognize the exceptional
value of roadless areas and old growth forests. These aren't simply
``more green lands'' on the map. In a very real way, they are the
crucible on which the character of this nation was forged, and they
should be protected and held in trust for the benefit and use of
present and future generations. Old growth forests are essentially
absent from private lands; the last place you can find them in this
country is on public forests. Who would deprive a child of experiencing
that wonder, a scientist of learning from them?
Roadless areas remained roadless for a reason. These remaining wild
places are typically difficult and expensive to get into for resource
extraction, and in the past often resulted in below cost timber sales.
Should we really consider putting roads into roadless areas when the
Forest Service is running a multibillion dollar backlog on maintenance
of its existing road system?
Although roadless areas represent less than two percent of the
American landscape, more than 25 percent of all endangered species are
dependent on roadless areas. The table below, from a Trout Unlimited
report, shows the value of roadless areas in Idaho to trout and salmon.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Nearly a quarter of Americans drink water that flows across
roadless areas. To not recognize their social and ecological values in
legislation would be a tremendous lost opportunity. I have attached a
section of the preamble to the 2001 Roadless Rule which details the
full range of social, economic and ecological values of these lands.
More recently science pointed out the role of forests and old growth in
the carbon cycle and mitigating the effects of climate change.
When it comes to riparian areas, the Forest Service itself has
pioneered methods such as the Aquatic Conservation Strategy, Pacfish,
and Infish that protect streamside areas in the forests on the westside
of the Cascades, other anadromous fish habitats in the National Forest
System, and important inland trout habitat, respectively. Riparian
areas in the West, in particular, have an outsized conservation value.
Although they represent only two percent of the western landscape, more
than 75 percent of all wildlife species are dependent on them.
three, focus timber harvest and forest management to restore and
improve forest health and reduce fire risk
Focus on the interface of forests and human communities. The fact
is that our greatest forest management needs are not in backcountry
areas, or areas with the biggest and oldest trees, they are in places
where public forests run up against private lands and communities.
Wildfires can be a huge problem in such areas, especially in wildfire-
dependent landscapes that have had fire suppressed for decades. We
should follow the models of collaborative stewardship that allow for
the protection of backcountry areas while also allowing communities to
create defensible spaces in areas adjacent to their forest-bordering
homes.
I note, for example, that the first person to litigate the 2001
Roadless Area Conservation Rule was then Lieutenant-Governor James
Risch of Idaho. But he didn't stop there. As Governor, he brought all
of the people who had an interest in roadless management--the state,
counties, environmental and commodity interests--together, and forged a
made-in-Idaho agreement that allows for urban-wildland communities to
take proactive actions to protect communities from wildfires while
still also protecting roadless areas. Importantly, groups such as Trout
Unlimited who participated in its development, argue that the Idaho
Roadless Rule's conservation measures as strong or stronger than the
2001 national roadless rule. Colorado followed a similar process.
I commend Senator Risch for his work, and the Idaho example in
seeking ways to protect roadless areas and their values while also
protecting wildland-urban communities from the effects of wildfire.
four, solicit ideas from a broad range of interests on ways to overcome
obstacles to sustainable management activities
History teaches us that real progress is made when communities of
place and interest come together to find solutions on the land. As
Congress and the Forest Service look at ways to plan and implement
projects more efficiently, they would be well served to solicit the
ideas of a broad range of stakeholders. The issues that S. 1966 seeks
to address have been around for a while, and a lot of thinking has gone
into solutions--one example being the Healthy Forest Restoration Act.
By bringing a broad spectrum of interests together to think about ways
to make Forest Service processes more efficient, members of this
Committee could come up with approaches that better accomplish balanced
multiple use management. Senator Barrasso is to be commended for
offering ideas to fix a problem of concern to many. We should be as
diligent in protecting the interests of people who have invested in
collaborative stewardship as we are at ensuring that all interests have
a voice in the management of National Forests.
five, move away from reliance on the traditional timber sale contract
I realize that my recommendation runs contrary to this bill, but it
is time to move away from sole reliance the timber sale contract as the
prime vehicle for national forest management. This bill would require
the use of timber sale contracts for all timber management. (Note that
25 percent of all timber receipts are returned to states and counties
for schools and roads.)
It is time that we move away from fundamental need to educate our
children with revenues from timber harvest of public forests. No other
country in the world bases the quality of their children's education on
how much timber they cut. It is not sustainable over the long haul for
either the forest or local schools.
The Forest Service should rapidly accelerate the use of stewardship
contracting. Stewardship contracting allows the Forest Service to apply
the revenues generated from timber sales to other priorities such as
road and culvert maintenance, forest health, stream improvement
projects, and other hard-to-fund work that can help to make forests
more resilient to the effects of climate change. I am delighted the
current Farm Bill Conference Report recognized this and provides the
Forest Service with permanent authority for Stewardship contracting.
six, treat the forest service like every other federal agency that has
to deal with natural disasters
In FY 1991, fire spending accounted for roughly 13 percent of the
total Forest Service budget, while in FY13 fire spending ate up more
than 40% of the budget. The agency has lost $500 million dollars from
programs that help to improve forest health, keep drinking water clean,
suppress invasive species, promote hunting and fishing, get kids
outdoors, improve access to forests, and so on by diverting resources
for fire-fighting.
Truly, this is an inefficient way to run an agency, and it is time
Congress fixed the problem. Simply stated, Congress should treat the
Forest Service the same as any other federal agency with funding
responsibilities for natural disasters. No other single agency within
the entire federal government must fund disaster response--which is
what fighting fires can amount to--from discretionary budgets. This is
one issue that all currently retired Forest Service Chiefs are in
complete agreement on and we have written the Congress about on
numerous occasions
I commend Senators Wyden, Crapo and their colleagues, including my
own home State Senator Baldwin, for their efforts and bipartisan
approach to fix this funding issue which has literally hamstrung the
Forest Service's capacity in all forest management activities.
Additionally, it will take constant vigilance to see that investments
are made up-front that will reduce fire danger and costs in the long
run. This will produce timber and jobs in the process.
seven, and perhaps most important, national forest policy should make
making forests more resilient to the effects of climate change and
their capacity to produce clean water
The Forest Service is a leader among federal agencies in preparing
for climate change. Managing public lands so they are better able to
withstand the effects of climate change benefits human communities and
fish and wildlife, too. For example, protecting roadless areas
minimizes downstream drinking water filtration costs. Reconnecting
rivers to floodplains helps to reduce the energy of devastating floods.
Restoring fire dependent forests can provide tens of thousands of well-
paying, family wage jobs.
One note of caution: while thinning trees is an important aspect of
forest restoration, it does not and should not define restoration. The
February, 2012 Forest Service report, ``Increasing the Pace of
Restoration and Job Creation on Our National Forests'' does a good job
of describing how to accelerate thinning. But cutting trees alone will
not restore our forests. Unsustainable timber harvest and development
of other resources in the past have left many Forest Service lands in
need of a wide range of restoration actions. Restoration must be
approached by looking at how best to recover ecological processes that
keep the land healthy. Closing or relocating roads; fixing culverts;
removing unneeded small dams and fixing obsolete water diversions;
ensuring adequate flows of water; and thinning are all part of an
integrated forest restoration strategy. The temptation for the Forest
Service and Congress will be to try and cut our way to healthy forests.
One example of a strong restoration effort comes from Montana's
Middle Clark Fork basin where historic placer mining and other resource
extraction badly damaged tributary streams that provide important
spawning and rearing habitat for bull trout and cutthroat trout. One of
these tributaries is Ninemile Creek, where the Forest Service and its
partners improved 12 miles of instream habitat, reclaimed 100 miles of
unused logging roads, planted 10,000 trees and shrubs, upgraded or
removed 70 culverts and incorporated 3,000 volunteer hours into
watershed restoration planning and implementation. After the completion
of these projects, cutthroat trout were able to migrate up Ninemile
Creek for the first time in 70 years. The outpouring of volunteer hours
and matching funding contributions to the restoration of the Middle
Clark Fork is a testament to the public's desire to improve and restore
our national forests. This example is a useful reminder that cutting
certain trees may be an important aspect of restoration, but it is only
one small part of an integrated restoration strategy.
These integrated approaches to forest restoration, combined with
fixing the fire funding issues, provide the best opportunity I've seen
to move beyond the current frustration and make a real difference on
the land. I applaud the Forest Service for developing a categorical
exclusion for certain restoration projects to enable them to move
forward more efficiently. And I encourage Congress to maximize these
opportunities by providing the Forest Service with adequate
appropriations to plan and implement restoration projects, and by
improving the agency's fire funding system. These steps will result in
real progress while stakeholders consider ways to efficiently implement
ecologically based forest management activities on the land.
Integrated National Forest restoration can bring benefits to many
communities with great value, including water, tourism, timber, and
jobs as well as the remarkable legacy of having public places without
``no trespassing'' signs where kids growing up can connect with nature.
Our national forests are places to recreate, hunt, fish, hike,
experience solitude and wild places, the places to restore human health
and spirit while enjoying the great outdoors
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I would be pleased
to answer any questions.
appendix: preamble to 2001 roadless area conservation rule
Roadless Area Values and Characteristics
Inventoried roadless areas considered in this rule constitute
roughly one-third of all National Forest System lands, or approximately
58.5 million acres. Although the inventoried roadless areas comprise
only 2% of the land base in the continental United States, they are
found within 661 of the over 2,000 major watersheds in the nation (FEIS
Vol. 1, 3-50) and provide many social and ecological benefits.
As urban areas grow, undeveloped private lands continue to be
converted to urban and developed areas, and rural infrastructure (such
as roads, airports, and railways). An average of 3.2 million acres per
year of forest, wetland, farmland, and open space were converted to
more urban uses between 1992 and 1997. In comparison, 1.4 million acres
per year were developed between 1982 and 1992. The rate of land
development and urbanization between 1992 and 1997 was more than twice
that of the previous decade, while the population growth rate remained
fairly constant (FEIS Vol. 1, 3-12). In an increasingly developed
landscape, large unfragmented tracts of land become more important. For
example, from 1978 to 1994, the proportion of private forest ownerships
of less than 50 acres nearly doubled (Birch, T.W. 1996. Private forest-
land owners of the United States, 1994. Resource Bulletin NE-134.
Radnor, PA: USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Experiment Station. 183
p). Subdivision and other diminishment of tract size of these lands can
discourage long-term stewardship and conservation.
Inventoried roadless areas provide clean drinking water and
function as biological strongholds for populations of threatened and
endangered species. They provide large, relatively undisturbed
landscapes that are important to biological diversity and the long-term
survival of many at risk species. Inventoried roadless areas provide
opportunities for dispersed outdoor recreation, opportunities that
diminish as open space and natural settings are developed elsewhere.
They also serve as bulwarks against the spread of non-native invasive
plant species and provide reference areas for study and research (FEIS
Vol. 1, 1-1 to 1-4).
The following values or features often characterize inventoried
roadless areas (FEIS Vol. 1, 3-3 to 3-7):
High quality or undisturbed soil, water, and air. These three key
resources are the foundation upon which other resource values and
outputs depend. Healthy watersheds catch, store, and safely release
water over time, protecting downstream communities from flooding;
providing clean water for domestic, agricultural, and industrial uses;
helping maintain abundant and healthy fish and wildlife populations;
and are the basis for many forms of outdoor recreation.
Sources of public drinking water. National Forest System lands
contain watersheds that are important sources of public drinking water.
Roadless areas within the National Forest System contain all or
portions of 354 municipal watersheds contributing drinking water to
millions of citizens. Maintaining these areas in a relatively
undisturbed condition saves downstream communities millions of dollars
in water filtration costs. Careful management of these watersheds is
crucial in maintaining the flow and affordability of clean water to a
growing population.
Diversity of plant and animal communities. Roadless areas are more
likely than roaded areas to support greater ecosystem health, including
the diversity of native and desired nonnative plant and animal
communities due to the absence of disturbances caused by roads and
accompanying activities. Inventoried roadless areas also conserve
native biodiversity by serving as a bulwark against the spread of
nonnative invasive species.
Habitat for threatened, endangered, proposed, candidate, and
sensitive species and for those species dependent on large, undisturbed
areas of land. Roadless areas function as biological strongholds and
refuges for many species. Of the nation's species currently listed as
threatened, endangered, or proposed for listing under the Endangered
Species Act, approximately 25% of animal species and 13% of plant
species are likely to have habitat within inventoried roadless areas on
National Forest System lands. Roadless areas support a diversity of
aquatic habitats and communities, providing or affecting habitat for
more than 280 threatened, endangered, proposed, and sensitive species.
More than 65% of all Forest Service sensitive species are directly or
indirectly affected by inventoried roadless areas. This percentage is
composed of birds (82%), amphibians (84%), mammals (81%), plants (72%),
fish (56%), reptiles (49%), and invertebrates (36%).
Primitive, Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized, and Semi-Primitive
Motorized classes of dispersed recreation. Roadless areas often provide
outstanding dispersed recreation opportunities such as hiking, camping,
picnicking, wildlife viewing, hunting, fishing, cross-country skiing,
and canoeing. While they may have many Wilderness-like attributes,
unlike Wilderness the use of mountain bikes, and other mechanized means
of travel is often allowed. These areas can also take pressure off
heavily used wilderness areas by providing solitude and quiet, and
dispersed recreation opportunities.
Reference landscapes. The body of knowledge about the effects of
management activities over long periods of time and on large landscapes
is very limited. Reference landscapes of relatively undisturbed areas
serve as a barometer to measure the effects of development on other
parts of the landscape.
Natural appearing landscapes with high scenic quality. High quality
scenery, especially scenery with natural-appearing landscapes, is a
primary reason that people choose to recreate. In addition, quality
scenery contributes directly to real estate values in nearby
communities and residential areas. Traditional cultural properties and
sacred sites.
Traditional cultural properties are places, sites, structures, art,
or objects that have played an important role in the cultural history
of a group. Sacred sites are places that have special religious
significance to a group. Traditional cultural properties and sacred
sites may be eligible for protection under the National Historic
Preservation Act. However, many of them have not yet been inventoried,
especially those that occur in inventoried roadless areas.
Other locally identified unique characteristics. Inventoried
roadless areas may offer other locally identified unique
characteristics and values. Examples include uncommon geological
formations, which are valued for their scientific and scenic qualities,
or unique wetland complexes. Unique social, cultural, or historical
characteristics may also depend on the roadless character of the
landscape. Examples include ceremonial sites, places for local events,
areas prized for collection of non-timber forest products, or
exceptional hunting and fishing opportunities.
Fiscal Considerations
The Department is also concerned about building new roads in
inventoried roadless areas, when there presently exists a backlog of
about $8.4 billion in deferred maintenance and reconstruction on the
more than 386,000 miles of roads in the Forest Transportation System.
The agency [[Page 3246]] estimates that at least 60,000 miles of
additional unauthorized roads exist across National Forest System
lands.
The agency receives less than 20% of the funds needed annually to
maintain the existing road infrastructure. As funding needs remain
unmet, the cost of fixing deteriorating roads increases exponentially
every year. Failure to maintain existing roads can also lead to erosion
and water quality degradation and other environmental problems and
potential threats to human safety. It makes little fiscal or
environmental sense to build additional roads in inventoried roadless
areas that have irretrievable values at risk when the agency is
struggling to maintain its existing extensive road system (FEIS Vol. 1,
1-5 and 3-22). The National Forest System was founded more than 100
years ago to protect drinking water supplies and furnish a sustainable
supply of timber. Neither objective is fully achievable given the
present condition of the existing road system. The risks inherent in
building new roads in presently roadless areas threaten environmental,
social, and economic values.
Development activities in inventoried roadless areas often cost
more to plan and implement than on other National Forest System lands.
Some planned timber sales in inventoried roadless areas are likely to
cost more to prepare and sell than they realize in revenues received.
Because of the level of public controversy and analytical complexity,
projects in roadless areas often require development of costly
environmental impact statements for most resource development
activities, including timber harvesting, in inventoried roadless areas.
In some cases, road construction costs are higher due to rugged
terrain or sensitive ecological factors. Many development projects in
inventoried roadless areas are appealed or litigated. These factors
contribute to generally higher costs for the agency to plan and
implement development activities in inventoried roadless areas.
National Direction vs. Local Decisionmaking
At the national level, Forest Service officials have the
responsibility to consider the ``whole picture'' regarding the
management of the National Forest System, including inventoried
roadless areas. Local land management planning efforts may not always
recognize the national significance of inventoried roadless areas and
the values they represent in an increasingly developed landscape. If
management decisions for these areas were made on a case-by-case basis
at a forest or regional level, inventoried roadless areas and their
ecological characteristics and social values could be incrementally
reduced through road construction and certain forms of timber harvest.
Added together, the nation-wide results of these reductions could be a
substantial loss of quality and quantity of roadless area values and
characteristics over time.
In 1972, the Forest Service initiated a review of National Forest
System roadless areas generally larger than 5,000 acres to determine
their suitability for inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation
System. A second review process completed in 1979, known as Roadless
Area Review and Evaluation II (RARE II), resulted in another nationwide
inventory of roadless areas. In the more than 20 years since the
completion of RARE II, Congress has designated some of these areas as
Wilderness. Additional reviews have been conducted through the land
management planning process and other large-scale assessments. The 58.5
million acres of inventoried roadless areas used as the basis for this
analysis were identified from the most recent analysis for each
national forest or grassland, including RARE II, land and resource
management planning, or other large-scale assessments such as the
Southern Appalachian Assessment.
Of the 58.5 million acres of inventoried roadless areas considered
in the FEIS, approximately 34.3 million acres have prescriptions that
allow road construction and reconstruction. The remaining 24.2 million
acres are currently allocated to management prescriptions that prohibit
road construction; however, protections in these existing plans may
change after future forest plan amendments or revisions.
Over the past 20 years, roads have been constructed in an estimated
2.8 million of those 34.3 million acres of inventoried roadless areas.
The agency anticipates that the trend of building roads in inventoried
roadless areas will gradually decrease in the future even without this
rule due to economic and ecological factors already discussed, changes
in agency policy, increasing controversy and litigation, and potential
listings under the Endangered Species Act. While these anticipated
changes may reduce some of the impact to inventoried roadless areas,
they would not eliminate the future threat to roadless area values
(FEIS Vol. 1, 1-14 to 1-15).
On many national forests and grasslands, roadless area management
has been a major point of conflict in land management planning. The
controversy continues today, particularly on most proposals to harvest
timber, build roads, or otherwise develop inventoried roadless areas.
The large number of appeals and lawsuits, and the extensive amount of
congressional debate over the last 20 years, illustrates the need for
national direction and resolution and the importance many Americans
attach to the remaining inventoried roadless areas on National Forest
System lands (FEIS Vol. 1, 1-16). These disputes are costly in terms of
both fiscal resources and agency relationships with communities of
place and communities of interest. Based on these factors, the agency
decided that the best means to reduce this conflict is through a
national level rule.
Importance of Watershed Protection
Watershed protection is one of the primary reasons Congress
reserved or authorized the purchase of National Forest System lands.
Watershed health and restoration is also one of four emphasis areas in
the agency's Natural Resource Agenda. Protecting the remaining healthy
components of a watershed provides multiple benefits and a strong base
to anchor future restoration in unprotected portions of these
watersheds. Rivers, streams, lakes, and wetlands within a watershed are
the circulatory system of ecosystems, and water is the vital fluid for
inhabitants of these ecosystems, including people (FEIS Vol. 1, 1-1).
Inventoried roadless areas comprise a small fraction of the
national landscape, representing less than 2% of the land base of the
continental United States. They are, however, disproportionately
important to the small percentage of the land base they occupy.
Overall, National Forest System watersheds provide about 14% of the
total water flow of the nation, about 33% of water in the West (FEIS
Vol. 1, 3-46). Of the watersheds on National Forest System land, 661
contain inventoried roadless areas and 354 of those watersheds serve as
source areas of drinking water used by millions of people across the
nation. Therefore, the health of these watersheds is important to
people's health throughout the United States.
Roads have long been recognized as one of the primary human-caused
sources of soil and water disturbances in forested environments (FEIS
Vol. 1, 3-44). For example, while landslides are a natural process,
extensive research and other investigations in the West have closely
associated land management activities, particularly roading and timber
harvest, with accelerated incidence of landslides by several orders of
magnitude (FEIS Vol. [[Page 3247]] 1, 3-58). A joint study by the
Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management in Oregon and Washington
found that of 1,290 landslides reviewed in 41 sub-watersheds, 52% were
related to roads, 31% to timber harvest, and 17% occurred in
undisturbed forest (FEIS Vol. 1, 3-59). Another evaluation of
landslides initiated by the Siuslaw National Forest found that roads
were the source of 41% of landslides, harvest units less than 20 years
old were the source of 36%, while natural forest processes accounted
for the remaining 23%. Without the disturbance caused by roads and
associated activities, stream channels are more likely to function
naturally (FEIS Vol. 1, 3-54). Current road construction and timber
harvest practices reduce the potential for damage associated with the
use of earlier and less sophisticated techniques. However, even with
today's improved design standards for road construction and timber
harvest, these activities can still result in adverse effects to
watersheds. These effects include pollution, changes to water
temperatures and nutrient cycles, and increased sediment from storm or
runoff events that exceed road design standards (FEIS Vol. 1, 3-45 to
3-50).
Improving Ecosystem Health
Inventoried roadless areas provide large, relatively undisturbed
blocks of important habitat for a variety of terrestrial and aquatic
wildlife and plants, including hundreds of threatened, endangered, and
sensitive species. In addition to their ecological contributions to
healthy watersheds, many inventoried roadless areas function as
biological strongholds and refuges for a number of species and play a
key role in maintaining native plant and animal communities and
biological diversity (FEIS Vol. 1, 3-123 to 3-124). For example, about
60% of unroaded or very low road density sub watersheds within the
Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project (ICBEMP)
assessment area are aquatic strongholds for salmonid populations (FEIS
Vol. 1, 3-161). Inventoried roadless areas are key to recovery of
salmon and steelhead stocks in decline, providing habitat to protect
species until longer-term solutions can be developed for migration,
passage, hatchery, and harvest problems associated with the decline of
anadromous fish.
Species richness and native biodiversity are more likely to be
effectively conserved in larger undisturbed landscapes, such as
inventoried roadless areas (FEIS Vol. 1, 3-142). For example,
inventoried roadless areas cover approximately 21% of the centers of
biodiversity for animals and 10% for plants identified in ICBEMP (FEIS
Vol. 1, 3-144 and 3-173). Inventoried roadless areas also provide
reference landscapes that managers can use to gauge the health and
condition of other land areas.
Road construction, reconstruction, and timber harvesting activities
can result in fragmentation of ecosystems, the introduction of non-
native invasive species, and other adverse consequences to the health
and integrity of inventoried roadless areas (FEIS Vol. 1, 3-128 to 3-
136). As human-caused fragmentation increases, the amount of core
wildlife habitat decreases. This fragmentation results in decreased
connectivity of wildlife habitat and wildlife movement, isolating some
species and increasing the risk of local extirpations or extinctions
(FEIS Vol. 1, 3-133). The value of inventoried roadless areas as
habitat for threatened, endangered, and sensitive species and as
biological strongholds can also be diminished due to these activities.
For example, 220 species that are listed as threatened, endangered, or
proposed for listing under the Endangered Species Act and 1,930 agency-
identified sensitive species rely on habitat within inventoried
roadless areas (FEIS Vol. 1, 3-180). The Department of Agriculture
believes that the risks associated with certain development activities
in inventoried roadless areas should be minimized and that these areas
should be conserved for present and future generations.
Need for Action
Promulgating this rule is necessary to protect the social and
ecological values and characteristics of inventoried roadless areas
from road construction and reconstruction and certain timber harvesting
activities. Without immediate action, these development activities may
adversely affect watershed values and ecosystem health in the short and
long term, expand the road maintenance backlog which would increase the
financial burden associated with road maintenance, and perpetuate
public controversy and debate over the management of these areas. The
new planning rules provide for review of other activities and allow for
additional protection of roadless areas, if warranted. Adoption of this
final rule ensures that inventoried roadless areas will be managed in a
manner that sustains their values now and for future generations.
The Chairman. I will have some in a moment.
Let's go with you, Mr. Georg, and then Senator Barrasso
will begin the questions, and I will be back momentarily.
STATEMENT OF CLINT GEORG, PARTNER,
SARATOGA FOREST MANAGEMENT
Mr. Georg. OK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
My name is Clint Georg, and I'm one of the owners of a
sawmill located in Saratoga, Wyoming. I appreciate the
opportunity to comment on the legislation before this committee
today. I will direct my remarks to the bill and share with you
the insights I have gained as my partners and I have worked to
restart the mill in Saratoga.
I am also here as a member of the Federal Forest Resource
Coalition. FFRC represents purchasers of forest service and BLM
timber in 32 States.
Let me start by describing our company. Our sawmill is
located in Saratoga, Wyoming, a beautiful small town of 1,700
people located in the southern part of the State. Saratoga is
fortunate. In addition to having a gold medal trout river
running through town, it also has a sawmill.
In January of last year, we were able to reopen that
sawmill after it had sat idle for more than 10 years. Our
company now has more than 150 people working for it. We are the
largest employer in this town. We have hired people who have
previously had no work or seasonal work, and we've given them
full-time jobs. We have employees and their families who have
moved into town and expanded the communities. We have noticed
existing businesses growing and new businesses opening up in
the town.
I believe this success demonstrates the impact that an
active timber industry can have on a rural economy. The mill
now provides much-needed forest management in the adjacent
national forest.
This need is heightened by the crisis affecting those
forests and many other of our forests nationwide. Disease and
insects are killing millions of acres of trees. The forest in
our area is experiencing nearly 100 percent mortality. This
leads to massive fires, impacts our watersheds, affects our air
quality, and ruins the ecology that supports our wildlife.
It is particularly galling that this situation was in large
part created by policy, not by nature. Yes, drought and climate
change play a role in this crisis. But the now-discounted past
forest management policies are the root cause. Suppressing
fires in these forests, a policy in place since 1908, combined
with the dramatically reduced timber harvests starting in the
1990s, created a situation in our area of too many trees, all
the same approximate age, packed too closely together, and
fighting for too few nutrients--a situation perfectly suited
for massive outbreaks of insects, disease, and fire.
Active forest management is needed to help restore our
forests. But in a cruel irony, in the midst of an unprecedented
catastrophe affecting our forests, the very companies that can
use this timber to help pay to restore the woodlands are
suffering from a lack of access to timber.
As an example, in Wyoming, Colorado, and South Dakota, we
have a small industry comprised of private and family owned
timber businesses that must rely on Federal forests for their
supply of logs. However, in this area, with 7 million acres of
infected forest needing critical management, the forest service
is unable to treat even 0.7 percent of these annually. That's
the amount needed for us as an industry to survive.
Let me be clear: The forest service wants active forest
management. They want to see our timber businesses survive and
help restore the forests. But they do not have the fiscal
resources to do what is needed. One reason for this is the
financial drain to the forest service of administering NEPA
under the current constraints of possible litigation.
Senator Barrasso's bill provides an opportunity to try a
new approach on a limited scale. It proposes to take less than
4 percent of the national forest system and allow the forest
service to use a streamlined approach to NEPA and ESA. This
proposed bill will preserve the ability of interested parties
to file objections, but streamlines the process, using binding
arbitration to reduce costs, which puts more resources into the
management of land rather than litigation.
Senator Barrasso's bill also directs the forest service to
implement timber harvest on 7.5 million acres over a 15-year
timeframe. Timber harvests put money back to the forest service
and help pay for other resource management.
The impact of Senator Barrasso's bill is a win/win on many
levels. Funds freed up from litigation will allow the U.S.
Forest Service to devote more funds to increasing the pace and
scale of forest restoration, which in turn improve our wildlife
habitats, air quality, and protect our watersheds. Of course,
restoring our forests while increasing timber sales will lead
to revitalizing rural economies, much like we have seen in
Saratoga.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my thoughts and
experiences. When considering action on this proposed
legislation, please consider that the current system is driving
the decline of our national forests and is unsustainable both
ecologically and economically. We can't change the fact that a
great deal more of our forests will die from insects and
disease in the coming year. We can't change the near-term need
to spend more money and time suppressing wildfire.
But what we can change is this lack of active forest
management. Senator Barrasso's bill offers a meaningful step
forward in restoring our national forests. Therefore, I
strongly urge and request, on behalf of my company and the
FFRC, that we support this bill and move it toward passage.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Georg follows:]
Prepared Statement of Clint Georg, Partner, Saratoga Forest Management
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Murkowski, my name is Clint Georg and
I am one of the owners of a sawmill located in Saratoga, Wyoming. This
sawmill had been idled for 10 years before my partners and I restarted
the mill last year. We opened this mill in large part due to the need
and opportunity for active forest management in the adjacent national
forests and, in recognition of this, our company is named Saratoga
Forest Management.
I appreciate the opportunity to comment on the legislation before
the committee today. I will direct my remarks to Sen. Barrasso's bill,
the National Forest Jobs and Management Act of 2014. As part of my
remarks, I would like to share with you the insights I have gained as
my partners and I have worked to restart the mill in Saratoga.
Saratoga, a small town of 1,700 people, sits in Carbon County, and
the adjacent county is Albany County, Wyoming. These two counties have
poverty rates above the State average (11.4% in Carbon County, Albany
County has 26.2%; one in four of its residents live below the poverty
line\1\) and many jobs in the region are seasonal. The process of
reopening the sawmill took two years and millions of dollars in
refurbishments, but in January of last year we starting producing
lumber once more in Saratoga. Currently we have more than 100 full time
employees and more than 50 contract loggers and truck drivers working
for us. We are the largest employer in the town and since opening we
have seen the impact to the community. We have had employees and their
families move into the community, buy houses and support the community.
We also have noticed existing businesses expanding and new businesses
opening in the town. We are very pleased that our mill has provided a
new impetus to this rural community, and we're happy to have restored a
business in the area that helps provide jobs while stimulating the
local economy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ US Dept. of Commerce, US Census Bureau. Retrieved from http://
quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/56/56001.html & 56007.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am also here as a member of the Federal Forest Resource
Coalition. FFRC represents purchasers of Forest Service and BLM timber
in 32 states. FFRC has previously testified that what is needed for our
National Forests is a comprehensive, national bill that provides
clarity about how the Forest Service is to comply with NEPA, as well as
some relief from the frequently abused administrative reviews and
litigation that plague Forest Service decision making.
By now, as members of this committee, you are very familiar with
the crisis affecting our forests. The numbers defining this disaster
are staggering----
81 million acres of our forests have severe health problems,
the largest portion of which is in the Western United
States.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Frank J. Krist Jr., James R. Ellenwood, Meghan E. Woods, et.
al., ``2013-2027 National Insect and Disease Forest Risk Assessment''
(USDA, US Forest Service, January, 2014) pg ii.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9.3 million acres burned in 2012, and over the past several
years, dozens of people have been injured or killed by
wildfires and hundreds of homes lost.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ US House of Representatives, Committee on Natural Resources,
``Forest Health and Wildfires'', Retrieved from http://
naturalresources.house.gov/issues/issue/?IssueID=5924
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The ecological and economic damage from these fires has also
grown as the average wildfires have grown to double what they
were 40 years ago.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ USDA, US Forest Service, ``Forest Service Chief testifies on
wildfire response capabilities, challenges'', June 4, 2013, Retrieved
from http://www.fs.fed.us/news/2013/releases/06/chief-testifies-on-
wildfire.shtml
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a consequence of all this, the USFS now spends 47% of its
budget fighting fires, up from 13% back in 1991.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Ibid.
Although the present danger of massive and destructive fires is
undoubtedly the forest health issue that gets the most widespread
attention, there are other critical issues related to forest management
that must be addressed. The danger from fires, already heightened,
unfortunately increases again in approximately 15 to 20 years when the
trees killed by the pine bark beetle rot and fall down, adding woody
material to the young trees and other fine fuels growing on the forest
floor. A fire in this arrangement is difficult to suppress and will
pose additional safety hazards to firefighters. Severe wildfires of
this type burn at higher intensities and for longer durations which can
be very detrimental to plant communities, soils, and watersheds.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Colorado State Forest Service. ``2005 Report on the Health of
Colorado's Forests,'' (January 2006) pg 6. Retrieved from http://
www.law.du.edu/thomson/AdminWiki/AgricultureForest_Service/
Health_of_Colorado_Forests.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, essential water supplies are at risk due to the impact
dead forests have on watersheds. Research completed just last year
focused on the impact of beetle kill forests on our watershed and found
healthy watersheds ultimately depend on healthy forests.\7\ Changes in
tree canopies affect snowpack development and snowmelt. For example, a
lack of needles on branches lets more snow fall through the canopy--
snow that would otherwise be caught on branches. A tree without needles
also has less shade beneath it. The result is a shallower snowpack,
earlier snowmelt and less water in spring. The impact is felt on a far
greater scale than the immediate forest; within the heart of the beetle
outbreak in Colorado and Wyoming are the headwaters for rivers
supplying water to 13 Western states.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ National Science Foundation ``Ghosts of Forests Past: Bark
Beetles Kill Lodgepole Pines, Affecting Entire Watersheds'' (June,
2013). Retrieved from: http://www.nsf.gov/mobile/discoveries/
disc_summ.jsp?cntn_id=128398&org=NSF
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The mountain pine beetle outbreak also is affecting our climate.
Our forests consume carbon dioxide and generate oxygen in a process
that helps refresh our atmosphere. During outbreaks, the resulting
widespread tree mortality reduces forest carbon uptake and increases
future emissions from the decay of killed trees. This impact converts
the forest from a net carbon sink to a large net carbon source.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ W. A. Kurz, C. C. Dymond, G. Stinson, et. al., ``Mountain pine
beetle and forest carbon feedback to climate change'', (Nature, April,
2008). Retrieved from http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v452/n7190/
full/nature06777.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course, the ecological disaster in our forest is impacting the
animals that live there. Elk research at the USFS Starkey Experimental
Forest and Range in NE Oregon documents overgrown and overdense
``dry'', forests as the key contributor to declining elk herds in many
western states. Low nutrition on summer ranges strongly linked to fire-
prone forest habitat is seen as a key limiting factor for elk\9\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Wisdom, Mike and Vavra, Marty, ``New Paradigms for Evaluating
and Managing Elk Habitats: a Glimpse of the Future for Elk on Public
Lands'', (Fair Chase, Summer 2011), pg 21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some species of birds rely on habitats that are now created almost
solely through commercial forest management. As a result of the
reduction in timber harvests on National Forests over the past few
decades, there have been significant population declines for bird
species including the Ruffed Grouse, Eastern Towhee, Field Sparrow,
Brown Thrasher and Golden-Winged Warbler to name a few\10\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Dessecker, Dan, Ruffed Grouse Society, Letter to U.S. Senate
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, January, 29 2014
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These statistics are very meaningful however, they don't fully
define the tragedy. If you live in the area impacted, as I do, you get
a much clearer understanding of the crisis:
The three most destructive fires in Colorado happened in the
past 20 months and Wyoming's worst fire season was 2012.\11\ If
you live in this area, you will see the billboards and banners
thanking the firefighters for putting out the previous big
fires, but you will also get a sense that there are likely to
be even bigger fires, and more tragedies in the future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Billings Gazette, ``Wyoming's 2014 Fire Season is Anyone's
Guess'', January 06, 2014. Retrieved from http://billingsgazette.com/
news/state-and-regional/wyoming/wyoming-s-fire-season-is-anyone-s-
guess/article_c700c130-6d5d-570a-a90f-c358fa74f811.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When you speak to professional foresters in the area, you
may be surprised to learn that many of these professionals,
whose careers are spent in the forests, now have grave
reservations about going into the woods because of the
increasing danger of falling branches and trees in the mostly
dead forests.
Elk hunters in the area talk about the change in patterns of
the elk herds because of the dead forests and the State of
Wyoming is now studying that issue.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Wyoming Game and Fish Department, ``Elk Collared to Monitor
Movements in Beetle Killed Forests'', (April, 2012) http://
wgfd.wyo.gov/web2011/news-1000698.aspx
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Forest campsites all throughout Colorado and
Wyoming are closed or cleared of their trees to prevent these
dead and dying trees from falling on campers. For the past two
seasons, camp fires have been banned in these forests because
of the threat of fire.
The signs of forest devastation are obvious to anyone living
or visiting the area and are very personal. Now, and for the
past few years, when I drive my 10 and 11 year old children
from Denver to our favorite ski resorts we no longer see the
miles of beautiful green forests that originally drew my family
to the region. And my favorite drive in Wyoming, the
spectacular Snowy Range Road, now provides a vista of, not
purple mountain majesties, but horizon to horizon of largely
dead spruce and Lodgepole pine.
In all, there are more than 7 million acres of forests like this in
WY and CO that are desperately in need of restoration. This is the
legacy of forest management that we are leaving our children and our
grandchildren.
It is particularly galling to anyone who loves the outdoors that
this crisis was in large part created by policy, not by nature. Drought
and higher temperatures play a role in this crisis, but the unhealthy
structure of the forest is the root cause.
The functioning of the forests in my region are well understood and
have been for years.
The various forest types in the Rockies all evolved with
fire, whether it was lower intensity fires in the ponderosa
pines or higher intensity but rarer fires in spruce and
Lodgepole stands. None of these stands live forever, and all
relied on fire to regenerate or maintain stand structure.
However, since 1908, the Federal government worked with the
States to actively suppress fire--something that now, with the
expanding population and development in our forested states is
even more important.
The result of suppressing fires is increased fuel loading in
our forests--more trees, packed closed together, weaker because
of fighting for nutrients and more prone to natural disasters
such as insects, disease or uncontrollable fires.
This suppression of fire was actually not as harmful prior
to about 1990. This is because timber harvests replaced fire as
the means of thinning the forests. In the 1960s, 1970s and even
in the early 1980s, timber harvests while still not removing
enough timber to completely eliminate the fuel loading, were
doing enough to keep the forests in balance--an admirable state
of affairs.
Revisions to forest plans in the 1990's and the decision to
stop managing roadless areas moved us away from this balanced
approach to managing our forests. This was the policy change
that helped create the crisis. As a result, harvests dropped
precipitously to unsustainable levels of less than 2 billion
board feet. Since then, growth has greatly exceeded removals,
and now bugs and fire are harvesting the excess. An industry
that had been the envy of the world was devastated and the
National Forest System, a national treasure that was
instrumental in creating this country and spurring it on to
greatness, was set on the path to the catastrophe we are now
living.
Many of the policies that contributed to this crisis are
unfortunately still with us and limit the amount of timber being
harvested from our forests. And yet, active forest management, which
produces valuable timber also has a direct benefit in restoring forests
to a healthy state.
In a Lodgepole forest for instance, dead stands of trees
limit the sunlight from reaching the forest floor which
inhibits seed regeneration. Falling trees further block
regrowth and can take 100 years to decompose. Well before then,
the seeds have lost their viability and the forest has little
chance to regenerate.
Harvesting the dead stands of Lodgepole pine, on the other
hand, mimics the effects of a wildfire and opens the forest
floor to sunlight which leads to rapid regrowth.
Once the dead trees are removed, regeneration starts
immediately and within a few short years, the forest has
renewed vitality.
In a cruel irony, in the midst of one of the worst catastrophes to
hit our forest, the very companies that could be used to restore these
forests are suffering from a lack of access to timber.
As an example, in Wyoming, Colorado and South Dakota, we have a
small industry comprised of private and family owned timber businesses.
These businesses must rely on federal forests for their supply of logs
and even though the area includes 7 million acres of infected forests
needing critical management, the amount of timber acreage the USFS is
able to provide falls far short of the 52,000 acres that we, as an
industry, need annually to survive. In the midst of the worst
ecological crisis facing our forests, where active forest management is
desperately needed, our industry is facing a very real potential for
failures and shutdowns.
One reason for this is the financial drain to the USFS of
administering NEPA under the current constraints. Under the present
NEPA process, extremist groups can continue to use litigation to impede
the active forest management that can help restore portions of our
ravaged forests.
To be clear, we are not speaking about mainstream conservation
groups. Environmentalists, US and State Forest Services and the timber
industry alike recognize the need to increase the pace and scale of
restoration.\13\ Extreme groups, though, often do not collaborate, have
no investment in the outcome of the timber sale, and instead have used
appeals and litigation to kill collaborative efforts and badly needed
forest management projects. As an example, in 2012, NEPA related
litigation regarding a sale on the Rio Grande National Forest in
Southern Colorado took 2.5 years to get through the courts.\14\ In the
end, the sale was stopped and that same area is now heavily infected by
Spruce beetle with severe mortality.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, ``Increasing the
Pace of Restoration and Job Creation on Our National Forests'',
(February 2012), pg. 3.
\14\ Draper, Heather, ``DU law students block SW Colorado logging
permit'', (Denver Business Journal, February 10, 2012)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The fact that forest health and restoration efforts face the
possible gauntlet of prolonged NEPA analysis, followed by the
possibility of administrative reviews and litigation as obstructionist
tactics, causes the USFS to incur stifling high costs and unreasonable
delays on each timber sale just to be prepared for the worst.
The Forest Service is already pursuing a number of policies and
initiatives to increase the pace of forest restoration and management
on the national forests with the aim of healthier forests and
watersheds, safer communities and more vibrant local economies. One way
to help that agency is to release the Forest Service from the threat
that routine forest management projects will go to court.
For the past 25 years, environmental extremists have taken
advantage of the Forest Service's appeals process and filed
administrative appeals as a means of obstructing projects and
increasing Forest Service costs. In the FY 12 Appropriations Bill,
Congress directed the Forest Service to apply the HFRA objections
process in lieu of the appeals process for project decisions. The
Forest Service just completed the transition from appeals to objections
last September (2013). We applaud Congress' intent and we are very
optimistic about the objections process. However, the current process
still allows for the possibility of costly and delaying litigation.
Senator Barrasso's bill provides an opportunity to try a new
approach on a limited scale. It proposes to take less than 4% of the
National Forest System and allow the Forest Service to use a
streamlined approach to NEPA and ESA. Projects on these acres would go
through a process of binding arbitration, rather than protracted and
expensive litigation. In order to participate in the arbitration
process, individuals would be required to participate in project
development. And a demand for arbitration must be accompanied by a
recommendation on what the Forest Service should do, not merely a
demand that they not do anything. This proposed bill will preserve the
ability to object, but streamlines the process, reduces costs, and puts
more resources into management of the land rather than litigation.
Reforming the NEPA process along the lines of Senator Barrasso's
bill is a win-win on many levels.
One winner is the USFS which is faced with the massive task
of providing an increased pace and scale of forest restoration
efforts--a tasks for which it lacks the funds required.
Revising the NEPA process and clarifying the direction for
management should help free up some of those funds--putting
them to more productive use.
Of course, the biggest winner will be the National Forests.
Reducing the burdens of analysis, reducing the number of
frivolous lawsuits, and encouraging alternative methods of
dispute resolution will allow the USFS to devote more funds to
increasing the pace and scale of forest restoration.
The impact on the forest is a clear win for the wildlife
that depends on the forest. After harvesting, forests can
regenerate at a rapid rate and within just few years provide
healthy habitat and a food source for elk, deer and a variety
of other animals. As an example, in Wyoming, we can see green
stands of trees in the midst of the otherwise largely dead
forests; these areas are where timber was harvested a few years
past. The new growth resisted the beetle and provides
sanctuaries for animals in the area.
Active forest management captures carbon dioxide that would
other be emitted by decaying logs, returns the forest to an
active carbon sink status and protects our watersheds as well.
The workers in America's sawmills, papermills, and logging
crews that depend on the National Forests for all or some of
their wood fiber also win. The timber industry--loggers,
truckers, sawmills, engineered wood plants, biomass power
plants, and pulp and paper facilities--is the most economically
efficient means of treating landscape size forest acreages.
Revising the NEPA process, if it saves the time and money
needed to prepare timber sales, will help close the gap.
Senator Barrasso's bill also directs the Forest service to
implement timber harvests on 7.5 million acres over a 15 year time
period. Timber harvests put money back to the Forest Service and help
pay for other resource management. In fact, as late as the 1970, the
USFS was a net generator of revenues for the Government. The
consistency of a 15 year agenda also better allows the timber industry
to plan and make those long-term investments that are necessary to
further support forest restoration.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my thoughts and
experiences. When considering action on this proposed legislation,
please consider that the current system is driving the decline of
national forests and is unsustainable both ecologically and
economically. Senator Barrasso's bill offers a meaningful step forward
in restoring our national forests. Therefore I strongly urge and
request, on behalf of my company and the FFRC, that you support this
bill and move it toward passage.
The Chairman. Thank you both for your testimony and for
your patience in waiting through a lengthy hearing process
today.
I'd like to start with you, Mr. Georg. I want to thank you
for coming to testify, and I also thank you for bringing jobs
back to Saratoga. Your experience reopening the closed mill,
because you say closed 10 years, I think it makes your
testimony and your point of view especially useful to this
committee.
So, could you talk a little bit about why it's important to
have the timber industry involved in forest management?
Mr. Georg. So, the timber industry is necessary because we
need to manage the backcountry areas of our forests. These are
the areas where the massive wildfires start. These are the
areas that our watersheds are in. These are the areas that have
the habitat for our wildlife.
The forest service does not have the resources to manage
these backcountries. But by providing timber harvests, we can
go in and we can treat those areas on large scale, landscape
scales. That's why industry--and we can do it in a commercially
viable way.
Senator Barrasso. In your testimony, you pointed out that
there are 7 million acres of national forestland, and you said
in Wyoming and Colorado and South Dakota, that need treatment.
Yet the forest service is unable to provide the needed 52,000
acres annually just to support the small industry in these 3
States. So, 7 million acres needing treatment, the forest
service can't come up with 52,000 acres. So timber and need is
clearly there.
What's your view in terms of the limiting factors that are
preventing the forest service from being able to get more work
done?
Mr. Georg. Thank you, Senator. You know, it's interesting.
I listened to the testimony before us, and I listened to all
the areas where sawmills continue to shut down. We're probably
unique in the United States in that our region is an area that
we've got a resurgence in sawmills. This resurgence of
industry, however, the forest service does not have the
infrastructure to support this resurgence in industry.
So, right at the same time we need all this management,
they don't have the infrastructure. That's a situation where
they don't have the funds.
So, when we look at NEPA, that consumes so much of the
forest service's resource. I mean, I've seen estimates that
it's well over 50 percent of what it costs to put a timber sale
together. So, your bill, by streamlining NEPA, frees up some of
those funds that can be used to timber sales.
Senator Barrasso. In your testimony, you explained how
timber production actually improves forest health. I wonder, as
a mill owner, how do you respond to critics who claim that the
business is actually bad for the environment?
Mr. Georg. Thank you for that. I guess, Senator, what I
would tell them is I am an environmentalist. If you don't
believe me, come see my sawmill. If you come out and see what
we're doing, I will be able to show you acres that I have
harvested of dead lodgepole pine that are now rejuvenating.
They're rejuvenating at a very rigorous rate, more than 2,500
trees per acre in some instances.
I can also show you where we've got forests that from prior
timber harvests that are now protecting our watersheds, our
forests that are providing wildlife habitat from previous
timber sales. So, I probably have a better environmental impact
than many of the environmental groups out there. We've very
proud of that.
Senator Barrasso. In Mr. Dombeck's testimony, he believes
timber contracts are a tool that the forest service should
avoid and instead focus only on stewardship contracts. Do you
believe the forest service should replace timber contracts with
stewardship contracts?
Mr. Georg. The stewardship contracts are a good tool for
the forest service. I think that's one of the tools they can
use. I worry about replacing them in total and not allowing the
timber service to have the tool also of the traditional timber
contract.
I think that, while the stewardship contracts are a good
tool, the timber contracts allow a lot of versatility,
particularly for small producers, guys that probably don't have
the resources to do everything required under a stewardship
contract. But a small producer can handle a timber contract.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Mr. Georg.
Mr. Dombeck, your testimony sort of gives the impression
that there are not 4.5 million acres available that are
suitable for timber production without also including
backcountry, old growth, and riparian areas.
As you know, my bill gives the Secretary the discretion to
determine what lands will be included in those acres in that
target.
Do you believe Chief Tidwell could not look across the
national forest system and identify the needed targeted acreage
without including sensitive areas? Or are you concerned that he
would intentionally select sensitive areas?
Mr. Dombeck. While I'm not familiar with the details, you
know, the priority areas for restoration, from the standpoint
of fire and human safety, are really those areas that butt up
against private lands, communities. As we take a look at the
amount of funding and the funding stress on the forest service,
to move to the areas of highest risk seems to make sense to me.
It also seems to make sense to me, and as one that's, like
Senator Wyden, for a lot of years together took a lot of slings
and arrows not only in this hearing room, but all across the
country, that we stay out of the areas that are highly
controversial. For example, roadless areas, they're roadless
for a reason. They weren't high-value timbers to begin with. We
harvested the easy stuff. The forest service found itself
caught up in the low-cost timber sale issue.
In many cases, the work that really needs to be done, from
the standpoint of human safety, fire risk, the focus should
start in and around communities at risk versus the backcountry.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Dr. Dombeck, let me just ask you one
question. Senator Barrasso knows I'm always, always interested
in working with him. I just want to kind of get one kind of
question sort of fixed in my mind as we sort of walk out and
reflect on this.
I've always thought the bedrock principle in all of these
areas is multiple use. That's kind of the West at its best, so
to speak. How does S. 1966 in its current form affect multiple
use? I mean, you've been at this for a lot of years. Just give
me your take on that, and I think I'm probably going to spare
both of you any, you know, additional questions. Just so I have
a sense, as we're talking about all these bills and this
committee, what your take is with respect to the bill and
multiple use.
Mr. Dombeck. My sense is it makes harvesting timber the
dominant use. It's interesting in sitting through the hearing.
I really think if we were focused on true multiple use, there
would be equal dialog on hunting, fishing, hiking, biking,
forest health, the application of prescribed fire in xeric
forests, and the whole array.
We seem to dial back to, how much can we take off the land?
I think that's, you know, what leads us into some of the
frustration that has been around for a lot of years.
I would like to see the dialog focused on the whole array
of values that come off the forest. I for one grew up on a
national forest in the Midwest that has gone through a lot of
the transitions that many of the other national forests across
the country have gone into. With respect to the stewardship
contracting point that was made, I'm certainly not opposed to
timber sale contracts. I hope my testimony didn't reflect that.
The fact is we need this tool of stewardship contracting.
I also think the timber industry needs to move further, as
was implicated here, to be more of a general contractor, to do
all of the job on the land, from culvert replacement, putting
roads to bed, dealing with low-value, no-value fuels that need
to be removed, and move a little bit further away from just the
dialog about how many trees we take off the land. It always
seems to lead us into controversies when we're kind of stuck
there.
The Chairman. Senator Barrasso and I seem to be pretty much
out of questions. I just want you both to know that we
Westerners always work together on all of these issues. Suffice
it to say, they are not for the fainthearted, as we heard some
of the passions earlier. But they come up in any meeting
whether you're in Oregon or you're in Wyoming.
Some of the other Senators may have questions for the two
of you, in writing. I assume that that will be acceptable.
Senator Barrasso, thank you so much for sitting through so
much of the Oregon discussion today. You and I, as neighbors
and Westerners, talk a lot about these issues.
I thought Senator Risch made some good points today, as
well as Senator Murkowski and Senator Udall and Senator
Heinrich. So we've got a lot to do.
Senator Barrasso. Mr. Chairman, and I'm sure I speak for
the entire committee when we thank you for your incredible
chairmanship of this committee, working together in a
bipartisan way. You know, when I first got into the Senate,
somebody said, ``You're going to be on the Energy Committee.
That's a committee where you can actually do business, where
you can work with others in a bipartisan way.''
I think you have shown through your leadership that we were
able to accomplish that at a time when maybe those sorts of
things aren't happening in other committees. But your
leadership and your stewardship on this committee, I believe,
have been exemplary, and it's been a privilege to serve with
you on this committee under your chairmanship. I know you won't
be leaving the committee. But you will no longer be chair, and
you've been a terrific chairman.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. It's very kind. Suffice it to say I thank
you, and I share the view that if we sort of lower the decibel
level and try to find some common ground--and you certainly did
that in the Good Neighbor legislation that was part of the Farm
Bill. We've got more of that to do, as we heard this morning.
So we'll look forward to working together.
Gentlemen, you'll both be excused.
The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:52 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
APPENDIXES
----------
Appendix I
Responses to Additional Questions
----------
Responses of Thomas Tidwell to Questions From Senator Wyden
Question 1. S. 1966 contains numerous similarities to Title I of
H.R. 1526. Am I correct that the Administration recommended a veto of
H.R. 1526 when it was being considered in the House in September 2013?
Answer. With our many partners, Secretary Vilsack and the USDA
Forest Service share your commitment to increase the pace and scale of
forest restoration and management in our National Forests. Restored
acres and timber volume is up on the National Forests and we must
continue to invest in current management regimes and not lose focus on
legislative changes that may only polarize and create more conflict.
However, USDA cannot support the bill as it is currently written.
Question 2. Chief, I want to talk about Board Feet of timber sold
under this Administration. Some on this panel would have you believe
that the Administration is doing nothing in this arena. However, if you
look closely at the numbers, I see that The G.W. Bush Administration
between 2001-2008 averaged 2,150 Million Board Feet of timber sold, and
so far in the Obama Administration has a higher average of 2,521
Million Board Feet of timber sold. Please tell us what the Forest
Service has done under your leadership to bolster the timber sale
program.
Answer. From 2008-2013 the Forest Service has utilized many efforts
to increase the pace of restoration, which increased timber volume as
one by-product. We have been able to use tools like the Collaborative
Forest Landscape Restoration (CFLR) Program and Stewardship contracting
to execute programs. We have also worked to be more efficient in our
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) efforts by expanding the use
of categorical exclusions (CE) to restore lands, and identify methods
to expedite our large scale environmental studies. These efforts have
allowed us to see additional gains in our outputs and outcomes on the
ground.
Question 3. Chief Tidwell, my concern with S. 1966 is that the
purposes of the bill are different from the purposes for which the
national forests have been created and administered for over a century.
As you know, the Organic Act established the national forests for the
protection of water and timber, and later the Multiple Use Sustained
Yield Act affirmed that the national forests have multiple uses
including recreation, water, wildlife, timber, and wilderness. However,
S. 1966's stated primary purpose is promoting timber harvest for
economic purposes. As a land manager, what dangers to you see in
putting one use above the other multiple uses of the National Forest
System?
Answer. By putting one use above other multiple uses, the bill
rolls back key environmental safeguards, diminishes public
participation, sets artificial management targets in statute, and leads
to potentially more conflict, not less, in regards to management of the
national forests. To accomplish the objectives of S. 1966, it would
modify the process for NEPA compliance in carrying out covered
projects, and could be read to modify the consultation process under
the Endangered Species Act (ESA) by directing that the Forest Service
make the determinations required under section 7 of the ESA, which
rightfully should remain the duty of the Fish and Wildlife Service and
the National Marine Fisheries Service . In lieu of seeking judicial
review after completion of the objection process, S. 1966 would
establish a fifteen year pilot program that requires the use of
arbitration instead of judicial review as the sole means to challenge
for a covered project in a Forest Management Emphasis Area (FMEA).
Question 4. I mentioned in my opening statement that I believe that
the current situation with wildfire funding is the single greatest
problem facing management of the National Forest System today. Would
you concur?
Answer. Yes. The Forest Service once spent 10-15 percent of its
budget on fire--today we spend over 40 percent. As a result, over the
long term, the Forest Service has had to shift resources away from
forest management and other activities. We support efforts by Chairman
Wyden, Senator Crapo and others to address this issue in a way that
both ends the disruptive practice of fire transfers and provides
resources to manage and restore our forests so they are more resilient
to wildfire.
Question 5. Given the constraints your Agency is under from
wildfire funding, do you anticipate that the Forest Service would have
the means to carry out the requirements of S. 1966?
Answer. It will be difficult to carry out the requirements of S.
1966. The mandate represents roughly a three-fold increase in workload
beyond our current restoration efforts and is beyond our existing
capacity. A significant amount of new funding would be needed to
accomplish the targets set forth in S. 1966 without having to redirect
funds from other essential programs and initiatives within the agency.
Response of Thomas Tidwell to Question From Senator Tim Johnson
Question 1. The 2014 Farm Bill contains several provisions designed
to improve the ability of the Forest Service and private forest land
owners to respond to changing conditions and streamline treatment and
restoration. These include the Good Neighbor authority, designated
insect and disease treatment areas that was piloted in the Black Hills,
and the permanent reauthorization of stewardship contracting. Several
of these tools have not yet been implemented on a broad scale, so their
full effect cannot be completely known. Recognizing that, please
respond to the following questions:
How would the Forest Service plan to utilize these tools?
When are the tools likely to be made available to local
forest managers?
How does the Forest Service anticipate that the tools can be
used improve the timing and flow of forest products to users of
those products?
Answer. The Forest Service is currently assessing the opportunities
that the Farm Bill provides for continuing existing programs and
implementing new programs and authorities. The agency will be working
on developing and refining national policy direction related to the
pieces of the Farm Bill under our purview.
Response of Thomas Tidwell to Question From Senator Stabenow
Question 1. Chief Tidwell, as you know the National Forest Jobs and
Management Act (S. 1966) mandates legislatively prescribed logging
levels for National Forest across most of the western United States.
While I understand the importance of maintaining a robust timber
industry I am concerned with setting specific targeted levels. Can you
describe what challenges the Forest Service will have in carrying out
the mandated levels ascribed in S. 1966? In your experience, how do you
see the mandated timber harvest levels within this bill conflicting
with the multiple use mandate of the Forest Service? What affect will
this have on continued forest health and management?
Answer. The mandate represents roughly a three-fold increase in
workload beyond our current restoration efforts and is beyond our
existing capacity. A significant amount of new funding would be needed
to accomplish the targets set forth in S. 1966 without having to
redirect funds from other essential programs and initiatives within the
agency. In addition, S. 1966 prohibits the Forest Service from reducing
the acreage deemed suitable for timber production in any subsequent
forest plan revision which would, among other things, reduce the
agency's ability to engage in adaptive management of the area based on
the best available science, particularly in combination with the target
harvest requirements. In addition, legislating treatment levels does
not take into account appeals and lawsuits that may prevent the Forest
Service from achieving the targets. Legislative mandates also remove
the opportunity and flexibility to address important needs resulting
from catastrophic or economic events, or for changes across the system
over time that may arise during the budget cycle. Thus, mandated timber
harvest levels could have negative impacts on multiple use mandate of
the Forest Service because it will redirect funds from other multiple
uses, including forest restoration and forest health.
Responses of Thomas Tidwell to Questions From Senator Murkowski
Question 1. It is my understanding that the national forest system
currently includes: 36 million acres of wilderness areas and 58.5
million acres classified as inventoried roadless under the Roadless
Area Conservation Rule. Thus, nearly half of the national forest has
been set aside and restricted from timber management.
You testified that the agency has a multiple use mission and that
you are concerned about setting aside lands specifically for timber
harvest. Clearly given the above facts about land classifications,
there are lands within the system already that have already been set
aside for a particular purpose.
Are you saying that these sorts of land classifications are
okay, but that it is not okay for Congress to act to set a
priority for timber management that would apply on just 3.8
percent of the National Forest System?
Based on these land classifications and other set asides, it
is my understanding that nearly half of the national forest
system is off limits to most timber management. Please explain
how any bill that only prescribes timber management on 3.8
percent of the national forest system can possibly be described
as ``dominant use?''
Answer. As noted, the administration's testimony did not comment
regarding setting up timber management as a dominate use. The Forest
Service strongly agrees that more forest management and restoration
work needs to occur, but cannot support the bill as it is currently
written as it rolls back key environmental safeguards, diminishes
public participation, sets artificial management targets in statute,
and leads to potentially more conflict (including potentially more
objections and challenges), not less, in regards to management of the
national forests. The mandate to identify, prioritize, and carry out
projects on 7.5 million acres lands identified as suitable for timber
production represents roughly a three-fold increase in workload beyond
our current restoration efforts and is beyond our existing capacity. A
significant amount of new funding would be needed to accomplish the
targets set forth in S. 1966 without having to redirect funds from
other essential programs and initiatives within the agency.
Question 2. Chief Tidwell, you testified that treating 7.5 million
acres over 15 years would represent a tripling of your work load. You
also agreed that you have 65 to 82 million acres on the national forest
system that need restoration. At the current pace and scale, how long
will it take you to treat 7.5 million acres? Is that pace fast enough
to meaningfully reduce current forest health risks, fire threats, and
restore watershed health?
Answer. Before responding to your question, a point of
clarification: The 65 to 82 million acres figure are acres in need of
restoration by all means on lands outside of congressionally designated
wilderness. These include non-forested acres and lands not suitable for
timber production.
In fiscal year (FY) 2013, the Forest Service mechanically treated
209,000 acres across suitable and other lands. The Forest Service does
not track acres by suitable and other lands separately but the amount
of acres on lands suitable for timber production is less than 209,000
acres. Due to variation in budgets and priorities and many other
factors that affect the number of acres that can be treated in one
year, it is not possible to state exactly how long it would take to
treat 7.5 million acres beyond saying that it would take more than 15
years.
No, the pace is not fast enough to reduce current forest health
risks, fire threats, and restore watershed health.
Question 3. Mr. Tidwell, you stated during your testimony that
timber outputs have been increasing. Please provide a breakdown of
timber outputs since 2009. In particular, I want to know the output of
sawlogs, pulpwood, biomass, and personal use firewood for each year.
Further, please provide the Committee with a summary of the proportion
of personal use firewood in the timber sale program since 2000.
Answer. Following is a table showing volumes harvested for certain
products for FY 2009 thru FY 2013.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 FY2013
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Saw 1,061.6 1,207.9 1,365.6 1,466.8 1,423.7 All volumes in
MMBF
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pulp 370.9 369.6 422.0 402.1 443.7 ...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Biomass 23.8 44.9 67.0 71.6 67.3 ...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Firewood 315.8 312.8 323.9 328.0 288.4 ...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other Products\1\ 182 202.7 261.9 231.8 185 ...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Vol. 1,954.1 2,137.9 2,440.4 2,500.3 2,408.1 ...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Other products includes products such as posts, poles, cull logs, etc.
PART 2: PORTION OF HARVEST PROGRAM THAT WAS FIREWOOD IN FY2000 THRU
FY2013
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year Percent of Total Program
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2000 7.8
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2001 10.7
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2002 11.4
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2003 11.1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2004 9.4
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2005 7.6
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2006 9.2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2007 11.4
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2008 7.9
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2009 16.2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2010 14.6
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2011 13.3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2012 13.1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2013 12.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question 4. Chief Tidwell, you cite CFLR projects as one example of
an area where the agency is attempting to achieve efficiencies. Please
provide us with an estimate of the cost efficiencies being produced by
the CFLR projects, including before and after unit costs for both acres
treated and units of wood, biomass, or other products produced. What
projects, if any, has there been a reduction in costs?
Answer. The cost per acre varies substantially among ecosystems,
treatment types and economies. One example of a project finding
efficiency through collaboration and large landscape restoration is the
Four Forest Restoration Initiative (4FRI) in Arizona. In FY 2012 this
project awarded a 10 year, 300,000 acre stewardship contract designed
to restore forest structure, pattern and composition through the
harvesting of trees. Ultimately, this contract will have a positive
impact on watershed function and resilience and hazardous fuels
reduction while creating economic activity in local communities. To
date, there have been 10 task orders issued under this contract with an
average per acre payment to the government of $47.65 per acre. Other
contracts for this type of work have had a cost to the Forest Service
from $500 to $1200 per acre.
Question 5. Chief Tidwell, how many acres, if any, are currently
identified as suitable for timber harvest on the national forest system
in inventoried roadless areas? If there are acres, please identify
where those acres are located by unit of the national forest system.
Answer. During the development of the Roadless Rule the Forest
Service determined that of the 93 million acres of commercial
forestlands on NFS lands, an estimated 47 million acres were considered
suitable for timber production. Each national forest and grassland
determined the location and amount of suitable areas through the land
management planning process. Of these suitable acres, approximately 9
million acres are located in inventoried roadless areas (see Table
below). The Roadless Rule estimate of suitable land was based on 1994
data and does not reflect information from plans that have been revised
since that date. However, this is the most current information
available. As national forests revise their land management plans they
are updating their suitable land base calculations by removing roadless
lands that were suitable in the original forest plans. Thus, the
currently available suitable land base in roadless areas is expected to
be less than 9 million acres.
ESTIMATED ACRES (IN THOUSANDS) OF FORESTLAND SUITABLE FOR TIMBER
PRODUCTION IN INVENTORIED ROADLESS AREAS, BY FOREST SERVICE REGION
Acres suitable for timber production
Northern (1) 2,274
Rocky Mountain (2) 1,317
Southwestern (3) 63
Intermountain (4) 1,598
Pacific Southwest (5) 394
Pacific Northwest (6) 1,701
Southern (8) 332
Eastern (9) 85
Alaska (10) 1,274
Total 9,038
Question 6. Chief Tidwell, how many acres, if any, are currently
identified as suitable for timber harvest in Forest Service National
Monuments? If there are acres, please identify where those acres are by
National Monument name.
Answer. The Forest Service does administer five national monuments:
two in Alaska (Misty Fiords and Admiralty Island), two in California
(Giant Sequoia, Santa Rosa/San Jacinto) and South Dakota (Jewel Cave).
Some of the lands in the National Monuments (notably Giant Sequoia) may
be suitable for timber harvest for purposes of protecting other
multiple use values, not for timber production, but that information is
not required in forest planning. However, there are no acres suitable
for timber production in national monuments administered by the Forest
Service. Forest Service monuments in Alaska are not suitable for
production per the revised plan; the Giant Sequoia plan was recently
amended with no land suitable and no land is suitable in Southern
California Forests.
Responses of Thomas Tidwell to Questions From Senator Barrasso
Question 1. In your written testimony, the Administration argued
that S 1966 ``rolls back key environmental safeguards, diminishes
public participation, sets artificial management targets in statute,
and leads to potentially more conflict, not less, in regards to
management of the National Forests.'' Is it the Administration's
position that a meaningful increase in ``pace and scale'' can take
place without legislative changes to the way the Forest Service
complies with the following statutes: National Environmental Policy Act
? National Forest Management Act? Endangered Species Act?
Answer. Yes. Given consistent funding, allowing for a `ramping-up'
period, and relief from `fire borrowing', the Forest Service will be
able to increase the number of acres treated under the current
statutes.
Question 2. What evidence do you have that current efforts to
increase the pace and scale of restoration are not potentially subject
to litigation, injunctions, and resulting delays?
Answer. The agency believes that its upfront involvement and
collaboration with others will reduce litigation on public lands.
Collaborative approaches help the agency make decisions involving
issues important to communities and individuals by gaining broader
support and resolution of concerns during the early stages of project
development. Created in 2009 to promote job stability, reliable wood
supply, forest health, and reduced emergency wildfire costs and risks,
our on-the-ground accomplishments in the Collaborative Forest Landscape
Restoration (CFLR) program demonstrate that parties with conflicting
interests can work together to successfully develop restoration
projects. Between 2010 and 2013, CFLR-funded projects that involve
collaborative groups, including three projects funded as high priority
restoration projects in 2012 which then became CFLR projects in 2013,
have reduced fuel loading on over 1,000,000 acres subject to
catastrophic wildfires, sold 838 MMBF of timber, produced 1.9 million
green tons of biomass, restored 502 miles of fish habitat,
decommissioned over 407 miles of roads and contributed to over 5,300
jobs. Many of these projects were in areas where conflict and
litigation stalled management programs for many years, and many
projects report reduced litigation on NEPA decisions since implementing
a collaborative approach. It will be key to track the impact on
litigation as the projects mature and further NEPA decisions are made
that are supported by collaborative groups.
In a similar manner, use of a pre-decisional objection process over
a post-decisional appeal process will likely reduce future litigation.
The objection process is more consistent with the concept of
collaboration and encourages interested publics to bring specific
concerns forward early in the planning process.
Since March 2012, the agency was required to provide notice,
comment and appeal of categorical exclusions based upon the court's
interpretation of the Appeals Reform Act (ARA) in Sequoia Forestkeeper
v. Tidwell. With the recent repeal of the Appeals Reform Act in the
2014 Farm Bill, the agency is once again able to save considerable time
from project development to implementation for hundreds of restoration
projects that rely on categorical exclusions.
Most Americans generally agree on the need to protect our natural
resources and restore the health of our forests. However, some
organizations hold values that do not conform to the agency's mission
and, despite agency effort to work collaboratively and seek resolution
for public concerns; those organizations will continue to file
litigation that typically delays project implementation. Although
litigation in some form will always be present, we anticipate the
percentage of project decisions being litigated to decrease. Currently,
an average of six percent of all Forest Service project decisions
result in appeals and two percent are litigated.
Question 3. During your verbal statement, you implied that acres
treated are increasing. Please provide us with a summary of acres
treated since 2009, broken down by:
Answer. Prescribed burn acres--6,874,303 acres
Mechanical treatments, including:
--Non-commercial thinning
--Hand thinning/pruning
--Commercial thinning
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Release & Weeding--
Non-commercial (assumes this is what Commercial
Fiscal Year thinning (ac) is meant by hand Pruning (ac) Thinning (ac)
thinning) (ac)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2009 186,916 78,364 12,894 96,465
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2010 237,460 88,466 20,474 96,831
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2011 145,928 79,833 9,122 114,735
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2012 129,088 96,456 7,470 113,720
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2013 147,860 79,133 8,441 107,140
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acres of noxious weed treatments*
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 FY2013
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
304,106 309,228 281,751 271,469 252,269
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Acres treated on National Forest System include accomplishments against invasive plants and regulated noxious
weeds.
Lake acres restored.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 FY2013
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
23,570 27,779 26,832 32,369 32,658
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question 4. You mention a number of steps the agency is taking to
find NEPA efficiencies that can be implemented administratively. After
three years of effort, do you know when these will be complete? Will
they be issued as rules, handbook provisions? In past responses to
Congress the agency has indicated that as much as 50-70% of project
costs go towards NEPA compliance. By what amount is your NEPA
efficiency effort expected to reduce these costs? What does this
translate into in actual dollars?
Answer. The agency has administratively implemented NEPA
efficiencies by updating regulations, directives, document templates,
and training. In 2013, three new regulatory soil and water restoration
categorical exclusions for Forest Service NEPA procedures were approved
along with corresponding agency directives. The provisions for a
directive we are currently working on will provide guidance on a new
restoration categorical exclusion from the Farm Bill. Moreover, we
continue to add efficiency through taking a landscape scale approach
and using adaptive management to have more acres analyzed and decided
and ready for taking action on the ground. In addition, we are focused
on the end result vs. cost savings from each effort. Our NEPA
efficiency efforts are a continuous improvement process to increase the
number of acres (or other appropriate output) for our analysis
investment. As a result, we estimate that we save approximately $17
million dollars each year\2\ because of these investments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ We have these figures because we estimate returns on
investments prior to contracting electronic investments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question 5. Last summer the Committee heard about the Colt Summit
project, which was a collaboratively developed and widely supported
CFLR project with a stewardship contract. As you know, this sale was
litigated and enjoined, and subsequently most of the timber value has
been lost. Even if you agree with former Chief Dombeck that we should
not be concerned about timber outputs, this injunction is causing
sustained damage to the local economy. Is it the position of the
Administration that for the balance of your term, you will simply try
these new approaches and see whether or not they can pass muster with
the courts? Are there legislative changes to the CFLR program that you
would support to prevent the projects you and your ``partners'' are
working so hard on from getting to the ground?
Answer. We are actively pursuing ways to enhance our effectiveness
and efficiency in planning for large landscape restoration. First, we
are expanding the use of categorical exclusions in landscapes under
stress. There are three new categorical exclusions for activities that
restore lands negatively impacted by water control structures,
disturbance events, and roads and trails. In addition, CFLR projects
are now eligible for categorical exclusions in landscapes experiencing
insect and disease epidemics. These categorical exclusions will allow
collaborative projects to get work done on the ground quickly in high
priority areas.
The second avenue for achieving successful on the ground
restoration is increasing the size of the planning units we move
through NEPA. Many of our projects are successfully building trust with
their collaborative groups and the larger community. This trust is
allowing them to plan for larger landscapes and to accelerate the pace
of restoration on their landscapes. We will continue to explore
additional ways to enhance our efficiency and allow us to treat large
landscapes in a timely manner.
Question 6. You say that you would consider ``non-binding,
reviewable arbitration'' on a trial basis. Ignoring, for the moment,
that the bill precisely is a ``trial basis'' (3.8% of the NFS over 15
years), please explain why the Administration is opposed to binding
arbitration? By opposing binding arbitration, you are implicitly
endorsing the idea that litigation is a normal and natural part of the
forest management process, exactly the assumption that has led to poor
forest health conditions, large fires, and endless analysis and
litigation over the last two decades.
Answer. As a general matter, binding arbitration has the potential
to constrain decision-making, adversely affecting our ongoing efforts
in collaboration and adding additional costs and complexity to
implementing a project. More specifically, arbitration places a project
decision in the hands of a third party arbitrator which is not
consistent with the Forest Service's obligation to involve all parties
and its pre-decisional resolution of public concerns. Arbitration also
sets a more adversarial framework since compromise is dictated by the
arbitrator and eliminates potential negotiations (i.e. settlement
negotiations) between parties. Parties would also be more likely to
request arbitration with greater frequency than they currently
litigate, potentially resulting in greater delays in project
implementation than the agency now experiences. Lastly, arbitration
adds an additional layer of complexity to agency decision making
especially as it pertains to projects involving multi-agency decisions
and compliance with relevant laws, regulations, and policies.
Notwithstanding these concerns, the agency remains willing to explore
the use of non-binding, reviewable arbitration (through a collaborative
approach) on a trial basis.
Responses of Thomas Tidwell to Questions From Senator Hoeven
Question 1. When I meet with ranchers and grazers back in the
state, they always share with me their concerns regarding North Dakota
grasslands being managed with a ``forest'' viewpoint. Could you please
provide an update on the science you are using for the determination of
management practices for the grasslands.
Answer. The Dakota Prairie Grasslands Land and Resource Management
Plan was developed as part of the Northern Great Plains plan revision
process. Although the steps in the planning process for grasslands and
forests are basically the same, this planning effort was focused on
grassland issues. The analysis, assessments and the decisions made are
specific to the Dakota Prairie Grasslands. The planning process is the
same as for other units of the Forest Service because with the passage
of the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974,
Congress specifically included the national grasslands as a unit of the
NFS and made these lands subject to the same requirements as other NFS
lands. In the case of the Dakota Prairie Grasslands, a Scientific
Review Team was also established to look at the science regarding
grazing and range management aspects of the plan.
The Dakota Prairie Grasslands has a skilled staff of resource
specialists that provide input and leadership on management practices
on the grasslands. Many of them were trained in rangeland management at
universities in North and South Dakota. Some have received advanced
degrees. They coordinate closely with the users of the land, including
ranchers and grazing associations, and keep abreast of the latest
research and management techniques in making these recommendations. The
Dakota Prairie Grasslands has formed partnerships with universities,
State and Federal agencies and interest groups focused on research and
monitoring projects that help them to better understand and improve the
management and administration of the grasslands. Included are projects
with at least 10 universities and colleges; many are with North Dakota
State University and the University of North Dakota. The information
gained is used in determining the best management practices to be
applied to the grasslands.
Question 2. As you know, ranching families in North Dakota have
been good stewards of the grassland for decades. They depend on them
and want to see them healthy and productive for the next generation.
One of the primary concerns that I hear from our ranchers and grazers
is that they are concerned that sound science using North Dakota
expertise is not reflected in the North Billings County Allotment
Management Plan Revisions Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS).
As such, I would like to invite you to come out to North Dakota to
receive first-hand feedback from our ranchers and grazers on the Record
of Decision, before it is finalized.
Answer. The Dakota Prairie Grasslands has tried to make sure that
the best scientific knowledge available has been obtained so that
management of the grasslands has a sound basis of management. North
Dakota State University (NDSU) collected baseline data upon which
management objectives are based.
Carrying capacity for each allotment was calculated based on
current rangeland science, which was then reviewed and supported by the
Natural Resources Conservation Service, North Dakota State University
and the Agricultural Research Station.
A point where the Forest Service and the Grazing Association are
not in full alignment is on the biological capability of the grasslands
to support the taller grass structure, a habitat component that is
necessary for several species of wildlife including some proposed for
listing through the ESA. However, the data collected by NDSU
demonstrate that the desired tall structure exists within most
allotments; North Billings allotment objectives would simply increase
the representation of that taller structure. A goal of the Dakota
Prairie Grasslands Plan is to provide the appropriate habitat for the
variety of wildlife species native to the prairie, and specifically for
species that are proposed for ESA listing.
The proposed action for North Billings was developed in
collaboration with the affected permittees through a series of three
meetings beginning in 2005. Implementation plans reflecting a final
decision are proposed to be developed in collaboration with the Grazing
Association and their permittees. The Record of Decision will approve a
full suite of management techniques that may be utilized to move toward
the objectives outlined for each allotment. This collaboration is
designed to draw on both the experience of the rancher and the science
that our range specialists learned from North Dakota universities.
Responses of Thomas Tidwell to Questions From Senator Flake
Question 1. As we discussed during the hearing, the White Mountain
stewardship contract expires this year. That contract has largely been
considered a success and has revitalized the timber industry in
Arizona's eastern forests, such as the Apache-Sitgreaves. According to
some estimates, the contract and associated timber work spawned
approximately $130 million of investment in the area. While the Four
Forest Restoration Initiative (4FRI) is intended to promote forest work
on those eastside forests, the second EIS for that portion of the 4FRI
project appears to be several years out. As such, we face a dire
situation, where the incredible success and investment in the timber
industry in that area is called into question, because there are not
enough acres to keep timber operations economically viable. What can
the Forest Service do to make sure that investment in the White
Mountains is not stranded and that we do not undermine the successes of
the last 10 years of the White Mountain stewardship contract?
Answer. The Apache-Sitgreaves has been offering timber sales
outside of White Mountain Stewardship for several years with varied
amounts of success (some have sold and some have not). The Forest
Service is looking at options to continue to offer additional sales in
the White Mountains until the Phase 2 EIS is completed.
Question 2. How do we turn the success of the White Mountain
stewardship contract and the infrastructure created through that
investment by the Forest Service into a continued success on the
Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest and a total success for the 4FRI?
Answer. Building on the success of the White Mountain stewardship
contract, the 4FRI project has issued a large scale (300,000 acres),
10-year Stewardship Contract (Phase 1 4FRI contract), with the first
acres treated this fiscal year in the Ranch Task Order. Under this
contract, just over 15,000 acres of task orders were awarded by the end
of FY 2013. We expect an additional 22,000 acres of Task Orders in FY
2014 and over 30,000 acres of task Orders in FY 2015 and beyond.
Question 3. More specifically, what will it take to assure that a
minimum of 20,000 to 25,000 acres per year in the eastern Arizona
forests (east of Heber) are harvested during the time between the end
of the White Mountain stewardship contract and the 4FRI stewardship
contract that would authorize work on those forests?
Answer. The Forest Service is exploring options for offering timber
in the White Mountains between now and when the Phase 2 EIS is
completed.
Question 4. To what extent does the Forest Service's plan for that
gap between stewardship contracts, include the use of timber sale
contracts?
Answer. The Forest Service is exploring options for offering timber
in the White Mountains between now and when the Phase 2 EIS is
completed.
Question 5. How can the recently enacted Farm Bill rules regarding
streamlining of NEPA within the Collaborative Forest Landscape
Restoration Initiative be used to facilitate additional forest
restoration work in Arizona that costs less and proceeds more quickly?
Answer. The recently enacted Farm Bill streamlines NEPA within the
Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration program because it provides
relief from notice and appeal requirements when the agency makes
decisions that are categorically excluded from documentation in an
environmental assessment or environmental impact statement. This saves
up to 105 days per decision based on a categorical exclusion. The Farm
Bill also provides for a categorical exclusion for up to 3,000 acres of
activity to treat insect and disease problems. This can be used to
facilitate additional forest restoration work in Arizona that costs
less and proceeds more quickly. Also, this provides one more option for
the agency when considering NEPA documentation needs. It is too early
to say how much this provision will make a difference, but we know the
new categorical exclusion does open new efficiency options.
Question 6. The 4FRI (which includes the Apache-Sitgreaves)
receives $4 million annually. However, as I understand it, virtually
all of those funds are used to advance projects on the westside
forests. Is there a way to more equitably balance the distribution of
those funds, to mitigate the potential shortfall of acreage projected
on the eastside forests?
Answer. The funding is distributed across all four of the forests
depending on the work needed in any given year. This includes work to
prepare timber sales for offer on the east side of the project area.
Question 7. Could the new Farm Bill designation by prescription and
designation by description, which was previously used on the White
Mountain stewardship contract, be extended to more acres and therefore
reduced ongoing Forest Service costs for these projects? For example,
could this be accomplished through a revision to the White Mountain
Stewardship Contract?
Answer. The language in Sec 8303 of the Farm Bill did not affect
on-going or new stewardship contracts.
Question 8. Arizona has suffered from a long-term drought extending
more than a decade. The Bureau of Reclamation projects that those
drought conditions could be further exacerbated by imbalances along the
Colorado River in Arizona that could reach more than 3 million acre
feet by 2060. We need to find solutions to these imbalances, including
augmentation of our water supplies. One possibility is better forest
management, which can promote watershed health and increase water
supplies. Can you explain what tools the Forest Service has or needs,
including opportunities for public/private partnerships, to get this
type of critical water-management work done?
Answer. The Watershed Condition Framework (WCF) is a comprehensive
approach for proactively implementing integrated and collaborative
restoration on watersheds on national forests and grasslands. The WCF
proposes to improve the way the Forest Service approaches watershed
restoration by targeting the implementation of integrated suites of
activities in those watersheds that have been identified by the Forest
Service, local communities, and partners as priorities for restoration.
The WCF also establishes a nationally consistent reconnaissance-level
approach for classifying watershed condition, using a comprehensive set
of 12 indicators that are surrogate variables representing the
underlying ecological, hydrological, and geomorphic functions and
processes that affect watershed condition. The approach is designed to
foster collaborative integrated ecosystem-based watershed assessments;
target programs of work in watersheds that have been identified for
restoration; enhance communication and coordination with external
agencies and partners; and improve national-scale reporting and
monitoring of program accomplishments. The WCF provides the Forest
Service with an outcome-based performance measure for documenting
improvement to watershed condition at forest, regional, and national
scales.
Question 9. In your testimony, you expressed concern about the
National Forest Jobs and Management Act, because ``A significant amount
of new funding would be needed to accomplish the targets set forth in
S.1966 without having to redirect funds from other essential programs
and initiatives within the Agency.'' You also expressed support for the
Wildfire Disaster Funding Act introduced by Senators Wyden and Crapo,
noting that it would provide ``resources to manage and restore our
forests..'' Can you elaborate on how the bill from Senators Wyden and
Crapo could help pave the way for Senator Barrasso's National Forest
bill, at least with regard to your concern about resource availability?
Answer. This bill provides increased certainty in addressing
growing fire suppression needs, better safeguards non-suppression
programs from transfers that have diminished their effectiveness, and
allows us to stabilize and invest in programs that will more
effectively restore forested landscapes, treat forests for the
increasing effects of climate change, and prepare communities in the
Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) for future wildfires.
Question 10. I was pleased to see Stewardship Contracting
reauthorized in the Farm Bill, including improvements regarding the
liability provisions in stewardship contracts. It did not, however,
include some technical corrections that I had worked on with the Forest
Service and BLM or important improvements to the cancellation ceiling
regulations that would extend the same type of flexibility exercised by
the Department of Defense and Department of Energy to the Forest
Service. Can you commit to working with me on trying to make these
improvements a reality?
Answer. As we implement stewardship contracting, we will monitor to
see the effectiveness of the provisions in the current Act, and we will
commit to updating you.
______
Responses of Steven A. Ellis to Questions From Senator Murkowski
Mr. Ellis, The dominant-use mandate in the O&C Act clearly provides
that timberlands are to be managed for ``permanent forest production''
under the principle of sustained yield. I understand that the BLM is
under court order to comply with the O&C Act and sell more timber in
the Medford and Roseburg Districts of Southern Oregon.
Question 1a. What is the agency doing to comply with that court
order?
Answer. The BLM is considering ways in which it can offer for sale
timber volume in the Medford and Roseburg Districts in compliance with
the court order. Because this matter is still in litigation, however,
the BLM is unable to comment on specifics.
Question 1b. How do the timber harvest volumes required under the
court order for the Medford and Roseburg Districts compare to those
expected under S. 1784 according to analysis performed by Dr. Johnson?
Answer. The court order requires the BLM Medford and Roseburg
Districts to offer for sale a volume of timber that is at least 80% of
the respective District's declared Annual Sale Quantity, an amount that
is based on the 1995 RMP harvest land base within district
administrative boundaries. .
Dr. Johnson's approach provided harvest volume calculations for
moist and dry forest types across all the O&C lands in western Oregon.
The moist and dry forest types do not coincide with Medford and
Roseburg district boundaries. The analyses performed by Dr. Johnson to
date do allocate the expected volume under S.1784 on a BLM district--
by-district basis.
Question 2a. Mr. Ellis, in November of last year, the BLM provided
timber harvest volume estimates for S. 1784, in a letter to Senator
Wyden. This letter states, ``(B)ased on the parameters in the proposed
legislation, Professor Johnson, with assistance from BLM analysts,
estimates the average annual timber harvest volume would range from 300
and 350 million board feet over the next two decades.''
Did the BLM do any analysis that would indicate this level of
harvest is sustainable beyond 20 years? If so, what level of harvest
would be sustainable over the long term (beyond 20 years) under the
approach outlined in S. 1784?
Answer. In working with Dr. Johnson, we were tasked with analyzing
only the first two decades. The BLM has not developed a sustained yield
harvest calculation beyond 20 years.
Question 2b. The BLM's letter notes that the harvest volume
estimates were Dr. Johnson's with assistance from BLM analysts. How
much confidence does BLM have in these estimates?
Answer. If timber harvest could be implemented according to the
assumptions used to develop the harvest calculations, the BLM has high
confidence that 300-350 mmbf of timber would be available for 20 years.
However, in written testimony, the BLM identified a number of
concerns regarding implementation of the bill, including concerns which
make it difficult to predict the feasibility of BLM achieving the
predicted volume estimates under S. 1784. In some cases, it appears the
legislative language may not be consistent with the assumptions used
for the harvest calculations. For example, it is uncertain to what
extent spotted owl sites, designated critical habitat (for spotted owls
and marbled murrelets), and drinking water protection areas would
affect the harvest volume estimates.
Question 3b. In Section 117 of the bill titled ``Land Ownership
Consolidation'' the BLM is directed to consolidate the checkerboard
pattern of O&C land using sales or land exchanges. Before exchanging
any land, however, the Secretary must determine it is in the public
interest to do so.
The bill, as drafted, does not specify the process or provide
criteria to the BLM to determine whether the land exchanges are in the
public interest. What process and/or what set of criteria does the BLM
intend to use to determine whether land exchanges authorized under this
legislation are in the public interest?
Answer. As required by the Federal Land Policy and Management Act
(FLPMA, Sec. 206), the BLM considers many values and objectives when
determining whether a particular land exchange action is ``in the
public interest.'' These values and objectives include giving full
consideration to the opportunity to achieve better management of
Federal lands, to meet the needs of State and local residents and their
economies, and to secure important objectives, including but not
limited to: protection of fish and wildlife habitats, cultural
resources, watersheds, wilderness and aesthetic values; enhancement of
recreation opportunities and public access; consolidation of lands and/
or interests in lands, such as mineral and timber interests, for more
logical and efficient management and development; consolidation of
split estates; expansion of communities; accommodation of land use
authorizations; promotion of multiple use values; and fulfillment of
public needs. The BLM would also evaluate proposed land exchanges under
the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), including public scoping
and developing an Environmental Assessment or Environmental Impact
Statement prior to a decision. Consistent with FLPMA, prior to making a
decision on a proposed land exchange, the BLM also must consider
whether the exchange is consistent with the governing land use plan(s),
determine the value of the properties to be exchanged, and determine
whether there are any title restrictions or valid existing rights that
could impact the exchange. Through the NEPA process, the BLM further
examines any resource impacts of activities (such as grazing, minerals,
recreation, and constructed assets) associated with the exchange; and
in compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act and its
tribal consultation obligations, the BLM analyzes cultural resource and
Native American tribal and religious concerns.
Question 3b. Under your public interest determination process does
the BLM envision instances where land exchanges would be found to be in
the public interest that would convey timberlands out of federal
ownership for development by private or state interests? Why or why
not?
Answer. As part of the public interest determination process, the
BLM would evaluate a wide range of issues. Whether a land exchange
conveying timberlands out of federal ownership for development would be
in the public interest would depend upon issues identified during
scoping and the values and objectives, previously mentioned in response
to Question 3a, considered during the determination process.
Question 4. It has been stated that S. 1784 will double harvest
volumes on BLM lands over the next 20 years to approximately 300-350
million board feet by employing ecological forestry principles.
Please provide an estimate of the amount of funding that would be
required under S. 1784 to reach those harvest level volumes.
Answer. S. 1784 directs many procedural requirements and analyses
to occur within 18 months of enactment. In the short term, the BLM
would expect to incur increased costs, including additional staff and/
or contracts, to meet these front-loaded requirements. Because S. 1784
includes new processes that have not been completely analyzed for
implementation, the BLM is unable to predict an amount, if any, of unit
cost savings, or other associated direct and indirect costs.
Responses of Steven A. Ellis to Questions From Senator Barrasso
Question 1a. In materials released by the BLM, Carolina Hooper, the
BLM analyst who worked with Dr. Johnson on his harvest volume
estimates, noted that their calculations only excluded the ``highest
quality spotted owl critical habitat'' from harvest projections.
How was this ``highest quality'' habitat selected?
Answer. In response to a request made by Senator Wyden, the BLM
provided extensive technical assistance to his staff as they worked to
develop the bill and the associated maps. The steps described below
were taken by BLM analysts in response to requests made by Senator
Wyden's staff during the technical assistance process.
Initially, the highest quality habitat was selected using a map of
Relative Habitat Suitability (RHS) scores for spotted owl habitat
within designated critical habitat. RHS scores give an indication of
the likelihood that owls occur or would occur in a given area. The
higher the score, the higher the likelihood that owls will occupy the
area. The highest quality habitat was defined by the area comprising
the top 30% of RHS scores within designated owl critical habitat.
At that point in the process the following steps were taken, based
on guidance from Senator Wyden's staff, to determine how Northern
Spotted Owl Critical Habitat would be evaluated in the formulation of
the O&C Land Grant Act of 2013:
Two sets of geospatial data, one representing Northern
Spotted Owl Critical Habitat units and another representing the
Best 30 percent (Highest Quality) Northern Spotted Owl Habitat,
was obtained from U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service.
The Bureau of Land Management's Oregon and California
Railroad and Coos Bay Wagon Road lands were evaluated together
as (O&C lands).
The Highest Quality owl habitat was not evaluated
independently. The Highest Quality Northern Spotted Owl Habitat
was combined with areas of existing Wilderness, designated Wild
and Scenic River corridors, moist forest stands of greater than
or equal to 120 years of age, and additional BLM national
designations such as national monuments.
These combined areas were evaluated by each public land
survey, township, range, and section division.
Where 30 percent or more of O&C lands for a section were
within the combined area, the lands were categorized as
``Conservation Emphasis.'' These Conservation Emphasis areas
were excluded from timber harvest calculations.
Based on guidance from Senator Wyden's staff, a range of
additional areas were added to the ``Conservation Emphasis''
category. None of these additions were based on Northern
Spotted Owl Critical Habitat, but some overlap the habitat
areas.
Question 1b. How much spotted owl critical habitat is located on
the O&C lands and how much of this is considered ``highest quality''?
Answer. The Critical Habitat and High Quality Critical Habitat
acreage information is summarized below:
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
______
Responses of Sean Stevens to Questions From Senator Barrasso
Question 1. Your organization seems to believe that tourism and
recreation are the keys to the future of these rural communities. Why
haven't these sectors created the kind of broad based employment needed
in these communities? If Oregon Wild believes tourism is so important
to these rural, forested communities then why did it put up billboards
and take out advertising painting Oregon in a negative light as
``Welcome to Oregon..home of the clearcut?''
Answer. Tourism and recreation are a large and growing part of
Oregon's economy. The Outdoor Industry Association recently reported
that in 2012 outdoor recreation alone accounted for $12.8 billion in
spending and 141,000 direct jobs in Oregon.\1\ These jobs and economic
output are spread across Oregon's rural and urban areas and have
continued to grow even during the recession.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ http://www.outdoorindustry.org/images/ore_reports/OR-oregon-
outdoorrecreationeconomy-oia.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While outdoor recreation is an important part of the Oregon
economy, it is not the only economic benefit that protected and well
managed public lands produce. Over 1.8 million Oregonians receive their
clean drinking water from sources that originate all or in part on O&C
lands. Forests naturally filter water and save municipalities millions
of dollars every year in avoided filtration and facilities costs.
Additionally, economists continually point to overall quality of life
as a major driver in businesses deciding where to locate new
headquarters, offices, and facilities. Our protected lands, scenic
vistas, and opportunities for diverse forms of recreation all
contribute to bolstering the recruiting capability of businesses in all
industries. Put simply, people want to live and work in Oregon because
it is a special place to live.
These natural amenities that make Oregon a great place to live and
draw tourists to our borders are at risk and require our constant
vigilance to protect. Our advertising campaign was aimed at sparking a
public conversation about the dissonance between our reputation as a
place where natural resources are protected and the reality of our
current and proposed forest management. Current and proposed
clearcutting harms our clean water, quality of life, and the recreation
economy. Thankfully, due the efforts of Oregon Wild and many other
concerned groups and citizens, we have managed to protect many areas
that provide an economic underpinning for our state. But, this
recreation economy will not continue to grow if we double logging on
O&C lands and harm the natural foundation of this economic sector.
It is also important to note the history of employment in O&C
counties before, during, and after reductions in federal lands logging.
In 1982, the northern spotted owl was not yet on the Endangered Species
list and logging still remained the top priority for BLM managers. In
Douglas County and Lane County, the two largest recipients of federal
timber dollars in Oregon, unemployment was at 17.3% and 12.5%
respectively. In 1994, the year the Northwest Forest Plan was adopted
and four years after Judge Dwyer ruled that the timber sale program in
the Northwest was violating federal law, Douglas and Lan Counties stood
at 7.8% and 5.0% respectively. Today, Douglas County sits at 10.0% and
Lane County at 6.9%.
The lesson is that national recession drive unemployment in Oregon
far more predictively than the size of the logging industry. In short,
we don't need to increase logging to improve the health of rural
Oregon's economy.
Question 2. Your organization just filed suit over the White Castle
variable retention ecological restoration pilot project. Is it safe to
say that Oregon Wild is likely to challenge future variable retention
timber harvests? Why or why not?
Answer. The White Castle timber sale is the second pilot project
proposed by the BLM at the direction of then Interior Secretary Ken
Salazar. The first pilot project, Buck Rising, was not challenged in
court. Oregon Wild was not in favor of many aspects of the Buck Rising
project but felt that lessons could be learned from testing out certain
forestry methods on a limited scale. Buck Rising was also planned in a
younger forest stand where the effects of variable retention
regeneration harvest (aka sloppy clearcutting) would have lesser
negative ecological effects.
After Buck Rising, BLM moved forward with the White Castle timber
sale in a naturally regrown forest stand over 100 years old. This site
had far more ecological importance for at-risk species. Additionally,
it became clear that BLM was not interested in learning from the Buck
Rising pilot and rather intended to continue planning variable
retention regeneration harvests on bigger chunks of the landscape. Add
to this fact that S.1784 proposed to enshrine this style of management
across one million acres of O&C lands and it became crystal clear that
these projects were more than ``pilots.''
We believe there is a far better path forward to produce wood
products from federal forest lands while improving ecological health.
You can find a full report on the restoration-based thinning acres and
board feet available across the Northwest Forest Plan landscape here:
http://www.oregonwild.org/oregon_forests/old_growth_protection/
westside-forests /Kerr%20Andy.%202012.%20Ecologically
%20Appropriate%20Restoration%20Thinning%20in%20the%20Northwest%20Forest
%20Plan%20 Area.pdf
In the near future, Oregon Wild is likely to challenge variable
retention regeneration timber sales in native, mature forests. These
timber sales put critical habitat, clean water, and viewsheds at risk.
______
Responses of Jerry F. Franklin to Questions From Senator Wyden
Question 1. If the BLM had continued harvesting upwards of 1.2
billion board feet per year, as they were in the 1980s, right up until
now, what would be the state of the O&C lands today?
Answer. If the BLM had continued harvesting 1.2 billion board feet
per year essentially all of the currently existing mature and old-
growth forests would have been converted to plantations. This would be
true on both Moist and Dry Forest sites. The BLM managed forests would
be largely indistinguishable from the private forest lands.
Question 2. Now you were one of the scientists that worked on
drafting the original Northwest Forest Plan. Can you speak to how this
legislation fits into that plan?
Answer. The legislation can be viewed, in many ways, as
representing a continued evolution of the Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP).
The NWFP was never fully implemented and has undergone significant
changes since it was adopted in 1994. Most of the changes were the
result of internal agency decisions and not formal processes, as
exemplified by the FS and BLM decisions to end efforts to do
regeneration harvests during the last decade because of continued
litigation. A major formalized change occurred with the adoption of a
new recovery plan (in 2012) and critical habitat designation (in 2013)
for the Northern Spotted Owl by the US Fish & Wildlife Service. The
policy changes that have occurred, formal and informal, have generally
resulted in increased protection of environmental values and in
reductions in lands available for timber harvest.
The legislation builds on the original goals of the Northwest
Forest Plan, incorporating new science and social concerns, and it can
therefore be viewed as a part of the continued evolution that all land-
use plans have to experience, if they are to remain functional.
Question 3. Can you explain how Dr. Johnson and the BLM reached the
estimates for the amount of volume that would be produced under my
bill? How can we be assured this bill and this ecological forestry
approach will produce volume, now and in the future?
Answer. The estimated harvest levels involve two elements--the
lands available for harvest and the expected timber yields per unit
area. Dr. Johnson's estimates utilized the land base allocations
provided by Senator Wyden's staff. Dr. Johnson then collaborated with
BLM staff in estimating the timber yields per unit area that would
occur under the prescriptions in the legislation. These per-unit-area
yields were then multiplied by the land base. Working with the BLM, he
developed estimates of harvest for the next 20 years.
The ecological forestry approach has been endorsed by USFWS and,
hence, should be acceptable on portions of Northern Spotted Owl
critical habitat. Also, management approaches that provide demonstrable
ecological benefits generally have been socially acceptable. We have no
doubt about the ability of the ecological forestry approach to produce
volume, now and in the future, on lands on which it is utilized. .
Responses of Jerry F. Franklin to Questions From Senator Murkowski
Question 1. Dr. Franklin, as I understand it, ecological forestry
is a set of principles to guide forest management. Can you explain
whether it is necessary to be so prescriptive in the legislation, as it
is drafted, to actually practice ecological forestry on the ground? Why
or why not?
Answer. Ecological forestry is an approach to managing forests that
utilizes principles and models derived from natural forest ecosystems.
We view it as being highly adaptive, rather than prescriptive, such as
in the case of variable retention harvesting where a broad variety of
prescriptions can be developed by local stakeholders and managers to
achieve the goal or principle of providing for continuity in structure,
function, and composition between forest generations. Most of what
might appear to be prescriptive elements, such as the designation of
ages of trees and forests that can be harvested, are actually socially-
driven decisions, that define boundaries or limits to activities,
rather than constraining prescriptions where activities are allowed.
Well-defined boundary conditions are critical elements in defining the
social contract. In that sense, they both direct and enable management
activities.
We view the more prescriptive elements of prescriptions (e.g.,
about 1/3 retention in the variable retention regeneration harvests) as
representing starting points, which need to undergo periodic review. We
strongly believe that all management direction in the legislation,
including generalized prescriptions, needs to undergo periodic
scientific and managerial review for their adequacy, as part of a
continuing adaptive process. That review process should also include
consideration of basic objectives of the legislation.
We strongly believe that there should be a continuing adaptive
program on the effectiveness of the silvicultural approaches, including
significant investments in monitoring research. We also believe that it
is important to have periodic review by an independent (third party)
group that includes scientists, respected citizens, and managers. Also,
it would be helpful if the legislation allows the Secretary of Interior
to make changes based on the recommendations of this review team.
Question 2. Do you believe the bill, as drafted, provides
sufficient flexibility to the BLM to practice adaptive management
(learn by doing) on the O&C lands with respect to implementation of
ecological forestry principles and management of these lands? If so,
why do you believe this? If not, what would you recommend be changed in
the bill to provide that flexibility?
Answer. We have indicated that we think that additional flexibility
would be useful in our answer to the previous question. Most
importantly, the legislation should allow for changes in management
practices without requiring an act of Congress.
Question 3. Dr. Franklin, I understand the O&C lands for management
purposes are divided into moist and dry forests. Looking at the drier
forest districts in southern Oregon, can you tell me what level of
timber harvest was estimated for those districts?
Answer. We estimate that about 20% of the harvest would come from
Dry Forest, most of which are in the southern districts. However, those
southern districts also have areas of Moist Forest, which will
contribute significant volume to the harvest.
Question 4. Dr. Franklin, can you explain in non-scientific terms
what is ecological forestry and how, in your opinion, it can work to
increase the timber harvest and provide certainty of supply for the
timber industry?
Answer. Ecological forestry simply refers to managing forests for
multiple values based on principles derived from natural forest
ecosystems. It is contrasted with production forestry in which forests
are managed to maximize wood production following agronomic principles,
generally with an economic constraint.
We believe that ecological forestry can contribute to increased
timber harvests by provide management approaches that sustain or
increase other forest benefits, in addition to wood. By sustaining
ecological values it should ultimately have greater social
acceptability than production forestry, allowing for active management
on a broader federal land base than otherwise would be possible.
Further, since ecological forestry can sustain a broad array of
ecological values it should have greater legal defensibility; for
example, the US Fish and Wildlife Service has endorsed the use of
ecological forestry approaches within Northern Spotted Owl critical
habitat. There is broad evidence that federal management agencies are
more successful at providing economic benefits where they can also
demonstrate that significant ecological benefits will simultaneously
occur..
Response of Jerry F. Franklin to Question From Senator Barrasso
Question 1. Dr. Franklin, given the controversy surrounding
ecological forestry and your variable retention regeneration harvests
do you believe legal certainty will be needed to ensure the timber
projects can be implemented?
Answer. We believe that certainty for implementation of harvests
will be improved though the use of more acceptable practices--i.e.,
practices that provide both ecological and economic benefits
simultaneously, as indicated in our answer to the previous question.
______
Responses of Mike Dombeck to Questions From Senator Wyden
Question 1. In your view, would S. 1966 alter the fundamental
purposes of the National Forest System by putting one use--timber
production--above all of the other multiple uses the national forests
are managed for, such as water, recreation, and wilderness?
Answer. S. 1966 would make timber production the dominant use of a
portion of national forest lands. It is possible to produce timber and
create multiple benefits for uses like water and recreation, but S.
1966 does not provide the tools or direction to do so. The sole focus
on timber production would simply take us back to the controversies of
the past. I would hope that we have learned from the past and not
repeat the same mistakes again.
Question 2. You talk in your testimony about the importance of
protecting roadless areas, riparian areas, and old growth forests. In
your experience, what are the dangers of developing legislation that
does not take these sensitive areas off of the table?
Answer. Roadless areas, riparian areas, and old growth forests are
valued by the public because they provide for water quality, fish and
wildlife habitat, and recreational opportunities. Failing to provide
protections for these areas invites predictable controversy that
distracts from the type of collaboration we need to support multiple
use on our national forests.
Question 3. Thank you for your mention of the Collaborative Forest
Landscape Restoration Program and the benefits of strong, on-the-ground
collaboration. Can you elaborate on some examples of where you have
seen collaboration work effectively to help the Forest Service achieve
its mandates?
Answer. Montana's Middle Clark Fork basin provides a strong example
of public support helping the Forest Service carry out its mission. In
the Middle Clark Fork, historic placer mining and other resource
extraction badly damaged tributary streams that provide important
spawning and rearing habitat for bull trout and cutthroat trout. One of
these tributaries is Ninemile Creek, where the Forest Service and its
partners improved 12 miles of instream habitat, reclaimed 100 miles of
unused logging roads, planted 10,000 trees and shrubs, upgraded or
removed 70 culverts and incorporated 3,000 volunteer hours into
watershed restoration planning and implementation. After the completion
of these projects, cutthroat trout were able to migrate up a tributary
of Ninemile Creek for the first time in 70 years. The outpouring of
volunteer hours and matching funding contributions to the restoration
of the Middle Clark Fork is a testament to the public's desire to
improve and restore our national forests.
I would like to reaffirm what I stated at the Hearing; in my home
state of Wisconsin there is a grassroots effort beginning to take shape
called the North East Wisconsin Collaborative. It brings together a
diverse group of stakeholders from conservation, loggers, Tribal
members, and forest industry representatives to find ways to accelerate
the sustainable management of the Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest.
This effort is being modeled from the many Collaborative Forest
Landscape Restoration Program projects (CFLRP) that have been establish
across the country, predominately around National Forests impacted by
large scale wildfire. While wildfire typically isn't a the threat in
the Great Lakes States as it is in the West, the effort in Wisconsin is
aiming to promote the health of watersheds that drain into the Great
Lakes while producing timber and jobs. Established CFLRP projects have
shown that when diverse stakeholders come together significant progress
can be made and should be extended to the National Forests east of the
100th Meridian.
Response of Mike Dombeck to Question From Senator Tim Johnson
Question 1. Forests provide important ecological and economic
benefits to both rural and urban communities across the country, from
fiber and forage to clean water and recreation. Many of those forests
face serious threats from insect and disease, wildfire, drought, and
other stresses. It appears that there now may be an opportunity to
accelerate treatment and restoration of our forests while enhancing the
long-term sustainability of the benefits that come from those forests.
From your experience as a public land manager and scientist, what
specific tangible recommendations do you have to overcome the current
obstacles to sustainable forest management?
Answer. Chief Tidwell described in his testimony some positive
steps being taken by the Forest Service to overcome obstacles to
sustainable forest management. The Chief needs the support of Congress
to achieve success. The current situation with the Forest Service's
fire budget sets the agency up to fail. Fixing this problem, as has
been proposed by Senators Wyden and Crapo, would go a long way toward
restoring the agency's management capacity. Furthermore, the agency has
been hindered by sequestration and needs adequate appropriations.
Simply put, the agency needs the resources to do the work. The
authorities provided through the Farm Bill for stewardship contracting
give the agency a very useful tool, and I applaud Congress for
including that provision.
If I were still Chief, I would push the agency to expand its good
work with local collaboratives. By offering a strong multiple-use
vision shaped by the input of communities of place and interest, the
Forest Service can create an environment in which the public becomes a
contributor to the agency's mission. We have seen this happen with
habitat restoration work in the Middle Clark Fork basin of Montana,
where every dollar the Forest Service spends on restoration is
multiplied by partner contributions. I have seen this in the forests in
Wisconsin, where retirees are volunteering to provide the Forest
Service with additional expertise. These types of inclusive approaches
help the agency to tap additional resources and engenders goodwill in
local communities to help carry out the Forest Service's multiple use
mandate.
Response of Georg Clint to Question From Senator Tim Johnson
Question 1. Forest management and the wood products industry are
very important to the economic and ecological sustainability of western
South Dakota. The Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project in the Black
Hills National Forest has shown that the Forest Service is capable of
undertaking landscape-scale planning and adapting its management to
changing conditions. This approach has now been authorized across the
National Forest System to help streamline treatment of national forest
lands facing insect or disease infestations. Though this new authority
has not yet been implemented nationwide, what is your perspective on
how it will help your company and other similar small businesses obtain
the wood supplies critical to your operation, both in the near term and
into the foreseeable future?
Answer. There has been a lot of discussion and interest in the
Black Hills National Forest project and what projects like it could do
for the supply of timber. The advantage of landscape size planning is
that it is more efficient both in terms of cost and timing.
These cost efficiencies, to the extent that they free up funds for
the Forest Service to use on forest restoration through timber
harvests, will directly impact the amount of wood that small businesses
will have access to.
In addition, the amount of timber available from the USFS on a
year-to-year basis can be impacted by the amount of forest planning
done in the prior year. Since the forest planning is done on a scale
that provides multi-year planning, the stability of the wood supply
should be improved.
Responses of Georg Clint to Questions From Senator Barrasso
Question 1. Opponents of timber production often claim timber
harvest is detrimental to watersheds which serve local communities and
wildlife. What is your experience with the interaction between timber
harvest and watershed health?
Answer. The forests regulate the watershed in complex, multifaceted
ways. The canopy provides shade for the snowpack and allows the snow to
melt at a regulated speed.
Live trees also absorb ground water and expel it into the air,
further regulating how much water flows to streams and watersheds. Of
course, all of this is out of balance in the Western forests today.
First, where the forests have died in mass either from beetle kill
or other event, the canopy is destroyed. This means more snow
evaporates in the winter and the snow that is left melts and runs off
more rapidly than previously. There is over-all less water, and the
early spring runoff is more intense. More rapid runoff leads to
landslides and loads of sediment and debris choking streams, reservoirs
and other water infrastructure on which downstream communities depend.
The situation worsens after one of the massive fires that we are
now experiencing in greater frequency. After a fire of this type, the
forest floor is no longer protected from erosion. As an example, after
the Hayman fire, For example, Front Range city water providers (Denver
and Aurora) spent $25 million in two years to remove sediment dumped
into a reservoir that serves as a source of drinking water. More
recently, we've seen the impact in the unprecedented flooding in
Manitou Springs, CO after a wild fire and in the severity of the
widespread flooding in Colorado last spring which was, at least in
part, blamed on the massive fires in prior months.
Where the western forests are experiencing beetle kill or other
devastation, timber harvests improve the watershed by restoring the
forests to a healthy state, restoring the canopy in just a few short
years.
There should be very little debate about whether timber harvests
improve our watershed in the area of damaged forests. However, even in
green forests, the impact is positive. Overgrown forests will use more
water than a well-managed forest. We have seen where thinning through
timber harvests frees up water to the extent that previously dry
streams run again. Healthy watersheds are dependent on healthy forest
and timber harvests or thinning that keep the forests healthy also keep
the watersheds healthy.
Finally, the argument often advanced concerning the potential
damage that timber harvests poise to watershed had to do with the
potential that harvesting equipment compacts the soils which leads to
silting up of the streams. However, a comprehensive study on the
Medicine Bow-Routt forest showed that when state-of-the-art techniques
are used for logging, road building and road maintenance, increased
stream sedimentation was not measurable. I am not aware of any study
that disputes these findings.
In short, for our forests today, the question is not whether timber
harvesting will negative impact our watersheds, but how can timber
harvests be used to restore our watershed health.
Question 2. In your testimony you talk about the present danger of
massive and destructive wildland fires. How do acres which have been
harvested for timber help prevent the risk of future wildland fire, or
slow the growth of fires once started? When considering the risk of
future wildland fire, do backcountry areas or the Wildland Urban
Interface pose a greater threat?
Answer. The massive forest fires that we have been experiencing are
driven by massive fuel loading in our largely mature forests. Mature
forests are naturally susceptible to these type of fires and the risk
is heighted by the density of the trees, drought and insect
infestations.
On the other hand, these fires are less likely to occur in young
stands of trees. These stands are resilient to these fires. When a
massive fire reaches a large stand of immature trees, the fire peters
out.
Harvesting trees removes mature trees and allows the forest to
regenerate. This process creates a mosaic of tree stands of different
ages--similar to what would happen naturally if fires were not
routinely suppressed.In a forest with a mosaic of differing aged trees,
fires in the mature stands are limited. In this manner, timber harvests
by generating young stands of trees, essentially provide natural fire
breaks in the forest.
In answer to the second part of the question, the most expensive
fires to fight are in the backcountry areas. These are the fires that
have doubled in size in the past 40 years and have led the Forest
Service to spend nearly 50% of its budget on fighting fires. The
backcountry areas protect our watersheds as well as the habitat for our
wildlife. While we are seeing the most property destruction in WUI
areas, these fires often start in the backcountry area, grow to be
uncontrollable, and spread to the WUI.
Question 3. Individuals, families, small businesses, and
governments must make budgets and choices based on priorities. When
considering the Forest Service budget, what budget activities should
Congress prioritize to improve forest health and public safety?
Answer. Public safety requires continued funding of fire
suppression and new ways to support that effort. But this situation
will continue to deteriorate and the cost of providing this fire
suppression will continue to escalate unless we increase the pace and
scale of forest restoration to return our forests to a healthy state.
Forest health and public safety (including watershed protection),
are dependent on treating large, landscape size areas. Forest health on
anything less than landscape size is largely meaningless.
Both immediate and long-term forest management on a landscape scale
requires a healthy forest products industry. This industry comprised of
sawmills, OSB mills, pellet mills and others, is the only commercially
viable means of treating forest on landscape scales.Yet, over the past
few years, the forest products industry has been devastated by a lack
of timber supply and still faces a shortage of timber supply.
It is incumbent that, to protect the industry that provides our
needed forest management, Congress needs to prioritize funds for
increased timber harvests. It should also be noted that the initial
investment in these programs can get paid back through increase timber
sales. This is good both for the long-term health of the forest and for
increasing revenues to the government.
Question 4. What are the positive externalities of timber
production for society and American taxpayers?
Answer. Timber production is a very good investment for the
Americans on many levels.
On an environmental level, timber production leads directly to
restoring healthy forests. The leads in turn to healthy watersheds and
wildlife habitat, but it also leads to healthier climates. Our forest
provide a carbon sink, removing harmful carbon dioxide from the
environment, while generating fresh oxygen. When the forests are
harvested, the trapped carbon remains trapped in the structures built
with the wood (as opposed to be released back in to the atmosphere as
the trees rot). Healthy forests, generated through timber production,
literally impact the water we drink and the air we breathe.
On an economic basis, timber production is one of the best
generator of revenue possible. Timber harvesting is an extraction
industry, meaning that it begins with a raw material. Because it is an
extraction industry, many jobs are dependent on this industry as the
raw material is converted to a finished product. As an example,
harvesting timber creates jobs from the logger who cuts the tree all
the way to the real estate agent that sells the recently built home.
Along the way, it is estimated that there are 12 jobs created for every
million board feet of lumber produced.
Many of these jobs are in rural areas, where the mills are and
where there are few other good jobs.
Timber production is a domestic industry that is a national
treasure. In our timber, America has a renewable resource that it
exports around the world. China is one of the largest buyers of timber
and India is expected to become a major user as well. As these two
economies lead the world in growth, America is positioned to benefit
greatly, as long as it has the industry and timber contracts to do so.
Finally, timber sales can be used to fund the work require for
other forest health and fire prevention efforts. As an example, as late
as the 1970, the USFS through its timber sale program was a net
generator of revenues for the US Government. Revenues generated in this
manner are using the resources of the forests to maintain the health of
the forests.
Appendix II
Additional Material Submitted for the Record
----------
Statement of Owen Graham, Executive Director, Alaska Forest
Association, on S. 1966
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Murkowski, and members of the
Committee:
My name is Owen Graham. I am the Executive Director of the Alaska
Forest Association (AFA). Thank you for holding this hearing and for
allowing AFA to submit testimony for the hearing record. My testimony
today will be on the need for additional provisions to be added to
either S. 1784, the Oregon and California Land Grant Act of 2013 and/or
S. 1966, the National Forest Jobs and Management Act of 2014. Each of
these bills deals with the serious, pending timber supply crisis in the
Oregon and California Lands and the National Forest System.
The Alaska Forest Association desperately need this Committee to
address this timber supply crisis in Alaska's and the nation's largest
National Forest in Southeast Alaska. While both bills attempt to
address the lack of acceptable harvest levels in Southwest Oregon on
lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management and the National Forest
System, neither bill deals with the unique and deplorable situation in
Alaska. This is why AFA urges and pleads with this Committee to add a
specific title or sections to either bill when reported by this
Committee to fix the Alaska crisis.
Mr. Chairman, AFA applauds your statements at many hearings that
your goal is to ``get the cut up'' in the National Forest System and on
the O&C lands. We applaud and support this goal, but we ask that you
recognize that the last 23 years of management by the US Forest Service
has depressed the timber sale program and timber employment in the
region by 90%. Fully 98% of the national forest has been placed off
limits to timber production; 40% by Congress and another 52% by agency
administrative actions. It is time for a new approach in Alaska, but
before I describe that approach, let me explain the history of
federally managed timber harvest in Southeast Alaska since.
background and brief history
While Alaska was still federal territory, the federal government
determined that a sustainable, year around economy was needed in
Southeast Alaska and this goal could be achieved by managing the forest
for timber production and inducing private investment in manufacturing
by letting long-term timber sales. Then Chief of the Forest Service,
Frank Heintzlemen, had the vision and the management fortitude to see
this idea to fruition. While only 3 of the 5 sales were ultimately
finalized, these sales led to multi-million dollar investments in
Ketchikan, Sitka, and Wrangell Alaska. These contracts led to a vibrant
timber sale program which harvested 520 million board feet annually and
sustained over 4,000 full time jobs.
broken promises
In 1980 and again in 1990, Congress established roughly six million
acres of wilderness and monument set-asides but also promised Alaska
that sufficient timber sales would continue in order to sustain the
existing manufacturing industry. However, the Forest Service was unable
to honor that commitment and immediately after 1990 the timber supply
began to plummet. In 1997 the agency adopted a new land management plan
that reduced the available timberland base by two-thirds. In 2001 the
agency further reduced the land base by applying their administrative
roadless rule to Alaska. The State of Alaska was able to negotiate a
settlement that exempted Alaska from that rule, but now the agency
refuses to honor that exemption.
Worse yet, the Forest Service announced in 2010 that it intends to
reduce the timberland base again and manage only some of the ``young
growth'' timberlands, most of which will not mature for several
decades. The limited young growth acreage that is mature is
insufficient to fully supply even a single manufacturing facility and
as a result the young growth timber will likely be exported. This will
sustain only a few logging and road building jobs.
The agency has stated it will provide a limited supply of mature
timber during a nebulous ``transition period'', but the agency has been
unable to consistently supply enough timber for even our single
remaining mid-size sawmill. The most recent timber sale, Big Thorne,
has been delayed for nearly six months because of an administrative
appeal and our last sawmill may be forced to shut down as a result.
Once the appeal is resolved, there will be a risk of further delay from
environmental lawsuits and, despite years of massive federal funding,
the agency has no other timber sale projects close to completion.
Stated simply, the Forest Service can no longer manage a successful
timber program in Southeast Alaska. No matter how much time, effort and
dollars it spends, it fails. This Committee has overseen this pathetic
performance for the last 20 plus years; the system has failed.
While it is not the sole fault of the Forest Service with court,
administrative, and politics intervening continuously, one thing is
clear: The US Forest Service timber program in S. E. Alaska is
irretrievably broken and cannot be fixed by the agency. It is time for
this Committee and the Congress to recognize this and take action to
honor the past commitments made to the State, the local communities and
the timber industry.
another and better way is at hand/state managed forest
As this committee will undoubtedly hear today, state and local
governments have done a vital and important job in providing some
timber to local industry throughout the West. That is why the House
passed bill proposes that the Governors of states be allowed to appoint
State or local advisory committees which can be given the opportunity
to manage some areas of the National Forest System. While this is a
step in the right direction, the federal government has monopoly power
over the timberlands in Southeast Alaska and the draft legislation will
not resolve the Alaska crisis unless sufficient timberland is made
available.
The Governor of Alaska has issued an Alaska Timber Task Force
report confirming all that I have testified to above. AFA calls on the
Congress to authorize the establishment of a two million acre State
Forest in Southeast Alaska. This will leave fifteen million acres for
the Forest Service to manage and it will not impact any of the six
million acres Congress has set aside as wilderness, national monuments
and other set-asides. A copy of the Alaska Timber Task Force report was
submitted to this Committee in an earlier hearing by Alaska State
Forester Chris Maisch. I ask that a copy of the report be made part of
this hearing record also. That report was submitted with this
testimony.
There is great support for this State Forest in Alaska: The
Southeast Conference, a regional municipal and local business group,
supports this as do many of the local communities, the State Chamber of
Commerce and many other groups as well.
AFA firmly believes that implementing the State Timber Task Report
is the only way to restore the lost jobs and reinvigorate the economy
of Southeast Alaska. The State of Alaska already manages an efficient
timber program under its Alaska State Forest Practices which delivers a
reliable timber supply on the small amount of timberland that the State
owns in the region. This State program is well managed just as similar
programs are in other lower 48 states such as Washington and Oregon.
controversy
Mr. Chairman and Sen. Murkowski. There will be opposition to this
approach just as there will be opposition to S.1784 and S. 1966. There
are groups which oppose any sustainable timber industry anywhere in
Southeast Alaska. These opposition groups will mightily and loudly
oppose a State owned/managed forest, just like they have opposed nearly
every significant timber sale over the last 20+ years. However, we are
asking for a balance. The two million acres the State proposes will
provide the timber supply we need, plus access for mining, power
development projects and local communities. This is only 12% of the
national forest and management of this land by the state will not harm
the fisheries, the wildlife or access to recreation; in fact it will
enhance those resources. Further, the federal government will be able
to reduce the funding for the Forest Service in Alaska; currently about
a quarter of the roughly $50 million annual Region 10 budget is for the
timber sale program.
conclusion
Thank you for the opportunity to submit this testimony. This
hearing is a valuable contribution to this Committee's understanding of
why the federal timber sale program has failed in Alaska. The National
Forests were established for two reasons at the turn of the 20th
Century; watershed protection and timber production. That policy has
never been changed by the Congress but the agency seems to have ignored
or forgotten this. To quote the Organic Act of 1897:
No public forest reservation shall be established, except to
improve and protect the forest within the reservation, or for
the purpose of securing favorable conditions of water flows,
and to furnish a continuous supply of timber for the use and
necessities of citizens of the United States''
It is time for Congress to enforce this policy and promise by
making the necessary management changes in Alaska--the establishment of
a state owned forest to be managed under the Alaska State Forest
Practices Act. This is the only way to overcome the obstacles to the
goal of the Organic Act.
______
Statement of Doug Heiken, Oregon Wild, Eugene OR, on S. 1784
Honorable U.S. Senators:
Please accept the following testimony from Oregon Wild concerning
S. 1784, Senator Wyden's O&C Lands bill. Please make these comments
part of the official record of the hearing on S. 1784 held February 6,
2014. These comments start with a brief outline of our concerns with
the Wyden O&C logging bill, and then we attach several supplemental
resources that reinforce our points.
Oregon Wild has worked for 40 years to protect and restore Oregon's
wildlands, wildlife, and water as an enduring legacy. Oregon Wild
represents over 10,000 members and supporters who share our mission.
Our goal is to protect areas that remain ecologically intact while
striving to restore areas that have been ecologically degraded. The
Wyden bill threatens our mission because it undermines the Northwest
Forest Plan and mandates clearcutting of approximately 100,000 acres of
never-before-logged native forests that are critical to Oregon's water
quality, fish & wildlife habitat, recreation, climate stability, and
quality of life. The bill also undermines the Endangered Species Act
and inappropriately limits public participation in public land
management.
Far more than half of the productive capacity of Oregon's forests
are controlled by private interests and most of those forests are
aggressively managed for timber production. These lands serve private
interests by producing wood products, jobs, and profits, but the
clearcuts and tree farms on private lands do a poor job providing
important public values such as clean water and quality of life. Due to
short-sighted tax policies at the state and local level in Oregon,
logging on private lands contributes very little to local government
revenue. There is no shortage of clearcuts in Oregon, but there is a
shortage of natural forests and protected watersheds that can provide
clean water, habitat for fish & wildlife, recreation, scenic vistas, or
carbon storage to mitigate climate change. Public lands are essential
to provide these public values.
Prior to 2000, most of the logging on federal forests was from
clearcutting mature & old-growth forests. Subsequent to 2000 most of
the logging on federal lands in the northwest has focused on small
trees thinned for restoration purposes. Conservation groups are working
with the agencies to refine and improve approaches to forest management
that improve forest habitat, produce jobs, and provide substantial
timber volume as a by-product of restoration.
Oregon Wild has been advancing a workable vision for management of
forests in Oregon. Wood products and commodity extraction should be
focused on non-federal lands, while federal forests are devoted to
providing public values like clean water, habitat for fish & wildlife,
recreation, carbon storage, and quality of life. To help forests
recover from past abuses, federal forests require a meaningful
investment in restoration. Restoration can include thinning dense young
forests and removing small trees from forests suffering from fire
exclusion. This common sense strategy will produce an optimal mix of
ecological and economic benefits. For more than 10 years, the success
of this strategy has been demonstrated by the Siuslaw National Forest
and to some degree by other forests and BLM Districts.
The Wyden bill shifts the management emphasis of public forests
from public values like clean drinking water, recovery of endangered
species, storing carbon, and maintaining quality of life toward an
outdated and destructive emphasis on clearcutting for profit.
The Wyden O&C logging bill is deeply flawed in many respects. The
Wyden bill will not achieve the primary objectives it seeks, and it
will have significant indirect effects that harm many other important
policy objectives. The Wyden bill will NOT fix the counties' financial
problems; it will NOT meaningfully reduce unemployment; it will NOT
protect all the old growth; and it will NOT resolve public conflict
over forests. The Wyden bill WILL increase clearcutting; it WILL
increase carbon emissions; it WILL degrade water quality, it WILL set
back efforts to recover listed fish and wildlife; it WILL degrade
Oregon's quality of life and undermine efforts to diversify the
economy; and it WILL inflame conflict and controversy.
BLM lands already play a significant economic role. The
agencies' are implementing a successful thinning program that
offers jobs and wood products. Conservation groups and the
public are supporting and encouraging careful thinning of young
stands which produces jobs and wood products. The economic
benefits do not stop at thinning. One of Oregon's most valuable
economic assets is its quality of life (provided in part by
beautiful forests) which helps diversify our economy and expand
the tax base by attracting skilled workers and prospective
employers. The ecosystem services from well-conserved public
lands help provide clean water for agriculture, industry, and
communities. Carbon storage in the forest helps stabilize the
climate that the global economy depends on. Increased logging
on BLM lands will undermine these economic contributions.
The Wyden bill does not really protect all the old growth.
The Northwest Forest Plan called for restoration of an old-
growth ecosystem which requires not just protecting existing
old growth but also increasing the amount of old forest on the
landscape by letting young forests grow. The Wyden bill shrinks
the reserves system and reduces the area where old forest will
be allowed to grow. Also, the Wyden bill purports to protect
existing old forest but actually leaves many old forests
unprotected--first by leaving approximately 100,000 acres of
native unlogged forests 80-125 years old subject to
clearcutting in the Forestry Emphasis Areas, and second, by
relying on BLM's flawed age classification system which
mislabels some functional old growth as ``young'' forest. BLM's
method essentially says that some forests are not old, when in
reality they contain numerous old trees and the stand as a
whole functions as old growth. In both cases, these stands
provide old forest values yet they are not protected under the
Wyden bill.
The Wyden bill endorses a form of sloppy clearcutting called
``variable retention harvest'' that would be an improvement if
such practices were adopted on private industrial forest lands,
but this kind of clearcutting is a huge ecological step
backwards for federal forests which in recent years have
successfully focused on variable density thinning of dense
young stands.
The Wyden bill is driven by arbitrary timber targets rather
than science. The bill seems more intent on achieving a timber
volume of 300 mmbf/year, instead of following the advice of the
scientists who are ostensibly behind the bill. Case in point:
Norm Johnson and Jerry Franklin's article in the Journal of
Forestry explicitly recommends that variable retention harvest
treatments are appropriate in previously clearcut stands (which
are virtually all younger than 80 years), but the Wyden bill
ignores this recommendation, and requires logging in mature
native forests up to 125 years old that have never been logged
before. Clearcutting mature forests does not contribute to
ecological restoration. The highest and best use of mature
forests is to allow them to grow and fill the severe deficit of
older forests.
Clearcutting BLM lands under the Wyden bill will make fire
hazard worse instead of better. This is a significant concern
because BLM lands are located close to homes and private
property. The dense young forests that dominate a managed
forest landscape represent a high fire hazard because they have
dense interlocking branches close to the ground. There is also
more slash and more roads and fire ignition sources in a
managed landscape. Mature forests, on the other hand, pose less
of a fire hazard because large trees have thick fire-resistant
bark; they hold most of their fuel high above the ground where
surface fires tend to spread; their dense canopies help create
a cool-moist microclimate that is unfavorable to fire and the
canopy also helps suppress the growth of ladder fuels. The
science of fire behaviour has been confirmed by recent
observations of large wildfires in SW Oregon. The agencies have
repeatedly noted that wildfire spreads rapidly in dense young
tree farms, while fire behaves more moderately in mature
natural forest;
Thinning dry forests may also increase fire hazard. Thinning
has a tendency to increase fire hazard by moving fine fuels
from the canopy to the ground, making the microclimate hotter,
dryer and windier, and stimulating the growth of ladder fuels.
Some of the dry forest prescriptions in the Wyden bill might
tend to reduce fire hazard, but Norm Johnson and Jerry Franklin
note that certain forest types in SW Oregon have a unique
tendency to grow flammable shrubs after thinning. Johnson &
Franklin (2009) said: ``Some dry mixed-conifer plant
associations have the potential to develop dense shrubby
understories when light and moisture are made available by tree
thinning; . . . . Such understories can provide significant
ground fuels for wildfires, thereby negating some of the
positive effects of thinning on fire behavior. . . .'' Johnson
& Franklin 2009. Restoration of Federal Forests in the Pacific
Northwest: Strategies and Management Implications. http://
www.cof.orst.edu/cof/fs/PDFs/JohnsonRestoration_aug15_2009.pdf
The Wyden bill undermines key elements of the Northwest
Forest Plan, including:
--The Wyden bill shrinks and disrupts the carefully designed
network of connected forest reserves established by the
Northwest Forest Plan. BLM lands were specifically
identified as critical to provide connective links between
the Coast Range, the Cascades, and the Klamath Mountains,
and between the larger blocks of habitat on the National
Forests in western Oregon. The Wyden bill severs east-west
habitat connectivity between the Coast Range and the
Cascades (see map and analysis attached);*
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* All attachments have been retained in committee files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--The Wyden bill will dramatically increase clearcutting in the
Oregon Coast Range which is already severely degraded by
past clearcutting on federal land and ongoing clearcutting
on non-federal land. The Coast Range habitat simply cannot
be sacrificed because it is identified as critical for
recovery of threatened spotted owls, marbled murrelets, and
Pacific salmon. Coastal watersheds are highly productive
and less impacted by dams and therefore have great
potential for salmon recovery.
--The Wyden bill halves protection for riparian reserves. The
rationale used to justify reduced stream protection is
misleading and deeply flawed. The stream buffers
established in the Northwest Forest Plan were supposed to
protect both aquatic and terrestrial wildlife, including a
wide variety of listed and sensitive species; the buffers
were intended to protect microclimate and wood recruitment
not just within the stream but also within important
habitat areas away from the stream; the buffers were
intended to give salmon a reasonable chance for recovery
rather than a bare minimum level of protection; they were
intended to help mitigate for past stream damage caused by
clearcutting and roads; and they were intended to slow the
pace of logging and mitigate cumulative effects. Gordy
Reeves' ``new science'' focuses on instream conditions and
does not address all the explicit purposes of the riparian
reserves;
--The Wyden bill will have disproportionate adverse impacts on
lower slopes above streams which are critical for
endangered species recovery and other values. Both spotted
owls and marbled murrelets disproportionally rely on lower
slopes which were protected under the Northwest Forest
Plan, but will lose protection under the Wyden bill;
--The Wyden bill decimates designated critical habitat for spotted
owls and marbled murrelets. The bill creates an entirely
novel approach to implementing the Endangered Species Act
which will encourage logging where it is now disfavored.
Private lands are doing next to nothing for endangered
species. Federal lands have to carry the burden of species
conservation and recovery. Both spotted owls and marbled
murrelet need large unfragmented blocks of habitat. The
Wyden bill will cause significant habitat fragmentation by
requiring clearcutting around the border of old forest
stands with Forestry Emphasis Areas;
--The Wyden bill eliminates the core requirements of the ``survey
and manage'' program which was identified as an important
mitigation for logging. The purpose of survey and manage
program is to ``look before you log'' by identifying rare
and uncommon wildlife before logging and then protecting
small buffers around identified sites. The Wyden bill
eliminates survey and manage where it is needed most, in
the Forestry Emphasis Areas where most of the logging will
occur. In 2001, the Clinton Administration made adjustments
to the survey and manage program which streamlined
procedures and focused the program on species associated
with older forests. The Bush Administration twice tried to
completely eliminate the survey and manage program, but the
courts rejected both attempts because the program was found
to be ``foundational'' to the Northwest Forest Plan.
Congress should not step in to eliminate this important
science-based conservation program.
--The environmental safeguards embodied in the Northwest Forest
Plan were instituted for very good reasons. The agencies
were out of control--liquidating our ancient forest legacy
without regard for wildlife, water quality, or the law. The
NW Forest Plan envisions restoration of a functional forest
ecosystem, but the plan itself recognizes that this will
take more than 100 years to accomplish. It's way too soon
for the pendulum to swing back and erase the environmental
progress that has just begun.
The Wyden bill will exacerbate climate change by
accelerating the transfer of carbon from the forest to the
atmosphere, and preventing the carbon-rich forests of the PNW
from attaining their full potential for carbon storage. During
the last century, logging in western Oregon contributed to
global warming by emitting millions of tons of carbon dioxide
(CO2) into the atmosphere. The rate of logging was
reduced by the Northwest Forest Plan, and consequently the
carbon flow reversed and--at least on federal public
forestlands--there is now more carbon being absorbed and stored
by growing trees than is being emitted by logging. This is
great news, but the Wyden bill will increase logging on western
Oregon BLM lands, including clearcutting carbon-rich mature
forests.
The more forests that are conserved, the greater the carbon
benefits. The more we log, the more carbon is emitted to the
atmosphere. Current efforts to increase logging come at a
significant climate change opportunity cost. Increased
CO2 emissions from logging will reverse progress in
direct conflict with Obama Administration policy to
``preserve[e] the role of forests in mitigating climate
change.'' The highly productive low elevation BLM forests are
very well suited for carbon sequestration, which is also highly
compatible with many other important public values, such as
clean water, fish & wildlife habitat, recreation, and quality
of life--important drivers of economic activity and community
stability in Oregon. Increased logging--especially
clearcutting--is incompatible with climate mitigation and other
public values. To mitigate for past emissions and help avoid
the worst consequences of climate change, the full productive
capacity of BLM's forest lands in western Oregon lands should
be devoted to carbon sequestration. Any forgone opportunity to
store carbon essentially imposes real economic costs on
communities, industries, watersheds, and ecosystems near and
far--and violates BLM's legal mandates under the O&C Act, the
Federal Land Policy & Management Act, and the Endangered
Species Act;
The Wyden bill also increases conflict and controversy by
increasing clearcutting of mature forests on public lands. The
public overwhelmingly supports protection of both mature and
old growth forests on public lands. This support comes from
both Democrats and Republicans, men and women, rural and urban
residents, regardless of income and education attainment. When
people see the results of sloppy clearcutting, they are not
persuaded by forestry school professors who try to describe a
clearcut as butterfly habitat. The Northwest Forest Plan may
not have completely ended the ``forest wars'' (which can
probably be blamed on Congress' 1995 Salvage Rider) but the
protections afforded by the NWFP have significantly quieted the
public debate. Legislation to double logging on our federal
lands, including clearcutting never-before-logged stands up to
125 years old, is sure to reignite public sentiments and cause
social strife.
The Wyden bill excludes the public from participating in the
management of their public lands. NEPA and judicial review
serve as structured means of non-violent conflict resolution.
Shielding unpopular activities like clearcutting from public
involvement and accountability will force the public to find
other ways of expressing their frustration. Wit is not hard to
see that without access to NEPA processes and the courts, new
levels of public anger and frustration may be directed at
Congress, at the agencies, or toward direct actions defending
the forest, or all of the above. We can only guess.
The bill shields BLM managers from accountability which will
tempt managers to go rogue. The Wyden bill severely limits
citizen lawsuits. It allows the public to file lawsuits to
enforce the full suite of federal laws for only 30 days every
10 years. BLM managers facing institutional and political
pressure to ``get the cut out'' will likely take short-cuts
that increase timber output while sacrificing clean water, fish
& wildlife habitat, and scenic values.
The Wyden bill undermines the fundamental safeguards
provided by our nation's environmental laws:
--The Wyden bill rewrites the core requirements of the Endangered
Species Act as it applies to 2+ million acres of BLM land
in western Oregon. The Wyden bill significantly alters the
ESA as it relates to interagency consultation with USFWS,
adverse modification of critical habitat, and possibly
``take'' avoidance.
--The Wyden bill amends the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) in several ways. It prohibits BLM from properly
considering adverse impacts on water quality and cumulative
impacts. The bill also requires BLM to completely forgo
project-level NEPA planning and public involvement. BLM is
mandated by the Wyden bill to plan 3 billion board feet
worth of timber sales within an 18 month period. This is at
best a programmatic analysis that skips over the important
task of site-specific analysis. This unattainable mandate
will not allow BLM enough time to give proper consideration
to all the resource values that must be harmonized when
planning timber sales. BLM will not have time to consider
public input or identify the special resources that need to
be protected during logging. These include: small streams,
springs and wetlands; sensitive plants and wildflowers;
rare wildlife; nesting birds; erosion prone soils; unstable
slopes; high value recreation sites; cultural artifacts;
etc. Considering the irreversible nature of clearcutting,
it is very unwise to skip site-specific analysis--an
important step toward informed decision-making.
The bill is based on several fundamental misunderstandings
about forests, counties, and how Oregon's economy works:
--Proponents of increased logging on federal lands often say that
the federal government owns more than half of Oregon's
forests. What they don't tell you is that federal forests
are mostly higher elevation forests that are less
productive, while private interests snatched up the most
productive low-elevation forest land. So in reality private
individuals and timber corporations own more than half of
the productive capacity of Oregon's forests. These forests
are typically clearcut with little or no meaningful
restrictions to protect water, wildlife, and the climate.
This is where the vast majority of our wood supply comes
from, and why federal forests need to be managed quite
differently.
--Proponents of increased logging keep saying that federal forests
are ``shut down'' due to ``gridlock.'' In fact BLM and
Forest Service are selling thousands of acres of commercial
thinning project each year and, more often than not,
meeting the annual timber targets that congress
establishes. Data from the Forest Service and BLM on timber
offered for sale under the Northwest Forest Plan between
1995 and 2010 reveal that the agencies have cumulatively
offered 8.7 billion (with a ``b'') board feet of timber.
This is equivalent to 1.74 million log truck loads. If
parked end-to-end, these trucks would stretch along I-5
from Seattle to San Diego over and over more than 14 times.
This does not sound like gridlock to me--far from it.
--Furthermore, the Northwest Forest Plan's 1 billion board foot per
year timber target often cited by the timber industry is
misleading. The timber volumes noted in the NW Forest Plan
were explicitly presented as ``estimates.'' Any suggestion
that a ``promise'' of timber was made and not kept is
highly misleading. The timber industry knows that the real
timber targets are set by Congress in the budget. The data
show that since 1995 the agencies have met 82% of the
timber targets established by Congress. The relatively
small short-fall is primarily the result of two legal
blunders that that agencies brought upon themselves. They
simply failed to protect watersheds and failed to survey
for wildlife as required by the NW Forest Plan.
--Many logging proponents speak favorably about ``working forests''
implying that unlogged forests are idle or going to waste.
In fact, forests that are protected from logging are hard
at work purifying our air and water, providing habitat for
fish and wildlife, storing carbon to stabilize our climate;
and providing quality of life that attracts high-
functioning workers and new employers. It's perfectly
appropriate to manage our public forests for these
important public values.
--The timber industry likes to point out that federal forests are
currently growing faster than they are being harvested.
Thankfully, following decades of overcutting, we finally
stopped logging our forests faster than they were growing,
and our forests and watersheds (and the habitat within
them) are experiencing much needed biomass recovery and
rebuilding. Contrary to industry hyperbole, accumulating
forest growth represents improving habitat, improving water
quality, and increasing carbon storage--all good things.
This is not an accident but an intended result of the NW
Forest Plan.
--People keep saying that we need more ``early seral habitat'' when
in reality there is a vast excess of early seral forests,
especially within the ``checkerboard'' lands where BLM
lands are intermixed with private timberlands. In addition
to the vast areas of young forests created by logging, fire
and other natural processes continue to create complex
young forests. In the future, climate change is expected to
increase disturbance and make more young forests, so we do
not need to clearcut federal lands to improve habitat.
--Sloppy clearcutting may produce early seral habitat that is
slightly better than industrial clearcutting but far
inferior to the structure-rich early seral habitat created
by natural disturbance. Proponents justify variable
retention harvest because they say that early seral forest
is rare. This is highly misleading. Young forests were
never as abundant as old forests because they are
ephemeral. In contrast, old forests are stable and long-
lived and therefore dominated the historic landscape. Due
to decades of unsustainable logging, old forests remain far
more rare than young forests. Federal lands must be managed
to provide the things that non-federal lands are lacking,
i.e., old growth, clean water, recovery of endangered
species, carbon storage, recreation, wilderness, etc.
--If there is a sincere desire to increase complex early seral
habitat there are many ways to enhance such habitat without
sacrificing mature forests. Modest changes in forest
practices on non-federal lands would greatly improve the
quality of habitat, e.g. greater retention of trees and
logs, reduced tree planting densities, and reduced use of
herbicides. Also, federal practices related to fire
suppression and post-fire logging should be modified to
recognize their value as complex early seral habitat, e.g.,
let beneficial fires burn, and stop salvage logging. For
some reason, these sensible alternatives have been excluded
from the discussion, revealing that the real motivation
behind VRH is not habitat, but log volume.
--Logging revenue will not stabilize local governments or
communities. Logging is a boom-bust enterprise that
fluctuates widely based on economic cycles, interest rates,
housing bubbles crashes, globalization, changing public
expectations about the role of public forests, plus
seasonal fluctuations related to weather and fire hazard,
etc. County funding has been far more stable and
predictable during the last 20 years of safety net payments
and SRS payments than during the previous era when counties
were closely coupled to the boom-bust timber industry.
--Doubling the rate of logging under the Wyden bill will not solve
the counties' financial problems. Most of the big trees and
easy money was removed from these forests during the multi-
decade clearcutting binge that preceded the Northwest
Forest Plan. In order to replace the generous federal
payments that the counties have been enjoying it would be
necessary to increase federal logging many-fold from
current levels. This is simply not realistic. First, we
don't want another housing bubble. The market for wood is
depressed and the industry is going through major
structural readjustment likely to result in long-term
reduced demand. Putting extra wood on the market now will
cause reduced harvest elsewhere, and this may adversely
affect thousands of small woodland owners who rely on
selling logs form their small woodlots for supplemental
income. Second, all this extra logging will exacerbate
boom-bust cycles that plague Oregon's economy and rural
communities. Third, the environmental costs of this much
additional clearcutting are simply unacceptable. Our
salmon, clean drinking water, and endangered species have
suffered enough and cannot take more abuse. Simply put,
there are major social and ecological barriers to logging
the remaining mature forests on public land, and there is
not nearly as much money in logging the smaller trees left
over after past logging. Finally, the Wyden bill creates a
disincentive for the counties to save themselves by
addressing their property tax rates which are far below
average for the state and the nation.
--Logging will not provide quality jobs. The timber industry is
inherently unstable. It has always suffered wide swings
that forced layoffs and community disruption. This will
never change. The timber industry has successfully busted
the unions so real wages in the industry have declined over
the last 30 years. Logging is often a seasonal enterprise
and logging jobs are among the most dangerous and
undesirable in the workforce. Concurrent with the NW Forest
Plan, the government spent a billion dollars helping
workers and communities transition from timber to other
industries. Why would we reverse course now and shackle
local communities to a stagnant industry?
--Logging will not provide significant jobs or reduce unemployment.
Proponents of increased logging often blame job losses on
the spotted owl and the environmentalists. However, timber
industry employment and wages were declining well before
the spotted owl forced any logging restrictions. Today, the
timber industry is just a small fraction of Oregon's
economy because, for the last 30 years, the rest of the
economy has grown much faster than the timber industry.
Oregon's economy has become much more diversified in recent
decades so timber jobs now represent just a small fraction
of the jobs in Oregon. Most of those jobs are related to
logging private land. Normal job growth in the rest of the
economy vastly overwhelms any expected increase in timber
jobs related to increased logging on BLM lands. Economic
forces have caused the timber industry to become highly
concentrated in a few locations along the I-5 corridor in
western Oregon, including cities like Eugene, Roseburg and
Medford with significant access to markets and alternative
job opportunities. Furthermore, the timber industry is
increasingly automated so it seeks more logs from more
clearcutting while employing fewer and fewer people. More
logging does not translate to more jobs. In fact, in spite
of all the mill closures (mostly among the small mills) the
large mills have continued to expand and the total milling
capacity remains large, while employment has declined. In
short, even a dramatic increase in logging on federal land
will have little or no influence on unemployment in Oregon.
This means Oregonians have to endure more clearcuts, more
polluted water, and more endangered species, while enjoying
fewer jobs and minimal tax revenue. A more prudent approach
to economic development would emphasize economic
diversification--focusing on industries that are stable and
growing, rather than stagnant and cyclical, and it would
strive to protect and enhance Oregon's quality of life that
attracts skilled workers and companies who want to hire
them. Increased clearcutting on public land is not the
answer.
The Wyden bill has some serious drafting problems. For
instance:
--The bill requires BLM to plan for harvest of 10-12% of the
Forestry Emphasis Areas each decade, but the bill does not
allow BLM to exclude riparian areas, erosion prone soils,
or other unsuitable areas from this mandate, so the 10-12%
mandate will either require BLM to log unsuitable lands or
adopt harvest rotations much shorter than 80-100 years;
--The bill specifies particular linear measures for riparian
protection but fails to describe how that buffer is
measured, so the linear measure could be a single measure
centered on the stream, or a double measure--one on each
side of the stream.
--The Wyden bill language regarding spotted owl nest trees is
extremely outdated. While spotted owl nest trees should be
protected, the scientific understanding of the needs of
spotted owls embraced by the Northwest Forest Plan is light
years beyond protection of just nest trees. We now know
that recovery of spotted owls requires protecting not just
nest trees, but also nest stands, core areas around nest
stands, and home ranges around core areas, as well as
clusters of interacting home ranges spatially arranged so
that mature spotted owls can find mates and juvenile
spotted owls can safely disperse into suitable habitat.
To reinforce and supplement the comments above, please find
attached or linked below:
Attached: A compilation of scientific and government reports
explaining the irreplaceable ecological importance of BLM
lands.
Attached: Oregon Wild 2013. Federal Lands Are Healthier Than
Private Lands. A summary of evidence showing the varied public
benefits that will be sacrificed if logging is increased on
federal lands.
Attached: Oregon Wild's brief summary of the climate
consequences of increased clearcutting under Wyden's bill.
(Maybe you already received this from my colleague Sean Stevens
last week).
Attached: A brief summary explaining how the Northwest
Forest Plan represents a good starting point for climate
preparedness in SW Oregon. Heiken. D. 2010. The Northwest
Forest Plan as a Climate Strategy for SW Oregon.
Attached: A brief critique of the testimony submitted by
Jerry Franklin and Norm Johnson;
Attached: A brief summary of how the Wyden bill will
adversely effect Threatened northern spotted owls, including a
map showing the loss of east-west connectivity;
Attached: My brief summary of how the Wyden bill will
adversely affect Threatened marbled murrelets, including a map
showing the loss of critical habitat in the Coast Range.
Attached: A review of evidence showing that clearcutting
under the Wyden bill will increase fire hazard.
Attached: The real-time twitter feed that fact-checked the
Feb 6th hearing on the Wyden bill, including graphics showing
that the timber industry provides very few jobs and BLM is
meeting timber targets.
Attached: Oregon Wild's June 2011 scoping comments on the
Wagon Road and Roseburg BLM Pilot Projects in which we debunk
the rationale for sloppy clearcuts. http://www.oregonwild.org/
oregon_forests/forest-management/in-your-forests/files-for-
eyes-on-the-agencies/Wagon_Road_and_Roseburg_Pilots_scoping_6-
29-2011_BLM.pdf
Attached: Various Oregon Wild comments on the Obama
Administration's proposed Western Oregon RMP Revisions, and the
Bush Administration's proposed Western Oregon Plan Revision
(WOPR). The WOPR proposed to dramatically increase logging on
BLM lands but this was rejected by the Obama administration
(before the courts could do it first). Oregon Wild's comments
explain why we have the Northwest Forest Plan and how decades
of over-cutting left us with little choice but to continue
forest conservation efforts.
Attached: News story--Federal Reserve Bank: scenic NW
attracts economic growth.
Attached: White paper explaining the manifold reasons why
both old growth AND mature forests need to be protected.
Heiken, Doug. 2009. The Case for Protecting Both Old Growth and
Mature Forests, Version 1.8. Oregon Wild. http://
dl.dropbox.com/u/47741/Mature%20Forests
%2C%20Heiken%2C% 20v%201.8.pdf
Attached: A detailed critique of Gordy Reeves' paper
attempting to justify reduced stream buffers on BLM lands.
Heiken, D. 2013. Riparian Reserves Provide Both Aquatic &
Terrestrial Benefits--A Critical Review of Reeves, Pickard &
Johnson (2013). https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/47741/
Heiken%
202013.%20Review%20of%20Reeves%20et%20al
%20Riparian%20Proposal.pdf
Attached: Footnoted report on forests, carbon and climate:
Heiken, D. ``The Straight Facts on Forests, Carbon, and Global
Warming'' provides a more detailed foot-noted report: http://
tinyurl.com/2n96m5
Attached: Oregon Wild's detailed white paper on the DeFazio/
Walden/Schrader O&C Trust bill. This white paper discusses many
points that are highly relevant to the discussion of the Wyden
bill, such as the ecological role of the BLM lands, the harms
of clearcutting and habitat fragmentation, and the economic
contributions provided by protected forests. Oregon Wild 2012.
``Problems and Pitfalls with the Proposed O&C Trust,
Conservation, and Jobs Act'' http://www.oregonwild.org/
oregon_forests/old_growth_protection/westside-forests/western-
oregon-s-patchwork-public-lands/O-
C_Trust_Act_White_Paper_FINAL_6-5-2012_w_DeFazio_response.pdf
Attached: A report explaining why the costs of fuel
reduction logging often exceed the benefits. Heiken, D. 2010.
Log it to save it? The search for an ecological rationale for
fuel reduction logging in Spotted Owl habitat. Oregon Wild. v
1.0. May 2010. http://dl.dropbox.com/u/47741/
Heiken_Log_it_to_Save_it_v.1.0.pdf
Linked: A powerpoint and white-paper debunking timber
industry myths about forests, carbon, and climate: Heiken, D.
Myths & Facts on Forest, Carbon and Global Warming slide show
clarifying many misconceptions about forests, logging, and
carbon: http://www.slideshare.net/dougoh/forest-carbon-climate-
myths-presentation/ (Here, you can download the long version:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/47741/
Heiken%2C%20Forest%20Carbon%20Myths%20v.1.4.ppt)
______
Statement of American Bird Conservancy
please oppose the o & c land grant act, s. 1784
logging bill threatens esa listed birds & forest carbon stores
The American Bird Conservancy Strategic Bird Conservation Framework
American Bird Conservancy works to conserve birds and their habitat
throughout the Americas and has developed a unique and successful
strategy to preserve bird diversity and maintain or increase wild bird
populations. This strategy is fully articulated in The American Bird
Conservancy Guide to Bird Conservation published in 2010 by University
of Chicago Press (ISBN-13:978-0-226-64727-2).
The highest bird conservation priority is halting extinctions,
followed by conserving and restoring habitats. In the case of the
Northern Spotted Owl and Marbled Murrelet, it is being is proposed to
place lower priority general habitat needs before the specific needs of
these endangered species, even to the point of allowing large numbers
of Northern Spotted Owls and Marbled Murrelets to be killed (taken) and
significant habitat to be degraded or completely eliminated for
decades.
While the stated goal to improve future habitat conditions for the
owl and murrelet are well-intended, this activity is not supported by
peer-reviewed studies showing populations will benefit, and it is, in
fact, pushing two already extremely imperiled species closer to
extinction and should be immediately halted.
For more information about this statement and American Bird
Conservancy's views on S. 1784, please contact Steve Holmer, Senior
Policy Advisor, [email protected]. For more information about
American Bird Conservancy please see www.abcbirds.org.
The O & C Land Grant Act, S. 1784, proposes to increase logging in
habitat essential to the survival of two listed birds, the Northern
Spotted Owl and the Marbled Murrelet. Recent analysis indicates that
the population of the threatened Northern Spotted Owl continues to
decline, and that the Marbled Murrelet is likely to be extinct outside
of the Puget Sound area within one hundred years. The best available
scientific evidence indicates that these two listed species need
additional protections, not additional logging that eliminates habitat
and further fragments the landscape.
Government agency reviews show that President Bill Clinton's
Northwest Forest Plan has been effective at protecting drinking water
supplies for millions of Americans, improving water quality and
restoring forests that were decimated during decades of unsustainable
old growth logging.
We now also know from climate researchers, that the Northwest
Forest Plan has helped turn the region's federal forests from a source
of carbon emissions into a sink. The moist mature and old growth
forests in California, Oregon, and Washington State represent a vast
storehouse of carbon that could be lost to the atmosphere if logged,
and that it would take centuries to recapture that lost carbon.
In addition to being harmful to the atmosphere, the bill seeks to
ease habitat and oversight protections provided by the Endangered
Species Act and National Environmental Policy Act, and it limits
judicial review to prevent public review of resulting management
decisions. One provision would prevent additional habitat protection if
an ESA listing decision or critical habitat designation would require
it based on the best available science. This is very significant
because the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has a court ordered deadline
to issue a new critical habitat rule for the Marbled Murrelet in 2015.
We anticipate that the combined loss of habitat due to increased
logging, limits on additional habitat protection, and the loss of
adequate regulatory mechanisms to conserve two listed species are
likely to cause up-listings to endangered status and to jeopardize
their continued existence. Therefore, we respectfully urge Senators to
oppose S. 1784.
Impact on Listed Bird Species--Section by Section Review
Sec. 2 (11) (B) Exclusion: This provision excludes unoccupied
Northern Spotted Owl nest trees if located in a disturbance area. The
provision is inconsistent with Recovery Action 12 of the Northern
Spotted Owl Recovery Plan which calls for the conservation of features
that take a long to form, such as large snags often used by owls for
nesting. In a letter\1\, conservation groups called on the Obama
administration to implement measures in the final Northern Spotted Owl
Recovery Plan to protect post-fire forest habitats and structures used
by the threatened owls and their prey. An Oct. 31 letter to Congress
endorsed by 250 scientists\2\ says ``legislation to expedite post-
disturbance logging is inconsistent with the current state of
scientific knowledge, and would seriously undermine the ecological
integrity of forest ecosystems on federal lands.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Conservation groups' letter on Recovery Action 12, http://
www.abcbirds.org/PDFs/spotted_owl_recovery_action12_letter.pdf
\2\ http://geosinstitute.org/images/stories/pdfs/Publications/Fire/
Scientist_Letter_Postfire_2013.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 2 (12) Old Growth: The bill defines moist old growth as trees
older than 150 years and stands older than 120 years and for dry
forests trees older than 150 years. The Northwest Forest Plan conserves
late-successional forest 80 years and older because it was determined
that owls begin using habitat of that age, and to provide the necessary
quantity of habitat needed to conserve the species.
Sec. 2 (13) Older Trees: The Northwest Forest Plan conserves late-
successional forest 80 years and older because it was determined that
owls begin using habitat of that age, and to provide the necessary
quantity of habitat needed to conserve the species. Under this
definition, stands in the 80-100 range within late-successional owl
reserves could lose protection.
Sec. 102 (b) ESA and NEPA Redefined: This provision says covered
land shall be managed in a manner that is ``consistent with this Act.''
This means that no NEPA or ESA requirements apply that are not
specifically described in the bill.
Sec. 102 (c) Forestry Emphasis Areas: Federal lands are currently
managed under a multiple use mandate that requires managers to evaluate
and provide for a range of values while also maintaining the ecosystem.
Designating Forest Emphasis Areas mandates a dominant use of these
lands, which is likely to result in the degradation of non-commodity
values such as clean water, carbon storage, flood control, non-timber
forest products, recreational opportunities, tourism, attracting
relocating businesses and workers, and wildlife habitat.
Throughout the bill are new conservation standards and land
designations such as Forest Emphasis Areas that differ from the
Northwest Forest Plan. While in some cases the protections being
described would beneficial to listed species, on the whole the bill as
drafted would result in an estimated 78,000 acres of owl critical
habitat and late-successional forest being logged over the next twenty
years.
According to a chart prepared by Norm Johnson with assistance from
BLM\3\, over 200,000 acres of late-successional reserve protected by
the Northwest Forest Plan would be designated Forest Emphasis Areas and
a total of 273,000 acres of critical habitat has been deemed suitable
for logging. See maps on pages 19-21 showing Late-successional
reserves, Marbled Murrelet and Northern Spotted Owl critical habitat
that will be designated Forestry Emphasis Areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Document prepared by Norm Johnson with technical assistance
from BLM staff; 11/22/13, http://www.blm.gov/or/landgrant/files/
oc_wyden_handout_11_22_13.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 102 (c) (1)-(2) Section 7 Waiver: Because this section
describes specific non-discretionary management requirements upon BLM
and does not provide explicit ESA compliance, then Section 7
consultation would not apply to these projects.
Sec. 103 (b) (5) Mixed Forests: The bill provides undue discretion
to determine if a site is moist or dry. Given that the bill's
protection of moist forests extends to stands that average 120 years,
and dry forests only protect individual trees older than 150, it would
be more beneficial to listed bird species to have mixed habitat to be
designated as moist.
Sec. 103 (c) (4) Northern Spotted Owl: This provision allows for
logging of habitat that Recovery Actions 10 and 32 of the Northern
Spotted Owl Recovery Plan say should be protected, provided the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service certify the project will beneficial to the
owl over the long-term. Short-term harm cannot be considered. Please
see the discussion beginning on page 16 concerning Ecoforestry and the
Misuse of Ecosystem Management.
This section also allows projects which do not have to comply with
the ESA and are harmful to owl habitat if the project is deemed to
address a threat of disease, insects or fire. This is remarkably broad
language that allows for just about any project in owl habitat to
proceed despite Recovery Actions 10, 12 and 32 intended to protect
nesting owls, forest structures needed by owls and prey, and high
quality owl habitat.
Sec. 103 (c) (6) Nest Trees: This provision overrides Section 9 of
the ESA prohibiting take of the Northern Spotted Owl through habitat
modification.
Sec. 103 (c) (6) (B) Surveys: The bill states that nest trees in
Forestry Emphasis Areas shall not be cut, but the cursory survey method
prescribed limits surveys to only one day per 100 acres of timber sale.
This is insufficient to be certain no owl nests are present. The
current protocol requires two years of six surveys per year.
Sec. 103 (c) (6) (C) Information from Public: While this section
allows for the public 14 days to provide information concerning the
location of nest trees, there is no requirement the public will be
notified when this 14 period begins via the consistency document
required under section 104 (d).
Sec. 103 (c) (7) Marbled Murrelet: This provision waives Section 7
consultation requirements for projects affecting Marbled Murrelet and
requires BLM to ``confer'' with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to
see if the logging will provide benefits to a forest ecosystem. There
has been no scientific analysis demonstrating Marbled Murrelets are
likely to benefit from additional habitat loss or fragmentation, and
growing evidence that forest fragmentation is a major threat to the
species by enhancing predation of nests. The Pacific Seabird Group\4\
recently sent a letter to the administration raising concerns about
harm ecoforestry was likely to cause the Murrelet. Additional
information on the likely harm to Marbled Murrelets by ecoforestry is
on page 17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ http://www.pacificseabirdgroup.org/policy/
PSG_President.MAMU.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 103 (d) (2) Ecological Forestry Principles: This provision
outlines ecoforestry for moist forests. It is important to note that
when peer-reviewers from The Wildlife Society, the Society for
Conservation Biology and the American Ornithologists' Union analyzed
ecoforestry in the context of the Northern Spotted Owl Critical Habitat
rule, they were very critical, concluding that there is a lack of
supporting evidence that ecoforestry will benefit listed species, and a
large amount of evidence it is likely to be harmful.
Sec. 103 (d) (2) (E) Early Seral: This provision states that less
intense approaches to site preparation and tree regeneration (planting)
would be used to nurture early seral ecosystems, but provides no
specific standards to ensure that the result of treatments will not
functionally be tree farms.
Sec. 103 (d) (2) (F) Rotational Logging: This provision requires
that stands managed by ecoforestry will be logged when the stand
reaches its rotation age. This ensures that the stand will never grow
old enough to provide quality owl or Murrelet habitat.
Sec. 103 (d) (2) (G) 120 Year Cap on Tree Age: This provision
requires the development of a rotation system of 80 to 120, ensuring
that no stands will reach the age limit requiring protection.
Sec. 103 (d) (3) (A) Regeneration Harvest Requirement: This
provision requires that 8-12% of the moist Forestry Emphasis Area be
designated for logging during each 10-year period using variable
retention regeneration (i.e. clearcutting). Thus, every stand would on
average be logged every 100 years.
Sec. 103 (e) Dry Forests: Ecological forestry has much weaker owl
habitat protections than those of the Northwest Forest Plan and
therefore, should be thoroughly tested before being applied across the
landscape. The legislation would raise the age of forest protection
from 80 years to 150 years, and unlike the Northwest Forest Plan no
stands are protected, only individual trees. See addition discussion
below concerning dry forests.
Sec. 103 (f) (1) Riparian Reserves in Forestry Emphasis Areas: The
bill would significant reduce the size of riparian buffers compared to
those provided the Northwest Forest Plan. It is important to note that
riparian buffers were provided to not only protect aquatic species and
water quality, but also terrestrial species covered by the Survey and
Manage protocol, and to provide dispersal habitat for Northern Spotted
Owls. Current climate adaptation policy indicates that to withstand
predicted increased heavy rain events, creating larger riparian buffers
would be the correct land management prescription.
Sec. 104 Streamlined Procedures: While we support the concept of
landscape scale management, the requirement to develop two EISs that
can plan for and identify all of the environmental impacts related to
10-years of logging projects is unreasonable and likely to result in
inadequate conservation of all forest values. Due to other restrictions
in the bill, this would be the only opportunity for meaningful public
involvement for ten years' worth of timber sales.
Sec. 104 (a) (4) Additional Analysis: This provision states that no
project specific NEPA analysis is required unless convincing new
information regarding a significant environmental impact is raised that
was not considered in the 10-year EIS. Even if circumstances have
changed and more detailed analysis is needed to make an informed
decision, BLM will not have to conduct an environmental assessment due
to the very narrow circumstances provided in this section.
Sec. 104 (b) (1) Limiting Alternatives: This section limits the
number of alternatives and limits their scope to a prescribed map to
prevent analysis of different landscape configurations that may be more
beneficial to listed species. In addition, the analysis must follow
prescribed logging levels and cannot analyze options that do not
equally distribute the logging across the BLM districts.
Sec. 104 (b) (2) (A) Cumulative Impacts: The cumulative impact of
logging in terms of the total habitat loss and fragmentation and
resulting population declines are why the Northern Spotted Owl and
Marbled Murrelet were listed under the ESA. By limiting the analysis to
the specific action it authorizes this provision prevents the agency
from analyzing cumulative impacts in the 10-year EISs.
Sec. 104 (b) (2) (B) Analyses: The bill states that a timber
prioritization plan, watershed analysis, dry forest landscape plan, and
a most forest landscape must be developed and utilized to draft the 10-
year environmental impact statements. In (II) it states that these
documents do not need to undergo NEPA analysis, and in (ii) it goes
further and provides these documents an explicit exemption from NEPA.
Sec. 104 (b) (3) (B) Distributions: This provisions directs the
agency to ensure that logging will evenly divided among BLM districts
to ensure each district has adequate harvest and revenue to share with
counties. This language undermines the concept of ecosystem management
which requires an analysis of all affected values, not just timber
volume in determining the appropriate location for logging, and areas
where additional conservation may be required to protect listed
species.
Sec. 104 (b) (4) Specific Environmental Impacts: This section lists
specific values to be considered in the environmental impact
statements. While we appreciate the inclusion of inventoried roadless
areas, we are concerned that only Northern Spotted Owl nest trees were
listed. The owl also requires foraging habitat, and its prey also has
habitat needs that should be considered. Further, the Marbled Murrelet
is very likely being endangered by the experimental logging proposed by
the bill and should be given special consideration to determine the
likely impact of extensive habitat loss that the bill proposes.
Sec. 104 (c) (3) Judicial Review: The bill places limits on
judicial review including the available venues, objections can only be
considered if the issue had previously been raised, and a very short
timeframe of 30 days from when a project is approved to decide if
litigation is warranted and to initiate a civil action.
Sec. 104 (c) (3) (F) (iii) Balancing of Short-and Long-Term
Effects: This provision allows the court to weigh potential long-terms
benefits to the ecosystem, and the possible consequences of inaction,
against the certain short-term harm that is caused by removing the
habitat of listed species. Given the low population numbers and
declining population trends, this is a remarkable risky policy for the
Marbled Murrelet and Northern Spotted Owl, that allows for essential
habitat to be removed, even it is may cause short-term harm to these
species. The concern of course is that one or both of the species will
go extinct before the long-term ecosystem benefits accrue. In the case
of the Marbled Murrelet this is of particular concern because the birds
like to nest in very old trees, usually 200 years and older, meaning it
will be a very long time before logged Murrelet habitat will again be
suitable for the species.
Sec. 104 (d) (1): Consistency Document: Instead of an environmental
analysis or environmental impact statement that discloses and analyzes
environmental impacts, this section requires that logging projects only
need a consistency finding that lists interested parties contacted, has
a determination of no extraordinary circumstances that are undefined,
and a finding that the project is ``consistent'' with the ten-year EIS
Record of Decision.
Sec. 104 (d) (3) Cause of Action: The only challenge that can be
brought against a proposed project, no matter how harmful to water
quality, carbon storage, recreation hotspots or listed wildlife,
concerns only whether or not it is consistent with the 10-year EIS. The
only other claim that can be considered is if a species has been newly
listed under the ESA. This section does not include designation of new
critical habitat which is required for the Marbled Murrelet in 2015.
Subsection (B) further limits the time period to only 30 days for
filing a legal claim.
Sec. 104 (e) (1) (B) Assessments under the ESA: Subsection (i)
requires FWS and NOAA to commence consultation within 90 days, and
determine acceptable take levels for the planned projects under the 10-
year EIS. We are concerned that this may be the only Sec. 7
consultation that takes places since project level consultation is made
discretionary in (ii) (1). Further, severe time limits are placed on
FWS and NOAA concurring that a project is not likely to adversely
affect listed species or if formal consultation is required.
Sec. 104 (e) (4) Escalation: Leaves the final determination of
disagreements concerning ESA Sections 7 or 9 with the BLM.
Sec. 104 (e) (5) Applicability of the Northwest Forest Plan: This
provision abolishes the Survey and Manage requirements within forestry
emphasis areas. This may lead to additional species being listed under
the Endangered Species Act, and will cause harm to the threatened
Northern Spotted Owl by removing dispersal habitat, and to the Marbled
Murrelet if nearby habitat is fragmented by logging.
Sec. 104 (e) (7) (B) Reinitiation of Consultation: This provision
overturns the ESA's Section 7 (d) prohibition against irretrievable and
irreversible commitment of resources during consultation. Projects
would continue while the new consultation takes place.
Sec. 104 (e) (8) Listings of Endangered Species: Under subsection
(A) if new species are listed or if additional critical habitat is
designated as we except will happen for Marbled Murrelet, this
provision requires some conservation areas be designated to forestry
emphasis areas to compensate if forestry emphasis areas are designated
critical habitat and made into conservation areas. Under subsection (B)
the Secretary has 120 days to identify 10,000 acres of conservation
lands that could be redesignated.
Sec. 105 (b) (1) Timber Harvest Limitations: The bill explicitly
allows logging of conservation areas ``to improve forest health'' or in
(ii) to improve the habitat of listed species over the long-term. This
provision raises doubt that the conservation lands will actually be
conserved, and it also appears that owl and Murrelet habitat can
logged, even it causes short-term harm to the species, if the agency
claims that there will be long-term benefits.
Sec. 115 (a) (2) Primitive Backcountry Special Management Areas:
This section allows logging to improve forest health or if there is a
threat of fire, insect outbreak or disease. These conditions apply to
all of the approximately 43,000 acres included in the six new
designations raising concern that these backcountry primitive areas may
not be conserved.
Sec. 117 Land Ownership Consolidation: While we support the intent
of maintaining and providing for large blocks of habitat, this language
lacks specificity and based on the requirements in (a) (1-3) we are
concerned that the potential impact to listed species will not be
considered. The Public Interest Determination language of the bill (d)
(2) does not guarantee that the public can be meaningfully involved in
the determination of public interest. Further, (d) (4) limits the
determination to lands of equal monetary value. Ecosystem values, and
potential restoration needs and costs are not required to be
considered. Based on past land exchange proposals in the region, there
is valid concern is that this provision will result in old growth
forests providing habitat for listed species being traded for heavily
logged lands devoid of these species and in need of extensive
restoration to be paid for at taxpayer expense.
Sec. 119 Closure and Decommissioning of Roads: This provision is
very likely to benefit listed bird species. In subsection (iv) it
prioritizes roads that if closed would enhance wildlife habitat through
the restoration of large blocks of habitat. This would be particularly
beneficial to owls and Murrelets. Subsection (b) authorizing the legacy
roads and trails program and (4) providing $5 million per year through
2023 will very likely benefit the forest ecosystem and listed bird
species.
Sec. 120 Special Management Research Areas: This provision
allocates 50,000 acres to carry out ecoforestry research. This includes
up to 15,000 acres of conservation areas. However, subsection on (d)
concerning monitoring does not require any studies to determine the
impact on the populations of listed species.
Sec. 121 Compliance: This section requires the Secretary to ensure
compliance only for the protection of trees 150 years and older. This
is of concern because under the Northwest Forest Plan, trees within
late-successional reserves 80 years and older are conserved. This bill
also protects moist forest stands older than 120 years. Trees in moist
forests in the 120-150 age class should also be covered. In (d) (1) a
penalty system is to be devised to prevent removal of old trees between
the ages of 150 and 250. The provision also allows that the cutting of
some small number of old growth trees cut in error. This is of great
concern due to the severe shortage of very old trees capable of
providing nesting platforms for the Marbled Murrelet.
Sec. 122 Review by Advisory Panel: In (a) the effect on listed
species is not included on the list of values the advisory panel report
must consider. It is of great concern that scientists that focus on
biology are apparently being excluded from this exercise in forest
policy development. The Northwest Forest Plan included a broad range of
scientists, not just foresters.
Protective Designations (numerous sections): Permanently protecting
forest areas should prove beneficial to the long-term well-being of the
Northern Spotted Owl and Marbled Murrelet that depend on old growth
forests that will likely be allowed to develop and be retained in these
areas. The new designations and Old Growth Legacy Network which covers
430,000 acres of moist stands older than 120 years, protect less
overall habitat than the Northwest Forest Plan late-successional
reserves which protect stands older than 80 years, and has more robust
riparian reserve networks. Overall, the bill promotes logging of about
60% of the forest, while only 40% is considered unsuitable for harvest.
The Northwest Forest Plan Ensures Sustainable Forest Management
The Northwest Forest Plan\5\ governs management of federal forests
in the Pacific Northwest including the Oregon and California Lands (O &
C), and according to government reviews, it is working to restore
degraded forests and watersheds. The Northwest Forest Plan protects
many forests over 80 years old with the goal of allowing these stands
to mature into old growth and over time provide additional habitat for
listed species. S. 1784 would eliminate the protection for much of the
80-to 120-year-old forests. This would prevent enough old growth
forests from ever maturing and filling in the gaps in the heavily
fragmented landscape to create the large blocks of wildlife habitat
called for by the Northwest Forest Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ http://www.geosinstitute.org/images/stories/pdfs/Publications/
FederalLandsManagement/nwfp_scientist_letter_14june2012.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Forest Service Ten Year Review of the Northwest Forest Plan
found that, overall, the Plan's conservation strategy and reserve
network appear to be working as designed. The total area of medium and
large older forests on federal lands in the Plan increased by more than
1 million acres during the ten-year period, almost double the
anticipated amount. The Plan's outcomes for Spotted Owls were expected
to take at least a century. Spotted Owl population declines were
expected for the first 40 to 50 years under the Plan, with owl
populations stabilizing in the mid-21st Century and possibly increasing
after that as owl habitat recovery exceeded loss.
A Forest Service analysis of watershed condition released in Feb.
2012 finds that the Northwest Forest Plan is working well to recover
impaired watersheds across the region. Watershed Condition Status and
Trend (Laningan et al 2012) published by the Pacific Northwest Research
Station analyzed data from 1994-2008, the first fifteen years of the
Northwest Forest Plan and found that 69% of the watersheds in the NWFP
area had a positive change in condition as a result of road
decommissioning and vegetation growth. The report summary notes:
``Watershed condition was most positive for congressionally reserved
lands, followed by late-successional reserves, and then matrix lands.''
Timber Volume and the Northwest Forest Plan
While the Plan has generated complaints from interests that seek
higher logging levels on federal lands, it's been producing as much
timber as Congress has provided funding for, and with relatively little
controversy compared to the timber wars of the past. In addition to
peace in the woods, the Plan has also provided a stable legal framework
allowing for timber operations on state and private lands.
The final Northwest Forest Plan was a political compromise that
under-delivered on old-growth protection by placing 42% of the
remaining acres in the matrix, and overpromised on timber volume. The
plan's billion board foot estimate was never realistic because it is
predicated on logging old-growth, which is not supported by the public
and that in practical terms has generally been ruled in violation of
wildlife protection laws. The estimate was also completed prior to the
designation of the riparian reserve network which turned out larger
than anticipated. The Bush Administration recognized these factors to a
degree, and lowered the allowable sale quantify to 800 million board
feet.
A look at timber sale output in the Northwest Forest Plan region
reveals the agency is at a sustainable level and meeting the volume
targets budgeted by Congress. Since 2003, the budget approved by
Congress and the Administration has called for 4,668 million board feet
from the Northwest Forest Plan area. The agencies have offered 4,507
board feet, or 96% of the planned budget.
In addition, exports from the region are skyrocketing. In 2010 over
2 billion board feet of logs and lumber were exported from the West
Coast. In 2011 it topped 3 billion. There is no shortage of logging in
the Pacific Northwest.
Carbon Storage Aided by the Northwest Forest Plan
We now also know from climate researchers, that the Northwest
Forest Plan has helped turn forests from a source of carbon emissions
into a sink. The moist mature and old growth forests in California,
Oregon, and Washington State represent a vast storehouse of carbon\6\
that could be lost to the atmosphere if logged, and that it would take
centuries to recapture that lost carbon. We also know that mature and
old trees store considerably more carbon than young trees. Forest
carbon scientists have concluded that these magnificent forests are
only half full, in that they could store considerable more carbon if
allowed to grow.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Letter to President Obama in support of conserving forest
carbon: http://www.abcbirds.org/pdfs/cap_letter.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to Dr. Beverly Law of the University of Oregon,
activities to promote carbon storage in forests include allowing
existing forests to continue to store and accumulate carbon, and
forestation of lands that once carried forests. Natural disturbance
(fire, insects) has small impact on forest carbon compared to intensive
harvest, and thinning does not reduce emissions or fire occurrence.
Large-scale thinning for bioenergy production is neither sustainable
nor GHG neutral.
O & C Lands Critical for Maintaining Integrity of the Northwest Forest
Plan
The low elevation forest lands of western Oregon managed by BLM
have very high ecological values such as clean drinking water, and they
provide irreplaceable habitat that links large blocks of forest in the
Coast Range, Cascades, and Klamath mountains. These old, structurally-
complex forests are critically important for the Northern Spotted Owl
and Marbled Murrelet.
Two key assumptions behind the biological analysis supporting the
Northwest Forest Plan were that (1) ``[r]iparian and Late-Successional
Reserves (LSRs) will retain reserve status and will not be available
for timber production other than as provided in Alternative 9'' and (2)
``[a]lternative 9 applies to Forest Service and BLM lands; all future
actions on these lands would be consistent with Alternative 9, as
adopted in the Record-of-Decision (ROD).'' (NWFP FEIS at 2-33 to 2-34)
When Judge William Dwyer ruled on the legality of the Northwest
Forest Plan, he indicated that the plan, which scientists had concluded
must include the O & C lands to conserve listed species, was barely
legal, and offered the minimum amount of protection the law allows for
endangered species. The judge also confirmed that including federal
forests in the plan area managed by the Bureau of Land Management was
essential. This was confirmed in the analysis for the Northern Spotted
Owl Critical Habitat rule:
``In some areas, for example the O & C lands, our modeling
results indicated that those Federal lands make a significant
contribution toward meeting the conservation objectives for the
Northern Spotted Owl in that region, and that we cannot attain
recovery without them.'' (P. 567 draft Northern Spotted Owl
Critical Habitat Rule).
Significantly altering the management of O & C Lands now is likely
to upset the balance created by the Northwest Forest Plan. This could
have negative implications for timber production on other federal lands
managed by the Forest Service, private landowners with Habitat
Conservation Plan predicated on O & C lands being conserved as well as
the managers of Oregon's state forests.
Northern Spotted Owl Critical Habitat Rule Protects Additional Federal
Forests
The final Northern Spotted Owl critical habitat rule of 2012
designated 9,577,969 acres, an increase of four million acres over the
old rule. It also directs the land management agencies to conserve
older forest, high-value habitat, and areas occupied by Northern
Spotted Owls. An estimated 1.1 million acres of occupied and high-
quality owl habitat on federal lands previously designated for timber
harvest now must be protected from logging.
For critical habitat designated in areas already scheduled for
logging that are not considered high quality or occupied owl habitat,
the rule allows ``ecological forestry,'' a form of clearcutting which
may result in a slight, 10 percent increase in timber production over
thinning. Controversy continues over this practice which is not
supported by peer-reviewed studies showing that owl populations will
benefit. Other studies indicate that both the Northern Spotted Owl and
Marbled Murrelet will likely be harmed by ecological forestry.
Ecological Forestry
The intent of ecological forestry is to attempt to increase harvest
while conserving essential habitat. In practice, ecological forestry is
a more benign form of clearcutting than currently occurs on private and
state lands in Oregon. But it very important to note that currently,
clearcutting is rarely allowed on federal lands as a result of impacts
it has to wildlife habitat and water quality. Ecological forestry is
therefore a step in the wrong direction because it would harm federal
lands compared to current thinning efforts.
Misuse of Ecosystem Management
The Northwest Forest Plan is first and foremost, a multispecies
management plan for listed species including the Northern Spotted Owl,
Marbled Murrelet and salmon stocks that provides the land management
agencies with an adequate regulatory mechanism to comply with the
Endangered Species Act. The Northwest Forest Plan promotes an ecosystem
management approach with the specific goal of protecting those listed
species and perpetuating the late-successional forest ecosystem. The
Final Rule misapplies the Northwest Forest Plan's ecosystem management
approach to promote ecological forestry which has not been adequately
field tested or monitored, and is likely to be detrimental to Marbled
Murrelets and listed salmon by increasing fragmentation.
Comments from Peer Reviewers
A review of the peer reviews of the draft Critical Habitat Rule
indicates that:
1. There is no scientific consensus on how to manage forests
within the range of the Northern Spotted Owl
2. There are currently no studies showing owl populations
benefit from logging, and
3. There are numerous studies showing potential harm to the
owl, its prey based, and to other listed species such as the
threatened Marbled Murrelet as a result of logging.
Active Management
``Reviewers were divided on the risks posed by climate change and
forest health, and whether active management should be applied within
critical habitat.'' (p. 491)
``Three reviewers disagreed with some of the science that was
cited, or the interpretation of that science, and noted that the
discussion did not adequately address studies that have documented
negative effects of timber management on northern spotted owls and
their prey.'' (P. 494)
``Four reviewers indicated that parts of the document were unclear
on whether ecological science was applied appropriately, and
highlighted the lack of understanding about how such management actions
may affect owls and their prey. Two reviewers specifically indicated
that they did not think that approach is appropriate.'' (P. 494)
``Five reviewers believed that the risks were not appropriately
balanced, that the discussion was too vague in weighing the tradeoffs,
or that there is too little specific scientific understanding of the
explicit tradeoffs to conduct an informed discussion. Several of these
reviewers indicated that there was too much emphasis on active
management in the preamble to the proposed rule given the lack of
understanding about how ecological forestry and restoration management
might affect owls.'' (P. 495)
Marbled Murrelet Threatened by Ecoforestry
Other listed species may also be harmed by the proposed active
management of the Northern Spotted Owl such as the Marbled Murrelet.
The draft Northern Spotted Owl Critical Habitat Rule's Environmental
Assessment found that ``Active forest management that is in the
vicinity of murrelet nesting stands may be detrimental to the species
survival and recovery.'' (p. 61 of the draft rule)
This results from increased fragmentation and opening the forests
to crows, ravens, and jays, increasing predation pressure on nesting
murrelets. Despite this, there was no prohibition in the final Rule on
the proposed active management to ensure murrelet nesting stands will
not be disturbed, and notably, the fact that active management may be
detrimental to Murrelet nesting stands was not even mentioned.
Active management, if conducted near nesting murrelets will likely
be harmful. There are also indications the prey base of the Northern
Spotted Owl could also be harmed by active management including
thinning, but these factors are glossed over by the final Rule. And
unlike the Northwest Forest Plan, there is no detailed analysis
determining how other listed species will fair under the active
management being proposed by the Rule.
Conservation groups\7\ and scientific societies recently sent
letters to President Obama urging the formation of a new conservation
initiative for the threatened Marbled Murrelet which nests in mature
and old-growth forests near the coast. A recent study by the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service and the USDA Forest Service finds that the Marbled
Murrelet has declined by 29% over the last decade. Researchers have
concluded current conservation efforts aren't sufficient to reverse
this trend and that additional measures, including additional habitat
protection are urgently needed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ http://www.abcbirds.org/newsandreports/pdf/
Marbled_Murrelet_Letter_May_13_13.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lack of Scientific Evidence for Active Management to Create Early Seral
Habitat
While early seral habitats are desirable for some species, logging
is not the best means to establish this type of habitat within the
range of the Northern Spotted Owl. We recommend that agency utilize
natural disturbances and refrain from post-fire logging because
wildfires have the potential to create abundant high-quality early-
successional habitats and features needed by the Northern Spotted Owl
and its prey.
There is no evidence the Northern Spotted Owl benefits from the
creation of early seral habitat, nor is there analysis showing what
potential harm may come to the threatened species if various levels of
direct take and habitat loss or degradation were to occur.
The Northern Spotted Owl Critical Habitat rule draft Environmental
Assessment identified two endangered species, Fender's blue butterfly
and Oregon silverspot butterfly whose open, early seral habitat such as
grasslands, meadows, oak woodlands, or aspen woodlands may conflict
with Northern Spotted Owl management intended to maintain closed canopy
forests (p. 52). But the assessment notes that listed plant and
butterfly species and their closely associated open habitats are
explicitly not included in the proposed critical habitat revision
(p.50). The Service concludes on page 62: ``that designation of
critical habitat for the Northern Spotted Owl in this alternative would
have a neutral effect on those species associated with open, early
seral habitats.''
We see no justification to convert nesting, roosting, and foraging
habitat of the Northern Spotted Owl to early-seral. Under the Northwest
Forest Plan restoration of owl habitat, when it occurs, should hasten
creation of owl habitat, not set it back by many decades.
In the final Northern Spotted Owl Critical Habitat rule the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service recommends conserving old-growth trees and
forests on wherever they are found, including in the matrix lands. The
Rule also recommends that for the moist forests in the West Cascades/
Coast Ranges of Oregon and Washington ``. . .to conserve stands that
support northern spotted owl occupancy or contain high-value northern
spotted owl habitat (USFWS 2011, p. III-17). Silvicultural treatments
are generally not needed to accomplish this goal.''
additional resources
A. Open Letter to President Barack Obama from 229 Scientists
in Support of Northwest Forest Plan
B. The Wildlife Society Peer Review of the 2010 Draft Revised
Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl. This peer review
was highly critical of ecoforestry.
C. Summary of Key Findings, Northwest Forest Plan: The First
15 Years (1994-2008), (Davis et al 2011), R6-RPM-TP-03-2011
D. Watershed Condition Status and Trend (Laningan et al
2012), General Technical Report PNW-GTR-856, February 2012
E. Comments on draft Northern Spotted Owl Critical Habitat
Rule by American Bird Conservancy
F. Comments on draft Northern Spotted Owl Critical Habitat
Rule by Society for Conservation Biology. This peer review was
highly critical of ecoforestry.
Note: Graphics have been retained in committee files.
______
January 30, 2014.
Hon. Ron Wyden,
U.S. Senator, 221 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Regarding: ``Oregon and California Land Grant Act of2013''
Dear Senator Wyden,
The 75-mile long Illinois River rises in California, flows
northwest through its 981 square mile watershed, mostly in Oregon, and
discharges into the Rogue River. The City of Cave Junction and the
Kerby Water District divert their drinking water for about 2350
citizens from the East Fork Illinois River under two water rights. The
East Fork Illinois River watershed covers about 232 square miles.
We have reviewed the draft ``Oregon and California Land Grant Act
of2013'' and noticed with interest that sections 108, 109, 110, and 111
of the draft Act establishes Drinking Water Special Management Units
for McKenzie, Hillsboro, Clackamas, and Springfield. We notice that the
draft Act does not provide the City of Cave Junction and the Kerby
Water District with the same drinking water protection as it does for
those four communities.
Therefore, we request that a Cave Junction Drinking Water Special
Management Unit be established in the ``Oregon and California Land
Grant Act of 2013''. We also request a meeting with your staff to
discuss the creation of a map depicting the Cave Junction Drinking
Water Area and other details.
Sincerely,
John L. Gardiner, MBE, PhD, PE,
Cave Junction City Council 4,
Daniel Dalegowski,
Cave Junction City Council President.
______
Statement of William Reid, Chair, Illinois Valley Watershed Council
The Illinois Valley Watershed Council (IVWC) was formed in 1994 to
improve salmon habitat and for other purposes. The 75-mile long
Illinois River rises in Califomia, flows northwest through its 981
square mile watershed, mostly in Oregon, and discharges into the Rogue
River. The City of Cave Junction and the Kerby Water District divert
their drinking water for about 2350 citizens from the East Fork
Illinois River under two water rights. The East Fork Illinois River
watershed covers about 232 square miles.
We have reviewed the draft ``Oregon and California Land Grant Act
of 2013'' and noticed with interest that sections 108, 109, 110, and
111 of the draft Act establishes Drinking Water Special Management
Units for McKenzie, Hillsboro, Clackamas, and Springfield. We wonder
why the draft Act does not provide the City of Cave Junction and the
Kerby Water District with the same drinking water protection as it does
for those four communities.
Therefore, the IVWC requests that a Cave Junction Drinking Water
Special Management Unit be established in the ``Oregon and Califomia
Land Grant Act of2013''. We also request a meeting with your staff to
discuss the creation of a map depicting the Cave Junction Drinking
Water Area and other details.
______
Statement of Judy Henderson, Portland, OR
I am concerned that S. 1784 dismantles the Northwest Forest Plan,
which I thought was a good compromise and yet protects and restores
fish and wildlife habitat on federal lands in the Pacific Northwest.
I'm also concerned that:
The bill undermines the opportunity for the public to
participate in public land management by eliminating
environmental analysis and public review of individual timber
sales, two pillars of the National Environmental Protection
Act.
It drastically shrinks riparian buffers, putting listed fish
and our clean water at great risk.
It weakens Endangered Species Act protections on many O&C
Forestlands, which will further jeopardize declining
populations of threatened Northern Spotted Owls and Marbled
Murrelets that we have fought so hard to recover.
Thank you for considering these comments.
______
Statement of John Plute, Chairman, Kerby Water District Board, Kerby,
OR
The Kerby Water District (KWD) was founded in 2003 and provides
domestic water to about 450 people. The municipal water supply is drawn
from the East Fork Illinois River and is purchased from the City of
Cave Junction. The watershed covers about 232 square miles and the City
holds two water rights for using water from the East Fork Illinois
River. The City's modern water treatment plant and the KWD's new pipe
distribution system were partially funded by State and Federal grants
totaling about $SM. The City is also in compliance with the EPA
Drinking Water Source Protection Program.
The KWD Board has reviewed the draft ``Oregon and California Land
Grant Act of 2013''. We noticed with interest that sections 108,
109,110, and 111of the draft Act establishes Drinking Water Special
Management Units for McKenzie, Hillsboro, Clackamas, and Springfield.
We wonder why the draft Act does not provide the KWD and the City of
Cave Junction with the same drinking water protection as it does for
those four communities. The Kerby Water District is very interested in
having a voice in future management of our watershed, both to protect
an extremely valuable resource and the investment that that--has been
made in providing clean, safe and reliable drinking water for our
community.
Therefore, the KWD Board requests that a Cave Junction Drinking
Water Special Management Unit be established in the ``Oregon and
California Land Grant Act of 2013''. We also request a meeting with
your staff to discuss the creation of a map depicting the Cave Junction
Drinking Water Area and other details.
______
Statement of Joseph Vaile, Executive Director, Klamath Siskiyou
Wildlands Center, Ashland, OR
On behalf of Klamath Siskiyou Wildlands Center and our more than
12,000 members, supporters, and volunteers, we would like to provide
testimony for the record on S. 1784, the Oregon and California Land
Grant Act of 2013. We appreciate your effort to address management of
some of the most outstanding forest and river ecosystems in the United
States. However, we oppose S. 1784 in its current form. There are
significant conservation gains that would benefit both the environment
and the recreation economy of southern Oregon in your legislation, but
we have significant concerns about provisions that would weaken federal
environmental safeguards, particularly the Endangered Species Act
(ESA), the Clean Water Act (CWA), and the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA). In general we agree and support the comments made by
American Rivers, Gordon Lyford, the ``Appelgate Neighbors'' and
scientific testimony submitted by American Fisheries Society and
Society for Conservation Biology.
The O&C forests support abundant salmon, steelhead and wildlife
that provide outstanding sight seeing, fishing, hunting, camping, and
hiking and wild river boating opportunities for all Americans at
affordable costs. This committee is likely aware of the analysis by The
Nature Conservancy that enumerates and maps out the values of the O&C
lands in Western Oregon. They are truly unique and important federal
lands. The O&C forests purify drinking water for hundreds of thousands
of Oregonians, sequester large amounts of carbon, and provide a proven
ecological defense against wildfire due to their older stand age. We
want these important amenities and environmental services to continue
on all BLM lands and not become sullied or degraded with timber
dominant management. Towards this goal, we support the following
provisions in the bill:
Designation of over 150 miles of new Wild and Scenic Rivers
and associated protection of 64,000 acres of riparian lands in
the Rogue and other rivers;
Protection for approximately 412,000 acres of Riparian
Reserve land allocation, currently administratively protected
under the NWFP;
Designation for Key Watersheds, portions of watersheds found
to be of highest value for salmon habitat and water quality
under the Northwest Forest Plan;
Establishment of innovative Drinking Water Protected Areas
for the cities of Eugene, Springfield, Hillsboro, and
Clackamas, Oregon, with all BLM lands in these drinking water
areas to be managed to preserve clean drinking water;
Provisions restricting road construction, establishing new
road closures and road decommissioning protocols;
Establishing eligibility for O&C lands for the Legacy Roads
and Trails Program which providing funding for decommissioning
roads;
Withdrawals for significant acreage in Conservation Emphasis
Areas from mineral entry;
Designation for approximately 90,000 acres of new wilderness
including for the Wild Rogue and Devils Staircase;
Expansion for the Cascade Siskiyou National Monument; and
Establishment of the Rogue River National Recreation Area,
the Molalla River National Recreation Area and the Illinois
Valley Salmon and Botanical Area.
We offer the following comments and recommendations with the hope
that you will consider changes that will improve the bill and maintain
federal environmental law.
Drinking Water for Oregonians
The O&C waters play a critical role in providing clean water
services for 1.8 million Oregonians. Approximately seventy-three
percent of the BLM lands in Western Oregon are located in areas
identified as Surface Water Source Drinking Water Areas according to
the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. Effective watershed
protection saves tens of millions of dollars by reducing the severity
of winter floods and supplying clean, affordable drinking water without
the need for expensive secondary treatment plants to filter pollutants.
The public also greatly appreciates the fact that these lands are not
tainted by timber management herbicide spraying.
We strongly support the creation of Drinking Water Protected Areas
that recognize the value of these forested public lands to downstream
municipal water utilities and their ability to deliver clean drinking
water. S.1784 should be consistent with all Oregon DEQ drinking water
source area maps. Surface Water Source Drinking Water Areas should be
protected in Medford, Rogue River and other municipalities identified
by the Oregon DEQ.
Drinking water for Cave Junction
A Cave Junction Drinking Water Special Management Unit should be
established in S.1784. The City of Cave Junction and the Kerby Water
District should receive the same water quality protections that
McKenzie, Hillsboro, Clackamas, and Springfield do. A Cave Junction
Drinking Water Special Management Unit should include all of the East
Fork Illinois River watershed upstream of the highway 199 bridge where
the City of Cave Junction water intake is located. The Federal
government invested more than $10 million to construct the City of Cave
Junction water and sewage treatment systems in the 1990s. That
investment and the City water rights should be protected. In addition
the City of Cave Junction has complied with the US Environmental
Protection Agency source water protection planning requirements. The
City of Cave Junction holds two water rights to divert water from the
East Fork Illinois River and serve domestic water to many businesses
and 2,350 citizens who live in Cave Junction and Kerby. The Oregon DEQ
has mapped the drinking water source area for Kerby and Cave Junction.
Retain the Applegate Adaptive Management Area
The Applegate Adaptive Management Area has successfully brought
together stakeholders in this southern Oregon watershed and would be
removed under this bill. The result is a reduction in input from
neighbors and landowners in this dry forest watershed in need of fuels
reduction and restorative forest management. The bill should retain
this important designation. Nearly 200 residents of the Applegate
Valley sent in recommendation to the Senator on this bill--we endorse
those recommendations from the community.
Endangered Species Act Consultation
We appreciate your commitment to uphold the ESA both in your public
statements and the principles in your O&C framework. Unfortunately
there remain provisions in the bill that would undermine conservation
of listed species. The bill would eliminate the requirement that the
Bureau of Land Management consult with federal agencies charged with
conservation of federally listed species. Agency consultation at the
project level is needed to ensure that the BLM make the most
scientifically informed decisions to protect species. Unless revised,
these existing provisions would undermine safeguards for the
conservation of listed species. The bill would impede conservation by
doing away with any requirement that the agencies conduct project level
assessments that could identify changed conditions or new information
about the effects of treatments on listed species. Consultation
provides important conservation oversight for listed species. We urge
you to revise the bill to retain consultation.
It's important to know that the BLM decides when consultation is
needed. Consultation is discretionary with BLM. Many timber sales do
not need consultation because critical habitat will not be damaged due
to requirements of the Northwest Forest Plan. If there is no impact to
listed species as determined by BLM, consultation is not needed. There
is no real reason to supersede BLM's discretion about whether to
consult or not with legislation. The track record of the Northwest
Forest Plan and our monitoring of projects demonstrate that project
level consultation is often not necessary due to project design
features (no impacts to listed species). Consultation has not proven to
be an impediment to projects largely because of agency compliance with
the Northwest Forest Plan and greatly reduced regeneration (clear-cut)
logging.
Protect National Environmental Policy Act Analysis
S. 1784 greatly weakens current NEPA disclosure by restricting
agency responsibility to analyze and disclose the effects of timber
sale projects as they are planned on the ground. The bill calls for a
10-year programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and
eliminates project-specific NEPA analysis. We urge you to revise the
language to include a mechanism that allows analysis and disclosure of
the impacts of individual projects under NEPA that would tier to the
ten year EIS. Conditions on the ground and scientific understanding of
treatment effectiveness cannot be known until specific projects areas
are identified and assessed for treatment. Under the bill, treatments
would continue even under changed conditions and or when activities are
found to be harmful to imperiled species. More importantly, citizens
need to have an opportunity to comment to decision makers at the time
of the decision and be fully informed of site-specific impacts.
Citizens cannot comment to decision makers unless they have information
developed by agency specialists through the NEPA process.
Clean Water Act
We appreciate your effort to more fully assess the effects of
timber harvest in Forestry Emphasis Areas, but restrictions on how the
determination of effects is assessed are problematic. Setting limits on
the measurement of water quality impacts which could effect and
potentially undermine how the CWA is implemented and the bill places a
limitation on the timing of measurement and determination of water
quality impacts. Particularly problematic is the timing requirement to
measure impacts two years after harvest that could mask near term
negative impacts. The bill could also be interpreted to establish the
current and potentially degraded baseline for determination of impacts
under the CWA. We support conducting additional post treatment
monitoring to measure the effects on water quality, but not in the
context of defining the water quality under the CWA. We do not support
any changes to how the CWA is applied to O&C lands.
Salmon/Riparian Reserves (aka ``buffers')
The O&C lands have historically protected some of Oregon's finest
rivers, including the Rogue, Illinois, Applegate, and Umpqua. The 1,400
miles of streams that flow through O&C lands support viable wild salmon
and steelhead runs that provide the backbone for salmon recovery in
western Oregon. We thank you for your inclusion of important
conservation elements in the Conservation Emphasis Areas section of the
bill which effectively legislates core aquatic provisions of the
Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP) that are critical for river health and
salmon recovery. Riparian Reserves as currently managed under the NWFP
is of particular interest since protection and proper management of
riparian reserves in timber harvest emphasis areas is essential to
protect water quality, fish and wildlife. Riparian Reserves, created
under the NWFP as an essential part of the Aquatic Conservation
Strategy, provide a protective forest on all streams in the NWFP area
including O&C lands. An analysis of stream conditions ten years after
implementation of the riparian reserves demonstrated improvement of
habitat conditions and water quality in nearly all streams under the
NWFP.
S. 1784 provides for reduction in riparian reserve widths and
commercial timber harvest in former riparian reserves areas on lands
designated Forestry Emphasis Areas. We are concerned that this will
inevitably lead to a degradation of water quality and habitat for
aquatic and riparian dependent species. Our understanding that these
changes are based on untested hypotheses suggesting smaller riparian
reserve widths along certain types of streams would be adequate to
protect species and water quality thereby allowing variable retention
commercial harvest (aka clear-cutting) and road building much closer to
streams than under current Forest Plan regulations.
Our desire to retain existing Riparian Reserve width is
substantiated with compelling scientific analysis with testimony
provided to you by the American Fisheries Society. The AFS president,
Robert Hughes, reiterate that the existing Riparian Reserve are proven
to be effective for recovering listed fish species whereas reduced
buffers have no track record for being effective. We respect your
scientists' opinion about reducing riparian reserve width but it is
just that: an opinion. We also wish to remind you that BLM has
considerable discretion in identifying variable width ``no cut''
buffers that currently result in substantial harvest of millions of
board feet of timber from riparian reserves without much controversy.
As science becomes clearer on this issue, the BLM currently has the
discretion to increase or reduce no cut buffers. Legislation is clearly
unwarranted and could impede rather than increase harvest.
Medford District Riparian Reserves
We want the bill modified to address the special needs of streams
and fish in the Medford BLM District where the dry forest
classification dominates. The current Riparian Reserve reductions in
Forestry Emphasis Areas in the Medford District need to be replaced
with a single set of standards used in the Conservation Emphasis Areas.
The bill would state that Riparian Reserve standards for Conservation
Emphasis lands would be implemented on all lands in the Medford
District. We believe retaining existing Riparian Reserves (as
prescribed in Conservation Emphasis Areas) is warranted in the Medford
District for the following reasons:
1. The Rogue Basin experiences naturally very high stream
temperatures, low stream flows exacerbated by droughts, and
frequent fires. These hostile factors for fish and water
quality are best ameliorated in the long term with the existing
Riparian Reserve widths.
2. The federally listed Southern Oregon/ Northern California
Coastal Coho salmon Evolutionary Significant Unit in the
Medford District is listed separately from the Oregon Coastal
Coho ESU. This is important because the SONCC ESU Coho in the
Medford District are at a much greater risk of extinction than
the Oregon Coastal Coho ESU. Coho populations are much below
desired levels and have been decreasing. Thus, the need for
retaining a high standard for protection and restoration for at
least the next ten years.
3. Retaining the existing Riparian Reserve standards for the
Medford District would greatly simplify timber sale
implementation across all forest designations. The Medford
District has done a good job of implementing Riparian Reserve
thinning and this would continue across all designations as
determined by local conditions.
4. The Medford District rarely needs to consult with National
Marine Fisheries Service because the existing Riparian Reserve
widths are known to be adequate to protect federally listed
SONCC Coho salmon. Retaining the existing Riparian Reserve
standards in the Medford District would ensure speedy timber
sale implementation because no consultation with NMFS would be
needed.
We think it best for the ``dry forest'' Medford District to
continue managing Riparian Reserves as they have in the past, which
includes the commercial thinning of second growth within the reserves.
Bringing existing Riparian Reserve management forward would ensure a
smooth and less controversial transition for changes with upland (dry)
forest management (i.e. improved ``certainty'').
Designate Medford District as ``Dry Forest''
Similarly, designating the entire Medford District as ``dry
forest'' would ensure a smooth and less controversial transition since
it would eliminate controversial variable retention harvest that mimics
adjacent private land clear-cutting. Conceivably the need to consult
with US Fish and Wildlife would also be reduced or eliminated on many
timber sales because they would thin to reduce fire hazard and retain
60% canopy in older stands.
Summary of specific recommended changes (listing order is not intended
to indicate priority)
Establish a Cave Junction Drinking Water Special Management
Unit.
Eliminate or modify provisions about ESA consultation.
Provide for citizen review of projects through the NEPA
process concurrent with detailed site-specific project
preparation.
Eliminate changes to how the Clean Water Act is applied to
O&C lands.
Retain the Applegate Adaptive Management Area
The bill would state that Riparian Reserve (buffer) widths
and accompanying standards for Conservation Emphasis lands
would be implemented/used on all lands in the Medford District
including Timber Emphasis areas.
The entire Medford District would be managed as a ``dry
forest''.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on this important
legislation. While we look forward to working with you to improve your
bill as it moves through the legislative process, we regret that we
must oppose its passage pending the inclusion of the changes we
recommend.
______
Statement of Robert Model, Chairman, Boone & Crockett Club, Cody, WY
The Boone and Crockett Club, along with many hunting organizations,
have strongly supported the shift in forest policy over the last decade
or more toward choices involved in producing all the shared values of
the National Forests. Such policies have promoted rural jobs,
stewardship contracting, healthy forests, fire management, and secure
rural schools.
This developing multi-faceted approach is necessary to confront a
multitude of problems in the forest: millions of acres of our National
Forests are overcrowded, dying from insect infestation and susceptible
to uncharacteristically large, hot wildfires. Accordingly, in regard to
the bills that are before the Committee now, the Boone and Crockett
Club supports the Committee's effort to advance legislation that
quickly improves the status quo on our National Forests.
The common element to all necessary means of improvement is
science-based action. State and federal professionals have studied-with
partnership and support from the Boone and Crockett Club--to understand
and act on the effects of unhealthy forest conditions on our National
Forests. Study after study has shown that improvements to forest
health, including the resilience of fire-prone forests, can be restored
through active management. Improving forest health and creating early
seral habitat creates better forage for big game wildlife and, as part
of an ecological patchwork of all habitat types, a diversity of
habitats providing wildlife cover as well. The young-forest pieces of
this diversity have been crowded-out of much of the National Forests.
To regain the young-forest habitat types in adequate amounts and in
proper intermixed distribution with hiding cover and other elements,
the Forest Service must be more active. The Forest Service must also
have formal agreements with state wildlife and resource agencies
providing compat i bility between federal habitat management activities
and state population management goals for wildlife.
The imperative to increase active management of forests is more
pressing in light of recent scientific fieldwork. New information has
revealed a flawed assumption in wildlife habitat management:
specifically, the assumption that forests will always provide adequate
nutrition to support reproduction and year-round survivability of big
game. In fact, the conditions in today's forests that are now well
known as extremely risky in terms of severe wildfire are also ``bare
shelves'' as food quality for big game wildlife. Elk research at the
USFS Starkey Experimental Forest and Range in NE Oregon documents that
management of overgrown and overly dense forests is the key to managing
elk herds in parts of several western states. Low nutrition on summer
ranges in fire-prone conditions is the limiting factor for elk (see New
Paradigms for Evaluating and Managing Elk Habitats: a Glimpse of the
Future for Elk on Public Lands-Fair Chase Summer 2011). Research is
showing that stands in fire-prone condition and with greater than 60%
canopy closure coincides with depressed elk populations because of the
lack of quality food.
The prevalence of fire-prone, high-canopy-closure stands is high.
In the eleven western states, 53 million acres of ponderosa pine,
Douglas fir and mixed conifers are in fire regime condition class 3--
meaning the risk of losing key ecosystem components from
uncharacteristic wildfire (unusual size, intensity, severity, and
landscape pattern) is high or extreme. Montana, for example, has nearly
22.3 million acres of forest lands (mostly federal); 82% have high/
moderate fire hazard rating. Nearly 9.3 million acres are classified as
short interval fire-adapted ecosystems. About 7.5 million acres (or
80%) of these are rated high/moderate for crown fire hazard. This
accounts for what we have observed in Oregon, where since 1989, the
area of young-forest habitat for deer and elk created each year through
forest management has declined approximately 90%. In response, black-
tailed deer harvest has declined nearly 70%. Elk numbers from Oregon
Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) annual counts on the Willamette
National Forest in the McKenzie Unit have declined to 16 in 2012 from
114 in 2005, an 86% drop. This drop in habitat management has led to a
decrease in hunting, which worsens a national trend threatening the
excise tax revenues from hunting that support most wildlife
conservation in the U.S. Hunter success has declined 44% to about 18%.
Numbers of deer hunters have dropped 34% from around 170,000 to about
112,000.
Our primary message is that the Senate should act to give the
Forest Service the tools to reverse the loss of a diverse mosaic of
habitat types. The steep decline in active forest management is leading
to higher risk of wildfire and less habitat for elk, deer and game
species, and consequently the Boone and Crockett Club advocates for
greater management focus and efficiency. In short, the Forest Service
needs to-and can-do much more with the same amount of resources.
The Boone and Crockett Club has worked over the last decade to
improve federal forest health and especially related big game habitat
in the face of the deteriorating health of federal forests. There is
more to do. We have a rare opportunity this Congress because of the
leadership of Members who deeply understand forest health issues.
Hopefully this issue will continue to gain traction, and we can turn
the tide on improving habitat, creating new jobs in rural communities
and growing county revenue again.
______
Statement of Joe G. Ricker, Chairman, and Fred Craig, President of the
Board, Oregon Hunters Association, Medford , OR
For the record we are Joe Ricker, Chairman of the Oregon Hunters
Association (OHA) and Fred Craig, President of the Oregon Hunters
Association. We are unable to attend the hearing on the O&C Lands Act
of 2013 sponsored by Senator Ron Wyden, D-Oregon, so we are submitting
our comments on the O&C Lands Act of 2013 in writing.
In August of 2013 the OHA sent a letter to Senator Ron Wyden about
this piece of legislation. In our letter we outlined these important
points:
The sad fact is the current management in place on Oregon
and California Railroad lands (O & C) is essentially non-
management, and the land management agencies in charge of these
lands have long been failing in their written requirements and
obligations to create habitat for all species on lands, which
it manages.
The OHA has been on record questioning these agencies' long
standing failure to implement their own management plans, which
require the creation of required critically needed habitat.
Modernization of management such as that proposed in this
plan will provide significant amounts of such habitat, which is
desperately needed by the many wildlife species. Only this will
help stem the marked decline of many of these same species.
While the OHA does in fact support management of the forests, and
certainly encourages that effort, the OHA is also deeply concerned
about the unnecessary setting aside of yet more public lands from ever
being actively managed, permanently removing even more land from the
increasingly limited supply of public land available and managed for
critical wildlife habitat.
It has been amply demonstrated that closed canopy, older age class
forests provide extremely poor habitat for many species, as was
experienced by the Lewis and Clark expedition who nearly starved to
death while traveling though older age class forest lands. Similarly,
the Native American populations in Oregon routinely burned vast tracts
of Oregon's land, including some current O&C land, in an effort to
create habitat they needed to survive. Fortunately, there are now much
better tools available.
An additional concern for many hunters throughout Oregon is access
to public lands. The OHA would encourage those working on land
exchanges and consolidation activities to require public access to the
land acquired in land exchanges. There are too many parcels of publicly
owned land in Oregon which are essentially land locked. This means that
the public land is surrounded by private land and the public is not
able to cross the private land to access the public land. It is
important to maintain access to all publicly owned land.
The Oregon Hunters Association is an 11,000 member statewide
organization dedicated to creating and protecting needed habitat. We
are unique among other organizations in that we actually put our money
and muscle to work with literally hundreds of thousands of dollars and
countless man-hours being applied to on the ground projects creating
habitat and improving existing habitat throughout Oregon. The OHA has a
long history of working closely with many partners throughout Oregon,
including the Bureau of Land Management, United States Forest Service,
state and local land managers, to improve and create habitat.
Once again, the OHA applauds the provisions contained in the O&C
Land Act of 2013 to create critically needed habitat, county revenues,
and jobs. However, the OHA is concerned about the further restrictions
allowed in this legislation being placed on public land which should be
actively managed and provide critically needed habitat.
______
Joint Statement of the Wild Salmon Center and the Pacific Rivers
Council
On behalf of the Pacific Rivers Council and Wild Salmon Center, we
respectfully submit our comments and proposed revisions to the ``Oregon
and California Land Grant Act of 2013'' (``O&C Land Grant Act'' or ``S.
1784''). We appreciate Chairman Wyden's effort to balance the complex
trade-offs we face managing the extraordinary ecological, economic and
recreational values of these lands.
Attached please find our proposed revisions and comments. Below we
highlight key proposed revisions included, with others, in the
attachment.
Protecting Vital Drinking Water Sources and Watersheds
Approximately 75% of O&C Lands are identified by the Oregon
Department of Environmental Quality as vital to providing clean
drinking water to over 1.8 million Oregonians. O&C's iconic rivers--the
Umpqua, Rogue, McKenzie, Nestucca and others--include over 1400 miles
of rivers for fish and wildlife, supporting the strongest wild salmon
and steelhead runs south of Canada.
Beyond the obvious recreational benefits to anglers, hunters,
hikers and others, effective watershed protection saves tens of
millions of dollars by reducing the severity of winter floods and
supplying clean, affordable drinking water without the need for
expensive secondary treatment plants to filter pollutants. For example,
strong watershed conservation efforts in Portland's drinking water
source in the Bull Run watershed recently saved taxpayers over $60
million in avoided secondary treatment costs.
The O&C Land Grant Act locks-in robust riparian buffer river
protections on approximately two-thirds of O&C Lands by applying the
full Northwest Forest plan aquatic conservation strategy riparian
buffers on key watersheds and conservation emphasis areas. Federal
review of the aquatic conservation strategy concluded that riparian
protection measures were effective and that watershed health had
improved in over 70% of the watersheds assessed.
The Act also applies these riparian reserve buffers to a new,
permanent designation for vital drinking water source areas identified
by our municipal drinking water providers from Hillsboro, Springfield,
Eugene and Clackamas. We strongly support the inclusion of these core
aquatic protection components.
These areas will become magnets for public-private partnerships to
maintain water quality and will attract ``green infrastructure''
investments to ensure these rivers retain their ability to naturally
cool and purify water. Clean water at the source saves money for
ratepayers too, lowering treatment and filtering costs. We applaud
Senator Wyden for explicitly recognizing drinking water source
protection and support efforts to expand these designations to
additional areas.
Despite these important accomplishments, the BLM maps accompanying
the bill indicate that several key parcels of BLM O&C Lands bordering
major fish bearing rivers and streams are not afforded the full
riparian reserve buffers provided in Section 105 of the bill. For
example, despite having invested tens of millions of dollars of
restoration work on the Smith River, Rock Creek (N. Umpqua), Coquille
and others, these and other critical rivers are not afforded the robust
riparian buffers they currently enjoy. Because these rivers also border
private lands which generally maintain much less protective riparian
buffers, the cumulative effects of even marginal adverse impacts of
increased disturbances in these systems could impair water quality and
retard efforts to comply with the Clean Water Act and other federal and
state and water quality standards.
We calculate that extending the full aquatic conservation strategy
buffers provided in Section 105 of the bill to the identified parcels
in Forestry Emphasis Areas will have a negligible impact on projected
timber harvest levels, but will provide the many, anglers, guides,
rafters and other river users assurances that these critical aquatic
corridors will be adequately protected in the future.
Recommendation No. 1: Incorporate by reference the attached
Map and add provision as follows:
``The Forest Emphasis Areas parcels identified in BLM
Map___shall include the riparian reserves described in Sec.
105(c)''
Monitoring and Assessment to Inform Adaptive Management
The complex interplay of forests, fish and wildlife biology and
population dynamics, habitat, hydrology, fire and climate will all
unfold over time on a landscape scale in an extremely dynamic
environment. Federal laws protecting our valued natural resources--such
as the Clean Water Act, Endangered Species Act and others--rely on
robust monitoring and evaluation to inform and adapt management and
conservation approaches and strategies over longer timeframes.
Monitoring and evaluation is absolutely central to achieving the
objectives established in S. 1784. O&C watersheds are only partially
under federal management and activities outside of federal management
zones may significantly influence watershed conditions. Additionally,
the application of ecological forestry at this large scale is
unprecedented in the Pacific Northwest. We are hopeful that ecological
forestry will both improve forest health and produce substantial
sustained yield on forestry emphasis areas, however, it's impacts--both
positive and negative--must be assessed, just as we must assess longer
term effects on water quality, fish and wildlife and recreation on O&C
watersheds.
Finally, the reduction of buffers proposed in S.1784 on over
700,000 acres of BLM land has yet to be peer-reviewed and the approach
should be rigorously monitored and evaluated. The current Aquatic and
Riparian Effectiveness Monitoring Program (``AREMP'') provides an
excellent approach to extend to the O&C Lands Act.
Recommendation No. 2: Include provision for robust and
continuous monitoring and evaluation of key resources to enable
adaptive management.
Land Consolidation, Exchange and Sale
O&C Lands are interspersed with private timber land, creating a
patchwork of land ownership across many watersheds throughout Western
Oregon. Oregon water and wildlife protection standards for private
forestlands are much weaker than those in California or Washington--and
they are vastly less protective than the conservation standards of
federal lands in Oregon. The disparity in land management and
protection on the O&C checkerboard poses challenges to both efficient
timber operations and conservation.
To help address these issues, we support strategic land exchange
and consolidation on these lands in order to provide net timber and
conservation benefits. However, as written, the land consolidation and
sale provisions are unworkable and will neither address the
conservation or timber goals articulated in the Act. Instead, we
propose a simple, permanent exchange facility designed to facilitate
and expedite voluntary exchanges where a net conservation and timber
benefit can be demonstrated.
Additionally, we support the sale of limited (50,000 acres) sub-set
of BLM O&C Lands which hold the lowest relative ecological values and
are the most burdensome to manage and maintain. Patterned on nearly
identical provisions applied to BLM parcels in Nevada, the sale of
these lands to timber companies or others would generate funds
dedicated to conserving high value conservation lands elsewhere in the
State, including the acquisition of high conservation river corridors
and easments.
Recommendation No. 3: Adopt substitute land consolidation
language provided in attached revisions to replace Sec. 117.
Roads
Abundant scientific evidence documents the adverse impacts badly
placed or inadequately designed or maintained roads can have on
watershed health and water quality. The road provisions in the Act
explicitly recognize the need to address road issues and we strongly
support the provisions relating to roads included in the bill,
including extending the Legacy Roads and Trails Program to these BLM
lands.
Streamlining of Environmental Law
While we are supportive of efforts to expedite implementation of
the Act and modify timeframes to this end, we share the concerns of
many conservation organizations that the current language imposes
substantive changes on the Endangered Species Act, CWA, NEPA and other
federal environmental laws. These modifications reduce the ability of
citizens to challenge, when necessary, unlawful agency actions and
potentially undermine the protection these bedrock laws provide to
valued public resources.
Moreover, we believe the elimination of the ``survey and manage''
requirements currently in place will eliminate the substantive grounds
for a great deal of litigation and that the provisions of the bill are
simply not necessary to reduce litigation, but instead will merely
weaken important elements of these environmental protections.
Accordingly, we urge the Senator to adopt the proposed revisions
included in the attachment, which will shorten timelines for agency
decision-making, reduce potential litigation and preserve critical
components of important federal environmental laws.
O&C Lands produce many of the natural assets that improve our
quality of life in Oregon--clean water, recreation, flood control, fish
and wildlife, and timber. We look forward to working with you to
conserve and sustainably manage Oregon's natural assets while enhancing
economic opportunities in our rural communities.
______
Statement of Peter Hurlin, PhD, Shriners Hospital and OHSU Kristin
Ellingsen, DVM, Evin Hurlin, High School Student
Me and my family very much opposes Senate Bill 1784 proposed by
Senator Wyden. The Bill decreases the ability of the public to be
involved in decisions on potentially destructive logging of our public
forests. That is a step backwards--not forward! We need more protection
of riparian buffers to protect fish, not less as this Bill does! The
Endangered Species Act needs to be strengthened, not weakened as this
Bill does!
This Bill does Not represent enlightened and forward thinking but
instead rolls back safeguards on our Oregon forests that are helping
heal the disastrous practices of the past.
We will do what we can to prevent this Bill and any Bill proposed
that compromises our natural heritage and caves in to the conventional
thinking of the past that has so badly damage our natural heritage here
and around that country and world. Oregon NEEDS to show the US and the
world that we have learned from the mistakes of the past and Better
protect the balance of nature.
______
Statement of Beau McClure, Vice President for Operations, Public Lands
Foundation, Arlington, VA
This letter presents the Public Lands Foundation's (PLF) recent
position statement (see attachment) on the management of the O&C Lands
in Western Oregon. These lands are managed by the Bureau of Land
Management (BLM). The PLF is a national non-profit membership
organization that advocates and works for the retention of America's
National System of Public Lands in public hands, professionally and
sustainably managed for responsible use and enjoyment by American
citizens. PLF endorses and embraces the multiple use mission of the
BLM. Our members are predominantly retired employees of the BLM from
across the United States and as such have spent their careers dedicated
to the sound management of these valuable lands and resources. Many of
our members spent their careers managing the O&C lands. They have
personal knowledge of these lands and unparalleled expertise in their
management.
Federal forestlands in the Pacific Northwest have been a source of
considerable controversy for decades. The O&C lands are unique in their
purpose, history, and geospatial orientation (checkerboard) and will
require a unique solution. These lands were originally granted to a
railroad company, but later revested back to the Government. The lands,
however, were not returned to the public domain, but set aside for
special management. The O&C Act of 1937 mandated that the O&C lands be
managed for permanent forest production based on the management
principle of sustained yield and that a permanent stream of revenue
sharing be established for 18 O&C Counties in western Oregon from the
sustainable harvesting of timber. Several attempts to resolve
controversies over the years have not been successful in achieving the
objective of implementable plans that withstand legal challenges and
provide the goods and services the public expects from these forests.
Recently, Senator Wyden and Representatives DeFazio, Schrader, and
Walden have ``stepped up to the plate'' to take on this very
contentious issue. The PLF commends the Oregon delegation for their
work to find a solution to this divisive issue and to advance the
conversation at the Congressional level.
Representatives DeFazio, Schrader, and Walden. introduced the O&C
TrusConservation, and Jobs Act as Title 3 to the Healthy Forests for
Healthy Communities Act (H.R. 1526). As you know, this bill has been
passed in the House of Representatives and sent to the Senate. Senator
Wyden introduced the O&C Act of2013 (S. 1784) in December.
The PLF feels that neither of these bills will result in a workable
solution for the O&C lands. H.R. 1526, as passed by the House would
further fragment these lands into thousands of very small units that
will cause confusion to the public and managers. It will lead to
increased management expense and inefficiency by dividing the lands
between two management entities. By eliminating BLM's management
responsibility, the current BLM knowledge and expertise in managing
these unique lands would be lost.
The draft O&C Act of 2013 lacks a thorough analysis of the long-
term implications and we believe it will not result in the long-term
sustained harvest level proposed in the Bill for more than a few
decades; at such time as the thinning acres are completed, the
sustainable harvest level with drop considerably. Further, the bill
does not address the relationships of the underlying regulatory acts,
i.e. National Environmental Policy Act, Endangered Species Act, Federal
Land Policy and Management Act, etc. Unless the relationships between
these laws are clarified or adjusted so that they work together,
litigation and other challenges will hamper implementation and not
result in the certainty needed by the BLM, counties, and other
stakeholders.
BLM has begun to revise the Resource Management Plans for the O&C
Lands. The PLF does not feel that additional BLM planning without
Congressional action to address inconsistency in the laws that have
been passed over the years will result in sustainable decisions by the
BLM. However, BLM could use their planning models to assess the impacts
of these bills thus providing information to help frame a fmal
proposal.
While the PLF does not feel that either of these bills is workable
in their current form, we believe Congressional action is needed and
commend the delegation for their work to date. We are encouraged that a
workable solution can be found. The attached PLF position statement on
the future of the O&C forests provides several recommendations for
consideration. In addition, the PLF has several members that have
decades of experience managing these lands and would be happy to
provide any assistance we can as the bills work through Congress.
If you would like further information, or have questions we can
address, please contact me by phone at (623) 587-7883 or by e-mail at
[email protected].
______
Statement of Frances Oyung, President, Rogue Basin Coordinating
Council, Medford, OR
The Rogue Basin Coordinating Council (RBCC) is a regional
organization supporting watershed health in the Rogue River basin. RBCC
would like to support the concerns of the residents of the Illinois
Valley including the City of Cave Junction, the Illinois Valley
Watershed Council, and the Kerby Water District relating to protecting
their drinking water sources. Their review of the draft ``Oregon and
California Land Grant Act of 2013'' cites sections 108, 109, 110, and
111 of the draft Act which establishes Drinking Water Special
Management Units for McKenzie, Hillsboro, Clackamas, and Springfield.
Illinois Valley residents have serious concerns that the draft Act does
not provide the City of Cave Junction and the Kerby Water District with
the same drinking water protection as it does for communities with
established Drinking Water Special Management Units. The RBCC supports
the request of local residents in the establishment of a Cave Junction
Drinking Water Special Management Unit under the ``Oregon and
California Land Grant Act of 2013'' and asks your support in protecting
their vital water resources and the investments that have been made in
providing clean, safe and reliable drinking water for the community.
______
Statement of Blake Henning, Vice President of Lands & Conservation,
Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, Missoula, MT
The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation (RMEF) appreciates the
opportunity to comment on the National Forest Jobs and Management Act
of 2014 (NFJMA). We appreciate your efforts to help revitalize National
Forest conservation projects to ensure healthy forests for America's
future.
We would like to offer suggestions that would enhance the intent of
the Act as it applies to our logo species, elk, and many other wildlife
species that live in elk country. The proposed Act calls for the use of
timber sale contracts under section 14 of the National Forest
Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 472a) to be the primary means of
carrying out covered projects under this Act. We respectfully request
consideration of the Stewardship Contracts and Agreement process to be
included in this section so that decision makers have as many tools as
possible available to carry out the Act. The Act currently excludes
National Forest System land east of the 100th meridian. Wild free-
ranging elk are currently found in 27 states, many of them in the east.
RMEF played an important role in re-establishing wild free-ranging elk
in Wisconsin, Kentucky, Tennessee, North Carolina, Missouri and
Virginia.
The national forests, both east and west, are in need of
disturbance to bring about the early seral (young forest) component
that is not only essential to many wildlife species, but healthy
forests as well. The primary tools that can bring this about in a
manner based on scientific decision making are prescribed burning and
mechanical forest thinning, usually accomplished through commercial
forest management contractors. The current overstocked conditions of
many forests preclude the use of fire due to unnatural fuel load in the
forests and the possibility of stand-replacing fires.
The Northwest Forest Plan has been in effect for the past 20 years.
Old growth forest is the primary emphasis, while early seral conditions
and all the species dependent upon them are ignored. For example, the
vertebrate composition on the Willamette National Forest includes 14
species tied specifically into old growth; 0 species tied into mid-
seral; 116 generalist species that use all stages of habitat; and 71
species tied specifically to early seral forests and edges. With the
majority of management emphasis on those 14 species tied to old growth,
we have seen a drastic decrease in early seral forest conditions.
Research, funded in part by RMEF, has shown that cow elk in those
areas managed with an old growth emphasis are nutritionally stressed.
Cow elk need to go into the winter with 10% to 12% body fat, and
ideally would hit spring green-up at about 10% body fat to carry out
successful pregnancies. Several years ago at Mount St. Helens, cow elk
body condition was measured in October at 5% to 6% body fat. In other
areas without an old growth emphasis elk are having a difficult time as
well. Over the last two months in the Clearwater Basin of Idaho, cow
elk body condition was measured at 5% to 8% body fat. Elk and many
other species (deer, bighorn sheep, ruffed grouse, blue grouse, wild
turkey, mountain quail, a variety of woodpeckers, hummingbirds,
flycatchers, bluebirds, warblers and towhee) are all tied closely to
early seral forest habitats.
Ongoing research in Washington, Oregon and Idaho has focused on a
new habitat model for elk that includes a summer elk nutrition
component. Elk make a wonderful surrogate for the other species that
depend on early seral habitat, and the use of this research will
benefit a wide variety of wildlife species. It is important that
federal land managers use this latest science tool in future management
decisions in order to provide the rich biodiversity necessary for
healthy forests and ranges, and make every effort to greatly improve
the early seral component on the landscape. We believe that active
management of our forest habitat will benefit wildlife and the American
public.
29
January
2014_
Statement of Dan Dessecker, Director, Conservation Policy, Ruffed
Grouse Society, Corapolis, PA
The Ruffed Grouse Society appreciates the opportunity to comment on
the National Forest Jobs and Management Act of 2014 (NFJMA). We applaud
your efforts to enhance the efficacy and the efficiency of forest
conservation project planning and implementation on our nation's
National Forests.
We respectfully request that you delete Section 3(4)(B)(ii) from
the proposed legislation. This section excludes National Forests east
of the 100th meridian from the innovative project planning processes
outlined in NFJMA.
National Forests in the eastern United States are in desperate need
of additional commercial forest management if we are to sustain the
game and nongame wildlife that require young forest habitats. These
important habitats are created almost solely through commercial forest
management, and they have declined precipitously on National Forests
and other ownerships throughout the East over the past several decades.
In 2007, the American Bird Conservancy identified young deciduous
forests in the eastern United States as one of the 20 most threatened
bird habitats in the nation.
Unfortunately, since the wave of forest plan revisions from 2004-
2006, National Forests in the East have fallen woefully short of
meeting plan objectives for the development of young forest habitats.
National Forests in the Southern Appalachians, Great Lakes region, and
the Northeast have accomplished only 13%, 23%, and 24%, respectively,
of the goal for the establishment of these critical young forest
habitats.
As a result of this continuing loss of young forest habitats, we
are seeing significant population declines for bird species that breed
in these habitats. These species include the ruffed grouse, eastern
towhee, field sparrow, brown thrasher and golden-winged warbler (the
status of the golden-winged warbler is currently being reviewed by the
US Fish & Wildlife Service for possible listing under the Endangered
Species Act).
Breeding Bird Survey data (US Geological Survey) document that
since 1966 in the eastern US, 53% of the bird species that breed in
young forest and shrub-dominated habitats have declined while only 8%
have increased. Conversely, only 31% of the bird species that breed in
mature forests have declined while 23% have increased. These data
clearly demonstrate the need to increase the level of active forest
management in our eastern forests, including our National Forests.
Again, the Ruffed Grouse Society respectfully requests that Section
3(4)(B)(ii) be removed from the proposed legislation so that National
Forests in the eastern United States may better address the
conservation of our nation's forest wildlife.
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me.
Thank you for your time.
______
Statement of Michael Anderson, Senior Policy Analyst, The Wilderness
Society
We are writing to express our strong opposition to S. 1966, the
National Forest Jobs and Management Act of 2014. This legislation poses
a serious threat to environmental stewardship, public involvement,
wildlife conservation, and the rule of law in our national forests.
We also wish to submit comments on S. 1784, the Oregon and
California Land Grant Act of 2013. We appreciate Senator Wyden's
efforts to protect the old-growth forests and other special places of
western Oregon. For the past two decades, the Northwest Forest Plan has
provided sound, science-based management direction for the O&C lands
and other federal forests in the region. Due to their unique history,
legal mandate, administration, and revenue-sharing policy, the
management of O&C lands has continued to be highly controversial. We
look forward to working with Senator Wyden on legislation that will
help reduce controversy and improve management of the O&C lands, while
preserving some of Oregon's finest ancient forests, wilderness, and
wild and scenic rivers.
Please find attached our detailed analyses of S. 1966 and S. 1794.
We respectfully request that this letter be entered into the
February 6, 2014 hearing record for the committee.
attachment i
Following is a quick analysis of S. 1966, Senator Barrasso's
``National Forest Jobs and Management Act,'' which was introduced on
January 28 and will be the subject of a Senate Energy and Natural
Resources Committee hearing on February 6. The bill's requirements
apply to all national forests in the western U.S., but not to the
eastern national forests in Forest Service Regions 8 and 9 (Sec.
3(4)(B)).
Doubling the Cut
Reflecting the bill's purpose to ``create a sustainable wood
supply'' from the national forests (Sec. 2(1)), the bill requires the
Forest Service to undertake commercial logging and other mechanical
treatments\1\ in ``covered projects'' on at least 7.5 million acres of
national forest land during the coming 15 years (Sec. 4(a)(4)(A)). This
amounts to an annual average of 500,000 acres per year. In comparison,
the Forest Service mechanically treated 195,000 acres and produced 2.4
billion board feet nationwide in 2011, and the agency has proposed to
increase those amounts to 255,000 acres of mechanical treatment and 3.0
billion feet of timber.\2\ Thus, the bill would require the Forest
Service to increase logging and other mechanical treatments by 150%
more than recent amounts and by nearly 100% more than the Forest
Service's ambitious proposal.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The bill does not define the term ``mechanical treatment'';
however, the bill defines ``covered project'' as ``a project that
involves the management or sale of national forest material" (Sec.
102(1)). "National forest material,'' in turn, is defined as ``trees,
portions of trees, or forest products, with an emphasis on sawtimber
and pulpwood.'' (Sec.102(3), emphasis added).
\2\ USDA Forest Service.2012. ``Increasing the Pace of Restoration
and Job Creation on Our National Forests,'' pp. 4 -5. http://
www.fs.fed.us/publications/restoration/restoration.pdf.
\3\ Because the bill's requirements do not apply to eastern
national forests, the 7.5 million-acre target amounts to an even
greater proportional increase on the western national forests.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unlike other recent bills that have included acreage targets or
goals for mechanical treatment,\4\ the Barrasso bill appears to create
an inescapable legal mandate to achieve the timber targets. Thus,
absent a major increase in congressional funding, the Forest Service
could be required to divert resources away from all other multiple-use
activities in order to accomplish the legally-required amount of
logging and other mechanical treatments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ For example, S. 1301, the ``Oregon Eastside Forests
Restoration, Old Growth Protection, and Jobs Act of 2013,'' sets
mechanical treatment targets, but only requires them to be implemented
``to the maximum extent practicable'' (Sec. 103(b)(1)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The required logging and other mechanical treatments would occur in
``Forest Management Emphasis Areas,'' which the bill defines as ``land
identified as suitable for timber production'' in a Forest Service
management plan. As of 2000, approximately 47 million acres of the
National Forest System were classified as suitable for timber
production in forest plans.\5\ The suitable timberlands potentially
include forests located in Inventoried Roadless Areas, Northwest Forest
Plan Late Successional Reserves, and other sensitive lands that have
been administratively protected for more than a decade. The bill only
excludes designated Wilderness Areas and other lands where removal of
vegetation is specifically prohibited by law (Sec. 3(2)(B)). The bill
would also prohibit the Forest Service from reducing the amount of
suitable timberlands through revisions of local forest plans unless
necessary to avoid jeopardizing an endangered species (Sec. 4(d)),
which would limit management options available to the agency and the
public in the planning process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ USDA Forest Service. 2000. Forest Management Specialist Report
for Roadless Rule Final Environmental Impact Statement, p. 3. http://
www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fsm8_035779.pdf. Some of the 47
million acres are located in eastern national forests and would not be
directly affected by S. 1966.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Short-cutting Environmental Review
The bill would weaken requirements of the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) as applied to the bill's ``covered projects'' in two
major ways. First, the Forest Service's environmental assessments would
only be required to consider the ``direct environmental effects'' of
each project (Sec. 4(b)(1)), implying that indirect and cumulative
effects analysis normally required under NEPA would no longer be done.
Second, the bill specifies that the Forest Service is only required to
evaluate the proposed agency action and one alternative (id.), rather
than a range of alternatives normally considered in environmental
impact statements.
Self-Consultation on Endangered Species
The bill apparently would eliminate the interagency consultation
process required by Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act as applied
to the bill's ``covered projects.'' Rather than consulting with the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the bill provides that Forest Service
professional staff members will make the determinations required by
Section 7 of the ESA (Sec. 4(c), presumably including the key
determination that a covered project will not jeopardize the continued
existence of a threatened or endangered species.
Foreclosing Judicial Review: Logging Without Laws
The bill would establish a novel ``pilot program'' authorizing the
use of an arbitration process and eliminating the opportunity for
judicial review of covered projects. Under the arbitration process, a
person who objects to a project could file a demand for arbitration
that includes proposed modifications to the Forest Service's logging
project (Sec. 5(b)(2)(A&B)). A federal district court would appoint an
arbitrator who would select either the objector's (or an intervenor's)
proposal or the agency's project, with no opportunity to modify a
proposal (Sec. 5(b)(2)(D&C)). The arbitrator would be required to make
the selection solely on the basis of which proposal ``best meets the
purpose and needs'' described in the Forest Service's environmental
assessment (Sec. 5(b)(2)(E)(ii)).
The proposed arbitration process provides no means to ensure that
the Forest Service is actually following environmental laws, or even
the requirements of S. 1966. The arbitrator would not be able to
consider and rule on the legal adequacy of the process by which the
agency arrived at its decision. Conceivably, a local district ranger
and forest supervisor could entirely skip normal public involvement and
Endangered Species Act requirements in order to achieve their legally-
mandated mechanical treatment targets.
Conclusion
S. 1966 would require a massive increase in logging and other
mechanical treatments across tens of millions of acres of national
forest land in the West, while weakening bedrock environmental laws and
providing no offsetting conservation designations. The bill poses a
serious threat to environmental stewardship, public involvement,
wildlife conservation, and the rule of law in the national forests.
attachment ii
Following is a brief analysis of Senator Wyden's 188-page ``Oregon
and California Land Grant Act of 2013,'' which he released on November
26 and introduced on December 9 as S. 1784. Some of the information
below, such as logging amounts and some acreage figures, is derived
from sources other than the bill language.
Overview
Following are some key elements of Wyden's bill:
Applies to 2.1 million acres of BLM O&C and Coos Bay Wagon
Road forest lands in western Oregon.
Amends portions of the O&C Act of 1937 to remove mandatory
logging requirements and revise the county revenue-sharing
formula.
Aims to double the amount of BLM logging from150 mmbf/year
(past 10-year average) to 300-350 mmbf/year.
Protects all old-growth forests, which are defined as trees
over 150 years old and moist forest stands over 120 years old
(Legacy Old Growth Protection Network).
Divides all O&C lands between Forestry Emphasis Areas (FEAs,
1.1 million acres) and Conservation Emphasis Areas (CEAs, 1.0
million acres). Some of the FEA acreage is not available for
logging (e.g. Riparian Reserves and old-growth forests).
CEAs include 87,000 acres of new Wilderness, 165 miles of
new Wild and Scenic Rivers, 400,000 acres of Legacy Old Growth
Protection Network (including 190,000 acres in FEAs), four
drinking water special management units, and numerous other
legislative designations.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The bill would establish the following permanent statutory
designations (including withdrawal from mineral development):
--Wild Rogue Wilderness Additions (56,400 acres)
--Devil's Staircase Wilderness (30,540 acres)
--Cascade Siskiyou National Monument Additions (2,040 acres)
(the bill contains a dif-
ferent but incorrect acreage number)
--165 miles of Wild and Scenic Rivers, including 93 miles of
Rogue River
--Illinois Valley Salmon and Botanical Area (16,300 acres)
--Rogue National Recreation Area (95,000 acres)
--Molalla National Recreation Area (24,000 acres)
--Six Primitive Backcountry Areas (50,000 acres total)
--Four Drinking Water Special Management Units (47,000 acres
total)
--Special Environmental Zones (95,600 acres of existing and
proposed ACECs)
--Pacific Crest Trail Protection Corridor (8,200 acres)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Designates 350,000 acres of Key Watersheds (containing both
FEAs and CEAs), in which current Riparian Reserves are
retained, road construction is restricted, and restoration is
given priority.
Divides all FEAs into moist and dry forests based on plant
association groups.
Requires FEAs to be managed consistent with ``Ecological
Forestry'' principles, including thinning and variable
retention regeneration harvest in moist forests and partial
cutting in dry forests.
Requires BLM to provide the planned sustained yield of
timber ``to the maximum extent practicable'' and to carry out
variable retention regeneration harvests on 8-12% per decade of
the moist forests available for timber management in the FEAs.
Requires two landscape plans and comprehensive EISs (for
moist and dry forests) to plan and evaluate ten years of timber
sales. The landscape plans will specify the locations of future
logging activities in the FEAs.
Authorizes counties and nearby residents to cut trees on
adjoining FEA lands in dry forests to reduce fuel loads and
fire risk with minimal BLM oversight.
Eliminates NEPA requirements and administrative appeals for
individual timber sales.
Judicial review is generally limited to challenges to the
two EISs.
Requires expedited Endangered Species Act consultation on
the two EISs; ESA consultation on individual timber sales will
only occur if requested by the BLM.
Within five years, requires USFWS and NOAA Fisheries to
evaluate whether performed and proposed actions comply with ESA
and the EISs; based on that review, the two regulatory agencies
then determine whether re-initiation of consultation is needed
relative to revision of the EIS.
Within 10 years, requires an independent scientific and
managerial review and a report to Congress on implementation of
the Act and whether additional legislation is needed.
Reduces the size of Riparian Reserves on lands in the FEAs
available for logging and outside of Key Watersheds (about 30%
of the O&C lands). The remainder of the O&C lands (70%) will
continue to have the Riparian Reserves of the Northwest Forest
Plan.
Eliminates the ``survey and manage'' requirements of the
Northwest Forest Plan.
Requires revenue-sharing with counties similar to 1937 Act;
however, estimated payments based on revenue-sharing are lower
overall than what counties currently receive.
Transfers 33,000 acres to two Indian tribes (where other
provisions of the Act would not apply), and designates 50,000
acres of special management and research areas to be co-managed
with Oregon State University (where management would have to
follow all of the Act's provisions).
Evaluation
This is a very complex bill that requires careful evaluation of its
pros and cons. Following are some key concerns about the bill, followed
by recommendations to address those concerns.
1. The bill would compromise the National Environmental
Policy Act by making it impossible to comply with the law's
requirements for site-specific evaluation of environmental
effects. Without a NEPA process for individual logging
projects, the bill would provide virtually no opportunity for
public involvement in management of the FEAs once the ten-year
comprehensive EISs were completed. The only opportunity for
project-level public involvement would be to file a lawsuit
challenging the consistency of a project with the 10-year EIS
Records of Decision. The bill also weakens NEPA by limiting the
number of alternatives and bypassing cumulative effects
analysis in the two comprehensive EISs.
Recommendation: Require evaluation, monitoring, and public
involvement in site-specific activities, along with a public
process to make course corrections during implementation of the
Records of Decision. Provide for a five-year scientific review
and potential revision of the comprehensive EISs and landscape
plans with opportunity for public input. (See also
Recommendations 5 and 6.) Do not limit the range of
alternatives or the analysis of cumulative impacts in the
comprehensive EISs.
2. The bill would compromise the Endangered Species Act by
requiring consultation only on the ten-year comprehensive EISs
and by imposing stringent deadlines to complete the
consultation process. While the bill would require a five-year
check on compliance with the ESA and whether to re-initiate
consultation on the EISs, the BLM would be able to bypass the
ESA consultation process normally required at the project
level. The bill also weakens the ESA by (1) giving the BLM the
final authority and last word on resolving any ESA disagreement
with FWS or NOAA; (2) allowing timber harvesting contrary to
the provisions of the ESA in marbled murrelet habitat (if such
harvesting was found to provide some forest ecosystem benefit)
or in northern spotted owl habitat (if it were deemed necessary
to respond to a severe threat from disease, insects or fire);
and (3) overriding a long-standing provision of the ESA which
prohibits federal agencies from making irreversible or
irretrievable commitments of resources during a reinitiated
consultation.
Recommendation: Consistent with Section 7 of the ESA, ensure
that U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or NOAA Fisheries have the
opportunity to consult on individual timber projects whenever a
project may adversely affect ESA-listed species. Do not weaken
the ESA conflict resolution process, provide loopholes for
logging of marbled murrelet or spotted owl habitat, or allow
activities ordinarily prohibited by ESA during reinitiated
consultation, or otherwise undermine bedrock requirements of
the ESA.
3. The bill would restrict public recourse to the courts.
Most troubling, it would effectively eliminate judicial review
of individual BLM logging projects, only permitting legal
claims that a project is not consistent with the Record of
Decision for one of the comprehensive EISs. The bill would also
impose strict time limits and alter normal rules governing
judicial review of the EISs. Judicial review has been
critically important in protecting Northwest federal forests
from harmful logging since the 1980s.
Recommendation: Apply the expedited judicial review
requirements in Section 106 of the Healthy Forest Restoration
Act to lawsuits challenging BLM logging projects. Do not limit
the types of legal claims that can be included in lawsuits.
4. The bill would remove protection from some of the
ecologically important late-successional forests that are
currently protected by the Northwest Forest Plan. Specifically,
several thousand acres of mature forests that are older than 80
years and currently are located in Late Successional Reserves
would be re-classified as FEAs and thereby become available for
logging under the Wyden bill. The bill does not protect mature
trees that are under 120 years old in moist forest FEAs and
that are under 150 years old in dry forest FEAs.
Recommendation: Include within the Legacy Old Growth
Protection Network (as replacement old growth) all mature
forests that are older than 80 years and located within
Northwest Forest Plan Late Successional Reserves.
5. The bill mandates the still-evolving usage of Ecological
Forestry principles as legally required management direction
for FEAs unless/until Congress changes the law. Some uses of
Ecological Forestry, such as the creation of early successional
habitat in moist forests, are relatively untested and likely to
pose significant management challenges. While the bill requires
an independent scientific review of implementation after 10
years (presumably including review of Ecological Forestry
effects), there is no mechanism to depart from the bill's
Ecological Forestry principles or other management direction
other than through Congressional enactment of additional
legislation.
Recommendation: Require the BLM to develop and use a science-
based adaptive management process that includes a mechanism for
administrative modifications to the management prescriptions
for the FEAs to improve ecological outcomes, with public
involvement and congressional oversight. Establish an
independent scientific panel to oversee implementation of the
process and allow the BLM to make changes in management based
on the panel's recommendations and consistent with ecological
principles at least every five years (without requiring an act
of Congress).
6. Similarly, the bill lacks a key element of a
scientifically-sound adaptive management framework--monitoring.
Without regular monitoring of the effects of Ecological
Forestry treatments on wildlife, streams, and other resources,
the BLM managers and independent reviewers will not have access
to adequate data to make informed decisions and
recommendations. The only monitoring direction specifically
provided by the bill focuses on the special management and
research areas to be co-managed by OSU. Even there, monitoring
is not assured since the bill lacks a dedicated funding
mechanism; thus, the special monitoring program would depend
largely on federal appropriations that are notoriously
inadequate and unreliable for monitoring.
Recommendation: As part of the required adaptive management
process, require the BLM to monitor all Ecological Forestry
projects and their cumulative effects. Require the BLM to use
at least $1 million of the funds made available under Section
201 to provide a dedicated funding source for project-level
monitoring.
7. The bill is unclear whether salvage logging of old-growth
forests would be permitted if the trees are killed by fire,
insects, or other causes. On the one hand, the bill appears to
allow salvage logging of spotted owl nest trees if they are
killed by natural disturbances (see Sec. 2(11)(B)(i)). However,
the bill does not exclude dead trees from its definition of old
growth, suggesting that salvage logging would generally not be
allowed (with a few exceptions such as for public safety (see
Sec. 102(d)(3)(C)). The absence of a clear prohibition on
salvage logging is sure to engender controversy in the future,
given the important role of large, dead trees in these
ecosystems.
Recommendation: Clearly prohibit salvage logging of old-
growth forests and spotted owl nest trees that have been killed
by fire, insects, or other causes.
8. The bill provides unprecedented authority for counties and
even individuals to cut and remove trees from the BLM's dry
forest FEA lands located adjacent to private lands. Counties
would be allowed to undertake fuel reduction treatments on
federal land within \1/4\ mile of a residence, while private
landowners could cut trees on federal land up to two feet in
diameter within 100 feet of their residences. Counties and
landowners would only have to give the BLM advance notice of
their activities; no BLM supervision, monitoring, or reporting
would be required.
Recommendation: Replace the problematic authorities in the
bill with ``good neighbor'' authority for the Oregon Department
of Forestry to perform fuel reduction work on BLM lands when
complementary work is taking place on adjacent non-federal
lands, as is currently done in Colorado and Utah national
forests. Require the BLM to supervise, monitor, and report on
any such work on BLM lands.
______
Statement of Earthjustice * Defenders of Wildlife * Sierra Club *
League of Conservation Voters * Natural Resources Defense Council * The
Wilderness Society * Environment America * Endangered Species Coalition
* Center for Biological Diversity * Grand Canyon Trust * San Juan
Citizens Alliance * Klamath Forest Alliance * Conservation Northwest *
Epic-Environmental Protection Information Center * Oregon Wild
oppose s. 1966, senator barrasso 's national forest logging bill
This bill mandates legislatively prescribed logging levels for each
National Forest across most of the western United States, while also
waiving or severely undermining compliance with federal environmental
laws and eliminating the public's ability to seek judicial review of
logging projects that may damage their communities. Legislative timber
harvest prescriptions are in direct contravention of the multiple use
mandate of the Forest Service, whose land managers must set out--
pursuant to locally and collaboratively-developed management plans--how
best to manage each individual forest for not only timber production,
but also the many vital benefits these lands provide, such as clean
drinking water, fish and wildlife habitat, and hunting, fishing,
hiking, and other recreational opportunities that support a multi-
billion dollar outdoor industry critically important to rural
communities and regional economies.
S. 1966 also strives to reinstate the discredited system of linking
logging to revenue for counties. This volatile and unreliable resource
extraction model was eliminated over a decade ago with the bipartisan
passage of the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination
Act of 2000 (otherwise known as ``Secure Rural Schools'' or ``SRS'').
S. 1966 could decimate our western National Forests for special
interests without addressing the true, long-term needs of rural
communities.
Just this past September, the Administration echoed these
sentiments when it issued a strong veto threat against similar national
forest legislation in House bill H.R. 1526. The September 18, 2013
Statement of Administration Policy made clear that the ``Administration
does not support specifying timber harvest levels in statute, which
does not take into account public input, environmental analyses,
multiple use management or ecosystem changes'' and that it strongly
opposes because of ``numerous harmful provisions that impair Federal
management of federally owned lands and undermines many important
existing public land and environmental laws, rules and processes,''
which could ``significantly harm sound long-term management of these
Federal lands for continued productivity and economic benefit as well
as for the long-term health of the wildlife and ecological values
sustained by these holdings.''\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/
legislative/sap/113/saphr1526r_20130918.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
bullet point summary
Sec. 4(a): Legislatively Prescribes Logging Levels
Mandates a minimum of 7.5 million acres be logged from
national forests in the West during a 15-year period and gives
the Secretary of Agriculture sole discretion to establish a
much higher level, including up to 25% of each unit's Emphasis
Areas. Final logging levels are almost completely immune from
review or challenge.Science not politics should dictate logging
levels, and the public should be able to weigh in on major
decisions like how many millions of acres of national forest
land can be logged across the west.
Authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to conduct logging
projects in ``Forest Management Emphasis Areas'' in each
National Forest unit west of the 100th meridian--this impacts
national forests in portions of North Dakota, South Dakota,
Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, and all national forests in
Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico, Washington, Oregon,
Idaho, California, Nevada, Utah, Arizona, and Alaska
``Emphasis Areas'' are defined as any national forest land
``identified as suitable for timber production in a forest
management plan in effect on the date of enactment''--forest
plans that are revised after the bill's enactment can only
reduce the number of acres designated as suitable for timber
harvest if the Secretary of Agriculture determines that it will
jeopardize an endangered species (section 4(d)). This provision
would completely bar the Forest Service from considering water
quality issues, pollution, climate change and other wildlife
aspects of forest health in determining logging levels.
Only areas that are excluded from ``Logging Emphasis Areas''
are designated wilderness and areas where removal of vegetation
is specifically prohibited by federal law--exemptions do not
include wilderness study areas, old growth, or other
conservation lands, including ecologically sensitive areas
unsuitable for harvest that aren't reflected in yet-to-be-
updated forest management plan
Within 60 days of enactment, Secretary must assign logging
requirements (referred to as ``acreage treatment
requirements'') that covers up to 25% for each Emphasis Area
Limits Stewardship and Service contracts, as the bill
requires that logging projects must be carried out primarily
pursuant to the timber sale contracting provision of the
National Forest Management Act (16 U.S.C. 472a)--if different
contracting methods are used, such as stewardship contracting,
the USDA Secretary must provide a written record specifying the
reasons
In direct contravention of the National Forest Management
Act's requirement that designation, marking, and supervision of
harvesting of trees must be conducted by USDA employees in
order to avoid having a conflict of interest in the purchase or
harvest of such products (see 16 U.S.C. 472a(g)), the bill
allows the Secretary to designate this authority to outside
parties such as the timber industry
Sec. 4(b): Limits Environmental Review and Public Participation
Secretary shall comply with NEPA by only completing an
Environmental Assessment (EA), even if a more comprehensive
review and an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) are
warranted
EA only has to disclose and analyze the direct effects of
each covered project (barred from analyzing the cumulative
impacts or indirect effects of covered projects for that
national forest unit)
EA is also not required to study or describe more than the
proposed action and 1 additional alternative
EA can't exceed 100 pages in length and must be completed
within 180 days of published notice of logging project
Secretary must provide public notice of a covered project
and allow opportunity for public comment--no time period is
given but given that EA must be completed within 180 days of
public notice, comment period will presumably be very short
Sec. 4(c): Waives ESA Consultation
Rather than having to comply with ESA's section 7
requirements to consult with expert wildlife officials from the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the bill requires USDA to only
consult within its own staff on the Forest Service to make
potential wildlife jeopardy determinations resulting from
covered logging projects
This ``self-consultation'' is not consultation at all and
essentially waives compliance with the ESA
USDA is also given authority to make jeopardy determinations
regarding timber harvest levels--while the bill does call for
consultation with DOI on this one issue (see section 4(d)), it
appears to move the determination about jeopardy to USDA, a
complete shift from current practice and wholly contrary to
ESA's requirements that call for US FWS to make the
determination as to when something will or will not jeopardize
an endangered species
Sec. 5: Eliminates Judicial Review and Sets up Biased Arbitration
Process
Citizens can only seek administrative review of a covered
project pursuant to the limited administrative review process
under section 105 of the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of
2003
Public's ability to seek judicial review of harmful logging
projects is waived
Instead, a special arbitration process (that must be
completed within 90 days) is the ``sole means'' by which to
challenge a decision made following the special administrative
review process
Request for arbitration must be filed within 30 days after
the administrative review decision is issued and objector must
include a proposal containing changes sought to the covered
project (changes could include making the project larger and
more damaging)
Arbitration process would allow anyone who submitted a
public comment on the project to intervene in the arbitration
by submitting a proposal supporting or modifying the covered
project (which could include making the project larger and more
damaging) within 30 days of arbitration request
United States District Court in the district where project
is located must appoint the arbitrator
Arbitrator cannot modify any of the proposals submitted
under this section and must select a proposal submitted by the
objector or an intervening party--arbitrator must select the
proposal that best meets the purpose and needs described in the
Environmental Assessment for the project (which biases the
decision toward the proposal that allows the logging project or
even a potentially more harmful project to be carried out)
Arbitrator's decision is binding, shall not be subject to
judicial review, and shall not be considered a major Federal
action (which would foreclose additional NEPA review even if an
objector or intervenor's new proposal is selected that has
additional impacts not previously analyzed and disclosed in the
Environmental Assessment for the original project)
Sec. 6: Sets up Revenue Sharing System Linked to Commodity Extraction
Provides that 25% of the revenues derived from covered
projects will be distributed to counties
Reestablishes the discredited 25 percent revenue sharing
system that was eliminated over a decade ago with the creation
of Secure Rural Schools (SRS) program, which provides direct
payments to counties without linking to timber receipts
Allows some counties to ``double dip'' since in addition to
the 25% revenue sharing payments that counties would receive
from covered projects under S. 1966, some counties would still
also receive their payments under the Twenty-Five Percent Fund
Act of 1908
why we oppose s. 1966
Institutes Lawless Logging.--This bill replaces judges with
arbitrators who are prohibited from considering whether a project
complies with the law. An arbitrator can only confirm or adopt a
proposal based solely on compliance with the announced purpose and need
for logging. As under the notorious 1995 supplemental appropriations'
Salvage Rider (applicable through Dec. 1996), timber sales would not be
required to comply with bedrock protections of the public interest,
including the National Environmental Policy Act, the Endangered Species
Act, and years of locally and collaboratively developed land management
plans under the National Forest Management Act.
Eliminates Environmental Safeguards.--This bill also specifically
attacks the informed public engagement and improved government
decision-making promoted by NEPA. No matter how large, controversial,
or damaging a logging proposal, it could only be reviewed in an
environmental assessment--a document valid only for projects that do
not have significant impacts--and only in a drastically cramped
timeframe and without regard to most, if not all, reasonable
alternatives to the agency's proposal. Moreover, the bill sets the
stage for future endangered species' crises by relegating review of ESA
issues to a meaningless self-consultation process, shutting out the
government's own expert wildlife agencies.
Damages Watersheds and Pollute Drinking Water.--Industrialization
of public lands will damage watersheds and pollute drinking water,
putting our drinking water supply at risk, as over 50% of fresh water
supplies in the West come from federal forests. Intensive logging and
other extractive practices dumps sediment into rivers, which can
increase costs for local water utilities, cause erosion, and can alter
the timing of water availability.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Restoring watersheds where possible from destructive logging
can cost taxpayers--including counties--hundreds of millions of dollars
a year in lost revenues and vital ecosystem services. For example, in
1996, Salem, Oregon was forced to spend nearly $100 million on new
water treatment facilities after logging fouled the Santiam River with
mud and silt. Salem is not alone; up to 124 million people nationwide
receive drinking water from national forest watersheds, with an
estimated $4 to $27 billion annual value.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Harms Businesses and Jobs that Depend on Functioning Forests.--The
outdoor recreation industry directly supports 6.1 million jobs and
contributes over $646 billion annually to the US economy, including
$39.7 billion to state/local revenues.\3\ Damaging these resources will
directly impact outdoor-related businesses that generate revenue for
counties and employ a range of skilled workers including sport and
commercial fisherman, hunters, and anglers. The U.S. Forest Service's
most recent annual visitor survey showed that national forests
attracted 166 million visitors in 2011, and that visitor spending in
nearby communities sustained more than 200,000 full-and part-time jobs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Outdoor Industry Association, THE OUTDOOR RECREATION ECONOMY
(2012), available athttp://www.outdoorindustry.org/images/
researchfiles/OIA_OutdoorRecEconomyReport2012.pdf?167.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Liquidates our Natural Heritage and is the Wrong Approach to
Address County Funding.--We understand and sympathize with the tight
budgets that many local governments are facing. However, this
shortsighted proposal may cost taxpayers more than the revenue it
generates and result in counties receiving smaller payments while also
decimating the public forest land that communities rely on. It would
reestablish the discredited county revenue sharing scheme that was
eliminated over a decade ago because of its disastrous economic and
ecological impacts. It also abandons our nation's vision of and
commitment to a strong system of national safeguards to preserve
America's natural heritage.
Economics Don't Make Sense.--Increased federal expenditures may be
required in order for the Forest Service to comply with and implement
the bill's requirements to offer for harvest up to 25% of each National
Forest's ``Logging Emphasis Areas.'' Moreover, it fails to provide a
long-term, sustainable funding solution for our rural communities, and
will likely result in counties receiving far less in annual payments
than they have received under the Secure Rural Schools program, the
current law that provides direct payments to counties without mandated
logging requirements. The CBO score on the similar House bill H.R.
1526--which also required that 25% percent of timber revenues be
distributed to counties (from the bill's higher logging mandate of at
least 50% of forest areas each year)--confirmed that such payments
would average just over $50 million annually, which is far less than
the approximately $350 million/year that counties have received
annually under SRS.\4\ You simply cannot cut enough to make up for what
the counties are receiving now under SRS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/
attachments/hr1526.pdf. Moreover, the previous iteration of H.R. 1526
(H.R. 4019, 112th Congress) would have resulted in over half of the
states receiving less revenue share payments as compared to their
payments under the Secure Rural Schools Act even while having to
decimate their National Forests with substantially increased levels of
logging. For example, New Mexico's national forests would have had to
increase logging by 1219% from 2010 cut levels to meet H.R. 4019's
revenue target but would havereceived 75% less in funding. Similar
results exist for Utah, Colorado, Nevada, and a number of other
states.Headwaters Economics, CAN MANDATED TIMBER HARVESTS SAVE COUNTY
PAYMENTS? AN ANALYSIS OF THE DRAFT FEDERAL FOREST COUNTY REVENUE,
SCHOOLS, AND JOBS ACT 3, 7 (Feb. 16, 2012), available at http://
headwaterseconomics.org/wphw/wp-content/uploads/
CountyPayments_House_Analysis_Feb2012.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
______
Statement of Michael Anderson, Senior Resource Analyst, The Wilderness
Society
I am writing in response to a critical statement that you made
about The Wilderness Society's written testimony during the February 6
hearing of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources on S. 1966, the
National Forest Jobs and Management Act of 2014. Specifically, you
stated that The Wilderness Society was spreading ``misinformation''
about S. 1966 by incorrectly claiming that the bill would require
logging across ``tens of millions of acres'' when in fact the bill
would only require logging of 7.5 million acres.
To clarify, our testimony correctly states that S. 1966 would
require logging of 7.5 million acres located within approximately 47
million acres of designated ``Forest Management Emphasis Areas.'' The
statement in the conclusion of our testimony that the bill ``would
require a massive increase in logging and other mechanical treatments
across tens of millions of acres of national forest land in the West''
was referring to the 47 million acres of Forest Management Emphasis
Areas, not the 7.5 million acres that are specifically required to be
treated.
Thank you bringing this issue to our attention, and we look forward
to working with you and others on the committee to develop national
forest legislation that addresses the needs of the forests and society.
______
I am writing in response to a critical statement that you made
about The Wilderness Society's written testimony during the February 6
hearing of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources on S. 1966, the
National Forest Jobs and Management Act of 2014. Specifically, you
stated that The Wilderness Society was spreading ``misinformation''
about S. 1966 by incorrectly claiming that the bill would require
logging across ``tens of millions of acres'' when in fact the bill
would only require logging of 7.5 million acres.
To clarify, our testimony correctly states that S. 1966 would
require logging of 7.5 million acres located within approximately 47
million acres of designated ``Forest Management Emphasis Areas.'' The
statement in the conclusion of our testimony that the bill ``would
require a massive increase in logging and other mechanical treatments
across tens of millions of acres of national forest land in the West''
was referring to the 47 million acres of Forest Management Emphasis
Areas, not the 7.5 million acres that are specifically required to be
treated.
Thank you bringing this issue to our attention, and we look forward
to working with you and others on the committee to develop national
forest legislation that addresses the needs of the forests and society.
______
Statement of Jim D. Neiman, Vice President/CEO, Neiman Enterprises, Inc
Thank you for this opportunity to submit comments on S. 1966, ``The
National Forest Jobs and Management Bill''.
Neiman Enterprises owns 4 sawmills and a pellet plant within the
Forest Service's Rocky Mountain Region, i.e., Colorado, South Dakota
and Wyoming. We are a family business and are proud of recently
celebrating our 78th year in business. We set high standards for our
work, and have successfully undertaken the process to become a
Certified Participant in the Sustainable Forestry Initiative, which
means our operations are audited every three years against a set of
rigorous standards. We employ almost 500 people, plus we contract with
approximately 230 independent logging and trucking contractors. We
depend very heavily on timber from the national forests for our supply
of raw materials. Finally, I was recently honored to be selected by
Governor Mead to participate and to serve as co-chair of the Wyoming
Forest Task Force.
I am delighted that Senator Barrasso has introduced S. 1966 and am
pleased to offer my full support for the bill. S. 1966 will not change
any of the decisions already made in the forest plans. What S. 1966
will do is increase the Forest Service's ability to implement those
decisions faster and more efficiently. S. 1966 will help increase the
pace and scale of management, improve the health of the national
forests, strengthen rural communities by providing opportunities for
new jobs and economic diversity, improve the quality and diversity of
wildlife habitat, and reduce the potential for devastating insect
epidemics and fires, and the degraded water quality and other resource
damage associated with catastrophic fires. Too often, naysayers hold up
recreation and timber management as diametrically opposed; that does
not match what I've seen over the last 50 years, especially in the
Black Hills NF, where timber management co-exists with thriving
wildlife populations, tremendous outdoor recreation opportunities, and
other multiple use programs.
Only 21% of the national forest lands in the Rocky Mountain Region
(excluding the Nebraska NF and the various national grasslands) have
been designated as suited timberlands in the forest plans. For
comparison, 24% of the national forest lands in the Rocky Mountain
Region are designated Wilderness. In FY 13, the total number of acres
harvested in the entire 193 million acres of the National Forest System
was 209,289 acres, nowhere near the level of harvest necessary to begin
to address the forest health and long-term management needs of the
national forests. For a Wyoming example, the 3.4 million acre Bridger
Teton NF has 279,000 acres of suited timberlands; however, during the
past 5 years, there were only 792 acres of timber harvest, an average
of 158 acres per year, on the entire Forest.
According to the Forest Service, between 65 and 82 million acres of
national forest lands are in need of treatment to address forest health
challenges such as insect epidemics and the risk of catastrophic fire.
Just last month, the Forest Service released the 2013-2027 National
Forest Insect and Disease Assessment, which predicted that without
remediation, 25% or more of standing live basal area will die on 71.7
million forested acres over the next 15 years due to insects and
diseases.
In a cruel irony, the very companies that could be used to restore
these forests are suffering from a lack of access to timber. The forest
products industry in the Rocky Mountain Region is comprised of private
and family owned timber businesses. These businesses rely heavily on
federal forests for their supply of logs. Even though the Region
includes 7 million acres of infested, dying and dead forests needing
critical management, the amount of timber acreage the Forest Service is
able to sell falls far short of the 52,000 acres that we, as an
industry, need to survive. In the midst of the worst ecological crisis
facing our forests, where active forest management is desperately
needed, our industry is facing a very real potential for failures and
shutdowns.
Part of the reason the current bark beetle epidemics have been so
devastating in the Rocky Mountain Region is that the Forest Service was
unable to complete NEPA analysis and sale layout before the bark
beetles had moved through the analysis areas, devastated the forests,
and moved on to new areas. I strongly support S. 1966 as a means of
reducing the Forest Service's costs, shortening their timelines, and
making them more efficient in order to increase the pace and scale of
national forest management and restoration. I urge the Committee and
the Congress to promptly consider and pass this important and timely
bill.
Thank you for your consideration.
______
Statement of National Wild Turkey Federation, Edgefield, SC
The National Wild Turkey Federation would like to commend you for
your introduction of the National Forest Jobs and Management Act of
2014. As the lead conservation organization for the preservation of
upland habitat, we are supportive of your efforts to increase active
forest management on our nation's National Forests. Timber harvest and
the associated positive benefits to wildlife have been underutilized in
recent decades. The National Forest Jobs and Management Act of 2014
(NFJMA) will serve to streamline project planning and the
implementation process to provide wildlife management on the ground in
a more efficient manner. Active forest management--including thinning,
prescribed burning, and other management tools--is key to forest
health, and is necessary for producing suitable wildlife habitat.
NWTF is supportive of the legislation, but we believe it would be
more useful and comprehensive if the bill were amended to delete
Section 3(4)(B)(ii) from the proposed draft. This section excludes
National Forests east of the 100th meridian from the innovative project
planning processes outlined in NFJMA. Like western forests, eastern
National Forests are in desperate need of commercial timber harvest to
create young forest habitats that are critical to a wide variety of
both game and non-game species. We respectfully request your
consideration of that change.
Thank you again for introducing this important legislation and for
providing NWTF the opportunity to provide comment.
______
Statement of Adam Cramer, Executive Director, Outdoor Alliance
Outdoor Alliance is a coalition of five national, member-based
organizations representing the human powered outdoor recreation
community. The coalition includes Access Fund, American Canoe
Association, American Whitewater, International Mountain Bicycling
Association, and Winter Wildlands Alliance and represents the interests
of the millions of Americans who paddle, climb, mountain bike, and
backcountry ski and snowshoe on our nation's public lands, waters, and
snowscapes. Many of these people have located their homes, families,
and businesses near US Forest Service lands specifically for the
abundant and predictable recreational opportunities offered by those
multi-use lands.
It is with this lens that we view Senate Bill 1966, the ``National
Forest Jobs and Management Act.'' S.1966 would legally require
significantly more timber harvest than currently occurs, with limited
analysis and opportunities for review. We feel that this bill would
impact human-powered recreation and related businesses in the following
ways:
The geographical footprint of this bill would upset the
current balance between recreation, timber harvest,
conservation, and other multiple use values. The bill would
mandate logging on 2.5 times more US Forest Service land than
is currently logged. These multi-use areas are home to high
quality mountain biking, paddling, backcountry skiing and
climbing opportunities that could be degraded by road building
and other timber harvest related activities.
The increase in mandatory logging would require staffing and
budgets be shifted away from recreational projects like trail
building, river access area construction, monitoring, and the
creation of modern management plans. These types of projects
provide significant benefits to visitors and regional
economies, and the US Forest Service already struggles to take
advantage of these opportunities without the added workload of
S.1966.
S.1966 short-cuts portions of the National Environmental
Policy Act process that are vital to protecting recreational
values on National Forests. First, limiting the scope of
analysis to ``direct effects'' overlooks indirect and
cumulative impacts that can significantly diminish the
recreational values of an area. Second, limiting the scope of
analysis to only two alternatives could and likely would
exclude nuanced solutions that maintain multiple values
including recreation and timber harvest.
S.1966 takes away a meaningful appeal and litigation
opportunity that is needed to protect businesses and the
quality of life in gateway communities. Logging projects that
destroy or diminish significant recreational assets could be
allowed or even required under S.1966. Commercial outfitters,
local gear stores, and recreational enthusiasts that are
impacted by these proposed projects would have an arbitration
process significantly weighted against them rather than the
more objective hard look of an administrative appeal. If and
when they lose in arbitration, legal recourse is significantly
diminished by S.1966.
Our organization does not oppose logging on multiple use lands, and
we recognize and appreciate the diverse values our National Forests can
bring to our citizens. The Forest Service has a tough job ensuring that
multiple and very important uses and benefits are maintained, not the
least of which is the delivery of clean drinking water, conservation of
fish and wildlife, provision of outdoor recreation, and the harvest of
forest products. The Forest Service attempts to balance these uses, and
S.1966 would upset that balance and give one competing use an unfair
and unnecessary advantage. The result would almost certainly be impacts
to recreation and other valuable uses.
I hope you will take into account the impacts of S. 1966 on the
millions of Americans who have centered their lives and businesses
around skiing, mountain biking, paddling, and climbing on National
Forest lands.
______
Statement of Steven K. Kline, Director of Government Relations,
Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership
The Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership (TRCP) is a
national sportsmen's conservation organization working to guarantee all
Americans quality places to hunt and fish. We are writing to express
concern about S. 1966, the National Forest Jobs and Management Act. We
cannot support this legislation as proposed, but we are open to
considering ways to improve the management of America's national
forests.
The TRCP supports active management projects on our national
forests, and we believe that it is strategically important for
America's sawmill infrastructure to be maintained. We do not, however,
support the approach that is proposed in S. 1966 to address America's
national forest management issues.
Scaled and sited appropriately, an increase in mechanical treatment
on our national forests can meet four important goals: provide a supply
of timber, improve fish and wildlife habitat, protect communities from
wildfire and enhance ecosystem function and resiliency. S. 1966,
however, emphasizes only one of those four goals.
S. 1966 would require the Forest Service to increase timber harvest
significantly, going so far as to mandate acreage requirements and a
specific timeframe. However, this increase in timber production would
be required without any significant increases in funding to the US
Forest Service. Given that the agency currently faces an incredibly
tight budget, this mandate would shift dollars away from other critical
forest management activities.
The legislation also includes a dramatically scaled-back National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review process for proposed Forest
Management Emphasis Areas. TRCP understands that the NEPA process has,
in some cases, been a barrier to legitimate timber harvest, but changes
to the NEPA review process should not be considered lightly.
While we do not support many of the specifics in this legislation,
the TRCP does recognize the need to increase active management
activities on America's national forests. The current paradigm works
for no one, and solutions are necessary. We are ready and willing to
participate in further discussions about this important issue and
identifying ways to improve the management and health of our national
forests.
______
Statement of Lisa McGee, Staff Attorney and Program
Director, Lander, WY
On behalf of the Wyoming Outdoor Council, I appreciate the
opportunity to offer written testimony regarding Senator Barrasso's
Senate Bill 1966, the ``National Forest Jobs and Management Bill.''
Founded in 1967, the Outdoor Council is the state's oldest independent
conservation organization. We work to protect Wyoming's environment and
quality of life for future generations. Our goal is to develop
productive and lasting solutions for managing natural resources through
collaborative engagement with stakeholders and decision makers.
Senator Barrasso's bill came as a surprise to many in Wyoming and
in particular to some of us who have been asked to serve on Governor
Matt Mead's Forest Task Force. As co-chair of this Task Force, I have
been charged with leading a collaborative process, the goal of which is
to achieve consensus recommendations regarding forest management
through the engagement, contribution, and participation of a diverse
group of stakeholders.
In contrast to the efforts of the Task Force to work from the
``ground-up'' and to ensure our recommendations respect the myriad
multiple uses on the national forests in Wyoming, SB 1966 would appear
to mandate a ``top-down'' approach, one that would prioritize one use
above all others.
As I understand it, SB 1966 would require the Forest Service to
undertake commercial logging and other mechanical treatments on at
least 7.5 million acres of national forest land over a 15-year period.
This amounts to an annual average of 500,000 acres per year--more than
doubling the number of acres currently treated. The bill also creates
an unfunded mandate to achieve this target with the result that the
Forest Service would be required to divert already scarce resources
away from its multiple-use management activities and obligations.
Not only is the bill's timber harvest mandate potentially damaging
to forest resources, it is also unlikely to result in a net increase in
jobs. SB 1966 fails to acknowledge current economic drivers in Wyoming
and other western states. In Wyoming alone, tourism and recreation are
multi-billion dollar industries, second only to mineral development.
This bill threatens to damage established and sustainable jobs that
rely on the Forest Service's multiple use mandate. Many of the national
forests in Wyoming--particularly the Bridger-Teton and Shoshone in the
greater Yellowstone area--already create and sustain diverse and
lasting employment opportunities.
Responsible timber harvest is a valid use on our national forest
lands. Prioritizing this one use and single industry, however, at the
potential expense of other resources, values, uses and industries as SB
1966 does, is problematic. Although there may be opportunities for
small sawmills to re-establish themselves in communities surrounding
the national forests in Wyoming, this should not result from a broad-
brush congressional mandate to increase logging. Improvements to forest
management are best achieved on a forest-by-forest basis and with the
participation of local communities and diverse stakeholders.
I urge the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee to reject
this bill. Thank you for your consideration.
[all]