[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 7 (Wednesday, February 2, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: February 2, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                  SECRET VETO POWER OVER TIMBER SALES

  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, when a new administration comes to town, I 
think it is confronted with new problems and challenges that it 
inherits from old administrations. Certainly, the Clinton 
administration is no exception. I think it is incumbent on all of us, 
as Senators and Representatives from our States, to try to work with 
this administration to solve those problems that are ongoing or that 
may well be inherited.
  I think the same is true of new managers or chiefs. Unfortunately, 
the new Chief of the U.S. Forest Service may be no exception.
  Only weeks into his job, Jack Ward Thomas, who comes to that job as a 
noted biologist, having done excellent work before as an employee of 
the U.S. Forest Service, is faced with some revelations that Forest 
Service staff in the Northwest may have been instructed to give a 
national preservation group and lobbying group--the Natural Resource 
Defense Council--a secret veto power over timber sales.
  Internal Government memos, which I have with me and that have been 
provided to me, show a pattern of consultation between the Forest 
Service and the NRDC. This occurred on at least 10 different timber 
sales.
  The memos refer to some sales as ``released by NRDC'' or ``not 
released by NRDC.'' This suggests that the NRDC may have been given the 
exclusive right to secretly modify details on particular sales. At 
least one memo listed a timber sale as needing review by NRDC 
representatives.
  I am not going to recite the whole paper trail, Mr. President, 
because it is extensive. Some of it has already been reported by the 
Associate Press.
  I am only going to have one thing to say: If it were preservationist 
groups or major timber companies given this unique and exclusive 
privilege, it is no question, in my opinion, if these documents are 
valid, that they are outside of the law and they must be corrected.
  Yesterday, in a phone call with our new Chief of the Forest Service, 
Jack Ward Thomas, I presented him with this situation, presented him 
with the documents and a cover letter, and asked him to begin an 
immediate investigation.
  While we know things are very difficult in region 6, with the spotted 
owl issue and trying to even out the question of timber supply and the 
jobs and the environment, nowhere can we tolerate nor can we allow 
Government officials to allow any interest group to move outside the 
law in determining public policy. It must always be an open and public 
forum and that process is outlined clearly within the law.
  So this is why I bring to the floor this very important issue as it 
was submitted to our Chief yesterday.
  I ask unanimous consent that the documents be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

     Natural Resource Defense Council [NRDC] Involvement in Timber 
              Management in Region 6 of the Forest Service

       As part of the concern over salmon, NRDC said that the 
     Forest Plans were inadequate to make decisions. The Forest 
     Service immediately capitulated-there was no law suit only a 
     threat. In the capitulation it appears that the Forest 
     Service essentially gave the NRDC the unilateral right to 
     review timber sales, including on the ground review, and if 
     the NRDC viewed it necessary they could either stop a sale of 
     reduce its volume. This process is being referred to as the 
     screening process. There was no opportunity to increase 
     volume only decrease.
       Only the NRDC did this review. The obvious question is why 
     isn't this a public process that involves all the parties 
     concerned not just NRDC? The Forest Service appears to be 
     giving its authority to NRDC.
       Attached is documentation that appears to show the F.S. is 
     not following the Administrative Procedures Act or the 
     National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The question to be 
     asked of Thomas is why is this going on and by what 
     authority?
       Enclosures.
                                  ____


                    How a Timber Sale Should Proceed


                        step 1. district ranger

       Prepares timber sale according to approved Forest Plan 
     requirements.
       Forwards timber sale to Forest Supervisor for review and 
     approval.


                       step 2. forest supervisor

       Reviews timber sale to insure it meets Forest Plan 
     Requirements.
       Returns to Ranger for offering or directs modifications be 
     made.


                       step 3. regional forester

       In some cases approval is required.
                                  ____


                 How Sales Now Proceed In the Northwest


                        step 1. district ranger

       Prepares timber sale.
       Meets goals of Forest Plan.
       Forwards to Forest Supervisor for Review.


                       step 2. forest supervisor

       Reviews timber sale.
       Checks that sale meets Forest Plan.
       Adds screens from Option 9 for ESA/Old Growth. Note that 
     Option 9 is not in the plan.
       Forwards to Natural Resoruces Defense Council (NRDC) for 
     review. NRDC modifies only to lessen volume. This is also not 
     in the plan and is illegal.


                              step 3. nrdc

       Reviews Forest Supervisor's proposed sale.
       NRDC field staff reviews sale.
       NRDC forwards sale to Regional Forester with approval for 
     with modifications.


                       step 4. regional forester

       Reviews modifications and concerns.
       Timber sale returned to District Ranger for offering.
                                  ____


                   Eastside Cut Loss Put at One-third

                  [From the Oregonian, Aug. 24, 1993]

                           (By Linda Ashton)

       Spokane.--A federal plan to make national forests healthier 
     in Eastern Oregon and Eastern Washington also could reduce 
     the timber harvest by one-third, an assistant secretary of 
     agriculture said Monday.
       No decision has been made on the possibility of economic 
     aid to timber communities affected by such a reduction, said 
     Jim Lyons, assistant secretary for natural resources and 
     environment.
       ``We need to ensure productivity of the forests for 
     whatever the public demands in the future,'' Lyons said at a 
     news conference here.
       Under the plan, the U.S. Forest Service will shift to an 
     ecosystem-based form of management focusing on whole parcels 
     of land, such as watersheds, rather than on a single 
     resource.
       Long-range plans include establishing a scientific panel to 
     consider the future of east-side forests and determine how 
     best to get them healthy and keep them that way. The team 
     would be based in Spokane or Walla Walla, Lyons said.
       The volume of timber to be harvested from the dry, piney 
     woods of Eastern Oregon and Washington has yet to be 
     determined. A rough estimate, Lyons said, will be a one-third 
     reduction in the $60 million board feet cut in 1960.
       Last year, only about 500 million board feet of timber were 
     sold from national forests on the east side of the two 
     states, said John Lowe, a Portland, Oregon-based regional 
     forester for the U.S. Forest Service.
       The changes in policy come at least partially under the 
     threat of a lawsuit challenging Forest Service management 
     practices from the Natural Resources Defense Council, Lyons 
     said.
       The process is one of adjusting to not only the realities 
     of the forest but to the legal realities in terms of possible 
     lawsuits,'' said U.S. House Speaker Tom Foley, D-Wash., who 
     also appeared at the news conference.
       The entire federal timber program in Eastern Washington and 
     Eastern Oregon could be shut down by court order if a lawsuit 
     was making its way through the legal system, Foley said.
                                  ____


      Listing of Sales With Additional Concerns--November 22, 1993


                                Colville

       Hoki
       Tom
       Deer
       Thonboy
       Thompson
       Elbow
       Parker
       Graham
       Spock
       Kalard
       Long Snake
       Leola Sullivan
       Whitman
       Lost Tiger


                               Deschutes

       Nona


                                Fremont

       Tadpole
       Claws


                                Malbaur

       Fawn
       Forks
       Blade
       Hog Flat
       Driveaway
       Cove
       Tin Can
       Myrtle Park
       Leek
       VV
       Blast
       Mosay/Pard


                                 Ochoco

       Howie
       Harpo
       Shown
       Boundary


                                Okanogan

       Dragon
       Nicholson
       Little Bonaparte


                                Umatilla

       Cold Salvage
       Main Salvage


                            Wallowa-Whitman

       None
                                  ____


                     Message Scan for William Fish

     To: A. Mason: OOL
     CC: S. Skakel: DES
     CC: R. Williams: FRE
     CC: R. Perkins: R06F04A
     CC: B. Fish: OCH
     CC: J. Sanchez: OKA
     CC: P. Kline: UMA
     CC: S. Rainville: WAW
     CC: J. Schuler
     CC: T. Rogan

     From: Jim Schuler: R6/PNW
     Postmark: Nov 22, 93 10:17 AM
     Status: Previously read
     Subject: Sales needing work
       Comments: Attached is a listing of sales that we were not 
     able to reach agreement with NRDO on to proceed. The problems 
     may be related to modifications needed to meet the screens or 
     may be a communication problem that still needs to be 
     corrected if the sale meets the screens. You should take the 
     initiative to determine what the remaining issues are and 
     resolve them if possible. This listing DOES NOT include those 
     sales for which NRDC has not completed a review. If it occurs 
     on this list it HAS been reviewed and issues remain to be 
     resolved. If you have questions please call Tim Rogan or Jim 
     Schuler.
                                  ____

     To: A. Coray
     To: G. Chesley
     CC: Screen Team
     CC: Mike
     CC: D. Summer
     CC: J. Cruz
     CC: S. Collins
     CC: Walt
     CC: Phil
     CC: T. Rogan: R06A
     CC: D. Parazoo
     CC: W. Holland
     CC: J. Schuler: R06A
     CC: R. Devlin: R060

     From: Susan G. Skakel
     Postmark: 15 Nov 93 14:07
     Status: Previously read
     Subject: Forwarded: Reply to: Snowcone & Contorta LP
       Comments: From: Susan G. Skakel: R06P01A; Date: 15 Nov 93 
     14:07.
       See attached message from Tim Rogan. This is our official 
     green light to proceed with Dry Firestone Misc. Piles on Ft 
     Rock RD. This will allow us to award the service contract 
     associated with this sale.
       I spoke with Tim Rogan about our other FY 93 sales that 
     have yet to be released from the RO. The RF was expecting a 
     letter from NRDC last Wednesday, listing sales they were in 
     agreement with us on. The letter has not come yet, but Tim 
     hopes to be in touch with NRDC San Francisco either by 
     calling them or receiving the letter, sometime this week. Tim 
     expects that we will be given the ok to proceed with all 
     sales we are in agreement on. Sales we have not reached 
     agreement on with NRDC will probably be reviewed by a 
     Regional Office review team before we are given the ok to 
     proceed. Tim has FY 94 screening direction nearly finalized 
     in a letter that should be signed and sent to us later this 
     week. Mike Gerdes work on LPP has been incorporated into the 
     FY 94 screening direction. Susan PS--Tim said the Deschutes 
     is doing a great job with screening and working with our 
     local NRDC folks. At Tim's request and mine, please pass on 
     this compliment to the district folks who are making this 
     happen. SS
       Previous comments: From: Tim C. Rogan: R6/FNW; Date: 15 Nov 
     93 12:59.
       Susan, Jim and I got together and both agree Porast can go 
     ahead with Dry Firestone (Piles). A similar situation with R/
     W Decks came up.
                                  ____


           Confidential Subject to Attorney/Client Privilege

                                                 November 4, 1993.
     Scott M. Farley,
     U.S. Department of Justice, Environment and Natural Resources 
         Division, General Litigation Section, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Farley: The Preliminary Screening Results Chart of 
     Fiscal Year 1993 sales sent to C. Matt Anderson on October 1, 
     1992 showed sale modifications as a result of screening. The 
     intent of the Forest is to follow Regional direction and meet 
     with representatives of National Resource Defense Council for 
     further modification that may be needed. No additional volume 
     will be added to sales that are listed. Any modifications 
     made as a result of meetings with NRDC representatives or 
     screening will result in further reductions of volume. Until 
     the Eastside Assessment strategy is completed, no additions 
     or new volume will be added back into these existing sale 
     plans as modified.
                                                Edward L. Schultz,
                                                Forest Supervisor.
                                  
                                  ____


                    Eastside Timber Sale Review Form

       Forest: ________
       Ranger District: ________
       Sale Name: ________
       Sale Units: ________
       1. Is the area potentially important for old growth 
     associated species? Yes ____; No ____. If yes, please 
     indicate why:
       ____ The area has a significant number of large trees and 
     other old growth characteristics (Please explain on next 
     page, on the back or on separate sheets):
       The following species have been observed in the sale area 
     (Please circle and explain): pileated woodpecker, goshawk, 
     marten, fisher, three-toed woodpecker, black-backed 
     woodpecker, white-headed woodpecker, Vaux's swift.
       The area was mapped as mature/old growth by the following 
     and has not subsequently been logged:
       ____ Audubon ____ Forest Service ____ Scientific Soc.
       If no, does the area contain any live trees greater than 20 
     inches or 150 years that will be logged? ____ Yes ____ No. 
     Explain briefly:
       2.a. Generally described proposed (post-screening) logging 
     (check all applicable categories):
       ____ Clearcut or other even-aged cut.
       ____ Single tree or group selection cut.
       ____ Salvage sale (i.e., virtually no green trees will be 
     cut).
       ____ Large (>20 inches) green trees will be cut.
       ____ Large (>20 inches) green ponderosa pine/larch will be 
     cut.
       ____ Green ponderosa pine/larch will be cut (<20 inches)
       ____ Large (>13 inches) green lodgepole pine will be cut.
       ____ Large (>15 inches) snags will be cut.
       2.b. Describe sale in your own words (e.g., logging method, 
     species, size of trees, amount of green versus dead).
       3.a. Generally describe sale area (e.g., tree species, 
     number and size of live trees, number and size of snags, 
     canopy closure amount of large down wood).
       b. Generally describe surrounding area (e.g., old growth 
     young stands, nuked areas).
       c. Is the sale area part of a large block of old growth? Is 
     it important for connectivity between blocks? Explain.
       d. Is the sale within a roadless area? ____ Yes ____ No. If 
     yes, provide name, size, and brief description of area.
       4. Additional comments (use back or extra sheets if 
     needed):
       Reviewer's name: ____________
       Date: ________
                                  ____


          December 13, 1993 Meeting With NRDC Representatives

       To Forest Supervisor: I have enclosed the notes of my 
     December 13, 1993, meeting with NRDC representatives to 
     discuss concerns with the seven Burns Ranger District timber 
     sales the Regional Forester has not approved for sale. NRDC 
     representatives participating in the meeting were Ed Holder, 
     Linda Driscoll, Frazier Nichols and Tim Lillebo. Members of 
     my staff participating in the meeting were Rudy Hefter, Joan 
     Suther, Jim Knibbs, Dave Clayton and me.
       Ed could not give me any indication if he thought we had 
     met screen direction after we had finished responding to 
     their concerns and questions. No concerns or issues were 
     resolved at the end of the meeting. Ed stated that he should 
     be able to send his recommendations and information to NRDC 
     within two to three weeks of receiving the meeting notes and 
     the additional information we agreed to provide. Tim also 
     stated that we should not expect to see any recommendations 
     on which sales to go forward with until there has been a 
     field review of changes. I told him we do not plan on 
     reworking any of the sales until it has been determined the 
     sale will be sold. We suggested looking at other areas which 
     have been cut using similar silvicultural prescriptions and 
     be agreed that might be an option.
       Ed did say that the materials we had provided on each was 
     good and very helpful.
       The sales we discussed were Blade, Cove, Driveway, Tincan, 
     Hog Flat and Forks. We did not cover Myrtle Park because of 
     discrepancies in the mapping of the biophysical types that we 
     discovered while we were preparing for this meeting. Ed 
     stated that he did not have the time to review any small 
     salvage sales and that he would probably just send them on 
     with a recommendation for release.
                                                    James M. Pena,
                                                  District Ranger.
       Enclosure: 1.

                                   U.S. Department of Agriculture,


                                               Forest Service,

                                     Hines, OK, December 16, 1993.
     Ed Holder,
     Prairie City, OR.
       Dear Ed: This letter documents the concerns and responses 
     we exchanged at our meeting on December 13, 1993. I want to 
     provide them to you in writing to better check for 
     understanding and make sure I captured our discussion as 
     accurately as possible. I appreciate the time and effort 
     Fraser, Linda, Tim and you put into our meeting. I hope we 
     can continue to work together as smoothly in the future.
       I will cover general comments first then the sale-by-sale 
     discussions.
       I stated our objective for the meeting was to provide you 
     with additional information on sales or our application of 
     the screening direction which would hopefully resolve the 
     concerns NRDC has identified with the sales on the Burns 
     Ranger District. I asked for your assessment of how we 
     applied the screen direction in the 8/18/93 Regional 
     Forester's letter. You replied that you could not tell if we 
     had applied the screens appropriately because of a lack of 
     understanding of marking prescriptions, uncertainty of how we 
     developed the historical range of variation, inability to get 
     a handle on connectivity and concerns on how we identified 
     green tree replacements for snags and down woody debris.
       Later in the day you requested numerical values for the 
     number of green tree replacements that will be left in 
     harvest units. You would like to be able to compare what we 
     have to what you believe should be provided.
       We had a discussion on your comfort level on how we applied 
     the screens and what your recommendations would be on 
     specific sales. You stated that you could not provide us any 
     feedback at the meeting on our application of the screens or 
     if the information received resolved the concerns of NRDC. 
     You said you would need to analyze the information, see if 
     additional information is needed and provide a response at a 
     later date. Your best estimate for a response was two to 
     three weeks after you received these notes and the additional 
     maps and information we agreed to provide.
       You were concerned with references to 60 percent viable 
     population levels used in the riparian screen. You said that 
     the screen direction said or at least implied that the 100 
     percent level was to be used at all times. The reference for 
     the 60 percent level was found in item 61 of the screen 1 
     documentation. This direction is for use with substantially 
     completed sales, of which all of the sales we discussed are. 
     The direction is to use Forest Plan direction for * * * 
     completed sales, which we did. The sequential application 
     of the * * * results in providing the 100 percent level.
       All goshawk nests in the six sales we reviewed have the 30 
     acre no cut nest site set aside and a 600 acre post 
     fledgeling area designated. The pest fledgeling areas have 
     been designated in late middle, late and old structural stage 
     stands.
       Tim said at one point that we should not expect to see any 
     recommendations to release any sales before they had a chance 
     to look at sales on the ground again.


                           blade timber sale

       Concern: Why was Unit 46 not deferred for goshawk 
     protection?
       Response: The harvest prescription was determined to result 
     in enhancing the unit as goshawk habitat. It is part of the 
     post fledgeling area. The associated nest is located outside 
     of any sale unit. The prescription is modified to retain all 
     trees  21 inches at breast height. There are two 
     goshawk nests confirmed within the Blade sale area. The 
     timber sale will have an operating restriction to protect 
     goshawk habitat.
       Concern: Is connectivity a concern for the Forest Service?
       Response: Yes. We followed the connectivity direction in 
     the screening process. We mapped connectivity corridors 
     between dedicated old growth areas and late and old 
     structural stage stands. Late middle, late and old structural 
     stage stands were use to provide connectivity where they were 
     available. Corridors were wider than the minimum 400 foot 
     width more than 90 percent of the time. We reviewed the 
     mapped corridors with you and you appeared to understand how 
     we designated them.
       Concern: Is the area east of Unit 8 designated as old 
     growth or old growth replacement?
       Response: No. It appears to be smaller in diameter and does 
     not meet old growth definition. It is not located proximate 
     to a dedicated old growth area to meet Forest Plan direction 
     for replacement old growth. It appears that the stand 
     identified represents the riparian buffer and the 
     characteristics do not extend into the rest of the stand.
       Concern: There appears to be an inadequate number of snags 
     and down woody debris within the sale area. How did you 
     handle this situation?
       Response: Snag numbers probably are low. The mitigation for 
     this situation is to create additional snags within the sale 
     area and use road closures to reduce the removal of snags for 
     firewood. The specific mitigation guidelines for the district 
     are prescribed for site specific conditions in order to meet 
     forest plan standards.
       The timber sale will not remove any existing down woody 
     debris. No specific need to create additional down woody was 
     necessary. We discussed the affect prescribed burning might 
     have on woody debris. Based on recent large scale prescribed 
     burning projects on the district, we feel we will be able to 
     retain down woody debris to meet screen direction. It was 
     pointed out that our direction was to apply the screens only 
     to timber sale harvest and precommercial thinning; other 
     projects were not subject to screening in FY 1993.
       Concern: What did you do to retain green tree replacements?
       Response: Harvest prescriptions are commercial thinning and 
     selection harvests. These prescriptions will retain on site 
     at least 50 square feet of basal area and in most cases 60-80 
     square feet of basal area of green trees. Any of these could 
     be used for snag green tree replacement.
       Concern: Does winter logging protect riparian areas (unit 
     12)?
       Response: Winter logging is not considered a mitigation 
     method for protection of riparian areas. We use it as a soil 
     protection mitigation method. Riparian mitigation will be 
     pre-approved stream crossings to limit number to minimum, 
     they will be located to minimize impact to riparian 
     vegetation and forest plan standard buffer zones will be 
     maintained.


                           Forks Timber Sale

       Concern: Why does Unit 22 contain a no cut area?
       Response: Unit 22 is a replacement old growth area. The no 
     cut area was located to prevent harvest in an area of very 
     rocky soil and to provide wildlife habitat. The remaining 
     portion of the unit that will be available for harvest will 
     receive treatment over approximately 33 percent of the area. 
     The objective is to enhance the replacement old growth area 
     by improving health of trees that will be retained. This unit 
     is part of the 159 acres of warm dry late structural stage 
     stands that would be harvested, including some trees 
      21 inches in diameter at breast height.
       The unit will be helicopter logged. In the 33 percent of 
     the unit that will actually be harvested, some snags may be 
     lost due to safety requirements. Any snags cut for safety 
     reasons will be left in place and contribute to down woody 
     debris. The area contains a high number of snags now and will 
     exceed screen standards following harvest.
       Concern: Is there a lack of down moody debris in the units 
     along Road 15, east of the road?
       Response: All units along Road 15, east of the road have 
     been deferred. There are no plans to create additional down 
     woody debris in this area. We believe there is the minimum 
     level of down woody debris present.
       Concern: Could not determine if connectivity direction had 
     been met.
       Response: Showed you the corridors we mapped following 
     screen direction. This resolved how it was mapped. You still 
     had concerns about connectivity as mapped in the area of 
     units 21 and 24. A corridor was not mapped there because of 
     past harvest units in the area and it didn't connect to any 
     designated old growth or late or old structural stage stands. 
     We used aerial photos, newer orthophoto maps and recent on 
     the ground knowledge of stands to map corridors.


                          Hog Flat Timber Sale

       Concern: Why are trees  21 inches in diameter at 
     breast height marked to be cut, specifically in units 8 and 
     9? Will your cutting prescription result in a species 
     conversion?
       Response: Units 8 and 9 were deferred. The sale has not 
     been remarked yet, so some trees to 21 inches will still 
     appear to be designated for cutting. The cutting 
     prescriptions will not result in a species conversion. The 
     objective of the treatments is to reduce the numbers of trees 
     on the site to a level consistent with the capabilities of 
     the site. We also want to establish a species composition 
     representative of the ecotype, which would contain more pine 
     than is currently represented. The ratio we were prescribing 
     for was approximately 75 percent ponderosa pine and 25 
     percent Douglas-fir and true fir.
       Concern: There appears to be a lack of snags and down woody 
     debris.
       Response: Some response on Blade Timber Sale.
       Concern: Why were no units deferred to provide 
     connectivity?
       Response: No units were deferred to provide connectivity 
     because units that were deferred because of screen 2 provided 
     the necessary connectivity to meet screen direction.
       Concern: Why were units 1, 3, 7, 10, 17, 19 and 20 
     modified?
       Response: They were modified to retain all trees 
      21 inches in diameter at breast height. Also the 
     south third of unit 1 was deferred due to screen 2.
       Concern: Is there a riparian spring area that needs 
     protection in unit 3?
       Response: Spring will be protected by 100 foot no cut 
     buffer. Will check to confirm buffer is in place.
       Concern: Why weren't units 17, 19 and 20 included in a 
     connectivity corridor?
       Response: Unit 20 is an ``island'' separated by open 
     sagebrush or pine-juniper open stands that do not provide 
     connectivity characteristics. We reviewed the mapped 
     connectivity corridors with you. There were no corridors 
     needed in the area of units 17 and 19.


                            cove timber sale

       Concern: What does the reference to the 700 acres of late 
     and old that will be remarked to delete cutting mean?
       Response: This is found on the last page of the narrative 
     report for the timber sale. It refers to the acres that will 
     be modified to leave all remnant trees  21 inches 
     diameter at breast height.
       Concern: Why not defer all treatment in the late middle 
     structural stage stands since it is below historical range of 
     variation?
       Response: The screen direction allows treatment to occur in 
     late middle where the treatment will move the watershed back 
     towards the historical range of variation for late and old 
     structural stages (Enclosure 1 of 8/18/93 letter). The 
     prescribed treatments will accomplish this direction. Also, 
     screen 3 requires retention of all green trees  21 
     inches. This will be done.
       Concern: Whey did we use the midpoint of the historical 
     range of variation for late warm moist structural stage 
     instead of the upper limit of the range to determine what 
     level of harvest could occur when the amount of this 
     structure exceeded the historical range of variation?
       Response: We chose the midpoint to respond to concerns from 
     the full range of the public who commented on the screening 
     of our sales. The midpoint is within the range and is above 
     the minimum. The treatments prescribed would have enhanced 
     the late and old structure. These acres will not be harvested 
     because they were deferred in screen 3.
       Concern: Where is the additional acres to make up the 30 
     acre nest no cut area for the deleted units 16 and 17 (11 
     acres) and the 400 acre past fledgeling area?
       Response: No nest has been identified yet. These units were 
     deleted because of the high level of goshawk activity 
     observed within the two units. We are operating on the 
     assumption there is a nest within close proximity of the 
     units and the 30 acre no cut is centered around the units. We 
     have inventoried the area by calling and looked for the nest 
     on the ground. Map to be provided will show set-aside-areas.
       Concern: Why was unit 29 just buffered for goshawk 
     protection instead of deferred?
       Response: The buffer designation is incorrect. The unit is 
     within a post-fledgeling area. The selection harvest 
     prescription will meet the post-fledgeling structure 
     criteria.
       Concern: Are there seasonal operating restrictions for 
     goshawk protection?
       Response: Yes.
       Concern: Could not determine how we mapped connectivity.
       Response: Showed you the mapped connectivity corridors. You 
     were still concerned with the lack of connectivity; made the 
     observation that the corridors formed a wheel with no spokes 
     and you wanted to see some spokes. The amount of non-forest 
     type within the subwatershed naturally limits connectivity. 
     You stated you would like to see ``potential'' corridors 
     designated where nothing exists now to show future options. 
     We responded that the areas you pointed out either contain no 
     proposed harvest now and would still provide some degree of 
     connectivity or the land you suggested was not physically 
     capable. We used the direction in screen 3 to establish 
     corridors.


                           Tincan Timber Sale

       Concern: What additional area besides unit 15 was deferred 
     for pileated woodpecker protection?
       Response: None. The area is used for feeding; no 
     indications were found that nesting or other activity is 
     occurring in the area. Unit 15 was deferred because it is 
     within the late structural stage.
       Concern: What mitigation for down woody debris and snags 
     will be done?
       Response: Same as for Blade Timber Sale.
       Concern: Can stream crossings be done differently? Specific 
     concern is related to Item 2 under ``Likely to adversely 
     affect'' direction in screen].
       Response: Will provide specific information on which units 
     will have stream crossings and specific mitigation measures 
     to be used.
       Concern: Could not determine how you provided connectivity.
       Response: Showed you the mapped connectivity corridors. 
     They appeared to be satisfactory.


                          driveway timber sale

       Concern: How will the stream crossing at Muddy Creek on the 
     2850/1705 Road and associated dirt surfaced road be closed? 
     What assurance is there that this work will actually occur?
       Response: The road will be relocated to cross the creek and 
     riparian zone at right angles. This will result in less road 
     actually in the riparian zone. The crossing changes from a 
     rough ford to a culvert. The old road segment will be closed 
     and rehabilitated. There is no absolute assurance the work 
     will be done. Funding for the project should be accomplished 
     using purchaser credits generated by this sale. If our 
     estimate of the amount of volume passing the screen and 
     actually available for sale is close, there will be adequate 
     purchaser credits to accomplish the work. If there is not 
     sufficient purchaser credits, then either appropriated road 
     construction funds would be used or the timber would be 
     hauled a different route to avoid the ford.
       Concern: Why are units 22 and 23 excluded from the post-
     fledgling area since they appear to be in the middle of it?
       Response: Units 22 and 23 were deleted for other reasons 
     than the screens.
       Concern: Was not able to determine how we considered 
     connectivity.
       Response: We showed you the mapped connectivity corridors. 
     They appeared to be satisfactory.
       I have enclosed the additional information we agreed to 
     provide for these sales:
       Connectivity maps for each sale,
       Maps showing known goshawk nests and the 30 acre no cut 
     area and the 400 acre post-fledgling area for Blade, Cove and 
     Driveway Timber Sales,
       Stream crossing mitigation for Tincan Timber Sale and the 
     units it will be used,
       Numerical values we used for green tree replacements for 
     snags.
       If it will help you to prioritize your review effort, the 
     following is my priority of urgency for the Burns sales:
       1. Hog Flat
       2. Blade
       3. Driveway
       4. Cove
       5. Tincan
       6. Forks.
       Please contact me if you have additional questions.
           Sincerely,
                                                    James M. Pena,
                                                  District Ranger.
       Enclosures: 4.

                                Tin Can

       Stream crossing Mitigation: Units 1, 3, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 
     19, and 23 have class 4 streams. To minimize impacts on class 
     4 streams activities will take place during dry or frozen 
     conditions, units 8 and 23 will be cable logged, temporary 
     roads will be used to minimize and eliminate skidding 
     crossings in units 1 and 9, all crossings and temporary roads 
     will be rehabilitated as necessary by seeding and water 
     barring, crossings will be permitted at designated locations 
     only, and the number of crossings designated will be the 
     minimum number to accomplish the job.
                                  ____


                                Summary

       The summary below displays a variety of prescriptions which 
     is intended to show how many trees would be left following 
     treatment that could serve as green tree replacements. The 
     numbers used are averages derived from stand exams.
       The following abbreviations will be used:
       TPA--Trees Per Acre.
       BA--Basal Area.
       DBH--Diameter Breast Height.


                                  cove

     Treatment: Uneven-aged Management
     Existing TPA: 440 (avg. dbh 7'')
     Post Treatment TPA: 100 (avg. dbh 10'')
     Existing BA: 114
     Post Treatment BA: 60


                                driveway

     Treatment: Uneven-aged Management
     Existing TPA: 1162 (avg. dbh 3.4'')
     Post Treatment TPA: 110 (avg. dbh 10'')
     Existing BA: 113
     Post Treatment BA: 60


                                tin can

     Treatment: Commercial Thinning
     Existing TPA: 200 (avg. dbh 10'')
     Post Treatment TPA: 80 (avg. dbh 12'')
     Existing BA: 110
     Post Treatment BA: 60


                                 blade

     Treatment: Uneven-aged Management
     Existing TPA: 320 (avg. dbh 6'')
     Post Treatment TPA: 180 (avg. dbh 9'')
     Existing BA: 118
     Post Treatment BA: 80


                                  hog

     Treatment: Commercial Thinning
     Existing TPA: 294 (avg. dbh 9'')
     Post Treatment TPA: 75 (avg. dbh 14'')
     Existing BA: 134
     Post Treatment BA: 80


                                 forks

     Treatment: Seed Tree
     Existing TPA: 1534 (avg. dbh 2.2'')
     Post Treatment TPA: 15 (avg. dbh 12'')
     Existing BA: 124
     Post Treatment BA: 20
                                  ____


                     No Purpose Served in Harassing

       It's unfortunate that the on-going public relations 
     campaign by elements of the timber industry has the tone that 
     it has. The radio ads ask rhetorical questions regarding 
     timber volume and forest health, assigning fault to Forest 
     Supervisor Mark Boche and advising listeners to ``Ask Mark 
     Boche.''
       It's true, I am not Mark Boche. However, I am directly 
     involved in the process that has resulted in a reduced timber 
     volume. So I will provide my answers to the question.
       In April 1993 the ``Natural Resources Defense Council'' 
     filed a petition with region #6 Forester John Lowe demanding 
     that National Forests within region #6 conform to various 
     laws and regulations, and the petition set forth special 
     criteria that region #6 forests need to conform to the law.
       In response to this petition, on Aug. 18, 1993 Regional 
     Forester Lowe issued a directive that all region #6 National 
     Forest shall structure sales according to a set of 
     ``screening'' guidelines for an uncertain period of time 
     until revised national direction to the U.S. Forest Service 
     was completed.
       The interior screening guidelines significantly changed 
     some aspects of forest management which negatively impacted 
     the projected harvest volume.
       None of this is news to local timber industry leaders. In 
     June or July, Tim Lillebo was a guest speaker of ``Grant 
     County Conservationist'' and explained the impact of the 
     petition to many from the community. In addition, the Forest 
     Service presented an open house orientation to explain the 
     impact of the ``screens'' in some detail, in September '93.
       As one of the two N.R.D.C. coordinators on the Malhuer 
     National Forest, I have discussed the ``Interim Screenings'' 
     with all of the timber interests and forest staff ``ad 
     nauseam.'' The effort has been to provide as much timber as 
     possible while adhering to the spirit of the ``screens''.
       The comment contained in the radio ads that the forest 
     supervisor is under no `legal' constraints is true. He is, 
     however, under specific direction from the Region #6 
     Forester. The petition by N.R.D.C. was an effort to avoid 
     litigation similar to that on the westside forests. To this 
     point in time it is accurate to say the ``interim 
     screenings'' have allowed more timber harvest than a 
     successful litigation would have allowed.
       There may be some purpose in harassing the forest 
     supervisor and forest staff for an action they could not 
     control and it may serve some purpose to inflame the 
     community. I fail to see how either resolves anything.--Ed 
     Holder, Prairie City.
                                  ____


                        TIMKO Sale Screen Update

     To: Malheur Timber Operators, Steve Courtney, P.O. Box 928, 
       John Day, OR.
     From: Ochoco NF, P.O. Box 490, Prineville, OR.
     Date: January 20, 1994.
     Subject: TIMKO
     Signature: Tom Mafesa.
       Steve, Here's an update on sale status.
       D-1: Big Summit.
       D-2: Paulina.
       D-3: Prineville.
       D-4: Snow Mountain.
       TIMKO report remarks:
       Other--NRDC: Means that the progress of the sale has been 
     delayed due to NRDC Petition.
       LV: Sales (or portion of original sales) that are deferred 
     at this time.
       Call if you have questions.
                                                              Tom.

                                   U.S. Department of Agriculture,


                                               Forest Service,

                                 Prineville, OR, January 14, 1994.
     To: Rangers/Staff.
     Subject: Screened Sales--Status.
       Here's an update on the status of the timber sale program 
     that we have screened.
       1. Sales not subject to the screening process:
       District, sale name, and status--
       D-1--Kyle Decks--awarded December 1, 1993.
       D-2--Roadside Hazard T.R.--awarded December 1, 1993.
       D-3--GG--auctioned January 5, 1994.
       D-4--Last Gasp--awarded November 1, 1993.
       D-4--Bucksprings Roadside--awarded December 1, 1993.
       D-4--JUOC--awarded December 13, 1993.
       2. Sales released by NRDC:
       District, sale name, and status--
       D-1--Marks--advertised January 6, 1994.
       D-2--Three Forks Salvage--advertised January 6, 1994.
       D-3--Colt--advertised January 6, 1994.
       D-3--Saddle Sore--awarded.
       D-4--May Salvage--auctioned January 5, 1994.
       3. Sales reviewed, but not released by NRDC:
       District and sale name.
       D-1--Harpo, Howie.
       D-2--Shown.
       D-3--Ironbird, Mck.
       D-4--Boundary.
       4. Sales needing review by NRDC representative:
       District and sale name.
       D-3--Janzout, YoBear, Rooster, and M. Maury.
       D-4--Mud.
       5. Sales to be deferred/re-designed:
       District and sale name.
       D-1--Deep, Harpoon.
       D-2--Rock.
       D-4--Dustbox, Tiny Tim.
                                                        Bill Fish,
                                         Operations Staff Officer.

                                                               OFFERED SALES LISTING--1994                                                              
                                              [Criteria for this sales listing--fiscal year target is 1994]                                             
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                       Fiscal year                                           Annotation 
          Region, Forest                               Sale name                         target        Latest gate      Sale volume HBF     and remarks 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ochoco.............................  Gap..........................................  1994............               0              1,000.00  Other--NRDC.
Do.................................  Bridge.......................................  1994............               0              2,000.00  Other--NRDC.
                                                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                     ----------------------             
Do.................................  94-Salvage...................................  1994............               0              1,000.00  ............
                                     total volume accomplished for this gate......  ................  ..............             4,000.00               
                                                                                                                     ======================             
6--Ochoco..........................  Brush........................................  1994............               1              1,000.00  Other--NRDC.
Do.................................  Brush (NRDC).................................  1994............               1              3,225.00  LV.         
Do.................................  Slos.........................................  1994............               1              8,400.00  ............
Do.................................  Rock(FH).....................................  1994............               1              8,000.00  Other--NRDC.
Do.................................  Rooster RS...................................  1994............               1                900.00  Other--NRDC.
Do.................................  M. Naury Salv................................  1994............               1              1,000.00  ............
Do.................................  Yobear FH....................................  1994............               1              4,000.00  Other--NRDC.
Do.................................  Janzout LV (NRDC)............................  1994............               1              4,000.00  LV.         
Do.................................  Yobear FH LV (NRDC)..........................  1994............               1              7,000.00  LV.         
Do.................................  Rooster RS (NRDC)............................  1994............               1                100.00  LV.         
                                                                                                                     ----------------------             
                                     Total volume accomplished for this gate......  ................  ..............            37,625.00               
                                                                                                                     ======================             
6--Ochoco..........................  Harpoon (WRDC)...............................  1994............               3              1,700.00  LV.         
Do.................................  Harpoe.......................................  1994............               3              2,654.00  Other--NRDC.
Do.................................  Deep (NRDC)..................................  1994............               3              4,300.00  LV.         
Do.................................  Howie (NRDC).................................  1994............               3              2,000.00  LV.         
Do.................................  Harpo (NRDC).................................  1994............               3              5,200.00  LV.         
Do.................................  Marks (NRDC).................................  1994............               3              3,681.00  LV.         
Do.................................  Howie........................................  1994............               3                409.00  Other--NRDC.
Do.................................  Three Forks BD (NRDC)........................  1994............               3                 70.00  LV.         
Do.................................  Shown (NRDC).................................  1994............               3              4,300.00  LV.         
Do.................................  Shown(FH)....................................  1994............               3                500.00  Other--NRDC.
Do.................................  Iron Bird....................................  1994............               3              1,400.00  Other--NRDC.
Do.................................  McK Salvage..................................  1994............               3                800.00  Other--NRDC.
Do.................................  McK Salvage LV (NRDC)........................  1994............               3                200.00  LV.         
Do.................................  Ironbird LV (NRDC)...........................  1994............               3              2,700.00  LV.         
Do.................................  Colt FH LV (NRDC)............................  1994............               3                200.00  LV.         
Do.................................  Hud..........................................  1994............               3              1,830.00  Other--NRDC.
Do.................................  Boundary(FH).................................  1994............               3              1,832.00  Other--NRDC.
Do.................................  Dustbox(FH)..................................  1994............               3                320.00  Other--NRDC.
Do.................................  Boundary(NRDC)...............................  1994............               3              3,468.00  LV.         
Do.................................  Hud (NRDC)...................................  1994............               3              1,670.00  LV.         
Do.................................  Dustbox (NRDC)...............................  1994............               3              6,080.00  LV.         
Do.................................  41/43 Salvage................................  1994............               3                120.00  ............
                                                                                                                     ----------------------             
                                     Total volume accomplished for this gate......  ................  ..............             45,434.00  ............
                                                                                                                     ======================             
6--Ochoco..........................  Marks........................................  1994............               4              1,000.00  ............
Do.................................  Three Forks Slowdown.........................  1994............               4                 90.00  ............
Do.................................  Colt FM......................................  1994............               4             2,600.00               
                                                                                                                     ----------------------             
                                     Total volume accomplished for this gate......  ................  ..............             3,690.00               
                                                                                                                     ======================             
6--Ochoco..........................  Kyle Salvage.................................  1994............               6                 39.00  ............
Do.................................  Permits fiscal year 1994, quarter 1..........  1994............               6              1,153.80  ............
Do.................................  Roadside Hazard T-R..........................  1994............               6                138.00  ............
Do.................................  Permits fiscal year 1994, quarter 1..........  1994............               6                 10.50  ............
Do.................................  Permits fiscal year 1994, quarter 1..........  1994............               6                101.20  ............
Do.................................  Last Gasp Salvage............................  1994............               6                269.00  ............
Do.................................  Buck Spr Roadside Salv.......................  1994............               6                116.00  ............
Do.................................  May Salvage..................................  1994............               6                 73.00  ............
Do.................................  Tip Add-on...................................  1994............               6                318.00  ............
Do.................................  Permits fiscal year 1994, quarter 1..........  1994............               6                  3.00  ............
Do.................................  Permits fiscal year 1994, quarter 1..........  1994............               6               202.00               
                                                                                                                     ----------------------             
                                     Total volume accomplished for this gate......  ................  ..............             2,425.00               
                                                                                                                     ======================             
                                     Forest volume for gates 1, 2, and 3..........  ................  ..............             53,099.00  ............
                                     Forest volume for gates 4, 5, and 6..........  ................  ..............              6,115.30  ............
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

               NRDC Review of Forest Service Timber Sales

       The following points may be appropriate during the 
     discussion of the Forest Service policy and procedure of 
     allowing the National Resources Defense Council to review 
     timber sales just prior to being offered for sale. This 
     review is offered to no other group and is not required by 
     court directive to the best of our knowledge.
       The process, as we understand it, being used by the Forest 
     Service and the NRDC in summary is as follows:
       A: The Forest Service goes through its normal timber sale 
     planning process.
       B: The Forest Service applies the special screens required 
     by Assistant Secretary Lyons.
       C: After that process is completed and has been reviewed at 
     the Ranger District and Forest Supervisor levels, the sales 
     are forwarded to the NRDC in San Francisco, California.
       D: The NRDC office in San Francisco, California has one of 
     its field personnel review the sale. (Copy of review form 
     included.) It is then returned to the NRDC for processing.
       E: NRDC prepares a recommendation on the sale that is 
     forwarded to the Regional Forester's Office in Portland, 
     Oregon. (Only recommendations for reductions in volume are 
     made by the NRDC).
       F: The Regional Forester then reviews the NRDC 
     recommendations and returns the sale to the Forest to be 
     offered for sale. (The Regional Forester has followed all the 
     recommendations made by the NRDC to the best of our 
     knowledge.)
       G: The sale is then offered to the general public.
       What is wrong with the special relationship the Forest 
     Service has with the NRDC? And what is wrong with the process 
     it is using? The following questions may gain answers to 
     those questions:
       One: Allowing the National Resource Defense Council to 
     review timber sales on the eastside forests in Oregon and 
     Washington is a definite violation of regulatory procedure 
     and is from our viewpoint a violation of law.
       Two: Why is the Forest Service allowing only one group, the 
     NRDC, to have a ``special'' review of all eastside Forests 
     timber sales before they are offered for sale?
       Three: Why has the Forest Service granted this ``special'' 
     and ``illegal'' review to the NRDC?
       Four: Why was this review ``tacked on'' to the process and 
     completely outside of the normal planning system?
       Five: Who authorized the special treatment for the NRDC?
       Six: Was the offer to have a special review made to any 
     other user-group or individuals?
       Seven: Did not the process allow for only the removal of 
     timber sale volume and did not most of the reviews by the 
     NRDC actually result in less timber volume being offered in 
     the sales?
       Eight: Was criteria provided to the NRDC for its review?
       Nine: What expertise does the NRDC have that the Forest 
     Service lacks to do proper reviews?
       Ten: What was the time delay in offering sales because of 
     the special review status being granted to NRDC?
       Eleven: How does the special review by the NRDC fit into 
     the planning system and public review process?
       Twelve: Why has this review process been for the most part 
     kept secret by the Forest Service? Who ordered this process 
     to be kept confidential?
       Thirteen: Is there not a form that the NRDC uses to review 
     each timber sale? What are the qualifications of the person 
     conducting the review?
       Fourteen: How can the Forest Service arbitrarily drop 
     volume from sales without knowing the quality of the report 
     and the qualifications of those who make the recommendations?
       Fifteen: How long has this procedure been used? How many 
     timber sales and what volume of timber is involved?


     what should the forest service be requested or demanded to do?

       One: The Forest Service should stop this practice 
     immediately.
       Two: Those timber sales that were decreased by the action 
     of the NRDC review should be reinstated to the level of the 
     Forest Supervisor recommendation and offered for sale.
       Three: Those responsible for implementing this procedure 
     should be suspended from managing the timber sale program and 
     held accountable.
       Four: A complete review of the entire relationship between 
     the NRDC and Forest Service should be made and the public 
     briefed on the findings.
       Five: The NRDC should be prohibited from participating in 
     any timber sales program or planning for a timber sale 
     program until this situation is resolved and has had a full 
     public hearing.
       Six: The Forest Service should apologize to the other users 
     of the National Forests in the States of Washington and 
     Oregon.
       Seven: The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee 
     should hold a hearing and fully air the issues we have 
     raised.
       Eight: The Department of Agriculture should develop a 
     program to instill public confidence back into their Planning 
     and Public Participation programs.
                                  ____

                                   U.S. Department of Agriculture,


                                               Forest Service,

                                                 January 20, 1994.

          Decision Documents, Fiscal Year 1994 Eastside Sales

     To: Eastside Forest Supervisors.
       In my 2430/2600 letter of September 1, 1993, I advised you 
     to stop signing decision notices for timber sale projects. I 
     have determined it is no longer necessary to refrain from 
     signing NEPA decisions on timber sales on the east side.
       The NEPA analysis for timber sales should include a range 
     of alternatives based on your Forest Plans and the Purpose 
     and Need Statement as well as the Forest Plan consistency 
     finding. Alternatives that are consistent with the Purpose 
     and Need Statement but not with the screening process can be 
     included in the analysis.
       Regarding the consistency finding: If your analysis shows a 
     discrepancy between Forest Plan standards and the 
     requirements of passing the screen, a Forest Plan amendment 
     is necessary to implement the sale. This amendment may be 
     part of the sale decision document.
       If you have questions, please call Jim Schuler at 603/326-
     2322 or Phil Mattson at 603/236-3865.
                                                     John E. Lowe,
                                                Regional Forester.
                                  ____


                   Eastside Forest Screening Process

     To: line/staff.
       From: Mark A. Boche: R06F04A, Postmark: Dec 16, 93 4:05 PM, 
     Status: Previously read, Subject: Forwarded: Update on 
     Screens.
       Comments: From: Mark A. Boche: R06F04A, Date: Dec. 16, 93 
     4:05 PM Update.
       Message: From: Tim C. Rogan: R6/PNW Date: Dec. 16, 93 3:59 
     PM. John agreed with Jim Overbay last week that the Region 
     would do an BA to amend forest plans to incorporate the 
     screens. Susan Skakel, from the Deachutes and Glen Stein, 
     Halheur are in here this week putting the BA together. Grant 
     Gunderson is doing the BE. A notice will appear in Newspapers 
     around the eastside asking for input to the EA. A biological 
     assessment will be completed by Jan. 3rd and we will initiate 
     consultation with USF&WFS and NMFS. We expect to have the 
     decision notice signed around 1/20/94. The decision will not 
     come under the new appeal regs. The DN will include the 
     updated direction letter on screening. This activity should 
     have no affect on sales all ready screened. You should 
     proceed with preparation for advertisement of the sales the 
     RF has released. We expect to release additional sales in the 
     near future. You should also continue to work on analysis and 
     design of new sales. If you feel a conf call is needed to 
     discuss this further let me know. If any questions contact me 
     or send me a note.

  Mr. CRAIG. I think these documents will show very clearly that there 
appears at this moment to be a paper trail that is convincing evidence 
that there was an opportunity to give the exclusive right to the 
Natural Resource Defense Council to help shape and craft timber sales 
in what is known as a screening process within region 6.

                          ____________________