[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.
____________________