[Senate Hearing 111-682]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 111-682
OREGON FORESTS
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC LANDS AND FORESTS
of the
COMMITTEE ON
ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
TO
RECEIVE TESTIMONY ON S. 2895, TO RESTORE FOREST LANDSCAPES, PROTECT OLD
GROWTH FORESTS, AND MANAGE NATIONAL FORESTS IN THE EASTSIDE FORESTS OF
THE STATE OF OREGON, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
__________
BEND, OR, JUNE 4, 2010
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
61-825 WASHINGTON : 2010
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202�09512�091800, or 866�09512�091800 (toll-free). E-mail, [email protected].
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico, Chairman
BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska
RON WYDEN, Oregon RICHARD BURR, North Carolina
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho
ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey JOHN McCAIN, Arizona
BLANCHE L. LINCOLN, Arkansas ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah
BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont JIM BUNNING, Kentucky
EVAN BAYH, Indiana JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama
DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan BOB CORKER, Tennessee
MARK UDALL, Colorado
JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire
Robert M. Simon, Staff Director
Sam E. Fowler, Chief Counsel
McKie Campbell, Republican Staff Director
Karen K. Billups, Republican Chief Counsel
------
Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests
RON WYDEN, Oregon, Chairman
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington JOHN McCAIN, Arizona
ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah
BLANCHE L. LINCOLN, Arkansas JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama
MARK UDALL, Colorado BOB CORKER, Tennessee
JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire
Jeff Bingaman and Lisa Murkowski are Ex Officio Members of the
Subcommittee
C O N T E N T S
----------
STATEMENTS
Page
Carrier, Michael, Natural Resources Policy Director, Office of
the Governor, Salem, OR........................................ 4
Franklin, Jerry F., Professor, Ecosystem Science, School of
Forest Resources, University of Washington..................... 20
Hoeflich, Russell, Vice President and Oregon Director, The Nature
Conservancy.................................................... 31
Insko, Tom, Region Manager, Boise Cascade, LLC................... 24
Lillebo, Tim, Eastern Oregon Field Representative, Oregon Wild... 34
Maluski, Ivan, Conservation Program Coordinator, Oregon Chapter
Sierra Club.................................................... 58
Smith, Stanley, Chairman, Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs.... 14
Unger, Alan, Deschutes County Commissioner....................... 1
Walls, James K., Executive Director, Lake County Resources
Initiative..................................................... 28
Webb, Hon. Mark, Grant County Judge.............................. 9
Williams, King, Member, Gazelle Land & Timber, LLC............... 43
Woodward, Craig, Owner, Woodward Companies, Prineville, OR....... 54
Wyden, Hon. Ron, U.S. Senator From Oregon........................ 1
APPENDIXES
Appendix I
Responses to additional questions................................ 73
Appendix II
Additional material submitted for the record..................... 75
OREGON FORESTS
----------
FRIDAY, JUNE 4, 2010
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests,
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
Bend, OR.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 1 p.m. in the
Barnes Room of the Deschutes Public Services Center Building,
1300 NW Wall Street, Bend, Oregon, Hon. Ron Wyden presiding.
STATEMENT OF ALAN UNGER, DESCHUTES COUNTY COMMISSIONER
Mr. Unger. Hello, my name is Alan Unger, your Deschutes
County Commissioner. I'd like to welcome Senator Ron Wyden to
Central Oregon. I want to thank Ron for bringing the U.S.
Senate Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests to the heart of
the area affected by this legislation. Eighty percent of
Deschutes County is in public ownership. We need a Federal
solution that all in Oregon will benefit from.
Senator, your bipartisan approach that brings all to the
table to find a solution is an example to all in Washington.
It's a formula for success and we all benefit by your
leadership.
Welcome to Central Oregon.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RON WYDEN, U.S. SENATOR FROM OREGON
Senator Wyden. Alan, thank you very much for that really
gracious introduction, and to all of you for giving up some
time on a gorgeous Friday afternoon to come on out, and really
appreciate it. I think you're going to feel that this is,
particularly listening to all of the folks who are going to
testify today, this is the way you ought to try to move forward
on major issues, where folks are working together and trying to
reach out and find common ground.
So with that, we will bring the subcommittee to order this
afternoon. The Senate Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests
is meeting in beautiful Bend, Oregon.
This week, folks, has been all about jobs. I started it off
at a bio-refinery in Boardman. They're talking about 250 good
paying jobs there, it is going to be a cellulosic ethanol
facility. Eventually we think it's going to grow into a major
biomass plant, because it bumps right up against the Umatilla
National Forest. So this is an opportunity to create greener,
better jobs for the future, and that's how we started the week.
After that, we went next to Shepherds Flat, which is of
course in Eastern Oregon, where there's going to be a new
windmill project, possibly the largest windmill project in the
world in Eastern Oregon, not in the United States, but in the
world, another huge shot in the arm for the Oregon economy. The
Oregon Congressional delegation there had a big challenge
trying to deal with the Defense Department. It was a challenge,
largely because they'd never had to deal with these kinds of
issues in the past, and we made the case that this country
could have both national security and energy security, and we
were able to get that approved.
Yesterday, as you may have seen, the Oregon Congressional
delegation was in Newport, on the Oregon coast, where we
announced that the government has entered into a final
determination that Newport is the best place for a major
research facility, 175 new jobs in Newport. Nobody thought
Oregon could pull that off, either. They scoffed at us when
they thought that little David in the Oregon coast area could
take on the Goliath up north. I said people who thought we
could win on the Oregon coast, they were probably just folks
who were a few fish short of their limit. Yet, once again,
Oregon prevailed.
So, that's how we started this week, and today we're going
to turn to the question of trying to do the same kind of
cooperative effort, this time in the forestry sector, building
a partnership between the private sector, State officials,
local officials, and of course, the Federal Government.
So the task today is to look at how to create new good-
paying jobs in the woods, and particularly with a focus on
eastern and central Oregon. My view is, we've got a lot to work
with, because of the supportive coalition that has come
together for this legislation, a coalition that this State has
not seen in more than two decades of debating where to go in
the forestry area. We now have support, through this coalition,
from timber groups, such as the American Forest Resources
Council, the Logging Company, Boise-Cascade, and our own John
Shelk of Ochoco, here in Central Oregon. Environmental groups,
Defenders of Wildlife, the National Center for Conservation
Science and Policy, and Pacific Rivers Council, all join this
effort as well, from the environmental community.
So today we're going to get testimony on the legislation,
S. 2895, that these groups have all come together that is--
behind to get saw logs to the mills, restore and create jobs,
get the forest healthy again, and protect our treasured old
growth.
I'm very pleased that Senator Merkley has already signed on
as a co-sponsor of this legislation, and it's my intent to work
very closely with the entire Oregon Congressional delegation to
get this legislation passed in this Congress.
Many of you know that folks worked on this bill for many,
many months, and to get the coalition that we announced last
December, to have timber executives standing shoulder to
shoulder with leaders of the Oregon environmental community,
everyone had to say it was time to break the gridlock. With
each passing month, this group recognized that the failure to
address the needs of Oregon's increasingly unhealthy forest
meant that they grow more and more at risk, at risk of
preventable fire, insect infestation, and disease.
My own take about this debate that has gone on for decades,
is that each side in the timber wars has now armed itself
politically, so that they are sufficiently musculared to
survive, but never quite in a position to succeed. So as a
result, we've got millions of acres of choked at-risk Federal
forests in desperate need of management. Millions of acres of
old growth are now in danger of dying from disease, insects, or
fire, while the infrastructure of forestry, our mills and our
loggers, and the jobs that go with them, have been walking on
an economic tightrope with an uncertain future.
My own view is, unless there are fundamental changes,
economic and environmental dangers that result from the lack of
attention to these issues is going to grow in the years ahead.
The fact is, in Eastern Oregon, there are now only a handful of
mills remaining. Unless there is greater certainty of timber
supply and an immediate increase in merchantable timber, more
mills are going to close. If that happens, eastside forests and
the communities that depend on them, pay a huge price. Oregon's
eastside forests need every mill left, because without the
mills to restore the old process to saw logs and other
merchantable material from forest restoration projects, you
can't have restoration of the eastside forests. That's what
we're trying to fix in this hearing today.
Looking out at folks, and I see them in the first few rows,
some of the witnesses, I can remember them going at it year
after year after year, fighting each other, you know, nonstop,
and can now see that they're coming together to protect our
forests, communities, jobs, and mills. It's my view that
looking at these folks just in the first few rows, there's real
reason to be hopeful about turning things around in the woods.
The work of this coalition, by the way, is not just going
to be good for the Federal lands, but will also be good for the
land owners on the private lands that are impacted by fire,
insect, and disease. The point of this legislation is to help
make the Federal forests good neighbors to all the private land
owners. The bill would provide an immediate supply of logs in
the short-term to jumpstart restoration efforts and keep the
mills alive. Obviously, job one has to be saving the remaining
mills and loggers, the infrastructure of forestry, and at the
same time, looking over the long term to provide the certainty
required to restore each of the 6 eastside national forests.
Nobody thinks that this road is just going to be
immediately cleared out of political challenges. For this
reason, we have come together as a coalition to make sure that
we're going to address some of the key points of consensus. In
this coalition, it's very clear that you have to have adequate
Federal funding to properly manage and restore the forests to
their health. So this coalition is going to join me and other
Members of the Congressional delegation to secure the funding
that is needed to manage our forests.
I'm also pleased that the administration included, at my
request, $50 million in the budget to support the kind of
collaborative projects we envision through the Priority Job
Stabilization and Watershed Initiative.
We're going to go to our first panel of witnesses now, but
a couple of administrative chores. A lot of folks have been
trying to figure out whether this is another one of our town
hall meetings. It is not a town hall meeting, only because it's
important that we get an official hearing of the subcommittee
on the record in Central Oregon. Many of you know I've had more
than 550 town hall meetings over my time, representing and the
U.S. Senate. We will have plenty of them in the days ahead.
This is an opportunity for a formal subcommittee hearing. We're
going to take testimony from witnesses, and we also want folks
who would like to submit written testimony for the hearing
record, can do so by sending it to the subcommittee in
Washington or to one of our offices here in Oregon. We also
have 3 of the best staffers in the solar system here. We have
Michelle, we have Frank, and we have Scott, they're all very
good. Feel free to call them nights and weekends, take all
their free time.
[Laughter.]
Senator Wyden. They're outstanding public servants and
really appreciate all 3 of them coming out.
So, let's go right to our witnesses. Michael Carrier is
here from the Governor's Office, the Honorable Mark Webb of
Grant County is here, from Canyon City, and the Honorable
Stanley Smith, representing the Confederated Tribes. If all 3
of you will come forward, we can get started. We really
appreciate everybody coming. I'm going to make your prepared
remarks a part of the hearing record in their entirety. Why
don't you just take maybe 5 minutes or so and summarize your
principle concerns.
Let's begin with you, Mr. Carrier.
STATEMENT OF MICHAEL CARRIER, NATURAL RESOURCES POLICY
DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR, SALEM, OR
Mr. Carrier. Senator, thank you so much for introducing S.
2895 and for holding this hearing today. Thank you especially
for the opportunity to offer testimony in support of S. 2895.
Governor Ted Kulongoski has offered his strong support for
your legislation, and my testimony today is offered in his
behalf.
With half of Oregon in Federal ownership and half of that
ownership in forest land, the subject of this bill is highest
importance to the Governor, and it has been so important to him
for the past 8 years, that several years ago he asked our State
Board of Forestry to start advising him on how the State could
assist in increasing the capacity to improve management of our
Federal lands.
The State Board of Forestry created a body called the
Federal Forest Advisory Committee made up of a diverse number
of agencies, Federal, State, staff, and other stakeholders.
They published a report over a year ago with a suite of
recommendations and findings. I want to summarize those because
I wanted to get them into the record because they build the
case that you just built in your introductory remarks about why
this legislation is so important to Oregon and why it's in
Oregon's interest to support this.
But the committee identified 2 major categories of problems
that our Federal forest lands face in Oregon today, problems of
place and overarching problems. The first category, the
problems of place, generally describe the issues and problems
associated with the resource itself and the landscape on which
it's located. The second, the overarching problems, talk about
the policy and legacy management issues and problems.
With regard to the problems of place, of course forest
health was the No. 1 problem. Forest health and resiliency has
declined, they have declined in Oregon's Federal forests.
Aerial surveys conducted by the Forest Service Center, our own
Department of Forestry showed dramatic upward trend in insect
damage in the last 10 years alone, and included in my
testimony, I think available to you are some slides, eight
slides in color, that amplify the remarks that I'm going to
offer.
The 2008 survey showed almost a million acres of forest
land damaged by bark beetle, defoliators, and sap feeding
insects. In Eastern Oregon alone, more than half a million
acres have been damaged by mountain pine bark beetle. There are
an estimate 11 million of overstock forest land in Oregon,
outside of wilderness and roadless areas that have missed fire
cycles and now are in moderate to severe danger of losing key
ecological functions due to uncharacteristic wildfires.
The second category, second area under the problems of
place is reduced timber harvest, you mentioned this, especially
off of Federal lands. This has led to a decline in the forest
industry, in the infrastructure, as you stated. The intended
consequence is social losses to our rural communities,
including receipts from timber use to support roads and
schools.
The Forest Service manages almost three-fourths of the
timberland in eastern Oregon. This is a near monopoly. We can't
do with out this resource and without its contribution to our
economy here. Without those Federal timber harvests, private
forestland owners, as you mentioned, will lose access to
competitive timber markets and may convert their land to other
uses.
Oregon, as you said, is losing the infrastructure on the
east side, and we need that infrastructure to continue properly
managing these eastern forests. Between 1990 and 2008, we lost
38 mills in eastern Oregon alone. In 2009, we were down to
eight saw mills and two plywood mills in eastern Oregon. Since
1990, unemployment rates in the timber-dependant communities of
eastern Oregon have dramatically exceeded the State average. In
August 2009, unemployment in eastern Oregon was greater than 10
percent in most counties and exceeded 15 percent in 6 counties,
and approached 20 percent in 2 counties.
Then the last subcategory of the problems of place is the
desired amount of older forest, which your bill very succinctly
addresses. The amount forest on Federal lands, older forest on
Federal lands, needs to be established and protected as a
component of sustainable forest management. We've had a 16
percent decline in the amount of large ponderosa pine, greater
than 21 inches, since 2001. Think of that. In the last 9 years,
a 16 percent decline, largely a function of mortality caused by
insects, fire, and crowding in overstocked stands.
Now with regard to the second major category, the
overarching problems, there are 4 things the committee
identified, law, policies, and court decisions that govern
Federal forest lands have created a set of discordant goals. We
need to correct those and align them. Second, forest management
in the past had changing public values, lack of clear widely
accepted goals today, repeated court challenges, and the
inability to implement decisions have eroded trust and
confidence in our ability to get the job done. Third, Federal,
State, local, and travel governments lack an effective process
to collaborate and coordinate policy, which again, your bill
addresses. Finally, funding is not adequate.
I've included with my testimony, and put into the record, a
recent report from the Oregon Forest Resource Institute, called
Federal Forest Land in Oregon.
I'll wrap up here, Scott.
I hope you have an opportunity, along with the
subcommittee, to look at that report, because it very
succinctly describes the findings that our advisory committee
arrived at.
I just want to say that in so many ways, your bill, S.
2895, addresses all of the issues and problems that I've
identified in my testimony.
In conclusion, I would say it does correctly approach this
problem State by State. I know there's been some concern about
that, particularly within the Forest Service. In recognition
that the magnitude of this problem of our Federal forest lands
and the crisis that it represents is beyond our capacity to
fund and manage a single initiative nationwide. Your bill
strives to address these problems, beginning in Oregon where I
think we can be a model for the rest of the Nation on how to
get it right.
Senator, thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Carrier follows:]
Prepared Statement of Michael Carrier, Natural Resources Policy
Director, Office of the Governor, Salem, OR
Thank you for the opportunity to offer testimony in support of S.
2895, the Oregon Eastside Forests Restoration, Old Growth Protection
and Jobs Act of 2009. Governor Ted Kulongoski has offered his strong
support for this bill and my testimony is offered in his behalf. With
half of Oregon in federal ownership and half of that ownership in
forestland, the subject of this bill is of highest importance to the
Governor.
In October of 2004 Governor Kulongoski directed the Oregon State
Board of Forestry to ``create a unified vision of how federal lands
should contribute'' to the sustainability of Oregon's forests. The
Board created the Federal Forestlands Advisory Committee (FFAC) to
accomplish this task. The FFAC included board members from natural
resources agencies, Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management staff,
members of the conservation community, leaders in the forest industry,
local government officials as well as representatives of labor, tribes
and other interests. The FFAC held numerous meetings to engage the
public, government officials, and the scientific community; collect
information; review pertinent documents; discuss concerns and ideas;
and formulate solutions. Their final report offers a number of
consensus-based recommendations to improve the sustainability of
Oregon's federal forestlands.
The FFAC quickly identified many of the same problems that S. 2895
seeks to address. These problems were divided into two broad
categories; Problems of Place and Overarching Problems. The first
category generally describes issues and problems with the forest
resource itself whereas the second category addresses policy and legacy
management issues and problems.
The most pressing Problems of Place include:
1. Forest health and resiliency have declined in Oregon's
federal forests. Specific problems vary, depending on the type
and location of forests. The manifestations of degraded forest
health are most extreme in the dry forest types (eastern and
southwestern Oregon) where overstocked forest stands have
resulted in unprecedented landscape-scale problems like
uncharacteristic wildfire and insect epidemics that may result
in the loss of key ecological components.
Aerial surveys conducted by the USFS and Oregon Department of
Forestry (ODF) show a dramatic upward trend in insect damage
over the last 10 years. (Slides 1 and 2).* The 2008 surveys
show almost a million acres of forestland damaged by bark
beetles, defoliators, and sap-feeding insects. In eastern
Oregon more than half a million acres were damaged by the
mountain pine beetle alone.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Slides 1-8 have been retained in subcommittee files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are an estimated 11 million acres of over-stocked
national forest lands in Oregon--outside of wilderness and
roadless areas--that have missed fire cycles and are in
moderate to severe danger of losing key ecological functions
due to uncharacteristic wildfires. (Slide 3). The Nature
Conservancy estimates that federal managers need to increase
treatment rates nearly fivefold in Oregon over the next 20-25
years to address this issue.
2. Reduced timber harvest from federal forestlands has led to
a decline in forest industry infrastructure, with unintended
economic and social losses to rural communities, including
receipts from timber used to support roads and schools. (Slide
4)
The Forest Service manages almost three-fourths of the
timberland in eastern Oregon. This is a near monopoly. Without
federal timber harvests, private forestland owners will lose
access to competitive timber markets and may convert their land
to other uses (Slide 5). Timber harvest from Forest Service
lands in eastern Oregon are about 10 percent of what they were
historically. For example, annual timber harvest in the Blue
Mountains has averaged less than 50 million board feet for the
last 10 years, while between 1962 and 1991 it exceeded 537
million board feet.
Oregon is losing the infrastructure needed to manage the
forests in eastern Oregon. Between 1990 and 2008, 38 mills
closed in eastern Oregon. In 2009, we were down to eight saw
mills and two plywood mills buying logs in eastern Oregon.
Without this infrastructure the cost of treatments for
practices like fuel reduction will be much more expensive to
accomplish. (Slide 6).
Since 1990 unemployment rates in the timber dependent
communities of eastern Oregon have dramatically exceeded the
state average. In August of 2009, unemployment in eastern
Oregon was greater than 10 percent in most counties, exceeded
15 percent in six counties, and approached 20 percent in two
counties. (Slides 7 and 8).
3. The desired amount of older forests on federal forestlands
needs to be established and protected as a component of
sustainable forest management. A well-balanced program of
forest management activities is necessary to maintain the mix
of successional stages and vegetation conditions that provides
for the full diversity of habitats and species.
Loss of older forest habitat--Oregon has had a 16 percent
decline in the amount of large Ponderosa pine (greater than 21
inch diameter) since 2001. This loss is largely a function of
mortality caused by, insects, fire and crowding in overstocked
stands. The current strategy of reserves and harvest diameter
limits is not achieving the older forest goals. Other options
that include active management should be considered.
The Overarching Problems that affect our ability to adequately
address the above problems include:
1. Laws, policies, and court decisions that govern federal
forestlands have led to a collection of discordant goals and
mandates that often work at cross purposes and inhibit agencies
from reacting decisively to issues such as declining forest
health. This confusion complicates rather than solves the need
to integrate social, economic, and environmental values.
2. Past forest management, changing public values, lack of
clear, widely-accepted goals, repeated court challenges, and
the inability to implement decisions have led to a lack of
trust between stakeholders and federal forestland management
and regulatory agencies.
3. Federal, state, local and tribal governments lack an
effective process to coordinate policy decisions and achieve
landscape-scale objectives.
4. Funding is not adequate or appropriately allocated to
achieve land management objectives on federal forestlands.
Adequate and more stable funding sources are necessary to
achieve long-term management goals and sustainability.
A recent special report, Federal Forestland in Oregon, published by
the Oregon Forest Resources Institute, mirrors the analysis and
findings of the FFAC and reinforces its recommendations. Copies of that
report are available today for members of the Subcommittee and I have
submitted an electronic copy to committee staff along with my written
testimony.
I have spent quite a bit of time describing the FFAC findings
because S. 2895 so closely aligns with those findings. Following are a
few examples of that alignment:
Many of the purposes in S. 2895 and the FFAC report are the same
and include: creating an immediate, predictable, and increased timber
flow; making our forests more resilient to climate change; protecting
and restoring old growth forests; expediting actions that achieve
ecological and economic benefits; promoting collaboration; streamlining
administrative processes; and, restoring the health of forest and
aquatic ecosystems.
Both the FFAC report and S. 2895 concentrate on improving forest
health as the central theme of action. The FFAC believes that taking
action on forest health is of immediate concern and that long-term
success solving the forest health problems will require solving related
problems (i.e., timber harvest below sustainable levels, decreased
infrastructure, continued conflict over the desired amount of older
forests, lack of trust, and inadequate policy coordination).
The management approach in S. 2895 mirrors the recommendations in
the FFAC Report; i.e., assessing conditions across the landscape and
then designing large scale projects to achieve objectives derived from
the assessment. Forest health problems cover millions of acres and do
not recognize political or ownership boundaries. In this context, the
current federal forest planning model, which often approaches
management on a 5000 to 10,000 acre scale, does not work well. The
problem of scale is just one of its deficiencies. Time and process are
also factors. The three national forests in the Blue Mountains of
Oregon have been working for seven years to update a plan that is
intended to last 10 to 15 years, and we are no closer to completion
that when we started.
The FFAC recommendations rely heavily on public involvement through
local collaborative processes to increase trust and build support for
management decisions. S. 2895 provides an expanded role for involvement
of local collaborative groups in assessing management needs as well as
in designing management projects.
A key FFAC recommendation is to increase funding for management
activities. The FFAC concluded that:
Current funding is insufficient to provide basic stewardship
of the land and its resources, much less to offer a high level
of environmental, economic, social, and cultural benefits.
Declining budgets limit the agencies' ability to maintain staff
with the expertise required to conduct the services needed to
accomplish forest management objectives.
S. 2895 would significantly increase funding for management
activities by authorizing $50 million and allowing for retention of
harvest receipts to be applied to additional management. The FFAC
Report expresses a real sense of urgency:
What happens on these lands is of vital importance to
Oregonians and the Nation. It is also clear that time is not on
our side. Unless decisive steps are taken soon, we risk
accelerated loss of important habitat for animal and plant
species, further degradation of air and water quality, loss of
aquatic species, including native fish, and continued decline
in community well-being, among other things.
S. 2895 expresses this urgent need to act now, not later.
In conclusion, S. 2895 correctly approaches the problem, state-by-
state, in recognition that the magnitude of the national federal forest
health crisis is beyond our capacity to fund and manage in a single
initiative. And while we must strive to address these problems
everywhere they exist, S. 2895 offers a unique opportunity to show the
nation a way forward.
Senator Wyden. Thank you, Mr. Carrier, and we'll have some
questions for you in a moment.
That last point that you made is a particularly important
one, and these 3 staff folks have been wrestling with this, and
I have as well at some length. It's clear when you look at
forestry policy, it would be wonderful to be able to just step
back and write one bill that would recreate the system so that
it worked in every nook and cranny of the land. Regrettably
there isn't enough time to do that. In other words, we're
looking at the prospect, if you don't take action quickly, of
losing all our remaining mills on the east side.
So what we hope to do on this subcommittee is work with
Democrats and Republicans to see if we can create what I think
appropriately would be called some pilot projects, projects
that would be significant in terms of really getting at these
questions for an individual State, such as getting saw logs to
the mills, a serious thinning effort, protecting our
environmental treasures, and at the same time allowing
everybody in the country to learn from a relatively small
number of pilot projects. We're going to examine that question
at some length, but I can tell you, the point you've raised is
a point that Michelle, Frank, and Scott have spent a lot of
time on and we've had an extensive conversation with the Obama
administration on this as well.
I want to go right to Judge Webb, but I just--before you
start, Judge Webb, I just want to say how proud we were of the
resonance of Grant County earlier this year for the rejection
of hatred in your community. I know the Aryan Nations, the neo-
Nazi group--let's have a round of applause for Judge Webb.
[Applause.]
Senator Wyden. His community rose as one to rally against
hatred, and Judge, you can see that you certainly have our
affection and esteem for doing it.
So, we'll make your prepared remarks part of the record,
and you proceed as you would like.
STATEMENT OF HON. MARK WEBB, GRANT COUNTY JUDGE
Judge Webb. I do want to thank you for the opportunity to
comment on S. 2895, especially as I and some of the other
residents in my county have some concerns, so I do appreciate
that.
There's no doubt, as Mr. Carrier said, that something needs
to be done, both in terms of forest health and community
health. I actually think that putting ecological resilience
front and center, like this bill attempts to do, is exactly the
right course to take. I actually think that if you did that,
you might be in a position to rewrite more the legislation,
like you talked about, with something that would quite
centrally apply across the board, but that would be a fuller
discussion.
Nevertheless, I do have serious concerns about the
legislation in its current form. In particular, and this comes
out of a context for the last 3 years being in county
government, before that being a contractor in the woods. I've
evaluated, thought about this legislation, in terms of
litigation. I actually think that, in addition to funding
shortfalls, that litigation is the critical challenge facing
Federal forest land management. My concern, and the concern to
many of my constituents, is that this bill not only doesn't
address that, it probably will strengthen the ability of
individuals to litigate and shut down projects, that's our
concern.
So, I'll just read now some prepared statements. Past
management practices, generally sanctioned by Congress and
informed by the best available science of the time have
compromised the health of federally managed lands in various
ways, and the timber industry has been partner to this. But
again, science, Congress, industry, we've got a past history
there that we need to correct. However, litigation,
particularly by environmentalists, over the last couple
decades, coupled with its resulting lack of active management,
has brought many of these lands to the brink of ecological
disaster. Frankly, given where they started, we're in a far
worse condition now than we were when we were logging.
Unfortunately, S. 2895 not only fails to address this critical
challenge, but will arguably strengthen it.
I say this because while S. 2895 is strongly supported by
some environmental organizations, but only some, this support
reflects, at least in large part, a compromise position that is
arguably purchased at the cost of additional, far-reaching
protections. The bill introduces a new level of protection, new
types of protection over existing protections that the Forest
Service has to deal with. As a result, if passed, the bill will
require the Forest Service to undergo even more regulatory and
bureaucratic challenges as they attempt to implement the types
of projects described in the bill. The new protections, with
the bill's associated language, will provide new and ripe
opportunities for litigation and strengthen the hand of
environmentalists who are already so adept at litigating, who
do not support this bill, and many do not, and who remain in
principle opposed to responsible management on Federal lands,
and many of these groups do remain opposed in principle to
active management on Federal land, particularly when it has a
commercial component. This is a bad mix, and it's one that the
bill will empower.
So just in brief, rather than going through all the other
stuff I talked about in my written comments, I'd say this, S.
2895 increases the scope and nature of the protections the
Forest Service must deal with, but it does not provide the
Forest Service with any new authorities. They can already do
everything contained in the bill without the legislation, they
can do everything in it, and they can do it easier because
there are not the additional protections.
As a result, it will make their work even more difficult
and costly, but it will make that of environmentalists bent on
stopping active management through litigation even more easy.
This is a recipe for management failure, and it is why the bill
should not be passed as it's currently written.
I just want to stress again, we think you're going in the
right direction, but we also think the bill need considerable
revamping or it's going to open the Forest Service up to even
more litigation, more process, more procedures, and even if you
get the promised additional funding, it's not going to be well
spent.
So, just to finish, I would like to go back to the comment
you made, and I think it is true, people in my community, some
of the mills are very supportive of this bill, some of the
environmentalists I respect are very supportive of this bill.
You said that they've said it's time to break the gridlock, and
I would agree, they would agree. My challenge would be this, if
they really do believe that, we don't need a new piece of
legislation. The Forest Service has the existing authorities it
needs to do what's needed on the ground to bring forests back
to ecological health, ecological resiliency.
All we need is funding. That's what we should be working
on, a different funding structure, different funding sources to
fund the work that the forests should, in principle, already be
able to do, but cannot do because of all the process,
procedure, and litigation.
I'll just leave it at that. That's my main concern,
generally speaking, about the bill.
[The prepared statement of Judge Webb follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Mark Webb, Grant County Judge
I would like to thank you for the opportunity to comment on S.
2895.
I also want to thank Senator Wyden and his staff for their ongoing
efforts to address issues relevant to forest and community health.
Despite my concerns about the merits of S. 2895, I very much appreciate
your efforts in this regard.
COMMENTS ON S. 2895
Most people I know support the purposes for which the bill was
crafted (p. 2-3). A number of Grant County residents support the bill,
regardless of its content, largely for the funding it promises and the
hope it creates that a more active, responsible era of federal land
management is possible. However, many residents, me included, have
serious concerns about the merits of this bill in its current form.
Generally speaking, my concern is this: S. 2895 increases the scope
and nature of the protections the Forest Service must deal with, but
does not provide them with any new authorities. As a result it will
make their work even more difficult, but that of environmentalists bent
on stopping active management through litigation, even more easy. This
is a recipe for management failure--and it is why the bill should not
be passed as it's currently written.
LITIGATION
Past management practices--generally sanctioned by Congress and
informed by the best available science of the time--have compromised
the health of federally managed lands in various ways. However,
litigation over the last couple decades coupled with its resulting lack
of active management has brought many of these lands to the brink of
ecological disaster. As such litigation is the critical challenge
compromising effective management of federal lands today.
Unfortunately, S. 2895 not only fails to address this critical
challenge, but will arguably strengthen it.
I say this because while the bill is strongly supported some
environmental organizations, this support reflects a compromise
position that is arguably purchased at the cost of additional, far
reaching protections. As a result, if passed, the bill will require the
Forest Service to undergo even more regulatory and bureaucratic
challenges as they attempt to implement the types of projects described
in the bill. The new protections, with the bill's associated language,
will provide new and ripe opportunities for litigation and strengthen
the hand of environmentalists who are already so adept at litigating,
who do not support the bill, and who remain in principle opposed to
responsible management on federal lands. This is a bad mix, and one the
bill will empower.
LITIGATION--SOME ``LANGUAGE'' PROBLEMS
(1) The bill makes frequent, critical use of the notion of ``best
available science''. Yet that phrase must always be understood against
a background set of beliefs, assumptions, and perspectives about what
counts as good science and what counts as relevant in any given
situation. And that can vary enormously between scientific disciplines,
and even between practitioners within the same discipline. The phrase
will also mean one thing in a more theoretical, research oriented
context and quite another in the applied context of actual forest work
and responsible land management.
In short, the phrase ``best available science'' lacks a single,
univocal meaning that applies across the various disciplines and
contexts of application this bill covers. Given the central role the
phrase plays in the implementation of the bill, without further
clarification it will constitute an important weakness that will be
exploited by groups opposed to active management on federal lands.
(2) The bill requires, within 5 years of its passage, the Secretary
to dispense with the ``cutting limitations'' described in section
4(b)'' of the bill (p. 45ff), and to ``prepare ecological restoration
projects that are designed to use an age [class] limitation [rather
than a diameter limitation] that prohibits the harvest of any tree the
age of which is greater than 150 years'' (p. 45ff).
This is confusing, for two reasons. One is that 4(b) essentially
prohibits the ``removal'', or harvest, of any tree larger or smaller
than 21 inches dbh unless certain ecological conditions are met
(p.16ff). Ecological considerations in 4(b), not diameter limits,
really determine what size trees can be removed. The bill essentially
starts with an age class limitation despite its reference to diameters.
The other reason is that the cutting limitations contained in 4(b),
which the Secretary is supposed to dispense with, include precisely the
kind of ecological considerations the bill is intended to promote.
I'm confident this is not the bill's intent, but the bill's
language appears to require it. The apparent lack of consistency in
this regard will create serious problems for the design and
implementation of projects.
(3) The bill lays out specific goals for the areas covered and the
projects undertaken. At one point the bill states ``the Secretary shall
consider methodologies that could potentially help achieve . . . wood
harvests to sustain adequate levels of industry infrastructure'' (p.
14ff), while at another it states the projects ``shall provide a
minimum quantity of timber based on the need to maintain a sustainable
industrial capacity to perform the ecological restoration activities
under this Act'' (p. 40ff).
The potential problem here is that the meaning--hence practical
implication--of phrases like `adequate levels', `minimum quantity', or
`sustainable capacity' depends critically on the nature and scope of
the activities undertaken. For example, the amount of industrial
capacity needed to mechanically treat a 30,000 acre project that treats
60% or more of the acres in the project--a reasonable expectation if
restoring and maintaining ecological resiliency is the goal--will be
significantly higher than if we treat those acres in a non-mechanical
fashion, say by burning, or treat only 25% of these acres in whatever
manner, as is common nowadays. Alternatively, what if we need to
sustain a higher industrial capacity, just to have any industrial
capacity whatsoever in the area to do restoration work, than what the
advisory panel considers necessary to perform the scope and nature of
work they deem appropriate? This is a practical problem that is sure to
occur with far reaching implications on several fronts. Yet the bill
provides no clear guidance or means by which to address it.
There are other examples, but: As a piece of legislation that
intends to change the direction and focus of eastside forest land
management, create jobs, and help stabilize communities, the bill
requires considerably more tightening up of its language and the
consistency between its parts and sections if it is to see smooth and
effective implementation.
LITIGATION--SOME REGULATORY CONCERNS
(1) With some exceptions, the Forest Service currently prohibits
harvesting trees 21 inches dbh or larger. Some environmental groups
regularly threaten to sue, or litigate projects, in the attempt to move
tree harvest size down to 14 inches dbh and less--i.e., to the
economically less valuable trees. Often successful, such a move
compromises the ecological value of the project because it prevents the
Forest Service from implementing treatments that reduce to appropriate
levels fuel loads or basal area. It also compromises their ability to
underwrite the cost of work by reducing the amount merchantable
material they can harvest from the projects.
It is worth noting in this context that, unlike protected animals,
large trees can't migrate and therefore populate areas that lack them.
However, the ecological value of large trees can, in an important
sense, be ``transferred'' to other areas that need treatment via the
harvesting (where appropriate) and economic return provided by larger
trees, which can then be used to underwrite treatments in other areas
to restore or maintain ecological resilience.
That said, S. 2895 will prohibit the harvest of trees 21 inches dbh
or larger, as well as trees that are smaller than this, unless certain
conditions are met. That is, the bill will essentially prohibit the
harvesting of any trees whatsoever their size unless certain conditions
are met. This prohibition probably represents an attempt to protect not
only old growth trees, but also trees with old growth characteristics--
something environmentalists support. Whatever the motivation, this
prohibition and its associated conditions will provide
environmentalists with additional legal leverage to use as they
litigate to stop the commercial harvest of any trees.
The bill's prohibition on harvest will therefore complicate the
Forest Service's job, increase the likelihood of successful litigation
by environmentalists, and further compromise attempts to implement cost
effective, ecologically appropriate treatments based in part on the
quality and amount of merchantable material available per acre treated.
(3) The bill enlarges the scope of PACFISH/INFISH. As such it
ignores the growing body of evidence that indicates riparian habitat
and returning numbers of listed fish on national forests are, generally
speaking, trending upward. It ignores the fact that many of these areas
themselves require active management if they are to be healthy again.
And it ignores the fact that these areas are among the most productive
timber lands available, such that treatment in these areas would be
ecologically beneficial and economically advantageous. In short, there
appears to be no compelling ecological reason to expand their scope,
but several good reasons--both economic and ecological--to forego that
move.
Given this, arguably the only reason to expand the scope of PACFISH
and INFISH is to secure support for the bill by environmentalists. This
move, however, is a bad move and will further complicate the Forest
Service's job as well as the cost of its projects, and further empower
environmentalists who regularly litigate to stop commercial activity--
e.g. grazing--on federal lands.
(4) The bill requires the Secretary to ``carry out implementation
of each ecological project in a manner consistent with the advice of
the advisory panel'' (p. 13). This assumes the panel's advice will
always embody the ``best available science''--otherwise the bill
wouldn't require the Secretary to act in a manner consistent with the
panel's advice. The bill does not require the Secretary to do likewise
with either Forest Service personnel or collaborative groups. This
assumes that Forest Service personnel and collaborative groups lack the
scientific know-how and practical expertise to implement sound
restoration projects--otherwise the Secretary would be required to act
in a manner consistent with their advice. Both assumptions are
mistaken.
In addition, the bill explicitly ascribes a number of
responsibilities to the Advisory Panel. I would argue that it tacitly
expects the panel will function to provide a ``unified'' scientific
``voice'' to cut through the problems ``dueling'' science presents
nowadays for project implementation and courtroom litigation. If so,
this is an unlikely outcome for two reasons. One is that the bill does
not imbue the advisory panel with the necessary scientific or legal
weight required to put such matters to rest quickly, if at all, in the
relevant contexts. The other is that at the project level, the
scientific advice in question will amount to the application of
science. As such, the ``right'' application of science in these
contexts will vary according to the various goals, perspectives, and
values of the scientific practitioners in question.
The advisory panel is unlikely to function effectively as intended
over the long-term. It will add to the bureaucratic and procedural
challenges the Forest Service needs less of. There is therefore no good
reason to craft a piece of legislation around such a concept or group.
There are other examples, but to conclude: As a piece of
legislation that promises to significantly enlarge the scope of work on
eastside federal lands, and enhance and expedite the implementation of
projects, the bill requires considerably more work if it is to be
successfully implemented and we are to see healthier forests, more
jobs, and more stable communities. To this end I would urge Senator
Wyden's office to revisit the notion of ecological resiliency and more
fully exploit its promise as the center piece of this bill and
management efforts generally for eastside federal lands.
Senator Wyden. Judge, thank you, and I'll have some
questions in a moment. I obviously am very, very sympathetic to
the kind of economic hurt that folks are going through in Grant
County. As you know, I've been over there for something like 14
town hall meetings over the years, and it just leaps out at you
when you spend a couple of hours just listening to folks.
One of the reasons that we do feel that it's important to
build a coalition like this, I mean, this is the premiere
forestry groups, the American Forest Resources Council, Boise-
Cascade, Ochoco, and leading environmental groups, is we
haven't been able to get started. I mean, year after year after
year we've been tied up in knots. I think you're absolutely
right, with respect to this funding issue, which is why I
pushed so hard and we were successful to get the $50 million
included in the President's budget. But I do think we've got to
get started and we've got to get started on some of they key
issues, which you correctly addressed, this question of appeals
and litigation.
You look at section 9, you look at section 11 of the bill,
they go right to that issue. Now, maybe we should work with
folks and refine them. I can tell you that I've got some
Democrats who think that we're doing too much to restrict
appeals and litigation, and I respect your view that perhaps
not enough has been done. But, I want you to know, to me,
getting started is what this is about, so I'll have some
questions in a moment.
Mr. Smith.
Judge Webb. Can I correct one thing? I'm not saying that I
think you need to do with the existing appeal process and the
like, what I was saying is that there seems to be a pretty
strong correlation, the more protections you've got, the more
litigation you're likely to face. This bill introduces more
protections, so it's likely to open the door to more
litigation. So, I'll leave it at that.
Senator Wyden. I sure wouldn't see the country's premier
timber industry groups going to press conferences for bills
that are going to produce more litigation. That's what we had
in December, we had the leading timber groups saying they felt
it was important to get started. So, we'll have a debate some
more on it, but I just so value the input coming from Grant
County, and we're going to want to work very, very closely with
you in the days ahead.
Mr. Smith, welcome.
STATEMENT OF STANLEY SMITH, CHAIRMAN, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF
WARM SPRINGS
Mr. Smith. Good afternoon, Senator Wyden. I'm Stanley Buck
Smith, I'm the Chairman of the Confederate Tribes of Warm
Springs Reservation Oregon, and I appreciate the opportunity to
be here today to offer comments, on behalf of the tribe, on the
Eastside Forest Bill.
Warm Springs Reservation includes large forested areas with
significant tracks of commercial tribal timber. We manage these
lands carefully to serve important varied economic and cultural
values. The tribe has--the tribe also has a treaty reserved
rights to hunt, fish, gather, and graze livestock on Federal
lands outside of our reservation, including lands on the
Deschutes, Ochoco, Malheur, and Umatilla National Forest. As
you can see, the Warm Spring tribes have both expertise and the
unique rights and interests to bring to the discussion of the
managing Oregon's eastside forests.
There is no disagreement that national forest lands here in
central and eastern Oregon are seriously degraded and in
crisis. Over the past decade and more, a variety of efforts
have been made to try to address these problems. Clear success
has been elusive and the health of our national forests
continue to decline. Hopefully S. 2895 will reverse this
situation.
These ecosystems needs need to be returned to normal--to
more natural conditions. It is important to recognize that
the--for centuries, prior to you America settlement, tribes
actively managed these forest lands. These management
activities were highly sustainable. They supported habitat and
watershed functions that provided food, fiber, shelter, and
commerce for tribal communities. These include fish, game,
traditional plants, among other things.
The management of today's forest, the tribe has constantly
stressed the need for certain fundamentals, these include sound
science-based decisionmaking, collaborative and landscape scale
planning, long-term stewardship contracting, creation of market
through biomass utilization to assist forest health
restoration, and monitoring to verify management outcomes, and
drive adaptive management.
We are pleased these elements are in the Eastside Forest
Bill. S. 2895 is clearly the most involved, direct, detailed
approach prescribed yet to improve forest health. Ultimately,
while stockholder involvement is a hallmark of this
legislation, it is incomplete. The bill omits specific
inclusions of the tribes, the oldest stewards or Oregon's lands
and resources. We have lived on and managed these lands and
resources for tens of thousand of years. We have history, we
have knowledge, we have unique rights interest on these lands.
The tribe must be included in the bill's technical advisory
panel to the other groups. The tribe values its positive
working relationship with Federal resource managers and other
neighbors.
We believe that this bill, with minor modifications, can
help to reinforce these successes. We look forward to working
with Senator Wyden and joining and advancing S. 2895 to as much
as a needed focus and attention can be brought to improve
Oregon's Eastside National Forest.
Thanks for allowing the Confederate Tribes of Warm Springs
the opportunity to make our comments.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Smith follows:]
Prepared Statement of Stanley Smith, Chairman, Confederated Tribes of
Warm Springs
Mr. Chairman, I am Stanley Smith, Chairman of the Confederated
Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon. I am here today to
offer the Tribe's testimony on the Eastside Forests bill.
The Tribe has significant interests in forest management on federal
lands. The Warm Springs Reservation consists of approximately 640,000
acres. 440,000 acres are forested and 300,000 are in commercial timber
production. The Tribe also reserved important off-Reservation treaty
rights to hunt, fish, gather and graze livestock on federal lands.
While our Reservation is primarily bounded by the Mount Hood
National Forest, which is not subject to S. 2895, the Deschutes
National Forest is immediately adjacent to our southern boundary and
our Treaty-ceded territory also includes lands in the Ochoco, Malheur,
and Umatilla National Forests, and our Treaty reserved rights extend to
those lands.
The on-Reservation and off-Reservation forested lands are essential
for providing watershed functions for clean water and habitat for fish
and wildlife species. They are also an element of the Tribe's culture,
vital for improving and sustaining the quality of life of Tribal
members and they are a key support to the Tribe's self-governance and
sovereignty. These values are recognized in federal policy--the Tribal
Forest Protection Act--which the Tribe fully supports.
Eastside forests are part of a fire-adapted ecology; however,
several factors have combined to create conditions that make wildfires
extremely hazardous. These ecosystems desperately need to be returned
to a more natural condition--the bill's focus appears to be on
conditions before Euro-American settlement.
It is important to recognize, however, that for centuries prior to
Euro-American settlement, tribal communities actively undertook forest
land management activities. These management activities were highly
sustainable--they supported habitat and watershed functions that
provided food, fiber, shelter and commerce for tribal communities. This
included fish, game, and traditional plants among others.
The Tribe has commented many times in numerous forums stressing the
need for:
sound science based decision-making,
collaborative and landscape scale planning,
long term stewardship contracting,
creation of a market through biomass utilization to assist
forest health restoration, and
monitoring to verify management outcomes and facilitate
adaptive management.
The Tribe is pleased to see these elements included in the Eastside
Forest bill. They are compatible with the Tribe's current efforts to
advance its proposed biomass facility, to increase its direct
management oversight on tribal resource lands, including forestry
operations, and to engage with all our neighbors in efforts to better
manage and preserve the lands and resources within our Treaty ceded
territory.
There is no disagreement that our National Forest lands throughout
the west and particularly right here in central and eastern Oregon are
seriously degraded and in crisis. Over the past decade and more, a
variety of efforts have been made to try to address these problems. But
unfortunately, clear success has been elusive. Gridlock remains, and
the health of our National Forests continues to decline. In response,
now comes S. 2895, the Oregon Eastside Forests Restoration, Old Growth
Protection, and Jobs Act of 2009, the most involved, direct, and
detailed approach yet to improving forest health. Like its
predecessors, no one can predict how it it will turn out. It may work,
and we hope it will, or it may not. But the exactitude of this bill is
testament to the desperate circumstances Oregon's citizens and the U.S.
Forest Service face in the care of these lands. So, too, is the fact
that the conservation and forest products communities have come
together to collaborate on this measure.
Unfortunately, the collaboration that is a hallmark of this
legislation is incomplete. The bill omits specific inclusion of the
tribes, the oldest stewards of Oregon's lands and resources. We have
lived on and managed these lands and resources for tens of thousands of
years. We have history, we have knowledge, and we have unique rights
and interests on these lands that we fought and negotiated for when the
Europeans arrived. Now, with this legislation that seeks to return
Oregon's eastside National Forests to something close to the state in
which we left them to you, it is hard to understand why we have been
omitted, particularly from the Advisory Panel and specific inclusion in
the collaborative groups.
Notable omissions in the bill include
the failure to recognize the need for tribal expertise on
the Technical Advisory Panel related to traditional plants and
management regimes;
the failure to require tribal participation in groups
seeking to become recognized collaborative groups by the
Secretary, especially when other local government participation
is required; and
the failure to otherwise clearly address traditional plants
and management practices in the landscape scale planning
process and restoration activities under the bill.
In an effort to return forest conditions to a more natural state,
the Tribe believes that it is necessary to understand pre-European
settlement conditions and management practices and have a goal of
improving the condition of these treaty resources--healthy fisheries,
big game, cultural plants, among others--incorporated into restoration
plans.
Many resources that once existed, for example huckleberry or root
fields, have been altered or crowded out by different species. Tribes
must be involved and consulted technically in order to understand the
location of these resources and the methods traditionally employed for
management so that we can work together to have success in restoring
them.
The Tribe values its collaborative working relationship with
federal resource managers and we believe that this bill, with minor
modifications, can help to reinforce these successes. We look forward
to working with Senator Wyden in joining and advancing S. 2895, so that
the much needed focus and attention can be brought to improving
Oregon's eastside National Forests.
Thank for allowing the CTWS the opportunity to comment.
Senator Wyden. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for
coming. I think it's fair to say you all have been a critical
partner in the management of Federal lands. You've done an
excellent job of managing your own lands, and with your
successful biomass facility, I think your input is especially
important right now, as we seek to expand biomass as a major
jobs producer for our State. This is about greening up our
power supply, putting our folks to work, and you all are a text
book case of a biomass program that I think we can build on in
the days ahead.
What do you think is possible in terms of increased and
improved management of Federal lands for your biomass program?
Do you believe you could grow it 20 percent, 30 percent, what
do you think is the potential here with improved management of
Federal lands for your biomass program?
Mr. Smith. I think we need to, actual--I think we--we can
only probably produce 30 or 40 percent----
Senator Wyden. More.
Mr. Smith [continuing]. Then we'd be running out, yes.
Senator Wyden. You could produce 30 or 40 percent more?
Mr. Smith. Yes. We need the other forest, you know, we got
to make it work and deal with that, you know, really to make it
feasible to operate our biomass.
Senator Wyden. Good. I could tell you, anybody who can
increase their 30 or 40 percent of what they're doing, and
they're talking about a promising industry of the future, that
is--that is good news for folks in Oregon where the
unemployment, of course, has been consistently higher than
almost anywhere in the country. So, that is good news, Mr.
Chairman.
Tell me also, so we can nail this down, we tried to make
sure that the tribe would be well represented in the advisory
process. Are there some additional changes that you all are
seeking in that area?
Mr. Smith. You know Senator, I've been the chairman for 1
month, so----
Senator Wyden. Oh, you're a grizzled veteran.
Mr. Smith. Yes, so that should say something, but you know,
I know we've been working on this for a long time, and I fully
don't have an answer to that. I don't know if my--John, do we
have any comments on that?
Senator Wyden. Extra points for candor, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Smith. Right.
Senator Wyden. Given the fact you've been there for a
month, we'll follow up with you for the record, but I want you
to note that I want to be very sensitive to the point of making
sure that we get the advisory functions of this bill right, so
that the tribe is a full partner, a full and activist partner
in this effort.
As I said, I think your biomass contribution alone makes it
clear that you are setting out some of the most promising
ground for the rural Oregon economy, and we're going to work
closely with you.
Mr. Smith. Yes, our natural resources department handles
most of that.
Senator Wyden. Very good, we'll involve them as well.
Let's go then to you, for a minute, Mr. Carrier, tell me a
little bit about the work of the Federal Forest Advisory
Committee, in other words, the State is obviously front and
center on lands owned by the State, but tell me about the work
with the Federal Forest Advisory Committee and how the State
and the Federal Government interact.
Mr. Carrier. Senator, thank you for that question, because
that was the part of the Federal Forest Advisory Committee.
Senator Wyden. I think we're----
Mr. Carrier. I'm sorry, that was me turning it off, which I
will learn not to do next time. There it is, it's on now.
Senator Wyden. All right.
Mr. Carrier. Senator, sorry.
Thank you for asking the question because that was part of
the work of the committee that I didn't get, was what were
their recommendations and why was the Governor and the
committee motivated to have the State take on this role of
partnering with the Federal agencies to bring additional
capacity to the Federal land management effort. It's because,
as we all agree, the Federal footprint of these forest lands in
Oregon is huge. The legacy of its contribution to our economy
and to rural jobs is incredible. The loss of that capacity and
those jobs and those benefits of those lands that we're
experiencing is very pronounced, especially here on the east
side.
So, the advisory committee had 3 major categories of
recommendations. The first was for the State legislature to
make appropriations, additional appropriations to our State
Department of Forestry, so we could have foresters available to
assist in Federal land management activities. As you know, we,
like most States, are in a severe budget situation right now.
We weren't able to receive those appropriations, but
fortuitously, a year ago when the Federal Stimulus legislation
was passed, quite a bit of the Forest Service money came to
this region for forest health work that the Forest Service
didn't have the capacity to manage on its own, and about 40 FTE
of State forestry staff that we would have otherwise laid off,
we were able to move over under contract to the Forest Service
to provide the very kind of assistance that the Federal Forest
Advisory Committee had recommended the State has the
opportunity to offer.
The second area was for the Congress to adopt policy
legislation and appropriations to bring additional capacity to
these Federal land efforts. Much of what was in that
recommendation of that committee is embodied in your bill,
Senator.
Then the third area was, because of the importance of
collaborations and how they demonstrated the opportunity to
bring peace and resolution to potential conflict over
management is so important. There was a third category of
recommendations in which Oregon would sponsor and partnership
with the National Policy Consensus Center at Portland State
University, a form to incubate, grow, support, and mature
collaborations on Federal forest land management around Oregon.
I'm happy to say, that that part continues to function. I
convene every month a meeting, many of the people in this room
are stakeholders that have joined in that collaboration and we
have identified and are supporting and fostering the growth of
collaborations as modeled in your legislation.
Senator Wyden. What about landscape scale projects, that is
a major focus of this legislation and I know this is an issue
you all have been examining at the State level, as well. Can
you elaborate there?
Mr. Carrier. Yes, thank you, Senator. That was a major
finding of the FFAC, was that the current Forest Service
planning model does not work well in addressing landscape scale
restoration and forest health needs. As you well know, forests
don't recognize ownership or political boundaries, and the
problems of forest health, insect and disease and catastrophic
wild fires do not recognize those boundaries. We need to be
treating these forests on a landscape scale.
The current Forest Service planning model tends to treat
management on 5 to 10 thousand acre blocks, and not of a
landscape scale. So the committee recognized, as you have in
your legislation, that we've got to start approaching
management on a large landscape scale, so that was a major
finding and recommendation.
Senator Wyden. OK.
Judge Webb, question for you. One of the big areas of focus
for this coalition was to find a way to jumpstart some very
tangible progress. In other words, we've gone on for years and
years and years with this gridlock and simply been unable to
move forward. I share your view, as we've talked about, that
funding is absolutely key to all this, that was the point of
pushing in the Obama administration. I share your view with
respect to litigation and appeals, that's why we have
provisions there. But give me your thoughts on how you would
jumpstart a major thinning and restoration effort, getting saw
logs to the mills, without something like we have in this
legislation?
In other words, you've made the argument, and it's one that
I've thought a lot about, that gosh, if they just give us the
money everything's going to come out fine. But it seems to me
there's still a big challenge with the gridlock. So, what the
coalition behind this bill did, is they found a very specific,
almost step by step process, for jumpstarting a serious
restoration, saw logs to the mills, thinning kind of effort.
What would be your approach for jumpstarting such an effort?
Judge Webb. That's an excellent question. My proposal would
be that we start at the bottom and work up, and that is begin
with the local collaborative. There is a collaborative in Grant
County that works on the mount here, actually 2 of them. The
one I'm a part of is the Blue Mountain Forest Partners. The
other I believe is called the Southern Blues. We are both asked
and invited the possibility of using them out here in total or
just a part of it, as a pilot project, to implement some of the
kind of prescriptions and approaches to forest restoration that
you talk about here. So, that is very real. It could be likely,
short the funding.
That is to say, we can currently pursue everything again
that's in here, through that collaboration, which you're going
to have work through a collaboration anyway, without yet
mandating sort of legislatively across the board that certain
things have to be done before we know whether they're going to
work well or not. We would welcome the opportunity to do a
pilot project on them out here in Grant County. You've got some
of the major players, some of the major environmental
organizations, industry folks, the elected officials. It would
be a great opportunity to sort of test, not just in principle,
but in practice, what you've proposed here and to see how it
actually works on the ground, and if it can be implemented.
That would be a start.
Senator Wyden. We'll definitely follow up with you. My
concern would be to just do it in one county, and obviously, as
part of our legislation, your county, you know, Grant County,
eastern Oregon is going to be a special focus of this bill. We
could probably lose a lot of mills in the process if we just
had only one, you know, county. We're looking at 6 national
forests and essentially eastern and central Oregon. But you all
have been very constructive to work with, not just on this
legislation, but on timber payments and--so we'll be consulting
you often.
Judge Webb. I don't think you need to just start in Grant
County, I think what I wanted to stress is, whatever county you
start in, it should be at the bottom, work up through the
collaborative, if there is the available funding, we can
attempt to implement what's here and see how it works before it
becomes the law of the land with the associated concerns that
we have.
Senator Wyden. Very good.
Gentlemen, thank you all. We'll excuse you at this time and
we'll be working closely with you.
Our second panel includes folks with a great deal of
expertise in the forestry arena. They were essential to getting
the agreement, go forward with this legislation. Jerry
Franklin, Professor of Ecosystem Analysis at the College of
Forest Resources at the University of Washington, Tom Insko,
Region Manager, Boise Cascade, Jim Wall, Executive Director for
Lake County Resources, Russ Hoeflich, Vice President and State
Director for Nature Conservancy, and Tim Lillebo, Eastern
Oregon Wildlands Advocate for Oregon Wild.
All right, gentlemen, thank you all. We very much
appreciate everybody coming out, and let's begin, if we could,
with you, Professor Franklin.
Welcome, thank you for your yeoman efforts over these many
years, to prosecute the case of sustainable forestry and really
welcome you this afternoon to central Oregon.
STATEMENT OF JERRY F. FRANKLIN, PROFESSOR, ECOSYSTEM SCIENCE,
SCHOOL OF FOREST RESOURCES, UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON
Mr. Franklin. Thank you, Senator Wyden, it's a pleasure to
be here today.
I'm here, of course, providing testimony for myself and for
Dr. K. Norman Johnson of Oregon State University. We're really
focusing our testimony on restoration on the dry forests that
dominate the forests of eastern Oregon and Washington, and
particularly the state of scientific understanding of forest
restoration, and our recommendations given that understanding.
In my remarks here, I'm just going to emphasize 2 or 3
significant points. When we talk about the dry forests, we are
talking about the forest that belonged primary to the ponderosa
pine and dry mixed conifer plant associations, which
historically were characterized by relatively frequent but low
to moderate severity disturbance, including wildfire and
localized insect outbreaks.
Restoration of these ecosystems and landscapes must be the
primary focus of our stewardship in these national forests, not
merely focused efforts that address only wildfire and fuels.
Threats from wildfire, insects, and climate change can only be
dealt with appropriately in the context of returning dry forest
and landscapes to a more natural, functional, and resilient
state. If we focus or allow ourselves to be focused only on
wildfire and fuels, we get led down blind alleys and
interminable arguments about how little or how much management
is needed to modify fire behavior, when the issues and the
solution are much more fundamental than that.
The dense mixed conifer stands often dominated by grand fir
and Douglas fir are under constant attacks from spruce bud worm
and other defoliators, large contiguous blocks of such forests
are not sustainable and never have been in these landscapes.
The scientific evidence is overwhelming that there have
been massive changes in the average structure, density,
composition of the dry forest, and the balance among fire
regimes and fire behaviors, and the fundamental patterns of
forests covering these landscapes, and in the resilience of
these forests. To argue otherwise is nonsense, it defies both
what has been documented and what we can see with our own eyes.
Worse, it tends to mislead one to believe that everything
happening out there is natural, part of a natural cycle and
that nature will correct it.
Western civilization has massively altered these forests
and landscapes, reducing their resilience and putting them at
great risk in a warming and drying area. Nature will provide a
corrective to these changes if we do not, but we will not like
the consequences, for it will be at high cost in wildlife
habitat, water quality, and other services, and catastrophic
losses of the irreplaceable old pines.
We created the highly dysfunctional ecosystem conditions
that currently exist, and in our opinion, we are obligated to
work with nature in bringing them back to a more functional and
sustainable state.
Restoration programs must begin with efforts to restore and
maintain historic populations of the old trees. Old growth
trees, primarily, but not exclusively of pine, are the keystone
ecological structures in these dry forests. In stands of
appropriate density, these old trees dominate, provide critical
habitat, offer the greatest resistance to fire and drought and
climate change, and are the source of the large persistent
snags and logs. Again, critical habitat for the majority of the
vertebrates.
Stewardship needs to focus on retaining and nurturing the
existing population of old trees, and again, they are as at
great of risk from excessive stand density from competition as
they are from fire. Focus needs to really be on the old trees
rather than on simply larger trees, because it is the old trees
that have the greatest ecological and social significance. The
current diameter limit permits the removable of irreplaceable
old trees, and deters us from removing large, young,
competitive firs that threaten the survival of the old trees.
Again, you know, our view here is that in a perfect world,
we might wait to take action until we knew a certainty all
effects that a widespread restoration program would have on all
creatures. We don't have that luxury, given the state of our
forests and the values. The peril to the dry forests from
inaction is too great and that certainly includes the mixed
conifer forests. We need to undertake major restoration efforts
now.
Thank you.
Senator Wyden. Very well said, Professor, and I'll have
questions just in a moment.
Mr. Insko.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Franklin follows:]
Prepared Statement of Jerry F. Franklin, Professor, Ecosystem Science,
School of Forest Resources, University of Washington
I am Dr. Jerry F. Franklin and I am here today to give testimony
for myself and Dr. K. Norman Johnson. I am Professor of Ecosystem
Science in the School of Forest Resources at University of Washington.
Dr. Johnson is University Distinguished Professor in the College of
Forestry at Oregon State University. These comments represent our views
and not those of our respective institutions.
Our testimony focuses on restoration of the Dry Forests that
dominate the national forests of eastern Oregon, especially the state
of scientific understanding of forest restoration and our
recommendations given that understanding. We previously gave testimony
on the scientific principles imbedded in the Oregon Eastside Forests
Restoration, Old Growth Protection and Jobs Act of 2009 (S 2895)--the
topic of today's hearing. Today we thought it would be most useful to
address the broad scientific foundations for action in the forests of
eastern Oregon, given that S 2895 calls for action and controversies
have recently surfaced about whether active management is needed to
restore these forests.
Division of federal forests into Moist and Dry Forests based upon
plant association is a critical initial step in forest restoration
planning and development of forest policy related to old-growth. The
Dry Forests belong primarily to the ponderosa pine and dry mixed-
conifer plant associations, which historically were characterized by
relatively frequent low-and mixed-severity disturbances, including
wildfire and localized insect outbreaks. Moist Forests are found at
higher elevations and are characterized by infrequent disturbances that
include stand-replacement components. On Dry Forest sites, the
composition and structure of most existing forests--including those
that can be characterized as old growth--have been significantly
altered by western civilization. These changes have been brought about
by numerous activities including fire suppression, grazing by domestic
livestock, logging, and plantation establishment. These activities have
resulted in dramatic increases in stand density and shifts in
composition toward less fire-and drought-tolerant tree species. Active
management often is required in these Dry Forests to reduce the
potential for uncharacteristic and ecologically damaging wildfire and
insect outbreaks, even though many of these forests still have
populations of old-growth trees.
Restoration of the dry forest ecosystems and landscapes must be the
primary focus of our stewardship in the national forests in eastern
Oregon and Washington--not narrowly focused efforts that address only
wildfire and fuels! Threats from wildfire, insects, and climate change
only can be dealt with appropriately in the context of returning dry
forests and landscapes to a more natural, functional and resilient
state. There are multiple undesirable consequences of the hugely
excessive areas of overly dense and drought-and fire-prone stands that
we have created during the last 150 years. Insects are at least as much
of a risk to these forests and the services that they provide as severe
wildfire. The monocular focus on wildfire and fuels leads us down blind
alleys and interminable arguments about how little or how much
management is needed to modify fire behavior, when issues and solutions
are much more fundamental. The dense mature stands of grand fir and
Douglas-fir are under constant attacks from spruce budworm and other
defoliators; large contiguous blocks of such forests are not
sustainable and never have been. In overly dense old-growth stands,
competition from young firs put old pines at increasing risk to bark
beetle attack. There is strong evidence that they are declining in
vigor and dying at accelerating rates (see, e.g., van Mantgem et al.
2009, Widespread increase of tree mortality rates in the western United
States. Science 323:521-524).
The scientific evidence is overwhelming that there have been
massive changes in the average structure (density) and composition of
the dry forests, in the balance among fire regimes and fire behaviors,
in the fundamental patterns of forest cover in these landscapes, and in
the resilience of these forests. To argue otherwise is nonsense,
defying both what has been documented and what we can see with our own
eyes. Worse, it misleads one to believe that everything that is
happening out there is ``natural''--part of a natural cycle--and that
nature will correct it. Western civilization has massively changed
these forests and landscapes, reducing their resilience and putting
them at great risk in a warming and drying era. Nature will provide a
corrective to these changes--if we do not--but we will not like the
consequences for it will be at high cost in owl and other wildlife
habitat, water quality and other services, and catastrophic losses of
the irreplaceable old pines! We created the currently highly
dysfunctional ecosystem conditions and, in our opinion, we are
obligated to work with nature in bringing them back to a more
functional and sustainable state.
Restoration programs must begin with efforts to restore and
maintain historic populations of the old pine trees. Old-growth trees--
primarily ponderosa pine but sometimes of other species, such as
western larch, Douglas-fir, and sugar pine--are the keystone ecological
structures in the dry forests. In stands of appropriate density these
old trees dominate, provide critical habitat, offer the greatest
resistance to fire and drought (and climate change), and are the source
of the large persistent snags and logs (again, critical habitat for the
majority of the vertebrates). Stewardship needs to focus on retaining
and nurturing the existing population of old trees--and, again, they
are at as great a risk from excessive stand density (competition) as
they are from fire. Further, stands need to be managed so as to provide
younger age classes of pine and larch that can, ultimately, bring old
tree population levels back to historic levels and maintain them there.
Finally, the focus needs to be on the old trees rather than simply
large trees (e.g., >21 inches diameter in breast height) because it is
the old trees that have the greatest ecological and social
significance; the current diameter limit permits the removal of
irreplaceable old trees and deters us from removing large young
competitive firs that threaten the survival of the old trees.
In ecological restoration, old trees need to be dedicated to
sustaining ecological values on the site as living trees and,
subsequently, large snags and down logs. Salvaging old trees when they
are killed does NOT help restore forests--these dead trees provide
vital ecosystem functions as large snags and down logs. Not only does
salvage of such trees result in further ecological degradation but this
practice erodes public trust in restoration management. Also, greater
efforts are needed in prescribed burning programs to reduce unintended
damage to and mortality of old trees. We believe that prescribed
burning programs in the western United States have been far too casual
in accepting significant and avoidable mortality of old pines. Recently
one of us (Franklin) watched personnel doing prescribed burns in
longleaf pine forests in the southeast and was struck by the individual
attention given nest trees for the Red-Cockaded Woodpecker. Increased
attention to protecting old tree populations must be incorporated into
the prescribed burning programs in western North America.
We are very concerned that misdirection seems to be very much in
vogue among opponents to restoration programs in Dry Forests. For
example, some have raised the need for ``early successional
ecosystems'' as an important issue in the Dry Forest landscapes. We
happen to know something about this concept as we helped initiate
interest in such ecosystems and have published peer-reviewed articles
on it. The concept of early successional ecosystems has almost no
relevance to the dry forest landscapes as it rarely ever existed as a
distinct condition there. Such landscapes were dominantly fine-scale
structural mosaics in which non-forest dominated patches were integral
parts. The concept of early successional ecosystems applies primarily
to forest ecosystems characterized by stand-replacement disturbances,
such as those found at higher elevations in eastern Oregon and in the
moist forests on the Pacific slope.
Another example of misdirection relates to the response of Northern
Spotted Owls to stand-replacement fire. We do not believe that there is
any competent owl biologist who believes that Northern Spotted Owls are
favored by having their forest habitat subjected to stand replacement
wildfire or stand-killing spruce budworm outbreaks. There is no
evidence that such events benefit the owls or even firm evidence that
owls persist in such habitat over the long term, once the fidelity of
existing pairs is exhausted.
We know enough and it is long since past time to initiate an
aggressive restoration program in the federal forests of eastern Oregon
and Washington, building on such innovative approaches as the recent
Glaze Meadows project near Black Butte Ranch on the Deschutes National
Forest. Since this program would require several decades for
completion, there are extraordinary opportunities to use an adaptive
management approach. For example, a research project to quantify the
responses of Northern Spotted Owls and other biota to the landscape-
level restoration efforts can be designed and carried out and the
resulting scientific findings used to modify restoration approaches
where necessary. Indeed, such an adaptive approach--with committed
funding for research and monitoring--is imperative if the restoration
program is to be fully credible.
In a perfect world, we might wait to take action until we knew with
certainty all effects that a wide-spread restoration program would have
on all creatures, great and small. We do not have that luxury given the
state of our forests and the values at stake. The peril to the Dry
Forests from inaction is too great. We need to undertake major
restoration efforts in the Dry Forests of eastern Oregon now.
STATEMENT OF TOM INSKO, REGION MANAGER, BOISE CASCADE, LLC
Mr. Insko. Senator, thank you.
I'm Tom Insko, Region Manager of Boise Cascade's Inland
Region. Boise Cascade manufactures engineered wood products,
plywood, lumber and particleboard and distributes a broad line
of building products. More specifically, Boise Cascade's Inland
Region includes eight manufacturing facilities located east of
the Cascade Mountains. A plywood plant and two pine lumber
mills are located in Kettle Falls, Washington. One of those two
lumber mills is currently idle. In eastern Oregon Boise Cascade
operates a pine lumber mill in Pilot Rock, a particleboard
plant in Island City and a plywood plant and stud mill in
Elgin. A pine lumber mill in La Grande is currently idle, shut
down last year.
I'm here today to testify in favor of S. 2895, the Oregon
Eastside Forests Restoration, Old Growth Protection and Jobs
Act of 2009. S. 2895 is an opportunity to make a shift: to
preserve and create living wage jobs in rural eastern Oregon
while beginning to restore the unhealthy landscapes that exist
in our national forests.
It is no secret that Oregon is struggling with economic
decline and double-digit unemployment rates. The rural
communities of eastern Oregon have been hard hit by the
economic downturn. During the past few years, there have been
multiple mills closed contributing to these high unemployment
rates.
Boise Cascade is the largest employer, both public and non-
public, in Union County with approximately 470 employees. With
nearly 100 employees in Pilot Rock, we're the fourth largest
private employer in Umatilla County. These are good jobs,
living wage jobs with excellent healthcare and retirement
benefits. Unfortunately, during the past few years the number
of employees working in our eastern Oregon mills has declined
by more than 200. Some of the job cuts are the result of poor
wood product markets, but the sad reality is that even with a
market upturn these jobs are unlikely to be restored. The
primary threat to living wage mill jobs is a lack of log supply
in the region.
Boise Cascade's existing eastern Oregon mill infrastructure
needs approximately 200 million board feet of logs annually, to
operate its mills and sustain nearly 800 jobs. Today we procure
less than 7 percent of our log volume from Federal forests.
This 7 percent is from 10 national forests stretching from the
Mount Hood to the Payette in Idaho, a 250-mile haul radius.
This year approximately 85 percent of the logs Boise Cascade
procures will come from private sources. Procuring this amount
of logs from private sources is not sustainable. Meanwhile,
just the 3 national forests that I'd consider local to our
Boise Cascade's mills are growing in excess of 750 million
board feet every year. These forests, the Wallowa-Whitman,
Umatilla and Malheur, which I will henceforth refer to as the
Blue Mountain National Forests, represent 68 percent of the
commercial forestland in the area.
What is occurring on the Blue Mountain National Forests is
consistent throughout our eastside Oregon Federal forests. With
the Blue Mountain National Forests growing at a rate in excess
of 750 million board feet per year, the 10-year average removal
rate has been less than 10 percent of this, 73 million board
feet. In 2009, of the 86 million board feet removed, only 46
million of that was actually saw logs.
Three national forests representing nearly 5.5 million
acres and growing more than 750 million board feet each year,
are harvesting less saw log volume than what is required to
operate a single-shift mill.
As the amount of wood growing on the national forests
greatly exceeds the amount harvested and removed, our Federal
forests have become seriously overcrowded. This leads to insect
and disease infestations and increased risk of fire. As of July
2008, there were nearly five and a half million acres of fire
condition class II and III on Eastern Oregon's Federal forests.
Active management utilizing mechanical treatment methods is the
only acceptable way to restore forest health. The positive by-
product of this activity is saw logs, and saw logs provide
economic stability. Each job created or retained in the milling
industry has a job multiplier of 2.81.
Some have suggested the decline in the wood products
industry in eastern Oregon is a natural dynamic which time has
come. The facts don't support this contention. Boise Cascade
and the industry have changed to match the changing social
values of the public. As an example, I'd offer Boise Cascade's
plywood plant and stud mill in Elgin now focus on the efficient
use of smaller diameter logs. In 2009 the average diameter of a
block peeled on our lathe at the plywood plant was 10.4 inches.
Existing eastside industry infrastructure is well configured
and needed to assist in the landscape restoration objectives of
S. 2895.
Passage and implementation of S. 2895 will not be without
challenges, and some with extreme perspectives will attempt to
erode its success, but S. 2895 represents the collaborative
work of many from the industry and environmental community,
recognizing that we share many of the same values. These values
are restoring forest health and landscape resiliency while
maintaining the remaining infrastructure that is so vital to
the rural communities of eastern Oregon. With this mutual
purpose, the challenge was to identify the path by which one
specific ideal does not eliminate the possibility of achieving
the more significant shared purpose. I believe S. 2895 is
representative of this.
I'd close with saying, passage of S. 2895 is only the first
step. The legislative mandate to eventually quadruple the
current levels the number of acres treated each year will
require quick action by the Forest Service. It will be
imperative that the committee hold the Forest Service
accountable for their performance. Additionally, Senator Wyden,
we need you to ensure Congress appropriates the $50 million
authorized in this bill to provide the Forest Service with the
necessary resources to facilitate the implementation of the
interim projects, and as well, as the development of the
landscape ecological restoration plans.
I appreciate the opportunity to testify, and welcome the
opportunity.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Insko follows:]
Prepared Statement of Tom Insko, Region Manager, Boise Cascade, LLC
Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee:
I am Tom Insko, Region Manager of Boise Cascade's Inland Region.
Boise Cascade manufactures engineered wood products, plywood, lumber
and particleboard and distributes a broad line of building materials.
More specifically, Boise Cascade's Inland Region includes eight (8)
manufacturing facilities located east of the Cascade Mountains. A
plywood plant and two pine lumber mills are located in Kettle Falls,
Washington. One of those two lumber mills is currently idle. In eastern
Oregon Boise Cascade operates a pine lumber mill in Pilot Rock, a
particleboard plant in Island City and a plywood plant and studmill in
Elgin. A pine lumber mill in La Grande is currently idle.
I am here today to testify in favor of SB 2895, ``the Oregon
Eastside Forests Restoration, Old Growth Protection and Jobs Act of
2009'' introduced by Senator Wyden. SB 2895 is an opportunity to make a
shift: to preserve and create living wage jobs in rural eastern Oregon
while beginning to restore the unhealthy landscapes that exist in our
national forests.
It is no secret that Oregon is struggling with economic decline and
double-digit unemployment rates. The rural communities of eastern
Oregon have been hard hit by the economic downturn with April
unemployment rates for Wallowa, Union and Umatilla counties at 11.6,
10.4 and 9.9 percent, respectively. During the past two years there
have been multiple mills closed contributing to these high unemployment
rates. Just last week the equipment from the DR Johnson mill in Wallowa
was auctioned. This mill and the jobs it provided to the local
community are gone, forever.
Boise Cascade is the largest employer in Union County with
approximately 470 employees. With nearly 100 employees in Pilot Rock,
Boise Cascade is the fourth largest private employer in Umatilla
County. These are good jobs, living wage jobs with excellent healthcare
and retirement benefits. Unfortunately, during the past few years the
number of employees working in these mills has declined by more than
200. Some of the job cuts are the result of poor wood product markets
but the sad reality is that even with a market upturn these jobs are
unlikely to be restored. The primary threat to living wage mill jobs is
a lack of log supply in the region.
Boise Cascade's existing eastern Oregon mill infrastructure needs
approximately 200 million board feet (mmbf) of logs, annually, to
operate its mills and sustain nearly 800 jobs (this would include
restarting the La Grande Sawmill). Today we procure less than 7 percent
of our log volume from federal forests. And this 7 percent is from 10
national forests stretching from the Mount Hood to the Payette in
Idaho, a 250-mile haul radius from our mills. This year approximately
85 percent of the logs Boise Cascade procures will be from private
sources. Procuring this amount of logs from private sources is not
sustainable. Meanwhile, just the three national forests considered
``local'' to Boise Cascade's mills are growing in excess of 750 mmbf
each year. These forests, the Wallowa-Whitman, Umatilla and Malheur
(which I will henceforth refer to as the Blue Mountain National
Forests) represent 68 percent of the commercial forestland in the area.
What is occurring on the Blue Mountain National Forests is
consistent throughout our eastside Oregon federal forests. While the
Blue Mountain National Forests are growing at a rate in excess of 750
mmbf per year the 10-year average removal rate has been less than 10
percent of this, 73 mmbf. Of the 86 mmbf of removal volume in 2009 only
46 mmbf was sawlogs (sawlogs is defined as any log with a small-end
diameter greater than 5.5 inches and a minimum of 8 feet in length).
Three national forests representing nearly 5.5 million acres and
growing more than 750 mmbf each year are harvesting less sawlog volume
than what is required to operate a single two-shift milling operation.
As the amount of wood growing on the national forests greatly
exceeds the amount harvested and removed, our federal forests have
become seriously overcrowded. This leads to insect and disease
infestations and increased risk of fire. As of July 2008 there were
nearly five and a half million acres of fire condition class II and III
on Eastern Oregon's federal forests. Active management utilizing
mechanical treatment methods is the only acceptable way to restore
forest health. The positive by-product of this activity is sawlogs.
Sawlogs provide economic stability. Each job created or retained in the
milling industry has a job multiplier of 2.81 (Source: IMPLAN and E.D.
Hovee & Company).
Some have suggested the decline in the wood products industry in
eastern Oregon is a natural dynamic which time has come. The facts
don't support this contention. Boise Cascade and the industry have
changed to match the changing social values of the public. As an
example, Boise Cascade's plywood plant and studmill in Elgin now focus
on the efficient use of smaller diameter logs. In 2009 the average
diameter of a block peeled on our lathe at the plywood plant was 10.4
inches. Additionally, Boise Cascade processes pulpwood, essentially the
top of the tree or dead logs, and produces chips for nearby paper
manufacturers. Existing eastside industry infrastructure is well
configured to assist in the landscape restoration objectives of SB
2895.
Upon passage, implementation of SB 2895 will not be without
challenges. Some with extreme perspectives will attempt to erode its
success. Some will argue that protections are too great and a diameter
limit of 21'' is arbitrary. Others will argue there should not be any
focus on sawlog production or concern for sustaining existing logging
and milling infrastructure. SB 2895, however, represents the
collaborative work of many from the industry and the environmental
community recognizing that we share many of the same values. These
values are restoring forest health and landscape resiliency while
maintaining the remaining infrastructure that is so vital to the rural
communities of eastern Oregon. With this mutual purpose the challenge
was to identify the path by which one specific ideal does not eliminate
the possibility of achieving the more significant shared purpose. I
believe SB 2895 is representative of this.
Passage of SB 2895 is only the first step. The legislative mandate
to eventually quadruple from current levels the number of acres treated
each year will require quick action by the Forest Service. It will be
imperative that the Subcommittee for Public Lands and Forests hold the
Forest Service accountable for their performance. Additionally, Senator
Wyden must ensure Congress appropriates the $50 million authorized in
this bill to provide the Forest Service with the necessary resources to
facilitate the implementation of the interim projects as well as the
development of the landscape ecological restoration plans.
Boise Cascade appreciates this opportunity to be involved in
creating and supporting legislation that offers potential solutions to
the federal forest health crisis and management roadblocks that exist
in eastern Oregon. Senator Wyden, we appreciate the work of you and
your staff to introduce this bill. The hardworking Boise Cascade
employees applaud your commitment to turn the status quo on its head in
an effort to retain the jobs they so critically need. If they could,
I'm sure our forests would thank you as well.
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today.
Senator Wyden. Mr. Insko, before we move on, I want to see
if I can kind of put this whole effort in, sort of, the
appropriate context. There you are, you're the regional manager
of Boise Cascade in eastern Oregon, did you think, even like in
your wildest dreams, that you could reach an agreement on a
major piece of forestry legislation with Andy Kerr and Tim
Lillebo? I mean, it strikes me, if people were putting odds on
something like that, nobody, nobody would have said that was
possible. What was your take? I mean, when you started this, my
sense is you all thought, we're going to try this. I mean, it
makes sense given the fact that nothing else is working, but
did you think that there was really a shot of pulling together
this kind of coalition at the beginning?
Mr. Insko. No, I was skeptical. I thought the initial
conversations would likely lead to a waste of time. But,
fortunately, it hasn't, we've been able to stay focused on the
ultimate objectives. As we talked about some of those ideals
that candidly we continued to disagree upon, but recognize that
we can not continue to focus on that and result in not
achieving any of the goals that we all actually agree upon, and
that's the forest health issue and the fact that jobs in rural
Oregon are critically important.
Senator Wyden. I could tell you that talking to a lot of
the partners in this, you're being pretty diplomatic when you
say you were skeptical at the outset, because I think--I think
a lot of people thought it was flat out crazy to think that
anything like this could come together. I--I'll have some more
questions for you in a moment, I wanted particularly to express
my appreciation for your goodwill and for Boise Cascade, a
major force in the timber industry, saying that they were going
to try to put the time in to pull this together, and it clearly
has paid off, and we're very appreciative.
Mr. Walls, great to see you, always like seeing you at town
hall meetings and having your input, and please proceed.
STATEMENT OF JAMES K. WALLS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, LAKE COUNTY
RESOURCES INITIATIVE
Mr. Walls. I won't talk an hour on biomass.
Senator Wyden. There you are. Take the time to do it right.
Mr. Walls. Thank you, Senator. Thank you very much. It is
an honor to be here, sir, and I really appreciate it.
As you know, I'm the Executive Director of Lake County
Resources, which was created to carry on the work of a
collaborative that's now in its 12th year, not just to carry it
on, but to serve as a local place where they could convene and
stuff. It's very--been very successful and implemented many of
the provisions that are in S. 2895. We've been successfully
moving ahead.
When I was first invited to testify, I had a real fear,
really, I had to search hard and deep, because I remember the
past regional legislations that have occurred and localized,
like the Northwest Forest Plan, the Quincy Library Group, and
list can go on, and they all wound up a deep litigation. I go,
``Whoa, we've been under the radar, maybe we better stay
there.'' But, I have a much greater fear that made me step
forward, and that is after we were created, our stewardship
group said, ``You'll develop a monitoring program,'' and we did
that in our first year. It's been in existence for 7 years now.
One of the findings of that program, we've got thousands and
thousands of plots, is that 85 percent of our big large
ponderosa pines, that Dr. Franklin talked about, are dying out
prematurely, 100 to 200 years prematurely.
As I look at the--the Collins Company has a 10-year
stewardship contract that guarantees 3,000 acres. As the
stewardship group and collaborative looked at what they needed
treated, they felt we need to be at eight to ten thousand acres
if we're going to get ahead of that curve and save those old
pines. So, that's my fear and why I step up, it is for the
pines. I believe we can do that through this bill.
I am proud to say too, we were No. 1 on the Collaborative
Force Landscape Restoration Act, which I hope remains so, and
get to that eight to ten thousand acres where we can get these
treatments down into a 20, 25-year span to get this done, so we
don't lose those.
The other thing that is very--that our monitoring has
showed, as you're well aware, we've got a 300,000 acre beetle
kill there. It--and while beetles attack ponderosa pine when
they get old and they die, that's natural, that's a--but not
the size of this thing, it's humongous. What we found out, if
we leave--if it was to burn today, and sometimes I think I
should go put a match to it, it would survive, the forest would
survive, because temperatures on the soil as the tree stands
would only be about 100 degrees Centigrade. If we let them fall
and jackstraw into that soil, our monitoring shows that they
will reach 200-400 degrees, and then the soil actually melts
and plasticize, and water won't penetrate it any more. Then
you're looking at decades to reach that forest back.
There's many areas, as Dr. Franklin found when he did the
plan for the Klamath Tribe, of encroachment, I believe if I
remember right, he can correct me, about 100,000 acres out
there of encroachment, and we need to be diligent, saving those
areas that the lodge pole pine encroached on so that they don't
go through that, and we can get those natural areas back to
natural conditions.
I couldn't leave without mentioning the jobs part of your
bill, because as you're aware, in our plan was to get all the
small material out, we needed a new small diameter mill and a
biomass plant. The Collins Company stepped up and put a $6.8
million mill in. That save 85 jobs, because the other
alternative was not good. The biomass plant will put in a $70
million investment. That will be 18 well paying, above average
for Lake County, jobs in that biomass plant, and we're months
away from a final decision, and it will put 50-75 in the woods.
We did a calculation of what would that mean to the county,
because it's a stewardship contract, no timber receipts. When
all the abatements and incentives are gone, that biomass will
be paying the county over $400,000 a year in local taxes. It
will be paying the town of Lakeview $800,000 and some. It will
pay the hospital equivalent amounts. It adds up to $1.8 million
that could go to our hospitals, our library, or our schools. So
the economic impact is as important as the ecological. That's
why I'm here to support this bill. I looked at it as a threat
and it would have been easy to stay under the radar, but I felt
it was important to step forward.
Thank you, sir.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Walls follows:]
Prepared Statement of James K. Walls, Executive Director, Lake County
Resources Initiative
I am Jim Walls, Executive Director of Lake County Resources
Initiative (LCRI), a non-profit formed in 2002 to work on natural
resources projects that are ecologically and economically based. It is
an honor to be here and testify before this distinguished subcommittee
on Public Lands and Forests and specifically about the Oregon Eastside
Forests Restoration, Old Growth Protection and Jobs Act.
Lake County is 75% federal lands, with the Fremont-Winema National
Forests and Bureau of Land Management being the biggest landowners.
Lake County is in the south central dry interior of the state of
Oregon. The Fremont portion of the National Forest lies roughly between
the towns of Lakeview, Klamath Falls and Bend, Oregon just north of the
California/Oregon border. The major tree species include ponderosa
pine, juniper, lodgepole pine, and at higher elevations white fir. Most
of these trees are adapted to summer drought and extreme temperature
fluctuations due to the arid nature of the region. The 10-20 inches
average precipitation occurs from the autumn through the spring and as
a result the summers are dry and hot. At the height of logging Lake
County supported 5 mills; today only the Fremont Sawmill owned by The
Collins Companies is remaining. As a result of the curtailment of
logging, Lake County was the only county in Oregon that experienced a
net job loss during the 1990's.
Historically, forest management of the Fremont focused on
aggressive fire suppression and logging of large old-growth ponderosa
pine trees. Consequently, forest composition and natural fire
disturbance regimes have been dramatically altered, increasing the risk
that abnormally intense fires, insects, and disease will devastate the
remaining old-growth and other forest ecosystems. The impact of fire
suppression and old-growth logging is greatest for the low-elevation
ponderosa pine and mid-elevation mixed conifers. Many areas have missed
7 to 10 fire-return intervals, and mature forests of large, widely
spaced trees have declined more that 50 percent from historical levels.
Middle-aged forests, less than 100 years old, are substantially more
common than they were historically.
I am pleased to testify in support of S. 2895 because many of the
objectives of the bill are currently being carried out in the 500,000
acre Lakeview Federal Sustained Yield Unit in the Fremont-Winema
National Forest. We have a 12 year old collaborative known as the
Lakeview Stewardship Group comprised of national, regional and local
environmental groups, industry, local units of government and local
citizens. The Lakeview Stewardship Group in partnership with the
Fremont-Winema National Forest just submitted a proposal under the
Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Act (CFLRA)--a 500,000 acre
proposal covering the Lakeview Federal Sustained Yield Unit. One of the
requirements for the act was a landscape restoration strategy and our
collaborative did such a strategy in 2005. We specified priority
treatment areas to reduce fuel loads and ecological restoration work
which needed to be accomplished. The collaborative up-dated the plan in
2010 for submittal in the CFLRA proposal and I am proud to say the
proposal was ranked as Region 6's top priority when they submitted it
to the Forest Service National office last month. The Lakeview strategy
estimates that 8,000 to 10,000 acres need to be treated if we are going
get ahead of the forest health issues and do so in a time frame that
will make a difference.
An early priority of the collaborative was for Lake County
Resources Initiative (LCRI) to develop a monitoring program around the
restoration being carried out in Unit. In the 7 years that the
monitoring has taken place we have discovered considerable evidence
pertaining to eastside forests which shows why accelerating treatments
is critical. The monitoring plots show that 85% of our old growth
forests are dying 100 to 200 years prematurely as a result of fire
suppression and the resulting overstocking that has occurred. Currently
the Collins Companies has a 10-year Stewardship Contract with the
Forest Service guaranteeing 3,000 acres/ year for 10 years, but at this
rate it will be too late to save these old growth trees. For this
reason the collaborative believes treatments need to be increased to
8,000 to 10,000 acres/year, if we are going to make a difference. The
good news is that many of the old growth trees are showing a positive
response to treatments. However, other stands that we are watching may
show that treatments have been too late.
One of the most significant findings of the monitoring program is
the effects of uncharacteristic severe fires on our eastside soils.
This combined with over 300,000 acres of Mountain Pine Beetle kill on
the Fremont-Winema National Forest is a disaster waiting to happen. Our
plots show that if a crowning fire occurs and there are few downed
trees on the forest floor, soil temperature will reach somewhere around
100 C and recovery will occur in relatively short order. However, if
the forest floor has considerable down woody debris or if trees killed
by the Mountain Pine Beetle start to fall and jackstraw, temperatures
can reach 200-400 C, causing major soil damage. Soils at these
temperatures actually start to plasticize, making them impenetrable to
water and delaying tree regeneration for decades.
I cannot speak about Westside forests, where there is ample
moisture to support dense stands. Here, however, on the eastside we
must accelerate treatments in order to restore natural fire regimes and
prepare these forests for climate change. I believe the Oregon Eastside
Forests Restoration, Old Growth Protection and Jobs Act can be a pilot
and if it is as successful as we anticipate, then it might be extended
to the remaining States that have similar dry forests.
My testimony thus far stresses the environmental needs for our
eastside forests, but there is also the jobs aspect that this bill
could promote. If we accelerate thinnings necessary to get ahead of
forest health issues and prepare these eastside forests for climate
change, we must have the infrastructure in place to use all this small
diameter material. As a result of the collaborative and the 10-year
Stewardship Contract, the Collins Companies has invested $6.8 million
in a new small diameter sawmill, and Iberdrola Renewables is in the
final efforts of due diligence on a $70 million dollar, 25 MW biomass
plant. These investments have resulted in retaining 85 sawmill jobs,
and will create 18 jobs at the biomass plant and 50-75 jobs in the
woods. An Oregon Business 2010 report estimates these investments will
have an annual payroll of over $18 million and will pay over $1 million
in income tax to the State of Oregon. South Central Oregon Economic
Development District estimates that local taxing districts such as the
Town of Lakeview, Lake County, Library, Hospital, cemetery, school
district, etc. will receive an estimated $1.8 million yearly in taxes.
In conclusion, not only does forest restoration make environmental
sense, it can be an enormous economic opportunity for struggling rural
communities. There is a lot of talk about creating a green economy, but
it is places like Lake County that are making it a reality. Thank you
for your time and the privilege of testifying.
Senator Wyden. Thank you very much, and it's one of the
reasons why we so wanted you here, because going over to
Lakeview and seeing what you've done. I mean, it is a really
heroic effort, and I'm very appreciative of your involvement
here. I just want to ask one question before we move on,
because it takes your breath away, this point that you make
with respect to the consequences of neglect. I think you used
the word, it plasticizes.
Mr. Walls. Yes, there's been several terms.
Senator Wyden. Take that, and perhaps Professor Franklin,
layout what plasticizing and area is all about, because, I
mean, I think that really drives home the consequences of
neglect. So, Mr. Walls and Professor Franklin, take this and
amplify it a little bit.
Mr. Walls. Not being the scientists, I'll take it from my--
what my monitoring crew and the scientist and the head of that
is. Basically it's a melting of the soil and there's several
terms they've used to me on that. It gets that hot, and we've
done a lot of tests on it, and it makes a hard crust over the
top of it.
Senator Wyden. It's almost like a plastic product?
Mr. Walls. Yes, water won't penetrate it.
Senator Wyden. Water will not penetrate?
Mr. Walls. Will not penetrate it, yes. It only happens when
the trees start to fall and they start jackstrawing, and so
you've got all this mass on the forest floor. We've Mount
Muzama ash soil, so we may be--every area, I don't know if this
does the same thing, but it does it on that Mount Muzama ash-
type soil. We've done numerous studies on that, and basically
it just seals it over. We've got 10 years of plots now where
there's not a single tree growing where that's happened.
There's over brushes coming in, I'm not saying nothing comes
in, but there's not trees.
Where, if you go in the standing, if it was standing right
now, in a few years you've have trees coming up and it would be
great, if it doesn't do it that way.
Senator Wyden. Dr. Franklin, do you want to add anything to
that?
Mr. Franklin. No, it's very characteristic when you get
very high temperatures, that you get basically fusion of the
soil particles, and so, it loses its structure fundamentally.
Senator Wyden. OK.
Mr. Hoeflich, welcome.
STATEMENT OF RUSSELL HOEFLICH, VICE PRESIDENT AND OREGON
DIRECTOR, THE NATURE CONSERVANCY
Mr. Hoeflich. Thank you. Chairman Wyden, I want to thank
you for this opportunity to give testimony to the subcommittee
in support of this bill.
My name is Russ Hoeflich, I serve as the Oregon Director of
The Nature Conservancy, as well as the Vice President for the
Nature Conservancy. We're a leading conservation organization
working around the world to protect the ecologically important
lands and waters that we need for nature and for people. We've
been working in Oregon for nearly 50 years. Nationally, we've
been for over the protection of about 119 million acres and we
have about 1 million members supporting our efforts. We have a
long history of working on public and private lands in on-the-
ground collaborative and forest habitat restoration projects in
many of the States in the west.
We applaud you, Senator Wyden, for your leadership in
bringing together diverse groups of Oregonians to craft
pioneering legislation that will put people to work restoring
Eastern Oregon's forests. When Eastern Oregon was ground zero
for the timber wars, your bill has done something unique. It
has united leaders and it is providing a platform for
collaboration, landscape scale solutions to a landscape scale
problem, truly a unique effort. Thank you.
We also commend your leadership for bringing the
conservation community together and bringing them together to
address, with the business industry, not only the biological
issues, but the human community issues as well. With great
thanks, we also praise the U.S. Forest Service, who has been
working diligently and as best as they possibly can to
innovate, to bring communities together in collaborative
projects throughout Oregon. They continue to make significant
investments in forest health with your financial support and
your leadership.
With the guidance, and I just want to move from my script
here and just mention the unique effort that you have made to
bring 2 of the most preeminent scientists in the Nation
associated with forest health treatment, into the fold to craft
your bill. It is a great, great honor to have Jerry Franklin
and Dr. Norm Johnson working on this bill and help supporting
the industry and conservation community. This is unprecedented,
it's nature, from a national perspective, and I just thank you
for bringing them into the fold.
We need to restore forests at the scope of the problem and
put more people to work in the woods, and this bill will do
exactly that. The urgency--you've heard about this from others,
it could not be greater than it is today. Every day we face
very, very significant problems. There's again, depending on
what statistics you use, there's between 9.5, other say as high
as 13 million acres of the forest and woodlands that are highly
departed, if you include juniper, particularly in this region,
from the historic conditions, putting them at risk of
unnaturally severe fire, insect damage, disease, which in turn
threatens our streams, lakes, rivers, and the safety of many,
many of the communities in your State.
Today, our forests lack, as Jerry has said and others have
said, the resiliency of healthy ecosystems, putting the
greatest risk of catastrophic change, particularly in the face
of climate change. At the same time, our local communities and
the mill structure is faltering too. Now is the time to put the
eastside communities back to work and focus on the restoration
and the health of our forests.
The need to act is clearly now, and the pace of on-the-
ground restoration must accelerate, that's the critical element
of your bill. To get to the scale of the problem, this
legislation establishes restoration and recovery roadmaps. This
enables forest managers and communities to work together to
prioritize and initiate on-the-ground restoration work that
will improve the health of the Eastside National Forest,
watersheds, and clearly the local economy.
The foundation of this legislation is trust, collaboration,
and yes, the science. Ultimately, the legislation will allow us
to establish sound on-the-ground science, as Mr. Wall has
indicated, is so critical to these projects. Ensuring that old
growth and repairing areas are protected and restored is
fundamental to your bill. Saving public resources from the
costly catastrophic fires and avoiding the risk of having
people injured in the process of fighting fires is absolutely
critical.
On a family security level, this bill will provide near-
term timber jobs, it will provide the supply that people
absolutely need, and that will translate into hitting the
problem at the scale that we're talking about. The bill helps
to maintain our timber infrastructure, that is in critical need
at the moment. It will provide the raw material that is
necessary to get to the problem. Again, building trust, having
the science, is absolutely critical.
Without this timber infrastructure however, meaningful
forest restoration is simply not possible. Many of the other
States in the Nation have come to recognize that forest health
is critical, but they have waited too long and they have lost
their mill infrastructure, the labor force, and the heavy
equipment necessary, and the skill sets necessary to do the
work. We still have a few moments left, and thank you for
making the effort to bring this forward at this present time.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hoeflich follows:]
Prepared Statement of Russell Hoeflich, Vice President and Oregon
Director, The Nature Conservancy
I want to thank you, Chairman Wyden, for this opportunity today to
offer testimony before the Subcommittee on the `Oregon Eastside Forests
Restoration, Old Growth Protection, and Jobs Act' (S. 2895).
My name is Russ Hoeflich, and I serve as the Oregon State Director
and Vice President of The Nature Conservancy, a leading conservation
organization working around the world to protect ecologically important
lands and waters for nature and people. We have been working in Oregon
for nearly 50 years. Nationally, we have over a million members and
have protected more than 119 million acres of land. We have a long
history of working with public and private partners in on-the-ground,
collaborative forest habitat restoration projects to achieve lasting,
measurable results
We applaud you, Senator Wyden, for your leadership in bringing
together a diverse group of Oregonians to craft pioneering legislation
that will put people to work restoring Eastern Oregon's forests. Where
Eastern Oregon was ground zero for timber wars, the Senator's Bill has
united leaders and provided a platform for collaborative, landscape-
scale solutions to a landscape-scale problem.
We also commend the leaders of the conservation and industry groups
for their willingness to set aside differences and to chart a better
future for Oregon's natural and human communities. With great thanks,
we also praise the dedicated team at the U.S. Forest Service, who have
been our partners on innovative projects throughout Oregon, and have
made significant investments in forest health.
The `Oregon Eastside Forests Restoration, Old Growth Protection,
and Jobs Act' is a historic science-based collaboration for positive
solutions in our forests. We need to restore forests at the scope of
the problem and put more people to work in the woods. This Bill will do
just that.
The urgency couldn't be greater. Every day we face severe problems
in our Eastside forests. About 9.5 million acres of our forests and
woodlands are highly departed from their historical condition, making
them at risk of unnaturally severe fire, insect damage and disease,
which in turn threatens our streams, lakes, rivers and the safety of
communities. Our forests lack the resiliency of a healthy ecosystem--
putting them at greater risk of catastrophic change in the face of
climate change. And our local communities and mills are struggling,
too.
The need to act is now, and the pace of on-the-ground restoration
must be accelerated. To accomplish this, this legislation establishes a
restoration and recovery roadmap. This enables forest managers and
communities to work together to prioritize and initiate on-the-ground
restoration work that will improve the health of our Eastside national
forests, watersheds and economy. The foundation of this legislation is
trust, collaboration, and science which will allow us to advance
restoration work to larger landscape-level scales. Ultimately the
legislation will allow us to:
Establish sound science as the underlying principle of all
decision-making.
Ensure that old growth and riparian areas are protected and
restored.
Save public resources from costly fire suppression efforts by
proactively restoring the health of forests.
Provide near-term timber supply for our struggling Eastside
mills, translating into jobs in hard-hit communities.
Maintain our timber infrastructure by giving industry the
confidence, surety, and security that the raw materials they
need will be available over time; without our timber
infrastructure, meaningful forest restoration is not possible.
The Nature Conservancy has seen first-hand how collaboration can
make a difference on the ground, and we have an extensive history of
working on collaborative and scientific approaches to forest
restoration in Oregon. The Eastside Forest Restoration Bill will help
us and our partners apply lessons learned from these efforts (including
four restoration collaboratives facilitated by the Northwest Fire
Learning Network) and expand them to a larger scale.
Finally, this bill represents our best hope and our best
opportunity moving forward for Oregon's Eastside forests. Still, we
recognize that we must work together to secure the supporting funding
to realize the vision that you, Senator, the industry groups, and
conservation groups have created in this Act.
Thank you again for your impressive work and this opportunity.
Senator Wyden. Mr. Hoeflich, thank you very much. I don't
want to make this a full-fledged bouquet tossing contest, but
suffice it to say, the Nature Conservancy is always there
trying to find ways to bring people together and look for
innovative approaches on natural resources issues. So, we very
much value working with you and I'll ask some questions in a
moment.
We now have Mr. Lillebo, well known in these parts as a
great advocate for the environment, and go ahead.
STATEMENT OF TIM LILLEBO, EASTERN OREGON FIELD REPRESENTATIVE,
OREGON WILD
Mr. Lillebo. Thank you. I think I'm well known for some
other things too, but we don't want to talk about those today.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Lillebo. I did want to say, you were asking about, what
were the odds of this happening, conservation--some
conservationists, some of the timber industry, getting together
to come up, you know, with a compromise. I guess I'd kind of
say, I think you would have a better bet with BP stock than
having this actually happen.
So, anyway, good morning or good afternoon, Ron, we know
each other. Oregon Wild supports the Eastside Forest Bill, S.
2895.
So anyway, a little background. I was born and raised in
Grant County and other parts of eastern Oregon, and I still
call the dryer side of the Cascades my home. Kind of growing up
in timber country, I did what kind of came naturally and spent
summers in the woods, eventually being a timber faller,
thinner, and tree planter. But as a I grew up in the 1970s and
1980s, after kind of an explosion of industrial logging, the
forests I'd known as a kid were just so drastically changed
that it really, really worried me. At that time my grandfather,
Blondie, born in Maine in 1900, grew up as a timber faller, he
worked his way across the United States cutting old growth from
Maine to Minnesota and on to Oregon.
Anyway, I still remember the day when my grandfather said
to me, he said, ``Timmy,'' and yes, Blondie used to call me
Timmy, and unfortunately some of my friends still call me
Timmy. Anyway, he said----
Senator Wyden. This is getting to be Friday afternoon.
Mr. Lillebo. It is, it is.
Anyway, he said, ``Timmy, as we cut across the country, we
thought the old growth would never end. It's mostly gone now
and you should cherish what little is left of those big
trees.'' At that time I decided Blondie was right, and I've
dedicated the last 35 years of my life trying to protect our
dwindling old growth forests and protect wilderness for Oregon
Wild.
I think that now is the time to protect the last of eastern
Oregon's old growth with the approach laid out in your bill,
and I really appreciate it.
For years, my work involved filing appeals, challenging
illegal logging sales in court and going head to head with
timber industry representatives. I learned a pretty good
headlock in those years, and you had to because it was pretty
tough times, pretty serious.
Anyway, today it means something different. Today,
protecting eastside forests also mean working to restore those
forests after decades of overharvest and after stopping natural
fires. It means sitting at the same table with former
adversaries and working together to find a solution. Believe
me, I never thought that I'd be sitting here with the likes of
Boise Cascade's Tom Insko right over there, but really, I think
it's good to be here with him, and it's good to be supporting
this bill.
Now, I think we found that the best available science tells
us that past management has left some of our dryer eastside
forests out of whack. By the way, out of whack is a technical
science term. We can ask Dr. Franklin about that, he'll tell
us. Anyway, and we think the careful restoration management,
using prescribed fire, using mowing, and yes, chainsaws is a
crucial strategy to get back to more natural conditions.
I have become a believer in this restoration paradigm,
using science, and I have worked with the U.S. Forest Service,
Warm Springs Tribes, and other community stakeholders to design
an old growth restoration thinning project on the Deschutes
National Forest near Black Butte Ranch. The Glaze Forest
Restoration Project aims to reduce the risk of forest fires to
private lands and homes, and it aims to protect old-growth and
protect wildlife habitat, by removing small unnaturally dense
trees.
Anyway, this winter crews went out and began implementing
the thinning prescriptions on that project. I am glad to see
it. It's a learning process, and I think we can all learn from
it, but I would like to see more of these restoration concepts
applied in more places.
Hey, I like wilderness as much as the next guy. Maybe a
little more than the next guy, Tom. Anyway, but I think we know
now more than ever there is common ground between some of the
conservationists, some of the timber industry, about 2 ideas,
Oregon's old growth forests are too few and too important to
log, and 2, active restoration in certain dryer areas can
improve forest resiliency and provide jobs and wood products
for rural economies for decades to come.
I think this bill reflects the shift in science-based
restoration that is needed on a lot of our national forests,
not everywhere, there's places that don't need anything like
this, but there are plenty of places that do. It would
implement the common ground reach between the different
interests, it would provide meaningful protections for old
growth forests and important streams, salmon and steelhead
streams, it would ensure that necessary restoration work and
the associated wood products would be produced for benefits of
the local communities. A panel of respected scientists would
recommend actions and priorities, and I think that's a real key
element to this, actually having a panel that would say, ``Hey,
we'll make recommendations on what should happen out there.''
Anyway, I think it's a good--implementation would be a big step
forward.
Just to wrap up here. The reality in the forest has changed
and Oregon Wild has changed. Yes, we still work to stop old
growth timber sales, no doubt about it, and we protect the last
of our wilderness. Hey, how about that Mount Hood Wilderness
Bill? Thanks a lot Ron Wyden, appreciate that.
We also see there is a value in science-based restoration
of our forests. We feel it's important to work with scientists,
communities, timber interest, Federal agencies, politicians,
everybody to move forward with the approach in your bill, so
that these Oregon treasures are here for future generations.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lillebo follows:]
Prepared Statement of Tim Lillebo, Eastern Oregon Field Representative,
Oregon Wild
Thank you for the invitation to testify today in support of the
Oregon Eastside Forest Restoration, Old-Growth Protection, and Jobs
Act. We thank you Senator Wyden for introducing your Eastside Forest
Bill.
I was born and raised in Grant County and other parts of eastern
Oregon, and I still call the drier side of the Cascades my home. I love
exploring the forests of eastern Oregon and hunting in the backcountry.
Growing up in timber country, I did what came naturally and spent
summers in the woods as a timber faller and thinner. But starting in
the early 1970s, it was easy to see that something was changing in the
forest. By the late 1980s--after an explosion in industrial logging--
the forests I had known as a child had been drastically altered.
In 1987 alone, over 1.5 billion board feet of timber was cut down
in eastern Oregon's federal forests. At the same time, the move towards
automated mills and massive timber exportation meant that much of the
local economic benefit from logging wasn't even staying here in
Oregon--but we were all paying for the decline of our forests.
My grandfather, ``Blondie'', born in Maine in 1900, grew up as a
timber faller. He worked his way across the U.S. cutting old growth
from Maine to Minnesota and on to Oregon.
I still remember the day when my grandfather said, ``Tim, as we
cut, we thought the old growth would never end. Well, it's mostly gone,
and you should cherish what little is left of the big trees.'' I
decided ``Blondie'' was right, and I've dedicated the last 35 years of
my life to protecting our dwindling old-growth forest ecosystems
working for Oregon Wild. It's time now to protect the last of eastern
Oregon's old-growth with the approach laid out in Senator Wyden's bill.
For years, my work involved driving all over eastern Oregon filing
appeals, challenging illegal logging sales in court, and going head to
head with timber industry representatives in public debates and in the
media. Today, it means something different. Today, protecting eastside
forests also means working to restore it after decades of over-harvest
and exclusion of natural fire from the landscape. It means sitting at
the same table with former adversaries and working together to find a
solution to unhealthy forests and streams. Believe me; I never thought
I would be sitting here with some timber industry folks supporting the
same piece of legislation. Miracles still happen.
Throughout my time as an advocate for Oregon's wildlands I have let
science be my guide. I fought to protect Wilderness and roadless areas
because ecologists said these were the last, best places for native
wildlife to survive and thrive. I worked to protect forests along
streams when biologists warned of the dire impacts riparian logging
would inflict on threatened salmon and trout.
Now, the best available science tells us that past management has
left some of our drier eastside forests out of whack and that careful
restoration using prescribed fire, mowing, and, yes, chainsaws is a
crucial strategy to get them back to more natural conditions.
I've taken this new information to heart and become a fervent
believer in this restoration paradigm. Over the past few years, I've
worked with the U.S. Forest Service, the Warm Springs Tribes, and other
community stakeholders to design an old-growth restoration thinning
project on the Deschutes National Forest near Black Butte Ranch. The
Glaze Forest Restoration Project aims to reduce the risk of forest
fires to adjacent private lands by removing small, unnaturally dense
trees; protect old-growth trees and wildlife; and restore a more
natural landscape where low-intensity fires can once again play a
natural role in maintaining the health of the land. The project
considers the needs of a variety of wildlife and plants, and applies
science-based restoration principles that build diversity and long-term
forest health into the picture. This winter, crews began implementing
the prescriptions that were so carefully worked out, and I am proud to
see it. In fact, I'd like to see projects like it done in many more
places.
Many environmental organizations--Defenders of Wildlife, The Nature
Conservancy, Pacific Rivers Council, National Center for Conservation
Science and Policy, the Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands Center and Oregon
Wild, to name a few--support the science-based restoration that would
be implemented under this legislation.
Now, more than ever, there is common ground between
conservationists and the timber industry around two ideas: 1) Oregon's
old-growth forests are too few and too important to log; and 2) active
restoration in certain drier areas can improve forest resiliency and
provide jobs and wood products for rural economies for decades to come.
This bill reflects the shift in science-based restoration that is
needed on the National Forests of eastern Oregon. It would implement
the common ground reached between conservationists and the timber
industry, effectively ending decades of division and controversy. It
would provide meaningful protections for old-growth forests and
important streams and it would ensure that necessary restoration work
and the associated saw-logs would be produced in a timely manner for
the benefit of eastern Oregon's communities. A panel of respected
scientists would recommend restoration actions and priorities. While
not exactly what Oregon Wild would have written, the bill has
sideboards and protections enough that we feel confident its
implementation will be a big step forward.
The reality in the forest has changed. Oregon Wild has changed.
Yes, we still work to stop old-growth timber sales and protect the last
of our wilderness, like the Mt. Hood Wilderness Bill, thank you Senator
Wyden, but we also see the value in science-based restoration of our
forests. We feel it's important to work with scientists, communities,
timber interests, and federal agencies to move forward with the
approach to protecting and restoring eastern Oregon's forests and
watersheds found in your bill Senator Wyden, Senate Bill 2895, so that
these treasures are here for future generations.
A poll shows Oregon voters--including a strong majority of those
living in the vast Eastern Oregon congressional district that would be
most affected--support a compromise forest management plan that allows
thinning while protecting old-growth trees and limiting new logging
roads.
The poll by Public Opinion Strategies showed that 77 percent of
respondents support the Oregon Eastside Forest Restoration Act drawn up
by Sen. Ron Wyden, conservation groups and timber industry
representatives. Half the respondents interviewed are residents of the
2nd Congressional District, which covers much of Oregon east of the
Cascades. About 75 percent of them approve of the plan, according to
the poll.
Senator Wyden. Mr. Lillebo, thank you very much, and
there's never been a discussion about natural resources that
you have participated in that's been dull.
[Laughter.]
Senator Wyden. I thank you, I thank you again on a Friday
afternoon for making sure you drive home with what this
discussion really is about, and that's finding, you know,
common ground. I know, just as has been the case, Strinsko
talks about that not always does everyone who's part of your
natural constituency agree, because I know you've had to push
the boundaries, in terms of some of these issues with folks in
the environmental community, on some projects that are actually
fairly close to here.
Mr. Lillebo. Oh yes, that's true.
Senator Wyden. We're going to have some questions about
that.
Mr. Lillebo. I think I've got some bounties on my head from
both sides of the issue right now, but, you know, I can live
with that, because I think we're going in the right direction.
Senator Wyden. Very good.
Let's start, if we could, with you, Dr. Franklin, because I
think you've laid out the case, again today, and you have in
your important articles on these issues, certainly, in the last
4 or 5 years, about the consequences of failing to undertake
the treatments.
In your view, what scale and pace is need to really treat
the lands now, to play catch up ball?
Mr. Franklin. I think, you know, Norm and my view on this
would be, first of all, this has to be approached at the
landscape scale. If we had our druthers, we would approach it
at effectively the scale of the dry forest and dry forest
landscapes throughout the Federal lands in eastern Washington
and eastern Oregon, we'd do the whole thing and would do it a
planning sense very quickly with an alpha team, a really first-
rate team of managers and researchers working together that
know the land, know the issues. So, it needs to be done on a
large spatial scale. It needs to be planned and implemented
that way.
Second, in terms of time, I think given what is happening,
we generally would like to see a program that would accomplish
effectively the restoration treatments that are needed on that
entire landscape in a 20-year period. This is what we proposed
when we did the plan for the Klamath. It would be a reasonable
plan, however, you know, obviously the agency at this point
would probably not be capable of doing it that quickly, at
their current level of staffing.
So, you would have to effectively increase the work force
in the Forest Service, in particular, in order to be able to do
a program on that kind of a time scale.
Senator Wyden. Any of you others like to comment on this
question of scale and pace?
Mr. Hoeflich.
Mr. Hoeflich. If you assess the present activities that are
occurring in Oregon, and we've heard from others, and the
estimates are somewhere between 20 to 30,000 acres being
treated per year. The best of scientists who have worked with
Norman and some of our staff from our fire learning network,
have identified the need to be treating roughly about 500,000
per year. How you ramp up to that is going to be the question.
Having community collaboratives under way designing and
executing I think is going to be strategic, but we're going to
have to get the resources and build the budget so the Forest
Service--but get away from the point where we're spending such
a high percentage of the Forest Service budget fighting fire,
we've got to get them proactively restoring versus the
fighting.
Nineteen percent of the Forest Service budget was spent
fighting fire 10 years ago, we're now up to 50 percent of their
budget being spent fighting fires. We need to reinvest
proactively in avoiding those catastrophic fires and putting
the communities to work doing that.
Senator Wyden. Not only is that the case, but these 3
staffers constantly, every year, as the fires come in and the
cost keep rolling in, watch the service have to move money from
one account to another. It's almost a shell game. I've tried to
point out, and I think Mr. Gladdard knows that, you know,
during the years when Senator Craig chaired the subcommittee
and I was the ranking member, we would both point out that this
was a bipartisan ripoff, in effect, where you would short the
prevention accounts and have to constantly shovel more money
out the door, in terms of fighting fires. So, clearly if we can
get into these areas early and do the kind of thinning we're
talking about, we're going to reduce the prospects of every
year having to move money from the fire accounts to prevention
accounts and back and forth trying to figure out how to move
the pee around in order to keep on top of literally
conflagration. So, it's a good point.
Anything else from the panel on scale and pace?
Mr. Walls.
Mr. Walls. Scale and pace in my testimony, Senator, I said
20 years too. I remember the conversation when the Collins
Companies got the contract for 3,000 acres a year for 10 years,
and Wade Mosby called me, he says, ``Jim, we can't survive. We
will not overharvest our land to feed our mill. Our priority is
to the land.'' I bring this because we've got to reauthorize
stewardship contracting in the future. I said, ``Wade, trust
me, retained receipts and stuff are going to get us there.'' It
did, and right off the bat we were hitting our mark of being up
that 8-10,000 acres, and then the current market hit.
But, you know, with that coming back and bills like this,
that's what we've got to aim for. We've got to notch that up a
bunch.
Senator Wyden. Good point.
Let's move to a specific issue, and I'm going to send this
your way, Dr. Franklin.
Do you have another copy for Dr. Franklin?
This is about the Glaze project that you touched on in your
written testimony, Dr. Franklin. It's my understanding you've
been to it. There was a recent article, this is what I'm
showing you here, in the Bend Bulletin, that basically outlines
the opposition to the project by the Sierra Club, which had
recently endorsed the project. I guess the eastern Oregon field
organizers suggested that there was no science to support
cutting any trees larger than 14 inches in diameter. Why don't
you, because you've had a chance to actually see the project,
give us your professional assessment of this perspective, and
in your judgment, they integrity of the restoration science
used to develop the Glaze project.
Mr. Franklin. OK, well let me begin by simply that, you
know, this is the kind of argument that you get into if you
think it's only about fire and fuels, and it's not. It is about
the forest density, and it's very clear, in fact, that there
are often trees 14, 16, 18, 20, 24 inches that, in fact,
represent serious threats to the old pine trees. OK, so this--
obviously the individual who was criticizing this has not seen
the literature with regards to the consequence of excessive
stand density, and the effect that it has on the growth and
ultimately the survival of the old trees. So, they don't
understand what the stands were like historically.
In this particular case, this tree was, I think, was next
to an opening, it was next to a meadow. One of the very
important things that we need to do in restoring these
landscapes is, in fact, to restore the non-forested, the
historically non-forested portions of those and get that
hardwood component that's so important to the wildlife back.
Now, to come to the Glaze project specifically, I've been
there twice, once with my class and once on my own. I thought
that the silvicultural prescriptions were extraordinary,
extraordinarily good, creative, appropriate, and protective of
the core ecological values in those areas. So, you know, this
may be damning with faint praise, but I don't see that I could
improve in any way on that silvicultural prescription, and no
one would accuse me of being a timber beast, I believe.
Senator Wyden. Don't remember too many rallies accusing you
of being a timber beast.
Mr. Franklin. No, I don't think so.
So, a superb silvicultural effort.
Senator Wyden. Dr. Franklin, thank you, and I appreciate
your walking us through it, because I read that article and
clearly this has Mr. Lillebo featured in it too, and I'm sure
he's got some--got some cuts on his back from getting in the
middle of all this with some of his friends, and I appreciate
your walking us through the science on it.
Let me turn, if I could, not to you, Mr. Insko, on an issue
that, to me, doesn't get as much attention as it should, and I
think it's one where folks in the forest product sector deserve
a lot of credit. That is, you all have put considerable
investments in new technology. I think it would be good to
elaborate on what the investments are that get you to this
point, where if we can get this legislation passed and you can
get additional fiber to the mills, you can use the technology
you now have more fully. Then talk to me a little bit about
what might be further technological innovations that we could
see in the future. Because as I look at the great challenges of
our time, and Mr. Lillebo was kidding when he was talking about
the chances and BP and what have you, but the great challenges
of our time involve consistently, how are we going to be
innovative.
I often think that I want to be chair of the innovation
committee, because whether it's energy or forestry or
healthcare, this is the real value added for the future, and
it's true in forestry and it's true in energy and oil and
healthcare and everything else. So, talk to us a little bit, in
terms of the technological innovations you've made at the Boise
system the last couple years, and what we could possibly see in
the next few years if Boise is able to hang in this area as a
result of getting additional fiber?
Mr. Insko. Big subject, so I'll try to keep somewhat
focused. Just in terms of the changes we've gone through as a
company in the last 10 to 15 years have been primarily driven
by resource, obviously, given that's the driving force behind
our business. So, we've retooled our facilities, and I'll use
the Elgin plant as the example, where today, we bring
everything from pulp wood, which is considered non-merch wood
down to like a two-inch top, so the tops of trees and dead
material, into that plant. We try to merchandise any saw log
component out of that, in addition to the natural saw log
volume that get.
From that, we produce chips for the paper mills, and then
we are producing veneers and stud lumber at that location. As I
said, a 10.4 inch diameter is not a large old growth log. In
fact, our maximum diameter we can handle at that location is 33
inches. We're not after large old growth trees out in our
national forests. We don't see those as something that's even
really attainable, quite candidly, because it hasn't been.
Where we have opportunity, I think, going forward, is in
the biomass front potentially. If there's going to be
successful biomass development in our opinion, it's going to be
in conjunction with existing industry, not by itself. The
economics of biomass suggest you need to be doing that in
combination with other activity out in the forest, so that the
overarching economics makes sense. But if you only focus on one
component, the economics won't pencil out, it will always have
to be a subsidized industry, which we don't believe we want to
see in the future.
So, what we would look at in Elgin, is the possibility of
co-gen construction there where we would be producing energy
and adding that----
Senator Wyden. Not the facility you have.
Mr. Insko. Exactly, the existing facility.
Senator Wyden. You would add a significant co-generation--
--
Mr. Insko. Yes.
Senator Wyden [continuing]. Program.
Mr. Insko. That's the possibilities out there if there is
active management and a supply of fiber that you can count on.
But these aren't small projects, as many of you know. To put in
a 25-megawatt co-generation plant, you're talking about $75
million. That's a lot of money and you have to have some sort
of assurance that you're going to have fiber to support that
kind of investment. So if we saw an opportunity out there,
that's definitely something that fits well with our existing
infrastructure, but would add to the jobs and our long-term
viability.
Senator Wyden. Let's go right to you, Mr. Walls, because
Mr. Insko mentioned biomass, and we have, of course, a separate
biomass section in the bill, because it is so important. Lots
of people in government and politics talk about biomass. You're
one of the few people who's actually a practitioner in the
biomass field. Any suggestions for the biomass section of the
bill?
Mr. Walls. I'm not only a practitioner, some accuse me of
making a career out of it, which I have probably. I think, you
know, technology-wise--and I totally agree, by the way, biomass
has to be with primary producers, a saw, a mill or something,
it's not a standalone industry, it doesn't pencil out.
The other things, and I know we're working on it with E
Petrol on this plant, is increasing pressures and doing stuff
like that, that it takes less volume to go in and more output,
you're increasing efficiencies is what you're doing. That
technology is being worked on, and I think that's some of the
future that's going to be.
Senator Wyden. Final question for Mr. Hoeflich and Mr.
Lillebo, any additional thoughts on collaboration. That's what
this bill ultimately is all about. In other words, we are
trying to break the gridlock. I think Mr. Webb, who's with us,
still makes a valid point, that if you had sufficient funding,
No. 1, and an actual way to jumpstart the process of breaking,
you know, the gridlock, you wouldn't need legislation. We just
haven't had either one, and the 2 actually, in my view, go hand
in hand. But that goes to the lessons of collaboration over the
years.
Do any of you have any final thoughts you'd like to add
on--on how we actually put in place these collaborative efforts
in the real world?
Mr. Hoeflich. Thank you. This is a critical question. I
think the key has been to bring the communities together to
have the conversations. The question is, what do they need in
order to make informed decisions. Having scientists available,
having expertise from the Federal agencies, my carrier and the
Governor have done extraordinary work to bring State-based
resources to the table to help inform the collaboratives. Non-
profits are trying to augment wherever they possibly can, but
bring the science to the table is absolutely critical.
I think the next big collaborative beyond that, just moving
up in scale, is for all of us to, again, unite behind this bill
and help to get the financial resources necessary to execute at
the scale of the problem.
Senator Wyden. OK.
Mr. Lillebo.
Mr. Lillebo. Yes, collaboration I think has been very
important aspect of getting out the different issues on forest
management. I'm part of several collaboratives, one is over in
the Malheur, co-chair with Mike Dillman, who's with Ochoco
Lumber there. We have worked long and hard, you know, hours and
hours, and sometimes it's a real pain--well, pardon my French--
sometimes it's very difficult to go through these projects as a
collaborative, but what I think we've found is, we've come to
agreements, and maybe we've only gotten 80 percent, 90 percent,
but that's pretty darn good compared to what we used to have.
What I think is the--potentially this bill, if we had the
science panel, kind of showing here's some parameters for the
science, and if people could all agree to that, I think that
could help out in helping the collaboratives come out with a
better product. They're a learning process, but I think there
absolutely essential, but like I say, the bill could help out,
you know, empowering those collaboratives and getting more
things done on the forest.
Senator Wyden. Very good.
Gentlemen, we'll excuse you all. Thank you very much for
all of your cooperation.
Our next panel, King Williams, a member of the Gazelle Land
& Timber LLC, Canyon City, Ivan Maluski, Conservation Program
Coordinator, Oregon Chapter of the Sierra Club, and Craig
Woodward, owner of Woodward Companies in Prineville.
Gentlemen, thank you all. Let's begin with Mr. Williams,
and good to have you again, and I know we worked together on
some land exchanges in the past, and we'll make your prepared
remarks part of the record and you just proceed as you'd like.
STATEMENT OF KING WILLIAMS, MEMBER, GAZELLE LAND & TIMBER, LLC
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you for
asking me to come today. My name is King Williams and over my
lifetime of living and working in eastern Oregon, I've
witnessed the forest change from healthy and vibrant to dead
and dying. We've heard that today, we've heard a lot of
discussion about that today, but when our national forests in
just northeast Oregon can grow 765 million board feet year, we
cut less than 100 million and we let 400 million die to
mortality, that's a crime.
Our forests lack management, they're plagued by that, but I
believe that the risks associated with this act far outweigh
any perceived benefits, and will in fact exacerbate the forest
management problems and timber supply issues which currently
exist in eastern Oregon. The stated goals and purpose of this
act appear to be bent, as Jack Thomas said, on increasingly
dysfunctional, expensive, inconsistent, and confuse management.
He goes on to agree with what I've said here, that the act will
further confuse management through a series of mandates,
prohibitions, and which will have no basis--little basis in
science. The act will increase the inconsistency of management
by requiring that the Umatilla, the Wallowa-Whitman, and the
Deschutes National Forest manage their lands under 2 separate
sets of rules, one set within the State of Oregon on the east
side and one set in Washington, Idaho, and on the west side of
Oregon. That will be more expensive.
The myriad of new, undefined, and scientifically--
unscientifically supported management directions will add to
the confusion and dysfunction within the U.S. Forest Service.
There are new and creative definitions in the act, such as old
growth, which the Society of American Foresters has pointed
out, is inconsistent with any definition accepted by the
scientific and professional communities. The act further
confuses this issue by switching between old growth, to older
trees, to older mature trees. What is an older tree? What is
older mature tree? What is ecologically appropriate spatial
complexity? What is anticipated future condition? What is
acceptable levels of carbon cycling? What is the historic level
of within forest stand spatial heterogeneity? All require
answers.
Within the act, economic and social considerations are
placed secondary to anything else, in direct conflict with the
Organic Act, the Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act, the National
Forest Management Act, and NEPA. At one point, the act states
that the secretary shall consider wood harvest to sustain
adequate levels of industry infrastructure as a consideration
in developing a methodology of management. But what is adequate
when we're talking of industry infrastructure? Who decides
that? We all know that the obvious answer to that is the
courts. There's more litigation.
The prohibitions to cutting trees over 20--greater than 21
inches will actually--may actually prevent a healthy and
resilient forest. That's been discussed. It's not a cookie
cutter, and this act only codifies the cookie-cutter approach
there and with pack fish and in fish with the codification of
these regulations. But they also expand these mandated
prescriptions to watersheds that are not covered under pack
fish and in fish. Natural resource management is dynamic, it's
temporal and requires modifications and adaptations from site
to site.
Actions by Congress are absolute, timeless, and aside from
a new action by Congress, ironclad. Washington, DC, is not the
place to determine resource management. To finance this new set
of processes, mandates, and management direction, Congress has
included $50 million, of which only 3 percent can be used for
administration, requiring that the balance of the
administrative cost for this to be taken from an already anemic
timber management budget on these national forests. In these
times of skyrocketing national debt, Congress should recognize
that our vast renewable natural resources are one area
available to produce the income necessary to dig our Nation out
of the fiscal mess we find ourselves. We need less
restrictions, not more expensive process.
The passage of this act in its present form will result in
dramatically increased process, increased litigation, continual
ecological decline, increasing economic decline, and a
degradation of our social fabric of our communities.
As for resolving the timber supply and economic
sustainability problems and improving ecological health and
resiliency, the act will fail. In reality, controversial
interim regulations based on questionable science will be made
permanent by Congress, while our local communities and
dependent industries are left with more unfunded regulations
and restriction and empty promises of further funding.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Williams follows:]
Prepared Statement of King Williams, Member, Gazelle Land & Timber, LLC
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, thank you for inviting
me here today to testify on SB 2895, The Oregon Eastside Restoration
Old Growth Protection and Jobs Act of 2009. My name is King Williams
and I am here today as a member of Gazelle Land & Timber LLC, an Oregon
limited liability company. Gazelle Land & Timber LLC owns and manages
timberlands in Oregon and northern California.
I am also the President of the Grant County Resource Enhancement
Action Team commonly known as G.R.E.A.T., Corp. This is the economic
development organization in Grant County, Oregon. Although G.R.E.A.T.,
Corp has not taken a formal position on SB 2895, as a member of the
board of directors for the past 13 years my perspective is consistent
with the vision and mission of G.R.E.A.T., Corp's Board of Directors.
I am a 4th generation resident of Grant County, Oregon. I grew up
raising cattle on our family ranch for the first 36 years of my life. I
have owned and operated a small sawmill in John Day until the decline
in the federal timber supply forced my partner and I to close the mill
like many operations in Northeast Oregon. For the past 10 years I have
been managing our company's timber lands in Oregon and Northern
California. Our company also owned and operated a cattle ranch relying
upon federal grazing in Northeast Oregon. Along with over 45 years of
owning and operating natural resource based businesses in Northeast
Oregon, I studied resource economics under Dr. Fred Obermiller and
received a masters in resource economics from Oregon State University.
I have participated in numerous studies and analysis of the effect of
natural resource management on the economy of resource dependent
communities. One of these was the Oregon Range and Related Resources
Evaluation Project conducted by the USFS from 1976 -1986 on the Malheur
National Forest. As part of the Management Team for this project I
worked closely with the USFS, BLM and other agencies in the design and
implementation of this 10 year project. As a result of this project
numerous articles were published concerning natural resource management
on the forests of Northeast Oregon.
I have not only studied the social, economic and ecological
implications of natural resource management in the forests of Northeast
Oregon in the academic setting through Oregon State University and as
part of the Oregon Range and Related Resources Evaluation Project team,
but I have invested my own time, labor and capital in the operation and
ownership of ranches, sawmills and timberlands within this region. As a
result of this background I am fully aware of the raw material plight
of the industry in Northeast Oregon in general and our three Grant
County sawmills in particular.
I have worked for and continue to support any effort to provide
ecologically sustainable, socially acceptable and economically viable
management of the national forests of Eastern Oregon. Any management
which is truly ecologically sustainable, socially acceptable and
economically viable will ``provide a continuous supply of National
Forest System timber for the use and necessities of the citizens of the
United States'' while ``facilitating the stabilization of communities
and opportunities for employment'' to the industries and communities of
Oregon as mandated in Federal Statutes enumerated below and further
expressed in Forest Service Manual 2402. The Statutes referred to above
include but are not limited to:
1. The Organic Act of 1897 which states ``No public forest
reservation shall be established, except to improve and protect
(emphasis added) the forest within the reservation or for the
purpose of securing favorable conditions of water flows, and to
furnish a continuous supply of timber for the use and
necessities of the citizens of the United States'' . . . ''The
Secretary of Interior shall (emphasis added) make provisions
for the protection against destruction by fire and depredations
upon the public forests and forest reservations . . . For the
purpose of preserving living and growing timber and promoting
the younger growth on forest reservations, . . . The
Secretary of the Interior . . . may cause to be designated . .
. so much of the dead, matured, or large growth (emphasis
added) of trees found upon such forest reservations as may be
compatible with the utilization of the forests thereon, and may
sell the same'' . . . . . .
2. The Multiple-Use, Sustained-Yield Act of June 12, 1960
which states: ``It is the policy of the Congress that the
national forests are established and shall (emphasis added) be
administered for outdoor recreation, range, timber, (emphasis
added) watershed, and wildlife and fish purposes''. ``The
Secretary of Agriculture is authorized and directed (emphasis
added) to develop and administer the renewable surface
resources of the National Forests for multiple use and
sustained yield of the several products and services obtained
therefrom,'' . . . . . .''due consideration will be given to
the relative values of the various resources'' . . .''
sustained yield of the several products and services'' means
the achievement and maintenance in perpetuity of a high-level
annual or regular periodic output of the various renewable
resources. The law specifically directs that the national
forests be administered in part for the ``high yield'' of
timber products. When the law was enacted in 1960, ``timber''
meant sawlogs for the lumber production. Biomass and other
related products were not a primary consideration. The Proposed
Action has no discussion of the ``relative value of the various
resources'' as required.
3. The Forest and Renewable Resources Planning Act as amended
by National Forest Management Act of 1976 states in Sec.5 ``. .
.the Secretary of Agriculture shall develop and maintain on a
continuing basis a comprehensive and appropriately detailed
inventory''. Sec. 6 (f)(l) goes on to state ``. . .forest plans
shall form one integrated plan for each unit (defined as a
National Forest) of the National Forest System,''. Sec. 6 (m)
(l) further states ``. . .the standards shall (emphasis added)
not preclude the Secretary from salvage or sanitation
harvesting of timber stands which are substantially damaged by
fire, windthrow or other catastrophe or which are in imminent
danger from insect or disease attack,''.
4. The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 states ``. .
.it is the policy of the Federal Government. . .to use all
practicable means and measures. . . . . . .to create and
maintain conditions under which man and nature can exist in
productivity harmony, and fulfill the social, economic
(emphasis added) and other requirements of present, and future
generations of Americans.'' Nothing in Sec. 102 or 103 shall in
any way affect the specific statutory obligations of any
Federal Agency. . . . . . .NEPA along with NFMA Sec. 6 (b)
mandates that the Forest Service in their Proposed Action
consider the economic consequences of their actions and must
seek a balance between ``population and resource use which will
permit a high standard of living and a wide sharing of life's
amenities''.
I believe that the risks associated with SB 2895 ``Oregon Eastside
Forests Restoration, Old Growth Protection and Jobs Act of 2009'',
hereinafter referred to as ``Act'' far outweigh any perceived benefits
and will, in-fact, exacerbate the forest management problems and raw
material supply issues currently existing.
GOALS
The framers of this Act came together to achieve a noble set of
goals including:
1. Conserving and restoring eastside forests of the State;
2. Providing an immediate, predictable and increased timber
flow to support locally based restoration economies;
3. Making the eastside forests of the State more resistant
and resilient and to mitigate the effects of, climate change;
to a healthy and resilient condition;
4. Protection and restoration and increase of old growth
forest stands and trees in the eastside forests of the State;
5. To expedite actions to conserve and restore forests of the
State that achieve ecological objectives and provide social
benefits;
6. to promote collaboration in communities of the eastside
forests of the State to support natural resource and
restoration-based economies;
7. to streamline administrative processes for ecological
restoration projects in the eastside forests of the State that
result in improved forest and watershed health;
8. to conserve and restore the ecological health and natural
processes of aquatic and riparian ecosystems and watersheds in
the State;
9. To prioritize and strategically target restoration
projects to improve forest and watershed health in old growth
forests;
10. To provide periodic independent review of agency programs
in carrying out this Act;
11. To recognize that the threats to forest health, watershed
health and rural economies have reached emergency status; and
12. To ensure that Federal land managers in the State are
good neighbors to private landowners.
These goals were bent out of decades of ``increasingly
dysfunctional, expensive, inconsistent, and confused. . .'' management
of the National Forests of Eastern Oregon. This is as described by
former Chief of the United States Forest Service, Jack Ward Thomas, in
a guest editorial printed in the Oregonian Newspaper, January 22, 2010,
titled ``What's wrong with the eastside forest compromise'', attached
hereto and its entirety included as part of this testimony.
The Act fails to achieve some of the primary goals of the Act as
listed above.
Providing an immediate, predictable and increased timber flow to
support locally based restoration economies
The Act fails in this aspect on several levels:
1. The primary reason for the lack of supply of timber for
the industries and local resource dependent communities of
Eastern Oregon is the lack of timber offered by the National
Forests;
a. The National Forests have over the past decade, been
forced through litigation to increase the level and expense of
planning associated with each project;
i. Increased expense associated with reduced budgets
have resulted in a decrease in the number of projects
planned and implemented, which would result in timber
for the industries;
b. The Projects planned on the National Forests have
increased in complexity and each project has produced less and
less raw material therefore have become less and less
economically efficient;
c. The Act does not include any direct, long term;
sustainable funding to ensure that sufficient number of
projects can be planned and implemented to provide a
predictable and sustainable supply of raw material.
d. Senator Wyden promises to make every effort to achieve
funding but he has been in the majority and chairman of this
committee for several years and funding is still inadequate,
why should things change now?
2. Litigation has been a major stumbling block to the USFS in
planning and implementing an adequate number of projects on the
National Forests of Eastern Oregon which would result in a
predictable and sustainable supply of raw material to the
industry and communities of Eastern Oregon.
a. This Act will only increase the incidence of litigation as
described below.
3. The Eastside Screen which include a 21 inch limit on trees
cut along with the requirements included in PACFISH and INFISH,
both of which were initiated without a NEPA process and without
scientific basis, have been another stumbling block to good
forest management and the ability of the USFS to provide an
immediate, predictable and sustainable supply of timber to the
industry and communities of Eastern Oregon;
a. The USFS has over the last decade developed an effective
framework within which to comply with these management
directions (which have internal flexibility) in their planning
and implementation of National Forest management projects.
b. This Act, by congressionally codifying and even expanding
the 21 inch management direction, PACFISH and INFISH
regulations, will result in a further decline in raw material
supply.
c. This Act not only completely prohibits the harvest of any
tree over 21 inches DBH, which has no basis in science, but
also allows for the prohibition of the harvest of trees under
21 inches based upon unknown set of standards or guidelines or
whim of an Advisory Panel.
d. The restrictions stated in this Act will directly result
in less raw material supply to the industry and communities of
Eastern Oregon.
4. The additional layers of process required by this Act will
increase the expense of each project and will expand the time
required for each project.
5. Finally, this goal is an overt attempt by Congress to tell
the communities of Eastern Oregon the type of an economy which
the lands managed by the USFS will support, ``restoration
economies'';
a. Initially there is no definition of a ``restoration
economy''
b. The Organic Act of 1897 states that the national forests
are ``to furnish a continuous supply of timber for the use and
necessities of the citizens of the United States'' it does not
limit to ``restoration economies''
c. To limit ``timber flow to support locally based
``restoration economies'''' is problematic at a minimum. What
does this really mean?
Making the eastside forests of the State more resistant and resilient
and to mitigate the effects of, climate change
The Act fails goal as well for the following reasons:
1. The codification of the 21 inch rule which prohibits the
harvest or removal of any tree over 21 inches does not add to
the restoration of the health of the national forests of
Eastern Oregon.
a. The codification of this rule simply appeases the radical
environmental factions and is not supported by science.
b. 21 inch trees are not necessarily Old Growth,
c. All trees die and under current conditions where the
forests are in a highly overstocked condition, these trees may
even die sooner due to the stress.
d. Forest management is dynamic and many ecotypes within the
forests are far healthier with a mixed age stand of trees. With
a congressionally mandated prohibition of the harvest and
removal of any tree over 21 inches, these areas will be
difficult to bring back to a healthy state.
e. The expansion of the 21 inch rule to allow for the
prohibition of trees under 21 inches even makes forest
management more difficult.
f. Congressional codification and expansion of this rule
removes some of the tools available to the professionals who
are charged with and hired to manage the forests in an
ecologically sustainable manner.
2. The codification and expansion of the PACFISH and INFISH
regulations add nothing to the goal of restoring the forests of
Eastern Oregon to a healthy and resilient condition.
a. The rules as currently in existence provide the necessary
protection intended while allowing the USFS the ability to
modify prescriptions on a site by site basis.
b. The codification of these rules takes away the ability of
the professional forest managers to manage the forests
ecosystems to the needs of each specific site. Rather they will
be held to a cookie cutter approach.
c. This Act not only codified the PACFISH and INFISH
regulations but expands them in Section (5) (a)(4)(b)(v) ``for
watersheds NOT IDENTIFIED (emphasis added) as key and priority
watersheds, as identified under PACFISH and INFISH'' to mandate
certain management prescriptions for these areas as well.
3. The Act provides no new tools to the USFS in the pursuit
of a more healthy and resilient forest. In-fact the additional
layers of process and the stricter regulatory nature of the 21
inch rule, the less than 21 inch rule, the ``watershed
management'' regulations in Section (5), and the inclusion of a
new definition of ``Old Growth'' in Section (2) (14) which
includes a single ``tree'' actually take away tools the USFS
was able to utilize in the pursuit of a healthy and resilient
forest.
a. Implicit in any action which reduces the tools available,
restricts the options available and increases the layers of
process is a reduction in effectiveness.
4. There has been extensive research, data and reporting by
the Oregon State Climatologist (``Climate Change-Global and in
Oregon'' by State Climatologist George H. Taylor). Included in
the findings was the fact that data in Eastern Oregon
demonstrates a consistent temperature regime with cooling and
warming cycles throughout history and continuing today.
a. Without arguing the global warming issue, one of the goals
of forest management is to be aware of the implications forest
management decisions have upon the release and/or sequestration
of carbon.
b. This Act through the insistence upon retention of old
mature and dying trees will implicitly increase the carbon
release into the atmosphere and reduce the level of
sequestration of carbon as follows;
i) The notion that you can store more carbon in
larger diameter trees'' is flawed and inconsistent with
science. In-fact the best way to sequester carbon
through the utilization of ``large diameter trees'' is
to harvest them and utilize the wood in construction so
as to make a ``carbon bank'' in each board. Science
demonstrates that as the Consumers of carbon, ie trees,
grow they ``consume'' carbon which can be sequestered
in the ``carbon bank'' through harvest at the
appropriate time (before decomposition begins). If the
tree is allowed to die and begin decomposing, even
while standing, it begins the process of producing
carbon again and releasing it into the atmosphere.
Additional return of carbon to the atmosphere occurs
through the nonbiological process of combustion, both
through the purposive use of wood in a fireplace and
the accidental fire in a forest or building. (Concepts
of Ecology, by Edward J. Kormondy).
c. Therefore, this Act will actually be counter productive in
the desire to sequester more carbon in the National Forests.
To expedite actions to conserve and restore forests of the State that
achieve ecological objectives and provide social benefits
This goal is accompanied by the goal which states:
To expedite actions to conserve and restore forests of the
State. . .
These goals are similar to the goal which states:
To streamline administrative processes for ecological
restoration projects in the eastside forests of the State that
result in improved forest and watershed health
The Act completely fails to expedite any actions, or to streamline
any administrative process.
The management of these National Forests has been frustrated by a
continual series of litigation on the part of extreme environmental
groups to confound, disrupt and ultimately stop all management of the
National Forests of this region. As a result of this stream of appeals
and litigation, the ecological health of the forests has drastically
declined resulting in millions of acres of overstocked, decadent,
insect and disease ridden dead and dying, fire prone forests.
Along with the declining ecological state of these National
Forests, the flow of raw materials produced by these forest ecosystems
has ground to a near halt, which in turn has resulted in the mass
exodus of industrial infrastructure in the surrounding communities.
With this dramatic decline in industrial base, the communities of
Eastern Oregon are in a free fall far more severe than the nations
economy is experiencing. The 10 percent unemployment experienced on a
nationwide basis at this time would be looked at in many areas of
Eastern Oregon as good news when these communities have been
experiencing nearly 20% unemployment on a regular basis during this
decimation of our local economies, our surrounding environment and our
way of life.
There is however, a disconnect between the problems enumerated
above, the desire of the framers of this Act to meet the goals also
described in the Act, and the reality of what will actually happen if
the Act, ``The Oregon Eastside Restoration Old Growth Protection and
Jobs Act of 2009'' , becomes the law of the land through passage of SB
2895 concurrence by the House of Representatives of an identical bill
to become a congressional act which will then be signed by the
President of the United States.
Natural resource management is dynamic, temporal, and requires
modifications and adaptation from site to site. Actions by the Congress
of the United States, signed as a PUBLIC LAW by the President of the
United States are absolute, timeless and aside from passage of another
Congressional action to be signed into law by the President of the
United States, is iron clad. Washington DC and Congress are not the
place to determine resource management.
It is highly unlikely that the Act will be successful in the
attempts to address the prolonged process of getting forest management
projects implemented in a timely fashion. The Act addresses the wrong
problem. It is not management science that is the problem. The problem
in getting projects initiated on the ground is protracted processes
required to achieve a judicially viable project. While appeals delay
Forest Service programs, they do not entirely stop the programs. It is
the continued threat of litigation by the ``Environmental Litigation
Industry'' that stops the process and this Act does not resolve that
problem.
The new processes spelled out will do little to get more projects
on the ground.
1) The Advisory Panel as proposed in the Act is destined for
disaster;
a. Legislated advisory panels (like the Committee of
Scientists in RPA) have been shown to be ineffective and a
waste of taxpayer money;
b. The Advisory Panel specified in the Act will add a
cumbersome layer of process to a variety of decisions;
c. How can one, seven (7) person panel be expected to provide
the mandated input to the issues on each of the six (6)
National Forests and the associated Collaborative Groups;
d. The combination of mandates including the Advisory Panel,
the Collaborative Groups and coordination with the
``Secretary'' will absolutely guarantee paralysis; and e. The
addition of the Advisory Panel and the Collaborative Groups
will add two (2) additional layers which are being legalized,
codified and mandated by Congress which will direct US Forest
Service management programs, essentially bypassing the
Secretary of Agriculture.
2) The myriad of reports mandated within this Act will by
definition increase process and will add layers of
administrative work to an already overly complicated process;
3) The Advisory Panel and Collaborative Groups leave out the
mandated coordination required by current law to include county
government, grazing permitees, neighboring landowners and other
valid interest holders; and
4) The new processes, procedures and restrictions spelled out
in the act are by definition ``more process''.
The Act fails to limit process, and actually dramatically adds to
the process required to get a project on the ground. A related issue of
process will occur on the Umatilla and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests
where the USFS will be required to manage the lands in Oregon (under
this Act) under the set of rules set forth in this Act, while managing
their lands located in the States of Washington and Idaho, which are
part of the Umatilla and Wallowa-Whitman forests under a different set
of rules.
To promote collaboration in communities of the eastside forests of the
State to support natural resource and restoration-based
economies
The Act again fails this goal for the following reasons:
1. Collaborative groups are already authorized and working
within the Eastside National Forests to congressionally mandate
and muddle the process of establishment, management of and
purpose is counter-productive
2. This Act states that ``the Secretary shall ensure that the
collaborative group be comprised of diverse backgrounds and
represent various interests that include at a minimum--
environmental organizations, timber and forest products
industry representatives and county government''. To explicitly
identify certain members while excluding other groups and an
individual is problematic, divisive and will be the subject of
litigation rather than collaboration.
3. The Act further defines how the group will operate which,
as with the mandate of the composition of the group will result
in the group being less collaborative and more divisive and
liturgical.
4. The Act also establishes a complaint procedure which
implicitly encourages divisiveness and litigation even in the
makeup, operation and decisions of the collaborative group,
which is contrary to the goal.
FOREST MANAGEMENT
Within the framework of the Act, economic and social considerations
are always placed secondary to anything else, in stark contrast to the
objectives of forest management spelled out in the Forest Service
Manual (FSM 2402) which includes six (6) goals and the first is ``To
provide a continuous supply of National Forest System timber for the
use and necessities of the citizens of the United States.''. This
secondary status of economic and social considerations is evidenced
most notably in Section (4) ``Forest Management'' (a) ``Management
Goals''(1) of the Act wherein the Act enumerates four (4) specific
goals as follows:
A. ``to conserve and restore the health, natural structure,
processes and functions of the forests and watersheds located
in the covered area;''
B. ``to reduce the risk of uncharacteristic disturbances from
fire, insects and disease;''
C. ``to allow for characteristic natural disturbances;'' and
D. ``To increase resistance and resiliency of the covered
land to uncharacteristic events.''
Although noble in an of themselves, the explicit and direct
exclusion of any reference to any social or economic consideration puts
this Act in direct conflict with The Organic Act of 1897, The Multiple-
Use, Sustained-Yield Act of June 12, 1960, The Forest and Renewable
Resources Planning Act as amended by National Forest Management Act of
1976, and The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.
As part of the direction from Congress in this Act as to how to
``implement'' ``Forest Management'' Section (4)(a)(2)(B) includes
fifteen items which the projects ``could potentially help achieve''.
This section states that ``the Secretary (USFS) shall CONSIDER
(emphasis added) methodologies that COULD POTENTIALLY (emphasis added)
help achieve'' a list of these fifteen items and only one, number nine
(9) has economic or social considerations. This one, number nine (9)
lists ``wood harvests to sustain adequate levels of industry
infrastructure.'' Even the listing of this one item as a part of
fifteen items which could potentially be helped, is confusing,
inadequate, and opens the door for litigation in and of itself for the
following reasons:
``Industry infrastructure'' is a non-defined element.
--What does it really mean?
--And who will make the determination as to what infrastructure is?
What is an ``adequate level''?
--To whom is the adequacy relevant?
--Who is to determine if the level of ``wood harvest''
``adequate''?
What is an ``adequate level of industry infrastructure''?
--The obvious answer to these questions is that it will fall upon
the courts to make these determinations. MORE LITIGATION
When The Congress of the United States of America makes a law which
is in turn signed by the President, it becomes a ``Public Law'' which
MUST be followed and when confusion as to intent is encountered, the
courts are called upon to interpret. The following are just a short
list of issues that the courts (which many of us have little confidence
in) will be called upon to decipher:
``anticipated future conditions''
``sufficiently uniform''
``acceptable range'' of;
Species composition
Ecosystem function
Carbon cycling
Hydrologic function
``potential natural vegetation''
``best available science''
``within forest stand spatial heterogeneity''
``older trees''
``older mature trees''
``ecologically appropriate spatial complexity''
``appropriate understory plant community composition and
condition''
``professional society''
``maximum extent practicable''
``local economic value potential''
``restoration economies''
``as soon as practicable''
``minimum quantity of timber based upon the need to maintain
a sustainable industrial capacity to perform the ecological
restoration activities under this Act.''
``sawtimber as a byproduct''
``encourage the establishment and maintenance of new and
existing collaborative groups''
``multiple interested individuals, who in the aggregate, are
comprised of diverse backgrounds and represent various
interests''
``operates in a transparent and non-exclusive manner''
``operates by consensus or in according to voting procedures
to ensure a high degree of agreement among participants and
across various interests''
``high degree of agreement''
``level of participation sufficient to ensure that members
of the collaborative group are adequately informed before each
vote''
``sufficient level of participation''
``adequately informed''
We each have a vision that comes to mind when these words and
statements are written or spoken. Each of these words or statements may
be clear to one person but are confusing and nebulous to others. These
words and statements are by all means not a complete of the words
statements or issues which will increase the incidence of litigation
associated with National Forest management in Eastern Oregon.
The Act's attempts to help ``local'' economies by specifying that
the required Stewardship contract ``give preference to local
businesses'' to help local business and workers is a misleading
proposition. The Act defines ``local'' to be a 100 mile radius around
any National Forest, Section (13)(d)(3). The Malheur National Forest
can reach from the Cascades to the Idaho border and North to the
Washington border this will kill small resource dependant communities
within Grant County, Harney County, Wallowa County, Wheeler County and
other small remote communities within the Eastern Oregon national
forests. It is statements such as these that sound good but really hurt
when implemented.
The Act, while attempting to limit appeals and litigation, actually
will provide additional fuel to the litigation process through:
1) Ambiguous definitions some listed above but also
including:
a. ``Old Growth'' which includes a single tree, Section
(3)(14), then prohibits harvest or removal, Section (4)(b)(1),
then discusses limiting harvest of trees over 150 years old in
Section (9)(d);
b. ``Forest Health'' which includes ``to maintain or develop
species composition, ecosystem function and structure,
hydrologic function, carbon cycling, and sediment regimes that
are within an acceptable range that considers--(i) historic
variability; and (ii) anticipated future conditions, Section
(3)(6);
c. ``restoration economies'', Section (2)(2); and
d. ``Plant Association'', Section (3)(17), which includes as
part of the definition ``vegetation community that--(i) would
potentially, in the absence of disturbance occupy a site. .
.''; and
2) Nebulous, unclear and even litigious wording and
management direction, such as:
a. ``restore ecologically sustainable forest stands to
incorporate characteristic forest stand structures and older
tree populations'', Section (4)(a)(2)(B)(viii) ;
b. ``natural structure'' which is undefined and not agreed
upon by scientists;
c. ``best available science'' which is absolutely subjective
and a recipe for litigation;
d. ``restore historical levels of within forest stand spatial
heterogeneity'' Section (4)(a)(2)(B)(iv);
e. ``the restoration and maintenance of historic population
levels of older tree'', Section (4)(a)(2)(B)(vii);
f. ``ecologically appropriate spatial complexity'', Section
(4)(a)(2)(B)(xi); and
g. ``In developing ecological restoration projects under this
Act, the Secretary shall--(A). . ., and achieve, a net
reduction in the permanent road system;'', Section (6)(c)(1),
which will ultimately result in zero miles of permanent roads
on the forest if carried out as written.
roads
The Act begins a discussion of ``Roads'' in Section (6) with a
complete prohibition on the construction of a permanent road on the
National Forests of Eastern Oregon. This is an irrational act on the
part of our Congress.
The Act goes on to allow for the placement of a permanent road as
long as it meets several criteria and is not built on any area that
contains a tree protected under Section (4)(b) which is any tree over
21 inches DBH or under 21 inches DBH. In most cases there is not a need
for a road where there is not a tree. I was encouraged that ``economic
criteria'' were mentioned as considerations along with ecological when
constructing a temporary road.
One major concern I have with the Act's ``Net Road Reduction'' in
Section (6)(c) (1) states that ``the Secretary shall. . .achieve a net
reduction in the permanent road system;'' in the ``development of
ecological restoration projects under this Act.'' If every project is
required to have a NET REDUCTION in the permanent road system, then
simple mathematics means that ultimately there will be NO permanent
road system.
eastside forest scientific and technical avisory panel
The establishment of the ``Eastside Forest Scientific and Technical
Advisory Panel'' hereinafter referred to as the ``Advisory Panel'' in
Section (7) of the Act is a nightmare in itself.
The Act only gives 90 days to establish this panel
(politically impossible)
--It took 1\1/2\years for congress to re-appoint members to the
RAC's that were already in existence
--Before the Secretary can appoint this Advisory Panel, the
Secretary must Consult with Congress
--Before these experts can be considered to consult with congress
for the Secretary to appoint to the Advisory Panel, they
must be recommended by ``an institution of higher education
or a professional society''.
--Someone must determine which institution of higher education is
the appropriate ones to recommend and which professional
society is the appropriate one or ones to may a
recommendation;
--Someone must ensure that ``through the collaboration of the
individuals appointed'' (this sounds like a ``do loop'' or
a ``vicious cycle'' where one must collaborate with ones
self to determine if one meets the criteria)will represent
a ``broad array of fields''. This broad array of fields
consists of 14 specifically listed fields.
--This process is impossible to complete in 90 days which starts
the timelines off on a delay that flows downhill.
The Act then gives 180 days for the Advisory Panel, once
appointed, to tell the USFS and the people how they are going
to achieve the goals in Section (4)(a)(1) which are the four
(4) goals none of which contain any economic or social
consideration.
--The Act is asking the Advisory Panel, in 180 days, to develop a
plan containing the ``recommendations as to how this
Advisory Panel'' is going to manage, the ``forest, stream,
grassland, wetland, alpine and other land and water located
in the covered area'', (all six National Forests in Eastern
Oregon) considering the ``best available science''.
--This report must include ``management guidance'' regarding a list
of seven (7) areas which are fairly specific.
--All this completed and a report to the USFS and the people
covering the six (6) National Forests within 180 days,
--This timeline is unrealistic at best.
An additional report is due to the ``appropriate committees
of Congress'' in five (5) years that is extremely explicit in
its content.
--Similar to a forest plan
--More process
SUMMARY
The Act will guarantee some fundamental change in the direction of
forest management on the National Forests of Eastern Oregon. Among
these guaranteed changes are:
1) Congressional codification of the flawed Eastside Screens;
2) Congressional Codification and Expansion of PACFISH and
INFISH;
3) Congress developing a definition of Old Growth which is
functionally unattainable and inconsistent with definitions
accepted within the scientific and professional communities;
4) Fundamentally flawed mandated reduction in the National
Forest Road system which mathematically will result in NO
permanent roads;
5) A mandated collaborative process which will result in
major stagnation of the entire process; and
6) Congressional mandate of some ``historic population level
of older trees'' (which are undefined).
7) Promises, Promises, Promises, and more Promises of some
future funding level for USFS, Forest Management adequate to
finance this menagerie of codified restrictions and
regulations, if future congresses agree.
The Act authorizes a one time sum of $50,000,000 to be appropriated
that will be available until it is used up. Only 3% of this money can
be used for administrative purposes, requiring the balance of the
administrative costs including the costs of the Advisory Panel,
Collaborative groups and extra assessments and reports to be taken from
the already anemic Timber Management budget in these six (6) national
forests.
It is highly unlikely that: 1) There will be additional
appropriations for the increased overhead associated with this Act; or
2) The other National Forests within either Region 6 or the other
Regions of the nation will voluntarily relinquish funds from their
allocated budgets to make up the increased overhead associated with
this Act. Therefore, each of the forests will be required to make up
the difference in overhead from other projects.
It is also unlikely that the revenues from the sale of forest
products generated as a result of the restoration projects can sustain
the program, of Ecological Restoration Projects on the Large Landscape
basis. The restrictions placed on harvest of ``Older Trees'' and the
reliance on harvest of ``Biomass'' is highly unlikely to provide a
sustainable flow of income large enough to fund the intent of this Act.
Biomass and small diameter trees have the lowest product value and the
highest cost to produce. Biomass barely pays its way to the mill in the
best markets and therefore, there will be little revenue to sustain a
very expensive program. As a result, the USFS will be stuck trying to
comply with a very expensive and legally mandated program with little
money to comply.
The tax payers of the United States will again be burdened with an
extensive and expensive program mandated by congress. When in fact the
products of these six (6) national forests should and are easily
capable of producing enough income, from the sale of even a minor part
of the sustained yield from the forests, to not only pay for the
harvest program but the associated restoration work necessary to
improve the declining health of the forests. In these times of
skyrocketing national deficit and astronomical national debt, congress
should recognize that our vast renewable natural resources are one area
available to produce the income necessary to dig our nation out of the
fiscal mess we find ourselves in at this time. We need less
restrictions not more expensive process at this time.
I find that enormity of the problems associated with this Act are
so overwhelming that I can not support it. Any purported benefits pale
to the increased process, increased costs and the areas of potential
litigation created by this Act.
Passage of the Act in its present form will result in:
Dramatically increased process necessary to plan and
implement projects on National Forest lands in Eastern Oregon;
Litigation over the current process and the additional
layers of process will increase;
Ecological Restoration on the National Forests of Eastern
Oregon will continue to decline;
The physical and economic infrastructure of the industrial
base and the resource dependent communities will continue to
decline; and
The social fabric of our communities and region will be
dramatically impacted in a negative manner.
As for resolving the timber supply and economic sustainability
problems on the Eastside National Forests while improving the
ecological health and resiliency of the National Forests, the Act
fails.
In reality, the environmentalists will get everything they could
hope for, while local communities and dependent industries are left
with more restrictions and an empty promise of future funding.
Senator Wyden. I'm going to put you down as having a couple
questions about the bill.
[Laughter.]
Senator Wyden. We'll have some questions, seriously, in a
moment.
Mr. Woodward, welcome.
STATEMENT OF CRAIG WOODWARD, OWNER, WOODWARD COMPANIES,
PRINEVILLE, OR
Mr. Woodward. Thank you, Senator Wyden, and members of the
committee. I'm Craig Woodward, sixth generation central
Oregonian. I've spent the majority of my life in the forests of
eastern Oregon that I dearly love.
I've, will all due respect, Senator Wyden, have more than--
have identified more than 40 problems, comments, and questions
regarding your 65-page well-intended S. 2895. Five minutes
won't scratch the surface of the issues regarding the bill, so
I'll just summarize.
I've discussed this bill with members of industry, the
scientific community, the Society of American Foresters, the
local, city, county government, and the communities at large,
and have found none willing to support this bill as written.
They've all asked me to do the best job I can to express their
feelings.
It's a sellout as far as I'm concerned, agreeing to forever
give up the ability to remove trees regardless of size or age,
sacrificing true forest management merely to be allowed to cut
only an additional low value or negative value volume that
needs to be treated anyway. Even though the Forest Service
employees can't come out on either side of political positions,
I've discussed the bill off the record with current and former
administrators, not one of them were in support of this bill.
Giving up on the higher value trees will accelerate the end
of the secondary mill work industry in eastern Oregon that have
the employment capability in excess of 6,000 workers plus
support jobs. These plants were located here due to the
availability of local high quality ponderosa pine that will
never again be available if this bill passes. I've found no one
in the secondary mill work industry that was contacted
regarding the consequences of this bill. Why not? Evidently
this bill is called the Eastside Bill because the west side had
the wisdom not to become part of it.
From a practical standpoint, the bill can't be labeled
forest management or forest health, allowing only the smaller
less valuable component to be treated. Disease such as
mistletoe needs to be treated by dealing with stands as a
whole. The snag inventory in the national forest in eastern
Oregon is way more than ample. With a large segment of the
larger trees affected by disease, insect infestation, blow
down, root sprung, mistletoe, fire, and natural mortality, good
science mandates salvaging a portion of that volume. The value
derived from--including a portion of the high risk larger trees
in the management scheme would do more for the eastern Oregon
economy and the USDA funding than the revenue from all the low
value trees that will ever be harvested, while accomplishing--
while accomplishing science-based management.
The bill requires that at least 75 acres for every mile of
fish-bearing stream will be off limits to all harvest activity.
Nearly 40 acres of every mile of non-fish bearing streams will
be off limits to all harvest as well.
This bill contains a provision blocking timber sale appeal.
If appeals can be blocked, then why not propose a bill to allow
the forest managers to manage all of the--a portion of the
forest that isn't already set aside from logging, regardless of
size, with no appeal, and forego the red tape created by this
bill?
The way I interpret the bill, is not--it is not immune to
litigation, as far as the management process. I question that
the advisory council, with such diverse opinions, can ever
reach a consensus, as required by the bill.
The administrators of the Eastern Oregon National Forest
have stated that they don't have the funding or the manpower to
plan, advertise, and administer the needed sales programs
currently, which represents no more than 10 percent of the
annual growth. What makes you think that funding for this
program will be appropriated if the bill is passed and not
funded, no tree over 21 inches will ever be harvested in the
future, and no increase small diameter volume will be
harvested, who wins?
If the bill passes, there is little need for industry and
local government officials to be on groups or committees as
required by the bill because they've already lost the fight.
Your bill, Senator Wyden, has some positive features,
however, agreeing to give up the possibility to manage and
salvage the entire stand designated--in designated areas
forever is definitely a tradeoff not worth making for good
eastern Oregon national--for the good of eastern Oregon
National Forests, the economy, and the region as a whole.
Thanks for allowing me to comment.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Woodward follows:]
Prepared Statement of Craig Woodward, Owner, Woodward Companies,
Prineville, OR
For those of you not familiar with the Oregon Eastside Forests
Restoration, Old Growth Protection and Jobs Act of 2009, I've included
an outline of what it entails. To read the act, go to http://
wyden.senate.gov/newsroom/eastside_forest_restoration_bill.pdf. After
reading the act, you will understand why those affected in Western
Oregon were unwilling to have the forests in that area of the state
included in Senator Wyden's bill.
After reading the act, I'm now convinced it's even worse than
originally feared. Where is the money for study--Forest Service says
they don't have man power, time, or budget to complete NEPA, EA, and
EIS studies. The act can't be labeled ``forest health'' unless the
health of the trees over 21 inches is addressed as well. In many areas
the most at-risk forest component is the larger trees. Region wide,
more than 50 percent of the larger trees have issues including, but not
limited to, insect infestation, mistletoe, rot, lightning strikes, root
sprung, blow down and natural mortality.
This bill can't be labeled a forest health bill by throwing in the
towel to the radical environmental factions regarding harvest of larger
trees. Instead, it should be labeled ``Continued Mismanagement''.
The most important bill that could be passed regarding timber
issues in the area covered by the Oregon Eastside Forests Restoration,
Old Growth Protection and Jobs Act would be very simple to write and
understand. It would include no deal-making.
COMMON SENSE FOREST BILL
Allow no administrative appeals on timber sales by special
interest groups or individuals
Allow the forest managers to do their jobs of managing the
forests--not just the small trees
The trees in our forests are a renewable resource. You can't
properly manage a renewable resource by uninformed vote, legislation,
or litigation. The only successful way to assure sustained yield
forestry is to allow the forest managers to manage through sound
silvicultural science.
Major problems that the architects of this bill seem to have
overlooked are:
1. If financing isn't available to implement the plan,
everyone loses except the radical environmentalists.
2. Even though Andy Kerr agrees that the special interest
group he's involved with won't file appeals on increased
harvest, what would prevent other groups from surfacing and
filing appeals? If the power exists to prevent appeals, why
aren't those powers being implemented for sound forest
management practices currently?
3. If management required by the bill is implemented, the
overstocked stands will be thinned. Thinning stimulates growth.
When re-entry is required in the future many trees that were
released and allowed to grow will be larger than the allowable
removal size. What will we do then? We'll be backing ourselves
into a corner in which we won't be able to get out.
By arbitrarily placing a 21-inch diameter limit on harvest, not
only has the ability of the forest managers to manage been compromised,
but also--equally as important--the possibility for the Forest Service
to cover operating costs or even profit from timber sale revenue has
been lost.
On the private side, managing the forest as a whole instead of just
immature, low-value trees creates more jobs, causes more commerce, and
allows the remaining sawmills to be more competitive on the world
scene. The secondary manufacture millwork plants in Central and Eastern
Oregon were located here over the past 50 years, due to the supply of
high-quality Ponderosa pine lumber with very little transportation
cost. These plants have the capacity to employ more than 2,000 workers.
Since the harvest appeal restriction of larger trees by special
interest environmental groups, most of the lumber supply comes from
outside the area or even from outside the country. This reduces the
competitive advantage afforded the local millwork plants and is
partially the cause of their work force reductions.
Over the past month, I've visited with more than 50 Forest Service
timber staff personnel, loggers, and industry representatives; not one
of them has been in favor of the Oregon Eastside Forests Restoration,
Old Growth Protection and Jobs Act.
During my discussions with Forest Service staff, I learned that
even though they might have very strong opinions concerning pending
legislation, they are not allowed to come out in favor of or against
it. How can legislators be properly informed if those hired to protect
the nation's assets can't have an opinion on legislation regarding the
management of those assets?
Given the Forest Service's budget to administer the timber and the
monetary losses caused by this bill, there is more than $1 million
dollars of red ink in this program in the Ochoco National Forest this
year alone. If we were allowed to return to pre-appeal sustained-yield
harvest, the Ochoco National Forest, which is only 1 of many national
forests in Eastern Oregon, would generate additional revenue of at
least $10 million to $20 million to the government through timber sale
receipts, not to mention hundreds of additional jobs.
If the Ochoco National Forest could merely add the larger diameter
volume that becomes diseased, insect-damaged, lightning-struck, root-
sprung, and wind-thrown annually, to the timber sales program before
they begin to deteriorate, a great injustice would begin to heal while
creating $5 million to $10 million in stumpage revenue for the U.S.
Government and creating or saving hundreds of jobs. When you expand the
numbers to cover all of the forests affected by this bill, the impact
is monumental. Keep in mind that 25% of US Forest receipts stay in the
local communities to finance schools and county road budgets.
An unintended consequence of this legislation is that it would have
a devastating impact on the future of our nation's renewable natural
resources--along with its negative impact on industry and our ability
to manage our nation's national forests in Eastern Oregon. Currently
the Forest Service timber sale program includes less than 10% of the
annual growth on USFS managed lands.
I don't doubt Senator Wyden's intent to make the best of a bad
situation. I merely feel he doesn't have an understanding of the bigger
picture in this important issue. At best, all this bill accomplishes is
to allow a couple of sawmills enough low-value timber to stay in
operation for a little longer, while disregarding the future of our
national forests.
Attachment
My company manages timberland with more than 50 miles of common
boundary with National Forest lands. Any management, or mismanagement,
practice on National Forestland adjacent to our property directly
impacts our property. I would like to invite you and anyone you wish to
join you to tour our property, and the Forest Service property in the
area to see the devastation resulting from not managing the trees over
21''.
The misinformation being spread around by officials about ``an
existing 21'' rule'' has done much to misinform those with a voice. For
this bill to have the desired, successful result, the 21'' issue must
be addressed, and the forest managers must be allowed to manage without
the burden of additional red tape.
I've been inundated with phone calls with individuals from
industry, county governments, professional associations, the public at
large, including Forest Service employees, off the record. The message
has been ``keep up the fight''.
I'd like to use this opportunity to point out some of the
questions, comments I've found with the bill.
Page 1 in the title--you more effectively restore landscapes, and
protect old growth forests, by having the ability to remove a portion
of 21''+ trees as needed to accomplish forest health objectives.
Page 2 line 3 & 4--managing the forest as a whole would do much
more to accomplish this objective.
Page 2 line 6 & 7--removing some of the diseased and damaged trees
regardless of size would do much more to accomplish this.
Page 2 lines 8, 9 & 10--cutting over ripe trees would create
positive carbon sequestration results.
Page 2 lines 11, 12 & 13--half of the old growth in the portion of
the state covered by this bill is already protected by roadless,
management areas, landscape architecture and wilderness, etc. How has
that been working for us? I say ``protect the healthy larger trees
while maintaining the needed snag inventory. Allow the rest of the
volume to be managed as part of the sustainable inventory as needed.''
Page 2 lines 14-17--economic benefit would be vastly improved by
including larger trees.
Page 2 lines 18-20--done properly, removing some larger trees would
have positive impact on resource based and restoration based economics.
Page 3 lines 1-4--this bill does just the opposite of streamlining
the administrative process.
Page 3 lines 5-7--can't be accomplished by treating only small
trees.
Page 3 line 11--please describe uncharacteristic conditions.
Page 3 line 14 & 15--who reviews?
Page 3 line 19 & 20--it is impossible to make the Forest Service
good neighbors under existing rules. For example: we own in excess of
50 miles of common boundary. Good neighbors traditionally split
boundary fence repairs. The law requires us to maintain all boundary
fences, if Forest Service animals get onto our property it is our
problem. If our cattle get onto Forest Service, it's trespass. If a
neighbor needs to haul logs across my property, I allow it free of
charge. If I must haul across Forest Service, there is a healthy road
use fee.
Page 13 lines 7-9--how do you reduce risk of mistletoe without
cutting infected large trees?
Page 13 lines 21-24--advice of advisory councils is only as good as
the advisors on the council. Let the managers manage the forests.
Page 14 & 15--the projects outlined on this page don't have enough
details to know what's expected.
Page 16 lines 19-23--advisory panels and collaborative groups will
vary depending upon their composition. Consensus is doubtful.
Page 18 line 24--what is the definition of ``the top of the inner
gorge''?
Page 19 lines 5-10--this excludes in excess of 75 acres per mile of
stream.
Page 19 lines 23-25--this excludes nearly 40 acres for every mile
of non-fish bearing stream.
Page 20 line 11--why have the other restrictions on the rest of
this page when this covers them all?
Page 27--all existing roads in an area become essential when
wildfire strikes.
Page 33 line 23--this does little or nothing to maintain the
secondary millwork industry that employs 10 times as many people as the
sawmills.
Page 36 line 7 & 8--Good luck.
Page 36 line 11--evaluating these needs does nothing to cure the
problem.
Page 39 lines 6-8--all this does is to deny the opportunity to
utilize the remaining resource available in the portion of the forest
that is not already off limits due to previously set aside as
wilderness, riparian protection, parks, roadless, and other natural and
management areas.
Page 40 line 24--will these ecological restoration areas be
available for continued re-entry once the initial project is completed?
Page 43 line 2--if the ability exists to eliminate appeals, we
should eliminate them, let the forest managers do their job. Replace
them if they don't properly satisfy the task that would lessen the red
tape added with this bill.
Page 45 lines 12-14--why have we given up on protecting roadless
areas?
Page 45 lines 17-22--this goes against protecting forest health as
a whole in an area.
Page 46 lines 4-8--how does eliminating a tree from management due
to size or age equate to forest management?
Page 46 lines 19-24--if this bill passes, it's too late to
accommodate the largest segment of private industry, the secondary
millwork manufacturers.
Page 48 lines 22-24--Indian tribes are not represented.
Page 49 lines 7-11--I doubt if agreement will ever be reached among
such diverse groups.
Page 49 lines 18-24--this will be an administrative nightmare.
Page 58 lines 1-4--why not use this process currently?
Page 58 line 22--this eliminates the gain of having no appeal.
Page 60 lines 7-16--we're sold out by sacrificing the salvage of
large timber for the substitution of a guaranteed volume of slash.
Page 61 line 16--what process is used to assure local business gets
the work?
Page 63 lines 16-18--without size limit it could fund itself.
Page 63 line 19--I seriously doubt if $1,500,000 will fund this
projects administration.
In conclusion, even with the positive features of this bill, it's
no wonder why at least 3 county governments, mills representing several
thousand workers, member of associations such as the Society of
American Foresters, the Grant County Public Forest Commission, as well
as the public at large join me against the passage of this bill.
Senator Wyden. Thank you, Mr. Woodward, and I'll have some
questions in a moment.
Mr. Maluski, welcome.
STATEMENT OF IVAN MALUSKI, CONSERVATION PROGRAM COORDINATOR,
OREGON CHAPTER SIERRA CLUB
Mr. Maluski. Senator Wyden, on behalf of the Sierra Club's
more than--or nearly 20,000 members in Oregon and our tens of
thousands of supporters here, I'd like to thank you for the
opportunity to testify on this bill today.
Our staff and volunteers spend a lot of time working on
these issue in central and eastern Oregon. We do, I want to be
clear, that we do support some of the key goals of this
legislation, and we support provisions such as the protection
of--codification of protections for large diameter trees,
enhanced protections for riparian areas, and the ban on
permanent new roads.
But we do believe that some of the provisions of this bill
will unfortunately run counter to some of the stated
restoration goals of this legislation and could possibly lead
to more litigation in some cases. We submitted more detailed
written testimony and in the interest of time I will just sort
of highlight some of our key points.
One of our key points relates to administrative appeals.
During the first 3 years of the bill's implementation, it
removes the rights for the public to administratively appeal
logging projects. We are of the belief that the administrative
appeals process is a fundamental reflection of the strength of
the democratic process, facilitating dialog rather than
litigation. In that spirit, we provided as an attachment to our
testimony a list of 19 Forest Service projects we worked on in
2006 through 2010 across central and eastern Oregon that
actually saw on the ground environmental improvements and no
litigation due to successful administrative appeal
negotiations.
The types of improvements we saw were protection of
sensitive soils, water quality, important old growth stands,
and roadless areas. Without our administrative appeal rights in
place, we're concerned this legislation could unfairly restrict
our ability to stop irresponsible logging on our public lands
that could hurt wildlife, water quality, and forest health, and
we would recommend that we retain administrative appeals during
the interim period.
Another key area of our concern is the mandated acreage
targets in the legislation, both during the interim and during
the general part of the bill. Unfortunately, because this is,
at this point, only funded for 1 year, part of our concern here
is that essentially this could become an unfunded mandate,
where if Congress does not step up, and inevitably I don't
think the projects will pay for themselves, the Forest Service
will be obligated to meet these acreage targets regardless.
As it pertains to the post-interim period, we're looking
at--as each national forest is going to be required to produce
one 25,000-acre project per year, I think that regardless of
the actual restoration needs on the ground, so that really ties
the hands of local forest managers to deal with these types of
issues.
Furthermore, stating that the--at least during the interim,
the predominant focus of these projects is mechanical in nature
and for saw log production, and during the post-interim to
maintain mill infrastructure, gives us a concern that that will
sort of bias the outcome of a lot of these restoration
projects.
We would recommend that the actual annual per acreage
forest targets be removed and we allow the best available
science to set those targets on the ground.
Another key area is just the use of science in this bill.
We do support the bill's focus on the best available science,
but one of the things we would highlight is that there is quite
a body of work out there, the Seminal Eastside Scientific
Society Panels report to the President and Congress in 1994.
Your bill has incorporated some of the key protections, but we
would like to see it more explicitly articulated in the
legislation, that we're going to build upon that existing body
of science. Essentially that includes protection for old growth
stands, as well as old growth trees, protection for smaller
roadless areas, and indeed prohibiting logging in post-fire
situations.
I would take a little bit of issue to a comment from Dr.
Franklin, we have--there is actually a great deal of
controversy over the mechanical treatments in mixed conifer
stands, both dry and moist. We have provided a list of--a
letter from 11 scientists, notably including Dr. James Carr
from the University or Washington, Dr. Robert Hudo from the
University of Montana, which articulate some of these concerns
and I think give you a lot more background on why we need to be
cautious about mandating too much mechanical activity in some
of these mixed conifer stands.
Another area, just 2 more, really is--one of them is
biomass contracting. This is an issue for the Sierra Club,
partly because we have concerns that incentivizing Federal
lands biomass to the point that it creates a new unsustainable
demand for raw material from national forests could essentially
create demands that we can not meet. In the context of this
legislation, we're concerned about the 20-year contracting with
private--outside private entities for biomass removal on
Federal lands, wheelers have to be scaled back in this
legislation.
Last, I want to make a key point, and this is the subject
of an op-ed that we published in the Bend Bulletin yesterday,
which we can make available to you if you haven't seen it. It's
really about the need to--for economic diversification as part
of this bill. It's very clear that this bill's economic focus
and jobs focus is about getting saw logs to the mill and
maintaining mill infrastructure. We think that the focus needs
to be much more broad than that.
The University or Oregon's Ecosystem Workforce Program has
done a tremendous amount of work documenting the various types
of restoration jobs that are out there. It's our experience
with the Forest Service that if we do not give them clear
direction on these non-timber oriented restoration exercises
such as road removal, fish passage improvement, noxious weed
removal, they're just not going to get to them, they're going
to focus on the logging.
According to recent research by the University of Oregon's
Ecosystem Workforce Program, for every $1 million of public
investment in forest restoration, we can create between 14.7
and 23.8 total jobs. This obviously--some of this work is going
to be involving chainsaws and heavy equipment, but a lot of
simply is not, so we need to make sure that we're really
diversifying the restoration economy. The key point here is
that when we're in a situation like we have in the last few
years where timber prices are at record lows, we need to make
sure that we're not putting all our eggs in that basket, and we
are diversifying rural economies through this process.
So, that's really the conclusion of my remarks. Again,
there's pieces of this legislation we support. We think that
some of these key points we've articulated would be wonderful
to see addressed before we move forward.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Maluski follows:]
Prepared Statement of Ivan Maluski, Conservation Program Coordinator,
Oregon Chapter Sierra Club
Chairman Wyden and Members of the Subcommittee:
On behalf of the Oregon Chapter of the Sierra Club and the more
than 1.3 million members and supporters of the Sierra Club nationwide,
we thank you for the opportunity to testify today on S. 2895, the
Oregon Eastside Forest Restoration, Old Growth Protection, & Jobs Act.
For more than a century, the Sierra Club has worked to protect
America's wilderness, forests, and public lands so that generations of
Americans can explore and enjoy this nation's natural bounty. Today,
there are 65 Sierra Club Chapters and more than 425 Sierra Club Groups
across the country.
With nearly 20,000 members living in Oregon, the Sierra Club has a
strong interest in the management of the National Forests of Central
and Eastern Oregon. Our staff and membership in Oregon have
consistently worked to ensure sound science-based management of the
National Forests covered by this legislation and have focused efforts
on protecting old growth forests and roadless areas. We support the
creation of forest based restoration jobs that also promote the
recovery of healthy populations of threatened and endangered species,
address the excessive network of roads created through past management,
and to preserve biodiversity and ecosystem resiliency in the face of
climate change.
Over the years, we have been involved in a number of your efforts
to protect Oregon's old growth forests. We are supportive of some of
the key restoration goals of this legislation but believe that some
sections as currently written will run counter to the bill's stated
restoration emphasis. We provide the following comments in the interest
of improving this proposal to address our concerns. We previously
submitted testimony to the Committee on S. 2895 on March 10, and we
incorporate those comments into our remarks today by reference.
The following are our basic concerns with S. 2895 as introduced:
1. Administrative Appeals.--Administrative appeals are a
fundamental reflection of the strength of the democratic
process, facilitating dialogue rather than litigation. The
Sierra Club has found that administrative appeals allow a
meaningful way to resolve concerns over Forest Service projects
without having to go to directly court. We have provided as an
attachment to our testimony a list of 19 Forest Service
projects we have worked on in various National Forests across
Central and Eastern Oregon that saw on the ground environmental
improvements and no litigation due to successful administrative
appeals between 2006 and 2010. These improvements include:
preventing logging in mid and higher elevation mixed conifer
old growth stands; protecting old growth trees smaller than 21
inches in diameter; protecting in ecologically significant
roadless areas from mechanical entry; protecting key fish and
wildlife habitat, including on steep slopes; and the protection
of sensitive soils from the long-lasting damage of groundbased
logging and both permanent and temporary roads.
During its interim period covering some 300,000 acres and
three or more years, S 2.895 removes the right for the public
to administratively appeal logging projects and timber sales,
including those conducted after fires and in old growth stands.
With the removal of the key `check and balance' of
administrative appeals, we believe this is likely to lead to
more litigation, not less, with the Forest Service opting to
say `see you in court' rather than `let's compromise' while
moving forward with controversial projects. We suggest that
administrative appeal rights be retained for all projects
during the interim period in Section 9(c)(2).
2. Mandated annual acreages.--While the bill promotes the use
of the best available science to guide management decisions, it
mandates annual acreage targets during both the interim period
and for each covered National Forest thereafter. Annual acreage
targets will force individual forest managers to plan and
implement projects based on this mandate, rather than on actual
restoration needs. This approach will burden taxpayers, as the
Forest Service will be obligated to plan and implement annual
landscape-scale projects regardless of whether Congress
continues to fund the implementation of the proposal or whether
restoration projects actually bring in enough revenue to pay
for the Forest Service's costs. Particularly during the interim
period, these acreage mandates will be focused on mechanical
entry into forests and the production of sawlogs, activities
which we believe will have a tendency to undercut the
restoration goals of the legislation while creating
unreasonable expectations within the timber industry for steady
and increased flow of logs from National Forests, even during
times of weak demand such as we are experiencing now.
For these reasons, during the interim period of the
legislation we suggest: the removal of specific annual acreage
targets; language that requires that restoration projects be
predominantly mechanical in nature; and, language that
emphasizes sawlog production as a primary byproduct of
restoration activities in Section 9(c)(5)(a). We also believe
that language in Section 9 requiring each National Forest
covered by the bill to perform at least one 25,000 acre project
per year designed to provide a minimum quantity of timber to
maintain mill infrastructure should be removed from the bill
(Section 9(b)(1)). This annual per-forest acreage mandate will
strain limited Forest Service resources and will put pressure
on the agency to design projects that are inconsistent with the
restoration goals of the legislation.
3. Eastside science.--While we support this bill's
requirement to protect large diameter trees, we would like the
bill to more explicitly require the consideration of existing
eastside science that has made large diameter tree protections
the practice on the ground in eastern Oregon since 1994. The
scientific recommendations in the Eastside Scientific Society
Panel's Report to the President and Congress in 1994 (Henjum et
al) are just as pressing and relevant today as when they were
developed. While undertaking restoration projects, it is
important that the Forest Service be required to protect more
than large diameter trees, but also old growth stands and
smaller, but ecologically significant roadless areas from
ground disturbing activities and mechanical entry. We believe
that as currently written, the Forest Service's implementation
of this bill will lead to harmful ground disturbing activities,
including `temporary' road and skid trails, in sensitive old
growth stands and other intact forests. The Forest Service has
a history of inappropriately applying lessons learned from low
elevation dry ponderosa pine forest types, to mid and higher
elevation mixed conifer old growth stands, with
counterproductive consequences.
S. 2895 creates a new Scientific and Technical Advisory Panel
which is required to finish its report in less than six months.
Unlike the 1994 Eastside Scientific panel, the panel created by
S. 2895 will include not only scientists, but experts in timber
economics and road and logging engineering. We believe the
science panel created by this legislation should be explicitly
directed to incorporate and build upon recommendations of the
Eastside Scientific Society Panel Report of 1994, which
include: protecting large trees and old growth stands from
logging, protecting significant roadless areas 1000 acres or
larger, and limiting mechanical entry into intact forests. We
are attaching a letter from 11 scientists conducting research
in the fields of forest and fire ecology issued in March 2010
in response to this legislation. This letter questions the
scientific foundation of some of the assumptions about existing
forest conditions in S. 2895, outlines some of the current
scientific information relevant to these assumptions, and makes
a series of recommendations on changes to the legislation to
address these concerns. There is great scientific disagreement
over what mechanical activities, if any, are ecologically
appropriate in both dry and moist-mixed conifer stands.
Additionally, to the extent that the panel created by this
legislation will include more than just scientists, we would
suggest the slot for `timber economics' be replaced with a more
appropriate `ecosystem workforce development' position in order
to ensure the broad range of restoration workforce jobs are
considered in Section 7(b)(2)(a).
4. 20-year biomass contracting.--In general, we have concerns
about incentivizing federal lands biomass to the point that it
creates new, unsustainable demands for raw material from
National Forests. In the context of this legislation, we are
concerned about providing the Forest Service with the authority
to enter into 20 year contracts with private entities for
biomass removal on federal lands and would suggest the removal
of language authorizing this new authority at Section 12(b)(4).
5. Economic Diversity and Job Creation.--Economists are
increasingly realizing that our forests have value as sources
of clean water, salmon habitat, recreation and carbon storage.
The Sierra Club believes that any new approach to creating jobs
in national forest restoration must not focus solely on the
economics of supporting the logging industry, but also on
enhancing non-timber values and diversifying the restoration
economy as a whole. To this end, policies should be enacted to
deliberately create a diverse array of businesses in eastern
Oregon through systematic and long-term investments in
ecological restoration activities. If the focus is primarily on
generating logs for the mill, then the boom and bust cycle of
timber prices and housing starts will continue to create
economic uncertainty as they have for decades.
This legislation should create clear targets for improving
fish passage, restoring degraded riparian areas, reducing the
dense road network and removing invasive species, in order to
stimulate the creation of new businesses within a diverse
restoration economy. Recent research by the University of
Oregon's Ecosystem Workforce Program suggests that every $1
million in public investment in forest and watershed
restoration creates between 14.7 and 23.8 total jobs. Most of
these businesses are small, typically with less than $1 million
in annual revenue. While some of these jobs involve chainsaws
and may generate a useable byproduct, many labor and equipment-
intensive forest and watershed restoration activities can be
extremely valuable in creating economic diversification in
rural communities without generating sawlogs or commercial
scale biomass. Non-timber restoration activities can include:
enhancing stream habitat, noxious weed removal, removing
barriers to fish passage, manual thinning and brush removal,
trail enhancement, controlled burning, and even research and
monitoring.
The Sierra Club believes that within the wildland urban
interface, the primary focus should thinning brush and small
diameter trees. Outside of those interfaces, a greater focus
should be placed on utilizing both prescribed and wildland-use
fire policies to re-introduce natural processes where
ecosystems have been significantly altered, while proactively
and systematically addressing fish passage and road
decommissioning needs. We support strategic and robust efforts
to reduce the permanent road network and suggest legislating
more specific goals and benchmarks in this bill to make this a
reality. Simply requiring a `net reduction in the permanent
road system' does not provide enough incentive for the Forest
Service to systematically implement road-system related
restoration activities on a large enough scale to support
significant numbers of these types of restoration jobs.
Further, language allowing the Forest Service to decommission
new roads authorized by this legislation `as soon as
practicable after the completion date of the project' should be
replaced in Section 6(B)(2)(b) with language that requires the
decommissioning of all temporary roads before the completion of
any restoration project. Limited Forest Service funding, and
the focus on designing new landscape-scale projects year after
year will inevitably divert resources away from important road
restoration work, leading to less likelihood that temporary
road decommissioning will be completed.
6. Riparian Area Protection--We appreciate that the bill
incorporates the PacFISH and INFISH riparian buffers. We do
have some concerns because as implemented now, PacFISH and
INFISH currently allow some harmful activities in sensitive
riparian areas. Further, the extent of riparian areas on the
landscape is arguably greater than PacFISH and INFISH provide.
The buffers for non-fish bearing streams and perennial streams
are generally inadequate to ensure the health and recovery of
these systems. We suggest that this legislation start with
PacFISH and INFISH as a floor with the opportunity to
administratively expand riparian buffers under the
recommendations of the science panel, make compliance with
those standards mandatory, and incorporate the direction that
has been provided by the NOAA Fisheries the Fish & Wildlife
Service through existing biological opinions on anadramous and
inland fish.
CONCLUSION
The passage of S. 2895 would mark a significant shift in management
of Oregon's eastside National Forests. The Sierra Club believes it is
important to codify interim rules in place since 1994 that protect
large diameter trees and riparian areas. However, we believe this
legislation's emphasis on mechanical entry into forests and maintaining
mill infrastructure through sawlog production, combined with mandated
annual acreage targets and removal of administrative appeals for what
could become several years, will undermine the important ecological
restoration goals this bill contains.
We believe that amendments to S. 2895 to address the issues we have
raised in our testimony, including the removal of annual acreage
mandates, the retention of administrative appeal rights, and the more
explicit incorporation of existing eastside science will go a long way
towards addressing our concerns.
Senator Wyden. Thank you, and I'll have some questions in a
moment.
Mr. Woodward, let me begin with you, and for you and Mr.
Williams, you know, you all obviously have significant
reservations about the bill. What I want to do is just see if I
can get a few facts on the record, because, you know, certainly
reasonable people can differ on a variety of issues, but I
think facts are still stubborn things, and a fact is something
that I think we ought to get on the record where it exists.
Now, Mr. Woodward, you say in your written testimony that
you found no one from industry that supports the bill.
Mr. Woodward. That's correct, I have----
Senator Wyden. But the regional manager from Boise Cascade
sat 6 inches from where you sit, on the last panel, and said he
supports the bill.
Mr. Woodward. That's correct, but he spoke before me. I
have never spoken to the man before in my life. His saw mill is
a long ways from the 6,000 mill work jobs of the people that
I've been speaking to.
Senator Wyden. OK. The American Forest Resources Council,
that's the organization that represents the majority of the
industry here in Oregon, has been on the record as supporting
this bill for quite some time. They've participated in the
discussions, they went to the press conference on December
19th, they've been working very closely with us, this has been
widely publicized, and I just looked at your written testimony
where you said nobody from the timber industry supports the
bill.
Mr. Woodward. No, I said I hadn't spoken to anybody from
the timber industry that supports the bill.
Senator Wyden. OK. Perhaps you might want to speak to the
fellow in the second row, John Schelk.
Mr. Woodward. I tried calling John, he wasn't available.
Senator Wyden. OK.
Mr. Woodward. The record will verify that.
Senator Wyden. OK.
Mr. Woodward. But, the AFRC, what they say officially may
not be what they say off the record, as well. I mean, there is
that possibility.
Senator Wyden. I guess so.
I have never really run into something quite like this, as
chairman of the subcommittee where this is so much documented,
on-the-record support from the timber industry, and then have a
witness come and say, ``Nobody from the timber industry
supports it,'' but listen, you are entitled to your opinion,
and I appreciate it.
Mr. Woodward. May I respond to that?
Senator Wyden. Of course.
Mr. Woodward. OK, well, I appreciate you saying that I'm
entitled to my opinion, but the people that I spoke to in the
timber industry said you've never spoke to them. I mean, you're
talking about 2--2 saw mills, here, that you have spoken to,
but there's 6,000 people, potentially, that can be represented
by the secondary millwork plants, you didn't come talk to me in
my sawmill. I don't know, 2 other sawmill people that I am
supposedly representing here said that nobody spoke to them
about it, and they certainly are opposed to it.
Senator Wyden. I'll welcome anybody's opinion on something
like this, Mr. Woodward, but you're the one who came today and
said there was no support from the forest products sector.
There is. We've spend a great deal of time talking to folks
across the political spectrum, the forest products sector,
everybody else. Folks can say I'm guilty of a lot of things,
but whether it's 550 town hall meetings, whether it's listening
to folks at sessions like the staff, you know, conducted, we
have made an effort to listen to folks.
We will keep the record open. Let me move on to another
point and bring you into this discussion, if I could, Mr.
Williams.
Because the organizations that support this legislation
have extensive experience in the purchase of timber from
Federal lands, I think it would be very helpful to have, on the
record, how much timber you, Mr. Williams, have purchased from
Federal lands, say, in the last 5, 8 years--and you, Mr.
Woodward--so I can kind of put your experience with the Federal
program in context.
Mr. Williams.
Mr. Williams. How much timber I have purchased from Federal
lands?
Senator Wyden. Yes. The last 5, 8 years.
Mr. Williams. I have not purchased any. I have sold timber
to the sawmills, some of them that are supporting this, and all
of that timber from our land, from as far away as California,
to keep those sawmills going. I have hauled timber from our
properties in Grant County and in from Allow County to keep to
these sawmills. I have sold it, I have not purchased many--any
timber from--one of the reasons that the sawmill that we did
own had to close was because we couldn't purchase any more
timber, because we couldn't compete with the sawmills that were
there. That's part of the reason.
I have been involved in the timber industry, in the timber
management and public land management all of my life. You're
aware of that. I am well aware of what the timber industry
situation is in Grant County.
Senator Wyden. So, you haven't purchased timber from
Federal lands in quite some time, but you've sold timber to
private landowners?
Mr. Williams. I've sold timber to Malhere Lumber Company,
D.R. Johnson Lumber Company, Collins Pine Lumber Company,
Colombia Forest Products, and I think there was another one in
Central Oregon that we sold timber to, and some to Boise-
Cascade.
Senator Wyden. I appreciate your candor, and the reason I'm
asking the questions, again, is we've got a number of the
timber organizations and companies that have had extensive
experience dealing with the Federal lands in support of the
legislation, and it's important for me to get on the record for
those who have been in opposition to the legislation, what
their experience has been on the Federal side. You have
correctly described your experience as, essentially, being with
the private sector, and I appreciate your candor.
Mr. Williams. Senator Wyden, just to clarify a little more,
I am a part of the Blue Mountain Forest Partners Collaborative
Group, and I have been working with them and other Forest
Service advisory groups, as well.
Senator Wyden. Very good.
Mr. Woodward. You asked me the same question, would you
like me to answer?
Senator Wyden. Of course.
Mr. Woodward. OK, I've been buying Federal timber sales
since 1970. In the last several years, I haven't purchased
much, because I've stepped aside and let the Interfours of the
world, and the Malhere Lumber Companies of the world to
purchase. I've logged for those folks, I've purchased logs from
those folks for my chipping operation, which would benefit--if
this plan went through just exactly the way you've got it set
up--but it's not going to help the forests. It's not going to
help the forests.
Senator Wyden. So, just from ballpark, how much have you
sold to the Federal Government or, what has been the----
Mr. Woodward. I don't sell timber to the Federal
Government.
Senator Wyden. No, excuse me, the nature of your
relationship with the Federal Government over the last 8 or 10
years.
Senator Wyden. What I'm trying to do, of course, is try to
make sure that I can compare your experience with that of
people who----
Mr. Woodward. Sure.
Senator Wyden [continuing]. Have worked on Federal lands
extensively.
Mr. Woodward. Right. In the last 8 or 10 years, I've been
asked by the U.S. Federal Government to go to foreign countries
and help them with their bug infestation problems, so I feel
that I am qualified to speak here today.
I've dedicated my time in the United States dealing with
problems on my own land that are created by the problems that
are next to me on National Forest Lands that aren't being
managed. But, as far as--I've logged several timber sales every
year over the last 8 years. Actively logging a timber sale
right now, and I am purchasing logs from other purchasers, and
from the stewardship contracts that are ongoing on Federal
lands.
Senator Wyden. Gentlemen, I don't have any other questions
for either of you. Obviously, we'll hold the record open.
Actually, Mr. Williams, I want to give you a chance--you're
on the Grant County Public Forest Commission, what is your hope
with respect to the Grant County Public Forest Commission?
Would you like to see them run the Federal Forests, or tell me,
if you would, what's your hope with that organization?
Mr. Williams. My hope, as being as part of the Grant County
Public Forest Commission is to see the forests of Grant County,
the forests of Eastern Oregon to be managed in a resilient
and--fashion, providing a sustainable, predictable, and level
supply of forest products to the industries and the
infrastructure of our community to keep our communities alive.
That's what we want. We want good management of our National
Forests.
Senator Wyden. OK. Thank you.
Let's go to you, Mr. Maluski. The legislation calls for
restoration of damaged forests and streams and wildlife. Now,
in contradiction to your statement, it does not call for a
tripling of logging levels, but an increase in the acreage
managed for restoration. In many cases, of course, restoration
treatments can supply wood products. Is it the Sierra Club's
position that no logging ought to occur as part of restoration?
Mr. Maluski. No, that's not our position, Senator.
Senator Wyden. But then, tell me what the organization's
position is.
Mr. Maluski. I guess I would put it this way. Part of the
challenge that we see in Central and Eastern Oregon--and I'll
refer back to some of the comments of some of the other
panelists. We often hear very large numbers put out there, 9.5
million, 13.5 million acres that are at risk. I think the
challenge is, is that we need to learn how to prioritize where
are the most important places, and what are the most important
types of things to be doing.
From the Sierra Club's perspective, the mechanical work
really should start in the wild and urban interface, because
it's of utmost importance to us that we are protecting
communities at risk of fire.
You know, we have worked on projects like the Sisters Area
Fuel Reduction which the timber industry appealed in order to
get that project to a good place so we could support it, and
help protect the community of Sisters.
So, in terms of mechanical entry, that's where we think we
should start, and we should prioritize our efforts.
More broadly speaking, we work on projects all of the time
where we, at the end of the day, timber is moving forward, but
what we try to do is make sure that the environmental
protections that should be in place are informed by the best
available are upheld.
Senator Wyden. So, you don't have any problem with the idea
of the timber industry financially benefiting from restoration?
Mr. Maluski. No.
Senator Wyden. Now, in the previous panel, the witnesses
testified about various projects that they had been involved
in. Professor Johnson testified as to the science behind the
need to have more active, you know, management of the forest,
but the Sierra Club has blocked many of these kinds of efforts,
and the Sierra Club has actively worked to block some of these
projects.
So, let's look at the Glaze project.
Mr. Maluski. Sure.
Senator Wyden. The Glaze project, Mr. Lillebo discussed, it
was developed collaboratively with a broad range of
stakeholders and I'm going to walk you through exactly what
happened, because I just found myself looking at this and
saying, ``I just can't sort out what the Sierra Club's role in
all of this was.''
You've got a collaborative project, broad range of
stakeholders, every aspect of the project was developed, lots
of adjustments made to the final project to get sign off from
the players. My understanding is your field staff participated
and signed off on the project.
Once the project was underway, your field staff then
reversed course, objected to the project, and in effect said no
to the years of collaboration and discussion.
Other examples include the Club's efforts that blocked much
of the forestry program that had been planned on the Umatilla
National Forest. So, my sense is, trying to get the Sierra Club
to work specifically in these areas, particularly after years
of collaboration and then to have reversed course, in my view
is going to make it very hard to actually achieve the ideals
that Tim Lillebo and many others in the environmental community
correctly state are priorities in terms of restoration.
So, start with the latest project, and then go to the
Umatilla Project. But with the Glaze Project, specifically,
given the detail that we've picked up with your staff's
involvement. After signing off, reversing, you know, course;
how does that help foster the kind of collaboration that is in
the public interest?
Mr. Maluski. Certainly, Senator, I'm happy to answer the
question.
In fact, we not only had our staff involved in developing
the Glaze Project, we had a lot of volunteers on the ground, as
well. We have a very active volunteer base out here. So, we did
work collaboratively on Glaze and ultimately decided not to
appeal. So, we have not objected in a formal sense to that
project, we certainly could have chose not to.
Ultimately, this project is only in its early stages of
implementation. There was some concern----
Senator Wyden. So, you're not objecting to the project now?
I mean, Mr. Asante Riverwind is quoted as saying, ``There is no
science to take this tree,'' and it's clearly a signal that all
of the other partners took that you were objecting. But today
you are saying you're going to reverse course again, and you're
not going to object.
Mr. Maluski. Let me clarify, because I was in the process
of saying, we have not formally chosen to block the project.
What--what I----
Senator Wyden. Man, this sure looks like a pretty big deal
to me, Mr. Maluski. We've got a headline, here, that says,
``Split over tree thinning. Two conservation groups differ on
habitat plan.''
Mr. Maluski. It certainly, the Bend Bulletin----
Senator Wyden. I guess if you're now saying that you're not
objecting, that's good. But I sure hope that years of
collaboration, when folks in your organization agree on
something, still counts for something. Because I don't think
very many stakeholders--if I was in the timber products
industry, and I put all of this time and working with the
Sierra Club and your guy signed off, and then he changed his
mind, but then Mr. Maluski came to a Congressional hearing and
said, ``Well, we're really not objecting,'' somebody in the
forest products industry is going to scratch their head and
say, ``What's going on?''
So, maybe you can sort this out for me.
Mr. Maluski. Sir, yes, I'd be happy to.
Senator Wyden. Great.
Mr. Maluski. Let me, if you could just allow me to finish.
So, upon viewing some of the areas on the ground, there
were certainly some concerns that maybe some of the
prescriptions that had been outlined had not been followed
properly, particularly with respect to ground distributing
activities right on the edge of the meadow.
I think part of the challenge with the Glaze Project is it
is in a very sensitive meadow and old growth area. So these are
the types of issues that are more likely to occur when we're
straying outside, you know, more previously managed ecosystems
and going into some of these more sensitive areas.
We're actually spending a lot of time on the ground over
the next month with Oregon Wild, to talk--to look on the ground
about--and also with the logging contractor--to look at the
project, moving forward.
I think that--I certainly can't speak for Mr. Lillebo, but
there may be some concerns that they have that they're not
articulating, as well, that we want to try to work together on.
So, we're certainly, you know, we're not intending to block
the project, but we certainly feel it's our right to raise
concern if we feel that a project is not implemented the way
that we thought it was going to be.
Senator Wyden. But, from a formal standpoint, you do not
intend to object to the project?
Mr. Maluski. From a formal standpoint, certainly not.
Senator Wyden. OK.
Then one last point on this Glaze issue, where Mr. Asante
Riverwind was quoted as saying there was no science to take,
you know, the tree. What science is the Sierra Club referring
to that says you can't thin some trees over a foot in diameter
in a dense second-growth pine stand? The reason this is a big
deal is because Dr. Johnson spent a considerable amount of time
doing research in this area, and feels that there's
considerable science that makes the point the other way.
So, if you all in your organization say that there's no
science to take the tree, I'd like to know what science you're
referring to.
Mr. Maluski. Senator, I'd be happy to get back to you on
that. We're actually preparing some materials on Glaze that
we'd be happy to share with you as soon as they're ready.
Senator Wyden. But when Mr. Riverwind was quoted in the
paper saying there was no science to take the tree, what
science was he referring to?
Mr. Maluski. Senator, if you look at your legislation, one
of the things that it talks about is the ability to use the
best available science actually to protect trees that are
smaller than 21`` in diameter. It's an option that is
articulated in your legislation. This is the same exact science
that we'd be looking at. In some cases, it is appropriate to
protect smaller trees that are under 21'' in diameter. So, I
haven't been to that site on the ground, but certainly I think
that there is science out there that calls for protecting
smaller trees, as well. So, that's what----
Senator Wyden. I'll hold the record open and I'd very much
like to see the science that you all were talking about.
Because there was science referred to in that article. So, at
some point, we ought to be able to see what backs that up.
One other set of projects the Sierra Club has sought to
block. These are the ones in the Malhere National Forest, the
Damon Thinning Project, the Sierra Club's written comments
state, ``Indeed science research documents significant harm
from commercial logging, and largely recommends against any
commercial logging removal of trees and forest structure and
mixed conifer.'' The Sierra Club objected to this project. So,
what science were you all relying upon there to say that
commercial thinning should not be done in eastside mixed
conifer?
Mr. Maluski. Sir, I would have to have to get back to you
on the Damon Project, in particular, because I'm not familiar
with that.
Senator Wyden. OK. So----
Mr. Maluski. You mentioned some Umatilla projects, I'm more
familiar with those.
Senator Wyden. OK. You want to expound on that?
Mr. Maluski. Certainly.
I think the Umatilla projects you were probably referring
to were the Wildcat, Cobbler, and the third one is escaping my
name at the moment. But, some of our concerns there relate to
treatments that are in mixed conifer stands. Oftentimes what we
find out here on the Eastside is the Forest Service takes
science and lessons learned from dry, low-elevation ponderosa
pine forests, and sometimes applies them inappropriately to
higher elevation, mixed conifer forests where, as I articulated
in my testimony, there's actually a lot of scientific
controversy.
In addition, we've got issues, and some of these timber
sales of unroaded areas outside inventoried roadless areas, but
areas that certainly should deserve some higher level of
protection. If, again, you look at the Eastside Scientific
Society panel report of 1994, it calls for protection of
ecologically significant roadless areas that are smaller than
what you'd typically find in the roadless inventory.
So, you know, we have concerns about wildlife habitat and
soils. Unlike the Westside, when we do a lot of temporary
road--even temporary roadbuilding can have decades long impacts
on watershed health and forest health and actually--and the
wrong scenarios can actually increase fire risks, if you do the
wrong types of treatments. So, these are the types of issues
we're concerned about, we never block any project frivolously.
As I've stated, we've negotiated, very successfully, with the
Forest Service and gotten them to agree that we are using the
best available science and some of the concerns we're raising
and agree to make some modifications to projects.
Senator Wyden. I've worked, as you know, very closely with
you all over the years, Mr. Maluski, and I intend to keep, you
know, doing that. I think you've done some very good work in a
lot of areas. This is one where I think clearly, as it relates
to collaborations and the kinds of projects, I mean, the Glaze
project, in particular, struck me as one that should not have
produced that kind of headline. It should not have produced
that kind of headline, given all of the history of the
cooperation. We need to have you at the table, working
constructively with us, our door is open to any ideas and
suggestions to improve this. I think that after, literally,
decades in our part of the country, we are on the cusp of some
history-making legislation.
The reality is, your organization wants to do a lot of
restoration work, in Eastern Oregon and across this State, and
frankly, around the country. If we can't pass legislation like
this, there will be no mills to do the work. Zero. They are not
going to be here.
So, we've got to find a way to work together, and I pledge
my door is open, and Michelle's and our staff, we are
interested in all manner of ideas and suggestions and for you,
Mr. Woodward, and Mr. Williams, the same applies. I will tell
you, you can probably sense it's a little hard to figure out
how to move if somebody says, ``Nobody in the forest products
sector is in favor of a piece of legislation'' when you've got
all of these people on the record, but Mr. Woodward, your point
is a very valid one, that if somebody says we haven't talked to
them, on my watch I don't want anybody to feel they haven't
been talked to so I'm going to take your names, and any that
you have, Mr. Williams, and we'll talk to them and we'll pick
up on any suggestions or ideas that they have.
So my----
Mr. Williams. It's appreciated.
Mr. Woodward. I very much appreciate it.
Senator Wyden. My tradition is always to give the witnesses
on the last panel the last word. So, I think it's especially
appropriate, since this panel has clearly indicated we've got a
little bit of heavy lifting to do to get this legislation
exactly the way they would like it.
Mr. Williams, Mr. Woodward, Mr. Maluski, any last words?
Mr. Williams. No. I appreciate you allowing us to talk. You
have my written testimony. I believe that the motivation was
noble. I think the methodology expressed in this legislation is
not going to result in the anticipated outcome. I think that
funding is the key, funding of planning teams for our National
Forests is the key, further restrictions is not.
Senator Wyden. Mr. Woodward.
Mr. Woodward. I think with cooperation, the tools are
already there to do exactly what this bill is intending to do,
without all of the extra red tape that goes along with the
bill.
Now, I realize both sides have not cooperated in the past,
and I never thought I'd be on the same club as a Sierra Club
member----
Senator Wyden. But nothing has changed, you 2 still
disagree.
[Laughter.]
Senator Wyden. That's the difference. That is, Mr.
Woodward, that's the point in a nutshell. The previous panel
had Mr. Insko from Boise-Cascade agreeing with Mr. Lillebo,
something you haven't seen in 2 decades.
Mr. Woodward. Right.
Senator Wyden. If we keep doing what we're doing, we'll
have panels like this where you and Mr. Maluski are going to
keep fighting each other in court. So, you made the point.
Mr. Woodward. Thanks.
[Laughter.]
Senator Wyden. Mr. Maluski.
Mr. Maluski. Again, Senator, again appreciate you allowing
us to testify today. I do think that some of the testimony
you've offered, I really would urge you to take a look at some
of the fixes we've suggested. We've provided your staff with
some detailed language changes that would make us a lot more
comfortable with certain provisions and, we think, again would,
you know, we're concerned that we're putting a lot of eggs in
the sawmill, you know, the logs to the mill basket.
Historically, the Forest Service is not really very good at
doing other types of non-timber oriented restoration work. It's
a huge area to create green jobs in the woods, it's about
economic diversification that can help weather the storm of the
ups and downs of the price of 2 by fours or the lumber market
and so hopefully we can look at some of those types of issues
as we move forward.
Senator Wyden. We're--and I'll just close by commenting on
the week. We're putting a lot of eggs in a lot of baskets. I
mean, that's what the visit to Ziakem and Boardman was all
about, this wonderful cellulosic ethanol facility supported--
tremendous support from the environmental community and the
industry. That was what Shepard's Flat was all about, world's
biggest windmill. So, this has been a week focusing on a
brighter economic future for our State. To a great extent, it
is a brighter future and it is a greener future. It is a
greener future that is going to feature collaboration with a
lot of folks who nobody conceived 15, 20 years ago would
possibly be working together.
So, what I'm going to do on my watch is every single day,
show up early, go home late, and try to get as many of you good
people to agree so we can get that brighter security, brighter
economic security for each part of Oregon and leave nobody
behind.
Thank you all, the subcommittee is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:20 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
APPENDIXES
----------
Appendix I
Responses to Additional Questions
----------
Response of Jerry F. Franklin to Question from Senator Wyden
Question 1. Dr Franklin, what is the science and your professional
opinion on thinning in eastside dry mixed conifer?
Answer. I would begin by saying that--from the viewpoint of
ecological science and natural resource values at risk--the eastside
dry mixed-conifer forest is the forest type in greatest need of major
restoration treatments, including thinning, of any forest type in the
Pacific Northwest.
My explanation of this position is as follows.
First a definition of eastside dry mixed conifer is required. From
the standpoint of ecological science, these are the forests that occur
on sites characterized by the Douglas-fir and most of the White Fir and
Grand Fir plant associations found east of the crest of the Cascade
Range in Oregon and Washington. These forests are typically composed of
multiple species of which ponderosa pine, white (in SE OR) or grand
(elsewhere in E PNW) fir, Douglas-fir, western larch, and lodgepole
pine are most important. Other species that may be present in eastern
Oregon include incense-cedar and sugar pine. In contrast, forests on
sites characterized by the ponderosa pine plant associations are
generally dominated solely by that species. The forests on dry mixed-
conifer sites are also generally denser and more productive than those
found on sites where ponderosa pine is the climax species. There are,
of course, moist temperate and subalpine forests found at higher
elevations to which the following comments do not apply.
From the perspective of ecological science, the dry mixed-conifer
forests have undergone the greatest modification of all of the eastside
forest types as the result of modern human activities, including fire
suppression. Factors that are responsible for this include their
relatively high productivity and the presence of grand or white fir and
Douglas-fir, both circumstances resulting in the rapid development of
large contiguous expanses of dense stands with large amounts of ground
and ladder fuels. Historically, such dense, fuel-loaded forests
occupied a much lower percentage of the dry forest landscapes and
occurred as smaller, discontinuous patches within landscapes that were
dominated by other dry mixed-conifer and pine forests of much lower
density and which were often dominated by a small population of large
old trees.
It can be argued that there are more resource values at risk in the
dry mixed-conifer forests and landscapes of eastern Oregon and
Washington than in any other forest type in the region because of the
dramatic changes that have occurred in these forests during the last
century. For example, along the eastern slope of the Cascade Range,
these forests provide most of the habitat utilized by the Northern
Spotted Owl, as well as many other wildlife species, including game
species, such as elk. These forests provide much of the protective
cover for eastside watersheds, regulating the flows and sustaining
water quality. The dry mixed-conifer forests collectively still contain
large numbers of irreplaceable old-growth pine trees that are the
structural and resiliency keystones of these ecosystems. All of these
values are at risk of uncharacteristically large and severe wildfires,
as well as insect outbreaks, in the highly modified dry forest
landscapes.
Hence, in my professional opinion, restoration treatments of dry
mixed-conifer forests, including mechanical thinning and prescribed
fire, are of the highest priority in terms of the risks that exist to
ecological and other natural resource values in eastern Oregon and
Washington. This may seem counterintuitive to individuals who would
argue that--since many dry mixed-conifer forests have only missed 3 or
4 natural fire return intervals while many climax ponderosa pine sites
have missed ten or more--the priority should be in the drier or more
fire-frequent pine forests. What this fails to take into account is the
greater productivity of the dry mixed-conifer sites and the presence of
species, such as white or grand fir, that provide fuel ladders of
extraordinary quality and quantity. They also fail to take into account
the high risk of insect attacks in dense, dry mixed-conifer forests
even if they escape intense wildfire. This risk is to both the pine and
the fir components of the dry mixed-conifer forests, taking the form of
tree-(and often stand-) killing outbreaks of defoliators, such as
spruce budworm, in the case of the firs and accelerated bark beetle
kill of the old pine component, as a result of the competitive stresses
induced on the pine by the high density of firs.
These dry mixed-conifer forests actually dominate most of our
eastside forest landscapes and, hence, provide most of the critical
ecological services, including critical habitat for much of
biodiversity. Large contiguous blocks of dense mixed-conifer forest
were not the historical condition and are not sustainable as evidenced
by the recent history of severe wildfire (e.g., B&B Complex on the
Deschutes National Forest) and outbreaks of insect defoliators. Hence,
aggressive restoration programs in dry mixed-conifer forest landscapes
should have the highest priority for treatment, including thinning, in
the opinion of Dr. K. Norman Johnson and myself.
These programs do need to be planned and implemented at the
landscape scale and incorporate the retention of significant areas of
untreated denser forest as a part of the landscape mosaic. An example
of such an approach is the current proposal for retaining 30% of the
dry forest landscapes in patches of 300 acres (+/-) as nesting-
roosting-foraging habitat for Northern Spotted Owls within a matrix of
restored dry mixed-conifer forest. In fact, the US Forest Service and
US Fish and Wildlife Service have been encouraged to create an ``A''
team of scientists and managers to develop a comprehensive and coherent
landscape-level plan for restoration of the entire dry mixed-conifer
forest zone found along the eastern slopes of the Cascade Range within
the range of the Northern Spotted Owl. Such an approach could provide a
model for how to proceed in dry forest restoration elsewhere in eastern
Oregon and Washington, since issues about the size and distribution of
untreated blocks, for species such as the Northern Goshawk, require
landscape-scale planning and implementation.
Appendix II
Additional Material Submitted for the Record
----------
Statement of Carole Hagen, Warrenton, OR
I am very concerned about the impact of proposed national forest
legislation--S. 2895--because it locks in costly and arbitrary annual
acreage targets for damaging logging activity in our national forests
in eastern Oregon, without providing protection for stands of old
growth trees and unprotected roadless areas across eastern Oregon.
Setting annual acreage targets in the bill with an emphasis on
logging and mechanical forest entry will lead to an unfunded mandate
that will undermine the laudable restoration goals of this legislation.
Without clearer guidance, the Forest Service will continue to
pursue large scale logging projects in old growth stands and
unprotected roadless areas and rely on building dozens of miles of so-
called 'temporary' roads, which can scar the landscape and harm water
quality for decades.
This legislation should be amended to:
Remove annual acreage targets and the emphasis on mechanical
entry and sawlog production.
Remove exemptions that allow logging of large diameter
trees.
Provide explicit protection for old growth stands and
unprotected roadless areas from logging and mechanical entry
Retain the public's administrative appeal rights.
Ensure the creation of a diversity of restoration jobs, not
just logging jobs as the bill is currently focused on
Eliminate provisions that allow the Forest Service to sign
20-year contracts with private companies to remove biomass on
public lands.
Thank you for taking the time to address these concerns.
______
Statement of Dan Galecki, Bend, OR, on S. 2895
My name is Dan Galecki. I own and maintain a small forestry
consulting business, teach forestry at Central Oregon Community
College, and am a Certified Forester from SAF.
I strongly disagree with the methods you are using to describe and
define `Old Growth'. Specifically, the strict usage of placing a size
of 21 inches at DBH and larger to designates trees as Old Growth does
not fit with every ecological and silvicultural situation every time.
Similarly, placing a specific age on old growth, such as 150 years,does
not fit for every stand of trees that occurs in every region in Oregon.
My personal position is the same as stated from the local Central
Oregon Chapter of SAF. Also I agree strongly with the testimony
presented on June 4th, in Bend Oregon from Mark Webb, Grant County
Judge, Canyon City, Oregon.
Lastly, Senator Wyden, I did not appreciate your condescending
remarks and questioning of Craig Woodward, Woodward Companies from the
last panel, during the last portion of the meeting. Perhaps Mr. Woodard
did not perform all of his homework, and maybe he did not represent the
timber industry at a large scale. In any case, he felt he represented
the opinions and consensus of industry in our local region and should
be recognized, and his statements welcomed to the debate. Also, during
the questioning of Ivan Maluski of the Sierra Club, you did not
entirely agree with his position, and were extremely particular an
overly inquisitive about `what science' GB was using and how he could
back-up his statements. Yet you seemed to embrace and not interrupt Tim
Lillebo's unscientific anecdote about some guy named `Blonde' cutting
timber decades ago in several eastern and western states. It was
encouraging to listen to different testimonies, but the lasting
impression is that the final decisions are already made and it is
unlikely adjustments can be allowed.
Here is the following position of the Central Oregon SAF, and it is
my position also. Thank You Senator Wyden for allowing all testimonies
and debate on this important subject.
The Central Oregon Chapter of the Society of American Foresters
includes field foresters, technical specialists, educators, and
administrators who help manage much of the public and private forests
in Central Oregon. The Chapter is a local part of the Society of
American Foresters, the largest association of forestry professionals
in the world. The Society of American Foresters supports and represents
the forestry profession in advancing the science, education,
technology, and practice of forestry.
Quick Points
Central and Eastern Oregon foresters will be impacted by
this legislation--our members work in and around these forests
and have decades of experience managing forests, both public
and private, in areas impacted by S. 2895.
We strongly support the goals of S. 2895--to improve forest
resilience, retain forest products infrastructure, and target
large areas of National Forest land in Eastern and Central
Oregon for active management
Unfortunately the provisions in this bill will add process,
cost and confusion to federal forest management--the opposite
is needed
The bill would hamper effective and meaningful forest
management projects with arbitrary prohibitions on harvesting
(for example) not based on science or site-specific information
These prohibitions, though done with good intensions, could
actually cause more harm than good by preventing much-needed
management to prevent catastrophic wildfire or insect and
disease infestations
Without the full funding needed to implement this bill,
projects are unlikely to be implemented. Work on the ground is
needed as soon as possible in many eastern and central Oregon
areas to protect forest values
This legislation will complicate and increase the cost of
federal forest management by requiring forests in Eastern and
Central Oregon to be managed differently than forests in the
rest of the country
The legislation outlines a collaborative process and science
panel, yet nothing in the bill prevents endless litigation of
projects supported by a community and collaborative group
Detailed Points: Management of the National Forest System
S. 2895 creates rules that apply only to Forest Service land in
Central and Eastern Oregon. The result is that National Forests, such
as the Deschutes National Forest which straddles eastern and western
Oregon, would be further divided into areas with different laws
applying to different areas of the Forest. This greatly complicates and
increases the cost of forest management. The Chapter leaders believe it
would be far better to provide clearer objectives for the entire
National Forest System and avoid regulating the site-specific means to
achieve these objectives.
Diameter Limits
Though counter-intuitive to many, the prohibition of cutting trees
greater than 21 inches in diameter in S. 2895 may actually prevent the
healthy and resilient forest conditions desired by this bill. Chapter
leaders know that a legal limit on cutting trees based only on diameter
restricts the site-specific management of forests in the future. In
Central Oregon a grand fir can grow to greater than 21 inches in
diameter, and be off limits to cutting, in 60 years time. Grand fir has
a low resistance to fire, but without being cut or burned will replace
ponderosa pine in many areas while also dramatically increasing the
fire risk to many forest stands. Placing larger grand fir off limits to
cutting will promote the spread of this fire prone species and limit
the growth and reproduction of ponderosa pine, a species more resistant
to fire and disease.
Unscientific Definition of Old Growth
Redefining the term `old growth' based on a single tree's age and
diameter rather than on the structure of a group of trees is
problematic and not based in science. Current definitions of old growth
are based mainly on a description of a forest's ``structure,'' not just
the size and age of individual trees. Rather, the accepted scientific
definition of an old growth forest is a forest that usually occupies a
late seral stage and is composed of a group of trees with variable
sizes and spacing, with a multilayered canopy, and the presence of
snags and downed logs. Even if all trees within a group meet the bill's
old growth standard, it does not mean they form a structurally diverse,
late seral forest that would support old growth dependent species.
Chapter leaders are concerned about legally designating individual
trees as `old growth trees' when those trees will not form a forest
that has the characteristics of an old growth forest.
Advisory Panel
The Chapter's leaders are also concerned that the bill gives an
appearance of scientific legitimacy by forming an advisory panel of
scientists to review the rules created should the bill become law. Our
concern is that the limitation on cutting trees greater than 21 inches
in diameter and redefining old growth by the age and size of individual
trees are not rules that are based in science. The Chapter foresters
believe these potential rules are based on political compromise and
that appointing a scientific committee to assess the success of rules
that are not based on science is futile.
Funding
S. 2895 authorized $50 million for full implementation. With the
current budget deficit, it may be difficult to fully fund the bill.
This could result in the science panel meeting and providing
recommendations only to lack the funds necessary to plan and implement
projects on the ground.
Recommendations
Simplify the bill by removing arbitrary prohibitions and
instead provide management objectives (such as creating an old
growth stand)--foresters have the education and experience to
design projects to move towards these goals
Open the Forest Service bottle neck--reduce the process and
red tape that makes projects cumbersome and expensive to plan
and implement
Allow collaborative projects to be implemented quickly and
prohibit frivolous lawsuits from holding up projects
Work on comprehensive federal forest reform
______
Statement of Larry Blasing and King Williams, Grant County Public
Forest Commission
I attended both hearings on 2895. I listened to all witnesses and
saw common approval on some points and places where serious questions
raised by numerous witnesses make the Bill unworkable as drafted.
1. There is nearly universal agreement that significantly
more acres need to be treated in order to regain forest health
and retain the infrastructure that is essential to prevent an
ecological disaster. While the Bill focuses on Eastern Oregon,
the problem exceeds the area covered by the Gulf oil spill with
similar loss to jobs and economic consequences. The Nature
Conservancy testified as much as 500,000 acres per year need to
be treated to catch up.
2. The hearing record exalts the cooperation between forest
industry and conservation interests. Beyond those testifying at
the hearings, there is little agreement since several industry
members oppose the Bill and the Sierra Club made it clear that
they oppose the parts of the Bill that the forest industry
supports.
3. The Bill does nothing to reduce (other than short term)
the abuses of the Equal Access to Justice Act that make it
profitable for the Environmental Litigation Industry to
litigate Forest Service management plans. The Sierra Club made
it clear that they plan to continue appealing and litigating.
Until there is a change in law to make litigation on equal risk
to all parties, this Bill is meaningless. As an example, the
League of Wilderness Defenders, Blue Mountain Biodiversity
Project, Oregon Chapter of the Sierra Club and Grant County
Conservationists recently objected to the Damon Wildland Urban
Interface Project--signed by Karen Coulter and Asante
Riverwind--after participating in the Blue Mountain Forest
Partners (collaborative group) debate and agreeing on the
project. Their statement states ``Local conservation residents
are still very wary of publicly participating in Blue Mountain
Forest Partners.'' The legal opportunities for the
environmental litigation industry will not go away under this
Bill.
4. Even though Senator Wyden says he will do everything
possible to secure funding, neither he nor Presidents Obama
control the appropriation process and the probability of
funding is unlikely. This means that upon passage of the Bill,
there will be no money to fund the required provisions of law
and that because it is law, money will have to be stolen from
other projects, National Forests or Regions. This may even stop
existing projects that are nearing completion and have a high
level of public acceptance.
5. The three scientists testifying universally rejected
diameter limits as a method to retain ``old growth''. They
testified that there has been a 16% reduction in ``Old Growth''
since the year 2000. There has been no harvest of trees or 21
dbh since 1994. It is impossible to maintain large diameter
trees by a harvesting limit based on dbh and no salvage wastes
the highest values in the forest. Trees over 21 inches dbh will
need to be harvested to protect the health of large old trees.
6. The Forest Service is ineffective and in internal
gridlock. Firm direction must be given to force the agency to
perform as required by law--Organic Act through NFMA. Any
Legislation must reaffirm this basic mission.
7. Our local economies have suffered and continue to be at
risk. We must have increased output of solid wood products to
maintain, let alone increase, economic viability. Biomass
utilization is an admirable objective but, it will not sustain
itself without inclusion of solid wood products.
8. In the event of the passage of SB 2895, if a supplemental
budget item does not occur and if real results are not realized
in three years the Law must sunset and be deleted from all
legal requirements.
9. The only thing that prevents the Forest Service from
achieving the objectives of the Bill is bureaucratic
inefficiency, lack of firm direction and lack of appropriated
funds. If the $50,000,000 appropriation for SB 2895 was given
to the Forest Service until used, existing projects could be
completed and the objectives of the Bill would be exceeded. All
of this without codification.
______
Statement of James E. Nielsen, on S. 2895
After a 30 year career with the U.S. Forest Service I retired as a
Region 6 Certified Silviculturist. This position is basically that of
an applied Forest Ecologist. I am very familiar with the ecology and
management of the eastside forests covered by S.B. 2895 and have
carefully reviewed the draft of this legislation. Following is my
professional assessment of this bill.
First, I agree that legislation is needed to permit effective
management of National Forests and those forests managed by the Bureau
of Land Management. What is missing and needed in S.B. 2895 is a
consistent national or regional (such as the western states) policy for
the management of federal forests. While all different, these forests
have many similarities that makes them compatible with such larger
scale goals. These can then be made into forest specific management
direction thru a program of expedited Forest (USFS) and District (BLM)
land use plans. An important part of my training as a silviculturist
was the strong emphasis on seeking out management direction from these
plans and applying them to the site specific prescriptions I prepared.
Second, I am very concerned that this legislation contains site
specific limitations on management practices. The most glaring example
is the 21 inch diameter limit on tree harvest. From my training and 30+
years of experience this is counter productive to the development of
healthy forests. This requirement is politically rather than
biologically based. I have applied diameter limits as part of some of
my silviculture prescriptions but they were based on stand
examinations, management direction, my field assessments and long term
stand management objectives. I understand that S. 2895 allows
exceptions to the 21 `` limit but this will require agreement from the
collaborative group and/or the science team. My concern about this
process is at what scale will they make these determinations--
individual tree, stand, basin or Forest/District?. Suppose the
collaborative group disagrees with the science team? This process adds
another layer of analysis and paper work to the management planning
process. Right now the Forest Service and BLM are drowning in analysis
and procedures that prevents on the ground work from being accomplished
in a timely, cost effective manner. To me the most effective solution
is the development of Forest/District plans with management direction
as above and then allow an interdisciplinary team and silviculturist
make specific stand management decisions including harvest diameters.
Lastly, I am deeply concerned that federal forest management must
seriously address the social/economic needs of eastside communities. I
understand that there are statements to this effect in S.B. 2895 but to
make this a formal part of this bill a change needs to be made to
section 4 (a)(1) (General Forest Goals). I suggest adding a section (E)
with a statement such as ``to support the social/economic stability of
eastside communities''.
Thank you for considering my input on this important legislation.
______
Statement of the Sierra Club, on S. 2895
Please find attached and below supplemental materials related to
questions asked of the Sierra Club by Chairman Wyden at the June 4
Field Hearing on S. 2895 in Bend, Oregon.
Regarding the science behind concerns articulated in the Bend
Bulletin newspaper on the implementation of the Glaze Meadow project in
the Deschutes National Forest. As discussed during the hearing, we are
not blocking or planning to block the Glaze Meadow project. The vast
majority of the project's implementation is supported by the Sierra
Club, a fact not reflected in the Bend Bulletin article. Our concerns
rest with a very small portion of the sale, in particular, in the
implementation of mature tree removal within close proximity of the
Glaze Meadow edge. Within the larger Glaze Meadow project, some of the
focus is on wet edge ponderosa pine forests--where high moisture levels
in the seasonal wetlands meadow support higher densities and structural
complexity of ponderosa pine than dry forest locations. Our concerns is
that in the Glaze project, the Forest Service applied dry ponderosa
pine density formulas to moist ponderosa pine areas along the meadow
edge and thus the project has logged a significant number of well
established mature and older trees up to 21'' diameter at breast high
along the meadow's edge. Across 85% of the Glaze project, outside of
the moist locations along the meadow and along a nearby creek, the
Forest Service accurately applied dry pine density formulas. It is only
within the wet meadow edge area--about 5% of the project, but
containing some of the best wildlife habitat--that there are issues
concerning logging of mature and old characteristic trees. It is
unfortunate that the Bend Bulletin article discussed at the hearing did
not reflect these broader issues, and hopefully these supplemental
comments better highlight some of the basis for our concerns. We are
working collaboratively with others, including Oregon Wild and the
logging contractor, to address these concerns before remaining logging
along the meadow's edge in old growth stands occurs this upcoming
winter.
Regarding the science relating to our concerns over the
appropriateness of logging in historically mixed conifer mid and higher
elevation forests at projects such as the Damon project in the Malheur
National Forest, and the Farley, Wildcat, and Cobbler Projects in the
Umatilla National Forest, please find attached again the March 16
letter from eleven scientists active in the fields of western forest
and fire ecology. This letter identifies key pieces of scientific
information related to the management challenges related to Oregon's
eastside, including mixed-conifer forests, and concludes with more than
two pages of published scientific references relevant to these issues.
We have also attached information related to the Wildcat Fuels
Reduction project on the Umatilla National Forest including both our
complaint filed August 2009 before the US District Court in Portland,
which identifies our core concerns with this project and which
encapsulates the types of issues related to logging in roadless areas
and mixed conifer forests we have seen on a number of projects in the
Umatilla and Malheur National Forests in recent years. Accompanying
this is the supporting Declaration of Dr. Richard Waring, Distinguished
Professor of Forest Ecology, Department of Forest Ecosystems and
Society, College of Forestry, Oregon State University, which discusses
the Wildcat project and provides a list of supporting scientific
references.
It is our view that the burden of proof is on the Forest Service to
provide adequate supporting science for projects it decides to pursue
on National Forest lands. To the extent that the Forest Service has not
provided convincing scientific justifications for projects in Oregon's
eastside national forests, or has failed to acknowledge scientific
debate over some of its key assumptions, they have found these projects
challenged by not only the Sierra Club, but a number of other
organizations. Our goal is to hold the Forest Service accountable when
they fail to use the best available science to justify projects that
could have harmful and long-lasting impacts to watershed and forest
health, risk to communities from wildfire, and the recovery of
threatened and endangered species.
______
Statement of Chad Hanson, Ph.D., Director and Staff Ecologist, John
Muir Project, Research Associate, Plant & Environmental Sciences
Department, University of California at Davis
As scientists conducting research in the fields of forest and fire
ecology, we feel compelled to provide input to Congress when proposed
legislation does not accurately represent the current state of
scientific knowledge. Some current bills, including the ``Oregon
Eastside Forests Restoration, Old Growth Protection, and Jobs Act of
2009'' (the ``Act''), sponsored by Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR), propose
measures to increase logging levels on national forests based upon the
assumptions that the current levels and intensities of wildland fire
and beetle mortality in these forests are ``uncharacteristic'', are
harmful to the forest ecosystems, and increased logging will reduce the
extent or intensity of these natural processes. Because these
assumptions are not based upon a sound scientific foundation, and
because of the concern that these bills include annual logging-level
mandates that might undermine existing environmental laws, we urge you
not to support such proposals as currently written. Ecological
considerations should guide what we do on our national forests, rather
than setting logging targets independently of ecological
considerations.
Below, we briefly outline some important current scientific
information that should be reflected in any Act dealing with forests of
eastern Oregon or elsewhere in the western United States:
There is currently a significant deficit of large snags
(dead trees) in Oregon's forests relative to the minimum
habitat needs of many native cavity-nesting wildlife species,
especially in eastern Oregon (Donnegan et al. 2008). This
Forest Service report, based upon thousands of field plots,
concluded that large (over 20 inches in diameter) snags are
``currently uncommon'' in eastern Oregon, at only 1 per acre
presently, and determined that ``management may be necessary to
produce a greater density of large snags'' (Donnegan et al.
2008 [pp. 47-48]).
Fire and insect-mortality are probably the most effective
natural processes for providing the snags and large wood that
are currently in deficit in these forests.
Where snag densities are relatively higher, these areas do
not tend to burn at higher severities (Bond et al. 2009).
The scientific data contradicts the assumptions that, prior
to fire suppression, wildland fire in eastern Oregon's forests
burned only at low-intensity levels and patches of high-
intensity fire are somehow ``uncharacteristic'' or unnatural.
We now know that forests of the intermountain west, including
ponderosa pine forests, have burned at various severities
historically, and high-severity fire is a natural part of this
mix (Pierce et al. 2004, Sherriff and Veblen 2006, Baker et al.
2007, Hessburg et al. 2007, Sherriff and Veblen 2007, Klenner
et al. 2008, Whitlock et al. 2008, Baker 2009).
In the eastern Cascades, high-severity fire occurrence is
very low, with a current (since 1985) rotation interval of 889
years, i.e., at current rates, high-severity fire will only
affect a given stand every 889 years--well beyond the normal
lifespan of the conifer species (Hanson et al. 2009, Hanson et
al. 2010). Moreover, fires are not getting more intense in
eastside forests (Hanson et al. 2009, Hanson et al. 2010), and
overall fire occurrence is far below is historic extent (Medler
2006). It is also apparent that recent levels of fire
occurrence make it highly unlikely that fuel treatments could
affect fire behavior even in the forest types that tend to burn
most frequently (Rhodes and Baker 2008). There is no good
evidence that current high-severity fire in eastern Oregon
exceeds the natural range of variability.
Fuel treatments do not always reduce fire severity in the
relatively rare cases when fire affects treated areas.
Fuel treatments are not effective in maximizing carbon
storage relative to fire alone (Mitchell et al. 2009).
Fire has numerous ecological benefits, even when it is high
severity. Patches of high-severity create the forest and
montane chaparral habitats that are some of the most
ecologically important, highly biodiverse, and rarest forest
habitat in our western U.S. forests (Hutto 2006, Noss et al.
2006, Swanson et al. 2010). Many rare and imperiled wildlife
species native to eastern Oregon, such as the Black-backed
Woodpecker, depend upon unlogged patches of high-severity fire
for nesting and foraging (Hutto 1995, Hutto 2006, Hanson and
North 2008, Hutto 2008, Swanson et al. 2010). High-severity
fires also provide a bonanza downed wood which benefits aquatic
systems (Beschta et al. 2004, Karr et al. 2004, Swanson et al.
2010).
Fuel treatments in many widespread forest types are likely
to be ineffective in restoring natural fire behavior (Veblen
2003; Schoennagel et al. 2004; Noss et al. 2006; Baker et al.
2007).
The Act's diameter limit of 21 inches is excessive, and
allows far too many mature, old trees to be removed
unnecessarily.
Extensive logging typically involves road activities,
including the construction of ``temporary'' roads and landings
which have negative impacts on watersheds and aquatic systems.
The negative watershed impacts of so-called ``temporary''
landings and roads are not temporary, but persistent (Beschta
et al. 2004, Karr et al. 2004).
Many imperiled fish species depend on habitats that are
affected by land use on public lands in Oregon (USFS and USBLM
1997). Many of these habitats are already widely degraded
(Henjum et al. 1994). Additional degradation from extensive
logging, elevated use and/or construction of roads and landings
is likely to further imperil these fish species and increase
the likelihood of extirpation.
Remaining roadless areas are critical to biodiversity and
larger roadless areas typically have the lowest potential for
altered fire regimes, especially due to their location at
higher elevations (Henjum et al. 1994). Such areas should be
protected from logging.
Due to the foregoing, we urge that any legislation aimed at
restoring forests on public lands include the following:
Explicit statements that all activities must fully comply
with existing environmental laws.
Retention of citizen review provisions. As stated in Karr et
al. (2004): ``Managing public lands for the benefit of present
and future generations is challenging--a process most likely to
succeed in an open atmosphere that actively uses existing
scientific and technical information and expertise.''
Restrict fuel treatments only to areas where multiple lines
of empirical evidence clearly indicate that the fire regimes
have been altered and that there is currently more high-
severity fire than there was prior to fire suppression. In such
areas, limit thinning to small-diameter trees beneath the
forest canopy. Ensure that treatments do not occur in systems
where fire regimes have not been altered.
Prohibit construction of new landings and roads. Require
significant levels of permanent road decommissioning and
closure prior to any fuel treatments.
Retain all mature trees, including those that pre-date
settlement (Baker et al. 2007).
Significantly curtail fire suppression in areas where human
infrastructure is not at risk. Curtail domestic livestock
grazing in areas where it has contributed to fire regime
alteration.
Exclude treatments from roadless areas greater than 1,000
acres. These areas are scarce, biologically important, and
serve as important controls for monitoring effectiveness of any
fuel treatments.
Require sound scientific analysis and disclosure of the
potential ecological costs and benefits of fuel treatments,
prior to initiating treatments.
We are happy to answer any questions about these issues. Please
feel free to contact us.
______
Oregon Chapter Sierra Club and Allied Conservation Timber Sale Appeal
Settlements
(updated May 2010)
19 successful appeal resolutions 2006-2010 (sierra club et al)
Deschutes National Forest: BLT (09), West Tumbull HFRA (09), Snow
Fuels (08), South Bend HFRA (08), ODOT Pass Sale (06)
Ochoco National Forest: Upper Beaver (10), East Maury (08), Burns &
Crystal Springs (08), Spears (07), Harvey Gap (07), Cougar Salvage (06)
Umatilla National Forest: Sunflower Bacon (06)
Malheur National Forest: Thorn-Egley-Crawford (08--the Thorn appeal
resolution also settled two additional projects, Egley and Crawford),
Balance (08), Dads Creek (08), Black Rock (07), Canyon Creek (06)
Resolution of appeal issues included:
dropping units in unlogged roadless area habitat;
dropping units in old growth habitat;
dropping units in ecologically complex mixed conifer mid and
high elevation habitat;
dropping units in salmonid riparian area habitat and on
steep slopes;
dropping new roads including ``temporary'' new road
construction;
protecting all old characteristic trees regardless of
diameter;
employing 16'' and 18'' lower diameter cutting limits based
on the best available science;
switching some units to non-commercial thinning with 9'' to
12'' maximum diameter cutting limits based on the best
available science;
adopting provisions protecting wildlife habitat focal areas,
including forest edges, rock outcrops, meadows, connective
cover, increased basal area retention levels;
requiring 15% to 25% of unit areas be left untreated as
wildlife habitat refugia;
requiring additional large downed logs and/or snags left per
acre;
requiring post-project vegetative recovery determination
before livestock grazing can be resumed;
protection of popular recreational and community trails;
requiring pre-project implementation review and/or post
project assessment;
requiring the timely removal of project slash and debris.
______
Statement of Michael Donnelly, Firends of the Breitenbush Cascades, OR*
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Other signatures have been retained in subcommittee files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We the undersigned strongly oppose Senate Bill S. 2895, introduced
by Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR), the name of which--the Oregon Eastside
Forests Restoration, Old Growth Protection, and Jobs Act of 2009--
belies its true effects. S. 2895 represents a concerted effort on the
part of the timber industry and its political allies, with support from
some not-for-profit organizations, to cripple essential environmental
laws in order to increase logging across 8 million acres of publicly-
owned forests--forests which have already been severely degraded by
logging. This bill is the latest in a series of bills that increase
logging on our national forests, weaken legal protections, and consign
the trees from our national forests to be burned in wood energy plants
all across our nation.
We oppose this and all other legislation that will increase logging
on our public forests, whether federal, state, or local, especially
when the ``product'' will be utilized as fuel for biomass-to-
electricity plants or biofuel plants creating cellulosic ethanol. S.
2895 is unacceptable and cannot be fixed or improved by amendments, and
we urge you to vote against it.
S. 2895 claims it will protect, restore and increase the old growth
forest stands and trees, but offers heavy logging of these forests as
the supposed magic elixir that will ``restore'' them. Logging is what
caused the tragic degradation of these great eastside forests in the
first place.
The only proven method of growing--or regrowing--natural old growth
forest ecosystems is for natural processes--nature, not humans with
chainsaws--to manage the forest--a process that takes centuries. The
remaining primary old-growth forests on Earth are living proof of
nature's ability to grow forests hundreds or thousands of years old.
However, there is not a single example anywhere on Earth of a
natural centuries-old forest ``grown'' by humans using chainsaws.
Therefore, there are no scientific studies of these non-existent old-
growth forests ``restored'' by chainsaws. This legislation's assertion
that using heavy logging will ``restore'' old-growth forests is without
scientific foundation.
S. 2895 claims that the increased logging mandated by this bill
will somehow mitigate the effects of climate change. Recent scientific
studies (Public land, timber harvests, and climate mitigation:
Quantifying carbon sequestration potential on U.S. public timberlands,
Depro, B.M., et al, Forest Ecology and Management, 2007; Forest carbon
storage in the northeastern United States: Net effects of harvesting
frequency, post-harvest retention, and wood products, Nunery, J.S.,
Keeton, W.S., Forest Ecology and Management, 2010) have shown
conclusively that forests which grow without logging grow more biomass,
and subsequently sequester more carbon, than forests that are logged,
and that it takes a newly-planted forest from 50-100 years to attain
the level of carbon sequestration the logged forest was providing when
growing. Further, another study (Peters, W. et al., An atmospheric
perspective on North American carbon dioxide exchange: Carbon Tracker.
PNAS, 2007) concluded that North American ecosystems, mostly forests,
remove 0.65 Pg C/year, offsetting one-third of the country's estimated
1.85 Pg carbon emissions. Compromising the capacity of forests is
therefore equivalent to increasing emissions. Therefore, the increased
logging mandated by this bill will not only increase forest
destruction, it will decrease the amount of carbon stored by these
forests, diminishing the ability of our public forests to combat global
climate change.
However, this legislation goes even farther in contributing to
global climate change. It instructs the Forest Service to take the wood
logged from these forests and burn it in wood-energy plants. Nothing
could possibly contribute more to global climate change than increasing
logging on our national forests and then burning the wood in biomass
plants. According to a recent study (Matera, Chris, Wood-Fueled Biomass
Power Plants and CO2 Emissions, http://www.maforests.org/MFWCarb.pdf
February 2010) wood-burning energy plants contribute greatly to global
climate change. Using data from a permit application in Massachusetts
and from the Department of Energy, the study concludes, ``Overall, wood
fueled biomass power plants emit about 50% more CO2 per MWh than
existing coal plants, 150% more than existing natural gas plants, and
330% more than new power plants.''
But there are also tremendous amounts of carbon released by the use
of petroleum when logging and chipping the forests and the burning of
gasoline used by the trucks that will make thousands of trips totaling
thousands of miles transporting the cut wood fiber to the biomass/
biofuel plants. Burning trees from our national forests in biomass
plants is a net carbon-loss disaster for global climate change. A
recent article (Searchinger, et al., Fixing A Critical Climate
Accounting Error, Science, 2009) reveals that emissions from biomass
burning are entirely uncounted, either under land use change or under
smoke stack emissions from utilities. This failure in accounting has
resulted in the claim that biomass burning is ``carbon neutral'' and
led to a flow of public-funded subsidies into these biomass burning
facilities. This accounting error must be fixed. Doing so will reveal
that logging and burning of forest biomass is not a viable solution to
climate change. The claim by this legislation that burning wood in
biomass plants will reduce global climate change is no more than a
disproven, unscientific fabrication.
S.2895 goes so far as to suspend all applicable laws in favor of
biomass removal. In Section 12 of the bill titled, BIOMASS, the
specific language reads:
(a) IN GENERAL.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law
(including regulations) relating to the use of biomass energy,
in accordance with each purpose and goal of this Act, and any
applicable recommendation of the advisory panel, the Secretary
shall take such actions as are necessary to further enhance the
use of woody biomass in the covered area.
The area covered by this legislation is more than 8 million acres
of public forestlands across Eastern Oregon.
S. 2895 also tilts towards commercial interests, stating;
On a determination by the Secretary that forest conditions,
commercial interests, and an adequate supply from a combination
of Federal and non-Federal sources indicate a viable economic
supply and demand for establishing a regional biomass project,
the Secretary may designate an area within the covered area in
which--
(A) the removal of biomass is necessary to restore
forest health; and
(B) a sufficient volume of material is expected to be
available to support a 20 year-lifespan of capital
investments for biomass use.
S. 2895 is honest in at least one respect, when it admits its
purpose is to supply the wood industry with a guaranteed supply of wood
from our federal forestlands. S. 2895 guarantees a minimum of 20 years
of vastly increased logging to supply these newly constructed wood
energy plants. This mandated amount of logging will devastate the very
forest ecosystems that S. 2895 claims to be restoring. Biomass burning
utilities require about 13,000 tons per megawatt per year, and
transportation logistics require sourcing feedstocks from a limited
distance (generally around 50 mile radius). Providing and maintaining
sufficient feedstocks to biomass burning facilities is unlikely to be
harmonious with the goal of forest protection and ``restoration.''
The stripping of our forests for biomass means that woody debris
that previously had been left for mulch in the forests and which
enriched the forest soil and provided essential habitat for
biodiversity will now be taken away from the forests and burned. If
this legislation and other bills like it proceed, our national forest
soils will be stripped of nutrients and our forests will die of
starvation.
S. 2895 clearly cripples environmental laws which have given our
forests some level of protection, not only by unconscionable suspension
of the laws, but also by rushing the normal environmental enforcement
procedures. S. 2895 would effectively circumvent NEPA by having pre-
made decisions come out of advisory committees, even though NEPA will
ostensibly be followed. NEPA requires an objective analysis of
alternatives before decisions are made. Under this process, in effect,
the decision is made before the analysis, making NEPA a pro-forma
exercise. The process is further tilted toward increased logging of
these forests by the use of advisory groups made up primarily of paid
employees of the timber industry and others who are forced to either
agree with this increased logging program or be denied from
participation. This disenfranchises the American people of our and our
children's heritage, the national forests of Oregon--it is no less than
grand theft and destruction of federal property. This bill is the
equivalent of allowing a small number of people from New Jersey,
subsidized by federal tax dollars, to dismantle the Statue of Liberty
and sell it for scrap metal while claiming it is good for the economy.
S. 2895 claims that one of its goals is to protect large trees,
trees larger than 21 inch diameter, and it even lists exceptions for
protecting trees smaller than 21 inch diameter. However, S. 2895 gives
all final authority, stripped of any legal check and balance, to the
Secretary of Agriculture to determine what trees can logged, rendering
the supposed protections of trees of any size, including any and all
large trees, completely meaningless. This legislation is a green light
to demolish our public forests, even allowing logging of the giant old
trees the bill is allegedly supposed to protect.
Roads are one of the greatest causes of forest degradation. S. 2895
will allow an unlimited number of new roads, including permanent roads,
to be constructed.
A new scientific report (Bond, Monica L., et al., Influence of Pre-
Fire Tree Mortality on Fire Severity in Conifer Forests of the San
Bernardino Mountains, California, The Open Forest Science Journal,
2009) suggests that bark beetle outbreaks will not lead to greater fire
risk, and that tree thinning and logging is not likely to alleviate
future large-scale epidemics of bark beetle. The report's findings
apply to millions of acres of lodgepole pine and spruce-fir forests
across North America. This report completely contradicts the goals and
unscientific claims of this bill that increased logging will reduce
these naturally occurring events.
``Drought and high temperature are likely the overriding factors
behind the current bark beetle epidemic in the western United States,''
said Scott Hoffman Black, executive director of the Xerces Society for
Invertebrate Conservation. ``Because logging and thinning cannot
effectively alleviate the overriding effects of climate, it will do
little or nothing to control these outbreaks.'' (Black, S. H., et al.,
Insects and Roadless Forests: A Scientific Review of Causes,
Consequences and Management Alternatives, National Center for
Conservation Science & Policy, Ashland OR, 2010).
S. 2895 will lead to hundreds of millions of dollars of additional
subsidies to log our national forests at a time when Americans are
saddled with a soaring national debt.
Since the rise of large scale civilizations around 8,000 years,
over 80% of the Earth's forests have been either completely wiped out
or severely degraded by humans. Logging by humans is the greatest
threat to the survival of the remaining natural forests on Earth, yet
this legislation will increase logging. All the verbiage in S. 2895
about so-called ecological forest restoration, watershed health,
conservation, ecosystem function, carbon cycling, and scientific
advisory panels are thin cover for a timber industry logging bill.
S. 2895 was written without public participation, contrary to the
claims of some of the bill's supporters. It is undemocratic in
conception and would also be so in implementation. Senate Bill 2895 is
an environmental disaster-in-the making for our national forests and an
economic disaster for the American people and will contribute greatly
to lost biodiversity and increased atmospheric carbon dioxide levels.
We urge you to completely oppose it.
______
Mike Hayward, Chairman, Wallowa County Board of Commissioners
Thank you for this opportunity to comment on S. 2895. First let me
say that I appreciate the work of Senator Wyden and his staff in
attempting to address the issues of forest health and community well-
being in Eastern Oregon. I appreciate greatly that they recognize that
a problem exist and that it needs to be dealt with quickly. Having said
that I have concerns about this bill in its current form that I believe
must be addressed before it moves forward.
The issue that is perhaps the most troubling is that the
legislation calls for a $50 million appropriation to carry out the work
of the bill. There is no doubt that for the Forest Service to meet the
requirements as outlined this money will be necessary but given the
current state of the federal budget I question if it will be available.
The Forest Service finds itself in a perpetual planning, appeals
and litigation cycle, with little work actually happening on the
ground. We frequently hear about the use of ``best available science''
and yet we seem to want to manage out national forest by a consensus
process. This bill would seem to expand on that concept with the
inclusion of the advisory panels and collaborative groups. At some
point, if we are to attain a healthy forested landscape, we have to
allow the professional foresters to do their job.
It appears that the bill requires that before any tree, of any
size, can be cut it has to meet a set of criteria as outlined in the
bill. Given the size of the landscape that the Forest Service is
dealing with this is not possible. One could argue that I have read too
much into this portion of the bill and I believe that this was not the
intent, but given the past history of litigation there would appear to
be an open field for potential lawsuits.
Lastly, I believe that we must recognize both a forest health and
an economic reality. The Blue Mountain Forests (Malheur, Umatilla, and
Wallowa Whitman) are currently engaged in forest plan revision. The
proposed action references that sixty percent of the forested landscape
is in need of treatment due to excess fuel loadings. The plan also
acknowledges that the three forests have a net growth, after mortality,
of 791 million board feet yet calls for an Allowable Sale Quantity
(ASQ) of approximately 200 million board feet, with anticipated actual
harvest being a fraction of the ASQ because of budgetary constraints.
This level of harvest will not only fail to improve the stocking level
but will actually increase the number of forest stands outside the
historic range of variability.
The reality is that under current harvest protocols timber sales
lose money and the Forest Service is limited in how much activity they
can accomplish. The sale and removal of larger trees (greater than 16
inches) is necessary to make forest restoration work cost affective.
Certainly not all, nor even most, larger trees need to be cut, but if
we are unwilling to cut any larger trees I fear that the economics of
thinning small diameter material will prevent significant work from
happening on the federal land.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to comment.
______
Statement of Zane G. Smith, Jr., Retired U.S. Forest Service Regional
Forester
I am pleased to offer testimony related to SB 2895 to restore
forest landscapes, protect old growth forests, and manage national
forests in the eastside forests of the State of Oregon, and for other
purposes, the subject of your hearing in Bend, Oregon June 4. Athough I
applaud the effort of Senator Wyden and the various interests in
breaking through the stalemate so adversely affecting the management of
our National Forests, I have grave concerns about possible unintended
consequences for the National Forest System (NFS). The proposed Bill
has many positive provisions, as a matter of fact, the Forest Service
under existing statutes is trying mightily to practice them now. I am
sure you received valuable counsel on how some of these provisions can
be strengthened to improve the outcomes.
My concern surrounds what I feel could lead to the fragmentation
and eventual elimination of the National Forest System. I am a third
generation career Forest Service retiree. My career led me through
every line position in the Forest Service except Chief. I served in AZ,
ID, OR, WA, CA and the Chief's office. So, I admit to having a bias,
but we all know that the NFS, put together by President Theodore
Roosevelt and many others, is the envy of the World and represents an
extraordinary treasure for our Nation.
The management of the NFS is guided by a host of statutes dating
back to the Organic Act of 1897 followed by literally hundreds of Acts
into the 21st Century. The thought of overlaying this direction with
Bills such as SB 2895 and others like Montana Senator Testor's,
absolutely stagers the mind. My fear is that it lays the ground work
for the demise of the National Forest System.
My plea is to keep these thoughts in mind and I urge the Committee
to consider carefully how the existing statutes can be cleaned up and
added to, thus applying up to date direction to the entire National
Forest System. Thanks so much for your consideration.
Thank you for adding this to the Record.
______
Statement of Tom Davis, PE, Upper Deschutes Volunteer River Steward,
the Native Fish Society
These S. 2895 comments use the Deschutes and Ochoco National
Forests as examples, but apply to all Forest Service and Bureau of Land
Management land east of the Cascades, as well as all forestlands in the
State of Oregon. We enthusiastically support S. 2895 but aquatic
ecosystems must be given a top priority in the final bill. The
important forest issues that S. 2895 and its implementation must
address include:
Erosion-Sedimentation Reduction
Roads
All terrain Vehicles
Stream Temperature
Wildfire and Fire Fighting
Tree Removal
Passage Barriers
Instream, Riparian and Stream Corridor Protection
Erosion-Sedimentation Reduction--The most important issue is
erosion from the thousands of miles of road prisms (cut, road and fill
surfaces) in the National Forests. The roads also include hundreds of
culvert passage barriers. This will become a more serious problem in
the Deschutes and Ochoco National Forests with the reintroduction of
steelhead, Chinook and sockeye, and the restoration of passage for bull
trout to their spawning tributary headwaters. Riparian conditions are
poor in many locations, causing stream temperature problems and
exacerbated sediment delivery to streams.
Most of the soils are very erodible and range from coarse sand and
gravel soils in the west side subbasins to predominantly fine grained
soils in the Crooked River subbasin. In the west side subbasins the
coarse-porous soils allow rapid infiltration, which often mitigates
peak flow rates, resulting in long sediment delivery times to the main
stems. In the Crooked River subbasin less infiltration occurs so peak
flows are higher and much of the eroded clay and silt stays suspended
and moves faster in the water column. Turbid or ``muddy'' streams are
seldom seen in the Metolius subbasin where most of the eroded soil is
pushed downstream by clear water as bedload, but ``muddy'' streams are
common in the Crooked River subbasin.
A 2004 Forest Service (FS) Metolius watershed assessment update
acknowledged the high erosion risk. http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/
centraloregon/projects/planning/major-plans/wa-metolius-update2004-
summary.pdf
The highest Metolius risk areas were found by the FS to be the
headwaters of First Creek (shown running ``muddy'' in the Spring, 2009
photo by Mark Yinger), Jack Creek, Canyon Creek and Brush Creek. The
assessment stated that ``The Metolius River is spring fed, stable,
sensitive to sediment--one of the most stable rivers in the world for
its size, vulnerable to sediment because of the lack of flood events to
flush gravels clean.''
The Metolius example and publications regarding the erosion of
forest soils indicate that wildfires cause significant erosion. The
soil disturbance caused by the fire fighting equipment likely caused
more erosion and sediment delivery than the wildfires per se.
The two 2009 Mark Yinger photos illustrate the normal sediment
delivery, i.e. bedload movement, in the westside subbasins. This
unnamed Metolius tributary is between Lake and First Creeks. The photo
on the left is during May and the water is running clear. The June
photo on the right shows that the creek had been carrying significant
amounts of bedload sediment and deposited some of it behind the
culvert.
The east side soils, primarily in the Crooked River subbasin, are
highly erodible but consist of fine grained silts and clays that, when
eroded travel in the water and are easily visible and monitored as
turbidity.
The S. 2895 essentials for reducing erosion and sedimentation from
forest activities and projects include:
No new roads except for projects that are essential for
watershed recovery, or that will not cause soil erosion and
sedimentation impacts on an ephemeral, seasonal or permanent
channel.
Maximum road-prism width limits that reflect the soils and
slopes present, and are smaller/narrower on more erodible soils
and/or steeper slopes.
Accelerated decommissioning of non-essential roads to
achieve road densities of < one per sq. mile.
Performing subsoiling, or ``tillage'', of compacted soils
for road decommissioning or revegetation of disturbed sites in
ways that eliminate the potential for transport of eroded soil
from the site.
Limiting the use of ATVs to roads suitable for two-wheel
drive vehicles.
Soil disturbance slope limits that are specific for the
soils present, ranging from 15% to 30%. Steeper sites would
require enhanced mitigation measures, for examples reduced
weeks of exposure, higher levels of mulching and multiple rows
of silt fence. No disturbance on slopes => 30%.
Project and activity design that reduces the grading and
soil disturbance area to a minimum.
A time limit in weeks on the exposure of disturbed soils,
with no carryover from one activity phase to the next, and
requiring a disturbance-free period during high-risk seasons of
at least four (4) months.
Establishment of water management systems immediately after
grading and soil disturbance begins.
Interim controls including early mulching on slopes steeper
than 5 percent, revegetation and temporary sedimentation traps
for the 5-year storm recurrence interval runoff.
Transitioning from natural to post-development/activity
water conveyance and storage systems within one activity phase,
or nine months at most.
Out sloping or in sloping of roads with ditch relief
culverts every 200 feet or less.
Maintenance measures that ensure no rutting of the road
surface and do not increase the fine material available for
erosion.
Minimal compaction and mitigation of all compaction not
essential for long-term use of a road.
Silt fences if soil disturbance is within 200 ft of an
ephemeral, seasonal or permanent channel.
Sediment catchments downgradient in rills and gullies prior
to any soil disturbance.
Roads.--The Deschutes and Ochoco National Forests contain
exceptionally high road densities. On the Deschutes, according to a
March 2010 FS study, there are 8,120 miles at some level of
maintenance. The Ochoco contains 3,240 miles. The Deschutes road
density using the ``maintained'' numbers is 3.7 miles of road per sq.
mi. The Ochoco density using the ``maintained'' numbers is 2.5 miles of
road per sq. mi.
``Oregon Wild'' did an assessment of roads in the forests and
concluded that the numbers were: ``Deschutes NF--9,784 miles of roads
(about 3.9 miles of road per sq mile); and the Ochoco NF--5,400 miles
of roads (3.6 miles of roads per sq mile).'' To paraphrase Oregon
Wild's statement when the numbers were provided--The figures are from
an analysis we did a few years ago. Our figures may or may not be close
to USFS figures. If, for example, they put a berm on a road and it
still appears to be a road, our analysis would include it as a road but
theirs would not. Plus we may overestimate some and underestimate
others.
A likely possibility is that the FS counted the road prisms that
were maintained at some level, but Oregon Wild counted all road prisms
regardless of maintenance or current use.
Road prisms are a major source of eroded sediment that is
detrimental to the aquatic ecosystems. Some road prisms may erode less
with maintenance that eliminates rills, but maintenance, particularly
``blading'' can bring new soil particles to the surface, which are
subject to surface erosion. Sediment delivery rates during the road
construction period and the first few years after construction are
particularly high.
The ``decommissioning'' of roads, which is an essential component
of watershed recovery, can cause erosion-sedimentation. Often
``subsoiling'', sometimes called ``ripping'' or ``tilling'' is used to
reduce compaction and/or encourage infiltration and revegetation during
road decommissioning and to help revegetate soils that have been
exposed or compacted. The FS photo shows a subsoiler.
A FS soils scientist stated in March 2010 email communication ``I
prefer to use the term subsoiling when referring to our Forest tillage
program. A subsoiler differs from a ripper in that it has wings on the
bottom of the shanks. The purpose of the wings is to lift and fracture
the soil across the entire width of a compacted trail without mixing
the soil horizons. Monitoring has showing that ripper shanks without
wings do not fracture the entire width of the trail. Another important
point is that subsoiling does not instantly restore the soil back to
its un-impacted condition but instead sets up the conditions so the
soil can rehabilitate at an accelerated rate compared to an area that
is not subsoiled. Therefore avoidance of as much soil impacts as
possible is still very important.''
All Terrain Vehicles.--The FS research on all-terrain erosion rates
at various sites in the U.S. by Randy B. Foltz documents the
exceptionally high erosion rates from all terrain vehicles. The rates
were even higher than forest roads and agricultural lands. The graph
above presents the findings and the research is described in: http://
forest.moscowfsl.wsu.edu/engr/library/Foltz/Foltz2006e/ASABE2006e.pdf ;
and http://www.stream.fs.fed.us/news/streamnt/pdf/SN_04_07.pdf
Stream Temperature.--A February 2009 paper on stream temperature,
riparian harvest and total harvest in a watershed states, ``stream
temperature increase was correlated with both the total amount of
timber harvest in a watershed and the total amount of riparian forest
harvest in a watershed.'' This is important for understanding the
significance of the level of logging in any watershed. The February,
2009 paper is ``STREAM TEMPERATURE RELATIONSHIPS TO FOREST HARVEST IN
WESTERN WASHINGTON'', by Michael M. Pollock, Timothy J. Beechie, Martin
Liermann, and Richard E. Bigley. http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/
cgi-bin/fulltext/121663614/PDFSTART
Wildfire and Fire Fighting.--The watersheds of the Upper Deschutes
have experienced extensive and damaging wildfires in the last decade.
Wildfires and the firefighting equipment have particularly affected the
Metolius subbasin. In 2 years, four times as many acres have burned
than burned in the previous 100 years. From 1900-1999, 29,449 acres
burned. In 2002 and 2003, 122,450 acres burned. This is presented by
the FS Metolius Watershed map of five large fires from 2000 to 2003.
The largest was the B & B fire.
The 2004 FS Assessment Update states: ``There are elevated erosion
risks associated with severely burned areas. . . .Ten debris flows
(landslides) occurred in the Metolius Basin during an intense winter
storm in 1996 Nine of the ten debris flows in 1996 were associated with
managed areas where vegetation had been manipulated in varying degrees.
Five older debris flows were discovered in the Highway 20 corridor and
appear to be associated with a similar intense winter storm in 1964.
Slopes exceeding 25% in areas of stand replacement fire have an
elevated risk of debris flows within 3 years of the fire as tree roots
decay and lose soil holding strength. Slope stability in these areas is
not likely to return to pre-fire levels within the next 20 years,
although returning shrubs and trees will help stabilize soil.''
Surface/sheet erosion was likely also high, but much less visible.
Whether the damage occurs directly because of the fire in the
overstory resulting in lack of protective cover and soil instability,
the equipment used in suppressing the fire, or the damage to riparian
zones, it's clear that wildfire in the Upper Deschutes presents a
threat to our native salmonids.
Tree Removal.--The removal of trees, whether for thinning, biofuels
or wood, presents the potential for damage to the aquatic ecosystems.
Logging per se has been reduced in the Upper Deschutes, but biofuels
and thinning projects present risks to the habitat required for native
salmonids.
Passage Barriers.--The fish passage barriers involving road
culverts are important and prevalent, particularly with the thousands
of road miles in the two National Forests. These barriers are receiving
attention from the FS and projects to provide passage merit support.
Instream, Riparian and Stream Corridor Protection.--According to
the Forest Service ``31% of Riparian forest areas burned at moderate to
high severity'' in the Metolius during the B & B Fire''. It's clear
that forest activities and events affect riparian cover, which affects
aquatic health. The stream corridor protection and the riparian
methodology used in the ``Glaze Forest Restoration Project'' should be
combined, optimized and applied on all forest projects where wildfire
in the riparian zone could damage the vegetation or coniferous tree
removal is essential for riparian health. The project is described at:
http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/centraloregon/projects/units/sisters/glaze/
index.shtml
Specific, quantitative criteria to prohibit disturbances in the
stream corridor are essential and S. 2895 implementation should address
this. Water quality, floodplain function and aquatic life protection
should be provided through no-disturbance stream corridors, which will
also provide important habitat for aquatic and terrestrial insects that
provide food for fish and other aquatic life. Many species of birds,
mammals, reptiles, amphibians, and invertebrates also require healthy
riparian habitat for nesting, hiding and birthing cover, travel
corridors, thermal refuge, and forage.
The floodplains, riparian zones and adjoining wetlands define the
stream corridor. Maps are needed of all perennial, intermittent and
ephemeral floodplains. Intermittent streams are defined as a stream
which carries water a considerable portion of the time, but which
ceases to flow occasionally or seasonally because bed seepage and
evapotranspiration exceed the available water supply. Ephemeral streams
are defined as a stream channel, which carries water only during and
immediately after periods of rainfall or snowmelt. The PACFISH and
INFISH requirements should be expanded to include these concepts and be
included in S. 2895.
The floodplain maps can be determined by hydrologic analysis of the
contributing watersheds using:
HEC-HMS: http://www.hec.usace.army.mil/software/hec-hms/
index.html or
HSPF: http://www.epa.gov/ceampubl/swater/hspf/ and a stream
hydraulics model such as
HEC-RAS: http://www.hec.usace.army.mil/software/hec-ras/
All planned and existing upstream tree harvest areas and areas
altered or proposed for alteration from natural conditions must be
included in the hydrologic analysis of the contributing watershed,
including roads. Inventories and maps of wetlands and riparian areas
are also essential.
______
Statement of Richard H. Waring, Ph.D., Corvallis, OR
1. I am an ecosystem scientist with expertise in forestry and
a number of related fields. I provide this declaration to
explain scientific and technical deficiencies in the
Environmental Assessment for the proposed ``Wildcat Fuels
Reduction and Vegetation Management Project'' prepared by the
U.S. Forest Service and published in March 2009.
2. On June 2nd and 3rd, 2009, I toured the Wildcat sale sites
numbered 33, 34, 22, 79 and 133 with Karen Coulter, field
coordinator for the Blue Mountains Biodiversity Project, and
observed the forest composition including standing dead and
fallen trees, as well as the herbaceous vegetation. Trees
planned to be thinned were marked for cutting, allowing me to
assess expected changes in stand structure and composition.
3. Although the proposed project may temporarily reduce the
threat of wildfires, to be effective in the long term, much
heavier thinning than proposed is required to reduce the danger
of insect outbreaks and to conserve water in the ponderosa pine
and mixed conifer types. The present plan lacks an assessment
of the effects of selective thinning, whole tree harvesting,
and slash disposal on nutrient availability and carbon
sequestration.
4. In the long run, the chosen options for management fail to
consider the effects of practices that will continue to
simplify stand structure and composition, and thereby reduce
biodiversity on the Umatilla National Forest. In addition, the
Forest Service fails to disclose the need to ameliorate
microclimatic conditions to foster the movement of species from
their current environments to similar ones that are predicted
to shift to higher elevations or out of northeast Oregon within
the next few decades.
5. There is a general deficiency in the Environmental
Assessment on how managed and unmanaged areas interact across
the landscape. Specifically, the proposed plan does not
recognize how attempts to maintain high populations of elk and
cattle impact aspen groves, the role that roads play as a
conduit for plant and animal migration, nor the fact that
subalpine forests are adapted to large, but infrequent
disturbances.
6. To explain these scientific and technical matters and to
underscore what was omitted from the Wildcat Environmental
Assessment, I draw on my experience and familiarity with the
peer-reviewed literature. For this particular review, I include
a few Forest Service publications that counter the proposed
management options or summarize state-of-the-art knowledge. My
evaluation is organized by management options applied to four
forest types, followed by sections on the implications of
proposed activities on biodiversity, the implication of climate
change, and landscape interactions.
7. The range of vegetation on which activities are proposed
include four broad forest types: dry ponderosa pine; moist,
mixed conifers; cool and moist subalpine forests; and groves of
aspen. On each of these types, the Forest Service has
identified trees to cut, with the intention of disposing of
slash by burning, by complete tree harvesting, and by
extracting deadwood on the forest floor to generate energy.
DRY PONDEROSA PINE FOREST TYPE
8. The dry ponderosa pine is a forest type through which a
ground fire historically burnt every decade or so, which
limited the presence of young trees and species with thin bark.
This type occurs on small pockets of shallow soil at mid
elevations and more extensively at lower elevations,
particularly on aspects exposed in the afternoon to direct
solar radiation. Forest Service activities are aimed at
removing most of the small trees that have established
following years of fire suppression activities. They plan to
introduce prescribed fires to mimic historical conditions.
9. Depending on how slash and biomass are disposed of, the
plan is biologically sound, assuming sufficient standing dead
trees are left to meet wildlife requirements and erosion is
minimized during road construction and logging. The proposed
practices, however, will reduce soil organic matter, which
Jurgensen et al. (1997) consider a critical resource required
to sustain forest health and productivity, particularly on
drier sites.
10. At some of the sites, the density of large diameter trees
that will be left following treatment is more than 50 per cent
of the maximum basal area and leaf area that can currently be
supported. Additional thinning of larger diameter trees would
be required to protect residual trees from being attacked and
killed by mountain pine beetle during an outbreak and to
accommodate climatic trends leading to increased natural
mortality (van Mantgem et al. 2009). Moreover, residual trees
need to be evenly spaced to reduce mortality from bark beetles
(Larsson et al. 1983), which would be a major departure from
historical conditions (Harrod et al. 1999).
MIXED CONIFER FOREST TYPE
11. The mixed conifer forest type is one where snowmelt has
historically been adequate to recharge the soil profile fully
each spring so that drought is normally not a problem (Waring
et al. 1992). Grand fir, which establishes under the shade of
the other species, has notably thinner bark, and because of
this feature is easily damaged by fire. With the burning of
slash, grand fir will become progressively less abundant in
this type, even if large diameter trees were to be left
standing. Less shade-tolerant trees with thicker bark will
become relative more dominant, even with some selective
removal, with implications that will be discussed later.
12. Experiments in this forest type in northeastern Oregon
indicate that nitrogen limits growth and that defoliation of
Douglas-fir and true firs by spruce budworm or tussock moth
recycles this limiting element and foster increases in stand
growth (Waring et al. 1992). Fire generally encourages the
establishment of nitrogen-fixing plants, but it may take
decades to centuries to restore the nitrogen capital (Jurgensen
et al. 1997), particularly in soils lacking molybdenum, an
essential micro-nutrient (Silvester 1989). The Environmental
Assessment omits discussion on the loss of nitrogen and other
elements associated with whole-tree harvesting and the burning
of litter and slash that would affect site productivity and the
ability of trees to withstand defoliation (Waring and Running
2007).
SUBALPINE FOREST TYPE
13. The subalpine forest type rarely burns (Schoennagel et
al. 2007), but when it does, most trees are killed (Romme et
al. 2006). Larch and lodgepole pine establish on bare soil
following a stand replacement fire; Englemann spruce and
subalpine fir seed in on duff once shade is provided. Ponderosa
pine is not a major component of this forest type because it is
subject to snow breakage (Waring 1969).
14. Thinning in subalpine forests creates unnatural
conditions because most species are adapted to regeneration
following a stand replacement fire. Although centuryold
lodgepole pine can be thinned and residual trees made resistant
to bark beetle attack, this requires that up to two-thirds of
all trees be removed (Coops et al. 2009) and often results in
accelerated windthrow (Veblen et al. 1991).
15. The subalpine type is usually nitrogen deficient (Waring
et al. 1985, Waring and Pitman 1985, Waring et al. 1987 ) and
requires considerable time to restore what is lost following
fire (Jurgensen et al. 1997) because the main source of
nitrogen in this area is atmospheric deposition (Fenn et al.
2003). The proposed plan would reduce the available of nitrogen
and other nutrients, which is unlikely to improve tree
resistance to insects and diseases. This needs to be disclosed,
assessed and alternatives considered.
16. The Environmental Assessment does not adequately
recognize the departure from historical conditions that the
proposed thinning and fuel reduction project would create in
subalpine forests. Young lodgepole pine stands generally do not
require thinning because small diameter trees lack sufficient
resources (phloem tissue) under the bark to support development
of bark beetle larvae (Waring and Pitman 1985).
ASPEN GROVES
17. Attempts to perpetuate aspen by removing competing
conifers are likely to prove inadequate. The reason for lack of
aspen regeneration is an over abundance of browsing and grazing
animals that consume most, if not all aspen regeneration and
heavily impact many other species, as noted by Forest Service
scientists Shirley and Erickson (2001). Fenced areas are
required to allow aspen to regenerate without a reduction in
elk and cattle populations. The Environmental Assessments lacks
an explanation as to how one can expect to foster successful
aspen regeneration while proposing to improve elk habitat
without fencing. It might also recognize the role that
predators play in allowing aspen to regenerate even with large
populations of elk (Larsen and Ripple 2003).
BIODIVERSITY
18. To be effective, the proposed thinning and fuel reduction
program will need to be repeated at frequent intervals over
wide areas. This will result in simplification of stand
structure and a reduction in biodiversity. What are the
implications? Forests of mixed ages and species composition are
generally not subject to complete defoliation because native
insects have discrete numbers of hosts. As a result, the growth
of ponderosa pine increases when spruce budworm attack grand
fir, and the reverse happens when Pandora moth attack pine in a
stand of mixed composition (Speer et al. 2001). There are
similar advantages to multi-species stands when it comes to
diseases, as outlined in a recent publication on `Managing
insects and diseases of Oregon Conifers' (Shaw et al. 2009).
The disadvantages of repeated thinning and slash disposal need
to be considered particularly in the mixed conifer type.
19. A diversity of insects favors a wide variety of bird
species, each with different requirements to complete their
life cycles. Other animals, both resident and migratory,
require a range of conditions not available in a forest with
simplified structure and frequent disturbance. These tradeoffs
are not adequately addressed in the Environmental Assessment.
CLIMATE CHANGE
20. Discussion of climate change is completely omitted from
the Environmental Assessment. Yet, over the last half century,
the climate has progressively become warmer throughout most of
western United States (http://climatewizard.org). As a result,
the snowpack melts more quickly, the growing season starts
earlier, and vegetation is subjected to longer periods of
drought. Although these changes in climate may not totally
explain a doubling of tree mortality across the West in the
last two decades (van Mantgem et al. 2009), there is no
question that drought can cause an increase in tree mortality
(Bigler et al. 2008). Less tree cover may reduce water use, but
it will also encourage the growth of understory vegetation
which contributes more fine fuels in a given season than do
leaves shed slowly from dying trees (Veblen et al. 2000).
21. The trends in climate observed over the last 50 years are
likely to accelerate. The Environmental Assessment should
consider that peer-reviewed literature indicates that both
western larch and Engelmann spruce are predicted to be unable
to survive in most of northeastern Oregon by 2030 (Rehfeldt et
al. 2006). If shifts in climate are recognized as highly
probable, achieving historical conditions through the proposed
management may be impossible. Certainly thinning cannot improve
residual tree vigor during an extended drought (Kolb et al.
2007).
LANDSCAPE PERSPECTIVE
22. The Environmental Assessment does not consider the
ramifications of management practices on areas not directly
involved, such as the protected riparian zone and adjacent
wilderness area. An enlargement of the protected zone along
streams might be considered to maintain populations of species
adapted to less disturbed conditions. It might also serve as a
corridor, as do roads (Lugo and Gucinski 2000), for allowing
species to move up or down slope in a changing climate. At the
same time, a connected corridor of dense, multi-storied
vegetation is a conduit for the spread of wildfire (Agee 1998).
Alternatives that should be considered are large blocks of
different aged forests, a shifting mosaic of age classes
(Everett et al. 1994) and the advantages of letting fires burn
in wilderness areas (Collins and Stephens 2007).
23. The management of National Forests to enhance carbon
storage is under discussion with controversy over the relative
losses from wildfires versus those associated with harvesting
and fuel management. Recent publications from faculty at Oregon
State University have clarified these issues, and the kind of
management proposed on the Umatilla National Forests should
evaluate the proposed plans in light of these findings
(Campbell et al. 2007, Mitchell et al. 2009).
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
24. The Environmental Assessment fails to take into account
the longer-term implications of the proposed management
options. Climatic conditions are changing and these changes are
predicted to accelerate. This makes using historical conditions
a questionable benchmark. The dry ponderosa pine type may
become more extensive, but if this happens, larch, Engelmann
spruce and many other species may become rarer. To assess the
impacts and efficacy of the proposed project, the Forest
Service must disclose how repeated thinning and fuel reduction
efforts will affect tree nutrition, because nutrient-stressed
trees will become more susceptible to insect and disease
attack.
25. Some modifications of the proposed plan are required,
particularly for the mixed conifer and subalpine forest types
where stand structure and composition will be highly modified.
Even in the dry ponderosa pine type, where thinning and fire
are logical management options, the spacing of trees may need
to be much wider than proposed to increase resistance to bark
beetle attacks and to adapt to trends in climatic conditions.
To increase aspen groves will require a significant reduction
in elk and cattle on the forest, or extensive fencing. The
proposal to remove conifers will have little effect.
26. The Forest Service has not taken into account a landscape
perspective in the Environmental Assessment or looked at how
blocks of vegetation in different stages of development can be
positioned on the landscape to reduce the spread of fire.
Without taking a landscape approach, the Forest Service will
not be able to reduce the threat from fire or maintain
biodiversity in a changing climate.
27. The Forest Service would be prudent to consider
broadening buffer strips along streams and roads to offer
maximum protection for areas least likely to burn or to become
drought-stressed, and best able to provide corridors for flora
and fauna to adjust to on-going climatic change. Large blocks
of mixed conifer and most of the subalpine forests would best
remain untreated. In this way, benchmarks will be available for
comparing response to wildfires and insect and disease
outbreaks. The reserved blocks will also offer refuges to flora
and fauna not adapted to frequent disturbance.
28. In summary, to meet the stated objectives of the Wildcat
Environmental Assessment requires a much broader perspective.
The Forest Service must disclose and consider the implications
of climate change, the implications of simplifying stand
structure, landscape interactions, and the losses of nutrients
and organic matter associated with proposed harvesting and fuel
reduction efforts.
______
Statement of William H. Schlesinger, Member, National Academy of
Sciences*
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Other signatures have been retained in subcommittee files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We write to bring to your attention the importance of accurately
accounting for carbon dioxide emissions from bioenergy in any law or
regulation designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from energy use.
Proper accounting can enable bioenergy to contribute to greenhouse gas
reductions; improper accounting can lead to increases in greenhouse gas
emissions both domestically and internationally.
Replacement of fossil fuels with bioenergy does not directly stop
carbon dioxide emissions from tailpipes or smokestacks. Although fossil
fuel emissions are reduced or eliminated, the combustion of biomass
replaces fossil emissions with its own emissions (which may even be
higher per unit of energy because of the lower energy to carbon ratio
of biomass). Bioenergy can reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide if land
and plants are managed to take up additional carbon dioxide beyond what
they would absorb without bioenergy. Alternatively, bioenergy can use
some vegetative residues that would otherwise decompose and release
carbon to the atmosphere rapidly. Whether land and plants sequester
additional carbon to offset emissions from burning the biomass depends
on changes both in the rates of plant growth and in the carbon storage
in plants and soils. For example, planting fast-growing energy crops on
otherwise unproductive land leads to additional carbon absorption by
plants that offsets emissions from their use for energy without
displacing carbon storage in plants and soils. On the other hand,
clearing or cutting forests for energy, either to burn trees directly
in power plants or to replace forests with bioenergy crops, has the net
effect of releasing otherwise sequestered carbon into the atmosphere,
just like the extraction and burning of fossil fuels. That creates a
carbon debt, may reduce ongoing carbon uptake by the forest, and as a
result may increase net greenhouse gas emissions for an extended time
period and thereby undercut greenhouse gas reductions needed over the
next several decades\1\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ J. Fargione, J. Hill, Tilman D., Polasky S., Hawthorne P
(2008), Land Clearing and the Biofuel Carbon Debt, Science 319:1235-
1238.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Many international treaties and domestic laws and bills account for
bioenergy incorrectly by treating all bioenergy as causing a 100%
reduction in emissions regardless of the source of the biomass. They
perpetuate this error by exempting carbon dioxide from bioenergy from
national emissions limits or from domestic requirements to hold
allowances for energy emissions. Most renewable energy standards for
electric utilities have the same effect because bioenergy is viewed as
a renewable energy even when the biomass does not eliminate or even
reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This general approach appears to be
based on a misunderstanding of IPCC guidance\2\. Under some scenarios,
this approach could eliminate most of the expected greenhouse gas
reductions during the next several decades.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ T.D. Searchinger, S.P. Hamburg, J.Melillo, W. Chameides,
P.Havlik, D.M. Kammen, G.E. Likens, R. N. Lubowski, M. Obersteiner, M.
Oppenheimer, G. P. Robertson, W.H. Schlesinger, G.D. Tilman (2009),
Fixing a Critical Climate Accounting Error, Science 326:527-528
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. laws will also influence world treatment of bioenergy. A
number of studies in distinguished journals have estimated that
globally improper accounting of bioenergy could lead to large-scale
clearing of the world's forests\3\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ E.g., J.M. Mellillo, J.M. Reilly, D.W. Kicklighter, A.C.
Gurgel, T.W. Cronin, S. Patsev, B.S. Felzer, X. Wang, C.A. Schlosser
(2009), Indirect Emissions from Biofuels: How Important?, Science
326:1397-1399; Marshall Wise, Katherine Calvin, Allison Thomson, Leon
Clarke, Benjamin Bond-Lamberty, Ronald Sands, Steven J. Smith, Anthony
Janetos, James Edmonds (2009), Implications of Limiting CO2
Concentrations for Land Use and Energy, Science 324:1183-1186
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The lesson is that any legal measure to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions must include a system to differentiate emissions from
bioenergy based on the source of the biomass. The National Academy of
Sciences has estimated significant potential energy production from the
right sources of biomass\4\. Proper accounting will provide incentives
for these sources of bioenergy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ National Research Council (2009), Liquid Transportation Fuels
from Coal and Biomass: Technological Status, Costs, and Environmental
Impacts (National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C.)