Segment 2 Of 3 Previous Hearing Segment(1) Next Hearing Segment(3)
SPEAKERS CONTENTS INSERTS
Page 89 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
FOREST ECOSYSTEM HEALTH IN THE UNITED STATES
(Pacific Coast and Southern Regions)
THURSDAY, JUNE 12, 1997
U.S. House of Representatives,
Committee on Agriculture,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:05 a.m., in room 1300, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Robert F. (Bob) Smith (chairman of the committee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Combest, Doolittle, Goodlatte, Pombo, Canady, Smith of Michigan, Everett, Foley, LaHood, Moran, Thune, Jenkins, Stenholm, Peterson, Goode, McIntyre, Stabenow, John, and Johnson.
Staff present: Sharla Moffett, Dave Tenny, Callista Bisek, Wanda Worsham, clerk; and Danelle Farmer.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT F. (BOB) SMITH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OREGON
The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order.
Good morning, everyone. Today the Committee on Agriculture is holding its third hearing examining the Forest Health Science Panel Report, focusing on the Pacific Coast and southern regions.
The objective of these hearings is to examine the health and condition of America's forests and to hear, from witnesses, specific policy recommendations that will produce more robust forest conditions and the full range of values Americans expect from forests.
In hearings thus far, the committee has heard from the Forest Health Science Panel, which described its findings. The panel concluded that current forest policies are, by and large, failing to accomplish the intended results of producing species habitat, high-quality recreational opportunities, reductions in carbon dioxide emissions, and high-quality timber for the thousands of necessary products Americans use every day.
Page 90 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
Clearly, forest policies in the United States are in need of rigorous examination if they are not achieving their desired results. It simply doesn't make sense to continue the status quo if it is inadequate in effectuating the values, goods, and services we all want.
Last week, scientists representing diverse backgrounds, disciplines, and geographical regions offered comments on the panel's report. Science is an open-ended process and one that requires ongoing debate and new information. These experts characterized the report as a step in the right direction, a strategic rather than tactical document, and one that could be made more user-friendly for the general citizenry and policymakers.
Another common theme that arose during those hearings was the need to determine how much of each of the ''35 values'' do Americans want and expect from forests? Human activity is an ecological process and, as such, we have and will continue to influence the way our forests look and the functions they perform to the values we choose to emphasize.
It is the committee's intent to hear from resource experts, land managers, conservation groups, and environmental organizations on the contents of the Forest Health Science Panel Report, as well as the specific recommendations on how policies might be changed to more accurately reflect current values and changing expectations, while at the same time incorporating new science.
So this committee is listening and learning, and will continue to do that, in anticipation of legislation that may stem from these hearings later on in the year.
The CHAIRMAN. At this point, I would like to recognize the ranking member, the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Stenholm.
Mr. STENHOLM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I have nothing to add to that except to commend you for the manner in which you are going about examining the current health of our forest system and the recommendations that are coming. I look forward to working with you to see that we can take these constructive suggestions and do that which you have indicated is your goal at the end of this hearing process.
Page 91 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
Thank you very much.
The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman.
The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Combest.
Mr. COMBEST. I have no statement, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. All right. Thank you all. All statements will be accepted by unanimous consent, and the record will remain open for 10 days for any other purpose.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Pickering follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Charles W. ''Chip'' Pickering, a Representative in Congress from the State of Mississippi
Thank you Mr. Chairman for holding this important hearing. I believe that one of the most significant facts that will come out of this hearing today is the fact that forest health is directly related to proper management of forests, meaning harvesting timber is healthier for forests than simply doing nothing. Not only does this practice make forests healthier, but it also boosts the local economies through jobs provided and timber sales.
Idling forest land could have devastating effects on the economy in my district of Mississippi, where forestry and timber production/sales is big business. With some of the ''environmental'' community supporting Government takings of private land for the preservation of endangered species, the Taylor study is useful ammunition for those of us who believe the Endangered Species Act needs serious reform. This study indicates that idling forest land actually has a negative impact on the survival rate of endangered species.
I also would like to point out that in our review of this important issue, we must not only emphasize management of National Forest lands, but also advocate proper management on private forest lands. This is important since much of the timber production has shifted to the Southeast region of the United States and an overwhelming majority of timberland in the Southeast is privately owned.
Page 92 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
Again, I thank the chairman for conducting this hearing and I believe that it will be beneficial in getting the important facts of proper forest management to those who have the task of managing our forests, both national and private lands, as well as the general public.
The CHAIRMAN. I would like to welcome and announce the first panel. Ms. Hanus is the assistant state forester for the Oregon Department of Forestry in Salem.
Good morning. Welcome.
And Dr. Kaczynski is a fisheries scientist. He is the immediate past president of the Oregon Chapter of the American Fisheries Society, and is also a past president of the bioengineering section of the American Fisheries Society.
Welcome, Doctor.
If this looks like an Oregon panel, it's supposed to.
I'm delighted to see you both. Please, we would like to hear from you.
STATEMENT OF ANN HANUS, ASSISTANT STATE FORESTER, OREGON DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY
Ms. HANUS. Chairman Smith, members of the House Agriculture Committee, thank you very much for providing me with the opportunity to testify on forest health issues. I am very encouraged by the committee's diligence in looking into this very important issue because of the ramifications that it has on our forests.
My testimony focuses on questions of policy rather than dwelling on the more documented forest health problem. I will be also commenting on the recently released National Forest Health Report that you referred to, and also calling for the need for a Federal-State partnership to promote forest health, and finally, I will be discussing policy recommendations for improving that forest health.
I want to underscore the testimony that State Forester Jim Brown gave to you in Sunriver several months ago. He emphasized the conditions that we were facing in Oregon and the need to actively manage those forests to return them to the natural range of variability.
Page 93 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
We need to create and maintain tree species composition and stocking levels to improve resiliency to the natural disturbance agents of insects and disease, drought, and wildfire. We need to do this in order to significantly decrease the risk of catastrophic fire, improve the forest ecosystem, and provide important forest supplies for our local economies for sustainability.
I believe that there are opportunities to improve the forest health through different administrative actions, and depending on the success of those actions, that we need to then look also at perhaps changing some of the Federal laws.
Overall, we believe that the Taylor Forest Health Report is a very positive step taken by the committee to identify management effects. It discusses a range of societal and ecological forest values and how different management scenarios affect those values, and it doesn't attempt to weigh those values. It really gives choices to policymakers, in a very positive way, to look at what we can do and what we can expect from our forests.
It is built on forest ecological assumptions, I might add, that we've been using--some of the assumptions of Dr. Chad Oliver--in our planning process on our State forest lands that are located in northwestern Oregon. One of the assumptions that he has had is that forest ecosystems are dynamic, and disturbance plays a major role in that. Another is that active management can substitute or mimic natural events.
To summarize another major assumption, habitat for myriad species and biodiversity, in general, are maximized by maintaining or restoring a range of forest age classes and structural attributes. We are really using that as we are going through our planning process for the Tillamook State Forest, in a concept that we are calling ''structure-based management.''
I believe the Taylor report gives a broad range of management options, but it should be kept in mind that it will still be necessary to consider how ecosystem values and societal demands differ by geographic area, and to tailor the forest plan to reflect those differences. For example, in the Northwest where salmon is such a problem, we really need to look at issues such as salmon and wildlife together with other forestry-related issues.
Page 94 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
Turning now to the need for a Federal-State partnership to promote forest health, Oregon Governor Kitzhaber, through the findings of a blue-ribbon scientific panel and in cooperation with Federal agencies, has identified many of the same forest health issues on the east side of Oregon. He has constructed an 11-point strategy.
We need to keep in mind that it took a long time to get to where we are, and it is still going to take quite a long time to try to correct it. But in doing so, we need to form a very strong partnership with Congress and with the Federal agencies and private landowners to achieve where we want to be.
Some of the specific recommendations that we offer for improving forest health deal with both administrative as well as possibly some legislative changes. They include increasing flexibility, recognizing that we need to manage risk, increasing funding, improving accountability, providing for monitoring, trying to harmonize laws, and then recognizing the need to manage across ownership.
In flexibility, just as a physician needs to consider the individual patient needs, so does a land manager need to prescribe forest management remedies. We need to understand that managing forests is managing risk, that no matter what we do, we will be dealing with risk.
I don't believe that saying that we should not be doing anything, particularly for those lower-elevation ecosystems that have evolved with frequent disturbance, is an option. We need to provide flexibility for land managers so they can use the different tools that they have, as well as being able to have more flexibility in funding.
In terms of increases in funding, we need to regard this as a long-term investment whereby it is a good investment for taxpayer dollars, because it will reduce the many hundreds of millions of dollars that are spent, on an annual basis, with catastrophic fire funding. With that funding should be accountability, where we have the accountability tied directly with performance measures to the budget.
Page 95 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
Let me just summarize the final points that I have. In terms of monitoring, we need to make sure that that monitoring is done whereby we have standardized protocols that recognize the dual role of checking assumptions and filling knowledge gaps, and in building support with different landowners, including private landowners.
We need to look at harmonizing laws as well as managing across ownerships, where we can build on relationships that we have with landowners, both Federal and private landowners and State landowners, and try to reach the best management techniques and agreements.
I feel that Oregon is paving the way with those types of voluntary efforts, most recently with the Oregon Coastal Salmon Restoration Initiative and other activities we are involved with, such as the Governor's Forest Health Initiative.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Hanus appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much.
Dr. Kaczynski.
STATEMENT OF VICTOR W. KACZYNSKI, FISHERIES SCIENTIST AND PAST PRESIDENT, AMERICAN FISHERIES SOCIETY
Mr. KACZYNSKI. Thank you.
I just need to make a couple very brief corrections, Mr. Chairman. I'm the past president of the Portland Chapter of the American Fisheries Society, not the Oregon Chapter. We cross the border between Northern Oregon and Southern Washington.
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you for the correction.
Mr. KACZYNSKI. Also, we are such a diverse membership in the American Fisheries Society that no way could I possibly speak for all those interests. My testimony is based on my own professional experiences in the Pacific Northwest for the last 27 years.
Page 96 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
I read the Oliver report with a great deal of professional interest, and it did not contain a lot of specific references to aquatic ecology and fisheries biology. So I spent quite a bit of extra time going into it and making examples and comparisons, and looking through the analysis.
My bottom line is, after I did that, the fisheries considerations actually strengthen the findings of the Oliver report. And when you put in fisheries examples in the many situations and the scenarios, you come out with a very solid technical analysis that I think gives you very realistic scenarios, based on my experience in the Pacific Northwest.
Three relatively important problems kind of jumped out at me as they relate to Pacific salmon, and these could be affected by the forest values contained in the Oliver report, and they could make pretty significant differences in the potential productivity of salmon for us in the Northwest.
The first is one I think we finally understand now, and that is catastrophic wildfire. Put simply, catastrophic wildfire results in catastrophic impacts to salmon habitat. We've just got too many examples up in the Grande Ronde and the Salmon River, et cetera, on that problem.
The second one is good forest health. Getting back into a good forest health situation will result in a good ecological relationship with stream habitat. So we will get good ecological functions. In particular, I was thinking of our coastal riparian forests, and we have lost a lot of our large conifer tree type habitat in those coastal forests. They have been replaced with alder and salmonberry brush fields, this sort of thing. Those just are not supplying us with the types of functions that we want.
So getting back into the replacement and the restoration of these healthy riparian forests, is just another example in the Oliver report where you could yield significant salmon benefits.
Page 97 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
The third one is a bit different, and I don't think the Oliver panel realized the ramifications of the potential in gaseous carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, the so-called ''global warming'' hypothesis.
Finally, the fishery scientists, salmon scientists, are in agreement. They finally recognized the ocean and the climate has a major limiting effect on Pacific salmon productivity. We have been in a warming ocean trend and an inland trend in our climate over the Pacific Northwest since 1976. The temperatures of the entire North Pacific Ocean have been going up. That has resulted in very poor salmon survival and growth in the ocean. We were in a much better cycle from the 1950s through 1975.
Well, there are two hypotheses that explain this. One is based on weather patterns. Geographers have gone back through the record, and they say, ''Yes, we've seen patterns like that every 20 to 40 years. You go through this cool cycle, and then you go through this warm cycle.'' So it could be that we are in a series of cycles.
The second one, and unfortunately the evidence is starting to shake me that the second hypothesis may, in fact, be much more realistic than I first thought it was, and that's the business of atmospheric warming. In particular, the Japanese and British Columbia Canadian scientists have been tracking the ocean temperatures in the entire North Pacific and the salmon distributions that have resulted.
Also, there have been productivity studies, phytoplanktan and zooplankton, that go along with this, that support these. And then the increased incidence and intensity of El Nino events in the ocean are supporting this hypothesis.
All of these are saying that the North Pacific Ocean can be thought of as a salmon pasture, an acreage where the young fish go out to feed and to grow. Well, that acreage of pasture is being pushed progressively northward by the warm temperature distribution coming northward. In other words, the acreage of that pasture has been shrinking year by year since 1976.
Page 98 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
The Japanese and Canadian scientists are now predicting, by the year 2020, all of the salmon from California, Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Southeast, South Central, and Southwest Alaska could be extinct by the year 2020. The only salmon that would be left alive would be those in the Bering and the Arctic Ocean, Pacific salmon. And this would be related to greenhouse gases.
It is controversial, but I suggest to you and I can provide your staff with the references and suggestions that show that that scenario is becoming more realistic, unfortunately.
So, in summary, the Oliver report does contain very serious and good analysis, and the fishery investigations that I went through support its findings.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Kaczynski appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, both of you.
Doctor, just quickly, on that point, in your opinion, if we would eliminate all timber harvest on all public lands, what impact, in your opinion, would that have on salmon?
Mr. KACZYNSKI. In terms of the atmospheric carbon dioxide, it would be absolutely the worst thing you could do. In terms of the Oliver report, going through the carbon dioxide produced by the alternate construction materials that are needed, the tie-up of fuels that are tied up in the forests with an unhealthy forest situation, the young trees, more vigorous trees, actually sucking up that carbon dioxide and producing oxygen, that would actually be the worst thing you could do.
That is getting into the philosophy of passive management, which we found out has been a big mistake with ignoring disturbance ecology.
The CHAIRMAN. Well, that's kind of the reverse of what we've been hearing for the last 20 years.
Mr. KACZYNSKI. I know it. And there has been an awful lot, I think, of good-intentioned people who thought that you could preserve the status quo, that you had this old philosophy, environmental philosophy or hypothesis of environmental homeostasis, that's been proved a false hypothesis. It ignores disturbance ecology. It doesn't work.
Page 99 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
The CHAIRMAN. Are you alone in this position?
Mr. KACZYNSKI. I was alone 3 or 4 years ago, but a lot of people are finally coming along, and the examples are just becoming overwhelming.
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much.
Ms. Hanus, we have a huge forest health problem in the West and in other places in this country. It's so large that it's very difficult to get ahold of, in one analysis. Do you have any thoughts about how we might approach this huge problem in a way that we can make it manageable?
Ms. HANUS. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I think there have been efforts underway to try to do that. There is voluminous scientific research already on the issue. So I think we know what to do. We see the work that has been done by the Interior Columbia Basin. There have been other reports recently on forest disturbance.
If we can try to move forward and enable land managers to take the actions that are needed in areas, to be able to start doing the kind of prescribed burning, start doing the type of management actions that we need to do in those areas that are affected by disturbance, I think we can start getting a good handle on this.
As I mentioned in my testimony, this is not going to be something that we can turn around overnight. It's going to take many years to do that. But unless we do that, the option of not taking these actions is a repeat of the years we've seen in the past, with the huge catastrophic forest fires that have been so deadly, in terms of sterilizing the ground and actually having more adverse effects on the environment.
Thank you.
The CHAIRMAN. One last question to each of you. If nonentry into forests and no management breeds the issue of catastrophic fires, would you agree that that, in itself, is disastrous to fish, wildlife, endangered species, everything else? I assume you both agree that we must manage forests; is that correct?
Page 100 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
Mr. KACZYNSKI. I agree that we need to manage forests within the context of disturbance ecology and realize that those major disturbances will occur. We also have to look back at what we have done, as humans, over the past 100, 150 years, whatever it has been, in terms of changing those relationships, and get our forests back into a good healthy, resilient situation.
And we can do that through management and doing it carefully. Don't just wade right through there, but do it carefully, yes.
Ms. HANUS. I would strongly concur with Dr. Kaczynski on that. I think that's very true in eastern Oregon where we need to be able to start taking the actions where the forests have been particularly hard hit, in those lower elevations.
The CHAIRMAN. Good. Thank you.
Members have questions of this panel?
Mr. Combest.
Mr. COMBEST. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I almost feel that I need to make a disclaimer before I start this. Even though I chair the Subcommittee on Forestry, I have a town in my district in Texas named No Trees, and it's appropriately named. And we don't really have a forest issue. It's something that I'm trying very hard to learn about, and have found quite intriguing, and am interested in.
But I hope you will bear with me, as I do sometimes. Sometimes a constituent will come up and say, ''I have a stupid question,'' and I say, ''There are no stupid questions.'' So I may ask some very elementary questions, but I need to make for sure that I understand, particularly, doctor, what it is that you were saying.
I recently visited, solely for the purpose of studying forests, and saw tens if not hundreds of thousands of acres of forests in southern Oregon and northern California. I did buy some fruit at Harry and David's, but the purpose of the trip was to look at the forests.
Page 101 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
To a complete novice about forestry, there was a noticeable difference between some of the forests--it looked absolutely beautiful, pristine, clean--they were the kind that, to someone who has no trees, was what I thought a forest ought to look like. And I found out that that was a forest that was managed, and it was harvested, and it was very appealing to the eye. I don't know about all the economics.
And then I saw some that looked terrible. There was dead stuff lying everywhere and trees that weren't growing, it looked diseased. They didn't have the same foliage on them--I guess you call pine needles ''foliage,'' whatever you call it--but they didn't look nearly as good. I found out that that was hands-off; nobody could touch that. Nobody could do anything with that.
I had not ever thought about the other ecological impacts this had, but this just astounded me, what you said, because, from my understanding, it was an ecological problem that had prevented anything being done on that land. And yet, if I understand what you're saying, that which is very susceptible to going up in smoke--I mean, it's going to burn; it's not if, it's just when. It's has a dramatic impact on salmon.
In fact, on the bottom of your first page, you said, ''Since then, more catastrophic wildfires have occurred in the Columbian Basin, and more catastrophic salmon stream impacts have unfortunately occurred. For example, the 19,000-acre thunderbolt fire in the South Fork Salmon River and its chinook salmon impact, probable extinction of that endangered salmon stock.''
That just seems totally counter to what was my understanding, that some of that area was totally off-limits was to protect things. And that astounds me. And you said that there have been some who have talked about preserving the status quo. It was quickly pointed out, you don't preserve the status quo.
You may not and in some areas you don't do anything in a forest, because it's off-limits, but nature takes care of it. Nature is going to burn it off. Nature is going to totally start it all over. Actually, you don't preserve the status quo. All you do is you maybe prevent people from going on it, but it's going to change, and it changes better with proper management.
Page 102 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
That's what I just found very interesting in your comments, because, again, from what I've heard from some people, you would think that that area that was off-limits was just there and was doing this wonderful preserving of the environmental areas. I don't think that's exactly what you're saying.
Mr. KACZYNSKI. Your observations are pretty good. There are a lot of areas that are in a condition that is of very poor health. And especially when we get east of the Cascade Mountains, they are very prone, in the dry summer conditions the last 20 years, drought conditions that we had--the last couple of years finally broke that--they can go up pretty fast, with the insects, disease, infestations, et cetera.
So we're spending hundreds of millions of dollars trying to save these endangered salmon stocks, and one of the highest risk situations we have is catastrophic wildfire.
No-entry situations, preserves, ecological preserves, which were set up under the hypothesis that they could stay like that forever--''environmental homeostasis'' are the words the ecologists use--well, that's been proven not to be correct. Those people forgot about disturbances. They forgot about wind damage; they forgot about fire damage. And with these high fuel buildups and abnormal densities, et cetera, they can literally go up like a torch, burn super hot, et cetera, and destroy the very thing we're trying to protect.
Now, there are some other areas that are in pretty good shape. In those areas, they have the type of forest that is resilient. And I think that's the key word that an ecologist would use, the forests need to be resilient to these disturbances. If they are not in a condition to be resilient, they can be managed to bring them into a condition to be more resilient and to give us those values, multiple values, as described in the report, that all of us want to have.
So it's a combination of what values do you want and doing your best to mimic nature and get the situation back into a more healthy, more resilient situation of a robust, healthy forest.
Page 103 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
Mr. COMBEST. My time has expired due to my lengthy disclaimer, but I would like to come back and revisit this.
Thank you.
The CHAIRMAN. Ms. Stabenow.
Ms. STABENOW. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I first would like to invite everyone to Michigan. Northern Michigan and the Upper Peninsula have wonderful forests, and we would welcome members of the committee to come up and share the beauty of northern Michigan.
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you.
Ms. STABENOW. A question regarding followup.
Dr. Kaczynski, you've talked about option one, in terms of the best approach, from your perspective, that is most beneficial to salmon, and that's emphasizing timber production. Are there other options that you think also make sense?
Mr. KACZYNSKI. Yes. I arrived at option 1 kind of reluctantly, because it emphasized efficient timber production, and those were kind of negative words in the back of my mind. But when I went through the whole thing, I found, indeed, we did get the fisheries habitat protection and those other things that we wanted to get, so we could end up with effective management of those watersheds for fish, and reduce the catastrophic wildfire danger, and reduce the carbon dioxide threat that we have.
Options 2 and 6, in an integrated management, came through where you could put more emphasis on reducing catastrophic wildfire, and you could put more emphasis, within integrated management, on reducing atmospheric carbon dioxide. So, through integrated management, you could achieve some of those same things.
Ms. STABENOW. Could you respond on options 5, 7, and 8, why you don't think those make sense?
Page 104 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
Mr. KACZYNSKI. Five, 7, and 8 were primarily options that were driven by the idea of reserves, having a lot of reserved land. And the problems that we have, especially in our Pacific Northwest area, with reserve lands being in bad--a lot of it is in bad shape, and it's vulnerable to catastrophic wildfire.
And then, when you come into the consideration of the atmospheric carbon dioxide, those options just don't make it. That's why, in my analysis, I ended up rejecting those options.
Ms. STABENOW. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you.
Mr. Pombo.
Mr. POMBO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Hanus, we've heard in testimony before that reducing the damage done to forests by fire and insects and disease would do little to improve the forest health, that it would do little to make a big difference in that. In your experience, would you agree with that position?
Ms. HANUS. Mr. Pombo, no, I would not agree with that. The kind of catastrophic fires that we've been seeing in recent years have been very high-intensity, very hot-burning fires. What we saw many years ago, which was very beneficial for forest health, were the low-intensity, along the ground type fires.
Those were good because they cleared out the brush, and they helped to take care of fuel buildup. Now when fuels have built up over many years, for a variety of reasons, when you have a fire hit, it is of a catastrophic nature.
So, in order to deal with that, you do need to look at trying to use the kind of management techniques that mimic nature, such as using prescribed burning, so that you can have those lower-intensity fires, look at other types of management like planting the right species in the right place, using thinning where appropriate.
Because if we continue down the path of the catastrophic fires, we can end up having fires of such hot intensity that literally sterilize the ground as well as silt up our streams. And I have seen areas where it has burned and silted up streams and been very detrimental to fish and wildlife.
Page 105 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
Thank you.
Mr. POMBO. Thank you very much.
Doctor, I found your testimony quite interesting. At the same time, your hypothesis--or it's not necessarily your hypothesis--but the hypothesis on global warming or the warming trend and the impact on the salmon stocks in the Pacific Northwest, quite frankly, throughout the entire West, would lead to extinction of the species by the year 2020, 23 years away.
That is quite a statement that, in a 23-year time span, we would have complete extinction of those species. How would the management of the forests help change that from occurring, if that hypothesis were correct?
Mr. KACZYNSKI. That is quite a hypothesis, isn't it?
Mr. POMBO. Yes.
Mr. KACZYNSKI. I agree with you. In fact, when I first heard it, about 10 months ago, at the Sustainable Fisheries Foundation in Victoria, British Columbia, at the conference there, all of us in the audience were flabbergasted that very respected scientists would make that prediction.
The prediction is, if the current rate of increase in the temperature continues, by the year 2020, all of those stocks will be extinct. Now, we need to get a real expert in atmospheric carbon dioxide and how the specific forest itself could help with that situation, and the Oliver report has people that know a heck of a lot about that, more than me.
All I can say is, from the temperature in ocean perspective, that hypothesis cannot be discounted, and the evidence is coming in more and more that it may be real. We cannot discount it, and I think we had better start thinking about it very seriously.
Mr. POMBO. We have had other fisheries experts that have testified in past years that the best thing for the fishery stocks, for the salmon, in that particular area that you come from, would be a hands-off approach to the forests, to leave the forests alone and allow them to be natural, so to speak, but you seem to disagree with that.
Page 106 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
Mr. KACZYNSKI. I respect their position. There are a lot of areas that are in good shape, and for the next 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 100 years we probably could do and should do a hands-off management. There are many other areas that are in very poor conditions.
We have many areas, as an example, the western coastal situations, where we have these large tracts, in the riparian areas, of alder trees and salmonberry brush. Those types of situations are not providing us with the ecological stream functions that we want. And we're not going to get back into conifer forests in those areas without active management. And it's hard active management. It is difficult to reestablish conifer in these situations. You have to work very hard to do it.
On our east side, we have an entirely different situation with these excessive fuel loadings and densities, et cetera, where you need to manage those areas to reduce your fuel-loading condition. If you don't, you are in for an absolute catastrophe on the east side.
Mr. POMBO. You are obviously familiar with these different forests. Are you familiar with the land ownership pattern or the land designation pattern of the different forests? You say that some are OK and they probably could be left alone for decades without an active management plan, whereas some are not. What is the difference between ownership pattern or land designation pattern between those?
Mr. KACZYNSKI. Many areas, nonindustrial forest land, in particular, has probably been harvested a lot. Industrial ownership has been harvested a fair amount.
We just started having an example in all three coastal States, Oregon, Washington, and California, our Forest Practice Act started in the 1970's. Prior to that we had no regulations for forestry. You harvested right down to the stream. You drove a bulldozer up and down the stream to drag your timber out, and the rest of those practices. And we are left with the legacies of those sorts of things.
You will get into many areas of the national forests where the same thing was done. And then, lo and behold, in the late 1970's and early 1980's, we, as fisheries biologists, went through and literally ordered the removal of all the large wooded debris and pulled all the debris out of the streams, and simplified them. So we're living with that legacy of our own actions, what we did in the past.
Page 107 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
So if you say nature is going to heal it, nature might heal it, but it might take 200, 300, or 400 years to happen, and the results are going to be pretty random in the meantime.
Mr. POMBO. Thank you.
The CHAIRMAN. Further questions of these two witnesses?
Mr. Johnson.
Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Just, I guess, an overall question. First, Ms. Hanus, and then maybe the doctor might respond to this, but especially Ms. Hanus.
You've talked about the risk management of forests and the need for flexibility and determination. What are, as you believe, the strongest current roadblocks to the local, flexible management you need to good forest management, and any suggested ways of getting around those roadblocks?
Ms. HANUS. I think there are several roadblocks. In terms of the Federal lands, some of the most immediate roadblocks are, trying to streamline and improve some of the administrative processes so that you can try to get the management occurring on the ground as quickly as possible, also in trying to build partnerships, it is very important, with not just the Federal agencies but the State agencies and the private.
For example, if we want to look at monitoring, we need to make sure that monitoring is done consistently across ownerships and that it be done in a cooperative way, and that there be incentives to be able to do that. So we need to be able to provide those kinds of incentives to get it done.
It would be helpful for the Federal agencies to have more flexibility in how they might be able to spend some of their different funds, so that they can use them for more of the management activities, to improve forest health; they can have a little bit of ability to move that from different accounts. For example, I think that it was a move forward in the President's budget with the wildfire account to allow some more flexibility to use for forest health purposes.
Page 108 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
So those are a few of the areas I think that could be helpful to try to get this moving.
Mr. JOHNSON. Obviously, the one-size-fits-all approach doesn't work. You were talking about your forests out West, but Chiwavagan National Forest, Nicolet National Forest, in my State, keenly important, and what may apply out there may not apply, and I take it that's the kind of flexibility you're talking about.
Ms. HANUS. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Johnson, that's exactly correct. Because even in Oregon, if you compare the forests on the west side with the forests on the east side, there are two different types of ecology. The Nicolet Forest that you are talking about is a very beautiful forest--I've been there--and it has a different type of an ecosystem, different types of tree species, and different types of factors.
For example, the disease factors that we're facing in western Oregon have to do with root rot and possibilities of exotic insects coming in and attacking the trees, where on the east side it has been a combination of drought, suppression of fire, management activities, and insects and disease that have affected the forest.
So you need to be able to tailor those types of activities for what--just like a doctor is giving a prescription, they need to look at the patient and what is needed. So it's hard to take that kind of one-size-fits-all approach.
Thank you.
Mr. JOHNSON. Dr. Kaczynski, any comments from your perspective, in terms of local forest management. Obviously, you're painting an ominous picture, in terms of if we don't do anything there.
Mr. KACZYNSKI. Right. One size does not fit all, sir, but at the same time, I'm a strong advocate for having healthy forests, healthy riparian forests, to get those ecological relationships that we want, that interaction between the forest and the stream, and getting a good, healthy situation. That implies doing it carefully and with care and with thought.
Page 109 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you for the questions.
Mr. Combest.
Mr. COMBEST. I think that, Ms. Hanus, in responding to Mr. Pombo, had triggered something in my mind. This area that I had visited, they had done a managed burn. I think they call it a ''cool burn,'' in which they had burned off a lot of the lower growth that was sort of in the way, but it didn't kill the trees.
The trees that were growing, of course, were still growing, and were going to be fine. They had irrigation pipes set up in there, I suppose to control the fire. This was sometime after they had done the managed fire.
But the benefits of that, in terms of on salmon or on the other ecology, I presume that it is beneficial. If they can control that and then not ever allow that to be just a raging fire, the ''hot burn,'' as I think it was referred to, that's where the damage comes, is when you have that just total destruction through the ''hot burn.''
I found it interesting--it surely doesn't have anything to do with this hearing, I guess--but I asked them the cost of that, and it cost them something in the neighborhood of from $32 to $38 an acre to do those managed burns, with the time that has to be spent to control them, and all that sort of thing.
I thought that was a fairly significant investment that somebody is making in that forest area where they are managing it, of which there were no immediate, certainly, benefits coming back to them. I thought that was pretty high for a burn in an area that is that large.
What that does, I suppose, is it keeps that lower growth off so that you don't have, then, the fear of just the total destruction of that forest, when it's done that way, and it does not have a negative impact.
Ms. HANUS. Right. You prevent having that catastrophic burn. So when looking over eons where that whole ecology has evolved with fire, that fire was actually kind of a very beneficial cleansing agent to be able to allow the proper mix of species to take place there. It has been very important to try to continue these low intensity fires through prescribed burning as a way to mimic that part of nature.
Page 110 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
While you cited the cost may seem high, if you put it in context of the hundreds of millions of dollars that we've spent over the last year for catastrophic firefighting, plus the economic value of those trees that we can use for our economy, I think it's a very good investment.
Mr. COMBEST. If you can use them.
Ms. HANUS. Correct. If you can use them. Although I think that, when we're talking about active management, we're talking about a variety of things, but we're also talking about looking at being able to use those forests so that they can provide timber for the economy. I think that it's a very good investment for the taxpayer and one that is very cost-effective.
Mr. COMBEST. Thank you very much.
The CHAIRMAN. Regarding that point, I just want to make sure that we understand that there are places in the West where controlled burns are impossible; i.e., those areas that have--many of them, Wallowa-Whitman and other east side forests where they have 25 tons of dead material on the ground--one-third of the standing forest standing dead and, of course, a huge accumulation of smaller trees. You can't use controlled fire there; that means that you will have a catastrophic fire.
So we have to have other applications on those kinds of areas, and I want to make sure we understand that difference.
Mr. KACZYNSKI. In agreement, sir.
Ms. HANUS. Very much in agreement.
The CHAIRMAN. Yes. Thank you.
Further questions?
[No response.]
The CHAIRMAN. If not, thank you very much for coming. We appreciate your being here.
The second panel will be composed of Mr. Tom Goodall, Eastern Oregon Timberlands Manager for Boise Cascade in LaGrande, OR; Mr. Brookes Lawton is a forest landowner in Allendale, SC; Mr. William Guthrie is a forester for T&S Hardwoods in Gainesville, GA; and Mr. Bob Watrous is president of the Association of Western Pulp and Paper Workers, Local No. 5, in Camas, WA.
Page 111 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
Well, we've gone coast-to-coast with this panel.
Mr. Goodall, when you are prepared.
We are delighted to have all of you here, and thank you for coming.
STATEMENT OF THOMAS K. GOODALL, EASTERN OREGON TIMBERLANDS MANAGER, BOISE CASCADE CORPORATION, LA GRANDE, OR
Mr. GOODALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. I want to thank you for the opportunity to present testimony regarding the severe forest health crisis that exists in our national forests today.
I am Thomas Goodall, assistant region timberlands manager for Boise Cascade's northeast Oregon region. Although Boise Cascade provides stewardship for more than 1.3 million acres of company-owned forest land in the Pacific Northwest, the company relies on and purchases raw materials from Federal forest lands to supply about 60 percent of the total required to keep our mills running, our people employed, and the demand for our product satisfied.
A successful forest health implementation plan for Federal lands in the Pacific Northwest is important to us, including the 17,000 workers we employ and the people who purchase our products. Before I begin my testimony, I would like to make an overall point about why the subject of this hearing is so important.
First and foremost, it is well documented that a serious forest health problem exists on Federal forests. While private lands do suffer some of the same forest health problems, the problems are most severe on Federal lands. There have been numerous and significant scientific efforts which document the current situation on Federal lands and which provide recommendations to move forward with the implementation of aggressive, active management to restore health to our Federal forests.
We believe the report titled, ''Summary Report on Forest Health for the United States,'' by the Forest Health Science Panel, confirms and complements these numerous scientific findings which support the need to implement an aggressive, active management approach to resolve the forest health crisis.
Page 112 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
However, complex Federal regulations have made it nearly impossible for our local Federal forest managers to do their jobs. Whatever good intentions might have been behind some of these regulations, they do not work now. They often contradict each other, and they invite legal challenge. These regulations have caused gridlock. Litigation, administrative appeals, and institutional fear have resulted in bureaucratic paralysis. This inaction is unsafe for our Federal forests.
In my area, virtually all efforts to manage the Federal forests have been obstructed, yet roughly half the 6 million acres in the four national forests in the Blue Mountains surrounding our Northeast Oregon operations are infested with insects and dangerously overcrowded, resulting in major catastrophic fires each year.
Previous hearings have already discussed the forest health problem. Suffice it to say that gridlock has allowed the perpetuation of a forest health time bomb, an invitation for catastrophic wildfires that will damage these ecosystems to the point where it will take centuries for them to return to health.
If there is one underlying message that I would like to convey today, it is that Congress needs to rework the appeals process for forest management, the process of consultation among multiple Federal agencies, as well as the NFMA, FLPMA, NEPA, Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act, Organic Act, and the Endangered Species Act.
Each of these components should be working together to protect the environment while allowing the public lands that we all jointly own to provide the needs of our nation. We are encouraged that the committee is on the right track and holds the political will to make progress, and are optimistic about working towards legislative solutions to improve forest health on Federal lands.
So what are the actions required to accomplish forest health objectives? Generally, congressional action is needed to:
Page 113 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
One, provide a clear vision of healthy forest ecosystems and the purpose of Federal lands; second, ensure that active, aggressive action is taken by Federal land management agencies; third, provide sufficient authority to Federal land managers so that regulatory planning and decision processes are streamlined; fourth, promulgate statutes and legislation affecting Federal forest land management.
Five, foster meaningful and responsive public involvement, especially at local levels. Six, encourage participation of the private sector in restoration activities through economically viable programs; seven, articulate predictable and adequate funding levels and expected agency accomplishments. Last but not least, No. 8, revise the appeals process for individual Federal land management actions.
In conclusion, Congress needs to mandate an aggressive implementation of forest health treatments before ecosystem and commodity values are lost or before silviculture options are reduced further. Basically, time is of the essence, Mr. Chairman. An integrated approach, such as outlined in the Oliver report, can provide a variety of values while minimizing the trade-offs.
Again, we are encouraged that the committee is on the right track and holds the political will to make progress. We are optimistic that the committee will work towards legislative solutions that improve forest health on Federal lands.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Goodall appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Goodall.
Mr. Lawton.
Mr. Lawton is a forest landowner in Allendale, SC.
Welcome.
STATEMENT OF I. BROOKES LAWTON, JR., CERTIFIED AMERICAN TREE FARMER
Page 114 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
Mr. LAWTON. Thank you, sir. Thank you for inviting me, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee.
Before I launch into my prepared statement, and after hearing the discourse here so far, I would like to observe that roughly half of the country is east of the Mississippi and that the Southeast of the United States is known as the ''wood basket'' of the Nation.
As you have said, my name is Brookes Lawton. I'm from Allendale, SC, down on the Savannah River. I come here hopefully representing some 70,000 members of the American Tree Farm System and some 9.5 million other landowners who own roughly 50 to 68 percent of the Nation's forest land. In my State, the ownership is 68 percent.
My wife and I own and operate and manage about 625 acres of southern yellow pine land. We have done this since 1963. The property was certified as a certified tree farm in 1975. It was South Carolina Tree Farm Winner of the Year in 1985 and 1992. It was the first stewardship program in the State. That was because I swiped an application early off of a State forester's desk.
Today I would speak to you about the politics and the policy of the country as it might address the health of our forests. I do this by some recounting of examples and experiences. In the management that I mentioned, which goes back to the days of John F. Kennedy, I've been involved in several Government programs, and they fall into three categories, I believe. Those programs that have incentives; those programs that have disincentives; and those programs that have incentives wrapped in disincentives.
The Conservation Reserve Program, was very successful over the last 10 years in putting millions of acres of erodible land into trees. They now have a reenrollment program going, in which I'm participating or attempting to participate, and I find that this program now is attempting to practice silviculture.
Page 115 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
For instance, it is going to require that I must thin my trees within 3 years, regardless. It is going to require that I must destroy 15 percent of the 10-year-old trees in order to provide food patches for the wildlife. In my case, that doesn't apply, because I'm already supplying the food patches. And also, I must burn whether it's necessary or not, if my understanding is correct. Again, it doesn't apply, because I do all my own burning. But if you take it across the whole landowner spectrum, these can easily convert into mandates that do not really result in sound forestry.
Another area that I would suggest could be looked at is the area of wetlands, and specifically, the delineation there. And what it boils down to is, when you invite a wetlands delineator onto your property, the delineation you get is going to be based upon who comes.
In my particular experience, I've restored 250 acres of wetlands that were degraded and converted into a pasture. It is now back in water and full of alligators and otters, and even has an endangered species in it, the wood stork or the black ibis. But in that, it took me 3 1/2 years of dealing with bureaucracies and agencies and uncertainties, et cetera, et cetera. It's a hard, difficult thing in a business world to handle all of those unexpected items.
Another area to look at in the way of Government policy that might be improved is the regulations that discourage; for example, take the Endangered Species Act, its inflexibility. I think that the Endangered Species Act and, at least in my experience, essentially denigrates or destroys a desire to create or maintain a habitat for the wildlife, particularly endangered species. In my case, the red-cockaded woodpecker. If I let my trees get big enough, then here comes the red-cockaded woodpecker, and when he comes, with him comes the regulators. So my solution to it is: ''I'll never let my trees get big enough to be a hospitable habitat.''
There's a program known as a ''safe refuge,'' where I'll provide the trees and let the little fellow come, and I'd love to have him. And when I get ready to cut the trees, then let's trap these birds and send them where there is a more hospitable habitat, or allow me to shift him from one plantation to the next.
Page 116 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
I guess what I'm really suggesting is best exemplified by a story about Willie Sutton, the infamous bank robber, who was asked why he robbed banks, and he said, ''Cause that's where the money is.'' I would suggest that this committee go where the trees are; namely, to the private, nonindustrial landowner. If you can motivate those folks, myself included, then you'll be a long ways down the road to winning this battle.
Some of the things you could do: Do something about the death tax. It fragments land, and small acreages do not produce forests. Recognize forestry as a long-term investment with a lot of risk in it, and do something about long-term capital gain.
Third, continue incentive programs, which are very good, like FIP and SIP. Maybe put a little more practicality and good sense into them. Continue what the Federal Government is doing a superb job of, which is in extension, education, critical research, and doing it on what I regard as a minuscule budget, with enormous positive results.
Finally, look after my property rights. Give me a level playing field with the Government implementor, the bureaucrat who has no answer when it comes to the economics of the situation; he just imposes his regulations on me regardless. Give me a balanced, level playing field where I don't get incentives which really are not incentives; just disguised mandates.
The Government can give me three things, really. Give me good science; give me good information; and give me sensible incentives. If you do that with the small nonindustrial landowners, I think you'd be a long ways down the road to getting where you want to go.
Thank you, sir.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lawton is on file with the committee.]
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Lawton, for sage advice.
Mr. Guthrie is with us. He's a forester with T&S Hardwoods in Gainesville, GA.
Welcome, Mr. Guthrie.
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM K. GUTHRIE, FORESTER, T&S HARDWOODS
Page 117 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
Mr. GUTHRIE. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee.
As you stated, my name is Bill Guthrie. I'm a forester with T&S Hardwoods. I operate the Alto Log Yard in Alto, GA. I appreciate this opportunity to testify today regarding the Report on Forest Health.
I believe this report will be helpful. As stated in part 4 of the report, ''Policy needs to be agreed upon by policymakers; it is not the role of scientists to impose policy. However, scientists can help with such a vision by both suggesting alternatives and by showing the consequences of each alternative.''
I think the issue of forest health is extremely important to us all, including the general public. In the Chattahoochee National Forest Roundtable, one of the principles that surfaced, in a variety of forms, was responsible stewardship of forest health. Nowhere did the Roundtable, which represented a cross-section of the public in Georgia, indicate there should be no management. In fact, it was just the opposite. The public wants management, wants a healthy, sustainable timber program.
The Forest Health Report takes a unique approach by deliberately not defining forest health, but rather, it recognizes that one definition of forest health is not more scientific than another. They all describe the condition of a forest relative to the various values. I believe this is a beneficial approach.
Table 1.1 in the report goes into further detail of each of these values and specifically how each value can be provided for. It is important to look at this extended list, because it becomes clear that forest health is more than just specific mortality factors.
Other identified value considerations include: providing habitats for wildlife, maintaining site quality, providing timber products, providing recreational opportunities, providing for rural lifestyles, et cetera. While the public supports healthy forests, we are finding from assessments such as the Southern Appalachian Assessment and from the Report on Forest Health of the United States that health forests are not being provided for.
Page 118 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
According to the SAA, there are a number of forest health threats in the Southern Appalachians today. These are: a large percentage of older stand classes, a condition which exacerbates the severity of insect and disease outbreaks; gypsy moths in northern Virginia migrating south; oak decline throughout the region; and the southern pine beetle in the southern quarter of the region.
General conditions of the forests, as identified by the Report on Forest Health, include many species which have survived in forests for millions of years that are now threatened with extinction, even though they survived eras of intensive forest clearing for agriculture and later regrowth to forests. These species are in danger because many regions do not have enough open savanna and complex habitat types. Very few proactive steps are being taken to avoid exotic and native pest epidemic outbreaks.
In the South, an impending problem is the loss or reduction of some valuable species, primarily because of fire control and curtailment of clear-cutting on national forests. An important current condition in the South, which will impact Congress' decisions, is the drastic change in land ownership. Fragmentation of large private tracts into small tracts may make management less economical. Urbanization of many timberland areas may also impact management. These types of ownership changes only add to the need for management on our public lands.
Of the opinions put forth by the Report on Forest Health, integrated management provides the most positive and fewest negative trade-offs. Right now, management on our national forests is not occurring. On the forests which I am closest to, I've seen the timber sale program basically shut down on the Chattahoochee National Forest due to litigation.
While we wait for the judge at the district court level to make a final ruling, it is clear the Sierra Club is continuing to push forward their policy of eliminating logging on national forests. They have already begun an extensive radio ad campaign in my hometown of Gainesville, Georgia, espousing such rhetoric.
Page 119 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
These types of emotional pleas and ongoing litigation only make it impossible for the professional foresters on the ground to do their job. Taxpayer dollars are used to hire highly educated resource professionals, and it is a crime they are not able to do the job they were hired for.
If Congress does not intervene and clarify the mission of the Forest Service, and strengthen the means to achieve its mission, then we will see public lands providing less and less values to the American people. I do not believe this is a situation that our nation can accept or afford.
Thank you again.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Guthrie appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much.
Now we are joined by Mr. Bob Watrous, who is the president of the Association of Western Pulp and Paper Workers, for Local No. 5, in Camas, WA.
Welcome, neighbor.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT K. WATROUS, PRESIDENT, ASSOCIATION OF WESTERN PULP AND PAPER WORKERS, LOCAL 5, CAMAS, WA
Mr. WATROUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee.
Camas is right across from Portland. We are heavily influenced by their media markets, so I feel like I'm a part Oregonian.
I appear today on behalf of roughly 350,000 members of the Washington State AFL-CIO, where I currently serve as a vice president. And I appear today on behalf of the 1,460 members of the Association of Western Pulp and Paper Workers, Local 5, in Camas, WA, where I currently serve as the president.
We support the process outlined in the Report on Forest Health prepared by the Forest Health Science Panel. It is essential that we evaluate forest management options based on the values we assign to our national forests. We believe there are two essential values that must be considered as Congress moves to develop comprehensive forest health legislation.
Page 120 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
First, Congress must protect the health of our national forests by providing the resources and removing impediments to allow foresters to undertake productive forest management activities. Second, I urge you to ensure that whatever course you take includes provisions to protect timber-dependent workers and communities.
Our interest in forest health is twofold. First, a real and dynamic threat of catastrophic wildfires exists on millions of acres of forest lands throughout the Pacific Coast Region, as evidenced by devastating wildfires of recent years. Wildfires endanger animal life, forest ecosystems, and surrounding communities where our members and their families live.
In my home State of Washington, more than 79,000 acres of forest burned in 1994. While the total acreage burned declined in 1995 and 1996, current conditions in the State could lead to another disastrous fire season in the near future, with bigger, more intense fires and a concurrent increase in resource damage.
Second, we union-dependent workers depend on a reliable timber supply for our livelihoods. Our members have a keen interest in responsible forest management. The forest provides jobs, recreation, and aesthetic enjoyment for all of us. We want to do everything possible to keep our forests healthy and productive.
The U.S. Forest Service and other Federal agency policies over 80 years have largely worked to completely suppress all wildfires. This has resulted in major accumulations of brush, dead and dying trees, increased density of trees in the forest, and a shift to less fire- and insect-resistant species.
Because of the change in forest stand structure, combined with drought or near-drought conditions, firefighters, forest managers, and the public have seen larger fires which are more difficult to control. The extreme intensity of these fires will easily incinerate and permanently damage the productive capacity of soils and ecosystems, making replanting extremely difficult, if not impossible.
Page 121 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
Our position is supported by a group of 35 scientists and land managers who convened in Sun Valley, ID, in 1993, to address forest health issues. While the focus of the event was the forests of the inland West, their conclusions regarding the importance of utilizing forest management tools to protect forest health apply to our region, as well.
The participants determined:
The scientific tools to understand forest health problems and mitigate them do exist today but are not being applied on Federal forests rapidly enough to meet the urgency of the situation. The current legal and procedural requirements faced by Federal land management agencies impose time delays that, when combined with public opposition to timber harvesting, prevent timely management, doom major forest areas to needless loss and damage, and impose large and perhaps preventable costs to both local and national economies.
We now know that severe restraints on forest managers conflict with the goal of maintaining healthy forests. With disease and wildfire a natural part of the forest ecosystem, the only way we can control and improve forest health is to conduct comprehensive, ecosystem-sensitive forest management practices such as salvage logging.
Despite the recent controversy, salvage logging remains a viable and essential tool to protect forest health. Tree salvaging operations enable foresters to remove trees that have been destroyed by disease and insects before they infect other parts of the forest and stand as kindling to wildfire. If removed in time, the damaged and dead timber can be milled, providing much-needed relief for timber-dependent workers impacted by the severe reductions in timber harvesting on Federal lands in our region.
Indeed, as Congress moves to develop comprehensive forest health legislation, the economic viability of timber-dependent workers, communities, and families must be considered along with the environmental health of our forests and wildlife. Our union has long believed that we can and must balance environmental concerns with economic realities.
Page 122 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
In closing, I urge you to move quickly to develop a balanced response to the forest health emergency that, one, is based on strong science; two provides sufficient funding to undertake the necessary management activities, including increased support for training for firefighters and staffing for the relevant agencies; three, provides accountability by setting realistic and measurable goals; and four, is sensitive to local concerns, specifically the economic needs of timber-dependent workers and communities.
We in the House of Labor stand ready to work with you to meet these objectives.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Watrous appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, and thank all of you very much for your incisive testimony.
Mr. Goodall, the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project has taken 4 years to complete, at a cost of some $35 million. Now we're told that it's going to cost another $125 million to implement it. Do you have any thoughts about how we could more cost-effectively use the study that has been completed, while maybe diverting some of the additional funds to on-the-ground type repair?
Mr. GOODALL. Absolutely. The project, as you've pointed out, has taken 3 1/2 times longer than what they had anticipated, at a much higher cost. Nonetheless, it has afforded time, I think, for the scientists to do some good work, and there has been a lot of good work completed.
As you well know, Mr. Chairman, the project has concluded that an active, aggressive restoration strategy is necessary, implementing active management. Our concerns with that project right now, though, as we look at policy documents that come out the back end, they grind all the way through the standards that actually constrain, shall we say, the active management approaches, out the back end.
We think that very little restoration will actually take place from there, from a policy standpoint. And I think that's due to a number of factors. One is the political aspects, these negotiations, shall we say, with the regulatory agencies, and basically the land management agencies.
Page 123 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
Nonetheless, though, I think, utilizing some of that scientific work that has been developed that supports an active management approach, I think that the next step needs to be forest plan amendments and revisions which meet the intent of that project, which was to take an ecosystem-based approach.
I think we're at a point now, Mr. Chairman, where we should move down to the local level and work with those local national forests so that we assure that forest plan amendments and forest plan revisions truly reflect site-specific local conditions.
So, to your point, I think that the money that the project is proposing, $125 million to go on to a final EIS decision, I think could be best utilized to now move down to the local level and to make changes to those forest plans as necessary to meet site-specific local conditions and to move ahead with implementation.
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Lawton, you have excellent advice for your Government, coming from one who has had experience. We appreciate that very much.
The idea of reforming inheritance taxes and attention to wetlands issues in the bureaucracy,that seems to fuel itself rather than assist people who are trying to produce things in this country,is good advice, as well as your thoughts about endangered species, which, by the way, option No. 1 of the scientific report indicates that,if you don't manage the resource, you will lose the endangered species.
You mentioned the red-cockaded woodpecker, and I think that thought should be expressed here that, if we're going to truly protect endangered species, the public has to be brought along to do that. If the public isn't brought along, these species are not going to be protected, be it the red-cockaded woodpecker or the spotted owl where we come from.
But I wanted to ask you, it has been recommended to us that there be regional kinds of scientific people that could be relied upon for consultation within a region, and that, obviously, forests are different, be they private, public, East, and West. My question to you is, would a regional group of scientists knowledgeable of your area, particularly, be of value to you as a private forester, should you have management decisions to make?
Page 124 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
Mr. LAWTON. I think absolutely, sir. And my answer is supported, I think, by the testimony here today, 90 percent of which has no application to my part of the country whatsoever. Tremendously interesting, but they ain't got red-cockaded woodpeckers in Oregon either. So, yes, the regional could address the regional problems. I agree totally.
The CHAIRMAN. OK. Good.
Mr. Guthrie, we're told that only about 5 percent of the wood products are coming now from the national forests in the United States. What impact does that have on private land management?
Mr. GUTHRIE. Well, one thing, that statistic fails to recognize the scope of ownership of the public lands. Currently, nationwide, the Federal Government owns 50 percent of the standing conifers and significant portions of other species in specific regions.
For example, in the Southern Appalachian Region, the Federal Government owns 17 percent of the land area, but on that 17 percent of the land area, they own roughly 21 percent of the saw timber and 44 percent of the high-grade red oak saw timber, which is a highly valued commercial species.
So with that ownership basically being taken out of play, it puts tremendous pressure on the private lands. Right now, with the reduction of harvesting in the Pacific Northwest, the country is looking at the Southeastern States to provide its needs. And there are areas in Georgia where we are harvesting conifers on private lands at a rate higher than they are being grown. So it will have a significant impact on the resource in the future.
Another factor that I alluded to, in the Southeast, we've got a tremendous growth in the population in the Southeast. I heard one statistic a couple days ago where it's estimated that Georgia, by the year 2002, could become the third most highly populated State in the country, which will cause a reduction of the available forest land.
You've got an increase in white collar ownership in a lot of forested areas, where these lands would show up as productive inventory; however, for all intents and purposes, they are not available for harvesting. So we could see a significant reduction in the availability of timber on private lands, whereby the Forest Service could help to mitigate that by making the resources that they have available to the marketplace.
Page 125 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
The CHAIRMAN. I appreciate that. That concurs with what we've heard very recently, that public forest land managers are not making decisions just for public lands. The impact goes much beyond that. And when you make a decision in the Pacific Northwest, in region 6, which is public land, you impact Georgia and South Carolina, private wood producers.
So I think we've got to be more careful in the future, that if we're trying to take care of the spotted owl and shut down 85 percent of the forests in region 6, we might be imperiling the wood products industry in Georgia and South Carolina. I appreciate that thought.
Questions of this panel?
Mr. Pombo.
Mr. POMBO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Watrous, just a couple of questions for you. What are some of the challenges that you see in your area for management of the public forests?
Mr. WATROUS. Right now, I've been tracking the Gifford Pinchot National Forest. We were harvesting, when the T spurs were first directed by Congress to be put out, at a rate of about 400 million board feet. The last T spurs that were released, 1995, we were down to 59.
The problems that we have with public opposition to harvesting timber is a real problem in our area. My mill sits 42 miles from the Gifford Pinchot National Forest, yet we get no fiber from there at all; none whatsoever. So public opposition, the problems that we're having with the Forest Service right now, scoping sales, then having to replan sales and replan again, because the litigation has become a real problem.
We need some type of sufficiency within our forest health legislation that will provide for that sufficiency, give the managers the tools that they need to carry out their work, and then go forward with the plan.
Mr. POMBO. One of the issues that we've dealt with in the past couple of years has been--and you indicated in your testimony that a number of people have lost jobs in your area--and one of the issues we've dealt with is that timber-dependent workers can be retrained for employment in ecosystem management activities, watershed restoration, fish habitat improvement, et cetera.
Page 126 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
I saw from your bio that you are the vice president of a major union in Washington. Do you think that that is a viable alternative for your membership?
Mr. WATROUS. Well, the State AFL-CIO took an active part in working in what we call ''Jobs in the Environment'' in the State of Washington. The problem we have with that is that that is very seasonal work. When winter time comes around, the ground gets soft, you cannot do that type of work. And these jobs are also traditionally very low paid.
So while we think that that's an essential part of every silvicultural practice that goes on, because it's a way to mitigate the footprint that we're leaving on the land once we're done, it's not an end-all.
You also have to remember, Mr. Pombo, that the communities that we're talking about are small, rural, isolated areas. It's not like we can diversify an economy of Portland, Seattle, or Spokane. We're talking about remote areas where that's the only industry in town, and you have to go miles and miles and miles to find anything else.
Mr. POMBO. So you don't have an IBM you can work for?
Mr. WATROUS. No, sir, not at all.
Mr. POMBO. Mr. Lawton, you say in your testimony that some Federal laws may run contrary, in their implementation, to what the stated goals are. For example, you used the Endangered Species Act. You mentioned the section 404 wetlands issues.
Would you mind expanding on that somewhat, about what the impact has been on your efforts to restore wetlands on your property or to create habitat on your property?
Mr. LAWTON. In the case of the restoration of the wetlands on my property, the negatives in the process or the frustrations or the obstructions that were encountered were primarily having to deal with some six or seven different Government agencies, led by the Corps of Engineers and including the Water Quality Act people, the Endangered Species Act people, the local State DHEC, and Federal Fish and Wildlife people, and local Natural Resource people. That gives you a tremendous impediment to getting anything done--dealing with that many different people.
Page 127 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
Second, there was a considerable absence of practicality. For instance, a tremendous dike went through this savannah or wetlands, and there was a discussion of how to handle that dike so we could level the water on all sides. The dike also served as an access road.
Well, the access road had to go because the dike had to be breached, because culverts in the breachings were not allowed because the culverts would not last long enough--and this was after the agencies had been offered 62-inch-diameter, 3-inch-wall reinforced concrete pipe culverts--these we were told would not last long enough.
So those policies of sticking strictly by the book and trying to take a denigrated wetlands and carry it back to its pristine state of 200 years ago, as opposed to some practicality were the main obstructions.
Mr. POMBO. Did you do that on your own? I mean, was that an effort that you undertook to restore that particular wetland, or was that something that you were told you had to do?
Mr. LAWTON. No, sir, this was entrepreneurial, totally. It's a wetland mitigation bank where the Corps of Engineers, when they are approached for a permit to do a wetlands fill, the person asking for the permit cannot get the permit unless he creates a wetlands equal to what he intends to destroy.
So instead of him going out into the creative process himself, which he is unfamiliar with and hasn't got the time, has no idea of cost, and he'd have to go through the 3 years that I went through, the Corps of Engineers gives me credit for what I have done. They have credited me with 167 acres of reconstituted wetlands. This developer who goes to them for the permit can now come to me, and he can purchase a credit from me, 1 acre or more, and take that to the Corps of Engineers, and they will recognize it just as though he had gone out and created it himself. So it's an entrepreneurial effort. It depends on how much that developer is willing to pay me for that credit.
Page 128 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
Mr. POMBO. Thank you.
Mr. Goodall, you work for a company that manages several hundred thousand acres in the United States. I'm certain that private lands are not exempt from the forest health problems. As a private land manager, how do you prioritize forest health treatments on Boise Cascade's land that might suggest an approach to treating the widespread forest health problems on Federal lands?
Mr. GOODALL. First and foremost, may I correct you, it's millions of acres, around 2 million acres.
We're very proud of our management of our company fee lands. Basically, we have had these lands for over 50 years. We manage them on a sustained yield basis. We have followed very much what is outlined, I think, in this report, as a structure-based approach. Utilizing a structure-based approach, basically, our stand densities are more within the historic range of variability.
Looking at Federal lands in our areas, many of these forest stands are exceeding 800 trees per acre, whereby our forests are somewhere around 100 trees per acre, depending on the site. I think our stands are in a much better condition. We have spacing. We have healthy, vigorous trees that we are growing.
And it's much different. When we see fires on our land, they burn as low ground fires, as opposed to what we see on national forest lands. With the kind of stand densities that are present in those stands, the dead and dying timber. Fuel loads, fuel ladders, all of these sorts of things make the fires burn in the crowns on Federal lands. On our lands, we see the fires really lay low and burn in a more healthy state.
So that is very much a part of our management regime is to keep our stands in a healthy, vigorous growing condition.
Mr. POMBO. You heard the testimony previously about the condition of the forests and the impact on salmon. From what you heard of that testimony, do you think that the way that you manage your lands, if all Federal lands were managed in that way, or a big portion of Federal lands were managed in that way, that it would accomplish some of the things that the doctor was talking about in the previous panel?
Page 129 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
Mr. GOODALL. Yes, I do. And what I recall is a tour that we took last fall. The Oregon Department of Forestry sponsored a tour. We went up the North Fork of the John Day River. And what we saw was one of the last remaining native salmon rivers.
As we traveled up that river, we had discussions about the quality habitat that existed on that river. But when we get to the headwaters of that drainage, we witnessed a tower fire, which was a stand-replacing, catastrophic fire. Basically, what we were looking at were, again, very crowded conditions of trees that had burned, a complete burn, a stand-replacing fire. Basically, we were looking at black hills, completely denuded.
As we walked down to the river, we had a lot of discussion about the sediment and the ash that was in the river. Bear in mind, this was in the fall. We had only received one, small, short rain, and yet there must have been at least a foot of sediment and ash in the river.
So, in terms of having healthy, resilient forests and what they can contribute to healthy salmon habitat, I think there are trade-offs. I think that through management, yes, we may get some net gain, or small net gains, in the short term, of sediment and these sorts of things, as opposed to these wild swings from completely pristine to overloaded with sediment and ash, I think is totally unacceptable.
The CHAIRMAN. Good questions.
Mr. Foley.
Mr. FOLEY. Thank you very much.
Mr. Watrous, I welcome you. Your AFL-CIO affiliates in Florida were very helpful in a tax initiative, preventing it from going forward on a ballot which protected jobs in my district.
So, clearly, I think the public needs to recognize, in some communities, agriculture is the only employment sector. We don't have the good fortune of having major industries, other than agriculture. It's nice to see a union and citizens working together to protect those valuable jobs.
Page 130 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
I had an interesting weekend. The Speaker came to Florida, to the Everglades, with me. We are obviously concerned about protecting the Everglades, but we had a unique conversation, and I wanted to share it with Mr. Pombo, because I used his name in vain there.
We had the various entities--Fish and Wildlife, Corps of Engineers, Department of Interior, and Water Management--acknowledging that, in order to protect species, you have to protect a wide range of species. You can't just be considering one type of species. What Government has done in the past is look to preserve the one species to the detriment of several.
They were acknowledging this on the airboat, and I asked the Speaker to pay careful attention to that, I said, because we clearly have enacted laws, by entities, that have actually caused possibly more damage to species because of our overregulating.
And to have these entities acknowledging it, I said, ''Mr. Speaker, listen, just clearly hear. What Mr. Pombo has been talking about is not upending endangered species laws; he's talking about managing it in a sense that we provide the greatest benefit for the entire number of species, including human beings, which should be considered endangered at times, particularly jobs.''
So we made some very, very good headway, I think, in trying to clear the debate about what is important for maintaining. And I said in our press conference, which was covered, ''Agriculture doesn't have to be the enemy of the environment. Jobs don't have to be the enemy of the environment. They can work simultaneously to provide good environmental safeguards.''
Mr. Goodall's comments are very, very important, because we have, in Jacksonville, FL, not from my district, but a private family owns over 11,000 acres, 11 miles on the intercoastal waterway that's in private management. Now, I can assure you that, if the Government had their hand in managing that, we'd have kudzu weed growing all over the place.
They have buffalo; they have deer; they have hog. They have a wonderful management system, protecting an ecological treasure there, because they have the resources to do it. I think, at times, we've got to hand it to private enterprise that they are managing more appropriately the resources on this earth than sometimes our Federal entities.
Page 131 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
The one thing that I want to stress here today, and I heard the Chairman ask the question, 4 years to complete at a cost of about $35 million, and now we're being told, an additional $125 million to complete the Columbia Basin Ecosystem.
Now, had we had those kinds of shortfalls or misappropriations, if you will, or failure to understand the full impact of the cost in the Defense Department, you'd hear about it on 60 Minutes and Dateline and what have you. But if it's environmental protection, we don't hear a word from anybody. Oh, no, just pump that money in, because it's about the environment. We all have to feel good; we're preserving our planet. But it's reckless spending.
The reason for the Everglades tour today is, we're wanting to find out how long is this project? What is the end? And the Speaker asked some important questions, because he suggested, ''Folks, I want to be friendly to the Earth, but I want a time frame, and I want to know what my out costs are going to be.'' I mean, only in Government do we manage the environment with these nebulous numbers thrown around, by saying, ''We think we can do it for 35.''
And oftentimes it's the Government that creates the problem in the beginning. In Florida, our ecosystem is challenged, because years ago the Corps of Engineers decided, for flood protection, that we're going to dig out the Kissimmee River, and we're going to have all this water flowing quickly so we can protect land and people from floods and hurricanes.
Now, 40 years later, bing, a light goes off: ''Oh, maybe we made a mistake.'' The Federal Government is going to spend $1 billion to put the dirt back in the Kissimmee River, to let it float all over the plains, and not once have I heard the Federal Government acknowledge, ''This is our fault. This was our idea.''
Just like the Everglades. We constructed the ditches, the dikes, the levees; gave agriculture a chance to farm there. And now, 40 years later, after that event, everybody is pointing a finger that says, ''It's agriculture. They are destroying Lake Okeechobee. They are ruining the clean water of our Earth.'' Never does the Federal Government stand up and say, ''You know, somehow we had a role to play in that.''
Page 132 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
So I guess my point is--and I'm glad to be part of this presentation today, because I think more people need to hear that we're not working against the environment. We're trying to get real solutions to today's problems.
And if you could briefly--and I know I took up all my own time--but if you could briefly comment on a way that we can be proactive, from the private sector and other standpoints, of getting a handle on where we're going to commit our precious tax resources in the name of environmental protection, and how we can control Government from just going over the edge, chasing every willy-nilly dream somebody comes up with that read about it in a textbook, that doesn't actually provide relief for anyone.
Mr. WATROUS. If I may, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. Please.
Mr. WATROUS. Mr. Foley, as labor folks do, you know, we meet during the day, and then we have a tendency to get together in a bar. And it's amazing how, as you're sitting around talking around a bar, you know, you can get some inspirations.
One of the things I like to do is to talk to folks. Until I thought about this analogy, you know, we kind of beat each other up, too. Years ago, when a doctor would work on a knee, he would split you from mid-thigh to mid-calf; right? And he'd go in, and he'd do what he'd have to do. You'd take weeks to recover, and then you'd be off and running again.
Today, I mean, they do the same thing in half the time. They put two little tiny incisions in your knee, and you recover in a week. You're out jogging the next week. And yet I don't hear anybody today calling those doctors that did that procedure then butchers.
Technology changes, and I think we need to be adult enough to say, yes, we learn from the things that we do, day in and day out. Private land managers learn from the things that they experiment with. We changed the way that we do silvicultural practices. We leave a smaller imprint on the earth. And that's what we need to do. We're adult enough, I think, to say, yes, we've made mistakes, but we've learned from those mistakes, and we need to continue forward from here on.
Page 133 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
Mr. LAWTON. If I might, sir, the market-driven approach is what I really described in this wetlands mitigation banking. The Corps of Engineers is not having to spend one red nickel, and they are getting 250 acres of restored wetlands.
I'm motivated by the profit motive, via private enterprise. So aren't there more areas in this overall area that we're speaking of that could use a market-driven approach like that? I happen to think that this particular one was just stumbled upon. I don't believe anybody really had it conceived when the Wetlands Act was drawn up, but certainly there are many, many other areas that could be opened this way.
You get out into the West where you have cattle ranching, and I read that they have the same, exact kind of approach with regard to cooperatives coming together for grass usage, while other grasslands are left to lay out, and so forth and so on. And apparently, there's a profit potential in this for the groups, and they do it themselves, without a nickel of Government money.
So ''market-driven,'' I think, has got a lot of potential in it.
Mr. GOODALL. I think, at this point, we have more than enough assessments. We have lots of science. You will find attached to my testimony examples of scientific findings supporting an active management approach. As I look in our area, certainly in the Pacific Northwest, we have a Forest Ecosystem Health Assessment that was completed in 1993. It was called for by Congressman Foley, at that time, and Senator Mark Hatfield. That was completed.
My point is, there's a long chronology of assessments, science, lots of information to support an active management approach. I feel like that's behind us. We have that work, so what we need to do now is, we need to instill political will and a vision in the land management agencies to take the actions.
Right at the moment, I have to tell you that that whole agency is totally risk-averse. The agency lacks a vision of what their real mission is and what it is they are to accomplish. They know what to do. They know what needs to be done. We stand out on the ground with them a lot, and we talk about what needs to be done. They talk about what they want to do, and then what we hear is, ''Well, this is what we can do,'' and it's something completely different.
Page 134 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
So, in terms of top-down management approaches, the pacfish's, the East Side Ecosystem Screens, the infish's, all of these sorts of things that your top-down management approach is, we need to empower managers to make local decisions. We need to support those local decisions with the science that has been developed. And we need to fund those projects so they move ahead.
I think that Congress can provide some oversight, though, in making sure that whatever the agencies implement that it is aggressive and that we are moving ahead with the restoration that needs to take place, but at the same time, that needs to be done in a least-cost manner.
I think just expecting jobs in the woods, expecting programs that are net pay types of programs, is not going to cut it. Congress isn't going to fund those kinds of programs, and I don't think the American public is going to stand for just funding of programs which don't return or take a least-cost type of approach.
In terms of all of these programs, we tend to always hear that they are mutually exclusive. Well, we're either going to have recreation, or we're going to have timber management, or we're going to have healthy forests. They are not mutually exclusive. And I think that's what this report points out, that taking an active management approach we can maximize all of the values that we want and minimize the trade-offs.
I'm a professional forester, and I see that all the time. Healthy, resilient forests provide the kind of recreation opportunities that we really want. They provide the goods and services that we want, the aesthetic values that we want. And it's not that, well, this area is pretty, and this area is timber management. No, they can go hand-in-hand, and that's the approach we need to take.
Mr. GUTHRIE. Mr. Chairman, if I might also comment.
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Guthrie.
Page 135 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
Mr. GUTHRIE. I think it's important to also note how these issues impact us on the public end.
Right now, in the Chattahoochee and Oconee National Forests, we're going through the forest plan reauthorization where they are going through the process of developing the plan that will dictate the management of the Chattahoochee and Oconee National Forests for the next 10 to 15 years, allocating tremendous taxpayer resources, our resources--I spent a lot of time and a lot of money and a lot of effort making sure to get involved in the process--conservation organization resources, also.
In 4 to 5 years, when the plan is finally complete, what I see is, then, the plan is basically useless, because due to avenues of the appeals process and litigation, the flow of resources and the activities that are outlined in that plan that is supposed to dictate the management of those forests for the next 10 to 15 years, all the money that has been spent developing that plan, basically has no meaning.
We, in industry, you would hope would be able to use that plan to kind of dictate what our employment level and capital expenditure decision needs might be, if we're wholly or partly dependent on the Federal Government to supply our resource needs. But as it stands right now, that plan is useless. We simply cannot make those decisions based on that plan.
You've also got to look at other just realities in life. On the east coast, in the Southern Appalachian Region and the whole Appalachian Region, I keep hearing talk of restoring native ecosystems, and let's get back to a pre-Columbian condition.
Good, bad, or indifferent, that is simply not possible. The primary specie component in the Appalachian Region, the American chestnut, is gone. It is not coming back. American chestnut comprised over 50 percent of the Appalachian forests. Through the chestnut blight that was introduced in this country at the turn of the century, it has been completed eliminated as a viable component of these forests.
Page 136 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
So anything we're looking at is an altered state. Basically, what we're discussing is which altered state we, as the public, find more preferable. So, you know, to me, it's not fair or reasonable to allocate resources for ecosystem restoration when it's an impossible to reach objective.
So there are a lot of side issues. And then you get into the private lands and the increased pressure. T&S Hardwoods, we were at one time dependent on the Federal Government for 55 percent of our resource needs. We're now dependent on the Federal Government for less than 5 percent. We made that move early, before a lot of our competitors did. But, in that move, we put more pressure on the private resources in north Georgia.
Mr. FOLEY. Would the gentleman yield 1 additional minute?
The CHAIRMAN. Please.
Mr. FOLEY. I think we all have to come to grips with reality. In Florida, people tell me, ''Boy, I just wish it was like it used to be when we only had 4 million people here.'' Well, wake up folks, there's 14 million, and we're not going to change that.
What we've got to do is manage between population growth, jobs and industry, and environmental protection. And as you suggested, those don't have to be mutually exclusive. All I can say is, I wish there's a time and place where we quit studying. If I get another request for another $5 million to study something, I'm going to just freak out, because it's just a waste of money.
I mean, I'd rather go down the path of trying and failing than studying to find out we'll never do it anyway, or that the data is obsolete, or it's based on some reach, if you will, EPA standards on particulate matter and soot. I mean, if we could achieve that, everybody shut up their car, walk to work. That's the only way you reach the objectives of those kinds of thought processes.
Carol Browner would like no more pollution. Well, all of us would. But there's 1.3 billion people in China. There's 285 million in America. The planet is stressed. Let's manage within practical guidelines.
Page 137 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
Mr. GOODALL. If I might just kind of add to that. I mean, I agree with you, we've got plenty of information. I don't see the need for more studies. If we're going to allocate resources, it needs to be toward education. The public, I think, still has this misperception that we can somehow create this static state. Forests are dynamic. Forests are changing. Forests are moving.
People need to realize that every acre is not for every critter out there. There are a multitude of forest types, structures, and other factors that dictate which creatures are best suited for those particular areas. And the condition of the forest you're looking at out your back door today will not necessarily be identical tomorrow, and just learn to appreciate that and recognize that it is a dynamic, changing system.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's time has expired. I'll come back.
Mr. Thune I think is interested in asking some questions.
Mr. THUNE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I realize the scope of this hearing is the Pacific Coast and southern regions of the country, but I can't help but see the parallels to our part of the country, the Black Hills National Forest of South Dakota.
We have a group of people out there called the Multiple Use Coalition, which is, I think, working very effective to try and manage the logging and mining and grazing and tourism interests in a very balanced and commonsense way, and as always, running into the sorts of problems with the plan that has been presented and dealing with the vocal minority that sometimes coops the agenda.
So we're very anxious to work in a way, as well, that recognizes all those needs. I think that most of us in my part of the country consider ourselves to be very environmentally friendly, but also very commonsensical in our approach, very practical.
A couple of questions, and I think I would direct this to Mr. Guthrie. You had mentioned--I was just perusing your testimony here--you had indicated that management is not occurring, in your judgment, on the national forest lands. Do you believe that additional legislation is needed to ensure?
Page 138 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
Mr. GUTHRIE. Yes. I believe what would be beneficial is legislation in place that would give the Forest Service the tools to fulfill their mandate; one, clarify their mandate, and then give them the means by which they can implement that mandate.
Through the appeals process and litigation that takes place on project-level decisions, life comes to a screeching halt. Right now, due to the Sierra Club, Wilderness Society, and other various organization lawsuits on the Chattahoochee, the sales program on the Chattahoochee has essentially stopped, and everyone is in a holding pattern to see how the district judge is going to rule in these cases. And they don't want to bring any more sales.
You get to the point where I see the Forest Service trying to create sales that they consider to be litigation-proof. I don't know if that's possible, because with every tool that is rejected in the courts, a new tool then arises. An example of that would again be this migratory bird issue. This is relatively new. This is a law that has been in place for nearly 100 years, and this is the first time that it has been used in this fashion.
So there are a multitude of tools in the tool box. We need to create a process by which the Forest Service can use the plans, the 10- to 15-year plans that they create, the integrated management plans, and then be able to implement them and give us, in industry, some predictability, in terms of how those plans are going to be implemented.
Mr. THUNE. One of the other things that has been discussed at some length, is the concern about purchasing--and you are in the business, I think, of purchasing timber from private lands. Do you feel that private resources are sufficient to meet the decline in the national forest timber sales?
One of the things that I consistently hear, too, from people who are in the construction business in my State is that the reason--I mean, there are shortages for any number of reasons, I'm sure, but some of which I think are driven by the very issues that we're talking about.
Page 139 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
But do you feel that the private resources are there to offset?
Mr. GUTHRIE. In the long term, no. I think it would be very difficult. Private resources in this country, no. In the long term, we possibly would have to look outside our own borders to meet our resource needs.
Again, as I mentioned, in the State of Georgia, there are areas in the State of Georgia where conifers are being harvested at a rate faster than they are being grown, as a direct result of the market pressure on the southeastern region of the country to meet the country's needs. We've got lumber moving from the southeastern part of the country to the Northeast, probably for the first time.
So it takes the tremendous resources of the Federal Government to supplement what is available in private resources. Plus, with the increasing population, you've got the available forest type being reduced through residential growth and other things.
My area of operation includes the northern part of Atlanta. I draw a large percentage of my production from North Atlanta, primarily through the development taking place there. Up side, I'm getting good logs from North Atlanta; down side, I will never get a log off that piece of dirt again. It's either in residential development or some sort of commercial development.
Mr. THUNE. Yes. Thank you.
I thank the Chair.
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, and I thank this panel.
We have one panel remaining. Mr. Murray Lloyd and Ms. Harriette Buchmann.
Good morning to both of you. Welcome.
Mrs. Harriette Buchmann is a board member for the Forestry Training Center in Port Angeles, WA.
Thank you for coming, Mrs. Buchmann.
Page 140 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
STATEMENT OF HARRIETTE BUCHMANN, BOARD MEMBER, FORESTRY TRAINING CENTER, PORT ANGELES, WA
Mrs. BUCHMANN. Thank you. It's my pleasure, and I appreciate this opportunity.
What I have to say is an entirely different thing, in that what I'm talking about is a tool to achieve what we're talking about today.
My name is Harriette Buchmann. I am the wife, mother, and grandmother of loggers. We loggers, like most families, place a high value on education. Even though Forks people are struggling with the economic downturn, they still pass their special levies for their schools.
So 3 years ago, when Dr. Chad Oliver called and said we needed a center to teach machine operators how to run the new, high-tech equipment from Sweden, we agreed. The equipment was needed to provide new approaches for thinning the dense second growth forests. It's also usable in salvage and fire damage in the Pacific Northwest.
A call went out to persons we thought would need to be involved in the decision, and we met. Great interest and excitement was generated at the first meeting and continues to today. We foundeda private-public partnership, including large and small landowners, labor, University of Washington, Peninsula College, U.S. Forest Service, Washington Department of Natural Resources, bankers, equipment manufacturers and dealers, Washington Contract Loggers Association, Employment Security, logging contractors, and plain people like me.
All hats were left at the door, and we became a working partnership. We developed positions that we have used as guides: We will operate our center as a business, using sound management decisions. Two, participants would bring their knowledge, energy, viewpoint, financial support, if available, and/or time, and a willingness to express conflicting notions.
Our goal was to develop trust and respect within our partnership. We would be self-supporting within 5 years. We would develop a world-class facility. Our training is competency-based. Students would be ready to work when they graduate, and have a certificate from Peninsula College, providing that they passed all of the required competencies. We would keep our training on the cutting edge by constantly evaluating new practices and adopted them when research proved their value.
Page 141 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
Contractors had tried to purchase the equipment, only to find that they could not keep it, as the operators were unable to be productive enough to pay for it. The Swedish equipment set of harvester and forwarder cost $800,000 and is very complex to operate. If we were to have the tool of the cut-to-length system, we had to have training. Our region needed this technology due to the large amount of young, dense, second growth stands on private and public lands.
The new technology, coupled with a trained and educated work force, would allow the logging contractor to offer the landowner an economically viable, ecologically safer prescription for managing their lands. And I repeat, an economically viable, ecologically safer prescription or plan for managing their lands.
Loggers are your partners as you work to maintain the health and diversity of forests. A new science produces new policy in the treatment of forests; however, loggers will ultimately implement the policies on the ground.
The Forestry Training Center was financed by donations of a cut-to-length system for 9 months from equipment salespersons, 30,000 from industry, and countless volunteer hours from the private and public sector, and three grants from you Federal people.
The FTC specializes in training students to do commercial thinning. The students learn the basic science of forestry in the classroom, move to the forest to apply what they have been taught, and then they move into the machine to master the skills to operate it. Our competency-based training is recognized by the State of Washington through Peninsula College. Students that cannot master the competencies will not pass.
So what does the machine do? It reduces the number of roads needed, because the machine enters the forest from a main road. In our area, the machines usually thin the forests which develop diverse structures, faster-growing trees, and habitat.
The arm of the machine reaches into the forest, and the operator selects the tree, based upon the plan developed by the landowner. The tree is cut, delimbed, cut to length, based upon the programming in the computer, and sorts, and piles the wood to the side.
Page 142 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
All debris falls on the forest floor in front of the machine, and the machine moves on top of that, so it is gentler to the ground. Highly skilled operators process one tree a minute. A forwarder carries the trees to the road. No landings are needed.
The Northwest Forestry Plan provided for thinning in some reserves and timing would allow an interim income to the Forest Service. The prescription is designed by them, and the trees could be sold as is done in private business; in other words, sold at the road, by the ton.
Marking of the trees could be eliminated, due to the trained operators for the first thinning, and reduce the cost of the process, as the machine computer documents the day's work. Concern for fire danger would be reduced as fuel buildup is reduced. The operators are used to working with compliance officers. Habitat in the dense forests would be created. Not marking trees requires a law change.
The trained operators allow flexibility in forest management planning in the private sector. With a new tool and the income from the thinnings, that will assist the cash flow. Perhaps fewer landowners will convert their forests with an interim income, providing you incorporate incentives for those landowners as they create habitat.
The machines can be used to clear out unwanted tree species from the riparian zone. In our area, the alder wood is not good for the streams. Some secondary products in young trees can grow, as they are not disturbed by the machines, and the sun can now reach the forest floor.
The trained worker has the skills to accomplish land negotiations objectives with less supervision, as they are trained to implement the landowners' plans. The landowner continues to monitor the process.
We are pleased to be able to give you an update on our Forestry Training Center. Thinning of second growth is extremely important to the health of our Northwest forests. Our commitment to the notion is based on the need for diverse landscapes to allow a number of species to survive, as described in the Forest Health Science Report. We strongly support the Report's concepts, as they could be beneficial to our forests and should be incorporated in the forest health legislation.
Page 143 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mrs. Buchmann is on file with the committee.]
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much.
Mr. Murray Lloyd is a member of the Black Bear Conservation Committee in Shreveport, LA.
STATEMENT OF MURRAY LLOYD, MEMBER, BLACK BEAR CONSERVATION COMMITTEE, SHREVEPORT, LA
Mr. LLOYD. Chairman Smith, thank you for this opportunity to speak.
I have to say, as a former Southern Regional Tree Farmer of the Year, in 1989, I have to second what Mr. Lawton said about the value of the tree farmer, the small private landowner.
The Black Bear Conservation Committee is a broad-based coalition of landowners, State and Federal natural resource agencies, conservation and environmental organizations, forest industry, agricultural interests, and the academic community. Since its formation in 1990, this diverse group has been working together to protect and to restore the Louisiana black bear in Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi.
At the time of the proposed listing of the Louisiana black bear as threatened on the endangered species list, people began referring to it as the ''spotted owl of the South.'' National industry groups came to our region saying that they thought they could win this fight, because the environmental community was not as well organized or sophisticated in the South, and they were not going to make the same mistakes they made in the Northwest.
At the same time, national environmental groups came to our region saying that they thought they could win this fight, because the industry was not as well organized or sophisticated in the South, and that they were not going to make the same mistakes they made in the Northwest.
We agreed with them on one point: We decided to use the spotted owl issue as a model for how not to approach an endangered species issues. We decided, instead, to try to bring together a group of stakeholders to try to identify common interests.
Page 144 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
Although there was considerable disagreement as to whether or not the Louisiana black bear was a distinct subspecies, there was almost universal agreement that the bear's habitat was in trouble. Eighty percent of the hardwood bottom land system in the Mississippi Alluvial Plain had been destroyed. In a decision that would set the pattern for the future, the BBCC chose not to begin by fighting over the subspecies issue, but rather to begin working on the solution of restoring habitat.
When the BBCC was formed, we had very few guidelines. Initially, we agreed to invite all stakeholders to the table with one caveat: in order to be a member, you had to be from our region. National organizations were encouraged to attend and participate, but we felt it was necessary, in the beginning, to avoid being dragged into fights over national agendas. Since then, membership has been opened to everyone.
Over time, we developed a way of doing business together that is now referred to as the ''Southern Rules of Engagement.'' They are that you have to come to the table and stay there; you have to leave your organizational 2 by 4 at the door; you have to work to establish the most expansive common ground that is least intrusive on the private landowner; you have to have respect for individuals and their ideas; and you have to have fun.
People tend to think that we just threw in the having fun part as an afterthought, but it's actually an important part of our success. From the outset, we emphasized the community aspect of our group. The evening before each of our meetings, we all get together for dinner, allowing ourselves the opportunity to catch up with each other and get to know the new members.
One of the first facts we learned about the bear was that 90 percent of the bears in the South use private land. This makes sense, because 90 percent of the forest land in the south is privately owned. This information told us two things: First, private landowners were not the problem. Thank you very much. Second, if we ever expected to restore the bear and its habitat, we were going to require the full cooperation and support of private landowners. In order to do this, we knew that we had to somehow make the bear an asset rather than a liability.
Page 145 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
In recognition of this, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, in what I consider to be an act of courage and wisdom, contemporaneously with the listing of the Louisiana black bear as threatened, issued a 4(d) rule exempting normal forest management practices from the requirements of section 9 of the Act. This good faith effort by the Service removed a great deal of fear and allowed the members of the BBCC to continue on with their work.
We identified four areas to work on through subcommittees: research, habitat conservation, information and education, and funding. One of the obvious gaps in our research was basic information on population size, particularly in the Atchafalya Basin.
Anderson-Tully Company and James River Corporation, which is now Crown Vantage, each gave us $2,000. We were able to match that $4,000 from the National Council for Air and Stream Improvement. We matched that $8,000 from the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries. We matched that $16,000 from the U.S. Forest Service. And with a match from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, we had funded a $64,000 population research study, and we accomplished this in less than 2 months.
Our next major project was to develop a handbook for management of black bear habitat, designed to provide information on bear ecology, forest habitat, agricultural considerations, humanbear conflict resolution, and technical and financial assistance.
We completed this work on the handbook about the time the bear was listed, and we needed approximately $10,000 to print it. I knew that the American Forest Resource Alliance had considered filing a lawsuit if the bear was listed, but because of the 4(d) rule, they chose not to. So I called them and asked them to give me $10,000 of the money they had intended to use to file their initial brief, to print the handbook. To my surprise, they said OK.
This ability to direct our talents and money constructively led to our official motto, which is ''Working Together for the Resource,'' and our unofficial motto, which is ''Feed Bears, Not Lawyers.''
Page 146 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
There have been numerous other benefits from the formation of the Black Bear Conservation Committee. The most obvious is that we have established a new way of doing business and a model for natural resource conflict resolution that emphasizes cooperation rather than command-and-control.
I think Aldo Leopold stated it best when he wrote that ''There are two things that interest me: the relation of people to each other, and the relation of people to the land.''
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lloyd appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Thank you both very much.
Ms. Buchmann, I hope you would send the committee a further definition of your famous machine. We would like to look at that.
Mrs. BUCHMANN. Yes, I do have a video, if that would be of any help. And I do have some pictures with me.
The CHAIRMAN. That will be fine.
Mrs. BUCHMANN. It's hard to envision it without seeing it in action on the video.
The CHAIRMAN. Yes. I'm fascinated with the manner in which the computer selects the tree without benefit of man going through it once. It's saving a lot of money.
Mrs. BUCHMANN. If I may, the interesting thing with the computer is the landowner, the person that is going to buy these logs, can call every day to the operator, using the little phones, and tell them exactly what they want to have programmed into the computer.
So, as the market changes and everything, they have direct relationships with that person actually in the machine. He changes the computer, and the computer does what they want.
The CHAIRMAN. Yes.
And thank you, Mr. Lloyd, for the information on the black bear recovery system. I think you've made the point for all of us, that we can certainly agree with, that if we provide incentives and reasonable opportunity to private landowners for the protection of endangered species, it works. If we do not, it will never work.
Page 147 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
In fact, in Oregon, we have just recently attempted to take care of the listing of a salmon. The legislature put up $15 million, and the timber industry put up $15 million, in a local effort to try to restore salmon. However, if we follow Dr. Kaczynski's prophecy, in 23 years, we won't need any money to restore the salmon. So it may be a questionable investment. But the point remains that incentives are a much better method, and successful method, than just the idea of identifying an endangered species and walking away from it.
Do you care to comment?
Mr. LLOYD. I agree. You have to make the Endangered Species Act work. It took a lot of effort. Fortunately, we have a lot more tools than we had 7 years ago when we first got started. The new policies that are coming out under the Endangered Species Act are raising a lot more opportunities for private landowners to have more flexibility and certainly more tools in their tool box for addressing that.
Mrs. BUCHMANN. If you will, the processes that you use and the machine and what they produce, it does produce habitat. And there are people that would be fearful of using this process because of that. So, again, as I said, we need to have incentives for them to do that.
The CHAIRMAN. Very good. We thank both of you.
That will culminate this session.
Mrs. BUCHMANN. Mr. Chairman, if I may, there's one point I wanted to make.
The CHAIRMAN. Please.
Mrs. BUCHMANN. Some programs are based upon future donations from the feds. Our whole program is based upon the idea that we will become self-sufficient. We do have more and more awareness and interest, and persons that are coming to send students to us. We feel like we will not be without a successful training center, and eventually a world-class training center out in Forks, WA.
The CHAIRMAN. All right. Thank you very much.
Page 148 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
Now we are adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:15 p.m., the committee was adjourned, subject to the call of the Chair.]
[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
TESTIMONY OF VICTOR W. KACZYNSKI, PH.D.
Qualifications: I am a practicing, certified, fisheries scientist with 27 years of professional experience with Northwest salmon issues. For the last several years, I have been working as a consultant to various companies and organizations (and with state and Federal forestry agencies) in a proactive manner to improve forest practices in terms of protecting and restoring salmon habitat from Alaska to California.
I want to begin by commenting on the Oliver report. I found the report to be solid technically. The report described present conditions of poor forest health and probable outcomes of various alternative policy management scenarios that appeared realistic to me based on my 27 years of experience in the field. Applying Pacific Northwest and Alaska salmon habitat situations actually strengthens the report conclusions and scenario outcomes reached.
Three major habitat factors (forest values as used in the Oliver report) that can be significantly affected by forest management policies are impacting Pacific Northwest salmon in California, Oregon, Idaho and Washington states. (Many factors are impacting salmon including overfishing, hydroelectric development, flood control projects, urbanization, etc. but only these three factors can be addressed via forest health management policies.) These three factors are catastrophic fire risk, atmospheric carbon dioxide, and loss of large conifer tree riparian function.
The first factor (forest value) was dealt with directly and indirectly by the forest health science panel, present poor forest health and catastrophic fire risk as a consequence. Put simply catastrophic wildfires result in catastrophic impacts to salmon stream habitat. Catastrophic wildfires are a serious real risk to endangered Columbia Basin and threatened Southern Oregon and Northern California salmon populations. I testified previously to Congress on the problems of poor forest health aggravating the frequency and intensity of catastrophic wildfires in Northeast Oregon (February 10, 1995) and the fires catastrophic impact on endangered local spring chinook salmon in the Grande Ronde River. A copy of that testimony is appended as is a copy of a published article by me on wildfire impacts on salmon habitat (1994). Back in 1994 and 1995 my wildfire and forest health warnings seemed like a lonely voice in the fishery community. Since then, more catastrophic wildfires have occurred in the Columbia Basin and more catastrophic salmon stream impacts have unfortunately occurred (for example, the 19,000 acre Thunderbolt Fire in the South Fork Salmon River and its chinook salmon impact--probable extinction of that endangered salmon stock.)
Page 149 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
The panel described the present day situations and problems and they identified forest policy alternatives and refinements that could correct the problems and reduce the risks of catastrophic wildfires and long lasting salmon impacts to varying degrees in the various scenarios. I agree with their analyses and another important forest value, increased salmon populations, could result.
The second factor (forest value) that could be affected by forest policy in a major way, avoiding atmospheric CO2 buildup, was adequately addressed in the Oliver report but the panel did not realize the potential magnitude of the problem to North Pacific Ocean salmon. The single biggest mortality factor affecting coastal coho salmon (California, Oregon, Washington and British Columbia) and Southern Oregon/Northern California chinook salmon has been adverse (warm) ocean conditions and warm and dry inland atmospheric conditions since 1976. These same mortality factors have also impacted Columbia Basin salmon but the degree of impact relative to other factors is not as clear. Virtually all salmon fisheries scientists now accept this ocean/atmosphere limiting effect on Pacific salmon. Two alternative hypotheses explain the ocean/atmosphere limiting effect. The first hypothesis is a simple two to four decade cycle of cool (high salmon survival - good) and then warm (low salmon survival-poor) conditions in the Pacific Northwest. Interestingly the Alaska salmon situation is just backwards, good when the Northwest is bad and vice versa. We were in a good survival cycle from the 1950's through 1975, a cool ocean and cool and wet atmospheric conditions inland, all good for salmon. There are signs that the atmospheric situation (cycle) may be changing to cool and wet since 1995 but we lack similar ocean signals. Geographers have looked at historical weather information and have found past atmospheric cycles of two to four decades. El Nino events compound the warm ocean problem and El Nino events appear to be happening more frequently and with stronger intensities. And this is where the second alternative hypothesis comes in.
The alternative explanation is global warming caused by excessive atmospheric carbon dioxide. This hypothesis also explains the warming ocean/atmosphere trend since 1976 in the Pacific Northwest and it shows that the entire North Pacific Ocean has had this warming trend. The increasing frequency and severity of El Nino events supports this greenhouse gas hypothesis. A new strong El Nino now appears to be building in the tropical Pacific Ocean and if this phenomenon becomes a reality, it may reverse the cool and wet atmosphere we have seen in the Pacific Northwest in 1995, 1996 and to date in 1997. We have not seen similar strong signals in the North Pacific Ocean surface temperatures to date.
Page 150 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
The bottom line unfortunately is that we cannot tell which hypothesis is correct, simple 20 to 40 year cycles or a longer term ocean/atmosphere warming caused by excessive carbon dioxide. Fishery scientists in Japan and British Columbia have been following the rising North Pacific Ocean temperatures and juvenile salmon distribution patterns. The juvenile salmon use the North Pacific Ocean as their pasture and have remarkable southern distribution limits tied to warmer temperature exclusion. As the North Pacific Ocean surface temperatures have risen since 1976, the juvenile salmon pasture has been squeezed progressively northward. Thus less and less salmon can be supported by the decreasing acreage of suitable pasture. The Japanese and Canadian researchers predict that if the warming trend continues, only salmon from the Bering Sea north will survive by the year 2020. In other words, all salmon from California, Oregon, Idaho, Washington, British Columbia, and from Southeast to Southwest Alaska will be extinct. These are sobering predictions and the warming ocean trend, or the lack thereof or reversal, is measurable. If the warming ocean trend is a longer term phenomenon tied to global warming, then the forest policy goal of ''avoiding atmospheric CO2 building'' (ie., a forest value) becomes extremely important on economic, social and ethical bases.
The third major Pacific Northwest salmon risk factor that could be affected by forest management policy is loss of large conifer tree riparian function. The Oliver report dealt with this forest value on an indirect basis as part of a larger category of forest values (minimizing other natural losses, conserving native forest types, providing native species habitats, and perhaps water volumes and usefulness). In northern California and western Oregon and Washington (e.g., our coastal forests) many riparian areas today are dominated by alder trees or alder succumbing to invasive brush such as salmonberry. We have lost much riparian habitat that used to be dominated by large conifer trees and we have lost the ecological and physical functions that large conifer gives to stream habitats. These functions especially include the contribution or large long-lived woody debris which provides complex rearing habitat for juvenile salmon in streams and deep pools for flood refuge. Such large woody debris increases the freshwater survival of juvenile salmon. Large conifer trees also supply stream shade, bank stability, and twig and needle debris which is important in the stream insect-salmon food chain. Alder trees do not supply large or long-lived woody debris. Where large conifer logs and root wads may last up to 200 years in a stream, alder logs and root wads may only last six or seven years in comparison. And the brush does not supply the large woody debris, shade and bank stability functions of trees. This is another example of the need to restore healthy functioning forest types, here in the riparian areas of our coastal forests. Such restoration would yield long term salmon benefit values.
Page 151 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
Adding in these three factors for Pacific Northwest salmon considerations does not detract from the Oliver report findings and option scenarios. Rather, this additional regional information complements the report. The situations discussed here add to the terrestrial wildlife benefits (values) described by the forest health science panel. One could give additional weight (positive ranking) to those alternate policy scenarios that would result in reduced risk of catastrophic wildfire, reduced atmospheric carbon dioxide, and improved riparian regional forest areas (from an aquatic ecology and salmon life history perspective). The panel could take this information and if appropriate they could adjust the report's ranking scores for values achieved. It is impossible for me to do this as an outside reviewer and I would not attempt this. On a qualitative basis, policy options 1,2,3 and 6 would become elevated in ranking considering their probable positive effect on Pacific Northwest salmon. Options 5,7 and 8 scores would decrease considering Northwest salmon forest values.
Depending on the importance of atmospheric carbon dioxide to North Pacific ocean and atmospheric warming and El Nino events, policy option 1 could be the highest scoring forest policy option for West Coast salmon from California to Alaska. The ocean and the atmosphere are a direct linked physical system and one would expect the ocean temperatures to rise if the atmosphere is warming.
Alternatively, the goal of minimizing forest fires and atmospheric carbon dioxide could be given more weight within integrated management. This would increase the potentials to achieve these desired forest values and salmon benefits but would probably lower some other desired values. Forest health does mean different things to different people or interests as the Oliver report pointed out.
One last point, option 1 may be deceiving to some readers of the Oliver report in terms of its apparent effect on salmon. Because option 1 emphasizes timber management for financial efficiency, some readers may think that this option rejects other forest values. However, option 1 should be beneficial to salmon as all present riparian protection, water quality best management practices protection, and unstable high risk upland area protection measures would continue. Some readers may have missed this or may not understand the implications of these continued stream protection measures. In other words, on Federal forest lands, FEMAT, PACFISH and INFISH aquatic protection strategies were designed to not only protect salmon and other important fish habitat but to also restore important aquatic habitat and recover these fish. Also these strategies are not cast in stone. As we monitor the effects of our practices on stream habitats, we gain technical information on cause and effect relationships in the practice of forestry. Then we generally apply this knowledge so as to provide more effective and efficient stream protection (eg., we practice adaptive management). Private forestry stream protection measures would also continue in option 1 via state forest practice acts which are designed to protect salmon and other important fish habitat. State forest practice regulation also evolve to provide more effective stream protection. In the Pacific Northwest, significantly voluntary stream enhancement is occurring on industrial forest lands as well.
Page 152 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
TESTIMONY OF ROBERT K. WATROUS, VICE PRESIDENT, WASHINGTON STATE AFL-CIO AND PRESIDENT, ASSOCIATION OF WESTERN PULP AND PAPER WORKERS LOCAL 5
I would like to thank the chairman and members of the committee for allowing me the opportunity to speak today concerning the forest health crisis afflicting federal forests throughout the Pacific Northwest and Northern California.
I appear before you today on behalf of the roughly 250,000 members of the Washington State AFL-CIO. And I appear today on behalf of the 1,460 members of the Association of Western Pulp and Paper Workers Local 5 in Camas, Washington, where I currently serve as president. It is on their behalf that I say we support the process outlined in the ''Report on Forest Health'' prepared by the Forest Health Science Panel. It is essential that we evaluate forest management options based on the values we assign to our national forests.
From our perspective, there are two essential values that must be considered as Congress moves to develop comprehensive forest management legislation. First, Congress must provide the resources and remove impediments to allow foresters to undertake productive forest management activities which would protect the health of our national forests. Second, I urge you to ensure that whatever course you decide to take includes provisions to protect timber-dependent workers and communities.
The health of forests throughout the Pacific Coast region continues to deteriorate largely due to bans and restrictions on productive federal forest management practices. Legislative, judicial and administrative actions, combined with a lack of funding, have prevented foresters from undertaking essential forest management activities, weakening the health of our forests and leaving them susceptible to wildfire. In my home state of Washington, for example, more than 79,000 acres of forests burned in 1994. While the total acreage burned declined in 1995 and 1996, current conditions in the State--specifically high fuel loads--could lead to another disastrous fire season in the near future with bigger, more intense fires and a concurrent increase in resource damage.
Page 153 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
Our members' interest in forest health is two-fold. First, millions of acres of forest land throughout the Pacific Coast region are so desperately dry there exists a real and dramatic threat of catastrophic wildfire, as evidenced by the devastating wildfires of recent years. Wildfires endanger animal life, forest ecosystems and surrounding communities where our members and their families live.
Second, we union timber-dependent workers depend on a reliable timber supply for our livelihoods. Public forests and the communities that surround them have a long history of mutual support. Our members have a keen interest in responsible forest management; the forests provide jobs, recreation and aesthetic enjoyment for all of us. Therefore, we want to do everything possible to keep our forests healthy and productive.
Scientists have determined that over centuries, Pacific Coast forests have adapted to periodic wildfire. Wildfire occurrence varied from as short as 10 to 15 years in some forests to as long as 300 years in the wetter high elevations. U.S. Forest Service and other federal agency policies over the past 80 years have largely worked for the complete suppression of all wildfires. This has resulted in major accumulations of brush and dead and dying trees; increased density of trees in the forests; and a shift in tree species to less fire- and insect-resistant species.
Because of these changes in forest stand structure, combined with drought or near-drought conditions, fire fighters, forest managers and the public have seen larger fires which are more difficult to control. The extreme intensity of these fires will easily incinerate and permanently damage the productive capacity of the soils and ecosystem, making replanting extremely difficult if not impossible.
Our position is supported by a group of 35 scientists and land managers who convened in Sun Valley, Idaho, in 1993 to address comprehensive forest health issues. While the focus of the event were the forests of the Inland West, their conclusions regarding the importance of utilizing forest management tools to protect forest health apply to our region as well. The scientists and land managers determined:
Page 154 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
The scientific tools to understand [forest health] problems and mitigate them do exist today but are not being applied on federal forests rapidly enough to meet the urgency of the situation. The current legal and procedural requirements faced by federal land-management agencies impose time delays that, when combined with public opposition to timber harvesting, prevent timely management, doom major forest areas to needless loss and damage, and impose large (and, perhaps, preventable) costs on both local and national economies.
We know now that severe restraints on forest managers conflict with the goal of maintaining healthy forests. With disease and wildfire a natural part of the forest ecosystem, the only way we can control and improve forest health is to conduct comprehensive, ecosystem-sensitive forest management practices that include salvage logging, thinning operations, controlled burning and watershed restoration.
Despite the controversy of recent years, salvage logging remains a viable and essential tool to protect forest health. Tree salvaging operations enable foresters to remove trees that have been destroyed by disease and insects before they infect other parts of the forest. Dead and dying trees also need to be removed to prevent catastrophic wildfire and to prevent the loss of soil nutrients, loss of soil structure and damage to fish and wildlife habitat. A timber salvage sale also allows the area to be replanted sooner than would be the case if the area had burned.
If removed in time, the damaged and dead timber can be milled, providing much needed relief for timber-dependent workers impacted by the severe reductions in timber harvesting on federal lands in our region. Already, more than 20,000 men and women throughout the Pacific Northwest and Northern California have lost their job to the reduced timber supply. Salvage timber sales help protect forest health and provide some degree of economic security.
Indeed, as Congress moves to develop comprehensive forest health legislation, the economic viability of timber-dependent workers, communities and families must be considered along with the environmental health of our forests and wildlife. Our union has long believed that we can, and must, balance environmental concerns with economic realities.
Page 155 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
In closing, I urge you to move quickly to develop a balanced response to the forest health emergency that:
Is based on strong science.
Provides sufficient funding to undertake the necessary management activities, including increased support for training for fire fighters and staffing for the relevant agencies.
Provides accountability by setting realistic and measurable goals.
Is sensitive to local concerns, specifically the economic needs of timber-dependent workers and communities.
We in the House of Labor stand ready to work with you to meet these objectives.
TESTIMONY OF ANN HANUS, ASSISTANT STATE FORESTER, OREGON DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY
Chairman Smith and members of committee, I am Ann Hanus, assistant state forester with the Oregon Department of Forestry. I appreciate the opportunity to testify on forest health issues and am encouraged by the committee's diligence in investigating potential solutions to forest health problems that are negatively affecting forests in much of Oregon and other regions of the United States
My testimony will focus more on questions of policy rather than dwelling on well-documented forest health problems. I will offer comments on the recently released national forest health report sponsored by Rep. Charles Taylor. I will also discuss the need for a Federal/state partnership to promote forest health. Finally, I will discuss policy recommendations for improving future forest health.
I will not spend time much discussing the critical forest health conditions in Oregon, other than to repeat that there are real forest health problems that need to be addressed in a timely fashion. Oregon State Forester Jim Brown addressed forest conditions in January testimony before this committee at a field hearing in Sunriver, OR. He underscored the need to actively manage forests across much of the Inland West to return to forest conditions within the natural range of variability. More specifically, he noted a need to create and maintain tree species composition and stocking levels to improve the resiliency of forests to natural disturbance agents of insects and disease, drought, and wildfire. It is also important over the long term to realize sustainable, predictable levels of forest products and economic opportunities for communities.
Page 156 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
There appear to be opportunities to improve forest health through administrative actions. Depending on the success of these efforts, changes to the organic acts and related environmental laws that guide Federal land management agencies may be necessary. We view the Taylor forest health report as a positive step taken by the Committee to identify management effects and potential tradeoffs of managing for healthy forests within the context of societal desires.
I88Comments on the Taylor Forest Health Report
The Taylor forest health report discusses the range of societal and ecological forest values and how different management scenarios affect those values. The report does not attempt to Aweigh' the several variables; instead it leaves the task for policymakers and forest managers.
A recent paper by Fred Bunnell at the University of British Columbia asserts that focusing:
On desired outcomes avoids dangers to researchers falling prey to bureaucratic expectation of science to fill the policy in lieu of science to critically assess policy. The challenge for researchers is not to devise definitions to words such as biodiversity but to direct public and political values and energies to relatable issues of substance about which there is applicable knowledge.
In this case, researchers can frame policy choices in relation to desired forest management outcomes based on the best available information.
The Taylor report is built upon forest ecology assumptions that, for the most part, are being applied by the Oregon Department of Forestry in its planning process for state land located in Northwestern Oregon. One assumption is that forest ecosystems are dynamic, and disturbance plays a major role in forest succession. This assumption, a fairly new operating concept in forestry, is just beginning to emerge in recent forest planning efforts.
Another assumption is that active management can substitute, or Amimic natural events. To summarize another major assumption, habitat for a myriad of species and biodiversity in general, are maximized by maintaining or restoring a range of forest age classes and forest structural attributes. In fact, the State of Oregon is seeking to manage under that maxim. The proposed plan for the Tillamook State Forest focuses on what we call structure-based management.
Page 157 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
Regardless of perceived biases and assumptions currently undergoing scientific debate, the Taylor report should help frame the discussion over what society wants and expects from Federal, state, and private forests. The Taylor report gives a broad view of management options. Please keep in mind that it will still be necessary to consider how ecosystems, values, and societal demands differ by geographic area and tailor forest plans to reflect these differences.
THE NEED FOR A FEDERAL/STATE PARTNERSHIP TO PROMOTE FOREST HEALTH
Oregon Governor Kitzhaber, through the findings of a blue-ribbon scientific panel and cooperation with Federal agencies, identified many of the same forest health problems on the Eastside of Oregon and potential solutions found in several other science and policy analyses published over the past few years. As a result, he constructed an 11-point strategy for restoring healthy forests in Eastern Oregon. Keep in mind that it took decades to reach the current state of unhealthy forests; it will take years to reverse the problem even if we start today. What the Governor offers is significant political support and cooperation in pursuit of restoring active forest management to restore forest health. The State needs a strong partnership with the Congress to allow the Federal agencies to restore forest health through aggressive, timely active management. We are encouraged by the Committee's willingness to work together to address policy obstacles to implement such management.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMPROVING FOREST HEALTH LEGISLATION
Our recommendations call for increasing flexibility and managing risk, increasing funding, improving accountability, providing for monitoring, harmonizing conflicting Federal laws, and recognizing the need to manage across all ownerships.
FLEXIBILITY/RISK MANAGEMENT
Just as a physician needs to consider the individual patient needs, so does a land manager need to prescribe forest management remedies tailored to the need of the land. The fire-adapted forest ecosystems of the Inland West have been dramatically impacted by drought, insects and disease, and wildfire. Major shifts in baseline forest conditions occur as self-correcting disturbance agents attempt to reverse over a century of forest management. Unfortunately, the Federal forest planning process cannot respond fast enough to adapt to rapid, major forest changes.
Page 158 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
Make no mistake about it, as forest managers we are in the business of managing risk. There are risks of both action and inaction. AAnalysis paralysis leads us more to management through inaction. Inaction is not a prescription to restore forest health. It is a prescription for worsening the health of forest ecosystems that have evolved with frequent disturbance.
The science team assembled for the Interior Columbia River Basin Ecosystem Management Project addressed partitioning risks, which they concluded requires flexibility at the field level. This flexibility is crucial, as the assessment further points out:
decisions that address all risks across a large geographic area result in fewer management options at the site level and increases the probability that a decision will be wrong for a particular site.
Flexibility is needed for both agency appropriations and activities on the ground. At this point, it is difficult for agencies to reprogram funds to use for emerging forest health problems, especially when trying to dealing with earmarked funds. Perhaps it may be useful to look at the national forests and districts that were designated Are invention laboratories under Vice President Gore's Reinventing Government Initiative to investigate the effectiveness of increased flexibility on Forest Service budgeting at the field level. Other ideas have been introduced over the last few years, such as expanding the scope of the Salvage Sale Fund to pay for more forest health work and providing similar flexibility for the BLM as the Forest Service now has.
FUNDING
Increased funding is critical to managing a large enough portion of the forest base to make a notable difference. Investments to improve forest health is a good taxpayer investment. Catastrophic fire costs run into the hundreds of millions of dollars. Funding for forest health should be viewed as a long-term investment in the forest resource, and this investment will likely pay for itself many times over in the next few decades through the reduced fire suppression costs associated with healthier forests. Increasing Federal appropriations to the Wildland Fire Management fund that can be used for forest fuels reduction would be particularly effective.
Page 159 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
ACCOUNTABILITY
Accountability is gained through development of performance measures in forest management. These measurable accomplishments do not necessarily have to be timber targets per se; they can be, for example, acres treated by forest activity or percent of a watershed restored to desired conditions. Performance measures should be crafted so that both Congress and the public can easily understand them. Performance measures should also be directly tied to budgets.
Accountability is enhanced by improving the public involvement process. This includes revising the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA). The act should ensure fair public access as intended instead of managers' current aversion to consulting the public for fear of violating the act and ending up in a lawsuit.
MONITORING
The agencies need an operating philosophy whereby monitoring has the dual role of checking assumptions and filling knowledge gaps. It is very important that monitoring protocols be standardized for all private, state, tribal and Federal land managers. This will be the only way to measure progress on a landscape level across ownerships. Private landowners can be engaged in this effort by increasing incentives and building trust. Monitoring should also be targeted in areas requiring active management in order to gauge the effectiveness of land management prescriptions.
HARMONIZING CONFLICTING FEDERAL LAWS
If administrative changes are not effective, harmonizing Federal laws may be necessary to resolve problems. Earlier this year, Jack Ward Thomas spoke of the various and conflicting forces that guide Forest Service decisionmaking. An April General Accounting Office (GAO) report contained a graphic that identified nine governmental and public entities that guide (or pull in opposite directions) the agency's decisionmaking process. This suggests how complex the decisionmaking process is. The decisionmaking process becomes more difficult when the agency's mission is not clearly defined, as also suggested by former chief Thomas, GAO, the National Association of State Foresters, and others in past testimony.
Page 160 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
The inability of Federal land management agencies to actually manage is too often exacerbated when another Federal regulatory agency overrules a management plan. Regulatory agencies focus on very specific issues and do not have to consider the wide range of factors that land management agencies are expected to consider under multiple use mandates. This points to the need for agencies to work closely together from the beginning.
The Western Governor's Association (WGA) has been looking at the need to revise Federal public land laws that may conflict. We urge you to consider the recommendations WGA provides on this subject.
MANAGING ACROSS OWNERSHIPS
One of the most difficult problems in achieving forest health is managing across ownership boundaries. Recent analysis by ODF has concluded that price response by private landowners to the timber market is the only true coordinated forest management in the U.S. In order to manage across ownership by design, we must build on established relationships between the states and the Federal agencies as well as state relationships with private forest landowners. Incentives will promote stewardship objectives above a regulatory baseline.
In order to enhance forest health management on private lands from a Federal perspective, more incentives must be built in to the system. Each state has a unique mix of regulations, best management practices and incentives that drive forest management on private lands. From our experience, we believe that enhancement of further incentives is undeniably the best way to encourage private forest land owners to manage healthy forests that reflect public values.
I11Oregon is paving the way when it comes to coordinated management across ownership. Oregon's Coastal Salmon Restoration Initiative is a landmark effort by the State to mitigate coastal coho salmon decline across ownerships, primarily through voluntary efforts. The plan is administered by state agencies (mostly for technical assistance, rule enforcement, and seed money to enhance voluntary efforts), by local citizen-run watershed councils (who do most of the on-the-ground work) and by landowners (who foot most of the bill).
Page 161 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
I11In closing, I would like underscore again the urgency to act now to mitigate forest health problems. Another fire season is upon us with suppression costs that will undoubtedly run into the hundreds of million of dollars. The scientific body of work associated with forest health problems and management opportunities to mitigate those problems is voluminous. Forest managers possess the necessary skills to implement treatments on the ground if the forest planning process will allow them to manage.
TESTIMONY OF MURRAY LLOYD, BLACK BEAR CONSERVATION COMMITTEE
Chairman Smith, members of the committee, thank you for this opportunity to testify.
The Black Bear Conservation Committee (BBCC) is a broad-based coalition of landowners, state and federal natural resource agencies, conservation and environmental organizations, forest industry, agricultural interests, and the academic community. Since its formation in 1990, this diverse group has been working together to protest and to restore the Louisiana Black Bear in Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi.
At the time of the proposed listing of the Louisiana Black Bear as threatened on the federal endangered species list, people began referring to it as the ''spotted owl of the south''. National industry groups came to our region saying that they thought that they could win this fight because the environmental community was not as well organized or sophisticated in the south and they were not going to make the same mistakes they made in the northwest. At the same time, national environmental groups came to our region saying that they thought that they could win this fight because the industry was not as well organized or sophisticated in the south and that they were not going to make the same mistakes they made in the northwest.
We agreed with them on one point - we decided to use the spotted owl issue as a model for how not to approach an endangered species issue. We decide instead to try to bring together a group of stakeholders to try to identify common interests.
Although there was considerable disagreement as to whether or not the Louisiana Black Bear was a distinct subspecies, there was almost universal agreement that the bear's habitat was in trouble. Eighty per cent of the hardwood bottom land system in the Mississippi River Alluvial Plain had been destroyed. In a decision that would set the pattern for the future, the BBCC chose not to begin by fighting over the subspecies issue, but rather to begin working on the solution of restoring habitat.
Page 162 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
When the BBCC was formed, we had very few guidelines. Initially, we agreed to invite all stakeholders to the table, with one caveat - in order to be a member you had to be from the region. National organizations were encouraged to attend and participate. We felt that this was necessary in the beginning to avoid being dragged into fights over national agendas. Since then, membership has became open to everyone.
Over time we developed we developed a way of doing business together that is now affectionately referred to as the Southern Rules of Engagement:
(1) Come to the table and stay there;
(2) Leave your organizational 2 by 4 at the door;
(3) Work to establish the most expansive common ground that is least intrusive on the private landowner;
(4) Respect individuals and there ideas;
(5) Have fun
People tend to think that we just threw the having fun part in as an afterthought, but it is actually an important part of our success. From the outset, we emphasized the community aspect of our group. The evening before each of our meetings, we all get together for dinner, allowing ourselves the opportunity to catch-up with each other and get to know the new members.
One of the first facts we learned about the bear was that ninety per cent of the bears in the south use private land. This makes sense because ninety per cent of the forest land in the south is privately owned. This information told us two things. First, private landowners were not the problem. Second, if we ever expected to restore the bear and its habitat, we were going to require the full cooperation and support of private landowner. In order to do this, we knew that we had to somehow make the bear an asset rather than a liability.
In recognition of this, the U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service, in what I still consider to be an act of courage and wisdom, contemporaneously with the listing of the Louisiana Black Bear as threatened, issued a 4(d) rule exempting normal forest management practices from the requirements of Section 9 of the Act. This good faith effort by the Service, removed a great deal of fear and allowed the members of the BBCC to continue on with our work.
Page 163 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
The BBCC identified four areas to work on through subcommittees: research, habitat/conservation, information/education and funding.
One of the obvious gaps in our research was basic information on population size, particularly in the Atchafalya Basin. Anderson-Tully Company and James River Corporation (now Crown Vantage) each gave us $2,000. We were able to match that $4,000 from the National Council for Air and Stream Improvement (NCASI); we matched that $8,000 from the Louisiana Department of Wildlife & Fisheries; we matched that $16,000 from the U. S. Forest Service; and, with a final match from the U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service, we had funded a $64,000 population research study. And we accomplished this in less than two months.
Our next major project was to develop a handbook for management of black bear habitat, designed to provide information on bear ecology, forest habitat, agricultural considerations, human/bear conflict resolution, and technical and financial assistance.
We completed work on the handbook about the time the bear was listed and we needed approximately $10, 000 to print it. I knew that the American Forest Resource Alliance had considered filing a lawsuit if the bear was listed, but that because of the 4(d) rule the chose not to. So I called them and asked them to give me $10,000 of the money they had intended to use to file their initial brief to print the handbook. They said OK.
This ability to direct our talents and money constructively led to our official motto which is ''Working Together for the Resource'' and our unofficial motto ''Feed Bears, Not Lawyers.''
We have been able to make bears an asset rather than a liability by coordinating with existing government programs. One example is the Wetlands Reserve Program. Through the BBCC, we were able to establish significant ranking points for land that was in occupied bear habitat. With many more acres signed up than there was funding available for, this boost in points generally made the difference between being chosen or not. Unfortunately, we have just learned that in the new ranking schedules, this aspect of WRP has been ''de-emphasized'' which translates to funding for these projects.
Page 164 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
Most recently, the value of this type of cooperation and coordination was shown in a conflict in Mississippi between a bear and a beekeeper. During the spring, a beekeeper comes to Mississippi to raise queen bees. This year, as in past years, he experienced damage to his hives from a bear. Animal Damage Control, as a part of the BBCC Conflict Resolution Team, responded to the situation and realized that the problem was with one particular nuisance bear. After trying all of the tradition methods of dealing with this bear, it became apparent that this was going to take some extraordinary effort, beyond the budgetary limits of the agencies. For the entire period of time that the beekeeper was in Mississippi, Animal Damage Control personnel from across the entire region volunteered their time to come to that area and track that bear every single night to keep him away from the hives. As a result, when this beekeeper, who had been openly hostile toward government and the BBCC in the past, left this year, he wrote a letter of thanks and genuine appreciation to Animal Damage Control.
There have been numerous other benefits from the formation of the BBCC. The most obvious is that we have established a new way of doing business and a model for natural resource conflict resolution that emphasizes cooperation rather than command and control.
I am not sure how you would legislate something like the Black Bear Conservation Committee. I am not sure you should try.
While it is true that we need to remove government disincentives, increase flexibility and efficiency and protect private property rights, the solution is, I think, more basic than that. We need to create an atmosphere that removes profit in conflict and discourages behavior rooted in haste and greed.
I think Aldo Leopold stated it best when he wrote that ''there are two things that interest me: the relation of people to each other, and the relation of people to land.''
TESTIMONY OF THOMAS K. GOODALL ON BEHALF OF BOISE CASCADE CORPORATION
Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, I want to thank you for the opportunity to present testimony regarding the severe forest health crisis that exists in our national forests today. I am Thomas Goodall, Assistant Region Timberlands Manager for Boise Cascade Corporation's NE Oregon Region. Although Boise Cascade provides stewardship for more than 1.3 million acres of company owned forest land in the Pacific Northwest, the company relies on raw materials from federal lands to supply about 60 percent of the total required to keep our mills running, our people employed, and the demand for our products satisfied.
Page 165 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
Our facilities range from small field offices in inconspicuous places, such as Cascade, Idaho and Kettle Falls, Washington, to major paper and saw mills in regional employment centers, such as La Grande, Oregon and Emmett, Idaho. A successful forest health implementation plan for federal lands in the Pacific Northwest is important to us, including the 17,000 workers we employ, and the people who purchase our products.
Before I begin my testimony, I would like to make an overall point about why the subject of this hearing is so important. First and foremost, it is well documented that a serious forest health problem exists on Federal forests. While private lands do suffer some of same forest health problems, the problem is most severe on Federal lands. There have been numerous significant science efforts which document the current situation on Federal lands and which provide recommendations to move forward with the implementation of aggressive active management to restore health to our Federal forests. We believe the report titled: Summary Report On Forest Health of the United States by the Forest Health Science Panel confirms and complements these numerous scientific findings which support the need to implement an aggressive active management approach to resolve the forest health crisis.
However, complex Federal regulations have made it nearly impossible for our local Federal forest managers to do their jobs. Whatever good intentions might have been behind some of these regulations, they do not work now. They often contradict each other and they invite legal challenge. These regulations have caused gridlock.
Litigation, administrative appeals, and institutional fear have resulted in bureaucratic paralysis. This inaction is unsafe for our forests. In my area virtually all efforts to manage the forests have been obstructed. Yet roughly half of the 6,000,000 acres of forest in the four National Forests in the Blue Mountains surrounding our NE Oregon operations ''3,000,000 acres of trees'' are infested with insects and dangerously overcrowded, resulting in major catastrophic fires each year. Previous hearings have already discussed the forest health problem. Suffice it to say that grid lock has allowed the perpetuation of a forest health time bomb, an invitation for catastrophic wildfires that will damage these ecosystems to the point where it will take centuries for them to return to health.
Page 166 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
If there is one underlying message that I would like to convey today is that Congress needs to rework the appeals process for forest management, the process of consultation among multiple Federal agencies, as well as the NFMA, FLPMA, NEPA, CWA, ESA, CAA, MUSYA, Organic Act and Endangered Species Act. Each of these components should be working together to protect the environment while allowing the public lands that we all jointly own to provide for the needs of our Nation.
We are encouraged that the Committee is on the right track and holds the political will to make progress, and are optimistic about working toward legislative solutions to improve forest health, on Federal land.
DOCUMENTATION OF THE FOREST HEALTH CRISIS IN THE PACIFIC NORTHWEST
Millions of acres of federally-managed forest in the region are well outside their historical range of variation, meaning that there are now present situations and problems that are rare or absent in their evolutionary history. These conditions include: overcrowded stands, unnatural mixes of species, major changes in understory vegetation, meadows and associated grasslands, impacts on streamflow, impacts to aquatic ecosystems, impacts on nutrient availability, increased damage by forest insects and disease, significantly increased wildfire hazards, current wildfires that are larger and more intense than the historic range, decreased soil productivity resulting from high intensity wildfires
The cumulative effect of these conditions is a serious forest health crisis. Remedial, restorative, and preventive treatment and management on Federal lands is urgently needed. A brief window of opportunity exists of perhaps 20 years in length within which anticipatory and remedial treatments can be conducted. Without timely management intervention, the region is threatened by major ecological setbacks, pest epidemics and uncontrollable wildfires, that will damage resource values and convert large areas into new, even-aged forest systems that set the stage for a repeat of the current problems far into the 21st century.
Page 167 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
Today's conditions in many Pacific Northwest forests allow normal disturbance processes to become catastrophic events. Unless land conditions can be improved, these catastrophic changes seem certain to continue. The forest ecosystem health crisis has been documented repeatedly over recent years, with increasing levels of concern. Scientific findings by Federal agency specialists, state forest health assessors, and university scientists, and the recently completed report chartered by Congressman Charles Taylor reveal the extent of the forest health problem. Independent analyses of Federal forest land by Boise Cascade Corporation also confirm the condition of deteriorating forest health. References that document the problem are included as an attachment to this testimony.
FOREST ECOSYSTEM HEALTH NEEDS AND OBJECTIVES
A primary objective of forest ecosystem health needs to be the return of forest structures to a desired range of future conditions. It has been well documented that active management is necessary and desirable to achieve forest health objectives. Through the decades, forest scientists and managers have continually improved silvicultural programs through application, research, and monitoring. Through adaptive management, that is the reapplication and refinement of silvicultural practices that have performed well, forest mangers have incorporated a combination of best science and practical experience into long term planning efforts. Various types of silvicultural treatments can be applied to improve forest ecosystem health. We believe the report titled: Summary Report On Forest Health of the United States by the Forest Health Science Panel confirms and complements the numerous scientific findings which support the need to implement an aggressive active management approach to resolve the forest health crisis.
Foresters and scientists have long contended that anticipatory management strategies would improve stand vigor and health (e.g., Adams, 1995; Filip, et al., 1995; Johnson, et al., 1995; Mutch, 1995; Covington, et al., 1994; Graham, 1994; Mason and Wickman, 1994; Arno and Brown, 1989; Atkinson and Olson, 1988; Carlson and Lotan, 1988; Cole and MacGregor, 1988; Johnstone and Cole, 1988; U.S. Forest Service, 1988; Smith, 1986; Amman, 1985; MacGregor and Cole, 1985; Fellin, 1980). Prescriptions are likely to include thinning and/or selection system harvest treatments aimed at reducing stocking and species mixes not well suited to their sites. For example, the literature suggests these guidelines for maintaining forest health:
Page 168 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
Strive for species and host diversity by maintaining a mixture of tree species within forest stands.
Regulate stand density and vertical structure through appropriate cuttings and thinning to improve and maintain tree vigor and stand growth.
Create and maintain even- and uneven-aged stand structures by using appropriate regeneration systems, tended by periodic low and crown thinnings, or individual tree selection.
Facilitate the vigorous development of established regeneration.
Improve stand vigor by removing diseased, heavily infested, or otherwise unhealthy trees in all cuttings.
Capitalize on phenotypic and genetic resistance by selecting the most heavily infected or damaged trees for removal.
Regenerate host stands with less susceptible species at or before biological maturity.
Evidence points to a need for an aggressive forest health restoration program. We need to get started immediately or we will lose multiple values from Federal forest lands that will take centuries to replace. At present, there is a backlog of forest health restoration projects awaiting funds, and workable legislative and administrative processes, before they can move forward.
Resolving the forest health crisis requires implementation at multiple scales of management. Reliance on the Federal Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project (ICBEMP) alone will not solve the problems, although the project has potential to help if an appropriate active forest management strategy is selected, and if the required levels of forest health treatments are fully funded and implemented immediately. The unfortunate reality is that, under the current layers of regulations, reviews, assessments, plans, appeals, and litigation, it is difficult for the Federal land management agencies to be responsive to emerging environmental needs or to be economically efficient, especially if commercial timber harvest is involved.
Page 169 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
ACTIONS REQUIRED TO ACCOMPLISH FOREST ECOSYSTEM HEALTH OBJECTIVES
Generally, Congressional action is needed to: (1) provide a clear vision of healthy forest ecosystems and the purpose of Federal forest lands, (2) ensure that active, aggressive action is taken by Federal land management agencies, (3) provide sufficient authority to Federal land mangers so that regulatory, planning, and decision processes are streamlined, (4) harmonize statutes and legislation affecting Federal forest land management, (5) foster meaningful and responsive public involvement, especially at local levels, (6) encourage participation of the private sector in restoration activities through economically viable programs, (7) articulate predictable and adequate funding levels and expected agency accomplishments, and (8) revise the appeals process for individual Federal land management actions. The following specific actions are requested:
A. Declarations
The goal for Federal land management will be to restore and maintain forest ecosystem health and integrity, support the economic and social needs of people, and provide sustainable and predictable levels of goods and services.
Restoration of forest ecosystem health on Federal land is a management priority.
In order to expedite restoration, aggressive, active management of Federal forest lands will be employed.
B. Forest Management Plans and Assessments
The policy goal of ecosystem management will be clarified.
Forest management plans will be based on scientific assessments of current conditions, trends, and long-term forest ecosystem resiliency and sustainability.
New plans and assessments will be expedited and completed within 2 years of enactment of the legislation. Forest plans will emphasize guidelines and processes, and provide for local adaptations.
Page 170 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
Forest plans will maximize the economic and social needs of people while assuring the restoration and maintenance of ecosystem health.
Plans will be developed with input from the public, commercial users of Federal lands, Federal, state, tribal and local government agencies, and established advisory groups.
Local input will be made more effective and Federal agencies will be more responsive to local input. Meaningful and responsive local public involvement will be ensured, in part, by removing obstacles imposed by the Federal Advisory Committee Act.
Local Federal land management agency decisions will be respected and supported by the administration.
C. Implementation of Forest Management Plans
Oversight of forest plan implementation will be directed by Congress. Forest plans will be administered by the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management through the Forest Service regional and BLM state levels to ensure consistency and efficient use of resources. Implementation will be at the national forest and BLM district levels.
Adaptation to local conditions through processes set up by the forest management plans will be timely.
Restoration to levels targeted by the forest management plans will be completed within 20 years of adoption. Twenty-five percent of the land to be restored will be completed within 5 years, 50 percent within 10 years, 75 percent with 15 years, and 100 percent in 20 years.
Forest health restoration activities will be accomplished in the most cost effective manner. Activities should utilize revenue-generating applications when possible, but not be required to show net profit (i.e. below cost timber sales will be allowed where they accomplish forest ecosystem health objectives). Some applications may actually need to be subsidized by the Federal Government. In other words, restoration activities, including timber harvest, need not be financially self-supporting but rather generate revenues which help to lessen the total project cost.
Page 171 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
The Forest Service and BLM have total responsibility and authority to implement forest management plans on Federal land. They will consult with other Federal and state regulatory agencies, but are not subject to their approval to proceed with management decisions (including compliance with NEPA, Endangered Species Act, Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, and others). Nevertheless, all management actions will comply with Federal laws.
The Forest Service and BLM will implement forest management plans in a manner that will enhance the economic and social well being of resource-using communities.
Legislation to aggressively implement forest health restoration treatments across all Federal forests will be promoted. Assure that findings of the recently released ICBEMP Integrated Scientific Assessment such as; ''when compared with traditional approaches, active management appears to have the greatest chance of producing the mix of goods and services that people want from ecosystems, as well as maintaining or enhancing the long-term ecological integrity of the Basin'' are realized.
Recognize that opportunities for studying and assessing forest ecosystems are endless; however, we have sufficient knowledge to move forward with immediate implementation of forest health restoration strategies. Years of delays, as portrayed by the chronology of events affecting implementation of the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest land and resource management plan (U.S. Forest Service, 1996), should be prevented. Demonstration of the forest health benefits of scientifically prescribed silvicultural treatments will be implemented across all affected Federal forests, not restricted to a few demonstration projects or forestry experiments.
In the short term, locally developed forest management plans and strategies, such as Oregon Governor Kitzhaber's forest health strategy (Forest Health and Timber Harvest on National Forests in the Blue Mountains of Oregon) will be utilized as a means to provide the political will and public acceptance of actions taken, and to demonstrate commitment of Federal resources to resolving forest health problems. Locally developed plans will be relied upon to guide immediate implementation of specific projects. The locally developed plans will have a defined timeline for development and schedule for implementation.
Page 172 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
Accept and support draft Senate legislation entitled, Public Land Management Responsibility and Accountability Restoration Act, proposed by Sen. Larry Craig (R-Idaho). A parallel bill will be introduced in the House.
Harmonize existing statutes (i.e. NFMA, FLPMA, NEPA, CWA, ESA, CAA, FACA, MUSYA, Organic Act) that affect implementation of forest health restoration treatments.
The administrative appeals process on timber sales will be revised. Appeals on individual projects that are emergencies, are time-sensitive, or contain other exigent circumstances will be eliminated. Emphasis of appeals will be shifted and limited to the implementation of forest wide management plans, and appeals of individual projects will be limited. The appeals process will be revised to reflect that compliance with forest plans cannot be judged from the performance of individual projects. Opportunities for frivolous appeals will be eliminated, and the conditions under which appeals can be filed will be tightened to prevent administrative waste.
Until ESA responsibilities are fully transferred to the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management, inviolate limitations on time for response to Section 7 consultation under the Endangered Species Act regarding forest health treatments will be imposed on the USDC National Marine Fisheries Service and the USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. The risks of inaction must be weighed against the risks of forest management actions.
New environmentally sound legislation will be developed for achieving forest health goals. Special priority will be given where human health and property are at risk, and where risk to forest ecosystem health is greatest. Application of the Endangered Species Act and preparation of environmental documentation for forest health emergencies will be streamlined. The Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management will have authority for implementing the Endangered Species Act, and making jeopardy decisions, on lands that they manage.
(D)Approaches to Forest Health Restoration
Methods to restore and maintain forest ecosystem health will include all practical and economical mechanisms including thinning, harvest, and prescribed burning.
Page 173 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
The implementation program will include private enterprises to perform forest health treatments through mechanisms, such as service, timber sale, and stewardship contracts, and use of conservation credits in timber sales.
Economically viable timber sales are achieved when sales contain an optimal mix of products, flexible terms, defined results, timely sale, appropriate purchaser discretion, and mutual trust. Inclusion of large quantities of small trees (i.e., government cost items to attain ecosystem management objectives) will not be economical without just compensation. Sufficient value needs to be included in sales, or options to reject low-value pulpwood and small diameter trees need to be provided when market demand is not favorable. Federal land management agencies have modified otherwise viable timber sales to achieve pre-commercial thinning and other ecosystem management objectives. Potentially viable sales have been burdened with requirements such as: (1) excessive slash and downed wood treatments, (2) road obliteration, (3) sub-soiling, (4) high-cost and specialized equipment (e.g., helicopters, skyline, forwarders) where ground-based equipment would yield acceptable results, (5) prohibitive seasonal restrictions, (6) low merchantable volumes, and (7) isolated and small units, making them uneconomic and going without being sold.
Methods of preparing and offering timber for sale will be revised to be more cost effective and successful (i.e., legislation will support the offering of economically viable timber sales to achieve forest health objectives). Procedures for funding restoration activities that are not supported by timber harvest revenues (i.e., overzealous KV plan costs, precommercial thinning requirements, wildlife reserve trees beyond the requirements for endangered species) will be revised. Timber sales for restoration of forest health will increase in percentage of bids awarded, provide greater receipts, be easier to contract, achieve forest plan objectives, improve forest health, strengthen resource-based industries, and sustain resource-dependent communities.
Additionally, a mechanism will be provided for evaluating the application of stewardship contracting, which uses the private sector to accomplish forest health treatments. Stewardship contracting will be applied to implement multifaceted forest ecosystem health projects as required under Federal law, to provide for flexibility in procurement and funding practices, and as a possible means to increase the success of marginal sales. Stewardship contracting will be implemented as pilot projects to evaluate feasibility. These contracts will be awarded based upon the results of competitive bid auction.
Page 174 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
(E) Appropriations
Federal funds will be provided at a level that is adequate to accomplish forest health restoration and maintenance, and local adaptation processes within the timeframes set forth in the legislation (i.e., 25 percent of the forest land will be restored within 5 years, 50 percent within 10 years, 75 percent with 15 years, and 100 percent in 20 years).
Remove funding obstacles to implementing locally developed forest management strategies, such as the Kitzhaber plan.
Adequate funding will be provided for:
Timber sale programs sufficient to accomplish broad-scale and fine-scale planning goals.
Timber sales which include the use of conservation credits
A stewardship contracting program.
Forest health restoration projects.
A natural resources investment account as suggested in the Kitzhaber forest health strategy (Forest Health and Timber Harvest on National Forests in the Blue Mountains of Oregon). Funds will be available to implement non-revenue generating ecosystem management activities.
monitoring of projects.
Provide adequate levels of funding for implementing the ICBEMP selected ecosystem management alternative so that management actions can be implemented without delay. Already completed forest health assessments and plans will be the foundation for galvanizing forest health treatments into action. Anticipation of sub-basin reviews, ecosystem analyses at the watershed scale, and forest plan revisions should not delay activities to restore forest health. Additionally, funds to implement recommended active ecosystem management strategies outlined in the ICBEMP Integrated Scientific Assessment will be secured without delay.
The selected ecosystem management strategy should provide optimal achievement of ecosystem management goals with the least cost. Under existing forest and land management plans, many Federal programs, such as road maintenance and recreation development, are paid for through the sale of natural resource commodities. Where more than one strategy provides the same level of benefits and services, the one with the least drain on taxpayers is best.
Page 175 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
Arbitrary budget caps should not limit proposed spending on various programs contained within forest health restoration strategies. The notion of using a budget cap is problematic because it is based on old budget paradigms, not on current forest health needs and opportunities. Without full funding of programs, the ability to successfully complete projects is in jeopardy. Using the forest health example, where aggressive treatments are appropriate for restoring forest patterns and processes to reduce the potential for large or catastrophic wildfire, ecosystem goals may only be achieved under full funding.
Concerning potential economic goals and assistance programs to local and rural economies in transition, a well-honed forest health restoration plan can provide for the production of commodities for sustaining local economies while avoiding elaborate transition strategies. The notion of fully mitigating impacts through community assistance programs should be avoided. The social and economic policy analysis prepared by Dr. Robert Lee at the Institute for Resources in Society analyzed the potential for small businesses to revitalize rural communities whose economies were adversely affected by reduction in wood processing on Federal lands within the Clinton Northwest Forest Plan region (Lee, 1995). Among the conclusions were: (1) family-wage jobs in the wood products industry have been replaced by sub-family wage jobs largely in the service sector, (2) tourism is unlikely to help very many of the affected counties compensate for the loss in wood products jobs and income, (3) secondary manufacturing may provide some help to a few of the most heavily challenged counties, but will tend to concentrate near urban areas in proximity to transportation nodes and markets, (4) restoration work, along with associated retraining for new occupations, will do very little to substitute for loss of wood product jobs and income, and (5) wood products businesses engaged in primary manufacturing provide the best opportunities for challenged counties to develop a stable and sustainable economic base. These early lessons from FEMAT should compel Congress to proceed cautiously when considering legislation that impacts resource supplies and the communities dependent on them. It is clear that the reductions in Federal timber supply need to be avoided until the expected outcomes of social and economic mitigation and transition strategies are known with certainty.
Page 176 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
(F). Key Action Items
Mandate aggressive implementation of forest health treatments before ecosystem and commodity values are lost, or before silvicultural options are reduced further, time is of the essence.
Accelerate closure of the ICBEMP, utilize the work developed and move to the loacal plan revision process.
Accept, adopt, and implement completed assessments and existing plans as the foundation for taking immediate action.
Utilize the Kitzhaber forest health strategy to implement forest health activities immediately.
Pass legislation to make the preparation and offering of timber sales more efficient and effective.
Empower the Federal land management agencies to implement forest health restoration activities. Clarify the roles of the regulatory and land management agencies regarding the management of Federal forest land.
Pass legislation to test the feasibility and implement of, competitively awarded stewardship contracting to achieve forest health objectives.
Support and pass into law Sen. Larry Craig's draft bill, the Public Land Management Responsibility and Accountability Restoration Act.
Harmonize Federal statutes and legislation affecting implementation of forest health restoration treatments.
Empower local groups, including state and local governments, and establish advisory groups to have a direct advisory role in local Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management plan implementation.
TESTIMONY OF WILLIAM K. GUTHRIE, T&S HARDWOODS
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, my name is Bill Guthrie, Forester for T&S Hardwoods, Alto, GA. My job specifically entails procuring logs which will be used at our hardwood saw mill in Sylva, NC. As a direct result of reduced Forest Service timber sales in North Carolina, the T&S Hardwoods Alto Log Yard was established 6 years ago. Prior to that time, our Sylva operations were 55 percent dependent on National Forest timber. Our move to Alto and subsequent search of logs from sources other National Forest lands, was a necessary one as we could no longer depend on the National Forests in North Carolina. Our experience then and now, enables us to be able to share with you today, our view of what is happening on the ground in our National Forests in North Carolina and Georgia and the impacts to not only the forest health of these lands, but also the economic health of companies like T&S Hardwoods.
Page 177 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
I appreciate this opportunity to testify today regarding the Report on Forest Health . I believe this report will be helpful and as is stated in part 4 of the report, ''...policy needs to be agreed upon by policy makers; it is not the role of scientists to impose this policy. However, scientists can help with such a vision both by suggesting alternatives and by showing the consequences of each alternative.'' Congress now has the information to make policy decisions regarding the future management of our National Forests and measure the consequences of such decisions, both positive and negative. I am pleased to assist in providing additional information for your consideration.
FOREST HEATH IS IMPORTANT TO US ALL
I think the issue of forest health is important to us all, including the general public. In our part of the country, we have addressed many of the conditions of our lands; the management of such lands and the views of the public. I refer specifically to (1) The Southern Appalachian Assessment and (2) the Chattahoochee National Forest Roundtable.
The Southern Appalachian Assessment, a collaborative assessment among government agencies and the public updated resource inventories, defined current management situations, estimated supply capabilities and resource demands, and assisted in determining the need for change in current National Forest plans. One of the major issues looked at was Forest Health. In particular, the SAA noted that ''70 percent of respondents involved in the SAA, agreed that there should be more harvesting of dead and downed trees and 68.5 percent disagreed with a landscape which is brown and consist of dead trees.'' Clearly, the public in the Southern Appalachian area does want a healthy forest and they know that management must occur, including cutting of trees.
In the Chattahoochee National Forest Roundtable, principles that surfaced, in a variety of forms, included: (1) Responsible stewardship of forest health; (2)Improved information based on scientific practice; (3) increased stakeholder involvement in decision-making; (4) increased education and public awareness; (5) adoption of multiple use concepts and management practices; (6) open communication between USFS and user groups. No where did the roundtable, which represented a cross section of the public in Georgia, indicate there should be no management. In fact, it was just the opposite...the public wants management...wants a '' healthy sustainable timber program'' (Chattahoochee National Forest Roundtable, 2/15/97 Report Prepared by ICAD, page 7).
Page 178 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
FOREST HEALTH REPORT VALUES
The Forest Health Report takes a unique approach by deliberately not defining Forest Health, but rather, recognizes that ''one definition of forest health is not more 'scientific' than another...[they all describe the condition of the forest relative to various values.'' I believe that the Forest Health Science Panel's concept of defining values which the public wants from the forest is a good approach. By looking at the range of values suggested, and how these values might be met, provides for a wider view of forest health and one in which more of the general public can understand. The values identified are:
Sustaining Growth of Forests
Sustaining the global environment
Ensuring plant and animal diversity
Ensuring the productivity of future forests
Additional values which contribute to quality of life
Table 1.1 in the Report (Enclosure A), goes into further detail of each of these values and specifically how each value can be provided for. It's important to look at this extended list because it becomes clear that forest health is more than just whether or not there are southern pine beetle attacks or gypsy moth infestations. These other identified values include such considerations as: providing habitats for native species, maintaining site quality, sustaining watersheds, providing timber products, providing recreational opportunities, providing for rural lifestyles, providing for game and non-game fish and wildlife, etc. These are complex values which must be part of any solution adopted.
CURRENT MANAGEMENT OF NATIONAL FORESTS
While the public supports healthy forests, we are finding from assessments such as the Southern Appalachian Assessment and from the Report on Forest Health of the United States, that healthy forests are not being provided.
Page 179 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
(1) SAA Findings:
According to the SAA, the ''...distribution of age consists of a large percentage of stands aged in the 60 to 90 year old age classes. This condition may exacerbate the severity of insect and disease outbreaks in some forest types...current rates of disturbance from timber harvesting and other forest management activities may be lower than compared to estimates of pre-European settlement...'' ( SAA Terrestrial Technical Report, page 4).
The SAA notes that ''Many important tree species in the southern Appalachians are being severely affected by attacks from native and exotic pests.'' (SAA Summary, page 70). These include: (1) Dogwood Anthracnose; (2) Balsam Wooly Adelgid which kills Fraser firs; (3) Butternut canker attacking Butternut; (4) Oak decline caused by many factors including diseases, advancing tree age and insect damage; (5) Gypsy Moth moving steadily southward through the Appalachians; (6) Southern pine beetle.
The biggest forest health threats in the Southern Appalachians today are gypsy moths in northern Virginia, oak decline throughout the region and southern pine beetles in the southern quarter of the region. ''These agents increase tree mortality, reduce growth, and eventually change species composition.'' (SAA Summary Report, page 74).
(2) Report on Forest Health :
General conditions of the forests, as identified by the Report on Forest Health include:
Many exotic pests are already in our forests, and others can readily be imported with raw timber products'';
Nearly all forest regions have been and will be impacted by non-human disturbances (fires, windstorms, floods...others)'';
Many species which have survived in forests for millions of years are now threatened with extinction, even though they survived eras of intensive forest clearing for agriculture (and later regrowth to forests, fires and unrestricted harvesting of the previous few centuries. These species are in danger because many regions do not have enough open, savanna, and complex habitat''; Very few proactive steps are being taken to avoid exotic and native pest epidemic outbreaks;
Page 180 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
''...there has been a general reduction of shade intolerant and fire resistant species such as pines and oaks in the East...these species are being replaced with more shade tolerant species such as hickories and maples...'';
In the South, ''an impending problem is the loss or reduction of some valuable species (e.g., upland oak species), primarily because of fire control and curtailment of clearcutting on National Forests''.
The report also notes that ''many attitudes and policies during the past century have contributed to the forests'' present condition. These factors are based on two perceptions which has since changed. The first perception is that there is a timber shortage. The second perception is that natural condition (or steady state) resulted in exclusion of disturbances. However, now scientific theory accepts that forests are constantly changing and that the exclusion theory has led to crowded forests. The report also notes that species diversity can be provided in the forest, but not by attempting to maintain a steady state condition.
I personally believe that this second perception is one of the major problems confronting us with regard to management of our National Forests. The general public does not realize that forests are ever changing and that the forests of yesterday will not be the same forests of tomorrow. What is happening is that the location of the Steady State is changing over the landscape as a result of growth and disturbance patterns. Therefore, the public may not see the same forest in the same location due to disturbance. This is an important hurdle that we must get over if we are to manage our forests today for the future.
Another important current condition which will impact the Congress' decisions is the change in land ownership. Currently, fragmentation of large private tracts into small tracts may make management less economical...[t]here have been major increases in the number of landowners holding small parcels...urbanization of many timberland areas also may impact management...[f]or example, about 26 percent of all timberland area and timber volumes from Virginia to Alabama was actually in a Metropolitan Statistic Area. (Report on Forest Health, Part 3, page 18). This is a major problem which severely impacts the timber supply picture in the area where I live and work...north Georgia and western North Carolina. These types of ownership changes only add to the need for management of our public lands.
Page 181 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
V. WHAT CAN BE DONE TO IMPROVE FOREST HEALTH
So the hard question comes, ''What can be done to improve Forest Health?'' Of the options put forth by the Report on Forest Health, ''...an Integrated Management provides the most positive and fewest negative tradeoffs....'' (Report on Forest Health, Summary Report, page 6). Under an integrated management decision, the many values just discussed, are provided for.
Some of the needs for treatment, as identified by the Southern Appalachian Assessment, are:
improve vigor of individual trees and mitigate the effect of oak decline.
Gypsy Moth...risk rating to identify vulnerable stands, and thinning and salvage cutting; quarantine to prevent introduction into uninfested areas; careful monitoring of the spread of the insect.
Southern pine beetle: determine risk of attack in individual stands and treating stands where risks are high. Existing infestations can be stopped by cutting and leaving infested trees, cutting and removing them, or cutting and burning them.
These are the simple management treatments but I emphasize that forest health, under the guidelines of the Report on Forest Health, involves more. Important pro-active management treatments should also be made to address such issues as habitat development, commodity production, rural lifestyles impacts, etc.
Congress must seek to resolve the conflicts which threaten the future management of our national forests. Using the Report on Forest Health can be extremely helpful in this endeavor as the report provides a blueprint of the impacts of various types of decisions. Congress, therefore, can look at all the values and know that when a decision is made, that so many of the values will be either achieved or not achieved. I hope that Congress will continue to support management which provides for a range of values.
Right now management on our National Forests is not occurring. On the National Forest closest to me, I have seen the timber sale program basically shut down on the Chattahoochee National Forest, due to litigation. Our situation is a result of the Sierra Club lawsuit which attacked National Forest timber sales on three points: (1) Migratory Bird Treaty Act; (2) Clean Water Act--a dispute over silvicultural exemptions, which has been dropped by the Sierra Club; and (3) National Forest Management Act ...claiming the Forest Service is required to account for every species out there on the ground when it comes to the population trends analysis (this is not a reasonable allocation of scarce resources).
Page 182 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
While we wait for the Judge at the District Court level to make a final ruling, it is clear that the Sierra Club is continuing to push forward their policy of eliminating logging on National Forests. They have already begun extensive radio advertisement in my home town of Gainesville, Georgia, espousing such rhetoric.
These types of emotional pleas and ongoing litigation only make it impossible for the professional foresters on the ground to do their job. Taxpayers dollars are used to hire highly educated resource professionals and it is a crime that they are not able to do the job that they were hired for. If Congress does not intervene and clarify the mission of the Forest Service and strengthen the means to achieve its mission, then we will see public lands providing less and less values to the American people. I do not believe that this is a situation our nation can accept or afford.
Next Hearing Segment(3)