[Senate Hearing 107-308]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
. S. Hrg. 107-308
FOREST PROTECTION INITIATIVES AND
NATIONAL FOREST POLICY
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
PUBLIC LANDS AND FORESTS
of the
COMMITTEE ON
ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
TO RECEIVE TESTIMONY ON THE INTERACTION OF OLD-GROWTH FOREST PROTECTION
INITIATIVES AND NATIONAL FOREST POLICY
__________
OCTOBER 2, 2001
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
78-036 WASHINGTON : 2002
____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512-1800
Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico, Chairman
DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii FRANK H. MURKOWSKI, Alaska
BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico
BOB GRAHAM, Florida DON NICKLES, Oklahoma
RON WYDEN, Oregon LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming
EVAN BAYH, Indiana RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama
DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California CONRAD BURNS, Montana
CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York JON KYL, Arizona
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington CHUCK HAGEL, Nebraska
THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware GORDON SMITH, Oregon
Robert M. Simon, Staff Director
Sam E. Fowler, Chief Counsel
Brian P. Malnak, Republican Staff Director
James P. Beirne, Republican Chief Counsel
------
Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests
RON WYDEN, Oregon, Chairman
DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho
BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota CONRAD BURNS, Montana
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana DON NICKLES, Oklahoma
EVAN BAYH, Indiana GORDON SMITH, Oregon
DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming
CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York JON KYL, Arizona
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama
Jeff Bingaman and Frank H. Murkowski are Ex Officio Members of the
Subcommittee
John Watts, Counsel
Frank Gladics, Professional Staff Member
C O N T E N T S
----------
STATEMENTS
Page
Bisson, Henri, Assistant Director, Renewable Resources and
Planning, Bureau of Land Management, Department of the Interior 14
Bonnicksen, Dr. Thomas M., Professor, Department of Forest
Science, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX.............
Collins, Sally, Associate Chief, U.S. Forest Service; accompanied
by Robert Lewis, Ph.D., Deputy Chief, Research and Development;
Mike McClellan, Ph.D., Russ Graham, Ph.D., and Curt Kotchak,
Ph.D., Vegetation Research Ecologists, U.S. Forest Service..... 18
Craig, Hon. Larry E., U.S. Senator from Idaho.................... 8
Daucsavage, Bruce, President, Ochoco Lumber Company, Prineville,
OR............................................................. 65
DeFazio, Hon. Peter, U.S. Representative from Oregon............. 3
Franklin, Jerry F., Professor of Ecosystem Analysis, College of
Forest Resources, University of Washington, Seattle, WA........
Johnston, James, Co-Director, Cascadia Wildlands Project, Eugene,
OR............................................................. 58
Palola, Eric S., Director, Northeast Regional Office, National
Wildlife Federation............................................ 53
Smith, Hon. Gordon, U.S. Senator from Oregon..................... 30
Torgerson, John, Alaska State Senator and Chairman, Committee on
Natural Resources, Alaska State Senate......................... 70
Wyden, Hon. Ron, U.S. Senator from Oregon........................ 1
FOREST PROTECTION INITIATIVES
AND NATIONAL FOREST POLICY
----------
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 2, 2001
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests,
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:35 p.m. in
room SD-366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Ron Wyden
presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RON WYDEN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM OREGON
Senator Wyden. The subcommittee will come to order. Today
the subcommittee opens an important inquiry that I hope will
end with strong protections for old-growth trees, healthier
forests, and better ways of managing those forests for all
Americans.
Let me be clear about my own sense of where today's
discussion of old-growth ought to go. Absent compelling forest
health concerns, it is time to end logging on our ancient
forests. My concept of forest management accepts a simple fact:
Some things are too important to mess up. Our ancient forests
are at the top of that list.
I do feel that there are several absolutely essential
components for an old-growth protection effort. It must be
accompanied by management across the entire forest ecosystem.
That includes a substantial thinning program, multiple use, and
watershed restoration.
From the beginning, the debate about old-growth has been
highly polarized. We have some on one hand who would punish the
Forest Service for not cutting enough trees. On the other,
there are those who would stand in the way of all commercial
use of our forests. Those uses are critical to stabilizing and
promoting the health of those forests.
I pursued county payments legislation with Senator Craig
here in the U.S. Senate. Congressman DeFazio, of course, is the
leader in the House on this issue, and we were working to
lighten the economic load carried by timber-dependent
communities and widen the way for a real discussion of a
creative new approach to forest management. County payments are
just one example of how the logjam over forest policy can be
broken, providing for the ecological health of the forest and
ensuring survival for resource-dependent rural communities.
Forest Chief Mike Dombeck called that county payments law
the most important forestry law in 40 years. Today, I say the
subcommittee can develop old-growth policy initiatives that
might be the most important forestry work for the next 30
years.
For decades, my home State has been a hotbed of contentious
debate over forestry. In those 20 years, the fights over timber
have become increasingly acrimonious. In 1984, the
implementation of the Northwest Forest Plan tried to address
questions of supply for the industry and protect old-growth,
there were over a dozen pending lawsuits over the northern
spotted owl, the marbled murrulet, and the possibility of
future timber harvests from old-growth. Those same fights with
respect to old-growth harvesting exist today, 17 years later,
heightened by years of argument.
I would submit that arguments over the treatment of old-
growth exist partly because there is not even basic agreement
in our country about what constitutes old-growth. What a
southerner calls old-growth and what an Oregonian calls old-
growth may be two completely different matters. One of the
responsibilities of this subcommittee is going to be to look
beyond immediate disagreements and address fundamental
questions that continually fuel the fires of the old-growth
debate.
To date, the Northwest Forest Plan is the sole template for
old-growth protection. Covering 21 million acres of Federally
managed forests spread across 18 national forests and several
Bureau of Land Management districts, the Northwest Forest Plan
offered unique challenges in terms of forest management, not
just for communities, not just in protected lands, but in
understanding that the two are deeply interconnected.
The design of the plan was supposed to allow forest
managers flexibility to explore the connections between forest
lands and forest communities so as to provide benefits to both.
By recognizing that not all forest land is the same, but
recognizing that the best use of some forest land is to benefit
resource-dependent communities, and by recognizing that some
should be preserved for its uniqueness and rarity, the
Northwest Forest Plan sought to expand understanding of forests
and improve management of them.
This hearing is meant to explore the knowledge that is
available with respect to old-growth, the effectiveness of the
methods that have been used, and the potential of methods that
have not yet been tapped. Old-growth is important first and
foremost simply because there is relatively little old-growth
left to protect. Additionally, if old-growth areas are lost it
is not simply a matter of losing ancient trees. Within our old-
growth stands are unique specialized plants and trees that
simply do not exist outside old-growth, animals that depend on
old-growth stands for habitat and sustenance. The bottom line:
we lose our old-growth stands, we lose a special world with
them.
Old-growth has to be managed in conjunction with late
successional forests. Trees which are young today will not
simply grow older and recreate old-growth habitats.
After much listening and after many long discussions with
those on all sides, we are going to make it clear that we
intend to reject those who would take an extreme position on
this issue. The challenge is to come up with a creative path, a
new strategy that interweaves environmental concerns with
social and economic ones in order to ensure healthier forests
and ecosystems.
Development of new and creative strategies to both protect
old-growth and sustain timber-dependent communities is going to
be heavy lifting. It is going to demand something of all of the
stakeholders. It is my intention, working in conjunction with
Senator Craig, who has been extremely cooperative with me on
these matters, to sit down and look for an honest exchange of
ideas and find solutions.
When we say stakeholders, we are talking about more than
environmental interests and timber interests. We are talking
about the concerns of the old-growth Forest Service, the Bureau
of Land Management, the Fish and Wildlife Service, the National
Marine Fisheries Service. We need their expertise and
commitment in order to have effective management of our forest
ecosystems.
I want to make it clear at the outset that I am willing to
work with anyone and everyone who is truly committed to
protecting old-growth as part of a larger plan to restore
forest health. This is going to be an effort to try to end the
bickering and ulterior motives and the parochial agendas that
have dominated this issue and at the end of the day to make
sure that, with strong protections for old-growth trees, we
have a healthier forest and a better way of managing the forest
for all Americans.
We are going to start the productive and lively discussion
that this issue will surely generate with an excellent panel of
witnesses. We are very fortunate to have one of Congress' true
forestry experts, Peter DeFazio from the Fourth District, where
these issues generate about as much passion as anywhere on the
planet. He will begin our presentation.
Then we are going to have Henri Bisson from the Bureau of
Land Management, Sally Collins from the Forest Service, Jerry
Franklin from the University of Washington, Dr. Tom Bonnicksen
of Texas A&M, Eric Palola of the National Wildlife Foundation,
Jim Johnston of Cascadia Wildlands Project, Bruce Daucsavage of
Ochoco Lumber, and John Torgerson of the Alaska State
Legislature.
Let me make it clear to our witnesses, we will put their
prepared remarks into the record in their entirety and know
that it is almost a biological compulsion to read every word
that is on paper in front of you, but we will put that in the
record, and if our witnesses could highlight their principal
concerns that would be helpful.
Peter, I am especially glad you are here. You have taught
me an awful lot about these issues during my service in the
Congress and it is appropriate we begin with you.
STATEMENT OF HON. PETER DeFAZIO,
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM OREGON
Mr. DeFazio. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I can say indeed it
is a pleasure to be here today. It is not often in the past
that I have talked about wading into the contentious issues of
forest management as a relief from my normal duties, but I have
been totally immersed in aviation and aviation security issues
for a couple of weeks and it is good to get a little
perspective on other issues that are very important to my
constituents and to our country.
When I was first elected to Congress in 1987, I had a
conference that I put together. I thought, if only we could put
the issue of forest management far enough into the future,
perhaps we could try to find common ground and get people to
agree on what they would like our forests to look like 20 or so
years from now. So I put out a conference call to ``Our forests
in the year 2010.'' Among the participants was the then chief
forester, but also Jerry Franklin made one presentation. I had
one memorable panel which included both Andy Kerr and Chris
West.
It became clear that, even if we put the debate out 23
years, there was still a very vigorous debate and disagreement.
I believe that today, getting close to that time, there is
actually more grounds for common agreement. In part, they come
from the failures of the Northwest Forest Plan.
The Northwest Forest Plan certainly imposed some order on
chaos. We had basically the entire system under one form or
another of court management or injunction. There was certainly
on the part of the last administration an attempt to bring
together some of or many of the diverse parties and try and put
in place a plan that would provide some protection for those
things which we wished to protect and to provide some
predictability for those who were dependent upon forest
resources for their living.
Unfortunately, I think there were some fatal flaws inherent
in that, and others what follow me perhaps will address those
with more specificity, but let me give my lay person's view of
the issue.
I remember, again, talking to Dr. Franklin back then and
said, you know, I do not quite understand, Jerry. If we draw a
line around a late successional reserve, which is a previously
managed second growth area tree plantation, what do you get in
20, 40, 50, or even 100 years? His response was: You get dog
hair, dog hair being not a functioning old-growth-like forest
ecosystem or even a mid-range sort of forest system, but
actually something that is unnatural, planted to unnatural
densities, with very little understory and diversity, actually
in some cases you could almost say sort of a biological desert.
That has, unfortunately, given what has proven to be fatal
flaws and inflexibility, the current status of where many late
successional reserves covering hundreds of thousands of acres
are headed. I have a particular concern with the Coast Range in
Oregon and some in Oregon and northern California, but
particularly in Oregon, where there are tens of thousands of
acres that are at a critical point to go in and thin. If the
only value were to manage those forests to be future old-
growth, you would still have to go in there and conduct this
thinning.
But if you miss a critical window to do the thinning, the
trees will get too tall, particularly in areas where you have
high winds, and if you did the thinning 10 or 15 years too late
you are likely to get a lot of blowdown and you have missed,
obviously, that which could have been captured in the interim
period.
The Forest Service has very little money to conduct these
sorts of what would be called restoration forestry sales and/or
restoration forestry practices, and they are falling further
and further behind on the thinning.
Now, the issue obviously becomes, there is built-in
distrust here. There is the distrust that many environmental
groups have for the management agency or the industry. There is
certainly folks in the industry who feel like they were burned
by the Clinton forest plan and the promises of some
predictability there. We have got to get past that, and you are
going to hear from some folks today who are trying to develop a
path past those old disagreements and kind of what I would call
old business.
I really think there is something here that we can all
grasp if this is done properly, Mr. Chairman, and if we were to
get into or go into some of these late successional reserves,
not on a necessarily standard prescription, but to really
enhance their long-term viability as functioning forest
ecosystems, to speed their movement toward more old-growth-like
characteristics and the diversity that comes with that, there
would also be a significant amount of viable commercial product
that would come out of those areas.
One thing that I suggested to the last administration, to
Assistant Secretary Lyons from his first day in office, or
maybe before his first day in office, was I was really
interested in the idea of moving away from selling timber on
the stump to contract logging under the direction of the Forest
Service, in which case you could have a lot more control over
what happens in a given area so that you do not get trees cut
that were not supposed to be cut and you can do the
prescriptions as you wish, bring the logs out to a sort yard as
the industry does, sort them by age, species and type, and then
sell them from the sort yard for a much higher value, rather
than selling someone something that is 30 percent hemlock who
only wants fir and then they are going to bid lower and then
they are going to resell it. It becomes very inefficient, plus
you lose the control over the forestry practices and it assumes
more of the aspect of a commercial timber sale, even if you are
doing restoration forestry, than under a contracted logging and
removing the product to sort yards for sale.
I think--and you will hear from people, again, much more
qualified than I who have looked at--and I have asked recently
with a letter I directed from some members of the House to the
Chief to get some quantifiable numbers on what might be
available and over what period of time, what budgetary
requirements we would need.
But I think what you will find is for people like Ochoco
Lumber, people you will hear from later today, people who have
done what we were encouraging the industry to do--move away
from your old-growth, adopt more efficient practices, look
toward a sustainable supply of second growth timber--that we
can probably project out 20 years, which for many folks would
be very desirable, with some degree of certainty how much could
be available, how much timber could be available, while at the
same time we are managing the forests for environmental
purposes, restoration forestry purposes, and critically, as you
mentioned earlier, moving out of old-growth timber sales.
That is the continuing bone of contention and we are still
tied up in the courts like we were in the early nineties. So I
think there is really the possibility of tying together a
package here which could have broad support, both from the
industry, environmental groups, and policymakers.
There are some specifics that will have to be worked
through in terms of how can we assure, even if we are moving
toward restoration forestry and thinning over these hundreds of
thousands of acres of second growth in LSR's, that it is being
done properly? You would have to build in certainly the
protections of the reviews there.
But also, what sort of agreement can we come to over the
criteria that will be used so that they cannot, if there is
broad agreement, as you said, be tied up by someone on the
extreme from even moving forward on something that everybody
admits would have environmental benefit and provide a
commercially viable product?
These are yet difficult questions to be worked through and
with sort of the historic distrust, it will be a little bit
difficult. But I appreciate the chairman's leadership with this
subcommittee and would look forward to working with him and his
staff and other interested members, the gentleman from Idaho
and others, on moving forward from this point.
I think we have an opportunity here, and I did not even
touch on the issues of fire and things where again there is
potential for some predictability and restoring forest health
and removing a viable product. But I believe that is going to
be the subject of a future hearing.
[The prepared statement of Mr. DeFazio follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Peter DeFazio, U.S. Representative
From Oregon
Mr. Chairman, in 1993, as part of the Clinton Administration's
Northwest Forest Plan, large tracts of previously harvested timberland
were set aside as Late Successional Reserves (LSRs). The purpose of
establishing these reserves was to develop late successional forests,
more commonly known as old growth. At that time, I raised concerns
about simply drawing lines around large tree plantations without
developing a comprehensive plan to manage the resulting protected
forest. I asked University of Washington forest scientist, Jerry
Franklin, what would become of the newly protected areas in one hundred
years? He informed me that those plantations would develop into ``dog
hair.'' Mr. Chairman, if you have ever seen a forest that looks like
dog hair, you'll know that it is not really a forest at all. But ``dog
hair'' forests are what we are quickly developing in many Northwest
LSRs. These reserves could play an important long-term role in
regenerating late successional forest conditions, but they need to be
effectively managed to achieve that goal.
In May of this year, I participated in a field trip with Regional
Forester Harv Forsgren, along with a team of district rangers and
forest scientists, to examine the effects of tree thinning within LSRs.
I was very impressed by what I saw. In the untreated stands, trees
stand at a density of about two hundred to four hundred per acre--the
``dog hair'' conditions of which Mr. Franklin spoke, and I was
concerned about, over eight years ago. The trees are small in
diameter--many less than ten inches--without full, healthy crowns. In
addition, the forest is nearly devoid of under-story foliage. The lack
of sunlight and nutrients reaching the forest floor has created a
``biological desert'' where there should be species of hemlock, maple,
alder, salmonberry, and numerous other plants. By contrast, the study
areas that have been thinned to approximately sixty trees per acre show
signs of a healthy, functioning forest--larger trees, greater crowns,
and a diverse collection of vegetation. In yet another area I visited,
where scientists have thinned to thirty trees per acres, the positive
effects appear even greater.
This is not to say that all LSRs should be uniformly prescription
thinned to thirty trees per acre. We should rely upon good forest
science to determine the best way to thin to improve the ecological
health of the forest. Some of the latest research suggests that old
growth forests began lightly stocked, then thickened into highly
differentiated stands through seeding over about a twenty-year period.
Some heavily crowded stands may have to be prescription thinned, while
others will be thinned very selectively. Whatever the method, the
ultimate goal is to enhance forest health and develop old growth.
LSR thinning is also linked to the Northwest's old growth forests
in another important way. When the Northwest Forest Plan was first
proposed, one of my primary objections was that it would fail to
resolve the region's forest management controversies. The reason was
simple: much of the plan's timber sale volume came from old growth
stands and roadless areas that were not included in reserve areas.
During the development of the forest plan, I advocated a reasonable
management option that would have helped resolve the disputes about
cutting old growth forests by logging primarily in second growth stands
while reserving many old growth stands. Unfortunately, after hundreds
of hours of secret meetings, the Clinton Administration did not
consider any proposals that incorporated the alternative management
policies I advocated. As a result, we are still faced with highly
controversial old growth timber sales in the Pacific Northwest.
The goal of LSR thinning is the restoration of late successional
forests. However, LSR thinning will incidentally result in marketable
timber. According to preliminary estimates, the amount of board-feet
recovered from thinning operations would be significant in meeting our
wood products needs and possibly keep open struggling sawmills, which
are vital to the economy in many depressed Northwest communities. By
shifting the focus of the Forest Service away from controversial timber
sales and toward needed thinning operations, we can rescue many family
wage jobs while improving forest health and developing protected old
growth.
To better manage the wood byproduct of LSR thinning operations, I
have proposed establishing Forest Service run sort-yards. Contracting
the logging operation without selling the standing trees will achieve a
more suitable thin, and help to alleviate some concerns about thinning.
Contract logging will allow the Forest Service to decide what trees are
to be removed to achieve the greatest ecological benefit, as opposed to
a timber company having a direct financial interest in the size and
species of harvested trees. Once in the yard, the trees can be sorted
by size and species and auctioned off to the highest bidder. The
private sector has run similar sort-yards for years to bring about the
maximum utilization of trees harvested and maximum returns.
I have been encouraged by the support from environmental groups,
the timber industry, the Forest Service, and the scientific community
for all of these ideas. Thinning within LSRs, protecting old growth,
and using Forest Service run sort-yards provide a desirable outcome for
all interests. We have a unique opportunity to bring all these groups,
who have at times been at bitter odds, together to achieve healthy old
growth forests.
I have recently been joined by a number of my colleagues from the
Northwest in sending a letter to the Chief of the Forest Service, Dale
Bosworth. In the letter, my colleagues and I request a range of
information from the Forest Service about the environmental and
economic benefits of LSR thinning; the result if thinning is not
completed; and the resources necessary to complete the thinning
operations. Once the Forest Service responds to our letter, it is my
hope that we can begin to address the needed thinning of LSRs through
the legislative and appropriations processes.
Senator Wyden. Well, Peter, thank you for an excellent,
excellent statement. I am going to let Senator Craig begin with
both his opening statement and any questions for you.
Senator Craig, before you came I made mention of the fact
that I was especially proud that we showed in the last session
of Congress, when everybody would have said no way and no-how
could the two of us come together on something like county
payments.
I wanted to see us really swing for the seats again. I
think that there is a chance, as Congressman DeFazio has
mentioned, this afternoon to come up with something that would
ensure millions and millions of board-feet for our mills, with
a substantial thinning program, old-growth protection, reform
of forest management practices, which, having sat by you for
several years now, you have made a very good case for.
I want to let you begin both the statement and questioning
of Congressman DeFazio by way of saying that I want us to go
back to the same spirit we did last session on this issue,
because I think we could do something like that bill last
session that would also pay dividends for another 30 years. Why
don't you proceed in any way you choose?
STATEMENT OF HON LARRY E. CRAIG, U.S. SENATOR
FROM IDAHO
Senator Craig. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
Congressman, thank you for being before the committee today
to talk about an issue in the whole of the concept of our
forest management that is of very real importance. I must tell
you, when I think of old-growth and someone talking about
preserving it, I guess it is in my mind an oxymoron. It is kind
of like defying gravity. Old in a living thing ultimately is
not old any more; it is a slab of carbon laying on the ground
rotting.
That is a pretty blunt statement. I know that west side
douglas fir have a different lifestyle than the climax forests
of the inland West as it relates to lodgepole pine and all of
that, but the ultimate factor is that certain trees die at
certain times.
I am also a little nervous about continually finding new
preserves or reasons to preserve. We just came out of a most
contentious fight with a former President who tried to reserve
some 60 million additional acres all in the name of roads or
roadless areas by finding ways to greatly restrict access.
I understand what you and our chairman are trying to do and
I am going to try to be cooperative in as many ways as
possible. At the same time, when I look at your State and my
State and the number of acres we have already set off-limits,
for all the right reasons in most cases, I find it difficult
for me to run to find another reason to set aside more acres.
I understand the frustration of the industry: Gee, this
time if we support this maybe we will get an allowable cut. But
I have heard that argument for 20 years as I have seen the
allowable cut first move to half, then a third, and now hardly
a representative portion of where we once were.
I am not sure what gives us the key to the right or
reasonable forest management, balanced management, recognizing
the need to thin, clean, create vitality on the forest floor
for the purposes of wildlife and watershed, and even to produce
a few sticks to build homes with in the end.
So I will listen with great curiosity and I am going to
make every effort to work with my chairman to see if we cannot
resolve this issue, because there are a good many things that
the chairman and I believe in strongly, and that is the
viability and the health of our public forested lands. I have
grown to believe that unless you designate specifically, under
the reality that we are going to let Mother Nature be the sole
manager of certain portions of the resource, as we have
determined with wilderness and other designations--I guess my
ultimate question would be, if you establish old-growth
preserves and they become designated areas for their uniqueness
and they are swept and cleaned by fire, would there be a
willingness to undesignate them, to clean them out and gain
some of the value that would be left there, to allow them to
regenerate into an old-growth stand again?
My guess is that would not be the case. I would not expect
you to respond to it unless you wish, simply because it would
be a preserve into which man should not and would not trammel
under any circumstance, as is true in wilderness, as is now
true in our unroaded areas, where we are denied even the right
to go in and the take from those unroaded areas the burned
trees that have been devastated by fire.
Our Forest Service in the last few years has just given up
on trying to, because they knew by the time they fought the
courts and the interest groups that the salvage would be
salvage-less because the value would so have deteriorated, that
they would just as well walk away from it. I watched that
happen in my State a year ago and find that somewhat tragic.
So I think you hear by my statement a high level of
frustration as it relates to how we approach constantly locking
up portions for their uniqueness until there comes a day when
there is none left to lock up, let alone none to manage in a
multiple or a balanced way.
We know that there are a good many acres out there that we
now manage for that purpose, and I suspect that some of them
will always be there, although I must tell you that you, Peter,
and I and the chairman have served in the House, and I will
never forget the day when we were designating a wilderness in
southern Missouri for its uniqueness, its beauty, and its
pristine qualities, except we were going to have to remove 250
miles of roads and one power line and about 35 miles of
barbwire fences, and the reason was because it had once been
logged and mined and it had regrown so beautifully that someone
was now wanting to claim it as a wilderness.
Well, it is now wilderness. It is known as the Mark Twain,
although it was once an actively managed resource for the
purpose of returning value to those who were managing it at the
time, and my guess is managing it to much less strenuous
environmental standards than those who would manage it today.
I guess that is a chance for me to express some of my
frustrations. I pledge to my chairman that we will work
together to try to resolve this. In my State we have a stand
that is nearing old-growth today. It is 100 years old. Well, it
will not be 100 years old for 8 more years, Mr. Chairman,
because in 1910 Mother Nature burned over 2 million acres of
it, and across my State of Idaho and into Montana and into
Washington is this marvelous stretch of perfectly even-aged,
beautiful timber that started to regrow in 1911, and it has not
been touched.
It has now reached its life cycle, so it is by definition
old-growth by the term of the species. It is now ready to be
burned. It is starting to die. The question is in my State,
will we preserve it or will we develop the mosaics of uneven
age stands that are a result of wise and effective timber
management for the purposes of lessening the fire rate,
creating 500 or 600 jobs, and adding phenomenal value to and,
my guess is, properly managed, a much higher sensitivity and
quality of environment and watershed that is much more
productive and useful than the kind that is now nearly ready to
deteriorate, as my foresters or our foresters in the U.S.
Forest Service tell me.
Senator, this is but a match or a lightning strike away
from the episodic character that it held in 1910, when nearly
two million acres, one community, five logging camps, one
train, and ten people died. That is a frustration that needs to
be worried about and I worry about it.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Wyden. I thank my colleague. I am going to have a
couple of comments, but first our colleague Mr. DeFazio.
Mr. DeFazio. I think I can find a question somewhere in
that statement, Mr. Chairman. Obviously, I am much less
knowledgeable about east side issues, my district being
entirely a west side one, and the life cycles there, although I
spend a fair amount of time in central Oregon, but that is
again even different than the intermountain region in Idaho. So
I am not going to pretend to be an expert on the life cycles
there.
But what we are talking about with late successional
reserves here is essentially under the Clinton plan the late
successional reserves, in part because of the reluctance of the
Forest Service and in part because of some of the processes
that were set out, are not being thinned to varying standards,
which would in fact create or attempt to duplicate, and you
will hear from experts after me, the mosaics that the gentleman
mentioned on the west side.
So first I would say that in fact where we would be on the
west side--and again, I am not so knowledgeable of his State or
the categories there--but the old-growth that we would preserve
on west side is probably a lot less acres than what is
currently set aside in late successional reserves that require
some management to achieve their real potential and to better
emulate a natural system.
I think there is some potential grounds for agreement here.
Beyond that, on the slab of carbon laid on the ground, I
recommend that some time if the Senator wishes to visit my
district we will go through the A.C. Andrews Experimental
Forest and you can see a very exciting experiment they have
growing there of a log rotting, which they have been monitoring
now for some 30 or more years, I am not sure how many years,
and the value of something actually that is rotting and what it
contributes.
There is not--even when a forest reaches a climax and trees
do fall over there is some very substantial benefit that they
have demonstrated there. In many cases the old-growth we are
talking about west side could well have another 200 or 250
years of viability and that is a little longer-term look than
we usually take in Congress.
I think preserving that while we bring along some other
areas, and then perhaps natural processes will befall that area
and it will begin the cycle all over again. I cannot look quite
that far in the future, but that is the sort of thing we are
talking about here.
I just recommend, I think we both probably need to learn
more about each other's side of the mountains and what the
problems are there and it could be helpful to both of us
probably.
Senator Craig. Mr. Chairman and Peter, thank you. I am not
as aware of your side as I am our side, although I spent the
last 20 years looking at these issues. As I said, you will have
my attention and my cooperation where we can to see if we can
resolve this issue.
I think the health of our forests nationwide depends on
more active management and less lockup, although some
uniqueness deserve to be preserved and I voted for those and I
have worked with you on it. I am not sure I am going to give
you my time to go look at a rotting log, though.
Thank you.
[Laughter.]
Mr. DeFazio. It is a pretty exciting experiment, let me
tell you. You will hear about it later, I am sure.
Senator Craig. Trust me.
Senator Wyden. Let me see if I can respond to my friend for
a minute----
Mr. DeFazio. They do other things there, too.
Senator Wyden. First, let me again pledge my full
cooperation with you on this effort. In addition, this morning
I had a good conversation with Frank Murkowski about this and
made it very clear that we are going to be working closely with
him. Of course, Alaska has some special concerns in this
regard.
Second, I think with respect to old-growth--and Peter I
think touched on it and I want to be clear what I am talking
about. I am talking about old-growth in the context of an
integrated management plan, so that we look directly into some
of the things that you hold hearings on, painstaking hearings,
about what it took to come up with a good management plan.
In that regard, Peter has talked about, and he did not
mention it in his testimony, I do not think, about how some of
the forests and maybe some of the south coast, Peter, that you
mentioned, you think almost would be pretty good examples of a
model kind of forest, where you could really look to gain some
valuable information about how you come up with an integrated
management plan and have strong old-growth protection.
Do you want to comment on that, your idea of whether the
Congress ought to be looking at, not just in Oregon but
elsewhere, at the possibility that there are some forests that
could be pretty good models of what we are trying to do?
Mr. DeFazio. I think in particular, Mr. Chairman, we were
talking about an area on the Siuslaw where they actually in a
fairly short area, which only old politicians who have been
around a long time can cover, you can go to an area and see an
area that was naturally reforested, I believe after a fire or
something.
But it is an extraordinary density. You can see in that
area that the trees are in fact--to tell the truth, I cannot
remember whether this one was--I have been to both, some that
are naturally grown back. This one may have been actually
planted. But the trees are very small, very close together,
nothing on the forest floor, as I said virtually a biological
desert.
You can walk a fairly short distance to a stand which was
thinned to a certain density, the number of trees, and you find
trees of the same age that are much larger in diameter,
substantial undergrowth, some sign of wildlife. Then you walk
in a little further to an area that was even more substantially
thinned, again exactly the same age. The trees are again
larger; the undergrowth, you have got to push your way through
it. There are signs of big game, deer and elk and other things
in that area.
So it is just sort of an extraordinary example of where we
could be going with some management. The interesting thing is,
if you took both someone from a timber company and some
environmentalists there and you said, look at these three
areas, what do you think, everyone would go to the first part,
which goes to the dog hair category, and say: Well, we do not
want this. Some people would look at the second area and say:
Well, this is really where we want to go. Others would look at
the third area and say: No, this is what we want.
So the difference now is the difference between the second
area and the third area, which is the amount of thinning that
is being done and what your ultimate desired condition is and
what you are managing that for.
In a way it is a cop-out, because in a way what I am
talking about here could put the debate over the real future of
some of these west side forests off indefinitely. We could put
it off for another generation, because if you could get
agreement on going in and doing the necessary thinning and
removing that you would begin to be managing toward that second
and third category, because you would have the diversity.
But what would happen is you would not go back into those
areas, even if you decided you were just managing these forests
for timber, not to ultimately regrow to old-growth-like
characteristics, for another generation. So in a way it is
almost like the thing we always love to do around here, which
is study a solution to put off difficult decisions.
In a way, we could give the next generation a gift, which
is we are going to improve the value of these things
dramatically and put it on a path where you can ultimately
choose. But our intention is we would be managing, as you and I
have talked earlier, for the old-growth characteristics,
restoration forestry.
Again, it is probably very different than your forests, but
on the west side it is pretty dramatic to see this.
Senator Craig. Peter, thinning and space and moisture and
sunlight have the same effect east side, west side, just
different species.
Senator Wyden. I just think--and Larry really touched on
it--what we hear again and again every time we are home as
westerners is people want the win-win. They want to preserve
treasuries, they want to protect those local economies. I think
that the Congress' inability, starting with the Northwest
Forest Plan, to come up with something like, I hope we will do
this time, really gets us more to a lose-lose. We are not
meeting a resource-dependent community's need for economics,
which is why we hear about the frustration that you describe so
well, nor do we deal with some of the protections for old-
growth that in places that Peter is talking about sound like
naturals.
I think this is exactly what I hope to do by starting off.
Peter, do you want to add anything?
Mr. DeFazio. No, Mr. Chairman. I have emphasized the Coast
Range, but those are the conditions that pretty much prevail
over a wider area and perhaps even is applicable--I mean, I
know it is applicable to some extent--in central Oregon,
perhaps even over into the intermountain region.
Obviously, in putting this together we should take a broad
view. But I have been particularly focused and my energies
really go to those areas of forests that have been under the
Northwest Forest Plan. But I am not averse to looking beyond
those areas and trying to develop some knowledge and expertise
beyond that. But this is where I have been particularly
focused.
Senator Wyden. Thank you very much.
Mr. DeFazio. Thank you.
Senator Wyden. We will be working with you.
Okay, Mr. Henri Bisson, Bureau of Land Management; Sally
Collins, Forest Service.
While you are getting settled, let me recognize my
colleague.
Senator Craig. Mr. Chairman, let me ask unanimous consent
that my full statement be a part of the record.
Senator Wyden. Without objection, so ordered.
[The prepared statement of Senator Craig follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Larry E. Craig, U.S. Senator From Idaho
I want to thank Chairman Wyden for calling this hearing today. As
with most issues we face on our public lands, the issue of old growth
is as contentious as they come.
Representative DeFazio, welcome, I appreciate you coming over today
to help us better understand the old growth issue through the eyes of
your constituents in Oregon. I also appreciate your commitment to
finding solutions to these contentious issues. We need to come together
to find solutions that are good for the environment and good for the
people who depend on our public lands for their economic survival.
Mr. Chairman, I will begin by saying that the term ``preservation
of old growth'' is an oxymoron. The very concept of attempting to
freeze trees, in time, is akin to denying that gravity exists. Every
forest ecosystem in this country proceeds through an evolutionary
process. Some, like Westside Douglas fir, take a long time to make the
transition from young saplings through a final catastrophic, or man-
made, event that brings them full circle. Others move from regeneration
to maturity to death and then rebirth in as short as 100 years time.
Those who would permanently set-aside old growth remind me a bit of
Don Quixote. If we pursue such a course in our efforts to deal with
forest health, I fear we too face a future of tilting at windmills.
Second, given our forest heath concerns, I want this Congress to
clearly understand that I am very skeptical about the wisdom of
considering any additional set-asides.
Congress and past Administrations have set-aside an area equal in
size to the States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, New York,
Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Maryland, and
Delaware. These set-asides are in prescriptions that severely restrict
or eliminate our ability to manipulate these forests for the good of
the land.
If many of these set-asides are destined to burn, are we prepared
to un-designate these area after they burn? Some how I think not.
Rather, the same folks who would end all timber harvesting on public
land will more likely come back for another bite at the apple demanding
additional set-asides from the remaining maturing forests.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, the culture of my State is that we are
brought up to avoid waste and to assure that our inactions do not
damage the forests that we will pass on to our children and grand
children.
Just last week we learned that we have over 73 million acres of
public land in the West that are at risk for catastrophic fire. This is
a tremendous amount of fuel to be volatilized and pumped into our air
sheds as carbon dioxide, not to mention all of the other pollutants and
habitat damage caused by these fires.
Mr. Chairman before we attempt to preserve something that will
inevitably die and decompose, I hope we will work to remove most of
these trees as they die and will work very hard to find ways to store
them in American's favorite investment and most effective carbon-sink--
homes!
I look forward to today's testimony and hearing how our witnesses
feel old growth issues should be addressed.
Senator Wyden. All right, let us begin with Mr. Bisson.
Welcome. We will make your prepared statement part of the
record and if you can summarize.
STATEMENT OF HENRI BISSON, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, RENEWABLE
RESOURCES AND PLANNING, BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, DEPARTMENT
OF THE INTERIOR
Mr. Bisson. I will briefly summarize my comments this
afternoon.
Senator Wyden. Great, great.
Mr. Bisson. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Senator Craig. I
thank you for the invitation to speak this afternoon on behalf
of the Department of the Interior to discuss the status of old-
growth forests on public lands.
Approximately 48 million acres of diverse forests and
wetlands are managed by the BLM. 2.7 million acres are located
in western Oregon and northern California. Public domain
forests and wetlands outside of western Oregon comprise about
46 million acres, 28 million acres of which are in Alaska. The
BLM's largest forest management program is centered in western
Oregon and northern California.
In 1995, BLM incorporated the Northwest Forest Plan into
its land use plans. The main tenets of the plan are to protect
and enhance late-successional and old-growth forest ecosystems
and habitats for associated species to provide a framework for
maintaining and restoring aquatic ecosystems and to provide for
a sustainable supply of timber. Each of these tenets is equally
important in achieving balanced implementation of the plan.
Under the plan, late successional forests are defined as
stands which are generally 80 years and older. Old-growth
forests are defined as stands which are 200 years and older. At
the outset of the plan, BLM managed approximately 1.06 million
acres of forests that were 80 years and older and 357,000 acres
of forests that were 200 years and older.
The plan established a series of reserves to cover
approximately 80 percent of the total plan acres. Late-
Successional Reserves are large blocks of land which include
both younger and late successional forest types. They encompass
the majority of significant late-successional and old-growth
forests.
Thinning of younger forests within the LSR's, as suggested
by Mr. DeFazio, is allowed in order to foster old-growth
development, but large-scale commercial harvesting of trees is
not permitted in LSR's.
Riparian Reserves along rivers and streams are responsible
for maintaining and restoring riparian structures and
functions. They are an important component of old-growth
systems as well and timber harvest restrictions are
approximately the same as within the LSR's.
Within the Northwest Forest Plan area there are also
Congressionally Reserved Areas, such as national parks and
wilderness areas, that contain old-growth.
The term ``Matrix'' is defined as that area of the plan
that is managed primarily for timber production. The Matrix
represents 20 percent of the BLM-managed area. The objective of
the Matrix is to provide a steady supply of timber that can be
sustained over the long term without degrading the health of
the forest. Matrix standards and guidelines provide that we
leave snags and live trees and downed logs and woody debris
behind. We also have Survey and Managed standards and
guidelines which have been the subject of previous hearings up
here, which have resulted in management recommendations for
more than 300 rare and little-known species. Recently, we
implemented changes that were instituted via a supplemental
environmental impact statement and record of decision. The
Matrix lands are managed using a variety of treatments,
including thinning and regeneration harvest, generally in
stands less than 80 years old.
At the onset of the plan BLM anticipated that approximately
3 percent of late successional and old-growth forests would be
harvested during the first decade of the plan implementation.
During the first 3 years, harvest rates of late successional
forests closely aligned with the plan assumptions. During the
last 3 years the BLM has sold only 20 to 30 percent of the plan
assumed levels. The reduced harvest has primarily been a result
of litigation and from efforts to implement the survey and
managed standards and guidelines.
As a result, significantly less than the 11,000 acres of
old-growth projected to be harvested was actually harvested on
BLM managed lands. The majority of harvest on BLM lands since
1998 has come from thinning in forest stands that are less than
80 years of age. The majority of the existing late-successional
and old-growth forest is protected. Given the extensive reserve
system and the standards and guidelines under which the Matrix
is managed, the development of the late-successional and old-
growth forests will exceed the rates of harvest.
I would like to talk about public domain forest for at
least a second. The Bureau recognizes the role that remnant
old-growth forests play in providing unique historical and
ecological niches across the landscape. Over the past decade,
our public domain forests have been managed to maintain the
desired forest conditions intended to reflect the potential
natural community.
Our program emphasis has shifted away from supporting
commercial treatment to maintaining, restoring, and improving
forest sustainability and health. We face significant
challenges in managing our public domain forests and woodlands
because our inventory data on these acres is outdated and our
professional forester work force has declined dramatically
since 1991. We estimate that 75 percent of our remaining
professionals will be eligible for retirement within the next 5
years.
Old-growth occurs in noncommercial forest types, such as
pinyon-juniper woodlands and we are currently managing these
old trees, considering them as we move ahead with land health
treatments that we are implementing in some of our stands. We
are also doing forest restoration treatments in conjunction
with implementation of the National Fire Plan and in some
areas, such as Mount Trumbull in Arizona, projects are designed
to protect and enhance old-growth forests and restore
historically based natural conditions.
The Bureau, thanks to Congress, has been able to augment
our forest health activities through the Forest Health and
Ecosystem Restoration Fund. This revolving fund has accounted
for $50 million worth of forest health and restoration
treatment since its inception.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my prepared remarks this
afternoon.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bisson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Henri Bisson, Assistant Director, Renewable
Resources and Planning, Bureau of Land Management, Department of the
Interior
Good afternoon Mr. Chairman. Thank you for inviting the Department
of the Interior to discuss the status of old-growth forests on public
lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). Approximately 48
million acres of diverse forests and woodlands are managed by the BLM
throughout the western United States, of which 2.7 million acres are
located in western Oregon and northern California. Public Domain forest
and woodlands managed by the BLM outside of western Oregon comprise
approximately 46 million acres, including 28 million acres in Alaska.
The BLM's largest forest management program is centered in western
Oregon and northern California. Therefore, my comments will focus
primarily on this program. However, I will also address Public Domain
forest management and some of the challenges we face in that program as
well.
In 1995, the BLM incorporated the Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP) into
its land use plans for the six western Oregon districts and three
northern California field offices covered by the NWFP. The NWFP's
system of land use allocations and operational standards and guidelines
represent the management framework from which the plans were developed.
The main tenets of the NWFP are: 1) to protect and enhance late-
successional and old-growth forest ecosystems and habitats for
associated species; 2) to provide an ecosystem-wide framework for
maintaining and restoring aquatic ecosystems; and 3) to provide for a
sustainable supply of timber. These tenets are reflected in these
locally-based land use plans. Each of these tenets are equally
important in achieving the balanced implementation of the plan.
late-successional and old-growth forests
Although definitions differ by ecosystem, under the NWFP late-
successional forests are defined as stands which are generally 80 years
and older, and old-growth forests are defined as stands which are 200
years and older. Old-growth forests, as defined in the NWFP, are a
subset of late-successional forests. At the onset of NWFP
implementation:
In Western Oregon, approximately 48 percent of the forests
on BLM's 2.2 million acres were 80 years or older.
Approximately 16 percent of those forests were 200 years or
older.
In northern California, approximately 60 percent of the
forests on BLM's 146,000 acres were 80 years or older.
Approximately 25 percent of those forests were 200 years or
older.
reserve land use allocations
The Northwest Forest Plan established a series of reserves that
cover approximately 80% of the total Plan acres. The principal types of
reserves are:
Late-Successional Reserves (LSR)--These reserves are large
blocks of land which include both younger and late-successional
forest types. They encompass the majority of both the existing
ecologically significant late-successional and old-growth
forests. The objective of LSRs is to protect and enhance
conditions of late-successional and old-growth forest
ecosystems. Thinning of younger forests within the LSRs is
allowed in order to foster old-growth development. Large scale
commercial harvesting of trees is not permitted in LSRs.
Riparian Reserves--The Riparian Reserve allocations, located
along rivers and streams, are responsible for maintaining and
restoring riparian structures and functions. They maintain
habitat for riparian-dependent and associated species, and for
species that are dependent on the area between the upslope and
riparian areas, and provide safe travel corridors for many
terrestrial animals and plants. Riparian Reserves are an
important component of the old-growth system. Timber harvest
restrictions are approximately the same as for LSRs.
Congressionally-Reserved Areas--Congressionally-reserved areas,
such as National Parks and Wilderness Areas, also form an important
part of the NWFP strategy for protection of old-growth.
matrix land use allocation
The term ``Matrix'' is defined as that area in the NWFP that is
managed for timber production. The Matrix, which represents 20 percent
of the BLM-managed NWFP area, is the focus of the social and economic
component of the Plan. The objective of the Matrix is to provide a
steady supply of timber that can be sustained over the long-term
without degrading the health of the forest or other environmental
resources. There are a variety of standards and guidelines, protection
measures, and environmental requirements in place for the management of
these lands:
Standards and guidelines, applied in association with timber
harvest, require the retention of snags, live trees, down logs
and woody debris, measures designed to promote diversity and
protect late-successional and old-growth forests and associated
species.
``Survey and Manage'' standards and guidelines have resulted
in management recommendations for 301 rare and little-known
species. Recent changes in the ``Survey and Manage'' standards
and guidelines were instituted via a Supplemental Environmental
Impact Statement (SEIS) and Record of Decision (ROD), which was
signed by the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture on
January 12, 2001. These changes should enable us to conduct
surveys in a more timely way, to establish an annual species
review process, and to create a better adaptive management
process. As the newly revised standards and guidelines are
undertaken, activities on some Matrix lands are expected to
resume, while protecting many species dependent on the region's
old growth ecosystems.
The Matrix lands available for timber harvest are managed using a
variety of treatments, including thinning and regeneration harvest.
Thinning treatments remove individual trees to enhance the growth and
health of the remaining stand. These partial harvest treatments are
generally applied in forest stands less than 80 years of age.
Regeneration harvest treatments remove most of the merchantable timber
while retaining 6 to 25 live trees per acre to provide a ``legacy'' of
older forest components. After a regeneration harvest, trees are
planted to produce a young forest stand developing along side the older
forest legacy trees which were retained. In addition, consultation is
conducted with the National Marine Fisheries Service and the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service when actions may effect threatened or endangered
species.
first decade growth and harvest
At the onset of the NWFP, BLM managed lands with approximately
1,061,000 acres of forests 80 years or older (late-successional), and
357,000 acres of forest 200 years or older (old-growth). BLM
anticipated that approximately 3% of late-successional and old-growth
forests would be harvested during the first decade of the NWFP's
implementation.
During the first three years of the NWFP, harvest rates of late-
successional forests closely aligned with the Plan assumptions.
However, during the last three years, the BLM sold only 20 to 30
percent of the Plan assumed levels. The reduced harvest is primarily a
result of litigation, including recent litigation on anadromous fish
and the northern spotted owl, and from our efforts to implement the
Survey and Manage standards and guidelines. As a result, significantly
less than the11,000 acres of old-growth projected to be harvested in
the first decade was actually harvested on BLM-managed lands in western
Oregon.
Since FY 1998, there has been very little harvest of old-growth or
other late-successional forests in the Northwest. The majority of
harvest during this period has come from thinning in forest stands less
than 80 years of age.
The majority of the existing late-successional and old-growth
forest is protected. Given the extensive reserve system and the
standards and guidelines under which the Matrix allocation is managed,
the development of late-successional and old-growth forests will exceed
the rates of harvest.
public domain forest management
Management of the Public Domain forests and woodlands is guided by
the Federal Land Policy and Management Act and the BLM's Public Domain
Forest Management Policy. The Public Domain Forest Management Policy
requires that forest ecosystems be maintained. In addition, over the
past decade, our forests have been managed to maintain or create
desired forest conditions which are intended to reflect their potential
natural community, including related contributions to biodiversity and
wildlife habitats. The BLM's policy directs managers to conduct and
maintain current inventories of forest land and to use the Bureau land
use planning process to map desired future forest conditions and
implement management actions needed to achieve those conditions. The
Bureau recognizes the role that remnant old growth forests play in
providing unique historical, ecological niches across the landscape. As
such, program emphasis has shifted away from supporting commercial
treatment actions to a strategy aimed at maintaining, restoring and
improving forest sustainability and health.
The Bureau faces significant challenges in managing Public Domain
forests and woodlands. Inventory data on these lands is outdated.
However, we are drafting a proposal to participate more fully with the
Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) program of the USDA Forest Service
in order to fill the gap in our inventory data. We are also poised to
launch a new Bureau-wide inventory program, the Forest Vegetation
Inventory System (FORVIS). This inventory database will be implemented
over the next 2-3 years.
Our professional forester workforce declined over 36% between 1991-
1996, and we currently estimate that 75% of remaining professionals
will be eligible for retirement within the next five years. In the
event all of these individuals were to retire, we would be left with a
mere 15% of the forester workforce of 1991. We are currently exploring
ways to address this problem, including contracting, funding positions
using fire plan funds, and sharing staff with the U.S. Forest Service.
A certain percentage of ``old growth'' occurs in non-commercial
forest types such as the pinyon-juniper woodlands of Arizona, New
Mexico, and Nevada. With the expansion of pinyon-juniper woodlands
outside of their natural range, due primarily to fire exclusion, there
is a need to identify appropriate ecological sites for this forest type
and to initiate actions to return it to the ``natural'' range.
Currently, old growth trees are considered those native species that
are at least 150 years old. Several states are piloting projects to
manage their pinyon-juniper stands, and, where ecologically
appropriate, reduce it's wildfire potential where fire exclusion has
allowed for its unchecked expansion. Materials produced as a by-product
of this ecologically based management strategy may provide measurable
benefits for bio-energy production.
Forest restoration treatments, particularly in dry forest types,
are being undertaken with the complimentary objectives of protecting
communities and providing forests that are resilient to disturbance
factors, such as insects and disease. In other areas, such as the Mt.
Trumbull area in the Grand Canyon Parashant National Monument, projects
are designed to protect and enhance old growth forests and restore
historically-based natural conditions as they existed prior to
intensive livestock use and fire suppression.
The Bureau, with the approval of Congress, has been able to augment
forest health activities through the Forest Health and Ecosystem
Restoration Fund. This revolving fund has funded over $50 million worth
of on-the-ground forest health and restoration treatments since it's
inception in 1993.
Overall, the BLM's Public Domain Forestry Program manages those
areas which contain old-growth stands where they exist in their natural
range. The continued health and vigor of these older trees is
considered in the treatments that are designed to improve forest
resiliency, reduce wildfire hazards, and support a high level of
biodiversity.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I will be
pleased to answer any questions that you or other members of the
Committee might have.
Senator Wyden. All right, very good.
Ms. Collins.
STATEMENT OF SALLY COLLINS, ASSOCIATE CHIEF, U.S.
FOREST SERVICE; ACCOMPANIED BY ROBERT LEWIS, PH.D., DEPUTY
CHIEF, RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT; MIKE McCLELLAN, PH.D., RUSS
GRAHAM, PH.D.; AND CURT KOTCHAK, PH.D., VEGETATION RESEARCH
ECOLOGISTS, U.S. FOREST SERVICE
Ms. Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks for the
opportunity to appear before you today. It is always nice to be
around fellow Oregonians.
I am Sally Collins, the Associate Chief of the U.S. Forest
Service, and I am accompanied here on my left by Dr. Robert
Lewis, the Deputy Chief of Research and Development. In
addition to that, I have with me three vegetation research
ecologists from around the country: Dr. Mike McClellan from
Juneau, Alaska; Dr. Russ Graham from Moscow, Idaho; and Dr.
Curt Kotchak from Morgantown, West Virginia. We brought these
folks in case of some technical questions about old-growth in
the various ecosystems around the country.
What I would like to share with you today is how the Forest
Service through science has defined old-growth and its role in
the ecosystem and spend a little bit of time talking about our
old-growth policies as well as the Northwest Forest Plan,
although I am reserving a lot of that to a subsequent hearing
where we will actually talk about that. So I hope that is okay.
At the outset, I want to make clear just four main points
about old-growth forests that we have discovered over the
years. First, there are a lot of terms used interchangeably to
describe old-growth, terms like ``old forest,'' ``late
successional,'' ``climax forest,'' ``ancient forest,'' ``forest
primeval.'' All those are terms that really have almost
interfered with the discussion and confused a lot of the
dialogue around this issue. What we have spent the last number
of years doing is defining that, and I will talk about that in
a minute.
The second point is old-growth forests are a vital part of
healthy ecosystems.
Third, old-growth characteristics vary across different
ecosystems. We have heard that already and you will hear that
some more today.
Four, like other forest types, old-growth forests are
dynamic forests that do not last forever.
The Forest Service has developed specific definitions for
old-growth for major forest and community types around the
country for all nine Forest Service regions. In the southern
and eastern region, a significant effort involving the Nature
Conservancy was completed a few years ago. I want to add these
to the record. There are 114 definitions of old-growth that I
think are important to have in this dialogue.
So I guess again, two points again to reiterate: that old-
growth has a lot of variety, a lot of variability; and second,
that they are a dynamic system. All forests are in a continuous
state of change. Insects, disease, wind, fire, and other
natural forces are constantly at work altering the character of
a forest. Fire can reset that successional clock, killing
understory and removing and consuming dead material.
It is important to note that forests in older even-age
conditions like you would have even after a stand replacement
fire can sustain themselves for long periods of time, but not
permanently. As they continue to progress through their life
cycles, many of the oldest trees typically die and, absent
major disturbing activities, are replaced by shade-tolerant
understory species. You have heard this. This is what
succession is all about.
Human management activities on forests can enhance or
detract from old-growth activities or characteristics.
Similarly, a lack of human management activities does not
guarantee that old-growth characteristics will be established
or maintained.
Some believe that no management should protect old-growth,
but we know silvicultural activities have the ability to
accelerate the development of ecological characteristics
associated with old and true forests. I spent some time talking
to Tom Mills about the research that is being done on LSR's in
the Pacific Northwest and we have determined--and some nice
reports are out, very contemporary reports, about how this is
possible.
As you know, I spent a lot of my career in central Oregon.
Many projects in LSR's in central Oregon where we actually
protected the old-growth by having fire fuel breaks around
those old-growth areas, so you could reduce the risk of fire
through silviculture and protect old-growth that way.
Just as a footnote before we leave this, in the West the
area of older forest, over 150 years--and again, age is not the
only criteria for an old-growth forest; there is all these
other components that are different depending on species and
area--we will double that number of the total forest area by
2050, double the number of older forests, forests over 150
years.
Now, not all of those, again, are old-growth forests, but
it will increase the number of older trees that are out there.
Now, we have been recognizing the value of old-growth for
the last 12 years in terms of Forest Service policy. In 1989,
the Chief issued a policy statement on old-growth and in that
we talked about the need to develop a good definition so we all
are talking about the same thing. From that we have developed
inventory information and so forth, and now we are in the
position of being able to, through our forest plan amendments,
have some good data out there that we can aggregate and use.
Just a couple of comments about the Northwest Forest Plan.
We are supportive of this notion of managing LSR's. We have
been doing it. It has been working. We have averaged somewhere
between 50 and 100 million board-feet a year of outputs from
LSR's over the last 5 or 6 years and we know it can work, and
now we have got research to support that conclusion.
So with that, I just want to say the Forest Service is
committed to maintaining significant areas of old-growth and we
really look forward to working with the committee as we work
through this really important issue.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Collins follows:]
Prepared Statement of Sally Collins, Associate Chief,
U.S. Forest Service
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you today. I am Sally Collins, Associate
Chief for the USDA Forest Service. I am accompanied by Dr. Robert
Lewis, Deputy Chief for Research and Development. We appreciate the
Committee's interest in protection of old-growth on national forest
lands. Today, I would like to share with you how, through science, we
have defined old growth and its role in the ecosystem. I also want to
spend some time discussing our old growth policy nationally and then,
finally, focus on examples from the Pacific Northwest.
general characteristics
At the outset, I want to make clear some important aspects of old-
growth forests that we have found:
Many terms are used interchangeably to describe old-growth;
Old-growth forests are a vital part of a healthy ecosystem;
Old-growth characteristics vary across different ecosystems;
and
Like other seral stages and forest types, old-growth forests
are dynamic forests that do not last forever.
The terminology can sometimes be confusing. Terms such as ``old
growth,'' ``old forest,'' ``late successional,'' ``climax forest,''
``ancient forest,'' and ``forest primeval,'' are often used
interchangeably which sometimes leads to confusion in discussions about
old-growth. A full discussion of these terms may be found in Appendix
A.
The Forest Service has developed specific definitions of old-growth
for major forest/community types in all nine regions. In the Southern
and Eastern Regions this significant effort was completed in
cooperation with the Nature Conservancy. These are included as an
appendix to this testimony.
old-growth variability
Throughout the country there is a great deal of variety in old-
growth forests. In the arid west, ponderosa pine grows to large sizes
in relatively open park-like conditions. Southern pine forests exhibit
similar characteristics. These ecosystems are often dependent on
frequent, light-intensity ground fires to thin competing vegetation.
Dense canopies of hemlock dominate old hemlock forests of the Northern
Rocky Mountains with little vegetation underneath, except hemlock
seedlings and scattered shade-tolerant plants such as orchids. Along
with this variety, there are numerous wildlife species and communities
of species that are associated with mature and old-growth forests. Tree
species that dominate old growth are determined by local topography,
elevation, soil, climate, geology, ground water conditions, and
especially by the disturbance history of the stand and the forest type.
In the Eastern U.S., very few acres in old growth conditions exist due
to past historic land use practices.
Even forests that are not in a ``late successional'' stage can
exhibit some of the ecological characteristics of old-growth. For
example, aspen is short-lived and considered to be an early to mid-
successional species. At 50 to 100 years old, aspen forests can be
dominated by large trees nearing the end of their life cycle with
scattered dead trees both standing and on the ground. Young conifer
trees invading the aspen might dominate the vegetation under the
canopy. The forests are considered to be in an old-growth condition,
even though they are not ``climax.'' While the aspen trees live a
relatively short life, the root system--the clone--from which the
individual trees grow, can live for thousands of years. When disturbed,
such as through a wildfire or logging, the roots sprout new trees to
replace those that have died. Absent any disturbance, ecological
succession will continue as the aspen trees die, and a conifer forest
replaces the clones.
dynamic system
All forests are in a continuous state of change. Insects, disease,
wind, fire, and other natural forces are constantly at work altering
the character of the forest. Fire can reset the successional clock by
killing understory and overstory and consuming dead material.
Variables, such as fire intensity, fire frequency, and fire spread,
play a major role in the amount, continuity, and extent of old-growth
and other successional stages over time. Similarly, wind and insect
activity create gaps or openings in contiguous old-growth forests in
which shade intolerant species will establish.
Across the country, many of our old growth forests were established
decades or even centuries ago because of some intense disturbance such
as a stand-replacing wildfire. Forests in an older, even-aged condition
can be self-sustaining for long periods but not permanently. As they
continue to progress through their life cycles, many of the oldest
trees typically die over a period of time and, absent major disturbance
events, are replaced by shade tolerant understory species. In this way
an old-growth Douglas-fir forest may be replaced by an old-growth
western red cedar/western hemlock forest.
Human management activities on forests can enhance or detract from
old growth characteristics. Similarly, a lack of human management
activities does not guarantee that old-growth characteristics will be
established or maintained. Some believe that no management other than
protection should occur in old-growth. But silvicultural activities
have the ability to accelerate the development of the ecological
characteristics associated with old and mature forests. They also have
the ability to reduce the risk of fire to existing stands of old-
growth. By using silvicultural treatments and/or controlled burning in
some young, even-aged forests to enhance the development of their
large-tree characteristics, the Forest Service is helping to create the
ecological conditions associated with old-growth forests. Silvicultural
treatments can also reduce the dense understories that have developed
under some old growth forests, such as those in the ponderosa pine
region, so as to reduce the moisture stress on large trees and the risk
of stand-replacing wildfires.
In the West, the area of forest older than 150 years will double to
nearly one-third of total forest by 2050. (RPA Assessment 2000) While
not all of these forests will have old-growth characteristics, many of
them will meet old-growth criteria.
policy
The Forest Service recognizes the importance of maintaining an
array of forest successional stages and conditions. In 1989, the Chief
issued a position statement on old-growth. This statement recognized
that there are significant values associated with old-growth and that
decisions on managing forests to achieve old-growth values would be
made during forest plan development. In 1990, the Chief directed
Regional Foresters to develop definitions of ecological old-growth.
These definitions have been developed for each Region as I mentioned
previously. In January 2001, the Chief issued additional direction
stating, ``Consistent with the direction issued in 1989, we will
complete the inventory and mapping of old growth forests based upon the
standard definitions and inventories of old growth by forest type and
community that are already developed.'' Inventory and assessment of
old-growth is being done on a forest-by-forest basis as forest plans
are revised. In addition, Forest Service Manual direction is being
developed to guide future revision or amendment of forest plan
direction. We are considering the inclusion of the following elements
in the directive system to implement the revised forest planning
regulations:
The manner that we will protect, sustain, and enhance
existing old-growth forests as an element of ecosystem
diversity;
How we will plan for old-growth within a landscape context;
Direction to determine the historic extent, pattern, and
character of old-growth; and
How forest plans will project forward in time the amount,
location, and patterns of old-growth within the national forest
system envisioned under alternative management options.
northwest forest plan
We understand there will be a future hearing before this Committee
on the Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP), and we will defer until that time
addressing how and whether the plan is working. However, with respect
to the topic of this hearing, we thought you might be interested in how
the NWFP addresses old-growth.
The 24.5 million acres of federal land covered by the NWFP would
provide for a substantial increase in old growth over the long-term. Of
the land that is considered capable of growing forests (20.5 million
acres), 41 percent was in a medium to large conifer condition in 1994.
The NWFP projects a significant increase in medium to large conifer
forest over the long-term for the area overall. In addition, the NWFP
anticipates that forests of young trees will continuously occupy about
20 to 40 percent of federal lands. There still remains, however,
significant disagreement about the extent of old-growth forests in the
Northwest prior to European settlement. The amount of old-growth may be
more than existed prior to European settlement. For instance, Tom
Bonnicksen states in America's Ancient Forest that older Douglas-fir
forests covered about 60 percent of the ancient landscape along the
Pacific. Elsewhere, young stands in late successional reserves
established prior to implementation of the NWFP can be treated through
silviculture to accelerate development of ecological conditions
associated with mature and late successional forests.
In areas where no timber production is scheduled, nature will
continue to regenerate the forest through disturbances, such as
wildfire, or the natural life cycles of individual plants. Between 1994
and 2000, approximately 266,700 acres of national forest land in
Washington and Oregon within the area of the NWFP burned. From 1995 to
2000, approximately 25,000 to 30,000 acres of national forest land in
Washington and Oregon within the area of the NWFP were harvested.
summary
The Forest Service is committed to maintaining significant areas of
old growth. Analysis of this issue and management decisions are guided
by national policies and are appropriately handled at the forest and
sub-regional level through revisions of our forest land and resource
management plans. We will continue to actively manage late successional
reserves to speed the development of old-growth characteristics. We
look forward to working with this Committee as we move forward on these
and other important forest management issues.
This concludes my testimony. I would be glad to answer any
questions that you may have.
appendix a
Defining Terms
While we have developed definitions for each major forest/community
type, there are alternative definitions and terms frequently used in
the discussion. These terms often trigger thoughts of the Pacific rain
forests with multi-storied forest structures of redwoods or Douglas-
fir, a fern-covered forest floor, and large, moss-covered trees
decaying on the ground. But this picture does not accurately depict
old-growth forests as they exist in other parts of the country.
As we discuss the issues surrounding management of old-growth, I
would like to share with you how we have defined these various terms:
Late successional forest: A range of forest conditions that develop
over time, beginning with stands in which tree crown expansion slows,
openings between trees become larger and more stable over time in terms
of stand structure, and large, standing dead and fallen trees begin to
accumulate.
Ancient forest: This is a term used by many that is not science
based. It generally refers to forest areas that are relatively
undisturbed by human action, ranging in size from a few to hundreds of
thousands of acres. These areas may be near, surrounded by, or adjacent
to forest areas that have been substantially disturbed or altered by
human management. As described by many participants in the discussion
of old growth, ancient forests seem to have the following
characteristics:
Largely naturally regenerated;
Less than 30% of the stand or forest area has been logged
within the past century;
Relatively undisturbed such that human activities have not
significantly altered native forest structure, composition, or
function;
Relatively unmanaged, although they may have a history of
fire suppression or grazing; and
Composed of individual trees or stands of trees of different
ages, with old-growth components constituting at least half of
the stand or forest unit and having at least four trees per
acre over 150 years of age.
Forest primeval; forest from very early times; original forest: A
forest that is estimated to have existed on the planet about 8,000
years ago, before large-scale disturbance by humans began. It should be
noted that at the time of European contact, substantial acres of North
America's original forest had been substantially modified by human
action, including widespread use of fire and clearing for agriculture
in some areas.
Climax forest: Last stage of forest succession that can be self
perpetuating over time absent any disturbance.
Old-growth and old forest: Ecosystems distinguished by old trees
and related structural attributes. The characteristics of old-growth
will vary considerably based on forest type. For example, the
characteristics of Douglas-fir old-growth in western Oregon are
considerably different than those of ponderosa pine in eastern Oregon.
Pinyon-juniper old-growth characteristics in the Rocky Mountains are
very different than that of limber pine in the Intermountain Region.
Certainly, these western old-growth forest types are very different
than the hardwood forest communities in the East. Old-growth
encompasses the later stages of stand development which typically
differ from earlier stages in a variety of characteristics that may
include tree size, accumulations of large, dead woody material in some
forest types, number of canopy layers, species composition, and
ecosystem function. The age at which old growth develops and the
specific structural attributes that characterize old growth will vary
widely according to forest type, climate, site conditions, and
disturbance regime. For example, old growth in fire-dependent forest
types may not differ from younger forests in the number of canopy
layers or accumulation of down woody material. However, most old growth
is typically distinguished from younger growth by several of the
following structural attributes:
Large trees for species and site;
Wide variation in tree sizes and spacing;
Accumulations of large, dead, standing and fallen trees
(except in forest types characterized by frequent, low
intensity fires);
Decadence in the form of broken or deformed tops or bole and
root decay;
Multiple canopy layers (in some forest types); and Canopy
gaps and understory patchiness.
Senator Wyden. Thank you very much.
Ms. Collins, you have got those big tomes in front of you
and you said there were 114 different studies about what
constitutes old-growth, correct?
Ms. Collins. It is not studies. They are definitions of
old-growth based on region, species, and community type. So
basically these are our definitions of old-growth.
Senator Wyden. My reason for asking is that--I am sure that
is the case--has anything been done to find commonalities
between those 114? Because it would seem to me that if we took
what those 114 said, well, we can come up with three-quarters
of what it takes to get a definition of old-growth by just
taking common elements, then we can work with you, the
Congress, on a bipartisan basis and get the rest of it.
Have you done that?
Ms. Collins. Yes, there are some common elements, and when
we talk about the term ``old-growth'' we can--Robert, you may
want to answer that question.
Dr. Lewis. Right, there are some common terminologies that
can be used, depending on the forest type. But one thing that
would be in common is the structure: multiple layers, multiple
canopy levels. The reason we have so many types is because we
have the entire USA. We have eastern forest as well as the
western forest. We have pinion pine, which might be very small
in diameter, but yet hundreds of years old.
So you can see why there are so many variations in
definition, but basically we look at the characteristics of a
stand, of a forest, based on the species that are involved,
such as ponderosa pine.
Senator Wyden. Doctor, could you get to the subcommittee
within 2 weeks a list of the common characteristics that you
have found on old-growth? In addition, could you provide a list
of the areas where there are differences of opinion? Because I
would like to find some ways to expedite this whole effort
because, as Ms. Collins said, in 1989 people were talking about
it and people are still going to talk about it unless we move
this along. So in 2 weeks could you have that for us, doctor?
Dr. Lewis. We could give you the definitions that we have
and also some commonalities that we have. We are basically
looking at the composition and structure of stands.
Senator Wyden. I know you have got the book with 114. What
I want are the areas with respect to those 114 different
assessments where there are commonalities, and then I want to
know where there are differences, so that we can begin to speed
this up to get a definition.
Dr. Lewis. There are six characteristics that we usually
look for. One would be large trees; wide variation in tree size
and spacing; number three, relative high accumulation of large-
sized dead and fallen trees; decadence, that means deformed
trees, trees with broken tops and so forth; multiple canopy
layers; and canopy gaps and understory patches.
These are the six commonalities that we see in old-growth.
Now, when you use the term ``large trees'' you have to keep in
mind that this term is relative. A tree is large relative to
the species of that tree. A redwood tree, very large; eastern
cottonwood, it dies when it is relatively small and it gets to
that stage where it will be no more.
One thing about old-growth, the term that we use, it is a
term that has value to it. It has been stated earlier that
these trees are not static, these stands, these ecosystems.
They constantly change. Every year there is one change or
another, whether it is a change due to changes in the climate
or whether it is a change due to an invasive species invading a
particular site. It will not remain a snapshot in time.
Senator Wyden. Ms. Collins, 2 weeks, can we have it?
Ms. Collins. Yes, you can.
Senator Wyden. Okay, very good.
Now, my understanding is some of the technology,
particularly remote imaging capability, can be of real value in
terms of completing the inventory and the mapping of old-
growth. Why has it taken so long to get the inventory, given
the technology that seems to be out there the speed it up? Are
you lacking money, are you lacking people? What is holding it
up?
Ms. Collins. Well, we have a forest inventory program that
actually Robert is in charge of, that looks at forest inventory
information on a very broad scale using all of that kind of
information, and we have research plots all over the country.
We have been monitoring those and we do have very good data
from that.
It depends on the scale that you need to use this
information. At a forest plan level you need a certain kind of
information. At a broad regional level that FIA, forest
inventory information, is very useful and provides a lot of
context. If I as a forest supervisor want to do something on a
specific set of 500 acres, I need to know more than that data
can give me specifically.
So that is the kind of information that we are looking at
in terms of having the level of resolution at the point that
you actually decide to do something on the ground. So we have
to have a different level.
Senator Wyden. That tells the public where the old-growth
is, right?
Ms. Collins. It gives you, the larger inventory data gives
you a general sense, but it does not tell you specifically
where all the old-growth is.
Dr. Lewis. Yes. The FIA program, the forest inventory and
analysis, does an analysis of the Nation's forests, both public
as well as private. It does the entire Nation. We look at
attributes such as tree size, and the FIA counterpart data
would be the DBH, the diameter-breadth-height; multiple canopy
layers, tree species, snag, tally, or cull data; coarse, woody
debris; stand age, meaning the age of the trees; and the growth
rates; and the total bough mass and composition.
All of these data are acquired through the forest inventory
and analysis program, and we present a snapshot of the Nation's
forests, whether Federal or private. But we do produce
specialized reports for the regions and national forests.
Senator Wyden. Now, Ms. Collins, in your prepared testimony
you said that the inventory would be completed as the existing
forest plans were revised. But obviously, revising the forest
plans has not been going forward in a timely way. Lots of them
are not going to be revised within 15 years, as required by the
National Forest Management Act. So the public is going to have
to wait even longer for mapping and inventory information.
Do you not think it is important to get this information so
we can move more expeditiously with management activities and
an integrated management plan?
Ms. Collins. Let me just put on a forest supervisor's hat
for a minute. In terms of managing a national forest out there,
I knew where all the old-growth was. What we have Northwest
Forest Plan is some common definitions so that across a whole
region we are talking about the same thing. For the first 5
years I was a forest supervisor I had 15 different definitions
of old-growth that I was working on on one forest. It was very
confusing.
So what we need to do is as we refine these definitions
make sure that we are all talking about the same thing and we
know what we are protecting old-growth for, we know exactly
what characteristics we are looking for and where those are on
the ground.
As we revise the forest plan, all of that will be mapped
and all of that will be integrated into that larger plan. But
as projects appear on a daily basis, we bring that new
information in. We are always out there gathering new
information and bringing that new information into our planning
effort, so we know the context of the planning, we know where
the old-growth is for a given project, we know what we need to
sustain the, for example, Northwest Forest Plan standards and
guidelines.
So it is brought into the decisionmaking on a day-to-day
basis.
Senator Wyden. The only problem is, unless this is sped up
it is going to be too late. It is going to be too late both in
terms of protecting old-growth and in terms of meeting the
economic needs for the communities. I want to emphasize, with
lots of the plans not being revised as the law requires, not
being revised in a timely way, I think it is inevitable that
people are going to wait even longer for mapping and inventory
information, and I do not think you all are even taking full
advantage of some of these technologies, which is why I asked
about remote imaging capability.
So we are going to start by having you in the next 2 weeks
get me these common definitions so that I can see what areas
there is common ground on and what areas that there are not.
Just know that this subcommittee is going to be prodding your
agency very, very hard to get on with this inventory and using
the technology, making sure that the plans are updated. At the
pace we are going this could be the longest-running battle
since the Trojan War, and I do not think these communities,
both from the standpoint of economic needs and these special
treasures, our old-growth, can afford that. That is something I
feel strongly about.
Let me ask you about thinning and the potential there for
thinning in the LSR's. I want to ask both of you, you, Ms.
Collins, and you, Mr. Bisson. How much timber volume in your
view could be harvested annually through a program of thinning
the LSR's to quicken their development of old-growth
characteristics?
Ms. Collins. We had our forest analyst in Portland do an
analysis that came up with a figure of 86 million board-feet
that could be annually harvested in those stands that have
commercial value between 30 and 80 years of age in LSR's. Now,
over the last 10 years, as I said, we have harvested somewhere
between 55 million board-feet a year and 115 million board-feet
a year. So that is very--in that time period, just based on
what we could do, where we could put our program of work that
year and what went through the system.
So we have the capacity to do something just under 100
million board-feet, in that area.
Senator Wyden. Mr. Bisson.
Mr. Bisson. For the BLM, we estimate that about 15,000
board-feet per acre of timber would be produced as a byproduct
from thinning to meet the LSR habitat goals; and an annual
thinning program of approximately 11,000 acres, which we think
we could sustain, would produce approximately 165 million
board-feet a year.
Senator Wyden. Now, the projections you are giving are
based on current budgetary levels?
Ms. Collins. Well, I do not know. That was the long run
sort of floor plan analysis capacity of a long-term program
that we were given. I am looking at something else here in
front of me----
Senator Wyden. Why do we not?
Ms. Collins. Yes, this is pre-commercial thinning, okay.
Senator Wyden. It is at current budgetary levels?
Ms. Collins. Yes.
Mr. Bisson. Not for us.
Senator Wyden. Yours is the ideal?
Mr. Bisson. Ours would require about a $20, $25 million
increase per year to carry out that kind of a program.
Senator Wyden. How much of a budgetary increase, then,
would the Forest Service need to do a thinning program at a
desirable level?
Ms. Collins. All right, let me just say what I have in
front of me here. We can get back to you on it with more
specifics on this, but the Forest Service estimates it would
cost about $32 million to initiate an LSR thinning program that
is really of this size. We think we have about 1.5, 1.6 million
acres of overstock stands, so 75,000 initial treatment acres,
and some of those are commercial, some of those are pre-
commercial.
We can get you more specific information if you need it,
but that is what they just handed me.
Senator Wyden. Do your agencies favor thinning in 10- to
30-year-old stands, which I gather a lot of the experts feel
are more ecologically productive, or thinning in older, 50- to
80-year-old stands, which many assert are more cost-effective?
Dr. Lewis. I would invite one of our silviculturalists to
come up to the podium as well, but it depends on the management
situation, the species that you are dealing with. Russ? Russ
from the Rocky Mountain Experiment Station from Moscow.
Dr. Graham. Mr. Chairman, I think we have excellent
opportunities to clean and weed our young stands to produce
desired conditions into the future. The rub comes to that.
Usually there is a non-marketable value to thinning of that
small material. Uneven spacings, multi-species spacings, can be
very effective in producing those conditions.
Senator Wyden. So does that put the Forest Service in the
10- to 30-year camp or the 50- to 80-year camp?
Dr. Graham. I believe that from my point as a researcher
and as a Forest Service person it puts us in both camps very
effectively, throughout the Rocky Mountains, throughout I would
argue, through the West Coast, this is where we can operate in
both of those arenas very effectively to create these
conditions.
Senator Wyden. BLM, what is your position on this?
Mr. Bisson. We will take any thinning we can get. Right
now, virtually every thinning we try to do gets protested or
appealed. I am not being facetious. I think we would propose to
do thinnings in both age categories.
Senator Wyden. You share the Forest Service version that
within an integrated forest management plan and area you can
probably have the two go side by side?
Mr. Bisson. Yes.
Senator Wyden. A question for both of you in the
scientists' division. I want to make sure that we are working
with Fish and Wildlife and National Marine Fisheries Service,
because the history of every one of these issues is that one
hand of the government does not talk to the other on the key
questions and it is clear that one of them that we are
wrestling with right now is the definition question.
Are you all talking now to Fish and Wildlife and National
Marine Fisheries Service, so that we can get at least the
question of definitions, ramifications for habitat, sped up and
there is some coordination?
Dr. Lewis. As a practice, this agency has worked very
closely with Fish and Wildlife Service. As a research
organization, we are interested in objectivity, in actually
having a clear, objective, empirical number of studies that we
can deliver to the policymakers to enable them to make better
decisions.
On the old-growth issues, we have done some work out in the
Pacific Northwest, as well as other parts of the country as
well. There are a number of issues surrounding it that we
clearly do not have that empirical data that we think we need.
Senator Wyden. What is the work you are doing with Fish and
Wildlife and NMFS now on old-growth? Because that is going to
be clearly critical to getting this done
Dr. Lewis. We have with them on the northern spotted owl. I
do not know if Sally has anything that she wants to add in the
policy arena. Hold on just a minute.
Dr. Graham. In my own personal experience, we worked with
the interior Columbia River Basin project. We worked quite
heavily with National Marine Fisheries and Fish and Wildlife
Service in the planning process and in the assessment of the
salmon and the forest habitats of the interior Columbia Basin
in Oregon and Washington and western Montana and Idaho. So we
did have a lot of work with those organizations during that
process over the last 7, 8 years.
Senator Wyden. Do you want to add anything to that, Ms.
Collins?
Ms. Collins. I think in terms of the research part of it, I
think that actually we do a lot of research into habitat needs.
Forest Service does a lot of research into habitat needs of
different species as well as definitions for old-growth. I
think the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National
Marine Fisheries Service use a lot of our research.
Dr. Lewis. I would like to share one other example. We
worked with Fish and Wildlife Service very extensively on the
Mexican spotted owl and the northern goshawk in ensuring that
we had sufficient habitat to avoid getting some of these
species being listed as threatened or endangered based on
empirical information, based on science.
Senator Wyden. I bring it up by way of saying that at the
end of the day when we are going to try to see if we can put
together this creative new approach, I just do not want to be,
particularly with the Forest Service, Ms. Collins, I do not
want to be in the position of being told we are still going to
need more from NMFS, we are going to need more from Fish and
Wildlife, so that is why you guys cannot go forward, and you
cannot try to move a bill.
Ms. Collins. I want to be there right with you.
Senator Wyden. You are on notice that that is something we
expect to have done now as we try to get definitions, as we try
to get the inventory questions, as we try to get the remote
imaging capability work going forward.
Just a couple of other questions at this point for our
first panel. Mr. Bisson, the agency has said that the reason
that the probable sale quantity has not been met stems from
lawsuits, including one related to a survey and management. But
as I understand it, the lawsuit was filed because the agency
had not completed the surveys as required by Northwest Forest
Plan.
Could you set out for the record today why the surveys were
not complete?
Mr. Bisson. I am afraid I cannot do that at this point. I
would be happy to respond in writing, Senator Wyden. I am just
not familiar with the exact circumstances that you just
described.
Senator Wyden. Because largely you all came here, your
testimony was more focused on the forest land than it really is
on the old-growth question, which is what we have talked about
specifically. So I ask why it was that we were not getting the
probable sale quantity that the forest plan called for, and it
seemed to me it was about lawsuits. I figure if you all were
going to make that the focus of your testimony when we ask for
something else, you ought to tell us why it is not being done.
Mr. Bisson. Part of the issue I think revolves around
species several years ago that were very difficult to inventory
and to locate. Even scientists I do not think had very good
methods in terms of locating them. They were on the survey and
manage list, and I think the purpose for this supplemental EIS
was to eliminate species that were very difficult to locate.
We are also going through a process, I think many of the
stands, the Matrix stands in particular, where we are doing
Survey and Manage we are finding some of the Survey and Manage
species in many locations, and we are in the process of
developing strategies to manage those species so that we can
make decisions on which areas would be managed for those
species and free up other Matrix lands where we could proceed
with timber sales.
Senator Wyden. Next time you come and talk about something
other than what we asked for, be prepared to be asked some
questions about it.
Mr. Bisson. Yes, sir.
Senator Wyden. Because we wanted to get in with you in more
detail on the old-growth question, and it seems to me most of
your testimony deals with the forest plan. Since this is our
first hearing on the subject, I want you to know how we are
going to go about it in the future.
Mr. Bisson. Yes, sir.
Senator Wyden. I want to recognize my colleague here in
just a moment, but one last point for you, Ms. Collins, if I
could. On this question of the definitions of old-growth and
having you go through those gigantic tomes in front of you and
speeding this up and working with the other agencies and
getting the inventory process, what is behind it is that
decisions are now being made with respect to forest plans and
public processes that require people have this information.
I mean, in the process of revising forest plans people are
saying on certain stands, save this and log that, and it is
done in a public way. If the public does not have the
information that I am talking about with respect to old-growth,
information that the agencies started talking about in 1989 and
the public does not know, for example, about old-growth
characteristics, it is a little like your agency is asking the
public to go on a blind date with the Forest Service.
I think that we have got to do better than that, and that
is what we are going to try and do, with your cooperation and
your assistance on this issue.
Let me recognize now my colleague from Oregon. I appreciate
him coming.
STATEMENT OF HON. GORDON SMITH, U.S. SENATOR
FROM OREGON
Senator Smith. Thank you, Senator Wyden. I have been at a
national security briefing, so I am sorry I am late to this.
But this is also important because it relates to our resource
security.
I welcome you all. I would ask that my statement be
included in the record.
Senator Wyden. Without objection, so ordered.
[The prepared statement of Senator Smith follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Gordon Smith, U.S. Senator From Oregon
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding today's hearing on the
management of ``old growth'' forests. This is a topic that is often
confusing, and always controversial. I would also like to welcome
several Oregonians to the hearing today, particularly Bruce Daucsavage
of Ochoco Lumber in Prineville, Oregon. Bruce, more than any of us,
knows the impact of failed forest policies on small communities and I
am glad to have him with us. Also here today are Oregon Congressman
Peter DeFazio, James Johnston of Eugene and Sally Collins--former
Supervisor of the Deschutes National Forest--who is now Associate Chief
of the Forest Service here in Washington.
Let me begin with the problem of definitions. Age, size, diversity,
structure--these are all components that at different times have played
into the definition of old growth. For some, old growth refers to a
specific type of habitat for a particular species like the spotted owl.
For others, old growth is more of a conversational term, simply
implying big trees. Even if scientists could agree upon one definition,
the fact is that old growth lies in the eye of the beholder--and the
beholders are legion.
Ten years ago, the term ``old growth'' had a fiery birth in the
Pacific Northwest and has been emblazoned in forest management ever
since. Since then, we have all done our best to cope, comply with
federal law, and keep our communities alive. Whether or not that has
worked, or is viable, will be the subject of another hearing.
What I would like to have addressed today is one particular aspect
of the Northwest Forest Plan relating to old growth. In the Record of
Decision, thinning of young stands was considered beneficial to the
development of late-successional and old-growth characteristics.
Unfortunately, this management tool has been under-utilized.
The Suislaw National Forest in Oregon, for example, is largely
classified as Late Successional Reserve (LSR) and moving rapidly into a
competitive stage which scientists say offers very little biodiversity
and will not develop into healthy vibrant stands that will reach 150-
500 years old.
The forest professionals of the Siuslaw National Forest have
identified approximately 300,000 acres in need of density management,
including areas hand-planted over the past 35 years. An aggressive
thinning proposal--approximately 5,000 acres per year--enjoys broad
support for its potential benefit to both local economies and to the
objectives of the Northwest Forest Plan. When I inquired with the
Forest Service regarding this proposal, I was told that two factors
precluded moving forward with an aggressive thinning program:
insufficient funds and inadequate authority.
At their root, these barriers reflect a decision to contract-out
thinning projects, rather than selling thinning projects as sales. I
very much hope that the Forest Service is exploring alternative means
of spreading out the cost of thinning, either through additional
Congressional authorities or through changes in management priorities.
Over time, I would like us to remain focused on progress on this front,
as well as the most appropriate roles for Congress and the
Administration.
Let me conclude by again thanking all those who are here to
testify, and for my colleague from Oregon for holding today's hearing.
Senator Smith. Ms. Collins, nice to see you. I wonder if
you can give me a sense over the last--it seems like every year
we are losing about 10 million acres of grassland, forest land
to fires. How much old-growth are we losing in that equation?
Ms. Collins. I think it was something over--and I will just
talk about the Pacific Northwest and the only thing I have in
my head at the moment is the Pacific Northwest and the
Northwest Forest Plan. But I think we were looking at some
figures earlier today, that there were about 250,000 acres that
burned, and I am not sure if that is in the last year.
Senator Smith. This year or each year?
Ms. Collins. Since 1994 to 2000, so that is about 8 years.
252,000 acres. A lot. We have harvested about 30,000 acres.
Senator Smith. We have lost a quarter of a million and
harvested----
Ms. Collins. Harvested about 25 to 30,000, yes.
Senator Smith. Is there anything that we are talking about
doing in terms of forest health that could have reduced that
acreage? Has any proposal been made by anyone that would have
made that acreage smaller and perhaps the damage less?
Ms. Collins. We have been doing a lot of work all over for
forest health treatments. We might be--that number might be
larger if we had not done that. We have examples all over
central Oregon, as an example, where we have stopped fires that
might have gone further into stands because we had some good
thinning around those other stands. We have done that.
So I know that a lot of that good forest health treatment
is going on out there. Whether it is aggressive enough, whether
it is enough to do the kind of work that needs to be done, is
really a good question.
Senator Smith. When you gave me that percentage of how many
acres have been--not percentage, but the number of acres that
have been burned that constituted old-growth, that obviously
assumes there is a definition of old-growth. What is that
definition?
Ms. Collins. It is interesting that you said that, because
I kind of got these two larger binders here with 114
definitions that we talked about all over the country for about
6 years. We came up with a compendium, a collection of
definitions that relate to species and community types in the
nine regions of the Forest Service.
But we know that there is a certain collection of
characteristics that are pretty consistent. They are the
largest trees on that particular site----
Senator Smith. What would their age generally be?
Ms. Collins. In general, it is all over the place. Aspen
can be old at the age of 80 to 100. So each species--and I am
speaking and I should be handing this over to the scientists.
Senator Smith. How about douglas fir? What is old-growth?
Ms. Collins. Do you want to answer that one, Russ?
Dr. Graham. Well, again, douglas fir, remember, grows from
the Mexican border to the Canadian border nearly to the middle
of Wyoming.
Senator Smith. But Pacific Northwest douglas fir?
Dr. Graham. So what I would say is it can grow--old-growth
may be on the West Coast, might be 200 years plus. In the
middle of central Idaho, we can have old-growth douglas fir of
400 years. So again, even douglas fir can be maybe as young as
100 years to as old as maybe 400 years.
Senator Smith. How about ponderosa?
Dr. Graham. Ponderosa pine is another wide-ranging conifer
species, again very much like douglas fir. In northern Idaho we
might have old-growth characteristics as young as 80 to 100
years. Meanwhile, in southern Arizona and southern New Mexico
it might be 200 or 300 years old. Also, you have got to
remember in Arizona, the Mogian Rim, a tree gets over about 24
inches in diameter and about 100 feet tall, lightning is going
to take care of that old-growth.
Senator Smith. As a general rule, on the west side of
Oregon and Washington and California old-growth would be
anything above 100 years?
Dr. Graham. That is usually a good benchmark statement, 100
years.
Senator Smith. And east side would be 80 and above?
Dr. Graham. Probably 150.
Senator Smith. 150.
Dr. Graham. But again, you could have, in pinion juniper
you might have not those forest structures developing until a
much older age. In some ecosystems you might have what would be
valued and described as old-growth at a much younger age or a
much older age. But those are some ballpark numbers of ages,
yes.
Senator Smith. Would those ballpark numbers in the Forest
Service be a consensus opinion? I am really just asking this
because----
Dr. Graham. No.
Senator Smith. No, okay. Would it not be helpful to have a
definition that is sort of a reasonable--reasonable people
could agree that in these kind of conditions, this number of
years constitutes old-growth? Because I just think this is such
a moving target, that by some standards you cannot cut anything
because it is all old and by other standards it is clearly not.
I do not know how to get my hands around this issue if the
experts do not have any consensus, either.
Dr. Lewis. I remember reading the background of the
original definitions in 1989 and every region came in with a
different definition. When you refine it to different forest
types, you further break it out in various refinement.
Senator Smith. Do the Federal courts have any definition?
Dr. Lewis. I do not think anyone has a consistent
definition. It is almost like my age. When I was 40 I was not
old, but now I am older. It is a relative term and it means
different things in different parts of the country and to
different people.
Senator Smith. I guess the reason I am asking what is old-
growth and is there a consensus is it sort of answers my next
question, which is is there any consensus as to how to manage
old-growth for health? You described, Sally, a lot of things
that have been done, but does anybody agree on whether what you
have done, is it of value?
Ms. Collins. Well, I think it depends on whether you are
talking about a management question or a research question. I
think we have some good research that is beginning to show us
that we can manage stands to create these old-growth
characteristics more quickly than if we just left them alone,
especially if you are talking about a sort of even plantation
kind of setting that we are talking about in some of these
LSR's that we talked about in central Oregon.
But I think it really is important to think about what do
you need these definitions for. We think we need these
definitions because it takes that kind of variety and
acknowledgment of differences in order to effectively manage
them, because the research is different. The research is
different on managing LSR's on the west side and the east side
of Oregon.
We do not have research, for example, that says thinning
LSR's on the east side of Oregon accelerates the old-growth
conditions. We do know the research is pointing to that
conclusion on the west side. What we know on the east side is
it is good at protecting. Because of the fuel breaks that we
can create, we can protect the old-growth from getting burned
perhaps.
So again, it is very specialized. We really feel like we
need to know what these definitions are in order to know what
we are managing for and what we want to emulate, and
acknowledge those differences.
Senator Smith. Do you have the authority to set these
standards regionally in terms of a forest?
Ms. Collins. Yes.
Senator Smith. Do you feel like, if you have the authority,
would it not be helpful to establish a case for your management
of the area, whether it is a little or whether it is a lot,
that is defensible in Federal court? Is that important to do?
It just seems to me that this is the first order of business,
to get our hands around what it is we are even talking about.
Ms. Collins. Well, that is why we did this effort, to get
these common definitions, because we do think that they are the
best we have to go to court or to manage for whatever
objectives we come up with in our individual forest plans and
our individual regions. We have to have something that we can
use as sort of a baseline: This is what old-growth is here.
If we want to recreate it, if we want to move toward it
over time, naturally, whatever it is we want, we have to have
that as a template, as a basis for doing that.
Senator Smith. Sally, you are speaking as though you have
got this done, but I thought I heard you say before there was
no agreement.
Ms. Collins. There is a set of agreed upon definitions. But
I will tell you, you will have, as in any research community, a
lot of lively debate and discussion about it.
Senator Smith. Would it be helpful if Congress just
legislated what it was?
Ms. Collins. It is like any science that is constantly
evolving. As we learn more, it is more refined. I am answering
again a scientific question I should not.
Dr. Lewis. No, go right ahead.
There are some points that I think we should keep in mind.
All of these ``old-growth forests'' were managed by nature at
one time.
Senator Smith. Yes.
Dr. Lewis. And in some areas they were replaced about every
300 years by fire. Even if people did nothing, they would come
to an end, an end point, and they will have a rebirth and they
will develop all over again.
We have managed for certain characteristics, certain
attributes that we commonly associate with ``old-growth,'' such
as large trees, habitat for certain species. We can do that and
we have demonstrated that through some of the demonstration
ecosystem management projects, and we think that this might be
a way to try to enhance and accelerate some of those attributes
and qualities that we look for and that we value.
You wanted to know what could we do to manage. It is a fact
that these old stands need to be protected from invading
species of insects, disease, we have wind-throws. Anything we
can do to actively manage them to allow them to prolong their
life spans in a particular state or appearance, then I think
that is a good thing.
Senator Smith. I guess, Mr. Chairman, the only thing I
would ask is is there anything that we can do that could be
helpful to you in resolving this debate for purposes of setting
a standard, which is what laws are, by which we judge conduct?
Do you need Congress to do anything, or should we just be
quiet?
Ms. Collins. You go ahead.
Dr. Lewis. I think someone in some of this briefing
material quoted Jack Ward Thomas as saying that these systems
that we are managing are incredibly complex. There is not a
simple answer. There is not an answer that can apply in the
States of Oregon, Washington, all the way to Mississippi, where
I reside from.
Scientists will differ. Scientists in this room today as we
speak probably do not have the same definition of old-growth. I
wish you could.
Ms. Collins. I would like to just say one thing about that,
because I do think--and when Congressman DeFazio was talking
about those, earlier talking about those three different
examples of forests and what they looked like--we have to be
able to experiment. We have to be able to do the active
management. We have to be able to get out on the ground and try
some things.
I can say as a frustrated manager, trying to do that
sometimes we ended up going to private land to try some of
those kind of different prescriptions, to show what it looked
like to do different things on the land. So there are probably
a variety of things that we can work on together that make some
of that easier for us, and we would certainly support these
ideas that you have for LSR management. We are really right
behind that.
Senator Wyden. I thank my friend for making a number of
important points.
Let me give you a sense of what we are going to try and do.
Senator Craig and I have talked about it and I have talked
generally about the issue with Senator Murkowski this morning.
You are absolutely right, this question of getting the
definitions is going to be central. I think it is fair to say
what we have got at this point on this issue of old-growth
definitions are those two tomes that Sally must be carrying
around in a wheelbarrow or somebody else uses for their morning
workout.
What we have asked the agency and what Ms. Collins has
agreed to do is to give us within 2 weeks a set of the areas
where there is agreement on the definitions of old-growth and
then the areas where there is disagreement, so that we can then
work with the agencies to try to get the agencies to bring us a
common position on old-growth.
I was just thinking about the prospect of you and I at our
regular Oregon Senate lunch on Thursday trying to do this
ourselves in the Senate Dining Room, and I was cringing at the
prospect.
So what we are going to do is get within 2 weeks the Forest
Service judgment about where there is common ground, where
there is not common ground.
Ms. Collins. Or maybe those things, if I might add, that we
have some common ingredients that I think Robert started
talking about prior to you arriving, Senator. There are some
common ingredients and there are some of those that vary by
ecosystem type that are common, that vary that are common. So I
think that is what we can get to you in a couple weeks.
Senator Wyden. That is what we will look for. Know that the
reason for asking you to make sure that you are coordinating
this work with particularly Fish and Wildlife Service and NMFS
is not just that that has very often been the stumbling block
when we go later to try to put together some agreement on these
issues, but those agencies contribute important matters such as
habitat with respect to old-growth and take you beyond just the
question of age, which is what people normally think about when
they think about old-growth.
So we are asking you to do that for a reason that relates
directly to trying to get our arms around these terms.
Unless my colleague has anything else he wants to add, we
will excuse you at this time.
Ms. Collins. Thank you.
Senator Smith. Thank you.
Senator Wyden. Thank you.
Our next panel, Jerry Franklin and Dr. Tom Bonnicksen.
[Pause.]
Senator Wyden. Gentlemen, we welcome you. Dr. Franklin,
this testimony reminds me of the song, ``We Have Passed This
Way Before.'' It seems that after years and years of pounding
away at this, much of what we talked about a decade ago is
still contentious.
I think, knowing you, we appreciate your willingness to
look at the longer range. That is what I want to try to do
here, in hopes that we can take steps that really will be
significant for decades to come. Why don't you give us your
thoughts as to how to get there.
STATEMENT OF JERRY F. FRANKLIN, PROFESSOR OF ECOSYSTEM
ANALYSIS, COLLEGE OF FOREST RESOURCES,
UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON, SEATTLE, WA
Mr. Franklin. Thank you, Senator. I am always pleased the
work with you.
Senator Wyden. Thank you.
Mr. Franklin. I have provided you with some written
testimony and I am not going to read that. I do want to point
out I have also provided you with a paper that I prepared on
thinning in late successional reserves.
Senator Smith, I would like to point out we also provided
the committee with a reprint of an article that is about to be
published in a scientific journal on the development of douglas
fir stands, coastal douglas fir stands. That provides I think a
lot of answers to the questions you have raised about when is a
forest mature, when is a forest old, how do you recognize it.
So I just mention that that is part of the deposit that I have
made.
Old-growth forest ecosystems are distinctive and important
ecosystems in essentially all forested regions in the world. In
temperate regions we tend to be concerned about them because
they are dramatically reduced in extent, yet they are very
important because of certain organisms and processes that occur
there.
There is a scientific consensus regarding the fundamental
nature of these forests, and I think the folks that preceded me
gave you some sense of that. Certainly they include old,
decadent large trees for the site on which they are occurring.
But in terms of a generic characterization of old-growth
forests, we can say that they are structurally complex for the
type and site, which means there is a lot of different
varieties of structures; trees of various sizes and conditions
and states; and yes, there is a lot of standing dead and down
wood material. Those are very important structural elements as
well.
In addition to the variety of structures, however, there is
also a lot of complexity in the spatial pattern in which those
are arranged. There is a lot of stand heterogeneity. Natural
stands are heterogeneous in structure, not homogeneous.
Some of these stands are very long-lived. In the case of
coastal douglas fir forests, unless they are destroyed by
fire--and many are not--they probably have a span of at least
1,200 years with a douglas fir component as a part of them. So
since most of our old-growth forests in western Oregon and
western Washington are about 500 years old, we have a lot of
time in which we can expect them to make a contribution and
provide big old douglas firs.
Now, there are a lot of issues with regards to definitions.
This is something that we are all going to struggle with,
because it is not simple and simple answers could lead the bad
policy. You do have to do it by each forest type and region,
albeit there are these generic attributes of these forests.
You do need to recognize that probably structural
complexity is a better measure than age of whether a forest is
mature or old.
Third, and this is the tough one, it is probably more
useful to recognize that there is a gradient of old-growth
development rather than thinking simply in terms of black or
white, that it either is or it is not. It is sort of like us as
human beings: Are you young or are you old? Well, you probably
exhibit attributes of both, and it is an evolutionary process
and really, except in a very legal way, we never say at some
point, you are old now. We know this comes on gradually.
We also need to be aware that when we deal with fire-prone
forests like the east side forests we really have to scale up
our consideration of an old-growth forest stand to include the
entire patch mosaic that is ecologically the old-growth stand.
Definitions are going to be tough. One last comment about
that: Do not make the mistake of thinking that clearcuts are
equivalent to natural early successional conditions. They are
not. They are extremely contrasting with the kind of early
young forest conditions that nature created. If you do not
believe it, go look at the Warner Burn on the Willamette
National Forest.
You asked me to address the question of whether Federal
agencies are making major contributions to old-growth and old-
growth protection, and they very much are with the policies
that have been adopted. These include reserve-based strategies
in some cases and old-growth emphasis areas, as in the case of
the Sierra strategy that was just adopted. They are also doing
it with various kinds of restoration programs and with the
modified management that they are doing on their ordinary
forest lands, things like structural retention as a part of
their harvesting regimes.
Old-growth protection can be integrated with commercial
activities, no question in my mind about that. We do it in at
least two ways. One is with restoration, and we have talked
about that: the thinnings, where our goal is to restore late
successional conditions in these LSR's and in the stands. Do
look out for setting timber targets because you do not want to
create incentives just to produce volume as opposed to
restoring structure.
We do also need to be aware in these thinning activities
that what we are doing is in fact trying to increase the
structural complexity, including the heterogeneity. So
traditional activities as we would do for commercial timber
production do not translate directly to what we want to do in
habitat restoration, but it will produce commercial wood
volumes.
In addition to that, we have an outstanding opportunity to
integrate production of commodities with restoration in our
active management of forests in areas that are subject to
chronic fire. This is a case where potentially there is a high
level of fit between producing some commodities and restoring
the kinds of processes and structures that were characteristic
of the pre-settlement forests.
I see my time is up.
Senator Wyden. Well said.
Dr. Bonnicksen.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Franklin follows and the
information referred to is retained in subcommittee files:]
Prepared Statement of Jerry F. Franklin, Professor of Ecosystem
Analysis, College of Forest Resources, University of Washington,
Seattle, WA
My name is Jerry F. Franklin and I am Professor of Ecosystem
Analysis in the College of Forest Resources, University of Washington.
For over 40 years I have studied the ecology and management of natural
forests throughout North America, Japan, Australia, and temperate South
America. Approximately half of the 300+ articles and books that I have
authored or co-authored deal with old-growth and other natural forests
status of old-growth forests across the u.s.
Old-growth forests, defined from an ecological perspective, exist
in many areas and forms throughout the United States. The ecological
conditions in old-growth forest ecosystems (i.e., composition and
structure) do vary substantially with:
Region (``biome''), reflecting variability in climate and
native biota;
Site conditions within a region, particularly with
productivity levels; and
Disturbance regime, such as chronic vs. catastrophic fire.
Old-growth forests were much more widespread in pre-settlement
times than currently, although the percentage varied by biome and
disturbance regime. In the Pacific Northwest the scientific consensus
is that the extent of old-growth forests has varied between
approximately 1/3 and 2/3 of the forested landscape during the last 500
years. Currently both the extent and quality of old-growth forests vary
substantially among regions reflecting the type and timing of past
human activities.
characteristics of old-growth forests
A scientific consensus exists regarding the fundamental nature of
old-growth forests as a result of extensive research conducted during
the last 35 years, primarily under sponsorship of federal resource
management agencies and National Science Foundation.
Old-growth forests are ecosystems that have had time to undergo
extended structural development and, often, compositional change. Old-
growth forests typically do include some trees that are old, decadent,
and large for the forest type and site condition. More generally old-
growth forests are distinguished from younger and, especially,
intensively managed forests, by high levels of stand structural
diversity. This structural complexity is recognizable as diversity in:
Structural features, including live trees of widely varying
sizes and conditions and standing dead trees and down logs of
diverse decay states; and
Spatial arrangement of structures, including presence of
multiple or continuous canopy layers (vertical heterogeneity)
and of open and densely-shaded patches (horizontal
heterogeneity).
Both the richness of individual structures and the within-stand
spatial heterogeneity in structure are important features of
essentially all old-growth forests in the temperate zones, regardless
of whether they are characterized by chronic or catastrophic
disturbance regimes. Details of structure do vary with forest type,
site productivity, and disturbance regimes.
Old-growth forests are not necessarily ``climax'' forests of shade-
tolerant species. In fact, most old-growth forests include significant
representation of shade-tolerant, pioneer tree species and always have.
Old-growth forests do incorporate the effects of chronic disturbances,
such as low- to moderate-intensity fire and windthrow events; in fact,
these disturbances create much of the spatial heterogeneity that is an
important feature of old-growth forests.
Old-growth forests are known to fulfill important and distinctive
ecological functions. Provision of habitat for many specialized animal
and plant species is one of the old-growth forest functions and is
related directly to the structural richness (diversity of structural
``pieces'' and complex spatial arrangements) found in old-growth
forest. Other important functions have to do with regulation of
hydrologic processes (including flood events), sequestration of carbon,
and maintenance of soil and nutrient capital.
definition of old-growth forests
We have an adequate knowledge base to provide working definitions
of old-growth forests for most forest types. Definitions already exist
for many major forest types in the US and can be used as starting
points for development of a national policy. Each major forest type
does need to be considered individually. Furthermore, definitions need
to reflect the substantial variability that can occur in old-growth
forest conditions even within a forest type, such as the Douglas-fir
forests of the Pacific Northwest, mixed-conifer forest of the Sierra
Nevada, or longleaf pine forests of the southeastern United States.
Two significant adjustments are needed in current approaches to
old-growth definition in the view of many knowledgeable scientists,
including myself:
Absolute (black-and-white) definitions of old-growth need to
be replaced by indices recognizing relative levels of late-
successional function and structure; and
Old-growth definitions for chronically perturbed forest
types (e.g., those subject to chronic, low- to moderate
intensity fire) need to recognize and incorporate the spatial
complexity (patch mosaic) of these stands.
Regarding the first point, scientists and managers are finding it
more useful to recognize a continuum or gradient of structural
complexity (i.e., ``old-growthedness'') in place of definitions that
categorize forests as either ``old-growth'' or ``not-old-growth''.
Scientifically, this is accomplished by creating and utilizing indices
based upon multiple structural features of the stands. Examples are
provided by studies in Douglas-fir forests in the Pacific Northwest
(e.g., Franklin and Spies 1991) and the Sierran mixed-conifer forests
(Franklin and Fites-Kaufmann 1996). Creating and applying black-and-
white (either/or) definitions for old-growth forests recognizes neither
1) the continuum of natural stand-development processes (and,
consequently, ecological function) and 2) the contribution that stands
with some old-growth structures and attributes make to old-growth
functioning in landscapes.
In the Pacific Northwest (and probably elsewhere) it may be useful
to refine the broad categories of stand development utilized in policy
development. We have been utilizing ``late-successional'' as the label
for all forests over 80 years old with old-growth forests as a subset
of the late successional and everything else as ``early-successional''
forest. Adopting early-, mid- and late-successional as broad categories
of stand development while recognizing that these are segments of a
continuum in structural complexity may help clarify the important
contributions made by each of these stages to biological diversity and
ecological functions. For example, mid-successional forests are
typically undergoing development of structural complexity with the
formation of multiple canopy layers and canopy openings or gaps
(Franklin et al. 2001). Such stands contribute habitat for many late-
successional species even though they have much lower levels of woody
debris (snags and logs) and of decadence than old-growth forests.
Surprisingly, early-successional forests developed following natural
disturbances, such as wildfire, often have high levels of structural
complexity in the form of snags and down wood, and provide important
habitat; natural early-successional stands contrast greatly with
clearcuts and should not be equated with them in policy analyses.
old-growth protection by federal agencies
Federal agencies are making major contributions to old-growth
forest protection by:
Adopting plans that protect much of the remaining old-growth
forest; and
Implementing programs to restore late-successional
conditions.
These contributions are coming primarily from USDA Forest Service
but with significant contributions from USDI Bureau of Land Management
in the west and USDI National Park Service throughout the nation. The
federal government has a unique role in conservation of old-growth
forests in many parts of the United States; most significant remaining
examples of such forests are confined to public lands. Several regional
strategies have been adopted that protect most remaining old-growth
forests on federal lands, including the Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP)
(all federal forest lands within the range of the northern spotted owl)
and Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (national forests in the Sierra
Nevada and Modoc Plateau). Plans to conserve old-growth forests are
also being adopted on other federal ownerships, including the northeast
and southern Appalachian Mountains.
Federal agencies have also developed and implemented programs to
restore late-successional forests and conditions. The silvicultural
activities undertaken to accelerate development of late-successional
structure in young, second-growth stands located within Late
Successional Reserves (LSRs of NWFP) are one example; this is being
done in order to expand availability of such habitat and to restore the
integrity of the LSR landscapes. Programs for treatment fire fuels,
including prescribed burns, are being adopted and implemented in old-
growth forest types that were naturally subjected to frequent light-to-
moderate intensity fire, such as the pine and mixed-conifer forests
found in western North America.
integrating old-growth protection and commercial activities
We can protect and even restore old-growth forest conditions and
still provide for commercial uses of forests, albeit not on every acre.
The strategies adopted to do this need to reflect differences in the
ecology and history of the subject forests, however: one prescription
is not adequate to address the diverse challenges of maintaining old-
growth forests and habitats. For example, fuel hazard reduction and
prescribed burning are not appropriate for old-growth forests in the
coastal Douglas-fir forests of northwestern Oregon and western
Washington.
Protection of areas of existing, old-growth forest (``reserves'')
is central to any regional forest strategy that is intended to conserve
biological diversity and ecological processes (Noss and Cooperrider
1994). There is a scientific consensus regarding the need for reserves
but not about the extent of reserves that are needed; the extent of
reserves needed is highly dependent upon the level of risk to late-
successional species that is acceptable, which is, of course, a social
rather than a scientific decision. Reserves are viewed as critical
because existing old-growth forests have the highest probability of
providing the habitat needed by old-growth related organisms. Retaining
such forests provides lower risks to old-growth organisms (i.e., higher
certainty of sustaining these organisms) than assuming that suitable
habitat can be re-created in managed forests. In effect, reserves are
the best insurance against failure.
Some reserves need to be actively managed to maintain their old-
growth values while others essentially take care of themselves. For
example, old-growth forests on sites that were naturally subjected to
frequent light to moderate fire regimes will often need active
management to restore and maintain appropriate fuel loadings and fire.
This is recognized in the guidelines for management of Old Forest
Emphasis Areas of the USDA Forest Service' Sierra strategy and has been
practiced for many years in the national parks of the Sierra Nevada by
the USDI National Park Service.
Using silvicultural activities to restore and expand the forest
area with old-growth characteristics is often appropriate, including
the use of prescribed fire where appropriate (e.g., pine and mixed-
conifer forests). Creative ``thinning'' projects in young stands in
NWFP LSRs provide an excellent example of the possibilities (Franklin
2001). These include such practices as:
Variable-density thinning to increase stand heterogeneity,
including canopy openings and heavy cover;
Thinning some dominant trees to release and maintain shade-
tolerant conifers and hardwoods;
Creation of coarse woody debris (snags and logs on the
forest floor); and
Underplanting of shade-tolerant species.
Such activities can help advance structural development in stands
and restore the integrity of the late-successional landscapes. These
silvicultural projects can also yield significant amounts of small- and
medium-diameter timber but we need to avoid setting timber targets that
could obscure ecological goals and create distrust among stakeholders.
Dr. Andrew Carey has been a leader in conceptualizing integrated
approaches to biodiversity and wood production, research sponsored in
part by the congress (e.g., Carey et al. 1999).
I do believe that sustained flows of wood products could come from
management programs to restore and maintain old-growth forest
conditions. Programs to restore late-successional habitat in coastal
coniferous forests (outlined in the preceding paragraph) can provide
such flows for several decades. One of the best long-term opportunities
would be continuing programs to restore and maintain old-growth
conditions in forest types naturally subject to frequent, light- to
moderate fire regimes, such as the ponderosa pine and mixed conifer
forests of the Sierra Nevada and intermountain west. Incidentally, any
``diameter limit'' in such programs should be keyed or indexed to
variations in regional and local site conditions; for example,
appropriate diameters for removal in southwestern ponderosa pine
forests are very different from appropriate diameter limits for mixed-
conifer forests on productive sites in the Sierra Nevada.
effects of changes in forest policy
Changes in forest policy in the last two decades have altered
completely the degree to which old-growth forests are being protected.
They are also resulting in restoration of late-successional forest
functions to a much broader area of the landscape. Current national
forest policies emphasize ecological sustainability in contrast to past
policies, which emphasized production of commodities with attempts to
mitigate impacts on ecological processes and biodiversity.
This change in forest policy has profoundly changed the prospects
for old-growth ecosystems and related species in many regions, such as
the Pacific Northwest. The Northwest Forest Plan has provided the
essential central element of a regional forest strategy. It is a robust
plan from an ecological perspective, proscribing traditional timber
harvesting on over 80% of the 24.4 million acres of federal forest land
within the range of the northern spotted owl. Organisms and ecological
processes dependent on late-successional forests have unquestionably
been well served by the NWFP. Industrial forest landowners and state
trust land managers have been provided with significant regulatory
stability that has allowed them to develop approved Habitat
Conservation Plans in significant measure because most old-growth needs
are provided for on federal lands.
This is not to say that the NWFP is working perfectly. For example,
the plan was intended to be adaptive. In application there have been
few opportunities for flexibility and adaptive learning. Almost all
participants in implementation--from the agencies to stakeholders to
the courts--have contributed to this rigidity. While intellectually
appealing adaptive management is actually threatening to stakeholders
since it makes uncertainty in outcomes explicit! Adaptive Management
Areas, which were supposed to be focal points for innovation and
experimentation, have failed to fulfill their promise, partially
because of a lack of institutional, including funding, support. We need
to restore learning and adaptation to a central role in the NWFP but
that will require congressional as well as agency and stakeholder
support.
conclusions
Old-growth forests are important and distinctive ecosystems in all
forested regions of the world, recognizable on the basis of their
structural complexity and providing unique ecological functions,
including habitat for tens of thousands of specialized organisms. It is
possible to integrate programs to maintain and restore old-growth
forest ecosystems with commercial uses of forest lands, albeit not on
every acre. Active management will be necessary to maintain old-growth
forest in some landscapes. Current federal forest policies have
dramatically improved the prospects for old-growth ecosystems and
related organisms in many parts of the United States and have provided
the core of regional strategies to conserve biodiversity to which other
landowners can tier their activities. Adaptive approaches are essential
but are proving difficult in practice.
STATEMENT OF DR. THOMAS M. BONNICKSEN, PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF
FOREST SCIENCE, TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY, COLLEGE STATION, TX
Dr. Bonnicksen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Dr. Tom
Bonnicksen. I am Professor of Forest Science at Texas A&M
University. I have spent my entire career, actually 32 years
now, concentrating on the history of the native forests of
North America in managing and sustaining them. Recently, last
year, I published a book documenting the history of our forests
from the Ice Age until the time they were discovered by
European explorers.
One of the things I can tell you about my experience over
the last 32 years is that, frankly I have not seen any
intellectual progress in this discussion. I do not think
anything has changed from the heady days of protest and
preservation that I experienced when I went to school at the
University of California-Berkeley. Nothing has changed. The
arguments are the same. There has been very little creativity.
As a matter of fact, the Scandinavians and the Canadians
have been so far ahead of us on this issue--and they come here
to get an education; they go back to think about it--that we
really ought to be looking elsewhere for our ideas than right
here at home.
I will give you one example. This idea that you walk into a
douglas fir forest that is a dog hair thicket, wave your hand
and say, this is unnatural and we do not want this. I have
studied these forests. A dog hair thicket in a douglas fir
forest is natural. They occurred historically. They are an
integral part of this forest. You do not just wave your hand
and say it is unimportant and in fact wave your hand and say
all the successional stages of a forest are unimportant except
old-growth, not if you really care about forests. Maybe if you
are concerned about politics you can do that, but not forests.
What is old-growth? It is not defined. There is no
consensus in the scientific community or anywhere else, because
it was a political term designed for the express purpose of
arguing the case for setting aside forests in the Pacific
Northwest. Since it served political purposes, it cannot in my
judgment serve scientific purposes.
The Forest Service has 114 definitions. There are 76
scientific definitions in the literature, and it is a total
waste of time to even come up with a definition because it is a
political, not a scientific, term.
If you want to really make progress, I suggest that you
change future hearings to avoid the term ``old-growth'' and
start considering the idea that the Congress on the other side
is considering, which is H.R. 2119, which is using our historic
native forests as a model for future forests and managing whole
forests, instead of just this undefinable part of a forest
called old-growth.
But even if we use this popular definition that says it has
got to have big old trees and lots of layers and lots of old
stuff laying on the ground and we tried to manage our forests
to achieve that, what are we going to get? Well, first of all,
we are not going to get forests that look like anything we have
had in North America for the past 18,000 years. We are going to
get artificial forests that never existed and could never exist
unless Congress passed a law to create them.
To me that is a tragedy, because I care about our historic
forests in North America, keeping them, sustaining them,
bringing many of them back so that our children and our
grandchildren, of which I have five, can see and experience
them for themselves.
For example, in the Pacific Northwest very few douglas fir
forests ever lasted 1,200 years, I can assure you of that. The
fire cycle is 400 years. Most of them are older than they ever
would have been. If we actually tried to keep them
indefinitely, they would not be douglas fir forests any more;
they would be western hemlock forests. In New England, the
white pine forests would be maple forests.
The forest cannot remain the same. It will just simply
succeed into something that can replace itself and it will look
like nothing that ever existed before except on a very tiny
scale.
Frankly, if we want old-growth or whatever this thing is
that we want, older forests, we are going to have to manage
them. We cannot just put a fence around them and say that we
are going to get them by leaving them alone, because what you
are going to get is probably not what you want. I do not think
you want the entire Sierra Nevada west slope covered with a
white fir forest. I do not think you want western hemlock
covering the entire Pacific Northwest or douglas fir replacing
all the ponderosa forests or maple replacing all the oak
forests in the East. I do not think that is what you want. I
certainly do not want it.
So if we are going to get it, we are going to have to
manage it, and we are going to have to manage it in a way that
simulates what happened historically. Many of these forests are
very, very old indeed if you do not look at the age of the
trees as well. Some of them do not actually need any
management.
I can give you an example, the high mountain balsam fir
forests in the Northeast. You do not have to touch it. It
cycles every 60 years because of wind and ice. It has been
doing it for 10,000 years. That is a great forest to leave
alone, but there are not very many forests like that.
I care about real forests. I would like to sustain real
forests and that is going to require management. Frankly, I
suggest we purge the word ``old-growth'' from our vocabulary
and let us think about forests as they really were historically
and then use science and logic, dispassionate logic, to manage
them and get them back. Let us look at what they do in
Scandinavia and Canada to achieve that, because they care about
these old forests as much as we do, but it seems like they are
not hindered as much as we are.
Frankly, we are like a car that is trying to move forward
with a brake, the emergency brake, full on, and that brake is
the idea of old-growth and that it is the only important part
of a forest to preserve. We do not know what it is and it
ignores everything else. I think that is sad. Even if we knew
what it was as described popularly, historically it was always
just a small part of the forest anyway, because these forests
were mosaics--and in the Pacific Northwest sometimes a 100,000
acre patch--of all different sizes.
In the Sierra Nevada, for example, only 18 to 21 percent of
that forest was like old-growth, and even in the douglas fir
forest it only was 42 to 60 percent.
So I think we should think about whole forests and not old-
growth, and that is what I would suggest for your next meeting
if you want to make progress. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Bonnicksen follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dr. Thomas M. Bonnicksen, Professor, Department
of Forest Science, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX
introduction
My name is Dr. Thomas M. Bonnicksen. I am a professor in the
Department of Forest Science at Texas A&M University specializing in
restoration forestry. I have conducted research on restoring and
sustaining America's native forests for more than thirty years. I have
written over one hundred publications and I authored the book titled
America's Ancient Forests: from the Ice Age to the Age of Discovery
(Copyright January 2000, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 594 pages). The book
documents the history of North America's native forests. It gives
special emphasis to the way our native forests appeared at the time of
European settlement and the role Native American's played in their
development. Additional biographical information is available in the
biographical summary at the end of this document.
outline
1. What is old-growth?
2. Problems with the term old-growth
a) The popular definition of old-growth
b) The idealized old-growth forest
c) The real forest
i) Forest age
ii) Forest structure
iii) Area of old-growth
d) The undisturbed forest
3. Sustaining idealized old-growth forests
a) Accelerating the decline of historic native forests
b) Creating artificial old-growth forests
4. Sustaining real old-growth forests
what is old-growth?
In 1989, Malcolm Hunter published a paper in the Journal of
Forestry that stated, ``There is no generally accepted or universally
applicable definition of old-growth.'' His conclusion is still true.
Old-growth remains undefined because it is not a scientific term.
It is a popular term that cannot be generalized to all types of
forests. Consequently, a scientist who refers to old-growth in a paper
must provide a unique definition to clarify what is meant. This helps
to explain why there are at least 75 definitions of old-growth in use
today. None of these definitions achieved general scientific
acceptance, including the definition used by the Society of American
Foresters.
So, what is old-growth? It is what anyone who uses the term says it
is, and that changes from person to person. Old-growth emerged from the
political campaign to protect uncut forests in the Pacific Northwest.
Since it served political purposes it is not surprising that it cannot
serve scientific purposes.
problems with the term old-growth?
The Popular Definition of Old-Growth
The most popular definition of old-growth includes 1) large old
trees in the overstory; 2) several layers in the canopy; 3) a variety
of tree species; 4) many standing dead trees; and 5) many dead and
decaying logs on the ground. It also requires that to qualify as old-
growth a forest must be undisturbed by human activity. At the very
least, it requires that a forest be left undisturbed in the future in
order to develop old-growth characteristics.
The Idealized Old-Growth Forest
To many people, the popular definition of old-growth represents an
idealized view of how a natural forest should look. This ideal means
that a whole forest should look like old-growth. It also represents a
belief that forests of large old trees covered the pre-European
settlement landscape. However, most of America's historic forests were
dramatically different from this ideal.
The Real Forest
Forest Age: Most historic native forests did not fit the idealized
old-growth image. While some forests such as high mountain balsam fir
in the Northeast still look the way they did 10,000 years ago, the
trees that make up the forest succumb to wind and ice in 50-60 years.
Likewise, most jack pine forests only lived about 60 years before being
destroyed by fire yet these forests have existed for about 8,000 years.
Similarly, longleaf pine forests in the Southeast are about 5,000 years
old. However, the trees mature at 150 years and seldom live more than
300 years. Thus, what is old depends on the history of the forest and
longevity of the trees of which it is composed.
Forest Structure: Such structural attributes as layering in the
canopy and dead trees are just as poor indicators of old-growth as the
age of the trees. Most of America's historic native forests did not
have this structure, although there are a few exceptions. They include
western hemlock, white fir, beech-maple, and maple-basswood forests.
These are self-replacing or climax forests. The young trees that fill
openings created by the death of old trees are the same species as
those that fall. The trees can replace themselves because they tolerate
dense shade and reproduce on deep litter. Trees of all ages stand in
these forests, snags are abundant, and the ground is cluttered with
decaying logs.
Self-replacing forests take many years to develop. Therefore, most
of them grow in areas protected from fire. However, fires were common
in the majority of America's historic forests and they occasionally
burned self-replacing forests. Windstorms, insects, and other
disturbances also took their toll of these forests. Therefore, no
forest consisted entirely of old-growth, not even self-replacing
forests.
Self-replacing forests were limited in extent and they did not
consist entirely of large old trees. For example, old trees only
covered 63-87% of the area within self-replacing maple-basswood and
beech-maple forests. Likewise, old trees only covered 56-77% of the
area within the self-replacing western hemlock forests. The remainder
consisted of fresh openings filled with herbs, shrubs, or young trees,
dense patches of middle-aged trees, and many other stages of
development scattered throughout the forest.
Area of Old-Growth: Large old trees occupied only a small part of
the majority of historic native forests because forests are made up of
a mosaic of patches of various sizes and shapes. Each patch is in a
particular stage of recovery from a destructive event that creates an
opening in the forest. Some freshly opened patches contain herbs or
shrubs, while others contain young, middle-aged, or old trees.
As a rule, the proportion of a forest mosaic that consists of older
trees is greater when disturbances such as fire occur infrequently.
This means that the popular definition of old-growth only applies to
the oldest or most decadent patches in a forest rather than a complete
forest, and the proportion varies by forest type.
The idealized image of whole forests composed of old-growth fails
to adequately describe even the Pacific Douglas-fir forest that
inspired the term. Historic wet Douglas-fir forests in the Pacific
Northwest contained about 42-60% older forest spread over the landscape
in large patches. The area varied because fires did not always burn the
same amount of forest. Patches of older forest covered only about 12-
23% of the landscape in drier southern Pacific Douglas-fir forests
where fires were more frequent.
The same is true of other historic native forests. Fires were
frequent in historic mixed-conifer forests in the Sierra Nevada.
Therefore, patches were small and older forest covered only about 18-
21% of the landscape. Even so, the forest still looked like old trees
dominated it because the patches of older forest were small and well
disbursed among patches of younger trees. Similarly, ponderosa pine
forests in the Southwest and Rocky Mountains contained patches of older
forest that covered about 17-40% of the landscape. Lodgepole pine
forests in the northern Rockies consisted of about 30% older forest. In
the Great Lakes region, jack pine forests contained about 23-43% older
forest. In the East, the red spruce-fir forest had about 55-60% older
forest because fires were infrequent and large.
The proportion of a forest that fit the popular definition of old-
growth in pre-European settlement times was not only less than the area
covered by the whole forest, but it was often only a small part of the
proportion of older forest. Older forests include the last three stages
of development while old-growth only describes the last two stages. The
old pioneer forest is the earliest stage of an older forest. It
consists of old pioneer trees that became established when seedlings
filled a fresh clearing. These pioneer species such as pine and
Douglas-fir regenerate in openings because they are adapted to growing
in bright sunlight on bare soil. They cannot grow in the thick litter
and shade of dense forest.
Old pioneer forests are open. They do not have layers in the canopy
nor do they have many standing or fallen dead trees. Therefore, an open
old pioneer forest is old even though it does not fit the popular
definition of old-growth. Even so, some old pioneer forests, especially
pine and oak forests, stayed open for centuries because frequent light
surface fires kept the understory free of young trees and woody debris.
Only the last two stages of forest development--old transitional and
self-replacing forests--fit the popular definition of old-growth.
An old transitional forest is decadent. It is an old pioneer forest
that is breaking apart and nearing the end of its existence. The
overstory trees are dying and being replaced by more shade-tolerant
species. An old transitional forest is the next to the last stage of
development. It has multiple layers, and standing and fallen dead trees
are prominent. An old transitional forest is old-growth.
When the last old pioneer tree topples, all that remains is a
forest composed of shade-tolerant trees of all ages. This is the last
stage of development and it is perpetually decadent. It is a self-
replacing forest and it is also old-growth.
The Undisturbed Forest: Finally, the popular definition of old-
growth assumes that humans played no role in the development of
historic native forests. This myth persists in spite of overwhelming
historical and scientific evidence. The last time such forests existed
in North America was during the last interglacial about 122,000 years
ago.
Paleoindians pushed southward between the ice sheets about 14,000
years ago. They arrived in southeastern Wisconsin about 13,400 years
ago, and they occupied all of North America between 12,000 and 11,000
years ago. At the time of European exploration, as many as 12 million
American Indians were actively managing every corner of the continent.
Thus, the original forests described by the first European explorers
and settlers were shaped by thousands of years of Indian use and
management.
These people were not passive occupants of forests. They created
and deliberately maintained the forests that we value today, thanks
largely to the use of fire, their most powerful tool for producing the
resources they needed to survive. Indian-set fires were one of nature's
ways of clearcutting forests. Indians burned large patches in
northeastern oak forests to clear fields for planting. They moved to
new areas when crop yields declined and all the firewood was gathered
from surrounding forests. Their abandoned fields helped to regenerate
new oak forests. Some Indian-set fires also went out of control and
escaped into adjacent forests. Many of these came from abandoned
campfires. Such accidental fires helped to thin forests and create
openings where pine trees and other pioneer species could grow.
Almost no part of the country was unaffected by Indian-set fires.
Indians burned forests in California, the northern Rocky Mountains, the
Southwest, the Northwest. and the Midwest. They doubled the frequency
of fire in many forests.
There are at least 62 documented reasons that Indians burned
forests. For example, Indians set fires to reduce insect pests, keep
forests open for easy travel, and stimulate the growth of shrubs and
grass for big game. They also used fire to improve the growth of
berries and to reduce fuels around campsites for protection from
wildfires. The Maskouten Indians who lived along the Fox River in
Wisconsin used fire so often that Father Pere Marquette knew them in
1673 as the ``Fire People.'' Miwok and Monache Indians burned forests
in California's Sierra Nevada to regenerate and protect black oak trees
that produced the acorns that were their principal source of food.
They also used fire to flush game and clear underbrush that could
hide their enemies. In the Pacific Northwest, Indians burned Douglas-
fir and pine forests to make it easier to hunt deer and find wild honey
and grasshoppers. Fires set by Indians to improve feeding grounds for
wild game also maintained the pine-hardwood forests in north central
Minnesota. Altogether, Indian-set fires helped to create and maintain
about 87% of America's historic native forests.
Thus, the forests and the Indians sustained one another. Remove the
Indians and the forest and the wildlife must change. They were
inseparable. There is no doubt that American Indians were an integral
part of America's historic native forests.
sustaining idealized old-growth forests
Historic native forests differed markedly from the sentimental view
some people nurture today. The management practices of American Indians
and their ancestors, and the pervasive effects of insect and disease
attacks, lightning fires, and other forces shaped America's historic
forests and kept them beautiful and diverse. Trying to protect forests
that currently fit the popular definition of old-growth, or creating
more such forests, will accelerate the decline of America's historic
native forests and replace them with artificial forests.
Accelerating the Decline of Historic Native Forests
In the East, even though trees are becoming denser, stately forests
of white pine no longer cover large areas as they did in pre-European
settlement times. Protecting them from disturbance to create old-growth
will ensure that they never recover. Similarly, the oak-chestnut forest
is nearly extinct and leaving it alone cannot restore it. Sugar maple
and red maple also are taking over northern and eastern hardwood
forests and replacing oak--our national tree. Continued protection will
also prevent oak from returning to these forests. Eventually, they will
be converted to self-replacing maple forests.
In the South, the vast longleaf pine savannas that spread over much
of the landscape are nearly gone as well. This loss is especially
tragic because the historic longleaf pine forest was not only beautiful
but it also had the highest number of plant species of any forest in
North America. In the Midwest, we have lost most of the oak-hickory
savanna that once fringed the Great Plains and held early travelers
spellbound because of its beauty and richness of wildlife. Neither of
these forests will recover if left alone.
In the Inland West, juniper is spreading within pinon juniper
woodlands and replacing grasslands. Similarly, once open stately groves
of ponderosa pine are becoming so thick with small trees that grass and
wildflowers can no longer grow within the forest. Because of increases
in the density of pine and other conifers, aspen forests are rapidly
disappearing as a distinct forest type throughout their range. In
addition, white fir is replacing Douglas-fir forests in the Southwest,
and spruce and fir are replacing lodgepole pine and western larch
forests in the northern Rocky Mountains. Like most of America's
historic native forests, these forests too will not recover if left
alone.
In California and Oregon, thick forests of short lived and small
white fir are replacing what were once open and patchy forests of
ponderosa pine, giant sequoia, and other conifers. This invasion of
white fir was unanticipated when Native Americans were removed from
these forests in the 19th century and fires were put out. Complete
protection will ultimately lead to the replacement of the original
pioneer forests by self-replacing forests of white fir.
Creating Artificial Old-Growth Forests
In the Pacific Northwest, for example, about 42-60% of the historic
Douglas-fir forest consisted of old-growth, but the Forest Service plan
calls for increasing it to 73% in reserves. If they succeed in
protecting the forest for several centuries, a self-replacing forest of
western hemlock that covers nearly 100% of the landscape will
eventually replace it. This is a monumental change from natural
conditions where only about 4% of the wet Douglas-fir forest consisted
of patches of self-replacing western hemlock forest.
The same thing is happening in the Sierra Nevada. The U.S. Forest
Service Region 5 plan adopted in 2001 intends to accelerate the
invasion of white fir into pioneer forests in order to create huge old-
growth reserves. The Forest Service plan calls for increasing old
multi-layered forests that covered 12% of the landscape in historic
native forests to the artificially high level of 64%. Like the Pacific
Northwest plan, complete protection could eventually convert the entire
reserve into a self-replacing white fir forest. This is not only
unnatural, it is probably unsustainable.
Many species of plants and animals that live in younger forests
will decline in numbers while species that live in dense old forests,
such as the California spotted owl, will increase to unnaturally high
numbers. Regrettably, these artificially dense old forests will no
longer represent the beauty and diversity of the historic native
forests. This is a tragic and unnecessary loss of our Nation's natural
and cultural heritage.
Frequent fires set by Native Americans and lightning used to keep
native forests in the Sierra Nevada open, but now they are so thick
that any fire has the potential for turning a forest into a colossal
furnace. Unlike the original native forests, fires also can spread
freely across vast areas because trees have grown to similar sizes, and
there are fewer patches of young trees, meadows, and clearings to slow
the flames. Creating a huge area of artificial old-growth will
dramatically increase the size and severity of future fires.
The mammoth wildfire that scorched nearly half of Yellowstone
National Park during the summer of 1988 is a good example of what can
be expected in the Sierra Nevada if the Forest Service plan is carried
out. This fire was significantly larger than any fire that occurred in
Yellowstone in the past 350 years. One reason the fire was so large is
that multi-layered older forest covered nearly 65% of the landscape.
Historically, such older forests only covered 30% of the landscape.
Therefore, what happened in Yellowstone is likely to happen in many
other forests that are artificially converted to old-growth.
sustaining real old-growth forests
All stages of forest development, not just old-growth, were an
integral and essential part of America's historic native forests.
Historically, each patch in a forest mosaic progressed through an
endlessly cycle of renewal, aging, and destruction. This means forest
mosaics are constantly changing and only a proportion of all of the
patches are in the later stages of development which is old-growth.
Furthermore, a patch of old-growth does not stay in the same place
within a forest mosaic. Eventually, the patch of old-growth is
destroyed while a younger patch of trees somewhere else in the forest
mosaic grows into old-growth to replace it. This occurred every 400
years in Pacific Douglas-fir forests and more frequently in many other
forests. A similar process must continue in order to sustain both
historic native forests and old-growth.
A forest cannot be preserved because it is alive and continually
changes. It must be managed. Therefore, the only way to restore and
sustain our native forests is through active or hands-on management at
a cost that taxpayers are willing to pay. Reintroduction or control of
plant and animal species, planting, pre-commercial and commercial
thinning, grazing, prescribed burning, control or suppression of fire,
timber harvesting or, where appropriate and effective, temporary or
permanent protection should all be available to a manager who is
restoring a historic native forest. The nature of the tools and
techniques used to restore a forest are unimportant. The only thing
that matters is providing this and future generations with an enduring
legacy of dynamic and sustainable historic native forests that include
all stages of development, including old-growth.
Recently introduced in Congress, The National Historic Forests Act
of 2001 (H.R. 2119) provides the means to restore our native forests.
The Act authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to establish and
maintain historic forests ``that are or, after reasonable restoration,
will be representative of prehistoric or historic landscapes
significant in the history and culture of the United States.'' This Act
may be the last chance to recover our forgotten forest heritage and
avoid the problems of creating artificial and unsustainable forests
that fit the popular definition of old-growth.
Senator Wyden. We thank both our witnesses.
Let me ask some questions of you, Dr. Franklin. You have
heard me throughout the afternoon talking about how what this
effort is all about coming up with an active management plan,
of which old-growth protection is a part, forest health is
absolutely key, as is multiple use, and we have said that again
and again and that is going to be what our effort is all about.
In terms of trying to clarify some of the terms here, why
don't you tell us in your opinion what you think the value of
old-growth is as compared to other ages of forests?
Mr. Franklin. Let me just begin by saying I have never ever
suggested that only old-growth forests have value. So let me
just go on record that I consider all successional stages, all
development levels in forests, to have value, and I think I
have indicated that in my testimony.
The reason why we have a lot of focus on old, as opposed to
early and mid, successional stages is simply because we do not
have very much of it left and because there are a number of
specialized organisms and a number of processes which are
characteristic of those structurally complex forests. So it
provides a very special kind of habitat and there are very good
reasons for it based on the structural architecture of those
stands.
Senator Wyden. How much old-growth was cut in the Pacific
Northwest in the years prior to the Northwest Forest Plan in
your view?
Mr. Franklin. Total or Federal?
Senator Wyden. Both if you have it?
Mr. Franklin. Well, I thought about that earlier today and
I do not have the numbers with me, but I would estimate
something on the order of two-thirds of the old-growth on
Federal lands was cut during the last century, and probably on
the order of three-fourths, nine-tenths, a very high
proportion, when you figure in the fact that all of the private
lands were cut over.
Senator Wyden. If there is a thinning program in the LSR's,
how in your view should it go forward so as to ensure that
restoration remains a top priority, as opposed to just going
forward with business as usual and some of the practices that
left us in this predicament we are in today?
Mr. Franklin. Well, I think there are a lot of guides out
there that are available to silviculturalists and managers in
terms of how they can approach it. For example, the Forest
Service has had an individual by the name of Andy Kerry, Dr.
Andy Kerry, in their Olympia lab that has done an awful lot of
work in developing approaches to management that integrate both
biodiversity and economic objectives. That work, incidentally,
was funded by the U.S. Congress in large measure.
I simply say that as an example of the sort of thing you
would be doing would be variable density thinning.
Senator Wyden. That is what I was going to ask you about.
If you would take some time here to tell me how that works--
that is an area that we are interested in because it does seem
to be picking up a lot of scientific support.
Mr. Franklin. Sure. If you were going out there and you
were focusing on timber production, your thinning activity
would be generally to think from below, in other words to
remove the small and inferior species, in order to release the
dominant crop trees in the stand to grow more rapidly, and you
would try to create uniformity in your stand. You would want a
very evenly distributed stand in order to maximize production.
When you are interested in things like diversity as well as
wood production, what you do is you vary within your stand your
prescription for thinning. One term that is used for it is
``skips and gaps.'' In other words, in portions of the area you
thin very heavily to provide openings and to allow stimulation
of the understory plants; in other areas you do not thin at
all, to maintain a very dense patch; and perhaps over half of
the area you use an intermediate kind of thinning regime. So
you do not do the same thing everywhere.
You also do not just remove the little trees. Sometimes you
are removing--you are thinning from above. You are removing
dominant trees that release shade-tolerants that are in the
understory, hardwood trees, etcetera. So that would be a very
central element of any kind of restoration.
Now, that is going to give you a variety of commodities,
just like traditional commercial thinning would do, but it is
going to give you a very different kind of stand following
treatment.
Senator Wyden. Dr. Bonnicksen, in hopes if maybe getting a
little common ground here for a moment, give me your sense of
what you think of the thinning approach that Dr. Franklin is
talking about, because it is our understanding that variable
density thinning has been getting additional support in the
scientific community and I am curious whether this is something
that you think has some promise, again within the context of an
active management plan which I have referred to a number of
times in the course of the afternoon.
Dr. Bonnicksen. Well, you have said in the beginning and
reiterated several times that you want to deal with fundamental
questions. Honestly, the idea of skip thinning in a second
growth douglas fir forest in order to recreate something that
you ultimately are having difficulty defining in the first
place does not sound like addressing a fundamental question.
The fundamental question is what are you trying to get? And
if what you are trying to get is a forest that is dominated by
douglas fir and has several age classes of douglas fir and
several age classes of western hemlock growing in the
understory, yes, there are lots of different ways to get that.
But when you are done, what do you have? You have one big block
of forest that fits a predetermined idea of what it is you
value, that cannot be sustained. You cannot keep it. It will go
away.
I was driving between Eureka and Reading in northern
California going by one of these LSR's, late successional
reserves, and I was amazed because this late successional
reserve had a few scattered douglas fir, very old, very pretty
trees in it and the rest of it was just white fir coming up
underneath. It was actually--talk about decadent; it was in the
final throes of its life. That was a reserve that would not be,
I do not think, resurrected ever again as a douglas fir forest.
It will just turn into a white fir forest.
So yes, you can thin, you can create those structural
attributes that you associate with old-growth, and you can use
a variety of ways to achieve it, and whatever the
silviculturalists can agree to do is fine with me.
Senator Wyden. Let us ask Dr. Franklin how he would respond
to the comment of Dr. Bonnicksen. Dr. Franklin, do you think
that what Dr. Bonnicksen has described as your thinning program
is not going to get you much?
Mr. Franklin. How is that again?
Senator Wyden. I mean, I think what Dr. Bonnicksen said
when I asked him about variable thinning and the approach that
you talked about, he said, what have you got? He described
something that he thought was not going to meet anybody's
definition of a good management plan. I just would like your
reaction the what he just said.
Mr. Franklin. I obviously disagree with him. We have
absolute fundamental disagreement and I would suggest that Dr.
Bonnicksen is outside of the scientific consensus on this
issue.
Senator Wyden. Okay, that is what I wanted. That is the
back and forth I wanted. Look, reasonable people can differ and
that is the point of hearings in the U.S. Senate.
Dr. Bonnicksen. I am not going to respond to a personal
attack like that because I am very well aware of what my role
is in the scientific community, and I do not depend on Dr.
Franklin to define that for me.
But let me say, this other point that was brought up
earlier about all the scientific values and ecological values
of old-growth that all the studies have demonstrated. I suggest
to you as a scientist that if you were to pour the millions of
dollars into research on the other successional stages that are
an integral part of a dynamic, functioning forest, you would
find that each and every one of them had immeasurable
scientific value rivaling anything anybody has found from old-
growth.
So just because that is where the money went does not mean
that is what is really important scientifically or even
ecologically.
Senator Wyden. Dr. Bonnicksen, again I want it understood I
am not going to be attacking anybody----
Dr. Bonnicksen. I am not suggesting you were.
Senator Wyden [continuing]. In the course of this debate.
The reason Senator Craig and I have made headway working with
Senator Smith is because we are trying to find some common
ground, and that is what I am going to continue to do. My door
is open to both of you and I am anxious to do that.
Let me just ask a couple other questions. I just wanted to
repeat that for what it is worth here.
Dr. Franklin, with respect to a forest that has been
harvested and hand-planted, can that develop into an old-growth
forest with time?
Mr. Franklin. A forest that has been cut and hand-planted,
sure. Fundamentally, if you accept the premise that mature and
old forests are characterized by particular kinds of structural
conditions, and assuming that the planting stock is from an
appropriate seed source so it has the potential to realize the
growth opportunity on that site, sure.
What we are dealing with is not questions of whether those
stands are going to arrive at a structurally complex condition
at some point. Our goal is to speed that process, because we
are short on that kind of habitat, in some cases because we
want to reestablish the integrity of the late successional
reserves.
So yes.
Senator Wyden. I assume that that time could be shortened
if you had good forest management activities--thinnings,
individual tree or group selection harvests as well?
Mr. Franklin. Yes. I have estimated the kinds of things
that are being laid out, that I laid out and others have laid
out for thinning in LSR's, could speed the development of some
of these structural attributes by 3 to 5 decades.
Senator Wyden. A question for both of you. If Congress or
an administration drew a line on a map and said you could
preserve a forest in a specific ecological stage, such as old-
growth or saplings and poles, what would be your reaction?
Mr. Franklin. Where is it? What type is it?
Senator Wyden. Dr. Bonnicksen.
Dr. Bonnicksen. No, you cannot. Congress can pass laws, but
it cannot violate scientific laws. There are forests that you
could pretty much leave alone. I have given you one, high
mountain balsam fir, a very rare forest, a very valuable forest
from the point of view that it has not changed since the end of
the Ice Age actually. Beech maple forest, maple basswood
forest, you could probably draw a line around those two, if you
allowed people to go in and shoot deer to make sure that they
could regenerate, because those are wind forests.
But no, you cannot preserve a forest by drawing a line
around it. It is not possible.
Senator Wyden. Gentlemen, I do not have any further
questions. If you all would like to add anything further, we
are happy to have it. But just understand that the doors of
this subcommittee are wide open to both of you. The goal here
is to get beyond some of what has divided people on this issue,
to show that you can have a management plan, an integrated
management plan, where you can manage these forests for all
Americans. We are going to stay at it until we figure out a way
to do it, and we need your input and counsel.
Anything either of you would like to add?
Dr. Bonnicksen.
Dr. Bonnicksen. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I would strongly suggest
that you contact Congressman Mike Simpson from Idaho and
discuss with him H.R. 2119, the National Historic Forests Act
that he introduced, because I think you will find in that Act
many of the answers to your questions and many of the solutions
to your problem. I would really suggest that.
Senator Wyden. Well, I think your point is a good one and I
do know Mike and he is a good man. As you know, that
legislation has generated a fair amount of opposition. What
Senator Craig and I did at the outset on the county payments
bill, which really is a historic step towards trying to get
some balance in natural resources, is we said, what we are
going to try to do out of the box is to find some ways to bring
people together, because what has made this issue so
contentious in the past is one bill after another has been
introduced and the people who support it are out and vociferous
and the people who are against it are equally vociferous, and
then the discussion ends.
Incredibly, the county payments bill that Senator Craig and
I wrote in the last session was the first piece of forestry
legislation to come to the floor in the U.S. Senate in almost 2
decades, only because we said we were going to try to do it
differently.
So you are absolutely right, Mike Simpson is a good man and
I am definitely going to look at his bill and everybody else's
bill in an effort to try to move this along. What I am just
going to ask everybody else to do is to see if we can maybe
lower this decibel level a little bit and find a way to get
people to focus on the areas we agree on and then we will roll
up our sleeves and deal with the issues that we do not agree
on.
That is why I asked as I did on the definition of old-
growth. If we can do nothing else except cut through those
tomes and find some areas that constitute some common ground,
we begin to kind of narrow the choices in front of us.
Dr. Bonnicksen. Mr. Chairman, can I just say one thing? I
am already at the old-growth stage myself and becoming somewhat
impatient about a lot of things, one of which is my love of
forests and my sincere concern for sustaining them. It is sad
for me to hear you say that the historic forests that graced
North America and bringing back many of those forests is
contentious. To me it is our heritage and I am deeply saddened
that anyone would not want to see them back.
Senator Wyden. Well, I guess if you are concluding after a
couple hours of this hearing I am not interested in
protecting----
Dr. Bonnicksen. No, no. I am thinking about the contention
you said was associated with H.R. 2119.
Senator Wyden. Well, I think that is a matter of public
record, sir, that there have been a number of groups that have
come out against it. I think that what Senator Craig and I
showed is that we were going to take the time before we sent
everybody off into their armed camps to fight, we were going to
take some time to try to show the areas where people would
agree.
That is what we are going to do here again. As I did with
your comments, I am sure not interested in attacking you. Your
sincerity is very evident. I know Mike Simpson; he is a good
man. I think what we are trying to do is show that there is a
different way of going about doing it, and I would like you and
Dr. Franklin to walk out of here knowing that our doors are
open to you and we are going to look for creative ideas that
bring people together and do it fast.
I think you are right, we are all sort of old-growth and we
have got to do this fast. So give us your counsel and ideas and
we want to work with you.
We have got a vote on the floor of the Senate, so I am
going to have to go make that. If our third panel can just be a
little bit patient, I will hustle over and make the vote, and I
will be back. If they can come forward, that will save us some
time.
[Recess from 4:42 p.m. to 5:13 p.m.]
Senator Wyden. The subcommittee will come to order.
Apologies to all the witnesses. It is just awfully hectic here.
We are going to make your prepared remarks part of the
hearing record in their entirety. If you all could summarize
your principal concerns, that would be helpful. I hope all our
witnesses have gotten the drift that we are really looking for
ways to find some common ground here. We look forward to your
ideas and thoughts on how to do it.
Mr. Palola, welcome.
STATEMENT OF ERIC S. PALOLA, DIRECTOR, NORTHEAST REGIONAL
OFFICE, NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION
Mr. Palola. Yes, good afternoon. My name is Eric Palola. I
am a natural resource economist and Director of the National
Wildlife Federation's Northeast Regional Office. I come
originally from a timber family in Washington State. However, I
have lived in Vermont for the last 30 years. In addition to my
work with the Federation, I will soon encounter, like many of
my rural neighbors, decisions about how to balance private
income with old-growth forest characteristics, as a recently
minted private forest land owner.
I would like to thank you for inviting me and in particular
for adding an eastern forest perspective to this panel this
afternoon. I will similarly highlight the written testimony
which I have submitted.
There is little doubt, as you have heard from the previous
speakers today, as to the value of old-growth forests. If we
agree, however, that old-growth forests, however they may be
defined regionally, are valuable to society, then the key
questions from where I sit are, namely, what conditions are
necessary to maintaining or restoring old-growth forests, how
much do we need, and how much can we reasonably get, and how
should we spread the costs of old-growth conservation and
restoration.
What conditions are necessary? Any discussion of old-growth
conservation outside of public lands, at least in the East,
needs to acknowledge a couple of first order barriers and
threats to forest tenure and good forest management. Simply
put, we cannot get to old-growth conditions if the economics of
forest ownership do not encourage and reward long-term
sustainable forestry.
We place practically no market value, for example, on
forests that provide exceptional ecological services or
habitats, such as old-growth, unless they happen to serve
public drinking water or tourism types of values. So it is very
hard for private forest owners to differentiate the value of
forest land for anything but the value of the wood that is on
it, and consequently we see the average parcel sizes declining
across the Northeast and also turning over more rapidly, on the
average of about every 8 to 9 years in our region of the
country.
Similar to economic uncertainties, old-growth values will
be quickly discounted if large-scale ecological disruptions,
such as climate change, induced stand replacement events, or
persistent effects of acid rain and mercury deposition,
continue to take their toll on our forest systems, as they have
for too many years already.
The clearest example of this is mercury deposition, where
we have observed that rain falling over New England is
frequently three to four times above the safe EPA wildlife
standard for mercury. In addition, some researchers have found
that trees in areas of the Northeast have essentially stopped
growing due to suspected stress from cumulative air pollution.
I can tell you in my own town the Christmas tree growers
and maple syrup producers are wondering whether Congress will
act to clean the rain of mercury and acid rain. So with due
respect to the more specific topic of old-growth, I would be
negligent if I did not at least comment about the prospects for
eastern old-growth without commenting on these basic threats to
forest security.
How much do we need, how much old-growth? We need more
forests with more old-growth qualities. True old-growth
conditions in the East are scarce and, with the exception of
the Adirondack Park in New York and a few other tracts, are
relatively small and widely distributed. While many of these
remnant stands are protected, we should not, as a matter of
policy, direct all our efforts to simply trying to enlarge
them. There are no more remnant stands to buy.
Eastern forests were the first ones, as the writer Bill
McGibbon put it, to ``hit bottom'' across our country. This
means that we have to recruit the conditions, both economic and
cultural, which favor putting old-growth qualities back into
our ecosystems over time.
A key impediment in our region is the forest composition.
The lack of old-growth is a symptom of an overall loss of
biodiversity. So as much as we might argue for more older
trees, of equal concern is the case of the missing, those trees
that evolved in our region and which made up a significant
percentage of our historic forests, but are essentially gone at
the forest end level. Examples include chestnut, elm, more
recently butternut. Vermont, interestingly, used to be the
lumber capital, lumber export capital of the world. We were
valued for our tight-grained red spruce.
Who and how will we pay? As I mentioned earlier, we know
that we if we improve the economics of sustainable forest
management, then we improve the likelihood that more of our
forests will grow to maturity. If we can provide incentives to
grow forests to their economic maturity--and I am talking about
select-grade saw logs and veneer logs, not pulp plantations--
then we improve the likelihood that some percentage of trees in
these forests will be allowed the grow to ecological maturity,
or old-growth.
This is admittedly a second order approach, but we need to
take things in order. Forest longevity follows on forest
security and forest diversity.
In my own case, I have a number of individual examples of
what my forester calls legacy trees or historical markers, and
they are by no means representative of old-growth conditions,
but they serve as a proxy for some.
Who will pay to wait while our relatively young eastern
forests grow up? Some properties may deserve public protection
through direct purchase, but in these cases old-growth will
likely need to be part of a larger package of values that
include recreation, remoteness or drinking water protection.
For the majority of forest lands in the East, however, the
success of old-growth recruitment will depend on the economic
signals.
We have enjoyed exceptional leadership from the New England
delegation on forest matters, especially on the Senate side and
especially from my two Vermont Senators. We are grateful for
that. The Congress has made some good starts in the last 10
years, for example by creating a forestry title in the farm
bill and by creating Federal cost-share programs, such as the
forestry incentive, the forest legacy programs. These programs
are up for reauthorization and the National Wildlife Federation
urges you to support them as fully as these tightening budget
times allow.
Other more experimental programs will help, such as
payments for carbon offsets, which the chairman has, I know,
given a lot of thought to; other ideas, community forestry
bonds, Federal tax incentives for conservation. I have appended
a list of some of these policy ideas to my testimony.
To conclude, I would like to reinforce just one theme,
especially as your full committee considers the Nation's energy
situation. The National Wildlife Federation is extremely
worried about an energy policy that emphasizes oil and coal
development while relaxing air pollution regulations. Eastern
forests and their inhabitants are experiencing a slow but
certain cancer from airborne pollutants.
I was frankly initially tempted to devote all my testimony
to this problem, it is that serious. It is difficult, frankly,
for those of us who live in these forests to compartmentalize
issues of forest health. So I would like the conclude with
that.
Thank you again very much for inviting me and for your
time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Palola follows:]
Prepared Statement of Eric S. Palola, Director, Northeast Regional
Office, National Wildlife Federation
Chairman Wyden and members of the subcommittee:
My name is Eric Palola and I am a natural resource economist and
Director of the National Wildlife Federation's northeast regional
office. I come originally from a timber family in Washington state,
however I have lived in Vermont for the past thirty years. In addition
to my work with the Federation, I will soon encounter, like many of my
rural neighbors, decisions about how to balance private income with old
growth forest characteristics as a recently-minted private forest land
owner. The National Wildlife Federation has been deeply involved in
forestry issues in the northeast over the last decade starting with the
work of the Congressionally authorized Northern Forest Lands Council.
More recently, my office has been involved in a variety of community
and private forestry endeavors including the independent verification
of sustainable forestry on roughly 1.5 million acres across six states
under the internationally recognized Forest Stewardship Council system;
as one of a dozen special projects under a national community forestry
demonstration program sponsored by the Ford Foundation, and as a member
of two state-level commissions involved in assessing forest conditions
and economic opportunities within the wood products sector.
There is little doubt, as you've heard from the previous speakers
today, as to the value of old growth forests. They enrich our
biodiversity and provide core wildlife habitat for wildlife; they serve
as genetic repositories while yielding non-timber products such as
medicinals or herbs. And for many, old growth forests provide
unparalleled spiritual, aesthetic, and recreational values.
If we agree that old-growth forests--however they are defined
regionally--are valuable to society then the key questions from a
policy standpoint are: What conditions are necessary to maintaining or
restoring old-growth forests? How much old growth do we need and how
much can we reasonably get? And, how should we spread the costs of old-
growth conservation and restoration? To answer these questions the
National Wildlife Federation starts with the following perspectives:
1. Old growth comprises a set of forest conditions that should not
be limited to descriptions of the age class of trees alone. For example
in the northeast, mature hardwood trees of 80-120 years of age can
satisfy some of the values that are ascribed to 200-300 year old
forests, such as for certain understory plants, although these trees
are still vigorously growing.
2. The nation as a whole, and the east in particular where I live,
lacks a sufficient component of forests containing old-growth
characteristics. In general, while the landscape is returning to forest
cover from two centuries of agriculture, the profile of our forests
tend to be younger and more simplified than ever before. Our challenge
is to provide incentives that encourage the recruitment of more
biological diversity of which a higher percentage of old growth is a
key indicator.
3. The restoration of adequate levels of old growth will require a
variety of tools. We should not rely, for example, on public land
acquisition as the only, or necessarily best approach. Several existing
federal cost-share programs, as well as some unexplored or untested tax
policy mechanisms, can serve to set the stage for old growth
recruitment in the future
4. While publicly-held old growth reserves are the most secure
option, many ``working forest landscapes''--especially those in the so-
called non-industrial forest landowner (NIPF) base can practice and
showcase long-term sustainable forest management that includes, by
definition, some recruitment of future old-growth.
The National Wildlife Federation is focused on encouraging
conservation on working landscapes across the country whether they are
managed for crops, livestock, or timber.\1\ We value working landscapes
not only because this is where the bulk of America's natural resources
are located and hence some of the best opportunities for conservation,
but because we value the social fabric, the local knowledge, and the
contributions that natural resource dependent communities make to our
sense of who we are as a nation. The question of old-growth
conservation is deeply embedded in our attitudes, customs, and uses of
the forest. To draw just one example, I can fairly say that most people
in the east don't know what an eastern old-growth forest looks like
they've been reduced to less than one-half of one percent of the forest
land base--whereas many of us have been able to stand within the
remaining ancient forests of Redwood National Park, or on the Olympic
Peninsula, and have a genuine feel for what a really old forest looks
and smells and sounds like. We have to appreciate these cultural
differences as we think about old growth in the future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Working Landscapes: Cultivating Conservation in the 2002 Farm
Bill. National Wildlife Federation, 2001
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To respond to my initial policy questions:
1. What conditions are necessary?
Any discussion of old growth conservation outside of public lands
needs to acknowledge the ``first-order'' barriers and threats to forest
tenure and good forest management. Simply put, we can not get to old
growth conditions if the economics of forest ownership do not encourage
and reward long term sustainable forestry. Right now, we send very
inconsistent economic and policy messages about the value and
importance of timber land as a long term investment, and we place
practically no market value on forests that provide exceptional
ecological services or habitat such as old-growth, (unless they happen
to serve perhaps public drinking water supplies or tourism.) Thus its
very hard for private forest owners to differentiate the value of
forest land for anything but the value of the wood that's on it, or
some other non-forest alternative, such as real estate development.
Consequently we see average parcel sizes declining and turning over
more rapidly Standing old-growth certainly doesn't pay, but nor do many
typical private forests.
Similar to economic uncertainties, old growth will be quickly
discounted if large-scale ecological disruptions, such as climate
change-induced stand replacing events or if the persistent effects of
acid rain and mercury deposition continue to take their toll on our
forest systems--as they have for too many years already. Only in the
last ten years, have scientists been able to begin to draw firm causal
links between air pollution and the health of wildlife and forests. The
clearest example is mercury deposition where we've observed that rain
falling over New England is frequently 3-4 times above the safe EPA
wildlife standard for mercury.\2\ In addition, researchers have found
that trees in some areas of the northeast have simply stopped growing
due to the suspected stress from cumulative air pollution.\3\ Red
spruce, once the prized lumber export of our region, now has difficulty
regenerating and is dying at high elevations. I can tell you that
Christmas tree growers and maple syrup producers in my town are
wondering whether Congress will act to ``clean the rain'' of mercury
and acid rain. So, with due respect to the more specific topic of old
growth, I would be negligent for me to talk about the prospects for
eastern old-growth without commenting on these basic threats to forest
security in the northeast.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Clean the Rain--New England report. National Wildlife
Federation, September 2000.
\3\ The Toll from Coal: How Emissions from the Nation's Coal-Fired
Power Plants Devastate Wildlife and Threaten Human Health, National
Wildlife Federation, 2000
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. How much do we need?
We need more forests with more old growth qualities. This means not
just a higher component of older trees, but forests which are
representative of the range of old growth attributes: multiple growth
layers, large fallen logs, plentiful snag and cavity-nesting trees,
abundance of lichens and fungi, an undulating forest floor resulting
from decomposition and undisturbed soils, and well shaded streams. True
old growth conditions in the east are scarce and, with the exception of
the Adirondack Park and a few other tracts, are relatively small and
widely distributed. While many of these remnants stands are protected,
we should not as matter of policy direct all our efforts to simply
trying to enlarge them. There are no more remnant stands to buy.
Eastern forests were the first ones, as the writer Bill McKibben has
put it, ``to hit bottom'' across our country. This means that we have
to recruit the conditions both economic and cultural--which favor
putting old growth qualities back into our ecosystems over time .
A key impediment in our region relates to forest composition. The
lack of old growth is but a symptom of an overall loss of biodiversity
that stems primarily from past heavy cutting practices and the problem
of invasive pests and diseases. The loss of old red spruce was one
casualty. As much as we might argue for more older trees, of equal
concern is the case of the missing: those trees that evolved in our
region, and which made up a significant percentage of our historic
forests, but which are essentially gone at the forest stand level.
Examples include chestnut, elm, or more recently butternut. This loss
of biodiversity means that a whole host of other relationships between
plants, birds, mushrooms, and understory plants that were in the
forests of our forefathers are now missing or compromised.\4\ Thus, if
we want more old growth for biodiversity or for carbon sequestration
reasons, then policies which encourage restoration of the full array of
forest attributes and species including large predators such as
mountain lions and wolves--may be just as important as recruiting older
trees from within a given stand.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ For an excellent reference on ecological issues associated with
old growth maintenance and recovery see: Eastern Old Growth Forests:
Prospects for Rediscovery and Recovery, M.B. Davis, Editor, Island
Press, 1996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Who, and how, will we pay? . . .
We can afford to put more old growth characteristics back in our
forests by being smart about how we spread the costs and incentives of
restoration. As I mentioned earlier, we know that if we improve the
economics of sustainable forest management, then we improve the
likelihood that more of our forests will grow to maturity. If we can
provide incentives to grow forests to their economic maturity--and I'm
talking about select grade sawlogs and veneer logs, not pulp
plantations--then we improve the likelihood that some percentage of
trees in these forests will be allowed to grow to ecological maturity,
or old growth. This is admittedly a ``second best'' approach, but we
need to take things in order: forest longevity follows on forest
security and forest diversity. In my own case, I have a number of
individual examples of what my forester calls ``legacy trees'' or
``historical markers.'' They are by no means representative of old
growth conditions but they serve as a proxy for some. Fortunately, I
think the mainstream forestry community has a much deeper appreciation
of the role of old growth than ever before. I think many forest
managers would opt to see more older trees in the woods, rather than
rely solely on public ``tree museums'', if some of the economic
constraints were removed.
But who will ``pay to wait'' while our relatively young eastern
forests grow up? Some properties which have outstanding old-growth
qualities may deserve public protection through direct purchase, but in
these cases old-growth will likely need to part of a larger package of
values that include recreation, remoteness, or drinking water
protection. For the majority of forest lands in the east, however, the
success of old growth recruitment will depend on the economic and
policy signals. Many of my friends in the policy community have given a
lot of thought to these issues. We've enjoyed exceptional leadership
from the New England delegation on forestry matters--especially on the
Senate side--and especially from my two Vermont Senators. We're
grateful for that. The Congress has made some good starts in the last
ten years, for example, by creating a forestry title in the Farm Bill,
and by creating federal cost-share programs such as the Forestry
Incentive Program and the Forest Legacy Program. These programs are up
for re-authorization and the National Wildlife Federation urges you to
support them as fully as these tightening budget times allow. Other,
more experimental programs will help, such as payments for carbon
offsets, community forestry bonds, and federal tax incentives for
conservation. Let try some of them. Any effort that hitches
affordability to conservation will help in the ultimate decision of
whether forests get to remain as forests, and then perhaps the option
of old growth. Along these lines, I want to note that I've appended a
short list of recommended policies with my testimony.
To conclude I'd like to reinforce just one theme, especially as
your full committee considers the nation's energy situation. The
National Wildlife Federation is extremely worried about an energy
policy that emphasizes oil and coal development while relaxing air
pollution regulations. Eastern forests and their inhabitants are
experiencing a slow but certain cancer from airborne pollutants. I was
initially tempted to devote all of my testimony to this problem--its
that serious--and its difficult, frankly, for those of who live in
forests to compartmentalize issues of forest health.
Thank you for your time this afternoon.
Senator Wyden. Thank you very much, Mr. Palola.
Mr. Johnston, thank you, from Eugene, Oregon.
STATEMENT OF JAMES JOHNSTON, CO-DIRECTOR,
CASCADIA WILDLANDS PROJECT, EUGENE, OR
Mr. Johnston. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much for
asking me to appear today. My name is James Johnston. I am the
co-director of the Cascadia Wildlife Project and I also
coordinate Federal forest issues for the Oregon chapter of the
Sierra Club, and I am going to be directing my comments
specifically to the old-growth forests of the west side,
western Oregon and Washington.
I grew up in a small logging town in the Oregon Coast Range
and I have been working on old-growth issues for about 10 years
now, so I have had a front row seat for the debate over old-
growth logging and the management of Federal forests in western
Oregon and Washington.
I could easily talk to you about old-growth and Federal
forest management for days, but if I had to distill my
perspective into one sentence I would say that a sound
management plan for Federal forests must be legally defensible,
based on sound science, and supported by the public. Now, we
have taken important steps in that direction with the Northwest
Forest Plan and ecosystem management strategy. But the plan has
a serious flaw. It still allows the Forest Service and the BLM
to log old-growth and there is not much old-growth left.
Now, Mr. Chairman, you have many years of experience with
the debate over management of national forests in Oregon and
you have undoubtedly grown accustomed to hyperbole, so I do not
need to tell you that the old-growth forests of Oregon are the
best forests in the world. Unfortunately, only about 10 percent
of these, these ancient forests, remain. Most of them are on
public lands, and most Americans would be shocked to learn that
the Forest Service and BLM still spend taxpayer dollars to log
them. Right now, some of the best old-growth left in the
Pacific Northwest is on the chopping block, including trees
more than 8 feet in diameter and 500 years old.
Under the Northwest Forest Plan, we will be logging 1.1
million acres of late successional forests, about half of which
are these classic ancient forests or cathedral forests. This
type of logging is dramatically out of step with societal
values. We do not need to harpoon whales for lantern oil or
shoot elephants to make piano keys. Similarly, we do not need
to log trees that are hundreds of years old to produce wood
products or to maintain quality jobs in the wood products
industry.
Today, only 3 of the 71 saw mills in western Oregon depend
on Federal timber to any significant extent. Federal logging
accounts for less than 8 percent of total wood production, down
from 34 percent during the height of the Federal logging boom
in the 1980's, and the wood products industry represents less
than 2 percent of total employment in Oregon and Washington.
Now, I am not suggesting that timber is not an important
industry and I am not suggesting that we should stop practicing
forest on public lands. In fact, I believe that there should be
an increased role for forestry. But we cannot get Federal
forests back to work unless the Forest Service and BLM get out
of the old-growth business.
It hardly needs to be said that ancient forest logging is
extremely unpopular government policy. As Teddy Roosevelt
noted, Americans like big things. You will find overwhelming
support among your constituents for ending old-growth logging.
Now, there are alternatives to old-growth logging. The
Forest Service and BLM could stop clearcutting older forests
and implement a restoration silviculture program in young
managed stands, in tree farms. This alternative has been
discussed by previous witnesses.
I do not want the committee to get the impression that
thinning is a panacea for ending old-growth logging. It is an
alternative and something that is worthwhile being explored. We
do not want to turn thinning into another political hot potato
similar to what old-growth logging is. We want to proceed
carefully and let science chart a direction for us, not just
set another timber target that we are not going to be able to
meet.
But there is definitely room for discussion of thinning
opportunities. In fact, we believe that the problem with
management of public lands currently is the forests are not
being managed. Agencies are devoting scarce resources to
clearcutting older stands and meeting the legal requirements
for this type of logging, including surveys for rare species.
At the same time, there are hundreds of thousands of acres that
could be restored, hundreds of thousands of acres of tree farms
that could be restored. In our region, the Forest Service and
BLM are only meeting about 10 percent of that need.
Now, as I said, I could talk about management of Federal
forests for days. Mostly, I would be telling you what is wrong
with the Forest Service and BLM. But I will conclude by telling
you about something that is right. I strongly urge the
committee to acquaint themselves with the work that is being
done in Oregon's Siuslaw National Forest. I spent several days
there last week with other conservationists, agency staff,
scientists, representatives from community economic development
organizations, the timber industry, labor unions, county
commissioners, watershed councils.
To our surprise, we actually all got along pretty well.
Mostly we agreed that there is a lot of opportunities for work
on this forest. The Siuslaw, unlike other forests, emphasizes
watershed restoration, with a variety of projects, from
placement of in-stream habitat structures to thinning of
overstock plantations.
Although production of wood fiber is largely an incidental
by-product of restoration efforts, the Siuslaw produces around
25 million board-feet of timber annually, and this is
considerably more timber per acre than the forests you assume
are going to produce a lot of wood volume, the workhorses like
the Willamette and Gifford Pinchot National Forest.
The Siuslaw could be doing a lot more. They could be
thinning 5,000 acres of overstock tree plantations. They are
only budgeted to manage about 3,000. Funding work like that
which is being done on the Siuslaw National Forest is not
welfare for watersheds. It is an investment in our future that
will pay huge dividends down the road when we have clean water,
healthy salmon runs, healthy communities, healthy forests, a
world-class tourist destination.
For years, we subsidized clearcutting of old-growth forests
because that type of logging built roads and schools and
provided a way of life for the residents of our region. Today,
logging does not drive our economy. The new economy depends on
the non-timber amenities provided by public lands. Times have
changed a lot in our region and government priorities need to
change, too. Ending old-growth logging and investing in our
forests is an idea whose time has come.
Thanks.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Johnston follows:]
Prepared Statement of James Johnston, Co-Director, Cascadia Wildlands
Project, Eugene, OR
Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, thank you for the
opportunity to appear today. My name is James Johnston; I am the
director of the Cascadia Wildlands Project, a non-profit conservation
organization based in Eugene, Oregon. I also coordinate federal forest
issues for the Oregon Chapter of the Sierra Club. And I am also here
today representing a new coalition of regional conservation groups
that's working to protect remaining late-successional and old growth
forests in western Oregon and Washington.
I grew up in the Oregon Coast Range, next to a small logging town.
I have had a front row seat for the intense debate over old growth
logging and the management of federal forests in the Pacific Northwest.
I could talk easily talk about old growth and federal forest management
for days. But if I had to distill my perspective into one sentence I'd
say that a sound management plan for federal forests must be legally
defensible, based on sound science and supported by the public.
We've taken important steps towards achieving those goals. Today
the federal forests of western Oregon, Washington and northern
California are managed under the Northwest Forest Plan, one of the
first true ecosystem management strategies. But the Plan has a serious
flaw: It still allows the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management
to log old growth, and there's not much old growth left.
In my testimony today I want to give the committee:
1. Background on old growth logging under the Northwest Forest
Plan.
2. Some information about changes to the economy and workforce of
the Pacific Northwest that suggests the need to develop alternatives to
logging older forests.
3. A review of the progress of the Northwest Forest Plan in meeting
agencies' legal mandates, the public's expectations and timber
production goals.
4. A brief sketch of an alternative management strategy.
ancient forest logging
Mr. Chairman, you have many years' experience with the controversy
over management of public lands in the Pacific Northwest. By now you
have undoubtedly grown accustomed to hyperbole. Conservationists have
overused words like ``unique,'' ``magnificent'' and ``critical'' to
describe the forests of our region, particularly when they are
threatened with destruction. Nevertheless, the ancient forests found in
western Oregon, Washington and northern California are a truly
exceptional natural heritage. They contain more biomass per acre than
any other terrestrial ecosystem, and are home to some of the world's
largest and oldest living things.
Many observers have used the term ``cathedral forest'' to describe
stands of Douglas fir, western red cedar and Sitka spruce that tower
more than 300 feet above the ground. Unlike a tree farm, the cathedral
forest is a structurally complex ecosystem, characterized by a multi-
storied canopy, copious snags and downed logs. This complexity results
in rich biodiversity; there are thousands of species of plant and
animal life associated with this forest type, with more discovered
every day. Like a cathedral, these forests have been a source of
inspiration for millions of visitors, and a source of pride for those
of us who live in the Pacific Northwest.
In addition to their aesthetic appeal, westside ancient forests
also provide important services. Their complex structure acts as a
natural filter, providing extremely pure water to municipalities. The
clean cold water produced by ancient forests is also critical to the
persistence of salmon runs, which in turn support an industry that
employs as much as 60,000 workers. Ancient forests are giant carbon
sinks that mitigate global climate change. They provide unique
recreation experiences that pump millions of dollars into local
communities. As we learned from our experience with the Pacific yew,
the biological richness of ancient forests also has enormous potential
for scientific research that yields new medical treatments and a
variety of commercial applications.
After decades of intensive logging, only about 10% of these
westside ancient forests remain. Almost all of what's left is found on
the National Forests and Bureau of Land Management Districts managed
under the direction of the Northwest Forest Plan. These lands are owned
by all of us, and most Americans would be shocked to learn that the
Forest Service and BLM still spend taxpayer dollars to log ancient
forests. Timber sales in western Oregon and Washington like the Goose
Egg, Solo, Clark, North Winberry, Snog, Peanuts, Fish Creek, Warm
Springs and Mr. Wilson sales, and many others, would log trees up to 9
feet in diameter, more than 300 feet tall and more than 500 years old.
The Forest Service and BLM are currently logging, or plan to log some
of the biggest and oldest trees left in the country. Under the
Northwest Forest Plan, the Forest Service and BLM will log more than
1.1 million acres of late-successional forests, almost half of which
are the classic cathedral forests that I described a moment ago.
This type of logging is dramatically out of step with societal
values. We don't need to harpoon whales for lantern oil, or shoot
elephants to make piano keys. Similarly, our country doesn't need to
log trees that are hundreds of years old to produce wood products, or
to maintain quality jobs in the woods products industry.
jobs and the regional economy
Unfortunately, conservationists' proposals to protect older forests
are commonly painted by timber interests as costing workers their jobs
and undermining the stability of rural communities. When court
injunctions and the last administration's Northwest Forest Plan reduced
logging levels from their historic highs in the late 1980s, industry
lobbyists warned that our region would suffer an economic catastrophe
and the loss of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of jobs.
Economist Ernie Niemi and colleagues addressed the Pacific Northwest's
response to federal logging reductions in a recent report entitled
``The Sky Did Not Fall.'' They point out that our regions' economic
life had already begun to change long before implementation of new
forest protections. Today, our economy has transformed itself to the
point where we are ready to adopt alternatives to old growth logging.
Consider the following facts:
Due in large part to automation and exportation of both raw
logs and production capacity, the wood products industry had
already lost thousands of jobs while logging levels on federal
lands increased. During the period of heaviest logging on
federal lands in the Pacific Northwest, from 1979 to 1989,
timber employment declined by more than 27,000 jobs. The wages
paid to remaining workers in the wood products industry fell by
18%.
Despite industry fears, the Pacific Northwest prospered when
federal logging levels were reduced in the early 1990s. Total
employment in our region increased 27 percent, with more than
825,000 new jobs created.
When the Northwest Forest Plan was adopted in 1994, it was
assumed that the timber industry needed to log older forests to
survive. This assumption is clearly no longer valid. Today,
only 3 of the 71 sawmills in western Oregon depend on federal
timber to any significant extent, and 40 process no federal
timber whatsoever. Three-quarters of western Washington's
sawmills process no federal timber, and only one mill depends
on federal timber for more than one-third of its log supply.
During the federal forest logging boom in western Washington
and Oregon in the mid 1980s, federal logging accounted for 34%
percent of total timber production. By 1996, federal logging in
western Oregon and Washington was 7.5 percent of total timber
production, and continues to decline.
Today, the wood products industry represents less than 2% of
total employment in Oregon and Washington. A minute percentage
of these jobs depend on logging older forests on westside
federal forests.
At the same time as the Pacific Northwest's economy has become less
dependent on federal forest logging, the value of unlogged forests has
increased. A full description of this trend would be take some time,
but consider the following brief examples:
Studies suggest that the services associated with pristine
forests in our region things like camping, hunting, fishing and
hiking opportunities account for 90% of the total value of all
commodities derived from these lands. Timber production
accounts for only 10% of this total.
Whereas in the past our region's economy depended on
extracting natural resources, today it depends on attracting
new businesses and a skilled and productive workforce. Research
indicates that people live and work in western Oregon and
Washington because they receive a second paycheck in the form
of recreation opportunities, clean water and scenic beauty.
Every old growth timber sale logged represents a pay cut for
the thousands of people who live in our region for the natural
amenities.
Taxpayers and businesses incur substantial costs to offset
the effects of environmental degradation from logging older
forests, such as impacts to salmon runs, cost to repair damaged
filtration plants, loss of tourist business and loss of funding
for needed social services and economic development projects.
I'm not suggesting that timber isn't an important industry, and I'm
not suggesting that we stop practicing forestry on public lands. In
fact, I believe that there should be an increased role for forestry on
hundreds of thousands of acres of planted young managed stands. Before
I conclude my testimony with a discussion of these opportunities, let
me describe the current status of the Northwest Forest Plan.
state of the northwest forest plan
Land management agencies have been trying to create an old growth
logging program that is legally defensible and reflects the public's
values for almost 15 years, and they have failed. It is highly unlikely
that they will ever succeed.
The Forest Plan has failed to produce wood volume while meeting
federal agencies' legal mandates. Two recent lawsuits--Oregon Natural
Resources Council Action v. the U.S. Forest Service and Pacific
Federation of Fisherman's Associations II v. National Marine Fisheries
Service--have enjoined most federal timber sales during the past two
years. At present, most federal forests in western Oregon and
Washington are producing less than 10% of the timber volume projected
by the Plan. These legal actions are the direct result of the agencies'
decision to concentrate logging in older forest stands, which are
critical to the persistence of a variety of threatened wildlife species
and important ecological processes.
It hardly needs to be said that ancient forest logging is an
extremely unpopular government policy. As Teddy Roosevelt once noted,
``Americans like big things.'' We have a visceral reaction to the
destruction of a unique natural legacy. A public opinion survey
conducted in April by a respected, non-partisan polling firm in
Portland found that that 75% of Oregon and Washington residents support
ending old growth logging. This support cuts across demographic and
party lines, and is strong in rural, urban and resource-dependent
communities.
At the same time we are learning more and more about the importance
of older forests. Seven of the leading old growth researchers in the
country recently petitioned the Forest Service and BLM to protect all
remaining late-successional and old growth forests in our region. They
point to new scientific research that strengthens the view that each
old forest is to some degree unique, and therefore of critical
importance.
Although logging ancient forest is clearly bad for the environment,
there are other types of logging that conservationists can support.
Thinning young, single-age, single-species plantations can benefit the
forest in western Oregon and Washington. Many of these westside tree
farms are overstocked and characterized by uniform stand structure and
low species diversity. Federal agencies, distracted by their outdated
old growth logging agenda, are currently neglecting opportunities to
practice forestry in these plantations.
Protecting forests against fire, disease and pest infestation is
another important consideration. Ancient forests, with their high
canopies, thick, fire resistant bark and wide spacing, are naturally
resistant to these disturbances. Fires in ancient forests tend to be
low intensity burns. Overstocked small diameter tree farms have a
single-layer canopy and are at the greatest risk of a catastrophic
fire. The Forest Service and BLM set the stage for wildfire by
converting fire resistant ancient forests into fire prone tree farms.
This must stop.
During the past five years there have been approximately 350,000
acres of tree plantations available annually in the national forests of
western Oregon and Washington in need of active management. During that
period, the Forest Service has only treated about 50,000 acres. The
Bureau of Land Management has about 210,000 acres of young tree farms
from 0-30 years of age in late-successional reserves that could
potentially benefit from active management. The BLM anticipates
treating only 17% of this need.
The problem with the management of public lands under the Northwest
Forest Plan is that forests are not being managed. Clearcutting old
growth is not management; it's strip mining in the forest. Forest
management involves manipulating vegetation to improve forest health,
restore degraded landscapes and provide for sustainable human
communities. Under the Northwest Forest Plan, federal land management
agencies are devoting scarce fiscal and personnel resources to
clearcutting older stands and meeting the legal requirements for this
type of logging, including surveys for the rare species inhabiting
these forests. These skewed priorities result in the agencies'
inability to manage plantations.
alternatives to old growth logging
Today, seven years after implementation of the Northwest Forest
Plan, policy makers have a choice. We can continue to operate in
gridlock, moving from one crisis to another, or we can chart a new
direction. There are alternatives to logging ancient forests that
provide high quality jobs, produce wood fiber and protect the
environment. We are requesting that the Senate act to re-orient the
federal timber sale program from its reliance on clearcutting older
stands to a forest restoration program, with a focus on recovering
plantations. Treatments in plantations would be designed to accelerate
the development of late-successional characteristics by increasing tree
growth, stem diameter and introducing horizontal and vertical
structural diversity.
Because there are hundreds of thousands of acres of plantations
available for restoration silviculture, significant timber volume will
be produced as a byproduct of thinning treatments. A restoration
silviculture management strategy could potentially produce more wood
fiber than is currently coming out of the gridlocked forests managed
under the Northwest Forest Plan.
And there's much more to restoration than just silviculture. There
is a huge need for projects that repair a crumbling road
infrastructure, decommission unnecessary and environmentally
destructive roads, improve stream habitat and stabilize slope failures,
to name just a few stewardship opportunities. There is no shortage of
high skill, family wage jobs that can be created with modest public
investments in restoration management.
I believe this proposal will resolve much of the controversy that
has surrounded implementation of the Northwest Forest Plan. It would
improve forest health by protecting dwindling late-successional forests
rich in biodiversity, accelerating the development of late-successional
characteristics in tree plantations and reducing risk of fire, pests
and disease. Most importantly, restoration silviculture, if
conscientiously implemented, is likely to meet legal tests and avoid
public controversy.
This proposal addresses deficiencies in the Northwest Forest Plan,
but I am not suggesting that the Plan be abandoned. Indeed the
foundation of the Plan's management strategy is the concept of
``adaptive management.'' Adaptive management assumes that as we learn
more about forest ecosystems and local communities, the Plan will
integrate new strategies and techniques. I believe that it is time to
update the Northwest Forest Plan to reflect the best science, societal
values and the restoration silviculture opportunities that are now
available.
In addition to a change in forestry practices, we need a renewed
commitment to quality employment and the integrity of rural
communities. For too long the debate about the management of federal
forests has been dominated by board feet figures and timber volume
targets. These benchmarks do not address forest health, and they deal
with the health of local communities indirectly at best. If quality
employment and community stability is indeed an important goal of
forest management, we should articulate these values clearly instead of
remaining fixated on timber targets.
The first thing that the Senate can do is to fully fund existing
Department of Agriculture and Interior community assistance programs,
particularly the Forest Service's Pacific Northwest Assistance line
item in its Cooperative Forestry budget. The Senate should explore a
variety of avenues for delivering technical assistance, economic and
infrastructure development grants, and other tools that leverage
communities' economic transition.
As I said, I could talk about management of federal forests for
days. Mostly I'd be telling you what's wrong with the Forest and BLM.
But with my limited time I want to tell you about a success story. I
strongly urge the committee to acquaint themselves with the work that's
being done on the Siuslaw National Forest on Oregon's coast. The
Siuslaw protects remaining older forests and emphasizes watershed
restoration, with a variety of projects that include placement of in-
stream habitat structures and commercial thinning of overstocked
plantations. Although production of wood fiber is largely an incidental
by-product of restoration efforts, the Siuslaw produces around 25
million board feet of timber annually, and has had great success
marketing this timber to local mills. Even though the Siuslaw
emphasizes restoration, and has a fraction of the timber budget of the
industrial workhorses like the Gifford Pinchot, Willamette and Umpqua,
they actually produce considerably more timber per acre than these
forests. The Siuslaw is a forest that works.
I spent several days last week on a collaborative learning field
trip on the Siuslaw with other conservationists, agency staff, and
representatives from community economic development organizations, the
timber industry, labor unions, county commissioners and watershed
councils. To our surprise, we actually all got along pretty well.
Mostly we agreed that there are huge opportunities for work on this
Forest. And we heard from community members who are eager to take
advantage of these employment opportunities. Unfortunately, there is
currently neither the funding nor the political will to create these
jobs.
The Siuslaw National Forest could be commercially thinning 5,000
acres of overstocked tree plantations annually. Currently their budget
supports only 3,000 acres of thinning. They could be pre-commercially
thinning 5,000 acres, but their budget currently supports a quarter of
this need. They could be restoring 25 miles of streams annually, but
can only afford to do a third of that work. They could be treating 175
miles of unstable roads, but, again, are only able to accomplish a
third of that goal. Three million people could be enjoying 230 miles of
trail, with a huge payoff to the local economy, yet the Forests' budget
is only able to realize half of that potential. The communities near
the Siuslaw National Forest need your leadership to protect ancient
forests, restore watersheds and create jobs in the process.
Funding work like that which is being done on the Siuslaw National
Forest is not welfare for watersheds. It's an investment in our future
that will pay huge dividends down the road when we have clean drinking
water, abundant salmon runs, a world-class tourism destination, healthy
forests and healthy communities. For years we subsidized clearcutting
of old growth forests because that type of logging built roads and
schools and provided a way of life for the residents of our region.
Today, logging doesn't drive our economy. The real engines of
prosperity are high technology and service jobs. This new economy
depends on the non-timber amenities provided by public lands. Times
have changed a lot in our region. Government priorities need to change
too. Ending old growth logging and investing in our forests is an idea
whose time has come.
That concludes my prepared comments. I'd be happy to answer any
questions from the committee.
Senator Wyden. Thank you, Mr. Johnston. You know, as I
listen to you--and think all of our witnesses have been very
good today. We have had a spirited debate. You have come back
to a point that I think cannot be emphasized enough, and that
is that old-growth does not exist in a vacuum. It exists in the
context of an overall set of policies that make sense for the
health of the forest. I think that it is very constructive that
you are making that point, and I appreciate it and we are going
to be working closely with you.
Mr. Daucsavage, usually I talk to you early in the morning
when we were in a state of high peril and panic about some
forestry policy. I am glad you are here today.
STATEMENT OF BRUCE DAUCSAVAGE, PRESIDENT,
OCHOCO LUMBER COMPANY, PRINEVILLE, OR
Mr. Daucsavage. Thank you very much for your invitation and
good afternoon.
My name is Bruce Daucsavage and I am the president of
Ochoco Lumber Company of Prineville, Oregon. Prineville is
located in central Oregon. My testimony today also reflects the
views of the American Forest Resource Council and its nearly 90
forest land owners and wood products manufacturers located in
12 States west of the Great Lakes. Our proud forest products
industry has sales of over $195 billion annually and employs
1.6 million people, making a significant contribution to our
Nation's economy. Ochoco Lumber Company, the members of the
AFRC, and the forest products industry are committed to
sustainable forestry for all forest lands, public and private.
Today's hearing is about old-growth, a topic that has been
studied and debated in the Pacific Northwest for a long time. I
am not here to offer my definition of old-growth because I am
not a scientist and I believe that it is virtually impossible
to render a single comprehensive definition. But if I did give
you a definition, I would describe it in today's environment as
any tree of value that we are unable to harvest due to legal
and government constraints.
What I am here to tell the subcommittee is about my
company's experiences during the old-growth debate, the
decisions we have made, the actions of others and ultimate
consequences. The reality is that our mill is closed in
Prineville and our forests are threatened with catastrophic
wildfires while offshore forests are meeting a larger portion
of the Nation's domestic wood products consumption.
Ochoco Lumber Company started in 1923 and we built our
first sawmill in Oregon in 1938. Originally, our log supply
came exclusively from private lands because we acquired the
cutting rights to approximately 80,000 acres. The forests of
central and eastern Oregon have been managed under a mixed-age
scenario and harvest was done on a selected tree basis. The
criteria for cutting the private land included removal of the
dead, diseased, and the high risk trees.
In the 1970's, we experienced the wilderness debate, RARE I
and RARE II assessments. During this period, timber sale
projects that were planned for unroaded areas were put on hold.
As a consequence, management was limited to those areas
previously treated. Management objectives for these areas
included improving forest health and reducing fuel loads.
Prescriptions typically were removing larger and dead and dying
trees and thinning overcrowded stands.
As the years passed, it became increasingly obvious that
the direction the Forest Service was heading was to do more
thinning of smaller diameter classes, so in 1988 our company
invested over $15 million to build a small log mill to
complement the original mill. To remain competitive we needed
to adjust our sawmilling operations to more effectively
manufacture the increased percentage of small logs from the
surrounding national forests.
Our future at that time told us that long-term balance had
been struck. The Forest Service had decades of thinning to do
in conjunction with selectively harvesting large, high-risk
trees. During this time, the door and window and molding
manufacturers continued to demand the high quality boards of
Ochoco Lumber, while we found new markets in the furniture and
construction industries to utilize the narrow and the lower
quality boards.
Currently, Ochoco Lumber has about 60,000 acres of our own
private land and, although our sawmills are starved for the raw
materials growing on them, we have remained good stewards of
the land and only harvest what is sustainable on those lands.
Our private timber lands only produce about 20 percent of our
needs.
As I previously mentioned, on May 25, 2001, we made a
difficult announcement that we were closing our Prineville
operation. Prior to that time, Ochoco had employed 180 people
with a payroll of nearly $5 million. Contract loggers and
truckers were paid an additional $8 to $10 million. The U.S.
Treasury was receiving annual payments from us of about $15
million for timber sales. Our operation's daily shipments of 10
to 15 rail cars of wood chips and lumber were instrumental in
keeping the city of Prineville Railroad operating, since Ochoco
Lumber accounted for approximately 40 percent of the shipments
of this short line.
We have been committed to the community. We have
scholarship programs for our college students of graduating
seniors. In fact, 50 students currently go to college on our
scholarships. So we felt we did everything right for the
longevity of the company and the betterment of our community.
We had dedicated, skilled employees and we made products
demanded by consumers. We invested in our manufacturing
facilities and forest land base and we supported our local
communities.
But no one ever expected that our Federal Government would
establish forest policies that made it impossible to continue
operating a viable business. This first became apparent in 1990
when the forest plans were finalized, lowering the intended
levels of timber from the surrounding national forests by
roughly 30 percent.
The fact is that during the last 8 years our domestic
dependency on foreign forests for lumber production has
increased from 20 percent to almost 40 percent. Finally, with
the collapse of the public timber sale program in our
surrounding national forests and the resulting closure of
sawmills, our customers have had to turn elsewhere for the
products they need. Today, the secondary manufacturing located
in Oregon is using pine products grown in Chile, Brazil, and
New Zealand. These secondary manufacturers that depended on the
quality lumber we once produced have begun building their own
sawmills and secondary manufacturing facilities in countries
where the resource is plentiful.
The science tells us that forests are dynamic and cannot be
preserved in static condition. Making a decision to preserve or
protect more acres by excluding some management decisions--we
call sound management forest practices taking care of the
health of our forests.
But our rural communities and an important manufacturing
sector of our economy has to be sustained with the help of our
National Forest System. Let us provide the professional
managers the tools they need to do what is right and not
legislate a political solution that just makes the situation
worse.
This concludes my prepared remarks.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Daucsavage follows:]
Prepared Statement of Bruce Daucsavage, President, Ochoco Lumber
Company, Prineville, OR
Good afternoon Mr. Chairman. My name is Bruce Daucsavage and I am
the President of Ochoco Lumber Company of Prineville, Oregon. My
testimony today also reflects the views of the American Forest Resource
Council and its nearly 90 forest landowners and wood product
manufacturers located in twelve states west of the Great Lakes. Our
proud forest products industry has sales of over $195 billion annually
and employs 1.6 million people, making a significant contribution to
our nation's economy. Ochoco Lumber Company, the members of AFRC, and
the forest products industry are committed to sustainable forestry for
all forestlands, public and private.
Today's hearing is about old growth, a topic that has been studied
and debated in the Pacific Northwest for a long time. I am not here to
offer my definition of old growth because I am not a scientist and I
believe that it is virtually impossible to render a single
comprehensive definition. Just in my State of Oregon, there are at
least a dozen forest ecosystem types, each of which should have their
own definition for this ecological stage in the life of a forest.
Unfortunately, in the public debate over forest management, the term
old growth is regularly abused to define forests that environmental
activists do not want to see managed.
What I am here to tell the subcommittee about, is my company's
experiences during this old growth debate, the decisions we have made,
the actions of others and the ultimate consequences. The reality is
that our mill is closed and our forests are threatened with
catastrophic wildfires, while offshore forests are meeting a larger
proportion of our nation's domestic wood product consumption.
Ochoco Lumber Company started in 1923 and we built our first
sawmill in Prineville, Oregon in 1938. Originally, our log supply came
exclusively from private lands because we had acquired the cutting
rights to approximately 80,000 acres. The forests of central and
eastern Oregon have been managed under a mixed aged scenario and
harvest was done on a selective tree basis. The criteria for cutting
the private land included removal of the dead, diseased and high-risk
trees.
Shortly before the end of World War II, the Forest Service began
offering timber sales on the surrounding national forests. Since these
forests were comprised of about 70 percent ponderosa pine, all of the
sawmills in the Prineville area including Ochoco Lumber Company gained
a reputation for producing quality ponderosa pine boards. Our motto was
``quality pine is our line.'' Our operation stayed basically the same
from the 1940's-1970's, which was operating a large-log sawmill
producing high quality, select, moulding, and shop grade lumber.
In the late 1970's we experienced the Wilderness debate and the
RARE I and II assessments. During this period, timber sale projects
that were planned for unroaded areas were put on hold. As a
consequence, management was limited to those areas previously treated.
Management objectives for these areas included improving forest health
and reducing fuel loads. Prescriptions typically were removing larger
dead and dying trees and thinning overcrowded stands.
In response to these changing conditions, we installed new sawmill
equipment in 1978 to better utilize the small logs being harvested from
the national forests. These multi-million dollar improvements made it
possible to continue to process large logs, but also efficiently handle
the higher percentage of small logs. Ochoco's customers were still
demanding the wide (10"-30") high quality boards for use in door and
window plants, and in high-grade furniture. During this time we
developed new markets for clear lumber selling to customers who were
slicing this lumber into veneer to be used as overlays on engineered
wood products. In addition we started marketing narrower boards (4"-8"
wide) for non-appearance grade uses.
As the next few years passed, it became increasingly obvious that
the direction the Forest Service was heading was to do more thinning in
the smaller diameter classes, so in 1988 we invested $15 million to
build a small log sawmill to compliment the original sawmill. To remain
competitive, we needed to adjust our sawmilling operations to more
efficiently manufacture the increased percentage of small logs from the
surrounding national forests. Our forecast at the time told us that a
long-term balance had been struck. The Forest Service had decades of
thinnings to do in conjunction with selectively harvesting large high-
risk trees.
During this time, the door, window and molding manufacturers
continued to demand the high-quality pine boards from Ochoco Lumber
Company, while we found new markets in the furniture and construction
industries to utilize the narrower and lower quality boards that began
to dominate our production. Also during this period we acquired more
private timberland as an insurance policy. Currently, Ochoco Lumber
Company has over 60,000 acres of private timberland, and although our
sawmills are starved for the raw materials growing on them, we have
remained good stewards of the land, only harvesting what is sustainable
from those lands. Our private timberlands only produce about 20 percent
of our needs, and we will not deplete and degrade our lands short term
to supply our sawmills.
But as I mentioned previously, on May 25, 2001 we made a difficult
announcement that we were closing our Prineville operations. Prior to
that, Ochoco Lumber Company was employing 180 people with a payroll of
nearly $5 million. Contract loggers and truckers were paid an
additional $8 to10 million. The U.S. Treasury was receiving annual
payments totaling about $15 million for timber sales, which resulted in
significant payment to the local counties. Our operation's daily
shipments of 10-15 railroad cars of wood chips and lumber were
instrumental in keeping the City of Prineville Railway operating since
Ochoco Lumber Company accounted for approximately 40 percent of the
shipments on this short line. Finally, Ochoco Lumber has proven itself
to be a very civic-minded member of the community always willing to
lend a hand or help support a good cause. An example of this is the
Ochoco Lumber scholarships for graduating seniors and currently 50
college students are recipients of this program.
So we did everything right, just as an MBA student is taught. We
had dedicated and skilled employees, made products demanded by
consumers, invested in our manufacturing facilities and a forestland
base, and supported our local community. But no one ever expected that
our federal government would establish forest policies that made it
impossible to continue operating a viable business.
This first became apparent in the early 1990's when forest plans
were finalized lowering the intended levels of timber from the
surrounding national forests by roughly 30 percent. Furthermore, the
Forest Service failed to accomplish these reduced levels. With the
listing of endangered species, interim guidelines were introduced that
prohibited trees over 21 inches in diameter from being harvested.
Additional riparian buffer widths were established and wildlife
connectivity corridors were designated between large blocks of older
forests.
Reductions in acres available for management and increased, and
often questionable, restrictions on management are only part of the
problem. In addition to these, the agency, reeling from administrative
appeals and lawsuits, has become paralyzed by process. This process,
intended to ``bulletproof'' agency decisions, has had detrimental
effects. Now the agency spends obscene amounts of time and money on
processes with no measurable benefits.
The fact is that during the last eight years, our domestic
dependency on foreign forests for our lumber products increased from
about 20 percent to over 40 percent. Finally, with the collapse of the
public timber sale program on our surrounding national forests and the
resulting closure of sawmills, our customers have had to turn elsewhere
for the products they need. As I mentioned earlier, some of our largest
customers were the secondary manufacturers that produce doors, windows
and molding. When we were no longer able to provide them with the size
and quality of pine products they needed, they went offshore for
suppliers.
Today, the secondary manufacturers located in Oregon are using pine
products grown and milled in Chile, Brazil, and New Zealand. These
secondary manufacturers that depended on the quality lumber we once
produced have begun building their own sawmills and secondary
manufacturing facilities in countries where the resource is plentiful,
and where the forest products industry is welcome. Not only are we
losing local jobs, but also exporting our knowledge, equipment, and
financial strength.
Equally disturbing is the fact that our country has some of the
most productive forests of any in the world and some of the most
comprehensive environmental laws and regulations. The reality is that
during the last eight years, our nation's dependency on foreign forests
for our lumber products increased from about 20 percent to over 40
percent. Our failed federal forest policy has moved our demand offshore
to forests ecosystems where environmental safeguards are cursory
concerns.
conclusion
Mr. Chairman, I cannot overemphasize the fact that our company and
industry is dedicated to the long-term sustainability of all
forestlands. Certainly our business' future requires maintaining the
productivity of federal and non-federal lands. We are also committed to
help the agencies as a partner to implement projects, designed to meet
resource objectives. But we cannot do it without economically viable
projects that allow companies like Ochoco Lumber Company to stay in
business--contributing to the management of forest ecosystems,
producing products demanded by consumers and providing economic
stability to our rural communities. Our federal forest policies must
involve the local communities and industry if they are to be
successful.
Any attempt to protect or preserve older forests is doomed to
failure. History has shown, with efforts such as the Northwest Forest
Plan, the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project, and the
Sierra Nevada Framework, that these forests are continually changing
and must be managed to avoid undue risk of insect and disease
infestations and catastrophic wildfires. This is particularly true in
the forests of the interior West. We know that today's forest health
problems stem from past management including fire suppression. For
these forests this has led to unnatural conditions of overstocked
stands and an overabundance of species that are more susceptible to
insects and disease.
The science tells us that forests are dynamic and can't be
preserved in a static condition. Making a decision to preserve or
protect more acres by excluding sound forest management not only seals
the fate of the forest, but our rural communities and an important
manufacturing sector of our economy. Let's provide the professional
managers the tools they need to do what is right and not legislate a
political solution that just makes the situation worse.
This concludes my prepared remarks, I would be glad to answer any
questions you or the subcommittee may have for me regarding this
important issue.
Senator Wyden. Bruce, thank you for excellent remarks. Let
me tell you, I am very proud of the way you all conduct your
business in rural Oregon. I think, like Jim Johnston, you bring
a sense of willingness to work with people and find the kind of
common ground. I want you to know that I am going to continue
to do everything I can to shake some Federal timber land loose
for you so that you can get up and running again. As you know,
David Blair in our central Oregon office and Sarah, who is
here, have been having these discussions with the forestry
officials, and clearly we have got to get some buy-in at the
local level to give you all the assurance that it is not going
to be just another lawyers full employment program and
everybody is going to run off and sue each other.
But I just want you to know that I think you have shown
your willingness to manage forests for the future in the spirit
that Jim was talking about, in a sustainable way. That is what
you have done with your private lands. That is how you have
gone about it with your private lands. We have got to stay on
it until we shake some Federal timber free for you. I am just
frustrated that I cannot snap my fingers and through a
combination of an aggressive thinning program and some other
steps get it going.
But a big focus of what I am trying to do here is this. I
have seen what you all are trying to go through at Ochoco. I
thank you for a very thoughtful presentation. I will have some
questions in a moment, but you and Jim I think in terms of
bookends representing an environmental and industry position,
make Oregon proud by coming here and showing that you are
willing to reach out and meet people halfway to come up with an
approach here that makes sense for the future. I thank you for
it.
Senator Torgerson, welcome. I already told your Senator,
Senator Murkowski, that I am going to work very closely with
him on this. I know you all have some special situations up
there with respect to the second growth and the like, and just
as you begin your testimony please know that Senator Murkowski
has made me aware of that situation and we are anxious to be
responsive to you.
Maybe we could do something where we can take some steps
that will be useful to you up in Alaska and you can help us on
some things for the other States and find some common ground.
Please proceed.
STATEMENT OF JOHN TORGERSON, ALASKA STATE SENATOR AND CHAIRMAN,
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES, ALASKA STATE SENATE
Mr. Torgerson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I know Senator
Murkowski is a great advocate for us being treated fairly by
the Forest Service.
Senator Wyden. He is indeed.
Mr. Torgerson. My name is John Torgerson, for the record. I
chair the Senate Resources Committee for the Alaska State
Legislature. I am also a former director of the Alaska Forest
Association, called AFA, and at that time it was known as the
Alaska Loggers Association. I began working and logging in the
coastal forests of Alaska in 1970, so I am familiar with forest
issues in the State both through my own participation and
through my oversight and my Senate responsibilities.
At the request of George Woodbury, the current president of
the AFA, I am here today to offer his testimony on behalf of
the association. The AFA represents approximately 80 regular
and 120 associate member companies doing business in the forest
products industry throughout Alaska. Nearly all the AFA's
regular members are small business firms as defined by the
Small Business Administration and qualify for independent and
small business set-aside timber sales.
The AFA, its members, their employees, and timber-dependent
communities of Southeast Alaska depend on the Forest Service
the provide economic timber sales of significant volume to meet
the needs of the Southeast Alaska timber industry. In Alaska,
old-growth forests are the lifeblood of the timber industry.
The national forests are the only source of raw materials for
the Alaska sawmills and veneer plants. All the timber from the
Alaska national forest is old-growth.
The industry is only 50 years old and therefore adequate
second growth opportunities for raw material supply have not
yet developed. In order to maintain the industry, harvest must
continue in the old-growth until a second growth supply is
available. The time that it takes to develop an adequate supply
of second growth will depend on the way the old-growth is
managed and on the degree and type of management performed on
second growth stands.
For the first 35 to 40 years, timber management was
conducted using an even-aged clearcutting management
prescription. This has resulted in healthy and vigorous second
growth stands. Some of the second growth is ready for
commercial thinning, but more if it is in need of pre-
commercial thinning.
For the last 10 years, the forests have been managed under
an experimental management scheme designed around alternatives
the clearcut. The effects of the new management scheme is yet
undetermined, but concerns remain about stand composition and
overall forest health implications of these alternative
approaches. What we already know is that the alternatives have
significantly hampered the economics of the timber sale
offerings.
Preliminary indications are that these new methods will
provide growth rates better than the zero growth rates in uncut
stands, but growth rates are inferior to clearcut stands. We
are concerned that the trees left uncut will infect the second
growth with disease, dwarf mistletoe being a primary problem in
our hemlock stands. The alleged benefits are based on visual
concerns and speculative benefits to wildlife.
The need to apply these alternative measures in areas
available for timber harvest in the face of the millions of
old-growth acres where no timber harvest is allowed is not
evident. In addition, the steep uneven terrain in Alaska makes
working in partial clearcuts inherently unsafe for our workers.
There has been large areas set aside in Alaska's Tongass
National Forest that are managed under single use
prescription--wilderness, back country recreation, and other
prescriptions that forbid any timber harvest or multiple uses.
These withdrawn areas have reduced the acreage available for
timber production to about 676,000 acres, of which about
250,000 acres are in second growth condition. This leaves about
12 percent of the productive old-growth from the Tongass for
timber harvest, only about 4 percent of the Tongass.
The Tongass is managed under an old-growth conservation
strategy which is part of the Forest Service plan. This
strategy includes reservation of 3.5 million acres of the 5
million acres of productive old-growth. This is not a
reservation of rock and ice; it is a prohibition of timber
harvest on timber-producing sites. In addition, there are
another 4.2 million acres in unproductive old-growth available
for wildlife habitat.
Any prescription that reduces the yield potential of the
acreage available for timber production puts more pressure on
the reserve acres and controversies that result in costly and
nonproductive expenditures on environmental lawsuits.
There is other evidence that shows that the second growth
stands resulting from clearcuts can be managed to provide
wildlife habitat and still produce a viable timber industry. It
is crucial to the future of Alaska's timber industry that a
reliable source of economic timber is available, is provided
from our areas of the forest that are available for timber
harvest. These areas must be managed under prescriptions that
make it clear that timber harvest is the primary use.
The Forest Service needs to remove prescriptions that
provide the basis for environmental lawsuits. Using the already
existing second growth potential in conjunction with the
designated acreage of old-growth that will be available on a
reliable economic basis until the industry can sustain on
second growth is the answer to Alaska's old-growth controversy.
With that, Mr. Chairman, that concludes my remarks. Thank
you for the opportunity.
Senator Wyden. Thank you very much, Senator. Again, we are
going to be very anxious to work with you in Alaska and
recognize that there are very different circumstances. Senator
Murkowski has already given me a couple of really good ideas
that track what you have been saying, and that is very
constructive.
Let me ask a question of our sort of whole panel. I think
you have heard me say that what I would like to do is to focus
on a fundamental proposition. That is to see if we can marry
together the idea of additional protection for old-growth with
the kind of thinning and other active management practices that
people in resource-dependent communities would see as
constructive and give them a chance to get fiber in their mills
and put people to work.
If one were to talk about an integrated forest management
plan built on sort of those two key precepts, why don't each
one of you tell me what you think the key features of such an
integrated management plan would be? Just kind of tick off some
of the key features of an integrated management plan that was
built on those sort of two ideas I am talking about.
Mr. Palola.
Mr. Palola. Yes, thank you. I can give you a couple of
indications of where I know some of the best forest managers in
our region, what they are doing already. One is they are
cutting less than their annual growth. They are essentially
designating an increment of the forest productivity to long-
term, you can call it a reserve or a biodiversity increment or
an old-growth increment, but they are not red-lining their
forest, so to speak.
A high degree of snag retention and some of the other
characteristics that Dr. Lewis talked about earlier this
afternoon. They are looking to recruit those particular
attributes back into their forests.
I would also say that some of the nuances of this are also
bound up in the kinds of relationships that they have with
people, with forest workers, particularly loggers, in terms of
how they specify timber sale contracts and their expectations
for the quality of the work that is being done. I could provide
some more specifics on that later on.
Senator Wyden. Good suggestions.
Mr. Johnston.
Mr. Johnston. Well, I could certainly address myself to
ecological standards that the conservation community would like
to see incorporated into such a plan. Sticking out among them
would be protection of native forests that provide important
ecological functions and a restoration focus with silviculture,
projects that genuinely are designed to make the forest
healthier, most particularly thinning of these dense tree
farms.
But I am not going to do that. Instead, I will actually
address myself to the issue of jobs and community stability in
designing such a plan. I would suggest that we are going about
this the wrong way by remaining fixated on timber targets.
Timber targets certainly do not address the health of the
forest and they only address rural community stability and jobs
indirectly.
If one of the goals of such a plan of forest management is
to be good jobs, healthy communities, then let us make that a
goal. Let us not make timber targets a goal or production of
wood fiber a goal, although certainly I think there will be
production of wood fiber. If we are serious about jobs, then
let us set targets that reflect that value.
Senator Wyden. Good point.
Bruce.
Mr. Daucsavage. For us in the industry, especially in
central Oregon, the issue is forest health. We believe, given
the ability to manage the forests with economically viable
timber sales, in other words sales that work, there is--we can
sustain a long-term timber sale program and create what you are
looking for, I think, in the way of the old-growth type forest.
If you have a healthy forest, that means you are going to
have larger trees. We believe also there are cases where you
need to take some of the larger trees. We certainly do not need
someone to tell us that 21 inches and larger is the right size,
because it is not.
I have timber sales here in front of me that we cannot bid
on from a fire. They have been on the ground for a year. These
are not and wilderness areas, they are in management areas, and
we cannot harvest those trees and we have to shut down a
sawmill.
So I think the key here is forest health and that in itself
will create the type of environment I think you are looking
for.
Senator Wyden. Know that we are going to continue to try to
help you get that dead and dying material off the forest floor.
I think we can do it in line with the environmental laws and in
a way that promotes sustainable forestry.
Mr. Torgerson.
Mr. Torgerson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As I said in my
testimony, Alaska is basically dependent upon old-growth
currently. But we need some commercial pre-thinning in our old-
growth areas that are basically--not the old-growth, but in the
second growth areas. It was interesting that the other
panelists mentioned the health of the forest. Up in the area
that I currently live, the collective governments have ignored
the Borealis Forest up there and we now have an epidemic of
dead trees. We have loved that forest to death. Approximately
1.2 million acres out of 1.3 million acres of commercial timber
is dead and it is past the point now or almost past the point
now where we can harvest it.
The Forest Service in one area, they prescribed a timber
sale and, because of the opposition to logging, they decided to
go in there and burn it. That was the one of our fires that was
out of control in the Nation last year. So I would like to see
them put together a better plan than using burning as a way of
managing the forests.
Senator Wyden. Senator Murkowski, I know, is very concerned
about the white spruce climax forests up in your area that are
suffering from the beetle infestation and very high risks, and
I know that he would be very interested in making sure that the
committee has your thoughts on the management of those lands
and sort of how there is an interaction there to the old-
growth.
Mr. Torgerson. Well, Mr. Chairman, thank you. That is what
I was just talking about. Really, the trees are all dead now.
The old-growth, some of it is standing, some of it is being
blown over.
Senator Wyden. Maybe I missed the point and, Senator, you
can correct me. I thought you had been talking mostly about the
coastal forests.
Mr. Torgerson. I have been.
Senator Wyden. Oh, I see. Up until now you were talking
about the coastal forests and that is hemlock and sitka spruce,
and now we are moving over to the white spruce forest?
Mr. Torgerson. In the testimony earlier than this, I split
it. I was talking some about the old-growth and the need for
pre-commercial thinning in the second growth areas down in
southeast Alaska, and then I jumped ahead to the white spruce,
which are our forests around where I live. I cannot add much
more to it. It has not been managed. We have had commercial
operations come in the look at removing it and basically they
went broke, not having timber supply. So it has been very--I
have sat and watched this forever and it is disheartening to
see that.
No matter if you are environmentalists or preservations or
a logger, that is a wasted forest totally.
Senator Wyden. It seems to me that the point that you and
Senator Murkowski are making in this area is very valid, and we
are going to follow it up and check it out for you.
Mr. Torgerson. Yes, sir, thank you.
Senator Wyden. I am going to recognize the minority counsel
for some questions, minority staff from some questions here in
a minute. But the reason I asked the question is that I think
there are some ways that this panel, which reflects sort of a
cross-section of opinion in terms of industry and environment
and certainly points of view that could be contentious and have
been contentious, can find some common ground.
Mr. Johnston talked about jobs and thinning. Mr. Daucsavage
talked about sustainability. You had an East Coast perspective
that made sense, and Mr. Torgerson was talking about thinning
in areas that I am certainly convinced we should have been
working on quite some time ago. So now it is the job of the
Congress to work with these agencies to try to build on your
goodwill and desire to actually move forward and manage these
resources so that all Americans can say that we have tapped
every opportunity to make sure that these special places are to
the benefit of all.
So I thank you for how constructive you have been.
Frank, why don't you just come on up and ask the questions
you would like to get into.
Mr. Gladics. Thank you, Senator. I will be mercifully
short.
As we have looked at this issue--and Senator Wyden, I
appreciate your willingness to look at thinning in some areas
that we have not been able to thin in, and I think that is a
huge step forward. And I appreciate the witnesses' apparent
willingness to look at that. The Northwest Forest Plan was a
balance both politically and ecologically. It involved thinning
in younger stands, harvesting in old-growth stands, and trying
to come up with a solution that would fit most people. It has
not worked out.
Mr. Johnston, you have said that you want to not harvest
any old-growth trees, right?
Mr. Johnston. You also want to go into thinning. Balance-
wise, there is going to be a change in the amount of total
volume that might be available and the economic stability. We
will see some more changes in economic stability with that. I
am wondering, if Congress were to direct the Forest Service to
reopen that plan and look at it, would you perceive a re-look
at the number of acres that are in Matrix land versus LSR
versus set-asides?
Mr. Johnston. Well, first of all, I do not think that the
Northwest Forest Plan is broken. I think that it is based on
sound science and serves as a framework from which we can move
forward. If there is anything wrong with the Northwest Forest
Plan, I would say that it has not adapted as well as it can.
The plan's foundation is this concept of adaptive management.
We take new societal priorities, new information, and we adapt
the plan to those circumstances. I think that is what needs to
be done in terms of old-growth protection.
Specifically, in terms of your question, would we support
changing boundaries or adding or subtracting from the Matrix or
other land allocations, again I think that the science supports
large blocks of reserved habitat in terms of recovering species
like the northern spotted owl, and I think that that should be
maintained.
What we could support is restoration silviculture in these
tree farms to accelerate the development of late successional
characteristics. We are talking about the Forest Service doing
business differently, because currently most of their focus is
on logging on older stands. There is lots of different
mechanisms and vehicles to accomplish this. I think Congressman
DeFazio earlier today brought up what I think is one of the
best ones, which is to separate that restoration work from
market pressures by contracting with companies to do that
restoration work, that plantation recovery and that thinning,
and the Forest Service selling those logs from public sort
yards. I would certainly urge the committee to look into that.
Mr. Gladics. So, looking for common ground here, if the
science led us to going back into some areas that are reserved
because values are protected, yet they could do some
management, you folks would look at that in the long run?
Mr. Johnston. Certainly, if the science supports
restoration silviculture as I have described it, I would
support it, and I do not think that there is anything in the
plan currently that would prohibit it. For instance, the plan
sets aside late successional reserves, but the plan allows
thinning in those reserves currently. So I do not even know
that we would need to adapt the plan in that sense.
Mostly what we are up against is the question of policy
direction and funding. The agency's budget structure and
personnel structure leads it to emphasize logging older stands,
and the direction that it has received of Congress, I think, at
this point has interpreted the Northwest Forest Plan to mean
get in there and log old-growth. Certainly I would like to see
Congress give new signals to the agency, that instead the
emphasis should be on restoration work, thinning in tree farms
perhaps, and at that point I do not think that you would need
to draw new lines on the map or anything like that.
Mr. Gladics. One quick last question. Has your organization
actively been involved in the NEPA process on some of the
thinning in the LSR's that have been proposed, and have you
supported or opposed individual projects?
Mr. Johnston. We are actively involved in the NEPA process
for quite a few timber sales in western Oregon, including
thinning in late successional reserves. We have participated in
that process. We have commented. For the most part I think that
those projects, my organization feels that those projects have
merit. We do not object to most of them as we have seen them on
the ground.
We have suggested ways that they could be improved, some of
which have been incorporated. In fact, a lot of late
successional reserves thinning that is being done on forests
like Siuslaw National Forest, I think that they are doing a
really good job.
Mr. Gladics. Thank you.
Mr. Palola, ice storms and wind are a major change agent in
the Northeast and as we begin to try to develop these old-
growth stands those events continue to occur. Have you got some
thoughts on how we can develop a policy that would allow us to
deal with those kind of events and do what is good for the
land, as well as the communities?
Mr. Palola. That is a great question. I think we have to
accept that those events are going to happen, number one. There
is some concern that they are happening with more frequency
because of the effects of climate change, although it is very
hard to pin down what causes what. We are certainly seeing more
droughty, more freezing and thawing conditions than historical
records seem to have supported.
I think that the forest community has responded to these in
a very responsible way by and large. We have not had the kind
of controversies around salvage sales, for example, from major
wind-throw events or fire events that have taken place in the
West.
I think that I would come back to some of the basic premise
of my testimony, which is that if we can prevent forest
fragmentation and enhance forest security then people are going
to be in a better position to ride out these sorts of
disruptions, whether they are stand-replacing events or whether
they are more minor kinds of things, which we see quite
frequently.
I talked earlier about legacy trees as being a kind of a
proxy or a halfway house to get you to more complete old-growth
conditions. One of the biggest threats to relying on that as a
strategy and why I call it a second best strategy is that those
kinds of kind of ecological hazards--and in our region wind-
throw, hurricane event, is the major problem. You can very
quickly eliminate the remnant stands that you have or the
remnant legacy trees, and that is a risk that many forest
managers run who are trying to actively promote and maintain
old-growth characteristics.
Mr. Gladics. Thank you.
Senator Torgerson, you mentioned both commercial and pre-
commercial thinning and the position of the Alaska Forestry
Association. Is there more money needed in Alaska to help do
that, through the agencies?
Mr. Torgerson. Through the agencies? I believe there is,
particularly in the second growth. As I testified earlier, we
have not done any thinning or pre-commercial thinning in that
second growth. It could be considered like a business, that you
have to make an investment, you have to go in and take care of
your product, you have to go in and take care of your stock or
your shelf life of things. If you ignore it, you end up with
less value and in this case less commercial forest.
So it would be important for the Forest Service to go in
and start actively managing those forests.
Mr. Gladics. Thank you.
Bruce, one quick question for you. You have been through a
rather traumatic experience with what you have done, all the
things you have done in your mill. If there were one thing that
you look back on in the last 15 years that could have changed
things, is there something that sticks out in your mind, or is
this really a series of problems stacked up on one another that
we have not dealt with and need to unravel a large ball of
string instead of one knot?
Mr. Daucsavage. Well, I think Sally Collins' testimony this
morning was excellent in that it described some of the things
that she had done in central Oregon when she was there. To our
chagrin, we do not know why the thinning projects, the forest
health issues, have been dropped or timber sales have not been
put up that are viable, in other words economically viable.
The fact that they have stopped and the fact that we have
this 21-inch or greater DBH limit on harvesting timber has
changed the overall makeup of what we are capable of doing. I
think with that screening process that was put in place, we are
not subject to the Northwest Forest Plan, but the screening
process, along with the stopping of the forest health
restoration that we had done in the past, is probably one of
the issues that have bothered us the most.
We do have some projects that we have done in the past, in
particular the Trout Creek sales projects, where it involved
entering a watershed of 15,000 acres with numerous timber
sales, where we restored that particular part of the forest. It
was very successful. We do not need more demonstration
projects. We have demonstrated that this can work and we have
this mixed conifer forest that is very healthy now, and I think
this is something we should all take a look at and continue to
operate under that scenario.
Mr. Gladics. Thank you.
Senator Wyden. Frank, thank you.
Let me leave it this way. 3\1/2\ hours ago, we started this
discussion of how we could protect old-growth, have active
management, and promote forest health. I was convinced it was
doable then. I will tell you, I am more convinced now as I wrap
up this hearing with a panel of environmental and industry
representatives.
What it is going to come down to is what I think Senator
Craig and I thought broke upon this county payments bill last
session. Everybody said it could not be done, things were just
too polarized. One side said sever the link between the
counties and the Federal Government and just send the rural
communities a check, and another said, well, let us use this
legislation to go out and settle every grievance when you did
not think the cut was high enough.
Senator Craig and I said we were not going to do it that
way. What we were able to do there by lowering the decibel
level was make it possible for a number of rural communities in
our country to survive. Now, we have a lot more to do.
Bruce, your point about getting dead and dying material off
the floor of the forest is to me just patently obvious,
patently obvious from a forest health standpoint, patently
obvious from the standpoint of the economic needs of rural
communities. Jim Johnston, to his credit, has said he and his
organization are willing to work on that and willing to work to
try to provide the jobs that are a lifeline for rural areas.
So please know that we are going to keep the record open. I
guess we will keep the record open for, I think the rule is, 2
weeks. Your additional comments will be welcome, as those of
other citizens.
I thank you very much for your patience, and know that we
are going to pursue this topic very, very aggressively. This
debate has been too polarized for too long. Too many
communities have suffered as a result. Too many treasures have
been lost as a result, and there has not been enough active,
integrated management of our forests that is clearly in the
interest of all Americans, and we are going to try and change
it. You all have helped us get off to a good start.
With that, the subcommittee is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 6:07 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
[Subsequent to the hearing, the following statement was
received for the record:]
Statement of David Perry, Professor (Emeritus) of Ecosystem Studies and
Ecosystem Management, Department of Forest Science, Oregon State
University
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you for this
opportunity to present some brief thoughts on old-growth forests. I
apologize for being unable to do this is person.
My name is David Perry. I am Professor (emeritus) of Ecosystem
Studies and Ecosystem Management, Dept. of Forest Science, Oregon State
University, and Affiliate Professor in the College of Agriculture,
Forestry, and Natural Resources, University of Hawai'i at Hilo. I am a
past member of the National Research Council's Committee on
Environmental Issues in Pacific Northwest Forestry, the Eastside
Forests Scientific Societies Panel, and the old-growth expert panel
convened to advise the scientists formulating the Pacific Northwest
Plan. I currently sit on the Marbled Murrelet Recovery Team and The
National Commission for the Science of Sustainable Forestry. I am
author of the textbook, Forest Ecosystems, lead editor of Maintaining
Long-term Productivity in Pacific Northwest Ecosystems, and author or
co-author of numerous publications having to do with the ecology and
management of ecosystems and landscapes.
My comments will be restricted to the area in which I have the
greatest familiarity, which is the Pacific Northwest, both east and
west of the crest of the Cascades.
Echoing the recommendation of the NRC Committee on Environmental
Issues in Pacific Northwest Forests, I support extending protection to
all old-growth forests on federal lands within the Pacific Northwest.
In my view, and that of the NRC Committee, keeping all that remains
offers the best chance of maintaining native biological diversity on
public lands. I believe the economic and social situation has changed
sufficiently since the early 1990's to allow protecting all old-growth
without creating undue economic hardship. In fact, with a shift in
harvesting strategy (which I'll discuss further below), remaining old
growth might be protected with little or perhaps even no economic
impact.
Four facts about old-growth forests seem beyond dispute: (1) They
have been logged to levels far below historic range of variability both
east and west of the Cascades crest; (2) they are ecologically unique,
containing structures, species and species assemblages that occur in
low abundance or not all in most young, managed forests; (3) on a per
acre basis they are worth a lot of money; (4) for many people, they
embody core values that transcend the marketplace. As you are well
aware, the issue for over four decades, not only here but in many
places throughout the world, has been finding a proper balance between
the latter three. In the United States, the search for balance plays
out in the context of the first: the current rarity of old-growth
forests compared to historic norms.
My recommendation, and that of the NRC committee of which I was a
member, reflects the belief that, once the extent of a given habitat
has been sharply reduced, as is the case with old-growth forests,
further reductions significantly increase the risk of extinctions. In
fact, models predict the existence of thresholds, in which small
changes in habitat can have large effects on species viability, and
delayed effects--what David Tilman and colleagues have termed the
``extinction debt''. I emphasize these beliefs and models exist within
a background of large uncertainty--we are in new territory here, and
the territory is exceedingly complex. But on that score the principles
of conservation science are no different than those of prudent
investing: in the face of uncertainty, don't take unnecessary risks.
So, as I see it, the question of how much old growth to protect turns
not so much on science as on balancing the risks of extinction and
diminishment of esthetic and spiritual values against the needs of the
economy. I believe that equation has changed over the past decade.
In the Pacific Northwest of 10 years ago, the search for balance
between conservation and economics required leaving some of the
remaining old growth open to logging. At least two things have changed,
however, which argue that risk is no longer necessary. First, the
economy of the Northwest has diversified, and the lumber industry,
while still important in some areas, is a minor component of the
overall regional economy. Moreover, the lumber industry depends much
less on federal logs than previously. By the late 1990's, only 5 of 130
sawmills in western Oregon and Washington used federal logs for more
than one-third of their total supply.
The second change has been a growing awareness on the part of
scientists and foresters of the largely untapped potential for
producing logs through thinning plantations (generally less than 80
years old). Done correctly, this time-honored silvicultural practice
not only produces logs, but diversifies stands and increases the vigor
of residual trees. According to a report by the U.S. Forest Service,
approximately 400,000 acres of young stands are in need of treatment
annually on federal lands in Oregon and Washington west of the
Cascades, and only 15% are getting it. By my rough, but reasonable,
back-of-the-envelope calculations, annual wood volume attainable by
thinning plantations in western Oregon and Washington more than
compensates for those that would come from liquidating unprotected
west-side old growth over a 10-year period. This is true even with the
so-called ``variable density'' thinning (not all areas thinned
equally), which is increasingly recommended as an ecologically sound
approach.
There is an issue regarding thinning in the dry forest types that
needs mentioning. Numerous scientists and foresters have argued that
forests in the dry portions of the region are currently overstocked
with trees established during the past 100 years of fire exclusion, a
situation that has increased susceptibility to crown fires and insect
infestations. I agree, with the proviso this does not necessarily apply
to every dry forest, but it certainly does to many. In recommending
protection for remaining old growth, I am not asking that the door be
shut on thinnings aimed at restoring health of older stands--that would
be a mistake in my opinion. However, in logging for forest health, it
is important that we don't trade one set of problems for another.
Elsewhere, I have recommended the following guidelines: (1) thin from
``below'', i.e., leave the larger, older trees; (2) don't build new
roads; (3) treat thinning slash (otherwise it creates a high fire
hazard); (4) protect soils and streams.
In closing, I'd like to take off my scientist's hat and relate a
recent, personal experience. On Sept. 14, I took a class into an old-
growth forest in the western Cascades. Like many others, I think we
were all still in shock from the events of the past Tuesday. Vigils of
prayer and remembrance had been scheduled across the country on that
day, and some of the students asked if we could take time out so that
each could participate in whatever way they were called. I thought it
was a fine idea, and at the appointed time we fanned out to find our
own places of solitude. I sat with my back nestled into an old tree, 7
feet in diameter, 30 stories high, and looked out over a stream.
Unbidden, there came to my mind Wendell Berry's poem, the Peace of Wild
Things, which begins
When despair for the world grows in me
And I wake in the night at the least sound
In fear of what my life and my children's lives may
be,
I go and lie down where the wood drake
Rests in his beauty on the water, and the great heron
feed.
I come into the peace of wild things . . .
Why do a large majority of people in the Pacific Northwest, urban
and rural, favor protecting old growth forests? I can't answer that,
but suspect a large part of the reason is that the old forests embody
qualities we need very much in today's world: strength, endurance,
tranquility, peace.