IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PRESIDENT'S FOREST 

PLAN FOR THE PACIFIC NORTHWEST 

OVERSIGHT HEARING 

BEFORE THE 

SUBCCHEVIITTEE 0~ NATION"AL PARKS, Ji'ORESTS, 

At~D LAXDS 

OF THE 

COlVIlVIITTEE 0~ RESOURCES 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

ON 

THE IMPLEMENTATION OF PRESIDENT CLINTON'S FOREST PLAN 

FOR THE PACIFIC NORTHWEST, ITS PROGRESS, AND EFFECTS 

26-95lcc 

JULY 23, 1996--WASHINGTON, DC 

Serial No. 104-86 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources 

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

WASHINGTON : 1996 

For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office 

Superintendent of Dncurnents, Cong.-reo.;s.Jonal Sale' Office, Washington, DC 20402 

!SBN 0-16-053489-5 
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES 

DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman 

W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN, Louisiana 

JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah 

JIM SAXTON, New Jersey 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado 

JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California 

WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado 

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland 

KEN CALVERT, California 

RICHARD W. POMBO, California 

PETER G. TORKILDSEN, Massachusetts 

J.D. HAYWORTH, Arizona 

FRANK A. CREME&'l'S, Ohio 

BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming 

WES COOLEY, Oregon 

HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho 

LINDA SMITH, Washington 

GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California 

WALTER B. JONES, JR., North Carolina 

WILLIAM M. (MAC) THORNBERRY, Texas 

RICHARD (DOC) HASTINGS, Washington 

JACK METCALF, Washington 

JAMES B. LONGLEY, Maine 

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona 

JOHN E. ENSIGN, Nevada 

GEORGE MILLER, California 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia 

BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota 

DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan 

PAT WILLIAMS, Montana 

SAM GEJDENSON, Connecticut 

BILL RICHARDSON, New Mexico 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American 

Samoa 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota 

NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii 

GERRY E. STUDDS, Massachusetts 

SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas 

OWEN B. PICKETT, Virginia 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

CALVIN M. DOOLEY, California 

CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO, Puerto 

Rico 

MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York 

ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam 

SAM F ARR, California 

PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island 

D&'IIEL VAL KISH, Chief of Staff 

ELIZABETH MEGGINSON, Chief Counsel 

CHRISTINE A. KENNEDY, Chief Clerk/Administrator 

JOHN LAWRENCE, Democratic Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS AND LANDS 

JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah, Chairman 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado 

JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California 

WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado 

RICHARD W. POMBO, California 

PETER G. TORKILDSEN, Massachusetts 

J.D. HAYWORTH, Arizona 

BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming 

WES COOLEY, Oregon 

HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho 

LINDA SMITH, Washington 

GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California 

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona 

JOHN E. ENSIGN, Nevada 

BILL RICHARDSON, New Mexico 

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia 

BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota 

DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan 

PAT WILLIAMS, Montana 

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American 

Samoa 

GERRY E. STUDDS, Massachusetts 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., T1NEW.JERSEY 

CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO, Puerto 

Rico 

MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York 

ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam 

PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island 

ALLEN FREEMYER, Staff Director/ Counsel 

ANNE HEISSENBU'ITEL, Legislative Staff 

RICK HEALY, Democratic Legislative Staff 
CONTENTS 

Page 

Hearing held July 23, 1996 . .. ........ .... ..... ...... .. .. . .... ... . ... . ... ...... .. .. .. .. . . .. .. .. .... ....... .. ... 1 

Statements of Members: 

Chenoweth, Hon. Helen, a U.S. Representative from Idaho ...... ................... 79 

Cooley, Hon. Wes, a U.S. Representative from Oregon ................................. 3 

Hansen, Hon. James V., a U.S. Representative from Utah; and Chairman, 

Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Lands ............................... 1 

Herger, Hon. Walley, a U.S. Representative from California 4 

Prepared statement................................................................................... 74 

Richardson, Hon. Bill, a U.S. Representative from New Mexico .................. 2 

Riggs, Hon. Frank, a U.S. Representative from California .......................... 6 

Statements of witnesses: 

Bendix, Gerald, Hi-Ridge Lumber Company .................................................. 31 

Prepared statement ................................................................................... 155 

Geisinger, James C., President, Northwest Forestry Association ................ 29, 35 

Hay!:r:e}T:~~Y ~tc~~;~} ·sw:r-·~~d··c~~;;~~i~~;··s~~~~··~f'·£~~d'·i\ii~~~ii~: 175 

ment, U.S. Department of the Interior .. .... .. . .. .. .. .... ...... .. .. .. . ..... ....... ... ... .... . 55 

Prepared statement ................................................................................... 204 

Kupillas, Sue, Jackson County Commissioner, Oregon .. ............................... 9 

Prepared statement ....................................... ........... .......... ....................... 83 

Lee, Robert G., Professor of Forest Resources, University of Washington .. 14 

Lyo!~S!::s s~~l!~~!;·f3~~~~~cy··r~~··N~t~~~i'·&;~~·;;~~~ .. ~~d ·E~~~~~ 112 

ment, U.S. Department of Agriculture ........................................................ 50 

Prepared statement ................. .. . ................................ ............ .......... ......... 189 

Mayr, Thomas M., President, Mayr Brothers Company ............................... 29 

Olso~~eK~~~~;!:~~~~t~~~i ··;;a·,·· A~~~~i·~·ti~~ · ·~r ·v;~~t~~;· ·P~·ip- · ~~d· · -p~·r;~; 130 

Workers, Portland, OR ................................................................................. 16 

Phillips, Bonnie, Executive Director, Pilchuck Audubon Society ................. 32 

Prepared statement ................................................................................... 169 

Smith, Joan, Supervisor-elect, Siskiyou County, California ......................... 12 

Attachments to statement .......................... ............. .......... ............... ........ 103 

Thomas, Jack Ward, Chief, Forest Service, DOAg ........................................ 50 

Tuchmann, Thomas, Special Assistant to the Secretary, DOAg .................. 50 

Additional material supplied: 

California Forests at Risk: The Impact of the Recissions Act Logging 

Rider on National Forests in California, by Western Ancient Forest 

Campaign...................................................................................................... 243 

Devastating Logging Rider Impacts on the West Coast Fishing Industry, 

Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Association ................................. 275 

Iml!jf;~c~ ~~-~- -~~~-~~:. ~~. :~~ .. ~ ~.~.~~-e-~:. -~~~.~~~. -~~~~: .. ~.o~~-~~~~ .. ~~.o~~~.te,~~ 272 

Oregon Forests at Risk From the Recissions Logging Rider, by Steve 

Holmer and Jessica Hamilton ...................................................................... 211 

Record of Decision for Amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of 

Land Management Planning Documents Within the Range of the 

W~s'h7~;ro~ s~~;;:dF~~st·~-·~t''iii~k .. F~~~··ti;~· .. R~~i·~~;;~~-·L;iiii~ii''Ri·d~~: 237 

by Jim Jontz and Steve Holmer .................................................................. 230 

Communications submitted: 

Bailey, Nadine: Letter of March 11, 1996, to President Bill Clinton ........... 77 

(Ill) 

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PRESIDENT'S 

FOREST PLAN FOR THE PACIFIC NORTHWEST 

TUESDAY, JULY 23, 1996 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS AND LANDS, COMMITTEE ON 

RESOURCES, 

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:08 a.m., in 

room 1334, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. James V. Hansen (Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding. 

STATEMENT OF THE BON. JAMES V. HANSEN, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM UTAH; AND CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS AND LANDS 

Mr. HANSEN. The Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and 

Lands convenes today for our seventh oversight hearing on Federal 

forest land management issues. Today, our focus will be on the implementation of President Clinton's Forest Plan for the Northwest, 

also known as Option 9, after the alternative that was selected to 

guide future management of the Federal forests within the range 

of the Northern spotted owl. 

The plan covers 24.5 million acres of national forest and Bureau 

of Land Management lands in Washington, Oregon, and Northern 

California. It was developed and adofted after the President convened his Forest Conference in Apri 1993, having made a campaign promise to solve the forest management gridlock in the 

Northwest. The plan calls for a significant reduction in Federal 

timber sales and allows forest management activities on only 12 

percent of the Federal land base. Twenty-one-and-one-half million 

acres are reserved by the plan in protected status for wilderness, 

for lakes, successional and riparian reserves, and other administrative withdrawals and adaptive management areas where limited 

management and research is to be conducted following extensive 

additional planning and analysis. 

Along with establishing the reserves, Option 9 created a complex 

interagency decisionmaking process that I hope the witnesses will 

clarify for us today. Forest supervisors and regional foresters or 

BLM district managers used to make their own decisions for the 

Federal land under their responsibility. Now, they must defer to 12 

Provincial Interagency Executive Committees, a Regional Interagency Executive Committee, a Regional Ecosystem Committee, 

and an Office of Forestry and Economic Development who all must 

have a say in Forest Service and ELM decisions. 

(1) 
2 

In addition, there are advisory committees to the provincial and 

regional executive committees and regional and State economic revitalization teams called CERT teams, which play a role in this 

process. 

Option 9 has now been in effect for over two years and the subcommittee would like to know how it is working. Have the new advisory and interagency committees enabled the Forest Service and 

BLM to get on with their work, and provide the promised results? 

Has it reduced the cost of doing business? What is preventing the 

Forest Service and BLM from meeting the annual sale level of one 

billion board feet that was promised? And how many and what 

kinds of new jobs are being provided by the retraining programs :.n 

these three States? 

I hope our witnesses will also tell us how President Clinton's 

plan has affected forest health and ecosystem conditions in the 

Northwest, but I am concerned that Secretary Glickman's recent 

direction restricting the use of salvage sales will hinder the Forest 

Service's ability to meet the goals of the Clinton plan: balancing 

the needs of forest ecosystems with the needs of local and regional 

economies. I hope Secretary Babbitt does not intend to issue similar directions to the BLM. 

Finally, I look forward to learning when we may expect to see 

this forest plan fully implemented. Even those who criticized the 

cumbersome management requirements and low planned outputs 

promised by the plan back in 1994 must now be wishing that even 

the planned goals could be achieved. 

The Clinton plan was supposed to solve the gridlock by developing and implementing a process to achieve stable outputs for local 

economies while protecting the environment in the Northern spotted owl region. So far, all the evidence that we have seen shows 

this is failing. I hope the administration and other witnesses will 

surprise us by describing how things are improving. We do not 

want a smoke and mirrors analysis. Instead, we would like to learn 

how the President's promises could be achieved in the future. 

I thank our members for appearing before us today. I understand 

Mr. Dicks will not be able to be here, and I do not see the oth·er 

members, Wally Herger and Frank Riggs. I will turn to the able 

gentleman from New Mexico, the distinguished ambassador, Mr. 

Richardson. 

STATEMENT OF THE BON. BILL RICHARDSON, A U.S. 

REPRESENTATIVE FROM NEW MEXICO 

Mr. RICHARDSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I cannot believe my eyes. It is 10:06. Unless you gave a sixminute opening statement, this is the first time the subcommittee 

has started a minute late. 

Mr. HANSEN. If I may explain and apologize and repent, I got 

caught by a TV camera coming over and they just had to talk to 

me about the armed services bill, so I apologize to all of you. 

Mr. RICHARDSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Let me just say that on the President's forest plan, prior to the 

President stepping up to deal with this issue, there was gridlo·~k 

in the Pacific Northwest. No trees were being cut. Programs for 

restoration of the ecosystem were fragmented. I think the Presi-
3 

dent changed all that and got the forest working again in a 

proactive way. 

I think the administration is to be commended for its commitment of personnel and money to address a problem. Some may 

complain about the pace, but we need only to look at where we 

were to see how far we have come. The biggest single threat to the 

success of the President's plan has been the timber salvage rider 

enacted by this Congress, and as we know, in the Pacific Northwest, the salvage rider was not about salvage logging. It was about 

releasing Section 318 sales to allow the cutting down of healthy 

green trees, regardless of the environmental consequences. 

Again, Mr. Chairman, the Forest Service, the administration is 

to be commended for holding the plan together after, regrettably, 

the plan was undercut by the timber salvage rider. But again, Mr. 

Chairman, thank you for letting me make this opening statement. 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you. I appreciate the gentleman's comment. 

The gentleman from Oregon, Mr. Cooley, is recognized. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. WES COOLEY, A U.S. 

REPRESENTATIVE FROM OREGON 

Mr. COOLEY. I appreciate the chairman for having these hearings. I think that it needs to be aired on what has exactly happened in the last couple of years. 

I strongly disagree with the minority leader. I do not think that 

the timber salvage bill was really a 318 bill. I think it was a real, 

true effort on the part of the Congress and on the part of the administration, as well-that is the reason they signed on to it-to 

go ahead and do a win-win-win, clean up the forest, replant, and 

produce some productive jobs in the Northwest part of the United 

States in the timber area. 

The 318 rider in that section was merely to relieve a bill that 

had been passed clear back in 1989 and been held up by litigation 

from that time up until the timber salvage bill. It is too bad it was 

P.ainted into that corner and that picture that we were logging 

'without laws", which was absolutely not true. 

So I think that some of these hearings will darify and straighten 

out some of the misconceptions about that particular legislation 

and I appreciate the chairman's effort on this behalf. Thank you. 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you very much. 

Seeing as we do not have our two members who were going to 

be here to open this, we will start with our first panel and we will 

take the members following this panel, if they show up. 

We have Sue Kupillas, Jackson County Commissioner. She was 

with us in Roseburg. We appreciate her being here. We also have 

Joan Smith, Dr. Bob Lee, and Mr. Bob Olson. If these four folks 

would like to come forward, we would appreciate it. We thank you 

for being here. I point out that we are down to the last few days 

of this session of Congress. 

As you know, there are a lot of breaks as it is an election year, 

and so we are going to hold you to five minutes. Is that all right? 

Right in front of you, there is a red and green and yellow light. It 

is like when you are running a traffic light-be careful. We will 

give you each five minutes. 
4 

I notice my two colleagues walked in. Stay right where you are. 

If my two colleas:rues would please come up here, we are going :o 

put you up here, if that is all right, and give you a moment. These 

folks do not mind sitting a minute as you come up. All the way up 

here, Mr. Herger and Mr. Riggs, if you would, right up here close, 

so we can hear you. We appreciate you two being here, even though 

you are both late. 

Mr. RIGGS. If the record would note, we had baseball practice 

this morning. 

Mr. HANSEN. First things first. I understand the prioriti·~s 

around here. 

Mr. HERGER. It was a charity game that we play here, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. HANSEN. Of course. Anyway, if you two baseball players 

would like to go. We are very grateful to have these two very distinguished gentlemen from California who really have a great understanding of this issue. Mr. Herger, and then Mr. Riggs. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. WALLY HERGER, A U.S. 

REPRESENTATIVE FROM CALIFORNIA 

Mr. HERGER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members, for inviting me to join you today. 

This Subcommittee has worked long and hard to provide oversight on a broad range of forest management issues. Today's subject, President Clinton's Northwest Forest Plan, or Option 9, as it 

is commonly called, may very well be the most important forest 

management subject we will address this year. 

I would like to begin by welcoming two of my constituents who 

have joined us today. Supervisor-Elect Joan Smith is with us from 

Siskiyou County, California. Also joining us is Gerry Bendix of HiRidge Lumber Company in Eureka, California. Joan and Gerry, it 

is good to have you here and we all lOok forward to hearing yo ~r 

comments. 

Mr. Chairman, it is not often that I agree with President Clinton 

when it comes to forest management. However, I fully concur with 

a statement he made in 1993 at a press conference announcing Option 9. At that time, President Clinton said that, "The Pacitic 

Northwest requires both a healthy economy and a healthy environment and that one cannot exist without the other." 

It is only appropriate, therefore, that we hold this hearing to determine whether the Clinton forest plan is successfully preserving 

both our environment and our Northwest economies. Perhaps be 

best place to begin is the health of the environment. I draw the 

Subcommittee's attention to two photographs taken within two late 

successional reserves in Northern California. These are two small 

portions of the 21 million acres permanently set aside under the 

Clinton plan for little or no human management. The stated purpose of late successional reserves is to protect old growth fore,st 

ecosystems and habitat for species like the spotted owl. 

The first photograph is of a burned late successional reserve on 

Lick Creek in the Klamath National Forest in my district. The second is of a blow-down in a late successional reserve along the Lone 

Pine Ridge in the Six Rivers National Forest bordering my district 

and Mr. Riggs' district. 
5 

As you can see, pictures truly paint a thousand words. The Lick 

Creek site burned in 1994 in a fire that covered over 27,000 acres. 

The Lone Pine Ridge site was part of a blow-down 17 miles long 

and seven miles wide. Both sites are now eminently susceptible to 

insect infestations, disease, and wildfire. The local Forest Service 

believes both are in immediate need of emergency salvage harvesting under the salvage law to protect our habitat, begin forest reforestation, and to provide several million board feet of timber for 

local mills. 

Tragically, however, the Clinton administration has forbidden it 

under a recent directive from the administration restricting implementation of our Congressionally passed timber salvage law. Mr. 

Chairman and Members, these scenes can be repeated over and 

over again in the Option 9 forests of Northern California. Washington, D.C., policies which mandate doing nothing are literally destroying the health of our forests. Tragedies like Lick Creek and 

Lone Pine Ridge are the direct consequences of Washington, D.C., 

dictating local policy under the salvage law. 

But even without the salvage law, the Clinton forest plan would 

still prevent local managers from treating these sites. To better explain what I mean, I would like to show the Subcommittee a chart 

that illustrates the process the Clinton plan requires local managers to follow in order to treat areas like Lick Creek and Lone 

Pine Ridge. By way of explanation, the yellow and red portions represent the additional process required under Option 9 that is not 

otherwise required under current law. 

If you find this process unusually complicated or long, you are 

not alone. So do our local forest managers. I am told by the people 

on the ground that it is not unusual to take the full three years 

shown on the chart to treat sites like Lick Creek and Lone Pine 

Ridge. This is without litigation. 

Unfortunately, the Douglas fir and Ponderosa pine trees in Lick 

Creek will be badly, if almost completely, deteriorated within three 

years. The white fir trees at Lone Pine Ridge will be worthless 

within 18 months. When and if these sales do go to bid, nobody will 

bid on them because they will be practically worthless. As a consequence, nothing will be accomplished on either site. Lick Creek 

and Lone Pine Ridge will be a total loss to the forest, to local communities, and to the American taxpayer. 

With impossible situations like these, it is little wonder that the 

Clinton plan has yielded in 1994 and 1995 combined only one-quarter--

Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Herger, maybe the folks in the audience would 

like to see it. If you would walk up the side of the dias here, I think 

everyone could see that. But if you are not interested in that, we 

understand. Go ahead. 

Mr. HERGER. With these impossible situations, it is little wonder 

that the Clinton plan has yielded in 1994 and 1995 combined only 

one-quarter of the two billion board feet that Secretary Babbitt in 

a July of 1993 press conference promised the administration would 

harvest in 1994 alone. President Clinton's statement was true. As 

we lose places like Lick Creek and Lone Pine Ridge, our local ~conomies in Northern California are sure to follow. 
6 

In 1994, the same year as the fire that burned Lick Creek, the 

local mill in Happy Camp, only a stone's throw from Lick Cret~k, 

closed permanently for lack of timber. Last May, the local mill in 

Hayfork, just to the northeast of Lone Pine Ridge, also closed permanently for lack of timber. Hayfork is the thirtieth mill in my district to close in recent years. The tragic irony of Hayfork is that 

the surrounding forests contain enough dead and dying timber to 

have kept this mill operating for another 15 years. 

Mr. Chairman, it should come as no surprise that Trinity County, where Hayfork is located, has unemployment rates consistently 

ranging from 15 to 24 percent. It should come as no surprise that 

80 percent of the children in Happy Camp Elementary School receive free or reduced meals. President Clinton predicted it would 

happen. His forest plan and forest management directives issued 

from Washington are making it happen. M~:. Chairman, to close, I would like to submit for the record a 

letter to President Clinton I received recently from Nadine Bailey, 

a former constituent of mine. Nadine tells the tragic story of a 

promise President Clinton made to her daughter, Elizabeth, in 

1993 and the events that have transpired since. Time will not allow 

me to read the letter, so I encourage every member of the Subcommittee to do so. Nadine and Elizabeth used to live in Hayfork 

while the mill was still operating. Their story puts a profoundly 

human face on what I have been talking about. 

[The letter may be found at end of hearing.] 

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, again, I thank you for holding this 

hearing. The people of Northern California deserve some answers. 

The towns of Happy Camp and Hayfork deserve some answers. Nadine and Elizabeth Bailey deserve some answers. Hopefully, we 

will be able to provide a few today. Thank you. 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you for your excellent testimony. 

Mr. Riggs? 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. FRANK RIGGS, A U.S. 

REPRESENTATIVE FROM CALIFORNIA 

Mr. RIGGS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and other members of the 

Subcommittee. 

I am sure I speak for my good friend and colleague and neighbor, 

Mr. Herger, when I say that we both very much appreciate the opportunity to testify today before the Subcommittee and to sit with 

the Subcommittee for a short period of time. 

I probably could sum up my testimony simply by saying that I 

ditto everything Mr. Herger just said, but at the risk of echoing 

some of the crucial points that he made, let me just say that this 

series of oversight hearings is of critical importance to my CongJ·essional district. We are very interested in evaluating the short and 

long-term consequences of this administration's current forest management practices, and for that matter, their whole public land 

strategy for the Western United States. Without question, the 

President's policy in the Pacific Northwest and Northern California 

is in need of in-depth examination, and in my view, drastic reform. 

The imposition of the Northwest Forest Plan, or Option 9, saw 

the single most radical shift in management policies of our nation's 

forests since the creation of the Forest Service in 1897. In the past 
7 

three years, my district has seen the Forest Service evolve from a 

producer of domestic wood fiber to an ineffective custodian of Federal forest lands bound by executive decisions, conflict, and court 

orders. 

The Six Rivers National Forest, covering over one million acres 

in my Congressional district, illustrates the unintended but serious 

consequences of the President's flawed forest plan. Annual harvest 

levels in the Six Rivers have been slashed from a high of 188 million board feet ten years ago to just three million board feet in 

1994. The Forest Service estimates that annual tree mortality on 

the Six Rivers alone is 100 million board feet. Furthermore, the 

Forest Service estimates that the forest is growing by 250 million 

board feet every year. 

The massive reduction in harvest levels is primarily a result of 

over 91 percent of the land base in the Six Rivers being withdrawn 

from any timber sales or timber harvest program through Congressional or administrative action. The remaining nine percent is 

under administrative directive to be managed to produce old 

growth timber. 

Mr. Chairman, I do not have to explain to this Subcommittee 

that the administration's policies have essentially shut down an 

important component of our regional economy on California's North 

Coast, destroying many living wage jobs in my Congressional district. Unemployment runs in the double digits. There is stable double-digit unemployment, placing an incredible burden on the social 

and economic infrastructure of one of the most rural areas of California. 

In addition, over 30 percent of our land base in the three counties of the California North Coast are publicly owned, resulting in 

a commensurate loss in the local tax base, not totally made up or 

offset by payment in lieu of taxes. 

The change in forest practices imposed by Option 9 in the Pacific 

Northwest, and specifically in California, endangers the health of 

the forest, damages rural communities, places increased pressures 

to harvest timber on private lands, that is to say, to over-harvest 

or accelerate the harvest on private lands, and leads to a reliance 

upon foreign imports to meet our domestic wood fiber needs. 

One of the most surprising results of the Northwest Forest Plan 

has been the rise in timber imports. One company, one independent mill in Humboldt County, California, the largest county in my 

Congressional district, is now importing logs from New Zealand, 

with plans to import additional timber from South America and 

Mexico. It is tragic and ironic that timber companies in my district 

must import timber from developing nations when we live in the 

middle of the most productive forest lands in the world. Timber 

stands continue to be idle while salvage builds up on the forest 

floor, awaiting the next devastating fire. 

The net result is the degradation of timber stands in our nation 

and in nations that have little or no environmental protections. 

Here in the United States, we know how to harvest timber in a 

sustainable manner while providing a healthy log supply to our 

local mills. The nations we are importing logs from simply do not 

have comparable safeguards to protect their natural resources. 
8 

Mr. Herger just a moment ago alluded to the President's timber 

summit or forest conference in Portland three years ago when he 

and the Vice President traveled there to promise relief to our timber dependent and resource dependent communities that have been 

hard hit by the spotted owl injunctions. In the years since, the 

Community Economic Revitalization Teams have distributed moneys to initiatives such as market analyses, economic studies, and 

recreation centers. 

Programs such as Jobs in the Woods, which I often hear touted 

by the environmentalists-! am talking about the militant professional environmentalists-as a substitute for living wage jobs :in 

the timber industry have, in fact, yielded short-term river restoration projects without providing any prospects of long-term employment or economic development. 

In Lake County in my Congressional district, a CERT program 

has been recently approved to establish a Watershed Information 

Network on the Internet for acquisition and exchange of information. In Del Norte County, at the far northern end of my district 

against the Oregon border, CERT money is now being used to construct a welcome center and exhibits to go in that welcome center. 

Mr. Chairman, while these projects are laudable, the North 

Coast is still a resource dependent area and service sector jobs provided by CERT will never take the place of the living wage resource industry jobs which have long been the economic mainstay 

of my district. The prospect of long-term dependence on Federal 

handouts results in a de facto form of welfare which only serves to 

demean our formerly self-sufficient counties. 

The Federal Government has driven a stake through the proud 

heart of our timber country. Communities in Northern California 

are anemic and in urgent need of available timber to rectify the 

havoc wrought by this administration. Make no bones about :~t. 

This administration, while every once in a while making sort of a 

good faith gesture in the direction of the timber industry, remains 

beholden, particularly in an election year, to the increasingly militant professional environmental element in this country, like the 

Sierra Club, which recently came out in favor of a complete ban on 

all commercial logging on Federal forest lands. 

We must mend the damage of this failed national environmental 

policy that has destroyed entire communities and actually worsened the health of our national forest. If we truly desire healthy 

and viable forests, we must put forth a balanced approach to forest 

management that seeks to preserve our national resources while 

not destroying our communities, and I am convinced we can do 

that. We can protect our natural resources. We can conserve and 

husband them wisely without destroying jobs and entire resource 

dependent communities. 

Again, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your attention to this issue 

which is of utmost importance to my district and our nation. 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you very much. 

Of our Members who were witnesses, Mr. Dicks asked to be excused. We appreciate you being here. 

We will now turn to the first panel. We will give you each five 

minutes. Sue Kupillas, we will start with you. If you would all pull 
9 

the microphone relatively close to you and speak up, we would really appreciate it. 

STATEMENT OF SUE KUPILLAS, JACKSON COUNTY 

COMMISSIONER, OREGON 

Ms. KUPILLAS. Thank you, Chairman Hansen and members of 

the Subcommittee. I am Sue Kupillas, second term Commissioner 

serving in Jackson County. 

The Federal Government exerts an overwhelming influence on 

our citizens and our communities. The BLM manages 449,000 acres 

in Jackson County alone and about half of our county budget historically has been revenues from timber harvest on Federal lands. 

These receipts have funded an array of services. The U.S. Forest 

Service contributed to roads and schools. O&C general fund revenues supported the criminal justice system, administrative services, and small contributions that sustained human service nonprofits, as well as things like OSU extension service and 4-H programs, the Water Masters Office, et cetera. The county has 

downsized, combined departments, eliminated functions, and 

privatized, anticipating the shortfall with changing forest management practices. We wrote the book on reinventing government. 

While Jackson County is putting two tax levies on the September 

17 ballot, the amount asked for will not make up for the decline 

in O&C funds. If the O&C revenue would disappear tomorrow, 

Jackson County would no longer be able to support a county criminal justice system. Of the $11.4 million of current safety net from 

O&C, $10.3 million is dedicated to criminal justice. The people of 

Jackson County voted in support of a criminal justice levy to meet 

increased demands. As these safety net dollars from O&C are 

ratcheted down, we must ratchet down the criminal justice system. 

This is in a county that has one of the highest crime statistics in 

Oregon and one of the fastest-growing crime problems in the region. 

Also, in the addendum attached, you will see a list of cuts in 

services that will happen if the proposed library and general services do not pass September 17. One model is a family service center, a model program for the State of Oregon and the nation. It 

brings together Federal, State, and county services, as well as the 

local school district. The mission is development of an integrated 

system to better serve the families, to bring self-empowering services to people willing to share the responsibility for themselves and 

each other. It is one of the most successful projects in the State. 

Many of these families are dislocated timber workers. As a result 

of the budget cuts and decline in O&C revenues, Jackson County 

will no longer be participating in this Rogue Family Center program. 

Every one of the services listed will have cumulative damaging 

effects on the social structure and economics of Jackson County. 

When timber revenues decline, social systems decline, family wage 

jobs decline, crime rises, and criminal justice systems are reduced. 

It just does not work. 

Another impact of the dollars allocated to address problems created by the President's forest plan on Jackson County and other 

counties is the Jobs in the Woods program. A memorandum from 
10 

the Job Council, which I have included, shows the program has s;x 

people entering employment with a cost of $6,308 per person in 

1995 and 14-actually, it is 13 now-in the 1996 program at $6,85·7 

per participant. We should continue this program as one small 

component of training for the Job Council programs that give preference for dislocated timber workers. I do not support characterizing this program as having a major impact on displaced timber 

workers. We have hundreds of them in Jackson County and it on:ly 

serves 13 in this program. 

To that end, I emphatically support maintaining a timber sale 

program from Federal lands. I also support transfer of the O&C 

lands to the State of Oregon, where we are leaders in combining 

good forestry, good science, and a strong social and economic system. 

The President's forest plan and the record of decision require creating a condition that has never historically existed in the forest. 

One example under the standards and guidelines for the plan, 

there is a requirement for coarse woody debris of 120 linear feet 

16 inches in diameter that has to exist on every single acre for the 

matrix lands. One sale observed by the implementation monitoring 

team in the Butte Falls district, which was marked and sold but 

not logged, the natural condition was that the stand had never 

been entered, the 90-year-old product of a stand replacement fire 

in its natural condition. 

The ground did not meet the requirement for coarse woody debris 

required by the record of decision and it must be met now by artil1-

cially cutting trees and leaving them to meet this artificial standard. The stand should be managed and thinned to release the 

stand and promote late successional characteristics, which would, 

in time, provide for coarse woody debris on its own. The conditions 

in the forest are not uniformly the same, thus, defy this prescriptive approach. We cannot assume and create a scenario whe:re 

every acre of the forest has the same prescription. 

The AMAs are bound by the same administrative minutiae prescriptions and the one that, of course, we have in our area is the 

Applegate partnership. They also have to deal with concerns of e.lk 

thermal cover, big game winter range, visuals, archeological sites, 

ephemeral streams, wildlife connectivity corridors, and sensitive 

plants that are neither threatened nor endangered. The Squaw-E:Iliot timber sale is in the Applegate, where the stand has been identified as a high fire hazard and risk. 

Under guidelines in both the Rogue long-range management plan 

and the Northwest Forest Plan, there are all the concerns mentioned above. Even in the AMA, we cannot accomplish a common 

sense goal of reducing fire hazard because of regulation and cost 

escalation. It is recommended that we helicopter logs. 

Another example of the application of the record of decision for 

the President's forest plan is the snowdownlblowdown timber in 

Jackson and Douglas Counties, and I want to give credit to the 

Rogue River National Forest, which has jumped on this with rapid 

attention. The Jackson County Natural Resources Committee and 

Headwaters, the environmental group, have been meeting with the 

team to look at this. 
11 

There were several winter storm events that contributed to 

downing significant amounts of timber in the Butte Falls and Prospect and Umpqua ranger districts. Logging contractors have 

cleared campgrounds and roads and are working on the matrix 

lands. They have found double the amount of wood estimated, so 

the amount of downed wood is probably two to three times the estimated 20 million board feet. The team is concentrating on what 

can be done in the LSRs, and I have maps to show you, if I could 

step away from the microphone for a minute. 

Mr. HANSEN. Go ahead. We will recognize you for a minute 

longer. 

Ms. KUPILLAS. This is the Prospect area. The areas of snowdown/ 

blowdown, they are hard to see but they are little red blips on this. 

There are about probably 40 to 60 million board feet of timber 

down. You do not have to take a chain saw to it. These are the late 

successional reserve areas in brown that cover these. The matrix 

lands are being cleared. 

But by the time you put a scenic, which is in the green, a scenic 

waterway through the middle and then take out all the riparian 

areas, then you will see that we have a significant problem in removing any of this timber. 

The problem is that we have so many overlays. The etimologists 

have told us that we will lose three green standing trees for every 

downed tree that is there, and we have reports that show it could 

be far more significant than that. The fire specialists tell us that 

there already was an overburden of wood on the floor of the forest. 

That could be a fire hazard, and now this has escalated to an extreme hazard. We need to remove the wood immediately. 

The problem that we are having is, I have talked to everybody 

from all different levels to find out what we can do. The final decision, some people say that we cannot remove any wood from LSRs. 

Some say that it will be up to the forest supervisors to do it. Some 

say that the regional ecosystem office has the final say about it, or 

at least it is a screen that it has to go through. Anyway, it is very 

confusing, who has the final say, but we are working on this. The 

Medford BLM district also has downed timber and they will do 

whatever we decide on this team to do. 

I guess, in summary--oh, there was also some suggestion that 

the ecosystem office in the White House might also be involved in 

this decision. 

I suggest that this plan should be clarified and simplified, less 

prescriptive, letting the local supervisors have flexibility necessary 

to manage and make it clear that wood production is part of the 

management. As a local elected official, I have devoted two terms 

to helping empower and strengthen local communities. There is a 

great deal of mistrust in a top-down prescriptive system heavy with 

regulation and laced with punishment. The system of local 

empowerment I am describing is built on trust and confidence and 

people making right decisions in local communities with their local 

forest. Surely this is the system we want for the United States. 

Thank you. 

[The statement of Ms. Kupillas may be found at end of hearing.] 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you. 
12 

Joan Smith, we will recognize you for five minutes. I would appreciate it if you folks will strive to stay within your time. 

STATEMENT OF JOAN SMITH, SUPERVISOR-ELECT, SISKIYOl 

COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 

Ms. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am Joan Smith and I 

am a newly-elected county supervisor, Supervisor-Elect for Siskiyou 

County, California. I am here today to report to you how Option 

9, the President's forest plan, has affected my county. 

The Federal Government controls 64.5 percent of the land in 

Siskiyou County. In April of 1993, when President Clinton held h.s 

Forest Conference in Portland, he promised relief to our depressEd 

forest communities. Those of us who attended that conference were 

given hope by the President at that time. He promised relief for our 

long-suffering communities. The relief he promised us has never 

come. 

Our communities are still suffering, and some of them, such as 

Happy Camp, California, have all but died. The only large business 

in that town was a sawmill. Two years ago, the sawmill closed its 

doors and laid off all their employees, eliminating $14 million in 

annual payments to loggers, truckers, machine shops, and local 

businesses. The town died, businesses closed, and Happy Camp is 

virtually a ghost town. 

I do not want to see this repeated throughout our region, esp·~­

cially when it is completely unnecessary. No one wants healthy, 

sustainable forests more than the rural people who live within 

them. I am saddened that Option 9 appears to be a public relations 

facade. 

The majority of the people hurt by reductions in logging are selfemployed loggers or those who work for small family-owned buE.inesses, not greedy multinational corporations. For example, my 

friends, Lonny West and his partner, Clyde Ashenhurst, :[n 

Siskiyou County own a small logging company. Before the President's plan, they employed 25 employees and had an annual payroll of $453,000 annually. They gave their employees good health 

insurance and profit sharing. 

Over 80 percent of Lonny's work is Federal timber sales, making 

him vulnerable to swings in Federal timber policy. Lonny is currently not working and his partner, Clyde Ashenhurst, has applied 

for unemployment for the first time in 26 years, since he began in 

the logging industry. None of Lonny's employees or former employees have gone through the retraining program set up in the Prenident's forest plan. 

Siskiyou County has lost 65 percent of its loggers over the past 

six years. We have lost half of our high-paying manufacturing jo.Js 

due to mill closures resulting from reductions in timber sales due 

to Option 9. 

Reducing timber jobs has not resulted in a more diversified and 

healthy economy. Losses in high-paying timber jobs have been replaced by increases in lower-paying service sector jobs. Suddenly, 

displaced middle-aged workers are competing with their own children for the same jobs flipping hamburgers and waiting tables for 

minimum wage. 
13 

The President's response to losing these manufacturing jobs has 

been the Northwest Economic Adjustment Initiative. Originally intended to help displaced timber workers find jobs, the money has 

been spent on community development, feasibility studies, and infrastructure, instead. The majority of the money allotted Siskiyou 

County has been spent on city water and sewer extensions and a 

new hospital. 

One of Option 9's programs to help displaced workers is known 

as Jobs in the Woods. This program created in Siskiyou 2,775 person days of employment in fiscal year 1994, which sounds impressive. However, 2,775 days is only one year's employment for 11 people. 

This type of government assistance program has been tried before. Because dislocated workers move away, training programs 

must be implemented quickly or program officials will lose contact 

with the dislocated workers. This is happening again. According to 

a GAO report, Dislocated Workers: A Look Back at the Redwood 

Employment Training Program, "Efforts to provide retraining cannot sustain workers or the communities in which they live without 

the creation of new jobs." 

According to a Region 5 Forest Service Community Coordinator, 

"If we took $800,000 and put it into wages, the money would be 

spent and the jobs would be over, whereas if we take the money 

and invest it to make communities a better place to live, it is a better long-range investment. That is really hard for some people to 

swallow who are currently displaced." In other words, the people 

most affected by the change in forest policy will be the least likely 

to receive help. This kind of arrogance in the face of such hardship 

and misery is unconscionable. 

As a member of the Klamath Province Advisory Committee, I 

have been attending meetings throughout Northern California and 

Southern Oregon for the past 14 months. As you can see by the attached flow chart, trying to get our recommendations to the administration through the three or four levels of bureaucracy created by 

the President's forest plan is nearly impossible. 

Of the 28 people on this PAC, two-thirds are agency representatives, and there are also four tribal representatives. The head of 

the PAC is also the head of the RIEC. Therefore, she makes recommendations to herself or her committee, most of whom already 

sit on the PAC. The efforts of this redundancy were quantified by 

a Forest Service employee who stated, "If I did not have to spend 

so much time on this committee, I would be able to complete the 

environmental reviews necessary to offer an additional 20 million 

board feet of timber each year." Clearly, the President's forest plan 

is more concerned with process than results. 

The Klamath National Forest grows 438 million board feet of 

timber each and every year. So far this fiscal year, the Klamath 

has sold 30 million board feet, nearly all of it due to the salvage 

rider. Secretary Glickman, under the direction of the President, recently rescinded authority and placed restrictions on the implementation of the salvage rider. This will result in a loss of timber offered by 50 percent for the remainder of this fiscal year on the 

Klamath. With current imports from Canada accounting for onethird of U.S. consumption-that is one in three boards-this ad-
14 

ministration favors Canadian workers at the expense of American 

jobs. 

I would like to conclude today by quoting from a letter written 

to President Clinton by my good friend, Nadine Bailey, several 

months ago. Nadine has spent the last four years of her life fighting for her community of Hayfork. Nadine and her family have 

been forced to move out of the town that she grew up in, the house 

that her parents built and that she has lived in all her life, to find 

work outside the Pacific Northwest. 

Nadine wrote, "I read a press release where you said that tl:.e 

salvage rider is undermining the healing process that Option 9 has 

produced. Do you actually believe this? Do you even remember tl:.e 

workers whose wounds were not healed, whose pain and loss was 

simply swept aside? Grants from Option 9 do not make their way 

to unemployed loggers. Nothing I have done over the last four 

years seems to have made a difference. Families are starting to 

leave the area. For the first time in my life, I have no hope. All 

I wanted was to keep our families together. When that hope died, 

I guess a part of me did, too." 

On behalf of Nadine and the rest of my friends who have lost 

their jobs, homes, businesses, and way of life to the President's 

plan, please make the tough decisions to give reason to hope for 

ourselves and our children. Thank you. 

[The attachments to statement of Ms. Smith may be found at end 

of hearing.] 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you. 

Dr. Bob Lee? 

STATEMENT OF ROBERT G. LEE, PROFESSOR OF FOREST 

RESOURCES, UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON 

Mr. LEE. Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee, my 

name is Bob Lee and I currently serve as Professor of Forest Resources at the University of Washington. My comments today rt~­

flect my professional opinion and do not reflect the College of Forest Resources, University of Washington, nor any other persons or 

institutions. 

My testimony will summarize answers to six questions contained 

in a 1995 socio-economic study of 72 Washington, Oregon, and California counties in the spotted owl region. Because there have been 

no systematic social or economic evaluations of Option 9, these 

data, although dated, will provide essential background information for looking at the accomplishments and potential contributions 

of Option 9. 

The first question: how have wood products employment and 

earnings been affected by the decline in the sale and harvesting of 

Federal wood between 1988 and 1992 (the most recent data for 

which we could get all the information)? Losses in wood products 

employment and earnings have been greatest in the 15 rural counties most reliant on Federal wood. Federal wood reliant counties 

exhibited the lowest rates of growth in total employment and employment earnings during this period. Job losses have continued to 

accumulate since data 'vere collected. 

Question two: have counties reliant on Federal wood supplies 

faced a greater challenge in revitalizing their local economies? In-
15 

dustrial wage jobs averaging about $30,000 were replaced by service sector jobs at one-half to one-third the earnings (see Table 2 in 

the written testimony). The employment multipliers of these industries providing service jobs were less than half of those in the wood 

products industry. Six of eight highly or moderately challenged 

counties relied most heavily on Federal wood supplies. Challenges 

are faced increasingly by scores of communities within counties and 

were not revealed by this study because only county-level data 

were available. 

Question three: has reduction in wood supply required by the 

President's forest plan affected the ability of counties to meet these 

challenges? The President's forest plan, exclusive of court injunctions, would reduce Federal sales in the owl region by about 600 

million board feet, translating into an additional 5,600 jobs. Six already highly challenged counties, including four counties heavily 

dependent on Federal timber, were projected to lose between two 

and 20 percent of their total employment. 

Question four: could recreation and tourism growth help counties 

meet these challenges? Tourism growth occurred in only one of 15 

counties facing the challenge of economic revitalization. Ten of the 

15 challenged counties exhibited tourism employment decline of ten 

percent or more. Tourism is a poor substitute for family wage industrial jobs lost to the decline of the wood producing indu:;tries. 

Work in tourism establishments is generally seasonal, unstable, 

low paying, lacking in benefits, low skilled, does little to train -people for advancement in careers, and is generally limited to secondary employment for spouses or primary employment for individuals, especially single women, living in poverty. 

Question five: would secondary manufacturing help counties 

meet these challenges? Secondary manufacturing is generally lowest in counties facing the greatest challenge of economic revitalization. Table 4 in my written testimony shows the limited potential 

for secondary manufacturing employment to substitute for the loss 

of logging and sawmilling jobs. 

Question six: would allocation of future Federal timber harvest 

to small businesses help counties meet these challenges? Small 

mills have been disproportionately impacted by the sudden reduction of Federal timber sales, and those counties most reliant on 

Federal wood supplies are now most challenged to replace family 

wage jobs provided by these small mills (exhibited in Table 5). Results from another study show that the wood products industry is 

a relatively stable source of employment when compared with other 

manufacturing industries, that employment stability is greatest in 

small places of work (Figures 1 and 2), and that smaller establishments are more stable than larger establishments. 

In summary, counties most reliant on Federal wood supplies are 

generally the most challenged by the need for economic revitalization. Tourism is unlikely to be of much help for these counties facing economic challenges. Secondary manufacturing may help some 

of these challenged counties but will mainly be concentrated near 

urban areas where transportation modes and markets are accessible. And finally, small wood products businesses engaged in primary manufacturing provide the best opportunities for challenged 
16 

counties to develop a stable and sustainable economic base. Thank 

you very much. 

[The statement of Mr. Lee may be found at end of hearing.] 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Doctor. 

Mr. Bob Olson? 

STATEMENT OF BOB OLSON, PRESIDENT, LOCAL 78, ASSOCIA.-

TION OF WESTERN PULP AND PAPER WORKERS, PORTLAND, 

OREGON 

Mr. OLSON. Good morning. My name is Bob Olson. I am a machine operator at the James River Corporation in Portland, Oregon. 

I am also President of Local 78 of the Association of Western Pulp 

and Paper Workers, AFL-CIO, and am an active member of the 

Pulp and Paper Resource Council. 

It is on behalf of the more than 200,000 members of the A WPPW 

and the PPRC that I appear before you today, and it is on behalf 

of these men and women that I tell you today that Option 9, the 

Clinton administration's forest management plan for the Pacillc 

Northwest and Northern California, is an unmitigated failure for 

the working men and women of the forest products industry, our 

communities, and our families. 

I have worked in the pulp and paper industry for more than ~~8 

years. When I first started as an employee of Crown Zellerbach 

Corporation, I thought I had a pretty secure future. I thought I had 

a job that would allow me to provide for my family and help my 

kids have the things that I could not have when I was their age. 

Sure, we had our scrapes with management, some of them pretty 

bad, but together, we learned how to take care of our forests so 

that we would be able to harvest trees for generations to come and 

protect wildlife at the same time. 

Then everything went horribly wrong. All around us, mills are 

closing, good men and women are losing their jobs, and communities are dying, and why? Simply because some men, or some people-excuse me-do not like or understand what we do. They do 

not believe in balance. They do not see that we understand the importance of protecting wildlife and our environment, and they do 

not see that we know we can balance these concerns with the economic needs of working people and communities. 

When President Clinton announced Option 9, most of us thought, 

well, it does not provide much volume of timber only roughly 20 

percent of what we harvested a few years before, but at least it is 

something. The truth is, the volume promised has not come 

through and it is good working men and women who have suffered 

for it. 

Since 1989, we have lost more than 23,000 jobs in our industry 

as more than 280 mills have closed due to a lack of the timber supply throughout the Pacific Northwest, Northern California, Montana, and Idaho. Now that number, 23,000, may just be a figure 

to you, but to me, it represents people I know, friends of mine who 

thought they had a secure future one day, only to wake up the next 

and find themselves on the unemployment line. 

I am lucky. Our plant is not directly impacted by the timber harvest reductions that have resulted from Option 9, but I can see the 

storm on the horizon. Our brothers and sisters at the James River 
17 

Corporation mill over in Camus, Washington, who supply us with 

paper, have been hearing rumors that their operation will soon 

shut down. As paper mills close up and down the coast, we will 

have to purchase our paper supply from further and further away. 

At some point, it will not be cost effective and our management will 

have to make some tough decisions. 

Already, our plant is going through a serious downsizing in 

which we will reduce our workforce by about 40 percent. Some may 

say it is just part of the corporate trend, but most of us know that 

the workforce reduction is due in no small part to a tight timber 

supply and a fear of the future. 

I do not know if people back here understand what it means 

when a mill shuts down. In Washington, D.C., you may not notice 

it if a few hundred people lose their jobs. It may not have much 

of an impact on the economy. But in many of the small towns 

where timber workers live and try to earn a living, a loss of even 

100 jobs can be devastating. In most cases, the entire economic and 

social fabric of the community revolves around the mill, and when 

it dies, there are few employment opportunities left. At least, there 

are not many that come at a decent wage. I have seen the ghost 

towns that are created when the mill goes down. I have seen families torn apart. I have seen good men and women turn to alcohol 

abuse. I have seen them reach the depths of depression. 

I ask the men and women here today to think about that when 

they tell you that the administration has done a great job in preparing timber sales and moving some volume through Option 9. 

And I ask the men and women here today representing the environmental lobby what they would say to a young girl who is watching her family struggle to put food on the table because daddy has 

lost his job and cannot find a decent job. It is a true shame. 

We have heard the administration praise their worker retraining 

and economic support program, but the truth is, the package falls 

well short of what is actually needed. First, most of the jobs provided under the package fall under the category of ecological investment. While these jobs are important-they include forest and 

watershed restoration-most of them are seasonal and do not pay 

sufficient wages to take care of a family. 

Second, when millions of dollars have been spent to help timber 

workers move into other jobs and trades, reports, like a story that 

appeared a couple of years ago in the Bellingham, Washington, 

Herald indicate that Federal, State, and local agencies do not know 

just how much money actually makes it into the hands of those 

workers seeking assistance. What is certain is that the total sum 

of money allocated for these programs does not reach the men and 

women who have lost their jobs to the timber supply crisis. Instead, 

the funding gets lost in a bureaucracy of more than 160 agencies 

and organizations overseeing the implementation and funding of 

the programs. 

The other problem is that most of the retraining and economic 

adjustment programs do not work. Tens of thousands of dollars are 

spent on programs, such as self-confidence seminars and economic 

impact studies, that do not produce a job once completed. There are 

a lot of people who entered the retraining program only to find 

they could not find a job when they completed the training, and I 
18 

know some who started the program but had to quit when their 

unemployment benefits ran out. 

I have heard a lot of stories like the one about a guy named 

Larry Lynch from Southern Oregon. He was retraining to be a 

nurse, but when his benefits ran out, he ended up working on a 

road crew. He and his family had to abandon the place they called 

home and move to Alaska to find work, but the government says 

that Larry was successfully trained. In our facility, some of the 

downsized workers have started the retraining programs but they 

do not know if they will be able to get jobs when they finish the 

program. 

Some of our members are finding out that no matter how they 

are being retrained, they cannot find anyone who will hire them 

because they are in their 40's and 50's. These are people who l::cre 

hard working and could be productive. They cannot afford to reti:re, 

but they cannot find work, either. 

The bottom line is, Option 9 is not working and union workt!rs 

are hurting. We need a balanced solution that protects our jobs and 

communities as well as our environment. We know that we s,re 

going to lose a few jobs along the way, so we need a retraining and 

economic support package that includes the participation of workers in the design and implementation of the programs. And we 

need retraining and support programs that are specifically tailored 

and available to timber workers prior to being offered to other 

workers in need of assistance. We do not want handouts. We do not 

want more empty promises. We simply want to be able to pursue 

the American dream. Thank you. 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Mr. Olson. 

I will now turn to members of the committee and I would appJ~eciate it if the members would stay within their allotted time in 

questioning the panel. Mr. Cooley? I will take you in order of your appe~rance and back and forth. Mr. Wes Cooley, do you have a quest~on for the panel? 

Mr. COOLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I am glad to see that Dr. Lee is here. I have read your book and 

it is very good and I appreciate your corning to this meeting. 

I would like to ask you a question that I think is kind of interesting. I know your history and background in studying the economic 

conditions that are created by the downsizing process. Could you 

give me maybe one or two or three important unintentional consequences of the President's forest plan? 

Mr. LEE. When I say they are unintended, they would be unintended by the planners. 

Mr. COOLEY. I am sorry. What? 

Mr. LEE. The unintended consequences really are unintended by 

the planners, perhaps. There may have been people who are not 

engaged in Option 9 who saw these things coming but were not included in the process, and hence, that information was not available to those who formed the plan. 

But I would say one of the major ones is on stewardship of lands; 

stewardship of lands in this country and other countries. There J::.as 

been a major decline in the treatment of forest lands abroad as we 

have displaced supply to other regions: Southern Chile, the Rus-
19 

sian Far East, and other places in the world as the world markets 

have begun to deliver wood that we were not producing here. 

There was a tremendous impact on small non-industrial owners, 

who due to the regulatory insecurities and the increase in price, 

adopted a fire sale mentality where they went out and cut lands; 

there has been very, very poor stewardship on a lot of that land. 

Those are all unintended consequences. 

Also unintended would be a lot of the social consequences. We 

have heard a little bit about it today, the unemployment growth in 

small communities, poverty, substance abuse, family disintegration, 

loss of resources for local government to deal with these issues, and 

basically the creation of a lot of welfare-dependent communities 

throughout the Pacific Northwest. This is a very expensive way to 

implement a plan because it creates problems that draw, then, 

more on State and Federal resources. 

I think maybe a third one that is equally important is the kind 

of political alienation that takes place in these communities, where 

people do not look at their government with trust anymore. Ail a 

sociologist, one of the key indicators of the health of any society has 

to do with small events. It may not seem like a big deal that a few 

people are put out of work in a few scattered communities in the 

Northwest, but these small events cumulate into movements, into 

social movements. It is very important we understand that we are 

all one national family and we look together as one national family 

and it is not possible to simply exclude people from the process and 

not have consequences. I think that is one of the major unintended 

consequences. 

Mr. CooLEY. Thank you very much, Dr. Lee. 

Do you really believe that the planners or the government, the 

people who are responsible for implementing these programs, really 

do not understand this? Do you not think these people have more 

farsightedness to understand the implications of when they shut 

down the ability for sustained yield or for growth in the industry? 

You see, I cannot understand how they could not know what was 

going to happen when all of a sudden they just adopted a policy 

of no cut. 

Mr. LEE. It is a matter of record that in the Option 9 plan, only 

certain kinds of information were considered to be acceptable. So 

the kinds of consequences that we are beginning to see now were 

simply not on the table during the planning process. They were excluded. So it was not an open process with free flow of information. 

That is why I say it is unintended. Maybe it was intended to keep 

the information out, but certainly, they never thought through a lot 

of the consequences. 

Mr. COOLEY. Ms. Kupillas, you are a Commissioner in one of my 

counties and I know how active you have been and how supportive 

you have been in trying to do something with the administration 

about production of wood for the people you represent in your district, and I think you should be commended on that. 

Ms. KVPILLAS. Thank you. 

Mr. COOLEY. What I find really strange about the President's 

Northwest plan is it is a sort of radical departure from previous 

policies of other administrations for the last 100 years of cutting 

back the requirements that we had and sort of the guarantees we 
20 

had at the time when the O&C lands were first developed, of looking at sustainable yields. 

We find it hard here, and I know you must, too, but have you 

found any reason why the administration has found any statutmy 

authority into what we have witnessed through the period of the 

last three or four years, when you question the administration on 

the statutory authority of all of a sudden developing these programs? 

Ms. KUPILLAS. They have successfully done it, and so I think 

they changed the regulation process. I guess the biggest concerns 

that I have--! am not going to second-guess the administration, 

but the biggest concern that I have is throughout Option 9 and the 

record of decision, there is discussion about economic and social 

stability of communities and how this is going to address it, and 

I guess my big concern is that all of the analysis and interpretation 

and the emphasis is spent on ecosystem management but very little time and effort on the social and economic constraints that are 

placed on our communities. 

Dr. Lee has really underlined this and I think that that is the 

important issue to remember, that that is the message that we are 

bringing here, is that we need to divert our attention a little bit 

and spend as much time on the social and economic effects as we 

have on the ecosystem effects. I guess that would be my concern, 

that in this abrupt change that has happened, that we have not 

adequately addressed this, and I think even though the court system, the courts have not addressed the issue of what happens. 

The O&C Act mandates that we address community stability and 

the sustained yield, and we know what that is. I think the courts 

have not paid attention to that and I do not believe that the rulf~s 

and the standards and guidelines that we are using right now pay 

attention to social and economic stability. So I guess that would he 

my concern. 

Mr. HANSEN. The time of the gentleman has expired. 

Mr. COOLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. HANSEN. The gentleman from Oregon, Mr. DeFazio. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am not a member of 

the committee, but I appreciate the Chairman yielding some time 

to me. 

I just wanted to follow up on some of the issues raised by Ms. 

Kupillas. I was reading ahead in the testimony and I see Mr. 

Lyons, I do not think he is here yet, but he raised something, Sue, 

and I am curious. The trouble you are having, and I am having the 

same problem, ascertaining whether or not salvage can go forward 

in these areas of extreme blowdown/snowdown and have directed 

a letter to the regional forester and forest supervisors regarding 

that. 

He says in here, with respect to timber management activity, 

thinning and salvage activities are allowed in the reserves. What 

are you hearing from people on the ground? If his statement, and 

I hope to be here later when he testifies, is so definitive, I am curious as to what the confusion is. 

Ms. KUPILLAS. That is why I raised the issue, because in talking 

with the forest supervisor and the Medford BLM manager, they are 

thinking that it would be very restricted in the late successional re-
21 

serve areas. The REO director was sitting with the committee, the 

team, as we call it, when we started addressing the issues here in 

the LSR with the blowdown and he seemed to think that we would 

be able to salvage timber out of it. 

But there are very mixed reviews. I included a letter from the 

Medford District Manager, Dave <Tones, and he had 80,000 board 

feet that had been removed and we know that there are several 

million board feet down, and said that it would be difficult to get 

them out of the LSRs. 

Another person I talked to---

Mr. DEFAZIO. That was the BLM person? 

Ms. KUPILLAS. That is the BLM, the Medford BLM. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Do you think it is a difference in interpretation between the BLM and the Forest Service? 

Ms. KUPILLAS. Yes. Everybody seems to scratch their heads and 

think that it is going to be extremely difficult to take much timber 

out of the LSRs. The md.ps that I showed you are the reason why. 

Yet, when I read the record of decision, I can see that there is plenty of opportunity to do it, but the interpretation is such that I do 

not believe that we will actually get it done. 

The team that is working on it, I know for a fact that there is 

agreement that they do not want to take everything out, that some 

of it has to be left, but there should be a substantial amount of timber removed. We do not have to use chain saws. We can just get 

it out of there. I will wait and see. It is real confusing. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Is the conflict over the fact that these are not 

roaded areas? Is that a problem, or--

Ms. KUPILLAS. That is not a problem. They are roaded. They immediately took the stuff out of the campgrounds and off the roads, 

but they think they cannot go in and just get it out of LSR. It is 

beyond me, because they have the scientific evidence that it would 

improve the LSRs to do it. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. In fact, I know that a lot of the LSRs are anticipated to be managed. You cannot take what is essentially, in many 

cases, a tree plantation and unnatural densities and put a line 

around it and have it grown into a natural functioning old growth 

forest ecosystem without any sort of management activities when 

man has interfered. 

I thought you raised two points I would like to explore a little 

bit more. You said that apparently there are already-! had heard 

there was a threat of infestation because of the unusual amount of 

downed woody debris because of these extraordinarily unusual 

events. You are saying they already have detected insect infestation and--

Ms. KUPILLAS. There is insect infestation already. The Douglas 

fir bark beetle is already at work. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. I know you are not a forest etimologist, but does 

that just prey on the downed woody debris or will it go after the 

standing live timber? 

Ms. KUPILLAS. Three live trees for every downed tree is the minimum that will happen. I have seen another report from 1955, an 

etimologist's report on a bug infestation. I cannot quote you all the 

statistics-! forgot to bring it-but it showed a far more significant 

problem with the bugs than that. I mean, that is just a minimum. 
22 

It could substantially take the whole stand. I am not an 

etimologist. I am not a forester. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Right. 

Ms. KUPILLAS. But I read this thing and I was shocked at the 

potential here because of an historic event that happened previously where it did this. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. I would hope that representatives of the administration are here and that Mr. Lyons, and again, I hope to be back 

to direct questions in this area. I think you have raised some interesting questions. There seems to be confusion at least between the 

agencies, maybe even among the agencies on this, and I think it 

warrants some clarification and expedited action. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. KUPILLAS. I have word from Jack Ward Thomas's office that 

it is up to the local supervisor to make the decision, but we do have 

to refer to the REO, so it does not really work that way. 

Mr. HANSEN. The gentlelady from Idaho, Mrs. Chenoweth. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Dr. Lee, I wanted to ask you, do you know if there are any formal studies tracking what happens to dislocated wood produc:ts 

workers or studies that evaluated how these workers benefited 

from rural development programs associated with the implementation of the President's forest plan? 

Mr. LEE. I have looked around the region and I know of no systematic scientific studies that would be respected by social scientists as evaluation research. I do not know of any efforts that 

have been made to either track dislocated workers to see what happened to them or of any systematic studies that evaluated imple- mentation of Option 9. 

Given that a considerable amount of Federal money has been 

spent on mitigation programs, it is really not clear whether that 

money reached the target of helping people dislocated recover and 

find new work or solve their family problems or any of the other 

issues that have come up. 

I think one of the real tragedies of this is that we have spent 

hundreds of millions of dollars studying owls but we know nothing 

systematically about what has happened to people. We have only 

anecdotal reports. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Dr. Lee, I appreciate your response, and I 

hope that we can remedy that, because I also understand th.at 

loggers are probably one of the most difficult to retrain. Their pHyche, for instance, is in their work, and it is unique work. I came 

from a logging community and I had experienced that among people that I knew. It is very difficult to retrain them, so I really appreciate your response. 

I want to thank Joan Smith for being here. Congratulations on 

your election. I hope you can influence the advisory committee that 

you are on and influence for the good. How do you feel about that, 

Joan? 

Ms. SMITH. Are you talking about the Klamath Province Advisory 

Committee? 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Yes. 

Ms. SMITH. It is very challenging. As I mentioned in my teEtimony, there are 28, and I believe they are increasing it to 29, mem-
23 

hers. They are adding another tribal representative. Of that, twothirds are government agencies. At the first meeting, we decided 

that we were going to make decisions by consensus. However, if we 

had an inability to reach consensus, it would then go to 

supermajority, which is a two-thirds majority, and the agencies 

have a two-thirds majority. That has never been done, but that is 

a possibility. 

The meetings are two days in length, usually. We travel all 

around the region. I have yet to have left one of those meetings 

without a splitting headache. It is difficult. It is hard. 

The good thing about the PAC is that it puts people together in 

a room to sit down to talk that normally would not, even agency 

people. The interesting thing in the beginning of these meetings in 

May of 1995 was that many of these agency people that were sitting down and talking did not normally cross the boundaries of 

their agencies, so that part was interesting. But as far as any results coming out of it, there has been very little. Out of four recommendations, I believe one has been followed through. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. We are all looking forward to your influence 

on that committee and see what you can pioneer out of it. 

Ms. SMITH. Thank you. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Joan. 

Mr. Olson, I want to thank you very much for being here. 

Mr. OLSON. Thank you. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. I really deeply care for these loggers, very 

deeply care for them. I have lived in logging communities. I love 

those families. These are the guys that get up in the morning, get 

dressed, have breakfast, get their lunch pail, kiss their wife and 

children goodbye, and get to work on time and do their job and participate in their communities and pay their taxes and they are a 

special part of our heritage and culture. They are the forgotten 

families. They are the forgotten men. While we set aside vast acreages for other species, we are forgetting about this species, the 

American logger, and Americans are still looking forward to living 

in wood houses and enjoying the benefits and the byproducts of 

wood products. 

Mr. OLSON. You could join the force. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Yes. I agree with you and the loggers that you 

represent because our forests are being destroyed because we are 

not able to groom them and take care of them as we should. 

Vice President Gore said in 1993, a healthy forest economy demands healthy forests. He understood that then, and the President's plan ensures both, is what he said. I really look forward to 

the administration living up to their word to the people in the 

Northwest and not just the loggers but all of our small communities. 

I want to ask you, Mr. Olson, what is your experience with retraining workers as far as their ability to really ever be satisfied 

with their jobs again? 

Mr. OLSON. My plant that I work at, the plant that I am President of the local, over this last year, we have been hit by the 

downsizing, is what the corporations call it, and most of the people 

that have lost their job at my facility are going through the training now. They have either found other jobs or right now they are 
24 

going through schooling. So they have not gotten to that point yet, 

to what is going to happen when they get out of school. Are they 

going to be able to find a job, a job that pays as well as the one 

that they just lost? They have not gotten to that point yet, so it 

is still kind of going through the process. 

I have heard horror stories from other facilities, especially down 

in Southern Oregon with a lot of the sawmills and that, where 

these people, they basically-they go to school and when they get 

out of school, there is no work to find. The next thing you know, 

they have to go do something else. That is the horror stories. 

The people that I am associated with have not gotten to that 

point yet. Hopefully, they will not. Hopefully, they will be all saccessful. What helps, I live in Portland, and so they have more of 

a metropolitan area to choose, whereas down like in Southern Oregon and Eastern Washington and places where there are not any 

big cities, and that is where there is more opportunity. So my people do have an advantage at my facility, and also Vancouver, 

Washington, right across the river. 

Mr. HANSEN. The time of the lady has expired. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Kildee? 

Mr. KILDEE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank the witnesses. 

I can relate to the problems you have out there and really have 

empathy for them. I come from a district that has similar problems 

with a different industry. Therefore, I really want to work with you 

to see what we could do to find a remedy. I come from Flint, Michigan, and Genesee County is the county in which Flint is located. 

You may have heard of Flint with the movie "Roger and Me". It 

is where I come from. We have gone through a terrible dislocation, 

too, and that is why I want to work with you. As a matter of fact, 

your brothers and sisters in the Carpenters Union have stayed in 

regular contact with me on this issue and they certainly are very 

supportive of your efforts. 

I can recall my city of Flint, when I was growing up, had almost 

200,000 people in it and now it is down to about 140,000. General 

Motors about 20 years ago employed 80,000 people and now we are 

down to about 40,000 people. These were the good jobs. It has 

caused great dislocation, great misery, and worse than that, great 

fear of the future. 

Up to this point, in Flint and in your area out there, too, each 

generation had hoped and expected that their children would have 

it even better than they did, and now, for the first time, people are 

beginning to wonder whether their children will have it as good as 

they did, and that is a problem that government has to be sensitive 

to. 

I do not know all the answers, but I think that we certainly have 

to extend to you our willingness to work with you to find some solutions for this human misery. My mother died two years ago at 

age 94 and she could see what was happening there in Flint, that 

again, things were changing. I, from government, opposed certain 

things. I opposed even my own President on the North Ameriean 

Free Trade Agreement because I could see jobs going down to Mexico on that. Sometimes your government does make mistakes and 
25 

sometimes the government has to be listening to the people out 

there. 

I do not know what the answer really is. There are changes in 

the auto industry that I cannot control and the government cannot 

control. There are changes in the timber industry which the government cannot always control. But there are some things we can 

do. 

Mter my mother died, she had left a house in which she had 

raised five of us children and the house at one time was worth at 

least $30,000, not a mansion, but I finally sold it for $10,000 and 

was happy to get that. I tried to give it to the Catholic Church and 

they would not even take it. It was too much of a burden for them 

to take. So that community has really been affected, and I know 

your community has been affected. 

I really want to work with you and try to find out more what 

government's role can and should be in this as I try to find out 

what government's role can and should be in the auto industry. I 

did think that NAFTA, which has moved some of the 40,000 jobs 

in Flint that have been lost down to Mexico, some of them, it actually had people almost like Judas goats packing up the very machinery in Flint, sending it down to Mexico so that they could 

produce the same parts down there. 

So we have to look at what government does and ask some questions, and I want to work with you. I do not know the answers, but 

you can help us find the answers and I appreciate your testimony 

here today. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you. 

Mrs. Linda Smith? 

Mrs. SMITH OF WASHINGTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I just have a brief question for Bob Olson. First of all, thank you 

for coming. This is not exactly a dropoff to get here from anywhere. 

I think the message about what is happening in the Pacific Northwest needs to be said over and over and over. We are not just 

nameless numbers that get added to the economy. You said you are 

in the Portland market. I am in the same area. I am a neighbor. 

I just come out of Morton and Yakalt and Amboy, and those people 

do not come down and go into the metropolitan market. There is 

a big problem with retraining or lifestyle. They chose that. They do 

not want to go work on a computer. 

I think the point that you made between the two mills is important. That 2,000 jobs you mentioned that could go down are in my 

backyard. Back when Crown Z went out and James River took it, 

I managed a lot of the, I call it the rent for families that were on 

strike for two years, worked with a lot of the community families 

to pay their bills, working on benevolence groups, and remember 

the pain and how much that one mill affected the whole job market 

in the whole region. I look at that happening again. 

I think that what you have now, tliough, is people understanding 

it, after going through that. A lot of those same folks are there. We 

lost some. 

But you made a statement that I think was real important, that 

we that have grown up in the woods or are mill families, and that 

is a lot of my background, too, we are not anti-environmentalists. 
26 

In fact, we were and are, because that is where we make our living 

and we live there. That point that you made, I think, was really 

important. 

But I wondered, when the Sierra Club came out about, what, ':.wo 

months ago, I do not know if you saw that, the "cut no tree" policy, 

"We do not want another tree cut in the Northwest," that was the 

Sierra's vote, did you come out publicly against that? Did you all 

make a statement, because your 2,000 voices there are what will 

make policy change. Do you remember if you made a statement on 

that? 

Mr. OLSON. I think the Pulp and Paper Resource Council made 

a statement here on the Hill, I think, after that. 

Mrs. SMITH OF WASHINGTON. You think that they did publidy? 

Mr. OLSON. Yes. 

Mrs. SMITH OF WASHINGTON. I will take a look for that, because 

I am kind of getting beaten up by them as being anti-environmentalists because I went against that statement. 

The other thing that I would like you to just speak about briefly, 

and you are the only one I am going to ask a question of, so you 

do have some time, is the interrelationship between these mills. I 

do not think a lot of people realize that when they take down one 

mill, let us say the James River plant goes down at Camus, you 

are going to have one heck of a time getting supply at your mill. 

Mr. OLSON. Yes. 

Mrs. SMITH OF WASHINGTON. Can you talk about the interrelationship, that if we cannot get supply, what happens and how 

you use the product, because I think when it translates clear back 

here, they look and they go, oh, Morton loses a mill, or Aberdeen 

loses a mill, or Vancouver or somewhere, and they go, oh, just 200 

jobs or 1,000 jobs. They do not have a clue that it has a spin-out 

effect to other plants because you supply to each other. Can you 

talk about that briefly? 

Mr. OLSON. Basically, it is a ripple effect, like if one facility loses 

a product, loses an amount of jobs, loses customers, loses paper 

supply, whatever, then whoever they do business for, the next 

plant, then it rips into them. So if Camus all of a sudden one day 

could not produce half of the paper that they produce now to go to 

our facility, then at my plant in North Portland, we would basically 

have to find paper from some other facility and it would cost more 

money. The paper would have to come from farther away. Tl:.ere 

would be more shipping charges. 

Mrs. SMITH OF WASHINGTON. You do refine paper off of ro,~gh 

product out of Camus? 

Mr. OLSON. Yes. 

Mrs. SMITH OF WASHINGTON. They make the paper and then you 

make it into something useful? 

Mr. OLSON. Yes. We process it, put the polyethylene on it and 

stuff. So basically, it is a ripple. Then we would lose jobs because 

what would eventually happen is that our suppliers getting our 

product, the raw product, would be so expensive that our competitors would have an edge then. They would get things at a chea.per 

cost and then we would lose that market, and that is what happened basically in my facility. We lost out on the film market and 

some of the paper market, so James River decided on a business 
27 

decision to just cut that business entirely and it just ripped into my 

facility and so on. 

Mrs. SMITH OF WASHINGTON. Thank you. I think that is the point 

that I think people need to understand, is that the supply is affecting many, many different parts of the economy and that the cluster 

of different plants in an area or mills is necessary to keep the cost 

down, and you did that very well. Thank you. 

Mr. OLSON. Right. 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you. 

Mr. Herger? 

Mr. OLSON. One thing. I just got a note here. The Carpenters 

Union issued a press release on the Sierra Club vote. 

Mrs SMITH OF WASHINGTON. The Carpenters Union did, also. 

Thank you. 

Mr. HERGER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members_ I appreciate the chance to sit on the panel today, and I appreciate the testimonies that we have heard from our panel, the testimonies of 

each of you who are representing communities that have been devastated and where we see tragedies taking place. 

I am also touched and can relate to Mr. Kildee here, who was 

talking about his community in Flint, Michigan, and the loss of 

jobs over the years in the automobile industry. But I think what 

is particularly tragic about what I see happening in my district of 

Northern California and throughout the Pacific Northwest is that 

this need not be taking place. 

We know that may need to be changed whether in the automobile industry or in whatever the reason was for the tragedies and the loss of jobs in Mr. Kildee's district, but we see in our districts that there is still a need for paper products, including the 

paper products with your testimonies, the tables, the wood products of the tables that you are sitting at, and the seats. The wood 

products that are needed to build the homes for our children and 

grandchildren are still needed. The demand is still there. 

We couple this with the tragedy that, according to Forest Service 

records, our forests in California are 82 percent denser and are 

thicker than they were in 1928. Our forests are not only not being depleted, they are almost twice as dense as they were at the begin- ning of the century. Yet, we see a policy here in Washington that 

does not allow us to produce wood products that would be affordable for our nation. Instead, we see the people and the lives of real 

families, real people, real children that are thrown out of work 

needlessly because of a policy that is tragically flawed. 

Joan is a constituent of mine, and I congratulate you, too, on 

your election, as a supervisor. 

Ms. SMITH. Thank you. 

Mr. HERGER. Joan, during a press conference in 1993 announcing the President's forest plan, President Clinton said that his plan 

would, "meet the need for year around, high wage, high skilled jobs 

and a sustained, predictable level of economic activities in the forests". In your opinion, how well has the President's plan lived up 

to these promises so far as the communities you represent? 

Ms. SMITH. Thank you, Congressman Herger. I did bring some 

figures with me from the Employment Development Department, 
28 

the labor market information, just to let you know how the unemployment percentages have been since the President's forest plan. 

In 1991, our unemployment in Siskiyou County ranged from 8.7 

percent to a high that year of 18.5 percent, and then the President's plan went into effect the next year. In 1992, it was 12.6 percent to 18.4. Then, since the President's forest plan has gone into 

effect, our unemployment levels have actually increased. In 19~)3, 

it went from 12.4 to 20.9 percent. In 1994, it was 11 percent to 

18.6. In 1995, 11 to 18.7. And most recently, so far in 1996, it has 

been 19.6 percent, 20 percent, with a low this year of 12. So it has 

actually increased, it has not decreased. So no, it has not helped 

our communities at all. 

Mr. HERGER. And Joan, the President also promised during this 

same press conference that his plan would help "build a better future for the families of the Northwest for their children and grandchildren". You are familiar with Siskiyou County's school system. 

In your opinion, how has the President's forest plan impacted the 

children in Siskiyou County, the county you represent? 

Ms. SMITH. I have a report with me from the Siskiyou County 

Superintendent of Schools, and probably representative of that 

would be the number of children that are below the poverty level, 

in other words, children receiving free and reduced meals. In 1988-

89, those children in Siskiyou County were at 36 percent, 36.1 percent. It has increased since the President's forest plan to 45.76 percent. In fact, in 1992-93, when it went into effect, it was actually 

at 40.58 percent county-wide, but in the little community of Happy 

Camp, where they lost the only mill, the only large business, it is 

actually at. 80 percent. 

Mr. HERGER. Thank you. Again, when the President came up 

with his plan, we were in pretty bad shape, and the President's 

plan supposedly, as I recall it, was to help our communities, to help 

improve the employment rates, and help improve the economies of 

our communities as well as the environment of the forest. 

I believe the case can be made very strongly-we have just heard 

it here with your statistics-that not only has it not improved, it 

has become fairly dramatically worse. I believe we could go over 

the same kind of statistics for our forest specifying that the for•est 

health has also become quite dramatically worse during that per:lod 

of time. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. COOLEY. [Presiding.] Thank you, Mr. Herger. 

Mrs. Chenoweth, do you have any additional questions you would 

like to ask? We will give you another chance. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. No, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. COOLEY. I want to thank the panel very much for coming 

today. I appreciate you. I know all of you came from a long, long 

way. We all travel that route. It is nine hours going this way and 

12 hours going back. I know some of you will stick around and we 

will see you later this week, but thank you very much for coming. 

I appreciate that very much. 

At this time, we would like to call up panel two, Mr. Tom Mayr 

from Mayr Brothers Company, Mr. Bendix from Hi-Ridge Lumber 

Company, and Ms. Bonnie Phillips, Executive Director of the 
29 

Pilchuck Audubon Society. Also, accompanying Mr. Mayr is James 

Geisinger from the Northwest Forestry Association. 

Did we lose Ms. Phillips at this time? We will begin without Ms. 

Phillips. Mr. Mayr? 

STATEMENT OF THOMAS M. MAYR, PRESIDENT, MAYR BROTHERS COMPANY; ACCOMPANIED BY JAMES GEISINGER, 

NORTHWEST FORESTRY ASSOCIATION 

Mr. MAYR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am honored and feel 

privileged to speak before a committee of the Congress of the United States of America, but at the same time, I am embarrassed to 

be here and to publicly have to tell you my business problems. That 

is not the way my family has conducted business. But the direct 

and proximate cause of the layoff of our 170 employees within the 

last few months is caused by direct action or inaction of the Federal Government. Our employees had 1,870 man years of seniority. 

That is over 11 years average per man of employment with our 

company. 

I should emphasize now-there have been a lot of people talk 

about timber supply and so on today-I would like to emphasize 

that our mills are not closed because of lack of logs. There are logs 

available to process in our mills, and that is what I am here to tell 

you about today. 

With me today is Mr. Jim Geisinger with the Northwest Forestry 

Association. He has written testimony, which he has submitted, 

and I would like my written testimony and his to be entered as 

part of the record and he is available to answer questions. 

I would like to start with who Mayr Brothers is. In 1933, two 

teenagers, Werner Mayr, my uncle, and Marzell Mayr, my father, 

borrowed a horse from a neighbor, borrowed some oats from their 

dad and started logging. From there, the company grew, had good 

times and bad, but has existed for 63 years. 

In the 1980's, due to high interest rates, we went through a 

bankruptcy reorganization. We exited from that in the late 1980's 

and concentrated efforts on our Hoquiam sawmill, which was 95 

percent dependent upon timber from the Olympic National Forest. 

We manufactured high-grade lumber for the Japanese market, 

what you would call a niche market, specialty items. 

With the onset of logging restrictions due to the spotted owl, we 

knew that we had to adapt, as the company had done over its history. We did a feasibility study. From that, we determined that we 

should build a small log facility to compliment our facilities in 

Hoquiam, to have some synergy with our other facilities, and process second and third growth wood that would increasingly become 

available in our area. 

As you could probably realize, financing a new sawmill in the Pacific Northwest in the early 1990's was not an easy venture. When 

we obtained financing, the center pin of that was a $5 million loan 

from a local bank, guaranteed by the Farmers Home Administration Business and Industry Guaranteed Loan program. That is now 

administered by the Rural Business and Cooperative Development 

Service under the Department of Agriculture. 

Within the business plan for that loan, we had purchased several 

Section 318 timber sales in 1990. Our business plan called for har26-951 - 96 - 2 
30 

vesting those sales in 1991, 1992, and 1993, while we built and got 

the bugs out of the new mill. 

That is not the way it worked out. When the mill was half built, 

the administration, the Forest Service, stopped all operations on 

those timber sales. The cash-flow from those sales was to fund continued operations. We would sell the wood into our existing markets. It would provide a bridge from our old reliance upon our old 

growth customers to the new second growth economy. 

When that was taken away, the company has always been resilient and we found other sources of supply. We completed the mill. 

Since the mill was completed, we have paid the mill loan down 

from $5 million to $4 million. But in order to do that, in order to 

complete the mill, we used up all of our operating line of credit because the cash-flow from the 318 sales was not available. 

In desperation, earlier this year, I talked to Tom Tuchmann, who 

I understand is going to be here later today. I made a proposal to 

him that Mayr Brothers would return our 14 million feet of Section 

318 timber sales, our Forest Service sales, to the government, forego any additional claims if the Federal Government would pay off 

the $4 million remaining on the loan. There was a great deal of interest in that proposal but he said, contrary to what our attorney 

said, he said the administration did not have the authority to do 

that. 

Well, where are we now? Our bank that has our operating line 

of credit lost faith that we would ever be allowed to harvest those 

timber sales, so the~ pulled our loan early this year. We were 

forced to liquidate all logs and lumber inventory to pay off that 

loan, lay off our 170 people. 

The other bank, the local bank that has our mill loan, is concerned about the loan, about maintaining their eligibility for the 

guarantee, so I have a broad side here. They have called in auction 

companies and this is a proposed auction, September 17 and 1.8, 

auction proposal, of our entire facility, not only the new mill, the 

mill we already owned free and clear at the time we took the lo1m 

out, even the pickup that I drove to the airport to come here and 

testify. 

My father is 81 years old and he still comes to work every day. 

If this auction occurs, it will kill him, if not actual physical death, 

emotionally. To think that your 63 years' work is auctioned off at 

a scrap iron auction because your government will not honor its 

commitments, that is not the country I grew up in. It is certainly 

not the country that my grandfather, Marzellinius Mayr, came to 

at the turn of the century by shoveling coal in the boiler room of 

a freighter. 

To conclude, it is not a raw material problem, the reason our 

mills are closed. It is a financial problem caused by the Fore,st 

Service not honoring their contracts. If the Forest Service would 

pay the damages, the monetary damages we are due for their actions, we could start our mills back up using State, private, and Indian logs. Thank you for the opportunity to address you today. I would a.sk 

that my oral and written comments be made a part of the record. 

Thank you. [The statement of Mr. Mayr may be found at end of hearing.] 
31 

Mr. CooLEY. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Bendix? 

STATEMENT OF GERALD BENDIX, HI-RIDGE LUMBER 

COMPANY 

Mr. BENDIX. My name is Gerry Bendix and I am President of HiRidge Lumber Company. I am here to testify about the Clinton administration's forest plan for the Pacific Northwest and how the 

promises made in it are not matching reality. 

Hi-Ridge Lumber Company is something like Mayr Brothers. It 

is a 40-year-old sawmilling enterprise. We employ 130 people at 

the mill and an equal number of loggers and truckers work in the 

woods to supply our mill with the logs we need to operate. In 1996, 

we will process 45 million board feet of timber and generate approximately $35 million in sales. 

About 90 percent of the raw materials we need to operate our 

mill have been historically supplied from national forests in Northern California. Our main source of logs has been the Klamath National Forest, a forest which annually sold between 200 and 250 

million board feet of saw timber but now only sells between 20 to 

30 million board feet. This is part of the legacy of the Clinton forest 

plan. 

Even before the President's forest plan was finalized, this administration had dropped 12 percent off its promised volume. The final 

plan calls for a timber sale program of 1.053 billion board feet, but 

what is being actually sold is very different. In 1994, 187 million 

board feet were sold. In 1995, the program jumped to 336 million 

board feet. Through June 30 of this year, they have sold only 393 

million board feet. At this rate, it will take a decade to attain the 

level promised in the forest plan. 

When the President announced his forest plan, he directed "his 

cabinet to identify and implement, in a priority manner, the best 

ways to strengthen small business and secondary manufacturing in 

the wood products industry, including a review of increasing supplies of Federal timber set aside for small business and possible 

preferences for bidders who contract for domestic secondary processing." 

Well, not one single change has been made to help either small 

businesses like ours or secondary manufacturers. In fact, the Small 

Business Administration seems to be going out of its way to ensure 

the small business timber sale set-aside program withers on the 

vine. Over the last three years, the SBA has cut its staffing for this 

program and resisted Congressional efforts to force the SBA to fill 

the vacant positions. 

While we have seen no help for small business, we cannot help 

but notice how far this administration has gone to aid the largest 

integrated forest products companies, particularly those companies 

with large land holdings. Some companies have cut deals with the 

administration to exempt many acres from Northern spotted owl 

set-asides by signing 100-year-long habitat conservation plans. The 

irony of this becomes apparent when you think about the President's promise to help small business and then think about how 

large business has benefited by a tremendous run-up in the value 
32 

of their timberland holdings as a result of the imposition of Option 

9. 

Recent decisions by the Clinton administration have been no better. On the Klamath National Forest, we have a long history of forest fires. The new layers of bureaucracy seem to have been designed to slow down the salvage of dead and dying timber. We have 

a large fire area called the Dillon Creek area on the Klamath, 

which has been mentioned before, and it is in dire need of salvage. 

The various agencies worked for nearly two years to get the Dillon 

sale ready. 

Up until last week, we thought we would finally see some 20 million board feet offered for sale, but then the administration struck 

yet once again when Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman announced his new salvage policy. Now we do not know if we will 

ever see the timber sold. 

I have spoken about the problems as I see them, and in closing, 

I would like to urge you to take some steps to help out the situation. They include, firstly, to extend the current salvage law or replace it with a new piece of legislation from Senator Craig of Idaho. 

Number two, curb the urge to micromanage your resource professionals who are out in the field. Let them take care of the forest, 

and that definitely includes harvesting trees while they still have 

value. 

And lastly, this whole forest plan has been awfully tough on 

small businesses like mine. It is more than time to follow through 

on the promises that were made to address those problems and the 

two best ways of accomplishing that are to sell more timber and 

sell it before it rots and loses its value and to increase the small 

business timber sale share to help compensate for the disproportionate amount of pain that has been visited on firms like mine as 

a result of President Clinton's forest plan. 

Thank you for this opportunity to testify. I will be happy to ar.-

swer any questions when the opportunity comes. 

[The statement of Mr. Bendix may be found at end of hearing.] 

Mr. COOLEY. Thank you, Mr. Bendix. I was hopeful that the forest salvage program would accomplish what you have mentioned, 

but we have had some problems. 

Ms. Phillips? 

STATEMENT OF BONNIE PHILLIPS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

PILCHUCK AUDUBON SOCIETY 

Ms. PHILLIPS. Thank you. My name is Bonnie Phillips and I arn 

Executive Director of the Pilchuck Audubon Society in Snohomish 

County and that is in Washington State. I started working for my 

Audubon Chapter six months ago after about 15 years of volunteer 

work. 

For the past decade, protecting ancient forests has been a very 

high conservation priority for our 1,500 members. We are a strong 

community organization and we believe in cooperative relations as 

the cornerstone of our programs. We are proud of the many programs on forest issues that we do jointly with the U.S. Forest Sen·-

ice. 

However, sometimes, litigation has been necessary when we find 

Federal agencies in violation of environmental laws, violations 
33 

which have repeatedly happened over the last decade. My Audubon 

Chapter has been a plaintiff in all of the major litigation since 1987 

surrounding the Westside forests of the Pacific Northwest, and in 

most instances, the courts have agreed with us. 

Litigation, however, is not entered into easily by community organizations such as ours. We not only understand the kinds of polarization that have been occurring during the past decade over 

natural resource issues, but we have lived through the effects of 

this polarization in our personal lives. I have been the target of 

angry outbursts publicly and privately. I have received many, 

many telephone death threats, and newspaper articles have called 

me in my own community an eco-Nazi. 

But I live in a rural community where many people have been 

affected and I have become close personal friends with people on 

all sides of the issue. In short, my personal and professional lives 

have been totally absorbed by the timber wars in the Northwest. 

In 1994, when the Clinton plan was proposed, we reluctantly 

joined in litigation to challenge its adequacy. We lost, the timber 

industry lost, and Judge Dwyer upheld the plan. However, he also 

stated that it was barely adequate and that there were a number 

of factors that could cause him to revisit his decision. 

The group of plaintiffs, including my Audubon Chapter, represented by the Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund, chose not to challenge the Dwyer ruling in the Ninth Circuit. Instead, we and a 

great majority of conservation organizations decided it was in the 

best interest of all to make the plan work. I was selected to serve 

on the Western Washington Provincial Advisory Committee set up 

under the plan and I entered wholeheartedly into the success of its 

implementation. Although no one was totally happy with the plan, 

most of us felt that the decade of our timber wars had finally come 

to an end. 

Unfortunately, in the year since the logging rider began, we have 

seen the momentum of the plan grind to a halt. I worked with the 

Forest Service for a long time, and if I were to find a way to get 

the maximum volume out of that plan over the next five years, the 

worst thing that could have happened and the way I would have 

stopped it in its tracks was to do the logging rider. So last year's 

rider, with its three components, has had a devastating effect on 

the plan ecologically, psychologically, and socially. 

The Section 318 old growth sales have had the most dramatic effect on the land and have led to renewed protests in and polariza- tions of communities worst beyond the worst tensions in the late 

1980's. Many court challenges over aspects of Section 318 have ensued. 

While we waited for the court ruling on marbled murrelet old 

growth sales at risk on my local forest, the Mount BakerSnoqualmie, middle class mainstream citizens, such as myself, 

search our consciences to see whether we would be willing to be arrested for our beliefs should the court rule that the murrelet could 

go extinct. We heard from so many people, bankers, businessmen, 

workmen, lawyers, architects, teachers, folks in the labor community, doctors, seniors and youth, that we began holding civil disobedience training and discussing our plans with Federal, State, county, and city law enforcement officers. This was a very difficult deci-
34 

sion for us to make, but the loss of our democratic rights and the 

egregious violations to the land caused us to plan this unprecedented action. 

Fortunately, we were relieved that the Ninth Circuit ruled in 

favor of the murrelet. This ruling, however, does not solve all the 

problems because the rider still requires like and kind substitute 

volume. The timber industry is currently in court claiming that 

this volume does not need to follow the Clinton plan nor environmental laws. Many other old growth sales have already fallen 

throughout Washington State and Oregon, including sales for 

which murrelet surveys have never been done. 

The current Option 9 sales, as they are called, are also shielded 

from citizen input and citizen administrative appeals. This has 

made it far easier for the Forest Service to do shoddy work and violate the standards and guidelines of the plan. In Washington State, 

the worst violations are coming from the Gifford Pinchot National 

Forest. This forest plans to expand their sale program by 33 percent over what is stated in the Clinton plan. Although the logging 

rider supposedly provides judicial review for Option 9 sales, in the 

one case taken to court on the Umpqua National Forest, Judge 

Hogan ruled that Option 9 sales offered since the logging rider's 

enactment cannot be reviewed by the courts. 

The salvage component has also seriously affected the viability of 

the plan. For example, an old growth salvage sale on the Mount 

Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest, my forest, is planned in a 1,300 

area in a large late successional reserve. In order to log the defohated hemlock trees, which are mostly adjacent to Canyon Creek, 

which contains some very important salmon runs, many, many 

large, healthy, old growth cedar trees would have to be cut. A fa,-

vorite hiking trail would be obliterated. Because of the rider, no aci.-

ministrative appeal or court challenge would be available to us for 

this sale and we have no negotiating clout at this time. 

Although there has been a lot of discussion for loss of timber 

jobs, I live in a community that has seen many, many tribal-there 

are many tribes in the Puget Sound area and I have seen the loss 

of their jobs through the loss of fisheries resources. I have also seen 

the loss of commercial fishing jobs and the sports fishing industry 

has taken a hard hit, and all this because of our decimated salmon 

runs. 

In summary, the logging rider may have irrevocably undermined 

the Clinton forest plan. I would still like to see it work. It surely 

has devastated the land. It has decimated salmon spawning 

streams and important old growth habitat. It has provided less certainty for communities and I feel that only repeal of the entire 

rider now would show the Congress is committed to making a harci.-

fought region-wide ecosystem management plan work for the longterm stability of Northwest ecosystems and communities. Thank 

you. 

[The statement of Ms. Phillips may be found at end of hearing] 

Mr. COOLEY. Thank you, Ms. Phillips. 

Mr. Mayr, I happened to marry a lady from Hoquiam, Rosemary 

Deweiss, so I am very familiar with your area. I spent a lot of time 

in that area, by the way. Very few people know about it. When yo·.1 

say Hoquiam, they kind of look at you funny. 
35 

What do you think we can do to help you? What do you think 

the administration needs to do to try to help the Mayr Brothers 

and others that are in the same situation, when we made a commitment? What do you feel that we could do to help you? 

Mr. MAYR. Attached to my testimony is a bill that would give the 

administration the authority to do what they say they would like 

to do and offset the mill loan balance against the Forest Service's 

liability on our timber sales. 

One point that I skipped in my testimony is the fact that this 

is not a plan that Mayr Brothers had when we built the mill, to 

use the Section 318 sales. The Farmers Home Administration was 

very interested in our current timber supply at that time. How 

would we operate while we were building the mill? They asked for 

copies-in fact, over here in the Department of Agriculture, well, 

the Forest Service is over there, but in the FmHA is a copy of one 

of our contracts. They asked for the status of all the sales, a report 

of all the volume under contract. It is my conviction that that loan 

was approved at the Washington, D.C., level due to the fact we had 

that timber under contract. 

That is why I say, to help us, we could go back to work immediately if the Forest Service would honor their commitments on 

those sales by just taking care of the damages. 

Mr. COOLEY. I imagine your attorneys have pursued the legal 

remedies, but is there no recourse by the private sector against the 

government when they do not fulfill the contracts that they have 

awarded? 

Mr. MAYR. Yes. There is a remedy and it is called the Court of 

Contract Claims. That is a long process and our mill will be auctioned off and our people will be permanently retrained for other 

work by the time we ever get a contract settlement. My attorney's 

optimistic guess is 18 months, minimum. 

Mr. COOLEY. It is too bad we cannot expedite that process. 

Mr. Geisinger, we did not give you an opportunity to make any 

kind of a statement. I kind of jumped over you, but you were not 

on the panel. Do you have anything you would like to say at this 

time, in my little bit of time that is left? 

STATEMENT OF JAMES C. GEISINGER, PRESIDENT, 

NORTHWEST FORESTRY ASSOCIATION 

Mr. GEISINGER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am here for technical assistance for my colleagues that run mills for a business. I 

have been at this work for 20 years and I have put myself through 

this torture because of people like Gerry Bendix and Tom Mayr. 

They represent the heart and soul of the forest products industry 

in the Pacific Northwest. They represent the very kinds of companies this administration says it wants to save, but they are the 

very companies that are getting the least benefit out of Option 9 

or any of the other administration's forest policies. 

I would like to briefly review history to set the stage for some 

discussion. On July 1, 1993, when the President announced Option 

9, Secretary Bruce Babbitt stood in front of this country and said 

that this plan would produce two billion board feet in its first year 

and one billion feet thereafter. By my math, therefore, that says 

four billion feet should have been sold as we speak. The fact is, less 
36 

than one billion feet of saw timber has been sold in the three years 

since this plan has been announced. 

The devil is always in the details, but the volume figures that 

Gerry Bendix quoted are sawtimber volumes. That is a very important detail. The President's forest plan says that 90 percent of the 

one billion feet a year it is supposed to produce is supposed to l::e 

sawtimber. The fact is, they have been selling 40 to 45 percent nonsawtimber material and taking credit for it as part of Option !). 

These are firewood sales, fence posts, pulp wood, basically anything 

with cellulose in it, they will take credit for as part of their Option 

9 accomplishments. 

So I want to segue from that into talking about Section K of the 

salvage rider and particularly the 318 sales. It has been alleged by 

many that this has completely undermined the validity of Option 

9. Let us look at reality. Section K should have released about 650 

million board feet of timber, a little over one half of one year's timber sale program under Option 9. We are running a three billion 

foot deficit. We should have sold four billion. They sold one billion. 

So how 650 million feet in the face of a three billion foot deficit is 

going to undermine this plan in any way escapes me. 

Secondly, I think it is very important, the 318 sales, which include the sales that Tom Mayr is saddled with, were assumed to 

have been harvested in the record of decision, in the biological 

opinion for the President's forest plan. We have called this to their 

attention and they say, yes, that is what the plan says, but that 

is really not what we meant. These sales were assumed to have 

been gone when the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service gave Option 9 a clean bill of health 

for all threatened species . . So to say that letting these sales go forward is going to undermine in any way Option 9 can only lead you to the conclusion tha.t 

those agencies were wrong. I do not think they were when you consider that 88 percent of our forest lands are off limits to any kind 

of sustainable timber harvesting practices under Option 9. 

The 318 issue is a scapegoat for nonperformance. The reason for 

the nonperformance is the incredible bureaucracy that is being CrElated under Option 9, where there are at least half a dozen committees that have to be involved in approving timber sales, and even 

after that, it is a matter of record that the White House has actually interfered on individual timber sales, questioning forest supervisors' decisions to let timber sales go forward. It is no wonder they 

have only accomplished a quarter of what they said they were 

going to accomplish, when you have that kind of bureaucratic 

gridlock. 

Finally, I would just like to call the committee's attention to Exhibit No. 5 in my prepared statement. It is a chart that shows volume sold as opposed to the U.S. Forest Service's budget. I have not 

shared this with the Appropriations Committee and I would really 

hope that this committee would not share it with the Appropriations Committee, either, because we have to fund the agency. Bu.t 

the fact is, this administration is spending as much money today 

to produce ten percent as much timber as it did just six or seven 

years ago. The money is going to bureaucratic process, not produc:-
37 

ing outputs. This has to change if there is any hope of making Option 9 a success. Thank you. [The statement of Mr. Geisinger may be found at end of hearing.] 

Mr. COOLEY. Thank you, Mr. Geisinger. I want to ask you one 

question, and my time is up, but in your experience as associated 

and involved in this industry for as many years as you have been 

involved, has the executive branch ever been involved in any timber contracts before? 

Mr. GEISINGER. Certainly not to the extent that this one has. 

Frankly, we wish they had been a little more involved than they 

were. But the U.S. Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management are both professional organizations that have very qualified 

people that understand their mandate and their instructions and 

I think they have done their best to carry those out without undue 

interference from the administration. 

I think it is always prudent for the Secretary to conduct oversight of these agencies, but when you have the Chairman of the 

Council of Environmental Quality calling forest supervisors and 

challenging their decisions, there is something wrong with that 

process. 

Mr. COOLEY. What function of the executive branch or the White 

House is involved? What branch is involved in these decisions? 

Mr. GEISINGER. Basically, it is the Agriculture Department and 

the Interior Department for the Forest Service and BLM, respectively, but there is oversight basically coming out of CEQ. 

Mr. COOLEY. Thank you, Mr. Geisinger. That was very informative. 

Mr. Vento? 

Mr. VENTO. I will withhold at this time. 

Mr. COOLEY. Mr. Vento will hold. 

Mr. Herger? 

Mr. HERGER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I would like to begin perhaps with a question to Ms. Phillips. 

Ms. PHILLIPS. Surely. 

Mr. HERGER. I understand you are from the State of Washington. 

Have you ever had an opportunity to come down into California 

and look at the forests or observe wildlife there? 

Ms. PHILLIPS. I am most familiar with Washington State and Oregon. I have been to California. I am not on the ground, as you can 

see, with my wheelchair, not that familiar with a lot. of the California forests. 

Mr. HERGER. I have on occasion, regrettably, all too often, been 

able to look. I represent all or parts of eight national forests in the 

Northeastern part of California. We have had seven out of ten 

years of drought in California. Our State is very different from 

yours. We do not get nearly the amount of rainfall you do. We are 

much more subject to catastrophic wildfires that will, as they have 

all too often, completely consume our forests, as we have seen in 

the Cottonwood fire, just north of Lake Tahoe, where there is absolutely nothing left. So much of this is following these drought years 

that we have had where fires go through and destroy everything. 

My question to you is, how much wildlife can exist in these areas 

where the forests have been completely destroyed because of these 

dead trees that the Forest Service tells us are 82 percent denser, 
38 

thicker than they were in 1928? How much wildlife can exist in 

these trees where your groups have been so very successful in preventing any cutting, even of dead trees, thinning? How well does 

the wildlife exist in these areas where there is nothing left? 

Ms. PHILLIPS. Perhaps I can try to answer that in a slightly different way, because I had been able to observe the results ')f the 

large fires on the Wenatchee National Forest in Eastern Washington. 

Mr. HERGER. Did it consume everything there? 

Ms. PHILLIPS. I was going to try to explain what I knew about 

that. Excuse me, please. 

But first of all, I do want to clarify. Mr. Geisinger is wrong in 

that the record of decision said that the Endangered Species Act 

would be in effect and, therefore, the Section 318 sales that are in 

violation would not have been logged. 

But getting on to your question, sir, my sense, and I cannot possibly--

Mr. HERGER. Very briefly, if there are no trees left, how much 

wildlife can exist in forests that are in my area where there are 

no trees or any wildlife, no vegetation at all left? How much wildlife can exist there? Spotted owls, can they exist where there is 

nothing left, but thousands of bare acres. 

Ms. PHILLIPS. So you are asking me-excuse meMr. HERGER. I am. It is your policy that has been so successful 

in completely stopping any kind of harvest at all, even the removal 

of dead and dying trees to help prevent these massive forest fires 

which burned 540,000 acres of timber in California alone in 1994. 

We may even break that record this year. 

I guess my question has an obvious answer. There is not any wildlife, and I find it unbelievable that organizations like yours 

and individuals like you can come before this committee supporting 

the Sierra Club's stand this year that they do not want to see another tree, dead or living, ever removed again from our forests. I 

think this is tragic and as irresponsible as anything I have ever 

seen. 

Mr. Bendix, if I could--

Ms. PHILLIPS. I am sorry, are you telling me that I cannot answer your question? Are you just--

Mr. HERGER. I am just stating that I believe the answer is obvious. There is-well, let me ask it again. 

Ms. PHILLIPS. You are asking me a question and you are not ltltting me answer? I just want to clarify that. 

Mr. HERGER. OK. Are there owls that can live where there is 

nothing left? 

Ms. PHILLIPS. If that is what you are doing, that is fine, sir. 

Mr. HERGER. Where there is nothing left, can owls or any kind 

of birds or peafowl--

Ms. PHILLIPS. I am not a member of the Sierra Club. The National Audubon Society has not taken that position. There is nothing my organization has--

Mr. HERGER. But you have joined into lawsuits with them, you 

stated. 

Ms. PHILLIPS. To be able to-the Sierra Club has not been involved in the spotted owl lawsuits. To ever be able to do anything 
39 

that would increase fire risk on national forests, I think the Forest 

Service and I think some of the laws Congress has passed, including the salvage rider, have allowed our forest at greater risk, and 

I think you will hear the Forest Service tell you and professional 

forests [sic] tell you that because of fire suppression and because 

of poor management, our forests are at greater risk and our communities are at greater risk and our lives are at greater risk and 

I do not agree that that is the way we should manage forests. 

I think we should have managed them to protect people and 

lives, and I agree that we should be doing salvage logging and 

thinning in areas and concentrate where people and lives are and 

we should put our effort there, not necessarily salvage logging in 

wilderness areas or fighting fires in wilderness areas or salvaging 

in areas very far away from people and lives, and I think the people and lives are the major issue and I, as an individual, am very 

supportive of management practices that do protect people and 

lives. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. HERGER. I find your comment interesting. I hear you, it 

would appear, speaking on both sides of this issue. On one side, 

you stated that you are in favor of some salvage logging. I do not 

know if you are aware, but the whole purpose of the emergency, 

salvage logging which only lasts for a certain period of time, was 

to expedite what is normally a three-year process in which all our 

trees are so far rotten by that time and eaten by insects that they 

are unsalvageable because of lawsuits, which you mentioned you 

joining, preventing us from doing anything. 

That is what I would like to do, Ms. Phillips. We have an annual 

woods tour out in our area and I would like to invite you to come 

out to it. 

Ms. PHILLIPS. Thank you. I would enjoy that. 

Mr. HERGER. We can show you some of the problems that we 

have. The stands that organizations like yours, and particularly 

the Sierra Club and the Wilderness Society and others have taken 

eliminating any kind of habitat whatsoever. These stands have destroyed our communities and allowed for as high as 22 percent unemployment in some of my counties, driving up the cost of home 

and wood products and also destroying the very habitat that you 

claim to be wanting to protect. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. PHILLIPS. Sir, I feel like the Forest Service already has laws 

to be able to use to expedite salvage sales. I know that in Washington State, where I have seen many salvage sales go forth without, 

by the way, any appeal or litigation on the part of my Audubon 

Chapter, it does not take three years. They can do an emergency. 

There is a lot in the National Environmental Protection Act, the 

NEPA, in implementing regulations that allow them to do many 

things in a hurry. So I do not think that the salvage rider was necessary and I do not really think it is helping the American people. 

Thank you. 

Mr. HERGER. That is not happening and you know it is not happening and it is a farce for you even to say it as though it were 

taking place, Ms. Phillips. 

Mr. COOLEY. Thank you, Mr. Herger. 

Mr. Riggs? 
40 

Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to defer. 

Mr. CooLEY. Mrs. Chenoweth? 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Geisinger, I thought your testimony was very, very interesl;-

ing and I wanted to delve into this a little bit more. We heard :t 

testified to that the failure of the Clinton plan was on the salvage 

rider and that is what prompted your response, I am sure. But as 

you said, almost all of the old growth sales authorized under the 

salvage rider were assumed to be harvested under Option 9, and 

as Ms. Phillips testified, that one of the problems was with the Endangered Species Act. 

I have here, for the record, the record of decision for Option H. 

It is the standards and guidelines issued by the administration for 

management of habitat for late successional and old growth forest 

related species within the range of the Northern spotted owl. I 

would like to read that in this administration's decision, it staten, 

"The late successional and old growth habitat in late successional 

reserves that might be harvested, assuming that these areas meet 

ESA requirements, represents about one-third of one percent of the 

total of this habitat in reserves in the preferred alternative." 

Furthermore, it states in the administration's record of decision, 

and I am just continuing on from where you made your very good 

point, Mr. Geisinger. Timber sales awarded prior to the effective 

date of this record of decision are not altered by this record of dec:[-

sion, ESA or anything. At the time they were awarded, these timber sales were consistent with the planning documents then in effect, complied with the Endangered Species Act, and all other laws, 

and the environmental effects of these sales were considered as 

part of the baseline for the biological opinion for the final SEIS. 

Furthermore, it states that under the timber sales sold but 

unawarded, the administration's own record of decision stated, 

with one exception, as described below, and that happened to be 

the Seattle Audubon Society v. Lanz, all planned and sold but 

unawarded timber sales were reviewed and adjusted, as needed, 

following publication of the draft SEIS pursuant to the process de,-

scribed above. The review ensured that these sales would not prE!-

vent the attainment of the environmental objectives of a selected 

alternative. The environmental effects of these timber sales were 

disclosed in site-specific NEPA documents and subsequent review. 

Some of these sales have subsequently been awarded and some 

have not yet been awarded. 

So I think that that ought to clarify very carefully for the record, 

and I would like to enter this document into the record, the point 

that you were trying to make, Mr. Geisinger. You are absolutely 

right, and I thank you for bringing that point up. 

Mr. GEISINGER. If I may, Representative Chenoweth, during most 

of 1994, my time was consumed trying to convince the administra.-

tion that that is what they had written, to try to resolve the 318 

sales through normal administrative channels. Congressman Norm. 

Dicks was very involved and very instrumental in bringing those 

discussions forward. But in the final analysis, they looked at us b. 

the face and said, yes, that is what we wrote, but that is not what 
41 

we meant, but it is a matter of public record now and I think the 

amount of volume involved is minuscule in the big picture. It is 

very small compared to the commitments the administration made 

in Option 9, and to say that it is preventing implementation of Option 9 is just not right. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. I suppose that when President Clinton said in 

1993 with regards to these sales, by preserving the forests and setting predictable and sustainable levels of timber sales, it protects 

jobs not just in the short term but for years to come, I suppose he 

could look at you and say, that is what we said but that is not 

what we meant, because that is not what they are doing, is it, Mr. 

Geisinger? 

Mr. GEISINGER. No, it is not. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. I wanted to ask Mr. Mayr, your story is so 

compelling, your grandfather, and your father and uncle who borrowed a horse and borrowed some oats and as teenage boys started 

a logging business. I have heard that story from several different 

people who started logging companies. I am very, very sorry that 

this has happened to you. You know, out of Aberdeen, Washington, 

was an opinion about what has happened to you and the fact that 

the administration has broken its word. 

They said in this editorial or in this opinion, "Mayr Brothers, 

whose resilience and ingenuity have been beacons of hope for Grays 

Harbor, announced Friday that it will lay off its 170 employees 

over the next two months." You know, the most important thing 

that I feel that as Congressmen we must continue to do is point 

these industry people in a direction where there is hope, but it is 

very difficult when we have an administration who does not even 

bat an eye or blink when they say one thing and do another. 

Mr. Mayr, I just hope, I very much hope that we will be able to 

see that hope and resilience for Grays Harbor restored again. Has 

Senator Gorton's and Senator Hatfield's compromise plan been of 

any benefit to you, either in the past or do you see it as a benefit 

in the future? 

Mr. MAYR. Thank you for your kind words, Congresswoman. I 

hope, too, that we will come through this. As I say, we have had 

our ups and downs over the years. 

Both Senator Gorton and Senator Hatfield had some language to 

give the administration more leeway in settling these timber sales. 

That language was stricken from the earlier bill. I am hoping 

something can be done before the end of September that will allow 

us the damages from these sales, and they have been very helpful. 

Nothing, of course, has been passed yet. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mr. Mayr. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. COOLEY. Thank you, Mrs. Chenoweth. 

Mrs. Smith? 

Mrs. SMITH OF WASHINGTON. I guess I will just carry on from 

there, Tom. I want to make sure I understand. You think the closest we can get on a bill is an appropriation coming up in September. It is still going to be real difficult. It is possible, and we will 

walk you over to Slade's office and work on it, but your attorneys 

say the Forest Service has the authority for this trade and they are 
42 

saying they do not, and that is really what you are going to try to 

get clarified? 

Mr. MAYR. It is more than the Forest Service, but it is all in the 

Department of Agriculture. The loan guarantee, I think they are on 

the fourth floor and the Department of Agriculture is on the seeond. I mean, they are in the same building. For one agency to say, 

we did not know you depended on our timber sales for this loan, 

that is kind of mind-boggling. 

Mrs. SMITH OF WASHINGTON. It is kind of bad to change all their 

minds right now, after, of course. 

Mr. MAYR. I am convinced that our having those timber sales 

under contract and the markets for those logs were the reason the 

loan was approved. 

Mrs. SMITH OF WASHINGTON. You would not have gotten the loan 

if you had not had a supply. 

Mr. MAYR. Exactly. 

Mrs. SMITH OF WASHINGTON. Nobody else is getting loans out 

there unless they have supply, you are right. 

Mr. MAYR. Right. And that provided the bridge for the transition 

that everybody was telling us, both the environmental community, 

the administration was telling, you have to change to second 

growth. That is what we did. We were written up at the time as 

a progressive company for doing the right thing. It is just tha.t 

when you have a plan that complicated, you cannot pull a part of 

it out. 

Mrs. SMITH OF WASHINGTON. It was not done in the dark, by any 

means, for the members of this committee. 

Mr. MAYR. No. 

Mrs. SMITH OF WASHINGTON. It was done very clearly. In fact, I 

feel that you were encouraged into it and then left high and dry. 

It brings up cynicism for our government. No wonder not too many 

folks want to work with the government, if they dump you after 

they have encouraged. 

We need the 170 jobs. It is not all in my district. It is right above 

it and part of it is mine, but I cannot imagine what 170 jobs' loss 

is going to do in that area. 

We will do what we can do to try to get the administration to 

understand, maybe just tell them it is a Democrat county. That 

might help in an election year. 

Mr. MAYR. Yes. 

Mrs. SMITH OF WASHINGTON. But encourage them through that 

process. But I do not think they realize the impact. They say, oh, 

170. We have more than that on one floor in the White HousE!. 

They do not think about that many employees, but it basically wil.l 

devastate that community. 

Mr. MAYR. Yes, it will. 

Mrs. SMITH OF WASHINGTON. Mr. Geisinger, one thing that I 

have been interested in since I have been here is the misconception-so I am premising this with my bias, somewhat-but wibl. 

the Option 9 numbers, a lot of people got the impression, if yo·J 

would listen to the press back here, we were going to shave the 

hills. That would leave no old growth and we would literally have 

nothing left but bald hills in the Northwest. 
43 

Can you give me an idea of even the four billion, not the billion, 

but the four billion we thought we would get, what percentage that 

would be of the total available harvestable timber to give these 

folks an idea, just to show them what percentage it is? Can you 

give me a ballpark figure? 

Mr. GEISINGER. There are hundreds of billions of board feet of 

standing timber on Federal lands in the Northwest. I can provide 

that information for the committee. I san safely say it is probably 

at least 450 or 500 billion board feet. 

Mrs. SMITH OF WASHINGTON. But it is not 100 billion, so the four 

billion is not even four percent? 

Mr. GEISINGER. No. It is a minuscule percentage of what is available on the entire land base. But again, the problem with Option 

9 is we are left with about 12 percent of the Federal lands to manage in any kind of predictable fashion, and finding areas to put up 

timber sales is not the least of the agency's problems, and then 

once they do, they go through this incredible process to get final 

approval. That is why the performance has been as poor as it has 

been. 

Mrs. SMITH OF WASHINGTON. I want to have you address one 

more thing. I listened to Ms. Phillips as she nobly tried to answer, 

and I realized something again that kind of amazes me. What I 

heard was the Forest Service referred to twice, once as if they had 

no options in letting these sales and they would have to go into the 

most sensitive wilderness areas, and the other was the Forest Service has a lot of latitude. 

Clarify for me why it is bad to let this administration's Forest 

Service under their direction select the sales environmentally. Why 

would they choose bad sales? Why should she be afraid when there 

is that much land mass? Why would she think this administration 

would go after the most sensitive, and have they shown to do that? 

Mr. GEISINGER. I think Ms. Phillips can speak for herself on that. 

I think the people closest to the ground are the ones most capable 

of making those decisions, and they have to be given some 

empowerment to comply with the standards and guidelines that 

have been imposed upon them. I think oversight in the Department 

is perfectly legitimate, and I think that is why the authors of the 

salvage amendment gave sole discretion to the Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior to approve or disapprove of any timber sale. 

The interference, frankly, is coming from above those levels, and 

if we are ever going to be successful in implementing this plan or 

some other plan, the agencies are going to have to be reempowered 

to make a lot of those decisions on their own and to be allowed to 

move forward with them. 

The Forest Service and BLM are the only two agencies that I am 

aware of that gives the public access to challenging their decisions 

the way they do. I mean, I think of the Defense Department. If you 

could challenge some specifications on the construction of an F-18 

fighter plane with a 32-cent stamp and a letter, I would hate to 

think of what would happen to our nation's defense. But there are 

layers upon layers of opportunities for people to challenge what is 

happening in our natural resource managing agencies and I think 

the public certainly ought to have access to asking questions and 

challenging decisions, but not to the extent that they can bring ev-
44 

erything to an absolute standstill, which is what has happened b 

our region. 

Mrs. SMITH OF WASHINGTON. Thank you, Mr. Geisinger. 

Ms. PHILLIPS. Thank you, Mr. Geisinger. I appreciate your sayin,5 

I can speak for myself, and I will be extremely brief. 

Having not testified before, I forgot to say that I have submitted 

things for the record, including three different packets which contain what we consider really very bad sales in Washington Stat.:::, 

in Oregon, and in California under this plan and under the salvag.~ 

rider. I think if you have a chance to look through that at som~ 

point in time, you will see why we are concerned about the Forest 

Service and violations. I am sorry I forgot to say that before, but 

thank you for this opportunity. 

Mrs. SMITH OF WASHINGTON. Thank you, Ms. Phillips. You just 

think the administration is doing one crummy job of managing 

this, and I guess I do, too. We certainly agree there. Thank you. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. [Presiding.] Thank you, Mrs. Smith. 

Mr. Riggs? 

Mr. RIGGS. Thank you, Madam Chair. I do not know if I want 

to say anything after that last comment, but it was very apropo; 

and, I believe, on the mark. 

Ms. Phillips, is it my understanding that you and the National 

Audubon Society advocate a total repeal of the timber salvag·~ 

rider? 

Ms. PHILLIPS. That is correct, sir. 

Mr. RIGGS. Let me understand this, because Mr. Herger, I think., 

was linking your organization with the Sierra Club, which I think 

you--

Ms. PHILLIPS. That is correct, and I am not a member of the Sierra Club. 

Mr. RIGGS. Yet, if I understand correctly, you do not favor even 

the harvesting of a dead, dying, or diseased tree, and if that is th•:! 

case, what form of commercial logging do you support on Federal 

forest lands and how do you differ, then--

Ms. PHILLIPS. Excuse me. I did not say--

Mr. RIGGS. Excuse me. Let me just finish the question. How do 

you differ from the Sierra Club? 

Ms. PHILLIPS. Since I am not a member of the Sierra Club and 

since I really cannot explain their policies to you because I am not 

a member, let me just explain National Audubon Society's view on 

this as best I can. 

We are not-National Audubon Society is not against salvag•:l 

sales, and I think what we feel is that there are already laws in 

place, environmental laws that had been instituted and passed by 

Congress and signed by past Presidents that both protected our 

natural resources and allowed citizen input into the public proces~; .. Within those laws and the implementing regulations on the part of 

the National Forest Service, they have been doing a salvage program all along. A salvage program is not new for the Forest Service. 

My Audubon Chapter, in particular, has never done an administrative appeal or litigation on a salvage sale. So I think if you take 

a look at our record and check with the Mount Baker-Snoqualmi·~ 

National Forest, you will see that is our record. Our concern is that 
45 

taking away the ability for citizens to interact with land managers 

when it is public land, this is what we object to. 

We do not object to any particular-! mean, I will tell you personally, I do not agree with any more logging of old growth national forests, but if we are talking here about salvage, I think my 

record speaks for what I have not challenged, what I have the ability to challenge, but I truly believe in democracy and I believe in 

the people's forest and I believe in a citizen-a citizen, no matter 

who that citizen is, their right to participate in the democratic 

process, which is why I would like to see the entire salvage rider 

and all of its components repealed. 

Yes. I base that on information that was put in the court record 

by the administration and by wildlife biohgists, particularly Kim 

Nelson, who is considered one of the premiere researchers on 

murrelets, and her testimony, which, by the way, was not just a 

few sales. It could have been up to 10,000 acres, and that is 10,000 

critical acres. But this species, of course, is listed under the Endangered Species Act, so we are talking about an endangered species. 

It is listed as threatened. 

The 20 percent of the known murrelet activity or nesting areas 

was involved in those 10,000 areas. So when you take an endangered species already on the Endangered Species Act and the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service has decided that their decision, which is 

why I do not agree and I appreciate Mrs. Chenoweth putting information in for the record because I think it speaks to exactly what 

I was trying to say, that the ESA was still in effect in the record 

of decision, is that they gave those jeopardy opinions, which meant 

that they felt that would jeopardize the existence of a species that 

was listed under the Endang~red Species Act. 

So when you take that U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's determination that the species may go extinct, because that is what 

jeopardy means, and you take away 20 percent of the known nesting and murrelet activity areas, I think it, indeed, does have a devastating effect. 

Mr. RIGGS. Let me turn to the gentlemen real quick before my 

time expires. But first let me note that, regarding your earlier comment, citizens can interact with the agencies under the salvage 

law. We expressly permitted that under the law and there is ample 

opportunity for citizen input when the agencies are preparing the 

sales. There is also public comment under the administration's implementation of the law and there is also an appeal for arbitrary 

and capricious decisions. 

Gentlemen, do you all agree that the primary reason that we are 

here today is the failure of this Congress and past Congresses to 

reform the Endangered Species Law? 

Mr. GEISINGER. I would like to try that first, and you may not 

like my answer, Congressman. The answer is no. The injunction 

that led to the creation of Option 9 had nothing to do with the Endangered Species Act. They were a violation of the National Forest 

Management Act viability regulation and NEPA violations for not 

supposedly preparing an adequate environmental impact statement. It was the viability regulation that Judge Dwyer hung his 

hat on for enjoining most of the Pacific Northwest timber sale program. 
46 

That is a regulation that could be changed, theoretically, with a 

Federal Register notice and a 60-day public input period, but it 

has become such a volatile issue and so important to the environmental community as a tool to stop land management activities 

that it would prove very controversial to do it in such a manner. 

Quite briefly, the National Forest Management Act requires the 

Forest Service to maintain a diversity of plant and animal communities consistent with the multiple use purposes of the forest plan 

and to the extent practicable, and I do not think anyone in this 

room could disagree that that is a laudable goal. But when the re.5-

ulations to implement that provision were written, it required the 

Forest Service to provide habitat to sustain viable populations of 

native species throughout the planning area. We were told in 1981 

when that provision was written that the planning area was the region, whether it be Region 5, as California, or Region 6, in Washington and Oregon. You had to have a viable population someplace 

in that region. 

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, however, subsequently interpreted that to mean that viable populations had to exist on eve~-:y 

single national forest and every single ranger district in the region, 

and that is what brought the gridlock to the Pacific Northwest 

through court order. 

I am not suggesting the ESA does not need reforming; it does. 

It does need to be streamlined and more workable. But it is not the 

cause of the gridlock that occurred in the Pacific Northwest. 

Mr. RIGGS. We will pursue that in a minute. Thank you, Madam 

Chair. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mr. Riggs. 

Mr. VENTO. Madam Chair? 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Yes. I would like to call on Mr. Vento now. 

Mr. VENl'O. Thank you. 

I found it interesting, the discussion on the salvage rider. Obviously, the salvage existed before the rider and probably will exist 

after it. It is a question of how you proceed. Clearly, what the intent of the rider is, is to dispense with the processes that were in 

place and to override them and to subsume them into this truncated process. So it basically abandons the effort to implement a 

range of different laws, including laws that affect small business,es 

-and the extension of and dispersal of the jobs and contracts within 

that context. It does that. It enters into roadless areas. It has special provisions with regards to Montana, with regards to 318. 

I would just point out that there was a good faith effort in 19!~0 

and other times to write 318. I actually had worked with Congres.sman Dicks at that time, who was on the conference committee, to 

provide for it, but the news we kept getting back in terms of the 

science was that, of course, things did not work out so we could 

achieve the types of harvests. 

I find this whole discussion, incidentally, in reference to my colleagues with regards to fire, very interesting, because, of course, we 

have an environment in which we have heavily been influenced by 

the activities of the Forest Service and others to extinguish firE!S, 

and to suggest now that is simply the result of inadequate harvest, 

I think, and/or salvage types of problems, is, I think, a real problem, because the areas you might salvage are not necessarily b.e 
47 

areas where the fires will occur. Obviously, if we cut all the forests 

down, they would not have a fire problem. I guess that is the gist 

of that particular issue. 

So I think it is sort of scapegoating the salvage problem or the 

degree of harvest with the fires. In other words, I do not think that 

there is much, if any, correlation between them, but nevertheless, 

it is an attempt to try and superimpose an event that is obviously 

negative and put it at the feet of the amount of salvage that takes 

place. 

Mr. Mayr, I read your statement and the progress of your company and so forth, the development. It is very interesting in terms 

of its history. But you point out in here you are 95 percent dependent upon the Olympic National Forest for harvest. 

Mr. MAYR. We were. 

Mr. VENTO. But you suggest that that was the predicate. Does 

your corporation or company or your entity specifically have under 

contract the contracts you were talking about, or were they indirectly under contract? 

Mr. MAYR. No. We were 95 percent dependent upon national forest timber for the mill. At the time we took out the loan, the contracts I am speaking were in the name of Mayr Brothers. We actually had--

Mr. VENTO. They were your contracts? · Mr. MAYR. Yes. Some of the contracts are harvested. Some of 

them have roads built. In fact, one of them actually has timber that 

has been on the ground since 1991. 

Mr. VENTO. Is your concern here with regards to the fact that the 

Farmers Home Adminstration did not do diligence with regards to 

your loan? 

Mr. MAYR. No. 

Mr. VENTO. Or you did not do diligence with regards to your 

loan? 

Mr. MAYR. We did. 

Mr. VENTO. Or the Forest Service is supposed to do diligence 

with regards to your loan? 

Mr. MAYR. No. Everyone did the due diligence. It is the fact that 

the Forest Service has not performed on the contracts. 

Mr. VENTO. I think that all the laws are in effect that affected 

this. For instance, we talked about NEPA and we talked about the 

Forest Management Act and the Endangered Species Act. All of 

those were in law in 1990, were they not? 

Mr. MAYR. Right. But what I am speaking to is the fact that the 

Forest Service owes us damages. They have admitted--

Mr. VENTO. Well--

Mr. MAYR. No. They have admitted such. We have had offers 

from them. They have admitted they owe us damages, but they 

have not done the honorable thing and paid them. 

Mr. VENTO. In other words, they have not come to a negotiated 

agreement with you? Is that what your contention is, is that they 

should come to a negotiated agreement with regards to your--

Mr. MAYR. They should either honor the contract by letting us 

harvest it, they should cancel the contract--
48 

Mr. VENTO. If I just might interrupt you, I understand-! did 

read the testimony-! understand the fact that they cannot honor 

the contract. It is bound by other factors--

Mr. MAYR. Right. 

Mr. VENTO. [continuing]-like court injunctions and other factors 

beyond their control, is that correct? 

Mr. MAYR. That is correct. 

Mr. VENTO. So it is sort of beating a dead horse here in terms 

of the fact that-but they then say that because they are admitting, in other words, they can suggest that they are taking on the 

burden of having have not gone through the process or NEPA correctly, that they then take on the burden of not delivering the timber to you as per se the contract. In other words, they are admitting that. You are just saying that it is a matter of what the nego- tiated amounts might be in terms of not harvest or whatever the 

damages are that occurred. 

Mr. MAYR. Yes, and it has been that delay of over-on one timber 

sale, it is a delay of five years, and in normal commercial contracts, 

if we had a contract with a private company, we would never be 

allowed to delay performance for five years, and that is where we 

have suffered from, is that delay. 

Mr. VENTO. I understand that there are adjustments that have 

to be made in terms of the economy, in terms of its reconciliation. 

I just think it ought to be understood that, from my perspective, 

·yes, the Forest Service is up front in terms of not doing this, but 

they also have the obligation under court order and under a whole 

series of other laws that needed to be followed in terms of bringing 

this issue--1 mean, all of it has to be considered in the context. It 

is not a question of competence, but it is a question of nonperformance from your aspect. Before we begin to render judgments on 

them, I think we ought to look at what responsibilities that they have that have been placed upon them. 

I also, Madam Chair, I would note that the suggestion about, obviously, the amount of harvest that has gone on or has not gone 

on, I think I would just note for the record, it is my understanding that, in fact, there have been salvage contracts put out in which 

there have not been bids in some parts of the country. So the whole 

issue of whether or not you do salvage or not, I would just ask rny 

colleagues to consider the fact that sometimes these salvage sales 

are not very attractive in terms of their profitability and the consequence of that is that those types of sales are not bid upon, so 

they go by the wayside. You can make them more attractive by 

putting in more profitable types of harvest of trees, but that is not 

necessarily where you want to go in terms of trying to deal with 

the management of a forest. 

So it is the reason that salvage, even though there is a considerable amount of salvage that could be out there that is on roaded 

lands and other areas, it is not always a very attractive purchase. 

It is not a very attractive business for those that might be doing 

it. 

We know what is more desirable, the large volume old growth 

type of trees in the Northwest or in other areas where you have 

different types of timber which would be more attractive, but it 

does not always match the needs of how a land manager mi~rht 
49 

want to manage a forest. I remember well the discussions about 

Alaska and the types of timber that were desired in those instances. 

So it is a lot more complex than simply suggesting you have all 

of this timber and that simply just putting it on the market is 

going to do it, because it is not going to unless you make it profitable, very profitable, in some cases. Salvage is a loser for the government in terms of costing us money in most instances. It is a 

loser for the government in terms of costing money for the preparation of the roads, and, of course, as we know, we have an ongoing 

debate about what the costs are in terms of the general sales programs. 

Mr. HERGER. Would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. VENTO. I would be happy to yield. 

Mr. HERGER. I realize the light is red, but would the Chairwoman mind? 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Yes. 

Mr. HERGER. I want to commend the gentleman for pointing out 

that there are not any bidders for many salvage sales. As the gentleman mentioned, the reason is that they are basically below cost. 

They are not marketable. 

I would like to point out that I noticed throughout my eight national forests that one of the major reasons of this is that once a 

tree dies, whether it be by fire or by insect infestation depending 

on the species, we have anywhere from 18 months to three years 

to salvage that timber before it is non-marketable. 

So when we have those environmental groups that have been so 

successful at suing and holding up these sales, if they can hold 

them up for between 18 months and three years, then there will 

not be any bidders on them. That is the reason that the emergency 

salvage legislation was intended to expedite-not eliminate, but expedite this process so that we could get these trees out prior to the 

time that they are unmarketable. 

Mr. VENTO. Of course, the salvage rider included roadless areas 

of Montana. It included 318. It included a variety of things. There 

are other factors that affect the profitability besides the age of the 

timber. Certainly, if it takes longer, it is in a position where it is 

not of value. I mean, I understand that with most species. There 

are some species that that does not affect as much. So that represents a dilemma in terms of salvage, because, in a sense, by the 

time you plan, it is an unplanned sale, you have to come in with 

some sort of a shortened period of time. I disagree, as the gentleman knows, strongly with the salvage rider as being the solution 

to that. 

I also wanted to point out, Madam Chair, while you are tolerating my continued rambling on here, that some of the discussion 

about what the Appropriations Committee is spending and the volume that they are getting, I think, directly relates to forest health. 

I think most of us recognize that forest health is something that 

is going to require an investment in the forest, not spending less. 

The easiest thing is to go in with these high-volume cuts and chop 

it up and get some dollars back, but I think that those days are 

over. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Will the gentleman yield? 
50 

Mr. VENTO. As long as I still have time, if the Chairwoman recognized my time. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Yes, I will grant you time. 

I appreciate Mr. Herger for pointing out the fact that these sa:.es 

sometimes are not profitable because they do take so long to issue, 

and that was the very reason why we put through this salvage sale 

rider. Salvage sales need not be a loser for the government, but I 

can tell you one thing, Mr. Vento. Fires are a loser for the government, a big loser, so---

Mr. VENTO. I appreciate the observation with regards to fire. I 

just would suggest that that comes out of accumulation of management that has gone on for 100 years. It is not simply the most recent phenomenon. It has to do with how we fight fires and our fLre 

regime. That, I hope, will be led by the science, not by emotions, 

and I think that it is a very emotional issue. I think that, in the 

end, we are going to have some fires. I do not think it is the salvage rider that is going to prevent it. I do not think it is wildernE~ss 

management that is going to prevent it. 

I think that we really need to reconcile that and not just use it 

as a debating point here or blame the management of the Northwest. Mter all, if cutting trees down was going to save the Northwest, it would have been saved many times over, based on the fact 

that we were cutting what, in my judgment, not to be argumentative with my colleagues, but what is over the sustainable type of 

forest. 

The question is, how do you get the salvages done? The real 

question is, it is easy to sell the profitable stuff, but to manage a 

forest properly, you need to deal with forest health and you need 

to deal with much of what you would say is salvage, and most salvage--almost all salvage in most regions is not profitable to the 

government. Obviously, if you get wood prices high enough, it 

would be, but none of us are looking for higher wood prices, I do 

not think. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. I thank the gentleman, Mr. Vento. 

Mr. VENTO. You are welcome, Madam Chair. Thank you. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. I thank this panel for coming so far and for 

your very informative and instructive testimony. I would like to ·excuse the panel now and call the next panel. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. The next panel consists of the Honorable 

James R. Lyons, Under Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment in the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and Mr. Lyons will 

be accompanied by the Honorable Jack Ward Thomas, Chief of the 

Forest Service and Mr. Tom Tuchmann, Special Assistant to the 

Secretary. We will also have joining us Ms. Nancy Hayes, Chief of 

Staff and Counselor, Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of Interior. 

STATEMENT OF JAMES R. LYONS, UNDER SECRETARY FOR 

NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT, UNITED STATES 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, ACCOMPANIED BY JACK 

WARD THOMAS, CHIEF, FOREST SERVICE, AND THOMAS 

TUCHMANN, SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO THE SECRETARY 

Mr. LYONS. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today. As you indicated, 
51 

I am accompanied by Dr. Jack Ward Thomas, who is Chief of the 

USDA Forest Service, and Mr. Tom Tuchmann, who is Special Assistant to the Secretary of Agriculture. 

Your request letter for this hearing included a number of ques- tions regarding the purposes, promises, and accomplishments under the President's forest plan. While my full statement responds to those questions in greater detail, I would like to offer a 

few brief summary comments in response to those questions up 

front. 

To understand the goals and accomplishments of the President's 

Northwest Forest Plan, one must consider the circumstances that 

led to the need to develop the plan and the crisis that the Clinton 

administration was presented with when we took office and that 

we have sought to resolve. 

When the Clinton administration took office, the Pacific Northwest found itself deep in turmoil and controversy over the future 

of timber sales, the viability of spotted owls, of salmon, and the future of old growth forests in the region. Litigation was driving forest policy, and injunctions against the sale and harvest of timber. 

from the national forests and BLM lands in Western Washington, 

Oregon, and Northern California had brought the agency's timber 

sale program and the timber industry to their knees. 

Neither the Reagan nor Bush administrations were able to resolve the controversy over timber production and forest protection in the region. Congress spent much time and energy reviewing this 

situation and receiving testimony regarding efforts by prior administration officials to resolve the issue. However, a legislative solution to the dilemma could not be fashioned. 

While controversy and confrontations continued, the communities 

of the region suffered. Forest products firms continued to obtain 

fiber from limited Federal timber sales and from private woodlands, but for all intents and purposes, Federal timber sales were 

shut down. With no new national forest timber sales to fill mill 

yards, companies were left to operate the backlog of sales that they 

had purchased in years prior. But log supplies were clearly limited. 

At the same time, concern for the future viability of the Northern 

spotted owl and the integrity of old growth forest resources was 

growing. Murrelets and salmon stocks were also under study to determine if their numbers were declining and their future was at 

risk. 

A solution to the gridlock that gripped the region was desperately needed. On April 2, 1993, President Clinton convened the 

Forest Conference in Portland, Oregon, to address the human and 

ecological issues affecting the region. This was the first major conference convened by the President and reflected a substantial commitment of time and resources by the administration. The President, the Vice President, and a number of cabinet members were 

in attendance. 

Participants heard and discussed a wide range of issues associated with the controversies affecting the region. It was clear that 

an aggressive and concerted effort by the Clinton administration 

was necessary in order to resolve these issues, to get past the injunctions and the gridlock and to get on with the management of 

the national forests in a balanced and sustainable way. At the end 
52 

of the conference, the President announced that he would commit 

the resources of his administration to developing a solution to the 

crisis in 90 days. 

Soon after, the Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment 

Team, or FEMAT, was established, with Jack Thomas as chair. Dr. 

Thomas was then chief scientist of the Forest Service, operating 

out of La Grande, Oregon, and had made his mark in this issue 

through his leadership of the Bush administration's interagency 

spotted owl committee and through his participation in the House 

Agriculture Committee's Gang of Four study. Jack assembled a diverse team of natural resource agency experts and academicians 

with expertise in biology, sociology, ecology, hydrology, fisheries 

and wildlife management, silviculture, and economics. The team 

was assembled in Portland and began its work. 

Under the gun and under fire, the team worked tirelessly to develop a comprehensive, innovative, and provocative report identify- ing a range of options for resolving forest management crises affecting the region. That report led to the development of a plan 

that eventually became the Clinton administration's strategy for 

resolving the gridlock in the Pacific Northwest. 

The plan itself was to provide for the protection of old growth forests and associated flora and fauna in the region and to provide for 

the sustainable harvest of timber from the forest. However, the forest plan was not simply about forest management. It recognized 

that the region's economy was in transition from a strong dependence upon wood products to a more diversified economy which 

would benefit from a wider array of all the goods and services provided by the national forests of the region. 

For this reason, the Northwest Forest Plan included measures to 

aid unemployed loggers and mill workers, to assist communities in 

identifying means to diversifY their economic basis, and· funds to 

retrofit mills and develop the needed infrastructure to improve and ex~and upon existing industries and facilities. 

The President's forest plan is truly a revolutionary plan and it 

marks a new paradigm for forest management, not only in the Pacific Northwest but throughout the United States. The NorthwElst 

Economic Adjustment Initiative, a multi-Federal agency effort, provides immediate and long-term assistance to people, businesses, 

and communities where changes in forest industry and Federal fi>rest management practices have affected the economic and soctal 

fabric of areas dependent upon timber. County payments which 

have traditionally been taken from Federal timber receipts are now 

governed by special revenue sharing provisions in the Omnibus 

Reconciliation Act of 1993. 

Each State, Oregon, Washington, and California, has a group 

called the State Economic Revitalization Team, or CERT, to coordinate the implementation of the economic assistance programs. 

Members of Federal, State, local, and tribal governments and the 

private sector work cooperatively on these teams to make effective 

use of funds available to help businesses and communities. 

For instance, Forest Service efforts include providing techni·~al 

and financial assistance to displaced timber workers and businesses and communities through the Jobs in the Woods program, 

the old growth diversification and community assistance prograr1s. 
53 

The Forest Service NEAl has invested $12 million in watershed 

restoration through the Jobs in the Woods program and has awarded 300 contracts. Over 99 percent of the contractors and workers 

live in or operate their businesses within the affected region. 

Data on the number of workers employed and their wages based 

on 60 percent of the Jobs in the Woods contracts awarded show 

that in 1995, 2,225 workers have been employed, 1,010 of whom 

were displaced timber workers, at an average wage and benefit of 

$17.10 an hour. 

Old growth diversification funds are used for projects that add 

value to existing timber resources and create and retain employment. In Oregon, this program stimulated the investment of $15.77 

for every dollar of agency funding. As a result, an estimated total 

of 943 jobs were created. 

Overall, more than 4,900 job training opportunities have been 

created in the region, and as of last September, more than 81 percent of those completing training had found employment. 

The Northwest Forest Plan applies current science to on-theground management. This is done in a number of ways. Watershed 

analysis provides the basic information for managing watersheds. 

Thus far, the Forest Service has completed 120 watershed analyses, comprising over seven million acres. We have done so in coordinating with the other Federal agencies who are our partners in 

managing the forests of the Pacific Northwest, and I would say 

that we are on schedule in completing the analysis proposed in the 

forest plan. 

With respect to wildlife conservation, we are already seeing the 

benefits of our efforts. Where watershed analyses have been completed and the streamlined consultation approach has been implemented, consultation under the Endangered Species Act is completed quickly. For example, between August 30, 1995, and May 31 

of this year, 102 informal consultations were completed, averaging 

18 days per consultation. There were 18 formal consultations, averaging 46 days per consultation. 

In order to sustain forest ecosystems and local economies, the 

Northwest Forest Plan recognizes the need to invest money into 

these ecosystems. This is accomplished through watershed restoration, by improving fish passages, stabilizing land erosion, resurfacing roads, revegetating road banks, and reclaiming unnecessary 

or problem roads. These projects have also provided immediate employment for displaced workers through the award of 300 watershed restoration contracts. 

The Northwest Forest Plan has included management areas that 

build on our monitoring efforts but goes one step further in creating areas for developing and testing new ideas. The plan establishes what we call ten adaptive management areas, which operate 

on the principle of adaptive management, which means we learn 

from our actions and change our management when necessary. 

For clarification, the Northwest Forest Plan covers 24 million 

acres of Federal land. Thirty percent of these acres have been set 

aside for special protection b,x acts of Congress. The remaining 70 

percent is allocated in the following manner: Late successional reserves constitute 30 percent; adaptive management areas, six percent; managed late successional areas, one percent; administra-
54 

tively withdrawn areas, six percent; riparian reserves, 11 percent; 

and matrix land, 16 percent. Approximately 19.5 million acres of 

the Northwest Forest Plan are National Forest System lands, of 

which 22 percent is in the matrix in adaptive management areas. 

The sustainable production of forest products is a key part of the 

Northwest Forest Plan. The Northwest Forest Plan estimated a potential timber sale quantity of just over a billion board feet per 

year for the Forest Service and BLM management areas combined. 

The Forest Service's portion of this volume is approximately 850 

million board feet. As forest plans are revised and on-the-ground 

analysis is completed, we will revise the PSQ. 

In 1995, the Forest Service planned to offer 454 million board 

feet and exceeded that volume by offering nearly 500 million board 

feet. A portion of the excess volume came from late successional :~eserves and riparian reserves as a result of meeting ecosystem objectives. In 1996, the Forest Service plans to offer 610 million board 

feet, and in 1997, we will offer sufficient volume to meet the full 

estimated PSQ. 

In short, Madam Chairwoman, we are on track for preparing 

timber sales under the provisions of the Northwest Forest Plan 

consistent with our commitment to ramp up to a sustainable level 

of forest offerings. 

The accomplishments we have realized in managing National 

Forest System lands are the result of taking to heart President 

Clinton's principle to make the Federal Government work together 

and work for the American people. To facilitate this coordination, 

the Federal agencies have developed the Northwest Forest Plan 

Interagency Cooperative Structure. Part of this structure facilita:;es 

the Northwest Economic Assistance Initiative, that I just discussed. 

The Regional Interagency Executive Committee serves as the s~mior regional body coordinating and implementing the forest plan. A 

Regional Ecosystem Office provides independent recommendations 

and scientific technical and other staff support to the REIC. 

The Northwest Forest Plan area is divided into 12 provinces w:ith 

distinct land ecosystem and climatic qualities and an advisory committee is included in each province. As a result of these advisory 

committees, there have been over 300 people involved in advisory 

meetings concerning the forest plan. 

Working in partnership with other agencies and the public, many 

accomplishments have been made. Some of these accomplishments 

are the completion of a revised Interagency Watershed Analysis 

Guide, streamlined consultation, the distribution of over $29 million of economic assistance through the Community Economic Revitalization Teams, an interagency monitoring plan, the development 

of a strong linkage among the existing State Rural Development 

Councils and Community Economic Revitalization Teams. 

In conclusion, we feel we have made significant progress in meeting the goals set forth in President Clinton's historic conference 

and encompassed in the Northwest Forest Plan, goals of support:.ng 

people and communities during a period of economic transition, of 

providing for sustainable forest products, protecting and restoring 

the environment, ensuring that Federal agencies work together as 

one government, and adhering to our nation's laws and utiliz·ing 
55 

scientifically credible research as a foundation for our decisionmaking. 

We are proud of what we have accomplished, Madam Chairwoman. We believe we are on target. I would be glad to answer any 

questions you may have. Thank you. 

[The statement of Mr. Lyons may be found at end of hearing.] 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. I thank you, Secretary Lyons. 

I want to let the committee and the panel know that we have 

two votes that have been called, one on the NATO suspension and 

one on food quality suspension, so I think I am going to recess the 

committee right now. We will probably be gone for about 20 minutes. We will return about 1:30. Thank you. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. HANsEN. [Presiding.] Let me apologize to our witnesses. We 

are all really busy today and supposed to be in three places at the 

same time. Excuse the musical chairs that has been going on. I appreciate Mrs. Chenoweth chairing, as she has. 

I understand, Mr. Lyons, that you have testified. 

Mr. LYONS. Yes, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. HANSEN. Nancy Hayes, Chief of Staff and Counselor, Bureau 

of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior, are you up? 

Ms. HAYES. Yes. Thank you. 

Mr. HANSEN. How much time do you need? 

Ms. HAYES. Less than five minutes. 

Mr. HANSEN. Christina, give her seven minutes, will you? 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. HANSEN. Everybody goes over their time. That is expected, 

especially around here. 

STATEMENT OF NANCY HAYES, CHIEF OF STAFF AND COUNSELOR, BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, U.S. DEPARTMENT 

OF THE INTERIOR 

Ms. HAYES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I appreciate this opportunity to bring the Subcommittee up to 

date on the Bureau of Land Management's implementation of 

President Clinton's Northwest Forest Plan. I will summarize my 

statement, but I would ask that my entire statement be made a 

part of the hearing record. 

The President's Forest Plan established a blueprint, a sciencebased, legal, and balanced forest management plan that provides 

for both economic opportunity and protection of the environment 

through five fundamental goals. In June of 1994, just two months 

after the plan's Record of Decision was adopted, the Federal court 

injunctions banning timber harvests from Federal lands were lifted. Timber sales in the region of the northern spotted owl were 

once again offered and timber was harvested. Earlier this year, the 

President's forest plan was upheld by a Federal appeals court. 

The President created the Northwest Forest Plan to resolve intense disputes about use of the public forests. Individuals on both 

sides of the issues were driven by passionately held beliefs, and the 

compromise reached in the Forest Plan did not please every interested party. However, the Forest Plan has had many successes: retraining dislocated timber workers, providing a stable, sustainable 
56 

supply of timber, protecting wildlife habitat and collaboratwe 

Adaptive Management Area planning. 

Let me now turn to the specifics of the ELM's implementation of 

the Forest Plan. We measure our accomplishments, past, present, 

and future, against the Plan's five fundamental goals. 

The first goal is to support the region's people and communities 

during a period of economic transition. From the start, the Pre~sident made clear his goal was to relieve the paralysis that had 

gripped timber-dependent communities in the Pacific Northwest 

during the gridlock. To help these communities diversify their 

economies, the President developed a five-year, $1.2 billion economic assistance package. It has awarded millions of dollars in 

grants and loans to stimulate business growth and economic development in rural communities in Washington, Oregon, and California, and to develop and improve community infrastructure, including waste systems and water treatment facilities. 

The second goal is to provide a sustainable timber economy. Let 

me assure the Subcommittee that the BLM is meeting its commitment to offer timber sales under the Northwest Forest Plan. In 

1994, the BLM in western Oregon made a commitment to ramp up 

to offering the full allowable sale quantity under the Western Oregon Resource Management Plans. In fiscal year 1995, we committed to offering 120.5 million board feet that met the standards and 

guidelines of the Northwest Forest Plan and we offered 129.5 million. In fiscal year 1996, we committed to offer 182.5 million board 

feet. To date, we have offered 128 million board feet and we will 

meet our target. We are committed to offering the full sustainable 

amount of 213.5 million board feet in fiscal year 1997. 

The third goal is to protect and enhance the environment. At its 

core, the goal of the Forest Plan was to restore some level of timber 

harvesting "by methods that also protect and enhance the environment. Our first priorities were watershed analysis and expedited 

consultations in timber sale preparation. 

To protect and restore watersheds, the BLM began to do watershed analysis for the entire area, systematically characterizing the 

aquatic, riparian, and land features within a watershed. Watershed 

analysis is critical because it paves the way for timber sales, and 

other projects, in the future. 

The BLM developed expedited procedures for consultation with 

the Fish and Wildlife Service on Forest Plan projects in the six 

western Oregon BLM districts to ensure protection for threatened 

or endangered species or critical habitat. Under these expedited 

procedures, the districts rapidly completed consultation on all fiscal 

year 1995 projects. We have already finished 80 to 90 percent of 

our fiscal year 1996 projects and we are already working on many 

of our fiscal year 1997 projects. These expedited procedures cut our 

consultation time by more than half. Informal consultations are 

completed in 17 days or less and formal consultations result in biological opinions in just 43 days. 

The fourth goal is to ensure that Federal agencies work together 

as one government. The President directed the Federal regulatory 

and land management agencies to work together in carrying out 

the Forest Plan. This order to the agencies-to work better together-was unprecedented in a region as large as that covered by 
57 

the Forest Plan. But we did it, and things are working better than 

we hoped. 

The fifth goal is to adhere to our nation's laws. In 1990, the BLM 

was not meeting all applicable environmental laws. In December 

1994, Judge Dwyer found that the Forest Plan met the requirements of not only the environmental laws but also laws addressing 

the need for timber. Last month, Federal District Judge Thomas 

Penfield Jackson of the District of Columbia ruled that he was deferring to Judge Dwyer's ruling on the Forest Plan, and as you 

know, Judge Dwyer has been upheld by the Ninth Circuit. Legally, 

we are sound. 

In summary, then, three points. Before the Forest Plan, we had 

gridlock. After the Forest Plan, we have a future for timber sales 

in the Northwest. We are proud of that future, and of our success 

in making it happen. Second, the BLM is meeting its targets for 

timber volume, and then some. And third, we are very proud of 

how well our people in the field have implemented the Forest Plan. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I will be happy to answer any questions. 

[The statement of Ms. Hayes may be found at end of hearing.] 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you. 

Mrs. Chenoweth? 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Lyons, I wanted you to know that I have gotten some reports 

from Idaho that our lumbermen were very pleased with the instructive and informative meeting that Dr. Jack Ward Thomas had 

with them out in Idaho. 

I wanted to refer to the graphs that are up there. Dr. Thomas, 

could you show me what percent of the 800 million board feet that 

you have lined out there for 1997, 1996, 1995, what percent is saw 

logs and what percent is pulp wood? 

Mr. THOMAS. I could. I have it with me. It will take me a minute 

to find it. 

Mr. TuCIL.\1ANN. If I may, the Forest Service does not report actual saw log/pulp wood/firewood volume in terms of target commitments, but what we did do, given concerns by this committee and 

others, is estimated that for 1995, and our estimate is that 77 percent was saw logs, 14 percent was for poles, and the remainder was 

noncommercial volume. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Actually, what we have seen, although President Clinton promised a total of 1.053 billion board feet, saw logs 

being at 0.948 billion board feet and pulp wood at 0.105 billion 

board feet, we have not seen that, according to what our figures 

are. What we saw in 1994 were 0.187 billion board feet of saw logs, 

and then in 1995, 0.336 billion board feet of saw logs. So we are 

falling way under what is the normal industry standard and what 

the President had promised. Do you have any comment on that? 

Mr. LYONS. Yes, Mrs. Chenoweth. I know that there was a report 

that was prepared, at least, we have obtained a copy of it, that alleges that we have fallen short of our goals. Mr. Tuchmann, who 

is in Portland working for the Secretary monitoring these things, 

I think, is in a position to respond to the specific points raised in 

that report and, I think, could explain the differences that exist. So 
58 

I will let Tom address that, and then, if you like, I think Jack can 

talk about what the forest plan called for overall. 

Mr. TucHMANN. We are getting into this arcane business of numbers and differences between volume offered, sold, and harvested. 

What the forest plan committed to in our probable sale quantity 

calculation was 953 million board feet offered. That offer is ·Calculated on what they call chargeable volume, which historically 

was primarily saw logs but did not have to include saw logs spedfically. 

What I just reported to you, the 77 percent and 14 percent, that 

is 91 percent, was commercial volume that was offered last year 

under the 600 million board foot target between the Forest Service 

and the Bureau of Land Management, so we feel that we have met 

that probable sale quantity commitment in 1995, and we also feel 

that we are on track for 1996. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. What is the difference between the sales that 

were offered and the sales that were actually harvested, accord.ing 

to that chart? 

Mr. TuCHMANN. Those are offered volumes, not harvested. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Right. 

Mr. TUCHMANN. A purchaser has up to three years to harvest 

that volume after it has been sold and awarded. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. My problem is that with Secretary Glickman's 

latest rules and regulations, it has brought it to a screeching halt. 

I know it has across Idaho, and that is a serious disappointment. 

I hope that there is some way we can work out of that, not only 

for jobs and communities but for forest health, too, and because we 

really would like to believe in the President's promise. 

President Clinton said July 1, 1993, by preserving the forests 

and setting predictable and sustainable levels of timber saleE., it 

protects jobs, not just in the short term but for years to come, and 

I think the President was talking about timber sales and protecting 

jobs. 

Although I appreciated the Secretary's testimony, actually, what 

I am hearing is that we are putting a lot of processes in place but 

yet we are frustrated about getting the logs out of the forest. 

Secretary Lyons, you also mentioned about the fact that the 

President's plan requires a watershed analysis, and you are engaged in that, to be completed for every watershed before timber 

sales can proceed. What percent of the analyses have been completed as of today? 

Mr. LYONS. Let me just check my numbers on that for a second, 

Congresswoman. I would point out, if I could respond to the earlier 

point that you made, that neither the-I assume you were referring 

to the Secretary's directive with regard to salvage timber sales in 

your earlier comment? 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Yes. 

Mr. LYONS. [continuing]-nor the activities that we have been involved in have brought anything to a screeching halt. Quite to the 

contrary, I think they have facilitated moving forward both with an 

aggressive salvage sale program and, of course, we have continued 

to operate aggressively to implement theMrs. CHENOWETH. If the Secretary will yield for just a moment, 

most of the sales in my district have stopped because of the Sec-
59 

retary's directive. I imagine it is that way throughout the Northwest. 

Mr. LYONS. I would suggest to you, Congresswoman, that if they 

have stopped, it has been a temporary stop while some additional 

analysis and evaluation proceeds. What the Secretary's directive 

does is not stop timber sales. What it does is it clarifies which salvage timber sales should proceed under the emergency rules promulgated by the Congress and which sales should proceed through 

the normal salvage sale program. That is the only distinction that 

exists. 

So I would be stunned if all salvage sales in your district came 

to a halt. In fact, I can assure you that, since Jack has been out 

there and talked with folks, that we are pleased with the performanct! of forest supervisors in that portion of Idaho in dealing with 

the salvage directive that they have received. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Secretary Lyons, I just wonder if you could be 

in touch with James Caswell, the supervisor of the Clearwater National Forest, where sales that his people had been working on for 

a year, three major sales were brought to a screeching halt with 

the release of the Secretary's new rules and regulations. 

Mr. LYONS. The only sales that would have been impacted in 

that regard, Congresswoman, would have been sales in roadless 

areas, and I would clarifY that one of the objectives of the Secretary's directive is to try and place priority on those sales that 

ought to be a priority from the standpoint of threat to life or property, sales that might be imminently susceptible to fire. 

In those instances where roadless area sales were proceeding, we 

provided direction that those sales should proceed through the normal process rather than the expedited process unless there is a 

threat that they are imminently susceptible to fire. So that would 

be the only distinction that is drawn. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Secretary, what is the normal process? I 

do not think we have a normal process anymore. Dr. Thomas? 

Mr. THOMAS. I think that some of the sales that Caswell may 

have under consideration are those that had been put forward and 

had been appealed and the appeal had been upheld and then we 

had proceeded with certain portions of that operation under the 

salvage regulation. That may be one that we have been instructed 

to-that was one set of sales, not that one specifically, but that one 

criteria was one thing we were told to pay close attention to, and 

I suspect that is one of the sales that he is dealing with. 

The other one, the question is what is a normal procedure for a 

salvage sale? 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. I wanted to know what is normal these days. 

Mr. THOMAS. Oh, boy. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Caswell said in a newspaper report that 

it is not clear yet whether these sales will be held up three or four 

months or until after the salvage law expires. If these sales do not 

fall under the criteria of having been appealed and upheld, would 

you be willing to release them immediately? 

Mr. THOMAS. What we are going to do is follow the instructions 

in the Secretary's letter, which we have clarified out there, some 

of them, if it has a green component above a certain level, our instructions are that I would review those sales. So I am not-there 
60 

are a lot of sales. I am not familiar with specifically those. But 

there may be sales where that green component exceeds, I believe, 

20 percent, 25 percent of volume, which we have been instructed 

to review at my level. When those do come in for review, we will 

expedite them as rapidly as we possibly can to make sure that they 

are OK, and if they are, we will proceed. If there is a problem, of 

course, we will hold them. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. I know my time is up and the Chairman 

wants to proceed. I am not going to talk about silvicultural management here, but I would love to just work with you, Dr. Thomas, 

on what your criteria is, even in associated trees. When they are 

in a disease or insect-infested area, they are likely to be attacked 

and killed, also, so we are very concerned. 

Mr. THOMAS. I can respond to that very quickly. That is part of 

the review process. We would like to achieve other silvicultural .aspects. We want to be as effective and efficient as we can, and. if 

that is put forward and it is clear, then we will proceed. If there 

is a problem, we will not. But let me tell you, if we do not proceed, 

that does not mean the sale will not go forward. It means it may 

go forward after the expiration of the salvage rider because th•~re 

is an obvious concern with public input and ability to appeal. 

So we will follow that process. If it looks good and it seems to 

be within the guidelines, we will proceed. If not, we will delay it 

until the salvage rider is expired and then we will proceed under 

regular process. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Dr. Thomas. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Mrs. Chenoweth. 

This has been an interesting hearing. This is the seventh hearing, I think, we have done on this type of thing. Also, we went out 

to Roseburg, Oregon, and did a hearing. But we keep hearing the 

same thing. We get a lot of folks in, elected officials, county supervisors, city councilmen, loggers, environmentalists. 

There is a difference of opinion, obviously. The loggers point cut, 

especially the union folks, how many hundreds of jobs they are losing. Some of the fish and wildlife people talk about how they have 

to have more habitat. The lumber people talk about how the ptice 

of lumber has escalated. Other people talk about how unreasonable 

the government is, whether it is the Forest Service, BLM, Congress, or whatever it may be. 

Out of this timber sales, this salvage thing, that law was passed 

on July 27, 1995, and during the emergency period, the Secretary 

concerned is to achieve to the maximum extent feasible a salvage 

timber sale volume level above the program level to reduce the 

backlog volume of salvage timber. 

If I am reading Secretary Glickman's direction of July 2, it prE!tty 

well countermands that. Is that the whole theory behind this, Mr. 

Lyons? 

Mr. LYONS. No, it is not, Mr. Chairman. Quite to the contrary, 

it simply is intended to provide additional guidance with regard to 

how the emergency salvage program is to be implemented. It is not 

countermanding in any way, shape, or form. I would offer that it 

is a clarification of guidelines that the field is to use and direction 
61 

to Jack to help the field better understand how to proceed under 

the emergency provisions. 

Mr. HANSEN. In your opinion, this actually compliments the law 

and does not in any way change the law? 

Mr. LYONS. It is not inconsistent at all with the law, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. HANSEN. It was not intended to do that? 

Mr. LYONS. No, sir. 

Mr. HANSEN. Your chart, Mr. Lyons, and I was not here, and I 

apologize to you, identified the timber sale volume offered. How 

much of that volume was actually sold? 

Mr. LYONS. I would have to get that information for you, Mr. 

Chairman. Of course, you understand that--

Mr. HANSEN. Can you give us a rough estimate of the offer and 

what was sold? 

Mr. LYONS. If you give me a couple of seconds, we will generate 

that, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. HANSEN. While we are looking for that statistic, let me give 

you another one. How much of the volume is saw log volume and 

how much is other wood, pulp, fuel wood, et cetera? 

Mr. LYONS. Actually, we just presented some of that information 

to Mrs. Chenoweth with regard to the percentages. Tom can go 

over it again, if you like. 

Mr. HANSEN. I do not mean to try and pin you down. I am not 

trying to do that. 

Mr. LYONS. No. 

Mr. HANSEN. I just really, honestly want to know the answer to 

this. The President's plan establishes a probable sale quantity of 

1.053 billion board feet with 90 percent saw timber and ten percent 

other wood. That is what he came up with. Was that not his idea? 

Mr. LYONS. Why do I not let Mr. Tuchmann address that, since 

he just went over the numbers? 

Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Tuchmann, we will turn to you, sir. 

Mr. TuCHMANN. Again, Mr. Chairman, what we committed to 

was that volume in "chargeable volume", which includes saw timber and other commercial species. Our estimates are that 77 percent of the volumelou see on that graph was saw timber, 14 percent was poles an other commercial products of that type, and 

that the remainder was noncommercial volume. 

Mr. HANSEN. So it has not come too close, then, when he said 90 

percent would be saw timber. 

Mr. TuCHMANN. No, we never said that 90 percent would be saw 

timber. 

Mr. HANSEN. No, the President did. 

Mr. TucHMANN. I am not aware of that. 

Mr. HANSEN. Is that right? Maybe I have wrong information 

here. 

Mr. LYONS. Mr. Chairman, if I could make a point here? 

Mr. HANSEN. Sure. 

Mr. LYONS. I am going to have to follow up with the information 

on actually how much was sold, but I want to make a point. There 

is always this distinction between sold and harvested and I think 

what essential is all we can do in the Forest Service, BLM, is offer 

timber for sale, hopefully, sales that are economically viable. So we 

26-951 - 96 - 3 
62 

measure the performance of the agency, of course, by how much 

has been offered. So we have used as an objective approximately 

a billion board feet as our goal for timber offered, consistent with 

the President's forest plan, and I want to make clear that we are 

on track toward that offer goal. 

Mr. HANSEN. Let me respectfully disagree with you just a tad, 

Mr. Lyons. As I read the law that was passed in 1995 and I read 

Mr. Glickman's instructions that he put out on July 2, it says no 

salvage in inventoried roadless areas except where imminently susceptible to fire. If you are going to achieve this thing, how do you 

not do that? It seems to me that you have a contradiction here. If 

you are going to achieve what it says in the law of 1995 and then 

you put a restriction on it where you could and could not go, it 

seems to me you cannot achieve it. 

In these seven or eight hearings we have had, and when I talk 

to people from the land grant colleges and forest people, they say, 

let us get out and clean up some of this stuff. Your possibility of 

fire escalates dramatically, and we see all kinds of fires cropping 

up all around, whether they are caused by man or they are caused 

by lightning. But when you have a lot of timber around, most of 

us realize you are going to get the fire. It is just like when we do 

not take care of the pine beetle and we do not cut or spray. Immediately, we have these dead trees out there and you can almost 

count on it. 

The head of the Utah State University Forestry Department told 

me at one time, he said, if you do not clean out the pine beetle, 

and he was talking about an area in the Dixie National Forest, 

which, incidentally, is having all kinds of problems because of the 

challenges of the environmental groups, he said, I will give you the 

statistics. You have 100 percent chance you are going to have a 

fire. He said, this is going to happen. Then he went on to say, then 

you have a 100 percent chance you are going to have a flood, and 

that top soil that has taken 100 years to build up goes to zilch and 

you will not bring it back in five lifetimes. 

So I do not understand how my good friend, Dan Glickman, who 

I worked with very closely on a lot of issues when he was here, can 

think that this really compliments the law of July 27, 1995. It 

seems to me it is in contradiction to it. 

Mr. LYONS. Let me elaborate on my answer, Mr. Chairman, if I 

could. I believe it compliments the law in that it does not restrict 

what timber can be sold. It just clarifies what process those salvage 

sales should go through. There is an emergency process that is 

spelled out in the statute. 

Mr. HANSEN. I thought it was Colorado and Montana that made 

the restrictions. Am I wrong on that? The law says, not to enter 

roadless areas under these provisions in Colorado and Montana 

only. 

Mr. LYONS. That may have been the case. I cannot address that 

specifically. I would say this with regard to roadless areas, if that 

is the question, that we have simply stated that salvage sales to 

be offered in roadless areas where the sale is not imminently susceptible to fire should go through what we would call the normal 

salvage procedure. That is, these are sales that should be prepared 
63 

with an EIS and that should be subject to appeal, so the public has 

an opportunity to--

Mr. HANSEN. How do you--

Mr. LYONS. That is the only distinction we have drawn. 

Mr. HANSEN. Excuse me, Mr. Secretary. How do you determine 

when it is highly susceptible to fire? 

Mr. LYONS. That is a judgment that has to be made on the 

ground, but it also has something to do with--

Mr. HANSEN. The district supervisor would make that decision? 

Mr. LYONS. Yes, and--

Mr. HANSEN. Is that how that works, Chief? 

Mr. THOMAS. Yes, sir. That would be correct, unless the volume 

was over 20 percent of the volume was green and the Secretary has 

instructed me to review those sales. 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you. 

Chief, while I have you at the microphone there, I understand 

you recently visited some of the Forest Service salvage sales in the 

West. Based on your observation when you were out there, do you 

agree with Bonnie Phillips in her testimony, "the salvage rider has 

had a devastating effect on the ecological environment"? 

Mr. THoMAS. No, sir. 

Mr. HANSEN. You do not agree with that? How about--

Mr. THOMAS. Wait. Wait. 1--

Mr. HANSEN. Excuse me, sir. Go ahead. 

Mr. THoMAS. Let me-this is critical. Repeat that for me. I am 

a little deaf. 

Mr. HANSEN. So am I, so speak up. Too much shooting in your 

younger years. 

Mr. THOMAS. I still do it. 

Mr. HANSEN. I do, too. 

Mr. THOMAS. Could you repeat the question, please? 

Mr. HANSEN. I just wondered, on your recent visit where you had 

an opportunity to see the salvage sales when you were out in the 

West, do you agree with Ms. Phillips, who testified earlier, and in 

her testimony, she says, "the salvage rider has had a devastating 

effect on the ecological environment''? Do you agree with that statement? 

Mr. THOMAS. I would like to separate the question of the 318 

sales away from the salvage part. There were 318 sales, the old 

growth sales that were associated. If we separate that out and talk 

about the salvage aspects of the rider, I do not agree with that. 

Mr. HANSEN. You do not? How about you, Nancy Hayes from 

BLM? Do you agree with that statement from Bonnie Phillips? 

Ms. HAYES. The BLM has, as the President directed, followed all 

environmental laws in implementing the salvage portion of the salvage rider. Therefore, I would not agree that it has had a devastating effect. 

Mr. HANSEN. So both the Forest Service and BLM would disagree 

with the Audubon Society on this statement, then? 

Mr. THOMAS. I disagree with that statement, yes, sir. 

Mr. HANSEN. OK. Chief, the spotted owl situation on the Olympic 

Peninsula has recently been reanalyzed. What do the scientists 

think about the spotted owl population on the Olympic Peninsula? 

Is this an area of particular concern for the spotted owl? 
64 

Mr. THOMAS. I have not seen that. 

Mr. HANSEN. You have not seen that? 

Mr. THOMAS. I have not seen that. 

Mr. HANSEN. Will there be a reanalysis of this stuff at all? 

Mr. THOMAS. Yes, sir. There is a continuing rolling reanalysis. 

We are continuing to spend money both on monitoring and on re--

search on spotted owls and we constantly consider new informa--

tion. However, I would also point out to you that by the time we 

got through with Option 9, the question was a far larger questioL 

than spotted owls. It was a question of the old growth system and 

a number of-hundreds of other species associated with the system. 

Mr. HANSEN. My time is more than up. 

Mr. Secretary, the President's plan that I referred to, if you could 

get me that information, I would be grateful. 

Mr. LYONS. I actually have that, Mr. Chairman, if I could jus1; 

read it for you. 

Mr. HANSEN. Sure. 

Mr. LYONS. In fiscal year 1995, we planned to offer 458 million 

board feet. That includes the PSQ offer as well as the, what we call 

other wood. The actual offer was 493 million board feet. We sold 

387, and 437 million board feet were harvested. In 1996, the total 

offer is 610. I do not have the 1997 figure here. 

So the figures for 1995 would indicate we offered 493, sold 387 

million board feet, and 437 million board feet were harvested. 

Those are the most recent figures. 

Mr. HANSEN. I see. Thank you very much for your testimony. 

Mr. Vento? 

Mr. VENTO. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

When you talk about the numbers, Mr. Secretary, we are not just 

talking about Region 9. We are talking nationwide on the salvage 

numbers? Those are only salvage numbers? Is this just Region 9? 

Mr. LYONS. Those are the forest plan numbers. I am sorry. W·~ 

keep jumping back and forth between forest plan and salvage sal·e 

program. 

Mr. VENTO. Yes, I noticed that. In addition to this, then, there 

may have been more salvage that is harvested, or did the 50 million board feet that you are talking about-what was the salvage 

for Region 9, then? Or Region 6, pardon me? 

Mr. LYONS. For Region 6? I do not have the actual salvage offer 

for Region 6 with me, Mr. Vento. 

Mr. VENTO. That has been the concern, because I think Regio:n 

6, that is really what has driven the salvage. It is pretty obvious 

and evident from those that are in the forefront of this particular 

issue that it is a Region 6 issue. So I just think that the issue here 

is the forest plan. Obviously, we are talking about that today. You 

are also talking about, in conjunction with that, forest salvage. 

This does not include 318, then, either, does it? 

Mr. LYONS. This reflects the actual offers on the west side, or the 

Cascades, of course, in Oregon, Washington, and Northern California. 

Mr. VENTO. But these are new offers, new sales. 

Mr. LYONS. Yes, sir. 

Mr. VENTO. So they do not reflect 318. 

Mr. LYONS. No, they do not. 
65 

Mr. VENTO. So we do not have 318 in there. We do not have salvage rider material in there. So I just think it is important that 

we understand what is going on. We keep jumping back and forth 

between these two, and I do not know, maybe somebody else has 

it very straight in their minds, but it is not in mind. So I just 

think, for the record, it might be that you want to do a full reporting on that if it is possible today, right now. It is not, I guess. 

On the salvage sales, you also have offered and prepared more 

salvage sales than have been purchased, too, is that correct? Can 

you give me any type of idea for Region 6, since we seem to be talking about Region 6, what is offered and what is purchased? I might 

add that it is my understanding that you do not offer salvage that 

is not economic. You try to actually put these together to make 

them somewhat attractive and obtain all the goals that you have. 

Mr. LYONS. Let me address the first question first. In terms of 

salvage offer for Region 6 in the Pacific Northwest, in 1995, our offered volume for salvage was 539 million board feet, which was actually 118 percent of what we had planned. In 1996, our offer for 

Region 6 thus far is 195 million, although we have 491 million projected. These are accomplishments through June 30, so the last 

quarter is when the bulk of the salvage is to be offered. 

Mr. VENTO. So there is 419 projected, you said, for this year? 

Mr. LYONS. Four-hundred-and-ninety-one. 

Mr. VENTO. Ninety-one. In 1995, how much was purchased in Region 6 of salvage? 

Mr. LYONS. Excuse me? I am sorry, Mr. Vento. 

Mr. VENTO. How much was sold in 1995? 

Mr. LYONS. I do not have that. 

Mr. VENTO. Was it all sold? 

Mr. LYONS. No, I do not believe it was. We have had problems 

in having some sales sold. 

Mr. VENTO. Can you give us any type of characterization? Was 

there a significant portion that was not sold? I mean, we obviously 

need numbers because we are trying to operate on facts here. 

Mr. LYONS. I am told that about 50 to 60 million board feet was 

not sold this past year. 

Mr. VENTO. So you think that that is going to continue? In other 

words, have there been larger problems? Region 6, of course, is 

really the high-grade. In terms of the forests nationwide, it is really 

the high-grade type of timber. 

Mr. LYONS. The interest in purchase, obviously, is a function ofstumpage price is a function of the quality of the timber and a 

number of factors. Stumpage prices declined precipitously between 

the time that the Recision Act was passed and the salvage rider 

was put into effect and where we are now. 

Mr. VENTO. I know there are other economic factors, Mr. Secretary, that affect it, but I do not think that it affects the fact that 

Region 6 tends to be a very high grade timber, whether it is salvage or non-salvage. I mean, those are still the Douglas firs and 

cedars and other types of timber. I mean, we just do not have that 

in Minnesota. There is not quite as much interest in aspen. 

Mr. LYONS. Of course, most of the salvage in Region 6 comes 

from the east side, Mr. Vento, so while we have high quality 

softwoods west of the Cascades and certainly have some highly val-
66 

ued timber on the east side, the salvage we are talking about is 

from the east side, and that is a function of, as I said, the factors 

that impact its quality and--

Mr. VENTO. What often happens, Mr. Secretary, that, in fact, 

when putting a salvage proposal together, besides trying to be economic, you are trying to do something called forest health, is that 

right? 

Mr. LYONS. Correct. 

Mr. VENTO. I note that my colleague, of course, went on to point 

out, and it looks like to me that there is a pretty good definition 

in this that the Secretary is, in fact, pointing out that the salvage 

definition in the law that was passed was very broad and vague, 

in his words, in the words of the Secretary, the memorandum of 

the Secretary of July 2. That is what the Secretary says. Then he 

goes on to talk about trees eminently susceptible to insect attack, 

and then he goes on to talk about eminently susceptible to fire, but 

in that definition, he also deals not just with fire but he deals with 

personal property and life. 

Mr. LYONS. What we have tried to do, Mr. Vento, is place a high 

priority on those sales that are in what we call the urban interface 

zone, so we areMr. VENTO. I certainly understand that, Mr. Secretary. I just 

want it on the record. I mean, the point here is that when the Forest Service is dealing with these issues, they are not just dealing 

with these in the abstract in terms of volume but they are dealing 

with a number of other goals that are trying to be achieved, like 

preventing personal property from being damaged, is that correct? 

Mr. LYONS. That is correct. 

Mr. VENTO. The law does not specify that. This rider, at least., 

does not specify that. It seems to me that the Secretary in point 

four is also trying to avoid unnecessary duplication when he sayE., 

any part of a sale and preparation that was identified to the public 

through a scoping notice, environmental assessment, decision, or 

other manner prior to subsequent enactment of this law should, in 

fact, go forward. In other words, was there duplication going on? 

Mr. LYONS. Actually, I think that was intended to address another concern, Mr. Vento, and--

Mr. VENTO. Maybe I misunderstood it. 

Mr. LYONS. We wanted to be sure that in offering salvage sales, 

that sales did not proceed and were not offered under the emergency salvage program that had either been offered previously and 

withdrawn or had been offered previously as a green sale and then 

after the passage of the salvage rider were subsequently offered as 

a salvage sale under the emergency provisions. I think that is a 

rare event, but we wanted to be abundantly clear. 

Mr. VENTO. No. I thought points four and five-in fact, point five, 

I think, addressed that, so I think that there is, though, it seemed 

to me, in reading that, that this was actually intended to, in fac1;, 

not require duplication, and that point five actually addressed the 

answer that you have just given me. 

One of the suggestions here is that there is a direct relation--

we have heard this allegation over and over and I want the Forest 

Chief or yourself, Mr. Secretary, to respond to it-and that is that 
67 

the incidence of fire and its relationship to salvage and the manner 

in which the forests are managed. 

And secondly, I wanted to raise the question about reducing the 

total volume of salvage that might be occurring, even though you 

have right now what many would describe as an aggressive program, one which, in fact, limits the application of various procedures and process which, I think, really in the end is not going to 

be helpful. But in any case, it does truncate many of the laws and 

other process that have normally been followed, but will, in fact, 

because of drought, because of other factors, really overshadow 

what happens in terms of salvage sales, not the least of which one 

is, of course, that you cannot sell the salvage. If you, in fact, prepare the sale, you cannot force people to buy it because there are 

market forces and/or other issues that deal with profitability. 

So my two questions, one deals with giving a shot on fire, and 

second on reducing the total amount of salvage that is in our national forests by virtue of this law or any other. 

Mr. LYONS. I would say, Mr. Vento, that we believe with these 

additional directive and clarification offered by the Secretary, we 

are going to be within the goal that we agreed to with the Congress 

as a part of the salvage rider that was on the Recision Act. 

With regard--

Mr. VENTO. Let me just interject, though, that the law that was 

read here said that you would reduce the total amount of salvage 

available in the forests. 

Mr. LYONS. The law directed us to address the backlog that exists, and I would say that there is certainly a tremendous amount 

of work that needs to be done to improve forest health. Salvage is 

one portion of that. 

I will let Jack address silviculturally what it is we are trying to 

tackle. 

Mr. THOMAS. Without giving a long speech, this issue is so politicized that everybody is losing focus here. We have a forest health 

problem, in my opinion, when we define what is healthy, and 

healthy enough for what. It took us a long time to get there. We 

would not get out of this with the salvage rider, with or without 

it. This is a small portion of the problem. 

Salvage can be part of the solution. Sometimes salvage is to 

make some silvicultural treatment, to fireproof. Sometimes salvage 

is just salvage because it makes sense. We can do it, achieve some 

objectives of getting ready for regeneration, that we can provide 

jobs, we can provide wood to the mills. Sometimes salvage is just 

salvage. 

This issue needs to be a broader discussion. This salvage rider 

is a blip. When it is over, no matter what our achievement is, we 

still have a very large problem that we have to collectively address 

in some intelligent fashion. 

I will make my little speech now. I hate to see us so diverted by 

this particular question that we lose focus on the larger questions 

that we have to address. This is just :part of it. We do have salvage 

we can do. We were already aggressively moving ahead with salvage. But I am afraid that all of this argument is beginning to divert us from the real question of how we address those questions 

that have evolved over a very long period of time. This will not get 
68 

us out of it. This did not get us into it. This is one year in a very, 

very long program and we need to start talking about how we an~ 

going to get from A to some desirable condition further downlinE'. 

That is my answer, and excuse my speech. 

Mr. VENTO. I appreciate it, but I just think it is an important 

question because the presumption is that this is sort of a downpayment and that you can reduce the amount of salvage, but I think 

it is obvious from the economics and from weather and other factors that are going on that it is not likely to happen even if you 

hit the so-called targets here, even if the market sustains it. 

I think the other issue, of course, is the whole fire regime issue 

and the suggestion that simply the lack of an aggressive salvage 

program is responsible for the fires. It would be good just for fires 

to burn where there are salvage laws, but unfortunately, they do 

not do that. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you. 

If I may ask Nancy Hayes another question, we had some interesting testimony to start out with. Sue Kupillas testified today 

about the blowdown/snowdown salvage sale possibility and testified 

there are tens of millions of board feet of timber, probably 100 million board feet of timber in these lands. They say a lot of this is 

sawmill quality timber. This is kind of under your jurisdiction. Do 

you intend to harvest that? 

Ms. HAYES. Yes. We try and harvest any-well, if it is too dispersed, it is difficult to harvest it. It may not be cost effective. We 

may not get bidders. But assuming that the blowdown is condensed 

enough that it makes sense, we try to harvest that. My understanding, also, is that the forest plan does not preclude such harvest in LSRs, which--

Mr. HANSEN. You have two of them. One is yours and one is the 

Forest Service's. What does the Forest Service intend to do? 

Mr. THOMAS. We ordinarily pick up any salvage opportunity that 

we have that we can do under environmental restriction and that 

makes some semblance of economic and social sense. But as Nancy 

was trying to point out, even in the Northwest, where their lands 

are located, and in Region 6 that we are discussing, such salvage 

is not even precluded within late successional reserves. 

Mr. HANSEN. I do not disagree with what you said earlier, Chief, 

regarding the bigger picture. I agree with that, and I know that 

some of these targets are sometimes arbitrary, just like we have arbitrary things. We just kind of like to follow it out and see what 

we can do to get the best of both worlds, if there is a way to do 

that. You could salvage some of this timber, keep the prices of timber down, which seems to be totally prohibitive today. In fact, a 

guy was telling me the other day you can build a steel house cheaper than you can a wood house, which I thought was an amazing 

statement. 

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I might want to point out to yc•u 

that we have had a precipitous decline in stumpage value, which 

is part of our problem in being able to get some of this stuff marketed. Things that we could have obviously marketed when we 

started preparing the sale, by the time we got through, the price 

had declined to the point where it was difficult for us to sell it. 
69 

Mr. HANSEN. The market is always the driver in this thing, there 

is no question about it, just like our cattlemen right now. I wonder 

if there will be any of them left at the end of the year. The cattle 

prices are down to zilch, but you do not see anything reduced in 

the supermarket. That is what bothers me, and it kind of gives you 

a little clue. I have had a chat with Secretary Glickman, and I appreciate him moving out on that. I have greatest the respect for 

Secretary Glickman and his group. He seems to be on top of it. 

Mr. Herger, do you have some questions for this last panel? 

Mr. HERGER. Thank you. I do, Mr. Chairman. Again, I appreciate 

a chance to be able to sit on your panel and I appreciate our panelists. 

Just catching part of your last statement here, Chief Thomas, I 

would have to say I agree with you. We have a major problem, 

which I believe the Forest Service and many of us are aware of. 

At least, some of us are aware of this. We eliminated fire beginning 

in the 1850's, heavily eliminated it in the early 1900's and up to 

this point, and we have forests that by the Forest Service's own 

statistics are 82 percent denser and thicker than they were in 

1928, maybe one and a half times denser than they were in the 

1850's. 

Now, we are in this situation, particularly in California, where 

we are subject to droughts, where we do not get as much rainfall 

as in Washington and Oregon and where we now have forests that 

will burn entirely, unlike historically, prior to the Europeans coming to California, when there were periodic fires that did not bum 

the entire forest. That is what I see as a problem. I believe that 

is what you were alluding to, this big problem that we have of getting to and somehow managing these forests, at least in part. 

But just to ask you briefly, I know that you have stated before 

this Congress in the past that you have faith, great faith in the 

qualifications and judgment and work ethic of your local Forest 

Service experts. I would presume that this has not changed. 

Mr. THOMAS. That is correct. 

Mr. HERGER. If you would look at some pictures that we have 

taken from different areas in the district that I represent, one is 

a picture of the Lick Creek, which is part of the Klamath National 

Forest and part of the Dillon fire area, and the other is a Lone Pine 

Ridge which is between the Six Rivers and the Shasta Trinity, on 

the border of both Congressman Riggs' and my district. 

Your local experts have identified these two sites as areas that 

are eminently susceptible to fire. I guess my initial question is 

whether you would agree with them? 

Mr. THOMAS. I would not argue with my local experts, but I will 

not answer it over looking at those pictures. 

Mr. HERGER. Understandably. But these are some pictures of the 

areas that they looked at extensively on the ground and have determined-at least, their judgment was that these sites are a major 

risk and that there should be something done with them, like treatment, in order to reduce the risk of wildfire. Yet both of these 

areas, both Lick Creek and Lone Pine Ridge, are located in 

roadless areas. Based on the recent directives from the Secretary 

of Agriculture and clarifying memoranda from you, will these sales 
70 

that have been recommended by your local experts go forward 

under the salvage law? 

Mr. THOMAS. Under the salvage law, no, sir, but I would assume 

if they are good, sound operations and those roadless areas are in 

the timber base, we will proceed under regular process after the expiration of the salvage law. I think the Secretary's concern is that 

we prepare full environmental impact statements for entry into 

roadless areas that are in the forest plans for timber base, that 

that is the standard process and he feels that we should not enter 

a roadless area without ability for public appeal. 

Mr. HERGER. You are also aware, being Chief of the Forest Service, of the problem we have. The reason for the salvage law was 

the fact that we have a timeframe for working before these trees 

become unmarketable. 

Mr. THOMAS. Yes, sir. 

Mr. HERGER. Depending on the species, it is 18 months to three 

years at maximum, two to three years. If the extreme environmentalists through their lawsuits can stall us long enough, it does 

not matter if you put them up, and that is what is happening. We 

sat down and spent a lot of time, both with yourself and your representatives when we drew up the salvage law this last year. This 

was the problem that we were addressing, and yet you-maybe I 

should begin addressing my questions to Mr. Lyons. 

Mr. Lyons, why is it that the very tool that the administration 

worked with us to draw up, including the Forest Service and Mr. 

Thomas, is being defeated by a directive that now will stall this 

longer and do exactly the opposite of what the intent was? 

Mr. LYONS. I think, Mr. Herger, the Secretary stated it best in 

the memorandum that he sent to Jack. He stated in the opening 

paragraph, "Unique and unprecedented provisions of the emergency salvage program authorized in P.L. 104-19 impose an equally unprecedented responsibility upon us to administer the program 

while sustaining the public's confidence in our stewardship of the 

national forests. While I believe the program has been successful 

due to the dedication of Forest Service employees, I do have some 

concerns and members of the public have expressed concerns about 

its implementation and those concerns have given rise to the following clarifications in policy." That is, I think, the key. 

Also, I just want to clarify for the record that our participation 

in the development of the salvage rider was, I think, more at the 

tail end than in the beginning, as we sought to mitigate some of 

the impacts of what we thought the initial version of that bill 

might be. 

Mr. HERGER. Are you saying that the agreement that the administration, through the Forest Service, came up with and signed off 

on a letter, as well as the letter that President Clinton signed in 

which he said he intended to implement this, were not what they 

really meant? 

Mr. LYONS. I am saying two things, Mr. Herger. One is that we 

will fulfill the commitments that we made, consistent with the letter that was written by Secretary Glickman to the Speaker, and we 

will operate consistent with the goals that were set, plus or minus 

25 percent. 
71 

I think the other thing I am saying is, and I have said this earlier, we are operating through this directive in a manner consistent 

with the statute, and let me be clear about that. The statute says 

in Section 2001(c), "A document embodying decisions relating to 

salvage timber sales proposed under the authority of this section 

shall, at the sole discretion of the Secretary concerned and to the 

extent the Secretary concerned considers appropriate and feasible, 

consider the environmental effects of the salvage timber sale and 

the effect, if any, on any threatened or endangered species, and to 

the extent the Secretary concerned, at his sole discretion, considers 

appropriate and feasible, be consistent with any standards and 

guidelines from the management plans applicable to the national 

forest or Bureau of Land Management district on which the salvage sale occurs," the key phrase being "to the extent the Secretary 

concerned, at his sole discretion, considers". 

The Secretary has put out additional clarification consistent with 

his discretion provided in the statute that you all authored so as 

to ensure that the salvage sale program is implemented in a manner consistent with the goals and objectives set up by the President, and that is simply what we are seeking to achieve here. We 

are not stopping salvage sales. We are clarifying under which authority salvage sales should proceed, consistent with the statute. 

Mr. HERGER. So, you are saying that you are not stopping salvage sales. We just went over the fact that we do have experts in 

the field who have recommended sales in both of the cases that we 

have pictures of. Are you saying, then, that the Secretary is making the decision to override the experts in the field, to say, no, we 

are going to hold these sales up? 

Mr. LYONS. No, Mr. Herger. The Secretary has simply indicated 

that these sales in roadless areas should proceed under a different 

process, the process that would normally apply to salvage sales if 

the salvage rider were not in effect. It is likely that these salvage 

sales will proceed. However, they will proceed under the normal 

process of an EIS with an opportunity for public input and possibly 

appeal. 

Mr. HERGER. And we are already two years into both of these 

sales. We have a window of maybe three years at the max, two to 

three years. So in other words, by the time we finish studying this, 

which was the whole purpose of the salvage bill to begin with, and 

even if they decide to go ahead, there will not be any economic 

value of going ahead and salvaging this. That is, in essence, what 

you are saying. 

Mr. LYONS. No, Mr. Herger. That is not what I am saying. What 

I am saying isMr. HERGER. Because with the present legislation, the Forest 

Service supervisors, of which Jack Ward Thomas, the Chief, has indicated in prior testimony and just here a few minutes ago, he has 

confidence in, both have recommended, with their studies, going 

ahead with these. Yet you are saying that we are going to have the 

Secretary of Agriculture, Bill Clinton's Secretary of Agriculture, 

hold these up an additional amount of time to the point that these 

sales would be infeasible. 
72 

Mr. LYONS. All we are saying, Mr. Herger, is that the expertE. 

should detennine whether or not these are appropriate salvage: 

sales. The policy decision that has been made and the direction---

Mr. HERGER. And they have indicated they are. 

Mr. LYONS. And the policy decision and direction that is being of-· 

fered is that if these are, in fact, salvage sales that should proceed. 

in roadless areas, then those should go through a different process 

than the emergency process which should apply to true emer .. gencies. It should apply to those sales that face an imminent threat 

to fire or insect or disease, that pose a threat to life and property. 

Mr. HERGER. Is the feeling, then, that owls and habitat will bt! 

able to dwell in these areas better once a fire has completely 

burned them down? 

Mr. LYONS. I cannot speak to the impacts of these particular 

sales, Mr. Herger. 

Mr. HERGER. Because, in essence, that is what we are doing. We 

are dooming these forests to fires, whether it be by lightning or accidental causes, which will burn them completely. If that happens 

in these areas, the sole blame will be at the feet of the Bill Clinton 

administration. 

Mr. LYONS. Let me clarify, Mr. Herger. I believe what we are trying to do is make sure that we proceed in a manner that protects 

forest health, that reduces fire risk, and restores public confidence 

in the agency. What this salvage rider has done, in fact, in an attempt to expedite and bypass the public, has done more to upse'; 

and affect the credibility of the agency than anything any administration has done. 

I would point to the fact that the Secretary and I both agree the 

Forest Service has done an exemplary job in implementing the salvage rider. The problem is that it has created tremendous public~ 

concern and misperceptions about the capability of the agency, and 

we are forced to try and address that through clarification reflected 

in this policy document. That is what the salvage rider has done. 

Mr. HERGER. I appreciate the patience of the Chainnan. I have 

gone overtime, and I appreciate your listening. 

We have heard from previous panels that those who live in the 

areas are not happy at all with the job that the administration ha:; 

done with this, and I think what it boils down to is whether we 

stall this long enough to where we can make it feasible to take out 

these trees or whether it costs us taxpayer dollars either in fighting 

fires or taking them out in a way that is not feasible. 

Mr. Chainnan, I thank you and I thank the panelists for their 

patience. 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you. This has been a longer hearing than Wl:'l 

expected, and I apologize to our witnesses for many of us being in 

and out, but there are a lot of obligations on the Hill at this particular_ point. I am keeping quite a few people waiting right now. 

Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chainnan? 

Mr. HANSEN. Yes? 

Mr. VENTO. I just wanted to make one comment on the last 

thing, and I appreciate it, and I will not be long. I think that, given 

the capability of the Forest Service, or for that matter, the BLM, 

to deal with salvage, dealing with and recognizing the backlog of 

salvage that exists, much of it uneconomic, probably, to remove--
73 

I mean, there are those problems-! think it is almost certain that 

if somebody sets up some sort of a goal with billions of board feet, 

whatever it is, unless it absolutely would take care of everything, 

and if three years is the life of timber on the ground, as an example, in terms of its economic use, you are almost doomed to fail, 

given the fact that you have tens of billions of board feet of salvage 

that exists in non-wilderness, non-park type of areas. 

So the question is picking and choosing and making the sales. 

There are not the dollars there to prepare the sales, much less to 

do the forest health. So it is a scenario in which, unless they cut 

exactly what I want-for instance, in Minnesota, we had had some 

straight-line winds that knocked out some timber in the Chippewa 

National Forest. I think they used the salvage law. They probably 

would not have had to use it. There had been salvage that had 

gone on before and there will be salvage that goes on after. 

The real question that we have to address, and I think this is 

what the Chief was pointing to, was whether or not we have the 

dollars and the policy in place that will, in fact, deal with the total 

forest health problem afterwards, because the salvage rider, in that 

sense, besides making everyone angry, with 318 and the roadless 

area types of harvest that occurred in Montana and apparently in 

Colorado-! did not remember that-but those actually were just 

taken out of the wilderness study, or not taken out of the wilderness study but they were precluded from being protected under wilderness bills introduced, as they had been before. They were not 

legislated wilderness study areas. 

I mean, that is the sort of scenario you set up. So you can sit 

up here with anyone. You can bang on them and you can tell them 

that, but the fact is, they have to pick and choose what they are 

going to do and what is workable, and those that are the most viable and economical-if you have roadless areas, right off the bat, 

one of the costs is the roads. So that almost on its face indicates 

a higher cost type of option than where it is already roaded. 

Mr. HANSEN. I do not think we are going to resolve this if you 

two get into a debate, so I will not let you. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. VENTO. I am not trying to. 

Mr. HANSEN. Let me JUSt say, there are a lot of problems involved in this thing. My heart goes out to Jack Ward Thomas many 

times because I think before he makes a move, he has to figure out 

all the legal challenges he is going to have on that plus all the h~ps that we put for him to jump through, so do your best. 

Thanks to each and every one of you for coming today. We appre- ciate your patience and your testimony. We are now adjourned. [Whereupon, at 2:51 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned; and 

the following was submitted for the record:] 
74 

U.S. House ofRepresentatives 

Committee on Resources 

Subcommittee on Parks, Forests and Lands 

The Honorable James V. Hansen, Chairman 

July 23, 1996 

Statement by the Honorable Wally Herger 

It is not often that I agree with President Clinton when it comes to forest 

management. However, I fuUy concur with a statement he made in 1993 at a press 

conference announcing Option 9. President Clinton said on that occasion that "the Pacific 

Northwest requires both a healthy economy and a healthy environment and that one 

cannot exist without the other." 

It is only appropriate, therefore, that we hold this hearing to determine whether the 

Clinton Forest Plan is successfuUy preserving both our environment and our northwest 

economies. 

Perhaps the best place to start is the health of the environment. I draw the 

subcommittee's attention to two photographs taken within two late successional reserves 

in northern California. These are two small portions of the 21 million acres permanently 

set aside under the Clinton plan for little or no human management. The stated purpose of 

late successional reserves is to protect old growth forest ecosystems and habitat for 

species like the spotted owl. 

The first photograph is of a burned late successional reserve on Lick Creek in the 

Klamath National Forest in my district. The second is ofa blowdown in a late successional 

reserve along Lone Pine Ridge in the Six Rivers National Forest bordering my district and 

Mr. Riggs' district. As you can see, pictures truly can paint a thousand words. 

The Lick Creek site burned in 1994 in a fire that covered over 27,000 acres. Tile 

Lone Pine Ridge site wall part of a blowdown 17 miles long and 7 miles wide. Both sites 

are now imminently suscepttble to insect infestations, disease and wildfire. The local 

Forest Service believes both are in immediate need of emergency salvage harvesting under 

the salvage law to protect owl habitat, begin reforestation, and provide several million 

board feet of timber for local mills. Tfl8i.cally, however, the C~n Administration has 

forbidden it under a recent direc:tive ftom the Clinton Administration restricting 

implementation of the timber salvage law. 

These scenes can be repeated over and over again in the Option 9 fon:sts of 

northern California. Washington policies which mandate doins nothins are literally 

destroyins the health of our forests. 

Tnpdies like Lic:k Crook '•.:I Lone Pine Ridge are the direct consequence of 

Wuhinston dictatins local policy under the salvase law. But even without the sa1vage 
75 

law, the Clinton Forest Plan would still prevent local managers from treating these sites. 

To better explain what I mean, I would like to show the subcommittee a chart that 

illustrates the process the Clinton plan requires local forest managers to follow in order to 

treat areas like Lick Creek and Lone Pine Ridge. 

By way of explanation, the yellow and red portions represent the additional 

process required under Option 9 that is not otherwise required under current law. If you 

find this process unusually complicated or long, you are not alone. So do our local forest 

managers. I am told by the people on the ground that it is not unusual to take the full 

three years shoWn on the chart to treat sites like Lick Creek and Lone Pine Ridge. This is 

without litigation. Unfortunately, the Douglas fir and ponderosa pine trees at Lick Creek 

will be badly deteriorated within three years. The white fir trees at Lone Pine Ridge will 

be worthless within 18 months. 

When and if these sales go to bid, nobody will bid on them, because they will be 

practically worthless. A3 a consequence, nothing will be accomplished on either site. Lick 

Creek and Lone Pine Ridge will be a total loss to the forest, to local communities, and to 

the American taxpayer. With impossible situations like these, it is little wonder that the 

Clinton Plan has yielded in 1994 and 1995 combined only one quarter of the 2 billion 

board feet that Secretary Babbitt, in a July 1993 press conference, promised the 

Administration would harvest in 1994 alone. 

President Clinton's statement was true. A3 we lose places like Lick Creek and 

Lone Pine Ridge, our local economies in northern California are sure to follow. In 1994, 

the same year u the tire that burned Lick Creek, the local mill in Happy Camp, only a 

stone's throw from Lick Creek, closed permanently for lack of timber. Last May the local 

mill in Hayfork, just to the northeast of Lone Pine Ridge, also closed perrnanently for lack 

of timber. Hayfork is the 30th mill in my district to close in recent years. The tragic irony 

of Hayfork is that the surrounding forests contain enough d~ and dying timber to have 

kept this mill operating for another IS years. 

It should come u no surprise that Trinity County, where Hayfork is located. has 

an unemployment rate consistently rangins from 15% to 24%. It should come uno 

surprise that 800A of the children in Happy Camp Elementary School receive free or 

reduced meals. President Clinton predicted it would happen. His forest plan and forest 

management directives issued from Washington are malcing it happen. 

To close, I would like to submit for the record a letter to President Clinton I 

received recently from Nadine Bailey, a former constituent of mine. Nadine tells the tragic 

story of a promise President Clinton made to her daughter, Elizabeth, in 1993 and the 

events that have transpired since. Time will not allow me to read the letter, so I 

encourage every member of the subcommittee to do so. Nadine and Elizabeth used to live 

in Hayfork while the mill was still operating. Their story puts a profoundly human face on 

what I have been talking about. 

2 
76 

The people of northern California deserve some answers. The towns of Happy 

Camp and Hayfork desetve some answers. Nadine and Elizabeth Bailey desetves some 

answers. Hopefully we will be able to provide a few today. Thank you. 

3 
President Bill Clinton 

The White House 

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue 

Washington, D.C. 20SOO 

Dear Presidcot Clinton, 

77 

Lost Dreams and Broken Promises 

A Letter to Bill Clinton 

March 11, 1996 

You made a promise to my daughter on a national television program. When Elizabeth 

showed you her yeartJook with oames of the children whose parents would lose :heir jobs because of 

the spotU:d owl, you made a promise to her and to all the children who live in timber dependent 

communities. Do you remember what you said? 

Your piOIIIise was that you would sohe the problems in the Northwest aDd Califomia. That 

you would briDe eftiYOIIII togetber aDd they would come up with a solution that would allow Jos&ing 

8lld piOioet the spotted owl. Do you maember? Do you care where Elizabeth is today? Do you care 

where bel' father is? Do you bow bow bard bel' family worked to bring about solutions that would 

save the commwlity and ensure the health of the forest? I hope this brief IIUIDIIIII)' of the last three 

yean wiD make you UDdenlaDd 8lld repel your brokea promise. 

{I993) AftrJr the IWIIIIIit. I worked with the eaviJonmental community to deYelop a plan that 

would .sci jobs wbiie protcctiDc blbitat 8lld wildlife. I leCeiYed a call fnlm V'ICII PRsideat Ckn 

ukiDa fiH' my support for the OptioD 9 FON&t PlaJl. 

{1993·1994) The OptioD 9 plan is approved 8lld the Hayfork R8ioa aeu a Adaptm 

Ma ........ AJea. (These Ileal were specially desipcd to haw adapCiw IDIMF""""Ieelmiques 

used 10 produce procludB that would enable local communities 10 1111\'i-ve the transitiollllloqbt about 

by dlaqes ill forest management) Hopei are IIIah ill Hayfork that some relief from the timber supply 

crisis wiD he felt. 

{SpriD& 1994) Jobs become bard 10 ftDd. GlaDis for OptioD 9 do llllt make their way 10 

IIIIOIIIplo)'ed logpn. In face, ill public: forums your representatiw admits that IIIUdl of the moacy will 

ao 10 iDlrastnK:ture. In other words, the people 11101t affected by dwlae ill natiOIIII forest po&y will 

he the leut lltely 10 rec:eM belp. We 1111 loDpr haw our own buliDal. Yean of work 10 build a 

~-.-8lld my huiiiUid, Wall)', -a for the clifl'emlt cmplo)'ers, - .. &r away II 

cipt llaun. Families arelllldiDa to leaw the Hayfblt area. Some 1'riDiiJ COUIIIy ICbool clistric:ls - haw 96% of cbiidlal on fiee IIIII Ndueed luadles Mlidi.IDIIIIIS they 1M below the pcM1ty lm:l. 

{Falll994) The last large logger in Hayfork prcpan:s 10 move operation because of lack of 

work. The Adaptive Management Area fails to produce any more timber than other areas under 

Option 9. In fact, there seems to he more study in the AMA than in other areas a1f~ed by Option 9. 

(Spring 199S) We move our family from our home in Hayfork to Redding. At Ibis point, I 

contaded the many agencies that had been giving money to help displaced workers for help with the 

mCM:. We were told that we didn't qualify because my husband had aln:ady found work. We were 

fon:ed to borrow money from a family member to move. We had been bome owners, now we are 

faced with rentiDg, aDd finding the $2000.00 needed for deposits. We cannot sell our home partly 

because of the !Dirket, 8lld partly because the bouse was built by my mother and father and I can't 

face losing my home. Wally becomes m;n more bitter about being betrayed by your administration. 

Despite my job with tbe California Forestry Associalion we fiill deeper into debt. My kids are aot 

happy. City life is much diffaeat. To leaw a high school with 12S kids 8lld start again in a high 

school with 1000 is aiiiiOit too much for country kids. I am 'Vel)' coDCerlled about Elizabeth. She 

misses her friends so much. Wall)' fiDcls work six boun from bome. He moves out 101M on the job 

site 8lld I become a sin&Je IIIDiher again. 
78 

(April24, l99S) A bomb goes off at my office killing my boss and friend, Gil Murray. I 

seem to have lost the beart to fight for our community. Nothing I have done for the last four years 

seems to have made a difference. My trust in government and society as a whole is weakened. You 

used the Oklahoma Bombing to attack right wing political groups. You never mention the 

Unabomber. Vice President Gore doesn't call this time. 

(Summer 199S) Where did I go wrong, was it believing in the promises of a president? 

Could I have done more? Everything is beginning to unravel. With the exception of some local 

groups that came together to seek solutions through consensus, like the Quincy LibllUY Group and the 

Trinity River CRIMP. everyone seems to be going back to war. I wonder if you realize what an 

opportunity you bad to heal old wounds. Instead, all bope is fading for the future of towns like 

Hayfork. I still get calls late at night from people not knowing bow they will make it through the 

winter, wanting to know if they should stick it out, if there is any hope that things will change. For 

the first time in my life, I have no hope. 

(Fall 199S) I am offered a job at the Timber Producers Association of Michigan and 

Wisconsin in Rhinelander, Wisconsin. We are not making it in California The wolkjust isn't there. 

How can I leave my home and family to start over in a strange land miles from home? How can I ask 

my family to give more than they've already given? 

(Winter 1995-1996) Wisconsin experienced the coldest winter in SO years but we survive it. 

I love my job, but suffer as I see my family longing for the friends they love so much. I dream of the 

South Folk mountains, the river so clean and cold, the hot summer sun and the sound of the wind 

through the trees. We swvive but our hearts ache. 

(February 1996) I receive a call from a close friend. She tells me that the mill in Hayfolk is 

closing. I sit in the living room with the lights out, looking at the frozen whiteness that surrounds 

me. The landscape looks like how my heart feels, barren and cold, a great white void I can't allow 

myself to think of the pain my community is experiencing. How will they cope with the reality that 

their way of life is gone forever? I wonder, do you know and do you care? 

(March 1996) I read a press release where you say that the salvage rider is undermining the 

healing process that Option 9 bad produced. Do you actually believe this? Do you remember the 

workers whose wounds weren't healed, whose pain and loss was simply swept aside? Do you 

remember Elizabeth Bailey and the promises you made? Or do you think she has healed? Do you 

have the courage to meet her face to face now? 

One of the first things I did when I became involved with forestry issues was an interview 

with Chris Bowman for the Sacramento Bee. He said, "Nadine, your story would make a great DIOYieof-the-week, but you would have to die at the end" I doubt very much if my husband and son will stay 

in the Lake States. They dream of the mountains and the tall trees and the sound of the wind in the 

canyon too much. So in the end, with my family scattered like leaves, a part of me has died. All I 

wanted was to keep our community together. When that hope died, I guess a part of me did too. 

Maybe it's time to make that movie now. 

Sincerely, 

Nadine Bailey 

Former Resident of Hayfork, California 
79 

HELEN CHENOWETH 

Oversight hearing on 

President Clinton's Option 9 Forest Plan ~· 

Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests & Lands 

House Committee on Resources 

July 23, 1996 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing. Although 

my district does not contain any of the so called "Option 9" forests, 

what is happening with President Clinton's Forest Plan in the Pacific 

Northwest will most likely serve as a model for the Columbia River 

Basin's forest plan, which is in my district. My concern here, 

however, is that the Option 9 plan affecting the Pacific Northw~ will 

be by default used as the model for the rest of the country. Option 9, 

Mr Chairman, is not a model to protect fish and animals, or to put 

people back to work. Option 9 is nothing more than a model to line 

lawyers' pockets; a model of what not to do. It is not a model forest 

program that we should follow when crafting other forest plans. 

The President's so called Option 9 solution was announced in 

1993, and adopted in 1994·:· The plan was to be the great "solution" -

- the solution to saving owls, squirrels, and fish, and a solution to 

saving jobs. Yet, here we are in 1996. Nothing has changed for the 

better. Between 1993 and 1995, 66 mills closed their doors in 
80 

Oregon, Washington and California. Unemployment has continued to 

skyrocket in many of the rural communities despite President 

Clinton's promise of economic assistance and retraining for displaced 

workers. Its worth noting, Mr. Chairman, that when jobs are found, 

they are not well-paying, food-on-the-table jobs. they are too often 

temporary and do not provide sufficient wage to support a family. 

In my district, the agencies are putting the final touches on the 

Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project (ICBEMP). 

Public comment closes next month. If the President's Option 9 

Forest Plan serves as a guide post, I have grave doubts that the 

ICBEMP will do what is promised. Let's look at the facts. 

President Clinton's Option 9 plan was to provide One Billion 

Board Feet (1 bbf) of sawtimber annually. Let me restate that for 

clarity. President Clinton promised to facilitate annual timber 

sales of one billion board feet. He's not even come close. 

The first year that Option 9 was in effect, BLM and USFS sales 

were 0.187 bbf. FY95 saw 0.336 bbf; and sadly, Mr. Chairman, 

FY96 is projected at less than 0.5 bbf. Each of these levels fall 

miserably below President Clinton's promised level of timber sale 

availability. ...... 

Mr. Chairman, these paultry numbers must be considered not 

only against the one billion board feet of sawtimber promised by the 

President, but against the back drop of the 4.5 billion board feet 

2 
81 

produced in the 1980s. The agreed upon one billion board feet goal 

was already a compormised number; compromised to only 25% of 

previous production. How would you like to live upon only 2~,% of 

your previous year's salary? 

Today, even with President Clinton's one billion board feet 

promise, the actual production numbers are so low (less than 20% of 

FY94's promise) that they are killing Pacific Northwest rural timber 

communities. Between 1993 and 1995, 66 mills shut their doors. 

The one billion board feet, Mr. Chairman, is a promise by 

President Clinton made to the families of the Pacific Northwest who 

make their living from timber -- a promise that was broken. 

As if this weren't enough evidence of the Clinton 

Administration's true intentions, Mr. Chairman, Secretary of 

Agriculture Dan Glickman earlier this month issued a new directive 

that clearly violates the intent of Timber Salvage Act (P.L. 104-19). 

We passed the Salvage Act to streamline some of the bureaucracy that 

does nothing but keep salvageable timber from being harvested --

often times resulting in the timber just rotting away or being 

consumed by massive forest fll"es. This is literally burning money; 

money that should be food on the table of timber families. 

Yet, Secretary Glickman's own staff has stated that some of the 

salvage sales that would have qualified under the Congressional 

directive are now pulled and not allowed under the new Glickman 

3 
82 

directive. Let me restate that, even though President Clinton has 

promised one bbf, he has effectively pulled numerous qualified timber 

sales, three alone in my district totalling 36.2 million board feet. I've 

got to ask, Mr. Chairman, is this a good faith effort to reach 

President Clinton's one bbf promise to the American people? Sadly, I 

have to answer no. Another Promise Made, Another Promise 

Broken. 

I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today, Mr. 

Chairman, and to asking the Administration witnesses some of these 

questions. Thank you. 

4 
83 

TESTIMONY OF 

SUE KUPILLAS, JACKSON COUNTY COMMISSIONER 

Before the 

House Committee on National Parks, Forests and Lands 

July 23, 1996 

Good morning I am Sue Kupillas, second term commissioner serving Jackson County. The 

federal goYcrnment exerts anovenvbelming influence on our citizens, our communities and 

business'. The BLM manages 449,000 acres in Jackson county alone. With the addition of 

the three national forests which are found in Jackson County, federal land managers 

control almost 50% of the counties land base. About half of the county budget, historically 

has been revenues from timber ban'est on federal lands. Jackson Counties shared timber 

receipts resulted in as 

much as $17 million for the general fund. In the national recession of the early 1980's 

shared timber receipts dipped as low as 56.1 million. These receipts have funded an array 

of sen•ices, i.e. USFS contributed to roads and sc:!!.ools; 0 & C general fund revenuea 

supported the criminal justice system, the administrative Sen'ic:es and small contributions 

that sustained human service non-proftts as well as OSU extension sen'ices including 4-H, 

home-ec and beef production education, also maintained the Water Masten office in the 

county, and the Soil Consen'ation Sen'ice. The county has downsized, combined 

departments, eliminated functions, and privatized sen'ices, anticipating the shortfall with 

changing forest management practices. Jackson County wrote the book on reinventing 

government. With a fast growing population and increasing demand for more law 

enforcement, human services, there Is no comprehensive simple answer, but we feel the 

residents should bear part of the burden thus the proposed tax levy, and because the land is 

not available to tax, the timber receipts should also make up for part ofthe shortfaU. In 

this testimony I will include the statistics and effects of rcnnues declining because of the 

annual reduction in the safety net. The Federal Government has set programs to address 

the job loss and declining revenues in the counties. Therefore I would also like to address 

the effectiveness of programs created to ease the job loss from the wood products industry. 

Finally, the future of timber receipts and the future of Jaclc.son County depend on the 

success or failure of the Record of Decision on the Presidents Forest Plan for the 

Northwest. Because of the Counties direct impact, I will discuss the implementation 

problems with the President's Forest Plan ROD. 
84 

2 

The reduction in timber receipts has a negative effect on Jackson County. In the 

addendum you will see the actual3% reduction in 0 & C revenues projected out. While 

Jackson County is putting two tax levies on the September 17 ballot, the amount asked for 

will not make up for the decline in 0 & C. If the 0 & C revenue would disappear 

tomorrow, Jackson County would no longer be able to support a county criminal justiee 

system. We would be unable to apprehend, prosecute or incarcerate criminals. As it is the 

picture is dismal. Of the Sll.4 million dollars of current safety net from 0 & C, -$10.3 

million is dedicated to criminal justice, the District Attorney, the probation system, jail, 

the juvenile system and rural county sherifrs patrols. The people of Jackson County 

voted in support of a criminal justice levy to meet the increased demandl. The levy 

adequately increases staff for the Juvenile facility, the jail, the work release center, the 

DA's office and the probation office. The Commissioners guaranteed we would not reduce 

the 0 & C contribution we were already 1naking, if people would \'Ote to support increuses 

to handle our growing crime in the county. Still as these safety net dollars from 0 & Care 

racheted down, we must rachet down the criminal justice system. This Is in a countY that 

bas one of the highest crime statistics in Oregon and one of the fastest growina crime 

problems in the region. 

Also In the addendum you will see the list of cuts in services that will happen if the 

proposed library and general services levy do not pass September 17, 1996. When you 

look at the ~en•ices listed, you might think, we can get along without these services. Th·ey 

wont affect the average citizen. Let me describe one service where prevention Is having: a 

big impact and without the prevention we will ensure a growth In crime and violence. 

(Need I remind you that prevention is much less costly and the dollars for criminal justice 

are declining also.) The service I will ask you to focus on for a minute is tbe Rogue Fa1nily 

Center , a model program for the State of Oregon and the nation. Tbe RFC brings 

together fede1·al, state and county services, as well as the local school district. The miss:ion 

is development of nn integrated system to better serve the families to bring self-empowE.ring 

sen· ices to people willing to share the responsibility for themselves and each other. This Is 

the most successful project in the state to work with dysfunctional families and help them 

back into employment and self-sufficiency. I helped start this program to deal with the 
85 

dysfunctional families that were caught up in a cycle of domestic violence, child abuse, 

alcohol and drugs, thus rai~ing at risk children, destined to be our next generation of 

criminals. 

3 

Many of these families were dislocated timber workers (see attached 1995 Jackson County 

Housing Authority Report.) As a result of budget cuts and decline in 0 & C revenues, 

Jackson County "'ill no longer be participating in the Rogue F.tmily Center pro~:ram. The 

county programs include, prenatal care and referral services to obstetricians, 

immunixations, we!Usick child check-ups, blood pressure checks, stress management, 

nutrition assistance, answers to general medical questions and home visits to pregnant 

women and mothers "'ith young children. Mentlll Health will also be terminated, inc:Iuding 

counseling for children and adults for low income families and persons receiving Medicaid. 

We will also terminate HEALTHY START, a home visitation program for fll'St birth 

families, providing new parents "'ith information on baby care, infant feeding, growth and 

de ... ·clopment, activities to stimulate learning and parenting skills. Children in this area 

come to school with no readiness skills and many abuse symptoms. The long term impact 

on society is expensive, for these children at risk and it is preventable throu~:h a little 

inYestment and training during the first few months. 

If the levy fails in September, Jackson County Health Department will be out of the 

project entirely. Thus, the very people that would have timber industry jobs, out of work. 

needing county services, will not be sen·cd. The long term effects on this community and 

on Jackson county are immeasurable. I have been involved with this community in an 

elected official C.tpacity since 1980 when I was elected to the District 9 School Board, a 

district which includes this community. I have worked with this community toward 

empowerment for the residents for all these years. Here is an e."<ample, where the blue 

collar workers, retired ftxed income residents, and generally motivated community, need a 

hand up 'vith the few disenfranchised, problem families. We help with teachin; selfsufficienc)'• Each family we help through crisis and back into a fUnctioning unit, Is 

thousands of dollars and heartache saved. 
86 

Every one of the services listed will have cumulative damaging effects on the social 

structure and economics of Jackson County. \Vhen timber revenues decline, social systems 

decline, family wage jobs decline, crime rises and criminal justice systems are reduced. 

Another impact of the dollars allocated to address problems created by the Presidents 

Forest Plan on Jackson county and other counties is the JOBS Dl TIIE WOODS program. 

As a Board Member of the Job Council that administers the pro!:fam funds, I have had a 

direct interest in implementation and continuation of this prouam. The program is 

successful for the sb: participants who are employed currently as a result of training in this 

program. If this was intended to address the problem with dislocated wood products 

1\'0rl,ers, there ttrc by now thousands ohrorkers, formerly employed by tbe industry in 

family wage jobs, uo longer employed, and not affected by this proaram. The Jobs in the 

Woods wW not make up for lost indus1:r7 jobs. The problems being solved by the Rogue 

Institute of Eco!OiY o..nd Economy in btlping the forest service change antiqw.ted business 

and contracting poUcies, "'ill help future success of thls limited program. In the second 

phase, The Rogue Institute will help with apprentiship trnlning procrams and creating 

private-public partnenhips that bundle projects to create longer term projects for workers. 

This will improve the prospects for success. The addendum in the form of a 

memorandum from the Job Council shows that the program has six people entering 

employment with the cost of SG,308 per penon in 1995 and 14 in the 1996 program at 

S6857 per participant. I support continuation of this pt·ogram as one small component of 

training for tlte Job Council pro;rams that give preference for dislocated timber workers. I 

do not support charactcming this program as having a major impact on displaced timber 

workers. To that end, I emphatically support mnintaining a timber snle procram from 

feder-al lands which has multiple benefits in high-wage manufacturiaC jobs, support for 

social systems and county services, creation of a product dealrable in world markets odin 

addition creating a hcaltllier forest under new forestry practices. 

Because the timber snlc program from federal lands has been s"·erely restricted by the 

Presidents Forest Plan interpretation and has been subject to appeals, court actious, Jayen 

of administrative, prcscripti~·• regulatioa, political positioning by aatlona.llnterest I:J"OUpJ 

and delays, therefore I also support transfer of the 0 & C land:s to the State of Oregon, 
87 

where we are leaden in com billing good forestry, good science and a strong social and 

economic system. 

I am a Democrat and an environmentalist and I want whatever plan we use, to achieve 

management of our forests so our children and grandchildren "ill inherit vigorous, 

heotlthy forests that support their generations. 

The assumptions in The Forest Plan and the ROD include some that require creating a 

condition that has nenr historically existed on the fo1·est. (The "Disneyland" ecosystem 

syndrome). Specific:tlly, under the Standards and Guidelines for the plan there is a 

requirement for coarse woody debris of 120 linear feet, 16 inches in diameter that hu to 

e:rist on ever)· single acre. This is for the matri:t l:tnds. 

5 

Lets look at one sale observed by the Implementation Monitoring Team in the Butte Falls 

District, which was marked and sold, but not logged. The natural condition was that the 

stand had ne,·er been entered and was the 90 year old product of a stand replacement fire. 

The ground was somewhat clean and did not meet the requirement for coarse ~·oody 

debris required by the ROD. Remember the stand was ill a natural condition. Looking at 

the intent of the ROD, in a young stllnd such as this one, did the land managers fail to meet 

the ROD requirements if the coarse woody requirement was only achieved the d:ay after 

logging was complete. Should the stage of the stand's development be taken into 

consideration? I think so. Should the coarse "'oody debris requirement be artificially met 

by cutting trees and lea,·ing them to meet this artificial standard, or should the stand be 

managed, (in this case thinned) to release the stand and promote late successional 

characteristics which would ill time, provide for coarse woody debris on its own, if there 

wasn't nnother stand replaumcnt fire? This II but one case where the ROD assumes a 

condition that doc:s not historieally exist, and requires the maugcrs to create an unnatural 

condition to meet n standard presumed to be natural. The reality Is that the conditions iD 

the forest are not uniformity the same, thus defy this prescriptive rccalatory approach 

based on erroneous assumptions. (The "Disncylmd" ecosystem S)'lldrome.) We C&llJlot 
88 

prescribe that every acre of forest has the same prescribed conditions. That is not natural 

nor desirable however, the ROD for The Presidents Forest Plan requir~ it. 

The solution is to require general mana&ement plans over the landscape :1nd on a l:lrger 

seale :md for longer periods of time for each forest allo"ing discretion for existing diverse 

conditions, thus steering clear of prescriptive, regulatory ad.m.illistn.tin rules, that do not 

match the conditions und many times are based on incorrect assumptions. 

The Adaptive Management Area (AMA} should be the creative experimental area where 

new forestry techniques are tried, however, the Al'-1A's are bound by the same 

administrative minutia of prescriptions and layers of screens and administrati-.·e review as 

the matrb:, the LSRS and other areas. Under the guidelines the manager must still 

address the concerns of elk thermal cover, big g11me winter range, -.isuals, archeologic:al 

sites, ephemeral streams, wildlife connectivity corridors and sensitive plants that are 

neither threatened nor endltDgered and the list goes on and on. As an c:tample, the SquaW·· 

Elliot timber sale in the Appleeate, where the $land has been identified as a high fire 

hazard and risk. Under ~delincs in both the Rope LRMP and the JI."W' Forest Plan, 

there arc all the concerns mentioned abovr. The archeologi1:2l site is a .m.illing ditch and 

the -.isual is a lalte and the streams run a little water when it rains but have no annual 

deposition and scour. '"'lten you screen for all these nlucs, and require helicopter logging 

as specified by the loc;ll hydrologist, enn though immediate and cost effective treatment is 

desirable because of high fire hazard, the s:tle is not practical with thi5 burden placed on it. 

E,·en in the MiA we cannot accomplish a common sense goal of reducing fire hazard, 

because of re~ation and cost escalation. ( The constraints assume that any disturbanee 

will damage the environment when we haYe scientific e~idcncc: nnd history that show us th·e 

naturnl system in the forest is created by natural disturbances and catastrophic events 

'l'"hic:b humans have altered in the last 10,000 years.) There is not enough flexibility built 

into the ROD to experime11.1 makiDg asnmptions that are diD'erent. R.ccoplziDg nuaaces 

and differences is the basis ror creative problem solving ID science and aU other endeavors. 

The restrictions add up to an equation that guaraatees raUare. To their credit, the agency 

m:~.naprs and personnel try to meet ever more biU'dcnsomc replatioa, but the task cannot 

be neecssful u now prescribed. 

6 
89 

Another example ofapplic.'ltion of the ROD for The Presidents Forest Plan is the 

Snowdon·nJBlowdown timber in Jackson and Douglas Counties (called wiadthrown by the 

Medford BL.Yl). First I credit the Rogue River ::-lational Forest with rapid and thorough 

timely attention to this natural disturbance in the forest. Members of the Jackson County 

:-latural Resources Committee and Headwaters, an cn,ironmentala:roup have been 

7 

meeting with the team created to analyze and recommend action. (I ha'>·e requested the 

forest supervisor also contact the industry group, SOTIA, who would han an interest in 

being a part of the discussion, but as of this date they have not been contacted.) There were 

several winter storm events that contributed to downing significant amounts of timber in 

the Butte Falls, Prospect :md Umpqua ranger districts. Logging contractors have cleared 

campgrounds, roads and are lVOrk.ing on the matrix lands. They have fOWld double the 

amount of wood estimated, so the amount of downed wood Is probablyl to 3 times the 

estimated :ZO )'l."llJF. The team is concentrating on what can be done with the doWDcd 

wood in the Late Successional Reserves area, with the goal of making a recommendation to 

the Regional Ecosystem Office, where the f!Dal decision resides. 

The maps I will show you clearly show what the problem ls. With the overlays of Late 

Successional Reserves with limits in treatment, the Umiu in the riparian areas, the limits in 

the scenic: rh·er special interest nrea.s etc., there are too many restrictions before we talk 

about solving the immediate snowdownlblowdown problem. In addition we arc to consider 

the treatment to ren1edy the problem. The question that ls confusing is which nlue takes 

precedence ,..hen we mal(e the ftnal decision. The entomologist have conrU"med that the 

bark beetles are already at work on the doWDed timber, ud that we c:an predict that for 

every downed tree, three Ih·e green trees will be attached and killed by bark beetles. 

Moreover a 1955 cntimology report confirms the damage could be much more severe. The 

fire specialist confirms that the forest already had a burden offllel that would cause a 

stand replac:ement fire, and ~itb the added fuel, this would significantly Increase the risk. 

The REO participant agreed th::~t a st::~nd replacement fire and beetle kill would ttot 

enhance the Late Succ:e$Sional Reserve, but would have c:at:astrophic consequences that 

could dcstrO)' the LSR. There should be uo question about trcatlnent. A significant 

number o£ the downed trees need to be removed to ensure the aurvn·al of the LSR area. 

This needs to be done in a timely maDDer and we are still debatinc about the results. We 
90 

8 

must verbalize this in a way to justify the ROD and the ~;o:ll of preserving the LSR. 

Meanwhile, the public will not support wa~te and detelioration of this important part of 

the Jackson County landscape, economy and recreational area. The 1\"ood could go to ou:r 

mills and keep '1\'orkers in valuable jobs. We can create a valuable product. And we can 

preserve our forest ecosystem. If we '1\"ait too Jon~: lightning strikes will i~:~~ite the forest and 

we have all wasted our resource and a valuable part of our community to fire. The 

regulation is overly prescriptive and the process too long when you haven si£Uificant 

natural destructive event such as this. Regulation stops action and Inaction most certainly 

will mean destruction. 

The Medford BL:YI has written a letter to confirm that swift action has been taken to de· 

what they can to remoH 80mbf of wind thrown timber. There is no estimate of the total 

Yolume, but the letter indicates, the BLM will leave the prescribed down woody debris 

(because it was not naturally there) before they remove any more from other areas. I 

belie;·e the managers are working hard to meet the requirements of the ROD and to 

remove what they can. I also believe they will be blamed if the resource is lost to fire or 

bug infestation. 

I think the process required by the ROD, while has merit, slows down the managers in 

making the required decisions and as always they take a conservative approach with the 

constant threat of lawsuits. In chedctng with ~gency people in higher ofiicial capacity, one 

indicated there w,ls no way any wood could be removed from LSR's. Another clearly 

stated that the loc~J supcnisors '1\·ould be responsible for the decisions under their 

jurisdiction. The supervisors say the decision rests with the REO office. There is some 

indication that "ith it being an election year there might be interference with the process 

from the ecosystem off ice in the \'V"hitc House. I hnve a meeting scheduled with them to 

verify what their interest and invoJ;·cment will be with the implementation of the ROD and 

the event of forest disturbance in Jackson Coun&y. 

If the Forest Service and BLM Receipts came to the counties, Instead of the counties being 

in a safety net the revenue '1\'0uld help to maintain county services. M it is, it will help s~·e 

jobs and families and tommnnfty stability. The desire of Jatkson County is not to remail11 
91 

9 

forever in n safety net th:tt declines and can at any time disappear. The best solution would 

be to assure a lcYcl of management and a % of the total acreage that can be managed, then 

allow management at the local le•·el, without prescriptive ovcrsitc. 

In summary, I would conelude that 1 want the ~:oal offorest mana~:ement to help create 

healthy forests for ou1· dnldrcn, and our children's children. I want us to manage not only 

for healthy forest ecosystems, but for products, jobs, families, housing products, social and 

economic benefit.. We have the best of all worlds "·hen we have a renewable resource and 

"'C know how to effectively manage in a sustained yield, environmentally sound manner 

that creates our community stabilit)' forever. We ha•·e 11 great system thllt requires as to 

accept the tradeoffs :md respollllibility for ou1· communities demands and not transfer the 

problems to other continents less able to handle the environmental safeillards. Option 9 Is 

too presrriptive and still is full of assumptions that are not true. I ha~·e outi.IJled a few of 

them to )'Ou. Option 9 does not implemllnt a system that requires wood removal for useable 

products, job creation and community stability, thereby neglecting a valuable part of the 

equation. The introduction speUs out the c:oncc:ms, but the prescriptions llDd the 

interpretation are such that there is a general assumption that timber caDilot be removed 

from LSR's aud ripurian areas. I "''ould refer you to Governor Kitzhaber's letter to 

Reprcscntutive Jim BWln, where he describes an interpretation that LSR's are to be 

protected and not resource production potential and thus, in the 0 & C transfer, the LSR's 

would be an administrative and financial burden, without producing revenue to manage. 

If the LSR's llnd all but matrl't lands arc to be treated like national parks, then we do not 

need agencies at all, we could transfer all these protected lands to the national parks and 

only maintain thew as parlu. Tbat Is the attitude by many who do uot support wood 

production on national forests and Bureau of Land Management lands. Froin the 

be!Pnning, the Option 9 of tbePrcsidents Forest Plan was interpreted to allow production of 

wood products and management In ripari:m areas and LSR's. I suggest that Option 9 of 

the Presidents Forest Plan be clarified, simplified nnd less prescripti•·e, letting the local 

supen·isors have the f(C).;bility necessary to manage and make it clear that wood 

production is a part ufthe management. As a local elected omcinl wbo has devoted two 

tenns to helping empower and strengthen local communities. There is a great deal of 
92 

mistrust in a top down prescripti\'e system , hea">")" with regulation and l:lced with 

punishment. The system of local empowerment I am describing is built on trust and 

confidence in people making the rigbt decisions in local communities nnd with their loc21l 

forests. Surely t!Jis is the system we want for a strong United States. 

10 
93 

United States Department of the Interior 

Ms. Sue Kupillas 

l3l!R£At: OF L'~D ~IA.'IAGE!>IE:-<T 

~lEDFORD DISTRICT OFFICE 

3040 BIDDU ROAD 

MEDFORD. ORECOS 9730-1 

Jaclcson County Commissioner 

I 0 S. Oakdale 

Medford, Oregon 97501 

Dear Ms. Kupillas: 

JUL 1 

l:ol llkJI'L T lt.t .. f" I: Ill TO: 

5420(1JQ) 

Kupillas 

S3136(DR:jmw) 

2 1996 

This responds to yoW' letter dated July 3, 1996, examining the timber sal vase process being fol!o .... -.d 

by the Medford District, BW"eau efland Manqement. The followina illfarmatian will clarify what 

the B LM is doing Ia salvage the winter blowdawn. 

Since March 1996; Butte Falls Resource Alea has issued Dine short· form negotiated pcrmiu for 

windthrown timber, totaling 80 MBF. We have had a number of requests to sell additional small 

amounts of timber on a negotiated sale basis. These requests have been denied for the most part 

because it is far more east effective, bath from preparation time and revenue return stand points, to 

sell this volume on a competitive basis. We are currently working on offering two competitive sales 

to salvage the blowdo"'n. The Windy Evans Environmental Assessment, a 200 MBF timber sale, 

is out for public review a.nd ;s scheduled for sale in August 1996. 

The Ground Round Envirorunental Assessment is near completion and a September sale da!a is 

anticipated. This project is estimated to harvest approximately No'O million board feet ofblowdown 

loca!ed in the Round Mountain, Flounce Rock and Trail Creek areas. We have been workin& with 

the Forest Service's Butte Falls Ranger District to include their lands in the Ground Round 

Environmental Assessment and timber sale. We also, are working with the Prospect R~mger Dis1riet 

to include BLM lands located on isolated parcels in the School Ml!.1'tl1 area in a Forest Service 

salvage timber sale. 

We understand an ad~isory eommittee has been formed, with members representing the F crest 

Service, Jackson County NatW'al Resources Advisory Board, Timber Industry and the Rc;ional 

E:Qosystcm Office (REO), with an objective to evaluate the affects of salvage in Late SuccessioDlll 

Reserves (LSR). The Medford District is aw:aitins the outcome of this process and will implement 

the final REO direction, which v.ill be the same direction the Forest Service will be followina. 

Through the Butte Falls Ranger District and Prospect Ranger District it is anticipated that all salva&e 

ofblowdov.n will be done consistently. 

26-951 - 96 - 4 
94 

53136 2 

Until such time as further direction is received, we will be complying \\ith all "Standards and 

Guidelines," including those which direct us to complete Watenhed Analysis on all LSR's prior to 

any activity ,.,;thin the LSR (ROD SEIS pg. C-8 to C-17). These watershed assessments help to 

make better management decisions to protect and enhance conditions of late-successional and oldgro"'"th forest ecosystemS, which serve as habitat for late-successional and old-grov."th forest related 

species. The Forest Service and the BLM arc woD:ing together to CO!IlPlete a watenhed analysis for 

the Ell< Creel< Watershed/LSR, projected to be completed by the end of July. 

In areas along the roads in llllllUpped LSR' s where it has been detennined thar "Standards and 

Guidelines" for coarse woody debris have not been met, trees -.o:ould be cleared from the road prism, 

and left on site. If coane woody debris standards have been met, the material could be harvested 

from the road prism. Theft of wood products is an ongoing concern throughout the Medford District, 

and enforcement is being accomplished by law enforcement personnel. 

In your letter, you referred to salvagi!lg under FEMA T. This document has been s~rseded by the 

Record of Dcc:ision (ROD) for the Filla! Supplemental E!lviroD!DeDtal ID1pact SWeman on 

Management of Habitat for Late-Succestioual and 014 OsoWih Pomt Related Species Widlin lhe 

JaDae of the Nonbem Spotted Owl (SEIS) 111111 the Medford Dislrict Resource MlDipment Plaa. 

Record ofDecisioa (ROD), aacl thezefore, ao lqcr povida ~ clirectioa. 

If you have any Alz1her questioas or coacems my Sllfr will be wil1iDc to mMt wi1h you aad your 

committee 10 discuss anc! or c:laritY our cumnl di:eclioD. 

David A. 1ones 

Dislrict Mula&er 
95 

JACKSON CO~'TY SERVICE CUTS THAT MAY BE RESTORED 

WITH PASSAGE OF 3-YEAR LEVIES ON SEPTEMBER 17, 1996 

• Criminal Justice: 

o Sheriff patrols to unincorporated Jackson County will ceue on September 30th. 

White City, whose citizens passed a special levy in 1995, will continue to ha.ve 

both patrol and code compliance servkes. 

o The Juvenile Department will !lOt hire-an additional counselor. Funds for a new 

juvenile center must still be provided in the ncar futUre. 

o The understaffed District Attorney's Office will not be alilc to hire additional 

professional sta1f as planned.. . . . 

• All 1 S Libraries will close after September 1.'· 

• Agate-Lake Park. and the day u~ ~rea of:C:antrali·B!Jclcley ~ark ~e closed .. The county 

softball fields will close in ·September. . · 

• Veterans' Service Office is cut from 1.8 employees to ~.6.employ~: otBcehours are cut 

to two afternoons per week, resulting in few~ veterans rKeiving needed advocacy to 

obtain eamed veteran's benefits. 

• Funding for 4-H and Future Farmers prize programs and judging is no longer available. 

• The Oregon State Extension Service wm most likely close after county support ends on 

September 30th. 

• The local voters pamphlet will not be printed after the November general election. 

• Building maintenance will dKline. and after July lst, we will repair buildings only if there 

isdamage. . 

• Assessment will not be·CUfTCI!t in maldns .we maps !or newly creat~ we lots: There will 

be less ac:tual field reappraisals and more reliance on market trends. · 

• The county will no longer maintain the buildings at the Q'}IO Park. If they bec;omc 

damaged, they will remain damaged unless the Fair Board c:an fund the repair. 

• The co11nty no lonser pays dues to the lt.ogue Valley Counet1 of Governments, meaning 

the county will have less participation in reaional problem solving. This includes issues 

such as traffic: and clean water. 
96 

• The county no longer contn"butes to the Southern Oregon Visitors Association, an 

organization that promotes tourism. 

• Southern Oregon Regional Economic Development no longer receives funds from the 

county. 

• County finance, GIS (mapmaking), adminiStration/budget, counsel, persoMel, and Board 

of Commissioners all cut support personnel. · · · 

This means: 

o .Phones Will often be answered by answering machines; 

o It will take longer to respond to questions and complaints; 

o Pa}ments to vendors "'ill be slower; and 

o The level of customer service will suffer. 

• Tlie county contracts with a number of nonprofit agencies. This funding will cease 

September 30th. The funding was cut from $270,000 in"J995-9oto $33,500 for 1996-97. 

Two examples of cut services are: 

o On-Track will Close the Men's Alternative to·Violcnce Program. 

o The Medford Community Health Center will be closed on Wednesdays and will 

pro>ide an estimaied 2;200 fewer visits for the treatment ofilliiess and 

communicable diseases. 

• Health & Human Services will close all communicable disease clinics. This means there 

will be no public health programs for se:<Ually transmitted diseases, rashes, lice, hepatitis, 

measles, etc. Programs for poor, young, single pregnant women will be curtailed. 

Dog license fees will have to be increased or the animal shelter will have to curtail hours 

of service and number of animals housed after September 30th. 

• Zonirig code compliance ends on July lst, and the available hours for accepting permit 

applications have been reduced. 
97 

. .,~\..~VI~ \..UU!'I! I 

3-YEAR COUNTY LEVY-PROPOSALS 

Jackson County's current tu but per capita iJ Slo;· Includi.a& the old Library Lny and the 

Criminal :J:u~dct Levy, the coa~olida~e~ ta.J: ~te pe~ ~apita for all ~~~nty ta~es was SS9. 

Component Current Lt.y Proposed Difference 

LIBRARY 4.100 000 5.300.000 1.200.000 

COUNTY SERVICES 

UpO 0 100,000 100,000 

Parks 0 250,000 2SO,OOO 

Htaltb & Human Strvi<es 941,000 941,000 

Grants/Nonprofit Human 

Service Aacncia 0 500,000 500,000 

Law Enforcement 0 650,000 650,000 

Justice Services 0 531,000 531,000 

G~ncral GO~Unment 0 1,128,000 1,128,000 

Rc.scrvU ___...!! 300,00P ~~~.020 

TOTAL- 0 4,400,000 4,400,000 

GRAND TOTAL • 4,100,000 9,700,000 5,600,000 

~ • V<oll allow the library to keep all brilllcllcs opec, main lain open hews to mtct p:llroo demand, and add to the book and 

DOD-print collections. 

~ • Will allow copiu.l repoir and mairuODiiDCC. 

l!!9 ·Keep porks open :ond ollow for copitol improvtmtDI!, repair, and maintaWocc, 

Ht;alth &. Hyman Sccisg .. Will restore disease conr:ro1. matcma1 child c.;re prosrams. and the tippcr.RoJUC Flmily Center in 

WhiteCiry. 

Jioall· Will provide suppart to tbcpublic/priYIIeplllbC!$bip, includinJACCESS, Comnnmii)·Hcollh Center, CrisiJ IDterYeotion 

CcaterJI>..rm.Housc, Sbelu:r azod.];valualioa c- anc1 Y"""'-b. N011p10lit 1.eaa1 Services, Commissioa .... Children ....t Fuiulico, Alcohol Ra:ovcry Ccatcr;.Ashland AdOicicalt Ceo...-, CERVS, ~·s AdVO<ae)' c ....... , FOlta' Grandp>raiiS 

Pf<llnllll, CASA. On Tnck. lletirod &: Senior Volunteer Prosram, Soulhem 0n:p Drus ..... ..,.,. .... and Upper RDp 

Community CCDt<r. 

Low Enfmcmmt · WID pnnidc 1\mdi.og to k...j, potrollhrouJb Fiscol Year ISJ96.97. /UI Enhanced Law Enfor=n<nt Dimic:t 

mq be on the b.Uot in March 1997. · 

.lygjse Ssryjw • :'Rill ~ !UIIdia&lilr Jail, DiAriciiiJWrlq, ~ CGmt:liono, and JuYCDilc. 

Gnr!l Gmrp,;;,.. .• ,WID IIIIGN ..... fbr baJ!diDtllllliaiDae, cllrit:ll_.l8dmialsupport, IIIII prori4c liDiiDcfbr 

osu~s.w.. 4-H. Saulbina 0rcp Vllilan ~ SouiiMnl 0rcp lqiaaa1 Ec-.lc DeYclopmcnl. • SGil 

A WIW Coa.servllioa. 

Balas! • Will p10vide flmdias for incrasc4 _,of..,..;..,-tho life of die leY)!. 
98 

tAXES ON SlOO,OOO HOME 

COJI.Il'ONENT 

CURRENT LE".'Y 

Annually 

Librnry ~-

County Services 

Expo .00 

Parks .00 

Health & Human Scrvicu .00 

Grants/Nonprofit Human 

Service Agencies .00 

Law Enforcement .00 

.Justice Services .00 

General Government .00 

Reserves ---:!!Q 

TOTAL• .00 

GRAND TOTAL • S 41.91 

JACKSON COUNTY REVENUE SOURCES FY 88·97 rKCWDU TAX IAIL CIIIIMINAL "Urmcl ~AND HltTOIUCA&. I.IW 

1.19 

2.99 

11.24 

5.97 

7.77 

6.34 

13.41 . 

_2M 

52..57 

s 115.11 

DIFFERE:SC; 

.:Monthly 

$ 14.34 L.li2 

1.19 .10 

2.99 .25 

11.24 .94 

5.97 .so 7.77 .65 

6.34 .53 

13.48" 1.12 

~ ~ 

"52.57 ua 

s. ,t,,.o' $5.51 
Whallslhe Rogue·famlly Center? 

lhc RfC Is o ~!lob<irolive pllol pi~l~<:oodinollng sl<:llo. cO<.,Iy ond tommunlly taJMOh'S9Mc.,.lo lip· 

Jlfi: llnouo lomlos onclros!danlslri~Ot help from IOOio) llv.Jil ano agoncy. undor on() roOt. ltoo gools or 

lhh Jll\l!OCI. lho rnl Qllh kind L'l Jho counfry. oro lo 

roldJco .lhe ccoiws~Qn ond b~(illc complellity 

~.l')~fiOcoossll\g~,.ncr~lhSIIIV· 

k:<!s; ond to g.ssl!t people tn'~IIN·~ ~ving 

~J!JIT": lhe · · '•fi' ¢i.li101:ti.:li;c 

i: 0.&11~. ( .. ~ri\teoroJed'vll~m 1 ·. ~~emlholcdlobOIOIO! 

~.-:;tiito·~~~~k,co.nv 

~P!i· __ :'~~~~~ltl~ !-• ....,. _!f':\ . . -- . ,. ~ ~· ...., .. ...,.. · .... "l'QQ!n . . 9a.aJll'orot~eo. 

t ..... · 11 ... ~,f-.:/11'' ~- . ... - : •": ..... . i :8 ~. ·-. ,A_~-.-. :•·-~r .--~:"-':._· ___ · 

(~ . Rons · i;ociru,~;Jt~·io~ 

• t$0!tQI~jji:IUF~cen1Br~~~~cJlia. - -~·:t'-"""'" . . . ··~·· ... : .. ·w~:1Jidt/#f~~~'[a'!~~ . fooo(a~ipOIII-l,mtirilaiJii>lo'kori:ilsOblltf. \· :· ''~""· ..... : : . .: ~. . . . . 
AGOICI'S Si:INICES PROGRAMS 

Access lne. 

le...., i.,; c .. ._ lort.IM •••~dnu In o Pf"'k'JM lt'lcMIQh ... 

c ...... , tnutlut ~ b ~-....,....CY ..me .. depend-

•oo«~ ....... V• ..................... ....-.o.,.,._..,...,. resfd..'ftlsnllheC.,•tt-rh~emher ... Jk:nJort.hiFoocll'onlty 

lltJIAOJ fi::MMfba .. ebiOtlow'hcom•I•RftliDI. CIOJ)tJ0.7016 

Adull and FomUy Senrlces 

lho AI~ mMianlt loholp r.- become ooll·ouppodhg- .,.;,~rq t ... n 1ft "'"lng bollc-,_ _,... ...... .-_ 

CollhADC,I_y_e,l...,.._..lolaled._..,o, 

ondJOIIs-tcea_ .. _lrernNS.~an,... __ 

""""' ... -_ _, ... _.,_ ... ..... -1<:·-~--...----0; ... co1 r.-JS?-tSI7.J 

Children's Selvlcos Division 

CSOmdOitdlo~ofMNiootlochlchnand',_..,,un.mg 

lfw .. eels CJf abuM, neu~Kt. ~· abule, ., Mflaul emo- lonal or behcNiolal PfOIMm•- CSO wodu ~ famUet lo reduce 

""' lo "o oalolyUild_..,.., or..-on........,. dloOd -"' contr .. ::l, '""""* COU'1Sel'f~ IWld WOIWng -.11'1 lw lamlf ond 

olwr eotpnuwlyfGIOLIIC.._ (5llt) a».JOJI 

DepartmenloiM- Re-.ces 

Voluroleer Ptogram DIGJVaii-..I'IOVO __ ___,Io __ _ rnenh lot •••te ogency r:Nnh..ll rcu .... ., a llde, c<antact vou -·v-•.A ___ .,_ • ..,._OIIIolntn>oolo<:" ao n?porl oln.,,_.._ .. -../llg lolor _ _......, o1 

tw DHR Valunle• l'oQIOIP. motc:ttng cNidrWI ~ odAI compo'llunt. ~...,.,- --·· •..utno eladcol oKlo< co>d Khool Faallono. nro ......,_ "-'CJh I• <Mparlmor•. 

Mull·thgua1 vol.Woan ore wel'eamo. If you woUd It:• r. vdi.Mlir-., ... .,,-ol._ - ... co1110l171WIW 0145031 

-lmploymenl Oepodme11t 

-(·~Oepaolo·""""""""'"'_....,......."'holp'"" lo clr.elop a -.mull---larco.--.g -1 dlqpllflodo al .. ~1-L W ... araand ..... 1or .., ,.. lnd u ful fonge of t.Onlk:es horo. Place"'"'"' Mnt1cet, ~ 

OUr ptOblems ole kJo biO and too complea. they connal 

llumcm servk:• ogencles musl wOII& togelhel', Die h

---.,.__.....,_maolel-k•-*.hedlo< 

,_ ,.e~~ng.......,.._ ....,_laking androl-.,_ 

.,......,. .. _odlo~ 

~-·--_,-.ulooul......__, ...... ..... ~-- C501Jt»10U 

Jackson County Health • Human Seovlces 

llubii:,....Setvfc •• 

fhbGg~J~~CYOifenmoo liatl.servk'ossuch •• Pf-unanoytesllng,prcenalal 

ccoo and •-_,1cM ro rob<loldclan' .,.._._ wol/rld· ____ cMdc:Mck·'4'1.111oodJ)I'e'sur.chtckl.ltr•nmonag.ement,nulrlllon ... .,_ .... ....,.q ... ___ ..... lo _...., ___ ,___ AIIogl<lwodO"'d ..... Roc:llonal prO'Io'kh ..... NW\ItceJ Ia low Rcamolorttiiet 

--...-.ohW'ItciJieall'ptm"'rtoo 

-·-

t:OUR"Ing lor chicken ond odunt.ln coloi:JC~· 

lolan ... ., hO'ned 1Chool POI'Ion"'MJJ, h-school SI .. 'IJlOII QICIUPI for chtdr.n., m w .. a. ~ cOt.nYIIng. or• ovoloble. lheMI MWDnl 

MNelow lnc~JmG bnli•• ut¥1 pet ION t•c•..,.l\1 Meek old 

ltiC 

....::. "'w-. ......,. and r.hlldon.' o -... ...... Povr- ,._..._,._.,._.,._-.__,...., __ .., 

........ --··-""-""""--·--- c-, cltoMn,...._.loadt.ond,..._lo e..alha~M~ nnlc:••· 

HoallllftlooltrtSkwlhohcnwvkhol<lnpt4~··n lof lnl birth foml .. a. lfCJinud 

lomlt orhocnlw '-'I poo.k"' new f)C•onls 'Wi:h inlamollcn en bd"Jf 

c~. Wanl foodnQ. CJICWrflh a'ld .Jeveiopm.,"· rJCtMI .. lo .. lllnJola 

~.ondpotanlng ... frmllol~huvo uc-ce~J.Sio onow.slolter. 

IJOionl"ngdosiM. •Jnd o boOk·"'-t.o-101'/ loftdnolil;,tbor/. 160)1 t.IO·IOII 

Youlllwcxks 

v....- k o .... ,_ OIINWY IOIVhu .\lr.l..,... C"...._..fV ~o-ilh"" 

·--... --tno-...................... nd --h-yeaiOI'olbovalottol~-.--~· Coolltlllll1ilyC-og$etvlco.IIMI(-on<1""'-la.,..l. 

r:IOIIAoodt(AIIrl'l'dvu Sc..11001).Ad'olof<GI11 OlerM:fwlntolment.ond 

lho Mllond leC1'1 C~~ntnr IJI'O(Jit'llll. 0Jt f1\blJ!m: No VO"Ih h a HliO'A'· 
101 

MEMORANPUM 

TO· COMMISSIONER SUE iCUPillAS 

F.;,M, of¥' RAY OLSEN, )TPA PROGRAM MANAGER 

DATE; JULY 19, 1996 

SUBJECT: YOUR REQUEST REGARDING JOBS-IN-THE-WOODS PROJECT 

COMMENTS: 

1 ) · Training rs Ie.a.dlnr me Changlnr industry, wfllch Is barely changed 

2) Employers unsure wfly lhey mould hire trainees, rather lha., condnue as is 

3) US Forest Service and BLM COcta'ictin: praalces VERY slow tO ch~ 

~) Few will be em:repreneurs ~n (t:OUifl to break In, plus mrt up c;om) 

5) The Job Coancfi not ~y to hi!ft program in 1997 

Number Served 

Entered Employment 

Cosr.: 

ROJTkr 

wdb:jrtw.rlo 

.1.222. 

13' 

6{'ll%) 

$613'08 per person 

14 

N/A 

$6,857 per persqn 
102 

Jackson County 

Assessment of Drug Related Issues 

In Public· Housing 

Drug Elimination Technical Assistance 

_ ____.. .......... -----

February 1995 

HOUSING AUTHORITY 

- - ~ ;,...,-:· -;:.: ~ ( "":'. - .....-........ • ~0:::: ('>¥.; 

,~ :3!'~ ~ ..::_ ::__,~ 

:-t:-;J ~ ~~c, ~f~~ 

JACKSONCOUNTY,OREGON 

"Developing Strategies for Livable Viable Communities and Enhanced 

Lifestyle Quality for All People" 

Pre~redby: 

CC Consulting 

704 NE Luch Court 

East wenatchee, WA 98802 
103 

(Submitted by Joan Smith) 

SISKIYOU COUNTY_EACTS & INFORMATION 

Population 

Area ofCounry (square miles) 

Area ofMAI)'land (square miles) 

Acres in County 

Federal Wilderness Areas 

Land in Forms 

Annual II of cow~ grazing on Klamath N.F. · 

Annual Timber Growth 

&lpk 

46,426 

Annual Federal timber cut under President's Plan 

#of timber jobs 

Workforce employed in timber 

Federal USFS Recicpts to County FY 95/96 

l2B!l 

1,300 

10% 

~ 

88,000 

6,313 

12,198 

2,420,990 Federal lands 

1,609,393 Private lands 

_4.242 State/County lands 

4,038,843 

948,269 Acres 

1,153,246 Acres 

4,894 

400,000,000 bd ft Federal 

250 000 000 bd ft Private 

650,000,000 Board feet 

60,000,000 bd ft 

19~ 

670 

5% 

$.6,823,959.60 

TIMBER HARVEST IN SISKIYOU COUNTY ttl41 · Ut4 

... 

... --· ·• ,., .•. .. ... • I \ I . ., \ I 

L ... • • • • .. ' ~ ... '• • \ /,. \ \/ \ I HO . 0 

w soo • ... ... • . .. · ..... • \ \ Ill ... •. I, • • . • .. • • 0 ... \• ~ ·~ 

'" • , · ... • • .. .. • . T ... 

.. • • o• ...... - •. , ••. ,•,,,,, ·~·•·• .. ••·••••• • 'I • ' ., ' •o·• _, .. ,.. ·• •··• ••·•· • • 4 .q , . ,,, .. ,. ' 

It II II It II 14 II II ft JJ 14 71 Jf PI ft II n II U U II II 17 II tl II 11 II '' t• 

. --- --·-- ---------c·AHti-DAii-*Afl--~- -----------------

.... TO TilL VOLUME ·• •viLIC VOLUME ·• PII:IVAT& VOI.VMI 
104 

SISKIYOU COUNTY LOGGERS 

fl PEOPLE #PEOPLE 

EMPLOYED EMPLOYED 

PHQNEf lW4.E IN 11189 ...J.tUU.5_ 

467-3959 G & KLogglng 0 2 

<467-5696 H&G Logging 13 13 

496-3443 Mark Thomas 1 1 

<469·3460 Ron Cornwell 25 2 

493-6150 N.W. Skyline 25 5 

493-276<4 Norman Herman 1 0 

493-2662 Kenny McCully 14 7 

467-3267 Franklin Logging 125 25 

642..0831 John Semple 12 1 

o493-2622 Harold Smilh 37 4 

493-2886 High Horae Logging 2 2 

485-2335 Cnuck L. Logging ~0 15 

842-5160 Snap Top Logging 0 2 

468-2669 Jim Johnson 0 7 

926-2456 Acccrd Logging 55 30 

928·2477 Darrah Logging See Accord 5 

842-3176 Chuck Scnapp 5 3 

487·5341 Bill Krueger 0 3 

488-2336 Bob Evans , 2 

468-2999 Ken Dysert 0 6 

488-2049 Bob Smiley 3 3 

o41!3-2801 Foster Logglrlg 23 3 

938-2227 Edgewood Logging 0 5 

468-5410 Duana Kennedy 0 2 

842·2252 Ederiek Logging 8 17 

938·3014 McCarrol Logging 14 2 

938-241lll T & YLogging 33 II 

459-5560 Roy Pace 25 9 

926-o4263 Marvin Slover 6 4 

406·3272 Mark Crawford 13 15 

642·5560 Walt Moody 0 3 

498-3457 Rudy Murieen 3 3 

493-2371 Attebury & White 4 0 

403-&268 ABC Logging 8 8 

928-2780 Cheek Cat lo;'olinO 38 30 

926-4778 F.W. Porteou!> Logging 70 3 

926·2094 Schwartz Logging 27 0 

549-4g24 Garry Franklin 85 0 

493·5281 Tom White See Attebury 2 

468-5138 Ron Bennett Logging 8 2 

926.(1087 Richerd Porteous 0' 2 

926-4778 Dave Richardson 12 12 

642-6606. LC Logging 30 3 

938-3302 John McGary 15 0 

926-4010 Mike Brown 40 6 
105 

938~120 Ross Sanders 12 10 

964-2773 Frank Wood 15 1 

467-3912 Wayne Meek 0 2 

493-2028 Varnon layton 18 8 

842·5548 Roden logging 10 5 

493-2875 Walt Whitman 30 2 

842-1434 Bill Meadows 0 3 

928-2184 Gena Spencer 0 3 

488·5580 Vern Boudro 5 2 

487-3788 Charlu Snapp Jr. 4 0 

467·3111 Jay Denny 8 0 

468-2463 W.S. Cramer Logging 15 0 

496-312g Ken Oliver 4 2 

488-5286 Golden Hoof Logging 10 10 

235-4335 Jim McColpln 0 2 

842-5813 Joe RobeiSOn 6 0 

m:5l.98 J.obn..O.ldnl 3.. 3.. 

TOTALS 851 331 

JOBS LOST 1181-15 120 

• Siskiyou County has lost 6S% ofit's logging jobs since 1989. 

This research conducted by Mike Dusuay Aprll12 • 20 1995. All Jossers listed were 

personally contacted by Mr. Duauay. All known public records, IS well u word or 

mouth, wc:ro used 10 account ror above list. This inronnation is the most accurate and 

complete listins possible. 
adding clgnHicantly to the nat growth al lha local 

economy. 

Tables 3·48 ancl3-<40 or-roconte,.aymont by key 

Industry sectors. Trade, government and services 

logelher provide over two·lhlrds altha o.menl )Obs In 

the 7-county area. 

TtiVIIIIIld lOudin!, wltlclt lncllclt ...,.and ell .. peraed recreation u wan u wlldll•..-ed ICIM!Its 

(like hunllng, fishing and IIIRI-w*'*V), llllklup • targeandgrowtng ptltolllll ltii'S _....,.. "lilurllmo 

related ·~,. Is lfiNid flnugh a -'elr ot economic HCtoiS, lnd;ldlftO NMc:e (mtlflllld lacfgo 

lnQ),Itllle (gal ancllaoklt) and tranepo!lallon. lltltls not readily ltackld In a lfnOII eocnomic IICIOt. 

Trade, both whOlesale and retal, Is 1111 number-ona 

Job pnllNH; In lite -·This....., Ia lite healt of till 

rlllclallll&l)' sector. G.nara~r. wlttn 1111 ICOtiOmy Ia 

lteallty, 1t111e and aervlc81 .,. a"PPftcclng. 'nlllrldl 

1actor ... o llrlllfl In money frlllll CIUIIIcle wlttn 

lriVIIel'l bUy supplies lot Nenllllol'l on 1111 FOIIII. 

TIICI1 and II'*!! wll QniW ID IIIHI till llledl of 

106 

populallan expansion ancr lncrtaood disposable In· 

come. 

GavarM>Onl Is a largo oncl growing aectar ol tha 

economy. It ac:r:ountt for about one .. fifth of area jobS. 

Nearly IWO·Ihlrds (or about 1 )Ob In 7) ollhasa are local 

governmonl and education employment. Increased 

Job oppoi1Unnies are Ued to population groW1h and a 

desire lor Improved educallon. 

Service Is a maJor sector. ft responds to Increased 

tourism and wlldlil•related ac!Mlies (lor IXIIY\011, 

hunllng and fishing), population growlh ancllncreased 

demand lor heallh care and leisure activ!Ues. 

3·130 Klarnalll Neffonal Fotrlsl· Oren EIS 
107 

f)fl ( f1 Slaklyou Coul)ty J h S ~ ( 'f'I'U{((JCtu f uttfJtJ P t- eASV!; 

Current Labor Force and Industry Employment 

011 ;- J u Tol&lFafm 

Form Prodocllon FormServtcoa 

Total Nonfarm Goods Produelng 

Conslructton & Mining Menufeclu~ng 1.140 Dur~blo.OoQl!s. , _ -~-r. 870 .,:tuiflb~l"&'·Wood i>ro{uel! .. ~ .. ',ll"~:r:::e7Q. L~glno - • . 180 s4wmlil• t30 :~Oihtr Lumbor I Wood Prodl. 2 p Other Durable Goodl Nondura~ Goods 

Food & Klndrod l'fOducll Olhtr Nondurable Goode Setvlce Producing Tranapotllllon & Pu~llc UlililiN Tranoperlollon 

Comnlunlo&llont & Public VIII. Trado 

W~oaltTt&dt 

RettUTfldt 

Food Stores Eating & Drlnldng Placoa Other Flolall Trade FNncl, lftSUranct & Real Etlllo 

Sarvlcll 

Holols & Olhor Lodging PIDcll Hoallh Strvlcos OlhorSIMCtl 

Govammenl 

Fadortl Oo•arnmtnl Suuo I Local Oovemmenl Slall Go ... ammenl n 

,520 

810 

~ 

370 12,710 

1,880 

coo 

1,280 

1,100 1,110 1,100 .0.9% 13.4% 

I!::J~~ ~~~ ~1~ m.:r~ ··i~~~ 230 2:10 230 0.0% 0.0% 320 320 :1.'10 0.0% I 4.3% ~70 370 G?O 0.0% 23.3% 

170 110 170 0.0% 0.0% 10 10 10 OA% 0.0% 10 10 10 O.O'IIo O.O'IIo 10,880 ll,o:IO 11,130 0.1% 2.6% 740 710 710 U% 27.11% 410 110 130 3.8% I!A% 250 280 280 0.0% •U% 3,180 3,170 1,110 .0.3"4 0.0% 400 410 420 2.4% 7.?% 2.780 2.710 2.740 .0.?% •1.1% 570 510 540 ·1.1% 1.1% 1,120 1,150 1,120 •2.1% ..... 3% 1,070 1.050 1,010 1.9% 0.8"4 410 410 ~10 0.0% 1.&% 1,180 2.11011 2,280 2.1% .0.3% 270 210 280 0.0% 0.0% 1,210 1,230 1,210 1.8% .0.8% . 1,430 1 .. 10 1.~50 U% 0.0% \ 3,820 3,710 3,740 0.8"4 U% 850 570 100 3.0% -2.8% 2.110 3,040 3,010 0.3% 3.4% SilO SilO 310 ·U% •2.8% 0 4. 

~119185 

£8% ot 1u~t!rf. Jf//1 

i5 L~1¥bti 

Protlvcts 

Nelo 1: ~ellor force doll Is by place of l'lllldoMo: Inc! udal tolf....,loyod lncllvlduole, unpaid ftrnllr -111, houMhold d-Ille Wo~Qra,lnd WGIAII 011 llllke. The ladarol IJOftlllllllnlloagtn uolot I 

now method ""Cllculallng -toymanlelalilllcl .. Jlnlflllllfi4, ....... ol tho clllrlge ....... r .... tlttolof IIIC are not compatlblo wi1h p!tor hlltorlcol t1t11. -(b ~ tS r/oAl Nota..,.Jnduot~'t'IIIOYIII.'~Ioi.I,IIY P}UI~~"~I'lo1191!1cloii·.,ILIIfiiiiiiY•d lncllvlduoler unpeld femlly 1 • 

WOII<Irl1lldUIIilbld'~~·nl:t ........... lrib. b 6/JI'JflwJ 

Til;. lnlormauOn le ptodueod by tho LAbor Markol tnlol!lllllon CIMtl"' of the C<IIHornlo Slalo Y J _I Em loymeo\1 Dovek:lpmlftl Depallrnonl (l!OD). Cblaallonlon htconlonl ""'""" be Cllr..._ 1(1 to ~lhy P<Htor el (811( 221·2882, or Undo RodAIIIII (Ill) 883-4451. ·~ nU\1~!1 CO l)tf 

Tho dala cO!IIAb\ed heroin era a•elleblo eloclronlcelly tllrou;h lhl Labor lolartcot lnlonnollon DMolon'o LMI On·Uno DUIIolln board. Far lnltNcUono on occoeolrlg ~1•1plo~ ("'t d 
108 

=~~~-~O<,O<MJ ... J!%7-59i\V P,$1iii"'l I-IWSSI•ki.XLS 

March 1Q94 s&nCtimark 

Tille 

~~n Labor Force Civilian Employment 

Civilian Unemployment 

Civilian Urwmploymont Rata 

Total, All Industries 

~% Toral Farm 

f-~arm.Productlon 

_Jarm Se,.,.lcea 

.!gl.!! Nonfarm 

Goods Producing 

3 % Conolr<JeUon & Mining 

i 2.. 'ro Manulacturino 

Durable Goods 

lrtr. Lumbar & Wood Pro duels 

Logging 

- Sawmills 

Other Lumbar i Wood Prods. 

Orhor Durable Goods · 

Nondurable Goods 

Food & K!ndra<S Pro<Sucls 

Other NondurabiG Goods 

Z1.0ther Manufaclurlng 

J.eNice Producing_ b% __ Transponatlon. & Public Utilities 

Transporlllllon 

f- Communlcellcn& ., Publio Uti!. 

Z-'% r-J.rodu ·· 

Wholesale T rada 

Retail Trade 

Food Stores 

,_-fating i Drinking Pineo& 

f.-. Olhor Rotall Tr~de 

3 1)'",. Finance, Insurance & Real Eatate 

IS% SaNicu 

Hotols & Other lodging Placea 

Heallh Services 

OtherSorvlcaa 

Oovammtnl . 

Federal Government 

Slot .. & LCUI Government 

Stoia Government 

local ciovenvnanl 

MAR89 

18,850 

16,426 

2,426 

12.8'4 

13,525j 

700 

12,826 

2,050 

400 

1,C60 

·t,300 

350 

10,775 

825 

2,675 

400 

2,276 

350 

2,376• 

4,5501 

1,:,· 

21100 

··-

f1q'Jui 5fewuf 262· Z1 

Lubor {11ar/.:~f ':Jt~forMafitM 01; 

c.~rmf E"r,IJ!""(I'""t Stit1rytiC'5 
109 

Legend · 

State Boundary 

........... -Nauortal Forest e"undary 

RestoraUon Watershed 

"Jobs jo rbe Wppds"• 

The inlerftjlency Wntershcd Restoration Strnte!l)' or Fiscal Year 1994 was adopted to guide 

•n interft!ltncy proctss ror selectin!l•nd developing watershed restoration projects within 

tht ranyt of the nonhern spou~d owl. One objective of the strateS)' was to •provide 

needed eonployment for local contmunhics. • Referred to as • Jobs in the Woods, • the 

pro!lram wu instituted to otls~t the loss or timber jobs resulting from timber h•Nest 

reductions due to mtuures taken to protect the nonhern sponed owl. Special Forest 

SeNice restoration runds (CNWR) w•re providtd to Forests to pay far watershed 

roSiorotion projecll and also ycnerRte "job• in the woods." During FY 1994, the Klamtlh 

Nation•! Forest .. Jlcnded 8Jlproxim•tely ssoo.ooo. orCNWR funds on WRtcrshed l'otrl""' "'•I : ..... ,. ,..,.,..;,.,.," o!,,.t ,.j;~,,,.,l,. ,..,.,,,., ,.,l .,,. ·•~• ;,,,,.,,..! ... .,.,( .. ,..,. .. ,.. .. ,..a,.~ .. f' ...... ,.. 1:' .. "'""'"I 
· --!··COOPERATION·.:_:STRUC

/-:·~~~~~--:-~~~ -:.~;·,· ~,<:.·;_.··. _:·-. :- ,·>"~ ~$' i ·_,, 

( -· ~M.·o.u._,,.._ , . . -. · ~- -··_ :. . ... ' 

\--F~~t--~~~m~,t- · --~-·- .·. :-. ~- . -.:!h ..... ' ~ -.·). ~ ~ . . -3-··. . : ": . .,.i 

. • 0 -- ..... 

, .. ~ -\:-·-

_: _ .. }i·;_?-~T:r;:;>.<.-;~--~~-:_._, :.~-.. :. :>~-\- ~-- _, . -~-~- ~ .. __ · 

·ln~er~cY-.~~m~--: ~ ~ .=· :, :'·.·. :'·_ · ~~ ~~l

.. ~·~~~----_- :··_- __ .. , _:·omce--ot· /. ·\ 

• . . • .-.-. , . • · " · F.ore.c:&,r 8 · ~ · .. · · \ · -, -... ~. ·_r.~~-~:-~- -~-.. .r ,~ . _EcoaoliaiC ~ ~ · 

Regiona~~~~~ag~_q' / · Deve~o.nteitt . \ r--'_

Exee_utiVe .C~mattee · .· .. 

-_R~,P,~~~i-~;s;~~~~-- ... ,>, . ' , : .. ,i ··> ; 

· · ·-· Olliee· -- · · · · · · ' · = • · '· 

,. ~:~· .. : . -.. ··--·~ .. --~~--:~-~:~;::~:~<;~-~- .:. ,._. ~ t' :. :_;~_7. ' .'.:~

~~ t:-: . t:::!:!·, ·:;: ·=f

-;' I '·-·:.· . .-·.~:1 ~ •· .·,:, :<'· \ :---,_.: ·;~ . ...::<·= ... :, :,·,~-~.:-. 

' -~-· · · ~ , ·:-~-~-:-":,:· .-N~d~~al F•rests-, •.. -,~,._--/:· _

· _. ., . _. -h. - · ~ BLM-DistrlctS- · . , '·· . · .
GAO 

Dec<'mbt:>r 1993 

G.\OJIJRD·94-1GBk . 

111 

llnilt>d Stares General Accounrinlj Office 

Briefing Report to Congressional 

Requesters 

DISLOCATED 

WORKERS 

A Look Back at the 

Redwood Employment 

Training Programs 
112 

Social and Economic Challenges Facing Counties Impacted by Reduced 

Wood Production on Federal Lands In the Spotted Owl Region 

TESTIMONY 

Prepared for a Hearing of the 

Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and Forest Lands of the 

U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Resources 

Prepared by Robert G. Lee, Ph.D. 

Professor of Forest Resources 

University of Washington 

Box352100 

Seattle, Washington 98195-2100 

(206) 685-()f79 

Email: boblee@u. washington.edu 

Submitted July 19, 1996 

Presented July 23, 1996 
113 

Social and Economic Challenges Facing Counties Impacted by Reduced Wood Production on Federal Lands in the Spotted Owl Region 

Submitted by 

Professor Robert G. Lee 

INTRODUCTION 

My name is Robert G. Lee. I currently serve as Professor of Forest Resources at 

the University of Washington. I specialize in the application of sociology to problems of 

natural resources protection and management. I have worked for the U.S. Forest Service, 

U.S. National Park Service, and Rockport Redwood Company, and for over 13 years 

cooperated with the U.S. Man and the Biosphere Program to promote and enhance 

biosphere reserves and demonstration areas for sustainable development. I have been on the faculty at the University of Washington for 18 years and served as Chair for the 

Division of Forest Resources Management and currendy serve as Associate Dean for 

Academic Affairs for the College of Forest Resources. My comments today reflect my 

professional opinion and do not represent the College of Forest Resources, University of 

Washington, or any other persons or institutions. 

My testimony will summarize results of a study describing some of the social and 

economic challenges facing counties affected by reductions in wood production on federal 

lands in the spotted owl region. Details on this study, including maps and description of 

data sources and methods, are available in a report published last year (Lee, 1995). This 

study was completed in the summer of 1995 to describe 1988-92 changes in population, 

jobs, and income for the 72 spotted owl region counties. Appropriate data for years after 

1992 were not yet available when data analysis was completed. Despite the lack of data for 

the last three years, the five-year 1988-92 series provides useful infonnation for tracking 

the immediate social and economic effects of reduced federal wood supply resulting from 

federal court injunctions and the President's forest plan. Subsequent effects of reduced 

federal wood $Upply are also substantial, but are not reflected in the infonnation I will 

present. 

The primary purpose of this study was to show the geographic distribution of social 

and economic challenges resulting from reduction in federal wood supply. Focus of 

attention on economic activity at the state level has obscured the differential impacts 

occuning at the county level. Some have concluded that the economic well-being of the 

Pacific Northwest~ been unaffected, or even positively affected, by reductions in federal 

wood supply (Power, 1995). Aggregate data summarized at the state level cloud the 

differential effects of growing rural unemployment, social problems, poverty, and political 

alienation taking place at the community and county level. The county-level data 

summarized in this testimony also suffer from the same defect, and obscure the differential 

impacts on communities, families, and individuals within counties. However, counties are the smallest subdivision available in most archival records of economic activity. 

1 
114 

Study Questions 

My testimony will present answers to six questions: 

1. How were wood products employment and earnings affected 

by the decline in the sale and harvesting of federal wood between 1988 and 1992? 

2. Have counties reliant on federal wood supplies faced a greater challenge in revitalizing 

their local economies? 

3. Has reduction in wood supply required by the President's forest plan affected the 

ability of counties to meet these challenges? 

4. Can recreation and tourism help counties meet these challenges? 

5. Would secondary manufacturing help counties meet these challenges? 

6. Would allocation of future federal wood supplies to small businesses help counties 

meet these challenges? 

Limitations of Study 

There are two major wealcnesses to this report (1) lack of reliable, comparative 

information on the economic and social dynamics of local communities, and (2) lack of 

comparable data on county economies after 1992. Substantial changes in local 

economies, community structures, families, and individuals are overlooked by focusing on 

county-level information. Wood products workers have been losing jobs, income, and 

social status, while other people have been gaining. Major changes involving the 

redistribution of social standing, jobs, income, and economic opportunity are not visible 

when the average conditions of a county are examined. These redistribution effects remain 

the most important, and under-studied, consequences of the decisions to suddenly withhold 

federal wood supplies. 

By 1992 counties had already exhibited the sudden economic changes described in 

this report But, when this study was conducted, economic data series were not available to 

descrit;e the additional changes that have taken place over the ensuing three years. 

Anecdotal reports from counties indicate that many counties and communities are only now 

experiencing the full impacts of the 1990 decisions to reduce federal wood supplies as the 

last stocks of volume under contract are exhausted. As a result, some counties that are not 

identified in this report as highly challenged by the need for economic revitalization may 

now face such challenges. 

Reliance on Federal Wood Supplies 

An alternative to metropolitan/non-metropolitan classification for counties was 

developed for making more discriminating judgments about population density, the 

importance of the forest products industry to the local ~omy, and reliance on federal 

wood supplies. This means for classifying counties resulted in a clearer picture of the 

importance of the wood products industry to the economic base of counties such as Lane 

County, Oregon, which would otherwise be classified as metropolitan. The 72 counties in 

the owl region were assigned to one of the four following types: 

2 
115 

(1) Densely-populated counties. Defined as the 19 counties in the owl region in which 

population density was equal to or greater than 100 persons per square mile at the 1990 

census. 

(2) Wood products dominant counties. Defined as the 30 counties in which wood 

products employment exceeds seven percent of total county employment The wood 

products industries are reported to support many more jobs than are shown by direct 

employment because of indirect employment multiplier effects. Seven percent was selected as the cut-off point based on a recent analysis of the wood products industry in Washington 

State in which a forest industry multiplier of 3.67 was reported. Based on this multiplier, 

seven percent of direct employment in wood products in a county would indirectly support over 25 percent of the county's total employment None of the 30 counties that fell into this 

category were densely populated, as defined above. Half of these counties were found to 

rely heavily on federal timber (see below) and placed in a different category for analysis 

purposes. 

(3) Federal wood-reliant counties. A subset of the wood products dominant counties 

was created based upon the 1992 Mason. Bruce, and Girard survey of wood sources for 

mills. The 15 wood products dominant counties whose mills sourced more than 25 percent 

of their wood from federal lands were classified as federal wood-reliant counties. 

(4) Low population density counties. There were 23 counties in the owl region 

whose population density was less than 99 persons per square mile in the 1990 census and 

were neither forest products dominant or reliant on federal timber. 

QUESTION 1 

How were wood producll employment atul eitrningr affected 

by the decUne in the Mle and harw~rting offedeml wood 

between 1988 tJtul 1992~ 

Table 1 (attached) summarizes results from an analysis by Wilbur Malci and 

Associates showing changes in total employment (both full time and part-time for wage 

earners and the self-employed) and earnings (including benefits) for the 71. counties in the 

owl region from 1988 to 1992. There was a loss of almost 30 thousand wood products 

jobs and $278.5 million in wood products earnings from wages, associated benefits, and 

self -employment This represents a loss of 20 percent of total wood products employment 

The 5.2 percent loss of wood products earnings during a period in which the cost of living 

increased 18 percent translates into an effective total earnings loss of over 23 percent 

These declines in wood products employment and earnings contrast with a 12 percent gain 

in total employment and a 32 percent gain in total employment earnings for the same fiveyear period in the 72 county region. 

There is no convenient way of linking the decline in federal timber sales and 

harvesting to employment and earnings. However, Table 1 shows that losses in wood 

products employment and earnings were proportionally greatest in the 15 rural federal 

wood-reliant counties, with a loss of 25.3 percent of wood products jobs and an effective 

41 percent loss of wood products employment earnings. Moreover, along with wood 

products dominant counties, rural federal wood-reliant counties exhibited the lowest rates 

of growth in total employment and employment earnings during this period. 

3 
116 

QUESTION 2 

Have counties reliant on federal wood supplies faced a greater challenge in revitalizing their local economies? . 

Annual population estimates from 1988 and 1992 provided by Wilbur Maki and 

Associates show that none of the 72 owl region counties lost population during this period. 

All but four (Skamania, Wa, Douglas and Lake, Ore., and Glenn, Cal.) of the 72 counties 

in the owl region experienced employment growth from 1988 to 1992. However, this 

apparent robustness of county economies clouds a significant decline in average county 

employment earnings (as well as yet unmeasured employment and earnings losses for 

individuals, families, and communities that had relied on wood products employment). 

Counties with employment growth, but a decline in average wage and salary earnings, 

illustrated that family wage jobs in the wood products industry are being replaced by subfamily wage jobs in the service sector. As a result, many counties are faced with the 

challenge of revitalizing local economies to reduce economic depravation and its associated 

social costs. 

To complicate this challenge, the industries providing new jobs generally have 

much lower employment multipliers and average earnings per job than the wood products 

manufacturing industries that are lost The Washington State Input-Output 1987 Study 

prepared for the Office of Financial Management in 1993 estimated employment multipliers 

for logging and sawmilling (excluding management overhead and associated services 

internal to a company) of 5.8 and 4.2, respectively. Corresponding multipliers for service 

industries were all substantially lower. retailtrade-1.9, finance, insurance and real estate2.5, business services-1.7, and health services-2.0. 

In 1988, earnings (including benefits) from wood products jobs averaged about 

$30,000 (See Table 1). Table 2 shows growth in jobs, average earnings per job, and 

percent average earnings growth by selected economic sector and county type from 1988 to 

1992. Table 2 shows that health and social services was the economic sector in which 

most jobs were created during this period, with an overall growth rate of 25 percent and 

average earnings growth of 11 percent. Producer services (services that provide inputs to 

service or manufacturing industries) and retail services ranked second and third, 

respectively, with 23 percent and 18 percent. State and local government ranked fourth 

with 15 percent However, producer services exhibited a decline in overall average 

earnings growth of five percent. Wood-producing counties exhibited negative average 

earnings growth for four of the five industries in which job growth was greatest. 

The counties most reliant on federal wood supplies have experienced the lowest rate 

of growth in both number of jobs and in average earnings per job (See Table 2). Job 

growth has occurred in consumer service industries with the lowest employment multipliers 

and lowest average earnings per job. Forest products dominant counties, when compared . 

to those reliant on federal wood supplies, are similar to other rural counties in showing 

greater rates of growth in producer services and lower rates in health and social services 

and retail services. These estimates suggest that counties most reliant on federal wood 

supplies face the toughest challenges in revitalizing their economies. 

An index was developed to rate the challenge of economic revitalization facing 

counties impacted by loss of wood products employment and earnings. Four categories 

were developed by adapting and modifying the Oregon State Economic Development 

Department's "Distressed Area Analysis" rating system developed for communities: 

4 
117 

(1) High challenge. Counties with (a) loss of wood products employment between 

1988 and 1992 that was equal to or greater than four percent of the total county 

employment, (b) which had not added back at least two non-wood products jobs for every 

job lost in the wood products industry, and (c) which had experienced a loss of average 

employment earnings in the same period (average earnings growth was less than the 18 

percent cost of living increase during this five-year interval). 

(2) Moderate challenge. Counties with (a) loss of wood products employment between 

1988 and 1992 that was equal to or greater than four percent of the total county 

employment, and (b) which had not added back at least two non-wood products jobs for 

every job lost in the wood products industry. 

(3) Low challenge. Counties with (a) loss of wood products employment between 

1988 and 1992 that was two percent or greater but less than four percent of the total county 

employment, (b) which had not added back at least two non-wood products jobs for every 

job lost in the wood products industry, and (c) which had experienced a loss of average 

employment earnings in the same period (average earnings growth was less than the 18 

percent cost of living increase during this five-year interval). 

(4) No challenge. Counties with loss of wood products employment between 1988 and 

1992 that was less than two percent of the total county employment. 

Table 3 summarizes the relationship between the challenge of economic 

revitalization and reliance on the wood products industry. Six of the eight highly or moderately challenged counties were classified as relying most heavily on federal wood 

supplies. Nine of the 15 counties facing a low to high economic challenge were also typed 

as federally reliant. None of the densely populated or low density, non-wood products 

rural counties face economic challenges related to decline in the wood products industry 

(although there may be other causes for loss of income or jobs). Counties facing the 

greatest challenges in revitalizing their economies are concentrated in southwest Oregon 

where reliance on federal wood supplies has been greatest. Similarly, counties most 

challenged in Washington State are those that have been most reliant on federal wood 

supplies, especially Skamania and Klickitat. Identifiable economic challenges associated 

with decline of the wood products industry in California are limited to Plumas County. 

Challenges faced by local communities within counties were overlooked by this 

rating system, since it focused on the aggregate economic conditions of counties. Of 

particular concern are highly challenged communities in counties where aggregate data 

show a very low challenge of economic revitalization. The Oregon State Economic 

Development Department has developed a trial method for rating communities as "Distressed Areas" (see above), but gathering employment data by Zip Codes does not 

provide reliable sources of community-level data for communities in the three-state region. 

There are several examples of counties where county-level information masks 

substantial challenges of economic revitalization at the local level. Some of the most 

noteworthy cases of communities facing high challenges are Forks in Clallam County, 

Washington, and Aberdeen/Hoquium in Grays Harbor, Washington. Both have shown 

signs of severe social and economic dislocation following the withdrawal of federal wood 

supplies. A notable case in Oregon are the small wood-producing towns along the North 

Fork of the Santiam River in Marion County. Social and economic conditions in these 

communities are even more challenging than most in neighboring and highly challenged 

Linn County. In northern California, Hayfork and other small counties in Trinity County 

illustrate how local conditions can be far more severe than indicated by county averages. 

5 
118 

QUESTION 3 

Has reduction in wood supply required by the President's forest plan 

affected the ability of counties to meet tlrese challenges? 

This study analyzed the likely employment effects of implementing the President's 

forest plan for the owl region. Sale of wood scheduled under the plan was compared with 

the annual harvest from federal lands in 1992-93. Results suggest that implementation of 

the President's plan will reduce federal sales in the owl region by 616.9 million board feet, 

translating into an additional loss of 5,660 jobs. However, 1994 sales of federal wood 

were well below levels scheduled by the President's plan and totaled only 140 million 

board feet. Projected sales for 1995 were even lower. These losses will further detract 

from efforts to revitalize counties facing economic challenges caused by the loss of wood 

products jobs and earnings. 

Six counties (Linn, Douglas, Curry, and Lane Counties, Oregon and Skamania and 

Lewis Counties, Washington) would lose two percent or more of their total employment 

base under the President's plan. All but one of these counties (Lewis) already face a high 

to moderate economic challenge in revitalizing their economies. Skamania County would 

lose over 20 percent of its total employment base, and Linn and Douglas would lose 5.1 

and 4.4 percent, respectively. The remaining counties would lose a little more than two 

percent. 

Further reductions in federal timber harvests are not the only causes for erosion of 

the economic base in wood-producing counties. Additional losses of employment and 

employment earnings from implementation of the President's plan will most likely be less 

than losses originating in reductions of harvest on state, private industrial, and small nonindustrial private lands. Harvesting of state lands in Washington State has been reduced by 

almost two-thirds since 1992 by habitat management planning and other environmental 

concerns. Private industrial owners have reduced harvesting during this same period as 

required by implementation of habitat conservation plans and other state and federal 

environmental laws and regulations. Harvesting opportunities for non-industrial private 

owners have also been reduced by these same environmental laws and regulations, and 

may decline in the future as readily available supplies are exhausted by rapid harvesting on 

lands where opportunities currently exist. 

QUESTION 4 

Could recreation atrd tourism growth 

help counties meet these challenges? 

Tourism employment is often recommended as a substitute for declining wood 

products employment To assess the economic potential for tourism in counties faced with 

economic challenges, SIC code 80, Hotels and Other Lodging Places, was selected as the 

indicator for tourism growth. Previous tourism studies have relied on this industrial group 

as a reliable criterion for detecting tourism activity (Smith, 1989). Other industrial groups, 

especially SIC code 58, have been avoided because other factors (e.g., changing lifestyles) 

are thought to have caused rapid growth in eating establishments and employment. 

The county-level employment and employment earnings data provided by Wilbyr 

Maki Associates was used to classify counties on the basis of growth and decline in 

employment in hotels and lodging places from 1988-1992. Four categories were created: 

(1) employment decline of 10 percent or more, (2) nine percent employment decline to nine 

6 
119 

percent employment growth, (3) employment growth of 10 percent or more, and (4) 

employment growth of 10 percent or more that replaced lost wood producing jobs. The 

range of nine percent decline to nine percent growth was used because activity in this 

industry tends to fluctuate with economic cycles, and 10 percent growth or decline was thought to represent changes more enduring than a temporary fluctuation, 

There was tourism growth in only one (Plumas County, California) of the 15 

counties facing the challenge of economic revitalization. Ten of the 15 challenged counties 

exhibited tourism employment decline of 10 percent or more. Counties with declining 

tourism employment were concentrated in southwest Oregon, coastal Washington, and 

south central Washington. While Skamania County, Washington, showed decline in 

tourism employment for the years in which data were available (up to 1992), the opening of 

Skamania Lodge in 1993 will likely result in its reclassification as a tourism growth county. 

Tourism growth appears to be located in counties with significant natural amenities 

(e.g., Skamania County, Washington and Hood River County, Oregon), new destination 

resorts (e.g., Jefferson and Tillamook Counties, Oregon), or urban areas with growing 

reputations as tourist attractions (e.g., Portland and Seanle). 

County economies are not necessarily improved by growth of tourism industries. 

Work in tourism establishments is generally seasonal, unstable, low-paying, lacking in 

benefits, and low-skilled (Smith, 1989). It does little to train people for advancement in careers and is generally limited to secondary employment for spouses or primary 

employment for individuals (especially single women) living in poverty. As such, it is a very poor substitute for the family-wage industrial jobs lost with decline in the woodproducing industries. 

QUESTIONS 

Would recorulary manufacturing help countkr meet there challenger? 

Secondary (value-added) wood-products manufacturing is widely recommended as a means for creating employment in counties facing the challenge of declining employment 

and employment earnings in logging and primary manufacturing. County Business Pattern 

data for 1991 were compiled by Dr. Paul Polzin to assess the potential for jobs in 

secondary manufacturing to substitute for jobs in primary manufacturing. Although some disclosure problems may result in an underestimate in rural counties, counts of 

establishments by county can be used to describe the geographic distribution of secondary 

manufacturing in the 72-county owl region. 

Counties were classified into five groups based on the percent of the regional total 

of secondary manufacturing establishments located in a county: (1) less than 1 percent, (2) 

1 to 1.9 percent, (3) 2 to 2.9 percent, (4) 3-3.9 percent, and (5) 4 percent or greater. This 

scheme for classifying counties is a measure of their relative contribution to total secondary 

manufacturing activity in the region. 

In all three states, the vast majority of the secondary manufacturing establishments are situated in urban, high population density counties. Previous studies have shown 

similar results and concluded that rural, resource-producing counties are not the best 

locations for most secondary manufacturing industries (Polzin, 1994). Value-added 

manufacturing seems 10 do best when located close to markets, material supply streams, 

and transportation nodes. Some activities, such as millwork, doors, veneer, and other 

7 
120 

secondary manufacturing are often located close to material sources and have the potential 

for future growth if wood supplies are available. 

Comparison of counties in Washington and California shows that there is very little 

secondary manufacturing in counties facing the challenge of economic revitalization. In 

Oregon, there is a moderate amount of secondary manufacturing in counties facing the 

challenge of revitalization. Seven of the eight economically challenged Oregon counties 

have one percent or more of the total regional secondary manufacturing establishments. 

Two Oregon counties (Lane and Jackson) each have three percent or more of the regional 

total. 

Table 4 shows the distribution of primary and secondary manufacturing 

establishments by type of county. Counties with high population densities have 61 percent 

of the secondary manufacturing establishments in the region, but only 33 percent of all 

wood products manufacturing establishments. Counties relying on federal lands for wood 

supply have only 12 percent of the secondary manufacturing establishments, but 25 percent 

of all logging establishments. Hence, there appears to be limited potential for secondary 

manufacturing employment to substitute for loss of logging and sawmilling jobs in counties 

facing the greatest challenges of economic revitalization. 

QUESTION 6 

Would aUocatio11 of future federal timber lulrverts 

to rmall buri11errer help countier meet there ciUIUenger? 

The limited opportunities for tourism and secondary manufacturing to substitute for 

loss of wood products employment and employment earnings leave primary wood products 

manufacturing as the most promising economic sector for strengthening the economic base 

of wood-dominant rural counties. Economic development policies that promote small 

businesses may offer the most promising way for promoting a sustainable wood products 

economy in local communities. 

As compared to larger corporate businesses, small, family-owned, businesses are more likely to stimulate the local economy because they tend to buy a higher proportion of 

their supplies and services from local suppliers and invest profits in local businesses. Small 

business is also linked to social conditions that are most conducive to community-initiated 

economic development Sociological studies in agriculture have shown that local 

communities are far healthier and better integrated when family farming rather than 

corporate farming dominates the local economy (Goldschmidt, 1947). Communities based 

on family farming exhibit greater involvement of citizens in self-governance, more active 

churches and community clubs, better environment and activities for young people, and 

lower rates of anti-social behavior. Banks report a higher proponion of savinp are invested locally when communities are based on small busmesses rather than large 

externally-owned businesses. 

Moreover, small mills have been most important to the local economy of counties 

most heavily reliant on federal wood supplies. Table 5 shows that about 53 percent of 

anticipated 1993 federal log consmnption by small mills was in the 15 counties most 

heavily reliant on federal wood supplies, while only 41 percent of the federal log 

consumption by large mills was situated in these counties. As a consequence, small mills 

have been disproponionately impacted by the sudden reduction in federal timber sales, and 

those counties most reliant on federal wood supplies are now most challenged to replace the 

family-wage jobs provided by these small mills. 

8 
121 

In addition, a recent study by the author has shown that annual employment 

stability is greater in smaller wood products establishments than in large establishments 

(Lee and Jennings-Eckert, 1995). This finding is important for identifying ways counties can meet economic challenges, since large businesses are more likely to have larger and 

less stable establishments. Figures l and 2 show annual employment stability by 

establishment size (as measured by calculating the standard deviation as a percent of the 

mean) for logging and sawmilling in Oregon and Washington from 1964 to 1991. Results 

show that wood products employment for all establishment sizes is more stable than all 

manufacturing taken together, suggesting that at least at the scale of the states, the wood 

products industry is a relatively stable source of employment when compared with other 

manufacturing industries. But most noteworthy for this report, wood products employment 

in small establishments is over four times as stable as wood products employment in large 

establishments. Moreover, wood products employment in large establishments is far less 

stable than employment in all other manufacturing. 

Examination of the stability of establishments in addition to employment stability is 

informative because it shows that there is less annual variation in small wood products 

establishments than in large wood products establishments (See Figures 3 and 4). Hence, 

the number of smaller places of work in the wood products industry is far less likely to 

vary from year to year than the number of large places of work. Even more so than with 

employment stability, total wood products establishments are far more stable than all 

manufacturing establishments taken together. Relative stability of both employment and 

establishments for small wood products establishments make them appear to be highly 

attractive industries for communities facing the challenge of economic revitalization. 

It is important to note that employment and establishment stability was measured at 

the scale of the states, and that these same patterns may not hold when establishments are examined on a spatial scale as small as counties. Regardless of these limitations, results 

imply that a more stable economic base for states or regions can be established by 

encouraging the development of smaller establishments. 

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 

This study has shown that counties have been differentially affected by the 

reduction in wood production on federal lands in the region providing habitat for the 

northern spotted owl and associated species. Variation among counties makes it difficult to 

generalize about the region as a whole, and necessitates examination of differential effects 

among counties and communities within counties. By examining differences between 

counties, this study has revealed that counties vary in the extent to which they are challenged to revitalize local economies which have lost wood products employment and 

employment earnings. 

The most important findings are: (I) counties most reliant on federal wood supplies are generally the most challenged by the need for economic revitalization, (2) tourism is 

unlikely to be of much help to most of the counties facing economic challenges, (3) 

secondary manufacturing may help some of these challenged counties, but will mainly be 

concentrated near urban centers where transportation nodes and markets are accessible, 

and (4) small wood products businesses engaged in primary manufacturing provide the 

best opportunities for challenged counties to develop a stable and sustainable economic 

base. 

9 
122 

Given the promise of small businesses for revitalizing rural economies, the fedeml 

government might consider developing policies that would provide a predictable source of 

wood supply for small wood products businesses in rural counties. Such a wood allocatmn 

policy appears to be a viable means for promoting sustainable rural development in counties 

that would otherwise be likely to continue suffering from economic marginalization, 

poverty, and political alienation. 

Literature Cited 

Power. T. M., editor. 1995. Economic Well-Being and Environmental Protection in the 

Pacific Northwest: A Consensus Report by Pacific Northwest Economists. 

Department of Economics, University of Montana, Missoula, Montana 

Goldschmidt, W. 1947. As You Sow. Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press. 

Lee, R. G. 1995. Potential Social and Economic Contributions of Small WoodProducing Businesses in the Spotted Owl Region: A Policy Analysis. Institute for 

Resources in Society, College of Forest Resources, University of Washington, 

Seattle, Washington. 

Lee, R. G. and P. Jennings-Eckert. Unpublished manuscript under review for 

publication, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. 

Polzin, P. E. 1994. "Spatial Distribution of Wood Products Industries. • Journal of 

Forestry (May):38-42. 

Smith, M. 1989. Behind the Glitter: The Impact of Tourism on Rural Women in the 

Southeast Southern Women's Employment Coalition. Lexington, Kentucky. 

10 
Table l· Changes in Wood Products Employment and Earnings by Type of County, 1988-1

19Deneely 15 Rural Wood- 15 Rura

Populated Producing Wood-P

Co1.11U• (1) CounUaa(2) Coun

Total Jobs, 1988 3,720,839 464,421 

Total Wood Produc1s Jobs, 1988 59,775 52,366 

Wood Products Jobs as percent of Total 1.8% 11.3'11. 

Eamlngs per Wood Products Job $31,494 $31,703 

Change In Wood Products Ernploymenl, 19118-92 -8,844 ·11,487 

Percent Change In Wood Products Employment. 19118-92 ·11.4% ·21.9% 

Change In Wood Prod. Emp. as percent o1 Total1988 Emp. ·0.2% ·2.5% 

Wood Products Eamlngs, 1988 $1,882,555,000 $1,880,143,000 $1,23

Change In Wood Products Eemlngs, 1988-92 $107,365,000 ($218,844,QOO) ($280

Percent Change In Wood Producls Eamlngs. 1988-92 5.7% ·13.1% 

Total Employment Change, 1988-92 448,167 43,710 

Pan:ent Change In ToJal Employment. 1988-92 12% K 

Change In Total Employment Earnings, 1988-92 $28,184,305,000 $1,985,505,000 $1,32

Percent Change In Total Employment Eamlngs, 19118-92 33% 21% 

Percent Change In Average EamlngsiJab, 1988-92 1ft 11% 

(1) DeDned as coundes In wltlchlhepapulaJion denlllyllltpaal8rlhen 100peqona perlqllllfB mile (

(2) DeOned as counties In wltlch wood pnMb:ts employment exceadl7% ol toJal county employmel

(3) Defined as wood produclll clon*wll counUes whoee miiiiOUICII more then 25% of their 8IJIIPV fr
124 

Table 2. Job Growth in Owl Region, by Type of County, 1988-1992 

Nee Percent of Average 

Employr:nent Jobs Nee Earnings per 

Type of Councy Growth Top Five Growth Sectors Created Growth (I) Job 1992 

Densely Populated 448,167 jobs J) Producer Services 115,525 26% s 23,917 

12% growth 2) Health & Social Services 99,060 22 30,927 

3) Retail Services 65,681 15 16,706 

4) Staee & Local Govt 62.215 14 30,228 

5} Distributive Ser'tlices 48,976 I 35,897 

Wood·Producing 43.71-0 jobs I) Health & Social Services 19,923 30% s 22.596 

9% growth 2) Retail Scrvites 11,510 26 14,466 

3) Producer Services 8,194 19 17,646 

4) State and Local Govt. 7.757 18 25,687 

5) Construction 5,282 12 27.737 

Federal Wood-Producing 19,871 jobs l) Health & Social Services II ,378 57% s 22,650 

6% growth 2) Retail Services 6,506 33 14,583 

3) Manufacturing 4.913 25 27,464 

4) State and Locnl Gov!. 3.510 18 24,304 

5) Construction 2.333 12 24,809 

Other Rural Counties 75,066 jobs I) Health &Social Services 21,411 29% s 23,289 

13% growth 2) Retail Services 20,465 27 15,086 

3) State & Local Govt. 13.536 18 26.821 

4) Producer Services 11,990 16 18,530 

S) Distributive Services 6,294 g 28,081 

All Counties 586,814 jobs I) Health & Social Services 144,773 25% $ 26,026 

12% growth 2) Producer Services 137,880 23 22,896 

3) Retail Services 104,162 t8 16,137 

4) State & Local Govt. 87,018 15 29,079 

5) Distributive Services 59,774 10 34,405 

(1) Sum of percentage growth of sectors with nel job increases exceeds 100% to account for net 

job ~in other employment sectors. 

Percent 

Averag~ 

Earnings 

Growch (2) 

(5J'l' 

16 

7 

2 

(6) 

(5)'ll 

(II) 

0 

(7) 

(4) 

7% 

16 

I 

(I) 

3 

311> 

13 

2 

(8) 

(5) 

II 'A: 

(5) 

8 

2 

(7) 

(2) 18"k inflation from 1988 to 1992 was subtracted from the percentage increase in average earnings to 

estimate the true value of changes in earnings. 

1 2 
125 

Table 3. Challenge of Economic Revitalization and County Type, in Number of Counties 

Wood- Federal Low 

Economic Densely Products Wood- Density 

Challenge Populated Dominant Reliant Rural TOTAL 

None 19 9 6 23 57 

Low 0 4 3 0 7 

Moderate 0 I 2 0 3 

Hil1:h 0 I 4 0 5 

TOfAL 19 15 15 23 72 

26-951 - 96 - 5 
126 

Table 4. Number of Primary and Secondary Wood-Producing Establishments 

by Industry Group and Type of County, Owl Region, 1991. 

Densely Wood- Fed. Wood- Low 

Populated Dominant Reliant Density Total 

Industry Group Number Number Number Number Number 

% % % % % 

Logging 376 16% 918 39% 600 25% 462 20% 2,356 

Sawmilling & 170 27% 240 38% 104 17% Ill 18% 625 

Planing 

Millwork, 

Plywood & 407 55% 148 20% 97 13% 88 12% 740 

Structural 

Members 

Wood Containers 43 80% 5 9% 0 0 6 11% 54 

Wood Buildings 

& 29 63% 8 17% 8 17% I 2% 46 

Mobile Homes 

Msc.Wood 109 40% 90 33% 47 18% 25 9% 271 

Products 

Furniture & 339 82% 44 II% 23 5% 7 2% 413 

Fixtures 

Subtotal 

Secondary Mfg. 927 61% 295 19% 175 12% 127 8% 1.524 

All Wood 

Products 1,473 33% 1,453 32% 879 19% 700 16% 4,505 

Manufacturing 

Source: Establishments Compiled from Bureau of Census, County Business Patterns for 

1991, by Paul Polzin, Bureau of Business and Economic Research, University of 

Montana. 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

99% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 
127 

Table 5. Projected Consumption of Federal Log Supply by Type of 

County and Small and Large Mills, Owl Region, 1992 

SMALL MILLS LARGE MILLS TOTAL 

Coumy Type MMBd. Ft. MMBd. Ft. MMBd.Ft. 

% % % 

Densely 146.6 13.7% 151.2 16.3% 297.8 14.9% 

Populated 

Wood-Producing 150.3 14.0% 176.3 19.0% 326.6 16.3% 

Fed. Wood-Prod. 565.1 52.6% 380.4 41.1% 945.5 47.3% 

Low Density 212.0 19.7% 218.7 23.6% 430.7 21.5% 

TOTAL I 074.0 100.0% 926.6 100.0% 2000.6 100.0% 

Source: Mason, Bruce, and Girard Mill Survey, December, 1991. 
128 . 

Figure 1. Stability of Oregon Logging and Sawmilling Employment (SIC 24) and All 

Manufacturing Employment, by Size of Establishment, 1964-1991 

"2 

., 

Gi " 

c. 

., 

"' 

c c 

~ "' ., "' :; 

> 0 ., 

c 

"E 

'C "' 

c 

"' iii 

50 

45 

40 

35 

30 

25 

20 

15 

10 

5 

0 

Total 

• SIC24 

DAIIMfg. 

1 to 19 20 to 99 1 00 to 

249 

250 to 

499 

500+ 

Number of Employees per Establishment 

Source: R. Lee and P. Eckert. 1995. 

Figure 2. Stability of Oregon Logging and Sawmilling Establis;lments (SIC 24) and All 

Manufacturing Establishments, by Size of Establishment, 1964-1991 

"2 

., 

~ ., 

II. 

., 

"' 

c c 

.5:! .. ., iii :; 

> 0 ., 

c 

"E 

.. 

'C 

c 

.. 

iii 

50 

45 

40 

35 

30 

25 

20 

.15 

10 

5 

0 

• SIC24 

D All Mfg. 

Total 1 to 19 20 to 

99 

100 to 250 to 500+ 

249 499 

Number of Employees per Establishment 

Source: A. Lee and P. Eckert. 1995. 

I 6 
129 

Figure 3. Stability of Washington Logging and Sawmilling Employment (SIC 24) and All 

Manufacturing Employment, by Size of Establishment, 1964-1991 

50 

= 45 c: c: 40 0 : ~:IE 35 

~ 0 30 

c 25 

20 c 

"E " 1l "' u 

~ 15 

"' II. 1 0 

;;; 5 

0 

Total 

• SIC24 

0AIImfg. 

1 to 19 20 to 

99 

100 to 250 to 500+ 

249 499 

Number of Employees per Establishment 

Source: A. lee and P. Eckert. 1995. 

Figure .4 . Stability of Washington Logging and Sawmilling Establishments (SIC 24) and All 

Manufacturing Establishments, by Size of Establishment, 1964-1991 

c 50 " .SIC24 f:! 

.. 45 II. 40 DAIIMig. .. 

"' 35 

c: c: 30 0 "' -'ij::IE " 25 

>-

~ 0 20 

1 5 

! 10 .. 

II: 5 

;; 0 

Total 1 to 19.20 to 99 100 to 250 to 500+ 

249 499 

Number of EmployHI per Eetabllehment 

Source: R. 1.88 and P. Eckert. 1995. 

17 
130 

MAYR BROS. COMPANY 

92 U.S. HIGHWAY 101 

P. 0. BOX ISO 

HOQUIAM, W A 98550-0180 

(360) S32-7490 Fu (360) Sll-2381 

TESTIMONY 

of 

Mr. Thomas M. Mayr 

Praideat 

Mayr Bros. Compuay 

aoquiam, Washington 

Before 

Tbe House Resource Subcommittee 

On 

National Parks, Forests, aa.d Lands 

July i3, 1996 
131 

Thank you Congressman Dicks for introducing me to the members of this Committee. Mr. 

Chainnan, I am honored and f«l privileged to speak before a committee of the Congress ofthc 

United States of America, At the same thne, I am embarT8ssed to be here today ~ in 

public about my problems. It seems to me like whi!Ung and compJa.inina, and that ;., n01 how the 

Mayr fBmily has conducted 0\lrlelvu or ol)r business. However, the direct md proximate cause 

of our recent mill closing, the layoff of 170 employees with over I ,870 lllliil yevs of JerViee with 

our company (lhJt equals an aver.ge Seniority of over 11 yW"S), is due to the actions of the U.S. 

govemmeut. Wlu1e I do not lilce to discuss our bu$h!css problems in public, I feel thi$ story musr 

be told because 1'\'bat bas bappelllllto Mqr Bros. is 1101 how the ArneriQII cltwlm it aupPOMIIto 

ead. 

J am preakleut ofMayr Bros. Cotnpuy,ICOOII4 generation or 1 fimily OW1ICCI f'omt prvclu~ 

1111DUf4cturiag emaprise IORleel_. Hoquiam, Wu!Jiqton State. Up Ulltil a few ll)ollths-.o. 

Dine mtrn.bcr1 ot1he M.,r fimlily. hm tine paeqtioDs, were employed by the company. 

Hce I should make it clear that our mills were not closed d~ fbr lack otlop u has beal'lbe 

W. with I'IWIY othlr lllil1l in the Northwest. 1ust yesterday on the way to the airpon I ~'~Hived a 

caD ftom a logger waDti~ to bow when Mayr Broa. woulcl b. bl&lk ou the toslllllk«. 

I amae;ompaaled today by Mr. James Gelsinger, preaident of the Nortbwest Foresuy Astocilllion 

and also rcpretCIItiJig die Nonbwat Forest Raource Council. Tun knows more about the cmrall 

impllltS of the Presidcut's Paa& Northwest Forest Plan t11111 r ud lw 1 number ofc:bartnrith 

111m if you waut more spociiles than I am able to oft"cr. He has J111P11ed testimony for this heariD& 
132 

and I would IISk that both of our written statements be maoe part of the record of this hearing. 

Additio~lly, we will both be happy to answer any of your questions. 

While I am not an expert on how the President's Forest Plan has affecled others, 1 am able to tc::cll 

you how Mayr Bros. Company has been affected by this draconian forest plan. As I mentioned 

allove, h is not lack of raw material that forced Mayr Bros. mills to shut down. But befOre we get 

to that, I wa.nt to share v.ith you some history of ou:r family's company: 

In 19:;3 nvo teenage brother$ borrowed a hOrS<I from a neighbor, borrowed Oll%1 from their father, 

and went to logging 8 foot pulp wood on a neighbor's backwoods. They were tiT¥ .father, Marzell 

~d my uncle, Werner. Werner passed away last year, but my filther is still o~~ctive, lie comes daily 

to the nQW quite mills, helping to c:leanup and prepare them for what~er lies ahea4. 

Over the yeau, Mayr Bros. Logging, as the compauy wu called then, grew and became a steady 

employer on Grays Harbor. The company bought its first USFS sale in 1939,111Cl dwing WW n, 

Werner and Man..en logged Sitka Spru~ for the war effort. In the early 1960's, Mayr BrC$. built 

their first =ufacturing fitcility, a. ~hipping facility to make wood chips for p4per IIIIIIIUf"acture. In 

1973, the company built a awroillto specjfiully saw the high-grade ,...bitcwood lop found. on the 

Olympic P~nsula- During the late 1970's, the company bad 500 employeef, h¥o sawmills tllld 

was a major exporter of ficished lumber to tbe Japanese malket. 

High interest rates forced the company imo Chapter 11 barlkruptcy in 1934. The compllll)' 

regrouped and emerged from bankruptcy in 198& a reorganized and solid company. 
133 

Here is where the current story begins. After the rcorganizalion, the company concentrated its 

operations on the Hoquiam saWJDill. This ll1ill produced high quality specialty products fer 

various customer~, mainly in Japan. Over this period. we invested hea'Yily in the facilities to 

continuously upgrade equipment and tTain employees to produce the greatest possible amount of 

lumber out of the logs. The company was 95% dependent upon the Olyntpic; National Forest for 

saw log3 to manufaeturc. 

With the advent of logging restrictions due to the Spotted Owl, we at Mayr Bros. knew tbat the 

compiiiiY had to reCQQg ancl adapt 10 the chllnges. From111 CICICn5ive feasibility i1Udy bepm in 

1989·90, the company detei'DlineO to build a small log miU aod processing facility ro complilneQt 

the llllistlq facilities in Hoquiam. The COIIIplll)' developed a bulinr:Js plan and wat out loolcill& 

for financlns. Obtaildq ~ "'-' dil!cuk. but a pacbp was oblained. dul \lC#cpiD MJ a 

SS,OOO,OOO lOIII fi'olllalocal bulk paranteed bytbo FIDMI'$ Horae MmiJdstratioD Ulllfer tbl 

Business and Iaduslry Guarantnd LoaD propn (now admiDistered by tt.. R.wal Business A 

Coopcrativo Dcwlopmtnt Service Wider the Department of AaricultuR). 

Mayr Bros. ~ purchue4 seven! Forest Stnioe rimbll!' ales 1UI4II' ru s.ioa 31S ri4er ill 

1990, Mayr Bros. ballnas plan celled for 11arYest ofthauales durills the years 1991. J9P2 ud 

1993 while the ...,. mill was beiq built azacl underJOiDI~WNp. Usilli tllis timber tbe W111p11J1Y 

could operate the emting mill ami xD lumber into its exisri!lf m-rkets, while the lltW mill 'weal 

through testing ud markets wwe devdoped fOr the produets SIW11 trom -.11 secolld md dzint 

growth lop. Il:l addition, the cash tlow 11'115 to be u3Cd to filnd the ponio11 of the nUll~ 
134 

cost in ex~ of the loaned amount The FIQHA was well aware ofthjs pfan, even uking for 

details about the timber contracts, and requesting a copy of 01111 oftbe contracts. Approvtl oftbe 

loan by the FmHA Wlll bas¢ in large part on this Federal timber suwly that the com~ bad 

yoder contn!Ct 

WeU, it did not work out as planned. In late 1992 the Forest Service stopped all operations on 

our Section 318 timber sales due to sup!'Osed Marbled Murrelet flybys. It ha$ now been nearly 

fo11r years; the four sales, with over 14,000,000 board feet of timber, are stiU held up. With tile 

most reocent ruling by the 9th Circuit Appeals Panel, it '\VOuld seem that Ulese sales will never be 

Jogged by Mayr Bros .. 

In 1993 the President came out to Portland, Oregon to hold a forest conference. A:> a rm~lt of 

that conference, the Secrewy of Agriculture Mike Espy and Secrewy of Interior Bruce Babbitt 

indicated the Form Service and BLM would sell 2 billion board fut in 1994 and then would 

ramp dmm to about a billion board feet. In 1994, when the President's Forest Plan '\1¥3S finaliud, 

we fo1.1nd jus.t the OppQsite. These agencies were: telling us they would rilnlp up to 1.053 billion 

board feet by the end of 1997, but that ollly 948 million board feet (MMBF) would be sawtimber. 

That is the type ofmnerial we 11eed to run our miU. Adarrionally, that 948 (MMBF) would bBve 

to be shared by companiu in tbree States. 

The impact to the solio wood prod11c:ts industry ~ capacitr ill ~e P1ciSc Nordrwe$t 

hu been devascatiD& Atlldled lO my statcmeat are some charts dtvtlopcd by Mr. Paul Elizlpr 
135 

of Ehinger and Associates ofEungene, Oregon which detail mill closures and employment loss in 

the Pacific Nonhwest in recent years. It is a sad and umec=ssary story. 

To understand what this me&nt to Mayr Bros. I want to take you back to the 1960s, 1970s, and 

I 980s. The Olympic National Form bas a biological capacity to grow 330 MMBF oftiinber per 

year a~:Cardiug to the forest plan which was completed in th~;late 1980s. for the laJt twenty )'CIIl$ 

the forest otlered 2SQ+ MMBF per year. Und~ the leadership of this Administmion, the plan is 

to offer I o MMBF per year. That is lm than 10".4 of what grows eacb year on the foiUt. 

The Forest's perfollli.BDce bas not yet begun to meet e-.-en the Administntion • s meager 

expectations. InFY 1993, the forest sold 14.2 MMBF; inFY 1994 tfte level wangGI 14.2 

MMBF. Then the Clinton plan kicked ill. FY 1995 the forest sold only 3.2 MMBF. Thi5 year, 

through JUDe 30th, the forest has sold ooly 3.5 MMBF. While it may look like tbey ue 

improving, you need to look a little deeper. Thus far this year, only 2.5 MMSF of the ~terill 

wid on th£ Olympic has been matma! our company could manufactwe to meet our customers' 

demand. 

Mayr Bros. bas always been " re51Jienl compmy. We completed the new miD, found an alternate 

wood supply for the big log mill,. and survived for a time. In fact the new IDill is one of the most 

eficicllt llld bipst producizlc mills otiu type iD tbe world. Dlailla Ibis ame period. Ma,r Bnls. 

bas paid the OfiPiallolll d~ fiom $5,000,000 to S4,000,000, la order to ac:comp1im II ofthat 

without the Sec. 318 tilnller. tile compay "W':' forced to use au of its opcr.tiaaline ofcnditto 

!inane. OOJDpleriou ofdle IJiiU ~ A11ht same lime wt lost our valued eustoiDir bue ill 
136 

Japan, lllld with it our lucrative ni~h~ markds. During this time Mayr Bros. always held out hope 

that the Forest Service would do the honorable thing and make some type of settlement with us 

on our timber sales, The :M:ayr family ~-ainly held out hope as the delays and setbacks continued. 

Finally, in Februlll)' of tlus year I made a proposal to Tom Tuchm=n, President Clinton's forestry 

representative in Portland, Oregon. The clfcr was this: M.~)T Bros. would trade all of our claims 

against the Forest Service on OtJr Sec. 318 ules, if the Government would pay off' the 

approximately $4,000,000 remllining on the government guaranteed mill!Ol!ll. While a great deal 

of interest was e1r;pressed in this proposal, we were told by Mr. Tucbmann oftl!e office of 

Forestry Md Economic Development that (contrary to the opiiuon of our attorney) the 

administnrtion lacked the authority to do such an offset. It should be noted thaT in makiiJE this 

offer Mavr Bros was Cout of des_perationl e?t_pressing a willingness to settle fur less than SQ% of 

wh3t the damages ri be on these gtracts shs>uld Mm Bros. be forced to tve claims in the U.S. 

Cowt of Contract Cla.j!m. 

Attached to my testimony is a proposed piece oflegislation prepared by my anomey which 

"''thorizes the Climon Administration to enter into an agreement with my compmy that would 

f'l;!quire my e<>mp&IJY to relinquish any wd all claims for damllgc:J relate~! to all Qf OQI' Forest 

Service timber sale cont~s purchased prior to fiscal year l99Z in exchange for the Uuited States 

fully retiring my company's obligation "nits govem.ment gu&nlnt~ Joan, including all principal. 

interest, fees and ofber thargcs.- The Clinton AdminiWationlw expresse4 a great intereSt in this 

approach, yet it claims not to have the authority to execute such an ac;tion. I tn.Jiy believe that this 

is in the best interest of the u.s. gvvemmflllt l1lif or my company. The case law is cleac thlt 
137 

damages are due my company as a result oftbc go...-emment 'if long del&y in making the timber 

held under contract available for harvest. Rather than spend years in eoun to resolve the fUll 

damage amount and iJCal fo~ the fate of my company, I call on this committee to p.ss this 

legislation and proVide my company a ray of hope for the finure. 

Where are we today? The aftermath of one agency ofthc Department of AgriMturc rdilsing to 

perfonu on the contracts that were to be used to repay a loan set up by another agency oftbe 

same department bas been de..oaitatmg. By using our opC111ting line of credit to finance the 

activities that mould have~ financed by the harvest of our Sec;. 318 sales, we did not baYc 

adeq~~;~te fUnds available to properly buy logs and market lumber from our mWs. When the 

provider of our opcming ~of credit lost confidence 1hat the Forest Smoic:e would eyer perlOnn 

on the Sec. 318 contr~s. they demanded repayment of the loan. This forced the comp.ny to 

liquidate all log and lumber invemory. From ·190 employees in 1995, we are now down to 16 and 

by August 31 that IIUJI1bcr w.ill be zero. 

The local bank which fw stood behind us through the last 10 years is in fear oflosing the foderal 

loan guarantee if they do uot force us to p.yoffthc mill loaD. We haYl: been required to $01iat 

proposals from auction companies for a liquidation of our mills. 

An ir!tere.tia,g side issue is the retrahlini prop!~!~ for lllill and woods·workas implllnll\ttd by 

this administration. Most of our laid off cmp~ have become pvUQpants in at least oa ihor 

sevcnJ oftlae federal and -.e timber worker retrainiD.I propms. Wbile these proJI'IIIII bepl 

as wen intentioned, tlley constil\lte the fillallllil in the coffin ofthe 1111111 fimily O'liiHI sawmill 
138 

company. Why? Because the programs employ overt blackmail oft he participmts. How? If a 

laid off timber worker chooses to sign up for these programs, (such as junior college education), 

and be is called back to his old }ob (or lillY job in the timber industry) and be takes the job, he 

loses all benefits ofthe program now and in the future. 'Why? Isn•t the idea to put the 

unemployed back to work - or is the idea to remove our employees from the timber induSU)· 

permanently'? We have prior personal experience with these retraining programs. In August of 

1994 we temporm!y laid off the second $lift in the planer mill while we upgraded the dry kilns. 

this was a 3 week period only. When we called the erew back to work. 6 individuals had been 

signed up by the social servioe agency for displaced timber worker retraining and refused our offer 

to come ba.;:lc; to work. They weren't displaced timber workers, they were on tempQI'&ry JayQft' 

during which most of them drew vacation pay! We were fomld to hit"e 6 new people to fill in and 

suffer the cost of training them for the jobs. 

I would abo like to mention two Qther points I believe this Committee and this C011gress should 

focus on. The first is what bas happened to the town ofHoquiam. Hoquiam was a thriving 

commlmity. We had the large~ eoncentBtiou of wood product companies in the State of 

Washington. Today, three ye~ into the President's Forest Plan, we arc: doWI1 to two small 

sawmills and 011e pylp miU. Our town u bCitll converted from .a thriving cotmlii,Ulity to • dumping 

ground for incfisent families. 

I am told that over SO pmem of the pri'Yite boiucs iD Hoquiam w now reatall. I am abo told 

thai the averap lenstb ot u.y for the aew teiWitS is four months. Thiak of that. fNflf1 ibur 

months so P'f;cJt oftbt homes In our town havo tenants 1~. You might Ilk why il tbis 
139 

o<:CI.Irring. WeU, it is simple· the economy is so poor iu Hoquiam that rents ace so low that the 

State ~urages the poor and indigent to Jet~le in Hoquiam. Sevmll fimilies 1 know have moved 

to Alaska, in pan, because they ;moe concerned for their safety in our new Clintollizcd tOWII. I 

know it is diffiCI.Ilt for govenunentalagmcies to look at the data for individual towns, or evan 

individual fiunilies. But c.ome to Hoquiun and look what the plan which "broke ~gridlock., has 

resulted in. While your at it, you ought to vim some oftbe other town ~h are being 

devastated by this Administrations misguided natural resourtO policies. You can find tbem in 

nearly all the w~em states. 

The other thing Congress should examine is how this Administration has begun a Jand rush with 

the largest c.ompanies in this iadustry. Despite promi&es to help sllllll business companies like 

Mayr Bros., just the oppo~te is occurring. The Forest Service, supported by many member$ of 

Congress, is turning to Ja1ie land ellch.anges to grow the number of federal acres it cau lock up. 

Weyerhaeuser Company bas oae proposed on the Mt. Baker-Snoqu41mie National Forest ud 

Plum CTCelri: has one propoul called the l-90 land exchange. This Administration is enoou~ 

the most wealthy COtDparues to give lhe federal govenuneat lands which are located in areas 

where timber cannot be barvnted under the President's forest plan. In cxchanse ~are giving 

theBe companies l111ds ~ch arc open for harvest under the I'Jaidalt's forest plaD- The oet rau1t 

is less land will be aVIIilablc for~ timber Ale program slll&ll companies like mine need to 

SW'Yive. 

We bave allo obaerveclthe Administralion is in the JlfO"II of entt1riDJ into Habitat CoDHmliOa 

Plans with these largest c~. The reSIIlt il that much Qf 111111 owaed by these COIJiplllies is 
140 

released for harv~t while our timber supply continues to be !~ked-up. The Clinton 

Adminis~ration's promi3e to hdp sroall business companies and secondaty manu.fAaurers was 

perhaps the most empty promisl: made in the President's forest plan. 

Mr. ChWnnan, I told you coming to te~Jtify about our families problems is very uocomfo!Uble. 

But, I hope my coming will hdp you Udce aetion to revene the economic destrocrion of the · 

Pll~ Northwest before it is too late for other companies. I will conclu4e my testimouy w.ith 

this. 

I would like to show you this broadside (exhibit). One company ha• gone so £v as to &ehedule ID 

auction for the balllc. I£ this 11119tion ac:tullly takt~s place, it will kill my father, if not by actual 

phyJic:U death by emotional. To 'be forced to liquidate 63 years of hard work u 1 sora,p irou 

auction~ your ~ry will110t honor its obligati011$.i& DOt ac<:eptablo. That is nol 1M 

country that he bas supported tbr 81 yAtS; it is 110t the c:o11ntry I blw been 1 proucl citimt of fOr 

44 years; and it is certainly not tbc ::Q\IAily my grandfamer, Mancllinius Mayr, 01m1 to for the 

first time at the rum of the century by &hoveUDs coal in the boiler room to ~ for bis pu~. 
141 

Remember what I 'ai.d earlier, it was not a Jack of raw materi11l in our aru tbat dosed the 

mill, or even the curr4:nUost orJop. If this administration would settle with Mayr Bros. 

for the huge monmry lo"a· caused by tbe Forest Service contract uonperfonnance, Mayr 

Bros. could refi!Wice our operations and pat our miOs back in operation util~iug logs from 

state, Indi8JI, and private Iande. PluJe consider Jiving the Admi11istratiou thr authority 

they say they lleed to ~ettle SO 'Iff: at least have" Olle no.y Of bope for tbt f11tare. 

Thank YQU for the opp(•rtunity to addren you today, I request th;rt both my written and oral 

testil:noay be made part of this hearing and we would be happy to answer any of your questioas. 
l.04th CONGRESS 

2d Souudon 

142 

H.R. 

IN THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

A BILL 

Thls is a bill authori~ing the Secretary of Agriculture 

("Secreta:ry"l to eliminate all of a timbvr purch~ser's 

pending or potential timber sale contract claims against the 

Forest Service in exchange for fully retiring a,timber 

purchaser's obligation as a government guaranteed loan, 

SECTrON ~. SKO~T T~TLE. 

This Act shall be cited as the "Timber sale Contract 

Damage Elimination Act." 

SECTION 2. PINDLNGS--Congresa fiuda the following: 

(a) Federal timber purchasers have been unable to log 

timber sales sold by the Secretary becauae o! vovernment delay• 

and changing environmental standard•. 
143 

(b) Timber purchasers have used chese very sales to 

obtain loans fJ:om the government !or mill improvements and 

moclernlzacion t:o remain in business. 

(c) The government's long delay in making the timbe~ 

available expo~1es the government to substantial claims for timber 

sale contracc damages. 

(d) The long delay in releasing a purchaser's federal 

timber sales has hindered timber purchasers' ability to repay 

government loans. 

(e) Oftsetting a purchaser's potential contract damage 

olaims against its government guaranteed loan obli~ations is in 

the purchaser's and government's best interests. 

SECTION 3. A~ORITY OF SECRETARY TO ELIMtNATE CON1RACT DAMIGES 

(a) The Secretary is authorized to enter into an 

agreement with a requesting timber purchaser that would require 

the purchaser t.o relinquish any and iilll claims foz: damages 

related to all of a purchaser's timber sale contracts purchased 

prior.to fiscal. year 1992 in exchange for the United States fully 

retiring a purchaser's obligation on a government guaranteed 

loan, incl~din9 all principal. interest, fess and other chargee. 
144 

RuL F EHINGER & AssociATES 

Om111htnrts"' tiN Frwm l'P9Jum /tJtlrutry 

1200 .HIGH STREET, SUITE Z2 

EUGENE, OREGON 97401 

503/686-9607 FAX SOJ/686-81:Z4 

MILL CLOSURES 

In IL'lting mills as closed, we use the following criteria: 

1. The mill that management indicates the operation will be closed 

permanently. 

2. A mill iS considered closed if it has been closed for 60 days or mor•: 

and, we believe, is not likely to reopen, or management indicates a 

closure of !ndefinlte length. 

3. Mills tl1at reopen an: removed entirely from the llst. There is no 

double countU1g Ul our data.- The JJsting Is for mills that are closer-! 

or formally announced to be closed on the date of listing. 

4. To be on the list, a mill must h<~v.: been a producer of a prtmary 

product: lumber, plywood, veneer. board, pulp. or other major 

commodity. 

5. The employment data is the number of mill employees that lost 

lhP.ir job. ln some cases if a plant has normally run 2 shirts, but 

for the last yc<tr prior to closing has run only a sl..Dgle shift. we try 

lo capture the 2 shift level of employment. 

6. The production in!ormatiOil represents the average annual 

procluctic:a over the two years prior Lo closure. 

1. Our hist.ory cr recording closures shows lhal once a millls closed 

inl.he western states, they rarely riii!open. OVer we paal 10 years of 

tracking miD clos\\res, we find the permanent return to operatlott 

rate to be about 1"'. 

Jn some t'.ases, our judgment and tntormaUon mlly be provr:d wrong, bul 

wt believe tlliS alte.rlft rcnccts the: st.'ltus of mill$ ~!!!!!'..~!:lr Industry. 
145 

MILL '-'Lv~uHc~ 19 as TO PRESENT· 

.:.::. i ....... ~_,. ...~.. l __ .Jtallf. ( ......... , .... ::::;- ! ! •• ,...,_. 

'·':'<'.:.~'- ---

,, .,.,,..._ 

"----; 

>-

~~:.~ (. ,:-- \...__ ........ ____ ( '\,; 

--- __ , ______ _ J 

~t.r.tili ·Wood Pfoduc:ta 

lach town •ttown on this mep has lost one or more;rlmlrywood pr•c:e11tng faciUtles- SawmiUs, PtywoodPiants. Veneer Pllnt-. end Pulp mills 

:211 rftiU• ha~~te ~lo .. cf •nel aver3o,ooo primary mhlanc:IWGoCI• iO&:ral'ta .. lllen •11minatad. 

6/21/96 
146 

T~1 

OA!!!GON/WASHINGTON/!OAHO{CALIFORNINMONTANA MILL CLOSUR£9 

SAWMI~!;! PLYW225li!:AIII~NEPIOTI1Ef' 

f'IIOIMmQOio 

HO. I'RODlJCTICIN NO. No. •so.III'T. 

MIU.:I -· EM'I,CITEES IIUC 

18K 13 S4Z ,,, -- 1011 

'"' 21 ...... 1,F.I. • , .. 11n4 Z2 ... ··- 7 717 

1N3 21 .,. 1,.18 •• '41 

1110::1 ~ tM 2,302 ··- 1,212 

I" I :II 1,25!1 :Z,5H 14. IS7 

IHO ~ 1,21111 :z,:r.n ~· 2,211 

1180 11 "' 110 

TOTA\. 

• - - ,.~ ,,,tnO T7 

£i011lllriED SAWMifl~. P.&NE&. 

""· MUS -

1:MPl.O,I!:!S 

~- 14 .. 2 

11t5 32 2,211 

IIIH 211 Z,tl't 

!1113 ; .. 2.3.1 

lt02 ·~ 4.7'32 , .. , ., 3,e211 

~- •• 1,210 

1111 zs z.su 

TOTAL 211 2S.tS1 

+PI~"""'' fnGII•IIY pt.,.~Ciklrl -•• ,,. not uud lor pr,..aiOI on~ voMif 

-•••uo• aA woad p""'uctl '" "'"" phln'- oro wiUmotoly UIM In ,..,.,..... pr.,.uclfon. 

..... , ......... ""'' 110111. -.r.cl~l two Pulp MIDI. 

-lnch.nll•• on• lamln•t•td! lf••rn pf1n11n "ufl'ltr-~r of rnlll• •na •mpr., .... T•'•'• ,.,~e.n•na• .... ,., '- ,,.,, ... .,,,., •. D111 f•• Monw."• lrleOtnple .. et l?lle Hm• prJ.,,. Uto. 

PRI!Anoclatlo 

:: 

110. 

C-0\'US 

1.0 

311 

.... 

:z.--

1,»0 --

'·"''-

14W -
147 

TASLE2 

OREGON MIU. CLOSUReS 

SAWMILl.$ 'LY'NOOD/P&NELN5NEIEAIOTHEII 

PPCOUC'nCIN1 

""· PRODIICTIDPI ""· -- NMSO.FT. 

MtLLI 

- ~ ...... ,.._. 

, .... 255 2 .. 0 0 

1011$ , .. ... ··- 3 l2S 

, .... 3 IS uz • "rOY 

1993 • 311 &47 ·- U2 

1W2 12 ... I,CJ2 ·- lSI 

11111 13 70Q ·.~ • 125 

1VDO ; - 155 II'" 2.011 

1919 7 ~·7 710 • IIJ 

TOTAL T.J 30M •• ~24 54 

COlli !!!NED UWMn.~ 6 PANQ: 

NO, PIO. 

MIU.S I""LDI'!IS 

I"G ' 219 

1MI 17 , ..... 1tll4 7ZI 

1193 ,. 1,ZU 

1112 zo 2,1:12 , .. , Z1 2,545 

1110 28 2,3711 

1188 ,, t..aa 

TOTA~ 127 ·~ ..... 

+Pt.,...ooGN•n••r: Jnclullry prochrcnlcn 'lot.la •rw "-' ual<f tor P'Y"'t"''CO 1nd v•n••r 

&Mau•• 111 ••ad producla In wnMr ptanta •r. ultiiTI ... I)" 1.11ei' In ,rywood produ~ton, 

•lnclull:lea o"• lamln•t•d )••m pltnt In nYmlter of 1'1'11111 anf •moloyen. 

r<O.-

El~Pl<>ra:ll 

0 

131 

-

S7S 

t,2DII 

t,d2C -

710 

s~ 
148 

TABLE 3 

WASHINGTON MILL CLOSUFIES 

SAWMili,.S PLYWQODIPANeiJVENEEIIIOTHER 

PROCIJCTICNt 

~o. t'"OIOUCTTON "" NQ, NM'JQ.r:T. 

MIL1S ...... FMP1.0"EE8 NII.U 3.1tiJIASI~ 

ntc 1 5! 110 

'"5 5 1t7 )71 

.,. 5 101 271 

1tU 3 e ,, 11112 • 43 10S s• 19S1 1) 181 111 5 

1tSD ll 111 270 2 

191!11 ... .. , 

TOTAL •• , 141 %.%0' 11 

COM81Nm SAWMlLl & StANet 

1'1110 rfO • 

.!!!!:!L_ ~ 

, .. 3SG 

11U T czs 

"" I Jl9 

11n • 39 

19!12 I 1,171 

"" 18 7l7 

1no •• liS 

Uti I SZ7 

TOTAL " <&,052 

+PiywoodNener. Industry prochlc.tto" totala er• not W..S tar plywood and vc,..r 

-· allwaad praciUctoln ....,.., plonb.,. ullimlltlolt uood In pr,w.od ~""lion. 

•Include& f'lt'D PufD MW. Cprvd\Xt!ort waa tt5 Ton• Jl'er 1)3y). 

100 

31 

•a 

35 

zc~ 

21Z 

-

215 

"0. 

~"'!~O'Ttu 

110 

"" 50 

%5 1,~7-Q 

2011 

ss 

170 

1 """ 
149 

TABLE4 

CALIFORNIA MILL CLOSURES 

SAWMILLS P~ YWOOOIPA14~t.IV~lf~ERIOTHa< 

rRCour:ncH• ~0. MODUCTION NO. NO. MM!CFr. 

MIU.S M .... EMPlOn:Ei MII.LS :vaBASIS 

UN 4 ,. 270 0 

1!96 2 110 ,.. 1 

HM 3l8 132 0 

1JI3 Z5' 517 , .. 1992 uz 4-4Z 1 ,,., 7 301 530 ,. 1990 13 ... 1,201 0 

1989 155 311 0 

TOTAL £9 2270 £ . .J.OO • 

COMSIN!D SAWMILL 6 PANEL 

ptQ, NO 

~ ~ 

"" %70 ,,, 350 ,.,. 132 

19tS TT9 

1n2 liZ , .. , ISO ,,. 13 T,Z08 ,,., 3 311 

TOTAL 5l I,01Z 

"Pl)'WGDCfNeneer: lncfU&U')' prodUC'IIOI1 !otala ,,.. nGt UU•d ror plyWDOd •net v•nttr 

t.G"IWM ell wood products In yen .. r plants,,. ultlmlt•IJ' used In plywood prodwetia" . 

.,.,~lud" ol'l• PviD Mill (production w•• 700 Tone P•r D•y), 

••Jn;h,.., QC1e Pu'p Mill (production wu 70S Ton• P•r D•Yl· 

PFe & .Assoc.iat11 

0 

•• Q 

0 

TS 

0 

0 

0 

~. 

E.MP\.Q"I"[Q 

0 

1711 

0 

262 

120 

120 

a 

0 

$72 
150 

TABLES 

IOAHO MILL CLOSURES 

!SA-IUS PI.YWOODIPAN~~EEI'I/0~ 

'flOOUC11DN• 

NO. PRQilUCTJON NO. NO. IIIIIG.PT. 

MIWI 

- ........,.,... MILLS ...... -

EMf't.OTIIS 

19M 1 2S 40 0 0 

11N ' 12% ~15 0 0 0 

118£ 2 115 310 0 0 0 ,,, 2 11 ,, 0 0 0 

1HZ s •• ,., 0 0 , .. • , 2 II 107 D 0 0 

1HG ' za Ul 0 0 0 

1!1t 1 1Z 45 0 0 0 

TOTAL ---l2. Ml ---!!!, 0 

21111a121A-~~. P'ANIL 110. ..... 5!- ~ 

1111 1 40 , ... 4 :ztl 

11M 2 210 , .. , z 11 

UN $ 101 ,.,, z 117 

1110 3 ,. 

, ... 1 .. TOTAL 20 wz 

+PJrwoodiV_, Ind....,. ""ductlen--. ...... UHdlorplfwoaol __ _ 

-·~·-....-- ...... _,.. ...... llllim ..... .,,.,.._......,._ ,, .... __ 
151 

TABLEe 

MONTAWII'-IIll CL~URES 

SAWMILlS P'~YW0001PANEI../VE"£EJVOniER 

""· 

~ ~ 

"RO'Q(JC'l'lQJIII 

~ 

NO. . ..~ 

1111 4o& 10 0 

11!5 1 12 2S 0 ,,.. 4 111 310 Q 

!993 6 1$~ ~03 

1112 ~ 1£ 250 

itt1 0 0 • ,,. 1 55 1$0 

1Ut ___ 1 __ ID •• 0 

TOTAL 17 SCI 1 221 

COM81NEO SA-LL I. PANEL 

•o. NO. 

~ ~ 

"" 1 10 

IUS 1 25 ,,,., 4 380 

11U 5 sos 

1UZ , Z5D 

1H1 0 0 ,,0 1 150 ,, .. •o 

TOTAL 17 1,228 

1'PI~wood1Venee~ lmlwtrr llf04Uedon totals I.W rtot und for pl,-oocs and nn.er 

D•t. incomp..W for 11'oJMn:a prior h 1HO. 

Pfl! r. A'"odatH 

f'~TION .. 

~ 

... S<U'r .o. 

lJ.IP\_DT£E& 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 
152 

PLANTS IN OPERATION 

OREGON/WASHINGTON/CALIFORNIA/IDAHO/MONTANA 

sawmills 

Western Oregon 7~ 

Eastem Oregon 17 

Total Oregon 91 

Western Wash. 61 

Eastern Wash. 19 

Total Wash. 80 

Catifornia 47 

Idaho ~~ 

Montana 28 

TOTAL 290 

.._ul F. Ehinger & Associata 

Plants In Operalion 

Plywood 

PlantS 

30 

4 

34 

5 

4 

9 

0 

3 

4 

50 

NO. OF" PLANTS 

v-r Board Pulp 

Pl;onl$ Pbnts MiUs 

20 13 

3 e 

23 19 

7 0 

0 

7 

4 7 

3 2 

0 2 

37 31 

Total 

10 147 

0 30 

10 177 

12 85 

3 27 

15 112 

2 50 

53 

35 

29 437 
153 

10AM- TUEIWED- SEPT,. 17/18 

Preview 10am to 4pm, Monday, September 16 

Hoquiam, WA 

AUCTION 

PROPOSAL 
154 

"-Rcr•ll> lh1t editor .,..., ll>~lude neme, addr- t•lophone num&>er and •!Jinatu,. (lor verilk:lllor! only). 

Send them to P.O. Sox 2GV, AMnlftfl. or fax to 533-603!1. 

az~atiXFPZZ JI'Y?"'!!!!!'Ji . •·• ams•w 

What's endangered 

is common sense 

OPINION! 

e 6 
SPECIES 

Douglas Fir 

Ponderosa & Sugar Pine 

~ililm Mr 

155 

HI-RIDGE LUMBER CO. P.O. BOX458 

YREKA. CAUFORNIA 96097 

TESTIMONY 

OF 

GERRY BENDIX 

President 

Hi· Ridge Lumber Company 

Yreka, California 

Before 

United States House of Representatives 

House Resource Subcommittee 

on 

1\'ational Parks, Forests and Lands 

Jcly 23. 1996 

PHOHEo (916)84%-4451 

FAJ<o (916) 84~75 
156 

I. Introduction 

Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, my name is Gerry Bendix. I am president 

of Hi-Ridge Lumber Company located in Yreka, California. I appreciate the opponunity 

to testity before you today to share with you how the Clinton Administration and the 

Forest Service have abandoned the forest products industry in northern California. I also 

am here to help set the record straight concerning promises the Clinton Administration 

made and never fulfilled. The President's Forest Plan is devastating individuals, businesse!; 

and communities which have traditionally depended on our national forests. Additionally, 

I want to describe the layers and layers of new bureaucracy this Administration bas put in 

place to slow the development or any timber sales in northern Calif'omia. 

Mr. Chairman, Hi·Ridge Lumber Company is a 40-year-old saw mill, dry kiln, and pJanin& 

mill located in the small (population 7,500) northern California town of Yreka, Caliromia. 

We employ approximately 130 people at the mill and an equal number ofloggers and 

truckers work in the woods to supply our IIIIll with the logs we need to operate. Our 

timily, along with a partner, built and has been operating Hi·&idge Lumber Company for 

the last 40 years. We have always actively participated in the management oftllis closely 

held family business. In 1996, we will process 45 million aboard feet of timber and 

generate approximately S3S million in sales. 

We operate on several national forests in northwestern and north central California, 

2 
157 

several of which are included as part of the area covered under the President's Forest 

Plan. About 90% of the raw materials we need to operate our mill is supplied from the 

national fore5ts in northern California. Our main source oflogs has been the Klamath 

National Forest. 

n. The Klamath National Forest and Hi-Ridge's Timber Supply 

Throughout the 1970's and 1980's, the Klamath National Forest annually sold between 

200 and 250 million board feet (!vlMBF) of saw timber to companies like ours. It was 

with great disappointment that we found the forest was slated to sell about 40 to SO 

:MMBF each year under the President's Forest Plan. Despite recent pronouncements by 

the Administration that the President's Forest Plan had broken the grid-lock and things are 

now moving, it frankly disappoints me to tell you where the Forest SCJVice is heading. 

Since 1993, when the President's plan for the economic destruction of the forest products 

industry was announced, the Klamath National Forest has been moving backwards. In 

1993, the Klamath National Forest sold 32 MMDF. In 1994, the Klamath National Forest 

sold 23.8 :MMBF. In 1995, it sold only 25.6 MMBF; and this year, now with more than 

three quarters of the year over, it has sold only 27.1 MMBF. While the raw data may look 

like things are improving, the detailed data is quite disturbing. 

Most national forests usually sell a mix of saw timber and non-saw timber products. In a 

typical year, 75 to 80 percent or more of what the Klamath National Forest would offer 

was sawtimber. Each year, we have seen the ratio of sawtimber to non-sawtimber slip. 

3 

26-951 - 96 - 6 
158 

In !995,less than half the For=st Service volume sold in the state of California was 

sawtimber. Companies like ours cannot survive when the Forest Service sells non-saw 

timber material to meet its targets. With the implementation of the President's For est 

Plan, we have seen a steady decline in the federal timber available to our company, a& well 

as the ~hare of sawtimber which is offered. Tn March ofl993, a month before the 

President came to Portland, Oregon for his Forest Conference, our company held 62 

MM.BF of timber under contract. That was down from 77 MMBF of volume we held 

under contract in 1991. As of March 31, 1996, we held only 28 MMBF of volume under 

contraet. To maintain a timber supply, our company now purchases timber as fllr away as 

the ElDorado National Forest, a distance of more than 300 miles from our mill. Yet as T 

just said, our very life blood - federal timber under contract- continues to shriuk. These 

contracts are crucial to our ability to secure the lending we need to modernize our mills. 

m. The Clinton Forest Plan- A Trail of Broken Promises 

A. The Administration Has I:norcd Its Prvmlse to Sell Timber 

When President Clinton announced that Option N'me would be implemented during a July 

1, 1993 press conference, he promised the Forest Service and the BLM would sell 1.2 

billion board feet of timber per year. By the time the final plan was published, the 

Administration had reduced the planned goal to 1.053 billion board feet. Thus, the 

Administration dropped 12% off its promised volume before we even got started. As the 

following table shows, the Clinton Administration has completely failed to even keep its 

reduced promise. 

4 
Year 

1994 

1995 

1996* 

• Through June 30, 1996 

159 

Timber Sold 

By Forest Service and BLM 

Under the President's Forest Plan 

Volume Sold 

.187 Billion Board Feet 

.336 Billion Board Feet 

.393 Billion Board Feet 

Percent of Promise 

17.78% 

31.91% 

37.32% 

Mr. Chairman, at this rate it will take a decade to attain the mythical billion board foot 

level promi:;ed in the President's Forest Plan. Given Secretary Glickman's recent 

announcement to administratively gut an important part of the emergency salvage 

program, I have difficultly understanding how we will ever get to the promised level. 

D. The Administration H11s Broken Its Promises to Small Business 

Three years ago when the President announced his Forest Plan for the Northwest, one of 

the few glimmers of hope I saw was included in the President's press statement. The 

President d;rected " his Cabinet to Identify and Implement. in a priority manner, the best 

ways· to strengthen small business and secondary manufacturing in the wood prodJJcts 

industry, lnr;/uding a review of increasing supplies of federal timber set asides for small 

business and possible preferences for bidders who contract for domestic secondary 

proces.fing." 

Mr. Chairm.an, T am here to tell you that nothing, not one signal change, has been made to 

5 
160 

help either small business or the secondary manufacturers. In fact, the Small Business 

Administration seems to be going out of its way to ensure the Small Business Timber Sale 

Set-Aside program withers on the vine. During the Reagan Administration, and during 

much of the Bush Administration, the Small Business Administration had six Industrial 

Specialists, all foresters, to oversee the set-aside program. They where adequately funded 

and had adequate support staff to both oversee the program, and to be advocates for small 

business as they interacted with the Forest Service and BLM to insure small business 

needs are secured. Today, the SBA has cut staffing down to juSt two industrial specialists 

and has resisted Congressional efforts to force the SBA to fill those positions. 

While the President's promise was arti.Uily stated, 1 am sure his staff would tell you 

they've completed a study. Many government personnel and private sector people, 

including n1e, participated in a year long process to develop and comment on a report 

which identified opportunities to assist ~mall business primary and secondary 

manufacturers. To date, nothing has been done. No final report was prepared or 

released, and to my knowledge, no recommendations were ever forwarded to the 

President. The President has done nothing to help the small forest industry companies like 

mine in the last three years. While the S'BA program itself may be confusing, it is critically 

important to small companies like the one my family owns in California. 

We do not own vast land holdings like many of the large forest industry companies. 

Hi-Ridge Lumber Company and many other small family-owned businesses like ours are 

6 
161 

almost totally dependent on timber sold from federal lands. The President recognized the 

critical link between companies of our size and the federal land when he directed his 

cabinet to "identify and implement, in a priority manner, measures to strengthen small 

busine.u and secondary manufacturing'. While we have seen no help for small business, 

we cannot help but notice how far this Administration has gone to aid the largest 

integrated forest product companies. Panicularly, those companies with large land 

holdings. 

C. The Administration Promised Other Economic: Assistance - Little Assistance Bas 

Been Offered 

Amidst great fan fare, the Administration promised to insure that workers who are put out 

of work, due to the drastic reductions in federal timber supplies, would be offered 

economic assistance and retraining. While none of' my employees have been forced to face 

this problem, yet we have observed that very few mill or wood workers in northern 

California seem to have benefited by these programs. 

Tt seems most of the fUnds have gone to build inftastnJetures in the communities which 

applied f'or this program. We've heard of'towns in Oregon where softball fields were built 

so the town could hold softball tournaments in hopes of' encouraging more people to 

spend money in the town. Let me tell you, in Yreka, that type of economic assistiiiiCC 

might bring a handCul of ball players to town between May and September. It would be a 

long tough winter if all we had to rely on was increased spending of softball players during 

the four summer months. 

7 
162 

D. The Heralded Adaptive Management Areas Have Produced Nothing But 

Employment for Federal Employees 

The President also made much-to-do about special Adaptive Management Areas which 

could be used to experiment with new forest management techniques and indicated we 

would see timber flowing from these areas very quickly. Mr. Chairman. the Goosenest 

Adaptive Management Area on the Klamath National Forest has produced no timber 

volume up to this point. Al!hough it is producing work for Forest Service employees who 

are preparing an Adaptive Management Plan, an LSR Plan, a watershed analysis, and will 

need to do other NEPA documentation. Meanwhile, the health of the forest in the area 

has steadily declined over the last three years. Another opportunity and another promise 

broken. 

IV. Option Nine Has Provided an Incredible Employment Opportunity for Government 

Workers 

When the Administration adopted the President's Forest Plan, they also impo5ed several 

new layers of bureaucracy. They set up a number of regional and provisional advisozy 

boards to review proposed federal forestry projects. The Forest Service invited various 

people to serve on these advisory group~. T was invited to apply to serve on our local 

provincial advisory group but, thankfully, was not chosen. 1 say that because one only has 

to hear details of one of' the meetings of these groups to conclude that these meetings are 

little more than a guaranteed employment program for numerous f'ederal employees. 

8 
163 

These ad,isory boards are so heavily staffed with federal employees that the groups could 

not propose any action which the agencies did not already approve. Further, we have seen 

no tangible evidence that these groups are making decisions which are producing timber 

sales. 

V. The Administration Has Offered Special De:lls to the Largest Timber Companies 

As part of the overall strategy for dealing with endangered species, the Administration 

originally said it would only address the problem on federal lands. Shortly after that 

aMouncernent, the Administration changed its tune and said they would develop a rule 

under the Endangered Species Act which would facilitate private land management and 

protect the Northern Spotted Owl. ln tact, thai proposed rule will impose restrictions on 

both state' and private lands within our state ifimplen,ented. To elate, the Administration 

has yet to finalize the 4(d) rule, so I CaMot tell you how much more pain the 

Administration will heap on the region of northern California. 

At the same time, the Administration worked with the largest forest land-owning 

companies to cut special deals to free up their forest lands for management. 

Weyerhaeuser Company, Plum Creek Ltd, and others have been exempt from having to 

deal with Northern Spotted Owls on some of their acres in exchange for signing 100 year 

long Habitat Conservation Plans. 

The irony of this becomes apparent when you think about the President's promise to help 

9 
164 

small business and then think about how large business has benefited as a result of the 

imposition of Option Nine. As a result of the imposition of Option Nine, the value of the 

largest companies' timber holdings has skyrocketed. With less federal timber likely to 

come to market, these companies watched their timber increase in value at an significant 

:ate. 

Thus, these companies found themselves with more revenue and gained a competitive 

advantage over small companies like mine as a result of the decision to reduce federal 

timber sales by 80 to 90 percent. Then to add insult to injury, the Administration offered 

HCP's to the largest companies. These IICP's are not a practical option for smaller land 

owners, due to the expense of completing the e:-ctensive biologic:al research which the 

Department oflnterior requires. When signed, these HCP's free-up a significant amount 

of the forest lands these companies hold. Thus small business companies are forced to 

compete against companies which were made more powerful through the actions of the 

Clinton Administration. tf one was conspiracy minded, one might conclude the 

Administration and the largest timber companies in this country aren't working together to 

eliminate small companies like 1ninc. 

VL Recent Decisions by The Administration Continue the Persecution orthe Forest 

Products Industry 

Despite having signed a law to expedite the salvage of dead and dying timber, within three 

days of that bill becoming law this Administration released a Memorandum of 

10 
165 

Understanding which gave the US Fish & Wildlife Service, the BLM, the National Marine 

Fisheries Service, the EPA, and others agencies veto authority over how, when, and where 

the Forest Service may salvage dying timber. On the Klamath National Forest, we have a 

long history afforest fires. Like many other areas, we suffered major fires in 1994. This 

new layer of bureaucracy was designed to slow down the salvage of dead and dying 

timber. And on the fcrest I am most familiar with, the slow down is working. 

We have a large fire area called Dillion Creek, which is in dire need of salvage. The 

President's Forest Plan and the Emergency Salvage MOU have combined to delay the 

salvage of the Dillion Creek area. This area has been visited by more top natural resource 

officials than most any other prospective timber sale in the west 1111d they've all 

pronounced the sale a good one. Up until last week, we thought we would finally see the 

20 million board foot sale offered, a sale of fire-killed timber. Then the Administration 

struck yet one more time. 

The Secretary of Agriculture released a new policy on the Emergency Salvage program 

which precludes offering of salvage sales in inventoried roadless areas. For the Dillion 

Creek sale, this new policy will result in yet one more delay. At this point, the latest delay 

could render this sale uneconomic. You see, the agencies were going to require that 

almost all the volume be logged with a helicopter As the years pass. the trees rot. At 

some point, there is not enough merchantable wood to pay for this ~·ery e~epensive method 

of logging. In this case, the Secretary'5 decision may have sealed the fate of this sale. We 

II 
166 

will be deprived of the opportunity to bid on 20 million board feet of timber which we 

desperately needed. The Administration has shown once again that it does not really care 

what happens to small companies like Hi-Ridge Lumber. 

vn. Con:ress Gets Into the Act 

In 1994, a little more than four million acres of lands in this country were burned. As a 

result of those: fires, and the generally deplorable health conditions on our federal forests, 

Congress pushed through land-mark legislation to expedite: the salvage of the timber killed 

in these !res. 

This year, we have experienced more fires, to date, than we bad in 1994. As of July lltb, 

the Forest Service reports 2.9 million acres have burned so far, compared to 1994 whlll 

slightly less than 1.5 million acreli\ had burned by 1uly 18th. Yet, both the House and die 

Senate seem to be iporing tbia year's tires . Less thaD a month aao. 208 ot your 

colleques voted to repeal &nding for implementation of the cmerseaq salvap law. We 

expect the Senate will face a similar vote within the next month. 

Mr. Chairman, u oflut May, the Forest Service indicated there were 18 biUion board f'eel 

of dead and dyiq timber on Forest Service lands that bad economic value. Since the 

passage of' the Emergency Salvage Law, the Forest Service has salvaged less then 2 billion 

board feet of that dead and dying timber. In a year when the fire season is even more 

active than 1994, I do not understand how Congress could be seriously considering 

12 
167 

repealing this law. What is even more frustrating to me, is how the leadership of both the 

House and Senate refuse to even consider extending this much needed law. To further 

illustrate the point, our company was recently solicited by U.S. Forest Senice ranger 

districts from Utah where the forest products industry has virtually vanished as a result of 

the federal government nearly stopping all timber sales. Now the Forest Service wants to 

manage against insect infestation and increased fire hazards. They now recognize that a 

healthy forest products industry is needed to implement the management projects. 

111r. Chairman, Congress, through its willingness to allow this needed law to sunset, is 

walking away from hundreds of millions of dollars in revenues. In the face of compelling 

evidence or the need to tnanage rederal forests, 1 am unable to understand how Congress 

can be so short ~~ighted. I am disappninted that Congress stands by while this 

Administration works to economically destroy the small timber purchasers in the west. 

This policy ofpi)litical correctness is killing many small towns like Yreka. In my opinion, 

it is unconscionable that the Congressional leadership would stand by and allow groups 

like the Sierra Club, aided by the Clinton Administration, to nearly stop all timber 

harvesting on federal lands. Our national forests were established 100 years ago to supply 

the timber and water needs of a growing nation. Our country is now a net importer of 

wood. Mr. Chairma11, companies like Hi-Ridge Lumber need this Congress to do more to 

ensure our federal forests are properly managed and supply domestic forest products for 

Americans. 
168 

Conclusion 

Mr. Chainnan, I know of no analyst who will tell you the promises made by President Clinton as 

part of his forest plan for the Pacific Northwest, have been kept or that the President's Forest Plan 

is a success. As a company which has struggled for the last four years at ground zero, I must tell 

you it is a disaster. But what is more disappointing, is that the Congress, the Administration, and 

the public are walking past the most important question. Unless this Congress extends the 

emergency salvage law or passes forest health legislation, such as Senator Craig's Forest Health 

bill, you will have done a great disservice to our forests and to those of us who depend on these 

foresls for our social and economic well-being. You will also have failed to serve the American 

public, which demands a wide range of uses from our forests. 

I appreciate the opportunity you have afforded me, I would be happy to answer any questions you 

might have and request that you make both my statement part of the official record of this 

hearing. 

14 
169 

Testimony Before the House Resources Subcommittee on National 

Parks, Forests and lands 

On the Impact of the Rescissions Logging Rider 

on· the Northwest Forest Plan 

by Bonnie Phillips, Executive Director 

Pilchuck Audubon Society 

july 23, 1996 

My name is Bonnie Phillips, and I am Executive Director of the Pilchuck 

Audubon Society. We are a cha!'ter of the National Audubon Society, with 1500 

members in Snobomish County, JUSt north of Seattle, in Washington State. For 

the past decade, protecting_ ancient forests has been a very high conservation 

priority for our Audubon Chapter. 

In 1987, we were the first Chapter to begin a program called Adopt-aForest. That program established a relationshir with several of the a. 

Districts on tlie Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie Nationa Forest. We be$an wor coo~ratively with the Districts in mapping old growth, in settin~ up wor to educate citizens on how the Forest Service works, and. how atizens can get 

involved. For the past nine years, we have co-sJ_)Onsored a variety of events 

with the Forest SerVice, incluCiing an annual Festival of the River, ·and our Trees 

for Ufe P-J'Ogram, which has proVided ·over 100,000 excess trees from Forest 

Service planling projects to our community within the Puget Sound._ Pilchuck 

Audubon Society is a strong community organization and believes in cooperative relationships as the cornerstone of all of our programs. 

However, sometimes litigation has been necessary when we find federal 

agencies in violation of environmental laws passed by Congress to protect our natural resources. Violations of these laws, in our opinion, have urifortunately 

haJ?~d repeatedly over the past decade, and my Audubon chapter has been a plamtiff in all of the litigation since 1987 surrounding the westside, or northern · spotted owl, forests in tl\e Pacific Northwest. In most instances, the courts have 

agreed .with our position. In a 1991 ruling, Judge Dwyer concluded that "the 

most recent violation of the National Forest Management . Act exempllfies a deliberate and systematic refusal by the U.S. Forest Service and U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service to comply with the laws protecting wildlife." 

Litigation is not entered into easily, es}lec!ally by community orunizations. 

such 

~ 

as ours. We not only understand the lilnds of polarization that "have been 

during the past ten years over natural resource issues, but we have 

lived thioup tne effects of th1s polarization in our personal lives. I have been 

the target of angry outbursts at public meetings. I nave also been the target in 

the past of telepl\one death threats and newspaper articles which have called me an eco-Nazi. I have become close friends with people on all sides of the ilsue, 

have gotten to know intimately various views, and in short, my life has been . totallY absorbed by the so-called timber wars for far too many years. 
Testimony by_ Bonnie Phillips july 23. 1996 

170 

In 1994, when the Clinton Forest Plan was proposed, Pilchuck Audubon 

Society reviewed the Plan carefully, using the resources of many biologists 

within our orl$anization. Although we found the Plan took a big step toward 

protecting anoent forest ecosystems, we felt that too many plant and animal 

species were still at serious nsk of extinction under the Plan. 

Very reluctantly, we joined in litigation against this Plan. This time, 

Judge William Dwyer ruled against us, against fue timber industry and for the 

Forest Service. But as you probably know, although Judge Dwyer ruled that the 

Plan was adequate, he also stated that it was barefy adequate, and that there were ·a number of factors that could cause him to revisit his decision. 

These factors included two very specific processes mandated under the Plan. 

--In discussing the untested process of the aquatic conservation strate~ the court 

said that if the plan as implemented is to remain lawful, the monitonng, 

watershed analysis and mitigating steps called for by the Plan must be faithfully 

carried out, and adjustments made if necessary. 

--The court recognized that monitoring is central to the Plan's validity. If it is 

not funded, or not done for any reason, the legality of the Plan will have to be 

reconsidered. 

The group of plaintiffs represented by the Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund 

chose not to challenge the Dwyer ruling in the Ninth Circuit. Instead, we, and 

the great majority of other conservation organizations in the affected area decided that it was in our best interest; our communities' best interest, and the 

forest ecosystems' best interest to make the Plan work. From the time that the 

Record of Decision was signed until the logging rider became law, I worked 

through the Western Ancient Forest Campaign to establish a region-wide 

network to help educate citizens about the Clinton Plan and how to work 

cooperatively with the various agencies involved in Plan implementation. I 

urged local conservationists to jom one of the 12 Provincial Advisory Committees 

set up under the Plan to give advice to Federal Agencies, and I was selected to serve on the Western Washington Provincial Advisory Committee. Even before 

these committees were formed, I worked with federal, state and county agencies, as well as Native American tribes, to set criteria for prioritizing watershed 

restoration projects. 

Although there was an understanding that the Plan would take a while to 

be implemented properly, there was also a feeling of optimism that we were fmally headed in a direction of cooperation instead of continuing polarization. 

We felt that the decade or more of our timber wars were finally coming to an end. 

Unfortunately, in the :tear since the logging rider began, we have seen the 

momentum for the Plan, whlch was off to a slow but fairly good start, griJ:ld to 

a halt. Last year's rider has had a devastating effect on the l'lan ecologically, 

2 
Testimony bv Bonnie Phillips 

july 23, 19% 

171 

psychologically and socially. The land has been hurt by the rider, the Forest 

Service has one•~ again lost their way through the mixed signals sent by this 

Congress, and the communities again face great uncertainty. 

The confusion wrought on all fronts has led to another breakdown of the 

agency, and any trust that had been tenuously built up since the Record of 

Decision for the Plan was signed has been torn apart. 

Since the timber rider contained three components--Section 318 sales, 

Option 9 (or Clinton Forest Plan) sales, and Salvage Sales, I will give examples 

of how each component is negatively affecting the implementation of the Pian, 

and hurting the forest ecosystem. 

1. Section 318 sm. The Section 318 old growth sales have had the most 

dramatic effect on the land, and on the community in the Pacific Northwest. 

The old growth which has been or will be logged in Washington State and 

Oregon under this part of the rider was assumed to be protected under the 

Clinton Plan, and scientists who gave viability ratings for various threatened and 

endangered species took this protection into account. Furthermore, renewed 

logging of old b'rowth, without the riparian buffer and other protections and 

rrutigations under the Clinton Plan, have angered people throughout the Pacific 

Northwest and the United States, and protests in ancf polarizations of 

communities have increased well beyond the worst tensions of the late 1980's. 

In addition, the concern for loss of the marbled murrelet old growth 

habitat severely restricted the effort to work cooperatively on the Plan. Because 

of my Audubon Chapters' concern that inadequate information was available on many of these murrelet sales, we, along with many other gi"Oups, instituted a program to train citizens to survey for marbled murrelets. This costly and timemtensive!rogram was a necessary insurance policy, which we took out and 

committe to bt!fore we knew how the Ninth Circuit Court would rule. While 

waiting for the court ruling, middle class, mainstream citizens such as myself were searching our consciences to see whether we would be willing to be 

arrested for our beliefs should these sales be logged and the marbled murrelet 

head toward extinction. We heard from so many people--bankers, businessmen, 

lawyers, architects, teachers, doctors--seniors and youth--that we began holding 

civil disobedience training and discussing our plans with federal, state, county 

and city law enforcement officers should the need arrive. This was a very 

difficult decision for us to make, but the loss of our democratic rights and the 

egregious violations to the land caused us to discuss this unprecedented action. 

We did not blame the Forest Service for initiating the negative effects on the land, and on the Plan, but we no longer had the same feelings and energy 

for cooperation and neither did th~. We noticed throughout the Region that 

substantive issues were no longer l:ieing discussed at the Provincial Aovisory Committees, and that meetings were being held further and further apart. 

3 
T es~imony by Bonnie Phillips 

july 23, 1996 

172 

We were pleased and relieved at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling on the murrelet. We thank the court for ruling on the side of science; we wish 

Congress would do the same. This ruling, however, did not solve all of our prob1ems, as the rider still requires the Forest Service to provide "like and kind" 

trees as substitute volume. We may be trading one old growth sale for another 

old growth sale--and the Forest Service says that they cannot provide this 

volume without violating the Clinton Forest Plan. TI1ere certamly is no real gain 

in this. In addition, there are many old growth sales in murrelet habitat that 

have never been surveyed for murrelets, including 1,000 acres alone on BLM 

land in western Oregon. lhis old growth has already been logged, or will be 

logged by the end oi this season. 

Since the courts ruled that the Section 318 component of the rider applied 

to all sales between 1989-1995 throughout all of Washmgton State and Oregon, 

other old growth on both westside and eastside forests also continues to fall. 

2. Clinton P!an. or Option 9 Sales. This component of the rider affects all sales 

which had decision notices signed after July 27, 1995 through December 31, 

1996, in the public lands managed by the Forest Service ani.i Bureau of Land 

Management under the Clinton Plan. Although the rider does not tell the 

federal agencies that they cannot follow the Plan, it does allow the agencies to 

short-circuit many of the planning processes. Further, citizens are denied the 

right to file admmistrative appeals, and any legal challenge for Option 9 sales 

must be made within 15 days of sale advertisement. Although a legal challenge, as I stated, can theoretically be mounted, the court has basicallY. ruled that no environmental laws can be used as a basis for this challenge, which makes this an empty gesture on the part of this Congress. 

Violations of standards and guidelines of the Clinton Plan have become, in some cases, rampant. Citizen rights under our democracy to have a say on how our public forests are managed have been taken away from us. Cooperation at 

the Ranger District level can no longer be anticipated. Opportunities to work 

out differences and mitigation have oeen lost. There is no longer any need for 

the federal agencies to pay any attention to citizen concern because there is no clout behind our efforts. 

ConsequentlY., protecting the forest ecosystem and following the standards 

and guidelines of the Plan have taken a back seat to the rush to provide timber 

sales. Staff downsizing and budget cuts, as well as demoralization of agency 

personnel, mixed signals from Congress and often the Forest Service itself, lias 

created the atmospnere in the agencies of isolating them from the very - communities that they are supposed to serve. 

In the Washington State National Forests which I know best, the worst 

violations are coming from the Gifford Pinchot National Forest. Currently this 

National Forest plans to expand their sale program by 33% and overshoot their 

timber target by nearly 14 million board feet. Over two thirds of the sales are within key watersheds, areas designated to provide high quality water to local 

4 
Testimony by Bonnie Phillips 

july 23, 1996 

173 

communities and to protect and restore salmon populations. In addition, the 

Forest has proposed logging and roadbuilding through three huge roadless areas. 

Other violations are occurring throughout these forests. One challenge to 

the Clinton Plan sales was made by the S1erra Club Legal Defense Fund on behalf of Oregon Natural Resources Council and Umpqua Watersheds, Inc. The 

four sales are located in a pristine watershed that prov1des important fish 

habitat. However, the sales were planned without any input from fisheries 

biologist. Although, in the final stages of sale planning, a forest fisheries 

biologist concluded that proposed logging would severely degrade the aquatic 

habitat and make it inhospitable to fish. 

The timber rider provides for judicial review of Option 9 sales for arbitrary 

and capricious decision-making. It was on this basis that these sales were challenged. However, in December of 1995, Judge Hogan dismissed the 

challenge and ruled that (1) Option 9 sales offered since the logging rider's 

enactment cannot be reviewed by the courts; and (2 Option 9 sales that were offered before enactment of the timber rider must be awarded, released, and 

logged under the original contract terms. 

There are other processes put in place by the Clinton Plan, the most 

significant of which is Watershed Analysis, that are being done with greater 

inadequacy and with less and less public involvement as time passes. 

3. Salva~ Sales. Finally, the salvage component is also seriously affecting the 

viability of the Plan. I give one example. The 2-million acre Mt. BakerSnoqualmie National Park is the largest recreation forest in Washington State 

and Oregon and extends from the Canadian border to Mt. Rainier National Park 

in Western Washington. Two weeks ago I received a notice from the Forest 

Service that they were planning a salvage sale called Canyon Salvage in a very important ecological area. Let me explain this area and what the Forest Service 

may do. Under the Clinton Plan designation, it is in the Independence Late 

Successional Reserve and is a key watershed. Canyon Creek is a tributary of 

the Stillaguamish River, a very important arl•a for threatened coho salmon. The 

planning area is 1300 acres, although only 400 oi these acres have 50% or more defoliation from the hemlock looper, an insect rarely seen any more in old 

growth forests. The Forest Serv1ce says they will build no new roads. 

However, in order to access and remove the defoliated trees, most of which are along the riparian areas of Canyon Creek, they will have to log a great number 

of live, healthy old growth cedar trees, which are not affected. They will have 

to log througn and destroy the Forks Trail, a favorite hiking trail for families in 

nearl:)y towns. They will be logging in an area of very steep and unstable soils. 

They will NOT be enhancing the old growth, or late successional reserve, 

ecosystem. Currently, only 40% ot the Independence Reserve is in late 

successional forests--this area has been heavily logged in the past-·the cutting of 

green old-growth cedar and defoliated smaller ana younger hemlock will bring fhis percentage down even further. 

5 
Testimony by Bonnie Phillip~ 

july 23, 1996 

174 

H a Decision Notice is signed on the Canyon Salvage Sale before 

December 31, 1996, then citizens such as myself will have no rights of 

administrative appeal and no recourse under the law. Instead of our normal 

conversations and negotiations with the Forest Service on this proposed sale, we have been left to spending our time taking interested members of the public on field trips to the area, sending out action· alerts to our members, and noping 

that one of our Chapters' Congressional Representatives will take up our cause. None of this is helpmg our refations with the Forest Service. This is a bad and 

very unnecessary sale. 

In summary, the logging rider maY. have irrevocably undermined the 

Clinton Forest Plan, although there is shll an outside chance to get it back on track. It has surely devastated the land, decimating salmon spawning streams 

and important old growth habitat for many threatened and endangered species. 

It has provided less certainty to the communities. And the worst is still to come. Instead of peace, even ·reluctant peace, rolarization and anger have 

returned to the Pacific Northwest. Only a tota repeal of this rider now can send the signal to the Forest Service, and to the American people, that Congres1; really does not want to destroy forests and destroy communities. Instead, repeal 

of Hie rider would show that Congress is committed to making a hard-fouldtt, 

region-wide ecosystem management plan work for the long-term stability o1 

Northwest ecosystems and communities. 

6 
175 

Testimony Before 

The 

House Resources Subcommittee 

On 

National Parks, Forests and Lands 

Presented By 

James C. Geisinger, President 

Northwest Forestry Association 

July 23, 1996 
176 

Mr. Chairman, for the record my name is James Geisinger. I am the President of the Northwest 

Forestry Association (NFA), a trade organization representing the forest products industry, large 

and small companies, in the Pacific Northwest. All of our members rely on the forests of 

Washington and Oregon to supply their manufacturing facilities with the raw material necessary 

to make a variety of finished products ranging from lumber and plywood to pulp and paper. 

Many of our members have historically been entirely dependent on timber sold from the 

federally owned forest lands in the region. Consequently, our members have been directly 

impacted by the Clinton Administration's failed forest policy, especially the President's 

Northwest Forest Plan which is the subject of this hearing. 

I am qualified to be testifying before this subcommittee here today based on my first hand 

knowledge of the issues surrounding the management of federal forests in the Pacific Northwest. 

During the 80s and 90s, I was involved in the debate over Wilderness bills, Wild & Scenic River 

designations, new forest plans, congressional forest management studies and numerous lawsuits. 

·It was for these reasons that I was one of the participants at the President's Forest Conference 

held on April 2, 1993 in Portland, Oregon. 

Hj$locy oftbc Forest Product Industry's Predicament 

The situation facing the timber industry in the Pacific Northwest is a result of several factors. 

First, the courts were used successfully to halt any new timber sales in the forests inhabited by 

the spotted owl. In an attempt to respond to the court injunctions, the federal land management 

agencies prepared new management plans. Also during this period, Congress conducted a 

scientific study of the management options for the region. Finally, as a result of the President's 

Forest Conference, another management plan was prepared, known as Option Ni~e, or the 

President's Northwest Forest Pl1111. 

The President's Northwest Forest Plan was prepared by a hand picked group of scientists, who 

were given a very narrow set of parameters to develop a plan. They did their work in three short. 

months, hidden from public involvement and scrutiny. As a result of a lawsuit filed by the forest 
177 

products industry, the Administration was found to have violated the Federal Advisory 

Committee Act (F ACA) in preparing the plan. 

When the plan was announced in July 1993, Secretaries Babbitt and Espy committed to 

providing 2 billion board feet of timber that year and over time ramping do""n to the I billion 

board feet per year called for in the plan. The following year the Administration told Congress 

that it would ramp up the timber sale program, meeting the I billion board foot annual target by 

the end of Fiscal Year 1997. The fact is that during the past two years, however, very little 

timber has been sold due to the incredible bureaucratic gridlock imposed by the President's 

Northwest Forest Plan, even though the injunction has been lifted. 

Overyjew of the President's Northwest Forest Plan 

In April, 1994, the Clinton Administration formally adopted their plan to resolve the debate over 

how to manage federal forests in the Pacific Northwest. The Administration's draft plan which 

was published in July, 1993, received over 100,000 public comments. In December, 1994, one 

federal court judge ruled that the President's Northwest Forest Plan was legal. 

The Plan prescribes management of 24 million acres of some of the world's most productive 

forests, with less than 3 million acres or 12 percent being available for any regulated timber 

harvesting. Twenty-one million acres or 88 percent, is preserved in wilderness, old-growth 

reserves, riparian areas, administrative withdrawals and experimental areas. See Exhibit #1. If 

the plan were true ecosystem management, it would manage the entire landscape with the goal of 

maintaining and improving forest health, ecosystem diversity and economic stability. 

The Plan dramatically reduces the federal timber supply by 78 percent from historic sustained 

levels. See Exhibit #2. It is also a major reduction from new Forest Management Plans prepared 

in the late 1980's as directed by the National Forest Management Act (NFMA). The federal 

timber program has historically been 40 percent of the region's wood supply, directly employing 

I 00,000 people at family-wage jobs. Forest product manufacturers spend millions of dollars in 

local communities on services, supplies and taxes. Without federal timber sales, entire towns fall 

prey to closure as their single source of employment and tax revenue vanishes; It was this· 
178 

extreme situation and economic distress that led the President to convene his Forest Conference 

in the first place. 

Finally, the President's Northwest Forest Plan created a new bureaucracy which includes new 

planning and oversight teams, above and beyond what is required by the National Forest 

Management Act, Federal Lands Policy and Management Act, National Environmental Policy 

Act. Endangered Species Act and other laws. Attachment #3 provides a substantial explanation 

of where this Administration's new bureaucracy has gone awry. Prior to this Administration. 

there was a clear line of responsibility in the Forest Service and BLM organization structures 

from Washington, D.C. to management activities on the ground. 

Today, the White House is represented by the Office of Forestry & Economic Development. 

Ecosystem management policies are promulgated by the Regional Ecosystem Office. Its policies 

are implemented by the Regional Interagency Executive Committee that receives advice from the 

Intergovernmental Advisory Committee. The Regionallnteragency Executive Committee then 

relies on a dozen Provincial Interagency Executive Committees to implement its policies in 

twelve subregions of the northwest. Of course, the dozen Provincial Interagency Executive 

Committees receive advice from a dozen Provincial Interagency Advisory Committees. After 

policies, directives and even specific project level activities are reviewed, discussed and 

massaged by these committees, Forest Supercisors and BLM District Managers are told what to 

do. One geeds only to look at this chart to understand why the performance under the President's ., 

Northwe§t Forest Plan has been so dismaL 

This new bureaucracy has resulted in increased inefficiencies. Exhibits #4 and #5 display 

Region 6 of the Forest Service's historic timber sale programs compared to number of employees 

and annual budgets. As you can see, the budgets and employees has only slightly reduced while 

the timber sale program has been dismaL 

Finally, even with these added layers of checks and balances, the agencies are faced with daily 

micro-management and second guessing by the White House and Department officials. To my 
179 

knowledge. never before has the White House been involved in the daily decisions on individual 

timber sales or timber sale units. which is now common place under the Clinton Administration. 

Administration's Performance Under the President's Northwest Forest Plan 

The President's Northwest Forest Plan establishes a goal to produce a "Probable Sale Quantity 

(PSQ)" of 1.053 billion board feet each year, from Forest Service and BLM lands in the range of 

the northern spotted owl. Ten percent of the PSQ is to be non-sawlog material referred to as 

"other wood" in the Plan. Therefore, the Plan should produce 0.948 billion board feet per year of 

sawlog material that mills need to operate. 

For a variety of excuses, the Administration has told Congress that it would take a few years to 

ramp up to the full PSQ level. Most of the excuses relate to new bureaucracy and procedures 

implemented with no basis in law or regulation. All that being said, the Administration promised 

to sell60 percent of the PSQ in Fiscal Year 95,80 percent in FY96 and 100 percent in FY97. 

They have stated that their FY95 promise was met, but a closer look shows that they were short 

on the sawlog portion. Timber Data Company of Eugene, Oregon is a private consulting firm 

that tracks every federal timber sale sold by purchaser, volume, price, bid & termination dates, 

harvest activity etc .... They are in the business of providing this information to companies, 

agencies, Congress and the media. A review by Timber Data of the Administration's 

accomplishments in FY94, FY95 and FY96 through June 30, shows a less than satisfactory level 

of accomplishment. See Exhibit #6. 

The first difference is that the Administration takes credit for volume "offered" which is different 

than "sold and awarded." Some sales are offered (advertised) but withdrawn and/or never 

awarded after bids. Other sales may not receive any bids because the minimum advertised rates 

were too high. All these sales are cowtted by the Administration but do not provide any logs to 

mills or meet the President's promises -te eeMMHRiaes. ---·--·----·------

The second difference is because the Administration takes credit for as much as 30 percent of 
180 

their accomplishment being non-sawlog material. This includes fuel wood. post and poles and 

some pulpwood, but not anything that could be run through a sav.mill. This is a far cry from the 

I 0 percent "other wood" level projected in the Plan. 

Almost a year ago, the President signed into law the Rescissions Bill that included a provision. 

Section 200 I (k), which released previously sold timber sales. The total mlume covered by this 

section - about 650 million board feet sold over the last five years - is slightly 0\ er half of what 

the President's Northwest Forest Plan promised every year. To date, only about 350 million 

board feet of these old sales have been released. It is also interesting to note that most of these 

sales were assumed to have been already harvested in the biological assessment for the 

President's Northwest Forest Pian. 

These timber sales are critical to the region's forest products companies. Of the companies 

holding contracts, about a dozen have closed mills while awaiting the release of these sales. This 

volume sold in prior years could go a long way toward mitigating the economic hardship caused 

by reductions in the federal timber sale program, while helping the Administration meet its 

promise to tiinber dependent communities in the Pacific Northwest. 

The Conscqveoces of the Mministration's Failed Nortbwest Forest Plan 

The future of the forest products industry in the Pacific Northwest rests \~ith a sustainable, 

predictable supply of timber sales. It is clear that the Clinton Administration has been unwilling 

and unable to meet this need. As a consequence, federal timber sale volume under contract is at 

an all time low. Historically, a two-year supply of volume under contract was considered a 

minimum for efficient management, to accommodate changes in the market, and to secure capital 

for continued operations and investments in facilities and equipment. Mills and other business 

that rely on an adequate supply of timber have difficulty securing financing for these activities 

from lending institutions without demonstrating future viability through adequate volumes under 

contract. 

Exhibit #7 shows the relationship of volume under contract and number of operating mills in the 
181 

Pacific Northwest. As volume under contract declined due to court injunctions and failure of the 

Administration to fulfill promises for new timber sales. the number of operating mills in the 

region also declined. Without a dramatic increase in the federal timber sale program. at le:~st to 

levels promised under the President's Northwest Forest Plan. the region will continue to see the 

closure of mills and the loss of logging and allied service sector jobs in our rural timber 

dependent communities. 

Need For Congressional Intervention 

Clearly, the President's Northwest Forest Plan is not working, the Clinton Administration's 

performance record relative to the promises it made to north\\est communities. has been abysmal 

and therefore Congress must intercene. 

The first thing that Congress could do is once again direct the Clinton Administration to release 

the existing sold timber sale contracts as directed by Section 200 I (k) of the Rescissions Act. 

Second, Congress must re-establish a federal timber sale program that would begin sawlog 

timber flowing to Pacific Northwest mills. Third, Congress must re-establish a forest 

management planning process that returns decisions to experienced professionals and local 

concerned citizens instead of multiple layers of bureaucrats and political appointees. 

The most important point to remember is just because a federal district court judge has decided 

that the President's Northwest Forest Plan is legal, does not mean it is the only legal alternative. 

The court had issued an injunction blocking new timber sales based on violations of procedural 

requirements in NFMA and NEPA. Given a clear mandate and the flexibility to find workable 

solutions, it is my opinion that the Forest Service and BLM resource management professionals 

could develop a forest management plan that would protect the environment and provide a 

reasonable, timber supply for the region's timber dependent communities. 

This concludes my prepared remarks. I would be happy to answer any questions you might have. 

Thank you. 
Ex( it#l 

President's Northwest Fo

21,456,000 

acres 

withdrawn 

or88% 

Acres: 

3,000,000 

1175,000 

1,477,000 

2,628,000 

1,522,000 

7,533,000 

7,321,000 

24,456,1100 

Pacific Northwest Fed

Within Spotted Ov
183 

f..T:J 

~ 

~ 

~ 

E Vl 

c. 

,..:: >-

... f..T:J 

,....,.. ·~ 

E ... 

c. 

>-

c ... 

u 

u = 

~ £ 

i • ~ l ~ =- ..._ .. ~ • " II: 

~ ' ~ 

~ i 

! ~ ·~ 

~ .i 

= ~ ll'l '<:t 1"'1 N 

~ = 

~ Q SIOfM.8S JO J:l:l.'f pJ808 U0!11!8 

........ '- ........ ~ ~ 
Exhi[ I#J 

Organizational Chart 

Privats Citizen 
Ex/11 riU 

Volume Sold in Relation to Num

Thousands of Employee's 

12 

10 

8 

6 

4 

2 

0 ' 

~984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 199

~ 

--- fi~· -- ·-~ --··-

FmlVolume Sold •Number of 
Exll 1#5 

Volume Sold in Relation to An

700 

600 

500 

400 

300 

200 

100 

0 

Millions of Dollars 

1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 19

jliiJVolu~;.diiiR;gi
Exhibit#6 

Probable Sale Quantity (PSQ) 

Includes 1 0% other wood 

187 

Goals and Accomplishments 

Under The 

President's Northwest Forest Plan 

(Forest Service and BLM) 

Goal 

Net sawlog PSQ (less I 0% other wood) 

1.053 BBF/year 

0.948 BBF/year 

FY94 Net sawlog PSQ 

FY95 (60% ofPSQ) 

Net sawlog PSQ 

FY96 (80% of PSQ) 

Net sawlog PSQ 

FY97 (I 00% of PSQ) 

Net sawlog PSQ 

BBF =Billions of Board Feet 

0.632 BBF 

0.569 BBF 

0.842BBF 

0.758 BBF 

1.053 BBF 

0.9488BF 

*Source: Timber Data Company, Eugene, OR 

Accomplishment* 

0.187BBF 

0.336BBF 

0.393 BBF (thru 6/30196) 
Exlu, f#7 

Volume Under Contract vs. O

otuwu:. of Board Feet 

10 

8 

6 

4 

2 

0 v -~~~· ----

1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1

r;;n;t,;;-Und~r Contract filOp~~~t

~ 
FINAL 

189 

STATEMENT OF 

JAMES R. LYONS, UNDER SECRETARY 

NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Before the 

Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Lands 

Committee on Resources 

United States House of Representatives 

Implementation of the Northwest Forest Plan 

July 23, 1996 

MR, CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE: 

Thank you for the opportunity to discuss the Forest Service's 

implementation of the Northwest Forest Plan. Today, I am 

accompanied by Jack Ward Thomas, Chief of the Forest Service and 

Thomas Tuchmann, Special Assistant to the Secretary. 

I am happy to report that the economic assistance program of the 

forest plan is functioning well. The federal agencies are 

working well together to meet the economic assistance goals of 

the Northwest Forest Plan while coordinating and working in 

partnership with communities, local and tribal governments, 

business, and the public. We are on track preparing timber sales 

under the Northwest Forest Plan; however, our ability to offer 

that volume for sale under the plan while meeting the 

requirements of Section 2001 of P.L. 104·19 and court ordered 

activities associated with this Act will be difficult. 

26-951 - 96 - 7 
190 

Background 

The Northwest Forest Plan {NFP) is the culmination of an 

unprecedented effort in public land management to end years of 

legal gridlock that nearly shut down an entire industry. On 

April 2, 1993, President Clinton convened the Forest Conference 

in Portland, Oregon to address the human and ecological needs 

served by federal forests of the Pacific Northwest and northern 

California. As a result, the President asked Jack Ward Thomas, 

then the Chief Research Wildlife Biologist for the Pacific 

Northwest Research Station, Forestry and Range Sciences 

Laboratory in LaGrande, Oregon, to lead an interagency 

interdisciplinary team of expert scientists, economists, and 

sociologists to assess proposals for management of federal 

forests in the range of the northern spotted owl. The team 

produced a report "Forest Ecosystem Management: An Ecological, 

Economic, and Social Assessment" {FEMAT), assessing in detail ten 

options. 

This report was used as the basis to develop alternatives for the 

Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement on Management 

of Habitat for Late-Successional and Old-Growth Forest Related 

Species Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl. The PEIS 

was released in February 1994. A Record of Decision was issued 

April 1994, which jointly amends the planning documents of 19 

National Forests and 7 Bureau of Land Management Districts. 

2 
191 

The Northwest Forest Plan applies only to federal lands and does 

not contain management direction for private or tribal lands. 

Xmplementing the Northwest Forest Plan 

Consistent with President Clinton's strong belief that natural 

resource production and environmental protection are not mutually 

exclusive, the goal of the Northwest Forest Plan is to provide a 

sustainable balance between the needs of forest ecosystems and 

the needs of local and regional economic systems. The plan 

includes three focus areas: (1) economic assistance 2) forests, 

and 3) coordination between agencies at the local, state and 

federal level. 

This is truly a revolutionary plan and a new paradigm for forest 

management. 

Economic Assistance 

The Northwest Economic Adjustment Initiative (NEAI), a 

multi-federal agency effort, provides immediate and long-term 

assistance to people, businesses and communities where changes in 

the forest industry and federal forest management practices have 

affected the economic and social fabric of areas dependent on 

3 
192 

timber. county payments, which have traditionally been taken 

from federal timber receipts, are now governed by the special 

revenue sharing provisions of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation 

Act, 1993 (P.L. 104-19). 

Each State (Oregon, Washington and California) has a group called 

the State Community Economic Revitalization Team (SCERT) to 

coordinate the implementation of the (NEAl). Members of federal, 

state, local and tribal governments and the private sector work 

cooperatively on these teams to make effective use of the funds 

available to help businesses and communities. For instance, 

Forest Service NEAl efforts include providing technical and 

financial assistance to displaced timber workers, and businesses 

and communities through the Jobs In The Woods, Old Growth 

Diversification, and Rural Community Assistance programs. 

Communities, tribes, businesses and individuals submit project 

proposals to the State Community Economic Revitalization Teams. 

The team makes an initial effort to determine the most 

appropriate source of funding for a project and assigns each 

project to a lead federal agency based on that determination. 

The SCERTs send forward projects to the lead federal agency and 

that agency decides how much each project can be funded. In 

addition the lead federal agency also tries to find partnership 

opportunities to supplement federal funding. Federal officials 

on the team make the final decision about which projects will be 

funded based on local community priorities. 

4 
193 

The Regional Community Economic Revitalization Team (RCERTJ 

functions as a forum to discuss issues, to help remove barriers 

and impediments to implementation of NEAl, to coordinate program 

delivery and assistance, and to help ensure equitable 

distribution of funds among the three States. The committee 

includes representatives from 14 federal agencies and state, 

local and tribal governments of the region. At the national 

level, the Multi-Agency Command oversees the implementation of 

the economic side of the Northwest Forest Plan. 

Forest Service NEAl has invested $12 million in watershed 

restoration through the Jobs In The Woods (JITW) program and has 

awarded 300 contracts. Over 99% of the contractors and workers 

live in or operate their businesses within the affected region. 

The ecosystem restoration work includes projects such as 

repairing problem roads, building fish rearing ponds, and 

controlling erosion through planting vegetation. 

Data on the number of workers employed and their wages based on 

60% of the JITW contracts awarded in 1995 show 2,225 workers have 

been employed, 1,010 of whom were displaced timber workers, at an 

average wage and benefit of $17.10 an hour. We should have more 

complete data available late this summer. 

5 
194 

Over 219 million dollars of Federal funds were disbursed through 

the NEAI during FY 1995. The Department of Agriculture accounted 

for over 71\ of the total. Of the Department of Agriculture's 

share, the Rural Development mission area of the Department was 

responsible for 83\ and the Forest Service was responsible for 

17\. 

Old Growth Diversification funds are used for projects that add 

value to existing timber resources and create or retain 

employment. In Oregon, this program stimulated the investment of 

$15.77 for every $1.00 of agency funding. AS a result an 

estimated total of 943 jobs were created. 

Retraining programs funded primarily through the Department of 

Labor have helped workers stay employed. A computer disc 

manufacturing plant in Springfield, Oregon, was able to employ 

13\ of their work force from displaced timber workers who had 

been retrained through this economic initiative. As a result of 

demonstration projects within the States of California and 

Oregon, 110 displaced timber workers were hired and trained. 

People in this program received certificates of apprenticeship 

from their respective States and were certified as 

forest/ecosystem workers. OVerall, more than 4,900 job training 

opportunities have been created in the region, and as of last 

September more than 81\ of those completing training had found 

employment. 

6 
195 

The Rural Community Assistance program of the NEAI helps 

communities plan for the future. With permanent authority 

provided in the 1990 Farm Bill, the Forest Service can provide 

funds and technical assistance to local communities for planning 

and implementing projects in the plans. Communities find this 

very helpful in assisting them in local economic diversification 

efforts. Well planned projects can attract additional sources of 

funding in both the public and private sectors. It also helps 

them to identify community development projects that can provide 

the most good for their communities in the long run. 

Forests 

National Forests are complex ecosystems. Managing them for a 

sustainable balance requires considerable scientific and 

technical expertise. The Northwest Forest Plan applies current 

science to on-the-ground management. This is done in a number of 

ways in the plan. 

Watershed analysis provides the basic information for managing 

watersheds. The analysis compares current conditions with 

potential conditions and identifies management activities needed 

to maintain or restore the health and capability of watershed 

ecosystems while producing goods and services. Thus far, the 

Forest Service has completed 120 watershed analyses (comprising 

7 
196 

7.1 million acres) in coordination with other federal agencies 

such as the BLM, EPA, Fish and Wildlife Service, and National 

Marine Fisheries Service. The Forest Service is on schedule for 

these analyses. 

In order to provide for consistency in watershed analysis, an 

interagency guidance document was developed. We believe 

watershed analysis will prove to be a valuable and necessary tool 

to provide for efficient resource management and planning. 

Watershed analysis provides the information necessary for 

determining suitability of land units for various resource uses, 

determining project level analysis requirements, and identifying 

restoration needs and priorities. With respect to wildlife 

conservation, we are already seeing results. Watershed analysis 

has shifted the focus to a conservation approach for habitat 

management for all species. Where watershed analyses have been 

completed and the streamlined consultation approach has been 

implemented, consultation under Section 7 of the Endangered 

Species Act is completed quickly. For example, during the period 

from August 30,1995 through May 31, 1996, 102 informal 

consultations were completed averaging 18 days per consultation. 

There were 18 formal consultations averaging 46 days per 

consultation. 

In order to sustain forest ecosystems and local economics, the 

Northwest Forest Plan recognizes the need to reinvest money into 

these ecosystems. This is accomplished through watershed 

8 
197 

restoration by improving fish passage, stabilizing land erosion, 

surfacing roads, revegetating road banks, and reclaiming 

unnecessary or problem roads. In 1995, 189 miles of anadromous 

fish habitat were maintained or improved and 1,778 miles of road 

were treated to reduce erosion and sedimentation, 4,332 acres 

were revegetated, and 162 acres of land were stabilized using 

structural or mechanical improvements. While such efforts 

improve the condition of the land to provide sustainable goods 

and services for future generations, these projects have also 

provided immediate employment of displaced workers through the 

award of 300 watershed restoration contracts. 

Though these watershed restoration activities have already 

produced tangible results, it must be recognized that a response 

in watershed condition could take years to realize. For example, 

reduction in sediment production from land surfaces through land 

stabilization, road stabilization and road reclamation results in 

immediate improvement of water quality and over time will result 

in improvement of stream channel systems. It will take a number 

of years for stream systems to adjust to the reduced rates of 

sedimentation. 

Monitoring is a necessary activity because of the complexity and 

variability associated with natural systems. Even though 

extensive research has been conducted to better understand 

natural systems, it is still not possible to determine the 

impacts of land management activities on the environment with 

9 
198 

certainty. For this reason, we apply practices which we believe 

will meet our objectives, and then monitor them to determine 

their effectiveness. 

The Northwest Forest Plan has included management areas that 

build on our monitoring efforts but goes one step further in 

creating areas for developing and testing new ideas. This is 

accomplished through partnerships between the public, scientists 

and land managers. The plan establishes 10 Adaptive Management 

Areas which operate on the principle of adaptive mauag.-.Dt. 

Adaptive management means we learn from our actions and change 

our management when necessary. This requires careful monitoring 

of the condition and processes of ecosystems as we manage 

National Forest System lands. 

Monitoring is an essential component of natural resource 

management because it provides information on the relative 

success of management strategies including land allocations, such 

as adaptive management areas or late-successional reserves, as 

well as operating standards and guidelines. 

The Northwest Forest Plan covers more than 24 million acres of 

federal land (including National Parks, National Forests, 

W~ldlife Refuges, and BLM lands) in the range of the northern 

spotted owl. Approximately JOt of these acres has been set aside 

for special protection by Act of Congress. The remaining 70t is 

allocated by the following management direction: 

10 
199 

late-successional reserves (30\); adaptive management areas (6t}; 

managed late-successional areas (1\) ; administratively withdrawn 

areas (6\); riparian reserves (11\); and matrix (16\). Operating 

standards and guidelines are identified for each land allocation. 

With respect to timber management activities, thinning and 

salvage activities are allowed in the reserves, however, 

programmed timber harvest only occurs on land designated as 

matrix or adaptive management areas, when harvest is in 

compliance with standards and guidelines designed to achieve 

conservation objectives. Approximately 19.5 million acres of the 

Northwest Forest Plan are National Forest System lands, of which 

22\ is in matrix and adaptive management areas. 

The sustainable production of forest products is a key part of 

the Northwest Forest Plan. Northwest Forest Plan estimated a 

potential timber sale quantity (PSQ) just over one billion board 

feet per year for the Forest Service and Bureau of Land 

Management combined. The Forest Service's portion of this volume 

is approximately 850 MMBF. As forest plans are revised and 

on-the-ground analysis is completed the PSQ will be revised. 

In 1995 the Forest Service planned to offer 454 MMBF and exceeded 

that volume by offering nearly 500 MMBP. A portion of the excess 

volume came from Late Successional Reserves and Riparian Reserves 

as a result of meeting ecosystem objectives through vegetation 

management. In 1996, the Forest Service plans to offer 610 MMBP; 

11 
200 

and in 1997 will offer sufficient volume to meet the full 

estimated PSQ. We are on track for preparing timber sales under 

the provisions of the Northwest Forest Plan. The time spent 

working on litigation resulting from Section 2001 (k) of the 1995 

Rescissions Act (P.L. 104-19) and the specific requirements of 

court orders, could impact our ability to offer for sale the 

targeted level in FY 1996 and FY 1997 according to the Northwest 

Forest Plan. 

Late successional reserves represent a management strategy to 

provide a strong network of old forests where natural processes 

function to the maximum extent possible. Reserves help provide a 

distribution, quantity, and quality of old-forest habitat 

sufficient to avoid the extinction of associated flora and fauna 

such as the northern spotted owl. The majority of these areas 

are existing old forests; however, younger forests are also found 

in these reserves. These younger forest stands are mamaged such 

that they develop old.growth characteristics in shorter time 

frames. A good example of this is found on the Siuslaw National 

Forest where 5 to 8 year old timber stands are being thinned 

early in their stand development, reducing the number of trees 

per acre. This creates more open forest and increases species 

diversity in the stand which will help move these stands more 

quickly toward late-successional reserve conditions. 

12 
201 

Coordination 

The accomplishments we have realized in managing National Forest 

System lands are the result of taking to heart President 

Clinton's principle to "make the Federal Government work together 

and work for the American public.• To facilitate this 

coordination, the Federal agencies have developed the Northwest 

Forest Plan Interagency Cooperation Structure. Part of this 

structure facilitates the Northwest Economic Assistance 

Initiative that I described earlier, the other part of the 

coordination structure is in place to facilitate forest ecosystem 

management. 

Unlike the State Economic Assistance teams, the interagency 

ecosystem management committees are advisory and chartered under 

the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The interagency groups were 

established by Memorandum of Understanding. The Interagency 

Steering Committee (ISC) is based in Washington D.C. and includes 

representation from the subcabinets of the Secretaries of the 

Interior, Agriculture, and Commerce and the Administrator of the 

Environmental Protection Agency, and it establishes overall 

policies for the forest plan. The Regional Interagency 

Executive Committee (RIEC) serves as the senior regional body 

coordinating and implementing the Forest plan. Advising the RIBC 

is the Intergovernmental Advisory Committee (IAC), ensuring a 

13 
202 

forum for states and tribes. The Regional Ecosystem Office (REO) 

provides independent recommendations and scientific, technical 

and other staff support to the REIC. Staff of the REO are on 

loan from federal agencies involved with the plan. 

The Northwest Forest Plan area is divided into 12 provinces with 

distinct land, ecosystem, and climatic qualities. One advisory 

committee is included in each province. There is one Provincial 

Interagency Executive Committee which includes federal agency 

officials who oversee the management of public lands in those 

provinces. There are 12 Provincial Advisory Committees (PAC) 

which have representatives from the federal, state, county, and 

tribal governments, the timber industry, environmental groups, 

recreation and tourism organizations, and up to five other 

public-at-large members. 

As a result of these advisory ecosystem committees, there have 

been over 300 people involved in advisory meetings concerning the 

Northwest Porest Plan. In addition, the ecosystem committees 

have made a major effort in the past two years to develop 

consistent natural resource data among all agencies. Basic 

standards have been developed for vegetation, fisheries, and 

hydrology. Working in partnership with other agencies and the 

public, many accomplishments have been made. Some of these 

accomplishments are the completion of a revised Interagency 

Watershed Analysis Guide, streamlined consultation pursuant to 

the Endangered Species Act, the distribution of over 29 million 

14 
203 

dollars of economic assistance through the Community Economic 

Revitalization Team, an interagency monitoring plan, and the 

development of a strong linkage among the existing State Rural 

Development Councils and Community Economic Revitalization Teams. 

Conclusion 

As the Northwest Forest Plan is implemented, natural resources 

are being managed differently than ever before on Federal lands 

in the range of northern spotted owl. The Forest Service is 

working in partnership with communities, local and tribal 

governments and other government agencies in nearly every facet 

of implementing this plan. 

This is not an easy task. We feel we have made significant 

progress in meeting the goals set forth in President Clinton's 

historic conference and encompassed in the Northwest Forest Plan 

-- of supporting people and communities during a period of 

economic transition, providing for sustainable forest products, 

protecting and restoring the environment, ensuring that federal 

agencies work together as one government, adhering to our 

nation's laws and utilizing scientifically credible research in 

our decision making. 

This completes my testimony. I would be happy to answer any 

questions you may have. 
204 

Statement of Nancy K. Hayes 

Chief of Staff and Counselor 

Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department oftbe Interior 

before the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and Lands 

Committee on Resources, U.S. House of Representatives 

On Implementation of the Northwest Forest Plan 

July 23, 1996 

I appreciate this opportunity to bring the Subcommittee up-to-date on the Bureau of Land 

Management's (BLM) implementation of President Clinton's Northwest Forest Plan. The Plan 

set high goals for the Federal agencies --to protect the viability of ecosystems and wildlife while 

protecting the economic viability of resource-dependent communities -- and the BLM has worked 

very hard to meet those goals. We hear from our customers that we're doing a pretty good job. 

We always strive to do better. 

In preparing for today's hearing, we recalled the context in which the Forest Plan was created. 

That context was gridlock. The first goal of the Forest Plan was to put an end to the gridlock. 

And it did. 

Little more than three years ago the Pacific Northwest and northern California were deadlocked in 

an emotional, polarizing debate over how to manage the region's Federal forest lands. Many 

logging and sawmill operations had ground to a standstill because of numerous Federal court 

injunctions banning timber harvest from Federal lands in the region of the northern spotted owl--

western Oregon, western Washington, and northern California. In the three years before the 

Forest Plan carne out, the BLM had been under multiple court injunctions; our low point was in 

!994, when the BLM was able to offer only 14.4 million board feet of timber. President Clinton 

pledged to put an end to this gridlock, and he did. 
205 

The President's Forest Plan established a blueprint, a science-based, legal, and balanced forest 

management plan that provides for both economic opportunity and protection of the environment 

through five fundamental goals. In June of 1994, just two months after the Plan's Record of 

Decision was adopted, the Federal court injunctions banning timber harvest from Federal lands 

were lifted. Timber sales in the region of the northern spotted owl were once again prepared and 

offered and timber was harvested. Earlier this year, the President's Forest Plan was upheld by a 

Federal appeals court. 

The President created the Northwest Forest Plan to resolve intense disputes about use of the 

public forests. Individuals on both sides of the issue were driven by passionately-held beliefs, and 

the compromise reached in the Forest Plan did not please every interested party. However, the 

Forest Plan has had many successes -- retraining dislocated timber workers, providing a stable, 

sustainable supply of timber, protecting wildlife habitat, and collaborative Adaptive Management 

Area planning. 

Let me now tum to specifics of the BLM's implementation of the Forest Plan. In so doing, I am 

reminded that the Forest Plan concerns itself with living things- people, trees, fish, and wildlifeand is therefore a process, not a result. We measure our accomplishments, past, present, and 

future, against the Plan's five fundamental goals. 

Goall#l. Support the region's people and eommunities durinaa period oteeonomie 

transition. 

From the start, the President made clear his goal was to relieve the paralysis that had gripped 

timber-dependent communities in the Pacific Northwest during the gridlock. To help these 

communities diversify their economies, the President developed a five-year, $1.2 billion economic 

assistance package. It has awarded millions of dollars in grants and loans to stimulate business 

growth and economic development in rural communities in Washington, Oregon, and California, 

2 
206 

and to develop and improve community infrastructure, including water systems and waste 

treatment facilities. 

The BLM plays a small but vital role in the economic assistance package. This is the third year 

that the BLM has managed its Jobs-In-The-Woods (TITW) program, in which participants learn 

new job skills while restoring the environment. In addition to the BLM, nTW programs are also 

run by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Bureau oflndian Affairs, and the U.S. Forest 

Service. The total TITW program is only 14 percent of the economic assistance package, and it is 

the only part of the package in which the BLM is involved. Its goal is to develop a local pool of 

workers skilled in forest ecosystem management that can successfully compete for future 

contracting opportunities in the region. In fiscal year 1995, the BLM in Oregon spent over $9 

million to sponsor TITW demonstration projects. 

I would like to give you my personal perspective on the TITW program. During a trip to Oregon 

last year, I went out to the Sweet Home TITW site. The workers I talked with were very 

enthusiastic about working on TITW watershed restoration projects. They do forest thinnings to 

enhance stand health and productivity, as well as to improve structure and diversity for wildlife. 

Sediment reduction projects such as road surfacing and culvert redesign and replacements are 

making significant improvements to many areas. To give some protection for young fish and 

provide spawning habitat, we are changing streamside conditions which will provide future strean 

structure and shade and increase stream diversity. 

Goal #2 Provide a sustainable timber economy. 

Let me assure the Subcommittee that the BLM is meeting its commitment to offer timber sales 

under the Northwest Forest Plan. In 1994, the BLM in western Oregon made a commitment to 

ramp up to offering the full allowable sale quantity under the Western Oregon Resource 

Management Plans. In fiscal year 1995, we committed to offering 118 million board feet that met 

the standards and guidelines of the Northwest Forest Plan; we offered 127 million. In fiscal year 

3 
207 

1996, we committed to offer 180 million board feet; to date, we have offered 128 million, and will 

meet our target. We are committed to offering the full sustainable amount of211 million board 

feet in fiscal year !997. 

One of the BLM's customers, the Northwest Forestry Association, recently commended the BLM 

for not only meeting, but exceeding, its Forest Plan timber sale commitments for FY 1995. The 

Association's June 14, !996, "Forest Forum" newsletter further reported, "the BLM is offering 

timber sales on a regular basis in most districts and is expected to meet or exceed its F¥96 

target," and declared, "the Bureau should be congratulated for meeting these timber sale 

commitments." We appreciate this customer's vote of confidence in our ability to meet our 

targets this year and into the future. 

Goal#3 Proted and enhance the environment. 

At this point, it is useful to recall the reasons why the record-setting timber harvesting of the mid1980's came to an abrupt halt in the early 1990's. New information about the hann caused by 

traditional logging methods - not only on the northern spotted owl but also on other fish and. bird 

species - flooded the agencies. The Federal government failed to take that information into 

account. Then we were sued. Several Federal judges in the Ninth Circuit decided that the BLM 

and the Forest Service had violated a number of laws; their injunctions shut down the industry. 

That was the situation facing President Clinton when he convened the Forest Conference, just 

over two months into his Administration. 

At its core, the goal of the Forest Plarl was to restore some level of timber harvesting by methods 

that also protect and enhance the environment. Our first priorities were watershed analysis and 

expedited consultations in timber sale preparation. 

To protect and restore watersheds, the BLM began to do watershed analysis for the entire area, 

systematically characterizing the aquatic, riparian, and land features within a watershed. 

4 
208 

Watershed analysis is critical. Among other benefits it allows the BLM to design timber sales and 

other projects consistent with sound environmental standards, which in tum improves our ability 

to withstand legal challenge. The BLM has completed Watershed Analysis on 44% of the western 

Oregon lands encompassed by the BLM districts, and we anticipate finishing all of it in the next 

two years. 

The BLM developed expedited procedures for consultations with the Fish and Wildlife Service 

(FWS) on Forest Plan projects in the six western Oregon BLM districts to ensure protection for 

threatened or endangered species or critical habitat. Under these expedited procedures, the 

districts rapidly completed consultation on all FY 1995 projects, have already finished 80 to 90"/o 

of the FY 1996 projects, and are hard at work on FY 1997 projects. These expedited proceduren 

cut our consultation time by more than half-- the agencies are now receiving reports for informal 

consultations in 17 days, and biological opinions for formal consultations are done in 43 days. 

This is a vast improvement over the three to four months that consultations routinely took before 

the Forest Plan was implemented. 

Our procedures were also used as a prototype for the May 31, 1995, interagency proeess signed 

by National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), the Fish and Wildlife Service, the Forest Service, 

and theBLM. 

Goal#4 Ensure Federal agencies work together as one government. 

The President directed the Federal regulatory and land management agencies to work together in 

canying out the Forest Plan. This order to the agencies -- to work better together - was 

unprecedented in a region as large as that covered by the Forest Plan. But we did it, and things 

are working better than we hoped. 

The President's direction resulted in the agencies coming up with different ways ofJearnina to 

talk to each other, and doins it quickly. Some new positions were added to keep thia 

! 
209 

unprecedented effort on track, but most of the faces behind the Forest Plan are familiar ones -

working better because of the President's direction. 

Goal #5 Adhere to our nation's laws. 

In 1990, the BLM was not meeting all applicable environmental laws. In December of 1994, 

Judge Dwyer found that the Forest Plan met the requirements of not only the environmental laws 

but also laws addressing the need for timber. Just last month, Federal District Judge Thomas 

Penfield Jackson of the District of Columbia ruled that he was deferring to Judge Dwyer on the 

Forest Plan. Legally, we're sound. 

Before I conclude my testimony, let me address for a moment some of the concerns you may be 

hearing. 

You may have heard concerns about the Adaptive Management Areas created in the Plan, and the 

amount of timber volume coming from those Areas. These Areas were a new and challenging 

concept for us. What we intended to do was to provide a forum for partnerships to exist, and, in 

concen with our partners, create new kinds of innovative forest management. And, as in aU new 

programs that are bold and challenging, we have been learning as we go, and finding ways we can 

improve. In our Applegate Adaptive Management Area in Southern Oregon, we have had some 

successes. Recently, this Adaptive Management Area was the site of the Thompson Creek 

Timber Sale, a sale of about 7 million board feet that was not protested by the environmental 

community and that received widespread public support. My point is that the Adaptive 

Management Areas can work-- but success depends on the dedication and persistence of the local 

partnership. 

You may have heard some concerns about the size of the buffers we placed along rivers and 

streams. I understand that concern, but what we had in the Northwest regarding the ongoing 

6 
210 

threat to salmon, and several other species, was a train wreck waiting to happen. This was our 

attempt -- and a very critical one -- to avert the train wreck. The beauty of those buffers is that 

we can adjust them -- and have - on a case by case basis, where on-the-ground conditions 

indicate that adequate species protections can be retained. 

You may have heard concerns about the amount of timber set aside in late-successional reserves. 

While we felt it was important to begin creating reserves with old growth charaGteristics, we are 

allowing thinning in the young stands. These stands are not totally off limits. 

In summary, then, three points: before the Forest Plan, we had gridlock. After the Forest Plan, 

we have a future for timber sales in the Northwest. We are proud of that future, and of our 

success in making it happen. Second, the BLM is meeting its targets for timber volume, aDd tben 

some. Third, we are very proud of how weD our people in the field have implemented the Forest 

Plan. We had a general plan, with guidelines and direction set down in print, But it was 

something we had never done before·· no one had! Our folks on the ground took that Plan and 

are making it work, amid a lot of distractions and during a very tough time. 

Thank you for this opportunity to testii}t. I would be happy to answer any questions you may 

have. 

7 
211 

OREGON FORESTS AT RISK 

FROM THE RESCISSIONS LOGGING RIDER 

Public Law (104-19) 

Prepared by: 

July 17, 1996 

Steve Holmer 

Westem Ancient Forest Campaign 

1101 14th St. NW, 11400 

Washintrton, D.C. 20005 

202J789.."2864 ext. 291 

202/682-1M3 fax 

W.APCDCOigc.apc.cq 

In Cooperation With 

the Fo1lowtng Orpnizaticms: 

Blue Mountain Biodiversity Project Coast Ran_ge Association 

Eastside COnservation Ontology Eastside Protection Project 

Friends of Breitenbush-Cascad~!s 

Headwaters 

lnlancl ~ Public Lands Coundl 

n..-... 

~ Natural Resoun:es Council Regional Education Project 

Umpqua Watersheds, Inc. 

Jessica Hamilton 

Westem Qrprizer 

5825 N. Gn!eley PortJand., OR mt7 

SCX3/9'18-M54 

50319'18-M54 

WAFC~apc.arg 
212 

OREGON FORESTS AT RISK 

FROM THE RESCISSIONS ACT LOGGING RIDER 

Public Law (104-19) 

july 17, 1996 

Introduction 

Unless President Clinton and Congress act soon, the loss of some of 

Oregon's most important old growth forests, fisheries, and watersheds will be a part of the environmental legacy of the 104th Congress and the Clinton 

Presidency. 

This report describes 108 environmentally damaging timber sales pending 

in Oregon under the Rescissions Act Logging Rider (P.L. 104-19). Newspaper 

columrust Jessica Mathews writes that the rider is "ar~uably the worst public 

lands legislation ever.· Certainly, it is the worst environmental law passed by 

the 104th Congress. 

President Clinton signed the Rescissions Act Timber Rider on July 27, 

1995. Since that date, the most important environmental laws of our nation 

have been suspended for timber safes on National Forests and BLM lands across the country, iricluding Oregon. The result has been a flood of green (live) tre~ 

sales masquerading as 'salvage,· the logging of rare Ancient Forests, and numerous timber sales which violate bas1c environmental laws and threaten the 

ecological health of Oregon's watersheds and fisheries. 

At the same time, the threat oi clearcuttin15 the "last and best" oi our nation's Ancient Forests has revitalized the commitment of citizens to protecting our f-Jrest legacy. The bill filed by Rep. Elizabeth Furse (HR 2745) to repeal the 

rider has 148 cosponsors, more by far than any other environmental bill in the 

Congress. An amendment by Rep. Furse to end rider funding was defeated in 

the House by the narrowest of margins, 209-211. Citizens will continue to ur!!e 

the Members of Congress to restore our environmental laws, and fulfill their 

responsibility to permanently protect our nation's Great Forests. 

It is encouraging, and also alanning, that most of the timber sales that 

could occur under the "logging without laws" Rescissions Act rider have not yet 

been cut. There is still time to prevent the worst of the damage from the 

Logging Rider. 

Oregon Forests At Risk 

Oregon still has much to lose as a result of the logging rider deSP-ite the 

Ninth CirCUit Court ~ protecting sales where the thriatened marble<t 

muzrelet is "known to be nestins, • and a recent directive from Agriculture 

Seaetary Dan GUclanan concerrung rider sales in roadless areas. 
213 

Oregon Forests at Risk From the Rescissions Logg;ng Rider 

july 17, 1996 

Proponents of the rider used the threat of "forest health" to justifv 

suspending environmental laws and terminating citizens rights. But a closer look 

reveals that much oi the logging in Oregon is occurring in healthy Ancient 

Forests that are not susceptible to destructive bums or other "forest health" 

threats. Because of the nder, many sales under the 1990 Section 318 rider that were halted for environmental concerns have now been released to logging. In 

addition, sales under the Northwest Forest Plan (Option 9) no longer nave to 

comply with the Plan's requirements, because citizen appeals and court 

challenges are rendered meaningless by P.L 104-19. 

The salvage portion of the rider is also damaging the Eastside and 

Southern forests of Oregon. Ere is a natural part of the ecology of the forests 

of the Eastside and in the Siskiyou. Salvage sales cause the same environmental 

damage as regular timber sales and do nothing to reduce the risk of fires. In 

addition, there are many cases where the "salvage• sales contain significant 

healthy green trees that have been renamed "safvage· so that environmental 

controls and citizen appeals will not apply. . Monitoring efforts by concerned citizens have revealed that the Forest 

Service and BLM are not complying with President Clinton's directive to adhere 

to our nation's environmental laws. We urge the President to take immediate 

action to cancel the following list of abusive sales pending under the rider in 

Oregon. 

PENDING OREGON SALES TO CANCEL 

Bureau of Land Management - Roseburg District 

Contact: Francis Eatherington - Umpqua Watersheds, Inc., 541/673-7649 

1. Pond View: The National Forest Resources Council used the logging rider 

to successfully sue for release of this sale. P.L. 104-19 

requires that the units be sold at the original bid price of $353 

per thousand board feet, but comparable units sola in 1995 

for an average of around $600/mbf. The loss to taxpayers was thus over $1 million on this sale alone. 

2. OlaDa Wlldcat: Two out of seven units in this South Douglas Resource Azea 

have already been cut. Ten miles of new and renovated 

roads will lie built over streams and over steep unstable 

mountain sides with a •rugh probability of failure. • As an added threat to the area, a rock quarry is slated to be bullt in an intermittent stream as eart of this sale. Olalla Wildcat is 

in a marbled murrelet habttat, and was released for purchase 

after federal district court Judge Michael Hogan ruled on 

2 
214 

Oregon Foresls at Risk From the Rescissions Logging Rider 

July 17, 1996 

3. Broken Buck: 

4. Four Gates: 

5. Cobble Creek: 

6. Summit Creek: 

7. Texas Gulch: 

January 17 that all 318 sales must be awarded even if the 

apparent high bidder was not available. 

Broken Buck was traded June 12 to replace the Section 318 

"Wren-N-Doubt" sale on the Coos Bay BLM district. Local 

citizens have filed a protest with the BLM over the trade. 

No modifications were made, despite the fact that some of 

the Option 9 required retention trees will be clumped on 115% slopes as an attempt to prevent landslides on unstable 

ground. BLM's soil scientist says this landslide prevention 

technique is unproven, and could even cause landslides due 

to blowdowns. 

Four Gates deforests 6 mmbf on 140 ;~cres next to coho 

bearing streams in the water quality limited watershed of 

McGee Creek in the coastal range. Most intermittent strean:IS 

in the Four Gates sale have only SO% of the riparian reserve 

width required by Option 9, a half site tree length instead ()f 

full lengths (90' vs. 180'). No fisheries biolol!ist was involved 

in the planning or decision on this sale, and '"BLM did not do 

the azuilysis ~uired to change buffers. BLM' s own botarlist was in opposition to the reduced buffers. 

BLM decided to more than double their usual unit size in this 

sale. Their old limit was 40 acres; Cobble Creek is a one w:Ut 

sale of 83 aaes. A decision to begin cutting on 110 acres was made recently. Six mmbf wilT be slicked off the 

mountain in two huge clearcuts, to "reduce forest 

fragmentation," according to the BLM. NEP A documents, 

however, did not analyze important environmental issues such as whether large clearcuts are really beneficial to forest health. 

The National Marine Fisheries Service said that this sale is 

"likely to adversely affect" endangered fish stocks. 

Roadbuilding for the sale will cut through the heart of a riparian reserve. 

Oearcutting will occur on 125 acres in the Summit Creek sale, 

95 of whicli are in a key watershed. A total of 9.5 mmbf will 

be cut on this Section 318 sale. 

Texas Gulch is in a key watershed which drains into the 

southern portion of the Umpqua River. Nearly 8 mmbf will. 

be logged in this sale, at the unreasonablY. cheaP. price of 

$268/mbf. Trees with 25" dbh would be downea as a part of 

this 116 aae clearcut. 

3 
215 

Omgon Forests at Risk From the Rescissions Logging Rider 

July 17. 1996 

8. Upper Renhaven: Over two million board feet will be clearcut off of 45 acres in a LSR in this sale. Coho salmon and cutthroat 

trout would be endangered by the logging. 

9. Yellow Creek: Trees up to 27" dbh would be cut as a j>art of this clearcut. 

Nearly 10 mmb£ will be logged in an LSR as part of this sale. 

10. Dead Middleman: 

11. Jeffers Revenge: 

12. Millers View: 

13. Idleyld 

14.. Lean Louis 

15. Hubbard 

16. Old Dillard 

17. Coon Creek 

18. Samson Butte: 

Oose to 10 mmbf will be dearcut on 197 acres in a key 

watershed near Deadman Creek in the Dead Middleman 

sale. Winter steelhead in addition to coho and 

cutthroat fish will be greatly affected. 

Oearcutting on 74 acres will generate a net 3.9 mmbf 

for timber; a total of 4.8 mmof will be felled in the 

Jeffers Revenge sale. 

This 63 acre clearcut contains 117 mbt in Sugar pine, 

which is appraised at a value twice that of Douglas fir. 

These BLM sales are all Option 9 sales. Like other 

Option 9 sales, citizen appeals and all environmental 

rules on these sales were voided by the passage of P.L. 

104-19, the Rescissions Act Logging Rider. Nearly 27 

mmbf will be cut from the seven sales combined, over a 1037 acre spread. For the Lean Louis sale, the 

Record of Decision (ROD) was for 5 mmbf. However, an amount of 7.3 mmbf will actually be sold as timber. 

Bureau of Land Mana~ent - Coos ~ Contact: Lisa Brown - Coast t;ge Association, 7ss-o2ss 

19. OdiUl Creek: A Section 318 sale, the China Creek Sale covers 37 

acres, and is a possible nesting site for marbled 

murrelets. 

4 
216 

Oregon Forests at Risk From the Rescissions Logging Rider 

July 17, 1996 

20. Crazy S's: 

21. Daffi Dora: 

22. Deep Creek: 

23. Lobster Hill: 

24. N.F. Clletco: 

25. Twin Horse: 

26. Ugly Eckley: 

Cutting has begun on 73 aaes in two units of this 1991 

sale. Two more units covering 59 acres are awaiting 

their tum on the chopping blOck. 

Sixty six acres have already been cut despite the fact 

that surveys for murrelets were not done in those two 

units. Unit 3 remains standing, for now. 

One hundred thirty acres are threatened to be logged 

in this 1991 sale. Unit 2 alone covers 93 acres of 

potential murrelet habitat. 

Sold in 1991, Lobster Hill only recently lost 166 acres, 

due to the "logging without laws" rider. One unit 

remains although it has already begun to feel the 

effects of the chainsaw. 

Cutting has· started on less than a third of the 246 acre N.F. Chetco sale. Cancelling logging on the remaining 

units could preserve these cOastif forests and probable 

murrelet hatiitats. 

Cutting has been initiated on this 1991 sale's 17 acres. 

Units 5 and 6, comprising 69 aaes, could become as equally unattractive as the four sections logged before 

them if this 1991 sale is not cancelled. 

Siskiyou National forest 

Contact: Steve Marsden or Barbara t.nlian • Siskiyou Regional Education Project, 541/474-2265 

Xl. Olina Left: 

28. Buc:khom Ridge: 

China Left is a 318 sale, part Late Successional Reserve 

and Riparian Reserve, and a Key Watershed that was withdrawn prior to the Northwest Forest Plan because 

the impact of the sale on critical habitat for the 

Northern Spotted Owl was "unacceptable. • The sale 

logs 530 acres with 274 acres ~ clearcut and impaas 

the habitat of Coho salmon and sfeelhead proposed for 

listing under the ESA. 

This Option 9 sale clearcuts old growth, and will 

require new road construction. · 

s 
217 

Ol'l!gon Forests at Risk From the Rescissions Logging Rider 

July 17, 1996 

29. BBeny Thin: This sale logs 4.3 million board feet on steep slopes in Elk 

River· Key Watershed and partially within an LSR. 

30. Waters Thin Salvage: 

31. Tm Can Salvage: 

32. Everclear: 

33. Shasta Costa Thin 

34. lip Top Salvage: 

nus sale involves 2.7 miles of new road 

construction, and logs steep slopes adjacent and 

upstream of a coho salmon and steelhead 

spawning stream (Waters Creek). TI1e Forest 

Service tripled the volume of the sale after the 

sale was approved, from 4 million board feet to 

11.7 mmbf. While tagged a thinning sale, Waters 

Thin will actually higfi-grade many of the largest 

trees, that hold steep sfopes and unstable soils in 

place. TI1e sale doesn't protect buffers along 

several intermittent streams and will cut largediameter trees inside a Riparian Reserve, on steep 

slopes within 50 feet of tf1e stream. This logging 

threatens water quality and fisheries habitat for 

two species proposed for listing under the 

Endangered Species Act, the coastal coho salmon 

and the Klamath Mountain Province steelhead 

trout. 

This sale logs 1,500 mbf of healthy old growth trees. 

This sale logs 1,080 mbf from the headwaters of Oear 

Creek, an important salmon stream. 

These sales will log 3,000 mbf near a key salmon 

spawning stream within a Key Watershed and Late 

Successional Reserve and will enter the Shasta Costa 

Roadless Area. 

35. Fullhouse: This Option 9 sale logs 3,200 mbf of old growth. 

36. Snowcamp Port Orford . 

Disease Control: This sale logs healthy old growth Port Orford Cedars, some 400 or more years old, and many more trees from 

along Road 1376 as a form of "sanitation. • However, 

closing a road which is a major route for pathogen en~ would serve the same purpose better and more effioently. 

~- Buddng Hone: This sale logs 1,910 mbf of old ~wth in a Key Watershed with at least one urut in an LSR. 

6 
218 

Oregon Forests at Risk From the Rescissions Logging Rider 

July 17, 1996 

Umpqua National Forest 

Contact: Francis Eatherington - Umpqua Watersheds Inc., 541/673-7649 

38. Watchdog: 

39. Snog: 

40. Pinest:rip: 

41. Roughneck: 

42.. Gage: 

43. Jack: 

Portions of this Option 9 sale will be clearcut. Over 7.5 

mmbf will be cut from 180 acres, an area which drains int<> 

the Oearwater and North Umpqua Watersheds. Cutthroat 

trout are resident in these streams. 

The highest bidder, Huffman &: Right, was able to purchase 

this safe at a price of 5421/mbf. A percentage of the 182 aaes will be dearcut to produce 9.2 mmbf. fogging which 

would greatly affect the Dog Prairie Creek and ~orth Umpqua 

watersheds. 

Boise Cascade bid $545/mbf for this sale alon_g Fish Creek. 

The 100 acres is planned to gt>nerate nearly :> mmbf, a portion 

of which will be clearcut. 

Roughneck, Snog, Pinestrip and Watchdog are all in the 

drainage basin for the North Um1;1qua River. These timber 

sales total 29 mmbf on 630 acres m the headwaters of the 

river. For these four sales, the I:orest Service has ignored the 

procedures their own regulations require, most notably, 

examining the potential tmpacts the sales may have on fish 

and aquatic haoitat. The forest has also ignored the Biological 

Evaluations of its top fisheries biologist, wruch show that f.he 

clearcuts will harm the Umpqua River cutthrout trout and its 

habitat. The trout is a canaidate for listing under the ESA; 

fewer than 100 individuals are believed to remain. Logging 

has begun on Roughneck. and will soon start on the others. 

Seventy-eight percent of the 525 acres will be clearcut for :1.7 

mmbf of timber. The highest bidder offered S536 for this 

sale, which drains into tl1e South Umpqua River. The Gage 

sale is in a key watershed, a cutthroat trout, coho, and winter 

steelhead habitat. It is also in an owl take area. 

The entire 192 acres of this Late Successional Reserve sale will 

be clearcut to generate 6.5 mbf. Jack drains into Elk Creek 

and the South Umpqua River, and the same species which 

1ft threatened In the Cage salt would be affected by the 

loglng in these units. 

Oearcutting has already be~n bv the Superior timber 

company on the 333 acre silt. OtsP.ite tfie large area to be 

cut, onfy 4 mmbf of .timber will resUlt. Coho, cutthroat trout, 

7 
219 

Oregon Fo~ at Risk Fmm thP Rpscissions Logging RidPr 

July 17, 1996 

45. Zanita: 

spring chinook, and winter steelhead swim through the South 

Umpqua key watershed. 

Zanita, Redlick, Jack and Gage are 318 sales for which 

improvements in environmental safeS':Iards cancelled by the 

ricfer are being discussed with the Ftsh and Wildlife Service. 

With almost the entire 1, 812 acres in these saies to be 

clearcut, the effects of logs1ng on these key watersheds will 

be devastating. Fish spectes such as coho salmon, winter 

steelhead, and cutthroat trout could be endangered as 30 

mmbf is cut from the Umpqua in these units. Zanita is 

almost entirely cut already, so immediate cancellation is 

required to preserve the last sections of this ecologically 

.sigiiliicant old growth zone. Zanita is also in a key 

watershed and owl take area, and sensitive fish species are being harmed by the logging. 

Mt. Hood National Forest 

Contact: Regna Merritt • Oregon Natural Resources Council, 503/283e6343 ext. 214 

46. Sabrumbeay: 

47. Eagle Creek: 

Only one hour from Portland, this is an important recreation 

area, ~pular for camping, sport fishing and hiking. 

According to the Forest Semce, commercial~ and 

small patCh clearcuts will be made in order to "restore 

vigorous stand health by reducing stand densities and off-site 

trees." The loglring would take place to provide feeding areas for wolverine, aeer, and elk; to manage nuckleberry 

production; and to generally make more openings m the 

forest. 

In a forest listed as having "good to excellent" health, 

dangerous thinning will ta""ke place along a scenic wilderness 

boundary. Eagle Creek is in a Late Successional Reserve. Cu~ would take place in riparian areas, which violates the 

Northwest Forest Plan. The tliinnin, in the old growth 

matrix will inaeue the "blow down potential otthe trees 

left behind in approximately 10,000 aaes, thus contributing to 

landslides in a watershed which supplies drinking water fOr 

Portiand residents. 

Wfl1amette National Forest 

Contact: Tom Voyavich • Friends of the Breitcmbush Cascades, 541/854-3421 

48. Warner Creek: TI'Iis area is valuable spotted owl habitat and was 

8 
220 

01'1?gon Forests at Risk From the Rescissions Loumg Rider 

July 17, 1996 

49. Sphynx: 

50. Horse Byars: 

51. Marten French: 

designated a Late Successional Reserve under the 

Northwest Forest Plan due to its excellent old growth 

characteristics. TI1e sale was prompted by an arson caused fire, but the courts ruled that the sale could not 

proceed until the risk and impact of arson on the 

Reserve system could be assessed. TI1e rider 

overturned that ruling and released the sale for logging 

thus legitimizing arson as a means ot logging areas :hat are normallv oft-limits. The Forest Service has also 

increased tl1e amount oi timber to be cut in the sale bv 

40%, from 9 mmbf to 13 mmbf. The purported goa.s ' 

of the Warner Creek Fire Recovery Plan are to restore 

spotted owl habitat and study natural forest recover;• 

from fire. Salvage leggin~ will defeat both of those 

purposes by destroying eXIsting owl habitat and 

preventing natural recovery from occurring. A better 

solution that would discourage arson for profit schemes 

and allow for legitimate study would be to set the area aside as a Research Natural Area. 

The Sphynx Timber Sale is located in the North Santiam 

watershed which supplies Salem's drinking water. The sale 

will cut 16.2 mmbf on over 400 acres of land and construct or reconstruct 8.87 miles of road. Most of these activities will occur in the "Transient Snow Zone, • an area highly 

susceptible to landslides and erosion. This eros10n increases 

turbidity in drinking water supplies. For over a month 

during last winter's rains, Salem lost its drinking water 

supply due to high turbidity levels. TI1is sale was planned 

usmg a Watershea Analysis that does not reco~e the 

existence or impacts of last winter's Hoods. TI1e Forest 

Service has recently received money to rectiiy damage cau:;ed 

by the storms, but has responded by planning to cut trees 

and construct roads. TI1is does not demonstrate responsible 

management of the drinking water supply of Oregon's state 

capital. Additionally, this sale will clearcut Ancient Forests 

and adversely affect the habitat of the threatened wolverine 

and downstream fish populations. · 

This 318 sale is located in the Breitenbush watershed directly on Byars Creek. Clearcutting on units one, four, and five 

would include the downing of trees as old as 650 xears. Over 76 acres, 2.6 mmbf will be logged with 10 miles of 

logging spur (dirt roads) created. 

111ree mmbf oi predominantly old rowth species will 

be cut. This sale is within miles o Opal and Phantom 

9 
221 

Oregon Forests at Risk From the Resciss1ons Loggmg Rider 

july 17, 1996 

Lakes. 

Rogue River National Forest 

Wendall Wood - Oregon Natural Resources Council. 541/885-4886 

52. Butch: Classic old growth forest framed from behind bv the scenic rim of 

Crater Lake will be logged to more closely resemble the clearcut areas encompassing the sale site. 

Deschutes National Forest 

Contact: Susan Prince - Eastside Protection Project, 541/388-4651 

53. Jack Canyon: Jack Canyon, a Matrix sale, houses spotted owls and some of 

the best and largest intact stands of old growth in the 

Metolius District. Under Option 9, logging is allowed in 

spotted owl home ranges in Matrix lands. Oregon 

Department of Fish and Wildlife feels strongly that the 

spotted owl ranges should not be entered. Burning and 

thinning will taKe place along Canyon Creek, which contain 

bull trout. From an aerial Vlew, 4 new huge landslides 

originating from previous dearcuts have swept down the 

steep slopes, affecting SP.awning streams. This salvage sale 

will produce 31 mml:if of both Clead and green timber, and 

the cumulative effects of logging will be devastating. 

Winema National Forest 

Contact: Wendell Wood - Oregon Natural Resources Council, 541/885-4886 

54. Copwood: This sale logs 22 mmbf, including old growth pine in a unique geographical location which is the eastern most 

extension ot s_potted owl habitat in southern Oregon. It is 

also one the tew areas on th~ Chiloquin Ranger District that 

has habitat for species such as the plleated woodpecker. This area would be more suitable as a Research Naturai Area due 

to these unique characteristics. TI1e sale plans to log areas of 

old growth that received special protection under the Wmema 

National Forest's long-range management plan and will cause cover for mule deer to faU below standards set in the plan. 

55. PDQ: 

26-

Located on the eastside of Crater Lake National Park, the PDQ 

timber sale was already clearcut once - but there are !'lans to move into the devastated area again to capture what was left behind. In 

the center of the PDQ sale, there remains a clump of supposedly 

10 
222 

Oregon Forests at Risk From the Rescissions Logging Rider 

July 17, 1996 

beetle infested lodge pole pine. Deer. antelope, and elk are known 

to travel between the leftover pine trees and the adjacent park. 

56. Yoss Ridge: Less than 20 miles from Crater Lake National Park and within 

0.5 mile of the Klamath Marsh Wildlife Refuge, Yoss Ridge 

has already suffered extensive logging due to its 

misrepresentation as a "salvage" sale. Healthy green trees 

57. Bill: 

58. Onder: 

59. John: 

and 400 year old ponderosa pines are being cut with no upper limits on the size or diameter of the trees to be logged. 

The sale also contains dearcut units, and logs in areas where 

bald eagles roost. 

This Section 318 sale will log 5.8 mmbf. fragmenting travel cooridors 

for mule deer and other wilalife. TI1e sale has been opposed by 

the Klamath Tribes, which has hunting and fishing rights to the area because of the impact on mule deer, a traditionaf food source. The Forest Service fought the Tribe in court to deny them their 

treaty rights in order to log this sale. 

This Section 318 sale will log 5.3 mmbf. degrading mule deer 

habitat. The sale has been opposed by the Klamath Tribes, 

which has hunting and fishing rights to the area because of 

the im2act on mule deer, a traditional food source. The 

Forest Service fought the Tribe in court to deny them their 

treaty rights in oraer to log this sale. 

This Section 318 sale will degrade mule deer habitat. The sale has 

been opposed by the Klamath Tribes, which has hunting and fishing 

rights to the area because of the impact on mule deer, a traditional 

food source. TI1e Forest Service fought the Tribe in court to deny 

them their treaty rights in order to log this sale. 

Fremont National Forest 

Wendell Wood - Oregon Natural Resources Council, 5411885-4886 

60. Arc: 

61. Blue Ford: 

This sale involves cutting on sections within a 1,000 acre uninventoried roadless area along Deadhorse Rim. 

This Section 318 sale will log 5.3 mmbf, degrading mule deer 

habitat. The sale has been opposed by the Klamath Tribes, 

which has hunting and fishing rights to the area because of 

the impact on mule deer, a traditional food source. The 

Forest Service fought the Tribe in court to deny them their 

treaty rights in oraer to log this sale. 

11 
223 

Oregon Forests at Risk From the Rescissions Logging Rider 

July 17, 1996 

Ochoco National Forest 

Contact: Tonia Wolf - Eastside Conservation Ontology. 5411317-9464 

62. RockiCottonwood: Green and dead trees gr~ater than 21" dbh would be 

cut as a part of this salvage sale in a roadless area. 

63. Green Mountain: This fire salvage sale will harm a roadless area. 

64. Foss/Perkins: 

65. Trout Creek: 

The sale enters old growth forests in an uninventoried 

roadless area in Silver Cr~ek, a region in which 11,700 acres would be affected by logging activity. 

Two thirds of the 34 mmbf to be cut in the Trout 

Creek salvage sale will be green trees over 21" dbh. 

Eighteen miles of temporary roads will be constructed. 

The 60 miles of roads that will be "closed" will still be 

easily accessed by off-road vehicles, with damaging 

effects on trout bearing streams. Portions of Trout 

Creek have already been clearcut. 

66. Harpo (M &: M): Originally dropped as a part of the eastside screening 

process, the safe was since. "revised,· yet no changes were made to the original logging plan. Telemarl< 

skiing will be encouraged on the north slope despite 

the lack of sufficient snow cover. Clearcuts including 

old growth ponderosa pines will be. made in this hign 

pubic area. The area is so heavily eroded, there is no fear of fire. 

Malheur National Forest 

Contact: Karen Coulter or Asante Riverwind - Blue Mountain Biodiversity 

Project, 541/468-2028 

BEAR VALLEY RANGER DISTRICT 

67. Aldrich 

68. SF Deer 

69. Guard 

Aldrich Roadless area is a diverse mosaic which has never been logged. The old growth Ponderosa pine and mixed 

conifer habitat supports wolverine, goshawk, pine marten, and 

elk. Concerned about the increased threat of landslides and 

flashfloods, local ranchers filed a lawsuit to stop the sale 

before the Rider came into existence. 

12 
224 

Oregon Forests at Risk From the Rescissions Logging Ridt.>r 

July 17, 1996 

70. JOB 

71. Billy II: 

7'2. Trio: 

73. Van Aspen: 

74. Parrish: 

TI1e five sales combined cover nearly 4000 acres. and would 

produce 12 mmbf. TI1e sales would log old growth 

J'Onderosa pine and fir in a mostly green and healthy forest. 

Cutting would impair critical habitat for wolverine, pme 

marten, northern goshawk, pileated woodpeckers, and could 

affect downstream anadromous fish and/or sensitive fish 

species such as redband and bull trout. Logging would take 

p1ace on very steep slopes with erosive soils sul:iject to 

landslide in the scenic Aldrich roadless area. The sales are located in an area of high scenic and recreational value. 

Trio is a combination of lmits deferred from the Wymer, 

Scotty, and Shirttail sales due to the Forest Servicedetermined fail lire of the sales to comply with the agency's screens. These screens are designed to eliminate olcf growth 

habitat, sensitive riparian areas and critical wildlife ha6itat 

from sales. TI1ese deferred units were reinstated as the Trio 

sale in response to the P.L. 104-19 Logging Rider. The sale 

involves logging In old _growth ponderosa pine and old 

growth fir habitat, whidi are almost entirefy green standa. 

The sale site serves as habitat for the pUeatecf woodpecker and a range of other species. includlnJ goshawk nesting, tledsfi:ng, and foraging areas. The Tno units are roadea, but are otherwise not logged. 

Over 354 aaes of mostly green, healthy forest land will be 

cut to produce over one million board feet of timber. The 

logging, which involves. old growth ponderosa pine, would 

impair an active goshawk haoitat as well as active habitats for 

oilier less common hawks. 

This huge sale would produce 6.8 mmbf of timber. 

LONG CREEK RANGER DISTRICT 

75. M& 0: The northern third of the sale is within a pristine roadless 

area, where only the smaller units on the edses of the 

roadless area have been logged before. Loggmg is planned 

within a bowl of conti~ous, intact forest canopy containing ponderosa pine at four feet in diameter or more and fir olcf 

growth hab1tat with Douglas fir up to five feet in diameter. 

Active nest-building and 1oraging by the pUeated woodpecker can be viewed in t1lt M &: 0. as well as wolverine, elk:, and 

bear activity. The area has a high riparian value with a 

13 
225 

Oregon Forests at Risk From the Rescissions Logging Rider 

july 17, 1996 

76. Sunrise 

77. Lookout: 

78. Night: 

pristine, high volume, cool cr~~k. Logging, especially on steep slopes. would seriously jeopardize soil stability and 

water quality. TI1ere is a h1gh commercial mushroom value 

here. The stands are mostly ~reen and healthy; where it is 

defoliated, there are still suffioent green overstory trees and 

live regeneration to recover natural~v. 

These two sales enter a roadless area with steep slopes over tributaries to active salmon and steelhead habitat in the 

.Middle Fork of the John Day River. Logging would also occur on slopes over known redband ani:! bull trout habitat as well as in habitats of pileated, blackbacked, and northern 

three-toed woodpeckers. Logging would take place over 1,896 

acres, and would greatly diminisf1 the recreational value of the area - elk hunting, morel mushroom picking, and hiking. 

The Night timber sale would produce 1.3 mmbf, gathered 

from 256 acres. 

PRAIRIE 01Y RANGER DISTRICT 

79. Oear Creek: 

80. Powder: 

Logging would occur within old growth ponderosa pine, fir, 

and western larch habitat in the Oear Cieek sale. Most sale 

units are live, green forest and include a range of tree species 

such as Englemans spruce, subalpine fir and 1odgepole pine. 

The area has a high riparian value and its logging could have a detrimental impact on water quality. TI1e Gear sale is an excellent habitat for diverse wildlife species such as lynx and 

snowshoe hares. A huge sale, over 17 mmbf would be 

logged from 2360 acres. 

Though a high intensity fire sale, the Powder sale was formerly cancelled by the District Ranger as too potentially hazardous to water quality and fisheries values due to highly 

erosive slopes. TI1e sale was resurrected under the P.L. 1~ 

19 "salvage" rider and remains both unwise and 

uneconomical. It was twice put up for sale with no takers 

and finally sold without being ...-advertised in what is 

suspected to have been a closed door •any price you offer• 

deal. The sale· site is a beautiful area with nearby 

campgrounds, with active elk and deer populations. This sale 

would produce 2.5 mmbf over 413 acres. 

14 
226 

Oregon Forests at Risk From the Rescissions Logging Rider 

July 17, 1996 

81. Mossy (Pare): The Mossy sale originated before the rider. Pare is the name of the new analysis that is being done on this sale. It 

includes logging in old growth f1abitat and the cutting of 

green trees under the pretext oi root rot eradication, despite 

fhe fact that logging actually spreads the disease. Over 8.6 

mmbf over 803 acres will be cut. Volume as high as this over a relatively small area indicates the falling of large trees. 

BURNS RANGER DISTRICT 

82. Badger. An enormous area of 4,756 acres would be logged as a part 

of the Badger timber sale, including logging in ap?roximately 

200 acres of old growth replacement stands. Sensitive species 

that could be affected by tlw sale include the wolverine, 

Preble's shrew, Pacific western big-eared bat, Sage grouse, 

redband trout Malheur mottled sculpin, and Sierra onion. 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

Contact: Mike Petersen - Inland Empire Public Lands Council, 509/775-2590 

83. Eagle Creek: 

84. Beaver Creek: 

Prime old growth stands, identified by the Audubon Adopt-aForest program, will be cut in the Eagle Creek sale. The 

logging will further fragment and isolate these important latesuccessional/old growth forests in an area which nas already 

been heavily logged. Trl'es to be cut include healthy trees over 3 feet thicK: and more thiln 150 years old that are needed 

to maintain a cor!.' old growth Mea which is already 

inadequate to maintain a viable late successional ecosystem. 

The sale was advertised but drew no bidders. The sale is 

expected to be reworked to allow for more roadbuilding and 

will be re-offered this summer. 

Old growth trees in a roadless area will be logged in the 

Beaver Creek sale. Beaver Creek flows directly into the 

Upper Grande Ronde, a Northeast Oregon River with 

dwmdling salmon and trout populations. Logging in Beaver 

Creek would drastically affect the watershed supporting 

residents of LaGrande and surrounding municipalities. 

85. Baker OtyiWashington: Baker City enters a roadless area and is one of 

the worst Timber Sales pending In the WallowaWhitman National Forest. 

15 
227 

Oregon Forests at Risk From the Resass10ns Logging Rider 

July 17, 1996 

86. Red Mountain: Pristine roadless areas would be entered with the 

logging of these sales. 

ffl. Dutch Wolf: 

88. Rusty Bull: 

89. Darkhom: 

90. Fly Ridge: 

91. Bugcheck: 

92. Twin Lakes: 

A mostly green sale, the Dutch Wolf would produce 3.7 

mmbf. 

TI1ese two Baker Ranger District Sales alone would affect 

5,300 acres and produce 16.7 nunbf oi timber. 

Dark Horn is a large, almost entirely green sale, with some sections containing mistletoe. 

Located in the La Grande Ranger District, 5.7 mmbf of timber 

would be logged over 1766 acres in these sales. 

Four million board feet would come out of this one Wallowa 

Valley sale, with damage covering 1470 acres. 

TI1e Twin Lakes Fire Salvage Sale involves logging of green 

and dead trees, with construction of some temporary roads. 

Twenty one thousand acres in the Lake Fork area would be 

affected by logging activity. 

Umatilla National Forest 

Contact: Karen Coulter or Asante Riverwind - Blue Mountain Biodiversity 

Project, 541/468-2028 

WALLA WALLA RANGER DISTRICT 

93. Grande Ronde: 

94. Umatilla Breaks: 

TI1e scale oi this sale is in fact 'grand," with over 10 

mmbf of timber resulting from logging on 1,060 acres. 

Green trees would be cut as a/art ot the sale. The 

units buffer a roadless area an include important 

wildlife corridors. The sale is in the Looking Glass 

drainage area, feeding the Grande Ronde River which is 

critical salmon spawnmg area. 

Another huge sale, 8 mmbf over 1,340 acres would be 

generated from Umatilla Breaks. Cutting could impact 

wolverine and sensitive fish habitat partic:ularly. The 

Breaks Is next to the North Fork John Day Wilderness 

Area. At least 15% of the trees to be cut are green and healthy, and more will be logged due to coverage by mistletoe. 

16 
228 

O"'gon Forests at Risk From the Rescissions Logging Rider 

July 17. 1996 

95. Swampy: Swampy is a critical wildlife habitat area. The Snake River 

spring and summer chinook salmon runs downstream only 

four miles away, and the Snake River fall chinook salmon 

swims 40 miles away. Forest Service documents acknowledge 

that 60% of the sale is green, with 30-50% crown reduction 

planned, meaning a significant removal of canopy closure. 

The Swampy sale is a 350 mbt sale over 100 acres. 

96. Fox: 

':17. Curly: 

98. Moe: 

An insufficient range of alternatives have been considered under 

NEPA for the Fox sale. Three million board feet will be cut over 1,400 acres, portions of whid1 are in a roadless area. Eleven 

percent of ilie forest to be logged is late and old structure, with 

green trees planned for cutting. 

Large trees will be taken from 740 acres to generate 6.3 mmbf 

for this sale. Sawlogs (larger mature to old growth) will 

comprise 33% of the volume. Curly is in a naturally cool, 

moist forest, not subject to irequent fires. Logging on 180 

acres of the old growth habitat would remove needed canopy 

closure and cover contributing to the old growth structure and 

maintenance of the moister conditions. Snake River chinook 

salmon and steelhead would be affected by the sale. 

Over one million board feet will be cut from an area covering: 

400 acres. · 

99. Umatilla Restoration: Ten million board feet over 2000 aaes would be 

cut in this sale which enters a roadless area. 

100. Andies: Logging on 226 acres would generate 1 mmbf of timber in the 

Andes sale. 

NOR1H FORK JOHN DAY RANGER DISTRICT 

101. Camas Restoration Project: TI1e Camas Project will log 45 mmbf of 

trees over the next ten years in various 

large timber sales, all subject to the 

provisions of the P.L. 104-19 Logging Rider 

and therefore exempt from citizen appeal or court review. Shelterwood 

"prescriptions· are proposed for an units in 

the Camas sale. These cuts are virtual. 

clearcuts. ~1sually with only tiny dumps of 

small trees left, which are then subject to 

windthrow and overexposure to the sun. Over ten years or less, 45.258 mmbf will be 

logged from over 15,086 acres. The forest 

17 
229 

Oregon F!'rests at Risk From the Rescissions Logging Rid~r 

july 17, 1996 

102. Oasis: 

103. Texas: 

104. Farley 

105. Diggins: 

106. No Name: 

is a haven for pileated woodpeckers, with 

bull trout and steelhead habitat adjacent or downstream. 

The Oasis sale is 80-90% green timber and contains significant 

old growth. TI1e sale wilf produce the 2.5 mmbf from 629 

acres. Many species have been seen on site that would be 

affected: bald eagle, ierruginus hawk, long-billed curlew, 

upland sandpiper, Preble's shrew, Townsend's big-eared bat, 

Catifornia wolverine, gray wolf, North American lynx, Blue 

Mt. Crytochian, bull and redband trout. 

Many uncommon wildflowers are among the diverse plant life 

that thrive in the 249 acres that would be entered as a part of 

the Texas sale. Black bears and pileated woodpeckers 

frequent the project site, which is to produce 845 mbf. 

The two sales combined would produce approximately three 

mmbf. 

Over 19,000 acres would be logged in this North Fork John 

Ranger District sale. 

HEPPNER RANGER DISTR1Cf 

107. ;..one Star: 

108. Uppity: 

Lone Star is a large sale covering 1,675 acres, with the goal of 

producing 5.6 mmbi. including logging in the Texas Butte 

Roadless area. Spruce budworm has Clefoliated several units 

but many of these units are still up to 50% green. The 

roadless area units are active woodpecker ha!Jitats, and many 

also have heavy elk use for cover. TI1ey are near numerous 

well-established hunters' camps, some of which have been 

used by the same families for many years. TI1e roadless parts 

of the sale are also active cougar habitat and probably blaCk 

bear as well. 

Two million board feet is planned to be cut from the Uppity 

sale before the rider timeframC' expires. 

18 
230 

WASHINGTON STATE FORESTS AT RISK 

FROM THE RESCISSIONS LOGGING RIDER 

Public Law (104-19) 

Prepared by: 

July 19, 1996 

Jim Jontz & Steve Holmer 

Western Ancient Forest Campaign 

1101 14th St. NW, #1400 

Washington, D.C. 20005 

2021789-1844 ext. 291 

2021682-1943 fax 

W AFCDC@igc.apc.org 
231 

WASHINGTON STATE FORESTS AT RISK 

FROM TI-IE RESOSSIONS LOGGING RIDER 

Public Law (104-19) 

July 19, 1996 

Introduction 

Since the signing of the Rescissions Act Timber Rider on July 27, 1995, 

forest defenders have put up a fierce fight to stop bad sales under the rider and 

convince the American public, the Congress, and the President that the rider 

must be repealed. We have suffered some difficult losses. In Washington State, 

the Rocky Brook and Carico Cat sales on the Olympic NF. and a num&er of 

units in East Side sales have been logged in spite of the protests of thousands 

and arrests of over one hundred citizens at Rocky Brook. 

At the same time, the threat of dearcutting the "last and best" of our nation's Ancient Forests has rallied the support of citizens across the country. 

The bill filed by Rep. Elizabeth Furse (HR 2745) to refeal the rider has 147 

cosponsors, more by far than any other environmenta bill in the Congress. 

President Clinton has moved to a position of support for repeal of all or part of 

the rider and has said he will use rus administrative authority to cancel 

destructive sales. (Regrettably, none have been cancelled or withdrawn in 

Washington State yet). 

In Washington, as in most parts of the country, the overwhelmin~ 

majority of the sitles that could be cut under the 'logging without laws 

RescissiOns Act rider have not yet been cut and some have not been sold. This 

report documents what's at stake in Washington State if action is not taken soon to repeal the rider, and cancel destructive rider sales. 

Washington State Forests At Risk 

Washington State has much to lose from the further implementation of the log~ng rider. Proponents of the rider used the threat of catastrophic fires to 

l

·usfify suspending environmental laws and banning citizen appeals. But a closer 

ook reveals that most of the logging in Washington is occurring in healthy 

Ancient Forests that are not susceptible to destructive burns. Although the 

marbled murrelet decision of the Ninth Circuit stopped a number of sales in Was~ngton State there are still significant salvage and Option 9 sales that remam. 

Sales under the Northwest Forest Plan (Option 9) no longer have to 

comply with the Plan's requirements, because citizen appeals and court 

challenges are banned by the rider. 

The salvage portion of the rider is also damaging Washington's Eastside 

forests. Forests on the Eastside of Washin~on are 1ire adapted, and need 

regular burns to clear out the underbrush. But the rider oilly expedites salvage 
232 

logging and does nothing to address fire supf'ression, which all sides agree is 

the root cause of this overstocking problem. TI1e salvase sales under the rider are losing taxpayer's money, and causing the same environmental damage as rel!;Uiar timber sales. In addition, there are many cases where the "salvage" 

safes contain nothing but healthy green trees that have been renamed "salvage" so that environmental controls ana citizen appeals will not apply. 

Monitoring efforts by concerned citizens have revealed that the Forest 

Service is not complying with President Clinton's directive to comply with our nation's environmental laws. Following is a list of abusive sales under the rider 

in Washington State that the Clinton Administration needs to take immediate 

action to canceL 

ColVille National Forest 

1. Gatorson Trmber Sale: The Forest Service has planned and withdrawn 

the Gatorson sale four times since 1990. The 

Gatorson sale would log nearly 12 million board 

feet of timber from the western portion of a unique and undeveloped 8000-aae Jackknife 

Roaaless Area. The geography of the area is 

characterized by steep cliffs and ridges that drop 2recipitously into the South Fork of Boulder 

Creek. In a forest logged of almost all of its old 

growth trees, the Gatorson sale area constitutes one of the last refuges for solitude-seeking 

wildlife species, especially cougar, black bear, and 

wolves. The sale area is also of great importance 

to sensitive fish species, such as the bull trout. 

Seven miles of new roads will aoss stream 

channels multiple times, contributing tons of 

choking sediment into Boulder Creek. Contact: 

2. East Curlew Sale: 

Tim Coleman, Kettle Range Conservation Group, 

509/775-3454. 

A green timber sale, the East Curlew Sale, will log throuldl one the largest remaining roadless are a comprex in eastern Washington. Contact: Sara Folger, Inland Empire Public Lands Council, 509/838-4912. 

The sale calls for logging rare old-growth ponderosa pine and western 

larch forests and additional green timber from adjacent unburned areas that were part of an earlier timber sale. TI1e Forest Service admits the Copper Butte fire was good for the forest, because it burned stands of overcrowdea trees, 

overmature trees, or diseased trees. TI1e agency also admits that salvaging the area will have substantial impacts on soils and water quality. 

If the ecological abuses are not persuasive enough, the economic abuses 

should be. The sale is a big money loser for the taxpayer. In environmental 

documentation for the sale, the Forest predicted that the agency would receive a bid of $888,000 for the trees and that it would make more than $1 million. That 
233 

has not come to fruition under anyone's voodoo economics. When it same time 

for the first auction, the agency oruy asked for $403,000. No bidders. The third 

auction finally squeaked $138,000 out of Omak Wood Products, only after a deal was cut giving a greenlight to the company to choose whether it wanted only to 

log the green trees in units designated for helicopter logging. After accounting 

for sale planning costs, the Forest Service will lose more than $244,000 by selling 

the timber, not counting the 25 percent revenue payment to the local county, 

general agency overhead or future road maintenance. 

Gifford Pinchot National Forest 

The Northwest Forest Plan governs all timber sales planned on the Gifford 

Pinchot National Forest, as well as timber sales on tne Olympic, Mt. 

Baker-Snoqualmie, and part of the Wenatchee and Okanogan National Forests. 

To meet timber targets directed in the logging rider, the Gifford Pinchot National 

Forest has accelerated its logging in environmentally sensitive areas. Of the 19 

sales planned by the Forest this year, over two-thirds are within Key Watersheds -- areas designated to protect and restore aquatic ecosystems and their associated 

species. In addition, the Forest has proposed logging and roadbuilding into at 

least three roadless areas in the forest. 

3. Jammin' Tunber Sale: The Jammin' Timber Sale brings the worst abuses of 

the President's Forest Plan into one package. The 

Forest, in preparing this sale, has taken full advantage 

of the rider's suspension of environmental laws. 

Jammin' will adversely affect water quality and native 

cutthroat trout habitat. The Forest Service intends to 

log in the Little Huckleberry Mountain Roadless Area, a 4,000 acre roadless tract that borders a much larger 

30,000 acre complex of unprotected wilderness. 

4. Walput Cispus: 

There is good reason that the Little Huckleberry 

Mountain Roadless Area has not been previously 

log5ed. It contains steep and unstable areas that are subJect to landslides. TI1e Little White Salmon River 

watershed is already overcut, and the roadless area provides one of the only sources of clean, sediment-free 

water to sustain native cutthroat trout populations. The 

unroaded area is a wild life mecca, providing vital 

habitat for the endangered grizzly bear, the wolf, 

goshawk, spotted owf, peregrine falcon, and many 

amphibian species. Contact: Dave Werntz, Northwest 

Ecosystem Alliance, 360/671-9950. 

The Walput sale is an example of how the Gifford 

Pinchot has attempted to sidestep the procedures 

required by the President's Northwest Forest Plan. 

Walput is within an Adaptive Management Area, but 

the agency wants to cut 1t like the less stringently 
5. Canyon Creek: 

6. Butte Demo: 

234 

managed matrix areas. For this sale, the Forest Service 

has cobbled together the parts oi the documents that 

make up the ROD that support timber harvest and use them to justify the sale. fn addition, streamside buffer 

protections have been proposed for cutting without 

JUStification. Contact: Dave Werntz, Nortnwest 

Ecosystem Alliance, 360/671-9950. 

TI1e Canyon Creek timber sale on the Gifford Pinchot NF wiL 

fragment the stretch of contiguous forest which surrounds 

Canyon Creek. Unfragmented forests are increasingly rare in 

central Washington and important for the integrity of water 

quality, fisheries, and wildlife. This area has been designatec. a Key Watershed under the Northwest Forest Plan because of 

its importance as fish habitat. 

The Butte Demo timber sale on the Gifford Pinchot impacts 

important habitat for goshawk and will contribute to sediment 

loading of local streams. jeopardizing fish populations. 

Wenatchee National Forest 

7. Tip and 

8. Tiptop: Tne Tip and Tiptop are Section k sales that were enjoined by a Wasfiington court a year ago. The sales are in designated 

old growth. comprised of ponderosa pine and Douglas fir. 

The cuttin~ area contains numerous tributaries to Peshastin 

Creek, whtch supports trout and salmon fisheries. The effects on fish, caused the Washington District Court to stop these 

sales. The industry has indicated that it wants to log these 

sales using the original and illegal contract prescriptions under 

the logging rider. Contact: Uz Tanke, Northwest Ecosystem Alliance, 2D6/255-2449. 

Okanogan National Forest 

9. Thunder Mountain: T11e T11under Mountain Salvage Sale on the Okanogan National Forest in north-central Washington would log 

3.5 million board feet within the heart of the remote 

and inaccessible Long Swamp Roadless Area, the largest 

unprotected roadless area in Washington. Although the area burned in the fall of 1994, biologists believe that 

the fue will benefit the overall ecosystem which 

includes grizzly bears, lynx and wolves. 

Because the economic value of the timber is low, the Forest Service is 

allowing hea:vy logging equipment to operate over the area's fraldle highelevation soilS, on up to 351!1! slopes. Recent monitoring data inaicate that use of feller~bunchers on slopes greater than 25% leads to unacceptable levels of soL. 
235 

disturbance and reduced soil productivity. The Forest Service will be allowing 

the purchaser to remove any desirable timber from the logging unit, violating 

the Eastside screens, which require the retention of at least nunimum numbers 

and dimensions of down logs tor soil productivity and wildlife habitat. The 

Northwest Ecosystem Alliance was the highest bidder on this saie, but the Forest 

Service rejected this bid after determining that NWEA had no plans to log or build roads in the area.· Contact Mitch Friedman, Northwest Ecosystem Alliance, 

3601671-9950. 

Umatilla National Forest 

POMEROY RANGER DISTRICT 

The sales listed below are rider sales in a predominantly green, healthy district 

that was not subject to much cutting before the rider. TI1e general area has 

high recreational and wildlife value and is near the Wenaha-Tucannon 

Wilderness: 

10. Tucannon: 

11. Charley: 

12. Pataha: 

13. Cabin: 

A high volume sale, Tucannon would generate four 

mmbr off of 700 acres and involve the construction of new roads. 

Shleterwood cutting, to produce 2.5 mmbf from 1,000 acres. 

Also involves heavy cutting referred to as . "shelterwood. • Two million board feet will be logged 

off of 600 acres. 

Cabin will generate one mmbf off of 350 acres. 

Other sales within the Pomeroy district include Count Chute, Petty, 

Trail Triple Ridge, and Round Prairie. Burnt, Red Hill, Smoothing Iron, Rose 

Springs, Abels Point, Lanzie Spring, Big Mud, Little Mud, Oliphant, Point, 

Triple Ridge, Petty Ridge, Round Prairie, Stevens Ridge, Ranger, Alder Thkt, 

RuChert Spring, Horn, Trail, Lick Creek, and Willow are rider sales affecting 

1578 acres and will produce 4.41 mmbf total. 

Mt. Baker Snoqpalmie National Forest 

14. Canyon Salvage Sale 

The sale includes some the last old growth in the Independence Late 

Successional Reserve. The area includes steep slopes and unstable soils leading 

to a high probability of slope failures, sedimentation of Canyon Creek and the 

destruction of coho salmon habitat. Spotted owl, northern goshawk, bald eagle, 

mountain goat, marbled murrelet and grey wolf have all been observed within 

the area. 
236 

The Forest Service claims the salvage is necessary to prevent future wildfires, 

however, stand-replacing wildfires are extremelv rare west of the Cascades. The 

last such fire occurred in 1834 and the Forest 5ervice's own studies show that 

standing dead trees actually retard spreading fires. 

The Forks trail is a remnant trail still used by countless individuals and families. 

The recreational experience of this trail will be completely destroyed if this sale 

goes through. 

Contact: Bonnie Phillips, Pilchuck Audubon Society, (206)397-6056 
237 

, ,,·, ···.r!. ) I!Si.:' .•... · • Record of Decision 

for Amendments to Forest Service and Buread 

of Land Management Planning Documents 

Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl 

Standards and Guidelines 

for Management of Habitat' for Late-

. Successional and Old-Growth Forest Related 

· Species Within the Range of the Northern 

Spotted Owl 
238 

3. Application to Timber Sales 

This record of decision does not provide final authorization for any timber sale, nor 

does it compel that any timber sale be awarded. Rather, the decision amends 

various Forest Service and BLM planning documents; timber sales offered 

subsequent to the effective date of this Record of Decision must be consistent 

with these amended planning documents. In addition, timber sales must undergo 

appropriate site-specific analysis, and must comply with applicable regulatory 

requirements for public participation and administrative appeal. 

Some previously-offered sales are located in late-successional reserves. If those 

sales proceed, the integrity of the late-successional reserves will not be 

substantially impaired. and the cumulative environmental effects of the sales will 

not be significantly different from the effects set forth in the Final SEIS. Between 

the Draft and Final SEIS, the size of late-successionai reserves increased by 

378,200 acres, to a total late-successional reserve acreage of 7.431,000. The 

amount of late-successional, old-growth habitat protected in various reserves (JWL., 

late-successional, riparian, and known owl activity centers in the matrix) increased 

by 240,900 acres, to a total of 6,864,100 acres. These increases more than 

offset the approximately 26,000 acres of previously sold and awarded or sold and 

unawarded sales located within proposed late-successional reserves. The late· 

(Successional and old-growth habitat in late·successiona reserves that might be 

harvested (assuming that these areas meet ESA requirements) represents about 

one-third of one percent of the total of this habitat in reserves in the preferred 

lternative. 

a. Timber Sales Awarded Prior to the Effective Date 

Timber sales awarded prior to the effective date of this Record of Decision are not 

altered by this Record of Decision. At the time they were awarded, these timber 

sales were consistent with the planning documents then in effect, complied with 

the Endangered Species Act and other laws, and the environmental effects of 

these sales were considered as part of the baseline for the biological opinion for 

the Final SEIS. 

Timber sales in key watersheds (as described in the Final SEISI and inventoried 

roadless areas (as defined in the RARE II study) awarded prior to September 1993 

were evaluated and adjusted, as needed, to eliminate or mitigate long-term, 

unacceptable effects on riparian and aquatic ecosystems. Sales were assessed to 

determine their effect on state water temperature standards, large woody debris, 

stream flow, sediment regime, aquatic organisms, and other aquatic resources. 

The criteria for this evaluation were developed by the scientific group assisting the 

implementation team. Since September 1993, sales awarded in prop9sed latesuccessional reserves have been limited to thinning and salvage, evaluated using 

Afrilll, 1,. • ROD • 13 
J 

239 

criteria developed by the scientific advisory group. 

b. Timber Sales Offered Subsequent to the Effective 

Date of the ROO 

Timber sales offered subsequent ~a the effc r:-tive date of this Record of Decision 

must be consistent with the appropriate IJI<.JIIning documents as amended by this 

Record of Decision. Where appropriate. timber sale planning documents may 

reference the analysis in the Final SEIS. 

c. Timber Sales Sold but Unawarded 

With one exception as described below, all planned and sold but unawarded timber , 

sales were reviewed and adjusted as needed, following publication of the Draft \ 

SEIS, pursuant to the process described in paragraph lal above. The review 

ensured that these sales would not prevent the attainment of the environmental 

objectives of the selected alternative . 

. The environmental effects of these timber sales were disclosed in site-specific 

NEPA documents and subsequent review. Some of these sales have subsequently, 

een awarded and some have not yet been awarded. 

This Record of Decision specifically provides that the remaining sales that have 

been offered but not awarded prior to the effective data of this Record of Decision, 

other than those sales referred to in paragraph (11 below, may be awarded after 

the effective date of this Record of Decision without further modification provided 

that they meet the requirements of the Endangered Species Act. 

111 Timber Sales Sold. Unawarded but Enjoined 

Timber sales sold, unawarded, but enjoined prior to the effective date of the ROD 

have not been reviewed using the procedure described In paragraph Ia) above, but 

must be consistent with the appropriate planning documents as amended by this 

Record of Decision. Where appropriate, timber sale planning documents may 

reference tha analysis In the Final SEIS. 

d. Timber 

Audubon 

Sales 

Sgcltty 

Released 

v. Lyons 

from the lnj!IQ.C1Jc:m iry ~ 

On March 24, 1994, the court In Seanle Audybon Society v. Lyons modified the 

lnj11nction to allow 24 timber sales in northern spotted owl habitat to be sold and 

awarded. These sales will be adjusted to conform to the amended planning 

documents.-ulting from our decision unless they are awarded prior to the 

effective date of this Record of Decision. 

April tJ. 1,.. • aoo • 14 
President's Northwest Fo

(Option 9) 

Forest Service and BL

Sales Volume (MMBF) 

5000 ~-------------------------------

4000 

Historic level1980-1989 (4500 MMBF

3000 

2000 

President's Plan {1053 MMBF) 

1000 ~--------~----------------------

187MMBF* 336MMBF* 

o~~ .. ~ .. L_ ____ _ 

1994 1995 

Fiscal Year 

Source: llmber Data Company, Eugene, OR 
Z4l 

FOLI.OWING ARE THE MODIFICATIONS/CHANGES MADE TO DATE ON THE AWARDED /RELEASED 2001 {Kl 

S:.l....ZS, AS OF 12/18/95 

NC7<::: ~..;.;:TY Of TH£ S;.LES HAVE NC7 S7Art7ZD OPEAA"':'!OtlS, AND .;.::...s NOW N07 .:..c:.;ss:3:..~ ;z::.::.::s:; C? 

SNC'.i. CONT!NOED EFFORTS WILL BE MADE TO ASSESS AND LOOK FOR THE NEE:> FOR AND C?POR:':~Z':'"l 

TO MODIFY THESE TO LESSEN ANTICIPATED ADVERSE RESOURCE IMPACTS WHEN SALES BECOME 

ACC:C:SSIBLE OR OPERATIONS BEGIN. 

SALE NAME FOREST 

Ban~y Slv WAW 

Bill Win 

Blue Ford Fre 

Boulder Krab Sis 

Caraco Cat 

Cinder 

Elk Fork 

Enola 

Gage 

Head 

Booeytree 

Oly 

Win 

Sis 

Mth 

Ump 

Ror 

Borse Byars Wil 

Jack 

HIGH BIDDER 

Ellingston 

Huffman/Wright 

Boise Cascade 

~oise Cascade 

Mesa. Resources 

Scott Timber 

CLR. Timber 

Hanel Lulnber 

Scott Timber 

Boise Cascade 

Scott: Timber 

C & D Lumber 

OPERATIONS 

BKGAN 

NO 

NO 

NO 

12/95 

NO 

NO 

NO 

NO 

10/95 

NO 

10/95 

10/95 

MODIPICATIONS/c:HANGES 

fand resourc;oe issue &d.drsssed) 

Change in marking, added. stream 

buffer. change road. reconstr..tct. 

MOO to change logging system 

units 3, 4 and delete road canst. 

less impact on soil/fish 

Deleted 2 units a.nd "Widened bu!fers 

on riparian areas. Change p la.n.:"led. 

slash disposal. 

Units 5,7,10,15·-changed !rom. 

tractor logging to skyline logging. 

Portions of Oni ts 24, 2 6, 2 7 changed 

from tract.or logging to skyline 

logging. 

Units 8,16,21,22,25-·stream buffers 

added or wic!ened. 

Unit 20- -retained most of saplings & 

poles vs clearcutting. 

Change frocn tractor to helicopter 

Units 1, 7, a ,$1- -wiclened at:reazn 

buffers. 

Unit 2- ·changed from tractor logging 

to skyline logging. 

!Jnits 7,15,16,21,22·-stream buffers 

added or widened. 

Unit 1- ·deleted 18 acres !or stream 

protection, 
John Win 

Locust Mal 

Nl.cholson s .2 Ol<a 

Park HFR Waw 

RD Sa.lvage Waw 

Red 90 Wil 

Redlick tlmp 

Rocky Oly 

S'-'eet Pea Waw 

Tanhorse Waw 

Tanya Waw 

Willy Win 

Yoss Win 

.zanita tlmp 

Huffman/Wright 

Smerski Logging 

242 

NO 

NO 

NO 

Onit 12 ·-will be dropped for 

silviC".Jl tural/suitability reasons. 

Unit 9- -prevl.ously dr~pped C.uo to 

spotted awls. 

O'nit ll- -w1.ll be dropped for stream 

protection. 

Va.agan Brothers 

Boise Cascade 

Dodge Logging 

··Had plans to start., wea.cher stopped 

NO 

Freres Lumber 

Superior LUiflber 

NO 

10/~S 

Buse Timber NO 

Ellingston NO 

Boise Cascade NO 

Boise Cascad.e NO 

Boi ae ca..scade NO 

Boise cascade 

Lone Rock 

NO 

l0/95 

Onita 13, 19- -portions changed from 

tractor lQgging to skyline logging. 

Ollita 8,9.13,19,30--b~fers added 

along streams & we:t areas. 

Onita 3,5,8,16,17,18--butfers 

widened. or added. a.lo:c.g streams. 

Onits l, 4- -previously dropped due to 

spott:ed owl a. 
243 

(a lifornia Forests at Risk: 

The Impact of the Rescissions Act Logging Rider 

on National Forests in California 

Prepared by the 

Western Ancient Forest Campaign 

July, 1996 
Table of Contents 

(onrents 

I. INTRODUCTION 

II. MAP AND IMPAG MATRIX 

lll. CAUFORNIA FORESTS AT RISK 

Six Rivers National Forest 

I. Ptlot Creek 

2. Deadwood 

Klamath National Forest 

1. Canon 

4. Dillon 

5. Taylor 

Shasra-Trinif)' National Fortst 

6. West Weaver II 

7. West Weaver Thm 

8. Misery 

9. Headwatt~ 

10. Sun Sltpper 

Mendocino National Forest 

1 I. Blands/Steel 

12. Kop/Gtbson 

13. Coyote 

14. Saddle 

244 

10 

12 

13 

14 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

zo 

21 

Modo( National Forest 

1 S. Po1son Spnng 22 

Lassen National Forest 

16. Hamilton 23 

17. Too Aar 23 

18. West Dusry 24 

19. Butt Creek 25 

Plumas National Forosl 

ZO. Axford Management Area 26 

Tahot National Forest 

2 I. Treasure 27 

22. Davin 28 

Stanislaus National Forest 

Zi.lnsh 29 

2 4. Cupid 29 

2 S. O"Manuel 29 

Toiyabt National Fortsl 

26. Poor Boy 10 

Sequoia Nariona.J Forrst 

2 7. Red Helicopter 31 

28. Harehorr 12 

IV. SALVAGE SALES UNDER THE LOGGING RIDER IN (AUFORNIA 31 

V. OPTION 9 GREEN SALES RELEASED UNDER THE LOGGING RIDER IN <AUFORNIA 39 

GLOSSARY 40 
245 

I. Introduction 

California's Forests At Risk 

Unless President Clinton and Congress act soon, the 

loss of some of the last and best of California s Grear 

Forests will be rhe environmental legacy of the 1 04rh 

Congress and rhe Clinton Presidency. 

This report describes j usr 28 of the worst timber sales 

among more than 250 planned for California under 

rhe Rescissions Act Logging Rider (P.L 104-19). 

Jessica Mathews, o.i:o Washington Post columnist, 

writes that the rider is "arguably the worse public 

lands legislation ever." Certainly, it is the worse environmental law passed by the I 04th Congress. 

President Clinton signed the Logging Rider into 

effcccjuly 27, 1995. Since that dace, the most important environmental laws of our nation have been suspended for timber sales on National Forests across 

the country, including those in California. The result 

has been a flood of green Oi"") crcc sales masquerading as "salvage," the logging of rare old growth 

forests, and numerous timber sales which violate 

basic environmental laws and threaten the ecological 

health of the state's watersheds and f~&heries. 

''1Awk11 Logging" in CaliforniA. 

The Clean Water Act, the National Environmental 

Policy Ace, the Endangered Species Ace, and ocher 

safeguards apply co e""ry ocher private and public 

action in California - but not to sales of timber 

from National Forests affecting some of our state's 

most precious forest ecosystems and the rivers, fish, 

and wildlife chat depend on them. 

Most of the direct assaults by corporations and campaign contributors on the nation's environmental 

laws in rhe 1 04rh Congress have fallen short. Bur rhe 

passage of the Rescissions Act Logging Rider by rhe 

Congress in 1995, and irs signature by Presidenr 

Clincon, was a major victory for timber industry 

lobbyists and politicaJ action committees tha[ contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars to elect 

the: current Congress. 

The good news is that the bulk of the damage which 

could result in California from the Logging Rider 

has not yet occurred. Even though the law has been 

in effect for a year, a relatively small number of sales 

under the Logging Rider have been cur so far. 

Bur time is short. The Forest Service is planning over 

20 3 "salvage" timber sales, and 50 Option 9 

(Northwar Forest Plan) sales in California under the 

rider. More notia:s of planned sales arc rccer.cd """'Y 

day. Only immediate action by the President and the 

Cong=s can stop this threat to California's fon:sa. 

A Time Bomb for C./ifornill. i Fotwts 

The Rescissions Act Logging Rider is an environmental rime bomb waiting co go off in California. 

This report describes 28 of the most egregious timber sales planned under the Loging Rider in the 

stare. Eight of the sales will enter roadlcss areas. 

Roadless areas arc not just areas without roads. 

Roadlcss areas together with Wilderness rcp~r 

the lase remaining undisturbed portions of the landscape, areas chat serve as refuges for numerous 

imperiled species. Nine of these sales arc planned for 

critical watersheds that prorccr the quality of our 

scare's waters, and harbor valuable f~&heries. Twenty 

one of them impact endangered or scnsiri"" wildlife 

1 
246 

species. dcsuoying rhe habitat of nor just the 

California spotted owl but also the coho salmon, 

west coast sreelhead, Modoc sucker, Pacific fisher, 

marten, goshawk, and pile.:ued woodpecker. 

Twenty of these sales will cut valuable old growth 

forests. Numnous studies have documented the 

importance and rarity of old growth forests in 

California. The recent Sierra Nevada Ecosystem 

ProJecr (S~EP) report explains the value of Sierra 

forests in protecting watersheds, sustaining fisheries, 

and providing for the needs of both people and 

wildlife. The SNEP report also documents that late 

successional old growth forests at middle elevations 

at present constitute: only 7 ro 30°/o of the forest 

cover of rhe Sierra. 

Prcsidcnr Clincon's Northwest Forest Plan also recognized the importance of ancient foresrs, and gave 

many old growth forests and important watersheds 

new sraws. The plan identified Key Watersheds that 

provide cold, clear water for at-risk fish species. The: 

plan also established Late Successional Reserves 

containing many of the: sparse: remains of 

California's uncut, old growth foresrs. The 

Rescissions Act Logging Rider made the protections 

granted to these critical areas in the Norrhwest 

Forest Plan unenforceable:. 

A Threat to Citizem' Righu 

This is not the first time that the Forest Service has 

proposed environmentally damaging timber sales in 

California. But, it is the first time that citizens have 

lost their rights to appeal administratively or judicially to insist that agency regulations and the laws 

be respected. 

This 3.nti-democratic provision was ostensibly 

included to prevent "frivolous" appeals from stop· 

2 

ping leginmatc timber sales. However, only 8 of 11 :) 

nmber sales in California were appealed by censer· 

varionisr:s last ye.u - hardly a major obstacle w 

cimber production, bur an imponant safeguard 

helping to bring about some balance in forest man. 

agcmcnt. In reality, limiting citizen participation 

ensures that rhc timber indusrry will have: unob. 

strucrcd access ro the most ecologically importan: 

and valuable forests that remain in our srare, ole' 

growth forests that have withstood generations o · 

human activity. 

Although the Rescissions Act logging rider expireS 

December 31, 1 996, the provisions of rhe rider 

shielding agency and corporate actions from ;udicia 

oversighr will exrend on for months, or even years. II' 

a "salvage" or Option 9 (Northwest Forest Plan) sale 

is offered by December 31, 1996, then it can proceed under the terms of the "lawless logging" ride! 

for years until the entire project is logged. Citizens' 

rights must be restored. There is no justification to 

deny the public the opportunity ro participate in 

decisions thar affect rhe public lands. 

A Forest Health "Crisis" in California? 

Proponems of "lawless logging" argue that wildfire, disease, and insect activity arc rhrc:accning 

"forest health." The evidence does not support 

rhar argum(:nt. 

The recent SNEP science report 

observes that insect outbreaks during the 1980s wert 

a repetition of patterns common for many decades. 

"Tree morraliry, even widespread or locally severe 

mortality, is an inherent component of Sierran forest 

ecology and an important generator of plant and 

animal habitats." the report concludes. 
247 

Proponents of rhe Loggmg Rider also '\vave rhc 

bloodv shin" when rhey argue that salvage logging is 

necessary w reduce fuel loading and fire risk. Again, 

the scientists who wrote rhe SNEP reporr find evidence to che conrrary "Timber harvest, through irs 

effects on forest structure, local microclimate, and 

fuel accumulation, has increased fire severity more 

th:m any or her recenr human acriviry," rhe SNEP 

report says. 

In fact, public land managers tn California already 

have the cools they need to address legirimare "forest 

health" needs, and conducr salvage sales. Fully 40% 

of the timber sales program in California before the 

rider passed was salvage - and all of rhis was cut 

with the laws in place. In facr, so much salvage has 

been cur in California char some forests have lirrlc 

left ro sell. Sequoia National Foresr Supervisor An 

Gaffrey recenrly said rhat "ar present, neither the 

Sequoia nor Sierra National Foresrs have a significant amount of dead trees." Bur that hasn'r sropped 

the Forest Service. 

The National Forests of California are threatened, 

but nor by natural processes such as fire and insects. 

Decades of logging, road building and grazing have 

taken a huge roll on rhe ecological integrity of the 

foresrs. Excessive logging has brought wildlife species 

to the brink of extinction, severely degraded rivers 

and streams, and produced extensive erosion and 

sedimentation. 

Invitation to Abuse 

Regrettably, rho suspension of laws safeguarding the 

forests and the democratic rights of citizens ro appeal 

illegal agency decisions has opened the flood gates for 

abuse. Although the Logging Rider was sold to the 

Congress as necessary ro conduct "salvage" sales, 

green (live) tree sales under the rider arc commonplace. VirruJII~· ever;· one ot the 28 sales described in 

this report have a significam green componrnt; 

almosc half of them are Straightforward green sales. In 

fact, some of these sales (Rulfa and West Dusry on 

the Lassen, Hatcherr on the Sequoia, and Treasure 

and Davies on the Tahoe) were: a part of the agency's 

green sale program before they became P L 104-19 

sales. Clearly, rhe Forest Service has seized on the 

oppormniry to avoid pubilc review and requirements 

of laws which force rhe agency to balance rimber production wirh other vallles by using PL. 104-19. 

Abuse of taxpayer dollars will also result from logging llnder PL. 104- 19. During rhe three year period 1992 - 1994 before the rider, National Forests in 

California losr a roral of $143.2 million from timber 

sales, an average of$47.7 million a year, according to 

the Government Accounring Office (GAO). Of the 

I I National Forests covered in this report (several of 

California's National Forests do nor have a significant timber program), only two, the Modoc and the 

Lassen, showed timber receipts greater than oudays 

for the three year period. 

It is anticipared that most of the l'L. I 04-19 sales will 

lose money in California and across the country; in 

fact, the law includes a Spl'cific mandate to ignore economics of sales. This type of corporate welfare, subsidizing rhe timber indLIStty at the expense of both the 

taxpayer and the environment, ought to be eliminated fi:om all federal resource managemenr programs. 

Time for a Change 

The irresponsible action of the Congress and 

Presidenc Clinton in passing and signing the: 

Logging Rider, and the irresponsible way the Foresr 

Service has implemented it. musr be reversed. 

On a vote of 209-211, the House of Representatives 

'3 
248 

on June .20 n.trro,,J_\· rcjc.:.:rcJ Jll .mh:!ldm~.:nr ~•th.T"-·.J 

b,· Reps. Elizabeth Furse (0-0RJ JnJ .John l'nncr 

(R-Ill ro halt funding for rhe nJer. Fucure opportunities rna,· allow bach che House anJ Sen.uc ro 

reverse themselves and rescore rhe laws on our 

national forests. Neither 

Republican nor Democratic 

leaders of rhe Congress can 

make rhe claim char they are 

acting as responsible srewards 

of rhe nation's environment 

if rhey do not pursue every 

opportunity to repeal P.L. 

104-19. 

LtrJon 11r riJ~..·r rcpl;'.d. Th\.' JJ.mJgc \\hh.h j, .thouc 

OL"cur m CJiitOrn!.l·~ publjc fore:.u. w.uershc-ds. t! .... 

.:ri.:~. JnJ wi!dlite .1s a (Unsequencc: of rhc: Rescissio 

Acr Logging Rider is Jrg:uably rhe most Jdverse en· 

ronmcnral impJcr robe tdr this ~·ear J.n~·whc:re in r 

nation as a consequence 

rhe l 04th Congress. 

Presidem Climon muse cake 

acrion, coo. The Presidem has 

the power adminisrrarivdy ro 

srop every timber sale featured in this report. Sold sales 

can be bought back; unsold 

sales can be withdrawn. In 

facr, inAuence from rhe 

White House was responsible 

for the withdrawal of rhe 

Barklev sale on the Lassen 

Oougltu FirHfllllf' IU'tn ,J,,.f,ml..·of",t.•l'll'iflt't'.•flt'•flll 

Fehce Pace) 

L' nder the- Logging Rider. r! 

degradation of Nation 

Forests. a publicly own. 

treasure, will conrin 

unabated. The descriptio 

in this report of planned ri1 

ber sales illusrr.tre whou is 

risk if the Rescissions .-\ 

Logging Rider 1s n 

repealed. Action by Preside 

Clinton and rhe Congress 

needed now to stop the rid, 

halt disastrous timber sak 

and provide tOr thc: long ~r 

protection of CJiiforni. 

Great Forests not ju ... r t. 

roday's citizc:ns. bur t 

furure generarions .1s wdl. 

National Forest on April 2. 

1996, one day before ir was robe sold. A r<eenr dir<crive from Agriculrure Secretary Dan Glickm.m ~:srahlishing new rules for "salvage'' sales in roadless .treJ~ 

may help. bur does not rake rhe place of sale canedConnie Stewarr. Prt.•idtnt 

Borrrd ofDirt'Ctor.• 

\X'esrern Ancienr Forc:sr C.tmpoti~ 
II. Impact Matrix 

6 

Sue R1vtr1 

!. P1lor Creek 

2 Deadwood 

Klamath 

Canon 

4. D1llon 

S. Taylor 

Shi:sta -Trimry 

6 West Weaver II 

7. We;t Weaver Thm 

8. MISery 

9. Headwarers 

I 0. Sun Shpper 

Mendocino 

II. Blands/Steel 

12. Coyote 

11. Kop/Grbson 

U. Saddle 

Modoc 

15. Poison Sprtne 

Lauen 

16. Hamtlron 

17. Too Flar 

18. Wesr Dusry 

19. Bun Creek 

Plum11 

2 0. Axford Manaaemenr Area 

Tahoe 

21. Treasure 

22. Davits 

Stanislaus 

n lnsh 

74. Cupid 

25. O'Manuel 

Totyabe 

26. PoorBoy 

Srquoi• 

2 7. Red Helicopter 

28. Harcherr 

OLD 

GROWTH 

249 

ENTERS 

ROAOLESS 

AREA 

(RffiCAl 

WILDUFE 

HABITAT 

• 

• 

• 

ATRISK SAI110N 

OR STEEUiEAO 

HABITAT 

GREEN 

SALE 

• 

• 

• 
250 

SIXPriE?S 

NATIONAL FORESTS IN CAUFORNIA 

so 100 

7 
251 

III. California Forests At Risk ~-------------------------------------------------- ! Six Rivers National Forest 

1. Pilot Creel< Green Timber Sale 

Loulliau 

Impact 

Ranger Drstn<r 

Mad R"er 

Voiume I mmbl) 

; 5 

Project Acre; 

N A 

Loggmg Acre\ 

" !\ 

The F-o:,·~; >~:-·. kt' t'Lt:l:::. w lo).: 1.;; ~nil:iun lw.nd !t:cr u[ :u:::Lw~ t!-om r;:t., "'-e\ \\ .. t...:. 

recei\eJ !h ..:bs.'>if!,_,Jcion h,_·....:.m:::.o;.' cf H:lporr.w~,.<-' f(_) d<.:dintnt. ~tth L.~ ~1; ;r-.·,~I:JcJc!. 

sneJnL ~r~ccltiCJii;. PillH CreeL \UPf)lic:-. c!cJr. (,)]li \\",lt<::'r- .t -~riric.d •.IHilf>•llll.:.'lll •lt" ~.dJ:lOtl"i !Ld11~ t: 

rhc: ~L,J River. The propo,;;~..·J loggint, .mJ ro:1d1n;~ m.1~· k,td co exren"i,~_· ~·lo)ldn Jnd \eJulh'ilUIHlll nt rh 

creek, fu11her rhreJtening sJlmiJll :1r1d scedhead. 

According rn rhe Record of Dcci<:>ion il:J~16l, ~oe sale mdudes consrrucrion nr' ~.7! r:-o.lle: ,·,f !l:._·m •. tn~n; :u,1~.; 

and ·L)-:-' miles o~· temporary ruJ.d:-. Since tUnJiflb fOr decommi_,sioning of remporJ:-.· :-P.tJ; :~one\)~ r[,,, Fc•rc' 

Sevu:e·-" lu,~.esr t!scJ.l prioricin, remporJn :-o:d~ dr.: oh-c-n de t3cro pcrrr:.Jnt·nr ro,l.ds. Th!~ ~r:J'·::'L~ \\ ·li ~;~,) Jtfe~ 

more dun 900 J.Cres of rhc Ptlor Creek Ro:1dless Area. This roadies~ are.t tlll\'t' cc,nuincC ..J\ c~ : tl,t)()(! .t.:r·:~, 

prisLinc .l!lLlC'flt forest. Exrcnsiv(• lc)gging inch<: Lw:: !~)80\ reduced (he -.iLc uf rhe roJd!~::-::- ,ue.; u, 'll'>t :::n ~ 

4,600 .tLrC:'I. Despite the reduction. Pilm Creek .mil <..onrains cricical wildlik hJbiut and i'} hon:c :0 rr:.ubk 

murrdt:l), spotted owls, marren .. md fisher. The roughly') million board kn rhar \vitl be tJken hum rbe ro.td 

less ,ne:l ""d! lcJ.ve only 2.8_~2 Jeres in Pi!m Creek \1.i1h v.·ild and ro:1dles~ ch.tr.l"-rcriqi.:s 

For additional infonnation: 

Ryan Henson. California \X:ildcrness Coalition, 916//58 0380 

Paul Spider, Western Ancienc Forest Campaign, 916/7)8 0380 

8 

Pi/or Ctr~lt in a roadlns portion of th~ waurrlud. 

down slept of two logging units. (Anthony Ambrose) 

Pi/or Crult drainagt looking south into tb~ 

madlfis .lml. (AnthOny Ambrose} 
252 

Six Rivers National Forest J 

2. Deadwood Green Timber Sale '----------

Location 

Ranger Oisrri(l 

Lower Tnnuy 

Volume (mmbfl 

This sale is locared in rhe Grouse Creek watershed. 

Impact 

Pro)eU A(res 

N/A 

logging A(res 

N/A 

Thi~ s..1le. sri II in rhe early scages of planning, \vii( cue four million board feec oflive rrees rhat are in old growth 

habitat or on terrain set aside by the :>lorrhwest Forest Plan for use in experimental forestry to enha~cc old 

growth. The sale site is in a Key Watershed that provides high quality habitat for imperiled fuh. Grow•! Creek 

provides dear, cool water to the south fork of the Trinity River, which has also been designated as criticll habitat for a threatened anadromous fishery. 

Private landowners own most of the watershed, which has been heavily logged as a result. High se:limcnt 

loads already exist in the creek from a natural landslide. This problem will be greatly exacerbated 'Y new 

logging. Sedimentation from logging and roads will reduce the productivity of this fishery if nor destroy it 

completely. 

For additional i>iformation: 

Connie Stewart, Norrhcoasr Environmental Cenrer, 707/822 6918 

H.-/thy old growth in a !tty walmhrd. 

(Anthony Ambrose) 

In tht Hmry Firr S.l••tt· on tht Six Ri~~m. sn,md liw ltzrgr trm -umr rut, 11imost ali with t:nTJ firr 

damagt. (Anthony Ambrose) 

g 
253 

Klamath National Forest 

3. Canon Green Timber Sale 

Location 

Ranger District 

Scorr R1ver 

Volume ( mmbfl 

j 2.6 

Projeu Acres 

2.190 

logging Acres 

2.190 

This sale is located in the watersheds of Canyon and Kelsey Creeks, approximately 1 5 miles west of Fort Jones. 

Impact 

This is a predommancly green rree timber sale. Most of the timber volume will be produced from thinning 

live trees. The Forest Service proposes experimental "sanitation" logging in true fir srands to reduce rhc incidence: or disease. In fact. research indicates rhac logging may increase the incidence of roor diseases. Large 

older trees have been marked for logging in this sak While the Forest Service sees these larger trees as defective due ro nonfatal diseases, they are in face favored by wildlife. Weaknesses in the trees provide nesting sites 

for cavity-nesting birds. 

In practice, "sanitation" logging means logging old growth. logging of uplands in rhe Canyon and Kelsey 

Creeks that have been identified by scientisrs as significant "Late Successional Old Growth" is misguided and 

could violate provisions of the Northwest Forest Plan. The Northwest Forest Plan allows logging of old 

growth only when nearby reserves have grown into useful habitat for old growth dependenr species. In this 

case, several decades will pass before nearby Late Successional Reserves are suitable for old growth dependent 

species. Therefore, logging of old growth outside the Reserve in the Canon sale poses greater risks to already 

threatened wildlife. 

Logging in the Canyon and Kelsey Creek watersheds will also be disastrous for fisheries. Borh these creeks 

supply cold water to the Scocc River. Cold water is a c:ridcal factor for salmon and sn:elhead srocks which are 

proposed tor "threatened" listings under provisions of the Endangered Species Act. Logging in the vicinity of 

creeks and screams reduces shading which increases water remperarures ro deadly levds for salmon. 

Another major concern with rhe Canon sale is rhe proposed consuucrion of 1.65 miles of road in earthflow 

terrain. Experience in rhis drainage demonstrates rha[ i"nrensivc logging and building roads on sceep earthflows 

increases landsliding by several orders of magnitude. The steep, unstable slopes between Lover's Camp Roadless 

Area and Box Camp Roadless Area have seen large landslides before, after intensive logging in rhe 1960s. 

Under the Northwest Fotest Plan, chese areas should be protected from road building and intensive logging. 

For lldJitiontZ/ informlltion: 

Felice Pace, Klamath Forest Alliance 916/467 5405 

10 

26-951 - 96 - 9 
254 

Marking }Or logglllg u11ir botmd,n~· iudi,;uc~ thu log_'!,illg ll'ill tl£·,ur 111 rf,,, 

rttram. (Felice Pace) 

Targ~ud old :51·ou'tl'. (Felice Pace) 

11 
255 

Klamath National Forest 

Location 

Ranger Disrricr 

Happy Camp 

4. Dillon Salvage Sale 

Volume ( mmbfl 

26 

Projecr Acres 

6,529 

Logging Acres 

2,1 76 

Dillon Creek is located about 12 miles northwest of the town of Orleans on the California side of the Siskiyou 

Mountains, in the heart of Wild Siskiyou. 

Impact 

Dillon Creek is one of the most pristine watersheds remaining in California. The Clinton Northwest Forest 

Plan designated Dillon Creek a Key Watershed and established a Late Successional Reserve in the heart of the 

watershed. Iris one of only six streams in California that continues ro supports summer-run stc:elhead. It contains old growth forest habitat that is cricical to increasingly rare forest carnivores, such as Pacific fisher and 

marten. In addition, Dillon Creek is a forest habitat linkage berween the Siskiyou and Marble Mountain 

Wilderness Areas. 

The Forest Service plans ro log as much as 26 million board feet of timber from this drainage including many 

trees char are green and healthy and trees located in Riparian and Late Successional Reserves. Logging is also 

planned in the Dillon Roadless Area. 

"f:he Dillon Timber Sale is being promoted as an emergency measure to avert a "forest health" crisis looming 

from the threat of catastrophic fire. However, data in the Dillon LSR Assessment (LSRA) do nor confirm a 

forest health crisis because there is no pauc:rn of catastrophic fire in the Dillon area. Historic data on fire patterns in the LSRA, shows only 7-8 percent of rhe LSR burned at high intensity and only 4 percent at moderate intensity. The other 88 percent burned at low inrensiry or noc ac ali. These observations do not suggest 

a forest health emergency. lnsread, rhey show fire functioning as a natural and essential part of a healthy foresc ecosystem at Dillon Creek. 

In facr, daca from Dillon Creek suggest thac chere is a scrong correlation becween areas that were once dcarcut. 

and areas that experienced high intensity fire. The evidence suggests that logging increases the intensity of fire 

in an area char otherwise is quite resistant ro high or moderate intensity fire. This is because debris left after 

logging provides fuels and contributes to the intensity of fire. The Dillon sale will probably not generate 

enough revenue to pay for rhe clean up of logging deliris. 

For additional information: 

Felice Pace, Klamath Forest Alliance 916/467 5405 

Ryan Henson, California Wilderness Coalition 916/758 0380 

12 
Location 

Ranger Disrriu 

Salmon R1ver 

256 

I<Jamath National Forest 

5. Taylor Salvage Sale 

Volume ( mmbf) 

12 

Pro1ecr Acres 

987 

Logging Acres 

987 

This sale is in the South Salmon River watershed 8 mile~ norrhwesr of Cr:(ikillc. 

Impact 

The Forest Service is planning ro cur over 12 million board feet of timber from J LJ.re Succe.'ision.Il Resen··~ 

rhar borders the Triniry Alps Wilderness. Some of rhe logging: units \Vill abur the \X/ildcrness J.reJ. According 

to a July 'J, 1996 lener from the Salmon River District Ranger, "The map used during E:\ prep.uarion hali 

mistakenly nor shown this area as invenwried roadies~." In fact, rhe Taylor timber sale willl'nrer rhe Orlcan' 

Roadless Area. The watershed supports numerous sensitive species induding rhe coho salmon J.nd rh~: 

Klamarh Mounrain Province sreelhead - borh proposed rhrearened species. 

For additional information: 

Ryan Henson, California Wilderness Coalition, 916/758 0380 

Paul Spider, Wesrern Ancient Foresr Campaign. 916/758 0380 

DiU.n Crfflt: J-.p. clmr pools ofro/J ,.,.,.,. nmr tbt moutl, tl~mDustm" t!Jis tlrmi importan~t ltl 

anNiro> .. us folwrin. (Anlhony Amt>rose) 

B 
257 

Shasta-Trinity National Forest 

6. West Weaver II Green Timber Sale 

7. West Weaver Thin Green Timber Sale 

Location 

Ranger Districr 

Hayfork 

Volume ( mmbfl 

2.87 

Projecr Acres 

308 

logging Acres 

101 

These sales are located a few miles northwest of the town of Weaverville in the West and East Weaver Creek 

drainages on the edge of the Trinity Alps Wilderness. 

Impact 

These sales along with Weaver I (logged in the fall of 1995) were originally part of one larger sale that was 

planned for 1991 but was delayed because of its impacts on the spotted owL The sale area is on the edge of 

the Trinity Alps Wilderness, and cutting units are proposed right up to the Wilderness boundaty. It is also on 

the edge of the Canyon Creek Key Watershed. Because the older stands in adjacent private ownership have 

already been cur, rhe Forest Service controls rhelasr remaining older stands in rhe area. The Forest Service's 

own specialists have recommended dropping all or portions of units because of their impact on rhe remaining late successional stands, and even suggested retaining as much of this sera! stage as possible because "old 

growth timber is currently nor available at the minimum recommended levels." 

Several old-growth dependent species are located in rhe sale area, including rhe Pacific fisher and northern 

goshawk. There will be a direct impact on these species because of the loss of 45 acres of suitable habitat. In 

the areas where the Forest Service is retaining trees, they are "high-grading" by selecting trees to be cur averaging over rhree feet in diameter and retaining trees averaging one and half feet in diameter. If rhe intent of 

a thinning sale is ro reduce rhe risk of fire, then the agency should be removing rhe smaller undersroty trees 

and maintaining rhe larger canopy trees. Marking in rhe units shows rhe opposite ro be true. 

Finally, the Forest Service claims that riparian reserve widths for the units will vaty from 1 00-200+ feet. The 

flagging in one unit, however, provides a riparian buffer of only 20 feet from rhe flowing water. 

For aelditiona/ information: 

Anthony Ambrose, Citizens for Better Foresrty 

7071677 3018 

In ont unit, tht allt1'tlgt trtt marlttri for rnrntion is 11Hut 

/8" d. b. h .. whik rhr trm ro br Iowa awmg. 38~ n«h tU 

tht 14rgt trtt on tht right. (Anthony Ambrose) 
258 

Shasta-Trinity National Forest l 

~----l_O_._s_u_n-_SI_ip_p_e_r_G_r_ee_n_T_i_m_b_e_r_Sa_l_e _____ j 

Location 

Ranger Disrriu 

Weaverv11ie 

Volume ( mmbfl 

4.5 

ProJeU Acres 

N/A 

Loggmg Acres 

NiA 

This sale is located in the Coffee Creek and Bear Creek drainages approxinurdy 10 milt:s nonh oflrlll t\ 

Center. It lies on the eastern edge of the Trinity Alps Wilderness. 

Impact 

This sale combines the former Sunflower and Slipper sales. The Sunflower logging units .tre \\·cdg~J ber,,·e :n 

the Trinity Alps Wilderness and a Late Successional Reserve. The Slipper units Jre locJ.tl:'d .1long .1 corridor 

that curs five miles inm the wilderness on forest land that \\·as originally J pJ.n of rhe S.tlmon Trinir~· Primiri \.: 

area. The sale involves selective curring on several hundred acres- including manen and Pacitlc ti::,her !1Jltitat - and will log up to the edge of the Wilderness. Connectivity of suitable habitat ;viii be signiticam h· 

reduced. The Environmental Assessments for these sales were completed in 1991 and 1989. respccti,·dy. T 1c 

projects were halted because of the northern spotted owl injunction. This green tree sale has been reoH"<,J 

under P.L. 104-19, the Rescissions Act Logging Rider, to a\·oid public comment and other legal requiremenrs. 

For additional information: 

Ryan Henson, California Wilderness Coalition, 916/758 0380 

Paul Spider, Western Ancient Forest Campaign, 916/758 0380 

Th~ stmui.ttrd; of tb~ Northwt·st fim·st Plmt l,,,.c 

not b«n follll't'ti do_.:t'{J•, tl.• in r/tr_, «U<' nfdt'•lrat ·-

ting into tl ilrt'tll/1 d'.t!lllt'!, I_'{I!Oriug np.rn./11 

mt'rr'r bujfc"'r.··. (Anthony Ambrose) 

17 
259 

Mendocino National Forest 

11. Blands/Steel Salvage Sale 

Location 

Rangtr Distmt 

Covelo 

Volume ( mmbfl 

4 

Project Aerts 

7.000 

Logging Aerts 

N/A 

This sales lies within rhe watershed of rhc Middle Fork of the Eel River, a Key Watershed in rhe Northwest 

Forest Plan. 

Impact 

The Middle Fork Eel River is a Stare and Federal Wild and Scenic River, and home to rhe largest remaining 

population of California's threaccned summer-run sreelhead. These salmon-sized trout wait out the summer 

months in rhe deep pools of the Middle Fork until Fall rains send rhem upstream ro spawn. Their survival 

depends on clear cold warer entering rhe Middle Fork from irs rriburaries rhroughour rhe summer. This 

warershed is known for irs sreep, unstable slopes and erosive soils which have been highly degraded by decades 

oflogging and road building. Irs "hummocky ropography, sreep bare rock faces are indicative oflandslides or 

debris slides ... [and] reflect the extreme inmbiliry of the slopes of the Middle Fork Eel River" (Summer 

Sreelhead Management Plan, Pg. 14). In facr, the Middle Fork's yield of suspended sedimenr per square mile 

is already fifteen rimes char of rhe Mississippi River (ibid). Under rhe Wild and Scenic River Act, the Forat 

Service has a legal mandare co ensure r<covery and protection of the Middle Fork Eel's dwindling fishery. 

Despite evidence char logging steep, unstable and fragile soils within this watershed would cause increased 

sedimenrarion and furrher loss of fish habirac, rhe Blands/Sreel salvage sale proposes logging sca[(ered over 

7,000 acres. 

The proposed salvage sale would include rhc construction of new roads in the heart of chis canyon. These 

roads would provide grc~arer human access to otherwise inaccessible arca.s where rhc srcdhead have rhus far 

found refuge from poaching rings. The summer-run steelhead are nor rhe only species rhrearened by this timber sale. Rarher chan protecting rhe upland habirar r<serves for old-growth dependent species, rhe sale proposes to cut the r<maining old-growth rrees rhroughout rhe pro jeer ar<a. Of particular concern is logging of 

old rrees near or within Prorecred Activiry Centers for the northern spo"ed owl. 

For additioN~/ information: 

Don Morris, Willies Environmenral Center, 707/459 4715 

Ryan Henson, California Wilderness Coalirion, 9161758 0380 

18 
260 

Mendocino National Forest J 

1 Z. Kop/Gibson Green Timber Sale c.______ __ 

Location 

Ranger District 

Sronyfcrd 

Volume ( mmbfl 

6 

ProJect Acres 

722 

logging Acres 

N/A 

This sale is located in the heodw.lters of the Eel River, due west at the town of Elk Creek. and be<ween 

Willows and Covelo. 

Impact 

According to the recently released Environmental Assessment, Kop/Gibson will violate the Northwest F•lrest 

Plan's Standards and Guidelines for unmapped Late Successional Reserves by removing 158 acres of suitable 

spotted owl habitat from all ten unmapped LSRs within the sale area. The EA further admits that "[t]he habitat of the spotted owl, goshawk, marten, fisher, and pileated woodpecker is narurally fragmented on the 

Mendocino National Foresr. The habitats have been further fragmented from pur timber harvesting on ·)oth 

public and private lands. The combination of the Kop, Gibson and the Flat Timber Sales will cause 1nore 

fragmentation of these species habitat. • This rimber sale should nor be allowed ro further fragment known 

spotted ow! nesting areu in light of rhe Upper Main Eel Watershed Analysis' conclusion that Northern 'pot· 

ted owls in the area are suffering from "a downward population trend or alack of habitat." The Forest Se:vice 

hu failed to consider the adverse cumulative and secondary effects of the Kop/Gibson timber sale. 

For aJJitional infornuttion: 

Don Morris, Willits Environmental Center, 707/459 4715 

19 
261 

Mendocino National Forest 

13. Coyote Salvage Sale 

Location 

Ranger DtstriCt 

Covelo 

Volume ( mmbfl 

N/A 

ProJect Acres 

N/A 

This sale is approximard.v 15 air miles sourheasr of Co\'elo. 

Impact 

loggtng Acres 

N!A 

The Coyote sale will remove approximarely 400 thousand board feet of windrhrow s~lug;e in a Lire 

Succesional Reserve of a Key Watershed. Natural forests need insects, disease. and dead and dying trees robe 

whole and "healthy". The dead trees are targeted by micro-organisms that quick!~· begin to reduce rhe rrees 

ro rheir basic elements, providing nuttienrs to the soil. By exporting all the dead and dring trees from the torest, the Forest Service is compromising the fertility of rhe system. 

The Forest Service intends to remove windthrow trees that have fallen on roads. However. one of the management goals of Key Watersheds is to close existing roads. To this end. fallen trees are beneticial. Fallen trees 

should nor be considered as salvage but rather as material needed for watershed restoration. 

For aJJitiona/ information: 

Don Morris, Willits Environmental Center, 707/459 4715 

Ryan Henson. California Wilderness Coalition, 916/758 0380 

Bm't' Umdsctlpt rtnutilling aftrr 11 iflll•ttgt Joggi11g tJfJI'rlliiOn. (Antt'\cny Amtlrose) 

10 
Location 

Ranger DIStrict 

Eagle Lake 

262 

Lassen National Forest 

16. Hamilton Salvage Sale 

17. Too Flat Salvage Sale 

Volume ( mmbf I 

17-27 

Project Acres 

19.200 

logging Acres 

9.800 

The Hamilton is located south of Highway 36, approximarely six miles sourhwesr of Susanville. The Too Flar 

is located four miles sourhwesr of Susanville. 

Impact 

The scoping document for these two sales states that four Spotted Owl Habitat Areas (SOHAs), two 

Protected Activity Centers (PACs) for spotted owl, and five Goshawk Management Areas (GMAs) will be 

logged. Within these habitat areas alone, the salvage project calls for the following intensive silvicultural treatments: 5,100 acres of salvage logging, 1,197 acres of biomass-thinning, 939 acres of hand thinning and grapple piling, and construction of an undisclosed number of new roads. 

These areas conStitute some of the last remaining habitat for these sensitive species. These sales violate existing Forest Service guidelines (CASPO interim direction) which permit only "light fuels management activities" within SO HAs and PACs and only one commercial entry during the interim period. These activities are 

not "light" and the seeping letter indicates that portions of the project area have already been salvaged within the interim period. In addition, by implementing draft direction from the California Spotted Owl Draft 

EIS, these sales violate requirements of NEPA which prohibit implementing draft direction. 

Not only do these sales threaten critical habitat for several sensitive species but they also threaten a key dispersal corridor for forest carnivores in the northern Sierra. The Hamilton-Fredonyer ridge system, within the 

project area, has been identified by Forest Service furbearer expertS as a key habitat link. Maintaining the 

habitat quality of this area is key to its continued usc by these species. In turn, it is only by maintaining connections among subpopulations that the long-term viability of these populations can be protected. 

For additional information: 

Linda Blum, Quincy Library Group, 916/283 1230 

2l 
263 

lassen National Forest 

19. Butt Creek Management Area, Part II, 

Ruffa and lost lake Compartments Green Timber Sales 

Location 

Ranger Distriu 

Alma nor 

Volume (mmbf) 

55 

Project Acres 

N/A 

These sales are [ocared adjacent to che Burt Mountain Roadless Area. 

Impact 

logging Acres 

N/A 

The Butt Creek II activities have illegally been placed under the jurisdiction of P.L. 104·19. The Forest 

Service admitted that this is a green sale in an April 3, 1996 letter from the Dimict Ranger stating that the 

sale will log "11.2 million board feet of green timber and chips on I ,760 acres." Not only are the.e green tree 

sales, but they were parr of the ten-year green tree sale program prior to P.L. 104·19: On page 7, under 

"C. Purpose and Need", the Burr Creek II E.A acknowledges that the Burr Creek Management Area, Part II, 

proposed action is an implementation of the Forest Plan and a continuation of earlier planning dfons. 

Also of major concern is the Ruffa analysis area's incunion into the Burt Mountain released roadless area. The 

Burr Mounrain Roadless Area was designated a Further Planning Area under R.A.R.E. II. According to 

NFMA implementing regulations, all first entries into roadiCJS areas must be addressed in an EIS that assC55-

es the potential wilderness, wildlife, aesthetic, and other values of preserving the roadiCJS area. 

A key issue is how these sales affect the Quincy Library Group, a unique community-consensus process 

involving environmentalists and people working in the timber industry. These sales violate the Quincy 

Library Group's off-timber base designation by entering a roadless area. This violation undermines the 

progress the Group has made in resolving issues affecting the Lassen National Forest. 

The biological evaluation that was prepared for this project dearly shows that wildlife habitat of specie. that 

the Forest Service recognizes as sensitive, such as goshawk, great gray owls, and furbearers, will be altered. It 

also suggem that six California spotted owl sites may be adversly affected. In addition, 4.8 miles of new roads 

will be constructed. 

For atlditional information: 

Linda Blum, Quincy Library Group, 916/283 1230 

l'i 
Location 

Ranger Distri<t 

S1erraville 

264 

Tahoe National Forest 

21. Treasure Salvage Sale 

Volume ( mmbfl 

20 

ProJe<f Acres 

22.880 

logging Acres 

14.180 

Th1s sale is located approximately rwo miles sourheasr of Sierraville. 

Impact 

According w a scoping letter, daccd January 23, 1996, by rhe Disrrict Ranger, "[c)urrcndy approximatdy 

25% of the timber in the analysis area is dead or dying." This means that the vast majority of trees logg:d 

will bt: live, green trees. 

Of great concern is the prescribed logging in a streamside management zone {SMZ). Forest Service regu . .ations require a !50 foor buffer to be maintained along all perennial streams. This project prescribes loggio.g 

36 acres in the Rice Creek SMZ. The Forest Service claims chat the concentration of dead and dying trees in 

rhe SMZ justifies chis highly experimenral approach co fue risk reduction. However, rhe reducrion of present 

shading rhrough logging would likely increase rhe fire risk. In addition, logging would greatly jeopardize the 

other important benefits provided by dead and dying trees in riparian areas, including reducing blowdown, 

buffering micro-climates, and providing habirars in the form of down wood. 

The Treasure Sale also includes over 27 miles of permanent road consrrucrion in a warershed that is already 

heavily roaded. 

For additional information: 

James Woods, Sierra Club, 916/273 3793 

11 
Location 

265 

Stanislaus National Forest 

23. Irish Salvage Sale 

Ranger District 

Calaveras 

2 4. Cupid Salvage Sale 

2 5. O'Manuel Salvage Sale 

Volume I mmbfl 

6.5 

Project Aerts 

2.980 

logging Acres 

2.200 

These sales are just north of Highway 4 and near the towns of Arnold and Hathway Pines. 

Impact 

Sales on the Stanislaus confh·m that the Forest Service is focusing on green, thinning sales in the absence of" dead and 

dying" timber 10 cut. According to Groveland Dimict timber management officer, Jack Myrick, the Fozat Service has 

condensed their regular green sale program for the next five into an 18 month period to take adwntagc of the funding available under PL 104-19. 

Thes;: three sales on the Calaveras Disuict are significant because each one is essentially a • green tree" sale. Aa:onling 

to district staff team leader, Carolyn Madden, mere is almost no • dead and dying" componeot in these sales since the 

area has already been salvaged. While the stared purpose of me sale is to reduce me fire risk in the wban-runl interface by lhinning out trees from 2,200 acres, the sales also includes 440 acres of clcarcuts. Clcarcuts have no known 

fire risk reduction purpose: in fact, the regeneration of dense even-age stands that occurs on dcan:uu dnstically 

increases fire risk. 

In addition to clcarcurs, the 8.8 miles of new road are a tremendous concern. Numerous hydrologists and geologists 

have demonstrated that new road construction has a significant negative impact on watet quality and the ovcnll habitat wluc of clownhillsaeams. Salmoniclspccies need dear saeams to spawn, and road building in the uplanda increases sedimentation in these streams. It does not appear lhe Forest Service has adequately assessed the impacts of tbese 

additional roads on nearby &~reams. Funhermore, !his road building will add to me existing impacts of~ of agreslive salvage logging in the area. 

These sales prescribe logging 119 acres in three Spo11ed Owl Protected Activity Centen and one goshawk territory. 

Underburning is highly eft'cctive at reducing lilelloads, but has far milder impacrs on wildlife !han logging prescriptions. The Forest Service has not tried to lhin tbese &lands wilh a series of low intensity prescribed burnings. Allowing 

the Forcsr Service to reduce!Uds through thiMing opens the door to logging of me wluablc larger trees. 

For aJJitional information: 

Peter Bell, Foothill Conservancy, 209/296 5734 

29 
266 

Sequoia National Forest ] 

17. Red Helicopter Salvage Sale '------

Location 

Ranger Oislml 

Tule 

Volume ( mmbf I 

15 

ProJeCI Acres 

N/A 

The sale includes areas adjacem ro rhe Slare Mountain Roadless Area. 

Impact 

logging Acres 

N/A 

The Sequoia National Forest is not experiencing a "fore:.,r h~alrh" crisis. In tJcr. rhis Fore.<.t like mhas in 

California has had a significant salvage program for years. The pre-Resci.<.sions Act salvage progrJm h.ts produced so much salvage rhar there are few if an~· dead Jnd dying tree~ let[. Arthur Caffrey. rhc For.· ... r 

Supervisor, in an April 12th address co the Society of American Foresters stJted rhar "[a]r prcsem, neither r ll:" 

Sequoia or Sierra National Forests have a significaiH amount of dead trees". ~'irhout dead tree~ m ~.:uL rhi~ 

Foresr like others has rurned ro cutting green rrees wirh all rhe impunity provided by PL 104-1 9. 

PL 104-19 was promoted as a strategy for improving forest health by reducing the risk of catastrophic ti•·e. 

Residual fuels after logging acrivicies often exceed rhe Jmounr of natural fuels presenr betOre (he sJiv,lgt' (ht:!Cfore increasing the fire risk. Logging on the Red Helicopter site will leave a dangerous level of slash and fuds 

at the sire over a ten year period. Thus, rhe manner in which the rhir.ning of green trees is planned will probably increase the risk of fire. 

For additional information: 

Carla Cloer, Sequoia Alliance. 209/781 8445 

Ray West. Tule River Conservancy. 209/542 2203 

H 
267 

IV. Salvage Sales Under the Logging Rider 

in California for FY 1996 

forest Otslrlcf 

Amador 

Georgetown 

PaCJflc 

Placerv1lle 

Goose nest 

Happy C.mp 

OM Knoll 

Sale Name 

N W. Road Danger Tree Salvage 

Road Danger Tree IS 

S.E. Road Danger Tree Salvage 

Clemenrme Salvage T.S. 

Monkey Soy Fore Salvage T5. 

Umon Blues Fore" Htalrh SA 

BMW Salvage TS. SSTS 

Cullagam Roads1de Hazard Tree 

lmcoln log Multiproduct Thm 

Lillie Mrddle Thrnmng T.S. 

Micesr1ck Road Mamrenance Salvage 

Phenom Slowdown Salvage 

Snaggleroorh Hazard Tree Salvage 

For•" Tot•l Numbor I J 

46NIO Roadside Hazard 

Saord Surldrng and lmt<t Salvaee 

Bas1n Heli Insect Salvage 

Clean·Up Salvag• 

Dav1s Slowdown Salvage 

Deer Mtn East Insect Salvage!Thtn 

Deer Mrn Wesr Jmecr Salvagt/Thrn 

Devrls 

Duck Slowdown SSTS 

Aat Slowdown Salvage 

Herd lmtct Salvae• 

Louit ln<t<t SSTS 

Mountain Slowdown SSTS 

Nonh Garnor lmt<t Salvage 

Soction l2 Insect Salvage 

Wtndy SSTS 

W. Haight Slowdown SSTS 

Elbow Heli Salvqt 

Beaver Hell Sanlratton 

Planntd 

lmmbfl 

1.000 

usa 

1000 

lSOO 

SOD 

!.SOD 

4.000 

uoo 

1.700 

;oo 

16.050 

626 

250 

1.000 

1.000 

1.000 

500 

5.600 

usa 

Offerod 

(mmbfl 

917 

2l4 

1.900 

5.07! 

2.000 

770 

66 

IS 

417 

140 

72 

509 

1.156 

151 

177 

JJ 
268 

Forts I D1stncr Sal~ Namt Planned Offrrod 

(mmbfl (mmbfl 

Lassen Hat Creek Cralor W1ndrhrow Salvage SSTS zoo Esk•mo W1ndthrow Salvage SS-TS Z.OOO 

Nonhface Insect Salvage 5.064 

Raker Wmdrhrow Satvage 100 

Srmlokr Salvage 4.000 

Splauer Hazard Salvage IZ6 

TWJhghr lnsett SSTS Z49 

T wm Salvage 100 

WilcOX 4.000 

Forrsr Tor•l Numbtr 32 H.766 11.611 

Mendocmo Stonyford East S•de Hrsc Forest Products 181 

East Sode I RB. Salvage) 1.500 

Upptr l.akt W.$. Milt Fomt Producll 119 

Forest Total Numller 1 l.lll 

~ Warner Mrn Bolen Sal•• 1.500 

Bowmen SaiYeee 1l.l80 

Larry Flat Salvace 500 

Plyne 12.000 

Shields Salvage 14.280 

Shinn Sal•'l' 2.000 

Forest Total Numller 6 11.000 25.460 

Plumas Brckwounh Saaley Twin 66 

BlaktltSI Mulri·Product Thin 1.500 

Buck Thin Multi-Product 3.000 

Carmen MulrH'roduct uoo Crock Mulri.,duct Thin 4.000 

Davis Cull I 72 

Davis Culll 84 

Davis Culll 51 

Dude Roachide ltaurd SSTS 52 

Oorre Cull Lot Deck A 81 

Dorre Cull Lot Deck E 19 

Done Cull Lot Deck F 180 

Dona Cull Lot Deck 6 8 

Dona Cull Lot Deck H 54 

Dona Cull Lot Deck J 181 

1"i 
269 

Fonst D1stnct Salt Name Planntd Offerod 

lmmbfl lmmbfl 

Shasta-Tnm!}' 81g Bar Bog Hazard SSTS 916 

Small Salvage 915 

Hayfork FY 96 Small Sales 2.600 

01' Spanky Oee Salvage 175 

McCloud Flaternapancak 775 

Lookout 4.460 

MCAO 615 

Pilgnm B1omass 6.014 

Weaverv11le Small Salvage 9 6 ShaSia 141 

Small Salvage 96 Tnnny 271 

Yolla Bolla Small Sales FY 96 1.600 

Forest Total Numbor 11 7.711 11.21S 

~!frrj Kings RIVer 10518 7.000 

Bie Fir Hazard 252 

Dinkey Hazard 126 

Hoffman Slowdown 200 

Mariposa Cold Toxas Hazard 696 

Fishhook Salvage 6 

Happy FISh Hazard 70 

Mudge Hazard Timber Sale 20 

Raymond Slowdown 76 

Rush HOO 

Minarets lsbere Hazard Fuelwood 80 

Pack Hazard Fuelwood 40 

Planned Salvage Mise 1.015 

Portugeuse Hazard 222 

Strawbeny 2.220 

Upper Chiquno 40 

Pine R•dee 811 Creek Complexes 1.500 

Billy Creek Hazard 180 

Black Crook Thinni"'l 1.500 

Camp Siorra DFPZ 1.000 

Dowville Thinning 1.500 

Garden Hazard 669 

Hook Hazard 420 

Jose Sourh Thinni"'l 215 

Market Hazard 160 

Sample Meadow LP 500 

Foresr Total Number 26 20.977 1.110 

17 
270 

V. Option 9 Green Sales in California for FY 1996 

Klamarh 

Mendocino 

Bum NJCkel TS 

Dog Haor Thm 

Buckshon Thm 

Windy Ttmber Sale 

Canon Ttmber Sale 

Lick Heh 

Poker N9 2 Ttmber Sale 

Deadrun Heli 

Greenm11l 

South Fork Thinntng 

Nonh Zone 

Pot and Cabbage 

Small Diamater 

Total Green Sales 

Telephone Pole Ttmber 

Aat 

Oivtde Aneer 

Salt Loe 

Town 

Ice/Powell 

Gulch 

Rocky Top 

Ivory 

Cold Chimney 

Ruppen 

Saddle 

Helicopter 

Howes Oak 

Logan/Cherry Hill 

Sha~ra-Triniry 

Six Riven 

Papoose Thtn 

Hobeeb 

Halls U 

Mop 

Barnes Hazard 

Elk Gulch II 

West Weaver U 

Sun-Shpper Heli 

DiVide 

Misery 

Butter Creek Thm 

Station Thm 

Kinsbuty 

Horse 

Sea Bas1n 

TWix Thinning 

Deadwood 

Forest-wide Precommertial Thinning 

Van Hom Thinnings 

Honey II 

Coparrum Thinning 

Hazel Thtnning 

19 
271 

Protected Activity Center (PAC) - C.1lifornia sparred owl protected Jcriviry cenras an: 300 Jere blocks of 

habitat that are accepted J.s rhe most suitable habitat of wh.n is J.VJ.i!J.ble surrounding ~purred ow!s found 

outside of SO HAs in Sierra national forests. 

Regeneracion harvest -Timber harvest cOnducted with rhe partial objective of opening a forest srand m rhe 

point where favored uee species will be reestablished. 

Riparian area - A geographic area containing an aquatic ecosystem and adjacent upland areas that directly 

affect it. 

Riparian Reserves - Designated riparian areas found outside the Late-Successional Reserves. 

Spotted Owl Habitat Area (SOHA) -An area reserved from timber harvesting to prO\·ide forest habirar for 

one pair of spotted owls. 

Watershed -The drainage basin contributing water, organic matter, dissolved nutrients, and sediments to a 

stream or lake. 

Wild and Scenic River System - Those rivers or sections of rivers designated as such by Congressional 

action under the Wild and Scenic River Acr (Public Law 90-542). Each designated river may be classilied 

and administered under one or more of the following eategories: 

I. Wild River Areas - Those rivers or sections of rivers rhar are free of impoundments and generally 

inaccessible except by trail, with watersheds or shorelines essentially primitive and wacers unpolluted. 

These represent vestiges of primitive America. 

2. Scenic River Areas - Those rivers or sections of rivers that are free of impoundmenrs with watersheds 

still largely primitive and shorelines largely undeveloped, but accessible in places by roads. 

Wilderness - Areas designated by Congressional action under the 1964 Wilderness Acr. Wilderness is 

defined as undeveloped federal land retaining its primeval character and influence without permanent 

improvements or human habitation. Wilderness areas are protected and managed to preserve their natural 

conditions, which generally appear to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint 

of human activity substantially unnoticeable. 

41 
272 

av~ For Wildness and Diversity --~in rhe Pacific .\'orthwest 

NORTHWEST \~OSYSTEM lllLIANCE 

IMPACTS OF THE RIDER ON THE NORTHWEST FOREST PLAN 

Since the p<Wage of the Cloor<ul Rido:r(PL 104-19), <M Gifford Pinchal Nati"""l Forcotlw prcpared a numbot or· 

environmentally dcsttuc:tive timber sales th.at do twl JJtCC{ the I~ requiremenu of the Nonhwest Farcst Plan. Fur 

cxomple, of the 20 sol"" P"-i>orcd unc!et the Rider, 13 oecur ~tdw> K<y Wa"">h..Js- =reo. desi11J1>!<4 tc protc.."t 

.. -quality and impor!.lllllisbe:ies. F..., oflh ... ..Jcs """'Fcm:sl PlourequiremcnlS tc ··.,.W,t:Un c<i.stmg 

conditions or unploetnent actions to restcre ~uoru·· in Key WawrshW. In U...-t. the Forest Scrvt" aclr:nowlcd&~.;:~ 

lhat lOB&ing azul road buildin& ...oci3Wd -.ith - ,.les will <ause m.:n:ascd '"--dimcntltion. - peak Oows. >nd 

othar clcll"'dotion tc «rc:uus azul fish hahiw. In otlu:r ,;alc:o. F_.. Plan requirem<~us tc m4intain v.11dli!e habil.ll on:. 

DOt bcinJ 1210L Problems with the Gi.!Tord Pincho< S>!c procnm are detailed below. If Y"" ba"' ""Y q....Uons, or 

would lilce additional infonnation, cil.lti- or dccumenl.ltion, plase feel fra: Ia <0111a1:t Dave WemtZ at 3601611-

99SO, ext 14 

Walupl Cispu• dmber tale (doclsloa aodce siJ:Ded July 1): . 

The Wllupl timber sale .. ,II CUI over 6 lllilliOB boer!l r .. ~ includin; ovor. nundrud "'""of ol<l-11'0~ &om the 

Ciopua Adapli •• Manaaemc:nl Area. Located jllSI oouide the Gaol R..U W'alderuess.llle sale area c....W ....., or . die lui cla"ic olc!-aro"'lh in die onli.re wa1enbo:d. Tlu:. di....., ~~ttr•y of-laruls, rod: outcrops, talus olopa, and 

IIICiCIII foresu in die area provides babiLollOr spoiled owis, grizzly bem, wo.IY<:»,_lyt!X, ""'lvoriu<, tisller, aeeh&~>1c 

llld z" o111tt speciu ~ludina 11 n.. llllder dla l!ndaoptal Sp:cia ""'· Ill qddilioG "' violozias lha NcrlbF-Plan IIIII Aqllltk c_.,atioa Suarqy by Cllllias old-lfOWih ""' llrCIIII-side fcnsts. the Waluptlimllor solo 'Wii!IXIilpale spaa.d owl:! 111101 will a4wrN!y impocliiOIIItlna ,..._"b. · 20135 timber .. ~ (daclsl ... ..Oilee slpod July 12): . 

The 20/35 limllcr Olio -l'fOPOIU tc CUI noorly 11 milliiMI beonl fft& 0-4116 ams wilbiB tho: Cilpuoo A.dapDV .. 

MaaapmlniAtca andl(.y Wo!C'Obad. Applyq typio:olly ...,;oluted logic. the Forac Senice'pnlpOICIIloaiD& 

· lllillblo O"Ni liabital "' ....., owl babi101. Tlu:.lllo u propoocd wiD dellroy,_ babiw........,. fllr 1M · 

sumval of four o..-1 poirs, adYONO!y impocl lllo: hl.iliolilber, dqrada imponllllsaam-sidc ran.c. Gllllf.oep llid 

UIISIIllle ilopea. and in<:use roac!-rslaleil oedimen< rc ......,._ ibis ale is 0111 oc._u.nCo wid\ die~ 

Forest Plan and d-. not,.... tile requlrOIIllllll o!lbo Aquatio: c....,..aan Straro;y. . 

Llldo Wblto DEMO limber salio (d..Uloa ao~ce •iCned Mly IS): 

The Lit!le While DEMO timber sale cuu """" lival 7.l iniUion bootd (101 of olc!-growdl fdrat &om Lbc Lillie Wliirc 

Sellllan lC.:y Watcnlled.. "Ill< sale alto CUIO C-01 dim:lly Jiou1 S<llliliveOiream·•ide ll- clclfOCic» watCr 'l"'liiJ' ill 

liallbe:srinl-01111. elbniaaw two 'I'Ollo:d owl....,,, -wrue and :lllllilivo plut ...t v.11dli!c popalatioas, 

· lllld si;nillwWy fill..,..,,. ....UD~~& of lilt Lillie H~~<ldoborey Moowoill ....u .. ,...,. •·RAKE D). tM LiDia 

Hw:ldebo:ny MounOiin IOOdleu • ..., located odjaccu ,.; 1 30,UOO ICN !.aYII:Ieds/Red MauD~ Cnok raodlea 

.,.. oamplex, conralns ... io!tlw lorpsc ~....,. aCI-mccm-1 JOreasill lbe •• 111-'IY lllch OGII<CIInli= or-pilzlll. p1111t ...,..;aa. ,_;g.,.. pilllto,""" _,:-a~~ 'l)llo ....a-_ 

pmda imporlllll habiw for endaaprecl pizzly bar, wo1t; ..,.Uwt. spocrcc1 awl, pengrial raicaa, lllll-' 

lll!pbibi.ltl pepuliliouo. "filii ale cloa DGI -!be .....,_lioG olojocliYII of the Nordl-FOrlll PloD or tile . 

Aq1llllo CaalarYIIIaA S'!"~IY· . . 

J ... la' timber sale (00!""'""' period ~ded Aprll10,·dociJioa upeCiedj: , The 1UJJJJ>bi limbo:r sale alto l'fGIICIUO 14 los up 10 1.3 milliao beonl feel a- 416 ..... or lllc Littlo Hucldebtny 

. MooiiOiin (non-RAKE II) roodiao F"" (see ~YI~ ~ dis FOH<IC ~ lDtonds Ia cut oid-paytllllilmot in 

~ .. bull'm aloaalftlllll iA u.: raac11oa ara,lbt Jllllllllm'limbor ale wiU likoly hove clnmalk cooJoaiee1 

lmpocll. The sole - coa..U.. 11cop, IIUSI&ble ...., OIICI sooloiical n-ds dw ueiUIOOpliblc 10 =--a-t·· ~debris ltowslmd w.lolidcs. lA lbislicvily over<~~~~ dle IOOdl ... - proVida..., oCtile 0111)' 

.._or 

~ 

dam, ~-lin...,. tiu:t...W.. .. a ... cuu1va11 aaut populoliollol. n... ,_ SerYicc • 

lhl& d10 Janwin' timbor salo wW "iao:n:ao ,......Wy eL..-scdiull!l1lowll andllrier depde 

poor clluaolcondilieu" ucl !bat WaiAIDD 110cp olopeo wW illcrtuelllll-o!l'andcaue '11iib'!" peak !lows....., 

~ 

cumotly OCCIII'." Tllkina l\&llllllv~ tla: illipcllliou of cnvva.-.11111\0s; die For1111 s.n; .. 11 disropnliaa 

tc ....w.iA hiah wat« qllllicy, praco~o uotive .-111101 ~i""- ""'....;.. impociiiD raodlea 

uao --Ibm 1000 -. ,.. pmpoood, lbiiiOlo daa ""'.,...lllc·Nanhwcol F ..... Pbol's AquatiC 

Coaiervalion Smuqy. . . . · · ' . . 

(360) 671·9950 r.~x (360) 671·8429 

Suite 316.1155 N. State St,,"Bellingham, WA 98225 ~HlL P.O. Box 2813. Bellingham, WA 98227·2813 
273 

Lcd.ceberr;· timb~r ul~ (I A comm.eol dndJiac ~!::lrch 26. Ucct,IOD r:~pccrcd}: 

Tbe Lod;,cbcrr;. t: .. :nber We propo$Cs bw.i~ 1.4 nul~ of uew COHd. and Ioggins 3.6 1nillion Ooc:<! ieet fro:!l Jl9 

acres of the 7,600 acre Hor:tesho.e Rer.a4less Ale3. 3.D.d the 1,200 xre South Mi4'\J,':l~· Roadla.i Are.a •dJ!'Ctlt to the Mt. 

Ad&m.s Wi.Jdemeu Disrcgarciia; the !act that the C-iii'lZd ~Forest YLan 51)-::i '!early aDd ptaml~ d\at .. 't:.:nbcr 

harvest is not to :e s.c.heduled in these arw." the fo~ Sll!f'lict: plans fO fr.sg::nent De.U'ly t',\.1) thousaod. sae:. of RARE a 

Roadl.~ Area ~,~.,th thu !.t.'Tlb.::r st.!c=. Iu 1990, a te&:.l arun ruled that roodlcss •eas ·~'\de a r.aoc:u.Kl)' to ant."':'.a.l and 

plmlt sp:c:ies most sensitive to human d.is~ IJld tb.1l proJa:t.o: plaDno::t in~ Cl::ll.S mlat br.: <mlli)ud m mElS. 

No EIS is plazmed for this sale. As propcood, l!>is sole docs"" 111001 the >I3Ddord< ond guioldines ofth. Gilford Pinclu>t 

FaatPbn. 

Me Too rila.ber sale (EA. commeat dndUD.c Ja.ael7, decisio.a. axpccccd): 

Th& Wind River~"' Dismct p!IW to cut =ely 7 milli"" board r ... ODd 0 .... 200""""' o( old-jT'Owth from the 

WLII4 Ri•·er ~ W&~mhed. A:> proposol, the sale Will ¥tOI.1r< North"""' Forest Pl.m pcovision• to pr<>tc<:t oldgrowth b.a:bit.at fc.:wres. 1.1."1!dands, wua- qu.ilit)·. and sc.sniv.: and cncfac&ereC ~a. I'M: Forest Service in.tauis lO 

cut old-growth on wlNhlc slopes. compxt !CUSiti'" JOi!J, 3l1d ,......,. scdim<n~ to Stteoms. Surveys for the 

Lor<h Moun!.'lin salamaoda oud groat P"Y owl ....,e not oo.lducle:l .. Nq1lircd ~Y tlw P!Jn. As proposed this K!e 

does not mc:et the re:quiranents of the Northwest for¢51 Ptan or the Aquatic C0Jl$¢1"'14tion Strdlii:JY. 

Par-dite Hill• DE)fO timber sale (deci.Jioa sf&ned Ju.o.t 26): 

1'ha Paradise Hill DEMO timber sole ....;H log ac::uly 4 m.i!J.i.c.;u board fett of old·JfO"''th fore1L fro111 118 a~:i o( the 

Lc...;s Ri"'er Kc)' Watersbm . .rMspite provisions in the North.,.,·~~ Fort::il PLan to prot~:a Wltet qWlhty in the 

watenhcd, the :t.J.!e wtil cut $ellsiti<r·c str¢Am·sid.e fordt and lna'QI:S¢ xUUnent and taape:rature lc\cb. The Foret 

Service acknowlc;diCS tltoe s.tl~ will elhuin.at£ t""'O sponed owl areas.. and cdvcr:<,.o:ly impac.t:i stn:s:itiv,e and codar.aered. 

plaot speclC:J and. h.ibtllliL This sale: docs act meet~ CQO..SoefVltian !Jbjcctivu of \he North'·''est Farcst Plan or the 

. ~c Conserv«.tion Strat£gy 

Biaa. Dl!.MO timber solo-(doclsloa s!pod Marcllll): . . 

The Butte DEMO timl>:r sale will lac ova two million board fcotliam 118 ocra alt!tc Cispus Adaptive 

Man&a•"""" Atco. The Fora< Service od:Dowlcdps dill th. sal.: will destroy two norWn> aoshoWI: nem. habiw 

Car sensitive md end.an!ucd plants, md cut t'orests &1cm& stre:ms. This sale (o.ils to meet the~ objectives 

aC<Iw NonJtW<St fo=t !'l.la. 

Louie/Roscy timber ufe (dcc:itiOD llOQce t~cd May b): 

The Louic/Roscy timber sale v.ill cut4.4 million board feet from 159 aa"C:$ of Ute lewis Riv~ }(~· Watc:rshcd. 

Altlwu;b Key Watersheds""' intcod.cd to p:ovidc hiJh.....,. quality and Ill< Forest Scmoc a<latowlcdfes existing 

tcdiment problem> in Ill• we .,,., the J,QUlciRoscy timber K!c EA wicipotes that pr<>poscd !~gina ond road 

building Wlll aiU# an '".inc:rease in sedimcnr. that U delivm:d to sueams adjlltC:Dt tD and. dowiutrcam ri"Cm the rOttd 

systaru" and could potcntislly ~eacuv"'cc the L.rte (slope) zhliure" in the sale are.a... The: ember sale ah:o c:nploys 

log;ini technique. that""' expected to ause "inc:teaxd bW: and chanocl aosiO. ond the ultimato clclivc:y of more 

tcdimcnt" to <tr=s in the Lewis Riva. A> proposul. ool)'twoofthe llinocuning aoits comply wir.b r.bc Northwest 

F.orest Pltw.' .s Aquauc Couservuion Stntea)'. E••m thci¢ ~'0 Lmits uc our of c:oxnpliaDCC with the Gitrord Pindlot 

FO<OSIP!Jn. 

c;....,bol"'l timber ••lo (!A. comment ct..oiltu May 6; d..Uiooo e~: 

The Gnonhom timber' we - to ID: tbc q.,. '-" from within • tOr.o-succasiU<lB! r=rv• ond within t.uren iDr.t:tulcd to protcc< nream-sidc fot"CSU. The solo will dcm'oy impoiWtt disponal habiw far spott=J o-..ts ...t or.b..-

_l&te-cucccs.ionat "'""iota! spccio, ..a Yi<>tlla tbc N-Forest Plan by cuttiJlg (cnsu older tlwliO yan old. 

As proposed, this sale. docs not moot tbe Nortbwal F= t'l.on ot tho AquQtic COt1S<rlatiott S<rm;y. 

Middle Fork timber &ale (d.•cbiYA aoda sJp.d .JulyS): 

The Mid.dle Fork umber sale is planned in tbc drutia.lly ovcr ..... "Ut K.a.lama River 'IWitershed.. Dwma the v.i.zlter :~tutm 

C\'ICDtl of 1996, .c\.ltthrQu &lld ttoclhead trout b.ablw in the K.al.aa:w Ri\'cr "'ali sttbJo:tai ro hi&h ammmts of 

s:edimc:ato.tion from numerous landdida and debris toJtmlS. . Oc:l:pite f\ill prota:tion ·of stream.. side forests, the FS 

!Ult<rics biologist conclude<l tlu.t th. Middle Forie K!c -u.J <D>ISC ·~ riJk of advcrx stream etfccts ..a ~del&)'$ m .........._,_ .• Thialllo---•~.cm.GilliftPillotloci- PIIII. . . . . . . . . . . . 
GP09StJM.XLS 

,Gilfonll'inc:l10t Narional Forat 

:rudcr5akJ 

:t.rG1111alio11 r.mpilrd •1 Nortll1RII lr.cnyatml Allleace 

rttodh ~"''ra:t Salt IC.rne !.U! !I!!!!! I '-kAtb,rK Lille-..,IJF.MO 

-· '* ..... ) Ut.Ad .. tt .._ ....... .... MI. Albn11 FAil ........ .... .... Aro ...... .......... ,_ BA_.... 

~k t\11111 ... ,.,... ... v .. -........ '"'' ,w...u Gripe ....... .DN._.w M• s. 11.- · r....m. m11t DDto 

- ONoi.,..t 

Wt.$t lk-lft. MOidleFN\ ...... ON ...... 

Ml. 81. Jklni!l a...;.,~R-.y 

- DHoipod 

~h5t.lld<no o;.., ~- EA ....... 

Ul St.Jkle• c.n,...l- c..w. 1!1\_,..... 

, ..... "__. w ..... cu,.., -Milt DNoi.,..t 

Randlr 11utle0Dt0 

·- ON ...... 

lbfM1k ltii-F.IA J 

- .... Randk (:n.mitnfll <:4ia El\_,...... 

aandh- ~- r..- F.A_..... 

·- :IIIIH C.dliR ON .... 

·- (111511)f.CJij,Jce c.w.. •old 

........ Sll-!11 ........ 1 c- .... ........ ........... Nl'lllll&e DM•ipo4 

WWIRiw. 

~-· -· EA._... 

7/22/96 

........ 8!!1 61!!!!!1!11 l!!!!l!!ld! 7.1 liP .,.. 2/MolriJI l.-*oloru;.W......,.

u )2 Till Mllolria · c..nu..wp....

1'.4 ... ....._.. CloiJiowwp~.......

1.2 411 ,...,_., ~-;~._

0.2 11 

- ......,__.._.....

0.4 , 11or,_.. u._ ..... ,.,. _

4.9 192 .,. ........ le_llllc...,..•F•re .....

1.4 411 

- Owmll ............ .

4.4 .,_., ,._,_ Ollllot.......-.:._...

2.6 629 ·'Tiool-.a& Culllaa--....- 

1.0 24J 11orllmolria F._.,.;..r~&oo.

6.) 4U MIA C<ollloc.W. ....... Ito-

2.1 Ill . .tiNNr~1 ~~---1&•,.howk-,o4

0.1 , . Tloo21ANA ................ t!-

0.1 uo Tloo:IIUII -...,.._-.RRc• .

}.6 "Jl9 ·MIA· ..........................

10 .• .112 MIA "Tab"-.... 4-'-i

u 136 MIA r....-.w..-h . 

··-· " AIIJA -.-............... .,... 

D. I ., ·AMA ... _ .. _ .. , .374 ~.,_. 

----- I ',. 
DarrldAIWtr 

'li1CC'-Ptes1den1 

Barbara Stldt~l 

5<=wy 

DoriSbwer 

Treasurer 

PkGSe ryply to.: 

~ 

275 

E-matl: flshlifr@aol.com 

WEB: hnp://www pond.net/-pcffa 

W. F. •zelce"' Gn:ullr,Jr. 

BI.C'C\JUVeD~Of 

.'Vatbardt:l S. Btngham 

H:tt:ltJ.!D>teCIOf 

GknH.SpaJn 

:-lorthwes! Regum~l D1rector 

MitcbFarro 

Dm~·ctor of Entuncemenl 

.. _.. 

I I P.O Box 989 SaUS31lito, CA 94966 

Tel' (415) 33Z-5080 

Fax: (415) "1-2722 

Offiq qf !he Pts;"dCD! 

! j P 0. Box 340 El Granada, CA 94016 

Tel· (415) n6-l60i Fax: (415) 72~1607-3" 

()POBox783 

~ 

Mendocmo. CA 95460 

Tel: (707) 937-4145 

Fax: (707) 937-2617 

Nonbwe$1 RegiOnal Office 

! l PO. Box 11170 

Eugene. OR 97H0-3370 

Tel: (541) 689-2000 

Fa.x: (54D 689-2500 

DEVASTATING LOGGING RIDER IMPACfS 

ON THE WEST COAST FISHING INDUSTRY 

Likely extinction of key Snake River ESA listed salmon populations: 

Heroic elfons and hundreds of miUions of doUars are beiug spent to revive ESA listed saake river 

ehinook in tbe upper Columbia Buin. As many as 25,000 fiunily Wile Sllmon-produced jobs have 

been lost due to salmon collapses in the ColumbiL Meanwhile several "section 318 sales" wiD 

proceed under the rider which wiD wipe out much oftbe remnants oftbeir bistoric spawning grounds: 

From October 13, 1995, swom declaration of Jacqueline Wyland, Ph.D., Chief of 

Environmental and Technical Services Division, National Marine Fisheries Service, 

Portland, OR (most relevant portions emphasized): 

"Listed Slllke River fall chinook salmon occ:ur in the Gnnde Ronde River. Historic 

estimates tbr faD cbillook salmon in tbiJ river are IIJI&VIillble. Hawewr, current populations 

are bet-•l.f-siiSklining lllWils. FaD cbinook llp8Wllilla suc:cesa in the Grande Ronde River 

piOblbly is 1imitecl by sedimentation of spawning habitat, lou of pool habitat, and willter icing 

of the river... These eft'Kts are laraely due to lancllllllllplllllll aativities botb within and 

Ollllicle ofthe llltional forest sys1e111. Fonst11111188emeat in beadwater IU'eU is likely to bave 

increased peak flows and ~hannel clllturbance, clegrldlng faD chinook blbitat." (Pp I -9) 

"Since the Slllke River spriDWsummer cbinoolt salmon were listecl u threatened iD 1992, 

NMFS has conclucteclllliiiiii'OIII COIIIIIItalions with the Wallowa-wm- National Forest. 

One of the first bmal COII!IIIta!ions evaluated e1evea timber sales iD the Upper Grande Ronde 

River watershed. The Forest Service bas identified nine of !bose same sales as ones tJw 

could be released with their pre-consultation tenns [under !be salvage rider] .... By allowing 

these sales to be released with their pre-consulkllion terms, the lllWII of incitkntal to/ring of 

STEWARDS OF THE FISHERIES 
276 

these listed salmon spec1es will he mcreased at a lime when their condition is particularly 

precarious. If these nine sales are released with only therr prt-consultallon terms, their 

e!Mrotunental effects could Jeopardize the continued errstence of the Upper Grande Ronde 

River populations of spring/summer chinook salmon These salmon are an important 

component of the remnant population of Grand Ronde River spring/summer chinook, which 

would also be put at greater risk of extinction." (Pgs. 9- 10) 

Several severely depressed coastal salmon, cutthroat and steelhead stocks will 

likely be extinguished: 

Section 318 sales are "clustered" in areas where coho salmon, searun cutthroat and steelhead stocks 

are the most seriously depressed and are ESA candidate species, including several runs of vital 

importance to both commercial and recreational fisheries. The US government as well as the State 

of Oregon is spending tens of millions of dollars trying to rescue these fish from extinction while 

simultaneously several "section 318" sales will likely seriously damage or utterly extinguish some of 

these remnant runs. If these sales proceed it will make a coastwide ESA listing of cobo salmon far 

more likely, and recovery efforts far more difficult, which will mean more coastal fishing closures in 

order to protect these weak stocks, and hundreds of millions of dollars more loss to our industry. 

Sworn declaration of Jacqueline Wyland: 

CbmM Riycr pies· 

"Logging these sales [m the Chltco River] u orisizW!y plalmed will likely remit in 

lipilicam CUIIIIIIa!Mt ICMne e&cts to ldjllllllllllld clowultrwam habitat• tor KMP lleelhad 

and coho salmon due to the smallllize of the watenbecl, the lllp IIUIIIber of timber blmlst 

units in the warersbed, the Wlltnhed's 1111ep slopes and WICOIIIOiidated soils, IIIIi inadequate 

riparian protection proYided by tbe oriainal timber lllle desipa." (Ps. 19) 

llmpqpa Bjycr ylel· 

"SIIelm bulin included in the timber Slle layout tor Deed Middlemln (one of several sales] 

ue inadequate to protect &sberiellllld 1qllllic resourca Uail1 coataina a 700.f'oot 1oag 

leplllll of&sh beariaa (-.I order) - tbat would reaeiw only a 25-foot bufl'er. 1be 

HYeu total timber lllle llllits llso bave approximately 10,000 feet ofuabuft'ered lint- and 

second-order -· AJtbouab many are intermilteat, - are --r likely lilh-lleariDa 

streama duriDs put oftbe year. The lilh-lleariDa- coalain reaideaz cuttbroat trout. 

which are included in tbe ESU proposed u "threatened." .... Tbe aasnpce dectl ofdlis 

timber sale, when combined with the e!"ects of other Foreat Service and BLM '318' timber 

Illes in the South Fork, would adversely alfect the lllldrom0111 fish resoun:ea of the South 

Fork, panicularly Umpqua cutthroat trout." (Pa. 20) 

2 
'1:17 

Quotes from the October 3, !995,lener to Forest Service Supervisor John Lowe: 

Fiye Ilmpaua Rjver Basin timber sales: 

"'n that conference, the FS submitted a Biological Assessment (BA) that concluded that the 

four of the five timher sales were likely to jeopardize Umpqua River cutthroat trout 

Although the aquatic screens had been run on these sales, the recommendations made by 

"Screening and Review Teams" from the Umpqua Narional Forest and the FS's Regiooal 

Office, the recommendations made by these teams were not fully implemented in the timber 

sale designs. Consequently, significant adverse aquatic impacts remained and the BA 

concluded that four of the five timber sales were likely to jeopardize Umpqua River sea-run 

cutthroat trout (the fifth sale, Honeytree, was determined to be 'Likely to Adversely 

Affect')." (Pg 2 ofMemo) 

"NMFS does not believe that these particular actions can be modified to completely avoid 

adverse effects to anadromous salmonids." (Pg. 2 of Memo) 

"Like the South Fork Umpqua, many tier I key watersheds have already experienced 

lignificant timber llllvest amy and road-related clisturbuee in lhe past, and currendy exhibit 

dcsraded baseline cnvinmmenlll conditions. nr. recent round of'Wt116rftd tlllll/y8es. doM 

In key watersheds ;, 1994-S, DOlfjlnn that tlte typicttl tier 1 key 'Wt116rftd as a whok 18 

~able to prrwid6 the lriglr (/lltlllty haiJitau lDIDilromolts salmonids ..-J to ..mv. and 

~: IIIGI9' lltawnidtnr« of high mlimmt laads, •kvatwl-~8, ,_ 

of larp ~ debrll, rrdltwJ charrnll sirlulmty, int:miWJ charrnll width, and lou of 

Dllmlll ~ habitot et11r1plnity. Wbile uaually only a portion of a lier I key watenhed 

is tidly fin:lional, .-e 'Jut bell babltats' 11e c:ritic:l1 to lhe Ions-term survival oflhe species, 

and It 18 in fact tltese mrtalrriltf high quality areas that are most at risk from the J/8 Mlk1. 

· ·In the Elk Riwr,p I!JtialllfJie (IW/1# encloMI), the J/8 IQ/e6 an located in the ND111r Fori: 

.ru'-'"r6hed. which has the belt habltot conditioM and S11f1P011S tire larpst 6lllmonid 

populatiOM. ... High CDIIU1III'tltlo of 318 Mlk activity wttlrin a fJ1YIIIOIJed ESU are ptll'licu/arlyapparertttn the OngrJn Coasr ESU for cohotQ/mon (propoJed as "tlnatened'') 

and the Umpqua Crtlllroal TIT1flt ESU (proposed as "endt:tngr/Yd'')." (Pg. 3 of Memo) 

'IIU Memo also raised serious C011C11111 with 318 Ales eut of the Cucades ln the WalJowa..Wbitmul 

Natiooal Foree! u well,- ofwllich 11e likely to lead to exlillctionl. 

Net fishia& dosures will result from reduc:ecl populatioas of marbled murreleta: 

caa 

MadJied 

get 

IIU'I'dets 

causht ln 

nest 

CIOIIllllell:ilfilbins amy ill -a old-growth nets llld drowo. 

fbrests, but 

B-.. 

l'eed out 

90% 

at sea 

and 

where 

95% 

they 

of the 

~ 

lllllbled 

murrelct's okl-powth ballitat is-gone, clriYina it to nar extiDGiion. Siac:e the mubled lllllrNhlt 

is listed u "threatened" llllllcr tbe ESA, the CCIIIIIIIefl:ia oflibore net lllhely is operated UDdlr 1D 

'1nc:iclealal like plllllit," IIIIIIICI:idatlal catch of these threatened seabinfl bu belli c:arelbDy limited. 

3 
278 

However, if this seabird becomes downlisted as "endangered" no incident pennits wiU be issued -

the result could be widespread job loss and unemployment among commercial net fishermen 

coastwide. The more onshore old-growth habitat is lost for the bird's recovery, the more likely it is 

to be downlisted, thus affecting net fisheries from Northern California to the Puget Sound, W A. 

At least 59 rider-revived clearcut sales in murrelet nesting areas (canceled as illegal under the old 

laws, but which under the rider now no longer apply) must now go forward under their original 

(previously illegal) terms. According to USFWS scientists, wse timber sales will wipe out I 4% of 

all known marbled murrelet nestmg szNs m California, Oregon and Washington. In the Siuslaw, 

one of the best remaining refuges for the bird in the Northwest, these clearcuts will wipe out 25% of 

aU known nesting sites in the refuge. Altogether, we are talking about 6.4 square miles of oldgrowth clearcut right in key nesting areas. All this is after the loss of almost 95% of its habitat 

already. According to USFWS sworn statements in court: 

"In conclusion, it is my beliefbased upon the best available scientific infonnation that serious 

and irreparable harm to the threatened marbled murrelet will occur if the Forest Service and 

BLM sales at issue are harvested .... Murrelet population trends are downward and continue 

to be of grave concern. We know of no areas where murrelet numbers are stable or 

inaeasing. Continued loss of occupied nesting habitat is a primary cause of thtJ downward 

trend and is the greatest threat to the species' continued survival. Therefore, it is criti<:alto 

protect high quality occupied lle5ling habitat such as that comained in these sale units. From 

the perspective of marbled murrelet conservation and recovery, this high quality habitat is 

irreplaceable .... " (Declaration of Michael J. Spear, Regional Director, USFWS Pacific 

Region) 

These :lean:uts make it almost certain that the marbled murrelet will be downlisted to "endangered" 

in the near future. As timber harvests wipe out more and more of its native old-growth habitat on 

shore, its numbers will inevitably continue to decline and additional pressure will be placed on the 

fishing industry to protect the renmants. Downlisting would likely tenninate all incidental take 

permits for the Puget Sound net fishery, ending that valuable fishery- perhaps forever. 

Right now the commercial fishing industry is going to heroic and expensive efforts to avoid even 

accidemal "taking" of these seabirds at sea. Meanwbile feden1ly subsidized operations by the timber 

industry undet the rider continue to wipe out their last habitat onshore. This makes absolutely no 

sensei 

If; throuah continued loss ofbabilat, this elusive seabird is forced further toward extinc:tion, then the 

prospects for ultimate recovery dramaticaUy decrease, the expense of recovery efforts liiOWliS 

dramaticaDy, and additional pressure on commercial fisheries to save the last remnants will result in 

major season closures, with considerable economic loss and dislocation coastwide. 

4 
~~ NORTHWEST 

srorrFISHING 

ili'OOS'!l!l' ASSOC!IJ!ON PnliJlo&.(l!llj()lal'l<Jllml5 

279 

JOINT LETTER BY THE NORTHWEST SPORTFISHING 

INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION 

and the 

PACIFIC COAST FEDERATION OF FISHERMEN'S 

ASSOCIATIONS 

Members ofthe Senate 

Capitol HiD 

Washinstoa, DC 20515 

March 27, 1995 

RE: FIShing industty sroups oppose "sul!ieieacy flllsuaae" and mandated timber barvestl 

Dear Senator: 

The Pacific Coast Federation of FIShermen's Associations (PCFF A) is the largest orgauizalioa of 

C01111!1«Cialfishermen on the west coast, with member orgauizations &om San Diego to Alaska. We 

represem worlcing men and women ofthe Pacific 1ishing tleet who generate tens oftbouaamls ofjobs 

and are the economic mainstay of many coastal COIIIDIIIIIitie throughout the Pacific Coast region. We 

are joined in this letter by the Northwest Sportfilbing Industry Association (NSIA), which represents 

the many spottlisbing businesses in the Northwest. There are more than 5,000 such businesses in this 

region, with several thousand more in Alaska. Between our two organizations we represent several 

billion doOars annually in economic productivity, and more than 100,000 jobs along the Pacific coast 

as weD as tllr inland. 

We oppose the current Consressional effort to approve "sufficiency languase" or to mandate 

minimum timber harvest levels in tbe Northwest. However weD meauing, these are newrthclesa bad 

ideas. Sufliciency fiDsuaae would limply override all current protections for salmon and other 

aquatic apecies. Mandatory timber harvest levels would essentially do the same, since many levels 

could not be reached without severe damaae to other resources. The result would oalf be 

aclditioaal depadatioa olllready leftftly ci8Juplsalmoa spawaiac babitat, more --'t 

dilloratioa wtthia ftllllag -aaldes, aad more lost jobs in oar iadUitrf. Salmon throughout 

the region have already been severely depressed because of past timber harvests done without reprd 

to their environmental consequences. This region cannot afford to go down that road once apin. 
280 

Members of the Senate 

March 27, 1995 

We also are a natural resaurce dependent industry. We are sympathetic to the plight of timber 

communities, and are not opposed to harvesting timber through the existing Forest Plan or in ways 

that are legal under current law. However, it makes no economic sense to harvest timber on the 

backs of fubermen and at tbe expense of tbe jobs and coastal communities which salmon 

support. This would be a form of economic suicide for the region. 

Federal management agencies already have an aggressive fire salvage program, and all the legal 

authority they need to implement it. However, they should not be forced by law to move faster than 

they can complete the necessary enviromnental assessments and watershed analyses so they can take 

the proper steps to protect fragile salmon and other aquatic resources. The solution is not 

"sufficiency language, • nor is it mandated levels. The real solution would be to accelerate funding 

to the USFS and BLM to enable them to more quickly complete the necessary watershed analyses 

for their own planned salvage and harvest programs. 

Sufficiency language and mandated harvest levels are simply bad ideas. If enacted, they would 

further deplete salmon and other aquatic resources which it is vitally important to protect. They 

would also further devastate fishing economies throughout the regioa. They would throw our 

induSily fUrther into ecoaomic chaos. They would make it just thst nmch tougber, and just that much 

more expensive, to restore the Northwest's valuable salmon runs back to full productivity. 

We urge you to oppose every attempt to impose "sufficiency laquage" to override cumat 

environmental protections as well as the setting of llllllldatory harvest or salvage levels on our nation's 

forests - whether by appropriations rider, amendment or separate legislation. Thank you. 

2 

~ Executive Director 

Pacific: Coast Federation of 

F~s~ 

"ht.._ H~ww.. t y..._..;. Liz Hamilton 

Executive Director 

Northwest Sportfi.shing 

Industry Alsociation (NSIA) 
281 

CANYON SALVAGE SALE 

DARRINGTON RANGER DISTRICT- MT BAKER-SNOQUALMIE NATIONAL FOREST 

Clinton Forest Plan Designation: Independence Late Successional Reserve 

Key Watershed: South Fork Stillaguamish River 

1300 Acres Planning Area - Insect: Hemlock Looper 

In 1991 a hemlock looper infestation defoliated parts of a 1300 acre area within the Canyon 

Creek watershed, off Mountain Loop Highway, near Ole Mountain. Although a 1300 acre 

area was affected, only 400 acres have more than 50% defoliation. The sale includes some 

of the last old-growth in the Independence Late Successional Reserve. Under the Clearcut 

Rider, this sale is allowed to proceed without citizen challenge. 

Environmental Impacts of the Sale 

Unstable soils: The Canyon Creek watershed includes steep slopes and unstable 

soils, leading to a high probability for more slope failures. Past logging activities have 

instigated several slides in the Canyon Creek watershed. The highest defoliation areas are 

located right along the creek. Logging these areas will likely cause sedimentation of 

Canyon Creek and destruction of salmon habitat. Although no new roads are allowed, 

reconstruction of old roads can still have a devastating effect on the watershed. The 

Independence LSR already has 1.5 miles of road per square mile, 50% more than is 

considered marginally acceptable for watershed, fish and wildlife health. 

Wildlife: Spotted Owl, Northern Goshawk, Bald Eagle, Mountain Goat, Marbled Murrelet, 

and Gray Wolf have all been observed within the area. Noise from logging operations will 

disturb murrelet nesting activities. Snags and coarse woody debris created by the looper 

has created habitat for many species of birds, amphibians, and reptiles. Because the 

surrounding areas have a deficiency of these structures, it is important to retain these 

habitats. 

Salmon: Coho salmon, a species petitioned for listing under the Endangered Species 

Act, is present in the South Fork Stillaguamish, and will likely be negatively impacted by this 

sale. 

Low Elevation and Fragmentation: Much of the sale area is located below 2000 

feet elevation. Low elevation old-growth forests are extremely rare, and should be protected. 

The Canyon Creek watershed is highly fragmented and cut over. The old-growth in the 

Independence LSR is surrounded by private and federal lands that have been heavily 

logged. As some of the last remaining old-growth in the watershed, it is critical to preserve 

the area. Additionally, only 43% of the Independence LSR is old-growth. 
282 

Old-growth Habitat : Under the Clinton Forest Plan, salvage logging in Late 

Successional Reserves (LSR's) should have a "positive effect on late-successional forest 

habitat." The objective of LSR's is to protect and enhance conditions of late-successional 

and old-growth forest ecosystems. This unnecessary and destructive logging will have a 

negative effect on old-growth habitat. 

Prevention of Wildfire?: The Forest Service claims that salvage is necessary to 

prevent future wildfires in the area affected by the looper. However, stand-replacing wildfires 

are extremely rare west of the Cascades. The last stand-replacing wildfire in the 

Independence LSR occurred in 1834. The Forest Service's own studies show that standing 

dead trees actually retard spreading fires. Furthermore, logging activities may increase the 

risk of fire by increasing human presence and spark-generating activities and leaving behind 

logging slash. 

Road less Area: The large block of old-growth forest along the east and northeast sides 

of Olo Mountain is a 1000 acre roadless area Many of the highly defoliated areas that the 

Forest Service is likely to log are located within this roadless area. Roadless areas are so 

rare that they must be protected. 

Forks Recreation Trail Will be Destroyed: The Forks trail is a remnant trail, still 

enjoyed by countless individuals and families, which used to go from Granite Falls to Three 

Fingers Mountain. It is located mostly within a patch of high defoliation, and also includes 

many old-growth green trees as well. In order to reach the highly defoliated area, many 

healthy green old-growth cedar and hemlock trees must be cut. The recreational experience 

of this trail will be completely destroyed if th1s sale goes through. 

Effects of the Clearcut Rider on the Democratic Process: Because of the 

Clearcut Rider, if the Decision Notice is signed on this sale before September 30th, no 

citizen challenge to the sale will be allowed. This destructive sale demonstrates the need 

for citizen involvement in timber sale planning and the need to restore our democratic rights 

that have been removed by the rider. Under the proposed Craig "Forest Health" bill, this area 

would be allowed to be called an "emergency", and environmental review and citizen input 

would be shortened or not allowed. 

0 

26-951 (286) 

ISBN 0-16-053489-5 

90000 

9 80160 534898