FEDERAL LANDS MANAGEMENT AND POLICIFS 

OVERSIGHT HEARING 

BEFORE THE 

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

ON 

THE EFFECTS OF FEDERAL MANAGEMENT, CONTROL, 

AND POLICIES ON FEDERAL FORESTS IN THE WESTERN STATES AND ALASAKA 

25-482cc "" 

APRIL 18, 1996--WASHINGTON, DC 

Serial No. 104-70 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Resqurces 

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

WASHINGTON : 1996 

For sale hy the U.S. Government P1inting Office 

Superintendent of Documents. Congressional Sales Oftice, Washington, DC 20402 

ISB N 0-16-05289 1- 7 
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. CREMEANS, 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, JR., 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 FARR, California 

PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island 

DANIEL VAL K!SH, Chief of Staff 

DAVID DYE, Chief Counsel 

CHRISTINE KENNEDY, Chief Clerk/Administrator 

JOHN LAWRENCE, Democratic Staff Director 

(!I) 
CONTENTS 

Hearing held April 18, 1996 ............................................................. .. ........ ..... ...... . 

Statement of Members: 

Young, Hon. Don, a U.S. Representative from Alaska, and Chairman, 

Committee on Resources .. ............................ ......................................... ...... . 

Statement of Witnesses: 

Cuddy, Charles, a State Representative in Idaho ............. ........ .......... ... ..... . . Prepared statement ....... ............................. .... ......................................... .. Hargrove, James, a State Senator in Washington ........... .... ....................... .. . Prepared statement .......................... .... .. .... ........................ ...................... . Leslie, Tim, a State Senator in California .. .................................................. .. Prepared statement ................................. ... ............................................. .. Markham, Bill, a State Representative in Oregon ...................................... .. Taylor, Robin L., a State Representative in Alaska .................................. ... . Prepared statement ............................ ..................................................... .. 

Additional material supplied: A Study of the Effects of Changing Federal Timber Policies on Rural 

Communities in Northcentral Idaho, by University of Idaho .... .............. . Forests, fires and elk-Logging for Healthy Habitat?, by David Stalling .. . Olympic Region Timber Sales Summary Report ........ ................................. .. 

(III) 

Page 

1 

1 

5 

33 

7 

48 

2 

30 

4 

9 

51 

45 

37 

50 

FEDERAL LANDS MANAGEMENT AND 

POLICIES 

THURSDAY, APRIL 18, 1996 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES, 

Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 2:00 p.m. in room 1334, 

Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Don Young (Chairman of 

the Committee) presiding. 

STATEMENT OF HON. DON YOUNG, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE 

FROM ALASKA; AND CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES 

The CHAIRMAN. The Committee will come to order. Good afternoon. Today five State legislators who are part of the bipartisan 

Western States Forestry Task Force are with us. They represent 

the districts in Alaska, California, Idaho, Oregon, and Washington. They have offered to assist the Committee by sharing their views 

on the effects of Federal management, control, and policies on Federal forests contained in their districts. They have offered to share 

what they think are the solutions to those problems. 

This group has considerable expertise on forestry matters. They 

meet regularly and provide us with the resolutions urging changes 

to Federal laws that will improve management and cost-effectiveness of utilizing Federal lands. If that wasn't enough, every time 

I go home to Alaska, I hear what the task force wants next. Robin 

is not here, he is late, but he will be here later. He keeps me very 

well informed. I assure the other task force members, Robin spends 

90 percent of his time with me plugging the ideas that you have 

agreed on. Today is an opportunity to explore task force recommendations. It is time to evaluate the ideas that come from the states. For 

20-plus years, the ideas have come from big money special interest 

lobbying groups who think they know what's best for this country's 

resources. In most instances, that philosophy led to the command 

and control management. Market forces are not involved. As State 

legislators, you five are close to the constituents in your State districts. The benefit of being so close is that you hear the wisdom 

that comes from the people. Most people who encounter the Federal 

system are sick and tired of command and control. It gives them 

no voice. Today is our chance to begin the process of what government should do: listen to State leaders on their vision for the future of public land management. Mter all, this country is the 

"United STATES of America". Power should come from states 

through the union, not from the union to the states. Power regard-

(1} 
2 

ing land management means ownership or the ability to control the 

system. 

The broad issue is how the states might help to manage public 

lands better and more efficiently. In my view, the time has come 

to begin evaluating proposals to change that system. It is time to 

change the thinking that brought us command and control land 

management. It is time to turn to market principles. This hearing 

is a step in that direction and I thank each one of you for taking 

the time to be with us today, especially if you are in session. 

Each of you has five minutes for a statement. After panel one is 

finished, I'll ask some questions. If others arrive, we will alternate 

for five minutes with questions. Then we will do the same thing for 

panel two. Gentlemen, the floor is yours, and, by the way, my first 

panel is not here and I apologize to Senator James Hargrove at 

this time, so I'll take up panel two as necessary at this time, Senator Tim Leslie from California State Legislative body, Representative Bill Markham from Oregon State Legislature, and Representative Charles Cuddy, Idaho State Legislature. Are you in the audience? All three of you. You're right on time. You will not be penalized. 

Unidentified Speaker. Senator Hargrove is here, too. 

The CHAIRMAN. OK, well, Senator, why don't you go ahead and 

then we'll sit down with them, and then when Robin comes up he 

can do his thing later on. 

Mr. HARGROVE. Oh, OK 

The CHAIRMAN. But sit down with him anyway. Mr. Cooley, do 

you have any opening statement? 

Mr. COOLEY. No, Mr. Chairman, I have none at this time. 

The CHAIRMAN. OK 

Mr. CoOLEY. Thank you very much for asking. 

The CHAIRMAN. First we'll hear from Senator Tim Leslie, California State Legislature. 

STATEMENT OF HON. TIM LESLIE, A STATE SENATOR IN 

CALIFORNIA 

Mr. LESLIE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon, members 

of the Committee, my name is Tim Leslie. I'm a State Senator of 

the First District of California. This is a district which encompasses about 25,000 square miles of the Sierra Nevada from Mammoth Lakes on the south to the Oregon border on the north. It has 

approximately 350 miles of common border with the State of Nevada, and includes about 7 million acres of zoned timberland. I 

think, except with the possible of exception of Alaska, it may be the 

largest State timber district in the nation. 

Timber health in this region has been devastated by a combination of factors. Early timber practices of the late 1800's and early 

1900's, drastic reduction of Federal timber management through 

harvest, and years of drought have resulted-and the resultant 

beetle infestation, has left a once vital forest in a sickened conclition, waiting to erupt into a cataclysmic fire. 

I am not exaggerating. In a recent tour of the Plumas forest, the 

dedicated and understaffed and over regulated employees of the 

United States Forest Service convinced me that if we continue to 

manage the forest as we are today, there will be no forest-! repeat 
3 

that, no forest-on the east side of the Sierra within the next 50 

years. This timeframe, I am sure, can be debated but the prospects 

of a viable forest into the future cannot be debated. Unless we 

change our ways and do it quickly, there are no prospects for a viable forest into the future on the east side of the Sierra Nevada. I know that environmental interests love trees as much as I do. 

I cannot believe that they would wish the destruction of the forest. 

I cannot believe that the annihilation of the forest on the east side 

of the Sierra would be acceptable to them, or anyone. Surely this 

is at least one point that we should all be able to agree on. I have some specific suggestions, Mr. Chairman. The U.S. Forest 

Service-well, first of all, the health and the condition of the Sierra 

Nevada should be considered as a national emergency, so that 

streamlined steps can be taken immediately to reduce the threat 

of massive and devastating fires. I don't know the process federally 

for a decline thus to be an emergency, but I know that there needs 

to be a way to do this so that we can adjust our national attention 

to the imminent danger that we are in. Secondly, the U.S. Forest Service has prepared a report called 

the Technical Fuels Report. It's a report of the Lassen, and 

Plumas, and Tahoe National Forests. This report, Mr. Chairman, 

is a prescription developed by the U.S. Forest Service for the purpose of limiting fire danger in the three national forests that are 

included. The report covers an area of about 2.4 million acres and 

its stated objectives are to improve fire safety, protect communities, 

and ensure fuel treatment, done in a strategic manner. The report 

calls for Defensible Fuel Zones. This would be the equivalent of 

modified fire breaks through the ridge tops of the forest; also Community Defense Zones and Fuel Reduction Zones. My recommendation to you is to some way please help us have this report implemented. 

The third recommendation is that we consider the implementation of this Technical Fuels Report in the Plumas, Lassen, and 

Tahoe National Forests as a pilot project for the nation. Many of 

my fellow colleagues from the West have conditions in their forests 

that resemble what I am describing. If we could implement this report, I think this would make an excellent example of how we could 

take immediate and rapid action to reduce fire danger in our forests. 

Fourth, I would-my recommendation is the House Committee 

on Resources should schedule an on-site inspection of the region to 

determine if the hazards are as I have stated and determine the 

viability of this region for a pilot project that would test the recommendations of the Technical Fuels Report for other areas in the 

West. 

In conclusion, let me say that the lands I am talking about are 

substantially in Federal ownership. I believe that that means that 

the Federal Government has a responsibility for managing these 

lands. I can report to you that the Federal Government is doing a 

terrible job in managing their responsibility and we're about to lose 

the forests. As I said earlier, there will be no forest on the east side 

of the Sierra unless we change our forest practices immediately. Surely this is an alternative that is unacceptable to everybody. 
4 

I have introduced Senate Joint Resolution 41 in the California 

Legislature which will be considered in committee shortly, which 

encourages the President and the Congress of the United States to 

direct the United States Forest Service to fully implement the reeommendations contained in the Technical Fuels Report. I have also 

asked Governor Wilson to make a similar request. 

The Technical Fuels Report was prepared by the U.S. Forest 

Service. It is the best available suggestion and recommendation for 

saving our forest. I am not calling for something radical. I am simply requesting that we do what your own experts, and our experts, 

the United States Forest Service experts, have said is necessary to 

protect the majestic forest of the Sierra Nevada. So please come to 

Lake Tahoe and let me show you what I'm talking about. Thank 

you. 

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

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Leslie. I have been to Lake 

Tahoe. I would like to go again and have a chance to observe what 

you're referring to. Representative Markham. 

Mr. SHADEGG. [presiding] Mr. Markham. 

STATEMENT OF HON. BILL MARKHAM, A STATE 

REPRESENTATIVE IN OREGON 

Mr. MARKHAM. Thank you, Chairman Shadegg, and Representative Cooley. It's a pleasure to be here. I appreciate the opportunity 

to testify on transferring management responsibilities of Federal 

lands to the State of Oregon. I will direct my remarks toward a 

proposal to transfer the Oregon and California Railroad Lands, 

commonly known as the O&C lands. These Federal lands have 

been very vital to our local communities. Not only have they yielded valuable timber to our economy, jobs for our workers, but they 

have also generated critical revenues for our counties. I have personally been in the timber and logging business all my 

life and have become very frustrated with the results of the Federal forest management. It has taken a severe toll on us, and we 

have yet to see the controversy diminish. I feel there are two avenues left to us: one, change the Federal law, which I have my 

doubts personally, or, two, transfer these lands to the states without strings that are tying the hands of the Federal land managers. 

Transfers should take place only to individual states that would 

have the management responsibilities, and willing to accept those 

responsibilities. 

If the Federal laws are changed, the many complex Federal laws 

affecting land management should be revised to provide consistent 

direction. The Federal land planning process should be streamlined 

and expedited. Laws like the National Environmental Protection 

Act, NEPA, have too often been used to block good forest manage- ment. This has especially been the case where NEPA requirements 

conflict or duplicate those found in other statutes, and has caused 

a vast majority of litigation without resolving the forest management problem with the Endangered Species Act. Further, the people that live near and depend on the Federal lands should be given 

a strong voice in the development of these forest plans. If the O&C lands are transferred to the State of Oregon, then the 

State should be able to manage those lands under State law with-
5 

out all the complex and overlapping laws that have been affecting 

today's Federal forest management. The projected harvest of O&C 

lands has fallen to just over 200 million board feet per year from 

the historic levels of around 1 billion board feet per year, and as 

a result we have seen a very sharp drop in both Federal timber receipts for the counties and forest products related jobs. 

Congress should set up a process for transferring the lands which 

includes the criteria of eligibility for transfer, allowing as much 

flexibility as possible for the State management, and identifying 

which lands should remain in Federal ownership. 

And finally, I believe that Oregon has done an excellent job managing its own State lands and will provide many of the benefits 

currently provided under Federal management. In Oregon, we have 

taken a very sensitive approach to managing for the environment 

while still generating jobs and the timber necessary for our local 

economy. Recently, the State of Oregon signed a Habitat Conservation Plan for our Elliott State Forest which allows us to take care 

of threatened and endangered species while still being able to log 

timber thanks to the Federal Fish and Wildlife Agency agreeing 

with our model there in Oregon. I appreciate the opportunity. 

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and Members. 

Mr. SHADEGG. Representative Markham, we appreciate your testimony. I should have deferred to Mr. Cooley who, perhaps, was at 

one time your colleague--

Mr. MARKHAM. Very definitely he was, sir. 

Mr. SHADEGG. [continuing]-for any introduction. Mr. Cooley, 

would you like to make any remarks? 

Mr. COOLEY. I didn't hear you. What? 

Mr. SHADEGG. I just wondered if you wanted to introduce your 

colleague. I didn't recognize it until after the fact. 

Mr. COOLEY. Yes, Bill Markham, I would love to introduce Bill 

Markham. Bill Markham, believe it or not, has been a personal 

friend of my father's for over 40 years, and he comes from a very, 

very respected family in his district. In fact, I think he was the oldest-not oldest in age, but he served longer-in the Oregon State 

Legislature than any other member of the legislature. He was 

Speaker of the House Pro Tern and he has contributed a great deal 

to the State of Oregon in public service over the last 24 years now, 

Bill? 

Mr. MARKHAM. Twenty-six now. 

Mr. COOLEY. Twenty-six? Twenty-six years, and we are very 

much honored to have him come here and testify. As you know, the 

testimony given by the other gentlemen here pretty much matches 

what a lot of us feel here in Congress, and I think we're probably 

as frustrated as they are, but we are trying to make some drastic 

changes, and I appreciate your coming out, Bill. 

Mr. SHADEGG. Thank you both. Now Representative Cuddy. 

STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES CUDDY, A STATE 

REPRESENTATNEINIDAHO 

Mr. CUDDY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of this 

Committee. We're honored to be here today. Two adjacent legislative districts represented by myself and Senator Danielson, who is 

with us here today, encompass approximately 20,000 square miles 
6 

of an area larger than many states here on the Eastern Seaboard. 

Included in these districts are all of the Clearwater, all of the Nez 

Perce, all of the Payette National Forests and part of the Panhandle and the Boise National Forests in Idaho. This is the heart 

of some of the most productive inland forest land on the east side 

of the peak of the Cascades. 

Four million acres of these lands are contained in the Nez Peree 

and the Clearwater National Forests. Approximately 50 percent of 

this land is productive timber land. If efficiently managed under 

multiple use and forest health concepts, the financial benefits to all 

levels of government and public schools would be substantial increased. Further, recreational access and value to the general public would be enhanced. I have distributed an article with my testimony that was written by the Rocky Mountain Health Foundation. 

If you want to review that, it has a couple of statements in there 

that are very typical of what's transpired on the western timber 

lands. This problem has substantially and simultaneously reduced 

wildlife habitat and resource production, while at the same time 

exponentially increasing the probability of occurrence of devastating, uncontrollable wildfire. The last paragraph on page one and 

the first paragraph on page two of that article directly relate to 

that. 

These conditions and many others have impaired professional resource managers on our federally owned land, and are in dire 

needs of measures to correct conflicting laws and modify regulations that are the root of the management dilemma. In my estimation, the problem does not lie with the Federal employees who 

are charged with attempting to professionally manage the resource, 

but with the conflicting laws, rules, and regulations I just mentioned that invite appeal and litigation. In that regard, I under- stand a study of these rules and regulations and laws was presented to the Department of Agriculture some time ago. This could 

be a very useful tool in resolving some of the impairments that 

deter efficient management. 

As an Idaho legislator, I have found even within the State it can 

be very difficult to draft resource legislation that is applicable to 

all the various types of vegetation, topography, precipitation, et 

cetera, that's encountered and may change from region to region. 

As a result, we have adopted laws that allow our Department of 

Lands and our Department of Environmental Quality to cooperatively draft forest practices and water quality regulations that are 

reasonably implementable and protect the environment. 

There may be a process available that could lead to more rapid 

resolution of the Federal management difficulties. I would like to 

suggest negotiation with each State to contract and manage, under 

State law, parts of the Federal land. This would not only help resolve the problems associated with conflicting Federal policies but 

would put to rest the national tug of war resulting from pressures 

from different interest groups and the Federal agencies that claim 

various amounts of overlapping jurisdiction. 

A recent inquiry with one of the national forests in my legislative 

district revealed the fact that any timber sale of substantial quantity is appealed, and on many occasions more than once. This represents approximately 50 percent of the sales but, more impor-
7 

tantly, it consumes more than 50 percent of the time to prepare the 

sales. Clearly the best example I can give you demonstrating the 

difficulties, delays, and overreaction that occur with timber sales 

took place on a small State timber sale that was on State endowment land located on the middle fork of the Clearwater River. The 

project required about one-quarter of a mile of access over an existing crushed rock surfaced Forest Service road, which had been 

used by the Forest Service for timber removal. Federal agencies 

then reviewed the sale boundary, disregarding the fact that this 

sale was on State land and complied with the State Forest Practices Act and Water Quality Standards. After these reviews by Federal agencies, several of which included National Marine Fisheries, 

the only change was to remove five trees from the sale boundary. 

This process took approximately . 18 months of delay of the sale, 

and it was for about 50 truckloads of logs. Included in this presentation is an executive summary of a study of the impacts, of timber 

impacts, in North Central Idaho. The point that I wish to make is 

the fact that this reinforces that the Federal Government needs to 

change its management policies where the Federal Government is 

the predominant landowner. 

This year, with bipartisan sponsorship and participation, Idaho 

passed legislation that provides an opportunity for the State to entertain negotiations with the Federal Government to contractually 

manage multiple use forest lands. Negotiations of this magnitude 

would require serious consideration of several issues from both entities. In particular, recreational opportunities would have to be 

maintained, public access would need to be planned and provided 

for, and revenue would need to be shared in a manner that continues to provide funding for local entities of government in lieu of 

taxes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee. 

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

Mr. SHADEGG. Senator Hargrove? 

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES HARGROVE, A STATE SENATOR 

IN WASHINGTON 

Mr. HARGROVE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am Senator Jim 

Hargrove. I happen to be a Democrat. I have represented the 

Olympic Peninsula for 12 years in Washington State. I am also a 

professional forester. My district has over 1 million acres of wilderness in it, and another 800,000 acres of U.S. Forest Service land 

that have been put in a virtual preserve status by Option 9. 

The sustainable harvest on the Olympic National Forest prior to 

the spotted owl listing was 220 to 230 million board feet a year. 

Under the President's plan, it is about 4 million feet of thinnings 

designed to produce more habitat. In 1992, the target for owls in 

the recovery plan by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife on the peninsula 

was 200 pairs. We now have counted 229 pairs in the national park 

alone with another 107 pairs outside the park, 50 percent over 

what it was said to be necessary for recovery, and even the scientists say that the population is stable. Basically, we have a situation where every time we meet a target the goalposts are moved. 

What are we trying to save? The real issue here seems to be cutting trees at all. In fact, the only mature timber sale to be harvested in the last several years is on the Qulicene district. It was 
8 

a 318 sale that was recently freed up by the salvage rider, and this 

harvest brought screams and protests from the environmental community, I hear over $300,000 in law enforcement costs, to get this 

50-acre timber sale harvested, and also with that a promise from 

the President to repeal the salvage rider. I'd like to remind you 

that the Section 318 sales were approved under a Democratic Congress. I was back here working with them at the time to get that 

section approved. 

We also have the Endangered Species Act affecting our State and 

private lands with the State rushing headlong into an HCP without 

fully understanding the consequences and private landowners 

being blackmailed into HCP's or risk-onerous regulations and 

takings citations. I brought with me, although I didn't include it in 

my testimony, a chart showing the State harvest over the last 8 or 

10 years. 

[Chart] 

In 1986, 334 million board feet were sold in the Olympic region. 

In 1994, it was 56 million board feet. So we're talking about a precipitous fall on State lands, and this is being used as the argument 

to, basically, blackmail us into an HCP, to say if you get any harvest back at all. 

Three years ago some of my mills were told to re-tool, cut younger timber and second growth, and that isn't working either. An example is Mayr Brothers, a 60-year-old firm, that having built a 

new small log mill just went down last week and it's not known 

whether they will ever start again. Basically, even when they're 

cutting small timber and second growth they can't sell the lumber 

for what they have to pay for the fiber. 

Where is the balance? As a forester, I realize we need to continue 

to do research and learn how to better protect our environmem~. 

This produces more fiber over the long run while protecting the 

quality of life we all enjoy. I know even the most ardent logger 

agrees, but what he can't understand is the new religion, the insistence that we cut no more trees. First it was the spotted owl, 

then marbled murrelets, then salmon, and even if none of these are 

really threatened, then it is the intrinsic value of old growth. The 

next will be any tree on any land. I don't believe they'll stop just 

with old growth or just with Federal land, and I believe really that 

agriculture is the next main area of our country to be hit. In fact, 

I've already heard a proposal to turning plains states back into 

plains, and I don't know where we're going to get our food fro1r... 

It doesn't come from grocery stores. 

I think if you-as a forester, also, you realize that if you don't 

do any management enforcing, then Mother Nature did management in forests. There would be wind storms, and floods, and 

things that would remove timber over time and we'd get the mix 

of species and old trees we have. If you leave those forests untouched, the forest ecology will gradually disintegrate into basically 

brush fields over time. So, basically, the current opposition to cutting is not for future generations but it's so that we don't have to 

see cutting and it sacrifices our forests for generations in the future. 

We need to make some fundamental changes in the law. The 

first would be to protect the viability of the species only, not its via-
9 

bility in every location. The marbled murrelet is a perfect example 

of that. Another practical help would be to have a sufficiency language for HCP's for private landowners that give them long term 

commitments. Right now they only get a takings, incidental 

takings, permit for the species they planned for. You find one more 

species, back to the drawing board. We also need a quick process 

for de-listing species; we also need to compare the costs to humanity in the protections to our species, and if-and assume some risk, 

because right now I think we're operating under a no-risk scenario. 

And the last is property rights, and I know you're considering that. 

The families that live in my timber communities are hard working, tax paying citizens that have never asked for a handout and 

only want to make a living and raise a family. They have been let 

down by the country they love. The headlines are gone and so are 

the log truck rallies, and many of my timber workers have been 

ushered off into retraining, hoping for some future somewhere. 

Yes, there is still something of my industry to save but the real 

question is what industry, what region, what class of American citizens, or even the whole country, will suffer from this new religion? 

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

Mr. SHADEGG. Senator Hargrove, let me compliment you on what 

I think to be some of the best testimony I've ever heard in this 

Committee. I certainly hope we can disseminate your views. In my 

own State of Arizona, it is indeed a religion and it is indeed the 

use of the Endangered Species Act to protect all kinds of other 

goals that are sought, including, as you pointed out, just the preservation of old growth timber for its intrinsic value just because it 

is pretty and valued, and the other point I think I just wanted to 

comment on quickly is this whole notion of protecting each species 

wherever they are found, no matter what it takes to protect them 

in that location, and it doesn't matter if there are billions of them 

somewhere else, you're-and it's not even if they are here. If they 

"could be" in this particular location, then we have to protect them. 

It's insane. I really appreciate that excellent testimony. I notice you 

gentlemen have made an accommodation so we allowed Senator 

Taylor to join the panel. It seems to me to make sense to make it 

into one panel, and so Senator Taylor why don't you proceed? 

Thank you. 

STATEMENT OF HON. ROBIN L. TAYLOR, A STATE 

REPRESENTATIVE IN ALASKA 

Mr. TAYLOR. Representative Shadegg and Chairman, thank you 

very much. I thought before-you've got this all typed up, of course, 

and I can read it to you, but as we all sit through the same process 

at times, I thought I'd just maybe give you a little story, being from 

Alaska and representing the panhandle of Alaska. We have polar 

bears, not in our area but on the northern end of the State, and 

this young polar bear had just gone off to his first day at school 

and returned home to talk to mamma and papa polar bear. He 

said, "Are we real polar bears?'' They said, ''Yes, we're real polar 

bears." "OK." The next day, he came home from school and he said, 

"Mom, are you a pure-bred polar bear and is dad a pure-bred polar 

bear?" She said, "Well, yes. Yes, we are." He said, "Well, were 

grandpa and grandma polar bears? Were they real polar bears, 
10 

too?" She said, "Yes, yes." She said, "Son, what is it that's troubling 

you?" He said, "Mom, I'm freezing!" 

Well, that's the problem we're facing. We're a bunch of dependent 

timber people and communities. We're trying to figure out how 

come we're froze out of the system. We look to you as the owner 

State, I guess, of a vast empire that's being managed by your 

agents, and we are totally dependent for every aspect of our lives 

upon that resource base. Whether we're grazers, or miners, or timber operators, we're totally dependent upon that base, and we don't 

know how come we're freezing. We don't understand it. 

My home community in Rangel, Alaska is suffering 40 percent 

unemployment today. It makes Jim's community of Forks, Washington, look pretty good. We were politically put out of work by this 

Administration when they canceled the 50-year contract, and 

they're being sued for it, and I predict that they will lose, and that 

the Federal Government will probably end up paying $1 billion to 

a Japanese firm for wrongfully terminating their contract. In the 

process, they've destroyed literally hundreds and hundreds of families. 

Our domestic violence statistics for both Sitka and Rangel, the 

two communities most severely impacted when the Clinton Administration canceled the long-term timber sale contract, more than 

doubled. We're all concerned about the environment, but no one 

seems to have any compassion for the environment of the children, 

the abused wives, or the frustrated families. Congressman Young, 

it's nice to see you. 

The CHAIRMAN. [presiding] Yes-you've been penalized. You're in 

the penalty box here, my friend--

Mr. TAYLOR. Well, I was just going through some of the concerns 

that we as a group share, and it brings us together, and that's our 

dependency on a timber base and upon the Federal lands for that 

base, and I wanted, since my testimony had been all typed and prepared, I wanted to present you, if I could, with a gift-and if I 

could approach the bench, so to speak? 

The CHAIRMAN. Now, wait a minute. Is that worth more than 

$10.00? 

Mr. TAYLOR. In fact, this is a gift from an old friend to a friend 

to a friend--

The CHAIRMAN. Can we change gifts? 

Mr. TAYLOR. I want to read the inscription on this for you. It 

says, "On behalf of the people of Alaska-The woods that make up 

the mallet head come from the different forest trees of Southeast 

Alaska. Yellow cedar, red cedar, western hemlock, and Sitka spruce 

are laminated together to make the head. 

Unidentified Speaker. What makes up the handle? 

Mr. TAYLOR. The handle is a bone from a whale. 

Mr. SHADEGG. Is that endangered? 

Mr. TAYLOR. I don't think so but the-I'm sure the animal who 

had it is endangered. 

Mr. SHADEGG. Go ahead, Mr. Taylor. 

Mr. TAYLOR. Congressman Young, we really wanted to thank 

you, and as chairman of this group it was my privilege to thank 

you again on their behalf for taking the time to listen to our testi- mony today. We are very concerned, as you know, about the lives 
11 

of our-of the families who live in our communities and the constituents who elect us, and we find that there is a lack of concern 

upon the bureaucracies that regulate us as concerns the wealth 

that should be generated for this nation from the good stewardship 

and use of these resources, and an almost complete disregard of the 

impacts that the Fec;leral decisions have upon the families who are 

so dependent upon these resources, and we look to you and to your 

good Committee to please hear us before there aren't any of us left. 

I am daily assisting friends in Rangel pack pickup trucks to 

leave that community to go try to find work. A man who worked 

15 years in the sawmills, a good friend of mine, the Federal Government just paid for him to take a 1-year course to become a barber. He earned $50,000 to $60,000 a year in that sawmill. I don't 

know what-I don't think he's going to make that barbering, and 

I guess that concludes my comments. [The statement of Mr. Taylor may be found at end of hearing.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator, and I can assure you, and 

for those of you who have been in the legal process, I do apologize. 

We do have five members, or did have five members here. It's been 

a very busy day, but your testimony and your comments will be entered into the record. Most of the people here today are very aware 

of the problems you brought forth, but I'd like to just ask the one 

question-quite a few questions but-Mr. Leslie, you mentioned 

this, too. I think all of you agree, you're not only interested in the 

job part of it, you're also interested in the health of the timber itself, the forests themselves, and this has been far overlooked by 

this administration and even some of the previous administrations. 

What are the potential for additional fires and what extent would 

they do the damage they did in the past? Mr. Markham? 

Mr. MARKHAM. I'd like to make some comments, Mr. Chairman, 

if I may--

The CHAIRMAN. Yes. 

Mr. MARKHAM. [continuing]-with regards to what's going on. 

Each year in Oregon approximately 1.6 billion, that's billion, board 

feet of timber, over one-third of Oregon's total annual harvest, tim- ber harvest, is destroyed by insects and disease. 

The CHAIRMAN. It's being destroyed. 

Mr. MARKHAM. If that doesn't catch somebody's attention, I don't 

know what the heck I could do, and that's not me talking, that's 

our State Forestry Department, who have a lot of technicians. 

Tragic. 

The CHAIRMAN. Are we allowed to cut those trees or are they 

going to waste? How much money, how much revenues are they 

getting from cutting into the dead trees? 

Mr. MARKHAM. They won't allow it. The Forest Service's hands 

are tied. They get tied up in all these lawsuits. They can't move 

a log truck, if you will, or a chain saw. 

The CHAIRMAN. Yeah. 

Mr. MARKHAM. Eastern Oregon is becoming-you can't believe it 

if you fly over it, the dead and down. The CHAIRMAN. Well, I can believe it because we have the same 

thing occurring in parts of Alaska. We had been harvesting a lot 

of our trees, not nearly as many as we should, and it can be a tre-
12 

mendous, terrible fire if it ever catches on fire. I don't know what's 

going to happen because you could never put it out-Tim? 

Mr. LESLIE. Well, Mr. Chairman, some of-one of the things that 

I had mentioned when you were out of the room is that the ea,st 

side of the Sierra is in terrible, terrible danger of fire, but it's not 

a question of "if' there's going to be a fireThe CHAIRMAN. When. 

Mr. LESLIE. [continuing]-because every year the storms come 

over and 70 percent of the fires are started by lightening, and it 

is going to happen, but we have whole watershed areas where 60, 

70, 80, even 90 percent of the timber on the side of a hill is dead. 

Now what will happen, sir, is the lightening will hit it. It will become not just a Mother Nature kind of fire. It will be a cataclysmic 

fire because of lack of management. It will burn, then the trees will 

be standing dead, then the wind will come. The trees will be 

knocked down, and 30 years later it will re-burn, and by the time 

the second burn takes effect the soil becomes so destroyed that the 

only thing that will be left is 4-foot high sagebrush into the future, 

and right now-and I invited the Committee-in fact, I challenge 

the Committee to come and look yourself. Please let us host you of 

a tour of the dead and dying trees in the east side of the Sierra 

Nevada, and you will see the process that they call desertification. 

The desert is actually coming up from Nevada, coming all up the 

side of the Sierra, and will overtake the Sierra Nevada. Now this 

seems impossible to believe but it is the truth that probably in 

about 50 years there will be no forests on the east side of the Sierra Nevada. 

The CHAIRMAN. What-you all have been around a little while. 

I know Robin has been around longer-just about as long as I, but 

not quite as long as I have. When did this concept of non-management-! think I heard it right, there is no management now under 

the Forest Service directive, is that correct? When did that really 

start? Has that been 10 years, 12 years, 5 years, 15 years ago? 

Mr. LESLIE. Well, I believe that, speaking of the region that I 

was referring to, we saw the impact when the northern spotted owl 

was declared endangered and the restrictions were put on timber 

harvests, because that's the way you manage. You manage through 

normal, carefully planned harvesting. When that happened, then 

we had the other spotted owl that's very similar to the northern 

spotted owl, but I guess under a microscope you can make some 

difference in it, not threatened, not endangered, not on any list, but 

the Forest Service said, "Well, we're so worried that what happened because of the northern spotted owl will happen down here, 

that we're going to treat these lands exactly the same way." And 

so when the harvesting stopped, the management stopped. 

The CHAIRMAN. OK, Robin, how do you address the argument 

that Federal land in the West belongs to all Americans-Mr. Kildee 

is here from Michigan-and ought to be managed for everyone. Is 

the managing for everyone possible? 

Mr. TAYLOR. Well, if-I would just love to have the original 15 

states, the first 15 states of the United States, be blessed with the 

same level of management that the rest of us are. There are no 

Federal U.S. Forest Service employees currently managing the forest lands of New York, and as a consequence New York produces 
13 

over a billion and a quarter board feet of good, commercial timber 

every single year. This is in an area that we were told was all cut 

over. Remember, our forefathers girdled every tree and chopped it 

down so they could grow a little corn. We were told they destroyed 

it. The East Coast has got some of the most beautiful forests you've 

ever seen. One of the largest pulp mills in America is 35 miles from 

where we're sitting right now today. 

Now, trees regrow. We have places in Alaska where the glaciers 

have only receded in the last two or three hundred years, and you 

can actually watch and see the growth as the new dirt and rock 

turns into dirt, and you end up with this staggered forest going on 

out toward the coast. What has happened? What has happened is 

total, absolute lack of management by a Federal system that has 

become enchanted with bureaucratic boutique words like ecosystem 

management when they don't even know what an entire ecosystem 

is. It's the whole earth, I guess, because we're all interconnected, 

but these people seem to have no conception, Congressman, of how 

to manage their own lands. The best examples I can give you is can you imagine what our 

salmon resources would look like today in Alaska had we not become a State and taken over the management of our salmon fisheries? At the point in 1959 when we became a State the salmon 

runs had been decimated by Federal management. Our creeks had 

been robbed, blue stoned. Our fish had been decimated by fish 

trapping. When we became a State we outlawed that, started enforcing the piracy on our fish strains, started restocking, building 

hatcheries. I was a commercial fisherman for 8 years. My livelihood 

depended upon that resource. Today Alaska produces four times 

the volume of fish produced under Federal management. Had we 

left it up to the Federal Government, they would have totally destroyed those runs. That's what this same government is doing to 

the largest national forest you have, the Tongass. 

The CHAIRMAN. I know we've got a vote on, too, but one thing 

that-the challenges that have come out. My problem is Mr. Kildee 

is probably the most dedicated individual-now, he doesn't necessarily agree with me but at least he comes-there are not many 

people on this side of the aisle willing to listen or understand what 

you're trying to tell us. They don't care whether all the trees die. They say they do, but they don't care. They don't care whether you 

lose the jobs, and unfortunately-! know I'm going to set up a trip 

and we'll see how many of you on the other side of the room will 

go along and go look at this, instead of listening to the Sierra Club, 

and Friends of the Earth, and Trustees of Alaska, and every other 

green group that has no concept of management. That's the most 

frustrating reason I have because I've said in Alaska, now, we have 

27,000 acres in one small area of Alaska that the beetle killed. It 

has houses around it. If it ever catches on fire-finally we got harvested areas in the Salvage Bill. We're cutting all these dead trees 

down so that fire won't occur and new trees are going to be planted 

and it will all be back. And most people have been fighting that 

business. Helen, and Wes, and Mr. Kildee, it's been my intention, 

if it's all right, do you want to come back and ask some questions 

and we'll recess for about 10 minutes and--

Mr. KILDEE. Could I just make a statement? 

25-482 - 96 - 2 
14 

The CHAIRMAN. Yes, sure. 

Mr. KILDEE. I won't be able to come back but I do appreciate tht~ 

legislators. I served in the Michigan House and Senate both befom 

I came down here. I was, as the Chairman will recall, the chief 

sponsor of the Michigan vote in this bill, but I worked with the 

Michigan timber industry because we released more land than wtl 

put under wilderness, and I think we can have a multiple use balanced plan. 

My dad was a lumberjack. He-in 1921 he rode the last load of 

logs into Trevor City, Michigan, of bridge and timber, and-but we 

are rebuilding our timber industry there in Michigan. We made 

some serious mistakes by overcutting it, but we are rebuilding it, 

but we're just trying to avoid the serious mistakes, but one other 

thing. I did-remember we killed the Johns Bill, the low cost bill? 

I helped do that, too, because Michigan, in restoring its timber in·· dustry, very often the costs are a little higher to get into those 

trees and harvest them, but we did-we killed that--

The CHAIRMAN. Just out of curiosity can I ask the gentleman 

how many mills do you have in Michigan now? 

Mr. KILDEE. They would all be outside of my district and I can 

get the figure for you. 

The CHAIRMAN. OK 

Mr. KILDEE. I don't know but--

The CHAIRMAN. Because, well, we're bringing up that California, Oregon, and Idaho, and Alaska have been devastated at the 

amount of mills that were closed. I mean we're lost in this. Mr. Kildee. The main thing in Michigan now, because we're re- building, we are adding--

The CHAIRMAN. And just like New York has 50, 60, 70 mills in 

New York, including one of the largest pulp mills in the United 

States, but it's private land and it's managed. What we're saying 

here is there is no management on Federal lands. They are destroying this forest. If it ever catches on fire-and what a loss. I 

mean, what a loss-but anyway, we've got to go vote. 

Mr. Kildee. Thanks. The CHAIRMAN. We'll be back in about 5 or 10 minutes. Unidentified Speaker. We'll wait. We're not going anywhere. [Recess.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Robin, I'll finish up with you for right now. 

Would you tell me what Federal decisions such as contract can- cellations, slow permitting processes, land withdrawals have most 

impacted our constituents in Tongass, and tell us why you think 

the State system would produce better decisions for the people and 

land? I know you know what I'm referring to. What's happened 

there under this management program, what's supposed to be managed, and what possibly could work better in the future? 

Mr. TAYLOR. Well, I've just come, as you know, from Senator 

Murkowski's hearings on TLMP where the Forest Service is now 

presenting their new ASQ for the Tongass, and the new ASQ will 

be about 260 million board feet. This is in a forest base that in the 

fifties was, under a 100-year cut, was over a billion board feet, was 

what the ASQ was. Actual cut was running as high as 700 million. 

This year, Ketchikan Pulp Company, which needs approximately 

200 million board feet of total volume to sustain its operations will 
15 

be harvesting 50 million total board feet on the national forest. 

That's an astounding number because, as you know Congressman, 

50 million board feet would be harvested by about 15 workers in 

less than 2 months of a summer. So--

The CHAIRMAN. What you're telling me, we won't have under this 

management program any industry left in Southeast Alaska. 

Mr. TAYLOR. Ketchikan Pulp will only survive this year off of Canadian timber that they will import from Canada to keep their mill 

running, which means all the jobs are in Canada of harvesting and 

trucking, and the utilization of a small amount of native timber 

coming off private lands in Alaska just to keep the pulp mill open. 

As we sit here today, the 4-x-4 sawmill there at Ward Cove (Phonetic) is closed down. The mill in Metlakatla (Phonetic) is closed 

down. There is not a sawmill operating, as far as I know today, in 

Southeast Alaska. 

So Federal mismanagement, court decisions, and specifically the 

decisions made by the Clinton Administration, we believe, through 

Katie McGinty, Al Gore, down through Jack Ward Thomas have 

specifically resulted in a loss of over 40 percent of the timber based 

economy of Southeast Alaska. We believe as a State that we can 

do the same job of recovery in our national forest that we did in 

recovering the salmon resources so decimated by Federal management in the fifties. 

The CHAIRMAN. Just one thing, Robin, how do you respond to the 

people that say, "Well, nature is the best manager of timber"? I 

mean, I've heard from all-we know it's not but, how-"if we 

weren't here, wouldn't the trees do la-da-da-da"? 

Mr. TAYLOR. If you and I each could live for a couple thousand 

years, we might be able to sustain ourselves off of that type of 

management perspective. It's that sort of philosophy that results in 

the complete burning down of Yellowstone Park, and yes, you can 

wait another two or three hundred years for that park to come 

back. We don't seem to do the natural philosophy when it comes 

to harvesting wheat, or corn, or anything else. 

The CHAIRMAN. But, in history, wasn't there a big fire in Canada 

at one time that burned billions of-literally billions of board feet 

down-it was in the twenties or even before that? That was because the so-called management was "natural management" that it 

burned flat? 

Mr. TAYLOR. That's true. 

The CHAIRMAN. And now they're cutting a lot of those areas. 

Canada is selling us the timbers you said. Mr. TAYLOR. Well, the Canadians are actually looking at the very 

same multiple use concepts that we have historically used, and 

that provide-we have to recall this, Congressman, that the Region 

10 foresters are some of the finest sylvaculturists in the world if 

they're allowed to stay in their profession, but they've become sociologists. Instead of making decisions based on science and good 

sylvaculture and good stewardship, they're making these decisions 

based upon polls. They're going-! listened to Phil Janek and Jack 

Ward Thomas this morning tell Senator Murkowsky, "Well, yes, we 

have the same science we've always had but the important thing 

is for us to go out to the public and get public input." Well, that's 

like a neurosurgeon going out on the street and asking the cab 
16 

driver what type of surgery he ought to do. Either these people are 

sylvaculturists who know something about their job and should be 

doing a professional job, or they're pollsters and we don't need 

them. Unfortunate~y, you can't manage a forest based upon pollsters 

and wha:t may make somebody feel good in Albuquerque. You have 

to base that forest management decision on good science, and that's 

why we believe State management would be much better for the 

forest, and for the health, and for the environment of the people 

who live within it. We can't afford to have Senator Leslie's beautiful Tahoe Basin destroyed by fire. There are a lot of homes and 

families that are living in that area. They can't afford that. The 

current management systems and regimens--

The CHAIRMAN. How do we get the message--

Mr. TAYLOR.-all of you. It's going to happen. 

The CHAIRMAN. How do we get this message out there? You're all 

State representatives or State senators. I'm a Congressman and 

when Helen gets back she's a Congresswoman, but how do we get 

this message to the general public of what's happening to the 

health of the forest? How do we do that? Have you guys-is there 

any programs going on that would get this message to the person 

in San Francisco that their Tahoe Forest is ready to die, or the person in Idaho that the fires could occur? I mean, I can't do it by myself and I know you can't either, but somewhere along the line 

we've got to do a better program than what we're doing. 

Mr. LESLIE. Mr. Chairman, that's really an excellent question. 

It's one I wrestle with all the time. Not only are there just a few 

of us on the West, but there's-most of the ones even in the West 

are in the urban area, and it's very difficult to get our message out 

to urban California. They think their toilet paper comes from KMart. They don't understand that it comes from a tree, and so it's 

a difficult thing. 

This is why I really believe that the suggestion I made of trying 

to bring some members out to see these dead trees, because it's 

such a shocking visual to fly over the east side of the Sierra, or I'm 

sure that you could pick another place in Oregon, Washington, 

Idaho just as well, and see a forest that's 70, 80, 90 percent dead. 

I mean, this is a shocking thing to visualize, and to see the desert 

coming up the east side of the mountains and reclaiming the mountains. 

The CHAIRMAN. Unfortunately, what I'm saying is, the group on 

this side other than about three of them, don't care if a tree dies. There in the Bruce Babbitt, you know, God is the only one who listens to us environmentalists and Don Young is a sinner. I'm serious. 

Mr. LESLIE. But maybe those three would come. 

The CHAIRMAN. I don't know how we can get this group to do 

that. Now, I'm going to suggest one thing. I don't know whether the 

national organization or what-somehow this has got to be made 

a news story. It's going to be a news story if one of those areas 

catches on fire. 

Mr. LESLIE. Well, Mr. Chairman, this is why I suggested in my 

brief remarks that if there's some way to do it, since-now, this is 

just my district and so-
17 

The CHAIRMAN. Right. 

Mr. LESLIE. [continuing]-maybe it's not fair to say that this is 

the answer for America, but the U.S. Forest Service developed a 

specific fire strategy to stop the fire in the Lassen, Plumas, and 

Tahoe, so it's already in writing. It's been documented. It is approved and signed off on by the forest supervisors of the Lassen, 

Plumas, and Tahoe forests. This is their committed-to-writing suggestion on what we need to do to keep this area from burning up. 

I believe that after a congressional visit, it would be very possible 

for you to declare through whatever mechanisms you might have 

a national emergency in this one area and use this as a pilot 

project so that people could come out and see what proper management could do to save a forest from certain destruction; but you've 

got to convince some of your colleagues to come because I really believe that they love trees as much as you and I love trees. It's just 

that they have a different approach on how to save them. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, we're going to-we're setting it up wherethere's going to be a trip set up. I don't know when. This is a tough 

year because it's an election year but a trip where people will have 

a chance to go out, but I'll be very surprised-other than Mr. Kildee, they just ignore this. They don't want to be exposed to the 

truth. They don't want to understand the realities, you know, and 

the only thing that will shake them up is a catastrophe and then 

they'll say, "Oh, boy, we'd better do something." 

Mr. CUDDY. Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. But that's what scares-yes, sir? 

Mr. CUDDY. Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Yes. 

Mr. CUDDY. In the district that Senator Danielson and I share, 

the Salmon River is nearly the dividing line between our districts, 

and as you are aware, we have endangered species of fish that use 

that river. Two years ago in 1994, there was a very devastating fire 

that went across a lot of that drainage. For the first time in my 

life last summer, I saw the Salmon River running red with mud. 

On the Little Salmon River, where we didn't have the devastating 

fire, it was clear. If you're truly an environmentalist, one of the 

things you do not want is an uncontrolled wildfire that pays no attention to setbacks from stream beds for taking of trees, or killing 

of trees, or however you desire to put it. But something that has 

control and something that controls the opportunity for this to 

occur, that's the most realistic picture that I have seen of the 

marked difference and the problem that it's caused, and we've 

heard, and heard, and heard for years that this sediment is ruining 

our spawning areas, et cetera, et cetera, but this was great because 

nature did it, according to some people. But last year on our Resource Committee in Idaho, of which I'm a chairman, finally one of 

the environmental people that represented Rivers United had to 

admit that, yes, that mud was no different than the mud that came 

off of a timber sale. The only difference was, Mr. Chairman, there 

was a lot more of it where it came from the fire. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, I appreciate that. I know Helen's talked to 

me about this and I can tell you if I could just get people to see 

that-the devastation that happened. I'd like to talk to Jim Hargrove, too. 
18 

Mr. HARGROVE. I have a suggestion. 

The CHAIRMAN. We have a "Hargrove" in Ketchikan, don't we? 

Yes, go ahead. 

Mr. HARGROVE. Well, I have a suggestion on your last issue--

The CHAIRMAN. Yes. 

Mr. HARGROVE. [continuing]-about how do we get people to understand it, and I think that maybe some of the resource groups 

and property rights groups and others ought to start fighting fire 

with fire. We need to find and identify an endangered species on 

the banks of the Potomac and sue the U.S. Fish and Wildlife to 

make them employ a recovery plan that would depopulate Washington, DC, and if we bring that kind of a lawsuit then-and start 

to make some progress with it-then I think we're going to start 

to catch the attention of how silly some of our laws are in this 

country when it comes to-the reason these people don't believe it 

and don't see it is because there are so few people out in our areas 

being impacted. 

The CHAIRMAN. That's right. Mr. HARGROVE. And we're just being sacrificed to this new religion that I was talking about in my testimony. When that starts 

hitting home in some of our more populated areas-and it would 

take a little research, but I'm sure we could find something that 

either does live, or used to live, or there are a few left around 

here-then that recovery plan would be pretty incredible. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, if you can do it, I'd agree with you, because, you know, the forest in the East, as Robin said, is very 

healthy because it's on private land, it's managed privately, and/or 

State. What little forest land-it means little, but the reason 

they've been able to rebuild it is they have a management capability. In the West, they abuse the Endangered Species, as you mentioned. They abuse the legal process, the courts, you know. Which 

reminds me, I'd like you to help me clarify one point on Section 318 

old growth sales that everybody seems to miss. Were you aware of 

the fact that 318 sales released under the Rescissions Bill totaled 

about 450 million board feet? Are you aware of the fact that these 

sales were actually assumed to be harvested under the President's 

program? It was the President's plan that first proposed release in 

these areas? Why I'm bringing this up, Jim, is that what we've 

been criticized about, you've been criticized about at the local level, 

has been with the program the President adopted, and we've been 

hit on the head saying we're cutting new trees under the Salvage 

Act, when really we're dealing with old growth section 318 sales 

under the Presidents plan. And I just--

Mr. HARGROVE. Yes. 

The CHAIRMAN. You know, I need some help with that. 

Mr. HARGROVE. Yes, not only are you correct in that fact, but I 

was back here working on those issues during the last Congress 

with Congressmen Dicks and Foley, and, of course, Senator Hatfield in the Senate. Congressman Unsold was back here at that 

point in time, and Option 9-these 318's sales were done for several reasons. First, they were counted in the Option 9 sales, but 

they were also kind of a bridge-the-gap issue. I think that a lot of 

us realized that before Option 9 would be fully implemented, and 

this was certainly the discussion that came out of the Administra-
19 

tion, that we would need some interim harvest, if you will, to get 

us over the hump, and so 318, if I remember correctly, had an insulation from court appeals that was upheld clean through the Supreme Court, and that what happened to many of those sales and 

the reason they never got harvested is because those-these were 

spotted owl areas and then the murrelet was listed, at least in our 

area, and what slowed them down was the consultation process 

with U.S. Fish and Wildlife to the point where almost none of those 

sales actually were harvested before that appropriations bill ex- pired, and then it threw us back into the mix again. So the salvage 

rider, basically those 318 sales had been carefully planned, were 

part of Option 9, were part of that harvest, were intended to be an 

interim timber supply to help get us over and into the Option 9 

management. Therefore we're insulated from court appeals on that, 

which I think is exactly the same principle you've got in the salvage rider, so it's not a new thing that happened in this Congress. This was something that was adopted in the last Congress, and 

you're simply trying to make it work at this point in time. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, I know this, even under the Rescissions 

Bill and what we've tried to get passed, and the President did sign 

it, they've just not released the-the Forest Service is not releasing 

many of these 318 sales. They have not kept up. It's just a-it's a 

very, very sad set of facts. Helen, would you like to come up here 

and ask some questions in a moment? You can take the Chair in 

a few moments, too, because I have to go and talk to Senator 

Simon on, of all things, some desaltation program, and I'm going 

to ask him how he stands on timber. I'll figure out if he wants his 

desalination plant, he's going to start saying, "Let's cut some trees 

down." 

Mr. MARKHAM. Chairman Young? 

The CHAIRMAN. Yes? Yes, go ahead. Mr. MARKHAM. While she's coming up may I say that you wanted 

to educate some of your Committee members to the problems out 

there. You are having a subcommittee coming to Roseburg, Oregon, within the next 2 or 3 weeks, as I remember, to look at a pilot 

project to-for the State possibly to take over the O&C lands. 

There's an opportunity for some of your people. If they're interested, then we can show them around some of this dead, dyingfully one-fourth of Oregon's forest is dead, absolutely dead. Be glad 

to show them around. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, I'm sure that Jim Hansen is going out, I 

understand, and Jim's on our side, and hopefully we can talk some 

other people into this program. Then we'll gladly have you show 

them around, because I agree with you. You don't have to-you 

know, one thing about it, we're all sort of talking to one another 

and this is for the record. We understand that, because it's-Helen 

has no disagreement and I don't have any disagreement, it's just 

that how-I've got to get their attention somehow and the only way 

I can think we can do it is either with a catastrophe, or like the 

gentleman said here, Jim, spring something here that gets their attention. You know, I'd love to have someone find the mice in this 

building and put them on the Endangered Species list. If they can 

put a kangaroo rat on the Endangered Species, we've got a unique 

mouse and they've been contaminated after all these years of Con-
20 

gress, and we ought to keep them-you know, study them to see 

if they assumed any of the BS that comes out of the halls of Congress, and it would be unique and different. You think I'm being 

facetious but there're enough mice in this building here to populate 

most of your states, and so this is something we can work on. 

Maybe we ought to make this an endangered area. This is habitat 

for that mouse and we can't be here any more. I mean, this is how 

ridiculous--

Mr. HARGROVE. The whole country would be better off if you 

were to--

The CHAIRMAN. Pardon? 

Mr. HARGROVE. The whole country would be better off if you 

were to--

The CHAIRMAN. The whole country would be better off, too. I 

agree. Helen, could you please? Then you can ask some questions. I've got to go over-thank you. 

Mrs. Chenoweth. [presiding] I wanted to comment to the panelthis was a panel that I really, really wanted to hear. UnfortU·· 

nately, I was on the Floor debating on the Anti-Terrorism Bill, and 

so it simply took longer than I had hoped. But Representative 

Cuddy, I am very proud to have you here, and I have read your 

testimony, and, as always, it's very good. Senator Taylor left the 

room, I think, but I found it very interesting, some of the comments that he made, and I just wanted to share with the panel 

that there is hope. Today in this Committee we had the sheer joy 

of when some of the New York congressmen who have consistently 

blocked our bills that would remedy some of our problems out in 

the West, when they came to this Committee of the Subcommittee 

on Forestry and Public Lands, and asked to have the United States 

government take over the Sterling Forest, which had always been 

run by the State, Representative Joel Hefley, and some of the rest 

of us joined him in having a substitute amendment that would require that that land be managed as wilderness. Now the debate 

that followed was very, very interesting. You should have seen the 

people who debated for wilderness out in the West debate against 

wilderness when it was in their own backyard. So I know that I'm 

taking a little bit of-I'm using the Chair a little laxly but that I 

wanted to share with you that we are moving ahead on some of 

these issues. 

Senator Leslie made a very interesting comment also, and that 

was that maybe we should declare some of these areas emergency, 

and when we look at the forests in Idaho, certainly I can see that 

unless we use an emergency power, Congressional emergency 

power, and get in and restore the health of the forest, it's not going 

to restore itself. 

But, anyway, I wanted to ask some questions here. I wanted to 

ask Representative Cuddy, you-in this last legislative session, 

Senator Danielson brought in a bill that originated in the Senate, 

came through your committee, that would allow the State to play 

a greater role in the management of forest lands. Could you explain that for the record? 

Mr. CUDDY. Well, Madam Chairman, it's a pleasure to be here 

before you today. What we really did was pass a very simple piece 

of legislation that allowed the State of Idaho to enter into a nego-
21 

tiation with the Federal Government to manage their lands. It was 

perceived in different manners, I guess, even in our legislature, as 

it has been in various other places where we discussed it. I think 

we viewed it, Congressmen, as a pilot project to see if we could 

make it work because, as you are very well aware, a number of the 

things that stifles the Federal Government from being an efficient 

manager must be set aside before the State could efficiently manage. 

It's our firm belief in Idaho that we have the tools, the capabilities, the environmental laws that are necessary to protect the land 

while still utilizing it efficiently, and, as you are aware, in my area 

there's about 200,000 acres or 250,000 acres of State endowment 

land that is intermingled with and adjacent to 4 million acres of 

Federal forest land. Today that 250,000 acres on a sustained yield, 

environmentally sound basis is yielding 50 to 60 million board feet 

per year. Now, Congressmen, that's much, much more than the 4 

million acres of Federal land that has much, much more capability 

around than it is producing right now. The reason that is, is because somebody with a postage stamp can't put us out of business 

for 2 years. 

Ms. CHENOWETH. That's very good. What has been the response 

of the Land Board in Idaho with regards to this charge that the 

legislature put upon them? 

Mr. CUDDY. The Land Board, and Senator Danielson is much 

better prepared to answer this than I, but the land board has started a study committee and a committee to put together some issues 

that they think they can come before the Federal Government with, 

and, yes, Helen, we are prepared to go ahead and do it as rapidly 

as we can to see if we can't make this situation real. 

Ms. CHENOWETH. I would like to ask you-I'm not going to let 

you off the hook yet-I would like to ask you as an Idaho legislator, 

what do you feel our role should be in the National Congress to 

back you up in this project? 

Mr. CUDDY. Madame Chair, the best thing you can do for us is 

to allow us, at least on an experimental basis, a place to start with 

a long enough term that we can demonstrate to the Federal Government we can manage it, we can manage it properly, and that 

it comes to us with management regulations that are in accordance 

with Idaho code. 

Ms. CHENOWETH. Let me ask you, do you anticipate that the 

Land Board or their designees would be negotiating with the Forest Service with regards to the areas that would be managed and 

logged out by the harvested-by the State Land Board, State Department of Lands? 

Mr. CUDDY. Madame Chairman, our director of State Lands, I 

think, is very capable of taking care of the State's part. Possibly 

in Region 1 there are people now that would be amenable to something that we could realistically do as far as the Forest Service is 

concerned. I'm not that aware of how the people out of the Ogden 

Region are, but we do have some new management in Region 1 and 

I'm pleased to say that they are doing a much better job than has 

been done in the past. 

Ms. CHENOWETH. Representative Cuddy, let me ask you, do you 

feel that the State laws in Idaho are as strict or stricter than the 
22 

Federal laws, and-since the State Forest Management Practices 

Act and the laws that authorize Department of Environmental 

Quality to operate, and the laws-the State laws that the Idaho 

Fish and Game operate under? I'm asking you this question to see 

if it might be possible to transition from the Federal laws and the 

rules and regulations which have served to tie up our logging and 

harvesting, so we can transition in each State under State laws. Do 

you feel that's possible in Idaho? 

Mr. CuDDY. Madame Chair, I absolutely do. Now, there are some 

caveats to that, and one, of course, is the pack fish sort of thing 

and the end fish sort of thing that there's really no science behind 

but is some--the most-to a great degree arbitrary in the numbers 

that they apply, but let me tell you as regular forest practices, our 

laws are very similar to the Federal laws. We just use a little more 

common sense when we apply them, and we do not have a process 

where somebody can intervene in the midst of that and raise issues, or red herrings so to speak, that are not part of the real issue 

or part of the real environmental issue. I think you will find that 

our water is just as clean on our State sales, or cleaner, than they 

are on the Federal sales. 

Ms. CHENOWETH. I wanted to ask Representative Bill Markham, 

you've heard the line of questioning and Mr. Cuddy's answers, has 

Oregon looked at this particular program and--

Mr. MARKHAM. In Idaho? 

Ms. CHENOWETH. The program that the laws that were passed in 

Idaho, initiated in the Senate, and then passed by both Houses and 

signed into law with regards to alternative forms of management 

on Federal lands, primarily State management, maybe cooperative 

management. 

Mr. MARKHAM. Well, Madame Chairman, I'm sure that our State 

Forestry Department had done that and we're in the process now, 

and as I stated earlier, we're going to have a subcommittee of your 

people out here within 2 weeks into Roseburg, Oregon, with the 

idea of having a similar thing only it's the O&C lands which are 

managed by the Department of Interior, not Forest Service lands, 

although we'd like to do that, too, and I'm sure we can do a better 

job. We're doing a better job for less cost and still protecting the 

environment, and the owl, and all the other animals, and birds, 

and fish. When you get the Federal Fish and Wildlife to sign off, 

you've accomplished something, and we've done that, the State Department of Forestry on State lands. 

Ms. CHENOWETH. Tell me, Representative Markham, do you have 

the pack fish and end fish policies that have been applied in lands 

in Oregon? 

Mr. MARKHAM. Do we have what? 

Ms. CHENOWETH. Pack fish? 

Mr. MARKHAM. Yes. 

Ms. CHENOWETH.And end fish? 

Mr. MARKHAM. Yes. 

Ms. CHENOWETH. Yes. Let me ask, Senator Taylor, did you hear 

the line of questioning with regards to turning over management 

on Federal lands to the states? 

Mr. TAYLOR. I did, Representative Chenoweth, and I must tell 

you that I stand in an opposite corner on that issue. I was the one 
23 

who passed through the Alaskan legislature the resolve calling for 

all of the Western lands to be returned and conveyed fee simple, unrestricted, to the Western states. Let us decide where we want 

to have parks. Let us decide where and if we want any wilderness 

areas. You certainly trusted the first 15 states to do so. Nobody's 

imposed wilderness areas on New York or Pennsylvania, and I 

firmly believe that either State ownership, which I don't think is 

the most efficient ownership either-! believe the most efficient 

ownership is private. That's why we own our own houses. We don't 

have the State owning and managing our houses for us, and we 

certainly shouldn't do this either. My biggest fear is that if we go 

into this trust concept, what we'll end up doing is, as State legislators, we'll end up taxing our own people to enforce the silly laws 

that Congress comes up with to micromanage us. So we mightwe're going to have our own little batch of green shirts. We'll take 

them off of the Forest Service employees. We'll put them on State 

employees who will be facing the same cadre and protocols of regulation that Congress imposes, and I really don't believe that there's 

anything inefficient, or more efficient, about a State worker or a 

Federal worker. If they're both saddled with complying with the 

same silly regulation, they both have to do a NEPA study, they 

both have to do a boundary survey or something, or an inventory 

on a spotted owl. Just because their name is now a State employee 

will not make them any more efficient, and as long as the Federal 

courts are available we will not have availed ourselves of any more 

expeditious method by which to resolve the conflicts. Give us back the land. Trust us with the same land decisions 

that all the original states were trusted with, and we will return 

back to the Federal treasury an income like you won't believe. We'll 

save you half a billion dollars in the process, but don't ask me to 

become Mr. Schindler and keep the list because that's what you'll 

really be doing if you give me the management of your land under 

your management guidelines. That's all I'll become, is just one 

more overseer on the plantation. Ms. CHENOWETH. Before the Chairman takes the Chair--

The CHAIRMAN. If you want, you stay right there. I'll ask a couple of questions. 

Ms. CHENOWETH. I wanted to ask you, I know you're an attorney, 

but a good attorney, Constitutionalist. Mr. TAYLOR. How many things we got there?-the only one? 

Ms. CHENOWETH. What is the Constitutional legal basis for 

transferring land to the states? 

Mr. TAYLOR. Well, the first Constitutional basis was there was 

no authority under the Constitution that you and I swear to uphold 

for the Federal Government to own any land other than that land 

necessary for magazines, forts, and other necessary Federal buildings as it's found in Article 1, Section 8. It's fascinating to me that 

when our forefathers set down to draft the Constitution, the very 

first piece of paper they set down on the table and hand wrote, the 

eighth paragraph says the Federal Government shall only own land 

necessary for those few items. There is no Constitutional authority 

for the Federal Government to own any of these land masses, and 

in fact, they were routinely turned over in toto to those states that 

were created out of them including Texas, but all of those up 
24 

through 1802. We only then started taking a very small portion of 

them. In fact, Senator Dole's State, I believe, is 97 percent privately or State owned; State of Texas is about 98 percent. So, really, it's a rhetorical question, and that is, Congresswoman, please 

tell me and show me where you have any authority under the United States Constitution to own any of the lands that you do because 

I don't believe you do have that authority and I think that needs 

to be corrected and those lands need to be conveyed unrestricted 

to people, and we will do a wonderful job of managing them for 

you. You can trust us. 

Ms. CHENOWETH. I agree with you. 

The CHAIRMAN. [presiding] And, Madame Chairman, I'm going to 

ask you one question but along those lines, how many of you--do 

you have comparisons in your State of State timber land and Federal timber land? That goes for all of you. What is the comparisons 

about yield and environmental quality of the management of State 

timber versus Federal timber? 

Mr. TAYLOR. Jim could probably give you that and--

The CHAIRMAN. Anybody got a--

Mr. HARGROVE. The differences are dramatic as far as yield and 

what's going on on those lands. The CHAIRMAN. What I'm saying is in Montana we've got a study 

where the State of Montana Forestry Group manages our timber 

better environmentally, and a better yield, and a better return to 

the communities than under the Federal management. Is thatwould that be fair? 

Mr. HARGROVE. It used to be that way in Washington until our 

current Lands Commissioner took over. 

The CHAIRMAN. What you're saying is he has bought into the 

gambit--

Mr. HARGROVE. She, yes. 

The CHAIRMAN. [continuing]-or she has bought into the gambit 

of no harvesting at all. Mr. HARGROVE. Well, not no harvesting but basically trying toleverage off the Federal restrictions to reduce harvesting as much as 

possible. 

The CHAIRMAN. OK. That could happen. The reason I'm saying 

that-it will be up-she probably won't be there very much longer 

either, and I'm dead serious. Your governor is not running again. 

It depends who is the next governor, is that correct? 

Mr. HARGROVE. No, she-that's a separate elected--

The CHAIRMAN. Is she elected? 

Mr. HARGROVE. Yes, State elected. The CHAIRMAN. Then, of course, the Seattle elects them. Mr. HARGROVE. Well, that's pretty much--

The CHAIRMAN. Yes, OK. Go ahead, sir. Mr. CUDDY. Mr. Chairman, right in the area where I live the 

State of Idaho has about 250,000 acres of endowment land, and I 

think our environmental laws are quite adequate. We have just as 

good clean water as anyone. In fact, they keep coming after the 

water in the Dworshak Reservoir that comes out of the North Fork 

of the Clearwater year after year for a proposed salmon utopia that 

has failed to exist or transpire, and one of the reasons they come 

there is because of the water quality in that reservoir. Now that 
25 

is one of the most heavily logged areas and has a lot of State land 

along its shoreline, and it still has very high water quality, but the 

point that I really wish to make is that this 250,000 acres of State 

land, and I kind of went into this earlier, is surrounded by 4 million acres of federally owned land. Our 250,000 acres on a sustained yield, environmentally sound basis puts out 50 to 60 million 

board feet every year and will continue to do so. That's much, much 

more than the 4 million acres that surrounds it. 

Now, Mr. Chairman, the other marked difference is that we are 

doing that with about 50 employees, and the Federal Government 

on those two national forests has somewhere near 400. 

The CHAIRMAN. That's our government in action and we wonder 

why we got problems. The same thing is happening in Alaska and 

Robin will tell you that. When we used to have the timber program 

in Alaska we had very few Forest Service employees. Now we have 

literally hundreds of them, and we're not cutting any trees. Their 

argument to me in defense of them, they say, is because of all the 

legal work and all the paperwork we have to do, we can't-you 

know, we don't really achieve the goals we're seeking because we're 

not allowed to. Somewhere along the line we've got to stop these 

frivolous lawsuits somehow. Because I don't know whether it affects you in your states that much, but in our State we had testimony the other day and they were going to put up 200 and-about 

300 million board feet, and I asked them a question. I said, "How 

much do you think will actually be sold?" and they said, "Probably 

less than 70 million board feet because of lawsuits." And so they 

put it up, you get nothing. I mean, that's just paperwork is all it 

boils down to. Mr. CUDDY. Well, Congressman, I clearly understand. We're 

the-that 4 million acres is doing less than 50 million board feet 

per year. On a growth capability alone, it's over 400 million a year 

that that piece of ground the Federal land has is capable of producing. Sustained yield, even by their last forest plan, is around 200 

million a year, and we're down to one-fourth of that. Now, that's 

not to tell you, and I will not tell you, that we do not appreciateit's not to say that we don't appreciate that payroll in our town 

that you people are willing to provide but we would think that with 

that size payroll they could get something close to what we put out 

as State land managers per employee. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, !-Madame Chairman, I can tell you one 

thing; I've had the privilege to travel the eastern part of this country and the timbered areas of the American Can Company and 

some of the larger private property timber companies, and what's 

happening in Georgia, Florida, and North Carolina, and South 

Carolina is awesome, all on private land. They manage it, they harvest it, they plant it, and manage it, and harvest it. It helps the 

fish and wildlife out. We've got, you know, food crops in it. It is a 

classic example-! don't see that in the Federal Forest Service at 

all, none. 

Mr. CUDDY. Congressman, I'd like to relate to you a story that 

just transpired recently. In regards to the fisheries issue, the Fish 

and Wildlife Service and the Bureau of Reclamation negotiated for 

430,000 acre feet of water out of Southern Idaho for the salmon recovery plan. Now the irony is that downriver the same Federal 
26 

Government has decided that they can-and in one of the reaches 

where it's most critical to have this freshwater-have decided that 

they could irrigate another possibly 20,000 acres on one side of the 

Snake River that takes, I believe, about 50,000 acre feet per year. 

There's another proposal on the other side of the river that they 

are proposing to do the same thing and they're-so they've taken 

our water out of our agricultural area, taking it down the river, 

and going to give it away. There's a very good possibility, Mr. Chairman, that this could go to the new poplars that they're growing on that desert land to replace the timber land we're not harvesting, and it's on a 7 -year rotation basis. 

Mr. HARGROVE. Mr. Chairman, could I make a quick comment? 

The CHAIRMAN. Sure. 

Mr. HARGROVE. And that is that--

The CHAIRMAN. This gentleman at the end here, I'm not ignoring 

you. 

Mr. MARKHAM. I know. Yes, thank you. Go ahead. 

The CHAIRMAN. Go ahead. Jim, go ahead, and then he can--

Mr. HARGROVE. OK, yes, I think considering the whole body of 

the testimony here I wanted to make sure that into the record it 

was entered that I don't think any of us here are suggesting that 

every acre of land be put in a harvest-type management. The 

Olympic National Park, for instance, I don't ever want to see that 

harvested, any of that. That's 1 million acres of wilderness in my 

district, but the 800,000 acres of Forest Service land around the 

edge of it shouldn't also be added to the wilderness category, and 

certainly none of us are talking about cutting every last tree or 

harvesting in every last piece of territory. 

If we're going to have that experiment of "don't touch it," if you 

will, that some of these people are advocating, we have huge tracts 

of land out there that we can run that experiment in, and the 

Olympic National Park is one of those areas. We have over 400,000 

acres of low elevation old .growth with trees bigger than you've ever 

seen in Alaska. 

The CHAIRMAN. Now, you're meddling now. Go ahead. Mr. HARGROVE. Well, I guess what I'm saying is that, you know, 

it's not like we're all sitting here advocating putting all timber land 

in the West under a harvest regime management, but it doesn't 

make any sense to put it all into a preservation State. 

The CHAIRMAN. Jim, I'll ask you a question, though. You're talking about that beautiful Olympic Forest, and I've been in it, what 

happens if it gets sick and diseased? What do we do? 

Mr. HARGROVE. Well, first of all, it does get sick and diseased, 

and some of that is going to fall down and die, and over time I 

think that that forest is going to degenerate. 

The CHAIRMAN. And it'll probably burn. Mr. HARGROVE. Well, it's pretty hard to burn with 200 inches of 

rain a year. It makes it real hard to get a good fire going out there, 

and it rains all but 2 months in the summer and it never dries out 

in the forest in those 2 months, but, so, I'm not sure burning is an 

issue for us on the Olympic Peninsula, and like I was suggesting 

in my testimony, over time forest ecology, those old growth Doug 

fir stands which were created because of wind falls, because of big 

wind storms, will go into hemlock, they'll go into a shade tolerant 
27 

species and the big fir will die, and fall, and they'll never be there 

again, and the hemlock will eventually degenerate into brush. 

The CHAIRMAN. And alders will then be the final--

Mr. HARGROVE. Yes, and--

The CHAIRMAN. There will be no forest at all. 

Mr. HARGROVE. Right, we'll have a degeneration into a different 

type of ecosystem,· and if they want to run that experiment, it may 

take another 500 years to run, let them run it on certain areas of 

preserved area--

The CHAIRMAN. Yes. 

Mr. HARGROVE. [continuing]-but don't keep all of the Forest 

Service, and all the State, and all the private land and put it in 

the same kind of experiment. 

The CHAIRMAN. Good point. Representative? 

Mr. MARKHAM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Co-chairman, whatever. 

The CHAIRMAN. I'm sorry. 

Mr. MARKHAM. Representative Markham here. Let me quote two 

short statistics and then make a comment on the O&C lands that 

the Department of Interior used to run in good, common sense forestry. First let me say that there are two-thirds of an acre for every 

man, woman, and child in Oregon set aside in wilderness area. 

The CHAIRMAN. Two-thirds of an acre for every man, woman, and 

child. 

Mr. MARKHAM. Yes, and we have 3.4 million people. The other 

thing, Washington and Oregon set aside in wilderness alone would 

provide a strip from Coos Bay past the Capitol over to the Atlantic 

2 miles wide, and if we col)ld only do that, maybe the rest of this 

country would get the idea what's going on in our backyard. They 

have no idea what it means. But, anyway, so much for that. 

The CHAIRMAN. Before you go on let me just interrupt you for a 

second. I did this to Jim Johns, who used to be Congressman from 

Indiana--

Mr. MARKHAM. It got him. 

The CHAIRMAN. [continuing]-and we got him because if you look 

at the definition of his area, it was a heavily forested wilderness 

before they started farming, and so we introduced a bill to make 

it all a wilderness again and it killed him. So we can get their attention because the farmers said, "What's going on?" And we told 

them what was going on. If you want a wilderness, I'm going to 

give you a wilderness in your backyard. 

Mr. MARKHAM. That's right. The CHAIRMAN. It goes back to your species here, you've got to 

get that mouse, or a carp, or something, you know, that we can do 

it. Go ahead, sir. 

Mr. MARKHAM. That nut who's out in Oregon chained himself to 

a rock so that he could stop sales in my backyard. They won't 

throw him in jail because that gives him all the more attention. 

The CHAIRMAN. What I was going to suggest maybe you should 

have left him tied to the tree. 

Mr. MARKHAM. Yes, well, I could think of a few things, too. 

The CHAIRMAN. Go ahead. 

Mr. MARKHAM. Let me say that the O&C lands in Western Oregon, it's a strip 60 miles wide right down the gut of I-5, which 
28 

is the SIP Railroad, also. It's 2.2 million acres. 1945, after the War 

when I moved to Oregon starting a logging business, there were 50 

billion feet on those Oregon/California O&C lands, 50 billion feet 

inventory. In this last 50 years, we have taken off almost 50 billion 

feet of timber and today the inventory is higher than it was by 

good management. But people don't want to listen to it. 

The CHAIRMAN. Did I hear you correctly about the O&C lands 

that, let's see, the sustainable level of harvesting could occur on 2-

point million acres of O&C lands approaches 1 billion board feet 

per year, is that correct? 

Mr. MARKHAM. I'm not tracking with you. We had approximately--

The CHAIRMAN. The statement says, the sustainable level of harvesting that could occur on 2.5 million acres of O&C lands approaches 1 billion board feet per year. 

Mr. MARKHAM. That is correct, and we've taken that off over the 

last 50 years and we still have a larger inventory than when we 

started by proper forest management. 

The CHAIRMAN. How much is being harvested now? 

Mr. MARKHAM. Well, almost none. 

The CHAIRMAN. None? How much--

Mr. MARKHAM. Thanks to the present administration. The CHAIRMAN. How much was harvested before the owl injunction? 

Mr. MARKHAM. Well, they were taking off about 1 billion feet. 

The CHAIRMAN. A million? 

Mr. MARKHAM. More than 1 billion, 1 billion 200, something like 

that. 

The CHAIRMAN. Would the State-do you think the State is ready 

for that transfer? 

Mr. MARKHAM. You'd better believe we are and we know we can 

manage it well, and we can manage it even under all the endangered species stuff if we don't get all these other acts thrown in 

that ties up the government, the Forest Service. That's what just 

drives you crazy. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, I'm excited about the transfer. I mean, I've 

talked about this. I'm hoping we can do that. Helen, have you got 

any more questions to ask? 

Mr. MARKHAM. Thank you. 

Ms. CHENOWETH. No, Mr. Chairman, I don't. This was a very 

educational panel for me and I appreciate hearing about how excited you are about transferring management of these Federal 

lands. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, for the panel, again, we'll do everything we 

can to get more people interested in the health of the forest. It is, 

as I said, going to be very difficult because for some reason the 

Eastern group of people that don't understand forestry and aren't 

aware of it as what's happening in the West. They don't have the 

interest they should have. Charlie Taylor does. He's a forester and 

he argues this battle better than anybody I know of, but somehow 

we've got to get the Eastern people and the urban Westerners to 

understand that it isn't just you cutting trees down. It's just not 

necessarily the jobs you've lost, it's the potential health of that forest. And what will happen if we don't start managing it, because 
29 

you won't have any forest at all, and that is the problem. And as 

far as transferring, my goal, as long as I sit in this Chair, I'm going 

to try to transfer your O&C lands and I'm going to try to transfer 

the State of Alaska's lands. Maybe they say it's impossible. We're 

going to do the best we can and we've got to. You know, I introduced a bill, H.R. 2413, and it's ironic to me the same people opposing it will have to admit that, because the State manages fish, 

we're doing a better job than the Federal Government ever did, and 

we can show where the State has managed on their State lands 

better forestry programs than the Federal Government is doing. 

Mr. MARKHAM. We can prove it. 

The CHAIRMAN. And you can prove it. I mean, everybody can 

prove it. Tim, you had one thing before I get off of here? 

Mr. LESLIE. Well, I was just going to say maybe the environs of 

beautiful Lake Tahoe could be used as an inducement. We'll sneak 

up behind them. 

The CHAIRMAN. That probably might work. We don't know. 

Mr. LESLIE. Even, Mr. Chairman, perhaps some of the staff of 

some of the Members, possibly certain key staff people could be encouraged to come out and look. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, what we're going to do is set up this trip 

and we'll get as many Members as we can to go out, and then we'll 

also--the staff is always invited. I get criticized for this every once 

in a while because I'm spending taxpayer's dollars, but this is a 

very, very, I think, informative way to get the people interested in 

what's going on, and somehow, though, this message has to be gotten out. I don't know who is talking to the administration other 

than Katie McGinty and Al Gore. I said Al Gore, he's got real 

strange visions. I don't know where he gets them about where man 

is going, and if you don't understand this timber process is a renewable product, if you don't recognize that, we're in serious trouble. I agree with you, by the way. You said we're not trying to cut 

every tree down. In Alaska we set 9 million acres aside, and even 

George Miller will say, "Well, yeah, but, you know, that's snow caps 

and mountains." I'll trade you the 1.4 million acres that you won't 

let us harvest for the 9 million acres, but they don't want to do that 

either. So there's something-yes, sir? 

Mr. MARKHAM. Maybe we could withhold the toilet tissue from 

the Vice-president. He might get the message. It comes from a tree. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, I'd love to do that--

Mr. MARKHAM. I understand. 

The CHAIRMAN. [continuing]-because he'd being doing more on 

that-never mind. 

Mr. TAYLOR. Congressman, I wanted to thank you again on behalf of this panel and the entire membership of the Western States 

Forestry Task Force, and to tell you that I'm sorry some of our 

panel members had to leave. We're scheduled to be having an appointment with Senator Murkowsky at his office about 18 minutes 

ago, so--

The CHAIRMAN. Well, you'd better get going. By the way, hey, 

Robin, you be on time. I guarantee the senators are never on time, 

and you're a senator. They're never on time. With that, I thank you 

all and this hearing is adjourned. 
30 

[Whereupon, at 3:50 p.m. the Committee was adjourned; and the 

following was submitted for the record:] 

House Committee on Resources 

Testimony of Senator Tim Leslie , 

First District, California 

April 18, 1996 

Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, my name is Tim Leslie. I am the 

State Senator for California's First District, which encompasses about 25,000 square miles of the 

Sierra Nevada, from Mammoth Lakes on the south to the Oregon border on the north. It has 

approximately 350 miles of common border with the state of Nevada, and includes about seven 

million acres of zoned timber land. 

Timber health in this region has been devastated by a combination of factors. Early timber 

practices of the late 1800s and early 1900s, drastic reduction of federal timber management 

through harvest, and years of drought and the resultant beetle infestation, has left a once vital andt 

healthy forest in a sickened condition, waiting to erupt into a cataclysmic fire. 

I am not exaggerating._; 

In a recent tour of the Plumas forest, the dedicated, understaffed and over regulated employees of 

the United States Forest Service, convinced me that if we continue to manage the forest as we are 

today, there will be NO forest on the east side of the Sierra within the next fifty years. This time 

frame, I am sure, can be debated; but the prospects of a viable forest into the future can not be 

debated. Unless we change our ways, and do it quickly, THERE ARE NO prospects for a viable 

forest into the future. 

I know that environmental interests love trees as much as I do. I can not believe they would wish 

the destruction of the forest. I can not believe that the annihilation of the ·forest on the east side of 

the Sierra would be acceptable to them, or to anyone. And yet, that is exactly what is going to 

happen. 

We must act immediately. I would like to suggest the following 

1.) The health condition of the forest in the Sierra Nevada should be considered as a National 

Emergency, so that streamlined steps can be taken immediately to reduce the threat of massive 

and devastating fires. 

2.) The U.S. Forest Service should begin immediately to implement its own Technical Fuels 

Report. This is a specific plan developed in July 1995, and approved by the Forest Supervisors of 

the Lassen, Plumas and Tahoe National Forests. 

a.) It is a specific report on the exact steps that need to be taken to reduce fire danger in 

approximately 2.4 million acres ofU.S. forest lands. 
31 

b.) It's stated objectives are to: 

i.) Improve firefighter safety by providing relatively safe areas from which 

offensive action can be taken against fires; 

ii.) Protect communities from wildfire by creation of community defense zones; 

iii.) Optimize use of limited fuel treatment funds by ensuring that fuel treatment is 

done in a strategic manner. 

c.) The report calls for a strategy of 

i.) Defensible Fuel Profile Zones-- strategically located strips of blocks of land on 

which fuels, both living and dead, have been modified, thereby creating a modified 

fuel break. This fuel break can vary in size, shape or width, and can be located 

along roads, ridge tops or in a canyon bottom. As modified fuel breaks are 

intended to reduce the rate of spread of a wind-driven fire, these DFPZs could 

prevent a small fire from becoming a catastrophic fire. 

ii .) Community Defense Zones -- areas around or within communities where fuels 

have been modified to increase protection of the community from wildfire. Within 

a Community Defense Zone, fuels are reduced and canopy closures are reduced to 

slow an approachi ng fire. 

iii.) Fuel Reduction Zones-- areas in which continuous high hazard fuels such as 

snags, down logs, and canopy closures are broken up. 

3.) As the conditions of the Plumas, Sierra and Tahoe National Forests are similar to other areas 

in the West, make immediate implementation of the Technical Fuels Report a pilot project, so that 

its impact and results can be studied and used, where appropriate, in other areas of extreme fire 

danger. 

4.) The House Committee on Resources should schedule an on-site inspection of the region to 

determine if the hazard is as I have stated, and determine the viability of this region for a pilot 

project that would test the recommendations of the Technical Fuels Report~ s stmteg' fer fo rest 

healtl1 Rfld !ire preteetie1, f~ cother areas in the West. 

The lands I am talking about are substantially in federal ownership. They are the responsibility of 

the federal government. The federal government is doing a terrible job in managing their 

responsibility. I repeat what I said earlier: There will be no forest on the east side of the Sierra 

unless we change our forest practices immediately. Surely this is an alternative that can be 

acceptable to no one. 

2 
32 

I have introduced Senate Joint Resolution (SJR) 41 in the California Legislature which · 

encourages the President and the Congress of the United States to direct the United States Forest 

Service to fully implement the recommendation contained in the Technical Fuels Report. I have 

asked Governor Wilson te jeiR Ale iR tkis elfert, aRe we expect tG.bear fro AI ~im ~;bortl) en hi5 

· 

The Technical Fuels Report was prepared by the U S. Forest Service. It is the best available 

suggestion for saving our forest. I am not calling for something radical. I am simply requesting 

that you do what your own experts have said is necessary to protect the majestic forest of the · 

Sierra Nevada. 

Thank you for yotJr eousiduation. 
T .. - .. ... . , 

....... ,- ... : I • I I :! : 

..... 

~ _. , ·~ . 

j J '·,, 

L· :· ; 4 \ 

!• - ·· ... 

33 

Berore The 

HOUSE RESOURCE COMMITTEE 

UNITED STATES IIOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVE 

THE HONORABLE DON YOUNG 

CHAmMAN 

STATE OF IDAHO 

This map shows the two 

Congressional Districts and the 

Legislative Districts tor Idaho . 

\ 

\ . 1 

Representative Charles D. Cuddy 

Idaho State Legislature 

District 7 

I~ April (.t996 
CHARLES D. CUDDY 

DISTRICT 1 

BENEWAH. CLEARWATER. 

IDAHO. LATAH . LEWIS 

'lEZ PERCE COUNTIES 

HOME ADDRESS 

P O BOX 6"-

0AOFINO. IOA>-10 8..1~"4 

BUSINESS (208! ~7f, 4&13 

l'lESIDENCE {2<111) A7U-J7?9 

34 

House of Representatives 

State of Idaho 

Honorable Chairman Young and Members of the liouse Resource Committee: 

COMMITTEES 

REVENUE & TAXATION 

ReSOURCES & CONSEFNAnCN 

mANSPORTATK>N & DEFENSE 

Thank you for the privilege to appear before you and this conunittee today. The work you people 

do and the issues you consider are very important to the Western States as we contain the vast 

majority of Federally held public lands. 

The two adjacent Legislative Districts represented by myself and Idaho State Senator Danielson, 

who is here today, encompass appro:<irr,1tely 20,000 square miles- an area larger than many 

Eastern States. Included in these districts are all of the Clearwater, Nez Perce and Payette 

National Forests and parts of the Panhandle and Boise Forests. The heart of Idaho and some of 

the most productive timber land East of the West slope of the Cascade Mountain Range are 

located within the boundaries of our districts. 

Four million acres of land are contained in the Nez Perce and Clearwater National Forests. 

Approximately 50% of this land is productive timber land. If efficiently managed under multiple 

use and forest health concepts, the financial benefits to all levels of government and public 

schools could be substantially increased. Further, recreational access and value to the general 

public would be enhanced. 

I have distributed a copy of an article for your review that explains much of what has transpired in 

the West that has substantially and simui::lneously reduced wild life habitat and resource 

production while, at the same time, exponentially increased the probability of occurance of 

devastating uncontrollable wild fires (the last paragraph of page one and the first paragraph of 

page two of the article clearly explains this very real situation). These conditions and many others 

have impaired professional resource management on our Federally owned lands are in dire need of 

measures to correct conflicting laws and modifY regulations that are the root of the management · 

dilemma. 

In my estimation the problem does not lie with the Federal employees who are charged with 

auempting to professionally manage the resource, but with the conflicting laws, rules and · 

regulations I just mentioned that invite appeal and litigation. In that regard, I understand a study 

of these rules, regulations and laws was presented to the Department of Agriculture some time 

ago. This could be a very useful tool in resolving some of the impairments that deter efficient 

management. 
CHARLES D. CUDDY 

IDAHO STATE REPRESENTATIVE 

DISTRICT7 

Page 2 

35 

As an Idaho Legislator I have found that-even within the State it can be very difficult to draft 

resource legislation that is applicable to the various types of vegetation, topography, precipitation, 

etc. that change from region to region. As a result we have adopted laws that allow our · 

Department of Lands and Division of Environmental Quality to cooperatively draft forest 

practices and water quality regulations that are reasonably implemented and .protect the 

environment. 

There may be a process available that could lead to more rapid resolution of Federal management 

difficulties I would like to suggest - negotiation with each State to contractually manage under 

State law parts of Federal land. This would not only help so!vc problems associated with 

conflicting Federal policies, but would pt•t to rest the National tug of war resulting from pressure 

from different interest groups and Federal agencies thr.t claim various amounts of overlapping 

jurisdiction. 

A recent inquiry with one of the National Forests in my Legislative District revealed the fact that 

any timber sale of substantial quantity is appealed, and on many occasions more than once. This 

represents approximately SO% of the Sl'les JM"llliie~~'St, but more importantly it o&H& 

·consumes more than 50% of the time required to prepare sales . . 

Clearly the best example I can give you demonstrating the difficulties, delays and overreaction 

that occurs with timber sales took place on a small State ofldaho sale located South of the 

Middle Fork of the Clearwater River. The project ila&-awfelamatdy one-quarter of a mile of 

access over an existing crushed rock surfaced Forest Service road which had been used for 

Forest Service timber removal. ·Federal agencies reviewed the sale boundaries disregarding the 

fact this sale was on State land and complied with the State Forest Practices Act and Water 

Quality Standards. After these reviews by Federal agencies, which included National Marine · 

Fisheries, the only change was to remove five trees from the sale boundary. This process 

required 18 months delay on a sale that required hauling approximately fifty truck loads oflogs 

OV~IIslyl=,l'FU~~; ~~JU:£&fl6.;p ~~ 

Included with this presentation is an executive summary of a study of timber impacts in North •. 

Central Idaho. The point that change in resource management of Federal lands is necessary to 

maintain the economy where the Federal Government is the predominate land owner is reiterated 

in this study. 
CHARLES D. CUDDY 

IDAHO STATE REPRESENTATIVE 

DISTRICT7 

Page 3 

36 

This year, with bipartisan sponsorship ar.d participation, Idaho·passed legislation that provides the 

opportunity for the State to entertain negotiations with the Federal Government to contractually 

manage multiple use Federal lands. Negotiations ofthi3 magnitude would require serious 

consideration of several issues from both entities. In particular, recreational opportunities would 

have to be maintained, public access would need to be planned and provided, .and. revenue would 

have to be shared in a manner that continues to provide funding for local entities of government in 

lieu of taxes. 

I believe the following examples will dcmcnstrate that Idaho has the capability to accommodate 

such an undertaking. In my area the State ofldaho currently manages approximately 250,000 

acres. By practicing environmentally sensitive sustained yield management this 250,000 acres has 

and will continue to produce 50 to 60 million board feet per year. This is compared to the 4 

million acres on the Clearwater and Nez Perce Forests that are capable of sustaining over 200 

million board feet per year, but in the recent past have produced less board feet than the States 

250,000 acres. · 

Idaho also has the capability and expertise to protect fo,qsts from wild fire. For that matter, in my 

Legislative District a non-profit corporation opcratcc thro:~gh the State Land Board is 

responsible for protection of 1,000,000 acres of very productive forest land. This group has a 

remarkable history of controlling forest fires at al>c-u~ 5:J% o1t:1e FeC:cral cost per fire considering 

relative conditions. 

In 1994 when the West experienced extreme wild fire <tiff:culty tllis same organization 

experienced approximately 200 fires over a 48 hour penod. Typical of their historic performance, 

the largest area burned by any of these fires· was 26 acres. This organization is quite unique as 

they emphasize quick response and have innovatively utilized Federal surplus equipment for inuch 

of their rolling stock. 

I believe I have demonstrated to yon that Idaho has adequate environmentAl orotection and the 

professional capability to work witn the Federal Government in resolving issues that directly 

affect a large part of, in fact 57%, of North Idaho's economy. 
37 

Forests. fires and elk • 

Logging for Healthy Habitat? 

by David Stalling 

C utting trees L'l p s~nsiti\'e, complex i sue, 

a drfficull act to d~fend . Uke hunting elk 

And like hunting elk. it can be done w•ll 

or badly. But what is good loggmg? Is it loggmg 

that makes a profit' Loggmg that creal'-'> forage 

for elk' Log_qmg that looks nice to people when 

il's done? 

To Steve A mo. good loggntg means workntg 

withm the bounds of natural systemsemulating natural pr<K.:(l5.SP ... , maintaining all 

comp01wnts of a h ·althy forP>t. from elk to the 

grasses and forbs lhiJl :;ustatn them. And ghcn 

the ror.,ny practic"' of the pa." 200 v•ar,, a little 

NO()(j log_qing no\\ mav nttuall. be nW~<till)' to 

t~tore and main lain ht.·ahh~ on~ts. This is 

l·~~:w<:illllY -,o in places that t"Vol\.·ed with 

lr~qu~ot hr<>S, likP the pond~rosa pill<' 

fcm:~t around StPVt: Amo':,. h1>me. 

t\rno, a raearcher with the 

re~ Sr"·tce·~ lntermounlain Fire 

Scienc~ L.Jbcmltory in Mis.wula 

Montana. has studied the ecology of for sand 

fires for more than 30 year., During that rim , 

he's helped hone methods to restore and 

maintarn healthy forests u ing loggtog and fire. 

I lis own Jand-60 acre; rn the foothills of 

Montano1's Binerroot MCJuntailt:r-provides a 

&!1owcn;e for tltese ideas. 

An open stand of ponder053 pin<., now 

towers over a forest floor CO\'ered with "~' and 

scattt:::r("CI clump of willow ;~nd Douglas fir. But 

Arno's land wasn•t af\,._,uys that \•,ray Wht-n hebought the place In 1971. rt looked lik~ '""'" 

adjacent lands ;till do-a thick tangle of firs ond 

St.:rawnv pin~. with litth• or no wa,..,l~ or shmbs 

poking through a rJt.~!l'i(' bJ,illkPt Of IWPdlt. .... oi!lrl 

dttad hr.,nche$ 
38 

l11is is a preservationist's Shangri4..a, ~ Arno 

says of tile nefghboring forest. .. It's remainf'd the 

same for years. nothing's growing. f!'s preserved. 

fnr a 1vhik hut in the context of thou>'<Jnd of 

yt>~Hf:. of constant change, ifs pretty bizarre." 

Tlte Wisdom ofSIIImfiS 

Romng sr,anps: of anc1l~nt ponderosasstand 

tf:-stament to what th1s forest once \\'Js--J grassy 

savanna of giant piner.;, wheff' l:::'ariy setth---rs 

rt'portf'd riding two abreao;l ou horseback. and 

w!wre elk grazllJ on t,tlnCJlgras..,.es and sc.:attf:rE-d 

willows Tod,w. it .,. diff1cult ro penetraiP tht" 

thkkt:t. and Iough fnr elk fu find food Wh) tlw 

clwng_P"" Tht.• ciut-.... tit· m the Slilffi~">S thrmst~ln.:s 

Turn~lf-!tlt"·<.:t"nlury !d~h-gtad!!l!-1--thf~ pr.Kikt> .1f 

culling on!, the h'f:--.L rno-.,t \·aluab!crimht-""r-ld! thto::.f· ,i.JThlt sh-eh·JOil'i to 

slowly d~cay back mto the earth. 

About the same time the huge pines were 

heading for the mills. the government began 

aggressively fighting wildfires. Meanwhile, 

settler's cattle and sheep grazed down grasses 

and !orbs that once fueled frequent fires, ignited 

hv ligh!ning and Natht= Americans~F'or 

millennia. these fires li(ked through rhe forest in 

f1 prt"'dictahle pattern c;till documented bv thin, 

·bl<:sck scars which ap~ar along annual Srowth 

ring_'i tn thf" old stumps at intervals of five to 20 

years. 

Uke pre<Jnto,..; thinnins elk herd.'>, these fires 

oncE> kept trees in check-killing .some, sparing 

otlwrs, rrcycling nutrients. rcju\'("nating grasses. 

shnJbs and net'S. Wilt100t fire, the trees grE-w 

dense. nn~rl'rowded. more prone to drought, 

· insects and disea~much like an 

ov<•rpopulat•·d elk herd. As competilion for 

wrttt>r and nutrients increased. $0 did mortality. 

The forest grew feeble. Now few 

healthy pines remain. Douglas firs 
These photos document 40 years of unnatural succession in a 

ponderosa pine stand on Montana's Bifferrool National Fares/. In 

t909, loggers cut some lrees from an open, grassy forest of 

towering pines. For thousands of years, frequent wildfires swept 

lhrough such pine savannas, killing young firs, recycling nulrients 

and rejuvenating grasses and forbs. The fire-resistant pines 

swvived. But for the last century, people have waged a vigilant 

campaign against wild/ires. By t927, Douglas fir and grand fir began 

dominating the forest understory. By 1948, dense clumps ol ffr were 

choking out pines, shading out grasses and !orbs. With too many 

trees competing for water, sun and nutrients, these fir thickets have 

since grown weak, fueling wildfires far larger and more intense than 

the frequent ground fires that historically occurred. (photos courtesy 

- ,...,..,st Service) 

39 

grow shoulder to shoulder, many dead or dying 

from mistletoe, bark beetles, root rot and other 

maladies. Forty-year-old ponderosas that should 

be 25 to 45 feet tall stand no higher than a 

person, deformed and crippled by comandra 

blister rust, a parasitic canker sapping life from 

the pines. 

"These trees didn't evolve to defend 

themselves from this," Arno says. "Historically, 

fires did not allow large areas of stagnated 

saplings to develop. Fires thinned the saplings 

and did not offer a major breeding ground for 

the disease." 

In the same way, brucellosis is common in 

elk that congregate each winter on the 

feedgrounds of the National Elk Refuge, while it 

is virtually nonexistent in elk that eat natural 

forage in the winter and remain more dispersed. 

Without fire to keep stands open and reduce 

competition from firs, opening the forest canopy, 

allowing sunlight to reach the ground and 

replenish nutrients, pines don't have a chance. 

Like elk, trees need healthy habitat. Fire is as 

essential as sun and rain. 

"Forests are processes, not just trees and 

plants," Arno says. "And these forests can't 

survive and remain healthy without processes 

such as fire." 

He explains it this way: "Imagine having an 

old grandfather clock with a glass front exposing 

the internal gears. You don't like the looks of 

one of the gears, so you remove it. Of course, 

you can't remove the gear and expect the clock 

to work, yet people expect nature to work 

without fire." 

It hasn't. Throughout the West, fire 

exclusion, logging and grazing have converted 

open ponderosa pine forests to fir thickets, 

providing elk plenty of hiding cover but little 

forage. Yet forage becomes increasingly critical 

to elk as subdivisions and strip malls usurp what 

was once the rich low-elevation mix of pines, 

riparian hardwoods and grasslands. As more and 

more people build homes in these forests, they 

see the immense stumps of ponderosas that 

once grew there and shake their heads in wistful 

disbelief. But most of them intuitively reject the 

idea that burning and logging could actually 

help bring back those great pines. 

When Arno looked at the monolithic old 

stumps on his place, he saw more than relics of 
a bygone era. He saw a compelling history-and 

a guide to the future. Listening to the stumps, 

Amo began by cutting Douglas firs and sickly 

pines, leaving the larger, healthier pines, 

simulating as best he could fire's predation. In 

the process, he made some income, selling 

firewood, and pulp and saw logs to local mills. 

This logging and burning slash in hand-built 

piles reduced fuels that had accumulated during 

nearly a century of fire exclusion, fuels that 

could feed fires far larger and more intense than 

the frequent surface fires that once occurredthe kind of conflagrations that can damage soils, 

vegetation and wildlife. Then he brought back 

fire, torching low clumps of dead willows and 

stagnant aspen. Now, a year since the last burn, 

Amo's land is green with pinegrass, bunchgrass, 

willows, snowbrush and aspen suckers. And elk 

and deer frequent his land once more. 

Restoration Logging 

This is the kind of logging Arno would like to 

see done throughout the lower-elevation pine 

forests on private and public lands. Restoration 

logging, he calls it. 

"Forests are constantly changing, dependant 

on periodic disturbances," Arno says. "We can 

mimic those disturbances with carefully 

designed harvesting and prescribed fire-not 

recreating the original forests, but learning from 

nature, using nature as a guide, maintaining 

components and processes which 

these forests evolved with and 

depend on." 

40 

and hide hunters decimated elk herds at the turn 

of the century doesn't make all hunting bad, 

massive clearcuts on steep slopes don't make all 

logging bad. 

Good forestry and wildlife management rest 

on this fundamental premise: a surplus can be 

sustainably used by people. And Americans do 

use wood products. Lots of them. The typical 

U.S. citizen consumes wood and paper products 

equivalent to what can be produced from one 

100-foot tree every year. This figure includes 663 

pounds of paper per person each year, as well as 

wood fiber in forms as diverse as insulation, 

rayon, oils, paints and fuels. Small trees are 

mulched and glued into particle board, wafer 

board, laminated lumber ... the list goes on. 

"We are still hunter-gatherers, we still need to 

make a living from the land," Arno says. "We can 

do so and still maintain wildlife and aesthetics." 

Arno believes that the United States should 

rely on homegrown trees to meet its needs rather 

than importing timber. While U.S. timber 

companies export 3.3 billion board feet of 

timber each year, the U.S. imported 17 billion 

board feet of processed lumber and raw logs last 

year. Nearly half of all wood products consumed 

in the United States today come from other 

countries-mostly Canada-and such places 

don't necessarily practice enlightened forestry. 

Arno's vision of "light-on-the-land" loggingrestoring and maintaining healthy forests, 

When many people think of 

logging, they envision denuded 

mountainsides webbed with roads. 

And they know some logging 

operations are still managed for 

short-term profit, not as part of a 

long-term process to restore and 

maintain the health and 

sustainability of the land. Bad 

logging inflames cynicism and 

mistrust. In the same way that many 

people oppose killing elk, many 

people now protest cutting trees, 

anywhere, anytime, no matter the 

reason. Passion and lack of 

understanding often fuel these 

debates. But just as the fact that tusk 

The fire scars in this ponderosa pine stump reveal a history of frequent wildfires 

occurring from t713 to t886. Unable to penetrate the trees th1ck, protective bark, the 

names only scared the pine while killing firs and younger, weater pines competing for 

water, nutrients and space-helping this tree grow fast and strong. (photo courtesy U.S. 

Forest Service) 
ANer fogging to reduce fuels accumulated from years of fire 

suppression, foresters are increasingly using prescribed fire to 

restore many forests to more natural, hea!:hier conditions. (Randy 

Davis photo) 

The cones of lodgepole pines only open and disperse their seeds 

when exposed to intense heat. These high-elevation :orests evolved 

with infrequent. big, hot fires that killed older trees but germinated 

seedlings. Logging and hot prescribed bums can help emulate those 

processes and maintain a mosaic of young and ofd pine stands, 

providing habitat lor a variety of wildlife. (Bob Benne~ photo) 

employing local people-contrasts sharply with 

this condition. 

"We don't need to rob from other societies to 

support our consumption," he says. "We can, 

and need to, manage our own forests to improve 

forest health and reduce the risk of severe 

wildfires." 

Forest Health Emergency? 

Logging for healthy forests strikes many 

people as an oxymoron. Others cautiously 

embrace it. But some loggers, foresters and 

timber companies have jumped aboard a "forest 

health" bandwagon. claiming logging can 

reduce fire danger and improve forests just 

about everywhere. This is akin to suggesting that 

a spike-only season is the right prescription for 

hunting in all elk herds. 

In the name of a "forest health emergency," 

the U.S Congress enac ted legislation last July 

that denies the publ ic the opportunity to appeal 

"salvage" logging of dead and dying timber on 

publ ic lands. Despite broad public criticism. 

41 

several national esl~ have invoked the salvage 

bi ll to bu ild new roads and cut dead trees-and 

live trees, too, if a forester deems them 

unhealthy. Even trees blown down by strong 

winds are now being quickly salvaged. But dead 

and decaying trees are as much a part of healthy 

forests as fire, wind and rain. Simply removing 

them ignores the complexities of forest health 

and further alienates people, provoking 

controversy instead of consensus. Efforts to get 

people into the woods and show them sites that 

demonstrate good forestry are far more likely to 

regain public trust. 

Forest health problems do, indeed, exist, 

with serious implications for elk. From the 

Cascade Mountains of Oregon to the Front 

Range of Colorado, and from British Columbia 

to Arizona, fire exclusion, logging, grazing and 

human development have transformed millions 

of acres of ponderosa pine savannas. In fact, 

Wallace Covington, an ecologist at Northern 

Arizona University in Flagstaff, calls ponderosa 
pine savannas the most endangered forests in 

the West 

Covington studies ponderosa pine forests in 

Arizona, comparing current condilions to preselllemenllimes. On the Coconino National 

Forest, where pine and bunchgrass coexisted 

with fire for 2 to 5 million years, there were once 

about two dozen trees per acre-a wide open 

pine stand with a grassy understory. Today, 

roughly 850 trees choke each acre. Where I .000 

pounds of grasses and forbs once flourished in 

each acre of land-sustaining great herds of 

deer and elk-350 pounds per acre now grow. 

As the profusion of trees compete for moisiUre, 

nulrienls, sun and space, they become 

increasingly stressed. Burning won't solve the 

problems, Covington says. In the absence of fire, 

a thick, sterile carpel of duff has crept up the 

bases of trees. A fire now would not be like the 

periodic, low-intensity ground fires thai once 

thinned forests. II would be a large, intense fire, 

reaching high into the crowns and deep into the 

soils, killing mature pines along with the 

crowded understory. 

Thai's precisely what happened in a firsnarled former pine savanna much farther north. 

On Augusll9, 1992, a dozen lightning strikes in 

the foothills east of Boise, Idaho, sparked a blaze 

that burned 257,000 acres of forests and 

rangelands, including large pines. The fire 

scorched one stream to bedrock, wiping out a 

population of increasingly rare 

bull trout Efforts to protect 

homes cost more than $24 

million. One area, however, 

didn't burn. When it reached 

Tiger Creek, the blaze lay low 

and merely burned off the 

underbrush in a 2,500-acre 

stand of ponderosa pines-the 

only survivors within miles. The 

Tiger stand had previously 

been logged to remove the 

understory of fir and reduce 

fuels, and prescribed fire had 

been used to restore and 

rejuvenate grasses. 

42 

forests that existed in pre-selllement times have 

disappeared. Now, efforts to log tangles of 

pinon, juniper and fir-combined with 

prescribed fire-are helping restore the aspens 

thai are synonymous with elk country in the 

Southwest And in the moist Sitka spruce and 

hemlock foresls along the West Coast, when 

conditions were just right every few hundred 

years, intense fires created expansive openings 

of grasses and !orbs, providing forage for 

Roosevelt's elk. Here, too, logging and fire may 

be essential to maintain healthy elk habitat 

Toward Common Goals 

But few logging operations occur without 

heated debate these days. If nothing else, forest 

health issues may serve as a catalyst to bring 

people together. 

"There hasn't been much effort in the past to 

explain forestry practices," says Seth Diamond, 

wildlife program director for the Intermountain 

Forest Industry Association. "The public has 

evolved from not being involved, to reacting and 

criticizing, to where they are now gelling out in 

the woods, learning about forestry and sharing 

their ideas and concerns. Unfortunately, logging 

has polarized and alienated a lot of people-but 

we need those people to help us find solutions 

to complicated problems. People need to be 

aware of the consequences and tradeoffs of 

different options. Yes, there were large fires 

Like the pine savannas, 

great stands of aspens grew in 

what is now Arizona and New 

Mexico. But in the past century, 

more than half the aspen 

By bringing people into the woods to demonstrate and explain forestry issues, /oreslers and land 

managers can help folks beffer undersland forest ecology and the role of fire and logging in restoring 

healthy forests. (photo courtesy Chuck Bartlebaugh C. W.t.) 
43 

historically, but is that acceptable today in all 

places? And if not, what do we want to do? 

These ecosystems evolved with disturbances like 

fire, and logging can create similar 

circumstances." 

help in some places, by reducing fuels, but as far 

as nutrient cycling, fire certainly does things that 

logging doesn't." 

While logging can reduce fuels and allow 

managers to safely restore fire, Arno is quick·to 

point out that logging alone cannot replicate 

fire. Tom Atzet, a Forest Service ecologist for 

southwestern Oregon forests, agrees. 

Biologists have demonstrated over and over 

the critical link between fire and countless 

species of birds, mammals and insects. Even 

some lichens, which cling to trees and rocks 

and take their sustenance from air and raincoincidentally serving as key indicators of air 

quality-may require fire to survive. Atzet says 

recent research suggests lichens may inhale 

nutrients from wildfire smoke. In the big picture, 

we still know very little about the millions of 

intricate relationships between fire and forest 

organisms, but we do understand this much: fire 

"Some people say logging is a wholesale 

substitute for lire," Atzet says. "It isn't. We don't 

yet understand all of the physical and chemical 

properties of fire, or the effects lire has on 

organisms within the environment. Logging can 

What's Good for the Goose May Kill the Gander 

The great pitlall of 1orest health" 

lies in people's tendency to 

overgeneralize. What works in one 

forest may prove disastrous elsewhere. 

For example, high-elevation forests like 

lodgepole pine evolved with less 

frequent, more intense wildfires. These 

burns created a patch of grass here, a 

small stand of young lodgepole there, 

and some dense old-growth nearby to 

form a classic mosaic, supporting 

everything from elk and deer to pine 

martens and owls. But years of fire 

exclusion and iogging have allowed 

lodgepoles to grow into larger, more 

uniform stands with little diversity. Pine 

beetle epidemics and large wildfires are 

on the rise. 

But thinning and buming the 

understory would be absurd here. 

Scattered clearcuts and more intense 

prescribed bums would more closely 

follow historic natural patterns of fire. In 

the high country of Idaho's Selway 

Bitterroot Wilderness, for instance, 

large hot fires occasionally burn dry, 

south-facing slopes creating huge 

brushfields, while sparing the spruce 

and fir on moist north slopes. Viewed 

from above, the patchwork of trees and 

openings is difficult to distinguish from 

clearcuts in adjacent iogged areasexcept for the roads. 

Foresters prescribe distinct 

treatments to different forests. 

Clearcutting ponderosas can be like 

amputating the leg of a heart attack 

victim. So can thinning lodgepole. But 

when economic and social pressures 

transcend genuine forest health consider· 

ations, land managers may prescribe the 

wrong treatment in the wrong place. 

That's why clearcuts have a bad name, 

and why folks think selective cuts are 

always best. Clearcuts assault people's 

senses, while a selectively thinned forest 

seldom draws attention. But aesthetics 

don't always equate to good forestry. 

Selective logging has become synony· 

mous with good forestry, yet if only large, 

valuable trees are selectively cut. it's 

nothing more than high-grading. 

Of course, logging plan~ must 

account for social and economic factors. 

Modern technology allows for logging 

that's lighter on the land than past 

practices, but not without tradeoffs. 

Helicopter logging can eliminate the need 

for roads in some areas, but to make a 

profit, loggers may have to cut bigger, 

more valuable trees, like mature 

ponderosa pines and larches-often the 

very fire-adapted, fire-dependant species 

foresters are trying to restore. More 

traditional equipment like grapple 

skidders and feller bunchers costs less, 

but requires roads and skid trails. 

Some state-of-the-art machinery, like 

harvesters and forwarders (that together 

form a "cut-to-length system• that cuts, 

limbs and loads trees on the spot) can 

range far from roads, reducing the 

number of roads required. Equipped 

with wide, rubber tires, the machines 

cause less erosion and soil compres· 

sion than traditional equipment, and 

they can process small-diameter fir 

thickets that may be impractical to log 

otherwise. But together they cost about 

$700,000. 

Every technique has benefits, each 

has faults. Much depends on the types 

of trees to be cut, when they are cut, 

the nature of the terrain where they 

grow, the going price of lumber and 

pulp, and whether the trees are on 

public or private land. Logging on 

private lands tends to have a more 

singular focus. Expensive, time· 

consuming thinnings and prescribed 

burns don't boost the bottom line of 

timber company ledgers. And timber 

companies are in business to make 

money. If they don't, a lot of elk habitat 

could be sold and used for other profit· 

making ventures-like subdivisions or 

exclusive hunting resorts. 

In contrast, agencies charged with 

stewardship of public lands may view 

logging to restore and maintain healthy 

forests as essential, even if they have 

to do it without making a profit-much 

like they use controlled burns to 

maintain healthy elk winter range. Like 

prescribed fire, logging can be an 

important way to restore natural vigor to 

a forest. 

-D.S. 
is essential to healthy forests. 

For many, though, fire conjures images of 

charred homes and Bambi fleeing a wall of 

flames. Some people aren't willing to accept the 

risk of prescribed fire, or simply don't want to 

choke on smoke lingering in valleys. Just as 

many don't want logging occurring near their 

homes. But there is risk in doing nothing as well. 

"It's like holding your hand over a dripping 

hose," Atzet says. "For a while, you can keep the 

water from coming out. But the pressure builds 

and builds. Eventually, the water bursts out with 

far more power and intensity than if you just let it 

drip. We've held it back for awhile, but now fuel 

loads are high, and forests are ready to explode." 

Unfortunately for elk, land managers tend to 

meet the most resistance to logging and burning 

where people are building homes. This also 

happens to be where ponderosa pine forests are 

most in need of thinning and burning, where elk 

spend harsh winters and require grasses and 

!orbs that can only be restored and sustained by 

burning and logging, and where elk have already 

lost millions of tons of forage to human sprawl. 

Only by working together will people solve such 

dilemmas. 

Atzet has a disabled son, who has been in 

44 

and out of hospitals for years. At times. Atzet 

grows frustrated with doctors who leave him to 

fidget in waiting rooms, uninformed. 

"They have my son's best interest at heart, 

but treat me like an outsider," he says. "Yet l 

have more interest in my son than anyone else 

in the world. It can be that way with forestry. 

People have a deep interest in forests, and land 

managers can be like doctors." 

On one occasion when Atzet took his son 

in for a spinal tap, doctors parted the heavy 

curtain of professional medicine and allowed 

him to join them in the operating room to 

watch and help. 

"We were working together toward the 

same goal," he says. "It can work the same in 

forest management, by letting r·eople who care 

join in the process. to watch and help. 

"It's not the science. We're '10t lacking the 

science to do a good job in managing 

ecosystems. It's the human element-getting 

people to work together toward common 

goals." 

Dick Hancock 

I) The mission of the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation is to ensure the future of elk. other wildlife and their hahitat. 

Originally published in the Spring _1996 issue of BUGLE, the Elk Foun_datior's quarterly journal, this article is the third n a ~e ie_s 

on forests, fire and elk. {The prevK>us two focused on ~he eHects of w1 \dfire and prescribed hre on forests end elk). Th1s art1c\e 1s 

reprinted by the lntermountam Forest Industry AssociatiOn. 

The Elk Foundation is committed to working with private landowners to promote good forest management to enhance habitat for elk and other 

wildlife. To learn more about our many conservation ;>arlnerships with individuals and corporations, please call 1 -800·22t-5355, ext. 542. 
45 

A STUDY OF THE EFFECTS 

OF CHANGING FEDERAL TIMBER POLICIES 

ON RURAL COMMUNITiES IN NORTHCENTRAL IDAHO 

An econon1ic impact assessment project funded by the 1994 & 1995 Idaho legislature> 

Submitted by 

M. Henry Robison, Pl.. D. 

Regional Econo /ll iot 

Center for Business Development Jnd Reseao, !> 

Charles W. McKetta, Ph.D. 

Forest Economist 

Department of Forest Resources 

Steven S. Peterson, M.S. 

Research Auociate 

Center for Business Development and Research 

~ Universityotldaho 

Center for Business Development and Research 

College of Business and Economics 

Moscow, Idaho 83844·3227 

Tel: (208) 885 ·661 I 

FAX: (208) 885-5580 

February 1996 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Who w ill live in Idaho's rural 

communities? The timber workers, miners, 

farmers and ranchers whose families may have 

laid the shape of present settlement~·or a new 

wave of trade and service workers, catering to 

burgeoning recreation and ourism~ retired 

fami lie s and life-style migran ts escapins the 

stra ins of urban life. Is it possible to base a 

thriving economy on both··traditional industries 

complemented by re creation. tourism, ar.d 

quality of life' Prompted by dramatic changes in 

fedaral timber policies that appeared to influence 

resource communities, the 1994 Idaho 

Legislature asked these very questions. They 

passed House Bill 956 to fund the present study . 

Previous analyses had looked at impacts 

for broad multi-county regions, missing impac rs 

that might be acute at panicu!ar communities. 

In contrast we focus on individual communities . 

We take into account growth in other r a."t.s of 

the economy, and then convert recent federal 

t im ber policy changes into forecasts of impacts 

on com munity jobs and income. We also 

consider loc al government fiscal impacts. Wh ile 

our study covers northcentral Idaho in detail, our 

finding s have implications tor federal policy and 

natural resource managemel"!t throughout the 

West. 

Federal Policies Could Close Idaho 

Sawmills National Forests dominate Idaho's timber 

markets. When federal timber sales decline 

sawm!ll s must compete fo r logs from sma!ler 

sources or close . This has happened throughout 

the West and mill closures have been frequent·· 

since 1989 over 200 sawmills have closed in 

neighbori ng st ates, As federal timber saie 

redu ction s spread e?stward, Idaho will see the 

same pa ttern. 

The Clearwater and Nez Perce ~J J!iona! 

Forests have been the source for nearly half of 

northcentral Idaho's log use. The uncut 

inventory from past sales had been keef)ing mills 

alive but is not being replenished . National 

Forest sales have dropped from an allowable sale 

quantity (ASOJ of 281 mill ion board feet (MMBFJ 

per year proposed in forest plans to only 21 

MMBF in 1995 . Federal log availability is 

projected to drop to less than 3 MMSF by year 

2000. Our timber analysis predicts the probable 

cl osure of 6 

46 

KEY FINDINGS 

~ National Forests dominato Idaho's timber 

markets 

~ Federal resource policy changes can restructure 

local communities 

~Clearwater timbershed National Forest timber 

sales have dropped 93% 

~ 6 of the area' s 9 sawmills could close .by year 

2000 

~ Saw mill closures cause 2,900 job end $87 

million annual earnings losses 

~ Region-wide analyses obscure variable 

community impacts 

~Timber towns could lose 30% to 75% of all jobs 

~ Timber policies have little effect on agricultural 

or rec reatio n towns 

~ Timber tow n losses cause trade center impac ts 

~ Local government deficits could exceed 15% 

~Tourism must quadruple to replace earnings 

losses from mill closures 

Tou rism and Jii estyle migration growth 

concentrates !n high amenity towns 

~ Mill closures reduce chip supplies threataning 

pulpmills 

~ Forest plan high amenity alternatives would 

have maintainad existing mill capacity 

~ State management of federal timberlands could 

keep mills open and supply 5 new ones. 

~ Effective policy formation requires community 

focused economic analyses 
47 

oi th e area's 9 sawmills as a direct res ult of these 

timber sale reduc~ions . 

As a backdrop for timber Impacts w e 

assembled a cons ensus growth for!cas t ~o r other 

parts of the economy. Most industries should 

grow 1% to 3% per year thro ugh year 2000. 

However, agriculture and the federal government 

are projected to have no growth. Tourism has 

recently grown at a brisk 5% per year, and many 

see a similar growth in retired , leisure, •~ d other 

lifestyle migrants Into rural Idaho. We buil t these 

growth rates into our backdrop projections. 

The Economic Impact of Mill 

Closures In northcentral Idaho (Nez Percl!l, Lewis, 

Clearwater. and Idaho Counties}. closing 6 of the 

region' s 9 sa wmills could cause 2,900 timber and 

timber-linked job losses. and $87 million in annual 

earnings losses . This would negate expect ed 

growth in other sectors . Total jobs stay roughly 

the same as 1994, but earnings per worker drop 

by 4% . 

Community-level impacts vary greatly. 

Hardest hit are small towns that are high:y 

specialized in w ood produ cts . Elk City could lose 

a sawmill, and 170 timber and timber-linked jobs . 

Even with growth forecast in other sectors , and 

in-migration, Elk City would have 25% fe wer jobs 

in year 2000. Its residents will be poorer--

earnings per worker drop by 25 %. Koos ~d a could 

ha ve 31 o/o fewer jobs, Kendrick/Juliaetta nearly 

45% fe wer. and Pie rce e stunning 75% fewer 

jobs. 

Other Possible Futures Federal lands can provide commodities or 

amenities but can they do both? The Clearwater 

and Nez Perce National Forests pl ans suggest they 

coul d. Their high smenitv alternatives foe~ sed on 

recreat ional and environmental values, and 

permitted timber harvest ing only where it would 

not conflict. Despite these limit ations, the high 

amenity altern8tive presc ribed annual allowable 

timber sales ot 216 M MBF per year, 72 times 

higher tha n the 3 M MBF of availability ~~ forecast 

for year 2000 with current timber policies . 

If forests were managed according to the 

Mgh amenity lfternative the 6 mills prev:ously 

forecast to close would rem ain open, and there 

would be additional volume sufticient to build 5 

new mills. Compared to 199 4 some communities 

could see job ga ins of as much as 40%. Regionw ide employment could increase 13% . A 

proposal for the state of Idaho to manage federal 

timberlands has nearly identical economic effects . 

ii 

Can Tourism Replace Lost Timber 

Income? Tourism has been growing if" Idaho so we 

asked how much it would have to Increase to 

rep lace the e~rnings from 6 closed mills. By year 

2000 tourism would have to quadruple. 

Comm unities are not equally endowed with 

amenities so while jobs nearly double in Riggins, 

Pierce still loses 65% of all Its jobs. 

Under this transitional scenario high wage 

timber jobs are replaced by low paying trade and 

service jobs. Some communities art pauperized, 

.. earnings per worker in former sawmill towns drop 

by as much as 40%. 

Changing Timber Policies Affect 

Local Public Finance · We analyzed fiscal impacts for Idaho 

County. Timber sale reductions cause a decline in 

county revenues, including a 65% reduction in 

federal 25 % fund and payments in lieu of taxes. 

The net effect could be an Idaho County budget 

deficit of $1.6 million (·17%). School districts 

face similar reductions. In contrast increesad local 

log use under the Forest Service high •menlty 

slttrnltive generates a surplus of $1.2 million 

I 1 3%). The tourism-replaces-timber scenario 

causes deficits of $2 .4 million 1·25%). 

Sawmill Closures Could Affect the 

Lewiston Pulpmill Sawmill closures reduce local wood chip 

availability causing prices to soar. The tlmber sale 

!eduction sc11n1rlo weakens the Lewiston 

pulpmill's competitiveness, but we have not yet 

forec ast its closure . If the pulpmill wera to close, 

Lewiston could lose 4,500 jobs (·21% of all jobs) 

and $145 million in earnings (·28 %} . 

Impact lnfonnation Empowers 

Decision Makers This study shows why community-focused 

analyses are necessary for decision makers to 

understand natural resource policy impacts. Our 

study is the most ambitious effort to estimate 

local economic Impacts of Forest Service policy 

eve r funded by a state legislature. The avail ability 

of such information empowers local authorities. 

Who Will Live in Idaho's Rural 

Communities? We conclude that National Forest policy 

greatly influences the answer. 
48 

TESTIMONY OF WASHINGTON STATE SENATOR JIM HARGROVE PAGE 1 

MEMBER WESTERN STATES FORESTRY TASK FORCE 4-18-96 

I have represented the Olympic Peninsula for almost 12 years. I am 

a also a professional forester. My district has over 1 million 

acres of wilderness and another BOO thousand acres of U.S.F.S. land 

that have been put in a virtual preserve status by option 9. The 

sustainable harvest on the Olympic National Forest prior to the 

spotted owl listing was about 220-230 million board feet a year. 

Under the presidents plan it is about 4 million feet of thinning 

designed to produce more habitat. In 1992 the target for owls in 

the recovery plan on the peninsula was 200 pairs·. We now have 

counted 229 pairs in the national park alone with another 107 pairs 

outside the park, 50% over what was. said to be necessary for 

recovery and scientists say the population is stable. What are we 

trying to save. The real issue seems to be cutting trees at all. 

In fact the only mature sale to be harvested in the last several 

years is on the Qulicene district. It was recently freed up by the 

salvage rider. This harvest brought screams and protests from the 

environmental community over an approximately 50 acre sale and even 

a promise from the president to repeal the rider. We also have the 

ESA effecting our state land private lands with the state rushing 

head long into a HCP without fully understanding the consequences 

and private land owners being blackmailed into HCP' S or risk 

onerous regulations and takings citations. Three years ago some 

mi~ls were told to re-tool cut younger timber and second growth but 

tkit isn't working either. As an example Mayr Bros. A 60 year old 

firm, having built a new small log mill, went down just last week 

and it is not known whether they will ever start again. 

Where is the balance. As a forester I realize we need to continue 

to do research and learn how to better protect our ·environment. 

This produces more fiber over the long run while protecting the 

quality of life we all enjoy. I know even my most ardent logger 

agrees, but what he can't understand is the new religion. The 

insistence that we cut no more trees. First it was supposed owl 

habitat, then marbled murrelets, then salmon and even if none are threatened then it is the intrinsic value of old growth. The next will be any tree on any land and I believe agriculture is the next 

to be broadly attacked. 

We need you to make some fundamental changes in the law. The first 

would be to protect the viability of a species only, not its 

viability in every location. "Sub" species of salmon and now the 

marbled murrelet are what is causing great harm now. Another 

practical help would be to have a private HCP really mean something 

by adding sufficiency language that if a land owner goes through 

a plan and abides by it he gets a long term commitment to no more 

regulations I.E. 150 Years. We also need a quick process for delisting when assumptions about a species biology are recognized as 
49 

hargrove page 2 

false. We also need a way to compare the cost to humanity and stage 

in protections even if we assume some risk to the species. 

The other area that needs to be addressed is property rights. A 

fundamental issue addressed in our constitution. Why is taking a 

highway right of way any different that telling a landowner he can 

no longer use his property. 

The families that live in my timber communities are hard working, 

tax paying citizens that have never asked for a handout and only 

want to make a living and raise a family. They have been let down 

by the country they love. The head lines are gone and so are the 

log truck rallies. Many timber workers have been ushered off into 

retraining hoping for a future somewhere. Yes, there still is 

something of our industry to save but the real question is who is 

next. What industry. What region. What class of american citizens 

will suffer from this new religion. 
"FiScAi: 

YE~ 

1986 

1987 

1988 

1989 

1990 

1991 

1992 

1993 

1994 

1995 

50 

STATE OF WASHINGTON 

DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES 

0!-'l'Mf'lC R!ill)Q_N TIMBER SALES SUMMARY REPORT 

Fiscal Yoars 1986 thru 1 995' 

SOLO REMOVED 

M6F BID MBF 

VOLUME $VALUE VOLUME 

~4,052 ~ $36,008,729 385,117 

326,203 $48,791,572 363,235 

213,590 $66,723,960 242,684 

256,052 $83,940,514 198,765 

296,104 $114,101,072 213,875 

152,732 $44,179,489 166,420 

101,035 $27,242,853 140,598 

98,608 $52,394,484 101,673 

56,823 $28,948,844 34,421 

-

90,162 $35,816,777 39,500 

• Flaoal Year runa from July thru Juno 

BID 

$VALUE 

$44' 682,363 

$46,041.419 

$51,492.420 

$57,630,856 

$78,802,811 

$63,862,120 

$40,1 28,123 

$31,541,991 

$16,195,335 

$16,935,057 
51 

Alaska State Legislature 

C.:bam1w n, 

Juli iciu y Commitu::e 

~t.l tc Clpuol 

Junc:.tu Al .o~ ~k• 9Y80i· I JS1 

H:,· Ch:ir.n.:n . 

Tro~ nspm r.t io n \.\Hnmilt\.'t 

:\ .-..J !-t>Jnl :iuect 

K.: ~hi .1n . Al.ht.; I>Y!-'01 

•'.llll 7• ~1.i hv.;a 

J.'(n:· 71 1171.\ 

,\/cml•ll·. 

Rc:.'>•lun:es <:umm•ncc 

\\'oe ~u:rn l.cl{• ~I Jti t tu ~t y T.ak 1-'orcr Senator Robin L. Taylor 

Testimony of Alaska State Senator 

Robin L. Taylor 

to the 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Committee on Resources 

April 18, 1996 

Timber Salvage and Forest Health 

The timber salvage and forest health legislation passed last year should have 

been a useful tool tor land managers in the national forests. Unfortunately, the 

present administration has not implemented the law in the manner the drafters 

had envisioned. The administration has in fact impeded its implementation and 

has as a consequence tailed to carry it out. I would like to see the law amended 

to more explicitly carry out the intent of the original measure and have it 

extended indefinitely. 

I would recommend that any remedial legislation be instituted as policy in the 

National Forest. This act can permit the harvest of significant amounts of timber 

that would otherwise go to waste by being left to decay. In Alaska it may yet 

help prevent forest fires in areas where fires are traditionally known to occur. 

State Land Trust Concept 

The state land trust concept is a useful mechanism to ensure funding tor 

schools and other areas of public concern which are tied to the utilization of 

public resources in a forest. This makes a good connection between the 

expenditure of funds and the resources that are consumed or sold. I am strongly 

considering sponsoring legislation that would apply this concept to Alaska. I 

think it is important to make a connection between the use of resources and the 

funding of important public institutions such as education. 

Transfer of National Forests to the States 

In my role as an Alaska State Senator, I sponsored and the legislature passed a 

resolution in favor of the transfer of federal lands to the states. I have also 

sponsored companion legislation to Congressman Young's legislation 

proposing the transfer of the Tongass National Forest to the State of Alaska. I 

L:hstricr A: 

Hydu • K~h: hik.\n • 1\upu.:::~ nol • l•lcycu Chud: • P~ cJ::.burg • S.JXm.ln • Si t~ • Wr tn~;dl 
52 

filed this legislation out of frustration brought about by the unwieldy federal 

management of the Tongass. This management has been disastrous to the 

communities of southeast Alaska in recent years. This is a consequence of 

increasingly interventionist policies of the federal government. 

Prior to the passage of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act and 

the Tongass Timber Reform Act, multiple use management of the Tongass was 

a fairly straightforward local process. 

Since the enactment of these two Federal Acts and others, the management of 

the Tongass has become part of an annual three ring political circus. It has, in 

effect, brought year to year management of this forest to the national level either 

in the Congressional, Judicial and now the Executive Branch of government. 

What this points out is that the management of the forest is totally out of 

perspective. 

The people living in the Tongass are ever vigilant. to any potentialll' harmful 

industry that might affect the fishing and tourism industries and the local ways of 

life. People live in southeast Alaska because they value and appreciate the 

clean air, water and land. It is obvious !hat they value it, they treasure it so much 

that they continue to live in a p!ace that measures rainfall in feet rather than 

inches. This is something that is obvious to any outsider when they see the 

Tongass. The residents genuinely love this area, we have invested generations 

of lives here and we don't want to leave it because of a politically caused 

unemployment. 

Under the transfer legislation, I am going to propose that the Tongass be 

managed by the communities of the Tongass. Sitka for example would hold 

hearings on harvesting within their region. If they were to oppose timber 

harvests or a specific timber harvest then there would be no harvest. It would 

also be useful to tie some source of school funding to the harvest or use of the 

forest in that region. That way, the affected community could make an informed 

decision and live with the economic consequences. The manner in which the 

Tongass is managed now is that the local citizens must lobby the national 

government on how the lands are managed. This is a very burdensome and 

inefficient way to manage forests and lands. The local citizen should be given 

the opportunity to determine the use of these lands. 

I would further point out that the State of Alaska and the Alaska State 

Legislature have historically taken a very conservative approach to land and 

other forms of resource management. At statehood the state took over a 

disastrous federal fisheries management program. The federal program had 

allowed salmon resources to be decimated by the use of fish traps and seasons 

that were in favor of the Seattle salmon industry magnates. The newly formed 

State of Alaska took over and took the position that preservation and 

enhancement of the resource was the primary objective. Fish traps were 

eliminated and seasons were curtailed. Today we have record fish returns in 

southeastern and the balance of Alaska. 
53 

Alaska has been very cautious in weighing how timber harvesting and mining 

might affect the fishery resource. Both Alaska's executive and the legislative 

branch have been cautious regarding its timber policies. The legislature created 

a forest practices act that is among the toughest in the nation. We can rightfully 

challenge any state to say that they have done a better job protecting the 

resources that are dependent on clean water and an overall high quality 

habitat. 

In summary, the State of Alaska can manage the entire land mass known as 

southeastern Alaska. Alaska has demonstrated that it can be entrusted with the 

management of resources. It has done an extremely high quality job of 

managing resources with which it has been entrusted. I would encourage the 

chaifman to continue the efforts to transfer the Tongass National Forest to the 

State of Alaska. 

I would also encourage the transfer of other national forests and other public 

lands to their respective states. I think these states will do a similarly good job 

with those lands given both the local and nationwide concern for a high quality 

of life and environment. Or, we can continue the absentee, politicized 

mismanagement of lt1ese lands wasting over one-half billion tax dollars per 

year and destroying one small rural resource based community after another. 

The choice is yours the people sent you here to make that choice. Do we place 

our trust in land management with the people who elected you, or with the 

salaried bureaucrats who routinely appear before you? 

0 


ISBN 0-16-052891-7 

90000 

I 

9 780160 528910