U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

88–885 PDF 2013

S. HRG. 113–341 

FOREST MANAGEMENT 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

ON

THE CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR IMPROVING FOREST 

MANAGEMENT ON FEDERAL LANDS 

JUNE 25, 2013 

( 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

RON WYDEN, Oregon, Chairman 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan 

MARK UDALL, Colorado 

AL FRANKEN, Minnesota 

JOE MANCHIN, III, West Virginia 

BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii 

MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho 

MIKE LEE, Utah 

DEAN HELLER, Nevada 

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona 

TIM SCOTT, South Carolina 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

ROB PORTMAN, Ohio 

JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota 

JOSHUA SHEINKMAN, Staff Director 

SAM E. FOWLER, Chief Counsel 

KAREN K. BILLUPS, Republican Staff Director 

PATRICK J. MCCORMICK III, Republican Chief Counsel 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

STATEMENTS 

Page 

Farquhar, Ned, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Land and Minerals Management, 

Department of the Interior .................................................................................. 12 

Imbergamo, Bill, Executive Director, Federal Forest Resource Coalition .......... 35 

Johnson, K. Norman, Department of Forest Ecosystems and Society, Oregon 

State University ................................................................................................... 17 

Maisch, John ‘‘Chris’’, State Forester and Division Director, Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Division of Forestry .............................................. 29 

Miles, Aaron, Member, Clearwater Basin Collaborative ...................................... 45 

Murkowski, Hon. Lisa, U.S. Senator From Alaska ............................................... 4 

Tidwell, Thomas, Chief, Forest Service, Department of Agriculture .................. 6 

Wyden, Hon. Ron, U.S. Senator From Oregon ...................................................... 1 

APPENDIXES 

APPENDIX I 

Responses to additional questions .......................................................................... 75 

APPENDIX II 

Additional material submitted for the record ........................................................ 87 

(1) 

FOREST MANAGEMENT 

TUESDAY, JUNE 25, 2013 

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES, Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:05 a.m. in room 

SD–366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Ron Wyden, chairman, presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RON WYDEN, U.S. SENATOR 

FROM OREGON 

The CHAIRMAN. The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources will come to order. 

Today the committee meets to give long overdue attention to the 

issue of managing our Federal forests. In my view too many of our 

forestry programs are not working for forest-dependent communities, for taxpayers or for the cause of protecting America’s natural treasures. The fact is current forestry programs do not provide 

a stable source of funding of jobs or funding for local communities. 

Instead of generating revenue, too often Federal forest lands have 

become a burden to our taxpayers. 

Too often valuable timber lands are neglected to the point they 

become tinder boxes for catastrophic fire. The status quo is unacceptable. So today the committee begins to look specifically at the 

cause of forestry reform. 

One of our Nation’s most creative thinkers on the issue, Norm 

Johnson of Oregon State University, is here from my home State. 

He’s going to be presenting testimony on behalf of himself and Dr. 

Jerry Franklin. I think it would be fair to say wherever there is 

a challenging forestry issue, that is where we are lucky enough to 

have Dr. Johnson and Dr. Franklin. We’re very pleased that he 

could come. 

At town hall meetings that I hold across our State, I am told continually of the frustrations of reduced harvest rates, reduction in 

hazardous fuel programs, and other active management programs 

on lands held by the Federal Government in the Bureau of Land 

Management. I know that a number of Senators are here to describe the same experience that they have had. 

Over the past two and a half decades the amount of timber produced off Federal forest lands has declined at an extraordinary rate 

from a high of 12 billion board feet per year in the 1980s to two 

to 3 billion board feet per year in the last decade. You only need 

to look at the massive wildfires that are burning in Colorado, New 

Mexico, and elsewhere through beetle-infested stands and threat-
2 

ened homes to see the consequences of failed management. Meanwhile our resource-dependent communities are losing jobs and 

they’re losing mills that are critical to restoring forest health. 

As expected this steep drop in timber production over the last 

few decades corresponds with a dramatic drop in the number of the 

Nation’s timber mills with a loss of about half of our mills in the 

last two decades. When those mills go away too often communities 

lose jobs. Federal forest managers lose customers who buy lumber 

and wood products that help pay for badly needed restoration. 

It has been said more than once here in this committee that the 

cut needs to go up. We need to get people back to work in the 

woods. It’s an absolute prerequisite to make sure that we have 

healthy forests and healthy communities. It’s our view that this 

can be done in line with common sense, practical application of the 

environmental laws. 

Now there are 3 recurring themes that have hindered forest 

management operations around the country. 

The first is lack of funding to prepare sales. 

The second is environmental analysis and review time associated 

with the management activities. 

The third is litigation that stalls much of the work that is important to actually get done. 

In this hearing we’re going to explore ways to address each of 

these 3 challenges and free up resources to get more restoration 

work done. 

The first item is Federal agencies have to do the best possible job 

of budgeting and planning for forest management. The status quo 

is spending more and more money fighting wildfires instead of 

working to prevent those fires is just unacceptable. In a hearing a 

few weeks ago we made it clear that the Office of Management and 

Budget ought to drop its obstruction of hazardous fuels reduction 

funding which is a key element of healthy forest planning. 

Just yesterday I had a spirited discussion with the folks of OMB, 

the Director specifically, so that we can create a plan to fix the 

problems with our current approach to fire budgeting and stop the 

pilfering of funding for restoration work and hazardous fuels reductions. 

In the same area I have concerns about the amount of money 

that is spent on overhead in administration. When the Forest Service refers to as its cost pool charges pays for just about everything 

except the actual work on the ground that makes a difference. The 

Forest Service has also identified this as a problem, but according 

to the agency’s last budget documents last year, the Forest Service 

spent 18.2 percent of their forest products and restoration funding 

on overhead. 

In contrast, it’s our understanding that other agencies in the Department of the Interior and USDA spent about 10 percent on overhead for these programs. If the Forest Service cuts its overhead to 

just those levels an additional 24,000 acres could receive commercial thinning just from the forest products and restoration account 

savings. If the agency devoted all the savings generated across the 

agency’s programs to commercial thinning, and of course, I 

wouldn’t say that is a realistic target any time soon, the Forest 

Service could thin an additional 485,000 acres per year. 
3 

The second area we’re going to look at is how agencies can reduce the upfront cost of planning forestry management projects. 

The last time it was measured apparently the Forest Service spent 

$356 million on the needed environmental review of the projects— 

some 70 percent of Federal forest management project costs are environmental analysis and document preparation. 

So the question on this point is, is there a way to improve the 

NEPA process to reduce the, frankly, staggering costs in the planning time without short-changing the important environmental 

protections in the law? 

Finally, once timber sales or management decisions are complete 

there ought to be a way to address the prospect that there may be 

protests or litigation. In my part of the world folks, have seen that 

collaboration is one way to bring the cut up just as we’ve seen in 

Eastern Oregon while reducing the number of lawsuits. 

I particularly want to commend Chief Tidwell’s point for stressing at every opportunity, as the Chief has, the value of collaboration because what we’ve seen in Eastern Oregon is we had a historic agreement between the environmental community, between 

industry and environmental folks. It’s yielded significant progress 

on the ground with more collaboration and agreement leading to 

more landscape scale efforts. 

We’re pleased that the agency announced a 10-year stewardship 

contract for the Malheur where a collaborative has been working 

very hard to address forest restoration needs. We’re going to keep 

working with the parties and the Chief on the East side to advance 

those efforts and look at the rest of our State and country. 

Let me wrap up also by way of saying that we want to hear 

about creative approaches to reduce the number of protests to the 

projects and to get the thoughts of our witnesses with respect to 

the other challenges in Oregon starting with the O and C lands. 

The Oregon and California lands are truly unique both in their 

legal history and their status going back to the 1937 O and C Act. 

The idea was to provide stable revenues and jobs for communities 

affected by what is a unique and, for all practical purposes, crazy 

checkerboard of public and private ownership. But since the Northern Spotted Owl listing in 1990, timber harvests have plummeted 

and the Bureau of Land Management has not been able to significantly get the volume of harvest up. 

So we are very anxious to hear, particularly from Dr. Johnson, 

about some of the innovative work that they’re doing there to look 

at riparian areas, the work done for the Fish and Wildlife Service, 

and particularly the effort to get more inter-agency coordination. 

Despite that, the sales are still tied up with protests and litigation and a number of obstacles ahead: Endangered Species Act listings, Federal survey and management requirements, that are a 

much larger burden than certainly were anticipated, and as mentioned, the checkerboard pattern of ownership. 

So I will shortly be jumping in with legislation that builds on the 

work that’s been done by the Oregon delegation and Governor 

Kitzhaber and look forward to hearing from Dr. Johnson and the 

BLM on this as well. 

We’ve had a number of witnesses make the long trek from the 

West. We appreciate that. 
4 

Let me recognize Senator Murkowski for her opening remarks. I 

appreciate the Senators being in attendance and please proceed, 

Senator Murkowski. 

STATEMENT OF HON. LISA MURKOWSKI, U.S. SENATOR 

FROM ALASKA 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Before I begin my comments I want to acknowledge our newest 

member on the committee, who came in while you were speaking. 

But Senator Baldwin has joined the committee. We’re going to miss 

Senator Coons and his contributions, but know that we will enjoy 

working with you as well. 

I think Senator Heinrich appreciates the fact that he’s moved up 

a chair. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator MURKOWSKI. He’s not sitting at the tail end. But that 

doesn’t mean that participation from that end of the dais is quiet. 

We appreciate your participation and look forward to it as well. 

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that you have stated that this hearing, as we look at forest management practices is long overdue in 

your State, in my State. In fact as I look at those who are here 

today on the committee, we all have a keen interest in ensuring 

that when it comes to our U.S. forests that we have active management, that we actually do see some harvesting of timber to provide 

for jobs, economic opportunity. I think far too often we see policies 

that really do restrict or limit that. 

So an opportunity to be discussing this today is greatly appreciated. I think that your opening statement was really quite all inclusive in terms of the issues and the challenges that we have in 

front of us. 

I agree wholeheartedly with you on the importance of increasing 

the timber harvest on our Federal lands. You’ve heard me describe 

the situation in Southeast Alaska before on the Tongass. But I 

think it bears repeating. 

95 percent of the land base in Southeast Alaska is Federal, 95 

percent. The Tongass is 80 percent of that Federal land. It’s about 

17 million acres. 

It’s larger than West Virginia. Senator Manchin was here just a 

little bit ago. But the area of the Tongass that we’re talking about 

is larger than his State. 

Southeast Alaska is now and has historically been a resource dependent economy directly tied to the Federal land that dominates 

it. Over the past 20 years the forest industry which was once the 

second largest industry in the State has been in decline. Both political and economic pressures, increased Federal land withdrawals 

and more stringent regulatory climate and environmental lawsuits 

forced the closure of Southeast Alaska’s two pulp mills. 

The Tongass Land Use Management plan movement toward ecosystem management and the reinstatement of the roadless rule 

have also sharply reduced our allowable harvest levels leading to 

a closure of most of the sawmills. We have one, single large sawmill left. That’s down in Wrangell. We’ve got a handful of Mom and 

Pop operations that are left. 
5 

The Chief and I have discussed the situation on the ground there 

in the Tongass. I look forward to the opportunity in August when 

you will have a chance to visit some of these. 

Mr. Chairman, you noted the declining levels of harvest around 

the country. In the Tongass, on average right now, we are harvesting just 35 million board feet which is really unacceptable in 

my view. What’s left of the timber industry I’ve described folks are 

just kind of hanging on by their fingernails. It impacts jobs, 

schools, the future of many of my constituents. 

So I look forward to a rigorous discussion about the Federal policies and management practices on our Federal lands that are affecting the timber harvest and how we might be working together 

to remove these obstacles that exist to providing sufficient timber 

supply, long term, to sustain a vibrant forest industry well into the 

future. 

I’d also like to welcome Mr. Chris Maisch, the State Forester 

from Alaska. I look forward to your testimony and acknowledge the 

Chairman’s comments that you’ve come a long way here. We appreciate it. I look forward to not only your comments, but that of the 

entire panel. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Murkowski. As we have on 

so many issues, I know we’re going to work in a bipartisan way on 

this as well. 

Senator Baldwin was just waiting until Senator Murkowski 

made her remarks until I was going to give you the boisterous welcome that you really deserve here. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. I didn’t mean to steal your thunder. 

The CHAIRMAN. No, you launched it well. The fact is Senator 

Baldwin has a long track record of fresh, creative thinking on 

issues like the environment and health care. You’re sitting with 

Senator Heinrich down at your end of the rostrum. We’re going to 

be running with the right crowd by having these new members 

with fresh approaches. 

The fact is and Senator Murkowski and have touched on it. 

That’s what it’s going to take to really address the issue we’re talking about here today. When we think about trying to strike the balance between getting the harvest up without compromising our environmental values, I think about places like Wisconsin that have 

had fresh ideas on these natural resources issues for quite some 

time. 

So I want you to know, Senator Baldwin, we’re very pleased that 

you’ve joined us. As you know, there’s a long link between Oregon 

and Wisconsin because my predecessor, Wayne Morse, was from 

Madison, your hometown. We’re very proud of Senator Morse, one 

of two in the Senate, who voted against the Gulf of Tonkin resolution. 

So there’s a long, long connection between Wisconsin and Oregon. We are very lucky to have somebody who consistently comes 

up with fresh, creative kinds of ideas to the big issues of our time. 

We welcome you and your end of the rostrum, with Senator Heinrich. This is going to be the place to be on a lot of these debates. 

We’re glad you’re with us. 

Let’s go. 
6 

Chief, you start it off. Let’s hear from all of our witnesses. I 

know there’s almost a compulsion to read every word in your prepared statement. If you can just summarize your key views, we’ll 

make your prepared comments a part of the record in their entirety. Then we can get into questions. I think we’ll have a fair 

amount of Senators coming in. 

So Chief, welcome. 

STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS TIDWELL, CHIEF, FOREST 

SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Mr. TIDWELL. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Murkowski and 

members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to be 

here today to discuss the challenges and opportunities for forest 

management on our national forests. 

I think we’ve been very clear about the need to restore the resiliency of forest health on our national forests. That’s why we came 

out last year with our accelerated restoration strategy that laid out 

the need to treat somewhere between 65 and 82 million acres of 

our national forest to be able to restore the forest health, the resiliency. 

Part of that strategy was also to move forward and increase the 

amount of work we were doing by 20 percent between then and 

what we put out in 2014. We were on target. Had a great year in 

2012 and slowed down a little bit in 2013, but we plan to get back 

on pace in 2014 to be able to continue to increase the amount of 

work we’re getting done, along with the key outputs such as the 

board feet that’s produced, the miles of stream that are restored, 

the overall watershed health conditions that are improved. 

It is essential that we manage and maintain these forests, not 

only for the products that they produce, but simply for the health 

and the water that they produce. 

Sixty million Americans rely on the water that comes off of these 

national forests, and 166 million people visit these forests every 

year for their recreational activities. 

It’s a big, key part of their lives. 

It’s essential that we manage these forests so that it provides for 

the full mix of multiple use benefits that all of our communities 

rely on. it’s what contributes and supports over 450,000 jobs. So 

there are challenges. 

We’ve laid out the conditions of our forests. The thing that’s adding to that is the changing climate both from a gradual shift in 

temperatures but also a more abrupt impact from the disturbances 

that we’re seeing whether it’s the longer fire seasons we’re seeing 

today, the increase in insect and disease, the extensive droughts 

that we’re dealing with in different parts of this country. These 

conditions are going to continue, but there are things that we can 

do to make sure that our forests are more resilient and that so we 

can actually reduce the impact from these disturbance events. 

The other key thing is with the infrastructure. I’ve said numerous times we have to maintain an integrated wood products infrastructure so that we have people to do the work, to be able to harvest the trees, remove the biomass that needs to be removed from 

these forests. The infrastructure in a lot of places in this country 
7 

we’ve, like, we’ve lost it. Senator Murkowski, you mentioned the 

conditions we have up in Southeast Alaska. 

The other key thing we need to focus on is markets. As markets 

shift and change there’s a need for us to be able to not only expand 

existing markets, but we also need to develop new markets, especially to be able to find economical use of the smaller diameter material that also needs to be removed in conjunction with our timber 

harvest. 

Then the other challenge that we have is agency capacity. Since 

1998 our national forest system staff has been reduced by 35 percent. Our forest management staff has been reduced by 49 percent; 

these are our foresters, our biologists, our engineers. 

In 1998 we sold 2.95 billion board feet. We were on target for 

next year to be at the same level with half the staff. So the opportunity that we have is to be able to continue—we know what we 

need to do on the forests. 

We have the science today. We have the support especially 

through our collaborative efforts where people understand the work 

that needs to be done on our forests. That’s what’s enabled us to 

be able to move forward, to get more work done, and reduce some 

of the appeals and lawsuits that have plagued us in the past. 

Today our science is so clear that for us to be able to maintain 

forest dependent species like the Northern Spotted Owl, we need 

active forest management or we are going to lose critical owl habitat to fires or insect and disease. This is a significant change from 

where we were a decade ago, we recognize the importance of forest 

health when it comes to maintaining the viability of these key species. 

When we come to the capacity issue, that’s where we continue to 

focus on our NEPA efficiencies. We have several projects across the 

country where we’ve been able to demonstrate that by taking a 

look at larger pieces of landscape like with the forest initiative in 

Arizona, with the Black Hills project where we did one analysis for 

248,000 acres. We’re finding that not only is this a better way, but 

it’s much more efficient. 

We have a series of pilots that we want to move forward with 

across the country this year to be able to use those types of models 

throughout all of our national forests. 

The other thing we’re continuing to work on is just doing a better 

job to focus NEPA on the issues that need to be addressed. 

The other thing we want to move forward with is improving our 

objection process to replace our appeals process that in the past 

has definitely added to the time that it’s taken us for to be able 

to get our projects completed. 

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your having this hearing today. I 

look forward to working with the committee to find ways that we 

can increase our efficiencies to be more effective to get more done. 

I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Tidwell follows:] 
8 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THOMAS TIDWELL, CHIEF, FOREST SERVICE, DEPARTMENT

OF AGRICULTURE

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity 

to present the views of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) regarding national forest management. 

The national forests and grasslands were established to protect the land, secure 

favorable conditions of water flows, and provide a sustainable supply of goods and 

services. National Forest System (NFS) lands are managed using a multiple-use approach with the goal of sustaining healthy terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems while 

addressing the need for resources, commodities, and services for the American people. Rural and urban communities depend on the forests for a variety of resources, 

commodities, and services. For rural communities in particular, national forest management can impact local economic and social conditions. With our many partners, 

the USDA Forest Service (FS) is working to maintain the functions and processes 

characteristic of healthy, resilient forests and watersheds. Through delivery of our 

programs, we continue to maintain and enrich the social and economic environment 

of our local communities. 

Secretary Vilsack and the US Forest Service recognize the importance of increasing the pace and scale of forest restoration in our National Forests. We must manage and restore more acres to reduce the threat of catastrophic wildfire, to address 

insects and disease and to restore the ecological health of forests for the benefit of 

all Americans. Today, I will talk about a number of the approaches we are taking 

to restore and maintain the health of our National Forests. 

VEGETATION MANAGEMENT

Our forests are important to all of us, and people understand that forests provide 

a broad range of values and benefits, including biodiversity, recreation, clean air 

and water, forest products, erosion control, soil renewal and more. Forests, which 

cover a third of the country’s landmass, store and filter more than half of the nation’s water supply and absorb 20 percent of the country’s carbon emissions. Our 

mission of sustaining the health, resilience and productivity of our Nation’s forests 

is critically important to maintaining these values and benefits. Restoring the 

health and resilience of our forests generates important amenity values. A study by 

Cassandra Mosely and Max Nielson Pincus, University of Oregon, has shown that 

every million dollars spent on activities like stream restoration, hazardous fuels reduction, forestry or road decommissioning generates from 12 to 28 jobs. Through implementation of the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program—which relies heavily on stewardship contracting—the proponents of projects on NFS lands 

maintained 4,174 jobs and generated $147,485,912 in labor income in FY2012. 

I’ve stated in prior hearings the need for increasing the scope and scale of our 

restoration efforts in the face of the threats we’re facing today from wildfire, insects, 

disease and invasive species and the compounding implications of a changing climate. More than 40 percent of the contiguous United States is in a moderate or 

more severe stage of drought—with over 4 percent of those areas experiencing exceptional drought conditions. In addition, insects and disease have weakened the resilience of America’s forests. Nationally, approximately 80 million acres of trees are 

projected to be at risk of severe mortality due to insect and disease. Over the past 

10 years in the west, approximately 45 million acres across all land ownerships 

have been affected by 20 different species of bark beetles. 

Facing these threats, we’ve recognized for some time the importance of increasing 

our restoration efforts. We continue to explore new and existing tools to become 

more efficient. In February 2012 the FS outlined a strategy for increasing restoration activities across large landscapes through more efficient implementation of existing programs and policies, as well as pursuing new initiatives. This increase will 

allow the FS to increase the number of acres and watersheds restored across the 

system, while supporting existing infrastructure and jobs. Through these efforts, in 

FY 2012, the FS attained 2.6 billion board feet (BBF) volume sold and exceeded a 

number of restoration targets such as moving nine watersheds to an improved condition class (the target was five watersheds); decommissioning 2,103 miles of road 

(the target was 2,028 miles); and restoring/enhancing 3,704 miles of stream habitat 

(the target was 2,670 miles). 

1. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Landscape Scale Projects 

The FS recognizes the need for science-based accelerated restoration and has 

made significant recent improvements in the pace and scale of its projects on NFS 

lands. The FS plans to highlight some projects that demonstrate accomplishment of 

high priority restoration work across a broad scale and/or reflect innovative ap-
9 

proaches and efficiencies in collaboration, project planning, data collection, and 

NEPA analysis. These projects will serve as demonstration areas and learning centers as individual units develop approaches to accelerate the pace and scale of restoration. 

The agency is also saving costs by gaining efficiencies in our environmental review process under NEPA. We are identifying NEPA efficiencies by focusing on improving agency policy, learning, and technology. These NEPA process improvements 

will increase decision-making efficiencies, resulting in on-the-ground restoration 

work getting done more quickly and across a larger landscape. The agency has initiated a NEPA learning networks project to learn from and share the lessons of successful implementation of efficient NEPA analyses. The goal of this effort is to ensure that the agency’s NEPA compliance is as efficient, cost-effective, and up-to-date 

as possible. Specifically we are looking at expanding the use of focused Environmental Assessments (EAs), expanding categories of actions that may be excluded 

from documentation in an EA or an EIS, and applying an adaptive management 

framework to NEPA. 

Our landscape-scale NEPA projects will also increase efficiencies. For example, 

our Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project on the Black Hills National Forest is 

implementing a landscape-scale adaptive approach for treating current and future 

pine beetle outbreaks within a 200,000 acre area. Since signing the decision last December, the forest has sold one timber sale and has two others planned for this fiscal year. Sales for next fiscal year are identified, along with plans to treat existing 

and newly infested areas in subsequent years. This decision has given the forest 

greater flexibility in treating existing and new infestations in a timely and strategic 

manner. All of these efforts are aimed at becoming more proactive and efficient in 

protecting the Nation’s natural resources, while providing jobs to the American people. 

On the Tongass, in Fiscal Years 2009 and 2010, the forest received an allocation 

of funds to be used to plan larger scale projects designed to provide an even flow 

of timber volume over a 10-year period in order to provide a stable supply. This is 

part of our effort to successfully transition the Tongass timber sale program from 

one based on old growth to young growth. The first project in the planning phase 

is the Big Thorne 10-Year Contract; the NEPA contract was awarded in FY 2011. 

This project will be offered under the stewardship contracting authority, and is expected to be 100 million board feet (MMBF). The project is expected to combine timber harvest and other restoration and service treatments and the NEPA decision is 

expected in late 2013. 

2. Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration (CFLR) 

The 23 CFLR projects emphasize restoration across large scale landscapes. In addition to finding efficiencies in planning and treating larger landscapes, CFLR emphasizes collaboration. Collaboration with our partners and stakeholders from all interest areas is one of the tools to becoming more efficient through shared development and understanding of the desired condition, objectives, and issues at the outset 

of projects. In 2012, these projects exceeded the targets for the majority of performance measures. 

In Arizona, the Four Forest Restoration Initiative project is contributing to 

healthier ecosystems, safer communities and supporting rural communities. In addition to a range of other restoration activities, this project has treated hazardous 

fuels on more than 171,900 acres, produced more than 168 MMBF of timber and 

more than 878,817 green tons of bioenergy since 2010. 

Colorado has two CFLR projects which are having a measurable impact on rural 

economies. The Uncompahgre Plateau as well as the rest of the lands administered 

by the Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison National Forests will play a key 

role in support of the newly opened lumber mill in Montrose. To date, the 

Uncompahgre project has generated 12 MMBF of timber, and reduced hazardous 

fuels on more than 11,500 acres. As part of the Colorado Front Range project, Denver Water contributed more than $1,000,000 in 2012 for restoration efforts. Since 

FY2010, the Front Range project has reduced hazardous fuels on more than 17,000 

acres, and generated more than 17 MMBF of timber. 

The two CLFR projects in New Mexico—the Southwest Jemez, initiated in 2010, 

and the Zuni Mountain, initiated in 2012—together have treated fuels on more than 

9,900 acres, and generated more than 5 MMBF of timber and more than 3,000 green 

tons of bioenergy. 

The three CFLR projects active in Oregon are building strong relationships between the U.S. Forest Service and forest stakeholders, supporting local industry, 

and protecting communities from the risks of uncharacteristic wildland fires. The 

Deschutes project has generated more than 19 MMBF of timber and 56,700 green 
10 

tons of bioenergy as products of restoration activities that include more than 31,900 

acres of fuels reduction in the wildland-urban interface. The Lakeview Stewardship 

Project and the Southern Blues Restoration Project, in one year of implementation, 

produced a combined total of more than 24 MMBF of timber, generated more than 

13,000 green tons of biomass, and treated more than 31,000 acres of hazardous 

fuels. 

Three CFLR projects are underway in Idaho, creating measurable shifts in ecosystem resilience and supporting local economies. The Selway-Middle Fork project 

has sold more than 13 MMBF of timber and harvested more than 2,000 green tons 

of biomass. The Weiser-Little Salmon Headwaters project, selected for funding in 

FY2012, has already maintained or generated 136 direct full or part-time jobs. The 

project plans to generate 50,000 green tons of biomass annually and approximately 

25 MMBF of saw timber annually. In FY2012 the Forest completed a major NEPA 

analysis that approved vegetative treatments on more than 25,000 acres. The 

Kootenai Valley Resource Initiative, also selected for funding in FY2012, will treat 

39,430 acres mechanically over 10 years. The project generated more than 10 

MMBF of timber and produced more than 2,700 green tons of bioenergy. 

In Washington, the Tapash CFLR has generated more than 23 MMBF of timber 

and treated hazardous fuels on more than 10,000 acres, and the Northeast Washington Forest Vision 2020 project, selected in 2012, treated 8,012 acres of hazardous 

fuels. 

3. Improved Business Practices 

We are reviewing our business practices around timber sale preparation, specifically regarding designation of timber for harvest and accounting for merchantable 

volume, to determine how to reduce the cost to the government for selling timber. 

4. Stewardship Contracting 

Although timber sales remain the mainstay of our restoration efforts, stewardship 

contracting is another critical tool that allows the Forest Service to more efficiently 

complete restoration activities. Permanently reauthorizing stewardship contracting 

and expanding the use of this tool is crucial to our ability to collaboratively restore 

landscapes at a reduced cost to the government by offsetting the value of the services received with the value of forest products removed. In FY 2012, 25 percent of 

all timber volume sold was under a stewardship contract. Stewardship contracting 

authorities allow the Agency to fund watershed and wildlife habitat improvement 

projects, invasive species removal, road decommissioning, and hazardous fuels reduction activities. 

All of these efforts help us be more proactive and efficient in protecting the nation’s natural resources, while providing jobs to the American people. 

SUPPORT OF INDUSTRY

We know we cannot achieve all of this without a strong integrated forest products 

industry that can use all parts and sizes of trees to help us accomplish our restoration work. Our best opportunity for reducing the cost of these restoration treatments 

is through timber harvest and stewardship contracting. The benefits of maintaining 

a robust forest industry flow not only to local communities but also to the Forest 

Service itself. We rely on local forest contractors and mills to provide the workforce 

to undertake a variety of restoration activities. 

Wood energy projects make forest harvests more economically viable by providing 

a productive use for woody biomass which previously was a cost to remove. The 

USDA Wood to Energy Initiative combines programs from the Forest Service and 

USDA Rural Development to expand renewable wood energy use, from rural community schools, hospitals and National Guard facilities across the country. Wood to 

Energy projects are underway in Alaska, Oregon, Montana, Minnesota to Maine as 

well as industrial applications such as the 11.5 megawatt power plant under construction in Gypsum, Colorado. This plant will receive a substantial portion of its 

wood from a 10-year stewardship contract with the Stoltze Land and Lumber sawmill in Columbia Falls, Montana. This project will replace 100 year old boilers for 

their wood driers and sell 2.5 megawatts of electricity to the local electrical cooperative. 

The FS continues to be a leading agency in the federal government to preferentially select domestically harvested wood products in building construction projects 

while increasing its commitment to green building standards. All FS building 

projects incorporate green building principles such as energy efficiency, locally produced wood products, and recycling and reuse of building materials. New building 

construction and major renovation projects for administration facilities or research 
11 

laboratories over 10,000 square feet must be registered and certified using an accredited third-party certification systems. 

The FS and USDA, as well as the forest products industry and resource management organizations, support a science-based approach to evaluate the benefits of 

using wood and wood-based products in green building in the U.S. The inherent 

benefits of using wood go beyond economic gains. Conservation components such as 

increased forest productivity, cleaner air and water, and enhanced wildlife habitat 

will be realized as we actively manage our nation’s forests. The process of harvest, 

transport, manufacturing and use of wood in structures creates less greenhouse gas 

emissions than other building products such as concrete or steel. (‘‘Life-cycle inventory and assessment research at the Forest Products Laboratory: Wood products 

used in building construction, U.S.D.A. Forest Service’’). 

The forest products industry workforce is larger than either the automotive or 

chemical industries, currently employing nearly 900,000 workers. Encouragingly, 

there have been recent upturns in the housing market and lumber prices, resulting 

in higher demand and prices for sawtimber. The capacity exists within the current 

industry infrastructure to meet this increased demand for lumber through adding 

extra shifts, reopening mills, and efficiency gains. The higher demand and prices for 

timber will enable the FS to complete more restoration treatments. In spite of flat 

budgets in the past few years the FS increased the volume sold, from 2.38 billion 

board feet (BBF) in 2008 to 2.64 BBF in 2012. However, even though we will continue to search for efficiencies, due to increased budget cuts in 2013 and projected 

cuts in 2014, we project a slight decline in restoration treatments in both years. 

Through the recession and downturn in the housing market, the FS has continued 

to find ways to support local infrastructure. We have increased our funding of the 

timber sale program over the last 17 years from a low of $180 million in 1995 to 

$335 million in 2012. The Agency provided timber sale contract relief through price 

adjustments and contract extensions. We also provided Substantial Overriding Public Interest (SOPI) to grant additional relief for certain qualifying high priced, older 

contracts; and through SOPIs, we mutually agreed to cancel some contracts. We continued to sell timber at a lower price reflecting market values. Purchasers continued 

to purchase FS timber at these lower prices, providing more flexibility through combining these lower priced sales with earlier, higher priced sales. 

CHALLENGES

At the completion of fiscal year 2012, we were on a trajectory to increase treatment acres, along with timber harvest. In 2013, at a time when lumber prices are 

increasing and the additional value can help pay for other restoration work, we received a reduced budget with the same reduction projected for 2014. We have had 

to decrease the amount of acres we could treat, along with timber volume to reflect 

these budget reductions. This leads me to my final topic, the challenges impacting 

our Restoration Strategy. In addition to declining budgets, we are facing another active fire year. Costs of fire suppression have increased to consume nearly half of the 

entire FS budget. In FY 1991, fire activities accounted for about 13 percent of the 

total agency budget; in FY 2012, it was over 40 percent. In the 1980s and 1990s 

the 10-year average of suppression costs remained relatively stable, as did the number of acres burned nationwide. This was a wetter period in the United States and 

fire activity was relatively low. However, beginning in the extreme fire season of 

2000, which cost $1 billion, this trend started to change. The cost of the FY 2000 

fires alone caused the 10-year average to rise by over $80 million—a 16 percent increase. Since FY 2000, the 10-year average has risen almost every year—from a little over $540 million to over $900 million in 2012. 

Post-wildfire rehabilitation costs exceed the costs of suppression by 2 to 30 times 

as shown in the ‘‘The True Cost of Wildfire in the Western U.S. (Western Forestry 

Leadership Coalition 2010). Over the last two fiscal years the FS Burned Area 

Emergency Response (BAER) program spent almost $94 million in emergency stabilization efforts on NFS lands immediately after fires to help with erosion, flooding, 

and other threats to human health and safety, and threats to resources. Treatments 

were as diverse as hillside stabilization, road protection, hazardous material stabilization, and hazard tree removal, as well as myriad other treatments. And this 

does not include the long-term costs of reforestation and monitoring. 

Staffing within the Agency has also shifted to reflect an increased focus on fire. 

Since 1998 fire staffing within the FS has increased 110 percent from over 5,700 

in 1998 to over 12,000 in 2012. Over the same time period, staffing levels for those 

dedicated to managing NFS lands have decreased by 35 percent from over 17,000 

in 1998 to over 11,000 in 2012. In particular, Forest Management staffing has decreased by 49 percent from over 6,000 in 1998 to just over 3,200 in 2012. 
12 

Litigation is another challenge we face in striving to increase our restoration efforts. The Agency fully supports collaboration with our partners and stakeholders 

from all interest areas as one way to be more efficient, through a shared understanding of the desired condition, across the landscape. The threat of litigation, however, slows down the collaborative process, discourages some parties from participating, and adds to the Agency’s overall costs, as our teams try to improve our environmental documentation and decision making to reduce the risk of litigation. 

Despite these challenges, we remain optimistic that through collaboration with 

our many interest groups and officials the FS can improve accomplishment of our 

restoration objectives. I want to thank the committee for its interest, leadership, and 

commitment to our national forests and their surrounding communities. I would be 

pleased to answer any questions you may have. 

The CHAIRMAN. Chief, thank you. That’s very helpful. I especially 

appreciate your mentioning the climate issue. 

With a concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere having 

recently passed over 400 parts per million, according to the NOAA 

analysis. I think that’s a point well taken. I appreciate your bringing it up. 

Let’s go now to Mr. Farquhar, Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Land and Minerals Management, Department of the Interior. 

STATEMENT OF NED FARQUHAR, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY, LAND AND MINERALS MANAGEMENT, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Mr. FARQUHAR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member 

Murkowski. I worked in the DNR where Chris is from in the mid 

80s. I also spent a number of years in New Mexico. So it’s great 

to see the members in the committee today. 

I’m Ned Farquhar, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Land and 

Minerals Management at Interior. In my position I oversee work 

done by the Bureau of Land Management and 3 other bureaus. The 

BLM manages a total of about 60 million acres of forest and woodlands of which about two million acres are the O and C or Oregon 

and California lands in Western Oregon and about 58 million scattered among the other 11 Western states. 

Of these 50 million acres of public domain lands the BLM manages forests to restore and maintain forest ecosystems, reduce the 

risk of catastrophic wildfire and generate a sustainable flow of forest products to support rural communities. 

These forests imported $129 million in economic activity in 2011 

through timber sales. They also support local businesses that depend on tourism and outdoor recreation. 

In addition to these economic effects, the BLM managed forests 

help to provide clean water, recreational opportunities for our communities and they also, as the Chairman just said, help store carbon as well. 

As the impacts of drought, wildfire, pests and invasive species 

have grown the BLM has increasingly adopted collaborative and 

landscape style, scaled approaches to forest management. Working 

with our partners on strategies such as the Cohesive Wild Land 

Fire Strategy and the White Bark Pine Restoration Strategy and 

these, obviously, include the State agencies represented by Chris, 

but also the Forest Service with whom we work very closely. 

In 2012 the BLM conducted nearly 200,000 acres of hazardous 

fuels treatments, HFR, in forests. In addition to treating 20,000 

acres in forests using timber sales as our technique. The BLM uses 
13 

a variety of tools to manage its public domain forests including 

stewardship contracts, timber sales, service contracts and in Colorado, Good Neighbor agreements. 

On the topic of the O and C lands, which I know is of great importance to the committee, on the 2.2 million acres of BLM managed Oregon and California grant lands the Department manages 

the lands under the O and C Act of 1937 to provide a permanent 

source of timber to protect watersheds, regulate stream flow, to 

contribute to economic stability and to provide recreational opportunities consonant with the act. 

The capacity to offer timber sales on these lands involves a number of complex and sometimes competing goals for resource management. Over the past 3 years the BLM has offered about 650 million board feet for sale generating about $54 million in timber receipts. 

In recent years over 5.5 million visitors per year have also come 

to Western Oregon to enjoy these lands. 

Declining timber harvest levels since the early 1990s have affected jobs in Western Oregon and resulted in decreased timber 

revenues paid to the O and C counties of which there are 18. The 

Secure Rural Schools Act expiring in last year, in fiscal year 2012 

provided supplemental payments to these counties. The BLM has 

made the payments to the counties for 2012 and the President’s 

budget proposes reauthorization of the Secure Rural Schools Act for 

the next 5 years. 

The complexity of the forest management issues in Western Oregon makes it necessary to address these problems in a collaborative manner to meet the needs of industry and rural communities 

while protecting habitat for threatened and endangered species and 

providing recreation opportunities. We appreciate the leadership 

that Senator Wyden and others have shown toward the development of this collaboration on these issues in a very complex situation. 

The BLM is currently implementing 3 secretarial pilot projects 

with the help of my co-panelist here, Dr. Norm Johnson and his 

colleague, Dr. Franklin. These pilot projects provide a demonstration of the use of the active forest management techniques in Western Oregon within the BLM’s Roseburg, Coos Bay and Medford districts. These ecological forestry pilot projects will help inform 

BLM’s management of the O and C lands to develop future timber 

sale proposals. As we revise the 6 resource management plans governing management of BLM lands in Western Oregon. 

As the BLM moves forward with these revisions we will continue 

to work with our 25 cooperating agencies and to obtain public input 

through a series of public meetings. 

The BLM is committed to managing both public domain forests 

and the O and C lands in a manner consistent with applicable authorities. We look forward to continuing to work with the members 

of the committee and our partners to manage forests and their 

many resources and values. We thank you again for the opportunity to discuss these programs. 

I’ll be glad to answer your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Farquhar follows:] 
14 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF NED FARQUHAR, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY, LAND

AND MINERALS MANAGEMENT, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Thank you for the opportunity to discuss the management of forests and woodlands on lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), including 

both public domain lands and the Revested Oregon and California Railroad and Reconveyed Coos Bay Wagon Road Grant Lands (the O&C lands). A total of roughly 

60 million acres of BLM-managed lands are forests or woodlands, including 2.2 million acres of O&C forest lands. 

PUBLIC DOMAIN FORESTS & WOODLANDS

The BLM manages forests on public domain lands to restore and maintain forest 

ecosystems, reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfire, and generate a sustainable flow 

of forest products that can be sold through commercial and salvage timber sales and 

personal use permits that support rural communities. Resilient forests store and filter water for aquifers and reservoirs, offer opportunities for recreation, provide habitat for thousands of species, store carbon, provide clean air, support timber and 

other jobs, and provide millions of board feet of lumber and thousands of tons of 

biomass for alternative energy. According to the Department of the Interior’s 2011 

Economic Impact Report, timber harvested from public domain forests supported 

$129 million in economic activity in 2011, and biomass from BLM forests has become part of the feedstock that meets various State and Federal renewable energy 

portfolio standards. BLM forests also support local businesses dependent on tourism 

and outdoor recreation. Additionally, the value of forests for biological carbon storage is being increasingly studied and understood and can help the United States 

toward a better carbon balance. 

Extreme drought, wildfires, pests, and invasive species infestations have plagued 

much of the West over the past decade, causing significant impacts to both forest 

health and local economies. The BLM has worked collaboratively with Federal, 

State, and other partners to develop strategies for addressing forestry issues such 

as the mountain pine beetle outbreak and whitebark pine tree decline. In 2012 fire 

affected over 287,000 acres of BLM forests and a cumulative 1.7 million acres of 

BLM forest mortality have been attributed to bark beetles, other insect attacks, and 

pathogens. Overall, the BLM estimates that about 14 million acres of BLM-managed 

forests outside of western Oregon are at elevated risk of insect and disease attacks 

or catastrophic wildfire. In 2012, as part of the Bureau’s hazardous fuels reduction 

program, the BLM conducted restoration and hazardous fuels reduction treatments, 

including thinning, salvage, and prescribed burns, on more than 465,000 acres of 

BLM-managed forests, woodlands and rangelands. 

Because potential threats to forest health often cross jurisdictional boundaries, 

the BLM has increasingly adopted a landscape approach to resource conservation 

and treatments to reduce the buildup of hazardous fuels. The BLM has begun developing vegetation management policies that consider entire landscapes, through integrating a number of programs—including forestry, rangeland management, riparian 

management, plant conservation, invasive weeds, and fire rehabilitation. This integration should result in more coordinated policies. On BLM managed lands outside 

of western Oregon, the BLM also offered over 35 million board feet of timber and 

other forest products for sale and used timber sales to treat over 20,000 acres of 

vegetation in fiscal year 2012. In addition, the BLM routinely works with partner 

agencies, organizations, and landowners to engage in land and watershed restoration and hazardous fuels reduction activities on Federal, state, and private lands, 

and the BLM has used the pilot Good Neighbor Authority in Colorado on projects 

where small parcels of federal lands were interspersed with state and private lands. 

Stewardship contracts, timber sales, and service contracts are tools that the BLM 

uses to manage our forested lands. Stewardship contracting authority allows the 

BLM to award contracts for forest health and restoration treatments, including hazardous fuels reductions, for a period of up to ten years and to use the value of timber or other forest products removed as an offset against the cost of services received. The BLM has enjoyed many successes in using stewardship contracting authority, thereby achieving goals for forest and woodland restoration, and conducting 

both hazardous fuels reduction and habitat restoration treatments. In addition, 

stewardship contracts create jobs and revenue growth for local communities, and 

protect local communities from wildland fire. From 2003 through 2012, the BLM entered into over 400 stewardship contracts on approximately 108,000 acres of BLMmanaged lands. This important authority expires in September, 2013, and the President’s Budget for FY 2014 proposes to make the authority permanent. 
15 

THE O&C LANDS

The 1937 O&C Lands Act placed the 2.2 million checkerboard acres of Oregon and 

California Railroad and Coos Bay Wagon Road grant lands under the jurisdiction 

of the Department of the Interior. Under the O&C Lands Act, the Department of 

the Interior manages the O&C lands for ‘‘the purpose of providing a permanent 

source of timber supply, protecting watersheds, regulating stream flow, and contributing to the economic stability of local communities and industries, and providing 

recreational facilities.’’ The Act also provides that the 18 O&C counties receive yearly payments equal to 50 percent of receipts from timber harvests on public lands 

in these counties. 

After the historic highs in the late 1980s, timber harvests and the associated payments to counties decreased significantly in the mid-1990s due to many factors, including business cycles, industrial logging practices such as outdated clear-cut techniques and herbicide spraying that are not employed today, and a better understanding of conservation requirements for threatened and endangered species such 

as the Northern Spotted Owl, coho salmon, and marbled murrelet. The 1994 Northwest Forest Plan was developed by Federal agencies in consultation with the public 

and industry to be a balanced, long-term management plan providing a stable supply of timber along with protection of fish and wildlife habitat for 24.5 million acres 

of Federal forest, most of which is managed by the U.S. Forest Service, in western 

Oregon, western Washington, and northern California. 

The Department of the Interior continues to manage the O&C lands under the 

Northwest Forest Plan, along with management recommendations derived from the 

2011 Northern Spotted Owl recovery plan, and the 2012 Final Critical Habitat Rule, 

and a number of court decisions. The BLM’s capacity to offer timber sales involves 

a number of complex and sometimes competing resource management goals, including providing a predictable and sustainable yield of timber and other forest products, maintaining endangered species habitat, providing clean water, protecting 

older forests, restoring fire-adapted ecosystems, and providing recreational opportunities. Over the last three years, the BLM in western Oregon has offered approximately 650 million board feet of timber and generated over $54 million dollars in 

timber receipts. During this same period, 32 thousand acres have been harvested 

on the O&C lands. Over 5.5 million visitors per year come to the BLM-managed 

lands in western Oregon to enjoy hiking, camping, hunting, fishing, and boating. 

The BLM’s total land management budget in FY 2013 was reduced in total by $69 

million from the 2012 enacted level, including a $5.8 million sequestration reduction 

for the management of O&C lands. Since implementing timber sales requires a 2- 

3 year planning process, the reduced funding in FY 2013 will impact BLM’s capacity 

to maintain and increase timber harvest levels in 2014, 2015, and 2016. 

Declining timber harvest levels, a result of the increasingly complex issues in the 

area and increasing litigation, have impacted jobs in western Oregon and have resulted in decreased timber revenues paid to the O&C counties. Congress has developed a number of legislative solutions over the years to supplement revenues to 

counties, including the Secure Rural Schools Act, which was originally enacted in 

2000, but expired at the end of FY 2012. If the Secure Rural Schools Act is not reauthorized, payments to the 18 counties in western Oregon will revert to receipt sharing as provided under the O&C Lands Act. The President’s 2014 Budget proposes 

to reauthorize the program for five years beginning in 2013 and continuing through 

2017. 

Collaborative Approaches 

The BLM is aware that in western Oregon, the need for a predictable and sustainable timber supply, local jobs, and revenues for public services provided by the O&C 

counties must be balanced with the goals of maintaining recreational opportunities, 

conserving older forests, and aiding the recovery of the Northern Spotted Owl and 

other threatened and endangered species. Despite decades of controversy surrounding these issues, many in Oregon continue to work hard to develop feasible 

solutions that meet the needs of industry, rural communities, local governments, 

and the conservation of habitat, species, and water resources. For example, as provided under Title II of the Secure Rural Schools Act, the BLM has collaborated with 

Resource Advisory Committees to prioritize and allocate funding for restoration 

projects. As part of the Administration’s ongoing commitment to improve forest 

health, aid in the recovery of the Northern Spotted Owl, and support economic opportunities for local communities in the Pacific Northwest, leaders from the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, BLM, and U.S. Forest Service met in April with employees from all three agencies to articulate a common vision and intent in approaching 

these goals. In the past year, Governor Kitzhaber; Senator Wyden; and Representa-
16 

tives DeFazio, Walden, and Schrader have initiated collaborative efforts to better 

understand and address these multifaceted concerns. Because the issues surrounding forestry in western Oregon are both complex and contentious, the various 

collaborative approaches undertaken by the BLM and others have all met with challenges in reaching consensus among the wide range of stakeholders. 

Secretarial Pilot Projects 

To promote the maintenance of healthy forest systems in western Oregon, the Department of the Interior has initiated three collaborative pilot projects applying the 

principles of ecological forestry in the Bureau’s Roseburg, Coos Bay, and Medford 

districts. Ecological restoration—an array of principles and techniques developed in 

partnership with Dr. Norm Johnson, Professor of Forestry Resources at Oregon 

State University, my fellow panelist, and Dr. Jerry Franklin, Professor of Ecosystem 

Science at the University of Washington—applies variable retention harvest techniques that create early successional ecosystems while conserving high-value habitat across large watersheds. 

These pilot projects have been underway since December 2010, and have involved 

collaboration with resource professionals from the BLM, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, National Marine Fisheries Service, and the Coquille Indian Tribe, as well 

as industry and the conservation community. The objective of the pilots is to demonstrate the ecological and economic merits of the restoration strategy outlined by 

Professors Johnson and Franklin in moist and dry forests. The pilots serve as examples of how active management may be applied in critical habitat for the Northern 

Spotted Owl, and lessons learned through these pilot efforts will help inform the 

BLM’s approach to future management of these lands. 

Resource Management Plans 

The BLM is revising the six Resource Management Plans that govern management of the O&C lands. The BLM will continue to have significant engagement with 

the public in this effort, striving for a cooperative approach to the complex issues 

associated with managing these lands. The BLM in western Oregon is employing 

a series of collaborative approaches and meetings to engage over 25 formal cooperators in addition to interested public stakeholders during the current efforts to revise 

the Resource Management Plans. The revised plans will provide a management 

framework for O&C lands that furthers the recovery of threatened and endangered 

species, produces a sustained yield of timber products, provides for clean water, restores fire-adapted ecosystems, and ensures diverse recreational opportunities. In 

2012, scoping for the plan revisions was completed, and the BLM has used input 

derived during the scoping period to determine the Purpose and Need for the planning effort. The BLM has also begun hosting a series of meetings to conduct outreach on issues important to the public as we move forward toward developing a 

draft. The revised plans will consider lessons learned from the ecological forestry 

pilot projects, the revised recovery plan and final critical habitat designation for the 

Northern Spotted Owl, and the 2008 planning effort. As the BLM moves forward 

with the planning effort, it will also continue to work with Senator Wyden, Governor 

Kitzhaber, and other leaders in Oregon in their efforts to develop a collaborative 

resolution to forest management issues in western Oregon. 

CONCLUSION

The BLM is committed to managing both public domain forests and the O&C 

lands in a manner consistent with applicable authorities, including the O&C Lands 

Act in western Oregon. The BLM will continue to offer timber sales consistent with 

our Resource Management Plans and the Northwest Forest Plan for the benefit of 

rural economies and forest health. We look forward to continuing to work with the 

Committee and with our partners to manage forests and their many associated resources and values on the public lands. Thank you again for the opportunity to discuss the BLM’s forest management programs. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you and also thank you to all the people 

at the agency helping us with the technical assistance to get that 

O and C bill ready. 

Mr. FARQUHAR. We’ll be very happy to help with that, Senator. 

The CHAIRMAN. Very good. 

Dr. Johnson, welcome. 
17 

STATEMENT OF K. NORMAN JOHNSON, DEPARTMENT OF FOREST ECOSYSTEMS AND SOCIETY, OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY 

Mr. JOHNSON. Good morning. Thank you for the invitation, Senator Wyden, to speak before your committee. 

I’m speaking today for myself and Dr. Jerry Franklin. I must say 

that the comments represent our own views and not necessarily of 

our respective institutions. Jerry is at the University of Washington and I’m at Oregon State University. 

My testimony today focuses on how we might improve attainment of a key goal of the 1937 O and C Act that set the initial 

management direction for the BLM O and C lands. That specific 

legislative direction for a sustained yielded timber harvest that 

contributes to the economic stability of local communities makes 

these lands unique, with different responsibilities from our national forests. 

In addition the lands are confined within a single State, Oregon, 

also making them different from other Federal lands. 

The Northwest Forest Plan which BLM now operates under designated matrix as a land base for sustained yield management including regeneration harvest. In the face of public protest and litigation though, the agency has retreated to a short term strategy 

of young stand thinning and fuel reduction while waiting for a political and Administrative decision which will allow it to set a sustained yield level. The current strategy has a limited timeframe, 

perhaps 15 years, until it will exhaust harvest opportunities. Also, 

it produces only very modest payments to the counties in which the 

forests lie. 

Our experience suggests that timber harvest will be difficult to 

sustain unless there are evident, ecological and social benefits. The 

broad support gained for both plantation thinning and fuel reduction illustrates this concept and explains why BLM has limited its 

recent harvest activities to those treatments. 

With these observations in mind we suggest an ecological forestry approach to the management of the O and C lands, an approach that incorporates principles and natural forest development 

including the role of natural disturbances. As part of this we first 

divide the forest into two categories, moist forests and dry forests 

because of their contrasting disturbance regimes and responses to 

management and the fundamental need for differing policies with 

regard to the protection of old growth forests. 

Within the last 2 years we’ve worked with the Department of the 

Interior and Oregon BLM to design and implement ecological forestry projects on the BLM O and C lands, as Ned just said. We’ll 

discuss below the potential of both types of forests to contribute to 

our permanent timber supply. Much of our discussion centers on 

moist forests, the classic rain forest of the Northwest, as they hold 

most of the timber volume growth and economic value of these 

lands. 

Under the Northwest Forest Plan the matrix is a long term timber supply. Over the last 20 years the affected moist forest matrix 

on BLM has been significantly reduced for a variety of biodiversity 

concerns. We estimate that currently at most 10 percent of the 
18 

moist forest acreage could be included with some certainty in the 

land base for sustained yield management. 

We also have concluded that reversing these trends and providing a robust, long term timber supply from the O and C lands 

will require two things. 

Utilizing management strategies that provide both ecological and 

social benefits. 

Expanding the land base for long term timber production in ways 

that sustain environmental values. 

As we mentioned our experience suggests that the moist forest 

regeneration harvest and essential component will be difficult to 

implement unless there are evident ecological benefits. To restart 

generation harvest we recommend a silvicultural strategy that utilizes variable retention harvest followed by the nurturing of diverse 

early seral ecosystems and the growing of stands and rotations long 

enough for a biocomplexity to occur. 

While this strategy will not provide the per acre harvest equivalent to those obtained under intensive management such an approach would provide a permanent timber supply. There are pictures in our report demonstrating these ideas from the pilots. This 

does not involve the harvest of old growth trees and does not utilize 

clear cutting. 

Given the goals of the Northwest Forest plan and recovery plans 

for threatened and endangered species the younger forest, outside 

of Northern Spotted Owl critical habitat is a likely current source 

of acres for sustained yield management. 

We do suggest 3 potential changes that would increase the moist 

forest land base. 

Adoption of a new stream buffering strategy that we helped develop with Dr. Reeves, who took part in the development of the 

Northwest Forest plan. 

Re-evaluate the need for younger stands in the late successional 

reserves and limiting survey and manage requirements to species 

known to be in decline. 

In addition we recommend that the BLM accelerate its collaborative effort with the Fish and Wildlife to understand the potential 

role of moist forests variable retention harvest in critical habitat 

for the Northern Spotted Owl and identify the potential level of activity over the next 5 to 10 years. 

In total all of these changes could double or triple the land base 

for sustained yield management in moist forests. 

In dry forests which are around Medford and Grant’s Pass are 

immensely important to the people of Southwest Oregon in many 

ways. Numerous ecological and social tensions surround their conservation and use. Increasing stand density threaten neighboring 

homes and communities on the forests themselves. Yet harvests 

under the restoration strategies often do not yield substantial revenue, making it difficult to pay for actions that are address public 

concerns and increase forest sustainability. 

For these dry forests we need a strategy tailored just to them 

with retaining and nurturing old trees and other significant structural elements of the dry forest, as a starting point, and the application of ecological forestry. In addition retaining some denser for-
19 

* All figures have been retained in committee files. 

1 Congress directed that the O&C forests be managed for ‘‘ . . .permanent forest production. . .in conformity with the principle of sustained yield for the purpose of providing a permanent source of timber supply. . . ., protecting watersheds, regulating stream flow, and contributing to the economic stability of local communities and industries, and providing recreational 

facilities.’’ 

ests and patches scattered to the landscape in an untreated or a 

lightly treated condition is an important element. 

We think that this strategy should be applied across ages, land 

allocations and locations across the entire matrix and LSRs, inside 

and outside of critical habitat. In so doing we expect that about one 

third of the dry forest we retain in denser patches and half to twothirds would be treated. 

In sum these approaches should help address the issues surrounding how to increase timber harvests on the O and C lands 

while still retaining environmental values. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Johnson follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF K. NORMAN JOHNSON, DEPARTMENT OF FOREST ECOSYSTEMS AND SOCIETY, OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY, AND JERRY F. FRANKLIN, 

SCHOOL OF ENVIRONMENTAL AND FOREST SCIENCE, UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON, 

WITH THE TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE OF DEBORA JOHNSON, APPLEGATE FORESTRY

I speak today for myself and Dr. Jerry Franklin. These comments represent our 

own views and not those of our respective institutions. 

The BLM in western Oregon administers a collection of land ownerships resulting 

from various Congressional actions. They include the Oregon and California Railroad Lands, Coos Bay Wagon Roads and Special Act lands, totaling over 2.1 million 

acres. Collectively, we will call them by their popular name of ‘‘BLM O&C lands’’ 

(Figure 1)*. In addition, some O&C lands are within the national forests and are 

administered by the Forest Service, the ‘‘Controverted Lands’’ (approximately 450,00 

acres outside of Wilderness) (Figure 1). We will discuss the Controverted Lands 

later in this report. 

Our testimony today focuses on how we might improve attainment of a key goal 

of the 1937 O&C Act that set the initial management direction for the BLM O&C 

lands—attainment of sustained yield of timber harvest that enables a permanent 

source of timber supply and contribution to the economic stability of local communities.1 By sustained yield, we mean organization of a property for continuous timber production, under the silvicultural prescriptions, rotation ages, and cutting cycles reflective of the goals for the forest (Helms, 1996). 

This specific legislative direction for sustained yield of timber harvest that contributes to the economic stability of local communities makes these federal lands 

unique, with different responsibilities than our national forests. In addition, the 

lands are confined within a single state—Oregon—also making them different from 

other federal lands. 

As other acts have been passed, such as the Endangered Species Act and the 

Clean Water Act, managers of O&C forests have gained added responsibilities that 

have significantly impacted the sustained yield level of timber harvest (Tuchman 

and Davis 2013). They are currently managed under the Northwest Forest Plan 

(USFS and USBLM 1994). 

Perhaps the most elusive and frustrating part of managing the BLM O&C lands 

has been failure to establish a sustained yield of timber harvest that enables a permanent source of timber supply as mandated in the 1937 O&C Act. The Northwest 

Forest Plan, under which BLM now operates, designated ‘‘Matrix’’ as the land base 

for sustained yield management, including regeneration harvest. In the face of public protest and litigation, though, the agency has retreated to a short-term strategy 

of young stand thinning and fuel reduction, while waiting for a political or administrative decision that will allow it to establish a sustained yield level and proceed 

with the harvests to achieve it (Johnson and Franklin 2012, 2013). The current 

strategy has a limited time-frame (perhaps 15 years) until it will exhaust harvest 

opportunities; also, it produces only very modest payments to the counties in which 

these forests lie. 
20 

We base on our recommendations on the experience of the last three years in 

which we assisted the BLM in setting up a number of demonstration projects to 

help them move beyond the current strategy to one that will be more long lasting. 

Our experience suggests that timber harvests will be difficult to implement unless 

there are evident ecological and social benefits—the broad support gained for both 

plantation thinning and fuel reduction illustrate this concept and why BLM has limited its recent harvest activities to those treatments. 

Also, a recent survey of Oregonians showed that they favor ecological forestry approaches to the BLM O&C lands over more traditional intensive management approaches even though they would produce lower harvest and revenue. These results 

also hold in the downstate counties most impacted by the reduction in O&C harvest 

(Taylor 2013). 

With these observations in mind, we suggest an ‘‘Ecological Forestry’’ approach to 

management of the BLM O&C lands—one that will provide both ecological and economic benefits now and into the future. 

‘‘Ecological Forestry’’ incorporates principles of natural forest development, including the role of natural disturbances, in the initiation, development, and maintenance of stands and landscape mosaics (Seymour and Hunter 1999, Franklin et al. 

2007, Franklin and Johnson 2012). Ecological Forestry is based, therefore, on application of our best current ecological understanding of forest ecosystems in managing 

these ecosystems to achieve integrated environmental, economic, and cultural outcomes. 

We wish today to describe Ecological Forestry concepts and how they can assist 

in providing a sustained yield of timber harvest from the BLM O&C lands. 

RECOGNITION OF MOIST FORESTS AND DRY FORESTS

For management and discussion, we divide the BLM O&C forests into Moist Forests and Dry Forests, because of their contrasting disturbance regimes and responses to management, and the fundamental need for differing policies with regard 

to protection of old-growth forests and trees (Franklin and Johnson 2012) (Figure 

2). 

Over the last two years, we have worked with the Department of Interior and Oregon BLM to design and implement Ecological Forestry projects in Moist Forests 

and Dry Forests on the BLM O&C lands—projects that have both ecological and economic benefits (Johnson and Franklin 2012, 2013) (Figure 2). 

We will discuss below the potential of both types of forest (Moist and Dry) to contribute to a permanent timber supply. Much of our discussion centers on Moist Forests as they hold most of the timber volume, growth, and economic value of these 

lands. 

ECOLOGICAL FORESTRY IN MOIST FORESTS

Moist Forest ecosystems undergo many centuries of stand development and 

change following major disturbances, such as severe wildfire or windstorm, before 

achieving the massiveness and structural complexity of old-growth forests (Franklin 

et al. 2002). Composition, structure, and function of existing unmanaged old-growth 

Moist Forests generally are relatively unaffected by human activities, except at 

stand edges (Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team 1993). Management 

activities in these existing old-growth Moist Forests, such as thinning, are not needed to sustain desired conditions in these forests and can actually cause old-growth 

Moist Forests to diverge widely from natural forests in structure and function or become destabilized (Franklin et al. 2002). Wildfire suppression is typically consistent 

with efforts to retain such forests—i.e., it is not known to result in significant 

changes in Moist Forest ecosystems (Agee 1993). 

Restoration may be needed in Moist Forest landscapes in which old-growth stands 

are embedded, however. Many Moist Forest landscapes are currently dominated by 

dense young plantations, which are low in biodiversity and deficient in the early 

(pre-forest) and late (mature and old-growth) successional stages, which are richest 

in biodiversity (Wimberly 2002, Spies et al. 2007). Late-successional Moist Forests 

provide habitat for thousands of species including the Northern Spotted Owl (NSO) 

(Strix occidentalis caurina) and other habitat specialists (Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team 1993); past timber harvests have greatly reduced their extent and continuity (Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team 1993, 

Wimberly 2002, Spies et al. 2007). Continued decline in NSO populations across 

much of its range have heightened the importance of retaining late successional forests (Forsman et al. 2011). 

Early successional or seral Moist Forest sites are highly diverse, trophic-and function-rich ecosystems that develop after a severe disturbance but before the re-estab-
21 

lishment of a closed forest canopy (Swanson et al. 2011). Conceptually, disturbances 

of either natural (e.g. wildfire) or human (e.g. timber harvest) origin are capable of 

generating this stage. 

Large natural disturbances often produce high-quality early seral ecosystems provided they are not intensively salvaged and replanted (Swanson et al. 2011). However, such disturbances are unevenly distributed in time and space. 

Areas devoted to traditional intensive timber production (clearcut, site preparation, dense planting and control of competing vegetation to ensure rapid dominance 

of the next forest crop on the site) provide little high quality early seral habitat for 

several reasons. First, few or no structures from pre-harvest stands (e.g., live trees, 

snags, and logs) are retained on intensively managed sites, although they are abundant following severe natural disturbances (Swanson et al. 2011). Additionally, intensive site preparation and reforestation efforts limit both the diversity and duration of early seral organisms, which are often actively eliminated by use of herbicides or other treatments (Swanson et al. 2011). Consequently, many Moist Forest 

landscapes currently lack sufficient representation of high-quality early seral ecosystems due to harvest, reforestation, and fire suppression policies on both private 

and public lands (Swanson et al. 2011, Spies et al. 2007). 

Functional early seral habitat potentially can be created using regeneration harvest prescriptions that retain biological legacies and use less intensive approaches 

to re-establishment of closed forest canopies (Franklin and Johnson 2012). Such approaches would produce more modest timber yields than the intensive management 

described above but could provide significant ecological benefits. 

Given all these considerations, and others, we utilize the following Ecological Forestry strategy for Moist Forests on BLM O&C lands (Franklin and Johnson 2012): 

• Retain existing older stands and individual older trees found within younger 

stands proposed for management, using a selected threshold age; 

• Accelerate development of structural complexity in younger stands, using diverse silvicultural approaches; 

• Implement variable retention regeneration harvests in younger stands (stands 

generally less than 80 years of age), retaining such structures as individual 

trees, snags, and down logs and intact forest patches; 

• Accommodate development of diverse early seral ecosystems following harvest, 

by using less intense approaches to site preparation and tree regeneration; 

• Embed the preceding objectives in a silvicultural system that includes creation 

and management of multi-aged, mixed-species stands on long rotations (e.g., 

100-160 years); and, 

• Develop landscape-level plans for distributing variable retention regeneration 

harvests to assure desired placement and appropriate scale of implementation. 

Sources of a Permanent Timber Supply from BLM Moist Forests 

Under the Northwest Forest Plan, the ‘‘Matrix’’ is the source of long-term timber 

supply—the part of the BLM O&C lands that has long-term timber production as 

a goal. Over the last 20 years, the effective Moist Forest Matrix acreage available 

for sustained yield management has been significantly reduced from that originally 

identified in the Northwest Forest Plan (Figure 3). Four major reasons for this 

shrinkage are: 1) Critical Habitat for the NSO covering Matrix (USFWS 2012), 2) 

Recommended Actions in the NSO Revised Recovery Plan that result in protection 

of older stands in the Matrix (USFWS 2011), 3) Habitat for the Marbled Murrelet 

discovered over time in Matrix, and 4) Buffer requirements for Survey and Manage 

Species. It must be added that public protest of harvest of mature and old forest 

in the Matrix often predated these administrative actions and effects, contributing 

in many ways to the shrinkage in this land base. We estimate that, at most, 10% 

of Moist Forest acreage—the ‘‘available’’ Matrix—can currently be included, with 

some certainty, in the land base for sustained yield management. 

We have concluded that reversing these trends, and providing a robust long-term 

timber supply from the O&C Moist Forests will require: 1) utilizing management 

strategies that provide both ecological and economic benefits and 2) expanding the 

land base for long-term timber production in ways that sustain environmental values. We will discuss each in turn. 

Moist Forest Management Strategies That Provide both Ecological and Economic 

Benefits 

As mentioned above, our experience indicates that Moist Forest regeneration harvests—-an essential component of sustained yield management—-will be difficult to 

implement unless there are evident ecological benefits. BLM has limited its recent 
22 

activities in Moist Forests to plantation thinning where such benefits can be demonstrated. 

To restart regeneration harvests, we recommend a silvicultural strategy that utilizes variable retention harvest followed by the nurturing of diverse early seral ecosystems and the growing of forests stands on rotations long enough for bio-complexity to appear—an approach that sustains important elements of biodiversity and 

creates desired ecosystem structures and processes while providing timber harvest 

and revenue. While this strategy would not provide per acre harvest levels equivalent to those attained under intensive management, such an approach would provide 

a permanent timber supply. 

We are currently working with four BLM Districts to demonstrate this approach 

on the O&C lands (Figures 4 and 5). 

These Moist Forest Ecological Forestry Projects have been misrepresented in some 

quarters: 1) they do not involve the harvest of old growth trees and 2) they do not 

utilize clearcutting. Rather they use variable retention harvest, which has different 

ecological effects than clearcutting (Lindenmayer et al. 2012, Gustafsson et al. 

2012). We find it difficult to understand how such harvests can be described as 

clearcutting when 30% or more of the pre-harvest forest on the harvest units is retained for the next rotation! 

Expanding the Moist Forest Land Base for Sustained Yield Management While 

Maintaining Environmental Values 

To help in the discussion of land base for sustained yield management, we organized the BLM O&C forests by their major land allocations under the NWFP, their 

age class, and whether they lie within recently designated Critical Habitat for the 

Northern Spotted Owl (Johnson and Franklin (2013). 

Given the goals of the Northwest Forest Plan and recovery plans for threatened 

and endangered species, the younger forest outside of NSO Critical Habitat (less 

than 80 years of age) is the likely current source of acres for sustained yield management (see Johnson and Franklin 2013 for more discussion). The acres are shown 

in the far left bar of Figure 6. Also, some of the more simplified stands in the 80- 

120 class might be available. 

We suggest three potential changes that would increase the Moist Forest land 

base for sustained yield on the BLM O&C lands while still meeting the goals of the 

Northwest Forest Plan and recovery plan goals: 

1) Apply one of the alternative stream buffering strategies of Reeves et al. 

(2013) to modify Riparian Reserves within the Matrix; 

2) Re-evaluate the need for younger stands, outside of the Critical Habitat 

designation for the NSO, to remain in Late Successional Reserves; 

3) Limit Survey and Manage Requirements to species known to be in decline 

or some difficulty; 

Each of these changes is described below. It should be noted that these changes 

may come with special provisions to address remaining concerns about effects on 

species and ecosystems. 

In addition, we recommend that the BLM accelerate its collaborative effort with 

the US Fish and Wildlife Service to understand the potential role of Moist Forest 

variable retention harvest in Critical Habitat for the Northern Spotted Owl and 

identify the potential level of activity over the next five to ten years. 

Finally, we recommend considering these ideas for the Controverted Lands now 

managed by the USDA Forest Service along with the application of Ecological Forestry to those lands. 

Reshape Riparian Buffers 

Use scientifically credible methodologies to modify the Riparian Reserves of the 

Northwest Forest Plan, while still achieving the aquatic ecosystem goals of the 

Aquatic Conservation Strategy (ACS) (Reeves et al. 2013) and other ecological goals 

provided by those forests. 

Interim buffers (aka Riparian Reserves) of two-site potential tree heights on fishbearing streams and one-site potential tree height on non-fish bearing streams occupy at least 40% percent of Moist Forest Matrix under the (Northwest Forest Plan 

(NWFP). These interim buffers were identified as part of the NWFP in 1994, with 

the expectation that subsequently they would be revised as the NWFP was implemented. With rare exception, the interim buffers have not been revised (Thomas et 

al. 2007, Reeves et al. 2006, Reeves et al. 2013). 

Recently developed science and analysis tools (Benda et al. 2007) have opened the 

way to possible refinement of those buffer sizes. Applying these tools and science 

to streams in BLM Matrix, Reeves et al. (2013) concluded that alternatives exist to 
23 

2See Reeves, et al. (2013) for detail on the analysis and alternatives beyond that covered here. 

the current implementation of the ACS that reshape and reduce the buffer area 

needed to meet the goals of the ACS. One alternative has fixed widths and one has 

variable widths based on stream segment features. Both alternatives utilize ‘‘tree 

tipping’’ to ensure that thinning within buffers does not negatively affect wood delivery to the stream.2 Also, both alternatives limit harvest to younger stands (stands 

generally less than 80 years of age). 

Alternative A applies fixed-width buffers of one site-potential tree height for both 

fish-bearing and non-fish bearing streams. 

• The buffer on fish-bearing streams and the inner half of non-fish-bearing 

streams would continue to be devoted solely to ecological goals as defined in the 

Aquatic Conservation Strategy. • Ecological Forestry (with tree tipping) could be applied in younger stands in the 

outer half of the non-fish bearing streams to achieve ecological goals and sustained yield goals. 

The second tree height on fish-bearing streams would no longer be included in the 

riparian buffer. Thus, that area would be available for the application of Ecological 

Forestry to younger stands. Use of Ecological Forestry would enable that portion of 

the forest to continue providing a variety of functions for the many terrestrial species that use areas near streams while also providing sustained timber harvest. 

Under Alternative A, Riparian Reserve acreage in Matrix under current implementation of the ACS in the Northwest Forest Plan, would be allocated as follows: 

half would continue to be solely devoted to ecological goals and half would be devoted to both ecological and sustained yield goals, with harvest limited to younger 

stands. 

Alternative B also applies fixed-width buffers of one site-potential tree height for 

both fish-bearing and non-fish bearing streams, but divides the area within the sitepotential tree height between different goals for each stream segment based on its 

contribution to aquatic ecosystem values and then places each segment into one of 

two categories: 1) more ecologically sensitive and productive and 2) less ecologically 

sensitive and productive. 

• The buffer on the more ecologically sensitive and productive stream segments 

would continue to be devoted solely to ecological goals as defined in the Aquatic 

Conservation Strategy, as would the buffer on the first 100’ on less ecologically 

sensitive and productive fish-bearing stream segments and the first 50’ of less 

ecologically sensitive and productive non-fish bearing stream segments. • Ecological Forestry (with tree tipping) could be applied to younger stands in the 

outer portions of the less ecologically sensitive and productive stream segments 

to achieve ecological goals and sustained yield goals. 

As with Alternative A, the second tree height on fish-bearing streams would no 

longer be included in the riparian buffer. Thus, that area would be available for the 

application of Ecological Forestry to younger stands. Use of Ecological Forestry 

there would enable that portion of the forest to continue providing a variety of functions for the many terrestrial species that use areas near streams while also providing sustained timber harvest. 

Under Alternative B, Riparian Reserve acreage in Matrix under current implementation of the ACS in the Northwest Forest Plan would be allocated as follows: 

approximately two-fifths would continue to be solely devoted to ecological goals and 

approximately three-fifths would be devoted to both ecological and sustained yield 

goals, with harvest limited to younger stands. The exact distribution between the 

two categories varies by watershed. 

The modeling in Alternative B takes a landscape approach that makes it possible 

to understand the location of the most ecologically important stream segments 

across multi-owner watersheds. The Reeves, et al. work (2013) showed that many 

of the most important segments are on private lands that have much less extensive 

stream buffer requirements than federal lands, especially on small non-fish streams. 

This capability should enable the targeting of aquatic conservation and recovery 

across ownerships—a truly ‘‘all lands’’ approach. 

Implementation of this revised buffer strategy should also include an examination 

of road systems near streams and removal/decommissioning of problem roads. Without such an effort, it will be difficult to achieve the goals of the ACS. 

Shift Portions of Late Successional Reserves to Sustained Yield Management 

Shift younger stands in LSRs outside Critical Habitat to Matrix—i.e., aligning 

LSRs and NSO Critical Habitat. A major purpose of LSRs was to provide reserves 
24 

of sufficient size to maintain self-sustaining populations of NSOs. They were drawn 

using the best available information 20 years ago, but new knowledge and more advanced techniques have made an improved placement possible. While there were 

other justifications for LSRs, especially within the range of the Marbled Murrelet 

(near the Coast), conservation of the NSO was the major justification for the size 

and placement of the LSRs. 

Thus, Critical Habitat is somewhat ‘‘out of sync’’ with the original landscape allocations of the Northwest Forest Plan; redesign of the LSRs to better align them with 

NSO Critical Habitat would increase the area available for sustained yield management using Ecological Forestry. 

This reallocation should focus on shifting younger stands and stands in the LSRs. 

Provisions of the Revised Recovery Plan (Recovery Action 10 and Recovery Action 

32) call for protection of historical owl activity areas and protection of older, more 

complex portions of forests in Matrix outside of Critical Habitat. 

Substitute a Sensitive Species Policy for the Survey and Manage Policy 

Focus species-specific management on species of concern. The Survey-and-Manage 

(S&M) element of the Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP) represented an unparalleled 

attempt to protect rare, little-known species associated with late-successional and 

old-growth forests on more than 25 million acres of federal lands (Molina et al. 

2006). The FEMAT mission included ‘‘...maintenance or restoration of habitat conditions to support viable populations, well distributed across their current ranges, of 

species known (or reasonably suspected) to be associated with old-growth forest conditions.’’ Therefore, the persistence of 1,120 individual species and species groups associated with late successional and old-growth (LSOG) forest were evaluated relative to achieving the viability objective in FEMAT and the subsequent environmental impact statement (Molina, et al. 2006). 

The FEMAT analysis concluded that insufficient knowledge was available to determine whether the NWFP’s system of reserves would be adequate for 427 species—some LSOG forest was still available for harvest in the Matrix. The S&M list 

included amphibians, bryophytes, fungi, lichens, mollusks, vascular plants, functional groups of arthropods, and one mammal—the Red Tree Vole (Molina et al. 

2006). To remedy this deficiency S&M provisions were added for these species, 

which typically required surveys to determine whether they were present on sites 

proposed for activities, such as timber sales, and mitigation measures, such as protective buffers, when they were found. 

We suggest substitution of a ‘‘Sensitive Species Policy’’ for ‘‘Survey and Manage’’ 

as a way to focus analysis on those LSOG species that are of concern. We suggest 

this approach for two reasons: 1) Continued harvest of LSOG forest in the Northwest Forest Plan caused the need for S&M. Yet, that harvest, by and large, did not 

happen and will not happen under the NSO Revised Recovery Plan and NSO Critical Habitat. Therefore the need for such an approach has greatly diminished. 2) 

The species-specific approach taken in the NWFP, in attempting to maintain or restore habitat conditions for viable populations for all species associated with LSOG 

forests, followed the ‘‘viability rule’’ in the regulations implementing the National 

Forest Management Act. That regulation has been revised to focus on species about 

which there is ‘‘conservation concern.’’ We will discuss this second point below. 

The viability objective quoted above and utilized in the NWFP originated from 

regulations associated with implementing the National Forest Management Act 

(USDA 1982) and was specifically limited to vertebrates in that regulation. However, in FEMAT, it was applied to invertebrates as well as vertebrates and to BLM 

lands as well as National Forest lands, an interpretation ruled by courts to be within the discretion of the Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior to adopt and implement (Seattle Audubon Soc’y v. Lyons 1994). 

Species were put in the S&M category because there was insufficient knowledge 

about how the NWFP might influence their habitat and population dynamics. Thus, 

the burden of proof was on the land manager to show that these species would not 

be harmed by a proposed activity. Given an ecosystem management plan in place, 

like the Northwest Forest Plan complemented by the NSO Revised Recovery Plan 

and Critical Habitat, an alternative approach would be to require evidence that population levels and trends for the species indicated concerns and, if concerns were 

established, to apply special protocols. This approach would be similar to that taken 

in the recently revised regulation regarding implementation of the National Forest 

Management Act (USDA 2012) in which consideration of individual species is limited to those for which the responsible official has determined that a proposed eco-
25 

3 ‘‘The responsible official shall determine whether or not the plan components required by 

paragraph (a) of this section provide the ecological conditions necessary to: contribute to the recovery of federally listed threatened and endangered species, conserve proposed and candidate 

species, and maintain a viable population of each species of conservation concern within the plan 

area. If the responsible official determines that the plan components required in paragraph (a) 

are insufficient to provide such ecological conditions, then additional, species-specific plan components, including standards or guidelines, must be included in the plan to provide such ecological conditions in the plan area USDA 2012, 219.9 (b)’’. Paragraph (a) states: ‘‘the plan must include plan components, including standards or guidelines, to maintain or restore the ecological 

integrity of terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems and watersheds in the plan area, including plan 

components to maintain or restore their structure, function, composition, and connectivity 

(USDA 2012 219.9(a).)’’ 

system management plan would not be sufficient.3 A comparable approach here 

would use the ecosystem plan in place (like the NWFP supplemented by Critical 

Habitat) to conserve species, except where evidence exists that additional measures 

are required. 

In Moist Forests, this change could increase the availability of younger stands. 

Mature and old growth stands would not be affected since they are already committed to recovery of Threatened and Endangered Species, as discussed earlier, and 

other goals. 

The recent analysis of the status of the Red Tree Vole by USFWS (USDI 2011) 

may offer an opportunity as described above. The Department of Interior decided 

that ‘‘After review of the best available scientific and commercial information, we 

have determined that listing the North Oregon Coast population of the Red Tree 

Vole as a DPS (distinct population segment) is warranted. However, the development of a proposed listing rule is precluded by higher priority actions. . . Upon 

publication of this 12-month petition finding, we will add this DPS of the Red Tree 

Vole to our candidate species list (USDI 2011, p. 63720).’’ This DPS covers the Oregon Coast Range north of the Siuslaw River. Thus, Survey and Manage considerations relative to the Red Tree Vole might be limited to the stands north of the 

Siuslaw River. Such a change could reduce the need for special Red Tree Vole buffers in a stand like the one in the Coos Bay Pilot (a ‘‘younger stand’’ as described 

above)—requirements that helped push retention amounts in a variable retention 

regeneration harvest to higher levels than would otherwise have been needed. In addition, this change could significantly reduce the cost of timber sales by eliminating 

expensive surveys of proposed projects. 

ASSESS POTENTIAL HARVEST ACTIVITIES ON MOIST FOREST WITHIN NSO CRITICAL

HABITAT

Both the NSO Revised Recovery Plan (USFWS 2011) and Critical Habitat rule 

(USFWS 2012) emphasize the potential application of Ecological Forestry within 

Critical Habitat (USFWS 2012 p. 30): 

‘‘In sum, vegetation and fuels management in dry and mixed-dry forests 

may be appropriate both within and outside designated critical habitat 

where the goal of such treatment is to conserve natural ecological processes 

or restore them (including fire) where they have been modified or suppressed. . . Likewise, in some moist and mixed forests, management of 

northern spotted owl critical habitat should be compatible with broader ecological goals, such as the retention of high-quality older forest, the continued treatment of young or homogenous forest plantations to enhance structural diversity, heterogeneity and late-successional forest conditions, and 

the conservation or restoration of complex early-seral forest habitat, where 

appropriate. . . (italics added) 

In general, actions that promote ecological restoration and those that 

apply ecological forestry principles at appropriate scales as described above 

and in the Revised Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl (USFWS 

2011, pp. III-11 to III-41) may be, in the right circumstances, consistent 

with the conservation of the northern spotted owl and the management of 

its critical habitat.’’ 

Currently, the form and extent of such active management is too problematic for 

forests within NSO Critical Habitat to be part of the Most Forest land base for sustained yield management. Discussion and demonstration will be necessary to clarify 

the type, amount, and landscape pattern of timber harvest that is acceptable in 

Critical Habitat. That activity has already begun in the Roseburg and Eugene Districts and elsewhere, where variable retention harvest projects have been developed, 

and are being developed, within Critical Habitat. Shifting from individual project 
26 

development to landscape assessment of the magnitude and pattern of variable retention harvest over time will be a key to determining the contribution Critical 

Habitat to sustained yield. This will require a major collaborative effort by BLM and 

USFWS. Perhaps, a five or ten year commitment of project acreage for harvest activities could be the outcome of such an effort. 

APPLY THESE IDEAS TO THE O&C CONTROVERTED LANDS MANAGED BY THE FOREST

SERVICE

Some Oregon & California Railroad lands are administered by the Forest Service, 

referred to as the Controverted Lands (Figure 1). These Controverted Lands reside 

within the boundaries of the national forests and cover lands equal to approximately 

20 percent of BLM O&C lands. Some are in Wilderness or other Congressional and 

Administrative withdrawals, but many could be considered for sustained yield management. We classify approximately two-thirds of these lands as Moist Forest and 

one-third as Dry Forest. The younger Moist Forests on Controverted Lands, especially in the Cascades, provide useful locations to demonstrate Ecological Forestry 

on the national forests and also to apply the ideas mentioned above for expanding 

the land base for sustained yield management. 

ECOLOGICAL FORESTRY IN DRY FORESTS

Composition and structure of existing Dry Forests landscapes have been dramatically altered by decades of fire suppression, grazing by domestic livestock, timber 

harvesting, and plantation establishment (Noss et al. 2006) resulting in: (1) fewer 

old trees of fire-resistant species, (2) denser forests with multiple canopy layers, (3) 

more densely forested landscapes with continuous high fuel levels, and, consequently, (4) more stands and landscapes highly susceptible to stand-replacement 

wildfire and insect epidemics (e.g., Hessburg et al. 2005, Noss et al. 2006, Johnson 

and Franklin 2012). 

In southwest Oregon, Dry Forest sites that have not been previously harvested 

are largely occupied by dense maturing Douglas-fir stands, which often appear to 

be the first generation of closed-conifer forests on these sites. Scattered old pines 

and hardwoods are being crowded out by these younger Douglas-fir trees. Historically, many of these Dry Forest landscapes were occupied by more diverse communities including open grasslands, shrub fields, oak savannas, and mixed hardwood 

and conifer woodlands (McKinley and Frank 1996). 

Given these considerations, we suggest the following Ecological Forestry strategy 

for Dry Forests on the BLM O&C lands (Franklin and Johnson 2012): 

• Retain and improve survivability of older conifers by reducing adjacent fuels 

and competing vegetation; 

• Retain and protect other important structures such as large hardwoods, snags, 

and logs; some protective cover may be needed for cavity-bearing structures that 

are currently being used; 

• Reduce overall stand densities by thinning so as to (1) reduce basal areas to 

desired levels, (2) increase mean stand diameter, (3) shift composition toward 

fire-and drought-tolerant species, and (4) provide candidates for replacement of 

old trees; 

• Restore spatial heterogeneity by varying the treatment of the stand, such as by 

leaving untreated patches, creating openings, and providing for widely spaced 

single trees and tree clumps; 

• Establish new tree cohorts of shade-intolerant species in openings; 

• Treat activity fuels and begin restoring historic levels of ground fuels and understory vegetation using prescribed fire; and, 

• Plan and implement activities at landscape levels, incorporating spatial heterogeneity (e.g., provision for denser forest patches, such as those needed by the 

NSO and its prey species) and restoration needs in non-forest ecosystems (e.g., 

meadows and riparian habitats). 

The Dry Forests on BLM western Oregon Forests are immensely important to the 

people of southwest Oregon in many ways and numerous ecological and social tensions surround their conservation and use. Increasing stand densities threaten both 

neighboring homes and communities and the forests themselves (Johnson and 

Franklin 2012). Yet, harvests under restoration strategies often do not yield substantial revenue, making it difficult to pay for actions that address public concerns 

and increase forest sustainability. Also, some challenge the need for action. Thus, 

application of Ecological Forestry to the federal Dry Forests of southwest Oregon remains extremely challenging. 
27 

Retaining and nurturing older trees and other significant structural elements of 

the Dry Forest stand is the starting point in the application of Ecological Forestry 

to Dry Forests. That will require active management. Although many Dry Forests 

include older trees, almost all such forests are highly modified structurally and 

compositionally by past management, which has greatly reduced older tree populations and resulted in increased stand densities. Both remaining old trees and the 

forest in which they are embedded are currently at risk from intense wildfires, 

epidemics of defoliating insects, and competition, the latter resulting in accelerated 

mortality due to bark beetles. Selection of a threshold age for older trees is particularly important for Dry Forests, since it is applied to all Dry Forest stands. In our 

work we usually use 150 years as the threshold age for older trees because: (1) trees 

in Dry Forests generally begin exhibiting some old-growth characteristics by this 

age, and (2) significant Euro-American influences that disrupted historical disturbance regimes were underway by 1860, e.g., introduction of large domestic livestock 

herds and mining. 

Retaining some denser forest areas in an untreated or lightly treated condition 

is an important landscape-level planning component of our Dry Forest restoration 

strategy. Most Dry Forest landscapes include species and processes that require 

denser forest as habitat, such as preferred nesting, roosting, and foraging habitat 

for the NSO and its prey species (USFWS 2011). Maintaining approximately onethird of a Dry Forest landscape in denser patches of multi-layered forest has been 

proposed for the NSO (Courtney et al. 2008) and the need for a mosaic of denser 

patches and treated areas is acknowledged in the NSO recovery plan (USFWS 

2011). In general, landscape amounts and distributions will be a function of topographic and vegetative factors along with wildlife goals. Untreated patches in the 

hundreds of acres could be preferentially located in less fire-prone areas, such as 

steep north-facing slopes, riparian habitats, and sites protected by natural barriers, 

like lakes and lava flows. The longevity of the dense forest patches should be increased by reducing stand densities in the surrounding landscape matrix (Ager et 

al. 2007, Gains et al. 2010). Losses of denser forest patches are inevitable, but— 

since the surrounding restored matrix would still be populated with older, larger 

trees under this Ecological Forestry approach-suitable dense replacement habitat 

can be regrown. The Pilot Joe and Pilot Thompson projects in the Applegate Watershed illustrate these Dry Forest principles (Figures 7 and 8). Dense patches that 

will be retained in this project, called Late Successional Emphasis Areas (LSEAs). 

Commercial and non-commercial treatments were then planned around them to increase the sustainability of the treated areas and reduce the potential for the dense 

patches to be caught by a running crown fire from the valley below. 

Some key points about our Dry Forest landscape strategy are: 

1) LSEAs are not reserves. Rather they are part of a dynamic landscape; over 

time some of these dense forest patches are expected to be lost to wildfires and 

new ones will have to be created by allowing restored forest areas to grow into 

a denser forest state. 

2) Management is not prohibited. While we did not suggest entry into LSEAs 

in Pilot Joe, limited activities can be considered to reduce fuels and to achieve 

other goals as long as a forest structure is retained that will meet the needs 

for the species of interest. Cooperative efforts by BLM and USFWS to determine 

needs and actions would be desirable. 

3) This strategy is intended for the entire landscape—Matrix and LSRs and 

both inside NSO Critical Habitat and outside NSO Critical Habitat. 

Given this strategy for Dry Forests, distinguishing stands by age, land allocation, 

and location relative to Critical Habitat for the NSO (Figure 9) is much less useful 

than in Moist Forests in determining where and how Ecological Forestry might be 

applied. As described above, this strategy is intended to be applied across land allocations, Critical Habitat determinations, and age classes. 

In summary, we suggest a number of principles to guide application of Ecological 

Forestry in Dry Forests: 

• Don’t put ‘‘old’’ stands off limits to active management, including removal of 

trees—they will need action to save the old trees within them. These stands 

often require harvest of younger trees around old trees to reduce ladder fuels 

and competition and improve their longevity. Stand age thresholds to limit actions, such as those suggested previously for Moist Forests, are not appropriate 

in Dry Forests if the intent is to sustain these forests and the older trees that 

they contain. 

• Don’t allow Survey and Manage restrictions to prevent actions that will reduce 

stresses on old trees—consider a Sensitive Species policy as described above or 
28 

prevent treatments to reduce stand densities and increase heterogeneity outside 

of the denser patches. A strategy for Survey and Manage species in Dry Forests, 

similar to that which we discussed for Moist Forests above, might be considered—focus on individual species where a concern has been demonstrated. 

• Don’t create large reserves in which harvest is prohibited, since that will increase the probability that the forests within them will not survive. The LSR 

network of the NWFP originated as part of a Moist Forest conservation strategy 

that called for large, contiguous areas of reserves where late-successional forests 

would develop and where natural processes would be allowed to function. This 

approach was carried over to Dry Forests where it was not appropriate, which 

is why the NWFP actually allowed for active restoration treatments in LSRs in 

Dry Forest landscapes. It is important that the reserve strategy of the NWFP 

be allowed to evolve into a network of modest-sized dense forest patches across 

the Dry Forest landscape. 

• Do develop a landscape plan across the Dry Forests, including stands within 

NSO Critical Habitat, which identifies the portions of the landscape that will 

be treated to provide greater resilience and the portions that will be left in a 

denser condition. As a starting point we recommend that approximately 1/3 of 

the forest might be left in this denser condition. 

It is difficult to identify a static land base for sustained yield management in this 

dynamic system, as it will shift over time. We recommend that the unique properties of Dry Forests drive the management strategy for them utilizing the principles we describe above and that a landscape plan be developed that implements 

these principles. Even that landscape plan, it is possible to make an first estimate 

of both short-run harvest and long-term yields. 

SUMMARY

To increase timber harvest on the O&C lands while maintaining environmental 

values, we recommend: 

1) Application of Ecological Forestry across O&C lands to provide both ecological benefits and economic benefits; 

2) Recognition of Moist Forests and Dry Forests with their own unique Ecological Forestry strategies; 

3) On Moist Forests: 

a) Continue a thinning program that emphasizes variable retention 

thinning in younger stands; 

b) Reinitiate regeneration harvest in younger forests in Matrix using a 

variable retention approach followed by nurturing early successional ecosystems; 

c) Reclassify younger forests in Riparian Reserves and Late Successsional 

Reserves to sustained yield management through a cooperative effort of 

BLM, USFWS and NOAA Fisheries; 

d) Shift from a Survey and Manage Strategy to a Sensitive Species Strategy; 

e) Undertake a major cooperative effort by BLM and USFWS to identify 

the pattern and magnitude of Ecological Forestry within Northern Spotted 

Owl Critical Habitat; 

f) Also apply these recommendations to the O&C Controverted Lands in 

the Cascades managed by the Forest Service. 

In total, these changes could double or triple the Moist Forest land base for sustained yield management. 

4) On Dry Forests: 

a) Apply a partial cutting strategy across all age classes in both Matrix 

and Late Successional Reserves, and inside and outside NSO Critical Habitat, to reduce threats and increase sustainability 

b) Reclassify some forest in Riparian Reserves to the upland restoration 

strategy 

c) Develop a landscape plan for the O&C Dry Forests identifying the portions of the landscape that will be treated and the portions that will be left 

in a denser condition through a collaborative effort by the BLM, FS, 

USFWS, and NOAA Fisheries. 

We would expect that half to two-thirds of the O&C Dry Forests will need treatment through commercial and non-commercial activities. 
29 

Estimating Likely Sustained Yield Harvest Levels 

The changes suggested here should enable a higher harvest level on the O&C 

lands both in the short-run and in the long-run. Estimating the likely harvest level 

from these changes with detailed accuracy, though, takes thought and analysis. It 

is important that land management agencies and regulatory agencies be involved 

in such an analysis. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Dr. Johnson. Particularly 

those ideas for increasing the land base for forest management and 

doing it consistent with the environmental laws. That’s what this 

committee wants to hear and we thank you for coming. 

Mr. Maisch, welcome, from Alaska. 

STATEMENT OF JOHN ‘‘CHRIS’’ MAISCH, STATE FORESTER 

AND DIVISION DIRECTOR, ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, DIVISION OF FORESTRY 

Mr. MAISCH. Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chair, Ranking 

Member Murkowski and members. My name is Chris Maisch, Alaska State Forester and Director of the Division of Forestry. 

I’m here today to speak on behalf of our Governor Sean Parnell. 

The purpose of today’s hearing is to discuss how important forest 

management on Federal lands is and to examine different ideas 

and options including State management. But before I get into the 

specifics about the Alaska situation, I’d like to talk about the working forest concept. 

The importance of community, economy and environment and the 

balance between these elements which is often described as a 

measure of sustainability or the triple bottom line. 

Senator Baldwin, I’d like to say if you’ve ever had the chance to 

visit the Menominee tribe in Wisconsin you will know that that’s 

one of the best examples in the country of long term forest management there is. But unfortunately in many locations across the Nation and in Southeast Alaska there exists an imbalance between 

these elements. 

If you’d please refer to Figure 1 in your packet there’s some larger figures in the very back. 

Figure 1 is—well, as you all know Alaska is a big place. The top 

of the diagram represents all of Southeast Alaska, 17 million acres. 

The arrows departing to the left remove acreage for Congressional 

designated lands. The arrows departing to the right remove acreage for Administrative reasons. 

The take home message is bottom center where you see two 

small slices, black and green, where about 600,000 acres of land, 

which is all that is left and is available for active forest management. 

If you’d please refer to Figure 2. During a 16-year period this 

graph depicts trends for timber volumes sold on Federal and State 

lands in Southeast Alaska. Blue is State land. You can see it is 

steady with a slow increase. 

Green is Federal land. Drastic decline. 

In 1990 there were 4,600 jobs in the timber industry in Southeast Alaska. Today a few hundred at best. 

To address this situation Governor Parnell via Administrative 

Order 258 formed the Alaska Timber Jobs Task Force in 2011. 

Members come from a broad slice of Alaska and represent State 

agencies, community groups, timber industry and a Federal ob-
30 

server. Charged with State-wide duties and 8 specific tasks including recommendations on how to improve Federal land management 

on the Tongass. 

The Task Force wanted to document the current situation in 

Southeast and decided that population and school enrollment 

trends would be good indicators of community health. Over the 

past decade regional population is down 5 percent. But even more 

startling since 1990 school enrollment is down 15 percent and 5 

communities have lost their only school. A school is the lifeline of 

a community, literally its heart, its soul and its mind. 

The State has worked from within the system to try and change 

management direction including seeking cooperating agency status 

in the 2008 forest plan process and the ensuing forest plan implementation. 

We have also participated in a collaborative process known as 

the Tongass Futures Roundtable with a goal of producing a broadly 

supported alternative for an operable land base. After 5 years with 

little result the Governor withdrew and formed the task force. The 

task force made 34 specific recommendations across 8 subject 

areas. 

A priority statewide recommendation was the creation of a consistent and stable timber supply. To achieve this goal in Southeast 

Alaska the State should pursue ownership of two million acres. It 

should work jointly with other organizations and groups to seek 

change to the management on Federal lands including the concept 

of trust or other land tenure changes such as State forests. 

The State of Alaska has a strong and well regulated forest resources practices act that requires mandatory steam buffers and 

has focused on the protection of fish habitat and water quality. 

State forests are actively managed and have a primary purpose, 

timber management, that allows other multiple uses including job 

creation from a range of resources on the forest, tourism, fishing, 

mining and yes, active forest management. 

In contrast this is not the Federal focus. It is on restoration, primarily of the environmental portion of the working forest concept 

and not enough attention is being given to the community or economic portions of a sustainability model. 

The Forest Service can’t solve this problem unless Congress provides relief from burdensome regulations, confusing policy and litigation by third parties. All challenges to active forest management. 

I predict there will be no significant change in the scope, the scale 

or pace of management that we need on our Federal lands to help 

balance or re-balance the triple bottom line. 

I urge Congress to continue this important discussion, provide 

new approaches and tools to address this national issue. 

Mr. Chairman, there is a better alternative. You only need to 

look at how the states and tribes of this great country are actively 

managing their forest resources and the impressive accomplishments they have achieved. 

With that, I conclude my testimony and thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Maisch follows:] 
31 

1 USDA, 2011. National Report on Sustainable Forests-2010, United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, FS-979. 

* Figures 1–2 have been retained in committee files. 

2 Executive branch actions can withdraw up to 5,000 acres without Congressional approval, 

16 USC 3213. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOHN ‘‘CHRIS’’ MAISCH, STATE FORESTER AND DIVISION

DIRECTOR, ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, DIVISION OF FORESTRY

Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Murkowski, and Members of the 

Committee. My name is Chris Maisch and I am the Alaska State Forester and Division Director for the Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Division of Forestry. 

On behalf of the Governor of Alaska, thank you for the opportunity to submit written and public testimony to the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources regarding challenges and opportunities for improving forest management on 

Federal lands. We appreciate your attention to the important economic and environmental issue of national forest management. Modern forestry is the greenest of 

green industries and yet communities located in and near national forests are desperate for the restoration of green jobs that could result from proper stewardship 

of our nation’s unmatched forest endowment. 

I would like to begin my testimony by discussing a concept we believe is essential 

to considering a topic of this nature, before describing the current situation in 

Southeast Alaska, and potential scenarios for management, including State management. 

The State of Alaska embraces the concept of a Working Forest, which is further 

described as the utilization of forest resources to create jobs and healthy communities through active forest management. A healthy environment should support a 

strong social structure, which will in turn support a robust economy. The State of 

Alaska and others use the phrase ‘‘Triple Bottom Line’’ to refer to this relationship, 

which is also described as sustainability.1 When any one of these elements is emphasized disproportionately, the other elements suffer in measures of quantity and 

quality. Unfortunately, in Alaska and other parts of the Nation, an unbalanced relationship between the three ‘‘bottom lines’’ is causing major challenges for state and 

local governments and communities. Federal policy on National Forest System lands 

has shifted away from the Working Forest concept to disproportionately embrace a 

protection-oriented approach. 

Alaska’s forest endowment is massive. Alaska’s two national forests, the Tongass 

and the Chugach, are the largest in the country. Together they are nearly equal in 

size to the 52 forests located in the Forest Service Eastern Regions’ 8 and 9—over 

22 million acres. Unfortunately, the economic ‘‘bottom line’’ of Alaska’s federal forest 

endowment has been short-changed, to the detriment of Alaska’s communities. 

This is illustrated by federal management of the Tongass National Forest in 

Southeast Alaska. The Tongass is the largest national forest and encompasses about 

17 million acres of land. Not all of this land is suitable for timber management, but 

through a series of legislative withdrawals and policy changes, the suitable timber 

base available for management has declined to only 672 thousand acres—or 4% of 

the Tongass acreage (Figure 1).* 

Nearly six million acres are managed as wilderness in the Tongass. That is more 

wilderness acres than the Forest Service manages in Washington, South Dakota, 

West Virginia and Oregon combined (about 5.0 million acres). 

Also at play are two unique conditions that pertain to the Tongass, the Alaska 

National Interests Land Conservation Act (ANILCA) of 1980 and the administratively promulgated 2001 Roadless Rule. In recognition of the huge amounts of land 

set aside for conservation in ANICLA a section was included that is know as the 

‘‘no more clause’’. This section of the law simple states: no additional wilderness or 

conservation withdraws can be made in Alaska without the explicit approval of Congress.2 The 2001 Roadless Rule was and administrative effort (emphasis added, administrative) and effectively created another 2.2 million acres of wilderness on the 

Tongass NF. The State of Alaska sued in the United States District Court for the 

District of Alaska in 2001 and won a settlement agreement with the FS that prohibited application of this Rule in the Tongass. A third party litigant recently won a 

reversal of this settlement and the State is once again asserting its legal rights and 

this case is pending decision in the Ninth Circuit. In addition, the State also has 

pending an action on the Roadless topic in the United States Court of Appeals for 

the District of Columbia. In the meantime, the removal of additional acres from the 

Timber Production Land Use Designations (LUDs) in the Forest Plan of 2008 makes 

it impossible to fully implement the selected alternative. 
32 

3 Alaska Department of Labor 

4 Available at http://forestry.alaska.gov/pdfs/timberljobsltasklforcelreportlfinal.pdf. 5 Alaska Timber Jobs Task Force 2012, Report to Governor Sean Parnell, Prepared By Alaska 

Timber Jobs Task Force, Administrative Order 258: Final Report, Appendix 8 p3. 6 Alaska Timber Jobs Task Force 2012. Appendix 8 p 3-5. 

7 USDA Forest Service Correspondence, March 19, 2013 

The limitations mentioned, in combination with an unwieldy U.S. Forest Service 

policy, have led to a precipitous decline in timber volume offered for sale (Figure 

2). In contrast, the State has been able to increase volume offered over the same 

timeframe on only 50,000 acres of state forest land in Southeast. At the same time 

logging and wood products employment remains a mere shadow of its past, falling 

from 4,600 jobs in 1990 to approximately 307 logging jobs and 150 wood products 

manufacturing jobs in 2011.3

Conditions have continued to deteriorate since 2011 and the Southeast Alaska 

timber industry has nearly collapsed as a result of federal timber policy which does 

not emphasize active timber management. The few jobs left are attributable to forest management activities by landowners such as the Sealaska Corporation and the 

State of Alaska. Since 2007, what remains of the timber industry in Southeast Alaska has lived from timber sale to timber sale. Because of this policy, the harvest level 

on federal lands has decreased to a point where only one medium sized mill remains 

open. This facility is almost entirely dependent on federal timber and can only operate at one shift, even though with adequate timber supply, it could operate at least 

two shifts year round. 

Alaska Timber Jobs Task Force 

In 2011, Governor Parnell issued Administrative Order 258 which established the 

Alaska Timber Jobs Task Force to recommend ways to revive Alaska’s timber industry. The task force was a combined federal, state, private industry, and community 

group appointed by the Governor. The Administrative Order charged the task force 

with considering and attempting to address a number of specific tasks, several of 

which were directly related to timber management on federal lands and the need 

to utilize these renewable resources to benefit local, regional and national public interests. The final report from the task force was completed in June 2012.4 A copy 

of this report is attached to my testimony and I ask that it be made part of the 

Committee’s hearing record. 

The task force gathered information from numerous state and federal agencies to 

capture the social implications of developments in the Southeast timber industry. 

The task force found the decline in Southeast Alaska’s timber industry impacted social measures, such as regional population and school enrollment. Statistics from 

the 2010 U.S. Census show that total population has declined by 5% over the past 

decade. Furthermore, 24 out of 34 Southeast communities (71%) have lost population ranging from -2 percent (Hydaburg) to -57 percent (Point Baker).5 The Southeast region of Alaska, dominated by the Tongass forest, is the only region to lose 

population during the last two censuses. 

Schools are the leading indicator of community health. The Task Force found that 

while ‘‘[n]early all (31 of 34) Southeast communities have had a public community 

school at one point in time . . . the majority of communities have experienced enrollment declines over two decades. In total, there has been a 15 percent decline in 

Southeast student enrollment since 1990. During the past 20 years, six communities 

(19%) have seen their school close (one school has since reopened in Kasaan). Of the 

31 communities with schools, the majority (87%) have experienced a declining student enrollment sustained over nearly two decades; only (10%) have increasing 

school enrollments.’’6

The Southeast Island School District serves residents of the islands of Prince of 

Wales, Baranof and Kosciusko—all located in the heart of the Tongass National Forest. Those islands were the most intensively managed during the peak of timber 

harvest. In 1995, the district served 381 students in 12 schools. Today, nine schools 

serve 160 students. 

Recent news from the USFS concerning Secure Rural Schools payments and sequestration could exacerbate an already troubling situation. The State and school 

districts have received an invoice for $826,331 as a result of the 5.1 percent cut in 

funding in our Title I-III allocations.7 This unwelcome development underscores the 

need for a better approach to funding school districts dependent on this income. 

Despite these grim realities, the region is fighting to survive and reinvent itself. 

The Timber Task Force identified timber supply as one of the ‘‘priority statewide 

issues that presented the greatest impediment to job creation and economic development for Alaska’s timber industry.’’ It also found that the challenges and opportuni-
33 

8To the extent consisted with providing for the multiple use and sustained yield of all renewable forest resources. 9 Alaska Timber Jobs Task Force 2012, Report to Governor Sean Parnell, Prepared By Alaska 

Timber Jobs Task Force, Administrative Order 258: Final Report, p8. 10The Alaska Mental Health Trust Authority is charged with being a catalyst for change and 

improvement in the systems that serve Trust beneficiaries, who include people with mental illness, developmental disabilities, chronic alcoholism and other substance related disorders, AlzContinued 

ties vary by region, including Southcentral, Interior and Southeast Alaska. These 

former two regions are experiencing slow, but steady growth as wood biomass 

projects are developed to meet community needs for economic space heating and 

electrical generation. Projects at both small and large scales are made possible by 

state forest management policies that provide a sustainable, long-term supply of 

wood from state forests and other state land. 

In contrast, the Task Force found that the principal barrier to job creation in 

southeast Alaska is insufficient timber volume from the Tongass National Forest. 

Since the 2008 Forest Plan amendment, the Tongass NF has offered only 33% of 

the volume the agency deems necessary to comply with Section 101 of the Tongass 

Timber Reform Act (TTRA), which requires he United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) to ‘‘. . .seek to provide a supply of timber from the Tongass National Forest which (1) meets the annual market demand for timber from the forest 

and (2) meets the annual market demand from such forest for each planning cycle.’’8

The state has worked from within the system to change management direction on 

the Tongass and was granted cooperating agency status in the 2008 Forest Plan 

amendment process and is a co-implementer of the current plan. The state invested 

fiscally in working with the FS to improve timber sale process and economics and 

has funded two full-time positions, one in the Department of Fish and Game, Habitat Division and the other in the Department of Natural Resources, Division of Forestry, to accomplish this objective. In addition to the dedicated employees, a state 

‘‘Tongass Team’’ was created within state government that reached across department lines to coordinate timely input to ongoing projects. This effort has not been 

without its challenges, but both parties have worked well together within Region 

10 in an attempt to meet the plans goals. Third party litigants, policy changes and 

capacity issues within the FS have prevented full and effective implementation of 

the plan. A five year review of the 2008 Forest Plan is currently underway. 

The state also participated in a collaborative process known at the Tongass Futures Roundtable. This effort was convened with the goal of informing the 2008 

planning process with a broadly supported alternative for an operable land base 

where active management could occur. The group was unable to meet this initial 

objective and continued to meet in an attempt to resolve ongoing management 

issues. The Roundtable operated by consensus and had 35 primary members from 

all walks of life, all interested in management of the Tongass. After five years of 

participation and little real change on the ground, the Governor withdrew the state 

from the process in 2011 and created the Alaska Jobs and Timber Task Force. A 

much reduced Roundtable continued to meet, but at their 2013 spring meeting, the 

remaining members decided to disband. 

Uncertainties and exorbitant costs associated with the National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA) and invalidation of the Tongass Exemption to the 2001 Roadless 

Area Conservation Rule exacerbate the challenge of supplying sufficient timber volume from the Tongass NF to maintain an integrated timber industry capable of contributing meaningfully to the region’s economy. 

The state’s ongoing efforts with the FS and our experience in the collaborative 

process had a profound effect on how the Task Force approached its work and crafted their final recommendations for Tongass National Forest land ownership and 

management. It was clear that reform of the current management system would be 

difficult at best, and time was not on the side of the region’s communities. The following three recommendations were made by the Task Force9: 

1. Pursue state ownership and/or management authority of two million acres 

of National Forest System lands in the Tongass NF to support an integrated 

timber industry in Southeast. 

2. Work jointly with other states/entities seeking change in the management 

of federal lands. Possible changes include the concepts of ‘‘trust’’ or state management of federal lands, the transfer of federal lands into state ownership, adjustments to the Alaska Statehood Act by Congress and measures to force the 

federal agencies, primarily the USFS, to increase timber harvest. 

3. Support finalization of Sealaska’s outstanding land entitlements, Alaska 

Mental Health Trust’s10 administrative land exchange with the USFS, and set-
34 

heimer’s disease and related dementia, and traumatic brain injury that results in permanent 

brain injury. 11 36 CFR 219 Subpart A-National Forest System Land Management Planning (2012 National 

Planning Rule) §219.10 Multiple use (a) (1). 12 U.S. Code 1604 (g)(3)(iv) (National Forest Management Act (NFMA)). 

tlement of the land entitlements for the unrecognized Southeast Alaska Native 

Communities. 

In April, I had the opportunity to address elements of recommendation #2 and #3 

in the House Committee on Natural Resources, where several legislative proposals 

are attempting to accomplish similar objectives, and I’d like to offer the following 

observations concerning the benefits of state-managed forests in comparison to the 

current form of management. 

The Alaska Forest Resources and Practices Act (FRPA) governs forest practices 

on state, municipal, and private land, including the Alaska Mental Health Trust 

and University of Alaska Trust lands. The Act, in place since 1989, has been updated several times as new science becomes available. Scientific findings are reviewed in a two-step process via Alaska’s Board of Forestry. The Act includes effectiveness and implementation components to ensure the best management practices 

(BMPs) remain current. 

Lands designated as State Forest are managed per state forest purposes, as defined in Alaska statute (AS 41.17.200). The statute states, ‘‘[t]he primary purpose 

in the establishment of state forests is timber management that provides for the 

production, utilization, and replenishment of timber resources while allowing other 

beneficial uses of public land and resources.’’ The focus is on providing a consistent 

well managed supply of wood to private sector businesses that subsequently produce 

a range of products and services that will benefit local communities. The State has 

emphasized job creation over maximization of revenue in its management of state 

forests, but the two State Trusts follow the maximum fiscal return approach to ensure beneficiaries are well served. 

In contrast, federal lands have numerous conditions and guidelines that prevent 

the USFS from generating significant revenue and job creation from forest management activities. The new 2012 National Planning Rule includes language that 

states: ‘‘the plan must provide for ecosystem services and multiple uses. . .’’ and 

contains additional language concerning integrated resource management planning 

that must address a long list of criteria, which in part include: aesthetic values, air 

quality, ecosystem services, habitat connectivity, scenery, view sheds, wilderness 

and other relevant resources and uses.11 The National Forest Management Act 

(NFMA) also includes a section to ‘‘insure that timber will be harvested from the 

National Forest System lands only where the harvesting system to be used is not 

selected primarily because it will give the greatest dollar return or the greatest unit 

output of timber.’’12

These conditions and numerous others complicate the timber sale process for the 

USFS and often result in below cost sales that can’t be offered or sales that are only 

marginally economic. Here, state management would offer clear advantages. The 

State public process is less cumbersome and allows prompt reaction to market 

changes. With the ability to offer long term timber sales up to 20 years or longer, 

the states encourages the investment of private capital in manufacturing facilities. 

CONCLUSION

In closing, I would like to leave you with this thought: Alaska’s federal and state 

forests have the potential to be a model of sustainability, including environmental, 

social, and economic objectives. The ‘‘working forest’’ concept embraces diverse and 

broad objectives related to utilizing natural resources, providing jobs, stimulating 

local economies and supporting communities. These broad objectives have the potential to unify diverse stakeholders and interest groups. 

The Forest Service is not able to solve this problem unless Congress provides relief from over burdensome regulations, confusing policy and litigation by third parties. These are all challenges to active management, and I foresee no significant 

change to the scope, scale and pace of management that needs to take place to rebalance the triple bottom line. 

Despite more than 50 years of timber harvest in the Tongass, a mere 2.5 percent 

of the old growth forest has been harvested. The Tongass alone is bigger than West 

Virginia, yet today, there are 181 sawmills and 30,000 people employed in that 

state’s timber industry. By allowing the State of Alaska the opportunity to manage 

a portion of these federal lands, hundreds of jobs—the equivalent of an auto factory—would be created and sustained forever—the ultimate green industry. 
35 

Thank you again for the opportunity to discuss federal forest management and 

scenarios for more active management. I urge Congress to continue this important 

conversation and provide new approaches and tools to address this national problem. Without action, communities near federal lands will continue to suffer, forest 

health issues from insects and disease will accelerate and the wildland fire challenges in the west will grow. Mr. Chairman, there is a better alternative and you 

only need to look at how the States and Tribes of this great country are actively 

managing their forest resources and the impressive accomplishments they have 

achieved. We stand ready to continue this discussion. This concludes my testimony 

and I would be happy to address any questions the Committee may have. 

The CHAIRMAN. Very good. Thank you. 

Mr. Imbergamo. 

STATEMENT OF BILL IMBERGAMO, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

FEDERAL FOREST RESOURCE COALITION 

Mr. IMBERGAMO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Appreciate the opportunity, Ranking Member Murkowski. I will say hello to my old 

boss, Ms. Stabenow. Appreciate the opportunity to get out. The 

chairs behind the dais are more comfortable, I will note that. 

I do appreciate the opportunity to be here today on behalf of my 

650-member companies in 28 States including every State on the 

panel. We have over 390,000 employees and over 19 billion in payroll. Our members have survived the worst downturn in the forest 

products industry since the Great Depression. 

We look forward to continuing our long partnership with the Forest Service, but the challenges facing the agency make that future 

very much uncertain. I have a rather lengthy written statement, 

but I thought I would focus on one example and that example is 

right here in front of me. It exemplifies the challenges facing the 

Forest Service and the BLM in managing these Federal lands. 

These obstacles are practical, budgetary and legal. They require 

legislation to clarify both the management direction for the land 

and the compliance process with other environmental laws, particularly NEPA. The depth of the crisis is illustrated by this 1,400 

pages of documentation which is relating to the Colt Summit Forest Restoration Project on the Lolo National Forest in Montana. It 

is because of this type of exhaustive analysis that the agency 

spends over 350 million annually on compliance with NEPA. 

This project proposed to thin some 2,000 acres on a forest that 

covers over two million acres. It was designed to reduce hazardous 

fuel loading and improve wildlife habitat while protecting homes 

and decommissioning 7 miles of permanent road for every one mile 

of temporary road created. It’s part of the Southwest Crown of the 

Continent Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration project. It 

was called for in the Community Wildfire Protection plan. It’s 

being executed through a stewardship contract. 

In other words it’s done in response to all the Congressional direction to carry out reductions in fuel loads, reduce fire threats and 

collaborate with the communities. Yet the Forest Service, in order 

to do it, had to create this mound of paper including an air quality 

report, a botany report, an aquatics report, a fisheries report, a hydrology report and 11 others. So in spite of the collaboration, the 

Forest Service knew that they had to analyze the project to the Nth 

degree because they would likely face legal challenges from groups 

that neither participated in the collaborative process nor care that 
36 

Congress has directed the agency to address these other significant 

threats. 

Unfortunately they were right. A small environment group filed 

suit bringing over a dozen allegations. It’s clear that they are more 

concerned with procedural blunders in the preparation in the 

project than in the substance of it. 

In other words, they knew they had a legal hook to block the 

project and they used it. 

In the end the judge dismissed all but one of their claims. Yet 

he granted an injunction based on the speculative impacts of hypothetical future actions. As a result of this injunction 7 million 

board feet of timber could have been on the market right now and 

would likely be being harvested this summer. Instead the agency 

continues to spar with Judge Malloy over a 2,000-acre project. 

In the meantime one of two nearby mills almost folded. There’s 

only two mills that are within any reasonable sourcing distance of 

this. They almost folded this winter due to a lack of logs. 

I know you know very well, Mr. Chairman, when you lose a mill, 

you lose the ability to defray any of your management costs. It’s 

very difficult to get that back. The agency has seen that first hand 

this year. 

Using the courts to compel endless analysis is what drives the $350 million the agency spends on NEPA every year. The Forest 

Service spends its time bullet proofing its decisions rather than 

preparing land management projects. 

Unfortunately it’s Congress that created this tangle of laws that 

have become the playthings of lawyers and judges. Judges have allowed disputes between resource managers to override other clearer mandates such as the mandate for multiple use and the National Forest Management Act and the myriad of laws the Congress has passed in the last decade directing the agency to reduce 

hazardous fuels. 

There are a few steps the agency can take to reduce their unit 

costs and treat more acres and increase harvest off the National 

Forest. I’d be happy to talk about those and some are mentioned 

in my testimony. These steps, however, will provide marginal help 

at best. 

What is needed is legislation to clarify that Congress expects the 

Forest Service to manage some portion of the National Forest for 

timber production. We already identified these lands and forest 

plans, but this designation does not translate into harvest levels. 

Instead after exhaustive planning we get further analysis and judicial fly specting of even modest forest management projects. 

The expiration of Secure Rural Schools provides an opportunity 

to reconnect land management with the welfare of our rural communities. We believe a trust approach on a portion of the national 

forest will provide some clarity that will allow the agency to address the problems the Congress has identified. 

About 23 percent of the national forest are identified in current 

national forest plans as being suited for timber production. If Congress would clarify the mandate on those lands it will free up resources to conduct non-commercial work in the wild land urban 

interface that everyone recognizes needs to be done. In providing 

clarity on the resource management objectives on this timber base 
37 

also opens the possibility of moving forward with land conservation 

on other acres. But we cannot support land set aside that move 

independently from basic land management reform. 

The Forest Service’s current situation is analogous to a mouse 

that’s been dropped into a maze with a piece of cheese at the exit. 

Unfortunately the cheese has now been removed. The exit has been 

sealed. The maze has been set on fire. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. IMBERGAMO. We can expect a high level of activity from the 

mouse, but we certainly can’t expect a good outcome. Only Congress can fix the maze. 

We look forward to working with this committee and the Chief 

to fix that. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Imbergamo follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF BILL IMBERGAMO, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, FEDERAL FOREST

RESOURCE COALITION

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Murkowski, my name is Bill Imbergamo, and I 

am the Executive Director of the Federal Forest Resource Coalition, a national nonprofit trade association representing a diverse coalition of federal timber purchasers, 

conservation groups, and county governments. With over 650 member companies in 

28 States, FFRC members employ over 390,000 people and contribute over $19 Billion in payroll. 

Our members purchase, harvest, transport, and process timber and biomass from 

the National Forest System and lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management. We live and work in communities near to or surrounded by Federal public 

lands. Our businesses rely upon healthy, productive forests and a sustainable and 

growing supply of raw materials from these lands. 

FFRC members are survivors. Our mills have survived the worst recession since 

the Great Depression, which caused about half the solid wood manufacturing capacity in the United States to close. Our members continued to make investments in 

our facilities and our communities because we believe we can be a part of a more 

prosperous future, both for our communities and for our National Forests. 

INTRODUCTION

We were encouraged by your May 23rd announcement that you would seek to 

modernize and update the legal framework that is severely limiting the management of the Bureau of Land Management’s O&C lands in Oregon. We agree that 

the laws need to be modernized to provide for the implementation of the O&C Act, 

and certainty to rural communities. These communities have suffered severe economic dislocation due to decades of litigation-driven set asides that have failed to 

recognize the need to provide sustained, reliable supplies of timber or maintain forest health. 

As we wrote you last month, many of the same economic conditions and forest 

health problems which plague the O&C lands exist throughout the National Forest 

System. As the Administration noted in February of last year, there are up to 82 

million acres of the National Forest System which are experiencing severe forest 

health problems. Bark beetles in the Central and Northern Rockies are impacting 

some 48 million acres. As overstocked stands experience drought conditions, the 

Forest Service is increasingly falling behind on management as they annually shift 

resources away from needed harvest to fire suppression. Less fire prone National 

Forests suffer as resources are redirected to fight fires and restore damaged lands. 

We are now entering our third decade of drastically reduced harvest from the National Forest System. Many who advocated for this approach to management (primarily through the courts) claimed that by harvesting fewer trees, harvesting them 

on fewer acres, and making it more difficult for land managers to select those acres, 

we would improve forest health, create more vibrant populations of wildlife, and improve rural economies. The results on each of these counts have proven otherwise 

and actually have proven to be more harmful. Judging from the inability of the Forest Service to address these problems, the legal and administrative tools available 

are inadequate to the task. 

As you evaluate the legal framework for managing the O&C lands, we urge you 

to consider and pass legislation which addresses the management challenges plagu-
38 

1Western National Forests: A Cohesive Strategy is Needed to Address Catastrophic Wildfire 

Threats; General Accounting Office, April, 1999. 2http://www.fs.fed.us/publications/policy-analysis/fire-and-fuels-position-paper.pdf 

3See, among others: Western Governors Association Policy Resolution 12-01: Wildland Fire 

Management and Resilient Landscapes 

ing the National Forest System as well. Rural communities have suffered decades 

of reduced economic prospects, watersheds have deteriorated, and county governments have been strained to the breaking point. We stand ready to work with you 

to address these challenges. 

FOREST HEALTH HAS DETERIORATED SIGNIFICANTLY

Over 82 million acres of Forest Service lands are at elevated risk of catastrophic 

wildfires, insect, or disease outbreaks. These problems are often the most severe in 

the States which have lost most of their wood using industries, such as Colorado 

and New Mexico. Large scale wildfires cost billions annually to suppress, and cities 

such as Denver have been forced to spend tens of millions of dollars restoring damaged watersheds. 

In other National Forests, such as those in the Lake States and New England, 

passive management has allowed forests to develop into closed canopy stands where 

little sunlight reaches the forest floor. These forests have limited value as wildlife 

habitat and are susceptible to fire and insects, while sensitive species which require 

early successional habitat, such as the ruffed grouse and Kirtland’s Warbler, continue to disappear. 

The extent of the problem is not in doubt. The Government Accountability Office 

recognized the urgency of the need to reduce hazardous fuels in 19991. The Forest 

Service acknowledges that over 73 million acres of their lands are a high priority 

for management and that ‘‘one time treatment of all high fire risk areas would not 

fully address the fuels problem, as landscapes continue to change over time and 

fuels would build up on many lands currently in historic condition, without periodic 

maintenance treatments.2’’ The Western Governors Association has adopted numerous resolutions acknowledging the extent and severity of the forest health crisis3. 

UNHEALTHY FORESTS DEMAND ACTION

Last year, over 9 million acres of forests, farms, and rangeland burned across the 

U.S. This included over 2.5 million acres of National Forests. There are millions of 

acres of National Forests which are experiencing extreme forest health problems, including millions of acres of overstocked, fire prone forests in the Western United 

States. At present, various bark beetle outbreaks cover some 48 million acres, most 

of which is on National Forest lands. 

The Forest Service has made efforts to address these problems, but increasingly 

evidence is coming in from the field that these efforts are being stymied by groups 

philosophically opposed to active management, utilization of timber, or rural community stability. Groups that sit out collaboration have no investment in the outcome, and instead use appeals and litigation to kill collaborative efforts and badly 

needed forest management projects. 

While collaboration is not the answer on every forest in every locale, many FFRC 

members are actively engaged in collaboration across the country, and purchase 

timber through traditional timber sales, Stewardship contracts, and Stewardship 

agreements. While collaborative groups often come together with common aspirations of improving the health of their forests, watersheds, and local communities, 

they must then attempt to advance their projects through the gauntlet of appeals, 

litigation, and obstruction. 

In other cases, the Forest Service, even without substantial opposition, reacts 

slowly to changed forest condition because they must prepare to defend their actions 

against the maze of regulations and likely litigation. In the process, they forgo opportunities for management, and economic activity. In other instances, the 

collaboratives lack concrete goals in terms of outputs, whether those are timber outputs, intensity of thinning treatments, or acreage objectives. The result is projects 

which can be economically infeasible, unsustainable, and fail to meaningfully improve stand conditions. Examples of this abound: 

IN MONTANA

The Lolo National Forest has worked for years to develop local consensus on 

thinning projects that would help protect watersheds, communities, and habitat. 

One of these projects proposed conducting thinning on 2,300 acres. The Colt Summit 

Project had broad-based support from local industry, local and national environ-
39 

mental groups, and sportsman’s organizations. This Collaborative Forest Landscape 

Restoration Act (CFLRA) project was being implemented through a Stewardship 

Contract, on a 3 million acre National Forest within a few hours drive of several 

large wilderness areas. A local extremist group, the Alliance for the Wild Rockies, 

filed a lawsuit alleging multiple violations of environmental and procedural laws, 

14 counts in all. While 13 of them were dismissed, the Judge issued an injunction 

based on the 14th count. 

While the agency is working diligently to revise the project to meet the court’s 

concerns, the volume offered by this project is still not on the market, and there 

are only 2 mills left within a reasonable sourcing distance of this forest. One of 

them very nearly failed this winter for lack of logs. 

This same environmental group has recently filed challenges against many forest 

management projects in Region 1. This time, they allege that the Forest Service 

failed to conduct consultation under the Endangered Species Act when the Fish and 

Wildlife Service designated critical habitat for the lynx. Since every forest in Region 

1 and Region 2 conducted a forest plan amendment when the lynx was listed, it’s 

hard to see what benefit conducting another round of consultation would do, except 

as a purely dilatory exercise. 

It is very clear in Region 1 that collaboration, though helpful, is not the end all 

answer for the environmental litigants who refuse to participate in these efforts. 

IN NEW MEXICO

The Southwest Jemez Mountains CFLRA project proposed to improve forest 

health on 210,000 acres on the Santa Fe National Forest and the Valles Caldera 

Trust-Valles Caldera National Preserve. The project has support from more than a 

dozen government agencies, wildlife and sportsmen’s groups, tribes, and conservation groups such as the Nature Conservancy. In the two years since the project was 

first funded, very little thinning has taken place on the ground. Unfortunately, two 

large fires, the Las Conchas fire in 2011 and the Thompson Ridge Fire this year, 

have burned over 55,000 acres in the project area. Restoration work becomes far 

more difficult when a forest suffers a catastrophic fire. Meanwhile, the public which 

has worked hard to support the project have been told that the NEPA documents 

will be completed this September, the Record of Decision will be signed in January, 

2014, and work should start in March or April of 2014. 

Obviously the project was meant to bring together a variety of entities to make 

a measurable improvement to forest health in north central New Mexico, but given 

the length of time it has taken to complete the NEPA documents, coupled with the 

recent fires in that area, it seems that the Southwest Jemez CFLRP will need to 

divert money previously proposed for treatment to address long term erosion control. 

We hope the project can still be a success even though a third of the USFS/Valles 

Caldera lands have burnt prior to any major implementation. 

IN MINNESOTA

On July 2, 2012, a severe thunderstorm caused damage on a path 10 miles wide 

and 40 miles long. About 110,000 acres of the Chippewa National Forest sustained 

damage. The storm damaged several stands with existing timber sales. The Forest 

Service spent over three months negotiating with the purchaser over a modification 

to the contract, even though it was apparent within days that the timber, sold to 

a telephone pole manufacturer, was no longer useful for that purpose. 

Beyond that, the agency spent the next 10 months doing NEPA analysis and has 

not been completed as of today. In all likelihood, projects will not be implemented 

until late this year or early next. By this time the timber would be in very poor 

condition and very likely will no longer have any economic value. Depending on the 

alternative decided upon, only 5,000 to 7,000 additional acres would be harvested. 

A substantial amount of acres would be burned without harvest. At most, the Forest 

Service may treat 17,000 acres by harvest. The remaining blowdown would be left 

as a ‘‘representative sample’’ of natural disturbance. As of today, the Forest Service 

has only conducted salvage on about 9,000 acres, or 8% of the total. By contrast, 

the State of Minnesota and county governments have conducted extensive salvage 

and restoration activities on the lands they manage that were impacted by the same 

storm. 

IN WASHINGTON

The Tapash Collaborative Forest Restoration Project on the Okanogan-Wenatchee 

National Forest in Washington State was chosen in the first round of CFLRP 

projects in 2010. The project covers 1.6 million acres. Over the projected 10 year life 

of the project, the agency plans to harvest only 3% of the project area. The Tapash 
40 

project called for zero acres of timber harvest in FY 2010; 5,614 acres in FY 2011; 

and 3,150 for FY 2013. 

According to their 2011 CFLR annual report, nearly $1.2 million dollars has been 

spent on the project, without a single acre of timber harvest. The 2012 report notes 

an expenditure of $870,000 with no harvest acres claimed, although by including 

timber harvest planned before the selection of the CFLRP project, the agency is able 

to claim a modest amount of timber supply provided over the three years of the 

project. Environmentally and economically, this project is a failure; very few acres 

have been treated, there has been no increase in timber harvest from the Forest, 

despite the expenditure of over $3 million earmarked dollars. Meanwhile, about 

61,000 acres of the project area have burned. No salvage has been done on the 

burned areas. 

Some forests in some regions have consistently proposed projects which pro-actively create healthier forests, and have been more responsive to changing conditions. On balance, however, it is apparent that the public and Congressional consensus that our forests must be more actively managed is difficult to translate into 

projects which directly improve stand conditions, reduce fire danger, and stimulate 

local employment in frequently economically depressed communities. 

SEIZING THE OPPORTUNITY TO MANAGE OUR FEDERAL FORESTS

The Forest Service and BLM have not traditionally been responsive to market demand. As lumber prices ran up to historic highs during the boom of the 2000’s, Forest Service outputs remained static. As large fires dominated the news and Congressional thinking about the National Forests, lumber output remained stagnant. 

To their credit, the Obama administration, in its first term, has steadily increased 

timber outputs. It is worth noting, however, that the Forest Service consistently 

counts free or low cost firewood—‘‘sold’’ by permit—as part of its timber sale accomplishments, and during this timeframe firewood accounted for between 11 and 14 

percent of NFS timber ‘‘sold.’’ 

Further, in February, 2012, the Administration released the report entitled ‘‘Increasing the Pace and Scale of Restoration and Job Creation on Our National Forests.’’ This report called for increased efforts to reduce hazardous fuels, restore forests, and supply up to 3 Billion Board Feet of timber from the National Forest System. 

The signs of recovery are showing up across the country. New sawmills have been 

announced in Georgia, Louisiana, and Arizona. Mills teetering on the brink of bankruptcy have been saved, including the mill in Montrose, Colorado. A mill, shuttered 

for more than a decade in Wyoming, has reopened. As you can see by the following 

chart, this is an auspicious time to take advantage of the nation’s wood using infrastructure and make serious headway in reducing these historic fuel loads. 

While we were glad to see timber outputs inch upwards to 2.62 Billion Board Feet 

last year, we have now learned that because of the sequester, progress towards the 

Administration’s goal of 3 Billion Board Feet in 2014 will now not be met. Further, 

the Administration’s goal of 2.8 Billion Board Feet in 2013 will not be met, falling 

below last year’s output by approximately 200 Million Board Feet. Not only will this 

cause needless delays in badly needed forest management projects, but significant 

job losses in communities which routinely experience higher rates of poverty, unemployment, and population loss than the surrounding non-NFS counties. 

Regardless of where blame for the sequester lies, we now have an Administration 

budget for Fiscal Year 2014 which proposes to lock in the sequester cuts to hazardous fuels, timber sales, and capital improvement and maintenance funding, even 

while substantially increasing spending on land acquisition. 

Further, the agency’s budget presentation states that they have a $6 billion infrastructure maintenance backlog, up from $5.3 billion in 2012. This backlog does not 

just affect the roads my members depend on to access timber, but the trails, campgrounds, and visitor centers millions of Americans use for recreation. To cut these 

programs further goes right to the heart of the visitor experience and raises serious 

questions about the governments continued commitment to manage these lands for 

the greatest good. 

While this is not a budget hearing, it must be pointed out that budget is policy 

and that the Administration’s budget for 2014 does not prioritize active management, hazardous fuels reduction, or prudent management of the basic forest infrastructure. This is a wrong turn and we appreciate this committee’s forceful oversight 

on this matter. 
41 

RESTORATION IN ACTION

Last summer, the House Natural Resources Committee held a hearing during the 

peak of the fire season. At that hearing, the Forest Service said they had ‘‘restored’’ 

3.7 million acres in 2011. The Committee asked for a breakdown of those numbers, 

which we’ve provided in the following chart: 

Acres Restored by: Acres: Percent of Total: 

Prescribed Fire: 1,081,318 29% 

Lake, water & soil, noxious weed: 2,563,595 69% 

Mechanically Treated: 1,136,405 30% 

Pre-Commercial Thin: 145,928 3.90% 

Commercially Thinned: 195,477 5.20% 

Total: 3,700,000 

Some acres received more than one treatment, so the numbers don’t total up. 

Over 1 million acres were ‘‘treated’’ with prescribed fire; over 400,000 of these 

acres were ‘‘treated’’ by wildfires burning within prescription. This is 10% of the 

total, and 37% of the prescribed burn acres. 

The Forest Service only harvested usable wood fiber from 195,000 acres that were 

commercially thinned. This means that on 3.5 million of the acres restored, the Forest Service was generating no revenue whatsoever, and on 90% of the acres restored, there was no thinning of any kind. 

In other words, when Congress provides substantial funds to pay for restoration 

work and encourages the agency to provide jobs and usable wood fiber, it is important for Congress to know how little of the National Forest System gets treated 

every year. If we accept the 82 million acre figure in the Administration’s ‘‘accelerated’’ restoration strategy, they are on pace to complete a thinning of these acres 

in a mere 241 years, in the unlikely event that these forests do not succumb to insects, disease, and/or wildfire before then. 

THE ROLE OF HARVEST IN FOREST RESTORATION

After nearly three decades of drastically reduced harvest, the National Forest System is facing an ecological and managerial crisis. Overstocked stands, drought, climate change, insects, and fire threaten to reconfigure the landscape and damage 

watersheds throughout the west. The large fires that result from this overstocking 

threaten management on the rest of the National Forest System. Resources—money 

and people—are redirected away from forest management throughout the System; 

last year, over $400 million was redirected from forest management programs for 

this purpose. Non-fire prone forest, such as the Superior in Minnesota, the Ottawa 

in Michigan, and the Francis Marion in South Carolina, still lose the ability to manage when key staff are diverted to firefighting rather than managing. 

And yet a great deal of research, including research conducted by the Forest Service, indicates that active management which produces valuable timber can help 

meet a wide variety of restoration goals. Active forest management and timber harvest have been shown to have multiple long-term benefits, including reducing fuel 

loading, reducing potential for crown fires, increasing structural stage diversity, increasing age class diversity, reducing stand density and thus susceptibility to mountain pine beetles and other bark beetles, and improving wildlife habitat. Wildlife 

habitat can either be directly improved or indirectly improved by reducing the potential for catastrophic fires 

Forest Service Researchers Ken Skog and James Barbour, for instance, found that 

thinning which produces sawtimber can treat more than twice as many acres as 

treatments which rely solely on non-commercial thinning. The thinning projects that 

produce timber, the researchers found, could treat 17.2 million acres, whereas noncommercial thinning could only treat 6.7 million acres. This study eliminated 

roadless areas and stands on steep slopes from consideration, and evaluated treat-
42 

4 Evaluation of Silvicultural Treatments and Biomass Use for Reducing Fire Hazard in Western States, Kenneth E. Skog and R. James Barbour, et. al, Forest Service Research Paper FLPRP-634, 2006 5Shortleaf Pine-Bluestem Restoration in the Ouachita National Forest, Larry D. Hedrick et. 

al. Transaction of the Sixty-Second North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference, 

Washington, DC, 14-18 March, pp. 509-515 6Minnesota Moose Population: Using Forest Inventory Data to Assess Changes in Habitat, D. 

Wilson , A. Ek., Minnesota Forestry Research Notes, No. 296, May 2013. 7 Implementing Northern Goshawk Management in Southwestern Forests: A Template for Restoring Fire-Adapted Forest Ecosystems, James A. Youtz, Russell T. Graham, Richard T. Reynolds, and Jerry Simon; Proceedings of the 2007 National Silviculture Workshop. 8The Efficacy of Hazardous Fuel Treatments: Ecological Research Institute, May 2013. 

ments on whether they reduce stand susceptibility to insect attack, fire, and 

windthrow4. One of the most productive National Forests in the country, the Ouachita National Forest in Arkansas, is actively restoring significant wildlife habitat through 

the use of commercial timber sales, Stewardship contracts, and active support from 

conservation groups such as the National Wild Turkey Federation (an FFRC affiliate member) and the Nature Conservancy. While producing commercially valuable 

shortleaf pine timber, this forest is also creating habitat for the Red Cockaded woodpecker, prairie warbler, yellow breasted chat, and common yellowthroat. The Forest 

noted that red cockaded woodpeckers had increased by almost 300% due to the improved habitat. Researcher Larry Hedrick noted that ‘‘The ability to sell valuable 

wood products is at the very heart of restoration efforts . . . . All commercial 

thinning or regeneration cutting is accomplished through the use of timber sales 

that are advertised and sold to the highest bidder. Further. . .portions of the proceeds from these timber sales are retained to pay for most of the follow-up midstory 

reduction and prescribed burning needed to restore the stands.’’5

Recent research in Minnesota suggests that aging forests may be contributing to 

a decline in forage for moose populations, which have declined dramatically in recent years. Dr. David C. Wilson and Dr. Alan R. Ek found last month that significant decreases in forest disturbance—including reduced harvest on the Superior National Forest—explained 80% of the year to year variation in moose population in 

the State. Unfortunately, moose have declined from more than 8,000 in 2005 to just 

2,760 today.6

In the case of northern goshawks, present forest conditions in the southwestern 

United States may be adversely affecting goshawk populations. Management of goshawk habitat focuses on creating and sustaining a patchy forest of highly interspersed structural stages ranging from regeneration to old forest throughout a goshawk territory. Managing the forest, through timber harvest and other treatments, 

to thin the understory, create small openings, and provide different tree sizes across 

the landscape will help produce and maintain desired forest conditions for goshawks 

and their prey7. The Committee recently heard from Diane Vosick, who noted that research indicates that hazardous fuels treatments are effective at reducing large fire costs, protecting property, and preserving watersheds. She also noted that there is a substantial opportunity cost to delaying thinning projects, meaning that delays don’t just 

wind up deferring costs, they increase them8. Certainly not all acres of the National Forest System are suited to be managed 

for timber. FFRC members value wildland as much as the rest of the public, and 

frequently our members don’t just earn their living in these remote places, but they 

depend on them for recreation, hunting, and family time as well. But ample research indicates that active management can produce a multitude of benefits, well 

beyond timber harvest. 

In the current budget environment, it makes sense to look at this research and 

see how the value of the trees and other forest products can help pay for the management that science says need to take place. 

RESTORING THE CONNECTION BETWEEN COMMUNITIES AND FOREST MANAGEMENT

Counties with National Forest and other Federal lands within their borders cannot tax or develop these Federal public lands. Recognizing this, the Federal government has for decades provided payments, both in lieu of taxes and as a share of 

revenues from economic activities, to these counties. Congress enacted a law in 1908 

which requires the Federal government to share 25% of the gross revenues derived 

from U.S. Forest Service activities (e.g.—timber sales, mineral leases, and grazing 

fees) with the counties. These revenues supported schools and the maintenance of 

infrastructure, and grew to become a significant source of revenue for National Forest counties. 
43 

By 2000, as a result of litigation and changes in policy, the scope of land management on Federal forests, particularly National Forest timber sales, had fallen by 

more than 80%, and these revenues dwindled. At the time, these drastic reductions 

were justified as necessary measures to protect ‘‘old growth’’ dependent species, watersheds, and other ecological values. 

Many argued that recreational activities would supplant timber management as 

the driving economic force in National Forest counties. 

This approach to managing Federal forests has not produced the ecological, social, 

and economic outcomes its proponents have suggested would result. National Forest 

counties suffer disproportionately from high unemployment, poverty, and population 

loss. Forest health has declined drastically alongside the economic health of these 

communities. Economic dislocation from loss of year round manufacturing has 

threatened the viability of many rural counties, forcing many to near bankruptcy. 

Poor forest health and large fires limit recreational opportunities. 

In 2000, Congress passed the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act (SRSCA). This legislation provided guaranteed payments to these forested counties, based on some of the highest years of timber revenue in the history 

of the Forest Service. Congress provided extensions of these guaranteed payments 

in 2006 and again in 2008. 

This legislation expired in October of 2011, although Congress extended a greatly 

reduced guaranteed payment program for one year as part of the 2012 Transportation bill. Just last week, this Committee approved a one-year extension of these 

payments, financed by the sale of non-renewable resource, helium. It makes no 

sense to use non-renewable resources to pay for local governments in communities 

with abundant, renewable resources which should be both driving the local economy 

and supporting local government. 

It has become apparent that continuing to rely on guaranteed payments from the 

treasury is no longer a viable option for forested counties. Further, it has become 

apparent that the passive management of the National Forests has failed to produce 

promised benefits, and the current approaches to land management will meet neither the needs of the counties nor the needs of the forests. A fundamentally different approach, which focuses management on the 23% of Forest Service lands 

which are currently under a timber objective is needed. 

The guaranteed funding provided under SRS was never intended to permanently 

replace shared revenue from active management on Federal public lands. Congress 

should not provide further extension of mandatory funds without ensuring a transition that makes improvements in both the health of Federal forests and the economic condition of forest dependent counties through active forest management. 

PRINCIPLES OF REFORM

• Payments to forest counties should be linked to fundamental reforms which 

streamline the process of proposing, analyzing, executing, and resolving conflicts over forest management projects on Federal forest lands. 

• With due recognition of the need for a transition period, payments to counties 

must be linked to revenues produced by viable economic activity on Federal forests, including substantial, sustainable increases in timber outputs. 

• All revenues generated on Federal forests, including a portion of revenues from 

Stewardship contracts, should be used to develop additional sustainable forest 

management projects as well as to provide revenue sharing to counties. 

• A trust approach, focusing on the 23% of National Forest acres already identified as suited for timber production, can provide stable funding on a trust-trustee basis, while restoring and strengthening the overall multiple use framework 

on Federal forests. 

The concept of ‘‘trust lands’’ is familiar to most Westerners. Most trust lands in 

the West are under State management. The Lincoln Institute of Land Policy notes 

that ‘‘Unlike other categories of public lands, the vast majority of state trust lands 

are held in a perpetual, intergenerational trust to support a variety of beneficiaries, 

including public schools. . ., universities, penitentiaries, and hospitals. To fulfill 

this mandate, these lands are actively managed for a diverse range of uses, including: timber, grazing, mining for oil and gas and other minerals, agriculture, commercial and residential development, conservation, and recreational uses such as 
44 

9Trust Lands in the American West: A Legal Overview and Policy Assessment; Peter W. Culp, 

Diane B. Conradi, & Cynthia C. Tuell, 2005, Sonoran Institute. 10See, for instance, WA DNR: http://www.dnr.wa.gov/Publications/frclfscsfilcertificationlfactsheet.pdf, PA DCNR: http://www.dcnr.state.pa.us/forestry/ 

stateforestmanagement/Certification/index.htm. 

hunting and fishing.9’’ Several large State Trust lands forestry programs have been 

certified under one or more forest management certification program10. 

Legislation is needed which streamlines compliance with several environmental 

statutes on the small portion of the National Forest System already identified as 

having a timber management objective, which can serve as the basis of a Federal 

forest trust. With the Forest Service currently spending $356 million annually on 

NEPA compliance, reform legislation must: 

• Streamline NEPA analysis, ESA consultation, and judicial review for projects 

conducted on lands designated for timber production. 

• Set clear volume and acreage treatment targets to ensure accountability. 

• Clarify to the courts that timber production is the primary objective on this relatively small portion of the National Forest System, not one use among many. 

• Focuses on timber economics in the design, operation, and management of 

projects on lands designated for production. 

STEPS SHORT OF COMPREHENSIVE REFORM

As noted above, FFRC members are actively engaged in collaborative projects 

across the country. We share the optimism that these projects bring, with people 

recognizing that land management is necessary, and the greatest threats from our 

forests come from failure to manage them and prepare them for climate change and 

the large fires we know are becoming more prevalent. 

The Administration’s position seems to be that if the Forest Service continues to 

implement the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Act (CFLRAP), receives 

renewed Stewardship Contracting authority, and is allowed to implement their proposed Integrated Resource Restoration line item, they will have all the tools they 

need to cope with the forest health threats they are facing. 

FFRC believes the CFLRP program—and any other collaborative efforts—needs 

hard targets—for acres treated and for timber outputs—to assure these projects are 

producing the promised benefits at a lower cost. Thus far, evidence on this front is 

inconclusive at best. We strongly oppose national implementation of the IRR budgeting approach because we feel it will diminish accountability with no obvious increase in project efficiency. And while we strongly support renewed Stewardship 

Contracting authority, we stress that Stewardship was not intended to replace or 

supplant the traditional timber sale program, which can still play a very positive 

role in accomplishing land management goals. 

And as noted above, evidence suggests that simply collaborating, or using Stewardship contracts, does very little to reduce either the likelihood of a dilatory lawsuit or to reduce the unsustainable costs associated with ‘‘bullet proofing’’ even modest management projects from administrative and legal review. 

Even if we agreed 100% with the Administration’s approach, it is obvious to us 

that CFLRP, Stewardship Contracting, and IRR would be insufficient to reduce the 

level of conflict, obstruction, and delay created by a small minority of extremist 

groups. Leaving the status quo in place leaves a long and established roadmap to 

obstruction on the books without creating any benefit to the environment. We currently have a system which requires multiple layers of analysis, impenetrable public 

comment processes, forest plans which undergo revision so frequently (or not at all) 

as to make a joke of the idea of a ‘‘plan,’’ and which forces the Forest Service to 

spend over $350 million a year doing NEPA analysis. 

What should be at best disagreements over approaches to land management have 

instead been turned into points of law, as the Courts have been invited to second 

guess and overanalyze even the smallest and most benign forest management 

projects. The resultant delays, reduced harvest levels, and uneconomic land management projects have helped drive out forest management capacity in most States 

where the Forest Service controls a substantial portion of the available forest lands. 

Lack of management, fire suppression, overstocked stands, and climate change have 

created a perfect storm that we now see manifested on the landscape. The 48 million acres of bark beetle outbreaks and the 25% of Arizona’s pine forests which have 

burned catastrophically in the last 11 years are a monument to the status quo. 
45 

ALASKA

The Governor of Alaska, Sean Parnell, has worked with local communities in 

Southeast Alaska, including native corporations, local governments, and the timber 

industry, to develop a proposal for a State Forest to be designated out of the 

Tongass National Forest. Given the ongoing process of land allocation, and the apparent unwillingness of the National Forest System to market logs which meet the 

needs of the local industry, FFRC strongly supports this approach. The proposal by 

Gov. Parnell would keep harvests below levels proposed for the Tongass decades ago 

but never attained, while providing clarity to the local industry that the Forest 

Service is unwilling to provide. Experiments such as this are to be encouraged. 

LOCKING IN CONSERVATION AND SUSTAINABLE TIMBER PRODUCTION

A trust approach on lands which can support commercial timber production would 

focus on the small portion of the National Forest System which is supposed to be 

producing timber. Lands which have been set aside after countless hours of public 

involvement, Congressional review, and official designation as wilderness would remain off-limits to commercial harvest. 

Agency resources, currently wasted by over-analyzing even modest timber sales 

or hazardous fuels projects, would be freed up to offer economic timber sales, or to 

fund restoration work through Stewardship contracts. 

On acres designated for timber production, concrete management requirements 

would help spur investment in wood using industries and land management capacity. Existing mills would receive some assurance that the National Forests they depend on will produce reliable supplies of timber into the future. Economic development, currently stymied by a declining forest products sector and extreme wildfires, 

would be encouraged. 

The American public would no longer be forced to bankroll a litigation driven 

analysis machine, and instead could spend the few dollars available to actually improve the condition of the National Forest System. 

The situation currently facing the Forest Service is akin to a mouse, dropped into 

a maze with a piece of cheese at the exit. Only in this case, the exit has been sealed, 

the cheese removed, and the maze set on fire. While we can expect the mouse to 

work very hard, we can’t expect a good outcome. Unfortunately, the maze here is 

the tangle of laws—and their interpretation in the courts—that Congress passed. 

Only Congress can provide an exit. 

The current system is unsustainable, socially, economically, and ecologically. 

Piecemeal reforms hold little promise. The opportunity to change the management 

paradigm is here. 

The CHAIRMAN. A good challenge. Fix the maze. 

I know you represent lots of people who do business with the 

Forest Service. We’re going to want your input. Thank you, Mr. 

Imbergamo. We’ll have some questions in a moment. 

We’ve got Mr. Miles, please. 

STATEMENT OF AARON MILES, MEMBER, CLEARWATER 

BASIN COLLABORATIVE 

Mr. MILES. Sorry about that. Thank you. 

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is Aaron 

Miles and I work as the Manager for the Department of Natural 

Resources for the Nez Perce Tribe. I am also a member of the 

Clearwater Basin Collaborative. 

I’d like to thank Senator Mike Crapo, Senator Jim Risch, for 

their support of our communities in the Clearwater Basin, located 

in North Central Idaho, as well as the invitation to participate in 

this hearing of the Senate’s Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Particular, Senator Crapo chartered the CBC in 2008 to 

address Federal land management issues in the Basin. 

The CBC was formed out of frustration with the gridlock and status quo. The inability of the Forest Service to effectively manage 
46 

forest landscapes in today’s litigious climate. Our vision is to enhance and protect ecological and economic health of our forests. 

As a member of the CBC I would like to list some of our commitments to one another in our agreement and work plan which is an 

honor based agreement work plan to resolve long standing issues 

in the Clearwater Basin. 

So the first one is active timber management which I’ll touch on 

a little bit more. 

Rural economies honoring tribal, sacred and special places. 

Wilderness and other management designations. 

Outfitters and guides and wildlife management. 

I list all 6 of these focus areas because the CBC is committed to 

the interest of a diverse array of people and needs and our walk 

on all these interests together is a big part of success which includes timber harvest on the Nez Perce Clearwater National Forest. As part of my representation for the Nez Perce tribe, the tribe 

shares in all these diverse interests which in particular, Pilot Knob 

is a special place, a sacred place to the Nez Perce. 

In addition to all the work that we’ve done for road obliteration, 

culvert replacement to enhance tribal fisheries. That’s a huge part 

of our efforts. 

Then last we have joined forces with Iowa Fish and Game, U.S. 

Forest Service on elk and ungulate species to enhance these species 

and tie elk body condition to forest habitat conditions on the forest. 

So, overall the health and welfare of the Nez Perce people is 

interdependent upon the forests. It still provides our spiritual sanctuary and sustenance for my people. 

In terms of for the purposes of this hearing I will focus on some 

of the challenges and obstacles associated with the increased timber management. 

The Forest Service has become an agency focused on the costs, 

resources and time invested in NEPA. Planning and often based on 

an anticipated challenges, appeals and litigation rather than the 

desired future outcomes. In the years since NEPA was passed into 

law there have been numerous lawsuits resulting in a mountain of 

case law that has transformed the way the agency approaches and 

conducts NEPA analysis. 

Current Forest Service regulations are filled with controversy, 

complexity and excessive scientific analysis requirements and legal 

barriers that delay or block needed management of much of the 

public land area. These regulations and analysis requirements are 

applied across landscapes whether needed for the resource or not 

and result in redundant and often unnecessary actions. 

To complicate matters the multitude of regulations is sometimes 

at crossed purposes with what is needed on the ground or in conflict with other regulations. Rather than sound professional practices applied on very different landscapes with distinctly different 

needs, the agency is often hamstrung to produce in their insurmountable focus on regulatory compliance. I believe there needs to 

be a hard look at the intent of the original law, NEPA, and how 

the analysis have been shaped by case law. 

Second, there is a discussion about making NEPA more efficient. 

From my perspective the agency is trying a couple of things. 
47 

First as evidenced in the Clear Creek project on the Nez Perce 

Clearwater forest, are trying to propose and analyze more activities 

in a project that covers a larger area. 

Over my career I have seen the pendulum swing back and forth 

between large scale and small scale approaches. Large scale 

projects are en vogue until one or two were successfully litigated 

causing a forest to lose a major portion of its overall timber program. It took the forest years to rebuild its program. The forest 

then opted for small scale projects so the loss of one didn’t have 

just a major adverse impact to the forest’s overall vegetation program. 

It is now working its way back to larger, more complex projects. 

It is critical that these projects succeed. The stakes are high. 

So as a Nez Perce Indian my people have witnessed the conversions of these landscapes from grassland savanna to closed forest 

canopies and list our desirable conditions. The Nez Perce sustenance way of life was built around those types of ecosystems for 

our food source, to support diversity of wildlife and populations. As 

a member of the CBC I’ve personally witnessed the shift in dialog 

and change in attitude toward the Forest Service to a more working relationship. 

I wholeheartedly believe that our collaborative has created a different atmosphere in the Basin. We have made progress over time. 

We will need to continue working together with the Forest Service 

in order to meet the needs of the people and the resources that we 

all depend upon. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Miles follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF AARON MILES, MEMBER, CLEARWATER BASIN

COLLABORATIVE

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is Aaron Miles and I 

work as the manager for the Department of Natural Resources for the Nez Perce 

Tribe at Lapwai, ID. I am also a member of the Clearwater Basin Collaborative. I 

thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today. 

I would like to thank Senator Mike Crapo and Senator Jim Risch for their support 

of our communities in the Clearwater Basin located in North Central Idaho as well 

as the invitation to participate in this hearing of the Senate’s Committee on Energy 

and Natural Resources. In particular Senator Crapo chartered the Clearwater Basin 

Collaborative (CBC) in 2008 to address federal land management issues in the basin 

where the majority of acreage is National Forest System lands. The CBC was 

formed out of frustration with the gridlock and status quo or inability of the Forest 

Service to effectively manage forest landscapes in today’s litigious climate. Our vision is to enhance and protect the ecological and economic health of our forests, rivers and communities within the Clearwater Basin by working collaboratively across 

a diversity of interests. 

I would like to share my thoughts about some of the challenges we have seen in 

our efforts to promote: 

1. Active timber management to support ecological restoration 

2. Rural economies 

3. Honoring Tribal Sacred and Special places 

4. Wilderness, Wild & Scenic Rivers and Special Management Designations 

5. Outfitters and Guides 

6. Wildlife Management 

I list all 6 of these focus areas because the Clearwater Basin Collaborative is committed to the interests of a diverse array of people and needs and our work on all 

of these interests together is a big part of our success which includes increased timber harvest on the NezPerce/Clearwater National Forest. 
48 

The Nez Perce Tribe shares concerns in a number of these diverse interests. The 

Tribe still experiences high unemployment and many of our members work during 

the seasonal months for the Tribe’s Department of Natural Resources and Department of Fisheries Resource Management. At one time the Tribe employed nearly 

300 employees in forest products jobs when active management was the major part 

of our operations and took place on 50,000 acres of land with nearly 15 to 20 

MMBF(million board feet). 

The tribe has also worked towards the restoration of Pilot Knob, a well-known sacred vision quest site on the Nez Perce/Clearwater National Forest. Pilot Knob has 

a number of radio telecommunications towers because of the locale and elevation 

needed for communications. The Tribe believes we are nearly at a time where technology will allow for changes that will support communication needs and the return 

of mountain to its original use and sanctity for the Tribe. The CBC is committed 

to resolving these issues. 

The Tribe is working towards restoration of many of the anadromous fish bearing 

streams on the Forest. Much of the work includes road obliteration and culvert replacement to reduce stream sedimentation and is in conjunction with the Tribe’s 

anadromous fisheries outplanting efforts to restore fisheries in major tributaries on 

the Forest. Special designations such as Wild & Scenic and Wilderness protect some 

of the pristine places for these efforts and is a positive net gain in the amount of 

protection of these important resources. 

The Tribe has joined forces with the Idaho Department of Fish and Game, and 

the US Forest Service in the CBC’s Wildlife Initiative. This effort ties elk body condition to forest habitat conditions on the Forest. Through the effort it is our hope 

to address wildlife concerns in the basin for elk and ungulate species as well as 

other wildlife. The Clearwater Basin once boasted one of the nation’s largest elk 

herd and changes in forest conditions has negatively affected population viability. 

The Tribe’s culture is also interwoven with these species. 

Overall the health and welfare of the Nez Perce People is interdependent upon 

the Forest. It still provides the spiritual sanctuary and sustenance to my people. It 

will always be a place called home for the Nez Perce just as it has since time immemorial. 

For purposes of this hearing today, I will focus on some of the challenges and obstacles associated to increased timber management. 

TOOLS AND OBSTACLES—CHALLEGES AND OPPORTUNITIES TO GETTING MORE WORK

DONE IN THE WOODS

The FS has become an agency focused on the costs, resources and time invested 

in NEPA and Planning and often based on anticipated challenges (appeals and litigation), rather than on the desired future outcomes. In the years since the National 

Environmental Policy Act was passed into law, there have been numerous lawsuits 

resulting in a mountain of case law that has transformed the way the agency approaches and conducts NEPA analyses. 

Current FS regulations are filled with controversy, complexity and excessive scientific analysis requirements and legal barriers that delay or block needed management of much of the public land area. These regulations and analysis requirements 

are applied across landscapes whether needed for the resource or not and result in 

redundant and often unnecessary actions. To complicate matters, the multitude of 

regulations is sometimes at cross purposes with what is needed on the ground or 

in conflict with other regulations. Rather than sound professional practices applied 

on very different landscapes with distinctly different needs, the Agency is often 

hamstrung to produce in their insurmountable focus on regulatory compliance. 

I believe there needs to be a hard look at the intent of the original law (NEPA) 

and how the analyses have been shaped by case law. Secondly, there is discussion 

about making NEPA more efficient. From my perspective the agency is trying a couple of things. First, as evidenced in the Clear Creek project, the Nez Perce-Clearwater Forests are trying to propose and analyze more activities in a project that covers a larger area. Over my career, I have seen the pendulum swing back and forth 

between the large-scale and small-scale approaches. Large scale projects were in 

vogue until one or two were successfully litigated, causing a Forest to lose a major 

portion of its overall timber program. It took the Forest years to rebuild its program. The Forest then opted for small scale projects so the loss of one didn’t have 

just a major adverse impact to the Forest’s overall vegetation program. It is now 

working its way back to larger, more complex projects. It is critical that these 

projects succeed—the stakes are high. 

The second approach the Nez Perce-Clearwater Forest has tried is upfront collaboration designed to build understanding and support with stakeholders prior to start-
49 

ing NEPA analyses. The Clearwater Basin Collaborative believes this is the desired 

approach to project development and appreciates the Forests’ efforts. The various 

perspectives brought in up front helps the Forests to design a better project. In the 

end, if there are challenges, collaborators are able to work behind the scenes to facilitate resolution. If there is no resolution, collaborators can stand with the Forests 

to defend proposals. The agency benefits when it has that kind of support in appeal 

negotiations or in a courtroom. 

A serious in-depth review of NEPA and its application over time along with a review of the regulations guiding the Forest Service could help Congress make informed decisions about whether or it is time to consider NEPA and regulatory reform. The value of true collaboration and its positive effects on the ground is happening all over the country and certainly in the Clearwater Basin of Idaho. 

In terms of agency spending and overhead, it always makes sense to look for efficiencies and eliminate unnecessary and/or redundant functions. Recently, the 

NezPerce and Clearwater National Forest were consolidated. This move has reduced 

the cost of two stand-alone administrations, is saving money and is resulting in 

management consistency across the landscape. We suggest similar options could be 

explored at other locations. 

Each level of the Forest Service serves a specific and useful function and our belief is that elimination of any of the levels would negatively impact good public service. The CBC has worked in partnership with the District, Supervisors, Regional 

and Washington Office level on issues and believes much of our success is due to 

those working relationships. 

It would be unfair to leave the issue of spending without saying something about 

the ever declining budgets of the Forest Service. While appropriated dollars decrease with time, more resources are needed to fight escalating fire activity. The 

buildup of fuels, increased urban interface challenges, escalating fire complexity and 

costs all contribute to the Agencies inability to actively manage their lands. If a 

third or more of the budget is being used for firefighting—it is no wonder the Forest 

Service is not providing the level of public service they once did. The many dedicated professionals I have known over the years are capable of good work but the 

number of employees funded and the active management programs continue to be 

sacrificed for firefighting efforts. 

APPROACHES ON HOW TO TACKLE FORESTRY CHALLENGES

The Nez Perce-Clearwater National Forests and Clearwater Basin Collaborative 

have been working together for five years. Progress has definitely been made in 

terms of trends and today the Forests are more successful achieving targets and reducing unit costs than before collaboration with the CBC was a reality. This change 

is multi-faceted and time consuming because it is founded on mutual trust, open 

dialogue, diverse interests, and willingness to consider new and different approaches. We commend the Forest Service for their willingness to work with the 

CBC and are proud that CBC members are committed to science based and sound 

resource management and the interests of the public as well as their own. 

In addition to providing valuable support for NEPA analyses, collaborators can 

serve as advocates for the Agency and for specific projects with other members of 

the public. Collaborative groups can help the Forests secure funding and recruit 

partners and leverage matching funds for special initiatives. The collaborative 

groups represent the diverse array of interests and provide input to the Agency to 

consider in their land management activities. The structure of Collaborative groups 

is critical in ensuring results that are scientifically sound and should have diverse 

representation and members who will work together to ensure projects achieve scientifically sound outcomes. 

ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS

We think it might be timely to take a look at the agency’s mission. The Forest 

Service has been tasked with being all things to all people. This is perhaps the most 

difficult mission in the federal government to fulfill. The agency is doing its best 

to redeem its mission, but it is increasingly difficult in this time of declining budgets 

and a society that is so divided and often lacks the skill/will to have a civil debate 

about land management issues. Fewer people are willing to have the difficult discussions that lead to win-win outcomes and decreasing personal contacts when project 

issues develop is counterproductive. 

As a Nez Perce Indian, my people have witnessed the conversion of these landscapes from grassland-savanna to closed forest canopies and less desirable conditions. The Nez Perce sustenance way of life was built around those types of ecosystems for our own food source and to support diversity of wildlife populations. As 
50 

a member of the CBC, I have personally witnessed the shift in dialogue and change 

in attitude towards the Forest Service to more of a working partnership. I wholeheartedly believe that our collaboration has created a different atmosphere in the 

basin. We have made progress over time and we will need to continue working together to meet the needs of people and the resources we all depend on. 

Thank you for your time. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Miles. 

We’ve got 6 Senators here. So I think what we’ll do is we’ll have 

5 minute rounds. Then get the possibility of a second round. 

Chief, I am trying to make sense out of the timber sale numbers 

specifically because at first glance the timber sale funding doesn’t 

mirror the timber sale output. I want you to walk me through how 

this works. 

We looked at your testimony. You state that the agency increased its funding for the timber sale program over the last 17 

years from a low of 180 million in 1995 to 335 million in 2012. Yet, 

when you look at the data on actual harvests and the number of 

mills over the same period of time you see a significant decline, the 

decline of more than a third. 

Now, in your testimony you state and it seems to me, appropriately so, that efficiencies are part of this. But at the same time 

you look at those facts and it seems that we’re getting less efficiency rather than more. So, can you walk me through how those 

numbers, which to me suggests that timber sale funding doesn’t 

mirror output? 

Give me your reaction to that kind of analysis just looking at the 

numbers? 

Mr. TIDWELL. Senator, we need to also factor in that inflation 

over that period of time that has reduced the spending power of 

dollars. So that’s one of the changes. 

You know, the other part of it is we track how much it costs to 

produce a thousand board feet from the start of when we initiate 

a project to when we actually sell that project and that also includes the contract administration. 

So over the years we’ve tracked those costs. Those costs have 

gone down by about 23 percent since 1998, so that’s why we talk 

about we have gained some efficiencies. Even though our budgets 

have gone up a little bit, but just the cost of inflation, the cost of 

doing the work has also gone up during that same time. 

I’m pleased with the efficiencies that we’ve gained. But it’s just 

a start of where we need to be. When I talk about these landscape 

level analyses and Aaron made a very good point that we’ve tried 

this in the past. Then we get challenged and we have to take a step 

back. 

But today there is the support for this type of analysis that we 

haven’t had in the past. So I think that’s another area we’ll be able 

to continue to increase our efficiencies. 

The other thing that we’re working on is with our sale prep efficiencies. We’ve been stuck doing it the way we’ve always done it 

in the past. We’re finding that there are different ways to create 

some efficiencies more than just how we do sale preparation to be 

able to reduce the amount of time that we’re spending there and 

the amount of personnel. These are the things we want to continue 

to work on to be able to increase those efficiencies. 
51 

But there’s no question that what’s happened with the agency, 

and I use 1998 because that’s when I saw the change in the fire 

seasons from my personal view. Our fire seasons have increased 

and we’ve had to shift more and more of our funding, from the national forest systems into suppression and preparedness. It’s had 

an impact on these programs. 

Our budgets have been basically stable for the last decade plus. 

But we’ve had to shift a significant amount of money. So that has 

impacted our capacity to be able to do more work. 

I’ll tell you I’m proud of our employees regarding what they’ve 

been able to do and working through our collaboratives, with our 

partners, we’ve been able to get more work done with, I think, 

probably with less capacity. But we’ve got to find a way to be able 

to increase those efficiencies. Then we also need to find a way to 

be able to stop the impact of the fire seasons on the rest of our programs. 

The CHAIRMAN. We’re going to have more discussion about the 

fire season. I just want it understood that if the agency comes in 

and says we’re getting more money and people see the harvest 

going down and the number of mills going down, people are going 

to say that sure doesn’t seem to connect. 

So we’ve got more work to do, particularly on getting the harvest 

up. I think we can do it. 

Let me just ask a question with respect to collaboration because 

Mr. Imbergamo, you and the Chief seem to have striking differences on this point. 

We have seen collaboratives work. In Eastern Oregon, for example, we have a historic agreement, an agreement that’s really a national model between the timber industry and the environmental 

community. Harvest up, litigation down. I mean down significantly, 

largely because of the trust. 

Mr. Imbergamo, what do you think the Chief ought to be doing 

on the collaboration issue, specifically? We’re going to get into the 

question of streamlining NEPA here in a bit. But specifically, what 

do you think he needs to do on collaboration to make that Eastern 

Oregon model the standard. 

Because I think the Chief makes a good point that the projects 

he’s taking on actually exceed their performance targets for this 

year. 

What should he do more of on collaboration? We’ll make this 

the—because I’m 13 seconds over already. 

Mr. IMBERGAMO. Collaboration is fine. I have members who are 

involved, founding members of collaboratives including the Clearwater collaborative. One of my members in Idaho is a founding 

member of that and my Oregon companies are involved in the various collaboratives around the State. 

It’s not so much a matter of whether they should do more or less 

collaboration. I guess for me, the question ultimately is if the collaborative project then must continue to run the gauntlet of endless 

NEPA analysis and the presumption that any basic forest management project should get judicial review. We’re not going to see a reduction in the unit costs. 

Even if they don’t get litigated they spend the same amount of 

money doing the NEPA to try to make sure that if they wind up 
52 

in court, they can defend it. Again, it’s a diversion of resources into 

bulletproofing the project rather than undoing what the same types 

of projects on more acres. 

That’s the big problem. Then the diversion of resources to fire 

fighting which is really put the agency in a bind. 

The CHAIRMAN. Let me go on to my colleague. 

Senator Murkowski. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Maisch, I’m going to ask you in a minute here to kind of describe what we have gone through in Alaska with our collaborative 

effort with the Tongass Futures Roundtable. The fact that it lasted 

5 years is actually pretty good evidence that we really did give it 

a very good try. 

But as you noted in your testimony, the Governor pulled out and 

moved to the task force. But it is an example where, you have 

pointed out, Mr. Imbergamo, you can have all the collaborative 

process but if at the end of the day it still takes forever, the uncertainty, the litigation, the regulation. If you’re no further ahead, collaborative processes are good. But we still haven’t gotten to the 

point where we’re seeing more timber actually being harvested. 

Chief, you have heard the comments from many on the panel 

here the clear frustration about policies that really have taken us 

to the point that we are now. We’re, certainly in Alaska, when you 

look at the rate of decline of the harvest so much of it comes because of policies that have been put in place, the regulations that 

have been put in place. The uncertainty that we see. The litigation 

that follows. 

There have been several legislative proposals that would set 

treatment levels or timber supply mandates that basically put you, 

as an agency, in a place where you have to provide that certainty. 

We do it through legislation. As Mr. Maisch has indicated in Alaska the recommendation is let us, as a State, manage our own forests. Let us have a State forest here. 

What is the agency’s position on legislative, legislated supply 

mandates? Is this how we’re going to get to a better place if we 

can’t do it at the Federal level do we have to legislate here? Do 

states, like Alaska, that are looking to different ideas? Is this the 

direction that we have to go? 

Mr. TIDWELL. Senator, outputs are based on our planning process, the input we receive from our communities about how these 

lands should be managed. I think no one’s been more clear about 

the need to do more work on our national forests than I have. 

So when we look at the proposals to legislate certain outputs, unless we go back and really address everything that builds up to the 

current program of work, it puts the agency in a very difficult spot 

to actually be able to carry out that direction. So when those are 

proposed it’s very problematic because we still have our forest plan. 

We still have what the public wants us to be, the outputs, the overall outputs from these lands. 

So it puts us just in a very difficult situation to be able to move 

forward on just one piece of multiple use. You know, I think the 

set of laws that we have today, they’re a good set of laws. They reflect how the public wants their national forest managed. 
53 

Now there’s no question that sometimes how the laws are interpreted are a little bit different. If there’s one thing that I think 

that might be beneficial is to find ways to maybe, clarify, our current laws. 

For instance, you know, we find ourselves having to analyze numerous alternatives with a lot of our analyses. There’s no requirement for that. NEPA doesn’t require that you do 6 or 7 or 8 alternatives. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Why don’t you do that then? 

Mr. TIDWELL. It’s been pointed out that because of certain court 

rulings that we find that if we go ahead and just put in one alternative, then we often are faced in court. So it’s just, part of it’s 

easier to go ahead and do it so that we will not have to, you know, 

deal with litigation. 

So but at the same time through some of our collaboratives we 

get down to really having an agreement on one action alternative, 

with the No Action, which we’re required to do. 

So we are able to move forward with those. But that, to me, is 

a better way to be able to find ways to clarify what our current 

laws are. Congress could send a message to clarify that this is 

what NEPA says. It need not say anything more than that. 

I think those are the things that would also be helpful. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Let me ask you, Mr. Maisch, in my remaining time. The task force has, again, come up with this recommendation as to State forest. 

Is this kind of a last ditch effort for the State to bring some certainty into the process so that we can have a sustainable level of 

harvest? Can you just speak to the proposal that came from the 

task force? 

Mr. MAISCH. Yes, Senator Murkowski. 

I would say, yes. I don’t know if it’s a last ditch effort, but it’s 

certainly a well reasoned, thought out effort. A lot of due diligence 

has been applied to the situation we have. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Right. I don’t mean to suggest it was hurried. But we’ve tried everything else. 

Mr. MAISCH. Yes. I think we have definitely made an example of 

trying everything else. We’ve been and continue to work with the 

Forest Service in Region 10 as a cooperating agency. 

We’ve tried the collaborative process. We just did not get results. 

As you noted, 5 years in collaboration and no action on the ground. 

So we feel that the diversification of ownership in Southeast 

Alaska is needed. It’s, as you noted, primarily owned by the Federal Government and where there’s a diversified land base there is 

more certainty and a more stable timber supply. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Heinrich. 

Senator HEINRICH. Chief, I want to start with a couple of questions for you. I want to go back to what you were just talking about 

in terms of the laws, what works, what doesn’t work and the goals 

here. 

Rather than mandating a timber harvest level wouldn’t it make 

sense to sort of define what the healthy forest condition is that you 

want on a particular national forest depending on the balance between, you know, moist and dry forests, the specific condition of 
54 

that forest. Then using your harvest levels to try to move the forests toward the condition that you actually want for a healthy forest. 

Mr. TIDWELL. Senator, yes. 

That’s our current approach through our planning process to be 

able to identify what type of treatments need to occur to be able 

to improve the overall forest health, the resiliency, and provide 

that full mix of benefits and then to develop the projects to actually 

implement that. 

Our challenge has just been that there’s work that needs to be 

done. We have to find more ways to be more efficient to be able 

to basically overcome the loss of capacity to be able to get more of 

this work done. 

In your part of the country, losing the infrastructure, the mills, 

the loggers, that’s really set us back. We’re trying to do some 

things too, especially through stewardship contracting, where we 

can provide some certainty over a 10-year period of time that a certain amount of harvest is going to occur so that folks can justify 

investing in new equipment and new infrastructure. Those are the 

things that we want to continue to work on. 

Where we’re seeing those in places where we have these strong 

collaboratives, we’re making good progress. 

Senator HEINRICH. OK. 

Let me follow up on that because you mentioned stewardship 

contracting. You’ve mentioned timber harvest and small woody biomass removal. Another important tool, obviously, in the Southwest 

is prescribed fire. 

Each of these tools has costs. They have benefits. Sometimes the 

right choice for one forest is absolutely wrong for another. 

In Southwestern Ponderosa Pine forests, which are definitely not 

moist forests, we’ve seen these restoration projects focus largely on 

removing the small diameter trees, low hanging branches, leaving 

the fire resilient trees which are the large trees, that have a market for them. 

How does the Forest Service decide what the best tool for managing that forest is? How do you make the restoration that needs 

to happen, happen when most of it, in our forests, are focused on 

these small diameter trees that really don’t have a market. 

Mr. TIDWELL. There is a challenge that we need to find some better economic markets for this smaller diameter material. 

But what drives the project proposal is really the science that we 

have that indicates what we need to do on that landscape. In many 

places in your country, your part of the country there, we do need 

to thin out our Ponderosa Pine stands. 

Senator HEINRICH. Good. 

Mr. TIDWELL. They definitely have too many stems per acre without any question. But at other times there’s also a need to remove 

some of the larger diameter material to be able to deal with the 

overall forest health. 

We need to be able to apply the science we have today that will 

help us to understand what needs to be done on these landscapes. 

We need to be able to go in there, instead of doing multiple entries every few years, and take a step back to see what needs to 

be done every 20 or 30 years versus multiple entries. That means 
55 

that we have to usually take out a little more material—it’s more 

trees. 

But in the long term it makes that forest much more resilient. 

Senator HEINRICH. Mr. Farquhar, I want to bring up one of the 

things that, I think, is working within the Forest Service side of 

the House is the collaborative forest landscape restoration program. We’ve seen that be very successful in New Mexico, as you 

know, in the Zuni Mountains. 

The Zuni Mountains project is expected to treat about 56,000 

acres, create 93 jobs and save 37 million in future wildfire suppression costs, all for a little over $7 million in Federal investment. 

Is that a model that you’ve looked at on the DOI side as well? 

If not, what are some of the collaborative model examples that 

you’re excited about and that you’ve seen work within the BLM 

side of the House? 

Mr. FARQUHAR. Thank you, Senator. 

It’s a great model. One of the strengths of the Bureau of Land 

Management’s overall system is that it really grows from the field 

offices up. There’s a lot of communication with people in the communities, with the industry, also with people who are concerned 

about fire, obviously. 

We’ve seen good examples in Socorro Field Office, I think, there’s 

a project there that we’re working on with local communities. 

We’ve got examples in other states as well. Colorado, where we’re 

doing some good neighbor work. So we aren’t actually able to work 

under the exact same statutory authority that the Forest Service 

has. 

But we do see the value of that kind of project. Particularly now 

when we’re seeing a reduction in funding across the board we’re 

going to rely more and more on the communities. We’re also able 

at times to go to the Forest Service and apply for grants to help 

with some of these local projects. 

Unfortunately we don’t have a huge, in the Bureau of Land Management, a huge forestry budget. So a lot of times we blend that 

kind of work with another funded program to try to achieve the 

same results. We’re looking in the hazardous fuels program right 

now at addressing the highest priority threats some of which are 

in the wild land urban interfaces that we all are concerned about 

and seeing more and more damage occurring. But we’re also looking at places where habitat might be a concern as well. 

So in sum, it’s a very good model that we look at from the Forest 

Service. 

Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank my colleague. 

Senator Risch. 

Senator RISCH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Tom, first of all let me say that I, after sitting through all these 

hearings and again today, a common thread that runs through this 

is people aren’t very happy with the Forest Service. This isn’t your 

fault. This is Congress’s fault. 

As you point out, you didn’t write the NEPA law. More importantly, you really didn’t—weren’t involved in the cases where the 

courts have tightened the NEPA law down even more that hamstrings your agency. 
56 

Having said that, your suggestion and it was very modest, you 

said so very modestly, but it’s important and that is Congress 

should have a look at this again. 

You know, you’ve heard me over and over again talk about how 

Idaho, on their school lands. We’ve got 2.4 million acres and we 

took 330 million board feet off last year. You’ve got 20 million 

acres. You took off 79 million board feet. 

Now admittedly there are some reasons for that. But that gap is 

stunning, really. 

What I might suggest you do is your modest suggestion really 

didn’t have any meat on the bones. The Forest Service really 

should step up. Say, OK look, if you want us to do what Americans 

want as far as managing their forests, this is what you ought to 

do, Congress, with NEPA. 

Now let me give you a suggestion. Those of us that have had formal training in forest management focus on something different 

than the politicians do and others do. That is the fact that every 

single acre is different. 

When I was Governor, as you know, I wrote a roadless rule 

which is the only roadless rule, State roadless rule in effect in 

America. When I looked at this and it was put on my desk and the 

States were invited to do this, it was obvious to me just what I 

said. That is every acre is different. 

For 40 years I’ve been trying to write a roadless rule that applied 

the same to every acre in America. So what I did is I divvied it 

up into a half a dozen different themes, if you would, with the help 

of the Nez Perce Tribe and with the help of lots of other people. 

We wrote a roadless rule that I then had to go out and sell the environmentalists. I had to sell to industry. 

More importantly I had to sell to the Administration. First the 

Bush Administration and then the Obama Administration, both of 

whom were equally enthusiastic about supporting us. You, yourself, 

I sincerely appreciate that help. 

But we ought to probably take a look at NEPA, No. 1. As you 

know that is not going to be an easy task. It’s a heavy lift. 

But if we do it collaboratively and we do it with an idea that everyone is going to have some input into this. Maybe we can make 

some progress in this. We ought to do it the way trained forest 

managers do it. That is not try to write a law that applies to every 

acre. 

I mean, you guys administer some incredibly sensitive and incredibly beautiful and incredibly unique acres that should be left 

alone. On the other hand, you’ve got lots and lots of acres that are 

general forest that should be managed the way you and I learned 

about multiple use. That was a good concept then and it’s a good 

concept now. It’s not for every acre. But it’s for a lot of acres. 

So I’d invite you to put some of your best minds to work on this 

and say, Congress, look, you want us to do this. You want us to 

quit spending all this money on NEPA. How about if we take 

NEPA and apply it differently to different categories of land? I 

think that maybe we could make some progress in that regard. 

So I hope you’ll give that some thought. Again, I understand the 

tremendous challenges that you have. But you know, you’ve been 

to enough of these hearings that people are not happy with the 
57 

Forest Service either with the fire management or the production 

management. 

Mr. TIDWELL. Senator, I want to acknowledge all your support 

and leadership to help deal with our roadless issue in Idaho. 

I want to clarify that when I look at NEPA I think it’s a good 

law. I see how it’s been interpreted and sometimes applied beyond 

really what I believe was the original intent. 

CEQ has been working very closely with us to help us to actually 

focus our analysis because they too agree, that we’re doing much 

more analysis than we need to. They’ve been very supportive like 

on this Black Hills project. One of the reasons we were able to do 

that analysis on a quarter of a million acres was because the CEQ 

was there to help us really focus the NEPA. 

So the law itself I think is a good law. It requires us to do a lot. 

We would be doing a lot of that analysis anyway to be able to have 

the information we’d need to be able to go out and do the right 

thing on the land. 

I do think that there is some opportunity to clarify the intent of 

these laws that we have on the books, that would be helpful. 

Senator RISCH. Thank you. Tom, I appreciate that. 

Aaron, just in closing let me say thank you to you and to the Nez 

Perce Tribe for your work on the CBC, for the work on the roadless 

rule. The government would be, the Federal Government would be 

well served to look at what the Nez Perce Tribe is doing, in particularly in the Department that you head. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Risch. 

As always, Senator Risch, you make important points. You make 

important points that reflect that not only do you have a degree in 

forestry, you’ve been out there trying to bring people together. I 

think, particularly, this point that Senator Risch has made today, 

that not all acres are created equal, is a very compelling point. 

Dr. Johnson, you essentially made that point when you talked 

about the moist harvests in the O and C areas. 

Senator Risch, what Dr. Johnson was essentially talking about 

was how some of his ideas like reducing some of the red tape and 

bureaucracy in survey and management and stream buffers and 

the like would triple the land base for management. So you said 

we really need to take a look at NEPA as it relates to forestry in 

this committee. As far as I’m concerned, that look begins this 

morning. 

I’m going to spend the rest of my time specifically on questions 

about NEPA. I just want to thank you, Senator Risch, because you 

have, as always, brought your best game to this debate. I’ve highlighted just with your questions what our job is. 

Senator RISCH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

First of all, this stuff is not news to anybody who is sitting at 

the panel. I mean people who’ve had formal training and that know 

that trying to manage public lands from marbled halls in Washington, DC, is not the way to do this. 

The goals of NEPA are probably supported by 99 percent of the 

American people. As with all things that Congress does, we have 

these lofty goals. We try to put it into legislative language. Then 
58 

when the thing gets on the ground it turns into a real wreck. 

That’s what’s happened with NEPA. 

The goals of NEPA are good. It was a like an experiment really 

in the world. No culture in the world has ever done what we did 

when we enacted NEPA. We had the goal of preserving and protecting our natural resources and at the same time being able to 

use them. 

The difficulty is we tried to lay one rule over every acre in America that is subject to the rule. It’s not working in practicality. 

So it’s time to take a look at this thing. This is not going to be 

an easy lift. It will be a difficult lift. I don’t know if Congress is 

up to the task. Indeed historically when we question that. But 

nonetheless I think it’s worth the effort. 

I think if you actually could do something like that you’d get rid 

of this tremendous amount of money that’s spent, the tremendous 

amount of wasted effort that court cases take up in dealing with 

this. Instead we could all pull the wagon together and use this 

money to make public lands better. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well said. 

Let’s start in with exactly the kind of task that Senator Risch 

has defined is looking at NEPA. Let me just frame this very specifically. Our objective is to get the harvest up without compromising 

these bedrock environmental values that we care about in Oregon. 

I think people care about all over the country. 

Let me start with the time and expense associated with this. 

The Forest Service noted, in response to a House hearing question, that on average 70 percent of the costs of preparing and administering a timber sale goes for environmental review. Of course 

in discussion with respect to how you might look at NEPA, streamlining in that context I’ve described. 

Harvest up. Not compromising environmental values. You always 

hear discussion about whether this should be done on the landscape scale, programmatic planning. These are the words that just 

get hurled about. 

Here’s how I wanted to start this topic which Senator Risch has 

correctly raised. The agency has put a fair amount of effort into 

pilot projects in this area. I think, Chief, it would be very helpful 

if you could explain in something resembling English because this 

is pretty dense stuff. 

You can get off into NEPA language and it sort of sounds like 

prolonged root canal work. How is the agency able to save time and 

money, at least on the basis of these streamlining projects? How 

what you’ve learned in the pilots could be applicable generally? Because I think what we’re talking about here there’s very little difference. 

You aren’t going to see Democrats and Republicans beating each 

other’s brains out over the idea of getting the harvest up while 

keeping environmental values. 

So if you would tell us what you think are the lessons out of the 

pilot projects that we can begin to use as we go forward with what 

Senator Risch has correctly described as a big lift. I mean, anybody 

who’s talking about NEPA, this is not an exercise for the fainthearted. This is a big, big lift. 
59 

So if you can tell us what you’ve actually found in your pilots 

that’s worked for purposes of our going forward. Let’s start with 

that. 

Mr. TIDWELL. Simply put, we have to do the same level analysis, 

and documentation if we’re looking at 5,000 acres or a quarter of 

a million acres. So instead of doing hundreds of projects at 5,000 

acres a shot versus doing one at 250,000 acres. That’s one of the 

lessons that we’ve learned. 

The other thing is when we look at these larger—— 

The CHAIRMAN. That is, again, so I can start talking to colleagues and people in language that people can convey, these big 

landscape projects. They’re a better investment. Is that what you’re 

saying? 

Mr. TIDWELL. It’s one environmental analysis for these large 

areas versus having hundreds of smaller analyses. It takes a little 

more time, but it’s so much more efficient. 

The CHAIRMAN. But that would put points on the board. Let’s 

just be very clear because all this is so hard to follow. That would 

put points on the board for the cause of streamlining NEPA in a 

way that would be good for getting harvests up without sacrificing 

the environmental values. 

Mr. TIDWELL. Yes. 

The CHAIRMAN. Is that right? 

Mr. TIDWELL. Yes. 

The CHAIRMAN. OK. 

Mr. TIDWELL. The second approach we’re using is what we call 

adaptive management, it looking at things which are going to occur 

over the next few years. So it gives our managers flexibility. 

For instance, when you get an insect and disease outbreak you 

don’t have to go back and do additional analysis because it was covered under the first analysis. You can quickly go in there without 

any additional analysis, which is what we’ve been working on. 

Adaptive analysis looks at these large landscapes. That frees us 

from having to go back and do additional analysis when there’s a 

change in condition out there because as much as we like to think 

that we know everything that’s going to happen, say over the next 

10 years, we’ll get a wind storm that comes through or get an outbreak of bark beetle. 

This allows us to go ahead and do the work that needs to be done 

without additional analysis. 

The CHAIRMAN. Without going back, in effect, you would do it 

once. 

Mr. TIDWELL. Yes. 

The CHAIRMAN. So we have big landscapes, do it once, and this 

concept, this adaptive analysis, in effect, factors in weather conditions and the like. 

Those are two things on the basis of your pilots that you think 

would help streamline NEPA, and again, strike the balance that 

I’ve been describing. 

Anything else? 

Mr. TIDWELL. Just by looking at larger landscapes it gives us 

more flexibility to actually do enough treatment where it makes a 

changed condition. When we talk about restoring forest health, reducing hazardous fuel risk to communities, we have to do it on a 
60 

large enough scale where it really makes a difference. So it’s actually easier for us to be able to justify that this is the work that 

needs to be done when we look at these large landscapes versus 

these smaller projects that we used to focus on. 

The CHAIRMAN. My time is up. But other witnesses, you know, 

buckle up, because we’re going to ask you all the same question. 

Senator Murkowski. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. To just kind of follow on the Chairman 

here. We’ve been quizzing you, Chief, on the agency’s approach. 

But Mr. Farquhar, from the BLM’s perspective and ideas that 

could be put in play to achieve what we’ve been talking about here. 

Anything that you would add? 

If you would also comment on Dr. Johnson’s proposal here for 

this ecological forestry and how we deal with wet forests, dry forests? 

Mr. FARQUHAR. Thank you, Senator. 

I agree with a lot of what the Chief just said. The Bureau of 

Land Management is also embarking on some landscape scale 

projects to try to look at larger areas so that the environmental— 

it’s the same as what we’re doing actually for renewable energy 

projects and a lot of other things on the public lands where we’re 

trying to say let’s do a large look. Then we’ve eased the way for 

the eventual, actual, project or proposal from a developer or for a 

timber sale or whatever it might be. Then what we’re able to do 

is streamline the eventual sale process. 

Now just to take what the Chief was saying a little further. 

Chairman Wyden has proposed some principles for forest management, potentially in Western Oregon. Having public agreement on 

principles when you start that process, I think, is very important. 

We have just issued a purpose in need statement for the Western 

Oregon lands that are really the most intensive we manage for timber across the country. So I think there’s the most analogous. I’ll 

focus on that with the Forest Service. 

Once we get those principles out there and get the purpose in 

need out there, get the public to respond to those. Then we’re much 

more able to say, let’s grab techniques like what Dr. Johnson and 

Dr. Franklin have been bringing forward. How those techniques fit 

in a larger fabric for that landscape. 

There’s no question that what Dr. Johnson and Dr. Franklin are 

doing in Western Oregon is introducing new concepts for how to go 

about removing larger volumes of timber in an ecologically safe 

way. In fact a way that enhances the ecology in many respects in 

the biodiversity actually. 

So you have to start from a larger perspective, a landscape perspective and work down. It takes more time. But you don’t end up 

with as many protests and appeals that are able to stop the presses 

later on because you’ve got the logic and the public support built 

in at the beginning. 

We’re seeing that in a lot of different areas that we work in not 

just in timber. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. When I think, this goes to your point, Mr. 

Chairman, and that Senator Risch raised which is, you know, every 

acre of forest is not the same. 
61 

When you and I went to West Virginia and flew over pretty much 

all private lands in West Virginia looking at that and understanding how that State has actually done pretty well with their 

timber. But I recognize that it has a certain amount of flexibility 

or freedom, if you will, under State management as to the Federal 

issues. 

The fact that unfortunately, too often, we have this one size fits 

all mentality here. Not only when it comes to forest management 

but in so many other policies that come out of Washington, DC. It’s 

just one size fits all. 

What you have in the Tongass, a very moist forest, is far different than what you would have in my colleague’s forest down in 

Arizona. So recognizing that we have to deal differently if we’re 

going to get good results, good management on our forests is key. 

Chief, I wanted to ask you one last question. This relates to the 

Big Thorn sale based on Prince of Wales. It’s my understanding 

that the record of decision for the EIS was going to be here any 

day. It was imminent. We would be able to get started by the end 

of the summer. 

In your written testimony you’re now saying that the record of 

decision for Big Thorn is expected in late 2013. What is happening 

here? Why are we seeing this slippage in the time? 

Really for those that have been counting on Big Thorn. We all 

know that we’ve been counting on Big Thorn to come along. What 

am I going to tell them? 

Mr. TIDWELL. We expect to have the record of decision out by the 

first of July. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. OK. 

Mr. TIDWELL. Then be able to award the contract in September 

at the latest. The Forest Service has had to do some additional 

cruise data, additional cruising to be able to have the right information that they need. 

But I’ll tell you they’re working very hard to be able to get that 

forward. It is a key project for all of us, which we’re committed to 

get done. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. OK, so July 1 we should see the record of 

decision. 

Mr. TIDWELL. Yes. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. September we’re going. 

Mr. TIDWELL. Yes. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. OK. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senators are coming in and out. Just in order of 

appearance. Our next two questioners will be Senator Flake and 

then Senator Barrasso, if that’s alright with my colleagues. 

Senator FLAKE. Thank you. Thank you and wish I could have 

heard more of the testimony, had to go kind of back and forth. But 

mostly to Chief Tidwell and if we can go with this, stewardship 

contracting, we’ve got to reauthorize by September 30. Tried to do 

that as part of the Farm bill, the fate of the Farm bill, obviously, 

is uncertain. 

But as we consider reauthorizing the stewardship program how 

can we improve it to enable the Forest Service to enter into more 
62 

contracts than we’ve been able to do already to treat even larger 

swaths of land? 

For example, I offered an amendment to the Farm bill that 

would have required parity among the fire and liability provisions 

in the stewardship contracts and timber contracts as well as a 

means of incentivizing stewardship work on the land. Likewise, 

GAO issued a report in 2008 that recommended revising the 

cancelation of ceiling provisions that are applicable on the stewardship contracts. 

How are those kind of preventing the Forest Service from moving 

ahead and treating larger swaths of land? 

Mr. TIDWELL. Senator, first of all I want to thank you and all the 

members of the Senate for the support of the Farm bill. I believe 

it is one of the best forestry titles we’ve ever had. I would hope that 

there’s a way that it can move forward. Once again, without the 

Farm bill we need to find some way to get stewardship contracting 

reauthorized. I’d appreciate your support on that. 

The language that was in the Senate Farm bill does address 

some of the problems that would help us be a little more efficient 

with stewardship contracting and eliminate one of the questions 

that we’ve had in the past. That language will be very helpful if 

we can get that to move forward. You know, the liability we need 

to look at between the stewardship contract and a timber sale are 

very similar. So that liability needs to be consistent between the 

two. 

So there is an additional burden put on a contractor that’s willing to take on a stewardship contract versus a timber sale contract. 

That’s not what this is about. It’s to be able to just get more work 

done. 

We’ve been able to work with a lot of our purchasers and contractors to a point now that there’s more comfort and the improvement 

that was offered in the Senate version of the Farm bill, would be 

very helpful. 

Senator FLAKE. Thank you. 

There’s some question that about the Forest Service commitment 

to move ahead with timber sales and not just stewardship contracts. Is the Forest Service committed to both? 

Mr. TIDWELL. Yes, without any question. We will always use the 

timber sale contract when that’s the right tool, a stewardship contract when that is the right tool. We have to remember that the 

integrated timber sale contract is within the stewardship contracting, actually, it’s a combination of both, which just gives us 

some additional flexibilities. 

Senator FLAKE. Appreciate that and appreciated working with 

your office on a number of issues that we have, a number of them, 

in Arizona and others who have worked on this. We’ve just got to 

ensure that we can treat even larger swaths of forest here. 

Because we’ve had two, once in a lifetime, fires in just 10 or 12 

years. So appreciate your work on this. So we want to work with 

you in the future. If there are issues and there are tools that you 

need as we go through this reauthorization process, please let us 

know and let us help you as you have in the past. 

Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Barrasso. 
63 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just to follow up 

with what Senator Flake has said to Chief Tidwell, you know, as 

a doctor I think about doctor/patient relationship is about patients. 

If the forest were a patient, you know, the time you put on life 

support, find a new doctor, the forests are weak or unhealthy. 

They’re suffering from neglect, infected with diseases, beetles, burdened with excessive fuel load weight, running a very high wildfire 

fever. The time has really come, I think, to actively treat the patient before it’s too late. 

So, you know, following up on Senator Flake’s comments. Does 

active forest management in timer sales have a role in restoring 

forest health? 

Mr. TIDWELL. Yes. More so I think in the future than we have 

recognized in the past. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you. Thank you, Chief. 

Mr. Imbergamo, if I could? 

In your testimony you describe declining health conditions on 

federally managed forests. I’m going to ask NEPA, the Endangered 

Species act, are they contributing to poor forest health by blocking 

needed management activities? 

Mr. IMBERGAMO. I think there are not only blocking it, they’re 

driving up the cost. That’s what is the problem is the agency clearly we’re in a declining budget environment and we’re not going to 

get unending amounts of money to make the investments we need 

to. So we need to lower the costs. 

Senator BARRASSO. As you know and members on both sides of 

this committee agree that timber harvest needs to be increased. Is 

there an opportunity for the Forest Service to substantially increase timber outputs on acres treated without entering sensitive 

areas? Do those opportunities exist? 

Mr. IMBERGAMO. In many cases, yes. Alaska is a somewhat different situation. In most places they can enter a lot of the landscape that is already roaded and do a significant amount of work. 

The roadless rule does have some exceptions in it. Those are important in places like Idaho and Wyoming. So if we need to look 

at those and really actually utilize those exceptions for forest 

health. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you. 

Mr. Maisch, from the standpoint being a State forester, if I could 

ask you about your perspective there. Do you see a positive correlation between active management and forest health? 

Mr. MAISCH. Yes, definitely. Those two go hand in hand, in my 

opinion. 

Senator BARRASSO. In your testimony you said that the over burdensome regulations and litigation are challenges to add to the active management that you noted, and as you said go hand in hand. 

Is the NEPA and the Endangered Species act attributing to some 

of the deteriorating forest health by blocking needed management 

activities? 

Mr. MAISCH. Yes, in my opinion, yes. Those two laws do definitely cause a lot of challenges even with the process works perfectly there’s a record decision to implement. It only takes a third 

party to file a litigation action and then the process stops. That’s 

a real serious issue. 
64 

Senator BARRASSO. Mr. Miles, I see you’re nodding your head up 

and down. 

In your testimony you also said that burdensome regulations and 

litigations are challenging to active management. My question is 

the same to you. Could you talk about NEPA and the Endangered 

Species act contributing to deteriorating forest health by blocking 

needed management activities? 

Mr. MILES. I guess the frustration is that, you know, once the 

Forest Service, they follow all the laws, they do the regulations, following guidelines for pack fish in fish. All the things that are necessary to set the stage in order to get a project done. Then as Mr. 

Maisch had alluded to then a third party comes in to delay that 

process. That is frustrating because everybody holding hands on 

the project thought that it would be something that would be a 

slam dunk at that point when you’re following the letter of the law. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank you, Senator Barrasso. 

I think before you came, we and Senator Risch, asked some very 

good questions. Senator Murkowski and others started talking 

about how we are going to make a major effort on this NEPA issue 

to show that it’s going to be possible to get the harvest up and keep 

these bedrock environmental values. That’s going to require some 

thoughtful effort to streamline NEPA. 

We’re looking forward to working with you. OK. 

Let’s continue with other witnesses who would like to get into 

this question that I started to ask Chief Tidwell and Senator Murkowski asked you all at the BLM. 

Why don’t we even go right down for you other four, so each of 

you have a chance to say it? 

Give us a couple of ideas from your perspective that meet our 

test, streamlining NEPA, getting the harvest up, keeping environmental values. To the extent you can, I mean, models like landscape-size projects just strikes somebody from your seat of your 

pants as sensible. Why not do the analysis once for a big project 

then eight, ten, fifteen times for these smaller projects. 

So let’s start with you, Dr. Johnson. Each of you have a chance 

here to tell the U.S. Senate your ideas with respect to streamlining 

NEPA and the balance that we’re talking about. 

Dr. Johnson. 

Dr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Senator Wyden. I want to use for my 

analogy the Eugene District of the BLM. 

Fifteen years ago harvest in the Eugene District of the BLM 

under the Northwest Forest plan about came to a halt. It had been 

sharply declining and the district realized they needed a new approach. They started shifting to plantation thinning. By the way 

much of that thinning is in reserves. 

They started. They had a lot of fits and starts. They had a lot 

of challenges. In the last decade they haven’t had hardly any protests or appeal including thinning and reserves that produce saw 

timber. 

Now why is that? 

The CHAIRMAN. I was going to ask that question. 

[Laughter.] 
65 

Mr. JOHNSON. They’ve made their case. They have made their 

case that in fact that these actions have ecological benefits and 

they have economic benefits. In addition they have left a forest that 

the public can support, just in terms of its appearance. 

So streamlining NEPA. Procedurally it’s very important. But the 

notion that if we’re going to get over these hurdles we have to effectively make our case is at the heart of this. 

We now are working with Eugene BLM to startup this variablely 

retention harvest which does create openings. The Eugene BLM 

has totally stopped that even though it had historically done it because they couldn’t make their case. 

We now are working with them on major projects to do this. At 

least in the short run we’re probably going to solve the problem 

they haven’t gotten any appeals or protests for the last decade because they’ll be starting this up again. Starting to make the case. 

So I, Jerry and I, Franklin have concluded that at the heart of 

this that on these Federal forests you have to convince people this 

is both good for forests and good for people and good for all the 

creatures within them. That is the approach we’re taking to do 

this. 

The CHAIRMAN. Alright. 

Mr. Maisch. 

Mr. MAISCH. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. 

I’d go back to my original testimony to that triple bottom line. 

You know, it has all 3 elements that have to be considered if you’re 

going to sustainably manage forests. But more specifically I think 

Chief Tidwell is on the right track. 

I think especially with his two suggestions about larger project 

areas and perhaps describing a condition a forest should be in from 

a healthy standpoint. Of course, as was already pointed out by Senator Risch, different forests have different needs. So I think there 

needs to be flexibility in how NEPA is applied across the landscape. It’s not one size fit all. 

Also within the agency itself, I think it’s a very cumbersome 

process and economics need to be considered right up front. They 

have a series of gates that they go through when they design a timber sale. Gate one is the first gate. You need to look at economics 

of what you’re proposing to do at that step as opposed to the end 

of the process when it’s very difficult to change what the alternatives might look like. 

Also within the Forest Service the IDTs that they use to prepare 

these NEPA documents. I think there’s some real room for really 

targeting a smaller group of people that are the experts that do 

these documents, time and time again. So it’s spreading it out over 

a larger part of the agency. 

The CHAIRMAN. Let’s see if we can get our other two witnesses 

in. Then recognize Senator Murkowski. 

Mr. Imbergamo. 

Mr. IMBERGAMO. Very quickly, sir. 

One of the biggest things we could do is one of the things you 

were involved in with the Healthy Forest Restoration Act which is 

in areas where there was fire prone lands and wild land urban 

interface. They’re only compelled to analyze one alternative and 
66 

perhaps one alternative that’s suggested by a local collaborative 

group. The Chief alluded to that. 

Reducing the number of alternative study, you know, certainly 

could make these piles of paper smaller. 

The CHAIRMAN. You can save some time for the next round of 

questioning because what you’re in effect saying is that you ought 

to give some extra advantage in the regulatory process when there 

is a collaborative, where there are industry and environmental 

folks working together and coming up with a suggestion, for example, as we were seeking to do with the Healthy Forest Restoration 

Act. You would give that an advantage in the queue for consideration? 

Mr. IMBERGAMO. I certainly think that’s one thing you could look 

at. Of course, I think collaboration, in our view, includes collaboration at the bid table. Some of the most successful timber sale programs across the country. 

The CHAIRMAN. Understand. 

Mr. IMBERGAMO. Have just been commercial timber sales and 

they’ve used KV to do all the ecological work. They had the support 

of a youth swath of the environmental community. 

I particularly point out the Ouachita National Forest in Arkansas has paid for all the habitat work with traditional timber sales. 

As overhead has killed KV, they’ve switched to stewardship contracting. That’s kind of the Forest Service discovering capitalism 

when they only get 35 cents on the dollar out of KV they have to 

go to something else to get the work done. 

So I think that collaboration can include collaborating at the bid 

table with the industry. 

The CHAIRMAN. Fair enough. 

Mr. Miles. 

Mr. MILES. Yes, Mr. Chairman. 

So my perspective is that why I’m here today as part of the 

Clearwater Basin Collaborative. You know, we have been fortunate 

that collaboration has worked in our area. We’ve come a long ways, 

but we still have a ways to go with some of our projects. 

It would be much harder for us to do this if we all on individual 

terms. So, you know, moving from something like from a watching 

these forest systems condition change all the way to being an active in supporting the Forest Service. That’s huge, you know, for 

these areas in rural America. 

That’s where we need to be at being able to help the Forest Service. Giving them the social license to be able to feel stronger in the 

recommendations and moving forward. The line officers actually 

doing their jobs. 

So that’s ultimately our message. 

The CHAIRMAN. Very good. 

Senator Murkowski. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

You know we talk a lot about balance in this committee. Balancing our desire to advance energy solutions against the environment, the economy. But Mr. Maisch, you made a comment in your 

response to the Chairman here that we need to look at the economic benefit, the economic factors right up front rather than on 

the back end. 
67 

I think in your initial comments you mentioned that it’s your 

sense that within the Forest Service currently there is perhaps too 

much focus on restoration rather than on the economy itself. You 

cite to the situation at home in the Tongass where the regional 

population is down 5 percent, school population is down 15 percent. 

Five communities or excuse me, 5 schools within these communities have closed. 

Those are economic indicators of a dying economy. So as we look 

to the solutions out there, as we look to how we find this balance 

between our environmental laws which we all recognize are there 

for good reason. We have to make sure that they do not bury our 

communities. 

Really deny them of an existence. So how we are able to access 

our resource, do so in an environmentally responsible way and in 

a timely way is going to be key to the sustainability. 

I know that I’m not just talking about Alaska. The Chairman has 

had communities in Oregon that they are literally drying up and 

blowing away when the mills closed down. So how we can be working together, Mr. Chairman, as a committee to try to advance some 

of the suggestions that we have heard today, I think is going to be 

key. 

They’re going to be key to so many of the small communities in 

my State and in rural Oregon and other parts of the country as we 

try to reckon with a policy that has taken us away from this concept of multiple use to a point where we’re just not seeing reliable, 

certain supplies coming out of our forests that will help, not only 

with healthy forests, but healthy communities economically. 

So we’ve got a lot of work to do, Mr. Chairman. But I really applaud you for moving us forward on this discussion and look forward to advancing some solutions. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Murkowski. 

As we’ve talked about so often there are really, in our part of the 

world, some models that work. We’re starting to see them in the 

questions. I’ve got just a few more questions for all of you that all 

go to Senator Murkowski’s point. 

We have talked about this often in the past. But the two of us 

are committed on a bipartisan basis now to stay at this until some 

of these issues like streamlining NEPA, collaboration, to really use 

this as a time for major forestry reform. Let me just go through a 

few other areas that I want to touch on and let Senator Murkowski 

wrap up. 

First, for the record, I’d specifically like to hold the opportunity 

out for each of you to give your suggestions for how we might advantage the collaborative groups. Are there ways that we can reduce their paperwork, where we can reduce the amount of time and 

review processes? Ways in which we can insulate that work from 

a needless, really gratuitous stalling. 

I mean, Mr. Imbergamo mentions the Healthy Forest Restoration 

Act. One of the key factors in that is we did not lock the door to 

the courthouse. But we also said there’s no constitutional right to 

a 5-year delay and just have delay after delay after delay. 

There’s got to be something practical to do here. I particularly 

like to say when the environmental community and the timber industry come together as they did in Eastern Oregon, we ought to 
68 

find some ways, as part of the regulatory system, to ensure that’s 

rewarded. 

So we’ll hold the record open on that point. 

Now the next area I would like to get a sense of with respect to 

you, Chief and Mr. Farquhar, is something that all of us from resource-dependent areas hear constantly. That is the frustration in 

rural communities as to when a forest or a district’s timber target 

is not hit. 

The people often come up to us. I’m sure Senator Murkowski has 

exactly the same experience. Say at a town hall meeting, they put 

in the newspaper that they were going to hit this target. They 

didn’t even come close. Even despite this one thing that went 

wrong over here, they didn’t even come close. 

So my question for both the Forest Service and Mr. Farquhar is 

what’s going to be done about this? The additional point that’s 

often made in rural communities is hitting the target doesn’t seem, 

for harvesting timber, doesn’t seem to be as important as hitting 

other targets. 

So how would you two respond to that? How can we begin to lock 

in to some of these reforms that we’re talking about? Something 

that ensures that a timber target is something meaningful and not 

something that’s honored more in the breech than in the observance? 

Chief, why don’t you start and then Mr. Farquhar, get you into 

that too. 

Mr. TIDWELL. Senator, I’ll start with the change that we made 

a few years ago that we used to have a target of how much timber 

you offered. What we found is that you’d make an offer and of 

course we’d get an appeal or a lawsuit. Nothing would go forward. 

So we changed that to hold our line officers more accountable, it’s 

timber that’s actually sold so they have to be able to get it all the 

way through the process before they actually accomplish their target. 

That’s what we focus on. We track this in our regions. When we 

have a region that’s not meeting their target, they need to be able 

to justify it. I’ll use our region one, Montana, because the court 

cases have gone against us last year we do factor that in, but they 

will also ask, what are you doing now to be able to address timber 

targets so that next year that’s not the case? 

So we do track that very closely and hold people accountable. 

We also look at where we can make a better investment, as we 

don’t have a lot of flexibility in our budgets. They’re very, very 

tight. 

But within the regions they look at where, if they have an opportunity, they might be able to get a little more work done in one 

area verses another depending on it might have been a bad fire 

season or whatever is factored into that. We also shift funds 

around to get more work done every year. 

So I really track the targets based on the regions. Regional foresters, they track it based, you know, going down to the forests. 

The CHAIRMAN. The only thing I’d say, Chief. I know you’re trying to be constructive in this area. We’re already hearing some of 

this in the discussion of the O and C areas and where, because, you 
69 

know, we’re talking about a partition with some lands segregated 

for harvest protection. 

People come and say, well, Ron, all the harvest is going to be outside the small rural areas and they’re still going to get flattened. 

So I understand what you’re trying to do. But the targets have 

got to be representative of the area, and if people feel that the 

small rural areas are going to be left behind, then we’re still going 

to have a problem with that. 

Mr. Farquhar, on the target question. 

Mr. FARQUHAR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I think historically there was more of a problem with that than 

maybe there is right now. 

The CHAIRMAN. You’ve got to come to one of my town hall meetings because the problem is now. People come and they will literally bring newspaper articles where they say so and so from the 

local BLM or the Forest Service office said we’re going to harvest 

this amount. Then they produce the article that comes a year later 

or 8 months later where it just harvests a fraction of amount. 

So if you think this problem is gone, come by one of my town hall 

meetings in rural Oregon sometime because people bring those 

newspaper clippings and they’re doing their homework in good 

faith. These are people who have actually kept tabs on it. They’re 

not acting like this problem is gone. 

Mr. FARQUHAR. I hear you, Senator. 

I think it was especially big in the 90s is what I’m referring to 

because the, you know, there was a sudden—— 

The CHAIRMAN. I’ve been to almost all my counties this year. 

This is not something from the 90s. I don’t want to belabor. This 

is something I hear all the time. 

Mr. FARQUHAR. Let me give you some of the numbers. We have 

actually met the targets the last 3 years of 200 million board feet. 

We also have a pretty good record because these are the thinning 

type projects. They aren’t as controversial. As Dr. Johnson said, 

you know, we only have a certain time horizon that we can be 

doing this with these thinning projects. They don’t produce, as Dr. 

Johnson said, as much revenue as some of the larger sales. 

But we offered 609 million board feet over the last 3 fiscal years 

and 124 or about a quarter of those, a little less than a quarter, 

were protested or appealed or litigated. We were able to resolve 92 

million board feet out of those 124 and that leaves an unresolved 

32 million board feet out of those 3 years which is about 5 percent 

of the total that we offered. 

So I think it was—what I meant to say earlier—the problem of 

off—which I think the Chief talked about too, of offering and then 

getting into appeals and it doesn’t really count if half the stuff you 

offer goes into appeals and you never get it back out. I think we 

were doing better on that than we had been, partly because of what 

we’re trying to harvest. 

I think we do have a challenge moving forward, a significant 

challenge, coming up with a good volume based on what the forest 

can produce and what the public will accept with these new techniques that we’ve introduced today and talked about a little bit 

today and are presented more thoroughly in Dr. Johnson’s testimony. 
70 

I think there’s a prospect that we will be able to increase the 

harvest. 

We will have the public buy in. 

We will show the ecological and economic benefits of these types 

of sales. 

We will be able to say that we’ve reduced the protests or appeals 

as well. 

So the prospects are, I hope, getting better. 

As we do these 6 land use plans we’re hoping we’ll also accomplish something of what you’re talking about of trying to map out 

the future a little bit and streamline the future NEPA process for 

the individual sales. 

The CHAIRMAN. That certainly sounds constructive. What I’m 

concerned about, in addition to this question of not meeting the 

targets, is the sense that if you don’t hit other resource management targets what happens is you get more staff and more funding 

in the next year. But that hasn’t been the case with respect to the 

timber harvest. 

So I think we’re going to want to follow up with both of you on 

that. 

Let me go to you, Dr. Johnson, if I might because it seems to me 

that we all take away from what you and Dr. Franklin have been 

doing is you’re essentially making a case for saying you can get the 

harvest up without clear cutting and some of the old approaches, 

the old intensive forestry approaches. 

Can you describe for the public, sort of in shorthand, how that 

is and some of what’s already gone on in the O and C debate? What 

Senator Murkowski and I were already talking about. 

I asked Senator Murkowski about her moist forests. She tried 

not to laugh too much in the public square here. Because we’re up 

in front of everybody in the rostrum as they have really moist forests, like very soggy forests. 

So your ideas could be very helpful, particularly if they move us 

to getting the harvest up without some of the old clear cutting and 

intensive forestry strategies. 

So summarize for us how that is. How you make that possible? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes, Senator. 

Senator Murkowski, yes, I’ve been to your forests. You definitely 

are on the wet side. 

Just a very short story. When we were first starting these ideas, 

the ecological forestry ideas, and I try them out in my classes first, 

to give my classes the assignment, to see if they can do them. I’ll 

never forget a student came in and said to me, well I talked to my 

mom last night and I tried to tell her what the project was. We’re 

doing this variable retention of harvest. It’s a regeneration harvest. 

It took 45 minutes for me to convince her it wasn’t clear cutting. 

A student actually said that to me. How’s it different? How’s it different because that’s the reaction you get from people. 

It’s different fundamentally. It’s different in almost every way in 

terms of the philosophical underpinnings. They’re not agriculturally economic. They’re natural disturbance and natural development. 

It’s different in terms of instead of trying to achieve simplicity. 

You’re trying to achieve complexity. 
71 

Most fundamentally how is it different on the ground? There are 

some examples in my testimony. Some pictures with classic clear 

cutting you come in and basically remove all or almost all of the 

stems. Start over. 

With this approach you don’t really start over, you’re trying to 

have some continuity. You try to reflect the kind of legacy forest 

you might have after a major disturbance with some patches of 

trees, some individual trees. Keeping the old trees, those sentinels 

that almost always are best at withstanding disturbance, keeping 

them there. 

But as much and the part that was really the change in Oregon, 

and we’re still working out, was what happens after that? 

So now you do have some openings. They’re intermixed with 

patches of leave trees and individuals. But what you do then is fundamentally different. 

What we do then is try to emulate how the forest would reappear 

if in fact there was a disturbance. Generally, at least in the Northwest and in the moist forests there, you go through a stage where 

trees are not dominant. Where it’s the shrubs, that forge, the flowers, the fruits and they are, that stage is, the most biologically diverse in terms of butterflies, such as the golden hair streak. 

Debbie, my wife is right here. She’s my butterfly expert. 

The CHAIRMAN. Definitely pro butterfly. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. JOHNSON. Golden hair streak which if you have Chinquapin, 

which is a pioneer plant. It can grow in older forests too, but it 

really thrives out in the open. It starts to flower again. That’s 

where butterfly will appear. 

That’s amazing. 

In terms of here’s the famous, my favorite from my friend, Dr. 

Franklin, the beetle complement. I’m sorry, but the beetle complement in the early stage forest is entirely different. Deer and elk 

thrive on these. 

How is it different than a classic clear cut? 

Because after the classic clear cut and now you see it out in industrial land, it’s very good growing wood. You suppress that vegetation. That’s not what you want generally with herbicides. 

What you want is to clear the land to grow commercial trees. 

Thus it’s a very sterile environment. Whereas what we’re talking 

about is letting the little trees come back through. There is a modest amount of planting. I mean these are lands to produce timber, 

but there’s a modest amount of planting. 

But it’s a whole different progression. It’s a progression that you 

would generally see in the natural process. That is fundamentally 

different from the way we’ve thought about forestry in my college 

and out in the profession. It’s really to create this stage after harvest, before the next forest comes, that what we call this diverse 

early successional stage. 

It’s really important. We’re lacking it. We’re lacking it significantly. 

The openings we create in forests generally are on industrial 

land. We don’t have this anymore. There is a series of species from 

bluebirds to some butterflies and months that we’re worried about 
72 

because of the lack of this vegetation, let alone our deer and elk 

populations and where they head when they don’t have this. 

We feel this is important enough that I make this statement to 

my students. Some of them came to me and said, can we write a 

children’s book on the importance of this as our last assignment? 

I said yes. 

They’ve written a first draft which is in fact with drawings. One 

of them is such a great artist. I’m going to try to move forward 

with it. It really is the search of a little girl for the bluebird and 

the kind of forest she goes through. 

She goes and sees a Northern Spotted Owl, says you won’t find 

them here. She goes on and on and finally gets out in the open in 

this wonderful, botanical, amazing botanical environment in the 

post harvest environment if you let this go. It is fundamentally different. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well said. I don’t know if we’ve ever introduced 

material from a children’s book, Senator Murkowski, into the 

record. But you just heard from my colleague she’d like to read it 

too. 

I just have one last question and I want to let Senator Murkowski finish up. That is for the BLM folks on the spotted owl critical habitat question. Because I think this is interesting. 

Obviously it’s of great importance to all of us that we wrestle 

with the O and C issue. But it has real implications nationally in 

terms of what people are looking at. The Chief and I have talked 

a little bit about this as well. 

The Fish and Wildlife Service has recently issued critical habitat 

for the Northern Spotted Owl and has provided guidance that some 

harvest in the habitat can occur and actually, as the Chief and I 

have discussed, help retain the habitat for owls in the long run. In 

other words, this is a way to try to figure out how you can get the 

harvest up and be sensitive to habitat and environmental values 

that, in effect, fish and wildlife is saying that habitat and habitat 

conservation and the harvests can go hand in hand. 

My question to you all at the BLM is how do you intend to work 

with the Fish and Wildlife service to ensure that projects are implemented in critical habitat and are consistent with their recommendations? 

Mr. FARQUHAR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

That is a new opportunity both to improve the ecology and the 

ecological balance but also to make sure we’re protecting the owl. 

A lot of it has to do with the kind of things that Dr. Johnson has 

been talking about. It’s important for us to make sure the public 

understands that as well. 

I think one of the points Dr. Johnson made earlier is that sometimes, and I’m going to paraphrase. I’ll probably do him harm in 

the process. But the public might not understand that yet. They 

might think that critical habitat needs to remain undisturbed. 

That’s why the principles that you have introduced, Mr. Chairman, for this management approach, this vision, if you will, for 

what we’re trying to achieve needs to come first and people need 

to buy into that. Then we start talking about the techniques of 

achieving it. 
73 

We’ve seen in these pilot sales that Dr. Johnson has helped the 

Bureau of Land Management with that, you know, we aren’t getting a whole lot of appeals. We are getting some, but we’re also 

able to do things that are pioneering and that they start with this 

idea of pilot, you know, that’s a very important word. We’re a little 

beyond the pilot’s phase right now in some respects. 

But we’re engaging the public. We’re trying to help them understand yes, it’s going gradually. Yes, it’s largely emphasizing 

projects that are pretty small. But it’s a very good start for trying 

to create that public understanding, that public support. 

Dr. Johnson, I think you’d probably be able to add to that or improve on that a little bit, if you could. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Very briefly. 

One of the real delightful things with pilots and now the ecological forest is how U.S. Fish and Wildlife stepped up and said we’ll 

work with you from the beginning to make these projects happen. 

You’re still the land management agency. You’ve got to make your 

decisions. We’ll work with you and boy, have they. 

This new critical habitat rule in which Paul Henson and also the 

recovery plan says we’re really going to focus on the ecosystem on 

which the species depends like it says in the Endangered Species 

Act and all aspects of it and both maintaining and enhancing all 

aspects and understanding the role of timber harvest to do that. 

They’ve been doing that. It’s the reason why we’ve gotten this far 

with the pilots. It’s that simple because of their tremendous cooperation and the BLM’s willingness to do it. 

It may be my last chance to say something. I just want to say 

the reason that Jerry Franklin and I are optimistic. We have some 

pretty lively meetings, as you can imagine, Mr. Chairman, with the 

public, is because of the young people in the BLM and their desire 

to think creatively. It’s great. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well said, Dr. Johnson and very appropriate because there are a lot of good people in these agencies. 

In the Forest Service, the Chief and I have talked about that. 

Mr. Farquhar, a lot of good people. We’re going to need them all 

because as I tried to touch on a little over 2 hours ago, the status 

quo is just unacceptable. 

If we’re going to leave on one note, that is the note to leave on. 

Clearly you can talk about efficiencies, litigation, and all the rest. 

The amount of timber produced off Federal forest lands has declined dramatically. It’s declined dramatically. We’ve got to figure 

out a way to get the harvest up and do it consistent with our environmental values. 

I think we received a lot of good suggestions here today. 

Chief, you explained the question of landscape size projects for 

purposes of addressing NEPA issues. Get the harvest up and protect environmental values in plain simple language that I’m going 

to use in a town hall meeting. I’m going to describe how we started 

talking about the ways in which instead of having 20 of these timeconsuming analyses, we could have one for a major project. 

So that’s what we’re going to need to do in the days ahead is 

we’re going to look at the host of issues that we talked about here 

today that could go into forestry reform. We are not going to duck 

the big ones. 
74 

Senator Risch correctly said you’ve got to talk about NEPA. 

NEPA is now something we are going to work through here. For 

anybody who is sort of on the extremes and hears those words they 

ought to know that I do not believe increasing the harvest and protecting our environmental values are mutually exclusive. I do not 

buy that false choice. 

I believe that it’s going to be possible working with people of 

good will and good faith, like yourselves, to do both. That’s what 

this committee is going to take as its load star. 

I thank you all for your patience. It’s been a long hearing this 

morning but a very valuable one. 

With that the Energy and Natural Resources Committee is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:15 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 
(75) 

APPENDIXES 

APPENDIX I 

Responses to Additional Questions 

RESPONSES OF THOMAS TIDWELL TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR WYDEN

Question 1. In the Chiefs written testimony he cited the funding increased from 

a low of $180 million in 1995 to $335 million in 2012. Please explain the discrepancy 

between the increased funding for the timber sale program over the last 17 years 

and the sharp decline of timber harvests on federal lands—by more than a third— 

over that same time period. 

Answer. The funding mix has changed substantially between 1995 and 2012 as 

displayed in the following table. As you can see, the appropriations for timber sales 

have increased but the use of Salvage Sale Funds has dropped significantly. When 

adjusted for inflation (CPI) the value ofthe funding in 1995 is greater than 2012. 

Funding Source 1995 2012 

Appropriations $180 mill $335 mill 

Salvage Sale Funds $155 mill $23 mill 

Knudsen-Vanderburg Funds $0 mill $10 mill 

Nominal Total $335 mill $368 mill 

Inflated Total $505 mill $368 mill 

Fire transfer and sequestration have also created instability. 

The volume sold in 1995 was 2.89 billion board feet (bbf). In 2012, the Forest 

Service sold 2.64 bbf, or 91 percent of the 1995 volume. In summary there has been 

a 27 percent reduction in funding ‘‘purchasing power’’ but only a 9 percent reduction 

in output. 

Question 2. Chief Tidwell, Bill Imbergamo raised in his testimony the litigation 

surrounding the Colt Summit Project on the Lolo National Forest being conducted 

as a part of the Collaborative Landscape Restoration Program (CFLRP). CFLRP is 

a very successful program, particularly in my home state of Oregon where excellent 

collaborative restoration work is being conducted under the program. Can you confirm that Colt Summit is the only CFLRP project that has been litigated to date? 

Answer. Yes, we confirm that Colt Summit is the only CFLR project that has been 

litigated to date. 

Question 3. Chief Tidwell, can you provide a short analysis of the number of 

projects, funded through the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program, 

(CFLRP) that were appealed and that were litigated, and how these percentages 

compare to the percentages nationally for appeals and litigation? 

Answer. The CFLR program was authorized in 2010 with only 10 projects. Subsequently, Congress authorized additional projects in FY 2012 and FY 2013. However, 

the number of project decisions is still relatively small, and so it is difficult to discern the true patterns of appeals and litigation. In some cases, discussion has successfully forestalled litigation. As of February 2013, of the 44 decisions that have 

been made that included commercial harvest of forest products, 20 percent (9) had 
76 

been appealed and 2.3 percent (1) had been litigated. Those nine appeals were on 

five projects with four of those appeals on only one project. 

Between 2008 and 2012, of 1539 Forest Service decisions that included commercial harvest of forest products, 22 percent (339) were appealed and 2.5 percent (39) 

were litigated. 

Question 4. I believe we should highlight the successes of collaboration and 

incentivize collaborative efforts to get restoration work accomplished. Assuming 

some minimum standards for defining a collaborative group were established, would 

it make sense to afford restoration projects endorsed by a collaborative group a 

lighter paperwork burden, less administrative review, and/or more protection from 

stalling litigation? 

Answer. We have not considered this. However, we have been exploring opportunities for efficiencies with the Council of Environmental Quality (CEQ). To accomplish more effective vegetation management, the Forest Service is fostering a more 

efficient National Environmental Planning Act (NEPA) process by focusing on improving agency policy, learning, and technology. These NEPA process improvements 

will increase decision-making efficiencies and public engagement, resulting in onthe-ground restoration work getting done more quickly and across a larger landscape. In addition to the Forest Planning rule the agency has initiated a NEPA 

learning networks project to learn from and share the lessons of successful implementation of efficient NEPA analyses. The goal of this effort is to maintain decision 

making transparency for the public and ensure that the Agency’s NEPA compliance 

is as efficient, cost-effective, and up-to-date as possible. Specifically we are looking 

at expanding the use of focused Environmental Assessments (EAs), iterative Environmental Impact Statement documentation (EISs), and applying an adaptive management framework to NEPA. 

Our landscape-scale NEPA projects will also increase efficiencies. 

Question 5. What minimum criteria for the local collaborative should the Forest 

Service or BLM use to trigger a lighter administrative burden for NEPA? 

Answer. We have not considered this. 

Question 6. How specifically should the implementation ofNEPA be different for 

projects endorsed by a collaborative group? 

Answer. This has not been determined. 

RESPONSES OF THOMAS TIDWELL TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR BALDWIN

Question 1. Members of Wisconsin’s timber industry have expressed to me their 

strong concerns with the level and timing of timber harvests allowed on federal forest land. One of the things I hear most frequently is the need for certainty -that 

includes long-term certainty in the time of year contracts are made available, and 

the time a contract takes to be finalized. In what ways is the Forest Service addressing these challenges of certainty and timing within the current contracting 

framework? 

Answer. I agree with you that providing an amount of timber for sale that is consistent and predictable is an appropriate goal. We have worked hard to become more 

efficient in preparing timber for sale. Between 1995 and 2012, accounting for inflation, the value of our funds for preparing timber have declined 27 percent but our 

timber sold has only decreased 9 percent. The amount of money appropriated has 

a significant effect on the level of timber that is offered. It takes 2-3 years to plan 

and prepare a project for sale. Therefore, an abrupt change in funding year to year 

is problematic. 

Question 2. Members of the timber and forest products industries in Wisconsin 

have been carefully watching the progress of stewardship contracting projections. 

First, please address the way that you measure the effectiveness of these projects. 

Second, please describe some of the challenges stakeholders face when entering into 

these stewardship contracts? 

Answer. The Forest Service collects a variety of data to measure the accomplishments of stewardship contracts and agreements, including the amount of timber 

sold, wildlife habitat improved, fuels treated, invasive species treated, trees planted, 

and road improvements. Stewardship contracting has proved to be a valuable tool 

in many locations to implement restoration activities and meet multiple land management objectives including hazardous fuels reduction, wildlife habitat improvement, forest health improvement, and other projects that produce timber. These contracts result in 25 percent of the timber volume produced by the agency with the 

remaining 75 percent coming from traditional timber sale contracts. 

The Forest Service has contracted with the Pinchot Institute for Conservation for 

programmatic multiparty monitoring of stewardship contracts and agreements as 

another way of measuring their effectiveness. The results of the FY 2012 pro-
77 

grammatic monitoring efforts by the Pinchot Institute are available online at: http:// 

www.fs.fed. us/:forestmanagement/stewardshiplreports/i ndex.shtml . 

The following answer addresses some challenges that contractors have had as a 

result of bidding on and implementing stewardship contracts: 

• Stewardship contracts usually include work items not traditionally included in 

timber sale contracts, such as precommercial thinning, reforestation, hazardous 

fuels treatment, fisheries or wildlife habitat improvement, trail maintenance, 

etc. Traditional timber sale contractors often need to find the expertise and subcontract the work if they do not have the expertise to complete the contract. • Since stewardship contracts are based on best value to the government, rather 

than only on price, contractors have additional information they must provide, 

depending upon the criteria included in the bid request. This can be a challenge 

when a contractor first starts competing for contracts. 

Question 3. As climate change has been predicted to cause greater pressures on 

forest health from both pests and fires, is the agency considering timber harvesting 

to Annual Sale Quantity levels as a method to reduce the effects of climate change 

on national forests? 

Answer. The Forest Service’s approach to climate change has and will continue 

to be directed at building resilience to climate-driven and other stressors as you described. We implement timber harvests and other management actions aimed at restoring the resilience of ecosystems, thus making them more adaptive to a changing 

climate. Thinning forests improves stand vigor, reduces hazardous fuels, and reduces vulnerability to wildfire, disease, and insect attack while also providing forest 

products, other ecosystem services such as clean water, wildlife habitat and rural 

jobs. The Agency continues to explore new ways to become more efficient, as outlined in the February 2012 strategy for increasing restoration activities across large 

landscapes, including more timber harvesting. Through these efforts, in spite of flat 

or declining budgets, fire transfer, and sequestration, in the past few years the Forest Service increased the volume sold, from 2.38bbfin 2005 to the 2.64 bbfin 2012, 

though budget cuts resulted in a slight decline in 2013. The use of harvesting timber as a tool to address climate change is affected by the level of appropriations, 

litigation, and other competing values from the forests. The Annual Sale Quantity 

is an upper limit of timber volume that can be sold from a forest. Appropriations 

have not been sufficient to meet this upper limit. In addition, in the new Planning 

rule there is no ASQ, as activities are based on restoration needs. 

Question 4. How does the Forest Service intend to utilize funding available from 

stewardship contracting retained receipts? Will they be used to maximize forest 

health treatment across all of the National forests? 

Answer. Stewardship contracting retained receipts become available when the 

sale of forest products exceeds the cost of the service work obtained under an integrated resource contract. The retained receipts are used to complete resource work, 

including: 

• Improving, maintaining, and restoring forest and rangeland health 

• Restoring and maintaining water quality 

• Improving fish and wildlife habitat; reestablishing native plant species 

• Reducing hazardous fuels that pose risks to communities and ecosystem values 

• Decommissioning roads 

Stewardship Contracting retained receipts remain on the unit where the receipts 

were collected for use on other authorized stewardship projects. Funds can be used 

on other units after approval by the regional forester in the region where the receipts were collected. 

RESPONSES OF THOMAS TIDWELL TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR MURKOWSKI

Question 1. Generating a more certain and predictable flow of timber from our national forest to support rural economies is a challenge the agency and Congress are 

grappling with. One approach to create that certainty is to legislate treatment levels 

or timber supply mandates for a particular forest or forests that the agency would 

be required to meet. What is the Forest Service’s view of legislated treatment levels 

and supply mandates? Does the Forest Service support this approach to create more 

certainty with respect to timber supply? 

Answer. Legislating treatment levels will not assure that a particular forest or the 

agency as a whole will be able to meet those levels. It may impact the discretion 

that the Forest Service has to provide for the needs across a region or the nation. 

In addition, legislating treatment levels does not ensure that the Forest Service will 

have the funds to do the work. It also does not take into account appeals or lawsuits 
78 

that may prevent the Forest Service from achieving the targets. Legislative mandates also remove the opportunity and flexibility to address important needs resulting from catastrophic natural or economic events, or for changes across the system 

over time that may arise during the budget cycle. 

Question 2. In your written testimony, you state that timber sales remain the 

mainstay of the agency’s restoration efforts, yet all the highlighted examples of restoration work being undertaken across the country appear to be using stewardship 

contracting. What percentage of your restoration work is actually accomplished 

through traditional timber sales (not Integrated Timber Resource Contracts under 

Stewardship authority)? 

Answer. 75 percent of the timber volume sold by the Forest Service in FY12 was 

sold through traditional timber sale contracts. Both our timber and stewardship contracts support restoration goals. 

RESPONSES OF JOHN ‘‘CHRIS’’ MAISCH TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATORS MURKOWSKI

AND WYDEN

Thank you for your interest in my presentation to your committee and your follow-up questions. I apologize for not being able to respond more promptly, but a 

long and difficult fire season in Alaska precluded me from devoting time to this response until recently. As you may know, over 1.3 million acres burned in Alaska 

this fire season and two Type I incidents were close to communities, with the Stuart 

Creek fire near Fairbanks causing evacuations of over 800 individual homes and 

businesses. As our wildland fire season finally slowed in late August, we shifted our 

attention and full support of fires in the Lower-48. Both your questions are good 

ones and not easy to answer. The topic of collaboration and how to apply this technique for decision making, usually among very diverse parties, has been around for 

a long time. The U.S. Forest Service and other land management agencies have 

turned to this concept in an effort to have a more transparent decision making process and to involve the various stakeholders in discussing, crafting, and ultimately 

supporting a specific direction or action for management activities. 

I’ve personally participated in this type of process on several occasions, both at 

the state level and more recently with the Tongass Futures Roundtable as convened 

by The Nature Conservancy (TNC) and other organizations. When a collaborative 

process is successful, it can create an enduring environment for agreement and productive activity in our forests, but when it fails, the old battle lines are quickly reestablished or a long, drawn out collaborative process leads to no action or decision. 

Is it worth the effort? I’ve thought a lot about that aspect of the process, and overall 

I would answer ‘‘yes’’, but with some qualifiers. With this as my preamble, I’ll do 

my best to answer your specific questions and share my experience. 

QUESTION FROM SENATOR MURKOWSKI

Question 1. There has been a lot of positive talk about collaboration as a process 

or means for building trust and accomplishing mutual goals, such as, increasing forest restoration and timber harvest on federal lands. I understand you have some 

experience with collaboration in Alaska on the Tongass. Can you describe that experience? 

Answer. In 2006 the State of Alaska was invited to participate in the Tongass Futures Roundtable (TFR) process along with a variety of local government officials, 

NGOs, a number of environmental organizations from both the national and local 

level, industry representatives from the major business sectors in Southeast Alaska, 

Native organizations, both tribal and corporate, foundations, and the U.S. Forest 

Service. This very diverse and large group consisting of 35 primary members was 

charged with crafting an alternative to be considered in the Forest Management 

Plan amendment process that was underway for the Tongass National Forest. The 

effort began with a joint meeting of the invited parties in Bothell, WA in May of 

2006 with a subsequent agreement to launch a ‘‘collaborative’’ process. 

Oversight, staffing, and organization of the TFR were primarily by The Nature 

Conservancy with funding from a number of foundations and organizations. A meeting facilitator was utilized for all the full TFR meetings. As the group began organizing internally, various working committees were established to address specific 

issues identified by the group. In an effort to be even more inclusive, the working 

committees were open to participation by individuals or organizations with an interest in the topic, especially if they were not a primary member. 

One of the work products desired by all early on in the process, was a land use 

allocation map that would identify the areas where active timber harvest could 
79 

1 In Forest Service planning language a Forest Development Land Use Designation (LUD). 

2 A Forest Plan has a shelf life of 15 years and is reviewed internally about every five years 

to ensure it is relevant to the criteria used in creating the plan. If there are significant departures, then a plan amendment is typically recommended. 

occur on the forest1. A tremendous amount of time, effort, and resources were devoted to this goal, but it was never achieved. I think the best agreement the subgroup tasked with this effort were able to reach, was about 2/3rds of the acreage 

needed to sustain a forest products industry. 

Over the course of the next six years, the Roundtable would meet as a full body 

20 times. The various working committees would meet more frequently and the 

Framework Committee which I chaired met 21 times in a three year period (2007- 

09). Progress was slow and much of the first year was spent building some relationships between parties that could barley sit in a room together. The Tongass has 

been a difficult issue for a long time, a battle ground for environmental, fishing, and 

timber interests all bent on their version of what the Tongass should be, how it 

should be managed. Often the communities, businesses, and residents of SE are the 

ones caught in the crossfire while allegiances and allies at both the local and national levels shift issue by issue. 

While there were some small successes, they were limited in scope and scale and 

the full body was never able to achieve the type of breakout from the past that the 

process envisioned. A lot of people worked very hard and took personal risks to try 

and move forward, to find a route that could lead toward a common vision, something better, but we couldn’t get there. I still find that part of the experience very 

frustrating, in part, because I don’t like to fail, but also because of the eventually 

unrealized hopes people had at the beginning of the process. A few members who 

were unwilling to compromise, to truly collaborate, won the day, and that leads me 

to a key observation of the process. All the primary members must have something 

at risk, something they will lose if the group can’t reach a decision, something that 

puts them at greater risk to stand alone. Without this motivation, they have little 

to lose and can actually use a process like this to buy time, knowing in the end that 

they have veto power by not agreeing. 

QUESTION FROM SENATOR WYDEN

Question 1. I believe we should highlight the successes of collaboration and 

incentivize collaborative efforts to get restoration work accomplished. Assuming 

some minimum standards for defining a collaborative group were established, would 

it make sense to afford restoration projects endorsed by a collaborative group a 

lighter paperwork burden, less administrative review, and/or more protection from 

stalling litigation? 

What minimum criteria for the local collaborative should the Forest Service or 

BLM use to trigger a lighter administrative burden for NEPA? 

How specifically should the implementation of NEPA be different for projects endorsed by a collaborative group? 

Answer. I would agree with your opening statement and endorse the concept of 

providing stronger support and protection or limits to litigation for projects derived 

from a collaborative process. This would help address the issue of litigation by 

‘‘outlier’’ organizations or individuals that did not participate in a collaborative process, but are able to derail a project agreed to by this process. 

I’m not an expert in this area, but would suggest that reform to the NEPA process 

as currently practiced might provide fewer opportunities for the appeal and legal 

process to play out. For example, a Forest Plan2 goes through an extensive NEPA 

process and then almost every action to implement the Forest Plan also goes 

through another exhaustive process. Individual projects, such as timber sales, can 

take 18-30 months to complete the process. 

What if there was only one NEPA process at the Forest Plan level that would 

allow projects that are implementing the Forest Plan to move forward without a 

separate NEPA review. This type of programmatic review would save considerable 

time and funding and allow active forest management to proceed in support of economic, restoration, and forest health goals across the country. Efforts to stall or 

challenge work would be kept at the Forest Plan level and limit the constant challenges that have slowed the process of implementing Forest Plans. 

To more specifically address your question concerning ‘‘What minimum criteria for 

the local collaborative should the Forest Service or BLM use to trigger a lighter administrative burden for NEPA?’’ I would suggest that a lighter administrative process shouldn’t be tied to collaboration. While this technique works well in some situations, it can be very time consuming and take many years to achieve even modest 
80 

3 USFS press release 10-31-13, Tongass National Forest. 

results. I would contend that we need less NEPA process across the board to implement Forest Plans that have already been through an extensive public process. If 

you want to demonstrate how this concept will work in a few areas of the country, 

consider choosing locations with a functioning collaborative and others with none. 

It could provide a real time test of how this concept would work in practice and lead 

to useful insights on how to modify and expand the concept beyond initial pilots. 

Another area for improvement would be the Forest Planning process. For example 

in the Tongass, a new Plan Amendment was completed in 2008 after 18 months of 

work. In 2013, as required in the Tongass plan, a five year review was undertaken 

and determined there had been significant changes in the operating environment of 

the Forest, including demands from the pubic3. This triggered a Forest Plan amendment process, which at its best will take two years to complete. I believe this is an 

extreme example, but we have a burdensome amount of planning taking place that 

again ties up funding and staff time which should be directed toward Forest Plan 

implementation. The new Planning Rule doesn’t improve this situation and should 

be carefully evaluated with a goal of streamlining the planning process. 

RESPONSES OF NED FARQUHAR TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR WYDEN

Question 1. I understand Oregon BLM is revising its resource plans for Western 

Oregon at this time. Part of that effort will require greater coordination and consultation with the agencies that manage endangered species—both the US Fish and 

Wildlife Service and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). It 

will be important to consider a planning process that builds on the successful coordination in recent projects by closely integrating these agencies in the planning. What 

plans do you have to integrate these agencies in the resource planning process? 

Answer. The BLM in western Oregon is coordinating consultation on threatened 

and endangered species issues with both the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) 

and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). First, the BLM has 

employed the DOI’s Collaborative Action and Dispute Resolution (CADR) process 

and an independent facilitator to finalize an agreement between the BLM, FWS, 

and NOAA on how consultation will be addressed in the new plans. Second, in April 

of 2013, Forest Service Chief Tom Tidwell, FWS Director Dan Ashe, and BLM Principal Deputy Director Neil Kornze conducted a series of meetings in the Pacific 

Northwest to discuss implementation of the 2012 Critical Habitat Rule for the 

Northern Spotted Owl, including the application of active forest management. Finally, at the local district level, the FWS and NOAA have consulted with the BLM 

on the Secretarial pilot timber sales, including developing signed biological opinions 

on each of the pilots. This ongoing coordination and collaboration, with not only 

with the consulting agencies but other public stakeholders and cooperating agencies, 

is setting the framework for how the BLM plans to integrate input into the planning 

process, analysis, and final decisions. 

Question 2a. I believe we should highlight the successes of collaboration and 

incentivize collaborative efforts to get restoration work accomplished. Assuming 

some minimum standards for defining a collaborative group were established, would 

it make sense to afford restoration projects endorsed by a collaborative group a 

lighter paperwork burden, less administrative review, and/or more protection from 

stalling litigation? 

Answer. The BLM shares the belief that successful collaboration and incentivizing 

collaborative efforts are important to advancing restoration work. The BLM has embraced collaboration when conducting National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 

analyses to inform land use planning or project decisions, including for restoration 

projects. 

While the BLM is open to more efficient ways to accomplish restoration work, the 

BLM believes that current NEPA regulations and guidance provide a sound framework for review of federal actions. Current NEPA regulations and guidance encourage Federal agencies to reduce paperwork and conduct more efficient administrative 

review by meeting with partners and stakeholders early in project planning, using 

‘‘scoping’’ to narrow the issues warranting detailed NEPA analysis, and preparing 

concise NEPA documents of a length that reflects the scale of potential environmental impacts and mitigation. The BLM encourages its field offices to pursue these 

and other efficiencies through collaboration and to implement the guidance in the 

Council on Environmental Quality’s Collaboration in NEPA Handbook. The BLM 

updated A Desk Guide to Cooperating Agency Relationships and Coordination with 

Intergovernmental Partners in 2012 to assist the BLM and other agencies in col-
81 

laborative efforts. In addition, the BLM maintains a Collaboration and Dispute Resolution Program and a Partnerships Program to provide support and guidance to 

the field in engaging stakeholders and partners. 

The current NEPA framework is designed to provide for public review and engagement, and our hope is that a process that provides for opportunities for input 

reduces the likelihood of litigation as well, particularly where a restoration project 

is endorsed by a collaborative group. Where the endorsing group has addressed 

issues, bridged differences, and built support for a project throughout project planning and design, group members have less incentive to pursue litigation challenging 

the project. 

Question 2b. What minimum criteria for the local collaborative [effort] should the 

Forest Service or BLM use to trigger a lighter administrative burden for NEPA? 

Answer. A collaborative process facilitates efficiencies throughout the NEPA process, including those that improve the effectiveness and efficiency of NEPA analysis 

and document preparation. The BLM finds that highlighting the benefits of a collaborative process and applying general principles for preparing NEPA documents 

(e.g., concise documents that discuss issues in proportion to their significance) are 

generally useful for addressing the administrative demands under NEPA. 

Question 2c. How specifically should the implementation of NEPA be different for 

projects endorsed by a collaborative group? 

Answer. For the reasons noted above, the BLM believes that the current framework for implementing NEPA provides effective opportunities to seek the endorsement of a collaborative group brought together for a specific project. The current 

framework also allows a lead agency that obtains the endorsement of a collaborative 

group (e.g., for a preferred alternative or particular mitigation measures) to document that endorsement, use it to inform their decisions, and to defend any subsequent legal challenges. 

RESPONSE OF BILL IMBERGAMO TO QUESTION FROM SENATOR WYDEN

Question 1. I believe we should highlight the successes of collaboration and 

incentivize collaborative efforts to get restoration work accomplished. Assuming 

some minimum standards for defining a collaborative group were established, would 

it make sense to afford restoration projects endorsed by a collaborative group a 

lighter paperwork burden, less administrative review, and/or more protection from 

stalling litigation? 

What minimum criteria for the local collaborative should the Forest Service or 

BLM use to trigger a lighter administrative burden for NEPA? 

How specifically should the implementation of NEPA be different for projects endorsed by a collaborative group? 

Answer. As noted at the hearing, while FFRC members are—in many regions— 

actively involved in collaborative processes, we cannot support a policy solution that 

basically institutes an additional layer of mandatory local involvement in order to 

be eligible for NEPA compliance procedures that are widely acknowledged to be necessary across the National Forest System. 

The hearing record clearly indicated that NEPA—and the court’s interpretation 

of it—have led the agency to overanalyze even the most modest forest management 

projects. This level of analysis is what drives annual expenditures of more than 

$350 Million. These funds should be available to design an implement projects, not 

develop mounds of paperwork that serves only as fodder for litigators. 

Collaborative projects such as the CFLRP projects cover only a small percentage 

of the National Forest system, and primarily only in fire prone regions of the country. Giving these projects a lighter paperwork burden only intentionally leaves in 

place what is widely regarded as a wasteful, inefficient, and unwieldy process for 

the majority of the National Forest System. Even if collaborative projects were to 

receive this preferential treatment, all you would have succeeded in doing, in effect, 

is creating a second, even more elaborate public involvement process, layered on top 

of the existing exhaustive analysis required by forest plan development, amendment, revision, and project development and proposal. 

At what point would we simply be making collaboratives a substitute for forest 

planning? If that is the goal, then eliminate forest planning, or take other steps so 

that Congress is not simply accreting another layer of public involvement and analysis on top of the existing layer cake. 

Moreover, simply giving collaborative projects a ‘‘leg up’’ in the various administrative and legal hurdles only leaves in place the existing underlying problem: a 

complete lack of clarity on the agency’s mission and no direction from Congress to 

manage a portion of the landscape for timber production. If the agency is forced to 
82 

cope with its untenable NEPA burden with no direction from Congress, 

collaboratives, the normal timber sale program, and other hazardous fuels reduction 

efforts are destined to founder because of continued litigation, analysis, and lack of 

funds. 

Ultimately, we believe a legislated trust mandate and legislative reforms to NEPA 

on lands identified as suited for and/or available for timber production in current 

forest plans is the best way to provide this clarity. We have outlined the basics of 

a trust approach in our testimony. 

Whether projects are developed through a collaborative or as part of needed forest 

management treatments, the Forest Service should be given streamlined NEPA authorities for other lands identified as being at risk of catastrophic insect outbreaks 

or fire. The Committee should adopt legislation directing the Forest Service to implement streamlined NEPA on lands identified as being at risk of catastrophic insect outbreaks or fire. 

1. Declare an emergency on all Federal lands designated as condition class 

2 or 3 on wildfire risk maps, as well as and lands identified as priorities for 

treatment in a Community Wildfire Protection Plan. 

2. Adopt alternative arrangements for all such lands for compliance with 

NEPA, including: 

a) Allow any hazardous fuel reduction project, including creation of fuel 

breaks, thinning, creation of defensible space around developed property, 

campgrounds, or other facilities, to be carried out concurrent with development of NEPA documentation. 

b) Require the Forest Service to analyze at most the proposed action and 

the no action alternative on any project conducted on condition class 2 or 

3 lands, and explicitly limit required cumulative effects analysis to the current conditions the project area rather than exhaustive attempts to chronicle the effects of previous management. 

c) Grant a categorical exclusion to any hazardous fuels reduction project 

on condition class 2 or 3 lands recommended by a collaborative group. 

d) Put a firm page limit on EA’s for projects on CC 2 or 3 lands in order 

to expedite action. 

Further, the Forest Service should be required to adopt the following policies: 

Direct each forest with a known bark beetle infestation to develop large 

scale control projects along the lines of the Black Hills Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project within the next 6 months. Directing these units to use 

HFRA will allow rapid analysis and allow expedited judicial review. 

Develop a model forest plan amendment to allow each National Forest to 

plan, in advance of any catastrophic event, an active salvage and recovery 

program that allows the Forest Service to capture carbon from damaged 

trees and re-establishes green, growing, and carbon-sequestering forests as 

rapidly as possible. In general, on lands designated as suitable for timber 

production or otherwise designated as general forest, the Forest Service 

should adopt a requirement to salvage at least 75% of damaged acres. 

RESPONSE OF BILL IMBERGAMO TO QUESTION FROM SENATOR BALDWIN

Question 1. Members of the timber and forest products industries in Wisconsin 

have been carefully watching the progress of stewardship contracting projects. 

Please describe some of the challenges stakeholders face when entering into these 

stewardship contracts. 

Answer. Stewardship contracting is an important tool for the management of the 

National Forest, and FFRC supports reauthorization of this program. We must 

stress, however, that Stewardship contracts were not intended to—and should not 

be allowed to—supplant or replace normal timber sales as a means of accomplishing 

forest management on the National Forests. FFRC also has concerns about the 

growing impact Stewardship contracts are having on potential timber receipt revenue sharing with local governments. 

As far as challenges facing stakeholders and timber purchasers, we view the lack 

of liability limitations in Stewardship Service Contracts as a potentially major obstacle. Already, this has figured into the thinking of major conservation groups who 

opted to stop pursuing Stewardship Service Contracts. Under current timber sale 

contracts, there is a distinction made between ‘‘operations fire’’ and ‘‘negligent fires.’’ 

The amount of a purchasers liability is limited for operations fires to the amount 

specified in a bond that must be posted before beginning work. There is no distinc-
83 

tion between operations and negligent fires in Stewardship Service Contracts. This 

exposes purchasers to potentially ruinous liability. 

Sen. Flake introduced a bi-partisan amendment during the recent Farm Bill debate that was ruled to be budget neutral by the CBO that would direct the Forest 

Service to correct this problem. In any reauthorization of Stewardship Contracting, 

we urge you to support this important reform. 

An additional challenge for our companies is finding the time to analyze what the 

Forest Service is actually looking for in a Stewardship contract. Frequently, selection criteria are unclear and almost entirely subjective, and seem to be based on 

who spends the most time attending meetings. While we don’t doubt the value of 

collaboration, we question the fairness of a bidding process that seems to expect 

very lean businesses to operate more like non-profit social services agencies. The 

Forest Service should develop more explicit, easy to understand selection criteria, 

and should follow through on Congressional direction to conduct adequate debriefing 

with unsuccessful bidders. Further, for the Forest Service, we are concerned that 

management staff are being pressured to take successful timber sales and repackage 

them as Stewardship contracts. While the needed management gets done and the 

wood winds up at a mill either way, there are pitfalls to this approach. By driving 

agency staff to develop new partnerships, we’re concerned that they can sometimes 

become estranged from their industry partners. We’ve seen successful timber forests 

offer up sales that go no-bid for the first time in decades after normal timber sales 

were converted to Stewardship sales. 

Again, we hope Congress directs the agency to maintain a vital timber sale program, which can be very effective at managing a variety of forest types, including 

those found on the Chequamegon-Nicolet, for a variety of benefits. 

RESPONSES OF BILL IMBERGAMO TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR MURKOWSKI

Question 1. There has been a lot of positive talk about collaboration as a process 

or means for building trust and accomplishing mutual goals, such as, increasing forest restoration and timber harvest on federal lands. What has been your membership’s experience with collaboration? 

Answer. Our members have had a variety of experiences with collaboration, ranging from the extremely positive to extremely negative. Our members in Alaska, for 

instance, engaged in good faith collaborative negotiations for over 5 years, attempting to find a solution that produced the type of timber the local industry needs while 

meeting the objectives of local and national environmental groups. At the end of the 

day, both participating and side-line sitting environmental groups conducted end 

runs around the process that have destroyed the good faith needed to make the collaborative successful. 

In other cases, FFRC members are involved in collaborative efforts that are far 

ahead of the National Forest System. The Northeast Washington Forestry Coalition 

in Washington State, for instance, has the support of a wide variety of environmental and industry stakeholders and publicly supports harvesting 80 Million 

Board Feet of timber annually. Thus far, the Forest Service has failed to propose 

harvesting even half this amount. Long-running collaboratives in Arizona have experienced similar failures. 

As noted in our response to Senator Wyden, however, we note that whether 

collaboratives are successful or not, they should not become a default additional 

mandatory process in the already cumbersome forest management system that governs our National Forest System. Congress should not continue to sit on the sideline 

while the agency engages in endless gymnastics in the hopes that it will satisfy the 

courts. Clarity in direction—and bold experimentation, including designation of 

State forests—is needed. 

Question 2. Dr. Johnson testified regarding an approach he calls ‘‘ecological forestry’’ to increase timber harvest levels on O&C lands to get to a ‘‘sustained yield’’ 

of timber harvest that enables a permanent source of timber supply and contributes 

to the economic stability of local communities. My understanding is that there have 

been some pilot projects on O&C lands testing these ideas. What was your Oregon 

membership’s experience with these pilot projects? 

Answer. FFRC’s Oregon membership has closely followed the Johnson/Franklin 

‘‘pilot projects’’ as well as the broader implications of applying their management 

approach to the BLM O&C lands in western Oregon. In the drier forests of southwest Oregon, these small scale pilot projects have removed less timber volume per 

acre and resulted in reduced levels of receipts for local governments when compared 

with management as intended under the Northwest Forest Plan. The Johnson/ 

Franklin pilot projects in wetter forests are promoting variable retention regeneration harvests, but they have been no less controversial—as witnessed by the admin-
84 

istrative appeals and protests by environmental groups. In fact, the White Castle 

timber sale on the BLM’s Roseburg District is currently occupied by numerous tree 

sitters. The Johnson/Franklin management approach, including changes to reforestation practices following harvests in wetter forests, raises many policy and legal 

concerns—particularly as it relates to compliance with the O&C Act. 

Applying the Johnson/Franklin approaches more broadly to the BLM O&C lands 

would result in serious economic, fiscal, and environmental impacts. A Task Force 

convened by Oregon Governor John Kitzhaber modeled a number of alternatives for 

managing the O&C lands, including an ecological forestry approach similar to that 

proposed by Johnson/Franklin. The modeling showed that it would only generate a 

200 million board feet (mmbf) timber harvest and $27M in receipts for the O&C 

counties. These lands grow over 1,200 mmbf of timber each year. The Task Force 

modeling also showed that the Medford and Roseburg districts in southwest Oregon 

would be hit particularly hard under ‘‘ecological forestry’’ as harvest volumes would 

fall to anemic levels in these more fire prone forests—the exact opposite of what we 

should be doing to reduce the risk of catastrophic fires and insect infestations. It 

is clear that the Johnson/Franklin ecological forestry practices are unlikely to 

produce adequate, geographically distributed timber harvests across western Oregon 

or adequate revenues to meet the needs of local counties. 

While FFRC does not question Dr. Johnson’s qualifications as a silviculturist and 

researcher, we do question what lessons Congress can learn from his testimony. 

While he no doubt has a fine grasp of the ecology of Douglas Fir forests in the Pacific Northwest, we note that the entire National Forest System spans the subtropics of Florida to the Temperate Rainforests of Alaska. Ecological conditions vary 

greatly, even within each National Forest. What passes for ecological forestry in Oregon may make no sense—in fact quite likely makes no sense—in the mixed oakpine forests of Arkansas or the Birch-Beech-Maple forests of New Hampshire. 

Congress should no more attempt to adopt the management recommendations of 

Dr. Johnson than they should adopt the latest research of management of the Allegheny Plateau. We have over 24,000 Forest Service employees and researchers who 

develop detailed management plans for each National Forest. Rather than identifying one approach that may be appealing in one region (and only to certain groups), 

we should enable the Forest Service to carry out the management plans they spend 

so much time and money developing. 

RESPONSE OF AARON MILES TO QUESTION FROM SENATOR WYDEN

Question 1. I believe we should highlight the successes of collaboration and 

incentivize collaborative efforts to get restoration work accomplished. Assuming 

some minimum standards for defining a collaborative group were established, would 

it make sense to afford restoration projects endorsed by a collaborative group a 

lighter paperwork burden, less administrative review, and/or more protection from 

stalling litigation? 

What minimum criteria for the local collaborative should the Forest Service or 

BLM use to trigger a lighter administrative burden for NEPA? 

How specifically should the implementation of NEPA be different for projects endorsed by a collaborative group? 

Answer. Collaboration has become an essential modelto resolving long standing 

issues among diverse interests of rural Americans dependent upon the federal land 

base for their livelihoods. The Clearwater Basin Collaborative (CBC), led by US Senator Mike Crapo and supported by Senator Jim Risch and Congressman Raul Labrador,is an excellent example of collaboration that showcases major accomplishments when like-minded individuals from diverse interests are willing to work towards a common goal. The personal commitment by each stakeholder at our monthly meetings and subcommittee meetings,have resulted in our Agreement &Work 

Plan, intended to capture our commitment in resolving differences in land ethic and 

use of the Nez Perce-Clearwater National Forest. 

First and foremost, I would like to state that anadromous.and resident fisheries 

recovery is paramount to our success in the basin. The US Forest Service (USFS), 

Bonneville Power Administration,and Nez Perce Tribe (Tribe) have spent millions 

of dollars on culvert replacement,and road decommissioning to improve water quality for fisheries under the PACFISH/INFISH Biological Opinion Effectiveness Monitoring Program (PIBO). As a collaborative we believe our efforts must be built 

around and supportive of the Tribe and USFS on the ground efforts to restore the 

fisheries acceptable to harvestable levels. The fish restoration goals are the first 

overlay on our political map as we plan for the future. 
85 

In accordance with water quality standards and guidelines provided through 

PIBO,and applicable federal laws that protect water quality,the CBC is working towards restoration efforts for forest communities which represent a desired future 

condition conducive to a healthier,more resilient, longstanding,native forest community that has the propensity to change severe fire regimes into a moderate to low 

complexity one to withstand wildland fire as well as insects and disease. 

FOREST RESTORATION

One of our recommendations to the Nez Perce/Clearwater National Forest (Forest) 

is to restore Whitepine back into the ecosystem through a project called the SelwayMiddle Fork Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Project (CFLRP). The CBC 

was awarded $10M for the project under the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Act. As a pre-cursor to the planning for this project, we recommended that 

roads not in use, adjacent to streams be decommissioned and old culverts be replaced with adequate ones to provide fish passage prior to any timber removal. The 

Tribe’s Department of Fisheries Resource Management assisted the Forest in performing these contractual obligations. 

In order for this project to be successful, Grand-fir is proposed to be removed to 

allow for the restoration of Whitepine. This is a major undertaking by the Forest 

because it is a large scale approach to forest restoration using different forest practices to remove hazardous fuels such as commercial and pre-commercial 

thinning,and other vegetative treatments. It is our hope to encourage these types 

of larger, more complex projects in the future. Currently, the project is undergoing 

the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review. 

CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE BASIN NEEDS

As a collaborative group, the CBC has carefully determined where forest restoration is feasible. The CBC has held many discussions about the arrangement of federal land use designations on the Forest and we have broad understanding where 

active timber management can occur. There are areas we want protected under the 

Wilderness Act, areas for Tribal cultural practice sites,and tributaries that need protection under Wild & Scenic. After identifying the geographic areas where special 

land designations should occur, we have deduced the remaining areas for active timber management called the ‘‘Roaded Front’’ which is envisioned for the restoration 

and sustainability and long-term viability of early seral forest timber types. 

As a secondary benefit from forest restoration activities,these active timber management areas provide the timber industry and rural communities some certainty 

that woody biomass can be harvested therefore generating commodities and alternative energy while sustaining forest industry jobs. It is also important to underscore the importance of all natural resources to the timber industry and rural communities. Rural communities are also interdependent upon anadromous fisheries, 

elk and other ungulate species,berries and other resources for their subsistence as 

well as the Nez Perce people. Members of the CBC do not wish for any resource 

to become limited or extirpated, and take great pride in the sustainability of these 

forest resources by harvesting what they need for consumption. 

At this juncture in our collaboration, I believe it is imperative that the Forest 

Service be allowed to move more quickly on our CFLRP Project for forest restoration 

without any impediment. Much consideration through the design of the project has 

been given to listed species (aquatic & terrestrial) under the Endangered Species 

Act. The projects have been reviewed by their respective biologists from a scientific 

point of view to protect resources and to sustain them. The CBC has also done a 

much more in-depth preliminary review for the agency to ensure that overall risk 

and cumulative impacts are greatly minimized. Our collaboration serves as a model 

for screening environmental concerns before the Selway-Middle Fork CFLRP project 

became reality. There are several environmental groups on the CBC, and if they are 

not satisfied with the intended outcome of a project. The nature of our consensus 

based collaboration essentially kills a project with a ‘‘thumbs down’’ or one member’s 

disapproval of a project. It takes a tremendous amount of time and energy to reach 

consensus and recommend a project to the USFS. Let me state, that there are no 

projects without risk, but local knowledge from experienced and knowledgeable individuals on the CBC understand these landscapes well. This assures that these 

projects will not put listed species at greater risk. 

It is our intent that these forest projects take on a ‘‘restoration’’ theme. With this 

stated,I believe an abbreviated NEPA review such as an Environmental Assessment 

rather than full-blown Environmental Impact Statement be afforded to streamline 

our CFLRP project. We would also request that any other forest land management 

tools intended to restore healthy forests be given the same consideration. These 
86 

would include other collaboration sponsored projects intended to restore healthy residual forests while reducing the threat of fire and insects and disease. A collaborative process should afford the USFS less paperwork and smoother administrative 

process similar to the other restoration efforts for road obliteration and culvert replacement where NEPA is streamlined. 

Lastly,our collaboration was intentionally designed to bring all the necessary 

stakeholders to the table as well as the polarizing differences among us. Without 

the heartfelt discussions among the cultural iconic interests that comprise our collaborative, I believe it would be extremely difficult for a federal agency to respond 

and implement a large scale project that we proposed to the USFS. A lesser collaboration that only brought a select few of aligned interests does not suffice for broad 

representative support. Collaboration has to go through a crucible that reflects these 

divergent interests yet ‘‘socially acceptable land management practices’’ to move forward. It takes a lot of time and effort to develop the working relationships in order 

to be successful. 

[Responses to the following questions were not received at the 

time the hearing went to press:] 

QUESTIONS FOR NORMAN K. JOHNSON FROM SENATOR WYDEN

Question 1. I appreciate the thought and work that you have put into determining 

how the BLM’s O&C lands should be managed and how more harvest can be 

achieved consistent with environmental values. Assuming portions of the O&C lands 

were set aside for conservation purposes and the other portions were to be managed 

using your prescriptions for ecological forestry, how much acreage do you think the 

BLM should treat within a 10-year period? Do you think legislation should mandate 

such treatment levels to ensure the portion of O&C lands set aside for production 

under your prescriptions eventually gets treated? 

Question 2. I believe we should highlight the successes of collaboration and 

incentivize collaborative efforts to get restoration work accomplished. Assuming 

some minimum standards for defining a collaborative group were established, would 

it make sense to afford restoration projects endorsed by a collaborative group a 

lighter paperwork burden, less administrative review, and/or more protection from 

stalling litigation? 

What minimum criteria for the local collaborative should the Forest Service or 

BLM use to trigger a lighter administrative burden for NEPA? 

How specifically should the implementation of NEPA be different for projects endorsed by a collaborative group? 
(87) 

APPENDIX II 

Additional Material Submitted for the Record 

CORRECTION ‘‘FOR THE RECORD’’ OF THE PREPARED STATEMENT OF THOMAS TIDWELL, 

CHIEF, FOREST SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

In the Testimony submitted by the U.S. Forest Service, page 6, 3rd paragraph, 

second sentence was misunderstood and badly placed. The sentence read, ‘‘We have 

increased our funding of the timber sale program over the last 17 years from a low 

of $180 million in 1995 to $335 million in 2012.’’ 

Instead, preceding that paragraph, the following paragraph would clarify: 

We have maintained our funding of the timber sale program over the last 

17 years from $335 million in 1995 to $368 million in 2012. Although this 

represents a slight increase in funding, when adjusted for inflation it is actually a decrease of $137 million. There have been dramatic shifts in the 

funding sources: appropriations increased from $180 million to $335 million, salvage sale funds decreased from $155 million to $23 million, and regional K-V for forest products was authorized in the interim and was $10 

million in 2012. 

OREGON WILD, 

Portland, OR. 

Hon. RON WYDEN, 

Chairman, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, 

DC. 

DEAR CHAIRMAN WYDEN, 

On behalf of Oregon Wild and our organization’s thousands of supporters, please 

include the following testimony in the public record pertaining to the Committee’s 

June 25, 2013 hearing on ‘‘Challenges and opportunities for improving forest management on federal lands.’’ 

While the Committee hearing was not focused specifically on western Oregon 

BLM lands, we believe that many of the themes relate directly to your recently released ‘‘O&C Legislative Framework.’’ The following comments should also be considered feedback to this framework and considered as you work to craft legislation 

for O&C lands. 

THE IMPORTANCE OF PUBLIC LANDS FOR PUBLIC VALUES

It is important to begin with a clear understanding of the differing roles of public 

and private lands. Private forest lands are great for producing logs and economic 

returns to landowners, but private landowners do not get paid, and therefore have 

little incentive, to produce clean air and water, wildlife habitat, recreation, scenic 

views, and carbon storage. Private lands likely produce an oversupply of wood because their prices do not reflect the full cost of production. The timber industry does 

not pay for the privilege of polluting our air and water, destroying habitat, or diminishing scenic views. Public ownership thus helps correct these market imperfections 

by ensuring that public lands provide critical ecosystem services that the public 

needs and that private lands do not adequately provide. 

In recognition of the importance of public lands for public values, the first and 

most important recommendation of the 1970 Public Land Law Commission was 

‘‘Federal lands should remain under federal control and be managed for the best use 
88 

1OSU Cooperative Extension. 1971. The Public Land Law Commission Report and Its Importance to Oregon. Special Report 328. http://ir.library.oregonstate.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/ 

1957/4390/SR%20no.%20328locr.pdf 2OSU Cooperative Extension. 1972. Planning Future Land Use—It’s Importance to Oregon. 

Special Report 349. http://ir.library.oregonstate.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/1957/4444/ 

SR%20no.%20349locr.pdf 3 Id. 

4Of the 2.6 million acres of Western Oregon BLM lands, ∼2.1 million are Oregon and California (O&C) lands, ∼0.1 million are Coos Bay Wagon Road (CBWR), and ∼0.4 million on public 

domain (PD) lands. There is also ∼0.5 million acres of ‘‘controverted’’ O&C lands that lie within 

the National Forest System on six Oregon national forests. We are equally concerned about the 

disposition of all of these kinds of federal public forestlands. 5Seventy-three percent of the BLM lands in Western Oregon are located in areas identified 

by the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality as drinking water protection areas. The 

Nature Conservancy and Wild Salmon Center. 2012. An Atlas of Conservation Values on Bureau 

of Land Management Holdings in Western Oregon, Oregon Explorer http:// 

oe.oregonexplorer.info/ExternalContent/TNC/. 6Oregon DEQ Land Ownership Summary by PWS. Table available upon request. 

7http://www.outdoorindustry.org/images/orelreports/OR-oregon-outdoorrecreationeconomyoia.pdf 8 USFWS 1992. Final rule designating critical habitat for the northern spotted owl. Fed. Reg. 

Jan 15, 1992. 

with respect to public needs and desires.’’1 And the primary goal for federal land 

planning is ‘‘Use of all public lands in a manner that will result in the maximum 

net public benefit.’’2 This is essentially a restatement of Gifford Pinchot’s maxim to 

manage public forests to provide ‘‘the greatest good to the greatest number for the 

longest time.’’ 

Legislative proposals to fund county budgets through quasi-privatization of America’s public lands have been offered in the U.S. House of Representatives. These 

measures would weaken or eliminate safeguards for clean water and wildlife and 

drastically increase destructive logging, grazing, mining, and drilling. Sacrificing 

one of the most valuable and enduring assets of the United States—our public 

lands—is the wrong approach to solving county budget shortfalls, as you recognized 

when you authored the Secure Rural Schools and Self Determination Act in 2000. 

Disposal of public land either to private ownership or to a trust with a goal that 

maximizes revenue, should not be favored. The Public Land Law Commission also 

said ‘‘Public lands should be classified for transfer from federal ownership when 

maximum net public benefits would be assured by disposal. . . . Those charged 

with classifying public domain land for either retention or disposal should undertake considerable study before committance of this land. A systematic analysis and 

public hearings should be included as a part of this determination.’’3

WESTERN OREGON BLM PUBLIC LANDS VALUES

The 2.6 million acres of Western Oregon forest lands managed by the BLM4 include rivers and streams that provide clean drinking water5 to over 1.8 million Oregonians6, habitat for fish & wildlife that people fish and hunt, habitat necessary 

to recover imperiled fish and wildlife, recreation opportunities, scenic values, and 

quality of life that help drive Oregon’s economy. 

These lands are also a key element of the quality of life that Oregonians enjoy— 

from providing clean drinking water for more than 1.8 million people, to providing 

recreation and jobs in growing fields. For example, the most recent 2012 report from 

the Outdoor Industry Association confirms that the outdoor recreation industry directly supports 6.1 million jobs and contributes over $646 billion annually to the 

U.S. economy. In Oregon alone, outdoor recreation generates $12.8 billion in consumer spending, $4.0 billion in wages and salaries, $955 million in state and local 

tax revenue, and 141,000 direct Oregon jobs.7 According to the Bureau of Land 

Management, in 2010 there were a total of 6,811 jobs on Oregon BLM lands associated with recreation, accounting for a total of $662 million in output. Also, the most 

recent data from 2011 shows about 5.5 million visits were recorded on Western Oregon BLM associated with recreation. 

In addition to the natural amenities that citizens enjoy, these lands are a critical 

component of the Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP), developed by former President 

Bill Clinton and adopted in 1994. After decades of overcutting and mounting social 

controversy, this landmark document finally brought science-based management to 

the publicly-owned forests of the Pacific Northwest. The NWFP is a 100 year plan 

designed to protect and restore old-growth forests, wildlife habitat, clean water, and 

salmon, while allowing compatible timber production. It has been well-documented 

that Western Oregon BLM lands are integral to the Northwest Forest Plan’s success, as well as to the recovery of threatened species8. 
89 

9 ‘‘O&C Lands Report: Prepared for Governor John Kitzhaber’’ Feb. 6, 2013, page 29 

10http://www.oregon4biz.com/assets/docs/PrivEmp.pdf 11http://www.qualityinfo.org/olmisj/CES?areacode=41010000001&action=summary&submit=C 

ontinue 

Because these forests belong to all Americans and are a part of our nation’s rich 

heritage of public lands, legislation that would alter their management would have 

enormous implications for public forestlands, wildlife areas, deserts and grasslands, 

and waters everywhere across the United States. 

TIMBER HARVEST LEVELS

We appreciate your dedication to, as you stated in the hearing, not ‘‘compromising 

bedrock environmental values’’ in your endeavor to increase timber harvest on federal lands. But we’d like to challenge the premise that timber harvest on federal 

lands has declined dramatically, and therefore we must get it back up. 

While it’s true that federal harvest levels today are significantly lower than they 

were prior to 1991, this is for good reason. Prior to 1990, public forestlands were 

subject to unsustainable logging for decades. Watersheds were being decimated as 

roads and clear-cuts were built at alarming rates. As a result, salmon, northern 

spotted owl, and marbled murrelet populations faced precipitous declines. They were 

listed under the ESA because their habitat was fragmented and destroyed. To recover threatened species and to quell public opposition to old growth clearcutting, 

timber harvest had to decline. The harvest levels that followed the NWFP were the 

maximum allowable given legal requirements and the degraded state of the landscape. Since then, when the agencies have followed the Forest Plan’s requirements, 

harvest levels have actually remained quite steady and have been meeting Congressionally-set targets for years. 

This is nicely illustrated in the O&C Lands Report prepared for Oregon Governor 

John Kitzhaber9, which notes that since 1995 the BLM has: 

• Offered 84% of ASQ Volume • Offered 96% of the Congressionally-funded ‘target’ • Sold 96% of the volume Offered 

• Sold 80% relative to ASQ and 92% relative to the Congressionally-funded target 

This harvest has been done within the science-based framework of the Northwest 

Forest Plan. While there may be additional volume that could be generated from 

these lands through scientifically sound conservation-based thinning projects, any 

possible increase must be carefully balanced against potential harm to clean water, 

endangered species, and the ability of these public forestlands to help mitigate the 

pollution that causes climate change. 

In addition, it is important to consider that the vast majority of Oregon timber 

mills have adopted new technology for high efficiency and the ability to process 

small logs available in abundance from both public and private lands. The few remaining mills that have refused to adapt their business model to use smaller logs 

do not deserve continued public subsidies in the form of large logs from our public 

forests. While logging and wood products will always be a part of Oregon’s economy, 

this sector is not a growth industry. Manufacturing’s share of total employment has 

steadily declined for more than 2 decades (as of 2007)10, and a very small fraction 

of Oregon’s employment depends on logging federal lands11. 

‘‘MODERNIZATION’’ OF FEDERAL LAWS

In your legislative framework you stated that ‘‘The legislation will modernize existing federal laws as they apply to O&C lands so that harvest can continue at a 

steady, sustainable, and uninterrupted rate once an initial review of all lands set 

aside for management is completed and as long as subsequent timber sales comply 

with the legislation.’’ While it remains unclear what this might entail, additional 

comments in the recent hearing by both you and Ranking member Murkowski suggested streamlining bedrock federal laws that embody public participation, such as 

the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). 

‘‘Modernizing federal laws’’ could put our nation’s clean water, wildlife habitat, 

and local communities at risk. The public relies on the Clean Water Act, the Endangered Species Act, and NEPA to safeguard our natural heritage for ourselves and 

our children. The idea that we may ‘‘modernize’’ federal laws suggests sufficiency 

language, which would deny the public the right to review forest management. The 

only law that arguably needs modernizing is the O&C Act of 1937 which over-emphasizes timber production and unavoidably diminishes too many other important 

public benefits flowing from these lands. 
90 

NEPA 

Much of the hearing focused on the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)— 

which has been described as America’s ‘‘look before you leap’’ environmental safeguard. 

Simply put, NEPA requires federal decision-making to be rational, informed, 

participatory, and accountable. Any effort to amend NEPA will short-change one or 

more of these core values. NEPA guarantees that federal agencies will carefully consider the environmental consequences of a major government action, and that Americans who are affected by such an action will get accurate information about its impacts, a choice among sound stewardship alternatives, and the right to have their 

voice heard before the government makes a final decision. NEPA ensures balance, 

common sense and openness in federal decision-making, and it is an effective means 

of ensuring accountability by federal managers. 

At the heart of NEPA is its requirement that alternatives must be considered— 

including alternatives that will minimize possible damage to our health, environment, quality of life, or to protect human life. Comparing the relative merits of several alternatives is a core requirement of rational decision-making. Absent this requirement, the decision-maker might propose a ‘‘good’’ alternative, but might miss 

the opportunity to consider a ‘‘great’’ alternative suggested by the public, a cooperating agency, or a scientific reviewer. 

By making sure that the public is informed and that alternatives are considered, 

NEPA has helped the agencies reject harmful alternatives and made countless 

projects better. Cutting corners on NEPA review can have serious adverse consequences, especially when it comes to spending taxpayer money on projects that 

might harm citizens or the environment that sustains us. The value of our common 

air and water cannot be under-estimated. The value of ‘‘ecosystem services’’ is in the 

trillions of dollars. We must not diminish these services without fully and consciously considering the consequences through NEPA review. 

Done well, NEPA can save time and money in the long run by reducing controversy, building consensus, and ensuring that a project is done right the first time. 

Limiting public involvement and weakening environmental review won’t avoid controversy or improve projects. In fact, it will breed public distrust and discontent and 

slow the process of finding common ground. 

NEPA requires federal agencies to use the accurate scientific analysis and respond to opposing viewpoints. This ensures that federal managers use modern 

standards and ensures that they don’t put blinders on and ignore relevant information that has a bearing on the decision. NEPA requires consideration of cumulative 

effects, which simply means that federal managers should make decisions within 

the context of what happened before and what might happen later, and that the left 

hand should know what the right hand is doing. 

An example of how well NEPA can work might help. Several years ago, the Umpqua National Forest’s Diamond Lake Ranger District proposed to log thousands of 

acres of mature and old-growth forest (some even in inventoried roadless areas) 

around Lemolo Reservoir in the High Cascades. In the course of all stages of NEPA 

participation (scoping, public meetings and site tours, Draft EIS, Supplemental 

Draft EIS, Final EIS, ROD) the public was able to convince the Forest Service to 

modify the project so that it could eventually move forward with a modified design. 

The project was administratively appealed, but appellants agreed to withdraw the 

appeal in exchange for some changes to the design of temporary roads to be constructed and assurances about protecting some large trees. If not for NEPA, this 

project would certainly have ended up in a contentious lawsuit, but NEPA provided 

a framework for data collection, disclosure, and common understanding essential to 

a peaceful resolution. 

Another example relates to the government’s keen interest in wildland/urban fuel 

reduction. NEPA ensures that the trade-offs between fuel reduction and wildlife 

habitat and water quality are fully disclosed and carefully considered. NEPA also 

helps ensure that fuel reduction efforts are effective in terms of reducing fire hazards. It is well known that thinning forests can reduce fire hazard by reducing surface fuels and ladder fuels, but it is much less well known that thinning can also 

make fire hazard worse by moving fuels form the canopy to the ground where they 

are relatively more available for combustion during a fire, and by increasing sunlight at ground level which reduces fuel moisture and stimulates the growth of future ladder fuels. When properly used, NEPA helps the decision-maker design fuel 

reduction efforts to optimize the competing values (e.g. reducing fire hazard vs. increasing fire hazard, degrading water quality, degrading wildlife habitat, compacting soil, etc.) 

In short, NEPA is an important law that should not be undermined. However, 

there may be some ways that it can be functionally improved to address alleged 
91 

12 Rural Voices for Conservation Coaltion (RVCC) Issue Paper, May 2013. ‘‘A Communitybased Approach to Federal Forest Management: RVCC’s Vision and Essential Goals.’’ http:// 

www.susnw.org/uploads/resources/2013lCommunitylForestlMgmtlIssuelPaperlfinal.pdf 13See The Nature Conservancy and Wild Salmon Center. 2012. An Atlas of Conservation Values on Bureau of Land Management Holdings in Western Oregon, Oregon Explorer http:// 

oe.oregonexplorer.info/ExternalContent/TNC/. 

NEPA ‘‘gridlock’’. Alleged NEPA ‘‘gridlock’’ is primarily the result of two things: (1) 

well-founded public opposition to controversial projects in sensitive areas such as old 

growth, roadless areas, drinking watersheds, and important habitat areas, and (2) 

the agencies’ own bureaucratic inefficiency. 

The most effective way address the first cause is to encourage the agencies to 

focus on restoration projects that have broad public support, not to expand controversial logging of mature forests or clearcutting. Sound decisions that restore forests and watersheds and comply with federal laws and policies will be approved 

quickly without controversy, while poor decisions that degrade wildlife habitat, log 

mature and old-growth forests, or damage watersheds, have legitimate reasons to 

be stopped and the agency responsible for the decision held accountable to environmental laws and the best available science. 

To address the second cause, a number of steps can be, and are being taken. The 

Forest Service and BLM representatives at the hearing mentioned a few: Planning 

larger scale projects under one NEPA analysis, and transitioning to the new objection process for example. In an issue paper signed by forty coalition partners, the 

Rural Voices for Conservation Coalition12 identified the need for maintaining federal 

environmental laws like NEPA, but recommended some efficiencies: 

To encourage the restoration of forest health and ecological resiliency, an 

increase in NEPA efficiencies should be considered. Several factors play 

into the perceived inefficiency in following the requirements of this law. 

RVCC participants have identified some of these and recommended some 

changes in the context of the Blue Mountains Forest Partners collaborative 

group that could be applied elsewhere. Common barriers to an efficient 

NEPA process include: high agency turnover; lack of coordinated agency response to new information; lack of boilerplate information; inefficiencies in 

the ESA consultation process; lack of funding and staff; and poor communication and coordination between Forest Service interdisciplinary teams. 

We recommend that any new federal forest management legislation include solutions to these barriers. Such solutions include: entrance and exit 

memos for agency staff; timely replacement of agency staff that are transferred, retired, etc.; prompt legal and policy evaluations for circulation to 

agency staff; creation of a boilerplate library; programmatic NEPA analysis; 

and the utilization of a trained local workforce to assist the agencies in 

gathering the information and data necessary for these analyses. 

CONSERVATION AREAS AND PROTECTIONS

Senator Wyden’s legislative framework suggests the creation of ‘‘wilderness and 

other permanent land use designations whose primary management focus will be to 

maintain and enhance conservation attributes’’ in rough equivalent to the lands designated for logging. 

As recent analysis by The Nature Conservancy and others have shown, in order 

to adequately safeguard clean water, old-growth forests (current and future), and 

treasured recreation areas, far more than half of the O&C landscape needs to be 

protected or restored.13

We’d like to reiterate our whole-hearted support for protecting more Wilderness 

in Oregon. As such, we encourage you to continue to move forward with the Wilderness proposals already moving through Congress, like Devil’s Staircase and the Wild 

Rogue, without tying them to forest management legislation. These proposals enjoy 

strong support and should move forward on their own merits. 

We are concerned about the framework document’s reliance on designations other 

than Wilderness for safeguarding special places. For pristine public lands, Wilderness is the strongest and most effective tool for safeguarding conservation values. 

It has been our experience that alternative designations, such as National Recreation Areas, fall short. For instance, forests within the Oregon Cascades Recreation 

Area, adjacent to Crater Lake National Park, is currently targeted for logging by 

the Umpqua National Forest in the D-bug Timber Sale. 

We do recognize that Wilderness is not the appropriate tool to protect all important conservation values. It is important to note that Wilderness cannot be a replacement for the restoration goals of the NWFP, as there are simply too few pris-
92 

14Oregon Wild 2012. Problems and Pitfalls Associated with the Proposed ‘‘O&C Trust, Conservation, and Jobs Act’’ https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/47741/ 

O%26ClTrustlActlWhitelPaperlFINALl6-5-2012lwlDeFaziolresponse.pdf 

tine areas left on our public lands to ensure functional terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. 

For achieving broad conservation and economic objectives in a scientifically-sound 

fashion, it is very hard to improve upon the Northwest Forest Plan. Senator Wyden’s framework aspires to generate legislation to ‘‘safeguard clean water and treasured resources and focus on long term conservation of habitat, but will also include 

areas emphasizing recreation and areas that would allow for restoration based 

thinning in previously managed stands.,’’ This nearly perfectly describes the existing 

land allocation framework of the NWFP. 

FOREST MANAGEMENT PRINCIPLES

Your framework suggests that ‘‘a substantial portion of O&C lands will be set 

aside for sustainable economic activity with ultimate harvest levels governed by 

rules established in legislation.’’ Your framework goes on to say that ‘‘Sustainable 

harvest will be consistent with the most advanced forest management practices advocated by Northwest experts and demonstrated in pilot projects and collaborative 

efforts across the state, including the pioneering and successful efforts in the 

Siuslaw Forest and Medford BLM district.’’ 

Several of these points deserve specific discussion: 

Fragmenting our natural heritage 

Western Oregon forests have already been divided again and again. More than 

half of the productive capacity of Oregon’s forests is controlled by private interests. 

More than half of the O&C forests have been previously exploited for timber production. Further fragmentation of the O&C lands to emphasize timber harvest could 

worsen existing environmental problems in Western Oregon, especially if it will require logging ecologically critical areas such as unlogged mature native forests (80- 

120 years old), critical habitat for threatened species, and areas currently designated as Riparian and Late Successional Reserves. These lands are an essential 

part of the Northwest Forest Plan, and any changes to the distribution of the reserve system in the Plan must go through extensive analysis to ensure survival and 

recovery of threatened species, while also providing other social, economic, and ecological values. 

BLM lands play an important role in the Northwest Forest Plan system of reserves combining the LSR network, the riparian reserves network, and critical habitat units. Together these serve as a ‘‘land bridge’’ linking wildlife populations that 

live in the Cascades, Coast Range and Klamath Mountains. Any effort to adjust 

land use on BLM lands must conserve the functional role of BLM lands as habitat 

connectivity. Given the degraded condition of the landscape throughout the private/ 

BLM checkerboard, it may not be possible to maintain this important function of 

BLM lands on just one-quarter of the landscape (e.g., a ‘‘roughly equivalent’’ half 

of the BLM half of the checkerboard). In addition, new information regarding the 

need to protect and restore mature and old-growth habitat for threatened species 

should be considered in addition to the Plan’s reserve system. And newly recognized 

needs for storing carbon and moderating stream flows to mitigate global warming 

must be considered. 

Oregon Wild’s critique of the ‘‘O&C Trust, Conservation, and Jobs Act’’ outlined 

by Reps. DeFazio, Schrader, and Walden lays out some of the key reasons that further division of these lands fails to meet these goals.14 Rather than focus on a further ‘‘splitting of the baby’’ on the O&C lands, we would encourage you to look to 

an expansion of the successful restoration-based thinning programs taking place on 

a number of BLM Districts in Western Oregon, and on the Siuslaw National Forest. 

Such an approach offers a way to improve environmental health while increasing 

timber volume, without the need to change the Northwest Forest Plan or environmental laws. And it is the only approach that has demonstrated success in terms 

of both broad scientific and public support. 

A critique of ‘‘ecological forestry’’ and ‘‘variable retention harvest’’ clearcutting 

We firmly believe that the best available science must be used to develop and implement plans for forest management. But we disagree that the pilot projects developed by Norm Johnson and Jerry Franklin demonstrate the ‘‘most advanced forest 

management practices.’’ Projects like the Buck Rising and White Castle timber sales 

on the Roseburg District BLM have not demonstrated much more than the fact that 
93 

15http://dictionaryofforestry.org/dict/term/clearcut. 16See http://dictionaryofforestry.org/dict/term/regenerationlmethod and http:// 

dictionaryofforestry.org/dict/term/variablelretentionlharvestlsystem 

clearcutting on public lands—even with some retention trees—is highly controversial for the public and within the scientific community. 

Dr. Norm Johnson’s testimony at the June 25 hearing explained his and Dr. Jerry 

Franklin’s recommendations for increasing logging on O&C lands. Their logging 

principles are currently being demonstrated in a series of ‘‘pilot’’ projects initiated 

by the Secretary of the Interior on BLM lands. The goals of these pilot projects include 1) providing timber, 2) increasing early seral habitat, 3) and testing new logging principles. The projects in moist forest types utilize a harvest prescription 

called ‘‘variable retention harvest’’ (VRH). Johnson and Franklin spend a good deal 

of time trying to distinguish VRH from plain clearcutting. 

The Society of American Foresters defines ‘‘clearcut’’ as ‘‘1. a stand in which essentially all trees have been removed in one operation—note depending on management objectives, a clearcut may or may not have reserve trees left to attain goals 

other than regeneration. . .’’15 While the underlying goals of VRH may not be as 

purely economic as most clearcutting, and while VRH may leave more structure in 

the stand than a traditional clearcut, the results on the ground are more accurately 

described as ‘‘clearcut with reserves,’’16 with similar ecological and hydrological impacts to clearcutting. 

Clearcutting has many negative ecological impacts, not to mention its controversial social nature. This practice has significant negative impacts on wildlife and natural forest components like snags and down wood, and increases invasive weeds, 

blowdown, fuel loads, fragmentation, and forest edge habitat. It harms soil through 

compaction, nutrient loss, erosion, and landslides. It depletes forest carbon stores 

and adds to global warming pollution. And it degrades water quality, scenic views, 

recreation, and quality of life. 

Furthermore, there are significant questions about the claim that VRH is needed 

to improve or increase early seral habitat. The alleged improvement of VRH over 

traditional clearcutting is only relative to industrial forestry (which is not allowed 

on public lands). Variable retention clearcutting is not an ecological improvement 

relative to natural processes. The scientific basis for ecological forestry can be improved with answers to some basic questions, including: 

• Is there really an ecologically significant shortage of early seral habitat? • Which species are at risk? Do early seral species tend to be mobile, generalist, 

and opportunist? Are there exceptions? • Does the sheer abundance of low-quality early seral habitat on non-federal 

lands partially compensate for the shortage of high-quality early seral? 

• Are natural processes like fire, wind, and insects creating enough high-quality 

early seral on public lands? Will global warming help those trends? 

• Are there ways of enhancing early seral habitat that do not require clearcutting 

mature forests, such as improving practices on non-federal lands, modifying salvage logging practices, extending early seral conditions in existing young 

stands, and embedding structure-rich ‘‘gaps’’ when thinning dense young 

stands? 

Without addressing these many concerns, we believe the expansion of VRH across 

the BLM landscape, as recommended by Johnson and Franklin, would have many 

negative impacts. It would be a significant departure from the Northwest Forest 

Plan’s emphasis on the need to protect and restore old forests and the recent success 

enjoyed by the agencies from focusing on thinning dense young stands that were 

previously clearcut. And most importantly, there are better ways to manage our 

public forests. There is no compelling reason to shift from successful and much 

needed thinning to destructive and controversial clearcutting—with or without reserve trees. 

Collaboration and restoration 

We do not believe that the clearcutting principles and techniques being advanced 

by Drs. Johnson and Franklin should be given the same weight in any O&C legislation as the successful collaborative and restoration-based thinning work being done 

without controversy on the Siuslaw National Forest. The Siuslaw National Forest 

has been successfully producing timber as a by-product of restoration for more than 

a decade. They are not practicing clearcutting as envisioned by Johnson and Franklin, but continue to innovate in the way they thin young forests for diversity and 

wildlife habitat. The Siuslaw routinely exceeds the timber volume targets set for it 

through Congressional funding, and has largely avoided the conflict and controversy 
94 

17Oregon Solutions. ‘‘Oregon Forest Collaboratives: Statewide Inventory,’’ Working Draft, February 2013. http://orsolutions.org/beta/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/ 

OFCSIlDraftlFebruaryl20131.pdf 

that has plagued other federal public lands logging, such as the Medford and 

Roseburg BLM distrcts. 

We agree with many of the comments made at the hearing regarding the benefits 

of collaboration around forest management. In our experience, collaborations between forest management agencies and diverse interest groups and individuals can 

lead to agreement and common ground unheard of a decade ago. When common 

ground around ecological restoration is used as a starting point, forest management 

activities can proceed with little to no controversy as trust is built among parties— 

setting the stage for future on-the-ground work. This vision was advanced in your 

‘‘Oregon Eastside Forest Restoration, Old-growth Protection, and Jobs Act,’’ and 

we’ve seen progress throughout Oregon in this vein. In fact, in a draft report by Oregon Solutions for the State of Oregon’s Federal Forestlands Advisory Committee, 

they found a strong suggestion in both data and in anecdotal comments that the 

increase in collaborative groups have significantly reduced challenges to land management actions.17

We support the use of collaboration to find common ground around forest management activities, not as a substitute for NEPA, but as a complimentary process that 

can help make permanent shifts in agency focus toward ecological restoration. Unfortunately, we do not believe this common ground can be achieved when not restoration, but rather increased harvest for the sake of county funding, is the goal of 

forest management. 

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES

Finally, we direct you to four important white papers developed by our staff that 

are pertinent to this discussion. 

• Problems and Pitfalls Associated with the Proposed ‘‘O&C Trust, Conservation, 

and Jobs Act.’’ Oregon Wild. 2012. https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/47741/ 

O%26C—Trust—Act—White—Paper—FINAL—6-5-2012—w—DeFazio—response.pdf 

• ‘‘The Case for Protecting both Old Growth and Mature Forests.’’ Doug Heiken. 

2009. https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/47741/ 

Mature%20Forests%2C%20Heiken%2C%20 v%201.8.pdf 

• ‘‘Log it to save it? The search for an ecological rationale for fuel reduction logging in Spotted Owl habitat.’’ Doug Heiken. 2010. https:// 

dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/47741/Heiken—Log—it—to—Save—it—v.1.0.pdf 

• ‘‘Riparian Reserves Provide Both Aquatic & Terrestrial Benefits: A Critical Review of Reeves, Pickard, and Johnson (2013).’’ Doug Heiken. 2013. https:// 

dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/47741/Heiken%202013.%20Review%20of%20Reev 

es%20et%20al%20Riparian%20Proposal.pdf 

In the months ahead, we look forward to working with your staff to discuss the 

development of legislation for western Oregon. As you move forward, we urge you 

to consider solutions that do not sacrifice clean drinking water, critical wildlife habitat, or bedrock environmental laws and values. 

Respectfully submitted, 

SEAN STEVENS, 

Executive Director. 

Æ