CALIFORNIA SPOTIED OWL RECOVERY PLAN 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS, 

AND LAL~DS 

OF THE 

COMMITTEE ON 

RESOURCES 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

ON 

TESTIMONY ON THE FOREST SERVICE'S DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL 

IMPACT STATEMENT REGARDING THE MANAGEMENT OF THE SIERRA NEVADA RANGE IN CALIFORNIA 

93-189 cc 

JUNE 6--WASHINGTON, DC 

Serial No. 104-22 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources 

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

WASHINGTON : 1995 

For sale h)' the U.S. Govemrnent Printing Office 

Supc1intendent of D<lCLiments. C\mgressilmal Sales Oilke. \\iashington, DC' 20402 

ISBN 0-16-047668-2 
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES 

DON YOUNG, Ala;ka, Chairman 

JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah 

JIM SAXTON, New Jersey 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado 

JOHN T. DOOLI'ITLE, California 

WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado 

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland 

KEN CALVERT, California 

RICHARD W. POMBO, California 

PETER G. TORKILDSEN, Massachusetts 

J.D. HAYWORTH, Arizona 

FRANK A. CREMEANS, Ohio 

BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming 

WES COOLEY, Oregon 

HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho 

LINDA SMITH, Washington 

GEORGE P. RAJ)ANOVICH, California 

WALTER B. JONES, JR., North Carolina 

WILLIAM M. (MAC) THORNBERRY, Texas 

RICHARD (DOC) HASTINGS, Washington 

JACK METCALF, Washington 

JAMES B. LONGLEY, Maine 

JOHN B. SHAJ)EGG, Arizona 

C-EORGE MILLER, California 

l'ICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia 

E RUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota 

IALE E. KILDEE, Michigan 

FAT WILLIAMS, Montana 

SAM GEJDENSON, Connecticut 

BILL RICHARDSON, New Mexico 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American 

Samoa 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota 

NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii 

GERRY E. STUDDS, Massachusetts 

'-' '.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN, Louisiana 

S )LOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas 

C!\LVIN M. DOOLEY, Californil! 

C~LOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO, Puerto 

Rico 

MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York 

RJBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam 

SAM FARR, California 

DANIEL VAL K:!SH, Chief of Staff 

CHRJSTINE KENNEDY, Chie/ Clerk/Administrator 

J OHN LAWRENCE, Mino·ity Staff Director 

DAVID DYE, Chi~{ Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL F ARKS, FORESTS AND LANDS 

JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah, Chairman 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado 

JOHN T. DOOLI'ITLE, California 

WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado 

RICHARD W. POMBO, California 

PETER G. TORKILDSEN, Massachusetts 

J.D. HAYWORTH, Arizona 

BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming 

WES COOLEY, Oregon 

HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho 

LINDA SMITH, Washington 

GEORGE P. RAJ)ANOVICH, California 

JOHN B. SHAJ)EGG, Arizona 

BJLL RICHARDSON, New Mexico 

N. CK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia 

BHUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota 

D,\LE E. KILDEE, Michigan 

PJ,T WILLIAMS, Montana 

EHI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American 

3amoa 

GJ:RRY E. STUDDS, Massachus~tts 

Ci.RLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO, Puerto 

'tico 

NATHAN DEAL, Georgia 

M.\URICE D. HINCHEY, New York 

ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam 

ALLEN FREEMYER, Staff Director/Counsel 

STEVE HODAPP, ProJissiorw.l Staff 

(II) 
CONTENTS 

Hearing held June 6, 1995 .... ...... .... ................................. ............ ......................... .. Statements of Members: Doolittle, Hon. John T., a U.S. Representative from California .................. . Fazio, Hon. Vic, a U.S. Representative from California ............................... . Hansen, Hon. James V., a U.S. Representative from Utah and Chairman, 

Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Lands ..... .. ................ ....... . Herger, Hon. Wally, a U.S. Representative from California ........ ................ . Pombo, Hon. Richard W., a U.S. Representative from California .......... .... . . Radanovich, Hon. George, a U.S. Representative from California .............. . Thomas, Hon. William M., a U.S. Representative from California ............. . Statements of witnesses: Coates, Bill, Supervisor, Plumas County ........................................ .............. .. Prepared statement .................................................................................. . Conrad, Chris, Professional forester, Fibreboard Wood Products CompaP~ep~~~d··~t~~;;~~;;·:: ::: ::::: :: :::: :::::::: ::::::: :::::::::::::::: :: :::::: ::: :::::: :::::::::: :::::: Duysen, Kent, President, Sierra Forest Products ......................................... . Prepared statement ...................... ............................................................ . Jacobson, Cheri, Executive Director, United Forest Families .................... .. Prepared statement ...................................................... ............................ . Marks, Ken, Supervisor, Tuolumne County Administration Center ........... . Prepared statement .................................................................................. . Noritake, Judy, National policy director, Pacific Rivers Council ................ . Stewart, Frank, Resource manager, Collins Pine Company ........................ . Prepared statement ................................................................................. .. Terhaar, Terri, Pacific Rivers Council .......................................................... .. Prepared statement .............................................................. ............... ..... . Thomas, Craig, California Ancient Forest Alliance ...................................... . Prepared statement .................................................................................. . Unger, David G., Associate chief of Forest Service; accompanied by G. 

Lynn Sprague, regional forester, and Janice Gauthier, team leader 

EIS ................................................................................................................ . Prepared statement ............ ...................................................................... . Additional material supplied: 

Jacobson, Cheri, United Forest Families: Forest Health and Restoration 

Initiative-endorsed and prepared under the direction of the California 

Licensed Foresters Association ....................................... ............. ............... . Stewart, Frank, Collins Pine Company: Photographs showing the fireprone status of the Lassen National Forest .............................................. . Terhaar, Terri, Pacific Rivers Council: Wildfire and Salvage Logging, 

by Dr. Robert L. Beschta et al. .................. ................................................ .. Thomas, Craig, California Forest Alliance: Harris, Robert, USDA: Letter of December 5, 1994, to Richard Wilson, Department of Forestry and Fire Protection .............................. . The Busines Journal, October 24, 1994: Lumber Stabilizes, but Worries Lie Ahead ....................................................................................... . United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service: An Analysis 

of the Timber Situation in the United States 1952-2030 ................ .. Vroman, Michael T., California Licensed Foresters Association: Letter 

of May 16, 1995, to Janice Gauthier, California Spotted Owl EIS Team 

Leader ............ .................................. ............................................................. . 

(III) 

Page 

1 

4 

7 

1 

2 

23 

25 

24 

38 

105 

60 

178 

35 

99 

33 

86 

37 

102 

76 

64 

108 

66 

113 

68 

135 

10 

80 

89 

203 

119 

152 

176 

153 

186 

CALIFORNIA SPO'ITED OWL RECOVERY PLAN 

TUESDAY, JUNE 6, 1995 

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

RESOURCES, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m. in room 

1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. James Hansen 

[chairman of the subcommittee] presiding. 

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

Mr. HANSEN. The committee will come to order. This is a meeting 

of the Committee on Resources, the National Parks Committee on 

Forest and Lands and today our hearing is on the California Spotted Owl Recovery Plan on forestlands in California. 

The Subcommittee on National Parks, Forest and Lands is convened to hear testimony on the Forest Service's draft environmental impact statement regarding the management of the Sierra 

Nevada range in California. The draft environmental impact statement appears to be the direct result of the Forest Service's reactions to the threats that the California spotted owl is in danger of 

being listed under the Endangered Species Act and of the Forest 

Service being sued due to their management practices in the Sierra 

Nevada forests. 

Although the Forest Service itself found that the California spotted owl had not declined either in their overall distribution or 

abundance in the Sierras, the Service pressed forward with this 

DEIS that will severely impact the timber-dependent communities 

surrounding these forests. If alternative C were implemented, timber harvests would be reduced by approximately 60 percent. 

The subcommittee wonders of the necessity of implementing a 

management plan that would decimate rural communities for a 

species that is more abundant today in the Sierras than in the past 

100 years. 

There are many inconsistencies involved in this issue and I want 

to thank Congressman Doolittle for bringing this matter to the attention of the subcommittee. I welcome our witnesses who have 

come a long way to testify and I look forward to their testimony. 

The gentleman from Michigan. 

Mr. KILDEE. I have no statement, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very 

much. I am here to hear the witnesses. 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you. The gentleman from Colorado. 

(1) 
2 

Mr. ALLARD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don't have any formal 

statement. 

Mr. HANSEN. The gentleman from Oregon. 

Mr. COOLEY. I have no formal statement, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you. 

We have three different panels, b1t before we do that we should 

have two Congressmen here, the Honorable Vic Fazio from California and the Honorable Wally Herger. I don't see either one of them 

here. 

Well, we are just going to go ahe;ld. They learn around here we 

start on time and if they are not here we start without them. 

Speak of the devil-I mean Congres1:man Herger. 

Congressman Herger, you are on, brother. We just about went 

ahead without you. We will turn to our distinguished colleague 

from California, the Honorable Wall:r Herger, the time is yours. 

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

REPRESENTATIVE FROM CALIFORNIA 

Mr. HERGER. Thank you very m11ch, Mr. Chairman and members. I appreciate this opportunity to testify on behalf of the residents of my congressional district ir. northern California. The subject matter of this hearing, the management of national forests 

within the habitat range of the CaLfornia spotted owl, is an issue 

of paramount importance to those who I represent. 

To preface my remarks, I would like to acknowledge two individuals from my district who have traveled a long way to be with us 

today. I would like to thank Frank Stewart of the Collins Pines 

Company and Supervisor Bill Coate~ of Plumas County for their efforts to join us at this hearing. 

Mr. Chairman, these two gentlemom represent some of the hardest working people I know. They J:epresent those who have the 

most at stake in the management of our Sierra Forest. Because 

they live in them and rely on therr. to sustain their families and 

their futures, I urge my colleagues on the subcommittee to carefully consider their comments today. 

Mr. Chairman, we are presently faced with a dual crisis in the 

Sierra Province of northern California. On the one hand, we face 

a forest health crisis. The buildup )f natural fuels in our forests 

due to overgrowth, periodic drought, disease and insects is rapidly 

approaching epidemic proportions. 

Over the past several years, a number of dead and dying trees, 

which comprise 50 to 80 percent cf the timber, stands in some 

areas. This serious degradation of ov-erall forest health greatly increases the risk of catastrophic wildf;re throughout the region. Last year, wildfires consumed over 375,000 acres of forestland in 

California, leaving entire landscapes barren and lifeless. Much of 

this devastation occurred in the eierra Province. On the other 

hand, we have a regional socioecononic crisis. 

Timber-dependent communities h)ver on the verge of collapse 

due to a drastic decline in Federal timber harvests. Mill closures 

and their economic ripple effects have caused regular double-digit 

unemployment in many communitiE!S. Unemployment has caused 

welfare rolls to balloon and social ills like domestic violence and 

substance abuse to rise sharply. sc:Jools in the regions have also 
3 

suffered severely from the lack of funding historically derived from 

timber sales. 

Many of these schools have been forced to drastically scale back 

or completely eliminate some of their most basic scholastic programs. Mr. Chairman, common sense suggests that we are in a position 

to kill two birds with one stone. We could restore forest health and 

prevent wildfires by using dislocated timber personnel to remove 

the excess dead and dying trees and other natural fuels from our 

forests. In doing so, we would also restore economic and social stability in our timber-dependent communities. 

Mr. Chairman, this is a simple win-win proposition. Yet in what 

to me is a tragic irony, instead of pursuing this common sense solution to our current predicament, we are moving in exactly the opposite direction. Recently, the Forest Service released a draft environmental impact statement for managing California spotted owl habitat in the Sierra Nevada forest. 

Rather than addressing forest health, fire prevention and the related social and economic issues, this draft EIS focuses on the preservation of large expanses of habitat for a single species, which is 

neither threatened nor endangered, and in fact, flourishes throughout the Sierra province. Mr. Chairman, it is a mystery to me why we would jeopardize 

the health of our forest, risk the outbreak of catastrophic wildfire, 

and sacrifice the economic viability of our timber-dependent communities by implementing a forest management plan, the primary 

purpose of which is to protect a thriving and evenly distributed 

species. 

None of the alternatives presented in the draft EIS adequately 

address our fuel buildup problem. Not one of them adequately considers the economic or social impact of preserving owl habitat. 

Rather, they propose to further restrict active management on an 

increasing acreage of public forestland in order to protect owl habitat from human molestation. 

Any one of these alternatives will greatly exacerbate the risk of 

fire and speed the economic degradation of our timber-dependent 

communities. Simply stated, Mr. Chairman and members, they are 

all prescriptions for disaster. In the final analysis, neither owls nor people can live in a forest 

that has burned to the ground. On the other hand, both would 

thrive in a healthy managed forest. Mr. Chairman, I suggest to this 

committee that we change the dangerous course we are taking by 

instructing the Forest Service to direct its efforts away from preserving the owl habitat and focus them on the more pressing needs 

of restoring forest health, reducing the risk of catastrophic wildfire, 

and providing relief to depressed and rural communities. 

We do not need a management plan which protects only one kind 

of habitat. We need a plan that protects all habitats. Including the 

human habitat. The Forest Service has several excellent resources 

from which to draw in order to accomplish this task, many of which 

have not been adequately tapped to date. 

It has, for example, the Collins Pine Company, which has distinguished itself as a national leader in the practice of ecologicallysensitive forest management. This forward-thinking company has 
4 

successfully maintained a sustainable yield on its private forest 

without diversely affecting owl or any other wildlife habitat. In 

doing so, it has greatly reduced the occupants of wildfire on its 

property. Certainly, the managem0nt techniques used by Collins 

Pine on its private forest would W•)rk just as effectively on public 

forest. 

We also have the Quincy Library Group, a unique and unprecedented association of environmentalists, industry representatives 

and public officials who have poolEed their expertise to develop an 

innovative and balanced forest health and fire prevention plan specifically suited for the Plumas, Lassen, and part of the Tahoe National Forest. This adaptive management approach could be applied to other regions in the Sierra Province to establish local management plans which are specificaLy suited for the unique characteristics of individual forests. 

Mr. Chainnan and members, these are two examples among 

many. Clearly we have the wherewithal to manage our Sierra forests in a productive and environmentally safe way. In order to do 

so, however, we need to set both the draft EIS and interim guidelines for the California owl aside and return to the drawing board. 

Today, we will hear several suggestions as to how this might be accomplished. 

I respectfully urge my colleagues on this subcommittee to use 

this infonnation to instruct the Forest Service to start over and do 

what it should have done in the first place; that is, to develop a 

balanced management plan that would preserve our Sierra forests 

as healthy renewable resources for present and future generations. 

Thank you. Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Mr. Herger. Congressman Herger, 

would you stay with us just a moment. Congressman Doolittle has 

come in. 

Congressman Doolittle, we thank you for bringing this to our attention. Do you have any opening statement or any questions for 

Congressman Herger. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHI"l T. DOOLITTLE, A U.S. 

REPRESENTATIVE FROM CALIFORNIA 

Mr. DOOLITTLE. I do have an opening statement. I apologize, Mr. 

Chairman. The plane left late, I gCtt here as fast as I could. This 

is a very important hearing. I wam to thank you and members of 

your staff for organizing the hearing today. 

We are looking at potentially disastrous consequences, which 

have been, I think, well described by Mr. Herger to the people, 

communities and health of our forests in the Sierra Nevada that 

may arise as a result of implementing the Forest Service plans for 

the California spotted owl. 

I am eager to listen to testimony of the witnesses here today. Mr. 

Herger and I have worked together on these issues affecting our 

districts. We have here today several witnesses from my district 

who will testify for us in the various panels. Cheri Jacobson is the 

Executive Director of United Forest Families, an organization representing hundreds of families in s~veral States whose livelihoods 

depend on the wise management of c)Ur forests. 
5 

I would also like to welcome Ken Marks, County Supervisor, 

Tuolumne, California; and Chris Conrad, a professional forester for 

Fibreboard Wood Products Company. I also note former constituents who now belong to Mr. Herger. Bill Coates, Supervisor of 

Plumas County, and Frank Stewart from Collins Pine, both of 

whom I believe are testifying. People who are here from my district 

and attending, but not testifying, Stacey Rodriguez from United 

Forest Families and Joe Martin Trucking; Tom Lealos, President of 

TUCARE; Ginger Armstrong, education coordinator of TUCARE; 

Bill Holman, member of the Tuolumne County board of supervisors; and Barrie Conrad from Tuolmne County. 

The California spotted owl, as has been noted, is neither listed 

as threatened nor as endangered. Concern for the California owl is 

the direct result of the listing by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

of its cousin, the northern spotted owl. 

The Forest Service has had many problems with the northern 

spotted owl. I do not want to happen to our part of California what 

has happened to the Pacific Northwest and northern California 

with the spotted owl. It has been a travesty. It has been an utter 

shameful disaster what has happened to the people there. And we 

do not wish to see that repeated in our part of California. 

Environmental groups threatened to sue the Forest Service unless they implemented the same restrictive policies as were used 

for the northern spotted owl. In response to this threat, the Forest 

Service exceeded and created a steering committee to study the 

California owl in 1991. The Service established a technical assessment team, which in 1992 released the CASPO report. 

This report found the California spotted owl abundant and well 

distributed. The team recommended further study and in the interim proposed a strategy for protecting key habitat elements. The 

Forest Service, disregarding overall forest health, implemented interim guidelines which did not allow any tree greater than 30 

inches in diameter to be harvested dead or alive. 

The effect of this mandate was to preclude the harvesting of even 

an average size tree. Mills have been closing ever since. On February 6th, 1995, the Forest Service released a draft environmental 

impact statement, their draft EIS for the California spotted owl. 

The draft EIS is premised on the faulty notion that quick action 

must be taken in order to ensure suitable habitat for the owl. 

Unfortunately, the Forest Service subordinated the broader issue 

of forest health in order to give preference to the maintenance or 

viability of a single subspecies which already seems to be thriving. 

To date, the Forest Service has already spent over $50 million for 

forest plans in the Sierra Nevada region. It has spent over $6 million on studying the California spotted owl. A subspecies that is 

neither threatened nor endangered, it has been noted. Now, because of this subspecies and the CASPO report, these forest plans 

will have to be amended further, costing the U.S. taxpayer millions 

of dollars. 

In addition, Congress last year appropriated millions of dollars, 

$130 million for fighting forest fires. However, due to the severe 

fires, the actual amount spent was closer to $900 million. 

According to the draft EIS, for the California spotted owl, anumber of "acceptable" national forest acres which we can expect to lose 
6 

due to fire is as high as 350,000 acr ~s per year. The lowest number 

of so-called acceptable acre losses i3 approximately 270,000 acres. 

I find these figures to be amazing and, frankly, unacceptable. 

How much money will the U.S. tax{'ayer have to pay to fight these 

fires? What will be the cost to the communities and industries who 

depend upon these natural resourees? What will be the cost in 

wildlife? What will be the cost in terms of ruination of the soils 

when you have fires of that high he~.t intensity burn through there, 

where you aren't going to get regrcwth for many years in the future as a result? These questions mt:st be answered. 

Every alternative presented in th1~ draft EIS will guarantee that 

catastrophic fire will continue to be the major threat to spotted owl 

habitat in the Sierra. The California spotted owl unfortunately will 

not be the only victim. Our communities and the American taxpayers will be victims also. The Forest Service's own studies indicate that the California spotted owl is abundant, well-distributed 

and thriving throughout the Sierra Nevada, possibly more abundant today in some areas of the Sieca Nevada than in the past 100 

years. 

The Forest Service has also stated that the owl's uniform density 

may be the result from interterritorial interaction rather than limitation on suitable habitat. The Forest Service has found no evidence of a decline in the number m: distribution of the California 

spotted owl either in the Sierra Ne"Vada or in Southern California, 

despite the fact that logging has o::curred over nearly all of the 

conifer forest of the Sierra Nevada ir. the past 100 years. 

Why, then, does immediate action need to be taken to ensure the 

owl's habitat? Why, indeed, are we pursuing policies that will result in the vast destruction of areas of our forest triggered by the 

forest fires that surely will happen? Not a question of if, but merely 

of when they will happen. 

The Forest Service has restricted logging in the Sierra Nevada 

based upon the assumption that a decrease in habitat will mean 

the loss of owls. This would be true if the owl's habitat were decreasing. The forestry practices have not decreased the owl's habitat as demonstrated by the Forest 13ervice's own reports. The owl 

is not declining. It is more abundant today than ever before, so 

why are more logging restrictions bdng proposed by the U.S. Forest Service? 

It is not to protect forest healtl. because the threat of catastrophic fires will only increase if ar.y of the proposed alternatives 

should be implemented. It will be these fires which will destroy owl 

habitat, not logging, which is their U.reat. It is not to help our community, for indeed the interim guidelines and draft alternatives 

will destroy the timber industry in the Sierra Nevada and will devastate communities. We have seen what happens. We have seen it 

happen well to the northern spotted owl. 

Certainly, the effect of all of those proposed alternatives will be 

to destroy the livelihood of the thousands of hard-working Americans and destroy our forests by making them more prone to devastating forest fires. Unfortunately, it seems today that the extreme environmental groups are out also to destroy the venerable 

concept which has worked well; namely, the multiple use of the 

public lands, specifically the national forests. 
7 

I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing, I look forward to the testimony. Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Mr. Doolittle, we have been joined by 

our colleague from California, Vic Fazio. Vic, it is nice to have you 

with us. We will turn the time to you. 

STATEMENT OF HON. VIC FAZIO, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE 

FROM CALIFORNIA 

Mr. FAZIO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and I am not going to be 

speaking at great length, but I do want to thank you and members 

of the subcommittee for allowing me to appear before you this 

morning on short notice. It is my purpose to discuss the concept of 

forest health and particularly in relation to the California spotted 

owl EIS, which was developed recently by the Forest Service. As you know, my district is down in the valley and except in the 

eastern part of Tehama County not up in the mountains, but I am 

vitally concerned about the health and vitality of the national forest located in the northern and central California Sierra Nevada 

mountains. I am concerned about the economic well-being of my 

constituents, many of whom are related to some degree to the forest products industry. 

Whether they are directly or indirectly related to the production 

of that industry, their jobs are to some degree on the line. So I 

come to this hearing this morning out of a belief that we can find 

ways to bring people together and develop creative win-win situations. I am well aware of the efforts that have been made in the 

Quincy Library Group efforts that are going forward in Siskiyou 

County. 

In my opinion, there is no reason why we can't do right by the 

forest, right by the people who are dependent on them and right 

by the species that are endangered or threatened, including the 

owls. I think the first place to start is to stop concentrating on the 

status of a single species of wildlife. I think there has been a grow- ing emerging consensus that we need to work on habitat-wide solutions. The focus in this case is on the health of the forest, as well as 

on any of the specific species that we have mentioned and are obviously the concern of this hearing. One of the main messages that 

I want to bring to you is that forest health ought to be a nonpolitical issue. Whatever our differences on other issues, we ought to be 

able to put aside those things and work cooperatively toward improved forest health. I made a commitment to do that and I think others in this room 

are prepared to do it and I think, hopefully, by continuing to work 

together we can come up with some sensible long-range solutions 

that can be embraced by both sides of the aisle here in Congress 

and by President Clinton, Secretary Glickman and the Administration, and I look forward to meetings that members of our delegation will be having later on with the new Secretary of Agriculture 

to see if we can pursue some bipartisan agreements. 

One of the first things we have to come to grips with is the fact 

that our Federal forests throughout the West have become choked 

with too many tinder dry trees as a result of a nearly century of 
8 

vigilant fire suppression. The forest ecosystems have changed drastically. 

Historically, there were a few large trees per acre. But now I 

think we are seeing the growth o:f a lot of small diameter trees 

competing with each other for survival. These are trees that have 

become, in the most recent decade of California drought, terribly 

stressed, invaded by insects and disease, very prone to fire. 

This year, of course, with the trenendous rainfalls we have had, 

there has been an incredible growth of tinder and now I think we 

see the potential for fires this summer as we have for a number 

of summers now, that have the pot·3ntial of really doing some very 

destructive damage to the ecosystem, to the wildlife habitat and 

the very fabric of the forest. 

Sometimes these fires burn so very hot that forest soils are 

turned into beads of glass. From what I can see, there are only a 

couple of sensible reasonable alternatives. We can either allow the 

fuels to continue to build up in th ~ forest or we can remove that 

material and, where possible, beca1se some of this is beyond the 

point where it can be economically harvested, convert it into useful 

products. I think it is time for the Forest Service to look at how 

some of the major private forest la:1downers in the Sierra Nevada 

have managed their forests. 

I know that there are a couple of companies coming before you 

today, Fibreboard and Collins PinE!. I think they both have very 

good records of forest management. I think major elements of both 

the companies' forestry is the idea that timber harvest should be 

in balance with forest growth. I thh.k that is a concept that needs 

to be given some consideration by this committee and by the Administration's policymakers as well. 

I know that there are a number of controversies that you are 

going to struggle with. I know that this is an area that has been 

regrettably politicized in the past to the point where sometimes we 

reach the point where we can't efff!ctively talk with each other. I 

know that the people in the timber-dependent communities are 

going to be affected by some very significant foreign policy decisions in the next couple of months and, as you know, I couldn't be 

a stronger proponent of maintainir.:g fish and wildlife habitat on 

our forest lands. 

It is extremely important, particularly to the salmon runs that 

are so vitally significant to our recreational and commercial fishermen in California, endangered and in part threatened by the elimination of access to streams, in some cases silt buildup that may 

have resulted from forest practices of the past. Now they are 

threatened by the potential for even more silt buildup as a result 

of catastrophic fires in the present. 

That doesn't need to happen. I think we can put together a forest 

practice approach through this administration that really is the 

consensus, that good private forest managers and public forest 

managers can work out together and preserve the fish and wildlife 

populations and increase the flow of materials into the forest industry for our mills as well as for :r;eople who work directly in the 

forests themselves so they can have a livelihood. In my experience, fewer issues hEVe become more polarized, but 

I do think it is time in the division in the political calculus that 
9 

we face at the moment to try to go back to work and see whether 

or not we can find consensus. 

I am not interested in legislation that is simply going to be a political document that will further polarize. I do want to work with 

this committee, with my colleagues in the region, to see if we can 

reach agreement with the administration on something that will 

advance the cause of all these competing objectives. Thank you, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you. 

Congressman Herger and Congressman Fazio could you stay just 

a moment, we may have some questions for you. The gentleman 

from Michigan, do you have any questions for our colleagues? We 

will limit the members to five minutes on their questions. 

Mr. KILDEE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to thank 

both the Members. They are both well-respected Members of Congress. I appreciate their testimony. Just maybe one suggestion, Mr. 

Herger, since we are discussing spotted owl you might want to 

change your metaphor, "kill two birds with one stone. " It might 

not be very wise. 

I do appreciate your testimony. It is great to see the two parties 

represented here giving similar testimony. I don't know what my 

final decision will be when it comes to a vote, but both of your testimonies were very helpful. Thank you. Mr. HANSEN. Thank you. 

The gentleman from Colorado. 

Mr. ALLARD. I don't have any questions, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. HANSEN. The gentleman from Oregon. 

Mr. COOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I have no questions. I just want to 

make a comment. 

As you know, I represent the second congressional district of Oregon, which is about 73,000 square miles and some of the things 

talked about or mentioned by both of the Congressmen really have 

been devastating to my area as far as rational management is con- cerned. 

I think that your comments, both of you, about a balanced management approach between timber utilization, multi-uses of forest 

as well as the protection of the species has been overlooked to a 

point that it has not helped the species nor has it helped the communities in which these timberlands lie. 

I hope that these discussions can bring about a rational decisionmaking process that maybe we can also apply to the northern part 

of this country as well. Thank you very much. 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you. 

The gentleman from California, Mr. Doolittle. Mr. DOOLITTLE. I just want to thank both Members for their testimony and just hope the Forest Service and the administration 

takes note when you have the range of political philosophies 

spanned by Fazio, Herger, and Doolittle and we are coming together asking for some reasonable forest policies based on balance 

and overall concern for all the factors in the environment, including 

the human factor, I think it is a coalition worthy of note. 

This is not just one philosophy or one party at this point. It is 

a recognition finally that we are going to need some common sense 
10 

brought to the needs of the region and I just commend both the 

gentlemen for their testimony. Mr. HANSEN. Thank you. I join with you in thanking our two colleagues for their testimony. It was excellent. I agree with them. Somewhere there has to be some balance in this where we are 

going to lose jobs, take a community apart, people are overreacting, 

those problems we always get into. I think the most trite statement-I shouldn't call it a trite statement-but the most overused statement there is in Congress is "a 

level playing field. " I would like to know where that is. Most of the 

time it is tilted, if you notice. 

We thank our two colleagues for being with us. If you would like 

to join us, we would be happy to have you with us. 

We will now turn to our first panel. Our first panel is Mr. David 

G. Unger, Associate Chief of the Fo:~est Service; G. Lynn Sprague, Regional Forester, San Francisco, C.3.lifornia; and Janice Gauthier, 

Team Leader, Sacramento, California. Thanks. 

We want to thank our panel for being with us today. That is very 

kind of you to join us. 

Mr. Unger, are you the lead-off m;m and the rest are supporting 

cast or do you all have a moment to npeak? 

Mr. UNGER. I will lead off, Mr. Chairman. We appreciate the opportunity to be present at this important hearing on this important 

subject. Mr. HANSEN. May I just ask you how much time you are going 

to need for your testimony? 

Mr. UNGER. I would like to ask that our full statement be included for the record and I would just like to summarize it in a few 

minutes here. 

Mr. HANSEN. OK. Without objection, your full testimony and 

your testimony and the witnesses on panel two and panel three, 

their entire testimony will be included. We try to keep these things 

from rambling on too long and if you tell us what you are looking 

at, we are going to time you and we will give you additional time 

if necessary, but we don't want it to go on ad nauseam or forever 

infinitis, so tell me how long you think you will need. 

Mr. UNGER. I would certainly think within five minutes. 

Mr. HANSEN. Dawn, would you give Mr. Unger five minutes and 

any other speaker up to five minuteE. If they need additional time, ask for it and it is yours. Mr. Unger, the floor is yours. 

STATEMENT OF DAVID G. UNGER, ASSOCIATE CHIEF OF FOREST SERVICE; ACCOMPANIED BY G. LYNN SPRAGUE, REGIONAL FORESTER, SAN FRANCISCO, AND JANICE 

GAUTHIER, TEAM LEADER, SACRAMENTO 

Mr. UNGER. Thank you. I am accompanied by our regional forester, Lynn Sprague, as you indicated and Janice Gauthier who led 

the team that developed the environmental impact statement. 

The environmental impact statement, as perhaps has been mentioned already, was prepared in respQnse to the regulations governing the National Forest Management Act protection diversity by assuring the viability of fish and wildlife within the planning areas 

that we are concerned with. 
11 

Since 1984, the management of California spotted owls was undertaken through using a network of spotted owl habitat areas that 

were similar to those in the northern spotted owl area, but in 1990 

a scientific analysis team indicated that that strategy was flawed 

and that it would not assure the long-term viability of the northern 

spotted owl. This led to the development by our team of the CASPO 

report that a number of the speakers have mentioned here this 

morning. 

They found no clear evidence of decline in the overall distribution 

nor abundance in any forest type principally because the data on 

population are scanty. Studies have been undertaken for only a 

short period of time. But they did find that continued even age 

management of our forests and the short rotations that we were 

using were resulting in a rapid decline in key habitat components 

that are critical to the long-term survival of the owl. This refers 

particularly to large old trees used for nesting. 

They also found that there was, as has been mentioned again 

this morning, a risk of high severity fires to owl habitat due to our 

fire suppression policies over the past several decades. They recommended retention of old trees and snags. They recommended 

thinning to help reduce fire hazards and in 1993 we adopted in 10 

national forests this environmental strategy of those recommendations until we could develop a long-term strategy through this environmental impact statement. That process began in 1993. The draft 

was issued in February of this year. I might mention that because of the complexity of the ecosystems 

involved and the kinds of concerns that were expressed by the public as we were gathering their input as we started on this process, we took a broader approach than just dealing alone with the California spotted owl. We looked at habitat requirements for the fish 

and wildlife community as a whole. We looked at forest health and 

the risks of high severity fire. We looked at riparian areas and 

their contribution to aquatic habitat. 

The preferred alternative that is out for public comment looks to- ward management of valley bottoms for old growth forests, the 

mid-slopes to be managed for protection of owls and timber production through small group selection and on the ridgetops for open 

forest managed as shaded fuel breaks. There is definitely a proposed reduction under this form of management in timber. The amount that would be estimated to be produced would be about 466 million board-feet per year. When you 

look at the green volume plus the expected salvage volume, comparing that with the present combination of green and salvage volume, it amounts to something like a 45 percent reduction, a very 

substantial and serious reduction. 

But this proposal does aim at the sustainable management of all 

resources on those 10 national forests. 

Let me just conclude by saying we are aggressively seeking comment on the EIS and our preferred alternative and the other alternatives. We have extended the comment period to July lOth. We 

are interested in what we have heard this morning already from 

your distinguished colleagues. We expect our final decision is likely to combine elements from 

a number of alternatives rather than being confined to solely one, 
12 

but we are committed to making t he best decision that we can 

based on the best science and the best public information that we 

can gather in this process. Thank you for this opportunity and Mr. Sprague and Ms. Gauthier and I are available to answer your questions. 

[The statement of Mr. Unger can bt~ found at the end of the hearing.] 

Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Sprague, do you have any statement? 

Mr. SPRAGUE. No further comment. 

Mr. HANSEN. Ms. Gauthier, do you have anything. 

Ms. GAUTHIER. No. 

Mr. HANSEN. The gentleman from Colorado. 

Mr. ALLARD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I would assume that you are fairly familiar with the biological 

characteristics of the northern and California spotted owl. 

Mr. UNGER. Those characteristics I am not familiar with, Mr. 

Sprague and Ms. Gauthier are certainly--

Mr. ALLARD. So you do have expertise with you? 

Mr. UNGER. Yes. Mr. ALLARD. Is the chromosome count for the northern spotted 

owl and the California spotted owl th1! same? 

Ms. GAUTHIER. I am sorry. I am not going to be able to answer 

that. I would be happy to provide tha·; information for you. I should 

explain that I am actually a professional forester. I am not a biologist. 

Mr. ALLARD. I see. That is what I was hoping we could have. If 

we have a northern spotted owl and a California spotted owl, we 

put them in the same tall tree, are wE· going to have babies? 

Ms. GAUTHIER. I would say it is possible, yes. 

Mr. ALLARD. Then they would have to have the same chromosome count if that was possible. But I would like a clarification 

of that for the record, if we would, please. 

What is the range that is required on a northern spotted owl or 

a California spotted owl? I had heard a figure, was it 100 miles, 

200 miles? 

Ms. GAUTHIER. No. I am sorry we don't have enough data available to respond to that question. As :rvt:r. Unger indicated, the California spotted owl has not been stucied for as much time as the 

northern spotted owl. 

Mr. ALLARD. Can you give me an es;imate? 

Ms. GAUTHIER. No, I can't. Mr. ALLARD. How much forest area are you trying to set aside 

for a nesting pair of owls? Do you have that fundamental question? 

Ms. GAUTHIER. Well I guess I could respond to this in another 

way. What we are attempting to do iE to design some management 

strategies that provide for the owls on the landscape basis. We are 

not looking to manage individual owls. That would be very difficult. 

We are looking to manage the population by providing certain habitat needs across the landscape. 

Mr. ALLARD. So the amount of tree:; that you need for a nesting 

pair of a certain species you really don't have any idea at this 

point? 

Mr. ALLARD. Well, we certainly know that the California spotted 

owl selects and prefers large trees generally over 40 inches in di-
13 

ameter in size to nest in. We do know that. So how do you determine how much area a nesting pair needs? 

Ms. GAUTHIER. I don't have an answer for you on that. Mr. ALLARD. I would like to have a memo that would help clarify 

that if we could, please. 

Ms. GAUTHIER. Sure, we would be happy to. 

Mr. ALLARD. How far north does the California spotted owl 

range? 

Ms. GAUTHIER. Approximately up to the Pit River in northern 

California. 

Mr. ALLARD. It goes to the Pit River and it doesn't go into Oregon. 

Ms. GAUTHIER. No. 

Mr. ALLARD. So as soon as the spotted owls fly up to the Pit 

River, they quit. 

Ms. GAUTHIER. No, then you get into northern spotted owl territory. 

Mr. ALLARD. So it is a geographic distribution between the northern and the southern spotted owl. 

Ms. GAUTHIER. Exactly. 

Mr. ALLARD. So what is scientific about that? What is scientific 

about the classification of a northern spotted owl and the southern 

spotted owl when it is just a geographic distribution separated by 

a stream? 

Ms. GAUTHIER. They are considered to be different subspecies of 

the same species. Mr. ALLARD. So then if you have a northern spotted owl that 

mates with a California spotted owl, how do you classify that subspecies? 

Mr. UNGER. I think, as Ms. Gauthier indicated, we need to get 

you some further information about the scientific basis of the dis- tinction of the subspecies. 

Mr. ALLARD. Well, I think it is important if this committee is 

going to analyze this kind of report on a scientific basis that we 

need some good scientific facts and up to this point in time, I think 

it is sadly lacking and I would hope that we can get a memo to 

this committee that fundamentally answers those scientific questions. Mr. UNGER. We will be happy to provide that to you, sir. 

Mr. ALLARD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, doctor, and he is a doctor. 

The gentleman from Oregon. 

Mr. COOLEY. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. Mr. Unger, you know this is a very frustrating thing for me and for the people 

that I represent in the Second District. We asked the same questions that are now asked by others because now they are starting to feel the impact of interpretation of 

the endangerment or possible endangerment in the habitat. 

Janice, I won't even try to pronounce your last name, I will just 

mess it up. I would like to take you to eastern Oregon and show 

you we don't have many spotted owls in eastern Oregon, but in my 

southern and western part of my district, which takes in Josephine 

and Jackson County, we have spotted owl territory. And to show 

you the northern spotted owl, which is in those areas living in ev-
14 

erything from culverts down in the road areas to snags and this 40-

inch diameter preferred tree stand just doesn't make sense to a lot 

of us that are nonscientists and do r,ot have the discipline that you 

have. 

I find it difficult, I guess, to say that we are using a species in 

order to obtain a goal and the goal iH to stop cutting trees on public 

lands. Using a species that may or may not truly be endangered 

by several scientific people disputing their endangerment, this 

whole movement has created even a threat to that species itself. 

Instead of people in private prop ~rty enhancing that particular 

species, and doing whatever they ca,1 do to keep that species alive, 

many times, as you know, that spedes is disappearing because of 

the fear that people have and the concerns that they have that 

they will lose their economic value to the community, their private 

property rights, their whole way of life because somebody designates a bird to be endangered when they know literally there are 

hundreds of those animals within certain ranges of private property, which you or your people and people in government agencies 

have spent a lot of time tracking ·wer private properties, which 

they should not have done classifying things and creating problems 

for the people. I think that we should look at thi:> in a different light looking in 

the idea that we should reward people for taking care of the species 

and not punish them for a species being on their property. I think 

that we are going through another cycle now. 

Now, that cycle has dropped do¥'n into California and we are 

going to see the same problems created by the northern spotted owl 

now in the California spotted owl ir: reality. In many cases it was 

not really truly endangered. It was being used as a method, a procedure that could eliminate logging and we all know that the logging practices that have been enforced upon public lands have not 

been to the betterment of those landn. 

You can look at private forestlandEJ right next to public lands and 

see the difference even from the air or on the ground. Basically, we 

in government have done a very poor job of managing our public 

lands because of various reasons and one of those reasons happens 

to be the spotted owl. And the philonophy by some individuals that 

this is a tool in which they can use to take the multi-use process 

and preserve an animal at all costs, ·.;hat may or may not even really be truly endangered. I hope that in these hearings that we can make a determination 

not only whether the animal is endangered or not, but what we can 

do to actually help the animal surviv-e if it truly is going to be endangered and threatened and not merely take a punitive action toward those people in those commun;ties where this particular animal may be a habitat or will be involved in the local area. 

I think we need to look at this in a different way than the way 

we have in the past and put it in a perspective of what we can do 

as a community, and when I say community, both you as a manager of public lands and the community together to make sure that 

these species are taken care of, but also with a realistic attitude 

toward are they really endangered, what we can do to have commercial activity and multi-use of public lands and still being able 

to have the species survive. This idea of need for an animal to have 
15 

a 100-mile radius in order to be able to survive with the proper 

food and environment is pretty tough to understand. 

All I wanted to ask you is one question after that statement. You 

have had management plans before in this particular area which 

have cost the public millions and millions of dollars to develop. 

What has changed from those times that you spent that money in 

your planning to what we are seeing today? 

Mr. UNGER. I think that the kind of plan that is represented in 

the environmental impact statement that has been drafted here 

represents a more comprehensive and realistic approach than we 

have been able to achieve in the past. That should give us a result 

that will avoid even more difficult problems down the road should 

species become listed as threatened or endangered-more impacts 

on the economy, more problems in the courts. 

I think that by taking a more comprehensive approach we are 

going to be able to defend our outcomes more adequately and be 

able to do a better job of sustaining all the resources and we certainly associate ourselves with your comments about the importance of having a balanced, multiple-use approach to both the production of goods and services from the public lands as well as the 

protection of the fish and wildlife species that are present on them. 

Mr. CooLEY. One more question, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. HANSEN. Go ahead, take one more. 

Mr. CooLEY. We are not revisiting your previous plans merely 

for the fact that you may or may not find yourself in a position defending yourself in litigation, are we? 

Mr. UNGER. That is not the only reason that we approach a different way of doing planning. Certainly, we have to take into account the record in the courts, the case law that develops, the requirements of the laws under which we operate and try to do our 

best job to come with decisions that are legally defensible. 

Mr. COOLEY. Do you feel that your decisions prior to this time 

were not legally defensible? 

Mr. UNGER. I feel that, based upon our understanding at the 

time, based upon the scientific information available at the time, 

that we did our best to make those legally defensible. But when 

new information comes along, we have to, by law, take it into account and see whether it means that we should change our plans. 

Mr. COOLEY. Could you specifically tell me what new information 

has come along that creates the philosophy today that you must 

change your plan? Could you do that with something specific? 

Mr. UNGER. In this specific case rather than generally, it was the 

report of the scientific team in 1990 that found that the strategy 

of having habitat conservation areas, the SOHAs, spotted owl habitat areas, was flawed in terms of long-term survival of northern 

spotted owls and the additional information that we had to take 

into account was the results of our team that looked specifically at 

the California spotted owl and determined that if we continued our 

current management practices that we were going to endanger the 

habitat upon which the owl depended in the future. 

Mr. COOLEY. Even though there may or may not be a possible 

connection between the northern and the California spotted owl, 

you are just assuming. That is one. And number two is that even 

though previous scientific people of your own choosing came up 
16 

with information that there are more animals available than 

maybe in the past and that they we ~e certainly not endangered or 

threatened at this point, you looked .it your plan and said the plan 

you put together in 1990 was inadequate to cover what is going to 

go from now forward. Is that what you said? 

Mr. UNGER. I was saying that the plans that were developed in 

most cases earlier than 1990, the L:1formation that the scientists 

produced in 1990 reflecting concerns about the strategy that we 

·were using to protect the California spotted owl might be, as it was 

found to be for the northern spotted owl, inadequate caused us to 

investigate whether indeed that was true for the California spotted 

owl so we did look specifically at the California spotted owl to answer that question and found that th ~re were concerns. 

The scientists found that despite the fact that we don't have any 

clear evidence about a decline in population now, because of the 

lack of data over a long period of time, that there was enough con- cern about habitat damage that would affect the situation in the 

future, we needed to look at this for development of a long-term 

strategy. 

Mr. HANSEN. One more question. Mr. COOLEY. One thing. I just want to get a statement. 

So what you are saying is you determined scientifically, intellectually that there is a possibility, because you don't know for sure, 

that the methods you have now are going to create a decline. You 

just think that maybe they are. 

Mr. UNGER. The best scientific adv;ce is that it will be a problem. Mr. COOLEY. OK. Could you tell us where that advice came from? 

Mr. UNGER. From the technical committee that developed the 

CASPO report. 

Mr. HANSEN. The gentleman from California, Mr. Doolittle. 

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Unger, why doesn't this draft EIS have an alternative that 

bala:c.ces growth with removal? 

Mr. UNGER. I am going to ask Mr. Sprague to comment on that. Mr. SPRAGUE. Congressman, that is a difficult question to answer. There are a whole lot of factor:: involved in balancing growth 

with removal. In the situation we are in, part of the strategy is to 

grow some of the old growth or old growth type-larger trees back 

into these stands, so there is a certah amount of growth associated 

with that that wouldn't be calculated in the removal. 

There is a certain amount of the Lnder story growth that is not 

of commercial value that would, as part of our strategy, be removed 

in other methods through underburLing and other fuels reduction 

methods that doesn't come into the calculation, so it is hard to really balance the growth with removal in a general way. 

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Well, Mr. Sprague, now private foresters generally balance growth with removal, do they not? 

Mr. SPRAGUE. I cannot comment on how or what their strategies 

are. 

Mr. DOOLITTLE. OK. Well, you have proposed in_ this dra!t DEIS 
17 

habitats and the other factors that I talked about, I would say yes, 

we are. The whole strategy was built on improving forest health as 

well as providing habitat for not only the spotted owl but all of the 

other wildlife species that exist in the Sierra forests. 

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Sprague, what is the threat to the forest 

health of the catastrophic forest fire? 

Mr. SPRAGUE. Well, the threat is to wipe out the forest. 

Mr. DOOLITTLE. And what happens to the species? 

Mr. SPRAGUE. The same. 

Mr. DOOLITTLE. So they are, the forest, their habitat and themselves are wiped out by a catastrophic forest fire, is that fair to 

say? 

Mr. SPRAGUE. Potential. 

Mr. DOOLITTLE. My concern here is-go ahead and answer that 

one. I don't want to jump the gun. Is that a yes? 

Mr. SPRAGUE. Yes. Mr. DOOLITTLE. OK. This report, while openly acknowledging the 

threat of forest fire, I mean I realize other members here may not 

have flown over our forests lately, but you know, if you ever had 

occasion to fly to California, check out those forests as you go over. I mean, it is shocking to see the number of dead and dying trees. It really is. 

About a third of them are dead in many areas. And of course 

that makes it more difficult and Ms. Chenoweth testified there was 

a fire in Idaho that burned down below the surface of the ground. I think the testimony was several feet. And destroyed the soil to 

such an extent that the years have gone by and there still isn't 

much to show in the way of regeneration. 

Anyway, my question to you is, before you come forth with a variety of alternatives which will have a major impact on the area, 

you ought to produce an alternative that at least balances growth 

with removal. And I would ask you for your reaction to thai idea 

as you contemplate where to go from the draft DEIS and whether 

you would be willing to entertain the thought that you would come 

forth with a new alternative that would do that. 

Mr. SPRAGUE. We haven't foreclosed doing anything like that because to be clean with the process here, our public comment period 

is intended to gather all the information and questions, and other 

data that we possibly can to assess what we did with those alternatives and do we indeed need to craft another one, or recraft the 

existing one. So we are not precluding doing that. 

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Isn't the greatest threat for catastrophic forest 

fires overgrowth of the forest? 

Mr. SPRAGUE. We have a situation where, because of our fire ex- clusion, our extremely good efforts at fire prevention and putting 

fires out once they get started over the last hundred years, we have 

a tremendous amount of growth that has developed that in historic 

times would have been removed through periodic natural fires. Because we have been at this fire exclusion for some hundred rs, 

there is a tremendous amount of buildup that we just simply 

wouldn't be able to deal with in a very short time span. 

What we are trying to do with this and several of the other processes we have going in cooperation with the State of California is 

working at overall strategies, looking at the national forest system 
18 

lands as well as other Federal lands and private lands and the 

overall fuel reduction needs that Wf! have in the State and trying 

to prioritize work in an orderly way at that. But it is not something 

we can do overnight. Mr. DOOLITTLE. I know my time is up. 

May I just pursue the end of this question? 

Mr. HANSEN. Go ahead. Mr. DooLITTLE. I guess what concerns me, Mr. Sprague, well, one of many things but in the line of questioning we are in right 

now, when we have already got greatly overgrown forests and you 

admitted that and the chief of the Forest Service has said that is 

a big problem. 

In fact, when you have them so ovtlrgrown they become too shady 

and the desirable kinds <>f trees can't even grow and you get the 

shade-tolerant varieties, when you have a situation we already 

have, which I frankly I don't think it is an overstatement to say 

really it is near a crisis or indeed at a crisis point already in terms 

of the threat we face from a catastrophic forest fire. 

But your service has reviewed all c·f this and you have come forth 

with alternatives that have the ratio of annual growth to ASQ varies from 2 to 15 times. Now, the preferred alternative is 4 times. What is disturbing to me, that means every year, year in and year 

out, we are going to be having 4 ti:mes as many trees, new trees 

being grown as are being taken. To me, that is a sure-fire formula 

for disaster. Am I missing some part of this picture or how do I 

react to that? 

Mr. SPRAGUE. Well, it is not that easy. It is not in numbers, it is in volume. And even in the numbers, 

if we are able to carry out some of the fuel reduction strategies in 

the ways of thinnings and prescribed fire underburnings, we will 

be removing-! don't know what p~rcentage. I couldn't give you 

that number. But we will be removing a significant amount of that 

growth in that process. So it is not a straight relationship there. 

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Well, I think I misspoke. I didn't mean to 

imply-! said trees. What I meant was amount of timber. But I mean, the removal 

of the undergrowth and so forth tha1. tends to be the case anyplace 

they are managing forests anyway, doesn't it? I mean that is going 

to be a common factor just about any place. 

So if we include that, to think that we are somehow better off, I mean, I am not sure that that should be included because that 

is a routine part of good forest management anyway, isn't it, apart 

from the norm-what you think of as normally subject to the ASQ 

determinations. Mr. SPRAGUE. Correct. Mr. DOOLITTLE. All right. 

Well, I guess my time is up, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you. 

The gentleman from Minnesota, :·~. Vento. 

Mr. VENTO. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The whole issue, of course, of fire suppression I mean is trying 

to build some fire resilience. The whole issue that is missing in the 

last series of questions was that tl ere are differing species now 
19 

that are coming back after the cutovers and they are not as fireresistant; is that correct, Mr. Sprague? 

Mr. SPRAGUE. Well, where we have excluded fire but have not 

had any other removal of the timber, it is different species that are 

shade-tolerant kinds of species coming in underneath. 

Mr. VENTO. They are susceptible to fire, right? 

Mr. SPRAGUE. Correct. 

Mr. VENTO. Fuel buildup means that instead of a small fire from 

a lightning strike at a time of the year where it may not spread, 

it may in fact get into a catastrophic type of fire, is that correct? 

Mr. SPRAGUE. Correct. 

Mr. VENTO. That is because of man's activities there for 100 

years, both harvesting and putting out fires, is that correct? 

Mr. SPRAGUE. Yes. Mr. VENTO. That is what the study says. The issue here of course 

is one of the California spotted owl, not the northern spotted owl. 

That is not on the endangered, threatened list yet; is that correct? 

Mr. SPRAGUE. That is correct. 

Mr. VENTO. I don't know whether you could answer the question 

regarding whether the genetic makeup is such that the Mexican 

spotted owl and the northern spotted owl could interbreed. But 

when scientists look at this I think they are looking at whether or 

not those subspecies can or cannot produce. 

The issue here is they behave significantly different than the 

northern spotted owl. I think your testimony, Mr. Unger, is that 

they say that the California spotted owl has a different behavior 

and is much more adaptable to differing types of landscapes than 

the northern spotted owl is; is that your understanding? 

Mr. UNGER. That is my understanding. I should mention in relationship to the earlier questions that were asked about the--

Mr. VENTO. Well, you are going to submit the entire DNA map, 

aren't you? 

Mr. UNGER. I just wanted to make the point that it is the Fish 

and Wildlife Service that determines which is a species and subspecies and so forth and they do that in consultation with other 

members of the scientific community. Mr. VENTO. I know when we get that information we will be able 

to get the right policies, so I trust that you will get that to us. 

Science to some of my friends is like what religion was to the Inquisition. 

In any case, I think I know a little bit about it and trust that 

obviously the issue here with this is to try to get ahead of the train 

wreck, as Secretary Babbitt has tried to put in place a plan. So this 

came out as interagency task force. This is for Region V. Jack 

Ward Thomas headed that interagency. 

So you have all the different agencies at the table to try to come 

up with this plan. This portends not just the management of the 

spotted owl, the California spotted owl, but an ecosystem type of 

approach; is that correct? 

Mr. UNGER. Yes. It attempts to be comprehensive and look at the 

entire fish and wild life community, not just the California spotted 

owl, and it is an attempt to be proactive in order to come up with 

a plan that will avoid the more difficult and serious impacts of listing should the species be listed. 
20 

Mr. VENTO. Well, I was reading· through a 1980 study here, 

Reagan-era-! don't know whether it was a Forest Service study or 

who did it-that is in our testimony from obviously a suspect group 

here, the California Aged Forest Alliance. 

They say the study here said this was going to happen in the 

1990's with regards to this particular region. So it isn't something 

that should come as a big surprise that we have to limit this. But 

the issue in terms of fire suppressic•n then is one of not expending 

a lot of money to put out the small fires but to try to get back to 

the fire-resistant species like the Ponderosa pine. 

Mr. UNGER. We definitely agree with a number of the comments 

that have been made here that fire policy is extremely important, 

not just in this California situation but in many other parts of the 

country and that we need to be looking at fuels management, we 

need to be looking at our suppression policies, prescribed burning 

in order to do a better job of achieYing forest health and we have 

announced some initiatives last year in that direction. We are trying to incorporate those kinds of considerations in our budget proposals and in our policies. 

Mr. VENTO. Well, I commend you. for that. Obviously there has 

been a lot of debate about salvage. 

I have been in the middle of it bec:ause I think that forest health 

in this forest is not good but I think the reasons for it are because 

of fire suppression and the selective type of harvesting that has 

gone on obviously in terms of your forest management plans, and 

you have attempted to revamp them at this time to try to take this 

into consideration. 

I mean, one of the problems that we have is we keep getting new 

information and your job and my job is to write that into policy or 

into law to in fact integrate that. That is very unsettling. Some would like business as usual. Business as usual is one billion board-feet harvest and if we proceed with that, we will not. 

That isn't necessarily a profitable area, like with salvage; very 

often it loses money. More often than not, it loses money, especially 

if you are trying to do it for fire sup?ression purposes. If you don't, 

you leave a lot of other nondesirable species or tree sizes behind. 

So we talked about thinning ani. riparian management, all of 

that as part of forest health. The forest is unhealthy in this area 

but forest health hopefully with tl:..e revamped policies will cost 

money, unfortunately. We don't havE~ the stub of the receipts. That 

will be one of the ongoing issues that we face, so I see my time has 

expired but I don't want to cut off Mr. Unger if he had a response 

to that. Mr. UNGER. No, I think that you have stated the situation very 

well. 

Mr. VENTO. Thank you. 

Thank you. 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Mr. Vent:). 

Mr. Romero, a member of the committee, does not have any questions. Mr. Herger, we have gone through the committee members. We 

will now turn to you for questions. 

Mr. HERGER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 
21 

Again, I thank you for the opportunity of joining your committee 

on this very important hearing which very dramatically affects my 

district as the gentlemen, the gentlelady are aware. My district 

houses eight national forests, covering 36,000 square miles in the 

northeastern part of California. Although they are not as large as 

the gentleman in Oregon's district, they do make up a major part 

of the Sierra providence. So what we are doing is very important. 

I would like to express my agreement with one aspect of the comment made by the gentleman from Minnesota, on using the new 

science we have. We need to make decisions based on our most current information. If there is one thing that we are very aware of, 

as Ms. Gauthier mentioned, it is that we haven't been able to ascertain a lot of information, or science on any of these issues in the 

recent past. 

As Ms. Gauthier has pointed out, so many of our decisions have 

been made on incomplete or inadequate information. I feel that it is very important to emphasize the importance of 

credible science in dealing with this issue. I'm sure that you are 

all familiar with the Verner report, a group of scientists that were 

studying this very area to come up with some decisions. I will 

quote from their report. This is a currrent science, and the information was compiled from scientific investigation; and, again, I hope 

the gentleman from Minnesota is listening. Mr. VENTO. I am listening. Mr. HERGER. To some of this new science that I am talking 

about. Let me read from the report. "In spite of the fact that logging has occurred over nearly all of 

the conifer forest of the Sierra Nevada in the past 100 years and 

especially in the past 50 years, spotted owls continue to be widely 

distributed throughout most of the conifer zone. Indeed, spotted 

owls may be more abundant in some areas of the Sierra Nevadas 

today than they were 100 years ago." 

Now, let me move more recently to Ms. Gauthier. Excuse me if 

I am not pronouncing your name right. But let me go to your re- port, two spots from pages 2-39, the first, this is a quote out of 

your CASPO report, the draft CASPO EIS. "The California spotted owl appears to be abundant and well distributed within the forests of the west slope of the Sierra Nevada. 

It is possible that the spotted owl is more abundant today in some 

areas of the Sierra Nevada than in the past 100 years or prior." 

You even go further than the Verner report, or prior-if the gentleman from Minnesota is still listening. 

Mr. VENTO. I am listening. 

Mr. HERGER. Thank you. Or prior to Euroarnerican settlement. 

Mr. VENTO. When are you going to say something? 

Mr. HERGER. I guess. 

Mr. VENTO. Do you want me to answer the question for you? 

Mr. HERGER. No, it is still my time. 

Part is new science and what we are corning up with, and again, the allegations are that, somehow, these owls are disappearing. The question should be, why are we shutting down all of these 

mills? In the last several years 29 mills in the district that I represent have been shut down. This is due to Federal policy that I 

believe is misguided. 
22 

That is the nicest way of putting it, misguided, dramatically misguided Federal policy. Now, Mr. Sprague, I want to thank you for 

taking the time to come out to a woods tour we recently had in our 

district. The gentleman, my colleague from California, mentioned 

he has parts of his forests that are a third dead and dying. 

I want to mention we saw areas--now this was not in the Sier- ras, but we know of areas, for examrle, the cottonwood fire just up 

northeast of Truckee that threatenec. towns of Laurelton three different times this last summer. We saw this in the news for about 

a week-and-a-half. 

It is not a third of the forest that is dead and dying; it is 60 to 

80 percent of the forests that are d~ad and dying. This is where 

I have a problem with the Forest Service. I am just wondering, are 

you reading your own reports? 

Are you looking at the information that we are seeing? How can 

we come up with a report that allo)ws some-! believe you recommended some 460 million board-feet of timber to be thinned, to 

be taken out. Guess what? We have some 1.7 billion in additional 

forest that is growing. 

Now that means that even if we took out this 460 million boardfeet of forest, that we have an increase of 1.3 billion board-feet of 

forest. Now it is great that we have the rain we have this year but 

we have had seven of nine years of drought. 

Mr. Sprague, I know for a fact that you have been around the 

area. I feel you are sympathetic to this. I guess I have to ask this question: how in the world do we come 

up with the recommendations that the Forest Service does knowing 

the new information we have? 

Mr. SPRAGUE. Congressman, the w information specific to the 

spotted owl that came out of the CASPO report was used in this 

document as far as the spotted owl it~ elf is concerned. But we also, in response to the public input we got at the beginning of this process, went out as pad of our scoping to start this 

EIS process to find out what, in adc.ition to the owl, people were 

concerned about and what we are do .ng here and we did get some 

specific feedback that we covered in this EIS. So it is not just the 

spotted owl. 

That is why we took on the fuels aJ.d fire issue as a part of this. That is why we expanded to look at the full range of wild life spe- cies as a part of it. And that is why we expanded it to deal with 

the riparian situation as well. 

So it is more than just the owl anc even with respect to the owl 

itself, we were not really dealing in r. umbers, even though there is 

reference to the fact that there are pl ·~ y of owls and they are well 

distributed. It is the habitat that we ae looking at, the components 

that the owls and the martins and fishers and other of these species prefer for their survival. And that is why we didn't really get 

into the count and all that in the process. Mr. BERGER. Mr. Sprague, I want to thank you for saying that. That is what I had hoped you would 3ay, and that is what I would 

hope the Forest Service should be d<)ing to expand its objections. 

Let's look at the whole forest health picture. Let's not take one species which, according to your own report, is thriving, probably even more than : 00 years ago. 
23 

Now again, if you looked at all that, how could you come up with 

a plan that allows our forests to be growing thicker by 1.3 billion 

board-feet a year? They are already so thick, far more so than historically, even by your own reports. How can you possibly, if you 

look at everything, come up with a report like this? 

This is a report that would not go in and thin and take our dead 

and dying trees, or would attempt to restore our forests to the condition that they were 100 years ago. We were able to prevent forest 

fires when we had thinner growths of trees, particularly in California where we don't get the moisture they do in Washington. If you have looked at all of this as you indicated, it puzzles me 

how you came up with this finding. I understand that even members of your team were not recommending this. Even if they had 

recommended it, I didn't like the one that many of them were recommending. But their recommendation was not as extreme as the 

one that you ultimately came up with. 

Mr. HANSEN. Do you want that question responded to? 

Mr. HERGER. Yes. 

Mr. HANSEN. We will allow one more question from Mr. Herger. Go ahead and respond. 

Mr. HERGER. Thank you. 

Mr. SPRAGUE. Well, with respect to just the volume question itself, the number is green sale volume. So there is a tremendous 

amount of salvage that will go on top of that number. 

Now, to ask how we arrived at where we did, we, as in most 

groups of people, this team, our staff in the Forest Service in California, have differences of opinion. In the process of deciding on a 

preferred alternative, I listened to all that opinion and decided 

what I wanted to really be able to do is to be able to get focused 

on the landscape in total and the forest health issues and see if we 

could generate the same kind of focus from the people, the public 

that would be reviewing this document to look at the landscape 

and not be focused on just the numbers, the number of owls or the 

number of board-feet. 

We are not locked in just because we have a preferred alternative. We are not locked into that. We really put that out there to generate the discussion, the 

thought processes and so forth of the public involved and the stakeholders involved and so that is the rationale for why we came out 

there. 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you. 

Mr. Pombo. 

Mr. POMBO. Don't have any questions. [The written statement of Mr. Pombo follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD W. POMBO, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM CALIFORNIA 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing today to determine why the 

U.S. Forest Service is shifting the direction of its forest plans in the Sierra Nevada 

Mountain Range away from the health of the forests and onto the health of the California spotted owl. 

I have grave concerns about the current Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

(DEIS) for the spotted owl, especially since its enactment could potentially reduce 

the current volume of timber sales by an additional 70 percent. 

Mr. Chairman, as you will hear today from a number of witnesses, the California 

spotted owl is not an endangered or threatened species, nor is it likely that it will ever become one. Every scientific report indicates that spotted owl populations are 
24 

abundant, well distributed, and thriving thrcughout the Sierra Nevadas. Why, then, 

is the Forest Service moving forward with ;m EIS based on a premise that quick 

action must be taken in order to ensure "suitable habitat" for the owl? The Service 

claims that their actions will effectively avoid the listing of the California spotted 

owl, a subspecies of its famous cousin to thE· north, as a threatened or endangered 

species under the Endangered Species Act. T1e truth-plain and simple-is that the 

Forest Service, afraid of bein~ sued by the o:orporate environmentalist community, 

is choosing to ignore sound sc1entific information and threatening the health of this 

vibrant ecosystem. If enacted, the land management reforms selected by the Forest Service in their 

"preferred alternative" would exclude thinning, salvage, and regular timber harvest 

and re9,eneration in over 60 percent of the national forest lands deemed "suitable 

habitat' for the owl. Apparently, it wasn't enough for the so-called environmentalists to devastate the economy of the Pacifi.: Northwes~now they want to bring 

down California too. Mr. Chairman, I look forward to the teEtimony of our witnesses-a couple of 

which I recognize from my Endangered Spo)cies Task Force hearing in Stockton, 

California earlier this year. However, Mr. Chairman, I would like to say that I am extremely disappointed that the Forest Service continues to push ahead with this 

process when, mstead, they should set aside the Draft Environment Impact Statement for the California spotted owl and simply address the forest health issues in 

the Sierras and throughout the West. Even :he Chief of the Forest Service, during a 1994 Senate hearing in Boise, contended that the decline in forest health-too 

many trees and many of them the wrong species-is a concern for both wildlife and 

wildfires. And if there is another rampant wildfire, its effects will have far greater 

negative impacts on species protection than any human impacts. Worse still, such 

conditions unnecessarily threaten the lives of people. 

The goal of protecting the California spot:ed owl and invigorating the northern 

California economy are not mutually exclusi>e. We can continue to protect this species-a thriving species-not by shutting down the forest, but instead b;v adequately 

addressing the forest health needs of the Sierra Nevada range and actively managing this national asset. 

The time has come for policyrnakers to puc; an end to the environmental extremists' attempts at forest management by lawmlit and allow the forest service to do 

their job in a sound scientific manner. The health of our forests and the prosperity 

of our people depend on it. 

STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM M. THOM~S, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM 

CALIFORl'iiA 

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I would like to thank you for 

the opportunity to testify on the Draft Envi:··onmental Impact Statement (EIS) re- cently released by the Forest Service analyzi:lg alternative ways to manage habitat 

for the California spotted owl. 

I am most concerned that the Forest Service management strategy has been to 

perform an EIS on the California spotted ov•l (CASPO), which is neither listed as threatened nor endangered under the Endangered Species Act, rather than study 

the larger, more critical need for improvemer.t of forest health. Healthy forests provide healthy habitats. Single species manage:nent plans have been continuously re- jected by the scientific community in favor ol" multi-species, multi-purpose management plans. 

During the 1994 Senate hearings in Boise, Idaho, Chief Jack Ward Thomas testified that the decline in forest health is the result of too many trees and many of 

them the wrong species. Tree density and SJ:ecies mixture is a concern for wildlife and wildfire. "Forest stands that are more c pen would most likely demonstrate a high degree of vigor and resistance to insect and disease attacks." 

California private industry lands are managed more intensively for production of 

wood products than are Forest Service lands, yet private land managers in California maintain the healthiest forests and wildLfe populations. Much of this is due to 

the fact thatJrivate land managers balancn forest growth with timber harvests. None of the ternatives in the current CA~iPO EIS remotely attempt to balance 

growth with removals, adding to the overall trend in recent years toward timber 

growth substantially exceeding removals. Tirr.ber growth in excess of timber remov- als increases tree density to unhealthy levels and promotes regeneration of non-fire 

resistant tree species. Private land mam gement techniques can correct the 

unhealthy trends. 

Further, the draft EIS is r.remised on the faulty notion that quick action must 

be taken in order to ensure 'suitable habitat " for the owl; thereby avoiding listing 
25 

this sub-species as "threatened" or "endangered" under the Endangered Species Act. 

However, the land management reforms selected by tthe Forest Service in their 

"preferred alternative", would exclude thinning, salvage, and regular timber harvest 

from over 60 percent of the national forest lands deemed "suitable habitat" for the 

owl. 

In closing, I would like to urge you to listen carefully to the witnesses who will 

raise serious questions about the adequacy of the CASPO EIS, why it is ill-planned 

and how its enactment will affect their families, their businesses, and the land. I 

would hope that the subcommittee will give attention to their assessment that the 

CASPO EIS was not sufficiently comprehensive and offers no measurable enhancement of forest health, and should be revisited with an attention to good science and 

creation of a biodiverse forest. 

STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE R.ADANOVICH, A U.S. REPRESENTATfVE FROM 

CALIFORNIA 

It is imperative that the U.S. Forest Service take steps immediately to implement a timber salvage program that will prevent catastrophic forest fires. 

The health of western forests has declined sharply in recent years due to prohibitions imposed on salvage harvesting and thinning. This has resulted in unnatural 

fuel load concentrations in forest stands, which are in effect timber boxes just waiting to be lit. Last summer, 67,000 wildfires burned over 4 million acres of forests 

and grasslands in the western States. Some 33 firefighters lost their lives in forest 

fires in 1994, and the Forest Service spent $950 million in taxpayer dollars fighting 

these fires. 

It is clear that we have a forest health crisis on our hands, which is why I am so concerned about the alternatives the Forest Service has proposed regarding the 

California spotted owl. In my opinion, none of these alternatives go far enough to 

prevent catastrophic forest fires. Of the alternatives proposed, however, Alternative 

D would do most to protect wildlife and humans from the dangers of forest fires. 

This alternative would permit an adequate amount of thinning and salvage harvesting needed to improve forest health. 

But for some reason, the Forest Service has selected Alternative C, which does 

not address seriously the threat of fires in our forests. For example, alternative C 

would prohibit thinning and salvage operations in 60 percent of the National Forest 

lands deemed suitable habitat for the California spotted owl. These lands would re- main highly susceptible to fire. In fact, all alternatives except for Alternative E provide more suitable land than Alternative C for vegetation management such as prescribed fire, thinning, salvage, and other fire prevention measures. Alternative C 

simply tinkers at the edges of the current policies that created our forest health cri- sis in the first place. 

I not only disagree with the alternative chosen by the Forest Service, but also am confounded as to why the study which created these alternatives was ever conducted 

in the first place. It is disturbing that during this period of fiscal constraint the Forest Service used taxpayer dollars to create a draft environmental impact statement 

(DEIS) for an animal that is not listed as threatened or endangered under the En- dangered Species Act (ESA). In its DEIS, the Forest Service states that steps must be taken to provide "adequate habitat" for the California spotted owl; the Forest Service claims that such 

action is necessary to keep this owl from being listed under the ESA. But this explanation simply rings false. After all, the DEIS states that it is highly possible that more California spotted owls now live in the Sierra Nevadas than at any other point 

prior to Euro-American settlement. 

In addition, one cannot ignore the economic consequences of the Forest Service's 

policies that led to the forest health crisis. Our mills are closing down while logs 

rot and become forest fuel. It makes no sense to continue to deprive citizens of the 

economic benefits of the dead and dying timber that surrounds them, which otherwise threatens to burn down their homes. 

The greatest threat to owls in the Sierra Nevadas, as well as the people living 

there, is fire . Until the Forest Service takes this issue seriously and allows a substantial amount of salvage harvesting and thinning, both owls and humans will re- main imperilled. 

Mr. HANSEN. Mrs. Chenoweth. Mrs. CHENOWETH. I just wanted to address a question to Mr. Sprague. I think for the first time we have heard the Forest Serv-
26 

ice admit that it really wasn't the species that was their first concern, it really was the land. . Mr. SPRAGUE. Thank you-well, l don't know if it was the first 

time but what we are about in this project is the landscape, yes. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. And Mr. Sprague, is it true that even though 

your report indicated that the numbers were healthier than you 

had anticipated, that you still recommended that we continue to 

study the issue? 

Mr. SPRAGUE. Correct, because tho~ preferred habitat of the spotted owl is in decline. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. How do you loc'ite the spotted owls since they 

are nocturnal? 

Mr. SPRAGUE. Janice, do you wan:; to-I have not tried to locate 

any. 

Ms. GAUTHIER. You go out and you hoot for them. You call them. 

They are quite tame. They will come up to you. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. They will come up to you if you hoot for them? 

Ms. GAUTHIER. It is quite likely tho)y will, yes. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Do they hoot back or how do you know, how 

can you see them in the dark? 

Ms. GAUTHIER. Well, you can usu 1lly see them. They will come 

up quite close. I personally have only seen one. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. You have only S·:!en one. 

Ms. GAUTHIER. That is correct. I have seen one spotted owl. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. But you go out and hoot for them and how do 

you locate them? I mean you have only seen one. 

Ms. GAUTHIER. Well, that is not m:r job to go out and locate owls, but those field biologists who are in ihe position of monitoring owls 

will go out and try to locate them and see if they are having nesting success every year. They generally stay in a particular nest 

tree for a few years. It is not that difiicult. Mrs. CHENOWETH. It still sounds ccmplicated to me so I want you 

to bear with me here. You hoot for them at night. How do you locate where they are? Or how can you understand how many numbers of owls there are? 

Ms. GAUTHIER. We have pretty go)d records of owl sights right 

now on the 10 national forests. So you can actually count them. 

You can count them in the trees. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. From the noise they make. Ms. GAUTHIER. And from visual observation. Mrs. CHENOWETH. Of what? 

Ms. GAUTHIER. Of the owls. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. So you can see them during the day sitting up 

there in the trees? 

Ms. GAUTHIER. Well, what they would do is they would locate 

them during the evening and then probably try to locate the nest 

tree and the actual animals during the day. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Herger and Mr. Cooley pointed out that 

your own report indicates that they are more abundant today in 

some areas of the Sierra Nevada than in the last 100 years. Ms. GAUTHIER. We say that very cautiously. We don't know that 

for a fact. 

The line of logic there is that became of the change in vegetation 

distribution in the Sierra Nevada and , in other words, change from 
27 

a more open condition to a more densely stocked situation which 

many observations have been made, it is possible that there are 

more owls now than there were previously. But we don't know that 

for a fact. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. It doesn't say "possible". It does say "and the 

spotted owl is more abundant today". 

Ms. GAUTHIER. I am not sure where you are reading from 

butMr. COOLEY. Page 2-39. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Page 2-39 of your own report. 

So you know, the only thing is that we need to be able to rely 

on the information and so I would have to say, Mr. Chairman, that 

when the Endangered Species Act was originally passed, it was 

passed on the basis of numbers of species that must be recovered. 

There may come a day when the Congress may have to do some 

micromanaging and making some of these decisions if the Forest 

Service fails to make decisions based on the law the Congress 

passed. 

Mr. Unger, would you like to respond to that? 

Mr. UNGER. Could I comment on the several statements regarding the numbers of owls, including the one you just mentioned? 

That clearly was one of the findings of the scientific group that 

based on all the information they had, which in the case of numbers was not a lot because the studies of numbers have not been 

conducted for many years, that they could not come to any conclusion that there was a decline in these numbers. 

The additional conclusions that they came to were, however, that 

the habitat that is essential for the spotted owl is declining clearly 

and rapidly, that even age management and short rotations and 

the fire management policies that are in existence at this time 

have been for some years clearly a danger to future survival of the 

species. And so it was a total. It was the total picture. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Is it because we have shifted from fire suppression programs to actually fighting fire and so is that--

Mr. UNGER. Well, suppression, I include fighting fires as well as 

preventing, yes. Mrs. CHENOWETH. I mean putting the fire out while it is still 

small instead of letting :t burn. Mr. UNGER. Well, it is not possible to say that in any given situation that is right or wrong. One would have to look at it. 

But we do need to be looking at an overall policy that takes into 

account the need to keep fuels from building up so catastrophic 

fires don't occur. They can be controlled. They can be lower-level 

intensity fires. In some cases prescribed burning can be accomplished, in some cases we can mechanically remove the fuels to prevent those disastrous fires, a whole series of activities based on 

what is right in the given situation. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Chairman, I see my time is up. I just 

have one more quick question. And that is that in order to maintain the health of the forest for the habitat, the owl habitat, do you 

prefer prescribed burning to salvage logging? 

Mr. Unger. 

Mr. UNGER. It is one tool. I think that in any given situation you 

would choose one or the other or both. It depends upon the situa-
28 

tion, the requirements of the situation. I don't think you can say 

that one is better than the other. Mrs. CHENOWETH. I would say if I were an owl I would much 

prefer that you decide for salvage logging than prescribed burning. Mr. UNGER. When I say prescribed burning that would be under 

very limited circumstances and it would be in cases where you 

don't destroy the whole forest. There are cases where you can burn 

fuels that are on the forest floor in a manner that the fire will be 

confined to the forest floor, will not endanger the larger trees. It 

is a carefully worked-out process that would have to be followed 

based on a site-specific circumstance. Mrs. CHENOWETH. But prescribed burning weighs more heavily 

with you than would logging? 

Mr. UNGER. No. Mrs. CHENOWETH. OK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you. Let me make this point, if I may. We have two more panels and 

we have kept this panel here a long time. I know there are some 

further questions. We would ask the members if the~ r could be brief in their questions to the panel, be somewhat brief in your answers. We have 

two more panels who have waited very patiently. I will turn to the gentleman from California, Mr. Pombo. 

Mr. POMBO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just had one quick question, ma'am. You said that you thought 

there were more owls now but you weren't sure. Why are you not 

sure on the counts? 

Ms. GAUTHIER. Because no one wa~ ; counting owls 100 years ago. 

So I am sorry, that is--

Mr. POMBO. So if on the other sidE: of this, if someone said that 

there are less today than there were 100 years ago, the same reasoning would also hold true. No one was counting them a hundred 

years ago. 

Ms. GAUTHIER. Correct. 

Mr. POMBO. So they really don't know. Ms. GAUTHIER. Right. We are basing this on the best information 

we have on what the vegetation looked like historically and what 

it looks like now and the best inform.:1.tion we have about what the 

owls need and use in terms of vegetation. Mr. POMBO. So when they said the northern spotted owl needed 

old growth forest and they were predicting or guessing that there 

were less today than there were 130 years ago because of the condition of the forests in the length of the time the trees had been 

there, and now today they are finding northern spotted owl in second and third and fourth growth forest, that should change what 

their guess was about the number of 1)wls that were here 100 years 

ago because their assumption was wrong when they went in to decide how many there were before and how many we had now. Ms. GAUTHIER. Well, I guess I would say if that is a valid scientifically conducted work then that would have to be considered. 

Mr. POMBO. But your validly, scientifically conducted work is a 

guess based on what you think you know about the owl and where 

it lives and then trying to figure out what you think the forests 
29 

looked like 130 years ago. So it is not really scientific as much as 

it is a guess. 

Ms. GAUTHIER. Well, I guess it is the best we can do. 

Mr. POMBO. Thank you. 

Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Duncan. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I just want to yield my time to 

my friend, Mr. Doolittle. 

Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Doolittle. 

Mr. DooLI'ITLE. I appreciate the gentleman for yielding. 

Ms. Gauthier, you have indicated you are comparing the owls we 

have today to a period-either is it 100 or 130 years ago? Which 

is the period of time you are comparing that to? 

Ms. GAUTHIER. Well, first of all, I would like to make one thing 

clear and that is that this ID team that developed the environmental impact statement did not develop any new science. We used 

the science in the technical team report. So I would like to first of 

all make that distinction. When you are talking about going back 

in time, you know, I couldn't be that specific about it. We are merely trying to characterize the situation as best we can. 

Mr. DOOLITTLE. OK. But is it roughly 100 years ago? 

Ms. GAUTHIER. Sure, 100. 

Mr. DOOLI'ITLE. And may I ask, why did you select that time in 

which to compare the owls that we have today? 

Ms. GAUTHIER. Well, generally we have been looking at vegetation changes prior to pre-Euroamerican settlement and so you 

know, that is sort of a point in time where we know changes were 

made in vegetation patterns that existed for long periods of time. 

Mr. DOOLI'ITLE. So you are comparing this to-what?-roughly 

the time of the 49ers or just before they got to California? 

Ms. GAUTHIER. I think most people are using about 1840 as the 

approximate time period. Mr. DOOLITTLE. 1840? 

Ms. GAUTHIER. Yes. 

Mr. DOOLI'ITLE. The forests in 1840, were they managed or in 

natural condition? 

Ms. GAUTHIER. Well, I suppose they were managed by the indigenous peoples at the time. 

Mr. DOOLI'ITLE. Is there any doubt in that they were, in fact, 

managed? 

Ms. GAUTHIER. No, not in my mind. Managed-surely we know 

that burning was being used. Mr. DOOLI'ITLE. OK. So I just wanted to establish I think there 

is an inference that when we talk about pre-European American 

settlement that we are touching then the unadulterated state of 

nature, so to speak, and I just want to make clear that when Mr. Muir took his famous stroll through the Sierras, maybe he didn't 

know it but he was strolling through a carefully managed forest, 

was he not, a forest that would be the envy of anything that we 

had today, at least in the public lands. Is that basically true? 

Ms. GAUTHIER. Well, I couldn't agree with you more. Clearly the 

forests looked different back then. Mr. DOOLI'ITLE. Well, I guess my concern through all of this is 

it seems to me the Forest Service feels so burned by having lost 

a couple of these lawsuits, just listening to your testimony, it seems 

93-189 0 - 95 - 2 
30 

like you are bending over backwar:ls so that they can't do that to 

you again. But in the process, you are ignoring the forest for the 

trees, if you will forgive an unfortunate pun. 

Because indeed the greatest threHt to fowl habitat, as I read your 

reports and listen to you, is not frcm logging, although that is the 

one-that is the area that is going o take the huge hit in this, but 

it is from catastrophic forest fires. 

Mr. Unger, to ask you a questior., you have indicated that habitat is the concern here. When yo 1r preferred alternative allows 

four times the amount of timber to be produced annually, four 

times more than what is being removed, how do you realistically 

think you are going to lessen the chance of a catastrophic forest 

fire? 

Mr. UNGER. Well, I would have to defer to Mr. Sprague's analysis 

that what growth versus removal ~eally means in tenns of trees, 

in terms of fuel, in tenns of growth on existing trees would be a 

different situation than the production of additional stems, so to 

speak, which would be susceptible t') the wildfire circumstances. 

I also can't comment on the relative proportions of the degree of 

concern that the scientists express~d regarding the effect of even 

aged management and short rotations versus the effect of fires. 

Again, I would defer to Lynn to make that judgment. Mr. DooLITTLE. Let me just say--I mean this as no criticism of 

Mr. Sprague, I frankly don't comprehend his response to the question. It just doesn't add up to me. ~ow maybe in your written response, you will provide written tentimony I will understand it. It 

seems to me all that other stuff is r.ot counted in ASQ. I don't care 

about that. That is going to go on. 

I want to know from ASQ why do we have four times the amount 

being grown annually as opposed to the annual ASQ. To me you 

are grossly building up the thickening of the forests which is going 

to lead to an even worse forest fir:!. Telling me you are going to 

clear out some brush and do some things, that is good, we need 

that. 

But that, to me, doesn't get to the fundamental heart of this 

issue. I mean, this is a dramatic prcgression in the number of trees 

year-by-year-by-year, four times this year, four times that much 

more the next year and four times after that. I mean it doesn't take 

many years before you have an intolerable situation. Mr. SPRAGUE. Well, we will try to describe that for you for the 

record so it is clear. 

But one other thing that I didn't mention, too, is we have a tremendous number of acres in plan ;ations, small tree plantations 

and they are growing like crazy and that is growth that is not 

available for ASQ yet, either. But there is a whole bunch of it. It 

is a complicated thing. We will try to describe it for you for the 

record. 

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Thanks. Mr. HANSEN. Thank you. We thank the panel. 

Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, just t) add onto it, I will take a full 

five minutes. 

Mr. HANSEN. I will recognize the rentleman from this side. 
31 

Mr. VENTO. But the point is with this ASQ, do you include all 

the lands in there, the riparian areas, the wild receding rivers, everything else as well, is that correct? 

Mr. SPRAGUE. It would be the areas in suitable timber land base; 

yes. 

Mr. VENTO. Well, the point is that, in other words, the decision 

is being made here to go for a more mature forest: lengthen the rotation, have more matured aged trees for the various attributes 

that occur in terms of that ecosystem; is that correct? 

Mr. SPRAGUE. That is correct. Mr. VENTO. I mean at least that is the recommendation. I understand Mr. Doolittle's question. I think it is a legitimate question in 

terms of this. 

I mean the whole plan here has been we have gone from about 

700 million ASQ in the 1970's to 1.7 billion harvested, I don't know 

what the sales were during this time but did it also oscillate in 

that particular manner? I mean, what has been the pattern here? 

For instance, we are hearing from our colleague here that a lot 

of mills have closed and so forth and yet some of the information 

I have looked at indicates that there hasn't been, that the number 

of sales has been pretty significant, that timber receipts are even 

higher now in these counties than they have been partly because 

of price, but partly because of volume in the harvest. Can you comment on this? 

Mr. SPRAGUE. Well, not in the last few years. The sale and the 

harvest has been down over the last four or five years. 

Mr. VENTO. But it did go through this oscillation of 700 million 

board-feet harvested in the 1970's and 1. 7 billion board-feet harvested in the mid-1980's; is that correct? 

Mr. SPRAGUE. Right. And you can go back further in history. 

There have always been oscillations in the--

Mr. VENTO. But these haven't been due to an ecosystem management plan. They have been due to factors in the economy. Are some 

of the reasons these mills close due to other factors than simply the 

availability of harvest? Private lands, what are the private lands' 

role in this particular instance? Are they a significant factor? 

Mr. SPRAGUE. Well, they are a factor. I couldn't comment on why 

all of the mills have closed. 

Mr. VENTO. Well, I can and I think part of the suggestion is that 

the work force numbers don't look that different, either. It has oscillated between 7,000 and 11,000, 12,000; it is down to something 

like 8,000 now. 

I don't think there is any question about the recent demise. The 

idea of getting ahead of this is to, of course, keep jobs, I suppose, 

and keep a sustainable role in place. I think everyone says they 

want to use the new information. I think that you have to accept 

it. 

I think this fire regime issue is a very important one that needs 

to be worked out. The members have to understand this is not new 

science but I think it is pretty good science. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. HANSEN. Thank you. 

We are going to take one more member to speak. Mr. Herger, we 

are going to recognize him for two minutes and then we are 
32 

through with this panel, OK? If that is all right with you folks. We 

will give him two minutes. 

Mr. Herger. 

Mr. HERGER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Again, I have to invite the gentleman from Minnesota to come 

out to my district. 

Mr. VENTO. I have been there. 

Mr. HERGER. I invite you to com~ see all the schools that are 

shutting down. People are crying for lumber. Mr. VENTO. Why? 

Mr. HERGER. The suggestion that the economy is declining and 

that schools are shutting down due to lack of demand and of har- vest is completely false and outragec us. That is not the fact at alL 

Mr. VENTO. Well, I don't know. \\hat is your point? I don't understand your point. Are you talking to me? 

Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Herger has the time. 

Mr. HERGER. My two minutes. The inference is that there isn't 

a demand. I can assure you there is L demand. Mr. VENTO. I didn't say anything Hbout demand. I said what the 

actual record had been in terms of huvest. Mr. HERGER. About triple what it i 5 right now. I, again, want to read from what the report says. Let me read 

from your report, this draft CASPO DEIS; again, page 2-39. Your 

report states that the California spCitted owl appears to be abundant and well distributed within the forest of the west slope of the 

Sierra Nevada Mountains. It is poE sible that the spotted owl is 

more abundant today in some area~ of the Sierra Nevada Mountains than it was in the past 100 years or prior to Euroamerican 

settlement. 

Now I have to ask throughout the statement I hear references to 

decline, I hear a reference to concern:3. I am just wondering are you 

reading your own report? It would appear that your own report is 

saying that you have as many or mo e owls than you have had before and I also want to mention that up in the northern part of my 

district, they have actually found th ~ee times more northern spotted owls in just northern California 1.han they thought they had in 

all of Oregon, Washington and California combined. 

Again, new science, as we get out and hoot for the owls-and I 

have hooted and have seen at least E.ix or seven myself. As we are 

doing that, we are finding owls tha·; we just weren't aware were 

there before. 

And again, the severity of this-to the Forest Service and to the 

people who live in this area in our N'l.tion, is that by not managing 

wisely we are not only losing owl habitat, we are seeing our entire 

forest burn up, and this is a catastrophe that is happening and it 

should not be happening. And I think it is clearly because of the 

mismanagement that I feel we have to change. Thank you. 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you. Could I a3k Commissioner Unger if you 

and your associates could stay with ·1s a while with the next panels? I understand the committee may have some further questions 

for you. Would that be terribly inconvenie:1t, do you have other obligations or could you stay for a while? 
33 

Mr. UNGER. Let me check the schedule. I am sure that at least 

some of us could stay. 

Mr. HANSEN. OK We will excuse you now to the first row if that 

is OK 

We will ask the second panel if they will come up. And the second panel is Cheri Jacobson, Executive Director, United Forest 

Families; Kent Duysen, Terra Bella, California; Ken Marks, Supervisor, Tuolumne County Administration Center; Bill Coates, Supervisor, Plumas County, Instigator of Quincy Library Group. If they would come up now, we would appreciate it. We appreciate the other panel if they could stay. 

Thank you. We appreciate you appearing before the committee. 

May I ask you at the onset how much time do you need for your 

opening statement, keeping in mind that your full statement will 

be incorporated in the record? 

Ms. JACOBSON. Approximately five minutes. 

Mr. HANSEN. Five minutes. 

Does that figure seem to be all right with everybody? All right. When the green light goes on you can start; yellow light, wrap up; 

red light, terminate, if you would, please. 

Cheri Jacobson, we will start with you. Ms. JACOBSON. Thank you. Mr. HANSEN. Before you start, I have got to go over to the Floor. 

Mr. Doolittle, would you take the chair? 

Mr. DOOLITTLE. [Presiding] Welcome. 

STATEMENT OF CHERI JACOBSON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

UNITED FOREST FAMILIES 

Ms. JACOBSON. Thank you. Good morning. 

My name is Cheri Jacobson. My husband and I are tree farmers. 

I am representing the United Forest Families here today made up 

of over 500 working people and their families, whose livelihoods depend upon the wise management of our forests. We have had very 

little voice in the highly politicized debate over the destructive path 

our government has taken in the management of our natural resources. It is time for you to move this debate beyond the rhetoric we so 

often hear and look at the faces of us, of the people who are being 

devastated both economically and emotionally. We have members 

who are third generation wood workers whose proud heritage 

comes from the forest and whose future depends upon the decisions 

made by committees like this. 

We are the true environmentalists who work and care for the 

land. Mill closures throughout the west in recent years have had 

devastating and all-too-often overlooked consequences. Once thriving communities have been reduced to ghost towns and have seen 

increases in the unemployment rates, spousal and child abuse 

cases as well as decreased funds for local school and road programs. 

It is not necessary for you to take my word for this. Just contact 

the county administrators or school officials in towns like Yreka or 

Crescent City, California or even Roseburg, Oregon. Ask them 

about the impacts on their social service programs in their areas 

since their mills have closed. Ask them about the crime rate in 
34 

their areas since their mills have c .osed. Ask them about the economic stability in their area since their mills have closed. These 

are extremely real impacts that ha·ve already occurred to families 

and communities throughout the n·Jrthwest and are beginning to 

spread throughout rural towns in th~ Sierras. Timber industry workers are increasingly seen in the mainstream media as a dying breed. President Clinton has used the 

phrase "economically dislocated" to describe forest workers who 

have lost their means of support for their families and who are now 

eligible for retraining. 

Once again, ask these communiti ~s how the retraining is going. The answer: nowhere. These are very proud people providing material that this country depends upon, proud people who are constantly improving the methods we r·ractice in the woods, including 

the use of high-tech equipment whic1. is gentle to the land. 

We don't want to be reduced to accepting handouts. We don't 

want to be retrained for minimum wage jobs that will require us 

to become dependent upon our communities. We want to remain 

positive, contributing people within our communities and our government. We want to continue to instill the pride that one feels 

that comes from knowing you have C.one a job well and to pass that 

on to our children and our grandchil :iren. 

This draft EIS is correct in stating the obvious benefits of highpaying jobs and in the families that are committed to their communities. But it is an insult to characterize livelihoods as honorable 

as loggers and sawmill workers as a subculture. 

We have been a major contributoc to the growth and prosperity 

of this great country and will not ccept a flawed notion that we 

have somehow served out our usefuhess. This should not be an owl 

versus people issue. The real issue is the health to O·lr public forest lands. We are 

tired of fighting catastrophic wild flees and protecting our communities from physical destruction. We are the people that have the 

tools. We have the technology. We have professionalism and we 

have backbone to return our forestE and our local communities to 

a healthy state and we are ready to do so. 

Due to the collapse of the Natiom.l Forest Timber Management 

Program, our small mills in Tuolumne County, California currently 

have only enough supply to operate through the rest of 1995. Unfortunately, impending mill closums are now common to rural 

towns throughout the Sierras and the western United States and 

it emphasizes the urgency of the problems we are now facing. 

I want you to know that as recent as of January this year my 

husband and I relocated a great portion of our business to southern 

Colorado to provide timber to the SiE-rra Nevadas. It is not easy nor 

is it fun to have to leave your families behind. We recognize and 

appreciate Congress' willingness to address this crisis but I can't 

overstate the need for immediate action. 

We are in big trouble. We appreciate the opportunity to speak on 

behalf of the people in the timber industry. Our hope is to keep 

these people working to meet the needs of their families, their communities, the national forests and the American people. 

[The statement of Ms. Jacobson can be found at the end of the 

hearing.] 
35 

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Thank you very much. 

Let's see, Mr. Duysen? Did I pronounce that correct? 

Mr. DUYSEN. It is actually Duysen. Mr. DOOLITTLE. Thank you. 

STATEMENT OF KENT DUYSEN, PRESIDENT, SIERRA FOREST 

PRODUCTS 

Mr. DUYSEN. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, 

my name is Kent Duysen, president of Sierra Forest Products. 

The two mills that we operate in Terra Bella and Dinuba were 

the lone survivors among the mills dependent from timber from the 

national forests of the south Sierra Nevada. Let me tell you today 

we are really on the edge of disaster. We are hanging on by our 

fingertips. We desperately need your help. 

I have come here with some good news. I think we are all aware 

that the focal point of today's hearing is the California spotted owl. 

The good news is there are a lot of owls. There are a lot of owls 

on national timber lands. There are a lot of owls in private timber 

lands. There are a lot of owls in old growth timber, a lot of owls 

in second growth timber. 

According to the Federal biologists, there are probably more owls 

today than there were 100 years ago. The problem, I am going to 

bring you some bad news, and that is that the Forest Service still 

seems intent upon changing all the forest plans in the Sierras for 

the sake of what they were saying is protecting the owl. And that 

the changes that they are wanting to make are going to cause forest-destroying wildfires, which will eventually eliminate prime owl 

habitat. It is going to create the closure of more sawmills and eventually maybe even the owl itself will be endangered. 

As a witness at this hearing, I have come prepared to answer 

your questions, but I must tell you that I have some questions of 

my own that I would like for you to ponder on as you listen to the 

witnesses that follow me. 

Why are we even worried about the California spotted owl? As 

I mentioned earlier, these birds are plentiful, reproducing well, and 

distributed widely throughout the Sierras. They are neither listed 

as endangered nor threatened under any ESA listing and I don't 

think it could be listed that way for anything in the near term. If 

we are really concerned about the owl, why aren't we doing the 

right thing to protect owl habitat? 

Forest Service scientists agree that the greatest threat to the owl 

is a wildfire. And the only way to lessen the frequency and the severity of those fires is to reduce fuel loads in an aggressive program of thinning and salvaging of dead timber. 

Why are the national forests in the West at such high risk? A 

very simple answer as we have heard earlier, is that there are just 

simply too many trees. For nearly a century, we have excluded fire 

from the forest and at some point in time fire needs to be reintroduced into the ecosystem but to do so now is just at too great of 

a risk that the fires might get out of control. 

You know, sometime in the future I think we are going to finally 

decide that we do need to cut some timber, but I have to ask who 

will be left in the private sector to process the woods that must be 
36 

removed. As I said at the outset, our company remains just a handful of survivors. 

Later this morning, you will receive testimony from two professional foresters representing two companies, Collins Pine and 

Fibreboard, they manage substantial private forestlands in the Sierras. However, even the mills operated by those two companies 

are in jeopardy without a steady supply of Federal timber. 

Where are the people in this picture? Small communities in the 

Sierras are dependent upon Fed ~ral timber. Why should hard 

working men and women be forced out of work just because of the 

owl and an owl that is not even endangered or in jeopardy of its 

own life. The truth of the matter is that there is more than enough 

wood to keep all the existing saw nills and logging crews working. 

There is probably enough to even open some of the closed down facilities and that best of all there is enough for the owls. It is a winwin for everybody. 

What other country in the world would permit its natural resources to be squandered the way we are squandering ours? According to Forest Service statistic!:, more timber dies and decays 

each year in our national forest than is removed for conversion into 

lumber, paper, and/or wood products. How did we let this happen 

to ourselves? How in this day and age could we be so financially 

foolish? 

Last year, we spent almost a biEion dollars fighting forest fires. 

In addition, we lost revenues of a like amount because the government did not sell as much timber as the market would absorb. 

Clearly, the cost of doing nothing in the forest and watching it 

burn is greater than the benefit of doing the right thing, by reducing fuel loads and selling more timl:er. 

How can we bring back commc.n sense into the situation? It 

seems to me that we have only on:! choice. Mills are in desperate 

need of timber. The government i:; in desperate need of revenue 

and our forests are in desperate need of some type of management. 

We need fuel reduction. There is really only one common sense answer. Congress must direct the Forest Service to sell more timber. 

Mr. Chairman, let me conclude by saying that for better or 

worse, this problem is in the hands of Congress. Sadly and for a 

variety of reasons, I don't think the Forest Service is going to solve 

their own problem. Still they cannot get out of focusing on a single 

species. 

Now, what is appropriate, is to look at the bigger picture and 

that bigger picture is forest health, not the California spotted owl; 

it is truly forest health. We need to do something to ensure that 

the national forests in the West ar ~ not destroyed by massive fire 

storms. We look for your help and thank you for the time for this 

presentation. 

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Thank you very much. 

[The statement of Mr. Duysen can be found at the end of the 

hearing.] 

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Our next witnes.s is Mr. Ken Marks. Welcome. 
37 

STATEMENT OF KEN MARKS, SUPERVISOR, TUOLUMNE 

COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER 

Mr. MARKS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, for this opportunity to speak before you today. My name is 

Ken Marks and I have the privilege of serving as the Chairman of 

the Tuolumne County Board of Supervisors. Tuolumne County is a county rich in natural resources, located 

in the heart of Sierra Nevada's mother lode. Nearly 80 percent of 

Tuolumne County's land is government owned. Thirty-one percent 

of Yosemite National Park lies within the boundaries of Tuolumne 

and it also houses over 68 percent of the Stanislaus National Forest. 

Now, using experimental science, the U.S. Forest Service is proposing to rewrite history, not only for 10 of its Sierra Nevada national forests but also for 17 of California's rural counties. The 

criminal part of this whole report is that it is being done unnecessarily. As the draft environmental impact statement summarizes, 

"The California spotted owl appears to be abundant and well distributed within the forests on the west slope of the Sierra Nevada." 

The draft environmental impact statement outlines seven long- term strategies to protect the habitat of the California spotted owl. 

If any one of the options being recommended in this report are 

adopted, let me describe a few of the impacts I will see affecting 

our county. 

We will immediately lose approximately 1,000 jobs, jobs that are 

directly tied to the timber industry. An additional 3,000 will be lost 

in related industries. That is a total of 4,000 jobs lost if any of 

these alternatives are adopted. 

We currently suffer from an unemployment rate in Tuolumne 

County of 11.7 percent. We have just over 18,000 jobs in our county. If we lose 4,000 of them, our unemployment rate will skyrocket 

to over 30 percent. More importantly, our future generation, our 

children, will be directly affected as Tuolumne and Calaveras 

County schools will lose over $2 million per year in forest reserve 

funding derived from timber receipts from the Stanislaus National 

Forest. 

The Tuolumne County Board of Education has voted to oppose 

draft EIS for managing the California spotted owl. Nine independent local school districts have also voted to send their opposition of 

the draft EIS to the Forest Service. 

Our schools will not only suffer from a cutback in direct funding, 

but the downsizing of an important industry in Tuolumne County 

will have a predictable domino effect throughout the community, 

whereas an increase in unemployment historically results in an increased incidence of child and spousal abuse along with drug and 

alcohol abuse. 

My wife is an educator at a local elementary school with about 

650 students where all of the forest reserve funds are used to provide basic educational programs. Within the last year, when environmental regulations have helped shut down an operational gold 

mine in our county, 250 jobs were lost. At the school where my wife 

teaches, there was a noticeable change in the behavior of many of 

the attending students. It is not immediate but little things start 
38 

showing up: No lunch, no jacket, no home work, no concentration, no parent, no student. No sense. The Forest Service plan for managing the habitat of the California spotted owl is opposed by every :nember of the Tuolumne County Board of Supervisors. 

Tuolumne County's road department will need to cut back its 

maintenance programs from snowplow services to pothole repairs 

as we will be losing over $900,000 per year in forest reserve funding directed toward county road mdntenance. But a loss of direct 

funding is just the tip of the icebeq. As unemployment increases, 

social problems increase as well. n~mand for county services will 

rise from public health to public safety. The cost to Tuolumne 

County at providing these essentia l local services will rise astronomically at a time when its citizens will be least able to support 

the increased cost. 

Finally, all of the alternatives outlined in this Forest Service 

plan put our forests in greater jeopardy of catastrophic fires. According to this report, an acceptable rate of destruction for Sierra 

Nevada forests is 421,000 acres lost per year. This is a prescription 

for the demise of the Sierra Nevada Range. Forest fires destroy 

more than trees. They destroy lives. They destroy homes. They destroy our resources and ironically they ultimately destroy the habitat of wildlife. 

Mr. Chairman and members of tho~ committee, I urge you to consider the true costs of this planning. Remember that while the Forest Service is required to maintain viable populations of native species, the California spotted owl is not threatened or endangered. In 

fact, it is more abundant now than at any time in the past. And 

question the attitude of those in the Forest Service who assert that 

public comment is not a vote. I ask your committee to file your own 

comments, cast your vote to join wHh me in supporting the needs 

of California's rural counties and the people of the Sierra Nevada. 

Thank you. Mr. DOOLITTLE. Thank you very much. 

[The statement of Mr. Marks can be found at the end of the hearing.] 

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Next witness isM~. Bill Coates. Welcome. 

STATEMENT OF BILL COATES, SUPERVISOR, PLUMAS COUNTY, 

INSTIGATOR OF QUINCY LIBRARY GROUP 

Mr. CoATES. Thank you. I am Bill Coates, supervisor of Plumas 

County, Past President of the Califomia Counties Association, Past 

President of the Rural Counties in California Association, and Past 

President of the 16 Western States County Supervisor Association. 

I am also representing today the Q 1incy Library Group, which is 

a collection of three counties, three· fourths of the school systems, 

the labor unions, the environmental groups locally, and the people. 

I will answer questions about that aE. we go on. 

I am delighted with the knowledge that this committee already 

has. In fact, I submitted my notes. [ am not going to bore you by 

reading them. I will make some verbal comments and answer questions. 
39 

You all know what we do. I think even Congressman Vento probably knows what a rural community does. I know that he is from 

Minnesota. 

Mr. VENTO. Yes, even Congressman Vento knows what a rural 

community does. Mr. COATES. Thank you. I think you also know what CASPO 

does to us. So I am not going to make comments about that. Why is it bad? One size fits all in this report. That doesn't work. 

It would be like taking half of the East Coast and calling it all the 

same. Obviously, that wouldn't work. 

In our county, we have a plan for a piece of that county about 

the size of Rhode Island, but if you get any bigger than that and 

try to make the same prescription work, it doesn't work. The bird, as many have mentioned already, isn't listed as threatened or endangered. The CASPO report makes no provision for 

monitoring. I think all of us sitting here in this room, if you do 

something you ought to check it and find out if it works. It is very 

poor, bad on water restoration, and without a good watershed you 

don't have any animals or any plants or any forest. But its greatest 

problem is the poor description of fire in the Sierras and I am de- lighted that the committee has already talked as much as it has 

about it. Basically CASPO studied the wrong thing and you have hit on 

that already with your question. It should have been studying forest health. It started out with one bird, expanded that to several 

species, and still does not get to the basic question of forest health. 

It needs eventually to go there. I think the team realized halfway 

through they were studying the wrong thing and wishes they could 

have started over but they couldn't and they had a different mandate. 

Meanwhile, the greatest disturbance going on in the West, as you 

have already pointed out, is fire. It is bigger than logging. It is bigger than Mt. St. Helen's disaster. It isbigger than drought or anything else. It is bigger than floods, earthquake. It is an environmental disaster. It would be like taking Minnesota and trying to 

clear-cut everything in Minnesota. The tragedy that takes place 

with fire is like asking everybody to take the top soil out of an 

area, take all the trees out of an area, ruin the streams, and then 

hope that somehow eventually you can recover. That area is not 

going to recover in our lifetime, in my children's lifetime or in 

theirs. Unfortunately, early European forestry had a great influence on 

Giffer-Pinchot. European forestry did not understand the role of 

fire in the West and unfortunately then we suppressed fire for a 

hundred years and we are ruing the day that that happened. 

One question that I need to mention is one of pace. All of you 

folks here probably owned a front lawn at one time or another and 

if I suggested to you that you cut eight foot of your front lawn 

every Saturday and that is all you could cut, eventually you would 

be looking at the rest of your lawn seeing something growing like 

crazy and realizing you weren't gaining on it. That is exactly what 

that report is doing. 

And here is a picture. This is desired future condition. This is 

where we are with the density. It is way too dense and we need 
40 

to take this line and get down to a future condition and instead 

this is what is happening. We are: wandering away from it. Your 

questions were driving at that earlier and you were right on point. 

There is really no suitable answer that the Forest Service is going 

to be able to give you on why we are not getting out as much as 

we are growing. If they had an answer for that, we wouldn't be 

choking on small fees right now. Finally, and by the way, prescribed burning is not the answer. 

It might be 1 percent of the answer or 2 percent. We go into that 

country and try to prescribe burn. We don't have the windows of 

opportunity. We do not have the manpower at the right times of 

year because they are fighting fire and we will burn up all kinds 

of people in houses and homes and schools if we try that. Very difficult. We need to get the density c:ut down, then we can prescribe 

burn hopefully in about 30 years if we work hard enough at it. 

By the way, on this pace bus n·~ss , they are suggesting in our 

country doing about 4,000 acres a year. We know that we have to 

do 50,000 acres a year in order t•) be done in 32 years. So consequently, the CASPO report and 1.he things that the Forest Service just mentioned about pace are not true, in my estimation. They 

are not prescribing a pace that get:; the job done and we are going 

to burn up a lot of country before' we learn that if we don't get 

started. So we have got to move fas ;, 

It is very critical that you no1; give the Forest Service any 

chances for delay. They have been delaying for the last 15 years 

while our forest health has gotten worse. If you tell them to do any- thing else that takes some time, we will lose another chunk of 

ground. 

The interim guidelines have been a debilitating evidence of inde- cision. We need to use the same zeal at organizing to fight fires; 

we need to take that zeal and put that into preventing them. We 

spent $800 million last year fighting. We killed 37 people, approximately. If we would even put 10 pe-rcent of that into forest health, 

we would have a fighting chance o•: starting to get our way out of 

that. 

I would like to suggest reinvesting the money that we make on 

our efforts, put it back into the land. Reinvest in America that way. 

Perhaps a new national campaign, a Smokey Bear campaign, if you 

would, and maybe just dreaming for a minute, you could say an 

American legacy, healthy forests and healthy streams. And I am pleased that the comiiiittee is working on this now. I 

think you are beginning to take UB back. I wish the rest of Congress knew as much about this problem as your comments have 

shown me that you know this morning. 

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Thank you. 

[The statement of Mr. Coates can be found at the end of the 

hearing.] 

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Let me ask, we are now going to go to the ques- tions. Mr. Sprague and Ms. Gauthier, would you take a seat next 

to Mr. Coates. I want you up here w respond to some of the questions. Would you be willing to do that for us, please? If there is a 

better place on this end, it is up to you. I am just thinking where 

you can get a couple of seats. 
41 

Mr. COATES. While we are waiting, along that line of density. We 

are estimating we have 40 percent of white fir in our country. Presettlement condition would indicate 10 percent. So we have 

changed the nature of the forest to a small, very dense, very crowded forest. These little white fir work like water pumps and they are 

drying out the eastern side of the Sierras. That is one of the reasons our country is exploding with fire . Mr. DOOLITTLE. Thank you. 

Mr. Sprague, today under the environmental guidelines the ASQ 

for the range of the California spotted owl would be, what is it, 412; is that right? 

Mr. SPRAGUE. Correct. 

Mr. DOOLITTLE. And under the preferred alternative it is 416 I 

believe? 

Mr. SPRAGUE. Yes. Mr. DOOLITTLE. And at what year did the restrictions on timber 

harvest kick in? Was it in 1990? 

Mr. SPRAGUE. 1993. Mr. DOOLITTLE. 1993. So what would the average ASQ have 

been, say-I don't know, going back I guess to the 1980's, maybe 

the beginning of the 1980's through 1993. Is that a fair period to 

take the average? What would that have been? 

Mr. SPRAGUE. The average would be close to a billion. And that 

would be total green and salvage. 

Mr. DOOLITTLE. And was the figure, the other figures were those 

green and salvage? 

Mr. SPRAGUE. No. The 412 and 416 are just green. Mr. DOOLITTLE. I am trying to do a reasonable comparison here. Give me two sets of figures I can work with, so we either lump the 

salvage with all of them or take it out. I want to know, in other 

words, what percentage reduction are we looking at here between 

the preferred alternative, for example, and the period of time before we had restrictions? 

Mr. SPRAGUE. Approximately 45 percent. 

Mr. DooLITTLE. So we are looking at a 45-percent drop. Is that 

in your estimation due primarily to the restrictions or due to some 

aspect of the economy that lessened the demand for timber? 

Mr. SPRAGUE. No. It has to do with the standards and guidelines 

in the forest plans and the standards and guidelines in the interim 

guidelines up to this point. 

Mr. DOOLITTLE. So it has nothing to do with the economy at all, 

or little to do with it. Would that be a fair characterization? 

Mr. SPRAGUE. What we take into account in our forest planning 

and in this effort-economics. We are also putting together a plan 

for the landscape of the forest in total, soMr. DOOLITTLE. OK. So basically we are looking at a 45-percent 

reduction due solely to the whim of government. Maybe "whim" is 

a pejorative term because I feel negatively about it, but due to the 

action or decree of government? 

Mr. SPRAGUE. There have been some other factors and again it 

is government, but there has been acreage taken out and wilder- ness designation, wild and scenic river designation, along with the 

acreage taken out for the standards and guidelines for wildlife and 
42 

for what we have done in the way ·)f providing for riparian protection. 

Mr. DOOLITTLE. OK. 

Ms. Jacobson, you testified that :;ou have had to go to Colorado 

to get a new supply of timber. Ms. JACOBSON. That is correct. In our area, the material has 

been dwindling due to the interim rules on the California spotted 

owl and we opted-it was a very tough decision to make, but we 

felt it was possibly a good decision for the future, at least for the 

immediate future, to keep our men working and to hopefully continue to provide material back in to Tuolumne County. 

Mr. DOOLITTLE. So you actually ·~ an make it profitable by shipping logs from Colorado to Tuolu:nne County and dealing with 

them there. Ms. JACOBSON. It is somewhat p~ofitable. It is too new and too 

soon to tell exactly. 

Mr. DoOLITTLE. OK. Well-anecdotal evidence-we had a mill 

that was going to be closed becauSE! they didn't get any timber off 

the Federal forest in our district, tl:.e Michigan facility, and finally 

another company bought it and closed a mill someplace else, and 

they import logs now into my distrid, but again we are the victims 

of this artificial action of government which is cutting by almost 

half the amount of timber that is aV3.ilable for harvest. 

Ms. JACOBSON. Yes. Mr. DooLITTLE. I am aware of a document you have drawn to my 

attention called "The Forest HealtlL and Restoration Alternative," 

which I think has as its primary focus the idea that we ought to 

be balancing annual growth with annual harvest; is that correct? 

Ms. JACOBSON. Very much so. 

Mr. DoOLITTLE. Mr. Sprague, are you aware of such a document 

that has been developed? I guess we would think of it as another 

alternative to the ones that you put forth. Have you heard of that 

at all? 

Mr. SPRAGUE. I am not aware of it, no. 

Mr. DoOLITTLE. One of the thing:; I would like to ask you to do 

is if you would take a look at that, I think it is a pretty complete 

set, hopefully it is, and if we could get your feedback, individually 

or through the committee. I would prefer you to do it. But one of 

the concerns I have had is there was no alternative out there that 

had this, something that matched be annual growth with the annual ASQ, so that would be very helpful to me if you could take 

a look at that and, Ms. Jacobson, m~: ybe you could make that available. 

Ms. JACOBSON. I would be happy t'). 

Mr. DooLITTLE. The yellow light ~arne far too fast. I am sure it 

was accurate but I will yield at this point to Mr. Vento for questions. 

Mr. VENTO. Thanks. Mr. Marks, what is the number of people in 

Tuolumne County that are employ1!d in the wood products, both 

private and public? Do you know? 

Mr. MARKS. We have approximately a thousand that are directly 

employed. Mr. VENTO. Your State employment department says 840. About 

half of those are in the private sect::>r; is that right? So what per-
43 

centage does that make up of your work force? How many people 

that you have in your work force in the county? Do you know the 

answer? 

Mr. MARKS. No, I don't. Mr. VENTO. According to this report, 14,640. So this makes up 

about 3 percent of the employment. It is important. I understand 

small communities are dependent on this. I am sensitive to that 

and I am very concerned about it. And it is not an easy thing. It 

is one of the reasons that I sponsored legislation to try to deal with 

this particular problem, which the environmentalists didn't like either, if it was any satisfaction to anyone here, but in any case it 

is not something that we take lightly. I mean, we want to look at 

it and understand the impacts. 

What is the percentage of revenue that comes back to your 

schools? You receive some revenue from this; do you know, Mr. 

Marks. 

Mr. MARKS. We have a 25 percentMr. VENTO. I know the amount. Do you know how much it is of 

the budget in your schools? Does it make up 2 percent, 3 percent, 

1 percent? I have information that says it makes up a very small 

percentage of the budget, 1 to 3 percent. Do you disagree with 

that? 

Mr. MARKS. No, I agree with that. 

Mr. VENTO. It is important. I was a teacher. I want those dollars 

there so we can compensate the teachers. I understand the importance of that as well. 

These areas because of the way the Forest Service calculates 

costs sometimes obviously has resulted in a below-cost timber sale 

in the last five years. In fact, it was just the last year or so that 

they made it above-cost calculation, especially if you take the 

shared revenues back to the county in materials-or to the school 

districts. So it is important for us to understand what we are 

doing. 

Has there been any effort to try to look at the white fir and the 

water spouts and the incense cedar and some others? I tried to get 

that into the discussion earlier about the constituent members of 

these. We want the desirable species because generally what we 

are talking about cutting here, the Forest Service tries to put up 

a sale. They know a lot more about it than we do sitting here, and 

we can micromanage it, but I can tell you it is going to be a lot 

worse than if we let the professionals work this out, and I have got 

some ideas about why that is occurring. 

In any case, I want to convey to you that we understand the concerns and that we need to plant these highly desirable aged species 

in terms of harvest. That has been part of the problem. Obviously, 

if you have got a plant life and someone said they wanted to cut 

all of the white-the other plants down, we would be all right; we 

would be in good shape. 

I think the Forest Service would prefer that, to eliminate those 

particular plants and begin to manage it in a different way. 

Now Mrs. Chenoweth talked about prescribed burning. I mean, 

that wasn't me. I just want to point that out. I mean I understand 

that you know the lightning strikes and some of the other issues 

are a problem and the thinning and more aggressive type of man-
44 

agement to build fire resiliency is where we have to go in terms 

of watersheds and some of the other areas. I understand that. But 

that takes money and we don't hav·~ the receipts coming back to 

do that. In fact, if we did that, these things would really be out of 

whack in terms of whether or not th~se were below-sale, below-cost 

timber sales or salvage sales, most of which, of course, are all 

below cost. 

Mr. Coates, you were trying to say something? 

Mr. COATES. Yes, a couple of thingf:. First of all, the communities 

would like to do two things. They would like to cause the communities to survive and they would like to return the environment to 

a better and better condition. So it is not true that we are just trying to maximize product. The opposite is true. 

Second, it is not true that we need to be below cost on all that 

work. We can use trees down to six inches and the technology is 

there to do that, so there is a lot ;~ work that needs to be done 

in the small, medium, and medium--large category. We think we 

have got about 50 years of work to do and I would commend you 

to our document which is a pretty balanced approach to getting 

that work done. If we can do that, w'~ can keep these communities 

alive. 

Mr. VENTO. It won't be saw timber, I think. 

Mr. COATES. Yes, it will. I am sorry to disagree with you. 

The other thing I was going to pc-int out is that I noticed you 

asked Mr. Marks what his schools and economies were. In our case, 

it is about 60 percent of the money it takes to run the road system, 

which you folks need to visit that county, and it is about 15 to 25 

percent of the school budget. Mr. VENTO. That is a little bigger portion of those. 

Mr. COATES. The other thing is our unemployment rate is running much higher than the national average, and we believe that 

our educational levels are falling below the national averages because we can't teach languages or anything else. 

Mr. VENTO. What are your numbem with regard to your area for 

these counties that you are representing? What are their numbers 

for the number of timber employees versus the overall--

Mr. COATES. I can give you the timber dollars. Mr. VENTO. Number of employees, workers, versus workers who 

are not timber-employed. Mr. COATES. I am going to try to give you the one I know, that 

is, that we are ranging between 20 and 67 percent timber dollars 

into the community as basic wages. 

Mr. VENTO. My time is expired, Mr. Chairman. I would want to 

comment about this owl business and the number of owls. Of 

course the issue at the Forest Service is that they are trying to get 

ahead so they don't have this problen: with the endangered listing. Of course in doing that they are dealing with the entire ecosystem 

system, the primary plants. Any seventh grade student obviously 

can tell all of us about how a plant community or pyramid works 

both in terms of those that are going in one direction and the 

saprophytes going in the other directieon. So the idea is to get ahead 

of this and obviously face up to this. Now the predictable problem 

that has been predicted for decades is here. 

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Cooley is recognized. 
45 

Mr. COOLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I know that my colleague on the other side keeps referring to 

timber salvage as below cost, costing us money for salvaging. If you 

keep saying something long enough, I guess everybody starts to believe it, but the GAO marked up our timber salvage bill and it is 

a plus and we think it is even low on the plus side. If you are going 

to keep saying it is below cost, I am going to keep telling that it 

is not so we can get through that. Mr. VENTO. We will agree to disagree, Mr. Cooley. Mr. COOLEY. Absolutely. We have been on television disagreeing 

already. We will do it again. 

Anybody on the panel, you are on the ground, you are working 

every day. Could you give us in your own words, somebody tell me 

what they think is wrong with the Forest Service as far as your 

experiences with it and make it really short. We only have five 

minutes here. 

Ms. JACOBSON. Mr. Cooley, I would like to have the opportunity. 

We have several problems that we do deal with in the Forest Service, but I would have to say in the most recent years, the biggest 

problem we are all faced with is something called "the consent decree" and that is meeting a quota. It is like what we went through 

in the late 1960's and early 1970's by hiring a minority of people. That is what the Forest Service has been doing recently with 

women and I resent it because I am also of the same sex. We have 

a lot of women that have been placed in positions to meet that 

quota that are either not management material, leadership material, or have not the background or the time to understand the position that they are dealing with. Mr. COATES. Along with that, and I mentioned this one when the 

different panel came out, the Stockton. At the same time the Soviet 

Union has learned that central planning doesn't work, and it has 

broken itself up, we continue to centralize power on the banks of 

the Potomac. That is not the way to run those forests out there. 

You need local knowledge, you need the enthusiasm and activity 

levels of people. That is the reason we are only getting 30 percent 

of the American population voting. And so I think Congress has re- cently had a good start at returning that and getting people back 

in government, and that is the same thing that needs to happen 

in the Forest Service. Let's allow them to make the decisions in 

those ranger districts based on good soil, good weather information, good science, and all the communities will get excited about that 

and get behind it. Mr. COOLEY. Anybody on the panel? 

Also, I hear the Forest Service many times say that we have decided to change the plan, expand it or modify it because of public 

input. Have any of you been privileged to attend public meetings 

or what have you, what they are referring to as public input, and 

were any of your recommendations or your public input considered 

in these possible new programs that are directly affecting you? 

Mr. MARKs. Congressman Cooley, I would like to address just the 

county's perspective on that. The entire board of Tuolumne County 

feels we have been excluded from this entire planning process, including this report in the informational gathering system when it 

has--
46 

Mr. COOLEY. They keep referring to public input and that is why 

we are doing all this changing. What public is this? 

Mr. MARKs. I don't know. If States and Congress all along say 

the local entities will be involved ir. that process of input, and, believe me, the closest we can narrow it down is the spotted owl team 

meeting with one member of our Board of Supervisors for a period 

of somewhere between two and four hours. That has been our total 

involvement and we have an awful lot at stake for that kind of 

input. Mr. CoATES. I have got to say in defense of the Forest Service 

that our county and counties around us have been apprised of the 

process. They have been up there numerous times, talked quite a 

bit with the regional forester about :t. He has assured me that they 

are taking our comments seriously. :l believe him. And time will tell 

but they are in the gathering proces 3 right now. 

Mr. COOLEY. Well, you know, tht!y are in the process of implementing a program that is going to have further restrictions on uti- lization of public lands, especially in the timber industry. Do you 

feel that you had anything to do wib that process? 

Mr. COATES. It depends on how the process turns out. We don't 

like the current CASPO report at all. The alternatives are bad. 

There isn't a single good one in there and it depends on what happens from this point forward. 

Mr. COOLEY. Well, did you have any input with the Forest Service before that report came out? 

Mr. COATES. We just spent a lot of money and incredible hours. 

There are about 150 pages in here :>f document that we are going 

to turn in on what is wrong with that CASPO report. If they will 

straighten out the things that we t&lk about in here, we will have 

healthy communities in a much better environment without the 

fire danger. Mr. COOLEY. My time is up. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. DOOLITTLE. Thank you. The Chair recognizes Mrs. Chenoweth. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. I have a couple of quick questions for Mr. 

Marks. You know, you stated that only 1 to 3 percent of your county's education budget comes from timber receipts. Did I hear you 

correctly? 

Mr. MARKS. That is correct. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. But don't these timber receipts fund special 

education programs and special programs for the hearing impaired? 

Mr. MARKs. Well, Congresswoman Chenoweth, I am not sure you 

can direct it at that. The timber rEceipts go into the educational 

program and they are divided among schools. We get money from 

the State to provide, supposedly, the basic educational requirement, including the programs that you are mentioning. These receipts that came in in the past have been used to give the children 

special items that you don't get from the basic educational require- ment. We live in an area that is tremer.dously beautiful and the field 

trips into that area, teaching people about local history, our whole 

State is full of it, and these dollars have been used in the past to 

help provide field trips to further their educational foundation. 
47 

Now, due to other impacts in the educational system and the reduction of these dollars, they have gone in just to provide basic requirements. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you. 

Mr. Duysen, or Mrs. Jacobson, either one, when you bid out a 

timber sale, do you bid along very prescribed bid specs that have 

been offered to you by the Forest Service when you used to bid out 

timber sales? 

Mr. DUYSEN. It has been such a long time I can't even remember. Could you repeat that question, please? I am sorry. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. When you bid out Forest Service sales, you 

would bid under certain prescribed specifications. Didn't you get a 

book of specs? 

Mr. DUYSEN. There is a contract that you have to adhere to. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Yes. And that is how you would make your bid 

along certain specs. 

Mr. DUYSEN. Yes, and the quality of timber and your costs associated with logging it and getting it to the sawmill, also your manufacturing costs and where the lumber market is in that period. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. OK. What would happen if you deviated from 

that? I mean, is there an enforcement mechanism that would keep 

other than the motivation of getting the bid? 

Mr. DUYSEN. In terms of if you deviate from your contract you 

can be in default with the government. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. And when you are in default with the government, what happens with that contract? What happens to you? 

Mr. DUYSEN. The government will look for damages. Your timber 

will be under bond, maybe taken away. There are severe ramifications. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Severe ramifications, OK. 

Mr. Sprague, when Jack Ward Thomas was here, he indicated to 

us that sometimes some of the problems that were developing was 

because there was too much timber and sometimes the wrong species. If you had one of your subcontractors out there that were replanting and they replanted the wrong species, what would you do 

against your bids? 

Mr. SPRAGUE. That is not likely to happen because the contractors who plant our trees plant the trees we give them to plant so 

that wouldn't happen. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. You mentioned that in 1993 there were 

changes that caused this to come about with regard to a new management policy. What were the changes you remembered to rules 

and regulations and in-house--

Mr. SPRAGUE. They were the result of the so-called CASPO report, the California spotted owl report that was prepared by a team 

of scientists, and they recommended a set of standards and guidelines that were adopted at that time as interim direction for the 

management of these forests. 

Mrs. CHENO\VETH. Mr. Sprague, where in the Endangered Species Act does it say that you manage habitat that isn't even listed 

as critical yet in violation of the National Forest Management Act? 

Mr. SPRAGUE. It doesn't say that in the Endangered Species Act 

but in the National Forest Management Act. Dealing with viability 

of species is where we get the authority to do this. 
48 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Could you plea:;e provide me with the exact 

language with that because I am pretty familiar with that law and 

I do know that that law says that you are mandated to take out 

the windthrow, burn, disease and insect-infested salvage material. 

And the Forest Service is simply not abiding by the law, Mr. 

Sprague, and I am becoming very, vety impatient with that. 

I don't think it is pleasant for you to submit to a lecture, but I 

find it very hard to understand how any agency of this government 

can write their own laws and step outside the authority Congress 

gave you. You are doing that, sir. And you are breaching the public 

trust and you are pushing us beyond a level of tolerance. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. DOOLITTLE. The gentleman from California is recognized. 

Mr. HERGER. Thank you, Mr. Chair:nan. 

I again, Mr. Sprague, want to try to understand how we came 

up, how the Forest Service came up with the determination of this 

plan for the CASPO plan, and again I am trying to rehash what 

has taken place at this hearing so far. 

It was mentioned, I am not sure if it was you or the other Representative, or Mr. Unger mentioned, one of you stated that the 

preferred alternative in the draft EI~l is based on public comment 

as well as on scientific evidence. 

Now, when we look at the last part, scientific evidence, please 

forgive me, but I wonder if you have read your own report? When 

we use this evidence, quoting from your own report, again, it 

states: "It appears to be abundant and even well distributed within 

the forest." This is about the third time I have read this because 

again I just for the best of me I can't understand how you came 

up with the decision you have. Right now I am talking about scientific evidence. 

Also, even your chief, who I have a great respect for, but Chief 

Jack Ward Thomas has testified many times even before this committee and out at hearings that the forest health problem is theresult of too many trees. Now, he has stated that on a number of occasions. We see that your plan, every one of them, would allowwould create more trees, would allow for more trees that grow 

rather than thinning and doing the types of things that I believe 

your chief has even recommended on different occasions. 

And we have also heard from those people who represent these 

counties, the gentleman right next to you, Mr. Coates, many years, 

I won't venture how many years but not only representative of a 

county where the Sierra forest that we are talking about but also 

representative of counties throughout the State and rural counties, 

I believe has a very good feel for what is going on. 

We have heard other supervisors here and others indicate that 

this is not what their communities feel is in the best interests of 

the forest that they love. My question is, which segment? It doesn't 

sound like it is from those who live there. I wonder whether it is 

from your chief? Which segment of ;he public does support this 

draft EIS that you are talking about? 

Mr. SPRAGUE. First of all, I didn't suggest or I don't think any 

of us suggested that public input determined which one of those 

would be the preferred. The public input that we got up front when 

we started this process is what determined the range of alter-
49 

natives and the considerations that we would make in those alternatives. So I can't say what segment of public. In fact, I would 

guess you couldn't get any segment that would agree with any one 

of those. Because there has been no decision made, the idea here 

is to propose a range of alternatives from which we can get input 

from people like Bill Coates and the rest of the stakeholders in this 

and that is really what we are about. 

Mr. HERGER. Well, then, let me turn to Bill Coates, and I want 

to thank you for your involvement with the Quincy Library Group, a group we have heard quite a bit about just in fleeting. Here is 

a group that was made up of not just timber people, not jusL community people, but made up of environmental people. This group 

includes everyone, and I might mention some very strong environmentalists from the environmental community who we both personally know. You came up with a plan. 

Supervisor Coates-again we heard this input-thank you for the 

clarification of the input. Evidently the input has determined which 

direction to go in. 

Supervisor Coates, did the EIS move in that direction that your 

group and again a balanced group, made up of environmentalists, 

would suggest we go in? 

Mr. COATES. No, the alternative was supposed to be the Quincy 

Library Group's idea of forestry. Unfortunately, it poorly or does 

not represent our efforts and endeavors. Had it, we would have discovered that it is possible to make the environment better and do 

enough logging to keep the logging and the schools and everybody 

alive. We also believe that it is very possible to start cutting down 

the fire danger and we need to start. Unfortunately, CASPO used 

some real old fire information. This looks like your grandmother's 

apron with the polka dots and this is the old fire system. We used 

to cut down the fire danger by making a hole in the forest. Then 

the fire comes along and burns around all those little holes and we 

are not any better off than we used to be. 

What we suggested is cutting a line through this. Every decade 

the fires double in size. We would like to at least know that the 

work we do this year helps us next year or the year after by cutting 

a line through there and making the size of the fire smaller. We 

provided that information to the CASPO team. I don't know what 

they are going to do with it, but I know that the local forests are 

starting to realize that by cutting and then cutting again we ce.n 

start to make the forest a better place to be. 

Mr. HERGER. Thank you. We are talking about new science that 

you have used. Again, the environmental community brought in everything that is new, not old information as evidently the Forest 

Service and their study was making their decision on, but we are 

talking about new science. Mr. COATES. Yes. 

Mr. HERGER. Thank you. 

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Coates, we are going to go to a second round 

of questioning on this. Unless you produce those charts for us in 

some fashion that they can be incorporated into the committee report we won't have them and I think they would be useful. 

Mr. COATES. OK We are going to submit a large, very complicated, very scientific response to the CASPO team's work and I 
50 

would be happy to make that available to this committee if you are 

interested. It will give you-for instance there are math errors in 

the CASPO report. One chart is off by 100 percent in every column 

and when you extend that all the volumes are wrong. So basically 

the CASPO report in some cases has used incorrect information. 

The only way we found that out is to run those computer runs ourselves. So that will be made available to the committee if you are 

interested in it. Mr. DOOLITTLE. Good. I would appreciate that. Mr. DooLITTLE. And I would like to get incorporated into this report the impact on each of the counties, their school system, their 

roads and what the dollar impacts in the budget is, the percentage 

impacts, and we will list it for purpo:;es of comparison. 

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Sprague, yo11 heard the testimony of our 

county supervisor, Mr. Marks. Wouk you be amenable to arranging 

an opportunity for the Board of Su:?ervisors of Tuolumne County 

to have further input with the Fore:;t Service over this draft EIS? 

Mr. SPRAGUE. Absolutely. In fact, I have even talked to Supervisor Marks about coming down personally and visiting with him, so, yes, absolutely. 

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Thank you. 

Mr. Sprague, does the draft EIS point to alternative "C" as the 

likely preferred alternative? 

Mr. SPRAGUE. I am not sure I und·~rstand your question. Did you 

ask if it points to it as the--

Mr. DoOLITTLE. In other words, from the information produced 

in the draft EIS, is it clear that alternative "C" would be the preferred alternative just based on the results and the information 

that was developed in that EIS? 

Mr. SPRAGUE. Well, I will have to be honest with you, I would 

have preferred in this case to have not had a preferred alternative. 

I say that because I was really hoping that we could come to a way 

that we could get the best possible constructive input that we 

could. But as I mentioned earlier, we did select a preferred alternative and we did it based on that idea of selecting one that would 

give us what at the time we though·; would be the one that would 

focus attention on managing the forest as a whole, the landscape 

as a whole and not just the critters or not just board-feet. 

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Did the team unofficially recommend or prefer 

some alternative other than alternative "C"? 

Mr. SPRAGUE. I think the team was generally in the area of "C" 

and alternative "D." I don't know that they specifically recommended. While I wasn't there when the charge was given to the 

team, had I been, my charge would have been for them to develop 

the range of alternatives that we tad selected to do the assessment, the evaluation, and come back to us with the pros and cons, 

the pluses and minuses of various alternatives for us, then the 

management, the regional supervisors and foresters would get together and decide which alternative we were going to select. Mr. DOOLITTLE. So your wish as the regional forester was really 

that no preferred alternative be desie-nated. Mr. SPRAGUE. Not by the team. 
51 

Mr. DooLITI'LE. Not by the team but rather by you and your people reviewing their work, but the team in fact then did come down 

and recommend a preferred alternative; is that not the case? 

Mr. SPRAGUE. No. No. It was very close to the first day that I 

was in this job and was time to review the work that they had done 

on this range of alternatives and I was there kind of green in some 

respects about what all had gone on before me, but we did go 

through the team under Janice's leadership, laid out all of the alternatives and we went through one by one the pros and cons of 

each. It was my impression that the team, if they had made a formal recommendation it would have been either "C" or "D." 

Mr. DOOLITI'LE. I understand that the preference was for "D." I 

mean, can you confirm that? 

Mr. SPRAGUE. No, I can't. 

Mr. DOOLITI'LE. Does it concern you as a public official with re- sponsibility over vital resources affecting these small communities 

that basically you are recommending a reduction of 45 percent, which from the testimony we are hearing is 45 percent in the ASQ 

is going to virtually devastate these timber communities? I mean, 

does that give you pause to perhaps wish to reconsider the road 

down which you have been traveling? 

Mr. SPRAGUE. Of course it gives me pause. It is another reason 

why we extended the public comment period. We want as much information and input as we can possibly get before we move on to 

crafting a final decision on this whole process. Mr. DOOLITTLE. I realize my time is up but I just want to pursue 

so we get this worked through. Well, I think you have heard from several of the area's representatives, myself included, and Mr. Fazio whose district is impacted 

by this forest activity, that, you know, we would like another look 

at this. What concerns me is if what happened here is typical, you 

know, you will take those alternatives you have got and just work 

within them, but to me none of those is acceptable. I don't think 

it is acceptable to Mr. Herger and Mr. Fazio didn't really say, but 

we cannot have a 45 percent reduction in ASQ, especially not when 

our forest health is being devastated by all this new growth. So you 

know, as one representative, let me make the plea to you, go back 

to the drawing board, come back with an alternative that matches 

the annual growth with the annual ASQ, and then we will have 

some hearings or testimony and go through that, but that would 

be my plea, and my time is up and I will yield to Mr. Vento. Mr. VENTO. The issue with regard to constituent makeup of the 

forest, of course, Mr. Sprague, is important. How does this option 

"C" contemplate the makeup of the forest changing? In other 

words, right now, for instance, harvesting certainly has played a 

major role in the species shift; hasn't it? 

Mr. SPRAGUE. It has. Mr. VENTO. From what? 

Mr. SPRAGUE. The preferred alternative, again, it is just that. It 

is in the draft, but what it envisions is a landscape approach where 

in the riparian zone, the lower slope zone, is managed primarily to 

maintain that habitat type, extended rotations in that area, not 

any heavy removal of trees, moving up to the mid-slope, a scheme 

of removing timber by group selection primarily and then on up to 
52 

the upper slope where there would be understory removal where 

we would leave more of a shaded field break kind of appearing 

landscape. 

Mr. VENTO. It obviously anticipates a restoration of some Ponderosa types and riparian areas, special areas where there is a significant amount of different fauna and flora. Consider the selection, 

if harvest were to go on, I mean th1~ pressure is on, we are talking 

ASQ, we are talking usually the otd growth, we are talking Ponderosa, right? 

Mr. SPRAGUE. Correct. 

Mr. VENTO. That is the problem I think that is being missed in 

some of this and you have some areas that are off-site. We talked 

about salvage here. Of course obviously there has to be riparian 

work, there has to be thinning. That is forest health. I mean salvage by itself-when you made the suggestion, you took quite a 

tongue lashing here because the suggestion was you were not mak- ing salvage sales available. You are making them available all the 

time; aren't you? 

Mr. SPRAGUE. Yes. I wish we codd move quicker. We recognize 

that we have a significant buildup of dead and dying material 

and--

Mr. VENTO. The problem is if yo·1 offer certain areas, you don't 

get bids on them, I suppose. Mr. SPRAGUE. No, that is not true right now. Mr. VENTO. Timber price is higher, it is better. 

Mr. SPRAGUE. Pretty much whatE~ver we can get on the market, 

we have takers. 

Mr. VENTO. So you have just a pn~paration problem. 

Mr. SPRAGUE. Right. Mr. VENTO. So I mean the point is you have been moving as 

quickly as you can to, in fact, prcvide those. Are some of these 

sales below cost sales? 

Mr. SPRAGUE. Some may be but--

Mr. VENTO. The price is higher but it is obviously limited by 

what you have to pay back. Obvim.:.sly, my colleague from Oregon 

left. 

Mr. CooLEY. [Presiding.] No, I am here. 

Mr. VENTO. I am sorry. I didn't notice. 

The issue here in terms of sale-not the GAO, we mean the 

CBO. I think that is what you mea1t. You said GAO. The issue is 

CBO does not count the cost of road building. They don't count the 

cost of payment to the counties, w:,1ich I don't think the counties 

want whether it is from salvage or otherwise. There are many 

other costs that they don't do but t:-:1ey are below cost. You have a 

provision in there notwithstanding that it doesn't matter that they 

are below cost. If you didn't believe that, you wouldn't have it in 

that particular bill. So I mean, I think the point is made that this 

bill doesn't deal at all with forest health, it simply deals with salvage, and obviously the inclusion of green trees in salvage is another matter in terms of how much vou include. When you make these sales up, 1ifr. Sprague, you have to in fact 

try to provide that there is an attractiveness to them; is that correct? 

Mr. SPRAGUE. That is correct 
53 

Mr. VENTO. So that there is some profitability because these private sector contractors are not going to come in and cut something 

if they can't make any money out of it. Is that correct? 

Mr. SPRAGUE. Well, they are not going to come and bid on it. 

Mr. VENTO. That is the whole point. So the issue isn't as simple 

as it seems on the face of it, and obviously some green trees get 

cut. It isn't just a matter of going in and excising diseased trees. 

All of us don't agree that because the trees are dead or diseased, 

that that is necessarily a bad thing in terms of an ecosystem, in 

terms of the multiplicity and the variety of the biodiversity that occurs in them. But clearly when it is these cases where we are 

building up fuel, we need to look carefully at solutions. 

I think we could all make those decisions right here in this committee but I don't think we would get much else done, and that is 

why we convey and appreciate the professionalism of the Forest 

Service and you folks trying to do your job. Maybe it is not always 

evident. 

Mr. CoOLEY. Mr. Sprague, so we don't sort of mislead the committee and the record as well, when you put out a salvage bill, you 

don't necessarily put a lot of green in it just to get the salvage, because my understanding of the timber industry-and I happen to 

have a small timber stand myself, came from a long, long line of 

timber people in Oregon, we are more efficient today and we can 

almost utilize anything up to a certain point of how far-how long 

it has been dead and dying in a productive manner in new methods 

that we have. 

So it is not really necessary to throw in a lot of "green" in order 

to obtain a reasonable bid on salvageable material. Isn't that correct? 

Mr. SPRAGUE. Well, generally that is correct, but if you have 

some trees that are green, may in fact be diseased in some form 

or another, mistletoe and that sort of thing, we may have an objective to get some of that cleaned out at the same time. And technically they are green trees but we would throw them into a salvage situation. 

Mr. COOLEY. I just want to clarify for the record, I don't want 

to have anybody misinterpret salvage with the idea that the Forest 

Service is throwing in good green trees just to get somebody to bid 

on it because that is not a fact. 

Mr. Herger, you are next up. 

Mr. HERGER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Again, Mr. Sprague, I want to thank you for coming out to our 

district. During that tour that we had here just very recently-and 

this was not an area we are talking about. This was up further in 

the northern spotted owl area. The condition of the forest is very 

similar. 

As a matter of fact, in the Sierra area it is even worse, more deteriorated than we saw. We did see areas, large areas where there 

were too many trees, they were dead and dying. I don't want to put 

words in your mouth, but wouldn't you say that a lot of what we 

saw were examples of unhealthy forests? 

Mr. SPRAGUE. I would say so, yes. 

Mr. HERGER. So what we are here about, I would believe, is what 

follows when you have an unhealthy forest. The type that we 
54 

looked at and the type that we are talking about now, over in the 

southern part of my district. These are forests that are subject to 

total disaster through wildfire. 

Unlike the old days 130 years ago , where fires would go through 

and you would still have your healthy trees. The fire would just 

burn the underbrush or thin out, vrhereas now we see fires that 

will go through as again the cottonw:>Od fire where there is nothing 

left. That fire scorched the forest to such a degree that even the 

earth is ruined and we won't be able to grow trees there for several 

years; is that correct? 

Mr. SPRAGUE. There will be in some burned isolated areas where 

the soil is burned so deep and thoroughly that it would be a while. 

But generally speaking we can get an acceptable recovery rate and 

plant seedlings and reseed in a bumed area. But if it burns extremely hot, it can slow up the reproductive processes. 

Mr. HERGER. The point being that because of the annual increase 

of the fire hazard due to more treeB growing, and fewer thinning 

programs. We see this buildup and fires are getting worse. This sit· 

uation is happening often in the environment where we are seeing 

more and more soils. This is not the case in every situation, but 

certainly is so in the cottonwood in the area above Truckee. 

Now, we have talked a lot about what the problem is. I think 

that it is more important now that Ne recognize the problem. Mr. 

Sprague, respectfully, there isn't on;) part of the recommendation 

in that EIS that I believe is going to take care of this forest health 

problem as a whole. Focusing not solely on the spotted owl but on 

the problem as a whole. 

I would like to refer now to a pla1 that I feel will help us with 

that, even right in the middle of the Sierra province that we are 

talking about. I will refer again to Mr. Coates; also if we could go 

over this Quincy Library plan agah, that you were involved in. 

This plan involved our community, Environmental community, and 

timber people. Everyone was involved to help preserve the beauty 

of the forests as well as the livelihoo(is of people. How well received 

was this by the Administration whm we presented this to them? 

Mr. COATES. I felt that everyone 1hat has looked at it has complimented it. Now, that doesn't translate into results on the 

ground. 

Unfortunately, we were told that if we could get on the same 

song sheet that they could get the job done, and we have been asking that the job be done since-about two-and-a-half years now. Recently we have even asked for a No1man Schwarzkopf-type person 

out there who would take the bull b1 the horns and talk about results. Unfortunately, in a bureaucra;:y as large as the Forest Service, it is made up of lots of very goc1d people but it is not an effi .. 

cient strike force to get something clone, and there are too many 

rules. And so results have been far short of the political support 

that we have had. 

Mr. HERGER. Well, I see my time i~ up, but I would like to inform 

you, Mr. Sprague, that I believe we rave a plan. It may be the only 

plan that I have seen to date, when! we have had a group, every·· 

one working together, that has agrt!ed. I mean, that is unbeliev· 

able. 
55 

Environmentalists have agreed, the timber people have agreed, 

the community has agreed on a forest health plan that would take 

care of all the problems that we are talking about now. I would 

really like to urge you to please go back to the drawing board and 

your good people, use the great information that you have in this 

but I would like to have you utilize this new information, the new 

science we have and try to come up with a plan that would be similar to one that all of our groups are agreeing to. We talked about having the input of the community. I believe 

that we have had it here and come up with something that will 

help solve our problem. Most important, it won't make it worse, 

which I am afraid all of these plans that have been proposed to us 

might do. 

Thank you. Mr. DOOLI'ITLE. Thank you. We will excuse the members of this 

panel. 

Mr. CoOLEY. I didn't get my chance. 

Mr. DOOLI'ITLE. I apologize. We are not done yet. 

Wait a minute, have you asked your questions yet? You are recognized. You are not excused yet. 

I am sorry, Ms. Chenoweth has questions, too. 

Mr. COOLEY. Mr. Sprague, I know we have got you on the hot 

spot, but that is why I guess you are getting paid and have to go 

through this, but let me ask you something. As a forester and a 

manager of a forest in California, do you feel that the forest lands 

that you are managing are in as good condition as the private property owners of the lands that are adjacent to your lands? 

Mr. SPRAGUE. That is a pretty broad statement. I can't say I 

have seen all the adjacent private lands. 

I know some of the adjacent private timber lands are managed 

very, very intensely and I have seen some, in fact, with Congressman Herger just a few weeks ago that are managed to a different 

standard. And I would say that in many respects they are more 

healthy than the adjacent stands. But I couldn't say that across the 

board. 

Mr. CooLEY. OK Well, let's assume that some are more healthy; 

is that a fair statement? 

Mr. SPRAGUE. Yes. 

Mr. COOLEY. Could you tell me why some are more healthy than 

the ones that you are managing? 

Mr. SPRAGUE. There are a lot of reasons, I suppose, Congressman, priorities, and priorities in how we task up our budgets and 

so forth. And let me just say that getting back to supervisor Coates' 

plan here, we are not in disagreement with their plan. 

In fact, we have been working with him and as a way to step up 

the pace, so to speak, we have adjusted the priorities in our regional budget scheme to include more upfront money in fuels reduction and fuels treatment. We feel that that is a whole lot better. 

We tend to look at it as an investment and not a cost and as opposed to an outlay of cost of fighting raging fires that are out of 

control. And so we would prefer to get in a mode where we are investing but it takes a little while to get those priorities adjusted 

and make those kinds of shifts in our overall program of work. But 

we are working at it. 
56 

Mr. COOLEY. Well, what I am saying is I am not trying to directly embarrass you or get you on the spot. If a lot of, let's say, some of the private lands are in the area that are managed better 

than our public lands, we as representatives of the public, of 

course, wish that was not a fact. 

We would like to see that as managers of public property that 

we are managing the property as well as our private neighbors are 

managing the property and I think that is a little disturbing to 

some of us and probably most of us. 

I think that basically as we look at the discussion today, we are 

looking at this discussion really to try to simplify, make it very 

simple, is that we want to manage our public lands the best, as 

well as we can, at least as good as the private sector or as well and 

meet all the other requirements. I guess what I am trying to get out of you basically or get you 

to respond to as a professional fomster, what happens in the sys- tem that truly prohibits you from being a good manager as on the 

private land other than if it is just money then tell me that? 

Is it just money or is it-what i:; happening to the system that 

is shutting down the ability for not only communities to be viable 

and use the timber in a renewable resource, in a very manageable 

way, retain the species that we want to retain and still have a 

strong forest as the private sector does? Is it strictly money? Or is 

it other things that I am not aware of? 

Mr. SPRAGUE. No, it is not strictly money, and it is probably not 

things that you are not aware of. It is priorities. 

Mr. COOLEY. I don't want to be controversial, but what priorities 

do you have other than healthy forests as a manager of a forest? 

What other priorities do you have? 1 am just curious. Mr. SPRAGUE. Well, we have a lo1. of processes in place that take 

time to get through to get to an end product that, frankly, we are 

working on to try to streamline thE m and to even eliminate those 

that no longer contribute to achieving our mission. It is getting through some of those things so that we can make 

decisions in a faster way, in a more positive way and I think we 

are getting here, but to truly get im o more of an adaptive management process where we make decisions and we make adjustments 

as we monitor and evaluate the results of those decisions and make 

course corrections as we implement projects, as we implement forest plans. That is where we need to get. 

And to get out of having to try to make decisions where there is 

no risk associated, it is not possible in the business we are in to 

make decisions where there is no risk. So we have to assume that 

we are going to accept some risk in a responsible way but to follow 

up then with monitoring and evaluation of what we are doing. Mr. COOLEY. Well, do you speak of risk, would you define that 

word for me when you say "risk"'i Are you talking about forest 

health risk because of fire, degradation for bug kills, et cetera, or 

risk of public opposition to any decision or management plan you 

have of utilization of this resource? I need to know what you mean 

when you say risk. 

Mr. SPRAGUE. I think it is all of those or risk of losing species 

of wildlife or plants. It is all of th,)se. It is risk in total and not 

just any one specific thing. 
57 

Mr. COOLEY. Do you feel pressure as a forester, the fact that you 

could be sued for maybe not complying to what somebody's interpretation of the law is a big factor in your decisionmaking? I am 

just curious. Mr. SPRAGUE. No, I don't. Because if I feel like I am on the ragged edge of complying with the law, I check with my attorneys. I 

don't worry about that. I try to do what is right. Mr. COOLEY. Thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, my time is up. I want to thank you, Mr. Sprague, 

for your candor. I appreciate it. 

I don't want you to feel like I am, let's say, picking on you because I am not. I am really trying to honestly determine-there are 

so many influences that are actually affecting the people we represent that it is hard to dig through and find out where they are 

to look at them. Maybe we should have some legislation. Maybe we should do some things to make your job easier, make 

it more friendly, more people-friendly, environmental-friendly and 

everything else. That is what I meant. 

So please, if you feel I was attacking you, I don't mean to. 

Mr. SPRAGUE. I appreciate that. Thank you. Mr. DoOLITTLE. Mrs. Chenoweth is recognized. Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Sprague, I appreciate the line of questioning that Mr. Cooley was pursuing and I want to follow up a little 

bit because a lot of us think we are at point A and we want to get 

to point B and what a good forester, as you obviously are because 

you hold a position of administrative management, very high posi- tion, if you want to get from point A to point B, you go from A to 

B and you keep that vision in mind of what you want to do in point 

B. 

I have given a lot of speeches about the fact that I think we are 

making life terribly difficult for people like you in your job because 

you have so many things impacting you. Am I beginning to hear 

from you that the decisions and the process that you have to deal 

with have so many other criteria other than multiple use, sustained yield management under the National Forest Management 

Act and in some areas you do set aside areas designated for wilderness or special management zones? 

You know, I think we are all still trying to get our hands on 

what is keeping you from getting to point B. And again, I want to 

ask, is it the lawsuits? Is this why you must go through a certain 

process three or four times? You referred to the process, the decisionmaking process, is this what is slowing things down? 

Mr. SPRAGUE. No. Lawsuits in and of themselves are not what 

slow things down. You know, we react to lawsuits to the extent 

that when lawsuits are settled, case law gets established and we 

have new direction, so to speak. 

But just the idea of a threat of a lawsuit, unless in reexamination we find that we are not in compliance with the law in some 

form, the threat of a lawsuit is not a decision criteria. The issue 

of processes and that is what causes all this-! am just talking pri- marily about the processes that we put in place internally to deal 

with these matters of law that we have to deal with. And you know, over time things grow and blossom and bloom 

and periodically we need to reexamine what we are doing in rela-
58 

tion to the mission and objectives that we are after. And we are 

in the process of doing that now. We haven't done it for a while 

and I think when we get through this we will reestablish some 

clearer direction from point A to point B instead of going through 

the backwoods. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. You know, I was frustrated, as you could probably tell, about where is the legal authority to run the train off the 

track and go on another track that Congress had not clearly laid 

out because in the National Forest Management Act, Congress laid 

out a very clear track and that has not been amended to the degree 

that actions in the field indicate. And so you know, I think that some of our agency people are getting out there in the fog legally bc!cause there is a case you may 

want to have your legal people look up, it is called the Bivens versus six unnamed agencies, United States Supreme Court decision 

that came out in the late 1970's bat said when anyone operates 

to deprive anyone of their civil rights or constitutional rights within an agency, they are personally libel. 

That is what I say when this ci\'ilization, this society is getting 

real intolerant. And you know, there are civil rights cases out 

there. 

I mean look at Mr. Duysen and Mrs. Jacobson and their inability 

to make a living and their employees and inability to make a living 

because people are tied up in making decisions and processes. Now, Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask your permission or 

unanimous consent to have three ffit)re minutes. 

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Without objection. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Under this nc!w draft environmental impact 

statement, which apparently this is coming out under the National 

Forest Management Act, as you st3.ted to me before, right? I did 

some research and some of the re.5s say that the Forest Service 

must manage wildlife habitat so that viable populations of existing 

native and desired nonnative vertebrae species are maintained. Is 

that the criteria that you are operating the forest under? 

OK, then when we hear that there is a large population growing 

and healthy population of the spotted owl, when do you decide it 

is viable? 

Mr. SPRAGUE. Well, we decided the viability after we have had 

scientific input from researchers and scientists noted for whatever 

that particular field of biology happe,ns to be. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Sprague the affected national forces 

under the DEIS, the Modoc, Lassen, Plumas, Tahoe, El Dorado, 

Stanislaus, Sierra, In yo, Sequoia N dional Forests and Lake Tahoe 

Basin Management Unit, did each <one of those have an individual 

forest management plan that had a set-aside for certain speci?l 

management units and allowable cu·; and so forth? 

Mr. SPRAGUE. They did. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. And each one of those were individual, right? 

Mr. SPRAGUE. Correct. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. And how is it we have an environmental impact statement that encompasses th~m all? Well, first let me askI am sorry, I should have been mon clear. First, let me ask, have 

each one of the forest plans run thoir course? Is it time to reana-
59 

lyze the forest plans? Or are we interrupting the forest plan with 

this massive DEIS? 

Mr. SPRAGUE. No. The National Forest Management Act provides 

for periodically amending plans, whether or not we are into a fullblown revision of an environment forest plan. So there is provision 

for amending them as we get new science, we get new information 

that would indicate we should. 

In the case of these 10 forests, the forest plans all had dealt with 

the California spotted owl, with the spotted owl habitat area concept, kind of scheme. And that through the CASPO report and 

other scientific reports on owls was determined to be a faulty strategy. It was as a result then of that finding and the work of the scientific team and the CASPO report that we determined that we 

needed to go through this process and amend those plans to get out 

of that strategy and into a more of a habitat-wide or landscapewide kind of approach to managing this species as well as the rest 

of the species that are involved in these 10 forests. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Well, Mr. Sprague, I have two comments. 

Number one, I would like to ask the committee to officially request a legal analysis of where your authority is under the National Forest Management Act to stop all other activity in the forest and set aside your other personal public trust responsibilities 

to the communities and which allows you to also get into a massive 

DEIS. 

Mr. SPRAGUE. We haven't stopped all activities while all this is 

going on. Mrs. CHENOWETH. Well, most timber harvest has been stopped 

and fire management has been even altered. I mean a lot of things 

have been altered. 

Mr. SPRAGUE. That is correct and that was as a result of these 

interim guidelines from the CASPO report. And the reason we 

went ahead with this EIS process was to get us out of this interim 

guideline situation and into a more permanent kind of setting. So 

that is the reason for that. 

Ms. CHENOWETH. Would you mind providing for the committee a 

legal analysis as to the forest authority with regards to the mandate under the Forest Management Practices Act. 

And finally, Mr. Sprague, I do want to say I appreciate your 

being here and being so forthright in answering all of our questions. I know it is not an easy job. We are all frustrated with this. 

It is my hope and desire that some day you will be freed up to 

be the forester you were trained to be and probably even in your 

heart want to be. But I also went to say this is the exact reason 

why we are all very leery of ecosystem management. 

So thank you very much. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Thank you. I would like to excuse the panel. 

I would like to ask Mr. Sprague and Ms. Gauthier if they will 

remain as ex officio members for the next one. I know we are providing you with a lot and you are providing very valuable information and you are doing real well. So just hang in there. 

Just for the record, this is the final panel and we appreciate the 

indulgence of members of the committee and the audience. We 

haven't had any breaks. I guess we are not going to have. 
60 

We will begin today by recognizin€; Mr. Chris Conrad. 

STATEMENT OF CHRIS CONRAD, PROFESSIONAL FORESTER, 

FIBREBOARD WOOD PRODUCTS COMPANY 

Mr. CONRAD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I appreciate the opportunity to be here today. I am a registered professional forester employed by Fibreboard 

Corporation in the Sierra Nevada community of Sonora, which is 

located in the central Sierras. I have a 20-year background in forestry, and was educated at the University of California, Berkeley. 

I appreciate the opportunity to be ht!re to tell you a little bit about 

what our experience has been with the spotted owl. 

I agree with Mr. Coates, I am deUghted with the level of knowledge of the committee in regards tc the DEIS itself. I had a prepared statement that I have submitted for the record but I would 

like to diverge from that a little bit and get directly into our experience with the owl in the central Sier :a Nevada. 

Fibreboard owns 80,000 acres of ti:nberland. This timberland has 

been intensively harvested. The old s-rowth was cut out from 50 to 

60 years ago-that was the beginning, and the last of the old 

growth was removed from our timberlands 20 to 30 years ago. We 

operate these timberlands on a selective basis. 

We began surveying for spotted owls on these managed timber 

lands in 1989. We have surveyed for owls every year since then. 

I want to tell the committee that w~~ were astounded with the results we found when we first began surveying for the owl. All the 

experts told us we wouldn't find any owls in the kind of timber 

stands we had and we found through six years of work that we 

have a higher density of owls in our :;econd growth stands than the 

Forest Service claims it has in adjacent timber stands that are 

dominated in large part by old growth timber. 

I want to speak a little more to 1;he biology of the owl. I have 

some photographs that I think migh'; be of interest to the committee. I would like to say that I think our focus for being here today, 

we put a lot of effort into getting he1:e and our focus is we feel the 

Draft EIS should be withdrawn. ThE• solution to forest health is a 

solution that should be common all aaoss the West. 

We don't feel the Forest Service ne ~ds to be instructed to go back 

to the drawing board and redo the Dl~IS. We feel there is no reason 

for the DEIS. The DEIS itself states the owl is abundant in the Sierras and it has been repeated here more than once, is more numerous today than it was in the days of Kit Carson or John Muir, 

you pick your period. 

But we feel the solution to poor forest health has got to be a solution that is common to every State n the western United States. 

This is a problem that is common throughout the western United 

States. I have some publications here that document the overstocked stands we have today all across the western United States. 

This is a publication from Montana done by a researcher named 

George Gruell. This is one of his publications from Wyoming demonstrating exactly the same thing. Incredibly here is a publication 

done by the Forest Service itself wh:ch showed a little insight for 

the Boise National Forest in Idaho. Here is a publication documenting the same long-term changE!S in Oregon. And incredibly 
61 

here is one for the Black Hills of South Dakota which was published over 20 years ago. 

I don't think there is any dispute that we actually have more 

acres covered by trees in the West today than we have ever had 

since European man first entered the Sierra. So we feel this is 

more than a spotted owl issue, the California spotted owl. We feel 

this is a forest health issue for everybody in the West. 

In regards to that, I would just like to say that forest growth on 

all national forest lands in the United States currently is 22 billion 

feet a year. We are presently removing only five billion feet and, 

Mr. Chairman, I agree with you, it is pretty obvious that we have 

got a problem when every year we are adding 17 billion feet to our 

national forest's fuel loading. 

The other side of the aisle, to be frank with you, I don't think 

they have got an answer to this. They need us in the woods. Everybody knows it. It is my understanding this hearing is getting transmitted on live radio to a radio station in the mother lode. There 

are a lot of people listening to what is happening here. 

And Mr. Vento, I would just like to say to you, a lot of these people are blue collar Democrats. They don't understand why you are 

not responsive to protecting their jobs. 

Mr. VENTO. Well, we are responsive but we want policies that are 

based on fact, not on conjecture, Mr. Conrad. 

Mr. CONRAD. That is exactly why I am here. I am glad to hear 

you say that. 

Mr. VENTO. We will be pleased to engage you in the facts of the 

issue. 

Mr. CONRAD. Great. I appreciate it. Anyway, I appreciate the opportunity to be here and I would be 

happy to show the committee some of the photographic evidence we 

have to document some of the things we are saying. 

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Thank you. What do you have, charts or big pictures or something? 

Mr. CONRAD. I have photographs in regard to changes in stand 

conditions in the Sierras. 

Mr. DOOLITILE. Is that something that we can easily see if you 

put them up? If the committee doesn't object, it might be worth it 

just to take a look at these. 

Mr. CONRAD. These are the size of the photographs we are looking at. 

Mr. DOOLITILE. Why don't we pass them around? I think it 

would be easier to see if maybe the clerk can bring them up and 

we can take a look at them as the other witnesses-do you need 

to explain? 

Mr. CONRAD. I would like to go over each pair individually, if I 

may. 

Mr. DOOLITILE. Is there any objection if he takes the time to do 

that? It might be instructive, really. A picture is worth a thousand 

years especially in this matter of the forest. Go ahead. Mr. CONRAD. Are you giving me an opportunity? 

Mr. DoOLITTLE. You have the opportunity. Why don't you explain 

what they are and then send them up here and we will look at 

them. 

93-189 0 - 95 - 3 
62 

Mr. CONRAD. This is some of thE! same work that has been done 

by this gentleman, Mr. Gruell. He is retired from the Forest Service. He was the fuels management officer for the Forest Service in 

the intermountain area for a number of years, and retired recently. 

He has published extensively on vegetation change over time. 

It has been documented what th~~ removal of fire has done to our 

timber stands in the West. He, Mr·. Gruell, has recently completed 

a piece of research for the Sierra Nevada. Incredibly, part of the 

problem is this research actually had to be funded by the private 

sector. The Forest Service apparently in the Sierra Nevada found 

this kind of documentation of lon ~-term changes over time to be 

somehow threatening to where the:r were taking our national forest 

lands. 

The first photograph, this is thE: Cape Horn area, north fork of 

the American River taken in 1867. This is Placer County. 

I think it would be helpful to compare them together. This is the 

same area, 1993. This is an uncut area. These are uncut timber 

stands. They were open, free of brush. Incidentally, this was very 

poor owl habitat down in this drainage. Today I would not be surprised to find that there is a Califnrnia spotted owl living down at 

the bottom of the canyon of the n<•rth fork of the American River. 

Mr. DOOLITTLE. It looks like it is much, much more overgrown 

in the recent photo but it is a littlt! hard to grasp from back there. 

Mr. CONRAD. This is the Grizzly Flat area of El Dorado County. This is one of the earliest photographs of the Mother Lode area in 

the Sierra Nevada, 1849. There is a saw mill down here. They have 

cut off this slope here but the sta1ds in the background are open 

and parklike. 

That is the exact same area today. Grisly Flat. Highly fire-prone, 

came in strongly to Ponderosa pine 

This is the Eureka area, now called Graniteville in Nevada County. This photograph was taken ab(lut 1874. Again, there is a community here that had been buill; up but the stands in the background are open and parklike. 

When the photographer, Mr. Gmell, went back in to retake this 

photograph, the stands were so dtmse he had to go up in a helicopter to actually retake that shot. That is 1993. Incidentally, the 

stands in these early photographs, if you cut timber stands today 

to resemble those conditions, most spotted owl researchers, government researchers would tell you tl:at is not good spotted owl habitat (pointing to 1993 photo). It is pretty well documented we have 

more spotted owl habitat today thaa we ever had. 

Mr. DOOLITTLE. So are you saying you concur with the government researchers? 

Mr. CONRAD. No, sir. I am saying the pre-European conditions 

were not conducive to spotted owl rabitat in a large way. 

This is a photograph from Union Point, Yosemite Valley, 18Ei6. 

You can see how open these stands were. 

Again, very poor owl habitat. And from the work we have done 

on company lands, we are not findng owls in those kinds of open 

timber stands. This is the same ana, exact same photograph. This 

is El Capitan here. It is 1993. 

So we have the same problem happening in our national parks. 
63 

This is the Howland Flat area, Plumas County, 1890. You see 

these hillsides were fairly well slicked off. They probably had very 

low stocking levels to begin with. That is that same area today, 

1993. Incredible amount of growth, obviously no owl habitat here 

(pointing to 1890 photo) and today it is owl habitat from horizon 

to horizon. 

This is the Spaulding Lake area, Nevada County. This was taken 

1919. Probably very little timber harvesting done in this area at 

the time of the photograph. You can see it is fairly open. 

This is the exact same shot today. This is good owl habitat right 

there, dense timber stands (pointing to 1993 photograph). 

This is the east fork of the north fork of the Feather River, approximately 1890. This is an incredible photograph because this 

shows-there is a layer of snow there. This shows how open and 

parklike pre-European conditions were. It also shows how much 

second growth timber there was in those days. Those are not sixfoot diameter trees in there. 

This is the same area today, 1993 heavy regrowth of black oak 

and mixed conifer. Not only are these excellent owl habitat conditions today but they are also excellent conditions for catastrophic 

fire. 

This is the Emigrant Gap area, 1867, elevation about 5,400 feet, 

Placer County. 

That is the same area today (pointing to 1993 photo). Again 

stands in the background that were open and parklike, are closed 

up, dense and prone to fire today. 

This is the Kiburz area, Highway 50, El Dorado County, 1896. 

Open, again, open and parklike Ponderosa pine stands with some 

white fir on the north slopes there. Very dense timber stands 

today, 1993. 

Incidentally, the Cleveland fire burned just to the west of this in 

1992 and destroyed a whole drainage. 

This is the Fallen Leaf Lake area, Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit, El Dorado National Forest. This is basically east side 

pine type. We are getting into that type. This is Jeffrey pine. Very 

open stands. 

This is that same stand today, 1993. There is a rock here that 

is in both photographs. There is actually not an owl in this particular drainage right now, but this is good owl habitat today. 

Mr. DooLITTLE. Let me just ask, I think I am persuaded that 

there is a considerable amount more timber. Looks like about twice 

what it used to be 100 years ago. Perhaps the other photos we can 

make available in some fashion to the members. I don't know how 

many more you have. 

Mr. CONRAD. No, I appreciate that. I didn't mean to wear the 

committee out. The point is, though, these photographs have not 

been hand picked to prove a point. You can go out there and fairly 

well pick your site and you are going to find the same thing happening all across the West. 

So I appreciate the opportunity to show those to the committee. 

Mr. DooLITTLE. Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Conrad can be found at the end 

of the hearing.] 

Mr. DooLITTLE. Our next witness, Mr. Frank Stewart. 
64 

STATEMENT OF FRANK STEWART, RESOURCE MANAGER, 

COLLINS PINl: COMPANY 

Mr. STEWART. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We appreciate the opportunity. 

Mr. DOOLITTLE. May I interrup1.? I apologize. We need to take 

care of one matter. 

Mr. Sprague has been kind enol.gh to sit here all this time. He 

has a 2:00 appointment. 

Can you stay here until 2:00 or do you have to leave before then 

to get there? 

Mr. SPRAGUE. If I could leave at 10 till. 

Mr. DOOLITTLE. OK, anybody have any objection if he leaves at 

10 till? You have been indulgent to the committee. We really appreciate it. 

But would you leave behind Ms. Gauthier so we can ask her a 

couple questions? OK, thanks. 

Sorry, Mr. Stewart, please begin. 

Mr. STEWART. Mr. Chairman, my name is Frank Stewart, resource manager for Collins Pine Company, a family-owned business 

with over 60 years of forest management and saw milling in the 

Chester, California area. Our 90,000 acre forest is intermingled between the Lassen and the Plumas National Forests and meets 50 

percent of our annual timber volume requirements. The balance of 

our sawed log volume comes from the time sale programs on the 

Lassen and Plumas National Forests. When Mr. Collins purchased our timberlands in the early 1900's, 

he had the foresight and understcnding that business and forest 

principles applied to a dynamic fort~st would benefit his family and 

society for perpetuity. Our company management plan is updated 

every 10 years to meet the changing forest conditions. 

However, the original concepts and principles remain unchanged. 

Our sustained yield policy specifies that only annual growth and 

mortality are harvested. We maintain a continual forest inventory 

system with established sample pl·)ts that are measured every 10 

years or as needed. 

We have a permanent road system that provides permanent access throughout our timberlands. Our dedicated professional foresters have an abiding appreciation and respect for the forest. We 

employ an all-age subculture syst:!m, not even age management 

that utilizes single tree selection. E.trict timber marking guidelines 

are followed and applied on the grounds by our foresters for the selection of what trees are to be harvested and what trees are to remain for future growth. 

As a result of our forest management program we have had more 

than our share of puhlic recognition and support and, believe me, 

in today's political environment, pl.blic support and understanding 

is crucial in managing natural re 3ources. This is especially true 

when it comes to harvesting trees on public or private land:. in the 

State of California. To further our opportunities in be marketplace and educate the 

public on good forestry, Collins Pin ~ Company was the first private 

forest owner in the Nation to be certified under the Green Cross 

Program. 
65 

I do not come here today to criticize this country's most distinguished agency, the U.S. Forest Service, an agency that has been 

serving the people of America for over 100 years by managing our 

national forests and providing goods and services to a growing nation. As our population continues to grow and demands on natural 

resources increase, the Forest Service is under public, political and 

judicial pressure to meet goals of a constantly moving target. 

Forest management is a long-term commitment that requires 

stability in the legislative and policy arenas while maintaining 

flexibility in the areas of scientific and professional application on 

the ground. Over the last 15 years, our government has spent millions of hard-earned tax dollars developing land management plans 

for each national forest. 

These plans are intended to provide management direction and 

necessary tools to meet the social, economic and environmental demands of our communities. Rather than functioning as intended, the plans have been mired in conflicting laws, regulations, policies 

and litigation. 

The management of our national forest has been reduced to little 

more than a paper producing process since 1991, that was the real 

start in California of the Cal owl problem. The timber sale program, just to give you an idea on the Plumas and Lassen National 

Forest, has fallen 54 percent from what was the previous 20 year 

historic. But if you took that-where it has fallen from what the ASQ on 

the land management plan is, it is 80 percent. So you have to realize what they have sold over time were far over the ASQ's under 

their land management plans. 

Since our saw mill is dependent on a stable Federal timber sale 

program, we believe in our part of the State, the Quincy library 

group proposal is the appropriate vehicle to resolve the battle over 

national forest management. For over two years, the library group 

hammered out a proposal that addressed forest health, ecological 

integrity or ecosystem management and economic stability. 

We developed a win-win nonpartisan management package. The 

irony is we can't get the proposal implemented in a timely manner 

that meets the needs of our communities without going through the 

lengthy process of this current draft EIS. The most serious flaw in the draft EIS, the attempt to specify 

one size fits all. In a single alternative, the draft attempts to handle a variety of issues in each forest along the Sierra Nevadas. This 

approach fails to recognize the unique character of the forests and 

their local communities. 

The preferred alternative also fails to address the forest health 

crisis, the fire-prone status of our national forests and the immediate need to reduce catastrophic fire risk. I brought some pictures 

that were taken just before the snows came this past year on the 

Lassen National Forest that I hope we would like to make a part 

of the record, Mr. Chairman. 

[The information follows at the end of the hearing.] 

Mr. STEWART. These are not all little trees. There are trees in 

here that are 30 to 40 inches in diameter that are dying over the 

stocking. This is what is happening basically on the east side of the 

Lassen National Forest. Because of the CASPO guidelines, trees 
66 

Lassen National Forest. Because of the CASPO guidelines, trees 

over 30 inches can't be felled or have to maintain eight NAGs per 

acre, a lot of this will not get salv~ ged . So we have again this conflict in rules and regulations. 

Mr. DooLITTLE. Mr. Stewart, wh lle you are talking will you send 

those up around here? 

Mr. STEWART. We provided abou ; six or seven sets of copies, Mr. 

Chairman. I think she has them right there on her right. 

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Fine. 

Mr. STEWART. There they are. 

Mr. Chairman, the current annual growth on the Sierra Forest 

is 1. 7 million board-feet. The prefened alternative as has been discussed is 416 million feet or 20 per• ent of the annual growth. Rather than decreasing the annual haivest, the ASQ must be accelerated through the elimination of the departure constraints that they 

use when they run all their models in this draft plan. 

Another fire season is upon us. We hope this committee will direct the Forest Service to develop forest health alternatives that incorporate local solutions for individual forests throughout the Sierras. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. mewart can be found at the end 

of the hearing.] 

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Thank you. 

Our next witness is Ms. Terry Te haar. 

STATEMENT OF TERRY TERHAAR, PACIFIC RIVERS COUNCIL 

Ms. TERHAAR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. 

My name is Terry Terhaar. I am the California Projects Director 

for the Pacific Rivers Council. I specialize in forestry, fire and 

aquatic issues strictly within Califc rnia on both public and private 

land. 

I am also a member of the Califcornia Fire Strategy Team which 

is chaired by our California Assis1;ant Secretary of Resources for 

Forestry, Ms. Terry Gordon. I also wish to point out that I an a licensed timber operator, licensed by the State of California. 1 also am a member of a family 

which has managed timberland in the State of California since 

1913. In fact, they were managers for what was once the largest 

timber landowner within the State of California and they managed 

the largest sawmill in the world until it burned down. 

My expertise, as I said, is in aquatic, fire and forestry issues. 

And I am here today to talk a little bit about the efforts of the Forest Service with respect to the mar.agement of the California spotted owl. 

Several years ago the Forest Senice noted that there was a likelihood that a train wreck might oceur with regards to the California spotted owl. There was a shift in paradigm thinking within the 

agency at that time that was going on and good members of that 

agency, members who you have he1rd today, realized there was a 

need to move to a broader landscape approach with respect to the 

management of our public lands. That was an ecosystem approach. 
67 

Members of the committee, it was an approach that maintained 

the viability of all species on that land: species, I might point out, 

that include fish. 

Of the 116 species and subspecies of native freshwater fish in 

California, only 38 percent of them are said to be in stable, healthy 

condition at the present time. My grandfather used to fish for those 

critters up in northeast California. I still have his bamboo fishing 

rod, but when I go out to fish I almost never catch anything because the fish are not there anymore. 

Within the draft EIS, the Forest Service has recognized that we 

do have a risk, a high risk from a threat of catastrophic fire within 

our State but this risk, I would like to point out, does not exist 

across the landscape. This risk exists in certain areas. 

These are areas that have faced impacts from previous management decisions that include not only logging, that include not only 

fire suppression but urbanization, channelization of our streams, 

road building and many other management activities. 

My research with the California Fire Strategy Team has indicated in my talks with the strategic planning unit of the California 

Department of Forestry and fire protection that the risks that we 

face from catastrophic fire are much higher on our ever-expanding 

rural urban interface line. This is where the wildlands meet the 

urban, the suburbs of our State, and this line is expanding tremendously as our population within California increases every day. 

This is where we get our ignition starts. Yes, we do get them 

from lightning strikes out in the wildlands, but by and large when 

you examine the research, you will see that the ignition starts, the 

threat from catastrophic fire is down in the low elevation foothill 

areas, and this, members of the committee, is where we believe we 

need to concentrate our limited resources in these troubled times 

in terms of lowering the risk from catastrophic fire. 

Yes, we need to create shaded, fuel breaks around our suburbs. Yes, we need to ask the Forest Service to conduct programs that 

reduce the fuel loads. We need to do this where our people are, our 

homeowners live. 

We need to assist our homeowners in creating defensible space 

around their homes. We need to do this around our shopping malls. We have limited resources. 

It does not make sense to us at the present time to use a shotgun 

approach to prevent the threat of catastrophic fires in the areas 

where we have the least risk. I also might point out, if we go to 

the higher elevation areas and we do a lot of logging in those areas, 

we are going to change the rate of snow melt. 

If you remove significant canopy from that area, you are going 

to get much faster snow melt. You are going to get a lot of erosion. 

And as that sediment comes down the streambeds, it fills up our 

reservoirs in the State of California. 

We have many reservoirs that are already half filled. They are 

very, very expensive to clean out. 

You must understand there is another product within these 

lands that are covered by the draft EIS and that is the product of 

water. Seventy percent of the water that is used by the agribusiness and the residential users of the State of California comes 

from this timberland. We need to maintain our watersheds 
6B 

throughout these forests in order 1;o maintain this other most valuable commodity. 

That is why we support the efforts of the Forest Service to conduct this process. We would urge you to allow them to continue and 

I would like to thank you very mt.ch for giving us this opportunity 

to testify. 

I will be available for questions. Thank you. [The prepared statement of Ms. Terhaar can be found at the end 

of the hearing.] 

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Thank you very much. 

Our next witness is Mr. Craig Thomas. 

STATEMENT OF CRAIG THOlii.AS, CALIFORNIA ANCIENT 

FOREST ALLIANCE 

Mr. CRAIG THOMAS. Thank you, Congressman. My name is Craig 

Thomas. I am here today representing the California Aged Forest 

Alliance, which is a coalition of national regional and local grassroots environmental groups throughout the Sierras and the State. 

We have a diverse set of interest:; but we are all involved in the 

Forest Service California EIS spotted owl draft environmental impact statement process. 

I would thank you very much for the opportunity to appear here 

in front of you today and I have provided you with testimony that 

I am going to relate to some degree but certainly not read it all. 

I live in El Dorado County in forested land in Congressman 

Doolittle's district. I have been involved in the forest issues for 

roughly a decade now. My background is in cultural ecology, which is the interface between the environment and human culture. I think it is important 

that we address some of the issues that the various committee 

members brought up today in this hearing process because what I 

have seen after reading in detail this stack of documents here to 

my left that there is still a great :leal of misunderstanding in the 

public and amongst the people in this room, and I think we need 

and we owe it to all of the people involved, the agency, the timber 

workers, the environmental community and yourselves, that we 

really do bear down and get to the bottom facts in this issue. 

I heard a lot of discussion today about salvage logging and how 

salvage logging is potentially the salvation to our forest health 

problems. I would like to refer you to the first attachment at the 

end of my testimony that is a letter from Forest Supervisor Robert 

Harris, who is the Lake Tahoe Ba1:in Land Management Unit Forest Supervisor. 

In this letter written to Richarc. Wilson, who is the Director of 

the California Division of Forestry, dated December 7th, 1994, Mr. 

Harris states very clearly and very courageously the problem with 

the myth of suggesting that salvc.ge logging by itself is going to 

solve our problems regarding forest health. 

I refer to the paragraph with tht~ asterisk that I underlined and 

I will read it: ''What is apparent to me now is that large salvage 

sale contracts are not a major part of addressing the large acreages 

and urban intermix needs. Planning and attempting to market several sa:lvage sales ranging from 100 acres to 7,000 acres has shown 

since 1989 that the value of salvageable material will not bear the 
69 

costs of an adequate treatment for fuels reduction and long-term 

forest health. Where salvage sales reach break even, we see a 

submerchantable stand remaining that is overstocked with unacceptable fuel loading." · What he is saying there is that when you remove the bole, the 

main stem of the tree in a forest environment in a dead and dying 

situation, there is still and has created a tremendous amount of residual coarse fuel material left on the ground. We cannot continue 

to lie to the communities in the Sierra Nevada and say salvage logging without the proper and fully funded fuels prescriptions that 

need to follow directly behind it, we cannot continue to lie to these 

communities to suggest that that is a solution. 

I think Mr. Harris needs to be applauded for the courage that 

he took after witnessing his own professional situation up there for 

the last five years. 

The Quincy Library Group proposal is something that the California Interforest Alliance is very familiar with and to a great degree we are very supportive of. There are a couple of pieces of that 

proposal today that I haven't heard any of the Members mention 

and I want you to fully understand the detail of that proposal. 

Number one, it has large, very large acreage set-asides in reserves, untouched forestland done for reasons of protecting biology 

diversity and viability of species. Sierra Pacific industries, the 

county board of supervisors, Mr. Coates, and the environmental 

community all are on board in that proposal. 

The Quincy Library Group proposal has significantly greater 

stream side protection than does alternative C in the Forest Service's preferred alternative. It provides stream protection of 300 feet 

to all fish-bearing streams as opposed to just large rivers. So we 

are talking about significant environmental protections there. I 

haven't heard that expressed amongst this body or amongst the 

panelists today, but you should be aware of that. 

We conclude that the Forest Service needs to fully analyze their 

proposal, the way they send it to them. I think it is very important. 

We are eager to see the results of that. It needs to be a public process. It needs to be the way it was designed to have an open and 

fair hearing so that all of you committee members, the people in 

those communities, the environmental community, everybody can 

see the results of that. I think it is very important. I think it is 

a very positive direction what we are, what they are doing up there. 

The owl technical report written in 1992 by the technical team 

is the place to look for the answers to a lot of the questions that 

you have today. It discusses the relative differences among the 

races of the spotted owl species. There are subspecies. It talks 

about the lack of genetic differences, differences in morphology, differences in how the northern owl responds to climate versus the 

southern owl. It lays that out very clearly. It is on page 55. 

It says at the bottom of that that we need to look at the trends 

in the populations and not whether they are related or not related. 

So it is important that we get to that point. 

I am very concerned from what I have heard today of the continued selective reading of the CAL-OWL EIS, which talks about the 

abundance and distribution of spotted owls. I know that everybody 
70 

in this room has either got staff •)r themselves has read farther 

than page 9 or page 39 in both cases where the description of abundance is made. It is an assumption and then the document goes on 

to say when you go farther down the page that unless specific management actions take place, abundance will not be the case any 

longer. 

We need to complete the reading Jf that page. I think it is important and it is the responsible thing to do for all publics involved; 

that there needs to be a protection of the key habitat components 

of owls that are disappearing over me; of large trees, large stands, 

downed logs and relatively closed canopy forests. 

The last thing I would like to mention is the Sierra Nevada ecosystem project process and a basic parallel process that is going on 

today mandated by Congress, funced by Congress, the results of 

which are due December 31st, 19!:5. The CAL-OWL EIS is basically ahead of that process, althoue:h they are going to take a significant amount of time to have to address and interpret and respond to all of the public input that has happened here throughout 

time so far in the comment period. 

What we see is that the Sierra Nevada ecosystem process will 

publish the best, most detailed, most scientific information that 

will occur regarding the ecological condition of the Sierra Nevada 

mountain range. The Forest Service must delay its analysis until 

the Sierra Nevada ecosystem proceE:s project is in place so that we 

can see that best assigned. Mr. Herger mentioned that we need to 

look at the best science. We must wait until that best science is 

produced. 

I will stop here. I want to give e·rerybody a chance to ask questions and to respond. Thank you ve7 much for allowing me to testify. 

[The prepared statement of Crai15 Thomas can be found at the 

end of the hearing.] 

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Thank you. Ms. Gauthier, since Mr. SpraguE! has left, I will question you 

about something he has mentioned. He testified, Mr. Sprague did, 

before a Senate committee that the Sierra Nevada ecosystem 

project analysis will be included in the final CASPO EIS, but I understand that the SNEP analysis vrill not be completed until December so are you then holding the final EIS until at least that 

time so you can include the SNEP report? 

Ms. GAUTHIER. It doesn't appear ;hat we are going to be able to 

finish the EIS until the SNEP work is completed anyway and so 

I suspect we will be able to take advantage of the good work that 

SNEP provides us. 

Mr. DoOLITTLE. OK. Thank you. Let me ask you the same question I asked Mr. Sprague about alternative C because you are the 

team leader of CASPO; is that right ' 

Ms. GAUTHIER. Team leader for the EIS. 

Mr. DOOLITTLE. For the EIS, excuse me. Are you aware of preference by members of the team f01 another alternative, I believe 

it was alternative D as opposed to G? 

Ms. GAUTHIER. Well, certainly everyone has their personal opinions. Most of us on the team felt that we could support any of the 
71 

newer landscape-type alternatives. Those being alternatives B, C, 

D and F as well. 

Mr. DoOLI'ITLE. And how many members, again, were on the 

team? Or are on the team? 

Ms. GAUTHIER. Sure, we have six permanent folks, but we have 

drawn on quite a large number of people from the forest and from 

the scientific community. 

Mr. DOOLI'ITLE. For input, but do you actually get to the point 

of voting or conducting business in that fashion? 

Ms. GAUTHIER. No. What we did was we provided the regional 

forester with analysis that compared a simple set of criteria 

against the alternatives that we analyzed, so basically we summarized the analysis for him of the alternatives. 

Mr. DOOLI'ITLE. And did that summary point toward one alternative over another? 

Ms. GAUTHIER. I would have to say it probably centered around 

alternative C and D. Mr. DOOLI'ITLE. OK. I would ask Mr. Sprague this question, but 

let me ask you. I am aware that forest plans have in many cases 

been recently redone, have they not, in California? 

Ms. GAUTHIER. That is correct. I believe the Stanislaus and the 

Modoc plans are current within the last three years or so. 

Mr. DoOLI'ITLE. Now, are all of these going to be affected or have 

to be reopened, I guess, as a result of any decisions made pursuant 

to this final EIS whenever that is produced? 

Ms. GAUTHIER. Yes. This EIS would amend them. 

Mr. DoOLITTLE. So it actually has the effect of amending them. 

You don't go through a new round of comment and so forth on each 

of the forest plans. 

Ms. GAUTHIER. No. This process will take care of everything for 

them so they don't have to do any further work. 

Mr. DOOLITTLE. OK. When do you anticipate the draft EIS process to be completed? 

Ms. GAUTHIER. Well, I felt the draft was completed when we issued it. We certainly are still in the public comment period which 

is currently scheduled to end July lOth at which time we will begin 

to review and analyze and respond to the comments and begin 

modifying our alternatives accordingly and publishing the document. 

Mr. DoOLI'ITLE. When you modify those alternatives, are you free 

to pretty much do whatever you like or is there some constraint on 

how far you can go at that point? 

Ms. GAUTHIER. We are constrained by our original stated proposed action and purpose and need. If we stray too far from that, 

it might require another round of public comment. 

Mr. DOOLITTLE. OK. Thank you. 

The gentleman in Minnesota is recognized. 

Mr. VENTO. Ms. Gauthier, if you were to adopt, for instance, the 

Quincy plan, which has a reserve, would you have authority to do 

that to set up reserves administratively? 

Ms. GAUTHIER. Yes, we would. 

Mr. VENTO. And the wider stream set-asides. 

Ms. GAUTHIER. Yes, we would. 
72 

Mr. VENTO. Of course, this is unique in the sense it is multi-forest. Obviously, some of those plam; are much further behind. They 

were due to be modified. I take it this does not fulfill necessarily 

the Forest Service replanning for them; is that correct? 

Ms. GAUTHIER. No. This is an amendment process. The plans 

aren't quite ready for complete revision yet. 

Mr. VENTO. So that you anticipate that this is not in lieu of, but 

amendments to existing plans so that others that are up for recycling three or four years would st lll have to undergo; is that correct? 

Ms. GAUTHIER. That is correct. Mr. VENTO. We talked about, of course, the way the forests are 

managed and Mr. Sprague was su€:gesting that these forests aren't 

just managed for wood production, "lre they? 

Ms. GAUTHIER. They are not mismanaged? 

Mr. VENTO. They are not only managed for wood production, 

someone said how is forest health here. I don't think they are really talking about total forest health necessarily. They are just talking about trees. 

Ms. GAUTHIER. As I understand it, we have other mandates to 

respond to. 

Mr. VENTO. I would say so, yes. ~ike recreation and like, preservation of some areas, correct? 

Ms. GAUTHIER. That is correct. 

Mr. VENTO. And, of course, even the species in them. I feel like 

Mr. Thomas. You must feel a little bit like the news reporter with 

the rest of the story here. At the er d of the day it might have been 

useful to have a little more of that earlier in the cycle. 

I looked at your testimony. In fact, as you noticed, I was drawing 

from it to talk about some of the different situations. I would just 

draw my colleague's attention to it because I think it sets forth a 

different path or at least a different perspective with regards to 

jobs and what the sensitivity here ir;. 

Did you have any comment, Mr. Thomas, or Ms. Terhaar about 

the issue about the amount of wood production versus that which 

is harvested? Did you have any co:nment on that? You know, you 

heard this nationwide statement. J have some ideas about it myself, but I would rather listen to wl:at you have to say than myself. 

Ms. TERHAAR. Yes, having been bvolved in the last five years in 

discussions concerning the nature of sustained yield and harvest 

versus growth in California, I have some limited amount of expertise in the area. And one must remember everything is not quite 

as simple as it appears. 

You will hear, of course, that the best way to manage our forests 

is not to cut more than they grow. And yet you must dig a little 

deeper into the issue and understand that if we are to try and create a truly healthy forest, we must provide for all the basic forest 

components. That is to say, we mmt provide for all of the different 

age and diameter classes of trees. We must provide for not only young trees that are growing very 

rapidly that provide, if you were to only consider young trees, a 

very high cut rate, but you must also provide the medium-aged and 

older-aged trees that are in the fore st. Those trees grow at a slower 

rate. 
73 

You must also consider that you must maintain the diversity of 

all of the different species. We have heard today quite a bit about 

how white fir is taking over our forest. And yet the research from 

University of California at Berkeley's forest research station indicates that in many areas of the Sierra Nevada white fir is almost 

in the same percentage as it was in pre-European times. It is just 

that it is in different areas at the present time. 

What happened was my family, members of them, people they 

worked for, went into certain areas and harvested what were considered to be the high value trees at one time, the pines. And so 

in those areas you have fir coming back. 

But this issue of sustained yield of harvest equaling growth is a 

very complicated one. I urge you not to look just at the face of the 

issues. You must get very deeply into the issues in order to truly 

ascertain if we are going to not harvest any more than we are 

growing. 

In order to maintain the health of the forest, we must also give 

consideration to all of the other resources that are within that forest because it is those resources that maintain the health of the 

forest ultimately. 

Mr. VENTO. Well, Mr. Thomas, I guess my time is up. Maybe 

they will permit you to respond. 

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Sure. 

Mr. CRAIG THOMAS. I first would like to respond that we need 

to all remember that the forest health problems that exist in the 

Sierras today did not originate and did not just appear before us 

since the CASPO interim guidelines came into place in 1993. This 

has been an ongoing problem of incredible fuel load building up in 

our national forests, under what is referred to as sustained yield 

logging levels, significantly higher than is happening today. Those 

logging levels did not solve the problem. 

I believe in my heart that we are all in this room because we do 

want to solve the problem, not win a victory. That is why I am 

here. And those levels of logging did not solve the fire and fuel 

threat problems in the Sierra Nevadas. So we are not hitting the 

issue yet is that we can log at higher levels if we do not treat the 

unmerchantable material and do the understory thinning of the 

smaller to medium-sized trees, we are not going to help anybody 

or anything out there in the Sierra environment. 

I know the situation is difficult to understand. You have to remember that the planning horizon of this document is roughly a 

decade. We are talking about the next 10 years and when the preferred alternative is saying it is going to grow more timber than 

it is going to remove, the direction of the document based on the 

current science is saying that we need to grow the larger-sized 

classes of trees up. 

A lot of that wood volume is growing those larger trees. That is 

where that growth is going. It is not necessarily all falling on the 

forest floor year, after year, after year. It is growing larger boles. 

You know, we strongly support the concepts of thinning the forest. 

There isn't anybody in this room that is arguing that point. It is 

just how, particularly how we pay for that work. How it is funded 

is one of the big issues. 
74 

Mr. VENTO. Thank you, I think the insight about the cost is right 

and I think the resiliency in terms 1)f forest fire prevention is absolutely true. That is all dollars you can have this on paper, but it 

isn't going to be developed unless you put the money into it and 

salvage alone is not forest health. Mr. CRAIG THOMAS. Absolutely. 

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mrs. Chenoweth. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Conrad, you are a professional forester. 

What does sustained yield mean to :rou? 

Mr. CONRAD. Sustained yield would mean over the long term you 

would harvest what you grow on your property. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. How does that relate to salvage? Or the timber that is dead, dying, windthrowr, burned, diseased or insect-infested? 

Mr. CONRAD. Well, in order to improve or maintain stand health 

that would need to be salvaged undm any good sustained yield program. Mrs. CHENOWETH. Does salvage material have any commercial 

value? 

Mr. CONRAD. It does if it is salvaged in a reasonable amount of 

time. One of the problems we have :oday is that the system is broken and even though there is recognition on the part of the Forest 

Service that some areas need to be salvaged, by the time it gets 

on to the bid table, most of it ends up being unmerchantable. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Because of the :lluing process, I take it. 

Mr. CONRAD. Because of the bluing process and just the general 

decay. Actually, we are happy if we can just get blue stained wood. 

It goes beyond that. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. You heard Mr. Thomas testify very eloquently 

about the fact that forest practices in the past contributed to the 

heavy fuel load. Do you find that ir your professional opinion? Do 

you find that multiple use sustained yield forest practices contribute to a heavy fuel load? 

Mr. CONRAD. I think there are places in the forest that you could 

find that we could have had better utilization standards 50, 60 

years ago. We left some of the tops out there, but that is not the 

reason for the fuel loadings today. 

The reason is the elimination of fire and the research that Mr. 

George Gruel has done shows that n~gardless of whether the stands 

have been logged previously or not, 'Nhite fir and other shade-tolerant species have come up in the understory and created an incredible fire hazard and that is one of the problems we have even in 

Yosemite Park now. We have vast areas that never have been harvested, but when they burn today they burn to the ground. Mrs. CHENOWETH. In the areas where there are sales going on 

have you found that the Forest Service is willing to let the smaller 

timber, the medium-sized timber like Mr. Thomas referred to in his 

testimony, have you found that the Forest Service is letting those 

out in sales? 

Mr. CONRAD. Well, unfortunately, that is the only thing they are 

letting out in sales. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. And not the lar;5e? 

Mr. CONRAD. I think there is uniYersal agreement among everybody in the industry today that we don't need to harvest these 6-
75 

foot trees to survive. We would be happy to set those aside and 

manage for them. But what we do need is to manage all of our forest lands and then we can survive. We can have our cake and eat 

it, too. We can survive on medium to small trees in the timber industry through forest thinning. 

Today we have the kind of technology that lays a very soft hand 

on the woods. There is an incredible amount of stuff we can do out 

there that we couldn't do 20 years ago. It is just insanity to keep 

the very people out of the woods that are in the best position to 

protect the woods. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. You testified that the larger populations of the 

California spotted owl are found on private land. Why is that? Does 

it provide a better prey base? Do they go where the groceries are? 

Mr. CONRAD. I believe it has a lot to do with prey base. They 

found on Simpson Timber Company lands, with the northern owl 

on the northern California coast, that they have the highest densities of northern spotted owls found anyplace, in 50- to SO-yearold second growth timber. This is work that has been very well documented by Ph.D.s. They have densities now of a pair of owls every 500 acres in 

some areas. I think it is prey-base related. That is what they 

found. It is related to the number of wood rats they have. You open 

a stand up and you have more wood rats. I believe the densities 

we have on our lands are very much related to prey base and more 

open stands. Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you. I would like to also ask Ms. 

Terhaar, I note from your professional-looking testimony that the 

Pacific Rivers Council has offices in Oregon, Washington, California, Montana, and Washington, DC. How large is your group's current annual budget? 

Ms. TERHAAR. I am not aware, unfortunately, at the present time 

of what the group's current annual budget is. I know what my own 

present budget is within the State of California. The reason for my 

ignorance is I am newly hired, but I have just been informed by 

the staff from our Washington, DC office that it is about a million 

dollars. Mrs. CHENOWETH. OK. Could you provide that for the official 

record? 

Ms. TERHAAR. I would be happy to provide that information. 

[At press time, the budget had not been supplied by Ms. 

Terhaar.] 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. OK. Now, I come from Idaho and I am painfully aware that your organization was a plaintiff in a lawsuit that 

temporarily halted all grazing, logging, mining, and road-building 

activities on six of our national forests in an effort to protect the 

salmon. 

I also have documentation that since 1992 Pacific Rivers Council 

received three grants totaling $143,500 from the federally funded 

National Fish and Wildlife Foundation for stream restoration efforts in Oregon. The bottom line is this Federal money has leveraged the ability of your group to shut down for a period 18 of Idaho's 44 counties that were affected by this lawsuit. 

Now, in addition to the $143,500 Pacific Rivers Council received 

in grants from the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation since 
76 

1992, what other Federal grants, co::1tracts, or awards has your organization received in recent years? 

Ms. TERHAAR. Congressw::>man, as I said, I am a specialist in 

California issues. However, I mus e disagree with some of your 

statements. Happily, there is a member of our Washington DC office here. If you would allow her to t:!stify, I believe she will be able 

to answer your questions. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. If the Chairman would agree, I would appreciate that. 

Mr. DooLITTLE. That would be fine. Please state your name for 

the record. 

STATEMENT OF JUDY NORITAKE, NATIONAL POLICY 

DIRECTOR, PACIFIC RIVERS COUNCIL 

Ms. NORITAKE. My name is Judy ~oritake. I am the Pacific Rivers Council National Policy Directo· and, Mrs. Chenoweth, I also 

hail from the State of Idaho. 

I would like to correct one of yc,ur statements for the record, 

which I also hear the other SenatOJ:s and the other Congressman 

from Idaho repeatedly state and it is totally incorrect and that is 

that we shut down activities on those forests. 

That is not true. There were never any activities shut down on 

the forests. There was an injunction which was stayed for a period 

of time and the Forest Service completed the work they needed to 

do with NMFS and there was never any activity shut down on 

those forests. And I am glad to ha,re the opportunity to put that 

in the record. 

Secondarily, the grants that our •)rganization receives from the 

National Fish and Wildlife Foundation are in the nature of matching grants for stream restoration pr0jects which we do in conjunction with the Forest Service and with private timber companies. 

They do not leverage other grants that we receive for the kind of 

work that Ms. Terhaar and I do. And in fact, I think your point i:: that even though the grants 

from the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation are not used to 

bring litigation, as is in the case of Idaho, it frees up other funds 

that we had to do that. I believe that is your point. In fact, in the 

State of Idaho for those cases, we were represented by the Sierra 

Club Legal Defense Fund and we do not pay them. So your allegation that we are somehow misusing those funds is totally unfounded. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. I didn't catch y•mr name. Would you repeat it 

for the record, please? 

Ms. NORITAKE. My name is Judy r-;:oritake. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. How long has it been since you have been in 

Idaho? 

Ms. NORITAKE. Let's see. My last trip out must have been in July 

when I picked up my 8-year-old dm:ghter last year from spending 

six weeks with her grandparents and aunts and uncles there. Mrs. CHENOWETH. I do want to say that the other three members 

of the Idaho delegation and myself are not overstating or misstating the fact that the Pacific Rivers Council's lawsuit shut down the 

activity in 18 of our counties. 
77 

Now, if you and I want to dispute that, I am happy to provide 

you with the information, but you are here to provide me with information today and believe me, that happened in Idaho. Thank 

you very much. I do have one final question, Mr. Chairman. The Pacific Rivers 

Council Executive Director, Bob Doppelt, March 8th, 1995, press 

release on a scientific report on timber salvage contained the following statement: "Congress must heed the strong warning from 

this prestigious group of scientists that massive post-fire salvage 

logging will exacerbate, not resolve the ecological problems that 

exist on the forests of the Northwest. If Congress truly wants torestore forested landscapes and if they are serious about debt reduction, they must not act in haste, not approve blanket salvage logging proposals." 

Since this press release was released immediately prior to the 

House vote on the Taylor timber salvage amendment, this is clearly 

an obvious attempt to lobby the Congress. How much of your 

group's budget is devoted to lobbying Congress and other legislative 

bodies? 

Ms. NORITAKE. A very minor portion of our budget goes to that. 

I can't answer that specifically. I would guess that it is well below 

5-probably even 2 percent of our budget, but I would be happy to 

provide that figure to you. Mrs. CHENOWETH. I really appreciate that, Ms. Noritake and if 

you could also provide that for the record and for the committee a 

breakdown of where your funding comes from. Thank you. 

[At press time, the information had not been supplied by Ms. 

Noritake.] 

Ms. TERHAAR. Congresswoman, I might add that within California the amount of the budget that I have available for activities, 

less than 1.5 percent of it goes toward lobbying. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you. 

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Thank you. Mr. Herger is recognized. 

Mr. HERGER. Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, and I want to 

again thank the Chairman and the members of this committee for 

allowing me an opportunity of sitting with you and joining you on 

this issue which is so important to us in California. And I am particularly encouraged when I hear individuals from our environmental community and those who are from the rest of the community agreeing on solutions to these issues that are destroying our 

communities. 

We were not only losing our way of life there, but again destroying the beautiful forests that we all love so much and I think if 

there is anything all of us share is that love for the forest and, Mr. 

Thomas, I want to thank you. You mentioned in your testimony, 

I believe, some areas that we agree on. I believe you mentioned 

that you do not disagree with the importance. As a matter of fact 

we might find the absolute necessity of thinning these forests, of 

somehow moving them back to that area, that the way they once 

were and we saw pictures earlier in the hearing of what it looked 

like back in the early 1800's and what they look like now and, of 

course, we know the problems we have when we are not managing 

these forests. I thank you. 
78 

I am also encouraged to hear-I don't want to misstate you so 

please correct me if I do, but also I believe I heard you speak some 

encou.!"aging words about the work that the Quincy Library Group 

hz.s done. 

Mr. CRAIG THOMAS. Absolutely. 

Mr. HERGER. And this is really th ~ area that I think we get into 

of how we can come together and be able to solve these mutually _,·ecognized problems. As a matter of fact, crisis we might add, so 

I. thank you for that testimony an-i, again, if I have misstated, 

rl ease--

.. Mr. CRAIG THOMAS. No. That is cm:rect. 

M:t. HERGER. I would like to move, if I could, to Mr. Stewart. And 

if you could comment, Mr. Conrad, in his statement mentioned that 

he felt. that we should, as far as the CASPO draft EIS that we 

s:· .. ould withdraw completely. What would be your comment on th. ? 

Mr. STEWART. Well, Congressman, our concern is we want to get 

something implemented, a process that allows us to move the Quincy Library Group process forward and at this level, the EIS is the 

on!y process we have. If there is arother vehicle, we would probablJ be supportive of that also. Mr. HERGER. How about the curre1t draft? I think you are referr£:1g to the current draft. How do you view the current draft? We 

have heard a lot--

Mr. STEWART. I don't like it. It is tmrible for forestry. 

Mr. HERGER [continuing]. that it does not do the type of 

thinning, have the type of measure:3 that would come about that 

would help, again, restore our forest health. I guess my real question is how do we get from point A where we are now to point B ~he e we would like to be? 

Mr. STEWART. I think the main thing is we need to get back in ~! • .::: elevator and upgrade our currem national plan. We spent a lot 

m. money to give direction to these national forests. I think Congress needs to help give some redefinition in our National Forest 

Mb.nagement Act. The viability standards are critical. ~\1eybe you need to say you need to have a certain number of species. Then they can say, yes or no, they have it, but right now you 

are leaving it up to an interpretatiorc. And so we need some viability standards that we can set. I think those kinds of things would 

al.kw them to move the land management plan forward. That proc0.38 lets everybody participate and ~ applies good forestry on the 

ground. One of the issues brought up early on, and I can't remember 

which one from the Forest Service, b.1t a lot of this started because 

Verno:· way back thought the land rr.anagement plans were geared 

toward even-age management. That is clear-cutting basically. That 

·Ms ~hifted in the Sierras. We are now looking at other management H"lternatives. So maybe there is an opportunity to look at that 

very foundation that Verner got excited about. r~ are not clear-cutting large acreages in the Sierra Nevadas. 

Ti'.ey are looking at other silvicultural systems. Single tree selection, group selection. Those kinder, entler silviculture systems on 

the landscape. It is very complex, hut we need to look at those 

things. 
79 

Mr. HERGER. The nature of this hearing, this specific hearing is 

on the California Spotted Owl Recovery Plan, so working within 

that framework, again, we have the recommendations. Do you feel 

we can work with those recommendations somehow or are any of 

the alternatives something that we could incorporate in order to 

bring about forest health? Where do we go from here with the nature of this hearing having to do specifically--

Mr. STEWART. I think you can direct the Forest Service to go 

back and come out with an alternative that addresses forest health. Mr. HERGER. Other than what they have already offered? 

Mr. STEWART. That is correct. 

Mr. HERGER. So you agree that what they have offered will not 

solve the forest health? 

Mr. STEWART. That is correct. 

Mr. HERGER. OK. That is the main point. OK. Thank you, Mr. 

Chairman. And I want to thank the Forest Service also. I just want to state this for the sake of the Forest Service and 

I regret that our Regional Forester Sprague is not here. Lynn 

Sprague isn't here, but some of the hardest working, dedicated, 

professional people I know work within the Forest Service. 

My concern is with some of the policies many times that come 

here from Washington and many from legislation that needs to be 

adjusted prevents them from doing their work and, again, I want 

to thank everybody involved. We are only going to solve this prob- lem if we work together and I would urge all of us to redouble our 

efforts to do precisely that. Thank you. 

Mr. DooLITTLE. Well, thank you. I just want to observe as a footnote to the hearing record, I strongly supported and support the 

Quincy Library Group. I am not sure that is applicable to the situation down in our part of the district in Tuolomne County. I would 

just-however, the concept of attempting to get the groups working 

together is a good one. Where that can be implemented it should 

be. 

I want to thank our Chairman, Mr. Hansen, and his staff of the 

subcommittee for convening this hearing. We have had some very 

useful testimony, I think. I would like to thank the witnesses for 

spending this amount of time with us, especially Mr. Sprague and 

Ms. Gauthier, who probably didn't anticipate being on the line for 

the whole time, but you handled yourselves very well and I thank 

you for that. 

There will be some additional questions that we will wish to submit in writing to some of the witnesses and the record will be held 

open for that purpose and we would ask your prompt response and 

with that, if no one has any further business, this session of the 

subcommittee will stand adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 2:31p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned, and 

the following was submittted for the record:] 
80 

-STATEMENT OF "DAVID G. UNGER 

FOREST SERVICE 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMBNT OF AGRituLTURB 

Before the 

Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and Lands 

Committee on Resources 

United States House of Representatives 

Concerning Conservation of the 

california Spotted owl 

June 6, 1995 

MR. CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE: 

Thank you for the opportunity to review the development and 

current status of the California Spotted Owl Draft Environmental 

Impact Statement (EIS) . With me today are Regional Forester Lynn 

Sprague and Janice Gauthier, EIS team leader. 

The Draf~ EIS was prepared to amend the regional standards and 

gui delines ~rsuant to requirements of the National Forest 

Management Act"¥NFMA) of 1976. This Act and its implementing 

regulations require the Forest Service to provide for diversity 

of plant and animal communities by ensuring the viability of 

native and desired non-native species of fish and wildlife, to 

d~velop management strategies for that purpose, and to review new 

scientific information and adapt management practices as 

appr opd.ate to ensure viability of species. · 
81 

Prior to January 1993, the California spotted owl was managed ou 

National Forests in California using a network of Spotted C~l 

Habitat Areas (SOHAs) similar to those used to manage the 

northern spotted owl . In 1990, a scientific analysis team, l ed 

by Jack Ward Thomas, released its peer reviewed conservation 

strategy for the northern spotted owl . This analysis shm;·ed that 

the SOHA approach could not ensure viability of the species. 

~n June 1991, an interagency technical team composed of six 

scientists was formed to review the status, habitat requirements, 

and population trends of the California spotted owl. The team's 

findings were released in July 1992 in what is known as t he CASPO 

Report. They concluded that the data on the distribution ar d 

abundance of the owl do not suggest that owls have declined 

either in their overall distribution in the Sierra Nevada or thai: 

they have declined markedly in abundance within any forest type 

there. They also found that the California spotted owl uses a 

wider range of habitat conditions than the northern spotted O;il. 

A key concern identified by the technical team is that empha si s 

contained in current forest land and resource management plans on 

even-age management, including short rotations, would cont:i.nue to 

cause a decline in key habitat components critical to the l cng 

term survival of the spotted owl. Specifically, the team ~· ri: 

"Of greatest _concern to us at this time is the rapid 

disappearance of the large, old, and generally decadent trees 

that are the focus of nesting by spotted owls .... They cannot be 

- 2 -
82 

replaced quickly . " The second major concern was the increasing 

isk of high-severity fires to owl habitat, the ·result of over 70 

years ·o::: fire suppression and fuels l:uildup. 

-r·he technical team reconunended a · series of short - term measures to 

mainta in the current distribution of spotted owls and key habitat 

components. These included the reter.tion of varying amounts of 

l 01. rge trees and snags in suitable owl habitat and the thinning ·of 

overstocked stands to reduce the risk of high-severity fires . 

These reconunendations were adopted by the Forest Service and 

implemen t ed as interim Regional Guide, and Forest Plan Amendments 

on the 1 0 affected national forests in January 1993 until an EIS 

on alternatives for maintaining spotted owl viability could be 

completed . 

In April 1993 , an interdisciplinary planning team was formed to 

develop a long-term strategy for maiutaining the spotted owl ' s 

v iability on 10 Sierra National ForeBts covering over 10 million 

ac r es of National Forest System landH. The Draft EIS prepared by 

the team analyzes a number of alternative strategies. It was 

r eleased for public conunent in February 1995. 

The CAS PO Report of 1992 provided a ::oundation for developing an 

e cologically sound . strategy for mainl;aining the viabil ity of the 

Cali fornia spotted owl. However, gi·ren the complexity of the 

Sierra Nevada ecosystem, the EIS te~n took a broader ecosystem 

- 3 -
83 

approach rather than focussing solely on a single species. The 

draft EIS was developed to: 

1) analyze the habitat requirements of the wildlife community 

as a whole, including the ·spotted owl; 

2) emphasize restoring forest health and reducing the risks 

of high~severity fire; and 

3) strengthen riparian management direction to maintain and 

restore the productivity of wildlife and aquatic habitat. 

The draft EIS analyzes a number of alternatives ranging from a 

network of large reserves with virtually no logging to an active 

management proposal with extensive use of timber harvests and 

prescribed fire. From ~his array of management alternatives, a 

preferred alternative was identified in accordance with 

requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act. 

The preferred alternative differs from both current forest land 

and resource management plans and the CASPO interim guidelines. 

Alternative A in the draft BIS shows management under current 

forest plans. In this alternative, timber management is 

emphasized on lands not allocated to other purposes and spotte.::. 

owl habitat is_provided .by habitat areas. Some of the habitat 

areas were located in wilderness and other lands where timber 

harvest does not occur. To ensure viability, it was also 

- 4 -
84 

nec essary to establish some owl habitat areas within lands 

all o cated to intensive timber manag;ment . Total sawtimber 

p r oduction under this alternative is estimated at about 692 

mill ion board feet annually. 

Al ternative G shows management under CASPO interim guidelines. 

T~ is alternative focuses on spotted owl viability, mainly by 

r e taining 30- i nch and larger diameter trees and other attributes 

f avored by owls across the landsca~e . CASPO was designed as an 

i nte r i m strategy to maintain future options for maintaining 

s pot ted owl viability . Total sawtimber production under this 

a lternative is estimated at about 14 million board feet 

annually. 

The preferred alternative C is intE!nded to restore key ecosystem 

elements that will ensure viabilit:• of the owl and other 

spe cies. It places both commodity production and spotted owl 

management in a broader Sierra Nevilda ecosystem context and 

p rovides for fuels management to :~ educe the risk of 

h igh -severity fires . 

Under the preferred alternative , v~lley bottoms on National 

Forest System lands are managed primarily for old growth forest, 

mid -slopes for a mix of attributes fav ored by owls and for timber 

p r oduction using small group selection, and ridge areas for an 

open forest to serve as shaded fuel breaks . This alternative 

b uilds upon lessons learned through Forest plan implementation, 
85 

incorporating key elements of on -going research, such as the 

CASPO Technical Report, as well as information related to 

riparian management and ecological risks of high-severity fire . 

The end result is a proposed management strategy that moves 

towards sustainable management of all resources in the Sierra 

Nevada . Total sawtimber product ion under this alternative is 

estimated at about 466 million board fe.et annually. 

~he draft EIS and preferred alte rnative are starting points for 

discussion, not the end of discussion. The original 90-day 

period for public review and comment has been extended until July 

10 to ensure that we receive the most in-depth review possible . 

We are aggressively seeking input . The EIS team is continuing to 

meet with individuals, county boards of supervisors, 

organizations representing a wide range of interests, and 

congressional representatives. 

The s t rategy finally developed could likely combine elements from 

a number of alte rnatives. We are committed to basing the 

decision on a final management strategy on the best scientific 

information available and the best information available from our 

publics . 

This concludes my formal statement . I would be pleased to answer 

any questions you may have. 

- 6 -
86 

STATEMENT OF CHEI:I JACOBSON 

TO 

HEARING ON DRAFT EIS ON THE SPOTTED OWL 

NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS, NfD LANDS SUBCOMMITTEE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES 

JUNE 6, 15>95 

My name is Cheri Jacobson . am representing UNITED FOREST 

FAMILIES . We are comprised of over 500 ~~or king people and their 

families, whose l ivelihoods depend u~on the wise management of our 

forests. To date, UNITED FOREST FAMILIES has had very little voice 

in the highly politicized debate over the destructive path our 

government has taken in the management of our na t ural resources. 

It is time for you to move this debate beyond the rhetori c we so 

often hear, and l ook at the faces ::>f t!te people who are being 

devastated both economically and emotionally . We have members who 

are th ird generation "wood workers" whose proud heritage comes 

from the forest and whose future dep<mds on the dec isions made by 

commit tee's like this. We are the true "environmentalists" who 

work and care for the land and fu l.ly expec t our chi ldren and 

grandchildren to be able to do the .;arne. t4y purpose here is t o 

attempt to illustrate the impacts th•! current policies are having 

on fami lies and rural communities i~ the Sierra's and throughout 

the west. 

Mill closures throughout the west in recent years have had 

devastating and all too often ove ~looked co:1sequences. Once 

thriving commun ities have been reduc·~d to virtual g host t owns and 

have seen increases in unemployment rates, spousa l and child abuse 

cases, as well as decreases in funcs for local school and road 

programs . In a nation where education is a pri ority, why are we 

penalizing our childr·en by not manag eng our natur a l resources for 

their benefit? It is not necessary for you to take my word for 

this, just contact the county adminiltrators and school officials 

in towns like Yreka, California, Cresent City, Cal i fornia and 

Roseburg, Oregon . Ask them aboul t !le ic1pacts on social service 

programs in their areas since THEIR MILLS CLOSED. Ask them about 

the crime rate since THEIR MILLS CLCSED. And ask them about the 

economic stability of their communi:y since THE I R MI LLS CLOSED. 

These are very real i mpacts that havE already occurr ed to families 

and communities in r.hc northwest .md are beginning to spread 

throughout rural co•,;ns in the Sierra's. Ho~efully we can stop this 

spread r. hrough act ions that wi.l J. corn~ fr-om hearings like this. 

Timber Industry workers are bein~· increasingly seen in the 

mainstream media as a dying breeci . Thanks to a benevolent 

government, they can be retrainded tc • beco;:1e productive members of 

our society. President Clinton ~as ased r.he phrase "Economi cally 

Dislocated" to describe forest vlo!·kers who have lost their me ans of 

support for their families and are now eligible for retraining. 

Once again, ask the affected communit:ies how the retraining is 
87 

going. The answer, is NO WHERE! These are proud people, providing 

materi al t his coun try depends o n . Proud people who are const antly 

impr oving the methods practiced i n the woods, i ncluding the use of 

High- Tech equipment wh ich is gentle to both the land and the 

residual s tand of trees. We use good, sound management wh ich 

focuses on the ov e rall health of our forests, a l lowing us to 

continue to provide our o nly Renewable Resource t o the American 

People . We don' t want to be reduced to accepting handouts, we 

don't want to be retrai ned for minimum wage jobs that wi ll force us 

to become dependent upon o ur communities. We wan t to remain 

posi tive, contributing people within our commun t i es and government . 

We want to continue to instill the pride we feel from 

constr uct ively providing and in knowing you've done a job well , to 

our children and our grandchildren. 

Let me b r ie fly read a portion of the Draft $ I S for t he California 

Spotted Owl from the Social and Economic Environment sec t ion . On 

page 3 - 310 under Timber Indust ry employees it says " I n some 

communities, logging operations and l umbe r mi lls are the ma jor 

source s o f high-wage jobs. Logge rs, l ogging t r uck drive rs, a nd 

sawmil l wo rkers earn $9 to $16 pe r hour, depending on the specialty 

and experience . Although some of the jobs are subject t o seasonal 

layoffs, they pay two t o three times t he minimum wage and provide 

some fringe benefits . Employers o ften contribute to community fund 

drives and may sponsor special programs, s uch as training seminars 

on college s c holarships . Many fam i l i es have been in the t imber 

industry for generations and identify strongly with this 

occupational subcult ure, sharing its values and p erceptio ns ". 

First, the EIS is correct i n stating the obvious benefits o f high 

paying jobs and famil ies who are committed to their communities. 

But second , it is an INSULT to characterize l ivelihoods as 

honorabl e as loggers and sa•1mill workers as a "SUBCULTURE"! We 

have been a major contributor to the growth and propsperity of 

thi s g reat country and will not accept a f l awed notion that we have 

somehow served out our usefulness . 

The sad part of this whole debate is that it is unnecessary. We 

know that owls live in v.•ell managed forests . This should not be an 

Owls vs People issue . The real issue is the health of our p ublic 

forestl a nds . We are tired of fighting catastrophic wi l dfires and 

protecting our commun ities from pltysical destruction. We are the 

people who have the tools, the techonol ogy , the professionalism and 

the backbone to return both our forests and loca) communities to a healthy state and we are ready to do the job. 

In this regard UNITED FOREST FAMILIES, ha s presented a proposal to 

Congressman Doolittle as a framework for legislation to dea l 

directly with our current forest: health problems. Th i s proposal is 

strongly endorsed and ~~as prepared under the direction of the 

Califor nia Licensed Foresters Associa tion. This is a win-win 

situati on . Not only wi ll v1e be creating healthy f orest conditions , 

but we 1vill also remain employed, continue t o contribute 
88 

significant dollars to the economy t.hrough taxes and timber sales, 

help educate our children and keep our families and communi t ies 

hea l thy. 

Due to the c ollapse of the Naticnal Forest timber managemen t 

program, our local mills in Tuolumn' County, Cal ifornia currently 

have only e nough supply to operate t hough 199 5 . Unfortunately, 

impendi ng mill closures are now con.mon to rural t owns throughout 

the Sierra' s and western United States, a nd emphasizes the urgency 

of the prob lems we are facing . We recognize a nd appreciate 

Congress's wi l lingness to address ttis crisis b ut cannot overstate 

the need for IMMEDIATE action. We' ::e in TROUBLE! 

We appreciate the opport unity to sp.,ak on be half of the people in 

the Timber Indus try, normally hard at work when hearings like this 

are held. Our hope is to keep theJe people working to meet the 

needs of t heir families, communities, National Forests and the 

American Peop l e . 
89 

FOREST HEALTH AND RESTOHI\TION ALTERNATIVE 

Background 

[n January of 1995, the Forest Servics released a Drnf\ Environmental Impact Statement (DEJS) 

outlining an ecosystem approach for managing Califomia Spotted Owl habitat in the Sierra 

Nevada National Forests. While the UEIS was specificully created to addr~ss the concerns with 

regards to declining Spotted Owl habitat, the analysis wus expanded under an ecosystem analysis 

approach to include a number of other spcci<:s. 

After a thorough review of the DEIS. we cnme nwuy with a numb~r of concerns with the 

document. These concerns are focused in two major art:as. First, the range of alternatives 

analyzed is far too narrow. Second, the critical issue of forest health, while recognized by the 

drafters of the document, was largely ignored in terms of providing management scenarios which 

would address the problem. This is particularly true in c~ard s to management alternatives 

designed to reduce the risk oflosses to catastrophic fires. 

Current Situation 

The DEIS recognizes that the Califomiu Spotted Owl is well dhtrihuted throughout the Sierra 

Nevada National Forests. This is ul n the case with respect to owl distribution on privately 

owned forests in the Sierra Nevada as well. \Vc do not ha ve a problem with respect to either the 

numbers or distribution of owls. Where the problem Ecs is in the potential for change in habitat. 

We concur that the si:lgle greatest threat lo owl habitat is not from harvesting or other related 

management activities. The greatest threat i$ from habitat loss to cutastrophic fire. We hlive 

seen lhe elfects of these Iorge fires here in Tuolumne County with the Stanislaus Complex Fire 

which burned over 146,000 acres in 19M7. Other purls of the state have eKperienccd similar 

events. 

While it may be argued that drought played u rol~: in these fires, the ovmiding contributor to the 

size and intensity of these fires was excessivdy heavy fuels. We have become very good nt 

putting out fires over the years. As a wnsequcncc. the repeuteJ light ground fires that shaped the 

Sierra Nevada ecosystems in the 19th century have not been pem1itted to bum. With the 

exclusion of ftres, understory bn1 sh nnd trees hnve filled in under these stands adding to the fuel 

loading lind creating fuel ladders which curry firc s into rhc cwwns of the dominant large trees. 

It is doubtful thai we will ever be abk to reintrodu<:e the type of fires into the Sierra Nevada 

ecosystems that shaped the Sierra Nevada for so mnny yeurs before Europeans settled in 

California. Our fuel loading probl em. is too universal und too great. Too many people now live 

and work in the Sierras and our nir quality is too fi·agik to oknn~ the burning which would be 

required. 

Still, fire presents a clear and present danger to th•: Sierra. Nevad~ ecosystems. We stand not only 

to lose large tracts of productive lands to tire bu1 abo to , uffe r degtndarion of water quality, !oss 

of wildlife lulbitat, destruction of old gr(lwth and late sen:! stage forests nnd ~on version of large 

pam of the forested landscape to brush und gmss. 
90 

The Solut.lon 

Management of the forested l11nds~:ap" tu mimic the cfl';c!s uf the light gmw1J fires which were 

part of the cqootion before fire suppression began to shnpe om forests is crucial. This 

management will undoubtedly involve u holistic appro;:ch utilizing mechanical harvesting and 

removnl and pretcribed fire . The management stJutegy must also involve addressing the problem 

of dealing with the backlog of fue l uccumuluticn. Nom' of the ultematiYes in the current DEIS 

deal with this problem. 

In response to what we see as shortcomings in the pre>< nt range of alternatives, we have 

dc:vclup<:d all alternative tl1at we lee! is 'imi!,u to what lhould hnve been developed and chosen 

as the preferred alternative by the OF. IS team. We would like to have modeled by the Forest 

Service. We have called this alternative the "Forest Health and Restoration Alternative". 

Under this alt<:rnative when desired future forest wnclir ;on< are reached the forest will: 

-be resistant to catastrophi c events (lire, insects, disease) 

-provide for a full rWJge of sustainable multipJe. usc forest r~suurccs. 

·provide for a well distributed mosaic of Jorcst "egetution yp~s -apablll of supporting a 

full range of wildlife popul utions. 

-provide commodities for human needs 

-support customs, culture and ec~nomies of lo0Ll communiti~s. 

Theme of the Forest HcHlth and Restorntion Alttrnl.tivc 

As indicated by h~ title of the altcrnoti\'c. the key ob,ic•:tivc of' lh iti nl tcrnutivc is to restore the 

health of the Sierra Nevada Forests. lhis will be done nitiil!ly by redudng overstocked forest 

conditions to an acceptable level within ~0 yeurs. T11e lbjectives will be to maintain the 

productivity and sustainability ofth• fore st ec0system' wJ;jJ,.: rc.clu"ine nrcll<'vcls <ignificn~tly. 

Lands which are available and suitable tor production c f conunercial timber as identified in the 

current Land Management Plans will b~ treu:e<.l '\'a fir: a priority. Timber harvesting will b~ the 

primary management techniqu~ emph>yed to I reM fuds :n these areas. TI1e silviculturnl 

prescriptions to be used will be designed to de ve!()p sta:1d ~on ditil>ns which will reduce the risk 

of loss to stanc:lrcploccmcnt fireo. 

Management of areas outside of the capable. Jvr,iluhte 'md sunat>!e land base will be designed ro 

be compatible witl1 t.he vegetation t() h~ treated. the nc.cd to prc:wide protection for adjacent 

managed nreas, and overall management b,ic cr iv~s J(Jr the are«. Where timber harvesting 

opponunltles exist, this fonn ttf v~!bctctlivc culltrul >v iii be "sed. Prescribed fire will also be used 

particularly on unsuitable lands. 

Stand tre4tment and progres.s during 1hi:::. rran..; ition peri ~. I wil l i-H : c~ ~.;;nrL~rl in Acres treated each 

year. Volumes to be generated will be incidcmal to th( overal l objective to reduce fuel loading 

and stocking. 

After the initial transition period, th e l~ ecti ~ will he l> mamtain current fuel loading conditions 

througho:~t the forest. On tho Cupubl~, Availab le nnu :ui tab k lends (CAS). •n addition"! eo• I 

will be to secure regeneration oftbirahlc trees in orde r to provide for sustainability of the 
91 

forests in these areas. ASQ !eve!. will he set based upon the ability of the desired future forest to 

produce commodities at the targeted basal area leave levels und rotution ages. 

Resource Program Highlights 

Spotted Owls- SOHA acreage would be available. On regulation Class III lands at least 20% of 

the area will be maintained in suitable nesting habitat. On regulation class I and II lands at least 

60% of the total area will be maintained as uil ab c fornging habitat. Spotted owl population 

levels will remain viable but may decline slightly. 

Wildlife communities-Harvesting prescriptions during the transition period would generally 

create habitat conditions suitable fo r species favored hy the partial cutting regimes. It is likely 

that large tree, closed canopy forest conditions will decline during the transition period but will 

return to levels at or near current CL'llditions during the post trunsition pClriod. 

Riparian and aquatic nreas-Hnrve$ting uctivitie ~ within riparian areas will be encouraged but 

limited. Silvicultural prescriptions to b~ upplied will be designed to buhmce growth wilh 

removals, create conditions where 20% of the area is in early successional riparian vegetation 

and maintain 60 to 80% canopy cover. llipmian zones would be defined and established as per 

current standards and guidelines. 

Timber-Harvesting activities during. the transition period would generally be limited to 

regulation class I,ll, and III lancts us designated in the currently approved Land Management 

Plans. The basic overridinB principle will be thut growth nnd removal will be at least equal. 

During the transition period remo"" Is will need to exceed growth in order to address the eurnmt 

overstocked conditions. 

Some harvesting of other non-regulated lands would ht: permitted on a case by case basis. 

Timber output during the transition period would be a by pn•<luct of trClB.unents designed to treat 

fuels. No regeneration cutting will he done during this period except to regenerate currcmly 

understocked arens. Harvesting of cntastrophic losst:s would be aggressively pursued. 

Harvesting activities after the fud treatment activities ore completed will be dcsignCld to maintain 

the desired basal area target. levels tn meet fud management targets. Regeneration will he 

secured through use of sheltcrwood methods with !urge tree n.:lcntion. Large trees will be 

retained indefinitely. One per cent oftht: acreage will be regene-rated each yenr in openings 

ranging in size from 2 to 5 acres. 

Treatment ofunmerchuntablc muterial ncces.,ury to meet fuclnmnngemeni objectives will be 

done concurrently with cnrry in the ~tunds l(>r Sawlogs and is elCpected to be accomplished 

economically in almost all cases and provide a positive return to the U.S. Treasury. 

Forest Health-Stand treatment objectives will he to reduce stocking levels und fu~":llevels to 

reduce significantly the potential tor loss to cntastrophi<.; >land replacement fires. o;,ernlllosses 

to pests and disease.s should be redt•cL·d ns remaining trees will huve more o!'the site's resources 

uvoiiable to meet their need for nwisturc, >unlight , and nutrients. Endemic insect levels arc 
92 

expected to decline from historic levels. 

Contribution• to ""' E\:uuumy-Couti·ibutiolls lo tin; ta;qJJDJIIY tu-e haseU ou primarily on the 

volume generated and the value. While targeted ASQ levels arc not the objective during the 

transiiion period, we expect that trec.tment n~res will gererute more volume than any of the 

current DEIS altl'rnatives. This will be. partic.ularly ln1c if the. objective. to remove what is being 

grown is met. Because of the bucl<log of material and a;res needing treatment, volumes 

generated by treating acres will likel y re ~u lt in a departtt ·c lrom long term sustained yield which 

would be calculated based on conditions of ~lands aflcr 1 he fuels treatments have been 

completed. This departure is clearly warranted based 01 : the present condition of the forest and 

the need to Qddrcss the overriding problem of too much "Cgctntion. 

The overall result will be increases in direct payments to the counties, direct employment, and 

lower commodity prices. 

Fire an !I Fuels-Puel tr~tment will he aggre~sive und~r lhb all.:math·c parliculurly during the 

transition period. Large stand replacement tires should t egin to dedine in numbers and size by 

the 5th year of the treatment. Long l~.m1 thi ~ trend will continue. 

Special Anas-With the exception of the Spotted Owlll:~bitut Areas (SOHA), special status 

areas would remain the same as those proposed in the forest Lo.nd and Range Management 

Plans. Existing roadless areas would be maintained. Prescrintions designed to protect adjacent 

managed areas would be consistent with the mnnnge111en . ohjective for the special area end 

would likely preclude the usc of hw-vesti ng. 

T111nsportation Facilities-Exiting roads would be used · o extent possible and where compatible 

with other resource protection objezc tives. Th~ need li.r : cirli1iMRI roRd recon•tmctinn •hnultl he 

minimal. 

Conclusion~ 

We feel the Forest health und Re•;torati on ll ltemativc ic dearly a ouperior altemlltive to IUlY of 

those presented in the DEIS. It would do much more to addre~s the real risk to habitat loss and 

would provide a broader rw1ge of goods, services and JOts. We t~re pleased to present this model 

fm R preferrell altemative in outline form for your consiJ<::ration. 

4 
93 

Implementation- Transition Period Objectives 

Desired future forest conditions will he reached over a 20 year period. Emphasis during 

this period will be to meet fud reduction objectives. Management prescriptions will be ha~ed on 

the following general objectives for the various classifications of lands specified in the current 

Land Resource Management Plans (LRMPs). 

I. Regulation Class I & II lands (±20% of the landha~tl) 

A. Treatment will be prioritized to me~t the following objectives: 

1, Growth will equal removals. 

2. Stands will be treated bused on the following prioritization: 

a. Fire history 

b. Fire potential 

(I) urban interrace 

(2) cummt fuel loading 

3. Salvage & restoration of substantially dumuged lunds will be done 

promptly. 

4. Basal area and stocking levels will be modeled to maintain maximum 

growth possible while maintaining stands in a condition resulting in no 

greater than I 0% loss to stand replacement fires over a 10 decade planning 

horizon. 

II. Regulation Class Ill (±20% ofthe landbasc) 

A. Riparian Areas will be treated to meet the following objectives: 

1, Growth= removals 

2. 20% of area to be maintained in early successional riparian vegetation. 

3. Canopy closure to be thaintuincd at the 60% to 80% level. 

B. Non-riparian Areus will be treated to meet the following objectives: 

I. Balance grO\vth and rcmovuls. 

2. SOHA acres made available for tull range of management options. 

3. No less than 20% of the areu in suitable nesting habitat. 

4. Basal urea und stocking levels will be modeled to maintain maximum 

growth possible while maintaining stands in u condition resulting in no 

greater thun u 10% loss to stand replacement fires over a 10 decade period. 

III. Unregulated Lands 

A. Cnpnhle but not suitable lands will be managed to: 

1. Balance growth & removals on a tonnage basis. 

2. Treatment priorities will be directed to protect forest health of Reg. Class 

I, II & lii areas. 

3. Fuel loading levels will be moc.le!cd to meet the no greater than I 0% loss 

to stand replacement fires over a I 0 decade period. 

4. Harvest catastrophic losses unci restore burned areas where feasible. 

5. Utilize harvesting opportunities where feasible to reduce use of fire and 

pay for cost of doing iild treatment. 

B. Unsuitable Land& 

I. Protect Reg. Lands 

2. Develop fuel break through control burning to reduce risk of fm,. 

93-189 0 - 95 - 4 
94 

Implementation- Sustaining the Desired Future Forest Condition 

After the ~lanth w-e treatt:d to m~et th~ Cuclulaimgement objectives and desired future 

forest conditions arc achieved, emphasis will then b: placed on maintaining the desired condition 

and providing for sustainability through regeneratio:1. Management prescriptions based on the 

following general objectives for the various classification~ of lands specified in the current 

LRMPs nre as follows: 

I. Regulation Class I & II land>. 

A. Balance growth and rcmovub 

B. Basal area levels t."'rgeted to maintair maximum growth possible while 

maintaining stands in a condition res tiling in no greater than a 10% loss to stand 

replacement fires over a I 0 yeur period. 

C. Regenerate I% of the acreage per ycH using group shelterwoods of2 to 5 acres in 

size. 

D. Shelterwood removal step following :egeneration is to retain all large trees 

meeting the following criteria by For :st Survey site classes: 

I. Sites 1 - 3 > 48" DBH 

2. Sites 4 - 5 > 40" DBH 

3. Site 6 > 36" DBH 

E. Large trees w-e to be retained indefinitely. 

F. Intennediate treauncnts arc to be upp ied to all other stands to provide for: 

I. Sanitation 

2. Salvage 

3. Basal aren control 

G. 60% of the total area to be maintained in suitable owl foraging habitat. 

II. Regulation Class llllands. 

A. Riparian areas -

I. Individual tree selection on snail groups(< 1/4 acre) be utilized to 

maintain desired multi-storicc canopy. 

2. Growth will be balanced with removab. 

3. 20% of the area will he occupied by eurly successional riparian vegetation. 

4. Salvage will be pe1mittcd after snug retention r~:quirements are met. 

5. Manage input ~ of !urge wood~' material into streams. 

6. Maintain 60 to RO% canopy e>>wr. 

B. Non-Riparian areas 

I. Balance growth and removals. 

2. Basal area levels tnrgcted to maintain maximum growth possible while 

maintaining stands in a conditipn resulting in no greater than a I 0% loss to 

stand replacement fire .> over a I 0 ycnr period. 

3. Regenernte 0.67% of the acreage euch year using a group shelterwood of: 

to 5 acres in size. 

4. Shelterwood removal step fol:owing regenemtion shall reiain the 10 

largegt trees/ncre. 

5. Trees retained shall be retained throughout the life of the stand (150 

years). 

6 
95 

6. Intermediule treatments arc to be applied to all other stands to provide for: 

a. Sanitntion 

b. Salvage 

c. Baslli urea control 

7. No less than 20% of the area in suitable nesting habitat. 

Ill. Unregulated Lands 

A. Capable but not suitable lands will be mam1gcd to: 

1. Balance growth and removals on a tonnage basis. 

2. Set treatment priorities to protect Regulation Class I, Il & III. 

3_ Utiliu a vuri~ty oftr•atm~nt strategies inc:luding: 

a. Control huming 

b. Mechanical treatment 

c. Bn'iill ureu control wh~re feasible 

d. Salvage 

e. Chemical treatment 

4. Harvest cutastrophic h>ssl's & restor~ site productivity. 

B. Unsuitable lands 

I. Protect Rc~;t. Lunds 

2. Develop fuel break through control burning to reduce risk of fire. 
Term 

Bd.Ft. 

CAS PO 

CMAI 

Capable Forest Lands 

Conunodity 

Eis 

DBH 

Evenage 

Green Tree Retention 

Habitat 

LRMP 

MMBF 

MMCF 

Mortality 

N.F. 

Nesting Habitat 

Non-riparian areas 

Regeneration Harvest 

Regulated timber 

lands 

Regulation Class I 

lands 

96 

IJt'.riNIIIUI\:::i ANU /\CKUNYMN:S 

APPENDIX "A" 

Dctinition 

Board Foot - piece of lumber measuring I" X 12" x 12". 

Califomi11 Spotted Owl 

Culmination of Mean Annual Increment 

Those portions of the forest :hat have an inherent ability to support trees 

for timber harvest and produce at lcnst 20 cubic feet per acre per year of 

wood fiber ut CMAJ. 

Outputs from the Nutional FJr~sts for which the government receives 

compensation. 

Envirorunental!mpact Statement 

Diameter of tree at 4'6" nbtne the ground. 

Stands of trees of the same uge or age clllSs. 

Retention of up to 8 large mcs per ~ere which are h:ft indefinitely on site 

to provide structural elements for wildlife hubitat. 

Area with necessary features to ~upport populations of a particular species 

of wildlife or plant. 

Land and Resource Munuger1ent Plan 

Million Board Feet 

Million Cubic Feet 

Death of trees from natural c mscs. 

National Fore"! ~y,tem lands 

Two-storied or multi-storied tunds with 75 to 90 percent crown cover, 

225 to 300 square feet of basil an.:a/acrc in live trees and 20 to 25 square 

feet/acre in smtgs. Stands sh )U}d haven mixture of tree sizes present with 

an accumulation \>f lvgs and .imbs on the ground. 

Regulation class Ill lands wi1J1in the regulated landbase which arc 

managed for purposes other than timber production. 

Removal of trees with the intent to establish a new generation of trees. 

Land which is capable and is munagcd to produce regular periodic yields 

of commercial timber in perp:tuity. 

That portion of the regulated timber land base to which silviculturnl 

prescriptions arc applied ton :hieve f<tlltimbcr yields that result in 

optimum timber production trJeusuretl in volume for the site. 
97 

Term Ddinition 

Regulation Class II That portion of the regulated timber land base with silvicultural 

lands prescriptions modified ro meet non-timber objectives that would reduce 

yields on these lands below what would be expected, given the biological 

potential of the site. 

Regulation Class lii That portion of the regulated tim her lands base managoo for other 

lwuh purposes than timber production. Timber produced in this class is 11 byproduct of other u.ctivities. 

Riparian ll!'eO. Land situated along the bank of a sln:am or other body of water and 

directly inll uenced hy the presence of wnter. 

Salvage Removal of trees which are deud (>r dying due to damnge ftom tire, 

inse.cts, ~"""'- f1norb, wind or other injurious agems. 

Sih~culture Process of growing ancl mRnRcing forests. 

Site Class A measure of the maximum <:apa.,ity nfan area to rroclnce tim her 

measured in cubic feet per acre per year: 

Site Clu.'~ :v!ax. Cu . Ft./Ac.!Yr. 

I 225i· 

2 165- 224 

3 120. 164 

4 85- 119 

5 )0- 84 

6 20.49 

7 less thnn 20 

Snag A standing deHd tree from which the leaves and most of the branches have 

ftulen. 

SOHA Spullc<.l Owl Jlabitut Area consisting of 1,000 acres of suitable owl habitat 

and up to 1,650 acres of repl acement ho.hitot depending on the management employed to sustain habitat over I imc. 

Stand A community of trees or other vegetation which is sufficiently uniform in 

c.omposition, eomti>utinn, ;l[!C, •rMi~l RrrRngcmcnt, or condition to he 

distinguishable l'rurn adjacent communities of trees. 

Stocking Number of trees needed 10 achieve the desired productive potential of nn 

area. 

Thinning Removal of trees from a ~land to maimain or Increase average stand 

diameter, promutc timber gro,'lh, und improve forest health. 

Tonnage The measured weight oflivint; und deud vegetation expressed in 

tons/acre. 

Unevenagc Stands with at least three age dassc8 of trees intermingled on the same 

area. 

9 
Term 

Unsuitable lands 

98 

Ddinition 

Refers to lands which are n·>t suited for timber production according to 

the following criteria defin1:d in NFMA Regulations, 36 CFR 219.14. 

I. is not at least 1 0% occupied by forest trees of any size or formerly 

having had such tree cover ~nd currently developed for non-forest use; 

2. there is not rcaoonoble nJsurance that euch lands can be adequately 

restocked within 5 years af\er final harvest; 

3. technology is not availnhle to ensure timber production from the land 

without irrewrRihl" r"~ourc e damage to soil productivity or watersheds; 

4. land ha~ hccn withdraWJt from limber production by Congress, the 

Secretary of Agriculture or the Chiuf uf the Purest Service. 

10 
99 

TESTIMONY 

OF 

KENT DUYSEN 

SIERRA FOREST PRODUCTS 

NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS AND LANDS 

SUBCOMMITTEE 

OF 

HOUSE RESOURCES COMMITTEE 

JUNE 8, 1995 

Mr. Chairman and me mbers of the subcommittee: 

My name is Kent Duyscn and I am president and gene ral manage r of Sierra Fo rest Products and 

Sequo ia ForE!St Industries, the two most southern sawmills in the Sierras and also in Ca lifo rnia. These 

mills are locatNI in the towns of Te rra Bella and Dinuba. Th e fo rested lands so urcin g these two mills 

are 95')(, fe de ra lly owned, of which on ly 10% arc available fo r timber management. 

The number of sawmill opNations in o ur part of the slate has declined during the last fifteen o r twenty 

yea rs. I ca n think of at leaslle rr mills runn ing in 1975 in Tulare, Fresno, a nd Made ra co unties. By 

1993, a ll but five of the most mode rn mills had bee n shut down beca use of the rea lloca tio n of fede ral 

forest resources which artificially red uced the commercial land base. Today o nly two mills are running. 

two othe rs are in tlw process of be ing dismantled, and o ne is silling idle. The five sawmills ran a tota l 

of 8'/' shifts of employment with a combined work force of 850 men and women. Today, the two 

rema inin g mills work a total of 21/> shifts and employ abo ut 270 people. I ask myself why or how can 

this be happening when we have sev<>ra l million acres of fo rest land desperately needing some form of 

management in o ur b<tckya rd . 

We have bee n plaguPd the last e ight yea rs with appea ls and lawsuits, and have struggled w ith the 

results. We some how have survived these assaults. We even comple ted a court-ordered and approve 

settle me nt agreeme nt on th e manageme nt of the Sequoia Natio nal Forest. We had the co nfidence 

that these issues would pass w ith time and that tomo rrow woulu bring more certa inty in our lives a nd 

the lives of o ur employees ond the ir families. I wa s wrong. During the past 15 yea rs, the dismantlin g 

of the regiona l industry had !wen a slow process, until the Co lifo rnia spo tted owl guidelines came into 

effect. 

ThP California spotted owl is not a listed species and according to scientific stud ies, it is not likely to 

becom(! o ne. Tlw r~ cc rn fo r the California owl is the direct result of the listing of northe rn spott ed 

owl. Afte r it wa s determined that the Fo rest Service manageme nt stralet,'Y, the spotted owl habitat a rea 

(SOHA) ne twork, failed to assur<• long-term viability of th e northe rn spotted owl. e nviro nmental groups 

threa te ned to sue the Forest Service for using the same manageme nt strategy fo r th e Ca lifornia spotted 

owl. The For<.sl Service immediately implemented a system fo r screening timbe r harvest activities 

known as the Cumul<ttive Effects Analysis. That system reduced fedc,.a l limber se les by 30%. 

Meanwh ile, an inte rage ncy team of wildlife biologists were cha rte red to stu dy th e Califo rn ia spoiled 

owl. Altho ugh the ir report, The Ca lifo rnia Spotted Owl: A Technical Assessment of its Current Status, 

commo nly re fe rr<'rllo as the "CASPO Re port", fo und Ca lifo rnia spoiled owls abunda nt and well-

- 1-
l()i) 

distributed, the team recommended further study, am' in the interim a strategy for protecting pote ntial 

key habitat e lements. The CAS PO report was officially ado pted through an Environmental Assessment 

in 1993 for a n interim period until an EIS could be cornpleted. Th e Interim guide lines have devastated 

most of the s;rwmill industry in the south centra l portic n of the Sierras by reducing the federal timbe r 

sa les by 60 pe rcent. 

These interim guidelin<'S are the docrrme nts that fin a l!)· put the hamme r on our loca l mills. The Inte rim 

guidelin es do not allow any trees greater than 30" in d a meter to be harvested whether they are dead 

o r alive. In the southe rn e nd of the Sie rras the trees are of greate r average diamete r than in the 

northern end of the state. The Sierra Nationa l Forest has an average diameter at breast height of 29", 

a nd the Se'l uoia Nationa l Forest has an ave rage of 28 Yi'. This means that a nea r ave rage sized tree 

cannot be harvested in th e lower Sie rras. In conjuncti•Jn with the diameter restrictions, there are 

co nstraints on ca nopy closu re that have to be met be fore any type of manageme nt activity can occur. 

Obvio usly with these constraints, it is very difficult for the agency to find sta nds of timber that could be 

entered. 

The Sierra range is very diffe re nt from one national for ~s t to the next. From a professional forestry 

po int of view, one cannot take a broad brush approaclr to forest hea lth issues with only a single 

solutio n. Each area is uni'lue, and should be treated a :cordingly. Again I have to question why do we 

have interim guidclin"s wh en the owl isn't in dange r? The greatest co ncern for the hea lth of the owl is 

the threat of stand destroying fires. This has been caused due to a lack of forest management over 

large land ba ses. 

We are now " ngaged in an EIS to furth er restrict the w.ry we manage forests for the owl. But again I 

ask why? The " ic·ncc· team that studied the California Owl wrote in the EIS "ltlhe Ca lifornia spotted 

owl appears tu lw abundant and well-distributed with ill the fore sts on the west slope of the Sie rra 

Nevada. It is possible that the spotted owl is more abundant today in some areas of the Sierra Nevada 

than in the pa st 100 yea rs or prior to Euro-America n "' ttlement. This is likely beca use of a shift in the 

dominant Sierran forest structure from mo re open ca nopy to closed forests." 

In another sectio n of the EIS, the team slated "lclurre nlfy, the adult owl survival rate is relative ly high 

and may not be amenable to further increases." Why ·lowe persist in spending tho usands of dollars to 

write an environmenta l document for the Ca lifornia sp )tted owl when the past management practices 

have not jeop;udized iLS existence, and in fact, mr1y ha"e increased its population.? The Sierra 

National Forest has 217 owls, of which 14 3 arc pairs, r Iu s there are an addition al estimated 50-52 

sites. The Sequoia National Fo rest has anothe r 151 bids, 95 pairs, and 15-20 additiona l sites. Seve ral 

yea rs ago the Forest Service admitted tha t they could ~ longe r manage for single species. Why then 

do we have a n EIS and a major change in the managen e nt of the Natio nal Forest in Ca lifornia whe n 

the creature they are studying appears to be in good h<·alth, which I might add, is quite a contra st to 

!()(lay's prognosis of th e forest products industry and th very forest itself. 

The greatest need in the Sierra ~vada is to improve fc r~ t health. Hea lthy forests provide hea lthy 

habitats. The EIS team stated "All othe r concerns ar<• o f seco nda ry importance." The CASPO EIS 

should be red irected into a forest health EIS. Chief jacl: Ward Thomas testified at the 1994 Senate 

hea rings in Boise that tlw decline in forest health is th e result of too many trees and many of the m the 

wro ng species. ThP suitable land base in the Sequoia lational Forest is growing about 135 million 

board fe e l (MMBF) of mb~;r ann ually, however it is cu ·re ntly s~ llin g only 10 MMBF. The Sie rra 

- 2-
101 

National Forest is growing about BO MMBF and only selling 34 MMBF. When the agency who has the 

responsibility to reduce the threa t of wildfire removes less than 40% of the biomass that is growing 

annu ally, you end up with the mess that we have on the public lands today. It is a tinder box ready to 

explode, and we a rc adding tons of fi rewood to the pile for each and every yea r that actio ns are 

de layed. 

Today it is not logical to continue with the interim owl guidelines nor an Owl EIS, based on the 

conclusio ns reached in the Draft California spotted owl EIS. The report seems to provide some fairly 

good science, however the re does not seem to be a wide range of alte rnatives. For some reason, the 

agency chose an answer which might be called "politica l science", versus good logic and so und 

science. For what ever th e reaso n, we must move away qu ickly from th e Ca l Owl EIS process, since 

the re is no evidence the owl is in any dange r. I believe the Agency needs to begin studies o n what will 

create biodivcrse a no healthy forest. If environmental documents are to be do ne, they sho uld not 

focus o n individual species, but they should encompass management techn iq ues which enhance 

habitat for multi ple species and improve forest hea lth. 

I am ho peful that this comminee will assess and give prompt direction to the Forest Service and Regio n 

5. The restrictions in place unde r CASPO and the management proposals unde r the Ca l Owl EIS have 

and. will co ntinue to have se rious adve rse co nsequences both socially and to the environment 

While these issues a re being delibe rated, Region 5 sho uld return to the ir pre-CASPO land 

management plans. There is no evidence to suggest an interim departure is necessary. They should 

be allowed to wo rk. 

Time is getting very short for ou r employees and the ir families, as is the same for the heath of our 

forests and commun ities. The last two sawmills in the lowe r Sierra Nevada are hanging on by their 

thumbnoils. If some common se nse in the management of our national forest does not come into play 

this year, I li c~vc we will only see one sawmill located nea r t.h e two southe rn Sie rra Nationa l forests. 

-J-
102 

Testim·my 

supervisor F:en Marks 

County of 1uolumne 

Thank you Mr. Chairman and membe ~•s of the Colll)llittee for this 

opportunity to speak before you tcday. My name is Ken Marks and 

I have the privilege of serving a:; the Chairman of the Tuolumne 

County Board of Supervisors. 

Tuolumne County, California, is a county rich in natural 

resources - located in the heart of Sierra Nevada's Mother Lode. 

Nearly 80% of Tuolumne County's laud is government-owned. 31% of 

our County's land lies within the toundaries of Yosemite National 

Park. 68% · of the Stanislaus Nat.Lonal Forest -lies in Tuolumne 

County. 

Now - using experimental science - the U.S. Forest Service is 

proposing to rewrite history. N•)t only for 10 of its Sierra 

Nevada National Forests ... but alsc• for 17 of California's Rural 

Counties. The criminal part of tt.is whole report is that it is 

being done unnecessarily . As tt e Draft Environmental Impact 

Statement summarizes ... "The California Spotted owl appears to be 

abundant and well distributed with:.n the forests on he west slope 

of the Sie rra Nevada." 

The Draft Environmental Impact Statement outlines seven long term 

strategies to protect the habitat o)f the California Spotted Owl. 

If any one of the options being r:commended in this report are 

adopted ... let me describe a few o f the impacts I see effecting 

Tuolumne County. 

* We will immediately lose apprc~i ately 1,000 jobs tha t are 

directly tied to the timbe r indust ~y. An additional 3 , 000 loc al 

jobs will be lost in related indu:;trie s. That's a total 4, 00 0 

jobs lost if any one of these a :.ternatives are adopted . We 

currently suffer from an unemploymnnt rate in Tuolumne county of 

11.7%. We have just over 18 thousand jobs in our county. If we 

lose 4, 000 of those precious job:; our unemployment rate will 

skyrocket to 30%! 

* More importantly, our future generation - our children - will 

be directly affected as Tuolumne and Calaveras County Schools 

lose 2 million dollars per year in Timber Reserve 

Funding .. . derived from Timber R<:ceipts from the Stanisl aus 

National Forest. The Tuolumne County Board of Education has 

voted to oppose the DEIS for Managi:1g the California Spotted Owl. 

Nine independent local school districts have also voted to send 

their opposition of the DEIS to th: Forest Service. 
103 

our schools will not only suffer from a cutback in direct 

funding. Tuolumne County Superintendent of Schools, Dr. Orville 

Millhollin points out that the downsizing of an important 

industry in Tuolumne County will have a predictable "domino" 

effect throughout the community: Whereas an increase in 

unemployment historically results in increased incidents of child 

and spousal abuse - along with drug and alcohol abuse. 

My wife is an educator at a local elementary school with about 

650 students where all of the Timber Reserve Funds are used to 

provide educational programs. 

Within the last year, when environmental regulations helped shut 

down an operational gold mine in our county ••. 250 jobs were lost. 

At the school where my wife teaches - there was a noticeable 

change in the behavior of many of the attending students. It's 

not immediate, but little things start showing up ... no lunch 

money, no jacket, no homework, no concentration, no parent, no 

student ... it just makes no sense. 

The Forest Service Plan for managing the habitat of the 

California Spotted Owl is opposed by every member of the Tuolumne 

County Board of Supervisors. 

Tuolumne County's Road Department will need to cut back its 

maintenance programs from snowplow services to pothole repairs as 

we will be losing 700 thousand dollars per year in Timber Reserve 

Funding directed for county road maintenance. 

But a loss of direct funding is just the tip ?f the iceberg. As 

unemployment increases ... social problems ~ncrease as well. 

Demand for county services will rise from public health to public 

safety. The cost to Tuolumne County of providing these essential 

local services will rise astronomically .•. at a time when its 

citizens are least able to support the increased costs. 

Finally ..• all of the alternatives outlined in this Forest service 

plan put our forests in greater jeopardy of catastrophic forest 

fires. According to this report an acceptable rate of 

destruction for Sierra Nevada forests is 421 thousand acres lost 

per year. It doesn't take a high speed calculator to figure out 

that this is a prescription for the demise of the Sierra Nevada 

Range. Forest fires destroy more than trees ... they destroy 

lives ... they destroy homes ... they destroy our resources ... and 

ironically ... they ultimately destroy the habitat of wildlife. 

Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee. I urge you to 

consider the true costs of this plan. Remember that while the 

Forest Service is required to maintain viable populations of 

native species ... the California Spotted Owl is not threatened or 

endangered. In fact, it is more abundant now than at any time in 

the past. 

-2-
104 

And question the attitude of thos e in the Fore st Service who 

assert "that public comment is not a vote." I a s k your Commit tee 

to file your own comments. C<1st your vote to join me in 

supporting the needs of California's Rura l Counties and the 

people of the Sierra Nevada. 
105 

COMMENTS OF BILL COATES; PLUMAS COUNTY SUPERVISOR 

HOUSE NATURAL RESOURCES SUB-COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, 

FORESTS AND PUBLIC LANDS 

WHO WEARE. 

The Quincy Library Group (QLG) is a three-county alliance of elected officials, lumber 

mill operators, woods workers, union representatives, local environmentalists, and 

citizens who have agreed on certain principles of natural resource management for the 

National Forests that dominate our area of northeastern California. Since 1993 QLG 

has been proposing substantial modifications to US Forest Service priorities and 

operations, in a continuing dialogue with individual citizens, other groups, the USFS, 

and elected officials. 

The QLG area includes the Lassen National Forest (LNF), the Plumas National Forest 

(PNF), and the Sierraville Ranger District of the Tahoe National Forest (SRD). Nearly 2. 

5 million acres of National Forest System land fall within the QLG area, this represents 

3 5 percent of the 7 million acres in the seven Primary Forests. 

WHAT WE THINK. 

The Draft ElS (DElS) ignores or misinterprets key aspects of the available science, is 

legally deficient, and promulgates a management regime that would lead to 

catastrophic decline of forest ecosystems, social structures, and economies in the QLG 

area. 

WHY WE THINK IT. 

The DElS would impose ill-founded, inappropriate, and unworkable "one size fits 

all" prescriptions to widely diverse Forests and local areas over half the length of 

California. 

The DElS proposes no substantive watershed protections nor describes an active 

watershed restoration program such as that already being carried out in the QLG 

area. 

The DElS gives only lip service to the need, indeed the legal requirement, for 

ongoing scientific and management monitoring, to report on the state of the 

ecosystem and provide the basis for adaptive management responses. 

The DElS gives inadequate attention to the high and increasing probability of 

catastrophic wildfire. We believe the buildup of fuels and fire -prone, 

drought-intolerant vegetation a re the greatest current threats to both the ecosystem 

and the economy of our area. 

The DElS does not give sufficient weight to the fact that the QLG area has a greater 

relative economic, social, and environmental stake in USFS practices than other 

areas of the Sierra. 
10(; 

WHAT WE PROPOSE. 

QLG does not believe that any of the publishec. DEIS Alternatives is suitable for the 

whole seven-Forest Province. Alternative F is s1id to be the "QLG Alternative", but it 

does not correctly represent the QLG Proposal. 

We urgently request that the Final Draft of the EIS be based on sub-regional 

Alternatives that are fully appropriate for each Forest or major affinity group among 

the seven Forests. Since the LNF, PNF, and SRD share significant attributes among 

themselves that they do not share with the res·: of the seven-Forest Province, we 

believe the most logical sub-regional group in 

northeastern California is the QLG area. 

Within the QLG area, we propose the following concepts for USFS management, and 

we urge the EIS Team to provide a final Preferred Alternative that is fully consistent 

with these concepts: 

A network of strategically located defensible shaded fuel breaks should be 

established across the landscape within five yean;, to drastically reduce the size of 

stand-destroying catastrophic wildfires. Thi~ would not substitute for eventual 

treatment of excess fuel buildups throughot t the forest, but be the emergency 

first-stage response to the intolerable fire th ·eat caused by those fuel buildups. We 

are pleased to note progress among the thre ~ major USFS components of the QLG 

area (LNF, PNF, and SRD) to develop a unifit:d Fuels Technical Report that we 

expect to be the first step toward implementng an areawide strategic network of 

defensible fuelbreaks and fuel treatments. 

Forest management based on the QLG LandJase Map, which recognizes existing 

off-base areas such as wilderness and resened areas, supplemented by 

limited-time deferral of timber management Ktivities in certain sensitive areas 

designated on the QLG map. 

Timber management of on-base a reas by Grc-up Selection with Area Control, Single 

Tree Selection, or the QLG version of "CAS PO thinning", depending on which is 

appropriate to the given area and purpose at the time. 

Improvement of watersheds, riparian habitat, water yield, and fisheries through a 

watershed restoration program. 
107 

Economic recovery of the QLG area to a condition of healthy long-term stability 

through quick energetic implementation of the QLG fuelbreak and forest 

management proposals, along with continued protections provided by SBA/SSTS 

set-asides, enhanced use of stewardship contracts, and the creation of a northern 

Sierra sustained yield unit, as called for in the QLG Proposal (our appendix A). 

Provision for old growth retention and replenishment through Group Selection on a 

200year rotation with area control, along with suitable long-term adaptive 

management of areas now reserved and deferred on the QLG land base. 

We believe that a properly remodeled computer projection of the QLG proposal will 

result 

Significantly greater protection against catastrophic wildfire. 

Better watershed and forest health. 

Sustained green sawlog production very near pre-CASPO levels. 

The National Forests of the northern Sierra stand to succumb to catastrophic wildfire. 

The local communities stand waiting with top-of-the-line technology to deal with the 

fuels concerns. If logging that deals quickly with the excess of small trees would 

require a departure from the "non-declining yield" rule, there is ample justification on 

grounds of fire hazard and other forest health considerations. There is no justification 

for the DEIS to assume, and thus tacitly support, the continuance of inappropriate 

and illogical management practices that fail to deal with the excess of small trees and 

white fir in the timber inventory. The current sags and lags in our local timber 

economies are due largely to USFS administrative bottle-necks, not to a shortage of 

technology and business capability, or to the QLG Proposal. 

The proposed EIS on the spotted owl poses no viable alternatives to solve the fire 

problem, the owl problem or the economic problems that will ensue from the lack of a 

solution. The QLG proposal, if fully implemented, will provide short term solutions 

while the long term answers are sought, developed and implemented. 
108 

COMMENTS OF FRANK STEWART, COLLINS PINE COMPANY 

TO THE 

HOUSE NATURAL RESOURCES SU8-COMMITIEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, 

FORESTS AND PUI3LIC LANDS 

Mr. Chairman, my name is Frank SteYtart, Resource Manager for Collins 

Pine Company, Chester, California. As a fam1ly owned company with over 

60 years of forest management and sawm1!1ing in Chester, California, and 

140 years of forest management and sawmilling in our Kane, Pennsylvania 

operations, we are appreciative of this c:;,mmittee holding this oversight 

hearing on the Draft EIS For The Californ a Spotted Owl. 

Our Chester sawmill operation employ:; 200 people from the ChesterLake Almanor area and our annual two shift operation manufactures 65 

million board feet of sawlog volume into lumber products for the 

American consumer. 

Our 92,000 acre of timberlands are 1nt.ermingled between the Lassen 

and Plumas National Forests and are mam1ged on a sustained yield basis 

that generates 32 million board feet of s;,wlogs annually, or 50% of our 

volume requirements. The balance of our sawlog requirements have 

historically developed from the public tim ber sale programs on the Lassen 

and Plumas National Forests. 

When Mr. Collins purchased our Cheste· timberlcmds in the early 1900's, 

he had the foresight and understanding that sound business and forestry 

principles applied to a dynamic forest would benefit his family and 

society for perpetuity. As such, he hired a forester and commenced on the 

development of a long term management plan that is still being followed 

by our foresters today. 

The management plan is reviewed and updated every 1 0 years to meet 

the needs of changing forest conditions. H•,wever, the concepts and 

principles that the management plan are founded on, remain as valid today 

as they did back when Mr. Collins envision,~d them. 

What are these magical and secretive cr)ncepts, and where did they 

come from? They came from the US Forest Service. because Mr. Collins 
109 

they're just common sense forest management principles that have been 

adhered to by the Collins family and their employees for over fifty years! 

As a result of this commitment, we have had more than our share of 

public recognition and support. And believe me, in todays "political 

environment" public support and understanding are crucial in managing 

natural resources, and especially when it comes to harvesting trees on 

public and private lands in California. 

To further our opportunities in the market place and better educate the 

public on proper forestry practices, Collins Pine Company has been the 

first private industrial forest owner in the nation to be certified undBr 

the "Green Cross - Forest Conservation Program" of the Scientific 

Certification Systems; the nation's leading independent agency certifying 

industry's environmental accomplishments. 

We did not come here to criticize or condemn one of this country's 

proudest and most distinguished agencies, the US Forest Service. This 

agency has been serving the people of this nation for over l 00 years by 

manag1ng our National Forests, and providing goods and services to a 

growing nation. As the population of this nation continues to grow and the 

demands on natural resources are increased, the US Forest Service is 

constantly under public, political and judicial pressure to meet the goals 

of a constantly changing and moving target. Forest management is a long 

term commitment that requires stability in the legislative and policy 

arena, while maintaining flexibility in the areas of scientific and 

professional application on the ground. 

Over the last fifteen years, we as a nation, have spent billions of hard 

earned tax dollars on developing what amounts to the most complex 

environmental impact statements ever done, the land Management Plans 

for each of the National Forests. These plans are intended to give direction 

to the management of our national forests, while providing the necessary 

tools for the Forest Service employees to meet the social, economic and 

environmental needs of our nation. Rather than functioning as intended, 

these LMP's have been mired in conflicting laws, policies, regulations, 

appeals, and litigation, that have relegated the management of our 

national forest to nothing more than a paper producing legal process that 

has unfortunately, replaced sound forest management on the ground. 
110 

Since 1 991, when the Regional Forester responded to a threat for a 

petition to listing of the California Spottec Owl by the Audubon Society, 

the t1mber sale program on the Plumas and Lassen National forests has 

continually plummeted to unacceptable le,·els. 

Land Management Plan Information: 

Average annual growth 570 million feet 

Average annual mortality 380 million feet 

Annual Sale Quantity (ASQ) 388 

Actual Annual Timber Sale Program: 

1970-90 353 

1991-94 202 11 

1995 130 " 11 

During this devastating period with i1 s 64% reduction in timber 

sales, 9 sawmills and numerous contract lc•ggers and haulers that were 

dependent on these forest service timber s 3le programs have gone out of 

business in our part of the state and creat ~d social and economic hardship 

in the various communities. Mind you, the :::alifornia Spotted Owl is only a 

sensitive species according to the Forest Service and not threatened or 

endangered. 

Since our Chester sawmill operation i:; dependent on a stable and 

sustainable federal timber sale program, v~e like others, believed that in 

our part of the state, the Quincy Library Group - Community Stability 

Proposal was the appropriate vehicle to bring resolution to the continual 

battles on managing our National Forests. For over two years at the local 

grassroots level, the QLG took the Presiden:'s and Congress's advice and 

"sat around the table and stayed out of cou1t" and hammered out a proposal 

that addressed the concerns of forest heath, ecological integrity, local 

economic stability and adequate timber supplies. In others words the QLG 

developed a win-win, non-partisan management package. The irony is, we 

can't get the proposal implemented in a tirrely manner that meets the 

economic, social and environmental needs of our communities without 

going through the lengthy process of the California Spotted Owl EIS. 

The most serious flaw we find in the D1·aft EIS is its attempt to 

specify "one size fits all". With one solutior. the EIS attempts to handle a 
111 

variety of issues in each forest along the Sierra Nevadas and these overlysimplistic proposals fail to meet the unique character of the individual 

forests and communities themselves. This approach is a serious flaw, 

even if the EIS had stuck to its original charge, spotted owl habitat. By 

expanding the scope of the EIS to deal with the habitat of all wildlife 

species, the "one size fits all" scenario works against forest management 

on any of the forests involved. 

The preferred alternative fails to address the forest health crisis and 

the increasingly fire-prone status of the national forests and the 

immediate need to reduce the catastrophic fire danger. Current mortality 

from the drought and insects is never quantified in the EIS or alluded to as 

an issue that currently threatens habitat of wildlife or humans to any 

substantive degree. The underlying forest health problem, the overstocking 

of timber stands, coupled with drought-weakened or dead trees is given no 

mention in the issues section of the EIS. As such, all the proposed 

outcomes in the EIS are misleading. A recognition of this overstocking and 

mortality problem could not have led to a decrease in the ASQ as proposed. 

but rather an acceleration of the environmentally sound fuel treatments in 

the form of salvage logging of dead and dying trees, green tree thinnings 

and other appropriate silvicultural treatments. 

The current annual growth on the Sierra Forests is 1. 7 billion board feet 

and the preferred alternative promotes an ASQ of only 41 6 million bdft. or 

24% of the annual growth. As such. this limited harvest scenario will 

contribute to an already over-stocked condition and further amplify the 

catastrophic fire situation. Rather than decreasing the annual harvest, the 

ASQ must be accelerated through the elimination of the departure 

constraints of their various modeling programs. 

As we move into what looks to be another catastrophic fire season 

in the West, I urge the Resource Committee to direct the Forest Service to 

develop a preferred alternative in an expedient manner that incorporates 

local solutions to the various regions of the Sierras. 
112 

nired ;i~ 1st forester away from the Forest Service and paid him to 

deveicp a!1d implement the management plan on the Collins timberlands. 

The ..:oncepts and principles are no mys :ery; they're founded and based 

on ~,;ood science, economics, business practices and common sense: 

- Deveiop and maintain a Sustain Yield Policy that specifies that only 

the anwal growth and mortality on the forest are harvested, and the 

~~owing stock or "principal" is left to continue growing. As such, over the 

pasl: 50 years we have harvested over l .E billion feet of sawlog volume 

8 : d t!"1e original inventory volume rema ins. 

• Establish a Continual Forest Inventory system (of fi xed 1 acre plots) 

that .;:·e measured every 1 0 years or as ne~ded to monitor and evaluate the 

growth, mortality, species composit ion, and other dynamics that are 

';::k•-:g p!ace within the forest. 

• Deveiop and maintain a permanent ro< d system that allows access to 

~ :~ <>feas of the forest for management ar·d fire protection activities. 

~ Er;,pioy qualified and dedicated professional foresters who have an 

appr.;.ciat!()rl and respect for the forest and enjoy spending long hours each 

oay \>'!0·-kir.g in it and solving the problems ::m the ground. 

-· Apply an All-Aged silviculture system that responds to the individual 

; equirern.;nts of the different conifer tree !>pecies that grow on the forest. 

In ::>ur s.itu;,tion, we utilize the Single Tree Selection Method because it 

Cj;!ows each tree to be evaluated on its owll. 

- 1\pp!y strict timber marking guidelines that are followed by company 

forest,.,r-; in selecting trees to be harvestea and trees to be left for future 

growth. The continual growth of healthy an;i vigorous trees is paramount 

in that these trees produce the seedlings f•)r natural regeneration and 

:;o; .t •'U <~ tion of the forest ecosystem. 

- Cc.r,duct logging operations that remov•~ the harvested trees in an 

-.:·f"ictent and economic manner while protecting the soil, water, wildlife. 

stam;;,,,.i trees and other values of the fore ;t . 

... '.s you can see, these concepts and practices are not a mystery; 
113 

THE PACIFIC RIVERS COUNCIL 

9J,6 "J" Street, Suite 612 • Sacramento, California • 95814 

(916) 557-1666 • Fax: (916) 448-1789 

THE HOUSE SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS, AND LANDS 

REGARDING THE CALIFORNIA 

SPOTTED OWL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL 

IMPACT STATEMENT 

STATEMENT OF TERRY TB~ 

CALIFORNIA PROJECTS !>!REc.l.'OP. 

JUNE 6 1 1~t5 

Good morning Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee. r am Terry Terhaar, California Projects Director for the Pacit.io 

Rivers Council. I specialize in forestry, fi~e, and aquatic 

policy issues on both public and private lands in Califo:-llia. l<::r 

family background is similar as members of my family have b~en 

managers in the California timber industry since 1913. r am als~ 

a member of the California Fire Strategies Team that is chaired 

by California Assistant Secretary of Resources, Terry Go~~on. 

The Pacific Rivers Council is a non-profit conservation 

organization dedicated to insuring the development of sound 

science-based policy and protection of watershed ecosystems and 

aquatic species on watersheds throughout the West. 

Background 

Land management practices in California have profoundly affecr~d 

aquatic, forest, and grassland ecosystems in the Sierra l~e\lad "· 

The entire range of land management practices is implicated 

including streamside development, urbanization, logging, q::-o.zi.ng, 

mining, fire suppression, wate~ withdrawals, the introduction of 

exotic species, and the chronic effects of roadbuilding. 

Of California's 116 species and subspecies of native fresh ·~on~te :::· 

fish, 7% are extinct, 15% are listed as threatened or endange~ad, 

21% qualify for listing, and 21% are either declining, exi~t in 

small, isolated populations, or require special management ~:~ 

survive. Only 38% of the state's fresh water fish species ar'.= in 

stable, healthy condition. (California Water Education 

Foundation] These losses have created widespread ecologic~! an~ 

economic hardships. 

The primary factors that have lead to this loss of fish ~~e the 

destruction of freshwater habitat, the fragmentation of l&a~itat, 

and the introduction of exotic species. In order to maint5in and 

eventually recover populations of fish, amphibians and other 

vertebrate aquatic species along with the economic benefit!:' thev 

represent, recent regional level National Forest planning efforts 

both within and without California have rightfully adopted 

watershed level Aquatic Conservation Strategies. (Scientific. 

New Visions to Restore America,s Rivers and Watersheds 

Oflieea aleo in Ore£OD, Wubinrton, Monto.n• u.~ "':e..'U!Igtcm. D.C. 
114 

Analysis Team, Forest Ecosystem Manacrement Assessment Team, 

Pacfish) In addition, scientific teams have come to the same 

conclusions as planning teams, that conservation of aquatic 

species, forest health, and water quality, must be derived from a 

watershed perspective. (Scientific Panel on Late Successional 

Forest Ecosystem, Eastside Scientific: Societies, and others.) 

Context 

In 1991, the Forest Service decided 1:hat an ounce of prevention 

was worth a pound of cure. A proces:; was begun to adopt a new 

land management strategy to protect California Spotted Owls. 

This strategy was to be scientificaL.y based and would comply 

with existing laws to prevent potent:.ally more restrictive land 

management ·requirements that might accompany a listing of the 

California Spotted Owl under the Endangered Species Act. A 

Steering Committee was formalized wi1:h the support of the Forest 

Service, other state and federal agencies, and the tacit support 

of the timber industry. 

In 1992, a report, "The California Spotted Owl: A Technical 

Assessment of its Current status", which was accepted by the 

Steering Committee, stated that two studies showed a decline in 

the owl population but neither was s1:atistical1y significant. 

The report did conclude that the owl:; prefer old growth forest 

and that this habitat element was rapidly disappearing. The 

report recommended that a strategy that, in part, protected large 

trees over 30 inches in diameter be pursued. 

In 1993, the Forest Service adopted 1:he recommended strategy 

known as CASPO with an Env ironmental Assessment as an interim 

plan until a long term strategy coulcl be fully developed. 

In 1995, the Forest Service released the Draft Environmental 

Impact statement [EIS] for managing California Spotted Owl 

habitat in the Sierra Nevada which b:~ings us to this hearing 

today. 

Deficiencies of the Draft Environmen<:al Impact Statement 

The draft EIS ignores or misinterpre·:s key aspects of available 

science including the Technical Asse:;sment Report completed in 

1992. The draft EIS is also legally deficient and promulgates a 

management strategy that fails to in•:orporate an adequate Aquatic 

Conservation Strategy and which will lead to a catastrophic 

decline in forest health. 

While the draft EIS appears to also :mggest that it offers a 

strategy to resolve the threat of ca·:astrophic wildfire in the 

Sierra Nevada, the draft EIS offers inappropriate and unworkable 

"one size fits all" prescriptions to widely diverse forests and 

local areas that do not help to alle"fiate the danger from 
115 

catastrophic fire where the risk is most profound - the extensive 

rural-urban interface line of the Sierra Nevada. 

It is also quite clear tha t the draft EIS offers no substantive 

watershed protection nor describes an active watershed 

restoration program, despi te the fa c t that 70% of the water that 

is utilized by agribusines s and residential interests in 

California i s produced in the Sierra Nevada and that the majority 

of watersheds that supply this water are severely degraded. 

With respect to the California Spotted Owl itself, the preferred 

alternative could foreclose options for the owl, because the 

management strategy that is proposed is totally untested and the 

assumptions are unprov en. The preferred alternative, in fact , 

fails to meet the goal of CASPO to avoid precluding options and, 

as such, must be considered as highly experimental as no 

demonstration proj ects or tests of the prescriptive approach ha ve 

been completed to date. 

The draft EIS also fails to meet the legal requirement to conduct 

ongoing scientific and management monitoring to report on the 

state of the ecosystem and to provide for an adaptive management 

response. 

70% of the water used by agriculture and residential users in 

Californi a is at risk 

The declining health of Sierra Nevada watersheds, caused by the 

impacts of accelerated timber harvesting, overgrazing, 

intensified mining, road building, and urbanization upon the 

soils of the Sierra Nevada, has placed the crown jewel of the 

Sierra -its water - at risk. The problems resulting from the 

decline in forest watershed health have resulted in erosion and 

severe sediment problems in many watersheds that affect not only 

the delivery of good clean water but the abundance and timing of 

that water delivery. 

The Pacific Rivers Council recommends that before undertaking 

unproven management strategies that may or may not work, the 

Forest Service develop regional management strategies for 

protection of the California Spotted Owl that prov ide for the 

maintenance of the viability of the owl and include effective 

watershed protection for the water users in California. 

Additionally, the Pacific Rivers Council believes that none of 

the published alternatives in the draft EIS meaningfully address 

the risk in some areas of catastrophic fire . 

None of the published alternatives are suitable for the entire 

Sierra Nevada. We request that the one-size-fits-all alternative 

be rejected in favor of sub-regional geographic alternatives that 

fit conditions on the ground. Regional alternatives, however, 

must adopt overarching minimum levels of protection in order to 

ensure that the watersheds of the Sierra, the watersheds that 
116 

supply over 70% of the water that i,. used by agriculture and 

residential users of California, be fully protected. 

THE <T:INCIPLES OF AN AQUATIC CONSER\ATION STRATEGY 

Identify the key watersheds which have remaining healthy 

aquatic habitat 

Protect riparian areas across the landscape 

Analyze the watershed so that harmful management practices 

may be modified 

Secure, expand, and reconnect the healthier habitat and 

:-iparian areas through restoration plans 

The conceptual outline of providing an adequate Aquatic 

Cc·nservation Strategy that offers meaningful protection for water 

resources is simple: refuges drawn on watershed boundaries 

combined with systematic riparian reserves. Watershed analysis 

and restoration then build on this core of protection to provide 

the framework for recovery. None of these measures is fully 

adoptea in the draft EIS preferred alternative, even though their 

e f ficacy has been detailed in other Forest Service documents. 

The d ;:;,ft EIS must address forest wide riparian protection of all 

r iparian areas that contribute significantly to the physical and 

biological function of ~quatic systems. Additionally, key 

watersheds that are largely functionally and biotically intact 

must be functionally conserved along with biotic refugia areas 

that have significant populations of aquatic species. And 

finally, the understanding of aquati~ biotic and ecosystem 

function in California is incomplete. Continued analysis that 

8Valuates and develops watershed analysis methods, provides an 

i t o:.;:-ative evaluation of the function of the reserve system, 

acquires knowledge of individual systems, and that develops 

r e.st.oration plans must be completed. 

Additionally, soil productivity is i~ serious decline due to the 

loss of soils in many Sierra Nevada ·•atersheds. A loss in soil 

productivity impacts the ability of timberland to produce high 

quality timber and to produce a sust~inable flow of timber to 

l ocal mills. The loss of soil through erosion leads to the 

sil ation of municipal dams and reservoirs. Half of the Pacific 

Gas awl Electric Companies Rock Cree< Reservoir in the Sierra is 

alre ady filled with mud and silt. T1e siltation of municipal 

reservoirs leads to extensive costs ·:o restore the productive 

capacity of these reservoirs to stor·~ and release water on 

t1e;:,i! nd. These costs and long-term l •Jsses could be lessened with 

the adoption of an adequate Aquatic •::onservation Strategy. 
117 

The risk from fire 

The risk of catastrophic wildfire does not threaten all areas of 

the Sierra Nevada equally and the alternative should not treat 

all areas the same. The Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project [SNEP] 

scientific team has recently completed studies in the Sierra 

Nevada that show that its analysis of fire issues is superior to 

that completed by the EIS team. The data from SNEP indicates 

that fire risk is lowest in the higher elevations and roadless 

areas. These areas should not be treated the same as the lower 

elevation areas that are feeling the pressure of the everincreasing rural-urban interface zone. The draft EIS should 

incorporate all of the most up-to-date scientific information 

that has been gathered by the scientific SNEP team. The 

alternative should focus its efforts on those areas that are most 

likely to burn in the low elevations where millions of homeowners 

live and work . 

The alternative should also consider more appropriate strategies 

that address those areas truly at risk of catastrophic wildfire 

by creating a network of strategically located defensible shaded 

fuelbreaks in areas of high risk along the rural-urban interface 

line and along existing forest roads. Trying to create 

fuelbreaks and remove fuels in areas that are not prone to 

catastrophic fire as presented in the draft EIS is akin to paying 

a dollar for a cent worth of protection. The Forest Service will 

get the most "bang for the buck" by creating fuelbreaks in 

wildlands that border urban areas and by creating a system of 

shaded fuelbreaks along existing roads that will provide staging 

areas for firefighters if and when such areas are needed to fight 

fires. A focusing of efforts in these areas will also ensure 

that critical owl habitat areas in higher elevation areas are 

protected. 

The regional strategies must recognize that wilderness, roadless, 

and reserved areas are least likely to burn as they generally are 

at higher elevations and consist of larger diameter trees; 

provide the most habitat for the owl which, if maintained, will 

aid in preventing a listing of the owl; and serve to protect the 

headwaters of crucial watersheds that provide sustainable water 

yields to support fisheries, residential and agribusiness, and 

recreational users. 

Additionally, the costs to both state and federal government of 

offering fire prevention and fire suppression services to 

dwellers on the rural-urban interface line are becoming profound. 

Local and state government must be made to face the fact that, if 

unlimited expansion of the rural urban interface line is allowed 

to continue unabated without regard to the impacts of the 

expansion on fire prevention and fire suppression budgets, then 

taxpayers cannot be expected to provide a bailout forever. 

Finally, the Forest Service needs to adopt a post fire policy 

that is based on sound science . The ecological context of post-
118 

fire salvage has been addressed in a report by Dr. Robert Beschta 

et al. entitled Wildfire and Salvage Logging. (A copy has been 

attached.] 

The Forest Service must cope with tho legacy of the past 

The follies of past management strat·ogies have created the legacy 

on the ground that we Californians m1st now cope with in the 

Sierra Nevada. If we act now to res·:ore our watersheds, we can 

stem any additional significant impa·;ts to our water supplies and 

stem the costs of restoring silted ~servoirs. If we immediately 

act to control the sprawl of the rur.il urban interface line and 

require that homeowners provide defe:1sible space around their 

structure and require that the Fores·: Service set as a priority 

the implementation of strategic fuelJ)reaks in rural urbanized 

areas, we can offer meaningful prote,;tion from fire to millions 

of California homeowners. And by co:1centrating on the removal of 

smaller diameter trees, we can resto ~e a sustainable level of 

green sawlog production and in so dolng, we will retain critical 

habitat components and areas for the California Spotted owl and 

other important species. All of thi:; is only accomplishable, 

however, if the Forest Service is willing to comply with the law 

and adopt an ecosystem approach that offers an adaptive 

management component to manage all o" the Sierra Nevada 

watersheds for all of their resource values. 

We encourage the Committee to suppor·: the Forest Service in its 

efforts to develop an EIS for the ca:cifornia Spotted Owl and to 

comply with the law and to seek an ounce of prevention before a 

pound of cure is needed. The proces:; that is being conducted by 

the Forest Service allows for the fu:.l participation of all 

citizens and, as such, should be ful:.y supported. We would urge 

that the data from the broader, more comprehensive SNEP 

scientific team be fully coordinated with the draft EIS. We 

would also urge that the Forest Serv:l ce be required to test risky 

fire prevention strategies in severa:. demonstration projects 

before trying unproven methods throU<Jhout the Sierra Nevada. 

Finally, the Forest Service should p:~ioritize areas needing fuels 

treatment so that the most protection for the largest number of 

citizens is achieved with the fewest amount of dollars. 
119 

WILDFIRE AND SALVAGE LOGGING 

Recommendations for Ecologically Sound 

Post-Fire Salvage Management and Other Post-Fire Treatments 

On Federal Lands in the West 

Dr. Robert L Beschta, Oregon State University; Dr. Christopher A. Frissell, Oregon 

State University and University of Montana; Dr. Robert Gresswell, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service; Dr. Richard Hauer, University of Montana; Dr. James R Karr, 

University of Washington; Dr. G. Wayne Minshall, Idaho State University; Dr. David 

A. Perry, Oregon State University; Jonathan J. Rhodes, Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish 

Commission 

PREFACE 

This paper offers a scientific framework of principles and practices that are 

provided to guide development of federal policy concerning wildfire and salvage 

logging and other post-fire treatments. A common thread throughout the 

recommendations is that most native species are adapted to natural patterns and 

processes of disturbance and recovery in the landscape and that preventing 

additional human disturbance (and reducing the effects of past disturbance) generally 

will provide the best pathway to regional ecological recovery. We assume that 

maintenance of viable populations of native species. across their native ranges and the 

protection of critical ecosystem functions and services are desired objectives of federal 

land management, as stated in relevant legislation. · 

Land management practices in the interior Columbia and upper Missouri 

basins have profoundly impacted forest, grassland, and aquatic ecosystems. 

Watersheds and forests have been degraded (e.g. ecosystems fragmented, habitats 

simplified or lost, disturbance regimes altered). At every level of biological 

organization - within populations, within assemblages, within species, and across the 

landscape-the integrity of biological systems has been severely degraded. This 

Page 1 

Wildfires and Salwge Logging 

Beschta, et al., March 1995 
120 

degradation is best seen in the marked reduction in the biological diversity in the 

region. 

The entire range of land management p:actices is implicated in this regionwide 

decline. Streamside development, logging, gra.;:ing, mining, fire suppression, removal 

of beaver and large predators, water withdra\lials, introduction of exotic species, and 

chronic effects of roadbuilding have cumulatively altered landscapes to the point 

where local extirpation of sensitive species is vridespread and. likely to continue. 

Areas dominated by healthy populations of native species of vertebrates are 

exceptional. Many of these changes began long before the establishment of wilderness 

areas and other protections, and therefore, the majority of the region has been 

impacted. 

Western ecosystems have evolved with, and in response to, fire. While some 

have argued that fire is the major imminent "theat" to the health of the region's 

forest ecosystems, it must be recognized that tltere are a number of threats to the 

integrity of ecosystems in the interior west. In view of the multifaceted human 

disturbances that pervade the region, it is high:y inappropriate to focus on fire to the 

exclusion of other significant threats to aquatic and terrestrial ecosystem integrity, 

such as inappropriate levels and methods of lo5ging, grazing, mining, and 

roadbuilding. 

Land management based on controlling fire will not set the region on a course 

toward recovery, especially when conceived in a crisis mode. Rather, it will be 

necessary to take an approach based on fundar1ental principles of ecosystem patterns 

and processes, something the current crisis mode is not conducive to. The objective 

of this document is to propose guidelines cona~g wildfires, salvage logging, and 

other post-fire treatments, particularly from an aquatics perspective, that maintain or 

improve the integrity of ecosystems and landscapes and maintaining the ecological 

processes that support sustainable resource exb·action and utilization. 

If historical land uses have contributed D the decline in forest ecosystem 

health, then the pattern of human land use mw;t be changed for regional ecological 

recovery to occur. By narrowly concentrating o 1 forest health (often a euphemism for 

tree health, recently referring to carbon cycling:, federal land managers have 

embarked on an ambitious attempt to address iorest management in ways that risk 

neglecting watershed health and the ecology of aquatic ecosystems. The problem is 

not that we do not have the knowledge to cont:ol all disturbances. The problem is 

we have tried to control all disturbances rather than letting them play out-the forests 

Page2 

Wildfir~ and Salvage Logging 

Beschta, d al., March 1995 
121 

depend on disturbances to maintain their integrity just like rivers depend on floods 

and droughts corning along in irregular patterns. Human disturbances, unlike Mount 

St. Helens or El Niii.o, tend to be incessant, and thereby may produce conditions 

outside the evolutionary experience of native species. In view of the extent and 

persistence of human disturbance throughout forest and watershed ecosystems, 

continuing to simply manage fire risk without controlling the adverse effects of 

logging, grazing, roadbuilding, and mining is unsound resource management; it is an 

approach that without careful thought could lead to further damage rather than to 

the intended goal of protecting forest and stream health, as such an approach 

addresses the symptoms rather than the causes. Because we are currently unable to 

understand and control all human perturbations, we must instead seek to manage the 

human impacts on these systems. However, given our imperfect knowledge of 

ecosystem processes, functions, and disturbance regimes, we face high risks of 

exacerbating the degradation that already exists, especially in aquatic ecosystems. 

Rather than focusing on fires - before or after their occurrence- managers should 

focus on the pattern and consequences of current and proposed human 

manipulations and disturbances of all types at the landscape level. 

The current policy framework 

The National Forest Management Act (NFMA) and the National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEP A) allow greater liberties to be taken following ftre than in other 

aspects of land management. On National Forests, post-fire salvage activities are 

treated differently than other logging in the course of environmental review. Salvage 

may be conducted on lands not otherwise eligible for logging; may exceed allowable 

sale quantities and maximum logging area rules; may be exempt from 

anti-clearcutting rules; and may be exempt from most forest plan standards and 

NFMA standards, e.g., soil protection and water quality standards. Furthermore, 

some salvage activities are exempt from NEPA review and administrative appeal. 

New policies are forming. Two ongoing federal land planning processes which 

address fire and salvage policies on federal lands in the region are in progress - The 

"Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project" and 'The Western Forest 

Health Initiative." Most recently, there have been Congressional salvage initiatives 

and amendments. In addition there are a host of site-speciftc initiatives and projects 

being implemented on accelerated timetables in reaction to 1994 fires. Our 

recommendations apply to both regional and site-specific initiatives. 

Page 3 

Wildfires and Salvage Logging 

Beschta, et al., March 1995 
122 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

FOR FIRE MANAGEMENT AND SALVAGE LOGGING 

Ongoing human activity and the residttal effect of past activity 

continue to threaten watershed ecosyst1!m integrity. 

Throughout the west, many scientific as1;essments of current conditions have 

come to remarkably similar conclusions: a century and a half of logging, 

grazing, roadbuilding, mining, water wihdrawals, channelization, introduction 

of exotics, and streamside development 1ave degraded watersheds, modified 

stream flows and temperatures, altered 1'cosystem processes, and removed 

ecosystem elements with the result that ,;ensitive native species have frequently 

been extirpated or limited to refuges. The ability of ecosystems to recover has 

been substantially compromised. ·These <'Onclusions have been reached by a 

wide-variety of observers and over a wide range of scales. (Nehlsen et al., 

1991; Johnson et al., 1991; Frissell 1993; FEMAT 1994; Henjum et al., 1994; 

Mcintosh et al., 1994) 

Forests of the interior west can be viewe i as a sea of relatively recently altered 

ecosystems surrounding a few "islands" ilf relative ecosystem integrity (Frissell 

1993a). In this context, attempting to continue to manage fire and its 

consequences without altering or controlling other threats to eoosystem 

integrity, including logging, grazing, roadbuilding, and mining, is scientifically 

and pragmatically unsound. 

Fires are an inherent part of the disturbance and recovery patterns to 

which native species have adapted. 

Page 4 

Western ecosystems evolved with and in response to fires. Fires are a part of 

the pattern of disturbance and recovery that provides a physical template for 

biological organization at all levels. Frres reset temporal patterns and processes 

that, if allowed to proceed undisturbed by additional human impacts, provide 

dynamic and biologically critical contribL.tions to ecosystems over long time 

frames. The "patchiness" of fire is a desir.1ble characteristic, and many species 

depend on the environmental influences that fires create. 

Wildfirts and Salwge Logging 

Besch14, et al., March 1995 
123 

While fire suppression and other practices has doubtlessly increased the 

likelihood of high intensity fire in some places, it is important to recognize that 

this increased risk does not exist equally across the landscape. Certain forest 

types (low elevation ponderosa pine, for example) may currently be susceptible 

to burning in ways that have not been seen for centuries, but in other areas 

(the higher elevation and moister, mixed-conifer forest types for example) the 

fire situation is probably not too different from historical patterns. 

The historical and paleoecological record reveal periods of time when fire 

occurrence was frequent, others when scarce. We need to acknowledge that 

some forests are simply going to burn. We also need to accept that in many 

drier forest types throughout the region, forest management may have set the 

stage for fires larger and more intense than have occurred in at least the last 

few hundred years. 

There is no ecological need for immediate intervention on the post-fire 

landscape. 

With respect to the need for management treatments after fires, there is 

generally no need for urgency, nor is there a universal, ecologically-based need 

to act at all. By acting quickly, we run the risk of creating new problems before 

we solve the old ones. Ecologically speaking, fires do not require a rapid 

human response. We should not talk about a "fire crisis" but rather of 

managing the landscape with the anticipation that fire will eventually occur. 

Given the high degree of variability and high uncertainty about the impacts of 

post-fire responses, a conservative approach is warranted, particularly on sites 

susceptible to on-site erosion. 

Existing condition should not be used as ''baseline" or "desired" 

conditions upon which to base management objectives. 

Page 5 

In landscapes disturbed by human activities, it is ecologically inappropriate to 

use current conditions as the baseline for analysis. To do so effectively ignores 

the chronic or continuing effects of past management activities. Analysis of 

sediment impacts, for example, that accept existing conditions as the baseline 

are highly inappropriate because these have been increased over natural 

background levels for 50-100 years in many cases. There is considerable 

evidence that current conditions are insufficient to maintain viable populations 

Wildfires and Salvage Logging 

Beschta, d al., March 1995 
124 

of many native species, including sensiti ve and declining trout, salmon, and 

other fishes (FEMAT 1993; PACFISH 1~•5; Frissell1993b, Reeves and Sedell 

1992; and others). 

Fire suppression throughout forest eco!ystems should not 

automatically be a management goal of the highest priority. The 

overall management goal must be to preserve (and reestablish) the fire 

and other disturbance regimes that maintain ecological systems and 

processes, while protecting human life and property. 

Making fire prevention a high priority management goal is a commitment to 

continuous fire suppression and a prescr:ption for long-term "addiction." Such 

an attempt requires continual high cost hputs, and fails to capitalize on the 

self-repairing and self-perpetuating capahilities of ecosystems. Attempts to 

perpetuate a certain "state" or forest condtion are unsustainable. Land 

managers should be managing for the naturally evolving ecosystems, rather 

than perpetuating artificial ones we have attempted to create. By imposing 

management schemes structured to optimize timber production at the expense 

of other ecosystem attributes, we have suppressed certain disturbance 

regimes, e.g. fire, while potentially increasing the effects of others, e.g., floods. 

The net result is a loss of ecosystem fundon and loss of the values that 

ecosystems provide including high quality water and abundant fisheries. Our 

actions have led to increased probabilitie1' that various series of natural events 

will be increasingly viewed as catastroph.c. Therefore, we need to consider the 

whole landscape, not just the forest. 

The region's ecosystems, not just forests, are under severe strain. 

Page 6 

Virtually all western landscapes, includin ~ forests, have been subjected to 

severe disruption by human activities. Th~ conceptualization that we face a 

problem only of forest health misrepresents the problem and misdirects our 

attention from appropriate remedies. From a watershed perspective, the region 

suffers an ec95ystem health problem, but the primary cure rests in curtailing 

human activities known to be damaging and counterproductive, and repairing 

or restoring roads that act as permanent sJurces of adverse impact. Flre 

influences but does not obscure this basic template. 

Wildfires and &dvage Logging 

Beschta, et al., March 1995 
125 

LAND MANAGEMENT AFTER FIRES 

Research results and new knowledge regarding the management of forest ecosystems 

increasingly indicates that dramatic changes in human impacts and fire management 

policies are needed. As an overriding principle, we seek ways of decreasing human 

impacts while allowing natural disturbance regimes to reestablish their historical 

influence in maintenance of the diversity and productivity of regional landscapes. 

Instead of focusing on effects of the fires, land managers should focus on the sources 

of the anthropogenic disturbances and the departure from natural disturbance 

regimes. Land managers should particularly examine current consequences of human 

disturbances at the landscape level. 

POST -FIRE PRINCIPLES 

We recommend that management of post-fire landscapes should be 

consistent with the following principles: 

Allow natural recovery and recognize the temporal scales involved 

with ecosystem evolution. Human intervention should not be 

permitted unless and until it is determined that natural recovery 

processes are not occurring. 

Page l 

Human intervention on the post-fire landscape may substantially or completely 

delay recovery, remove the elements of recovery, or accentuate the damage. 

Many such adverse consequences are difficult or impossible to predict or 

foresee in specific situations. In this light there is little reason to believe that 

post-fire salvage logging has any positive ecological benefits, particularly for aquatic 

ecosystems. There is considerable evidence that persistent, significant adverse 

environmental impacts are likely to result from salvage logging, based on 

many past cases of salvage projects, plus our growing knowledge of ecosystem 

functions and land-aquatic linkages. These impacts include soil compaction 

and erosion, loss of habitat for cavity nesting species, loss of structurally and 

functionally important large woody debris. 

Wildfires and Salvage Logging 

Beschta, t1 al., Mlrdt 1995 

93- 189 0 - 95 - 5 
126 

Protect soils. No management activity should be undertaken which 

does not protect soil integrity. 

Soil loss and soil compaction are associ< ted with both substantial loss of site 

productivity and with off-site degradatiiln. Decreased infiltration, increased 

overland flow, and excess sedimentatior. all directly contribute to the 

degradation of forest soils and the off-site degradation of aquatic systems and 

reduced survival of aquatic species, incbding salmonids. Reduction of soil loss 

is associated with maintaining the litter layer. Although post-bum soil 

conditions may vary depending upon fil'e severity, steepness of slopes, 

inherent erodibility, and others, soils are particularly vulnerable in a burned 

landscape. Soil and soil productivity art! irreplaceable in human timescales; 

therefore, post-bum management activit.es that accelerate erosion or create soil 

compaction must be prohibited. 

Preserve capabilities of species to natw·ally regenerate. 

From an ecological perspective, there is :'requently no need for artificial 

regeneration. Artificial reintroduction of species will circumvent natural 

successional changes, are often unsucces:;ful and will have unanticipated side 

effects even if successful. H native species are failing to reestablish naturally, 

that failure will frequently· be associated with other reasons than the absence of 

seed sources or colonists. H warranted, artificial regeneration should use only 

species and seed sources native to the sile, and should be done in such a way 

that recovery of native plants or animals is unhampered. 

Do not take actions which impede natural recovery of disturbed 

systems. 

PageS 

Delays in recovery may increase the likelihood of extirpation of stressed 

populations, or may alter the pathway of recovery altogether. As a practical 

example, areas that have experienced the effects of a severe bum and are likely 

to exhibit high erosion should not be sui: jected to additional management 

activities likely to contribute to yet more sedimentation. Efforts should focus 

on reducing erosion and sedimentation fl'om existing human-caused 

disturbances, e.g., roads, grazing, salvagE logging. 

Wildfire; and Salvage Logging 

Beschta, d al., March 1995 
127 

RECOMMENDATIONS ON POST-FIRE PRACTICES 

Salvage logging should be prohibited in sensitive areas. 

Logging of sensitive areas is often associated with accelerated erosion and soil 

compaction (Marston and Haire 1990), and inherently involves the removal of 

large wood which in itself has multiple roles in recovery. Salvage logging may 

decrease plant regeneration, by mechanical damage and change in microclimate. Finally, logging is likely to have unanticipated consequences 

concerning micro-habitat for species that are associated with recovery, e.g., soil 

microbes. Salvage logging by any method must be prohibited on sensitive 

sites, including: 

• in severely burned areas (areas with litter destruction), 

• on erosive sites, 

• on fragile soils, 

• in roadless areas, 

• in riparian areas, 

• on steep slopes, 

• or any site where accelerated erosion is possible. 

On portions of the post-fire landscape determined to be suitable for 

salvage logging, limitations aimed at maintaining species and natural 

recovery processes should apply. 

Page9 

Dead trees (particularly large dead trees) generally have multiple ecological 

roles in the recovering landscape including providing habitat for a variety of 

species, and functioning as an important element in biological and physical 

processes (Thomas 1979). In view of these roles, salvage logging must 

• Leave at least 50% of standing dead trees in each diameter class. 

• Leave all trees greater than 20 inches dbh or older than 150 years. 

•Generally, leave all live trees. 

Because of soil compaction and erosion concerns, conventional types of 

ground-based yarding systems (tractors and skidders) should be generally 

prohibited. New equipment or techniques may be suitable where it can be 

Wildfires and Salvage Logging 

Beschta, et al., Mlrch 1995 
128 

demonstrated that soil integrity will be protected, that is, where acceleration of 

soil erosion and increased soil compa:tion can be demonstrated not to occur, 

and where there is no impairment of hydrologic and biological soil integrity. 

Helicopter logging and cable systems (particularly those that provide partial or 

full suspension) using existing roads and landings may be appropriate as may 

be horse logging; however, even thest! methods are not without potential 

problems and could locally increase r moff and sediment Therefore, they must 

be actively monitored and avoided :~.ere sedimentation is already a major 

problem for salmonids or other sensitive aquatic species. Any activity that 

disturbs litter layers or soil surface horizons, either pre- or post-fire, can 

accelerate soil erosion and sediment delivery to aquatic systems. 

Because of the wide range of chronic ecological effects associated with 

roadbuilding, the building of new roads in the burned landscape 

should be prohibited. 

Roads are associated with a variety of negative effects on aquatic resources, 

including disruption of basin hydrolo;zy and increased chronic and acute 

sedimentation. Under no circumstancE's should new roads be introduced into 

sensitive areas, including roadless or 1iparian areas. Outside of these areas, 

road building should be avoided exceDt where new road construction may be 

necessary to complete a larger program of partial or complete road 

obliteration. In such instances, offsetting benefits must be demonstrated. These 

may include cases in which a new road segment has been demonstrated to be 

necessary to enable the obliteration of other roads that cause significant 

potential or existing adverse environmental impacts. 

Active reseeding and replanting should be conducted only urider 

limited conditions. 

Page 10 

In general, active planting and seeding has not been shown to advance 

regeneration and most often creates ail entirely new, exotic flora. In addition 

reseeding is associated with additional problems and costs. Therefore, such 

practices should be employed only wt.ere there are several years ofevidence 

that natural regeneration is not occurring. For example, native species from 

regional stocks that may enhance fire esistance of a site may be planted if the 

effect is not to homogenize the landscape, (e.g., alder in southwestern Oregon 

and Northern California). 

Wildfires and Salwge Logging Bi!<dlta. ~ al.. Marrlt 1qqz; 
129 

Introduction of non-native species or exotic genotypes of native species should 

be prohibited from all reseeding/replanting programs. Seeding grasses into 

burned forests has been shown to disrupt recovery of native plants and is 

likely to create more problems than it solves (Amaranthus et al 1993). The use 

of pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers should generally be prohibited. 

Spot-specific hand application of herbicides only for the removal of exotics 

may occasionally be considered if there is evidence that such action is likely to 

lead to long term reclamation of the site. 

Structural post-fire restoration is generally to be discouraged. 

Frequently, post-fire restoration efforts involve the installation of hard 

structures including sediment traps, fish habitat alterations, bank stabilization, 

hay bales, weirs, check dams, and gabions. Such hard structures are not 

generally modeled or sited on the basis of natural processes, and their ability 

to function predictably may be particularly low in dynamic post-fire 

landscapes. Hard structures have high rates both of failure and of . 

unanticipated side effects. Therefore, structures are generally an undesirable 

and unsuccessful method for controlling adverse environmental impacts. 

Sediment management should focus on reducing or eliminating anthropogenic 

sources prior to their initiation (e.g., improve stream crossings to prevent 

culvert failure), and protecting and maintaining natural sediment control 

mechanisms in burned landscapes, particularly the natural recruitment of large 

woody debris on hillslopes and in streams. The goal should be to reestablish 

the natural post-fire background quality, quantity and timing of sediment, 

including the presence of large woody debris, and this level should be 

considered the baseline. 

Post-fire management Will generally require reassessment of existing 

management. 

Page 11 

For example, the condition of a transportation system (i.e., pre-existing roads 

and landings) should be reassessed after a fire. By increasing runoff, erosion, 

and sedimentation, fires may increase the risks posed by existing roads. 

Therefore, post-fire analysis is recommended to determine the need for 

undertaking road maintenance, improvement, or obliteration. There is some 

urgency to this reassessment as the longer appropriate treatments are put off, 

the more likely it is that failure will be triggered by a large runoff event. 

Wildfires and Salvage Logging 

Beschta,. et a/., March 1995 
130 

Additionally, post-fire livestock grazir,g should be altered or eliminated to 

allow natural recovery processes to occur. 

Continued research efforts are needecl to help address ecological and 

operational issues. 

There is a need to research certain quE,stions in order to guide post-fire 

management decisions. For example, ;orne people argue that salvage logging 

is needed because of the perceived increased likelihood that an area may 

rebum. It is the fine fuels that carry fire, not the large dead woody material. 

We are aware of no evidence supporthg the contention that leaving large dead 

woody material significantly increases the probability of rebum. There is a 

regional need for retrospective analysi:; concerning the probability and effects 

of "rebum". Sites exist throughout the western United States where the risk 

and consequences of reburning of already burned landscapes may be 

retrospectively addressed. This analysi; must precede any management 

recommendation based on the probability of rebuming. 

Research is needed on the role of dead wood in terrestrial ecosystems - in 

particular, how much wood should be left on a particular site and across the 

landscape to provide for the full range of ecosystem processes and the needs 

of species. Some whole watershed retrospectives should be developed. 

Continued research is needed on the fire ecology of forest and riparian areas. 

Although historical research and experience has highlighted the adverse effects 

of ground based heavy equipment, roads, and harvest in riparian areas, new 

research efforts are needed to evaluate the environmental effects of alternative 

post-fire/salvage operations, roading a:ti.vities, and site preparation. 

Additional information must be provided to the public regarding 

natural fires and post-bum landscape!; to provide balance to the 

"Smokey Bear'' perspective of fires and forests. 

Page 12 

Although post-fire landscapes are ofter portrayed as "disasters" in human 

terms, from an ecological perspective, fire is part of the normal disturbance 

regime and renewal of natural forest ecosystems. An increased appreciation 

and understanding of natural disturbar.ce regimes in the ecology of forest 

ecosystems is needed by the public, ancl the public's land managers. 

Wildfires tmd Sai-OQge Logging 

Btsehta, d al., March 1995 
131 

RECOMMENDATIONS CONCERNING FIRE MANAGEMENT 

Fires should be allowed to burn naturally when feasible. In some drier forest types 

that may be prone to intense fires and that are irreplaceable wildlife habitat, 

prescribed fires or underthinning to remove fire ladders Oeaving the larger, fire 

resistent trees) may be considered to reduce fuel loads. Fire suppression may also be 

necessary to accomplish the short-term goals of protecting human structures and 

lives. Prescribed burning may be a useful tool in reducing fuels around developed 

areas and may make it easier to protect those areas. Large fires will likely be 

necessary (and inevitable) to maintain or restore some landscapes - particularly 

lodgepole and spruce fir forests - in the western United States to their historical 

patterns (Baker 1992, 1994; Turner and Romme 1994). 

Policies should be developed to reduce the number of human structures within areas 

with high potential for fires. New structures must be discouraged in fire prone areas. 

If healthy forests are to be recovered, then one has to be able to manage those 

without undue concern for human structures. Fire suppression policies across forest 

ecosystems should not become hostage to the encroachment of inappropriate human 

developments in fire-prone areas. 

Fire suppression activities should be conducted only when absolutely 

necessary and with utmost care for the long-term integrity of the 

ecosystem and the protection of natural recovery processes. 

Page 13 

The use of surface water from small streams and ponds has not proven 

generally effective in fire suppression. Pumping from small streams and rivers 

increases the risks to aquatic ecosystems from post-fire events. When pumping 

is utilized, it should be conducted from sufficiently large streams and lakes 

that the effects on aquatic biota are negligible. 

Fire suppression activities should not include bulldozing stream channels, 

.riparian areas, wetlands, or sensitive soils on steep slopes or using such areas 

as access routes for vehicles and other ground-based equipment. 

Fire lines created by mechanical equipment should not be permitted in riparian 

zones, sensitive soils on steep slopes, or other ecologically sensitive areas. 

Virtually no fire suppression should be permitted in wilderness areas. 

Wildfires and Salwge Logging 

Beschta, et al., March 1995 
132 

When land ownerships are mixed, the federal land management 

agencies should establish policies to prevent conflicts between 

re-establishment of natural disturbancl! regimes on federal land and 

the protection of private property. 

Page 14 

For example, federal agencies may decide to purchase easements or issue 

insurance policies under procedures analogous to flood insurance that would 

reimburse those landowners who had p::acticed proper forest management for 

the value of lost timber from natural wiidfires. These policies should obviously 

be prospective. Recent fires only underline the need for these policy changes. 

Wildfires and Salwge Logging 

Beschta, dIll., March 1995 
133 

LITERATURE CITED 

Amaranthus, M.P., Trappe, J.M., and Peny, D.A. 1993. Moisture, native regeneration, 

and Pinus lambertiana seedling survival, growth and mycorrhiza formation ·following 

wildfire and grass seeding. Restoration Ecology. Sept. 1993, pp. 188-195. 

Anderson, J.W., Beschta, R.L., Boehne, P.L., Bryson, D., Gillk, R., Mcintosh, B.A., 

Purser, M.D., Rhodes, J.J., Sedell, J.W., and Zakl, J. 1993. A comprehensive approach 

to restoring habitat conditions needed to protect threatened salmon species in a 

severely degraded river-The Upper Grande Ronde River Anadromous Fish Habitat 

Protection, Restoration and Monitoring Plan. Riparian Management Common 

Threads and Shared Interests, pp.175-179, USFS Gen.Tech.Rept. RM-226, Ft. Collins, 

co. 

Baker, W.L. 1992. Effects of settlement and fire suppression on landscape structure. 

Ecology 73(5):1879-1887. 

Baker, W.L. 1994. Restoration of landscape structure altered by fire suppression. 

Conservation Biology 8(3):1879-1887. 

Frissell, C.A. 1993a. A new strategy for watershed restoration and recovery of Pacific 

Salmon in the Pacific Northwest. Report prepared for the Pacific Rivers Council, 

Eugene, OR. 

Frissell, C.A. 1993b. Topology of extinction and endangerment of native fishes in the 

Pacific Northwest and California (USA). Conservation Biology 7(2):342-354. 

Henjum, M.G., Karr, J.R., Bottom, D.L., Peny, D.A., Bednarz, J.C., Wright, S.G., 

Beckwitt, S.A. and Beckwitt, E. 1994. Interim Protection for Late Successional Forests, 

Fisheries and Watersheds: National Forests East of the Cascade Crest, Oregon and 

Washington. The Wilderness Society, Bethesda, MD. 

Johnson, E.A. and C.P.S. Larsen. 1991. Climatically induced change in fire frequency 

in the Southern Canadian Rockies. Ecology 72(1):194-201. 

Mcintosh, B.A., Sedell, J.R., Smith, J.E., Wissmar, R.C., Clarke, S.E., Reeves, G.H., and 

Brown, L.A., 1994. Management history of Eastside ecosystems: Changes in fish 

Page 15 

Wildfires atu! Salvage Logging 

Beschta, d al., MarJr 1995 
134 

habitat over 50 years, 1935-1992. Eastside Fore:;t Ecosystem Health Assessment, Vol 

ill, USFS Gen.Tech.Rept. PNW-GTR-321, Portland, OR 

Marton, RA. and D.H. Haire. 1990. Runoff and soil loss following the 1988 

Yellowstone fires. Great Plains-Rock Mountain Geographic Journal 18(1):1-8. 

Nehsen, W., J.E. Williams, and J.A. Lichatowin 1991. Pacific Salmon at the 

crossroads: stocks at risk from California, Ore~on, Idaho and Washington. Fisheries 

16(2):4-21. 

Reeves, G.H. and J.R Sedell. 1992. An ecosystem approach to the conservation and 

management of freshwater habitat for anadromous salmonids in the Pacific 

Northwest. Proceedings of the 57th North Amt!rican wildlife and natural resources 

conference. pp. 408-415. 

Thomas, J.W.(ed.) 1979. Wildlife habitats in the Blue Mountains of Oregon and 

Washington. Ag. Handbook No. 553. USDA. Washington, D.C. 

Turner, M.G. and W.H. Romme. 1974. Landscape dynamics in crown fire ecosystems. 

Landscape Ecology 9(1):59-77. 

USFS, NMFS, USBLM, USFWS, USNPS, USEPJ,, 1993. Forest Ecosystem Management 

An Ecological, Economic, and Social Assessment. USFW PNW Region, Portland, OR 

USFS, USBLM. 1994. Environmental Assessmer.t for Implementation of Interim 

Strategies for Managing Anadromous Fish-producing Watersheds in Eastern Oregon 

and Washington, Idaho, and Portions of Califomia. 

Page 16 

Wildfires and Salvage Logging 

Beschta, et al., March 1995 
135 

The California Spotted Owl 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Testimony Before the House Resources Committee 

United States House of Representatives 

by 

Mr. Craig Thomas 

Representing: 

The California Ancient Forest Alliance 

June 6, 1995 
136 

Outline 

Introduction: 

Background: 

How we got here-lmplementati,on of the CAS PO Interim 

Guidelines, their propose and content 

Current condition: 

Fuel Build-up and Fire Risk-Myths & Solutions 

Ecological sustainability or a he,althy economy-is this 

our only choice? · 

The Future Decision: 

CAL-OWL EIS-Some good options in the draft proposal 

Where more wo1·k needs to be done 
137 

Introduction: 

Chairman and Honorable members of the House Resources Committee 

U.S. House of Representatives 

My name is ~raig Thomas 

I live in El Dorado County in Central Sierra Nevada 60 miles east of 

Sacramento · 

I have a degree in cultural ecology-which is the study of the interaction 

between human culture and the ecological landscape 

I earn my living as a remodel carpenter 

I am here today representing the California Ancient Forest Alliance, a 

coalition of grassroots and national environmental organizations concerned 

with the protection of the last remaining remnants of ancient forest, the 

wildlife that depend upon that habitat, and the maintenance of healthy 

Sierran watersheds which nourish the huge agricultural industry in 

California and provide clean drinking water to the urban populations 

throughout the Sacramento and San Jaoquin Valley's, the San Francisco 

Bay Region, and the Los Angeles Basin. 

There has been much discussion in the local communities of the Sierra 

Nevada foothills regarding the CAL-OWL EIS-there has also been much 

misinformation .... 

How We Got Here 

We strongly support past Regional Forester Ron Stewarfs decision to 

implement the California Spotted OWl (CASPO) Interim Guidelines by 

amending the forest plans of the Sierra Nevada region with new regulations 

that protected that key habitat components of the California Spotted OWllarge trees (greater than 30"), large snags, and large down logs. These are 

major habitat elements of the late-seral or old-growth forest which are in 

serious decline due to past timber harvest practices. 

The CASPO Interim Guidelines also maintain a relatively high level of tree 

canopy closure in the stands selected (or preferred) by the owl. 

I hope that the members of the committee recognize that the California 

Spotted OWl is a Management Indicator Species (MIS) in the Forest Plans in 
138 

the Sierra Nevada and as such "stands in" as a representative for a habitat 

type commonly known as the late-seral fomst These are the older, more 

mature forest stands which have been depleted and isolated due to 

fragmentation of this habitat type resulting from extensive high-grading 

and clear-cut logging in the past two decades. 

When the people of our Nation, through the Congress, passed the 

National Forest Management Act in 1976, tlley acknowledge the need to set 

thresholds for the protection of biological diversity in the management of 

our public lands so that future generations (our children and our children's 

children) inherit a landscape that is not de~1raded but rather they inherit 

ecosystems that are vibrant and full functioning. As stewards of these 

lands we must hold ecosystem health and true, long-term sustainability as 

paramount values. 

The viability standards in the National Forest Management Act and the 

implementing regulations (36 CFR 219.19) require that wildlife habitat be 

managed to maintain viable populations of I!Xisting native and desired nonnative vertebrate species well-distributed throughout the planning area. 

This is our societies way of putting into hw, a land stewardship ethic 

that helps to guarantee future generations a. healthy, ecologically intact 

landscape ilfllt continued healthy economie; which depend upon those 

environments. 

The Forest Service in Region 6 (California) acted in a timely and 

responsible manner by first seeking the best scientific knowledge available 

regarding the historical patterns and the current condition of Sierran 

forests. The California Spotted Owl Technical Assessment Team, 

composed primarily of highly respected resHarch wildlife biologists, 

presented their findings in the California Spt>tted Owl Report (PSW 

General Technical Report-133, July 1992). "."he Spotted Owl Technical 

Report made an assessment of the owl's cu,-rent status, followed by 

discussion of the general biology and ecoiQlJical relationships, habitat use, 

demographics and population change, and ·:he biology of the prey base. 

Part Ill of the report focused on the historical perspectives of Sierran 

forests (human influence on the landscape), fuels and fire management in 

relation to owl habitat, and projected trends in owl habitat 

The Forest Service in Region 6 recogniZEd (as was the case with the 

Northern Spotted Owl in Region 6) that the Spotted Owl Habitat Area 

(SOHA) strategy allowed the continued fragmentation of habitat and the 

isolation of individuals which would likely Je.1d to the extinction of the 

species. 

The California Spotted Owl Report (CASI;)() Report) made two clear 

recommendations (1) reverse the trend created by historic timber harvest 
139 

practices that have lead to a decline in the number of large old trees which 

are the owls preferred habitat and, (2) respond to the unnatural build-up of 

forest fuels and begin to reduce the risk of stand-destroying fires. 

The reason why the CAS PO Interim Guidelines are in place--the Forest 

Service in Region 5 has responded proactively to prevent the "train wreck" 

which occurred in the Pacific Northwest, both in preserving the future 

management options for the owl (prevent listing under the Endangered 

Species Act) and in addressing the need for the "thinning from below'' 

logging prescription and the reintroduction of fire and its role in the Sierra 

Nevada ecosystem. 

Fuels build-up and fire risk-myths and solution 

The past and cyrrent fire and fuel situation 

Fire has been a key part of the forest ecology in the Sierra Nevada for 

millions of years. Sierran forests are often spoken of as "fire-adapted 

ecosystems". Throughout time, fire has been a key ecological process 

determining forest stand characteristics such as species composition and 

stand density and overall forest health. 

Historically, lightning fires burned freely throughout the Sierra Nevada 

whenever conditions were right (fuel continuity & dryness). Native 

Californians intentionally lit fires to maintain open forest conditions in both 

the Oak woodlands and the Pine/Mixed Conifer forests of the lower and 

middle elevations. 

Various estimates have been given by researchers and fire experts as to 

how regularly fire burned through any particular patch of forest 

Researchers have suggested fire frequencies of every 5·1 0 years in the 

drier Ponderosa Pine forest (Martin, 1982) and 6-15 years in the moist mixed 

conifer forests (Wagener, 1961 ). No matter what the averages may have 

been, the fact that fires burned without controls means that the forests 

were in very different shape (in terms of stand density & species 

composition) prior to fire suppression than they are today. 

First, unlike arson fires or accidental wildfires that often start during 

incredibly hot, dry weather conditions, most lightning fires would have 

started during late spring/early summer or fall seasons-times when 

lightning naturally occurs in the Sierra Nevada. Spring lightning fires 

generally are controlled by moist fuels, green grasses and lush vegetation 

(both which slow the spread of fires and lessen their intensity). Fires that 

started in the fall with dry fuel moisture conditions burned much hotter. 
140 

No matter when the fires started, if a ~cent fire had burned through that 

particular stand of forest within a few yems previously, there would have 

been very low levels of fuels to carry the new fire or provide a fuel ladder 

up into the crowns of trees. 

Although there were always occurrenc:es of stand replacing fires in the 

Sierra Nevada the forest looked much mme open or park-like, dominated 

by fire-tolerant species and a greater number of large, old trees. This vision 

of the sierran forests changed dramatically during the era of fire 

suppression and high-grade logging. 

The last 150 years-tbe impacts of logging practices and fire suppression 

Commercial logging in the Sierra Nevada began with the Gold Rush, in 

1849. From the onset "High-Grade" logging practices took the biggest and 

the best of the Ponderosa Pine stands in the lower elevations. 

"As the lower elevation pine forests be<:ame depleted and the 

transportation network increased, logginu in the mixed conifer forest 

increased. By the turn of the century, Leiberg (1902) estimated that over 

40% (i.e., 1,022,890 acres) of the forest of the northern Sierra Nevada had 

been entered for harvest Approximately 30% of the standing timber was in 

areas practically inaccessible for harvest ng (Leiberg, 1902), at that time." 

Following the removal of the large, dominant, overs tory trees (Ponderosa 

pine, and to a lesser degree Jeffery pine, :iugar pine and Douglas fir) 

across the Sierran landscape there was (and is) a dramatic increase in 

the success of shade tolerant species (predominantly White fir and Incense 

cedar). Open stands of fire resistant, thick barked Ponderosa pine were 

replaced with dense stands of shade tolerant species. Drought and 

disease resistance decreased along with fire resiliency. When you 

combine changes in tree density and composition, increases in logging 

slash and the elimination of the natural, low intensity, regular fire regimes 

that existed in the Sierran forests we see a trend toward much hotter stand 

replacing fires. 

As fires began to burn in areas of high timber value, fire suppression 

efforts began, especially close to commuuities. It was not until the 1920's 

and 1930's did fire suppression begin to effectively control fire across the 

national forest lands. 

"At the onset of the fire suppression era, most fires were easily 

suppressed, again due to low fuel loads a 1d general open forest condition, 

the result of the frequent burning of the previous period. However, 

conditions for, and the risk of, severe sta[ld-replacing fires increased under 
141 

me iire suppression poiicy, inougn me aciuai numDer oi siand repiacing 

fires remained low. The combination of logging slash build-up and the 

understory tree growth created fuel iadders between me ground and 

overstory trees, a stand structure conducive to severe stand-replacing 

fires. As a result, the first large-scale, widespread crown fires began to 

appear."--cal Owl EST Workshop Proceedings 

Twentieth Century Fire Regimes 

"Twentieth century fire regimes bear little resemblance to those of 

presettlement times, largely because of human activities since the mid1800's. One marked difference has been the annual acres burned. For 

example, using the a conservative mean fire interval of 20 years for the 

586,000-acre Eldorado National Forest, we would expect a mean of 29,000 

acres to burn annually. In fact, 13,944 acres burned during the period from 

1970 through 1990-an average of only 644 acres burned per year (CASPO 

Technical Report July 1992)." 

When the owl team states, "with a fire interval of 20 yrs. you would see 

29,000 acres burn annually on the Eldorado NF", remember that they are 

predominantly talking about pre-settlement fire regimes of frequent, low 

intensity ground fires which functioned to greatly reduce "fuel ladders" and 

the abundance of "coarse ground fuels". Because of th~ low amount of 

acres burned Sierra-wide, these two key components of fuels loading and 

fire spread continue to increase in our forested lands. 

It took 100 years of human activity (past logging practices and the alteration 

of the natural role of fire in the ecosystem) to create the forest health 

problems we see in the Sierra Nevada todayl 

There are no quick or easy solutions to this complex problem. 

The following are some important suggestions to help solve the forest 

health problems in the Sierra Nevada: 

1) As the Forest Service begins implementing Ecosystem Management in 

Region 5, the landscape leyel planning decisions regarding timber 

harvesting must include funding for fuels reduction work (clean up of past 

activity fuels, re-introduction of prescribed fire at regular intervals) so that 

understory thinning and fuels reduction work is applied to the same piece 

of ground at the same time with the goal of increased forest health. 

Traditionally fuels specialist have "chased clear<uts" cleaning up logging 

debris as best they could with poor budgets. This must changel Under 

Ecosystem Management planners are beginning to coordinate these 

activities. It makes sense ecologically and it is much more cost effective. 
2) Fire suppression, although important, is not the long-term solution to 

reducing the risk of catastrophic fire in the Sierra Nevada. The Forest 

Service must shift ifs focus from total lire prevention to a goal of 

increasing fire resiliency. The agency must request and Congress must· 

grant increased funding for natural fuels treatments. This effort must be 

coupled with intensive "thinning from ltelow" logging prescriptions to 

return Sierran forests to a stand structme more similar to the open forests 

of pre-settlement times. 

The California Ancient Forest Alliance iirul the California Forestry 

Association have worked hard, through the Congressional appropriations 

process, to get Congress to see the lo 1g-term economic and ecological 

sense in increasing the "Natural Fuels Budgets" for the Forest Service in 

Region6. 

3) Either way we pay1 If we choose not to rebuild fire resiliency into our 

forests we will be faced with increasing numbers of large, catastrophic 

wildland fires. We pay the fire fighting ·:ost of the California Division of 

Forestry, we pay the operations and m<1intenance costs of major water 

purveyors who must repair damaged tu1·bines and dredge silted reservoirs 

receiving the eroded soils washed from burned-over forest land, we pay to 

replace the property lost from wildfires. Federal fire prevention dollars 

don't come close to paying the full bill fc•r a large wildland fire. Rebuilding 

fire resiliency in our forests is the only l<>ng-tern solution.· 

3) As the saying goes, "there are three main causes of wildland fire-men, 

women and children." Whether accidental or intentional, human population 

and the increased road density in rural forest lands are the primary cause 

of wildland fire today. Just as ecosystems know no political boundaries, 

the risk of large wildland fires is more tt an a Forest Service problem. 

Currently, at the local county governr~ent level, there is little effort to 

curb the huge increase in population in the rural forested foothills of the 

Sierra Nevada. Therefore the Forest Service must focus its thinning and 

fuels reduction work in that yrban/wildla nd interface where there js. by far. 

the highest fire risk. 

4) The fuels and fire priority for the Forest Service in Region 6 for the next 

two decades, and certainly the planning horizon of the CAL-Owl EIS, must 

be to focus on that urban/wildland interf.:lce and the major travel corridors 

and high use recreation areas of the SieiTan forests. The Forest Service 

fire history maps and the Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project fire history data 

will be most useful in this process. 

Except for prescribed burning, the Ia >t remaining roadless areas and 

stands of old-growth in the Sierra Nevada are the last place to spend 

scarce fuels reduction dollars. These areas have a lower fire frequency 
143 

and because of the dense canopies, higher reiative humidities and reduced 

wind velocity, are less flammable under most conditions (CAS PO Technical 

Report 1992 p-248) . These lands are also farthest from the urban 

interface. 

6) Salvage logging alone is not the answer. Salvage logging without an 

aggressive fuels treatment plan to treat the resulting heavy ground fuels 

will not make our forests or our communities more fire safe. (See 

attachment #1) This December 7th, 19941etter from the Lake Tahoe Basin 

Management Unit, Forest Supervisor states the problem most clearly. 

uwnat IS apparent 10 me now 1s me 1arge sa1vage sa1e conuaciS are Nt:111' a 

major part of addressing the large acreage and urban inter-mix needs. 

Planning and attempting to market several salvage sales ranging from 100 

acres to 7,000 acres, has shown (since 1989) the value of salvageable 

material will not bear the cost of an adequate treatment for fuels reduction 

and long-term forest health. Where salvage sales break even we see a submerchantable stand remaining that is over-stocked and unacceptable fuel 

loading." (emphasis added) 

Although salvage sales remove tree "boles" (the main stem) from the 

forest environment, there is actually an increase in coarse ground fuels as 

a result of the salvage operation. These coarse ground fuels are what 

leads to rapid fire spread and crowning into adjacent forest stands. We 

can no longer accept entry into our public forest lands without 

accompanying aggressive fuels treatments, done simultaneously, and fully 

budgeted into every timber sale entry. This process must be monitored to 

insure we are achieving increased ecosystem health. 

Ecological sustainability or a healthy economy---is this our only 

choice? 

Government Prediction Comes True: Timber towns in trouble in the 

1990s ... 

Below are excerpts from a U.S. Forest Service publication, An Analysis 

of the Timber Situation in the United States. 1952-2030 (USDA Forest 

Service, Forest Resource Report No. 23, December 1982). (see 

Attachment #2) This Regan-era Forest Service study analyzed regional 

trends in public and private timber supplies, as part of the agency's 

responsibilities to report to Congress under the Renewable Resources 

Planning Act and the National Forest Management Act The study says 

candidly that timber harvest in the west was and is above the sustained 

yield level, and that the cutting levels are not only liquidating the old-
14i 

growth, but are also logging the "growing stock" faster than its annual net 

growth. The USFS predicted a timber shortage on the West Coast in the 

1990s through the year 2010. 

"For the Pacific Coast, it will mean c :osed mills and reduced timberbased employment and income. The impacts are likely to be particularly 

severe where timber is the chief source of economic activity." (p.156) 

" The projected reduction in softwood timber harvests in the Pacific 

Coast has implications that go beyond t1e impacts of the affected 

ownerships. Such reduction in harvest!; will result in closed mills and 

losses in employment and income. with associated disruptions in many 

timber dependent communities in our forested rural areas. There will also 

be intensified pressure for the accelera1ed harvesting of old-growth stands 

on the public ownerships and especiallr on the National Forests, which 

contain mo&t of the remaining old-growth timber." (pp.186-187) (emphasis 

added) 

"Accelerated harvest of old-growth timber on Federal lands in the West-" 

"The general policy on the National forests has been the sale of timber 

to a quantity equal to or less than that which can be removed from each 

Forest annually in perpetuity on a sustained yield basis. This assures the 

timber from second growth stands will be available to provide a relatively 

even flow of timber from National Forest lands in the future." 

"The President has directed the Department of Agriculture, consistent 

with existing requirements, to use maximum speed in updating land 

management plans on selected National Forests with the objective of 

increasing the harvest of mature timber through departure from the above 

policy taking into account relevant econ:>mic and environmental 

implications. This could temporarily inc~ the volume of timber 

available for industry. This course, whi·:h has been supported by some 

members of the timber industry, some ~pendent communities and other 

associated interests, could offset for a 1 ime at least part of the expected 

decline in the harvest of timber from fowst industry ownerships in the 

Pacific Northwest. However, harvests above tbe even flow level could not 

be maintained and the dependent industries and communities would sooner. 

or later be faced with a drop in harvests" (p.243)(emphasis added) 

WHY IS ANYONE SURPRISED BY THE TIMBER CRISES? IT WAS 

PLANNED. 

The fate of western timber towns w:u sealed in 1982, before the 

northern spotted owl was designated as a Management Indicator species, 

much less listed as threatened under thE ~ Endangered Species Act 
145 

Knowing that adverse economic effects would lie ahead for timberdependent rural communities throughout the Pacific Coast states even if 

nothing were done, the Reagan Administration made a conscious decision 

to "deparf' from sustainable logging rates, thereby guaranteeing that the 

crisis would come sooner and be more severe. 

The problem was that the harvest level "departure" did not remain 

consistent with environmental laws; the monitoring of land, water, and 

wildlife conditions that NFMA required as feedback on management 

decisions never occurred, and the feedback loop was never closed by the 

Forest Service. The Endangered Species Act was invoked because the 

agencies did not practice adaptive management, i.e., informed management 

decision-making, early enough for the northern spotted owl, marbled 

murrelet, and numerous salmon stocks. A socio-economic "trainwreck" 

resulted for rural communities and companies dependent upon a long-term, 

sustained yield of federal timber from those forests . The tragedy is that the 

dislocation and disruption caused by federal timber programs were 

unnecessary and were clearly foreseen. Insisting on going back to the past 

forest liquidation philosophy is only asking for more problems. 

A far more preferable course of action for timber-dependent rural 

communities would be to begin today to seek Federal, state, and private 

funding for land and watershed restoration projects, replanting programs, 

and wildfire prevention efforts (fuels reduction treatmentS). Many of these 

programs are already part of the National Forests' plans; they just haven't 

been funded. Other Forest-Plan programs for monitoring and baseline data 

collection have also not occurred, thwarting professional, informed 

decision-making. The Forest Service has repeatedly explained its failure to 

implement these aspects of the Forest Plans as due to a lack of funding by 

Congress. 

We as a nation can no longer use a strict economic model in the 

management of our forest ecosystems. The illegal and unsustainable 

harvest volumes of the 1980s did great damage to the forest environment 

and the communities dependent upon an even flow of timber. 

What are the economies of the Sierran communities today? 

In general, communities throughout the Sierra Nevada~ timber 

dependent. The California Spotted Owl Policy Implementation Planning 

Team (PIP) reported that of 19 counties in or partially in the Sierra Nevada, 

only two had more than 10% of the workforce in direct timber jobs (PIP 5-

27). The two were Plumas and Sierra, with Lassen next at 8%. Only three 

counties, Plumas, Sierra, and Alpine had federal 25% fund payments of 

more than 10% of the county schools budgets, with Lassen fourth at 5.85% 
14(1 

(PIP 5-34). Except for 3 or 4 counties, local economies are diverse in the 

Sierra and not timber dependent. For E·xample, (see Attachment #3) in 

Tuolumne County, payments from logg ing provide 1-3% of the schools 

budget, and about 4% of the workforce depends on national forest wood for 

employment 

Payments to Counties at Record Highs in 1992: 

Logging has never provided econom.c stability to local communities, 

rather it has always been boom or bust. Payments to counties are based on 

the revenue logging generates which is a function of both volume logged 

and the value of the wood. Because the price of wood has been high, 

payments to counties in the Sierra Nevada in 1992 were 60 to 100% greater 

than any year in the last nine, even than in the late 80's when logging levels 

reached a high of about 1.2 billion board feet on public land in the Sierra. 

Timber Harvest Fluctuations 

Using data compiled from the California State Board of Equalization, the 

State Controller, the California Employment Development Department and 

the United States Forest Service, it is ciE,ar that the amount of timber is by 

no means steady from year to year, but rather fluctuates dramatically in a 

cyclical fashion over time. 

For example: The amount of timber han~ested annually in the Sierra 

Nevada more than doubled from approximately 700 million board feet 

(MMBF) in 1982 to 1,700 MMBF in 1989, after plummeting between 1979 and 

1982. Then between 1989 and 1993, the total timber harvest in the region 

declined by about one third from 1,730 MMBF to approximately 1,100 MMBF. 

These trends of timber harvest on public lands are partially offset by 

increased harvest on private lands. 

Finally, these cycles of timber cutting appear to follow macroeconomic 

factors such as changes in interest rates and housing starts. In the early 

1980's interest rates were very high and the nation experienced a deep 

economic recession. Correspondingly, housing starts and the demand for 

timber fell sharply. Conversely, as interest rates eased in the mid-80s the 

economy grew and the demand for timber increased. 

Employment and Income . 

Not surprisingly, timber related emplo~rment in the region follows the 

same cyclical patterns associated with the macroeconomic factors driving 

timber harvest levels. 
147 

During the period from 1984 through 1992, timber-related employment in 

the Sierra Nevada region increased from 8,094 jobs in 1984 to 8,652 jobs in 

1992, fluctuating between approximately 8,000 and 10,600 jobs. 

Employment during the recent period from 1989 to 1993, however, declined 

from 10,580 jobs to 8, 552 jobs. Nevertheless, the average annual 

employment during the recent period was greater than the 9-year average 

since 1984. 

In addition, although timber-related employment in the Sierra Nevada 

region declined during this recent period, these job losses were more than 

offset by increased employment in other sectors of the region's economy. 

Although 2,028 timber-related jobs were lost in the region between 1989 

and 1992, a total of 38,018 new jobs in other sectors became available 

during the same three years. That is, for every timber-related job lost in the 

Sierra Nevada, 19 new jobs became available. Many of these new jobs 

were related to tourism and recreation--occupations that are reliant on a 

healthy environment. 

Similarly, timber-related income has consistently accounted for roughly 

one (1) percent of the total regional personal income for each year between 

1984 and 1993 in the Sierra Nevada. Moreover, despite recent fluctuations 

in the actual number of jobs, timber related income in the Sierra Nevada has 

almost doubled over the past decade, going from approximately $175 

million in 1982 to $325 million in 1992. (see Attachment# 4) 

Is the Industry Really Hyrtjng? 

It is clear that the timber industry is changing in California. The days of 

the small sawmills, dependent upon public lands timber are coming to an 

end. The large mills with a sizeable land base, multi-product orientation, and 

the ability to process small diameter logs will be a necessary part of the 

effort to return California's forests to a healthy condition. The industry 

must respond to the ecological needs of the Sierran forests which include 

the "understory thinning" of small to medium size trees and the associated 

fuels work. 

In a recent article in the Sacramento Business Journal (Oct 24, 1994) 

(see Attachment #5) "both Louisana-Pacific and Greogia-Pacific (both have 

mills in the Sierra Nevada) are reporting excellent third quarter earnings in 

1994." L-P reported ~ third quarter profits for 1994. 

Several factors played into the company's success including the 

relatively high price of wood and the increased production of an engineered 
148 

wood product called orlentea strana ooara. onentea strana ooara Is maae 

by gluing pieces of young trees together and is used in many of the same 

applications as plywood. "it's a very nigh-margin, iow-cosi mai:eriai wnicn 

now accounts for half of Louisana-Pacific's earnings", said Evanda Lynn, a 

paper and forest products analyst for Dean Witter Reynolds in New York. 

Georgia-Pacific is aiso experiencing simiiar robust growth. G-P nas more 

than doubled its operating profits on sales of building products in the past 

five years. "While we expect short-term fluctuations in building products 

prices. the long-term outlook for this b-Jsiness is very good." said Pete 

Correll, chairman and CEO of Georgia i;)acific Industries. 

The article further states, "[E]ngineNed wood products are also a bright 

spot on Georgia-Pacific's balance sheE't. The company has annually 

dedicated up to $400 million--a quarter of its $1.6 billion yearly capital 

spending program-to increasing its pr.:>duction of laminated veneer lumber. 

This framing product consists of thin sheets of wood from a log that are 

then glued together, using up to 30% more of a log than conventional 

~." said Ken Haldin, a spokesman with Georgia-Pacific. (emphasis 

added) 

"With fewer resources the industry has been responsive and innovative. 

We are making more with less," he saicl. · 

Although reductions in volume do h<tve an impact on the lives of timber 

workers in the Sierra Nevada, these im :lacts must be viewed in terms of the 

long-term economic trends of the nation and the shift towards a multi· 

product orientation in the large industrial sawmills. Although the logging 

tools of the future may look different th.m today, there will always be a 

strong demand for skilled woodsworkers to do the complicated "selection" 

logging being proposed in the Cai.Owi iEIS. 

The CAL-OWL EIS PROCESS 

Key Points: 

1) Although the California Ancient Forest Alliance strongly supports the 

Forest Service in its move towards Ecosystem Management we are very 

concerned with the high degree of unsLipported assumptions in the Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). While the CASPO Interim 

Guidelines were based on the detailed, 285 page, Spotted Owl Technical 

Report, there has been no new information gathered about the owl to 

change the decision in the Interim Guidt!lines. The Forest Service cannot 

arbitrarily revoke the CASPO policy, with no scientific basis. 
149 

2) Top agency scientists have urged caution in the testing of untried 

experiments such as the "3-tier" approach common to Alternatives C and D. 

They have also stated opposition to entering the remaining roadless areas. 

"I believe that no commercial timber harvest or road construction should 

occur in released roadless areas for at least a decade, probably 2 decades, 

to give us time to assess the need for the various resource values. A very 

small portion of truly "uncuf' forest remains in the Sierra Nevada, and its 

integrity as an ecosystem needs to be fully understood. " (comments of EIS 

from Jared Verner, Research Wildlife Biologist Feb 17, 1995) 

The DE IS proposed no strategy for the protection of these last remaining 

uncut stands. 

3) The DEIS does not coordinate with the Sierra Nevada Ecosystem 

Project: In response to a request from Congress for more information 

about old growth and other ecosystems in the Sierra, the Sierra Nevada 

Ecosystem Project (SNEP) was created. This is a much broader, more 

comprehensive ecological assessment of the Sierra Nevada due to be 

completed by December 31. 1995, less than seven months away. The 

DE IS should incorporate the data and analysis of the SNEP report These 

two efforts address the same ecosystem yet are not adequately 

coordinated. 

SNEP data and analysis is critical for the CAL-Owl DEIS to consider. 

While the Forest Service mapping efforts have used the highly unreliable 

and out-dated Boston University vegetation inventory maps (only 63% 

valid for accurately mapping vegetation size class on the Eldorado National 

Forest) in the EIS effort , the public has seen SNEP data presented at two 

public meetings that shows a level of analysis far superior (both in oldgrowth mapping and fire research) than any being used in the CAL-OWL 

EIS. In order to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act. the 

DE IS must consider this new and significant information in the SNEP report. 

Considering the programmatic nature and level of importance of the CALOWL planning effort and the timeframes of the final decision it is imperative 

that the Forest Service wait and consider the SNEP information. 

4) The assumptions about fire are unsubstantiated: The DEIS incorrectly 

assumes that the risk of fire is uniformly severe throughout the Sierra 

Nevada. Data from SNEP shows that fire risk is lowest in the higher 

elevation old-growth and roadless areas. The fire modeling is also 

inadequate and is surpassed in vigor by the Sierra Nevada Ecosystem 

Project. The is no landscape level planning effort recommended in the 
150 

document to deal with the areas of highest fire risk--the urban/wildland 

interface. 

5) The preferred strategy (Ait C) is risky and should be tried in a few 

watersheds on an experimental (adaptive management) basis prior to being 

implemented across the range. The three tiers or zones have different 

levels of management intensity althougl1 they are applied across all 

watersheds in the Sierra. This one-size-fits-all strategy has no relationship 

to conditions on the ground. It fails to reflect major topographic 

differences between National forests. ·rhe DEIS fails to disclose the 

relationship of owl sites to the three zor:es. 

6) The DEIS fails to adequately protect cwls where caution is critical. The 

preferred alternative suggests the loggi119 in Protected Activity Centers and 

SOHA's will be acceptable after 10 yean;. It assumes that with the removal 

of protections for 30" trees there will be enough suitable habitat in place 

(40" and above trees) at the end of the decade to maintain a viable 

population of owls. Currently the owls E·xist in the only remaining suitable 

habitat left in the Sierra. The DEIS fails to disclose whether there will be 

sufficient suitable habitat left in the mid-slope when logging begins in the 

PACs and SOHAs. 

7) The DEIS fails to incorporate a comprehensive Aquatic Conservation 

Strategy. Unlike the President's plan for the Northern Spotted owl forests, 

the DEIS only provides reasonably proti!Ctions for larger rivers. The 

smaller streams with only 150' protection and the smaller order channels 

will still be subject to intensive logging pressure. 

Water is the most.important "product'' leaving the Sierra Mountain 

range. The Sierra Nevada is California'!· watershed. These smaller order 

streams have suffered from decades of intensive logging and grazing 

impacts. The DEIS must include site sp•!cific Standards and Guides for the 

protection and rehabilitation of damaged watersheds. 

8) Logging levels under the DEIS are no surprise. Logging levels under 

the CASPO policy were projected to be about 358 MMBF for the Sierra 

region (DEIS, 2-41 ). Under the preferred alternative the levels would reach 

416 MMBF. Comparisons using the late 80's or Forest Plans as a baseline 

are unrealistic as they are based on unsustainable, illegal levels, supported 

by out-dated information and discredited policies. 
151 

It is our sincere hope that the CAL-OWL EIS process will use the best 

available scientific information, including the Sierra Nevada Ecosystem 

Project data. 

We encourage the agency to use caution, on a small scale, to test the 

untried theories of a 3-tier approach before implementing them across the 

landscape. 

The DEIS must be more site-specific to the existing landscape and 

conditions. 

The DEIS must disclose its assumptions and basis for claiming the 3-tier 

strategy will protect Owls, Old-Growth Forests and their dependent 

species. 

Finally the DEIS must focus its fuels reduction efforts with a true landscape 

level approach, on the urban/wildland inter-face ... the area of highest fire 

risk. 

Thank you very much. 

Information sources: 

CAL-Owl Draft Environmental Impact Statement USFS 

The CASPO Technical Report USFS 

The CASPO Environmental Assessment USFS 

The CAS PO Policy Implementation Planning Team Report (PIP) 

The Natural Resources Defense Council 

The Wilderness Society 

The Central Sierra Environmental Resource Center, Twain Harte, Ca 

Friends Aware of Wildlife Needs, Georgetown, CA 
United States 

Decartment of 

Agriculture 

Richard A. Wilaon, Director 

Fore at 

Ser v i ce 

152 

CA Department ot Foreatry and Fire Protection 

1416 Ninth Street 

Sa.cre~omanto, CA 95814 

Dear Mr. Wllaon : 

Lake Tahoe Basin Manaqement Unit 

870 Emer ald Bay Road, Suite 1 

South Lake T•hoe , CA 96150 

<9161 S1J-2600r IQQ l9lfil 541-4036 

Reply to: 5100/2400 

REC'O OEC -7 1994 

1 have read with great intere&t a nd hig 1 ly support, Nevada-Yuba-Plac:or Ranger Un it 

Chief Hank Wcat.on•G Auguat 25 , 1 994 pro?osal for .. FE:HA Funding Request, Lake Tahoe 

Fuel Management Project. " I under o tand th i s p ropo s al haa recently reached your 

office . 

All seven reaource managing a9enciea ha·te ccoperated the paat four years in 

identlfyinq prloritiea and coope rative •!!forte t.o reepond to the massive mortality 

and significant decline in Lake Tahoe' s foreet health . Ae you know, tho situation 

continues to decline with near JO\ of t h e atand being dead. 

Wh~t...,i8 P'P~E-~;.t:O·•me T'riowtia :largE! "'D6'l••a9e sale contracts ace NOT a major ~!t": of 

addreasTng the tarqe accea9e and urban .. nter-mix needs . Planning and attempt1n9 to 

market. aev.!ral salvage sale:!, rangl.ng L~cree to 1 , 000 aerea, haa ahown 

(since 1989) the va lue 0t9alvagable ma1 .'er1a l wtll not bear the co~t of an adequate 

treatment for fuels reduct1.0n a nd long-term f orest health . . Incline V1.llage paid 

Sl:ooo;acre over: tlmbec values, ana We t ·l! e"pcoCilted S2oUt.o $500/acre eatimated 

coats 

~~ 

over: v aluaa. Where sal v age sale s reach break even, we see a aub-merchantable 

t~E_ i!_ ov:e~:-ato ckcd anc unacceptab l e fuer-IOadlng. · 

Hank Weston'• propoaal , I believe has tle ingredient& of funding and crows to help 

the Lake Tahoe region begin to a ddress the total job. Without this type ot aupport, 

we ' re in a losinq b~ttle . 

If I can be of any further help in di&CL&9ing Hank's proposa l and our &ituation in 

Tahoe, please give me a call . 

Sincerely, / 

. 

-/-?I J~;;) ROBERT E. HA.P.RIS 

Forest Superviaor 

LTUSCFJ\P Kember• 

RS Regional Foreat•r (wjencloaure) 

Lloyd Keefer coa•t-Caacade Req1.on Chief 

Hank Weston, Nevada-Yuba-Placer Ranger Unit Chief 

Steve Harcourt, South Lake Tahoe CDF Forester 

Jon Kennedy, RF Rep-sacramento (w/anelo&ure) 

Joan Reiaa, Sierra Club (w/encloa""r~) 

Rochelle Naaon,'· League to Save Lake Tahoe (w/encloeure) 

J"im Baatge, 'IRPA Executive Diroctol:' Cnrinc {or the L•n•l •nd Serving People 
153 

An Analysis . of the T1mber Situation 

in the United States 

1952-2030 

United States Department of Agriculture 

Forest Service 

Forest 

Resource 

Report 

No. 23 

December 1982 
154 

Table 1.4-Timbu produ~l output from nongTOwing stock sourr s tu a f1UU rlt of timber sttpplies in the Vniltd States, by 

: softwoods m1d hordwoods and section, 1952, 1962, 1S70,and 1976, tiJith base levtl projec:tiom to 20JO 

,. 

r Projecti ons 

~oaroupandsecti on 1952 1962 1970 1976 1990 I 2000 2010 ;;;-r-~o-;;;

~ODS 

I 

I 

'.North . .... 13.3 12.6 12.6 12.6 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 ... ~ 8.4 8.7 4.5 5.0 5.5 5.5 5.5 6.0 6.0 -loc:kyMountain . . 5.8 5.6 4.7 4.5 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 

·htific Coasl' .. 12.4 11.6 8.9 8.6 15.5 

I 

13.9 12.5 11.2 10.2 

UUedStliU .. • • • • • • • • • • • • 0 • • • • 10.4 10.0 7.0 6.9 9.5 8.7 8.1 7.9 7.6 

funwooos ' Nonh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23.5 17.7 11.9 16.5 17.0 

I 

17.5 17.5 18.0 18.0 .. ~ 19.0 18.9 13.9 11.9 14.0 14.5 15.0 15.5 16.0 lociy M~~~;~j~-- ·. · .. (~ (') (~ (~ (') (') (") (') (') 

'Pacitl' Coast' .. 14.3 1\.S 6. 1 11.3 11.9 11.9 11.4 12.5 12.8 

' Uo.iledStatts . • 20.9 18.5 13.9 14.0 ll.2 15.6 15.9 16.4 16.7 

'IDdudeJ Al3ska. 

''Httdwood timber harvests are too small for accu rate eslimalion of Ol.!lput origin:lli ng from m.mgro)wlnl: stock sources. 

·to rise to 15.5 percent in \990. Beyond 

1990, the part of t imh..:r suppli c$ com-

, ing from non-growing stock sources 

falls, as old-growth stands hecome less 

important as a proponion of tota l inltentory. 

., In the Rocky t-.·1ounta ins, non· 

· vow ng stoc k sources provided 4.5 

:percent of rh c softwoo d suppl y in 

· 1976. This is assumed to inc rease 

1lightly, then remain esse ntially un-

, changed through the rest of the pro· 

r.: jection period. 

!)_· Non-growing stock sources pro-

~ vided about 12.6 percent of the soft· 

j;" wood timber supplies in th e North in 

~~ 1976. This is projected to drop to about 

t.· 10 percent by 1990 and remain thcr..: 

~ through 2030. The propnrtion of soft· 

!- wood non-g rowin g stock ourpur in the 

~ South is low-5.0 percent in 1976. This 

increases sl ightl y over thl· next sevcr.:1l 

decades. 

Hardwood fo rests con!ain large 

volumes of rough and rotten trees and 

tops and branches. Ha rdwo("JdS also 

make up most of the urban forest, fence 

rows, and o ther simil a r sourct'S of nongrowing stock timbe r supplies. As a 

result. a substantial fracti o n of hardwood rountlwood supplies. 14.0 per· 

ctnl in 1976, have come from non· 

growing stock sources since 1952. 

With ine rc asing demand for fuel · 

wood and imp rovements in h.'Chniques 

for han·csting and processing h11rJwood 

for pulp and paper, non-growing stock 

is expected to continue to be an impor· 

tant and, in most regions. u growin g 

part or hardwood timber supplies. l n 

the North, for exampl e . the proport ion 

of hardwood timber supplies originat ing 

from non-growing swck 1iscs from 16.5 

percent in 197610 18.0 pt rccnt in 20]0. 

Other Assumptions. ln aJdition to the 

basic assllmptions dcscri t ed atwve, the 

projections of <.:hangcs in the timhcr re· 

source rest o n a variety of ot her as· 

sumptio ns. Fo r cX.<!mplc, the con tinuation of a host of p:!st h~h ora l p3t· 

terns on the pa n of timhe r owners is 

implici11 y aS<;umcd in the harvest equations. Con :~ ts Jssoc iat ;d with multihie usc and th..:: prot ection of the environ ment, and owner <~ I itudcs wward 

non-timber benefits as rc A..::ctcd in the 

historir.:al re sponse of hH ·vest to price 

increas~s and inventory chang~s . :.~re 

assumed to co ntin ue. Responses to such 

factors a s the eco nomi c wai\abi lit y of 

timher. spec-ies compm.itic n, tree gr ade. 

accessi bility. and ope rah lity arc also 

assumcJ to co ntinue mnc l the same as 

in th..:: ba se period used i 1 making the 

p rojections. 

Some conditions existed du rinc. the 

histori ca l period which nl ty nor p~r st 

in the future . For examJI..::, therc:o has 

heen cont inu al conflict onout the use 

a nd mJnagcment of comrr ac ia mh rlanUs in 1hli c ow1u.:rshi l . llarvesti ng 

has frequent] · been halted ( o r at least 

sloweJ ) on lands whe n a status changc 

was being c()nsidcrccl, eve 1 before th ey 

were actuall y tak en o ut of the commercial timberland ba se. 

In recognition o f th ~ uncerta inty 

<~bout these and al! othe r assumptions. 

a serie s of prl)jec ti ons bas~:: J o n ditl"erin g 

assumpt ions on commcrci. tl timberland 

area and nulica l g rowth : nd morl a lit y 

rates, has hl'en rcpar~tl Thes;.: pro· 

jections. discussed at !he end of t his 

chapte r , demonstrate the ;e nsitivity of 

the projec tions to changed assumptions 

and provide some sense of the range 

over which the projections might reasonably he ex p ect ct1 to vary. 

Projected Chan~es in Timber Resources 

in th e United Slates 

Proj ections prepared under the assumpt ions descrihed ahove o;how s.ubstJntial changes in all !"lf the important 

m<·asurcs of the timher resource- tim· 

bcr supplies, ner annual growth. and 

inH~ntorics. (tahles 7.5 :"lnd 7.6) . There 

are also sizable shifts among th e geographic sec tions and the m:dnr owner· 

ships (tables 7.7-7. 10). 

Trends in Timber Supplies. I n 1952, 

roundwuod harvests!$ amounted 10 10.9 

billio n cuh ic fe et. Har s were sligh tly 

lo wer in !962 hut 1hc)' subseque ntl y incre ased to 12.8 billion cuhic feet in 

19 76. The trends in harvests of sawtimber products are similar to those for 

roundwood-ou tput rose from 49. 1 

hi ll ion board feet in I %2. tn 6:!.9 billion 

in 1976. Most of the inc rc:tscs hctween 

1972 and 1976 was composed of soft· 

woo ds harvested on fo rest industry und 

fJrmer a nd other priv ate lands ill the 

S(luth. 

Roundw0od supplics 11 arc proj ected 

co inc rea se to 21.2 hil!ion cu bic fe.!el in 

-' Ha~ ~~ed here arc est imates of 

the trem1 le~els of timber pr.,ducls harvested 

ill 1952 . 1962. 1970 uml 19'16. urrli ~s ••s 

used hc:re are estima les of the volume of timher pwducts that wuu hl he harvested in the 

pr ic ~: n ye ars under the a~sumpti(")m spe· 

cifi etl lbO\'C. 

1<1 
155 

T a bl e i.5--T imbcr rttllovalf, net a nnua l growth , m ortalit y, supplies of ro ut~ dwood producLJ , tmd in ~mt olj' of grou·ing Jtod: iK 

tht l!nitetl States, by so/h flOO ds ar1d hardwoods, I9J2, 1962, 19i0, and 1976, with bau lt11r.l proj ections to 20JO 

Item 

SOflWOODS 

emova ~ fr om ~rowing 5tock 

Round wood products .. 

g~ ng residue~ . 

Other rcm ;s)~' . 

Total . 

Nc t annual I!TOwth . 

Mon ality 

J9n 

6,752 

7)4 

283 

(Miflion cubic'/ctl) 

1962 

K1 mndwnod supplies• 

f rom growinl! swc k. . 

From other sources• .. 

Total . . 

. .. . . 6,754-- " 6,59itt 8,096 . .. . . 785 736 605 --- -- ----- - .. .. .. ~~329 ~ 

Inventory o( ~-t ro ng swd ' 

II ARD\VOODS 

Removals from growing stock 

Roond wood products .. . 

Leggin!! residues . .. 

Other remova/s1 •• 

Total 

Net annual growth . . 

MMtah ty 

RounJwood ~IIJ'lplics• 

Frorn growm~t sttx:k . . . 

From other ~uurces' . . . 

Total 

nn ntory of growinl! 5tock.' . 

<1 24.946 ro:.!!:.. t 449.790 

2.658 I 2.488 2,950 751 648 122 

·' ~7 ~ 4,726 

'Vo um~ of timber temon·tl in cultural opera on~ such :ts noncommercill thin ning :tnt! invtntut)' los.~t.cs resulting from ti'C diversion of commercial 

timbe!\nml to othe1 tat'~ !iUCh as cropl::r.nd, parh, :md wilderne ss. The i~toric::r. l da ta are es im:~t~ s of uthcr em ov: l~ in rhe imlic;~ted ye:m . They do 

not inc:ude the emo al~ ;~ssuc ated with the diversion of conunercial timberland, ,;uch as withtl•aw:t ls for ldr lc~li. th :tt tlo not take p!ace on a 

rep:ul::r.r and conunuinp: b3sis. T he projected rtmovals ::r. re annual a verages for the dec:tdes preceding the indic:t tetl year and do include such remov11s. 

'Data for 195:!, 1962. 1970, and 1976 are estimates of the trend ltvel of har,·esu and dtfier some~~~o a:t from the ntinutcs of actu:tl coMumptioc 

,;hown in some t:1bles 111 other ch.apte r~ . For the projecoon years, !he data show the ,·olumc Ulat would bt han·estcd ~ivcn the a~umpt.ions of the 

Study. 

' lndlijje roundwood products from rough and rotten tr~es, dead trees, limbs, ond trees on no:-~commercial and non!orest land . 

•Data ror ~2 and 196:! arc as or December 31. Data for 1970 a nd the projection years are as of J anual)· I. l>3ta sh11wn under 1976 are as of January I, 1917. 

2030 and R3.1 billion boa rd feeteve ~ that arc. respectivel y, 66 and 32 

pe rcent :~bo vc those of 1976. Nearly all 

of the pro jecle(] increa ses are in the 

F.a!<\1, chiefly in the South. Some increa se in suppl ies is proj ected in the 

Rock>• M ountain sccti<.m. On the Pacific 

Coast. there is n1.'1 mw: h c hange in pro-

~c eJ w undwi.)Od Stlp p!i cs anti n ra ther 

an ti tl dt' crc:ue in sawtimbe r supplies. 

With the exce ptio n of forest industry ownershi ps, where the: projected de· 

e:~ scs on the Pacific Coast arc concentruteJ. t here ;u c !'uhstamial add itions to 

su pplies o n a ll (!! her ownershi ps. os t 

of the projected incrca'ic in supplies is 

o n f:~ mcr ami 01her privalc ownerships. 

This prima rily reOcct~ the large size of 

lh;! c.:ommcrcia l titn bcrl and area in th ese 

wn s rela tive 10 the o the r owner· 

! 54 

ships a nd the responsi veness of these 

ownerships to increases in prices and 

inven tories. 

front increased use o f smaller d iameter 

trees, p rima rily fo r pulpwood 3nd fuelwood . 

Roughly equa l shares of the 1976 

l remiJ in Jn/twood SHpplits.-Thc softwood Sttpplics came fmrn the South 

harvest of softwood roum..l wood prod- and Pac ific o:~ st a nd toget her they 

ucts has fo llowed about th e same trend :~c~.:ou nted fo r 85 p ercen t of th e soft-

:ts to tal h;trvests, ri ~i g 30 percent be- wnod ro u nd wood ~u ics in the Uni ted 

wc~ n 1962 a nd 1976 to a to ta l of 9.5 e~. T he rema ining 15 percent was 

billio n cubic feet (fi g. 7.2 ). This was ab C'ut equa ll y split be tween the N orth 

pa ral le led by a 31 percent inc rease in a nd Rocky rt.·founta ins. • 

<;awtimber product output to 50 billion .... The Pa cifi c Coast played a more) 

hoard feet (!ir;. 7.3) . , t..lominant ro le in the suppl y of softwood 1 Softwooc.i supplies arc projected to / sawlimber products in 1976. providi ng l move u p but at a slower rate than ex.-! 50 percent of the total compared to 36 

pl'rieneed fro m 1962 to 1976. By 2030. ) pcrt.:e nt rrom h~ Sout h. The importance ~ 

round wood supplies rise by abo ut 30; of the Pac ific Coao;t larg~ly re llects the . 1 '· 

percent to 12.3 bill ion ~· ulm: reel a nd, softwood in ve ntory-tha t section h01s / · 

s::twtimher supp!ies b)' I I percent to: nearly three-fi fths or the so rtwood saw- \ 

55.6 bil!u;m lloard feeL T he greater in-;, timber in ve ntory mo:Hi y in the reiJiively , 

c rease in rou ndwood ic ~ results · la rge trees cha icte ri.~IIC of i~· -old- ) ····-- ·--·· / 
156 

Table 7.&----Snw imb~r rtrnOllflls, ,ld tmmwl growth , mortality, upJJlie~ uj snwt;,itltu- pro.lucts, and iiW tlllO')' nf snu•timber in 

tile United StnUs. b)' softwoods (lnd hardwoods, 1952, 196?, 1970, m1<l 97~ , ,,,jtlt luue lt:r•t:l jJTojutions lu ZnJO 

J'.JFTWOODS 

Rtmovals from sawtimber 

RoW'Idwood products ... 

Louin& residues ... 

Other removals' 

Total .•.. 

Net annual growth .. 

Mortality 

Roundwood suprlics' 

From uwcimbcr .. 

From other sources' .. 

Toll\ .. 

ln't'cntory ol sawtimber' ... 

HARDWOODS 

Remov3ls from sawtimber 

Roundwood prOd llfiS .. . 

lotains residues .. 

Other removals' 

Total .. 

Net annual growth ... 

Mortality · · ······ · · ·• · •· •· 

Roundwood supplies• 

From sawtimber . . 

From other sourccs• ... 

ot~! .. 

Inventory of S:l¥flimbtr' . 

(M11/inn board /ut, l mtfiUJtitmaf %-inch log mit) 

Projtctions 

1952 1962 1970 1976 .:-1 ~9or- ;~ 2010 

49.9 11 51.311 

1,548 1.491 

3,:!6~ __ ..:.:_798 

54,1:!9 55,600 

59.016 59.197 

.!_:6J5 9,957 

11,145 10,091 11.313 ll,350 I:U02 15.604 18,432 21,230 22.936 

771 989 1,2ll 1,1 4b UH 1,474 1,529 1.519 1.384 

1.1 :!3 ~ __ 1.660 _, 2,1'160 1,797 2.54:! 2.428 2.22 1 2,1 10 1,746 

21.969 

!~187 o;:24-:'·::'• :92.9. :::'+..., . '26:-:··~" ,444 -r-~:c2'•6-c·s,.,o .6 10 '"'+'~'26,.., .I127 8J 1 ..... 2~'25,409 ~~ ~ :4,441 

13 0!~ . 12,740 

15,117 18. 194 

1--"''·"'··.;.l+='~~ ~- ). 183 •:;- ),42.) 4,.161_. 4.902 5.2!~ 5.3:!3 5,261 

11 ,145 10,091 11,313 11,350 1:! 50~ 15.604 18,432 

779 842 --· ·~~:! . 1,552 2.2 10 8~~ _ _ 4~7 

~,-=c.:·•c.:'.,.'+-""""0,9)) 1~ 12 9~2.._ .-..!.!2.!~ 18 ,4~ 21.889 

446.o ls ..aJ.70Ci .... =sl6.706 S9l.SJ1~~.., s~.3 76 874.293 

2 1.230 

4,135 

:!5,365 

1190,263 

22.936 

4,577 

27,513 

817.84:! 

•Volume of timber removed in cultural opa:uion, nu;h llo noncommercial th•nnmt :~.od in•·tntuty lo)St\ rrsu lu n~ frum the h,·er~oiun l) { cummcrci.tl 

1timb_er13od 10. other U)t'S ~~ch ~ cmpl_:..nd. par~s. a?tl wilttcrnt>ss. 1.he ~ist.Hic;•l d; Ia ;tre e)li ~n.Jtc~ l\f •ILht'r te mm·;~ s in the •mhr.ue,J ye~·r ~. The:)' Ool 

not tncludt ttie rtmOY3IS ahtlCtllted wuh the d1Ytts1oo of commt'r ~·•:• l llnlbc:JI;IJid, aKh liS "'J\hlhaw ;tl~ (,H tl tlcrnc~s. th:ot do uot t:.. lc pl:occ o n :t 

resular and con1inuiog basis. The projected oc:ntOYIIIs arc annual average~ fl)l th~· ''' eatlcs p1.:-... edmg the ilh1 ic:lled yea r and du induJI! Mldt remo,•:tls. 

'O ~ for 1952, 1962, 1970, :1nd 1976 arc estimates of the trend le vel of h;u vests :.nd ditln ~o tw h ... t from the e~ ti m;otcs of :.ctu:ol co• .~ umption 

1hown in some tables in uthcr chapte rs. For the projection years, the l.la ta ~huw the \'Ohune !hat w.tu ld he h:•n•cstr.!l.l gh·cn !Itt: liS!>UHlptiLl i'IS of the 

JIUdy. 1

1nctude roundwood products from roulh and ronen trees. dead trct ~. limbs, and 11 ~s on noncommer~ i:• l and nonfottst !:Ind. 

'D11a lor 1952 and \962 arc as of Dcetmbt:r 31. Data fo r 1970 anJ the rrc•iet: tit n years are ~h o f J.utu..l t)' I. Dat;a shown umkr 1976 :ue :IS of Jtnuary I, 1971 . , .... ___ .. ____ . 

··-..:::- growth forc:-1. More than.JtHC.J.:.·JifJ!~'> of 1'h~r.: is :t subscqm:ttl l'i c had·• to 3.9 ! 

the softwood sa\VIi1llh!-iL if'! 1h..: .P;s..:ilit.· hjlti,,n ~uhi..: fcl!l in ::ow. Thl! ma jor) 

~-~.!.J.£.S!i ~!1~~~J.HLt~!:.ti ~ll'..:'\ ;i C.nhc n t !he inili:il d..:din .. · inth..: :t ~ilkl, 

/

1 

s~t t~~h;;J~l~.~~~fici mf.~~;~~ 11 ~r~ r'~~ .. ~~~~ ;.::~-~~ : ,~d::~~r5~~~rt ~ )/ source s of st,flwood timhcr s projech.!d l' Ull ing kvds. The ll ld-!!H"\th jj' ;;:;:.t i~HY 1 

to ch:mgc mattrially hy 20311. The soft· o~~l ership~ '" r.tpu th · he tt l\! de -

wood roundwood :JIIpph.:" it !he S{Hllh pl~tc\1 :md h~trve t" fr.1n1 m .. h.mtah l~ 

uc prC'Ijcctcd 10 rise hy .. n pl.!rccnt 10 '~t.·on d- gfC'l \\ h stand' \::tmhll hc .. main· 

6.2 billion cuhic r~~ t ThL· ,,,,jorily o f ta in.:d at ;1 kvd \\hi d1 \\'til h~.:t th!.! 

lhe im:rea~c come\ fll)tn th..:: farm~ t ;tnd d~.:d in c tn supplic<> ~\ltl l ,,t.f-gr.1w lh 

ot her priv:Ht: owncr ... tnt'h- :- i7:tbk J'l.'f· ~land~; . 

ccnt;tgc incrca::.cs ar..: aiM' p njcch.:d ~l r .<\1 the sanw tim.:. r-..:.,li,,n:d Forth e Nurth nntl Rod:y f.. II:'\ lttain s. bu t est harv..:st ic\ds m th..: l' :~~.: ifi..: \(l;tSI 

the vo lumes irwnlv{' d are rdo..ti\'<.'1\' smal l 

1 in relation to the to\a l n;llimul so/'twvotl 

\ supply. 

\ In contrast tn 1hc 0111 onk in the 

J South, suhwood ruundwnt•d suppl1c~ 

The sofl wood (southern pine) for t~ !~ of the a r c p rojcc!cd IO drop in I he Pac ilic 

South can support h igher lot\'els of har\ c~t Coast, from ].9 hilliun ctthic fee t in 

'l'~liL111 arc ctmstr;lin..-d hv cvc: n·llnw 

h:•rvc:'t ~chl!dttlcs anll tll\11 -iimhr.:r manal,!l.!menl l'(lnsi dl'r:tlit'll' and :•rl.! fmthi.!r 

l~ llucrH:c d hy nli!jnr \\ nhdrawals of 

comnH:rcial timbe rland lo r wihlc:rncss 

..: lol~ ll Hion . Sttppli c~ Jrom 1hc f:trmtr 

and urhc r pri\·atc owner~ in the l,acilk 

in the dec3dcs immeJi:~ ely :~head. 1976 to 3.7 hi\l ion cuOi~ ftd in 2000. Coast :1 re p rojected to im.:re:1sc, whkh 

155 
157 

is a reversal of a 25-year Jownv.·ard (-. The supply projections for softtre•ld in rouiHIWll(ld supplies from this woo.d sawtimber products have.the s. ame 

O'.'.-Jrcrshrp. llowcvcr, the increases arc basic pattern as the roundwood pronot large to wmpensate for the jectJ(ltlS, but the decline in Pacrfie Coast 

drop on forest P\\·ncrshrps. supplies and the changes in regional 

shares arc more pronounced. The pr~ 

jcctcU supplies from the Pad\c Coast 

drop 13 percent from 25.2 billion board 

feet in 1976 to 22.0 billion in 1990. 

They continue to decline slowly !hueafter Ill 19.6 hillion board feet in 2030. - In contrast. the supply from the South Figure 7.2 to increase to 27.3 

Softwood Roundwood Harvests, 1952-76, with Projections of 

Supplies to 2030 

board feet bv 2030, percent 

above the 1976 supPly. 

The result of these divcrger1t sec· 

tiona! paths is that the large projected 

increases in softwood timber suppi1Cj Billion cubic feet 

from the South arc partly offst:t hyde· 

clines from the Pacific Coast. lea~·ing United States 

10 '

1

'\'lf ''-' \." '\ l~~ 

(Ll\l\t-(~ 

--,,;xr•<r",crl ~! •) 

'' 

a relatively modest net gain in the na· 

tiona! total. By 2030, about half of both 

the softwood roundwood and softwood 

sawtimber product supplies are project. 

cd to originate in the South, 31 percent 

of the softwood round wood a:1d 35 percent of the softwood sawtimber praduct 

supplies will .:ome from the Pacific 

Cuas~h11:s Df t~C~=~~ '\.\. I, certarn to h<t\ e maJor and long lastmg ~ "\. ~\Impdcts on the ecor on:ms of th~ tYro 

By section based etnfll(lyment and mcome The 

~ 

'- \ ~ec!Ions fFor the Pacific Coast, 1! will mean closed mrlls and reduced ttmber· 

l North 

0L.m= = o P72Jim PZI f%11221 1J Rocky Mountain 

I 

0 I = = /Til Cl.VZI r;a EZlJZlJZ:l 

1952 '62 '70 '76 '90 '00 '10 '20 '30 

1, - South 1mpacts arc likely to be part1cularh sc. 

ere m rur<~l areas v,here limber lS the -

1 uu u ( h1cf source of econom1c actJV!lY,In 

he SDuth on the other h<md 11 suggests 

m ~llC\\ tunber-bas~J mJuStf)· at.ld .. OS.SO.CI· i Lj] lliJLf1 atcd increases m employment and inL..Lccu=-<= w~t~;;~d:!J:':~--i~ Pa~~~ Pacific Coast 

1952 '62 '70 '76 '90 '00 '10 '20 '30 

Coast supplies is concentrated on fL·rcs: 

industry ownerships, and the major 

source of the increases in the South ;s 

farmer and other private lands, there is 

a sizable shift among the major owner· 

ships as sources of timber. The shift is 

largest for suftwood sawtimber products 

where the proportion coming from 

By ownership 

j f~rmcr and other private ownership'! 

' nses frorn :?:9 percent of the tot.:ll in 1 I 976 to 4 I in 20:10. Durin~ :he 

r- Other public same 

L on fnrcst 

lR percent percent. 

, 1 There is a small increase i~1 the part 

1 i corlllng from the Nat10na! forests and 

j \ very li_tt~e change on the other public 

~__f:2J__ill ov.ncrships. 

10,-

1 

National Forest 

5!-

J o rm Elm r::a ~ f3IH?H~~ 

Tl~ 1952 '62 '70 '76 ~~,~·~ '90 '00 '10 m 

'20 '30 

~ ~ 1952 ~~~·;~~ '62 '70 '76 '90 '00 ~~ '10 '20 '30 

Trends in hardwood wpp/ie.r.-ln 

contrast to softwoods, !he harvest of 

hardwoods was fairly stable between 

1952 and 1976 at around l billion cubic 

feel of roundwood and 12 billion board 

feet of sawtimber products (figs. 7.4 and 

7.5). The outlook is for substantial increases. I tardwood round wood supply is 

projectcU to more than double between 

197G and 20JO. rising from 3.3 to 8.9 

!56 
158 

Tuolumne County+ Stanislaus National Forest 

Facts and Figures 

Headline after headline in the Union Democrat refers to fears of the end of 

the local timber industry due to the possible redudion in national forest logging 

pr~posed by the Cal-Owl Plan. Cow1ty Supervisor Ken Marks and others repeatedly 

cla1m that anywhere from 1,000 to many thousands of jobs will be lost---the County 

economy destroyed, and great numbers of children abused, women beaten, and 

County mental health services over-run ... all because loggers will be out l'f work. 

The truth is that government jobs are number one in employment, followed 

:>y touriRm and services which providt• the greatest number of jobs in private 

lndus1ry here in Tuolumne County as well us in neighboring counties. Logging 

provides only u tiny percentage of overall jobs. 

Joba and the timber industry 

In 1994, State Employment Development Department statistics show that a 

high of 84(1 people were involved in the lumber and wood products industry in 

Tuolumne County, including both private and public forests. The County 

Wl1rHorce was shown as 14,640 people. Thus, less than 6% of the workforce was 

employed in work connected to the timber industry. Given that, on averagE', about 

1/2 of that timb~r-r~lated workforce depends upon national forest timber, about 420 

~le ==d ~1pon public land IQg~in~: and milling for their jo!;>s. or less than 3% 

o. t .rJyorlsforce. 

If infltead of the 88 mmbf now shown in the Stanislaus forest Plan, a new CalOwl lt~vel of 30 mmbf were used, it is likely that over time, a corresponding 

rcducti()n of 2/3 of the jobs dependent upon public forest logging might also orcur. 

lh14s, at that level, approximately 2% of jobs in Tuolumne County might be lost by 

n:dudng logging levels to 30 mmbf .... the level approximated by the majority of 

alternatives in the dralt EIS. The situation in neighboring Calaveras County is even 

more obvious. Only @1 00 people are employed in work connected lo the wood 

industry. 

In bc.tb counties. the yast m!ljority of jobs 11re in the service sector (related jQ 

tQurjsm) and jn ~oyemment. the large~t employer. 1991 figures for Tuolumne 

County show more than 3;000 jobs directly involved in motel, hotel.!i, and restaurant 

servicc-t}pl' jobs. Th~ addition of back-country guides, camping gear stores, ski 

r~ntal places, ;md all the other forest-related recreational jobs would mean an even 

higher total. 

Tu;payt>rs and Jogging ~Nhile the U.S. Forest Service has used creativt~ accounting to attempt to 

shc"s a "profit" for timber harvest on the StaniAiaus Nation11l Forc6t and other 

)\ c;<:.st St:'rvice lands, the rgaljty js that logging on the Fon•st h>st:s millions of do\lm 
159 

most years (or federal t.1xp.1y('rs. Thl· httc~t timber progmm financial report (for 

1993) rdt il~ed by the Stanislin1s Forest claims that the timber program made nearly 

$4 m1lhon after payments to local counties. But statistic.~ often tell conflicting 

stories. 

On a ca~b-flow bu;;ig, the timber program actually lost money if payment~ to 

counties were considered. The Stanblau~ forest no longer releases a cash-flow 

accounting report as part of their timber report, but, when questioned , rorest 

ec::unurnist jim Schmidt provided rough figur('S that showed that tlw Fon ~t Service 

had about $1.5 million more revenues than expenSt$ p.riQr to paynwnt~ to local 

counties. At!cr those payments were added in, the b<~lancc showed the Stanjsl;1u~ 

timber pro~;Fm1 ended up more than $2 million jn \he rt,d. 

One of the ways the forest Service analyzes the economics of the timber 

progrnm is in their li'onomic Account . Thi~ Economic Account doesn't ignon' a~ 

many of the actual expenses as the TSPlRS acc::uunt docs. Based on 199.1, the 

Staniblaus Pores! timber program had a present net value of $3,405,000. Thi~ was the 

fir~t year in 5 years that the Stanislaus fure>t timber program didn't lose muncy 

ba~ed on their own Economic Acnn.mting. Over that 5 year period, the Stanislaus 

Forest logged 680 million board feet of trees, but LOST more than $4 million during 

that total time period, even including the money made in 1993. For federal 

taxpayers, the sale of timber on the Stanislaus Forest ha~ consister)tly h<'en a tnOIW)' 

loser, not even counting the environment<~! degradation and lolls of wildlife villues. 

The reality is that th~' Stanislaus National Forest has sub&idized the single 

domin;mt lumber company, Fibreboard Inc., for many years, at th•• expense of 

fcderallaxp;1ycrs and forest resources. Any proposal to reduce that subsidization 

will bl~ bitterly contested by both those t'mployed by the c01npany or related logging 

or trucking firms, 3S well as those pro-limber ~upportt'rS who are philosophi<"ally 

opposed to any reduction of jobs or profits in order tu benefit the cnvirorunent. 

Devastation to Tuolumne County's economy? 

J .ast year, the Jamestown Mine shut down, causing more than 31Hl peoplt~ to 

)(lse their jobs. This is roughly equiv«lcnt to what would occur if the proposed 

reductions in national forest logging W(,nt forw~rd . What happened? 

Except for a few hu~inesses that were heilvily dependent upon the mining 

operation, almost" m> nne but the employee~ saw any difference in the economic 

situation. Unemployment leveb ov,'rall did not skyrockt-t. Abuse or jail 

population numbers didn't soar .. The same will occur if logb-ing jobs an~ reduced. 

l.ogging ha~ always hild it.~ ups and downs. In the late 1980's and .early 19CJO's, 

fire and ins£,ct salvagt· ml'ant logging levels of Hlll mmb{ '' year. Then Jogging 

dropped back down to the less than 100 mmhf ].,vel. A drop of more than HO mmbf 

a year rm anl nothing at all tl> the job mnrkct OVC'rall in Tuolumne County. 
160 

Likewise, if one shift is laid off at the Standard Mill, the rest of the County's 

economy will move forward without even a hitch. 

Schuois and ro;~ds 

The Superintendent of Schools has testified any reduction in logging, 

claiming that children will suffer. This is nonsense. Receipt Act payments make up 

between 1-3% of the total school budgets in Tuolumne County. A 213 reduction in 

logging receipts might cost, at the very most, 2% of the schools' annual budgets. 

Most of the money that goes to the County Schools offict! is spent on one-day 

events like spelling bees, science fairs, and other activities, and most of that funding 

goes ·to support highly paid specialist,c; at the County Schools office who run the unedAy events. Project Forest is one program funded by Timber Receipts. Last year 

Project Forest put on a week-long training ses!'>ion for teachers to promote logging 

D::d timber management on the local national forest. The loss of such pro-industry 

programs would hardly hurt children. 

Summary 

Logging is a traditional indush·y in Tuolumne County. It's a heritage for 

many families. But it's not a mainstay of the economy. Jt conflicl's continually with 

tourism and recreation. It damages the watershed values that produce extremely 

high levels of hydro and water revenues for the County and other agencies. 

Tuolumne County supervisors and the local timber industry have grossly 

exaggerated the harm that would occur if logging is reduced on national forest lands. 

At in<lst, only 2·3% of the work force would be affect. More likely, the main loss 

would be the eventual loss of one shift at the Fibreboard mill at Standard. 

. For to~ris~, recreation, watershed resources, wildlife, traffic, and quality of 

hfe, a reduction m logging will be a positive effect. 
SIERRA NEVAOA 

TIMBER EMPLOYMEN

. ':'-:· - ·::: 

DATABASE 

EmpioyQte~t ~ P~yn~ll 

Cumulatiy~ Cpqnty Fig
SIERRA NEVADA l iMBER EMPLOYMENT & PAYROll OA.7A 

Total Siena Ne~ada Employme nt and Pay• oil Data 

SltH.II Nev•da Region (17 Counllu) 

CaJender Repor1ing Un s (I ) 

Year S<COO SIC 2~ SIC26 

.... " '" " 19115 

" J09 

" .... ,. "' 20 

19117 

" ... " 19811 .. '" .. 1989 .. "' " 1990 53 

"' 27 

"" .. 504 32 

1992 

" "' " 

Employment (2) 

socoo SIC 2~ 

"' '·""' 104 5.677 

1 .. 5,993 

m 9,576 

795 9.637 ,,. 10.246 

"' 9,862 

'" ..... "' 8,339 

Sowce,; Cahlorn1.11 Employment Development Department (EDD) 

Employment and Payroll Data fo1 Selec!ed Counties 

Fool llOie~ (I) A•er;~ge number of est ~l,;hrmln ts rapo.1iog data to EDO 

Total ~"'"' SOC26 Twnber s"'~ 

"' 11,919 1.30% 

1,116 9,977 1.42 % 

1,123 10,300 1.49% 

1,262 11,073 1.53'!1. 

1,195 11.126 1.47'!1. 

1,203 11.782 1.52'!1. 

1,799 11 ,978 1.48% 

1,691 10,801 1.33'!1. 

1,&&1 10,03 1.28% 

Repo1ting umts m;~v be leu than 1 oo an anf!U41 1 b.ilsis due lo ""'o~~sonal nu tu~tion,; 

Cumu ali erogurtlsm;,y arydootoc;~lculatic l'l follclorsinthttOfigil'laldatoll 

(:lJ Averageiii'II'IUalemployftlent. 

SIC Code 08- Forestty 

SIC Code 24 -lumbe'! and Wood Product,; 

SIC Code 26- Paper .11rod Alhed Products 

(3)T talannu;~lp;~yroll 

(")A• e•age payroll ,. lola l pay•oll lemployment 

d :lq p\s nd base~ obs~ o bs. wb 1 

"' PayroM (J) 

ector,; SOCO& SIC 2~ 

681,001 $1,725,550 $1 72.017

703,1~9 $1 ,963,906 190 ~79 

591,140 $2.162,1159 $206.5-42

725.1$39 $2,655,387 $225.042

755 ,092 $4,49<4,188 $229,907

776 ,669 $5,317,839 $242.042

8011,742 $4,553,477 $246.004

81l,79l $4.776,779 1228.7211

1113,142 $3,638,767 $225,44-4
SIERRA NEVADA TIMBER EMPLOYMENT & PAYROLL DATA 

Total Sierra Nevada Employm~l and Payroll Data 

The Nor1hern Region (4 Counties) llasun, Modoc, Plumas, & Slerr~) 

Calender Reporting Units (1) Employment (2) 

Year SIC08 SIC 24 SIC26 SICOB SIC24 SIC 26 

1984 5 64 0 23 1,883 

19SS 6 58 0 37 1,828 

1986 6 61 0 35 1,847 

1987 11 78 0 39 1.930 

1988 12 72 0 47 1,912 

1989 9 71 0 53 1,988 

1990 10 67 0 67 1.864 

1991 9 70 0 49 1,559 

1992 8 70 0 40 1,575 

Sovrces lifotn~a Employment Development Department (EOO) 

Employment and PayroH Oata for Selected Counties 

Footnotes (1) Average number of es1ablishments reporting data to EOO. 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

Total %of All 

Timber Sedors 

1,905 10.97% 

1,865 10.68% 

1.882 11.66% 

1,970 12.16% 

1,959 11 .69% 

2,041 11 .66% 

1.931 10.87% 

1,608 9.04% 

1,615 878% 

Report~ng units may be less than 1 on an annual basis due to seasonal flvctuations. 

Cumulative figures may vary due to calculation factors in the original dala 

(2) Average annual employment.. 

SIC Code 08 - Forestry 

SIC Code 24 - lumber and Wood Produds 

SIC Code 26 - Paper and Allied Ptoducts 

(3) T alai annual payroll. 

(4) Average payroll = total payron I employmenl. 

iP. t. . ~ai'~ :J ~i. ~ 

All 

Sectors srcoa 

17,361 $464,43

17.467 $643,11

15,841 1630,50

16,194 $647,67

16.755 $795,90

17.509 $901 ,25

17,764 $1 ,468,97

17.791 51,355,86

18,380 $1 .037.76
SltHAA NtVAUA ltt.lt:RK t:.M~LU:Mt:.NI & t'Ari ULL UAIA 

Tolal Sierra Ne ... ada Emoloymenf and Payroll D-ln 

The Central/Southern Reg ion (13 Counties) /A;j;ine, Ama-Jor, C<:Li! ... eras, El Dorado, Fresno, ~<tr. . ~')der a, Mariposa, N

Calender Reporting Units (1) F.mplovme..,t(2) 

Year SIC OS SIC 24 SIC 26 SIC08 SIC 24 

1984 29 

"'' 19 131 6,058 1965 33 252 21 

"' 6 ,849 

19!!6 32 265 20 1<9 7,146 

1967 52 369 21 196 7,645 

1968 5< 379 

" "' 7,725 

1989 ... 367 

" 261 8,258 

1990 .. 366 21 2<9 7,998 

1991 51 

'" 32 216 7,287 

1992 56 <06 

" 173 6,764 

Sources California Employment Development Department (EDD) 

Employment and Payroll Data lor Selected Counties 

SIC 26 

025 

1,116 

1,123 

1,262 

1,195 

1,203 

1.7W 

1,691 

1,881 

Footnotes (1 ) Average n~mber ol establishments reporting della to EDD 

Total %of All 

Timber Sectors 

7,01. 1.05% 

8 ,112 1.18".4 

8 ,418 1.25".4 

9,103 1.28% 

9,167 1.24•,4 

9,741 1.28% 

10,047 1.27"4 

9,194 1.16% 

8,818 1.11 % 

Reponing units may be less than 1 on an annual b.asit; due lo seaSIJnal nuctualions. 

Curnulatwe ligUfes may vary due to calc.ulalioo lac;lcN"S in the: original dala. 

(2) Average annual employmenl . 

SIC Code 08- Forestry 

SIC Code 24 •• Lumber and Wood Products 

SIC Code 26- Paper and Allied Products 

(3)Total annual payroll 

(4)Averagepayroll=tolalpayrolllempjoyment 

JJI Payro

Sectors SIC08 S

669,6-46 $1 ,241 ,1141 S126

665,683 $1 ,320,791 $143

675,299 $1 ,532,354 $158

709,.U6 $2,007,714 $172

738,337 $3.698.288 $177

759,160 $4,416.581 $18 7

790,978 $3,08-4,502 $193 

796,002 $3,420,913 $182

794,762 .$2,601,006 $177
Calilomia Ti mber Harvest by County 

County El Dorado 

Statewide Statewide Percent of 

Calender Harvest Value Volume Total Pmcent Percent Public Private Voluc 

Year (NctMBF) {$) (NetMBF} _ Volume Public Private Harvest Harvest {$) 

1978 4,343 726 $682.051,000 180,303 415':' 37.80% 62 .:20% 68,155 112,1 48 $18,667_

1979 3,9 13,663 $742,697.000 151.608 Jan 42.10% 57.90% 63,627 67 ,761 $1 6,965

1980 3,090.956 $565.756.000 150.676 4.87o/ 39 70% 6030% 59,818 90.658 $17 ,033

1981 2,671,849 $493,078,000 150, 197 5.62° 35.60% 64 40% 53,470 96. 727 $ 17,520

1962 2.3 19.094 $296,117 ,000 129,623 559% 35.30% 64.70% 45,757 83.866 $7 ,4 70

1983 3.351.604 $400. 51 3,000 144,801 4.31 'Y< 43 70% 5630% 63.278 81.523 $12.372 

198.! 3.441 .281 $439,511,978 135.992 3.95, 45 89% 54.11 % 62,407 73.585 $ 12.129

1965 3.8 12.944 $400.249. 176 222.959 585~ 47.4 1% 52.59% 105,7051 11 7.254 $ 15.259

1966 4.143.9 19 $465_560.548 293.425 7.06% 44 .B6o/o 55.14% 

~; :: : 161.795 $21 .777

1967 4,500.199 $572.097 .909 229572 5.10, 5992% 40.08% 92.012 $20.672

1988 4,667 .771 $680,140.145 223.741 • . 79% 51 .44% 48.56% 115 092 ~ 108.649 $23.252

1969 4.429,845 $775.071,380 274.640 6 20% 5521% 44 .79% 151 ,629 ', 123.011 $28.914

199() 4.026 ,1 93 $900,310,71 2 326.548 8 11 '7' 46 .48% 5 1.52% 158,310, 168,238 $49,215

1991 3, 185,510 $669,149,092 \94 ,278 610% 5847% 41 .53% 113,594--,: 60.68< $30,938

1992 2.973. 491 $907.213,745 152,350 512% 54. 33% 45 .67% 82,772[ 69.578 $34,102

Source Stole of California. Board of Equalita!Jon 

Tmbe i r Tax Division 

YTHR2 Report YT-36 

Foo1no\cs: 
~ ~~ r~ ~~ 

~ ~' ~ ;r ~· ;;-= 

166 

j ' 
Calilomia Timber Harvest by County 

County : Pl•c•r 

Co 

1D 

1D 

~~ 

~ 

~ 

m 

m 

m 

1~ 

1~ 

·~ 1~ 

·= 

1~ 

~ 

nde• 

'" 

Slatcwide 

Harvest 

(Nc!MBF) 

4,343.726 

3,913.663 

3,090.956 

2.671,849 

2.319,094 

3.357,804 

3.441.281 

3.812.94 4 

4.143,919 

4.500,199 

4.66 7,771 

4,429,845 

4,026,193 

3.185,610 

2.973.491 

Slalewide 

Value 

1$1 

$662.051,000 

$742,697,000 

$565.756,000 

$493,078.000 

$296,117,000 

$400,513.000 

$439.511 ,978 

$400.249,176 

$465.560.546 

$572,097,909 

$680,1 40.145 

$776,071.380 

$900,310,712 

$669,149,09'2 

$907,213,745 

Volume 

NctMBF} 

118,977 

134,651 

81,871 

83.259 

35,902 

80.822 

68,239 

77 ,505 

74 ,612 

107,579 

120,415 

124.807 

174,420 

124,769 

109.291 

Source: State ol Califomie_ Board ol Equalization 

r rmber Tax Divisk>n 

YTHR2 Report YT-36 

Footnotes 

Pcrcenl o f 

Total Percenl Percent Public 

Volume Public Prtvale Hat'Wist 

2.74% NA NA NA 

3.44% NA NA NA 

2.65" NA NA NA 

312% NA NA NA 

1.55 NA NA NA 

2.41> NA NA NA 

1.98 5895% 41 .05% 40,227 

203 4006% 59.94% 31 ,049 

1 " "' 6580% 34.20% 49,095 

2.39> 55.58% 44 .42% 59.792 

258% 28 .76% 71.22% 34,655 

282% 31 .08% 68.92'X. 38,790 

433% 18.06% 81.94% 31 ,500 

392% 32.09% 67.91% 40,038 

3.68% 15.43% 8-4 _57% 16,864 

Private V~uo 

Harvesl IS) 

NA $17 ,774

NA $22,122

NA $11.424

NA $14 ,789

NA $3,068

NA $9,809

28,0 12 $6.102

46,456 $6,642

25 ,51 7 $7,071 

47 ,767 $12,087

65,760 $18,1 42

86,017 $23,567

142,920 $33,965

84,731 $23,68

92,427 $34 ,297
... ~ ~~ 

~~ ~"' 

.. " •• 

168 
Prinldate : 1 OJAN95 

Sierra Nevada (17 County) Region: U.S. Forest Service Payments to Counties (1) (2} 

National 1976 1977 1978 1979 

Count:i Forest Pa;tment Pa:iment Pa:t_ment Payment 

Alpine Eldorado $140,716 $207,703 $239,392 $278,173 

Stanislaus $186,812 $577,587 $569,678 $412,369 

Toiyabe $1,952 $17,892 $11,886 $12,019 

County Total $329,481 $803,182 $820,956 $702,561 

Amador Eldorado $204,050 $301,186 $347,988 $409,056 

County Total $204,050 $301 ,186 $347 ,988 $409,056 

Calaveras Stanislaus $133,291 $411 ,541 $405,796 $293,719 

County Total $133,291 $411,541 $405,796 $293,719 

ElDorado Eldorado $1 ,281,189 $1 ,891 ,708 $2,178,627 $2,558,280 

Tahoe NA NA NA NA 

Toiyabe $0 $3 $2 $2 

County Total $1,281 ,190 $1 ,891 ,711 $2,178,628 $2,558,282 

Fresno In yo $2 $6 $8 $18 

Sequoia $84,752 $129,448 $144,055 $213,054 

Sierra $694,903 $1,791,115 $1,977,848 $2,458,752 

County Total $779,657 $1,920,569 $2,121,911 $2,671,824 

Kern Los Padres $302 $2 ,100 $2,419 $2,482 

Sequoia $186,965 $285 ,566 $317,787 $469,868 

County Total $187,267 $287,666 $320,206 $472,350 

Lassen Lassen $1 ,053 ,833 $2,432 ,342 $2,272,679 $1,768 ,374 

Modoc $32 ,807 $158 ,259 $345,208 $326 ,913 

Plumas $34 ,948 $140,428 $125,722 $151,413 

Toiyabe $12 $107 $71 $72 

County Total $1 ,121 ,599 $2,731 ,136 $2,743,681 $2,246,772 

Madera In yo $1 ,628 $5,893 $7,692 $17,251 

Sierra $290,012 $750,239 $828,621 $1,030,367 

County Total $291,640 $756,132 $836,313 $1,047,619 

Mariposa Sierra $73,646 $189,841 $207,097 $257,294 

d:\qpl.sndbase\25%fund\paymenls.wb1 
Printdate: 1 OJAN95 

1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 

11ent Pa~m nt Pa:tment Pay:ment Pay:ment a~ t 

$231 ,292 $148 ,851 $303,788 $332,935 $345,870 $433,385 

$282 ,982 $291,877 $241.554 $488,947 $639,504 $553,724 

$16,411 $15.917 $16,479 $13,470 $20,609 $21,540 

$530,685 $456,644 $561,821 $835,351 $1 ,005,984 $1 ,008,650 

$340,118 $218,887 $446,723 $489,584 $508,608 $637.298 

$340,118 $218.887 $446,723 $489,584 $508,606 $637,298 

$198,183 $201 ,526 $166,774 $337,408 $441 .304 $382,109 

$198,183 $201,526 $166,774 $337 ,408 $441,304 $382,109 

$2.136,975 $1 ,379.647 $2,815.352 $3,087,209 $3,213,879 $4.028,929 

$14 $9 $9 $15 $1 8 $16 

$2 $2 $2 $2 $3 $3 

$2,136,991 $1 .379,658 $2,815,364 $3,087,226 $3,213,900 $4,028.947 

$21 $24 $25 $18 $22 $27 

$78,422 $114 441 , $180,334 $122,734 $125,372 $140,114 

$1 ,121,952 $1 .275.118 $1 ,744,520 $1 ,665,516 $1,988,573 $3 ,022,126 

$1 ,200,395 $1 ,389,583 $1 .924,879 $1 ,788,268 $2,1 13,967 $3,162,267 

$4 ,778 $4 ,763 $4 .257 $5 ,385 $6,011 $5,832 

$177,036 $258,346 $407,218 $277,151 $283,108 $316,398 

$181 ,814 $263,108 $411.475 $282,536 $289,119 $322,230 

$3,474 .952 $2,428.459 $4 ,143,802 $3,796,679 $2,807,687 $3,647,376 

$133,389 $160,666 $172 ,696 $332,276 $297,040 $304,500 

$198,608 $96 751 , $218,298 $151,720 $269,314 $224,335 

$98 $95 $99 $80 $122 $127 

$3,807,048 $2 ,685,971 $4,534,895 $4 ,280,756 $3 ,374,163 $4,176,338 

$19,480 $23,083 $23,789 $16,931 $20,866 $25,995 

$470,005 $534,169 $731 ,141 $697,833 $833,177 $1,266,207 

$489,485 $557,252 $754 ,929 $714,764 $854,043 $1,292,202 

$117,442 $133,497 $182,642 $174,361 $21 1,246 $321,040 

d:\qp\sndbase\25%fund\payments.wb1 
Printdate: 1 OJAN95 

Stanislaus $132,430 $409,446 $403,892 $291 ,540 

County Total $206,076 $599,287 $610 ,989 $548,834 

Modoc Modoc $306,426 $1,477 ,292 $3,223,959 $3,053,100 

Shasta $3,263 $13,460 $17,276 $15,435 

County Total $309,688 $1,490,753 $3 ,241,235 $3,068,535 

Nevada Tahoe $162,616 $532,668 $447,536 $527,961 

Toiyabe $23 $208 $136 $140 

County Total $162,640 $532,696 $447,674 $526,101 

Placer Eldorado $122 ,613 $161,261 $208,661 $247,847 

Ta hoe $263,201 $864,478 $726,492 $671,063 

County Total $386,014 $1 ,045,760 $937,173 $1 '116,930 

Plumas Lassen $373,667 $662,735 $606,124 $627,229 

Plumas $944 ,511 $3,794 ,209 $3,391,104 $4,090,866 

Ta hoe $11 ,250 $37 605 , $31,577 $36,917 

County Total $1 ,329,646 $4,694,549 $4 ,228,805 $4 ,755 ,034 

Sierra Pluma s $36,090 $153,055 $136,240 $166 ,215 

Tahoe $309,233 $1,157,636 $969,661 $1,141,690 

Toiyabe $244 $2,232 $1,526 $1 ,543 

County Total $347,567 $1,312,925 $1 ,107,447 $1,3 11 .446 

Tulare In yo $6,565 $23,360 $26,056 $62,918 

Sequoia $457,071 $699,261 $779,760 $1,128,676 

County Total $463,636 $722,642 $607,616 $1 '191 ,794 

Toulumne Stanislaus $953 ,658 $2,949 ,686 $2,909,540 $2,103,346 

Calaveras Bigtree $0 $0 $0 $0 

County Total $953 ,656 $2,949 ,866 $2,909,540 $2,103 ,346 

Yuba Plumas $34,446 $136,420 $122,240 $147,440 

Tahoe $19,501 $66,037 $56,602 $66,877 

County Total $53,949 $206,457 $179,041 $214,317 

Region Total: $6,066,722 $20,634,627 $20,556,291 $21,645,886 

d:\qp\sndbase\25%fund\payments.wb1 
Prinldale: 10JAN95 

$199,419 $205,784 $170,303 $344,722 $450,869 $390,369 

$316,860 $339,281 $352,945 $519,083 $662,115 $711,409 

$1 ,248 ,730 $1 ,503,997 $1 ,616 ,605 $2,930,467 $2,619 ,705 $2,685,501 

$7 .646 $13,330 $14 ,506 $11,086 $15,841 $10,000 

$1 ,256,376 $1 ,517,327 $1 ,631,111 $2,941,553 $2,635,546 $2,695,500 

$730,538 $469 ,291 $526,300 $834,712 $1 ,022,796 $874,483 

$191 $185 $192 $157 $238 $247 

$730,729 $469,477 $526,492 $834,868 $1 ,023,033 $874,730 

$214 .029 $137,741 $281 ,114 $308,085 $320,055 $401 ,038 

$1 ,231 .693 $792,246 $652,995 $1 ,353,867 $1 ,659,727 $1 ,420,100 

$1 ,445,722 $929,987 $1 ,134,109 $1 ,661,952 $1,979,782 $1 ,821 ,139 

$1 .232,540 $861 ,356 $1 ,469,776 $1 ,324,422 $978,898 $1 ,271 ,655 

$5,388,386 $2,625,284 $5,965,360 $4,149,804 $7,367,379 $6,140,719 

$51.002 $32,763 $35,221 $55,860 $68,448 $58,523 

$6,671 .928 $3,519 ,403 $7,470 ,356 $5 ,530,085 $8 ,414,725 $7,470 ,898 

$220,648 $107,488 $242,523 $168,557 $299,201 $249,229 

$1 ,577.123 $1 ,013,131 $1 .097,605 $1 ,740,802 $2,133,104 $1 ,823,810 

~.!.lUQ )~ U4J :)iL:,11!) $1 ,726 $2,621 $2,725 

$1 ,799,878 $1 ,122,662 $1 ,342,244 $1 ,911 ,085 $2,434,926 $2,075,765 

$71 ,061 $84 ,206 $86,919 $61 ,836 $76,206 $94,941 

$420.284 $611,846 $964,248 $656,299 $670,404 $749,231 

$491 ,345 $696 ,052 $1 ,051 ,166 $718,135 $746,610 $844,173 

$1 ,444,004 $1 ,490,048 $1,233,184 $2,496,162 $3,266,582 $2,828,415 

so $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 

$1 ,444 ,004 $1,490,048 $1 ,233,184 $2,496,162 $3,266,582 $2 ,828,415 

$132,267 $64 ,433 $145,380 $101 ,041 $179,355 $149,400 

$92,393 $59,353 $63 ,305 $100,402 $123,029 $105,190 

$224 ,660 $123,786 $208,685 $201 ,443 $302,384 $254,590 

$21 ,279.116 $15,373,849 $24,409,550 $24,853,840 $29,608,209 $31 ,016,429 

d:\qp\sndbase\25°/o fund\paymen!s.wb1 
173 

Contribution of Federal Forest Reserve Funds to the Financing of County Schools (1) 

Fiscal Years 1989- 1993 (2) 

County: ELDORADO 

Cat ego~ 1988/89 1989/90 1990/91 1991 /92 

Revenues 

Total $106,282,937 $114,793,784 $126.591,724 $133,013,658 

Federal $6,499,117 $5,386,090 $8,048,816 $8,395,097 

%of Total 6.11 % 4.69% 6.36% 6.31% 

Forest Reserve Fund (1) $1 ,606,950 so $1,976,180 $1 ,902,874 

%of Total 51% 0.00% 1.56% 1.43% 

% ol Federal 24.73% 0.00% 24.55% 22.67% 

Other Federal Funds (3) $4,892,167 $5,386,090 $6.072,636 $6,492,223 

o/o of Total 4.60% 4.69% 4.80% 4.88% 

%of Federal 75.27% 100.00% 75.45% 77.33% 

Expenditures 

Total $106,155,753 $115,134,387 $133,641,775 $140,105,402 

Forest Reserve Fund (4) $1,369,383 $0 so so %of Total 1.29% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 

Fund Balance 

Total $31,325,636 $31 ,033,181 $31,756,809 $29,024,052 

Forest Reserve Fund (5) $24,455 so $21,873 $27,488 

% o!Total 0.08% 0.00% 0.07% 

Source: Information presented here derived from data provided by State of California, Department of Education, 

School Business Services Division, June, 1994. 

Notes: 

(1) Pursuant to the Forest Re~rve Revenue Act of 1908 ( 35 Stat. 251) , the Forest Service is required to retum 

25 percent of the q ualifying gross annual timber sale receipts from the national forests to counties on the basis 

of the amount of national forest acreage within the county. Under Ca!ifornia law, one-half of the payment must 

be used for schools and the other one-half for roods. All of the data in t11is table refers to the one-half of the 

payment that is designated for use by schools. 

(2) California fiscal years run July 1 through June 30. For example, FY 1987/88 ran July 1, 1987 through 

June 30. 1988. Forest Reserve Fund Revenues shown for each fiscal year in this table may not be equal to 

payments made to counties as reported by the U.S. Forest Service. Any discrepancy is due to : (i) the USFS 

accounts lor payments made to counties on a federal fi3eal yeor ba:sis (Oct. 1 · Sept. 30) ; end. (ii) this table only 

nclude~ thot portion of payment::; modo by USFS designated lor use by county schools 

(3) Other federal revenues may Jl"clude lunds provided for maintenance and operation. school construction, 

0.09% 

and child nutritiOn programs. In addition. those revenues may include drug/alcohol/tobacco funds, special education 

entitlements and grants, flood control funds, wildlife reserve funds, and other funds. Finally, these revenues may 

include funds derived from implementation of tho following federal acts: Ed ucation Professional Dovolopmont Act, 

Economcc Opportunity Act. ECIAJESEA, Joint Trointng Partner.;hip Act, and the Vocatronal Education Act. 

(4) tt is not possible to accurately determine what portion of the Forest Reserve Revenue Funds ore actually expended 

in each year. The number.~ shown in !hi$ tabla assume that all Forest RcseNc Revenue Funds distributed to 

individual dtstricts ond the County School Services Fund were spent in the year distributed. 

(5) Includes Forest Service Reserve Funds (i) designeted for economic uncertainties: (ii) designated for d istrict · 

93-189 0 - 95 - 7 

1992/93 

$136,567.497 

$9, 153,416 

6.70% 

$1 ,907,683 

1.40% 

20.84% 

$7,245,733 

5.31% 

79.16% 

$1 41 ,240,332 

$1,594,855 

1.13% 

$37,031,472 

$12,914 

0.03% 
Payments In Lieu of Taxes (PILT) 

County El Dorado 

~iscal FS Other Total Prior Year 

Yeor (t) __ Acres_(2) Acres (2,3) ACieS (2) ray_~~(4)~ opul~_s:~~l1ng 

t 969 494,179 34 ,575 526,754 $1,543,746 50,000 $ 1,000,000 

1990 494,406 34 ,495 528,901 $1,607,097 50,000 $1,000,000 

1991 495.0 10 34,455 529,465 $2,014,638 50,000 $1,000,000 

1992 495,546 34, 455 530,003 $1,976,318 50,000 $1,000,000 

1993 495,574 34,455 530 029 $1,903,046 50,000 $1,000,000 

So ur cos In L1 eu Tax Payments to Local Units Govt -· PL 97-258 As Amended (USC 6901) , 

United States Burenu of Land Management, Denver CO 

Foo! flO!cs : (1) Federal fiscal yenr runs Oct. \through Sept. 30 

(2) 1 hese acreages are "entit lement acreage~ for the purposes of calculated PILT payments 

(3) lncludos BLM, BuRoc, NPS, Army, COE, and FWS lands 

(4) Helers to payments from the Forest Service 25 percent fund & other Federal payments. 

(5) Based on ($0.75 X eligible acres)· previous year's Federal payments. 

(6) Rased on $0 10 X eligible acreage. 

Alt. A (5)__ ___ A it B. (6) 

$0 $52,875 

$0 $52,890 

$0 $52,947 

$0 $53,000 

$0 $53,003 
California Timber Harvest by County 

County : El Dorado 

Statewide Statewide 

Calender Harvest Value Volume 

Year (NeiMBF) ($) (NeiMBF) 

1978 4,343,726 $682.051 ,000 180,303 

1979 3.913,663 $742,697,000 151 ,608 

1980 3,090,956 $565,756,000 150,676 

1981 2,671,849 $493,078,000 150,197 

1982 2,319,094 $296,117,000 129,623 

1983 3,357,804 $400,513,000 144,801 

1984 3,441 ,281 $439,511 ,978 135,992 

1985 3,812.944 $400,249,176 222,959 

1986 4,143,919 $465,560,548 293,425 

1987 4,500,199 $572,097,909 229,572 

1988 4,667,771 $680,140,145 223,741 

1989 4,429,845 $776,071,380 274,640 

1990 4,026,193 $900,310.712 326,548 

1991 3,185,610 $669,149,092 194,278 

1992 2,973 491 , $907.213,745 152,350 

Source : State of California. Board of Equalization 

nmber Tax Division 

YTHR2 Report YT -36 

Footnotes: 

Percent of 

Total Percent Percent 

Volume Public Private 

15~ 37.80% 62.20% 

87~ 42.10% 57.90% 

87~ 39.70% 60.30% 

~ 35.60% 64.40% 

59~ 35.30% 64.70% 

31~ 43.70% 56.30% 

95~ 45.89% 54.11% 

85~ 47.41% 52.59% 

08~ 44.86% 55.14% 

10~ 59.92% 40.08%. 

79~ 51.44% 48.56% 

20~ 55.21% 44.79% 

11 ~ 48.48% 51.52% 

10~ 58.47% 41.53% 

1~ 54.33% 45.67% 

Perce

Public Private Value To

Harvest Harvest ($) Va

68,155 112,148 $18,667,000 2

63,827 87,781 $I 6,965,000 2

59,818 90,858 $17,033,000 3

53,470 96,727 $17,520,000 3

45,757 83,866 $7,470,000 2

63,278 81 ,523 $12,372,000 3

62,407 73,585 $12,129,417 2

105,705 117,254 $15,259,865 3

131 ,630 161 ,795 $21 ,777,160 4

137,560 92,012 $20,872,311 3

115,092 108,649 $23,252,508 3

151,629 123,011 $28,914,896 3

158,310 168,238 $49,215,704 5

113,594 80,684 $30,938,814 4

82,772 69,578 $34,102,867 3
77-te. S!tcn:t_ ~YJe-A.J1o L?u.s,:AJess _) ou.rNt~-\ 

'Streetwise: Weekly small-busines~feature debuts 

VOLUME 11, NUMBER 31 WEEK OF OCTOBER 24, 1994 

Lumber stabilizes, but worries 

By LYNN GRAEBNER 

For the first time since 1987, lumber 

production in the 12 Western states is 

expected to increase this year. 

It's a modest gain of 0.2 percen~ but it's 

being taken as a sign that a seven·year, 29 

percent slide in production - and a 101 

percent explosion in the price of lumber 

-may have reached their limits. 

Despite logging restrictions on state 

and federal forest lands, lumber mills have 

managed to fill orders with timber from 

private land. To a lesser extent, lumber 

imports and the use of alternative wood 

products also have bridged the gap. Logging on private land, however, is 

occurring at far too fast a pace, experts 

believe. That could trigger stronger gov· 

ernment regulation of private timber 

sales. 

While many small lumber companies 

have closed, the skyrocketing price of 

lumber has helped some of the large, surPlease tum to page 34 For alx yea,., lumber production allpped dr~~mlltlcalr
I'A<it:::W 1

111't:.I;J\ Ut' UI..JVL>CJo::~'• I~Jt 

Lumber production stops falling, price

Cor.tinucdhtn~l 

viving comp3Jlies to post record earnings 

this year, analysts said. This yea r's expected 0.2 percent 

increase in Western state lumber production is a substantial improvement over the 

lOpercent decrease la.<;t year, reported the 

Western Wood Products Association in 

Portland, Ore. 

But how long mills wiD be able to main· tain current production levels remains to 

be seen, said Butch Bemhan:lt Jr., director of communications for Western Wood. The organization predicts a 4 percent 

decline in prOOuction next year. 

"You can only puU the rabbit out of the 

hat so many times," Bernhardt said. 

While logging restrictions to preserve 

wildlife habitat have caused many lumber 

companies over the yean; to depend more 

heavily on their o'WT'I timber s upplies and 

less on public forests, the logging of private forests has escalated. 

Many loggc~ recently have gone door 

to door looking for trees on private land, 

said Gil Mumty, president of the Califor· 

nia Forestry Association in Sacramento. 

'They all rushed out reaJ scared this 

spring and bought up every stick they 

could find," he !;aid. Now they are flush 

with timber, and prices arc flat, he said. 

AJthough there arc no hard statistics 

available on how much timber has been 

logged on private-, nonindustria l lands, 

mos! observers believe they are being cut 

at an unsustainable level, said anal)'st 

Evatlna Lynn, who studies paper and for· 

est products for Dean 'Witter Reynolds in 

New York. Some arc estimating that trees on these 

properties are being cut at a rate 40 percent over su~taincd yield levels, and that 

by 1996 and 1997 those supplies will probably run out, she said. 

Sustained )'icld is a rate of logging that allows new tree gro.,.,th to replace the 

amount harvested. 

Increasingly, Canada is a sourc<' of 

wood use"d in the United States. Historically, wood from Canarla has made up about 

30 percent of the U.S. consumption. This 

year it accounts for about 33 percent of 

total use and 98 percent of the nation's it>1fV\I"'I"rl lumhrr T \' 01'1 ~1 irt 011rinrr thP 

first half of 1994, however. imports from the first nine mon

Canada increased 13 percent, she said. dramatic as the th

And while more wood is coming in, less still impressive. 

is leaving the coWltry. Log uports have Louisiana-Pacific r

dropped by halt over the last five years. S262.2 million, or S

Bernhardt said. sales of S2.29 billio

A tighter supply has meant much income of Sl94.9 

higher prices. share, on oet sales 

While the price of construction lumber previous year. Nin

leveled out this year, it had zoomed year already sur

upward since 1987, when suppty began to record full-year ear

fall. ln Caliromia, Lou

In 1987, 1,000 board-feet of Douglas fir, in Willits, Sonoma. 

which is used to frame houses, sold for Big Lagoon, near E

~on av~~e ~the 12 Western states. product~ facilities i

This year its gomg !or $478, Bernhardt ta. Orovt~le arc~ Red 

reported. Geo gm-Pacific h

. Lynn predicts lumbe r pric~s will its opera~g profiL

mcrcase .only .abo~t 3 pe~nt. th1s year, ~u~stn the past 

but thcyre still hJgh, havtng JUmped 41 'While we expe

perc~ntjust last year. . tions in building pro

Prices for the raw.product, ti~bcr .. have tenn _?ull_ook for 

also gone _up. But mcreases m firn~h cd go~. sa1d. Pete C

!umber pnces have h~d a very posttrve ~h~ef exccutJVe off

tmpact on the bottom lines for some lum· tn a news release. 

bercompani_~· . . -~ Geo_~a-Pacitk r

Both Loutstana-Pactfic, based m Port· $87 milhon, or 98 c

land. Ore., and Georgia-Pacific. based in net sales of $3.28 

tlanta

G , ar~ repo:ting excellent third- quarter. ~~year 

uarte~~mgs t~us year. . .. lost S36 m1Won, o~ 

Louts ana:Pact~c had rec.o ~d ~htrd- net sales of $2.98 bi

quarter eammgs Wlth $95.1 milhon m net Most of the com

income, or 86 cents per share, on net sales and paper, which i

of$818.4 million. ~t more than do~~led eral years ofv~ry p

the company's net mcome of$41.5 rrulhon. suppty and a Stckly 

:mfon~::~':~!t:U·~r~~~1. SG2Q.4 fh~~:·p:~.~ ~e

Lynn attributes the higher net incom!J record operating p

o a combination of aggressive earnings the third Quarter v

grov.'th of about 20 percent annually, due quan~ r ol a.~t year

o reinvesonent and to the high pri<.·e or For the nine-mo

wood. - Pacific reported ne

Another fa c to r is the companYV lion, or $1.59 per 

increased production of an engineered $9.44 billion. comp

[

wood produc t called oriented strand $2 million. or 2 ce

board, from 2 billion boarMeet in 1988 to sales of$9.13 billion 

3.5 billion this year. Oriented strand board last year. 

is made by gluing pieces of young trees Lynn attributed 

together, and is used in many of the same to low pap('r pric

applications as plywood. It's a very high- high interest charg

margin. low<ost material, she said, and ratio. Increases th

now accounts for half of Louisiana-Pacif· result of increase

ic's earnings. . said. 

f!)ui~ia n,..P;u·ifir's rarninps n<TC"l'l~ for In Califomia thf> 
178 

Statement 

of 

Chris C•>nrad 

Fibreboard Corporation 

Before the 

Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and Lands 

Committee on Resources 

House of Representatives 

June 6, 1995 

Oversight on California Spotted Owl 
179 

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee , I am Chris Conrad, a registered professional 

forester employed by cl >~ rd Corporation at the Standard mill sire located near the Sierra Nevada 

community of Sonora. I am a graduate of the Uni versity of California at Berkeley's School of Forestry 

and h ave been an ac ti ve, hands-on forester for over 20 years. Before 1 get w th e de tails of my 

testimony, let me take a few minutes to tell you about Fibreboard and the kind of forestry that we 

practice. 

About Fibreboard 

Headquarrcred in Northern California , Fi breboard Corporation is a leader in the building products 

industry, manufacturing wood and vinyl products and industrial insulation. In addition, the company 

owns and operates two California resorts: Northstar-at-T ahoe , an all season ski and golf resort and 

conference center, and Sicrra-ar-Tahoc, a day ski facility. 

Fibreboard Wood Products Company- a wholly owned subs di~ ry of Fi breboard Corporation-is a 

fully-imegrated manufa cturer of lumber, hardwood plywood, moulding, millwork, and other wood 

products. 1l1ese facilities rely upon a continuous fl ow of wood grown, harvested, and replenished in 

the public and private forests of the central Sierra Nevada Mountains. A portion of our wood supply 

comes from selecriw harvest of rhe 80,000 acres of healthy, productive forests which Fibreboard owns 

in the Sierra Mountains. 

Fibreboard's private woodl ands are a perpetual source of raw material for the many products which 

our society demands while mee ting a full -range of diverse resource and wildlife needs. It is true that 

o ur forest lands arc managed intensively for wood products. However, our experi enced staff of 

forestry professionals also protect streams, conserve the soil, and nurture the many plant and animal 

species which thrive in our forests. 

Historically, many of the trees which Fi breboa rd transforms into products for famili es in California 

an d elsewhere have originated on nati onal forest lands. Over the years, approximatel y 60 to 70 

percent of Fibreboard's raw material supply has come from the Stanislaus National Forest. Recentl y, 

U.S. Forest n~ce (USFS) forest protecti on , timber man agement, and other vi tal programs have 

ground [0 a halt. As a consequence, \o\1C have had w obtain tirnbe r from ahcn1are sources, some titnes 

going extranrdinary distances tc> secure those trees. 

A Rich Historical Heritage 

Fibreboard is a company -with a long and proud history in the forest products business. We trace our 

roots back w the post-Californi a Gold Rush days of the last century. Our primary sawmill, at 

Standard, in T uolunme Cuunry, has been in operation since 1920. (The mill has been upda ted many 

Statwment of Fibreboard Corpoi'"Oltion - Page I 
u:o 

rimes and is modem and efficient.) The fcc timber lands which we own and manage were once part 

of the Standard and Westside Lumber Company holdings. The Westside lands supported one of the 

most famous narrow gauge logging railroads in the western states. 

Fibreboard's Forest Management: An Eye to the Future 

While we are justifiably proud of our rich historical herirnge, Fibreboard is also a company that is 

mindful of our obligations ro future generations. We manage our forests for the long-tern1 using the 

following principles: 

0 We will sustain and improve the health and vigor of our forests and related resources. 

0 We will maintain a diverse mosaic of conrinu::Jus forest cover across the landscape we manage 

through application of selective timber harvesting techniques. 

0 We will promptly reforest timber lands damaged by fire, insec ts, or other natural disasters. 

0 We will maintain timber land productivity a the highest possible level consistent with other 

resource management needs. 

0 We will balance timber harvests (removals) Hith growth to assure a sustainable flow of forest 

products and to reduce fuel loads and the potent al for .<tand-descroying fires. 

Operational Details 

To implement these forestry principles, Fibreboar:l operates on our land as follows: 

0 All timber harvests are planned and supervised by professional foresters licensed by the state of 

California. 

0 Harvesting activities (performed by contract !oglers) are supervised by Fibreboard and monitored 

by the State of California to assure complian" with the Nation's strictest forest practice rules. 

0 Individual and group tree selection timber harvest methods are applied to all timber lands except 

those needing rehabilitation. We selectively remc•vc trees on some 8,000 acres per year. Areas are 

ready for reentry every ten years. 

0 We maintain and remeasure 350 permanent inventory plots to help us determine how much 

wood we are growing and how much we can h< rvest. Eighty percent of these plots have been in 

place for more than 30 years. 

Statement of Fibreboard Corporation- Patte 2 
181 

A Solid Record of Results 

Mr. Chairman, we are very proud of the results we have achieved: 

0 The timber inventory on our forest lands is approximately the same today as it was in 1977. Over that 

period of time, some 630 million board feet of timber was harvested. 

0 Since 1973, we have planted over three million seedlings in our rehabilitation and stewardship 

effortS. As part of this program, over 9,000 acres destroyed by fire have been reestablished. 

0 Since 1989, we have pursued an aggressive thinning program to improve stand health and 

resistance to fire. During the last six years, we have treated in excess of 13,000 ac res. 

0 Fibreboard's forests provide habitat fo r a wide variety of wildlife species including spotted owls. 

Our surveys indicate chat densities of California spotted owls in our managed forests surpass the levels 

found on adjacent federal lands which are dominated in large areas by old-growth timber. 

California Spotted Owls and Young-Growth Forests 

Fibreboard began surveying for California spotted owls within irs forests in 1989. \Y/e have surveyed 

for owls every year since then and will be conducting another survey this year. We follow established 

scientific protocols and are confident in the data that we have ga thered. 

The majority of Fibreboard's 80,000 acres has been selectively harvested at least three times. The la st 

of the original old-growth timber was removed from most of these lands 20 to 30 years ago and 

healthy stands of young-growth predominate today. Despite the absence of old-growth, these forest 

lands have been shown, through intensive surveying work over the last five years, to be providing 

excellent habitat for the Califoroia spotted owl. 

The densities of spotted owls found in Fibreboard's young-growth stands arc greater than those being 

claimed by the Forest Service for adjacent national forest lands that are dominated in large areas by 

old-growth timber. \Y/e have approximately one occupied owl territory for every I ,000 to I ,500 acres 

of company-owned forest land. Current recognized densities on adjacent Stanislaus National Forest 

lands are approximately one occupied territory per every 2,500 acres. Nesting and roosting sites 

within the company's forests have proven to be abundant, and owl reproduction in young-growth 

timber has been shown to be high. 

Present USFS Owl Management: A Prescription for Disaster 

Professional foresters, such as myself, working for private companies know that intensive forestry and 

protection of the California spotted owl are compatible management goa ls. \Y/c have shown through 

solid field work that it is possible to have both more wood and more owls. 

Statement of Fibreboard Corporation - Page 3 
182 

As professional foresters, we arc extremely concerned aX>ut the present Forest Service policy designed 

to "protect" the owl. The current USFS management approach puts vast areas of the national forests 

off limits to timber harvest and precludes USFS fidd foresters from using the management tools 

necessary to protect these forests from catastrophic :lestruction, primarily wildfire. 

Our message to you today is blunt: the national fore,ts in the Sierra Mountains are on the verge of 

destruction. Forests that had been kept "open and park-like" in John Muir's day-through ligh t 

ground fires set by Native Americans-have grown into dense thickets of highly combustible fuel 

that can turn into raging conflagrations with a single spark. These changed conditions have been 

dramatically documented by photo-historians. I am submitting for the hearing record some of the 

incredible recent work that has been done in this rerard for the Sierras. 

The high-risk national forest stands cannot be returr.ed to an open and park-like condition simply 

through controlled burning. Controlled bums are a gcod tool in some, more open forest conditions, 

but are currently problematic in most stands given h .gh fuel loads, Clean Air Act restrictions, and 

the risk such fires pose to the private property inre:·mingled with the USFS land. Instead, forest 

thinning on a large-scale needs to be accomplished over the very short-term if these federal forest 

lands are to be spared destruction from major wildfin s. This thinning can only be done through timber 

haroesr. Unfortunately, current Forest Service policie' (designed ostensibly to "protect" the spotted 

owl) are moving our national forests in exactly rhe wrong direction, by virtually eliminating rimhcr 

removals. 

Let me give you a specific example. The USFS insti :ured the original Sported Owl Habitat Area 

(SOHA) concept in rhe early 1980s. That concept was continued through promulgation of the firstgeneration National Forest Management Act (NFMA) plans for the Sierra Nevada national forests, 

and through the California Spotted Owl (CASPO) In :erim Guidelines. As a result of these policies 

- which preclude timber removal, fire hazard reduction, and most other management activi ties 

wirhin a 1,600 ro 2,600-acre circle around known owl sites-nine of the 35 SOHA's within the 

Stanislaus National Forest have been severely damaged or tctally destroyed by fire during the last eight years. 

I am submitting for the record some photo-graphs that show what these "set-asides" for the spotted 

owl look like today. 

No Alternative Balances Growth and Removal 

Fibreboard's professional forestry team and our counteCfarts in orher companies have closely examined the alternative management plans set forth in the Cal Owl Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

(DEIS) released by the Forest Service in March 1995. if./e are amazed that none of the alternatives 

presented in the DEIS is based on the concept of removi·1g as much wood from the forests as is grown 

each year. This is a fundamental and fatal flaw in a docu:ncnt that readily admits that continued fuel 

build-ups in the Sierra Mountain forests can only "be gnored at our peril. " Only by balancing forest 

Statement of Fibreboard Corporation - Pas;e 4 
183 

growth and removal can we effectively address the fu el loading problems in the Sierras and prevent catastrophic wiklfires. 

This is an extremely simple concept, but ir is apparently a very difficult one for Forest Service 

management to embrace. Perhaps the primary problem is political. A policy to balance growth and 

removal would require admitting that contemporary national forest management direc tion has been 

misguided. For obvious reasons, the Forest Service is reluctant to carry a new and unfamiliar story 

to the Ameri can public-a public that long ago assimilated Smokey Bear into its collec ti ve 

consciousness. Compounding this political problem is the fact that the story runs contrary to what 

the average citizen has (erroneously) been led to believe by the preservationists and the media. The 

m1e story is that we have not been overcutting our national forests, but rather drastically undercutting them 

with increasingly disa.mous results. 

Again, let's use the Stanislaus National Forest as an example. The Cal Owl DEIS projec ts an annual 

allowable sale quantity (ASQ) of only 27 million board feet (mmbf)for the Stanislaus under the 

Preferred Altemative (C). Growth on the Stanislaus' capable, available, and suitable lands (those 

destined for timber production) is 160 mmbf per year, while growth on the entire forested land base 

is 320 mmbf. In other U!Ords, the Preferred Ahemative targets removal of less than I 0 percent of the annual 

grou~h on the Stanislaus National Forest. (Even Altemative 0, which has the highest timber o utputs, 

targets for removal only 62 mmbf or about one-fifth of the yearly growth.) 

By comparison, the current Stanislaus National Forest Plan set an ASQ of 88 mmbf. Annual harvest 

levels for the past 30 years have averaged approximately 130 mmbf, about 40 percent of growth. 

Given the serious imbalance berween growth and removal, it is nor surprising that the Stanislaus has 

lost some 160,000 acres ro catastrophic v.~ldfir e in the past eight years. 

For the Sierra national forests as a whole, the ASQ's projected for the va rious alternatives range from 

114 mmbf to 732 mmbf. The DElS sta tes that "annual growth is approximately 1.7 billion board 

feet. " IDEISat3-149.J 

Obviously, Forest Service officials have not looked seriously ar the concept of balancing "growth and 

removals," even though such a policy has clear advantages over the status quo. The agency's attitude 

is especially puzzling in light of the finding of their own scientists that: "the overly dense stands of 

trees and the increasing occurrence of high severity fires are highly important issues facing the 

Sierran ecosystem. All other concerns are of secondary importance. I DEIS at 3- 18, emphasis ours J 

We continue to wonder why-if all other conccms are of lesser importance-the Forest Service fails 

to address the only means of effectively dealing ~th the problem, i.e. increasing timber harvests until 

growth and removals are in balance. 

Statement of Fibreb~rd Corpor;~tion - Page 5 
184 

Other Flaws in the Cal Owl DEIS 

In fact, in order to address the huge backlog of overstOcked stands, the Forest Service should ha ve 

looked seriously at alternatives where harvests exceed growth for a peri od of time. This is a legitimate 

professional forestry approach to the extreme over;wcking problems found throughout the Sierra 

Nevada Range {and in other national forests in the \X'est) . Recently, a USFS land management planning officer on a national forest in the Sierra told me that to eliminate the runaway fuels build-up 

on national forest lands "we ought w cut more than "c are growing for the next 25 to 30 years." We 

agree, and believe that his concept should have been considered as the Forest Servi ce examined 

alternatives during the NEPA process. 

Perhaps the most glaring (and ironic) flaw in the CEIS, however, is that the Preferred Alternative 

will not provide protection for habitat of the Calih rnia spotted owl, the very species the plan is 

designed w defend. The selec ted alternative (in fact every alternative considered) guarantees that 

catastrophic fire will continue w be the major "manager" of spotted owl habitat in the Sierra Mountains. As the DEIS states, "The incidence of high-severity fire s is expected to increase as fuels 

continue to accumulate. As a result, high severity fire> are likely to eliminate large acreages of spotted 

owl habitat. .. at an increasing frequency. [DE!S at 3 ·229] As professional foresters, we submit that 

this is not acceptable national forest management. 

Mr. Chairman, as an active member of the Califom:a Licensed Foresters Association (CLFA) and 

a past member of the Board of Directors of that organization, I have attached a CLFA response to 

Janice Gauthier, leader of the DEIS team. I ask that th ~se comments be included in the record of this 

hearing. As you will see, the CLFA found numerous inadequacies with the DEIS. 

This is a National Problem of Staggering Dimensions 

National Forest System lands arc today growing ap~ oximatcl y 22 billion board feet (bbf) of wood 

annually. Current harvest is approximately 5 bbf. Nor only are we allowing 17 bbf of wood to be 

added tO the fuel loading on our national forest lands every, but we are foregoing substantia l 

revenues. I have seen one estimate that indicates nat the federal government gives up nearly a 

billion dollars in revenue each year by not selling the national ASQ. It is rhe height of irrationality 

to import lumber and other wood products from Canada, New Zealand, Chile, and elsewhere while 

our national forest lands are allowed to provide less nd less to our Nation's economy. 

1l1e members of this subcommittee are to be commen :led for taking the lead in beginning to reform 

a management system for national forest lands chat places those lands in jeopardy rather than 

ensuring that they are wisely ca red for, to protect fore;t health, local communities, and wildlife and 

contribute to the needs of our Nation. You have stated that the federal forests must be managed, 

"more like a business." We agree whole-hea rtedly. No well-managed, profit-making, private-sector 

Statement of Fibreboard Corpol"alton- Page 6 
185 

company would allow 17 billion board feet of timber growth to remain unproductive. No such 

company would allow the timber to accumulate to the point where it becomes a threa t to the forest 

itself. Nor would any of us invest in a company that would pennit such a thing to happen. 

Condusion and Recommendations 

We recommend that this committee strongly direct the Forest Service tO withdraw the California 

Spotted Owl EIS because it is scientifically inadequate and incomplete. We also recommend that the 

Forest Service take a completely new look at forest health by addressing the issue of growth and 

removals. In the interim, since the DEIS has shown that the California spotted owl populations in 

the Sierras are not in inu11ediate peril, the affected national forests should revert back to management 

under the land management plans (LMPs) in place prior to adoption of the CASPO Interim 

Guidelines. 

With respect to the Interim Guidelines, the DEIS states that under Alternative A (i. e. the Current 

LMP Alternative), "suitable spotted owl nesting, roosting, and foraging habitat would increase 8 

percent over the short term .. . " IDEIS at 2-16 1 There is clearly no risk ro the owl from suspending 

the current CASPO guidelines- which have virtually eliminated all timber sales and have, thus, 

been choking our rural communities-until Congress can enact a comprehensive, long-term forest 

health bill. 

Mr. Chairman, in conclusion let me say that the real problem facing the national forests in the Sierra 

Nevada Mountains (and elsewhere) is not providing habitat for spotted owls; the real problem is the 

health of these forests themselves. It is rime for common-sense to enter the debate. When a forest 

management system is focused on a single species--whether it be the spotted owl or something elseand it imperils that very species, the forest itself, intermingled private property, and the economies 

of!ocal communities, then there is something very wrong \vith that system. 

The forest management approach in use today on private forest lands successfully allows us to thin 

timber stands, reduce fuel loading, provide raw material for local mills and conununities, and protect 

the forest from catastrophic fire. We need to transfer this approach from the private forests to those 

owned by the federal government and entrusted to the U.S. Forest Service for management. We urge 

you ro make that happen. 

Again, our communities and our national forest lands need a long-tern1 forest health bill passed in 

the very nea r future or we are facing economic and physical disaster in the forests and rural 

conununities in the Wesr. 

Thank you for the opportunity to present this statement. ! am ready ro answer any q uestions that you 

might have. 

Statement of Fibreboard Corporation- Page 7 
May 16, 1995 

Ms. Janice Gauthier 

California Spotted Owl EIS Team Leader 

2999 Fulton Avenue 

Sacramento, Ca 95821 

Dear V.s. Gauthier: 

186 

The California Licensed Foresters Association (CLFA) represents approximately 740 licensed 

foresters and other resources professionals state\·lide. The membership consists of dedicated 

professionals employed by forest products comp·mies. state and federal agencies as well as 

private consulting foresters. 

As resource professionals, CLFA is very interest•:d in the outcome of the California Spotted Owl 

EIS. The decision will have long term impacts O\'er a very large portion of the State. Secondly, 

the effects of the final decision will be noticeable on both public and private forests and much of 

the rural population throughout the Sierras. Having reviewed the DEIS and supporting 

documents, CLF A submits the following comme.1ts. Our purpose is to bring to light critical 

issues. seek resolution to those issues and encourlge prudent management of our public lands. 

Finding: It is our determination that the purpose ~fthe DEIS is questionable. Furthermore. the 

basis for the draft is critically flawed and is lacking support from conclusive scientific evidence. 

The forest practices of the past have resulted in diverse forest conditions that are favorable to the 

Spotted Owl and a multitude of other animals. For this reason. the Spotted Owl population is 

doing well and is in good condition. The draft staes on page S-9 that, "The California Spoued 

Owl appears to be abundant and well-distributed within the foresrs on the wesr slope of rhe 

P.O. Box 1516 • Pioneer, CA 95666 • Phone/Fax (209) 293-7323 
187 

Sierra .Vevada. II is possible rharrhe uwl is more abzmdanr today in some areas oft he Sierra 

Nerada rhan in the past 100 years or prior to Euro-American selllement." Management 

practices have generally improved habitat conditions since Euro-American settlement. 

Currently, the owl enjoys a relatively even distribution. This is not only apparent on the National 

Forest but also on adjacent industrial lands being managed primarily for timber production. 

The purpose of the draft is to maintain viable populations of the California Spotted Owls. The 

document relies on the concerns listed in the technical assessment issued in 1993 in which the 

scientific team identified logging large old trees, reduction of snags and downed logs. as well as 

the danger from catastrophic fire as threats to existing habitat. However, the following quote 

indicates that there is more to the issue. "Even if one wishes to debate the status ofrhe 

California Spoiled Owl. rhere is agreement that closed-canopy, multi-storiedforesrs of large. old 

trees are in decline. This is of concern for other reasons besides the California Spoiled Owl, and 

requires a change in management direction. This forest type is home to various other species in 

addition to the Spoiled Owl". (EIS team executive surrunary 1995) 

While the maintenance of viable animal populations is mandated in the National Forest 

Management Act. the scientific team did not establish population viability as a concern in the 

Technical Assessment. [n fact. they conclude there is evidence that the Spotted Owl population 

has increased over the last I 00 years. This is due to the exclusion of fire and an increase in stand 

densities. The recent photo history conducted by George Gruell gives support to this evidence. 

The scientific team also failed to determine what a viable Spotted Owl population is. For the 

above reasons, with supporting evidence in the technical assessment, we question the scientific 

evidence that supportS the basis fo r the drastic change in management proposed. Furthermore, 

the conclusions of the technical report did not link a reduction in large trees to a decline in the 

Spotted Owl population nor did it link logging large trees with a reduction in the numbers of any 

other species. The report did conclude the following about the Owl's current status. " Tlzeir 

current disrribution and abundance. however, do n01 suggesr that they have declined either in 

their overall distriburion in the Sierra Nevada or that they have declined markedly in abundance 

lVithin any forest type. · (Verner et al 1992). Therefore. it is our conclusion on this point that the 
188 

management changes proposed in this document are unwarranted and based on speculative 

conclusions interpreted from the technical assessment. 

Finding: The DEIS only gives token consideration to the increasing risk of catastrophic fire 

which will result in reduced biological diversiry over ti :ne, continued loss of productive 

timberland and Spotted Owl habitat. 

The potential for catastrophic wildfire has become a ve:-y real problem facing the Sierra Nevada 

land managers today. Past policies which excluded fire from the forest, have created an 

abnormal buildup of forest fuels. 1l1is is recognized in the draft EIS. "Fire exclusion practices 

are creating forest conditions that most likely will lead ~o large high-severity fires, as 

experien;:ed during the past five years. " (3-66) Early i 1 the process, this critical issue was 

identified as a primary concern in providing for the lon1; term viability of the owl. A summary of 

the ecological support team workshop makes this statement. " The general consensus of the 

workshop participants was that the overly dense stands of trees and the increasing occurrence of 

high severity fires are highly important issues f acing thf Sierran ecosystems. All other concerns 

are of secondary importance(J-18). " The seriousness o:'fire risk is reiterated on page 3-232 

under Spotted Owl Habitat. "The risk of high severity ji·es is a primary concern in evaluating 

Spoued Owl management srrategies." 

However, after reviewing the DEIS, it's quite evident that this issue has been given only token 

consideration and almost ignored completely in the development of alternatives. It is clear that 

very low level of fuels treatment proposed under Alteme.tive C will fall far short of significantly 

reducing the fire hazard and meeting the goals of the draft. 

The zoned approach selected in Alternative C will only t.ggravate the potential for large. 

catastrophic fires. Under this approach. no silvicultural treatment will be allowed in the lower 

third of all drainages. As stated in the OEIS. " There wiU be no scheduled timber harvest or 

sa/rage of endemic mortality. ··r S-6). 1l1e result of this hands off approach will be increasing 

deveiopment of fuel ladders. heavy canopy closure. and increasing number of snags, downed 
189 

wood and a greater potential for habitat loss. "This increase in dead and down marerial indicares 

thar fire inrensiries. }ire size and fire suppression difficulty would increase under rhis alternarive 

over time. ·· (3-87j. 

In the Riparian Zone. the prohibition of salvage of dead and dying trees and the resulting 

continued fuel accumulation is a recipe for loss of all important habitat elements in the zone to 

catastrophic wildfire. One biologist on the DEIS team naively states, "Riparian areas can also 

acl as wildlife refuges during wildfire and are ojien the firs/ areas occupied by wildlife after 

stand-replacing fires. " (3-121 ). Yet throughout the DEIS the catastrophic wildfire threat to 

California Sponed Owl habitat. especially in riparian areas. is continually stressed as the key 

factor in owl survival. [771e incidence of high-severity wildfire is expected to continue to increase 

as fuels conrinue ro accumulate. As a resulr. high severity fires are likely ro conrinue 10 eliminare 

large acreages of Spoued Owl habirar ... at an increasing frequency." (3-229), and "Multicanopied lree layers, large numbers of snags, and large accumularions of ground fuels are 

indications of high fire hazard." (2-43), and "A reduction in the risk of high-severity fires is also 

the key to the long-term mainrenance of ... suitable owl habitat. Therefore, the results of this 

secrion must also be viewed in rhe contexr of the relarive fire risks. " (3-232)] It is obvious that 

the relative fire risks were, in fact, not considered nor adequately addressed in the proposed 

management for the Riparian Zone. 

In the Mid-slope Zone of Alternative C, all medium to large trees would be retained with 50 to 

I 00 percent canopy closure. This zone would be in mid-to-late successional stages generally 

characterized by the term "continuous forest cover" (2-22). The proposed levels of light thinning 

and scattered group selection in the understory would be insufficient to establish regeneration of 

sufficient quantity and qualiry or promote even moderate growth of residual trees beneath the 

heavy canopy of large trees. "Lighr rhinning reduces fuel loading and maintains rree diameter 

growrh, bw has liu/e or no ability ro reduce rhe riskofcrownfire. "'(3-191). As a result of these 

unhealthy stand conditions, natural mortality will increase significantly over the long term, 

further increasing fuel loading and fire hazard. The DEIS states the cumulative affects of 

Alternative C quite well - "Porential morrality. as a proxy for stand-replacemenr fires would 

4 
190 

increase throughout the analysis period. The increase in dead and downed material indicates 

that fire intensities, fire size and fire suppression difficulty would increase under this alternative 

over time. The late successional and riparian zone may be vulnerable to high intensity crown 

jirP . . " (3-87). Because of this extreme wildfire threat , the riparian and mid-slope zones 

proposed in Alternative C are unsustainable and entire watersheds wiiiiikely be destroyed with 

iucre:I.Sing frequency. This wiiiiikely result in a threat to the currently healthy California 

Spotted Owl population throughout the Sierran range. 

The high !evt:ls oflarge trees retention over much of the forest landscape in nearly every 

Alternativ.: proposed are unnecessary and unsubstantiated by scientific evidence of the owl's 

biological needs. The management actions, particularly the level of large trees retention, 

proposed in Alternative C are unsustainable over time and wiii only exacerbate annual habitat 

!oss to catastrophic wildfire rather than maintain and increase the levels of desired California 

Spotted Owl habitat over time, :IS the DEIS purports. 

The riparian zone receives a disproportionate amount of recreation activity than the rest of the 

forest. As a result, there is an increase in ignition sources. The bottom of these drainages are also 

subject to c'J.ily up canyon and down canyon winds which are capable of spreading fire 

througJ,cut a drainage. Alternative C wiii create chimneys and a fuse of heavy fuel and fuel 

l11d~rs .::oadu ~ive to high intensity fires in watersheds throughout the Sierrias. The problem is 

identified in the DEIS in the foiiowing quotes. "The late successional and riparian zone may be 

vdner:.;ble ro high intensity crown fires in late fire season in dry years. "(3-87). "Intense fires 

originating in the riparian zone may burn up through the upper slope vegetation. "(3-87). 

Alternative C and several others rely of the construction oflarge fuel breaks along the ridgetops 

to stop the spread of large fires. This will provid~ a place for suppression forces to attack the 

fue. J-: :, w~;:ver, quite frequently, large fire will spread through spotting which commonly occurs 

up to half a mile in front of the main fire. While ridge top fuel modification wiii reduce the 

spread and occurrence of fire on the ridge top, it will do little to prevent fire spread through 

spotting ·from one drainage to the next. 

5 
191 

In recent years. it has been recognized that the greatest risk to life and property is found in the 

urban interface. These areas will continue to experience growth in the future. For this reason. 

any program to reduce fire risk on forestland should place high priority on treatment of stands 

adjacent to these areas. The DEIS completely overlooks this important aspect to public land 

management. leaving mountain comunities at risk. 

The CLFA believes the issues surrounding catastrophic fire are paramount to successful 

management of the Sierra. The proposed alternatives fail to meet the goal of reducing risk of 

catastrophic fire. In order to successfully manage for longterm viability of wildlife, the impacts 

of fire must be mitigated through stand management over the entire forest. 

Finding: The alternatives proposed will contribute to the decline in Forest Health. 

Currently, available inventory statistics indicate that volume and number of trees on the Sierra 

Nevada forests has been changing. With respect to the conifer species in particular, the volume 

·. of shade tolerant white fir and incense cedar has been increasing. The volume of shade intolerant 

ponderosa pine has been declining. 

Harvesting certainly played a minor role in this species shift. However, it must be recognized 

that this is only a minor role in comparison with the dynamics of the successional forces which 

have impacted the forests with the exclusion of fire. With the absence of fire, understory trees 

have become established and remain as components of stand structure. In almost ail instances, 

these understory trees are forced to compete for sunlight with a well-established overstory. In 

this environment only, the trees adapted to grow under shaded conditions dominate. In the case 

of the Mixed Conifer type in the Sierras. fir and cedar make up 52% of the total tree species 

composition province-wide. (Table 3.K. l, page 3-147 CAL-OWL draft IS). Ponderosa pine 

makes up only 8%. 

The same table shows that even for the pine type. cedar and fir combine to make up 29% of the 

total species composition. Ponderosa pine in this type also makes up 29%. Clearly, there has 
192 

been a shift in species composition. 

It is our opinion that the alternatives listed in the CAL-OWL report will all promote continuation 

oftiJi,; trend. We agree with the statement from page 3-157 of the CAL-OWL DEIS, which reads 

as foilows: "As few as four well-spaced large overs tory trees per acre can reduce height growth 

for the majority of ponderosa pine seedlings by over 50 percent". (McDonald) 

The alternatives presented in the report, in all cases, will result in retention of greater than four 

trees per acre across the landscape or would create opening sizes generally less than two acres in 

size which would not be conducive to maintenance of ponderosa pine vigor and growth to insure 

recruitment through the regeneration to small sawlog phases of stand reestablishment. 

This is clearly true of Alts. E, F, & G which, in general, do not even provide meaningful 

regeneration opportunities. Alts. B and C, to the extent that they provide for openings up to 2 

acres in size, could offset this trend only if opening sizes are kept to the maximum 2 acre size 

and only if the acreage regenerated is accomplished under short enough rotation lengths to insure 

that iolerant species don't come to dominate the understory. Given the current proposed rates of 

treatment and the selected rotation age of200 years, we believe the opportunities to maintain 

pine liu:uugh management activities is speculative at best. 

Alt. A and D do appear to have the best chance of maintaining the ponderosa pine component 

because in both cases a full range of silvicultural options is available. However, we are doubtful 

that the agency will be able to take advantage of the flexibility these alternatives have written 

into them from a political standpoint. 

ironically, the greatest offsetting influence and positive outcome of the alternatives from a 

ponderosa pine standpoint is that stand replacement fires will increase over time. Ponderosa pine 

seedlings should be able to compete well in these situations. Much will depend on available seed 

sources and the Forest Service infrastructural capability to respond and replant these types of 

areas. 

7 
193 

Our discussions with members of the CAL-OWL team revealed that analysis of changes in 

species composition of the forest was never done. We consider this to be a fatal flaw in the draft 

document. Changes in tree species composition will impact associated resources, particularly 

some species of wildlife. 

The CAL-OWL team should be directed to complete an analysis of changes in tree species 

composition over time. This analysis should be done for each of the alternatives included in the 

draft report. It should also be done for subsequent alternatives analyzed to fulfill commitments 

made by the Regional Forester to various interest groups. 

Finding: The level of large tree retention proposed in all the alternatives goes far beyond what 

is scientifically required by the Spotted Owl at the expense of forest health and protection. 

One of the basic tenants of the DEIS is that retention of large old trees (LOT) is importantto tb.;: 

long-term maintenance of the thrivjng caiifornia Spotted Owl (CSO) populations now existing 

throughout the Sierran range. [''The rapid disappearance of the large, old. decadent trees is the 

greatest concern" (3-127), and ,;//is assumed that/he reversal or curtailment of adverse trends 

(e.g., the loss of large diameter trees) will reduce or stabilize associated pressures on the Spotted 

Owl" (3-232)} However, further examination of the scientific basis for this tenant reveals that 

nearly every Alternative provjdes for many more lap~e trees than are necessary. 

Although there appears to be little agreement among biologists about the necessary 

characteristics of California Spotted Owl habitat, most agree that owls prefer large old trees for 

their nest and roost trees. ["California spotted owls in the Sierra Nevada appear to select 

remnant trees ... for roosting and nesting places." (3-36)) There is a lack of scientific evidence, 

however, that large old trees are a necessary component of foraging habitat. ["Selectivity is 

stronger for nesting and roosting habitats and weaker for foraging habitats" (3-226), and " .. 

foraging habitat used by the California subspecies appears to be much more variable than that 

used by its northern relative" (3-36)) Biologists readily admit there is no scientific information 

available to guide the forest manager in identifying the preferred mix of nesting and foraging 

habitat. ["The variety and array of patch sizes are as important as the number of acres (of 

8 
194 

suitable nesting, roosting, and foraging habitat), though the landscape pauerns that are best for 

Snoued Owls are not known." (3-230) (emphasis added)) In fact, it is scientifically impossible to 

even establish the amount of suitable habitat as it exists today to determine whether more is even 

needed. ["At the landscape scale, there is lillie in the overall distribution pallern of California 

Spoued Owls to suggest ways to distinguish between suitable and unsuitable habitat except in 

very broad terms . ... Given these difficulties, identifying and tallying total acres of suitable 

habitat is an inexact process, and there is much room for interpretation" (3-226)] Even Dr. 

Verner himself recognized this fact in the original report of the Scientific Team. ["The apparent 

variability in habitat use by the California Spoiled Owl should temper inferences made about 

managing for functional habitat (Verner eta/. 1992). "(3-35)) 

Why then. does every Alternative (except A and F) provide for retention of all large trees over 

most. if not all of the forested landscape? We question the scientific basis for this. Even the 

simplest overview of each of the Alternatives reveals the DEIS Team chose Alternatives which, 

from a scientific basis, provide for many more large trees than appear to be necessary for just the 

spotted owl. It does not appear the DEIS team took Dr. Verner's advice to "temper" their 

"inferences made about managing for jUnctional habitat". Prudent science would indicate that 

several more alternatives need to be evaluated which provide for varying amounts of the 

landscape dominated by large trees for nesting/roosting habitat mixed in varying arrays with 

foraging habitat consisting of a variety of stand conditions. 

In the preferred Alternative C, the level of retention of large trees limits the long-term 

sustainability of the proposed actions by prohibiting management of any consequence in the 

Riparia.'l Zone and limited management actions in the Mid-slope Zone. 

Finding: In the modeling of alternatives, the ecological assumptions used were not based on 

true sland dynamics found in the Sierra . 

The ~co logical scenario of the "late-successional and riparian zone" appears fatally flawed. A 

critical review of this concept is needed by those familiar with Sierra stand dynamics and 

C) 
195 

silviculture. It appears that a static model of stand replacement is presumed; (e.g. understory 

trees grow up through the old gro\l<th stand and replace it over long time periods.) The use of the 

Forest Vegetation Simulation model (FVS) lends credibility to this, as the runs appear to show 

that stable structures can be produced in this manner. 

However, our experience has shown that the "gap phase succession" concept better de ~r it> ~ 

stand dynamics here (as recently described by Chadwick Oliver). Irregular even-aged groups 

grow up together then deteriorate and even-aged groups from other areas on the landscape 

become the "old growth." Understory trees of the quality which will produce old growth are 

more the exception than the rule. Gap phase dynamics were apparently not used in the FVS 

projections and Spectrum runs. It should be remembered that the FVS model does not handle 

clumping well as it is a distance independent model. False results can be obtained since tl1:i::l are 

presumed to grow at even spacing in the model. Sierran stands are most often clumpy. 

The consequence may be a false hope that these stands will be perpetuated over time. In fw:t, 80 

years of experience shows they ;,;ll not be. Examples are available to test this criticism. The 

North Fork of the Mokelumne Canyon, South aspect, from Highway 26 to Bear River was once 

covered with large Ponderosa and· Sugar Pines. The area has had relatively little logging. Yet 

the pines are dying out and being replaced by canyon live oak, or sites held by bearclover. One 

area near EIJis road was dense enough to be good spotted owl nest area in 1985. After 10 years. 

in 1995, it more resembles P4P. This is one easily testable example. There are scores of ther.~ . 

The concern also extends to the midslope scenario. 

To correct this problem, the silviculture and Forest Ecology of this document should be reviewed 

and even authored by Forest Scientists with experience in Sierran Silviculture. 

The result of continuing with the false presumptions underlying this document will likely result 

in less old growth structure, not more. 

A rigid and narrow definition of "Old Growth" has contributed to the view that the remnants cf 

this structure are rare. Generally, the definition is; 6 or more large trees, 4 down logs, moss and 

10 
196 

several tons per acre of woody debris. If any one com nent is in shon suppl y, say one Jog per 

acre. the :1rca does not qualify as "Old Gro"1h." even if 12 large trees per acre are present. 

Henc,:. the need for the urgency and drastic action is heightened. Yet the accuracy of being able 

to detect these conditions with aerial imagery is low. Cne study done with experienced photo 

interpreters showed at least 80 percent success in predit ting species, 80 percent size and 80 

percent density. The high end of potential error then is over 48 percent. The best to be expected 

is 80 percent. Yet a zero tolerance is laid over habitat. Once the threshold is met, habitat is said 

to be inadequate. A realistic view of habitat is lost if or.e ignores coefficients of variation and 

applies zero tolerance imperatives. The results of this error are written into the Environmental 

Consc quenccs Section and the Statement of Purpose. It cannot be stated with authority that 

Altemati ve C will result in any less suitable habitat con·terted to unsuitable, versus 5 percent. 

111e coeffic:ient of variation of numbers of large trees may often be 200 percent in one stand. 

Henc ~. hJw can such quantitative sounding estimates bE' made ? (DEIS page 3-234) 

Finding: The DEIS analysis assumes there is correlation berween WHR types and Owl Habitat. 

This is false and is not supported by any statistical correlation. 

TI1e relationship between WHR type and desirable nesti:1g/roosting stands is merely anecdotal 

with r,o :r,t istical correlation. (There are two small exceptions.) Yet the modeling process 

assumes a strong relationship and the very foundations c f the differences berween alternatives 

depends upon it. This is not only our conclusion, but al~o the view of the rwo Mensurationists 

who pi ·~ ;- d the Boston system on National Forest Lands in California upon which the current 

habitat e' timates are based. 

in J.dd ition. an erroneous pessimistic estimate of the frequency of desirable structural groups has 

been made. Lpon this presumed problem. (e.g. shortage of large trees (40'+]), the very purpose 

of this l~u ment rests. ln fact, relic trees and aggregations are widespread a.,d abundant, as a 

walk through most CAS lands on Ranger Districts would confirm. The root of this error is in the 

applicnti0P. of stratification used. This is alluded in Appendix B (page 11) " ... habitat . 

• :i<i'.S./ can.m ruies arc not sensitive to sma!lloca/izcd aggregations ofimporrant habitat 

II 
197 

elemenrs ... " Inclusions of lnrge relic trees in smaller sized stands would be classified with the 

strata as not favored habitat. ~ven though. " ... owls may focus on large tree c/usrers for nesring in 

generally younger rree srands. " 

Statistical credibility is further impuned by the method of using FVS tree lists to re-stratify 

Boston types into WHR stands. The original stratification was done to predict timber volume 

and grow1h over very large nreas (entire forests). Within strata_ heterogeneity was high. Small 

changes in plot locations within strata polygons can yield very different values of measured 

attributes. Differences between strata lose all meaning when this is done, as well as the 

credibility of conclusions based on the sample. Yet the resulting abstract stands are used to 

describe the existing problem. 

Credibility is strained a bit funher when these stands are aggregated for FVS model projections. 

The fantasy stands are grown into the future and become the basis for sustained yield estimates. 

In our view, and that afForest Service Mensurationists, these projections are no better than 

guesses. In fact, they are worse than guesses as they bear presumed reliability from having been 

run through a protocol of modeling. These are not the kind of estimates the Forest Service 

should be using to guide management of our fo rests. 

Operational considerations of some of the planned silviculture also needs careful review. 

Spreading group selection and thinning of the matrix extensively over the mid-slope zone has 

potentially destructive consequences. The silviculture Development Unit at Redding has 

demonstrated problems with attempts at partial cutting (selection) on steep slopes. The pitfalls 

and limits of experience are alluded to on page 3-151 of the DEIS. Realistic and independent 

review of operational silviculture proposed in the DEIS is needed. 

Implementation of extensive wide thinning and group selection in the upper-slope! ridge zone and 

somewhat in the mid-slope zone will greatly increase risk of significant brush and bearclover 

12 
198 

precluding regeneration. Gophers alone can keep large ueas deforested and pose a great 

potential threat to replacement trees. 

Operational experience has demonstrated that the only ~y to consistently establish regeneration 

through to the pole stage in the Sierras is through intensi·,e cultural practices including 

herbicides. TI1e Forest Service does not do this well over extensive areas as Unit Area Control 

seemed to demonstrate. Further, with a few exceptions, Forest Line Officers have lacked the will 

and ability to efficaciously apply herbicides when needec. for regeneration. For example, after I 0 

years. 60 thousand acres of the Stanislaus Complex rema .ns untreated. And after 20 years, the 

Bonita and Flat fires remain untreated and deforested. TI1e more complex and extensive 

silvicultural systems proposed under all the DEIS alterna·:ives should be critically reviewed with 

this in mind. :V1ore simple scenarios can also produce lar sC trees: e.g., regeneration mosaics. 

Re-emphasis on the Silviculture Certification Program an:i Culturist Certification will be needed 

to make any of these alternatives feasible. 

Finding: The development of alternatives fails to addres:; current growth rates and result in 

significantly reduced outputs far below the LRMP level. 

Layers of specialist imperatives with zero tolerance have been used to build the Alternatives in 

attempts to hedge all risk. It seems a lack ofuust is a roo·: of this problem. The authors assume 

that if a strict guideline is not applied. District managers Hill go to the limit in timber production 

at the expense of habitat. 

Implementation of the preferred Alternative would radically affect timber production over what 

was resolved in the Forest Land Management Plans. For .:xample, the 1989 Eldorado plan called 

for harvest of 137 MMBF annually; note that sustained yidd is estimated at 158 MMBF. The 

preferred Alternative calls for 37 MMBF. When spread o·1er the 340,800 capable, available and 

suitable (CAS) acres, the ori ginal LMP would result in harvest of 450 BF per year from stands 

i 3 
199 

stocked at about 35 MBF per acre and growing at 650 BF per acre. Nme that even with this 

harvest is the continued accretion of200 BF/acre/year. 

With good silvics, this growth could be concentrated or larger trees and would meet the objective 

of producing large tree strucrures. while also producing timber for the public. The high value of 

this harvest would fund a higher level of wildlife enhancement projects than with the proposed 

levels of harvest. It should be noted that most of what is known about the Spotted owl was 

funded by timber sale preparation dollars. The Eldorado Forest could be producing 65 million 

dollars per year (in commodities alone) if the level of cutting under the current LMP was 

continued. It now £!lli:; 22 million per year to maintain current staffing on the Eldorado. 

The limited harvest levels do not address the fact that grov.1h greatly exceeds harvest and that 

under the option with the highest harvest level. forest health will continue to decline and wildlife 

will be adversely impacted. 

This report has several significant statements regarding the resiliency of nature and wildlife. 

"The Sierran wildlife community, with few exceptions, has survived the major disruption and 

likely fragme ntation of habitats experienced for nearly I 00 years from the mid 19th through 1he 

201h centuries. Had !he Sierran wildlife community nol been adapted to change, more species 

would probably been los!. " The Sierra Nevada can be managed. They should be managed on 

the largest land base possible in order to have the over-all least impact on any segment within the 

eco-system. This DEIS has resulted in several things, the owl is not endangered or threatened. 

the Sierras have the kind afforest cover suitable to a wide range of wildlife. Narure and wildlife 

arc adaptable to change as the result of activities within the forests. 

Finding: Based on the current status of the Spotted Owl. the harsh impact to rural communities 

is unwarranted. 

As discussed in detail above and throughout the DEIS. the California Spotted Owl is quite 

healthy and its populations are thri ving under a variety of habitat conditions throughout the 

14 
200 

Sierran range. Although the DEIS predicts the Social & Economic impacts of each Alternative 

in some detail, adequate measures to mitigate the short :md·long term cumulative impacts are 

lacking. Even conunon sense should cause the decision maker to seriously question the 

feasibility of the majority of the DEIS Alternatives give.1 the significant deleterious impacts on 

the affected counties and conununities. The included ar.alysis of the already high unemployment 

in the affected counties even points out that unemploym !nl has been exacerbated to a yet 

unmeasured extent by the implementation of the Interim Guidelines. Many workers in timber 

and related industries have already lost their jobs becaus! of the decreased available timber 

supply. Under Alternative C this trend will certainly cominue. The decreased tax base, lowered 

level ofF ores! Payments, and lower demand for consum !r goods because of higher 

unemployment. have already financially weakened coun·y governments, schools, and local 

businesses, particularly in communities with one or men: primary forest product manufacturing 

facilities. The further decline in timber production, vegetative management spending, and 

government jobs associated with all but Alternatives A a1d D, will likely put many conununities 

and businesses over the edge resulting in long term and severe cumulative impacts. ["A mill 

closure or equivalent employee layoff ... often poses seve·e hardships for displaced workers and 

their families and makes remaining co-workers anxious "bout their job tenure. A series of 

secondary effects often follows .. . These unemployed worters and their families buy fewer 

consumer goods. and local retail stores and commercial >ervices soon fee/the impact. As timber 

production decreases. Forest Service receipts to counties decline and unemployed families and 

depressed local businesses also pay fewer taxes. The job1ess must now depend more heavily on 

tax-supported services such as unemployment insurance. food stamps, and social services, at a 

time when some providers of these services are facing cws in their budgets and staffing. ... Some 

communities report increased antisocial behavior followi~g layoffs, such as theft, disorderly 

behavior, spouse and child abuse, and drug and a/coho/libuse." (3-324)] 

The DEIS goes on further to describe the rapid decline in quality of life for communities that are 

forced over the edge. ["Extended economic slumps tend I J generate additional problems. When 

several layoffs occur at rhe same rime. rhe well-being of ao entire county may be affected. 

Exrensive out-migrarion ... reduces proper!)' values and c<~uses marginal businesses 10 fail. 

15 
201 

De paning homeowners. business people. and morrgage holders rake additional losses. School 

enrollments decline ... ondfaculty may be laid off County and city services ... are reduced as 

counry and school budgets shrink. Family and friendship groups may be weakened, and 

churches and or her communiry brganizations may lose members and .financial support." (3-324)] 

In light of the healthy status of the owl and the known economic and social impacts the 

Alternatives will have on 23 California counties, CLF A fmds the range of Alternatives in the 

.DEIS unjustifiably narrow in scope and woefully unbalanced. The social and economic impacts 

from implementation of most of the alternatives will create long-term cumulative negative effects 

which may certainly be largely =itigatable. CLF A urges the Forest Service to take its own 

advice in the DEIS and seriously rethink its proposed management scheme. "Outcomes such as 

these demonstrate the importance of careful planning and mitigation to avoid or reduce possible 

adverse effects." (3-324) 

In conclusion, it is clear that the Sierra Nevada deserves much more than the expected resource 

damage and losses that will occur if any of these alternatives are implemented. 

As resource professionals, CLF A finds that the preferred Alternative C is unacceptable and 

should be rejected based on the following determinations: 

I. The impacts from catastrophic fire have not been given proper consideration in the 

development of the alternatives and the impacts of high intensity fire will reduce Spotted 

Owl habitat over the planning horizon. 

2. The preferred alternative C will result in continued decline in t'orest health by 

converting stands to more shade tolerant species, and increased insect and disease 

activity. 

3. The purpose and basis for the draft is flawed and not substantiated. Currently, the 

California Spotted Owl is plentiful throughout the Sierras and is not in danger of decline. 

4. The methodology used in the modeling of alternatives fail to consider the true stand 

dynamics of the Sierra forests. 

5. The impacts to rural communities has not been properly analyzed and mitigated. 

6. The alternatives fail to consider the current growth rates resulting in reduced outputs. 

16 
202 

We further find that the remaining alternatives do not cc-ntain all the necessary components that 

are needed for prudent management of the national fore~ t. Therefore, the CLFA would like to 

propose the following action: 

I. The Forest Service should return to the Land Hanagement Plarts and reinstitute the 

green sale program until a reasonable direction c;m be found. 

2. Model the alternative as proposed by CLFA. We are currently working on the 

framework for another alternative. Tills altemath·e will focus on the health of the forest. 

It is our position that in order to lessen the potential losses from catastrophic fire and 

maintain viable populations of wildlife any solution must attempt to balance growth and 

removals. We will provide our alternative prior!·> the end of the comment period. 

Thank you, 

7flaAad7~ Michael T. Vroman 

Chairman, Federal Issues Committee 

17 
203 
204